Wayne Chirnside wrote in a message to Roy J. Tellason:

 DD> Doesn't everyone have cable or xDSL nowdays?

 RJT> No!

 WC> Nor here.
 WC> The additional costs cannot be considered reasonable considering
 WC> how often I'd _need_ a wide bandwidth connection.

 RJT> Just so,  though some people are trying to push it in that direction by
 RJT> the amount of bloat that's getting added to some web pages.  Take one
 RJT> that's slow to load and see how often the word "font" shows up in
 RJT> there,  for one example.

 WC> I object to bloat web sites on principle.
 WC> One of the worst examples I can think of is Tom's Hardware
 WC> page.
 WC> Just try logging on there and trying to extract useful information
 WC> using Links :-(

I haven't tried that yet,  but it's no surprise.  I did visit the site and
each and every page was so full of "stuff" that I had to page
down to get to any of the bits of interest.  It's all over the place,  I
just took a file I'd saved an article in and pared it down from over 41K to
about 4K.  That's so typical.  :-(

 RJT> The big thing these days seems to be to use that command over and over
 RJT> and over again,  along with lots of stuff that's m$-specific,
 RJT> particularly if the page was created with front page,  or worse yet,
 RJT> with m$ word.  No other software out there will deal with this crap,
 RJT> but they load it up in there anyway,  just in case you want to use the
 RJT> same package again.

 WC>  When I start coding HTML it'll be straight of a standards  
 WC> compliant reference book using a simple text editor.

That's the way I've been doing it here.  Nothing fancy,  mind you,  but
enough to help me organize the info I've got on hand.  I just did a
"du /var/www" and there's quite a pile of it there -- the last
number showing up being 445862, and I think they're talking about 1k
blocks?  Over 400 meg?  Jeez...

 RJT> That and *way* too many images seem to be my major problems with poorly
 RJT> done web sites these days.  And I guess a poorly-run provider that I
 RJT> used to use who I *never* connected with any faster than 31200.  Those
 RJT> jerks are sending that last bit out for collection,  too.  They don't
 RJT> know what sort of a can of worms they've opened up here...  :-)

 WC>  Been through it all with them before myself.
 WC>  Took me almost 10 days for Verizon to acknowledge they had
 WC>  not moved my phone number to my new address after a move, they 
 WC> remembered to BILL for it however.

Of course!  The people in that department see it as a job they're paid to do...

 WC>  FINALLY I called from my old apartment, thus techically
 WC> trespassing,  to finally wake them up!!!

 RJT> BTW,  I told my brother a local access number for the guys I'm using
 RJT> now,  and he's seeing the same speed difference too,  more or less.
 RJT> And he isn't real happy about it.

 WC> Once I sock some cash back for veteranarian care I'm moving to a a
 WC> non-phone company local ISP.

That's the thing,  they keep advertising DSL and all the rest of it -- I
have a choice of the phone company or the cable company?!  I'll seek out
some other alternative when I want to go there.

 WC> Now that I've got a clean pair for a line I should get over
 WC> 50K every time as I did before Verizon altered their negotiation
 WC> protocols leaving my software modem to connect at only 33,600  Even
 WC> to get that to work I had to append +MS=V32 to the init string in
 WC> the dialer.

Yeah,  I remember you bringing that up a while back...

---