new customer to dish network

[yapagaldil]

i am former Cox customer, i been with them for almost 8 years. There service over the years has become better but as does their prices.

i got top 180 right now with dish for 50 that inclucdes the local channels. for the same 180 i was paying $69 with my cox that's before the expected reate increat of $3 and some change. All the packages they are currently offering will no longer be offered. Everything would be sold individually. At this point they sell each of the premium channels individually no combination. The ultimate package is close to $90.

main reason i switched to dish network is the offering of international channels. Cox has upgraded their network to digital and the list of international is still very short and still lost of empty channels and there doesn't seem to any effort by them to add more channels.

Best thing about Cox is the high speed internet which cost $55 for non-cable customers for me it was $40. Not a bad deal but you pay for bunch of local channels which aren't worth paying for.

just wanted to give my opinion on this transation from cable to dish.

 

[BFG]

Alrighty. Thanks for sharing. Welcome to dish network and the satguys forum!

 

[korsjs]

welcome to satelliteguys. don't be a stranger.

if you like international programming, then dish is for you.

 

[bw820]

Welcome to Sat Guys! I am in the same boat as you. I prefer Dish Networks pricing for television, but I have to hava high speed internet service. I just ordered DSL. A customer rep called me last week and said it would only be 26.00 a month and I would get two months free for switching from cable. He promised me that my MBPS would be 1.5, so I figured I would give it a try. Now I can drop my cable package, which I was only keeping because I got a discount on the modem. I install for Dish, so I am going to sign up for the 120 with a 522 and still pay 12.00 less a month on my television. Anyways, I figured that I would share that with you. Maybe you can try DSL and get the same deal that I did. I reply back after I have had their service for a while.

 

[yapagaldil]

i got the DVR, i luv this toy now i have no idea who i lived without it. skipping commercials that's awesome.

 

[Zookster]

I totally loved Dish after I switched two years ago to get a DVR (which Cox at the time hadn't rolled out yet). Now that I have HD, I'm getting pretty fed up with watching commercials on the 811 and having to watch shows at certain times because I can't record in HD. Since I may not be able to upgrade to the 942 (whenever it comes out) since I just took advantage of an upgrade offer in Dec 04 (remember, only one upgrade per year with E*), I may downgrade my E* to the minimum my current contract will allow and get Cox Cable HD, which currently leases a an HD DVR--no commitments, no strings attached (Ok, but for a lot more $$)

On the other hand, if you're not into HD, E* can't be beat and I recommend it to all my friends.

 

[wmhjr]

That sucks.

The HD nuclear winter on Dish, the 921, and poor customer service finally drove me back to cable. However, my costs actually went DOWN. The cost lf leasing the DVR is pretty minimal, and the cost of all services is significantly less when you add savings from broadband. If you don't get broadband, it's a little different. But in no case is it "a lot more $$" here. Lucky for me!

I totally loved Dish after I switched two years ago to get a DVR (which Cox at the time hadn't rolled out yet). Now that I have HD, I'm getting pretty fed up with watching commercials on the 811 and having to watch shows at certain times because I can't record in HD. Since I may not be able to upgrade to the 942 (whenever it comes out) since I just took advantage of an upgrade offer in Dec 04 (remember, only one upgrade per year with E*), I may downgrade my E* to the minimum my current contract will allow and get Cox Cable HD, which currently leases a an HD DVR--no commitments, no strings attached (Ok, but for a lot more $$)

On the other hand, if you're not into HD, E* can't be beat and I recommend it to all my friends.

 

[Zookster]

I'm actually toying the idea of getting my cable co's high-speed as well because that's the only way a switch makes any sense for me financially. Otherwise, I'd be paying in the neighborhood of $30+ to get anything comparable to what I currently have with E* (we're talking $11/mo. just to add a second, non-DVR digital cable box for goodness sake)

 

[jerseyjk]

I live in the boonies and have sprint as my local/ld phone carrier. Only option for HS Internet was sprint DSL since I had the dish and cable wanted to rape me for internet if I didn't subscribe to their TV service.

Now I find out that sprint is offering $5 off their DSL if you sign up for dish. Since I'm already a dish customer, I figured I couldn't get it and it was just another way E* was screwing existing customers in favor of new ones. Turns out that's not the case. Sprint responded asking for my dish account #. They'll integrate the bills and <poof> $5 off my DSL bill.

 

[DishDave]

Cables owns Dsl for speed. If not i would drop Comcrap in a heartbeat

 

[Poke]

Not true! Cable does not own DSL! It all depends on where you live due to some states have better Telco's that can provide better speed's than other's. It it always better to get your Net connetion from a local ISP than a big company like COX in most cases. Due to the price's are useally better with a local ISP.

 

[Zookster]

Current Dish customers can also get discounts for Earthlink dial-up (-$6) or DSL (-$10). That's one more thing I have to weigh in my decision (Dish vs. Cable), as I'm already taking advantage of that discount, and I'm not looking forward to the hassle of switching to a new internet provider if I go with a cable HD/broadband package.

 

[jerseyjk]

Not true! Cable does not own DSL! It all depends on where you live due to some states have better Telco's that can provide better speed's than other's.

Agree completely with this ... co-worker started with Verizon DSL at 512. They keep upping his speed for nothing to compete with cable. He's at 3 megabit now while shi**y sprint still has me stuck at 512k. They know the local cable company sucks so they don't bother trying to compete.

 

[jawatkin]

A little off-topic, but I want to sign up for Dish and was wondering if anyone has CLUB DISH referrals? I'd like to help someone out with their monthly cost if they can help me with the activation! PM me!

-Justin

 

[dishrich]

Not true! Cable does not own DSL! It all depends on where you live due to some states have better Telco's that can provide better speed's than other's.

Well, Comcast just made an announcement that they are going to start upping their 4mg service to 6mg, at NO extra charge. Now, keeping this in mind, tell me ONE DSL provider anywhere that offers 6mg. (& for how much)

I'm at 4mg on Insight f/$35 & wouldn't think of switching to DSL. I already had my go-around with SBC DSL - I told them to shove it after 5 weeks, when it had gone down for an entire weekend & they would NOT give me ANY credit for the outage.

 

[GaryPen]

Those download speed numbers are just numbers on paper. I have DSL. A good friend has cable ISP. There is no discernable difference. Plus, his service is always going down. He pays almost $20 more per month for his. ($27 vs. $44) And, if I wanted increased speed (3MB), I could pay about $8 more per month.

Also, don't forget that the more people in an area are using the cable ISP, speed is reduced because of shared bandwidth. This does not happen with DSL.

 

[dishrich]

Those download speed numbers are just numbers on paper. I have DSL. A good friend has cable ISP. There is no discernable difference. Plus, his service is always going down. He pays almost $20 more per month for his. ($27 vs. $44) And, if I wanted increased speed (3MB), I could pay about $8 more per month.

OK, so what you are trying to tell me is that there is really NOT much difference between 1.5mg & 6mg of speed - uh, OK whatever you say... I guess the old saying of "you get what you pay for" never entered into your equation - right now, price is about the ONLY thing DSL providers can compete on, since (again) they do not have the robust networks that most cable modem operators have. (you can only shove so much stuff down a pair of 50+ year old copper wires that were NEVER made to carry high speeds in the first place. (hint: THAT'S why you're getting it f/$27... )

The fact of the matter is, MOST DSL customers do NOT get near the stated max speed on their plans, since DSL is very distance sensitive. The condition of the subs copper pairs that service their house play a big part in this as well. Things like spices, bridge taps, etc. don't help things, either. Cable modem service, on the other hand, is NOT sensitive to distance, since it is riding in an RF carrier - if it's up to decent quality, there is generally no difference between what you & your neighbor a 1/2 mile away get speedwise - DSL WILL vary in this instance. If you also did you homework, you would also know that when you get a far enough distance away, DSL providers will not sell you the higher speed packages, because of the distance issue & they know that a sub would never get anywhere near the higher speed.

Also, don't forget that the more people in an area are using the cable ISP, speed is reduced because of shared bandwidth. This does not happen with DSL.

Well, that's another myth that the DSL folks have suckered you into. The other fact of the matter is, you share the bandwidth on BOTH systems. The difference comes in WHERE everyone's bandwidth ultimately comes together. While obviously cable modem customers share bandwidth at the node level, ALL DSL customers in a given wire center end up sharing it back at the DSLAM, where all the DSL customers in a given neighborhood come together & where the DSL is actually inserted in the cable pairs to homes. If the DSL provider does NOT offer enough bandwidth to the DSLAM level, there will be bandwidth limitations EXACTLY like cable modems.

You can argue against this all you want, but if you understand anything how DSL & cable modems ARE provisioned & work, it's not hard to understand why.

 

[GaryPen]

I'm glad you have good cable ISP service. My friend, as well as a number of co-workers, aren't quite so lucky. There' service is always going down. My DSL has never been down.
Again, I have seen no discernable difference in my friend's dl speed compared to mine. Perhaps it is due to the intermittant nature of his service. To me, in my personal experience, the big speed difference is on mostly on paper. And, DSL defintely wins out on the reliability issue.
But, that's me. YMMV. I'm glad you are as happy with your cable service as I am with my DSL.

BTW, speaking of specs on paper, do you also believe that Dish Customer support is top notch because they won some nonsensical JD Power award?

 

[dishrich]

BTW, speaking of specs on paper, do you also believe that Dish Customer support is top notch because they won some nonsensical JD Power award?

You GOT to be kidding??? :shocked :shocked

Seriously, since you keep talking about "specs on paper", what "paper" is it that says "the more people in an area are using the cable ISP, speed is reduced because of shared bandwidth. This does not happen with DSL" that you state as fact??? (Hmm, maybe on all that advertising that DSL companies use against the cable co) PAPER is all that is, too - unless YOU can show me some evidence to the contrary.

OK, let's forget about the "specs on paper" - let's do a "real life" speed test. I will tell you straight up, that when I test my connection, I consistently get OVER 4mg of speed. I'll GUARANTEE you will NOT find many DSL connections that will get up there. Again, because of how DSL works, there are just TOO many variables involved to be able to get these kinds of speeds in "real life".

Now, in all fairness, I'm sure their are some cable co. that have problems too, like evidently your friend does. And I also agree that a higher speed cable modem is of little value if it's down all the time. (like my DSL was) I'll also agree that if I could NOT get a cable modem, I'd probably do DSL - that was actually the situation I was in when I first got DSL, as AT&T cable (who had the system before Insight took over) had not rewired my neighborhood. The DSL service was so crappy, I disconnected & went back to dial-up, as I was going to be moving in a month & knew cable modem was available at my new house.

I also agree that if someone only needs a moderate speed broadband connection that's cheaper, to replace dial-up, DSL is a valid alternative. But I guess my question about this is - if your DSL is SO much more reliable than your friend's cable modem, as well as being cheaper, why DOES he continue to pay more for such 2nd rate service?

 

[wmhjr]

Actually, Dishrich has some points

He's absolutely correct about the ridiculous myth that cable broadband subscribers "share bandwidth" and DSL subscribers don't. That's a big load of hooey. He is equally correct that the stated "up to 6mb/sec" performance stated by whoever is likely a pipe dream. He is further correct about the far greater sensitivity of DSL to distance. The fact is that DSL is largely unavailable to multitudes, and that things like FTTC and FTTH are yet to be fulfilled fantasies.

However, to be fair, the "up to 6mb/sec" performance is equally improperly quoted in cable.

The fact is that *on average*, cable broadband outperforms DSL because many DSL subscribers cannot get anything near ADSL performance to to distance and DSLAM constraints. Cable subs get far more consistent performance on average, with far less variability - but in many cases lower "top" speeds.

In any case, however, performance will be extremely dependent on where you live, and who your subscribers are. I cannot under any circumstances get DSL due to the fact that I live more than 22000 feet from the nearest CO. However, I have employees who tried DSL and went with Cable because of extremely poor DSL performance and availability. On the other hand, I have employees who love their DSL. I personally would just like to be able to get a static IP - something not offered by my residential cable broadband provider. I can tell you that two years ago I had outages on pretty much a weekly basis. Now, I don't have service interruptions for months at a time.

Bottom line? The only "facts" about cable v DSL any of us can really attest to are limited to our specific areas, and do not translate into anywhere else.