On Fri, 26 Dec 2008, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Frank Bulk - iName.com
wrote:
I don't think there would be a concern about off-shore support if we
couldn't tell it was "off-shore".
You can't tell most of the time.
The point that is relevant operationally is t
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Frank Bulk - iName.com
wrote:
> I don't think there would be a concern about off-shore support if we
> couldn't tell it was "off-shore".
You can't tell most of the time.
The point that is relevant operationally is that off shoring can be a solid
method to help s
I don't think there would be a concern about off-shore support if we
couldn't tell it was "off-shore". That term has all derogatory bias of
describing of persons with foreign accents who are difficult to understand
and provide support for consumer-oriented products but have the most
rudimentary kn
Martin Hannigan wrote:
Hi Jay:
Is there really anything wrong with sending first-level technical
support offshore?
Macs are macs, Windows is windows and mail is mail whether you're in
Mumbai or Memphis. As long as the language skills are good and the
people are well trained, it should be m
> Macs are macs, Windows is windows and mail is mail whether you're in Mumbai
> or Memphis. As long as the language skills are good and the people are well
> trained, it should be mostly irrelevant, IMHO.
The problem, IMO is that the sort of organization that wants to reduce labor
costs from $11/h
On Thu Dec 25, 2008 at 04:54:37PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> As long as the language skills are good [...]
Because, generally, this is not the case.
Oh, and when there's 3 fibre cuts between you and India, and your voice gets
shrunk to a 9kbps VoIP channel, it's doubly bad.
Simon
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> Matthew Black wrote:
>
>> I've had difficulties reaching anyone with a brain
>> at my DSL provider Verizon California.
>>
>
> Switch to a local ISP with local tech support.
Hi Jay:
Is there really anything wrong with sending first-level
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 1:33 AM, James Hess wrote:
> RFC1918 addresses should also never be found
> in mail headers of any messages being exchanged over the internet..
> RFC1918 says on page 4:
James,
If you want to be dogmatic about it, the must and must nots in
RFC2821, 3.8.2 supersede the "s
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Matthew Black wrote:
> Going through COVAD's interactive DSL chooser,
> there are no options for RESIDENTIAL service.
So choose "business". In the world of mass-market ISPs,
"residential" means "end-user without clue who cares only about price,
not service". Y
Matthew Black wrote:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:10:33 -0800
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
Matthew Black wrote:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 09:51:41 -0800
"Tomas L. Byrnes" wrote:
Cox Communications has fully on-shore support. Here in SD they are
actually LOCAL.
In Verizon land, residential customers do no
Maybe I'm showing my newb-ness here
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 10:33 PM, James Hess wrote:
[snip]
>
> RFC1918 addresses should also never be found in mail headers of any
> messages being exchanged over the internet.. For the very reason that it
> creates this confusion. Another case of many imp
I believe they are using SBC and Verizon's dslams and just have an ATM
cloud that touches their routers. Still, I see better throughput
from them than I did from SBC. When I had my own RLAN (private DSL
network on SBC dslams) I actually got great bandwidth.
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 10:36 AM,
12 matches
Mail list logo
