Re: Losing Newsgroup Service

I just had a couple ding-dong arguments via chat and via phone with Charter's
tech support about the serious unreliability of its newsgroup operation,
actually subcontracted out to a Phoenix outfit called HighWinds Media.

I honestly think that Charter has a conscious plan afoot to kill off its
newsgroup access. They make usenet unreliable, so people stop using it. A
self-fulfilling prophecy like the current US Govt Executive Branch taking the
position that less government is better, then staffing with incompetents and
cronys, then saying that they told you so that less government is really better.
But I digress. Again. But not much. See below.

My position is that terminating newsgroup access infringes upon my first
amendment rights of freedom of speech. Perhaps someone at the ACLU could go for
an injunction to stop Comcast (already dragged thru the mud lately) from
terminating its usenet service. Or maybe just a few first amendment emails to
the Congressmen who represent you? Or, hey, make some noise to the local media
(TV or print is fine) and possibly some national news service will pick up the
story.

I have already complained to my congressmen, my representatives in the state
house and the FCC about the incompetence and high expense of my Charter
broadband. The FCC takes the position that it does not regulate ISPs, only
telephone and TV. (Are we surprised? The current FCC does not want to regulate
ISPs, either, and we have some of the worst internet service in the civilized
world with among the highest prices.) So Comcast, Charter, and their ilk can do
as they please to us and with us.

So start making some public noise about this mess. I intend to continue to
pillory Charter for its continued screwups at the high price I am paying.

.... Ben Myers

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:38:18 -0400, "Daddy" <> wrote:

>My ISP - Comcast - is following the lead of other ISPs and discontinuing newsgroup service. I can continue to access this newsgroup until some time in October, then I have to find another usenet provider.
>
>It's not like there aren't other providers, both free and paid. (I follow this newsgroup at work through a free provider.) Free providers are fine, but you can't always count on them being around when they're not making any money. And as much as I enjoy your company, in a perverse sort of way, I'm not prepared to pay for the privilege.
>
>Given the dwindling support for usenet, are there any plans to host this group on something other than usenet?
>
>Daddy

Ben Myers wrote:
> I just had a couple ding-dong arguments via chat and via phone with Charter's
> tech support about the serious unreliability of its newsgroup operation,
> actually subcontracted out to a Phoenix outfit called HighWinds Media.
>
> I honestly think that Charter has a conscious plan afoot to kill off its
> newsgroup access. They make usenet unreliable, so people stop using it. A
> self-fulfilling prophecy like the current US Govt Executive Branch taking the
> position that less government is better, then staffing with incompetents and
> cronys, then saying that they told you so that less government is really better.
> But I digress. Again. But not much. See below.
>
> My position is that terminating newsgroup access infringes upon my first
> amendment rights of freedom of speech. Perhaps someone at the ACLU could go for
> an injunction to stop Comcast (already dragged thru the mud lately) from
> terminating its usenet service. Or maybe just a few first amendment emails to
> the Congressmen who represent you? Or, hey, make some noise to the local media
> (TV or print is fine) and possibly some national news service will pick up the
> story.
>
> I have already complained to my congressmen, my representatives in the state
> house and the FCC about the incompetence and high expense of my Charter
> broadband. The FCC takes the position that it does not regulate ISPs, only
> telephone and TV. (Are we surprised? The current FCC does not want to regulate
> ISPs, either, and we have some of the worst internet service in the civilized
> world with among the highest prices.) So Comcast, Charter, and their ilk can do
> as they please to us and with us.
>
> So start making some public noise about this mess. I intend to continue to
> pillory Charter for its continued screwups at the high price I am paying.
>
> ... Ben Myers
>
My ISPs (Shaw) newsgroups is having problems as well with my local
newsgroup server but the main server is fine.

Dan

Hi!

> My position is that terminating newsgroup access infringes upon my first
> amendment rights of freedom of speech. Perhaps someone at the ACLU
> could go for an injunction to stop Comcast (already dragged thru the mud
> lately) from terminating its usenet service.

Hmmm, now that's an interesting perspective. I hadn't thought of it quite
that way.

I have found that a good old fashioned signed letter, mailed to a company,
can do wonders. That's even more likely if enough people do it!

If my ISP (who uses AT&T's Usenet server, at least so far) were to cancel
Usenet access, I would definitely make noise about it. It's not that I'm
unhappy using Google Groups (despite what some people who "know better" say
about it) but already these "know it alls" have made that a less than
productive option. (Not that they don't have merit to their complaints, but
*really*...especially in this day and age of vanishing Usenet.)

Ooops. I stepped on a soap box there. :-)

William

> My position is that terminating newsgroup access infringes upon my first
> amendment rights of freedom of speech.

You have the right to say what you want* but no one else has the obligation to
provide equipment for you to do so.

Tom Lake

* With certain limitations, of course.

On Sep 18, 9:00*pm, Ben Myers <ben_myers_spam_me_...@charter.net>
wrote:
> I just had a couple ding-dong arguments via chat and via phone with Charter's
> tech support about the serious unreliability of its newsgroup operation,
> actually subcontracted out to a Phoenix outfit called HighWinds Media.
>
> I honestly think that Charter has a conscious plan afoot to kill off its
> newsgroup access. *They make usenet unreliable, so people stop using it.. *A
> self-fulfilling prophecy like the current US Govt Executive Branch takingthe
> position that less government is better, then staffing with incompetents and
> cronys, then saying that they told you so that less government is really better.
> But I digress. *Again. *But not much. *See below.
>
> My position is that terminating newsgroup access infringes upon my first
> amendment rights of freedom of speech. *Perhaps someone at the ACLU could go for
> an injunction to stop Comcast (already dragged thru the mud lately) from
> terminating its usenet service. *Or maybe just a few first amendment emails to
> the Congressmen who represent you? *Or, hey, make some noise to the local media
> (TV or print is fine) and possibly some national news service will pick up the
> story.
>
> I have already complained to my congressmen, my representatives in the state
> house and the FCC about the incompetence and high expense of my Charter
> broadband. *The FCC takes the position that it does not regulate ISPs, only
> telephone and TV. *(Are we surprised? The current FCC does not want to regulate
> ISPs, either, and we have some of the worst internet service in the civilized
> world with among the highest prices.) *So Comcast, Charter, and their ilk can do
> as they please to us and with us.
>
> So start making some public noise about this mess. *I intend to continue to
> pillory Charter for its continued screwups at the high price I am paying.
>
> ... Ben Myers
>
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:38:18 -0400, "Daddy" <da...@not.valid.net> wrote:
> >My ISP - Comcast - is following the lead of other ISPs and discontinuingnewsgroup service. I can continue to access this newsgroup until some timein October, then I have to find another usenet provider.
>
> >It's not like there aren't other providers, both free and paid. (I follow this newsgroup at work through a free provider.) Free providers are fine,but you can't always count on them being around when they're not making any money. And as much as I enjoy your company, in a perverse sort of way, I'm not prepared to pay for the privilege.
>
> >Given the dwindling support for usenet, are there any plans to host thisgroup on something other than usenet?
>
> >Daddy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You may have "Feeedom of Speech" but....

You have to provide your own soapbox.

Everyone else has the freedom to *NOT* provide you with a soapbox to
exercise that right.

Sending letters is good when you have the name and address of a real person to
whom to send the letter. Anybody got Paul Allen's real street address? He is
the ex-Microsoftie, owner of the dreadful Portland TrailBlazers bball team,
billionaire grand poobah of Charter Communications. These scumbags hide behind
the third world support. Honestly, I have had far more success going the
government route. They do listen when people from the govt call, tho they may
not do anything... Ben Myers

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 04:43:11 GMT, "William R. Walsh"
< m> wrote:

>Hi!
>
>> My position is that terminating newsgroup access infringes upon my first
>> amendment rights of freedom of speech. Perhaps someone at the ACLU
>> could go for an injunction to stop Comcast (already dragged thru the mud
>> lately) from terminating its usenet service.
>
>Hmmm, now that's an interesting perspective. I hadn't thought of it quite
>that way.
>
>I have found that a good old fashioned signed letter, mailed to a company,
>can do wonders. That's even more likely if enough people do it!
>
>If my ISP (who uses AT&T's Usenet server, at least so far) were to cancel
>Usenet access, I would definitely make noise about it. It's not that I'm
>unhappy using Google Groups (despite what some people who "know better" say
>about it) but already these "know it alls" have made that a less than
>productive option. (Not that they don't have merit to their complaints, but
>*really*...especially in this day and age of vanishing Usenet.)
>
>Ooops. I stepped on a soap box there. :-)
>
>William
>

True. Let's use the phone company as an analogy, because the first amendment
certainly applies to phones. I pay my phone bill. I can say what I want over
the phone, although the govt may be tapping my phone. The implict contract with
the phone company is that I can talk all I want on the phone as long as I pay my
phone bill, and phone company agrees to provide reliable phone service to the
best of its abilities. Verizon does well around here, and my land-based phone
service is somewhat better than 99.9% reliable (informal measurement).

Now, Charter offers an internet package and I pay my bills on time. Usenet
access is part of that package, as stated on Charter's web site. The implict
contract with Charter is that I can talk on usenet all I want as long as I pay
my Charter bill, and Charter agrees to provide reliable Usenet to the best of
its abilities. Now for some reasonableness. Usenet is low bandwidth, unlike
file sharing, so none of us can saturate the bandwidth with usenet. I have to
agree to nto spam via usenet, which I do.

Still a first amendment issue in my book... Ben Myers

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:04:04 -0400, "Tom Lake" <> wrote:

>> My position is that terminating newsgroup access infringes upon my first
>> amendment rights of freedom of speech.
>
>You have the right to say what you want* but no one else has the obligation to
>provide equipment for you to do so.
>
>Tom Lake
>
>* With certain limitations, of course.

> Now, Charter offers an internet package and I pay my bills on time. Usenet
> access is part of that package, as stated on Charter's web site. The implict
> contract with Charter is that I can talk on usenet all I want as long as I pay
> my Charter bill, and Charter agrees to provide reliable Usenet to the best of
> its abilities. Now for some reasonableness. Usenet is low bandwidth, unlike
> file sharing, so none of us can saturate the bandwidth with usenet. I have to
> agree to nto spam via usenet, which I do.

Unless your contract with Charter is different from most other ISPs contracts,
there's no mention of Usenet at all. The contract is for Internet access.
There's no implicit contract, only what's in writing (explicit). If your contract
specifies that Charter is to provide you with Usenet access and then they
eliminate that access then you have grounds for a civil suit against them
for breach of contract. It's still not a Constitutional issue.

Tom Lake

Usenet is available through Charter per their statement on their web site of
what they offer as their broadband internet service. It is in "writing", hence
their side of the contractual committment. Of course, like anything written on
the web, it can be changed by the webmaster at any time.

Like nearly all ISPs, though, Charter makes no committment to up-time or
availability for their internet offerings. (Yes, yes, yes, I know there are
factors outside their control like hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes. Same as
the telcos.) The FCC takes the position that it does not regulate ISPs, hence
nobody is able to impose on ISPs to toe the line and meet any service goal. In
short, what you see is what you get and you better like it because you have no
choice in most locales. There is very little competition in this country among
broadband internet service providers, except where Verizon has introduced its
FIOS and in some high-density population major metro areas. In short, most of
us are prey to an ISP monopoly that does what it wants.

And I agree to disagree and still claim that if an ISP pulls the plug on usenet,
the ISP is infringing on First Amendment rights to free speech... Ben Myers

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:38:40 -0400, "Tom Lake" <> wrote:

>> Now, Charter offers an internet package and I pay my bills on time. Usenet
>> access is part of that package, as stated on Charter's web site. The implict
>> contract with Charter is that I can talk on usenet all I want as long as I pay
>> my Charter bill, and Charter agrees to provide reliable Usenet to the best of
>> its abilities. Now for some reasonableness. Usenet is low bandwidth, unlike
>> file sharing, so none of us can saturate the bandwidth with usenet. I have to
>> agree to nto spam via usenet, which I do.
>
>Unless your contract with Charter is different from most other ISPs contracts,
>there's no mention of Usenet at all. The contract is for Internet access.
>There's no implicit contract, only what's in writing (explicit). If your contract
>specifies that Charter is to provide you with Usenet access and then they
>eliminate that access then you have grounds for a civil suit against them
>for breach of contract. It's still not a Constitutional issue.
>
>Tom Lake

Looks like Charter removed any mention of newsgroups on their site
regarding it being part of the Internet Service. They do have support
for it though.

Dan

Ben Myers wrote:
> Usenet is available through Charter per their statement on their web site of
> what they offer as their broadband internet service. It is in "writing", hence
> their side of the contractual committment. Of course, like anything written on
> the web, it can be changed by the webmaster at any time.
>
> Like nearly all ISPs, though, Charter makes no committment to up-time or
> availability for their internet offerings. (Yes, yes, yes, I know there are
> factors outside their control like hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes. Same as
> the telcos.) The FCC takes the position that it does not regulate ISPs, hence
> nobody is able to impose on ISPs to toe the line and meet any service goal. In
> short, what you see is what you get and you better like it because you have no
> choice in most locales. There is very little competition in this country among
> broadband internet service providers, except where Verizon has introduced its
> FIOS and in some high-density population major metro areas. In short, most of
> us are prey to an ISP monopoly that does what it wants.
>
> And I agree to disagree and still claim that if an ISP pulls the plug on usenet,
> the ISP is infringing on First Amendment rights to free speech... Ben Myers
>
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:38:40 -0400, "Tom Lake" <> wrote:
>
>>> Now, Charter offers an internet package and I pay my bills on time. Usenet
>>> access is part of that package, as stated on Charter's web site. The implict
>>> contract with Charter is that I can talk on usenet all I want as long as I pay
>>> my Charter bill, and Charter agrees to provide reliable Usenet to the best of
>>> its abilities. Now for some reasonableness. Usenet is low bandwidth, unlike
>>> file sharing, so none of us can saturate the bandwidth with usenet. I have to
>>> agree to nto spam via usenet, which I do.
>> Unless your contract with Charter is different from most other ISPs contracts,
>> there's no mention of Usenet at all. The contract is for Internet access.
>> There's no implicit contract, only what's in writing (explicit). If your contract
>> specifies that Charter is to provide you with Usenet access and then they
>> eliminate that access then you have grounds for a civil suit against them
>> for breach of contract. It's still not a Constitutional issue.
>>
>> Tom Lake