daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us
Sun Jun 19 23:39:50 PDT 2011
On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 22:54 -0700, Tony Godshall wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Daniel Gimpelevich
> <daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 17:46 -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 16:17 -0700, Tony Godshall wrote:
> >> > Actually, I'll be getting 6Mbps for about $50
> >> > a month, weareas to exceed 4Mbps at my
> >> > distance from the CO via Sonic would require
> >> > me to pay about double to get the second line.
> >> If 4Mbps was what you got with a single line on Fusion, 4Mbps would be
> >> what you get with a single line on RawBW. This is not
> >> provider-dependent.
> Indeed. But what they charge is- RawBW gives
> you a price break for lower speeds, which is
> great if lower speeds are all you can get. With
> Sonic, I'd pay for "up to 40Mbps" and get 8.
> With RawBW I pay for 6 and get 6. Or at the
> next tier up, I can get 8, which is the max I can
> get with two lines.
> "exactly the same deal" : false.
> > Apologies for being dense; it sounded to me like you were comparing a
> > single line on one to a single line on the other. It took a few looks
> > back before I realized you were comparing RawBandwidth's bonded
> > dynamic-IP service with prepayment discount to both single-line and
> > bonded service on Fusion. ...
> Indeed I started by passing on the info I had
> that was of general interest, which is that RawBW
> no longer requires you to pay AT&T as well, and
> forwarded the price structure and locations. But
> after your "exactly the same deal" comment I had
> to detail an example, my particular case, in which
> the pricing plans they come out rather different.
> That's really the extent of my interest in this topic.
> I'm not going to go into the rest of your rather
> detailed response- those details are of little
> relevance to my needs and I have not investigated
> them, but if you do find answers to them feel free
> to post them to this thread- I'm sure others would
> be interested in IPv6, being grandfathered, having
> multiple IP addresses (and paying extra for that),
> etc. - I'm satisfied with a single dynamic IP address.
Re-adding conspire. Bottom line: If connectivity without voice is what
you're looking for, go with the service without it, and if you want it,
go with the service that requires it. (AT&T would be out of the picture
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the conspire