Cost of Telstra free home?

Tom N <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote:

>> Exetel has 2G for only $25, HALF what she
>> currently pays for telstra cable with 400M, $50.

> Bigpond cable 400MB (uncapped download/128 upload)
> is $39.95 if you have full service fixed phone with Telstra
> (which she apparently has: "My landline is with Telstra").

Doesnt mean that it makes any sense to keep the
FULL SERVICE plan, makes a lot more sense to use
HomeLine Budget instead and save over $10/month
when she's only keeping it for the monitored alarm.

> Bigpond cable 10GB (unlimited*) is
> $59.95 under the same circumstances.

And she has said that she doesnt want to pay more for
the higher limit when the current 400M is just a bit tight.

> The $25 Exetel 2GB service is 256/64 (doesn't include
> a modem) is not comparable to uncapped cable.

Irrelevant to HER broadband use. What matters is what delivers
adequate performance for HER use. Not what cable can do.

Clearly if she is keeping to 400M with the current
cable service, she isnt downloading much and what
uncapped cable can do is completely irrelevant.

> 512/128 Exetel 2GB service is $35 a month (includes a modem)

Still a lot cheaper than what she is currently paying
if she uses HomeLine Budget for the landline and the
total cost of landline and broadband per month is used.
With a bonus of the download limit being likely to not
need to be monitored. Even if she does go over that with
voip, the exetel excess charge is very low when you consider
that it should be included in the cost of the voip call since
otherwise she wouldnt use anything like 2G.

With the current useage of 400M, I wouldnt personally
bother to pay the higher monthly charge of $10 per
month for the higher speed, I doubt she'd even notice
it in a proper double blind trial with that sort of net use.

> 1500/256 Exetel 16GB service is $60 a month (doesn't include a modem)

Ditto in spades, no point in pay that much with her use.

> If she wants to bundle phone with ADSL, then iiNet and Ozemail
> can provide ADSL2 at 12Mbps (or 1500 Mbps unbundled) for
> $39.95 a month with 2GB download.

Doesnt make any real sense to pay what is effectively $25/month
more when you include the lower landline rent with HomeLine
Budget when I doubt she'd even notice the higher speed.

I do use 1500 myself, but I download a hell of a lot more
than she does, so it pays me to pay the extra $12/month
for the landline to get double the download limit.

The speed isnt even noticeable at all except with
downloads. And the bulk of my volume is with
emule where you dont see it at all even with 1500.

> Optus has a cable 2GB download
> (another 4GB off peak) plan at $39.95,

Still quite a bit more than the exetel $25
for nothing thats any real use to her at all.

> and a cable 300MB peak/600MB off-peak download plan at $29.95,

Exetel is still better value at 2G and $25 and $11.50 off the line rent.

> both if bundled with phone.

Which isnt very desirable in her situation because
it involves $11.50 more per month for the line rent.

---

› See More: Cost of Telstra free home?

"Tom N" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> FruitLoop wrote:
>
> > "Tom N" wrote:
> >> Optus can supply a landline phone service over their cable TV
> >> network, although phone over cable probably less reliable than
> >> standard landline.
> >
> > Which you kinda have to question why Foxtel need a phone adaptor for
> > digital Pay tv ? Wierd
>
> Foxtel could also have an ethernet socket on the STB and let the customer
> provide the internet return path (my guess is that most people with cable
> TV have broadband internet).
>
> IIRC, Pace has a digital cable STB with a broadband modem in it.
> Presumably that offers a cable return path. Of course that's moot now as
> Telstra is abandoning cable internet (when they do that, they will lose me
> as a customer for internet - preferably to an ISP that doesn't use any
> Telstra infrastructure - and I'll probably move the fixed lines to some
> other telco as well).

I would have to agree , Im with Tel$tra cable and when it goes in 2009 i
will go adsl 2 as well .

Sounds like an excuse to save some money in the process as well

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom N <[email protected]> wrote
> > Rod Speed wrote:
>
> >> Exetel has 2G for only $25, HALF what she
> >> currently pays for telstra cable with 400M, $50.
>
> > Bigpond cable 400MB (uncapped download/128 upload)
> > is $39.95 if you have full service fixed phone with Telstra
> > (which she apparently has: "My landline is with Telstra").
>
> Doesnt mean that it makes any sense to keep the
> FULL SERVICE plan, makes a lot more sense to use
> HomeLine Budget instead and save over $10/month
> when she's only keeping it for the monitored alarm.
>
> > Bigpond cable 10GB (unlimited*) is
> > $59.95 under the same circumstances.
>
> And she has said that she doesnt want to pay more for
> the higher limit when the current 400M is just a bit tight.
>
> > The $25 Exetel 2GB service is 256/64 (doesn't include
> > a modem) is not comparable to uncapped cable.

Typical crapola , she may like pure speed with her 400 meg rather than
snails pace like your typing skills .


>
> Irrelevant to HER broadband use. What matters is what delivers
> adequate performance for HER use. Not what cable can do.
>
> Clearly if she is keeping to 400M with the current
> cable service, she isnt downloading much and what
> uncapped cable can do is completely irrelevant.
>
> > 512/128 Exetel 2GB service is $35 a month (includes a modem)
>
> Still a lot cheaper than what she is currently paying
> if she uses HomeLine Budget for the landline and the
> total cost of landline and broadband per month is used.
> With a bonus of the download limit being likely to not
> need to be monitored. Even if she does go over that with
> voip, the exetel excess charge is very low when you consider
> that it should be included in the cost of the voip call since
> otherwise she wouldnt use anything like 2G.
>
> With the current useage of 400M, I wouldnt personally
> bother to pay the higher monthly charge of $10 per
> month for the higher speed, I doubt she'd even notice
> it in a proper double blind trial with that sort of net use.
>
> > 1500/256 Exetel 16GB service is $60 a month (doesn't include a modem)
>
> Ditto in spades, no point in pay that much with her use.
>
> > If she wants to bundle phone with ADSL, then iiNet and Ozemail
> > can provide ADSL2 at 12Mbps (or 1500 Mbps unbundled) for
> > $39.95 a month with 2GB download.
>
> Doesnt make any real sense to pay what is effectively $25/month
> more when you include the lower landline rent with HomeLine
> Budget when I doubt she'd even notice the higher speed.
>
> I do use 1500 myself, but I download a hell of a lot more
> than she does, so it pays me to pay the extra $12/month
> for the landline to get double the download limit.
>
> The speed isnt even noticeable at all except with
> downloads. And the bulk of my volume is with
> emule where you dont see it at all even with 1500.
>
> > Optus has a cable 2GB download
> > (another 4GB off peak) plan at $39.95,
>
> Still quite a bit more than the exetel $25
> for nothing thats any real use to her at all.
>
> > and a cable 300MB peak/600MB off-peak download plan at $29.95,
>
> Exetel is still better value at 2G and $25 and $11.50 off the line rent.
>
> > both if bundled with phone.
>
> Which isnt very desirable in her situation because
> it involves $11.50 more per month for the line rent.
>
>
>

Some gutless pig ignorant ****wit desperately cowering behind
FruitLoop <[email protected]> desperately attempted
to bull**** its way out of its predicament and fooled absolutely
no one at all, as always.

Thanks for advice, Tom N
There is no Optus cable in my street- if there was, I probably would have
gone for it.
I do not expect higher ADSL than 512/128- distance from Exchange will pay
its part.
I am aware of fact that when my land line goes down- so will Internet
connection.
Exchange is not ADSL2 enabled as yet- maybe next year.
I have asked for my land line to be tested- am told to expect answer in 20
days.
I have organised for central filter to be installed- apparently alarm system
has to be commissioned for ADT after installation of filter.
I will try to make a move to ADSL anyway- you see Telstra really got under
my skin when they lowered my 500 MB to 400 MB- I mean 20%.
No doubt it WILL cost me money, but at this stage I am prepared to vote with
my feet if I can.
nelly

"Tom N" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Is there Optus cable TV service available in your street?

nelly wrote:

> Thanks for advice, Tom N
> There is no Optus cable in my street- if there was, I probably would
> have gone for it.
> I do not expect higher ADSL than 512/128- distance from Exchange will
> pay its part.
> I am aware of fact that when my land line goes down- so will Internet
> connection.
> Exchange is not ADSL2 enabled as yet- maybe next year.
> I have asked for my land line to be tested- am told to expect answer
> in 20 days.
> I have organised for central filter to be installed- apparently alarm
> system has to be commissioned for ADT after installation of filter.
> I will try to make a move to ADSL anyway- you see Telstra really got
> under my skin when they lowered my 500 MB to 400 MB- I mean 20%.
> No doubt it WILL cost me money, but at this stage I am prepared to
> vote with my feet if I can.

Bigpond was all us cable users to piss off anyway.

I have Bigpond cable unlimited* and I am quite happy with it.
But in their infinite wisdom they are going to tell all the Bigpond cable
customers to piss off and a large proportion will probably go to another
ISP.

> > > and they could use a portion ot the broadband
> > > bandwidth for data transfer , much the same as phone ,
> >
> > Nothing like the phone. Telstra chose not to
> > have that capability with their cable service.
>
> Again you have no idea about bandwidth and spectrum

Nothing to do with bandwidth and spectrum, ****wit.

Why would Telstra continue to put new copper pairs into households wanting
second lines, if they could just use the existing HFC service?
Idiot

"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > > > and they could use a portion ot the broadband
> > > > bandwidth for data transfer , much the same as phone ,
> > >
> > > Nothing like the phone. Telstra chose not to
> > > have that capability with their cable service.
> >
> > Again you have no idea about bandwidth and spectrum
>
> Nothing to do with bandwidth and spectrum, ****wit.
>
> Why would Telstra continue to put new copper pairs into households wanting
> second lines, if they could just use the existing HFC service?
> Idiot

The argument was technology based not price .

>
>

FruitLoop <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> and they could use a portion ot the broadband
>>>>> bandwidth for data transfer , much the same as phone ,
>>>>
>>>> Nothing like the phone. Telstra chose not to
>>>> have that capability with their cable service.
>>>
>>> Again you have no idea about bandwidth and spectrum
>>
>> Nothing to do with bandwidth and spectrum, ****wit.
>>
>> Why would Telstra continue to put new copper pairs into households
>> wanting second lines, if they could just use the existing HFC
>> service?
>> Idiot
>
> The argument was technology based not price .

So was his, you silly little pig ignorant ****wit.

"FruitLoop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > > > and they could use a portion ot the broadband
> > > > > bandwidth for data transfer , much the same as phone ,
> > > >
> > > > Nothing like the phone. Telstra chose not to
> > > > have that capability with their cable service.
> > >
> > > Again you have no idea about bandwidth and spectrum
> >
> > Nothing to do with bandwidth and spectrum, ****wit.
> >
> > Why would Telstra continue to put new copper pairs into households
wanting
> > second lines, if they could just use the existing HFC service?
> > Idiot
>
> The argument was technology based not price .

Exactly. So if they had the technology to do it, they would.

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> FruitLoop <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>>>> and they could use a portion ot the broadband
> >>>>> bandwidth for data transfer , much the same as phone ,
> >>>>
> >>>> Nothing like the phone. Telstra chose not to
> >>>> have that capability with their cable service.
> >>>
> >>> Again you have no idea about bandwidth and spectrum
> >>
> >> Nothing to do with bandwidth and spectrum, ****wit.
> >>
> >> Why would Telstra continue to put new copper pairs into households
> >> wanting second lines, if they could just use the existing HFC
> >> service?
> >> Idiot
> >
> > The argument was technology based not price .
>
> So was his, you silly little pig ignorant ****wit.
>

When brains were handed out , YOU wagged school

HTH


>

"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "FruitLoop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > > and they could use a portion ot the broadband
> > > > > > bandwidth for data transfer , much the same as phone ,
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing like the phone. Telstra chose not to
> > > > > have that capability with their cable service.
> > > >
> > > > Again you have no idea about bandwidth and spectrum
> > >
> > > Nothing to do with bandwidth and spectrum, ****wit.
> > >
> > > Why would Telstra continue to put new copper pairs into households
> wanting
> > > second lines, if they could just use the existing HFC service?
> > > Idiot
> >
> > The argument was technology based not price .
>
> Exactly. So if they had the technology to do it, they would.

Not if they want phone line rentals , Now your changing your tune .



>
>

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
FruitLoop <[email protected]> desperately
attempted to bull**** its way out of its predicament
and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

FruitLoop <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "FruitLoop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> and they could use a portion ot the broadband
>>>>>>> bandwidth for data transfer , much the same as phone ,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing like the phone. Telstra chose not to
>>>>>> have that capability with their cable service.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again you have no idea about bandwidth and spectrum
>>>>
>>>> Nothing to do with bandwidth and spectrum, ****wit.
>>>>
>>>> Why would Telstra continue to put new copper pairs into households
>>>> wanting second lines, if they could just use the existing HFC
>>>> service? Idiot
>>>
>>> The argument was technology based not price .
>>
>> Exactly. So if they had the technology to do it, they would.

> Not if they want phone line rentals , Now your changing your tune .

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever,
and couldnt bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag either.

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> FruitLoop <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "FruitLoop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>>
> >>> "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>>> and they could use a portion ot the broadband
> >>>>>>> bandwidth for data transfer , much the same as phone ,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nothing like the phone. Telstra chose not to
> >>>>>> have that capability with their cable service.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Again you have no idea about bandwidth and spectrum
> >>>>
> >>>> Nothing to do with bandwidth and spectrum, ****wit.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why would Telstra continue to put new copper pairs into households
> >>>> wanting second lines, if they could just use the existing HFC
> >>>> service? Idiot
> >>>
> >>> The argument was technology based not price .
> >>
> >> Exactly. So if they had the technology to do it, they would.
>
> > Not if they want phone line rentals , Now your changing your tune .
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
> never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever,
> and couldnt bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag either.




Another useless piece of crap from RS or Rat**** as you are known around the
traps





>
>