I do take exception to the statement by Jack that Livingston "sucked".
2,500 ISP's using Livingston products. Widely known for the best
reliability in the business (in fact USR/3Com still use a 3 year old
version of our operating system... must be pretty decent stuff that they've
not been able to invent their own)? Merged recently with a small company
;-) that knows a thing or two about delivering service reliability to
customers (that "might" indicate something about our reliability)?
Its very unfortunate that a magazine that started out to service and inform
unobjectively the ISP community has obviously fallen victim to money. USR
spends a ton more advertising money than we do (we'd rather put the money
into the product), and I can only guess that can't do anything but sway Mr.
Rickard in that direction. I definitely don't want a "war" with Mr.
Rickard, as my interactions with him personally have been civil to this
point. I do wish though his "opinions" were a bit more objective at times.
We are not perfect, have never claimed to be, but Jack's "opinion" of
Livingston I think would be highly suspect by the great majority of our
users in this case. Livingston/Lucent Remote Access Unit owes most of its
success to ISP's as customers. (we were selling products to ISP's 3 years
ahead of any other manufacturer even acknowledging that they were a
"market"). Thanks Karl for your defense, as we both know you are not
easily won over as a customer and your actual knowledge should never be
confused with the emotion or attitude that you occasionally present
yourself. You are absolutely one of the most knowledgable technical people
on the earth, period.
I would close by asking Jack to simply not let ad budgets dictate his
opinions, and that he revert to the principles with which he founded
Boardwatch.
Best Regards,
Joe Sasek
V.P. of Sales and Mktg.
Lucent Technologies
Remote Access Business Unit
>>Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 20:00:26 -0600
>>From: Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net>
>>To: portmaster-users@livingston.com
>>Subject: [jack.rickard@boardwatch.com: Re: (PM) Re: Nationwide Access -
>Please no Dweebs (fwd)]
>>Sender: owner-portmaster-users
>>Reply-To: Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net>
>>
>>Note the wonderful language and professionalism from Mr. Jack "National
>>Enquirer" Rickard.
>>
>>Heh Lucent - perhaps you ought to go after this asshole.
>>
>>--
>>--
>>Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
>>http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
>> | NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems
>>Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL
ACCOUNTS
>>Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no
cost
>>
>>-----Forwarded message from Jack Rickard <jack.rickard@boardwatch.com>-----
>>
>>Received: from ipad2.boardwatch.com (ipad2.boardwatch.com [199.33.229.3])
>by Mailbox.mcs.net (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id QAA19346 for <karl@mcs.net>;
>Thu, 19 Feb 1998 16:47:46 -0600 (CST)
>>Received: from ws38.boardwatch.com ([199.33.229.38]) by boardwatch.com
>> with ESMTP (IPAD 2.03) id 2014300 ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 15:49:22 EST
>>From: "Jack Rickard" <jack.rickard@boardwatch.com>
>>To: "Karl Denninger " <karl@mcs.net>
>>Cc: <jurban@norden1.com>
>>Subject: Re: (PM) Re: Nationwide Access - Please no Dweebs (fwd)
>>Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 15:46:54 -0700
>>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>>X-Priority: 3
>>X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>Message-Id: <199802192049.2014300@boardwatch.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Which means you DID NOT CALL ANY OF THEM TO VERIFY WHAT THEY WERE USING,
>>> correct?
>>>
>>> If you had, you'd be reporting it. Since you aren't, I presume you did
>>NOT.
>>>
>>> I'll wager $1,000 that they were virtually all, if not all, running
>>either
>>> ASCEND MAX or TNT hardware. Cripes, Rickard, all you have to do is look
>>at
>>> the market share of the central-site ports and this would be OBVIOUS.
>>
>>Kripes Karl. Kalm fucking down. You jump to so many konklusions so
>>kwickly, and with so little info, I can't deal with it. Almost everything
>>you're saying isn't true. Why the panic.
>>
>>1. Which means....incorrect.
>>2. If I had, I'd be reporting it... not necessarily and quite incorrect.
>>I know a lot of shit I don't publish.
>>3. Ok. You're on. And I'm holding you to it on the $1000.00
>>
>>Skynet. Five pops. All running 100% Livingston PM3's. 70% connect rate
>>and scored 87 of 90. Have the check made out to Jack Rickard.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> > We used a variety of Rockwell -based modems, and none with Lucent
>>> > chips in them. Those were the results.
>>>
>>> Yep - and I'll bet that all the substandard connections were to ONE
>>> manufacturer's hardware. Of course you won't report that, because doing
>>> so would require that you actually INVESTIGATE the reason for the
>>difference.
>>>
>>
>>No they won't. We might - who would care. It would require virtually no
>>investigation. In short, no on all counts.
>>
>>
>>> And X2 works *so* well, and is *so* successful, that 3COM is falling over
>>> themselves to meet Rockwell/Lucent on V.90, and get it out there
>>> *immediately*, right?
>>>
>>
>>Yes. There are various reasons why but they get kind of detailed. This
>>looks like a smart ass comment, not a request for information. I do have
>>some insight into how the V.90 came together so quickly after stalling so
>>long if you want to talk about it. But I don't think word is out on the
>>disparity so they've hardly benefitted from that. Bottom line on V.90 was
>>channel sales for everybody on the client end came to a HALT pending a
>>standard.
>>
>>
>>> Yeah, that makes sense, and I'm the tooth fairy.
>>
>>Your sexual proclivities are your own affair Karl and I don't want to
>>discuss it.
>>
>>>
>>> > Stuff "coming soon to a theater
>>> > near you" or "other stuff not tested" may of course operate
>>differently.
>>>
>>> Stuff "IN SERVICE" does operate differently. Livingston/Lucent's
>>offerings
>>> are in fact *IN SERVICE*, unless, of course, you wish to argue that all
>>the
>>> hardware in my locations is a figment of my imagination, that the connect
>>
>>> rates that I actually see, in real life (which, by the way, I can
>>document
>>> if you'd like - we actually log them) are also figments of my
>>imagination,
>>> or that all the OTHER ISPs who are buying, using, and loving the Lucent
>>> hardware are ALL hallucinating.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't think so.
>>
>>
>>Read the above, and be as embarrassed as you like. Livingston hardware is
>>in use in the pops, was part of the test, and sucked.
>>
>>>
>>> > And if I ever suffer any confusion as to what I "should be saying" I'll
>>get
>>> > on the horn to you directly and quite immediately. I'm sure you would
>>> > know.
>>> >
>>> > Jack Rickard
>>>
>>> Are you ALWAYS this full of hot air and bluster Rickard?
>>
>>Always? Well, most of the waking hours.
>>
>>>
>>> Now you know why I don't bother with ISPCON - its run by you, who has
>>> ADMITTED ABOVE to doing ZERO RESEARCH before pontificating that a
>>*PROTOCOL*
>>> is inferior, when in fact the truth is likely that it is an
>>IMPLEMENTATION
>>> that is inferior.
>>>
>>
>>Again, I'm kicking at cripples here. Your reiterative thesis is based on
>>the same thing, which isn't true. Starnet. Livingston. 70%.
>>You don't bother with ISPCON? I hadn't noticed. I suppose it didn't
>>matter. We'll miss you again real soon I fear.
>>
>>> The bottom line - the ASCEND hardware is what you're going to find in the
>>> national providers - for density and legacy reasons - they were there
>>first.
>>> This does NOT implicate K56Flex, as you have insisted that it does -
>>rather,
>>> it implicates ONE DEVICE YOU WERE CONNECTING TO, even if you DID dial 90
>>> different numbers.
>>>
>>
>>Not true.
>>
>>
>>> Next time, do your research before you indict - it makes for much less
>>> sensationalistic "coverage", but as a JOURNALIST you are supposed to be
>>> somewhere above the level of the National Enquirer.
>>>
>>> Quite simply, you're not.
>>>
>>
>>This gets a little vicious and childish Karl. You're REAL wounded about
>>something. What?
>>
>>> This was appropriate when you ran a BBS magazine. In the world of actual
>>> commerce, where its not a HOBBY, its entirely INappropriate.
>>>
>>> Not that it seems to matter to you - indictments and sensationalistic
>>> bullshit sell magazines, and that's all that appears to concern you.
>>>
>>> Just like your pontification on the spamming issue (which is also a load
>>of
>>> crap - an ISP has the right to determine who does, and who does not
>>connect
>>> to their infrastructure and *on what terms*) was, in fact.
>>>
>>> Take your National Enquirer style of "reporting" somewhere else.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>It's being rather well and widely received here. So why would I want to
>>take it somewhere else?
>>
>>> --
>>> Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
>>> http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3
>>Service
>>> | NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems
>>> Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL
>>ACCOUNTS
>>> Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no
>>cost
>>>
>>> > ----------
>>> > > From: Joseph Urban <jurban@norden1.com>
>>> > > To: jack.rickard@boardwatch.com
>>> > > Subject: Re: (PM) Re: Nationwide Access - Please no Dweebs (fwd)
>>> > > Date: Wednesday, February 18, 1998 4:18 AM
>>> > >
>>> > > From: Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net>
>>> > > Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 10:54:35 -0600
>>> > > Subject: Re: (PM) Re: Nationwide Access - Please no Dweebs (fwd)
>>> > >
>>> > > It never ceases to amaze me how little Rickard knows sometimes.
>>> > >
>>> > > What he should be saying is "average connect rates to ASCEND TNTs and
>>> > MAXes
>>> > > is just over 30kbps".
>>> > >
>>> > > Why?
>>> > >
>>> > > Because, to my knowledge, this is all that the companies named below
>>> > > actually use in their K56Flex infrastructure.
>>> > >
>>> > > This ends up being an indictment of a particular product, not a
>>> > technology
>>> > > difference. Rickard ought to try calling some ISPs who use PM3s;
>>he'd
>>> > find,
>>> > > as I have, that the consistent connect rates are in the mid-40kbps
>>range
>>> > > (basically identical to the X2 results he claims are so wonderful).
>>I've
>>> > > been all over the United States, and where I can get a PCM connection
>>at
>>> > all
>>> > > (many hotels, for example have bastardizes telephone networks with
>>> > multiple
>>> > > A/D conversions that prevent it from working) I consistently get good
>>> > > connections in the 40s.
>>> > >
>>> > > That one product sucks does not mean that an *open standard* sucks
>>when
>>> > > taken in total, yet this is precisely what he appears to be ready to
>>> > print.
>>> > >
>>> > > - --
>>> > > - --
>>> > > Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and
>>Wisconsin
>>> > > http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3
>>> > Service
>>> > > | NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems
>>> > > Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL
>>> > ACCOUNTS
>>> > > Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at
>>no
>>> > cost
>>> > >
>>> > > On Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 11:45:01PM -0800, Blake Hudema wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I thing this would be of interest.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> > > > Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 20:08:33 -0600
>>> > > > From: Jack Rickard <jack.rickard@boardwatch.com>
>>> > > > Reply-To: isp-ceo-owner@isp-ceo.com
>>> > > > To: isp-ceo@isp-ceo.com
>>> > > > Subject: Re: Nationwide Access - Please no Dweebs
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > We just finished a kind of interesting test series of 90 "national"
>>> > dialup
>>> > > > ISPs who had POP in 25 area codes or more. We picked 5 POPs
>>somewhat
>>> > at
>>> > > > random from each ISP for 450 POPs. But we of course wound up with
>>328
>>> > > > individual phone numbers. THe reason of course is that manyof
>>these
>>> > ISP's
>>> > > > gain a national footprint by purchasing POP services from national
>>> > > > companies who wholesale such services. I can tell you that MCI,
>>UUNET,
>>> > > > PSINET, and GTE/BBN all do this. From what I can gather, the price
>>> > ranges
>>> > > > from $7 to $13 per subscriber per month. Lower prices are for
>>longer
>>> > term
>>> > > > contracts and higher customer body count minimums. Also there is
>>the
>>> > basic
>>> > > > POP service or you can get POP service with tech support, etc.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I don't want to spill the beans too hard as it is rather the center
>>of
>>> > our
>>> > > > March Boardwatch Issue and the Winter Directory which will be
>>released
>>> > at
>>> > > > the ISPCON show. But two things did jump out. I fear I'm going to
>>> > take a
>>> > > > terrible beating from some very unhappy ISPs over part of it. The
>>> > > > K56flex/x2 battle is over. We have bought into the concept that
>>these
>>> > were
>>> > > > two peer technologies struggling for dominance for over a year. It
>>is,
>>> > > > unfortunately, not so, and V.90 probably won't change it. Average
>>> > connect
>>> > > > speed for x2 modems to x2 ports - long distance - was over 45kbps.
>>> > K56flex
>>> > > > was just over 30 kbps. These two types of modems are not even in
>>the
>>> > same
>>> > > > class or comparable.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The other aspect is of course call completion rate. We made
>>145,000
>>> > calls
>>> > > > to 450 POPs during the month of January. Average call completion
>>rate
>>> > of
>>> > > > 89% but it varied from a low of 63% to a high of 97%.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > IBM's dialup network is the best in the land gents. I met with
>>them
>>> > last
>>> > > > week to try to get them to get more into the wholesale business and
>>it
>>> > > > looks good. Sprint has an excellent call completion rate right up
>>at
>>> > the
>>> > > > top in the 97% range. But they have older equipment and average
>>> > connect
>>> > > > speeds were in the 27 kbps range.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Right now MCI looks like the best source of national footprint.
>>All
>>> > x2, 45
>>> > > > kbps average connect speed anywhere, and high nineties on the
>>scale.
>>> > And a
>>> > > > number of the ISP's were caught in the act of using them, so
>>clearly
>>> > they
>>> > > > offer the service.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On the K56flex side, GTE/BBN look fully deployed. Good call
>>> > completion,
>>> > > > but poor average connect speed due to the K56flex move. They do a
>>lot
>>> > of
>>> > > > POP wholesaling.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I haven't seen many viable alternatives to wholesaling from a
>>larger
>>> > > > service actually. The roaming thing never did quite happen. There
>>is
>>> > > > somebody out there with kind of an interesting idea to aggregate
>>CLEC
>>> > pops
>>> > > > and package them for ISPs and I think they'll be at ISPCON.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > But the biggest trend is large nationals who haven't really been
>>able
>>> > to
>>> > > > compete with local ISPs on price because of the customer service
>>thing.
>>> > So
>>> > > > they are groking to the concept of just wholesaling it to smaller
>>ISPs
>>> > and
>>> > > > letting them do the hard work. And there are more of them getting
>>> > into
>>> > > > it. AGIS is going to setup national dialup footprint and wholesale
>>to
>>> > > > ISPs. And several other smaller backbones are making the same
>>noise.
>>> > I
>>> > > > think it is a coming thing and wiithin a year we think we'll see
>>> > hundreds
>>> > > >
>>> > > > of national dialup ISPs operating from a dozen or so providers.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The interesting part is the $7. We're kind of finally shaking out
>>what
>>> > the
>>> > > > true basic cost of providing dialup infrastructure is. It's
>>something
>>> > less
>>> > > > than $7 per customer. If we assume that the $19.95 price was
>>correctly
>>> > > > arrived at by market forces, then that leaves about $13 to cover
>>> > marketing,
>>> > > > support, and overhead. It's a bit shy of being all the riches of
>>> > Crocius
>>> > > > I'm afraid, but it's a "good" business potentially.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > And I think end users will have the following criteria in the
>>following
>>> > > > order:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > 1. Price
>>> > > > 2. Call Completion Rate
>>> > > > 3. National Footprint
>>> > > > 4. Connect Speed/modem match
>>> > > > 5 Customer Service.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I rate national footprint higher than you've heard. But I think it
>>> > > > accounts for a good bit of the AOL huge membership. People do want
>>to
>>> > be
>>> > > > able to get on their service wherever they go, even if they rarely
>>go
>>> > > > anywhere. Items 1 and 2 are soft in order. Too many busies will
>>> > convert a
>>> > > > customer to reverse these two priorities. But I think the price
>>> > sensitive
>>> > > > nature of the end user is consistently under rated. There are
>>dozens
>>> > of
>>> > > > hgher bandwidth schemes that all assume a $40 or $50 per month
>>rate.
>>> > There
>>> > > > is a band of power users that would be all over that instantly.
>>But
>>> > after
>>> > > > they are quickly absorbed, I think the entire industry will be
>>> > surprised to
>>> > > > see the numbers of Internauts that stick with dialup at $15-$20
>>over
>>> > xDSL
>>> > > > and Cable at $40. It will make headlines and come as a huge shock.
>>
>>> > But I
>>> > > > think it is true.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > So I see a lot of pressure to go national, and do it with someone
>>who
>>> > can
>>> > > > complete calls.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Jack Rickard
>>> > > > Boardwatch
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > _____ * ISP-CEO Email Discussion List * ____
>>> > > > To Remove: mailto:remove-isp-ceo@isp-ceo.com
>>> > > > To Join: mailto:join-isp-ceo@isp-ceo.com
>>> > > > To Post: mailto:isp-ceo-owner@isp-ceo.com
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > -
>>> > > > To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
>>> > > > 'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
>>> > > > Searchable list archive:
>><URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>
>>> > > - -
>>> > > To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
>>> > > 'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
>>> > > Searchable list archive:
>><URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>
>>> > >
>>> > > ------------------------------
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > jurban@norden1.com
>>> > > Nehmen wir die Welt als Erscheinung so beweiset sie gerade zu das
>>Dasein
>>> > > von Etwas das nicht Erscheinung ist. (Looking upon the world as
>>> > appearance
>>> > > demonstrates that something that is not appearance exists.) -- Kant
>>
>>-----End of forwarded message-----
>>-
>>To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
>>'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
>>Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>
============================================================
Joseph E. Sasek Lucent Technologies
V.P. of Sales and Mktg. Remote Access Bus. Unit
4464 Willow Road Pleasanton, CA 94566
(510) 737-2160 (V) www.livingston.com/
(510) 737-2110 (Fax) email: joe@livingston.com
============================================================
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>