🚀 go-pugleaf

Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>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.

The lie they told me that I could "upgrade" to Uverse but my current
equipment wouldn't work even at the same speed. I decided it was a scam.

>I just recall the days where if you signed up, you got whatever
>hardware you needed included at no extra cost.

If you get insistent, they might give you a rebate. They always have
some stupid promotion going on.