Social Feed

1 AT&TBellSouth refers to AT&T Inc., BellSouth Corporation, and their affiliates that provide domestic wireline or Wi-Max fixed wireless services .

2 As used herein, the "AT&TBellSouth in-region territory" means the areas in which an AT&T or BellSouth operating company is the incumbent local exchange carrier, as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 251(h)(1)(A) and (B)(i) . "AT&T in-region territory" means the area in which an AT&T operating
company is the incumbent local exchange carrier, as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 251(h)(1)(A) and (B)(i), and "BellSouth in-region territory" means the area in which a BellSouth operating company is the incumbent local exchange carrier, as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 251(h)(1)(A) and (B)(i) .

3 For purposes of this commitment, a low income living unit shall mean a living unit in AT&T/BellSouth's in-region territory with an average annual income of less than $35,000, determined consistent with Census Bureau data, see California Public Utilities Code section 58900)(2) (as added by AB 2987) (defining low income households as those with annual incomes below $35,000), and a rural area shall consist of the zones in AT&T/Bell South's in-region territory with the highest deaveraged UNE loop rates as established by the state commission consistent with the procedures set forth in section 51 .507 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. § 51 .507.[/QUOTE] http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf (Pg. 2) ​

This document is in regards to AT&T's merger with BellSouth, in it, they've committed as a condition of their merger, they'll have broadband available to 100% of their footprint by this years end (including BellSouth's footprint). In that 100%, "at least" 85% will be served by wireline, the remaining will be served by "alternative technologies and operating arrangements," including wireless and satellite. Additionally, 30% of the wireline (DSL) buildout will include rural areas (that's me). ​

Wireless would be OK, if they offered at least 1Mbps down and 200Kbps up for around $39 a month. (though in their statement they define broadband as at least 200Kbps in at least one direction--i.e. up or down--so they wouldn't have to offer that). DSL of course would be great and ideal. Satellite, I've already got satellite, and I don't want it. Unless, they'll lower the price down to DSL prices and do away with FAP. NOTE: Before anyone says "why did you say $39 for WiFi?" I am realistic, I know WiFi will cost more, not to mention, WiFi lacks some of cons of broadband via satellite, especially latency. ​

For starters, DSL Basic, offers speeds of 768Kbps down and 128Kbps up for $14.99 a month, or Direcway's Home 700Kbps down and 128Kbps up for $59.99. That is a 4X difference in price for same speed. Not to mention, satellite has latency and a FAP, which chokes it down to nothing but fast dial-up. Before anyone says DSL has a FAP, with my DSL modem came a coupon for a free month with Vongo. If AT&T sends a free month with a movie download site, I think they want you to use your download capabilities (one movie is 2-3GB just for SD movies). Not to mention, modem was going to cost me $0 after mail-in rebate. I just got done paying $40 a month extra for 15 months to pay for my Hughesnet equipment (or I could have fronted the $600). ​

OK, so what can be done to insure AT&T (and other telcos, even cable companies) keep rural America in mind, and start including us in DSL service areas--or at least better alternatives than satellite via fast WiFi or perhaps cable. Before someone says it, according to posters at dslreports, RT's (remote terminals) can cost upwards of 1 million dollars each (consensus there that I saw was about $750,000 each) So I know it is very expensive for telco's to build out a DSL area to include areas were they will likely only pick up a few subscribers. That aside, if AT&T wants U-Verse to succeed, then they'll have to get it into 100% of their customers homes. Think, until cheap DVD players were everywhere, DVD's sat on the shelves with VHS tapes. ​

Broadband today to me is the same as electric was a 100 years ago. Only the most populated areas have it. Some of you folks here are talking about your 20Mbps and higher broadband, and I don't even have 1Mbps broadband. The kicker is, you are likely paying the same or less than what I pay. How is that fair? Would I not benefit from this 21st century luxury too? I would be happy with 1.5Mbps down and 386Kbps up for about $20 a month. Oh, wait, that is AT&T's Express package, lol, that would be perfect. But, I can't get it, because I've been deemed not important enough to be included in their DSL area. ​

If one reads that statement from AT&T about the merger, things sound like they might be getting better (at least for us in the AT&T and BellSouth footprint). But nothing there says they have to give DSL, or even provide a WiFi alternative. It says operational agreements, that could be simply them teaming up with Hughesnet, and offering satellite internet on their (AT&T's) web-page through Hughesnet. Like they do with Dish Network.​

Finally, what do others think can be done? I've heard others say, no amount of writing, protesting, etc. will ever make a difference. But somehow, AT&T and other telco's need to serve all of their customers with affordable and viable broadband internet. Because WiFi and satellite are either not offering good speeds (1Mbps down and 200Kbps up at least), not offering service in an area, or not offering cheap service for anyone.​

Thanks,​

I'd like to hear what others think​

Click to expand...