That's ok - the people with lawyers, money, and stake also have funny
weapons known as subpoenas, and they can compel the release of the data if
they want to.
This makes your refusal churlish at best, and juvenile besides, as it has
zero net effect.
I note that you haven't commented on the report that you have blackballed
Lucent from Boardwatch and ISPCON.....
Is it true or is it false Jack?
---- 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 costOn Fri, Feb 20, 1998 at 04:12:08PM -0700, Jack Rickard wrote: > I agree completely Tim. But we kind of jumped into "fatally flawed > methodology" and more in HYSTERICAL screams of anguish from Karl and > company before we got to any of that to the point of public accusations of > fraud and selling out. At this point, given a proven "point of view" that > requires no data at all to come to such hysterical conclusions, I'm going > to be very careful about what we have that is shared with these people. > The usual "open book" approach we use at Boardwatch simply isn't going to > be employed this time. > > Ironically, it was at the beginning. I was e-mailing databases around the > country for days early in January. We'll take a different approach from > here on out. > > I simply don't do lab tests Tim. They ARE very easy to control all the > variables. Unfortunately, for ISP customers they don't count. If it isn't > a real world map across as much of the known universe as we can reach, I'm > not very interested. Calls through a simulator are not persuasive to me > given our current network. > > Jack > > ---------- > > From: Tim Jung <tjung@igateway.net> > > To: isp-ceo@isp-ceo.com > > Subject: Re: [jack.rickard@boardwatch.com: Re: (PM) Re: Nationwide Access > - Please no Dweebs (fwd)] > > Date: Friday, February 20, 1998 3:13 PM > > > > No one is saying Jack that the data is bogus. That is not the question at > > all. Ok cool we now have this huge pile of data. Great big deal, so we > have > > a huge test sample. Now what? > > > > Ok we want to extract something useful from this information. Ok well to > do > > that we need to know a lot more than 5 modem, and 200+ ISPs tested or > > whatever. If you are trying to say "K56Flex" is better than "X2" or the > > other way around. The we need to know who was running what version of X2 > and > > who was running what version of K56Flex. Then we need to know exactly > what > > equipment we are connecting to for X2 was it BayNetworks or USR. We need > to > > know what equipment we are connecting to for K56Flex was it Livingston, > > CompuTone (the new PRI), Ascend, or BayNetworks. > > > > Ok once we have all that data then we can go X2 version 0.5 blew compared > to > > K56Flex version 0.5. Anything less and we just aren't comparing apples to > > apples. Also we want to know, hmm looks like Ascend does better than > > Baynetwork with their K56Flex implementation. Only then does it provide > > anything useful. > > > > If you are trying to say "X2" stinks compared to "K56Flex" and you don't > > care about why or who, then sure go ahead say it. That doesn't make it > true > > and you don't have clear facts to back it up. If you wanted to do that, > you > > would be much better off doing in LAB tests. Then you can control > everything > > and say for sure that in the Lab it was rotten. > > > > If you are even going to try and tell people buy one product over the > other, > > then you better have all the facts and be able to support it with hard > data. > > If not you may be looking at a nice lawsuit for slandering a companies > > product falsely. "You said our product was trash and it wouldn't do X. > When > > in fact if you know what your doing, it will do X with no problem, and we > > don't have problems like X. We also can do X which you said in your > article > > we couldn't do. You also claimed X when in fact you have zero data to > > support such a position when the unit is setup correctly." > > > > Look this thread is getting old. Jack claims his numbers are perfect and > > that he doesn't need any extra information to make a better informed > > decision. Those of us in the field working day in and day know that it is > > not the case, you need to know that. Like saying Novell won't run, but > the > > platform doesn't matter, Novell just won't run, and the version number > isn't > > important either, only the fact that it doesn't run. > > > > I disagree with Jack in the strongest way, it isn't the first, and > probably > > not the last time either. All of this information does matter, and it is > > important to know it. But the main thing is you can't base telling > someone > > not to buy a certain piece of equipment based on call transfer rates > alone, > > that just isn't a smart business practice. > > > > Tim Jung > > System Admin > > Internet Gateway Inc. > > tjung@igateway.net > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jack Rickard <jack.rickard@boardwatch.com> > > To: isp-ceo@isp-ceo.com <isp-ceo@isp-ceo.com> > > Date: Friday, February 20, 1998 12:25 PM > > Subject: Re: [jack.rickard@boardwatch.com: Re: (PM) Re: Nationwide Access > - > > Please no Dweebs (fwd)] > > > > > > > > > > > > >---------- > > >> From: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net> > > >> To: isp-ceo@isp-ceo.com > > >> Cc: jack.rickard@boardwatch.com > > >> Subject: Re: [jack.rickard@boardwatch.com: Re: (PM) Re: Nationwide > Access > > >- Please no Dweebs (fwd)] > > >> Date: Friday, February 20, 1998 8:41 AM > > >> > > >> That's exactly my point Tim. > > >> > > >> Without knowing this the test is invalid - period. > > >> > > >> Early Livingston PM3 software for K56flex was pretty bad. So was > > >ASCENDs. > > >> So was *USRs*. USR had a two month jump on the others, so in general, > > >you > > >> can *expect* people to be one full software turn ahead on the TC > racks. > > >> > > >> Since the firmware is and has been in flux, this is EXTREMELY > important. > > >> > > > > > >Actually, it's an extremely goofy variation on the "the one that works > is > > >on it's way" concept. This test was a snapshot in time, Jan1 to Feb1. > > >Whatever was in the field and that paying subscribers were prey to at > that > > >time is obviously what was tested. The dialing modems DID have the > latest > > >publicly available and released firmware available then, and this was > > >confirmed in person by Rockwell near the end of the test. > > > > > >The test would only otherwise be invalid. It was a real world test of > what > > >actually was deployed during this period, and includes all the dirt of > > >upgrades that were implemented DURING the test as well. Karl's > ridiculous > > >assertion that the test is invalid without knowing which version of > Lucent > > >firmware was onboard for each port, during each call, is absurd. He's > > >still thrashing around on the floor trying to find SOME way for it to be > > >invalid, without having sufficient information to make that > determination. > > > > > >I might remind you all that FIRST it was that we were testing ONLY > Ascend > > >equipment. He made a flat assertion and even "bet" a thousand dollars > on > > >it. When we pointed out this was empirically not true, and provided an > > >example of an ISP operating Livingston equipment, he disclaimed the bet, > in > > >public, and moved on to the NEXT shrill, baseless, groundless, factless > > >assertion. I guess we'll deal with these one at a time until his > keyboard > > >melts down. I can't imagine what he can do further to totally forfeit > any > > >credibility on this topic, but I'm breathless waiting for the NEXT > wildly > > >panicked stab in the dark. > > > > > >Note that we tested what we tested by design. Karl's desperate wishes > of > > >what we SHOULD have tested, or what he wants to test, etc. etc. ad > nauseum > > >rather miss the point. There are hundreds of other things in the world > to > > >test, and all more or less valid for any specific purpose, though > perhaps > > >not of interest to me personally. > > > > > >Jack Rickard > > >_____ * 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@isp-ceo.com > > > > > > > _____ * 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@isp-ceo.com > _____ * 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@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/>