dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3090
share rss forum feed


PuddingMan

@sbcglobal.net

Get back on ATT DSL?

Greetings,

I had ATT DSL in St. Louis MO from about 2006-Nov. 2011. Due to cable tv problems I mistakenly signed up for Uverse. I've since found Uverse to be akin to the Black Plague (much, much too much $ for too little service) and would like to get back on DSL.

In Nov. 2011, they came out and strung a new line to my house and installed a Uverse modem-like device and a DVR. I have a disconnect date for Uverse tv. Uverse internet costs much too much. ATT so far has refused to put me back on DSL. They are effectively penalizing me for trying Uverse.

Can they provide DSL service over my Uverse-grade line (if they chose)? My landline certainly works OK.

Any/all info/help with this much appreciated. What options might I have for internet service?

Puddin'


d_l
Barsoom
Premium,MVM
join:2002-12-08
Reno, NV
kudos:7
It is my understanding that a switch from DSL to U-Verse is an irreversible change. At&T is trying to eliminate basic ADSL and has announced that they can force users to change to U-Verse internet from DSL any time AT&T feels it is in their best interest.

I thought the price for equivalent speeds was the same for U-Verse or DSL?
--
TCE Weather

PuddingMan5

join:2005-09-07
said by d_l:

It is my understanding that a switch from DSL to U-Verse is an irreversible change.

Irreversible technologically? Or just in the context of ATT marketing garbage?
Or do you make such distinctions?

said by d_l:

At&T is trying to eliminate basic ADSL and has announced that they can force users to change to U-Verse internet from DSL any time AT&T feels it is in their best interest.

"God looks down on His poor dumb beasts, then declares The Law!"

said by d_l:

I thought the price for equivalent speeds was the same for U-Verse or DSL?

Would it make any difference if Uverse started at a price point beyond your budget, but DSL did not???

P


d_l
Barsoom
Premium,MVM
join:2002-12-08
Reno, NV
kudos:7
reply to PuddingMan
I suspect that AT&T is pulling the DSL equipment as soon as they get the users off it. Putting former DSL users back on to that equipment runs counter to their plans. I'm surprised that DSL is even advertised as much as it is.

They are under no mandate to provide DSL broadband. Sometimes I wonder if they really want to offer any wired broadband.

To answer your original question, get cable.
--
TCE Weather

PuddingMan5

join:2005-09-07
I'm out here trying to deal with a sticky little problem.

Did any of your responses render any info that was not generally known?

Why do you "respond"???


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to PuddingMan5
said by PuddingMan5:

said by d_l:

It is my understanding that a switch from DSL to U-Verse is an irreversible change.

Irreversible technologically? Or just in the context of ATT marketing garbage?
Or do you make such distinctions?

As [User-d_l] says. AT&T is moving to ADSL2+, using IP-DSLAM with a PTM backhaul and no PPPoE authentication. Their intent is to remove the old ADSL hardware as soon as they can feasibly do it. Once the ADSL hardware is gone, ADSL will no longer be available.

said by d_l:

At&T is trying to eliminate basic ADSL and has announced that they can force users to change to U-Verse internet from DSL any time AT&T feels it is in their best interest.

"God looks down on His poor dumb beasts, then declares The Law!"

said by d_l:

I thought the price for equivalent speeds was the same for U-Verse or DSL?

Would it make any difference if Uverse started at a price point beyond your budget, but DSL did not???

According to this link:
»www.att.com/dsl/shop/plandetails···T.svl[1]

New customers get a price break for twelve months; but then the plan prices go up.

When I fired AT&T last year, we were paying $35 a month for 'at&t Yahoo! HSI Pro'. I see that is now $38 a month:

»www.att.com/dsl/shop/plandetails···T.svl[2]

The ADSL offerings here:
»www.att.com/dsl/shop/plansShared···ress_id=

Are promotional prices. After twelve moths they match the U-verse Internet prices:

»www.att.com/u-verse/explore/inte···ugFIW8WB

FWIW, the lowest price I ever paid for DSL service was the $17.95 a month SBC offered for "Pro" when the $19.95 a month "Express" promo ended.

Had I stayed with them, I'd be paying them $38 a month for a nominal 3M service (actual d/l speed: 2.5Mb/s), phone service not included. Instead I am paying Sonic.net, LLC $39.95 a month for 4.9Mb/s down, plus phone service. The total bill is half the old AT&T bill, with twice the d/l speed. And no data caps.

BTW, once I was unplugged from the AT&T DSLAM, they probably did not re-assign that port to a new ADSL customer.

Any/all info/help with this much appreciated. What options might I have for internet service?

I am not familiar with the St. Louis market. Unless you have a CLEC doing there what Sonic.net is doing here, your only option is cable.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:3
reply to PuddingMan
There is only one instance I have read of in which AT&T switched a user back to regular DSL. The Uverse installation was a complete failure in a new service area. All signals for voice, data, and television were unusable. Technicians tried repeatedly to get it to work. They watched it self destruct within a few hours of them getting barely usable signals to the customer. Engineers eventually admitted the installation was based on bad assumptions and should never have been approved. They told management the only fix that would work was to switch the customer back to regular DSL. The technicians had to go wire up the old equipment to serve the customer. Luckily they had not removed everything. Probably cost AT&T thousands of dollars just to fix one customer. Many others in the new service area probably had to be switched back also.

The only way is to have no telephone service due to Uverse failing continuously.

PuddingMan5

join:2005-09-07
reply to NormanS
>As [User-d_l] says. AT&T is moving to ADSL2+, using IP-DSLAM with a PTM backhaul and no PPPoE authentication. Their intent is to remove the old ADSL hardware as soon as they can feasibly do it. Once the ADSL hardware is gone, ADSL will no longer be available.

It won't work.

Traditional Garbage-Marketing Strategy:
Suck 'em in with promo offerings, etc. Then shove anything down their throats that they *think* they can get away with. The problem is that the ATT Garbage-Marketers are not fully in touch with their markets (the usual case).

Uverse is not fully viable either technologically or in context of price-competitiveness. There are too many DSL customers out there. Etc, etc.

>According to this link:
>»www.att.com/dsl/shop/plandetails···T.svl[1]
>
>New customers get a price break for twelve months; but then the plan prices go up.

I could find nothing to that effect on that URL.

>I am not familiar with the St. Louis market. Unless you have a CLEC doing there what Sonic.net is doing here, your only option is cable.

That appears to be the case. I wasn't at all sure.

P

PuddingMan5

join:2005-09-07
reply to davidhoffman
said by davidhoffman:

There is only one instance I have read of in which AT&T switched a user back to regular DSL. The Uverse installation was a complete failure in a new service area. All signals for voice, data, and television were unusable. Technicians tried repeatedly to get it to work. They watched it self destruct within a few hours of them getting barely usable signals to the customer. Engineers eventually admitted the installation was based on bad assumptions and should never have been approved. They told management the only fix that would work was to switch the customer back to regular DSL. The technicians had to go wire up the old equipment to serve the customer. Luckily they had not removed everything. Probably cost AT&T thousands of dollars just to fix one customer. Many others in the new service area probably had to be switched back also.

The only way is to have no telephone service due to Uverse failing continuously.

Thanks for that info. It may be helpful.

P


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to PuddingMan5
said by PuddingMan5:

Traditional Garbage-Marketing Strategy:
Suck 'em in with promo offerings, etc. Then shove anything down their throats that they *think* they can get away with. The problem is that the ATT Garbage-Marketers are not fully in touch with their markets (the usual case).

They certainly are not. They seem very confused by two competing demographics:

• Cheap at any speed (who would prefer traditional ADSL).
• Any price for the fastest speed (who would prefer FTTP).

They are trying to split the difference.

Uverse is not fully viable either technologically or in context of price-competitiveness. There are too many DSL customers out there. Etc, etc.

Technologically, U-verse is just DSL; either ADSL2+ (IP-DSLAM from a CO), or VDSL (IPTV + Internet from a VRAD). They are up against the limits of the physics of RF over copper pair.

As for price:

>According to this link:
>»www.att.com/dsl/shop/plandetails···T.svl[1]
>
>New customers get a price break for twelve months; but then the plan prices go up.

I could find nothing to that effect on that URL.

Maybe my comprehension of "Marketese" sucks, but:

Pro plan pricing.

Looks to me like that price is only locked for twelve months. I can assure you, they never offered Pro to me for $14.95 a month. I started on Pro at $17.95 a month, which was the lowest price I had seen for 3M/.5M service at the time. It was only guaranteed for twelve months. And right on the anniversary date, my price went up to $24.95 a month. By the time I left, about April, 2011, the bill for the linked plan stood at $35 a month. Nor were they amenable to giving me the $14.95 a month for the service.

>I am not familiar with the St. Louis market. Unless you have a CLEC doing there what Sonic.net is doing here, your only option is cable.

That appears to be the case. I wasn't at all sure.

:P

When AT&T first announced caps, I started looking around. Their original proposal, increment by tier, was shelved. A year later (or so; around February, 2011) they re-introduced caps:

• 150GB for traditional ADSL.
• 250GB for U-verse.

Some with the 150GB cap have already reported receiving bills with the "overage" fee.

With the implementation of their latest caps, I bit the bullet. I had my choice between a Comcast "Twofer" plan (CDV+Internet), and a local (to California) CLEC, Sonic.net, LLC.

Sonic.net was a hair cheaper than the Comcast "Twofer", and included some nifty technical advantages.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

PuddingMan5

join:2005-09-07
said by NormanS:

said by PuddingMan5:

Traditional Garbage-Marketing Strategy:
Suck 'em in with promo offerings, etc. Then shove anything down their throats that they *think* they can get away with. The problem is that the ATT Garbage-Marketers are not fully in touch with their markets (the usual case).

They certainly are not. They seem very confused by two competing demographics:

• Cheap at any speed (who would prefer traditional ADSL).
• Any price for the fastest speed (who would prefer FTTP).

They are trying to split the difference.

You mean they are trying to price in the middle so it would look "livable" to both segments?

That doesn't make sense from a variety of viewpoints. For one, it is NOT a two-tier discrete segment situation. From the super-cheapo's to the at-any-price critters defines a continuous distribution of folks with lots of interests and considerations not relating to price.

said by NormanS:

said by PuddingMan5:

Uverse is not fully viable either technologically or in context of price-competitiveness. There are too many DSL customers out there. Etc, etc.

Technologically, U-verse is just DSL; either ADSL2+ (IP-DSLAM from a CO), or VDSL (IPTV + Internet from a VRAD). They are up against the limits of the physics of RF over copper pair.

As for price:

>According to this link:
>»www.att.com/dsl/shop/plandetails···T.svl[1]
>
>New customers get a price break for twelve months; but then the plan prices go up.

I could find nothing to that effect on that URL.

Maybe my comprehension of "Marketese" sucks, but:
...
Looks to me like that price is only locked for twelve months. I can assure you, they never offered Pro to me for $14.95 a month. I started on Pro at $17.95 a month, which was the lowest price I had seen for 3M/.5M service at the time. It was only guaranteed for twelve months. And right on the anniversary date, my price went up to $24.95 a month. By the time I left, about April, 2011, the bill for the linked plan stood at $35 a month. Nor were they amenable to giving me the $14.95 a month for the service.

Hah! I originally thought that you meant that the DSL folk (that were forced onto Uverse) were supposed to get an initial price break, softening the blow of the higher rates.

Now I wonder why you reference the URL at all. As, near as I can tell, they are actually offering "Elite" $19.95/mo. for 12 mos. to absolutely no one. I doubt they sign a single user to those terms. Just proves they care nothing about having fielded a 100% deceptive advertisment.

said by NormanS:

>I am not familiar with the St. Louis market. Unless you have a CLEC doing there what Sonic.net is doing here, your only option is cable.

That appears to be the case. I wasn't at all sure.

:P

When AT&T first announced caps, I started looking around. Their original proposal, increment by tier, was shelved. A year later (or so; around February, 2011) they re-introduced caps:

• 150GB for traditional ADSL.
• 250GB for U-verse.

Some with the 150GB cap have already reported receiving bills with the "overage" fee.

With the implementation of their latest caps, I bit the bullet. I had my choice between a Comcast "Twofer" plan (CDV+Internet), and a local (to California) CLEC, Sonic.net, LLC.

Sonic.net was a hair cheaper than the Comcast "Twofer", and included some nifty technical advantages.

I am glad you were able to escape ATT's "clutches".

P


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by PuddingMan5:

You mean they are trying to price in the middle so it would look "livable" to both segments?

That doesn't make sense from a variety of viewpoints.

We are talking about AT&T. When have they ever done anything that made sense?

Hah! I originally thought that you meant that the DSL folk (that were forced onto Uverse) were supposed to get an initial price break, softening the blow of the higher rates.

Now I wonder why you reference the URL at all. As, near as I can tell, they are actually offering "Elite" $19.95/mo. for 12 mos. to absolutely no one.

I actually included several links, including two which listed, respectively, U-verse Internet prices and DSL prices.

This link shows U-verse Pro at $38 a month, and U-verse Elite at $43 a month:

»www.att.com/u-verse/explore/inte···ugFIW8WB

This link shows the regular DSL Elite price at $43 a month:

»www.att.com/dsl/shop/plandetails···T.svl[1]

This link shows the regular DSL Pro price at $38 a month:

»www.att.com/dsl/shop/plandetails···T.svl[2]

From where I sit $43 (U-verse Elite) and $43 (DSL Pro) are the same.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


d_l
Barsoom
Premium,MVM
join:2002-12-08
Reno, NV
kudos:7
said by NormanS:

From where I sit $43 (U-verse Elite) and $43 (DSL Pro) are the same.

I don't know what the price complaint is when they are advertised as equal in price. The DSL discounts that you could get by calling in for a contract extension have pretty much ended. At least you don't hear about them any more.

There are many reasons to complain about Uverse broadband service, but its price compared to DSL isn't one of them.
--
TCE Weather

PuddingMan5

join:2005-09-07
>Now I wonder why you reference the URL at all. As, near as I can tell, they are actually offering "Elite" $19.95/mo. for 12 mos. to absolutely >no one. I doubt they sign a single user to those terms. Just proves they care nothing about having fielded a 100% deceptive advertisment.

I don't hear anyone screaming "foul" about the above statement.

Yet y'all do comparisons based on their ads like what gets delivered is precisely what is advertised?

Beats the hull out of po' me!

S'long,
P


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by PuddingMan5:

I don't hear anyone screaming "foul" about the above statement.

Yet y'all do comparisons based on their ads like what gets delivered is precisely what is advertised?

"DSL Pro" (at&t Yahoo! HSI Pro) uses ADSL with PPPoE and an ATM backhaul. For your $38 a month your modem will synch at 3008/512, but your throughput takes a hit from the ATM encapsulation. At 15% your speed delivered is ~2512/425.

"U-verse Pro" uses ADSL2+ with no PPPoE and a PTM backhaul. Mostly no overhead. So for your $38 a month your modem will synch at 3008/512, and your delivered speed should be about 3000/500.

I can't empirically prove that. Well, I can prove that "DSL Pro" takes a hit from the ATM overhead. Shouldn't affect PTM circuits is my understanding.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


ff1324
Everybody Goes Home
Premium
join:2002-08-24
On Four Day
reply to d_l
said by d_l:

said by NormanS:

From where I sit $43 (U-verse Elite) and $43 (DSL Pro) are the same.

I don't know what the price complaint is when they are advertised as equal in price. The DSL discounts that you could get by calling in for a contract extension have pretty much ended. At least you don't hear about them any more.

There are many reasons to complain about Uverse broadband service, but its price compared to DSL isn't one of them.

FWIW, AT&T dropped my 6M DSL cost to $19.95/mo a few months ago with just a phone call. Their website didn't say anything about "new customers only" at the time.

The pricing their website shows on the ATT website for a St. Louis address gives me U-Verse pricing at $25/mo for 6M service plus $6/mo for modem rental. DSL pricing only shows $20/mo, but I can't view any further because it says DSL isn't available even though it was just disconnected last month. I switched to Charter.

So the pricing difference is significant here...$20/mo vs $31/mo, but you're still stuck with U-Verse. No more DSL.
--
My rants get raves.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by ff1324:

So the pricing difference is significant here...$20/mo vs $31/mo, but you're still stuck with U-Verse. No more DSL.

Only if the $20 is a standard price. Based on the links I visited, they advertise a "twelve month" incentive price, which is $x off the regular price. The only implication I see is an "incentive" which will disappear afte twelve months; and may be reinstated if the customer is proactive and calls in. They wouldn't restore my $17.95 per month ADSL Pro, or even go down to $19.95 (their "new customer incentive" at the time. They did go to $24.95 at that time.

But to compare promotional prices to standard prices is wishful thinking: No, Virginia, there is no Tooth Fairy.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


ff1324
Everybody Goes Home
Premium
join:2002-08-24
On Four Day
You're in a market 2000 miles away from us. It's possible, maybe, that there is a pricing difference between markets. All of the other posters were in markets other than STL.
Just trying to help out locally by typing in the currently advertised local fee structure, comparing apples to apples, and pointing out that calling in and requesting a cheaper rate does, in fact, work (or did 3 months ago).
--
My rants get raves.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by ff1324:

You're in a market 2000 miles away from us. It's possible, maybe, that there is a pricing difference between markets. All of the other posters were in markets other than STL.
Just trying to help out locally by typing in the currently advertised local fee structure, comparing apples to apples, and pointing out that calling in and requesting a cheaper rate does, in fact, work (or did 3 months ago).

They have been raising prices in legacy SBC regions, apparently to close what used to be a big gap between legacy SBC and legacy Bellsouth. And reported experience is not uniform on the efficacy of calling in for price breaks.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

sparks

join:2001-07-08
Little Rock, AR
reply to PuddingMan
well they were running ads here in May for $14.99 dsl service.
do they then tell them they got switched or ?