Re: I agree in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r16300552 en Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:33:02 EDT Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:33:02 EDT Re: I agree http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16300552 batterup :
said by attsbcisgay See Profile :

said by batterup See Profile :

said by pabster See Profile :


The telcos really don't have a choice here. Verizon decided to bite the bullet and cost with FiOS, and it's turned out well.
Actually FIOS is not doing that well. In areas that FIOS has been available for one year only 17% have signed up. Broadband is not that big a deal to most people. Hard to believe isn't it. The people are going to lose their internet to big money, big money always wins.
to you not a big deal... hmm ever thought about going back to dialup cause broadband isn't so useful to ya???
:uhh:
Put on your glasses and read my post again. 83% of the people that had the ability to get FIOS for over a year did not do so. I can't get FIOS. If you only live in your small world of Broadband Reports you will not get the big picture. To run a business and be able to pay dividends to widows and orphans Verizon has to see the big picture.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16300552 Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:55:16 EDT Re: I agree http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16300496 attsbcisgay :
said by batterup See Profile :

said by pabster See Profile :


The telcos really don't have a choice here. Verizon decided to bite the bullet and cost with FiOS, and it's turned out well.
Actually FIOS is not doing that well. In areas that FIOS has been available for one year only 17% have signed up. Broadband is not that big a deal to most people. Hard to believe isn't it. The people are going to lose their internet to big money, big money always wins.
to you not a big deal... hmm ever thought about going back to dialup cause broadband isn't so useful to ya???
:uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16300496 Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:44:44 EDT Re: I agree http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16300155 GhostDoggy : Its more of a Project Limpspeed, where AT&T will continue to limp along.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16300155 Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:46:33 EDT Re: I agree http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16298570 batterup :
said by pabster See Profile :


The telcos really don't have a choice here. Verizon decided to bite the bullet and cost with FiOS, and it's turned out well.
Actually FIOS is not doing that well. In areas that FIOS has been available for one year only 17% have signed up. Broadband is not that big a deal to most people. Hard to believe isn't it. The people are going to lose their internet to big money, big money always wins.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16298570 Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:54:06 EDT Re: I agree http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16297747 cwh :
said by dvd536 See Profile :

said by pabster See Profile :

Well, the truth hurts, doesn't it?

Cable blows away AT&T (and other DSL competitiors') offerings. Here I get 10Mbps service for less than I could get 6Mbps DSL (IF I could get it.)

Project Lightspeed IS a joke. AT&T opining that 6Mbps is sufficient for the services of the future shows just how fucking clueless these executives really are.
And no PPPoE with cable.
No PPPoE on lightspeed either.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16297747 Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:30:47 EDT Re: I agree http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16297186 dvd536 :
said by pabster See Profile :

Well, the truth hurts, doesn't it?

Cable blows away AT&T (and other DSL competitiors') offerings. Here I get 10Mbps service for less than I could get 6Mbps DSL (IF I could get it.)

Project Lightspeed IS a joke. AT&T opining that 6Mbps is sufficient for the services of the future shows just how fucking clueless these executives really are.
And no PPPoE with cable.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16297186 Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:05:49 EDT Re: I agree http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16297125 cwh :
said by rachelsfx See Profile :

Well, a beta tester is going to get all that pretty cheap for free advertising and word of mouth.

It is funny the Death Star can't relay cartons right, has no HD, and, sure, customer support is going to be good with a handful of users. Like you stated, bandwidth problems already because too much compression.

FIOS customers report how many problems? Almost none.
Well as soon fios is available here.

Until then, I am quite quite glad there are more options available to consumers. My guess is you will enjoy the competition as well, even if you deem it inferior to cirrent options.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16297125 Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:57:16 EDT Re: I agree http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16297076 rachelsfx : Well, a beta tester is going to get all that pretty cheap for free advertising and word of mouth.

It is funny the Death Star can't relay cartons right, has no HD, and, sure, customer support is going to be good with a handful of users. Like you stated, bandwidth problems already because too much compression.

FIOS customers report how many problems? Almost none.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16297076 Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:49:46 EDT Re: I agree http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16297054 pabster : I disagree, again. I'll venture to guess in almost every market cable offers higher maximum speeds than DSL. When was the last time you saw 10Mbps+ DSL? (Note that in many areas cable is at 15Mbps+ now to compete with FiOS.) DSL is often stuck at 3Mbps or less. Only a select few are at the 5-6 range.

The fact is AT&T are a bunch of corporate stooges living in the past. The fact that they believe 6Mbps is 'sufficient' for next-generation offerings is but a mere example.

The telcos really don't have a choice here. Verizon decided to bite the bullet and cost with FiOS, and it's turned out well. AT&T's "Project Lightspeed" is a far, far less ambitious effort. If they really cap off the 'net at 6Mbps and use the rest for video and what-not, it's gonna flop.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16297054 Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:46:28 EDT Re: I agree http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16296101 TheGhost :
said by pabster See Profile :

Well, the truth hurts, doesn't it?

Cable blows away AT&T (and other DSL competitiors') offerings. Here I get 10Mbps service for less than I could get 6Mbps DSL (IF I could get it.)

Project Lightspeed IS a joke. AT&T opining that 6Mbps is sufficient for the services of the future shows just how fucking clueless these executives really are.
Again, it depends on your area. Here I pay more per month for cable and have less upload speed. Here 6MB/384K cable is $43 w/TV and $60 w/o TV while 6MB/768K at&t ADSL is $28 plus phone line for first year, $40 after, or whatever latest 1yr contract is at.

We already have a land line and are looking at Satellite, so DSL would be cheaper for a better upload speed. Better upload is another part of the reason we will be switching (corporate file transfer - I don't do P2P). Download is most likely only going to be around 5+MB due to overhead, but still close.

Cable does not "blow away" DSL in many areas, and for some folks the cheaper prices are preferred to the higher potential speeds (for download, upload is less).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16296101 Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:54:23 EDT Re: I agree http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16295884 cwh :
said by fiberguy See Profile :

How have you had it for two months now? You a beta tester? I thought it was just recently released.

Also, when people say that "it does quite a few things better than cable", you often get more creidt when you explain that. In other words, you post is like a menu with good pictures on it,.. make you desire the food but doesn't satify the appetite until the food arrives...

So let's hear about the things that make light speed good.
I have had the service about a month now, not two. I live in one of the trial neighborhoods in san antonio.

Things I like.

1. Instant channel changing.
2. PIP when browsing channels.
3. PIP on favorites list.
4. 3 settop dvr boxes as part of the package.
5. Settop UI is huge improvemnt over current cable offerings.
6. So far the customer support has been good.
7. My broadband connection is fast and not suffering packetloss. Road runner apparently is suffering in this area.
8. Options for usable bandwidth tiers. 1.5/1 is the lowest tier. RRlite is 384/384.
9. Residentual gateway with built in firewall w/statefull packet inspection. My rt314 got retired after 6 years of service after the RG got plugged in.
10. The install technicians did the interal wiring changes right. Everything is properly mounted and bundled up nicely.

Things I have had problems with.

1. Some of the kids cartoons display compression artifacts at times. Should be easily fixed by adjusting the compression paremeters. A stream of these cartoons could not take up much space to begin with.

2. No dual tuner on the current settop boxes. No HD. New settop boxes will be available in a few months to replace these. For now, not a big deal.

3. Occasional dropping of packets causing frame errors. It is not frequent enough to be a problem and it happened on digital cable as well. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16295884 Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:22:49 EDT Re: I agree http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16295635 fiberguy :
said by cwh See Profile :

said by rachelsfx See Profile :

Project Lightspeed is a JOKE! Even Luke Skywalker agrees.

FIOS isn't going to stay that cheap for long with $100 billion on the line.

Cell and VOIP is killing off the RBOCs.

I'm all for FULL net neutrality. Anything else is ridiculous.

Rachel
You might want to hold off on calling Lightspeed a joke. If it becomes available as rapidly as ATT claims, I dont think the cable companies will be laughing at all. I have had the service for about a month now and it is quite competitive package to local cable offerings. It does quite a few things better than cable.
How have you had it for two months now? You a beta tester? I thought it was just recently released.

Also, when people say that "it does quite a few things better than cable", you often get more creidt when you explain that. In other words, you post is like a menu with good pictures on it,.. make you desire the food but doesn't satify the appetite until the food arrives...

So let's hear about the things that make light speed good.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16295635 Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:41:48 EDT Re: I agree http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16295427 pabster : Well, the truth hurts, doesn't it?

Cable blows away AT&T (and other DSL competitiors') offerings. Here I get 10Mbps service for less than I could get 6Mbps DSL (IF I could get it.)

Project Lightspeed IS a joke. AT&T opining that 6Mbps is sufficient for the services of the future shows just how fucking clueless these executives really are.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16295427 Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:04:49 EDT Re: I agree http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16295142 Topmounter : "Net Neutrality" is nothing more than pointless competition stifling, government regulation.

Let the telco's dig their own hole with their "two tiered Internet" bologna in a truly competitive market.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16295142 Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:17:29 EDT Re: I agree http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16295015 Ahrenl : Ummm, net-neutrality is the abscence of a paid for fast and slow lane. You've got it backwards.

Presently there is no net-neutrality and the service providers can "try" to charge whatever they want to content providers they don't serve.

If there were competition in the industry that strategy would put them right out of business.. but since there isn't, we need a law.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16295015 Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:55:37 EDT Re: I agree http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16294868 cwh :
said by rachelsfx See Profile :

Project Lightspeed is a JOKE! Even Luke Skywalker agrees.

FIOS isn't going to stay that cheap for long with $100 billion on the line.

Cell and VOIP is killing off the RBOCs.

I'm all for FULL net neutrality. Anything else is ridiculous.

Rachel
You might want to hold off on calling Lightspeed a joke. If it becomes available as rapidly as ATT claims, I dont think the cable companies will be laughing at all. I have had the service for about a month now and it is quite competitive package to local cable offerings. It does quite a few things better than cable.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16294868 Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:33:17 EDT Re: I agree http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16294637 anon : Don't confuse the two issues... you can't make net-neutrality a universal service fund mandate upon telcos. On the other hand, you can't allow telcos to shake-down would-be content resellers for the broadband interconnect (peering). If content providers share costs of interconnect- that is acceptable, however if these arrangement can't be made amicably, well you have issues of fairness arise where a content provider could be shut out of a network (or not be allowed enough bandwidth to run their business), and customers lose faith in the isp as well (affecting both pricing and marketshare, ie 100 megabits to nowhere fast) so it really would be a lose-lose situation.
Content provider NEED to build/rent/lease their own fiber farms to reasonable interconnect as bandwidth transmission still costs "REAL MONEY" and there are NO ARPA-NET national science foundation superfunds supporting the infrastructure anymore, only the framework upon which it was handed over to isps.

If there were billions in investment and we say went through a fiber buildout boom and bust, these facilities could be scooped up for pennies on the dollar out of bankrupcy (hint-hint, cough cough, emm see eye) then there would be plenty of resources to 'go round' as the fibers can do a much better job than your dad's fiber network of 15 years ago. (40-120 gigabits per fibre channel symmetric).

BTW, telcos seem to own too much of the nation's fiber, and we need NEW 3rd party investment in 2007 ipv6 fiber deployments and signaling. Otherwise we will see sub-adequate bottlenecks on parts of the internet which max out and get oversold for the demand on content.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16294637 Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:55:34 EDT Re: I agree http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16294635 chemaupr : What are you talking about!!! There is no two lanes in the Net Neutrality, is all the same,is what we enjoy today.

You are watching to many telecom commercials and getting confused, it seem that their campaing is working!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16294635 Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:54:31 EDT Re: I agree http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16294516 NowVOIP : Net Neutrality? Ha! And excatly what does net Neutraility get us? A fast lane we have to pay more for? As people in the slow lane suffer, because they can't get anything faster? Net neutrality doesn't solve anything. If anything it creates more problems.
--
The revolution will be televised!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16294516 Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:37:19 EDT I agree http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16294493 rachelsfx : Project Lightspeed is a JOKE! Even Luke Skywalker agrees.

FIOS isn't going to stay that cheap for long with $100 billion on the line.

Cell and VOIP is killing off the RBOCs.

I'm all for FULL net neutrality. Anything else is ridiculous.

Rachel]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16294493 Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:33:57 EDT