Re: OT: More Spam

[bscott]

On 22 Jan 2003, at 1:26am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Some, I haven't even told anyone about, so there's no way anyone can know
> that I can (or expect to) receive email at them.

  They have an MX record, which is all the spam robots need.

> The source ip also varies ...

  By how much?  Are they all within the same netblock?

> ... I'm not sure how to determine if it's spoofed or not.

  You can't really spoof the source IP address of a TCP connection.  (Well,
you can, but the TCP handshake will never complete, making it rather
useless.)  You can hijack someone else's IP address or machine, which has
much the same effect, as far as you're concerned.  It leaves more evidence
at the other end, but that likely doesn't help you much.

> It's highly likely that the domain name is spoofed.

  Almost certainly.

> Looks like I found an email address harvester.  What I'm wondering, now,
> is how do you defend against this crap?

  It depends.

  Organizations who never (or rarely) communicate with anyone overseas often
just block any mail exchanger with an IP address in Asia.

  There are systems out there that use heuristics to auto-detect harvesters
and auto-block IP addresses or netblocks.  Sounds like overkill for your
situation.

  If you suspect you might want to communicate with anyone you blacklist,
you could setup an auto-responder opt-in whitelist robot (just use caution
with combining such with mailing list subscriptions and other robots --
mail loops and PO'd postmasters can result).

> (And from a legal or ethical perspective, would it be better to just
> remove the mx record altogether?)

  That is what I would do.

  However, be aware that if a domain does not have an MX record, but does
have an A record, the RFCs say that a mail exchanger should try to connect
to the IP address of the A record.

> Anyhow, I'm hoping someone on this list can offer some help in tracking
> this low-life down.

  All you can do to prosecute an attacker is to track the netblocks using
WHOIS and attempt to contact the operator of the systems/networks from which
the attacks originate.

> Anybody out there have experience tracking spammers?

  news:net.admin.net-abuse.email (NANAE)
  http://www.nanae.org
  http://www.spamfaq.net
  http://www.abuse.net (Network Abuse Clearinghouse)
  http://www.cauce.org (The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email)
  http://www.spamcop.net
  http://www.spamhaus.org

-- 
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not |
| necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or  |
| organization.  All information is provided without warranty of any kind.  |

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Apache and LDAP questions

[pll]

Hi all,

I have recently set up a web server which auth's against my corporate 
LDAP server.  Everything works great, the only caveat is that the 
LDAP server does not currently define groups.  As a result, anyone 
within the company can authenticate to my web server.

Not a huge problem, but I'd really like to restrict the access to 
just my group.  I chose LDAP because I didn't want to maintain a 
password file, nor did I want to require users to need yet another 
pair of credentials.  All this is currently maintained by the corp. 
LDAP people. 

I can, however, easily manage a list of user names within the group.
Is there any way to use LDAP authentication provided the user name 
entered is also a member of group list maintained outside of LDAP ?

Thanks,


-- 

Seeya,
Paul
--
Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853  E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE

It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
   but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.

 If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!


___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Apache and LDAP questions

[Kenneth E. Lussier]

On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 09:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> 
> I can, however, easily manage a list of user names within the group.
> Is there any way to use LDAP authentication provided the user name 
> entered is also a member of group list maintained outside of LDAP ?

Admittedly, I don't know much about LDAP, but what about this... Could
you run your own LDAP server that replicates only selected entries from
the Corp. LDAP server, and append attributes to the entries? Then you
could do the authentication against your LDAP server and not theirs. 

C-Ya,
Kenny
 
-- 

"Tact is just *not* saying true stuff" -- Cordelia Chase

Kenneth E. Lussier
Sr. Systems Administrator
Zuken, USA
PGP KeyID CB254DD0 
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCB254DD0


___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Apache and LDAP questions

[pll]

In a message dated: 22 Jan 2003 10:57:59 EST
"Kenneth E. Lussier" said:

>Admittedly, I don't know much about LDAP, but what about this... Could
>you run your own LDAP server that replicates only selected entries from
>the Corp. LDAP server, and append attributes to the entries? Then you
>could do the authentication against your LDAP server and not theirs. 

I suppose I could, but that's a lot more work than I really want to 
encounter.  I mean, I might have to get up out of my chair to plug a 
LAN cable into one of the many spare systems I have laying around ;)
-- 

Seeya,
Paul
--
Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853  E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE

It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
   but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.

 If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!


___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Apache and LDAP questions

[Kenneth E. Lussier]

On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 10:52, Derek Martin wrote:
 
> I can't say for certain, but I'm strongly inclined to doubt it.  I
> can't recall having seen any sort of authentication scheme of any sort
> that allows you to mix credentials with some other sort of
> authentication.  It's generally a one or the other deal...

There are actually several mixed authentication schemes out there, but
they are usually somewhat hacks. You could, for example, have a
multi-tier authentication scheme where you first authenticate against a
group file (using "require group foo"). If they pass that mechanism,
then their credentials are passed on to the LDAP server for
username/password authentication. Who knows... It might even work ;-)

C-Ya,
Kenny

-- 

"Tact is just *not* saying true stuff" -- Cordelia Chase

Kenneth E. Lussier
Sr. Systems Administrator
Zuken, USA
PGP KeyID CB254DD0 
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCB254DD0


___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: OT: More Spam

[Bob Bell]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 09:05:19AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   You can't really spoof the source IP address of a TCP connection.  (Well,
> you can, but the TCP handshake will never complete, making it rather
> useless.)

Sure you can, if you can guess the initial sequence number for the
TCP connection.  That's why there's that one site with all those plots
illustrating how predictable the sequence number is (somebody else
probably has the URL more readily available than I).

-- 
Bob Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
 "We have to make a management decision."
   -- Jerry Mason, Morton Thiokol Inc., before launching the "Challenger"
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: gnhlug-discuss digest, Vol 1 #296 - 15 msgs

[Bruce Dawson]

This is happening to the servers hosting GNHLUG. Same scenario - every 
2 hours or so and all from john@... And he seems to come from open relays.

I've had to firewall out some of the relays he's been using, but he's still
chewing up megabytes/day in log files. I'll have to put another disk on that
system soon.

If this happens much longer, I'm going to have to get out the baseball bat.

> Subject: OT: More Spam
> From: Paul Iadonisi
> To: Greater New Hampshire LUG
> Date: 22 Jan 2003 01:26:32 -0500
> 
>   So I have a bunch of domains, many of which I don't currently use. 
> Some, I haven't even told anyone about, so there's no way anyone can
> know that I can (or expect to) receive email at them.  Early Tuesday, I
> did my occasional check of my sendmail logs and found something I had
> missed.  
>   Since January 11 about every two hours, someone connects to my
> sendmail port and checks for about 30 random email address (presumably
> with the 'rcpt to:' smtp command).  It's been getting slightly more
> frequent, now at about every hour and forty minutes.  The 'mail from:'
> value is always [EMAIL PROTECTED] where domain.name varies at every
> attempt.  The source ip also varies, but I'm not sure how to determine
> if it's spoofed or not.  It's highly likely that the domain name is
> spoofed.
>   Well, since I only host a few email accounts, none of john@'s guesses
> have had a hit, so no spam has actually been received.  Rather than hunt
> down a bunch of IPs through arin.net and friends (though I did check one
> of them -- surprise, surprise, it's in China), I figured I'd set up
> sendmail virtual hosting to capture anything to my domain and direct it
> to a single valid email address so that I can have a little more to go
> on.
>   Lo and behold, the spammer isn't spamming...at the moment at least. 
> The attempt came in an hour and forty minutes after the last one like
> clockwork.  And, as expected, there were no 'User unknown' messages in
> my maillog, but no email actually got delivered (yes, I did test it).
>   Looks like I found an email address harvester.  What I'm wondering,
> now, is how do you defend against this crap?  As a temporary solution,
> since I don't currently use the domain for anything, I've set my mx
> record to 127.0.0.1, but I can't obviously do that with a domain that is
> in use.  (And from a legal or ethical perspective, would it be better to
> just remove the mx record altogether?)
>   I'm just so fed up.  I'm beginning to think that Barry Shein of The
> World is right: however depressed we are about spam, we need to be more
> depressed.  The spammers are winning.  I've been looking at various spam
> defenses, argued about open relays, talked about to-rbl-or-not-to-rbl
> until I've been blue in the face.  Spamassassin does about 11,000
> checks.  That's absurd!
>   Anyhow, I'm hoping someone on this list can offer some help in
> tracking this low-life down.  There's probably not to much time left as
> he's used domain names beginning with a through g and I expect that once
> he gets from h through z done, it might stop.  Still, that probably
> gives me about two weeks, given the current frequency.  Anybody out
> there have experience tracking spammers?


-
This mail sent through IMP: www.milessmithfarm.net
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Apache and LDAP questions

[pll]

In a message dated: 22 Jan 2003 11:21:11 EST
"Kenneth E. Lussier" said:

>On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 10:52, Derek Martin wrote:
> 
>> I can't say for certain, but I'm strongly inclined to doubt it.  I
>> can't recall having seen any sort of authentication scheme of any sort
>> that allows you to mix credentials with some other sort of
>> authentication.  It's generally a one or the other deal...
>
>There are actually several mixed authentication schemes out there, but
>they are usually somewhat hacks. You could, for example, have a
>multi-tier authentication scheme where you first authenticate against a
>group file (using "require group foo"). If they pass that mechanism,
>then their credentials are passed on to the LDAP server for
>username/password authentication. Who knows... It might even work ;-)

That's exactly what I'm looking for.  Any pointers?
-- 

Seeya,
Paul
--
Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853  E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE

It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
   but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.

 If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!


___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: OT: More Spam

[bscott]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 9:15am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> You can't really spoof the source IP address of a TCP connection.  
>> (Well, you can, but the TCP handshake will never complete, making it
>> rather useless.)
> 
> Sure you can, if you can guess the initial sequence number for the TCP
> connection.

  Oh, yes, right.  I keep assuming that broken software get fixed.  You'd
think I'd learn.  :-(

-- 
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not |
| necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or  |
| organization.  All information is provided without warranty of any kind.  |


___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Apache and LDAP questions

[Kenneth E. Lussier]

On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 11:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> That's exactly what I'm looking for.  Any pointers?

Again, I'm not an expert on this, and I can neither confirm nor deny
that any of my ideas will work (but the more I type them, the more
people around me think that I am actually busy ;-)

In your .htaccess file, try something like:

AuthLDAPAuthoritative On
AuthLDAPURL ldap://server/basedn?attr?scope?filter
require group foo
AuthType Basic

C-Ya,
Kenny

-- 

"Tact is just *not* saying true stuff" -- Cordelia Chase

Kenneth E. Lussier
Sr. Systems Administrator
Zuken, USA
PGP KeyID CB254DD0 
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCB254DD0


___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Apache and LDAP questions

[pll]

In a message dated: 22 Jan 2003 11:47:23 EST
"Kenneth E. Lussier" said:

>In your .htaccess file, try something like:
>
>AuthLDAPAuthoritative On
>AuthLDAPURL ldap://server/basedn?attr?scope?filter
>require group foo
>AuthType Basic

Yeah, the problem is I need a way of saying auth against LDAP, and if 
that comes back positive, auth against group.

AuthLDAPAuthoritative is set to On by default, the problem is that it 
only allows other modules to be used for authentication if it *fails*,
so you can have a multiple auth mechanisms as backups to LDAP, but 
I can't seem to find anything which allows supplemental 
authentication.
-- 

Seeya,
Paul
--
Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853  E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE

It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
   but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.

 If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!


___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: OT: More Spam

[Kevin D. Clark]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

>   You can't really spoof the source IP address of a TCP connection.  (Well,
> you can, but the TCP handshake will never complete, making it rather
> useless.)  

Well, I wouldn't call this "useless", since you can accomplish certain
(nefarious) tasks this way.

--kevin
-- 
Kevin D. Clark / Cetacean Networks / Portsmouth, N.H. (USA)
cetaceannetworks.com!kclark (GnuPG ID: B280F24E)
alumni.unh.edu!kdc

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Apache and LDAP questions

[Kenneth E. Lussier]

On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 11:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> 
> AuthLDAPAuthoritative is set to On by default, the problem is that it 
> only allows other modules to be used for authentication if it *fails*,
> so you can have a multiple auth mechanisms as backups to LDAP, but 
> I can't seem to find anything which allows supplemental 
> authentication.

Use the "Satisfy All" directive.

-- 

"Tact is just *not* saying true stuff" -- Cordelia Chase

Kenneth E. Lussier
Sr. Systems Administrator
Zuken, USA
PGP KeyID CB254DD0 
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCB254DD0


___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: OT: More Spam

[Michael O'Donnell]

>If this happens much longer, I'm going to have to get out the baseball bat.

Prediction: before January 2005 somebody will lose their
life as a direct consequence of their involvement with SPAM.

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: OT: More Spam

[Kevin D. Clark]

Bob Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> (somebody else probably has the URL more readily available than I).

http://razor.bindview.com/publish/papers/tcpseq.html
http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/newtcp/

Regards,

--kevin
-- 
Kevin D. Clark / Cetacean Networks / Portsmouth, N.H. (USA)
cetaceannetworks.com!kclark (GnuPG ID: B280F24E)
alumni.unh.edu!kdc

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Apache and LDAP questions

[Kenneth E. Lussier]

On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 11:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> 
> AuthLDAPAuthoritative is set to On by default, the problem is that it 
> only allows other modules to be used for authentication if it *fails*,
> so you can have a multiple auth mechanisms as backups to LDAP, but 
> I can't seem to find anything which allows supplemental 
> authentication.

Sorry, I hit send on the wron e-mail.


  AuthType Basic
  AuthLDAPAuthoritative On
  AuthLDAPURL ldap://server/basedn?attr?scope?filter
  AuthGroupFile /path/to/groups
  Require group foo
  Satisfy any


C-Ya,
Kenny

-- 

"Tact is just *not* saying true stuff" -- Cordelia Chase

Kenneth E. Lussier
Sr. Systems Administrator
Zuken, USA
PGP KeyID CB254DD0 
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCB254DD0


___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: OT: More Spam

[Erik Price]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 22 Jan 2003, at 1:26am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Some, I haven't even told anyone about, so there's no way anyone can know
that I can (or expect to) receive email at them.



  They have an MX record, which is all the spam robots need.


Pardon my butting in, but what is an MX record?




Erik

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: gnhlug-discuss digest, Vol 1 #298 - 3 msgs

[Bruce Dawson]

> From: (Michael O'Donnell)
> Subject: Re: OT: More Spam
> >If this happens much longer, I'm going to have to get out the baseball
> bat.
> Prediction: before January 2005 somebody will lose their
> life as a direct consequence of their involvement with SPAM.

Naw - if it hasn't already happened (and I think it has - just can't remember
where I heard it), it will happen before June. 

By January 2005 it will be a Darwin Award! (see www.darwinawards.com)

-
This mail sent through IMP: www.milessmithfarm.net
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Linux in Exeter Public Schools?

[WmCCornell]

Folks,

I'm Bill Cornell. This past year I've been off-and-on involved with the Rye school system's technical directions through SAU50. (SAU50 covers Portsmouth, Greenland, Rye, and Newcastle.)

My focus has been on the computer network the school is trying to put in place. Keeping in mind that schools often raise money through bake sales, suppers and craft sales, I've had a pointed concern about getting the most value for the school systems money when it looks at computer networks.

  There have been several iterations of equipment donations to the Rye Public School System($$), but think the equipment piece is just the tip of the iceberg. As best as I can surmise these equipment donations have not been matched with ongoing administrative and maintenance support() or an organized program of software and hardware upgrades().  Now the town is struggling to find a way to make the program go without spending a huge amount of money.

  So, any tools, free hardware, free maintenance (...ha ha) or free software would be greatly appreciated.

 Is there some kind of loose knit gray market group out there who I can talk to?

Your comrade in arms,

Bill
 

Re: OT: More Spam

[bscott]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 10:12am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> They have an MX record, which is all the spam robots need.
> 
> Pardon my butting in, but what is an MX record?

  MX = Mail Exchanger.  An MX record is a record in the DNS that designates
the mail exchanger for a given domain name.  Other mail exchangers then use
the designated mail exchanger to send mail to the domain.

-- 
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not |
| necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or  |
| organization.  All information is provided without warranty of any kind.  |

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: OT: More Spam

[Kenneth E. Lussier]

On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 10:12, Erik Price wrote:
> 
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On 22 Jan 2003, at 1:26am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 
> >>Some, I haven't even told anyone about, so there's no way anyone can know
> >>that I can (or expect to) receive email at them.
> > 
> > 
> >   They have an MX record, which is all the spam robots need.
> 
> Pardon my butting in, but what is an MX record?

MX = Mail Exchange. It is an entry in a domains DNS that tells servers
where to send mail for that domain.

C-Ya,
Kenny

-- 

"Tact is just *not* saying true stuff" -- Cordelia Chase

Kenneth E. Lussier
Sr. Systems Administrator
Zuken, USA
PGP KeyID CB254DD0 
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCB254DD0


___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: OT: More Spam

[bscott]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 10:26am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> However it is still possible to spoof the source, IF the attacker has
> control of some machine (i.e. a router) which lives in the path ...

  Well, this has turned into a semantic distinction.  I generally consider
"spoofing" to be a passive attack, i.e., one that does not require intercept
or redirect anything.  Anything that requires that sort of active attack I
consider "hijacking".  After all, if you've taken over a router, and told
that router to route packets for a given address to you instead, you've
effectively *become* that address.

-- 
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not |
| necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or  |
| organization.  All information is provided without warranty of any kind.  |

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: OT: More Spam

[pll]

In a message dated: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:12:44 EST
Erik Price said:

>Pardon my butting in, but what is an MX record?

It's a DNS entry which notifies the world of where the mail server 
is for your domain.

If you really want to know the down and dirty of DNS, get the 
O'Reilly book (4th ed).
-- 

Seeya,
Paul
--
Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853  E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE

It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
   but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.

 If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!


___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: OT: More Spam

[Kevin D. Clark]

Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> However it is still possible to spoof the source, IF the attacker has
> control of some machine (i.e. a router) which lives in the path the
> target host would use to send packets to the host which actually has
> the IP being used for spoofing (man, I hope that made sense).  The
> attacker can listen for the replies to his packets on such a host,
> and generate the correct packets in response.  [This would likely need
> to be automated to be fast enough to be of any use -- the router would
> essentially NAT the packets to the spoofing host.]

Actually, you don't even need to take over a router.  You don't even
need to listen for replies either, assuming you sufficiently grok the
target's TCP stack.

> Obviously, this attack is extremely difficult, making it
> extraordinarily unlikely that anyone will successfully launch it
> against you.  But it /is/ possible...

And indeed, this attack has been successfully used in the Real World.

--kevin
-- 
"It's colder than a ticket taker's smile at the Ivar theater on a
 Saturday night."
-- Tom Waits

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Apache and LDAP questions

[Jason Stephenson]

Even basic HTTP authentication can do this.

You have a passwd file and a group file. You can in your access setup do 
a  "require group blah" where blah is the name of the group. I've done 
it before with mod_auth_pam to restrict certain interface pages to 
people in the "admin" group.

Check this out for the details of using it with mod_auth:

http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mod/core.html#require

Derek Martin wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 09:22:50AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I can, however, easily manage a list of user names within the group.
Is there any way to use LDAP authentication provided the user name 
entered is also a member of group list maintained outside of LDAP ?


I can't say for certain, but I'm strongly inclined to doubt it.  I
can't recall having seen any sort of authentication scheme of any sort
that allows you to mix credentials with some other sort of
authentication.  It's generally a one or the other deal...

- -- 
Derek D. Martin
http://www.pizzashack.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+Lr46HEnASN++rQIRAo68AJ9rQEyYd6inarUOh+/I65XoZDlunACgqGHQ
Q77/XR3W8jXOoe9z74jfQbA=
=f8bu
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss


___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: OT: More Spam

[Paul Iadonisi]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 09:05:19AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> > The source ip also varies ...
> 
>   By how much?  Are they all within the same netblock?

  Nope.  Quite a bit of variation.  All the way from 12.x.x.x to 218.x.x.x.
So far, 107 attempts from 59 unique address.

> 
> > ... I'm not sure how to determine if it's spoofed or not.
> 
>   You can't really spoof the source IP address of a TCP connection.  (Well,
> you can, but the TCP handshake will never complete, making it rather
> useless.)  You can hijack someone else's IP address or machine, which has
> much the same effect, as far as you're concerned.  It leaves more evidence
> at the other end, but that likely doesn't help you much.

   I followed the rest of the discussion on this and I don't think this
are being spoofed or hijacked given that they're all over the IP space.
There *are* however a few sendmail messages that indicate the address
may be forged, thought not that may (only three unique).  What does that
mean, anyhow, if it's not IP spoofing or hijacking?

>   Organizations who never (or rarely) communicate with anyone overseas often
> just block any mail exchanger with an IP address in Asia.

  Which I am considering, but it kinda goes against my grain.  Some day I
hope for a way to identify these kinds of attacks at a network level and
cause client on the other end to explode ;-).

>   There are systems out there that use heuristics to auto-detect harvesters
> and auto-block IP addresses or netblocks.  Sounds like overkill for your
> situation.

  Well, if it detonates the spammer's desktop, then it sounds perfect!

>   If you suspect you might want to communicate with anyone you blacklist,
> you could setup an auto-responder opt-in whitelist robot (just use caution
> with combining such with mailing list subscriptions and other robots --
> mail loops and PO'd postmasters can result).

  Awe, but that requires...work.  I love solving problems, and even doing
a little computer forensics, but I absolutely hate expending so much effort
for so little gain as just when you implement one defense, the spammers
get around it with another.  The lawyer who spoke at the spam conference
is right: make no mistake about it, the spammers are engaged in organized
crime.

> > (And from a legal or ethical perspective, would it be better to just
> > remove the mx record altogether?)
> 
>   That is what I would do.
> 
>   However, be aware that if a domain does not have an MX record, but does
> have an A record, the RFCs say that a mail exchanger should try to connect
> to the IP address of the A record.

  Which is why I figured setting it to 127.0.0.1 would work better.  For now,
at least.  But I don't have an A record for the actual domain, only two hosts
within it.

>   All you can do to prosecute an attacker is to track the netblocks using
> WHOIS and attempt to contact the operator of the systems/networks from which
> the attacks originate.

  Thanks for the input.  I'll keep this list updated if I do happen to nab
the intruder.

-- 
-Paul Iadonisi
 Senior System Administrator
 Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
 Ever see a penguin fly?  --  Try Linux.
 GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

[gnhlug-announce] Quarterly Meeting Announcement - 29 Jan 2003, 19:30, Martha's Exchange

[pll]

Details of the meeting:

Who:Vince McHugh, Systems Support Manager NECS\Canon
What:   High End Linux Printing, using CUPS, & Scanning and Imaging
documents to a Linux desktop.
When:   19:30, 29 January 2003 (Note, this is NEXT week)
(Dinner @ 18:00ish - RSVP  )
Where:  2nd floor, Martha's Exchange, Nashua, NH
Directions: http://wiki.gnhlug.org/twiki2/bin/view/Www/Marthas_directions

Vince will expound up Enterprise printing, scanning, and imaging 
using Linux and the CUPS printing system

Additionally, the Reluctant Co-Chairmen, Paul and Rob, will explain 
their new vision of GNHLUG and it's co-operation with Linux 
International to become the model Linux User's Group.

Since this is a QUARTERLY meeting, there will be *NO* Nashua/MerriLUG/MEBDALUG/MELBA
meeting tonight (22 Jan 2003)

-- 
Seeya,
Paul
Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853  E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE

Reluctant Co-Chairman, Greater New Hampshire Linux User's Group (GNHLUG)
   Reluctant  Chairman, Nashua Chapter GNHLUG
 http://www.gnhlug.org
  Events:  http://md.appropriatesolutions.com/gnhlug/lug_cal/month.php


___
gnhlug-announce mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-announce
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

remote copying

[Robert Casey]

Good afternoon all,

	can someone tell me the best method to copy files from a auto mounting 
home directory, which comes from a Solaris box, to a linux box. I'm 
setting up a server on Dell Poweredge 4600 running Linux 7.3 which, 
when finished, will be where most if not all of our exports will come 
from. Right now we have cross mounting issues because virtually all of 
our Suns export a directory - some auto mounting and some through 
vfstab entries. I would like to do this copy and keep permissions if 
possible. I will start with my own home directory which comes from a 
host named g32s2s and copy it to our Dell Linux server and then change 
the auto mounting database to reflect those changes.

Bob


Robert Casey
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood Street
Lexington, MA 02420-9108
781-981-3034

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: remote copying

[Robert Anderson]

I would use "rsync".

--
 Robert E. Anderson email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Systems Programmer phone: (603) 862-3489
 UNH Research Computing Centerfax: (603) 862-1761
--
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Linux in Exeter Public Schools?

[Randy Edwards]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

There have been several iterations of equipment donations to the Rye 
Public School System($$), but think the equipment piece is just the tip 
of the iceberg.

   That's true.  When I was a district technology coordinator I would 
routinely dismiss concerns about hardware; though people looked at me like I 
was from Mars, I could get old hardware from anywhere (Windows shops are 
always upgrading and looking to dump/donate their old stuff).  It was the time 
to set up and configure things (not to mention teaching teachers to use it) 
that I was lacking.

As best as I can surmise these equipment donations have 
not been matched with ongoing administrative and maintenance 
support() or an organized program of software and hardware 
upgrades().  Now the town is struggling to find a way to make the 
program go without spending a huge amount of money.

   That's the key.  Schools often radically underfund IT support.  One can 
eliminate time costs a great deal by ghosting, using terminal servers, smart 
administration and such.  But it still boils down to you need some bodies. 
And given the diverse range of tasks those bodies need to do -- train teachers 
and administrators, help teachers with classroom integration issues, simple 
break/fix work, count licenses, deal with grant paperwork, time to serve on 
committees, etc. -- it's tough to get down to brass tacks and to build an 
infrastructure.

   Almost more importantly, you also need bodies that know IT.  Many schools 
have in place people who have been promoted up through the system and those 
people have a view of computers from a single-computer/small LAN mindset. 
When confronted with real IT issues those folks tend to outsource as much as 
possible and work to carve a niche doing paperwork and never getting their 
hands dirty.  In today's schools what is needed are real IT pros who 
understand how to roll systems out and to use a combination 
cookie-cutter/hammer approach to supporting systems.

   Does the Rye district have a technology coordinator?  I don't know the 
details of the budget, but my first impulse would be that I'd want to examine 
where money is being spent: hardware, software, support/maintenance, personnel?

So, any tools, free hardware, free maintenance (...ha ha) or free 
software would be greatly appreciated.

There are lots of free solutions out there for everything under the sun. 
 But without knowing details -- what's in place, what's needed, and what is 
planned -- I can't get specific.

Is there some kind of loose knit gray market group out there who I can 
talk to?

   Gray market hardware or software?  For support?  I'm not sure what you mean.

   There is a group, NH Society for Technology in Education (www.nhste.org), 
but I've found they're heavily biased towards Windows and larger districts 
(read: who have money), and aren't really focused on cheap, low-maintenance, 
and innovative solutions -- and that is what districts all over the state need.

   I've given a lot of thought to the idea of creating some canned 
"solutions" for schools: integrated web sites, ready-to-go automated library 
systems, proxy server/filtering/firewall boxes, etc.  This could all be done 
with free software and arranged as simple "drop-in" additions to a school's 
network.

   I've gone so far as to pitch some of these ideas to schools on a 
consulting basis, but haven't had any takers.  To me, if the state had its act 
together, they'd fund a project like this for a year and a person or two could 
create and implement dozens of nifty solutions -- that would be all it'd take 
to get it rolling.  I've toyed with this but every time I play with the idea 
seriously I remind myself I have to feed a wife and kid and pay a mortgage, 
and that snaps me back to reality. :-(

--
 Regards, | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   | GNU/Linux: superior tools
 .|  |  for those who know how
 Randy|   |   to use them.



___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: remote copying

[pll]

In a message dated: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:53:46 EST
Robert Anderson said:

>I would use "rsync".

Not rEmacs?  It has everything, including the kitchen sync ;)
-- 

Seeya,
Paul
--
Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853  E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE

It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
   but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.

 If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!


___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: remote copying

[Robert Anderson]

Well you could run "rsync" from an emacs "shell".  

But then again I'm sure we'll be getting a PERL solution soon.  The
"other" swiss army knife of Unix.  (Although emacs could make the PERL
look pretty too).  ;)

--
 Robert E. Anderson email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Systems Programmer phone: (603) 862-3489
 UNH Research Computing Centerfax: (603) 862-1761
--
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: remote copying

[Randy Edwards]

Robert Casey wrote:

I would like to do this copy and keep permissions if possible.


   rsync, tar, or "cp -ax" would seem logical.  Does this have to be done at 
each boot or is it a one-time deal?

--
 Regards, | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   | GNU/Linux: superior tools
 .|  |  for those who know how
 Randy|   |   to use them.

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

How many folks who use ATTBI realize they'll probably need to change their email addresses *again*!

[Hewitt Tech]

I certainly was aware that Comcast had bought AT&T broadband. For some
reason I assumed that since AT&T owned the ATTBI.COM domain name that
customers wouldn't need to change their email addresses. But apparently
that's not true. Has anyone heard anything different? Given that we had to
switch addresses this past February as a result of the lost mediaone.net
domain name it seems particularly nasty to need to do it again a year or so
later...

-Alex

P.S. Which opens up the discusson - what do you do if you want a permanent
email address? I'm signed up at bigfoot and will likely re-subsribe from
that email/domain address.

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: How many folks who use ATTBI realize they'll probably need to change their email addresses *again*!

[Jefferson Kirkland]

I had to call AT&T after they turned off all of my email accounts, stating 
that my accounts were inactive due to a complete screw up on their end.  I 
know, total shocker.  It was at that time that they told me that I would be 
changing as of the first week in February, but I have not seen any 
notification go out.  Ya think they would tell everyone, but obviously 
things will not change with the new ownership.

Jeff



At 04:32 PM 1/22/2003 -0500, Hewitt Tech wrote:
I certainly was aware that Comcast had bought AT&T broadband. For some
reason I assumed that since AT&T owned the ATTBI.COM domain name that
customers wouldn't need to change their email addresses. But apparently
that's not true. Has anyone heard anything different? Given that we had to
switch addresses this past February as a result of the lost mediaone.net
domain name it seems particularly nasty to need to do it again a year or so
later...

-Alex

P.S. Which opens up the discusson - what do you do if you want a permanent
email address? I'm signed up at bigfoot and will likely re-subsribe from
that email/domain address.

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss



___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: How many folks who use ATTBI realize they'll probably need to change their email addresses *again*!

[Hewitt Tech]

There are also hints that they will be raising prices again. Considering
that AT&T just did this within the last couple of months, it's a bit
amazing. Maybe they subscribe (no pun intended) to the "What the market will
bear" school of marketing. Maybe they haven't heard that a lot of high tech
folks aren't working just now and that their accounts may dry up a lot
faster than anticipated.

-Alex

P.S. Actually it's been so cold lately maybe hell is freezing over... ;^)

- Original Message -
From: "Jefferson Kirkland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Hewitt Tech" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: How many folks who use ATTBI realize they'll probably need to
change their email addresses *again*!


I had to call AT&T after they turned off all of my email accounts, stating
that my accounts were inactive due to a complete screw up on their end.  I
know, total shocker.  It was at that time that they told me that I would be
changing as of the first week in February, but I have not seen any
notification go out.  Ya think they would tell everyone, but obviously
things will not change with the new ownership.

Jeff



At 04:32 PM 1/22/2003 -0500, Hewitt Tech wrote:
>I certainly was aware that Comcast had bought AT&T broadband. For some
>reason I assumed that since AT&T owned the ATTBI.COM domain name that
>customers wouldn't need to change their email addresses. But apparently
>that's not true. Has anyone heard anything different? Given that we had to
>switch addresses this past February as a result of the lost mediaone.net
>domain name it seems particularly nasty to need to do it again a year or so
>later...
>
>-Alex
>
>P.S. Which opens up the discusson - what do you do if you want a permanent
>email address? I'm signed up at bigfoot and will likely re-subsribe from
>that email/domain address.
>
>___
>gnhlug-discuss mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss



___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)

[bscott]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 4:32pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> P.S. Which opens up the discusson - what do you do if you want a permanent
> email address?

  Pay for it.

  You can register your own domain.  That is a fairly safe way to do things.  
As long as you pay the bills, it is fairly unlikely you will ever lose the
domain.  Many registrars now even offer basic email forwarding services with
your DNS registration.

  Alternatively, you can pay for an email address hosted by a third-party.  

  I have an email address through iName.com (now Mail.com) that I pay some
trivial yearly fee for.  My theory is that a company that specializes in
such services is unlikely to decide to alienate their entire customer base.  
Of course, if they simply go out of business, I still lose the address.

  Major services like Yahoo now offer email accounts as well.  They are even
more unlikely to change their domain name.

-- 
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.  |

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

RE: remote copying

[Peter Finlay]

This was on a tech site but I have never used it:

Robin Hurd 
  16 Dec 2002, Rating 3.83 (out of 5)
  This tip will allow you to copy directory trees without worrying about ownerships, 
permissions,
  etc. (Note: This command is good for Unixes without a recursive copy command) The 
FIND
  command will list the files which are then piped into the CPIO command to copy them. 
Check the
  manual pages of CPIO for an explanation of the options. 

  Code

  # cd 
  # find . | cpio -pVmud

I used this piped tar command to do all mine but you have to su to the user to keep 
permissions.
You may be able to keep permissions with the right tar flags.

Make sure the user is off ever machine before the auto mount switch.
I do a "du -sk ." before and after as a close check ( the size given to the dir 
pointer throws it off a little )  the tar dies in broken pipe if there is a syntax 
error and the log is a way to see how far it goes ( and a record for you when 
somethings missing )
The date is not in the log but gives you an idea of how long it takes with your 
network.
The new dir is owned by the user and I su'd to him in his old dir.
Any machine where he has anything left running will keep using the old auto mount till 
killed and you umount his old home.  I had the users do "df -k ." on all machines 
first ( .bashrc )

date ; tar cf - . | ( cd /vol0/home4/newuserdir ; tar xvf - ) >& /tmp/logfile.txt ; 
date

I have a document I can clean up if you like, just email me off line.

Peter Finlay

Cadence Design Systems
Lowell, MA 01851
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
W 978.441.4366

-Original Message-
From: Robert Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 2:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: remote copying


Good afternoon all,

can someone tell me the best method to copy files from a auto mounting 
home directory, which comes from a Solaris box, to a linux box. I'm 
setting up a server on Dell Poweredge 4600 running Linux 7.3 which, 
when finished, will be where most if not all of our exports will come 
from. Right now we have cross mounting issues because virtually all of 
our Suns export a directory - some auto mounting and some through 
vfstab entries. I would like to do this copy and keep permissions if 
possible. I will start with my own home directory which comes from a 
host named g32s2s and copy it to our Dell Linux server and then change 
the auto mounting database to reflect those changes.

Bob


Robert Casey
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood Street
Lexington, MA 02420-9108
781-981-3034

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: permanent email address

[Tom Buskey]

"Hewitt Tech" said:
>
>P.S. Which opens up the discusson - what do you do if you want a permanent
>email address? I'm signed up at bigfoot and will likely re-subsribe from
>that email/domain address.

I got my address, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at http://www.register.com.  $35 for 
2 years.  I redirect it to whatever my real email address is.  I also 
get the tom.buskey.name domain which I can add to and edit at the above 
web site.  They also have a www.tom.buskey.name which forwards to your 
real web site though they put their wrapper around it :-(  I've been 
very happy with it.

A friend of mine registered for a .name through someone else (I forgot 
the name, but they're one of the originals, Net Sol???) before I did.  He didn't 
get it until after I got mine and has had some problems with it.



-- 
---
Tom Buskey


___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: permanent email address

[Ken D'Ambrosio]

>P.S. Which opens up the discusson - what do you do if you want a
> permanent email address? I'm signed up at bigfoot and will likely
> re-subsribe from that email/domain address.

I absolutely concur with what others have said about getting your own
domain name.  I've been lucky: my well.com address is older than my
daughter, as it turns 15 in April; nevertheless, rumors of Salon, and,
thus, the WELL doing poorly have me worried that some day The Demise may
occur.  In the meantime, my flyingtoasters.net domain is "mine" for the
foreseeable future, and unlikely to change.  What the others haven't
mentioned is that if you ask real purdy, -and- have a broadband
connection, -and- know someone with a static connection, you can sometimes
talk them into some sort of dynamic DNS arrangement, and have your domain
in your house.  I've managed to set this up twice, now, through
small-business-owning acquaintances who were willing to serve my DNS info.
 I know that there are also places such as dyndns.com who do it for a
relatively minimal fee, though probably not as cheaply as some of the less
expensive registrars.

My overly verbose $.02 worth,

-Ken


___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: How many folks who use ATTBI realize they'll probably need to change their email addresses *again*!

[numberwhun]

I had not heard about the prices going up.  I know the raised them recently if 
you did not have cable tv as well, but if they keep raising the price, I may 
investigate Earthlink or dial up till something else comes available in my 
area.  Unfortunately AT&T have a monopoly in my area as there is not DSL.  

Jeff

> There are also hints that they will be raising prices again. Considering
> that AT&T just did this within the last couple of months, it's a bit
> amazing. Maybe they subscribe (no pun intended) to the "What the market will
> bear" school of marketing. Maybe they haven't heard that a lot of high tech
> folks aren't working just now and that their accounts may dry up a lot
> faster than anticipated.
> 
> -Alex
> 
> P.S. Actually it's been so cold lately maybe hell is freezing over... ;^)
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jefferson Kirkland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Hewitt Tech" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 4:38 PM
> Subject: Re: How many folks who use ATTBI realize they'll probably need to
> change their email addresses *again*!
> 
> 
> I had to call AT&T after they turned off all of my email accounts, stating
> that my accounts were inactive due to a complete screw up on their end.  I
> know, total shocker.  It was at that time that they told me that I would be
> changing as of the first week in February, but I have not seen any
> notification go out.  Ya think they would tell everyone, but obviously
> things will not change with the new ownership.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> At 04:32 PM 1/22/2003 -0500, Hewitt Tech wrote:
> >I certainly was aware that Comcast had bought AT&T broadband. For some
> >reason I assumed that since AT&T owned the ATTBI.COM domain name that
> >customers wouldn't need to change their email addresses. But apparently
> >that's not true. Has anyone heard anything different? Given that we had to
> >switch addresses this past February as a result of the lost mediaone.net
> >domain name it seems particularly nasty to need to do it again a year or so
> >later...
> >
> >-Alex
> >
> >P.S. Which opens up the discusson - what do you do if you want a permanent
> >email address? I'm signed up at bigfoot and will likely re-subsribe from
> >that email/domain address.
> >
> >___
> >gnhlug-discuss mailing list
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> gnhlug-discuss mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: How many folks who use ATTBI realize they'll probably need to change their email addresses *again*!

[Hewitt Tech]

I'm not positive they're going to raise rates. They say on their web page
that they will be "considering services and pricing" whatever that means.

-Alex

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Hewitt Tech" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: How many folks who use ATTBI realize they'll probably need to
change their email addresses *again*!


I had not heard about the prices going up.  I know the raised them recently
if
you did not have cable tv as well, but if they keep raising the price, I may
investigate Earthlink or dial up till something else comes available in my
area.  Unfortunately AT&T have a monopoly in my area as there is not DSL.

Jeff

> There are also hints that they will be raising prices again. Considering
> that AT&T just did this within the last couple of months, it's a bit
> amazing. Maybe they subscribe (no pun intended) to the "What the market
will
> bear" school of marketing. Maybe they haven't heard that a lot of high
tech
> folks aren't working just now and that their accounts may dry up a lot
> faster than anticipated.
>
> -Alex
>
> P.S. Actually it's been so cold lately maybe hell is freezing over... ;^)
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jefferson Kirkland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Hewitt Tech" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 4:38 PM
> Subject: Re: How many folks who use ATTBI realize they'll probably need to
> change their email addresses *again*!
>
>
> I had to call AT&T after they turned off all of my email accounts, stating
> that my accounts were inactive due to a complete screw up on their end.  I
> know, total shocker.  It was at that time that they told me that I would
be
> changing as of the first week in February, but I have not seen any
> notification go out.  Ya think they would tell everyone, but obviously
> things will not change with the new ownership.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> At 04:32 PM 1/22/2003 -0500, Hewitt Tech wrote:
> >I certainly was aware that Comcast had bought AT&T broadband. For some
> >reason I assumed that since AT&T owned the ATTBI.COM domain name that
> >customers wouldn't need to change their email addresses. But apparently
> >that's not true. Has anyone heard anything different? Given that we had
to
> >switch addresses this past February as a result of the lost mediaone.net
> >domain name it seems particularly nasty to need to do it again a year or
so
> >later...
> >
> >-Alex
> >
> >P.S. Which opens up the discusson - what do you do if you want a
permanent
> >email address? I'm signed up at bigfoot and will likely re-subsribe from
> >that email/domain address.
> >
> >___
> >gnhlug-discuss mailing list
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
>
>
>
> ___
> gnhlug-discuss mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)

[Hewitt Tech]

Actually, I do both. I have registered a couple of domain names and one is
hosted. I also decided that the bigfoot service for $9.95/quarter was
reasonable and I've already asked our online friends to use my bigfoot
address. I was just curious about who was using what and for how much. As
much as I like high speed access I'm not willing to pay increasingly large
monthly fees for progressively poor service. I have also read in a couple of
places that AT&T was in the process of putting in bandwidth restrictions. As
luck would have it I have friends/relatives who love their downloaded music
and I can piggyback on their service occasionally to get patches/service
packs etc..

-Alex

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Greater NH Linux User Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 4:49 PM
Subject: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)


On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 4:32pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> P.S. Which opens up the discusson - what do you do if you want a permanent
> email address?

  Pay for it.

  You can register your own domain.  That is a fairly safe way to do things.
As long as you pay the bills, it is fairly unlikely you will ever lose the
domain.  Many registrars now even offer basic email forwarding services with
your DNS registration.

  Alternatively, you can pay for an email address hosted by a third-party.

  I have an email address through iName.com (now Mail.com) that I pay some
trivial yearly fee for.  My theory is that a company that specializes in
such services is unlikely to decide to alienate their entire customer base.
Of course, if they simply go out of business, I still lose the address.

  Major services like Yahoo now offer email accounts as well.  They are even
more unlikely to change their domain name.

--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.  |

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

RE: How many folks who use ATTBI realize they'll probably need to change their email addresses *again*!

[Travis Roy]

> I certainly was aware that Comcast had bought AT&T broadband. 
> For some reason I assumed that since AT&T owned the ATTBI.COM 
> domain name that customers wouldn't need to change their 
> email addresses. But apparently that's not true. Has anyone 
> heard anything different? Given that we had to switch 
> addresses this past February as a result of the lost 
> mediaone.net domain name it seems particularly nasty to need 
> to do it again a year or so later...

Yah, well AT&T kept the mediaone.net domain for a LOT longer then I
expected and I worked there :) They switch everybody on the inside over
way before anybody else. They've been using cable.comcast.com for months
now. The thing that really sucked was after all the crap of having
people switch the guy that got the mediaone.net domain offered
forwarding.
 
> P.S. Which opens up the discusson - what do you do if you 
> want a permanent email address? I'm signed up at bigfoot and 
> will likely re-subsribe from that email/domain address.

Buy a domain, it's cheap enough, then find a service like easyDNS or
ZoneEdit to do forwarding for free.. Or get a friend that can host
domains to do it.. I host guster.net for a buddy and some friends use
scootz.net for email.

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

RE: How many folks who use ATTBI realize they'll probably need to change their email addresses *again*!

[Travis Roy]

> There are also hints that they will be raising prices again. 
> Considering that AT&T just did this within the last couple of 
> months, it's a bit amazing. Maybe they subscribe (no pun 
> intended) to the "What the market will bear" school of 
> marketing. Maybe they haven't heard that a lot of high tech 
> folks aren't working just now and that their accounts may dry 
> up a lot faster than anticipated.

Yes, they will be raising prices again. The last price hike was odd, if
you got super basic cable and a cable modem it worked out cheaper then
just the cable modem alone. I think they realized people were pulling
off filters after getting internet service installed and were just
getting basic cable for free.

Between that, their new TOS/AUP and changing the upstream from 386 to
255 without telling anybody made me glad I switched to DSL :)

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

RE: How many folks who use ATTBI realize they'll probably need to change their email addresses *again*!

[Travis Roy]

> I'm not positive they're going to raise rates. They say on 
> their web page that they will be "considering services and 
> pricing" whatever that means.

Corporate talk:

Considering = "We're going to raise it, but we don't want to go out and
just say it, because then you'll look for new options and you'll have
something in place before we raise prices. If we surprise you with
options we'll at least leech another month out of you with the higher
rate"

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)

[bscott]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 5:18pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not willing to pay increasingly large monthly fees for progressively
> poor service.

  It continues to amaze me how short people's memories are.  It was not long
ago at all that an Internet feed of the speed you get from a cable ISP would
cost you thousands of dollars per month.  Not that I am in any way defending
the AT&T/Comcast monopoly; I just don't understand how anyone can see a
3000% price reduction in the space of five years and wonder why service
suffers.  Did "cheap, reliable, fast Internet access" get added to "life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" when I wasn't looking?  :-)

  I'm still stuck on a rather undependable 28 kilobit dialup.  Nothing
better is available where I live.  I would *love* the chance to complain
about how bad my Verizon or Comcast Internet service is.  And I know I'm not
alone on this list in that.

-- 
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.  |

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: permanent email address

[Steven W. Orr]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:

=>>P.S. Which opens up the discusson - what do you do if you want a
=>> permanent email address? I'm signed up at bigfoot and will likely
=>> re-subsribe from that email/domain address.
=>
=>I absolutely concur with what others have said about getting your own
=>domain name.  I've been lucky: my well.com address is older than my
=>daughter, as it turns 15 in April; nevertheless, rumors of Salon, and,
=>thus, the WELL doing poorly have me worried that some day The Demise may
=>occur.  In the meantime, my flyingtoasters.net domain is "mine" for the
=>foreseeable future, and unlikely to change.  What the others haven't
=>mentioned is that if you ask real purdy, -and- have a broadband
=>connection, -and- know someone with a static connection, you can sometimes
=>talk them into some sort of dynamic DNS arrangement, and have your domain
=>in your house.  I've managed to set this up twice, now, through
=>small-business-owning acquaintances who were willing to serve my DNS info.
=> I know that there are also places such as dyndns.com who do it for a
=>relatively minimal fee, though probably not as cheaply as some of the less
=>expensive registrars.
=>
=>My overly verbose $.02 worth,
=>
=>-Ken
I did it about 18 months ago and I'm never going back. Never. 

The secret formula is Red Hat + sendmail + spamassassin + ddclient + 
zoneedit.com + their Backup Mx service for $10. It rocks and anyone can do 
it. The system is up 24/7 and I can access my system from anywhere.

-- 
-Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have -
-happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ
-Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all-
-individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question? [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)

[Hewitt Tech]

Ah yes, but why, after a pile of telecommunications companies went bankrupt
laying thousands of miles of buried fibre-optics cables are we still talking
about dial-up connections? What *does* it cost to deliver high speed? For
that matter, I think copper/fibre is passé. It should be possible to use
wireless and it ought to be dirt cheap. When Mediaone delivered cable-modem
service in our area they thought they'd be doing well if they got a 3%
penetration. One of their techs told me that in fact they were achieving 17%
and higher depending on the town they were operating in. I know there has
been a big improvement in the speed of connections over the last few years
but we're not exactly using 110 baud modems anymore are we? Should I expect
to pay $100k for a shiny 2.8 gig P4 computer? Ah the good old days, not!

-Alex

P.S. What we're seeing here is a consolidation of providers who can get away
with high prices because they are monopolies. Verizon hasn't exactly pushed
DSL and most of the companies that depended on them to provide the lines
were driven out of business. These guys really aren't competing. I saw a
discussion on the Libranet mailing list recently where some Canadians were
relating the cost of DSL and cable-modem in their areas. They were paying
about 1/3 of what we pay.

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Greater NH Linux User Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)


On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 5:18pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not willing to pay increasingly large monthly fees for progressively
> poor service.

  It continues to amaze me how short people's memories are.  It was not long
ago at all that an Internet feed of the speed you get from a cable ISP would
cost you thousands of dollars per month.  Not that I am in any way defending
the AT&T/Comcast monopoly; I just don't understand how anyone can see a
3000% price reduction in the space of five years and wonder why service
suffers.  Did "cheap, reliable, fast Internet access" get added to "life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" when I wasn't looking?  :-)

  I'm still stuck on a rather undependable 28 kilobit dialup.  Nothing
better is available where I live.  I would *love* the chance to complain
about how bad my Verizon or Comcast Internet service is.  And I know I'm not
alone on this list in that.

--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.  |

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Fw: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)

[Hewitt Tech]

I meant to send this to the list, sorry you'll see it twice Travis ;^)

-Alex

- Original Message -
From: "Hewitt Tech" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Travis Roy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)


I recall reading an article in the Globe that suggested at least a couple of
reasons that DSL resellers went under. Specifically Harvard Net complained
that they would sell DSL to a customer and put an order in with Verizon.
Verizon would then wait two months and say "Gee, we don't have the right
equipment for that line and no can do". Needless to say, the Harvard Net
people were left with egg all over their face and a very angry non-customer.
The other issue was the problem of lot's of venture capital looking for a
very short term payback. The phone company has amortized their gear
literally for decades. Various studies have shown that Ma Bell and the power
utilities consistently pay their employees much better than the rest of
private industry. That's because as a monopoly their pricing is not closely
related to their costs.

In Canada, various provincial governments pump money into infrastructure
including telecommunications in hopes of attracting employers. They've been
somewhat successful but I'm not going to argue that their system is
better/worse than the American system. The Canadians have universal health
care for ~9 % of GDP while the American health care system at last estimate
(about two years ago) was costing around 15% of GDP and rising. The
American system has 47 million Americans with little or no health coverage.
Taxes in Canada run around 50% when all is said and done. In America taxes
have been running around 35-40% but I suspect that the American system is
becoming unbalanced with a few fabulously wealthy people and lot's of poor
or nearly poor people who are progressively doing worse. I think there needs
to be some kind of balance and it needs to be achieved politically. When
politics breaks down you get the former Soviet Union. Russia hasn't got an
effective revenue collection system and so the place is run more or less
with the government acting like the mafia.

See? I solved the whole thing! ;^)

-Alex

P.S. One other problem with this discussion - we really don't have access to
 the books for the companies in the telecommunications business. We don't
know specifically what their revenues are (although AT&T is supposed to have
2.5 million cable-modem customers) and we don't know their true costs. So
yes, we know it's expensive to put in commercial grade comm gear but at
$50+/month per customer I'd expect them to be making pretty good money if
they amortize the expenses over say a 5 year period of time. The on-going
costs are replacing broken equipment (I still have my Lan City cable-modem
after almost 3 years) and support personnel costs (no idea how many they
have and how much they cost).

- Original Message -
From: "Travis Roy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 9:36 PM
Subject: RE: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)


> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 9:04pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > ... There's no "correction" here ...
>
>   Then please explain to me why almost every single DSL
> company has gone out of business.

Because they're still need Verizon to set up the line for them.. They
were very smart to do the following:

1) Be slow
2) Screw up JUST enough
3) just to much

They did those to get people to hopefully switch to Verizon DSL, or at
least ditch who they were with. And almost every? Please.. Covad is
around, as is speakeasy and Earthlink. There's smaller places like MV,
DirecTV's DSL service got dumped to push their two way sat service. If I
go to dslreports there's still a ton of companies listed... The reason
they stuck around.. They either built up their service slow (MV), they
already had a good chunk of money (Earthlink) or they were a good
alternitive to Verizon (Covad/Speakeasy). I found Vitts to be overpriced
for the service they offered, and they came out of nowhere and magically
had a ton of VC money to throw around.. They had the look and feel of a
HUGE company. Speakeasy was around at the same time but not many people
heard of them.. Who's out of business and who's still around?

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)

[Hewitt Tech]

Actually Ben, at first glance I thought you were going to launch into a
"When I was a boy we had to walk two miles to school up hill both ways!" ;^)

-Alex

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Greater NH Linux User Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)


On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 5:18pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not willing to pay increasingly large monthly fees for progressively
> poor service.

  It continues to amaze me how short people's memories are.  It was not long
ago at all that an Internet feed of the speed you get from a cable ISP would
cost you thousands of dollars per month.  Not that I am in any way defending
the AT&T/Comcast monopoly; I just don't understand how anyone can see a
3000% price reduction in the space of five years and wonder why service
suffers.  Did "cheap, reliable, fast Internet access" get added to "life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" when I wasn't looking?  :-)

  I'm still stuck on a rather undependable 28 kilobit dialup.  Nothing
better is available where I live.  I would *love* the chance to complain
about how bad my Verizon or Comcast Internet service is.  And I know I'm not
alone on this list in that.

--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.  |

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

RE: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)

[Travis Roy]

>   It continues to amaze me how short people's memories are.  
> It was not long ago at all that an Internet feed of the speed 
> you get from a cable ISP would cost you thousands of dollars 
> per month.  Not that I am in any way defending the 
> AT&T/Comcast monopoly; I just don't understand how anyone can 
> see a 3000% price reduction in the space of five years and 
> wonder why service suffers.  Did "cheap, reliable, fast 
> Internet access" get added to "life, liberty, and the pursuit 
> of happiness" when I wasn't looking?  :-)

It really depends on where you are.. Up here in the north east with
super shitty old phone lines on the poles that is true, but out west you
could get 128 ISDN line for the same price as a normal phone line..
That's not to shabby for 1995ish. 

I think the problem is that people feel it's like the drug dealer who
gives you the first hit for free. I'm sure I speak for most people that
have high speed access None of us want to go back to dial up.. EVER

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Linux in Exeter Public Schools?

[Casey D Callendrello]

Dear all:

Wow! Quite a response.  Thanks guys.  Currently, my plan is to find out the name of 
the Technology Coordinator at EHS and start from there.   As things go on, I can 
forsee the need for a meeting, especially if the administration is receptive.

If the TC is unreceptive, then I guess we should try to put together a clear, concise 
collection of the advantages of linux and let them decide.  A nice, descripte (but 
concise) document, with screen shots, might do the trick here.

If all goes well, that packet should only be necessary for the school board..


I shall be in touch,
Casey Callendrello 

 

Sent via the Exeter WebMail system at mail.exeter.edu


 
   
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

High Speed Internet costs (was: Email hosting)

[bscott]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 7:26pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What *does* it cost to deliver high speed?

  Do you really want an answer to that?

  For the small DSL CLEC case, you have: Local loop charges.  CO facilities
rental.  CO equipment.  Data link between CO and ISP NOC (T1, multiple T1s,
or even T3 or other *REALLY* high-speed stuff).  ISP backbone equipment.  
ISP servers (DNS, mail, etc.).  ISP NOC facilities charges.  Test equipment.
Support/service/administrative overhead.  Upstream feed.

  When we resold Vitts Networks (before the went under) back in 2001, their
up-front cost to open a CO was between $200,000 and $300,000.  Each.

  I'm not familiar enough with CATV infrastructure to speak accurately, but I
imagine the situation is similar, if not quite as bad.

> For that matter, I think copper/fibre is passé.  It should be possible to
> use wireless and it ought to be dirt cheap.

  Dirt cheap?  Why?  Because "nobody owns the airwaves"?

  First off, the government owns the airwaves, and charges high prices to
purchase rights to them.  Or, if you prefer, you can have everyone operate
in an unlicensed band (like the 802.11b stuff), and deal with the inevitable
chaos that will result once serious usage picks up.

  Next, you've got to hang your equipment off local towers.  Rental fees for
such things are typically thousands of dollars per month.

  For most wireless data network equipment available for deployment today,
you need line-of-sight or close to it.  That's a hard problem in hilly New
England.  So you need more towers.  See above.

  Finally, you've got all the NOC/backbone costs you have for any ISP.  
Wireless only gets you so far, and then you have to jump back onto the
existing landline networks.

  I will say that I think fixed-wireless has the best potential to provide
reasonably reliable, generally available, high-speed Internet access.  But
dirt cheap?  Not if you want ISP to stay in business.

> When Mediaone delivered cable-modem service in our area they thought
> they'd be doing well if they got a 3% penetration.

  Pets.com thought they could make money selling pet supplies online.

  They were both wrong.

> I know there has been a big improvement in the speed of connections over
> the last few years but we're not exactly using 110 baud modems anymore are
> we?

  No, we're not.  But other than the local loop, everybody's using the same
kind of equipment they were using five years ago.  As for the local loop,
DSL and cable both require significant new equipment to be placed in the CO,
completely outside the traditional infrastructure.

  How much would it cost to build the entire PSTN from the ground up
overnight?  How about the various CATV networks?

  As for dialup, margins on that are already razor thin.  The only reason
dialup is so cheap is that it takes advantage of existing voice telephone
infrastructure, which was built over decades, and limits you to an absolute
ceiling of 64 kbps per circuit.

> ... some Canadians were relating the cost of DSL and cable-modem in their
> areas.  They were paying about 1/3 of what we pay.

  I don't know anything about Internet in Canada, so I really can't say one
way or the other.  But you might ask them what their tax rate is.

> Verizon hasn't exactly pushed DSL and most of the companies that depended
> on them to provide the lines were driven out of business.

  They went out of business because their estimates were it would take ten
years, minimum, for them to become profitable.  When that finally sank in,
the people funding the whole thing got scared and ran.  Suddenly, all these
companies had huge debts and no cash flow.

  Verizon sure as hell hasn't made it any easier (believe me, I've got a
special place in my *** reserved for them), but let's not be so quick to
blame everything on the big bad phone company.

-- 
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.  |

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

RE: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)

[Travis Roy]

> Ah yes, but why, after a pile of telecommunications companies 
> went bankrupt laying thousands of miles of buried 
> fibre-optics cables are we still talking about dial-up 
> connections? What *does* it cost to deliver high speed? For 
> that matter, I think copper/fibre is passé. It should be 
> possible to use wireless and it ought to be dirt cheap. When 
> Mediaone delivered cable-modem service in our area they 
> thought they'd be doing well if they got a 3% penetration. 
> One of their techs told me that in fact they were achieving 
> 17% and higher depending on the town they were operating in. 
> I know there has been a big improvement in the speed of 
> connections over the last few years but we're not exactly 
> using 110 baud modems anymore are we? Should I expect to pay 
> $100k for a shiny 2.8 gig P4 computer? Ah the good old days, not!

I agree, they are totally screwing everybody.. AT&T does one thing right
with the telephone over cable.. They give you ALL the features (3 way
calling/caller ID/call forwarding/etc) with the cost of the service..
Why? Because it's IN the switch.. It costs them NOTHING extra to enable
those features.. So why does Verizon make you pay for it? It's like when
they charge (and still do in some areas) for touch tone dialing.. It's
crazy.. The lines are there, they should use them. Sure, there's the
extra cost of the equipment on each end (routers, switches, fibre
gizmos) but the real expense is running all the fiber and that's all
done.

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)

[bscott]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 7:36pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Actually Ben, at first glance I thought you were going to launch into a
> "When I was a boy we had to walk two miles to school up hill both ways!"
> ;^)

  I actually had some commentary to that effect in there at the end, for
comic relief, but I decided to drop it.  :-)

-- 
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.  |

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)

[bscott]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 8:42pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As of my last bill, my broadband connection now costs almost double what
> it did a year ago ($60.99 vs. $35/mo).  That's absurd.   There's no
> incentive to keep them low.  It's that simple.

  If it's so simple, why don't you go start a DSL company and make yourself
rich?

  Prices are going up because the market is correcting itself to represent
the true cost of delivering the services.  Frankly, I think $60/month is
still low.  All those carriers offering DSL at $50/month were pricing
themselves right out of business.  And that's exactly what happened.

  An associate of mine had their electric meter, an old mechanical model,
seize up.  The power company saw their usage as zero for several months,
resulting in some very low power bills.  Of course, the power company
eventually realized what was going on, replaced the meter, and now they have
to pay for their electricity again.  They didn't go to the power company and
say, "Hey, you were giving it away for a couple months, why do I have to pay
for it again?"

  The same principle applies here.

-- 
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.  |

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

RE: High Speed Internet costs (was: Email hosting)

[Travis Roy]

> CO facilities rental.  CO equipment.  Data link between CO 
> and ISP NOC (T1, multiple T1s, or even T3 or other *REALLY* 
> high-speed stuff).  ISP backbone equipment.  
> ISP servers (DNS, mail, etc.).  ISP NOC facilities charges.  
> Test equipment. Support/service/administrative overhead.  
> Upstream feed.

The exsiting ISP, be it Vitts, MV, Joe Blow local ISP, they should
already have ISP backbone equipment in place for their dialups. At the
most they'll have to upgrade their pipe or get an aditional T and they
can do this while new customers roll in.. That's what MV did. DNS and
POP mail (what most ISPs offer) you can run on a beefy workstation for
the most part unless you have a MASSIVE customer base, then you just get
a big 'ol Dell server and be done with it. I found when I did tech
support that it was FAR easier to deal with troubleshooting DSL problems
then dial-up.
 
>   When we resold Vitts Networks (before the went under) back 
> in 2001, their up-front cost to open a CO was between 
> $200,000 and $300,000.  Each.

Yah, and Verizon was already rolling out Cos for their DSL service, and
there's all the other ISPs out there. There is no reason for one ISP to
eat the cost of an entire CO

>   I'm not familiar enough with CATV infrastructure to speak 
> accurately, but I imagine the situation is similar, if not 
> quite as bad.

The way cable modems work is TOTALLY different the DSL, it works on a
node system and has some token-ringish qualities to it.. It is "shared"
bandwidth but you would have to have TONS of people on one node to
notice anything. When I was working for M1 they had about 200-300 people
per node in NH/MA.. In LA they had over 1000 on some nodes.

> > When Mediaone delivered cable-modem service in our area 
> they thought 
> > they'd be doing well if they got a 3% penetration.
> 
>   Pets.com thought they could make money selling pet supplies online.
> 
>   They were both wrong.

The difference here is that M1/AT&T/Comcast were already established.
Also it wasn't just for internet, it was also for digital cable, push
the button on the remote PPV, music, and phone service. The cable TV
alone probably makes more then enough to cover the cost of the upgrade
of the lines (that also stops "leakage" something that had to take care
of anyway)
 
>   No, we're not.  But other than the local loop, everybody's 
> using the same kind of equipment they were using five years 
> ago.  As for the local loop, DSL and cable both require 
> significant new equipment to be placed in the CO, completely 
> outside the traditional infrastructure.

You know that Verizon has been getting ready for DSL stuff for years and
probably would have been rolled out sooner if the cable modems came out
sooner. The only reason they didn't start rolling it out was because
they didn't have to and they could still milk people for second phone
lines for dial-up modems.
 

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

RE: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)

[Travis Roy]

>   An associate of mine had their electric meter, an old 
> mechanical model, seize up.  The power company saw their 
> usage as zero for several months, resulting in some very low 
> power bills.  Of course, the power company eventually 
> realized what was going on, replaced the meter, and now they 
> have to pay for their electricity again.  They didn't go to 
> the power company and say, "Hey, you were giving it away for 
> a couple months, why do I have to pay for it again?"
> 
>   The same principle applies here.

Not even close.. AT&T/Verizon have whole market reaseach divisions..
They know EXACTLY how much it will cost to deliver a service, how much
it will cost to implement it, how much to roll it out, and how much
people will charge. There's no "correction" here, it's big companies
screwing people over.. Of coure, they're willing to pay the extra fees
so they don't see a problem with it. 

That's a LOT different then getting constantly paid a rate for a service
then having the device that tells you how much you're using break.

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

RE: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)

[bscott]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 9:04pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ... There's no "correction" here ...

  Then please explain to me why almost every single DSL company has gone out
of business.

-- 
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.  |


___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)

[bscott]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 9:03pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Because I don't have the billions of dollars in liquid assets that AT&T
> has in order to build the infrastructure necessary.

  Billions of dollars?  Why, that sounds like money!  Gee...

> I never said it was cheap ...
  [ then, later on in the same paragraph ]
> ... Cable Internet should be dirt cheap for them to provide ...

  Which is it?

> ... but AT&T didn't build up huge cash reserves by losing money.

  Indeed.  So you expect that to change?  You expect them to lose money on
their new data services, just because they're such nice guys?

> They sell broadband Internet using equipment that was in large part
> already there, providing cable TV, connected to the Internet via a
> pre-existing enormous backbone that AT&T had already built.

  I'm nowhere near as familiar with CATV as I am with DSL technology, but I
know that CATV is largely a one-way, broadcast technology.  Even digital
cable is.  You can duplicate the feed in the downstream direction endlessly.  
You can add 10,000,000 more subscribers and all you need are more repeaters.

  Providing two-way packet-switched unicast data services is a *completely
different* scenario.

-- 
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.  |

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

RE: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)

[Travis Roy]

> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 9:04pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > ... There's no "correction" here ...
> 
>   Then please explain to me why almost every single DSL 
> company has gone out of business.

Because they're still need Verizon to set up the line for them.. They
were very smart to do the following:

1) Be slow
2) Screw up JUST enough
3) just to much 

They did those to get people to hopefully switch to Verizon DSL, or at
least ditch who they were with. And almost every? Please.. Covad is
around, as is speakeasy and Earthlink. There's smaller places like MV,
DirecTV's DSL service got dumped to push their two way sat service. If I
go to dslreports there's still a ton of companies listed... The reason
they stuck around.. They either built up their service slow (MV), they
already had a good chunk of money (Earthlink) or they were a good
alternitive to Verizon (Covad/Speakeasy). I found Vitts to be overpriced
for the service they offered, and they came out of nowhere and magically
had a ton of VC money to throw around.. They had the look and feel of a
HUGE company. Speakeasy was around at the same time but not many people
heard of them.. Who's out of business and who's still around?

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

RE: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)

[Travis Roy]

> > I never said it was cheap ...
>   [ then, later on in the same paragraph ]
> > ... Cable Internet should be dirt cheap for them to provide ...
> 
>   Which is it?

Cheap to get started from SCRATCH.. AT&T already has a HUGE setup
already in place reselling T's and having peers so they didn't even have
to do any of that.
 
> > ... but AT&T didn't build up huge cash reserves by losing money.
> 
>   Indeed.  So you expect that to change?  You expect them to 
> lose money on their new data services, just because they're 
> such nice guys?

Lose money on what? They already have big fat pipes in place, and
running all that is where the real initial cost is.. They do after all
own the lines it's not like they're going to charge themselves like they
do for anybody else that enters the market...
 
>   I'm nowhere near as familiar with CATV as I am with DSL 
> technology, but I know that CATV is largely a one-way, 
> broadcast technology.  Even digital cable is.  You can 
> duplicate the feed in the downstream direction endlessly.  
> You can add 10,000,000 more subscribers and all you need are 
> more repeaters.

Digital Cable is very much two way, that's how PPV works.. While it
doesn't need the bandwidth (or the spectrum space) to work, it does need
a very clean return to work. They needed to run all new line for digital
cable to work, just as much as they did for internet service.. Also,
don't forget the phone service.

>   Providing two-way packet-switched unicast data services is 
> a *completely
> different* scenario.

And cable over internet is *completely different* then the way DSL
works.

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

RE: High Speed Internet costs (was: Email hosting)

[bscott]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 9:00pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The exsiting ISP, be it Vitts, MV, Joe Blow local ISP, they should already
> have ISP backbone equipment in place for their dialups.

  Just because a business is already in possession of something doesn't mean
you can call it "free".  Even if they aren't in-debt to pay it off, it has
maintenance and depreciation costs.  We all know how fact computers
depreciate...

> At the most they'll have to upgrade their pipe or get an aditional T ...

  "At the most"?

  100 customers @ 56 kbps  =  5600 kbps = 3.6 T1's
  100 customers @ 768 kbps = 76800 kbps =  50 T1's

  Obviously, since consumer services can be oversubscribed, the math doesn't
really work out like that, but you should see my point.  We're talking an
increase in capacity of more than 1000%!

>>   When we resold Vitts Networks (before the went under) back 
>> in 2001, their up-front cost to open a CO was between 
>> $200,000 and $300,000.  Each.
> 
> Yah, and Verizon was already rolling out Cos for their DSL service, and
> there's all the other ISPs out there. There is no reason for one ISP to
> eat the cost of an entire CO

  No offense, Travis, but you obviously have no idea how DSL works.  :-)

  Dialup is a simple service.  You run a modulated signal over the existing
voice network.  When it goes into the switch at the CO, you use a digital
carrier to bring it to the ISP, and their equipment demodulates it there.  
You can push up to 56 kilobits through a single voice channel this way.  
Why 56 kbps?  Because a voice line is an 8-bit sample taken 8000 times a
second, and they rob some of the high bits for line control.  It's been that
way since the T-carrier was intended in the 1960s.

  DSL does not use the PSTN *at all*.  At most, the digital signal is
piggybacked over an existing local loop, but it is separated out from the
voice signal at both ends.  At the subscriber end, you use those little
filter widgets they give you.  They use a bigger, multi-line version at the
CO to split the voice and digital signals.

  The digital signal is hooked into a completely new piece of equipment.  
No existing voice switch here.  We call this a DSLAM (DSL Access
Multiplexer).  Basically, think of it as a really big Ethernet switch and
router, but for DSL.

  Oh, and BTW, none of the various DSL technologies, standards, and vendors
work with the other guy's stuff, so you need to buy new equipment for SDSL,
HDSL, VDSL, ADSL, DSL.lite, DSLwhatever, and so on.

  Now you need to build a data network between each CO to carry the data
traffic between the DSLAMs and your NAPs.  This isn't like the PSTN, where
you can just use all these nice, existing voice lines.  You have to pay for
this infrastructure.  You can't share it, like you can the PSTN, because
this isn't a government-enforced monopoly, like the PSTN.

  So, basically, to be a DSL CLEC, you have to build your own local network.

  You also have CO rental costs.  A CO isn't some two-bit ISP's machine
room, with a handful of PCs and $500 UPS from APC.  The telcos do things
*right* when it comes to infrastructure.  Redundant power throughout the
entire building; massive battery banks; generators; secured access; onsite
staff; the list goes on and on.  It isn't cheap.

  The average annualized fixed cost for a DSL circuit is something like
$2000, IIRC.  That's $167 per month, for those of you keeping score at home.  
Before bandwidth charges.  Before profit.

> The way cable modems work is TOTALLY different the DSL ... 

  I know that, but I imagine they still need equipment.

> [Cable] is "shared" bandwidth ...

  *Everything* on the Internet is shared bandwidth.  It isn't like your 768
kbps DSL line is a 768 kbps CIR right to whatever web server you're talking
to.  DSL goes into a DSLAM at the CO, and then you're on the same
packet-switched network that everyone else is.  You might have 768 kbps to
the DSLAM, but you sure as hell don't have a dedicated 768 slice of the T1
feeding it.

> You know that Verizon has been getting ready for DSL stuff for years and
> probably would have been rolled out sooner if the cable modems came out
> sooner. The only reason they didn't start rolling it out was because they
> didn't have to and they could still milk people for second phone lines for
> dial-up modems.

  That may be true.  I suspect it is.  But it doesn't make DSL cheaper to
operate.

-- 
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.  |

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

RE: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)

[Travis Roy]

> >   Providing two-way packet-switched unicast data services is a 
> > *completely
> > different* scenario.
> 
> It isn't.  Or, it is... but the same head end does both, over 
> the same coax.  So it doesn't matter.

Exactly! They needed to redo the cable plant to offer just one of the
three services they do now (digital cable/telephone/internet) so the
fact that they get to do all of them just by upgrading one thing works
out to be a bonus for them.. Or at least makes it cost effective. Plus,
like I said in an early post, in a lot of the towns they needed to be
redone anyway to fix leakage because of some FCC regs so the plant would
have been rebuilt regardless of the new services. That's why some
smaller towns got rebuilt before larger ones next to it, because they
had a more leaky cable plant put in by some mom and pop cable company
back in the late 70s early 80s. 

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

RE: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)

[bscott]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 9:36pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Then please explain to me why almost every single DSL company has gone
>> out of business.
> 
> Because they're still need Verizon to set up the line for them..

  Look, Verizon may be a bunch of incompetent morons (they are), but the
fact that it takes them a month to provision a line doesn't mean everyone
goes out of business.  It's take years for DSL to reach general
availability; an additional month isn't going to make a difference.

  Especially when you consider the fact that, back when there were a hundred
and one DSL companies, Verizon's install time for their DSL was basically
"indefinite".  You simply couldn't get it installed.  You couldn't get a
static IP; you couldn't host services; they even made it difficult to send
email!  Believe me, Verizon DSL was no competition to the other guys.

  No, the reason everyone went under was that they were charing $50/month
for a service that was costing them $150/month.

> And almost every? Please.. Covad is around, as is speakeasy and Earthlink.

  SpeakEasy and EarthLink are both reselling Covad.  As does XO, and even
AT&T in places.  Most any national provider is reselling Covad.  They're
about the only ones left.  And Covad is/was in chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection, and their financial future is still uncertain.

-- 
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.  |

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

RE: High Speed Internet costs (was: Email hosting)

[Travis Roy]

> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 9:00pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The exsiting ISP, be it Vitts, MV, Joe Blow local ISP, they should 
> > already have ISP backbone equipment in place for their dialups.
> 
>   Just because a business is already in possession of 
> something doesn't mean you can call it "free".  Even if they 
> aren't in-debt to pay it off, it has maintenance and 
> depreciation costs.  We all know how fact computers depreciate...

The pipe to the net should be supported by whoever they're getting it
from (in MV's case, BBN/Genuity). If you spend it right you can make it
stretch a LONG time.. MV had a 486 as their email server until I think 2
years ago, they just replaced it with a $3k system that they expect to
last them at LEAST 10 years.. Even replacing the hard drive every year,
that's not a lot of money at all. Even if you tripple that the cost is
still very small.
 
> > At the most they'll have to upgrade their pipe or get an 
> aditional T 
> > ...
> 
>   "At the most"?
> 
>   100 customers @ 56 kbps  =  5600 kbps = 3.6 T1's
>   100 customers @ 768 kbps = 76800 kbps =  50 T1's

Oh yes, because you always have 100% of your customers using 100% of
your connection 100% of the time. Plus add on seemless caching like AT&T
does to cut down on that.. Plus, I have a 768k DSL line, I rarely get
that except from HUGE sites like download.com. Http doesn't take a lot
of bandwidth. Most people use email and IM stuff... 
 
>   Obviously, since consumer services can be oversubscribed, 
> the math doesn't really work out like that, but you should 
> see my point.  We're talking an increase in capacity of more 
> than 1000%!

Yah, but it's not like you need to upgrade it to that overnight.. You
build as you grow. And for people like AT&T what does it cost them to
add some T1s? I bet close to nothing, since they own them.

>   You also have CO rental costs.  A CO isn't some two-bit 
> ISP's machine room, with a handful of PCs and $500 UPS from 
> APC.  The telcos do things
> *right* when it comes to infrastructure.  Redundant power 
> throughout the entire building; massive battery banks; 
> generators; secured access; onsite staff; the list goes on 
> and on.  It isn't cheap.

You've never seen some of the COs around here :)
 
>   The average annualized fixed cost for a DSL circuit is 
> something like $2000, IIRC.  That's $167 per month, for those 
> of you keeping score at home.  
> Before bandwidth charges.  Before profit.
> 
> > The way cable modems work is TOTALLY different the DSL ...
> 
>   I know that, but I imagine they still need equipment.
> 
> > [Cable] is "shared" bandwidth ...
> 
>   *Everything* on the Internet is shared bandwidth.  It isn't 
> like your 768 kbps DSL line is a 768 kbps CIR right to 
> whatever web server you're talking to.  DSL goes into a DSLAM 
> at the CO, and then you're on the same packet-switched 
> network that everyone else is.  You might have 768 kbps to 
> the DSLAM, but you sure as hell don't have a dedicated 768 
> slice of the T1 feeding it.

I'm just saying that because of the old "Web Hog" ads that Bell South
used to run. They were very inaccurate.
 
> > You know that Verizon has been getting ready for DSL stuff 
> for years 
> > and probably would have been rolled out sooner if the cable modems 
> > came out sooner. The only reason they didn't start rolling 
> it out was 
> > because they didn't have to and they could still milk people for 
> > second phone lines for dial-up modems.
> 
>   That may be true.  I suspect it is.  But it doesn't make 
> DSL cheaper to operate.

Once the pipe is in place, and the equipment is on each end unless
something breaks what is the extra cost besides electricity.. 

For an EXTREAMLY simple example, if I toss a cat5 cable to my neighbor
and throw in some cards and a hub after the cost of running the cable
and buying the cards and the hub what do I have to pay for now if that
cable doesn't break? 

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

RE: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)

[Travis Roy]

>   Look, Verizon may be a bunch of incompetent morons (they 
> are), but the fact that it takes them a month to provision a 
> line doesn't mean everyone goes out of business.  It's take 
> years for DSL to reach general availability; an additional 
> month isn't going to make a difference.

That's why when I was getting my MV DSL line provisioned it got pushed
back a week.. TWICE so it was two weeks late.. And at the -SAME- time I
got -THREE- calls from Verizon saying that they could get me up and
running in 2 days.. Give me a break.
 

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: High Speed Internet costs (was: Email hosting)

[bscott]

>> I know that, but I imagine they still need equipment.
> 
> But the point you seem to be missing is that the equipment is THE VERY
> SAME equipment which runs the already profitable cable business.

  I'm not missing it at all; I'm assuming that isn't true.

  Look, to deliver television -- even digital, pay-per-view with on-screen
menus television -- you basically have to send the same signal down the pipe
to everyone.  The bandwidth required to report the fact that "Subscriber
#14785983 purchased 'Daisy Does Dallas'" is practically insignificant.  I'm
not talking about *just* the cables feeding the last mile, here; I'm talking
about their entire network.

  Are you telling me that they built their entire digital TV distribution
network to handle symmetric two-way traffic before anyone suspected the
Internet would hit it big?  Why the hell would they do that?  Don't give me
any talk about grand visions of packet-switched networking; the cable
companies didn't see that coming any more than the telcos did.

-- 
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.  |


___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

RE: High Speed Internet costs (was: Email hosting)

[bscott]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 10:00pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> For an EXTREAMLY simple example, if I toss a cat5 cable to my neighbor and
> throw in some cards and a hub after the cost of running the cable and
> buying the cards and the hub what do I have to pay for now if that cable
> doesn't break?

  You guys just don't get it.  That just isn't the way things work in the
real world.  I'm tired of trying to explain it to you.  I've worked in the
industry and budgeted for this stuff and know how much it costs but that
doesn't matter.  You've convinced yourselves that everything is free.  
Fine.  Go out and build your free networks and charge people $30/month to
use them and make a gazillion dollars and buy Microsoft.  When you've done
that, I will happily *eat* my modem.  Until then, I'm not holding my breath.

  *click*

-- 
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.  |

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

RE: High Speed Internet costs (was: Email hosting)

[Travis Roy]

>   Are you telling me that they built their entire digital TV 
> distribution network to handle symmetric two-way traffic 
> before anyone suspected the Internet would hit it big?  Why 
> the hell would they do that?  Don't give me any talk about 
> grand visions of packet-switched networking; the cable 
> companies didn't see that coming any more than the telcos did.

The work needed to add internet to a properly set up cable plant is
-NOTHING- compaired to the cost of upgrading the cable plant itself. You
add one node per ~500 customers that all go to a head end. The cable
plant itself already supports it because you upgraded it anyway for 1.
Phone service, 2. Digital Cable, 3. you had to for the FCC being on your
back about leakage anyway. Manchester probably has about 400-500 nodes,
if that (it didn't even have close to that when I worked there) That's
not a huge cost for a company the size of AT&T or even M1 when it was
that. The cable has the bandwidth to already support that ammount of
traffic, they don't have to do anything extra to support it. I remember
back in the day of the old lan-city modems and I was an employee, if you
knew the right people you could get your modem uncapped to 10 -MEG- up
and down, and if you were transfering to somebody else that was uncapped
you could almost get that (I hit 8meg at one point) this was of course
before caps on the nodes themselves.

Even with phone, digital cable, and internet there's PLENTY of room on
that cable for other stuff, they're already planning stuff like video on
demail (ala TiVoish) they talked about having the ability to download
whole shows to your cable box and FF/RW.. Even without internet they had
plans for that, and they had to make room for it.

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss