Friday, August 03, 2007

$10 DSL Revisted

New AT&T CEO Randall talks to the Atlanta Journal Constituion about, among other things, the "hidden" $10 DSL program that I've noted recently. The FCC required that AT&T offer this discount program—and an accompanying "naked DSL" program for a bit more—as a condition of it allowing BellSouth and AT&T to merge. As it turns out, in my experience and the experience of others, it is inordinately hard to find and order. Not a few people think AT&T is avoiding keeping its word.

Randall says that you don't really want it. Is that true? If you've tried to get it I'd like to hear your experiences. (John2 "at" LafayetteProFiber "dot" com)

In his own words:
Q: Of all the things the AJC has written about AT&T lately, none has caused more reader irritation than AT&T's $10 a month DSL offer, which was required by the Federal Communications Commission when you bought BellSouth. A lot of folks said they couldn't find it. It was hard to find on your site. Why?

A: We haven't made it difficult to find. To be honest with you, that's not a product that our customers have clamored for. We still have $15 offers out there in the marketplace, even $20 offers, for 1.5 megabit speeds. Those are really kind of the minimum speeds that give a good user experience. So I don't want to necessarily offer up a product where the user experience is not what I would consider really state of the art. That $10 product is kind of in that mode."

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

we can thank Blanco for that. She vetoed the bill that would have required mass investment in the network here in LA

John said...

Confused,

Uh...Hunh?

First, trust me, there has been NO bill passed by OUR legislature that would have required (or even suggested) that AT&T make ANY, much less any "mass," investment in Louisiana.

You have our lege confused with one that represents the people.

Secondly, AT&T treating its legal (and moral) obligations like so much toilet paper is not Blanco's fault; nor anyone's at the state level. This is a Federal issue from start to finish.

You have the current FCC confused with the one that understood that it existed in order to protect people and communities.