[mdlug] OT: Comcast rant

[Aaron Kulkis]

gib at juno.com wrote:
> Perhaps you could set up open DNS as a secondary. I think it is 208.67.222.222 and 208.67.220.220
> 

Good Idea (and I'm not talking about the Good Idea Fairy), even though
(as I states below) I've yet to see a DNS outage with U-verse.

> -- Aaron Kulkis <akulkis00 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Rich Elswick wrote:
>> Ya, add Comcast to your own personal 'will not conduct business with' list
>> and sign up fro Wideopenwest or some other service.  I have had Wideopenwest
>> for probably 6 years now and almost never had a problem.  About the only
>> complaint with them I have ever had is when they do a server reboot or
>> upgrade or some such on their network and don't inform me beforehand they
>> will be down for a hour or two.
>>
>> The only way to get companies to listen to us (the customer) in this
>> democracy of a capitalist market is to vote with your dollars.  My vote will
>> never be with Comcast (or AT&T / Ameritech).  There are others, but I will
>> shut the rant down.
> 
> I'm using AT&T U-verse here (before that, were were on WOW), and a
> friend of mine in Flint recently switched from Comcast to U-Verse.
> 
> All I can say is that U-verse has been EXCEPTIONALLY GOOD.
> Very reliable.  I've noticed no service outages since we
> switched (every prior ISP I have noticed occasional DNS
> outages, although usually at what appears to be a planned
> downtime (like 3 AM on Sunday morning -- it's still annoying:
> why not bring a couple backup machines online, even at
> lower throughput, rather than have no ping-able machine
> on the ISP's given DNS IP addresses?)
> 
> And customer service has been significantly better than any
> prior experience with AT&T/Michigan Bell/generic Baby Bell/etc.
> 
> U-verse has so far been an exception to the rule about
> "the phone company", whichever entity that may be.
> 
>> I think it is a blocked port. By their terms of service Wideopenwest could
>> do so as well, but haven't yet.
>>
>> Good Luck, btw if you do choose to switch, let me know as I could get a
>> month off payments if you switch and reference me. :)
>>
>> Rich
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Robert J. Clay <rjclay at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Michael S. Mikowski
>>> <z_mikowski at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Perhaps a blocked port?  If you aren't already, you might want to set up
>>> your
>>>> network to accept ssh traffic on a non-standard port.
>>>     That should be considered in any case, if only so that your log
>>> files don't fill up with script kiddies attempting to log in using the
>>> standard port...
>>>