Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Looking to drop my landline. Do you need your landline to have DSL?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Harry Monroe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 01:47 PM
Original message
Looking to drop my landline. Do you need your landline to have DSL?
Edited on Wed Sep-30-09 02:03 PM by Harry Monroe
I've heard it both ways. Some people tell me you need a landline to have DSL, others tell me you don't. I'm reading up on DSL in Wikipedia and there is something called dry-loop or "naked" DSL which doesn't require a landline. The article also goes on to state that AT&T is now obligated to offer naked DSL to consumers due to its merger with SBC Communications. Of course, I don't think AT&T is going to advertise this fact. I've got an AT&T landline (taxes and fees on the landline are more than I pay for the landline itself!!) and AT&T Internet DSL service. Can anyone enlighten me here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. Since they vary, maybe call your provider?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sanity Claws Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
2. No
There has to be a phone jack but you don't have to have an operational landline.
I just got DSL from Verizon two weeks ago, even though I don't have a landline. However, there was an old phone jack here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demmiblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. AT&T does offer DSL w/out requiring a landline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harry Monroe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
35. Thanks for the link!! I'll look into it!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #3
46. That's DSL without a phone *number*.
As pointed out elsewhere, yes, the copper pair is a requirement for DSL, but they don't have to provide you phone service on that line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
4. I tried but they kept making excuses...
Since DSL is on a different frequency, it should be theoretically possible...

I use Qwest, however. Fantastic connectivity, to say the least.

AT&T is for my cell phone... which, contrary to the belief it's a "want" by the idiots, is a necessity: There are no pay phones in the middle of nowhere, most are being removed from malls or gas stations due to costs the retailers have to pay for (a distribution of wealth, to us)... plenty of legitimate reasons... some of which are good (much lower long distance costs, rollover minutes, et cetera...)

Oh, please check the grammar of your second sentence. You have "don't" both times and one isn't a double negative, unless one were to imply that "others tell me you don't not need a landline..." :D


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
5. At my office I have AT&T DSL and also AT&T phone service.
When I got the DSL, they had to install a special line for that, which is separate from my phone line. It's a little blue cable.

FWIW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
6. The best thing to do is ask the provider
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberation Angel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
7. Keep the landline
I will frankly say I hate wifi in my house and feel that the energy fields generated are damaging to me and my family.

I do not use (except in emergencies) a cell phone due to cancer risks etc.

But I do believe the landline is better and safer.

That said, folks who use wireless or satellite internet that i know seem to be happy with it where it is available.

I just feel that it is too much of a risk for me and my kids...

The research on wifi and wireless stuff troubles me and I do not think we know enough yet to say any of this wil not cause many of us serious harm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kid a Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. really? is there data/sources available on wifi "energy fields" and dangers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Wi-Fi is just amateur radio
And a normal-powered IEEE 80211.b access point is broadcasting much less energy through your house than the local radio station is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wolfgangmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. Which is not a problem unless
You happen to be immunocompromised, susceptible, or just plain sick.

We don't beleive that it is causitive, but it does seem to be contributory in some cases. A bigger concern is so called "stray electricity" causing frequency spikes on the 60 Hz power lines. Some research seems to indicate that this is a problem for some people.

When patients ask me about this, I tell them that it isn't a problem for them, unless it's a problem for them. If you get my point. If they suspect it is then we do a full diagnostic analysis and metering of their house to establish is EMF's are present in both quantity and in the frequencies know to interfer with or damage human tissue. If they aren't, then we know to look elsewhere for a symptomatic differencial diagnosis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. Give them a Faraday cage to sleep in
It's really not that hard to avoid EMF if you're for whatever reason convinced it's hurting you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #19
32. You mention patients. Are you a physician?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberation Angel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #19
47. Here's my problem...
Edited on Wed Sep-30-09 04:52 PM by Liberation Angel
I feel that such exposure may cause problems (see articles I linked below seeking studies of the radiation etc from wifi).

But I do in fact have a diagnosed thyroid condition caused, according to an MD, by exposure to radiation in my community (and where i worked in the industry). This causes suppessed or compromised immune system and sensitivity. So I sometimes feel, especially when feeling not so well otherwise, that this additional exposure may be contributing to the problem.

But if such exposure does in fact cause harm (which I think is likely but, like the research on cell phone-caused brain cancers etc) remains to be even sufficiently studied before its mass use - like X-Rays were a half century or so ago) --- then we may be exposing many millions fo children to life altering harmful electrical or radiation fields.

I hope it is safe or not as bad as I suspect. But it seems if it will make you SICKER, as you suggest, then it is not safe and the more we are exposed to things like nuke radiation and cell phones etc which harm our immune systems etc then the more we are harmed by things like wifi.

The research, like with cell phones, is scary...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wolfgangmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. try this as a jumping off point.
www.stetzerelectric.com

It is a consulting electrical engineering and analysis company that we use for analysing patients homes and work environments. They have some nice links to studies. Consider it a jumping off point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:30 PM
Original message
Hmm...Are you affiliated with the company at that website?
Edited on Wed Sep-30-09 02:50 PM by MineralMan
I'm just curious....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberation Angel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. Yeah - but not enough
I began researching it while back and what research has been done is troubling to me.

Like cell phones the energy fields produced by laptops etc while sending and receiving data can be harmful.

But I will try to find that data when I get a moment later
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kid a Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. that's ok..i'll look it up, but thanks for the info!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberation Angel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. See my post #20 (link to Independent (UK) article on wifi safety (or not)
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wolfgangmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. I agree
My medical director agrees and there is a growning body of evidence, that for some people, wifi and other non-ionizing radiation devices may be problematic for your health.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
22. your medical director is a stooge
There is ZERO evidence of health risk from wifi and most other non-ionizing radiation. Time and time again people who claim to suffer these nonexistent maladies are unable to tell when a device producing non-ionizing radiation is on or off. What there are (in droves) are quacks and charlatans (like your "medical director") who see dollar signs in the attention-seeking behaviors of technophobic hypochondriacs. Tip: don't buy the magic crystals from those guys. They neither prevent nonexistent wifi-related maladies nor keep tigers away. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #11
28. Your medical director?
Is this person an M.D. or some other sort of practitioner?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Dead gawds. Seek help. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timeforpeace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
36. Great thread, huh. Unintentional hilarity plus some good info on wireless dsl. +1 billion quetzales.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
53. lol is this based on "feelings"?
Can you receive a TV signal (antenna) in your home? How many 3,4,6?
What about sat TV signal? Likely both DirecTV & Dish? A total of 8 sats.
What about your neighbors wifi?
What about 2 dozen or so FM & AM radio stations?
Can you receive a cellphone signal in your home?

If the answer is yes then your home like every home on the planet is literrally blanketed in radio waves. Hundreds of them. 24/7/365. It doesn't matter if you "use" them. They are there, always.

Another 1/2 watt wifi router it negligible compared to the amount of radio waves you are "attacked" with every day.

Wifi isn't special. It simply is an extremely low powered (like off the chart low powered) radio.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harry Monroe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. And you can even receive radio through your fillings in your teeth!!
Does anyone remember that Gilligan's Island episode where Gilligan accidentally got socked in the mouth and his mouth became a radio? He could even change AM frequencies by rotating his head!! It could happen!! The professor said so!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
9. Try and find out where you are on the circuit.
The closer you are to the central office, the faster the service will be. The further away, the slower (you have to compete with everyone else in between you and the serving CO for bandwidth).

We considered DSL until I checked into it and found we're almost at the end of the line. In a case like that, dependent upon how many actually have DSL between you and the CO, it can run only marginally faster than 56k dialup.

No, you don't need a working home phone number to have DSL but you do need landline connectivity (Naked DSL) which needs a 10 digit phone number for billing purposes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillowTree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
41. Sometimes that doesn't even matter.
I switched to DSL when (then)SBC assured me that it would be at least as fast as cable. Afterward, when I complained to them that it wasn't, they said it had to do with the distance from the nearest switch box, but that they were upgrading their network and there should be a nearer box within the next few months. Lo and behold if they didn't put on in our parking lot, I could practically spit on it from my balcony, and it didn't improve my speed one bit. Eventually I went back to cable for good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. It doesn't matter how far away the switchbox is
They could put it in your living room. What you're concerned with is distance to the serving central office and how many other DSL customers are between you and the office. A new switchbox doesn't reduce that distance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
10. No (with a caveat)
You do not need POTS (plain old telephone service) to have a DSL connection. You do need the twisted copper pair (ie, the "phone line") physically hooked up at your house, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
15. You need a pair of copper lines for DSL.
(tradition DSL that is). And there are length limitations on the distance that pair of copper wires run before they get to a "pedestal" or Central Office (wherever the DSL originates). You don't have to have "phone service" over that pair of wires or any other pair of wires (normal modern phone cable is 2 sets of twisted pair). However, it's easy to add phone service to DSL, if you want.

A lot of times... phone companies want you to have a "phone number" associated with your account (has to do with their accounting and service calls, etc... they are really just set up to only deal with numbers, not names or addresses). I had a DSL at one point where they gave me a number but no phone service, just for their accounting shit.

Good luck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
17. It depends on your provider. However watch out for the *bandwidth* available on that deal.
Edited on Wed Sep-30-09 02:10 PM by kenny blankenship
I've heard of the AT&T deal that legally obliged them to offer 'dry loop' DSL to some areas, but they only offer it at a god-awful LOW speed-- like 128k down or 768k. (Or at one time it was that low).

You can go to google.com and/or broadbandreports.com and search for: dry loop dsl at&t and narrow it by your region to find out more.

I looked into it and because of the low speed decided it would be suitable as a backup to cable internet, but that's about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harry Monroe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #17
33. Currently have DSL "Xtreme" 3.0mb down, 384kbps up.
I'm wanting to save money, but I'm not willing to downgrade. If it comes to it, I'll get a cable modem. I'm looking to go wireless on my phones. I have a cell phone as well as my wife and my son. Paying over $100/month for the three lines and having a landline as well doesn't make sense to me. Thanks for the heads up on the AT&T "special" offer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Check with them. broadband deals change all the time.
Edited on Wed Sep-30-09 02:45 PM by kenny blankenship
It could be improved since last time I looked, or for all I know the requirement to offer dry loop dsl had a sunset provision and has expired.
If you really don't want to have a landline phone, I doubt DSL will be able to match cable speeds and price. ADSL2 is sometimes available, if you're very close to your central office, and has speeds up to 15Mbps down, but that's at $149/mo.
I have 6 Mbps from my telco but it is not as fast as Comcast HSI, for basically the same money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberation Angel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
20. Dangers of Electronic Smog (wifi)
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-fami...

Danger on the airwaves: Is the Wi-Fi revolution a health time bomb?
It's on every high street and in every coffee shop and school. But experts have serious concerns about the effects of electronic smog from wireless networks linking our laptops and mobiles, reports Geoffrey Lean

Being "wired-up" used to be shorthand for being at the cutting edge, connected to all that is cool. No longer. Wireless is now the only thing to be.

Go into a Starbucks, a hotel bar or an airport departure lounge and you are bound to see people tapping away at their laptops, invisibly connected to the internet. Visit friends, and you are likely to be shown their newly installed system.

Children at risk from 'electronic smog'

Lecture at a university and you'll find the students in your audience tapping away, checking your assertions on the world wide web almost as soon as you make them. And now the technology is spreading like a Wi-Fi wildfire throughout Britain's primary and secondary schools. The technological explosion is even bigger than the mobile phone explosion that preceded it. And, as with mobiles, it is being followed by fears about its effect on health - particularly the health of children. Recent research, which suggests that the worst fears about mobiles are proving to be justified, only heightens concern about the electronic soup in which we are increasingly spending our lives.

Now, as we report today, Sir William Stewart, the man who has issued the most authoritative British warnings about the hazards of mobiles, is becoming worried about the spread of Wi-Fi. The chairman of the Health Protection Agency - and a former chief scientific adviser to the Government - is privately pressing for an official investigation of the risks it may pose.

Health concerns show no sign of slowing the wireless expansion. One in five of all adult Britons now own a wireless-enabled laptop. There are 35,000 public hotspots where they can use them, usually at a price.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Jeez - couldn't find the one about the risks of dihydrogen monoxide?
The technoFUD is thick on DU some days.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberation Angel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. I worked for a major corporation in environmental medicine litigation
I never really trust the corporate cries of "its all safe:Consume!"

especially when any sort of radiation is involved

the dangers of wifi are real.

How dangerous is unknown, but it could be severe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. If you seriously file WiFi as "radiation"...
...and believe that there's a health risk in the absence of ANY kind of scientific proof AT ALL, then you're probably better suited to another occupation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberation Angel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #31
42. The head of Britain's Health Agency does and says it needs testing for cancer and brain damage
Wi-Fi: Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
::: Revealed - radiation threat from new wireless computer networks
::: Teachers demand inquiry to protect a generation of pupils

By Geoffrey Lean, environment editor
Sunday, 22 April 2007S

Britain's top health protection watchdog is pressing for a formal investigation into the hazards of using wireless communication networks in schools amid mounting concern that they may be damaging children's health, Sir William Stewart, the chairman of the Health Protection Agency, wants pupils to be monitored for ill effects from the networks - known as Wi-Fi - which emit radiation and are being installed in classrooms across the nation. Sir William - who is a former chief scientific adviser to the Government, and has chaired two official inquiries into the hazards of mobile phones - is adding his weight to growing pressure for a similar examination of Wi-Fi, which some scientists fear could cause cancer and premature senility.

Wi-Fi - described by the Department of Education and Skills as a "magical" system that means computers do not have to be connected to telephone lines - is rapidly being taken up inschools, with estimates that more than half of primary schools - and four-fifths of secondary schools - have installed it .

But several European provincial governments have already taken action to ban, or limit, its use in the classroom, and Stowe School has partially removed it after a teacher became ill.

This week the Professional Association of Teachers, which represents 35,000 staff across the country, will write to Alan Johnson, Secretary of State for Education, to demand an official inquiry. Virtually no studies have been carried out into Wi-Fi's effects on pupils, but it gives off radiation similar to emissions from mobile phones and phone masts. Recent research has linked radiation from mobiles to cancer and to brain damage. And many studies have found disturbing symptoms in people near masts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #42
48. There have been lots of studies. There is no risk associated with WiFi.
Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberation Angel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. Baloney - but feel free to post a citation
Edited on Wed Sep-30-09 04:56 PM by Liberation Angel
there have been few studies and nothing definitive - to claim it is safe or there is no risk is just bluster or outright falsehood.

Geez - most of these networks haven't been up long enough to even CATCH results, let alone have definitive studies.

Its like saying smoking doesn't cause cancer after studying those who have been smoking for only a few years.

That is bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rebubula Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #23
37. Dihydrogen Monoxide
This is the greatest threat to the human existence. If we do not control the flow, we will drown.

Won't anyone think of the children!?!?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #23
45. You mean
The liquid that causes excessive urination if consumed in copious quantities? The chemical that fills our lakes and rivers after falling unabated from the sky? THAT DiHydrogen Monoxide??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cdsilv Donating Member (883 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. Consider. Are you in a hurricane area?
When I was, a land-line was almost a necessity, as most of these are now underground. The winds would 'twist' cell towers causing line-of-sight problems for the transmissions between towers, rendering cell-phones inoperative. Landlines almost always stayed up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #20
30. That is bullshit junk science at it's worst.
A WiFi device usually puts out 100 milliwatts or less. A radio station will put out anywhere up to 100,000,000 milliwatts, but nobody's panicking and demanding a shutdown of FM broadcasts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
26. It depends on your provider. Some require you to have a landline, some do not.
Technically, you don't need landline phone service to have DSL. However, whether they are actually willing to give it to you is another question entirely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
29. I have qwest dsl and no landline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_in_LA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
38. other options. I don't have a landline.. have internet thru time Warner cable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
39. Hughes Net
Get online via satellite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #39
49. Or better yet, don't. Hughesnet is a TERRIBLE service.
I had it for 6 years before they finally could get me DSL. I would NEVER consider going back for ANY reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jannyk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #39
51. Satellite Sucks!!! We have to have it at our cabin on
Vancouver Island, it's remote and we have no choice, and it is the worst service ever!!! Barely faster than accelerated dial up, cannot use VOIP, cannot download or stream movies - it's very expensive CRAP! We pay Hughes $70 for slow erratic speeds and don't get me started on their FAP policy.

In the Bay Area, we pay $39 a month for a blazing 6MB on Dry Loop (no land line) DSL.

Never consider satellite if you have another high speed option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkeye-X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
40. I have DSL, no landline
Got rid of it since it serves no purpose, because we are deaf. We have a videophone which requires Internet connectivity and got Qwest to release our phone number to the company who provides the videophone so we have FIOPS DSL which required the naked DSL settings. Originally started with 20 MB but we could not maintain stability (it kept dropping connectivity) so we asked them to downgrade it to 12. Works beautifully. And our provider is Qwest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberation Angel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 04:38 PM
Response to Original message
43. Article on radiation risk (cancer and brain damage) from wifi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
52. It's handy as all get-out when the power goes out,especially if you retain a rotary phone to plug in
I don't know about your DSL, but during last year's wildfire we could see not only trees blowing up but transformers and cell towers going up on the hill. Everyone's cell phone was useless. Our cordless phone set was dead. Hubby went into the garage and dusted off his old rotary phone, plugged it in, and voila -- phone service, afaik the only live phone on the block for the duration. When the Northridge Earthquake (Los Angeles) of 1994 happened over a hundred miles away it killed our power: however, my sister in Massachusetts telephoned me to see if we were all right (we were) and was able to give me the news that she was getting from watching her television.

I know I am a technological dinosaur, but telephone service USED to be a public utility and was maintained as such. Cable and wireless are not public utilities but strictly for-profit enterprises, and the public good is not really factored in.

Just sayin'. We're still paying for both, although the way that Verizon keeps not maintaining their service will eventually drive us away...

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 18th 2014, 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC