(Excerpts from a message dated 10-02-99, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard to
David Randall)

Hi JdeBP--

 DR> From the FAQ in the email message to ibm.net customers:
 DR>
 DR> Q15. Does AT&T WorldNet(r) Service offer an OS/2 dialer?
 DR> A15. No. The AT&T WorldNet(r) Service does not offer an OS/2 dialer.
 DR>      If you are an OS/2 customer, please click here 
 DR>      http://www.ibm.net/whatsnew/att_choose.html to remain a customer 
 DR>      of AT&T Business Internet Services and to continue to use your 
 DR>      OS/2 dialer. 

JP>In other words, the FAQ was written by a marketdroid with little
  >understanding of the issue to address a question asked by users who
  >*also* don't seem to understand the issue.

    I gather that either you were not a customer of ibm.net, or (as with
other British ibm.net users I know) you were not "offered" the choice
between being shifted to At&T WorldNet or remaining with their renamed
(to AT&T Business Internet Services) equivalent of ibm.net service.  So,
you never saw the original message that included the FAQ David Randall
quoted.  It is obvious that you do not "understand the issue," which is
much more important than whether or not you would still be able to use
DIALER.EXE.  Badly written (from a technical standpoint) as the
above-quoted FAQ may be, it was the most prominent hint in the message I
received from ibm.net that warned me that I would not be happy with the
service level I would receive if I let nature take its course and
allowed myself (as a "consumer" user of ibm.net) to be swept into the
"consumer-oriented" AT&T WorldNet service.  This warning led me to look
further into the differences in service offerings between WorldNet and
the renamed ibm.net from the standpoint of the way that I use the
Internet, and to refuse being switched.

JP>The question is predicated on the incorrect assumption that diallers
  >are linked to ISPs.  They aren't, of course, as anyone who has used
  >the "Dial Other Internet Providers" dialler will know. 
  > Diallers are generic, because protocols such as PPP and CHAP are
  >generic.  But a naive user who has only ever been exposed to the
  >custom dialler that IBM provides for OS/2 specifically for its *own*
  >ISP service could well form the mistaken idea that diallers *are*
  >linked to individual ISPs.

    As you obliquely note, some dialers are so linked.  In particular,
the "native OS/2" dialer, DIALER.EXE, was linked to ibm.net, and is now
linked to the "new" AT&T Business Net.  But there are advantages to
using DIALER.EXE other than the fact that it isn't necessary to supply
it with previously unkown internet addresses.  For example, the last
issued IBM (30 September) worldwide PHONE.LST still gives the dialer the
ability to connect to AT&T Business Internet service, no matter where I
may roam :-).

JP>The answer is predicated on the incorrect assumption that AT&T needs
  >to offer a dialler to replace the custom IBM dialler supplied with
  >OS/2 otherwise OS/2 users cannot access it service.  It doesn't, of
  >course.  All that AT&T needs to supply to any customer using OS/2,
  >business or residential, is the information about protocols,
  >telephone numbers, IP numbers, and hostnames to plug into the "Dial
  >Other Internet Providers" supplied as standard with OS/2.  Indeed,
  >since the information, once entered, is contained in
  >%ETC%\TCPOS2.INI, they could even automate the process of entering
  >the configuration information with a relatively trivial REXX script.
  >But it's easy to see how AT&T could, from being told how OS/2
  >customers connected to IBM's service, mistakenly deduce that it
  >*would* have to supply its own dialler.

    Why bother with "a relatively trivial REXX script" if it isn't
needed to stay with a largely superior service?  By reading between the
lines, and opting to not be transferred to AT&T's WorldNet service, I
connected (automatically) to AT&T's new Business Net with DIALER.EXE on
the morning of 1 October, and my User ID object was automatically
updated to the new addresses.  Of more importance, I get service that is
better suited to the way I use the Internet than I would have gotten if
I had let AT&T push me into their AIHU-oriented WorldNet.

    As far as I have been able to determine, I am now using AT&T
Business Net with all the rights and privileges I had as a long-term
ibm.net user, including being enrolled at the old Basic rate of
$4.95/month (US) for up to 3 hours per month (two cents per 36 seconds
thereafter).  I have found no cheaper rate for my small Internet usage
from any "nationwide" ISP, especially not from WorldNet.  There are
other service differences that are obvious if you look.

    Sometimes it pays to read between the lines of computer
documentation.  (This is hard to do if you have only seen an excerpt!)
What one sees at first glance may not be the important part of the
story.

    Regards,

        --Murray

___
 * MR/2 2.25 #120 * Watching for speed bumps on the Information Highwy

--- Maximus/2 2.02