Tell me more x
, there is a new speed test available. Give it a try, leave feedback!
dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-03-06 14:39:01: We recently noted how AT&T's U-Verse expansion is essentially over, and if you haven't seen your market upgraded yet you probably aren't going to. ..

prev · 1 · 2

Mineral Wells, TX


wonder who would buy this.., few buyers come to mind..

1.local, communities - could be worse thing to happen, depending on your area.. and the people running the show

2.major companies - could possibly be something in the lines of Google.. or others, but very unlikely, although Google would prob save money if they are expanding the fiber out, they would def want to use the poles, which AT&T mainly owns most of them threw out the country.., they don't own all but they do own quite a number.. could be something good depending on how far Google actually wants to do this little (test) or ISP..

3.could allow others to buy, and bring some start up company's, again DSL sucks, but if you have the poles u basically later on have the right to put what u want with out having to dig peoples yards up and cost more

this could be a good thing, not only for AT&T (GREEDY!!) but also for the people that have DSL, but again it could get worse due to the economy you are not sure who will buy these areas and they may milk it worse than AT&T has.. hard to believe I know, but could happen

If I got something wrong here point it out yall thanks, I do believe I was told thought AT&T does own most of the polls.. just makin sure

Brooklyn, NY
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS

Re: AT&T

AT&T will probably try to sell CenturyTel on some of these markets particularly in the southwest that they don't already own. AT&T only need to keep the strategic major cities to remain a global tier-1 company. They care not about the average residential customer, but PROFIT above all else. One day we might see some new regulation of telecom since the 96' and 03(ish) reforms didn't go so well for the rural and midwest suburban communities. Half of the southern state populations got screwed royally with no u-verse, however Verizon was able to muscle it's way into Texas and expand their footprint slightly (while selling off chunks of the northeast that weren't profitable to upgrade).

Nevertheless, the one-size fits all regulations of the past DO NOT FIT the current competitive model. There needs to be a 3rd and even 4th carrier that actually deploys wires outside of the northeast and urban west coast cities. Consumers want faster broadband delivered by wires that are actually futureproofed agsinst obsolesence. Would really like to see Google's residential footprint exist outside of Kansas City in the very near future. Once residential consumers get a taste of gigabit, there's no going back!

Tinley Park, IL
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Yahoo

I wonder what will happen

If AT&T is going to keep U-verse and sell off the DSL and POTS, what will happen in areas where some areas of the community has U-verse and some doesn't? Does that mean that someone living in that community will be serviced by one of two companies depending on where they live?




Now if only they can find a sucker with $500 Billion.

Royal Oak, MI

Who will buy?

Seeing that the telecos that bought the rural systems from Verizion are still hurting from that decision, who in their right mind will buy the same type of crap systems from ATT? Would ATT spin them off instead? Who would buy the ip stock then?

Lakewood, CA
·Verizon FiOS

"real" uverse

Just got sold "uverse" from existing DSL in 90041. Same speed. They lied. Never brought fiber to the node that is 1300 feet from our house. Spoke to att lines guys on this. Fiber runs by the house to other nodes. Speed on our uverse is exact same as att DSL...2.7 m down. .4 up. Uverse "seems" better for skype..for now. » ··· 36&msa=0

So what att is likely doing is just that. Taking all the CO connection that are DSL and renaming them Uverse and letting marketers on the phone tell people its fiber. Att is very funny.
Lakewood Accountability Action Group | » | Demanding action and accountability from local government


Re: "real" uverse

Right now At&t's push is to get their dsl users onto their "uverse" IPDSLAM, not for better service or speeds, but because they aren't regulated on that network and don't have to resell this to wholesale companies. it is somewhat more efficient than traditional ATM based DSLAMS.


My experience of ATT

is that they aren't much of a wireless company either. I realize others will disagree. I'm not sure, however, that trying to mimic verizon is really a smart move for ATT.


So what happens to those of us in a city that's "officially" been deemed a U-Verse city, yet we have very little to show for it? Are they going to stop and leave the rest of the city hanging?

New York, NY

Clarification - That's 10M+ phone lines, not just DSL

AT&T's plan to to get rid of as many lines as possible where they don't have U-Verse. Only a minority of those have DSL. Note my original report is that things aren't final, but it's looking very likely.
Thanks again to Karl for following up my reporting.

Dave burstein


AT&T is a wireless company?

If T is a wireless company then they should have left Bellsouth alone. Sure I understand T's reason for merging with Bell, o wait I'm sorry we were bought out, to obtain the 40% of Cingular wireless . The hell with the wireline side and all the employees that maintain it . The big wigs got what they wanted. MONEY!!!! It's ashame how people can be so damn greedy


In my state it's even WORSE.

As bad as all that sounds, it's quite possibly even WORSE in my home state--AT&T is pretty much proposing to the KY Public Service Commission to remove ALL obligation to provide landline service to the rural areas where they're required to serve to make sure everywhere has phone service.

No matter that a) AT&T has an inherited monopoly from Bellsouth (we don't have FIOS or any real competition in this state save from Windstream and rural telephone co-ops, and are unlikely to thanks to the Hellsouth juggernaut) and b) there is still a fair chunk of the state (especially in Appalachia and western KY) that STILL does not have cell service...where the only "broadband" available is through either satellite or rural telecommunications co-ops for cable (Yes, there are areas of my state where the only "wireless" connection available even by PHONE consists of amateur radio or satellite phone service).

As if I needed any other reason to think Hellsouth ARE the scumdogs of the universe...


SBC ruined a good company

SBC ruined a good company, not a great company, but a good one. I worked for South Central Bell / Bellsouth / AT&T for thirty four years. I'm thankful that I was able to retire early. I feel sorry for the employees who are left trying to survive.


Re: SBC ruined a good company

SBC ruined it?? Stephenson was the CEO of ATT before SBC acquired ATT. Stephenson ran down ATT to the point of being bought by a baby bell and now he is doing the same act all over again.

SBC did just fine before Stephenson was posted as CEO. Bring Whitacre back!

DSL is still wanted

I work for a Telco in a moderately rural area. In our area, we have FTTP, Uverse and DSL. There are many, many areas that are out of reach of DSL service...and the people there would absolutely love to be able to get DSL service.

I wonder if the Telcos have ever thought of shifting the hardware that they upgrade to Uverse out to an area that doesn't currently have any broadband service. It would be an expense to feed it with fiber and to move it, yes, but the people out there would be very loyal with their DSL because it would be the best option available to them.

ATT's CEO ran the former ATT into the ground... so much so that a Baby Bell (Southwestern Bell a.k.a. SBC) bought it. I wonder if the shareholders will figure out that he is running the current ATT into the ground as well. The future is not pure wireless... the future is fiber to the prem!

Canonsburg, PA

AT&T and Verizon should be required to expand fiber to the

AT&T and Verizon should be required to expand fiber to the premises as a condition of AT&T Mobility or Verizon Wireless or any AT&T or Verizon subsidiaries participating in any future spectrum auctions or purchasing spectrum licenses from anyone who does. What good reason is there for our government to allow AT&T and Verizon to turn us into a third world country?