AT&T Hanging Up on Millions of DSL Users

I 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.

If so many were actually "ripped off", don't you think that the regulators would have done at least a little pinging?

Countless 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?

Blame the regulators then.

Uh, I'll blame everyone involved, thanks.

Agreed. Kill 'em all \m/

The subsidies you refer to were for voice (or "POTS") services, not for DSL. AT&T provided EXACTLY the services required under the law and under FCC rules, no more and no less.

If the law required that broadband be subsidized, you should ask the FCC why they spent so many years modifying their rules to produce just that result.

USF went to both institutional broadband deployment and phone services. It was a completely unaccountable program rife with fraud, delivering billions to phone companies with nobody bothering to audit it. It doesn't include the billions in additional subsidies, kickbacks, tax breaks and other benefits companies like AT&T got for doing nothing -- with the company easily able to bribe those who'd otherwise ensure they did what tehy promised.

Your pretense that AT&T is somehow guiltless of thirty years of taxpayer fraud (with government help) is laughable.

I said nothing of the sort. I said the subsidies were for voice / POTS services, not broadband. I stand by that, and my evidence is the fact that the FCC spent years modifying its rules to allow those subsidies to be used for broadband.

OTOH, you claim with no evidence whatsoever that the subsidies WERE for broadband, so let me ask again (since you ignored it): if you are correct, WHY did the FCC spend years modifying the subsidy rules if those rules already allowed the subsidies to be spent on broadband?

I said to give back subsidies that they received. They provide DSL services (using their subsidized) poles and underground along public right of ways as well as private property easements. Without that infrastructure in place they couldn't provide DSL so yes their DSL was/is subsidized.
They also do NOT provide what they claim to provide in DSL and they as much as lie straight-faced to anyone who asked what is my DSL speed. The sales people would invariably say 6MB/768 up even after knowing your address and your true spotty performance would be maybe 1.5/128 to a 2/256. You paid to be provisioned at the higher performance with NO chance of ever getting even 50%. The ass-clown corporate lawyers use their extortion contracts with their wordsmithed terms and conditions to circumvent any accountability and if and when that fails they just call in one of their political cards and get a "get out of your responsibility" reprieve.
Yes we can cut the cord and say no to this provider but they will continue to accept public funding and stifle any attempts to cut into their market via the courts of ill repute.
I may be guilty of a bit of exaggeration due to sheer frustration with "providers" but other pollsters have pointed out other salient points on this topic.

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

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.

Show us proof that Verizon is profiting from FTTH, and that over the next ten years, if they risk billions more expanding their footprint, that potential customers in those areas will pay the market rate for Fios at rate greater than current penetration rates, even as LTE and Coax offerings come in cheaper and cheaper.

Until someone figures out how to reduce the cost of FTTH down to DSL levels, copper and coax will rule the day. It doesn't matter that FTTH is the best, most superior technology. If the majority of customers don't want to pay for it, it isn't incumbent on the incumbent to install it, unless, perhaps, you want to return them to legal monopoly status, inclusive of MSO and LTE franchises, and that won't be cheap.

What a joke!!! Have you ever heard of the REA. Back in the Great Depression, rural area didn't have electricity. Everyone said, it would be impossible to wire the nation, especially very small rural areas.

Then came the Great Depression. The government hired workers to string the nation, pole to pole and provide electricity. By 1953, Kentucky the last state was finished and the nation was declared, wired for electric. Sure it was missing one or two very isolated areas, and WWII interrupted a lot of the time frame but it was EASY to do.

So it's BS to say fiber wouldn't work. Use the SAME POLES and SAME PATHS as the electric wire. Hire people from the Great RECESSION to lay the lines.

Make the lines open to ANYONE and completion would flourish and rates would plummet.

It worked before and it could work again. Now, for those of you still scratching your head, shall I tell the cat and have the cat explain it to you. Cause the cat is gonna get it.

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.

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.

Why isn't that a viable option? Other rural carriers exists. Why need make another one?And that's why it will never happen.

You're right... it will never happen until they are regulated into making it happen. Hopefully that day will come sooner rather than later.

Communism is not the answer. Regulations that force a person to part with their wealth to enrich the life of another is socialism.

Social Security and Medicare are a form of socialism, how many elderly are going to give them up?

They key is in the sewer!! lol »www.muninetworks.org/con ··· ployment

this really does need to be perfected. Wireless networks have huge problems as well including security holes

Sewer and Storm systems are perfect for fiber, as the French, British, and many others have found.

Great, but GET THE SUBSIDIES BACK FROM THE TELCOS TOO. They took the money, paid off the plutocrats and executives, greased up the politicians, so right now GIMME! When DSL and/or cable dies, refund the money to the customers left high and dry.

You forgot to mention Paxio, Sonic.net. and Surewest; all of which have invested in FTTH successfully.

Unless wireless allows each user to have their own AP and pipe from the AP it's not even almost as viable as any wired connection. For my needs I have to have under 10ms jitter maximum, latency well below 50ms and 0 packet loss as well as consistent bandwidth near or at the top of what I am paying for 24/7.

DSL is doing just fine in today's world. The only thing I would rather have than DSL is fiber to the premises. I will be bonding DSL lines soon. I have a big disdain over cable companies.

I do have a router set up with cellular data as a backup but that is the extent of it's usefulness.

Wireless = better than nothing. Verizon proved? Well, they have proven to be the most draconian of all US carriers. Then there is false advertising which all carriers now do by calling their service 4G. If it's under 160mbs speed it isn't technically 4G. My link to the tower is 42mbs but I have never seen much over 5mbs in any tests. The most I ever got on upload is just shy of 1mbs.

Wireless does not have a magic infinite bandwidth backhaul going to each tower. Whatever backhaul your wireless connection is on is shared with a lot of people.

FiOS proved that Fiber can be profitable. It just doesn't have the sky high profit margins that wireless has.

Data "By-the-Byte"? AT&T wants to invest in wireless because the profit margins are so high. Insanely high. Possibly even obscenely high.

No thank you; I am not interested.

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.

"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.

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: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

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.

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.

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!

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.

This is exactly why you will never get a true answer from att. If they tell you the truth. You may leave for greener pastures.

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.

I agree that there is often bias in news. Perhaps often is better said 'almost always' (if not 'always'). That's unfortunately how it goes. To be fair, I have a few issues with AT&T but only one is a problem and it's more like just an inconvenience.

Perhaps writing this is a bit of a waste of time but if it helps anyone, then so be it. There's some things you can do to make it easier to deal with them (by a lot). See the part that starts with Suggestion (below).

To those who suggest that AT&T authorizes speed profile 'scams' and such:

Until recent times I could only get 1.5Mbps. I've been on 3.0Mbps for 2-3 years. But not only does their database say I can't get anything faster, I have had techs tell me that it would be better at 1.5Mbps. And I couldn't get Uverse until this year (middle of the year). And indeed still only 3.0Mbps.

Suggestion: You should always ask for the name AND (in the case of AT&T, at least) userid of each and every employee you're talking to on the phone (say, when ordering something or getting help). Write it down and include the time and date. Then, if they actually do say you can get faster than you can and you find out, here's a thought: report them to the company. On the other hand some of them aren't as 'bright' as others and do not understand things as well (technical or otherwise). There's also been database issues (hence why they can do further tests to see what your location can really sync to). And as for those who know enough to even understand speed profiles, if you're not testing the line fairly soon, then you're part of the problem too.

Rather than complain (only) about any issues you should do something about it. Like, say ask for the userid and name (as I suggested above). That is the best way to work with them. It's also helpful to have your own records on these types of things. If you don't ask for that and you don't even know what time/day a certain event happens, how can they really just believe you? Not only could it be a misunderstanding of the customer and employee, it could be any other of things that aren't so malignant as you may believe. It would be bad for them to just take your complaint and then fire the person. They'd have a lawsuit on them for one thing, and it's not even right (and isn't that something some say they are guilty of - wrong doing?).

Basically, rather than fight them or even be rude, you should be professional. I get it how annoying they can be with some things (and any other company even). I have had tier2 support drive me up the wall. Example: I wanted them to unblock port 25 and they told me port 25 isn't the right port (I actually said smtp in addition because that's what their program shows as far as I'm aware). They told me repeatedly I should be using a different port. Yeah, if I wanted to use _their_ mail server. Obviously I wasn't talking about that. So after however many minutes of time lost I asked to be connected to someone who could help (since they weren't able to). Better to be transferred than having to call over and confirm account and such all over again. But not only was the person new to the company, they made sure they understood the problem, even did research, and found the solution. They even told me the tool they use for it.

The only real problem with AT&T that I have ever had is quite ironic but I don't even know who to suggest the issue to (to have it fixed). Their support/sales lines are so mixed up that I often get to the wrong department or even going back and forth between the same departments. Some times I have been put through loops by employees. It's very, very annoying but even then if you say something a different way or even have them stay on the line (or whatever), then you'll find that they aren't trying to be nasty. Sure, I'd also love fiber but the fact I have 3.0Mbps where i am is amazing itself (and I most certainly don't expect them to dig through yards to lay cables, or anything of that nature). And as far as expansion: I don't have details but supposedly there is something (newer) being looked at to help expand their service. Will it happen? Who knows how/when. But would you prefer they don't look at any option at all? And actually, when I got Uverse this year, they were in my area actually installing quite a few Uverse accounts in the area.

Good faith example (on AT&T)'s part. A home about 2-3 blocks away from me had a homeowner that was moving (AT&T didn't know that part). The home owner was of course fine with having an easement allowed - he was getting paid for it, after all. Then when he moves and the new owners find out, AT&T actually did everything they could to resolve it. They spent extra money, time and effort to move it to a place that wouldn't be a problem for them.

What will the government do if the cable companies become a monopoly because nobody wants to compete with them?

You 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...

Ackkkk and I get to pay 255.00 a month for U-verse, 18/1.5 and phone for three TVs and the rate keeps inching up. They've tacked on an additional 10-12 dollars a month "just because we can" fees.

I 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.

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

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.

In the last month I just switched from suddenlink cable which was 15 meg down with a 250 gig cap(not by choice, bought a house and had to move 5 miles from where the cable lines where run) and got at&t dsl (3 megs is all I get and a lousy 150 meg cap) and when I singed up for it they said U-verse was coming to my area with in the next year. Now going to work 3 days a week I see workers on the side of the highway running what looks to be fiber (i know this because where they have finished and covered up there are orange at&t flags over where they have finished. So I think there still upgrading some areas.

The fastest Internet service that AT&T offers in my area is 1.5/256 for $32.95/mo.

I'm with Comcast @ $44.95/mo. (currently on a promo @ $29) for 16/2.

Thank you Comcast for bringing me faster Internet service.

I would like to say TY to CC too. I was on at&t DSL for a few years, and only got up to 2.70mbps in download speed and 430kbps in upload, TY CC for letting me have around 20mbps in DL and 4.30mbps in UL. KUTGW.

The best technical solution is fiber to the home. I don't think anybody can argue against that. The only problem is its financial viability. Corporations want short-term profits rather than long-term investments. The federal government should have stepped up a decade ago and provided a funding mechanism tied directly to fiber deployment for rural areas. Uban areas have multiple companies fighting over them so competition will let them get the best service possible without government involvement.

LTE is not a good technical solution for the long-term and definitely not for the home. It's got a spectrum problem which is just never going to let it expand to a point where everybody can use it at the speeds desired. The telcos only like it because it's relatively cheap to deploy and they can charge based on usage and get revenue on the overage charges.

Fiber is no doubt the best solution. But as you said it is the most expensive one. There are several ftth projects in this area, but funded with federal loans.

With the end of wired services I see a future of

•caps
•latency problems
•coverage issues
•caps
•nickel and dimming fees to death
•confusing tiers
•poor customer service
•endless useless bundles to drive cost up
•more caps
•even more fees on top of the fees
•marketing telling us why caps are good for us

Once they've got the gear there and don't invest, they are cash cows. However, AT&T is clearly not looking long-term. The long-term solution is 100% FTTH. Yes, it costs a lot now, but it will keep them competitive with any other carrier well into the future.

While they may not be upgrading rural markets, they are upgrading small cities. Every town here, including small ones have a prolific number of VRADs sprouting up. The problem is, the VRADs have extremely spotty coverage, since unlike fiber, they are very much distance limited. If they went FTTH, they could offer something that has 100% penetration, even on long, branching roads.

It's sad that they have the most advanced TV technology in IPTV, yet the implementation is so badly botched. If they had done higher bitrate IPTV over FTTH or FTTB (To The Building) for MDUs, they would have a much more competitive product.

The VDSL/IPTV system, if implemented only for MDUs, and at close range, would offer speeds in excess of 100mbps symmetrical, with GPON for single-family applications, and both would have kept AT&T extremely competitive with cable, even well into the DOCSIS 3 range. Unfortunately, AT&T decided not to invest.

Where cable internet works, it will have a comfortable monopoly. Why will customers be gouged on low data caps, when they can be gouged on fast, wired monopoly service? People currently pay for separate data plan and home broadband, I don't think it will change.

I have tried to get U-Verse at my house for a while now, and cannot, period. So, I gave up trying. Last week, a couple of young ladies came to the door to try to sign me up for U-Verse. One of them actually told me I didn't know what I was talking about, and started arguing forcefully. She said of course U-Verse is available to me, or she wouldn't be there selling it. I eventually told her that she needed to leave, but that she had 24 hours to either call me with proof that it's available, or never come by again. I still haven't heard from her.

She probably can't afford a phone or bus fare on what she's pulling in commissions.

ATT and copper lines are pretty much done.. Google Fiber is the way.. and We need more companies to start Offering Fiber..
Start pulling those old copper lines out and replace with fiber.

Why title this "AT&T Hanging Up on Millions of DSL Users" ?

I understand that this is Karl's opinion, however, it does not match up on the info that it was based on.

More correctly, it simply should have been "Analysts Don't Yes See Plan to Dump Unwanted Users on Cable"

'In 2011 AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson called DSL "obsolete," freezing U-Verse upgrades entirely; AT&T's focus is almost entirely now on wireless and they've surrendered most of the country in their once-heated broadband war against cable."'

No surprise there. That focus has been obvious for a few years. Only way to go.

I called AT&T Customer Care today, and after I pleaded with the lady on the phone not to drop DSL, she said that they are NOT getting rid of DSL. I was so relieved, I really didn't hear anything else she said.

That is all.

Happy for you, John.

No reason to disconnect paying users. It will take several more years to justify pulling the plug on copper DSL.

DSL suck man.

The upload speed is 578 kbps! What can you do with it? I cant even do video streaming from home or do remote desktop nicely.