The Site > Old Forums > AT&T Southeast > [Availability] 10 years later, still no DSL from AT&T available.

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

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

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.

To quote the punch line from an old joke, "We're the phone company, we don't care, we don't have to."

reply to septcasey

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!

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

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.

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.

reply to Fighterpilot

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.

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.

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.

reply to septcasey

reply to northalabama

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.

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.

reply to northalabama