----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 9:02
AM
Subject: RE: [Sndbox] Name that
tune...
Well I have to have my phone line.
It's the same one for voice or DSL, but can be used simultaneously. I
don't have to have a dedicated line for the internet
though.
Honestly though, I wouldn't consider our
area secluded or rural. Our TV area is the Orlando metro area. We
are 30 miles from the outlying towns of Orlando. (I do realize you said
small secluded area like where my sister
lives. ) I'm just saying I'm showing problems with cable service in our
area and we are not out in the boondocks.
The problem, as I mentioned before is competition. In most areas
a single cable company is allowed to have a monopoly. They have no
incentive then. That's not the cable company's fault, but it is still a
reason to look for an alternative.
Charles
Mims
yes but you also have to
have a single line for DSL, correct?
Depending on your area,
etc..will also depend on price and speed.
You can't really compare a
big market area like I live in to a small secluded area like where my sister
lives. There are less people, thereby less demand. It costs alot more for
cable companies to run lines etc..in small areas where they may only get a
handful of customers.
There are alot of
variables.
Just like cable pricing..
it's a luxury. And as much as everyone likes to blame Comcast or AT&T, etc
for price gouging..do you even realize how many companies Comcast has to pay
to use their services in order to give the customers those
services?
See, hubby working for the
cable company has learned me alot.. <grin>
Not only does Comcast have
to pay to *rent/use* HBO, SHO, Cinemax, etc... they also, in many cases, have
to pay PER subscriber to each of those companies.
So if they have 1 million
subscribers (which is an extremely low estimate..LOL), they would have to pay
SHO per each of those million subscribers to use their service.
Plus cable companies are
always upgrading to newer systems, products and services. They just did all
the fiber upgrade here several years ago. When my phone bill company (Verizon)
raises my prices, I'm not getting some new equipment or better caller ID. It's
the same service I had, they just want a pay raise.
If you think of it in
simplistic terms; a basic phone bill here with no call waiting, ID, etc runs
about 35 -40 bucks a month.
Basic cable service with no
extras is about the same here. I don't see the big deal. if you want the
luxuries, you pay for them. Just like if you want Guess jeans instead of
Wal-Mart brand;you pay.
Granted my cable is free
because hubby works there. If he didn't work there, we'd have basic and that's
it. Mainly because I rarely watch the movie channels anyway. My kids watch the
kid movies. But they generally get them on DVD as soon as they come out
anyway.
But I don't think paying 40
bucks for basic cable is that high or a big deal.
My cable was out during
Hurricane Izzy. It had been over a year or longer before that. I don't think
that's bad at all. AND it was always during power outages as well. So can't
really blame cable for that since they run off the power
companies.
That's the only benefit,
IMO, of satellite because it's in the air and nothing can really affect
it.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 8:05
AM
Subject: RE: [Sndbox] Name that
tune...
There are several levels of DSL, some of
which are half the speed of cable. The level I use is the same speed
as the cable, but in real world applications it is faster. The reason
is because of how cable broadband works. The more people on the
system, the slower it gets. With DSL that limitation is not
there. Many providers offer DSL cheaper by offering a throttled down
version, and it will be noticeably slower as you say.
Charles
Mims
Around here DSL is noticebly slower than
cable.
I pay $89 a month. That includes
HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, TMC, Starz, IMC and all the extra channels of the
above. (i. e. 8 channels of HBO, 12 starz, etc) Plus of course,
the basic channels, the 30+music channels and the sports channels.
(Still for the $89) That is *not* counting pay per view channels, of
which we have access to about 60 normal ones and about a dozen perverted
ones.
This same number of channels through the
local cable company would be approx $125 a month, not including high speed
internet if we wanted it. We had cable internet before DSL was
available. I've been extremely more satisfied with the reliability of
the DSL than the reliability and speed of the cable.
However, cable is not "dead". In
many instances it is preferable to satellite. Particularly if you live
in a neighborhood with numerous tall buildings that will block the
signal. It has its place. But for our purposes, we have had
both, and satellite wins hands down. Our picture is far superior than
anything put out by the local cable company including the digital
boxes.
Charles
Mims
In a message dated 11/2/2003 2:01:36 PM Eastern
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, the primary
reason for our switch is that the equivalent in programming through the
local cable company is $20 more expensive than what I pay monthly to
direct TV. Now, yes, I had to pay the initial outlay for the
equipment, but I have long ago paid for that in the savings from the
monthly fees. Jackie mentioned she gets 700 channels on her
cable. It's nothing like that here. Cable users get
significantly less channels (not counting pay per view or VOD) than
satellite users. I recognize it's not like that in every cable
market, but it is here.
area is definitely a big point because i think it
was like 300 channels for digital in illinois and we had 49 cable
channels here its 700 on digital and 75 cable channels
someplace else it could be more or less
________________________________
Changes to your subscription
(unsubs, nomail, digest) can be made by going to
http://sandboxmail.net/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
