SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Mark Lewis and his wife bought a house in Winterville, Georgia, in August 2012. They figured getting Internet service would be as simple as calling up AT&T, because the prior owners had AT&T DSL (Digital Subscriber Line). The neighbors also have AT&T DSL service providing about 3Mbps.
"The previous owners had left their DSL modem and everything in the house," Lewis told Ars. But when he called AT&T, the company said they were "at maximum capacity, but if someone else in your neighborhood terminates their service that should open up something for you."
In October 2013, two of Lewis' neighbors moved out, and he called AT&T to see if that opened up a spot for him. The answer was no. It continues to be no.
Lewis isn't alone. Nearly a decade after AT&T promised the US government that it would bring broadband Internet service to 100 percent of its wireline telephone territory, many people who are desperate for AT&T Internet face a maddening problem. They can get AT&T phone service through the DSL-capable copper cables coming into their homes, their neighbors have DSL Internet service from AT&T, but they themselves cannot get wired Internet service because AT&T claims its network is full.
A handful of people like Lewis, people who have been refused DSL service by AT&T, contacted Ars after we last wrote about AT&T's broadband shortcomings. Together, these stories highlight a confounding situation involving minimal oversight, miscommunication, and millions of customers left with sub-broadband speeds or no Internet service at all.
Original Submission
(Score: 3, Interesting) by rickatech on Wednesday June 17 2015, @06:56AM
So I live less than a mile from Apple's new spaceship campus in Cupertino, CA. What's surreal is this area was unincorporated until recently so the phone lines are really old and crappy despite being Silicon Valley ground zero.
I tried to get DSL a couple of years ago only to learn AT&T was no longer support DSL in our neighborhood. I tried to find other ISP's, but they all said AT&T had removed the POTS line serving from our house - impossible to restore it to re-enable DSL from AT&T competitors. So only Comcast cable or AT&T Fiber to the Node (FTTN) Uverse options were available to us without going with weird Internet from space options. Waited and finally AT&T is offering actual fiber to the home 300 Mbps base and 1 Gbps premium plans - essentially at the same cost as the current sub 16 Mbps Uvserse service.
My sense is in more rural areas, its going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Indeed, consider getting a 4G router setup and plan, as the old reliable POTS lines are being snipped off everywhere, replaced with FTTN or cable in major markets while completely dropping support in many less profitable areas.
I'm imagine this is in part a survival tactic AT&T and cable companies are using to try to stymie net neutrality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @07:10AM
Nope. Nothing less than Quantum Entanglement Instant Action at Distance will be satisfactory.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday June 17 2015, @07:26AM
Yup, you guessed right. The copper is regulated out the wazoo and fiber isn't. So their plan is to just yank out every foot of copper and sell it off for the metal value. But don't worry, the government 'helped' you.
Problems are legion in the Internet vs government nexus.
First, companies like AT&T have been government monopolies for so long they don't really know what competition is, it just isn't in their corporate DNA. They really liked that whole government sets the prices, disallows competition and they just hoover up the customer's money and make sure a good taste gets to the public service commissioners and legislative oversight committees come election season.
Next is this whole insane notion that we have competition even now. I remember years ago hearing Chairman Powell at an event blathering about 'competition' and had to restrain myself (since I was representing my employer from standing up) and yelling "What in the heck is competitive about a government regulated monopoly cable company vs a government regulated monopoly telco? Which is the 'choice' the majority of the country gets to pick from?" And even today you might add a very crappy wireless option or two... also government regulated semi-monopolies. But no wireless option can compete with wired, 150+GB/month caps vs 1-5GB isn't exactly a valid comparision.
Now we have network 'neutrality' which is just NewSpeak for a whole new layer of government regulation and control and you can bet your ass it will also end up entrenching the incumbents deeper after a few years of rulemaking go by. It is how government and industry roll under fascism.