🚀 go-pugleaf

INTRODUCTION

For the past several months many of us that have been trying the new
ATT Wireless Broadband Service rolled out in the Dallas Fort Worth
area have carried on discussions with the problems and fixes to some
problems almost exclusively in the internal WorldNet help group which
is not public and in which the Wireless Broadband arm of ATT will not
even participate in and does not seemed disposed to provide any real
input.  This being the case, some of us have decided to post our
experiences here  for the benefit of others considering the service
and to try to answer questions we can.

The post leading up to my decision to go public with the discussion is
reproduced below, which, at least as a starting point, touches on some
of the present issues.  

(For those not on the service, Gage is the moderator of the Worldnet
discussion group in which most comment have been confined until now).


On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 02:49:58 GMT, Frank St. Claire
<fstclair@airmail.net> wrote:

>Gage,
>
>I respect you honest and diplomatic reply. 
>
>I checked my e-mail and my phone messages, and of course, as you would
>expect, there is no communication from our silent little friends at
>ADB.  This confirms to me their unwillingness to have any sort of
>meaningful dialog on the issues presented.
>
>[Calvin, my apologies in advance for the length and chattiness of this
>post, but it will be one of last ones here.]
>
>That being the case, there really isn't much that I can do, other than
>share my ongoing experiences in public forums for the benefit of those
>that would otherwise unknowingly fall prey to the continuing
>misrepresentations being presented by ATT in marketing this service
>and the existing subperformance of the service.  Ultimately someone
>will haul off and sue ATT over this under the Texas Deceptive Trade
>Practices Act, which, given the current stonewalling by ADB, won't be
>long off.  And it won't be me -- I have wasted enough good faith
>efforts in trying to correct the problems and on the tortured process
>of the original install and 8 subsequent onsite visits to get it
>working even to this level.
>
>Again, Gage, we all realize that your role is merely as a messenger,
>and all your efforts to communicate meaningfully have been
>appreciated.  Unfortunately, no one is providing you with the answers
>to our questions.
>
>It's obvious that the only thing that will cause ATT to adopt a
>proactive approach to servicing customers ABOVE signing up new ones
>(and further adding to the problems of the existing over-taxed system)
>is publicity of the present problems that are not being timely
>addressed.  I encourage others to do the same by posting to Don
>Nelson's web site, and just as importantly, to the following Usenet
>groups:
>
> alt.internet.wireless
> dfw.internet.providers
>
>It may be possible to set up an evolving FAQ on the service posed in
>these public forums on the 1st and the 15th of each month to help
>other users and of course to share ideas and problems with each other.
>Who knows, we might appoint our own "messenger" that can deliver
>questions to ADB's "messenger" here.  
>
>In any event, this will relieve this internal Worldnet group from most
>of the message traffic here, since I, and probably a number of others,
>won't waste our time posting here on a regular basis.
>
>As far as continuing to serve as a lab rat here, I don't see the point
>until there is open direct communication with ADB.  It is unfair to
>Gage and the Worldnet folks to put them in the middle and for the only
>meaningful communication to be one-way.  Any test results I elect to
>post will be done in a public forum.  ADB can get the results by
>reading a public news group as well as simply one where the dirty
>little secret about the poor quality of the service is hidden from
>public view.
>
>As far as publicity, there are a number of technology publications
>that should be interested in this service and the existing problems
>with it, such as pcmagaizine, zdnet, telekomnet.com, and others. I am
>sure there will be a more extensive list in the public forums, soon.
>
>Finally, if other cities such as San Diego, Anchorage, Houston (and I
>forget the fourth  new city it is planned to be rolled out in) have
>something similar to our Usenet group dfw.internet.providers, let's be
>sure that posts of these problems with the Dallas experience find
>their way there to at least warn them before they fall into the same
>brochure hype that many of us here in DFW did.
>
>And, of course, if something good finally comes out of all this, by
>all means, post that as well.
>
>I don't want Gage to feel uncomfortable, so I'll suggest we move
>discussions of the issues I raised in this e-mail to the public forum
>dfw.internet.providers, with cross-posting to alt.internet.wireless
>rather than here.
>
>This will let Gage get back to what he says is his real purpose hear
>and it will allow the discussions of the "Good, the Bad and the Ugly"
>of ADB to be seen in a public, and uncensored forum.
>
>One final word for Jordan.  Throughout this process, you have been the
>one honest voice that has continued through this process.  I, and I am
>sure others here, thank you for all your sincere efforts and help.
>You are more than welcome to visit those of us that move to a public
>forum.  I am assuming since you are a volunteer, your freedom of
>speech to occasionally say hello "over there" to us is not abridged.
>
>And Gage, you are invited, too.  But you may want to use an alias in
>case the Thought Police here read those public posts as well.
>
>Other thoughts that come to mind if someone has the inclination and
>time:
>
>The Texas legislature will be meeting soon.  
>
>Maybe it's time to see some regulations on disclosures of "speeds"
>promised, not only by ATT, but all DSL and cable Internet carriers in
>terms of guaranteed or sustained average throughput instead of speeds
>"up to" as well as service "down time" both network wide and on a
>segment and average user basis.
> 
>Additionally, for those acting as a CLEC (competitive local exchange
>carrier, which I assume fits ATT in providing phone service),
>disclosure of monthly call-blocking statistics.
>
>And to answer those who ask why I don't just get rid of the service,
>I'll answer the question again.  There really is no other alternative
>for me since DSL is unavailable, cable modem is unavailable and I have
>already been ripped off by DirecPC, with its misrepresented service.
>HSD is still better on average than a 56k modem.  It just isn't what
>was promised and what I pay for.
>
>In other words, just because one endures the least objectionable
>available alternative, it doesn't mean you have to be happy with
>substandard service and performance below that which was promised to
>you.  Hope springs eternal, and there is always the chance that ATT
>can get this service working properly before DSL or cable are finally
>provided by SBC or ATT to my neighborhood (and of course, I am sure
>there will be problems with those services, too ... <g>).
>
>Obviously, anyone that disagrees with anything I have said is free to
>follow their own conscious.  I only offer my views as a suggested
>course and as the one that I have decided to pursue.
>
>This Lab Rat is moving outside the box ... fellow lab rats, come visit
>me over there!
>
>Frank
>
>On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:56:54 GMT, AT&T Gage Robinson <ggratt@att.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Frank St Claire - thanks for your list of questions regarding how ADB works.
>>This AT&T WorldNet Service Help newsgroup is to help WorldNet members connect
>>to the AT&T Digital Broadband and your technical questions about the ADB
>>cannot be answered here.
>>
>>Your concerns about contacting the ADB Customer Care has been relayed to
>>their management.
>>
>>Thanks for taking the time to share your concerns and questions to this
>>newsgroup.  If you wish to contact the ADB directly about your technical
>>questions, please write them directly at ADBSupport@att.net.
>>
>>Thank you.
>>
>>
>>"Frank St. Claire" wrote:
>>
>>> Gage,
>>>
>>> First of all, I appreciate the report. And in effort to take the high
>>> road, instead of passing judgment at this point, I will address some
>>> additional concerns I have, and that I speculate others have, relating
>>> to these two recent incidents and hope that you can respond by this
>>> same time tomorrow with frank and candid answers supplied to you by
>>> ADB (Questions are inline).  Thank you.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 23:44:53 GMT, AT&T Gage Robinson <ggratt@att.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >I am sorry that it took a while but this is what I've learned about the
>>> >outages yesterday afternoon/evening, and again this morning.
>>> >
>>> >- Yesterday the tunnel server went down impacting 100% of the ADB
>>> >users.
>>>
>>> Does this not serve to demonstrate that there may be a flaw in using
>>> VPN and tunneling, as recently suggested by another user here?
>>>
>>> >  The back up server was gracefully fired up to take over, but it
>>> >took longer than was expected.
>>>
>>> Since I have never seen a "graceful" fire-up ( I normally just turn on
>>> a server and it boots up in  2 to 5 minutes), would you please explain
>>> what was involved and why this was not automatic, or, in any event,
>>> corrected in a matter of minutes?
>>>
>>> >- This morning a router went down, again the back up equipment went
>>> >online as it should but took longer than was expected.
>>>
>>> This is very similar to the last question posed. Would you please
>>> explain what was involved and why this was not automatic, or, in any
>>> event, corrected in a matter of minutes?
>>>
>>> >- The ADB regrets the inconvenience this was for their users, and is
>>> >working to improve the turnaround time for when these events happen.
>>>
>>> Would you also explain why there is no way to even report these
>>> failures between 12 midnight and 8 am EST since there is no one on
>>> duty of HSD support (as evidenced by my attempts to reach someone this
>>> morning)?
>>>
>>> >In addition the ADB notes there is redundant equipment for everything;
>>> >including back-ups for the back-ups.
>>>
>>> Again, the question is if that redundancy exists, why in one instance
>>> did it take three hours to bring online?  Most systems today are
>>> hot-swappable with no interference with normal operations.
>>>
>>> > They've recently added significant
>>> >new capacity into their network to augment data throughput for ADB users
>>>
>>> Please talk specifics or at least percentages of past and present,
>>> normalized to take into account additional users and demands placed on
>>> the system.
>>>
>>> >and have recently installed 10 times the bandwidth to our internet
>>> >gateways
>>>
>>> Please explain what that bandwidth is.  If in fact it was only 10Mhz
>>> to begin with, that is less than 40% of a single PCS cellular tower.
>>> How could it possibly be expected to handle traffic at current loads?
>>>
>>> > - and continue to expand and improve upon the architecture that
>>> >makes it all work.
>>>
>>> Whether the architecture works or not is debatable.  Please provide
>>> specifics that have been implemented to date (I am not asking for
>>> "trade secrets," just something that assures us that presently, or
>>> with added demand, you will not run into the same or similar gateway
>>> bottlenecks inherent in the Hughes Network Systems DirecPC defective
>>> gateway architecture.  Please don't play games here.  I am honestly
>>> seeking answers.
>>> >
>>> >Finally they report they are constantly adding capacity to meet their
>>> >customers needs
>>>
>>> Again, some specifics in terms of trunk line and gateway capacity,
>>> normalized for additional demand would be helpful in establish your
>>> credibility.
>>>
>>> >and working to deliver reliable high speed data choices
>>> >to their users.
>>>
>>> Please elaborate on specifics that will cause it to meet your
>>> description, rather than the current system.
>>>
>>> Gage, I sincerely hope that with the cooperation of ADB, and you as
>>> the "messenger," we can establish a meaningful dialog.
>>>
>>> As my gesture of good faith, this e-mail will not be posted by me to
>>> any outside (Usenet) discussion groups if a suitable response is
>>> posted here by this same time tomorrow night.
>>>
>>> Thank you.