netwire
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Mooresboro, NC | Great but...
Well that's great and all but what about first expanding to the areas not yet serviced by DSL or Cable for that matter? Yes, there are still people out there who can only get Satellite....shutter.. |
|
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL | Beter than other 256/128 plans for $24.95! |
|
meskinct
Mad Scientist at Work
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Danbury, CT
clubs: | Because 12.99 for 1.5 wasn't cheap enough
Are they thinking that the 12.99 plan that they had offered in the past wasn't cheap enough? |
|
Rob A
Same Old Jets
Premium
join:2005-01-17
Pompton Plains, NJ | Good idea
Some people are still clinging on to dialup even with it at $15/month now. Great idea by ATT to scoop up the remaining few. |
|
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
1 edit | AT&T just found a few hundred thousand modems. The ebay auction didn't work. Why not put them to use?  |
|
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26 | 768 Kbps...Shudder... |
|
shoan
join:2006-02-27
Benton, AR
| reply to netwire
Re: Great but...
I so agree with you. They whine about not being able to serve everyone due to them not being profitable to extend dsl to the entire area on one hand and cut profits where they do have dsl in on the other hand. At least my dial up price should go down more since if you are in an area with no dsl served by AT&T they give you dial up for the cheapest price that you can get dsl vs the higher priced dail up in a dsl served area. Still no concession to why they are not pushing dsl out to more people. They would make more money off of the people that are out of dsl range begging for it than they will from getting dial up users to switch to dsl for cheaper than what they were paying for dial up in the first place. I dont know is ti more expensive to run dial up for them than dsl and if this is true then why is that not motivating them to deploy more dsl. Just makes no real sense to me someone explain this to me. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| reply to Fatal Vector
Re: Good idea
said by Fatal Vector  :768 Kbps...Shudder... I remember when 768Kbps was standard and costs ~$50/month. |
|
NewMariner
join:2005-06-24
| reply to netwire
Re: Great but...
I suggest you read their proposals...now whether or not they do this is another story...but they ceded the information willingly...
By December 31, 2007, AT&T/BellSouth1 will offer broadband Internet access service
(i.e., Internet access service at speeds in excess of 200 kbps in at least one direction) to
100 percent of the residential living units in the AT&T/BellSouth in-region territory.2 To
meet this commitment, AT&T/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet access services to
at least 85 percent of such living units using wireline technologies (the “Wireline
Buildout Area”). The merged entity will make available broadband Internet access
service to the remaining living units using alternative technologies and operating
arrangements, including but not limited to satellite and Wi-Max fixed wireless
technologies. AT&T/BellSouth further commits that at least 30 percent of the
incremental deployment after the Merger Closing Date necessary to achieve the Wireline
Buildout Area commitment will be to rural areas or low income living units.3 |
|
gomer1701ems
join:2001-08-23
Minneapolis, MN | reply to Maxo
Re: Good idea
Try 512/128 with Sprint, about 4 years ago! If I remember correctly (and I usually don't), I think it was around that price too....
--
"Don't argue with stupid people; they will beat you with experience." |
|
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
| Wow...
I wonder what Dave "Bias" Burstein actually wants? Everyone in the AT&T region gets a free cookie? How about an iPOD? How about something else equally as arbitrary just to pander to the Democrats that are pandering to their voters, 99.99% of which couldn't care less about this merger?
His argument here is apparently that AT&T's offers don't count because they were already doing many of them? So they should have just waited to do these things until they were forced to? You can't have it both ways, people. There was nothing anti-competitive about this merger in the first place. Now that they're offering to put in writing even more, like a freakin' $10 DSL tier, people complain about that?
Seriously. Some people really make whining an art form.
Adam |
|
jc1350
join:2004-09-23
1 edit | reply to netwire
Re: Great but...
Exactly. I'm too far from the local CO for DSL. Cable is on my street, but 1/2 mile away in one direction and 1/4 mile away in the other. My neighbors and I signed a petition asking for cable and that we would all pay the cost of the cable runs along the street and to our homes. Those requests have been ignored...not even a one-word response.
Cable and phone companies continue to ignore areas...look at Verizon's cherry-picking for their FIOS deployment areas...areas that already have DSL and cable service. Why not use FIOS to get those without any broadband connected first? Why won't the cable company lay it's namesake on my part of the street?
As for their promises..phone companies make promises all the time to big brother so they can complete their deal/rate hike, etc. Yet they mostly break those promises with no action from big brother. Verizon did it to PA a few years ago. I don't have any faith in AT&T. |
|
shoan
join:2006-02-27
Benton, AR
| reply to NewMariner
This will be great if this is happens but I hate that they slide the satellite in there, seems like a cop out by rebranding someone elses service to be able to say hey looky we have 100% broadband penetration. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and if we do not have DSL in the next 4 years we are moving. That is when we decided to set a mark for our family to look at buying a bigger house and what not and I will never make the mistake of buying in a non-broadband serviced area again. That was my mistake for not checking more closely and following up on little details and so I live with it. |
|
john262
join:2003-09-26
Elko, NV
 ·Wireless Beehive
| reply to Fatal Vector
Re: Good idea
You are shuddering about 768 for a lousy 10 bucks a month? That would be a great deal for a lot of people who pay more than that for dialup. But if that's too slow for you then by all means sign up for a faster package for a higher cost. But don't diss 768 for those who can't afford something more expensive or for those who just do email and don't need anything better. |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting
4 edits | reply to Alpine
Re: Wow...
One, people need to grow up and stop flinging the "bias" tag around every time someone says something that conflicts with their own subjective world-view.
Two, why would anyone who is truly objective applaud "concessions" that are just political smoke and mirrors?
The whole point of offering concessions is the idea that the company is offering new proposals to ease the worried minds of regulators. If you're already doing the things you're offering, but dressing them up as new proposals, then you're just flinging BS around...
People should whine. AT&T just tried to BS their way through the approval process. A lot of people will lose their jobs due to this merger. It deserves serious and timely consideration, not rubber stamping. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
 ·Charter Pipeline
 ·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Alpine
said by Alpine :His argument here is apparently that AT&T's offers don't count because they were already doing many of them? Not surprisingly, most of AT&T's "concessions" are meaningless. Are we really supposed to piss our pants in ecstasy because AT&T tossed us a non-binding net-neutrality agreement that lasts only 30 months?? |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting | The neutrality concession is also smoke and mirrors. As the blurb above notes, there is no binding legal repercussion to violating the FCC's position, because it's simply a broad statement of ethics position, not a law. |
|
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
| reply to Minister
said by Minister :Two, why would anyone who is truly objective applaud "concessions" that are just political smoke and mirrors? First, an "objective" person would see that there's very little if anything truly anti-competitive about this merger. They generally don't compete. They already jointly own a major player in wireless. Their local regions don't overlap.
That said, isn't this whole process just political smoke and mirrors? The Dems know this thing is going through. They're aware that Justice and all the states approved it with no concerns. They're just having a great time because the Republicans were dumb enough to appoint a commissioner who has a conflict of interest in one of the biggest mergers in history.
The guise of all this is to eliminate possibly anti-competitive behavior. That is (or should be) the only purpose of this review. But so many of the things people want have absolutely nothing to do with competitiveness in the telco industry.
How is not having 100% broadband deployment anticompetitive? How about "net-neutrality?" It may affect content providers businesses at some point in the distant future, but it's not anti-competitive in the telco industry, which is what this is supposed to be about. This is just an arbitrary wish list people want attached to the merger, just like those cookies.
It's the same when SBC had to provide naked-DSL to get the last merger through. Not providing naked-DSL isn't anti-competitive at all. It's just a random wish they were able to extract.
If they find something legitimately anti-competitive (like spectrum or anything else) then they should absolutely address it. But that should be the scope of the inquirity - nothing more. Not cookies. Not a required percentage of broadband deployment. Not requirements around a "vaporware" boogeyman("neutrality") that hasn't been implemented by one single provider up to this point.
At a bare minimum they should stick to reality rather than their guess of what might be reality down the road. The purpose of the FCC is not, and never will be, to dictate at random how businesses should operate unless there's proof of real anticompetitive behavior.
There ain't in this situation.
Adam |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | reply to john262
Re: Good idea
I agree. My parents will love it. The pay Wide Open West more than that for 112/112 service or something along those lines. |
|
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL | reply to Alpine
Re: Wow...
Umm, I'm not sure AT&T has a remote understanding of reality.  |
|
