Help please: Need to choose service for friend - not sure

Hi there,

I am trying to find a broadband service for a friend. He wants a 1mb
connection that has unrestricted bandwidth.

Can anyone recommend a service? He is in the Cambridgeshire area.

Many thanks

"Sheila Friend-Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:415d2e55@212.67.96.135...
> Hi there,
>
> I am trying to find a broadband service for a friend. He wants a 1mb
> connection that has unrestricted bandwidth.
>
> Can anyone recommend a service? He is in the Cambridgeshire area.
>
> Many thanks
>
>

NDO are the best ISP to go to, unrestricted bandwidth.

More details:
http://www.ndo.com/ndo/Products/Home...home1000c.html
or http://tinyurl.com/4ylu4

"Lo Salt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
> "Sheila Friend-Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:415d2e55@212.67.96.135...
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I am trying to find a broadband service for a friend. He wants a 1mb
> > connection that has unrestricted bandwidth.
> >
> > Can anyone recommend a service? He is in the Cambridgeshire area.
> >
> > Many thanks
> >
> >
>
> NDO are the best ISP to go to, unrestricted bandwidth.
>
> More details:
> http://www.ndo.com/ndo/Products/Home...home1000c.html
> or http://tinyurl.com/4ylu4


Ill second that NDO have been fantastic with me. Great Service they actually
seem to care.

In article <415d2e55@212.67.96.135>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>

>I am trying to find a broadband service for a friend. He wants a 1mb
>connection that has unrestricted bandwidth.

A 1Mb connection has its bandwidth restricted to 1Mb, funnily enough.

As for a 1mb [sic] connection, he might find that a bit slow.

Rob Watt <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <415d2e55@212.67.96.135>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>
>
>>I am trying to find a broadband service for a friend. He wants a 1mb
>>connection that has unrestricted bandwidth.
>
>A 1Mb connection has its bandwidth restricted to 1Mb, funnily enough.
>
>As for a 1mb [sic] connection, he might find that a bit slow.
>

Whoosh

Over her head and also a bit pointless don't you think?

Very old point and not even remotely amusing. <sigh>



--
The reply to email address is a copy of a spammer's address
Please feel free to use it.
However if you want to reply to me, then please
use the newsgroup.

In MsgID<(E-Mail Removed)> within
uk.telecom.broadband, 'Andrew Sayers' wrote:

>Rob Watt <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>In article <415d2e55@212.67.96.135>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>>
>>
>>>I am trying to find a broadband service for a friend. He wants a 1mb
>>>connection that has unrestricted bandwidth.
>>
>>A 1Mb connection has its bandwidth restricted to 1Mb, funnily enough.
>>
>>As for a 1mb [sic] connection, he might find that a bit slow.
>>
>
>Whoosh
>
>Over her head and also a bit pointless don't you think?
>
>Very old point and not even remotely amusing. <sigh>

Pleasant to notice that someone around here can actually spot
incompetence in the English language.

Have you thought that although you correctly perceive a cause/effect
relationship between "everyone gets it wrong" and "everyone puts up
with the error" that you might have them the wrong way round, with
respect to which is the cause and which is the effect?

--
Dave Johnson - (E-Mail Removed)

Dave J <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

<snip earlier drivel>
>>
>>Whoosh
>>
>>Over her head and also a bit pointless don't you think?
>>
>>Very old point and not even remotely amusing. <sigh>
>
>Pleasant to notice that someone around here can actually spot
>incompetence in the English language.

Possibly, although...

... firstly this NG relates to BB issues and not "English" ones.
... secondly Mb, mb etc are not actually anything at all to do with the English
language, but are actually technical abbreviations.
>
>Have you thought that although you correctly perceive a cause/effect
>relationship between "everyone gets it wrong" and "everyone puts up
>with the error" that you might have them the wrong way round, with
>respect to which is the cause and which is the effect?

So, you are saying that "everyone puts up with the error" and so therefore "everyone
gets it wrong" is okay and is the cause and effect?

Grammar is the means by which everyone uses a language to communicate by a set of
agreed principles. These principles change and develop over time, that is how
language grows.

However to be pointlessly and foolishly pedantic over mb/Mb in a BB newsgroup,
defeats the object of the group - particularly when the original intent of the post
was abundantly clear. To defend such foolishness (as indeed you did) simply
demonstrates petty mindedness and the inablility to think beyond to confines of the
reply to the post to which you in turn reply and defend.

-Unless of course you are a troll, in which case, I've fed the troll.

On this occasion only, I'm willing to take the risk.



--
The reply to email address is a copy of a spammer's address
Please feel free to use it.
However if you want to reply to me, then please
use the newsgroup.

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 12:28:47 +0100, Dave J <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In MsgID<(E-Mail Removed)> within
>uk.telecom.broadband, 'Andrew Sayers' wrote:
>
>>Rob Watt <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <415d2e55@212.67.96.135>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>>>
>>>
>>>>I am trying to find a broadband service for a friend. He wants a 1mb
>>>>connection that has unrestricted bandwidth.
>>>
>>>A 1Mb connection has its bandwidth restricted to 1Mb, funnily enough.
>>>
>>>As for a 1mb [sic] connection, he might find that a bit slow.
>>>
>>
>>Whoosh
>>
>>Over her head and also a bit pointless don't you think?
>>
>>Very old point and not even remotely amusing. <sigh>
>
>Pleasant to notice that someone around here can actually spot
>incompetence in the English language.
>

How did you do that then?

Because the point had NOTHING to do with incompetence in the English
language.

There were two separate points there, the first of which has usage
which is very specific to computer jargon.

First is bandwidth. That is a term which has evolved so that the
normally accepted meaning, *in the context of internet connections* is
not the same as the technical definition that has been used for many
years in other fields.

The second is the use of the lowercase 'm', rather than 'M', which
would mean milli rather than Mega. Yes, it was a mistake, but in
context, not important as it was quite obvious what was meant.

But whether important or not, that is an error in a technical
abbreviation, which is not really incorrect usage of English.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Any fool can criticize, condemn, & complain. And most do.

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 00:45:42 +0100, Andrew Sayers
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>However to be pointlessly and foolishly pedantic over mb/Mb in a BB newsgroup,
>defeats the object of the group - particularly when the original intent of the post
>was abundantly clear.

Well, yes and no. If people don't get called on factual errors such as
mb/Mb/MB then they'll know no better. Someday that will embarass them
or confuse them or cause an accident ("what voltage is it?" "oh, its
100 mV").

And similarly, in my view if people don't correct misspellings, then
others will think the wrong spelling is right, and either never learn,
or learn at an embarassing moment (customer: "you spelled authentic
orthentic. who wants to buy technical stuff from a company that can't
even spell?").

Just because this is a broadband group, doesn't mean we have to be
illiterate in both english and computing.

>To defend such foolishness (as indeed you did) simply
>demonstrates petty mindedness and the inablility to think beyond to confines of the
>reply to the post to which you in turn reply and defend.

IMHO, its as petty minded to call someone for correcting grammar.
YMMV.

In MsgID<(E-Mail Removed)> within
uk.telecom.broadband, 'Andrew Sayers' wrote:

>.. firstly this NG relates to BB issues and not "English" ones.
>.. secondly Mb, mb etc are not actually anything at all to do with the English
>language, but are actually technical abbreviations.
>>
>>Have you thought that although you correctly perceive a cause/effect
>>relationship between "everyone gets it wrong" and "everyone puts up
>>with the error" that you might have them the wrong way round, with
>>respect to which is the cause and which is the effect?


>So, you are saying that "everyone puts up with the error" and so therefore "everyone
>gets it wrong" is okay and is the cause and effect?

That is my picture of the cause and the effect yes. We (as human
beings) tend to learn language by a process of trial and error.
Mispronunciations, incorrect grammar and inadequate vocabulary lead to
mickey taking at school and so are corrected.

To just accept "everyone makes the mistake" so "everyone should put up
with it" is to deny someone that education.

Bandwidth is always capped. There is no such thing in the world today
as uncapped bandwidth.

If you want to give the limits on overall data flow in terms of
bandwidth then you should divide the size of the data by the time
window of the cap. This would make sense and I would quite like ISP
services to be described in this way.

For instance, Virgin net's average 'bandwidth cap' (if you must
specify it like that) is 8*20G/(31*24*3600) which equals approximately
60 bits/s

I've nothing against talking in those terms, it shows how little
people get for their money.

My very first (300b/s) modem, well over ten years ago, would do five
times virgin net's average rate.

>However to be pointlessly and foolishly pedantic over mb/Mb in a BB newsgroup,
>defeats the object of the group - particularly when the original intent of the post
>was abundantly clear.

It only needs doing once per new poster. Unless the poster is an
idiot, in which case s/he can safely be ignored.


>To defend such foolishness (as indeed you did) simply
>demonstrates petty mindedness and the inablility to think beyond to confines of the
>reply to the post to which you in turn reply and defend.

Nonsense. To defend the explanation of the real meanings of terms used
helps avoid multiple versions of the same language, and maintains
clarity of communication.

>
>-Unless of course you are a troll, in which case, I've fed the troll.

No, I don't think I'm a 'troll' by any common definition. If I didn't
feel strongly about the degeneration of our language I would not have
replied to such an off topic subthread. In fact, it is also possible
to make a case for it being on topic, as terminology is an important
part of the discsussion of broadband issues.

>
>On this occasion only, I'm willing to take the risk.

Thanks, if only for the explanation of your mindset.

Dave J.