| |
Twaddle
Anon
2012-Oct-17 9:40 am
ATT DSL rip-offI saw if they think they can take billions in subsidies then say go pound sand they should be taught a very financially painful lesson to the tune of repaying ALL subsidies granted by Federal local and states to provide such services and to remove their equipment immediately form any and all public land and return public property to its former state. equipment residing on private property shall be removed at ATT expense unless property owner agrees to allow such property to remain.
This won't happen because those in charge have their noses up the corporate ATT nether regions and are all warm and fuzzy. |
|
| |
JasonOD
Anon
2012-Oct-17 9:47 am
What do you expect???DSL can't compete in todays world so why would you expect AT&T to keep throwing money at it?
As VZ proved (and google is about to find out), fibre to the home isn't a viable product for many reasons not just cost. So that leaves wireless, which AT&T is investing a STUNNING amount.
So AT&T will allow people to stay on DSL until wireless matures and comes down in cost (it will). WIN WIN. |
|
1 recommendation |
Watch the editorial bias, please.While I very much enjoy -- really, rely upon -- DSLReports.com to keep me up to speed on the latest in the (predominantly wireless) industry, I'd recommend you dial back the anti-AT&T/and/or/incumbent bias *just* a bit. Why? Because as of 6/4/2012, I received this response from AT&T over my question concerning Atlanta expansion of U-Verse. Further, I have followed up numerous times since then -- specifically at my local AT&T store -- and they continue to say that while my area is "green" for service, rumor has it that AT&T won't be investing in additional resources to make additional hookups any quicker. Nobody at AT&T that I've ever talked to has ever said that the expansion was stopping, and that story line has never changed. I would also advise that while AT&T's fiber rollout is likely largely complete, that just gets the glass to the nodes at the local level. There are still plenty of hookups to be made to the final, last mile to the curb. My few cents. |
|
| |
interestingWhat will the government do if the cable companies become a monopoly because nobody wants to compete with them? |
|
betam4x
join:2002-10-12
Nashville, TN
2 edits |
to maestro7
Re: Watch the editorial bias, please."Sure, we are expanding all the time, keep paying us and eventually we'll get to you."
Once upon a time they told my mother that she would have DSL by the end of the year. That was 6 years ago. She's still on dialup. I had her escalate it up 2 years ago to the office of the president, who proceeded to tell her exactly the same thing.
AT&T deserves all of the criticism they get and I think it's ridiculous in this day and age that there are locations in our country without access to dsl, cable, or wireless. |
|
| |
to majortom1029
Re: interestingmy guess is take the money. |
|
gaforces (banned)United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
1 edit |
to JasonOD
Re: What do you expect???said by JasonOD :DSL can't compete in todays world so why would you expect AT&T to keep throwing money at it?
As VZ proved (and google is about to find out), fibre to the home isn't a viable product for many reasons not just cost. So that leaves wireless, which AT&T is investing a STUNNING amount.
So AT&T will allow people to stay on DSL until wireless matures and comes down in cost (it will). WIN WIN.
What proofs do you have that ftth isnt viable? Looks to me that Verizon is a very profitable enterprise. Wireless has lower caps, overage charges, and higher latency. While wireless may be more viable for a company to engage in profiteering, it is not more viable for end users. profiteer (plural profiteers) 1.(pejorative) One who makes an unreasonable profit not justified by cost or risk. » en.wiktionary.org/wiki/profiteer |
|
1 edit |
It's not happeningYou have to discern with filling out metro areas with the other 80% or the rural areas with 20% of the population.
In order for them to make enough margin and compete w/ cable they must offer a triple play (u-verse). If they only offer fast internet and phone, that looses a vast majority of the folks. Theoretically you could pair w/ sat vendors and that could keep their cost basis down.
So the ONLY way they would upgrade DSL would be to offer up U-verse or a sat collaboration otherwise in rural areas the distance between the VRAD to be cost prohibitive.
AT&T would have to go to collaboration, fibre/ethernet, or whitespace wireless if this was going to work and I haven't heard any plans about that.
So whomever was writing the article (fitch) doesn't seem to know much about the industry. What's killing DSL providers is not having the 3-play. Phone margins are going down the toilet (I pay like $4/month now), so they have to introduce nuisance fees and pass-through junk to jack up the price to try to maintain margin.
3 Play from cableco is bundled so that breaking up products from different vendors--however liberating--is more costly and time consuming.
The only saving grace is that video distribution will eventually all go IP so maybe in 10 years we talk about this again. Here's hoping... u verse is a hybrid..
In my competitive region, I just received in the mail from TWC a letter for basic cable and turbo internet (20/2) for $50/month for 1 yr. Tack on my phone $4, and that is $54 for the 3-play... |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
to majortom1029
Re: interestingLet them merge into the New Ma Bell? Most people won't admit it, but that's kind of what they want. |
|
| |
to JasonOD
Re: What do you expect???One wouldn't, which is why the clowns should be rolling FTTH. Which of course they should of started doing 3-5 years ago.
I would like to see regulators make 2 companies out of ATT. One wireline, the other wireless. ATT of course wont do that voluntarily because their plan to do as stated (let it go and come back with LTE) would require their inferior and expensive wireless to compete with the wireline. |
|
| |
Mojo 77 to maestro7
Anon
2012-Oct-17 10:58 am
to maestro7
Re: Watch the editorial bias, please.So wait...because some support tech blew a little smoke up your butt to keep you as a customer you think AT&T hasn't stopped U-Verse expansion? From the CEO this year: “Our U-verse build is now largely complete, so we have in place an IP video and broadband platform that reaches 30 million customer locations, which gives us significant headroom now to drive penetration...“We have been apprehensive on moving, doing anything on rural access lines because the issue here is, do you have a broadband product for rural America? And we’ve all been trying to find a broadband solution that was economically viable to get out to rural America and we’re not finding one to be quite candid.” With the exception of some franchise obligations AT&T's landline broadband expansion has stopped. Because a tech support and some boob at an AT&T store claimed contrary doesn't make it so, and it certainly doesn't suggest "editorial bias." The FCC doc mentioned in the story clearly outlines how they're paving the regulatory way to actually do the exact opposite -- start shutting down lines: » prodnet.www.neca.org/pub ··· 2att.pdf |
|
| |
cast sucks
Anon
2012-Oct-17 11:06 am
I want to keep my directv for TV and the bundle price with DI want to keep my directv for TV and the bundle price with DSL.
Comcast cable tv sucks.
As the box prices are much higher.
the GUI is a joke.
the channel map is a mess.
the lack of HD channels like the HBO, MAX, STARZ, SHOW HD feeds.
The lack of big ten ALT's in HD.
Out of market sports HD sucks on cable.
No MGM HD SOON on comcast.
No chiller , no USN, no mix channels, no hot pass,no NFL ticket.
Weak multi room system. |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
to Twaddle
Re: ATT DSL rip-offIf so many were actually "ripped off", don't you think that the regulators would have done at least a little pinging? |
|
| openbox9 |
to Skippy25
Re: What do you expect???Perhaps AT&T should just spin off it's rural markets into a new company and let it stand on its own merits providing services to unwanted markets. |
|
| |
You and I both know that is not a viable option, which of course is why you suggested it.
I understand financially rural markets are no quick return. However, I also understand that broadband/telecommunications are way to important to neglect them. They have the resources, they received the incentives, they can provide the service and suck up the expense while they enjoy their monopolistic/duopolistic market prices. |
|
| |
Mojo 77 to openbox9
Anon
2012-Oct-17 11:16 am
to openbox9
Re: ATT DSL rip-offCountless billions have been thrown at carriers for decades for services never rendered (go look at U.S. library broadband deployment stats, or Verizon's subsidy history in Pennsylvania) and regulators couldn't care less. Why upset huge campaign contributors with massive investigations to highlight taxpayer fraud? Especially when so many people clearly don't care, or rush to the defense of the fraudsters? |
|
| |
to Mojo 77
Re: Watch the editorial bias, please.Mojo 77: Heh, I don't smoke, and I don't like it second-hand, either  No. For us, cable is absolutely out of the question for a host of reasons. Further, our experience with AT&T's DSL has been nothing short of boring -- no price changes, no outages, just plain, boring service. And my family sees that as a good thing. Unfortunately, it is stuck at 3MB down, which I'd love to increase to a mere 6MB, but we're not so unhappy that we'd immediately switch to cable. Clearly, you never went off site to read the history of the forum thread that I initiated on AT&T's forum, so I'll excuse that bit of ignorance on your part. Regardless, as far as anyone that works at AT&T with whom I've spoken, certain story lines haven't changed (and with more than 8 direct communications each with a different person of varying degrees of intellect and technical prowess, that means they're not lying). Notice that I never said that AT&T would *not* stop in the future; I am saying that today's article on DSLReports.com severely intimated that suggestion, which was my main point. |
|
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA
1 edit |
silbaco
Premium Member
2012-Oct-17 11:27 am
Something is missing....The idea of this "fixed LTE service" that keeps getting thrown around here seems to be missing something.... The fact that the fixed LTE service from At&t does not yet exist and we have no evidence that it ever will. Now granted, I think it will in time. But Verizon has made it quite clear that their HomeFusion product is competing primarily with satellite and dialup at the moment. The primary goal at this time seems to be to sell unused and otherwise wasted LTE capacity in rural markets. The caps are prohibiting it from effectively competing with DSL and Verizon no doubt knows this.
I really don't think we have a story here. Centurylink, Fairpoint, Frontier, and Windstream are not exact rolling out massive infrastructure upgrades. And they do not have a wireless service to supposedly sell to their DSL subs. At the moment pretty much all Telcos are sitting idle minus a few upgrades here and there. Not just At&t. And that doesn't mean they are abandoning anyone |
|
| |
to maestro7
Re: Watch the editorial bias, please.said by maestro7:Why?
Because as of 6/4/2012, I received this response from AT&T over my question concerning Atlanta expansion of U-Verse.
Further, I have followed up numerous times since then -- specifically at my local AT&T store -- and they continue to say that while my area is "green" for service, rumor has it that AT&T won't be investing in additional resources to make additional hookups any quicker..
HAHAHA ROFLOL..... Truly your being sarcastic right? As I hope your not that naive to believe them. The fact you, yourself said.. "you checked in with them numerous times" and have no upgrade yet should point you to your answer. Thats like ATT telling you After you just purchased a new smartphone on a 2 yr contract, you come home to find out there is absolutely no service in your home and barely any outside, and when you call them they A rep says to you " Just wait try it out for 30 days you will have great service by then were sure of it!". ( notice how the return window is now only 14 days but the reps will tell you to try it for 30!). I don't and wouldn't believe ATT as far as I can throw them and I do have there DSL service so Im hardly Bias, Its down more than up, can't get over 3mpbs yet there service checker when you sign up says 6mbps is available and has said that since 2006, and my bill is always hit with sticker shock as there always hitting me with overages! Go to cable you say? Can't! They wont run it to my area, flat out said NO! |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
to Mojo 77
Re: ATT DSL rip-offBlame the regulators then. |
|
| |
Mojo 77 to maestro7
Anon
2012-Oct-17 11:37 am
to maestro7
Re: Watch the editorial bias, please.Regardless, as far as anyone that works at AT&T with whom I've spoken, certain story lines haven't changed (and with more than 8 direct communications each with a different person of varying degrees of intellect and technical prowess, that means they're not lying). Notice that I never said that AT&T would *not* stop in the future; I am saying that today's article on DSLReports.com severely intimated that suggestion, which was my main point. Yes, they are, they're just doing it in unison and reading the talking point from a folder. CAPEX has dropped, network investment has dipped, U-Verse build outs have stopped (with the exception of franchise obligations) and now they're looking to sever lines. None of that is opinion, it's fact supported by documentation and AT&T executive on-the-record-statements. Perhaps you're excusing this lying because you hope they're not feeding you a line of bull, but they are. |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
to Skippy25
Re: What do you expect???Why isn't that a viable option? Other rural carriers exists. Why need make another one? said by Skippy25:they can provide the service and suck up the expense And that's why it will never happen. |
|
| |
Mojo 77 to openbox9
Anon
2012-Oct-17 11:40 am
to openbox9
Re: ATT DSL rip-offUh, I'll blame everyone involved, thanks. |
|
| |
to buddahbless
Re: Watch the editorial bias, please.buddahbless:
I believe what I can see insofar as my bill and my service is concerned. If AT&T decides that they are definitely not going to expand service, then my family will need to weigh our options; AT&T has not said any such thing yet.
Regarding cellular service via AT&T, once again, our service with them has been boring. No price changes, no outages, next to no dropped calls -- just promised service for the past *decade*.
Regarding DSL billing, the only thing I can speak to is my own bill and my own experience with AT&T. I've never -- never -- had a problem with any corrections (and there have been less than a handful from time to time over the past 7 years) to what were obvious deviations from promised service on our line.
Once again -- my point is the blatantly biased reporting of this article on DSLReports.com, not the efficacy of DSL, Cable, or other service, nor whether or not AT&T, in fact, is going to continue or *not* continue expanding their DSL-based services. |
|
| |
to gaforces
Re: What do you expect???I Agree FTTH is profitable if done right, to the start the savings from not having to worry about copper theft in the rural areas were some places are replacing copper as much as 2-3x a year ( were its reported its now a epidemic that will continue to rise) that alone makes it more than a viable option for cost saving. One sign on every pole reading " this pole is strung with fiber wire, No resale value" would end the rash of copper theft.
If you haven't noticed Jason ATT and Verizon already have there cover story down so prices for fixed wireless will stay up..." spectrum is scarce and hard to come by we don't have enough!" yet there business model is to push everyone to wireless? thats a catch 22. Ending the one technology that can be run to everyone and has more than enough capex for future use, fiber.
Its only a win win for ATT, loose loose for the customer. |
|
 ·Metronet
|
to maestro7
Re: Watch the editorial bias, please.My area is 'green' as well - in fact 500 ft away on EITHER side of my house, are a number of houses on U-Verse but no one in my section can get U-Verse. they will sign new folks up either side of my house - but not my house. U-Verse has been available to these other houses for 2 years. |
|
| |
to JasonOD
Re: What do you expect???They key is in the sewer!! lol » www.muninetworks.org/con ··· ploymentthis really does need to be perfected. Wireless networks have huge problems as well including security holes |
|
| |
to openbox9
You're right... it will never happen until they are regulated into making it happen. Hopefully that day will come sooner rather than later. |
|
| |
to silbaco
Re: Something is missing....i seriously hope the keep their ADSL2 in my area
I have 2 comcast lines and a DSL line. DSL just for games.
I also host a gameserver or two occasionally on it.
On DSL my friends in eastcoast get 85ms ping and 110 on comcast. In chicago my friend gets 60 on DSL and 80 on Comcast.
I don't want them to upgrade to uverse since that will kill the pings. |
|
|
 NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P
|
to JasonOD
Re: What do you expect???said by JasonOD :As VZ proved (and google is about to find out), fibre to the home isn't a viable product for many reasons not just cost.
You forgot to mention Paxio, Sonic.net. and Surewest; all of which have invested in FTTH successfully. |
|
·
