... There's no correction here ...
Then please explain to me why almost every single
DSL company has gone out of business.
This is certainly not authoritative but I've heard
that, despite the ruling that ordered the telcos to
allow their competitors (CLECs ?) access to their
COs, many DSL
This is certainly not authoritative but I've heard
that, despite the ruling that ordered the telcos to
allow their competitors (CLECs ?) access to their
COs, many DSL providers routinely found that access
denied or impeded such that they were obliged to
waste time and money on hiring
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, at 8:38am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we would all appreciate *some* form of competition in the
high-speed ISP market.
Just for the record, let me reiterate that (1) I'm no fan of any monopoly,
(2) I hate Verizon (nee Bell Atlantic nee NYNEX nee New England
In a message dated: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:58:11 EST
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hopefully, this will be my last message in this thread.
:-)
I hope so too :)
--
Seeya,
Paul
--
Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853 E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE
It may look like I'm just sitting here
Yeah, I agree with Ben. The market is correcting itself. I'm paying $99
a month for SDSL, and I don't even get that high a speed: 144kbps up and
down. However, I don't have the onerous restrictions that Verizon and
other providers slap on their customers and I have a static IP, great
for
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Hewitt Tech stated in their Email:
hewitt From: Hewitt Tech [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hewitt To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hewitt Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 19:26:40 -0500
hewitt Subject: Re: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)
hewitt
hewitt Ah yes, but why, after a pile
Derek Martin said:
Bleah... As technology improves and becomes more readily available,
the prices should be going DOWN, not up. As of my last bill, my
broadband connection now costs almost double what it did a year ago
($60.99 vs. $35/mo). That's absurd. Inflation is currently about 0%,
and
On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 09:37, Jason Stephenson wrote:
Yeah, I agree with Ben. The market is correcting itself. I'm paying $99
a month for SDSL, and I don't even get that high a speed: 144kbps up and
down. However, I don't have the onerous restrictions that Verizon and
other providers slap on
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 4:32pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.S. Which opens up the discusson - what do you do if you want a permanent
email address?
Pay for it.
You can register your own domain. That is a fairly safe way to do things.
As long as you pay the bills, it is fairly unlikely
and I can piggyback on their service occasionally to get patches/service
packs etc..
-Alex
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Greater NH Linux User Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 4:49 PM
Subject: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)
On Wed, 22 Jan
I meant to send this to the list, sorry you'll see it twice Travis ;^)
-Alex
- Original Message -
From: Hewitt Tech [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Travis Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)
I recall reading
It continues to amaze me how short people's memories are.
It was not long ago at all that an Internet feed of the speed
you get from a cable ISP would cost you thousands of dollars
per month. Not that I am in any way defending the
ATT/Comcast monopoly; I just don't understand how
Ah yes, but why, after a pile of telecommunications companies
went bankrupt laying thousands of miles of buried
fibre-optics cables are we still talking about dial-up
connections? What *does* it cost to deliver high speed? For
that matter, I think copper/fibre is passé. It should be
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 8:42pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As of my last bill, my broadband connection now costs almost double what
it did a year ago ($60.99 vs. $35/mo). That's absurd. There's no
incentive to keep them low. It's that simple.
If it's so simple, why don't you go start a
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 9:04pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... There's no correction here ...
Then please explain to me why almost every single DSL company has gone out
of business.
--
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do |
| not
I never said it was cheap ...
[ then, later on in the same paragraph ]
... Cable Internet should be dirt cheap for them to provide ...
Which is it?
Cheap to get started from SCRATCH.. ATT already has a HUGE setup
already in place reselling T's and having peers so they didn't even have
Providing two-way packet-switched unicast data services is a
*completely
different* scenario.
It isn't. Or, it is... but the same head end does both, over
the same coax. So it doesn't matter.
Exactly! They needed to redo the cable plant to offer just one of the
three services they
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 9:36pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then please explain to me why almost every single DSL company has gone
out of business.
Because they're still need Verizon to set up the line for them..
Look, Verizon may be a bunch of incompetent morons (they are), but the
fact that
Look, Verizon may be a bunch of incompetent morons (they
are), but the fact that it takes them a month to provision a
line doesn't mean everyone goes out of business. It's take
years for DSL to reach general availability; an additional
month isn't going to make a difference.
That's
19 matches
Mail list logo
