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

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.
canestim

join:2012-01-20

1 recommendation

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.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

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.
canestim

join:2012-01-20

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.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

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.
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

3 words: Middle Mile prices.
rahvin112

join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

Who needs the price them out at the middle layer, just use the monopoly to undercut prices till they go under then raise them back up. No investor in their right mind would overbuild because of that.

Look at what is happening to Utopia? Both Comcast and USworst (Now centurylink) both offer sweetheart deals to everyone that can get Utopia service, in fact prices are less than half the rest of the state. No one can reasonably compete against an entity that can simply price service below cost to drive you out of business.
Bob61571

join:2008-08-08
Washington, IL
Reviews:
·MTCO Communicati..
·DIRECTV
·Frontier Communi..
Sir, you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT on the problem being the Middle Mile!

After talking to some small town Telcos, they blame the high prices of their Middle Mile suppliers for not going to fiber as quickly as many would like.

In my area, the finger was pointed to AT&T as the WORST offender. One small Telco finally just installed their own 70 mile fiber line, to get around the Death Star and their high costs!
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
Monopolies and shills should realize that customers do not like them and WILL get rid of them whether they like it or not.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

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

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

Because a duopoly is so much better when collusion and regulatory capture occur. My bad.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

Wireless will never match the speed, the latency nor the efficiency of a fiber network.

It simply is not possible based on sheer physics of wireless wave lengths compared to light.

Desertisp

@verizon.net

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

I have to disagree with this statement. I work for a wireless ISP in a underserved area and we routinely push 200mbit+ over our backhauls and customers see no more than 5 - 10ms on all hops within our network before it hits our backbone to the Internet. So it's entirely possible to keep up at least with latency and coax or fiber, speeds to the customer is entirely dependent on distance, line of sight and how much of the airwaves are saturated on that frequency which admittedly means speeds may not be up to par to the end user but we still can push 20mbit easily to each CPE on our network.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

Is it your opinion then that the backbones could also be replaced with wireless?
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

Sure, if you can put all the waves in a vacuum.

Desertisp

@verizon.net
In my opinion? No. You can't reach the throughput of fiber over the air, however for places that's its physically impossible to run fiber I feel microwave is viable as a backbone, yes. Concerning wired connections such as cable, DSL, FTTH then there really is no replacement for a fiber backbone to the distribution point whether its a node, DSLAM or (obviously for FTTH) the optical splitter in the neighborhood. Seeing how AT&T and others refuse to go this route (upgrading backbones, removing caps due to increased capacity) I think they have no business doing wired connections and their wired customers should be handed over for pennies on the dollar to companies who will upgrade and maintain these networks since they won't.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

I have family that is pretty damn country and you will drive for a long time before seeing a single house or evidence of another home somewhere and yet they all still have phone service over copper wires and they all have electricity. Even in very mountainous places they have these services. So it is possible and it was economically feasible then, just as it is now.

Can you name one city/town/community that does not have copper ran to it in one form or another?

I would agree with you about them handing over their assets as part of imminent domain, being they are unwilling to serve the people themselves.
axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
Not if a democratic majority of the people demand a regulation saying otherwise
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
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.
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

According to at&t it does!
canestim

join:2012-01-20
That would be ok if duopolies and monopolies did not exist because someone would provide the service consumers want that AT&T is not willing to do. All of you guys on here are funny, I think you just like playing Devil's Advocate (while you watch Netflix on your plush cable connection). Don't understand all the siding with corporations over yourselves and the consumer.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
See you corporate friendly folks seem to forget what the internet was and why it was corrected.

It has been bastardized kind of like Christmas. Once companies see there is money to be made they shape and distort whatever they can into their liking and hope we dont see the smoke and mirrors behind it all. Unfortunately, we allow it to happen.

The internet exist to provide it's users whatever they want.

So if they want Netflix, then yes it is AT&T's problem. Do you remember the days when AOL thought they knew what their users wanted and tried to force that upon them? Yeah... where are they today?
elray

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

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

said by Skippy25:

See you corporate friendly folks seem to forget what the internet was and why it was corrected.

...

The internet exist to provide it's users whatever they want.

As long as you're willing to pay for the use, so be it.
But don't expect a free ride, subsidized by your neighbors.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

You continue to beat the dead horse of blocking content, creating intertubes for special access and wanting an AOL style internet of the late 90's along with your AT&T corporate fat cats.

While me and the rest of world move on past AOL days.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

Wrong.

Not once, have I ever, called for walled-garden or blocking content.

It is you who seems to confuse AOL with internet access.
I never used their service.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

My bad... what did you mean by "But don't expect a free ride, subsidized by your neighbors."?

BTW, the entire network has been subsidized by the entire country through taxes incentives and several other "perks" given to these companies.
elray

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

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

said by Skippy25:

My bad... what did you mean by "But don't expect a free ride, subsidized by your neighbors."?

That actually has two contexts.

(1) Don't expect the taxpayers to fund a "muni" network, just because you want fiber optics and you're not willing to pay the cost yourself. Verizon has shown for six years that the majority does not want to pay for fiber; Google KC will reaffirm this. When you bang the drum to have City Hall install and operate a network for you, inevitably the funding for that network comes not only from general tax revenues and municipal giveaways (tax $), but also federal tax money and some form of property tax - all paid for by folks who may not want the service - your neighbors, near and far.

(2) By insisting that all of us pay the same flat rate - "socializing" the price of broadband, you are, in effect, asking low-volume users to pay the same as high-volume users - that's a subsidy. We can disagree on the extent of the subsidy - be it a penny or a hundred bucks, but it is a subsidy.

said by Skippy25:

BTW, the entire network has been subsidized by the entire country through taxes incentives and several other "perks" given to these companies.

If you have a beef with the "large companies" that have "benefited" from these "perks" over the years, I suggest you research their stock and buy in, rather than ranting over perceived injustices. Plenty of large companies have gone bankrupt chasing broadband/cable/telecom dreams, incentives or no.
There is a reason AT&T and Verizon turn down rural broadband grants.

I'm not opposed to re-regulating the last-mile in non-competitive markets, i.e. rural settings, in order to assure fiber or VDSL/ADSL2+ or fixed-LTE is deployed, and the FCC has some rights to examine the issue.

But beware, re-establishing a monopoly would result in much higher rates, when rural subscribers are already, largely unwilling to pay even today's modest urban rates.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

(1) You are going to compare uptake of an expensive commercial service to cheap (sometimes FREE) broadband? Why don't you simply admit that if free municipal fiber was in YOUR area, you would dump your current provider in a second. True there will be some people who don't use/want the service but there are also some people who don't have kids that still pay school taxes... people who never call the police that still pay their salary... do you need me to go on? We live in socialistic communities whether you like it or not. Municipal broadband projects are the way to go.

(2) Are you saying that I should pay more for my 10 Mb/s connection than you pay for the same connection because I download twice as much as you? Ridiculous! You are paying your ISP for a pipe... not what gets send down the pipe. That is not a subsidy, it is getting what you pay for.

quote:
If you have a beef with the "large companies" that have "benefited" from these "perks" over the years, I suggest you research their stock and buy in, rather than ranting over perceived injustices.

Haha but when business gets a subsidy you are fine with that?!?! Sorry, but what a system has obvious flaws you don't jump on the bandwagon and make the situation worse... you FIX the problem.
elray

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

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

said by CXM_Splicer:

(1) You are going to compare uptake of an expensive commercial service to cheap (sometimes FREE) broadband? Why don't you simply admit that if free municipal fiber was in YOUR area, you would dump your current provider in a second. True there will be some people who don't use/want the service but there are also some people who don't have kids that still pay school taxes... people who never call the police that still pay their salary... do you need me to go on? We live in socialistic communities whether you like it or not. Municipal broadband projects are the way to go.

There is no such thing as "free".
If there was a municipal service in my area, claiming to be "free", I would evaluate it, but I would choose to pay a commercial provider.

said by CXM_Splicer:

(2) Are you saying that I should pay more for my 10 Mb/s connection than you pay for the same connection because I download twice as much as you? Ridiculous! You are paying your ISP for a pipe... not what gets send down the pipe. That is not a subsidy, it is getting what you pay for.

If you have a household of six, with twelve connected devices and HDTV's, downloading and streaming to your hearts' content, yes, you probably should pay more than the little old lady reading her email in her single apartment on her iPad. While this can mostly be addressed with speed tiers, the entry-level plan would probably have to have a cap.

quote:
If you have a beef with the "large companies" that have "benefited" from these "perks" over the years, I suggest you research their stock and buy in, rather than ranting over perceived injustices.

said by CXM_Splicer:

Haha but when business gets a subsidy you are fine with that?!?! Sorry, but what a system has obvious flaws you don't jump on the bandwagon and make the situation worse... you FIX the problem.

I'm completely against business getting any form of subsidy.

But the reality is that as individuals, while we rarely have the opportunity to influence our government to stop stealing from us, we usually do have the choice to buy stock in the companies that may, or may not, be profiting, at our expense.

When the populists rail against the Fortune 500, they neglect to observe that most of those companies are held by our mutual funds - pensions and retirement accounts. You can whine all you want, and in fact, I'll join you in calling for certain regulations, but in the end, the big picture isn't going to change much, so buying-in is your best defense.

Munis do not fix the problem; they just assign the cost to the taxpayers.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

I'm not real sure why you would say a family of 6 should pay more than some old lady being that the cost to deliver the bytes is quite negligible and their standard price has plenty of room in there to make up her not using her line at all and the family using a terabyte of data.

It does not cost more to deliver 100mb than it does 10mb speeds over the same infrastructure, at least it is low enough to not even bother measuring. ISP's charging different prices for different speeds is pretty much a farce to be begin with. They do it only because it is more valuable to us thus allows them to charge us more. From a management perspective if it actually better for them to get you on the network, get what you need and get off the network as fast as possible.

JigglyWiggly

join:2009-07-12
Pleasanton, CA
noo i need my dsl for gaming and a comcast lien for browsing >:|

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
said by canestim:

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?

You realize in areas where one's only option is something like HomeFusion DSL doesn't even exist anyway. Places where DSL exists are in populated areas that are serviced by cable.

••••••••

Oh_No
Trogglus normalus

join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL
The future is government regulation of internet and requiring there be no caps, no throttling, and a % guarantee of your download/upload speeds.
This will have to happen or then we will all be screwed by having to pay by the byte at millions of times more than the actual cost.
Sukunai
Premium
join:2008-05-07
kudos:1
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX

1 recommendation

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.

••••••

inteller
Sociopaths always win.

join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK
everybody launch their chainsaw app and lets start cutting through this underbrush!


--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!"
Albert71292

join:2004-10-31
West Monroe, LA
"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

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.
Sukunai
Premium
join:2008-05-07
kudos:1
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
Hmm some replies.

I don't always need HD quality. In fact if it really matters (in a film of merit) I will likely buy a copy (like I did for Lord of the Rings). I watch all my TV shows on Netflix in crud quality, why not, it was only so good when it aired originally. I like the nostalgia feel of watching it how I recall it. Currently enjoying MacGuyver.

I should mention, it took me 3 years to burn out 20 years of accumulated video collecting in VHS format. Old movie classic, old TV show classics, documentaries. I no longer require massive sums of data movement, as I finished getting what I wanted around 2005.

Can't speak for anyone south of the border, or even in the rest of Canada, but, I don't suffer overages. Ever. But then I have had the brains to get my service from Teksavvy. Nexicom could likely do the same level of service though. I watch Netflix all the time, the wife uses it too and I have an 18 year old hardcore gamer. We seem to be happy with our capacity.

Then again, I am not being forced to endure some idiotic cap. I have 300 a month with Teksavvy at the moment. I could always get unlimited from Nexicom for the same price.

Making comments like 'wireless will never...." is folly. I've seen too many technologies do things we said couldn't be done just a few years earlier. The specs of my first PC in 1990 are laughable now. They seemed impressive then. And the internet in 1990 sure wasn't what it is today.

Things change.

Oh and I am not saying I have any love of corporations, but, I am also not one of those 'the customer is king', or 'the customer is always right' idiots. Nope, I believe make a good product or service and it will succeed if there is a market. Bend over for the customer without question and you will get it up the ass too.

I am not saying that copper cable is worse, but, I have no use for cable companies. I can't recall where I watched it, but I saw something about fibre that mentioned already present fibre that merely needs to be exploited the same way cable was made an option when before it was not even being used. Once upon a time, a phone line was only used for telephone calls. The phone lines were not put there for internet traffic.
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.
Expand your moderator at work
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.

••••••••••

lordfly

join:2000-10-12
Homestead, FL

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.

•••
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.
Os

join:2011-01-26
US

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?
Joe12345678

join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

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

well people with directv or dish have DSL bundles.

and going to cable = giving up the bundles or have to put up with cable TV.
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.

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.
canestim

join:2012-01-20

Re: There is already a replacement

That device is great, that isn't the issue. It's the ability for them to turn of service to DSL (part of POTS) without notice or regulation as they wanted if deemed information services not telecom services. Also, please show me 50 gigs of LTE for $69.95? Verizon, the largest LTE provider (wah wah we need more spectrum) charges $60 for 10GB Home Fusion LTE "Cantenna".

Teqniqal

@swbell.net
Note: Wireless Home Phone service is not compatible with services requiring data including but not limited to home security systems, wireless messaging and data services, fax service, DVR/Satellite systems, medical alert systems, medical monitoring systems, credit card machines, IP/PBX Phone systems, dial-up, or DSL Internet service.
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.
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.

IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

Just split the company

They should just split the company into two, with one being wireless and the other being wireline like Motorola split into Motorola Solutions (government and business radios/equipment) and Motorola Mobility (cell phones and Cable TV hardware).
--
I wish I still lived in Iowa; Everything there from rent and groceries to Cable TV is much cheaper in Iowa (especially with an overbuilder in town).
sparks

join:2001-07-08
Little Rock, AR

Re: Just split the company

NO PROBLEM give AT&T what they are bribing the politicians for.
$1 a meg no matter how you get it.
no more overages and no more crying over your bill.
Its america don't you know that AT&T is god and so are the wealthy.

lolz

@ritternet.com

Re: Just split the company

Oh i would just love that, when i download a 20gb game from steam.

OSUGoose

join:2007-12-27
Columbus, OH

Hey AT&T

Go ahead and TRY to pull this, and watch the DOJ rape you w/o lube. They allready smelled your BS with the T-Mobile deal, what makes you think they wont break you all back up again, and prohibitions on EVER getting back together tillthe company is bankrup, assets sold, THEN maybe let you glob back together. I get the part that you want to modernize, but damn how dumb are you to even think this will pass the regulators, even ones pro-you.
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?

join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..

1 recommendation

As important as "information services" are to our econ

As important as "information services" are to our economy.

All internet and "information services" should be regulated as utilities.

"Information services" carrying VOIP data should be regulated as telecommunications systems.

It's not the data, the medium, or the technology that should be the defining factor but the usage of such services.
--
Bellingham Scanner Kicks Ass! »bhamscanner.kicks-ass.org/

hyphenated

@bellsouth.net

testing 123

When this happens we will probably go dark at home. Forget all the internet BS.

ATT needs to get rid of something, they can't do much of anything because they're so overloaded. They struggle with everything from setting up new markets to billing. They thought they had to buy out everything and now they might screwed so they're backing out. What a bunch of panzies.

And don't forget the government allowed them to do this twice over already. I don't wan't anything and got nothing for this BS.

Oh, and LOL!!

antdude
A Ninja Ant
Premium,VIP
join:2001-03-25
United State
kudos:4

So cable basically won.

Cable companies must be happy. :P
decifal

join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1

sell

I actually want ATT to go through with this lol. maybe then someone will be allowed to pickup our area and offer dsl or whatever for a change. I'm having to barely survive on 3g service here which is badly capped...

alchav

join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT
Reviews:
·ooma

Can't let go of "Old Ma Bell!"

AT&T did this to themselves, getting rid of the Old Copper Plant is not that easy, especially when even their new technology U-Verse uses it. People don't want to give up their Copper Land Lines and DSL, they are happy with this old technology. AT&T sees this as a Money Pit, and wants to unload this Copper Plant along with the expensive regulations. Let's see what happens, but I think AT&T should look at a Total Fiber Network, and maybe that is the direction they are heading but without the regulations.

•••
bemis

join:2008-07-18
Reading, MA

Universal Fee

How many damn years have we been paying USF's????? And what exactly did it help to accomplish?

To hell with the phone companies.
axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

[Heart] Common Carriage

We need more common carriage, not less!
15444104
Premium
join:2012-06-11

Re: [Heart] Common Carriage

I hope the FCC doesn't give an INCH..... make ATT play the game they created.

Randell Stephenson and the rest of his greedy asshat executives at AT&T can get it up the bum like their customer do.

What goes around comes around.
moes

join:2009-11-15
Cedar City, UT
Reviews:
·Revol Wireless
·Optimum Online

sigh

All this does is keep people like my grandparents paranoid, Just found out they have had the same number, living in the same house for 43 years. They are very worried they will lose it all and they refuse to move to comcast or port there number.

Att is forgetting about these type of people.

FlaFiberNow

@comcast.net

AT&T wants to have its cake & eat it too

The main problem is the fact that AT&T wants to abandon all of its wired customers besides itself. It doesn't want to maintain wireline service (or fiber) to end users, but it doesn't want anybody *else* to be able to do it, either.

It wants to finance laying fiber to its own cell towers under the guise of U-verse using USF funds and profits from their remaining landline customers, without actually spending a cent to make the service competitive (or often, even available... many alleged "U-verse" neighborhoods have no customers besides... an AT&T cell tower). They lay the fiber to their tower, then "forget" to build the VRAD for everyone else to use.

The time is long overdue for the government to force a new breakup of AT&T... this time, forcing them to sell off their landline and fiber business to someone who genuinely wants it, and who's willing to operate it as a true common carrier who'll lease and peer fiber to anyone who wants it, on equal arms-length terms.

The big problem with Comcast (and DOCSIS in general) is the fact that cable companies aren't, and have no interest in being, "carrier-grade reliable". They're perfectly content to let their service go down whenever commercial power does, and maybe issue a prorated piddling refund to customers who complain loudly, instead of spending the money to build their own robust backup power.

Cable (and now, AT&T) unreliability is a particularly sore point in Florida, where hurricane-induced extended power outages are common (I had no power for almost a MONTH after Hurricane Wilma... in the middle of Coral Gables, no less. My DSL never quit working, once I figured out that I had to double-convert power from the generator to make the DSL modem happy), and pre-AT&T BellSouth's ability to keep running through anything short of nuclear attack was legendary.

BellSouth's central offices were concrete bunkers built to LITERALLY survive downtown Miami getting nuked by up to 3 warheads, most of their wires were buried, and they had enough backup power to keep everything running for more than a week... from batteries, no less. People emerged from Hurricane Andrew's rubble, and phones making "off-hook" noises underneath... and many were able to place long-distance calls to tell loved ones they thought they were about to die as their homes came down around them. Yeah, BellSouth really WAS *that* good until the bean-counters from SBC (oops, I mean "AT&T") took them over and turned them into penny-pinching misers willing to neglect our phone system into the ground (the way CSX does to its railroad tracks) in an effort to wring every last drop of equity out of the bloodied carcass of our once-proud phone system before kicking it to the curb and abandoning it.