dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
25095
share rss forum feed


CulDeSac

join:2007-12-01
Chandler, AZ

[AZ] CenturyLink vs Cox in AZ

Had a CenturyLink walking the neighborhood last night. Their packages/offering is pretty similar to Cox. Internet 20MBs, phone and TV (whole house DVR) is pretty compelling. Comments?


Irish Shark
Play Like A Champion Today
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-29
Las Vegas, NV
kudos:5
I would not get anywhere near CL no matter how good the salesman pitched it.

Take a look at some threads here and you will not see anything but complaints.
»CenturyLink
--
"You can observe a lot by watching". Yogi Berra

nickphx

join:2009-10-29
Phoenix, AZ
reply to CulDeSac
I used to have CL and ran a bonded vpn setup with cox and CL. They had a bandwidth contention issue last year with their main gateway that caused the internet to become unusable from 5pm to 12am. Took them almost a year to fix it. Other than that the service was "ok", I wouldn't say it's comparable to COX speed wise.. Even COX's second lowest offering spanks centurylink's 20mbps service.

tim85254

join:2010-07-15
reply to CulDeSac
They both have horrible customer service. Currently a CL customer for internet at 20 megabits/sec.

Well aware its technically inferior for a number of reasons, but I can't tell the difference most of the time.

nickphx

join:2009-10-29
Phoenix, AZ
I can't say I've had problems with either company's customer service.


dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
reply to CulDeSac
said by CulDeSac:

Had a CenturyLink walking the neighborhood last night. Their packages/offering is pretty similar to Cox. Internet 20MBs, phone and TV (whole house DVR) is pretty compelling. Comments?

Cox on their worst day is better than centurystink on their best day. DON'T DO IT!
--
Despises any post with strings.


Anonguy

@cox.net
reply to nickphx
One thing I hated about CenturyLink....

No Speed upgrades..... EVER!

nonymous
Premium
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ
reply to CulDeSac
If you can get a good deal locked in that works for you it may be ok. Centurylink/ formerly Qwest/ UsWest is not bad depending on where you are. If you have decent plant and a decent DSLAM you would have solid service.
Now as another said you do not get those speed bumps usually.
Also I did not like some of the Qwest customer service when I used them. Not that Cox is rocket scientist just less BS usually. Pretend to care better. Maybe it was when I had Qwest and all the previous and upcoming new mergers and employee morale maybe sucked.


nightdesigns
Gone missing, back soon
Premium
join:2002-05-31
AZ
reply to CulDeSac
Cox is much better than CL. On the other hand, CL is launching IPTV in your area so you may be able to get a good deal.
--
This Space for Rent...


CulDeSac

join:2007-12-01
Chandler, AZ
reply to CulDeSac
The cute girl that came around in hot shorts.... indicated that fiber was just dropped into our neighborhood and connections are not shared like Cox.. Staying with cox for now.

nickphx

join:2009-10-29
Phoenix, AZ
that's misleading. all of the customers in the neighborhood head off to a dslam in the area.. that dslam has a backhaul to their main switch.. that's shared.


dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
reply to CulDeSac
said by CulDeSac:

The cute girl that came around in hot shorts.... indicated that fiber was just dropped into our neighborhood and connections are not shared like Cox.. Staying with cox for now.

ALL connections are shared. even ftth.
--
Despises any post with strings.


nightdesigns
Gone missing, back soon
Premium
join:2002-05-31
AZ
reply to CulDeSac
Century Link really likes to push the "shared issue".
--
This Space for Rent...


CoxTech1
VIP
join:2002-04-25
Chesapeake, VA
kudos:79
Last time I check too there was only 1 Internet so it's all shared at some point. Now if you would all kindly get off the Internet for a while please I'd like to use it for a while

Rakeesh

join:2011-10-30
Mesa, AZ
Reviews:
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·Cox HSI

1 edit
reply to CulDeSac
Let me tell you a little story about an experience I had with centurylink.

One time I was rebuilding a network from the ground up at a pediatric clinic. Part of that involved replacing the combo modem/nat router/access point device with a firewall that could provide security features we needed for HIPAA and other reasons. I realized that I needed the PPPoE username and password, and at approximately 5:10 I called CL to ask them for that information.

Upon doing so, they informed me that since the clinic had a business account, they couldn't provide any assistance after 5:00. So I asked her:

Me: So you're telling me that business customers who pay more, get reduced support?
Her: Yes.
Me: What happens with a business that is open late and heavily depends on internet access, after 5:00 your service is out, and they are dead in the water? They just can't do anything at all?
Her: Yes, unfortunately.
Me: Woooooooooooooooow (yes, a very long and emphatic awe)
Her: I know, I'm sorry.

Basically she even admitted that it was a really stupid policy on the part of CL. The residential customers pay less and receive after hours support, but the business customers who pay more can't receive any support at all, not even from the residential team. Even though it is on the same god damn network and on the same god damn DSLAM that serves nearby residential customers.

Further, I didn't even need actual support. I just needed a username and password, even when I authenticated myself to them as an authorized agent for one of their customers. But she couldn't even give me that.

I would have had them switch to Cox, but Cox wasn't available in that particular nook and cranny.

Rakeesh

join:2011-10-30
Mesa, AZ
Reviews:
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·Cox HSI

1 edit
reply to CoxTech1
said by CoxTech1:

Last time I check too there was only 1 Internet so it's all shared at some point. Now if you would all kindly get off the Internet for a while please I'd like to use it for a while

Well what about my private internetwork lab? (three lan segments connected at layer 3 with no WAN access.) An internet by definition!

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckIMuvumYrg

jsmiddleton4

join:2003-11-13
Glendale, AZ
reply to CulDeSac
I work at home. The company I work for is all work at home. For most of us we use Cox business service.

Two of my team live in an area not served by Cox but is by Century Link. Don't ask me details, just know that this case.

Of our whole team only two folks are on Century Link.

Their connections suck. When I have to share desk top via Lync to demonstrate a feature of our software, teach others how to do a thing, show a new resource, etc., their connections are like dial-up.

I'm not kidding.

Those two nurses complain all the time about dropped connections, stalls, etc.

Cox aint perfect but I'd stay away from CL....


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to nonymous
said by nonymous:

If you can get a good deal locked in that works for you it may be ok. Centurylink/ formerly Qwest/ UsWest ...

That is kind of like saying, "AT&T/ formerly SBC/The Pacific Telisis Group".

Just as SBC bought both AT&T and The Pacific Telisis Group, so CenturyLink, which is actually formerly CenturyTel, bought Qwest (which had previously bought USWest).
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Rakeesh

join:2011-10-30
Mesa, AZ
Reviews:
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·Cox HSI
said by NormanS:

said by nonymous:

If you can get a good deal locked in that works for you it may be ok. Centurylink/ formerly Qwest/ UsWest ...

That is kind of like saying, "AT&T/ formerly SBC/The Pacific Telisis Group".

Just as SBC bought both AT&T and The Pacific Telisis Group, so CenturyLink, which is actually formerly CenturyTel, bought Qwest (which had previously bought USWest).

SBC was AT&T before they were SBC.

But ya, centurylink is bad at the internet, and so was every company that came before them in every area they serve. USWest's profitability came to match the quality of its service once its monopoly in its respective areas was broken.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by Rakeesh:

SBC was AT&T before they were SBC.

SBC did not exist after the break-up of the original AT&T; it was created by Ed Whitacre out of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company.

But ya, centurylink is bad at the internet, and so was every company that came before them in every area they serve. USWest's profitability came to match the quality of its service once its monopoly in its respective areas was broken.

USWest ceased to exist, as a brand, shortly after Qwest acquired it; about 1990, I believe.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

nonymous
Premium
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ
said by NormanS:

said by Rakeesh:

SBC was AT&T before they were SBC.

SBC did not exist after the break-up of the original AT&T; it was created by Ed Whitacre out of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company.

But ya, centurylink is bad at the internet, and so was every company that came before them in every area they serve. USWest's profitability came to match the quality of its service once its monopoly in its respective areas was broken.

USWest ceased to exist, as a brand, shortly after Qwest acquired it; about 1990, I believe.

2000 was Qwest.
USWest/ Qwest had some good areas and some icky areas. But the old USWest/Qwest areas never had the massive across the board slowdowns/ congestion you would see posted on the Centurylink board here before they took over Qwest.

Rakeesh

join:2011-10-30
Mesa, AZ
Reviews:
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·Cox HSI
said by nonymous:

2000 was Qwest.
USWest/ Qwest had some good areas and some icky areas. But the old USWest/Qwest areas never had the massive across the board slowdowns/ congestion you would see posted on the Centurylink board here before they took over Qwest.

How can that happen? Unless they only have a single peering point...which would make sense given that nationwide outage they had. If that truly is the case, they probably hired geek squad to manage their network - only a moron could truly make such a bad decision.


dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
reply to Rakeesh
said by Rakeesh:

said by NormanS:

said by nonymous:

If you can get a good deal locked in that works for you it may be ok. Centurylink/ formerly Qwest/ UsWest ...

That is kind of like saying, "AT&T/ formerly SBC/The Pacific Telisis Group".

Just as SBC bought both AT&T and The Pacific Telisis Group, so CenturyLink, which is actually formerly CenturyTel, bought Qwest (which had previously bought USWest).

SBC was AT&T before they were SBC.

But ya, centurylink is bad at the internet, and so was every company that came before them in every area they serve. USWest's profitability came to match the quality of its service once its monopoly in its respective areas was broken.

US worst, qworst, centurystink. whatever they call themselves they stink as bad. when i had their dsl, i'd use the backup dial telephone modem to access the net because it was faster.
--
Despises any post with strings.


chrisf8657

join:2002-01-27
Glendale, AZ
reply to CulDeSac
I'd stay away from DSL. I had it when it was Qwest and it was horrible. Read my review for more info.

Furthermore, Cable is the better choice. CenturyLink (love the name - sounds like they are investing for better, but their not) is going to continue relying on the aging copper wire network, and there's only so much that antiquated system can handle for data. HFC (Cox) is pretty much the future, outside of Fiber to the Curb or Home.

You get better speeds with Cable.

CenturyLink and all Telco's are going to need to start laying down massive cash for infrastructure such as Fiber if they want to be competitive and actually have a reason to exist in the future. And it's going to take 50+ years - the Bell System was still expanding to places in the 1980's.

While not related to CenturyLink, Hurricane Sandy damaged alot of the copper lines in the New York area. Verizon now refuses to fix them or do anything, so now those people can't get Internet or phone service, so it reinforces my point - they just don't care about the old copper lines, milk them all they can and refuse upgrade for future needs in infrastructure. It's a recipe for disaster, IMHO.
--
~~Chris~~

Need a pro computer tech? See my profile for my website - I offer remote support services!

SatManager

join:2011-03-17
North Las Vegas, NV
reply to nonymous
You mean Mountain Bell!


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Mountain Bell was rolled into USWest for the 1984 break-up of the AT&T Bell system. Along with Northwestern Bell and Pacific Northwest Bell.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


chrisf8657

join:2002-01-27
Glendale, AZ
reply to CulDeSac
Your'e both correct. Although Mountain States Bell was still part of the Bell System, and as NormanS pointed out, it was rolled into USWest for '84.
--
~~Chris~~

Need a pro computer tech? See my profile for my website - I offer remote support services!

Rakeesh

join:2011-10-30
Mesa, AZ
Reviews:
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·Cox HSI
reply to chrisf8657
said by chrisf8657:

While not related to CenturyLink, Hurricane Sandy damaged alot of the copper lines in the New York area. Verizon now refuses to fix them or do anything, so now those people can't get Internet or phone service, so it reinforces my point - they just don't care about the old copper lines, milk them all they can and refuse upgrade for future needs in infrastructure. It's a recipe for disaster, IMHO.

To be honest, I don't think Verizon should rebuild DSL either. The editor of the front page of dsl reports keeps railing on them about how they need to rebuild all of those copper lines. And for what? Anybody with any technical knowledge at all knows that DSL is old tech, and is about as likely as dialup to improve beyond what it already is. There's only so much you can do with voice grade copper.

The guy is simply an activist intellectual with no real knowledge of the technology he talks about - this becomes more obvious the more you read what he writes. He should be an editor for democratic underground or the occupy wall street journal, not a tech blog.


chrisf8657

join:2002-01-27
Glendale, AZ
I wholeheartedly agree DSL is old tech. But, something needs to be put in it's place. There will always be a need for landlines. I'd say start running Fiber then.

As for the Editor of DSLReports, I don't read too much of the articles. I'd actually be interested if you can point out some of those examples to me, perhaps via PM.
--
~~Chris~~

Need a pro computer tech? See my profile for my website - I offer remote support services!

Rakeesh

join:2011-10-30
Mesa, AZ
Reviews:
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·Cox HSI
said by chrisf8657:

I wholeheartedly agree DSL is old tech. But, something needs to be put in it's place. There will always be a need for landlines. I'd say start running Fiber then.

No, there won't always be a need for them. Wireless has since a few years ago passed the point where every advantage that landlines once had is now gone.

In fact, I'd say landlines are inferior because they have numerous points of failure, whereas say a single wireless tower goes down, there are almost always more close enough to do the job. Lots and lots of redundancy and failover options. In the case of home invasion for example, a phone jammer is much harder to get a hold of than a pair of wire cutters, and even then it isn't always going to be able to block a signal from somebody who isn't in line of sight.

My nexus 4 phones support the HD voice feature on tmobile, which in the future will work across all wireless providers (except maybe sprint who is doing their own proprietary deal while dragging their feet in the process) and provides sound quality good enough to hear people whispering with their mouth away from the handset. However this will never work with existing landlines.

There's only one thing I can think of that landlines have which wireless does not, which is named caller ID. However that isn't a wireless limitation, that is simply due to no industry standard implementation. If the industry was motivated, that could easily be done without replacing any equipment, and would only require a software upgrade on the handset (easily done for 99% of the smartphones out there.)