AT&T Southeast → Re: [Speed Problem] DSL Direct slower than standard DSL?

bell insider -- Yes, we in BellSouth territory know that 'the new ATT' does not like us. They consistently let that be known. Your attitude is so SBC that I can see this company going in the crapper if our new leadership is ANYTHING like you.

SBC wanted BS precisely because we had the $$ and Cingular.C

{ Hint Hint }
Cinglar was formed by the merger og SBC & bell South Wireless, that just opened the FCC's door for the acquisition that eventually came...
On another note, ATT doesn't like Bell South due to all the crappy operations going on and cause for all the issues that this board attempts to resolve... For years Bell South has trained it's footprint of this operational mindset, now when actual working policy attempt to resolve the issues, it is taken as against the grain... But in actuality it is the easier softer way in the long run...
So yes, I look down at most who claim to be "gurus" just because they have memorized the workings of this backwards AZZ methodology... However, I have made numerous attempt to get things back in line and offer assistance, but after mass resistance... It becomes futile to try...

If you want facts simply do your stock market research to discover the very truth that I speak.... Bell South was loosing it's A$$ prior to the wireless merger...

The Lucent GX 550 Switch delivers multiservice protocol support, capacity and port density for ATM and Frame Relay services for the core. The Lucent GX 550 provides 25 Gbs full duplex ATM throughput, 32 Gbps packet throughput (IP/MPLS) and optical interfaces that connect directly to the transmission network. The Lucent GX 550 switch offers a suite of optical interfaces for applications such as ATM Access, Private Line, DSL transport voice over IP and aggregate DSL and cable modem service.

The base GX 550 chassis provides 39 slots capable of up to 156 OC-3/STM-1, up to 39 OC-12/STM-4 and up to 9 OC-48/STM-16 ports. Each Lucent GX 550 port is independently software configurable as a user network interface, interim interswitch signalling protocol interface (IISP), private network node interface (PNNI), broadband intercarrier interface (B-ICI) or direct trunk.

You could have at least included a link for the source of your copy/paste info:

»www.nivindel.com/gx550.html

Actually, the source is directly from Lucent, the site you claim to be source is only copying from the Manufacture (Lucent/Alcatel)

Why are you posting links to info on Lucent's GX 550? Did you have a point there? If so, please make it for once.

On the other hand, if you have no point and you're just posting to show off your skills at copying and pasting, then we're all very impressed.

Good visual post on the OSI model. Much appreciated!

And if bell insider 's visual post had been properly credited to it's owner, you could have also thanked Novell for the informative image.

?? Why do i even continue to try ??
[ bangs head against keyboard ]

Ok, Netfixer.. with your "Right-Click" skills on the .gif image.. YES, Novell had the purdiest picture of the quick google search I did... ?? However, the Cisco site is most informative and actually soothing to read when thirsty for WAN 101...

Having started out on the Frame at a Toll CO in Dallas, then moving up over the years into 2nd line Engineering Mgmnt... I understand the inside/outside technician point of "physical", However, being where I've been and learning what I've learned I see the lack of understanding from that un-elevated position, although foremost front line position...

The OSI model, as I have plead over the last month or 2, dictates and commands Bell infrastructure in the virtual WAN side... Physical is a must, however, the foundation (Layer 1) is only the legs to the platform and IS very rudimentary to the whole picture..
Layer 1 & 2 are engulfed at the DSLAM, by encapsulation of ATM transport...
Think of it like this in troubleshooting:
Layer 1: Do I have continuity ?
Layer 2: Can I put 1's & 0's(digital) on that ?
Layer 3: Can I route the 1's & 0's through a network?
layer 4: What is the quality of the 1's & 0's after routing?
~~~~~ ta-da !! [ takes a bow ] ~~~~

;      I know the feeling.

The purpose of my previous post in this thread was to point out that "fair use" of copyrighted material (whether it be an image or a text quote) includes giving proper credit to the copyright owner. It was not a request for additional "education" on the OSI model.

I fail to see that your purpose had anything to do with the topic of this forum.... Although, given that the .gif was linked directly back to their site, no need to place credit in big neon lights, as you believe... credit is embedded in the picture...

I will assume that you believe that to be true. However, you might wish to take a look at »www.novell.com/company/legal/ to see how Novell sees it.FYI, the above is an example of proper "fair usage" of copyrighted material. Educating someone on the proper use of copyrighted material belonging to someone else is always "on topic".

I disagree..... Linking the image back to their server by displaying it, is not "by any stretch of the imagination" unfair usage... If you chose to do it your way, then fine-do it your way..
However, when I feel necessary to link to their server in the manor that I do, then I do and without fear of prosecution.... If you feel strongly about your position, then email Novell... Tell them Joseph Carpenter from CheckPoint (who use to monitor their operation center) has linked to their site.... In your opinion, unfairly...

Ba haha Ba haha

I did not expect you to agree, your posting history on this site pretty much gives anyone who sees it insight into your personality.

It is not my way, it is Novell's way (and the way of most IP owners). Your hot link is prohibited under the "No logo, graphic, sound or image from any Novell website may be copied or retransmitted unless expressly permitted by Novell." provision of the Novell TOS for their website. Of course Novell is not going to prosecute you for hotlinking that particular image, but the polite thing would have been to honor their published wishes and to not have done it. Polite however, is obviously not your modus operandi.

Cool. What office?

Maybe this will help you -- 18 USC 1832 (1831 -1839)

I think that 18 USC 1832 is designed to deal with theft of trade secrets. The OSI model is not really anyone's trade secret.

You are possibly thinking of 17 U.S.C. 506 and/or 18 U.S.C. 2319 which deal with criminal infringement of a copyright. However, a third party would not have standing to make such a claim to a US attorney. A quick email sent to permission@novell.com as described in »www.novell.com/company/legal/ would be a more appropriate notification to the IP owner.

What began as a good-natured ego deflating poke in the eye with a sharp stick appears to be escalating into "OK boys, here's the rope, let's find a tree" (which is not necessary since bell insider is apparently quite willing to slip the noose around his own neck and jump voluntarily).

Again, this is your opinion and interpretation of the law.. However, the job of interpreting laws, by Constitutional specificity, is done by judges... Therefore, again, you comments and advise are off topic and not appropriately presented.

'However, the job of interpreting laws, by Constitutional specificity, is done by judges...'

Brush up on Marbury vs Madison again. "Specificity" is the wrong word.

Look up the word in the dictionary, my application and context are correct... Kinda neat though, "know-it-all" people believe they know better about what you're saying and thinking that you do ???
Good luck in life with that theory !!