On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 12:24:28PM -0500, J. Scott Kasten wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 11:34:51AM -0500, Hal Burgiss wrote:
> > Just a general observation that probably applies to DSL
> > implementations from all the baby bells and telcos...it is inherently
> > more complicated setup when you start adding the necessary hardware
> > layer at the telco CO. It is just one more thing that can go wrong,
> > and the technology there is still very new. I find DSL not quite as
> > reliable as dialup. While they advertised 'always on', doesn't mean
> > 'always up'. BS does give a free dialup account so when DSL is down,
> > you are not out in woods.
> >
>
> Hugh? DSL should be inherently much more reliable than modem dial-up.
> I've never heard of consistend outages that couldn't be traced to
> the line or other faulty equipment. Once replaced, it should work
> rock solid. I'd be contacting someone and complaining.
"Should", yes, but "is"? Once replaced, sure it works great. But it is
one more link in the chain that can break. And it *does* happen. Check
some of the DSL newsgroups (like comp.dcom.xdsl), they are chock full
of people complaining loud and hard. My own service has been pretty
reliable. But I see reports in BS support NG in other markets. If
Miami is not down at least 3 times per week (sometimes for days at a
time), it is a rare week indeed. There are plenty screaming over
this, but BS is a monopoly and the screams just bounce. If it is more
reliable than dialup, then why give a free dialup account with it?
--
Hal B
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Linux helps those who help themselves
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
