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
> ============================================================
-
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/>