Bitching (Re: [oclug] Sympatico ADSL and y.k.w.)

[Brad Barnett]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 16:07:29 -0400
Patrick Smith <patsmith at pobox.com> wrote:

> Brad Barnett wrote:
> > Charlie Brady <charlieb-oclug at budge.apana.org.au> wrote:
> >>>>FWIW, I use istop.com and find their service reliable enough to
> >>>>telework. 
> > 
> > Since you state that you find istop to be reliable, then there are
> > only three possible reasons you could believe so.  
> > 
> > 1) you are incompetent, and are unable to tell when istop is not
> > working or / and
> > 2) you do not use istop frequently, therefore you do not realise how
> > unreliable they are
> > or / and
> > 3) you have not used istop for long, therefore you do not realise how
> > unreliable they are
> 
> 4) Charlie's definition of "reliable enough to telework" is different 
> from yours of "reliable".

See #1, 2 and 3.

> 5) There is some technical difference in the two connections to Istop, 
> such that you see more problems than Charlie does.  E.g. a faulty piece 
> of equipment somewhere in your connection.

No, there isn't.  As previously stated multiple times in this thread,
issues outside of istop are not counted.

> 6) Through some statistical fluke, Charlie has mostly connected when 
> there weren't any problems happening.

This falls under frequency and length of use.  Such flukes quickly move
towards zero when 2 and 3 of my points are addressed.

> 7) There are patterns in IStop's problems and the ways you and Charlie 
> use IStop such that you are more likely than Charlie to encounter these 
> problems.

No.  See my previous statement.

> 
> I'm sure others with more imagination than I have could extend this list
> further...

Please try. 

> 
> > Since istop _is_ unreliable, one or some of the conditions above must
> > be applicable in your particular case.  That is, I don't need to know
> > anything about you, other than the fact that you state istop is
> > reliable, in order to draw the conclusions above.
> 
> If you want to have a conversation above the level of "is not" "is too" 
> "is not" "is too", you might perhaps consider the possibility that other
> people have actually had experiences different from yours.

That comes under frequency of use, or length of use.

> 
> FWIW, I have been mostly (not entirely) satisfied with IStop.

Therefore, you understand what I am referring to.  However, we are not
talking about satisfaction (for example, Ray has stated he is happy with a
buggy connection).  We are talking about the quality of the link.  Some
people are happy with an unstable connection.  As long as they realise
that istop falls in this bracket, that's all I care about.  Informed
choice.