 brg
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
kudos:1 | Use current ATT Modem for Uverse & avoid New Modem charge? Question:
Assume one has/can get a perfectly fine ATT proprietary IPDSLAM adsl2+ modem (2210-02-1ATT). Assume it has the current firmware, and is now working/would work just fine with Uverse IPDSLAM service. Maybe the person who has it is a former (but recent) customer, or maybe the person who has it purchased it from a former (but recent) customer.
New customers signing up for Uverse Internet (only) are told they must purchase a $100 Uverse IPDSLAM modem. But, if one has/can get the modem, as above, they wouldn't need/wouldn't want the new $100 Uverse IPDSLAM modem.
Can the new modem be refused for new service? When the new customer's line is activated, could the new customer just plug in the above-mentioned 2210-02-1ATT they have/have obtained/have legitimately purchased? Could the unneeded $100 modem then be returned, unopened, for refund or credit? |
|
 ThinkdiffPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-07
Bronx, NY
kudos:6 | Yes, you can use your own modem as long as its up to date (in the case of the 2210-02-1ATT).
In my case, I was forced to purchase the NVG510, but I used the included return label to send it back. About 1.5 months later, a $100 credit showed up on my bill. YMMV.
--
University of Southern California - Fight On! |
|
brg
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
kudos:1 | Thank you. Exactly what I was wondering/hoping. Although yours is but a single datapoint, it is a =good= datapoint.  |
|
| reply to brg
As long as the modem purchased was legally sold to you, and not done in violation of AT&T service agreements, I don't see why it would be a problem. Although, this is AT&T we are talking about, logic is not necessarily applicable in the reality which they occupy. |
|
brg
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
kudos:1 | Yup: Totally legit/authentic/current modem.
The question really boils down to "can you avoid being required to purchase what would be an unnecessary modem/can you avoid having to pay that unnecessary $100."
@Thinkdiff's experience is option 2. While not as user friendly (and way more cumbersome for both parties) as this rare instance of BYOD/no charge, it is an acceptable alternative.
If it actually works that way... |
|
