Talk Talk and Usenet

In an earlier thread there were questions raised about whether Talk Talk had
a Usenet. This is from them:

Thank you for your email.
I am sorry for the delay in replying.
I can confirm that unfortunately we do not have a news server.
I apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.

Regards

TalkTalk
Correspondence Department

--
Keith Willcocks
(If you can't laugh at life, it ain't worth living!)

On 20 Apr 2006, "Keith Willcocks" wrote:

>I can confirm that unfortunately we do not have a news server.
>I apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.

Probably more important is whether they actually *block* or slow the
traffic from any external news servers. Not having their own is not
all that uncommon. Eclipse didn't have one some years ago, and now,
on their cheaper accounts, don't provide access to whatever services
they "buy in", and there's a difference between not having one which
is merely inconvenient - for text only, news.individual.net is often
recommended - I use Clara news + mail at 9.99/year - but for binary,
Giganews, etc, etc, etc from a once-only fee of $3.95 to TeraNews (a
limit of 50 MB a day) to $6 a month for usenet-access.com (up to 2GB
a day) - and *blocking /disrupting /slowing the service* bought from
some external news provider. Peter M.

Thus spaketh poster:
> On 20 Apr 2006, "Keith Willcocks" wrote:
>
>> I can confirm that unfortunately we do not have a news server.
>> I apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.
>
> Probably more important is whether they actually *block* or slow the
> traffic from any external news servers. Not having their own is not
> all that uncommon. Eclipse didn't have one some years ago, and now,
> on their cheaper accounts, don't provide access to whatever services
> they "buy in", and there's a difference between not having one which
> is merely inconvenient - for text only, news.individual.net is often
> recommended - I use Clara news + mail at 9.99/year - but for binary,
> Giganews, etc, etc, etc from a once-only fee of $3.95 to TeraNews (a
> limit of 50 MB a day) to $6 a month for usenet-access.com (up to 2GB
> a day) - and *blocking /disrupting /slowing the service* bought from
> some external news provider. Peter M.


When I was with TalkTalk the end of December 2004 through to beginning of
March 2005, they had a news server then, but it was unreliable, so used to
use individual.net

"Keith Willcocks" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In an earlier thread there were questions raised about whether Talk Talk
had
> a Usenet. This is from them:

There are loads of free newservers you can use, most of them
are chock a block with porn, but you can just turn a blind eye to it..

>
> Thank you for your email.
> I am sorry for the delay in replying.
> I can confirm that unfortunately we do not have a news server.
> I apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.
>
> Regards
>
> TalkTalk
> Correspondence Department
>
> --
> Keith Willcocks
> (If you can't laugh at life, it ain't worth living!)
>
>

> In an earlier thread there were questions raised about whether Talk
> Talk had
> a Usenet. This is from them:
>
> Thank you for your email.
> I am sorry for the delay in replying.
> I can confirm that unfortunately we do not have a news server.
> I apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.
>

speaks volumes about the level of service you get...

they do offer a usenet service (I'm using it now, but not for much
longer !!!) but it's not very reliable and very slow considering it's
text only groups

"Keith Willcocks" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In an earlier thread there were questions raised about whether Talk Talk
> had
> a Usenet. This is from them:
>
> Thank you for your email.
> I am sorry for the delay in replying.
> I can confirm that unfortunately we do not have a news server.
> I apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.
>
> Regards
>
> TalkTalk
> Correspondence Department
>
> --
> Keith Willcocks
> (If you can't laugh at life, it ain't worth living!)


Thanks for the reply Keith, it's good when ISPs are upfront and honest about
their service.

However, you could have done me a favour before I signed up and told me the
rest of your service is fucking gash?

Best regards,

Graham

On 23 Apr 2006, "Graham Moore" wrote:


>> Regards
>>
>> TalkTalk
>> Correspondence Department
>>
>> --
>> Keith Willcocks
>> (If you can't laugh at life, it ain't worth living!)

>Thanks for the reply Keith, it's good when ISPs are upfront and honest about
>their service.

>However, you could have done me a favour before I signed up and told me the
>rest of your service is fucking gash?


I think you're shooting the messenger for delivering TalkTalk's message...
Go back and read the few lines I quoted... then give an apology to Keith...
(It will cost you as much as the comment above, a few moments at keyboard!)

Oh, and for what it's worth, did you do two minutes of "research" before you
signed up ? What posts did you put in this newsgroup for views on TT, and
what websites did you check for positive or negative comments ? Peter.

"poster" <us-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 23 Apr 2006, "Graham Moore" wrote:
>
>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> TalkTalk
>>> Correspondence Department
>>>
>>> --
>>> Keith Willcocks
>>> (If you can't laugh at life, it ain't worth living!)
>
>>Thanks for the reply Keith, it's good when ISPs are upfront and honest
>>about
>>their service.
>
>>However, you could have done me a favour before I signed up and told me
>>the
>>rest of your service is fucking gash?
>
>
> I think you're shooting the messenger for delivering TalkTalk's message...
> Go back and read the few lines I quoted... then give an apology to
> Keith...
> (It will cost you as much as the comment above, a few moments at
> keyboard!)
>
> Oh, and for what it's worth, did you do two minutes of "research" before
> you
> signed up ? What posts did you put in this newsgroup for views on TT, and
> what websites did you check for positive or negative comments ? Peter.

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your reply, and after much consideration, I'd like to ask what
the circumstances that led to me being lumbered with this so-called ISP has
got to do with you?

I also use Claranews and am very happy. So the lines which you actually
pasted are completely irrelevant to me.

Sheesh.

So, I'd like to ask for an apology from you, for the few moments it takes,
for making assumptions for the circumstances that I find myself in. It
won't take you long apparently, just a few moments at the keyboard(!).

Best regards,

Graham

>> In an earlier thread there were questions raised about whether Talk Talk
>> had
>> a Usenet. This is from them:
>>
>> Thank you for your email.
>> I am sorry for the delay in replying.
>> I can confirm that unfortunately we do not have a news server.
>> I apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> TalkTalk
>> Correspondence Department
>>
>> --
>> Keith Willcocks
>> (If you can't laugh at life, it ain't worth living!)
>
>
> Thanks for the reply Keith, it's good when ISPs are upfront and honest
> about their service.
>
> However, you could have done me a favour before I signed up and told me
> the rest of your service is fucking gash?

Why do you appear to be having a go at the OP, when it's obvious that he was
reporting on his correspondence with Talk Talk, rather than representing
himself as an employee of Talk Talk?

On 24 Apr 2006, "Trent SC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Why do you appear to be having a go at the OP, when it's obvious that he was
>reporting on his correspondence with Talk Talk, rather than representing
>himself as an employee of Talk Talk?

Ah, you spotted that too :-) Clearly the level of "obvious" has to be
much higher for Graham to be able to notice it. Wonder if he will allow
a second observation to get past his "ignore what's written" filter! PM.