view:

topics flat nest page: 1 · 2 · next

battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 battleop Member Where is their argument? When it's a muni funded with government funds they have an argument. When it's a network funded by private funds then they don't. I feel for the little guy who is going to get caught in the cross fire.

fatpipe

join:2011-10-02

Austin, TX fatpipe Member Re: Where is their argument? At least with Google Fiber in town, the "little guy" will get a fat pipe at a "fair" price.

battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 battleop Member Re: Where is their argument? I thought they changed their mind about open access. silbaco

Premium Member

join:2009-08-03

USA silbaco to fatpipe

Premium Member to fatpipe

In what way would that happen? You can't resell Google Fiber. your moderator at work hidden :



fg8578

join:2009-04-26

San Antonio, TX 1 recommendation fg8578 to fatpipe

Member to fatpipe

said by fatpipe: At least with Google Fiber in town, the "little guy" will get a fat pipe at a "fair" price.

Of course the "fair" price comes at the cost of taxpayers picking up the tab for the outstanding debt. I'm sure Qwest and CenturyLink would've offered $1 for the installed fiber in exchange for taxpayers paying off the debt. dra6o0n

join:2011-08-15

Mississauga, ON dra6o0n Member Re: Where is their argument? But if its Google, at the very least they offer a functional and fairly priced package rather than offer something completely broken like the other companies.



Whilst the taxpayer money is being used, if other companies were to take the fiber, would they bother to 'upgrade' it even?



Google is the one that actually does something, in comparison to a company that does nothing. CXM_Splicer

Looking at the bigger picture

Premium Member

join:2011-08-11

NYC 3 recommendations CXM_Splicer to battleop

Premium Member to battleop

Even if it IS funded with government funds it is the people that have the argument, not Century link. I agree that tax-funded muni networks are a hotly debated topic but a company that can't or won't provide the service should not be a part of that debate.

battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 1 recommendation battleop Member Re: Where is their argument? Government funded Muni networks should focus on economic growth not on running people out of business. rahvin112

join:2002-05-24

Sandy, UT 2 recommendations rahvin112 Member Re: Where is their argument? As I've said before, most of the power, telephone and other utilities in counties and cities around the country even including major cities was originally built by taxpayer coops and later given (usually at no charge) to private regulated monopoly providers. Without those taxpayer created coops more than 90% of the country would never have been wired. Those same private companies now call foul when the same policies that benefited them are utilized again to work around their unwillingness to invest capital.



It's stupid that we are paying to build out these systems 2 to 3 times. Telecommunication costs in the US are easily three times what they are in the rest of the developed world primary because we are building everything multiple times. Every community in this country should be constructing UTOPIA like systems to serve their communities and selling open access to the last mile. This stupid view that private enterprise is the only way to do something is just idiotic.

battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 battleop Member Re: Where is their argument? When those services were first rolled out they were not looking to run small businesses out of business. In many of these fiber deployments that's exactly what is going on. This is a government funded Wal-Mart effect.

toby

Troy Mcclure

join:2001-11-13

Seattle, WA toby Member Re: Where is their argument? said by battleop: When those services were first rolled out they were not looking to run small businesses out of business. In many of these fiber deployments that's exactly what is going on. This is a government funded Wal-Mart effect.





Keeping that small business around is not good for anyone besides the business owner. If the small business is a bad business, ripping customers off because there is no real choice in an ISP.Keeping that small business around is not good for anyone besides the business owner.

battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 battleop Member Re: Where is their argument? Small ISPs are usually quite the opposite. Many survive by filling in the gaps where the big boys are lacking. The problem is that the game is usually stacked against them and for the big boys so it's very hard for them to break out and be like Sonic.net.

tstolze

Premium Member

join:2003-08-08

O Fallon, MO tstolze Premium Member Re: Where is their argument? Centurylink is no small isp...

Provides integrated services digital network, wide area network, and switched access services; data integration services, including sale of telecommunications equipment to customers for use on their premises; and related professional services, such as network management, installation and maintenance of telecommunication and data equipment, and building of proprietary fiber-optic networks for governmental and other business customers. Additionally, the company leases and subleases space in its office buildings, warehouses, and other properties. As of December 31, 2012, it operated approximately 13.7 million access lines in 37 states and served approximately 5.8 million broadband subscribers/b?; and operated 54 data centers in North America, Europe, and Asia.

battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 battleop Member Re: Where is their argument? Where did I say Centurylink was a small ISP? sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24

Cleveland, OH sonicmerlin to battleop

Member to battleop

said by battleop: Small ISPs are usually quite the opposite. Many survive by filling in the gaps where the big boys are lacking. The problem is that the game is usually stacked against them and for the big boys so it's very hard for them to break out and be like Sonic.net.

I seriously doubt your opposition to muni fiber is about "small businesses". You really like to lay it on thick don't you? TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband Member Re: Where is their argument? Actually if you researched the iProvo network you would see that small businesses did provide service over the network; and still do. The business that's on there NOW and has paying customers; gets those same customers stripped from them by a swipe of a pen for no damn reason; besides Google being like any other company and being greedy. If Google was interested in being a true carrier and equal- they wouldn't have a problem allowing others in on that network; hell Google isn't even paying for the network anyway. Yet they get to collect the $$$ from those customers. Wyngs

join:2010-02-20

Coos Bay, OR 1 recommendation Wyngs to toby

Member to toby

Some people are so pro business that they bad-mouth co-ops and barn raisings.



People doing for people is bad. Must get your screwing by business and be a good capitalistic Americans. iansltx

join:2007-02-19

Austin, TX ·Time Warner Cable

iansltx to battleop

Member to battleop

iProvo (and now GFiber) is competing with CenLink and Comcast. Not UTOPIA/XMission/etc.



If XMission was willing to offer gigabit for $70ish, build out the rest of Provo and give residents 5/1 for a $30 installation fee, the city should have sold the network to them, sure. But I don't hear XMission promising to do any of that; they aren't a last-mile facilities-based provider unless you're a big business. TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband Member Re: Where is their argument? GFiber is not operating the network yet. They don't even plan to have their "first" customer until late 2013 and the old ISP/company is still operating it and has paying customers. The current ISP will get the boot which is stupid and was a horrible idea for the city and tax payers that are STILL on the hook for this network that isn't even anywhere near being paid off- and never will be; but yet those crazy people decided to sell to Google for $1 and never see a dime back- yet have to PAY to use the services that they pay each and every day. iansltx

join:2007-02-19

Austin, TX ·Time Warner Cable

iansltx Member Re: Where is their argument? 5/1 DSL from CenturyLink is, say, $35 or so (plus or minus $5) per month. Though actually it probably isn't 5/1...download speed might be marginally better but upload speed is lower.



Pay $30 and you get that for free. For 7+ years. Even if you just look at three years of service, you're still saving $1200+.



Do I think that selling a network to Google for $1 with relatively few strings attached is a good idea? Not really. But there are a lot more raw deals out there (and by the way the ISP running iProvo right now is being hired to do it...they didn't have to pay for the infrastructure either).

rebus9

join:2002-03-26

Tampa Bay 1 recommendation rebus9 to rahvin112

Member to rahvin112

said by rahvin112: It's stupid that we are paying to build out these systems 2 to 3 times. Telecommunication costs in the US are easily three times what they are in the rest of the developed world primary because we are building everything multiple times. Every community in this country should be constructing UTOPIA like systems to serve their communities and selling open access to the last mile.



I'm usually against government-funded anything, except critical infrastructure like roads and bridges, military, etc. But IMO network access has reached critical infrastructure status.



I believe that a level playing field for ALL who want to participate, stimulates true open-market competition.



Let the municipalities issue bonds and deploy the fiber plant. Terminate it into meet-me rooms open to any carrier that wants to be in that market. Every carrier could then connect to any premises through a (municipally owned) cross-connect (XC) system. Changing carriers would be as simple as changing where the XC terminates.



Want AT&T? Your XC gets connected to AT&T. Want to switch to Verizon? Only the XC needs to change. Choose any carrier participating at that POP.



And for those worried about all that cabling overhead, this would be digital XCs, changed through a few keystrokes. All that fiber terminates into the municipality's gear-- fiber from the neighborhoods AND fiber from all the participating carriers. The connection between carrier and premises is via digitally switched virtual circuits.



I envision a (municipally owned) portal that each customer logs in to-- a portal where they select their carrier and service plan with a few mouse clicks and the automated provisioning system drops the old virtual circuit to Carrier A, and builds a new one to Carrier B, in a matter of seconds.



Since each carrier would get billed a line fee for each customer, this now becomes a revenue center for the municipality, for retirement of the bonds for original buildout, new CapEx, and ongoing OpEx.



It opens the door to any and all carriers, giving small regional carriers EQUAL access to end users. Consumers have MANY more choices.



Because the last-mile costs would be provided at or near cost by the municipality, shareholder demands for profit on it would not exist. The carriers would make their money on the service, not price-gouging for their own (often neglected) infrastructure.



And because of all this, price competition will be fostered. Why? Because UNLIKE the cellular markets where only a few large carriers can afford the tower build-outs, and they conspire to keep everyone's prices high-- open access means the small players with disruptive pricing can compete on equal ground. No more monopolies or duopolies. Equal and fair competition.



In a perfect world. But in reality, the carriers have enormous amounts of cash and lobbying power in their back pockets so this won't likely be a reality anytime soon. +1I'm usually against government-funded anything, except critical infrastructure like roads and bridges, military, etc. But IMO network access has reached critical infrastructure status.I believe that a level playing field for ALL who want to participate, stimulates true open-market competition.Let the municipalities issue bonds and deploy the fiber plant. Terminate it into meet-me rooms open to any carrier that wants to be in that market. Every carrier could then connect to any premises through a (municipally owned) cross-connect (XC) system. Changing carriers would be as simple as changing where the XC terminates.Want AT&T? Your XC gets connected to AT&T. Want to switch to Verizon? Only the XC needs to change. Choose any carrier participating at that POP.And for those worried about all that cabling overhead, this would be digital XCs, changed through a few keystrokes. All that fiber terminates into the municipality's gear-- fiber from the neighborhoods AND fiber from all the participating carriers. The connection between carrier and premises is via digitally switched virtual circuits.I envision a (municipally owned) portal that each customer logs in to-- a portal where they select their carrier and service plan with a few mouse clicks and the automated provisioning system drops the old virtual circuit to Carrier A, and builds a new one to Carrier B, in a matter of seconds.Since each carrier would get billed a line fee for each customer, this now becomes a revenue center for the municipality, for retirement of the bonds for original buildout, new CapEx, and ongoing OpEx.It opens the door to any and all carriers, giving small regional carriers EQUAL access to end users. Consumers have MANY more choices.Because the last-mile costs would be provided at or near cost by the municipality, shareholder demands for profit on it would not exist. The carriers would make their money on the service, not price-gouging for their own (often neglected) infrastructure.And because of all this, price competition will be fostered. Why? Because UNLIKE the cellular markets where only a few large carriers can afford the tower build-outs, and they conspire to keep everyone's prices high-- open access means the small players with disruptive pricing can compete on equal ground. No more monopolies or duopolies. Equal and fair competition.In a perfect world. But in reality, the carriers have enormous amounts of cash and lobbying power in their back pockets so this won't likely be a reality anytime soon. mdrift

join:2003-08-15

Spokane, WA mdrift to battleop

Member to battleop

said by battleop: Government funded Muni networks should focus on economic growth not on running people out of business.

First, get the Telcos out of the private business sector. You want to provide something, then focus on distributing content deals. Making your backbone fast, reliable and consistent across this vast Democratic Republic requires a National focus, not a bunch of tax free havens for vulture capitalists. mdrift mdrift to CXM_Splicer

Member to CXM_Splicer

said by CXM_Splicer: Even if it IS funded with government funds it is the people that have the argument, not Century link. I agree that tax-funded muni networks are a hotly debated topic but a company that can't or won't provide the service should not be a part of that debate.





Show me standard and level playing field of tough regulations, with a required 3 or more telcos fighting for my buck, 3 or more cable providers and 3 or more satellite providers none of which can produce the same pricing or get capped by the Feds and be stuck with a fixed level of pricing.



There is zero choice when all 3 options [1 cable, 1 telco, 2 satelliltes] play gimmick deals and cost virtually the same price. Agreed on the no voice position and am sick of the spotty quality of ``free market'' though locally controlled telco monopolies that Reagan brought.Show me standard and level playing field of tough regulations, with a required 3 or more telcos fighting for my buck, 3 or more cable providers and 3 or more satellite providers none of which can produce the same pricing or get capped by the Feds and be stuck with a fixed level of pricing.There is zero choice when all 3 options [1 cable, 1 telco, 2 satelliltes] play gimmick deals and cost virtually the same price. mdrift mdrift to battleop

Member to battleop

said by battleop: When it's a muni funded with government funds they have an argument. When it's a network funded by private funds then they don't. I feel for the little guy who is going to get caught in the cross fire.

How truly rich, seeing as every single Telco in the country is subsidized by Government funds through subsidies and tax breaks, not to mention the original backbone we taxpayers funded.

battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 battleop Member Re: Where is their argument? Every telco? Maybe every last mile telco but not every telco.

flwpwr

@comcast.net flwpwr to battleop

Anon to battleop

actualyl they do.



To date google is cheery picking, something no cable operator nor telecom has been allowed to do in their agreements. Google is basically saying we can give big cities with lots of money that are desperate high speed internet, but what about the surrounding county or suburbs? No comment? that's not how agreements usually go. You can service the high populated areas and ignore all those fools wanting a little peace and quiet from the city they should live in a denser area if they want high speed internet but we'll tax them just the same. That does not usually go over so well.



Just sayin'



Google is a show for now but they are treading close to basically working the system under that guise.

jlatimer

@comcast.net jlatimer to battleop

Anon to battleop

Couldn't have said it better.

Private telecoms don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to other competitors (google in this case) coming into the market and forcing the existing providers to step up their game. Competition has and always will force prices down and drive innovation.

newview

Ex .. Ex .. Exactly

Premium Member

join:2001-10-01

Parsonsburg, MD newview Premium Member Goodbye CenturyLink These cableTV & internet companies have had monopoly status for so long that they feel like it's their god-given right to screw their subscribers over for as long as they damn well please.



I'm so glad that they are learning the error of their ways.



Thank you, Google. supertbone

join:2002-04-04

Pleasant Grove, UT supertbone Member Centurylink is not even trying to compete I live a in a smaller city a couple miles north of Provo. Qwest/Centurylink only provides 1.5 Mb DSL to a large swath of homes. They have made no effort to improve speeds in areas serviced by iProvo (now Google) or the larger Utopia FTTH network. Due to the proliferation of FTTH in neighboring cities, a few WISPS have proliferated to fill in the holes providing reliable, faster, and cheaper service. Albert71292

join:2004-10-31

West Monroe, LA Albert71292 Member Re: Centurylink is not even trying to compete said by supertbone: I live a in a smaller city a couple miles north of Provo. Qwest/Centurylink only provides 1.5 Mb DSL to a large swath of homes. They have made no effort to improve speeds in areas serviced by iProvo (now Google) or the larger Utopia FTTH network. Due to the proliferation of FTTH in neighboring cities, a few WISPS have proliferated to fill in the holes providing reliable, faster, and cheaper service.





So, Centurylink isn't even competitive near their home base! I live one town over from Centurylink's corporate headquarters. Most they offer in my area is 3Mbps DSL, with caps. I'm using a smaller local DSL provider that is giving me 6Mbps(sometimes it goes up to nearly 7), with NO caps.So, Centurylink isn't even competitive near their home base!

danawhitaker

Space...The Final Frontier

Premium Member

join:2002-03-02

Thorndale, ON danawhitaker Premium Member Pff CenturyLink still hasn't upgraded my neighborhood past the 1.5mbit point, and when it was still Qwest something went screwy with the lines in my area after repeated cuts and they tried to argue they needed to downgrade my provisioned speed to 640/256 and that I "wouldn't notice a difference". Yeah. I totally wouldn't notice a difference between downloading at 150kb/s and 50-60kb/s. Not at all.



Quit whining CenturyLink, and start upgrading people instead. You'd have to worry less about competition if you'd actually do that. silbaco

Premium Member

join:2009-08-03

USA 1 edit silbaco Premium Member Re: Pff That's all they offer there? That's pretty sad. I thought they were doing better in Central IA.

danawhitaker

Space...The Final Frontier

Premium Member

join:2002-03-02

Thorndale, ON danawhitaker Premium Member Re: Pff The house on the very corner of my street can apparently get 3mbit (I started checking areas around mine a few months ago). Everyone right around me is stuck in the 1.5mbit failboat though. I had some hope, because I'd seen a lot of CenturyLink vehicles in the area working for a time.



When I'm at the mall I'll sometimes stop at the CenturyLink booth and talk to the people there, too, and I have them check (just in case there's something internal that isn't showing up on the website when I look things up). There never has been either, and they're always fairly apathetic. I've had them try to argue with me that there's almost no difference between 10mbit and 1.5mbit and that I should switch back. Right.

baineschile

2600 ways to live

Premium Member

join:2008-05-10

Sterling Heights, MI 1 recommendation baineschile Premium Member Am I the only one around here? That's actually a bit concerned about the Google rollout?



Look, competition is a good thing, and there isnt enough of it in the broadband world. I just can forsee really bad things. Google, like any other company, is just that; a company. Their sole purpose is to make money. It may offer great services, but the path that we may be led down could be rough.



Let's say their endeavour is expanded over the next decade, and they become a major player in the ISP world. We have access to Gbs speeds. Great! But, now, whenever you double click your internet browser, you have to watch an ad before you can surf the internet. Or maybe they will force people to sign up for their Google+ bologona, and wont allow access to certain things without either extra payment, or at least the ability to track and market to you. One thing we know with Google, is that they track a ton of browsing data, and market accordingly. Most ISPs natrually find a way to get as much out of the consumer as they can, and I expect Google to be no different.



I am not fully against it, but I believe the more reasonable solution is for muni-fib to build their own networks, and sell bandwidth to TWO companies over the same fiber lines. That way, the city isnt running their own network (socialistic a bit), and there is MORE competition than there was before. I know there are hurdles to this, and it doesnt have the Google name, but its still a pretty darn good solution.



TL;DR. Google can be good. Be wary though.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••• show 27 replies

codyyy

@embarqhsd.net codyyy Anon hahaha we pay 90bucks a month for phone and 4meg internet from centurylink and have been stuck with slow speeds for years and they seem to be happy to provide a crappy service for a high price until something better brings them competition

scr2wcentlk

@qwest.net scr2wcentlk Anon Re: hahaha As a CL customer for about 6 years of my life now, I just want to tell them to "suck a bug" -- Competition is the only way for the consumer to get a fair price for a good or service, and I am sorry that doesn't fit into your plan for profit so well.

inteller

Sociopaths always win.

join:2003-12-08

Tulsa, OK inteller Member this is actually the exact reason Google is doing this Google has finally found their fight with the rural telco thugs who have been holding US broadband back. CenturyLink is going to crumple like a wet sack. silbaco

Premium Member

join:2009-08-03

USA silbaco Premium Member Re: this is actually the exact reason Google is doing this Google doesn't care about rural areas. If they did, they would be deploying in rural areas. But they keep targeting cities that already have decent broadband.

inteller

Sociopaths always win.

join:2003-12-08

Tulsa, OK inteller Member Re: this is actually the exact reason Google is doing this I didn't say they were targeting rural areas, but they happened to encroach into the territory of one of the rural Telco incumbents who are the real problem here.

panthergm

@ut.us panthergm Anon Poor CenturyStink I see this and I laugh. While I do have concerns about the taxpayers paying for a network that is being bought for $1.00 and can be Abadoned, I ask where is the taxpayer reimbursement? I also have another question; if google gives it up, what happens to the network? is it turned back over to the taxpayers, or does it just sit unused? In regards to centuryStink, if there is anybody out there who feels bad for Centurystink, I would like to shed some light on this. Back when it was US WEST, it was very good service, telephone never went down. Qwest went down a couple times, however they always fixed the telephone within the 48 hours as required by law. Ever Since Centurylink bought Qwest it went from bad to the worst service I have ever seen from a company. My grandparents home telephone and internet (DSL) as they offered a sweet deal for it, and it wasn't 3 weeks later and it was down for 10 days! Yes, TEN DAYS! I am talking telephone and DSL. there is no excuse for this!!! We called repair multiple times, and the automated system said we are aware of the issue and are working on it. It wouldn't allow me to talk to a real person. my grandparents do not know how to use a cell phone, (Well they had to learn) the phone came back a couple times but usually didn't last for more then 20 minutes. Needless to say We switched to Comcast (which I despise almost as much as Centurystink) However I put my grandparents on the cheapest internet they had, and they now Have Xmission for their telephone service. Which I must say is working out great! Bill is the same price every month no matter what. And when we tried to cancel centurystink they wouldn't allow me to cancel the service, even though I was an authorized person to make changes on the account. So, my grandma called and she got HABEB in India, she couldn't understand him, they would not help her, and she ended up hanging up on them. she ended up calling back about a week later and was able to finally get someone who could help her. Then there was more billing issues that had to be worked out, which I wont get into here. Tell you what Centurystink, why dont you maintain the infrastructure you have in place before you try to take on another network? Work on your customer service, or maybe even open your network for 3rd parties to provide service over your infrastructure? The only gripe I have about the google fiber is the network is not open like the previous iProvo network was. Note that I am a big supporter of fiber, and glad to see it come to Utah with the backing of a big company like google, it's just theres a few concerns I have. Thats all. jtel

join:2005-06-28

Bristol, RI 1 recommendation jtel Member CenturyLink Cannot Compete These guys aren't running ANY fiber to the hub, house or anywhere else.



Suck the life out of the 120 year old network architecture.

jfleni

@bhn.net jfleni Anon Re: CenturyLink Cannot Compete Around here their favorite excuse is "Bandwidth exhaustion"; translation: We never update or upgrade anything. They told Wall St. a lie: "Big Bucks," so they got financing from some fools for a TV service delivered over their crappy half-century old phone wires, which of course only works sometimes.



The whole company is a travelling scam living off their dying telephone business and the most barefaced PR lies and deceptions. Internet, TV, etc: all a fantasy of jumped up crooks.



The strange thing is that they could get the money, put fiber in their holes in the ground, and build a thriving, useful and honest business; but crooks never think that way.

GroovyPhoenx

Premium Member

join:2006-05-22

Gloucester, ON 1 recommendation GroovyPhoenx Premium Member Self rightous companies. I'm sorry, and forgive my words, I don't mean them to sound harsh, but isn't government in place to help the "people" of their city/county/country etc etc. you get the idea.



So if a municipality decides to fund the internet for their TAXPAYERS who are PAYING the TAXES and teh Government is ASSITING the TAXPAYER by building the infrastructure are they see a need in their community, HOW is that UNFAIR??



It's the PEOPLE's MONEY paying for a tool that the PEOPLE will use to ensure a FAIR and afforable price for all...



I know that sounds so socialist and all but let's face facts, these ARE undeniable truths! I really love how companies bitch and moan about "Fairness" so it's unfair for the PEOPLE of a muni/country etc. etc. to reap some benfits from their TAXES? Sure I'm not saying that one taxpayer is funding it all etc, I realize that fully, but who can deny my logic? If the company was offering the service it promised in the first place a MUNI would not have to step in to ensure this to occur.



You know what I am tired of? Money grubbing protexctionist seeking asshat companies that think they are ENTITLED to screw us without using some lube to soften the blow!



*steps off soapbox* sparky007

join:2011-08-25

Phoenix, AZ sparky007 Member Century no link



I'm always happy to see fools and idiots fall. It's good business for America. Century no link might lose business?? GOOD!!I'm always happy to see fools and idiots fall. It's good business for America. sparky007 1 edit sparky007 Member Re: Century no link "CenturyLink feels they have been treated unfairly," Jones said. "They feel they were excluded from the process."



You don't invite vampires and other blood suckers to your party. TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband to sparky007

Member to sparky007

You do realize that the size of that company and what they do will never fall right? The gov't can't let them fall. silbaco

Premium Member

join:2009-08-03

USA silbaco Premium Member Centurylink Centurylink is pretty crappy. But they do offer speeds up to 40Mbps for residential in some areas. At&t still maxes out at 24Mbps.

••• show 3 replies Crusty

join:2008-11-11

Sanger, TX Crusty Member Dear Sweet Lord Baby Jesus!!! Love to see stories like this. CTL is a joke and needs to be put out of business. I've been with them for many years now and they are without a doubt the worst service i've had at my address.



Too many issues for far too long. Speeds not upgraded (either voluntarily by CTL or by me "upgrading") for many, many years. Flaky connections, bandwidth exhaustion, horrible pings...CAPS!! And the list goes on and on.



I've said it before and I'll say it again...If I had another choice for an ISP, i'd kick CTL to the curb. If that other provider was google fiber, watch out...i'd be first in line 10 days before launch sign up.. lol mmadd29

join:2005-09-27

Sheffield Lake, OH mmadd29 Member Re: Dear Sweet Lord Baby Jesus!!! If my choice was between CTL and anyone else, and I had to stand in line for 10 days...I'd bring a pillow and blanket.. dra6o0n

join:2011-08-15

Mississauga, ON dra6o0n Member Re: Dear Sweet Lord Baby Jesus!!! And a portable grill and a lot of steak/burgers.

Probitas

@teksavvy.com Probitas Anon capitalism It's ok as long as you don't really have to compete with a fair market, then it's bitch whine complain about how unfair it is to have to compete.



Crybabies is spot on.

DocDrew

Try Everything!

Premium Member

join:2009-01-28

SoCal DocDrew Premium Member Google Fiber forum? Where is the Google Fiber forum here on DSLR? I'd like to see reviews, complaints, experiences, results from DSLR tools, etc.



Is there just not enough customers or people asking for it yet? silbaco

Premium Member

join:2009-08-03

USA silbaco Premium Member Re: Google Fiber forum? The fiber forums in general are a bit weak. The general fiber forum seems to be the only one at the moment.

Rural Home

@comcast.net Rural Home Anon Wake up people! Google fiber will be just like the rest of the telephone and cable companies. Build in the dense populated areas for a huge profit and leave the rural users to suffer with satellite or undependable dsl. If the counties or townships or whatever entity was issuing the franchises would mandate EVERY resident have the ability to have these speeds then I would jump on this bandwagon too. Till then I back whoever is the home town provider even though they stink on speeds. brad152

join:2006-07-27

Chicago, IL ·AT&T U-Verse

·WOW Internet and..

brad152 Member I have 40/5 in Phoenix and it's been solid But i'd rather have 1Gbps considering it's only marginally more expensive.



I hate giving Cox any of my money, but if i want anything other than 5Mbps upload (Qwest offered 40/20 here before CL took over), i have to choose the cable company, and the excuse i got was they were trying to "integrate" systems so they did not have the bandwidth to do it. That makes no sense because Qwest had quite the healthy fiber network that CL inherited. tmc8080

join:2004-04-24

Brooklyn, NY tmc8080 Member let's look at this over the decades before internet & internet service providers.. telecom services to be digital were over the analog network with "MODEMS". in the early days they were allowed to charge big per cent minutes ranging from 10 cents per minute all the way up to 30 cents per minute, but it didn't stop there.. you were charged line fees, surcharge fees for dialtone, touchtone service, and many add-on features we take for granted as value-added. when the cost structure became DIRT CHEAP with fiber optic cabling between central offices these cost savings were never being passed onto the consumer except when congress sought to appease the coming storm of VOIP & digital phone service which could make a local call & route international calls dirt cheap over the internet.



cable companies were the industry wrecking ball to greedy telcos.. but that honeymoon has long past and what you have today is either a MONOPOLY, or a de-facto DUOPOLY whereby both service providers raise rated in lock-step with one another under shady justifications.



So, I say to hell with all the whining telcos who never sought to upgrade their infrastructure after being given monopoly or duopoly status for DECADES and did nothing but live high on the hog with those profits. You can also extend this metaphor into the ISP industry and CABLE-TV industries as well since most of them are in each other's markets, or sell through 3rd party contracting-- CenturyTel is one of those companies who partnered w/ satellite to sell cable-tv too..

linicx

Caveat Emptor

Premium Member

join:2002-12-03

United State linicx Premium Member As a current customer Central Telephone fails the smell test. It is a belligerent bully with very poorly trained first level tech support. This company that brags it sells 100 T fiber to London and Paris, offers crystal clear voice calls, and upgraded LV to 45/45 hates Rural America.



It replaced POTS with fiber delivered over copper to a D-A box that converts the signal back to analog and delivers it to the house and calls it a POTS phone. It is as fake as plastic flowers. It is not just in Utah. It is every small town in America that AT&T, Cox, Verizon, etc.. was allowed to shed because Chicago, LA, NYC, DC, have dense population and a ton of small businesses.



These companies still have prized, protected areas, they refuse to share. FCC is kidding everyone that these companies offer competition. There is none. Not in cable, phone, or cell phone service. This company sells unlimited phone and internet 10/1 for $40 while 10/2 from cable -- that shares the same DSL in the same office is $70.



Rural Users are bullied, lied too, squeezed and screwed at the same time. City Hall is not subjected to this abuse because it gets a hi speed signal from the local college. Where I live the city charges BIG BUCKS to use their towers to deliver Wireless from a tower in a neighbor county 7 miles away. Thanks to city greed we don't get competition and neither does the cable company or the telephone company. CJ777

join:2004-10-05

Los Angeles, CA CJ777 Member Hopes that Google Fiber comes to LA soon I would love to see Google Fiber takeover Los Angeles and give Time Warner something to be scared about... your comment.. page: 1 · 2 · next

