 | | AT&T Execs are out of touch. I was recently at an event where an AT&T VP was speaking. During the Q&A he was asked about how they looked at Comcast as a threat. His response was that Comcast was absolutely not a threat because Comcast does not have a wireless network. | |
|
 |  | | Re: AT&T Execs are out of touch. said by battleop:I was recently at an event where an AT&T VP was speaking. During the Q&A he was asked about how they looked at Comcast as a threat. His response was that Comcast was absolutely not a threat because Comcast does not have a wireless network. AT&T is a wireless company - i keep expecting them to spin the wireline stuff into a "waiting to die while milking the cash" company. | |
|
 |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: AT&T Execs are out of touch. Maybe they'll sell all their wireline assets to CenturyLink somewhere around 2015. If CenLink doesn't buy Sprint first anyway.
If they do buy Sprint then AT&T will backpedal since they will be competing with CL+Sprint and VZ+VZW on the grand stage of things. But if the spinoff does happen then it'll be similar to what Sprint did with the whole Embarq spinoff. Interesting to watch... | |
|
 |  MoracCat god join:2001-08-30 Riverside, NJ kudos:1 Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by battleop:I was recently at an event where an AT&T VP was speaking. During the Q&A he was asked about how they looked at Comcast as a threat. His response was that Comcast was absolutely not a threat because Comcast does not have a wireless network. Actually they do, granted they use Clearwire's and Sprint's networks, but still. -- The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. | |
|
 |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: AT&T Execs are out of touch. Comcast's wireless side is just a way for them to say that they do quadruple play, competing with Verizon and AT&T. They aren't a wireless company, just like AT&T apparently isn't a DSL company. Low caps and high monthly fees mean that wireless is profitable to them, more so than DSL apparently. | |
|
 |  |  | | They don't own and operate the wireless network like AT&T does theirs. We may see a Sprint / Clearwire merger in the future and then we may see Centurylink or Comcast try and buy that company. | |
|
 |  SuntopPremium join:2000-03-23 Choteau, MT Reviews:
·3Rivers Communic..
| Yeah smoke another one Randall. He's not stoned enough. WTH does a wireless network have to do with DSL? and WTH does that have to do with seeing Comcast as a threat? My gosh they must be on some good drugs. Because apparently they think that providing 3G should be limited. Unlike my provider who is GSM and does not have 3G yet and has truly unlimited internet. They have a 5gb softcap but it does not charge you for a bit over that and they charge 50 a month. It is possible to go over that quota and if you do they do not care one bit.
So begs the question, WTF is with the caps? If my provider has no limit why does AT&T (it is just a money grab if you ask me!)
Some lucky guy In Rural Montana who has FREE unlimited talk/text and internet cell phone service. (Those in Montana call Cellular One and ask if their address qualifies for the 30 for 30 plan.) -- The following statement is true... The preceding statement was false!!--George Carlin | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: AT&T Execs are out of touch. As can be seen in Europe as the price of bandwidth keeps on falling wireless may end up as free wi-fi hotspots everywhere. This would put a crimp in At&T at the very least. Anyone carrying a laptop would be hooked up to the internet at no cost. This is what i see in the future so AT&T is probably in big, big trouble in the future. | |
|
 Jim_in_VA join:2004-07-11 Cobbs Creek, VA kudos:4 | Good catch Karl ... | |
|
 | | Well... Thanks for the clarification on that, so your rolling out fiber when? NM your AT&T. | |
|
 etaadmin join:2002-01-17 Dallas, TX kudos:1 | He is so dumb... that he hasn't realized that VDSL/2/2+ is also obsolete. | |
|
 | | All wires obsolete? Perhaps he considers all wires obsolete. With all the spectrum he is getting from the Alltel merger, he is going 'all in' on wireless. | |
|
 |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: All wires obsolete? Not Alltel. T-Mobile. Though Alltel's forced divestitures from VZW helped AT&T get some rural coverage in some areas. | |
|
 |
 |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: RF over fiber saved the day for Cable! Bonded VDSL2 gives telcos a fighting chance, but they'll have to re-architect their networks so that nodes are much closer to subscribers, kinda like cable's HFC has done for ages. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: RF over fiber saved the day for Cable! Wrong the cost is exhorbitant and out of the question. Dsl or vdsl will never ever be able to complete with cable internet in the future. Even in a small city with a large population the cost is too high. | |
|
 |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: RF over fiber saved the day for Cable! Then why does it work in Japan? | |
|
 | | Maybe a strategy here I wonder if there's a bit of strategy going on here. Even if Stephenson really believes this, and I have no doubt he does, he's in a bind because investors don't think so. Expanding U-verse is expensive, but the investors don't want to invest in capex because they want their profits now. Stephenson may be trying to get them used to the idea that the fiber has got to be laid, if not now, then soon. | |
|
 |  | | Re: Maybe a strategy here Yes we do want CapEx its the quick buck holders that cry when AT&T spends a penny on anything, as that may impact them getting a .44918671616 dividend vs a 44918671617 one. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Maybe a strategy here Unfortunately, it's the short-term traders who are driving much of the market right now. Look what happens every time a company doesn't report increasing profits. Their stocks take a hit, never mind the fact that we're in a down economy, so, naturally, profits will be down. Sure, the economy will bounce back and profits will improve, but these guys want their return NOW, the long-term health of the company be damned. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Maybe a strategy here And it pisses people like me who bought into companies because they overall have a good opinion of them, hell I lucked out getting in on Ford at 2 bucks and changes a share, and look where it is now. And yet I hold it still. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | | Re: Maybe a strategy here And it also pisses me off because it prevents needed infrastructure upgrades, as well as R&D on radically new products. These things cost money but don't necessarily pay off in the short term. But they're very necessary if your company is going to stay competitive. But the day traders don't care about any point past the moment they unload a particular stock. All they want is a quick stock price jump, and reinvesting profits doesn't do that.
I swear, if the current investor mindset had been in effect years ago, organizations like Bell Labs and XEROX PARC would have never existed. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Maybe a strategy here Exactly, They only care about the stock long enought for it to go up a 1/10th point, only to sell it and then its AT&TwHO? | |
|
 | | AT&T U-verse obsolete already
Well that didn't last long. AT&Trash's half-assed band-aid to their ancient copper network is already ineffective. With Time Warner Cable now fully on board the DOCSIS 3.0 bandwagon, is there any cable ISP left out there competing with AT&T that doesn't stomp all over AT&T U-verse's top speeds of 24/3 Mbps? They don't even have the unlimited usage going for them anymore as the sole competitive edge over legendary capped provider Comcast (better known as "Comcap"). They're more just as or even more expensive than cable whilst providing slower speeds with bandwidth limits and atrocious HDTV picture quality. I don't know why anyone still subscribes to this crappy provider. | |
|
 |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: AT&T U-verse obsolete already 'cuz people like U-Verse IPTV better than crappy cableco STBs? Or maybe 'cuz AT&T's lower-end DSL over U-Verse packages are enough for the average Joe and are less expensive than low-end cable packages?
Otherwise, no reason. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: AT&T U-verse obsolete already CableCARD tuners are way better than U-verse's set-top box.
AT&T's lower-end packages are not cheaper than the cable company's low-end packages either. | |
|
 |  |  Zoder join:2002-04-16 Miami, FL | Comcast plans to deploy IPTV too. The Spectrum box and guide come out next year. What then for AT&T? | |
|
 |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: AT&T U-verse obsolete already Then AT&T has to hope that TWC and SUddenlink, its other large competitors,won't follow. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  etaadmin join:2002-01-17 Dallas, TX kudos:1 | Re: AT&T U-verse obsolete already said by iansltx:Then AT&T has to hope that TWC and SUddenlink, its other large competitors,won't follow. Actually TWC has IPTV in the front burner... too bad. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: AT&T U-verse obsolete already SDV I believe. IPTV I'll believe when I see.
IPTV over coax isn't a huge deal anyway...digital cable does well at transmitting lots of data in one direction to a large number of subscribers, kinda like DBS TV. The issue is integrating TV content and other stuff (OTT, apps, whatever) into an attractive package froma UI perspective that "just works." IPTV vendors have started from scratch on their systems so that's why their stuff looks better than tired old CATV STB firmware, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  etaadmin join:2002-01-17 Dallas, TX kudos:1 | Re: AT&T U-verse obsolete already said by iansltx:SDV I believe. IPTV I'll believe when I see. By the time you'll see it it being deployed it will be too late for att... wait it is already too late for att. Just look at the advances that DOCSIS3.0 have made in the last 2-3 years. When that crappy uverse thing came out in 2006 DOCSIS3.0 was not even conceived and look where it is now.
Ignore cable at your own risk.
»hd.engadget.com/2011/05/30/new-d···streami/
»www.engadget.com/photos/samsung-···#3763222 | |
|
 |  Suit Up join:2003-07-21 Los Angeles, CA Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
| I live in a AT&T and TimeWarner area. We get U-Verse in this area, but not DOCSIS 3.0. So the speeds we can get from each service are about the same. I did check the pricing once to see what U-Verse would cost (before AT&T implemented a cap), and for the same level of service as we're getting with TimeWarner it was a little cheaper. But I stayed with TimeWarner because when I had last been on AT&T the DSL was always going up and down and they could never fix it. Now with the cap, I'll definitely never switch. Unless they were to run fiber down my street right to my house and TimeWarner implemented the same size cap. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: AT&T U-verse obsolete already It looks cheaper... at first. This is due to a few promos AT&T likes to trick you into like $25 off TV service for the first 6 months.
After those 6 months are up though... AT&T costs more. Bill shot up to $160 a month for just the 24/3 Mbps Internet package and U-200 TV package together after all taxes and fees were added in.
Meanwhile, Time Warner's comparable TV offerings combined with 30/5 Mbps Internet (faster AND currently uncapped!) result in a cost of $137 per month (and that's with no $25 off 6 months gimmick) for the service and one DVR. And if you kill off that one DVR and get a CableCARD it drops down to $125 a month. | |
|
 Reviews:
·Millenicom
| Hypocrisy, much? Randall must have enough nerve to call his own technology obsolete when said "obsolete" technology is still being used by a good chunk of his company's customers for Internet usage. Talk about a caring CEO of his company's own technology that he doesn't bother upgrading everywhere AT&T has a foothold. | |
|
 Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| Verizon knew in 1996 Still, AT&T was just licking it's wounds from the local & long distance wars of the 90's.. never expecting to get back into wireline. That doesn't excuse the path taken from 1997 - 2011 which evolved from about 70-85% VDSL overlay and 15% FTTP in so-called "GREEN FIELDS"... which is code for new residential high value housing. Nevertheless, VDSL is not a competitive product to docsis 3 and the cable companies know it. That gave them breathing room to tinker with an defective product (docsis 3) to get the upstream channels working. Now that they have, they're still cautious on putting high bandwidth in the upstream for fear of cannibalizing video even further. Cable companies fear their own customers more than they fear AT&T as a competitor.
AT&T and Comcast are just not committed to real competition and they have the *MOST* wireline customers in the country. When the tmobile acquisition is compete AT&T will have the majority of wireless customers too. Verizon and everyone else combined would still make up less customers than AT&T wireless with Tmobile.
The goalposts of the game have evolved in mergers and acquisitions. Lofty goals and gobbly speak about better value for the customer was *REQUIRED* to sell mergers to the public so that they wouldn't squawk. Today that's not the case. AT&T's merger speaks volumes about the big get bigger and screw the customer with higher prices in the process on justifiable investment. "We're gouging you to build fund a better network". It goes nicely with that "Rethink Possible" slogan. Businesses think they can do whatever they want and there are no negative consequences for the company.
The big oil companies, banks and wall street have opened this Pandora's box and YOU Joe customer will end up paying $$ MORE $$ for their failure AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN! AT&T's wireline deployment leaves Comcast with a MONOPOLY in at least 25% of their footprint. No, not a complete duopoly.. a MONOPOLY. AT&T's current policy is to NEVER upgrade 55% of their wireline business. Who knows how long NEVER will last.. | |
|
 |  rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO | Re: Verizon knew in 1996 RE: AT&T licking its wounds... I thought SBC bought AT&T. After, they changed their name to AT&T because the brand had national appeal.
Regarding cable being cautious on deploying faster upstream speeds, why do you think that they think it will cannibalize video? | |
|
 | | he's right, wireless is the future dsl is dead and long live wireless.
I have to wonder if there will be a time when AT&T splits their wired and wireless business. They obviously don't have the stomach to invest in their "obsolete" landline business. I'm not even sure why they own it in that case....
Once they have T-mobile locked up, i think it would become even more obvious to ditch the landline business. | |
|
 |  Zoder join:2002-04-16 Miami, FL | Re: he's right, wireless is the future Only if you want a future of low caps and high overages. A dream to Mr Stephenson but a nightmare to anyone who actually uses the internet at home. | |
|
 |  | | Wireless and wireline ARE split. ATT Mobility, LLC and ATT, Inc. Those are TWO different companies. The only thing they share is a brand and a trading symbol.
VZW and VZ are even more separate than T though. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: he's right, wireless is the future Not 100% correct, both are still held by the same holding company AT&T Teleholdings, Inc, thus why there is no AT&T Mobility stock ticker. | |
|
 LC8290 join:2003-04-30 Cleveland, TX Reviews:
·CMA Access
1 edit | dumb There has never been any type of DSL service outside of the distance limitations of this one horse town served by AT&T.
...that one horse town local cable company sells 4/512 for $43+tax and they are the only ones in the area. Monopoly? Smart Business? 
AT&T will never die...just mutate into something more disastrous. | |
|
 |  etaadmin join:2002-01-17 Dallas, TX kudos:1 | Re: dumb said by LC8290:AT&T will never die...just mutate into something more disastrous. LOL Good one.
+1 | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: dumb +2
They are the festering spoiled toilet of the industry.
150 GB cap is pathetic, especially so since DSL rarely has the last mile problems that cable contends with.
I feel sorry for everyone stuck in spoiled toilet monopoly areas. | |
|
 | | is he retarded? wow obsolete, hmm... that is only thing i can get in my area besides cable and for 15 bucks is damn slow too and has issues... they are really stupid | |
|
 WHT join:2010-03-26 Decatur, TX kudos:5 | Stephenson was misquoted? How can one be misquoted? I'll bet they spin that to "misheard", i.e. he said one thing (that he shouldn't have) and you mistakenly heard (what he shouldn't have said), but you really didn't hear what he actually said (even though you did hear what he actually said). | |
|
 |  | | Re: Stephenson was misquoted? Maybe it wasn't meant to be a factual statement? | |
|
 | | Obsolete? If DSL is so obsolete, what is the ISDN service you still provide as the only wired internet in the majority of Alabama?
Also I'm glad you were chasing a cable company with DSL, look's like you still have a LONG ways to go to catch up. Idiots.. -- 2010 Ford Fusion Sport | |
|
 | | Since it's obsolete...
Can I get it for free then?
 | |
|
 |  heat84Bit Torrent Apologist join:2004-03-11 Fort Lauderdale, FL | Re: Since it's obsolete... You got it backwards. It will be more expensive since its obsolete. Payphones shot up to 50 cents a call when they became obsolete. Paper mail is pretty much obsolete and the price of a stamp keeps inching up.
Maybe that's AT&T's plan.  -- Bit Torrent is my DVR. | |
|
 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Yahoo
| Thanks Pal Not that it makes it any better, but do you think he considers U verse not a "DSL" technology? It's kind of weird to hear the head of a company put down a product that I used of his recently for years, and was pretty happy with -plain old adsl. Granted, the future may not be bright, but many still find it useful. Not exactly very complementary to many of your customers (or just rubbing it in for those who dislike it and don't have a choice). | |
|
 |
 |  | | Re: Why Obsolete? True, with Comcast saying most customers only need 6GB it's really cable internet that is obsolete. AOL's genius will finally be recognized, as dial-up becomes the internet technology of the 21st century! | |
|
 R62006 join:2006-05-03 Las Vegas, NV | AT&T = Obsolete If hes saying that DSL is obselete then it also means AT&Ts networks must be obselete due to the fact that their entire network is basicly copper? LOL wow AT&Ts corporate must be bunch of clueless | |
|
 |  NormanSPremium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA kudos:6 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: AT&T = Obsolete said by R62006:If hes saying that DSL is obselete then it also means AT&Ts networks must be obselete due to the fact that their entire network is basicly copper? ??? AT&T brought in a lot of fiber backbone when SBC bought them. There is more to AT&T than the "Last Mile". ATTIS (AS7132) may be obsolete, but do you think ATTN (AS 7018) is? -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | Good job. Your "state of the art" U-Verse service.... ... is built on obsolete technology... but we already knew that.
I guess he just doesn't realize what he is saying. Surprise! | |
|
 |  | | Re: Good job. Your "state of the art" U-Verse service U-verse is a brand. ATT (formally SBC) actually HAS FTTH networks around their footprint that use the U-Verse brand.
Karl's article is WRONG in saying that ALL of the service areas are DSL when in fact it is NOT true at all. Granted the FTTH areas are limited in size but it's the fact that T does have them and operate them. And they were built under Ed's control. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Good job. Your "state of the art" U-Verse service AT&T's FTTH areas have the exact same restrictions placed on them as their FTTN systems. So it really doesn't matter. They're getting artificially restricted to keep them in line with the 95%+ percentage of U-verse users on copper. | |
|
 |
|