 MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY |
MxxCon
Member
2006-Oct-16 3:23 pm
why 30 month?why net neutrality and naked dsl only for 30month? |
|
| |
30 MONTHS!?It should be" untill ATT redeems itself! ( A LOOOOOONG Time) |
|
| bamabrad |
Or how about " month to month" ? |
|
|
MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY |
MxxCon
Member
2006-Oct-16 3:52 pm
month to month would be too taxing  for fcc to review att's actions |
|
| |
Net_Neutrality, Naked DSLThey should be required to offer "naked DSL" in ALL their server areas within 6 months of the merger and for a period of not less than 30 months. Further, the "naked DSL" pricing should be the same as like dsl package prices being marketed for their existing packages.
One service should not be "tied" to another service offering (dsl & voice) nor should one service subsidize another service offering.
As for Net Neutrality, I'd be fine if they were restricted from blocking or limiting any existing IP service curently existing on the net. Thus, if they choose to offer VoIP 6 months from now, that's OK, but you can't block my existing 3rd party VoIP just because it's not your offering. |
|
tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL |
to bamabrad
Re: 30 MONTHS!?said by bamabrad:It should be" untill ATT redeems itself! ( A LOOOOOONG Time) Or until the monopoly is broken up again. The neutrality conditions should also set the price to resellers, below the lowest dsl combo minus voice sevice costs&profits they're imposing on retail customers. And it should require that the service be offered in a pure bridged atm format. (And not the PPPoX over Bridged, which often impacts connectivity and reliability.) === The Baby bells are leveraging DSL service in order to maintain voice circuit monopoly. (Cable co's are doing the same.. Standalone Inet access significantly more expensive than with TV service bundles.) It's time for this little scam to end. |
|
 dslextreme2
Premium Member
join:2001-02-23
Canoga Park, CA |
to McWizzard
Re: Net_Neutrality, Naked DSLI agree with your stance 100%.
Net Neutrality + Same Price Naked DSL. |
|
 hayabusa3303Over 200 mph
Premium Member
join:2005-06-29
Florence, SC |
YAWN..wake me up when this crap with them is over.
When its done and final then i will take it the way it is. |
|
53059959 (banned)Temp banned from BBR more then anyone
join:2002-10-02
PwnZone |
to MxxCon
Re: why 30 month?anyone wanna take bets on how long until at&t merges with verizon and qwest? |
|
| |
ispjournalist to bamabrad
Anon
2006-Oct-16 7:33 pm
to bamabrad
Re: 30 MONTHS!?A good question: who would buy naked DSL if they knew they'd get cut off after 30 months? Who'd invest in a business plan that depended on offering under a third party brand name like EarthLink? |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 |
morbo
Member
2006-Oct-16 4:41 pm
grow a pair, FCC
30 months?
not even legally binding?
wtf is this shit.
|
|
 powerhogStinkin' up the joint
Premium Member
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK |
powerhog
Premium Member
2006-Oct-16 4:42 pm
Ummm...Their "concessions" are that they agree to follow FCC guidelines for 30 months?!?
Aren't they already supposed to be following these rules and guidelines? |
|
Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL |
Zoder
Member
2006-Oct-16 5:29 pm
No divestitureI see that AT&T did not offer to divest their overlapping spectrum with Bellsouth as a concession. I'm hopeful that the Dems on the FCC will hold out for that one.
On a positive note, AT&T did concede that they will deploy broadband to 100% of their service area by the end of 2007 as a condition for approval. 85% through wireline and 15% through fixed wireless. |
|
Dark_FiberHere We Go Again.
join:2004-06-13
Saint Charles, MO |
to McWizzard
Re: Net_Neutrality, Naked DSLsaid by McWizzard:They should be required to offer "naked DSL" in ALL their server areas within 6 months of the merger and for a period of not less than 30 months. Further, the "naked DSL" pricing should be the same as like dsl package prices being marketed for their existing packages. One service should not be "tied" to another service offering (dsl & voice) nor should one service subsidize another service offering. Typical response...and no mention to the fact that the cable companies require you to pay for their TV service or pay a higher rate for cable modem. Let the AT&T bashing begin. |
|
 LilYodaFeline with squirel personality disorder
Premium Member
join:2004-09-02
Mountains |
LilYoda
Premium Member
2006-Oct-16 6:40 pm
At least with Cable you get the option to buy Internet service only. It's only a $5 increase a month, so that'e about 10% compared to the $50 subscription fee (that's the numbers I remember from when I was doing this with Charter)
With Bellsouth, good luck getting a DSL only line... I tried when I was still in Georgia, only speakeasy was delivering naked DSL... |
|
 mixdup
join:2003-06-28
Alpharetta, GA |
to Zoder
Re: No divestitureas long as fixed wireless does not mean satellite. I live less than a mile away from the end of DSL and cable availability, and cable is never coming and DSL has been pushed back for 3 years. As long as we get around the same speeds and latency as DSL, then I'm all for it. |
|
Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL |
Zoder
Member
2006-Oct-16 8:18 pm
Fixed wireless would be solutions like WiMAX, not satellite. |
|
zewl
join:2002-09-29
Roswell, GA |
zewl
Member
2006-Oct-16 8:58 pm
Why 30 months?Why not allow AT&T to compete with the broadband providers? If you don't like bundled DSL pricing, then don't buy it. There are alternatives. Competition will drive AT&T to offer naked DSL if the bundled pricing is not meeting a need. Choice is a good thing. Lack of choices (i.e., cable franchise) is stifling. |
|
|
 KoolMoeAw Man
Premium Member
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD |
KoolMoe
Premium Member
2006-Oct-16 9:53 pm
What are the viable alternatives? |
|
| KoolMoe |
to Zoder
Re: No divestitureJust as the old radio spectrum licensing was, if you don't use the license for a given amount of spectrum within, say, 1 year, you must give up that spectrum back to the pool.
The fear that AT&T will hold onto its spectrum without putting it to use is very real, however potentially foolish.
KM |
|
| |
jackoffjill to McWizzard
Anon
2006-Oct-16 10:40 pm
to McWizzard
Re: Net_Neutrality, Naked DSLWho Say's they are not going to offer naked dsl?I think they will.I think they will do away with all there narowband,and only have broadband,and give you a choice to have v.o.i.p. |
|
| |
lewtwofl to zewl
Anon
2006-Oct-17 5:22 am
to zewl
Re: Why 30 months?>> Why not allow AT&T to compete with the broadband providers? If you don't like bundled DSL pricing, then don't buy it. There are alternatives.
You obviously do not live in Bellsouth's current service area. There are not alternatives ... not in DSL. Do you alternative broadband. The only alternative to DSL is bundled cable service. |
|
| |
How about no oversubscription of their wide-area network?And then force this application both on their matured ATM network and their new Ethernet network. Currently, its not so surprising to see 500-1000% and higher oversubscription rates on a trunk, which often leads to bad things. Then bind this notion to the net-neitrality cause. And free cake, too!  |
|
| |
to morbo
Re: grow a pair, FCCsaid by morbo:30 months? not even legally binding? wtf is this shit. America. |
|
| patcat88 |
to Zoder
Re: No divestituresaid by Zoder:I see that AT&T did not offer to divest their overlapping spectrum with Bellsouth as a concession. I'm hopeful that the Dems on the FCC will hold out for that one. On a positive note, AT&T did concede that they will deploy broadband to 100% of their service area by the end of 2007 as a condition for approval. 85% through wireline and 15% through fixed wireless. Satellite is "fixed" and "wireless". |
|
| patcat88 |
to KoolMoe
said by KoolMoe:Just as the old radio spectrum licensing was, if you don't use the license for a given amount of spectrum within, say, 1 year, you must give up that spectrum back to the pool. The fear that AT&T will hold onto its spectrum without putting it to use is very real, however potentially foolish. KM ATT will probably only build in populated areas (areas with DSL/cable) for max returns, then claim poverty and scream its unfair to be required to offer service with that spectrum, and get a indefinite wavier. |
|
dslextreme2
Premium Member
join:2001-02-23
Canoga Park, CA |
to jackoffjill
Re: Net_Neutrality, Naked DSLThey are REQUIRED to offer naked DSL under the ATT SBC merger agreement. The issue is that they are not required to provide it at a specific price point.
At this point they offer you naked DSL, but it is not any less expensive than naked DSL + a phone line so what's the point of offering it to begin with? |
|
for fcc to review att's actions
