John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:iluol2htr32qh0nt6u8hhcmg96r11jsg3b@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:47:39 +0100, "Swann" <swann@tempsperdu.fr>
> wrote in <ejhj4u$4gk$1@registered.motzarella.org>:
>
>>"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> ha scritto nel
>>messaggio news:Xns987C80B7192ACthisnthatadelphianet@216.196. 97.142...
>>>
>>> So it's a combo DSL modem/IP Phone/Wireless Router/IP TV box ?
>>>
>>> That's just stupid. Just another instance in which you can see you
>>> are better off with individual components, if this indeed as I
>>> describe it.
>>
>>it's hard to explain if you don't know the peculiar situation where I
>>live. besides, the tv part will just be temporary, it's a limited free
>>offer for some months but we'll recede when it expires. and, trust me,
>>the choice of the ISP was long considered and we're sure it was the
>>best we could have. anyway, my only question was, which of the three
>>possible solutions I listed do you guys think is the best? I mean,
>>imagine you didn't have any other choice besides those three. really,
>>if somebody put a gun to your head and said "go ahead, a, b or c", and
>>he promised to spare your life only if the connectivity issue was
>>solved through your decision, what would you choose?
>
> I think he meant it's stupid for the ISP to do that. I personally
> think that's a bit harsh -- while there can be merit in individual
> boxes, there's undeniably benefits from a combo design (e.g., less
> power, complexity, space, and clutter).
>

I DID mean the ISP was stupid for doing this. It may seem a bit harsh,
but now the guys got a device in his living room where only 1 of the
functions of it is supposed to be, the BB TV. So they are then making
everyone that orders this service package to put this device in there
main TV viewing area ? There should be an option.


DanS