<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: COVAD vs. AT&amp;T</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mrblog.org/2007/07/22/covad-vs-att/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mrblog.org/2007/07/22/covad-vs-att/</link>
	<description>Mr Blog.  Very technical, or silly, sometimes absurd.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:31:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: MrBlog</title>
		<link>http://mrblog.org/2007/07/22/covad-vs-att/comment-page-1/#comment-711</link>
		<dc:creator>MrBlog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Mar 2008 05:31:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mrblog.televolution.net/?p=325#comment-711</guid>
		<description>Hi Christopher,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was finally able to track down people that could get things going.  It was not until Oct/Nov 2007 that the service was brought online.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It still has a problem with performance being well under the roughly 100Kbit/s I&#039;d expect and what&#039;s even worse is any download over about 50MB fails (which means most software updates fail).  This has been going on for months and I&#039;ve not been able to get anybody to even try to fix it.  I take the same machines (same OS, downloading the same file) to some other connection and they work fine, but not on the COVAD T1.  This happens on both Windows and Macs, making the circuit still unusable in practice, after nearly a year.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Christopher,</p>
<p>I was finally able to track down people that could get things going.  It was not until Oct/Nov 2007 that the service was brought online.</p>
<p>It still has a problem with performance being well under the roughly 100Kbit/s I&#8217;d expect and what&#8217;s even worse is any download over about 50MB fails (which means most software updates fail).  This has been going on for months and I&#8217;ve not been able to get anybody to even try to fix it.  I take the same machines (same OS, downloading the same file) to some other connection and they work fine, but not on the COVAD T1.  This happens on both Windows and Macs, making the circuit still unusable in practice, after nearly a year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christopher Comstock</title>
		<link>http://mrblog.org/2007/07/22/covad-vs-att/comment-page-1/#comment-710</link>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Comstock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:04:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mrblog.televolution.net/?p=325#comment-710</guid>
		<description>I am account rep. for Covad Communications If you email me with your questions I can find out the facts about what happened. ccomstock@covadsales.com
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am account rep. for Covad Communications If you email me with your questions I can find out the facts about what happened. <a href="mailto:ccomstock@covadsales.com">ccomstock@covadsales.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil</title>
		<link>http://mrblog.org/2007/07/22/covad-vs-att/comment-page-1/#comment-709</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2007 00:28:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mrblog.televolution.net/?p=325#comment-709</guid>
		<description>This is what is puzzleing about Covad&#039;s interworking (from management down to the truck roll). You are obviously someone they thought was knowledgeable enough to &quot;invite&quot; to test their new T1 offering and give them an objective feedback. Yet they leave you with no alternative but to report the &quot;negativity&quot; of the disconnect of the entire initial installation. That makes for real good p.r. when trying to promote a new product. Baffle&#039;s the mind.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is what is puzzleing about Covad&#8217;s interworking (from management down to the truck roll). You are obviously someone they thought was knowledgeable enough to &quot;invite&quot; to test their new T1 offering and give them an objective feedback. Yet they leave you with no alternative but to report the &quot;negativity&quot; of the disconnect of the entire initial installation. That makes for real good p.r. when trying to promote a new product. Baffle&#8217;s the mind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Melody</title>
		<link>http://mrblog.org/2007/07/22/covad-vs-att/comment-page-1/#comment-708</link>
		<dc:creator>Melody</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:21:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mrblog.televolution.net/?p=325#comment-708</guid>
		<description>Interesting that you partly blame it on ATT. I would say if you are getting your service from COVAD it is there responsibility, not yours, regardless of who is supplying the backbone.  Not sure if COVAD handles business any differently.  ANYONE HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH COVAD T1 FOR BUSINESS?&lt;br /&gt;
thanks,
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting that you partly blame it on ATT. I would say if you are getting your service from COVAD it is there responsibility, not yours, regardless of who is supplying the backbone.  Not sure if COVAD handles business any differently.  ANYONE HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH COVAD T1 FOR BUSINESS?<br />
thanks,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

