Broadband: Dream or Nightmare?

it is a dream when it works right, but when you have to call "tech support" for any type of problem or service, it is more than a nightmare...

People don't mind paying for speed. People also don't mind paying for service. If there was a broadband company out there that could be noted for great customer service, say for example "the Nordstroms of cable/DSL" they could rule the market. People would even pay a premium for this service.

No it's a dream if $50/month broadband is available. It's a nightmare if it's not. It's that simple. If you complain when $50/month is available, you deserve to be attacked.

Oh, the humanity!

The world does not revolve around the availability or lack thereof of cheap broadband in Farmington, Michigan. According to a website I visited the other day, the world revolves around a grill cook in Topeka, Kansas.

I am beginning to think 2farfromCo just posts to antagonize everyone. This link here is from a few days ago where we just went over his same rhetoric. If you follow his posts, the majority of them continue to rant about this. Keep in mind if you disagree with him you are a republican!
»total pipe dream

In all sincerity....take out a crowbar, open your wallet up and get cable service.

What this is about is choices. We all have them. You chose a satellite company for whatever reasons. It was a choice YOU made. I for one would never order a dish if my only broadband option was cable! Complaining about their prices to us will do you no good. As I stated before, write your Congressman. (Just a hint: I would call the democrat because if you call the republican that would make you a bit hypocritical lol. For those reading the other posts this will make sense)

2farfromCO while I may not always agree with what you say I do agree you have a right to your opinions. I think, and someone please correct me if I am wrong here, we are all just tired of the same comments. Some psychiatrist out there would probably suggest you will reach acceptance soon and eventually even achieve closure. I just want to know when the denial stage will end?

If it continues, I am willing to suggest to Justin that we setup a fund for you where people can donate to help get you broadband. Then maybe your posts will be about how slow the service is or anything else for that matter.

Ok you give the exact same responses as every textbook republican.
"WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN" !!!!
I just love that one. First they tell you non-stop that the government has no place in business. "We need less government, less beaurocracy blah blah blah" Then when it's clear there are no options to stop the rippoffs of a monopoly, they tell you to write your congressman. What hypocrisy. I thought government had no place in businsess. Why should I get the congress in this. You are telling me that I should be forced to pay the highest cable rates in the metro detroit area because of Time Warner's abusive policy. That's what Microsoft did to the computer companies: "If you install 1 copy of LInux, then we'll charge you $10,000 per copy of WIndows". That's using monopoly power. The fact is they are making us pay for their mistake of buying our city. That goes against every Republican principle in the book. Republicans are about accountability and responsibility. Therefore they should be making TIme Warner suffer the losses for making the mistake of buying our city and not let them pass on the costs to us.

said by 2farfromCO:

---

Ok you give the exact same responses as every textbook republican.
"WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN" !!!!
I just love that one. First they tell you non-stop that the government has no place in business. "We need less government, less beaurocracy blah blah blah" Then when it's clear there are no options to stop the rippoffs of a monopoly, they tell you to write your congressman. What hypocrisy. I thought government had no place in businsess. Why should I get the congress in this. You are telling me that I should be forced to pay the highest cable rates in the metro detroit area because of Time Warner's abusive policy. That's what Microsoft did to the computer companies: "If you install 1 copy of LInux, then we'll charge you $10,000 per copy of WIndows". That's using monopoly power. The fact is they are making us pay for their mistake of buying our city. That goes against every Republican principle in the book. Republicans are about accountability and responsibility. Therefore they should be making TIme Warner suffer the losses for making the mistake of buying our city and not let them pass on the costs to us.

---

Actually I was just hoping you would get sidetracked and and have someone else to bitch to then this community.

The fact is anybody who is against regulation and socilalization and then tells you to right your congressman is admitting they are wrong.

said by 2farfromCO:

---

The fact is anybody who is against regulation and socilalization and then tells you to right your congressman is admitting they are wrong.

---

Do you have a therapist?

Just ignore 2farfromCO, I think he just likes to hear himself talk. I asked him a simple question one time about dsl being available in his area, and he gets pissed off at me for using the word "area" and writes a whole page about nothing. (you can read my post at: »Re: cable vs sat.

said by ki1o:

---

Just ignore 2farfromCO, I think he just likes to hear himself talk. I asked him a simple question one time about dsl being available in his area, and he gets pissed off at me for using the word "area" and writes a whole page about nothing. (you can read my post at: »Re: cable vs sat.

---

roflmao...I just read it. You get my thumbs up for sympathy

said by ki1o:

---

Just ignore 2farfromCO, I think he just likes to hear himself talk. I asked him a simple question one time about dsl being available in his area, and he gets pissed off at me for using the word "area" and writes a whole page about nothing. (you can read my post at: »Re: cable vs sat.

---

Maybe we could get a rise out of him if we asked him what the definition of "is" is
I think he's suffering from Clinton syndrome - LOL

OCNBLUE said: Keep in mind if you disagree with him you are a republican!

2farfromCO replied: Ok you give the exact same responses as every textbook republican.

I think OCNBLUE is onto something...

said by OCNBLUE:

---

I for one would never order a dish if my only broadband option was cable!

---

And that's exactly the "mindset" the cable monopolies want you to have. You shouldn't need to purchase their sub-par television service just because you want their internet service. Internet access should be treated like any other telecom service. Don't get me wrong, I feel it's perfectly ok if they want to give you a discount if you choose to purchase multiple services from them, but to flat-out punish someone for just wanting to purchase one of their services is ridiculous. They do it because anyone with half a brain can see that DBS TV is clearly a superior product and they need that "hook" to get/keep subscribers(even so-called "digital cable" doesn't even compare). There IS a reason why a RBOC is not allowed to charge subscribers more for not using all of their services(POTS, long distance, DSL).

The world does revolve around cheap broadband, I came from Netzero, and believe me. The world revolves around cheap broadband.

Got to agree. I used the internet for years over 28.8 and 56k dialups. Played lots of quake, got called a welfare case by many a low pinger.

I've got broadband now for $50 a month. It hasn't been flawless, but I wouldn't dare consider going back to dial up even if my broadband worked only 50% of the time.

People with no patience and no perspective of reality ($50 for the kinds of speeds I get on broadband is an insanely good deal, even if the tech support is lame and problems take a week to get fixed!) about the costs of speed (~$35 for a second phone line and a dialup account vs $50 a month for dsl or cable that's about 30 times as fast) need to be smashed over the head with a shovel.

Quality costs. IF YOU DEMAND speeds never fluctuate, and downtime has to be non-existant, then get yourself a $1000 a month T1. That's what they're there for. broadband is for the rest of us that understand just how good of a thing we have going.

said by HAH:

---

People with no patience and no perspective of reality ... need to be smashed over the head with a shovel.

---

Other than threatening this to those who harbor terrorists in a back bedroom, giving them periodic access to the home broadband connection to spout propaganda, I don't think this kind of comment belongs in DSLR.

Have you tried to get a municipal cable network off the ground in Farmington. Tacoma has one and I believe Ashland Oregon has one.

But I thought the private sector was better. We can't even do that now. Time Warner made us sign a contract guaranteeing no competition of any kind. That's what we tried to fight for 4 years. If we don't sign it, they just won't ever upgrade or network and still charge us the highest cable TV rates in the metro area. Sorry cable defenders, but only monopoly companies can do that. You can try to say I have a choice between cable and satellite, but my city doesn't. There are many services which cable companies have a monopoly on: local access programming, cable modems.....

It's called Megapath!

I have DSL from Verizon in Southeast Washington. My ISP is Dymacom.net of Kennewick. They advised me to contact Verizon for the service. They (Dynacom) loan all the equipment (modem, cables, DSL filters)so there was no need to have Verizon send them. Dynacom gave me a printout of the tcp/ip setting I would need to enter and said to plug in the DSL modem and when it showed three green lights to give them a call and they would throw the switch on their end.

I had nothing but excellent service from Verizon. My order for service was entered on a Wed. morning and the following ( yes- 4 days later ) Sat. evening my DSL modem showed three green lights indicating the service was up. I was not in a position to test the service until Sun. evening; at which time I realized that it did not work. One quick, simple, courteous and very helpful call to Verizon on Mon. morning (I found later that it could have been done even in the middle of the night Sun. because their help is a 24/7 service) revealed that I had a NIC that had a "Wake on LAN" feature that didn't - wake on LAN that is. One hour later the system was up-and-running with Verizon DSL. The Verizon folks I talked to (Sales, Tech Support and Repair - Repair called me on the Sat. and asked if they could stop by my home and have me sign off on an order ticket after they set the jumpers at the local switch)all gave me their personal phone extensions. Dynacom.net is three blocks from home so it's an in-person visit it I have any questions/problems - of which I have had none.

Thank you Dunacom and Verizon.

Well, I feel for this guy, and he makes a valid point, but you know what, AT LEAST HE CAN GET DSL OR CABLE AND APPARENTLY HE ALSO HAS MULTIPLE OPTIONS! This is far better than what many others can say. He should count himself lucky if you ask me....

amen brother

amen brother

Great article..but I don't think Covad is going under though...if I"m not mistaken, they just got $150 million. This is going to enable them to get to cash flow positive, according to their press release...
I've had Covad service for 8 months, and I have not experienced even one single problem...

regards
[text was edited by author 2001-11-21 12:10:45]

Look at the SBC loan as a quick fix for a long term problem. It will get them through 2002. Whether or not they will be profitable past that point is anyone's guess.

And what happens if Covad defaults on the loan?!?!?!? Anyone........... anyone...............? Covad is no longer! Covad = SBC!

Where possible you should try and remove not only the third dance partner but also the second and buy DSL straight from one of the Bells. This eliminates MOST of the finger pointing, I say most because of course the data and voice services are handled by separate divisions. But at least they don't do the finger pointing routine and are willing to fix things right away.
Then of course there is cable, also a single provider, so they tend to gets things worked out pretty quickly.

I would agree with this statement. However, I would also recognize that the lack of competition in the DSL industry is what is causing some of the current problems such as lack of quality customer service and high prices. And by sticking with the Baby Bells, we are driving the competitors out of business.

I'll be the first to admit, I feel safer with Verizon and I'm getting DSL service from them in a couple of weeks (knock on wood...). But what is the solution?

I agree that Verizon should not be forced to allow its DSL competitors to use its central offices and telephone lines to provide a competitive service to its own. Lets face it, the telephone companies spent the money over the last 100 years to build this massive communications infrastructure. Why should some start-up company that hasn't paid a dime to string wiring from house to house be able to get special treatment.

I believe the future will be wireless broadband, which doesn't look too good right now, I know. But, it is a much more viable option than the massive cost of stringing lines to each and every home in America as a new company would have to do. We'd have so many lines in our streets it would be a safety hazard! Once wireless broadband technology becomes better (longer range, better reliability, lower cost) then it will be the choice to compete against Cable and DSL.. Just look at the wireless phone industry.

"Lets face it, the telephone companies spent the money over the last 100 years to build this massive communications infrastructure."

A lot of that money came from your federal tax dollars. That network is a public asset, not a private asset. It belongs to all of us, the taxpayers of the United States.

Define a lot. 25%, 50%, 75%? Give some facts before you make a statement like that.

I don't know the percentage but consider this. The original 1934 communication act started the universal service fund. This fund was to aid in delivery service to low income areas, high cost areas and rural areas. Call me a dreamer, but I am pretty sure that areas considered to be rural in 1934 are probably metro or urban now. There is no denying that alot of growth has happened since this started. Each phone carrier pays into the fund but then charges it back to the customer to recoup their payment. So in a way Joe Q Public has invested in the plant, inside and outside. This plus the monopoly status in the local loop gives us the right to regulate it for our own protection.

said by redsoxpdaer:

---

.

I agree that Verizon should not be forced to allow its DSL competitors to use its central offices and telephone lines to provide a competitive service to its own. Lets face it, the telephone companies spent the money over the last 100 years to build this massive communications infrastructure. Why should some start-up company that hasn't paid a dime to string wiring from house to house be able to get special treatment.

---

I tend to disagree with you somewhat. You are right that the telephone companies spent billions of dollars over the years to build up its network. Their own money. In return, unlike most businesses, they were granted monopoly powers over the areas they covered so they easily got their money back.

The telecommunications act of 1996 allowed the CLEC access to these central offices not for free BUT FOR A FEE prescribed by the telephone companies. THESE CLEC companies are not getting a free ride as you are suggesting.

Competition is a good thing. Do you honestly believe you could get a 1.5gig computer for $899 if there wasn't a lot of competition in the computer industry.

Also, look at DSL. When it first came out a couple of years ago, Verizon used to charge $60/month for residential service. When other companies joined in, the price dropped to $40/month. Of course, with the consolidation of the industry, the price is up again to $50/month. The bill in Congress right now wants to further limit competition and raises prices.

I can't think of any industry that has not benefitted from competition.

lmao oncblue guy your to funny laughed my ass off when i read ur story ..its said though but its true most people here complain and thats all they do instead of complaining to us complain to your isp call tech support call their manager just who cares about ur serivce if its good or if its post it on the isp preview thing on the home page of this site dont sit there and keep complaing..nobody wants to hear that shyt and for 2farfromco lol u can even tell by his name hes an ass o well ..the net is full of em

said by redsoxpdaer:

---

I would agree with this statement. However, I would also recognize that the lack of competition in the DSL industry is what is causing some of the current problems such as lack of quality customer service and high prices. And by sticking with the Baby Bells, we are driving the competitors out of business.

---

I completely agree with you, but when it comes to reliability or speed of repair and especially accountability you have no choice but to go with a single source.
It will be up to the politicians and regulators to force the Bells to play fair. I can see both sides of the argument about sharing equipment, but whatever solution they come up with they have to make sure its viable and the current situation definitely is not.

I disagree strongly with this. Verizon, The local bell in my area, was very fast to hook up, but their service is terrible.

Verizon's news and mail servers are horrible, and the line speed is lower too. They even disallow servers on their lines (blocking port 80), requiring subscribers to get more expensive lines in order to run servers. I had lots of outages with Verizon too.

Yes, it was more difficult to hook up ISP service through third parties, but the results were much better.

The prices are identical at about $50/month. Unfortunately, there is no choice but ADSL in my area at a reasonable price.