  FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | too bad that this doesn't compete with much of anything in my community. | |
|
 |  brianPremium
join:2002-05-02
Lake Forest, CA | Re: too bad ...that it appears to not be available to existing customers. | |
|
| | Finally!!! I finally stop giving the devil my money! I've been waiting to switch away from ATT for a LONG time  | |
|
| | | Re: Finally!!! lol. but you get to keep your POTS line. Resellers are NOT allowed to offer Dry-line products. | |
|
| | | | Re: Finally!!! I know. That's unfortunate, but at least ATT will get less of my money. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Finally!!! no you still will give the most of what you pay DSLX. You just pay T indirectly. | |
|
| | dagg
join:2001-03-25
Galt, CA | is that something new within the last year?
the last ISP i worked for resold dry loop ATT. it may have changed which is why im asking but i can say for sure we sold them all the time. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Finally!!! nope ATT pulled it. 3rd party ISPs are NOT allowed to even touch dry loop. Don't ask DSLX though about this because nobody there will give you the correct answer. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Finally!!! It's too bad those frackers pulled it  . Unfortunately, I have U-Verse (which is fine) but something like this would be better as I don't care much for TV. As for one of my roommates... 
--
Illegal aliens have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian. Robert Orben
| |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Finally!!! you can kill your U-Verse TV. You don't need it to get the "net. and if they won't place the order without the TV...after it's set up you call and cancel.
But T has the right after all. The ISPs had their chance to build out. especially the CLECs but they refused to. Instead they just wanted to leach the last mile for the entire life of their business. It's now coming back to bite them in the ass. The only real CLEC that has really even shown any improvement on that front is Sonic.net. They still use the lastmile but at least their working on building out their own network. | |
|
ed49
join:2005-07-27
Corryton, TN | Odd? ...that my location recently became U-Verse capable but I can't get DSL. Of course dialup is available!!!! | |
|
| brianPremium
join:2002-05-02
Lake Forest, CA | Re: Odd? not odd. I believe it's fairly common actually. | |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Ho Hum Ahem.
Nice to see them hard at work to keep their prices down.
But it would be equally nice if they would make their network perform consistently at claimed speeds, answer their phones in a timely manner, and handle their billing properly. Every DSLX account I've handled (and terminated) in the past five years had serious speed and billing issues. Billing issues were eventually resolved, using DSLR, but they were just plain irritating. Throughput issues never were.
Also, PLEASE update the scripts read on the radio ads. Having hosts claim they all have DSLX at home, for $12.95, its "blazingly fast", and the rest of us are idiots paying "$55? $60" begs credibility.
On a positive note, DSLX deserves acclaim for doing whatever it took to negotiate resale agreements for Verizon FIOS, even if they're no longer available. They weren't the first, but the most visible - and while I can imagine why that went away, it set a precedent that can be revisited.
Further, DSLX seems to have smoothed out the bumps in the road, for ordering Naked/Dry Loop/Standalone DSL from Verizon - at no surcharge.
They're also getting better, with their annoying Verizon-esq "Digital Subscriber Cost Adjustment Fee" or whatever they call it
- $2.88/line on Verizon lines. Their reps are quoting the out-the-door-total-cost without hesitation. | |
|
| OHN
join:2003-02-05
Appleton, WI
kudos:1 | Re: Ho Hum I have not had any billing issues or problems with speed. I have the 6000/608 package and get just that. There have been maybe one or two times I have had connection issues in the past five years as well. I cannot speak for phone support as I have rarely had to call. I just wish they would give these prices to exsisting customers as well. | |
|
| | | they charge the same free for ATT customers and claim its a federal tax they're required to charge. Although when you question why no other ISPs are charging it they call you a liar and tell you that you have no clue what you're talking about and then it becomes an ATT charge that they're allowed to pass on to you. The fee becomes the right to give you service. More like making extra profit.
As far as slim profit margins. I hardly doubt that at all. DSLX is owned by a HUGE wholesale company that as very low prices to start off with. they just think that the public is stupid and will pay more with DSLX than going somewhere else. Especially when they treat the public like idiots when it comes to their prices. | |
|
| | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: Ho Hum said by hottboiinnc:they charge the same free for ATT customers and claim its a federal tax they're required to charge. Although when you question why no other ISPs are charging it they call you a liar and tell you that you have no clue what you're talking about and then it becomes an ATT charge that they're allowed to pass on to you. The fee becomes the right to give you service. More like making extra profit. As far as slim profit margins. I hardly doubt that at all. DSLX is owned by a HUGE wholesale company that as very low prices to start off with. they just think that the public is stupid and will pay more with DSLX than going somewhere else. Especially when they treat the public like idiots when it comes to their prices. I'm not here to defend DSLX, but before line-sharing went away, most ISPs were paying about 80% of their retail charge just to rent your copper pair from ASI.
On that $12.95+2.88, after overhead, I'd be surprised if they're making two bucks. Margins are indeed, quite slim.
I'm ok with them making a profit, a substantial one if they can.
But I'd rather they were "honest" and published total prices, not asterisked ones like airline tickets.
I suspect though, that the majority of consumers need bragging rights, as in "I only pay $12.95 a month for my 10 Megabit service" [for the first two months of a 24-month contract], or "I only paid $99 for my Netbook at Radio Shack" [with a 24-month 3G contract at $59.95/month+tax] or "I got a free phone!" ...
and thus, advertisers are forced to be deceptive to get the masses. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Ho Hum DSLX does NOT publish the actual price of the Internet. Instead they do hide the tax until you are ready to sign up. So yes it is a below the line charge- just like regular Telco fees. Also the overhead fee is NOT charged to DSLX. In fact if you call ATT up and inquire about reselling/wholesaling their DSL and ask about the fees they'll tell you they don't charge the USF. NOBODY does except DSLX. They're parent company doesn't even charge it's wholesale customers. Talk about someone double dipping in the bank.
DSLX is just another regular ISP that will bite the dust soon if they don't get off T's network and build out their own. But that will never come. So when T is busy building out more U-Verse networks DSLX loses more and more.
And actually yes. I do get my cell phones free. NONE of them come from the actual Carriers so I don't have to worry about them. I still have a full contract but my plan doesn't subsidize my phone. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
 ·DSL EXTREME
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Ho Hum said by hottboiinnc:DSLX does NOT publish the actual price of the Internet. Instead they do hide the tax until you are ready to sign up. So yes it is a below the line charge- just like regular Telco fees. Also the overhead fee is NOT charged to DSLX. In fact if you call ATT up and inquire about reselling/wholesaling their DSL and ask about the fees they'll tell you they don't charge the USF. NOBODY does except DSLX. They're parent company doesn't even charge it's wholesale customers. Talk about someone double dipping in the bank. DSLX is just another regular ISP that will bite the dust soon if they don't get off T's network and build out their own. But that will never come. So when T is busy building out more U-Verse networks DSLX loses more and more. And actually yes. I do get my cell phones free. NONE of them come from the actual Carriers so I don't have to worry about them. I still have a full contract but my plan doesn't subsidize my phone. And If You have Dry Loop DSL Extreme will on New Contracts tack on an extra $5 a month too. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Ho Hum yah but only on VZ/Fairpoint/Frontier accounts. NOT on ATT. As ATT won't let the ISPs onto that network anymore. | |
|
| | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by hottboiinnc:DSLX does NOT publish the actual price of the Internet. Instead they do hide the tax until you are ready to sign up. So yes it is a below the line charge- just like regular Telco fees. Also the overhead fee is NOT charged to DSLX. In fact if you call ATT up and inquire about reselling/wholesaling their DSL and ask about the fees they'll tell you they don't charge the USF. NOBODY does except DSLX. They're parent company doesn't even charge it's wholesale customers. Talk about someone double dipping in the bank. Sorry, I didn't say they published it. But you're right, they should instead of burying it somewhere in a contract page.
I was specifically referring to the sales reps I talked to, all of whom were very forthcoming. I would never place an order through a web page - better to check the competency and attitude of folks who answer the phone and get an email confirmation of the order. Besides, web pre-qual is notoriously inaccurate.
They are not, however, the only ISP that applies a USF-like charge. If AT&T isn't charging it, that's great, but irrelevant for us. At least in SoCal, AT&T DSL has been so pathetic for so long, it simply isn't worthy of consideration. DSLX isn't great - but it is markedly better than T.
said by hottboiinnc:DSLX is just another regular ISP that will bite the dust soon if they don't get off T's network and build out their own. I agree that DSLX' business model could be in jeopardy - but I doubt wholesale line-sharing contracts will go away - VZ/T needs to maintain the claim that there is competition, even if some here consider copper a 2nd-class option. Copper may never catch up to cable and fiber speeds, but with VDSL2 and beyond, it will be fast enough for the majority of consumers. | |
|
| | fraggin rip off it is 768Kbit 12.95 times ten = 7.68 megabit price 129.50
NOW go compare....
THAT kiddies is how you find out if your getting a good deal....but don't let me tell ya go figure it for yourselves | |
|
| brianPremium
join:2002-05-02
Lake Forest, CA | Re: fraggin rip off it is you should take an accounting class to learn about fixed vs variable costs. | |
|
|
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: DSLreports peeople please read This is the plan. Continue to take away all legal options to fighting them, leaving anything you do to be illegal and therefore you're the criminal.
Basically they are fighting to make opposing them a crime in itself.
Due to Corporate abuse it's time for some really strong Consumer Protection laws.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| |
| | | | Re: DSLreports peeople please read nothing new. All the companies have tired this. Just not ATT. So why point blame just on them. Sprint was known to do it, VZW, Comcast, Sprint. It's a fact of the business world. | |
|
| | |  MizzatWill post for thumbsPremium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA
kudos:1 | Re: DSLreports peeople please read Was just pointing out to the poster that DSL Reports already did a blog on it...
--
-M | |
|
| | Supplier Charge Recovery This charge has always been there. It's nothing never new for DSLX. They claim its a charge from ATT. But it's actually not. Just a charge they make up. Another company that's gone down hill and will keep going. This is why people do not change ISPs and always stay with who they signed up with. | |
|
Chair
join:2002-04-08
San Francisco, CA | sigh I would like EACH and every DSLExtreme basher to please go to this link and READ it:
»www.att.com/gen/sub-apps/bill-gl···ermid=76
Specifically:
AT&T Communications Inc.:
This charge was instituted in 1984 to cover the costs of a portion of the local phone network. The FCC caps the maximum price that a company may charge for this. This is not a government charge or tax.
By the way, if you guys wonder how long a DSLExtreme's bill is:
⇒ 3000-6000/768Kbps DSL Service on _______for 11/01/2010 to 12/01/2010 $32.95
⇒ Supplier Surcharge Recovery Fee for 11/01/2010 to 12/01/2010 $2.88
TWO lines.
Guess how many lines it is for a comparable AT&T Bill? About 10.
By the way, AT&T charges 4.XX for their charge, so technically, you're still paying less for DSLExtreme.
Oh, and before someone attempts to say that this is for their "telephone service", nope. This is a line charge on a bill specifically for the DSL through AT&T. | |
|
| djweis
join:2006-04-02
West Des Moines, IA | Re: sigh That's the subscriber line charge, a different fee that should be charged on dialtone services. Our local monopoly doesn't charge for that on standalone DSL lines and we don't either. | |
|
| | | T doesn't have that on my bill.. And they don't take it on anyone elses bill.
Supplier Surcharge is for phone. NOT for DSL. NO other ISP charges these. Not even the small local mom and pops. | |
|
djkevy
join:2000-10-23
Skokie, IL | 29.95 The $19.95 deal for 6000/768Kbps with a 12 Month contract jumped to $29.95 after I pre-qualified. So much for the deal. | |
|
| | | Re: 29.95 prices are low as. Didn't say they were always that low. but i love how DSLX will quote T prices on their page as main pricing for "as low as" but then when you show you're a VZ area you're prices jump sky high. | |
|
|
|
