«

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 19:12:48 +1200, (Your Name)
shouted from the highest rooftop:

>In article <>, Donchano
><> wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 11:59:57 +1200, EMB <> shouted
>> from the highest rooftop:
>> >
>> >I bailed from xnet to Telecom a couple of years back due to a lack of
>> >service on the part of xnet. My father is with them and he reports that
>> >their service is still somewhat lacking. I'm not a fan of VOIP over
>> >naked DSL regardless of who provides it does not provide a reliable
>> >phone service (cf PSTN in Chch at quake time), and the cost saving of
>> >going that way is miniscule compared to keeping a "real" landline.
>>
>> Even though I just completed a three hour Skype conversation with a
>> friend in Hawaii, I must admit to being hesitant about putting all my
>> eggs in one basket. Think I'll keep the old landline a while longer.
>> The Christchurch example is a good one.
>
>Not just a landline either. You need to have an "old fashioned" wired
>phone rather than a portable one that relys on an electrical wall socket
>for the base station.

That too.

In article <>, Kiwi
<> wrote:

> On 21 Aug 2011 04:09:26 GMT, Gordon <> wrote:
>
> >
> >Now did we all read, and understand the word dial-up from the OP?
> >
> >So, is the advice worth much? ;-
>
>
> He has been moaning about Ihug for several years. Funilly enough,
> nobody else with a diall up account has complained to nz.comp.
>
> This would indicate to me that the problem is either with his s/w or
> h/w.

Nope and Nope. But believe whatever garbage you want. :-\

In article <yourname->, (Your Name) wrote:
>In article <>, Donchano
><> wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 11:59:57 +1200, EMB <> shouted
>> from the highest rooftop:
>> >
>> >I bailed from xnet to Telecom a couple of years back due to a lack of
>> >service on the part of xnet. My father is with them and he reports that
>> >their service is still somewhat lacking. I'm not a fan of VOIP over
>> >naked DSL regardless of who provides it does not provide a reliable
>> >phone service (cf PSTN in Chch at quake time), and the cost saving of
>> >going that way is miniscule compared to keeping a "real" landline.
>>
>> Even though I just completed a three hour Skype conversation with a
>> friend in Hawaii, I must admit to being hesitant about putting all my
>> eggs in one basket. Think I'll keep the old landline a while longer.
>> The Christchurch example is a good one.
>
>Not just a landline either. You need to have an "old fashioned" wired
>phone rather than a portable one that relys on an electrical wall socket
>for the base station.

... until telecon turn off the power so those won't work either.
Some time in the next couple of years IIRC ??

To the OP, actrix for service. Their help desk people know things and are,
well, helpful.

In article <j2s6lc$j5v$>,
(Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
> In article
<yourname->,
(Your Name) wrote:
> >In article <>, Donchano
> ><> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 11:59:57 +1200, EMB <> shouted
> >> from the highest rooftop:
> >> >
> >> >I bailed from xnet to Telecom a couple of years back due to a lack of
> >> >service on the part of xnet. My father is with them and he reports that
> >> >their service is still somewhat lacking. I'm not a fan of VOIP over
> >> >naked DSL regardless of who provides it does not provide a reliable
> >> >phone service (cf PSTN in Chch at quake time), and the cost saving of
> >> >going that way is miniscule compared to keeping a "real" landline.
> >>
> >> Even though I just completed a three hour Skype conversation with a
> >> friend in Hawaii, I must admit to being hesitant about putting all my
> >> eggs in one basket. Think I'll keep the old landline a while longer.
> >> The Christchurch example is a good one.
> >
> >Not just a landline either. You need to have an "old fashioned" wired
> >phone rather than a portable one that relys on an electrical wall socket
> >for the base station.
>
> .. until telecon turn off the power so those won't work either.
> Some time in the next couple of years IIRC ??

That wouldn't surprise me. "Progress" isn't always for the better.



> To the OP, actrix for service. Their help desk people know things and are,
> well, helpful.

Another one to add to my list, thanks.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:08:26 +1200, Your Name wrote:

> In article <j2s6lc$j5v$>,
> (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
>> In article
> <yourname->,
> (Your Name) wrote:
>>>In article <>, Donchano
>>><> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 11:59:57 +1200, EMB <> shouted
>>>> from the highest rooftop:
>>>> >
>>>> >I bailed from xnet to Telecom a couple of years back due to a lack of
>>>> >service on the part of xnet. My father is with them and he reports that
>>>> >their service is still somewhat lacking. I'm not a fan of VOIP over
>>>> >naked DSL regardless of who provides it does not provide a reliable
>>>> >phone service (cf PSTN in Chch at quake time), and the cost saving of
>>>> >going that way is miniscule compared to keeping a "real" landline.
>>>>
>>>> Even though I just completed a three hour Skype conversation with a
>>>> friend in Hawaii, I must admit to being hesitant about putting all my
>>>> eggs in one basket. Think I'll keep the old landline a while longer.
>>>> The Christchurch example is a good one.
>>>
>>>Not just a landline either. You need to have an "old fashioned" wired
>>>phone rather than a portable one that relys on an electrical wall socket
>>>for the base station.
>>
>> .. until telecon turn off the power so those won't work either.
>> Some time in the next couple of years IIRC ??
>
> That wouldn't surprise me. "Progress" isn't always for the better.
>
>> To the OP, actrix for service. Their help desk people know things and are,
>> well, helpful.
>
> Another one to add to my list, thanks.

Another good one i am using (not dial up though) and i came here from ihug

www.snap.net.nz

In article <>, Kiwi
<> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 09:02:46 +1200, (Your Name)
> wrote:
> >In article <>, Kiwi
> ><> wrote:
> >>
> >> He has been moaning about Ihug for several years. Funilly enough,
> >> nobody else with a diall up account has complained to nz.comp.
> >>
> >> This would indicate to me that the problem is either with his s/w or
> >> h/w.
> >
> >Nope and Nope. But believe whatever garbage you want. :-\
>
> Ok,
>
> If you can provide the details of anyone else having difficulties with
> Ihug dial up I will be happy to change my opinion. The reason I made
> that statement was that you were the only Ihug dial up user
> complaining of these issues that had posted in nz.comp.
>
> Cheers, Kiwi

Who gives a damn what you bleieve ... as I said, believe whatever garbage
you want to. :-\

In article <>, Kiwi
<> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 09:02:46 +1200, (Your Name)
> wrote:
> >In article <>, Kiwi
> ><> wrote:
> >> On 21 Aug 2011 04:09:26 GMT, Gordon <> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Now did we all read, and understand the word dial-up from the OP?
> >> >
> >> >So, is the advice worth much? ;-
> >>
> >>
> >> He has been moaning about Ihug for several years. Funilly enough,
> >> nobody else with a diall up account has complained to nz.comp.
> >>
> >> This would indicate to me that the problem is either with his s/w or
> >> h/w.
> >
> >Nope and Nope. But believe whatever garbage you want. :-\
>
> Ok,
>
> If you can provide the details of anyone else having difficulties with
> Ihug dial up I will be happy to change my opinion. The reason I made
> that statement was that you were the only Ihug dial up user
> complaining of these issues that had posted in nz.comp.
>
> Cheers, Kiwi

Just to let this smartass know what an incompetent idiot he is, I had a
phonecall from Vodafone's tech staff who told me that:

a. other people had reported the email problem (as I already knew),

b. the email problem had been caused by the spam filter incorrectly
giving false positives (Vodafone should not be interferring with
emails anyway).

That problem was fixed, but the issues of slow website access still
persists, and has also been reported by other people.

On 20/08/2011 9:34 p.m., Frank Williams wrote:

> I don't think that Farego would agree with you.
>
> Actrix still has a newsfeed and was the first in NZ..
>
>
> As far as Telescum goes it should be the last on any ones list.
>
>

That's a pretty good recommendation for Telecom.

The hopeless idiots at Vodafone seem to have finally fixed the current
problems ... and it only took a week and a half to fix the email issue and
a nother week and a half to fix the international website issue ... both
of which they said were not problems at their end (despite multiple people
telling them it was), but eventually bothered to actually check and find
it was. It's this kind of shoddy service that makes Vodafone NZ the
bigest joke of an ISP in New Zealand. And now we wait for the next
problem they refuse to admit to or look into for another week and a half.
X-(

My advice to anyone looking for a new ISP: stay WELL AWAY from Vodafone NZ!!
(I would also advise looking elsewhere for phone and mobile services.)

In article <4e62afe4$>, "collector.nz"
<> wrote:

> On 20/08/2011 7:05 p.m., Your Name wrote:
> > Vodafone is absolute crap and an utter joke - they have no idea what
> > "service" means and can't run a server to save themselves. X-(
> >
> > Does anyone know of a decent dial-up ISP in New Zealand that actually
> > knows what the "S" stands for??
>
> Reading thecomments here I figure I should add a few wild cards.
>
> I have been with iHug (An orignal client one of the first) then with
> Xtra and Then Orcon.
>
> At various times they have all been good, usually while the scale of the
> operation was still personal and the loads not so great as to require
> large disjointed teams to manage things.
>
> Some ISP's do some things better than other ISP's and other things worse.
>
> IMHO You sign on and take your chances with any ISP, even the small so
> called independants, who are really only reselling one of the larger
> guys infrastructure and taking a middle man cut.
>
> For me the limiting factor with any ISP is the T&C can I do what I
> currently do. (Run several servers of a small nature)

The problem with using one of the small on-selling guys is that whenever
there's a problem it can be even harder to get it fixed since you're
dealing through an extra intermediary.

You get a similar problem when buying landline services from the other
ISPs since it's really Telecom NZ that still own almost all the equipment,
exchanges and phone lines. The poor user gets stuck in the middle of a
game of "pass the buck" with each company blaming the other and not
actually fixing anything.



Of course, Vodafone is yet again proving they're an utter joke as an ISP.
After supposedly "fixing" it a couple of weeks ago, they are again having
problems with their email server filtering / bouncing messages without
even trying to send them! Absolutely hopeless!!! No doubt another week and
a half before anyone there bothers to do yet another temporary patch-it
"fix". X-(