Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » comments on review of Flashcom

ISP Review remarks
·About·
RSS forum:
view: topics text 
Post a:
Comments in response to »Review of Flashcom by jinlee71 by jinlee71 See Profile

Loser

@210.LosAngele

Reply

What pac bell could be offering is known as 'Best Effort.' Which means that you pipe is opened up to 1.5megs but depending on the quality of the copper, distance from CO or any other number of determining factors. What you get is what you get. Of course being a customer you hear only what you want so Im sure at this point till you check again you probably have no idea of what your really paying for. They could also possibly have you provisioned wrong on either the pac bell side or the rhythms side. YOu may also want to go to www.speedguide.net under the patches link and down load the MTU registry files for your operating system. They work.
jinlee71

join:2000-09-22
San Francisco, CA


Re: Reply

i'm pissed cuz when i was shopping around, i made sure to ask every provider their MINIMUM speed, & flashcom, like everyone else, said 384. it was clearly a material misrepresentation, cuz if they said 384 max, i would've gone w/ someone else.

the rhythms installer tested the line & said it was good for 6 megs. flashcom insists i signed up for 384 max, 128 minimum service. 128!! that's what got me fired up to write the bbb. it's definitely a flashcom problem.

& yes, 1st thing i did was apply the mtu patch. didn't change much, maybe 4, 5 kpbs improvement.

also, checking the speed tests posted on this site, it's evident most other providers quote the minimum speed to their customers, except flashcom.

if i do get out of the contract, do i get to keep the cisco 675? would it work w/ any other providers, esp pacbell? anyone know?

[text was edited by author 2000-09-23 12:37:38]
Forums » comments on review of Flashcom


Saturday, 05-Dec 23:21:40 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF