I previously posted under the subject "Naked DSL finally arrives....and dies a fast death" about how when AT&T and SBC merged, one of the conditions of the merger from the FCC was that they offer 'naked dsl' meaning dsl without requireing you to buy phone service. They merged and offered naked dsl for $1 more than it cost to get a phone and dsl line bundled together.
rocky wrote: > I previously posted under the subject > "Naked DSL finally arrives....and dies a fast death" > about how when AT&T and SBC merged, one of the conditions of the merger > from the FCC was that they offer 'naked dsl' meaning dsl without > requireing you to buy phone service. They merged and offered naked dsl > for $1 more than it cost to get a phone and dsl line bundled together.
> Maybe when AT&T and Verizon finally merge, then the FCC will have the > wording exactly right to pin AT&T down on this ever elusive concession.
> In the mean time, officially naked dsl for $19.99 is available now so > you can drop you phone line if you only use your cell.
> And remember, this is not a monopoly.
Are you sure it's available right now? I just called AT&T and I was told that I can not get naked DSL in Texas yet. Even though I swear I read in the Dallas Morning News over a year ago that AT&T had 1 year to implement it in Texas. I've been waiting for it so I can dump my land line.
Bob M wrote: > rocky wrote: > > I previously posted under the subject > > "Naked DSL finally arrives....and dies a fast death" > > about how when AT&T and SBC merged, one of the conditions of the merger > > from the FCC was that they offer 'naked dsl' meaning dsl without > > requireing you to buy phone service. They merged and offered naked dsl > > for $1 more than it cost to get a phone and dsl line bundled together.
> > So guess what one of the conditions of the AT&T BellSouth merger was? > > Naked dsl for $19.95 per month. Although that's not to say that AT&T > > will probably find someway around honoring it. > > http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-15-naked-dsl-usat_x.htm
> > Maybe when AT&T and Verizon finally merge, then the FCC will have the > > wording exactly right to pin AT&T down on this ever elusive concession.
> > In the mean time, officially naked dsl for $19.99 is available now so > > you can drop you phone line if you only use your cell.
> > And remember, this is not a monopoly.
> Are you sure it's available right now? I just called AT&T and I was > told that I can not get naked DSL in Texas yet. Even though I swear I > read in the Dallas Morning News over a year ago that AT&T had 1 year to > implement it in Texas. I've been waiting for it so I can dump my land line.
> Bob
I did a little research and its being implemented in Texas in the next 60 days. I also learned that naked dsl will only be available for 2 years! So after 2 years your guess is as good as mine - they will probably call you and tell you you have to get a phone number again and sign up for their long distance. Let us know if you really are able to get it. I have a suspicion that they will not educate their sales agents on it so you will probably have to go through 10 agents before you get one who knows what you are talking about.
On another note, what I don't get is why does AT&T have to make concessions at all in order to get the merger approved? What does one have to do with the other? Why didn't the FCC step in when they originally introduced forced bundling 5 years ago? Are we suppose to believe that 2 years of unforced bundling is worth allowing the reinstatement of a monopoly?
When your pumping this kind of money into lobbying http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/top.aspx?act=topcompanies then these are the kinds of non-concessions you have to make. And when your one of the top advertisers at every media outlet, you don't have to worry about anyone running a story on questionable business practices.
I have the solution though. Stock. Buy lots and lots of AT&T stock. If they can get this net neutrality bill going again (and they will) then they will be able to control the content of the internet. The possibilities there are limitless. I own 150 shares myself. If you can't beat em....
>>>I previously posted under the subject >>>"Naked DSL finally arrives....and dies a fast death" >>>about how when AT&T and SBC merged, one of the conditions of the merger >>>from the FCC was that they offer 'naked dsl' meaning dsl without >>>requireing you to buy phone service. They merged and offered naked dsl >>>for $1 more than it cost to get a phone and dsl line bundled together.
>>>So guess what one of the conditions of the AT&T BellSouth merger was? >>>Naked dsl for $19.95 per month. Although that's not to say that AT&T >>>will probably find someway around honoring it. >>>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-15-naked-dsl-usat_x.htm
>>>Maybe when AT&T and Verizon finally merge, then the FCC will have the >>>wording exactly right to pin AT&T down on this ever elusive concession.
>>>In the mean time, officially naked dsl for $19.99 is available now so >>>you can drop you phone line if you only use your cell.
>>>And remember, this is not a monopoly.
>> Are you sure it's available right now? I just called AT&T and I was >>told that I can not get naked DSL in Texas yet. Even though I swear I >>read in the Dallas Morning News over a year ago that AT&T had 1 year to >>implement it in Texas. I've been waiting for it so I can dump my land line.
>>Bob
> I did a little research and its being implemented in Texas in the next > 60 days. I also learned that naked dsl will only be available for 2 > years! So after 2 years your guess is as good as mine - they will > probably call you and tell you you have to get a phone number again and > sign up for their long distance. Let us know if you really are able to > get it. I have a suspicion that they will not educate their sales > agents on it so you will probably have to go through 10 agents before > you get one who knows what you are talking about.
> On another note, what I don't get is why does AT&T have to make > concessions at all in order to get the merger approved? What does one > have to do with the other? Why didn't the FCC step in when they > originally introduced forced bundling 5 years ago? Are we suppose to > believe that 2 years of unforced bundling is worth allowing the > reinstatement of a monopoly?
> When your pumping this kind of money into lobbying > http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/top.aspx?act=topcompanies then > these are the kinds of non-concessions you have to make. And when your > one of the top advertisers at every media outlet, you don't have to > worry about anyone running a story on questionable business practices.
> I have the solution though. Stock. Buy lots and lots of AT&T stock. > If they can get this net neutrality bill going again (and they will) > then they will be able to control the content of the internet. The > possibilities there are limitless. I own 150 shares myself. If you > can't beat em....
Thanks Rocky. You can be sure that I'll be one of the first to dump my AT&T land line when I can. I am getting sick and tired of being double billed by AT&T for phone service every other month. They tell me it's because of my due date. So I told them to change the due date. I signed up for a set price every month not 2 months at a time every other month. I was told they can not change the due date. When I asked them to provide their policy in writing, AT&T's reply was "We don't have to prove anything. We're the phone company." Arrogant pricks. When I lived in Verizon territory I never had a problem with billing. This is one reason I can't wait to tell AT&T to shove their land line.
: On another note, what I don't get is why does AT&T have to make : concessions at all in order to get the merger approved?
Why? Because the FCC voting officials aren't all wearing the same colored hats. Currently, three (including the chairman) wear red, and two wear blue. Things got complicated on the AT&T merger vote because originally one wasn't going to vote due to a possible conflict of interest. Then the vote was pretty much intentionally delayed until after the fall general elections so the FCCs actions could not be used as a voter outrage issue, as it probably would have been.
However, the elections turned out so bad for the red hats that it suddenly didn't look like they were going to just rubber-stamp the deal as previously expected, so AT&T abruptly burped-up some pseudo concessions to grease the skids and get the vote to occur. (They also probably avoided a pesky confrontation with the FTC over forced bundling at some future date too.) This tactic appears to have worked, although average citizen appears to get little in the way of competitive choice, certainly not even close to getting back to the competition allowed and existing in 1997.
Also, unless the FCC has published its understanding of the deal, anything you have heard is not real or may not be binding. What's actually in the official deal is what counts, including any time periods that might have been slipped in there. The LEC can certainly start implementing things, but as to where and how and who, that may not yet be something you can point at.
Now, if we can just get Unbundled Network Elements completely back, which isn't what you are getting here.
Frank Durda IV - send mail to this address and remove the "LOSE": <uhclemLOSE.jan07%nemesis.lonestar.org> http://nemesis.lonestar.org "Every 13 seconds, someone returns to AT&T.... Because the FCC lets AT&T buy the competiting companies that people left AT&T for!!!" Copyright 2007, ask before reprinting.
In <JBztJ1.1...@nemesis.lonestar.org> Frank Durda:
> get little in the way of competitive choice, certainly not even close to > getting back to the competition allowed and existing in 1997
This summer, prior to the "close" of ATT/BellSouth "merger" (wherein we come full circle to The Ma Bell circa 1970), I helped my folks get onto BellSouth DSL. IMO, BellSouth had one of the better reputations for the (now quaint) concept of customer service. In fact, they sent a tech out to my folks house at no cost to assess their landline DSL quality.
So, the topic of the ATT/BellSouth merger came up casually. The tech at once mentioned the probability that the high level of customer services that my folks and others had taken for granted was likely coming to the bad end typical of mergers--but especially with ATT (nee SWB/SBC).
It was indeed a very bad omen. My folks and others have had fits trying to do simple things again, and their DSL link went from excellent to an obnoxious tarpit in a matter of a couple of months. So much for benefit and "economies of scale" in the realm of customer services.
IMO, the FCC et al simply turned a blind eye toward the Sherman Act and history of infrastructure monopolies like telcos, railroads, etc. Cynic in me says I should not be surprised at all by anything these beadyeyed corporate parasites inflict on their victims^W customers.
-- Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS * Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots. Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT. Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.
>I previously posted under the subject >"Naked DSL finally arrives....and dies a fast death" >about how when AT&T and SBC merged, one of the conditions of the merger >from the FCC was that they offer 'naked dsl' meaning dsl without >requireing you to buy phone service. They merged and offered naked dsl >for $1 more than it cost to get a phone and dsl line bundled together.
>Maybe when AT&T and Verizon finally merge, then the FCC will have the >wording exactly right to pin AT&T down on this ever elusive concession.
>In the mean time, officially naked dsl for $19.99 is available now so >you can drop you phone line if you only use your cell.
>And remember, this is not a monopoly.
Time to NATIONALIZE all major industries for National Security. Telecommunications, oil and gas, electricity, etc. Since Bush really is a Liberal Democrat spending a TRILLION dollars wildly, loving phony wars like LBJ, and now, about to RAISE taxes starting with health care in his State of the Union address, time for Bush to show his horns and tails and reveal himself as what he really is. Remember: Bush makes you sacrifice freedom for freedom. Now that he's declared he has the right as President to execute anyone without a trial, this is your wake up call. Too bad there's nothing but busy signals in prolls heads. :-)
In article <slrneqsce9.6v9.w...@aces.localdomain>, woo...@aces.localdomain says...
>So, the topic of the ATT/BellSouth merger came up casually. The tech at >once mentioned the probability that the high level of customer services >that my folks and others had taken for granted was likely coming to the >bad end typical of mergers--but especially with ATT (nee SWB/SBC).
Dunno about the politics, but I have a friend in Louisana that is eagerly waiting for the conversion to AT&T. Bell South still gets $32.95 for 1.5Mb/sec DSL, and $37.95 for 3.0 Mb. AT&T and Verizon get $19.95 and $29.95 respectively. That leaves Bell South being pretty expensive. My guess is that AT&T and Verizon customers get plenty of service to keep it working.
It looks like it's a subscription WAN, broadcast in your( availability pending) locale. The radio show also discuss- ed something like Zlink, Zweb, or something like that.
Looking at clearwire, it appears a viable alternative for the lower speed broadband service. But, I haven't check- ed the prices.
Standard disclaimers apply.... I have no connection with any organizations mentioned within.
> In article <slrneqsce9.6v9.w...@aces.localdomain>, woo...@aces.localdomain > says...
> >So, the topic of the ATT/BellSouth merger came up casually. The tech at > >once mentioned the probability that the high level of customer services > >that my folks and others had taken for granted was likely coming to the > >bad end typical of mergers--but especially with ATT (nee SWB/SBC).
> Dunno about the politics, but I have a friend in Louisana that is eagerly > waiting for the conversion to AT&T. Bell South still gets $32.95 for > 1.5Mb/sec DSL, and $37.95 for 3.0 Mb. AT&T and Verizon get $19.95 and > $29.95 respectively. That leaves Bell South being pretty expensive. My > guess is that AT&T and Verizon customers get plenty of service to keep it > working.
> It looks like it's a subscription WAN, broadcast in your( > availability pending) locale. The radio show also discuss- > ed something like Zlink, Zweb, or something like that.
> Looking at clearwire, it appears a viable alternative for > the lower speed broadband service. But, I haven't check- > ed the prices.
> Standard disclaimers apply.... I have no connection with > any organizations mentioned within.
> > In article <slrneqsce9.6v9.w...@aces.localdomain>, woo...@aces.localdomain > > says...
> > >So, the topic of the ATT/BellSouth merger came up casually. The tech at > > >once mentioned the probability that the high level of customer services > > >that my folks and others had taken for granted was likely coming to the > > >bad end typical of mergers--but especially with ATT (nee SWB/SBC).
> > Dunno about the politics, but I have a friend in Louisana that is eagerly > > waiting for the conversion to AT&T. Bell South still gets $32.95 for > > 1.5Mb/sec DSL, and $37.95 for 3.0 Mb. AT&T and Verizon get $19.95 and > > $29.95 respectively. That leaves Bell South being pretty expensive. My > > guess is that AT&T and Verizon customers get plenty of service to keep it > > working.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I'd be interested to find out if anyone is using them. I entered my address downtown and it said they didn't service my area. I have a suspicion that they don't have much of a foot print in DFW. It said they were based out of Washington. If anyone is using clearwire, how about giving us a review?
> > It looks like it's a subscription WAN, broadcast in your( > > availability pending) locale. The radio show also discuss- > > ed something like Zlink, Zweb, or something like that.
> > Looking at clearwire, it appears a viable alternative for > > the lower speed broadband service. But, I haven't check- > > ed the prices.
> > Standard disclaimers apply.... I have no connection with > > any organizations mentioned within.
> > > >So, the topic of the ATT/BellSouth merger came up casually. The tech at > > > >once mentioned the probability that the high level of customer services > > > >that my folks and others had taken for granted was likely coming to the > > > >bad end typical of mergers--but especially with ATT (nee SWB/SBC).
> > > Dunno about the politics, but I have a friend in Louisana that is eagerly > > > waiting for the conversion to AT&T. Bell South still gets $32.95 for > > > 1.5Mb/sec DSL, and $37.95 for 3.0 Mb. AT&T and Verizon get $19.95 and > > > $29.95 respectively. That leaves Bell South being pretty expensive. My > > > guess is that AT&T and Verizon customers get plenty of service to keep it > > > working.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> I'd be interested to find out if anyone is using them. I entered my > address downtown and it said they didn't service my area. I have a > suspicion that they don't have much of a foot print in DFW. It said > they were based out of Washington. If anyone is using clearwire, how > about giving us a review?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
They have a coverage map (http://www.clearwire.com/store/ service_areas.php) shows Waco, Killeen and a few other places. None in DFW metroplex.
