We're willing to wait for OSPF

Kevin Kadow (kadokev@ripco.com)
Sun, 1 Dec 1996 02:45:10 -0600 (CST)

Steve Haynes <steve@exis.net> wrote:
> I for one believe the minority complained....We have NO use for 2400 and
> do not except accounts with less than 14.4 modems....We have about 2600
> customers and I would NOT sell them a PPP account at that speed. I really
> believe MOST real ISP's do not need 2400 baud. Its just another rate the
> modem has to go through and more code to fail or cause a problem......I
> hope it is dropped in upcoming OS' releases......

Hey Steve, do you know Karl Denninger? You'd get along well with him.

> Just give us products that work for 98% of the folks! I do not understand
> why someone would waste a pri on 2400 baud....just doesn't make good
> business sense to spend that kind of money on a circuit/equipment and then
> use it at 2400.

You know, just because YOUR local phone company is raping you on PRI's
doesn't mean everybody is in your boat (thank goodness, you'd push them out).

SOME "real providers" like to _standardize_ on a single reliable type
of access hardware, and don't have any analog modem lines to which they'd
attach 2400 baud modems. Some of us use our modem pool for outgoing alpha
paging, and NEED 2400 support for that to work.

We are one of the ISPs that would not be purchase a PM3 without 2400
support. For "real" ISPs, standardizing on digital dial-in means
_getting_rid_of_ all those analog modems and phone lines. We have customers
who use 2400 baud, enough customers that we're wise enough not to piss
them off by choosing a solution that would lock them out.

When we standardize on digital, we'll be dumping our PM-2's for PM-3's
or equivalent hardware, so at that point OSPF support on the PM-2 won't
matter one whit. As a business decision, putting OSPF on the new hardware
first was a smart move on Livingston's part.