dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Free Press: AT&T Is About to Make Broadband Market Much Worse
Severing DSL, POTS Lines Creates Major Issues
by Karl Bode 08:42AM Friday Mar 01 2013 Tipped by dib22 See Profile
As I've been noting, both AT&T and Verizon have been busy trying to gut absolutely all regulatory oversight of those companies, in the process severing the DSL and landlines of tens of millions of users, who'll have to flee to an even less-competitive cable monopoly, more-expensive and capped LTE service, or even pricier and more-heavily capped satellite broadband.

The gadget-obsessed press and incumbent-beholden regulators so far have napped through the implications of this, as AT&T's claim that regulations simply need to be "modernized" as we go all IP appears to have lulled most of them into a compliant slumber. This is however the biggest shift in telecom in the last thirty years, and it deserves more than the usual fringe attention broadband telecom policy receives.

Free Press Research Director Derek S. Turner has posted a good read over at Wired clearly illustrating what's at state if the country dumbly plays along with AT&T's efforts to sever the PSTN while killing off nearly all serious regulatory oversight of the industry giant. Namely, higher rates, seniors suddenly without landlines, and worse service:
quote:
Seniors, low-income families, and rural residents — all of whom are more likely to rely on fixed-line voice services or dial-up internet access — would especially feel the pinch. Carriers that are now required to offer universal service will be free to redline poor neighborhoods and disconnect consumers at will. Elderly grandmothers living on fixed incomes rely on rate-regulated landlines to stay connected, but they need not worry: AT&T has an expensive wireless plan they can purchase instead.
That sounds dramatic, but it's a very real outcome. Turner doesn't even get into the fact that AT&T and Verizon's exit from the fixed-line broadband market creates a much stronger cable broadband monopoly, driving up costs for those users as well. All of this will be swatted down by paid industry pundits despite the fact that historically, you'd be hard pressed to find a time when deregulating AT&T didn't make service considerably worse and more expensive for the end user.

view:
topics flat nest 

attpotscust

@reliablehosting.com

how att force pots/dsl customer out

att will force pots/dsl customers out by raising the prices.

just received my pots bill which went up $4!

already left dsl for cable last year.

Duramax08
To The Moon
Premium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX

We got fed up with AT&T,

Telling us DSL is available 5 times when it wasnt available. "Sir, we are rapidly expanding DSL in your area in the near future". That was 10 years ago.

We ported our number to straight talk home phone. It uses the verzion network. Only cost $17 after taxes and it included unlimited long distance calling, caller ID and all of those perks you can get, the device only cost about $130 shipped. When we were with AT&T, we were paying $30 a month after taxes just for local calling. Thats it. No long distance, no caller id.

I saw that AT&T is selling the same device for around $20-$25 a month but screw you AT&T
--
»mc-buildville.enjin.com/

buddahbless

join:2005-03-21
Premium
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US

1 edit

Re: We got fed up with AT&T,

said by Duramax08:

Telling us DSL is available 5 times when it wasnt available. "Sir, we are rapidly expanding DSL in your area in the near future". That was 10 years ago.

I too have been through the ringer with ATT they told me in 2002 that 6mbps DSL would be rolling out soon to my area in months, fast forward to 2013 and Im still waiting , Im only able to receive 3mbps 10 yrs later.

ATT there the only game in town so Im stuck unless I go LTE or satellite which are too darn expensive , that OMG from cablevision is looking rely good I wish someone would perfect MVDDS and would roll it out nationwide to help drive competition.
raybrett

join:2001-02-20
Saint Louis, MO

Re: We got fed up with AT&T,

I believe you will find the AT&T of 10 years ago was a different corporate entity. SBC purchased AT&T in 2005.
tkdslr

join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
said by Duramax08:

We ported our number to straight talk home phone. It uses the Verizon network. Only cost $17 after taxes and it included unlimited long distance calling, caller ID and all of those perks you can get, the device only cost about $130 shipped. When we were with AT&T, we were paying $30 a month after taxes just for local calling. Thats it. No long distance, no caller id.

Similar story.. My POT's service had just hit $27 a month when I dumped AT&T. Now I have LD included, Caller id, Call block, Call waiting, etc.

Same goes for my deteriorating aDSL service, dumped it just before disconnecting POTS.

All in all, a big savings/upgrade, $80 to $90 a month worth.

When I'm home, cell phones connect via BT gateway to Panasonic cordless phones with talking caller id. (A very nice feature).

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

They don't have to gut regulations...

...simply raise the price of DSL to $100/mo or discontinue the service all together.
etaadmin

join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1

Re: They don't have to gut regulations...

said by skeechan:

...simply raise the price of DSL to $100/mo or discontinue the service all together.

Some people are so stupid that they'll keep paying for it. That is the problem.

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

Re: They don't have to gut regulations...

Then raise it to $10K a month. Eventually, there would be no subscribers.

Twaddle

@sbcglobal.net

Napping??

The regulators aren't napping, they're ignoring the fact that ATT wants out of the POTS business, especially in the low density rural areas of the US and will pay to make it happen (behind closed doors, under the table type payments).
Taxlave

join:2009-02-19

Verizon doing the same

I cut off the landline this month after price went to ~$35. This line had no caller id, no call forwarding, no long distance, no voice mail, nothing other than local calling. The only calls I received on that line were from "Heather" and "Rachel" and political calls during the last election drove me to plug a fax machine into the line.

buddahbless

join:2005-03-21
Premium
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US

Re: Verizon doing the same

ATT is trying to do the same thing after yrs of us fighting to get naked DSL they want to try and bring back required land line service to have DSL service, thats there way to try and push people off DSL service. DSL may not be the fastest but its somewhat reliable ( with good copper) and a lot less cheaper than LTE and will remain cheaper for a long time to come.

Alex J

@184.105.144.x

Re: Verizon doing the same

Verizon recently just started forcing us again to have a landline on our DSL when we re-ordered at a new home. Essentially they're going to squeeze us for a few extra bucks while they set the stage to hang up on us entirely, after which our only choice is going to be horrible latency satellite broadband. Glad FCC is doing its job.

adslguy

@embarqhsd.net

rural telecom

having everyones rates the same no matter what it costs to provide service is the problem, maintaining miles of wire for 1 customer is cost prohibitive, it used to be where you make that up with the close in customers, but companies that charge less because they don't have to provide service to outlying areas kill the balancing act.

The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windstream

1 recommendation

Perfect Time...

...to break up AT&T and Verizon. This is getting beyond absurd. Either break them up or make it easier for smaller players to start doing business in this sector. The free market isn't at work here, and how some can claim this is quite beyond my understanding, of which I can be certain. "OH BUT FREE MARKET IS AT WORK!" Yea, let's ignore what's going on in Washington and how some of these laws are "crafted" by those who would rather see the market shrink and become more uncompetitive than it already is. No conflict of interest there AT ALL. Why is this allowed?!
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010)
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Re: Perfect Time...

said by The Limit:

...to break up AT&T and Verizon.

What good will that do? It doesn't change the competitive landscape, which is the crux of the issue. It doesn't encourage competitors' entrance into the market...especially in the rural areas that VZ and T want to exit. It all boils down to money and an acceptable ROI.

The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windstream

Re: Perfect Time...

What would you suggest? My thought is that at least all of that money wouldn't be focused in one place, therefore huge sums of money couldn't be spent lobbying for idiotic bills that do nothing but good for them, but bad for us as customers. I'm all for free market, as long as the free market was actually allowed to work without companies like these scheming in the background with their huge bags of money and undesirable machinations. I'm seriously at a loss for a solution otherwise.
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010)

SlowFITL

join:2012-02-01
Mobile, AL
Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast

Re: Perfect Time...

said by The Limit:

What would you suggest? My thought is that at least all of that money wouldn't be focused in one place, therefore huge sums of money couldn't be spent lobbying for idiotic bills that do nothing but good for them, but bad for us as customers. I'm all for free market, as long as the free market was actually allowed to work without companies like these scheming in the background with their huge bags of money and undesirable machinations. I'm seriously at a loss for a solution otherwise.

Wireless needs to be separated from the wireline side. AT&T and Verizon are spending tons of cash on wireless at the cost of ignoring the wired side. It would be best if the wire side was a separate company.
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

1 recommendation

If we're concerned about service, the most economical solution is to deem the last mile a utility, with requisite regulations and guaranteed profits for the utilities. If we're concerned about competition, the most economical solution is to maintain a centrally owned infrastructure, spreading the costs across everyone, and leasing access to providers. If we're concerned with unfair influence within the beltway, we need to impose limits on campaign contributions. I don't foresee any of these scenarios playing out anytime soon. Given that none of these scenarios are likely, I'd suggest our best option is to promote WISPs and encourage new WISPs to enter markets through easing spectrum licensing requirements and making capital available to those with solid business plans.

alchav

join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT
Reviews:
·ooma

Copper is Dead to The Telcos!

Verizon recognized this many years ago, that's why they went FTTH. AT&T listened to The Bean-counter's, and stayed with Copper. DSL and Old Land Lines are connected to old equipment, that has to go. Verizon is in a better situation than AT&T, but old DSL and Land Lines are doomed and must go, people just have to get use to this idea.

The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2

Re: Copper is Dead to The Telcos!

That's ok with me, but the regulation should follow in its wake.
fish1000

join:2011-12-14
Mcalester, OK
I really hope not. POTS is all I can get where I live. How I can communicate with the outside world?

attpotscust

@reliablehosting.com

made up my mind

i've had Ooma for 2 years and Obi/GV for a year. they are both quite stable. so, i have made up my mind to port my number out from ATT. then i will be done and wash my hands of them completely.

jazzy_

join:2004-01-27
Charleston, SC

...

These same jacks prevent municipal broadband and take advantage of exclusivity agreements to prevent competition.
OttoPylot

join:2000-11-21
San Jose, CA

Our ISP took over the AT&T landline

This is unfortunate for a lot of folks who still depend on landlines for voice and/or DSL. Our ISP took over the AT&T landline and rolled it into our DSL service. We still have all of the features we had before when AT&T owned our landline but the overall cost for both, landline and DSL, is about $70 less than what we had been paying. We now pay about $58 per month, including taxes, for 20MBps down DSL line, static IP, and basic landline features (free domestic LD, callerID, call waiting, etc). Sonic is the ISP.
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Where's the evidence

That they are actually going to hang up on DSL line? I haven't seen any, nor does it make any sense. What logic would AT&T use to actually kill off DSL lines that require no capital investment, and are cash cows? I could see some super-rural lines that can't get DSL, but at this point, those lines are scrap metal already unless they throw some RDSLAMs out there to make them useful.
raybrett

join:2001-02-20
Saint Louis, MO

Logo with story

Certainly an ancient logo associated with this story! Hasn't been a Bell System for about 30 years and I believe the Long Lines Department was simply AT&T Communications in 1984.
jorcmg

join:2002-10-24
USA

Re: Logo with story

I don't understand either why this logo is used other than referencing a company of a bygone age. AT&T Corp./AT&T Long Lines is long gone. It was purchased for a song by SBC in 2006 at a time when it was a shadow of its former self. Time to give Ma a rest isn't it?

CBLMorphis

join:2001-02-25
Riverside, CA

Re: Logo with story

Been trying to get there damn UVERSE for over 4 years, damn bastards can't even give me a reason.
--
Like My DSL!!!
Joe12345678

join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

To bad comcast cable tv sucks as I have att DSL + directv

To bad comcast cable tv sucks as I have att DSL + directv.

And I'm not in a area with comcast new X box and even if I was there multi room DVR sucks.

Also the channel map
lkrupp

join:2001-07-14
Collinsville, IL

Oh the hate!

Well, with all the hatred spewed at at&t in this thread I'm guessing you bozos won't mind if at&t exits the landline and dsl business then. Right? You hate 'em so much you already left. Why do you even care what they do.

And the author of the article sounds like some Democrat politician claiming the Republicans are going to starve old people. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.