 Enlightener
join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX | FTTP? Is this only for DSL customers or can FTTP customers order it also? | |
| 
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs:
1 edit | ATT naked dsl i tried to get naked dsl from ATT but they upped the price 20 bucks more per plan. thats no help. and if not the minimum phone plan i have to get is 13$ and i don't use a home phone. i said forget that and got "naked cable" from time warner. they think they are pushing people to their other plans, they actually pushed business away from them.
--
www.LakeSemaJ.com
Help me get free trades.3 free if you sign up, $7 after. PM Me | |
|  | 
T1 Rocky
join:2002-11-15
Dallas, TX
 ·Time Warner Cable
| Re: ATT naked dsl This absolutely pisses me off. AT&T is doing a "trial" of naked dsl? WTF does that mean? They have always said that they were unable to do dsl if there was not a phone line. What does one have to do with the other? There is copper to 99% of the houses in America!! This is FORCED bundling!!!! Its unethical and unnecessary.
So now we are suppose to be happy becase they are considering naked dsl where they see it will be profitable? Where is the PUC on this?
I hope the cable companies beat the hell out of both of the telcos. And naked dsl has always been a really sore spot with me. It's forced bundling to make sure that the telcos dont lose as much market shre to cell phones and VOIP and it benefits noone but the telcos so that they can kick more money into the lobbyists and attack vertical markets rather than improving the telecom infastructure. | |
| | | 
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·Site5.com
·Comcast
| Re: ATT naked dsl said by T1 Rocky  :This absolutely pisses me off. AT&T is doing a "trial" of naked dsl? WTF does that mean? They have always said that they were unable to do dsl if there was not a phone line. What does one have to do with the other? There is copper to 99% of the houses in America!! This is FORCED bundling!!!! Its unethical and unnecessary. So now we are suppose to be happy becase they are considering naked dsl where they see it will be profitable? Where is the PUC on this? I hope the cable companies beat the hell out of both of the telcos. And naked dsl has always been a really sore spot with me. It's forced bundling to make sure that the telcos dont lose as much market shre to cell phones and VOIP and it benefits noone but the telcos so that they can kick more money into the lobbyists and attack vertical markets rather than improving the telecom infastructure. On the flip side you have cable companies either charging more for their service if you don't have basic cable OR they say they won't add cable internet if you don't already have cable. Seems that both broadband providers are doing their best to fleece consumers. I suppose if you just want to use a cell phone and if you have satellite TV, then you are going to be paying more for broadband one way or the other. | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: ATT naked dsl 6 of 1, half dozen of the other.. Some say charing more for their service with out the CORE BUSINESS product, but many, outside of BBR, will say it's a discount since HSI service is the higher price. But, I know that people like to view the lowest price (no matter what you have to do to get it) as the actual price.
At least with cable, you can get "naked" service... to date, the ONLY real company that offers naked DSL is Qwest. Like them or hate them, Qwest has always provided a rock solid DSL service with out any of the bullSh*t troubles, hassle, port blocking, stipulations, and they also did away with contracts.
So.. where is Verizon and AT&T on this one?? playing games.. that's where.
TRIAL of naked DSL?? For what reason... technical reasons?? Qwest already did their trial.. they want to see how this will harm them IF they go stand-alone DSL.
Again, like or hate cable, they are not using HSI as a retention tool like AT&T and VZ is doing... those two phone providers see their DSL as a way to keep a customer on their phone service and away from cable.. that's all.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | | plat2on1
join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY
clubs: | Re: ATT naked dsl cable isn't innocent here...comcast's $17/month unbundling fee costs more than my landline does! | |
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | Re: ATT naked dsl I guess you didn't read what I said... oh well.
HSI is priced at $57.00 per month for 6/384 here. Further, it says "Video Customers save $15.00).. pessimists love to look at it the way they want to see it.
So, I suppose when you local supermarket is running that Thanksgiving special where you get a free turkey with $25.00 purchase, and you don't buy the $25.00 worth of food, the cost of the turkey is the unbundling fee?
The price is $57.00.. NOT $42.00. You get a DISCOUNT for bundling... but, continue to see it how you want.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | | | | plat2on1
join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY
clubs:
1 edit | Re: ATT naked dsl no i understand quite well what you are saying, but i'm sure you are in the tiny minority in your opinion.
maybe if it was in the range of $5 i would agree it is a discount, but at $15 in my opinion they are using their HSI as retention tool for cable tv. | |
| | | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | Re: ATT naked dsl said by plat2on1 :no i understand quite well what you are saying, but i'm sure you are in the tiny minority in your opinion. maybe if it was in the range of $5 i would agree it is a discount, but at $15 in my opinion they are using their HSI as retention tool for cable tv. That is is one messed up, large reaching, point of view.. but I defend your right, even if it's wrong.
Anyone that believes that HSI is cheap, like what some telco cos try to sell it for is simply misguided. About a year or so ago when the new $14 DSL deals started popping up, the first thing that I and a small group predicted was that this was a loss leader and would hurt the company. Guess what? It isn't doing them ANY good to sell that product at that price.
(Not to mention, they sell HSI at twice the price of Caller ID - what does THAT say?)
When the $14 DSL product came out, that's when SBC started spouting up that "We're going to charge google for using our pipes" and so on.. the whole cry foul began. Next, you get U-Verse (yes, it was in the works, but $14 DSL doesn't put much money back into the coffers for re-investment now does it?)
If phone would be honest with themselves, they'd stop selling DSL for such a loss and put a real price of about $40 on their product, take that money and reinvest into their network, but they won't.. they're not used to that model as they've often waited for the government to tack on what I call the "YOU (the customer) build out system" fees.
What does this to to the consumer? "OH! HSI Shouldn't cost that much!! Look at the price of DSL!!"
The difference between phone and cable is vast in one sense. Phone built their networks and got a lot of subz from the consumer. Cable built it's network from their own profits. Telephone had a steady solid build/growth while cable, a private industry, experienced real growing pains. Phone has pretty much been a one trick consumer pony for much of its existence while cable has reinvented itself and rebuilt itself a few times since about 40 years.
No one HERE seems to enjoy the fact that cable has been rebuilding and expanding while phone has continued to rape. I will give phone the credit that you pick up a phone, you get a dial tone, but it came with Ernestien Thomlin on the other end of the operator call. (snort snort) Cable hasn't been perfect for everyone either, but to this day, if I had to put my money between the two, it would be with cable.
At least cable is honest about the price they charge for the HSI service while phone dupes its customers with these low prices and then finds every way they can to figure out how to cut off content providers like google and amazon because "they don't pay their fair share" on the internet. Every time that argument comes up, many people here jump on cable but often forget it's phone who's making the cry.
All of this just goes to show how people don't really look into the real workings, financially, what they are really getting for $14.00 per month, which only short-sells their own future.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | | | | | | plat2on1
join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY
clubs:
| Re: ATT naked dsl said by fiberguy :said by plat2on1 :no i understand quite well what you are saying, but i'm sure you are in the tiny minority in your opinion. maybe if it was in the range of $5 i would agree it is a discount, but at $15 in my opinion they are using their HSI as retention tool for cable tv. That is is one messed up, large reaching, point of view.. but I defend your right, even if it's wrong. you may think its wrong but i guaranty you i'm in the majority on this one.  | |
| | | | | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | Re: ATT naked dsl I don't care about the majority.. really.  It has nothing to do with majority... in the old days back when we hunted for food and drug our women around by the hair, the majority of people believed that fire came from the gods and that thunderstorms meant we did something wrong, but it didn't make it right. Closer to current time, the majority thought that putting a certain Texan into office, not once, but TWICE, was a good thing too. lol
And also, there's a reason why this country isn't a true democracy which is a majority rules.. NO ONE here would want that.. TRUST me.. no one would want that. It's why we have systems in place that protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
The moral is that the majority is not always right.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | | | | | | | plat2on1
join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY
clubs: | Re: ATT naked dsl we are talking business here, where the majority and perception matter. in this area perception IS reality. | |
| | | | | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: ATT naked dsl I know we're talking business here.
Well, I hate to disagree with you again, but in this case, you're still not on the mark. Are you're suffering from BBRidas in that what goes on here is a representation of the real world? :P This site is largely as liberal and socialist as you can get and what most people here believe or want isn't ever going to happen in this country..
You did happen to see subscriber growth numbers this quarter didn't you? Cable modem service is still growing and growing.
Around THIS site it may matter, but most people go by perceived value and not price alone. I'd rather spend $40 a month for something I feel I've got a better value on rather than $20.00 a month for something that's about a quarter of what I'm getting for $40.
Also, about perception.. there's other factors that I don't think you're taking into consideration.. one is that phone, or as I will call that industry, captain fees and contracts, loves to punish and control their customers.. that is a HUGE part of a problem they face and just don't get. Most people do NOT like contracts and fees and yet every day they seem to come out with a new one.
I'm going out on a ledge and making a simple guess.. you're younger, aren't you?? as in about 30'ish or about? maybe younger? I ask for a real reason.. MOST of the older generation 30 and above remember phone company actions of yesterday... many of us remember the crap phone pulled on the nation until cable came along and put the heat on them.. so as far as perception, you are right.. since cable is a luxury and phone is a necessity, I'll long remember how phone treated me on a necessity of life while cable gets a slight pass because I could have lived with out them. With phone, I had no choice.. so, in my mind, my perception is that they abuse their customers which has long been my perception which is why I was happy as snot to dump them.. their $20 DSL is of no value to me when it's forced on me.
Not everyone shops on price alone... it's much more complicated than you make it sound.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | | | | | | |
T1 Rocky
join:2002-11-15
Dallas, TX | Re: ATT naked dsl I agree with one of you and disagree with the other. But I'm not sure which one is which any more. | |
| 
Raptor
Not a Dumptruck
join:2001-10-21
London, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·Bell Sympatico
1 edit | Very sketchy practices... I thought there was some FCC ruling or something that prohibited additional charges simply on the basis that you didn't have phone service? Am I totally thinking of something else...?
And second of all, the merger terms are disgusting. They needed 12 months to unroll naked DSL? BS, you could unroll that in 24 hours after the merger.
Finally, it's ridiculous that the price of the current "hidden" 768kpbs is $10 with phone service and they're claiming "nobody wants it", while the naked tier they're planning to roll out is $20/month. Double the price!? Brilliant, that will have the customers running to you in hordes!
Crooks.
--
....where's my fiber? | |
| | tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| Re: Very sketchy practices... said by Raptor :I thought there was some FCC ruling or something that prohibited additional charges simply on the basis that you didn't have phone service? Am I totally thinking of something else...? And second of all, the merger terms are disgusting. They needed 12 months to unroll naked DSL? BS, you could unroll that in 24 hours after the merger. Finally, it's ridiculous that the price of the current "hidden" 768kpbs is $10 with phone service, and the naked tier they're planning to roll out is $20/month. Double the price!? Crooks. A warning against setting up a dsl line just so you can do an end-run around getting phone service from them.. they double your price to make there less of an incentive. However.. there's nothing saying you couldn't subscribe to a cablemodem for another $20 and have bandwidth to spare with some QOS under their competitor. | |
| | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Very sketchy practices... Its not always about the bandwidth... but about the price.
$120/year vs. $360/year.
For some that do basic email / eBay and are dialup converts.. they may not want to pay extra for something they don't really use. How many out there take FULL advantage of the more than 6Mbps on their plans ? | |
| | | | 
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| Re: Very sketchy practices... said by en102 :For some that do basic email / eBay and are dialup converts.. they may not want to pay extra for something they don't really use. But when you actually look at the prices, you have to decide if you want to pay LESS for something you don't use, or MORE for something you don't get at all.
Here in Austin it is cheaper to get metered rate phone PLUS DSL than it is to get naked DSL alone. And even if you are insane enough to pay more for less, they don't offer the top tier naked.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
| | Zerny
join:2007-05-04
Fort Gratiot, MI
| I wish they would rule about cable doing that, I was in a pinch with my money recently and i called comcast to elminate my TV service for awhile to save money, the lady on the phone told me that if i didnt have TV service on the line the price of the internet service would go from 29.99 to 60 bucks a money.
seems like complete BS... | |
| | | three6ohchri
join:2004-04-14
Portland, OR
1 edit | Re: Very sketchy practices... You are pricing internet with a discounted rate (29.99) and internet at full price ($60)/\. You must have had a discount on your internet. If you remove your cable TV you are also changing the packaging and pricing on your internet. The price you were quoted was the full price rate, without discounts. Big difference.
--
three6ohchris | |
| |
T1 Rocky
join:2002-11-15
Dallas, TX
·Time Warner Cable
| said by Raptor :I thought there was some FCC ruling or something that prohibited additional charges simply on the basis that you didn't have phone service? Am I totally thinking of something else...? Your totally right. When AT&T merged 2+ yrs ago, one of the "concessions" the FCC demanded to allow the merger to happen was that SBC/AT&T had to offer naked dsl. So AT&T offered naked dsl, and made it $15 more expensive than if you got dsl and a phone line together. This was the way it was in CA so none of the other states persued it.
So when AT&T and Bell South merged late last year the FCC brought this up again. AT&T agreed to offer naked dsl for 2 years (don't know what happens after 2 years but I wouldn't be suprisd if they called all of the naked dsl subscribes and tell them they have to add a phone line and long distance.) I know of a couple of people in Dallas who tried to get naked dsl in February and couldn't find an AT&T rep who knew what "naked dsl" was. As far as I know you still can't get it in Texas.
Who is suppoise to enforce this stuff? The FCC or the PUC? Tey haven't protected consumers rights for the last 10 years, I don't know why I thought they would start now? | |
| | 
cysco24
| Would have been nice This is why I got cable when i moved into a new place. Don't need a phone line.
If they would have offered naked DSL and just adding 5 bucks I would have jumped on that in a second.
But they didn't, and now comcast is getting my money. | |
| 
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| I disagree with Comcasts assessment I think that Stand alone DSL is a threat to their business and why the Telco's haven't really pursued it before now is really beyond me.
And, the even bigger question is, why comcast hasn't realized this and gotten agressive with a lower tiered structure of their own is also beyond me.
For whatever reason, comcast has simply refused to come down and play hardball with DSL at the lower tier levels.
Unless, of course..you refer to their 384k (some say it might be now going to 768k soon) tier..that they sell at a whopping value price of about 25.00 per month.
And, it's been the most untalked about tier i think in the history of cable..often times reserved only as a last resort for folks who don't want to pay 43 to 53.00 per month for their regular and enhanced package.
Meanwhile...AT&T and others, out of necessity..have been all about their low speed..low priced tiers.
10.00 ~ 25.00 for 768k to 3Mb.
Not a bad deal at all..until you factor in..the dreaded landline.
Really, what AT&T and others need to do..today..is to just drop that requirement..realize that many people are not using their DSL service BECAUSE of that..and basically..get with the program.
There ARE cable customers out there who want a lower bill...and who wouldn't mind taking the slower speeds to go along with it.
Just as there are cable customers like myself..who see the value in staying with the higher tiers.
Is choice really such a bad thing for these companies?
What comcast needs to do..right now..is recognize this..
and start to compete on the lower end as well.
Get with the 768k to 3Mb programs...at competitive prices.
And, what Telco needs to do is to drop the landline requirements.
And just face it. Lot's of people will never go back to them.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
| |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
·Site5.com
·Comcast
| Re: I disagree with Comcasts assessment said by Rick :I think that Stand alone DSL is a threat to their business and why the Telco's haven't really pursued it before now is really beyond me. And, the even bigger question is, why comcast hasn't realized this and gotten agressive with a lower tiered structure of their own is also beyond me. For whatever reason, comcast has simply refused to come down and play hardball with DSL at the lower tier levels. The main reason why is because the technologies are so different. DSL is not available as widely as cable is. Cable providers have always known that their technology isn't better, but its got the distance factor on its side which means it can get access to more customers. Take my parents for example. They live in a very small town and have no DSL options. They do have cable internet though, but they must pay the $42.95 for it.
Now if SBC figured out a way to increase their distance on their DSL or some kind of other fast internet, then you would see a price war. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | Re: I disagree with Comcasts assessment "Cable providers have always known that their technology isn't better"....
.. are you kidding me with that? You're in MI and I know the service up there via cable isn't the greatest.. however, there are MANY locations where cable service is rock solid where the system is well designed, well maintained, and operated correctly. I have my hands on and access to hundreds of different HSI installs including both cable and DSL from all providers from Comcast, TWC, Cox, Charter, MediaCrap, AT&T, Verizon, Qwest, Huxley Com, SureWest and others... and to be honest, I've seen PLENTY of cable accounts that have better speeds, faster ping times and just all around more reliable than other DSL installs.
The moral to the story is that ANY 'network' connection is only as good as the individual installation and ANY WAN connection can suck under the right conditions.
But to say that cable technology isn't better?? that's reaching.
As for your parent comment.. let me counter that to you.. in the middle of Wisconsin, just east of Wassau, the ONLY internet connection, way out in the boonies, IS DSL.. cable is almost non-existent. But, $42.95 for HSI? A drop in the bucket. Back in 1999, I was paying $300 to install DSL, 1 Year commit, $150 for the modem, and $89.99 a month for the service.. all for an up to 1.5 x 128 line. $40 a month for service is MORE than a good price for what you get.
SBC can increase their distance on DSL.. install remote terminals! They don't want to ... in Sacramento CA.. the capitol of the 3rd largest state in the nation, there is a HUGE black hole in South Sacramento / Freeport-Fruitridge area. There are three COs that serve almost a 12 mile linear range.. and both COs are at opposite ends of town.. They've promised RTs for about 7 years now and still nothing.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
·Site5.com
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: I disagree with Comcasts assessment said by fiberguy :"Cable providers have always known that their technology isn't better".... .. are you kidding me with that? You're in MI and I know the service up there via cable isn't the greatest.. however, there are MANY locations where cable service is rock solid where the system is well designed, well maintained, and operated correctly. I have my hands on and access to hundreds of different HSI installs including both cable and DSL from all providers from Comcast, TWC, Cox, Charter, MediaCrap, AT&T, Verizon, Qwest, Huxley Com, SureWest and others... and to be honest, I've seen PLENTY of cable accounts that have better speeds, faster ping times and just all around more reliable than other DSL installs. The moral to the story is that ANY 'network' connection is only as good as the individual installation and ANY WAN connection can suck under the right conditions. But to say that cable technology isn't better?? that's reaching. As for your parent comment.. let me counter that to you.. in the middle of Wisconsin, just east of Wassau, the ONLY internet connection, way out in the boonies, IS DSL.. cable is almost non-existent. But, $42.95 for HSI? A drop in the bucket. Back in 1999, I was paying $300 to install DSL, 1 Year commit, $150 for the modem, and $89.99 a month for the service.. all for an up to 1.5 x 128 line. $40 a month for service is MORE than a good price for what you get. SBC can increase their distance on DSL.. install remote terminals! They don't want to ... in Sacramento CA.. the capitol of the 3rd largest state in the nation, there is a HUGE black hole in South Sacramento / Freeport-Fruitridge area. There are three COs that serve almost a 12 mile linear range.. and both COs are at opposite ends of town.. They've promised RTs for about 7 years now and still nothing. Cable service, or any broadband service for that matter, is very area specific. Cable service not the greatest? Where are you pulling those statistics from? In my area, Comcast cable is awesome. The techs I have talked to in person are very knowledgeable. This is a far cry from the Comcast service I got in another part of the city. Point is, you really can't compare services across the board with each other. Your experiences are no indication on how a service will work for someone else 100 miles away. You have to compare them from the area you live in. You even mentioned that point in the next paragraph.
Cable technology isn't a better technology than DSL, its just a different technology. I really can't say cable is better than DSL because of the price point. Just as I can't say DSL is better than cable due to the distance limitation. Course, we can go back and forth on this one as you have different factors to dictate which is better.
Unfortunately, SBC and cable providers are not strong into broadband deployment as 99% of the users would like them to be. It has become less of a service and more of a price point to them. There obviously must be a reason why that 12 mile area doesn't have DSL, and I would bet dollars to donuts that its a money issue when it comes to upgrading the lines. Either that or people wouldn't purchase the technology. Who knows for sure though.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | All companies want $$$
It comes down to what service people will pay for.
MOST people will pay for TV service (HD service for those that paid for HD sets).
Some people will pay for phone service - many think its overpriced... VoIP is basically killing POTS. POTS is regulated, so it won't change, and Telco isn't profiting. Uverse (i.e. no connection to the CO physically) removes the regulated part, and Telco can attempt to make $$$ if they do their job right.
DSL on its own, HSI on its own ? It exists, BUT, there's a cap on profits (i.e. no 'PPV' add on, no HD add on, no DVR), and none of these companies break out the basic infrastructure costs (i.e. the cost of maintaining the line).
AT&T is attempting to have their cake and eat it too...Uverse + DSL and POTS/LD. They haven't marketed CallVantage VoIP with Uverse AT ALL, most likely assuming the average person would keep their POTS line. BAD
None of the companies want 'lower' prices.. but they'll combine items to give you a lower per item cost, as long as they get more money, they'll be happy.
If AT&T offered 'naked dsl' here for $5 more than the existing, I'd take it, and keep my TV service on DirecTv.
Monthly bill:
DTV (3 tuners +package): $50.40
DSL $29.95
VoIP $24.95
Cellphone (already have it): $60 (after taxes on 2 lines) | |
| 
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs: | well ya know if comcast saw me naked they might consider it a terrorist act, and a threat. | |
|
Frank H
@undencontroller.de
| American Supersizing Bill Ferry said: "We welcome any competition, [we] have a superior product at a competitive price. Our product is much faster."
Mr. Ferry, what you fail to realize is that I don't care for a faster package. Basic Internet service for $20 is enough. Unfortunately, this "supersizing" has become a familiar experience for me in the US, where the cheapest cell phone plans costs $40/month and half my minutes go unused every month and where a cup of coffee is $3 and takes me hours to consume. Were you to live for a few months in Europe (and, I suspect, in many other places), you would see that with prepaid SIM cards it's typical to pay $15/month for cell phone service and a small coffee can be had for $1. | |
| | 
sivran
Long Live The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: American Supersizing Comparing plans to prepaid is a bit disingeniuous.
T-Mo prepaid: $100/yr ($8.33/mo)
I haven't priced out other companies. When I originally went Prepaid, T-Mo didn't have that offer, and Verizon was the lowest at $15/mo. Now Verizon's prepaid sucks, loaded with junk fees.
--
Think outside the fox...Seamonkey | |
| 
David803sc
Premium
join:2001-02-22
Charleston, SC
| South Carolina Me and my neighbor switched and got Naked DSL here in South Carolina from AT&T I have DSL xtreme 6.0 and he has xtreme 3.0 with either xtreme package they take $10 off the naked line charge of $15 making it just $5 extra dollars. not bad.
--
Cable Modem 7 Mbps x 768 Kbps, Linksys RVS4000, 2 Linksys 5 Port Gigabit Switches, Windows Server 2003, Windows XP Media Center Edition, MAC OS X, MSNTV2, Xbox 360, Vonage Linksys PAP2v2. | |
| 
fatmanskinny
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Wandering | I agree with Comcast on this one! With AT&T's current offerings, Comcast will step all over them. Just my 1 cent.
--
The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary. | |
| 
binarycode
join:2003-04-30
USA
| Comcast =( I've been blessed to have 3 outstanding DSL experiences with 3 different providers. I am currently on Comcast and it is my first (and last) cable experience. If there were ANY DSL competition in the area I would most likely jump ship. Right now I am getting the Triple Play package for $129 a month. I rarely watch TV so mostly I am in it for the VOIP and HSI. I would not mind having a basic landline with Embarq (that's who it would be, I was with them as Sprint) and make excellent use of their DSL and go back to Vonage. It might be a little more expensive, but I don't care. Customer service at Comcast is horrible and they don't care because they have no competition here. We are left to tolerate them, resort to dial-up, or worse - satellite internet. Comcast has an outage for me more often than I put gasoline in my car....
--
The statement below is true.
The statement above is false. | |
|
mlord10
@comcast.net
| Dsl Until ATT can offer their services to everyone in the country they are going to continue to call it a trial. Like uverse for example. You won't see tv commercials or billboards for it because it's not available everywhere. I imagine the lowered priced unbundled dsl is going to be available in neighborhoods that have their vrad up and running. Also because of induction and interference ATT has never really been too excited about running dsl from co to the home. That is probably why they're afraid to mass market it in any way. | |
|
WhatsDSL
@comcast.net
| DSL a threat to cable? It doesn't look like it's going to happen in my lifetime, DSL seems like it's been at a standstill for years from my prospective, there is an RT close now, but after five years it still doesn't have DSL, naked or not, if your over the line limit and RTs are not getting put up or don't have DSl in them then you simply can't get it, cable spent millions to run new lines for their service, DSl wants the sales without the equipment, I'm afraid there are not enough potential customers living next to the C/O or one of the quite few RTs to make them the money they so obviously desire, will they ever learn? | |
|
Jimmy809
@bellsouth.net
| Cheaper to keep er...POTS that is I called ATT to cancel my POTS on the first day they offered naked DSL. They offered me $15.00 off my DSL per month for 6 months. So add in the extra $5.00 a month I would have paid for naked DSL without this discount and I save $20.00 a month and pay an extra $14.00 a month for phone line I do not use. So it ends up $6.00 a month cheaper to keep the land line. It will be interesting to see what happens in 5 months when I call again to cancel my POTS. | |
| bamaboy70
join:2004-01-04
Goodwater, AL
| Consider yourself Lucky! I left satelite internet back in mid August. Not by choice, but because hughes decided it would no longer support my one way system. No phone call, no email, no nothing. They cut my speed down to dialup, whenever i could even connect, and after calling support, told me that my problem would require a tech to come out at $125.00. They suggested that I upgrade to the newest system. I told them where to put there system, and to "UNPLUG" the damn thing!
Anyway my original point was for this, I am 2 tenths of a mile from Charter cable, and they won't connect to me, ATT says my number is not eligible for DSL yet, and to far in a valley to recieve a wireless signal from Sylacauga, Al. So be proud of what you can get, and have sympathy for those of us stuck on dialup  | |
| | | |
|
|
Comcast: a Naked AT&T Is No Threat
·