OT: Sonic vs Comcast

[evergene]

I'm currently paying an arm and a leg to Comcast. I don't use their
cable TV service, I only use them as an ISP. After reading comments
about Sonic, I took a look at their service offering, and Fusion looks
great, with one possible issue for me: download speeds. Sonic offers
"up to 20 Mbps." My Comcast download speed was 36 Mbps this morning
when I ran the speed test on Sonic's site.

We do a fair amount of streaming -- my partner watches a lot of Hulu
and/or whatever variations are out there. (Being my partner has its
challenges.)

How would Sonic DSL be for streaming and any other download-type
activity that's dependent on a decent speed?

It's probably relevant that Sonic tells me my location is 4,656 feet
from Sonic's local office.

Thanks.

[evergene]

One more possibly relevant bit: the internal phone line wiring in this
house is old. I've never had a problem with it, but it's old.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <9s15h89fbjbqv1d81...@4ax.com>,

evergene <ge...@geeaitcheekaygee.com> wrote:
>I'm currently paying an arm and a leg to Comcast. I don't use their
>cable TV service, I only use them as an ISP. After reading comments
>about Sonic, I took a look at their service offering, and Fusion looks
>great, with one possible issue for me: download speeds. Sonic offers
>"up to 20 Mbps." My Comcast download speed was 36 Mbps this morning
>when I ran the speed test on Sonic's site.

After it was mentioned that they had POTS (Plain Old Telephone
Service), I went to look on their website. It appears that indeed
they do, but I don't see the product offered other than bundled
with DSL at a high price. Is it possible to simply get phone service
(not voice-over-internet) there or anywhere but AT&T?

[Hans Klager]

On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 08:54:22 -0800, evergene <ge...@geeaitcheekaygee.com> wrote:
> I'm currently paying an arm and a leg to Comcast.

They like it that way.

> After reading comments about Sonic, I took a look at their
> service offering, and Fusion looks great, with one possible
> issue for me: download speeds. Sonic offers "up to 20 Mbps." My
> Comcast download speed was 36 Mbps this morning when I ran the
> speed test on Sonic's site.

When it comes to Cable net connections, it slows down when
others are using it, like in the evening. Test it again at say
20:00 hrs.

>
> We do a fair amount of streaming -- my partner watches a lot of Hulu
> and/or whatever variations are out there. (Being my partner has its
> challenges.)
>
> How would Sonic DSL be for streaming and any other download-type
> activity that's dependent on a decent speed?

I honestly can't answer this question, but I'm sure
someone at Sonic will tell you.

>
> It's probably relevant that Sonic tells me my location is 4,656 feet
> from Sonic's local office.

That will affect your speed and I see you are under a mile
from the Central Office. This is good.


--
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant
market share. No chance." Steve Ballmer 6/29/2007

[Hans Klager]

On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:06:07 -0800, evergene
<ge...@geeaitcheekaygee.com> wrote:

> One more possibly relevant bit: the internal phone line wiring in this
> house is old. I've never had a problem with it, but it's old.

The age is not as important as the condition. If it is
twisted and dry, you are OK.

[spamtrap1888]

I posted a question about sonic to ba.internet last year, and there
were other discussions. I'm three times as far away, and it's
tolerable. We don't have cable, either.

[spamtrap1888]

On Feb 6, 9:19 am, mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb) wrote:
> In article <9s15h89fbjbqv1d816799e4qsvefbo6...@4ax.com>,

POTS is very much a legacy service, which is why AT&T is jacking up
the price. Just get U-Verse, will be their attitude

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <8413ab72-9658-44a5...@j2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>POTS is very much a legacy service, which is why AT&T is jacking
>up the price. Just get U-Verse, will be their attitude

That may be their attitude, but of course if I do give up on having
a traditional telephone line, I'll also be dumping AT&T.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <keu4gi$hqi$3...@usenet.stanford.edu>,

Oh, and I actually entered my phone number into Sonic's site for
availability, and it's not available anyway -- so much for seeing
if they'd provide POTS-only.

I sure love monopolies.

[(null)]

In article <9s15h89fbjbqv1d81...@4ax.com>,
evergene <ge...@geeaitcheekaygee.com> wrote:

>My Comcast download speed was 36 Mbps this morning
>when I ran the speed test on Sonic's site.

Comcast has a feature called PowerBoost. When you open a stream, bandwidth
is initially uncapped and then gradually rate limiting kicks in.

Of course, speed tests tend to be short and operate in the uncapped
period before rate limiting kicks in. Comcast gets to tout it as a feature
(Internet feels more responsive) and it buys them inflated bandwidth reports,
a definite win-win for them.

[SMS]

Your DSL speeds will be very slow that far from the central office. I
know one person who's actually getting close to 20Mbps on Sonic and
she's about one block from the central office.

I'm at less than 2Mbps on Sonic, not enough for streaming. And the
speeds have deteriorated over time. I'm a similar distance away from the
central office as you.

You could have one SD stream at the bit rate you're likely to get.
Definitely not HD.

[sf]

Since the most downloading or uploading I do is usenet messages and
single images, power boost works just as advertised for me. I
downgraded from Blast to the most basic service they have and I barely
noticed the change. The worst I can say about it is there might be a
split second's difference at times, but mainly it's nothing
noticeable.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

[Keith Keller]

On 2013-02-06, evergene <ge...@geeaitcheekaygee.com> wrote:
>
> We do a fair amount of streaming -- my partner watches a lot of Hulu
> and/or whatever variations are out there. (Being my partner has its
> challenges.)
>
> How would Sonic DSL be for streaming and any other download-type
> activity that's dependent on a decent speed?
>
> It's probably relevant that Sonic tells me my location is 4,656 feet
> from Sonic's local office.

IIRC I am about 8000 feet from the CO, and get about 5Mbps from Sonic.
This is sufficient for HD streaming from Netflix or Vudu (so presumably
from Hulu too).

As others have mentioned, Sonic Fusion requires an existing POTS line,
and will take over service from AT&T or whoever the CLEC is. I think
it's great that Sonic deals with AT&T instead of me, but other people
might not be.

I gave up satellite service last year, and other than hockey I haven't
missed it one bit. If you're already a Hulu/streaming user, and don't
care much about live sports, you should have a fairly easy transition.

--keith

--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

[pfraser]

Keith Keller wrote:

> As others have mentioned, Sonic Fusion requires an existing POTS line,
> and will take over service from AT&T or whoever the CLEC is.

I'm reasonably happy with Comcast for internet, but AT&T is
quite expensive for POTS. I tried Sonic, because their
combined POTS/DSL would be cheaper than my AT&T POTS, but
they said:

"We are currently unable to provide you with Fusion
because you are 6267 feet behind a remote terminal,
which blocks the Fusion signal."

Any idea what a remote terminal is?

[Hans Klager]

One of the many reasons they have worked so hard to earn
the name Scumcast.

[Hans Klager]

I would guess this is their current SLiC huts. The big
ugly boxes with fan noise that obstruct sidewalks. It provides
punters with the U-verse service.

Hint. AT&T bless their black little hearts, leave DSL
filters in place at protectors (Network Intefave MPOEs) which
kinda sucks when you want real DSL.

[Steve Pope]

Usually an RT is an air-conditioner sized box up on a telephone
pole that has a DSL concentrator in it.

Steve

[pfraser]

Steve Pope wrote:

> pfraser <pete_...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> I'm reasonably happy with Comcast for internet, but AT&T is
>> quite expensive for POTS. I tried Sonic, because their
>> combined POTS/DSL would be cheaper than my AT&T POTS, but
>> they said:
>>
>> "We are currently unable to provide you with Fusion
>> because you are 6267 feet behind a remote terminal,
>> which blocks the Fusion signal."
>>
>> Any idea what a remote terminal is?
>>
>
> Usually an RT is an air-conditioner sized box up on a telephone
> pole that has a DSL concentrator in it.
>

I just called Sonic, so see if it was technically possible to
get POTS, as long as I paid for fusion.

They said I couldn't, but the guy wasn't sure if it was
for technical reasons, or that they just didn't want to
deal with weirdos.

Even paying the fusion price for POTS would be a better
deal than AT&T, and without the ick factor.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <keun16$5tv$1...@dont-email.me>,

pfraser <pete_...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I just called Sonic, so see if it was technically possible to
>get POTS, as long as I paid for fusion.
>They said I couldn't, but the guy wasn't sure if it was
>for technical reasons, or that they just didn't want to
>deal with weirdos.
>Even paying the fusion price for POTS would be a better
>deal than AT&T, and without the ick factor.

Thanks for posting about this. I'm in more-or-less your exact
situation, as described. Sigh.

[Peter Lawrence]

On 2/6/13 1:52 PM, Hans Klager wrote:
>
> One of the many reasons they have worked so hard to earn
> the name Scumcast.

You're the only one I've ever read or heard that has ever called Comcast
Scumcast.


- Peter

[sf]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 21:52:48 +0000 (UTC), Hans Klager
<hans....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 06 Feb 2013 18:19:32 GMT, (null) <dl...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > In article <9s15h89fbjbqv1d81...@4ax.com>,
> > evergene <ge...@geeaitcheekaygee.com> wrote:
> >>My Comcast download speed was 36 Mbps this morning
> >>when I ran the speed test on Sonic's site.
>
> > Comcast has a feature called PowerBoost. When you open a
> > stream, bandwidth is initially uncapped and then gradually rate
> > limiting kicks in.
> >
> > Of course, speed tests tend to be short and operate in the
> > uncapped period before rate limiting kicks in. Comcast gets to
> > tout it as a feature (Internet feels more responsive) and it
> > buys them inflated bandwidth reports, a definite win-win for
> > them.
>
> One of the many reasons they have worked so hard to earn
> the name Scumcast.

I've never heard it called that, but my friends don't expect large
company internet speed/performance at home network prices.

[sf]

On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 18:52:40 -0800, Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com>
wrote:

Thanks. I guess I'm not as far out of the loop as I thought.

[sms]

On 2/6/2013 12:54 PM, pfraser wrote:
> Keith Keller wrote:
>
>> As others have mentioned, Sonic Fusion requires an existing POTS line,
>> and will take over service from AT&T or whoever the CLEC is.
>
> I'm reasonably happy with Comcast for internet, but AT&T is
> quite expensive for POTS. I tried Sonic, because their
> combined POTS/DSL would be cheaper than my AT&T POTS, but
> they said:

That's strange. Prior to switching to Sonic Fusion my AT&T POTS was
about $22/month, while Sonic Fusion is now about $47/month with the new
mandatory modem rental.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <kevb8h$11c$2...@dont-email.me>,

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>Prior to switching to Sonic Fusion my AT&T POTS was about $22/month,

....

Gosh, I wish. As noted when I started this topic -- and that was
meant as an allegory of personal and institutional, obviously --
they are raising it *fast*.

[Keith Keller]

On 2013-02-07, sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> That's strange. Prior to switching to Sonic Fusion my AT&T POTS was
> about $22/month, while Sonic Fusion is now about $47/month with the new
> mandatory modem rental.

Are you comparing apples to oranges (pun intended)? A POTS line is just
voice service. Fusion is POTS voice plus ADSL2+. A POTS plus data plan
with AT&T looks like it runs about $40/month. It's *definitely* worth
$7 a month to get away from AT&T. (Well, you never really escape--you
just pay Sonic to deal with them. But they have SLAs with AT&T that a
residential customer can't get.)

[(null)]

In article <kevb8h$11c$2...@dont-email.me>,
sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>That's strange. Prior to switching to Sonic Fusion my AT&T POTS was
>about $22/month

AT&T residential flat rate POTS just went up mid-January and is now
$25/month plus about $8 in taxes/fees.

Measured rate is now $21 plus about $8 in taxes/fees.

[Hans Klager]

On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 19:30:45 -0800, sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 21:52:48 +0000 (UTC), Hans Klager
><hans....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06 Feb 2013 18:19:32 GMT, (null) <dl...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> > In article <9s15h89fbjbqv1d81...@4ax.com>,
>>

>> One of the many reasons they have worked so hard to earn
>> the name Scumcast.
>
> I've never heard it called that, but my friends don't expect large
> company internet speed/performance at home network prices.
>

Real ISPs, ones that provide DSL or RF to the home, offer
better service for less than Scumcast, or any Cable carrier.

It isn't all speed, uptime, port availability, static IPs,
no blocking are considerations too.

Real ISPs, don't stuff my mailbox with amazing offers, or
send people to bang on my door to hear about their amazing
packages.

[Peter Lawrence]

On 2/6/13 10:39 PM, Hans Klager wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 19:30:45 -0800, sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 21:52:48 +0000 (UTC), Hans Klager
>> <hans....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 06 Feb 2013 18:19:32 GMT, (null) <dl...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> In article <9s15h89fbjbqv1d81...@4ax.com>,
>>>
>>> One of the many reasons they have worked so hard to earn
>>> the name Scumcast.
>>
>> I've never heard it called that, but my friends don't expect large
>> company internet speed/performance at home network prices.
>>
> Real ISPs, ones that provide DSL or RF to the home, offer
> better service for less than Scumcast, or any Cable carrier.
>
> It isn't all speed, uptime, port availability, static IPs,
> no blocking are considerations too.
>
> Real ISPs, don't stuff my mailbox with amazing offers, or
> send people to bang on my door to hear about their amazing
> packages.

Your loss.

(Most people could care less about static IP or port availability.)


- Peter

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <kevipk$v0s$1...@dont-email.me>,

Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
>On 2/6/13 10:39 PM, Hans Klager wrote:
>>Real ISPs, don't stuff my mailbox with amazing offers

I get that shit from everyone. I wish.

>(Most people could care less about static IP or port availability.)

I care plenty, not that I'm real. But Julian is quite wrong on
this.

[SMS]

Fusion will now cost about $56/month after taxes and fees, so I don't
understand why anyone would buy it just for the POTS.

[SMS]

On 2/6/2013 8:53 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
> On 2013-02-07, sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> That's strange. Prior to switching to Sonic Fusion my AT&T POTS was
>> about $22/month, while Sonic Fusion is now about $47/month with the new
>> mandatory modem rental.
>
> Are you comparing apples to oranges (pun intended)?

No. The other poster wrote "Even paying the fusion price for POTS would

[Hans Klager]

Wrong about what?

I've been wrong about many things, or so I am told, but
often when I am laughed at, history proves me right.

When it comes to uptime by the way, cable companies have
the worst record of any utility.

Here's a fun reason to hate cable companies: 40% of the
cost of a cable TV bill is for the sports rubbish. 28% of
subscribers watch sports.

[SMS]

On 2/6/2013 12:48 PM, Keith Keller wrote:

<snip>

> I gave up satellite service last year, and other than hockey I haven't
> missed it one bit. If you're already a Hulu/streaming user, and don't
> care much about live sports, you should have a fairly easy transition.

SWMBO insists on some sort of TV service even though I'd do without it
personally.

We switch every two years between DirecTV and Dish because with the
sign-up bonuses and introductory discounts it's the only way to keep the
average monthly cost down to a non-exorbitant level.

We just switched to DirecTV again yesterday. Costco currently is
offering a $200 Costco Cash Card with a DirecTV sign-up, plus with the
various other discounts (some good for months 1-12, some for months
13-24, and some for months 1-24) it's at least held down to less than
$50 per month for two TVs and a whole house DVR. Still seems expensive
to me though.

[pfraser]

SMS wrote:
>
> Fusion will now cost about $56/month after taxes and fees, so I don't
> understand why anyone would buy it just for the POTS.

I make many calls to the UK.
With Sonic, the first eight hours per month to UK landlines are
free. That would cover most months. AT&T UK calls are 8c / minute.

With Sonic, calls to European mobile phones, or UK 0845 numbers
are 4.2c / minute. With AT&T they are 33c / minute.

AT&T charges for domestic long distance; Sonic doesn't.

December's AT&T bill:

Monthly service -- $26
OneRate Worldwide -- $5
Worldwide Value -- $5
Surcharges, fees, and taxes -- $21.37

Total is $57.37 before I've even paid for calls.

As for the ick factor, I think call waiting is rude, and never
use it, but AT&T wants money to disable it.

"Body of Secrets" by James Bamford is an interesting read.
It discusses the NSA, and specifically goes into detail as
to how AT&T went out of their way to build a huge
telecommunications surveillance infrastructure for the US
government.

[Travis James]

By the way, you can get those things from Comcast on the business class
side of their service. No throttling or packet shaping. Customer service
is US based 24/7, some hours out of Morgan Hill. On site response times
are usually, but not always within 24 hours. I use business class into
my home for $65/mo. Not the cheapest but worth it because I'm on VPN all
day into my employer in Sunnyvale.

But Sonic is a solid company. I used them for DSL years ago when I lived
in San Jose. I can't get them where I live now or I'd still be a customer.

I have DM'd Dane Jasper, their CEO, (via Twitter) that this thread is
going on. He checks in occasionally on ba.internet.

[SMS]

On 2/7/2013 7:51 AM, pfraser wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>>
>> Fusion will now cost about $56/month after taxes and fees, so I don't
>> understand why anyone would buy it just for the POTS.
>
> I make many calls to the UK.
> With Sonic, the first eight hours per month to UK landlines are
> free. That would cover most months. AT&T UK calls are 8c / minute.
>
> With Sonic, calls to European mobile phones, or UK 0845 numbers
> are 4.2c / minute. With AT&T they are 33c / minute.

Right, but you would never use AT&T for long distance calling, whether
domestic or international. Still, Sonic's rates to UK mobiles are
amazingly low, something is wrong there. They are about 1/4 the rate
that other providers like Callcentric and OneSuite charge. Am I missing
something there?

[Ciccio]

>         Here's a fun reason to hate cable companies: 40% of the
> cost of a cable TV bill is for the sports rubbish. 28% of
> subscribers watch sports.

Works for me and then some.

Ciccio

[pfraser]

SMS wrote:
>
> Right, but you would never use AT&T for long distance calling, whether
> domestic or international.

Evidently I would. What _should_ I be doing?

[Hans Klager]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 07:51:54 -0800, pfraser <pete_...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> As for the ick factor, I think call waiting is rude, and never
> use it, but AT&T wants money to disable it.

You answer a call, Kching! That's why they love voicemail
and call waiting.

>
> "Body of Secrets" by James Bamford is an interesting read.
> It discusses the NSA, and specifically goes into detail as
> to how AT&T went out of their way to build a huge
> telecommunications surveillance infrastructure for the US
> government.

"Gentelmen don't read each other's mail" - Henry Stimson.
Secretary of State.

It's one thing to read the enemy's mail, but when you
read the mail of your friends and neigbours?

[sms]

For the least expensive cost for AT&T land line service you would get
measured rate service then use a service like Google Voice with calls
initiated on the computer (Google Voice calls both parties so it would
be an incoming call to you and hence not count as one of your measured
calls).

If you have flat rate landline service then you can also look at
providers like OneSuite and TalkLoop.

It also might be worthwhile to use Ooma with their $10 for 1000 minutes
(to landlines) international plan, even if you don't want to port your
landline number to Ooma. You'd also be paying $4 or so in monthly fees
so you'd be paying about $14/1000 minutes or about 1.4¢/minute if you
used all 1000 minutes.

StraightTalk home phone service (which is basically Verizon cellular
service but with an ATA rather than a handset) is $30/month with
unlimited worldwide landline long distance to many countries
<http://www.straighttalkhomephone.com/>.

I don't know Sonic's arrangement with AT&T, but I agree that it would be
nice for many people to be able to have landline-only service from Sonic
in cases where the DSL data rate is too slow.

[Peter Lawrence]

Ditto.

Love that other subscribers help subsidize the cost of my cable viewing habits.

(80% what I watch on cable TV are sports channels. For non-sports
programming I find that broadcast (free) TV is more than fine. Only need
cable TV for the extra sports programming it offers.)


- Peter

[Dane Jasper]

Hans Klager <hans....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's a fun reason to hate cable companies: 40% of the
> cost of a cable TV bill is for the sports rubbish. 28% of
> subscribers watch sports.

Curious about the source of these stats, do you have a citation you can
provide?

--
Dane Jasper Sonic.net, Inc.
(707)522-1000
mailto:da...@sonic.net http://www.sonic.net/

Key fingerprint = A5 D6 6E 16 D8 81 BA E9 CB BD A9 77 B3 AF 45 53

[Dane Jasper]

Travis James <travis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have DM'd Dane Jasper, their CEO, (via Twitter) that this thread is
> going on. He checks in occasionally on ba.internet.

Hi!

[evergene]

I've been reading this thread (and last year's similar thread on
ba.internet) with great interest.

A business relationship in which you have to game your service
provider as a defensive measure, because they're constantly gaming
you, is one of the two factors driving me away from Comcast. The
other, related to the first, is simply the high cost -- even if you're
good at the game, which I'm not, the cost is still high. But in terms
of speed and reliability, I like Comcast. I've experienced no Comcast
outage in about two years.

I expect we'll sign up for Sonic Fusion and see how it goes. I did
hear from the one other person I know in SF who has Sonic, and is very
happy with it. "Unreserved positive recommendation" were his exact
words. He lives in Duboce Triangle; I don't know how far he is from
the local CO.

[Dane Jasper]

SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > It's probably relevant that Sonic tells me my location is 4,656 feet
> > from Sonic's local office.

> Your DSL speeds will be very slow that far from the central office. I
> know one person who's actually getting close to 20Mbps on Sonic and
> she's about one block from the central office.

At the poster's distance, it appears that around 14Mbps is the average. Here
is a chart of average speeds at distance:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r26910859-New-Fusion-average-speed-distance-chart

One benefit with the Fusion service is that it's a dedicated line, so there
is no "prime time slowdown" as there can be with a congested shared cable
product.

> I'm at less than 2Mbps on Sonic, not enough for streaming. And the
> speeds have deteriorated over time. I'm a similar distance away from the
> central office as you.

Something is wrong there. The deterioration over time is one clue. That
shouldn't happen, and points toward failing wiring or equipment.

The issue could be outside plant (the loop), household wiring (corrosion,
failing jack, moisture, etc), or equipment (in the central office or
premise), etc. If it's intermittent, additional items are possible such as
interference from badly behaving electronics such as light dimmers.

But in any case, ring support today, and they can dispatch a technician to
check these various items. If the trouble is with your household wiring, you
would need to pay to have it repaired, but if it's in the loop or our
equipment, there's no charge for the visit.

[evergene]

Dane Jasper wrote:

>Travis James <travis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have DM'd Dane Jasper, their CEO, (via Twitter) that this thread is
>> going on. He checks in occasionally on ba.internet.
>
>Hi!

Well, at this point, the only reason I'd not switch to Sonic Fusion is
if the Comcast CEO posts a comment here.

[Dane Jasper]

Keith Keller <kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
> As others have mentioned, Sonic Fusion requires an existing POTS line,

> and will take over service from AT&T or whoever the CLEC is. I think
> it's great that Sonic deals with AT&T instead of me, but other people
> might not be.

We can hot-cut over an existing POTS line and port the tel number, or we can
provision a new line and assign a new number. But either way - yes, a copper
line is used, which delivers both POTS land-line voice (with e911 etc), and
the ADSL2+ that Fusion is based upon.

> I gave up satellite service last year, and other than hockey I haven't
> missed it one bit. If you're already a Hulu/streaming user, and don't
> care much about live sports, you should have a fairly easy transition.

Have you checked out the NHL app on the Apple TV? I'm curious to hear if
it's good, from a fan's perspective.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <pct7h89ugddsoo0si...@4ax.com>,

evergene <ge...@geeaitcheekaygee.com> wrote:
>A business relationship in which you have to game your service
>provider as a defensive measure, because they're constantly gaming
>you, is one of the two factors driving me away from Comcast.

Yes, having to engage in any of the things SMS discusses pretty
much defines "I'm unhappy with the provider" for me.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <slrnkh7j15.s6...@adeed.tele.com>,
Hans Klager <hans....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Wrong about what?

About static IPs and port blocking. Fully functional internet
service is available on cable. I know, I'm on it right now.

>Here's a fun reason to hate cable companies: 40% of the cost of a
>cable TV bill is for the sports rubbish. 28% of subscribers watch
>sports.

TV isn't relevant to me. People who pay for TV get what they
deserve.

[sms]

On 2/7/2013 7:45 AM, Hans Klager wrote:

> Here's a fun reason to hate cable companies: 40% of the
> cost of a cable TV bill is for the sports rubbish. 28% of
> subscribers watch sports.

[adding ba.internet]

One article says that it's nearly 50% of the cost:
<http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/01/business/la-fi-1202-ct-sports-cost-20121202>.

One thing I noticed about DirecTV is that at the "Entertainment" level
they don't charge you the extra the "regional sports fee" because they
are omitting some of the sports channels. At least that's one small savings.

From Forbes: "The resulting system is one in which every ridiculous
sports contract and every hike in ESPN fees gets passed down to the
lovers of antique shows and nature documentaries entirely uninterested
in sports. It’s a system that has consumers pony up for the broadcasts
they used to receive for free, since local retransmission fees are the
industry’s fastest growing cost."

I'd be thrilled to have a package option with no sports.

Also, one thing I've never understood is why the satellite and cable
companies should pay local stations to carry their broadcasts. It should
be the other way around since the satellite and cable companies are
vastly expanding the viewership of these commercial channels that rely
on advertising.

While I would could live solely with terrestrial TV, the spousal unit
insists on it, though she's give up on CNN which she used to like to
watch. So I do what I can to minimize the average monthly cost. This
generally involves switching between DirecTV and Dish every two years to
get the lower rates and incentives that they offer to new customers.

Sonic also resells DirecTV but the TV section of their site has a lot of
errors on it. I.e. they supposedly give you $5 off DirecTV and $5 off
Fusion if you sign up through them, but they say that the listed price
for TV includes the $5 discount on DirecTV even though it's the same
price as DirecTV charges everyone. I would have gone through Sonic if
they really did offer a combined extra $10 per month off since that's a
better incentive than the $200 Costco Cash card.

They also say that the regional sports fee is assessed on Choice package
and above, but DirecTV doesn't assess it on the Choice package. They
also say that there is a $99 fee for the whole house DVR, which I'm
pretty sure is not true.

Perhaps if Dane is following this thread he can have the web site corrected.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <kf1017$l8r$1...@dont-email.me>,

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>Also, one thing I've never understood is why the satellite and
>cable companies should pay local stations to carry their broadcasts.
>It should be the other way around since the satellite and cable
>companies are vastly expanding the viewership of these commercial
>channels that rely on advertising.

By the same logic, consumers should be paid to have TV in their
homes, not the other way around. I would still decline, but at
least it would seem a more reasonable offer.

[sms]

I'm not unhappy. They are the ones that want to play games and I am
obliging them. It's rather amusing because the satellite TV installers
are well aware that a large percentage of subscribers change providers
every two years in order to obtain a much lower cost. We're not talking
about $5/month savings, it works out to about $25/month. It makes the
installer's job much easier because there's usually no need to run any
cables, they just move the existing cables from the old LNB to the new LNB.

The other advantage of switching providers is that the equipment
improves over time and if you stay with your current provider you have
to pay for upgrades but if you switch providers then you get the better
equipment at no additional cost.

The DirecTV equipment installed yesterday is vastly improved over the
Dish equipment it replaced. Pandora is built in. 5 tuners are built in.
1TB hard drive. The remote receiver client is very small. The only bad
thing is that they've dropped the optical audio connector.

I am thrilled that Sonic doesn't play these pricing games, their service
is a good value and there's no need or incentive to play games.

It's amazing to me how much some people spend on monthly fees for
Internet, landline, long distance calling, cable/satellite TV, satellite
radio, and cellular service. If you don't know some of the workarounds
you could easily spend 3-4x as much for essentially the same level of
services. For example:

1. We presently have four Android smart phones on Verizon's network and
our total wireless bill is about $60/month.

2. Our monthly average cost for satellite TV is around $45 for two HD
TVs with a DVR.

3. The need for satellite radio is largely eliminated by streaming
stored content from smart phones or iPods and using HD Radio.

4. Long distance is now included on Sonic Fusion, but prior to that we
used OneSuite.

5. FAX service is now included on Sonic Fusion, but prior to that we
were using Faxaway which is a very good deal.

6. VPN service is now included on Sonic Fusion, eliminating the need for
a separate VPN service at $60 a year or so.

Now how to convince Dane that Cupertino should be the next city for
Sonic fiber?

[Keith Keller]

On 2013-02-07, Dane Jasper <da...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Keith Keller <kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
>> As others have mentioned, Sonic Fusion requires an existing POTS line,
>> and will take over service from AT&T or whoever the CLEC is. I think
>> it's great that Sonic deals with AT&T instead of me, but other people
>> might not be.
>
> We can hot-cut over an existing POTS line and port the tel number, or we can
> provision a new line and assign a new number. But either way - yes, a copper
> line is used, which delivers both POTS land-line voice (with e911 etc), and
> the ADSL2+ that Fusion is based upon.

Aha! Thanks for the correction.

>> I gave up satellite service last year, and other than hockey I haven't
>> missed it one bit. If you're already a Hulu/streaming user, and don't
>> care much about live sports, you should have a fairly easy transition.
>
> Have you checked out the NHL app on the Apple TV? I'm curious to hear if
> it's good, from a fan's perspective.

Not at the moment. I tried Gamecenter Live (I am guessing that Apple TV
would require such a subscription to stream games) last season, but when
the playoffs started it was useless, because last season was the first
season all games were on some NBC network and therefore not streamed.
Between that and the lockout I've been reluctant to give more money to
the NHL. If I do anything it will likely be to Comcast, because they
abuse their ownership of NBCSN and regional sports networks to undercut
other TV providers. (I also don't have an Apple TV, but my guess is
most of the dedicated streaming apps would provide similar video
quality.)

This horse is already dead, but I find the whole notion of paying a huge
amount of money for channels I don't watch really frustrating. All I
want is all Rangers games and all games on the NBC networks. Why do I
have to pay for MTV and dozens of other channels to get that?

--keith

--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

[Keith Keller]

On 2013-02-07, Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
>
> About static IPs and port blocking. Fully functional internet
> service is available on cable. I know, I'm on it right now.

Are you running a public server on residential cable service? If so,
you're almost certainly in violation of your TOS. And if not, you're
simply not noticing that your internet service is actually not fully
functional.

You're right that most people don't need a static IP or open ports, but
disallowing those things is certainly not "fully functional internet
service". Rather, most people do not require "fully functional internet
service". For the minority who do, Comcast internet is a nonstarter.

[Al Eisner]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Peter Lawrence wrote:

> On 2/7/13 8:50 AM, Ciccio wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a fun reason to hate cable companies: 40% of the
>>> cost of a cable TV bill is for the sports rubbish. 28% of
>>> subscribers watch sports.
>>
>> Works for me and then some.
>
> Ditto.
>
> Love that other subscribers help subsidize the cost of my cable viewing
> habits.

Are you sure they aren't just subsidizing the pockets of Comcast executives?
Have you been brainwashed by Comcast? :)

> (80% what I watch on cable TV are sports channels. For non-sports
> programming I find that broadcast (free) TV is more than fine. Only need
> cable TV for the extra sports programming it offers.)

One thing which annoys me is that a year ago Comcast dropped the Universal
Sports Channel, which had a good variety of Olympic-type sports not found
elsewhere on their misleadingly-large channel lineup. Comcast claimed
they were in "negotiation" on a new arrangement, but nothing has ever
happened. Not that that channel was primary viewing, but it did add to
the variety.
--

Al Eisner
San Mateo Co., CA

[SMS]

On 2/7/2013 12:06 PM, Keith Keller wrote:

> This horse is already dead, but I find the whole notion of paying a huge
> amount of money for channels I don't watch really frustrating. All I
> want is all Rangers games and all games on the NBC networks. Why do I
> have to pay for MTV and dozens of other channels to get that?

Because a) all of that content is marked up by the provider, and b) they
pay less per subscriber to the content providers the higher the number
of subscribers, and c) some content providers pay the cable and
satellite companies to carry their content.

If the cable and satellite providers switched to a fixed base rate of
say $30, then charged per channel, both the content providers and the
cable and satellite companies would suffer financially. It's all about
them, it's not about you.

What would be good is if the content providers began bypassing the cable
and satellite companies. But Comcast thought of that already and capped
broadband data to a rate that isn't sufficient for large quantities of
HD video.

The only hope for the future of the world is if Sonic deploys fiber more
widely.

[sms]

On 2/7/2013 11:45 AM, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
> In article <kf1017$l8r$1...@dont-email.me>,
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Also, one thing I've never understood is why the satellite and
>> cable companies should pay local stations to carry their broadcasts.
>> It should be the other way around since the satellite and cable
>> companies are vastly expanding the viewership of these commercial
>> channels that rely on advertising.
>
> By the same logic, consumers should be paid to have TV in their
> homes, not the other way around.

No, it is not the same logic at all. The consumer is getting the benefit
of the content in return for watching the advertising. The local station
pays the same for the content no matter how many people are watching it,
but charges more for advertising if more people are watching.

[Keith Keller]

On 2013-02-07, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/2013 12:06 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
>
>> This horse is already dead, but I find the whole notion of paying a huge
>> amount of money for channels I don't watch really frustrating. All I
>> want is all Rangers games and all games on the NBC networks. Why do I
>> have to pay for MTV and dozens of other channels to get that?
>
> Because a) all of that content is marked up by the provider, and b) they
> pay less per subscriber to the content providers the higher the number
> of subscribers, and c) some content providers pay the cable and
> satellite companies to carry their content.

It was a rhetorical question.

[Hans Klager]

On 07 Feb 2013 18:53:16 GMT, Dane Jasper <da...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Hans Klager <hans....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here's a fun reason to hate cable companies: 40% of the
>> cost of a cable TV bill is for the sports rubbish. 28% of
>> subscribers watch sports.
>
> Curious about the source of these stats, do you have a citation you can
> provide?

I do believe I heard it on NPR. Time spent with the
goggle monster does support the 40% but can't find the 28%
stated. Maybe others are luckier.


Here's some fun URLs


http://www.npr.org/2012/01/11/144959516/if-you-pay-for-cable-youre-a-hostage-of-sports

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/25/170228794/dodgers-channel-close-to-being-a-reality

http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-malone-sports-20121119,0,1724652.story

[Steve Pope]

Hans Klager <hans....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 07 Feb 2013 18:53:16 GMT, Dane Jasper <da...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> Hans Klager <hans....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Here's a fun reason to hate cable companies: 40% of the
>>> cost of a cable TV bill is for the sports rubbish. 28% of
>>> subscribers watch sports.
>>
>> Curious about the source of these stats, do you have a citation you can
>> provide?
>
> I do believe I heard it on NPR. Time spent with the
>goggle monster does support the 40% but can't find the 28%
>stated. Maybe others are luckier.

Sports rubbish is a huge parasite upon normal society.

I have heard the justification is that without spectator sports
to distract them, hormone-driven men would pursue actual
violence instead. Not sure if there's any way to prove
that theory.


Steve

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <kf10tq$qvj$1...@dont-email.me>,

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>I'm not unhappy. They are the ones that want to play games and I
>am obliging them.

Well, that's good for you then. Spending time on that is not on
my agenda.

[Hans Klager]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 19:23:59 +0000 (UTC), Todd Michel McComb
<mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnkh7j15.s6...@adeed.tele.com>,
> Hans Klager <hans....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Wrong about what?
>
> About static IPs and port blocking. Fully functional internet
> service is available on cable. I know, I'm on it right now.

'
You have a real static IP? You can put a domain and reverse
lookup on it? I'm not talking about sticky IPs, but static IPS,
Not DHCP either.

Port blocking? Port 25? You run an honest to nGod mail
server off there?

Am I wrong about that? Really?

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <kf14dv$jiu$1...@blue-new.rahul.net>,

Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
>Sports rubbish is a huge parasite upon normal society.

Bread & circuses. It's half of normal society.

[Ciccio]

On Feb 7, 12:56 pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

> Sports rubbish is a huge parasite upon normal society.

Sports is a fantastic aspect of society.

> I have heard the justification is that without spectator sports
> to distract them, hormone-driven men would pursue actual
> violence instead.  Not sure if there's any way to prove
> that theory.

Of course not, because it's b.s.

Ciccio

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <l9edu9x...@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>,

Keith Keller <kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
>Are you running a public server on residential cable service?

I don't have residential service. When was this qualification
added?

But I do always enjoy a healthy combo of condescension and
ignorance. Nice work.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <slrnkh85vq.2c...@adeed.tele.com>,

Hans Klager <hans....@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have a real static IP? You can put a domain and reverse
>lookup on it? I'm not talking about sticky IPs, but static IPS,
>Not DHCP either.
> Port blocking? Port 25? You run an honest to nGod mail
>server off there?
> Am I wrong about that? Really?

The answer to all those questions is "Yes."

[Dane Jasper]

(null) <dl...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article <kevb8h$11c$2...@dont-email.me>,
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >That's strange. Prior to switching to Sonic Fusion my AT&T POTS was
> >about $22/month

> AT&T residential flat rate POTS just went up mid-January and is now
> $25/month plus about $8 in taxes/fees.

> Measured rate is now $21 plus about $8 in taxes/fees.

In AT&T's case in particular, the rates for flat and measured rate landline
service have skyrocketed since they were deregulated in 2006. See recent
coverage in the SF Chronicle, here:

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/AT-T-rates-skyrocket-since-deregulation-4204388.php

See also data from the PUC on service rates over the last six years, for the
four major incumbent carriers in California:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/124406083/Rates-From-URF-Carriers

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <kf13q1$c8i$1...@dont-email.me>,

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>No, it is not the same logic at all. The consumer is getting the
>benefit of the content in return for watching the advertising.

I believe we have different concepts of "benefit" "content" and
"advertising."

[Hans Klager]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 19:45:46 +0000 (UTC), Todd Michel McComb
<mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
>
> By the same logic, consumers should be paid to have TV in their
> homes, not the other way around. I would still decline, but at
> least it would seem a more reasonable offer.

Sure, works for me. If I have to watch or listen to ads
that are there to encourage me to spend money, kick some back to
me.

But people will pay money for clothing that advertises
products and services. Team logo clothing, for which the
manufacturers pay a royalty to the teams and the fans pay through
the nose. The team should pay the fans for the advertising space.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <slrnkh86il.2c...@adeed.tele.com>,

Hans Klager <hans....@gmail.com> wrote:
>The team should pay the fans for the advertising space.

I agree.

I feel the same about people writing for Yelp, et al.

[SMS]

On 2/7/2013 12:54 PM, Hans Klager wrote:
> On 07 Feb 2013 18:53:16 GMT, Dane Jasper <da...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> Hans Klager <hans....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Here's a fun reason to hate cable companies: 40% of the
>>> cost of a cable TV bill is for the sports rubbish. 28% of
>>> subscribers watch sports.
>>
>> Curious about the source of these stats, do you have a citation you can
>> provide?
>
> I do believe I heard it on NPR. Time spent with the
> goggle monster does support the 40% but can't find the 28%
> stated. Maybe others are luckier.

"Barton Crockett, a director with Lazard Capital Markets, estimated in a
24-page research report in July that one-third of the subscribers on a
TV service would switch to a new service if they lost ESPN."

<http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-19/news/35187681_1_sports-channels-cable-tv-bill-college-sports/4>.

It's actually not fair to blame the cable and satellite companies for
this situation, it's conglomerates that refuse to sell the content to
them except in a package that includes sports. "Abdoulah said
programming conglomerates combine entertainment, news, and sports
channels into one take-it-all bundle for TV distributors, forcing sports
costs into the TV package for sports and non-sports viewers."

<http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-19/news/35187681_1_sports-channels-cable-tv-bill-college-sports/2>

I think that one of the reasons you're seeing bigger incentives for new
customers is that the cable and satellite companies are losing
subscribers, especially those not interested in sports, because of the
high cost.

Maybe there's a business opportunity in antenna installation.

[Dane Jasper]

In ba.food sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps if Dane is following this thread he can have the web site corrected.

I will look into it!

Basically, the DTV rates are set by them, and are the same through all
channels. Then, when purchased through Sonic.net, customers get a $5 monthly
credit from them, and from us, on our respective bills. So, it results in
$240 in savings over two years.

However, this offer is limited to new customers only - current DTV customers
and anyone who has been a customer recently is ineligible.

Oh, I should mention one other potential source of savings. We participate
in DTV's Refer a Friend program, where you can get an additional discount of
$10 per month for 10 months - and you can refer others to your account
number and earn yet another. Many customers have stacked a few and have
bills which are effectivly zero for quite a long time. Details on this are
here:

https://forums.sonic.net/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=845

[Dane Jasper]

evergene <ge...@geeaitcheekaygee.com> wrote:
> Dane Jasper wrote:
> >Travis James <travis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I have DM'd Dane Jasper, their CEO, (via Twitter) that this thread is
> >> going on. He checks in occasionally on ba.internet.
> >
> >Hi!

> Well, at this point, the only reason I'd not switch to Sonic Fusion is
> if the Comcast CEO posts a comment here.

Think that's likely? =)

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <51141cd4$0$80189$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
Dane Jasper <da...@sonic.net> wrote:

>evergene <ge...@geeaitcheekaygee.com> wrote:
>> Well, at this point, the only reason I'd not switch to Sonic Fusion is
>> if the Comcast CEO posts a comment here.
>Think that's likely? =)

Heh. I once told a phone rep that the only thing that would satisfy
me was a personal apology from the CEO of AT&T. I didn't get it,
and I remain unsatisfied.

[Steve Pope]

More evidence. Denial is one trait.


Steve

[Aahz Maruch]

In article <kf14u4$lud$1...@usenet.stanford.edu>,

Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:

Ditto
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
"I won't accept a model of the universe in which free will, omniscient
gods, and atheism are simultaneously true." --M

[Dane Jasper]

evergene <ge...@geeaitcheekaygee.com> wrote:
> A business relationship in which you have to game your service
> provider as a defensive measure, because they're constantly gaming
> you, is one of the two factors driving me away from Comcast.

Here's a really fascinating study on this topic which you may enjoy:

Shrouded Attributes, Consumer Myopia, and Information Suppression in
Competitive Markets:
http://aida.wss.yale.edu/~shiller/behmacro/2003-11/gabaix-laibson.pdf

It's certainly a worthwhile read for any consumer, or business owner in
order to understand the landscape.

[Hans Klager]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 20:56:31 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope
<spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
>
> Sports rubbish is a huge parasite upon normal society.
>
> I have heard the justification is that without spectator sports
> to distract them, hormone-driven men would pursue actual
> violence instead. Not sure if there's any way to prove
> that theory.

My wife has been discussing this with me of late. I
believe that prior to the Stupor Bowel "To The Best of our
Knowledge" - NPR prog out of American Football fanatoc Wisconsin
- had proffered that hypothesis.

I call Bullshit on that.

1. Look at the violence perpetrated by fans. Soccer
Hooligans, riots when US teams win, etc.

2. Look at the team sports. The ones that encourage
violence, Ice Hockey, American Football, boxing.

3. Consider violent societies, where there is violence
from the Police and Military, they also have violent sports.

So, look at the UK and US. Look at violence on and off
the field. Look at say Sweden where boxing is banned, very
little violence.

Sports and violence may not be related, but you can't say
that sports soothes the savage breast.

[Hans Klager]

On 07 Feb 2013 21:29:56 GMT, Dane Jasper <da...@sonic.net> wrote:
> evergene <ge...@geeaitcheekaygee.com> wrote:
>> Dane Jasper wrote:
>> >Travis James <travis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I have DM'd Dane Jasper, their CEO, (via Twitter) that this thread is
>> >> going on. He checks in occasionally on ba.internet.
>> >
>> >Hi!
>
>> Well, at this point, the only reason I'd not switch to Sonic Fusion is
>> if the Comcast CEO posts a comment here.
>
> Think that's likely? =)

Once upon a time, the CEO of AT&T (When it really was
AT&T) popped up on usenet.

Now they have "people" who blog and tweet for them.

[sf]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:57:50 -0800, evergene

<ge...@geeaitcheekaygee.com> wrote:
>
> A business relationship in which you have to game your service
> provider as a defensive measure, because they're constantly gaming

> you, is one of the two factors driving me away from Comcast. The
> other, related to the first, is simply the high cost -- even if you're
> good at the game, which I'm not, the cost is still high. But in terms
> of speed and reliability, I like Comcast. I've experienced no Comcast
> outage in about two years.

When one special runs out, call them and ask what else they have and
sign up for that. They also treat long term customers very well, case
in point: we once called to correct a minor issue on a statement and
ended up with a $600 credit - so I ain't complaining. I don't care
about a static IP or any of that other crud being whined about. You
want it, then expect to pay for it. I'm paying residential prices and
not expecting anything even remotely commercial.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

[Hans Klager]

Back in the 1990s I wrote a long, detailed letter to the
CEO of Pacific Bell about the deteriorating quality and
increasing costs of their service. I am still waiting for a reply
- Even a postcared would do.

Yet, I have had chats on the phone with the CEO of KTAS
(Copenhagen telco), and the Southern region Manager of British
Telecom.

They wonder why we have nothing but contempt for them?

Theodore Vail would be outraged today.

[evergene]

Dane Jasper wrote:

>evergene <ge...@geeaitcheekaygee.com> wrote:
>> Dane Jasper wrote:
>> >Travis James <travis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I have DM'd Dane Jasper, their CEO, (via Twitter) that this thread is
>> >> going on. He checks in occasionally on ba.internet.
>> >
>> >Hi!
>
>> Well, at this point, the only reason I'd not switch to Sonic Fusion is
>> if the Comcast CEO posts a comment here.
>
>Think that's likely? =)

No. And Comcast CEO Brian Roberts probably doesn't know any decent
places to eat in Santa Rosa, either.

[Hans Klager]

It seems that panix is your domain's ISP not Scumcast.

It seems that your Name Service is carried by ACCESS>NET
not Scumcast or yourself.

Funny that.

[sf]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 11:57:03 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

> It's amazing to me how much some people spend on monthly fees for
> Internet, landline, long distance calling, cable/satellite TV, satellite
> radio, and cellular service.

Thanks for that information. I resisted bundling everything with
Verizon because I didn't want to lose the speed. Well, I downgraded
from Blast to basic a few months ago when we went on vacation and
discovered I didn't miss Blast at all... so maybe we should find out
what it will cost to bundle our phones with TV service. I didn't know
Verizon did satellite radio. We subscribe directly to Sirius. How
does the bundled cost compare to a direct subscription?

> If you don't know some of the workarounds
> you could easily spend 3-4x as much for essentially the same level of
> services.

Is bundling what you call a work around or are you talking about
something more technical?

[Hans Klager]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 21:14:10 +0000 (UTC), Todd Michel McComb
<mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
> In article <l9edu9x...@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>,
> Keith Keller <kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>
> wrote:
>>Are you running a public server on residential cable service?
>
> I don't have residential service. When was this qualification
> added?

But, you know we were discussing residential service

>
> But I do always enjoy a healthy combo of condescension and
> ignorance. Nice work.

Good card up yoir sleeve there. Got a fifth ace?

[sf]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 12:06:07 -0800, Keith Keller
<kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:

> This horse is already dead, but I find the whole notion of paying a huge
> amount of money for channels I don't watch really frustrating. All I
> want is all Rangers games and all games on the NBC networks. Why do I
> have to pay for MTV and dozens of other channels to get that?

I think all this whining is ridiculous. It makes you sound like a
spoiled brat. If you don't like paying, you don't have to. Why on
earth are you not using old fashioned reception? We signed on to
cable because we couldn't get our signals without ghosts and didn't
want to stick a dish on the roof. Cable solved that problem and no
complaints here.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <slrnkh888d.6f...@adeed.tele.com>,

Hans Klager <hans....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Sports and violence may not be related, but you can't say that
>sports soothes the savage breast.

It would be more correct to say that it redirects some violence,
although that doesn't necessarily improve the situation.

In principle, I think that sports could be helpful in having people
channel some of these impulses into non-harmful things. However,
there are various defective things that this society does concerning
sports that make it fail to produce this effect. The largest general
description of this is that the competition (and violence) of sports
is hailed, not as therapeutic, but as something to be emulated
elsehwere. This effectively destroys any benefit. When someone
like Michael Jordan -- by all accounts, a complete asshole -- is
held up as a standard, obviously we have a problem. His inability
to lay competition aside should be told as a pitiable narrative.
That's the issue, the narratives.

I also think that, again in principle, it's healthy for young people
to test their bodies, try and expand their physical capacity, etc.

Of course, apropos Steve's remark, sports also receives huge public
financial subsidy for its for-profit endeavors. This is outrageous.

Anyway, I recently read an anthology about social theory and sports
-- I'm traveling, so don't have it in front of me, but can find the
cite if someone wants it (and I did't think the book was *especially*
well done, in terms of covering everything it could have covered,
but it's something) -- so one can read what Gramsci, Adorno,
Baudrillard, etc. have to say about sports. It greatly amuses me
that some college athletes get assigned this book.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <slrnkh894v.6f...@adeed.tele.com>,

Hans Klager <hans....@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems that panix is your domain's ISP not Scumcast.
> It seems that your Name Service is carried by ACCESS>NET
>not Scumcast or yourself.
> Funny that.

You didn't ask me if I was using Comcast for DNS. I am not, and I
do not know if they offer this service or not.

Since you like research, you can snoop around in my DNS record and
figure out which of those hosts are sitting at the end of a Comcast
pipe, if you like.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <slrnkh89av.6f...@adeed.tele.com>,

Hans Klager <hans....@gmail.com> wrote:
>But, you know we were discussing residential service

You've been saying Comcast "absolutely doesn't offer this." You
haven't been saying Comcast "absolutely doesn't offer this, unless
you sign up for a different type of service" -- which would be kind
of a ridiculous thing to say, wouldn't it?

The fact is, they do offer it. Deal with it.

[Ciccio]

On Feb 7, 1:37 pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

There is no trait because there it's bs. There is no denial of its
existence because it's nonexistent. It's just b.s. wimps like to toss
around.

Ciccio

[Keith Keller]

On 2013-02-07, Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
> In article <l9edu9x...@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>,
> Keith Keller <kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
>>Are you running a public server on residential cable service?
>
> I don't have residential service. When was this qualification
> added?

It has been implicit through the entire thread. It'd be very difficult
for me to imagine anyone interpreting the original question in any
context other than "residential service".

> But I do always enjoy a healthy combo of condescension and
> ignorance. Nice work.

Who's ignorant? I asked a reasonable question, and qualified my
conclusions with "if so,...". If you choose to ignore that it's your
problem, not mine.

--keith

--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

[Keith Keller]

On 2013-02-07, sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> I think all this whining is ridiculous. It makes you sound like a
> spoiled brat. If you don't like paying, you don't have to.

And indeed, I don't (currently) pay.

[Hans Klager]

Well, he could have one of his people go on that internet
thing and find out.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <70odu9x...@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>,

Keith Keller <kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
>It'd be very difficult for me to imagine anyone interpreting the
>original question in any context other than "residential service".

There was no original question, only Hans's declaration. As far
as I saw, no one has expressed an interest in how they might
receive this service. This sub-topic is entirely about vanity.

[sf]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 11:57:03 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

> 1. We presently have four Android smart phones on Verizon's network and
> our total wireless bill is about $60/month.

PS: I'm curious which plan you're on.
http://www.verizonwireless.com/plans3-1/share-everything.shtml

[evergene]

Dane Jasper wrote:

>evergene <ge...@geeaitcheekaygee.com> wrote:
>> A business relationship in which you have to game your service
>> provider as a defensive measure, because they're constantly gaming
>> you, is one of the two factors driving me away from Comcast.
>
>Here's a really fascinating study on this topic which you may enjoy:
>
>Shrouded Attributes, Consumer Myopia, and Information Suppression in
>Competitive Markets:
>http://aida.wss.yale.edu/~shiller/behmacro/2003-11/gabaix-laibson.pdf
>
>It's certainly a worthwhile read for any consumer, or business owner in
>order to understand the landscape.

Thanks for that link. I read the abstract and will read as much of the
rest as I can understand.

It seems to me that a theoretical analysis like that study is
something done after the fact. In other words, a company like Comcast,
with their dominance in the market, can try tactics like shrouding
prices. If the tactics work, they continue the practice. If the
tactics fail, they try something else.

Although, now that I reread what I just wrote above, I'm thinking
that, yeah, businesses that engage in those pricing tactics probably
have a pretty accurate idea, before they implement the tactics, of how
many customers they can mislead, and how the tactics will affect
revenue.

[pfraser]

sf wrote:
> We signed on to
> cable because we couldn't get our signals without ghosts and didn't
> want to stick a dish on the roof. Cable solved that problem and no
> complaints here.

It might be worth looking at OTA reception again.
I assume your ghosts were years ago, back in the days of analog
broadcast. Things might be better or worse now with digital --
at least you won't have ghosts.

[SMS]

On 2/7/2013 1:05 PM, Todd Michel McComb wrote:

> Well, that's good for you then. Spending time on that is not on
> my agenda.

It's a trifling amount of time. To sign up for DirecTV was five minutes
on their web site. Well I had to be home for an hour while the installer
put up the dish and connected the boxes so that's an hour and five
minutes. Or put another way, a savings of $487 per hour.

You have to realize how pricing strategy works. You want to sell the
same product to each customer at the maximum price the customer is
willing to pay. If you tried to sell the product to everyone at the
highest price then your volumes would plunge. Even Sonic was not beyond
this sort of thing with their DSL-only service (because AT&T was doing
it). Sonic Fusion is an exceptionally good value at the normal price so
they don't need to discount it.

It works the same way with cars, appliances, furniture, groceries,
wireless service, etc. Non-price sensitive customers that don't want to
deal with promotions, coupons, sales, club cards, rebates, haggling
etc., are free to pay more.

[evergene]

As a price-sensitive customer who doesn't feel competent to ferret out
the best deal, I have to thank you for sharing what you learn. I
already got one great deal with PagePlus because of you, and if Sonic
is reasonably good as an ISP, I'll have a second.

[sf]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:47:12 -0800, pfraser <pete_...@comcast.net>
wrote:

I don't have an antenna on the roof anymore and it's not worth the
expense to experiment because I'm satisfied with what I have. My
problem is that the signal bounces between twin peaks and the san
bruno mountains - multiple signals are the issue. I'll only get
clearer ghosts with HD, which is not something I can accept.