dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6150
share rss forum feed


septcasey

join:2006-09-07
United State

1 edit

[Availability] 10 years later, still no DSL from AT&T available.

I really don't know what to say other than I am very upset at AT&Ts disregard for the rural customer's requests and needs. It has been 10 years since I called AT&T for the first time asking about DSL availability. Yea, you read right. 10 YEARS! I was 15 years old when I first called them and now I am 25 and still getting the same message on their website that I have been getting every few months for 10 years now... "DSL is not yet available." I get the message crystal clear now AT&T. It is clear to me that the smaller neighborhoods on the map mean nothing to you despite the fact that most of us would sign up for your service on day 1 of service availability but I guess you don't want our money.

I could go on and on about how this is unfair but what good would it do? All I will say is a lot has happened in the last 10 years, but DSL expanded to my neighborhood is not something in that long time frame. I don't know if AT&T will ever expand their DSL or U-Verse to my neighborhood. If I had to guess, I will say they never will. I guess I will just have to move and honestly its a shame.


weaseled386

join:2008-04-13
Port Orange, FL
kudos:1

Re: [Availability] 10 years later, still no DSL from AT&T availa

Ok, so you're calling AT&T out for not expanding into your area. What about cable? Have you called them? Plan on calling them out too? Depending on where you live, the simple fact is you won't get the same services as someone who lives in busier areas.


septcasey

join:2006-09-07
United State
said by weaseled386:

Ok, so you're calling AT&T out for not expanding into your area. What about cable? Have you called them? Plan on calling them out too? Depending on where you live, the simple fact is you won't get the same services as someone who lives in busier areas.

AT&T kept my hopes up for a long time. When I called to check, they always told me to keep checking back because it could be available in a week or month. They would always tell me that deployment of the service happens all the time in new areas both large and rural and that I should not think that it would never be here. Cable internet is not available either and I have expressed my feelings to them as well. My point is I just wanted to express how I feel on this because after 10 YEARS AT&T still does not offer DSL here... BUT they offer home phone and great cell coverage here. 10 years is a very long time. Think of how much has changed and expanded in the last 10 years. We live in an age of rapid growing technology. There is no reason why affordable broadband should not be available to everyone in America.

And please don't suggest I look into their mobile data plans. I have no interest in 5GB/month data caps and frightening fees for going over them.


septcasey

join:2006-09-07
United State

1 edit
The point of this thread was to help make AT&T aware of the massive time frame of no expanded services to my neighborhood and the countless other rural areas who have been waiting too. I honestly think it would benefit AT&T to expanded to more rural areas because despite the fact many people may not live there, they will get many new permanent customers. The investment in deployment would pay for itself in due time and bring AT&T in to more profit. That is my opinion.

I may have sounded a little too upset but I feel like businesses like AT&T just overlook places and people like me when it is us who are waiting with our fingers crossed. We want DSL and I hope one day AT&T will realize that and expand their service even more.

***Edit***

Also just so you know AT&T is the only business that offers services in my area that also just so happens to sell DSL service, but does not offer it to me through availability. To my knowledge and research, there is no other business that sells DSL service local to me so that is why I am upset with AT&T. They are a business who offers some, but not all of their services here. I feel that after 10 years they could have done something to make this happen.

Timmn

join:2000-04-23
Tinley Park, IL
To quote the punch line from an old joke, "We're the phone company, we don't care, we don't have to."

simpsomatt

join:2006-08-21
Paris, KY
reply to septcasey
said by septcasey:

The point of this thread was to help make AT&T aware of the massive time frame of no expanded services to my neighborhood and the countless other rural areas who have been waiting too. I honestly think it would benefit AT&T to expanded to more rural areas because despite the fact many people may not live there, they will get many new permanent customers. The investment in deployment would pay for itself in due time and bring AT&T in to more profit. That is my opinion.

I also live in an ATT no-DSL zone. I recently spoke to an AT&T rep who told me frankly that AT&T would probably never provide DSL or u-verse to customers in my area.

Like you, I am very unhappy about this. But I really don't think AT&T is unaware of the benefits of expanding into rural areas. They have people whose job it is to figure these things out. They know what it costs to install a remote DSLAM and run fiber to it; I don't. They know how many potential customers could be reached with a new DSLAM; I don't. Based on experience, they probably have a good estimate how many potential customers would actually buy the service; I don't. They can crunch these numbers and see if it would be profitable; I can't.

While it really really really sucks not to have a decent broadband option, I really don't believe AT&T is just too stupid to realize how much money they could make from me and my neighbors. I think they do know, and they know it's not a good investment. I think the cable company in my region has figured that out too. It sucks, but that's life.


northalabama

join:2001-06-18
Huntsville, AL
Why does profit need to figure into every decision? Why not provide DSL service to rural areas because it is the right thing to do?

I'm tired of the profit motive being the deciding factor in every business decision a company makes. Corporations declare all the time how much they do for the community...well, how 'bout this!

Rammer
Premium
join:2001-03-06
reply to simpsomatt
you need too get every one in the neighborhood that wants it too call and get there names on the list

it will help as we did it and we did get dsl and now u verse
but it takes many people too give the effort

then you will see how many are serious about it coming


Fighterpilot

join:2000-04-20
Saint Louis, MO

1 recommendation

reply to northalabama
"Why not provide DSL service to rural areas because it is the right thing to do?"

Right thing for who to do? AT&T, the gubment, you?? If there's no money in it, it's not going to come. Go start your own company and offer DSL but first go read an economics book.


northalabama

join:2001-06-18
Huntsville, AL
I'll pick up a reading trainer for you. I didn't say only provide to rural areas, I recommended it as a way to give back to the community, as they are always so quick to advertise to consumers and stockholders. And, no, I don't live in a rural market, my city of residence was Fast Access DSL's first test market, due to the aerospace industry.


septcasey

join:2006-09-07
United State
reply to Fighterpilot
said by Fighterpilot:

"Why not provide DSL service to rural areas because it is the right thing to do?"

Right thing for who to do? AT&T, the gubment, you?? If there's no money in it, it's not going to come. Go start your own company and offer DSL but first go read an economics book.

Broadband internet creates jobs and more opportunities. Think about it for a second. If a rural area also offered DSL service, do you think more people would be willing to move there? The cities are over-crowded in America. Space is running out and more people are literally being forced to move for all the wrong reasons. If services like DSL were available to more rural places then a lot more people would move there. When is the last time you were on the road or on vacation and looked out and saw all of these open lands with a few houses here and there? Its everywhere! But these places don't have access to DSL. That is a big reason why these places are so deserted. Everyone wants to live in the cities because the cities have it all. I just feel a business as large as AT&T could knock 2 birds with 1 stone and bring more people to rural lands to expand economical growth, more opportunity and help with the over-crowding crisis. Hmm, this is more like a flock of birds with 1 stone.


northalabama

join:2001-06-18
Huntsville, AL
Agreed. As much as I despise government regulation, when the power grid was constructed, the only reason electric companies supplied power to rural areas was due to a government mandate.

I haven't seen many utility companies go out of business, but rest assured, they would have never built out the power grid to rural areas if the decision had been solely based on profitability.

If America is to remain competitive with the rest of the world, convenient access to competitive high speed internet is just as important as electricity.

dingo4
Premium
join:2009-02-08
kudos:1
reply to septcasey
If the company upgrades the facilities at their expense, what guarantee is there you and your neighbors won't switch to a reseller/unbundler leaving AT&T with the investment but little return? None, and that's why you'll not see it any time soon. Ain't gonna happen because there is no probable return on a substantial investment. Not unfair at all, the cost of the upgrades will be passed on to the rest of AT&T's customers if they get no return there. I am not interested in subsidizing anyone's facility upgrades. Many people switch Internet providers at the drop of a hat to save some $$$. Don't expect companies to be any more loyal than their customers are to them.
--

If people realized what was really important, there would be a shortage of fishing poles.


septcasey

join:2006-09-07
United State
said by dingo4:

If the company upgrades the facilities at their expense, what guarantee is there you and your neighbors won't switch to a reseller/unbundler leaving AT&T with the investment but little return? None, and that's why you'll not see it any time soon. Ain't gonna happen because there is no probable return on a substantial investment. Not unfair at all, the cost of the upgrades will be passed on to the rest of AT&T's customers if they get no return there. I am not interested in subsidizing anyone's facility upgrades. Many people switch Internet providers at the drop of a hat to save some $$$. Don't expect companies to be any more loyal than their customers are to them.

Ok this is just conjured complication to a simple cause. The idea of growth and opportunity to the vacant areas of America is the first thing that should be considered. First things first in DSL in these areas is that it does not exist. So first, you have to get it there. If AT&T is worried someone will come along and take their customers then that is just nonsense. Any new DSL providers will know that everyone in the area is with AT&T, which is an extremely large and well known business. Thinking that a smaller entity can so easily come along and take customers to their service is pessimistic in this situation.


weaseled386

join:2008-04-13
Port Orange, FL
kudos:1
reply to septcasey
I mentioned to OP how the sites are generally picked in a message. For the most part it is Engineering & Marketing, but soooo many factors go into play. Among the top are: number of potential subscribers and ease of install.

POTENTIAL: If you take a CEV (underground vault), CEC (half under, half above ground) or hut you have the potential for 0 to >6,000 lines. The newest copper based cabinets a tad above 2,000, and the older cabs can max out at 96 lines. The smallest I've seen? A Fiber Reach OC1 with a little SLC5 that only handles 24.

SIGNAL: The oldest DSLAM's I've worked with are the Alcatel 1000 MiniRAM's (I think 8 dsl lines max), and shortly thereafter the Alcatel 1000 ASAM (48 dsl lines max). Each of these needed 2 to 4 DS1 lines for their backhaul connection. This means you'd need a SoNET multiplexer onsite, which means you'll need a fiber ring buried (or hung in OP's case) around the city/neighborhood. Those two systems are still live, but haven't been installed since ~2001. The newer systems use DS3's, with Uverse 1G fiber.

POWER: You need commercial power to feed all of this. In a city this isn't an issue at all, but out in the sticks it can be a major pain. Batteries are installed in all, but the most odd situations. A minimum of 8 hours is aimed for, but a multitude of variables can shrink that in half OR allow the site to live for day(s).

What I'm getting it is cost and ease per install. The investment to walk into an area, engineer a plan, lay XYZ feet of fiber, install a cabinet, pay to have commercial power ran to it and lay new copper to the customers is big. As with Uverse, xDSL is also distance limited. If you have houses spread apart by acres and acres, pastures, vast grasslands you've cut into the customer potential; and additional cabinets will need to be installed. Of course, that >doubles the cost of DSL penetration.

ANSWER: Wireless. Wireless will most-likely be the answer to getting broadband out in the boonies, and areas where laying fiber is nearly impossible. (Regardless if due to various regulations, city ordinances, obsticles, etc.) Yes, the cell towers need fiber too, but it serves dual roles: cell phone service and broadband. This makes the bean counters, who run all business', happy.

If nothing else, now you have an idea of some of the factors that come into play. Hope it helps a little to open up the bigger picture.

dingo4
Premium
join:2009-02-08
kudos:1
reply to septcasey
said by septcasey:

said by dingo4:

If the company upgrades the facilities at their expense, what guarantee is there you and your neighbors won't switch to a reseller/unbundler leaving AT&T with the investment but little return? None, and that's why you'll not see it any time soon. Ain't gonna happen because there is no probable return on a substantial investment. Not unfair at all, the cost of the upgrades will be passed on to the rest of AT&T's customers if they get no return there. I am not interested in subsidizing anyone's facility upgrades. Many people switch Internet providers at the drop of a hat to save some $$$. Don't expect companies to be any more loyal than their customers are to them.

Ok this is just conjured complication to a simple cause. The idea of growth and opportunity to the vacant areas of America is the first thing that should be considered. First things first in DSL in these areas is that it does not exist. So first, you have to get it there. If AT&T is worried someone will come along and take their customers then that is just nonsense. Any new DSL providers will know that everyone in the area is with AT&T, which is an extremely large and well known business. Thinking that a smaller entity can so easily come along and take customers to their service is pessimistic in this situation.

I am sympathetic to your plight, but.....

It's not pessimistic, it's reality. It costs many thousands of dollars in plant and labor to upgrade facilities. Permits, contractors, engineers,techs, cable in some cases and equipment.
Resellers/Unbundlers move in and under cut price (because they have zero $$ invested in the facility upgrade and lease the loop at a cut rate, but AT&T still has to maintain it) and folks switch. I am not being pessimistic-you are being naive. It happens. I see it every day-every day.
Why not call some CLECS and see if they'll run some fiber out by you. Or you could pay to have the necessary upgrades done. No, you want the benifits of living in a rural area without the drawbacks.
Don't compare thge power grid to DSL. One is a necessity, one is not. AT&T has hundreds of thousands of customers like you who can not get DSL. When the market warrants an upgrade, it will get done. Until then, there's always satellite.
--

If people realized what was really important, there would be a shortage of fishing poles.


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

2 edits
reply to northalabama
said by northalabama:

And, no, I don't live in a rural market, my city of residence was Fast Access DSL's first test market, due to the aerospace industry.

Key West also had it (not first but) very early like 1999, likely it had nothing to do with the Navy or Coast Guard, but just the very high population density in small area.

In fact it was several years until the rest of the Keys did.
Didn't hurt that cabled didn't get it done for several more years.

The is just the economics of expansion. Fist are the lowest cost highest return....slowly spreading out. But it will never get to places where install and maint costs will never be covered by potential subscribers.

To those who say they should do it out of the goodness of their hearts.... well I asked you, would you be happy doing your job with 25% of your time unpaid??
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West)


northalabama

join:2001-06-18
Huntsville, AL
There are parts of our city that still are not built out for DSL, and we have two good cable competitors that keep cable internet available as an option, but the prices are not as good as they could be.

I grew up in a small town, and know what it's like to do without. Satellite internet is another option, but it's so expensive monthly, even as the installation has become more competitive.

Reliable, fast, and reasonably priced internet should be available to all. septcasey raised many good points.

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
reply to septcasey
You should contact the FCC as well.

Universal availability of broadband is a key interest of theirs.

Also, FCC have recently announced plans to subsidize this to a greater extent, using fees collected through the Universal Service Fund (USF) and specifically the Universal Service Program for High Cost Areas.

simpsomatt

join:2006-08-21
Paris, KY
reply to northalabama
said by northalabama:

Reliable, fast, and reasonably priced internet should be available to all.

Using whose definition of "Reliable, fast, and reasonably priced"?

As PX Eliezer points out, the FCC is taking steps to improve the availability of broadband service that comes close to meeting a reasonable definition of those qualities. One thing that gets ignored is quantity. It seems likely that any broadband service that gets extended to currently unserved areas will be wireless. With LTE being rolled out in the near future, the service will probably be sufficient. But it seems likely that it will be subject to the same kind of caps as existing 3G plans, 5 or 10 GB/month. That's a little inconvenient. I guess if you consider the cost per GB compared to DSL/cable/fiber/whatever, it may not be reasonably priced.


northalabama

join:2001-06-18
Huntsville, AL
The comments were for DSL, not wireless, they are different services. And if the future is only wireless, heaven help us all. If you think phone companies complain about the cost of hard wire services, just listen to them talk about the expense of wireless for a little while! Aren't there still issues about cell phone coverage, too???

And who's definition of "reliable, fast, and reasonably priced"? How 'bout this little thing called an average...

simpsomatt

join:2006-08-21
Paris, KY
I'm aware that DSL and wireless are different services. My point was that, while the FCC is pushing "universal broadband", they're not pushing any specific way of delivering the service. And "mobile broadband" is getting a lot more hype than DSL. So areas that don't currently have any form of hardwired broadband service are not likely to get anything better than a wireless solution. There are still issues about cell phone coverage in some areas, but IMO you're going to see cell phone coverage improved in the weak areas as a result of the universal broadband push. As far as the cost, companies are covering areas with 3G that they don't reach with wires, so the cost must be OK with them. Maybe that's just because they can get away with charging $60/month for 5 GB. It may suck, but as far as I can see, that's the future for a lot of us in the boonies.

WhatNow
Premium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
If you are not served by cable or DSL now then you will see service from broadband before you will from DSL. The speeds will be much faster then DSL. The only problem is the caps. Who knows they may offer a point to point connection with an antenna at your home which cuts out the expense and limitations or the wire connection.

If you don't have internet now why turn down wireless broadband.


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

The comments were for DSL, not wireless, they are different services. And if the future is only wireless, heaven help us all. If you think phone companies complain about the cost of hard wire services, just listen to them talk about the expense of wireless for a little while! Aren't there still issues about cell phone coverage, too???

Wireless internet and cell data are two completely different things.

There are many dedicated wireless internet companies out in rural areas that have nothing to do with any cell carriers.
--



northalabama

join:2001-06-18
Huntsville, AL
True statement. Can you name the ones that are not affiliated with telcos or wireless carriers?

I couldn't. So, here they are, the top 7 in the US, listed with and based on coverage (number of access points):

1. El Segundo, CA, Infonet Services Company, 12,000
2. Chicago, IL, Hyatt International, 11,000
3. Bellevue, WA, T-Mobile, 4,200
4. Waltham, MA, Airpath, 3,504
5. Austin, TX, Wayport (now at&t), 3,000
6. San Antonio, TX, SBC Freedom Link (also at&t), 2,300
7. New Plymouth, ID, Truckstop.net, 429

Three of the top seven are run by telcos. Now look at the coverage, since that's the topic of conversation. The top two have international coverage, so that accounts for their having an overwhelming majority of access points. See how the number drops from the top two to number three? So, who's on top domestically? at&t and T-Mobile.

The others may be viable options in a few years, but this discussion was based to today's coverage in rural areas, and how to provide service to the areas currently without access. I hope non telco related wi-fi carriers do better in providing service to rural areas, but it doesn't seem they are any more interested.
--
The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you. - David Foster Wallace


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

4 edits
The point really was meant to be (never investigated the ownerships) they are direct internet not 3 or 4g adjuncts to cell phone service most with major limitations.

Those might be the top ten, but note they are not in rural areas.
In fact I am amazed there would be those numbers in places it is totally unnecessary.

WiFi is not about numbers but serving people as efficiently and lower cost than widely spread wire infrastructure would allow.

There are hundreds of others, that are and while might get their connection from telco's are independently owned. Even heard of a few that are actually COOP's or municipally run.

The limitation to WiFi is topography. Works very efficiently in flat areas like Kansas where it might be a mile neighbor to next, but very problematic in hill/mt areas like rural NE... requiring many more towers and infrastructure, and where sat is still best/only option if you have the line of sight and mt not in the way.

And WiFi is still a limited SHARED resource.... while providing casual broadband speed and much lower latency than sat, it still can't be realistically expected to support every user video streaming or downloading non stop... unless the users want to pay the price of the added capacity and infrastructure.
--



septcasey

join:2006-09-07
United State
reply to simpsomatt
said by simpsomatt:

said by northalabama:

Reliable, fast, and reasonably priced internet should be available to all.

Using whose definition of "Reliable, fast, and reasonably priced"?

I don't know. How about the people who live paycheck to paycheck? But we are just peasants in the eyes of our government, so it feels like.

countscabula

join:2010-03-09
reply to weaseled386
this is the the reality. we have been fighting for DSL in rural areas for years. In some cases the solution didnt cost that much and they finally did provide DSL and customers subscribed so fast we had to turn up additional lines. I saw a wireless 4g lte modem in Texas that tested 54Mb so I am guessing they are thinking that will be cheaper in the future. Of course 54Mb on a network that has few customers on it so its not a fair comparison to older architectures like wireline DSL. There are a lot of costs involved in wireline DSL to rural areas for sure. I heard in one town we paid $5000 to pay for right of way across three people's yards so they abandoned the project temporarily so you the hurdles are there. Imagine $100,000 to get 100 lines of DSL to a remote RT and what will the "take rate" be? OK let's say 75% so 75 people paying $30 a month minus the initial dispatches per house $100 per truck roll minimum. at&t has computer models that dictate where capital money is spent. it sucks when I have to tell MY customers this but... you might break even after 5 years maybe? check my math, I'm just trying to guess what they are thinking on this.

countscabula

join:2010-03-09
and don't forget the DSL will not reach as far as the voice does. if there is a load coil between you and the RT it has to be removed to allow DSL to pass so there's more costs to do cable work. so the "take rate" also involves a radius of homes within range of the DSLAM. This is important in areas where there are 50 acre farms

cubguy

join:2010-07-09
Greenwood Springs, MS
Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast

2 edits
Click for full size
From NE Mississippi: I can remember when dial-up was all we had here. We are 13 or so road miles from the city limits in a decidedly rural area of the county. We are 3.5 road miles from the DSLAM/RT, so I guess the fact that we can get 1.5M DSL is a blessing. We are near the end of the NXX copper line and that's another factor with distance. There were last upgrades out here in September according to AT&T but I didn't really see any change in the service or latency. If you look at the state broadband availability maps and trace it to my neighborhood you see that AT&T services a large part of the central county from our DSLAM/RT. There is a new DSLAM/RT that was installed about 2.5 miles from us in the other direction but not in our NXX. It has been there over a year and my cousin who lives a few houses away tells me that DSL is STILL not available there. You would think there would be a way to interconnect these two and improve service. I can remember last year when they came thru and laid down all this new fiber (big orange tubed cabling?) all over the area, but still no service improvements. I think it has alot to do with AT&T wanting to keep the money and not redistribute it into their infrastructure. The feeder lines are obviously in the area as I think they would be needed for the new box as well as a current AT&T cellular location and the NWS radar site located in a DSL NOT AVAIL area. (There is a aggregation point nearby but no DSL box which leaves the entire east county without broadband)

Anyone have any ideas. In a world where the FCC says the average DSL speed is near 4M, it would be nice to be nearer to that than at half to 1/3 that?

I still find it humorous that in 2012 when Google or another site tries to GeoTag me it thinks I am in the university town 55 miles away or even worse, the state capital some 160 miles away.