DComTalk.com

In article <kenji-382219.14591015112005@news.ftupet.com>,
kenji@ripco.com says...

In article <n9ex4x11ft8o$.13pqin0b19gq0$.dlg@40tude.net>,
smr <usenet@the-smr.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:12:06 -0600, kenji wrote:

In article <olc6t10i04wh.1syynjgrs9pin.dlg@40tude.net>,
smr <usenet@the-smr.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 08:24:49 -0600, kenji wrote:

In article <pan.2005.11.13.11.02.17.106496@noplace.nohow>,
TheHiddenPoster <anon@noplace.nohow> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:45:31 +0000, TheHiddenPoster wrote:

I forgot to ask. If it turns out that SBC DSL is not viable for internet
anymore, what alternatives --broadband/dial up are there?

Why would SBC not be "viable" for DSL "anymore"

What the fuck?

If you can't afford the freight maybe you should spend less time online
and more time making more money.

Find a hustle.

Can you Log The Fuck Out from here as well? 'Cuz you're really a fucking
faggot.

Come over here and suck your wife's dick.

The wife took yours away again, didn't she?

you don't even know the punch line to the world's second funniest joke
ever?

OK, I'll bite: what's the world's funniest joke?

--
HUey

TheHiddenPoster <anon@noplace.nohow> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:45:31 +0000, TheHiddenPoster wrote:

I forgot to ask. If it turns out that SBC DSL is not viable for internet
anymore, what alternatives --broadband/dial up are there?

Depends what you mean by 'viable'. If you use it mainly for the Web and email,
it's a good deal.

In article <dlfs6f$3j6$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, Ryker <me@farpoint.com>
wrote:

TheHiddenPoster <anon@noplace.nohow> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:45:31 +0000, TheHiddenPoster wrote:

I forgot to ask. If it turns out that SBC DSL is not viable for internet
anymore, what alternatives --broadband/dial up are there?


Depends what you mean by 'viable'. If you use it mainly for the Web and
email,
it's a good deal.

what part of SBC's DSL isn't "viable"?

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:01:53 +0000, Ryker wrote:

TheHiddenPoster <anon@noplace.nohow> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:45:31 +0000, TheHiddenPoster wrote:

I forgot to ask. If it turns out that SBC DSL is not viable for internet
anymore, what alternatives --broadband/dial up are there?


Depends what you mean by 'viable'. If you use it mainly for the Web and email,
it's a good deal.
I simply meant that if the regular rate is too high.

First let me apologize about my previous post. I had no idea what kind of
nuts hang out on chi.internet. It seemed to make sense to post to both
groups because the topic overlapped, but I guess they are just weird in
that group. ( This message is not crossposted. )

In any case, I thought I would reask my question because of the noise in
response. I got one response saying that SBC's regular rate for customers
was $26. This may be the case, but I may hear different things from
other people. The more feedback the merrier.

In a couple of days I am going to call SBC and talk to them about renewing
my dsl. When I got dsl it was going for something around $28.00 a month.
I see that they have newer promotions where it is much cheaper. Let me
get down to brass tacks. $28.00 a month is about the max that I can
budget, and $20 is about what I can comfortably afford. I was digging around
their web pages, but it was not completely clear to me what their policy
on renewal is.

So I thought I would ask around if their are any SBC/Yahoo DSL users,
and what they can tell me about the price when you renew. Thanks.

In addition if SBC DSL turns out to be too expensive, I am interested in
hearing about other alternatives.

PS I did check there web site, but couldn't find anything /clear/ on it.

Thanks.

In article <kenji-D22B25.12101516112005@news.ftupet.com>,
kenji@ripco.com says...

In article <dlfs6f$3j6$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, Ryker <me@farpoint.com
wrote:

TheHiddenPoster <anon@noplace.nohow> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:45:31 +0000, TheHiddenPoster wrote:

I forgot to ask. If it turns out that SBC DSL is not viable for internet
anymore, what alternatives --broadband/dial up are there?


Depends what you mean by 'viable'. If you use it mainly for the Web and
email,
it's a good deal.

what part of SBC's DSL isn't "viable"?

the unviable part.

--
HUey

HUey wrote:

In article <kenji-D22B25.12101516112005@news.ftupet.com>,
kenji@ripco.com says...
In article <dlfs6f$3j6$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, Ryker <me@farpoint.com
wrote:

TheHiddenPoster <anon@noplace.nohow> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:45:31 +0000, TheHiddenPoster wrote:

I forgot to ask. If it turns out that SBC DSL is not viable for internet
anymore, what alternatives --broadband/dial up are there?


Depends what you mean by 'viable'. If you use it mainly for the Web and
email,
it's a good deal.

what part of SBC's DSL isn't "viable"?

the unviable part.

An enviable observation.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

kenji <kenji@ripco.com> wrote:

In article <dlfs6f$3j6$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, Ryker <me@farpoint.com
wrote:

TheHiddenPoster <anon@noplace.nohow> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:45:31 +0000, TheHiddenPoster wrote:

I forgot to ask. If it turns out that SBC DSL is not viable for internet
anymore, what alternatives --broadband/dial up are there?


Depends what you mean by 'viable'. If you use it mainly for the Web and
email, it's a good deal.

what part of SBC's DSL isn't "viable"?

Their binary newsgroups. And cable is faster.

TheHiddenPoster <anon@noplace.nohow> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:01:53 +0000, Ryker wrote:

TheHiddenPoster <anon@noplace.nohow> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:45:31 +0000, TheHiddenPoster wrote:

I forgot to ask. If it turns out that SBC DSL is not viable for internet
anymore, what alternatives --broadband/dial up are there?


Depends what you mean by 'viable'. If you use it mainly for the Web and
email,
it's a good deal.

I simply meant that if the regular rate is too high.

No, it's not too high.

www.dslreports.com is a good place to check for rate/service comparisions.

In article <dliuka$eho$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, Ryker <me@farpoint.com>
wrote:

kenji <kenji@ripco.com> wrote:
In article <dlfs6f$3j6$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, Ryker <me@farpoint.com
wrote:

TheHiddenPoster <anon@noplace.nohow> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:45:31 +0000, TheHiddenPoster wrote:

I forgot to ask. If it turns out that SBC DSL is not viable for internet
anymore, what alternatives --broadband/dial up are there?


Depends what you mean by 'viable'. If you use it mainly for the Web and
email, it's a good deal.

what part of SBC's DSL isn't "viable"?

Their binary newsgroups. And cable is faster.

How much porn and stolen music do you download regularly?

In article <kenji-49C38C.16173917112005@news.ftupet.com>,
kenji@ripco.com says...

In article <dliuka$eho$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, Ryker <me@farpoint.com
wrote:

kenji <kenji@ripco.com> wrote:
In article <dlfs6f$3j6$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, Ryker <me@farpoint.com
wrote:

TheHiddenPoster <anon@noplace.nohow> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:45:31 +0000, TheHiddenPoster wrote:

I forgot to ask. If it turns out that SBC DSL is not viable for internet
anymore, what alternatives --broadband/dial up are there?


Depends what you mean by 'viable'. If you use it mainly for the Web and
email, it's a good deal.

what part of SBC's DSL isn't "viable"?

Their binary newsgroups. And cable is faster.

How much porn and stolen music do you download regularly?

probably nothing compared to you

In article <MPG.1de6cb61970a50ac989e04@news.ftupet.com>,
HUey <huey01[nospamplease]@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <kenji-49C38C.16173917112005@news.ftupet.com>,
kenji@ripco.com says...
In article <dliuka$eho$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, Ryker <me@farpoint.com
wrote:

kenji <kenji@ripco.com> wrote:
In article <dlfs6f$3j6$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, Ryker <me@farpoint.com
wrote:

TheHiddenPoster <anon@noplace.nohow> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:45:31 +0000, TheHiddenPoster wrote:

I forgot to ask. If it turns out that SBC DSL is not viable for
internet
anymore, what alternatives --broadband/dial up are there?


Depends what you mean by 'viable'. If you use it mainly for the Web
and
email, it's a good deal.

what part of SBC's DSL isn't "viable"?

Their binary newsgroups. And cable is faster.

How much porn and stolen music do you download regularly?

probably nothing compared to you

I absolutely have no time whatsoever for jerking off.

In article <kenji-ADC587.17505217112005@news.ftupet.com>,
kenji@ripco.com says...

In article <MPG.1de6cb61970a50ac989e04@news.ftupet.com>,
HUey <huey01[nospamplease]@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <kenji-49C38C.16173917112005@news.ftupet.com>,
kenji@ripco.com says...
In article <dliuka$eho$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, Ryker <me@farpoint.com
wrote:

kenji <kenji@ripco.com> wrote:
In article <dlfs6f$3j6$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, Ryker <me@farpoint.com
wrote:

TheHiddenPoster <anon@noplace.nohow> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:45:31 +0000, TheHiddenPoster wrote:

I forgot to ask. If it turns out that SBC DSL is not viable for
internet
anymore, what alternatives --broadband/dial up are there?


Depends what you mean by 'viable'. If you use it mainly for the Web
and
email, it's a good deal.

what part of SBC's DSL isn't "viable"?

Their binary newsgroups. And cable is faster.

How much porn and stolen music do you download regularly?

probably nothing compared to you

I absolutely have no time whatsoever for jerking off.

HA!

--
HUey

"Ryker" <me@farpoint.com> wrote in message
news:dliuka$eho$1@domitilla.aioe.org...

kenji <kenji@ripco.com> wrote:
In article <dlfs6f$3j6$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, Ryker <me@farpoint.com
wrote:

TheHiddenPoster <anon@noplace.nohow> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:45:31 +0000, TheHiddenPoster wrote:

I forgot to ask. If it turns out that SBC DSL is not viable for
internet
anymore, what alternatives --broadband/dial up are there?


Depends what you mean by 'viable'. If you use it mainly for the Web
and
email, it's a good deal.

what part of SBC's DSL isn't "viable"?

Their binary newsgroups. And cable is faster.

They do not allow use of any 'multimedia' group. Other binary groups are

working fine.

And not for $14.95 per month.. (g)

kenji <kenji@ripco.com> wrote:

In article <dliuka$eho$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, Ryker <me@farpoint.com
wrote:

kenji <kenji@ripco.com> wrote:
In article <dlfs6f$3j6$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, Ryker <me@farpoint.com
wrote:

TheHiddenPoster <anon@noplace.nohow> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:45:31 +0000, TheHiddenPoster wrote:

I forgot to ask. If it turns out that SBC DSL is not viable for internet
anymore, what alternatives --broadband/dial up are there?


Depends what you mean by 'viable'. If you use it mainly for the Web and
email, it's a good deal.

what part of SBC's DSL isn't "viable"?

Their binary newsgroups. And cable is faster.

How much porn and stolen music do you download regularly?

Binary newsgroups are not the exclusive source of " porn and stolen music".
You are trying to stigmatize...