<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Re: Why provide a Rolls-Royce when a Chevrolet will do? in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21062470</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:42:58 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:42:58 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Why provide a Rolls-Royce when a Chevrolet will do?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21068354</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/162762"><b>djrobx</b></A> : He's mostly referring to ATM overhead, not PPPoE overhead.   Typical ATM+PPPoE DSL circuits have an overhead that is quite close to 85%.   He got his facts a little wrong but he's hardly smoking crack. :) <br><br>-- Rob<br><small>--<br><b>AT&T U-Hearse</b><br>Your funeral. Delivered.<br></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21068354</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:58:41 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Why provide a Rolls-Royce when a Chevrolet will do?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21067370</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1407044"><b>cornelius785</b></A> : put down the crack pipe dude.  the overhead is less than a percent (1492/1500*100=0.5333...).  nowhere near 85%.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21067370</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2008 09:40:33 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Why provide a Rolls-Royce when a Chevrolet will do?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21066964</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/377729"><b>dvd536</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  en102 <A HREF="/useremail/u/297537"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>   <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>Qwest is on "the other side of municipally backed telecom projects" mostly because "of the long-term harm to consumers." Back in 2003, Fenn asked the question: "Why provide a Rolls-Royce when a Chevrolet will do?"<hr></blockquote><br><br>Because Qwest is charging Rolls-Royce pricing for their Chevrolet.  I don't think the average user cares that its 50Mbps vs 12Mbps... they will care if they are being charged more for their 12Mbps after bundling than others pay for 50Mbps.<br><br>Lets see...<br>$39.95 for symmetrical 50Mbps service <br>or<br>$42.95 for 12Mbps/896kbps AFTER having to pay for voice service, bringing it past $60<br><br> </div>Don't forget the 15% PPPoE penalty you'll pay with that tired old protocol so that shiny new 12000/896 is really 10200/762 and thats assuming PERFECT SERVICE which we all know doesn't exist on qworst[qwest].<br><small>--<br>When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21066964</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2008 06:02:33 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Why provide a Rolls-Royce when a Chevrolet will do?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21062470</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1458955"><b>S_engineer</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Halo5 <A HREF="/useremail/u/173966"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>This is pretty much the mind set of most American businesses now days it seems.<br><br>"How can we provide as little as possible and charge as much as possible"?<br> </div>This is the trickle down theory....since most Telco/cablecos are doing it, theres no incentive to give the consumer anything else. This status quo also preserves future rate increases.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21062470</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:53:45 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Why provide a Rolls-Royce when a Chevrolet will do?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21062393</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/173966"><b>Halo5</b></A> : This is pretty much the mind set of most American businesses now days it seems.<br><br>"How can we provide as little as possible and charge as much as possible"?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21062393</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:40:53 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Why provide a Rolls-Royce when a Chevrolet will do?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21062208</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/297537"><b>en102</b></A> :   <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>Qwest is on "the other side of municipally backed telecom projects" mostly because "of the long-term harm to consumers." Back in 2003, Fenn asked the question: "Why provide a Rolls-Royce when a Chevrolet will do?"<hr></blockquote><br><br>Because Qwest is charging Rolls-Royce pricing for their Chevrolet.  I don't think the average user cares that its 50Mbps vs 12Mbps... they will care if they are being charged more for their 12Mbps after bundling than others pay for 50Mbps.<br><br>Lets see...<br>$39.95 for symmetrical 50Mbps service <br>or<br>$42.95 for 12Mbps/896kbps AFTER having to pay for voice service, bringing it past $60<br><br><small>--<br>Canada = Hollywood North</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21062208</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:08:13 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
