AT&T CEO Calls DSL 'Obsolete'

I was recently at an event where an AT&T VP was speaking. During the Q&A he was asked about how they looked at Comcast as a threat. His response was that Comcast was absolutely not a threat because Comcast does not have a wireless network.

...

Thanks for the clarification on that, so your rolling out fiber when? NM your AT&T.

AT&T is a wireless company - i keep expecting them to spin the wireline stuff into a "waiting to die while milking the cash" company.

that he hasn't realized that VDSL/2/2+ is also obsolete.

Perhaps he considers all wires obsolete. With all the spectrum he is getting from the Alltel merger, he is going 'all in' on wireless.

Digital Cable was developed to allow the CATV industry to compete with Satellite. DOCSIS was a bonus technology and cables bluebird. The Wireline Telephone Industry offered DSL before DOCSIS was available. Unfortunately teleco never had a bluebird fly in. Unless the Wireline Telephone Industry comes up with a technology that allows much higher speed broadband over twisted pair or they make the investment to deploy fiber, their days are numbered.

CAPS and overage fees follow the same Modus Operandi as Teleco tried to use in the late 90's. There was a day of reckoning when Teleco wanted to convert all telephone lines used by ISP's for dial up internet access to measured rate. Fortunately the Clinton Administration put Teleco on a short leash by having the FCC block Teleco's request. Unfortunately for consumers Teleco learned how to Lobby up. It is time the broadband industry received a good dose of regulation in order to protect consumers.

Actually they do, granted they use Clearwire's and Sprint's networks, but still.

I wonder if there's a bit of strategy going on here. Even if Stephenson really believes this, and I have no doubt he does, he's in a bind because investors don't think so. Expanding U-verse is expensive, but the investors don't want to invest in capex because they want their profits now. Stephenson may be trying to get them used to the idea that the fiber has got to be laid, if not now, then soon.

Well that didn't last long. AT&Trash's half-assed band-aid to their ancient copper network is already ineffective. With Time Warner Cable now fully on board the DOCSIS 3.0 bandwagon, is there any cable ISP left out there competing with AT&T that doesn't stomp all over AT&T U-verse's top speeds of 24/3 Mbps? They don't even have the unlimited usage going for them anymore as the sole competitive edge over legendary capped provider Comcast (better known as "Comcap"). They're more just as or even more expensive than cable whilst providing slower speeds with bandwidth limits and atrocious HDTV picture quality. I don't know why anyone still subscribes to this crappy provider.

Randall must have enough nerve to call his own technology obsolete when said "obsolete" technology is still being used by a good chunk of his company's customers for Internet usage. Talk about a caring CEO of his company's own technology that he doesn't bother upgrading everywhere AT&T has a foothold.

Still, AT&T was just licking it's wounds from the local & long distance wars of the 90's.. never expecting to get back into wireline. That doesn't excuse the path taken from 1997 - 2011 which evolved from about 70-85% VDSL overlay and 15% FTTP in so-called "GREEN FIELDS"... which is code for new residential high value housing. Nevertheless, VDSL is not a competitive product to docsis 3 and the cable companies know it. That gave them breathing room to tinker with an defective product (docsis 3) to get the upstream channels working. Now that they have, they're still cautious on putting high bandwidth in the upstream for fear of cannibalizing video even further. Cable companies fear their own customers more than they fear AT&T as a competitor.

AT&T and Comcast are just not committed to real competition and they have the *MOST* wireline customers in the country. When the tmobile acquisition is compete AT&T will have the majority of wireless customers too. Verizon and everyone else combined would still make up less customers than AT&T wireless with Tmobile.

The goalposts of the game have evolved in mergers and acquisitions. Lofty goals and gobbly speak about better value for the customer was *REQUIRED* to sell mergers to the public so that they wouldn't squawk. Today that's not the case. AT&T's merger speaks volumes about the big get bigger and screw the customer with higher prices in the process on justifiable investment. "We're gouging you to build fund a better network". It goes nicely with that "Rethink Possible" slogan. Businesses think they can do whatever they want and there are no negative consequences for the company.

The big oil companies, banks and wall street have opened this Pandora's box and YOU Joe customer will end up paying $$ MORE $$ for their failure AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN! AT&T's wireline deployment leaves Comcast with a MONOPOLY in at least 25% of their footprint. No, not a complete duopoly.. a MONOPOLY. AT&T's current policy is to NEVER upgrade 55% of their wireline business. Who knows how long NEVER will last..

dsl is dead and long live wireless.

I have to wonder if there will be a time when AT&T splits their wired and wireless business. They obviously don't have the stomach to invest in their "obsolete" landline business. I'm not even sure why they own it in that case....

Once they have T-mobile locked up, i think it would become even more obvious to ditch the landline business.

There has never been any type of DSL service outside of the distance limitations of this one horse town served by AT&T.

...that one horse town local cable company sells 4/512 for $43+tax and they are the only ones in the area. Monopoly? Smart Business?

AT&T will never die...just mutate into something more disastrous.

RE: AT&T licking its wounds... I thought SBC bought AT&T. After, they changed their name to AT&T because the brand had national appeal.

Regarding cable being cautious on deploying faster upstream speeds, why do you think that they think it will cannibalize video?

Comcast's wireless side is just a way for them to say that they do quadruple play, competing with Verizon and AT&T. They aren't a wireless company, just like AT&T apparently isn't a DSL company. Low caps and high monthly fees mean that wireless is profitable to them, more so than DSL apparently.

Maybe they'll sell all their wireline assets to CenturyLink somewhere around 2015. If CenLink doesn't buy Sprint first anyway.

If they do buy Sprint then AT&T will backpedal since they will be competing with CL+Sprint and VZ+VZW on the grand stage of things. But if the spinoff does happen then it'll be similar to what Sprint did with the whole Embarq spinoff. Interesting to watch...

wow obsolete, hmm... that is only thing i can get in my area besides cable and for 15 bucks is damn slow too and has issues... they are really stupid

Not Alltel. T-Mobile. Though Alltel's forced divestitures from VZW helped AT&T get some rural coverage in some areas.

Bonded VDSL2 gives telcos a fighting chance, but they'll have to re-architect their networks so that nodes are much closer to subscribers, kinda like cable's HFC has done for ages.

'cuz people like U-Verse IPTV better than crappy cableco STBs? Or maybe 'cuz AT&T's lower-end DSL over U-Verse packages are enough for the average Joe and are less expensive than low-end cable packages?

Otherwise, no reason.

How can one be misquoted? I'll bet they spin that to "misheard", i.e. he said one thing (that he shouldn't have) and you mistakenly heard (what he shouldn't have said), but you really didn't hear what he actually said (even though you did hear what he actually said).

If DSL is so obsolete, what is the ISDN service you still provide as the only wired internet in the majority of Alabama?

Also I'm glad you were chasing a cable company with DSL, look's like you still have a LONG ways to go to catch up. Idiots..

CableCARD tuners are way better than U-verse's set-top box.

AT&T's lower-end packages are not cheaper than the cable company's low-end packages either.

Can I get it for free then?

Yes we do want CapEx its the quick buck holders that cry when AT&T spends a penny on anything, as that may impact them getting a .44918671616 dividend vs a 44918671617 one.

I live in a AT&T and TimeWarner area. We get U-Verse in this area, but not DOCSIS 3.0. So the speeds we can get from each service are about the same. I did check the pricing once to see what U-Verse would cost (before AT&T implemented a cap), and for the same level of service as we're getting with TimeWarner it was a little cheaper. But I stayed with TimeWarner because when I had last been on AT&T the DSL was always going up and down and they could never fix it. Now with the cap, I'll definitely never switch. Unless they were to run fiber down my street right to my house and TimeWarner implemented the same size cap.

It looks cheaper... at first. This is due to a few promos AT&T likes to trick you into like $25 off TV service for the first 6 months.

After those 6 months are up though... AT&T costs more. Bill shot up to $160 a month for just the 24/3 Mbps Internet package and U-200 TV package together after all taxes and fees were added in.

Meanwhile, Time Warner's comparable TV offerings combined with 30/5 Mbps Internet (faster AND currently uncapped!) result in a cost of $137 per month (and that's with no $25 off 6 months gimmick) for the service and one DVR. And if you kill off that one DVR and get a CableCARD it drops down to $125 a month.

Comcast plans to deploy IPTV too. The Spectrum box and guide come out next year. What then for AT&T?

Then AT&T has to hope that TWC and SUddenlink, its other large competitors,won't follow.