Re: Question on "phone service" for lack of a better description...

"Art Tostaine, Jr." wrote:
>
> DSL is better since you don't share, but it is often hard to get installed, 
>and many people (like in California) were shut off with
> less than a weeks notice because their carrier went out of business.
>
> Cable is a fine alternative for home users where DSL is not available.


Not in Tulsa. I have T-1 at work and cable at home. I have 25
employees. A number of them started on DSL and went to Cable,
they all love cable and would never consider going back to DSL.

'The DSL isn't shared' lie is a marketing lie. It is completely
untrue. All internet access is shared, that's why it's the
internet. Cable acccess is faster and more reliable, and the
fact that the signals are shared at the neighborhood level
rather than a mile away at the phone exchange means nothing.
Nada. Zip. What matters most, beyond the initial speed where
cable is far better, is the upstream bandwidth the service
provider has. So far in this area, it's cable by far.

And if the feds would remove the artificial barriers to home
phone service, you phone service would come over your cable
also, and be better quality and probably cheaper to boot.

Brad Jensen



--
Brad Jensen brad@elstore.com
President
Electronic Storage Corporation Tulsa OK USA
918-664-7276

LaserVault Report Retrieval & Data Mining
www.Laservault.com

www.eufrates.com - Add distance learning to
your site with easy course preparation