Get a grip, son. Your level of paranoia and insanity is astounding even me,
and the few who know me well are likely aware that this is quite a reach for
me to say...
Portmaster-users requires that you be subscribed to post to it.
If you are subscribed, then your messages go through. If not, they don't.
If you expect to be able to post to a list without being subscribed to it
in this day and age of spammers you're shooting speedballs in your arm
and deserve whatever level of mentation that comes along with it.
This is a feature, not a bug. If you aren't subscribed, you can hardly
bitch if something doesn't pass. You're simply not a member of the
community involved in that case, but rather are a loud-mouthed pain
in the butt.
That moniker seems rather fitting in this particular case...
See, to be a member of the community, you have to be willing to listen as
well as talk.
If you ARE subscribed, then it works.
"How involved are you in this dirty little game"? What "dirty little game",
specifically, are you referring to?
If knowing the configuration of the mailing list software over on
Portmaster-users is an act of conspiracy, I stand guilty along with all
the other subscribers who are aware of it, which I dare-say is probably
most of them. After all, the list of users *IS* the community....
Our internal mailing lists work the same way, natch.
If you're implying or accusing me of something more, you damn well better
have some evidence to go with it. Otherwise, this looks a bit libelous to
me.
Not that you seem to care about such things.
I'll expect your apology forthwith... of course, Hell will likely freeze
first.
By the way, I *am* glad you "outed" yourself...
Thank you for admitting that you simply don't know what the central site
hardware was that was on the other end of your K56Flex calls in your other
message which you recently posted.
That pretty much seals it from my point of view credibility-wise.
I was right - you didn't check - and now you've admitted it.
Thank you very much for admitting in public that you don't even know what
you were in fact testing!
You didn't uncover anything Jack. All you did was take a cheap shot with
no real evidence to back it up, and now you've been called on it - in
public, rather than where you can simply censor any opposing points of view
by refusing to print the commentary.
The email in support of my point of view on this just keeps rolling in....
And Jack - I've never known you to "fall on your sword". Your pride
prevents it, even when you're shown to be dead wrong.
G'day; I have better things to do than deal with more of this... I've said
my peace, you've admitted that you have no evidence to back up your claim
that the problem is protocol rather than vendor-specific, and since that was
my entire point in the first place there's nothing more to say.
---- 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 Sat, Feb 21, 1998 at 08:18:31PM -0700, Jack Rickard wrote: > Karl: > > The reason you don't have the message ARCHIVED with the CC to > portmaster-users is because you never RECEIVED it you moron. It never got > posted. Sasek insists he didn't do anything to blackhole it. But here it > is. It was clearly CC'd to portmaster-users@livingston.com as well as > Brian Noto. Joe got it and replied. Brian got it and replied. We received > NO bounce message or error message of any kind. But magically, it never > did appear in portmaster-users. THIS IS WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO. This is > from LAST THURSDAY. > > Just how involved in this dirty little game are you? Are you saying you > were not aware of this reply, of it's disappearance from portmaster-users? > > I am posting THIS to both ISP-CEO AND portmaster-users. We'll see if it is > actually posted to both unedited and in its entirety. > > Jack Rickard > > > From: "Jack Rickard" <jack.rickard@boardwatch.com> > To: "Joe Sasek" <sasek@livingston.com> > Cc: <portmaster-users@livingston.com>, > "Brian Noto" <brian.noto@boardwatch.com> > Subject: Re: [jack.rickard@boardwatch.com: Re: (PM) Re: Nationwide Access > -Please no Dweebs (fwd)] > Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 23:51:07 -0700 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Priority: 3 > X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Joe: > > I'm sorry to hear the wounded reaction. "Sucked" was not quite applied to > Livingston as a company, it was more correctly applied to some test results > that did involve Livingston equipment. It may have overstated the case, > but the results for the gentleman in question were truly dismal and he was > running all Livingston equipment. But your accusation about money is not > only off the mark, but rather badly off the mark and for some specific and > darkly ironic reasons. > > First, you may spend less on advertising across the board than 3COM. But > not notably so in Boardwatch. On advertising issues, Livingston was the > FIRST of the terminal server/ remote access companies to ever advertise in > Boardwatch, at a time when it was badly needed. While I DO hope you're not > aware of it, Livingston holds kind of a hallowed position around Boardwatch > on the ad side thereby. They are almost superstitious about Livingston, > whether they are now Lucent or not. Your "standing" around here far > exceeded what 3COM/USR's could ever be. > > But we simply cannot let that effect our reporting in any event. > > We have had no real relationship with 3COM at all. We have a long and > public one editoriallly with US Robotics and as anyone who has read > Boardwatch for any length of time will tell you, it's not been quite > trouble free editorially. They've been making modems for a long time, and > have been a major player for as long as we've been publishing. They've done > some good things over the years, and some bad things over the years and > we've tried to cover them fairly as well. But I don't recall USR ever > being quite comfortable with our publishing at all. And I think when we > published the piece on how to turn a Sportster into a Courier from the > keyboard with a couple of commands, they sort of detonated internally on > the Boardwatch topic. > > So on simple relationship and regard, you were already way ahead of the > game. If you were unaware of it, then I'm doing my work well. That is > precisely how it should be. > > Now you've made the ultimate whoring accusation quite in public and I have > to respond to it. First, let's note that between Ascend, Livingston, and > Rockwell, the actual ad dollars into Boardwatch far exceed anything US > Robotics has or can ever do. Livingston by itself is certainly on par - you > have the center spread in the magazine all to yourself. Your analysis is > financially simply in error. If there was any editorial caving to do based > on money, it would be in YOUR direction. Anyone can count the pages in the > magazine and tell this is true, and I have to believe you are well aware of > it as well. So I'm disappointed and hurt that you publicly make such a > vicious accusation that you personally and directly absolutely have to know > is simply not true. The arithmetic doesn't work. > > On the more subjective perception side, it gets even worse. We regard > Livingston as one of the premier companies in the industry, with a long > history of service to Internet Service Providers and one of the more > excellent companies for ISPs to work with. From our perspective, > Livingston mostly invented the dialup ISP model more or less single > handedly with the old Livingston Portmasters, and I think in many ways this > history and service have been given short shrift in the mass of new players > who have arrived without benefit of that historical background. You've > received poor credit from it, but I rather gather that the financial > success you've enjoyed more recently from the reception of the PM3's and > your sale to Lucent is more appreciated in any event. I probably have a > better regard for your contribution to this industry than you do internally > yourself. I was around back then. Most of your own current employees > weren't. In my eyes, Livingston as a company can almost do no wrong. But > what we see in actual calls during this test, for whatever reason, is what > it is. > > All of this makes what I have to do even harder. You've publicly accused > me of taking an editorial position based on advertising revenues that has > damaged your company and essentially faked test results for cash from one > of your competitors. You are the VP of Sales and Marketing and have > outstanding credibilty to make such an accusation whether it is true or > not. Therefore, you've left me no recourse. You may not, cannot, and will > not ever see an advertisement appear in Boardwatch Magazine, or participate > in a Boardwatch event now, in the near future, or in the far future. Your > name will be stricken from all temple walls, obelisks, and tablets > throughout the realm. Your check is no good here anymore. You CANNOT > advertise further. I'll forward this to both the ad department and our law > firm to see what has to be done to abrogate any existing insertion orders > or space contracts. > > I'm in tears that it came to this. But by your hand, not mine. If this > test, and our reporting of it, bankrupts Boardwatch, it will be so > nonetheless to the last farthing and the final office equipment sale.. That > IS the principle on which Boardwatch was founded, and no "reversion" is > necessary. It's a hard one some days, and in this season of very big money > companies it has been the hardest ever. I'll not waver. > > I'm sure Karl will be thrilled. > > Jack Rickard > > Brian - make it so. > > ---------- > > From: Joe Sasek <sasek@livingston.com> > > To: Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net>; jack.rickard@boardwatch.com; > portmaster-users@livingston.com > > Subject: [jack.rickard@boardwatch.com: Re: (PM) Re: Nationwide Access > -Please no Dweebs (fwd)] > > Date: Thursday, February 19, 1998 9:57 PM > > > > Karl et all.. > > > > 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 > > ============================================================ > _____ * 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/>