 dg2Premium
join:2004-01-22
Lowell, AR | AT&T, heal thyself Perhaps one reason is that AT&T (formerly SBC) has developed a habit of building RTs and leaving them dark. If AT&T would DSL-enable some of those existing RTs, the percentage would probably decrease.
Before you flame, I'm talking about fully-built RTs, and yes I can give you examples and pictures.  |
|
 BigCreekGod Is Good.Premium
join:2002-06-25
Heber Springs, AR | said by dg2:Before you flame, I'm talking about fully-built RTs, and yes I can give you examples and pictures. Me too.
Had a conversation with an AT&T lineman recently. He said essentially every RT in the state already has a rack/shelf set to hold the DSLAMs. All AT&T would have to do is set the equipment and jumper it to the voice and start taking customer orders. But they have "decided not to". His words.
Wish someone could 'splain this to me.
--
SBC Static DSL; Linux. Terrific wife & kids; live on a farm by Big Creek. Software & network consultant. |
|
|
|
| reply to dg2
My parents are in this broadband black hole right now. It would cost $10,000 for Cox to get them cable. AT@T/SBC has an RT in place but not populated with apparently no plans to do so.
The strange thing is that they live in Fayetteville about 100 yards from $750K+ houses filled with lawyers and salesmen that followed the Wal-Mart/Tyson dollars to Arkansas and ripped up some beautiful hillsides to put in their big houses just to find out they can't get DSL. Apparently AT&T doesn't want their money because it's right their asking to be taken. |
|
 extreme50Formerly TwoKDialupPremium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
1 edit | reply to BigCreek
said by BigCreek:Wish someone could 'splain this to me. Why deploy it now when they'll soon be able to milk the U$F cash cow? 
»telephonyonline.com/regulatory/n···_020706/ |
|
