yuniverse
join:2000-07-14
Federal Way, WA
| reply to wtansill
Re: Weak article
said by wtansill  :said by djrobx :It's hard to take any article seriously that has this: quote:
For the best values in broadband service:
11 SBC Yahoo
12 Verizon
There’s a good likelihood that one or both of these DSL services are available where you live.
One or BOTH? I don't think I've ever seen a location where BOTH were available! This is why I stopped reading Consumer Reports. Any time I've read one of their reviews on a suject I knew something about, it has been so riddled with inaccuracies that I've found the article useless. I gave up on them years ago. My thoughts exactly. I also quit subscribing to CR a few years back. They were just terribly inaccurate especially in the area of technical items |
|
dfhdfhfdhdh
@dynamic.cov
| reply to djrobx
quote:
For the best values in broadband service:
11 SBC Yahoo
12 Verizon
There’s a good likelihood that one or both of these DSL services are available where you live.
How about none? None of those are available where I live. It's all Cox, Qwest and Covad for broadband out here and all are overpriced, except maybe Qwest. |
|
psx_defector
join:2001-06-09
Allen, TX
| reply to djrobx
said by djrobx :One or BOTH? I don't think I've ever seen a location where BOTH were available! In Dallas/Ft. Worth area, you can get either SBC or Verizon in normally Verizon ILEC territory. There are a few markets in California that do the same thing.
And SBC is a CLEC in most of the country, able to provide DSL and local phone service in any area. Las Vegas is a good example. |
|
wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| reply to djrobx
said by djrobx :It's hard to take any article seriously that has this: quote:
For the best values in broadband service:
11 SBC Yahoo
12 Verizon
There’s a good likelihood that one or both of these DSL services are available where you live.
One or BOTH? I don't think I've ever seen a location where BOTH were available! This is why I stopped reading Consumer Reports. Any time I've read one of their reviews on a suject I knew something about, it has been so riddled with inaccuracies that I've found the article useless. I gave up on them years ago.
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. |
|
NEP1611
join:2002-03-27
Northford, CT
| reply to djrobx
I agree, it sounds like the writer there doesn't have a clue as to how local phone service works. The next district I hear of that has SBC and Verizon to pick from will be the first.
To an extent, I think this goes to the entire article. In general, people will probably not have more than two or three of these providers available for their purchase, if that. So how much good is it, really, to know that Cox scored higher than Comcast, when all you can get is Comcast? Definitely not like when they compare pretty much anything else, where all of the products are available to be purchased (i.e., you don't have to live in the Maytag franchise area to buy a Maytag dishwasher.) |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
It's hard to take any article seriously that has this:
quote:
For the best values in broadband service:
11 SBC Yahoo
12 Verizon
There’s a good likelihood that one or both of these DSL services are available where you live.
One or BOTH? I don't think I've ever seen a location where BOTH were available!
Why did they bother lumping Earthlink into their survey? It's not really fair to consider ONE competitive ISP. It makes Earthlink look a great ISP, where the reviews here show it to be mediocre. Even though Earthlink tops their charts, they don't recommend it in the editorial!
I think CR's 2002 Broadband article was better. It was short and sweet, and recommended users come to Broadband Reports to get the scoop on their ISP choices.
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network |
|
