From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Dec 21 10:25:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA20309 for isp-outgoing; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 10:25:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from buffnet4.buffnet.net (root@buffnet4.buffnet.net [205.246.19.13]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id KAA20304 for ; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 10:25:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from buffnet1.buffnet.net (mmdf@buffnet1.buffnet.net [205.246.19.10]) by buffnet4.buffnet.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA27499 for ; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 18:27:34 GMT Received: from buffnet7.buffnet.net by buffnet1.buffnet.net id aa11374; 21 Dec 96 13:35 EST Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 13:34:54 -0500 (EST) From: Stephen Hovey To: Alan Batie cc: fbsdlist@revelstone.jvm.com, freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UUNET vs Netcom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 21 Dec 1996, Alan Batie wrote: > > We left UUNET for sprint. UUNET had much better customer service, but > > with sprint we rarily need any customer service whereas with UUNET we did > > (they dropped alot etc) > > On the other hand, Sprint seems to have a lot of routing problems... I dont agree. Sprint is often blamed for routing problems, but most problems, when tracerouted etc were at MAE points. And places like ftp.cdrom.com no long route thru them etc.