Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > woosh versus Jetstream

Reply
Thread Tools

woosh versus Jetstream

 
 
Dave - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2005
Richard wrote:
>> Woosh is certainly useful.... And it does work for me to have it as I
>> have a cell phone, woosh and no home phone line , so there is a
>> saving..Im not really complaining..But what I really need is a fiber
>> optic connection to the back bone


> Woosh have caps so low they are laughable, and pings so high they make
> GPRS look good.


surely nothing is that bad that GPRS looks good?

> Roll on naked DSL, that will save $40 a month


I doubt it will happen, and if it does, it'll be too late to help.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
JohnO
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2005
Gotta agree with Woger here.

I'm using woosh while inbetween house move/renovation and it sucks
soooo bad. Brownouts, disconnects, outages etc are daily occurrences.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2005
On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:29:53 +1200, Richard wrote:

> Woosh have caps so low they are laughable,


Same caps as Telcom.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2005
On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:22:37 -0700, JohnO wrote:

> Gotta agree with Woger here.
>
> I'm using woosh while inbetween house move/renovation and it sucks
> soooo bad. Brownouts, disconnects, outages etc are daily occurrences.


Where is "here" ?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2005
Gordon wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:29:53 +1200, Richard wrote:
>
>
>>Woosh have caps so low they are laughable,

>
>
> Same caps as Telcom.


Yes, same as telecom.

Orcon and ihug however, at least offer slow but unlimited dsl
 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2005
Richard wrote:
> Gordon wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:29:53 +1200, Richard wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Woosh have caps so low they are laughable,

>>
>>
>> Same caps as Telcom.

>
> Yes, same as telecom.
>
> Orcon and ihug however, at least offer slow but unlimited dsl


And in Orcon's case, that's slow (as in latency, as in games unplayable)
even if you only average 2GB/month over the last few months.
--
~misfit~


 
Reply With Quote
 
Alastair McAllister
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2005
In <(E-Mail Removed)> Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

> Richard wrote:


>> Roll on naked DSL, that will save $40 a month


> I doubt it will happen, and if it does, it'll be too late to help.


It makes the whole unbundled DSL thing look like a bit of a joke,
doesn't it?

Like Peter, I also have a wireless phone and no need for a landline. I'm
not sure what Telecom charges for a landline but, from memory, I'm
pretty sure it's around $30 and I understand that the going rate for
unbundled DSL is about $40.

That means that DSL would effectively cost me $70 per month, while Woosh
would only cost $40. On that basis, despite all the technical issues
that Woosh appears to suffer, I would still consider Woosh to be much
better value for my needs.

--
Regards, Alastair.
Wellington, New Zealand
www.alastair.geek.nz

My supplied email address is fake. Any views expressed in this posting
are personal and its content remains the property of Alastair. Alastair
accepts no responsibility for any misinformation resulting from this
posting.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger Johnstone
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-21-2005
In <(E-Mail Removed)> Alastair McAllister
wrote:
>
> Like Peter, I also have a wireless phone and no need for a landline.
> I'm not sure what Telecom charges for a landline but, from memory,
> I'm pretty sure it's around $30 and I understand that the going rate
> for unbundled DSL is about $40.
>
> That means that DSL would effectively cost me $70 per month, while
> Woosh would only cost $40. On that basis, despite all the technical
> issues that Woosh appears to suffer, I would still consider Woosh to
> be much better value for my needs.


Telecom charges $40 for a residential phone line.

That's exactly the reason I've been using Woosh for the last 16 months.
I live by myself and spend the day at work where I can use the phone
there. The only reason I still had a phone line at home was for dial-up
Internet access.

The only major problem I have with Woosh is their atrocious lag problem.
I don't play games online, but it makes Skype unusable.

--
Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand
http://vintageware.orcon.net.nz/
__________________________________________________ ______________________
No Silicon Heaven? Preposterous! Where would all the calculators go?

Kryten, from the Red Dwarf episode "The Last Day"
 
Reply With Quote
 
PAM.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2005
"Alastair McAllister" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

> That means that DSL would effectively cost me $70 per month, while Woosh
> would only cost $40. On that basis, despite all the technical issues
> that Woosh appears to suffer, I would still consider Woosh to be much
> better value for my needs.


And I guess, if you were flatting, woosh would be a good deal because you
could up and move with your connection.

PAM.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Alastair McAllister
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-23-2005
In <ar6ke.2102$(E-Mail Removed)> PAM. wrote:

> "Alastair McAllister" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message


>> That means that DSL would effectively cost me $70 per month, while
>> Woosh would only cost $40. On that basis, despite all the technical
>> issues that Woosh appears to suffer, I would still consider Woosh to
>> be much better value for my needs.


> And I guess, if you were flatting, woosh would be a good deal because
> you could up and move with your connection.


It depends. If more than one person in the flat is using the Internet,
then a more expensive fixed solution becomes more justifiable because
the costs can be shared. However, if I were the only person in the flat
using the connection, then Woosh would definitely start to look
advantageous.

--
Regards, Alastair.
Wellington, New Zealand
www.alastair.geek.nz

My supplied email address is fake. Any views expressed in this posting
are personal and its content remains the property of Alastair. Alastair
accepts no responsibility for any misinformation resulting from this
posting.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Mozilla versus IE versus Opera versus Safari Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo Firefox 0 05-08-2008 12:56 PM
equal? versus eql? versus == versus === verus <=> Paul Butcher Ruby 12 11-28-2007 06:06 AM
Woosh to Woosh Toxickiwi NZ Computing 7 11-01-2004 08:55 AM
script versus code versus ? Russ ASP .Net 1 06-10-2004 03:06 AM
HTML Client Control versus. HTML Server Control versus. Web Server Control Matthew Louden ASP .Net 1 10-11-2003 07:09 PM



Advertisments