dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
23336
share rss forum feed

firedrakes

join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL
Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
reply to NcezNet

Re: CL to start capping

also kept asking for me to get prism. oh wait i can get the tv content from the company that make it. fox,abc, i just using my bw instead of pay them to stream it to me .
band with capping for this company is big bull and to boot i want fiber to the house. i so dam close to the main office and main box(i can read this number on it) that how close i am to it

Poguemahone0

join:2010-05-27
united state
reply to ispepi
It's almost D-Day. Have they released a bandwidth monitor yet?


aym

@embarqhsd.net
Looks like I'll be switching back to Cox once the contract ends. If both sides have bandwidth caps, I might as well go with the side that let me use up the bandwidth faster. I also have more problem and outages with CenturyLink than with Cox. Since I'm a heavy heavy user, I switched to CL. But if CL is going to screw me over too, then I might as well get better service and faster connections.

Poguemahone0

join:2010-05-27
united state
reply to ispepi
Seriously - where's the bandwidth monitor? Why is it on consumers to find ways to monitor usage? I thought the FCC now required companies who wish to impose caps to provide bandwidth monitors.

CentryLnk

join:2012-01-02
Bargersville, IN
reply to ispepi
I would like to see them cap this:

Fibre

join:2011-06-11

1 edit
reply to ispepi
Absolutely criminal. At a constant 40mbit connection, 13 hours of usage only. Been on Cable for years 10/1 for $65, expensive but it was consistent and no damn limits. If "only" less than 0.5% of users surpass the limit, then why cap it at all? Hypocrites.

firedrakes

join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL
i agree. this is bs. if we make a fuss we could get it turn around


questvictim

@qwest.net
reply to ispepi
I can verify,they are running a "pilot" program where they silently drop your sync rate. They dropped mine from 1.5 to 640k/sec without telling me and just kept charging me the same. When I finally called,they told me it was a "pilot program" to improve service,and they removed it. Needless to say Im looking for a new ISP. Thats beyond bad service. Im very angry,my service was pretty much useless for the last month and then I find out,it wasn't a malfunction,it was intentional. I bought a new modem because i thought that was the problem. Im beyond angry.


otsas

@embarqhsd.net
reply to ispepi

Re: CL to start telling the truth

That will never happened, they lie, lie, lie, lie.


laby

@embarqhsd.net
I just ended a two hour conversation with CL. Otsas might just be right. I tried to get anybody (supervisors, incl.) to put something in writing and they refuse; saying they are not authorized to do that. They are playing a shell game and I really feel sorry for the folks who have to work for them. They have played so many games with my service, not to mention the billing problems (which they say is because the SEC changes rules and rates almost daily). I am retired from the legal field and worked with SEC for many years and they do not change anything that quickly.
So, permanent solution is to drop CL and ** change rooms on the Titanic to yet another game player **. What a waste of time and energy this has become. Good luck folks.

MacSto

join:2011-07-26
reply to ispepi

Re: CL to start capping

BRING IT ON

The best thing that can happen is that they cancel my account. it will save me some time.


othehorror

@embarqhsd.net
reply to ispepi
If anyone is concerned about the bandwidth they're using, I suggest installing DD-WRT or some other similar firmware on your home router. DD-WRT keeps a nice chart of the bandwidth you use daily/monthly.

Fibre

join:2011-06-11
reply to MacSto
Darn right, I actually think it's not a bad idea since I'm on the 6 month no term, $36 40m/20m plan.

dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
reply to questvictim
said by questvictim :

I can verify,they are running a "pilot" program where they silently drop your sync rate. They dropped mine from 1.5 to 640k/sec without telling me and just kept charging me the same.

That's unrelated to bandwidth capping or usage. The pilot program you're referring to dropped your speed in response to line conditions- likely your SNR margin dropped below spec for an extended period of time.

hossfly

join:2008-09-16

1 edit
I've reviewed a lot of monthly bandwidth stats, both in production datacenter settings, and my own residential account. (I use vnstat.)

250gig is a lot...A LOT....for a residential customer. The vast majority of you, including most of you who might think otherwise, aren't even getting close.

There's obviously a lot of irritation over this. But a little Econ101 for you.....unlimited and free rarely work in the real world. Overconsumption is a very predictable result.

With that said, I find it very easy to get irritated about dishonest business practices.

Like....overselling.

Like....selling "no cap" when you know you're about to start capping.

Like....hiding the cap in the fine print.

Like....using the Govt. to eliminate competition

It's a shame that "caveat emptor" is the only advice to give.

But bandwidth is a finite resource. If your torrents run 24/7/365 till you fill your drive up, you'll have to change your habits. If you're even what most people consider a "heavy" user, you probably won't.

TheMayor

join:2002-05-09
I went & got a new router & installed DD-WRT, so I could look at my usage based on different senarios. You may think 250 gigs is a lot, but with some of these services offered, it can go by really quick.

For instance, there is Netflix, which can use anywhere from 1 gig to 3 gigs per hour (depending on the quality setting). I can say that the lowest quality looks like c**p. Another thing would be Onlive, which uses 2-3 gigs per hour. My wife & Son like using both of these & on the days they use it, I can easily consume 10-15 gigs for that days. So if they were to decide to have a daily marathon, I would easily hit the cap before the month was over with.

said by hossfly:

I've reviewed a lot of monthly bandwidth stats, both in production datacenter settings, and my own residential account. (I use vnstat.)

250gig is a lot...A LOT....for a residential customer. The vast majority of you, including most of you who might think otherwise, aren't even getting close.



bctrainers

join:2004-08-03
Olathe, KS
Here's my usage thus far via pfSense WAN->LAN and LAN->WAN for one month and three months. My network traffic consists of TV streaming via hulu, netflix, youtube. Music streaming via BBC radio and ah.fm. A lot of web server transfer between my network and my server in Dallas, TX.

I don't come to the cap of 250GB - however if I do pull a backup, I can consume quite a bit in a days worth of time over 10mbps.

One month:



Three months:


--
--bc

hossfly

join:2008-09-16
reply to TheMayor
No doubt heavy video users will have to be diligent too. But I repeat, bandwidth is finite. As most of us know too well, it can be exhausted.

Now don't get me wrong. The providers are not honest in their advertising and sales. But common sense should tell people CL doesn't have unlimited bandwidth to sell, even if that's what they were erroneously selling.

Technology marketing as a whole is laden with falsehoods and spin. The frustrating thing for those of us who are technology professionals is our clients, customers, and users believe marketing spin and are floored when someone has to tell them, "Things don't really work that way."

Unlimited bandwidth - Things don't really work that way. Sorry.

pwtenny

join:2010-10-11
Danbury, NC
quote:
But I repeat, bandwidth is finite.
It's not _that_ finite.

Assuming we're talking about 250 GiB and not that 250,000,000,000 byte (232 GiB) crap, 250 GiB can be consumed with as little as 97.8 KiB per second continuously for 31 straight days. That's 782.4 Kbps, or about half a megabit per second, give or take.

As someone else noted, a good HD stream from Netflix can run upwards of 3mbit/second and they are looking at hitting 5mbit/second. That's 384 KiB/sec or 2 GiB for an hour and a half movie in the first instance.

I think a common mistake people make when defending caps is they think about a single person's usage. My situation may not be any more common than a single person home, but we use quite a bit here. On the weekends, vacation days from school, or sick days when my two nephews are both home, we run between 4.5 and 5.5 GiB per day. And that's with no Netflix.

That's not abuse. It's simply *use*.

If bandwidth is so finite, why do so many ISP's exist without caps? Time Warner doesn't have them, despite failed prior attempts. CTL didn't have them until 11 days ago. Verizon doesn't have them. None of the muni fiber projects in North Carolina have caps. You can get 50/50mbps from GreenLight in Wilson with no cap. Did someone forget to tell them that bandwidth is finite?

How come serving 3mbit DSL requires capping, but serving 10/10mbps, 30/30, or 50/50 doesn't? Because CTL is using caps for the exact same reason other companies do. To avoid having to invest in their infrastructure. To maximize profit and minimize cost.

Fine. Good for them. They have that right. But I also have the right to call BS on "bandwidth is finite" as an excuse for caps. For wireless, yes. For landline, forget about it. My bandwidth to the DSLAM is finite, but dedicated. It's backhauled with fiber that went in the ground over a decade ago, so that's paid for. That DSLAM (and myself) are out in the middle of nowhere. There can't be more than a dozen people using it for DSL. They could serve 10mbit to every person on it if they wanted.

The proof is in the pudding. I know a lot of people have problems with CTL and so have I, but it wasn't bandwidth exhaustion because bandwidth is finite. For most people it's bandwidth exhaustion because CTL bought a lot of rural territory that's backhauled by T1s, not fiber. And that's the lack of investment infrastructure that should have been made by Sprint et al. a decade ago.

My DSL connection doesn't have speed problems. It's just as fast at 9pm on a weeknight as it is at 5am. It didn't magically get faster on February 1st, 2012, when they instituted a download cap on a DSLAM with like 15 people using it. It was already properly provisioned. It didn't need a cap, *because* it was already properly designed and provisioned. That's what doing things the right way does for you.

Meh, anyway. I don't think we'll hit our 250 GiB cap anytime soon, but a huge chunk of that is because I'm now obsessively watching our usage on the Netgear router we got from the FCC. We've gone as high as 166 GiB before so it's not impossible. What I'll end up doing now is waiting until the last week or two of the month to make sure we're safely under our cap, then download constantly for like a week straight to use up whatever is left to get the stuff I'd like to have but don't need, putting the network under much higher strain than if they just left me alone.

I learned that behavior from my Canadian friend who has been doing that for years, because of his cap. He has 30/2mbit cable and does what I just described above. Moderate usage during most of the month and then he hits it as hard as he can for the last week of the month to get what he wants/needs with whatever is left over.

You can't control people like that. It's just not possible. The best thing to do is invest in your infrastructure and then give people what they want and are willing to pay for.

[Note: I just looked at GreenLight's page. They have a 100/100mbit tier now for $149.95 per month. Quick, someone go tell them that bandwidth is finite.]

hossfly

join:2008-09-16
Replacing dated infrastructure (t-1's) has to be paid for.

Of course bandwidth is finite. Everything is. Why are you getting capped with everyone else on CL? I don't think anyone has to give you that answer.

I never said caps were EFFECTIVE. I never said they weren't either. What is effective is not overselling your network. Then peak time saturation isn't an issue. But when you monopolize a market, you can do what the heck you want if you aren't stopped. This is the REAL problem with telcos.

Obviously, they are looking to get fees. They also are looking to put a little pressure on households to put the skids on Little Johnny's torrents....among other things...to help delay the need for upgrades.

You are right. They are going to stall upgrades as long as they possibly can. No business wants to spend money without assurances they're going to have an ROI. And when a business has no competition, it can delay investments for quite some time.

With that said, I wonder how many people who think they're being done wrong here would be willing to pay more for higher caps? How many think they should have "all-you-can-eat" for dirt cheap prices? The modern digital consumer has developed an entitlement attitude that very probably can't be sustained. The content is much heavier than it was just a few years ago, and adjustments have to be made. There is a point where you might have to ask if Grandma, checking her e-mail and visiting ChristianBooks.com needs to pay the same as someone streaming hd movies every night.

Don't get me wrong. I find their approach dishonest. They tuck the cap language away in the fine print. They were still telling people they had no cap to sell them on CL even after they decided to do this. It puts the burden of their oversold infrastructure on the customer.

But I saw this coming 1000 miles away. They are a business, and businesses exist to make money.

pwtenny

join:2010-10-11
Danbury, NC

Replacing dated infrastructure (t-1's) has to be paid for.

It is paid for. It's factored into the monthly bill. If they aren't making enough money to pay for infrastructure upgrades then they should raise prices. I'm sure there are quite a few upset customers on this forum getting 0.23mbps at night who would be willing to pay a higher bill for a few years if it meant getting the service they are paying for, or god forbid, maybe even a little bit better in the form of better speed options.

What is effective is not overselling your network. Then peak time saturation isn't an issue.

You know when peak saturation also isn't an issue? When you upgrade your network to anticipate or keep up with demand. Cable has been doing it for years with DOCSIS and backhaul upgrades, as have DSL hardware vendors with ADSL2, ADSL2+, VDSL, VDSL2, and the new vectoring technology. Even wireless carriers are making a commendable attempt to keep up.

The only people who haven't are landline telcos with their backhaul, and that's the only excuse they have. And what a laughable excuse it is. Even without serving DSL, there shouldn't be any remote terminals of significant size out there that aren't fed by fiber now. That should have been done *before* DSL necessitated it. Sprint ran fiber to my RT like a decade ago just deal with phone traffic. They didn't do it for DSL (because they never did DSL out here).

Telco customers are paying the price for being customers of truly pathetic companies that are still in business because of luck gaming the system with anti-competitive laws. That they didn't run fiber to every RT in their territory a decade ago means the problem of backhaul to DSLAMs today is just a symptom of a company with the ethics of a bum that should have been naturally selected out of existence by now.

I was lucky in a twisted way, that Sprint did run fiber to my RT so long ago, and for the right reason: to keep up with and anticipate demand. Embarq didn't see things that way and it's pretty clear that CenturyLink doesn't either. Is it any surprise that Embarq was a debt riddled mess that was/is hated by its customers while CTL only got as big as it has by buying up failures like Embarq?

Verizon spent a ridiculous amount of money on its network and yet it didn't go bankrupt. It provides vastly superior wireline service that is almost universally loved by its customers, so says one customer survey after another, while teclos are amongst the most hated.

Verizon has no caps because it did what a well managed company does. It understood its business and its market and it moved to anticipate growth. The result is a whole lot of people paying premium prices for service they are thrilled with.

CTL is not a poor company. $7 billion in revenue in 2010, $2.1 billion in operating income, $900 million in net income. Yet we're supposed to believe that they don't have the funds to upgrade their infrastructure? CTL's operating income in 2010 was almost half of what Time Warner's was, yet TW's revenue was almost four times as much. If anything, TW has a better excuse than CTL, yet TW is out there deploying DOCSIS 3. Heck, TW has done more to expand service into unserved areas in my very rural county than CTL has.

Every couple of weeks I see new aerial cable where there wasn't any before, somewhere in this county. The last time CTL explained its expansion plans for the country to the board of commissioners, they were talking under 100 new customers for the entire year.

No reason I've ever seen for caps has held water for wireline businesses. None. And nobody as ever explained why GreenLight can offer 100/100mbps service with no caps, or why Verizon can offer 20/20mbps or whatever their fastest tier is, while CenturyLink can't feed its customers an average of 3mbps without capping.

It goes right back to that finite platitude. Yes, capacity is finite. But usage is not infinite. The answer on a wire is never, ever a cap. It's more investment.

The cable companies are doing it, the telcos are not. The capable companies are raking in four times the revenue and are gaining customers by the hundreds of thousands. The telcos are making less and less money each year and losing customers by the hundreds of thousands.

It's all in the numbers.

This is the REAL problem with telcos.

There is no real problem with telcos, just problems. And this is one of many.

Obviously, they are looking to get fees. They also are looking to put a little pressure on households to put the skids on Little Johnny's torrents

I reject that, as I'm sure do most people. My two nephews (both under 11) who I assure you have no idea what bittorrent is, have been using four times as much bandwidth as I have in the past couple of days. And I am using bittorrent.

Here's my usage for Saturday: 1.1 GiB
Here's theirs: 4.3 GiB

That's two TV shows for me, and 100% legal streaming and usage for them.

Moreover, this site (dslreports) has had story after story on the front page showing that Netflix consumes more bandwidth than torrents do by a pretty fair margin.

If anything, I think it's far more likely that the telcos want to put a dent in that.

among other things...to help delay the need for upgrades.

If they are trying to delay upgrades then they are already a failure. The solution then is to restructure management so that mistakes like this -- falling behind in a core sector of their business -- doesn't happen again. Then they need to go about not just catching up, but getting ahead of the curve. That's just common sense. Demand isn't going to level out or drop, it's only going to increase. The longer they delay the upgrades the *more* it will cost to upgrade and the quicker it'll have to be done.

They won't have any choice. Demand will continue to increase no matter what they do (low-def may be the rule on Hulu, YouTube, and Netflix today, but eventually it'll be more HD than SD and then nothing but HD) and a larger share of the customer base will creep closer and closer to that cap. They can't increase the cap to compensate because the cap is already trying to compensate for a lack of capacity. You can't play that con game twice. It doesn't work that way. They'll either have to let an unacceptable number of people hit the cap while changing nothing, causing those people to leave for a competitor, or finally upgrade their network.

The fact that what I just wrote above is a realization that hasn't compelled the board of CTL to act by now -- and act quickly -- shows what a massive failure that company is.

No business wants to spend money without assurances they're going to have an ROI.

I don't buy that. Nor do I buy that the ROI isn't acceptable for these and other network upgrades. If Duke Power or whoever ran the lines out to where I live had that kind of "how little can I get away with and still have a functional business" attitude, I wouldn't have power. Most of America wouldn't.

What Time Warner and CTL ought to be saying is that they aren't interested in a ROI longer than a couple of years, because, well, just because.

And at some point even that clearly isn't the issue. I can argue for this on my behalf and from the customer's perspective all day long, but this is well into a problem that CTL is making for itself. I'm talking about their own business interests here. Quarter after quarter we see AT&T losing xxx,xxx customers, and big cable gaining them. There's no way these telcos can say that the ROI on core network upgrades aren't worth it when the lack of those upgrades are costing them hundreds of thousands of customers per quarter. Doing nothing is costing them tens of millions per year in lost customers. Do they think _only_ losing $96 million per year -- every year -- on lost customers instead of losing $xx million per year to infrastructure investment is a sound business model?

Which way can we lose the least amount of money and then call that a win and a justification for caps?

Maybe the telcos should fire all of their executives and hire away cable execs, because they clearly have found a way to make money and invest in their infrastructure every year for over a decade. Comcast has already upgraded 100% of its footprint to DOCSIS3. They are three times as profitable as CenturyLink. Verizon has no caps with crazy tiers like 40/40mbps with investment through the roof, far beyond what CTL would ever need to spend. Their net income is 10 times as much as CTLs.

Granted, some of these companies are more diversified and even different sizes. Yet many of them clearly found it in their interest to invest with long ROIs and are doing better than the companies that haven't. Comcoast is doing better than TW, and Verizon far better than CTL.

You know, I just can't help by coming right back to that. What magic formula did Verizon find that CTL doesn't have? You can't escape it. Verizon, GreenLight, other muni fiber projects with a tiny fraction of the resources and money that CTL has. No caps. Massive pipes. No explanations whatsoever.

And when a business has no competition, it can delay investments for quite some time.

Doesn't explain TW, Comcast, or Verizon. Time Warner and CTL are the main providers in North Carolina. They cross paths regularly in this state, all over the place. In a sick twist of fate, my road is C shaped that connects to another road on both ends. It's about three miles long. Time Warner serves two miles coming from one end of the road, and CTL serves (DSL) about one mile along the other end (my end). Neither of them serves the whole road. Yet they do both compete in other places in the county. All over the place.

What's CTL's excuse? They have competition. TW upgrades all over the place. Always expanding. CTL does nothing.

Verizon has little meaningful competition in terms of performance, yet they probably spent as much deploying Fios as CTL has spent in several years on their entire network.

It's not a lack of money, it's not ROI, and it's not a lack of competition. It's that CTL has management. I think it will always boil down to that.

How many think they should have "all-you-can-eat" for dirt cheap prices?

Dirt cheap? I think we're running $40 a month for 3mbit. On Greenlight that's worth 10/10mbit for $5 cheaper. I'd call this overpriced, if anything. 3mbit for $5/month, maybe $10. That's dirt cheap. And frankly I think I should have unlimited, since that's what this service was when I signed up for it. If they are going to cap me after the fact, then honestly they should *lower* our price since they just made the service less valuable.

Wanna cap me? Fine. Make it $30/month and we have a deal. Or they can honor our original arrangement which is what I've been doing all along. (Please, don't give me the run around about how they have the legal right to change their terms whenever they want. Everybody knows that and it's still reprehensible.)

The modern digital consumer has developed an entitlement attitude that very probably can't be sustained.

Yes, I'm so entitled. How dare I want my telco not to degrade my service while still charging me the same amount of money. How dare I expect to get what I was paying for.

No, what we have now is an entitlement attitude from the companies we have to deal with. They think they are entitled to change terms in agreements after the fact, lie to our faces, charge us money for service levels they promise but never provide, on and on.

How do you think CTL would react if I decided all on my own after looking at my budget, that it wasn't economically feasible for me to pay $40/month for 3mbit service. So I went down to the DSLAM and cranked my line up to 4.5mbit. Or how do you think they would react if I decided to pay them $30/month, not a penny more?

That's the deal now. Customers lose no matter what. Merely asking and expecting a company to keep up its end of the bargain now results in insults about entitlement.

Modern digital providers are bullies that hurt their customers and themselves. Merely pointing that out means the customer is a whiny child that just needs to grow up.

Well, I reject that. Maybe the days of "the customer is always right" is gone, but I refuse to accept the days where the telco is always right and the customer is a little whiny child for daring to point it out.

There is a point where you might have to ask if Grandma, checking her e-mail and visiting ChristianBooks.com needs to pay the same as someone streaming hd movies every night.

That might make sense if we were talking about paying more money for a higher cap. But we aren't. CTL is stupidly tying caps to speed tiers. I'm glad that I can get 3mbit because that gives me the highest tier, but I can just barely get that. I'm probably 2000-4000 feet away from having a cap 100 GiB lower because of where I live, not because of what I do with my connection.

At this point Grandma is paying the exact same bill is the streamer because 1.5mbit isn't good for crap these days.

They are a business, and businesses exist to make money.

That must be why they are opting to lose subscribers for not investing in their network over investing to retain and maybe -- hold your breath -- gain a few. How bold a money making strategy.

hossfly

join:2008-09-16

1 edit
You're taking some of this too personally. I actually agree with you for the most part. In my home, I have the choice of CTL, 3g, or satellite. Obviously CTL is the best, as it appears to be for you also.

You also mistake my position as defense. It's not. Telcos want to stay somewhere in the middle of being considered a utility and commodity providers. They have successfully lobbied to have competition squelched, including right there in your home state. No. I'm not a big fan.

But the reason is still the same. In MOST...edit...or at least ENOUGH... of the areas they serve, they don't have any real competition. And that's a darn sweet spot to be in when your product is in high demand.

Your frustration with them for changing the rules in the middle of the game....I couldn't agree more.

Crusty

join:2008-11-11
Sanger, TX
reply to pwtenny
You sir are my hero...I've never read such a thorough take on how much CTL service has failed for sooooo long.

pwtenny

join:2010-10-11
Danbury, NC
reply to hossfly
I didn't intend to turn the flamethrower on you. Just arguing for my points is all.

Crusty

join:2008-11-11
Sanger, TX
Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
·CenturyLink
reply to hossfly
said by hossfly:

But the reason is still the same. In MOST...edit...or at least ENOUGH... of the areas they serve, they don't have any real competition. And that's a darn sweet spot to be in when your product is in high demand.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what my situation is. Joey from CTL has been very helpful but the fact remains that my service sucks and has sucked for the past 3yrs. I've got every situation documented since 09 and unfortunately for me, the service is down or EXTREMELY slow most the time.

Folks across my street have cable and dsl as an option, where as I've only got DSL.


pdx209

@qwest.net
Here in downtown Portland I have been with qwest/century-link for the past 10 years (different apts). Throughout this time my speed has stayed at the same pitiful 5mb/s. I don't know if I will hit the cap or not but seeing as Comcast has the same cap I'll be switching the second they notify me of any over-usage. Might as well go faster even though I can't stand Comcast.

It's ridiculous that in 10 years the the speed has not gone up a bit but the bill has. And now that they're capping it's clear that they plan to squeeze whatever they can out of their customers without spending a dime to improve their service. The only options in my area are capped/slow services or crappy wireless carriers. It's not like I'm out in the country, you'd think that in 10 years there would be improvements in a high density neighborhood. Oh well, will be moving soon and I'll keep fiber (non-centurylink) on the list of priorities.

terminx

join:2007-09-20
Hartford, AR
reply to Crusty
said by Crusty:

Folks across my street have cable and dsl as an option, where as I've only got DSL.

Man, I wish I was in that situation. If I were you, I would make REAL good friends with one of your neighbors, get a couple of directional antennas and pay them for cable at their address. I used to do something similar back when I lived in CA... all of the ports on the local DSLAM were full so I made friends with a neighbor with DSL and we just drilled a hole in the wall and ran some ethernet cable between our apartments and split the bill.


othehorror

@embarqhsd.net
reply to pwtenny
A big thanks to pwtenny for voicing the frustrations of many CL customers. Couldn't have said it better.

hossfly

join:2008-09-16
Frustrations only shorten your life if they can't change anything.

Next time you hear of some telco lobbying someone in Congress to put the skids on a co-op's planned fiber deployment, I hope you'll let them know your frustration. Every time the government legislates another barrier to entry to protect incumbants...regardless of industry...you can bet quality is not going to be as good as it could have been.


Match8

join:2009-03-14
Hayward, WI
reply to ispepi
I vote for pwtenny!!!