«

At $10 or less a month they might not be perfect but they haven't
been too bad lately.

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 07:19:03 +0000, paora wrote:

> At $10 or less a month they might not be perfect but they haven't been
> too bad lately.

You pay for what you get, and with KOL, you get don't get much.

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 13:58:39 +1300, mdew <> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 07:19:03 +0000, paora wrote:
>
>> At $10 or less a month they might not be perfect but they haven't been
>> too bad lately.
>
>You pay for what you get, and with KOL, you get don't get much.

yep, it's pretty crap sometimes.

"paora" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 13:58:39 +1300, mdew <> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 07:19:03 +0000, paora wrote:
>>
>>> At $10 or less a month they might not be perfect but they haven't been
>>> too bad lately.
>>
>>You pay for what you get, and with KOL, you get don't get much.
>
> yep, it's pretty crap sometimes.

Has it got better since you joined?
Kooky has had a bit of trouble with them.

E. Scrooge

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 15:36:26 +1300, "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz
(*sling)> wrote:

>
>"paora" <> wrote in message
>news:...
>> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 13:58:39 +1300, mdew <> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 07:19:03 +0000, paora wrote:
>>>
>>>> At $10 or less a month they might not be perfect but they haven't been
>>>> too bad lately.
>>>
>>>You pay for what you get, and with KOL, you get don't get much.
>>
>> yep, it's pretty crap sometimes.
>
>Has it got better since you joined?
>Kooky has had a bit of trouble with them.
>

I'm trying to decide which way to describe them

'They're cheap but they're crap' or
'They're crap but they're cheap'.

I think the latter probably gives them a little credit.

Originally I couldn't get decent speed connection to individual.nets
news server (offshore) and trying to ftp to offshore webhosts wasn't
the greatest experience - those things have improved but......

web surfing has been just awful all weekend - slow, pictures not all
downloading and a download manager for files is still necessary - even
for small files. I've even had to use a download manager to download
porn pictures - I may as well perve at Farmer's underwear models -
oops, I already do that.

I guess during off-peak periods that they may be okay but during the
busy periods they pretty much suck.

"paora" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 15:36:26 +1300, "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz
> (*sling)> wrote:
>
>>
>>"paora" <> wrote in message
>>news:...
>>> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 13:58:39 +1300, mdew <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 07:19:03 +0000, paora wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> At $10 or less a month they might not be perfect but they haven't
>>>>> been
>>>>> too bad lately.
>>>>
>>>>You pay for what you get, and with KOL, you get don't get much.
>>>
>>> yep, it's pretty crap sometimes.
>>
>>Has it got better since you joined?
>>Kooky has had a bit of trouble with them.
>>
>
> I'm trying to decide which way to describe them
>
> 'They're cheap but they're crap' or
> 'They're crap but they're cheap'.
>
> I think the latter probably gives them a little credit.
>
> Originally I couldn't get decent speed connection to individual.nets
> news server (offshore) and trying to ftp to offshore webhosts wasn't
> the greatest experience - those things have improved but......
>
> web surfing has been just awful all weekend - slow, pictures not all
> downloading and a download manager for files is still necessary - even
> for small files. I've even had to use a download manager to download
> porn pictures - I may as well perve at Farmer's underwear models -
> oops, I already do that.
>
> I guess during off-peak periods that they may be okay but during the
> busy periods they pretty much suck.

Thanks. Still doesn't sound very good then. Kooky noticed the poor speeds
when she was using it. They'll hardly get many people if they can't deliver
good service.

E. Scrooge

"paora" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 15:36:26 +1300, "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz
> (*sling)> wrote:
>
>>
>>"paora" <> wrote in message
>>news:...
>>> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 13:58:39 +1300, mdew <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 07:19:03 +0000, paora wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> At $10 or less a month they might not be perfect but they haven't
>>>>> been
>>>>> too bad lately.
>>>>
>>>>You pay for what you get, and with KOL, you get don't get much.
>>>
>>> yep, it's pretty crap sometimes.
>>
>>Has it got better since you joined?
>>Kooky has had a bit of trouble with them.
>>
>
> I'm trying to decide which way to describe them
>
> 'They're cheap but they're crap' or
> 'They're crap but they're cheap'.
>
> I think the latter probably gives them a little credit.
>
> Originally I couldn't get decent speed connection to individual.nets
> news server (offshore) and trying to ftp to offshore webhosts wasn't
> the greatest experience - those things have improved but......
>
> web surfing has been just awful all weekend - slow, pictures not all
> downloading and a download manager for files is still necessary - even
> for small files. I've even had to use a download manager to download
> porn pictures - I may as well perve at Farmer's underwear models -
> oops, I already do that.
>
> I guess during off-peak periods that they may be okay but during the
> busy periods they pretty much suck.

That outfit's got the money to throw at all the advertising they've been
doing for the last few months. Putting some of the money towards providing
a good service would be more sensible.

E. Scrooge

[voice99]

KOL == Shittest internet ever.
A