AT&T CEO Walks a Foot in Your Shoes > 768 vs dial-up

768 vs dial-up

For light users who are mostly web surfers and emailers, there's not a big difference in the "user experience" between 1.5mbps and 768kbps. I think a $10 768kbps DSL product would have a big appeal.

It's still relatively tough to find a site that takes advantage of connections faster than 768kbps. Most streaming video sites are STILL 300kps at best.

Hell, we have an office of about 70 computers sharing a 768/384 DSL connection, and I rarely ever hear anybody complain about it being slow. Usually when it is, it's only because someone's uploading a big attachment.

--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams.

Yep, that's the big reason they don't advertise it - few would want to pay for faster broadband.

Cable broadband here is 6x faster - for 5x the price.

I am very glad I switched to $10/month DSL.

Even gladder they have to sell it to me for that price through the end of 2009.

At $10/month, it's also a great backup for those with cable broadband (here cable drops if the wind blows hard)

reply to djrobx
For $10/month... they would have more people sign up than they probably want at that price. For a cheap/stable connection, I would take it. The only thing that would be painful, would be downloading ISO images (Fedora Core).
--
Canada = Hollywood North

reply to ncbill
i agree with you. here, 1 megabit dsl costs 80 dollars a month. yes, you read that correctly. so i'm stuck between either outrageously priced dsl or cable with awful customer support. for $10 dollars, i would love a 768/384 backup dsl line.