Hmm DSL fine print...

[ric kb <ric_kb@yahoo.com>]

hardly fun but this arstechnika may be what cheap(10) dsl is about

http://tinyurl.com/257j63

typing cheap dsl into google will take hours away from any productive day, so be careful. I'd rather be forced to stroll an Art & Wine festival than shop for internet service.


richard


--- On Sat, 9/6/08, Jack Fulton <jefulton1@comcast.net> wrote:

> From: Jack Fulton <jefulton1@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: Gum website update
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> Date: Saturday, September 6, 2008, 5:06 PM
> Yeah, hey, even my Comcast digital/fiber or whatever is like
> $40 a  
> month but a web site is attached to it but I don't use
> that.
> I've never seen anything for ten bucks and DSL.
> Jack F
> 
> 
> 
>   D
> On Sep 6, 2008, at 1:12 PM, Judy Seigel wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Diana Bloomfield wrote:
> >
> >> No, it really doesn't "all depend,"
> Don.  You show me a *flat* $10/ 
> >> month DSL connection (and one that is more than a
> short-term  
> >> introductory offer), and I'll be the first to
> step up and say I was  
> >> wrong, and you're brilliant.  But I'm here
> to tell you that you  
> >> will *never* find a $10/month *flat rate* for a
> DSL connection--  
> >> not in *any* universe.
> >>
> >> I haven't had dial-up in years, and would
> certainly give up using a  
> >> computer if I had to go back to one,  so it's
> no big deal to me.  I  
> >> just think a misleading statement like that ought
> to be corrected.   
> >> So there. :)
> >
> > I second the motion, Diana... and -- hey Don -- some
> things have to  
> > be "taken seriously" or we're all
> captive consumers.  I'd rather use  
> > a paper cup and a piece of string than feel
> *compelled* to use  
> > anyone's "system." And, for the record,
> I'm still on dial-up (nyah  
> > nyah), though I do have another service I don't
> understand, but it  
> > seems to be a combo of Mac's mail program and
> daughter's router.  
> > She's 2 floors overhead and both her father and I
> (also visiting  
> > dignitaries) can log on for free with the password,
> and "download"  
> > and "attach" to our heart's content.
> >
> > But here's a question: When you say
> "download," do you mean download  
> > an image onto your desktop, or just view the images on
> the website?  
> > In my experience, viewing is different (immediate)
> from downloading.
> >
> > I'll add BTW, that we used to have several
> possible wii hosts  
> > nearby, for instance, "Two Big Fags" (or
> maybe that was "Three") and  
> > Apt 15, that weren't password protected and very
> handy in  
> > emergencies, but now the daughter's connection
> seems (knock-on-wood)  
> > trouble free.
> >
> > HOWEVER, though it's handy for attachments,
> images, et al, that Mac  
> > Mail program makes me want to sell my Mac stock...
> it's stupid  
> > beyond belief, and beyond all patience, non-intuitive,
> clunky,  
> > clumsy, and generally tiresome, awkward & annoying
> to use. If I had  
> > to do daily text on it, I'd go back to snail mail.
>  Pine on Panix is  
> > intuitive, efficient, logical, simple and quick.
> (I'm told, btw,  
> > that techies use it -- it figures.)  In comparison
> every other mail  
> > program I've ever used is a kludge.
> >
> > J.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I will add that I have a lightening fast DSL
> connection here, but  
> >> even so-- some websites that are posted here on
> this list are slow  
> >> to download for me (not speaking of the two that
> were just posted,  
> >> however).  So unless it's something I
> seriously want to view, I  
> >> know I don't wait more than about 10 seconds,
> if that, for  
> >> something to come up.  I move on (and I suspect
> others do as  
> >> well).  For those folks, I'd think about
> making your images  
> >> smaller, or doing whatever it takes to shorten
> that download time.   
> >> As usual, my 2 cents. :)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sep 6, 2008, at 12:32 PM, Don Bryant wrote:
> >>
> >>> That all depends Diana. But whatever!
> Complaining about download  
> >>> times is
> >>> passé. This is DSL universe now.
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Diana Bloomfield
> [mailto:dhbloomfield@bellsouth.net]
> >>> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 11:58 AM
> >>> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> >>> Subject: Re: Gum website update
> >>> Don,
> >>> While I agree that DSL accounts are now
> relatively inexpensive,  
> >>> and I
> >>> could/would never go back to dial-up--  that
> $10 per month requires
> >>> that you are already a customer of whatever
> service is offering it
> >>> (AT&T, for instance), along with some
> other attached strings.  There
> >>> is a "DSL lite," too,  that is just
> as good as the regular DSL, in  
> >>> my
> >>> experience.  But to say that you can get a DSL
> account "for as  
> >>> little
> >>> as $10 per month now" is slightly
> misleading.  "DSL lite" costs are
> >>> probably closer to $25-30 a month; our regular
> DSL is closer to $40/
> >>> month.  As usual, there are some additional
> hidden costs-- no matter
> >>> what service you're choosing.
> >>> Diana
> >>> On Sep 6, 2008, at 11:32 AM, Don Bryant wrote:
> >>>> Katharine,
> >>>> DSL accounts can cost as little as $10 per
> month now. Time to get  
> >>>> off
> >>>> dial-up!
> >>>> Don Bryant
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Katharine Thayer
> [mailto:kthayer@pacifier.com]
> >>>> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 10:35
> AM
> >>>> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> >>>> Subject: Re: Gum website update
> >>>> Actually, just FYI, the second link has
> none of his tricolor gum  
> >>>> work
> >>>> on it that I can see, and the first link
> has an impossible download
> >>>> time; I gave up after about 15 minutes as
> it was just started to
> >>>> download the second image.  So I may not
> use either link, but  
> >>>> thanks
> >>>> for the info regardless.
> >>>> On Sep 6, 2008, at 12:09 AM, Katharine
> Thayer wrote:
> >>>>> Thanks, Chris!
> >>>>> On Sep 5, 2008, at 11:22 PM, Chris Nze
> wrote:
> >>>>>> Just some link to keith taylor
> work
> >>>>>>
> http://www.johnstevenson-gallery.com/artist.php?file=decosse.xml
> >>>>>> http://keithtaylorphoto.com/
> >>>>>> you can also add these one from
> livick even if he do not work any
> >>>>>> more in gum
> >>>>>>
> http://www.livick.com/gallery/kali/pg1.htm
> >>>>>> Best
> >>>>>> Chris
> >>>>>> At 03:49 06/09/2008, you wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> http://www.pacifier.com/~kthayer/html/tricolor.html
> >>>>>> @+
> >>>>>> Chris
> >>>>>> JL
> >>>>>>
> http://negatifnumerique.blogspot.com/
> >>>>>> http://procedealt.blogspot.com/
> >>>>>> http://chrisnze.blogspot.com/
> >>