dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-09-20 08:23:51: AT&T has laid bare their plan with the FCC to hang up on the carrier's landline networks so they can focus on more profitable wireless services. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next

Sukunai
Premium
join:2008-05-07
kudos:1
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
·TekSavvy DSL

Nothing strange about this objective.

Nothing strange about this objective.

Nothing remains the same, and it isn't like it has to be only the consumer that wishes the market would hurry up and evolve.

I am not even surprised that the big corporations wish to indulge dramatic changes to how business is conducted.

I'm just glad some of the communications world WANTS to enjoy the current year, and NOT be like Hollywood and insist that it can be 1950 indefinitely.

I think a world without cable and phone line, and entirely wireless sounds interesting. I actually wouldn't mind trying a world where I can use my service anywhere I want, and pay for only as much as I actually use.

In 2005 I WANTED hundreds of gigs a month. In 2010 I finally was able to see that all of those hundreds of gigs a month were mainly about replacing non digital copies of video, with digital forms. And I have with Netflix, even managed to leave needing any form of copy at all behind.

I hardly ever download a damn thing now. Accept a few game purchases.

I wish I could have access to my internet anywhere I was, and not need a free hotspot.


hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Already done in the AT&T/Ohio Bell Area

This has already been done in the Ohio Bell area (which interesting they started using that brand again on things). For 3 years now we havent had a set standard on anything, including repair if you bundle your services. And bundling includes any service that you have on the same bill, LD, Caller ID, Internet, etc. Bundle them and lose your MTS and repair times. Michigan is another state of at&ts that lost their MTS and more to come. at&t just merge their wireline side with VZs and just keep their own wireless companies. Especially since nobody is going to want them. Or turn them into a full wholesale company and let 3rd party providers in, and they could even re-design their DSL network and set it up that no matter who is your ISP, you can basically change it over night by changing your login- like in Canada.


canestim

join:2012-01-20

1 recommendation

reply to Sukunai

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

Do you realize how many gigs one hd stream from Netflix is? How are you going to stream movies to replaces your non-digital copies with that 10GB data cap with your Verizon LTE Home Fusion service? Hope you don't need to update Windows or Mac in the same month you decide to watch your politician documentary in HD. You may not download or save something to you hard drive anymore as you claim, but when you stream Netflix or Youtube you are actually still temporarily downloading the file to your computer.

These companies are only trying to take advantage of the consumer as usual. They say, we need more spectrum blah blah blah, but if they can't handle what traffic they have now how are they going to handle millions of DSL customers that are used to using as much data as they want without taking out a second mortgage. They refuse to build more towers now to ease spectrum crunch so what makes you think they will when they kill of DSL. What they will do is charge major overages to keep network traffic in check.

Wireless needs to complement wire, not replace it.


Sukunai
Premium
join:2008-05-07
kudos:1
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
·TekSavvy DSL

1 recommendation

reply to Sukunai

You are unfortunately thinking old thinking.

Today it is a gig, I can remember when the internet was measured in speeds that sounded almost odd. A modem was something that made all sorts of squawking noises.

Yes the video we watch uses a lot of bandwidth. And I hardly expect wireless to remain the same wireless it currently is.

I can remember when cable only sent a TV signal to a TV too.
I can remember when a phone line was only good for a phone call.

I don't really see a need to assume the old forms of transmission need remain the same.

But I think the future is more with fibre based tech actually. I am not sure wireless will actually ever be the best route. But it does have it's advantages.

I don't resent companies trying to get an edge with technology. Why should it only be the consumer that gets to enjoy all the perks?

I just hate people like Hollywood, that simply refuse to accept society has moved on, whether Hollywood likes it or not.

Expand your moderator at work

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to canestim

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

Wireless can replace as long as the caps are raised. And users need to realize that caps are here to stay weather you want them or not.



inteller
Sociopaths always win.

join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK
reply to Sukunai

Lumberjack Stephenson says...

everybody launch their chainsaw app and lets start cutting through this underbrush!


--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!"

microphone
Premium
join:2009-04-29
Parkville, MD

Just 2 simple copper wires

If the phone company can't maintain a simple pair of copper wires coming to the home what will they do when newer but more complex and costly forms of service become less profitable?

It's not that they really want to dump copper they want to dump customers. Apparently they are inconvenient for them.


rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
reply to Sukunai

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

You say fiber but who's going to bury it? Google?

Verizon has given up on expanding FIOS. Too costly. They, like AT&T, love wireless and its massive margin. If Verizon has booted copper and the idea of an in-ground network, do we think AT&T will experiment with fiber only to come to Verizon's conclusion?

I do agree that how we view today's gigabyte will likely be a terabyte in the future. When that happens, video won't be an issue.


canestim

join:2012-01-20

1 recommendation

reply to Sukunai

Businesses are here to serve customers while making a profit. If they don't provide good service they don't deserve the "perks" you act like they are entitled to. Problem is monopolies or oligopolies do not provide good service unless they are forced to, and the government does a poor job at it. They don't have to provide good service because you don't have any choice. You have to earn perks right?

I can "remember" all those things as well. I also remember poor regulation and monopolies taking advantage of customers. Long distance anyone?

I agree with you, tech needs to move in that direction. But it needs to compliment it. If they gave them that power they could turn the switch off on millions of customers without notice, and that is not acceptable.



lordfly

join:2000-10-12
Homestead, FL
Reviews:
·SkyNet360

I personally do not have a problem with that...but

AT&T is going to have to lay out a plan to compensate current POTS and DSL users to migrate to pure IP services. Very soon, by the end of this year I am going to ditch my AT&T POTS line. However, I need to come up with the money to get the $100 VOIP device from my internet provider. Plus I have to convince the wife, but hopefully that won't be so difficult.

Living in a hurricane area has made some people think that anything beyond POTS is unreliable. Most of the phones worked after Hurricane Andrew, but the cell phones did not. I argue that it was different technology, but that is a difficult sell.

We shall see, but I think this transition away from century old technology was inevitable.


rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
reply to microphone

Re: Just 2 simple copper wires

I don't think they want to dump the customer. They'd be happy if they could continue providing POTS analog voice to millions of customers for $100/month. What they don't like is being classified as a monopoly service and being told how much profit they can make.

Whether this is good or bad for the consumer depends on where it goes. If, as Karl suggested, they end up pushing more and more customers to cable and cable eventually realizes they have no competition, will rates skyrocket or will cable VOIP get classified as the new voice monopoly and regulated? I believe cable VOIP regulation is a natural outcome along the lines of when scientists successfully splice crow genes with a pig.


canestim

join:2012-01-20
reply to hottboiinnc

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

I don't think anyone is really disputing that, of course it can replace it. If it's done right. But you're trusting monopolies/oligopolies to raise caps with government oversight? Doesn't sound like a winning combination to me. The way it's playing out we will only have two providers, less competition is not good for the consumer. And look at how great the government has been at regulating it thus far.


WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
reply to hottboiinnc

Monopolies and shills should realize that customers do not like them and WILL get rid of them whether they like it or not.


Joe12345678

join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

1 edit

ATT say I like Directv + DSL Don't want to have to pick form

ATT stay I like Directv + DSL Don't want to have to pick form 2 cable systems with poor TV.

WOW! has no NFL network, or other sports channels also there Ultra TV box costs are high (but better then Comcast multi room)
They also like detroit more as they get FS HD and FS + HD.

But we get no CSN + HD.

Comcast sucks as well No big ten alt HD, really old and out of date iguide , channel map is a big mess, no goal line HD, limmted HBO, MAX, starz, and show HD, need to buy movie channel on it's own (not part of showtime), and you need sports pack to get

speed, fox movie, Crime & Investigation Network, Military History, HRTV and others.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2
reply to lordfly

Re: I personally do not have a problem with that...but

said by lordfly:

AT&T is going to have to lay out a plan to compensate current POTS and DSL users to migrate to pure IP services.

Huh? Compensate you for what? How about deregulating dialtone and then AT&T can encourage the transition by pulling the plug?
said by lordfly:

Very soon, by the end of this year I am going to ditch my AT&T POTS line. However, I need to come up with the money to get the $100 VOIP device from my internet provider.

And you believe AT&T should give you the $100?

osravens

join:2011-01-26
Cumberland, MD
reply to Joe12345678

Re: ATT say I like Directv + DSL Don't want to have to pick form

What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand?


majortom1029

join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Huge Drawback

Verizon and ATT will be getting rid of high profit businesses too. Our Phone service here at work is based off of a verizon t-1.

With verizon dropping copper service we will be forced to go with our fiber provider for phone service.

I think verizon and att are not thinking about how much money they will lose from the business side of the equation.


Albert71292

join:2004-10-31
West Monroe, LA
reply to Sukunai

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

"Entirely wireless" would never do in my household. My son is a heavy online gamer. The latency would piss him off entirely.

Also, I watch a LOT of online video (Leo Laporte's "This Week in Tech" network mainly), caps would eat me alive!

What would this do to the third party DSL providers? I'm with one of them. Would it put them out of business... meaning more jobs lost?



MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to Sukunai

Your ideas are contradictory.
Wired internet will always have much more capacity than wireless, AT&T and Verizon abandoning DSL to rural will lead to higher prices as cable will have a monopoly.

Eliminate cable, and welcome to paying $15 in overages just to watch one netflix movie in HD.

We need meaningful competition and a more expansive wired internet infrastructure, fiber optic if at all possible, as well as good national LTE coverage for when we are on the road.

These moves are about one thing and one thing only
Greed

If cable becomes a monopoly and wireless is already practically a duopoly, enjoy bending over and paying out of as* for every bit of data you consume.



lordfly

join:2000-10-12
Homestead, FL
Reviews:
·SkyNet360
reply to lordfly

Re: I personally do not have a problem with that...but

My neighborhood was not able to upgraded so they can't offer me squat to stay with them once they get rid of the old lines. I really do not care.

Offering anything is a joke. AT&T is not one to give away anything. It was a sarcastic start to an idiotic post.



Itwillhappen

@frozenhost.net

There is already a replacement

They are already planning the transition. »www.att.com/shop/wireless/device···ver.html now allows you to replace your wired phone service with a wireless based one and with the latest LTE devices the speeds are well above what can be attained with DSL. I have already seen prepaid plans with 50Gigs of data for $69.95. The data buckets will eventually grow for each carrier due to competitive pressures.


hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to canestim

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

and this is why unlicensed WiMax is available. Anyone is free to launch their own ISP. Why does it always have be to be on the ILEC and the major MSOs? Why can't some every day Joe launch the company that competes? Oh wait, DSLR doesn't believe in that.


hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to WernerSchutz

as long as you have 2 or more choices you no longer have a monopoly.


hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to canestim

and the Gov't does NOT need to but into the private businesses. If that was the case we'd be like China where the gov't owns the phone company and there is only one.

And still counting back on past history will NOT move anyone forward. it just keeps everyone behind. Why not just kill the wireline, especially in areas it does NOT make sense to keep and move those customers to wireless? It makes sense from a business stand point and customer stand point as the customer would be able to have HSI and VoIP and the business saves $$$ while bringing in more $$$ due to expanding customers serviced.


WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
reply to hottboiinnc

Because a duopoly is so much better when collusion and regulatory capture occur. My bad.


WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
reply to hottboiinnc

So much better to have giants like Bell and Standard Oil that gov't should just let screw the customers whichever way they want.


old_wiz_60

join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA

They will be able to do it...

because they will pay the FCC and Congress lots of money to do as they please. i.e. bribery gets you what you want especially if you pay a lot of money.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to canestim

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

said by canestim:

Do you realize how many gigs one hd stream from Netflix is?

That's Netflix's problem, not AT&T's.

The internet does not exist to replace cable or satellite tv.

steevo22

join:2002-10-17
Fullerton, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·AT&T DSL Service

2 recommendations

They were protected from competition all those years.

These former regulated utilities were protected from competition for all these years.

AT&T, the phone company, the power company, the water and gas company, all were protected form pesky competitors. They were guaranteed a ROI and in exchange they had to provide adequate service.

That was then. Now, we need internet service and guess what? There are those copper wires that they were given easements to put in, and we paid to put them in and maintain them all those years. The phone company never paid for that, it was paid by the ratepayers. As a regulated monopoly. Remember those "Rate Cases?"

Now they are all big and they want to be able to do what they want, screw us as much as they can and raise the rates and charge overages. They don't want to be regulated. They don't want to be forced by the government or by law to provide a level of service they might find inconvenient.

But guess what? You can't undo the last 100 years, all the money they got from *US* to build and maintain their copper plant, to build and maintain central offices, to pay their employees, all that was from US.

The ILECs need to be forever regulated because of what went on before, unless they want to pay back the last 100 years of guaranteed profit, and to pay me $400 a month for the easement they have back on my property line.

And yeah, I do want to go back the whole time. I want all the money they owe me if they want to be free of regulation.

There isn't enough money in the world to undo the guaranteed profit these companies have made because of being protected from pesky competition in the past.

They must remain regulated, and we need an internet user bill of rights to protect us from them now that they want to dump us. The think they don't need us anymore, but after all this time they need more regulation, not less.