30 MONTHS!? in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r17098126 en Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:55:49 EDT Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:55:49 EDT Re: 30 MONTHS!? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17098619 anon : A good question: who would buy naked DSL if they knew they'd get cut off after 30 months? Who'd invest in a business plan that depended on offering under a third party brand name like EarthLink?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17098619 Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:33:41 EDT Re: 30 MONTHS!? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17098301 tkdslr :
said by bamabrad See Profile :

It should be" untill ATT redeems itself! ( A LOOOOOONG Time)
Or until the monopoly is broken up again.

The neutrality conditions should also set the price to resellers, below the lowest dsl combo minus voice sevice costs&profits they're imposing on retail customers.

And it should require that the service be offered in a pure bridged atm format. (And not the PPPoX over Bridged, which often impacts connectivity and reliability.)

===

The Baby bells are leveraging DSL service in order to maintain voice circuit monopoly. (Cable co's are doing the same.. Standalone Inet access significantly more expensive than with TV service bundles.) It's time for this little scam to end. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17098301 Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:53:45 EDT Re: 30 MONTHS!? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17098289 MxxCon : month to month would be too taxing:uhh: for fcc to review att's actions
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: Signature can not exceed 20GB]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17098289 Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:52:53 EDT Re: 30 MONTHS!? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17098138 bamabrad : Or how about " month to month" ?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17098138 Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:26:38 EDT 30 MONTHS!? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17098126 bamabrad : It should be" untill ATT redeems itself! ( A LOOOOOONG Time)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17098126 Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:25:34 EDT