I just received an email from Comcast announcing their end of newsgroup
access (offering only a promotional deal through "giganews" as a parting
gift).
Email from Comcast...
> Dear Comcast High-Speed Internet Customer:
>
> As of October 25, 2008, the complimentary Comcast Newsgroups service,
> powered by Giganews, will be discontinued. This feature provided
> customers access to 2 gigabytes of newsgroup information on a monthly
> basis. After this date, these customers will no longer be able to access
> the
> Comcast Newsgroups service through Comcast. Customers who have
> subscribed directly to Giganews for newsgroup access will not be affected
> by this change.
>
> While we have seen a decline in popularity of newsgroups as customers have
> chosen to get information from other sources, we know a small percentage
> of our customers continue to use newsgroups today. If you are interested
> in
> continuing to access newsgroups, Giganews is offering a special promotion
> for Comcast customers. Click here to learn more.
>
> Thank you for being a valued customer. "
Ugh...well, I guess the writing was on the wall when other ISPs started
dropping newsgroup access, but Comcast dropping it will surely big a big
loss for the newsgroup community.
I guess a lot of us will have to switch to web based community boards
(assuming we don't want to pay for a newsgroup service). Anyone want to
offer up a decent new online discussion location for alt.cellular.sprintpcs?
Maybe http://www.sprintusers.com/ ?
> I just received an email from Comcast announcing their end of newsgroup
> access (offering only a promotional deal through "giganews" as a parting
> gift).
>
> Email from Comcast...
>
>> Dear Comcast High-Speed Internet Customer:
>>
>> As of October 25, 2008, the complimentary Comcast Newsgroups service,
>> powered by Giganews, will be discontinued. This feature provided
>> customers access to 2 gigabytes of newsgroup information on a monthly
>> basis. After this date, these customers will no longer be able to access
>> the
>> Comcast Newsgroups service through Comcast. Customers who have
>> subscribed directly to Giganews for newsgroup access will not be affected
>> by this change.
>>
>> While we have seen a decline in popularity of newsgroups as customers have
>> chosen to get information from other sources, we know a small percentage
>> of our customers continue to use newsgroups today. If you are interested
>> in
>> continuing to access newsgroups, Giganews is offering a special promotion
>> for Comcast customers. Click here to learn more.
>>
>> Thank you for being a valued customer. "
>
> Ugh...well, I guess the writing was on the wall when other ISPs started
> dropping newsgroup access, but Comcast dropping it will surely big a big
> loss for the newsgroup community.
>
> I guess a lot of us will have to switch to web based community boards
> (assuming we don't want to pay for a newsgroup service). Anyone want to
> offer up a decent new online discussion location for alt.cellular.sprintpcs?
> Maybe http://www.sprintusers.com/ ?
Why not just switch to one of the numerous free or paid Usenet services?
In article <OMSdnQEcPOGLa3nVnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com>, anthonyx26
@gmail.com says...
> I just received an email from Comcast announcing their end of newsgroup
> access (offering only a promotional deal through "giganews" as a parting
> gift).
Old news...........;0)
> I guess a lot of us will have to switch to web based community boards
> (assuming we don't want to pay for a newsgroup service). Anyone want to
> offer up a decent new online discussion location for alt.cellular.sprintpcs?
> Maybe http://www.sprintusers.com/ ?
>
> - anthonyx26
Nope.........Text only service here is free & plugs into newsreaders:
I'm well aware of alternative means of accessing newsgroups. Unfortunately,
it's the overall effect of Comcast and various other large ISPs shutting
down access to newsgroups which will continue the downward spiral of users
actually _using_ and viewing newsgroups. The great part about newsgroups
has always been that they've provided a critical mass of end user
participation (with relatively low "noise"). Fewer and fewer users means
the value they're providing is dwindling whereas other end user forums are
increasing in user numbers and hence increasing in value.
While I don't like the commerical "fluff" advertisements that many web based
forums have it can be tolerated as long as the volume of user--to-user
communication is high and is of high quality.
- anthonyx26
"ByTor" <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote in message
news:48e5008d$0$10435$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> In article <OMSdnQEcPOGLa3nVnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com>, anthonyx26
> @gmail.com says...
>> I just received an email from Comcast announcing their end of newsgroup
>> access (offering only a promotional deal through "giganews" as a parting
>> gift).
>
> Old news...........;0)
>
>> I guess a lot of us will have to switch to web based community boards
>> (assuming we don't want to pay for a newsgroup service). Anyone want to
>> offer up a decent new online discussion location for
>> alt.cellular.sprintpcs?
>> Maybe http://www.sprintusers.com/ ?
>>
>> - anthonyx26
>
> Nope.........Text only service here is free & plugs into newsreaders:
>
> http://news.motzarella.org/
>
> Works very well.
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 16:50:58 -0400, anthonyx26 <anthonyx26@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'm well aware of alternative means of accessing newsgroups. Unfortunately,
>it's the overall effect of Comcast and various other large ISPs shutting
>down access to newsgroups which will continue the downward spiral of users
>actually _using_ and viewing newsgroups. The great part about newsgroups
>has always been that they've provided a critical mass of end user
>participation (with relatively low "noise"). Fewer and fewer users means
>the value they're providing is dwindling whereas other end user forums are
>increasing in user numbers and hence increasing in value.
I only see fewer idiots using usenet, the kind of people who think
usenet is a web services and that messages in mime/html with
attachments is reasonable.
Comcast is well known for having herds of infected machines spewing
spam into their servers. Comcast dropping usenet can only be an
improvement.
> "ByTor" <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote in message
> news:48e5008d$0$10435$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> > In article <OMSdnQEcPOGLa3nVnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com>, anthonyx26
> > @gmail.com says...
> >> I just received an email from Comcast announcing their end of newsgroup
> >> access (offering only a promotional deal through "giganews" as a parting
> >> gift).
> >
> > Old news...........;0)
> >
> >> I guess a lot of us will have to switch to web based community boards
> >> (assuming we don't want to pay for a newsgroup service). Anyone want to
> >> offer up a decent new online discussion location for
> >> alt.cellular.sprintpcs?
> >> Maybe http://www.sprintusers.com/ ?
> >>
> >> - anthonyx26
> >
> > Nope.........Text only service here is free & plugs into newsreaders:
> >
> > http://news.motzarella.org/
> >
> > Works very well.
> In article <Hb6dnS_359KvqXjVnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>, anthonyx26@gmail.com says...
> I'm well aware of alternative means of accessing newsgroups. Unfortunately,
> it's the overall effect of Comcast and various other large ISPs shutting
> down access to newsgroups which will continue the downward spiral of users
> actually _using_ and viewing newsgroups. The great part about newsgroups
> has always been that they've provided a critical mass of end user
> participation (with relatively low "noise"). Fewer and fewer users means
> the value they're providing is dwindling whereas other end user forums are
> increasing in user numbers and hence increasing in value.
>
> While I don't like the commerical "fluff" advertisements that many web based
> forums have it can be tolerated as long as the volume of user--to-user
> communication is high and is of high quality.
>
> - anthonyx26
Wasn't questioning your awareness, just offering alternative as you
mentioned web based access, I find them appalling.
IMHO.......I'm glad ISP's cut off access. The very very very small
population that even knows what newsgroups were won't be missed by me.
Well, I think it's the users who brought down usenet, by commonly
using the binary groups to distribute property they didn't have rights
to distribute. That gave the ISPs the excuse they needed to eliminate
newsgroup servers.
Actually, I'm pretty happy using http://groups.google.com/
On Oct 2, 11:25*am, "anthonyx26" <anthony...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just received an email from Comcast announcing their end of newsgroup
> access (offering only a promotional deal through "giganews" as a parting
> gift).
>
> Email from Comcast...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear Comcast High-Speed Internet Customer:
>
> > As of October 25, 2008, the complimentary Comcast Newsgroups service,
> > powered by Giganews, will be discontinued. This feature provided
> > customers access to 2 gigabytes of newsgroup information on a monthly
> > basis. After this date, these customers will no longer be able to access
> > the
> > Comcast Newsgroups service through Comcast. Customers who have
> > subscribed directly to Giganews for newsgroup access will not be *affected
> > by this change.
>
> > While we have seen a decline in popularity of newsgroups as customers have
> > chosen to get information from other sources, we know a small percentage
> > of our customers continue to use newsgroups today. If you are interested
> > in
> > continuing to access newsgroups, Giganews is offering a special promotion
> > for Comcast customers. Click here to learn more.
>
> > Thank you for being a valued customer. "
>
> Ugh...well, I guess the writing was on the wall when other ISPs started
> dropping newsgroup access, but Comcast dropping it will surely big a big
> loss for the newsgroup community.
>
> I guess a lot of us will have to switch to web based community boards
> (assuming we don't want to pay for a newsgroup service). *Anyone want to
> offer up a decent new online discussion location for alt.cellular.sprintpcs?
> Maybehttp://www.sprintusers.com/?
>
> - anthonyx26- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I personally use goggle groups, and think it works just fine. If you
have a wide screen monitor especially, what adds there are seem pretty
unobtrusive.
Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> writes:
>On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:32:38 -0700 (PDT), Russ in San Diego
><russgoog@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Well, I think it's the users who brought down usenet, by commonly
>>using the binary groups to distribute property they didn't have rights
>>to distribute. That gave the ISPs the excuse they needed to eliminate
>>newsgroup servers.
>>Actually, I'm pretty happy using http://groups.google.com/
>
>That's good as long as you're getting what you need. Personally, I've
>seen a growing segment of traditional Usenet users who are actively
>ignoring anything coming from Google Groups because the SNR is so
>poor.
Another NNTP based server is Altopia. $6/month with SSL and unlimited
use.
"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrngeaf4j.gv8.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 16:50:58 -0400, anthonyx26 <anthonyx26@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >I'm well aware of alternative means of accessing newsgroups.
Unfortunately,
> >it's the overall effect of Comcast and various other large ISPs shutting
> >down access to newsgroups which will continue the downward spiral of
users
> >actually _using_ and viewing newsgroups. The great part about newsgroups
> >has always been that they've provided a critical mass of end user
> >participation (with relatively low "noise"). Fewer and fewer users means
> >the value they're providing is dwindling whereas other end user forums
are
> >increasing in user numbers and hence increasing in value.
>
> I only see fewer idiots using usenet, the kind of people who think
> usenet is a web services and that messages in mime/html with
> attachments is reasonable.
>
> Comcast is well known for having herds of infected machines spewing
> spam into their servers. Comcast dropping usenet can only be an
> improvement.
"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
news:9fpce4p0s1l3d2am5t80ab3788frch6gtl@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:32:38 -0700 (PDT), Russ in San Diego
> <russgoog@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, I think it's the users who brought down usenet, by commonly
> >using the binary groups to distribute property they didn't have rights
> >to distribute. That gave the ISPs the excuse they needed to eliminate
> >newsgroup servers.
> >Actually, I'm pretty happy using http://groups.google.com/
>
> That's good as long as you're getting what you need. Personally, I've
> seen a growing segment of traditional Usenet users who are actively
> ignoring anything coming from Google Groups because the SNR is so
> poor.
I agree that happens but trying to satisfy those "traditional Usenet users"
by using something other than Google Groups might be a lost cause anyway.
Besides, it is easy to use groups.google.com from a Sprint Mogul with WM6.0.
With WM6.1 it is not so easy and that is part of the reason I went back to
WM6.0 on my Mogul.
"anthonyx26" <anthonyx26@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OMSdnQEcPOGLa3nVnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> I just received an email from Comcast announcing their end of newsgroup
> access (offering only a promotional deal through "giganews" as a parting
> gift).
>
> Email from Comcast...
[snip.....]
What does this have to SPRINT PCS????
Am I missing something here?
Cheers
Pat Cook (A user of both Sprint & Comcast)
Denver, CO
"ByTor" <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote in message
news:48e54cc8$0$9616$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>> "ByTor" <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote in message
>
> IMHO.......I'm glad ISP's cut off access. The very very very small
> population that even knows what newsgroups were won't be missed by me.
And most of us who don't amongst THAT group are usually people who don't
monitor USENET on a regular basis for ANYTHING to begin with. We usually
hang out on Yahoo! Groups and message boards, which aren't allowed to run
rampant in a negative manner like some USENET groups are because they're
moderated forums.
And when we DO come onto USENET, we *don't* spew forth spam on the groups
(Our reputations within moderated forum circles depend on that!).
We use USENET for its intended purpose just like we do the moderated
discussion forums we hang out on.
When these undesirables spammers get on and spew forth spam, we're just as
much of a victim of the rest of the "old-timers" who've been on USENET-only
since the stone age (If not more so since those of us who don't frequent
USENET as much as the "old-timers" are constantly given a black eye AND WE
ARE TIRED OF IT. > ).
Elmo P. Shagnasty answered:
> In article <gc97e9$5na$1@news2.open-news-network.org>,
> "Pat Cook" <pchamster@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We usually
>> hang out on Yahoo! Groups and message boards, which aren't allowed to run
>> rampant in a negative manner like some USENET groups are because they're
>> moderated forums.
>
> Ummmm.....check that moderation.
>
> Usually it's overly moderated. In other words, most boards are run by
> idiots with a power complex.
But thats a GOOD thing. It keeps the trolls and assholes OUT!
--
Ernie
<The man on the hill with a mountainous load in his shorts>
Ernie & Eythl <ernie&eythl@themountain.com> amazed us all with the
following in news:WPCdnfxRvq0n5nTVnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@giganews.com :
> Elmo P. Shagnasty answered:
>> In article <gc97e9$5na$1@news2.open-news-network.org>,
>> "Pat Cook" <pchamster@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We usually
>>> hang out on Yahoo! Groups and message boards, which aren't allowed
>>> to run rampant in a negative manner like some USENET groups are
>>> because they're moderated forums.
>>
>> Ummmm.....check that moderation.
>>
>> Usually it's overly moderated. In other words, most boards are run
>> by idiots with a power complex.
>
> But thats a GOOD thing. It keeps the trolls and assholes OUT!
>
"The Bob" <nospam@bob.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B2ED6A2F30AEbob@216.196.97.136...
> Ernie & Eythl <ernie&eythl@themountain.com> amazed us all with the
> following in news:WPCdnfxRvq0n5nTVnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@giganews.com :
>
> > Elmo P. Shagnasty answered:
> >> In article <gc97e9$5na$1@news2.open-news-network.org>,
> >> "Pat Cook" <pchamster@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> We usually
> >>> hang out on Yahoo! Groups and message boards, which aren't allowed
> >>> to run rampant in a negative manner like some USENET groups are
> >>> because they're moderated forums.
> >>
> >> Ummmm.....check that moderation.
> >>
> >> Usually it's overly moderated. In other words, most boards are run
> >> by idiots with a power complex.
> >
> > But thats a GOOD thing. It keeps the trolls and assholes OUT!
> >
>
> Trolls? Maybe.
>
> Assholes? No- it just creates more.
You got that right because I've seen it happen myself.
Basically, once the assholes on a moderated group jump to the wrong
conclusions there is nothing at all you can do about their shit because the
moderator won't let you do anything.
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-27D3EE.07140005102008@news.x-privat.org...
> In article <gc97e9$5na$1@news2.open-news-network.org>,
> "Pat Cook" <pchamster@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We usually
>> hang out on Yahoo! Groups and message boards, which aren't allowed to run
>> rampant in a negative manner like some USENET groups are because they're
>> moderated forums.
>
> Ummmm.....check that moderation.
>
> Usually it's overly moderated. In other words, most boards are run by
> idiots with a power complex.
Hmmm...my biggest problem with moderators isn't so much that they clean out
spam, it's that they feel the need to "move" threads to different forums
(extremely annoying). OK...so what if it's slightly OT!!! A better option
would be perhaps to _copy_ the thread to another forum (much like many users
do here...replying to the original plus crossposting to another newsgroup).
"Pat Cook" <pchamster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gc95dr$4ta$1@news2.open-news-network.org...
> Hi everyone:
>
> "anthonyx26" <anthonyx26@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OMSdnQEcPOGLa3nVnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> I just received an email from Comcast announcing their end of newsgroup
>> access (offering only a promotional deal through "giganews" as a parting
>> gift).
>>
>> Email from Comcast...
>
> [snip.....]
>
> What does this have to SPRINT PCS????
>
> Am I missing something here?
Hahahaaha...gonna ban me? ;-)
If you read further down in the email, I had proposed an alternate forum at www.sprintusers.com. While it is a bit annoying with the ads, the actual
user forum content is high quality. Though, I'd be happy to entertain other
venues.
anthonyx26 wrote:
> Hmmm...my biggest problem with moderators isn't so much that they clean
> out spam, it's that they feel the need to "move" threads to different
> forums (extremely annoying).
Reminds me of a post I made in some NG and used a "naughty" word
commonly heard on TV, well...late night TV movies.
Moderator deleted my post saying it was a family accessible NG.
I replied that kids that read NG are at least in third grade, and
mostly likely have already heard, if not used that word.
> While I don't like the commerical "fluff" advertisements that many web
> based forums have it can be tolerated as long as the volume of
> user--to-user communication is high and is of high quality.
That is part of why UseNet lost its appeal in the early 00s. After the
big tech bust people
realized that it was essentially impossible to "monetize" NNTP. The
tricks "they" came up with such as web based readers that could show
advertising or just spam bombing 50,000 groups at a time were such an
abomination that it killed a lot of the traditional spirit of UseNet.
Google groups and various spam fixes have helped in the long run. Many
groups are now happily chugging along and picking up new regular users
who are able to conversate in a civil manner.
DTC wrote:
> anthonyx26 wrote:
>> Hmmm...my biggest problem with moderators isn't so much that they
>> clean out spam, it's that they feel the need to "move" threads to
>> different forums (extremely annoying).
>
> Reminds me of a post I made in some NG and used a "naughty" word
> commonly heard on TV, well...late night TV movies.
>
> Moderator deleted my post saying it was a family accessible NG.
> I replied that kids that read NG are at least in third grade, and
> mostly likely have already heard, if not used that word.
That is the sad reality...most moderators are self-selected zealots
and control freaks. That one sounds like the sort of controlling X-ian
asswipe
that needs to be chained and dragged behind a pickup truck.
"rabbits77" <rabbits77@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:gciuh4$a6k$1@aioe.org...
>> While I don't like the commerical "fluff" advertisements that many web
>> based forums have it can be tolerated as long as the volume of
>> user--to-user communication is high and is of high quality.
> Google groups and various spam fixes have helped in the long run. Many
> groups are now happily chugging along and picking up new regular users
> who are able to conversate in a civil manner.
Whoa..."conversate"...now there's a controversial word! Of course, the
controversy questioning whether it is indeed a word at all.
IMHO, it wreaks of one trying to make him/herself look smarter by making up
some obscure-sounding word...and because no one really knows whether it's an
actual accepted English word, no one calls the person out on it, they just
let it slide. NOTE: From the rest of your verbiage, this doesn't sound
like what you were doing. :-)
At 10 Oct 2008 17:57:40 -0400 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> > Many
> > groups are now happily chugging along and picking up new regular users
> > who are able to conversate in a civil manner.
>
> dude....it's "converse". Not "conversate".
>
> People are morons.
>>>
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-47D0D6.17574010102008@news.x-privat.org...
In article <gciuh4$a6k$1@aioe.org>, rabbits77 <rabbits77@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> Many
> groups are now happily chugging along and picking up new regular users
> who are able to conversate in a civil manner.
> That is the sad reality...most moderators are self-selected zealots
> and control freaks. That one sounds like the sort of controlling X-ian
> asswipe
> that needs to be chained and dragged behind a pickup truck.
And YOU sound JUST like the trolls that get kicked off sites like that.
GOOD RIDANCE you piece of shit. NO ONE wants people like you on them to
begin with. FUCK OFF. HAHA
anthonyx26 wrote:
> "rabbits77" <rabbits77@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:gciuh4$a6k$1@aioe.org...
>>> While I don't like the commerical "fluff" advertisements that many
>>> web based forums have it can be tolerated as long as the volume of
>>> user--to-user communication is high and is of high quality.
>> Google groups and various spam fixes have helped in the long run. Many
>> groups are now happily chugging along and picking up new regular users
>> who are able to conversate in a civil manner.
>
> Whoa..."conversate"...now there's a controversial word! Of course, the
> controversy questioning whether it is indeed a word at all.
>
> IMHO, it wreaks of one trying to make him/herself look smarter by making
> up some obscure-sounding word...and because no one really knows whether
> it's an actual accepted English word, no one calls the person out on it,
> they just let it slide. NOTE: From the rest of your verbiage, this
> doesn't sound like what you were doing. :-)
"conversate" is a perfectly fine and acceptable *slang* word.
I feel comfortable using it in a technical news group. Maybe not so much
in a group devoted to english literature, perhaps.
Perhaps the several people that enjoy correcting grammar here can use
those energies someplace where that sort of thing is more appreciated.
Comcast dumping newsgroup access 
).
Linear Mode
