Posts by Banshee 6 posts • joined 31 Jan 2008
Absolutely bloody fanstastic aint it.... want a job in IT then u got to pay for the training u need to do it first.... UNLESS that is you are a convicted criminal in which case you get it for FREE ....
THATS JUSTICE AT WORK
Shee
(taking up picking pockets so I can get training when I get caught)
Will someone PLEASE tell this company that the city of Kingston-upon-Hull NEEDS this technology !! Hull is the ONLY city in the whole UK that has ZERO choice of ISP or for that matter telco provider. The whole infrastructure including isp servers, phone lines, exchanges, you name it, belong to Kingston Communications and are operated as an effective monopoly which OFCom refuses to even investigate properly.
This fibre by sewers system looks to me like a God-send to us. See this link for further comment/info on the subject from Hull residents themselves on the standards of service and treatment we get >> http://karooforums.net/index.php
Sorry but your are missing the point I am making (or trying to make), I am NOT having a go at KC's service which I think on the whole is good (repeat for the hard of reading GOOD) based on having been a customer since the days of dial-up.
The point I am making is that yet again they are using the fact that they have a "captive audience" to make money from said captive audience without publicising either their actions OR more importantly the opt out from it. That to me smacks of the unfair use of their monopoly position in the market.
As for the following .....
""I understand you cant change the network provider away from KC, just like everyone outside of Hull cant change there's from BT! BT own most of the UK network, KC own the Kingston-upon-Hull network. i.e. If you use SKY for internet connectivity you must have a BT phone line, if you use Karoo then you must have a KC phone line, the fact that no other ISP has obtained wholesale ISP access from KC surely can not be put on the shoulders of KC, they are equal >lower than the current BT wholesale prices...""
Again I am sorry but you might at least get your facts straight before flaming my post.
1.. just because a customer has a BT phoneline DOES NOT prevent them changing ISP if they dont like the service they are getting from their current provider. ie Dont like SKY... change to tiscali, AOL, whichever. THIS IS NOT REPEAT NOT THE CASE WITH A KC FONELINE!! If you dont believe me then try it.
2. In the same way, a customer on a BT foneline who is unhappy with their service CAN change his fone service supplier to whichever fone company he likes. AGAIN THIS AINT THE CASE WITH A DISSATISFIED KC CUSTOMER !! Again go try it.
3.. On the subject of wholesale pricing. I was told by OFCOM that "they couldnt "force" KC into the LLU system therefore a given "interested party would probably have to install their own servers etc or pay Karoos prices for access to their systems and then install the correspoding hardware" That being the case it therefore means an uneconomic investment is required. And this I suspect is why KC are currently supposed to be under investigation for "restrictive practices"
4.. Ref the following .....
My point was if you are unhappy about having DNS provide this service then change your DNS settings to something that you are happy to use! I have...
You or I might have the tech savvy to do this....how many of the "average ability users" have the same amount of savvy ?? Not as many as YOU may assume Methinx
Regards
Banshee
I suppose expecting people to actually read the contents of what I posted was a little too much to expect. Please tell me how changing my DNS would alter the fact that Karoo :
1. Owns the Telephone Network Infrastructure it runs on including the wires outside my house.
2. Owns the Telephone Company itself.
3. Owns the ISP that provides my connection.
4. Owns the Exchanges/Servers that run the ISP.
5. Operates what appears to me the "humble user" to be a Monopoly regarding changing ISP. IE: YOU CANT whether u want to or not! (well u can if u want AOL Dialup)
IT WON'T, TRUST ME, IT WON'T !
Banshee
The problem with what KC have done is NOT (in the opinion of most if not all of their customers) that they have done it at all but rather that as usual they have done it to people who dont have the recourse of changing their ISP if they dont like what KC are doing.
KC can (and DO and always HAVE) charged well over the odds for the service they sell and are always behind the times in bringing new technologies (ADSL2 for instance) into operation. An example of this is when they brought in the latest "up to 8meg" packages priced at £30pcm they told me that my line (which they own) would only sustain a stable rate of 3.5meg but they could still advertise it as "up to 8 meg" and that it was still an upgrade to my then 3meg connection. If I hadnt had the balls to stand my ground I would probably still only be getting 3.5meg.
How and why do they get away with this treatment of their customer base ?? Basicly because its the only one in Mainland UK that:
1. Owns the Telephone Network Infrastructure it runs on including the wires outside my house.
2. Owns the Telephone Company itself.
3. Owns the ISP that provides my connection.
4. Owns the Exchanges/Servers that run the ISP.
5. Operates what appears to me the "humble user" to be a Monopoly regarding changing ISP. IE: YOU CANT whether u want to or not! (well u can if u want AOL Dialup)
This company is based and operates in Hull and its surrounding (ever-expanding) area. Why can I not change ISP ?? Simply because there are no other ISPs which serve the Hull area. Why? Well it appears to me that its down to ONE reason only and thats the fact that BT doesnt own ANY of the telecommunications infrastructure. Can I get a BT phoneline? No I cant because they dont supply this area and have no plans whatsoever to do so (according to BT Customer Services) because it would be too expensive for them. Could I not go the Cable route? Again No because they dont serve this area either! According to OFCOM they cant "force" people to move into this area and provide a service and wont force Kingston Communications into the LLU exercise like they did to BT until someone shows some interest in moving in.
Why is this company being allowed to operate what amounts to a Monopoly OR as a certain Mr Wogan is wont to say... "Is it ME ????"
COME ON OFCOM FEKKIN DO "SOMETHING" !!!!!!
Banshee
THAT has just GOT to be the funniest thing I have ever heard.
IF and I repeat IF these "people"(insert pejorative term of choice) actually WERE representing the interests of the Artists then I would be willing to pay a reasonable fee for downloading their work.
The MAIN problem here is that they are NOT doing so, but instead are representing the major record labels and film companies but are passing themselves off as representing the Artists and blaming sites like TPB for the Artist's lost revenues which is a downright fraudulent claim IMHO given that something like 80% of the proceeds of a sale go direct to the labels or film companies involved and NOT where we are led to believe.
Proof of that was shown when a pop group recently published their latest album for download on the internet for whatever people like us were willing to pay for it. The average price paid was $6 and they made something in the region of $3,000,000 from those sales.... not counting the free publicity they gained for their upcoming live tour and advertising revenues etc etc which again went straight to them as it rightly should.
All I can say is that I REALLY wish I had the skills to hack into their computers cos I would put a film on the RIAA's and a music track on the MPAA's and then setup a copy of uTorrent on each and make them download from each other...... imagine the fur and feathers.... we could even charge an entrance fee for folk wanting to watch.
Shee
The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021