1 has already been addressed so we go to: 2) My IP address that has been static since I signed up over a year ago has suddenly changed and it appears that static addressing in any form has gone up in smoke. This screws anyone relying on a static IP.
@Home used dynamic IPs, but the thing was that they never really were dynamic. In two years my IP never changed. Now, I'm not sure what's up. It looks like AT&T is, in effect, now treating broadband like the "entertainment service" it always claimed it was whenever you bitched to their support people -- truly dynamic IPs to make it tougher to run a full-time server, 1.5M cap to limit file sharing. Maybe they also got a clue and will be policing their users better and flush out some of the script kiddies.
If you want static IP, then get DSL.
3) They have been playing fast and loose with the service agreement (that I signed), but instituting an AUP (that I didn't sign)that directly contradicts it.
They changed the AUP a few months ago; you should have gotten a notice of it. You had a chance to opt out (although it required either a letter to corporate or cancelling). Heck, you're on a new system; demand them to send you the new AUP. Start getting pro-active here.
4) Their DNS service has been very erratic
The network's been up since Saturday morning! Considering that they only had about 60 days to deploy the new provider to 860,000 computers, some DNS goofiness isn't out of the question. This is like expecting someone's last-second hacked together code is not going to have bugs. Get real.
I'm still reserving judgement. I was very dissatisfied with @Home's service, but since I live in a DSL-less area, I had only one choice for broadband (in '99). Satellite waits in the wings, but I'll let attbi settle out before I make my choice. I was back up and running in about 30 hours -- still shorter than two outages under the previous regime.
Two lessons to take away:
This wouldn't have been near as bad if broadband providers had been forced to open their systems to multiple ISPs. AT&T paid dearly for being married to @Home.
We need to get the Internet stable enough that we can start getting people to treat it like a true "utility" rather than an "entertainment service." Right now, things are still way too wide open. Consumer protection and basic regulation would have prevented this weekend's fiasco from happening. We need to treat the backbone like a communications network, the ISPs like utilities. I'm OK with free and open so long as we have rules (give 30 days notice to system shutdown, provide e-mail forwarding, in a case where you are a true monopoly you can't shut down unless you find a new provider).
I think it's also time for the companies to wake up and realize that unless the government steps in and writes a big honking check for a network upgrade, half this country will be on dialup for 10-15 more years. And I don't see Dubya (or anyone else for that matter) opening up his checkbook. Broadband isn't dead, but it will need to look long and hard at how it chooses to move forward.
The only reason I have @Home is because I couldn't get DSL where I live, which is incredibly remarkable since I live in a certain large city in the Northwest US that rhymes with Seattle. I live in a phone exchange that is a loop-something (the more phone techies will know what I'm talking about). Not only can't you pump and xDSL through it, it also can't allow me to do dialup faster than 28.8.
So, no DSL and 1995 speed phone modems. I'm left with satellite (less bandwidth, more money) or figuring out a way to run a T1 into my house cheaply. I briefly thought about the old pioneer phone companies -- local co-ops where people banded together and got phone service and paid a flat fee to use it -- and maybe setting one up in my phone exchange.
It's all a mess, and it's all about simple greed -- bondholders who think they're being screwed against a huge tight-fisted corporation. And who loses? The consumer.
It's such a cruel irony this is all happening two years to the day that the WTO protests began.
Slashdot Mirror
2) My IP address that has been static since I signed up over a year ago has suddenly changed and it appears that static addressing in any form has gone up in smoke. This screws anyone relying on a static IP.
@Home used dynamic IPs, but the thing was that they never really were dynamic. In two years my IP never changed. Now, I'm not sure what's up. It looks like AT&T is, in effect, now treating broadband like the "entertainment service" it always claimed it was whenever you bitched to their support people -- truly dynamic IPs to make it tougher to run a full-time server, 1.5M cap to limit file sharing. Maybe they also got a clue and will be policing their users better and flush out some of the script kiddies.
3) They have been playing fast and loose with the service agreement (that I signed), but instituting an AUP (that I didn't sign)that directly contradicts it.If you want static IP, then get DSL.
They changed the AUP a few months ago; you should have gotten a notice of it. You had a chance to opt out (although it required either a letter to corporate or cancelling). Heck, you're on a new system; demand them to send you the new AUP. Start getting pro-active here.
4) Their DNS service has been very erraticThe network's been up since Saturday morning! Considering that they only had about 60 days to deploy the new provider to 860,000 computers, some DNS goofiness isn't out of the question. This is like expecting someone's last-second hacked together code is not going to have bugs. Get real.
I'm still reserving judgement. I was very dissatisfied with @Home's service, but since I live in a DSL-less area, I had only one choice for broadband (in '99). Satellite waits in the wings, but I'll let attbi settle out before I make my choice. I was back up and running in about 30 hours -- still shorter than two outages under the previous regime.
Two lessons to take away:- This wouldn't have been near as bad if broadband providers had been forced to open their systems to multiple ISPs. AT&T paid dearly for being married to @Home.
- We need to get the Internet stable enough that we can start getting people to treat it like a true "utility" rather than an "entertainment service." Right now, things are still way too wide open. Consumer protection and basic regulation would have prevented this weekend's fiasco from happening. We need to treat the backbone like a communications network, the ISPs like utilities. I'm OK with free and open so long as we have rules (give 30 days notice to system shutdown, provide e-mail forwarding, in a case where you are a true monopoly you can't shut down unless you find a new provider).
I think it's also time for the companies to wake up and realize that unless the government steps in and writes a big honking check for a network upgrade, half this country will be on dialup for 10-15 more years. And I don't see Dubya (or anyone else for that matter) opening up his checkbook. Broadband isn't dead, but it will need to look long and hard at how it chooses to move forward.The only reason I have @Home is because I couldn't get DSL where I live, which is incredibly remarkable since I live in a certain large city in the Northwest US that rhymes with Seattle. I live in a phone exchange that is a loop-something (the more phone techies will know what I'm talking about). Not only can't you pump and xDSL through it, it also can't allow me to do dialup faster than 28.8. So, no DSL and 1995 speed phone modems. I'm left with satellite (less bandwidth, more money) or figuring out a way to run a T1 into my house cheaply. I briefly thought about the old pioneer phone companies -- local co-ops where people banded together and got phone service and paid a flat fee to use it -- and maybe setting one up in my phone exchange. It's all a mess, and it's all about simple greed -- bondholders who think they're being screwed against a huge tight-fisted corporation. And who loses? The consumer. It's such a cruel irony this is all happening two years to the day that the WTO protests began.