Wednesday Morning Links → And my thoughts on AT&T's broadband strategy...

AT&T really should have chosen a FTTP deployment and offered 1 package, 100mbps symmetrical, and then there would be no confusion whatsoever. I am not opposed to offering options, but the bottom line is that more choices make people more confused.

The company I work with offers 4 packages, and more often than not, people go for the bottom, 1.5mbps package because it's the least expensive and then they make a big deal about how *IF* they were in an AT&T area they could get DSL for half the price. That's the first part of the confusion is that people don't understand that with AT&T you have some long, drawn-out contract, potentially changing prices, taxes, a phone line requirement, and outsourced technical assistance, so first AT&T is getting their money, and they're saving their money too, by supporting third-world call centers.

Then I have the people that go for the second package because it's still reasonably priced (by Y2K standards) at $50/month for 3mbps. People don't complain about that, and I can't figure that one out. It just seems like some people want to whine constantly.

The other 2 packages (up to 6mbps for $100/month) don't get many bites, but the people that do are the ones that use the service the least out of all of 'em. The cheaper ones (esp. the ones that want $20/month service) are the leaders in my top 10 bandwidth users.

So seeing how this all worked out, I could have gotten away with offering 1 3mbps package, people would have still bought, and I would be making more in the long run because my bandwidth costs would be the same, customers would be happy, and I still wouldn't have to outsource any single part of my deployments. Sure, 3mbps isn't much by today's standards, but then again there are many people that pay for 6mbps service with AT&T that will never see those speeds over the hard-wire connection, and we consistently see 3mbps symmetrical over our wireless systems with no problems, even at 8 miles out from our towers, with the users that are paying for 6mbps realistically seeing that, too.

So to summarize, AT&T should settle on one package, one service offering, and one price, offer it to everybody, and then it will not be confusing. Instead of mixing technologies, prices, contracts, promotions, etc., just have 1 offering (Isn't it AT&T that has the One World marketing campaign anyway?).

That sure would be a lot more cost effective across the board.

I'm tried of AT&T's rhetoric. They have product that's technologically inferior to cable and DBS. They can't even pull off dual HD streams. With cable and DBS, having a couple dual tuner high definition DVRs (four HD tuners) is not an issue.

"Compression is getting better all the time." ... With increasing processor power compression has improved, but 1920x1080ix60 is a lot of data, you're never going to be able to reliably compress that down past a certain point without highly obvious image damage. I don't forsee things getting appreciably better than H.264 anytime soon.

Their strategy seems very clear to me. They're not going after the high end. They have their sights aimed directly at all the "Who needs HD, I can't tell the difference. I hate my cable company and want a lower bill" housewives. If they can get things working reliably they may be very successful. But they need to come clean and just admit they're deploying medicore technology.