Linksys WTR54GS (travel router) connection Problems
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: iPhone 4 connection problems - Jobs says "Just don't hold it that way."
Next: NEWS: US lawmakers grill Apple on location tracking change
From: John Navas on 30 Jun 2010 09:34 On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 01:06:50 -0500, in <manl26lupgt22thtled9o0vda44v64ggdb(a)4ax.com>, Char Jackson <none(a)none.invalid> wrote: >On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:45:32 -0400, Justin ><justin(a)nobecauseihatespam.com> wrote: > >>I have no problem paying for something if its worth it. > >I suspect the problem people are going to have with that statement is >that if you think something isn't worth the cost, you're expected to >walk away from it rather than sneak around and take a 5-finger >discount. > >>I however, despise being gauged by companies that think I don't have a >>choice. It is my responsibility as a consumer to find the fairest price >>for a service or product; it is the duty of the corporations and >>manufacturers to provide such services. > >Your responsibility for finding the fairest price doesn't usually mean >you can manufacture a lower price if you don't like the normal price. >We'd all like to arbitrarily and unilaterally lower the cost for the >things we buy, but it's generally frowned upon by polite society. > >>Apparently I am not theonly >>person on the planet who thinks hotel internet policies are unfair since >>aforementioned corporations are producing various Internet sharing >>devices specifically designed for hotels. They are filling a demand for >>a product. Microsoft has ICS. Linksys had the WRT, not another company >>has the RB1132. > >You can't blame the device. It has legitimate uses, too, in addition >to how you're using it. I see no real issue here. I've seen hotels charge by room, but not by user. When I've rented a room for a meeting or conference, there has been at most one charge for Internet access. If the hotel really intended to charge by user, then it would presumably state that in the terms of service, but I've seen no evidence of that either. Do you have any real evidence to the contrary? -- Best regards, John "Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]
From: Char Jackson on 30 Jun 2010 12:25 On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 06:34:59 -0700, John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 01:06:50 -0500, in ><manl26lupgt22thtled9o0vda44v64ggdb(a)4ax.com>, Char Jackson ><none(a)none.invalid> wrote: > >>On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:45:32 -0400, Justin >><justin(a)nobecauseihatespam.com> wrote: >> >>>I have no problem paying for something if its worth it. >> >>I suspect the problem people are going to have with that statement is >>that if you think something isn't worth the cost, you're expected to >>walk away from it rather than sneak around and take a 5-finger >>discount. >> >>>I however, despise being gauged by companies that think I don't have a >>>choice. It is my responsibility as a consumer to find the fairest price >>>for a service or product; it is the duty of the corporations and >>>manufacturers to provide such services. >> >>Your responsibility for finding the fairest price doesn't usually mean >>you can manufacture a lower price if you don't like the normal price. >>We'd all like to arbitrarily and unilaterally lower the cost for the >>things we buy, but it's generally frowned upon by polite society. >> >>>Apparently I am not theonly >>>person on the planet who thinks hotel internet policies are unfair since >>>aforementioned corporations are producing various Internet sharing >>>devices specifically designed for hotels. They are filling a demand for >>>a product. Microsoft has ICS. Linksys had the WRT, not another company >>>has the RB1132. >> >>You can't blame the device. It has legitimate uses, too, in addition >>to how you're using it. > >I see no real issue here. >I've seen hotels charge by room, but not by user. >When I've rented a room for a meeting or conference, >there has been at most one charge for Internet access. >If the hotel really intended to charge by user, >then it would presumably state that in the terms of service, >but I've seen no evidence of that either. >Do you have any real evidence to the contrary? The evidence to the contrary was provided by the OP himself.
From: John Navas on 30 Jun 2010 12:42 On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:25:18 -0500, in <jurm26trgrhq89v8vhpgb40otnkoi6hsis(a)4ax.com>, Char Jackson <none(a)none.invalid> wrote: >On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 06:34:59 -0700, John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> >wrote: >>I see no real issue here. >>I've seen hotels charge by room, but not by user. >>When I've rented a room for a meeting or conference, >>there has been at most one charge for Internet access. >>If the hotel really intended to charge by user, >>then it would presumably state that in the terms of service, >>but I've seen no evidence of that either. >>Do you have any real evidence to the contrary? > >The evidence to the contrary was provided by the OP himself. Actually just the opposite: and I will use the service in accordance with their Terms of Service. As far as I can tell no contract forbids the use of a WTR or RB-1132. Therefore since it is not against their rules - I'min the clear. <news:i0bojr$uch$2(a)news.eternal-september.org> Or did you have something else in mind? (If so, I'll need a specific citation, not another vague reference.) -- Best regards, John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: Char Jackson on 30 Jun 2010 17:52 On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:42:32 -0700, John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:25:18 -0500, in ><jurm26trgrhq89v8vhpgb40otnkoi6hsis(a)4ax.com>, Char Jackson ><none(a)none.invalid> wrote: > >>On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 06:34:59 -0700, John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> >>wrote: > >>>I see no real issue here. >>>I've seen hotels charge by room, but not by user. >>>When I've rented a room for a meeting or conference, >>>there has been at most one charge for Internet access. >>>If the hotel really intended to charge by user, >>>then it would presumably state that in the terms of service, >>>but I've seen no evidence of that either. >>>Do you have any real evidence to the contrary? >> >>The evidence to the contrary was provided by the OP himself. > >Actually just the opposite: > > and I will use the service in accordance with their Terms of Service. > As far as I can tell no contract forbids the use of a WTR or RB-1132. > Therefore since it is not against their rules - I'min the clear. > <news:i0bojr$uch$2(a)news.eternal-september.org> > >Or did you have something else in mind? >(If so, I'll need a specific citation, not another vague reference.) You've apparently either done some selective reading or simply haven't followed the entire thread. Either way it puts you at a severe disadvantage when it comes to evaluating the contents of the thread overall, but I'll try to help you catch up. If you can't see what's going on after (re)reading the following, then let's just agree to disagree. <begin quotes from the OP> If I'm at a hotel I don't want my team to have to pay for each connection - that adds up over the course of a quarter. I've tried sharing my account info with the rest of my team. I'll be reading an article on CNN or something, click to the next page and I'm greeted with the logon page. But of course according to Johnny boy here I should shell out $15 per user "just because." I'm usre Johnny boy here is so rich he can burn money whenever he wants. We are one customer - not ten. Since $15 per user per day seems to be the de facto price int he US I'll give an example as to why I want to do this. Ten of us for a week. $15 * 7d * 10p = $1,050 or $15 * 7 = $105. When the team was in the UK and Ireland I didn't handle the internet connection since I was the last to arrive. When I got there, each one of us rotated the account info. Person 1 used it from 5-6pm, dinner at 6-7pm I used it 7-8 etc. I have no problem paying for something if its worth it. I however, despise being gauged by companies that think I don't have a choice. It is my responsibility as a consumer to find the fairest price for a service or product; it is the duty of the corporations and manufacturers to provide such services. Apparently I am not theonly person on the planet who thinks hotel internet policies are unfair since aforementioned corporations are producing various Internet sharing devices specifically designed for hotels. They are filling a demand for a product. Microsoft has ICS. Linksys had the WRT, not another company has the RB1132. <end quotes>
From: John Navas on 30 Jun 2010 18:06
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:52:40 -0500, in <nlen26dvin96fqo75e46rhn4o9smrrsfui(a)4ax.com>, Char Jackson <none(a)none.invalid> wrote: >On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:42:32 -0700, John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> >wrote: > >>On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:25:18 -0500, in >><jurm26trgrhq89v8vhpgb40otnkoi6hsis(a)4ax.com>, Char Jackson >><none(a)none.invalid> wrote: >>>The evidence to the contrary was provided by the OP himself. >> >>Actually just the opposite: >> >> and I will use the service in accordance with their Terms of Service. >> As far as I can tell no contract forbids the use of a WTR or RB-1132. >> Therefore since it is not against their rules - I'min the clear. >> <news:i0bojr$uch$2(a)news.eternal-september.org> >> >>Or did you have something else in mind? >>(If so, I'll need a specific citation, not another vague reference.) > >You've apparently either done some selective reading or simply haven't >followed the entire thread. ... Neither, and with these insults you effectively concede the point. I didn't think so. Thanks for the confirmation. -- Best regards, John "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman |