On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:37:34 -0400, "Mr.E Solved!"
wrote:
Folk wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:45:34 GMT, (John Lewis)
wrote:
Verizon provides me a near fault-free service with no bandwidth caps
or erratic upload bandwidth, so I have no real inclination to change
ISP providers [...] So, I say farewell to a couple of my favorite alt. groups..
I never understood people who based their ISP decisions on the quality
of their Usenet service. Most folks long ago wised up and went with a
third-party email service so that changing ISP's or crappy ISP related
mail service wasn't a big issue, so why don't they do the same with
Usenet? If all you're interested in is text based groups, then there
are scores of independent Usenet providers who can hook you up for
next to nothing. Even premium Usenet provider who offer all the
groups and no download limits (or at least reasonable download limits)
can be had for around $10/month.
By your logic ISPs should not even offer email, nor should anyone pick
an ISP based on their email service.. since you can get email at any
third party provider.
Regardless of the breach of contract by cutting out an enumerated
service, regardless of the same old witch-hunt war-cry of child-sex
vagaries, this is an attack on the free exchange of information.
Not everyone has the same priorities as you Folk, nor do they roll over
as easily when they tell you you're in for a rogering.
Tell us Folk, what services exactly should ISPs provide for the end user?
Looks like a couple of people already provided the answer that you
already knew (based on my post ) that I would provide.
My main point though is that using third-party providers for email and
Usenet insulates you from the eventual ISP change. Some people put up
with crappy ISP service because "it's too much of a hassle to change
my email address". To me, that's not a valid reason.
It just seems odd to me that the OP would bid farewell to a newsgroup
just because his ISP decided to do something stupid.