| actions · 2015-Mar-25 9:14 pm · |
|
| ham3843join:2015-01-15USA3 recommendations |
ham3843 Member 2015-Mar-25 9:59 pm AT&T commercial for U Verse...."Whaaaaat?"Wow just....wow, that is disgraceful. They have been dragging their feet with building out fiber and FTTH/B....and only seem to care about wireless, but that is going to come back and bite them in the behind eventually. That being said I don't see why AT&T doesn't spin off their wire lines (fiber and copper) into a separate company and be done with it. |
| actions · 2015-Mar-25 9:59 pm · |
|
| ramsasoPremium Memberjoin:2014-01-04Houston, TX |
ramsaso to rtfm Premium Member 2015-Mar-25 10:29 pm _to rtfm_Did you send them an email? |
| actions · 2015-Mar-25 10:29 pm · |
|
 rtfmjoin:2005-07-09Washington, DC |
rtfm Member 2015-Mar-26 1:04 am That was a reply from the social media team... |
| actions · 2015-Mar-26 1:04 am · |
|
| cramerPremium Memberjoin:2007-04-10Raleigh, NCWestell 6100Cisco PIX 5011 recommendation |
cramer to rtfm Premium Member 2015-Mar-26 3:44 pm _to rtfm_That's the standard hand-wringing "we don't sell DSL anymore" non-answer. (They will never come right out and say they WON'T sell legacy DSL anymore, even when it's the only option. They also won't tell you they aren't going to upgrade your area to Uverse.) |
| actions · 2015-Mar-26 3:44 pm · |
|
| ramsasoPremium Memberjoin:2014-01-04Houston, TX |
ramsaso Premium Member 2015-Mar-26 3:51 pm Can one try not to be biased?I mean, I know Ma Bell is gonna refuse but still, one has to think of a possibility.Anyway @rtfm, have you tried ordering over the internet or telephone? |
| actions · 2015-Mar-26 3:51 pm · |
|
| rtfmjoin:2005-07-09Washington, DC |
rtfm Member 2015-Mar-26 3:56 pm I tried to order on-line, sent an email; you see the response.My phones were equally rejected. |
| actions · 2015-Mar-26 3:56 pm · |
|
| ramsasoPremium Memberjoin:2014-01-04Houston, TX |
ramsaso Premium Member 2015-Mar-26 4:01 pm How about DSLExtreme?EDIT: Thinking it over, why not contact the Office of the President or the Executive offices? |
| actions · 2015-Mar-26 4:01 pm · |
|
 Karl BodeNews Guyjoin:2000-03-02 |
Karl Bode to rtfm News Guy 2015-Mar-26 4:02 pm _to rtfm_I guess I didn't realize they're no longer adding new DSL customers in area wired for DSL service. To be clear you're at an address that can get DSL -- they're just outright refusing? I knew they were backing away from DSL markets they don't want to upgrade, but I didn't realize they're outright refusing paying customers.Have other people experienced this? (I might write up a story for the front page of this site). |
| actions · 2015-Mar-26 4:02 pm · |
|
| rtfmjoin:2005-07-09Washington, DC |
rtfm Member 2015-Mar-26 4:15 pm said by Karl Bode:To be clear you're at an address that can get DSL -- they're just outright refusing?Their own site said the address qualified. We know a neighbor a few hundred feet further from the node had DSL last year but moved/died...I don't recall which. |
| actions · 2015-Mar-26 4:15 pm · |
|
| cramerPremium Memberjoin:2007-04-10Raleigh, NCWestell 6100Cisco PIX 501 |
cramer to ramsaso Premium Member 2015-Mar-26 4:24 pm _to ramsaso_It's not bias, it's reality. The Legacy DSL systems are obsolete. Uverse is all AT&T wants to sell. The only reason it wasn't simply turned off is all the paying customers still using it. While they've forced a number of them to Uverse, reports of them continuing the practice have declined (as it does result it losing paying customers -- a decline in revenue is far worse than a lack of growth, apparently.) Oh sure, they still send out lots of nag/beg mails attempting to "trick" people into switching (unless one pays close attention, the letters sound like the service will be turned off if not upgraded to Uverse.) [they've been sending me those letters for years, and my DSL line still works, however they've recently started raising rates for DSL as a a means to push people off of it, and claiming "maintenance and upgrade costs" as the reason.] |
| actions · 2015-Mar-26 4:24 pm · |
|
| Karl BodeNews Guyjoin:2000-03-02 |
Karl Bode to rtfm News Guy 2015-Mar-26 5:30 pm _to rtfm_Interesting. I really didn't realize they were turning away customers trying to give them money. You're in DC proper? Have any other users seen this happen? |
| actions · 2015-Mar-26 5:30 pm · |
|
| rtfmjoin:2005-07-09Washington, DC |
rtfm Member 2015-Mar-26 5:33 pm The location is in North Florida. [ATT does not serve the DC area; Verizontal is the LEC here.] |
| actions · 2015-Mar-26 5:33 pm · |
|
| cramerPremium Memberjoin:2007-04-10Raleigh, NC3 recommendations |
cramer to Karl Bode Premium Member 2015-Mar-26 8:29 pm _to Karl Bode_Really? Where have you been. The "standard lie" has been "no ports available" for a long time now. Turning down a $50/mo customer on a system they don't want to run anymore (possibly in a market they want to drop entirely) isn't surprising at all. |
| actions · 2015-Mar-26 8:29 pm · |
|
| corywjoin:2013-12-22Flagstaff, AZ |
coryw to rtfm Member 2015-Mar-27 1:23 pm _to rtfm_It couldn't possibly be that there really is a dearth of physical ports?One thing I know, too, is that the other telcos (CenturyLink and Verizon) will only sell certain speeds and so many connections out of remote DSLAMs that are still fed by copper or low-throughput fiber (Like an OC1 or OC3 instead of gigabit Ethernet) in an effort to (as much as possible) avoid congestion.It's interesting, too, because that threshhold has probably changed over the years. In 2001 when USWest->Qwest started installing remote DSLAMs, DSL tiers included things like 384/128k that you had to manually connect and disconnect to PPPoE on, and today 1.5M is the standard/only tier, and there's no expectation of disconnecting from PPPoE when you're not using the service, so 12 megs of backhaul is a lot less useful than it was in the past.The same kind of thing may be happening to AT&T where more (all?) of their customers are signing up for the maximum possible tier, overwhelming that DSLAM's connection to whatever backhaul it's connected to.Just as a possible thought.Was there a different way you wanted them to say "No" or were you expecting for a single additional port or for some more throughput to be available? If they do have ports and did sell the service, it would end up being a bad experience for you and probably would degrade the service for their existing customers, because they really probably do have limited throughput into that DSLAM. (Even if it's in a CO, some older DSLAMs were really designed with selling a lot of one-meg lines in mind, even if they're capable of syncing at eight megs.) |
| actions · 2015-Mar-27 1:23 pm · |
|
| Karl BodeNews Guyjoin:2000-03-021 edit |
Karl Bode to cramer News Guy 2015-Mar-27 1:44 pm _to cramer_quote:Really? Where have you been.Writing about dozens of issues and dozens of ISPs daily and not always able to track developments with all of them without community help.  I always appreciate a good news nudge. I knew they were trying to drive people away with price hikes, but I didn't know they were outright refusing to sign customers up now. Can people point me to any other examples in the forums? |
| actions · 2015-Mar-27 1:44 pm · |
|
| ham3843join:2015-01-15USA |
ham3843 Member 2015-Mar-27 3:54 pm Here in the legacy Bell South area they are still willing to sign up aDSL customers even wheretrue U Verse (vDSL) is now available. Even on 768/128 Kbps connections. |
| actions · 2015-Mar-27 3:54 pm · |
|
| cramerPremium Memberjoin:2007-04-10Raleigh, NC |
cramer Premium Member 2015-Mar-27 4:11 pm And how do you do that when everything sends you to Uverse -- and says it's not available? I've read many posts of people "ordering" DSL only to find out later that it isn't available -- the often used excuse being "no ports available". |
| actions · 2015-Mar-27 4:11 pm · |
|
 techguygaPremium Memberjoin:2003-12-3100000ARRIS BGW210-700 |
techguyga to ham3843 Premium Member 2015-Mar-27 4:28 pm _to ham3843_I'm in BellSouth territory, and I got the "no ports available" line. Three techs working in the area had already confirmed that there were more than enough ports available. I went all the way to the Office of the President, and they still refused to place an order and said the field techs didn't know what they were talking about. |
| actions · 2015-Mar-27 4:28 pm · |
|
| rtfmjoin:2005-07-09Washington, DC |
rtfm to coryw Member 2015-Mar-27 8:18 pm _to coryw_said by coryw:Was there a different way you wanted them to say "No" or were you expecting for a single additional port or for some more throughput to be available? If they do have ports and did sell the service, it would end up being a bad experience for you and probably would degrade the service for their existing customers, because they really probably do have limited throughput into that DSLAM.Their own loop qualification said yes. And it listed 768K-6Mb/s service.I have no way of knowing if there is a bona fide physical resource limit. But I suspect that is BS, and The Old Bitch is playing a game at our expense. Others here seem to have had similar impressions. |
| actions · 2015-Mar-27 8:18 pm · |
|
| corywjoin:2013-12-22Flagstaff, AZ |
coryw Member 2015-Apr-2 7:59 pm Sorry for the delay --When you say "loop qualification" -- do you mean that some database that's not really generally viewable says that if there were ports, you could get 6m/768k on that line? Or do you mean you went to att.com and clicked on Internet, put in the address, and it told you that you could get 6M, but when you went to place the order, they said "whoops no more ports"?Those are two different things, and a loop can be qualified for a speed without there being any capacity to serve that speed. In this case, "capacity" can be a number of physical ports on a DSLAM, or the throughput on the backhaul, in an effort not to oversell what they've got.Because most of us don't actually know the inner workings of the ILEC (whichever one we're working with at any given moment) and can't exactly waltz into the CO and determine this for sure. Even if you had a way of proving to AT&T that they have physical ports available, they'd probably still say "no" on the basis of not wanting to over-load that element of their network -- something Classic-Embarq CenturyLink doesn't seem very shy about getting themselves into exhaust situations, and AT&T and Verizon seem to avoid it very carefully, which was always interesting to me. |
| actions · 2015-Apr-2 7:59 pm · |
|
| rtfmjoin:2005-07-09Washington, DC |
rtfm Member 2015-Apr-3 12:02 am said by coryw:Or do you mean you went to att.com and clicked on Internet, put in the address, and it told you that you could get 6M, but when you went to place the order, they said "whoops no more portsNo they said "phone us" and THEN the excuses started.No one has ever said "No ports" just "no"....said by coryw: In this case, "capacity" can be a number of physical ports on a DSLAM, or the throughput on the backhaul, in an effort not to oversell what they've got. Or just an attempt to not sell the service for political reasons vice technical ones. |
| actions · 2015-Apr-3 12:02 am · |
|
| corywjoin:2013-12-22Flagstaff, AZ |
coryw Member 2015-Apr-3 11:04 am Well, and, we'll really never know whether this is a "political" thing or purely a technical one. I was just pointing out that there are several potential reasons for their refusal to sell that service.It could be ports, it could be capacity, it could be that Internet service isn't regulated in a way that forces them to make service available (and what little Title II we are getting doesn't take effect for another ~60 days anyway) and that they want to discontinue selling service off of that type of equipment, so they're not accepting new customers for it and when U-Verse becomes available in that area (if they ever deploy it) they'll start migrating customers to that platform.If it is a "political" thing (really: just an upper management decision regarding the fate of that old equipment) then the reason for the "excuses" is probably because nobody's allowed to say things like "yeah, the capacity's there but we're trying to get rid of that system and as such we're not accepting new accounts on it," at least in AT&T-land. |
| actions · 2015-Apr-3 11:04 am · |
|
 djrobxPremium Memberjoin:2000-05-31Reno, NV |
djrobx to Karl Bode Premium Member 2015-Apr-3 1:44 pm _to Karl Bode_said by Karl Bode:Can people point me to any other examples in the forums?Looks like Verizon is doing the same...»[DSL] Service cancelled |
| actions · 2015-Apr-3 1:44 pm · |
|
| rtfmjoin:2005-07-09Washington, DC |
rtfm Member 2015-Apr-13 2:57 pm Update:I wrote a letter to a bigwig, and got a response from a gentleman in Atlanta. (Bruce B). He promised to call me when he had more facts. I mentioned the fact a direct neighbor had had DSL.He gave me a ticket SL 1503126He left me a voicemail 4/7/15 8:12 AM, saying they could not serve the address because of loop length limits. [This is the oh 3rd variety of excuse I have gotten.]Since then, I have called him 5-7 times, getting his voicemail & leaving a message to call me. He has not.Is there a phone # to reach "The Office of the President" in general? |
| actions · 2015-Apr-13 2:57 pm · |
|
| ham3843join:2015-01-15USA |
ham3843 Member 2015-Apr-13 6:04 pm There is a number in Atlanta, I will see if I have it in my records with my issue, it might take me a few days because my files are at my parents. Read the PM I sent you. |
| actions · 2015-Apr-13 6:04 pm · |
|
| rtfmjoin:2005-07-09Washington, DC |
rtfm Member 2015-Apr-13 7:09 pm I found a number and called it; that person sent an IM to my first contact... we'l see what happens tomorrow. |
| actions · 2015-Apr-13 7:09 pm · |
|
| mtman6698join:2011-09-02united state |
mtman6698 to techguyga Member 2015-Apr-15 1:05 pm _to techguyga_I'm also in an old Bellsouth area. I'm about a mile from the old CO(at 32438) that AT&T shut down when they bought Bellsouth. It still houses some equipment, I think, but you never see anyone around the place. Used to be able to get 3Mbps down, then it was switched to 1.5Mb with no change in price. Throughput is now down to about 768Kb. Basically AT&T is just letting the system rot in place, but I was notified that my bill was being raised from $44 to 47 per month. |
| actions · 2015-Apr-15 1:05 pm · |
|
 tamjar@wildblue.net |
tamjar to Karl Bode Anon 2015-Apr-20 11:56 pm _to Karl Bode_My husband and I just purchased a home in Rhea County, TN in 12/14. The previous owner's told us that they had ATT DSL. When I got the landline phone hooked up, the tech noted that there was wiring for the DSL. I called ATT today to get DSL hooked up, and I was told that they were "overcapacity" and that DSL wasn't available, and instead tried to get me to sign up for UVerse. ATT cell phones don't work where the house is, so I doubt UVERSE will work.I was told that I could be put on a waiting list. After 50 minutes of holding and transfers to various unhelpful people, it was left at that my concern was being "escalated" and that I could expect a call back within 48 hours. I don't expect much from it.I submitted an online complaint to the FCC tonight, not that I expect much from it.either.Mostly I'm just angry because I'm being forced into slow expensive satellite internet when the wires for DSL are already there and ATT won't hook me up. |
| actions · 2015-Apr-20 11:56 pm · |
|
 PBXPetejoin:2011-01-07USA |
PBXPete Member 2015-Apr-21 12:07 am Why not just let them try to hook up the uverse and see what happens? Maybe it really is available. |
| actions · 2015-Apr-21 12:07 am · |
|