You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-176   
 
Author Message
jared
Internet Connectivity Revisited Mark Unseen   Mar 23 23:17 UTC 2001

I (as a concerned net.citizen for grex) think that Grex should
be on its toes to be prepared to change internet providers
for two reasons.

1) Voyager.net (Acquired by CoreComm, NASDAQ COMM) is presently
trading under $1/share.  This means there is a timer ticking
within NASDAQ to get them delisted and cause the company
to become a private company instead of a publicly held one.

2) Covad (NASDAQ COVD) presently does not have any problems with
providing services, Grex should not ignore the fact that the
DSL marketplace has gotten more distressed with Northpoint
(www.northpoint.net) scheduled to turn off service to
its customers very soon.  (I believe in days).  These two factors
are cause for concern of continued service.

It is my opinion that grex should be prepared to change the present
contract to month-to-month service and consider the alternatives at the
end of the present contract.

I see no immediate threat of service disruption by Covad/Voyager(CoreComm)
today but in the coming months I think this is a real threat.

176 responses total.
jared
response 1 of 176: Mark Unseen   Mar 23 23:45 UTC 2001

s/threat.$/concern./
in the last sentence
aruba
response 2 of 176: Mark Unseen   Mar 23 23:51 UTC 2001

Our current contract, if I'm reading it right, runs from our activation date
(which should have been 7/15/2000 but was actually 8/2/2000) for a 12 month
term.  If we don't notify them at least 30 days in advance of the date of
the end of the contract (which is 7/2 I think, but we should get it in by
6/15 just to be sure), it automatically renews for a 12-month term.  If they
want to change our rates, they have to tell us 60 days before the end of the
current contract.

What are the implications of Voyager becoming a private company?  (Or is it
CoreComm that is doing so badly?)
jared
response 3 of 176: Mark Unseen   Mar 24 00:08 UTC 2001

My concern would be that is Covad/Corecomm/Voyager folds we would be
left without internet connectivity.  This is why I am raising the
issue.
scg
response 4 of 176: Mark Unseen   Mar 24 00:20 UTC 2001

I don't know specifically about CoreComm, but from the stock price I can
probably guess.  A lot of companies are now running into trouble due to
business plans that counted on continuing to be able to sell stock for a while
before needing to become profitable.  Given what's happened to the stock
market over the last several months, that isn't much of an option anymore for
any of those companies, and becomes especially impractical for companies whose
stock price has sunk as low as CoreComm, or Northpoint, Covad, and another
company I'm not allowed to mention.  If a company's stock has become
worthless, and there isn't enough money in the bank to keep the company afloat
until it can start making a profit and supporting itself, the company's long
term chances of staying in business aren't great.  And of course, when the
company's long term chances of staying in business aren't good, the stock
price sinks even more, forming a rather vicious circle.

I assume from the stock price that CoreComm isn't profitable at the moment.
Is that a correct assumption?

I'm not sure not renewing the CoreComm/Voyager contract would be a good idea.
Until recently, it seemed that companies like that would get bought rather
than going out of business, although at this point the whole industry is doing
badly enough that there may not be anybody who wants them and can afford to
buy them.  By the same token, though, I'm not sure how many ISPs are really
financially stable, so I don't know if switching would really buy us anything.
Certainly, if CoreComm does go under, we aren't going to be held to the
contract once the service no longer exists.
jared
response 5 of 176: Mark Unseen   Mar 24 00:44 UTC 2001

(FYI: For those of you that don't know, I am no longer employed
by CoreComm/Voyager).
dpc
response 6 of 176: Mark Unseen   Mar 30 20:45 UTC 2001

Jared has raised a real issue.  I would like to see more discussion.
I am particularly concerned because when Northpoint turned off its
service it gave almost no notice to its customers.
krj
response 7 of 176: Mark Unseen   Mar 30 21:21 UTC 2001

We could un-disconnect the ISDN line at the Pumpkin.  :(
devnull
response 8 of 176: Mark Unseen   Apr 1 02:44 UTC 2001

Another problem when companies get bought out is that the quality of their
service sometimes changes substantially, such that buying from them can become
not nearly as desireable as it previously was.

It is my understanding that reconnecting the ISDN line would also require
finding an ISP to dial up to, and that it may or may not be possible to find
as good a deal as grex previously had.

Switching to a different ISP that uses covad might be desireable; speakeasy.net
comes to mind as one that I've heard good things about, although I don't
know how their price compares to what grex has been getting, etc.

It seems to be the case that a lot of the DSL market was selling services
at below what they could sustainably charge, and most people tended to be
unaware of that, but I think expecting ISP costs to go up a bit is not
especially unreasonable.
jared
response 9 of 176: Mark Unseen   Apr 6 00:03 UTC 2001

(on a similar note, rumor is that rythms [another dsl provider]
will be going under soon.  this combined with the low stock price
of covad does continue my concern).
krj
response 10 of 176: Mark Unseen   Apr 6 01:22 UTC 2001

I get the impression that no one is going to think about this until 
it is too late and Grex is off the net for an extended period of time.
(like, a month or so.)

From looking at the business and tech pages, it looks to me like       
the entire group of independent DSL providers is crashing.
Possibly we need to think about either moving to Ameritech as 
our DSL provider -- if Ameritech goes bust, Grex will be the least 
of our worries -- or abandoning the DSL technology.
 
Joel in resp:8 :: yes, if Grex has to drop back to ISDN, we will have to 
find an ISP in a hurry, and we'll probably never get a donated connection
like we had before.  But having an ISDN line at the pumpkin would have 
given us the technical flexibility to connect to any local ISP.
keesan
response 11 of 176: Mark Unseen   Apr 6 02:36 UTC 2001

I will make a phone call to ask if an ISP I know (I am not supposed to mention
the name, I was told by other grexers) would be willing to donate a DSL line.
Maybe they could get some business out of it, from grexers.  Any objections?
They donated a user account once.
jared
response 12 of 176: Mark Unseen   Apr 6 03:12 UTC 2001

There are some local providers that sell dsl that is provisioned through
ameritech.  (instead of covad, northpoint, etc....)

Ameritech has gotten more data savvy in the past year from my
experience and sees that there is value in this space.  Especially
in the days of the collapsing clecs :)
scg
response 13 of 176: Mark Unseen   Apr 6 05:51 UTC 2001

re 11:
        The concern is not DSL cost, but rather the continued availability of
wholesale DSL services to ISPs.  Given that concern, switching to a different
Covad based provider woudln't give us any reliability advantage, and since
Rhythms appears far more unstable than Covad (why, oh why, is my employer
having a Rhythms circuit installed into my apartment next week?), switching
to a Rhythms based provider won't be very helpful either.  Is Ameritech
offering the service Northpoint, Covad and Rhythms were offering to ISPs yet?

This is probably a good time to once again consider colocation.  Grex isn't
really doing anything at this point that requires its own private office, and
colocation providers aren't suffering quite as badly as the DSL CLECs are at
this point.
carson
response 14 of 176: Mark Unseen   Apr 6 06:04 UTC 2001

(I seem to remember the argument against colocation was ease of access,
as in "lack thereof."  is that argument no longer valid?)
i
response 15 of 176: Mark Unseen   Apr 7 12:17 UTC 2001

My impression is that co-location usually involves a very high rental 
rate per U of rack space - we'd have to find a sweetheart deal on that
(and perhaps connectivity too) to afford it.

On access - ICNet's got a new co-lo facility downtown (A^2) with 24/7
access available.  
scg
response 16 of 176: Mark Unseen   Apr 7 23:29 UTC 2001

Colo space is one of those things where pricing, reliability, ease of access,
and so forth, vary considerably.  It's a matter of shopping for the right
deal.
krj
response 17 of 176: Mark Unseen   Apr 8 01:16 UTC 2001

A column about the DSL collapse:
  http://www.upside.com/Rex_Crum/3ac9e9aa30d.html
The writer says Covad stock is down to $1.03/share, down 98%
from its 52-week peak.
jared
response 18 of 176: Mark Unseen   Apr 15 18:30 UTC 2001

Yes, Ameritech is offering basically what Covad, Northpoint, Rythmns, etc..
are offering to isps.  (This is my understanding after talking to someone
who is doing this with their company, etc...)
dpc
response 19 of 176: Mark Unseen   Apr 16 20:41 UTC 2001

Co-location has worked out fine for M-Net.  WWNet, in Livonia,
has provided us great service, and so far access has not been
a problem.  Plus, the *total* cost of running M-Net has shrunk
to less than $200/mo.
i
response 20 of 176: Mark Unseen   Apr 18 03:42 UTC 2001

Is your WWNet co-lo a special 501(c)3 or M-Net deal rate?  How many U's
of rack space are included?  What kind of bandwidth?  (Etc.?)
jep
response 21 of 176: Mark Unseen   Apr 19 20:28 UTC 2001

M-Net arranged a special deal with WWNet.  I believe the bandwidth is 
384K/sec, and that they allow M-Net one computer connected at their 
office.  Grex could find out more, if there's interest, by e-mailing 
Rex Roof: trex@arbornet.org.
mdw
response 22 of 176: Mark Unseen   Apr 20 02:32 UTC 2001

I ought to point out that m-net's needs are easily demonstrated to be
different.  Firstly, m-net has no dial-in lines.  Secondly, m-net has
had a history of "tolerating" fairly long outages.  Thirdly, m-net's
financial picture is quite different from grex.
jp2
response 23 of 176: Mark Unseen   Apr 20 03:35 UTC 2001

This response has been erased.

carson
response 24 of 176: Mark Unseen   Apr 20 04:00 UTC 2001

(you mean "rents.")  :P

(you really ought to spend more time thinking your responses 
through.)  ;)
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-176   
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss