On Friday 20 Dec 2002 11:30 am, John Richard Smith wrote: > Anne Wilson wrote: > >On Friday 20 Dec 2002 12:26 am, Charlie wrote: > >>On December 19, 2002 02:23 pm, Andrei Raevsky wrote: > >>>Dear friends, > >>> > >>>I have recently had the worst of times with my ISP who also is my main > >>>internet address provider (I use Hotmail, alas, only for my public > >>>messages since it is saturated with spam anyway). Ideally, I would look > >>>for a company in the USA, with either state-wide local numbers, or an > >>> 800 number to call, which would care about its customers and who at > >>> least have some knowledge about Linux (the big ones all want us to run > >>> Win32 software on our machines). > >>> > >>>Other considerations are, of course, ease of connection, downtime, etc. > >>> > >>>Is anybody on this list actually happy with his ISP and mail server > >>>provider? If yes, please help me out with this! > >>> > >>>Also, I prefer not to go with a company which provides email as a > >>>"sideorder" for long-distance or local telephone service. > >>> > >>>While I cannot afford to pay much, I use dial-up anyway, I certainly > >>>would be willing to pay for good quality. > >>> > >>>I was told that Earthlink is ok. Does anybody know? > >>> > >>>Finally, it would be ideal to find a company which is strongly pro-Linux > >>>or somehow linked with the linux community. > >>> > >>>Am I dreaming, > >>> > >>>Cheers, > >>> > >>>Andrei > >> > >>It's hard to tell what ISP's users running GNU/Linux are getting > >> "support" from, but for overall ratings it's hard to beat the user's > >> ratings at: > >> > >>http://www.dslreports.com/ > >>(not just for DSL) > > > >I consulted them, and found that mailbox (for the UK) got extremely high > >ratings, even though I'd never heard of them. I made some direct > > enquiries from them, found their support helpful, and that they are linux > > friendly, and went for them. And I've never regretted it. Support is > > quick and friendly, and unlike some they never imply that you are an > > idiot for bothering them. > > > >Anne > > Can I ask any of you, does your isp peddle you a line about , > > "you must not have more than 4 appliances connected to any one telephone > line" > > as freeserve does. > > By this, I don't mean 4 appliances using the line simultaneously, > which is not possible, but 4 devices, whether they be that computers or > just handsets. > > John
WARNING - The following text will be of no interest to any non Britons, and will be tediously boring to anyone who reads it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is because of something called 'Ringer Equivalence Number' or REN. In the UK we have a 3 wire circuit around the home. The 'A' and 'B' wires carry the telephone signal, while the third wire carries the 'ringing' current. The master socket contains a 1mF capacitor to communicate the ring current to the third wire. According to British Standards, the ringing current is sufficient to power up to 4 old style telephone bells. Each bell has a REN number of 1.0. Any more than 4 bells, and none of them may be audible. When a supplier releases a product on the market to attach to a telephone line they have to declare the REN number. If they declare a REN of 1.0 or higher it does not need to be tested by BABT (British Approvals Board for Telecommunications), any declaration less than 1.0 requires complex and expensive testing. The consequence is that all manufacturers declare a REN of 1.0 even though in actuality the products generally have a REN of around 0.2 This of course makes a mockery of the entire process, but it does explain why Freeserve tell you only to attach 4 devices. Gosh I have waited 15 years for the chance to explain that to someone ;-) derek -- ---------------------------------- www.jennings.homelinux.net
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
