richdelb
Go Hawks Go
Premium
join:2003-01-22
Algonquin, IL
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to mahony
Re: Few want naked DSL?
said by mahony  :Richdelb said Keep paying for cable/sat, you pay for about 100 channels you newver watch. Whan will they have a a la carte TV service? I am tired of paying for HGTV and other channels I never watch. Sure got that right, but with a cable I DO use /want some of those channels.
With a POTS line, I don't want it at all, so the comparison is not the same.
A la Carte cable / sat is something that I support 100% but that's not really what the topic is about. |
|
mahony
join:2000-06-24
Modesto, CA
| reply to richdelb
Richdelb said
"Look.. I am paying for cable internet, so the cost isn't the issue for me. It's the fact that I'd have to pay for something that I DO NOT WANT, in order to get what I do want."
Keep paying for cable/sat, you pay for about 100 channels you newver watch. Whan will they have a a la carte TV service? I am tired of paying for HGTV and other channels I never watch. |
|
richdelb
Go Hawks Go
Premium
join:2003-01-22
Algonquin, IL
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to Dissman
DSL Doesn't even exist in my mind, unless I can get it without needing a POTS line. It simply is not an option, no matter the speed, or cost.
I have no need for a POTS line. Why pay all that extra money for DSL? It's simply a surcharge. $29.95 a month for DSL PLUS 15 extra bucks for a land line? (and all it's taxes and "fees") (On a side note, one could argue that a POTS line is just another SBC created fee for the use of it's DSL service...)
Thanks, really, but I'll pass on DSL.
Look.. I am paying for cable internet, so the cost isn't the issue for me. It's the fact that I'd have to pay for something that I DO NOT WANT, in order to get what I do want.
I'm making no judgement on the ACTUAL DSL service here, just to be clear... |
|
