[Mike Rivers]

Google has a few messages dribbling in to this newsgroup but Verizon
hasn't had any new ones in more than a day. Maybe they dropped it and
didn't tell me.

You don't need to reply. I'm mostly just sending this to see if it gets
rejected.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 25, 11:45 am, Mike Rivers wrote:

You don't need to reply. I'm mostly just sending this to see if it gets
rejected.

Well, it seems that at least I can talk to myself.

[Richard Crowley]

"Mike Rivers" wrote...
Mike Rivers wrote:
You don't need to reply. I'm mostly just sending this to see if it gets
rejected.

Well, it seems that at least I can talk to myself.

Can we listen in? :-)

[[email protected]]

On Sep 25, 8:52*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
On Sep 25, 11:45 am, Mike Rivers wrote:

You don't need to reply. I'm mostly just sending this to see if it gets
rejected.

Well, it seems that at least I can talk to myself.

Don't feel bad Mike, we all do that these days given the collective
demise of useful content, or what passes for it, in the general
populace. Hope to see you at AES SF.

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios / SoundSmith Labs
we organize chaos

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:19:29 -0400, Richard Crowley wrote
(in article ):

"Mike Rivers" wrote...
Mike Rivers wrote:
You don't need to reply. I'm mostly just sending this to see if it gets
rejected.

Well, it seems that at least I can talk to myself.

Can we listen in? :-)

what are you wearing?

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Richard Crowley]

"Ty Ford" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote
"Mike Rivers" wrote...
Mike Rivers wrote:
You don't need to reply. I'm mostly just sending this to see if it gets
rejected.

Well, it seems that at least I can talk to myself.

Can we listen in? :-)

what are you wearing?

I'll assume you are asking Mike and not me. :-))

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:19:29 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Mike Rivers" wrote...
Well, it seems that at least I can talk to myself.

Can we listen in? :-)

Yeah, when you get right down to it, Mike Rivers talking
to himself is more interesting than most anything else on
the Usenet on an average evening, which is saying something.

Tonight, of course, is the season opener of "Survivor"
back in the Real World, so all bets are hedged.

Actually, as a huge fan of "Survivor" I just watched it - so
my bet goes to M.R. It's been that kind of year. This could
even be a Good Thing...


Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 25/09/08 17:45, in article , "Mike
Rivers" wrote:

Google has a few messages dribbling in to this newsgroup but Verizon
hasn't had any new ones in more than a day. Maybe they dropped it and
didn't tell me.

You don't need to reply. I'm mostly just sending this to see if it gets
rejected.

FIY: I counted 63 posts on Friday, 45 on Thursday and 52 on Wednesday.

--
Joe Kotroczo

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 27, 3:03 am, Joe Kotroczo wrote:

FIY: I counted 63 posts on Friday, 45 on Thursday and 52 on Wednesday.

That actually isn't very many for this newsgroup, particularly when
you subtract the ones about watches and shoes. I usually check in
about 4 times a day, and up until fairly recently (last couple of
weeks or so) there's usually 30 or so new posts each time, for a total
of 100 or more a day. And a couple of years ago, rec.audio.pro was
more active than that with more posts that were actually relevant to
the subject.

I suspect that the number of ISPs that are dropping newsgroup support,
followed on by people like me who don't want to pay yet another
monthly subscription fee for a "reliable" news feed, are having a
definite impact on the amount of relevant traffic here.

What's curious is that I get e-mail now and then from people who start
with "I read your post on ....... (some forum I've never heard of and
know I've never posted to)" and quote something that I remember
posting, usually quite some time ago. When they say "I read your post
on Google" I know that they're probably talking about the Google
Usenet archive of rec.audio.pro, but there are apparently other forums
that are capturing and reposting messages from here. I guess there's
nothing wrong with it. I haven't figured out how to make money from my
posts in rec.audio.pro so I don't feel like I'm losing income from
copying. But it would be nice if there was still a reliable "go to"
place, and the stars seem to be winking out.

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 27/09/08 11:44, in article
, "Mike
Rivers" wrote:

On Sep 27, 3:03 am, Joe Kotroczo wrote:

FIY: I counted 63 posts on Friday, 45 on Thursday and 52 on Wednesday.

That actually isn't very many for this newsgroup, particularly when
you subtract the ones about watches and shoes.

I don't get ANY posts about watches and shoes in rec.audio.pro. The spam
filtering alone is well worth the 10 Euro per year I pay individual.net


--
Joe Kotroczo

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 27, 6:02 am, Joe Kotroczo wrote:

I don't get ANY posts about watches and shoes in rec.audio.pro. The spam
filtering alone is well worth the 10 Euro per year I pay individual.net

Maybe it just doesn't like me. I tried setting up a free read-only
account to see what news.individual.net got me. I saw essentially the
same posts in rec.audio.pro for the last two days as I do in Google.

I'm sure they're legitimate, but I'm not confident with their methods
of payment. I don't use PayPal and and I don't want to do a bank
transfer. So far, no sale. I'll stick with what I get for free even if
it means things aren't as active as they used to be. I guess they just
aren't.

[Richard Crowley]

"Mike Rivers" wrote ...
Joe Kotroczo wrote:
I don't get ANY posts about watches and shoes in rec.audio.pro. The spam
filtering alone is well worth the 10 Euro per year I pay individual.net

Maybe it just doesn't like me. I tried setting up a free read-only
account to see what news.individual.net got me. I saw essentially the
same posts in rec.audio.pro for the last two days as I do in Google.

I'm sure they're legitimate, but I'm not confident with their methods
of payment. I don't use PayPal and and I don't want to do a bank
transfer. So far, no sale. I'll stick with what I get for free even if
it means things aren't as active as they used to be. I guess they just
aren't.

They use a legitimate service called "Click and Buy" to process
credit/debit card payments. I've never had any problem with
them. They seem as trustworthy as any other online merchant.

They appear to do a 99% effective filter of those watch, shoe,
handbag spam, etc. Now if they could only filter out the history
revisionists, racists, and other sociopaths.

[[email protected]]

On 2008-09-27 said:
On Sep 27, 3:03 am, Joe Kotroczo wrote:
FIY: I counted 63 posts on Friday, 45 on Thursday and 52 on
Wednesday.
That actually isn't very many for this newsgroup, particularly when
you subtract the ones about watches and shoes. I usually check in
about 4 times a day, and up until fairly recently (last couple of
weeks or so) there's usually 30 or so new posts each time, for a
total of 100 or more a day. And a couple of years ago, rec.audio.
pro was more active than that with more posts that were actually
relevant to the subject.
My rough guestimate numbers dovetail with those. I'm still
here but find myself skimming quickly. mOre about how to
get one's windows pc to play nice with the rest of the world
than audio. Those aren't a problem as trying to get all
this stuff together isn't like buying some gear and hooking
up audio connections. tHen there's the usual "will the real
BOb please stand up" posts followed by the other cross
posted bs.

I suspect that the number of ISPs that are dropping newsgroup
support, followed on by people like me who don't want to pay yet
another monthly subscription fee for a "reliable" news feed, are
having a definite impact on the amount of relevant traffic here.
I would think you're right. I"m glad Bellsouth has seen fit
to keep text only newsgroups.

What's curious is that I get e-mail now and then from people who
start with "I read your post on ....... (some forum I've never
heard of and know I've never posted to)" and quote something that I
remember posting, usually quite some time ago. When they say "I
read your post on Google" I know that they're probably talking
about the Google Usenet archive of rec.audio.pro, but there are
apparently other forums that are capturing and reposting messages
from here.
I"m sure that somebody's capturing them to web sites and not
admitting where they come from but calling the content from
r.a.p. their "forum. Rather bogus if you ask me. OF course
they don't tell people they're capturing a usenet newsgroup.


Regards,




Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin, NOvember 1755 from the
Historical review of Pennsylvania

[Richard Crowley]

Richard Webb wrote ...
I"m sure that somebody's capturing them to web sites and not
admitting where they come from but calling the content from
r.a.p. their "forum. Rather bogus if you ask me. OF course
they don't tell people they're capturing a usenet newsgroup.

Yes, there seem to be several.
Of course, Google is the most notorious.

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 27, 10:58 am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
Richard Webb wrote ...

I"m sure that somebody's capturing them to web sites and not
admitting where they come from but calling the content from
r.a.p. their "forum. Rather bogus if you ask me. OF course
they don't tell people they're capturing a usenet newsgroup.

Yes, there seem to be several.
Of course, Google is the most notorious.

I wouldn't consider Google "notorious" for this (maybe for other
things). They make a point of being a Usenet archive (they took it
over from whatsisname) and I think it's a useful service. When AOL
used to carry newsgroups, they kept articles longer than just about
anyone else. I'd often get mail about my posts from 5 or more years
ago, usually about something I no longer care about or remember.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

Maybe it just doesn't like me. I tried setting up a free read-only
account to see what news.individual.net got me. I saw essentially the
same posts in rec.audio.pro for the last two days as I do in Google.

I use news.astraweb.com just like Graham, wanted to have an account that
wasn't tied to my isp. A 10 GB bucket of text based news goes a long way
......

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[hank alrich]

wrote:

I"m sure that somebody's capturing them to web sites and not
admitting where they come from but calling the content from
r.a.p. their "forum. Rather bogus if you ask me. OF course
they don't tell people they're capturing a usenet newsgroup.

There are quite a few of those bogus sites. They use r.a.p. content to
try to get some ad money at their site. It's total bull**** , if you ask
me, but ain't nobody gonna ask me.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Richard Crowley]

"Mike Rivers" wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote:
Richard Webb wrote ...

I"m sure that somebody's capturing them to web sites and not
admitting where they come from but calling the content from
r.a.p. their "forum. Rather bogus if you ask me. OF course
they don't tell people they're capturing a usenet newsgroup.

Yes, there seem to be several.
Of course, Google is the most notorious.

I wouldn't consider Google "notorious" for this (maybe for other
things).

Notorious in the sense that they are the #1 source of
Usenet garbage known today. Notorious in the sense
of opening Usenet up to clueless web browsers who don't
know (or care) about any of the Usenet conventions that
have kept it alive and healthy for decades. Notorious in
the sense that they seem to deliberately mislead newbies
into thinking they are using something called "Google
Groups". Etc. etc etc.

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 27, 2:36 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:

Notorious in the sense that they are the #1 source of
Usenet garbage known today. Notorious in the sense
of opening Usenet up to clueless web browsers who don't
know (or care) about any of the Usenet conventions that
have kept it alive and healthy for decades.

I don't see a lot of that here. Maybe on other newsgroups, but this is
the only one I read. We have plenty of clueless web browsers dropping
by here who aren't posting from Google.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Mike Rivers wrote:
On Sep 27, 2:36 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:

Notorious in the sense that they are the #1 source of
Usenet garbage known today. Notorious in the sense
of opening Usenet up to clueless web browsers who don't
know (or care) about any of the Usenet conventions that
have kept it alive and healthy for decades.

I don't see a lot of that here. Maybe on other newsgroups, but this is
the only one I read. We have plenty of clueless web browsers dropping
by here who aren't posting from Google.

It is a severe problem on most of the net, Mike. It's not so bad here, but
for the most part if you see obvious spam or ads on Usenet, the good chance
is that it comes from Google. The spam companies have automated scripts to
hit the google servers with this stuff. What is worse is that in many cases
Google encourages it; somehow the Blogspot.com service which is owned by
Google has some sort of button you can push to automatically post to Usenet
about your new blog. Worst part is that blogspot.com has no valid abuse
address so you can't even complain about it. It's no wonder that a lot of
backbone sites just dump all traffic from google without even bothering to
inspect it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 27/09/08 14:45, in article
, "Mike
Rivers" wrote:

On Sep 27, 6:02 am, Joe Kotroczo wrote:

I don't get ANY posts about watches and shoes in rec.audio.pro. The spam
filtering alone is well worth the 10 Euro per year I pay individual.net

Maybe it just doesn't like me. I tried setting up a free read-only
account to see what news.individual.net got me. I saw essentially the
same posts in rec.audio.pro for the last two days as I do in Google.

I'm sure they're legitimate, but I'm not confident with their methods
of payment. I don't use PayPal and and I don't want to do a bank
transfer. So far, no sale. I'll stick with what I get for free even if
it means things aren't as active as they used to be. I guess they just
aren't.

Legitimate? They belong to the IT department of the Free University of
Berlin. Which is a public institution, and as such non-profit and
accountable to the State Audit Office... ;-)


--
Joe Kotroczo

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 27, 4:59 pm, Joe Kotroczo wrote:

Legitimate? They belong to the IT department of the Free University of
Berlin. Which is a public institution, and as such non-profit and
accountable to the State Audit Office... ;-)

In that case, why are they charging for the service? Sounds like a
pretty public thing to me. Or are they only charging those outside of
Germany?

[Richard Crowley]

"Mike Rivers" wrote ...
Joe Kotroczo wrote:
Legitimate? They belong to the IT department of the Free University of
Berlin. Which is a public institution, and as such non-profit and
accountable to the State Audit Office... ;-)

In that case, why are they charging for the service? Sounds like a
pretty public thing to me. Or are they only charging those outside of
Germany?

10 Euro per year isn't much of a "charge" IMHO. You waste
more than that in a year on food going bad in your refrigerator
or any number of other things you don't give a second thought.

Their administration likely told them that if they wanted to offer
Usenet service to all comers, they had to at least make it self-
supporting. I've got no problem with what they're doing.

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 27, 7:00 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:

Their administration likely told them that if they wanted to offer
Usenet service to all comers, they had to at least make it self-
supporting. I've got no problem with what they're doing.

I have no problem with it either. I have a problem with what's
supposed to be included in the $20/month I pay for Internet access
through Verizon not working. Since I'm not paying (directly) for
rec.audio.pro now, and since there's no chance of getting Verizon's
news feed fixed except at their own lazy pace (there's not even anyone
you can talk to about it, and you can't e-mail them about Internet
problems), I'm content to use Google. It gets me the same thing for
free as I'd have to pay for somewhere else.

I don't get upset over spam. I recognize it and simply skip over it.
If I read a lot of newsgroups, or newsgroups that were heavily
spammed, I might feel different about it. I certainly don't endorse
spammers and I wish they'd all get a real job, but I'm not going to
spend my money to not show me something that I can easily ignore.

By the way, Virginia, my state, had an anti-spam law on the books, but
it was recently declared unconstitutional. So it's legal to spam
Virginians again.

[Richard Crowley]

"Mike Rivers" wrote ...
By the way, Virginia, my state, had an anti-spam law on the books, but
it was recently declared unconstitutional. So it's legal to spam
Virginians again.

I'm shocked they thought they could thwart free speech like that.
Shocked, I say.

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On Sep 27, 4:59 pm, Joe Kotroczo wrote:

Legitimate? They belong to the IT department of the Free University of
Berlin. Which is a public institution, and as such non-profit and
accountable to the State Audit Office... ;-)

In that case, why are they charging for the service? Sounds like a
pretty public thing to me. Or are they only charging those outside of
Germany?

They offered the service for free for a long time. Eventually the cost
of supporting the servers became too much to bear, rationally. So I pay
10 Euros/yr. and get great service.

It's not as if I'm a student there.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Lucky[_3_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

I have no problem with it either. I have a problem with what's
supposed to be included in the $20/month I pay for Internet access
through Verizon not working. Since I'm not paying (directly) for
rec.audio.pro now, and since there's no chance of getting Verizon's
news feed fixed except at their own lazy pace (there's not even anyone
you can talk to about it, and you can't e-mail them about Internet
problems), I'm content to use Google. It gets me the same thing for
free as I'd have to pay for somewhere else.


$20 a month? You are one funny guy.

Letterman's comments about McCain come to mind.

John McCain is the guy...

[[email protected]]

On 2008-09-27 (ScottDorsey) said:
somehow the Blogspot.com service which is owned by Google has
some sort of button you can push to automatically post to Usenet
about your new blog. Worst part is that blogspot.com has no valid
abuse address so you can't even complain about it. It's no wonder
that a lot of backbone sites just dump all traffic from google
without even bothering to inspect it. --scott
I think that's great!!! NOw if they could cut google out of
distribution all ways. tHat's always been the one beauty of
fidonet imho. A node that was dumping bs into conferences
could be cut out post haste.

IF google wants to be the definitive usenet archive a la
dejanews then they should clean up their act. OTherwise
responsible backbone managers should cut them out, utterly
and completely.





Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin, NOvember 1755 from the
Historical review of Pennsylvania



Google aids and abets spammers!!!

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 27/09/08 23:46, in article
, "Mike
Rivers" wrote:

On Sep 27, 4:59 pm, Joe Kotroczo wrote:

Legitimate? They belong to the IT department of the Free University of
Berlin. Which is a public institution, and as such non-profit and
accountable to the State Audit Office... ;-)

In that case, why are they charging for the service? Sounds like a
pretty public thing to me. Or are they only charging those outside of
Germany?

They are charging those that are not students there. Just to cover the
costs.

More background info can be found he
http://news.individual.net/commercial.php

--
Joe Kotroczo

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:24:17 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

By the way, Virginia, my state, had an anti-spam law on the books, but
it was recently declared unconstitutional. So it's legal to spam
Virginians again.

I'm shocked they thought they could thwart free speech like that.
Shocked, I say.

I'd like to see the definition of "spam" they used. It's difficult to
come up with anything better than "a message I don't wish to receive",
which is obviously a bad basis for legislation.

[Mike Rivers]

Laurence Payne wrote:

I'd like to see the definition of "spam" they used. It's difficult to
come up with anything better than "a message I don't wish to receive",
which is obviously a bad basis for legislation.

Essentially that. I'm sure there was a legal definition (I didn't read
the law), but the argument was that it was restricting freedom of
speech. I always have the option of not reading it, but the
Constitution allows them the right to write and (as an extension of
standing on a soap box in the Olde Towne Square) disseminate it to
others within shouting range.

What really needs to be redefined in the digital age is just what
"speech" is, and who's within hearing range.

The real problem with an anti-spam law is that it's so difficult to
catch the violator. It's not trivial to look at an e-mail message and
find the door to knock on to take the perpetrator away in handcuffs.
This is why spamming is so successful.

These days I receive about five copies of the same ad for Gevalia
coffee daily in my Yahoo Spam folder. Each one appears to be coming
from a different source, and it may very well be - as a result of a
worm planted in an unprotected user's computer. I always look at
what's in that Spam folder because occasionally a legitimate message
goes in there by misinterpretataion. But it takes only seconds to
glance through it to see if there's anything legitimate that I should
read (around trade show time, I guess some press releases have some of
the characteristics of spam that the Yahoo filter looks at), and with
a couple of mouse clicks, the folder is empty and ready to receive
more spam.

I can handle it. I wish I didn't have to, but it's not a great burden.
I wouldn't pay more money and take the risk that something I actually
should read got filtered out. Humans are best at that, and each one of
us makes our own best filter.

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 27, 10:48 pm, Lucky wrote:

$20a month? You are one funny guy.
Letterman's comments about McCain come to mind.

John McCain is the guy...

Sorry, that one went right by me. Would you care to explain? Are you
suggesting that I'm paying too much for my Internet access? Or that
I'm not paying enough and that I'm getting what i paid for? It was $15/
month until just a few months ago. Not video speed by any means
(864/160kbs download/upload) but it's enough to get mail and news,
browse web sites, submit articles, listen to the radio. What more
could anyone want?

Heck, Al Gore wanted to give us all the Internet for free.

[Richard Crowley]

"Mike Rivers" wrote...
Sorry, that one went right by me. Would you care to explain? Are you
suggesting that I'm paying too much for my Internet access? Or that
I'm not paying enough and that I'm getting what i paid for? It was $15/
month until just a few months ago. Not video speed by any means
(864/160kbs download/upload) but it's enough to get mail and news,
browse web sites, submit articles, listen to the radio. What more
could anyone want?

$20/mo is very remarkably cheap compared to rates for similar
service in other parts of the country. I think you aren't aware of
how well off you are. Rates in my part of the country are 2x-3x
for similar service. Some people pay $20/mo just for Usenet.

Heck, Al Gore wanted to give us all the Internet for free.

Yeah, Algore and his socialist cronies want to "give" us everything
for "free". Of course you know who ends up paying for it.

OTOH, "Lucky" will have to explain the McCain references.

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne wrote:
I'd like to see the definition of "spam" they used. It's difficult to
come up with anything better than "a message I don't wish to receive",
which is obviously a bad basis for legislation.

Spam is:
1. Sent in bulk
2. Unsolicited

Some folks add a requirement to the definition that it be commercial and
some people don't. Consequently mail admins have taken to using the acronyms
UCE and UBE to denote unsolicited commercial email and unsolicited bulk email
since they are more specific than the word "spam."
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote...
Sorry, that one went right by me. Would you care to explain? Are you
suggesting that I'm paying too much for my Internet access? Or that
I'm not paying enough and that I'm getting what i paid for? It was $15/
month until just a few months ago. Not video speed by any means
(864/160kbs download/upload) but it's enough to get mail and news,
browse web sites, submit articles, listen to the radio. What more
could anyone want?

$20/mo is very remarkably cheap compared to rates for similar
service in other parts of the country. I think you aren't aware of
how well off you are. Rates in my part of the country are 2x-3x
for similar service. Some people pay $20/mo just for Usenet.

However, in Korea or Japan, $20/month gets you Ethernet-speed connections to
the house. That's what happens when folks invest in new infrastructure....
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Eeyore]

Mike Rivers wrote:

Google has a few messages dribbling in to this newsgroup but Verizon
hasn't had any new ones in more than a day. Maybe they dropped it and
didn't tell me.

You don't need to reply. I'm mostly just sending this to see if it gets
rejected.

Sounds like you need a news provider that functions. Verizon would not
appear to fit the bill.

Graham

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 28, 11:20 am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:

$20/mo is very remarkably cheap compared to rates for similar
service in other parts of the country. I think you aren't aware of
how well off you are.

Oh, I'm quite happy with what I'm getting for what I'm paying. I'd be
happier if their repair service was more responsive, but since it's
completely automated I don't expect it to understand human logic (like
- the problem is intermittent. It's NOT OK if it works now. Try it
when it doesn't work). When I was using AOL on dial-up, I had a
separate phone line for that, and when DSL became available (initially
it was $25/month) I saved about $15/month over AOL and the second
phone line. Then it went down to $15/month for a couple of years. Now
it's $20. I suppose that if I ever move to California things will be
different.

Nor am I complaining about having to get my news from Google when
Verizon's news feed isn't working properly. Weekends aren't
particularly good for gaging the activity of this group, but on a few
spot checks, I've seen essentially no difference between new posts in
Google's version of rec.audio.pro and individual.net's version. So
I'll take free over $10 euros. Not that I don't trust a university
with my money, just that I don't see the value of it right now. If
someone isn't getting my replies because they've blocked posts
originating from Google, it doesn't bother me. If it's important for
me to contact them, I can do it directly via e-mail.

I used to use my friend's system d-and-d.com for news when I was using
AOL on dialup and for a while after I got DSL, but the service
provider that he was using for quite some time dropped news feeds. He
got one from giganews or supernews, but their agreement doesn't allow
him to pass that along to anyone else. I could log into his system
(and I still do, to check mail that goes to that account) and read
news there (as a local user) but it's old fashioned Unix and I find it
cumbersome. So I do what works for me.

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 28, 11:53 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

However, in Korea or Japan, $20/month gets you Ethernet-speed connections to
the house. That's what happens when folks invest in new infrastructure....

Last couple of times when Verizon seemed to have difficulty
maintaining my POTS, I told them that if would be easier for them,
they could replace it with fiber, but at the same rate I was paying.
They politely declined my offer. I guess it's hard for them to
understand that they could save money by giving away a more expensive
service, but I suppose it's the principle of the thing.

[Richard Crowley]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote...
Sorry, that one went right by me. Would you care to explain? Are you
suggesting that I'm paying too much for my Internet access? Or that
I'm not paying enough and that I'm getting what i paid for? It was $15/
month until just a few months ago. Not video speed by any means
(864/160kbs download/upload) but it's enough to get mail and news,
browse web sites, submit articles, listen to the radio. What more
could anyone want?

$20/mo is very remarkably cheap compared to rates for similar
service in other parts of the country. I think you aren't aware of
how well off you are. Rates in my part of the country are 2x-3x
for similar service. Some people pay $20/mo just for Usenet.

However, in Korea or Japan, $20/month gets you Ethernet-speed connections
to
the house. That's what happens when folks invest in new
infrastructure....

And that's what happens when you can start half a century farther
into the development of technology without an old infrastructure to
deal with. And that is a lot easier when you have the entire economy
of a country concentrated in the area of one of the smaller US states.

Lots of "3rd world" places have more advanced technology simply
because they are starting off with far advanced technology than Al
Bell, et.al.. had available. Same as the NTSC vs. PAL effect. The
people who come later to the party benefit from the learnings of the
pioneers. The kid who always has the first new toy on the block
always has the oldest toys.

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:

Google has a few messages dribbling in to this newsgroup but Verizon
hasn't had any new ones in more than a day. Maybe they dropped it and
didn't tell me.

You don't need to reply. I'm mostly just sending this to see if it gets
rejected.

Sounds like you need a news provider that functions. Verizon would not
appear to fit the bill.

Verizon consists of a lot of little pieces that don't talk to one another.
Mike's service is provided by one organization that maintains the local
loop, two more organizations that provide the network connectivity, then
seperate organizations that provide DNS, news service, mail service, etc.

When something goes wrong it is basically impossible to get the right people
informed about the problem. I spent six hours on the phone with people in
India who could only read scripts and ignored my request for a truck roll,
until I finally wrote a letter to the office of the president and got someone
from a special customer service group that specializes in disgruntled customers
to call me, agree that there was a line problem, and get a truck out to fix it.

I suggest that Mike do the same with regard to his news service problem.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."