Comcast pulling plug on usenet, other ISPs to follow
Elden Fenison
pledged to cutoff usenet access in the fight against child porn. I think
Verizon cut off the entire alt. tree. Comcast is now pulling the plug.
--
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org
Warren Oates
Elden Fenison <use...@moondog.org.invalid> wrote:
> I don't mean *all* other, but there is a consortium of ISPs who have
> pledged to cutoff usenet access in the fight against child porn. I think
> Verizon cut off the entire alt. tree. Comcast is now pulling the plug.
So what? Alternative full-feed NNTP providers have been around for
years, some are even free.
--
W. Oates
Mike Rosenberg
> I don't mean *all* other, but there is a consortium of ISPs who have
> pledged to cutoff usenet access in the fight against child porn. I think
> Verizon cut off the entire alt. tree. Comcast is now pulling the plug.
Apparently you missed all the previous discussion of this. This is old
news.
--
I kill Google Groups posts. See http://improve-usenet.org for details.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude
Fred Moore
Elden Fenison <use...@moondog.org.invalid> wrote:
> I don't mean *all* other, but there is a consortium of ISPs who have
> pledged to cutoff usenet access in the fight against child porn. I think
> Verizon cut off the entire alt. tree. Comcast is now pulling the plug.
Um, you're a bit behind, Eldon. This was discussed at length back when
it was news a month or two ago. Google is your friend:
<http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&>
--Fred
Elden Fenison
> Apparently you missed all the previous discussion of this. This is old
> news.
Apparently.
--
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org
John Byrns
mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> Elden Fenison <use...@moondog.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I don't mean *all* other, but there is a consortium of ISPs who have
> > pledged to cutoff usenet access in the fight against child porn. I think
> > Verizon cut off the entire alt. tree. Comcast is now pulling the plug.
>
> Apparently you missed all the previous discussion of this. This is old
> news.
Is this really old news, cutting off the binaries groups is certainly old news,
but the OP is talking about ISPs also doing away with the "entire alt. tree",
and more specifically ISPs dropping usenet entirely. I read recently that RCN
dropped their usenet access, and the OP seems to be saying that now Comcast is
following suit.
I have noticed that participation in the usenet groups I follow has dropped off
significantly in the past few months. I suppose this is sort of like a return
to the pre AOL days and will be widely welcomed by usenet oldtimes.
--
Regards,
John Byrns
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
Jolly Roger
John Byrns <byr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In article <1inx9vf.yzgc838mb0jtN%mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
>
> > Elden Fenison <use...@moondog.org.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't mean *all* other, but there is a consortium of ISPs who have
> > > pledged to cutoff usenet access in the fight against child porn. I think
> > > Verizon cut off the entire alt. tree. Comcast is now pulling the plug.
> >
> > Apparently you missed all the previous discussion of this. This is old
> > news.
>
> Is this really old news, cutting off the binaries groups is certainly old
> news,
> but the OP is talking about ISPs also doing away with the "entire alt. tree",
> and more specifically ISPs dropping usenet entirely. I read recently that
> RCN
> dropped their usenet access, and the OP seems to be saying that now Comcast
> is
> following suit.
Well, it's almost October, and this was all over the tech news outlets
way back in July:
<http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/31/1622251>
I suppose whether information that is three months old (possibly older)
is "old" might be subjective. Personally, I consider anything already
posted over a month ago old news - but that's just me.
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Jolly Roger
Elden Fenison <use...@moondog.org.invalid> wrote:
> * Mike Rosenberg [09/27/2008 14:46 UTC]:
> > Apparently you missed all the previous discussion of this. This is old
> > news.
>
> Apparently.
Get with it, man! : )
John Byrns
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
It's difficult to glean any meaningful information from that thread. It seems
to have at its root an article that was published somewhere, although I couldn't
find a link to the mentioned article anywhere in the thread.
At any rate, I certainly agree that the demise of the "binaries" groups was all
over the "tech news outlets way back in July", but I didn't notice much mention
at that time about the plans of major ISPs to drop usenet entirely, at that time
they all seemed to be dropping the "binaries" as a fix to the "child porn
problem". Are you sure that the decision to drop usenet entirely isn't a more
recent development resulting from the ISPs rethinking their position since July?
Gene E. Bloch
> I don't mean *all* other, but there is a consortium of ISPs who have
> pledged to cutoff usenet access in the fight against child porn. I think
> Verizon cut off the entire alt. tree. Comcast is now pulling the plug.
For the horse's mouth, see
http://www.comcast.net/newsgroups/?cookieattempt=1
--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino) letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")
Howard S Shubs
John Byrns <byr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I have noticed that participation in the usenet groups I follow has dropped
> off
> significantly in the past few months. I suppose this is sort of like a
> return
> to the pre AOL days and will be widely welcomed by usenet oldtimes.
Yes, if September is finally ending it will definitely be welcome.
--
Don't bother with piddly crap like "gun control".
Life is 100% fatal. Ban it.
Barry Margolin
Elden Fenison <use...@moondog.org.invalid> wrote:
> * Mike Rosenberg [09/27/2008 14:46 UTC]:
> > Apparently you missed all the previous discussion of this. This is old
> > news.
>
> Apparently.
Not to mention off-topic for this group (as well as rec.arts.tv and
ne.general, the other groups that I've seen threads about it).
Alt.online-services.comcast is the place to discuss Comcast.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Tim McNamara
Gene E. Bloch <spam...@nobody.invalid> wrote:
> On 9/27/2008, Elden Fenison posted this:
> > I don't mean *all* other, but there is a consortium of ISPs who
> > have pledged to cutoff usenet access in the fight against child
> > porn. I think Verizon cut off the entire alt. tree. Comcast is now
> > pulling the plug.
>
> For the horse's mouth, see
>
> http://www.comcast.net/newsgroups/?cookieattempt=1
Perhaps not the horse's *mouth,* all things considered in Comcast's
treatment of its customer over the past couple of years.
Jolly Roger
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
Time Warner shit on their customers in a similar manner. Of course, in
Time Warner's case, no Usenet access turns out to be a significantly
better user experience. : D
Elden Fenison
> Not to mention off-topic for this group (as well as rec.arts.tv and
> ne.general, the other groups that I've seen threads about it).
> Alt.online-services.comcast is the place to discuss Comcast.
Sorry to have disturbed you.
--
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org
Richard Maine
> Time Warner shit on their customers in a similar manner. Of course, in
> Time Warner's case, no Usenet access turns out to be a significantly
> better user experience. : D
I was using 3rd party usenet providers before I switched to TW as my
ISP, so I just stayed with the 3rd party ones. I've also been using 3rd
party email particularly so that I wouldn't have to change email
addresses if I changed ISPs (been there; that's a pain).
I have to say I've been mostly happy with TW. I've heard bad tales about
their customer service, but I've been lucky enough not to have to deal
with them in person to find out. My network connection has been reliable
enough that I haven't had to call them. Not absolutely 100%, but close
enough that I can't legitimately complain. I recall 2 outages of about
an hour or 2 over a period of a year and a half. There were probably
some others when I wasn't on and didn't notice (though I'm on a lot).
Knock on wood and all that.
Given my experience with my prior ISP (a local one that started out
good, but degraded), I'd say that usenet service just isn't on my
priority list. If the ISP will just do the one thing of providing
network service to me, and do that one thing well, I'll be happy. I can
get the other stuff elsewhere, but network connectivity is critical.
I suppose customer attitudes like mine contribute to ISPs dropping such
side services. Sorry. :-(
--
Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
Jolly Roger
nos...@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > Time Warner shit on their customers in a similar manner. Of course, in
> > Time Warner's case, no Usenet access turns out to be a significantly
> > better user experience. : D
>
> I was using 3rd party usenet providers before I switched to TW as my
> ISP, so I just stayed with the 3rd party ones. I've also been using 3rd
> party email particularly so that I wouldn't have to change email
> addresses if I changed ISPs (been there; that's a pain).
Well, you avoided two of Time Warner's worst services. Good work.
> I have to say I've been mostly happy with TW. I've heard bad tales about
> their customer service, but I've been lucky enough not to have to deal
> with them in person to find out. My network connection has been reliable
> enough that I haven't had to call them. Not absolutely 100%, but close
> enough that I can't legitimately complain. I recall 2 outages of about
> an hour or 2 over a period of a year and a half. There were probably
> some others when I wasn't on and didn't notice (though I'm on a lot).
I bet DNS hasn't been the best. Time Warner Austin's DNS is the worst
I've ever used. It's flaky as all hell, and goes down for the count more
often than any other.
> Knock on wood and all that.
>
> Given my experience with my prior ISP (a local one that started out
> good, but degraded), I'd say that usenet service just isn't on my
> priority list. If the ISP will just do the one thing of providing
> network service to me, and do that one thing well, I'll be happy. I can
> get the other stuff elsewhere, but network connectivity is critical.
>
> I suppose customer attitudes like mine contribute to ISPs dropping such
> side services. Sorry. :-(
I expect my ISP to give me reliable email and DNS service; even though I
typically use Open DNS. And yes, I expect the connection to be reliable
too.
Gene E. Bloch
Sorry, looks like I didn't think it through before posting...
Thanks for keeping me honest! :-)