🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <j96olo$c6s$1@reader1.panix.com>,
Cydrome Leader  <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>I really think once Uverse is "mostly available", the DSL is going to end up
>>>where ISDN is now, a legacy service that few of their people are going to
>>>know about it.
>> 
>> I would have loved ISDN, but AT&T fucked it up so it never became a
>> ubiquitous service unless you were provisioning a PBX.
>
>Sadly, the committee or whoever that came up with ISDN seemed to think 
>these were the people that would want it. So obviously since nobody aside 
>from 14 businesses used it, it was hard to get for anybody else.
>

2x 64K was three times as fast as the 40k "56k" modems of the time.

>I lived at one place that I wanted ISDN at. AT&T said my CO had no capable 
>switch, but they could run the line over from another CO for only 
>$285/month or something weird like that.

I worked at 3com at the time, and was able to get a cheap 
office connect router.  Then got the AT*T "can't do it".

3com and other manufacturers had an 800 number that you could
call to "convince" AT*T to fulfill their legal obligations.

At the time, chicagonet.net didn't detect two 64k connections,
so I got all the computers in the network 128K access for
$15/month....a bit of an improvement over 40k "dialout"

But yeah, after that it had no where to go.

--Ken

-- 
Ken R. Dye                               an optimist is a guy             |
Chicago, Illinois                        that has never had               |
http://dye.datsun510.com/index1.html     much experience                  |
dye1146 at g mail dot com                                    archy        |