Isenberg correctly notes that this is not "offering" the service in the sense that the FCC required. Posting the offer on your website in such a way that only Google can find it and then adding insult to injury by funneling a person who has laboriously located the "good deal" for "Fast DSL Lite" to a page where a $10.00 offer isn't visible but a "New Lower Price Fast DSL Lite" at $19.95 is, cannot be called anything but deceptive.
Isenberg goes on to note that this isn't the only evasion of its merger "deal" with the feds that AT&T seems to be ignoring:
It agreed to offer "naked DSL" within six months of the merger agreement -- that would be June 30, 2007, and there's no naked DSL offer from AT&T I can find today, July 6, 2007, either. The FAQ still says, "To enjoy FastAccess DSL [FastAccess is what AT&T calls all its DSL services], you'll need to have local phone service with BellSouth."I've long since gotten to the cynical spot where I automatically assume that any obligation that BS/AT&T or Cox make that can be evaded will be evaded. They simply don't act in good faith. I'm so inured to such behavior that I barely notice it and simply assume that if you want a fair shake you'll have to fight for it. But Isenberg is right. You shouldn't have to.
AT&T also pledged to make wireline DSL available to 85% of the households in its territory by the end of 2007. Will it, or is this yet another Kushnick?* (A Kushnick is what a Bell does when it gets a Quid for a future Pro Quo, which it doesn't ever deliver.)
AT&T has already announced that it will be developing technology to violate its pledge of Network Neutrality;
AT&T should simply honor its word. That it casually declines to do so when it is not to its immediate fiscal advantage is the best possible reason for not doing business with them.