Details on Rumored New AT&T U-Verse Speeds > Such high prices!

reply to Moropo

Re: Such high prices!

Arguably... I pay the same price for 6M/768Kb ADSL from AT&T as that 18M/1.5M UVerse package. I'd gladly take an upgrade if they bothered to offer it to me.

Odds are Comcast will be servicing my neighborhood here sooner than AT&T even considers opening up more capacity (no new homes can even get ADSL in our subdivision) let alone upgrading us to UVerse.

reply to banditws6
And yet, people continue to bash on the muni-broadband. Probably because they are mad that for $70/month I can get 100/100. AT&T has U-verse availble here, but you can imagine the uptake rate is pretty low.
--
RIP Dad (10-28-1955 to 4-10-2010)

reply to banditws6

reply to elray
If they're using our tax money then it's probably the best use of tax money since the government brought electricity to us. They compete for security (police, military), roads, schools, etc. Why not internet?

reply to elray
Few bash. Really it is only those that are have more to lose because their interest lies with the corporations and little to do with spending tax money. Those same people are perfectly fine with using our tax money to prop up the profits of those very same companies they are trying to protect.

And I would agree with the other poster. If our government decided to roll out fiber to every home and business it would be the best use of $500 billion dollars this nation has spent in a century.

reply to biochemistry
I think a lot of people forget about the rural electrification act. Which strangely enough happened because of the same reason rural areas lack good broadband. the private power companies stated that rural areas were not profitable.

It should be noted that projects like Hoover Dam are at least partially linked to such bills, And they have repaid themselves.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

reply to biochemistry

reply to djrobx
That is an admitted concern, but the most data I've ever consumed (both up and downstream combined) in a month over the last two years is still just half of what U-Verse's stated cap is so I'm not that worried about it.

What worries me is the technology behind U-Verse and, based on user feedback, how I'm less likely to reach the speeds of the tier I'm paying for than I would be on cable. That's what's kept me from trying U-Verse until now; their top tier at my address is only 3/.5 faster than my TWC standard package, and I might lock myself into a contract only to realize less speed than I see today.
--
"The counsel of fools is all the more dangerous the more of them there are." -Ólafr Höskuldsson

reply to Kearnstd
You do realize that private companies can not enforce laws right? Hence the reasons that the gov't enforces the law.

And no the gov't should NOT be in business to compete. If those areas that can't get U-Verse of Fiber or any services that they think they need- they need to start their own Co-Op and build out themselves. How do you think many rural areas got phone services that AT&T didn't want to wire back then? Co-ops are still alive and doing well and many of them have FTTH and had it well before VZ and Google decided to deploy. I can give you links to many of them. Hell, many actually provide quality support as well and are local companies, compared to Google

reply to Skippy25
waste of money and I'm not tied to any corp that offers broadband. If these people wanted faster and cheaper prices, then yes, they should pay for it and form a co-op. How do you think areas got things back when. They didn't want for the gov't to do it for them and ask/demand regulation; they actually stood on their own two feet and did it themselves. And this day many of those areas are far better off in terms of communications than NYC or other metro areas.

reply to djrobx
They may not say that, their their TOS says that have an invisible cap. If you use too much yes they can enforce it.

Also as far as U-Verse goes, only certain customers see the 250gig cap. And that for the most part is residential. Business customers do not see that, nor are they charged a modem rental fee.

reply to keithps
It depends on the implementation. In Tacoma, WA, they have Click!, which can't compete with Comcast, and here is Groton, CT, we used to have muni broadband until they sold it to a private investment firm. They do have an 860mhz HFC plant, however, compared to Comcast's 860mhz, so once they kill analog, they will either dominate or light enough of a fire under Comcast's butt to get them out of neutral and into plant upgrade mode.

Other systems, like FTTH, are incredible. What is definitely true is that no laws should be made preventing municipalities from building out. Competition can't hurt, and even if my local formerly muni-broadband network isn't very good, I can at least use it to threaten Comcast with after my 2-year deal is up...

reply to elray

reply to elray
if corporations ran the schools most of the country would have no education because it would not be freely available.

Then again that is what the 1% want.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

reply to TBusiness
So what do you do when those same corporations who say an area is not profitable lobby members of congress to stop localities from doing just what you're saying?
Yeah, you got nothing for that.

reply to Kearnstd

reply to elray
Sadly, not all of us have a choice. I live in a rural area and AT&T is it for ISP choices. I have 2x 18/1 Uverse connections to my house, load balanced through pfsense so everyone gets an even share, but still, I'd love to have a choice that isn't AT&T. =)

Speedtest: »www.speedtest.net/result/2593001042.png