>You've received an answer to your question about subverting the USA
>vitw <nospam@somewhere.com> wrote
>> Hi fellow Aussies,
>Hello sheep shagger.
Hello love-child of Nomen Nescio and George Orwell.
>> I need a recommendation for a reliable ISP with competitive
>> prices, who offers ADSL connections to users in WA.
>> I'm an Aussie living in NZ,
>For the sheep no doubt.
Septic wanker!
>> and a longtime ADSL user.
>> I have a stepdaughter living in Mandurah, WA who has yet
>> to get connected. She's a bit technology-nervous, but pretty
>> intelligent overall, so I'm sure she can be walked through.
>> I'd prefer she gets broadband (apparently her phone exchange
>> can do ADSL), so she can do voice and video chat online to my
>> wife (will save us $80/month or more).
>> I looked at the Telstra Bigpond ADSL plans there, and it's pretty ludicrous.
>Yeah, the only real advantage with theirs is that it can be the lowest startup cost.
>> The entry-level $30/month covers only 200MB data at 256mbps
>> down, 64 mbps up. Total joke. Not even real broadband.
>It is quite viable if you just want the reliability of DSL and its $15/month for the first year.
The *reliability* of DSL is where the big laugh is! Telstra is canning
residential ISDN because it's too reliable and Sol wants to force everyone
into using a product where they are FORCED to bundle a PSTN line
subscription with ADSL to get broadband. It's revenue by stealth!
>> Alternatively, it's $60/month for a 12GB/month allowance at the same speed!!
>Yeah, its not the best value. It would be more surprising if it was.
>> Compare this highway robbery to here in NZ, where I get
>> 15GB/month at 8Mbits/sec down, 768kb/s up for $60/month).
>You can get that here too.
Not for anything like those prices though!
>> (Yeah, I know, that's *still* highway robbery, but it's better than Bigpond).
>> Can anyone please recommend an ISP who can
>> offer ADSL to folks in WA in more realistic packages?
>westnet and iinet are pretty decent value and westnet always does well on support.
>> I reckon our stepdaughter would be ok to pay circa
>> $40/month, but we'd want her to have at least 512kb/s
>> downstream, 128 kb/s upstream, 5GB/month traffic.
--
GreenSpore and HereticWeb Site Administrator and Resident Anti-Globalisation
Pundit. You can reach us by email at GreenSpore (site can be found at
"http://www.greenspore.org") or HereticWeb (site can be found at
"http://www.hereticweb.org"). Check "http://www.bigswamp.net/indexold.html" 2
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:08:53 in aus.comms.mobile Erotic Green Spores may have written:
<snip>
What on earth is with your Keywords header and the URLs in your signature?
Keywords: husband has secret bank accounts myf warhurst sister jessica
pregnant preggers pregnancy up the duff by a big black swollen throbbing
scientologist cock woman girl female lesbian masturbation sex fuck fcuk
dkny fashion victim species 8472 ttrs south west slut bags techno trance
rave sex net com usa bomb terror terrorist terrorism cunt twat pussy
vagina fanny anal anus tits boobs breasts boobies bum ass arse butt
natura l beauty hairy turd turcard jp sylvia else nomen nescio george
orwell anonymous sender remailer dizum jism cum climax orgasms orgasm
pleasure bl iss drugs speed coke cola australia australian idol channel
7 9 10 hillsong church of jesus fucking christ of latter dai opus saints
all freakin g hell freezes over jehovah scientology ipod apple cracking
hacking military missle launching theatre dicko tricko ncis abby gibbs
zeva mossad k gb cia mi5 mi6 torchwood fbi batf god dog power of melanie
howard clit clitoris penis erection railpage david bromage bavid dromage
mjja shacks david head
Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
Erotic Green Spores <gs@lios.apana.org.au> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> vitw <nospam@somewhere.com> wrote
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>>> I have a stepdaughter living in Mandurah, WA who has yet
>>> to get connected. She's a bit technology-nervous, but pretty
>>> intelligent overall, so I'm sure she can be walked through.
>>> I'd prefer she gets broadband (apparently her phone exchange
>>> can do ADSL), so she can do voice and video chat online to my
>>> wife (will save us $80/month or more).
>>> I looked at the Telstra Bigpond ADSL plans there, and it's pretty ludicrous.
>> Yeah, the only real advantage with theirs is that it can be the lowest startup cost.
>>> The entry-level $30/month covers only 200MB data at 256mbps
>>> down, 64 mbps up. Total joke. Not even real broadband.
>> It is quite viable if you just want the reliability of DSL and its $15/month for the first year.
>>> Alternatively, it's $60/month for a 12GB/month allowance at the same speed!!
>> Yeah, its not the best value. It would be more surprising if it was.
>>> Compare this highway robbery to here in NZ, where I get
>>> 15GB/month at 8Mbits/sec down, 768kb/s up for $60/month).
>>It is quite viable if you just want the reliability of DSL and its
>>$15/month for the first year.
>
> The *reliability* of DSL is where the big laugh is! Telstra is canning
> residential ISDN because it's too reliable and Sol wants to force everyone
Because its a product circa-1987 and has no relevance to non-business
customers
> into using a product where they are FORCED to bundle a PSTN line
> subscription with ADSL to get broadband. It's revenue by stealth!
You cannot run ADSL easily without a PSTN service in Australia for technical
reasons. There are some ULL services but they are high-cost to supply and
operate
"Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
news:1200126051.793565@colossus.enigma.id.au...
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:08:53 in aus.comms.mobile Erotic Green Spores may
> have written:
> <snip>
>
> What on earth is with your Keywords header and the URLs in your signature?
Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> It is quite viable if you just want the reliability of DSL and its
>>> $15/month for the first year.
>>
>> The *reliability* of DSL is where the big laugh is! Telstra is
>> canning residential ISDN because it's too reliable and Sol wants to
>> force everyone
>
> Because its a product circa-1987 and has no relevance to non-business
> customers
>
>> into using a product where they are FORCED to bundle a PSTN line
>> subscription with ADSL to get broadband. It's revenue by stealth!
>
> You cannot run ADSL easily without a PSTN service in Australia for technical reasons.
Pig ignorant bare faced lie.
> There are some ULL services
Funny that.
> but they are high-cost to supply and operate
Pig ignorant bare faced lie. They are actually CHEAPER to suppy and
operate than a pstn service you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit clown.
"Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:id8jj.3379$421.1969@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> You cannot run ADSL easily without a PSTN service in Australia
In article <13oqlqnpgmhkq6e@corp.supernews.com>, kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com says...
>
> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:id8jj.3379$421.1969@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > for technical reasons.
>
> Yeah? Name these 'technical reasons' then, liar.
>
I'm going to name them Bob, Gavin and Aloysius.
--
eric
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Kwyjibo wrote:
> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:id8jj.3379$421.1969@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> You cannot run ADSL easily without a PSTN service in Australia
>
> Bullshit.
>
Found yourself another band wagon to jump on here!
>> for technical reasons.
>
> Yeah? Name these 'technical reasons' then, liar.
At least Roddles just tells the guy it's a "Pig ignorant bare faced lie" and
leaves it at that.
"-=Spudley=-" <-=Spudley=-@work.com> wrote in message
news:Egdjj.3850$421.3305@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Kwyjibo wrote:
>> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:id8jj.3379$421.1969@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> You cannot run ADSL easily without a PSTN service in Australia
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>
> Found yourself another band wagon to jump on here!
>
>>> for technical reasons.
>>
>> Yeah? Name these 'technical reasons' then, liar.
>
> At least Roddles just tells the guy it's a "Pig ignorant bare faced lie"
> and leaves it at that.
I'm more generous than Rod. I'm giving the moron a chance to justify his
claim, or dig a bigger hole for himself.
(I'm betting on digging a hole......)
>>>> It is quite viable if you just want the reliability of DSL and its
>>>> $15/month for the first year.
>>>
>>> The *reliability* of DSL is where the big laugh is! Telstra is
>>> canning residential ISDN because it's too reliable and Sol wants to
>>> force everyone
>>
>> Because its a product circa-1987 and has no relevance to non-business
>> customers
>>
>>> into using a product where they are FORCED to bundle a PSTN line
>>> subscription with ADSL to get broadband. It's revenue by stealth!
>>
>> You cannot run ADSL easily without a PSTN service in Australia for
>> technical reasons.
>
> Pig ignorant bare faced lie.
Prove it.
>> There are some ULL services
>
> Funny that.
Which required quite large IT expenditure to make possible.
>> but they are high-cost to supply and operate
>
> Pig ignorant bare faced lie. They are actually CHEAPER to suppy and
> operate than a pstn service you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit clown.
Clearly not, as the wholesale price is higher than a PSTN service
>
>
>> You cannot run ADSL easily without a PSTN service in Australia
>
> Bullshit.
>
>> for technical reasons.
>
> Yeah? Name these 'technical reasons' then, liar.
What kind of provisioning order would you put through to AXIS to provision a
line for ADSL which is not connected?
>>>>> It is quite viable if you just want the reliability of DSL and its $15/month for the first year.
>>>> The *reliability* of DSL is where the big laugh is! Telstra is canning residential ISDN because it's too reliable
>>>> and Sol wants to force everyone
>>> Because its a product circa-1987 and has no relevance to non-business customers
>>>> into using a product where they are FORCED to bundle a PSTN line
>>>> subscription with ADSL to get broadband. It's revenue by stealth!
>>> You cannot run ADSL easily without a PSTN service in Australia for technical reasons.
>> Pig ignorant bare faced lie.
> Prove it.
The proof is operations like iinet that offer what iinet calls Naked DSL.
>>> There are some ULL services
>> Funny that.
> Which required quite large IT expenditure to make possible.
Only because the telstra system was so completely fucked in the first place.
>>> but they are high-cost to supply and operate
>> Pig ignorant bare faced lie. They are actually CHEAPER to suppy and
>> operate than a pstn service you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit clown.
> Clearly not, as the wholesale price is higher than a PSTN service
"Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g2ujj.4106$421.614@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> You cannot run ADSL easily without a PSTN service in Australia
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>>> for technical reasons.
>>
>> Yeah? Name these 'technical reasons' then, liar.
>
> What kind of provisioning order would you put through to AXIS to provision
> a line for ADSL which is not connected?
That's not a 'technical' reason, fuckwit. It's an operational limitation of
Telstra and an extremely simple one to fix through the creation of a new
product code.
Technically, it's extremely similar to the old 'leased line' datel services
which they were quite happy to provide in the late 80s and early 90s.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5v7b38F1kki75U1@mid.individual.net...
> Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> It is quite viable if you just want the reliability of DSL and its
>>>>>> $15/month for the first year.
>
>>>>> The *reliability* of DSL is where the big laugh is! Telstra is canning
>>>>> residential ISDN because it's too reliable and Sol wants to force
>>>>> everyone
>
>>>> Because its a product circa-1987 and has no relevance to non-business
>>>> customers
>
>>>>> into using a product where they are FORCED to bundle a PSTN line
>>>>> subscription with ADSL to get broadband. It's revenue by stealth!
>
>>>> You cannot run ADSL easily without a PSTN service in Australia for
>>>> technical reasons.
>
>>> Pig ignorant bare faced lie.
>
>> Prove it.
>
> The proof is operations like iinet that offer what iinet calls Naked DSL.
Thus the word easily.
Feel free to look at all the posts in Whirlpool where their "customers" have
been waiting 20-30 days to even get it connected. No wonder iinet force you
to waive your CSG rights
>>>> There are some ULL services
>
>>> Funny that.
>
>> Which required quite large IT expenditure to make possible.
>
> Only because the telstra system was so completely fucked in the first
> place.
No, simply because ULL didnt exist until a point in time.
Bit hard to provision a service without a phone number (before that point)
"Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
news:13otil98l6lbgae@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:g2ujj.4106$421.614@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>> You cannot run ADSL easily without a PSTN service in Australia
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>>> for technical reasons.
>>>
>>> Yeah? Name these 'technical reasons' then, liar.
>>
>> What kind of provisioning order would you put through to AXIS to
>> provision a line for ADSL which is not connected?
>
> That's not a 'technical' reason, fuckwit. It's an operational limitation
> of Telstra and an extremely simple one to fix through the creation of a
> new product code.
If only the PMA part was the easy one.
ULL needed (and still needs) significant IT development in the provising
system and its upstreams and downstreams
> Technically, it's extremely similar to the old 'leased line' datel
> services which they were quite happy to provide in the late 80s and early
> 90s.
"Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2wgpj.10612$421.2577@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
> news:13otil98l6lbgae@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:g2ujj.4106$421.614@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>> You cannot run ADSL easily without a PSTN service in Australia
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>>> for technical reasons.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah? Name these 'technical reasons' then, liar.
>>>
>>> What kind of provisioning order would you put through to AXIS to
>>> provision a line for ADSL which is not connected?
>>
>> That's not a 'technical' reason, fuckwit. It's an operational limitation
>> of Telstra and an extremely simple one to fix through the creation of a
>> new product code.
>
> If only the PMA part was the easy one.
>
> ULL needed (and still needs) significant IT development in the provising
> system and its upstreams and downstreams
Wrong.
>
>> Technically, it's extremely similar to the old 'leased line' datel
>> services which they were quite happy to provide in the late 80s and early
>> 90s.
>
> Nothing like
Liar.
A leased line was precisely that - A leased bit of copper with no
interconnect to any exchange-based switching equipment. Exactly the same as
ULL and it was available over 20 years ago.
Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>> It is quite viable if you just want the reliability of DSL and its $15/month for the first year.
>>>>>> The *reliability* of DSL is where the big laugh is! Telstra is canning residential ISDN because it's too reliable
>>>>>> and Sol wants to force everyone
>>>>> Because its a product circa-1987 and has no relevance to non-business customers
>>>>>> into using a product where they are FORCED to bundle a PSTN line
>>>>>> subscription with ADSL to get broadband. It's revenue by stealth!
>>>>> You cannot run ADSL easily without a PSTN service in Australia for technical reasons.
>>>> Pig ignorant bare faced lie.
>>> Prove it.
>> The proof is operations like iinet that offer what iinet calls Naked DSL.
> Thus the word easily.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> Feel free to look at all the posts in Whirlpool where their "customers" have been waiting 20-30 days to even get it
> connected.
Just because of the pent up demand and telstra's incompetance.
> No wonder iinet force you to waive your CSG rights
That isnt covered by that, fuckwit.
>>>>> There are some ULL services
>>>> Funny that.
>>> Which required quite large IT expenditure to make possible.
>> Only because the telstra system was so completely fucked in the first place.
> No,
Yep.
> simply because ULL didnt exist until a point in time.
> Bit hard to provision a service without a phone number (before that point)
Thats not 'technical reasons', fuckwit. Thats just a completely fucked telstra implementation, as always.
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 10:15:39 +0000, Michael wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5v7b38F1kki75U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> It is quite viable if you just want the reliability of DSL and its
>>>>>>> $15/month for the first year.
>>
>>>>>> The *reliability* of DSL is where the big laugh is! Telstra is
>>>>>> canning residential ISDN because it's too reliable and Sol wants to
>>>>>> force everyone
>>
>>>>> Because its a product circa-1987 and has no relevance to
>>>>> non-business customers
>>
>>>>>> into using a product where they are FORCED to bundle a PSTN line
>>>>>> subscription with ADSL to get broadband. It's revenue by stealth!
>>
>>>>> You cannot run ADSL easily without a PSTN service in Australia for
>>>>> technical reasons.
>>
>>>> Pig ignorant bare faced lie.
>>
>>> Prove it.
>>
>> The proof is operations like iinet that offer what iinet calls Naked
>> DSL.
>
> Thus the word easily.
>
> Feel free to look at all the posts in Whirlpool where their "customers"
> have been waiting 20-30 days to even get it connected. No wonder iinet
> force you to waive your CSG rights
>
>>>>> There are some ULL services
>>
>>>> Funny that.
>>
>>> Which required quite large IT expenditure to make possible.
>>
>> Only because the telstra system was so completely fucked in the first
>> place.
>
> No, simply because ULL didnt exist until a point in time.
Nonsense!
> Bit hard to provision a service without a phone number (before that
> point)
It's never been hard.
Back in the late 80s, i was a tech for a radio station. They had land
lines to connect satellite studios, tx, etc. Those were just phone lines
which weren't connected to the exchange switching equipment. None of them
had phone numbers.
It was also pretty standard to get such lines for outside broadcasts.
Nobody in Telecom complained that there wasn't a phone number attached to
the line!
Of course, all the lines had a service number to identify them - but it
certainly wasn't a phone number.
"Will Kemp" <Will@xxxx.Swaggie.net> wrote in message
news:KJqpj.1185$N53.998@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 10:15:39 +0000, Michael wrote:
>
>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5v7b38F1kki75U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> It is quite viable if you just want the reliability of DSL and its
>>>>>>>> $15/month for the first year.
>>>
>>>>>>> The *reliability* of DSL is where the big laugh is! Telstra is
>>>>>>> canning residential ISDN because it's too reliable and Sol wants to
>>>>>>> force everyone
>>>
>>>>>> Because its a product circa-1987 and has no relevance to
>>>>>> non-business customers
>>>
>>>>>>> into using a product where they are FORCED to bundle a PSTN line
>>>>>>> subscription with ADSL to get broadband. It's revenue by stealth!
>>>
>>>>>> You cannot run ADSL easily without a PSTN service in Australia for
>>>>>> technical reasons.
>>>
>>>>> Pig ignorant bare faced lie.
>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>> The proof is operations like iinet that offer what iinet calls Naked
>>> DSL.
>>
>> Thus the word easily.
>>
>> Feel free to look at all the posts in Whirlpool where their "customers"
>> have been waiting 20-30 days to even get it connected. No wonder iinet
>> force you to waive your CSG rights
>>
>>>>>> There are some ULL services
>>>
>>>>> Funny that.
>>>
>>>> Which required quite large IT expenditure to make possible.
>>>
>>> Only because the telstra system was so completely fucked in the first
>>> place.
>>
>> No, simply because ULL didnt exist until a point in time.
>
> Nonsense!
>
>> Bit hard to provision a service without a phone number (before that
>> point)
>
> It's never been hard.
>
> Back in the late 80s, i was a tech for a radio station. They had land
> lines to connect satellite studios, tx, etc. Those were just phone lines
> which weren't connected to the exchange switching equipment. None of them
> had phone numbers.
>
> It was also pretty standard to get such lines for outside broadcasts.
> Nobody in Telecom complained that there wasn't a phone number attached to
> the line!
>
Correct. They were in constant use for OBs as well.
Then there was the opposite too - numbers that had no copper pair associated
with them.
All of these services were provisioned in RASS during that time frame.
> Of course, all the lines had a service number to identify them - but it
> certainly wasn't a phone number.
Yep. They had an FNN (usually starting with 'A') as an identifier.
>>>>>> You cannot run ADSL easily without a PSTN service in Australia
>>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>>> for technical reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah? Name these 'technical reasons' then, liar.
>>>>
>>>> What kind of provisioning order would you put through to AXIS to
>>>> provision a line for ADSL which is not connected?
>>>
>>> That's not a 'technical' reason, fuckwit. It's an operational limitation
>>> of Telstra and an extremely simple one to fix through the creation of a
>>> new product code.
>>
>> If only the PMA part was the easy one.
>>
>> ULL needed (and still needs) significant IT development in the provising
>> system and its upstreams and downstreams
>
> Wrong.
So what do you think the outstanding BIs are for? Its just fun to pay IBM
and EDS for no reason?
>>>>> Funny that.
>>>
>>>> Which required quite large IT expenditure to make possible.
>>>
>>> Only because the telstra system was so completely fucked in the first
>>> place.
>>
>> No, simply because ULL didnt exist until a point in time.
>
> Nonsense!
>
>> Bit hard to provision a service without a phone number (before that
>> point)
>
> It's never been hard.
>
> Back in the late 80s, i was a tech for a radio station. They had land
> lines to connect satellite studios, tx, etc. Those were just phone lines
> which weren't connected to the exchange switching equipment. None of them
> had phone numbers.
>
> It was also pretty standard to get such lines for outside broadcasts.
> Nobody in Telecom complained that there wasn't a phone number attached to
> the line!
>
> Of course, all the lines had a service number to identify them - but it
Glad to agree with me, even if you are being a pedant.
"Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Hperj.12819$421.1048@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>> Funny that.
>>>>
>>>>> Which required quite large IT expenditure to make possible.
>>>>
>>>> Only because the telstra system was so completely fucked in the first
>>>> place.
>>>
>>> No, simply because ULL didnt exist until a point in time.
>>
>> Nonsense!
>>
>>> Bit hard to provision a service without a phone number (before that
>>> point)
>>
>> It's never been hard.
>>
>> Back in the late 80s, i was a tech for a radio station. They had land
>> lines to connect satellite studios, tx, etc. Those were just phone lines
>> which weren't connected to the exchange switching equipment. None of them
>> had phone numbers.
>>
>> It was also pretty standard to get such lines for outside broadcasts.
>> Nobody in Telecom complained that there wasn't a phone number attached to
>> the line!
>>
>> Of course, all the lines had a service number to identify them - but it
>
> Glad to agree with me, even if you are being a pedant.
"Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xoerj.12818$421.10254@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>> You cannot run ADSL easily without a PSTN service in Australia
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for technical reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah? Name these 'technical reasons' then, liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> What kind of provisioning order would you put through to AXIS to
>>>>> provision a line for ADSL which is not connected?
>>>>
>>>> That's not a 'technical' reason, fuckwit. It's an operational
>>>> limitation of Telstra and an extremely simple one to fix through the
>>>> creation of a new product code.
>>>
>>> If only the PMA part was the easy one.
>>>
>>> ULL needed (and still needs) significant IT development in the provising
>>> system and its upstreams and downstreams
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> So what do you think the outstanding BIs are for?
Because Telstra *chose* to remove functionality that already existed in the
early 90's.
> Its just fun to pay IBM and EDS for no reason?
A lot of the time that's exactly what you are doing, and I've seen it first
hand.
Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Funny that.
>>>>
>>>>> Which required quite large IT expenditure to make possible.
>>>>
>>>> Only because the telstra system was so completely fucked in the
>>>> first place.
>>>
>>> No, simply because ULL didnt exist until a point in time.
>>
>> Nonsense!
>>
>>> Bit hard to provision a service without a phone number (before that
>>> point)
>>
>> It's never been hard.
>>
>> Back in the late 80s, i was a tech for a radio station. They had land
>> lines to connect satellite studios, tx, etc. Those were just phone
>> lines which weren't connected to the exchange switching equipment.
>> None of them had phone numbers.
>>
>> It was also pretty standard to get such lines for outside broadcasts.
>> Nobody in Telecom complained that there wasn't a phone number
>> attached to the line!
>>
>> Of course, all the lines had a service number to identify them - but
>> it
Re: Broadband recommendations? 
Linear Mode
