how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
deldsl
join:2009-09-18
San Francisco, CA | reply to NormanS
Re: I hope it helps CA as well.... NormanS, you seem like a nice guy and all BUT I said AT&T tried to scam me. They didn't try to help me get my max speed even after a renewal and I've been a user since 2005. They acted like they couldn't get my service back on after a storm. It must be the inside wiring, and I would have to pay for that. I got a young Tech on the phone who told me how to go to the modem site. That worked, but they turned it off so they could send a Tech out. A young Tech said they didn't do anything to improve my speed and he didn't know why they would tell me that. I told him to go to the AT&T website at the time and read what they said they were doing for their loyal customers who renewed. Oh, and my phone and DSl was out for a week after a storm this year. You know what caused it, rainwater in the AT&T equipment box. It caused severe static and then outtage. What I had said all along their equipment which was exposed to the storm,__ not my inside wiring. | |
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by deldsl:NormanS, you seem like a nice guy and all BUT I said AT&T tried to scam me. Whatever. I've seen a lot of problems, reported, here; most were fixed by AT&T, but some could not be. I've not seen any evidence of scamming.
As for the class action; it is unlikely to apply to the legacy SBC regions outside of AT&T Midwest. It appears to involve a change SBC made to the service after they bought Ameritech. It is my understanding that Ameritech used to provision DSL lines as did Bellsouth, and some regions of Verizon. It is called, "over provisioning", and the provider basically adjusts the synch rate to compensate for overhead.
In the rest of SBC (now AT&T West, AT&T Southwest, and AT&T Northeast), they sold "synch" (modem locks at 1536, 3008, or 6016), not speed. It is in the "fine print"; and lawyers use "fine print" for a reason.
But many in the old Ameritech region signed up under one method, and were switched to a different when SBC took over. I am probably wrong, but I suspect that is the basis of the suit.
Now, if you wish help, that is one thing, but if you are only interested in ranting, that is another. Comcast is available in most parts of the S.F. Bay Area. I am not sure; I seem to recall another cable company covering at least parts of San Francisco. Have you checked cable in your area?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
deldsl
join:2009-09-18
San Francisco, CA | NormanS, there are none so blind as those who won't see. Many don't have to or don't want to. I went to Comcast before AT&T in 2005 and I couldn't get it installed. After the AT&T scam I checked with Comcast, they have assured me it wouldn't be a problem now. I have to consider my reduced income at this time and other issues involving such a switch. I used the link to the full article. What did the company say they did? I say its still happening until they are exposed. In this forum and even in the AT&T forum site, you can read about like issues. I worried about the two young men who honestly seemed to be trying to help me. I say scam, as in "it's your inside wiring scam." It didn't just happen to me. At&T also has a speed test, what does it say at the bottom? You're not getting the speed you want, move up to the next level. | |
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by deldsl:NormanS, there are none so blind as those who won't see. Many don't have to or don't want to. Okay, be that way; however, when the original AT&T was broken up, customers were given the option to maintain their own IW, or pay the company for "protection". A racket? Sure, but a legal one. Ask Judge Green. Applies to cable as well as telco.
Maybe I have the advantage of working in electronics (not telecom, manufacturing. Not telco equipment, HP mini computers). But I understand a little bit about propagation over wire. Also ran into a company attitude: If you are not paying for IW protection, and you call in for service, they *will* blame the IW. When the local company was still, "Pacific Bell", I called in a phone outage (probably round 1988). Lady insisted it was on the premises, and that I would have to pay for the truck roll (I was not paying for "WirePro"). Until I outlined the troubleshooting steps I had taken. Only a station protector at that time, no test jack. But for a technician who has built testbeds, and kludges for pay, I knew how to unhook from the plant, and connect directly. Armed with that knowledge, and the results of isolation, I contested the CSR's assessment. Ultimately, they did check the plant, and they did find a problem in the plant.
You have not stated any technical information that is useful to me in assessing what might be the problem. Only opinion, not fact. Identifying a scam requires fact, not opinion.
I went to Comcast before AT&T in 2005 and I couldn't get it installed. After the AT&T scam ...
You can call a dog's tail a leg; but that does not make a dog a five-legged creature. Cite facts, not opinion.
... I checked with Comcast, they have assured me it wouldn't be a problem now. I have to consider my reduced income at this time and other issues involving such a switch. I used the link to the full article. What did the company say they did? I say its still happening until they are exposed.
Then expose the bastards, for crying out loud! All it takes is facts. So far, those are MIA! 
In this forum and even in the AT&T forum site, you can read about like issues. I worried about the two young men who honestly seemed to be trying to help me. I say scam, as in "it's your inside wiring scam." It didn't just happen to me. At&T also has a speed test, what does it say at the bottom? You're not getting the speed you want, move up to the next level.
I've been told, 'It's your inside wiring" before. That is why I seek out facts for the CSRs. A couple of visits back, I even had a line tech who thought I was an "insider". I had learned the lingo from a number of visits. I am talking over a ten year span, now. F2 is aerial here. A squirrel highway. Squirrels love to chew the binder sheath. Wind whips the binder on the poles. Seals work loose, as to connections. So, yeah, a truck roll a year, or so it feels like. If you are not paying for WirePro, they will treat it like its on the premises. If it is DSL service, WirePro does not apply, and they will (should) warn you about a service call ahead of time.
I've only had one DSL problem that wasn't in the plant. Premise issue. When I had first signed up for DSL, and didn't know a lot about DSL. CSR asked me about filters, and I started to enumerate, mentally, all devices that should be filtered. And, in that process, suddenly remembered that the satellite receiver was connected to the line. Asked, and was told, "Yes, filter it". So I declined the truck roll, and checked it myself: No filter. I fixed that up without incurring an IW charge.
All other DSL problems have been line problems. About five, since signing up in February, 2001. I believe we've had two line issues before signing up for DSL.
DSL is also distance related. At my distance from the DSLAM I am getting just enough to qualify for Pro, not enough to qualify for Elite. And a lot of that will depend upon the condition of the F1 (CO to cross-connect; buried), and the F2 (cross-connect to premises; part buried, part aerial). A line problem can be anywhere between the CO (or RT) and the premises; even on the premises.
So, if you have facts to support your contention, let's have them. Otherwise you are just ranting.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
deldsl
join:2009-09-18
San Francisco, CA | I know the facts because I was the one involved, and it was verified by statements made by their own employees. The issues with the telephone and dsl occurred after windy, rainy nights. You ignore what I do state, that it was water in their equipment box. As in 1+1=2, this is basically the same type of thing I talked to them about. I even tried to buy one of their internet cd's and they put a Tech on the phone. It's not what they advertise, but its what they did. They did not want me to find a cheap or free solution when I could be scammed for 100+ dollars. If they know a person is only going to get a set speed on the "line" but they state moving to a higher plan will give more speed then they are guilty as charged. I certainly don't care for your ranting in defense of wrongdoers. CA and others might still decide to jump on the bandwagon. I will be interested in the outcome. | |
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Scam, scam, scam. You are seriously posting in the wrong forum. You need to be posting over here:
»Scam and Phishbusters
And do yourself a favor: Hire an attorney and sue the pants off of the bastidges. Or post here, if you just want to blow of steam:
»Rants, Raves, and Praise
I am not ignoring your "water in the box" issue. However, if the plant can't sustain the advertised rate, for whatever reason, and they won't upgrade the plant, they should offer, and you should request, a downgrade to the level of service the plant will sustain, which will lower your bill.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | | |
|
deldsl
join:2009-09-18
San Francisco, CA | Do you read the posts of others and what they say happened. Not only as I stated in these forums, but in other forums including At&t's own. The articles about other services they provide as well. I was at the level below Pro cant remember what they call it. If I wanted more speed then I should move up to Pro, that was the solution. That is the solution they are giving at the bottom of their own speedtest. In my case, as in others, if they are doing this with the knowledge that it will not be achieved. Guilty as charged. I posted here because my experience is in line with this article. I know from experience there are many who RANT against the truth as you do. RANTING in defense of wrongdoers, take your post over there. AT&T has the lawyers, but you include this with your rant. Moving to Comcast, and needing lawyers is not what they advertise their valued customers will need, is it? I am not alone in my experience, whether in CA or elsewhere, and whether I can attain a lawyer or not. As I stated I'll be watching for the outcome, you go ahead and RANT. Oh, deldsl stands for deliver dsl, because of the facts and truth of my experience. | |
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | said by deldsl:Do you read the posts of others and what they say happened. <redacted rant>
Okay, now that I have vented, allow me to continue. Yes, I read the posts. And offer the best advice I know for the circumstances.
Not only as I stated in these forums, but in other forums including At&t's own. The articles about other services they provide as well. I was at the level below Pro cant remember what they call it. If I wanted more speed then I should move up to Pro, that was the solution.
Would that it were that simple. I am currently on Pro. Even if I was willing to pay for it, I am ineligible for Elite. If I tried, and if AT&T actually processed the order, the service would be spotty, and unreliable, and (assuming I didn't know better) I'd be here ranting about this scamming company.
I am not above recommending the competition. I had a friend who, no matter how hard I tried to work on his behalf, could not get above 384 kb/s down on his AT&T DSL line. His line attenuation of 63.0 dB suggested that his loop was just too long to sustain a higher speed. So I suggested he might be happier with Comcast cable Internet. So far, he is.
That is the solution they are giving at the bottom of their own speedtest. In my case, as in others, if they are doing this with the knowledge that it will not be achieved. Guilty as charged. I posted here because my experience is in line with this article. I know from experience there are many who RANT against the truth as you do. RANTING in defense of wrongdoers, take your post over there. AT&T has the lawyers, but you include this with your rant.
Eh? Me rant? Not until this very post (but I redacte the mostly useless rant; because it served no purpos, other than to attract the unwanted attention of the mods to my post. Yes, there is a trickle of blood at my lips. Biting one's tongue can be painful.)
Moving to Comcast, and needing lawyers is not what they advertise their valued customers will need, is it?
DSL has technical limitations. If your line conditions don't support the highest speed tier, you shouldn't be able to get it. There are posters to this very set of AT&T forums who complain loudly because the order system has locked them out from getting a higher tier. Sometimes the system is broken, and they are wrongly listed in the DB as too far. Many other times it is right, and when they post their line numbers, it shows.
I am not alone in my experience, whether in CA or elsewhere, and whether I can attain a lawyer or not.
However, for every horror story like yours, exists at least ten others where the situation is not even close to your experience. And the ones with no trouble at all generally don't even post here.
As I stated I'll be watching for the outcome, you go ahead and RANT. Oh, deldsl stands for deliver dsl, because of the facts and truth of my experience.
The outcome, whichever way it blows, will only benefit the attorneys. And the fact of the lawsuit may be part of the reason I am facing a price hike, next year, which might result in my having to step back to the next lower speed tier for economic reasons. My line can support Pro, but after a price hike, my pocket book likely will not. Thanks for being the "Dog in the Manger".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
