dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6
share rss forum feed


septcasey

join:2006-09-07
United State
reply to weaseled386

Re: [Availability] 10 years later, still no DSL from AT&T availa

said by weaseled386:

Ok, so you're calling AT&T out for not expanding into your area. What about cable? Have you called them? Plan on calling them out too? Depending on where you live, the simple fact is you won't get the same services as someone who lives in busier areas.

AT&T kept my hopes up for a long time. When I called to check, they always told me to keep checking back because it could be available in a week or month. They would always tell me that deployment of the service happens all the time in new areas both large and rural and that I should not think that it would never be here. Cable internet is not available either and I have expressed my feelings to them as well. My point is I just wanted to express how I feel on this because after 10 YEARS AT&T still does not offer DSL here... BUT they offer home phone and great cell coverage here. 10 years is a very long time. Think of how much has changed and expanded in the last 10 years. We live in an age of rapid growing technology. There is no reason why affordable broadband should not be available to everyone in America.

And please don't suggest I look into their mobile data plans. I have no interest in 5GB/month data caps and frightening fees for going over them.


septcasey

join:2006-09-07
United State

1 edit
The point of this thread was to help make AT&T aware of the massive time frame of no expanded services to my neighborhood and the countless other rural areas who have been waiting too. I honestly think it would benefit AT&T to expanded to more rural areas because despite the fact many people may not live there, they will get many new permanent customers. The investment in deployment would pay for itself in due time and bring AT&T in to more profit. That is my opinion.

I may have sounded a little too upset but I feel like businesses like AT&T just overlook places and people like me when it is us who are waiting with our fingers crossed. We want DSL and I hope one day AT&T will realize that and expand their service even more.

***Edit***

Also just so you know AT&T is the only business that offers services in my area that also just so happens to sell DSL service, but does not offer it to me through availability. To my knowledge and research, there is no other business that sells DSL service local to me so that is why I am upset with AT&T. They are a business who offers some, but not all of their services here. I feel that after 10 years they could have done something to make this happen.

Timmn

join:2000-04-23
Tinley Park, IL
To quote the punch line from an old joke, "We're the phone company, we don't care, we don't have to."

simpsomatt

join:2006-08-21
Paris, KY
reply to septcasey
said by septcasey:

The point of this thread was to help make AT&T aware of the massive time frame of no expanded services to my neighborhood and the countless other rural areas who have been waiting too. I honestly think it would benefit AT&T to expanded to more rural areas because despite the fact many people may not live there, they will get many new permanent customers. The investment in deployment would pay for itself in due time and bring AT&T in to more profit. That is my opinion.

I also live in an ATT no-DSL zone. I recently spoke to an AT&T rep who told me frankly that AT&T would probably never provide DSL or u-verse to customers in my area.

Like you, I am very unhappy about this. But I really don't think AT&T is unaware of the benefits of expanding into rural areas. They have people whose job it is to figure these things out. They know what it costs to install a remote DSLAM and run fiber to it; I don't. They know how many potential customers could be reached with a new DSLAM; I don't. Based on experience, they probably have a good estimate how many potential customers would actually buy the service; I don't. They can crunch these numbers and see if it would be profitable; I can't.

While it really really really sucks not to have a decent broadband option, I really don't believe AT&T is just too stupid to realize how much money they could make from me and my neighbors. I think they do know, and they know it's not a good investment. I think the cable company in my region has figured that out too. It sucks, but that's life.


northalabama

join:2001-06-18
Huntsville, AL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
Why does profit need to figure into every decision? Why not provide DSL service to rural areas because it is the right thing to do?

I'm tired of the profit motive being the deciding factor in every business decision a company makes. Corporations declare all the time how much they do for the community...well, how 'bout this!

Rammer
Premium
join:2001-03-06
reply to simpsomatt
you need too get every one in the neighborhood that wants it too call and get there names on the list

it will help as we did it and we did get dsl and now u verse
but it takes many people too give the effort

then you will see how many are serious about it coming


Fighterpilot

join:2000-04-20
Saint Louis, MO

1 recommendation

reply to northalabama
"Why not provide DSL service to rural areas because it is the right thing to do?"

Right thing for who to do? AT&T, the gubment, you?? If there's no money in it, it's not going to come. Go start your own company and offer DSL but first go read an economics book.


northalabama

join:2001-06-18
Huntsville, AL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
I'll pick up a reading trainer for you. I didn't say only provide to rural areas, I recommended it as a way to give back to the community, as they are always so quick to advertise to consumers and stockholders. And, no, I don't live in a rural market, my city of residence was Fast Access DSL's first test market, due to the aerospace industry.


septcasey

join:2006-09-07
United State
reply to Fighterpilot
said by Fighterpilot:

"Why not provide DSL service to rural areas because it is the right thing to do?"

Right thing for who to do? AT&T, the gubment, you?? If there's no money in it, it's not going to come. Go start your own company and offer DSL but first go read an economics book.

Broadband internet creates jobs and more opportunities. Think about it for a second. If a rural area also offered DSL service, do you think more people would be willing to move there? The cities are over-crowded in America. Space is running out and more people are literally being forced to move for all the wrong reasons. If services like DSL were available to more rural places then a lot more people would move there. When is the last time you were on the road or on vacation and looked out and saw all of these open lands with a few houses here and there? Its everywhere! But these places don't have access to DSL. That is a big reason why these places are so deserted. Everyone wants to live in the cities because the cities have it all. I just feel a business as large as AT&T could knock 2 birds with 1 stone and bring more people to rural lands to expand economical growth, more opportunity and help with the over-crowding crisis. Hmm, this is more like a flock of birds with 1 stone.


northalabama

join:2001-06-18
Huntsville, AL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
Agreed. As much as I despise government regulation, when the power grid was constructed, the only reason electric companies supplied power to rural areas was due to a government mandate.

I haven't seen many utility companies go out of business, but rest assured, they would have never built out the power grid to rural areas if the decision had been solely based on profitability.

If America is to remain competitive with the rest of the world, convenient access to competitive high speed internet is just as important as electricity.


Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1

2 edits
reply to northalabama
said by northalabama:

And, no, I don't live in a rural market, my city of residence was Fast Access DSL's first test market, due to the aerospace industry.

Key West also had it (not first but) very early like 1999, likely it had nothing to do with the Navy or Coast Guard, but just the very high population density in small area.

In fact it was several years until the rest of the Keys did.
Didn't hurt that cabled didn't get it done for several more years.

The is just the economics of expansion. Fist are the lowest cost highest return....slowly spreading out. But it will never get to places where install and maint costs will never be covered by potential subscribers.

To those who say they should do it out of the goodness of their hearts.... well I asked you, would you be happy doing your job with 25% of your time unpaid??
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West)


northalabama

join:2001-06-18
Huntsville, AL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
There are parts of our city that still are not built out for DSL, and we have two good cable competitors that keep cable internet available as an option, but the prices are not as good as they could be.

I grew up in a small town, and know what it's like to do without. Satellite internet is another option, but it's so expensive monthly, even as the installation has become more competitive.

Reliable, fast, and reasonably priced internet should be available to all. septcasey raised many good points.

simpsomatt

join:2006-08-21
Paris, KY
said by northalabama:

Reliable, fast, and reasonably priced internet should be available to all.

Using whose definition of "Reliable, fast, and reasonably priced"?

As PX Eliezer points out, the FCC is taking steps to improve the availability of broadband service that comes close to meeting a reasonable definition of those qualities. One thing that gets ignored is quantity. It seems likely that any broadband service that gets extended to currently unserved areas will be wireless. With LTE being rolled out in the near future, the service will probably be sufficient. But it seems likely that it will be subject to the same kind of caps as existing 3G plans, 5 or 10 GB/month. That's a little inconvenient. I guess if you consider the cost per GB compared to DSL/cable/fiber/whatever, it may not be reasonably priced.


northalabama

join:2001-06-18
Huntsville, AL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
The comments were for DSL, not wireless, they are different services. And if the future is only wireless, heaven help us all. If you think phone companies complain about the cost of hard wire services, just listen to them talk about the expense of wireless for a little while! Aren't there still issues about cell phone coverage, too???

And who's definition of "reliable, fast, and reasonably priced"? How 'bout this little thing called an average...

simpsomatt

join:2006-08-21
Paris, KY
I'm aware that DSL and wireless are different services. My point was that, while the FCC is pushing "universal broadband", they're not pushing any specific way of delivering the service. And "mobile broadband" is getting a lot more hype than DSL. So areas that don't currently have any form of hardwired broadband service are not likely to get anything better than a wireless solution. There are still issues about cell phone coverage in some areas, but IMO you're going to see cell phone coverage improved in the weak areas as a result of the universal broadband push. As far as the cost, companies are covering areas with 3G that they don't reach with wires, so the cost must be OK with them. Maybe that's just because they can get away with charging $60/month for 5 GB. It may suck, but as far as I can see, that's the future for a lot of us in the boonies.

WhatNow
Premium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
If you are not served by cable or DSL now then you will see service from broadband before you will from DSL. The speeds will be much faster then DSL. The only problem is the caps. Who knows they may offer a point to point connection with an antenna at your home which cuts out the expense and limitations or the wire connection.

If you don't have internet now why turn down wireless broadband.


Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1
reply to northalabama
said by northalabama:

The comments were for DSL, not wireless, they are different services. And if the future is only wireless, heaven help us all. If you think phone companies complain about the cost of hard wire services, just listen to them talk about the expense of wireless for a little while! Aren't there still issues about cell phone coverage, too???

Wireless internet and cell data are two completely different things.

There are many dedicated wireless internet companies out in rural areas that have nothing to do with any cell carriers.
--



northalabama

join:2001-06-18
Huntsville, AL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
True statement. Can you name the ones that are not affiliated with telcos or wireless carriers?

I couldn't. So, here they are, the top 7 in the US, listed with and based on coverage (number of access points):

1. El Segundo, CA, Infonet Services Company, 12,000
2. Chicago, IL, Hyatt International, 11,000
3. Bellevue, WA, T-Mobile, 4,200
4. Waltham, MA, Airpath, 3,504
5. Austin, TX, Wayport (now at&t), 3,000
6. San Antonio, TX, SBC Freedom Link (also at&t), 2,300
7. New Plymouth, ID, Truckstop.net, 429

Three of the top seven are run by telcos. Now look at the coverage, since that's the topic of conversation. The top two have international coverage, so that accounts for their having an overwhelming majority of access points. See how the number drops from the top two to number three? So, who's on top domestically? at&t and T-Mobile.

The others may be viable options in a few years, but this discussion was based to today's coverage in rural areas, and how to provide service to the areas currently without access. I hope non telco related wi-fi carriers do better in providing service to rural areas, but it doesn't seem they are any more interested.
--
The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you. - David Foster Wallace


Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1

4 edits
The point really was meant to be (never investigated the ownerships) they are direct internet not 3 or 4g adjuncts to cell phone service most with major limitations.

Those might be the top ten, but note they are not in rural areas.
In fact I am amazed there would be those numbers in places it is totally unnecessary.

WiFi is not about numbers but serving people as efficiently and lower cost than widely spread wire infrastructure would allow.

There are hundreds of others, that are and while might get their connection from telco's are independently owned. Even heard of a few that are actually COOP's or municipally run.

The limitation to WiFi is topography. Works very efficiently in flat areas like Kansas where it might be a mile neighbor to next, but very problematic in hill/mt areas like rural NE... requiring many more towers and infrastructure, and where sat is still best/only option if you have the line of sight and mt not in the way.

And WiFi is still a limited SHARED resource.... while providing casual broadband speed and much lower latency than sat, it still can't be realistically expected to support every user video streaming or downloading non stop... unless the users want to pay the price of the added capacity and infrastructure.
--



septcasey

join:2006-09-07
United State
reply to simpsomatt
said by simpsomatt:

said by northalabama:

Reliable, fast, and reasonably priced internet should be available to all.

Using whose definition of "Reliable, fast, and reasonably priced"?

I don't know. How about the people who live paycheck to paycheck? But we are just peasants in the eyes of our government, so it feels like.


Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1
reply to northalabama
said by northalabama:

Why does profit need to figure into every decision? Why not provide DSL service to rural areas because it is the right thing to do?

Really when was the last time you worked your job fo nothing so they could hire a new person.

If you get it will you pay for your neighbor's BB too because someone just should?

Oh that only works on the receiving end hunh?

--


countscabula

join:2010-03-09
Thanks Hayward, finally somebody sees my point. I read a couple Ayn Rand books last year and this was one of the main issues. Corporations have no moral responsibility to society to make it a better place. They might give you some lip service but thats all it is. Their responsibility is to the stockholders. Period. Sorry. I know it sucks.