lev
Napoleon is always right
Premium,Ex-mod 2002-08
join:2001-05-30
Chicago, IL
clubs: 
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Price/performance ratio too high
DSL for years cost less than cable, offering a better value ratio for many consumers and prosumers.
Not the case these days. In my area, Comcast offers price competitive cable now, and static IP service with better speeds.
AT&T needs to drop the DSL pricing if they want to keep the marketshare. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| I agree.
Neither are 'cheap', however, cable has become fairly competitive (at least here in SoCal) for the basic price.
Eg. (1 year)
TWC: 'All the Best': $89.99
- 6Mbps/512kbps
- Digital 'Choice' and Analog TV (as many TV's as you can attach)
- Unlimited VoIP
AT&T: 30/30/30 (only where VoIP exists) - 1 year
- U100 (1 TV)
- Uverse VoIP
- 3Mbps/1Mbps
The problem with AT&T is.. they STILL don't have VoIP service available, adding another $25-$30 to the overall price.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
hihi
join:2007-05-06
Port Orange, FL
| Cable speed is superior
Even thought I use DSL, I believe cable has a lot more potential
In the future DSL is obsolute
Now it's just an an alternative to dialup
Not an alternative to cable
it really is slow compared to most cable speed
sorry about the vent yea uverse is already dead in the water
it was failed to being and will fail in the future
it is a no brainer to avoid it and go cable
most PPL have cable and dsl service |
|
60529262
join:2007-01-11
Chicago, IL | reply to lev
Way to be a Comcast whore there, lev. Still pouting about not getting U-Verse, eh? |
|
60529262
join:2007-01-11
Chicago, IL | reply to hihi
Most of Comcast's footprint barely sees six megs, not the headline-grabbing speeds a small minority of markets with competition (see: FiOS) gets. Hardly competitive at over fifty bux a month. |
|
lev
Napoleon is always right
Premium,Ex-mod 2002-08
join:2001-05-30
Chicago, IL
clubs:
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | reply to 60529262
said by 60529262  :Way to be a Comcast whore there, lev. Still pouting about not getting U-Verse, eh? 1. I don't have Comcast. Still an AT&T Customer at present.
2. UVerse service STILL doesn't support static IPs.
3. I'm at the fringe for service for AT&T DSL, and have an 1984/512 sync, which is far below what the comparable money would get for a Comcast static package.
4. Traditional DSL 's recent price increases were a bad idea, and contributed to AT&T's high customer churn.
I'm telling AT&T to get off their butts on deploying static IPs on Uverse, as well as deploying Uverse itself, and reverse its price increases.
How that translates to being a whore, I'd love to hear.  |
|
