finortis
join:2001-11-30
| reply to orion940
Re: Users say no to AT&T
[Q]This is bs. will folks using routers and multiple PC's get more bandwidth? LOL.. LOL..
I see it is you give me bandwidth, it's up to me to do what I want with it.[/Q]
That's exactly how it works. If someone is working as a net admin on a corporate network and something goes wrong...how do you think it falls? There's a router in place, if there is a problem on one's own side of the router, it's their responsibility to fix. If the problem is on the other (IE the ISP's network)...guess who's responsible?
It isn't exactly like AT&T could actually prove whether one is using a NAT or not...or that there couldn't be ways to "deceive" the system if you will. If I was an AT&T customer and I chose to run one, I would. And if they asked, I'd just lie. Want to say otherwise? Well prove it MaBell, cya.... |
|
pcmadness
join:2001-09-29
| reply to TheGiant
I voted with my wallet: When our local town offered cable TV/broadband service when AT&T and Bellsouth would not even give a clue when broadband services would be available, AT&T was history. A laughable part of the "improving customer service" BS can be found in the Atlanta area, where AT&T provides "new, improved" phone number support and they are ALL busy form 8-5PM. I couldnt even reach a real person on the number for signing up as a new customer. The only way to cancel was to make a trip to the local ex-MediaOne office and do it in person. The poor folks in the office say they have never seen support so bad. The local cable company has real live people support who seem to be technically competent. I've even been able to discuss VPN issues with them. If our local folds, I'll go to DSL and a satelite dish, but never again to AT&T. They need to make money, but charging for additional PC's reminds me of the time when the cable companies wanted to charge extra for a VCR hookup. If they do come up with a NAT variant that allows them to block a home router, they may gain revenue in the short-term, but can lose marketshare. Unless they are the only game in town. The local and small providers need our support so we have real competition. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to nekote
Well I disagree about the conservation/efficiency argument. Conservation is a knee jerk reaction that can take a very short time while efficiency is a thought out proccess that takes longer. When the gas crisis happened in the early 70's, it was conservation followed by efficiency with the developement and sales of smaller, fuel efficient vehicles. Again with the recent price hikes last year of petroleum products, people started to conserve by not buying that SUV or not taking that long car trip.
Still, if tomorrow Comcast or any other broadband provider said they had to raise prices 30% or more to stay alive, you would see people drop their service enough to where they made the same amount of profit. |
|
nekote
join:2000-12-16
Hopkinton, MA
| reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy:
ATT is a company trying to hold onto old ways of doing business.
They will continue to buy each other out until we have bigger monopolies. Why compete? Just be a local monopoly and make money with bad service because you are the only game in town.
OPEC hates a single wor[d] : conservation.
Couldn't agree more about monopoly and buy outs - sure seems to drive prices higher without increasing value to the subscriber.
As to the word "conservation" - I greatly prefer the word efficiency. Look 'em up in the dictionary - pretty similar. Yet conservation has the connotation of doing without, of saving, of deferring, while efficiency has a sexy, spend it wisely, get a better bang for the buck flavor.
6 of one, a half dozen of the other, but a world of difference in perspective / mental attitude!
This has been a "think speak" advisory. 
--
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all other forms of government. - Winston Churchill |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to netgear
said by netgear:
Fact is, broadband and bandwidth companies are dropping like rocks... The smart ones, will do whatever is necessary to survive. It's not good news for those who've been getting their connections for loss-leader pricing.
Here are the choices - you can pay more for services, or you can watch as your provider goes under.
This isn't "rocket science," it's simple economics. The cheap ride is coming to an end.
Companies are dropping because they make bad business decisions. @Home died only cause Excite drove them down. ATT is a company trying to hold onto old ways of doing business. Another reason @Home died (including some sabotage by ATT board members.)
Look at the front page of this site. Verizon and SBC get hit with more fines for not opening up their networks. Again, we are dealing with MaBell.
Fact of the matter is no company wants to compete on quality. They will continue to buy each other out until we have bigger monopolies. Why compete? Just be a local monopoly and make money with bad service because you are the only game in town.
OPEC hates a single work more than any other in the English language and doesn;t want to hear it from Americans: conservation. They raised prices and slowed production to get more money. Then Russia came in the game and now oil is all over the place and prices are falling. Competition plane and simple.
Millions of dollars a month go in. What does it all get spent on besides executive bonuses? |
|
A CS Grad Student
@ucdavis.edu
| reply to TheGiant
Sure, how are they going to find out how many user are there on the other side of the line? Once they come up with a way to prove it, those "prove" will easily be patched by the NAT router software/hardware company. This is totally stupid.
Nice Try, but No Cigar. |
|
nekote
join:2000-12-16
Hopkinton, MA
| reply to netgear
said by netgear:
Fact is, broadband and bandwidth companies are dropping like rocks... The cheap ride is coming to an end.
Sorry, don't believe it.
But I agree we are going to find out.
I think the repeated buying / re-selling / merging of regional cable monopolies at ever higher $/subscriber is the real cause. What started out as $2,000 per subscriber is now $5,000+ per subscriber. And what's new? Higher bandwidth? More pay per view channels? More corporate debt to repay for the take overs at ever higher $/subscriber?
My case has been Continental Cable; MediaOne; ATT Broadband; and now the Comcast deal is pending. What improvements have resulted for the subscribers as a result of these repeated take overs? Higher monthly fees? ;(
My guess is the best we can hope for is that the last buyer that gets caught hold the bag / no more musical chairs when this tulip bulb bubble bursts forcing them into bankruptcy leads to a serious mark down of the physical plant to no more than the real physical plant replacement cost.
--
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all other forms of government. - Winston Churchill
[text was edited by author 2002-01-31 14:08:46] |
|
Vesperion
join:2002-01-31
Louisville, KY
| reply to netgear
said by netgear:
Fact is, broadband and bandwidth companies are dropping like rocks... The smart ones, will do whatever is necessary to survive. It's not good news for those who've been getting their connections for loss-leader pricing.
Here are the choices - you can pay more for services, or you can watch as your provider goes under.
This isn't "rocket science," it's simple economics. The cheap ride is coming to an end.
I disagree. the "cheap ride" will only end if we let it. @Home made good money as an ISP, they made very poor business decisions with regard to their "content business". Verizon and SBC keep shelling out fine money and they will finally get the message to play fair with the local ISPs.
Keep the faith with your local DSL ISP.
[text was edited by author 2002-01-31 02:32:01] |
|
orion940
Paralyzed By Confusion
Premium
join:2001-12-23
Windsor, CT
·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to TheGiant
This is bs. will folks using routers and multiple PC's get more bandwidth? LOL.. LOL..
I see it is you give me bandwidth, it's up to me to do what I want with it. #salt with additional charges for having routers, multiple PC's.
If they are teaming up with linksys, I'd be leery of putting on any new firmware updates.. put a hole in it so AT&T can probe??? |
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to TheGiant
Not so much with cable services that are just DHCP, but more for PPPoE DSL services, routers **REDUCE** tech support costs because the typical call is reboot modem, reinstall software. There is no issue of what OS or software you are using. If you can get to the config page of the router, it is either an issue with CPE, the line or routers. |
|
Corddogs
join:2001-10-13
Danville, CA
| reply to netgear
It's not the policy, it's the hypocrisy
said by netgear:
Fact is, broadband and bandwidth companies are dropping like rocks... The smart ones, will do whatever is necessary to survive. It's not good news for those who've been getting their connections for loss-leader pricing.
Here are the choices - you can pay more for services, or you can watch as your provider goes under.
This isn't "rocket science," it's simple economics. The cheap ride is coming to an end.
I agree they are in business to make a profit and I don't criticize them for that. But their public relations and news releases clearly are attempting to mislead, as others have pointed out, by pretending to talk about home networking and extending the service. They simply intend to charge more as more families trend toward 2nd and 3rd PCs and want them connected. Their AUP clearly targets these families.
The funny thing is, with Linux or Win2K or XP, you could have a single high-powered PC manage multiple sessions running on a number of smart terminals (thin clients) connected to that PC. This would not violate their AUP, and you'd simply be using the bandwidth you thought you were buying. Logically that's not much different from having multiple physical PCs with a NAT router in front, yet one is "legal" and the other isn't.
My advice to ATTBI is to be upfront -- clearly explain you intend to charge for each additional person simultaneously connected. |
|
JYoung
G L 2814
join:2000-06-13
Sherman Oaks, CA
| reply to jhboricua
Re: Users say no to AT&T
I show that quote and had to laugh also because I thought that it was pure BS.
22 Million households at $9.90 a month comes out to $217,800,000 extra gross income per month. Not bad for what is essentially a con job.
Problem is that there are some people who will fall for this though.
--
If you're wondering how he eats and breathes and other science facts, then repeat to yourself "it's just a show, I should really just relax" |
|
netgear
Restless Native
Premium
join:1999-12-20
Arlington, TX
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to TheGiant
Fact is, broadband and bandwidth companies are dropping like rocks... The smart ones, will do whatever is necessary to survive. It's not good news for those who've been getting their connections for loss-leader pricing.
Here are the choices - you can pay more for services, or you can watch as your provider goes under.
This isn't "rocket science," it's simple economics. The cheap ride is coming to an end. |
|
RoundTuit
join:2001-12-28
Columbia, MD
| reply to TheGiant
quote:
Any strategy that improves customer support and removes barriers to home networking deserves consideration, even at a cost of $5 or $10 more per month.
The above quote was lifted from the MacWorld article on AT&T. It seems to me that AT&T and other cable providers should first concentrate on learning how to support users with one IP address, and when they have that under their belts, they can move on to more complex issues. In the mean time, I will support my in-home network myself, thank you. |
|
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
| reply to TheGiant
quote:
AT&T Broadband's product director Scott Russell argues that consumers need good technical support and removing NAT is the only way to remote troubleshoot individual PCs on the LAN. "We don't support NAT boxes," Russell says. "Sometimes, we ask customers to disable the NAT box. If they do, we often find the problem, and find that problem is the NAT box."
Couldn't help but laugh at this. Bottom line they can't stop a NAT setup. However, I remember an article put in some time back where the cable companies are working on some sort of NAT variant that would allow them to see how many computers are being hooked and bill accordingly. That is their true goal. |
|
TheGiant
Next Year Is Here.
join:2001-03-28
Augusta, GA | This will be their end if it is true. |
|
