RCN buys ultranet and erols
Ed kemo
FYI, RCN bought Ultranet and Erols
It was in the business section of the globe today
"no empire can last forever"
--
Presentiment is that long shadow on the lawn
Indicative that suns go down; "Presentiment"
The notice to the startled grass Emily Dickinson
That darkness is about to pass. (1830 - 1886)
Roger Williams
Ed kemo <mag...@tiac.net> wrote:
> FYI, RCN bought Ultranet and Erols
> It was in the business section of the globe today
> "no empire can last forever"
I wonder if this affects their deployment date for cable modem access?
So far, RCN has been incredibly vague on the specifics of their
planned cable TV/cable modem service...
--
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} \|/
{} Roger W. rog...@super.zippo.com {} 0< --alt.usenet.kooks!
{} http://www.parrot.net ad...@parrot.net {} ^^^^(*)^^^^
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} ^^ / \ ^^
Lynn Reilly Jackson
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:31:40 -0500, "Kyle James Copeland"
<u-k...@ultra.net> wrote:
>Sure it can :-) We are still the same Eng Staff that people have grown to
>love.
>
> - Kyle
>
In my experience all the Ultranet Engineers should have their resumes
ready. It would have been appropriate for Jeff Shultz to have
negotiated a role for engineering, but I doubt any obligation to
continue this paradigm would have been included in the closing
documents. What I don't understand is how Ultranet, with it's 32,000
customer base experience is going to be able to jump up and do 325,000
customers. The experience edge to run that magnitude of service has
to go to the EROLS engineers. Additionally, I assume that RCN is
going to dump the telco relationship with XCOM in favor of getting its
hands on the reciprical compensation money that XCOM is now
garnishing. Where is the engineering expertise in Ultranet to run a
large scale telco department. Not to mention that RCN is closer in
proximity to EROLS than ULTRANET so it would be easier to have
engineering done further south. Besides, the concentration of
customers is further South so the Network Operations Center should
reside in NY anyways. I'm not sure that anyone at Ultranet should
take any comfort here. Ultranet is the minnow and EROLS is the whale.
Minnows don't last too long co-habitating with whales. Now, in case
anyone is unclear as to why I care about whether Ultranet employees
are employed for even a minute longer is that I would like to recruit
some of the Ultranet talent to work at TIAC since TIAC is a far better
job match than the one that is being played out in this merger. Think
about it.
Tim
Martin Hannigan
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 16:26:32 GMT, ly...@tiac.net (Lynn Reilly Jackson)
wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:31:40 -0500, "Kyle James Copeland"
><u-k...@ultra.net> wrote:
>
>>Sure it can :-) We are still the same Eng Staff that people have grown to
>>love.
>>
>> - Kyle
>>
>
[ snip ]
>Minnows don't last too long co-habitating with whales. Now, in case
>anyone is unclear as to why I care about whether Ultranet employees
>are employed for even a minute longer is that I would like to recruit
>some of the Ultranet talent to work at TIAC since TIAC is a far better
>job match than the one that is being played out in this merger. Think
>about it.
Why work for Dodge when you can work for Hummer?
At least that's the question I always ask myself of late.
Leviathan
In article <34c8c192....@news.tiac.net>, ly...@tiac.net says...
>Think about it.
>
>Tim
Wow! Look everybody! Timmy's a transvestite!
--
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
http://www.leviathanstudios.com/~jsheen
Leviathan of the GEI (Detached.)
jsh...@leviathanstudios.com
"Booger!" -- John Caravello
Leviathan
Say, is anybody else singularly unimpressed at a corporate CEO who goes out
"dressed" as his wife to post to another service's internal newsgroups?
Especially one who has vigorously protested others lobbing messages over the
wall into _his?_
In article <34c8c192....@news.tiac.net>, ly...@tiac.net says...
>
>On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:31:40 -0500, "Kyle James Copeland"
><u-k...@ultra.net> wrote:
>
>>Sure it can :-) We are still the same Eng Staff that people have grown to
>>love.
>>
>> - Kyle
>>
>
>In my experience all the Ultranet Engineers should have their resumes
>ready. It would have been appropriate for Jeff Shultz to have
>negotiated a role for engineering, but I doubt any obligation to
>continue this paradigm would have been included in the closing
>documents. What I don't understand is how Ultranet, with it's 32,000
>customer base experience is going to be able to jump up and do 325,000
>customers. The experience edge to run that magnitude of service has
>to go to the EROLS engineers. Additionally, I assume that RCN is
>going to dump the telco relationship with XCOM in favor of getting its
>hands on the reciprical compensation money that XCOM is now
>garnishing. Where is the engineering expertise in Ultranet to run a
>large scale telco department. Not to mention that RCN is closer in
>proximity to EROLS than ULTRANET so it would be easier to have
>engineering done further south. Besides, the concentration of
>customers is further South so the Network Operations Center should
>reside in NY anyways. I'm not sure that anyone at Ultranet should
>take any comfort here. Ultranet is the minnow and EROLS is the whale.
>Minnows don't last too long co-habitating with whales. Now, in case
>anyone is unclear as to why I care about whether Ultranet employees
>are employed for even a minute longer is that I would like to recruit
>some of the Ultranet talent to work at TIAC since TIAC is a far better
>job match than the one that is being played out in this merger. Think
>about it.
>
>Tim
Ryan J. Thieme
In article <6aarrm$bul$1...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>, oss...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net (Insert Name Here) wrote:
>
>In article <34c8c192....@news.tiac.net>,
>Lynn Reilly Jackson <ly...@tiac.net> wrote:
> [ making herself look stupid posting as spank daddy tim ]
>
>>On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:31:40 -0500, "Kyle James Copeland"
>><u-k...@ultra.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Sure it can :-) We are still the same Eng Staff that people have grown to
>>>love.
>>>
>>> - Kyle
>
>
>
>>proximity to EROLS than ULTRANET so it would be easier to have
>>engineering done further south. Besides, the concentration of
>
>
>>customers is further South so the Network Operations Center should
>>reside in NY anyways. I'm not sure that anyone at Ultranet should
>
>that in a guy.
>
>>take any comfort here. Ultranet is the minnow and EROLS is the whale.
>
>
>>Minnows don't last too long co-habitating with whales. Now, in case
>>anyone is unclear as to why I care about whether Ultranet employees
>>are employed for even a minute longer is that I would like to recruit
>>some of the Ultranet talent to work at TIAC since TIAC is a far better
>>job match than the one that is being played out in this merger. Think
>>about it.
>
>yumolo tree, some respect, and some good loot. whaddya you gonna
>give them? Some bad weed and a broken mail system? hell ill even
>throw in their very own timj fart cushion.
>
Man this is just way too funny.
Not that TIAC has a lot of interest in a lowly Tech Rep, but why would I want
to go to work for McDonalds wages at TIAC? I'll take my chances that things
are gonna work out just fine for me @ UltraNet. They've done pretty well the
last 2 years I've been working here.
Something about the 'future is so bright...' comes to mind.
Ryan
Matt Magri
In article <34c8c192....@news.tiac.net>,
"Tim" (posing as Lynn Reilly Jackson <ly...@tiac.net>) wrote:
Posting as someone with three parts to their name to better relate to
Kyle James Copeland is a very empathetic gesture on your part.
>On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:31:40 -0500, "Kyle James Copeland"
><u-k...@ultra.net> wrote:
>>Sure it can :-) We are still the same Eng Staff that people have grown to
>>love.
>
>In my experience all the Ultranet Engineers should have their resumes
>ready. [ ... ]
That's a very good idea. I think that Tim's assessment of how Erol's
and Ultranet would mix is at least plausible enough to inspire
folks to be prepared for a move if (pardon this) things do go south.
Don't do anything precipitous, tho... it might just work out fine.
After all, if RCN chose Ultranet as part of the deal so that they could
have their staff available, it would be sort of counter productive for
them to make a lot of arbitrary changes that are likely to chase them
all away.
[ ... ]
>reside in NY anyways. I'm not sure that anyone at Ultranet should
>take any comfort here. Ultranet is the minnow and EROLS is the whale.
>Minnows don't last too long co-habitating with whales. [ ... ]
That's interesting. Do minnows really ever cohabitate with whales? Or
did you just mean hang out in the same part of the ocean? What do the
whales do to them? IIRC, blue whales eat a lot of plankton, but there's
still plenty of plankton left even then. Is the minnow the natural
enemy of the whale or something?
You know, usually such analogies are supposed to better illustrate a
point, but this one has made what seemed like a clear-cut situation
seem rather confused and ambiguous.
> [ ... ] Now, in case
>anyone is unclear as to why I care about whether Ultranet employees
>are employed for even a minute longer is that I would like to recruit
>some of the Ultranet talent to work at TIAC since TIAC is a far better
>job match than the one that is being played out in this merger. Think
>about it.
Ooooh, yeah... that -does- give you kind of a creepy feeling, doesn't
it? Like that one about how you're sliding down a stair railing and
it turns into a razor blade. Gives ya goosebumps... ;-)
Aside from agreeing about the resumes (just in case), I'd only suggest
that, if The Ultranet Engineers (sounds like a larry Niven book) decide
it isn't working out the way they would like, they shouldn't settle for
the first offer that comes along... ;-)
Seriously, tho, I wish them good luck. These mergers can be rough.
Matt
--
IMO, obscure Gymkata movie references like Great Khan don't belong in
anyone's e-mail address. Keep that in mind if you decide to e-mail me.
In the meantime I'm enjoying a lot less spam in my mailbox... ;-)
Ryan J. Thieme
>>In my experience all the Ultranet Engineers should have their resumes
>>ready. It would have been appropriate for Jeff Shultz to have
>>negotiated a role for engineering, but I doubt any obligation to
>>continue this paradigm would have been included in the closing
>>documents. What I don't understand is how Ultranet, with it's 32,000
>>customer base experience is going to be able to jump up and do 325,000
>>customers. The experience edge to run that magnitude of service has
>>to go to the EROLS engineers. Additionally, I assume that RCN is
>>going to dump the telco relationship with XCOM in favor of getting its
>>hands on the reciprical compensation money that XCOM is now
>>garnishing. Where is the engineering expertise in Ultranet to run a
>>large scale telco department. Not to mention that RCN is closer in
>>proximity to EROLS than ULTRANET so it would be easier to have
>>engineering done further south. Besides, the concentration of
>>customers is further South so the Network Operations Center should
>>reside in NY anyways. I'm not sure that anyone at Ultranet should
>>take any comfort here. Ultranet is the minnow and EROLS is the whale.
>>Minnows don't last too long co-habitating with whales. Now, in case
>>anyone is unclear as to why I care about whether Ultranet employees
>>are employed for even a minute longer is that I would like to recruit
>>some of the Ultranet talent to work at TIAC since TIAC is a far better
>>job match than the one that is being played out in this merger. Think
>>about it.
>>
>>Tim
Does anybody else read this and think "Sour Grapes"?
Maybe it's just me...
Ryan
Leviathan
In article <6aatk9$dpk$1...@decius.ultra.net>, r...@ultranet.com says...
<Timmy Snipped.>
>Does anybody else read this and think "Sour Grapes"?
I read it and wonder if he looks as silly in his wife's clothes as he does in
her e-mail address.
da...@taic.net
In tiac Lynn Reilly Jackson <ly...@tiac.net> wrote:
: anyone is unclear as to why I care about whether Ultranet employees
: are employed for even a minute longer is that I would like to recruit
: some of the Ultranet talent to work at TIAC since TIAC is a far better
: job match than the one that is being played out in this merger. Think
: about it.
Tim, I have read, not more than a month or two ago, some messages
from you talking about how you had to clean up the mess left by prior
employees, and also I've read your other messagse about former employees,
and I sure hope you're paying them more than I think you are, since I'd
not want to be there under those conditions.
Chris Jenkins
Lowell Gray wrote in message <6ab2bj$1...@shell2.shore.net>...
>In article <34c8c192....@news.tiac.net>,
>Lynn Reilly Jackson <ly...@tiac.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:31:40 -0500, "Kyle James Copeland"
>><u-k...@ultra.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Sure it can :-) We are still the same Eng Staff that people have grown
to
>>>love.
>>>
>>> - Kyle
>>>
>>
<snip>
I would like to recruit
>>some of the Ultranet talent to work at TIAC since TIAC is a far better
>>job match than the one that is being played out in this merger. Think
>>about it.
>>
>>Tim
>
>
>Wow, this is the first time I have ever agreed with anything Tim
>has said. Of course I was thrown a bit by the From: Lynn Reilly Jackson.
>
>To all UltraNet employees: Shore.Net is hiring. We'd love to talk.
>
>- Lowell
We will throw our hat in the Ultranet hiring binge as well however not sure
I
agree on the statement's re where the engineering will be done. Base that
on a visit to Erol's six months ago seemed a little string and scotchtapey.
I echo
Craig's comments on different target groups.
Chris Jenkins
Ziplink
Randy Williams
TimJ spouted:
>>In my experience all the Ultranet Engineers should have their
>>resumes ready.
In my experience, all the TIAC Engineers...don't work at TIAC anymore.
>> I would like to recruit some of the Ultranet talent to work at TIAC
>> since TIAC is a far better job match than the one that is being
>> played out in this merger. Think about it.
>>
>>Tim
Yes, please. Think about it. If necessary, take a quick look at some
of the posts of the last year or so of the various former TIAC
employees over at DejaNews. The vast majority are overwhelmingly
negative towards their employers. If worse comes to worse, and
Ultranet does end up losing out in keeping their staff together from
the merger, just check out the Sunday Boston Globe's ever-burgeoning
technical Help Wanted section.
> Does anybody else read this and think "Sour Grapes"?
>
> Maybe it's just me...
>
> Ryan
In the time-honored tradition of Usenet:
me too
-> Randy R. Williams, Former TIAC Employee (tm) <-
-> To reply by email, swap the "1" with a "one" <-
Kyle James Copeland
Tim,
Get a Freaking Clue won't you?
- Kyle
BTW: Who the hell wants to work for someone that rips his employees to
shreads? Personally, i'm not willing to work for anyone who feels he needs
to do that to get his business to run the way he wants it.
Lynn Reilly Jackson wrote in message <34c8c192....@news.tiac.net>...
>On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:31:40 -0500, "Kyle James Copeland"
><u-k...@ultra.net> wrote:
>
>>Sure it can :-) We are still the same Eng Staff that people have grown to
>>love.
>>
>> - Kyle
>>
>
>In my experience all the Ultranet Engineers should have their resumes
>ready. It would have been appropriate for Jeff Shultz to have
>negotiated a role for engineering, but I doubt any obligation to
>continue this paradigm would have been included in the closing
>documents. What I don't understand is how Ultranet, with it's 32,000
>customer base experience is going to be able to jump up and do 325,000
>customers. The experience edge to run that magnitude of service has
>to go to the EROLS engineers. Additionally, I assume that RCN is
>going to dump the telco relationship with XCOM in favor of getting its
>hands on the reciprical compensation money that XCOM is now
>garnishing. Where is the engineering expertise in Ultranet to run a
>large scale telco department. Not to mention that RCN is closer in
>proximity to EROLS than ULTRANET so it would be easier to have
>engineering done further south. Besides, the concentration of
>customers is further South so the Network Operations Center should
>reside in NY anyways. I'm not sure that anyone at Ultranet should
>take any comfort here. Ultranet is the minnow and EROLS is the whale.
>Minnows don't last too long co-habitating with whales. Now, in case
>anyone is unclear as to why I care about whether Ultranet employees
>are employed for even a minute longer is that I would like to recruit
Lowell Gray
Sandy Culver
Lowell Gray <l...@shore.net> wrote in article
<6ab2bj$1...@shell2.shore.net>...
| In article <34c8c192....@news.tiac.net>,
| Lynn Reilly Jackson <ly...@tiac.net> wrote:
| >On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:31:40 -0500, "Kyle James Copeland"
Since the subject has changed ever so gracefully to jobs, I'd like to
add that a reasonably-sized ISP in Cambridge, MA has a few openings,
too. See http://www.bbn.com/bbnjobs/jobsrch.htm for a WAIS keyword
searchable jobs site.
Regards,
Sandy
__________________________________________________
Mr.Sandy Culver GTE Internetworking
HR Consultant powered by BBN
scu...@bbn.com 22 Moulton Street
tel: (617) 873-3474 Cambridge, MA 02138
fax: (617) 873-5042 http://www.bbn.com
Geoffrey W. Schultz
In article <34c8c192....@news.tiac.net>,
ly...@tiac.net (Lynn Reilly Jackson) wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:31:40 -0500, "Kyle James Copeland"
Well Tim, if you look at the purchase price, you'll see that RCN paid for
Ultranet about 1/3 what it did for Erol's, yet Erol's has 10x as many
customers. Why did they pay that much more for UltraNet? Because RCN saw
UltraNet's dedication quality and service and an incredible engineering staff.
My roll will to be to combine engineering efforts and to take the best pieces
of each to build a world class operation. There's absolutely no reason to
believe that operations are shifting to DC. As a matter of a fact, we just
leased another 15,000 feet of space. I wouldn't do that if we were
down-sizing.
I wouldn't worry about the future of UltraNet staff. Their futures are all
very bright. Can you say the same for your staff? We've never lost a single
person to TIAC, but your staff is constantly interviewing over here and we
have quite a few ex-TIAC people working for us. What conclusion should be
drawn from that?
Geoff Schultz
UltraNet Communications, Inc.
Matt Magri
In article <6ab9qg$j88$1...@kali.ziplink.net>,
Chris Jenkins <cjen...@ziplink.nt> wrote:
>We will throw our hat in the Ultranet hiring binge as well however not sure
>I
>agree on the statement's re where the engineering will be done. Base that
>on a visit to Erol's six months ago seemed a little string and scotchtapey.
My impression is that Erol's is a very marketing-driven operation and that
everybody else has to hang on for the ride. There are a number of sharp
folks who work there that probably deserve a medal for keeping things
working at all in such a situation. If the merger gives them a chance
to work in a more supportive environment that would be great, IMHO.
Joe Provo
[note followups]
ly...@tiac.net (Lynn Reilly Jackson) wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tim! You got the operation! Congratulations!
>In my experience all the Ultranet Engineers should have their resumes
[snip]
Your experience pipe dreaming? Whatever. It's funny to see you
troll so blatantly - you actually think you'll get UltraNet people
to respond to your wild statements to tell *you*, let alone a newsgroup
or two, details?
You're a laff riot. Glad to have you back on stage. Where's my bag of
tomatoes...
--
Joe Provo Russell Street UN*X Consultations
Network and Systems Architect 59 Fruit Street, Worcester, MA 01609
j...@rsuc.gweep.net 508-798-4985
Charles Demas
In article <6aatk9$dpk$1...@decius.ultra.net>,
Ryan J. Thieme <r...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
[Job offers to Ultranet engineering by Tim Jackson snipped]
>
>Does anybody else read this and think "Sour Grapes"?
>
>Maybe it's just me...
Tim was just the first to try to "raid" Ultranet. All the other ISPs
followed his lead in offering Ultranet engineers new homes, BTW.
Must be a lot of "Sour Grapes" out there. :-)
Chuck Demas
Needham, Mass.
--
Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
de...@tiac.net | \___/ | http://www.tiac.net/users/demas
Timothy W. Jackson
sch...@ma.ultranet.com (Geoffrey W. Schultz) wrote:
>In article <34c8c192....@news.tiac.net>,
> ly...@tiac.net (Lynn Reilly Jackson) wrote:
>>On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:31:40 -0500, "Kyle James Copeland"
>><u-k...@ultra.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Sure it can :-) We are still the same Eng Staff that people have grown to
>>>love.
>>>
>>> - Kyle
>>>
>>
>>In my experience all the Ultranet Engineers should have their resumes
Thats because you have 1/3 the revenues of EROLS. But regardless of
the purchase price that RCN paid, EROLS engineering still had to
support 10x the number of susbcribers and are better prepared to
continue to support the customer base than ultranet engineers who have
only had to deal with a base that is 1/10 the size of the the EROLS
customer base. RCN paid for a revenue stream.
>My roll will to be to combine engineering efforts and to take the best pieces
>of each to build a world class operation. There's absolutely no reason to
>believe that operations are shifting to DC. As a matter of a fact, we just
>leased another 15,000 feet of space. I wouldn't do that if we were
>down-sizing.
EROLS management is going to fight hard for their peoples jobs. There
is going to be an internal power struggle between the Ultranet people
and EROLS people. Cooperation will be hard to maintain when jobs are
on the line and someone has to loose.
>
>I wouldn't worry about the future of UltraNet staff. Their futures are all
>very bright. Can you say the same for your staff? We've never lost a single
>person to TIAC, but your staff is constantly interviewing over here and we
>have quite a few ex-TIAC people working for us. What conclusion should be
>drawn from that?
Not loosing a person to TIAC may have some benefit? But by your own
words, ULTRANET has been built by "quite a few ex-TIAC people" this
should make you wonder how we keep cranking out such good people. You
know, the kind of good people that would be attractive to aquiring
minds. I can keep building them, but are you going to keep hiring
them? Not if operations move south, like I believe.
>
>
> Geoff Schultz
> UltraNet Communications, Inc.
Tim Jackson
CEO - TIAC (Still)
Timothy W. Jackson
j...@rsuc.gweep.net (Joe Provo) wrote:
>[note followups]
>
>ly...@tiac.net (Lynn Reilly Jackson) wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Tim! You got the operation! Congratulations!
>
>>In my experience all the Ultranet Engineers should have their resumes
>[snip]
>Your experience pipe dreaming? Whatever. It's funny to see you
>troll so blatantly - you actually think you'll get UltraNet people
>to respond to your wild statements to tell *you*, let alone a newsgroup
>or two, details?
>
>You're a laff riot. Glad to have you back on stage. Where's my bag of
>tomatoes...
>
>--
That's a really good comeback. I'm sure that you thought a lot about
my post by the way you simply chose to ridicule instead of challenging
my assertions. Perhaps you would like to try again and answer my post
and leave the garbage attacks at home.
Tim
Timothy W. Jackson
jsh...@leviathanstudios.com (Leviathan) wrote:
>In article <6aatk9$dpk$1...@decius.ultra.net>, r...@ultranet.com says...
>
> <Timmy Snipped.>
>
>>Does anybody else read this and think "Sour Grapes"?
>
>I read it and wonder if he looks as silly in his wife's clothes as he does in
>her e-mail address.
>
Come on, stop the crap and answer the post. Your post is very
childish and I want a decent debate about the significance of
Ultranet's sell-out. Stop hiding.
Tim
Rick Gacioch
Timothy W. Jackson wrote:
> Tim Jackson
> CEO - TIAC (Still)
Ahhh... but for how much longer????????
Rick Gacioch
ve...@netway.com
Geoffrey W. Schultz
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:48:34 GMT, ti...@tiac.net (Timothy W. Jackson)
wrote:
>sch...@ma.ultranet.com (Geoffrey W. Schultz) wrote:
>
>>In article <34c8c192....@news.tiac.net>,
>> ly...@tiac.net (Lynn Reilly Jackson) wrote:
>>>On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:31:40 -0500, "Kyle James Copeland"
>>><u-k...@ultra.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sure it can :-) We are still the same Eng Staff that people have grown to
>>>>love.
>>>>
>>>> - Kyle
>>>>
>>>
>>>In my experience all the Ultranet Engineers should have their resumes
Tim, you don't know squat about UltraNet's infrastructure and what we
can or can't support. RCN bought UltraNet for it's engineering
talent. Plain and simple. Stop talking about things that you know
nothing about.
>>My roll will to be to combine engineering efforts and to take the best pieces
>>of each to build a world class operation. There's absolutely no reason to
>>believe that operations are shifting to DC. As a matter of a fact, we just
>>leased another 15,000 feet of space. I wouldn't do that if we were
>>down-sizing.
>
>EROLS management is going to fight hard for their peoples jobs. There
>is going to be an internal power struggle between the Ultranet people
>and EROLS people. Cooperation will be hard to maintain when jobs are
>on the line and someone has to loose.
Why do you think that anyone will lose their job? There's more than
enough work to go around. I worked for Digital for 14 years and was
very used to split site engineering teams. We're going to do the same
thing here. Sure there may be some consolidation of resources some
where down the line, but those will be more than made up by the number
of people that we're planning on hiring.
>>
>>I wouldn't worry about the future of UltraNet staff. Their futures are all
>>very bright. Can you say the same for your staff? We've never lost a single
>>person to TIAC, but your staff is constantly interviewing over here and we
>>have quite a few ex-TIAC people working for us. What conclusion should be
>>drawn from that?
>
>Not loosing a person to TIAC may have some benefit? But by your own
>words, ULTRANET has been built by "quite a few ex-TIAC people" this
>should make you wonder how we keep cranking out such good people. You
>know, the kind of good people that would be attractive to aquiring
>minds. I can keep building them, but are you going to keep hiring
>them? Not if operations move south, like I believe.
Tim, please learn to cut and paste or at least read critically.
I never said that UltraNet was "built by quite a few ex-TIAC people."
To quote me, I said we "have quite a few ex-TIAC people working for
us." There's a huge difference. The majority of ex-TIAC staff that
we have working here work in tech support. They couldn't stand the
boiler-room environment that TIAC has, and your moral boosting mail to
your staff really motivates them. While their position is very
important here, I wouldn't put them on the founder/builder level.
You'll also note that I stated that we constantly have TIAC people
interviewing with UltraNet. We don't hire the majority of them
because they don't have the skills or professionalism that we demand.
It seems that all that you can do is to spread FUD because you have
nothing else to spread. I can assure you, and my staff, that UltraNet
will be based in Marlboro for years to come.
Matt Magri
In article <34ca000f....@news-central.tiac.net>,
Timothy W. Jackson <ti...@tiac.net> wrote:
>Come on, stop the crap and answer the post. Your post is very
>childish and I want a decent debate about the significance of
>Ultranet's sell-out. Stop hiding.
Answer what post? The post of yours/Lynn's that started this thread?
No debate was framed in that. The closest you came to that was in
asking people to think about the bleak prospect of TIAC being a
better home for the Ultranet folks than the new, merged entity. In
case you didn't notice, a number of folks did address -that- point.
On top of that, there have been a number of folks who have discussed
significance of the -merger-. If you want a discussion about this
-sellout- you're talking about, you should probably provide the
details of that event. If you want to make the case that the merger
was a sell-out, then go for it. In the interests of focusing your
mental energies, I'll just point out tha selling something is not
necessarily the same thing as selling something out.
Matt Magri
In article <34c9fbe6....@news-central.tiac.net>,
>>Well Tim, if you look at the purchase price, you'll see that RCN paid for
>>Ultranet about 1/3 what it did for Erol's, yet Erol's has 10x as many
>>customers. Why did they pay that much more for UltraNet? Because RCN saw
>>UltraNet's dedication quality and service and an incredible engineering staff.
>
>Thats because you have 1/3 the revenues of EROLS. But regardless of
>the purchase price that RCN paid, EROLS engineering still had to
>support 10x the number of susbcribers and are better prepared to
>continue to support the customer base than ultranet engineers who have
>only had to deal with a base that is 1/10 the size of the the EROLS
>customer base. RCN paid for a revenue stream.
It's not clear what kind of a revenue stream Erol's represents. According
to their IPO papers it looks like they have yet to make a dime and that
they are spending new multi-year customer sign-ups to help cover the costs
of their current customers. At any rate, it would seem likely that Geoffrey
Schultz would have a better idea of the whys and wherefores of the deal than
you would.
>>My roll will to be to combine engineering efforts and to take the best pieces
>>of each to build a world class operation. There's absolutely no reason to
>>believe that operations are shifting to DC. As a matter of a fact, we just
>>leased another 15,000 feet of space. I wouldn't do that if we were
>>down-sizing.
>
>EROLS management is going to fight hard for their peoples jobs. There
>is going to be an internal power struggle between the Ultranet people
>and EROLS people. Cooperation will be hard to maintain when jobs are
>on the line and someone has to loose.
All the more reason for Ultranet to determine who is clueful among Erol's
staff and welcome them with open arms. Erol's (it's not an acronym, BTW)
management has always been more interested in the marketing aspects and
that's (if we're to believe the announcements) where RCN plans to use them.
At any rate, I don't see anything in Geoffrey Schultz's post which would
indicate that's he's unaware of the difficulties involved in the merger. He
seems merely to be stating his view of, and his goals for, the merger. I
wish him luck.
At any rate, the merger will either be good or bad for the Ultranet folks
based on how it actually turns out. Whether or not you "win" a Usenet
argument about why it would be bad doesn't really enter into the equation.
You made your bid for their employees and were roundly laughed at. Time
to move on.
>>I wouldn't worry about the future of UltraNet staff. Their futures are all
>>very bright. Can you say the same for your staff? We've never lost a single
>>person to TIAC, but your staff is constantly interviewing over here and we
>>have quite a few ex-TIAC people working for us. What conclusion should be
>>drawn from that?
>
>Not loosing a person to TIAC may have some benefit? But by your own
>words, ULTRANET has been built by "quite a few ex-TIAC people" this
>should make you wonder how we keep cranking out such good people. You
>know, the kind of good people that would be attractive to aquiring
>minds. I can keep building them, but are you going to keep hiring
>them? Not if operations move south, like I believe.
An entertainingly self-serving spin on what he actually said. I'd rate
it an 8 on the tim-o-meter. It meets that crucial criteria of propounding
a position that no one would possibly buy, as if saying something will
magically redesign reality.
Randy Williams
In article <34ca000f....@news-central.tiac.net>, ti...@tiac.net
> childish and I want a decent debate about the significance of
> Ultranet's sell-out. Stop hiding.
>
Let me get this straight: Tim Jackson is accusing someone of "hiding"
when issues are brought up in a newsgroup?
Does anyone else see the rampant hypocrisy of such a statement?
Everytime a major-league issue is brought up concerning TIAC and its
policies, network or server problems(be it on the tiac newsgroup, or
ne.i.s), and people look for answers to their questions, Tim Jackson
is nowhere to be found. Let's just go back to a couple of months ago
and the big debacle over massive loss of email, or to the "fddi
problem" that caused the TIAC network to crash tons of times. Where
was TimJ then?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
--
Matt Magri
In article <6ad7qu$ejb$1...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>,
Insert Name Here <oss...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote:
> Alledged announcement by Timothy W. Jackson <ti...@tiac.net>:
[ ... ]
>>In a couple of days, TIAC is going to take advantage of this rare
>>opportunity and start a radio campaign that will grab Ultranet customers
>>by the fistful. I expect that other aspects of the organization will
>>get involved in this as well. [ ... ]
If he actually wrote this, he's displaying a rare naivete. Unless he's
using the term "fistful" literally, he's likely to be disappointed. His
FUD campaign might convince people to be concerned about their ISP's
future, but it would be a rare bird that would switch without actually
experiencing problems. The complication that UltraNet faces is that -any-
problem, regardless of how mundane, is likely to be interpreted as being
related to the merger by their customers, particularly after the FUD hits
the fan:
>> [ ... ] Essentially, we are targeting the fact
>>that Ultranet and Erols customers are going to be served by an
>>organization that has no experience in running an ISP coupled with the
>>distraction of a multi-faceted service provider that will not be able
>>to even focus. [ ... ]
Hm... IANAL, but he might want to consider talking to one first if he's
actually planning to say something like that.
> [ ... ] Additionally, we am going to try to recruit some talent
>from Ultranet to bolster our ranks. [ ... ]
This actually lends a note of realism since it reminds that he -has-
displayed naivete in connection with this event already... ;-)
Nick Mercauto
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 10:33:21 -0500, Rick Gacioch <ve...@netway.com>
wrote:
***Out of sheer curiosity, if Tim stepped down, or something happened
to him, who assumes the position of CEO at TIAC? Does he appoint one,
or is their a person already planned to move up?
Stephen Z. Stein
In article <34ca093d....@news.ma.ultranet.com>,
sch...@ma.ultranet.com (Geoffrey W. Schultz) wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:48:34 GMT, ti...@tiac.net (Timothy W. Jackson)
> wrote:
>
> [yadda yadda yadda]
Geoff,
Congratulations on the buyout. I sure hope you did well - you provide a
great service and you deserve good things to come your way.
It's not really necessary to get into the flinging with Tim J. Everyone
who reads these groups knows he's full of it, and I don't doubt he's a bit
jealous right now. Don't get sucked down to his level.
Once again, congrats!
- Steve Stein
- a long-time, satisfied Ultranet customer
Timothy W. Jackson
sch...@ma.ultranet.com (Geoffrey W. Schultz) wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:48:34 GMT, ti...@tiac.net (Timothy W. Jackson)
>wrote:
>
[ snip ]
>>Thats because you have 1/3 the revenues of EROLS. But regardless of
>>the purchase price that RCN paid, EROLS engineering still had to
>>support 10x the number of susbcribers and are better prepared to
>>continue to support the customer base than ultranet engineers who have
>>only had to deal with a base that is 1/10 the size of the the EROLS
>>customer base. RCN paid for a revenue stream.
>
>Tim, you don't know squat about UltraNet's infrastructure and what we
>can or can't support. RCN bought UltraNet for it's engineering
>talent. Plain and simple. Stop talking about things that you know
>nothing about.
Oh come on. RCN paid 27 Million for something more than engineering
talent. Unless you have every engineer under some sort of contract,
you have no hold on engineering talent that would warrent such a price
tag. You would think that 27 million dollars could attract some pretty
savy engineers without the complications of a merger. I do know that
you and your staff have never had to deal with a network of the size
of EROLS. Besides what are you going to do with your Customer
Service, Marketing, Sales and other human resources. It sounds to me
like you are going to let them go. Do they know that you are plainly
and simply an engineering arm for RCN now? What are you going to do
with these people? Because after you discard them, I would like the
opportunity to put them to work here at TIAC. With respect to this
thread, I have seen many ignorant responses to my posts from Ultranet
engineering types, but the other people that you employ have not
responded. Tell your staff the truth. Who is staying and who is
leaving. You have an obligation to transition the victims of your
deal with RCN.
>
>>>My roll will to be to combine engineering efforts and to take the best pieces
>>>of each to build a world class operation. There's absolutely no reason to
>>>believe that operations are shifting to DC. As a matter of a fact, we just
>>>leased another 15,000 feet of space. I wouldn't do that if we were
>>>down-sizing.
>>
>>EROLS management is going to fight hard for their peoples jobs. There
>>is going to be an internal power struggle between the Ultranet people
>>and EROLS people. Cooperation will be hard to maintain when jobs are
>>on the line and someone has to loose.
>
>Why do you think that anyone will lose their job? There's more than
>enough work to go around. I worked for Digital for 14 years and was
>very used to split site engineering teams. We're going to do the same
>thing here. Sure there may be some consolidation of resources some
>where down the line, but those will be more than made up by the number
>of people that we're planning on hiring.
>
I think that people will loose their jobs because of organizational
redundancy. You have three staffs capable of doing engineering for
RCN; Ultranet's, EROLS, and RCN's. You are going to have a hell of a
time managing people in the southern offices. Unless you plan on
flying to VA and NY every week, you will loose touch with someone.
Perhaps you will even like the EROLS staff better than the ULTRANET
crew. It could happen, have you met with the EROLS enginerering
staff? Why are you hiring all the engineering talent? You don't
expect that RCN growth in the internet business is going to exceed
EROLS, do you? Have you even looked at the burn rate of EROLS sales
and Marketing? RCN can't do this, since EROLS comes with a 30 million
*NEGATIVE* equity and RCN had to borrow a 1/2 *BIL* that has to be
paid back. Do the math. Plus most of the cash RCN has needs to go
for cable and telephone services. Something I expect you know nothing
about.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't worry about the future of UltraNet staff. Their futures are all
>>>very bright. Can you say the same for your staff? We've never lost a single
>>>person to TIAC, but your staff is constantly interviewing over here and we
>>>have quite a few ex-TIAC people working for us. What conclusion should be
>>>drawn from that?
>>
>>Not loosing a person to TIAC may have some benefit? But by your own
>>words, ULTRANET has been built by "quite a few ex-TIAC people" this
>>should make you wonder how we keep cranking out such good people. You
>>know, the kind of good people that would be attractive to aquiring
>>minds. I can keep building them, but are you going to keep hiring
>>them? Not if operations move south, like I believe.
>
>Tim, please learn to cut and paste or at least read critically.
>I never said that UltraNet was "built by quite a few ex-TIAC people."
>To quote me, I said we "have quite a few ex-TIAC people working for
>us." There's a huge difference. The majority of ex-TIAC staff that
>we have working here work in tech support. They couldn't stand the
>boiler-room environment that TIAC has, and your moral boosting mail to
>your staff really motivates them. While their position is very
>important here, I wouldn't put them on the founder/builder level.
Wow, have you told them what you think about them? Have you told them
that RCN bought ULTRANET for it's engineering talent? At TIAC our
customer service people are promoted to other positions in the
company. This devotion to the customer service experience is perhaps
why TIAC has double the customers and triple the revenue you have.
>
>You'll also note that I stated that we constantly have TIAC people
>interviewing with UltraNet. We don't hire the majority of them
>because they don't have the skills or professionalism that we demand.
Wait a minute you just got finished telling me that you have lots of
TIAC people working for you and then you say you don't hire a majority
of them. Can you provide some numbers so I can better understand your
points?
>
>It seems that all that you can do is to spread FUD because you have
>nothing else to spread. I can assure you, and my staff, that UltraNet
>will be based in Marlboro for years to come.
It's RCN now. RCN owns the operation and RCN will decide what is
where. You are an employee now. I am interested in hiring the staff
that helped make ULTRANET worthy.
Tim Jackson
CEO - TIAC(still going)
Geoffrey W. Schultz
Tim,
I'm going to take a previous suggstion and not drop down to your level. You
know absolutely nothing about what you're talking about, and are simply
speculating. Why should I continue to debate you?
Let me make one thing perfectly clear before I end this moronic conversation:
ULTRANET IS HIRING IN ALL DEPARTMENTS!
TIAC employees welcome to apply! :-)
Rick Gacioch
From what I have read of TIAC's business plan. TIAC's second in command,
Steven Boursy would become CEO.
Hope this helps...
Rick Gacioch
ve...@netway.com
da...@taic.net
In tiac Timothy W. Jackson <ti...@tiac.net> wrote:
: and EROLS people. Cooperation will be hard to maintain when jobs are
: on the line and someone has to loose.
: Not loosing a person to TIAC may have some benefit? But by your own
Tim. There are two interesting words in the English language. You
may want to distinguish between them in the future.
The first is "lose." The second is "loose." They have differing
meanings.
Ed Lewis
| Not loosing a person to TIAC may have some benefit? But by your own
| should make you wonder how we keep cranking out such good people. You
| know, the kind of good people that would be attractive to aquiring
| minds. I can keep building them, but are you going to keep hiring
| them? Not if operations move south, like I believe.
It's nice to see you take credit for "building them" Tim. However, one
might realize that when you throw an untrained platoon into a war zone
some of them are just going to blossom (and survive) on their own. Some of
them will even become downright amazing on their own. Or would you give
the Platoon Leader that sat on his boat in Martha's Vineyard the entire
time all the credit? And then what would you say when the survivors all
jump ship the first chance they get?
--
Edward S. Lewis Vicorp Interactive Systems, Inc.
Systems Administrator 399 Boylston Street
http://www.vicorp.com Boston, MA 02116-3305
Ed Lewis
| where. You are an employee now. I am interested in hiring the staff
| that helped make ULTRANET worthy.
I'm sure they'll be right over banging your door down for half the pay and
half the benefits they receive at Ultranet. Especially in this job market
where it's easier to find a job that pays $10k more than your last than it
is to get fired from an IT position.
Ed Lewis
Nick Mercauto <merc...@tiac.net> wrote:
| On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 10:33:21 -0500, Rick Gacioch <ve...@netway.com>
| wrote:
|>Timothy W. Jackson wrote:
|>
|>> Tim Jackson
|>> CEO - TIAC (Still)
|>
|>Ahhh... but for how much longer????????
|>
|>Rick Gacioch
|>ve...@netway.com
| ***Out of sheer curiosity, if Tim stepped down, or something happened
| to him, who assumes the position of CEO at TIAC? Does he appoint one,
| or is their a person already planned to move up?
Well I'm sure it would be someone else from the Executive staff. So that
leaves...hmm...Lynn or Joe Golemme...as they are the *only* other TIAC
execs listed on TIAC's staff page.
Timothy W. Jackson
Ed Lewis <edl...@REMOVE.shore.net> wrote:
>Timothy W. Jackson <ti...@tiac.net> wrote:
>[...]
>| Not loosing a person to TIAC may have some benefit? But by your own
>| words, ULTRANET has been built by "quite a few ex-TIAC people" this
>| should make you wonder how we keep cranking out such good people. You
>| know, the kind of good people that would be attractive to aquiring
>| minds. I can keep building them, but are you going to keep hiring
>| them? Not if operations move south, like I believe.
>
>It's nice to see you take credit for "building them" Tim. However, one
>might realize that when you throw an untrained platoon into a war zone
>some of them are just going to blossom (and survive) on their own. Some of
>them will even become downright amazing on their own. Or would you give
>the Platoon Leader that sat on his boat in Martha's Vineyard the entire
>time all the credit? And then what would you say when the survivors all
>jump ship the first chance they get?
>
>--
>
How do you know anything about management, building a business,
platoons, war zones, or leadership? You are totally unqualifed for
this conversation.
Tim
Matt Magri
In article <6adc75$3o9$2...@decius.ultra.net>,
Geoffrey W. Schultz <sch...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote:
>I'm going to take a previous suggstion and not drop down to your level. You
>know absolutely nothing about what you're talking about, and are simply
Bravo, tho you are too kind in labelling it "speculating". It was a
pathetic effort by someone who's forgotten that his words only shape
his own view of reality. What he thinks posting this tripe will gain
him remains a mystery.
> [ ... ] Why should I continue to debate you?
To give Tim another opportunity to demonstrate his preeminence as master
of FUD? After all, he hasn't had a chance to point out that if RCN decides
to move the whole operation to Hawaii that all of the employees that
move there will have to put their beloved pets in quarantine. Have you
informed them of the callous attitude that you've taken towards their
beloved pets? I really think your employees deserve at least that much
human compassion, don't you, Geoff? etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Good luck,
Aaron Price
: ULTRANET IS HIRING IN ALL DEPARTMENTS!
--
Aaron Price
electronics.love.music.peace.vibe
Stephen Griffin
Lynn Reilly Jackson wrote:
> Minnows don't last too long co-habitating with whales. Now, in case
> anyone is unclear as to why I care about whether Ultranet employees
> are employed for even a minute longer is that I would like to recruit
> some of the Ultranet talent to work at TIAC since TIAC is a far better
> job match than the one that is being played out in this merger. Think
> about it.
>
> Tim
I would rather starve to death slowly while drowning than work for TIAC.
As for why RCN purchased UCI instead of just sticking w/ Erols, you
merely need to refer to Hiawatha Bray's article.
caz
not that I ever really get into the zoo that is public Usenet, but lil'
Timmy's all-tiac got me thinking/polling:
(have fun, all, flaming me for 'well, if you don't read USENET
regularly, you have no right to post'. yawn)
anyways, here's the result.
-=-=-
Dear Tim,
Please don't scan over this. take it all in.
Your all-tiac 'fistful' note got a big, Hearty gut laugh when it made
its way around the NOC over at UltraNet. see here. there isn't an
engineer in the NOC over here that'd even Consider leaving UCI/RCN to
head over to your little operation while you still had an inkling of
control over it. You've got a leak son, and we see pretty much all
of the abusive notes you send around to your eng. staff about how
everyone will be 'building linux boxes until your fingers bleed'
etc, etc. You're not an engineer, you're a tiny coiled turd in our
collective proverbial martini, and no self-respecting engineer would put
up with your kindergarten-grade management style/ill-conceived engineering
demands for more than a month; and they don't, by the looks of it.
head back to your de-lux double-wide trailer, american gladiators is on.
in short, you Will Not be getting any UCI engineering staff/talent,
no matter how you plan/dream. We chortle at the prospect. Schultz has
provided opportunities you can't even dream of offering your staff.
can't imagine why. I pity anyone under you.
Of course you're still CEO of your ship of fools - who else would want it?
Isn't that increasingly apparent?
what's the weather like on your planet, anyhoo?
no, really, do bite me,
/caz, 'apologies to the memory of bill hicks'
Randy Williams
In article <34ca758b....@news-central.tiac.net>, ti...@tiac.net says...
> >Ed Lewis <edl...@REMOVE.shore.net> wrote:
> >It's nice to see you take credit for "building them" Tim. However, one
> >might realize that when you throw an untrained platoon into a war zone
> >some of them are just going to blossom (and survive) on their own. Some of
> >them will even become downright amazing on their own. Or would you give
> >the Platoon Leader that sat on his boat in Martha's Vineyard the entire
> >time all the credit? And then what would you say when the survivors all
> >jump ship the first chance they get?
> >
> >--
> >
>
> How do you know anything about management, building a business,
> platoons, war zones, or leadership? You are totally unqualifed for
> this conversation.
>
> Tim
If there's anyone unqualified to talk about leadership, it's you, TimJ.
In your sporadic lurches on to the TIAC staff list and to USENET, you've
proved yourself to be a bully, an fool, and frequently, a spoiled crybaby,
unwilling to listen to the suggestions of your competant engineers and
techs, and deciding to try and fix various problems (mail/news/Cisco
crashes) yourself. Generally, your efforts exacerbated problems, and then
you'd throw the newly worsened mess back at your engineers and go hide out.
When your subscribers voiced their concerns and angers, your "leadership"
(and that of your managers) has frequently been non-existant.
As for building a business, I will give you this. You've underpaid and
overworked your staff, and underbuilt your infrastructure and network
equipment, and saved a ton o' bucks. I guess that means you're a brilliant
businessman. Your sales projections are also brilliant, as you've been
able to keep your subscriber base growth rate remarkably consistent, as
they've grown to...let's guess...66,000? Of course, that's a lie, but as a
brilliant businessman, you know enough not to open your books to anyone.
Btw, when's the big TIAC IPO happening? I'm really curious to know how much
my (never-existing) stock options would have been worth had I stuck around.
Joe Provo
ti...@tiac.net (Timothy W. Jackson) sent me a love letter that read:
> That's a really good comeback. I'm sure that you thought a lot about
> my post by the way you simply chose to ridicule instead of challenging
> my assertions. Perhaps you would like to try again and answer my post
> and leave the garbage attacks at home.
You really haven't learned to read, have you? Here's a section of what
I wrote, with running notes so that anyone like youself who can't read
critically or who doesn't invest any time in reading can follow along:
> >>In my experience all the Ultranet Engineers should have their resumes
> >[snip]
> >Your experience pipe dreaming?
[what experience do you have with merger/accquisitions Tim, or is this
coming out of your ganja-haze?]
> >Whatever. It's funny to see you troll so blatantly -
> >you actually think you'll get UltraNet people
> >to respond to your wild statements to tell *you*, let alone a newsgroup
> >or two, details?
[you are spreading wild claims both for the FUD factor and to try and
get a rise out of someone who can spill any details which may not yet
be public. Don't expect that to happen.]
Next time, read closely. RSUC invests care into our flames to deliver
maximum punch-per-payload. It is called efficiency, Timmy; you might
want to learn about that word. You'll find you can even apply it in
this industry!
--
Joe Provo Russell Street UN*X Consultations
Network and Systems Architect 59 Fruit Street, Worcester, MA 01609
j...@rsuc.gweep.net 508-798-4985
Joe Provo
[other newgoups clipped]
[snip snip tim tim]
> [...] I want a decent debate about the significance of
> Ultranet's sell-out. Stop hiding.
Gee, Tim, and many of us have wanted a decent debate with you
about *anything* for years. Why should we satisfy you when you
haven't satisfied us?
No-one's hiding Tim, it is just fun to see you twisting and
squirming, looking for a toe^H^H^Hclaw-hold on this deal.
Timothy W. Jackson
Wow, you're right Geoff, you need these people around you. It's
obvious that they must love you very much. I have hit a nerve and
they have responded with venom. I am pleased that I get an
opportunity to see first hand the gutteral tones of at least some of
talent for which RCN paid you 27 Million. But then again, this may be
a way that you throw me off track from raiding Ultranet during the
confusion of the merger period. It kinda looks like a poison pill
defense. You parade out the crazy and damaged employees and hide the
really good ones. Geoff, you can keep this employee, but I would
still like to hire some of your good people that you won't be needing
anymore. Should I be expecting any more talented responses to my
assertions in the near future?
Tim
Joe Provo
ti...@tiac.net (Timothy W. Jackson) wrote:
> How do you know anything about management, building a business,
> platoons, war zones, or leadership? You are totally unqualifed for
> this conversation.
...and doing it poorly makes you qualified?
Timothy W. Jackson
Ed Lewis <edl...@REMOVE.shore.net> wrote:
>Timothy W. Jackson <ti...@tiac.net> wrote:
>| Ed Lewis <edl...@REMOVE.shore.net> wrote:
>
>|>Timothy W. Jackson <ti...@tiac.net> wrote:
>|>[...]
>|>| Not loosing a person to TIAC may have some benefit? But by your own
>|>| words, ULTRANET has been built by "quite a few ex-TIAC people" this
>|>| should make you wonder how we keep cranking out such good people. You
>|>| know, the kind of good people that would be attractive to aquiring
>|>| minds. I can keep building them, but are you going to keep hiring
>|>| them? Not if operations move south, like I believe.
>
>|>It's nice to see you take credit for "building them" Tim. However, one
>|>might realize that when you throw an untrained platoon into a war zone
>|>some of them are just going to blossom (and survive) on their own. Some of
>|>them will even become downright amazing on their own. Or would you give
>|>the Platoon Leader that sat on his boat in Martha's Vineyard the entire
>|>time all the credit? And then what would you say when the survivors all
>|>jump ship the first chance they get?
>
>| How do you know anything about management, building a business,
>| platoons, war zones, or leadership? You are totally unqualifed for
>| this conversation.
>
>It's really a rather simple topic, Tim. Thoguh I don't have an AS in
>Computer Technology so perhaps I am not qualified to discuss it.
>
>I'm sorry that you'd rather avoid the discussion than come up with a
>substantive response. Although, I must admit, I am not the least bit
>surprised.
>
>My point still stands.
>
What point? You don't have a point. All you have is some sort of
hate that nobody can understand. As an employee of TIAC you were not
mistreated or maligned, so what gives? Why do you come out here
throwing this crap around? What did I do to ever hurt you? TIAC is
very much a proving ground for those people that want to excell.
Based on the number of personnel (sp) with which TIAC has seeded the
Internet industry, I'd say we doing a damn good job of it. Ed, would
you please tell these people the last three jobs and salaries you had
before coming to TIAC. And you should also tell these people the Job
and salary you have now. From your perspective, you have to give the
devil his due.
Tim
Timothy W. Jackson
ran...@media1.net (Randy Williams) wrote:
>In article <34ca758b....@news-central.tiac.net>, ti...@tiac.net says...
>> >Ed Lewis <edl...@REMOVE.shore.net> wrote:
>> >It's nice to see you take credit for "building them" Tim. However, one
>> >might realize that when you throw an untrained platoon into a war zone
>> >some of them are just going to blossom (and survive) on their own. Some of
>> >them will even become downright amazing on their own. Or would you give
>> >the Platoon Leader that sat on his boat in Martha's Vineyard the entire
>> >time all the credit? And then what would you say when the survivors all
>> >jump ship the first chance they get?
>> >
>> >--
>> >
>>
>> How do you know anything about management, building a business,
>> platoons, war zones, or leadership? You are totally unqualifed for
>> this conversation.
>>
>> Tim
>
>If there's anyone unqualified to talk about leadership, it's you, TimJ.
>In your sporadic lurches on to the TIAC staff list and to USENET, you've
>proved yourself to be a bully, an fool, and frequently, a spoiled crybaby,
>unwilling to listen to the suggestions of your competant engineers and
>techs, and deciding to try and fix various problems (mail/news/Cisco
>crashes) yourself. Generally, your efforts exacerbated problems, and then
>you'd throw the newly worsened mess back at your engineers and go hide out.
>When your subscribers voiced their concerns and angers, your "leadership"
>(and that of your managers) has frequently been non-existant.
>
>As for building a business, I will give you this. You've underpaid and
>overworked your staff, and underbuilt your infrastructure and network
>equipment, and saved a ton o' bucks. I guess that means you're a brilliant
>businessman. Your sales projections are also brilliant, as you've been
>able to keep your subscriber base growth rate remarkably consistent, as
>they've grown to...let's guess...66,000? Of course, that's a lie, but as a
>brilliant businessman, you know enough not to open your books to anyone.
>
>Btw, when's the big TIAC IPO happening? I'm really curious to know how much
>my (never-existing) stock options would have been worth had I stuck around.
>
Ok, dude. You make the call...You should lay out the Randy Williams
plan for running TIAC. I would like to know what equipment you would
be buying right now. How much would you pay people, specifically.
What is the Radny Wiliams management philosophy? What exactly did
TIAC do wrong? Perhaps you can show me a thing or two.
Tim
BTW:I wouldn't sell TIAC right now. The options wouldn't amount to
much since the market is so down on Internet stocks.
da...@taic.net
c.net> <6af63k$a...@fridge.shore.net>
<34cb2e8e....@news-central.tiac.net>:
Distribution:
In tiac Timothy W. Jackson <ti...@tiac.net> wrote:
: throwing this crap around? What did I do to ever hurt you? TIAC is
: very much a proving ground for those people that want to excell.
Oh, is that how you explain the low wages?
Martin Hannigan
On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 03:30:45 GMT, caz@[ultra].[net] (caz) wrote:
>etc, etc. You're not an engineer, you're a tiny coiled turd in our
>collective proverbial martini
Oh dear. I hope that's shaken, not stirred.
Matt Magri
In article <34cb2b63....@news-central.tiac.net>,
>>Timmy's all-tiac got me thinking/polling:
>>
>>(have fun, all, flaming me for 'well, if you don't read USENET
>>regularly, you have no right to post'. yawn)
Nah, it's your own loss... ;-)
[ cas' engineer's perspective snipped (see DejaNews ;-) ) ]
>Wow, you're right Geoff, you need these people around you. It's
>obvious that they must love you very much. I have hit a nerve and
>they have responded with venom. I am pleased that I get an
>opportunity to see first hand the gutteral tones of at least some of
>talent for which RCN paid you 27 Million. [ ... ]
Hmmmm... I'm beginning to come around to the "sour grapes" point
of view that someone suggested earlier.
> [ ... ] But then again, this may be
>a way that you throw me off track from raiding Ultranet during the
>confusion of the merger period. [ ... ]
Once again, the Argument takes precedence over the Reality for him.
It's as if he thinks that if he can strike a pose effectively enough in
a Usenet post, the fact that people are, in Reality, laughing at his
offer will somehow go away. It may work in his own mind but, even then,
I can't imagine that the effect lasts very long.
He needs to face facts: unless the "confusion of the merger period"
involves head injuries, nobody's going to take him up on his offer.
At least he's honest enough to come right out and say that he's trying
to take advantage of a temporary period of "confusion". True, it would
have been more honest if he had described it as a period of "FUD" (which
he has been doing everything he can to spread), but we should be thankful
for what honesty we can get. What he seems to be saying is that even he
realizes that switching to TIAC won't be an attractive prospect once
employees get past the FUD period. All that's left for him to realize (on
this topic, at least ;-) ) is that it's not an attractive prospect even
-during- his FUD campaign.
> [ ... ] It kinda looks like a poison pill
>defense. You parade out the crazy and damaged employees and hide the
>really good ones. [ ... ]
A glimpse into how Tim thinks, I s'pose. With all of his mighty Usenet
defenses against Reality arrayed before him, he can't see past them and
realize that not everyone else thinks that way, too.
> [ ... ] Geoff, you can keep this employee, but I would
>still like to hire some of your good people that you won't be needing
>anymore. Should I be expecting any more talented responses to my
>assertions in the near future?
I have a feeling that Tim will be able to have his choice from among
the engineers that aren't laughing at (or shuddering at) his offer,
which is to say, none at all. As to whether he'll get any more posted
responses to his "assertions", that will probably depend on whether
he can be more creative in his responses to them. Currently all he
seems to do is demand that they post what they think and, whenever they
do, he dismisses them as unfit to have the inevitably negative opinion
they express. That gets old after a while.
Timothy W. Jackson
ma...@greatkhan.netmeg.net (Matt Magri) wrote:
>In article <34cb2b63....@news-central.tiac.net>,
>Timothy W. Jackson <ti...@tiac.net> wrote:
>>Wow, you're right Geoff, you need these people around you. It's
>>obvious that they must love you very much. I have hit a nerve and
>>they have responded with venom. I am pleased that I get an
>>opportunity to see first hand the gutteral tones of at least some of
>>talent for which RCN paid you 27 Million. [ ... ]
>
>Hmmmm... I'm beginning to come around to the "sour grapes" point
>of view that someone suggested earlier.
>
This isn't sour grapes at all. I have no reason to be jealous of
Geoff selling out to RCN. I see all of this change as a good thing
for TIAC since a fiesty competitor such as Ultranet is going to go
through changes that I see as destructive. Ultranet is going to loose
it's identity as it is merged with EROLS. EROLS was purchased for
it's sales and marketing and therfore I do believe there will be heavy
pressure to abandon or at least dimish the Ultranet name and convert
the Ultranet customer base to the Erols brand name or more likely,
RCN. You see RCN has spent a great deal of time and energy promoting
it's name and it's not going to let Ultranet as a name brand to
survive. Consolidation of brand names will help TIAC grab greater
market share since there will be less brands to choose from. I am
taking a little license here to poke fun at Geoff's absurd remark that
RCN paid 27 Million Dollars for the talent that has clearly
demonstrated itself poorly in this debate.
>> [ ... ] But then again, this may be
>>a way that you throw me off track from raiding Ultranet during the
>>confusion of the merger period. [ ... ]
>
>Once again, the Argument takes precedence over the Reality for him.
>It's as if he thinks that if he can strike a pose effectively enough in
>a Usenet post, the fact that people are, in Reality, laughing at his
>offer will somehow go away. It may work in his own mind but, even then,
>I can't imagine that the effect lasts very long.
I imagine there are several people who are employed at Ultranet that
may take comfort in mocking my assertions, but these people are going
to be in for a shock as the culture at Ultranet starts to change. One
thing for sure is that change is inevitable especially with all the
new forces at work that Geoff has invited.
>
>He needs to face facts: unless the "confusion of the merger period"
>involves head injuries, nobody's going to take him up on his offer.
That's a very bold statement. To say that nobody is going to be a
victim of the dynamics of a merger and that none of these victims
would take a job at TIAC is outrageous. What possible incentive does
an ex-employee of Ultranet have to avoid an offer of employement from
TIAC? (I'm sure you'll think of something).
>At least he's honest enough to come right out and say that he's trying
>to take advantage of a temporary period of "confusion". True, it would
>have been more honest if he had described it as a period of "FUD" (which
>he has been doing everything he can to spread), but we should be thankful
>for what honesty we can get. What he seems to be saying is that even he
>realizes that switching to TIAC won't be an attractive prospect once
>employees get past the FUD period. All that's left for him to realize (on
>this topic, at least ;-) ) is that it's not an attractive prospect even
>-during- his FUD campaign.
>
Ok, I'll admit it....I have no idea what FUD stands for.
How am I saying that TIAC is not an attractive prospect? My basis for
this argument is that TIAC is an attractive prospect. Your
accusations make no sense.
>> [ ... ] It kinda looks like a poison pill
>>defense. You parade out the crazy and damaged employees and hide the
>>really good ones. [ ... ]
>
>A glimpse into how Tim thinks, I s'pose. With all of his mighty Usenet
>defenses against Reality arrayed before him, he can't see past them and
>realize that not everyone else thinks that way, too.
I appreciate you characterization of my defenses as mighty. I not
sure you meant it that way, but I take some pleasure in pointing it
out to you anyways.
>
>> [ ... ] Geoff, you can keep this employee, but I would
>>still like to hire some of your good people that you won't be needing
>>anymore. Should I be expecting any more talented responses to my
>>assertions in the near future?
>
>I have a feeling that Tim will be able to have his choice from among
>the engineers that aren't laughing at (or shuddering at) his offer,
>which is to say, none at all. As to whether he'll get any more posted
>responses to his "assertions", that will probably depend on whether
>he can be more creative in his responses to them. Currently all he
>seems to do is demand that they post what they think and, whenever they
>do, he dismisses them as unfit to have the inevitably negative opinion
>they express. That gets old after a while.
>
I'm not sure I need the engineering types that have displayed their
intellectual wares in this debate, but I would like to take a crack at
the Managers, Accountants, Marketing and Sales types. Besides there
is a great deal of fun in asking one's detractors who engage in
negative opinionism to post real ideas and then expose them for not
even having the brains they were born with. Payback is a bitch.
Tim
Stephen Pohl
I'll jump in here...
"FUD" Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. An IBM way of doing business for years.
In article <34cb7e2e....@news-central.tiac.net>, ti...@tiac.net (Timothy
da...@taic.net
In tiac Timothy W. Jackson <ti...@tiac.net> wrote:
: for TIAC since a fiesty competitor such as Ultranet is going to go
: through changes that I see as destructive. Ultranet is going to loose
: it's identity as it is merged with EROLS. EROLS was purchased for
: it's sales and marketing and therfore I do believe there will be heavy
Tim, didn't I just tell you the difference between "lose" and
"loose"? Also, here's a new one:
it's= it is
its= belonging to it.
P.S. As long as you are reading this (Normally, you are harder to
find than Clinton when things go bad) can you do something about shell1? I
type a key, and the system pauses, freezes, and 10 seconds later decides
to echo back the character.
da...@taic.net
In tiac Timothy W. Jackson <ti...@tiac.net> wrote:
: What possible incentive does
: an ex-employee of Ultranet have to avoid an offer of employement from
: TIAC? (I'm sure you'll think of something).
I'll take a shot at it:
1) Self-respect
2) A desire to work for a boss that does not malign the employee
(Don't deny it, Tim. I'll go to Dejanews and dig out some of
your earlier messages in which you malign some departed
employees and state that you had to go into there yourself
to fix the mess)
3) Wages.
Randy Williams
In article <34cb32e3....@news-central.tiac.net>, ti...@tiac.net says...
Amongst the choices I would make that would've helped (and might help, in the
future) to keep TIAC's subscribers and staff around:
1) Increase in salaries for your entire staff, on a legitimate and fair scale:
What this means is not start them all out at flat figures, and make unpaid
overtime (for your Ops folks) a necessity. 25k is perfectly reasonable, if OT is
included. In that case, all of the additional work you've called for (to
paraphrase a past demand of yours: "work all weekend building Linux machines til
your fingers bleed") would provide the additional benefit of actually being
_paid_ to do extra work. I know this is a hard concept for you to swallow, but
it's pretty standard. For CS folks, provide them with commissions for the sales
they make over the phone. You'd be surprised at how many more sales you'd make,
and how much more people would work to keep em around.
2) Standard benefits package: Rather than throwing $2500 bucks per year at an
employee who gets his/her own health insurance to help pay for it, buy into a
full-time health insurance plan. It will save your employees money, and it will
cost you some to your bottom line, but it will also be a welcome benefit and
will make TIAC more competitive in keeping and attracting employees.
3) Operational expenses: there's a few, so let's list em out:
a) an actual phone system, with emergency status messages for folks waiting on
hold. You'll be surprised at the number of folks who will (*gasp*) hang up with
the knowledge they were looking for, that a given POP or service is down or
experiencing problems. After all, you've done the same thing on the TIAC web
page, but that won't help much when a person loses his/her link to actually get
to that page.
b) A system of on-site available cold spares for the mail and news machines, the
big Cisco, and all peripherals (i.e. interface cards) would be extremely helpful
too, allowing you to repair broken or mis-configured hardware offline or in a
separate mirrored environment, and not effecting your customers with downtime.
c) I'd suggest getting a frac-T3 from another tier 1 provider to split up your
bandwidth costs between the 2, and allowing each line to be the failover for the
other. Of course, you've already limited yourself by swearing up and down you'll
never buy a line from GTEI (my current employers), because you'd never sink to
being supported by your former employees (witness your nastiness in dissing
XCom).
Frankly, I've never run an ISP, so I'm sure there are a million things I've
forgotten and would never have thought of, unless I had bright advisors and
managers to help me out. However, since you hired the management, I'd have to
leave it up to you to decide whether or not they are worth the bucks you're
paying them. I dunno though. Having listened to the various geniuses you hired,
I can't believe you're a great, intuitive executive. You're just a lucky one
sometimes.
RW
Matt Magri
In article <34cb7e2e....@news-central.tiac.net>,
ti...@tiac.net (Timothy W. Jackson) wrote:
>ma...@greatkhan.netmeg.net (Matt Magri) wrote:
>>involves head injuries, nobody's going to take him up on his offer.
>
>That's a very bold statement. To say that nobody is going to be a
As a matter of fact, in a previous post, I agreed with your suggestion
that they make sure they have their resumes in order. There's no harm in
being prepared in case things don't work out. I don't think any of my
posts on the subject have presented the notion that mergers are fun.
Which brings us to what I actually said...
> [ ... ] and that none of these victims
>would take a job at TIAC is outrageous. What possible incentive does
>an ex-employee of Ultranet have to avoid an offer of employement from
>TIAC? (I'm sure you'll think of something).
Actually, no need for me to reinvent the wheel. A number of other posters
have already pointed to wages, benefits, and an unpleasant work environment
as reasons why the UltraNet engineers wouldn't go to TIAC. Seems like pretty
basic stuff. TIAC seems to serve the same role in "building" techs that AOL
does in "building" Internet users. Folks get their feet wet on AOL and, if
want actual Internet access, they move on to an ISP. If their ISP turned
crufty, they'd go to another ISP, not AOL. IOW, I'm not saying UltraNet
engineers won't leave UltraNet if they perceive it to be in their best
interests, just that they won't perceive it to be in their best interests
to go to TIAC if they do leave.
>Ok, I'll admit it....I have no idea what FUD stands for.
As someone else pointed out, Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. It entered the
computerese lexicon when IBM started spreading FUD to try to stem the
flow of customers to new hardware and OSes. They would present a lot of
what-ifs about how things might not work on the other platforms, but there
was no actual evidence. They were just engaging in self-serving and
uniformly negative speculation to try and infect their customers with
FUD.
>How am I saying that TIAC is not an attractive prospect? My basis for
>this argument is that TIAC is an attractive prospect. Your
>accusations make no sense.
It was a nit based on how you said you were taking advantage of a period
of confusion to attract employees. If it was actually more attractive on
a objective analysis, it wouldn't require confusion to convince people.
Also, if it was actually more attractive than working for the merged
entity, then it would be especially attractive -after- the period of
confusion rather than during it.
Why do you think TIAC would be a more attractive prospect for the UltraNet
engineers than, for example, Shore, World, etc.?
>>A glimpse into how Tim thinks, I s'pose. With all of his mighty Usenet
>>defenses against Reality arrayed before him, he can't see past them and
>>realize that not everyone else thinks that way, too.
>
>I appreciate you characterization of my defenses as mighty. I not
>sure you meant it that way, but I take some pleasure in pointing it
>out to you anyways.
Actually, I do think you have mighty defenses against Reality. That's all
that I can imagine would justify some of the statements you have made.
I'm not sure why you would consider that a compliment, but you are welcome
to it. I am not one of those who views you as a total idiot, etc. which
is, I suppose, why I view your posts with such dismay.
>>I have a feeling that Tim will be able to have his choice from among
>>the engineers that aren't laughing at (or shuddering at) his offer,
>>which is to say, none at all. As to whether he'll get any more posted
>>responses to his "assertions", that will probably depend on whether
>>he can be more creative in his responses to them. Currently all he
>>seems to do is demand that they post what they think and, whenever they
>>do, he dismisses them as unfit to have the inevitably negative opinion
>>they express. That gets old after a while.
>
>I'm not sure I need the engineering types that have displayed their
>intellectual wares in this debate, but I would like to take a crack at
>the Managers, Accountants, Marketing and Sales types. [ ... ]
Now -that- is a totally different matter. I have no idea what the
market is for Managers, Accountants, Marketing and Sales types and no
real understanding of what their temperament might be. If there's
anyone out there who has worked for TIAC in one of those capacities
in the past, they could probably give us an idea of whether they
enjoyed it or not, etc. and whether the market is such that they would
return.
> [ ... ] Besides there
>is a great deal of fun in asking one's detractors who engage in
>negative opinionism to post real ideas and then expose them for not
>even having the brains they were born with. Payback is a bitch.
Hm... as an outside observer I would have to say that's not the idea
that's coming across.
Ed Lewis
Timothy W. Jackson <ti...@tiac.net> wrote:
| What point? You don't have a point. All you have is some sort of
| hate that nobody can understand. As an employee of TIAC you were not
| mistreated or maligned, so what gives? Why do you come out here
| throwing this crap around? What did I do to ever hurt you?
What does the way TIAC treated me when I was employed there have to do
with your comments regarding "raiding" Ultranet, and in general RCN and
Erols? Let it be said here and now, Tim Jackson never did anything to
hurt me. That still has no bearing on the questions that were posed.
| TIAC is
| very much a proving ground for those people that want to excell.
Agreed. Although I am not convinced it originally started out that way by
design.
| Based on the number of personnel (sp) with which TIAC has seeded the
| Internet industry, I'd say we doing a damn good job of it.
Absolutely. However, the number of decent experienced employees TIAC turns
out in no way benefits TIAC's customers. Isn't that TIAC's main concern?
Service to it's customers? One might even postulate that the extremely
high turnover rate at TIAC is damaging to TIAC's customers. It's not
terribly farfetched.
| Ed, would
| you please tell these people the last three jobs and salaries you had
| before coming to TIAC.
I won't go into those details. I suspect your point is that working for
TIAC had a positive influence on my career, which I will stipulate without
reference to salaries and jobs.
I would be very glad, however, to go into details regarding who at TIAC I
owe for the positive influence. At the top of the list would be Pete
Davis, Brian Deardorff, and Ed Baker. Your hand in it was only incidental,
Tim. If you were even aware of it at all.
| And you should also tell these people the Job
| and salary you have now. From your perspective, you have to give the
| devil his due.
Almost three times my TIAC salary when I left in March 1997. Again, most
of the credit goes to myself, Pete, Brian, and Ed. Or one could simply
attribute it to the luck of the job market these days ;)
Ed Lewis
Timothy W. Jackson <ti...@tiac.net> wrote:
| Ok, dude. You make the call...You should lay out the Randy Williams
| plan for running TIAC. I would like to know what equipment you would
| be buying right now. How much would you pay people, specifically.
| What is the Radny Wiliams management philosophy? What exactly did
| TIAC do wrong? Perhaps you can show me a thing or two.
Would you like that in the form of a 60 page formal business plan and how
much are you going to pay Randy for the business advice?
| BTW:I wouldn't sell TIAC right now. The options wouldn't amount to
| much since the market is so down on Internet stocks.
Overall 1997 was an excellent year for internet stocks and stocks in
general. There were many periods of 1996 that were as well. I sold my TIAC
stock options to a fellow employee in March 1997 for $1. I think he got
the rough end of the deal.
Timothy W. Jackson
ran...@media1.net (Randy Williams) wrote:
>In article <34cb32e3....@news-central.tiac.net>, ti...@tiac.net says...
>> ran...@media1.net (Randy Williams) wrote:
>>
[Snip]
Ok I did some rough math and you have increased the monthly expenses
by about $80,000 per month. Your cash flow from operations is about
the same so you are breaking even with no cushion. You capital
expenditures are increasing debt and your equity improvements are
standing still. This causes your debt to equity ratio to increase and
that's bad. The financial institutions expect that the debt to equity
is around 4 to 1. In other words, your operation is going to blow up.
Tim
Martin Hannigan
On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 18:40:39 GMT, ti...@tiac.net (Timothy W. Jackson)
wrote:
>ma...@greatkhan.netmeg.net (Matt Magri) wrote:
>
>>In article <34cb2b63....@news-central.tiac.net>,
>>Timothy W. Jackson <ti...@tiac.net> wrote:
>
[ snip ]
>This isn't sour grapes at all. I have no reason to be jealous of
>Geoff selling out to RCN. I see all of this change as a good thing
Verio.
>for TIAC since a fiesty competitor such as Ultranet is going to go
>through changes that I see as destructive. Ultranet is going to loose
Do you mean "lose"?
>it's identity as it is merged with EROLS. EROLS was purchased for
>it's sales and marketing and therfore I do believe there will be heavy
So now you agree with Geoff? Interesting um, backpedal?
>pressure to abandon or at least dimish the Ultranet name and convert
>the Ultranet customer base to the Erols brand name or more likely,
This is possible.
>RCN paid 27 Million Dollars for the talent that has clearly
>demonstrated itself poorly in this debate.
Poorly? Perhaps you haven't received the message..
No one at UltraNet wants to work for you.
Don't you get it, Tim?
Now, I can not as a vendor say "Hey! Party over HERE!!!!", but I can
say that I would sure as hell HOPE that anyone from UltraNet, and vice
versa XCOM, if such an untenable situation arose, would at least
contact the respective parties.
I mean, we are currently the Packers of the CLEC world, [ oh man I
hope they win ] and this is far more interesting than working at TIAC.
But in a very serious tone, I would advise UN employees to sit
tight and see exactly what happens. I personally see it as a large
opportunity to grow, vs an oportunity to get screwed. If the latter
happened, I'd be very very surprised. I've been through this twice
myself and it's not in the best interest of the employer to lie. They
generally have no reason to anyhow, and since there are 3 companies
involved, they *know* there would be leaks. Kind of like TIAC's
leaks.
Hang in here despite Tim Jackson rabble rousing. UN is a fine
place to work.
Regards,
--
Martin Hannigan hann...@xcom.net
Director - Network Operations V:617.500.0108
XCOM Technologies, INC. F:617.500.0002
The Leading Carrier for ISPs. http://www.xcom.net
joe tomkowitz
In article <6ag8bk$e...@fridge.shore.net>, edl...@REMOVE.shore.net
says...
> I would be very glad, however, to go into details regarding who at TIAC I
> owe for the positive influence. At the top of the list would be Pete
> Davis, Brian Deardorff, and Ed Baker. Your hand in it was only incidental,
> Tim. If you were even aware of it at all.
Did thoes people spontaneously generate in offices at TIAC one day?
Even if so, you have to give tim credit for chaining them to their
desks so that they could just happen to be there for you.
-joet
joe tomkowitz
In article <34cbbbec....@news.ma.ultra.net>, hann...@xcom.net
says...
> But in a very serious tone, I would advise UN employees to sit
> tight and see exactly what happens. I personally see it as a large
> opportunity to grow, vs an oportunity to get screwed. If the latter
> happened, I'd be very very surprised. I've been through this twice
> myself and it's not in the best interest of the employer to lie.
I have yet to be involved in any merger/consolidation/move where what
ended up was even remotely similar to what was promised in the pep
talks given the troops while it was going down.
When DEC's SDC moved from Northboro to Westminster, the plant manager
swore to god (and I know it to be true because I was the one who asked
him to do it in a full site meeting) that he'd be going along to lead
us in the new place. Never saw him again after the last truck pulled
out of the old site. His replacement was an asshole, to boot.
What traditionally happens is that everyone is placated right up until
the moment that the people who were targeted all along are ditched and
the real new structure is announced. It's cherry picking, pure and
simple. What better time to make massive changes in personnel and to
the corporate culture than when a whole slew of unknown people are
coming in?
Afterward, the rationale for lying is ALWAYS "morale", but I suspect
it's really that they don't want the losers' bad attitudes affecting
the winners and disrupting the transition.
If Erol's is buying Ultranet with the mindset of carefully preserving
each and every job and nurturing each and every employee to help them
reach their full potential, it would be the first time in history that
this has happened. I'd be very surprised if there were more than a
dozen individuals discussed beyond job codes, body counts, and total
departmental costs.
-joet
Rich Sena
> I mean, we are currently the Packers of the CLEC world, [ oh man I
> hope they win ] and this is far more interesting than working at TIAC.
MUHAHWHAHAHWHAHWH - HEH AFC!
-----
\\\\\\\\\\========================================[\
>>>>>>>| Rich Sena - r...@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net }>
//////////========================================[/
Randy Williams
In article <34cbb539....@news-central.tiac.net>, ti...@tiac.net says...
> Ok I did some rough math and you have increased the monthly expenses
> by about $80,000 per month. Your cash flow from operations is about
> the same so you are breaking even with no cushion. You capital
> expenditures are increasing debt and your equity improvements are
> standing still. This causes your debt to equity ratio to increase and
> that's bad. The financial institutions expect that the debt to equity
> is around 4 to 1. In other words, your operation is going to blow up.
>
>
> Tim
I would also expect that with these additional incurred expenses, I would be
able to increase my rent roll in monthly customers by having an operation that
actually does what it's supposed to: provide dialup subscribers with 24-7
Internet access, with 24-7 tech support and operational staffing, and fault-
tolerent systems. Pretty interesting concept, eh?
What Tim is now pointing out is that he is unwilling to shell out for the type
of services that TIAC's higher price should allow, and that the necessary
expenditures to grab ahold of a major piece of market share don't mean much. He
apparently believes that he'll underspend on his network and staff, and then be
around to clean up when the other ISPs go under. Of course, since people are
joining TIAC and then leaving with a sour taste in their mouths, so I'd call his
plan foolish.
Again, all this is IMHO. The market will decide who wins out.
Gary McMeekin
Apologies, but I don't see the "name calling" in the text YOU quoted below??
Gary
MartyB wrote in message
<01bd2a0b$5d9080c0$6241...@MartysLap.ma.ultranet.com>...
>[cross-posted newsgroups deleted.]
>
>Steve ŦÆŧ <ten.ru...@A.com> wrote in article
><34e3f1fd....@news.ultranet.com>...
>| X-No-Archive: yes
>|
>|
>| In the ne.internet.services Newsgroup
>| On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 19:38:34 -0500, jo...@jtcs.net (joe tomkowitz)
>| wrote:
>|
>| <snip>
>| >If Erol's is buying Ultranet with the mindset of carefully preserving
>| >each and every job and nurturing each and every employee to help them
>| >reach their full potential, it would be the first time in history that
>| >this has happened. I'd be very surprised if there were more than a
>| >dozen individuals discussed beyond job codes, body counts, and total
>| >departmental costs.
>|
>| Ah, Joe RCN bought ultranet, not Erols .
>|
>| >
>| >-joet
>
>I fail to see the need for this childish name calling. But, if you
>insist on behaving this way, could you at least keep this out
>of the "ultranet.general" newsgroup?
>--
>MartyB
>
Charles Demas
In article <MPG.f359a05b...@snews.zippo.com>,
It is one of the sad facts that Pete Davis and Brian Deardorff are
no longer at TIAC.
I am probably not alone in feeling that TIAC's past good system
performance was in no small part due to these people. IMO, their
leaving was the start of the deterioration of TIAC's system
performance, as judged from the user's point of view.
That Tim did not find a way to keep them at TIAC, was a major
management mistake, IMO. TIAC has seen too many good people grow
and leave.
I know little about how this latest news upgrade could have been
implemented, but surely there must have been some way to add disks
such that the news performance would not be affected for a week.
It is very frustrating as a customer to post an article and not
see it show up for 18 hours.
To my mind, this shows a lack of good engineering. It may be the
fastest way to get the task done, but that does not mean that it is
the best way to do it, particularly as TIAC is supposed to be in the
business of providing service. They seem to keep forgetting this. :~(
Chuck Demas
Needham, Mass.
--
Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
de...@tiac.net | \___/ | http://www.tiac.net/users/demas
MartyB
Timothy W. Jackson
hann...@xcom.net (Martin Hannigan) wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 18:40:39 GMT, ti...@tiac.net (Timothy W. Jackson)
>wrote:
>
>
>I mean, we are currently the Packers of the CLEC world, [ oh man I
>hope they win ] and this is far more interesting than working at TIAC.
This probably means that TIAC is the Denver Broncos.
Tim
MegaZone
mega...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net (MegaZone) shaped the electrons to say:
>Chris, even ISPs in California I know have heard of TIAC and laugh.
Supposed to be Christ, as an exclamation. Realized the drpped 't' could
be confusing.
-MZ
--
<URL:mailto:mega...@livingston.com> Gweep, author, webmaster, human being, me
<URL:mailto:mega...@megazone.org> H:510-527-0944 W:800-458-9966 510-426-0770
<URL:mailto:mega...@gweep.net> <URL:http://www.megazone.org/> Hail Discordia!
MegaZone
ti...@tiac.net (Timothy W. Jackson) shaped the electrons to say:
>This probably means that TIAC is the Denver Broncos.
TIAC wouldn't even make it to the playoffs.
MegaZone
ti...@tiac.net (Timothy W. Jackson) shaped the electrons to say:
>my assertions. Perhaps you would like to try again and answer my post
>and leave the garbage attacks at home.
Really it is just that you are too much of a loser to take seriously.
You're a laughing stock in the industry, and 'TIAC' is synonymous with
'shitty provider'. Haven't you realized it yet?
Chris, even ISPs in California I know have heard of TIAC and laugh.
-MZ
joe tomkowitz
In article <MPLANET.34cc07...@news.ne.mediaone.net>,
ran...@media1.net says...
> In article <34cbb539....@news-central.tiac.net>,
> ti...@tiac.net says...
>
> > Ok I did some rough math and you have increased the monthly expenses
> > by about $80,000 per month. Your cash flow from operations is about
> > the same so you are breaking even with no cushion. You capital
> > expenditures are increasing debt and your equity improvements are
> > standing still. This causes your debt to equity ratio to increase and
> > that's bad. The financial institutions expect that the debt to equity
> > is around 4 to 1. In other words, your operation is going to blow up.
> >
> >
> > Tim
>
> I would also expect that with these additional incurred expenses, I would
> Internet access, with 24-7 tech support and operational staffing, and fault-
> tolerent systems. Pretty interesting concept, eh?
More like wishful thinking. And that will get you into trouble deeper
than you can imagine.
How's this for a simple business model:
When you spend more money you absolutely have to make even more money
back or else you lose money.
Your idealistic "quality at any cost" ideas ignore many realities in
the business world. The 80-20 rule is what would probably kill you in
your scenario. In terms of both spending and expectations it's a
really good rule. Trying to achieve, or even approach perfection in
world unfailingly best described by a normal distribution is
business suicide.
It just occurred to me that the number of TIAC customers who
desperately care about what you propose to spend close to $1M/year on
is probably about equal to the number who signed up with a credit
card, never use the Internet, and don't bother to call up to cancel.
Most (and that's a VERY large number of people) are apparently
perfectly happy with TIAC's price/performance. As the market changes,
successful businesses will adapt, invariably making incremental
changes.
As I wrote a long time ago, find 100 people who will give me
$1,000/month and I'll provide them with the most badass X2 dialup
connections you could imagine. Everyone who read that made a decision
not to take me up on it based on cost vs. the value of what they'd get
in return. Thousands and thousands of TIAC customers make the
decision the other way every day.
Besides your apparently failed personal expectation of TIAC's level of
service, I don't see what the problem is here.
-joet
Solipsist Nation
In article <6a8mdi$a...@snews1.zippo.com>,
Roger Williams <rog...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
>
> I wonder if this affects their deployment date for cable modem access?
>So far, RCN has been incredibly vague on the specifics of their
>planned cable TV/cable modem service...
Might go quicker now that they have an ISP in hand. 8)
Josh
wire me up!
--
...said it was heaven just to breathe your air Severed Heads
J. Brandt - mu...@sidehack.gweep.net
Solipsist Nation
In article <34c8c192....@news.tiac.net>,
Lynn Reilly Jackson <ly...@tiac.net> wrote:
>In my experience all the Ultranet Engineers should have their resumes
>ready.
RCN bought UltraNet for the engineering staff. They bought Erols for
their advertising.
> It would have been appropriate for Jeff Shultz to have
>negotiated a role for engineering, but I doubt any obligation to
>continue this paradigm would have been included in the closing
>documents. What I don't understand is how Ultranet, with it's 32,000
>customer base experience is going to be able to jump up and do 325,000
>customers.
Plans are in place. Funny to see an ISP planning ahead for such things,
isn't it? You might take a look at how that works.
> Now, in case
>anyone is unclear as to why I care about whether Ultranet employees
>are employed for even a minute longer is that I would like to recruit
>some of the Ultranet talent to work at TIAC since TIAC is a far better
>job match than the one that is being played out in this merger. Think
>about it.
Sorry, Timbo. You've already pissed off all of the available _good_
networking people in the area. And since everyone knows what a fuck you are
to work with, it's unlikely that any of the UltraNet people will take the
massive step down and start wallowing in the cesspit you call TIAC.
Hell, I know I wouldn't.
Josh
Martin Hannigan
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 03:30:43 GMT, ti...@tiac.net (Timothy W. Jackson)
wrote:
>hann...@xcom.net (Martin Hannigan) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 18:40:39 GMT, ti...@tiac.net (Timothy W. Jackson)
>>wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>I mean, we are currently the Packers of the CLEC world, [ oh man I
>>hope they win ] and this is far more interesting than working at TIAC.
>
>
>This probably means that TIAC is the Denver Broncos.
Actually, I was thinking TIAC was double A farm team.
Damn those Broncos.
Martin Hannigan
On 26 Jan 1998 05:03:40 GMT, Roger Williams <rog...@shell1.tiac.net>
wrote:
>Martin Hannigan <hann...@xcom.net> wrote:
>
>> I mean, we are currently the Packers of the CLEC world
>
> Indeed?
Uh er ugh I mean Broncos. Yeah, that's it.
[ peeling out a few hundred to the bookie ]
Martin Hannigan
On 26 Jan 1998 02:17:21 GMT, de...@tiac.net (Charles Demas) wrote:
>In article <MPG.f359a05b...@snews.zippo.com>,
>joe tomkowitz <jo...@jtcs.net> wrote:
>>In article <6ag8bk$e...@fridge.shore.net>, edl...@REMOVE.shore.net
>>says...
>>
[ snip ]
>I know little about how this latest news upgrade could have been
>implemented, but surely there must have been some way to add disks
>such that the news performance would not be affected for a week.
Absolutely. I'm not talking about TIAC, I'm talking about serious
Unix hardware in general. It is usually trivial to add more
disk, unless you don't a) know what you're doing since
doing it is not trivial i.e. I wouldn't give it to someone who
doesn't know the hardware inside and out or b) you buy the
damned cheapest junk disk around.
TIAC has excellent hardware for news, and Tim does know a
lot about news.
>It is very frustrating as a customer to post an article and not
>see it show up for 18 hours.
It happens from time to time. It's great they're upgrading.
Give them a chance to work it out.
>To my mind, this shows a lack of good engineering. It may be the
>fastest way to get the task done, but that does not mean that it is
>the best way to do it, particularly as TIAC is supposed to be in the
>business of providing service. They seem to keep forgetting this. :~(
I don't know anout that, but I can say that planning is everything.
MegaZone
ly...@tiac.net (Lynn Reilly Jackson) shaped the electrons to say:
>anyone is unclear as to why I care about whether Ultranet employees
>are employed for even a minute longer is that I would like to recruit
>some of the Ultranet talent to work at TIAC since TIAC is a far better
>job match than the one that is being played out in this merger. Think
>about it.
Anyone who is any good would never work for you Tim - at least not for
long. Having worked with some of your engineers on your network in
the past I can't blame them.
BBN aka GTE is on a hiring binge for good Internet engineers, and anyone
decent could make far more money in far better conditions than working
for you. I know people who worked for you.
MegaZone
"Sandy Culver" <scu...@bbn.com> shaped the electrons to say:
>Since the subject has changed ever so gracefully to jobs, I'd like to
>add that a reasonably-sized ISP in Cambridge, MA has a few openings,
>too. See http://www.bbn.com/bbnjobs/jobsrch.htm for a WAIS keyword
>searchable jobs site.
I was wondering if you were around for this. :-)
-MZ, starting at BBN/GTE next month.
Roger Williams
Martin Hannigan <hann...@xcom.net> wrote:
> I mean, we are currently the Packers of the CLEC world
Indeed?
--
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} \|/
{} Roger W. rog...@super.zippo.com {} 0< --alt.usenet.kooks!
{} http://www.parrot.net ad...@parrot.net {} ^^^^(*)^^^^
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} ^^ / \ ^^
Solipsist Nation
In article <34ca000f....@news-central.tiac.net>,
Timothy W. Jackson <ti...@tiac.net> wrote:
>
>Come on, stop the crap and answer the post. Your post is very
>childish and I want a decent debate about the significance of
>Ultranet's sell-out.
Do you really? Then start one and continue it without your usual, uh,
posting "style."
> Stop hiding.
Sure thing, "Lynn."
Solipsist Nation
In article <6aatdt$ogo$1...@news.netmeg.net>,
Matt Magri <ma...@greatkhan.netmeg.net> wrote:
>still plenty of plankton left even then. Is the minnow the natural
>enemy of the whale or something?
Aw, man, I just snarfed my water.
Josh
"Gymkata!"
Solipsist Nation
In article <6ab9qg$j88$1...@kali.ziplink.net>,
Chris Jenkins <cjen...@ziplink.nt> wrote:
>Lowell Gray wrote in message <6ab2bj$1...@shell2.shore.net>...
>>In article <34c8c192....@news.tiac.net>,
>>To all UltraNet employees: Shore.Net is hiring. We'd love to talk.
>>- Lowell
>
>We will throw our hat in the Ultranet hiring binge as well however not sure
>I
[...]
>Chris Jenkins
>Ziplink
Emulating TimJ? My oh my.
Josh
Solipsist Nation
In article <34cb2b63....@news-central.tiac.net>,
Timothy W. Jackson <ti...@tiac.net> wrote:
>
>Wow, you're right Geoff, you need these people around you. It's
>obvious that they must love you very much. I have hit a nerve and
>they have responded with venom. I am pleased that I get an
It was still more civil than what you tend to post.
>opportunity to see first hand the gutteral tones of at least some of
>talent for which RCN paid you 27 Million.
It was still more literate than what you tend to post.
> But then again, this may be
>a way that you throw me off track from raiding Ultranet during the
>confusion of the merger period. It kinda looks like a poison pill
>defense. You parade out the crazy and damaged employees and hide the
>really good ones. Geoff, you can keep this employee, but I would
>still like to hire some of your good people that you won't be needing
>anymore. Should I be expecting any more talented responses to my
>assertions in the near future?
Tim-- I hate to say this, but from everything I've read of your postings and
your internal memos and from what you said when you were on TV a year or so
back, you're a stupid, stupid man.
Sorry.
Josh
well, no I'm not.
Solipsist Nation
In article <34cb7e2e....@news-central.tiac.net>,
Timothy W. Jackson <ti...@tiac.net> wrote:
>This isn't sour grapes at all. I have no reason to be jealous of
>Geoff selling out to RCN.
Sure you do. He made a fuckload of money, and you didn't.
Doesn't that just gnaw at your gut? You can deny it publically if you want,
be we know it's true, and we're pitying you even as we mock.
>taking a little license here to poke fun at Geoff's absurd remark that
>RCN paid 27 Million Dollars for the talent that has clearly
>demonstrated itself poorly in this debate.
They did. Trust me on this one.
>That's a very bold statement. To say that nobody is going to be a
>victim of the dynamics of a merger and that none of these victims
>would take a job at TIAC is outrageous. What possible incentive does
>an ex-employee of Ultranet have to avoid an offer of employement from
>TIAC? (I'm sure you'll think of something).
TIAC is a horrible place to work. This information comes directly from many
of your ex-employees who have said as much after bailing out of your
personal little hell.
Leading Edge in the last days of its existence would be better than TIAC now.
>How am I saying that TIAC is not an attractive prospect? My basis for
>this argument is that TIAC is an attractive prospect. Your
>accusations make no sense.
TIAC is not an attractive prospect.
Q: "Would you like to work at TIAC, or would you rather have a nail pounded
through your hand?"
A: "What kind of nail?"
Or, more succintly: "TIAC: It's marginally better than a sharp stick in the
eye."
>I appreciate you characterization of my defenses as mighty. I not
>sure you meant it that way, but I take some pleasure in pointing it
>out to you anyways.
I realize that sarcasm can be subtle, but do _try_, won't you? Look it up if
you're not sure what I mean.
>even having the brains they were born with. Payback is a bitch.
You'd know, wouldn't you?
And hey, how did that expansion into NYC go? That was certainly a marvel of
good planning.
Josh
Solipsist Nation
In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.980125...@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net>,
Rich Sena <r...@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net> wrote:
>> I mean, we are currently the Packers of the CLEC world, [ oh man I
>> hope they win ] and this is far more interesting than working at TIAC.
>
>MUHAHWHAHAHWHAHWH - HEH AFC!
>
>-----
>
>\\\\\\\\\\========================================[\
> >>>>>>>| Rich Sena - r...@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net }>
>//////////========================================[/
>
Wow, Rich Sena is still around?
Let me see... Two lines of quote and one line of new material. Not at all a
good ratio, there, Richy-boy. And since the actual new material is pretty
much completely incomprehensible, I think it's safe to say that this post is
utterly useless.
Above the .sig, we find five hyphens-- this is a trifle non-standard. You
might swap that for "-- " (the space is there for a reason). But this is
only if you want to be standard, not if you want to continue being a wanker.
After that: a line of whitespace. Why? Why not?
Then, a giant ASCII penis. I can't see why this would be allowed in the .sig
of a TIAC employee-- does the management not care that their employees are
disseminating pornography of the crudest type at the end of every post?
Finally, another wasted line of whitespace. Once you've wasted one, you
might as well go for another.
In summary: You're a loser. Hang your head in shame.
Solipsist Nation
In article <34ca21bc....@news-central.tiac.net>,
Timothy W. Jackson <ti...@tiac.net> wrote:
>Oh come on. RCN paid 27 Million for something more than engineering
>talent.
It's called "a team" and "working systems." You might want to look into
them. RCN was impressed with how organized and competent UltraNet is.
I'm not sure how much more I can say right now, but it's true. I was there
and paid lots of attention to what was going on.
You're a long distance away and was _not_ there. And right now you sound
little more than bitter and petulant.
Whine all you want-- they picked a very competent and organized company to
be their ISP engineers.
>you and your staff have never had to deal with a network of the size
>of EROLS.
Specs were already designed and ready to roll out a long long time ago.
>I think that people will loose their jobs because of organizational
>redundancy. You have three staffs capable of doing engineering for
>RCN; Ultranet's, EROLS, and RCN's.
Well, kind of. Except that RCN didn't _have_ any ISP-type people. That's why
they wanted UltraNet.
You just don't get it, do you? Rather than start up a whole new company or
division from scratch to be their ISP, RCN looked for a good solid company
that was running well and was all together and solid.
Erols has less competent engineers. Chances are, they will end up
implementing systems similar to (and most likely adapted from) UltraNet's.
[people from TIAC not founders]
>Wow, have you told them what you think about them?
Knowing the people he's talking about, chances are they already know. It's
not an insult or anything-- I mean, if you join an existing company and do
tech support for them, you can't really claim to have been a founder, can
you?
>It's RCN now. RCN owns the operation and RCN will decide what is
>where. You are an employee now. I am interested in hiring the staff
>that helped make ULTRANET worthy.
Hey, Joe-- you gonna go work for Timmy? 8)
Josh
stop laughing-- I'm serious! No, really!
Solipsist Nation
In article <34ca758b....@news-central.tiac.net>,
Timothy W. Jackson <ti...@tiac.net> wrote:
>
>How do you know anything about management, building a business,
>platoons, war zones, or leadership? You are totally unqualifed for
>this conversation.
What, bitter?
Pot, kettle, black. You know the deal.
Josh
Ed Lewis
joe tomkowitz <jo...@jtcs.net> wrote:
| In article <6ag8bk$e...@fridge.shore.net>, edl...@REMOVE.shore.net
| says...
|
|> owe for the positive influence. At the top of the list would be Pete
|> Davis, Brian Deardorff, and Ed Baker. Your hand in it was only incidental,
|> Tim. If you were even aware of it at all.
| Did thoes people spontaneously generate in offices at TIAC one day?
| Even if so, you have to give tim credit for chaining them to their
| desks so that they could just happen to be there for you.
Clearly those people did not spontaneously appear at TIAC desks (i.e.
tables). Tim certainly does deserve some degree of credit for employing
them. The distinction I was trying to draw was that of an overweight whale
yachting in the Vineyard while others make things happen compared to an
extremely involved CEO or management-type that consciously makes decisions
that benefit his company and employees, thus furthering their careers.
If Tim deserves credit for laying low and not mucking with the systems
built by Pete and Brian then so be it - Tim deserves all the credit.
However, seeing that Pete and Brian were able to *overcome* the many
obstacles Tim presented, and despite Tim's whimsical management style, I
feel that the majority of the credit lies with Pete and Brian. Tim's
actual influence was incidental, at best.
--
Edward S. Lewis Vicorp Interactive Systems, Inc.
Systems Administrator 399 Boylston Street
http://www.vicorp.com Boston, MA 02116-3305
Rich Sena
On 26 Jan 1998, Roger Williams wrote:
> Martin Hannigan <hann...@xcom.net> wrote:
>
> > I mean, we are currently the Packers of the CLEC world
>
> Indeed?
hey marty forgot the fudge!
Rich Sena
oh josh you little girl - go away
i no longer work for tiac - and i never cared about your opinions and
comments - tim may be an arrogant prick - but he is a rich arrogant prick
what are you?
the comment below was for marty - i'm sure he got it - no go away and
finish puberty somewhere
peacelovejoyrich
On 26 Jan 1998, Solipsist Nation wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.980125...@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net>,
> Rich Sena <r...@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net> wrote:
> >> I mean, we are currently the Packers of the CLEC world, [ oh man I
> >> hope they win ] and this is far more interesting than working at TIAC.
> >
> >MUHAHWHAHAHWHAHWH - HEH AFC!
> >
> >-----
> >
> >\\\\\\\\\\========================================[\
> > >>>>>>>| Rich Sena - r...@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net }>
> >//////////========================================[/
> >
>
> Wow, Rich Sena is still around?
>
> Let me see... Two lines of quote and one line of new material. Not at all a
> good ratio, there, Richy-boy. And since the actual new material is pretty
> much completely incomprehensible, I think it's safe to say that this post is
> utterly useless.
>
> Above the .sig, we find five hyphens-- this is a trifle non-standard. You
> might swap that for "-- " (the space is there for a reason). But this is
> only if you want to be standard, not if you want to continue being a wanker.
>
> After that: a line of whitespace. Why? Why not?
>
> Then, a giant ASCII penis. I can't see why this would be allowed in the .sig
> of a TIAC employee-- does the management not care that their employees are
> disseminating pornography of the crudest type at the end of every post?
>
> Finally, another wasted line of whitespace. Once you've wasted one, you
> might as well go for another.
>
> In summary: You're a loser. Hang your head in shame.
>
> Josh
>
> --
> ...said it was heaven just to breathe your air Severed Heads
> J. Brandt - mu...@sidehack.gweep.net
>
>
-----
Charles Demas
In article <6aidef$7lu$1...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>,
Solipsist Nation <mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote:
>
>In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.980125...@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net>,
>Rich Sena <r...@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net> wrote:
>>> I mean, we are currently the Packers of the CLEC world, [ oh man I
>>> hope they win ] and this is far more interesting than working at TIAC.
>>
>>MUHAHWHAHAHWHAHWH - HEH AFC!
>>
>>-----
>>
>>\\\\\\\\\\========================================[\
>> >>>>>>>| Rich Sena - r...@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net }>
>>//////////========================================[/
>>
>
>Wow, Rich Sena is still around?
I think not!!! See the tiac staff page. :-)
>
>Let me see... Two lines of quote and one line of new material. Not at all a
>good ratio, there, Richy-boy. And since the actual new material is pretty
>much completely incomprehensible, I think it's safe to say that this post is
>utterly useless.
>
>Above the .sig, we find five hyphens-- this is a trifle non-standard. You
>might swap that for "-- " (the space is there for a reason). But this is
>only if you want to be standard, not if you want to continue being a wanker.
>
>After that: a line of whitespace. Why? Why not?
>
>Then, a giant ASCII penis. I can't see why this would be allowed in the .sig
>of a TIAC employee-- does the management not care that their employees are
>disseminating pornography of the crudest type at the end of every post?
>
I believe that Rich is no longer a TIAC employee, so get off his case.
FWIW, I thought it was a jet plane with two trailing contrails, sort
of like the Blue Angels do in an air show. I guess my mind works
differently than yours. :-)
While I always found Rich's posts to be of little substance, most often
a defense of TIAC, he probably was good at his job. I have also
noticed a decline in the quality of modem connections since he has
left.
Also, Rich does seem to understand Mac's pretty well. Not much help to
me, I have an IBM clone.
BTW, Terrance B. who was the head of the Telecommunications at TIAC is
apparently gone too as he is also no longer listed on the TIAC staff
page either. Ed Baker is now heading up those people he (Terrance)
managed as well as the other operations people.
Chuck Demas
Needham, Mass.
--
Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
de...@tiac.net | \___/ | http://www.tiac.net/users/demas
Matt Magri
In article <6ain66$f...@news-central.tiac.net>,
Charles Demas <de...@tiac.net> wrote:
>In article <6aidef$7lu$1...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>,
>Solipsist Nation <mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote:
>>In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.980125...@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net>,
>>Rich Sena <r...@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net> wrote:
>>>\\\\\\\\\\========================================[\
>>> >>>>>>>| Rich Sena - r...@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net }>
>>>//////////========================================[/
>>Then, a giant ASCII penis. I can't see why this would be allowed in the .sig
>FWIW, I thought it was a jet plane with two trailing contrails, sort
>of like the Blue Angels do in an air show. I guess my mind works
>differently than yours. :-)
You should check out alt.fan.warlord sometime. It's often just okay,
but, every once in a while, it's so good that you probably shouldn't
read it while drinking (just to be on the safe side). ;-)
Matt
--
IMO, obscure Gymkata movie references like Great Khan don't belong in
anyone's e-mail address. Keep that in mind if you decide to e-mail me.
In the meantime I'm enjoying a lot less spam in my mailbox... ;-)
Roger Williams
Solipsist Nation <mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.980125...@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net>,
> Rich Sena <r...@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net> wrote:
> >> I mean, we are currently the Packers of the CLEC world, [ oh man I
> >> hope they win ] and this is far more interesting than working at TIAC.
> >
> >MUHAHWHAHAHWHAHWH - HEH AFC!
> >
> >-----
> >
> >\\\\\\\\\\========================================[\
> > >>>>>>>| Rich Sena - r...@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net }>
> >//////////========================================[/
> >
> Wow, Rich Sena is still around?
No; he died and someone is impersonating him. You're very intuitive,
aren't you Josh?
> Let me see... Two lines of quote and one line of new material. Not at all a
> good ratio, there, Richy-boy. And since the actual new material is pretty
> much completely incomprehensible, I think it's safe to say that this post is
> utterly useless.
"Mr. Kettle? There's a Mr. Pot for you on line one... something about
being 'black'..."
> Above the .sig, we find five hyphens-- this is a trifle non-standard. You
> might swap that for "-- " (the space is there for a reason). But this is
> only if you want to be standard, not if you want to continue being a wanker.
It's interesting that you mention this... I'm reading the obituary
column, and yet, I have a hard time finding the name of the person who
died and left you in charge of critiquing the hyphens preceding a .sig
file. Was it anyone we knew?
> After that: a line of whitespace. Why? Why not?
Indeed. *Why* not? I realize the people paying the Ultranet bill
for sidehack.gweep.net's mighty dial up ISDN line have to scrounge for
cans around bus stations in Worcester, but somehow, I think even the
gweepies can handle the bandwidth charges incurred by an empty line. After
all, if there's room for this magnum opus of yours gracing the Earth's
already perilously overburdened electromagnetic spectrum....
> Then, a giant ASCII penis.
Wow. Could someone arange to give Joshie an inkblot test? Somebdoy get
Gray's Anatomy on the phone; Josh has discovered the world's first penis
with a feathered shaft. Or... is there some habit the gweepies have with
chickens that I should know about? Let me know if this is the case,
Joshie, since it's the 90's, and I don't wish to play the prude... live
and live, and all that.
> I can't see why this would be allowed in the .sig
> of a TIAC employee--
Where does Rich work?
> does the management not care that their employees
Where does Rich work?
> are disseminating pornography of the crudest type at the end of every
> post?
Wow. One second ago you see a dick behind every horizontal line,
and now you cry "pornography". C'mon, Joshie - it's the 90's!
> Finally, another wasted line of whitespace. Once you've wasted one, you
> might as well go for another.
Christ sonny, you're breaking my heart. Alright, alright, let the first
annual gweepienet bandwidth telethon begin. We'll get the biggest
celebrities in Wormtown to shill for the costs involved in transferring
an empty line. Such Worcester notables like .... hmmm... well, anyways,
we'll get 'em all on the local access cable station in Worcester begging
for donations to gweepienet, intercut with gauzy footage of a group
of WPI students sobbing despondently over a tear stained copy of your bill
from Ultranet. Maybe someone can get Geoff to dress up like one of the
evil mustache twirling landlord heavies in the early silent movies
threatening to foreclose your dial up account. The sky's the limit, Joshie
boy.
Anyways, in the spirit of chairty I'll start the bidding with
a nickel. Anyone else?
> In summary: You're a loser. Hang your head in shame.
"Mr. Kettle? Mr. Pot says it's urgent!"
> Josh
> --
> ...said it was heaven just to breathe your air Severed Heads
> J. Brandt - mu...@sidehack.gweep.net
--
Roger Williams
Ed Lewis <edl...@REMOVE.shore.net> wrote:
> Clearly those people did not spontaneously appear at TIAC desks (i.e.
> tables). Tim certainly does deserve some degree of credit for employing
> them. The distinction I was trying to draw was that of an overweight whale
> yachting in the Vineyard while others make things happen compared to an
> extremely involved CEO or management-type that consciously makes decisions
> that benefit his company and employees, thus furthering their careers.
Uh, Ed, as has been said many times, many ways, nobody was being held
hostage at TIAC. There weren't any leg shackles, and no Guatemalan
children were forced to sew "TIAC" labels on anything. Is the pay better
everywhere else. Yes. Did you and others choose to work there anyways?
Yes. Is Tim Jackson a bitch to work for? Well, yeah, but so what, did it
make you sob in your pillow at night? Ever work for other companies (no
names, especially those that rhyme with "Bavnet" :) with entire
departments full of rotten atavistic bastards who missed their true
calling when the Mongols destroyed Eastern Europe? Given some of the
grousing, you'd get the idea that all ex-TIAC employees were thin skinned
children who had to panhandle in subway stations in order to stay alive
for the terror of enduring another day of emotional abuse... only dimly
aware that greener economic pastures lay elsewhere.
Ah, no. We all knew the pay was low, but I have a hard time imagining
you getting any of your post TIAC jobs without the NOC job on your resume.
And let's face it, Marty Hannigan was no wide eyed kid in desperate need
of work when he came over to TIAC (although I know he was drinking when he
was thinking about it... I was there ;).
Oh, and Ed, while TimJ is indeed fat, you weren't so svelte the last
time I checked either, kiddo (or even me for that matter, though through
the grace of GTE's free workout equipment I've lost 12 of the "TIAC 20".
heh).
--
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} \|/
{} Roger W. rog...@super.zippo.com {} 0< --alt.usenet.kooks!
{} http://www.parrot.net ad...@parrot.net {} ^^^^(*)^^^^
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} ^^ / \ ^^
Head of the Waltham secret comunists.
joe tomkowitz
In article <6aisro$1...@fridge.shore.net>, edl...@REMOVE.shore.net
says...
> joe tomkowitz <jo...@jtcs.net> wrote:
> | In article <6ag8bk$e...@fridge.shore.net>, edl...@REMOVE.shore.net
> | says...
> |
> |> I would be very glad, however, to go into details regarding who at TIAC I
> |> owe for the positive influence. At the top of the list would be Pete
> |> Davis, Brian Deardorff, and Ed Baker. Your hand in it was only incidental,
> |> Tim. If you were even aware of it at all.
>
> | Did thoes people spontaneously generate in offices at TIAC one day?
> | Even if so, you have to give tim credit for chaining them to their
> | desks so that they could just happen to be there for you.
>
> tables). Tim certainly does deserve some degree of credit for employing
> them. The distinction I was trying to draw was that of an overweight whale
> yachting in the Vineyard while others make things happen compared to an
> extremely involved CEO or management-type that consciously makes decisions
> that benefit his company and employees, thus furthering their careers.
>
> built by Pete and Brian then so be it - Tim deserves all the credit.
> However, seeing that Pete and Brian were able to *overcome* the many
> obstacles Tim presented, and despite Tim's whimsical management style, I
> feel that the majority of the credit lies with Pete and Brian. Tim's
> actual influence was incidental, at best.
You're going to great lengths to rationalize tim into a being a
failure. To someone not seething with hatred (or jealousy or whatever
motivates you folks) toward the man, watching this go on is really
strange and practically begs for comment.
Bottom line is that he started TIAC, owns it, and it's successful.
With him as CEO, the company went from zero to however many customers
it has today. Without him it wouldn't exist.
You can make fun of his spelling and grammar, his appearance, his
personality, his sense of social responsibility, his management style,
his technical abilities, his hobbies, how he spends his money, or
whatever else makes him different from you.
But saying those things won't change the basic facts and I can't see
why anyone would even try.
-joet
Timothy W. Jackson
eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
>joe tomkowitz <jo...@jtcs.net> wrote:
>
>| You can make fun of his spelling and grammar, his appearance, his
>| personality, his sense of social responsibility, his management style,
>| his technical abilities, his hobbies, how he spends his money, or
>| whatever else makes him different from you.
>
>
>And we DO!! :)
>
>--
You do poorly :) (or is it You do, poorly), should I capitalize the p
in poorly or should I just capitalize the whole damn word poorly for
dramatic effect...hmmmm...:):):)
Tim