🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2011-11-04, Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
>
> The way I figured it, Direct was costing us $88 a month, two receivers, no
> dvr, no "on demand" service, basic plus the HD channels was it.

Jeebus fuck. My Dish bill is $113/month, but I have 2 receivers (one a 
2-tuner HD DVR), 250 channels, HBO, Showtime, Starz, and Blockbuster Movie 
Pass. Take out HBO/Sho, it's down to $84/month.

Actually, I just realized I still have a "protection plan" I bought last 
time I need a tech out here (it's cheaper than paying the per-visit fee of 
$95), which I can cancel this month or next to knock $6 off the bill.

It's no wonder my neighbors dumped Direct. Unless you "need" NFL Sunday 
Ticket, it's a giant ass-fucking ripoff.

-- 

Kristian Zoerhoff
kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com

Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:

>There was some discussion recently about the Uverse service from AT&T and
>areas where ONLY the internet part of it was available, no phone or
>cable/video service.

>It's just marketing.

>They appear to have re-badged DSL, calling it Uverse. 

Plus higher prices. But if a DSL subscriber changes to Uverse, he needs
new equipment for the same tier price and discounts go away, and he's put
on a different Internet provisioning system. I don't know if the Yahoo
mailbox goes away, not that I use it.

I think the POTS phone line goes away and he's on overpriced VoIP from
then on.

>Because of some changes at Casa del Ripco I'll cover later, I went recently
>back to their website, looking to see if there was a clue if Uverse was
>anywhere near Albany Park. Was somewhat surprised to find out "ITS AVAILABLE
>NOW!!!!".

>Everything was labeled Uverse, but only the "Internet" portion of the
>program was clickable. Selecting that shows the 3 common DSL packages, the
>1.5mb, 3.0 and 6.0mb speeds, along with the same 150GB a month cap, which is
>odd since Uverse customers are supposed to get 250GB a month.

But they weren't offering 6 meg speed tier under DSL, at least not in
my area. They've told me specifically that if I want a higher tier,
they'd reprovision me under Uverse and make me buy a new DSL modem.

>Here at the homestead we had a problem last month, the phone line basically
>died, taking the DSL out. Since me and Melissa sort of depend on the
>connection, the "within 3 days" repair estimate was sort of a pisser.

Assholes. You're a big customer. In olden days, they used to mark the
accounts of big customers for special attention, but that before SBC.

>So I decided to see about getting in bed with the devil and started to check
>Comcast out. At least the "double bundle" services, tv and internet. 

Uh, Bruce, if you don't like calling every quarter to renegotiate your
bill, don't subscribe to Comcast.

btw, make Comcast replace all your inside coax, 'cuz the satellite companies
use cheap shit. Also, Comcast will bitch about pulling two wires to the
room I want the cable modem in and the main tv viewing room, but it costs
them a minor amount in additional material and labor is about the same.
I'd make sure I had a home run to the point they ground the drop (I'm
spacing out on what that's called) because it means fewer splitters.

But you know all this.

I assure you, Comcast customer service will make you miss dealing with
AT&T. Oddly, AT&T customer service can be truly awful, but they tend
to have somewhat more intelligent people.

The biggest frustration with Comcast is dealing with high fees. Change
anything on the set-top box, they charge a $20 one-time activation fee,
and then you have to call to get it removed. Do you have a tv that's a
CableCARD receiver? They now have additional outlet charges, even though
the subscriber has provided the receiver. The HD fee is itemized, too,
although it's included in a few packages.

They play stupid games with billing cycles. The billing cycle begins a week
before the beginning of the monthly service period. In SBC/AT&T's case, the
billing cycle versus service cycle is just one day's difference, although
DSL has its own billing and service cycle, which adds to confusion. Comcast
measures lateness of the bill from the date it's issued, not when it was
due, and they train their billing reps to claim that the subscriber's
payment is late even though it's not yet due.

But Comcast's biggest frustration is sending out technicians that you
have to wait before because they never tell the subscriber that they
caused the outage in the field, so it's a waste of the subscriber's time.
They typically upgrade their servers in a way that results in outages.

So don't subscribe to Comcast expecting better customer service than AT&T.

>There were other charges I'm ignoring for now, the install came out to
>around $50 and I opted not for a modem lease, ran $150 out of pocket for a
>decent cablemodem/wireless router. But I think that'll balance out when
>direct does another price increase, being an ex-customer now.

You bought a combined thingie? I never have because I want to make
troubleshooting easier.

Comcast offers subscribers a wireless router with no monthly equipment
rental fee, just a $10 shipping charge.

On 2011-11-04, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
>
>>There was some discussion recently about the Uverse service from AT&T and
>>areas where ONLY the internet part of it was available, no phone or
>>cable/video service.
>
>>It's just marketing.
>
>>They appear to have re-badged DSL, calling it Uverse. 
>
> Plus higher prices. But if a DSL subscriber changes to Uverse, he needs
> new equipment for the same tier price and discounts go away, and he's put
> on a different Internet provisioning system. I don't know if the Yahoo
> mailbox goes away, not that I use it.
>
> I think the POTS phone line goes away and he's on overpriced VoIP from
> then on.

Not if he's on the 'net only plan.

>>Because of some changes at Casa del Ripco I'll cover later, I went recently
>>back to their website, looking to see if there was a clue if Uverse was
>>anywhere near Albany Park. Was somewhat surprised to find out "ITS AVAILABLE
>>NOW!!!!".
>
>>Everything was labeled Uverse, but only the "Internet" portion of the
>>program was clickable. Selecting that shows the 3 common DSL packages, the
>>1.5mb, 3.0 and 6.0mb speeds, along with the same 150GB a month cap, which is
>>odd since Uverse customers are supposed to get 250GB a month.
>
> But they weren't offering 6 meg speed tier under DSL, at least not in
> my area. They've told me specifically that if I want a higher tier,
> they'd reprovision me under Uverse and make me buy a new DSL modem.

They offer it; I'm on it, and have been since 2003. For a short time before 
the subdivision was built out, I was getting close to 8.



> btw, make Comcast replace all your inside coax, 'cuz the satellite companies
> use cheap shit. Also, Comcast will bitch about pulling two wires to the
> room I want the cable modem in and the main tv viewing room, but it costs
> them a minor amount in additional material and labor is about the same.
> I'd make sure I had a home run to the point they ground the drop (I'm
> spacing out on what that's called) because it means fewer splitters.

RG-6 is cheap shit? My builder used cheap shit, but Dish, at least, tends to 
do better than that. I don't they ever ran less than RG-59.

-- 

Kristian Zoerhoff
kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Uh, Bruce, if you don't like calling every quarter to renegotiate your
> bill, don't subscribe to Comcast.

> So don't subscribe to Comcast expecting better customer service than AT&T.


No, I'm expecting the worst, I never wanted Comcast in this house, but as
they say, times are a changin'. The combination of using AT&T for phone and
dsl with Direct for entertainment just was a poor value for us.

I'm just hoping that in a couple years, when this contract is up that the
Uverse will be available around here as a possible alternative. That might
be another clusterfuck, but at least it's a choice.

I really think the common services now, Direct, Dish and the dsl from at&t
are nearing an end-of-life situation. Actually I wouldn't be surprised of
Direct and Dish end up as a merger like the satellite radio services did a
while back. They really don't have much in expansion to look forward to.

The installation went fine, there really wasn't any way for them to reuse
the direct cables, so he ran new from the pole to both rooms I wanted it
installed in. The cablecard never seemed useful to me, the non-dvr box I got
to work in 2 rooms with the remote extender built into one of the sets.
Wasn't sure if it outputted both component and hdmi at the same time, but it
does. Since it's unlikely both of those sets will be in use at the same
time, on Comcast, it's a perfect solution. Both sets also have outside
antennas for the ota and some connection to the houses other "video
services", the apple tv's, google tv, boxee and a roku.

Actually the cable service can go out and we probably wouldn't notice
anyway for the most part. Like I said, the main objective was to have two
internet connections in case either fails, and that part was accomplished.

And overall it's about the same money we were spending for far less
flexibility.

-bruce
bje@ripco.com

Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
> No real point to this message, but feel like posting it.
>
> There was some discussion recently about the Uverse service from AT&T and
> areas where ONLY the internet part of it was available, no phone or
> cable/video service.
>
> It's just marketing.
>
> They appear to have re-badged DSL, calling it Uverse. 

confirmed.  I just did the check availability at my place, same thing,
"Uverse is available!!", but not TV or phone, just internet and it's the
same old DSL packages they've always had.

the new box in my alley that I mentioned before appears to be all up and
running, but not live or something.

Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>Uh, Bruce, if you don't like calling every quarter to renegotiate your
>>bill, don't subscribe to Comcast.

>>So don't subscribe to Comcast expecting better customer service than AT&T.

>No, I'm expecting the worst, I never wanted Comcast in this house, but as
>they say, times are a changin'. The combination of using AT&T for phone and
>dsl with Direct for entertainment just was a poor value for us.

>I'm just hoping that in a couple years, when this contract is up that the
>Uverse will be available around here as a possible alternative. That might
>be another clusterfuck, but at least it's a choice.

If you are a Comcast subscriber, you definitely want to be in an area
in which they have competition from another cable provider or Uverse.

btw, if you ever cancel DSL, then revert back to AT&T, make sure you go
through their "winback" sales group, which will be extremely accomodating.
I don't think you'll be allowed to order DSL through the old DSL group in
future; they'll probably make you go through the Uverse sales group.

>The installation went fine, there really wasn't any way for them to reuse
>the direct cables, so he ran new from the pole to both rooms I wanted it
>installed in.

Where is your grounded point and first splitter, on the back wall or in
your basement? Like the phone company, they should aim for the same back
wall electric comes in at, but they are sloppy as hell about installing
coax and the drop.

>Like I said, the main objective was to have two internet connections in
>case either fails, and that part was accomplished.

When Comcast knocks out Internet, it's out for days at a time, because
they never commit small screwups. My DSL has been rock solid, but
relatively slow versus cable Internet.

Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:
>Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:

>>No real point to this message, but feel like posting it.

>>There was some discussion recently about the Uverse service from AT&T and
>>areas where ONLY the internet part of it was available, no phone or
>>cable/video service.

>>It's just marketing.

>>They appear to have re-badged DSL, calling it Uverse. 

>confirmed.  I just did the check availability at my place, same thing,
>"Uverse is available!!", but not TV or phone, just internet and it's the
>same old DSL packages they've always had.

Not phone? Amazing.

They told me different in my area, that if I changed to Uverse, I'd get
phone that way, too, so VoIP which I didn't want (not at AT&T's rates).

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:
>>Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
>
>>>No real point to this message, but feel like posting it.
>
>>>There was some discussion recently about the Uverse service from AT&T and
>>>areas where ONLY the internet part of it was available, no phone or
>>>cable/video service.
>
>>>It's just marketing.
>
>>>They appear to have re-badged DSL, calling it Uverse. 
>
>>confirmed.  I just did the check availability at my place, same thing,
>>"Uverse is available!!", but not TV or phone, just internet and it's the
>>same old DSL packages they've always had.
>
> Not phone? Amazing.
>
> They told me different in my area, that if I changed to Uverse, I'd get
> phone that way, too, so VoIP which I didn't want (not at AT&T's rates).

like bruce said, they're rebranding the plain old DSL as Uverse in areas
that do not have the new stuff yet.  This was not the "uverse" DSL packages,
it was the same old DSL packages they've had forever but available on the
uverse page.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> If you are a Comcast subscriber, you definitely want to be in an area
> in which they have competition from another cable provider or Uverse.

Yeah good idea but not really practical, I'm not going to sell the house and
move into another area just because of the tv options. Some of us have
families you know.

> btw, if you ever cancel DSL, then revert back to AT&T, make sure you go
> through their "winback" sales group, which will be extremely accomodating.
> I don't think you'll be allowed to order DSL through the old DSL group in
> future; they'll probably make you go through the Uverse sales group.

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.

It's a dead end service. It's maxed out technology wise and it's biggest
plus was the fact it could be placed on an already working copper voice
line. In a lot of areas you can't even get the full benefit of it.

Think I read somewhere with the recent "terms of service" update that put a
cap on the downloading, they also are reserving the right to switch
customers from traditional services to Uverse at their disgression.

If that doesn't have the ring of death to it, dunno what does.

> Where is your grounded point and first splitter, on the back wall or in
> your basement? Like the phone company, they should aim for the same back
> wall electric comes in at, but they are sloppy as hell about installing
> coax and the drop.

It's fine. He used the hook attached to the house that is embedded into the
stucco that AT&T uses, ran it down to the water spigot and used that as the
point for the splitter and ground point.

If there is anything to complain about, it was the lack of skill on the
installers part working on this kind of house, 100 year old stucco. He
seemed to have a rough time setting anchors and drilling in general. Kind of
took him by surprise finding 13" thick walls made up of cement, wire mesh,
slats, gap, more slats, more mesh and plaster.

> When Comcast knocks out Internet, it's out for days at a time, because
> they never commit small screwups. My DSL has been rock solid, but
> relatively slow versus cable Internet.

I dunno, we'll see. I think there might be a power in numbers over here.

Not really sure since a handful of them have Dish network setups but I think
that 17 unit CHA housing thing behind us has Comcast going into all the
units. Maybe the city provides the service to them, dunno.

Just saying if there is a major outage, there might be someone else besides
the few home owners on the block complaining about it.

-bruce
bje@ripco.com

Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:
>>>Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:

>>>>No real point to this message, but feel like posting it.

>>>>There was some discussion recently about the Uverse service from AT&T and
>>>>areas where ONLY the internet part of it was available, no phone or
>>>>cable/video service.

>>>>It's just marketing.

>>>>They appear to have re-badged DSL, calling it Uverse. 

>>>confirmed.  I just did the check availability at my place, same thing,
>>>"Uverse is available!!", but not TV or phone, just internet and it's the
>>>same old DSL packages they've always had.

>>Not phone? Amazing.

>>They told me different in my area, that if I changed to Uverse, I'd get
>>phone that way, too, so VoIP which I didn't want (not at AT&T's rates).

>like bruce said, they're rebranding the plain old DSL as Uverse in areas
>that do not have the new stuff yet.  This was not the "uverse" DSL packages,
>it was the same old DSL packages they've had forever but available on the
>uverse page.

Not at the rates of speed he talked about. In my area, I had DSL a year
earlier than Uverse, before the Uverse box was stuck on top of a line
pole or on the back wall of a large apartment building. The 6 meg service
was not available through DSL. I have no idea where the device in the field
is that I'm provisioned from.

Maybe it depends on the neighborhood, but where I am, it's different equipment.

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.

I just thought it was cool that it was a switched service, unlike DSL.

>It's a dead end service. It's maxed out technology wise and it's biggest
>plus was the fact it could be placed on an already working copper voice
>line. In a lot of areas you can't even get the full benefit of it.

>Think I read somewhere with the recent "terms of service" update that put a
>cap on the downloading, they also are reserving the right to switch
>customers from traditional services to Uverse at their disgression.

>If that doesn't have the ring of death to it, dunno what does.

I see your point.

>If there is anything to complain about, it was the lack of skill on the
>installers part working on this kind of house, 100 year old stucco. He
>seemed to have a rough time setting anchors and drilling in general. Kind of
>took him by surprise finding 13" thick walls made up of cement, wire mesh,
>slats, gap, more slats, more mesh and plaster.

Interesting.

>>When Comcast knocks out Internet, it's out for days at a time, because
>>they never commit small screwups. My DSL has been rock solid, but
>>relatively slow versus cable Internet.

>I dunno, we'll see. I think there might be a power in numbers over here.

>Not really sure since a handful of them have Dish network setups but I think
>that 17 unit CHA housing thing behind us has Comcast going into all the
>units. Maybe the city provides the service to them, dunno.

>Just saying if there is a major outage, there might be someone else besides
>the few home owners on the block complaining about it.

They took out much of the northwest side of the city and it was intermitent
for weeks when they did that "upgrade" scheduled over a weekend.

You'll love it as much as I did!

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.

The only problem with ISDN it was really quite pointless to anybody that 
never had it. It was never going to be a hit, with anybody.

The same type of idiots that made LDAP came up with ISDN as a solution to 
a problem that never existed. Like anything from a committee with no real 
technical skills or real life experience, it was far too complex and 
offered nothing anybody really wanted.

Unless people with pulse dial phones and party lines were really itching 
to get 3 frames per minute video conferencing, or to have to lease another 
terminal adapter to connect to their leased telephone, class I fax machine 
and credit card terminal.

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.

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.

On 11/6/2011 1:54 PM, Cydrome Leader 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.
>
> The only problem with ISDN it was really quite pointless to anybody that
> never had it. It was never going to be a hit, with anybody.
>
> The same type of idiots that made LDAP came up with ISDN as a solution to
> a problem that never existed. Like anything from a committee with no real
> technical skills or real life experience, it was far too complex and
> offered nothing anybody really wanted.
>
> Unless people with pulse dial phones and party lines were really itching
> to get 3 frames per minute video conferencing, or to have to lease another
> terminal adapter to connect to their leased telephone, class I fax machine
> and credit card terminal.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

It never offered enough of an increase over dialup to be feasible as a 
hot product. To get any appreciable speed increase you had to have 
2-channel anyways.

That said, I had dual ISDN at home for years when I couldn't get DSL due 
to CO distance factors. It was the only better-than-dialup option I had.

What really sucked was when it had trouble and I had to grind through a 
few field techs until I found the one out of 100 that had actually heard 
of ISDN and knew what to do with it.

-- 
smr

smr <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> On 11/6/2011 1:54 PM, Cydrome Leader 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.
>>
>> The only problem with ISDN it was really quite pointless to anybody that
>> never had it. It was never going to be a hit, with anybody.
>>
>> The same type of idiots that made LDAP came up with ISDN as a solution to
>> a problem that never existed. Like anything from a committee with no real
>> technical skills or real life experience, it was far too complex and
>> offered nothing anybody really wanted.
>>
>> Unless people with pulse dial phones and party lines were really itching
>> to get 3 frames per minute video conferencing, or to have to lease another
>> terminal adapter to connect to their leased telephone, class I fax machine
>> and credit card terminal.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
> 
> It never offered enough of an increase over dialup to be feasible as a 
> hot product. To get any appreciable speed increase you had to have 
> 2-channel anyways.
> 
> That said, I had dual ISDN at home for years when I couldn't get DSL due 
> to CO distance factors. It was the only better-than-dialup option I had.
> 
> What really sucked was when it had trouble and I had to grind through a 
> few field techs until I found the one out of 100 that had actually heard 
> of ISDN and knew what to do with it.

Any of my calls about ordering ISDN caused massive confusion after that 
TEAM-DATA number went away, since it wasn't a consumer service and I 
wasn't a business either. It seemed like it was some bastard service 
nobody directly sold or supported.

I still laugh when I see circuits with IBZD on them usually with an 
Ameritech logo-ed tag.

On 11/7/2011 10:21 AM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>  wrote:
>> On 11/6/2011 1:54 PM, Cydrome Leader 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.
>>>
>>> The only problem with ISDN it was really quite pointless to anybody that
>>> never had it. It was never going to be a hit, with anybody.
>>>
>>> The same type of idiots that made LDAP came up with ISDN as a solution to
>>> a problem that never existed. Like anything from a committee with no real
>>> technical skills or real life experience, it was far too complex and
>>> offered nothing anybody really wanted.
>>>
>>> Unless people with pulse dial phones and party lines were really itching
>>> to get 3 frames per minute video conferencing, or to have to lease another
>>> terminal adapter to connect to their leased telephone, class I fax machine
>>> and credit card terminal.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> It never offered enough of an increase over dialup to be feasible as a
>> hot product. To get any appreciable speed increase you had to have
>> 2-channel anyways.
>>
>> That said, I had dual ISDN at home for years when I couldn't get DSL due
>> to CO distance factors. It was the only better-than-dialup option I had.
>>
>> What really sucked was when it had trouble and I had to grind through a
>> few field techs until I found the one out of 100 that had actually heard
>> of ISDN and knew what to do with it.
>
> Any of my calls about ordering ISDN caused massive confusion after that
> TEAM-DATA number went away, since it wasn't a consumer service and I
> wasn't a business either. It seemed like it was some bastard service
> nobody directly sold or supported.
>
> I still laugh when I see circuits with IBZD on them usually with an
> Ameritech logo-ed tag.

I had to go through my Provisioning contacts over there from work to get 
the fucker installed at all. Once they found out I was a residence they 
REALLY didn't want to install it but I was able to get it done.

-- 
smr

In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
> The same type of idiots that made LDAP came up with ISDN as a solution to 
> a problem that never existed. Like anything from a committee with no real 
> technical skills or real life experience, it was far too complex and 
> offered nothing anybody really wanted.

ISDN certainly wasn't complex by today's standards.  Running a digital 
protocol on a digital switch is far simpler than detecting DTMF, doing 
a/d, and providing ring and tone cadences.  What made ISDN not feasible 
in the US is no one could agree on a standard.  My memory might be off 
but there was National ISDN standard 1 and then NI2 and then maybe more 
and even with those standards the switch manufacturers implemented the 
protocols differently.  So if you had some new whiz bang phone you had 
to set an option for the type of switch you're connected to.  The phone 
makers had to design to all implementations.  This makes mass producing 
CPE rather difficult.  In Europe they had ETSI which defined the ISDN 
interface for the entire continent and whatever other country wanted to 
comply.  This allowed CPE makers to design and support a single 
interface able to sell in all ETSI markets which allowed their costs to 
decrease.  I think at one point in Germany all new phone deployments 
were ISDN, thus, they could upgrade all their line units from analog to 
digital which is the natural progression for all telecom.  The phone 
companies in this country didn't really want it and why should they 
upgrade their equipment when it's already paid for and still works.  
It's not like they have any competitors breathing down their necks.

Also, why the hate on LDAP?  Just curious.  What do you prefer instead 
of LDAP?


> 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.

ISDN does have value and at the time provided much better speeds than 
modems.

> 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.

That's what happens when you let a monopoly run things.  They simply 
don't care.

Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
>> The same type of idiots that made LDAP came up with ISDN as a solution to 
>> a problem that never existed. Like anything from a committee with no real 
>> technical skills or real life experience, it was far too complex and 
>> offered nothing anybody really wanted.
> 
> ISDN certainly wasn't complex by today's standards.  Running a digital 
> protocol on a digital switch is far simpler than detecting DTMF, doing 
> a/d, and providing ring and tone cadences.  What made ISDN not feasible 
> in the US is no one could agree on a standard.  My memory might be off 
> but there was National ISDN standard 1 and then NI2 and then maybe more 
> and even with those standards the switch manufacturers implemented the 
> protocols differently.  So if you had some new whiz bang phone you had 
> to set an option for the type of switch you're connected to.  The phone 
> makers had to design to all implementations.  This makes mass producing 
> CPE rather difficult.  In Europe they had ETSI which defined the ISDN 
> interface for the entire continent and whatever other country wanted to 
> comply.  This allowed CPE makers to design and support a single 
> interface able to sell in all ETSI markets which allowed their costs to 
> decrease.  I think at one point in Germany all new phone deployments 
> were ISDN, thus, they could upgrade all their line units from analog to 
> digital which is the natural progression for all telecom.  The phone 
> companies in this country didn't really want it and why should they 
> upgrade their equipment when it's already paid for and still works.  
> It's not like they have any competitors breathing down their necks.

I forgot about that switch type stuff.

Europe has some shitty phone systems. What ever they do, is usually just 
wrong.

> Also, why the hate on LDAP?  Just curious.  What do you prefer instead 
> of LDAP?

LDAP is pure bullshit no matter how you look at it. It's the electronic 
version of flipping though the yellow pages while repeating the alphabet 
over and over again. Message to anybody involved in creating LDAP- you're 
a complete fucking idiot, and you deserve to die in a slow burning fire 
tha makes no toxic smoke to kill you right away.

AD, while based on LDAP actually works the first time where you don't have 
to see all the broken garbage under the hood. IF x.500 wasn't such a bad 
idea to start with, you would not need LDAP which is a giant bloated in 
practice piece of shit which is just hack upon hack upon hack, and quite 
possibly the worst "standard" of any sort.

Directory service stuff is still obnoxious. It's a rediculous way to store 
information in these days.

>> 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.
> 
> ISDN does have value and at the time provided much better speeds than 
> modems.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> That's what happens when you let a monopoly run things.  They simply 
> don't care.

pretty much.

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        |

dye <dye11@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net> wrote:
>Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.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.

The 56k was limited to 53k by FCC for a technical reason I never understood.
It was never anywhere close to that speed due to usual crap telephone lines,
and that not every switch was appropriate to the digital link that speed
required.

ISDN would have been highly reliable and cleaner.

I've always wondered if ISDN had been available immediately, whether
subscribers could have created their own networks on the fly including
hosts added or taken down as necessary, comparable to dialing a telephone
number to setting up a voice call.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> The 56k was limited to 53k by FCC for a technical reason I never understood.
> It was never anywhere close to that speed due to usual crap telephone lines,
> and that not every switch was appropriate to the digital link that speed
> required.

I don't know if this applies as the reason but that whole v.90/92 standard
for 56k was based on a pipe dream.

Generally the phone company only guaranteed the bandwidth of a normal analog
line as 300Hz to 3000Hz, the 56k crap used tone sets (like 280Hz and 3150Hz)
outside of that range. I'd guess it was some kind of "look the other way"
kind of thing. They usually stuck with the same bullshit they still use
today, "speeds up to 56K".

I'd guess the feds set the limit to what was actually available rather than
the modem companies using the "finger crossed" support of 56k.

There was another problem that cropped up when dialup started to fade, some
of the suburbs around here started to get some kind of digital sharing of
their phone lines. Guess it was a capacity issue, not enough copper.

Happend to my accountant in Glenview, ordered a fax line and ended up
getting some small terminal installed, one line (the old one) going to it,
two lines out into the house. Two phone numbers.

After that, he was limited to the old 33.6k no matter what he tried.

Sort of glad that whole modem dialup is nearly dead and buried, that fucking
v90 shit was the worst. That fucking re-training when there was a burst of
line noise, thing would lock up with the ARQ light blinking on and off for
sometimes up to 2 minutes, if the connection didn't drop.

That next phase for v92 looked like another nightmare with the modem-on-hold
shit. Supposedly a user could be connected to the host, another call comes
in on their line, they could suspend the connection, take the call, then
connect back to the host without having to dial back in. Ha.

Trivia fact:

The time needed to open a 1 meg (yes just 1,000,000 bytes) mailbox on a
33.6k modem dialup.... 5 minutes.

-bruce
bje@ripco.com

dye <dye@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net> wrote:

> 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"

Hmm, that doesn't sound right.

Maybe they didn't detect it but must of permitted it, the channel bonding
for ISDN was mostly an option to support, I don't think it was "on" by
default with most hardware.

Besides the profile to support the bonding, the stuff we used (livingston
and 3com) I think used a stock profile setting "Line-Limit=1" so if someone
borrowed someone elses login and tried to use it, both connections were
dropped.

I'm just saying, was probably more intentional than accidental.

Maybe they outsourced.

-bruce
bje@ripco.com

Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
> Trivia fact:
>
> The time needed to open a 1 meg (yes just 1,000,000 bytes) mailbox on a
> 33.6k modem dialup.... 5 minutes.

back when I was at NU in the mid-90s, we had an "internet installer", this
being before the OS's came with much in the way of applications.  early
versions had trumpet winsock and macslip, later ones would configure the
windows '95 dialer or macppp.  it would then install eudora, usenet reader
(I forget what the windows one was, but mac was newswatcher), and some other
stuff.  we had a "starter" disk that would get dialup going and then
download the rest.  Was like 13MB.  The NU modem pool had a 90 minute limit.
At 33.6, you were usually okay, but at 28.8, it would get touchy.  first
year of modem download, they didn't have a resume feature.  the next year,
it was added.  By '98 or '99 they weren't needed at all anymore.

On 2011-11-08, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> dye <dye11@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net> wrote:
>>Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.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.
>
> The 56k was limited to 53k by FCC for a technical reason I never understood.
> It was never anywhere close to that speed due to usual crap telephone lines,
> and that not every switch was appropriate to the digital link that speed
> required.

IIRC, it was a power issue. In order to get 56K over typical line noise, the 
modem needed to send out more power than the phone regs would actually 
allow. 

-- 

Kristian Zoerhoff
kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com

Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
> dye <dye@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net> wrote:
> 
>> 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"
> 
> Hmm, that doesn't sound right.
> 
> Maybe they didn't detect it but must of permitted it, the channel bonding
> for ISDN was mostly an option to support, I don't think it was "on" by
> default with most hardware.
> 
> Besides the profile to support the bonding, the stuff we used (livingston
> and 3com) I think used a stock profile setting "Line-Limit=1" so if someone
> borrowed someone elses login and tried to use it, both connections were
> dropped.
> 
> I'm just saying, was probably more intentional than accidental.
> 
> Maybe they outsourced.

I think I used chicagonet if it was the NT (really) based ISP that just 
rented dialup pool connections from level3 or something like that.

lots of those places really didn't know if you had both channels up. It 
took RCN years to notice I (and everybody) was doing that.

When that changed, I got the phone bill that I though would be thousands 
of dollars, but due to new regulations was capped and each call was just 
fractions of a cent or something like that. My router had been dialing on 
that second channel for a week or something before I noticed.

Since it was a real router (cisco 2620 I think), I never really noticed 
all the dozens of usually meaningless lights flashing as on a modem or 
terminal adapter. Traffic shaping on that thing with whatever IOS I had 
caused it to crash too. So yeah, in the mid 2000s I was using traffic 
shaping based off traffic types to get the most out of my ISDN.

In article <j9envk$6v0$1@reader1.panix.com>,
Cydrome Leader  <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
>> dye <dye@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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"
>> 
>> Hmm, that doesn't sound right.
>> 
>> Maybe they didn't detect it but must of permitted it, the channel bonding
>> for ISDN was mostly an option to support, I don't think it was "on" by
>> default with most hardware.
>> 
>> Besides the profile to support the bonding, the stuff we used (livingston
>> and 3com) I think used a stock profile setting "Line-Limit=1" so if someone
>> borrowed someone elses login and tried to use it, both connections were
>> dropped.
>> 
>> I'm just saying, was probably more intentional than accidental.
>> 
>> Maybe they outsourced.
>
>I think I used chicagonet if it was the NT (really) based ISP that just 
>rented dialup pool connections from level3 or something like that.
>
>lots of those places really didn't know if you had both channels up. It 
>took RCN years to notice I (and everybody) was doing that.

They had two different price plans, so not intentional.  I seem to 
remember my one data line being "dialed out" most of the time.
Since it was a "Band A" call, it was 5 cents, untimed.

--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        |

dye <dye11@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net> wrote:
>Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>>Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
>>>dye <dye@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net> wrote:

>>>>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"

>>>Hmm, that doesn't sound right.

>>>Maybe they didn't detect it but must of permitted it, the channel bonding
>>>for ISDN was mostly an option to support, I don't think it was "on" by
>>>default with most hardware.

>>>Besides the profile to support the bonding, the stuff we used (livingston
>>>and 3com) I think used a stock profile setting "Line-Limit=1" so if someone
>>>borrowed someone elses login and tried to use it, both connections were
>>>dropped.

>>>I'm just saying, was probably more intentional than accidental.

>>>Maybe they outsourced.

>>I think I used chicagonet if it was the NT (really) based ISP that just 
>>rented dialup pool connections from level3 or something like that.

>>lots of those places really didn't know if you had both channels up. It 
>>took RCN years to notice I (and everybody) was doing that.

>They had two different price plans, so not intentional.  I seem to 
>remember my one data line being "dialed out" most of the time.
>Since it was a "Band A" call, it was 5 cents, untimed.

Timed data call is the stupidity that prevented ISDN from being more
widely deployed and kept numerous people on modems who would have
bought digital service instead.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> dye <dye11@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net> wrote:
>>Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>>>Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
>>>>dye <dye@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net> wrote:
> 
>>>>>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"
> 
>>>>Hmm, that doesn't sound right.
> 
>>>>Maybe they didn't detect it but must of permitted it, the channel bonding
>>>>for ISDN was mostly an option to support, I don't think it was "on" by
>>>>default with most hardware.
> 
>>>>Besides the profile to support the bonding, the stuff we used (livingston
>>>>and 3com) I think used a stock profile setting "Line-Limit=1" so if someone
>>>>borrowed someone elses login and tried to use it, both connections were
>>>>dropped.
> 
>>>>I'm just saying, was probably more intentional than accidental.
> 
>>>>Maybe they outsourced.
> 
>>>I think I used chicagonet if it was the NT (really) based ISP that just 
>>>rented dialup pool connections from level3 or something like that.
> 
>>>lots of those places really didn't know if you had both channels up. It 
>>>took RCN years to notice I (and everybody) was doing that.
> 
>>They had two different price plans, so not intentional.  I seem to 
>>remember my one data line being "dialed out" most of the time.
>>Since it was a "Band A" call, it was 5 cents, untimed.
> 
> Timed data call is the stupidity that prevented ISDN from being more
> widely deployed and kept numerous people on modems who would have
> bought digital service instead.

Was this strictly because it was data or a "business" type service?

I'm sure this changed at some point, but as I recall businesses always 
payed per minute for their calls and didn't get the flat rate or callpack 
stuff consumers got. With the ISDN stuff, unless you said it was home 
service, you'd pay the always higher business rates even if you never 
placed a call.

At least in 1997 or 1998 they had the untimed rates for under x distance 
for businesses. Even then and for years after your first ISDN bill was 
anxiously waited to see if you were lied to about how much a call would 
really cost. Around that time I was at a place that had multiple ISDN 
lines tied between chicago and addison until we could have the badass T1 
moved over. As you might guess, that first phone bill was quite amusing. 
It still wasn't cool enough to come in a box though.

The other deregulation era complete joke was "reciprocal compensation"- 
where in theory, ameritech would pay you to terminal a phone call if you 
did it digitally or though your own switch or something like that. Of 
course they never payed unles you sued for so many years that everybody 
forogt what the suit was even about.

"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote in
news:j9t1m6$4ee$1@news.albasani.net: 

> dye <dye11@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net> wrote:
>>Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>>>Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
>>>>dye <dye@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net> wrote:
> 
>>>>>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"
> 
>>>>Hmm, that doesn't sound right.
> 
>>>>Maybe they didn't detect it but must of permitted it, the channel
>>>>bonding for ISDN was mostly an option to support, I don't think it
>>>>was "on" by default with most hardware.
> 
>>>>Besides the profile to support the bonding, the stuff we used
>>>>(livingston and 3com) I think used a stock profile setting
>>>>"Line-Limit=1" so if someone borrowed someone elses login and tried
>>>>to use it, both connections were dropped.
> 
>>>>I'm just saying, was probably more intentional than accidental.
> 
>>>>Maybe they outsourced.
> 
>>>I think I used chicagonet if it was the NT (really) based ISP that
>>>just rented dialup pool connections from level3 or something like
>>>that. 
> 
>>>lots of those places really didn't know if you had both channels up.
>>>It took RCN years to notice I (and everybody) was doing that.
> 
>>They had two different price plans, so not intentional.  I seem to 
>>remember my one data line being "dialed out" most of the time.
>>Since it was a "Band A" call, it was 5 cents, untimed.
> 
> Timed data call is the stupidity that prevented ISDN from being more
> widely deployed and kept numerous people on modems who would have
> bought digital service instead.

That's what killed it for me. First couple of phone bills were 
outrageous, so we dropped it. Yes, it was a business line. 

To add insult to injury, my rep signed me up for completelink at the time 
so I got a discount based on an agreed amount of volume, that came from 
the ISDN call estimates. After the year was up I got a bill for $700. 

-- 
Coming to you from the beautiful Chicago suburbs

On 11/15/2011 2:22 AM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman<ahk@chinet.com>  wrote:
>> dye<dye11@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net>  wrote:
>>> Cydrome Leader<presence@MUNGEpanix.com>  wrote:
>>>> Bruce Esquibel<bje@ripco.com>  wrote:
>>>>> dye<dye@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net>  wrote:
>>
>>>>>> 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"
>>
>>>>> Hmm, that doesn't sound right.
>>
>>>>> Maybe they didn't detect it but must of permitted it, the channel bonding
>>>>> for ISDN was mostly an option to support, I don't think it was "on" by
>>>>> default with most hardware.
>>
>>>>> Besides the profile to support the bonding, the stuff we used (livingston
>>>>> and 3com) I think used a stock profile setting "Line-Limit=1" so if someone
>>>>> borrowed someone elses login and tried to use it, both connections were
>>>>> dropped.
>>
>>>>> I'm just saying, was probably more intentional than accidental.
>>
>>>>> Maybe they outsourced.
>>
>>>> I think I used chicagonet if it was the NT (really) based ISP that just
>>>> rented dialup pool connections from level3 or something like that.
>>
>>>> lots of those places really didn't know if you had both channels up. It
>>>> took RCN years to notice I (and everybody) was doing that.
>>
>>> They had two different price plans, so not intentional.  I seem to
>>> remember my one data line being "dialed out" most of the time.
>>> Since it was a "Band A" call, it was 5 cents, untimed.
>>
>> Timed data call is the stupidity that prevented ISDN from being more
>> widely deployed and kept numerous people on modems who would have
>> bought digital service instead.
>
> Was this strictly because it was data or a "business" type service?
>
> I'm sure this changed at some point, but as I recall businesses always
> payed per minute for their calls and didn't get the flat rate or callpack
> stuff consumers got. With the ISDN stuff, unless you said it was home
> service, you'd pay the always higher business rates even if you never
> placed a call.

Yep. Businesses never got the flat rate stuff that I recall, either. I 
had a few arguments with their billing for my dual-ISDN where they 
somehow thought my home was a business.

> The other deregulation era complete joke was "reciprocal compensation"-
> where in theory, ameritech would pay you to terminal a phone call if you
> did it digitally or though your own switch or something like that. Of
> course they never payed unles you sued for so many years that everybody
> forogt what the suit was even about.

Ah, CABS fees. These are still a very hilariously entertaining part of 
the phone biz. We're all breaking a fuckton of Federal regulations and 
laws with how we handle 'em, is my guess. Basically, we all agree to not 
charge each other the recip comp fees. Every once in a while, some 
small-town asshole company makes a stink about it and we have to band 
together with the big dogs to let the little company know what's going 
to happen to their business overall if they really try to push the CABS 
issue.

-- 
smr

smr <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 2:22 AM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman<ahk@chinet.com>  wrote:
>>> dye<dye11@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net>  wrote:
>>>> Cydrome Leader<presence@MUNGEpanix.com>  wrote:
>>>>> Bruce Esquibel<bje@ripco.com>  wrote:
>>>>>> dye<dye@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> 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"
>>>
>>>>>> Hmm, that doesn't sound right.
>>>
>>>>>> Maybe they didn't detect it but must of permitted it, the channel bonding
>>>>>> for ISDN was mostly an option to support, I don't think it was "on" by
>>>>>> default with most hardware.
>>>
>>>>>> Besides the profile to support the bonding, the stuff we used (livingston
>>>>>> and 3com) I think used a stock profile setting "Line-Limit=1" so if someone
>>>>>> borrowed someone elses login and tried to use it, both connections were
>>>>>> dropped.
>>>
>>>>>> I'm just saying, was probably more intentional than accidental.
>>>
>>>>>> Maybe they outsourced.
>>>
>>>>> I think I used chicagonet if it was the NT (really) based ISP that just
>>>>> rented dialup pool connections from level3 or something like that.
>>>
>>>>> lots of those places really didn't know if you had both channels up. It
>>>>> took RCN years to notice I (and everybody) was doing that.
>>>
>>>> They had two different price plans, so not intentional.  I seem to
>>>> remember my one data line being "dialed out" most of the time.
>>>> Since it was a "Band A" call, it was 5 cents, untimed.
>>>
>>> Timed data call is the stupidity that prevented ISDN from being more
>>> widely deployed and kept numerous people on modems who would have
>>> bought digital service instead.
>>
>> Was this strictly because it was data or a "business" type service?
>>
>> I'm sure this changed at some point, but as I recall businesses always
>> payed per minute for their calls and didn't get the flat rate or callpack
>> stuff consumers got. With the ISDN stuff, unless you said it was home
>> service, you'd pay the always higher business rates even if you never
>> placed a call.
> 
> Yep. Businesses never got the flat rate stuff that I recall, either. I 
> had a few arguments with their billing for my dual-ISDN where they 
> somehow thought my home was a business.
> 
>> The other deregulation era complete joke was "reciprocal compensation"-
>> where in theory, ameritech would pay you to terminal a phone call if you
>> did it digitally or though your own switch or something like that. Of
>> course they never payed unles you sued for so many years that everybody
>> forogt what the suit was even about.
> 
> Ah, CABS fees. These are still a very hilariously entertaining part of 
> the phone biz. We're all breaking a fuckton of Federal regulations and 
> laws with how we handle 'em, is my guess. Basically, we all agree to not 
> charge each other the recip comp fees. Every once in a while, some 
> small-town asshole company makes a stink about it and we have to band 
> together with the big dogs to let the little company know what's going 
> to happen to their business overall if they really try to push the CABS 
> issue.

haha.

what sort of handwritten bills do those hick grain, electric and phone 
co-ops come up with? $148.23?

On 11/15/2011 11:27 AM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>  wrote:
>> On 11/15/2011 2:22 AM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>>> Adam H. Kerman<ahk@chinet.com>   wrote:
>>>> dye<dye11@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net>   wrote:
>>>>> Cydrome Leader<presence@MUNGEpanix.com>   wrote:
>>>>>> Bruce Esquibel<bje@ripco.com>   wrote:
>>>>>>> dye<dye@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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"
>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmm, that doesn't sound right.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe they didn't detect it but must of permitted it, the channel bonding
>>>>>>> for ISDN was mostly an option to support, I don't think it was "on" by
>>>>>>> default with most hardware.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Besides the profile to support the bonding, the stuff we used (livingston
>>>>>>> and 3com) I think used a stock profile setting "Line-Limit=1" so if someone
>>>>>>> borrowed someone elses login and tried to use it, both connections were
>>>>>>> dropped.
>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm just saying, was probably more intentional than accidental.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe they outsourced.
>>>>
>>>>>> I think I used chicagonet if it was the NT (really) based ISP that just
>>>>>> rented dialup pool connections from level3 or something like that.
>>>>
>>>>>> lots of those places really didn't know if you had both channels up. It
>>>>>> took RCN years to notice I (and everybody) was doing that.
>>>>
>>>>> They had two different price plans, so not intentional.  I seem to
>>>>> remember my one data line being "dialed out" most of the time.
>>>>> Since it was a "Band A" call, it was 5 cents, untimed.
>>>>
>>>> Timed data call is the stupidity that prevented ISDN from being more
>>>> widely deployed and kept numerous people on modems who would have
>>>> bought digital service instead.
>>>
>>> Was this strictly because it was data or a "business" type service?
>>>
>>> I'm sure this changed at some point, but as I recall businesses always
>>> payed per minute for their calls and didn't get the flat rate or callpack
>>> stuff consumers got. With the ISDN stuff, unless you said it was home
>>> service, you'd pay the always higher business rates even if you never
>>> placed a call.
>>
>> Yep. Businesses never got the flat rate stuff that I recall, either. I
>> had a few arguments with their billing for my dual-ISDN where they
>> somehow thought my home was a business.
>>
>>> The other deregulation era complete joke was "reciprocal compensation"-
>>> where in theory, ameritech would pay you to terminal a phone call if you
>>> did it digitally or though your own switch or something like that. Of
>>> course they never payed unles you sued for so many years that everybody
>>> forogt what the suit was even about.
>>
>> Ah, CABS fees. These are still a very hilariously entertaining part of
>> the phone biz. We're all breaking a fuckton of Federal regulations and
>> laws with how we handle 'em, is my guess. Basically, we all agree to not
>> charge each other the recip comp fees. Every once in a while, some
>> small-town asshole company makes a stink about it and we have to band
>> together with the big dogs to let the little company know what's going
>> to happen to their business overall if they really try to push the CABS
>> issue.
>
> haha.
>
> what sort of handwritten bills do those hick grain, electric and phone
> co-ops come up with? $148.23?

Yeah, it's usually some ridiculous amount not worth squabbling over, but 
there have been a few court cases over the years.

-- 
smr

smr <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote in news:j9u9hu$pf0$1@ftupet.ftupet.com:

> On 11/15/2011 11:27 AM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>  wrote:
>>> On 11/15/2011 2:22 AM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>>>> Adam H. Kerman<ahk@chinet.com>   wrote:
>>>>> dye<dye11@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net>   wrote:
>>>>>> Cydrome Leader<presence@MUNGEpanix.com>   wrote:
>>>>>>> Bruce Esquibel<bje@ripco.com>   wrote:
>>>>>>>> dye<dye@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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"
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmm, that doesn't sound right.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe they didn't detect it but must of permitted it, the
>>>>>>>> channel bonding for ISDN was mostly an option to support, I
>>>>>>>> don't think it was "on" by default with most hardware.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Besides the profile to support the bonding, the stuff we used
>>>>>>>> (livingston and 3com) I think used a stock profile setting
>>>>>>>> "Line-Limit=1" so if someone borrowed someone elses login and
>>>>>>>> tried to use it, both connections were dropped.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm just saying, was probably more intentional than accidental.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe they outsourced.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think I used chicagonet if it was the NT (really) based ISP
>>>>>>> that just rented dialup pool connections from level3 or
>>>>>>> something like that. 
>>>>>
>>>>>>> lots of those places really didn't know if you had both channels
>>>>>>> up. It took RCN years to notice I (and everybody) was doing
>>>>>>> that. 
>>>>>
>>>>>> They had two different price plans, so not intentional.  I seem
>>>>>> to remember my one data line being "dialed out" most of the time.
>>>>>> Since it was a "Band A" call, it was 5 cents, untimed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Timed data call is the stupidity that prevented ISDN from being
>>>>> more widely deployed and kept numerous people on modems who would
>>>>> have bought digital service instead.
>>>>
>>>> Was this strictly because it was data or a "business" type service?
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure this changed at some point, but as I recall businesses
>>>> always payed per minute for their calls and didn't get the flat
>>>> rate or callpack stuff consumers got. With the ISDN stuff, unless
>>>> you said it was home service, you'd pay the always higher business
>>>> rates even if you never placed a call.
>>>
>>> Yep. Businesses never got the flat rate stuff that I recall, either.
>>> I had a few arguments with their billing for my dual-ISDN where they
>>> somehow thought my home was a business.
>>>
>>>> The other deregulation era complete joke was "reciprocal
>>>> compensation"- where in theory, ameritech would pay you to terminal
>>>> a phone call if you did it digitally or though your own switch or
>>>> something like that. Of course they never payed unles you sued for
>>>> so many years that everybody forogt what the suit was even about.
>>>
>>> Ah, CABS fees. These are still a very hilariously entertaining part
>>> of the phone biz. We're all breaking a fuckton of Federal
>>> regulations and laws with how we handle 'em, is my guess. Basically,
>>> we all agree to not charge each other the recip comp fees. Every
>>> once in a while, some small-town asshole company makes a stink about
>>> it and we have to band together with the big dogs to let the little
>>> company know what's going to happen to their business overall if
>>> they really try to push the CABS issue.
>>
>> haha.
>>
>> what sort of handwritten bills do those hick grain, electric and
>> phone co-ops come up with? $148.23?
> 
> Yeah, it's usually some ridiculous amount not worth squabbling over,
> but there have been a few court cases over the years.

An ex co-worker's mom lived in Boll Shoals Arkansas, and there's some 
little family telecom company there that has an exclusive monopoly. She 
wanted and got that Microsoft Web TV, connected it with the simple 
instructions, and nothing. Turns out you have to pay extra to use the 
internet, even via dialup, or they filter out the modem tones. They have 
the cable monopoly there too. The internet use charge was more than the 
Web TV charge, and more than the most basic DSL here. This was last year.  

-- 
Coming to you from the beautiful Chicago suburbs

On 11/15/2011 12:12 PM, Eric wrote:

> An ex co-worker's mom lived in Boll Shoals Arkansas, and there's some
> little family telecom company there that has an exclusive monopoly. She
> wanted and got that Microsoft Web TV, connected it with the simple
> instructions, and nothing. Turns out you have to pay extra to use the
> internet, even via dialup, or they filter out the modem tones. They have
> the cable monopoly there too. The internet use charge was more than the
> Web TV charge, and more than the most basic DSL here. This was last year.

Her fault for living in fucking Arkansas.

-- 
smr

Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>dye <dye11@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>>>>Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
>>>>>dye <dye@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net> wrote:

>>>>>>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"

>>>>>Hmm, that doesn't sound right.

>>>>>Maybe they didn't detect it but must of permitted it, the channel bonding
>>>>>for ISDN was mostly an option to support, I don't think it was "on" by
>>>>>default with most hardware.

>>>>>Besides the profile to support the bonding, the stuff we used
>>>>>(livingston and 3com) I think used a stock profile setting
>>>>>"Line-Limit=1" so if someone borrowed someone elses login and tried
>>>>>to use it, both connections were dropped.

>>>>>I'm just saying, was probably more intentional than accidental.

>>>>>Maybe they outsourced.

>>>>I think I used chicagonet if it was the NT (really) based ISP that just 
>>>>rented dialup pool connections from level3 or something like that.

>>>>lots of those places really didn't know if you had both channels up. It 
>>>>took RCN years to notice I (and everybody) was doing that.

>>>They had two different price plans, so not intentional.  I seem to 
>>>remember my one data line being "dialed out" most of the time.
>>>Since it was a "Band A" call, it was 5 cents, untimed.

>>Timed data call is the stupidity that prevented ISDN from being more
>>widely deployed and kept numerous people on modems who would have
>>bought digital service instead.

>Was this strictly because it was data or a "business" type service?

Timed service was their one size fits all business model. There are still
a handful of voice call rates today with a higher charge for the first
minute, you know, 'cuz it pays the wages of the operator who sets up
the call.

>I'm sure this changed at some point, but as I recall businesses always 
>payed per minute for their calls and didn't get the flat rate or callpack 
>stuff consumers got. With the ISDN stuff, unless you said it was home 
>service, you'd pay the always higher business rates even if you never 
>placed a call.

At an office I use in the Loop, there is a single line business phone. We
pay per minute. The only other choice is an untimed nationwide calling
plan, but the price is excessive versus our calling needs, with nothing
in between. Our per minute rates for local calls are significantly higher
than wat we pay for long distance. Unfortunately, as the long distance
company is a reseller and our calls could be routed via one of several
carriers, if we used the dial around code to complete local calls, we
wouldn't be billed at the same rates.

>At least in 1997 or 1998 they had the untimed rates for under x distance 
>for businesses. Even then and for years after your first ISDN bill was 
>anxiously waited to see if you were lied to about how much a call would 
>really cost. Around that time I was at a place that had multiple ISDN 
>lines tied between chicago and addison until we could have the badass T1 
>moved over. As you might guess, that first phone bill was quite amusing. 
>It still wasn't cool enough to come in a box though.

I've seen bills like that, sure.

>The other deregulation era complete joke was "reciprocal compensation"- 
>where in theory, ameritech would pay you to terminal a phone call if you 
>did it digitally or though your own switch or something like that. Of 
>course they never payed unles you sued for so many years that everybody 
>forogt what the suit was even about.

Interesting. I didn't know that was supposed to be done.

smr <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>On 11/15/2011 2:22 AM, Cydrome Leader wrote:

>>The other deregulation era complete joke was "reciprocal compensation"-
>>where in theory, ameritech would pay you to terminal a phone call if you
>>did it digitally or though your own switch or something like that. Of
>>course they never payed unles you sued for so many years that everybody
>>forogt what the suit was even about.

>Ah, CABS fees. These are still a very hilariously entertaining part of 
>the phone biz. We're all breaking a fuckton of Federal regulations and 
>laws with how we handle 'em, is my guess. Basically, we all agree to not 
>charge each other the recip comp fees. Every once in a while, some 
>small-town asshole company makes a stink about it and we have to band 
>together with the big dogs to let the little company know what's going 
>to happen to their business overall if they really try to push the CABS 
>issue.

Are you talking about a business, or a very small telephone company?
I thought the business model of the latter was to set extremely high
rates to terminate calls on its network to rip off any IXC unfortunate
enough to send a call their way.

On 2011-11-16, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> smr <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>>On 11/15/2011 2:22 AM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>
>>>The other deregulation era complete joke was "reciprocal compensation"-
>>>where in theory, ameritech would pay you to terminal a phone call if you
>>>did it digitally or though your own switch or something like that. Of
>>>course they never payed unles you sued for so many years that everybody
>>>forogt what the suit was even about.
>
>>Ah, CABS fees. These are still a very hilariously entertaining part of 
>>the phone biz. We're all breaking a fuckton of Federal regulations and 
>>laws with how we handle 'em, is my guess. Basically, we all agree to not 
>>charge each other the recip comp fees. Every once in a while, some 
>>small-town asshole company makes a stink about it and we have to band 
>>together with the big dogs to let the little company know what's going 
>>to happen to their business overall if they really try to push the CABS 
>>issue.
>
> Are you talking about a business, or a very small telephone company?
> I thought the business model of the latter was to set extremely high
> rates to terminate calls on its network to rip off any IXC unfortunate
> enough to send a call their way.

It ain't just small telcos.

Our teleconference service at work is run by AT&T. We normally use the 
toll-free numbers, but there are also toll numbers to a "premium rate" 
exchange in Philadelphia, frequently used by international employees. I 
tried to use the toll number over my Vonage line for a while to save The 
Company some cash (as I have flat-rate calling), but Vonage apparently got 
pissed at AT&T's rates and stopped routing the calls, period. I've stuck 
with the toll-free number ever since.

-- 

Kristian Zoerhoff
kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com

On 11/16/2011 9:12 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>  wrote:
>> On 11/15/2011 2:22 AM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>
>>> The other deregulation era complete joke was "reciprocal compensation"-
>>> where in theory, ameritech would pay you to terminal a phone call if you
>>> did it digitally or though your own switch or something like that. Of
>>> course they never payed unles you sued for so many years that everybody
>>> forogt what the suit was even about.
>
>> Ah, CABS fees. These are still a very hilariously entertaining part of
>> the phone biz. We're all breaking a fuckton of Federal regulations and
>> laws with how we handle 'em, is my guess. Basically, we all agree to not
>> charge each other the recip comp fees. Every once in a while, some
>> small-town asshole company makes a stink about it and we have to band
>> together with the big dogs to let the little company know what's going
>> to happen to their business overall if they really try to push the CABS
>> issue.
>
> Are you talking about a business, or a very small telephone company?
> I thought the business model of the latter was to set extremely high
> rates to terminate calls on its network to rip off any IXC unfortunate
> enough to send a call their way.

CABS only operate between carriers, so the latter. They used to try to 
get away with that sort of crap regularly; they don't so much anymore 
after getting their dicks kicked in by AT&T legal for years.

-- 
smr

On 11/16/2011 9:09 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Cydrome Leader<presence@MUNGEpanix.com>  wrote:

>> The other deregulation era complete joke was "reciprocal compensation"-
>> where in theory, ameritech would pay you to terminal a phone call if you
>> did it digitally or though your own switch or something like that. Of
>> course they never payed unles you sued for so many years that everybody
>> forogt what the suit was even about.
>
> Interesting. I didn't know that was supposed to be done.

This is the CABS fee stuff I've been talking about. We simply agree with 
various carriers to "wash" the CABS fees as the costs of accounting for 
it would outweigh any actual profit after accounting for payouts as well.

-- 
smr