On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 01:11:02PM -0500, Hal Burgiss wrote:
> > 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]
Interesting. That goes against my experience. I use GTE in central
KY. I run a web server behind it 24/7. Cannot say that I've had any
detectable down time in over 6 months, nor has anyone else I know.
As far as one more link, no not really. DSL should not imply any
more hops/hardware to go wrong than dialup. Honestly, it just sounds
to me like they don't have their act togeather. The few proplems I've
heard in this area have all been traced to specific things that could
be repaired/replaced to restore normal service.
--
J. Scott Kasten
jsk AT tetracon-eng DOT net
"That wasn't an attack. It was preemptive retaliation!"
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
