 
IronChefMoto
Premium
join:2001-02-08
Alpharetta, GA
| All well and good...but... From what I understood from a friend who tried to do this under the GA provisions, BellSouth makes it nearly impossible to keep the DSL without jumping through 100 or so paper, fax, and mail hoops.
They'll find a way to make the switch as unbearable as possible for consumers.
IronChefMorimoto
--
Desktop: Abit NF7-S 2.0 | AMD AthlonXP 2500+ | 512MB PC2100 DDR | 128MB ATI Radeon 9500 Pro
Laptop: Dell Latitude C810 | Intel PIII-M | 512MB PC133 SDRAM | 32MB Nvidia GeForce2 Go | |
|
 | mrljcsi
join:2002-10-19
Saint Charles, MO | Re: All well and good...but... At least a judge had the stones to tell them it aint a monopoly and that they gotta share and give consumers a choice. But, you KNOW they'll throw some sh** in the game so they don't really have to do it. | |
|
| | hottboiinnnc
join:2003-08-27
Fremont, OH | Re: All well and good...but... De-Reg was and still is only to allow a choice in phone service. not Internet Services. | |
|
| | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Re: All well and good...but... I will agree with that if you agree that since reg doesn't apply to broadband the ILEC & cable co must negotiate compensation to each private property owner where they use easements to derive revenue from broadband. | |
|
| | ParanoiaInc
join:2002-08-28
Tucker, GA | Yeah, just like the cable industry. NOT! | |
|
| | | hottboiinnnc
join:2003-08-27
Fremont, OH
| Re: All well and good...but... INTERNET SERVICSE ARE NOT DE-REG!!!! Only Time Warner Customers have a choice do to the merger of AOL and Time Warner. Thats how they got it! I have TWC as a cable company. Also I have Elink from them and I'm changing to RR cause with having a different company than RR the other providers answer to everything is call the local office. We don't have local offices anymore to call. we have call centers and RR support IS IN Canada. Elink always transfered me there cause they don't know what they are doing. One night I got trasfered to the Greensboro NC office for Time Warner. They have a totally different system down there then TWC cause they are split into regions. Other companies arent! | |
|
| 
rsa0
join:2003-01-25
Birmingham, AL
 ·Charter Pipeline
| Guys...there is always cable ! or Satellite DSL ! I had BS until a week ago, and for the same price I have got COMCAST. I was reluctant to go to cable (especially when you know who Comcast was - AT&T and MEDIAONE here in GA.) but I have to admit: it ROCKS ! 3 MB solid -DL and 250-270 K UL ! DSL would cap me at 1.2 MB at the best. More, I have switched to VONAGE phone line (VoIP) and I am saving at least 25$ / mo. with more services than ever BS offered to me !
I do hope that one day BS will get their socialist enterprise right, and do the right thing. | |
|
Maggs
Premium
join:2002-11-29
Woodside, NY
·RCN CABLE
| They make it all but impossible Most companies even if they are legally required to allow users to switch to a competing provider will make it such a hassle as to discourage consumers from switching. This should be against the Sherman Anti Trust Law. This seems like the looks of unfair trade practices. Most consumers are forced into what the law calls "Contracts of Adhesion".
Contracts of Adhesion include:
- Car Rental Agreements
- Cell Phone Contracts
If you don't agree to the terms of a car rental agreement then you cannot rent the car. So there is really no point in reading the contract if you need to use a rental car, since you are bound to it anyway.
Cell Phone contracts offer only one way out. This is called Liquidated damages, but the cell providers call this an "Early Termination Fee". You agree in a contract to accept to pay an "Early Termination Fee", if you wish to change providers. Although, there is a couple of ways out of the contract such as:
-Comapny's failure to provide adaquate and reasonable service.
That is why most companies give you a way to get "dropped call credits" like with Sprint my provider. If they don;t offer you any recourse, then unfortunately you are 9 times out of 10 forced to go to binding arbitration, as specified in your contract. This binding arbitration clause in contracts constitutes a piece of a "Contract of Adhesion".
Bellsouth and SBC teamed up to form "Cingular Wireless LLC". This is a joint venture between the two companies to provide nationwide cell phone service. Cingular Wireless has the highest new customer rates in the wireless industry. AT&T Wireless on the other hand, is now falling prey to its over capacity on its networks. Since most cell carriers go into billions of dollars of debt to finance cell network restructures. AT&T is a likely target for a buyout by Cingular Wireless. If you don't believe me read Business Week the last couple of weeks.
I like the fact that Cingular has rollover minutes, but I am under contract with Sprint Spectrum LLP, aka Sprint PCS (Personal Communication Service).
Sprint's coverage is lacking in the upstate NY area, though. I guess not too many people are customers in that area. The only option is analog at .40 cents a minute as per my contract.\
I get 3000 N/W Minutes
400 Anytime
Nationwide LD
All for $15 a month since I work at a retail store and they offer discounts for the salespeople who sell the phones.
In my experience, Sprint has pretty good coverage except in Lower Manhattan area i.e SOHO, NOHO, LES
I will probably stick with Sprint when my contract ends in March since Cingular's Rollover offer is only good for the 1 st year of your 2 year contract. That is what they don't tell you in the ads, but read the .00006 pt font at the bottom of their site and it tells the real deal.
It is also against Federal Law to put in fine print details that supercede the normal type. That is part of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Enough with the legal stuff, just my informative take on things.
--
What's black & white and cool all over? Optimized  | |
|
| JohnA
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: They make it all but impossible It's not about your cell phone in NY.
It's about BellSouth's copper. | |
|
| | ParanoiaInc
join:2002-08-28
Tucker, GA
| Re: They make it all but impossible said by JohnA  :
It's not about your cell phone in NY.
It's about BellSouth's copper.
Actually, its about non-BellSouth copper. If BellSouth sells the copper, then why should BellSouth be forced to keep services on it if the new owner of the copper doesn't state they want it left there?
While I do recognize this protects the customer's DSL service, what is the new owner of the copper doesn't want it on their newly-purchased copper line?
Under this Georgia mandate, BellSouth is forced to keep the DSL service on the copper or suffer state penalties (fines), but on the other hand if the new POTS owner doesn't wish the DSL to be on it they BellSouth is again at potential liable (financial) consequences.
In either even, BellSouth loses, the new copper owner loses, and the only thing happening is that whomever fines BellSouth or whatever court awards the new copper owners damages against BellSouth, the resulting costs will get passed onto the BellSouth POTS customers. | |
|
| 
macyh
Ex-Isp
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-24
Medina, OH
·Armstrong Zoom In..
| Same game the telco's always play, do just enough to gain plausible denialability with the regulars, but do it s-l-o-w-l-y. Whine to the commission about it, meanwhile try to buy a backdoor solution with PR and lobbying.
The game here is attrition thru strict telco-interpreted compliance with any rule they don't like. Telco's are masters of regulatory foot dragging, everything will have to be in writing and take at least two weeks to get a response. Of course, paperwork will be lost. Of course, the DSL co. will bear the brunt of new customers' frustration and is the company that can least afford the loss of the new business as their customers give up and move back to Bell.
In the meantime, the telco lawyers will repeatedly appear in front of the commission with studies and reports, saying "we're doing all we can to implement these terribly expensive and difficult rules that have been imposed upon us". And the telco lobbyists will be buying lunch for the state legislators pitching a new "deregulation" bill that will outlaw line sharing, thus trumping competition and the state commission.
Geez, you'd think the FCC and the PUC's would be wise to this, but they always, always let it happen in the end. After all, telco's make huge campaign contributions to both parties, while DSL competitor don't. And you know who hires the commission members... | |
|
| | Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI | Re: They make it all but impossible Hey I remember when the bells were all one. Look what the piunishment was. if they get too big they could face it again, well unless they hire Microsoft lawyers. | |
|
| hottboiinnnc
join:2003-08-27
Fremont, OH
| "Bellsouth and SBC teamed up to form "Cingular Wireless LLC". This is a joint venture between the two companies to provide nationwide cell phone service"
If you read the SBC web Site and the Cingular Web Site Cingular is OWNED by SBC. SBC bought them out when they were in bankruptcy a long time ago. That's when everyone started learning about them. Even on their commericals it says "PART OF THE SBC FAMILY OF COMPANIES!" NOTHING ABOUT BELL SOUTH! | |
|
| | 
Raybro
VIP
join:2000-11-04
Back home | Re: They make it all but impossible Cingular is owned by both SBC & Bell South.
They bought out Cell One. | |
|
| | | hottboiinnnc
join:2003-08-27
Fremont, OH
| Re: They make it all but impossible Its owned by SBC which allows their sister company the right to sell to the customers in their area! and they only bought PART of Cell One. Cause in the west their still is Cell One. and in Ohio Cell One was part of Dobson and then Dobson sold to VZ Wireless. | |
|
| 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by Maggs :
It is also against Federal Law to put in fine print details that supercede the normal type. That is part of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Tell that to cox cable. in their ads even if you get right up to the TV, you cant read their fine print.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
| | hottboiinnnc
join:2003-08-27
Fremont, OH
| Re: They make it all but impossible well go to the SBC Corp. Web Site and you will see it they own them. And those ads are aired nation wide. Every ad is the same. Look at the Cingular website. it says they are part of SBC. SBC office will tell you that too. Bell South only has a partnership with them. The same as SBC has a partner ship with Yahoo to use them for the DSL and Dial-up Connections when they closed down Prodigy. | |
|
| | | 
NS4683
join:2000-08-25
Hoboken, NJ
| Re: They make it all but impossible Well, go to this address: »bill.cingular.com
That's where I go to view and pay my bill online. If you look at the top, it says part of the BellSouth Family. There is a 60/40 partnership between SBC and BellSouth. | |
|
| | | | hottboiinnnc
join:2003-08-27
Fremont, OH | Re: They make it all but impossible Well anyway they are OWNED by SBC.. They have been.. its just a partner ship. Contact SBC to find out. | |
|
| | | 
Misinformation fix
@bellsouth.net
| I did go to the cingular website and is said SBC owns 60 percent and BellSouth OWNS 40 percent. Don't believe me? Go here -> »www.cingular.com/about/company_overview
Both companies owns a portion of Cingular.
Oh, and those ads that say "Part of the SBC family." In BellSouth territory they say "Part of the BellSouth family." | |
|
| | | | hottboiinnnc
join:2003-08-27
Fremont, OH
| Re: They make it all but impossible Yah those are made just for that area. Nobody even said what they said in each year. and the company that owns more than 51% of a company owns the most of the company. Which would make SBC the owner of the company according to the IRS. So then most of the country see's the ads that say "Part of the SBC Family of Companies" since SBC has a 13 state Region across the country. and Bell South is only in a very small region in the south. | |
|
|
| clecrupt9
join:2002-01-22
GA
| Re: PSC on the ball... Yep me too.
Now Bellsouth will go to the Federal courts and argue this ruling, as well they have something in the works calling for deregulation in another court. Bellsouth has "favorable regulatory climate" as one of its 2004 agendas.
I saw SBC's president on a TV show the other day and when asked how he felt about VoIP and its regulations he said he hoped for regulatory clarity(no competition) and pointed out he hoped the FCC did the right thing, because elections were coming up pretty soon. SBC and Bellsouth are probably aligned on these issues and we should hope that the newer, faster, more innovative telco's such as a packet 8 or Level 3, get any favorable regulatory climate(access charges) than the RBOC's. | |
|
| ParanoiaInc
join:2002-08-28
Tucker, GA
| Please illustrate to the viewing audience what 'common sense' you are talking about.
Let's say you, roamer1, own BellSouth 100%. Now, let's say that one of your divisions sells POTS to me and another one of your divisions sells ADSL to me on that same copper pair.
Now, let's say I dislike your POTS service and jump ship to MCI and they BUY that copper pair. But, let's also say that I love my ADSL and wish to continue to keep doing business with that particular division in your company.
Now, let's say that MCI does NOT wish any non-POTS service on its newly owned copper pair. I order BellSouth to remove all non-MCI services from the now MCI-owned copper pair or MCI will file a lawsuit against BellSouth.
Oh, wait a minute. BellSouth cannot remove the non-POTS, non-MCI services from the copper pair because if they do they will get fined by the Georgia regulatory board. Where the heck does BellSouth win in this scenario?
BellSouth is damned if they do (remove the non-POTS service) and damned if they don't (remove the non-POTS service). Get the picture? Good, now go play nice.  | |
|
| | clecrupt9
join:2002-01-22
GA
| Re: PSC on the ball... Bellsouth.net can offer me ADSL if they choose. They should not care if I like MCI or Bellsouth Telecommunications Inc. To them I am a paying ISP customer and nothing more, so a customer who doesn't like Bellsouth Telecommunications dialtone should not be forced to drop ADSL from Bellsouth.net Inc simply because Bellsouth Corporation feels that Bellsouth Telecommunications Inc. should dictate what Bellsouth.net Inc does. Make sense?
Let me clarify- an ISP is in bed with the teclo. The PSC has just allowed the ISP to start seeing other people. In the "real" business world Bellsouth.net should be trying to get as many customers as it can, not used as tool to prop up BST. | |
|
zcd
Condom Sense
join:2001-10-03
Grand Prairie, TX
clubs:
| well crap I don't see why BellSouth has to share their own lines when they paid for them. It's almost like if my neighbors bitched and moaned about me not letting them use my car because they don't have one.
- sometime's I'm right, other times it's just an opinion... | |
|
|
IgorKane
@uu.net
| Re: well crap If you had the only car in town AND owned the road it can drive on, you would see things more clearly.
Your neighbors would buy their own cars, but make you let them use the road, paying you a small but reasonable fee. Wait, isn't that how our road system works today, due to taxes and tolls? Nationalize the phone system! yay! | |
|
| | lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL
| Re: well crap only car in Town or road in town - where is the comparsion? you want broadband you have wi-fi, cable, SAT or DSL. that is 4 different choices for most folks.
lets nationalize the cable & SAT systems along with that phone company while your at it. Oh wait - that has been done before - its called Communisms | |
|
| | |
IgorKane
@uu.net
| Re: well crap Communism, yes
This isn't only about broadband, phone service too. There are other cars, but few roads nevertheless.
There is no argument that line sharing has its problems, but without it consumer prices would definitely be higher, and quality could be lower. I love my DSL hookup that is fed by MCI, because comparable service from SBC costs more and has more restrictions. If competition were eliminated, how would this improve? | |
|
| hottboiinnnc
join:2003-08-27
Fremont, OH
| Thats true. IF the CLEC wanted to offer their customers the DSL service they would find a way to provide it instead of crying to the PUCs. Any way Bellsouth will go to the FCC and get want they want. Federal law ALWAYS over rules State laws and acts no matter what. and Bellsouth will keep doing what they want and just pay the fines to the state to stay the way they are. Its just that easy. Not to get off the subject but thats what Microsoft does and so does the other major companies that get into trouble and shit. They just pay the fines and they stay the way they are. | |
|
| | TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
| Minor difference.... To make it fair for the CLEC what you would have to do is regulate that if a CLEC laid down new copper in the area, anyone who wanted phone service in that area would have to use the CLEC - pretty much the same way the ILECs had their infrastructure paid for. | |
|
| | | hottboiinnnc
join:2003-08-27
Fremont, OH
| Re: Minor difference.... Kinda true. The only thing the CLEC has to do is resell Covad which MCI does and so does other ones. But really all they need to do is get some DSLAMS. Any one can become a DSL company just by having a circut into the local loop and the customer can have who ever they want for a provider. Personally I don't think the Bells should have to share their DSLAMS with CLECs if the CLEC wanted to offer the service they should buy the DSLAMS and the equipment they need. The FCC and the FTC does not say who can install DSLAMS or become a DSL Provider. It's up to the States to Decide which would be the PUCs there | |
|
| | | | TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
| Bells still "own" the last mile... The problem is the bells still "own" the last mile and are doing everything they can (lobbying, poor service, etc) to kick off the CLECs and DSL providers so they can be the only game in town again.
Here they are installing RTCs which have no "room" for a competitive DSLAM - kind of knocks the competition out of the water.
Here in Illinois SBC paid the legistlature to ram through a bill to get extra cash, screw the customer, etc. - it took the courts to say that it was illegal to save us. Illinois is pretty much bought and paid for, with the Mayor's brother in charge at SBC, and the state being run from Chicago now. | |
|
|
Hate_Bells
@Dial1.Dall |
But, they didn't pay for them. Read the history of the Bell system. Get educated about this monopolistic bunch of crooks. | |
|
| | 
spg
Grrrr
join:2001-10-31
NOT Texas!
| Re: well crap More bunk perpetuated by the CLECs and other Bell System haters. The Bell System was paid for by the shareholders, period.
They DID have a monopoly of sorts, but in exchange for this, universal service was required of them as well as regulated pricing and tariffs. It was a trade off.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your argument... | |
|
| | ParanoiaInc
join:2002-08-28
Tucker, GA | They may not have paid 100% for the original infrastructure, but please show me where someone else paid for the current infrastructure.
And the CLEC's didn't pay anything. Period. | |
|
| | | hottboiinnnc
join:2003-08-27
Fremont, OH
| Re: well crap The only things the CLEC has to pay is the Bells to resell the service. Thats it! And if you want to sell DSL service invest in your own DSLAMS. If you were the bells would you want someone taking the service you paid for? No. Or if you were a shareholder would you want your profits being taken from you? NO. Its about time if you want something pay for it to get done. Stop trying to be a reseller of something and just invest in the service yourselves. Then do the same thing the bells do. Bell is in charge and always will be in charge of the landlines. They get what they want. If they don't from the state they get it from the Feds. Either way they will win. | |
|
hottboiinnnc
join:2003-08-27
Fremont, OH
| this will never happen in Ohio This will never happen in Ohio. In Ohio if you wish to serve your customers DSL you have to file as a CTS with that at the PUC you can sell your DSL to anyone that has a landline phone. Other than that you don't get shit from the telcos. Even CLECs have to do that or be like SBC, MCI and the some of the others and buy the services from Covad and New Edge Networks . And by the way I know this because I called the PUC in Ohio. | |
|
ParanoiaInc
join:2002-08-28
Tucker, GA
| Wow, talk about an asinine decision! Wow, talk about an asinine decision! If there isn't a relationship between the ISP and the new telco then how can BellSouth protect itself if the Georgia regulators place BellSouth, a middle party, between to liablous entities.
For instance, if for the customer's decision the POTS line is sold to MCI from BST (example), then could not MCI file a law suit against BST for allowing BSFA to maintain ADSL service on what is now an MCI-owned phone line?
Now let's expand this scenario. Let's say that the ISP is a reseller of BellSouth ADSL infrastructure, some like SpeedFaactory or Earthlink. A customer decides to get MCI local service. Since BST sells the line to MCI it doesn't own the pair of copper wires anymore. What rights in MCI's eyes does BST have to keep a SF or ELNK ADSL service on their (MCI's) POTS line?
I surely hope that the Georgia regulators offer some protection to the originally-owned LEC entity as this seems more like someone is on the take in this legal-entanglement and an almost asinine approach to what should have been a more simple problem.
Now, if the Georgia regulators say that in these two scenarios MCI cannot force BST to remove BSFA/ELNK/SF (examples) DSL services from the now MCI-owned POTS line then is a good move as it will spur competition. Otherwise, the legal battles for MCI to go against BST for something it has no control over is just crazy. | |
|
| hottboiinnnc
join:2003-08-27
Fremont, OH
| Re: Wow, talk about an asinine decision! If you leave your current LEC to a CLEC you lose your DSL. Cause the CLEC and not offer it without their own equipment. So if you have Elink with a Bell. Move to MCI you lose service. HOWEVER MCI gives you the option to sign up for DSL Service with them in areas they are building their DSL network. MCI can afford to build their own DSL Network. They bought Nort Point DSL when they closed. Along with some others. They have the equipment and the money. Also when you move from one phone company to another the only thing the CLEC owns is the telephone number. The line is still owned by the LEC. After a while all CLECs will offer their own DSL or they wont be able to compete with the LECs at all. The LECs if they had their right mind. They'd bundle their DSL with their Local Services. DSL, Local, Long distance Complete for $59.95 per month plus CW, CID, CWID, VM, etc for that price. The LEC would run the CLECs out of business. and it would be legal. they offer at a legal price. and if the CLEC cant compete its their problem is the way the state will see it. As long as the LEC is providing the service at a reasonable rate the states cant do shit cause DATA services ARE NOT Regulated at ALL in America.
So the CLEC should compete by offering the DSL with the phone services as well. | |
|
nunya
SEE ROCK CITY 475 MILES
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
clubs:
 ·AT&T CallVantage
| CLEC Misinformation A previous post of mine I like to dig out for these threads. Especially when the CLECs start spreading bunk.
A re-post of my own to head off a few of the CLEC lies.
Lets start with monopoly. A monopoly is the single seller of a unique good with no close substitutes, a monopoly firm essentially has no competition. Obviously that's not the case in todays telecom world.
There is plenty of competition without CLECs. Let's start with Broadband-
I can get broadband through a satellite from at least two companies. If you're in the U.S., you can too. I can get broadband (barely) by Cable TV. I can get broadband by wireless from at least two companies. I can get broadband over my phone line. The power company could give me broadband too. So far the government hasn't forced them to provide it.
I can get voice service from 1 legitimate wire-line phone company, and a variety of leeches posing as phone companies. I can also get that same voice service from 5 different wireless providers.
Since TA96, many small thinking people have thought that telephone lines were the only way to reach the end user. Technology has shown how foolish they were and are. They put all their eggs into the basket; the first mode of transport they were legally allowed to rape. Like Piranhas on a baby kitten. Foolish indeed, as they all knew the legalized rape and plunder would eventually come to an end. They knew they were expected to find their own path to the customer, yet they refused to invest any money in research or developing other modes of transport (except for a small few).
If any of the services I mentioned above are not available to you, it's for one reason. These companies do not want your business or choose not to pursue it.
Some may whine, "The phone company has an unfair advantage. All their lines were in place."
And who paid for those? The stockholders of the phone company. The former AT&T (not the whiners using the name today) was a holding company of all the RBOCs. While AT&T controlled the long distance infrastructure, the RBOCs were liable for building and maintaining local facilities in their geographic area.
Then they moan, "The government funded the phone company."
No they didn't, and I challenge you prove it. The government granted phone companies (not just the big ones) near monopoly status in exchange for some trade offs. First the phone company would have to provide "Universal Service". This means Farmer Brown pays $25/mo for his dial-tone even though it costs $60/mo to get it to him. This is paid for by a Universal Service Fee (not a tax). Businesses cover most of this, you and I cover the rest. Easement that was not already public had, and still has, to be secured (with money) by the phone company. Another trade off was that phone companies had to be subject to heavy and severe regulation. I challenge you to find a more regulated industry. Health Care? No. Airlines? No.
CLECs are not competition. They never will be until they find their own modus operandi. If the CLEC model is to work and be fair, then cable companies, wireless companies, satellite companies, and power companies would have to open their networks to "competitors" too.
I guess if I live in Georgia, I can cancel my cable t.v. service now too and keep my cable modem? I can't? Hmmmmm.
This is just more outdated regulation produced by people who probably still use typewriters and adding machines. Most of the people responsible for this legislation would probably give you a "deer in the headlights" look if you asked them what a WISP or facilities based competitor was.
This legislation should be dated 1994, not 2004. Things have changed. The CLEC model didn't work, and won't ever work. Very few CLECs to this day have made any progress in establishing facilities based competition. Why buy the cow when the milk is free? Now that the tit is drying up, they want to cry foul. Fortunately there are some people who aren't afraid to think outside the box. These people are also making it hard for CLECs to cry monopoly anymore:
»Wireless Service Providers
»www1.wowway.com/index.asp
»www.starband.com/
»www.direcway.com/
»www.nunet.com/
»www.idacomm.com/
^^^These companies^^^ will still be around in ten years. So will SBC, BellSouth, Verizon, and Quest (in one way, shape, or form).
CLECs won't.
--
The fighter still remains. Ethanol doesn't fund terrorist nations. »www.e85fuel.com/ | |
|
Jenna9654
join:2003-04-17
Atlanta, GA
| What people don't remember.... What people don't remember is that most of the BellSouth DSL resellers have to offer it with Bellsouth Voice. We use SpeedFactory and I am pretty sure, based on our contract, we are not allowed to use any other voice company for our landline.
--
The female chooses not the male which is the most attractive to her but the one which is the least distasteful. ---Charles Darwin | |
|
|
|
|
Georgia Keeps Line-Sharing
PSC on the ball...