🚀 go-pugleaf

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:
>>Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
>>>Cydrome Leader <presence@mungepanix.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>There's some mandatory modem you need to get for $100. It's total 
>>>>bullshit, but they don't seem to be items you replace all that often.
> 
>>>I think you need it though, the one they gave me is a hybrid of sorts, does
>>>the adsl2+ or whatever it's called compatability, which is only good to 6mb
>>>and the other mode for the "up to 24mb".
> 
>>I think his objection is probably less that one does need different
>>equipment over "old" DSL and more that they're forcing him to purchase it
>>from them.  He could probably find one for a lot cheaper than $100.
> 
> No, his objection is the same as mine: AT&T customer service demands that
> the subscriber buy new equipment, without having any ability to explain
> why the old equipment is incompatible. On the cable side, DOCSIS 3.0 is
> backwards compatible. Why isn't ADSL?
> 
> C.L., I'd be very curious to know if you could get it to work with your
> current equipment.

well, I don't question that my current modem probably doesn't work at 
speeds much faster than I have now. I just recall the days where if you 
signed up, you got whatever hardware you needed included at no extra cost.