http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21400560 en Tue, 01 Dec 2009 04:45:27 EDT Tue, 01 Dec 2009 04:45:27 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21400560 iansltx : Here, Qwest seems aggressive about DSL retention ofers to keep people from defecting to cable, which flat out has better speeds. Basically anywhere where cable and Qwest compete (and cable isn't hopelessly overloaded) you're going to get new cable customers. End of story.

If Verizon had DSL here, or basically any DSL provider with FastPath and 6/768 (actual, not rated) or higher speeds with no caps, I'd be using them. They'd be cheaper. But AT&T DSL maxes out at 6/512, UVerse required TV (do not want), Qwest's speeds are anemic and have interleave...you get the picture. I also don't need\want a landline, so if that's required to get DSL, then count me out.

End result: people go for the superior\cheaper\both product. On voice, cable is a tad cheaper than telco. On internet, in most cases cable is faster than telco, and triple play makes it cheaper. On TV, in most markets you have to use DBS if you're on a telco.

If there was FTTH here, I'd be using it. If there was decent, FastPath, low-cost dry-line DSL here, I would use that. As it stands, neither of these are the case, so I use 8/2 cable. I tried Qwest DSL for one day and decided to return everything the next. Sorry folks, make your product better.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21400560 Sun, 09 Nov 2008 14:12:32 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21399808 BinaryXtreme : DSL "I must break you", Cable "Go for it"!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21399808 Sun, 09 Nov 2008 11:03:12 EDT