> Karl et all..
>
> I do take exception to the statement by Jack that Livingston "sucked".
Thanks for helping out, Joe :)
> 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)?
No kidding. I've always found Jack to pick an attitude about something
(sometimes without enough details to back it up - especially since he isn't
IN the ISP busines) and stick to it too well.
> 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.
.. why I unsubscribed from Boardwatch years ago.
> 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/>
-- - Steve - Systems Manager - Community Internet Access, Inc. - Gallup and Grants, New Mexico - 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/>