Author |
Message |
Egbok
Member
07-13-2000
| Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 10:12 am
SBC DSL Users....I didn't know where to ask this and I didn't want to start a new thread, so I'll ask here.. SBC has been advertising on the radio, DSL at $14.95 per month for 1 year. I went to the website (sbc.com/1495) to check it out and I was trying to find out what the regular monthly price would be after a years time, but I didn't find my answer. What do any of you think about this price option for a year? And if you have SBC DSL, what is your ballpark monthly cost? You can email me at Egbok77@aol.com with your answer if you'd like. Thanks for any help TVCHers! And for the record, I also appreciate Draheid's help....always!
|
Draheid
Moderator
09-09-2001
| Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 10:50 am
Eggie, I'm not an SBC DSL user, however, a little 'poking around' revealed a 'wayback' copy of the rates page from November 30, 2004 when the regular monthly rate was $26.95 for the same package. Rates may go up by the end of a year's service, but that should give you an idea. Hope this helps. ;)
|
Egbok
Member
07-13-2000
| Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 10:57 am
Dra, thank you! And yes, it did help. Have you been recruited to sewing yet?;)
|
Kitt
Member
09-06-2000
| Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 1:20 pm
That reminds me of a question I've had about our dsl. We get DSL through Earthlink and they charge us $17.99 for "Internet Access" and $32 for something they call "DSL Telecom Svc". Our DSL service is excellent, extremely fast and probably higher than the range of download rates that they promise. So my question is, does anyone else have dsl with Earthlink, and if so, do you have to pay twice like that? I've looked on their website and they only seem to mention one payment. I'm wondering if we should be charged the $32 instead of the $17.99, not as well as.
|
Juju2bigdog
Member
10-27-2000
| Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 1:57 pm
Probably maybe, Kitt. Better call Earthlink.
|
Draheid
Moderator
09-09-2001
| Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 2:06 pm
Kitt: I would suggest you contact your local telephone company and ask them that question. They may offer you a better deal since they 'own' the lines bringing the signal to you anyway. The $17.99 is probably the exact same as a dialup account with Earthlink on top of the service cost ($32) you see on your bill. Hope this helps.
|
Kitt
Member
09-06-2000
| Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 1:32 pm
Thanks, I will have to ring them on Monday. Our local phone company does do dsl but as what we have with earthlink is so fast and reliable we're a bit nervous about changing! Hopefully EL will either explain or reduce our charges! Thanks for your help.
|
Beachcomber
Member
08-26-2003
| Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 5:10 pm
Does anyone have satellite internet hookup (Directway)? Would you recommend it and is it as fast or faster than DSL/cable modem? Thanks!
|
Landi
Member
07-29-2002
| Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 6:57 pm
we had it at my work before DSL got brought in. it was halfway between dialup and DSL. i prefer DSL to cable. but that's a personal preference. if that is all you can get to get some speed, go for it. if you can get DSL, DO THAT instead!
|
Draheid
Moderator
09-09-2001
| Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 7:05 pm
Beachcomber: According to their website, quote:DIRECWAY Home and Professional service plans provide download speeds up to 500Kbps and upload speeds up to 50Kbps.
Direcway is approximately equal to a low-speed DSL for download and dialup speed for uploads. Most DSL service now provides 1500 Kbps download, 384Kbps download. Cablemodem runs around 4000 Kbps (or more) and 384Kbps upload speed. Most of your internet surfing involves downloading so the faster speed allows pages and files to load to your computer faster. There are other inherent issues with sattelite feeds such as latency (the delay between sending information and receiving acknowledgment of the sent data) which can cause problems with some services such as voice communications, and even some instant message programs. I also understand the services is a bit more expensive, especially in the setup fees required, than any other service. Plus it is susceptible to weather problems like most other satellite services, rare but something to consider also. If you have DSL or cable available, I personally would recommend one of those options, with Cable being my first preference due to speed. Hope this helps.
|
Beachcomber
Member
08-26-2003
| Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 10:30 am
Thanks Landi and Dra for the info! Our local podunk communications company says they can't give us cable modem since we recently switched from cable to satellite tv hookup. We still carry basic cable on our tvs in addition to the satellite but they are the only game in town and we are stuck with either dialup or satellite for the internet. I am going to get my DH to call and see what he can get out of them since he understands the whole satellite installation and wiring.
|
Whoami
Member
08-03-2001
| Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 7:01 pm
OK, this is probably an evil thing to ask, but I must.... Its about THIS picture of my niece in action in her first ever drum corps season. The page is protected so we can't right click and save the pic, and we can't even print out the page. Is there any way at all to get around that so we can just save the pic to our hard drive for our own enjoyment? I figured if there was any way around it, someone here would know. Yes, I know its because its a professional site that wants us to buy a copies. But, well there are a few reasons we may not be able to buy that pic. First off of course is the money in general. There also is a political matter of principal that I won't get into a long drawn out explanation of here. But it has to do with that company basically strong arming the big wigs that run the drum corps show into being the "exclusive" photographer," to the point of not even allowing parents (who've paid a couple of thousand bucks to get their kid on the field to start with) to bring personal cameras into the stadium to take pics of their kids in action. Threats of confiscating cameras at the gate, and kicking people out of the stadium if they're "caught" are also included. I just get livid with political "hands in each other's pockets" greedy crap like that, and am half inclined not to order a pic from them if that's the case. But doggone it, I want a pic of Stasi in action (the only time she's in uniform is when she's on the field!).
|
Jmm
Member
08-16-2002
| Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 7:07 pm
Who, Not saying to do it - but I found in the past that if you "save page" that it usually works. Just right click on picture and click "save page". Make sure that "web page complete" is your "save as type".
|
Babyruth
Member
07-19-2001
| Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 7:19 pm
Who, I just right clicked and saved it without any trouble. Here it is, so you can save it, too. Edited: aha! they fooled me. made me think it was saved. Oh well- sorry!
|
Whoami
Member
08-03-2001
| Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 7:25 pm
Yea, when I right click on it, it says..."All images are subject to copy right and may not be redistributed." I can't even do the "save page" thing. Actually, I don't even see where it says to do that..
|
Jmm
Member
08-16-2002
| Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 7:25 pm
Who, Check your email.
|
Jimmer
Member
08-30-2000
| Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 7:34 pm
I assume Jmm sent it to you. I thought about sending it to you as you can definitely get around these things but I am a professional photographer myself and I just don't know enough about your particular issue to take a position on it. At this point I was simply going to say that it definitely can be done. Good or bad (depending on your perspective) there is virtually no way to protect pictures published on an internet web site.
|
Juju2bigdog
Member
10-27-2000
| Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 8:01 pm
Well, and couldn't you also do a printscreen and then crop the picture off the screenprint? If you were inclined to do that sort of thing ...
|
Jimmer
Member
08-30-2000
| Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 8:14 pm
That would be the easiest way to do it by far for an image that size (that fits within a screen-print). Some photographers go so far as to watermark their images to prevent someone from getting a good copy. I don't watermark my images as I am more than happy to provide web-sized images to my clients as part of my original fee. It all depends on how the photographer sets the fee structure and what the client agrees to. If I was Whoami and wanted to get angry at someone because I thought I was getting a bad deal, I would get angry at Drum Corps organisers or whoever made the "bad deal" with the photographer. I can't imagine how a photographer could "strong-arm" them into agreeing to anything that they didn't want to agree to. Anyway, you won't be able to get a very good print out of an image that size, but I guess if it's good enough for you then that is okay.
|
Bob2112
Member
06-12-2002
| Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 7:59 am
The easiest way is for you to right click on the picture in this post and save that.
If you edit the source of the page and find the path to the image, then you can load that path into you browser. The image that pops up will be "savable" with a right click.
|
Whoami
Member
08-03-2001
| Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 2:20 pm
Thanks all for your advice and help! Jimmer, thanks for your take on it too. I appreciate it. And yes, I'm more ticked at DCI for banning all forms of photography (which includes the press photographers who have always had access to the sidelines before). But I also know that Jolesch had to have made that demand (is that a better term than "strong arm"? ) as part of their contract, cause there's no other reason for DCI to suddenly come up with that rule. Anyway, if I want a good printable pic, then of course I'll want to order directly from Jolesch. I just wanted a pic I can save to my hard drive! Thanks again!
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 2:55 pm
Next time, get the kids to smuggle in contra-ban cameras inside their big drums. 
|
Twinkie
Member
09-24-2002
| Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 4:55 pm
Is there a way to get cookies back after "someone" deleted them? grrrrr
|
Curious1
Member
08-31-2002
| Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 11:15 pm
Question - I'm looking at buying a new laptop. Was fairly set on a Dell inspirion model but then went to Best Buy to browse and they told me that the 32 bit processor will be obsolete (sp?) in no time because Windows is coming out with a Windows X64 software that will cause all the companies to switch to the new up and coming 64 bit processor (which is apparently much faster than todays standard 32 bit)????? Is this true and should I just wait to get a new laptop? I like the price of the Dell (on sale for around $850 through tommorrow night only!)...I could wait but only until December or so, when I start commuting to College again. One thing that always annoys me about computers though is when they get bogged down and start to run slowly... so the "faster speed processor" does sound really appealing. Any thoughts?
|
Draheid
Moderator
09-09-2001
| Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 12:15 am
Curiouis1: If you wait for the '64' to come out, you will likely be disappointed. There is very little consumer software available or even pending (as far as I know) that will take advantage of the technology. When it does start trickling onto the market, the prices will most likely be much higher initially anyway. First of all, if you get a well configured machine to start with, then take some steps you can take from the beginning of ownership to help prevent the 'bog down' effect computers often get. Such as keeping your system 'tuned up' and well protected from viruses, adware & spyware, etc. and keep the drive defragmented on a regular basis and you shouldn't have any trouble for a very long time. Then it will probably be time for a new computer anyway. Hope this helps.
|