WSJ: AT&T Is Dying

Once again, a Times writer invents a theory so he has something to write about. Once again, he comes off as a moron.

In other breaking news, the sun came up, and 8AM occurred exactly one hour after 7AM.

They charge too much for caller ID. A few years ago my caller ID cost $4.95 now it is $9.00. I have seen on the internet where it only cost AT&T one half of a penny per month to provide my caller ID service but they stick me with $9.00 every month.

After talking with overseas friends, I begin to see how (compare) US telecoms are no longer innovators but greed-driven control phreaks.

I do understand capitalism, so don't preach to the choir. But I don't believe the government has done "any regulation" that is beneficial to the people, but financially beneficial to the execs.

That said, back to my coffee....

Rupert Murdoch should be more concerned with how he's killing the WSJ ......

You so hit the nail on the head!1

at&t spying on its customers and other citizens of the usa is what killed at&t for me... i am not sure they can ever recover the trust they have lost...

not that it matters with the collusion in the us wireless industry... and all the congress that money can buy.

Damn the Wall Street Times!

I have dsl and phone and I don't really trust a place thats not accountable for bad behavior. Don't know why I still have these services still.

WSJ will be dead long before AT&T.

A newspaper which is part of Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp writes an article taking Google's side against ATT.

I do not TRUST any of Rupert Murdoch's media enterprises, but I will admit to receiving a guilty pleasure reading the New York Post.

I do not trust Google with net based email accounts.

I do trust ATT with my DSL service although it is the price and reliability for which they receive my broadband business not their level of technological advancement which has been nil in my geographic region.

Fixed it for you.

Just wanted to note that Andy Kessler isn't a staff reporter for the WSJ. The AT&T piece ran on the editorial page, not one of the news pages.

Best,
Amy

The people don't give sizeable bribes to the government while businesses such as telecoms give a lot. In that situation, who gets favored in regulation (or lack thereof)? We have the best government for business that money can buy.

Why such a defence about an evil corporation? Only someone paid by AT&T would post such drivel...

That's what a was telling a friend 3 days ago.
AT&T home phone business is out of the game.
Google voice and Callcentric make me realize I was wasting my money with AT&T.
I disconneted my AT&T home phone line last week.
Bye AT&T. One less customer.

"End phone exclusivity. Any device should work on any network."
He doesn't realize the distinction between contractual obligations and interoperability.

"Transition away from owning airwaves. As we've seen with license-free bandwidth via Wi-Fi networking, we can share the airwaves without interfering with each other. Let new carriers emerge based on quality of service rather than spectrum owned. Cellphone coverage from huge cell towers will naturally migrate seamlessly into offices and even homes via Wi-Fi networking. No more dropped calls in the bathroom."
He doesn't realize that WiFi (802.11x) is designed for a noisy, unlicensed environment and that cellular coverage would decrease DRAMATICALLY if the spectrum was shared rather than allocated."

"End municipal exclusivity deals for cable companies."
He doesn't even know exclusive franchise agreements ended long ago

"Encourage faster and faster data connections to our homes and phones."
Gee, wish someone would have that of that before...

also it's an op-ed so it doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the WSJ editorial board. and in this case it most certainly doesn't -- just a few weeks ago the WSJ ran an editorial that argued against the very regulations Andy Kessler was promoting

Again, this piece was NOT written by anybody employed by the WSJ. It doesn't represent the WSJ's editorial staff or its reporting staff

there are two parts to the WSJ:

the editorial page, generally comprised of the writings of right wing, corporate tools (with the occasional neocon thrown in);

and the rest of the paper, which is still (for now anyway) comprised of stories written by real reporters doing real reporting (not stenography).

I like the news part of the WSJ, the editorial pages are entertaining more than they are informative.

Yes...He's killing the WSJ..it takes twice as long to load. The journal sends me emails about coming back to the fold....No price reduction...just a "come on"

I would have to say that their server sucks no matter where they are. I had them in Quincy, IL and also in Hannibal, MO and will never touch at&t again. The DSL tech they sent to my house didn't even know what a DSLAM was! "Oh the node can't be over-sold, DSL is dedicated" he said.... and I said "Yeah, up until it hits the DSLAM, then it has a connection to the internet and maybe that needs to be upped". He proceeded to look at me puzzled and then ask "What is a DSLAM?". LMFAO, good service is something you get from companies like CenturyTel and Verizon Wireless, at least CenturyTel has 80% of its entire landline area covered with DSL.

LOL... your personal opinions trump your reading skills.
Last time I checked the NYT and the WSJ are not even close to the same.

Wishes don't make it so.

AT&T is by no means dying. In fact they are probably the strongest Communications company in the USA.... and not because they act in their own (or our) best interests, either, but because of the competitive map and regulatory situation that exists in this country (or lack thereof.)

Easy to fix: run a PPTP VPN for a few bucks per month to a Xen-based VPS in a nearby data center. Your traffic is encrypted 128-bit until it reaches the DC, and AT&T has better things to do than crack 128-bit encryption (read: look at unencrypted connunications).

Also helps with non-protocol-agnostic throttling. Or at least has the placebo effect on me

Compare the prices Americans pay for wireless services (from at&t, and others)
with what any other developed, industrialized nation, pays. Why the vast gap between the two??
Is service in America, really that much more costly to provide?
Is at&t just subsidising handsets, by passing costs onto other customers?

I think the 'new at&t' is absolutely MORE evil, than the AT&T that was torn apart, in 1984!
They DO NOT give one iota of care about customers, or employees!
I've been both and it shows... by how you're treated. Expectations of a 55 hour work week, as part of some "unwritten rule" ... demanding that you donate to United Way ... "or else" because at&t wanted 100% of the employees to donate.

Does at&t really stifle innovation now? ...not really ... but most of the folks at at&t labs these days, are talentless arse clowns!
The middle managers that run most of the day to day operations, are also arse clowns who don't know what they hell they're doing!

remember conficker? Yeah... at&t happily blocked 100,000 domains on the internet, in the name of protecting customers. How quickly, would the 'new at&t' block some service, feature, or specific websites, in the future??
It's dangerous! and 'we're' protecting you ... ugh huh. So YOU say ...

if the AT&T broken up in 1984 was "Ma Bell" ... this 'new at&t' must be inbred uncle, twice removed bell. Not only am I happy to see at&t die, I'd gladly put it's feet in concrete, and throw it, into Charleston Harbor! It can sit at the bottom, with Oliver Cromwell's floatilla.

the 'new at&t' could have done some super things. Had they used the army of lobbyists for good rather than the usual evil. Tisk! Tisk! Tisk!

How funny would it be today, if AT&T, hadn't sold off NCR (national cash register) in 1991? Instead of the 'new at&t' the company would be cr&p (cash registers & phones).

You know... at&t customers, could bring at&t to it's knees... It's not hard.
Just coordinate a massive phone call, to take place at a coordinated time, and ring into a specific number, or series of numbers. The network can't handle 60 million calls, at once!
Add to that, large file downloads, and U-Verse activity... the network will crumble, like the house of cards it is.

I say, let it die! A curse is upon at&t!

Go to the WISP forum. They're complaining constantly about the crowded spectrum bands they have to work in. Completely unlicensed spectrum like 2.4 GHz is a nightmare if you're trying to provide carriergrade services over it, especially if you're not the oly one in the area trying to do so.

The biggest problem with Google Voice is it needs some body's network to work. AT&T and the other big networks maybe jerks but new startups seem to have a hard time making it to completion or staying in business unless they are connected to one of the big networks. What happened to all the city wifi projects.
Could it be networks are harder and more expensive to build as you scale up.

AT&T in Southeast higher price 42.95 in than 35.00 in Texas or California why is this.

»www.bellsouth.com/consum ··· dex.html

»www.att.com/gen/general?pid=6431

blame it on the rain ya ya
gotta blame it on some thing