dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3354
share rss forum feed


kehi66

@12.249.28.x

[Southeast] AT&T abandoning DSL for U-verse but not bringing U-verse

I wanted to see if anyone else has heard this or even dealt with this in the past. Several of the homeowners in my subdivivion have been denied DSL connection with AT&T due to "lack of ports". Reportedly U-verse is coming to the area but they will not be bringing it into our neighborhood due to it being "cost prohibitive". They have been told that when U-verse is up and running those folks with current DSL connections will be given a 30 day notice to obtain broadband service by other means before the connections are cut. If this is true this is really going to suck for homeowners in rural areas with no other current means of broadband connection.



timcuth
Braves Fan
Premium
join:2000-09-18
Pelham, AL

Yes, it's happening all over.

Tim



kehi66

@12.249.28.x

What are other options if cable is not available? I know about satellite but it is costly and usually poor service



SlowFITL

join:2012-02-01
Mobile, AL
Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
reply to kehi66

said by kehi66 :

I wanted to see if anyone else has heard this or even dealt with this in the past. Several of the homeowners in my subdivivion have been denied DSL connection with AT&T due to "lack of ports". Reportedly U-verse is coming to the area but they will not be bringing it into our neighborhood due to it being "cost prohibitive". They have been told that when U-verse is up and running those folks with current DSL connections will be given a 30 day notice to obtain broadband service by other means before the connections are cut. If this is true this is really going to suck for homeowners in rural areas with no other current means of broadband connection.

Yep, it's time for the government to show AT&T who's boss. Just wait until all these customers start getting disconnect notices and see what happens. My neighborhood will probably be an area they determine to be too cost prohibitive even though Bellsouth wired it with fiber to the curb (FITL-MX). My neighborhood only needs a minimal amount of investment in order to offer faster internet speeds.

sparks

join:2001-07-08
Little Rock, AR

1 recommendation

they own the goverment, who is going to show them what?



SlowFITL

join:2012-02-01
Mobile, AL
Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast

said by sparks:

they own the goverment, who is going to show them what?

Is that why the government blocked AT&T's acquisition of T Mobile? When push comes to shove the governmnet does step up every now and then.


rich02119

@sbcglobal.net
reply to kehi66

Talk with att. rep. on 1/20/13. She stated ATT will drop DSL and all will be u-verse in short time. So many problems with U -Verse, It sounds silly! ( GEE if its broke don't fix it-- DUMP IT!!) Might as well DSL sucks too!


TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath

U-Verse is only being pushed to those who can get U-Verse. Your area maybe seeing IPDSL or some other form of U-Verse being delivered soon. Some areas in Ohio are like this that we serve. We can not activate DSL users, but we have access to the ATT U-Verse network and after putting in the request for service U-Verse is available to our customers. It just takes a bit of waiting and pushing AT&T to get it up and running.

But as far as the gov't pushing out AT&T for any form of Internet service- that will never happen. Internet is not regulated and is an information service. No force build outs will ever happen and when it does you can bet that nothing happens past what they are at the time of the force build. AT&T will have the the gov't in the court to no end.



ThatGuy

@172.243.226.x

The death of net neutrality has brought about a lot of momentum to urge the FCC to consider classifying broadband as a telecommunications service. I'm in an AT&T area myself, and without anything like this, we'll likely never see DSL. Particularly since our phones are on subscriber loop carrier.

I'd look into contacting the FCC about this or signing whatever petitions happen to be out there.



Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1
reply to rich02119

said by rich02119 :

Talk with att. rep. on 1/20/13. She stated ATT will drop DSL and all will be u-verse in short time. So many problems with U -Verse, It sounds silly! ( GEE if its broke don't fix it-- DUMP IT!!) Might as well DSL sucks too!

Where are you? Yet top experience that myself. Though I do get calls about monthly trying to get me too. But nothing saying they will kill DSL, though the DSL service can not be changed in any way from what it is, and I assume they are doing no new DSL installs..
--


tel601

join:2005-08-11
Picayune, MS
reply to kehi66

IPDSL version of uverse will be the replacement for the current ATM adsl. I have already seen this going on in the field, when new sites have been placed. The new site has ipdsl service and coordinated orders are worked to change the customer's adsl service to ipdsl and to move the dial tone to the new equipment. Most sites will maintain the current adsl equipment as long as it is needed to serve exsisting customers. Biz office is pushing customer's away from atm adsl and towards IPDSL.


brainpattern

join:2014-01-28
US
reply to kehi66

I am also in an area where AT&T has "phased out" vanilla DSL service (Central WI). It used to be available in my neighborhood, but no longer is. Unfortunately U-Verse is also not available and there's no way of knowing when it will be, if ever. It sucks being forced onto a cellular/satellite connection with high prices and low caps. I'm sure AT&T sees cellular as a much better way of making money, though, with low caps and high overage fees.



WiFiguru
To infinity... and beyond
Premium
join:2005-06-21
Irvine, CA
Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
reply to SlowFITL

said by SlowFITL:

said by sparks:

they own the goverment, who is going to show them what?

Is that why the government blocked AT&T's acquisition of T Mobile? When push comes to shove the governmnet does step up every now and then.

That's AT&T Mobility (where they actually have competition.), not AT&T Wireline.

Bad analogy there.

If the government wanted to help us, maybe they would allow access like the British do with their copper (there are a ton of DSL/Phone providers using BT copper)


brg

join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
kudos:1
reply to kehi66

And, one concept that seems to eluded most of the posters above: Internet is not regulated in any way, shape or form the way POTS wireline telephone is. DSL or IPDSLAM/IPDSL or cable Internet service are not "Common Carrier" services. There is no requirement that AT&T provide it. The price is not regulated. Etc. So, the gubamint ain't ever gonna "show AT&T who's boss" cuz the gubamint has no authority to require AT&T to provision Internet services.



SlowFITL

join:2012-02-01
Mobile, AL
Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast

said by brg:

And, one concept that seems to eluded most of the posters above: Internet is not regulated in any way, shape or form the way POTS wireline telephone is. DSL or IPDSLAM/IPDSL or cable Internet service are not "Common Carrier" services. There is no requirement that AT&T provide it. The price is not regulated. Etc. So, the gubamint ain't ever gonna "show AT&T who's boss" cuz the gubamint has no authority to require AT&T to provision Internet services.

Common Carrier status is coming. Trust me. The government is getting involved.


brg

join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
kudos:1

Nope; don't trust you on this one. Certainly not with Wheeler as Chair.

I say this with a bit of experience, having been Chief Legal Officer/General Counsel/Corporate FCC Lobbyist for Ameritech and then SBC (Pre-ATT name-grab) responsible for the Ameritech Region DSL product and then SBC Internet nationwide...



timcuth
Braves Fan
Premium
join:2000-09-18
Pelham, AL
reply to kehi66

I am starting to think I will call the number they give in the TV ads and try to order Uverse, every day.

Tim



mixdup

join:2003-06-28
Calera, AL
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to kehi66

I find it hard to believe they are just ripping out ATM DSL equipment and not replacing it with anything. They may not want to spread old style DSL anymore, but I don't know why they'd want to just throw money away. They've already spent the money on the equipment, why give up a revenue stream on it?

I have family that live in slightly rural areas on the edge of the suburbs and currently can get old style ATM DSL (and one new house going up we're not sure if they'll get DSL or not). For most, whether it's "U-Verse" IPDSLAM or VDSL or old style ATM ADSL, it doesn't matter. They just need a broadband land line connection.



rdw13attne

@pacbell.net
reply to kehi66

Go to Verizon 4G internet @ $50. If I lose dsl, I will go.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to mixdup

said by mixdup:

I find it hard to believe they are just ripping out ATM DSL equipment and not replacing it with anything. They may not want to spread old style DSL anymore, but I don't know why they'd want to just throw money away. They've already spent the money on the equipment, why give up a revenue stream on it?

Could have something to do with the availability of equipment. I imagine they have a wide array of equipment in the field to deliver their old DSL service and due to the lack of upgrades, some of that equipment could be getting hard to come by.

Joe12345678

join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL
reply to rdw13attne

and pay $10 a gig after going over the low cap



David
I start new work on
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:101
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Midwest
·magicjack.com
·Google Voice
reply to silbaco

said by silbaco:

Could have something to do with the availability of equipment. I imagine they have a wide array of equipment in the field to deliver their old DSL service and due to the lack of upgrades, some of that equipment could be getting hard to come by.

That has quite a bit to do with it, just in my office we used to have a old alcatel 1000 dslam we all learned on when DSL was deployed. They came and took that guy out last week out of the training room. It's being scrapped for repair parts for other DSLAMs needing repairs/cards and such. Where they have deployed IPDSL those DSLAMs are being turned down and become spare parts for repairs.
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this.
Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!!


SlowFITL

join:2012-02-01
Mobile, AL
Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast

said by David:

said by silbaco:

Could have something to do with the availability of equipment. I imagine they have a wide array of equipment in the field to deliver their old DSL service and due to the lack of upgrades, some of that equipment could be getting hard to come by.

That has quite a bit to do with it, just in my office we used to have a old alcatel 1000 dslam we all learned on when DSL was deployed. They came and took that guy out last week out of the training room. It's being scrapped for repair parts for other DSLAMs needing repairs/cards and such. Where they have deployed IPDSL those DSLAMs are being turned down and become spare parts for repairs.

I also heard that the parts for the FITL systems are very hard to come by but AT&T just doesn't seem concerned with upgrading those systems. I wonder If they will just start shutting them down one by one and leave us without connectivity.


WiFiguru
To infinity... and beyond
Premium
join:2005-06-21
Irvine, CA
reply to kehi66

No kidding. Verizon Wireline has not and will not upgrade any of their older COs with ADSL2 equipment. The consumer really gets screwed here, especially where VZ is the only provider for broadband (that's right, no cellular or cable here either).



David
I start new work on
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:101
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Midwest
·magicjack.com
·Google Voice
reply to SlowFITL

said by SlowFITL:

I wonder If they will just start shutting them down one by one and leave us without connectivity.

Probably what they will do is turn down enough of them for repair parts and leave the others in place. As the others fail and they need more parts they will just turn down another one. I have heard of them doing that before, like a very slow upgrade.


timcuth
Braves Fan
Premium
join:2000-09-18
Pelham, AL
Reviews:
·Charter
·AT&T Southeast

said by David:

Probably what they will do is turn down enough of them for repair parts and leave the others in place. As the others fail and they need more parts they will just turn down another one. I have heard of them doing that before, like a very slow upgrade.

Sounds like a downgrade, to me. From something to nothing.

Tim
--
"Life is like this long line, except at the end there ain't no merry-go-round." - Arthur on The King of Queens
~ Project Hope ~


SlowFITL

join:2012-02-01
Mobile, AL
Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast

said by timcuth:

said by David:

Probably what they will do is turn down enough of them for repair parts and leave the others in place. As the others fail and they need more parts they will just turn down another one. I have heard of them doing that before, like a very slow upgrade.

Sounds like a downgrade, to me. From something to nothing.

Tim

Really! LOL I guess AT&T will try to convince they are upgrading us by disconnecting us. I've given up on AT&T and at this point waiting on Mediacom to expand. In fact I'm so fed up that I recently ported my wireless service just because I don't want them to have my money.

patryan9

join:2004-06-16
Bolton, CT
reply to brg

Maybe they will in fact call them common carriers...

»www.engadget.com/2014/02/12/fcc-···ity-fix/



mixdup

join:2003-06-28
Calera, AL

1 recommendation

making them common carriers does not necessarily mean there will be universal service requirements, though I think the FCC should address that just like they did for POTS



brg

join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
kudos:1
reply to patryan9

said by patryan9:

Maybe they will in fact call them common carriers...

»www.engadget.com/2014/02/12/fcc-···ity-fix/

Per that article (make it per that single paragraph): "The belief is that, in order to get around the loophole Verizon used to such good effect, the commission will simply reclassify broadband providers as common carriers, liable to the same regulation covering phone companies. "

Not very compelling, compared to decades of history of the FCC explicitly declaring the Internet to be exactly the opposite, and the semi-truck-loads of Industry material addressing the subject. And no reference supporting whose "belief" it is.

Who ever wrote "simply reclassify broadband providers as common carriers" simply doesn't understand. Nothing "simple" about doing that. At all.

said by mixdup:

making them common carriers does not necessarily mean there will be universal service requirements, though I think the FCC should address that just like they did for POTS

This is true. But, when the issue was addressed for POTS it was during the time of Alexander Graham Bell (literally!), and involved an industry that looked then completely different than the ISP industry looks now.

Time for some of you to study-up on Monopolies, and Antitrust, and rate-of-return regulation, and market power, and the historical origin of and support for the concept of Common Carrier status. I've already done so: that was my job, as a telecommunications and digital data attorney, for 25 years, starting during Divestiture and the break-up of AT&T and ending as VP General Counsel of SBC Internet just prior to the SBC acquisition of AT&T in 2005.