 Old_GrouchDon't just sit there silly DO somethingPremium
join:2004-05-26
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | reply to jsinaiko
Re: More reality.... Awww, I wasn't splittin hairs. I just wanted to throw out the jurisdiction they claim will apply.
I get a giggle out of the fact that they push an interstate service (from regulatory perspectives) and try to hold folks to the laws of a state where none of us even lives because they are a reseller or CLEC up there.
Just tossin' a few veggies into the community stew. The folks chasing the same topic HERE - - - now they are having phun.
And, I think that none of them has realized that if you follow the link to the TOS that both threads are over, it's a Bellsouth Web Page...so goodness only knows what is what.
--
At Team Discovery we know how to get more outta that danged 'puter of yours! |
|
 jsinaikoPremium
join:2001-04-25
Chicago, IL | LOL!  |
|
1 edit | reply to XBL2009
Re: WARNING: AT&T will cut off your Internet connection if... AT&T/Yahoo TOS:
»edit.client.yahoo.com/cspcommon/···page=tos
Use Limitation.
AT&T Yahoo! reserves the right to suspend or terminate your Service or to suspend or terminate any Member ID, electronic mail address, IP address, Universal Resource Locator or domain name used by you in the event it is used in a manner, which (i) constitutes violation of any law, regulation or tariff (including, without limitation, copyright and intellectual property laws); (ii) is defamatory, fraudulent, obscene or deceptive; (iii) is intended to threaten, harass or intimidate; (iv) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, Yahoo!, or their respective parents, affiliates and subsidiaries;(v) violates the resale or restrictions on use provisions of this agreement or the AT&T Acceptable Use policy, which may be amended from time to time, interferes with other Members' use and enjoyment of the Services provided by AT&T and Yahoo!.
AT&T/Bellsouth TOS:
»home.bellsouth.net/csbellsouth/s···&leg=tos
5.1 Suspension/Termination.
Your Service may be suspended or terminated if your payment is past due and such condition continues un-remedied for thirty (30) days. In addition, AT&T may immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your Service, any Member ID, electronic mail address, IP address, Universal Resource Locator or domain name used by you, without notice, for conduct that AT&T believes (a) violates the Acceptable Use Policy; (b) constitutes a violation of any law, regulation or tariff (including, without limitation, copyright and intellectual property laws) or a violation of these TOS, or any applicable policies or guidelines, or (c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries. Termination or suspension by AT&T of Service also constitutes termination or suspension (as applicable) of your license to use any Software. AT&T may also terminate or suspend your Service if you provide false or inaccurate information that is required for the provision of Service or is necessary to allow AT&T to bill you for Service. --
"Time does not actually exist beyond an artificial measure we create in our minds to separate events we experience into blocks that are easier to reference instead of as a whole single event that just happens and continues happening" - evolvedant |
|
 XBL2009------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
 ·EarthLink
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to jsinaiko
quote:
(c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.
This is pretty vague and I'm sure that anybody that gets their service cutoff would or could sue (and probably face an army of AT&T lawyers). Most people only have two options with Cable or DSL and neither is exactly making many improvements to their systems, they are intent to milk the cow as long as they can before finally upgrading their networks.
In a better world we would have more then two choices for high speed internet service like many other countries do. We would also have more speed and lower prices.
AT&T promised at one time to provide 100Mbps by 2009, I doubt we will be seeing that anytime soon. Instead we get U-verse which is as expensive as cable and only provides a 6mbps connection for internet.
AT&T worries about becoming nothing more then a dumb pipe providing access to the internet while the Google's of the world provide most of the services. That is exactly what consumers want, just a fast low priced connection to the internet.
AT&T should be providing ADSL2+ or FTTH by now and higher upload speed if they listened to their customers. Instead we get vague threats about lost of service if we complain or criticize.
Hope they don't cut me off.
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin
|
|
 justbitsMore fiber than ATT can handlePremium
join:2003-01-08
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
·AT&T Yahoo
| I think a more attainable goal is to deploy more remote terminals (FTTN) with ADSL2+ or VDSL2 on the F2 run. All the Speedstream modems shipped since 2004 have been ADSL2+ capable (5100b, 4100, 4100b). I'm sure some 2wire models are upgradable too. The funny part is that lots of central offices already have ADSL2+ DSLAMs in them, but they're configured for ADSL. Then again, ADSL2+ probably wont be enabled until Covad or some other CLEC starts bleeding customers from the mother ship.
U-Verse uses VDSL2, which is capable of 100Mbps, but only over short distances.
By the way, does the latest AT+T TOS happen to sneak in a "right to arbitration" clause? Or did people only catch that change on the POTS TOS? |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by justbits:By the way, does the latest AT+T TOS happen to sneak in a "right to arbitration" clause? Or did people only catch that change on the POTS TOS? I checked TOS and the AUP pages. TOS doesn't distinguish between DSL and Dial, AUP does. Three places checked, no hits on the word, "arbitration" in the browser search function. If AT&T ever included that in the Internet agreements, they don't have it now.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
|
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | reply to XBL2009
said by XBL2009:In a better world we would have more then two choices for high speed internet service like many other countries do. We would also have more speed and lower prices. Actually, I do have more than two choices. And I don't see how the price can get much lower, considering the cost of deployment of DSL service. Even in Japan, the fastest service I could find was only 50Mbps; and for the equivalent of $39US, or so. I am sure that the subscriber must be within 3,000 feet, or so, of the DSLAM. The physics of electronics is the same in Japan as in the U.S. Also economics. The only thing really different about Japan is that they pack half the population of the U.S. into a space about the same as California.
I really hope that half the U.S. doesn't decide to move here in the next ten months; I'd have to consider moving to where ever those people are coming from.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL | reply to XBL2009
A perhaps little relevant example of a disparaging remark cutoff by a long defunct DSL provider that happened to one of DSLReports members->
»/front/psn1.wav
In this case they ultimately did him a favor as he actually received his refund, most didn't. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by kaila:A perhaps little relevant example of a disparaging remark cutoff by a long defunct DSL provider that happened to one of DSLReports members-> » /front/psn1.wavIn this case they ultimately did him a favor as he actually received his refund, most didn't. I guess I don't see the relevance, since this was not AT&T, or SBC. Yes, it happened to somebody, but not an AT&T, or SBC customer. And that ISP is now...defunct.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
XBL2009------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL Reviews:
·EarthLink
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | reply to NormanS
said by NormanS:said by XBL2009:In a better world we would have more then two choices for high speed internet service like many other countries do. We would also have more speed and lower prices. Actually, I do have more than two choices. And I don't see how the price can get much lower, considering the cost of deployment of DSL service. Even in Japan, the fastest service I could find was only 50Mbps; and for the equivalent of $39US, or so. I am sure that the subscriber must be withing 3,000 feet, or so, of the DSLAM. The physics of electronics is the same in Japan as in the U.S. Also economics. The only thing really different about Japan is that they pack half the population of the U.S. into a space about the same as California. I really hope that half the U.S. doesn't decide to move here in the next ten months; I'd have to consider moving to where ever those people are coming from. Why do people always bring up Japan and how dense their population is and blah blah blah. I mean New York, Chicago and LA are pretty dense as well and I don't see anybody offering 50mbps for $40.
The reason is because the big corps don't want to, it would ruin their cash cow. They had DSL technology for years and never used it until Covad came along.
Americans will just have to accept that when it comes to high speed internet we are not even in the top ten and that is all because of massive corruption.
We should all be able to get Fios by now: »www22.verizon.com/content/consum···ices.htm
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin
|
|
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL | reply to NormanS
should have put more emphasis on "little"  Didn't mean to confuse AT&T with anyone or steer off topic, I just wanted to dust off a DSLR classic of some poor guy who had service terminated due to a post here.
This occurred at a time when DSL was truly in it's wild west days. It caused quite a ruckus on the DSLR forums, with posts that got downright personal and potentially slanderous. Thankfully, we're well beyond that now. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to XBL2009
said by XBL2009:Why do people always bring up Japan and how dense their population is and blah blah blah. I mean New York, Chicago and LA are pretty dense as well and I don't see anybody offering 50mbps for $40. San José isn't nearly as dense as LA, or NYC, but AT&T is deploying VRADs. Theoretically possible to support 50Mbps Internet, with pair bonded VDSL (but I suspect that there aren't enough pairs in the cable on the poles behind our premises for everybody on the block to get a second pair), but deployment of IPTV is the goal; no more than 6Mbps is assigned for Internet. AT&T wants to push their UVerse product. $40 per month for 50Mbps Internet? Probably would take them 15 years to recover their investment in hardware. Of course, are government tax structure doesn't help; it focuses the companies on short term profits. Heaven forbid we shouldn't make them pay for our social programs.
Anyway, you mentioned something about 100Mbps Internet. Even in Japan I could only find 50Mpbs Internet. I talked with an SBC (this was before they bought AT&T) tech who stated that they were conditioning the lines in this neighborhood for 25Mbps Internet, and talking of plans for 50Mbps service. I assume that they would get that through pair-bonding. And I know from their promotion of UVerse that the bulk of the bandwidth is being reserved for IPTV, not Internet.
Population density is important; even in Japan, 50Mbps Internet does not pass 60% of the population. The folks in Iwate, or Akita prefectures (among many others) are just too spread out for it. I expect very few places outside of the Kanto, or Kansai regions will ever see it.
The most popular DSL offering in Japan is less than 50Mbps Internet. When 50Mbps doesn't get most people that much more that 1.5Mbps, why pay $40 a month when $20 a month will get adequate service?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
XBL2009------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL Reviews:
·EarthLink
·AT&T Midwest
| said by NormanS:said by XBL2009:Why do people always bring up Japan and how dense their population is and blah blah blah. I mean New York, Chicago and LA are pretty dense as well and I don't see anybody offering 50mbps for $40. San José isn't nearly as dense as LA, or NYC, but AT&T is deploying VRADs. Theoretically possible to support 50Mbps Internet, with pair bonded VDSL (but I suspect that there aren't enough pairs in the cable on the poles behind our premises for everybody on the block to get a second pair), but deployment of IPTV is the goal; no more than 6Mbps is assigned for Internet. AT&T wants to push their UVerse product. $40 per month for 50Mbps Internet? Probably would take them 15 years to recover their investment in hardware. Of course, are government tax structure doesn't help; it focuses the companies on short term profits. Heaven forbid we shouldn't make them pay for our social programs. Anyway, you mentioned something about 100Mbps Internet. Even in Japan I could only find 50Mpbs Internet. I talked with an SBC (this was before they bought AT&T) tech who stated that they were conditioning the lines in this neighborhood for 25Mbps Internet, and talking of plans for 50Mbps service. I assume that they would get that through pair-bonding. And I know from their promotion of UVerse that the bulk of the bandwidth is being reserved for IPTV, not Internet. Population density is important; even in Japan, 50Mbps Internet does not pass 60% of the population. The folks in Iwate, or Akita prefectures (among many others) are just too spread out for it. I expect very few places outside of the Kanto, or Kansai regions will ever see it. The most popular DSL offering in Japan is less than 50Mbps Internet. When 50Mbps doesn't get most people that much more that 1.5Mbps, why pay $40 a month when $20 a month will get adequate service? People seem to forget that the telephone companies had to be forced to provide people in rural areas with service. I suppose with high speed internet service we will have to force them to do this again as well as get them all to offer fiber.
AT&T wouldn't need vrads if they did what Verizon did and just offered Fios.
As far as money from 1994-2004 the telephone companies were given $200 billion to build the next gen network and never did: »digg.com/tech_news/The_$200_Bill···candal_4
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin
|
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by XBL2009:People seem to forget that the telephone companies had to be forced to provide people in rural areas with service. I suppose with high speed internet service we will have to force them to do this again as well as get them all to offer fiber. I don't recall that anybody forced the old AT&T to provide rural service in western Placer County, California. Seems to me that was why a couple of farmers started the Roseville Telephone Company.
AT&T wouldn't need vrads if they did what Verizon did and just offered Fios.
If they had done that, I'd be years away from FTTP instead of weeks away from FTTN.
Who gave them that money? It looks like the companies were not given cash, but tax breaks. And Ameritech and Pacific Telesis, despite those breaks, couldn't manage to deploy anything despite spending themselves to the edge of bankruptcy trying; inviting the buyouts by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (which became SBC after buying them, and a regional ILEC, and an ISP).
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
XBL2009------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL Reviews:
·EarthLink
·AT&T Midwest
| said by NormanS:said by XBL2009:People seem to forget that the telephone companies had to be forced to provide people in rural areas with service. I suppose with high speed internet service we will have to force them to do this again as well as get them all to offer fiber. I don't recall that anybody forced the old AT&T to provide rural service in western Placer County, California. Seems to me that was why a couple of farmers started the Roseville Telephone Company. AT&T wouldn't need vrads if they did what Verizon did and just offered Fios.
If they had done that, I'd be years away from FTTP instead of weeks away from FTTN. Who gave them that money? It looks like the companies were not given cash, but tax breaks. And Ameritech and Pacific Telesis, despite those breaks, couldn't manage to deploy anything despite spending themselves to the edge of bankruptcy trying; inviting the buyouts by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (which became SBC after buying them, and a regional ILEC, and an ISP). It's people like you who buy the lies and corporate spin. If they had started in 1994 we would all be wired up with fiber and enjoying superfast connections. You wouldn't need to wait weeks for FTTN you would have fiber in your house now.
PS: »Verizon Stock Outperforms AT&T Stock
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin
|
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by XBL2009:It's people like you who buy the lies and corporate spin. If they had started in 1994 we would all be wired up with fiber and enjoying superfast connections. You wouldn't need to wait weeks for FTTN you would have fiber in your house now. I am not buying anything like that. I worked for SCS Security in 1997-8. One of our clients was Roseville Telephone Company. I talked with a few of their employees. They were laying a fiber ring; but there was no product to justify the cost of FTTP then. Last I checked, they were bought out by Surewest; probably something about the hole they dug themselves into. Not just for the fiber, but no ROI on it.
You still have not answered my question about who gave what to whom? Taxes not collected != money spent by consumers.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
 borkedCheese With That Whine?Premium
join:2003-08-10
Kalamazoo, MI
1 edit | reply to XBL2009
It funny how people tend to be shortsighted. That is only the past 6 months, let's compare the 2 stock prices over the past 2 years.
»ichart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=VZ&···&a=v&p=s
Or past 5 years
»ichart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=VZ&···&a=v&p=s |
|
XBL2009------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL Reviews:
·EarthLink
·AT&T Midwest
| The point being you can build a next gen network that consumers will love and not sink like a rock in the stock exchange. Although a little help from the fed may be needed to get this thing done.
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin
|
|
XBL2009------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL Reviews:
·EarthLink
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to NormanS
said by NormanS:said by XBL2009:It's people like you who buy the lies and corporate spin. If they had started in 1994 we would all be wired up with fiber and enjoying superfast connections. You wouldn't need to wait weeks for FTTN you would have fiber in your house now. I am not buying anything like that. I worked for SCS Security in 1997-8. One of our clients was Roseville Telephone Company. I talked with a few of their employees. They were laying a fiber ring; but there was no product to justify the cost of FTTP then. Last I checked, they were bought out by Surewest; probably something about the hole they dug themselves into. Not just for the fiber, but no ROI on it. You still have not answered my question about who gave what to whom? Taxes not collected != money spent by consumers. Capitalism is GREAT but some industries need more help from the feds then others to provide them cover over the short term. Some projects have to be long term deals otherwise they will never get done. How much money have they spent on the airline industry or how many billions spent on building roadways?
As far as whom gave what to whom, the bells were allow to collect fees to help fund the fiber network and also given tax breaks to the tune of $200 billion. They just pocketed the money and never built the network.
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin
|
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by XBL2009:Capitalism is GREAT but some industries need more help from the feds then others to provide them cover over the short term. That is not true. If an industry can't make it without government funds, it shouldn't make it at all. Although we do have a "tax 'em to deat" mentality which doesn't help matters.
Some projects have to be long term deals otherwise they will never get done. How much money have they spent on the airline industry or how many billions spent on building roadways?
Too much on each; and they stopped spending on railroads when they started spending on highways.
As far as whom gave what to whom, the bells were allow to collect fees to help fund the fiber network and also given tax breaks to the tune of $200 billion. They just pocketed the money and never built the network.
The extras funds that I am aware of, FUSF, were supposed to be used for extending the service into rural areas; so I am told. Don't know of any extra fees to be earmarked for fiber. Taxes are a big problem for all of us; as I said, taxes not collected is not the same thing as money spent by consumers.
I suspect that the politicians of that era (1990-1999) were long on talk, and short on any real ideas. I spoke with an RTC employee sometime in 1997-8 about what they were doing. Lots of fiber being laid, but not to the premises. Too expensive to deploy FTTP, especially when there was no consumer service ready to use it. How much in tax breaks did the feds give to Lucent Technologies, Alcatel, and similar? The companies who would be developing the equipment used on the ends of the fiber? So RTC had a lot of dark fiber in the ground, and nothing to offer their customers.
Our politician tend to focus on things with high visibility to the voters, in order to pander to those voters for vote; but they ignore the rest of it. So our government winds up doing things half-assed; which is usually worse than doing nothing at all. Lots of incentive to lay fiber (which the voters can see as they drive about), none for developing the equipment, protocols, and services to run on that fiber (the voters can't see that stuff; out of sight, out of mind).
Add to that the fact that corporations buy politicians (Louisiana Representative Billy Tauzin was SBC's lapdog in the Congress, while he was in office), and you get screwball propositions which are guaranteed to fail. And we haven't even begun to touch on how to get telecom to pass 100% of the population at a reasonable consumer price.
And do, please, remember the biggest lie of all time: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you". Hear those words and you'd better grab your wallet, or there won't be much left for you to spend.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
