[svlug] DSL woes
tin at le.org
Mon May 8 23:52:06 PDT 2000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
It sounds to me like there are quite a few dissatisfied PacBell DSL
customers. Perhaps we should all get together and complain enmasse. There
is strength in numbers after all.
Count me in as one who is not happy with their service. My DSL line went
down from April 17th till May 5th. They could have fixed it sooner, except
I could not get through to anyone on the support line, despite leaving
numerous messages. When I got through, they said that the Sunnyvale area
where I live is so busy that I would have to wait over a week before they
can send someone out to look at the line.
My understanding is that they have problem with inclement weather. The
technology is more restrictive than even microwave. This is because the
laser will experience interference with particles in the air. Their press
release kinda mumble...mumble... on the problem with fog and rain. Funny
thing is, TeraBeam is base in Seattle, where fog happens often :-).
Internet Security and Firewall Consulting
Tin Le - tin at le.org
On Mon, 8 May 2000 kmself at ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 20:58:44 -0700
> From: kmself at ix.netcom.com
> To: svlug at svlug.org
> Subject: Re: [svlug] DSL woes
> My off-list response to Marc was that he take this issue to the CPUC, as
> well as the CEO of PacBell (Edward Whitacre, Jr., 58 Chairman, CEO), and
> local (and, WTF, national) media. Copies to state and national
> representatives wouldn't hurt either. Fire under the appropriate asses.
> While I wouldn't expect PacBell or the CPUC to take actions based on a
> single person's commentary, media can have a rather strong lens effect.
> Incidentally, I was talking with Marc after the last SVLUG meeting about
> a new wireless technology based on line-of-sight laser networks, with 2
> gbps capacity. Company name is TeraBeam, I ran across them in an
> article in the Economist. While it's not there yet, I'd say it's damned
> interesting sounding technology, and has the possibility of greatly
> reducing the power of landline-based bandwidth providers.
> and possibly, from the Economist's archive:
> On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 02:40:50AM -0700, Steve M Bibayoff wrote:
> > Just a little info I learned a few weeks ago from a Pac Bell rep who
> > wasn't suppose to tell (this info may not be true, I haven't checked yet),
> > is Pac Bell is requesting from the PUC to expand their service and in
> > order to do that they must reduce their complaints to the PUC to almost
> > zero. So I was tolded if yuo write both Pac Bell and PUC a letter
> > complaining about service, you will get an immediate response, response
> > being they'll fix the problem.
> > Some info that may be helpful
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the svlug