Comments on: AT&T brings new low to DSL prices

Telephone company cuts introductory pricing on its broadband service to $12.99 per month--with a catch, naturally.

[tleone31]

AT&T DSL Prices

AT&T can't go low enough for me to use their service. Their CEO
has made statements recently about extorting money from content
providers like Yahoo, Google, MSN, Amazon and others for
highspeed to their subsribers. I am certainly not going to signup
for highspeed services with a company that artifically lowers
bandwidth to the sites I access because they haven't paid their vig
this month.

[JLBer]

Charging for content

Yes, but if they start charging for content, not only will that cause potential legal issues from web sites and customers alike but it will also cause them to lose their coveted "common carrier" status, making them subject to a ton of regulations. I don't see it happening. I think a lot of it was a "feel the water" scenario to see if they thought that anyone would notice -- which we have.

[swilson2000]

Verizon

It was actually Verizon that is trying to do that you can find the article at

http://businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2006/tc20060202_061809.htm

[zaznet]

They forgot something...

Who their customer is. :) The idea of charging Google, or Yahoo for better access to the users at the other end made good business sense if you turned the tables on who is the customer of the service they provide. They came into the thought that "Google is using my bandwidth" and forgot that "My paying customer is using my bandwidth" which is the reality of the situation.

It is hardly a new idea either, some companies have set up what they call "peering" agreements where they get better throughput between providers. This is how they should approach Google, Yahoo and others. Making it a value add to both the subscriber and these online service providers.

Verizon comes out saying "peered with Blizzards' World of Warcraft, have no lag while playing WoW on our DSL!" and they sure would gain some subscribers in a flash and a hurry.

[bobby_brady]

We need wireless to aid in competition

I'm tired of the duopoly between cable and phone. All they do is add extra fine print to any price reduction.

I'm hoping once wireless gets more acceptable, it will add another layer of much needed competition.

[techguy83]

yeah, i could use it

I could use some sort of broadband connection at home. I live just beyond my local company's dsl line service, and they have responded several times to my requests with the response of they are planning on expanding. This has been going on forever, and the only other competitor who could offer me a service refuses to come into my town as the local company has all the rights to the lines and would force them to lay their own or pay tolls to use their lines, thus, I sit at home on a dial up.

[chuck_whealton]

I agree on needing wireless for competition...

I'm also fed up with the lack of competition, but if you have ANY
reasonable competition, consider yourself lucky.

So far, it's STILL Comcast here, and I hate 'em because they're
nothing but a bunch of greedy pigs.

If any type of viable alternative comes here, I'll dump Comcast
even if it's the same pricing/service, just because I've grown to
dislike them so much.

Perhaps some year, WiMax will finally be a reality.

Chuck

[zaznet]

DSL is already there...

You have to realize that DSL is becoming an open market. Yes it's still cheaper to get one provider if your local telco is the same company as the DSL provider. The Cable companies got a strong head start because the local telco was unwilling to sell the new service that was a direct threat to their existing primary money maker.

Cable companies have themselves to blame for this competition too. They started to do what the Telco feared and offering phone services. You also have services that are network independant such as Vonage picking up speed. Phone carriers also have strong competition from Cellular services.

I hope that I'm not the only one who finds the return of AT&T rather amuzing given their scope of services today. :)

[Terry Murphy]

"Sir, please keep your voice down"

For the life of me, I just don't understand the brains at work in
the telecom companies.

Why can't ATT just go ahead and set the price at 12 and 15
respectively, and leave it at that. The low price will certainly gain
ATT new DSL customers into it's fold, and more importantly,
keep them there. And it's not like ATT can't operationally justify
offering a lower price, the infrastructure for providing DSL has
long been in place, and the potential addition of subscribers will
make an already profitable service even more profitable.

But no. God forbid ATT will put anything resembling an honest
competitive deal that's a clear winner for all on the table.
Instead, the consumer, lured by the seemingly low price, will
almost certainly find out the hard way that there are strings
attached, that there are "gotchas" buried in the fine print that
effectively erase whatever low cost and savings ATT had at first
dangled in front of their nose.

ATT is betting that once it has ensnared unsuspecting DSL
consumers into their fold they will feel locked in and too lazy to
abandon the status quo and seek out better (and more honest)
alternatives from other DSL providers. Don't bet on it. It may not
be written in big bold letters in Business 101, but the last thing
you want to do is deliberately ****-off your customers. ATT may
not have the time to look at that particular, broader
consequence in the face of greedy, short term profiteering, but
maybe ATT's future churn and customer retention rate may
prove to be much needed guidance in that regard.

Then again, the way some companies work these days, maybe
not.

[zaznet]

Price Switch...

This is a very old strategy to gain and keep new customers. You switch the prices later so that you can make a good profit. Heck, even car dealers use it by showing you one real cheap (no options) car with a "low low sticker price" then immediately take you to the cars with standard options and MSRP prices.

[asher_nm]

Verizon can't provide what they offer

Working for a private ISP, I can confirm that Verizon has created such a hype for their DSL services that they can't keep up with the demand. At this time their delay is a month or more, and many customers are rejected due to "No service available". Even when lines are already "activated", it's on paper only, with another week or so of no-rout issues before actual service is set up.

[Earl Benser]

It's not the AT&T you knew....

.. this is just SBC with facade. All the old SBC problems remain.
Management hasn't improved. Performance has not improved. But
the Marketing people are having a ball - they are the only brains
left in the company - and they probably aren't SBC/ATT employees.

[flattley]

Broadband

I read with interest the article on Broadband. I have also read several others too.

Here in England, I get 16mbps for $19.00/mo The price of the broadband here is very structured and consistent.

I was surprised to find that our broadband was quite a lot cheaper than broadband in the US.

I hope you guys can get this sort of service soon