dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
AT&T Tells Kentucky That Cutting DSL Lines = 'Upgrades'
AT&T Astroturfers Use Misleading Push Polls to Confuse Locals
by Karl Bode 02:36PM Thursday Mar 07 2013
AT&T has started using push polls and astroturf to convince Kentucky residents losing their DSL lines, paying higher prices, and losing all state consumer protections is going to work out really well for them. AT&T is of course going state to state insisting their telecom regulations need "modernizing" for an all IP age. In reality, AT&T's planning to hang up on DSL and POTS customers, either driving those users to a stronger cable monopoly (resulting in higher prices), or to AT&T LTE service where DSL users would pay significantly higher rates for data ($15 per GB).

While it makes sense for AT&T's wallet, the effort is a major shift in telecom whose resulting long-term ripples AT&T would prefer local politicians not think to much about. Kentucky and Kansas have received the lion's share of AT&T's initial focus, with AT&T proclaiming that deregulating the company will result in improved service and lower prices, even if historically the exact opposite occurs. One Kentucky Broadband Reports reader notes that AT&T has trotted out their favorite tactics to get Kentucky locals to root against their own best self interests: push polls and astroturf.

Specifically, a group by the name of "Citizens for a Digital Future" has been running local ads across Kentucky proclaiming that Kentucky senate bill 88 will actually increase the state's access to broadband services, despite the fact it does the exact opposite. Citizens for a Digital Future of course is backed primarily by AT&T, and -- just in case you didn't know -- has nothing to do with actual citizens. The astroturf outfit has also taken to running local editorials that contain push polls designed to get a specific response. Some results from one such poll:
quote:
•81 percent agree that Kentucky should update its telecommunications laws in order to attract investment in new wireless networks, broadband technologies, and provide better internet service, especially in rural areas.

•66 percent either specifically want broadband telephone service or don’t care where their home phone comes from as long as they have access.

•Support for reform was bipartisan, with 52 percent of Republicans and 53 percent of Democrats saying they want telecommunications reform now.
Granted those numbers would shift dramatically if users were asked more realistic questions like "do you think AT&T should be free from all consumer protections?" or "would you like it if AT&T severed your DSL and POTS line?" As for "partisan support," in a sane world neither party would support letting a lumbering monopoly write state laws focused on jacking up prices and reducing service, but a few campaign contributions and some job promises very quickly has many states rooting against their own best long-term connectivity interests.

view:
topics flat nest 

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

I refuse...

to go to either cable or LTE for my home Internet use. If I have to, I will start doing without the Internet.



Tim

MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Re: I refuse...

Doing without the internet is getting harder and harder.
In my case, I can't be without it, I need to have it at home for my job.
big_e

join:2011-03-05

Re: I refuse...

One of the arguments against regulating the internet as utility is that nobody "needs" the internet. However many of the same people claim the US Postal Service needs to be disbanded or privatized because nobody uses snail mail anymore.

So what does the future hold? You'll have to fork over big money for LTE or cable internet just for the privilege to pay your bills, or you'll have to pay about the same amount of money on private mail couriers should the USPS go away. Either way big corporations will get their cut from you.
silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 recommendation

I'm curious. Why refuse to go to cable? It almost has to be faster than what you have, assuming it is available.

hyphenated

@bellsouth.net

Re: I refuse...

I tried our local 6Meg Cable and its 1-2 at best with latency about the same as your average 3G or dial up connection.

I would ask to show me a decent and reliable wireless service before trying to force it. Give them a trial, launch large scale and give them the first 3 months free. If you think it will work great and all that, then that wouldn't be a problem would it? Wireless is great for providers I bet, but it really sucks for end users, when you get down to it. Although I think it would be great for extremely rural areas (isnt this is what sat is for?) but please don't be mistaken and think wireless is a great solution for everyone. Mobile yes, its ideal/convenient, people are spoiled. Even at home. Aren't we starting see this smart home thing? How are smart homes going to work well in the future, not. I can't even get a decent 3G connection on the ipad/safari in most areas. With that wireless you'll be blasting so much rad at folks they'll all be choking and spitting and sputting in no time! Haven't we already paid for the wireline/POTS/DSL times over, give it to the government, maybe they can keep it around and help these folks out.

Disclaimer: this is just my rambling, thanks for hearing my rant/opinion.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

1 recommendation

said by silbaco:

I'm curious. Why refuse to go to cable? It almost has to be faster than what you have, assuming it is available.

Some people still think cable is bad because it is "shared". I personally have never had any issues with cable in the two states I have lived in. In fact I have found that cable is less picky about line quality than DSL.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County

1 recommendation

Re: I refuse...

said by Kearnstd:

said by silbaco:

I'm curious. Why refuse to go to cable? It almost has to be faster than what you have, assuming it is available.

Some people still think cable is bad because it is "shared". I personally have never had any issues with cable in the two states I have lived in. In fact I have found that cable is less picky about line quality than DSL.

How good cable is largely depends on how good the design of the build out was and who lives around you. More older folks - potential for less problems with an ok design. The more young folks - the better the design needs to be - in general.

I hate TW with an absolute passion and will do almost anything not to go to them...
--
Brian

"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain

hyphenated

@mycingular.net
Yeh this head end or something is a little wishy washy but it works I guess :/ (most of the time, from what ive seen) $80 for "7/1" - didn't even try it. Even if Comcast bought them out and offered me 50/10 I would still keep my DSL 6/.5, at least a dual wan. Our DSL has slways been great around here. I'd really rather have some vdsl or fiber than cable co, any day.

Yeh cable still has issues half of the time, I've see a 50/10 running around 2 or 3 down at times and recently folks with trouble when it rains, imagine that. Cable is affected by these sort of things also.

Someone just get me s solid 10/10 with low latency that i can afford already

Good grief

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

I'm curious. Why refuse to go to cable? It almost has to be faster than what you have, assuming it is available.

Charter. Enough said.

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 ~

Tel

join:2001-10-12
Mauldin, SC
Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast

1 recommendation

Re: I refuse...

said by timcuth:

said by silbaco:

I'm curious. Why refuse to go to cable? It almost has to be faster than what you have, assuming it is available.

Charter. Enough said.

Tim

Amen

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
said by timcuth:

said by silbaco:

I'm curious. Why refuse to go to cable? It almost has to be faster than what you have, assuming it is available.

Charter. Enough said.

Tim

Charter > than At&t dsl or U-verse. Nuff said.

admin123

@myvzw.com
If i had att for my home internet i'd go without internet.

CaptainRR
Premium
join:2006-04-21
Blue Rock, OH

Re: I refuse...

I have at&t for home phone and can't or will never be able to get internet from them!

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by timcuth:

to go to either cable or LTE for my home Internet use. If I have to, I will start doing without the Internet.



Tim

No you won't. People say that and never follow through on their threats.
--
Senate - get off your butts and actually create a budget that has spending cuts 3x the amount of tax increases like you promised.
me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
Why? I mean I can understand with the caps on LTE, but if they didn't have them and other than just not being wired was all the same as cable. Why would you not get one of them?

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

Re: I refuse...

said by me1212:

Why? I mean I can understand with the caps on LTE, but if they didn't have them and other than just not being wired was all the same as cable. Why would you not get one of them?

LTE would be fine if it weren't so expensive to actually use it. The phones in my household that currently have LTE have 3 GB per month caps. That is a total of $90 per month for three lines, already. Offhand, I don't know what the overages cost, but I don't really even want to think about them.

Sure, if they offered LTE with enough data for home use at a reasonable price, that would be fine. But ... they don't.

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 ~

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2

Confuse locals? No.

Give cover to locals that take telco bribes hand over fist? Yes.
SunnyD

join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL

To be fair...

With the way AT&T doesn't give a rats ass about running their services, upgrading their infrastructure, and customer care all while continually raising rates and under-the-line fees... I personally will be more than happy to flee AT&T as soon as the option presents itself.

I see absolutely no value in pretty much any product AT&T is currently offering, and unfortunately as far as home internet service goes, it's the only real option I have currently.

MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1

Re: To be fair...

But the point is the only other option coming will be more expensive AT&T LTE and even that isn't a given.
Areas not served by cable won't magically get cable, or some other option.

This PR bs doesn't improve infrastructure at all, it degrades it.
dra6o0n

join:2011-08-15
Mississauga, ON
So what if some other company comes along when they are cutting wires and ripping up lines, and starts placing their own lines instead?

The Incumbents can't really remove something that aren't theirs...
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

New site name?

When Verizon and AT&T have successfully pushed everyone off of DSL and no longer offer it, what will become of this site? Will they change the name to LTEReports.com??

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

Re: New site name?

Eh.. It'll still be BBR. You also have everyone else that's stuck with CL or Frontier.

chip89
Premium
join:2012-07-05
Independence, OH
If the sites name is going to be changed it will be cablereports.com!

Probitas

@teksavvy.com

more evidence

This is just yet more evidence that the Supreme Court ruling granting corporations citizen rights was the DUMBEST move ever in legal history.
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Where is the evidence?

That AT&T is going to shut any DSL off? That fundamentally MAKES NO SENSE. They have a profitable copper plant, they're not going to just turn it off. DSLR keeps posting this same story with different variations, over and over, with no evidence that their theory is at all accurate.

hyphenated

@bellsouth.net

Re: Where is the evidence?

LOL
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Re: Where is the evidence?

LOL what? That DSLR keeps posting these same, unfounded claims?
kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Shaw
Still make even more money using the cellular service.

Ongoing maintainance will be much cheaper too, upgrade the wireless, cut the copper, return I suspect will be less than a year.
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel.
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Re: Where is the evidence?

The thing is, cellular doesn't really compete with DSL. In most places, they will lose subs to cable, as in-town places that can get DSL usually have cable, in a few other places, a wide open market would entice cable, and in the remaining ones, satellite is probably the next logical choice, and then if they wanted wireless, there are competitors they can go with. Those scenarios don't work well for AT&T when they already have a copper plant. This whole thing doesn't make sense. What states should do, however, is give AT&T the right to cut ANYONE off of copper provided that they provide a GPON fiber connection to them. That would promote deployment of FTTH. FTTH is a direct replacement for telephone and internet, and adds triple play to the mix.

Xioden
Premium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1
It's not whether it is profitable or not, but rather HOW profitable. Shareholders want to see large returns, and these days 5-10% profit margins are no longer acceptable.
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Re: Where is the evidence?

That thinking is illogical, even for Wall Street. If you make $10 off of DSL, and $100,000 off of wireless, you make $110,000. If you get rid of DSL, you only make $100,000. Even AT&T's own stupid ads would make the choice simple: more is better. Thus, this whole thing makes no sense. I could see it becoming unprofitable in some areas that are 100% built out with cable, since everyone would switch to cable, and the service density would be low, but if there is no cable option, everyone would have DSL, be trapped with slow, crappy service, and AT&T isn't investing in new technology, so it would be a cash cow. Heck, they could raise the rates, the if the customers have no option, then they would have to pay them.

Granted, AT&T's entire model makes no sense, as they are basically giving up in markets with cable, as U-Verse is already at the end of it's life, as cable cranked up the heat on bandwidth, but given AT&T's current model of keeping copper around, the markets without a cable competitor would be the BEST markets for AT&T, as their strategy doesn't work when they have a cable company that actually has bandwidth to compete against, but it works great when they are the only game in town.

I wonder how long it will take for AT&T either to split off it's wireline division or FINALLY realize that GPON FTTH is the future?

Xioden
Premium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1

Re: Where is the evidence?

Except they want profit *now*. Long term profits are a thing of the past for the majority of corporations.

Why bother wiring up and giving service and support to hundreds of homes in an area when you can wire up a couple towers that will service those same houses. Oh and don't forget that with these towers we can provide worse service, with more limitations, for the same or higher prices! It's a win-win-win for the shareholders right now who won't be around when it backfires down the road.
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Re: Where is the evidence?

For fiber, yes, that's the problem, it's because their attention span is about that of a 2-year-old, and their cognitive ability is less, but for existing DSL system, they ALREADY have them. There is no reason to get rid of them.

The short term thinking on fiber is also a management issue, as they need to tell the shareholders why it is so important, because they are obviously stupid. AT&T should have started 5 years ago building GPON in their more populous markets, and then started overbuilding in places they aren't an incumbent, with plans to, within 10-15 years, cover 100% of their customers with GPON.

deathstar

@insightbb.com
att are pushing rural areas off dsl and pots. att doesnt want to invest in copper plant that they have neglected over the years. att only cares about the cell phone side. they are on purpose running off pots and dsl customers.

noc007

join:2002-06-18
Cumming, GA

Upgrayedd

Two Ds for a double dose of pimpin'

Sorry. Couldn't help myself.
ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

Re: Upgrayedd

Is he Dutch?

shortyd999

join:2008-10-21
Birmingham, AL
I just watch that over the weekend. "Welcome to AOL-TimeWarner-TacoBell Long Distance!" Lol
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

LTE is an upgrade

Given the complaints we read here about service levels, going from 1.5M DSL or no DSL to 6M or more via LTE would absolutely be an upgrade.

Its also more competitive. Its a lot easier for another carrier to enter the fray.

•••

tigerpaw509

join:2011-01-19

I'm Happy

Comcast just doubled my speeds from 25/6 to 50/10 for free.
Why would someone pay $15 per Gig on a 2 gig cap Lte ???
Did I mention free ???
raybrett

join:2001-02-20
Saint Louis, MO

Obselete logo

Never have heard a good -or actually any- reason an obselete logo is used to head the stories regarding AT&T.

PasteLips

@64.56.89.x

Re: Obselete logo


Relevant and/or Authentic?
(Sentence fragments may not be completely inscribing your quandary, eg. obsolete.)

goodbyeatt

@reliablehosting.com

no more att for me

my number port from att is complete so that is a $40/mo. savings and i switched from dsl to cable last year. done with att now and moving on.
doechsli

join:2003-11-26
Louisville, KY
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Insight Communic..

AT&T in Kentucky......what a joke....

I live inside the city limits of the LARGEST city in Kentucky and I had to drop AT&T data because the copper was so pathetic it would not support U-Verse. It would BARELY support 1.5 DSL. The requirements of my job require a reasonably fast and reliable connection so I had no choice but to go to cable and Time-Warner who just bought out Insight Communications. My phone tech who did some troubleshooting told me I was on the LAST wire pair on the line and if it failed or tested poorly I was out of luck for any sort of DSL and it was quite clear the copper would never be replaced. I have contacted my state representatives to kill this AT&T deregulation but I think they get lost in the techno-babble and take AT&T at their word.

Oleg
Premium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL
kudos:2

What is DSL

The question is what is DSL?
Cable is much better than crappy DSL.