at&t rumor mill versus the truth
richard
A google search showed thousands of hits for the rumor mill.
Of course, every one of the big rumor mill sites is proudly touting
that at&t is shutting down usenet entirely.
WRONG!
Read the notice.
It clearly states that only the alt.bin* hierarchies will be turned
off.
IOW, they are washing their hands of binaries.
Other than that, it's business as usual.
tango
news:3n3t255f3e51gqukn...@4ax.com:
> http://my.att.net/newsgroup/s/s.dll?
spage=cg/news/newsgroup004.htm&only=y
> &ck=
>
>
> A google search showed thousands of hits for the rumor mill.
> Of course, every one of the big rumor mill sites is proudly touting
> that at&t is shutting down usenet entirely.
>
> WRONG!
>
> Read the notice.
> It clearly states that only the alt.bin* hierarchies will be turned
> off.
> IOW, they are washing their hands of binaries.
>
> Other than that, it's business as usual.
>
I suggest you are the one with the reading disability.
Subject: AT&T Usenet Netnews Service Shutting Down
From: <newsm...@bellsouth.net>
Please note that on or around July 15, 2009, AT&T will no longer be
offering access to the Usenet Netnews service. If you wish to continue
reading Usenet newsgroups, access is available through third-party
vendors.
Distribution: AT&T SouthEast Newsgroups Servers
Tony
richard wrote:
--
The Grandmaster of the CyberFROG
Come get your ticket to CyberFROG city
Nay, Art thou decideth playeth ye simpleton games. *Some* of us know proper
manners
Very few. I used to take calls from *rank* noobs,
Hamster isn't a newsreader it's a mistake!
El-Gonzo Jackson FROGS both me and Chuckcar
Master Juba was a black man imitating a white man imitating a black man
Using my technical prowess and computer abilities to answer questions beyond the
realm of understandability
Regards Tony... Making usenet better for everyone everyday
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Please note the last sentence on the page you cited.
"You can still access newsgroups content through unaffiliated third
party providers."
--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows
richard
Did you bother to note this part right at the start of paragraph two?
While we will continue to provide access to newsgroups as part of our
Internet Service Offerings,..........................
This means they are not shutting down usenet entirely. As AT&T is a
vast network of many sections, it is possible some sections opt to
shutdown usenet entirely.
But you go ahead and believe the rumor mills.
The Real Truth MVP
--
The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/
*WARNING* Do NOT follow any advice given by the people listed below.
They do NOT have the expertise or knowledge to fix your issue. Do not waste
your time.
David H Lipman, Malke, PA Bear, Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Leythos.
"richard" <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:l5ot25hatape8cjc8...@4ax.com...
alan
"richard" wrote
(1) Since AT&T does not run Usenet, you are correct in noting that "they
are not shutting down usenet entirely".
(2) HOWEVER, they ARE shutting down AT&T *access* to Usenet. Below is
copied and pasted from newsgroup sbcglobal.help.tech.newsgroups:
"Since we're all reading this in a virtual world this message could just
as easily be suspected of being a forgery as some suspect of the
announcement,
but I am deeply saddened to say that the announcement is real.
To answer some of your questions;
The servers are being shut down, therefore we will not be providing access
to any groups, including the sbcglobal.* groups.
The annoucement /did/ go out after business hours. I didn't have time to
send
it earlier in the day. The Date header in the post is irrelevent, although
I did
adjust it to be close to the actual time that the posts were processed.
We've always injected prodigy.com into the Path header since that is what
has long been used by our peers to avoid feeding anything to us that's
already been here. For this exercise I added sbcglobal.net since
it was not in use, and could be used to prevent feeding the posts
to other services. The sbcglobal.disgard crosspost was another safeguard.
I am not aware of any plan to discount the service due the the removal
of Usenet support.
We're are not in a position to recommend third party providers.
I guess it doesn't much matter at this point, but since there have been
reports of the announcment posts being present on other services, I'd be
interested in determining how they "leaked." In the cases where there's
been enough information reported to make a determination, it has been clear
those were deliberate efforts to distribute the announcement outside of our
servers. If anyone is interested in sharing posts of the announcement found
elsewhere, I'd be happy to investigate.
Obviously, the announcment is no secret. Our efforts to keep the
announcment "internal" were designed to: 1) Reach as many of the people
affected by the announcement as possible (some may never read the email
announcment when it is distributed), 2) Avoid any adverse effect on the
Usenet.
On a personal note, I've enjoyed our interactions over the years, and I
will
miss them. My best wishes to everyone!
--
Tom Ippolito
Usenet Team Lead
AT&T Labs
news-s...@sbcglobal.net"
--
alan
P.S. Also, take a look at:
http://my.att.net/newsgroup/s/s.dll?spage=cg/news/newsgroup001.htm&only=y&ck=
(I'd say that's pretty clear, even to a "brilliant, ignorant jackass",
wouldn't you?)
Mike Easter
> Obviously some of you brilliant ignorant jackasses fail to comprehend.
Let me try to clarify these two different AT&T announcements for you,
which are very 'near' each other in the my.att.net site.
http://snipr.com/jsomi Notice -- AT&T takes its obligation to protect
its customers from child pornography very seriously. We're working with
public officials and the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children in the effort to help prevent the distribution of this harmful
and illegal content. -- While we will continue to provide access to
newsgroups as part of our Internet Service Offerings, we will no longer
include alt.bin* nor alt.bain* hierarchies because of the possibility of
child pornography in those particular groups and the difficulty in
ensuring that no child porn reappears in them. You can still access
newsgroups content through unaffiliated third party providers. - (Last
updated 6/9/09 7:47 A.M.EDT)
That one is updated as of today and it sez that ATT is currently - as of
today - providing usenet except not the two hierachies. I can't confirm
that as I don't access the ATT newsservers.
http://snipr.com/jsory AT&T Usenet Netnews Service Shutting Down -
Please note that on or around July 15, 2009, AT&T will no longer be
offering access to the Usenet Netnews service. If you wish to continue
reading Usenet newsgroups, access is available through third-party
vendors.
The one above does not have a last modified webpage stamp or a last
updated edit, but it sez that ATT will not provide *ANY* newsgroups after
2009-07-15 which is 5 weeks 1 day hence.
Thus, a few newsgroups are gone, then they all will be very soon.
--
Mike Easter
The Real Truth MVP
right now. There are however de.alt.binaries.
--
The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/
*WARNING* Do NOT follow any advice given by the people listed below.
They do NOT have the expertise or knowledge to fix your issue. Do not waste
your time.
David H Lipman, Malke, PA Bear, Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Leythos.
"Mike Easter" <Mi...@ster.invalid> wrote in message
news:79870mF...@mid.individual.net...
NormanM
Actually, the copy of the messages posted in the 'sbcglobal.*' groups reads
thus:
| Please note that on or around July 15, 2009, AT&T will no longer be
| offering access to the Usenet netnews service. If you wish to continue
| reading Usenet newsgroups, access is available through third-party
| vendors.
|
| Posted only internally to AT&T Usenet Servers.
Which clearly indicates that AT&T is shutting down their NNTP servers. Their
NNTP admin has verified that in those groups.
--
Norman
~I'll be there, by your side
~in the land of Twilight.
~In your dream I will go
~'till we find the Sunlight.
richard
<ev...@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:41:49 -0700, "The Real Truth MVP" <t...@void.com>
>wrote:
>
>>http://my.att.net/newsgroup/s/s.dll?spage=cg/news/newsgroup001.htm&only=y&ck=
>
>This is the point where RtS, much like chucktard, either seriously
>backpedals, or drops out of the thread completely.
What makes you think that dickbrain?
I'm only quoting what was said on the page. Since you didn't seem to
read that part of it.
alan
Actually, richard, you were *NOT* quoting what was said on the page that's
being referred to above. You were quoting a page that had to do
discontinuation of access to binaries, the one that actually *DID* have a
2nd paragraph.
("Did you bother to note this part right at the start of paragraph two?" --
richard)
So, this time you didn't back out of the thread completely, you just
backpedaled.
Takes a lot creative energy being a weasel, doesn't it?
--
alan
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> If they are going to terminate the service, they should cut the
> monthly fee by the amount they used to charge separately on the
> monthly bill for usenet ($10US/mo)
I am a former AT&T Worldnet subscriber and there was never a separate
bill for Usenet. It was/is included as a value-added service.
NormanM
> lugnut wrote:
>> If they are going to terminate the service, they should cut the
>> monthly fee by the amount they used to charge separately on the
>> monthly bill for usenet ($10US/mo)
> I am a former AT&T Worldnet subscriber and there was never a separate
> bill for Usenet. It was/is included as a value-added service.
Neither did SBC, but, 'lugnut' also states (and you omitted), "I am a former
bellsouth.net customer ...
Bellsouth did not become a part of the AT&T family until January, 2007. AT&T
Worldnet Services existed before, and separately from Bellsouth, and even
SBC. I don't have an old Bellsouth FastAccess bill to check. For all I know,
Bellsouth did charge extra for Usenet service.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> lugnut wrote:
>>> If they are going to terminate the service, they should cut the
>>> monthly fee by the amount they used to charge separately on the
>>> monthly bill for usenet ($10US/mo)
>
>> I am a former AT&T Worldnet subscriber and there was never a separate
>> bill for Usenet. It was/is included as a value-added service.
>
> Neither did SBC, but, 'lugnut' also states (and you omitted), "I am a
> former bellsouth.net customer ...
Yes I know I trimmed that. I also didn't think it would make a
difference.
> Bellsouth did not become a part of the AT&T family until January,
> 2007. AT&T Worldnet Services existed before, and separately from
> Bellsouth, and even SBC.
..and then, once upon a time they were all one big happy family. When I
worked at AT&T, it was still the true parent company.
> I don't have an old Bellsouth FastAccess bill to check. For all I
> know, Bellsouth did charge extra for Usenet service.
No old filing cabinets? <g>
zvn[]teq[7]
Jordon
It would be advisable for you to go back to the link you
provided and then click on Newsgroups Home on the left
side.
Please, explain the discrepancy.
--
Jordon
Tony
usenet means *no* usenet.
Manatee Memories wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:17:57 -0400, Tony <To...@TheDeli.Sandwich>
> wrote, by way of <4A2EA755...@TheDeli.Sandwich>, in
> 24hoursupport.helpdesk -->::
>
> >> http://my.att.net/newsgroup/s/s.dll?spage=cg/news/newsgroup004.htm&only=y&ck=
> >>
> >> A google search showed thousands of hits for the rumor mill.
> >> Of course, every one of the big rumor mill sites is proudly touting
> >> that at&t is shutting down usenet entirely.
> >>
> >> WRONG!
> >>
> >> Read the notice.
> >> It clearly states that only the alt.bin* hierarchies will be turned
> >> off.
> >> IOW, they are washing their hands of binaries.
> >>
> >> Other than that, it's business as usual.
> >
> >
> >Why you dumb pillock, no usenet means *no* usenet.
> <....>
>
> What portion[s] of "will no longer be offering access to the
> Usenet Netnews service" & "access is available through
> third-party vendors" did you fail to understand/comprehend?
>
> --
>
> 'Tis far better to have snipped too much than to never
> have snipped at all. -- (author unknown)