Rayner having troubles in KC

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Sure, we'll extend the demark. Right. 45-60 days later.

Oh, you are having problems? Must be your end. 30 days later..oops, we provisioned PRI. Except they won't ever tell you they are wrong.

Do we even need to discuss the great DSL scam.

You should have the know how to extend the demarc yourself if you are in the business on bandwidth, carries, and pipe.

ooooooooo. tell me the great dsl scam that you imagined

Do you even know what exactly a demarc is?

Hmm long time lurker here and I guess this is as good as any to start. First off I dont know any of you from hell or high water BUT:

As someone who has worked telecommunications field(s) for a very long time now. Tyrone is very correct in what he is saying here. Obviously some of you really dont know what you're talking about when it comes to loops,rings and backbone and exactly who runs and services them.

However,I would love to hear his opinion on the dsl scam also.

Scam might be a strong word. But, it certainly doesn't deliver what they promise. At least not in my location. I'd love for people to talk with my clients or potential clients who would tell you that their dsl goes down daily at roughly the same time.

In my small world, i'm concerned with clean bandwidth as much as i'm concerned with pipe size. But, if i could get (and working on that right now) dsl to the client and from there to one of the 4 regional (forget the term) and handed off to the carrier circuit (on phx main) and then to our colo. Great bandwidth, avoid the cloud, low price.

BTP: Thanx for at least ackowledging that i'm not bsing here.

Well it all depends on who the service provider is and of course how far you are away from the Telco CO. Lot's people dont realize that if your over 10,000 ft from there,yes,you are going to have issues especially the provisioning and speeds. Especially being on copper pairs(yes in Wisconsin and other states they are still updating this)

I am very fortunate enough to be 4000ft from my CO and my DSL provisioning of 6mb down/768. I actually get that (constant at that). Even on a VOD line. Companies have pretty much done away unbundled loops for DSL(in which was freaking silly).

That were the whole DSL/Cable pissing match people get into cracks me up because most of them dont even understand what they are talking about.

Course distance is a factor. That is what is even more frustrating here as DSL goes down and it is freakin close to the CO. Qwest really oversells.

Best part of AZ...when it gets really hot in the summer and the copper starts melting in mesa. LOL Every year it is the same as internet goes down.

My buddies at the wireless provider are making a killing providing redundancy.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That were the whole DSL/Cable pissing match people get into cracks me up because most of them dont even understand what they are talking about.

Good stuff in a thread about a PK that was cut by the Chiefs.

So what is the best way to determine (cost is not a factor) if the cable hook up or DSL is better if both are available in your area? The local DSL company claims there service is better because your not "sharing" all your bandwidth with everyone else on with a cable modem? I have the cable modem now and it is pretty reliable but I never get the speeds they advertise...and I pay for.

I'll leave it to BTP.

It really depends as he says on distance and your carrier for DSL. Here we also have 2 "levels" of dsl.

Plenty here pay for speed they never get as well.

But, as a rule, i say go with cable.

[BTP]

So what is the best way to determine (cost is not a factor) if the cable hook up or DSL is better if both are available in your area? The local DSL company claims there service is better because your not "sharing" all your bandwidth with everyone else on with a cable modem? I have the cable modem now and it is pretty reliable but I never get the speeds they advertise...and I pay for.

ask around your area,looking at stuff like www.dslreports.com with an open mind and read reviews. Remember now when reading those reports . Some are just basic jo-blows giving reports. So some are not that accurate.

The bottom line with the cable/Dsl argument is this. Some areas cable might be your better choice,and in some areas DSL may be your better choice.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

[quote="BTP"]

So what is the best way to determine (cost is not a factor) if the cable hook up or DSL is better if both are available in your area? The local DSL company claims there service is better because your not "sharing" all your bandwidth with everyone else on with a cable modem? I have the cable modem now and it is pretty reliable but I never get the speeds they advertise...and I pay for.

ask around your area,looking at stuff like www.dslreports.com with an open mind and read reviews. Remember now when reading those reports . Some are just basic jo-blows giving reports. So some are not that accurate.

The bottom line with the cable/Dsl argument is this. Some areas cable might be your better choice,and in some areas DSL may be your better choice.

You are a telco stooge!!!

[BTP]

You are a telco stooge!!!

Uh what?

[Freak Out]

So what is the best way to determine (cost is not a factor) if the cable hook up or DSL is better if both are available in your area? The local DSL company claims there service is better because your not "sharing" all your bandwidth with everyone else on with a cable modem? I have the cable modem now and it is pretty reliable but I never get the speeds they advertise...and I pay for.

ask around your area,looking at stuff like www.dslreports.com with an open mind and read reviews. Remember now when reading those reports . Some are just basic jo-blows giving reports. So some are not that accurate.

The bottom line with the cable/Dsl argument is this. Some areas cable might be your better choice,and in some areas DSL may be your better choice.

I have not done much research lately using things like dslreports and speedtest...in the past Alaska was always slow as hell. Probably too lengthy a question as to the pros and cons of both types of service....there is a new fiber optic run heading from here to Oregon which should help but my I was always under the impression that once it hit the copper here it would always be speed limited.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You are a telco stooge!!!

Uh what?

Just a joke.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

So what is the best way to determine (cost is not a factor) if the cable hook up or DSL is better if both are available in your area? The local DSL company claims there service is better because your not "sharing" all your bandwidth with everyone else on with a cable modem? I have the cable modem now and it is pretty reliable but I never get the speeds they advertise...and I pay for.

ask around your area,looking at stuff like www.dslreports.com with an open mind and read reviews. Remember now when reading those reports . Some are just basic jo-blows giving reports. So some are not that accurate.

The bottom line with the cable/Dsl argument is this. Some areas cable might be your better choice,and in some areas DSL may be your better choice.

I have not done much research lately using things like dslreports and speedtest...in the past Alaska was always slow as hell. Probably too lengthy a question as to the pros and cons of both types of service....there is a new fiber optic run heading from here to Oregon which should help but my I was always under the impression that once it hit the copper here it would always be speed limited.

Just wire up some of the nearby igloos and get a T1. :P

[Freak Out]

So what is the best way to determine (cost is not a factor) if the cable hook up or DSL is better if both are available in your area? The local DSL company claims there service is better because your not "sharing" all your bandwidth with everyone else on with a cable modem? I have the cable modem now and it is pretty reliable but I never get the speeds they advertise...and I pay for.

ask around your area,looking at stuff like www.dslreports.com with an open mind and read reviews. Remember now when reading those reports . Some are just basic jo-blows giving reports. So some are not that accurate.

The bottom line with the cable/Dsl argument is this. Some areas cable might be your better choice,and in some areas DSL may be your better choice.

I have not done much research lately using things like dslreports and speedtest...in the past Alaska was always slow as hell. Probably too lengthy a question as to the pros and cons of both types of service....there is a new fiber optic run heading from here to Oregon which should help but my I was always under the impression that once it hit the copper here it would always be speed limited.

Just wire up some of the nearby igloos and get a T1. :P

I may have to try that...but right now I'm still working on getting mobile broadband for my dogsled.

[Fritz]

Yup, that Dave Rayner, he sure did have some troubles in KC.

[Merlin]

That is the whole point. How you can you look at one game and make any sort of determination.

Lazy: Exactly. therefore what you think is true isn't. If i look at general stats that tells me very little. What don't you comprehend.

It is very easy to understand. In baseball we have 300 hitters that hit 200 in the clutch. Yet, your argument would be he is a good hitter.

Made up: Dude i made nothing up. You are an imbecile.

Rayner: he wasn't a good kicker for us. He wasn't for KC.

Once again, your true IQ shines through. The one game argument was yours and yours alone. Never once did I use a one game comparison. But for whatever reason you keep hammering away at it.

The statement about being lazy it that my point didn't require microscopic analysis because it wasn't based on one game, it was based on the season so far.

So now there are two made up statements by you.

Rayner wasn't a good kicker for us? And you base that upon? OH, you base it upon the WHOLE season he played for us. His numbers were average, not below so he wasn't a bad kicker but you are too too too stupid to see that. But Crosby, hell he is king of the earth because of your mid season belief. Even if Crosby ends up with the same numbers Rayner dis last year, your opinion won't change.

Why? You can't fix stupid.

[Merlin]

Analysis is wrong? Hmm. Which part? Please illuminate us as to what conclusion i've drawn that is wrong.

Get help: LOL. Physician, heal theyself.

1) You have slammed me for posting the stats as they were when I made the post. Real mature of you.

2) You have hammered away at some mythical one game theory.

3) You have purposely made up shit that just can't be found anywhere in my posts.

4) Your numbers don't add up. Rayner was an average kicker when he was here. You claim he sucked and although you are entitled to that opinion, it isn't fact based.

5) Crosby's numbers aren't anything to write home about and you use them as leverage in what argument?

4) Most of your conclusions in this argument are wrong because they are based upon statements that were never made, inferred or otherwise.

FACT: When Crosby misses a FG in a game, kicks go that way the entire game (right or left). Since when did Crosby only miss a FG in one game?

FACT: He will get better with adjustments in time.

FACT: Rayner at the time of my post did not have "bad" numbers.

FACT: Crosby is doing a hell of a job on kickoffs.

FACT: Anything you have posted in regards to these original points has nothing to do wtih the original points. It's all made up in your head. You actually went out of your way to create a hostile situation by making things up. Oh yeah, and the proverbial name calling because you can't handle reality.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That is the whole point. How you can you look at one game and make any sort of determination.

Lazy: Exactly. therefore what you think is true isn't. If i look at general stats that tells me very little. What don't you comprehend.

It is very easy to understand. In baseball we have 300 hitters that hit 200 in the clutch. Yet, your argument would be he is a good hitter.

Made up: Dude i made nothing up. You are an imbecile.

Rayner: he wasn't a good kicker for us. He wasn't for KC.

Once again, your true IQ shines through. The one game argument was yours and yours alone. Never once did I use a one game comparison. But for whatever reason you keep hammering away at it.

The statement about being lazy it that my point didn't require microscopic analysis because it wasn't based on one game, it was based on the season so far.

So now there are two made up statements by you.

Rayner wasn't a good kicker for us? And you base that upon? OH, you base it upon the WHOLE season he played for us. His numbers were average, not below so he wasn't a bad kicker but you are too too too stupid to see that. But Crosby, hell he is king of the earth because of your mid season belief. Even if Crosby ends up with the same numbers Rayner dis last year, your opinion won't change.

Why? You can't fix stupid.

You are so slow. There was only one game in which me missed multiple kicks. That is the point you idiot. You are claiming the season, but there isn't a season.

Show me the multiple kick games in which he didnt' corret himself. Man, it is blindingly obvious to everyone but you.

Rayner: I based it on looking at his stats from different yardage areas.

Game, Set, Match.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Analysis is wrong? Hmm. Which part? Please illuminate us as to what conclusion i've drawn that is wrong.

Get help: LOL. Physician, heal theyself.

1) You have slammed me for posting the stats as they were when I made the post. Real mature of you.

2) You have hammered away at some mythical one game theory.

3) You have purposely made up shit that just can't be found anywhere in my posts.

4) Your numbers don't add up. Rayner was an average kicker when he was here. You claim he sucked and although you are entitled to that opinion, it isn't fact based.

5) Crosby's numbers aren't anything to write home about and you use them as leverage in what argument?

4) Most of your conclusions in this argument are wrong because they are based upon statements that were never made, inferred or otherwise.

FACT: When Crosby misses a FG in a game, kicks go that way the entire game (right or left). Since when did Crosby only miss a FG in one game?

FACT: He will get better with adjustments in time.

FACT: Rayner at the time of my post did not have "bad" numbers.

FACT: Crosby is doing a hell of a job on kickoffs.

FACT: Anything you have posted in regards to these original points has nothing to do wtih the original points. It's all made up in your head. You actually went out of your way to create a hostile situation by making things up. Oh yeah, and the proverbial name calling because you can't handle reality.

Proof is in the pudding. Rayner cut from packers, rayner cut from kc.

Just like your absurd tt rants, etc. you just can't comprehend what is right in front of your face.