I'll be discussing BellSouth DSL/WUN Newsservice with Senator Cleland
Roxanne Jekot
be discussing is the Powell/FCC attempt to make the LECs a monopoly in
DSL service. I plan to use the BS/WUN disaster as a classic example as
how this idea leaves the customer high and dry with a complete lack of
customer service.
I'll report his responses.
Hal Burgiss
Hmmm....where's the connection, Roxanne? LEC's only provide physical
layer stuff, and not isp services. How many DSL ISPs are there in
Atlanta now? 10? 15? 20? I know I'm missing something here, but not sure
what it is?
--
Hal Burgiss
Hal Burgiss
wrote:
>>
>>Hmmm....where's the connection, Roxanne? LEC's only provide physical
>>layer stuff, and not isp services. How many DSL ISPs are there in
>>Atlanta now? 10? 15? 20? I know I'm missing something here, but not
>>sure what it is?
>
> couldn't find anything. The site is slow as hell, so that didn't
> help. I had always heard that all ISPs, including BSIS paid the same
> to BS for DSL service. The only thing that I noticed that might be
> less favorable to independant ISPs is the pre-signup for spots on
> remote DSLAMS. There might be technical reasons why that's not
> addressable; I have no idea.
Google been good today:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-838464.html
It looks like a fight over whether RBOCs need to share new fiber build
outs. Next generation stuff, if I read it right. Not sure how this
impacts the current state of WUN/BSIS though :/ Especially since there
is plenty of DSL competition in larger markets for the moment.
--
Hal Burgiss
toad
> Hmmm....where's the connection, Roxanne? LEC's only provide physical
> layer stuff, and not isp services. How many DSL ISPs are there in
> Atlanta now? 10? 15? 20? I know I'm missing something here, but not sure
> what it is?
>
>
>
of Chairman Powells intentions by an individual interested in
impressing others that they may have some kind of voice in the
matter. Although I'm certainly going to be interested in the
*report* (ha ha) of the good senators' remarks on the issue.
The following was taken from
http://www.cedmagazine.com/cedailydirect/0112/cedaily011214.htm#1
--------
A prolific Michael K. Powell, FCC chief, says in a statement that the notice of proposed rulemaking acts as a way to look at how
regulation affects broadband deployment. "It is, in that sense, not a signpost heralding a new direction, but an attempt to add
yet another arrow to the regulatory quiver we will use to attack and, in conjunction with other forces outside our purview,
eventually subdue the broadband beast," he says.
Lest anyone feel the arrow headed for one's back, both Powell and FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps weighed in with assurances
the move won't undermine efforts toward competition.
Powell says the "proceeding should not suggest a grand departure from our ongoing efforts to implement unbundling, co-location
and other market-opening requirements with respect to (ILECs)" and regulatory restrictions
---------
So, contrary to the original posters contention that Chairman Powell wants to
make the ILECs a "monopoly" (ha ha), Mr. Powell is interested in competition.
--
http://bitchfairies.com
toad
as to your recent past on the WUN issue, in case you don't have them,
here are your comments as posted in the group for this year. Perhaps
you should take them along with you and let the senator read them.
Once he sees how vulgar and obnoxious you can be to fellow posters
and the companies in question he'll have a better grasp of the
individual he is talking to. Good Luck!
PS I think I'll email a copy of this post to the good senator
to let him know that you don't speak for me.
-------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: WUN !!
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:02:38 -0500
From: Roxanne Jekot <cata...@bellsouth.net>
Newsgroups: bellsouth.net.support.news-service
toad wrote:
>
> In article <3C43DFDD...@bellsouth.net>, kg4...@bellsouth.net
> says...
> > It's a WUN problem, plain and simple.
> >
> >
> I don't think all newsreaders mark read articles like that.
> In any event, if Netscape *does* that's an AOL problem.
Well, that sweeping generalization is not only stupid, it's WRONG.
Hey Toad, most of us using Netscape are using the PRE-AOL version.
DOH!!! (never mind the facts, just spew the propaganda)
----------------------------------------
Subject: Re: WUN !!!
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 17:49:45 -0500
From: Roxanne Jekot <cata...@bellsouth.net>
Newsgroups: bellsouth.net.support.news-service, bellsouth.net.support.adsl
Shayne Causey TSG Analyst wrote:
>
> burris,
>
> If you don't mind please post a 123456 etc etc.... issues. I have been
> looking through the different threads most of the day, however they all them
> turn into "As the NG Turns".....
>
> I will make sure your 123's... get into my email if I missed anything.
>
> Thanks in advance for working on this with me, I know your patience must be
> running thin as others.
>
> Regards,
> Shayne Causey
> BSIS TSG Analyst
>
> "burris" <resp...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:3C38B2E7...@bellsouth.net...
> > I know a lot of stuff is going on in these groups, but the hosed
> > up situation still exists.
> >
> > I am still able to go back to groups that I had marked read, and
> > now, not only do I get the phantom numbering index, but I am
> > seeing posts that were dated and timed from this morning.
> >
> > I am not the resident news expert, but it is pretty obvious that
> > one of the major problems is related to the inability of your
> > servers to synch properly. Indexing may be another issue.
> >
> > Why, when I, and others, have posted this same complaint for the
> > last few days now, cannot someone from the home office come on
> > line, and explain what is going on.
> > Please don't tell me about my reader, etc. My system works well
> > in the rest of the internet world.
> >
> > burris
> >
Shayne, perhaps my post of September 17, 2001 one will help. All the
same problems exist today, and no one has ever responded to this (one of
many) issue:
Subject:
Re: News is a total mess
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 07:13:24 -0400
From: Roxanne Jekot <cata...@bellsouth.net>
Organization: None - just disallowing advertisements on my posts
Newsgroups: bellsouth.net.support.news-service
References: 1 , 2
JP White wrote:
>
> Roxanne Jekot wrote:
> >
> > Posts missing, whole groups reloading, 25 minutes to download 37,000
> > headers - and then the 37,000 load all over again the next trip to the
> > same newsgroup on the same day.
> >
> > Totally annoying -- all groups.
> >
> > Roxanne
>
> It is annoying when things mess up. However there are workarounds. For
> example with Netscape Messenger I can set a limit to prompt me if the
> number of new headers exceeds a certain value. If it does I can download
> all of them anyway, download only the cutoff amount or any other number
> of headers I specify. Pretty Flexible.
>
> By doing something like this you should be able to download the most
> recent headers, say the last 30000. 37000 is an awful lot of message
> headers to sift through anyhow. Not an ideal situation but at least this
> way you can read and respond to something!
You don't seem to understand. Of those 37000 messages, 25 minutes
later, all but 300 are already READ! These are not new posts, it's the
entire newsgroup re-downloading, read and unread posts, over and over
and over. I'm quite proficient at using Netscape.
>
> The problem cannot be on all groups as you say since I have never seen
> quite this quantity before! GRC's security.software group which is very
> popular has only had 20000 messages posted since May of this year.
All the groups I visit, alt groups, rec groups, you name it, it keeps
happening.
-------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: WUN - THEY / HIM/ HER / IT - JUST PLAIN xxxx !!!!
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 13:50:47 -0500
From: Roxanne Jekot <cata...@bellsouth.net>
Newsgroups: bellsouth.net.support.news-service
MICHAEL wrote:
>
> "Roxanne Jekot" <cata...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:3C389950...@bellsouth.net...
> > Hal Burgiss wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 08:55:09 -0600, skate <noth...@zero.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dick Gerlach left the address and phone number of WUN. Is Dick a rep
> > > > for WUN or trying to be helpful?
> > >
> > > He works for BSIS. Not sure what his job title is, but it is not TSG, so
> > > I would guess not tech supported related. I would have to think he was
> > > trying to be helpful. But now, assuming his presence here was not part
> > > of his job description, and he chimed in _trying_ to offer advice, and
> > > then got pounced on, I wouldn't expect to see much more of him.
> > >
> > > > Do they actually reply to messages or are they like BS's abuse
> > > > dept.?
> > >
> > > But according to Roxanne and Harry, I'm an ass kisser, so
> > > maybe they flag my mail somehow.
> >
> > No, Hal, that label came from Shayne. Paraphrasing now, it was Shayne
> > who MONTHS ago said "If Michael or Hal are seeing problems I know we
> > have one."
> >
> > So, Hal, fuck off.
>
> And the bitterness still consumes you. :(
>
> --
> Michael
> Charlotte, NC USA
> mgb...@myrealbox.com
> --
The truth hurts, doesn't it Michael? I'm not the least bit bitter.
Hell, I haven't even posted in this newsgroup for MONTHS. Hal is the
bitter one who can't leave my name out of it.
I'm sorry, I just don't think Hal is a God of News Service and he can't
stand it.
------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: WUN - THEY / HIM/ HER / IT - JUST PLAIN xxxx !!!!
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 13:37:04 -0500
From: Roxanne Jekot <cata...@bellsouth.net>
Newsgroups: bellsouth.net.support.news-service
Hal Burgiss wrote:
>
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 08:55:09 -0600, skate <noth...@zero.net> wrote:
> >
> > Dick Gerlach left the address and phone number of WUN. Is Dick a rep
> > for WUN or trying to be helpful?
>
> He works for BSIS. Not sure what his job title is, but it is not TSG, so
> I would guess not tech supported related. I would have to think he was
> trying to be helpful. But now, assuming his presence here was not part
> of his job description, and he chimed in _trying_ to offer advice, and
> then got pounced on, I wouldn't expect to see much more of him.
>
> > Do they actually reply to messages or are they like BS's abuse
> > dept.?
>
> But according to Roxanne and Harry, I'm an ass kisser, so
> maybe they flag my mail somehow.
No, Hal, that label came from Shayne. Paraphrasing now, it was Shayne
who MONTHS ago said "If Michael or Hal are seeing problems I know we
have one."
So, Hal, fuck off.
--------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: WUN assessment!!
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 22:05:19 -0500
From: Roxanne Jekot <cata...@bellsouth.net>
Newsgroups: bellsouth.net.support.news-service
David Kelsen wrote:
>
> Dick Gerlach wrote:
> >
> > Problems or comments regarding the USENET service provided by WebUseNet
> > (WUN) should be e-mailed directly to the WUN Helpdesk at
> > sup...@webusenet.com. Alternatively, the Helpdesk may be reached toll free
> > at 877-572-9170.
>
> This is a test. If it works, I will indeed try to submit comments
> regarding usenet to WUN.
> I do have a question, though; did I sign any sort of contract with WUN?
>
> RFT!!!
> Dave Kelsen.
> --
> Know what I hate? Rhetorical questions!
The better question is....do you have a relationship with WUN at all?
Do you pay WUN or BSIS?
Be sure to check the name you put on that check, or the name on your
credit card statement - does it say WUN (or any variation thereof)?
-----------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: WUN assessment!!
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 10:55:34 -0500
From: Roxanne Jekot <cata...@bellsouth.net>
Newsgroups: bellsouth.net.support.news-service
Sorry, Mr. Gerlach, we're not willing to waste our time, AND allow you
to attempt to HIDE the support issues you have.
Answer here or continue to watch your ratings get punched out.
No one ever answers email sent, no one ever responds to support issues
and we're calling you on it.
Harry has emailed and emailed and copied those emails here for MONTHS.
He promised to copy any answers he got as well - none were ever
forthcoming.
Personally, I'm done with Worthless WUN and I intend to spend all my
time petitioning BellSouth to dump your ass!!!!
Got it?
Dick Gerlach wrote:
>
> Problems or comments regarding the USENET service provided by WebUseNet
> (WUN) should be e-mailed directly to the WUN Helpdesk at
> sup...@webusenet.com. Alternatively, the Helpdesk may be reached toll free
> at 877-572-9170.
>
> "burris" <resp...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:3C35A289...@bellsouth.net...
> > Good Morning, All...
> >
> > I have begun a new thread, as the old one is so full of vitriolic
> > substance, as it tends to bypass the issues.
> >
> > It is presumptuous for the some of posters to state that they
> > know how we feel, or how we should feel about the WUN issues.
> >
> > The entire thrust should be directed toward getting WUN's
> > attention, and requiring them to fix the problems. Instead, here
> > we are, falling right into their hands, by fighting among
> > ourselves.
> >
> > Again, these are simply my own personal viewpoints, based upon a
> > long tenure in business and operations.
> >
> > There are those of you who constantly reference how bad it used
> > to be, and therefore how much better it is now. No doubt this is
> > true, but that in itself, shouldn't remove the responsibility of
> > the provider, to provide a product that works for the masses.
> >
> > One of the comments that seems to surface, says that WUN reads
> > all the posts, and therefore would be bogged down in their
> > pursuit of repair, if they had to respond to each user query.
> > I say nonsense. Take a look at the BSIS side. A while back, we
> > had no communication, and now we have Andy, Lee, and their staff,
> > responding to any burp that a user may have or even think he has.
> > Look at the results from both a customer relations point of view,
> > and look at the actual results of getting something fixed.
> > Certainly the way that worked for me, in the past.
> >
> > This last statement of mine is the key to my entire argument. In
> > a successful business model, even if the customer thinks he has a
> > problem, that perception is what has to be fixed.
> > It is evident that many of you don't feel that way, because part
> > of the human condition seems to be taking sides, ego, etc.
> >
> > For those of you with memories, it shouldn't be difficult to
> > think back over the last 6 months, and recall how many times
> > Dwight, the owner of WUN, has stated that WUN is the largest and
> > best news service around, and that they serve more ISPs than any
> > other. What should this mean to us?
> >
> > The other curious part about some of the posters who criticize
> > the whiners, asks, if everything is working well for them, why
> > are they even getting involved the turmoil? Why are they
> > criticizing those who don't think, by numerous examples, that the
> > service is working as represented?
> >
> > As I have stated before, these groups have some extremely
> > knowledgeable technical minds, but because of the lack of
> > communication, even some of them get frustrated, and spend their
> > time bashing the critics, rather than the provider.
> >
> > I know we all have our perceptions of what we expect, and perhaps
> > those who have other perceptions, may just want to sit back and
> > enjoy the wonderful service that satisfies them.
> > To ask, or even imply that the greater preponderance of users
> > should change operating systems or readers, in order to become
> > compatible with our contracted news service, when the same os's
> > and readers work with virtually every other service on the
> > planet, is folly.
> >
> > Thanks for allowing me to express myself....
> >
> > burris
> >
-----------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: WUN - THEY / HIM/ HER / IT - JUST PLAIN xxxx !!!!
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 02:24:26 -0500
From: Roxanne Jekot <cata...@bellsouth.net>
Newsgroups: bellsouth.net.support.news-service
toad wrote:
>
> In article <3C3525C3...@bellsouth.net>, cata...@bellsouth.net
> says...
> > Excuse me, but there hasn't been a *solution* to any problem associated
> > with this news service posted in MONTHS.
> >
> > Honey, if you're looking for solutions, you ain't gonna find them here.
> > THAT IS THE POINT, THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE POINT!!!!
> >
> >
> Part of the problem is Mozilla, so you can look into
> another newsreader, or bitch. Gravity works great.
Nice assumption, but bzzzzzzzt, it's not a thing to do with the readers;
it's WUN's problem. Frankly, a simple one, but their so fucking stupid
they haven't got a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: WUN - THEY / HIM/ HER / IT - JUST PLAIN SUCK !!!!
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 22:55:55 -0500
From: Roxanne Jekot <cata...@bellsouth.net>
Newsgroups: bellsouth.net.support.news-service
Roxanne Jekot wrote:
>
> Hal Burgiss wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 22:40:34 -0500, Roxanne Jekot
> > <cata...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Well, Roxanne has been quiet lately too ... <g>
> > >
> > > I'm through wasting my time.
> >
> > Wow, that was almost magical! Just mention the name and pooooooff.
> >
> > --
> > Hal Burgiss
> >
>
> Oh, I lurk here every day. Nothing's changed, nothing's improved, no
> need to waste further effort.
>
> Poof, gone again.
Oh, wait....one more note. My sister was looking to hook up DSL for her
son. I did tell her not to waste her time with BellSouth.
And I'll tell anyone else who asks the same thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: WUN - THEY / HIM/ HER / IT - JUST PLAIN SUCK !!!!
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 22:53:43 -0500
From: Roxanne Jekot <cata...@bellsouth.net>
Newsgroups: bellsouth.net.support.news-service
Hal Burgiss wrote:
>
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 22:40:34 -0500, Roxanne Jekot
> <cata...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, Roxanne has been quiet lately too ... <g>
> >
> > I'm through wasting my time.
>
> Wow, that was almost magical! Just mention the name and pooooooff.
>
> --
> Hal Burgiss
>
Oh, I lurk here every day. Nothing's changed, nothing's improved, no
need to waste further effort.
Poof, gone again.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: WUN - THEY / HIM/ HER / IT - JUST PLAIN SUCK !!!!
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 22:47:15 -0500
From: Roxanne Jekot <cata...@bellsouth.net>
Newsgroups: bellsouth.net.support.news-service
Folk wrote:
>
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 16:50:36 -0600, David Kelsen
> <kel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Burris, I'm pretty sure he understands that. It's a lot more fun to
> >shoot the messenger, so you get shot. You have a lot of nerve,
> >declaring that the emperor has no clothes, then expecting those who
> >desperately need to believe that the emperor is sartorial perfection to
> >be quiet about it.
> >
> >I wouldn't spend a great deal of time trying to convince readers of that
> >stripe that you know what you're doing.
> >
> >
> >RFT!!!
> >Dave Kelsen.
>
> Believe it or not, there is a substantial segment of BS Usenet users
> that would like to read this forum for solutions, and not the daily
> spew of nonsense that it has devolved into.
Excuse me, but there hasn't been a *solution* to any problem associated
with this news service posted in MONTHS.
Honey, if you're looking for solutions, you ain't gonna find them here.
THAT IS THE POINT, THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE POINT!!!!
----------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: WUN - THEY / HIM/ HER / IT - JUST PLAIN SUCK !!!!
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 22:40:34 -0500
From: Roxanne Jekot <cata...@bellsouth.net>
Newsgroups: bellsouth.net.support.news-service
Hal Burgiss wrote:
>
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 01:51:34 -0600, randy c. ford <kg4...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hal, haven't I read that you have a server grabbing the feed and
> > spooling it locally? If you are, that would hid many of the problems
>
> Yes, I do this, but I read both ways. I tend to read more direct than
> not for various reasons. Most of what I spool locally now are the BS
> groups. Other groups I read all direct (though have spooled these in the
> past). Disk space requirements on that box are one reasons I am skimping.
> On the old system I did all my reading locally since I could pull from
> multiple servers easily to fill any gaps. That advantage is not as
> readily available these days...
>
> > that we see, such as the gone-again-here-again posts. Aren't you
> > using your client against your local spool, so you wouldn't see many
> > of the strange behaviors that appear only when going against WUNs
> > servers with clients that work with many, many other servers,
> > including the free ones? Didn't you have to change the program that
> > you were trying to use to slurp the WUN feed because you couldn't get
> > it to work with WUN.
>
> Yep, still a mystery why one works, one does not. If that happened to
> OE, they'd have to fix it.
>
> > IIRC, you had no problem getting it to work with other feeds. Didn't
> > you identify "strangeness" with WUN's ip layer from your low-level
> > logs that may be causing some of the problems that many clients have?
>
> Yes, it's a TCP RST out of the blue. Not sure what problems this
> might/could cause, but my firewall does not like it :/ My reader does
> not seem to mind (or the spooler which probably never sees it).
>
> > After that, many accused Hal of being one of two customers to whom WUN
> > would respond. (I haven't heard that complaint since WUN finally
> > responded to one of burris' post recently.)
>
> Well, Roxanne has been quiet lately too ... <g>
I'm through wasting my time.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: WUN - THEY / HIM/ HER / IT - JUST PLAIN SUCK !!!!
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 22:39:21 -0500
From: Roxanne Jekot <cata...@bellsouth.net>
Newsgroups: bellsouth.net.support.news-service
"randy c. ford" wrote:
>
> Danyell Nash wrote:
> >
> > Just to be a pain in everyone's backside. We (husband and I) don't have
> > problems usually with WUN. although neither of us really care if they don't
> > give us messages we just don't read them.. oh well.
> > Danyell
>
> Things have been going pretty well for my use lately: speed has been
> good. I haven't had as many hangs as at times. I haven't tried to read
> any groups that WUN has tried to add during the last month. I have had
> disappearing bodies. Since I "mark all read" everyday in most groups
> that I follow, that indicates to me that some messages (in text groups)
> are disappearing within a day or two.
>
> I mostly skim headers in the groups that I follow, so I, like Danyell,
> haven't noticed that many missing messages. I've been to google about
> five times in the last week to read messages that I noticed were missing
> and wanted to read. However, since this was all for text groups where
> there were replies that let me know that something was missing, I
> consider that to be way to high. I've only seen indications of one lost
> message in this group in the last week or two. (Of course, I didn't see
> missing ones, so I don't know if I'm missing more.)
>
> I almost never use anything but text groups. Looking now, I'm not
> "subscribed" to any binary groups. Unlike Robby, I don't pull .5G - 2G
> a day; I couldn't read anywhere near that much. However, I do follow
> some low volume groups where I want to see every message. A week or two
> ago, I was getting less than half of the messages in some groups.
>
> As I've said before, my main problem with WUN is their lack of
> communication and apparent lack of concern about the problems: they
> don't even track reported problems; they don't know what has been
> reported, much less if somebody is working on a problem, or if it's been
> fixed. I don't believe that I've ever posted a new problem here. I
> mostly just respond when somebody is getting only "not me" posts about
> problems that I see, or when people post "it can't be snowing because I
> can't see the sky" comments.
>
> I do not believe that WUN is providing a level of service that is high
> enough that I can recommend bs.net to others. There was a period of
> about a month once where enough improvements had been made for me to do
> that to some savvy users. However, when things started falling apart
> again, WUN showed that they couldn't handle it. One of my reasons for
> following this group is to see if WUN ever improves their business and
> technical abilities where I can recommend bs.net. (My essential
> requirements for an ISP include connectivity, routing to the Internet,
> DNS, email, USENET, and appropriate response to problems. I can't
> recommend an ISP that continually fails on any one of those.)
>
> --
> The person who said 'Familiarity breeds Contempt' must have used
> Microsoft products. Familiarity with Unix breeds Comfort and Strength.
>
> randy c ford
I have one text group (don't do binaries at all) where I load headers at
least 4 times a day. At every load at least 60% of the bodies are
"expired" even though most are only hours old.
I know what the problem is, but due to WUN's lack of response, WUN's
total incompetence, and BSIS's refusal to take an active role in
ensuring we receive something resembling service, I won't waste my time.
Burris, if you are having this problem and want my opinion on why, email
me privately.
--------------------------------------------------------
toad
> I'm in favor of more choice, both on cable and DSL.
>
>
I agree. And I think that the open issue on cable was
most aggressively persued by Earthlink who won the
right to be on Time Warner. So your contention that
cable does not allow other ISP is faulty.
--
http://bitchfairies.com
Hal Burgiss
> Tauzin-Dingell will make it the exception. Now we can argue till the
> cows come home, so if you like the choice on the cable in your area,
> support Tauzin-Dingell as it'll bring the same amount of choice on DSL.
> My cable has one choice, my DSL, many choices. I want cable to be like
> DSL, not the other way around. So, I'll oppose Tauzin-Dingell.
Yes, this is a more interesting topic. And I think we'd all agree that
competition is a good thing. The question being how to ensure that in
the long run. To play devil's advocate, the RBOCs see cable as the real
competition in the long run, and the cable guy's current de facto
monopoly over access, will give them an unfair advantage over DSL
providers at some point way down the road. Which could conceivably price
DSL significantly higher viz a viz cable. So how do we fix that
scenario? I'd agree that cable should have the same degree of openness,
and the way it is now, is one reason I would have to be really desperate
to think about cable at all. I'd really like to see local communities
that have the power over their cable service providers, force them to
allow outside access. But that probably would never happen...
--
Hal Burgiss
toad
> I think open
> access could be mandated effectively at the state or federal level. We
> don't have local review for DSL yet we have open access. I say, how
> they did it for DSL; how 'bout a little of the same for cable internet.
>
>
You seem to think that DSL choices were the result of regulation or
mandates, and I don't think that's the case. It happened as a result
of ILECs wanting the business. I think the infrastructure needed for
opening DSL to ISPs was pretty much in place, from the CO via big
pipe to either ISP A or ISP B, etc. I'm not so sure that is accomplished
as easy for cable. Is it?
--
http://bitchfairies.com
chong
Take some pictures for us.
How did u get a senator attention?
toad
> I would conceed my knowledge is far from complete on this subject, but I
> believe that the regulation is Section 251 of the Telecom Act of 1996.
>
> Section 251 of the Telecom Act created three provisions to benefit
> Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), which could compete with
> the local Bell networks:
>
> 1.) interconnection to the Bell network;
> 2.) access to “unbundled” elements of the Bell network and the ability
> to combine certain network elements to provide service to customers; and
> 3.) the right to buy a Bell’s retail services at wholesale rates and
> then resell them to end-users.
>
>
>
This is as I understood it also. The act helped CLECs. And for all practical purposes
turned ILECs into just another CLEC. But were any particular individuals DSL choices
affected, or more specifically, mandated, by this? Not really. In my neighborhood I can
get DSL connection via 'CLEC'BellSouth, ISP choices? BellSouth. Reasons? Because no
other ISP to this point wants to put the equipment in the CO. For 2 years Earthlink sent
me an email saying I could get Earthlink DSL, this was before BellSouth even equipped
the CO for DSL. Then in the middle of last year, BellSouth sets in the equipment and
sends me a letter, Dear Customer, you are eligible for DSL. I call BellSouth, yes they
say, Earthlink is a partner ISP, call them. Great. I call Eartlink. I say, "For 2 years
you've said I can get DSL when the CO wasn't equipped, it's equipped now, can I get
DSL. Answer..NO. Reason? Earthlink does not want to offer it yet. Reason? Earthlink just
went on TWC which just offered cable to most of my area. Reason my choices are limited?
Business decisions. Earthlink, according to BellSouth is welcome to set up anytime.
But I don't think BellSouth was "mandated" to offer Earthlink, they want Earthlink.
That was my point. So all the regulation really has not affected my choices to this
point.
>By the way, to get back to the orginal post, it is quite relevant to
>be discussing broadband choice with your elected representative at this
>time. I don't think I would bring up "WUN" as a talking point, but I'll
>be sending my congressman my views on the subject, and I encourage
>everyone else to do so also.
Good point. My objection to the original post was that it was pretty much
another distortion of the facts by an individual that really isn't interested
in the truth. For instance, when the post stated,
"I plan to use the BS/WUN disaster as a classic example as
how this idea leaves the customer high and dry with a complete lack of
customer service."
The above statement is plain dishonest. To think that a BellSouth subscriber
would go to a senator and state the above as fact is disturbing to me, and I
question the motives behind such an action. If I had a senators ear on the
matter I certainly wouldn't lie about the situation.
burris
AL wrote:
>
> Section 251 of the Telecom Act created three provisions to benefit
> Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), which could compete with
> the local Bell networks:
>
> 1.) interconnection to the Bell network;
> 2.) access to “unbundled” elements of the Bell network and the ability
> to combine certain network elements to provide service to customers; and
> 3.) the right to buy a Bell’s retail services at wholesale rates and
> then resell them to end-users.
>
Al....
What you quoted above is how it's written, however in practice,
up until very recently, this did not work.
Since I was an insider on the CLEC side, I can supply a lot more
factual information, than the armchair analysts.
1....Interconnection to the Bell network. The Bell companies
would not allow us to go into their existing OSS. Instead, like a
moving target, they kept designing new interfaces, obviously to
make things difficult, which they did, and at a huge expense to
those trying to connect.
2....Only up until very recently, did they actually allow the
purchase of unbundled products.
The process was so difficult, that only by hiring some
ex-employees of Bell, were we able to decipher the maze that they
created.
3....Yes, they did allow resellers to buy and resell the product,
but BELL formed "Win-Back" marketing groups, to call every
switched customer, and criticize the CLECs, telling those
customers that if they remained with Bell, their service would
not be interrupted. This took place after the switch order was
placed, and instead of Bell simply cross connecting the customer,
would intentionally disconnect them during the change, so when
the customer called Bell to report their phones being out, they
would tell them that the new company didn't know what they were
doing, and if they remained with Bell, their service would be
restored immediately.
The irony was that this took place with switchless resellers as
well as facilities based.
What I have posted is not conjecture, or even an opinion, but can
be verified by looking at various lawsuits that were filed and
won against Bell, and because of the egregious conduct on the
part of Bell, even the Public Service Commissions, sanctioned the
various Bells, and fined them heavily for their behavior. We
know, of course, that the PSCs in the various states, are very
heavily and politically involved with the Public Utility
companies, and the only reason they went forward with their
sanctions, is that the only fear that a Utility has, is having
all their indiscretions made public. This was the only threat
that made it work.
To sum up, my message both corrects some of facts that are being
thrown about, facts, not opinions, and indicates that making our
problems public, is probably the only chance we have of making
any progress. Even this won't work sometimes, as we couldn't
possibly collect enough money to approach the donations of the
Utilities in the various states.
burris
Hal Burgiss
>
> By the way, to get back to the orginal post, it is quite relevant to
> be discussing broadband choice with your elected representative at this
> time. I don't think I would bring up "WUN" as a talking point, but I'll
IIRC, the OP was using WUN/BSIS as an example of why proposed changes
are bad for the consumer. I am inclined to agree in priniciple, but
still don't see where WUN fits in at all. But anyway, the real problem
is the differences in regulations between cable and DSL. It won't do us
much good to ensure mucho competition in DSL, if cable winds up grabbing
the market due to regulatory advantages.
--
Hal Burgiss
toad
> What I have posted is not conjecture, or even an opinion, but can
> be verified by looking at various lawsuits that were filed and
> won against Bell
>
please define the following,
>"The Bell companies
>would not allow us "
which Bell Companies do you speak of, and who is "us"?
>"Only up until very recently, did they actually allow the
>purchase of unbundled products."
Who is "they"? Which Bell?
>"Yes, they did allow resellers to buy and resell the product,
>but BELL formed "Win-Back" marketing groups, to call every
>switched customer, and criticize the CLECs,"
Which Bells, which CLECs?
>"and because of the egregious conduct on the
>part of Bell, even the Public Service Commissions, sanctioned the
>various Bells,"
Which PSCs, which Bells, what "egregious conduct"?
>"To sum up, my message both corrects some of facts that are being
>thrown about, "
And creates some confusion. Please give us specifics, the details,
the facts. Thanks.
toad
> I think I'll tell the
> representative to support choice, and leave the details out.
>
One issue to take into consideration on this choice thing
is who pays for it. Talking basically the new technology
that is going to be installed over the next five years.
If the regulation is the bells pay for it all and then
if it is a keeper the other CLECs reap the rewards but
none of the up front costs, or if it doesn't work, the
Bells just eat it. That's not fair. But if the regulation
is that the CLECs are charged upfront for the cost of
installing the technology and share in the risk, then
that is something to talk about.
--
http://bitchfairies.com
burris
I have many times throughout the past year, posted sites that
relate to, and explain, what I have said.
Each time I did so, some of the uninterested people came on line,
and accused me of posting dull information.
I think that if you are truly interested, you can, as many have
suggested, start with a google search for let's
say...BellSouth-SBC-Ameritech-Verizon, and find out what you need
to know. It's all there.
I'm not at liberty to give you any more specifics, that are not
publicly available. Dig around the PSCs for BellSouth states-PSCs
for Verizon states, and PSCs for SBC states.
It's all there.
If you have not looked, and are not aware, then I would consider
what you post, to be simply opinions, and not facts. That's ok,
providing you identify them as such.
burris
burris
toad
> If you have not looked, and are not aware, then I would consider
> what you post, to be simply opinions, and not facts. That's ok,
> providing you identify them as such.
>
>
anything more than opinions expressed as a generalized diatribe
by an "insider" from somewhere who is not at liberty to substantiate
anything he says via specifics, details and facts. Basically,
you libel all Bells on behalf of all CLECs concerning all issues
because all anyone has to do is "look" because it's "all out there".
No problem, I know exactly where you are coming from, even if you
dont. How's life in nowhereland?
--
http://bitchfairies.com
burris
Only because I don't want you to take too much of your time away
from running your bitchfaries site, I have, at random, gone to
google, and will post a start for you. These should give you a
little more insight as to what some of us are talking about.
This is just a pointer for you. If you want more
info....www.google.com...will work wonders.
burris
http://www.onmacon.com/sobell2.htm
http://www.sptimes.com/News/081501/Columns/Florida_telecom_probe.shtml
http://southflorida.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2001/09/10/story7.html
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/general/news/BELLSTPR.html
http://www.x-changemag.com/hotnews/0ch78545brief.html
http://www.thefrontlines-hlg.com/newweb/FL2002iss2articles.html
http://www.isp-planet.com/news/2001/bellsouth_2.html
http://www.clec-planet.com/news/000110/oct17fcc.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1033-248053.html
http://www.thedigest.com/more/129/129-061.html
http://www.clec-planet.com/resources/puc_list.htm
toad
> These should give you a
> little more insight as to what some of us are talking about.
>
>
>"Since I was an insider on the CLEC side, I can supply a lot more
>factual information, than the armchair analysts."
To start pulling up search engine pages in a plug n play
attempt to somehow justify the "insider knowledge" of the
generalizations of your earlier post is really being nothing
more than another one of the "armchair analysts" as you call it.
Just what factual information have you supplied that any monkey
setting in front of Macintosh G4 running OSX couldn't
supply? Absolutely none. nada. zilch. Oh yeah, I forgot, your
not at liberty to substantiate anything. Can't talk about it,
not at liberty to say, classified, eyes only, trust me, it
really did happen as I stated, see, here's a few pages that
prove in someway something I said, told you so. Right. I
understand, no problem.
burris
Let's put our dialogue to rest. It is evident that you are too
busy, or maybe incapable of reading and understanding what is out
there.
burris
toad
> Let's put our dialogue to rest. It is evident that you are too
> busy, or maybe incapable of reading and understanding what is out
> there.
>
>
>
the guise of being an insider that could offer facts that
the armchair analysts might have wrong and in the end gave
nothing more that a few links from a google search engine.
It's evident that your insider info has proven invaluable in
helping me to determine that any monkey can dispense your kind
of insider information. Thanks again for the inside info.
--
http://bitchfairies.com
surfnews
If you bothered to read (assuming you have the ability) Burris's links you
would see some validation in what he said. Obviously you would rather just
go on croaking.
Maybe one day you'll really just croak for good.
"toad" <toad@-bitchfairies.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.16df52223...@192.168.0.30...
toad
> You're not a "toad" for nothing. All you do is croak ... croak ...croak.
> If you bothered to read (assuming you have the ability) Burris's links you
> would see some validation in what he said. Obviously you would rather just
> go on croaking.
>
> Maybe one day you'll really just croak for good.
>
>
>
you are correct that they validate in someway, some of what he said.
But burris also slammed all bells in all cases by his "insider"
use of "facts" that he was not at liberty to specify. It's kinda like
if someone said,
"I'm an insider and I got facts that you armchair analysts don't have
and theposter on thenewsserver is a knucklehead but I'm not at liberty
to discuss anything else".
Kinda slams all posters on all news servers. I'd read a post like that
and go, hey, insiderman what poster? what news server?
Then insiderman give you a couple links that says
link1--- theposter=surfnews and thenewsserver= BellSouth/WUN
link2--- theposter=burris and thenewsserver= BellSouth/WUN
link3--- theposter=toad and thenewsserver= BellSouth/WUN
and somebody else says, yeah, he gave some links that fit, so he
was validated. Well, yeah, he was validated, but his original
statement (which contained "insider facts") could be read to say
Hal Burgiss on BellSouth/WUN is a knucklehead. or
chong on BellSouth/WUN is a knucklehead, or even
David Kelsen on BellSouth/WUN is a knucklehead
and this is because as an "insider" with access to "facts"
that insiderman is not at liberty to discuss, even though
the original statement libels all posters on all news servers
only certain links with certain values really fit, i.e.
the links I mention above. Hope this helps and welcome
to the knuckleheads.
burris
reasoning is so far out, as not to be believed.
The first issue is your interpretation of my message. I simply
indicated that opinions are one thing, but facts are another, and
my alluding to those armchair analysts was directed to both you
and the others who think that ILECs are following the rules in
practice.
Then, my sampling of sites, was meant to show that perhaps the
FCC, as well as the various PSCs in all states were ruling in a
fashion that offers different views than those who think the
ILECs are behaving properly.
With respect to my not divulging insider information, this is
pretty standard. Since you mentioned a few names, do you think
that John Loop, or Andy or Shayne, has ever come on line and
given you "inside information?" No, they don't, as that is not
the practice in the real world. Instead, they refer you to
various sites, so that for those that can and want to take the
time to read them, will give whatever information is available to
the public. You can interpret this any way you wish, as you have
done on numerous occasions, when you have culled out and posted
various pieces of information to offer some insight.
Again, for you, or anyone else who is interested in reading the
results of both the court cases and PSC/FCC decisions concerning
the nefarious practices of virtually all the Baby Bells, all you
need is to find any search engine, and ask. If that's too
difficult, then keep on ranting.
Also, I don't in any way agree with your interpretation of any
slander I may have committed against anyone. I merely stated that
opinions are one thing, facts are another, and it is evident that
some of us see how the Bells do their thing, and others think
they are the embodiment of virtue.
If I have indeed offended anyone, I apologize, as the criticism
was for those who confuse opinions with facts, and state those
opinions as facts.
burris
toad
> I don't know why I keep responding to your diatribe, but your
> reasoning is so far out, as not to be believed.
>
>
busy, or maybe incapable of reading and understanding what is out
there.
Hal Burgiss
> we'll be discussing is the Powell/FCC attempt to make the LECs a
> monopoly in
There is a very interesting article in this months Wired on Mr Powell. I
don't see it online yet, but quite an interesting and impressive guy.
This particular topic isn't addressed specifically, but the future of
cable/dsl/internet/etc and related technology is in a general way.
--
Hal Burgiss
John Sessoms
If there really were competition in the BellSouth operating areas,
BSIS would have many fewer customers. The lack of competition is what
allows them to get away with the crappy service. Your choice is
BellSouth's crappy service or no service.
The proposed legislation & FCC actions will permit the RBOCs to extend
their monopolies.
--
I do not speak for any corporation, government or organization.
All opinions expressed are uniquely my own. Ain't nobody else to
blame!
John Sessoms
Hal Burgiss
<no....@no.where.invalid> wrote:
>
> If there really were competition in the BellSouth operating areas,
> BSIS would have many fewer customers. The lack of competition is what
> allows them to get away with the crappy service. Your choice is
> BellSouth's crappy service or no service.
Nonsense. I count 10 DSL ISPs for here (Louisville, Ky) at DSLR,
presumably each with their own mail/news/dns/etc services. I don't know
where you are but Louisville is not exactly one of the bigger areas,
which I would guess would have much more _competition_. Maybe in the
future this changes, but there is a lot of competition in the DSL ISP
arena right now. A lot.
--
Hal Burgiss
John Sessoms
>
> On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 13:19:38 -0500, John Sessoms
> <no....@no.where.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > If there really were competition in the BellSouth operating areas,
> > BSIS would have many fewer customers. The lack of competition is what
> > allows them to get away with the crappy service. Your choice is
> > BellSouth's crappy service or no service.
>
> Nonsense. I count 10 DSL ISPs for here (Louisville, Ky)
I'm not in Louisville, KY. I'm in Raleigh, NC where they've managed
to effectively shut out the competition, mainly by jerking around
anyone trying to get dsl through a CLEC.
While it is just barely possible to get dsl in this area from someone
other than BellSouth, it's a VERY PAINFUL process. Existing phone
lines are not suitable for dsl.
Remarkably, those who give up on CLECs and switch to BellSouth
suddenly discover there are no problems whatsoever with dsl over those
very same "not suitable" existing phone lines.
John Sessoms
>
> On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 21:06:45 -0500, John Sessoms <no....@no.where.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Hal Burgiss wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 13:19:38 -0500, John Sessoms
> >> <no....@no.where.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > If there really were competition in the BellSouth operating areas,
> >> > BSIS would have many fewer customers. The lack of competition is what
> >> > allows them to get away with the crappy service. Your choice is
> >> > BellSouth's crappy service or no service.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. I count 10 DSL ISPs for here (Louisville, Ky)
> >
> >I'm not in Louisville, KY. I'm in Raleigh, NC where they've managed
> >to effectively shut out the competition, mainly by jerking around
> >anyone trying to get dsl through a CLEC.
> >
> >While it is just barely possible to get dsl in this area from someone
> >other than BellSouth, it's a VERY PAINFUL process. Existing phone
> >lines are not suitable for dsl.
> >
> >Remarkably, those who give up on CLECs and switch to BellSouth
> >suddenly discover there are no problems whatsoever with dsl over those
> >very same "not suitable" existing phone lines.
>
> competing ISPs who have access to Bellsouth's DSLAMs?
I'm talking about alternatives to BellSouth ADSL PERIOD.
Whether from a CLEC or from a competitor with access to BellSouth's
DSLAMS does not matter.
My perception, based on experience, and observation of other people's
experience (as evidenced in postings to triangle.online-access) when
attempting to get ADSL from other ISPs in the BellSouth area is that
BellSouth has used their monopoly ownership of the wires to
effectively block competition.