NBN Roll out going as well as expected
in [Computers]
|
From: terryc on 20 Jun 2010 06:49 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:50:02 +1000, Rod Speed wrote: > I said DEPENDING ON YOUR USAGE, fuckwit. Meaning no usage? Not really a replacement Roddles.
From: terryc on 20 Jun 2010 07:00 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:17:28 +1000, atec7 7 wrote: > terryc wrote: >> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:19:43 +1000, Rod Speed wrote: >> >>> terryc wrote >>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> terryc wrote >>>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>>> Those still have access to wireless broadband, fool. >>>>>> Now, if I only had access to pots of money to afford it. >>>>> It can be cheaper than DSL, fool. >>>> Example >>> 3 and dodo, fuckwit. >>> >>> Even Telstra can be cheaper than DSL depending on your usage, fuckwit. >> >> So we have once again seen that when asked to prove his statements, he >> can not and sprays the usual mouth froth invective. >> >> I get 180Gb for $50/month on DSL. Cheaper wireless plan please. >> > Who is that with and is it both ways or dwns only >speed? Exetel, down only counted and sadly not as generous now(not that I use anything like that). You get a static IP. Note comments in other post. I picked it up as an existing customer when Off peak allowance went from 30Gb, to 60Gb, to 90Gb to Unlimited in the space of one month. Peak followed a little bit slower and then it was a mighty "Oh Fitz, people are actually using this unlimited" and they said "Uncharged" and started waving big stick about "acceptable use", which is their tool to chuck off the heaviest users. I get over 90% uptime, which is acceptable from the $/ gb comparison since it isn't critical for me. Woops, only 150Gb, but still.
From: atec7 7 ""atec77" on 20 Jun 2010 08:48 terryc wrote: > On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:17:28 +1000, atec7 7 wrote: > >> terryc wrote: >>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:19:43 +1000, Rod Speed wrote: >>> >>>> terryc wrote >>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>> terryc wrote >>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>>>> Those still have access to wireless broadband, fool. >>>>>>> Now, if I only had access to pots of money to afford it. >>>>>> It can be cheaper than DSL, fool. >>>>> Example >>>> 3 and dodo, fuckwit. >>>> >>>> Even Telstra can be cheaper than DSL depending on your usage, fuckwit. >>> So we have once again seen that when asked to prove his statements, he >>> can not and sprays the usual mouth froth invective. >>> >>> I get 180Gb for $50/month on DSL. Cheaper wireless plan please. >>> >> Who is that with and is it both ways or dwns only >speed? > > Exetel, down only counted and sadly not as generous now(not that > I use anything like that). You get a static IP. Note comments in other > post. > > I picked it up as an existing customer when Off peak allowance went from > 30Gb, to 60Gb, to 90Gb to Unlimited in the space of one month. Peak > followed a little bit slower and then it was a mighty "Oh Fitz, people > are actually using this unlimited" and they said "Uncharged" and started > waving big stick about "acceptable use", which is their tool to chuck off > the heaviest users. I get over 90% uptime, which is acceptable from the $/ > gb comparison since it isn't critical for me. > > Woops, only 150Gb, but still. > Better than my current link which is 50 fofr 60 gig but its been down only once in two years Still thinking about going elsewhere for a reliable 100 gig a month not that I would use more than 40 most months
From: terryc on 20 Jun 2010 12:45 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 22:48:03 +1000, atec7 7 wrote: > Still thinking about going elsewhere for a reliable 100 gig a month > not that I would use more than 40 most months http://www.broadbandchice.com.au
From: Rod Speed on 21 Jun 2010 14:20
Pretzl wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> Thats what I'm finding with work collegues around Sydney also >> Dont believe they have BOTH lousy landline and lousy wireless. >> You do see a bit of that in very rural areas, but not around sydney. >> And the ones that get that in rural areas can have satellite broadband. > So far not had anything to do with wireless Those that cant get a viable landline service should. > I are talking about suburbs in Sydney with lousy copper wire > (all underground services, above ground "poles" seem good?) And that is just plain wrong too. > Satellite internet still needs copper wire to send Like hell it does. We've had two way satellite for YEARS now. |