 MarkyDPremium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK | I got a letter from AT&T. I emailed Randall Stephenson a month or so ago about UVERSE, FTTP, and the shortcomings of each.
I expressed my dissatisfaction in the following:
-FTTP users who don't get UVERSE are screwed out of the bundle savings no matter how many services one gets from AT&T. No bundle discounts at all.
-FTTP users are required to carry a phone line at a MINIMUM of an extra $18 a month after tax for a metered line. This is not a technical requirement, rather, another way for AT&T to rape their FTTP customers.
-UVERSE was launched in OKC at the beginning of August. However, those of us on FTTP in OKC are stuck on the legacy DSL backbone with PPPoE and no UVERSE services.
-Max speeds of 6/1mbps minus PPPoE overhead. Cox offers 12/1 in the area (with powerboost, to boot.)
I received a reply from the regional VP. Here is the letter.
--
MarkyD, Paper Tiger
MCSA 2K3, SCNP, MCDST, MCITP, ACHDS, ACDT, ACPT, ACTC, A+, Network+ Security+, Server+, ITIL Foundations |
|
|
|
 x30n_Not Sure What Color Pill To Call ItPremium
join:2000-09-14
wrong turn | said by MarkyD:-FTTP users are required to carry a phone line at a MINIMUM of an extra $18 a month after tax for a metered line. This is not a technical requirement, rather, another way for AT&T to rape their FTTP customers. Really? I have uverse and no landline. When I called them about install I asked if I would need a landline and if I did, not to bother setting the appointment. They told me no and I would assume it would be the same case for anyone.
--
Get your own Gamercard Sig. |
|
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI | reply to MarkyD
Can you post what you mailed him? I am curious to see what you wrote.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net |
|
MarkyDPremium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK | said by Nightfall:Can you post what you mailed him? I am curious to see what you wrote. sure, I'll have to look in my archives in my Lotus Notes account here at work...give me a few. |
|
MarkyDPremium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK | reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:Can you post what you mailed him? I am curious to see what you wrote. Mr. Stephenson:
I am writing in reference to your FTTP (Fiber to the Premise) product. AT&T has begun wiring Greenfield developments with FTTP in the Oklahoma City metro. My new home has AT&T FTTP service. U-Verse was supposed to be available in my area August 6th, but us FTTP users are still out in the cold.
I applaud AT&T for trying to bring a product to compete with Cox, Comcast, etc. However, you are imposing the same limitations on FTTP and FTTN areas, which seems a little short sighted. Why push FTTP to Greenfield developments if you’re not going to use that fiber to its full capacity? Even on FTTP, the max internet speeds are 6/1mbps. Cox is offering 12/1 in the area, and there are rumors of 15/2mbps on the horizon.
Additionally, you are limiting even the FTTP U-Verse installs to one simultaneous HD stream. The fiber has the capacity to handle several HD streams + much faster internet speeds. Why make a product inferior to what the competition is offering when it is capable of so much better? Why do you impose the same limitations on FTTP U-Verse as you do on FTTN U-Verse? Why can Verizon offer 50/10mbps speeds on FiOS, but all AT&T can give me on a similar platform is 6/1?
The time is nearing where I am going to jump ship to Cox unless AT&T can make their offerings a little more competitive. I realize that AT&T losing one customer is no big deal, but I can tell you that the general public is becoming VERY aware of the difference between AT&T/Cable in terms of speed and functionality. Power users/telecommuters such as myself, who rely on technologies such as VPN, large file transfers, and other bandwidth hungry activities on a daily basis, have a genuine need for more bandwidth.
In conclusion, I would ask that you take a good look at the neutered product that is currently being offered over your FTTP platform. Look at what the competition is offering, and then ask yourself why you are shooting yourselves in the foot. |
|
 ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA | reply to x30n_
said by x30n_:said by MarkyD:-FTTP users are required to carry a phone line at a MINIMUM of an extra $18 a month after tax for a metered line. This is not a technical requirement, rather, another way for AT&T to rape their FTTP customers. Really? I have uverse and no landline. When I called them about install I asked if I would need a landline and if I did, not to bother setting the appointment. They told me no and I would assume it would be the same case for anyone. You failed to see that he DOESN'T have UVERSE.. Hence his complaint that he has fiber which does not carry the issue they always complain about with copper and no phone line. In other words, in the past they have stated that you have to bundle dial tone with DSL to keep the copper n good working order. With fiber there is no such need and the need to have active dial tone is only a revenue generator.
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
 RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | reply to MarkyD
IMO...you were wrong in posting that letter here.
You block out your name and address and personally identifying information but apparently feel it's ok to publicize what was a personal communication to you from this member of AT&T management without his OK. (assuming that's the case).
Sorry.but that's just not right.
And then, on top of it..it becomes a front page BBR story.
At the very least, you should have sought out his approval and/or knowledge about this.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
x30n_Not Sure What Color Pill To Call ItPremium
join:2000-09-14
wrong turn | reply to ropeguru
said by ropeguru:You failed to see that he DOESN'T have UVERSE.. Hence his complaint that he has fiber which does not carry the issue they always complain about with copper and no phone line. In other words, in the past they have stated that you have to bundle dial tone with DSL to keep the copper n good working order. With fiber there is no such need and the need to have active dial tone is only a revenue generator. I guess you failed to see that I have FTTP and don't have a landline.
Let me quote the line again -
said by MarkyD: -FTTP users are required to carry a phone line at a MINIMUM of an extra $18 a month after tax for a metered line. This is not a technical requirement, rather, another way for AT&T to rape their FTTP customers.
--
Get your own Gamercard Sig. |
|
MarkyDPremium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK
1 edit | reply to Rick
said by Rick:IMO...you were wrong in posting that letter here. You block out your name and address and personally identifying information but apparently feel it's ok to publicize what was a personal communication to you from this member of AT&T management without his OK. (assuming that's the case). Sorry.but that's just not right. And then, on top of it..it becomes a front page BBR story. At the very least, you should have sought out his approval and/or knowledge about this. I'm not sure how that's not right? It's not like there are company secrets in there. I fail to see what's wrong with posting that letter.
Additionally, executives know and expect to the in the public eye. This was not labeled "confidential" "privileged" or anything of the sort. No where in there did he request that I not share this information. I fail to see your point. |
|
MarkyDPremium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK | reply to x30n_
said by x30n_:said by ropeguru:You failed to see that he DOESN'T have UVERSE.. Hence his complaint that he has fiber which does not carry the issue they always complain about with copper and no phone line. In other words, in the past they have stated that you have to bundle dial tone with DSL to keep the copper n good working order. With fiber there is no such need and the need to have active dial tone is only a revenue generator. I guess you failed to see that I have FTTP and don't have a landline. Let me quote the line again - said by MarkyD: -FTTP users are required to carry a phone line at a MINIMUM of an extra $18 a month after tax for a metered line. This is not a technical requirement, rather, another way for AT&T to rape their FTTP customers. As you can see he states users are required to carry a phone line and I do not have a landline, so for AT&T to say you need it doesnt seem correct to me as I have asked them and they told me 'No, you do not need a landline to get the service.' Maybe he talked to a tech that doesnt understand FTTP service. What I should have said is this. If you have FTTP, but NO UVERSE, you ARE required to carry a land line. Period, end of story. |
|
x30n_Not Sure What Color Pill To Call ItPremium
join:2000-09-14
wrong turn | said by MarkyD:What I should have said is this. If you have FTTP, but NO UVERSE, you ARE required to carry a land line. Period, end of story. Then may I ask what services are you using the fiber for?
--
Get your own Gamercard Sig. |
|
ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA | reply to x30n_
I guess I did fail to see that you have FTTP as you NEVER mentioned that in your post.
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
MarkyDPremium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK | reply to x30n_
said by x30n_:said by MarkyD:What I should have said is this. If you have FTTP, but NO UVERSE, you ARE required to carry a land line. Period, end of story. Then may I ask what services are you using the fiber for? I did have 6/1 PPPoE internet over the fiber, as well as a phone line (which I did not even use, but was required.)
I also bundled Dish network through AT&T, however, that was obviously not carried over fiber.
If AT&T offered UVERSE in my fiber area, I'd have tried it out. |
|
x30n_Not Sure What Color Pill To Call ItPremium
join:2000-09-14
wrong turn | said by MarkyD:said by x30n_:said by MarkyD:What I should have said is this. If you have FTTP, but NO UVERSE, you ARE required to carry a land line. Period, end of story. Then may I ask what services are you using the fiber for? I did have 6/1 PPPoE internet over the fiber, as well as a phone line (which I did not even use, but was required.) I also bundled Dish network through AT&T, however, that was obviously not carried over fiber. If AT&T offered UVERSE in my fiber area, I'd have tried it out. Thank you, now I understand your compliant...
Maybe the landline was needed for dish because it needed an analog signal. I only say that as I have experienced issues with faxes being send over a digital line and maybe it is a requirement for dish.
--
Get your own Gamercard Sig. |
|
MarkyDPremium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK | said by x30n_:Thank you, now I understand your compliant... Maybe the landline was needed for dish because it needed an analog signal. I only say that as I have experienced issues with faxes being send over a digital line and maybe it is a requirement for dish. nope - my dish was not even hooked up to a phone line.
It's pretty widely known that the FTTP product (non uverse) requires a phone line - it wasn't just the rep I got. Several others here have complained about the exact same thing. |
|
| reply to Rick
I disagree. He can post whatever he wants. People are private. Businesses are NOT. If the shoe had been on the other foot and this guy was screwing AT&T, I'm sure AT&T would spare no expense in sharing actions with other businesses ( credit report )... I'm pro-capitalism, but I'm MORE pro-consumer choice and fair treatment. |
|
x30n_Not Sure What Color Pill To Call ItPremium
join:2000-09-14
wrong turn | reply to MarkyD
gotha, well looking more into it maybe I really have HFC or FTTC even though it was brought to the premises just because its fed throughout the house via coaxial(last mile delivery?).
But then again I am not sure how it would be really fed though the house and if what I really have is HFC or FTTP.
--
Get your own Gamercard Sig. |
|
| reply to Rick
Bullshit. The AT&T guy is a corporate spokesperson replying on company stationary. This was not private, personal correspondence. Try again, Telco shill. |
|
MarkyDPremium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK | said by ross:Bullshit. The AT&T guy is a corporate spokesperson replying on company stationary. This was not private, personal correspondence. Try again, Telco shill. he's hardly telco shill, but does find a reason to oppose just about everything. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to MarkyD
said by MarkyD:nope - my dish was not even hooked up to a phone line. It's pretty widely known that the FTTP product (non uverse) requires a phone line - it wasn't just the rep I got. Several others here have complained about the exact same thing. That just blows. Its like paying to have DSL with POTS tied to it. The only thing is that FTTH is obviously WAAY better, and you shouldn't have to put up with the old POTS style mentality 'just because' AT&T uses different (better) medium to transfer its data, and wants to cash in as if it was old school twisted pair. I'd drop them and find a different (cable/wireless) solution.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
