Review by bmccoy
Good "Decent technical support"
- Location: Port Orchard,Kitsap,WA
- Cost: $98 per month (24 month contract)
- Install: about 14 days
Bad "Slow, unreliable, overpriced, false advertising, neglected network, low (and sneaky) caps"
Overall "VERY slow speeds, and outrageous prices. If you are lucky enough to have a different option, go with it."
|Pre Sales information:|
Value for money:
(ratings below consensus)
I have Centurylink DSL (formerly Qwest) and unlimited nationwide calling, and it costs (after taxes) exactly $98.06 a month. The main problem I have with them is that only 1.5Mbps is available where I live, because they don't want to bother upgrading any of their 90's-era equipment installed by US West and/or install a remote DSLAM. When I got this service many years ago, I was promised that they would be upgrading their equipment to get faster speeds that summer. It's been over 7 years now, and they haven't changed a thing.
UPDATE: Still no upgrades planned, according to Doug Morgan from TalkToUs@CenturyLink.com, so I will be switching to 55Mbps Wave Broadband for faster speeds and TV, while paying the same amount of money. (120.00-month for phone, internet, and basic HDTV)
After complaining to Centurylink for my internet repeatedly dropping out every 10 minutes a few months ago (fixed now), he tried to upsell me DirecTV.
I switched to cable internet, and it's much better. Phone quality is better, internet is around 13 times faster, with less taxes and hidden fees.
Centurylink wanted to make it as hard as possible to cancel, so we had to sit on the phone for 40 minutes with them (35 minutes on hold). I was DONE with them as soon as they raised their rates, AGAIN, adding another fee, called "Universal Service Fund", which is supposedly to "improve their infrastructure", while I haven't seen them doing anything but getting worse. It's another hidden fee allowed by the FCC for corporations to make more profit. I'm glad I got rid of them.
Speed test (hey, an F+ is better than an F!):
member for 1.4 years, 387 visits, last login: a few hours ago
updated 29 days ago
| |linicxCaveat EmptorPremiumReviews:
Location Location is everything. If you truly want screaming fast Internet and you are willing to pay for it then move to NYC, Chicago, or LA where you can find 100Mbps or faster- if you are in the right neighborhood. LV will get you 45Mbps if you are in the right location. It should be pretty fast in the alpha cities of SF and Denver - if you are in the right location.
Trying to define rural America is much like trying to herd cats. It's different for everyone. I am rural. I am 160 miles from a large city (million or over population). I've lived in this environment in three states. Areas with less than 500000 don't gain traction with second tier telephone and cable companies. Generally you don't find AT&T or Comcast unless there is a college with 20,000+ students, or there is a large medical/research district and large corporations like State Farm or CAT. Location and volume density is where IT'S at.
FIOS, DSL, 2.5 all have limitations. The screaming fast satellite? The most expensive plan is equal to about 5Mbps in the right location. What they don't tell you is the 4 they promote is over 2.5 and it still has to travel 22,000 miles unless there is a physical building on earth. There is one in the U.S. for Direct TV customers.
Most rural is delivered over copper. The DSL limit over copper is about 7-8/1 because of overhead and the Last Mile. After you pass the mile, speed slows. The farther out, the slower the speed. It is a fact of life; ask any EE. No telco is going to bring FTTH or FTTN to a town of 2000 - even when it is in the local office. It is doubtful that bonded DSL will happen. If you have a reliable phone and steady Internet be happy. If you don't, the phone company can fix it providing your inside wiring is good, there is no problem from the source to your house, and your equipment plays nice with the telco equipment. More often than not it doesn't. Frequent interruptions and rebooting is a red flag. I replaced 5 routers before I found one that worked.
How does telco explain to you your new D-Link router isn't working properly when you know it is? My engineer friend sent me a couple of routers that worked perfectly in Dallas on AT&T and TW. Both were useless on CL where I live in the middle of nowhere. CL 7/1 is faster than AT&T in the three counties that surround me. Comcast is not any faster. It is rural and they all have the same problems with copper and towns that are 10 to 20 miles apart. The fastest business where I live is 15/5 from cable an it is about $175 with tax. I pay $100 less for 7/1 and 5 year lock. It is a major improvement over 4/1. It is steady an the phone is 98% reliable all the time.
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside
said by ArizonaSteve:
BMcCoy, you are going to have even worse problems with cable! They will keep raising the rates every year or maybe every 6 months and will keep doing it even if they can't provide service, until you get disgusted and cancel.
said by ArizonaSteve:So the first quote you make an obviously "blanket statement" as you call it. Then in the second quote you call someone else out for doing as you do. What gives Steve?
Online again, you can't make blanket statements like that. Here in AZ cable is terrible but C/L is reasonably priced and works great after they installed fiber near me so it depends on your location.
Re: Location Cable companies are known for consistent price hikes, even with diminished service (Cox is the main provider in Phoenix metro, and they're terrible for that)
Qwest/US West put FTTN pretty much everywhere here, so CenturyLink's network here is way better than anything Cox could offer a majority of the time.
Although, i've had Insight (best cable co i've ever had), Time Warner, WOW!, Comcast, and Cox and have had the cable internet issues that he's describing on pretty much all of them (except Insight - RIP), and even if you happen to look at cable internet reviews it says pretty much the same thing.