TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: FCC: Phone Companies Don't Have to Sell DSL as a Stand-Alone

Re: FCC: Phone Companies Don't Have to Sell DSL as a Stand-Alone
30 Mar 2005 10:15:10 -0800

TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Jack Decker:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have said before that the best
> thing to do, IMO, is go with cable internet _whenever possible_ and
> try to avoid Bell and its DSL completely, for just these same
> reasons. Bell has a long, sordid history of being very tricky and
> difficult to deal with. If cable internet is not available, then of
> course take Bell service and its DSL, but watch for any possible
> opportunity -- such as cable being installed or expanded in your area
> to break away to a competitive CLEC and cable internet, such as I
> have done, now two years ago with Prairie Stream and Cable One. PAT]

But many cable broadband carriers won't give you that unless you buy
their TV service as well (which is a lot more expensive than a basic
POTS wireline.)

Seems to me there's a double standard when it comes to expectations
from the telephone companies vs. the cable companies. My own
cable company keeps jacking up its rates -- a few years ago I paid
$35/month and now pay $55. They added some Spanish language channels
which is curious since very few Spanish speaking people live in this
particular service territory.

As soon as Bell finishes their high speed fibre work I plan to
switch to them for TV as well.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: True, some won't see it stand alone,
but many will, and anyway, people may want television as well. PAT]

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: "Re: More 'Tweens' Going Mobile; Long-Term Health Risks Unclear"
Go to Previous message: Zorro for the Common Good: "Re: Verizon, Voicewing and Portability"
May be in reply to: Jack Decker: "FCC: Phone Companies Don't Have to Sell DSL as a Stand-Alone"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page