I have Cable internet from Insight Com. in Springfield,IL. The internet used to called ATT@home and it is roadrunner when ever u r out of IL. Anyways I got the avertised 4MB Internet for $30 and I always tend to get bout 3.9MB and thats because i have the internet on a router. The only time i have had problems was when I had a bad storm and the cableline had something stuck in it and the only reason i knew was because I was getting 1.9MB so I called them and on monday they came out replaced the cable and after bout a hour my cable modem readjusted and i dont get under 3.9 now. Tech support was very good also they check my account and said that I was pinging to high and they sent the techichian. Even @ 6 PM (the primetime)I get 3.9MB no loss and when I played games online such as Counter-Strike Source i get under 50 ping. Today I even got 11 PING on a server. So cable does have an big advantage over DSL in my area.(By the way can u get cable,phone,and internet for $90 a month through cable cause I can.)

As an Indepedant ISP I can tell you that MOST of these comments here are either mislead or flat out wrong.

First Cable is NOT faster than DSL. DSL has rates of up to 10meg. Granted it costs more and there is a range limit, but cable doesn't offer that.

Second Cable is a shared resource, DSL is not. Cable providers tend to overbook their lines and on many occasions I've seen users have to use dialup to get any actual speed.

What seems to be lacking in all these comments is one thing. THE INDEPENDANT ISP!

Every comment here is about either Comcast (or like company with a MONOPOLY over their cable lines) or SBC. A couple of comments about Earthlink (which I might add has well over 2 million DSL subscribers. But there's no mention of any of the smaller mom and pop shops that actually offer REAL service and REAL value.

They cost a hair bit more than say SBC or Verizon, but when you call to ask a question, guess what. You get a real live technician that can solve your problem for you that not only has a clue about what might be wrong with your internet connection, but also speaks english.

Here's the real kicker that noone knows. To get that SBC DSL at $14.95 you have to have your phone line from SBC ($24/mth) in CA plus a bunch of added features like call waiting, caller ID, caller ID waiting, long distance and so forth. In the end, that $14.95 DSL costs you about $60/mth.

Pick up the yellow pages and find a local DSL provider $24/mth for phone line $19.95/mth for DSL. You guys saved yourself $17, but on the front it looks more expensive. That $17 will get you a VoIP account that does everything you need for phone service and you don't have long distance charges and still have $3 left over.

BUT, if SBC and Verizon are allowed to say "nope, sorry you can't sell DSL on our network" They just ripped you off of $17/mth and you don't even know it. Plus it's more or less a bait and switch. They WILL raise the prices when they don't have the indy competition to deal with. They'll say things like "oh, that's because it's costing us more to go into these remote locations". On top of that, think about the types of companies we're talking about. These are the bells for christ sakes! They were already forced to break up due to anticompetive behavior, price gouging, and all kind of other things. Now we're going to hand it right back to them? Let's not forget that the phone line network was started with tax payer dollars decades ago and then handed over to AT&T to maintain.

The bells are slowing their introduction of DSL to remote areas SPECIFICIALLY to use this as a ploy to get permission to remove independants from their networks.

One last thing, Wholesale cost of DSL to the ISP is $11.50 plus something called FUSF (BS thing the FCC setup to help fund bandwidth for schools and so forth that the money just tends to disappear) which rounds out to about $13/mth. How is ANY "independant" ISP suppose to manage to make a profit when they have to pay $13/mth to get a DSL to a customer. That's not counting the transport from SBC's phone switch to their network. Currently it COSTS me $18/mth just to supply DSL to 1 customer and that's not including the server costs for mail and whatever, or the bandwidth to the internet costs. That's just getting the customer DSL from their house to my network.

Tell me there isn't price fixing going on here. People need to understand that this is how huge corperations do business and stop supporting this kind of practice to save a measly $5/mth.

Oh, and don't think Cable companies aren't/won't do the same thing. Every corperation has taken lessions from the Bells. Why do you think so far Independants aren't allowed on Cable networks?

Good info. You only had one thing a tad off...FUSF (not a big deal) You are correct about what it's for: funding schools and other NFP to get internet access. However, this fee is assigned to telephony/data providers and they then choose to pass that fee on to the customers. FUSF is not a required fee, but telephone providers choose to pass it on so they don't take the hit themselves... I called up Verizon and Cingular to have these taken off my billings, but it took a rather rough fight including a call to a lawyer...all for about $4.85/mo... Not necessarily worth it.

My nephew signed up for the SBC/Yahoo DSL starter package at $14.95 amo. Telephone service was mandatory but he didn't need to get "caller ID" or those extra features.

The Yahoo upgrade service is $39.95 a mo., Comcast $42.95 and AOL Brodband about $54.00 dollars around here.

We have an independently owned ISP which offers prices comparable to the SBC/Yahoo upgrade package, if somebody prefers a local company...

SBC is now charging $14.95 a month for there DSL but there upload/download speed is nothing compared to cable. I'll continue to pay $35.00 a month for Roadrunner until SBC convinces me to switch and for good reason.

How about 14.99 a month if ordered online?

SBC charges a lot of money ($50.00) for DSL over their lines if you sign up with them. Yahoo offers a big discount over that same infrastructure and leaves the monthly bilings to the phone company. Sharing already exists and prices might drop with more competition. Current Yahoo prices are less than some dial up services, with unlimited hours on-line per month. AOL at $23.90? Forget it...

Why people still use AOL is beyond me. They are a joke.

Well Im glad I have Cable Internet @ my house. I pay $30 dollars a month for 3.8 MB~4 MB. I have Insight Broadband(I believe it was called ATT@home from my IP properties). Also I can get digital cable( round 350 channels), Cable Internet, and phone service from Insight for round $90 a month. I feel for people with DSl being that it is expensive and always rules coming out for it.

Cable sucks. My bandwidth is shared, my service has become shotty, and I even have digital. I'm seriously thinking of moving to DSL or trying out WoW. I'm happy they stopped with the ads on the on screen displays (I'm not paying for them to get extra cash by showing us more advertising). This ComCast BS has taken its toll.

All I'm saying is that each type of network has its problems. I'm a little interested in PoE (power over ethernet).

I also think them telling you that you have to have phone service in order to have DSL is a joke too.

I wouldn't say DSL is that expensive, that it can't be competitive. My entire bill, including phone, basic cable, (not a big T.V. watcher), is around $100. I have a 7MB/896k connection. Not sure what "rules" you are talking about, but I specifically got a DSL line so I wouldn't have to deal with the local cable bandwidth caps. And yes, I think it should be cheaper... I do wish for FTTH, or at least FTTC with VDSL2 at least.

So what they are saying is that companies like Earthlink cannot offer service over say an SBC line because SBC owns that line and they can control who is on it and who is not, block sites, favor hardware as mentioned, etc.

As I understand the way things are now companies like Earthlink are allowed to offer service over SBC lines because of goverment regulation requires this to happen so SBC doesn't have so much control.

By control I mean the lines that SBC has run and has their people fix it when something happens. They would not allow Earthlink DSL to happen because they want to make that money.

In terms of politics this seems like something 'ol George would agree with since he likes it when the rich get richer and the poor get...well, you know.

SBC is trying to save itself due to the increase in cable broadband service and the VOIP services now being offered. They stand to lose a lot. I can see and understand the change in the rulings. Earthlink, AOL, MSN, and the like will not be able to rip off the customer with their dialup service, so they were taking advantage of the previous ruling by offering DSL connectivity. I don't blame SBC for doing it either.

IMO - DSL is a great alternative to cable, but the price is still outrageous. The now 14.99 a month is a great deal and a super alternative to the inconsistent service of Cable providers. I am thinking of changing for that reason alone. Comcast is always down, and there is no alternative in the area which is owned by them. DSL is the only other answer.

It has much to do with democracy and civil liberties.

Check the outcomes:

Currently, companies are allowed to share lines and service offerings. Say Bellsouth charges 60 for 1.5 DSL - Earthlink charges 40 for 1.5 DSL by sharing the line and paying Bellsouth a FAIR royalty to use the line and resell the service. Say the service COSTS 15 to supply (that is infrastructure maintenance, etc. etc.). Earthink is supplying it for less than BS cuz they pay BS a royalty of 20 and enjoy 20 profits. BS is enjoying 40 in profits from those choosing them as suppliers. Here's another example, Netrox - they have their own infrastructure, all they need is access to the line so they pay BS 10 for use of the line and supply DSL to customers for 30. Enjoying 20 in profits as well.

Now for the change.

Bellsouth now stops Netrox and most others from sharing the phoneline. Now they can charge 100 for DSL if they want to. There's no longer any competition since they own the entire infrastructure. OR, they can resell the service to Earthlink for 80 and charge 60 to customers. Who'd buy from earthlink? They'd have to charge at least 85 to make any kind of worthwhile profit.

Democracy is suppose to give rise to power and choice of the people. Civil liberties also are suppose to allow choice for the betterment of society.

By taking away choice, you're creating a devastating market effect and thus liberty from a society that has enjoyed free choice of who to get DSL with. You're also putting other companies at risk of failure.

By doing this, they're destroying choice - creating and rebuilding monopolies that have been broken in the past. And all for what? Who's suffered? The companies? NO....The people? NO - why the change?

Remember the Death Star people! The days of AT&T are upon us once again!

Here's the thing. The US is a republic, not a democracy. We hold democratic elections which means that the masses are allowed to vote, but for the most part we vote for other people to vote for use, which is the definition of a republic. If you do a google define: on these words you'll see I'm wrong, that's because over the years the words have changed meaning. But check out the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers to see what the founding fathers meant when the formed our country. Heck, look at the pledge, "...and to the republic for which it stands...".

And I'm not looking for a fight or anything, I just don't like when people through around the word "democracy" like they have it. Especially (and I'm not talking to you Neoprimal, just people in general) if they haven't even contacted their congress person or representative about it. If you spout democracy then use it.

As for why? For justice. The cable companies don't have to share, why should the phone companies? Its the classic American "but my brother Billy doesn't have to share his toys, why do I?".

And for the record, I hope the phone companies lose. I'm just stating some points here and trying to answer your questions.

Well I admire your balls. And for the record I agree....I just don't want to be flamed either. LOL
Also, yes I understand it's only fair - but who's going to benefit? Not the people. The cable operators should also share but then again, that's another store.
It's like all these cell phone mergers? I just don't get it....why break up the monopolies just to have it reform eventually? Do they think that Americans have no memory? I guess they expect most of the 'complainer' generation are gone so they're reforming slowly to a monopolistic status? I don't know. All I DO know is that it's dim. In how many years, things have been going great - prices are affordable for most and there is a great balance of competition. But in 5 years I'm seeing them slowly remass into superpower companies again. ATT and Cinguler, now Spring & Nextel....if this DSL thing goes through you can bet your a** DSL prices are going to rise again due to some "equipment/infrastructure upgrade" or whatever they chose to tell us.

It's just scary.

Very interesting. Thanks for that info.

You are exactly right. Look at the recent recommendations by the Telecommunications companies to change their structure to offer a variety of services - rather than 1 or 2. Communications is exploding into these "super" companies as mentioned. Companies are merging to offer several of these services and take market shares away from competitors.

Actually, I don't care all that much for the increase in download speed, but DSL is the dialup of the future. That cost needs to stay lower than cable.(as an alternative to cable) I can't see paying that much for a connection that is not used all the time.

There is no such thing as a true democracy for a country of any real size. Never has been. Good luck trying to get one to actually get anything done. Democracy has changed definitions because it's now loosly meaning the people control the whims of the country. In a sense this is true with our nation. If people really were pissed trust me they'd get off their *ss and vote. But right now too much apathy exists: and it benefits the people at the top of the ladder.

Wake up people! If this becomes law on top of other things that the U.S. government has changed recently, it is just another erosion of democracy and civil liberties. If we continue to allow this kind of thing to happen, we will soon only have one supplier for each of our crucial services or worse, - one company that rules all our lives. Big Brother is getting bigger daily! Wake up now!

What does this have to do with democracy and civil liberty?

and i'll kcik back with my isdn and hope this passes and sbc will put dsl out here

isn't that called Fios and it's like twice as much as regular verizon dsl?

Bah. screw DSL, which has too many limitations, let's get them to upgrade their networks to fiber already like Verizon is doing.

Stuff like this was happening in the UK as well. BT (Brititsh Telecom) owns the Phone Network in the UK, and to get DSL they charged a LOT of money to other ISPs, the people said No, and the Goverment came up with LLU (Local Loop Unbundle) the ISPs insert their stuff into local exchanges payign BT some money not a lot and they can get out DSL for cheap. Look at Freedom2Surf, UKOnline etc they offer 8MBit DSL, Unlimited Bandwidth for like £30 a month which is cheap £30 = around $60

well verizon has Fiberoptic now for $50 a month 15 Meg :O