Slashdot Mirror


ATT Raises Prices for Cable Modem Owners

MBCook writes: "It appears that AT&T broadband doesn't like it when customers own their own cable modem. According to this article at ZDNet, ATT will be 'changing' their prices for all users. If you own your own cable modem, your bill is going up $7. If you lease your cable modem, you end up paying the same ammount you were before. I guess AT&T likes to milk it's customers. If I don't have a long distance service with any phone company, I have to pay for the privilage of not depending on them. Now I'll have to pay for the privilage of not depending on AT&T for a modem?"

382 comments

  1. Bandwidth caps by vincent99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe they decided to do this instead of charge people for exceeding ridiculously low monthly bandwidth caps...

    --
    -- V
    1. Re:Bandwidth caps by tftp · · Score: 3, Funny

      This way they still have the option of "charging people for exceeding ridiculously low monthly bandwidth caps". You can {have,eat} the cake, after all.

    2. Re:Bandwidth caps by digitalunity · · Score: 1

      When I was your age... {mutters, trailing off}

      This is great.

      That's the AT&T I remember.

      {/NOSTALGIA}

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    3. Re:Bandwidth caps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May be they have to send different commands to different modems for capping them, so causing them more.

      How would uncapping your modem do in this case since you DO own the modem ?

    4. Re:Bandwidth caps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rotfl! Yep, me too.

      (Said in a Lily Tomlin voice: "..is this the party to whom I am speaking?...")

  2. Please clarify by dmanny · · Score: 1

    Not exactly sure what you meant by....

    If I don't have a long distance service with any phone company, I have to pay for the privilage of not depending on them.

    --
    All my previous sigs now look like this one, I wish they were permanetly recorded when used. :-(
    1. Re:Please clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you choose to not have a long distance carrier with your local telco there's usually a surcharge. Either way you wind up paying.

    2. Re:Please clarify by whovian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I once asked about this. The telco said it is a surcharge (about USD 3, last I checked) just for having access to those various 1-900, 1-876, etc., toll call numbers. ATandT charges I believe USD 6 just for being listed in their books.

      I use an internet calling card exclusively and was looking to drop long distance on the land line altogether. The fact is, you CANNOT, unless you go to the extreme of having NO land line. In the age of wireless communications this is of course possible, but I don't know of a cellular phone contract that works out to being less expensive than a land line.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    3. Re:Please clarify by ScumBiker · · Score: 2

      The wife and I tried just that in our new house. No land line and two cell phones with shared minutes (Verizon, if you care). We were told that we were in the middle of a very strong area of signal. Of course, to get that signal, you had to stand by the front window in the dining room and not move more than two feet away from there. We were then told that we needed to wait for a new cell tower going up nearby. How long to wait? "Oh, sometime this year" was the reply. Certainly not an ideal answer. So, after two months the "great cell experiment" was a failure. We now have a land line and MCI long distance. There's no way in hell that I ever, evne under duress, deal directly with AT&T. They make Micro$oft look like the Girl Scouts when it comes to being a predatory monopoly. Thank god I'm getting Verizon DSL soon and can dump cable altogether. Well, only if the idiots at the satallite company can get me local channels.

      --
      --- Think of it as evolution in action ---
    4. Re:Please clarify by Xentax · · Score: 2

      It's possible in my area at least -- I have a land line from Bell South but no long distance carrier.

      I do pay a surcharge though, 5 USD, described on the bill thus: "FCC Charge -- A charge to recover costs associated with connecting to the interstate telecommunications service providers network. This includes the cost of equipment and facilities maintenance. Customers are billed one FCC charge per-line each month."

      Xentax

      --
      You shouldn't verb words.
    5. Re:Please clarify by christrs · · Score: 1

      Ameritech allows me to specify NO long distance carrier. They charge about $1/mo for the privilege. I also pay for non-published listing (no phone book listing, no directory listing (and no internet phonebook listing). I have to pay a $1.50/mo for the privilege.

      As far as cable modems, they could just take the position that they will NOT ALLOW non company issued modem to connect to their system. They OWN the cable and they CAN dictate what attaches to it.
      Chris

    6. Re:Please clarify by netringer · · Score: 2, Informative
      I once asked about this. The telco said it is a surcharge (about USD 3, last I checked) just for having access to those various 1-900, 1-876, etc., toll call numbers. ATandT charges I believe USD 6 just for being listed in their books. I use an internet calling card exclusively and was looking to drop long distance on the land line altogether. The fact is, you CANNOT, unless you go to the extreme of having NO land line. In the age of wireless communications this is of course possible, but I don't know of a cellular phone contract that works out to being less expensive than a land line.
      That's not true for me.

      I got really pissed when my $.05 a minute IDT service was costing me $7.00 a month in minimum usage charges, fees and taxes. $7.00/0 minutes is INFINITE cents per minute.

      I changed my local lines to NO LONG DISTANCE.

      You have to be careful what you say because the local telco rep is not allowed to recommend or influence your LD carrier decsision in any way. The sleezeball long distance companies have registered words like "whatever" and "I don't care" so may you get Fast Eddie's Ripoff telco if you say that.

      I bought an AT&T calling card at Sams Club that was $39.00 for 1000 minutes. No more fees to pay. I just gotta dial a lot of numbers the few times I call long distance.
      --
      Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
    7. Re:Please clarify by Neil_Bailey · · Score: 1

      Verizon DSL is, for lack of a better phrase, a total nightmare. I had them for three months (from jan-march of last year) - the service was down for days at a time, more than once, with only the vaguest explanation. Tech support was a bunch of morons that constantly promised a call back, but never delivered. But here is the real killer.

      I cancelled the service in March, and put a cable-modem in.. I had had the DSL coming right out of my checking account, direct billed by verizon (108 a month, with taxes). I don't watch my account as closely as I should, and when things my checks started bouncing in August, I wasn't sure why.. When I backtracked, I found out that Verizon had been charging my account for the last 5 months! But wait! There's more! When I called them, their wonderful tech support promised that I would have my money IN THREE BILLING CYCLES... Again, wait, there's more! After I bitched and moaned about waiting three months for MY money that, in my eyes, verizon STOLE from my account, I stuck it out. In November, when i didn't get my money, I called again - and they had NO RECORD OF MY CONVERSATION!!! So, again, I had to wait ANOTHER three months! When they finally deposited the money back into my account in FEBRUARY, almost a year after the thefts had begun, they deposited it minus the taxes...

      In short, I would use a tin can with a string before I would ever use verizon. The service DSL service SUCKS, the tech support people are a bunch of barely trained seals, and a cable modem is cheaper anyway..

      but I'm not bitter..

    8. Re:Please clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks! I started "No Long Distance" Long Distance Company this morning. $5/second to anywhere in your area code sounds fair huh?

    9. Re:Please clarify by ocbwilg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I use an internet calling card exclusively and was looking to drop long distance on the land line altogether. The fact is, you CANNOT, unless you go to the extreme of having NO land line. In the age of wireless communications this is of course possible, but I don't know of a cellular phone contract that works out to being less expensive than a land line.

      It's not particularly extreme to have no land line and go with a cellular phone. I've been doing that for over two years. It's cheaper for me to do so. In the past I'd pay Ameritech around $25/month plus long distance for a land line that has an unlisted and unpublished number (not available in the phone book or directory assistance). Invariably my credit card companies or other companies with whom I have done business would sell my number on a telemarketing list or I would begin getting telemarketing calls from them ("Please consider our credit protection insurance policy" kinda crap) and I'd have to pay to change the number. This was a hassle.

      On top of that, I'm usually at work all day and out somewhere in the evenings, so I've had wireless since 1995 or so. Any of my friends, family members, or business associates would always call me on my mobile phone because they knew that they could find me quickly. My monthly wireless bill was usually around $40 a month, and I thought that was pretty reasonable.

      After a while it got to the point that I never answered my land line, I just let the machine get it (voicemail would have been another additional monthly fee from Ameritech). It was never anybody that I wanted to talk to. After a month or two of this I decided that it was pointless to pay $25/month for a phone line that was only used by people who I didn't want to talk to (or for the occasional long distance call), so I had the land line shut off. I also upgraded my wireless plan to account for the potential of more minutes, and I now pay around $55/month for wireless service. That includes all the minutes that I use, plus free voicemail, call waiting, caller ID, and 3-way calling. Right now I'm looking into plans that offer no roaming and no LD charges too. One of the features that I especially like is that their "411" information service is really information, not just directory assistance. For example, if you call and ask for a number to a movie theatre they'll look up what movies are playing and give you showtimes too. Try getting that from Ma Bell! Plus I don't have to ever worry about my number being listed somewhere for telemarketers to get at.

      On that note, I know that telemarketers aren't allowed to solicit you on your mobile phone because it costs you money, but I wonder if they have a list of mobile prefixes for each area code? I've never gotten a telemarketing call on my mobile, even after giving it to my creditors.

      At any rate, from my perspective it makes sense to go purely wireless. It ended up saving me around $10/month since I already had wireless service, and it includes far more features than my land line did. I've got several friends and coworkers who've done the same thing after seeing how well I've gotten along without it. If you're afraid of the contract issue, just buy a mobile phone and get a pay-as-you-go plan. Phones have become so inexpensive lately that buying them up-front isn't that big of a deal, especially if you don't need one that does WAP and SMS and all that other garbage. Wireless companies are getting much smarter about this and now offer family packages with shared minutes (great if you're married, but I'd still get a land line for the kids).

    10. Re:Please clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you think att sucks? try verizon DSL. they are the shittiest bastards ever. your dsl will take months to install and will then suck continously.

    11. Re:Please clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually, the surcharges go to the gov't, not AT&T, and I'm not sure what this listing price is. I don't pay it. There is a 'number portability' charge, I think, but that's not a charge for listing. As far as I'm aware, there's only a charge for not listing your number.


      To set your phone service up as local only, just call your provider and tell them you want "no PIC." You will still be charged federal access charges, and you will still be able to use dialthrough numbers (10-1n numbers) to dial through for long distance, but you won't be assessed monthly charges. I've been doing this for years. It's not ideal, but it's better and cheaper than paying for access to someone's LD networks whether you use them or not.

    12. Re:Please clarify by gmack · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "but I don't know of a cellular phone contract that works out to being less expensive than a land line"

      Easy .. just take any job where your expected to own a cell phone so you can be on call.

      I did the math when I needed internet access at home cable was cheaper than either land line+dialup or DSL.

    13. Re:Please clarify by saider · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't verb words.

      Shouldn't the sig be "You shouldn't verb nouns". Words can be verbs and so "verbing" a word can be perfectly acceptable, if the word happens to be a verb.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    14. Re:Please clarify by jasen666 · · Score: 1

      I strictly use a cell at my home. Have not had a land line for over a year. (sure cuts down on the telemarketers!) I use Voicestream as my carrier, so for about $40 a month I get 1500 weekday minutes and free nights/weekends, free long distance. I'm on the thing constantly and have yet to go over on this plan. So it's definitely worked out better for me.
      Of course I'm still using ATT for my broadband, but it's alright. Cheaper than the DSL's around here.

    15. Re:Please clarify by whovian · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it seems that whenever a person owes a company money, the company really expect (read: take) it immediately. In contrast, when they owe you money, they take as long as they can get away with.

      I expect eventually there will be some type of class action taken on our behalf by the FCC or Better Business Bureau or such. The situation for consumers is nearly unbearable and IMO abusive.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    16. Re:Please clarify by StillaCoward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know about where you live, but here in Maryland Verizon flat out refused to allow us to use their service without a long distance carrier. They don't care who you use, but they won't let you not use anyone....

      Unless the lady on the other end was just lying, as I suspect she was....

    17. Re:Please clarify by LoadStar · · Score: 1

      As far as cable modems, they could just take the position that they will NOT ALLOW non company issued modem to connect to their system. They OWN the cable and they CAN dictate what attaches to it.

      Time Warner's RoadRunner has _never_ allowed customer owned modems on it's lines, at least not in this area. I've called customer support, they say that the only modem you can use with their service is the one you are supplied. I pushed a little bit, and they said "Well... maybe in the future it might be possible to use your own modem - but we wouldn't charge you any less..."

      The strange part is every electronics store in the area (such as Best Buy, though the term "electronics store" is used loosely) sells DOCSIS cable modems. Why, I don't know - I don't believe that any cable modem service in the area allows customer owned hardware. As such, I'd imagine that it must cost the store a bundle to stock all those unsold modems and handle all the returns of people who buy one not knowing any better.

    18. Re:Please clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I just posted a little something on Bell's Sympatico service. It must be the same. Use us as your LD Co. and we'll give you a rebate. Don't and it will cost you more.

    19. Re:Please clarify by waldeaux · · Score: 2

      Maybe it's a state-by-state thing. On my ISDN line, there's no long-distance carrier. I just refused to pick one. They've been sending me a bill for $0.23 for something like three years, every month. I figure at some point, I'll send them a quarter...

    20. Re:Please clarify by Lucky+Dean · · Score: 1

      Huh? Does Verizon carry anything besides your cellphone bill? (BTW I just kicked those SOB's for Cingular) What business is it of hers who your other phone services are or aren't with?

    21. Re:Please clarify by saden1 · · Score: 1

      "On our behalf by the FCC or Better Business Bureau."

      You are joking right? FCC is not going to do squat didly until they are told to by the politicians in Washington and since most politicians are bought and paid for by the corporations they won't lift a finger to stop them.

      As for the BBB, they are a joke of an organization. Talk about your self-preserving organization. They might as well put Co. at the end of their name. Have you tried them? Try them and see what I am talking about. Oh, and most of their people are NRA lunatics.

      --

      -----
      One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
    22. Re:Please clarify by mazachan · · Score: 1

      Isn't this kinda ironic, since the word "verb" is a noun?

    23. Re:Please clarify by antitribue · · Score: 1

      She was I was able to not have one. (I do think I play 2USD for this privilage some kinda FCC thing)

    24. Re:Please clarify by Firehawke · · Score: 1

      This is incorrect. As an ex-AT&T employee in the long distance segment, I'll tell you how to do it.

      When a long distance carrier is chosen, the order goes to your local company, who then changes switches on their end to change which carrier you get when you dial 1. The long distance carriers CANNOT touch these switches, so they can't turn you off.

      What you need to do is to call your local company and tell them you want NO long distance carrier. Additionally, you have to request a long distance block on the account. If you don't have a block, ANY LD carrier can pick you up whenever they want, at their own discretion.

      The system is totally screwed, but now you know how to work around it.

  3. Maintainance costs of the different people... by MosesJones · · Score: 4, Insightful


    While everyone will shout and scream "I don't want AT&T to maintain my cable modem", but when the line gets dropped and AT&T need to diagnose the problem they will apply the first rule of problem resolution

    "The user is a moron, the fault is at their end"

    This involves them doing the standard, is your modem turned on, is it working, is the green light flashing.... you don't have a green light, oh its your own modem, so how do you tell if thats working ?

    So it does cost them money in terms of call and tech support. They have to have special call centre scripts, new diagnosis procedures etc etc.

    And your cable modem might have a bug which buggers their network.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by fishnuts · · Score: 1
      • This involves them doing the standard, is your modem turned on, is it working, is the green light flashing.... you don't have a green light, oh its your own modem, so how do you tell if thats working ?

        So it does cost them money in terms of call and tech support. They have to have special call centre scripts, new diagnosis procedures etc etc.


      Tell me that you actually believe that this would cost them an extra $7 per month, per customer who chooses to use their own cable modem.

      does it really justify charging $84 extra per year to "support" people who may potentially have problems with their cable modem? I don't have statistics on cable modem failures/troubleshooting, but if it's anything like dsl/pots modems, it takes at most 2 or 3 hours to completely solve most problems. If each customer with an 'unsupported' cable modem had one such problem per year, it's unlikely that it would add up to $84 worth of AT&T's support time. And that's assuming they don't just say "we can't support it. contact your cable modem manufacturer.", in which case it costs them the $0.50 or so for the time it takes them to tell the customer that it's not AT&T's responsibility.

      Charging $7 more per month for every non-AT&T-approved cable modem across the board is completely unfair to those users who don't have problems with theirs (read: clued people, who usually don't need to call the ISP to diagnose a problem anyway)
    2. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In a situation where the modem is the culprit, AT&T should just say so and tell you that you're on your own because it's not AT&T's. They should of course prepare a good excuse for when they told you it's the modem and it wasn't.

    3. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by gclef · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but they'll do that to folks that have their modems, too...so this saves them nothing.

      The only reason I can think of is that *possibly* (and I'm really guessing here) they're trying to keep the older DOCSIS modems (that can be easily uncapped) off their network. Dunno, but it would make more sense than anything else I've heard.

    4. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by Bnonn · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't anyone who wanted to actually own their cable modem either buy one the company supported, or make sure they knew something about cable modems and PPP etc before buying one? Seems to me that most nerds would want their own modem, and these kinds of people would be able to tell the tech support person everything they needed to know in the event of a problem. Heck, they could probably tell the tech support person how to fix the problem.

    5. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by akula1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You make a good point, except for one fact, when I signed up for ATT Broadband they were encouraging you to buy your own modem. They also had a list of approved modems which negates your point about the modem being a source of bugs. Why does it matter if I'm using a PCX1100U that ATT gave me or that I bought at Best Buy?

      The thing that upsets me most is that ATT is taking it upon themselves to jack up my rates after I paid $80 for a cable modem in an effort to save money in the long run.

    6. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .. AT&T doesn't have particular 'call centre scripts' really. they just say 'well, that modem's not line, if you want a tech you're gonna pay.'

      and where diagnosis is concerned, nothing changes.

    7. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not quite true what you are saying here. AT&T (or any cable modem operator) has complete control which modems can and cannot log onto the network by using the OID of the cable modem manufacturer. AT&T Denver's broadband labs test every DOCSIS modem and re-certify it for use on it's own network. If they find, that a modem is not compliant with their setup, they simply turn it off.
      As for support, since the modems are DOCSIS, it is quite easy. The boot up steps are the same for all modems. Find downstream frequency, find upstream frequency, ranging for US/DS attenuation, IP configuration, authentication and registration.
      In terms of tech support, the operator can see (almost in real time) which modems have problems and which do not based on the RF values. Heck, you can even do that with MRTG yourself.
      So, in the end, your arguments are not valid. This is not a technical decison but a business decision. How can we milk the customer a little bit more. Nothing less and nothing more.

    8. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by mrfiddlehead · · Score: 1

      They have to go through that process anyway. Whether you buy or rent the modem is irrelevant.

      --
      :wq
    9. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by skt · · Score: 2

      Not exactly, actually support should be easier if the fault is with a non-issued cable modem. If the tech isolates the problem to the cable modem, they just throw the problem back to the customer, as it is the customer's responsibility to fix it or replace it. It's the same deal with my NIC that I purchased (although, I do lease my cable modem). If my NIC dies, I am not going to call insight@home to replace it.

    10. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by flatrock · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Cable modem service went up $7 for everyone regardles of if they own the modem or not. Modem prices haved dropped to 1/3 of what they were, and AT&T dropped the cost of leasing the modem accordingly. You aren't paying an extra $7 for using your own modem, you just are only saving $3 a month instead of $10. AT&T obviously structured the price increase so that their customers that lease modems wouldn't notice, but it really isn't fair to expect those that lease their modems to subsidize the costs for those who use their own. The price of modems has dropped, the price of leasing them should drop accordingly. This was a price increase for the service that just happends to be masked for many subscribers by a decrease in the cost of leasing the equipment.

    11. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      >They have to have special call centre scripts, new diagnosis procedures etc etc.

      [sarcasm] Exactly. This is just the same way as they need special scripts for people who buy non-AT&T phones because the equipment is all so different [/sarcasm] (hint: It isn't very much different to the end user at all, just like, to the end user, all external telephone modems look and work the same).

      Now, IIRC, there wasn't special pricing on the phone line for people who decided to opt out of the leased phone equipment racket when they finally had the choice. Perhaps I'm out of the loop?

    12. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really doesn't matter if you are clued or not when you call AT&T. They have their procedures they have to go through. If you know the problem is in their end they're just going to make it worse on you. I've tried it twice now. I have a netgear router that has been up for almost 8 months now, never had a problem with it and not changed settings on it since I got it. They still need to check every time which means I need to hook the cable modem up to my wife's windows 98 so I can tell them the fucking dhcp error ONCE more. "Could not reach a DHCP server" or something. Last time the guy I was talking to even wanted me to wait 30 seconds after "rebooting" windows so we were sure it wasn't windows problem! Sure thing I'm gonna reboot it. I went into the sound settings and played the annoying shutdown/startup music and played it into his ear. That's all he wanted to hear. So he ran a few tests and I could see the modem working and I ssh'ed out and it worked. Then he came back on the line, cut the Internet and said he needed to send out a technician?!?!? What the hell is that kind of service? The connection came back up later, but I really dislike dishonest call center people.

    13. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by Algan · · Score: 1

      This is total BS. I'm on Cablevision/Optimum Online and basically you cannot lease the modem, you have to buy your own. I never had any problems with tech support reps questioning the modem (only the NIC:)

      But then again, Cablevision is much saner than all other cable access providers combined...

      --
      If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
    14. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree.. I was about to purchase my own modem but my wife and I agreed that if we did it would give them an excuse to say it was our equipment and not their network.. Then after this article it would only save me 3 bucks a month.. No thanks I like to call and tell them they are morons, and they can't blame it on my equipment.

    15. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by thpdg · · Score: 1

      SHHH, don't give em any freaking ideas! "You Klingon son, you killed my bastard! No, wait, that's not right..."

      --

      -Patrick

      "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

    16. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by rhost89 · · Score: 1

      3 hours to fix a modem??? any modem??? I would think thats a little long, i use to work for an ISP and tech calls did not last more then 20-40 min and that was if i had to walk them through re-installing their drivers (40 min for the really dense who didnt know their right click from their left click). Its easy to diagnose modem problems, log into the nas (portmaster, ascend max, USR total control, etc..) or look at the radius logs and you can see exactly whats going on. (most of the time it was the user putting in thier email address as a username).

      Ok back to the issue at had though, it dosent suprise me that at&t is going to charge for modems, they have been renting comm equipment for years (they hit my grandmother up for 10 a mon for 10 years for a phone (88-98), yeah thats right $1200 for a phone). This will just be another way of them bleading the customer dry, and as far as support for a modem you own, yeah right, you can probably forget about it. I can very easily see the coversation going to "oh you own your own modem, what kind is it, yeah we dont support that one, but you can rent one of ours" whenever a support call comes in.

      --
      I will bend your mind with my spoon
    17. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't anyone who wanted to actually own their cable modem either buy one the company supported, or make sure they knew something about cable modems and PPP etc before buying one?

      cable modems and PPP??!?! Oh, 553 thousand uid. No wonder.

    18. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by malfunct · · Score: 1
      Two or Three hours at any tech support I've seen costs more than $84 to diagnose. IT staff is high payed (even though tech support people are relitively low paid in the industry) and the phone time is limited. If there are LOTS of tech support phone calls the phone bank for support is much larger and more expensive.

      I don't think thats really the reason though. I think (along with another poster in this thread) that there was a price reduction in modem lease costs and a price increase in service costs. People with a modem don't have to think about it becuase the cost balanced perfectly, people without the modem only see the increase in cost of service. I don't what really happened but this seems like a better explanation than "ATT likes to screw people who own thier own stuff".

      If you are really curious about the price change give your service representative a call and ask about the strange price changes, if the answer sounds too much like bogus marketing speak ask for thier manager. Someone will give you a straight answer and then you will know.

      One final thought I had is that ATT may have noticed a corallation between bandwidth (or service time) used and whether or not the user owns a modem or not. I don't have any stats to look at but it would make sense to me that users who own their own modem are in the "power user" category and could very well be using TONS of bandwidth which would cost ATT more to provide. Of course if this is the case then don't want to actually put bandwidth caps on the service because then they couldn't advertise it as unlimited, so they found a different price divider to base the increase on.

      --

      "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

    19. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cable modem which I purchased, was specifically from AT&T's list of about 10-20 supported modems. That's how they keep down cost of support etc.

    20. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These costs would be easily covered by a per-incident fee. If you don't use their modem, they can charge $40 or whatever if the problem is with the modem or its configuration. This $7/month is just a revenue stream.

    21. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by mttlg · · Score: 2
      While everyone will shout and scream "I don't want AT&T to maintain my cable modem", but when the line gets dropped and AT&T need to diagnose the problem they will apply the first rule of problem resolution

      "The user is a moron, the fault is at their end"

      Actually, I have found them to be quite cooperative at diagnosing problems. When my connection slowed to a crawl, they took the time to work with me to locate the source of a problem. They then scheduled a service call for two days later (a Sunday), at which time the technician quickly verified that my equipment was working properly and determined that the problem was with load balancing and nothing on my end.

      At no point did the ownership of the modem make any difference - if they owned it, the procedure would have been exactly the same. The only time this would matter would be with the resolution of the problem if the modem was found to be at fault. Until then, they are responsible for making sure that the service they provide is functioning properly.

    22. Re:Maintainance costs of the different people... by cburley · · Score: 1
      My AT&T Broadband was recently experiencing lots of downtime, so the second day into it I called.

      After going through the usual hired-hand tech support BS (had to reboot my GNU/Linux system, like that'd fix it, right?), they made an appointment to send someone out a couple of days later.

      The guy showed up about 15 minutes early, and quickly diagnosed the problem. No, it wasn't my cable modem, it was the low signal coming in, which he verified was a problem before it even came into the house (although two or three splitters upstream of my cable modem might be a bit much; I might eliminate one of them if I run into more problems). He said it'd be fixed, probably the next day, and, sure enough, the connectivity has been much better since then.

      So, though I had a few nightmares about the potential hassles involved in dealing with a tech who might harangue me for not running Windows on their system, what actually happened was a much more positive experience.

      Having gotten the $7-increase email (which will really not take effect for another six months), I'll have to take some time to reevaluate my household's Internet-access policies. Stick with consumer-level Broadband? Upgrade to the commercial service they introduced a few months ago? Look into whether some kind of DSL has become possible from my location since the last time I asked, when we were just out of range? Go back to dial-up, which wasn't that bad?

      But with at least one reasonable "service experience" with attbi under my belt, there's less incentive to get off their system.

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
  4. Wahey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I can finally go and get myself a new graphics card!

  5. No more anticipation... by tolarianacademy · · Score: 2

    ATT Cable internet hasn't been available in my area of Pittsburgh yet, and last year they claimed to make it available by January this year. January came, they said February. February came, they said March. March came, they said never. May rolls around and I see ATT trucks putting up new fiber everywhere and can't wait to find out if it's for cable internet. $35/month was a really good value (even if you need a $200 modem), I'm not so sure I want to pay $42/month. Buying a $200 modem doesn't seem cost efficient if I'm going to be paying $42 as opposed to $45 to lease the damned thing.

    1. Re:No more anticipation... by angelo · · Score: 1

      I was thinking about going with Penn Telecom for phone service and Speakeasy DSL for connectivity. I really can't see paying Annoying Tired and Twisted for anything. I know Verizon and ATT chage like $120 to sign up, and I'm going to see when penntele.com charges. I'd rather go with CLEC, since it is our competitive environment..

    2. Re:No more anticipation... by Indras · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was lucky when I signed up for AT&T Broadband, I got free installation. That makes a huge cost difference, and even makes up for the fact that I rent their cable modem. However, the good thing about renting is that eventually, I'm going to want to upgrade my connection, maybe to satellite (if it becomes cheaper and faster), fiber to the home (they're offering that in Lansing, MI, which is only about fifty miles away from me), or something else even faster when it comes out (powerline networking, possibly?). I don't know when, but when I do upgrade, I'd hate to have a $200 cable modem sitting around, which probably will not be worth a dime.

      Look at it this way: If you buy a cable modem, it costs you approximately $200 (with taxes) on the spot, and saves you $3 a month for as long as you have the connection. In roughly five and a half years (66 2/3 months), it will pay for itself. Do you see yourself staying with AT&T Broadband service for five and a half years? If not, then rent, it will save you money. If yes, then buy, it will save you money. For me, I couldn't see the benefit of buying even when it saved $10 a month, that's 20 months I have to keep the service to get my money back! What if I want to switch to DSL when it becomes available (which it just did, about two months ago)?

      Just do the math.

      --
      The speed of time is one second per second.
    3. Re:No more anticipation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thing is...the modems don't cost $200. I saw a compatible modem at bestbuy for $89.

    4. Re:No more anticipation... by withak · · Score: 1
      Look at it this way: If you buy a cable modem, it costs you approximately $200 (with taxes) on the spot, and saves you $3 a month for as long as you have the connection. In roughly five and a half years (66 2/3 months), it will pay for itself. Do you see yourself staying with AT&T Broadband service for five and a half years? If not, then rent, it will save you money. If yes, then buy, it will save you money.

      Economics: Quantifying common sense for hundreds of years!

    5. Re:No more anticipation... by battlemarch · · Score: 1

      Or... I paid $150 for my modem about 3 years ago at a savings of $10 a month. I'm ahead of the game (after 15 months) but I'd still chuck it and change service to another cable internet provider if AT&T didn't have a monopoly in my town. I'm just waiting for RCN to move up my way. :-)

      --
      Oh, come, come, come. Without a monster or two, it's hardly a quest... merely a gaggle of friends wandering about. - Owl
    6. Re:No more anticipation... by harshaw · · Score: 1

      Yup... I did the same thing. Interesting tid bit about RCN. I live in Somerville MA (right next to Cambridge and Boston) and we can get both RCN and AT&T. Unfortunately, RCN is available for every house on my street except mine! When I call RCN, they say that the service is unavailable and the representative a) can't explain why it is unavailable for my house and b) can take no action to figure out why service is unavailable! Very bizarre.

    7. Re:No more anticipation... by TheViffer · · Score: 2

      it costs you approximately $200 (with taxes) on the spot, and saves you $3 a month for as long as you have the connection

      Very interesting ... math ...

      I paided $89 for mine and when leasing was getting charged $15 a month. So for me it was only 6 months to make up the costs. Come June, and I will have broken even.

      Way it looks now, Cox internet is the best.

      --
      -- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
    8. Re:No more anticipation... by Indras · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I was taking the number thrown at me ($200) for the cable modem. Also, I don't really have a choice, AT&T is the only thing offered at my house :o)

      --
      The speed of time is one second per second.
    9. Re:No more anticipation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is his math interesting? You're just proving his point, which was: do your own math with numbers that apply to you and make a decision that saves you money.

    10. Re:No more anticipation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I paid same price.
      I believe it is only $7 a month here with comcast.
      But it has been a year, and I'm pretty much caught up.
      Still no other options, and reasonably good price.

    11. Re:No more anticipation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      before tou even think about DirecWay be sure to read Hughes Fair Access Policy (FAP). What a croc of shit...
      FAP
      don't even think about downloading the latest RH ISO images.

  6. Their lines, their rules by ObviousGuy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Now I'll have to pay for the privilage [sic] of not depending on AT&T for a modem?

    Are you just bitter that you shelled out cash for a worthless piece of crap? You won't be able to use it anywhere once all cable modem companies standardize on this pricing scheme.

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:Their lines, their rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NTL have done this in the UK. They've destroyed any secondhand market for CMs in the process, since all their new subscribers HAVE to rent.

    2. Re:Their lines, their rules by fsandford · · Score: 1

      I think they broke up Ma Bell because of this strong arm crap.

  7. Parse error by GafTheHorseInTears · · Score: 0
    If I don't have a long distance service with any phone company, I have to pay for the privilage of not depending on them.

    What the fuck does this sentence mean?

    --
    "You're just scared like a little white pussy. I'll fuck you till you love me, you faggot!"
    1. Re:Parse error by ObviousGuy · · Score: 1

      I think he means that he paid good money for a cable modem but now won't be able to use it carte blanche anymore. He's upset that the Long Distance Company (AT&T) is taking his money.

      --
      I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    2. Re:Parse error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, dear sir, are a moron. Your parser is broken. Mine is not. It *makes* fucking sense. Go away.

    3. Re:Parse error by ObviousGuy · · Score: 0, Troll

      You're a member of p5p, aren't you?

      --
      I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    4. Re:Parse error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sentence means that ATT is getting his money even though he doesn't use ATT long distance, and now ATT will be getting his money even though he doesn't use ATT's cable modem.

      In my apartment, I have two phone lines. I don't make long distance calls on either of them, and in fact, I can't make LD calls on either of the lines, I specifically requested this when I had the phones hooked up. But guess what? Every three months, I get a bill from AT&T (included in every third month's phone bill) for approx. $5. In other words, I don't use ATT's service, and I have to pay them to not use their service. Something about a default carrier (even though LD is blocked), it was explained a year or so ago with an insert in the phone bill.

      I believe the original poster was showing how the cable modem situation is similar.

    5. Re:Parse error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You're a member of p5p, aren't you?

      Triumph the Comic Insult Dog: What the fuck does this sentence mean? Which button do you press for your mother and father to come get you?

  8. A Global problem! by DuranDuran · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Some days ago, users in Australia had their broadband access severely limited as the major providers changed the rules. There were many Slashdot posts effectively telling these users to 'get over it'. We were told to 'vote with our feet' and choose a provider that didn't take their bat and ball and go home when the game wasn't swinging their way. In effect, we were told to 'grow up' with regard to this apparently global technology.

    Now that a major US provider is changing the rules, it'll be interesting to see how Slashdot readers take the news when it affects them a bit closer to home.

    This is a problem that affects us all.

    DD.

    --
    "You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:A Global problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This is a problem that affects us all.
      No, it isn't. How many times: US != Everyone.

    2. Re:A Global problem! by dollargonzo · · Score: 1

      good point, but to me this seems like an entirely different problem. especially if you have options, then yes, use another ISP. In this particular case, the issue is pretty much fair. i don't think the title is accurate. they dont want limit personal cable modem use (well maybe they do), its just more difficult for them to maintain them if you buy your own.

      QED

      --
      BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
    3. Re:A Global problem! by analog_line · · Score: 2

      If anyone gets as incensed as you all were about it, I would certainly tell them to vote with their feet.

      Matter of fact, when Comcast announced that they're working toward simmilar restrictions, there was alot of outrage, and alot of people told the whiners to vote with their feet.

      Now, while a $7 surcharge for owning your cable modem isn't exactly nice, it's not nearly the kind of restriction that you aussies are feeling, or those waiting under the hammer of Time Warner and Comcast here. I can't imagine something like this is going to drive a whole lot of people off. That said, if someone does find it beyond the pale, then they damn well better "vote with their feet" as you put it and stop giving a company they can't stand their money.

    4. Re:A Global problem! by kincade · · Score: 1

      But the sad fact of the matter is that Comcast is looking to purchase AT&T's cable business. AT&T has also announced that they will be making the cable modem speeds on their network 'uniform'. Which, for previous MediaOne customers like myself, is a raw deal beacuse my upstream will drop for 384kbps to 256kbps. AT&T to make broadband speed uniform It won't really affect me as I don't host a lot of upstream traffic, but I'm still paying the same price. Now I will also be lucky enough to chip in an extra $7/month because I purchased my own modem? And to top it all of AT&T has hinted at an upcoming tiered pricing structure. Let me guess, the prices will stay the same, but the speeds will drop to 1/2 or 1/4 what they currently are. Because, after all, what choice do the customers have? I'm sure I won't mind paying $80/month for the 'service' I have now. Maybe I'll get even luckier and they will start sniffing for NAT setups. Sure, here's another $150/month. I don't mind...

    5. Re:A Global problem! by Bigfishbowl · · Score: 1

      I bet this will make some people mad, but I noticed a few days ago that my DSL ISP Means seems to have uncapped my upload speed. I'm not sure if someone just screwed up or if the gods are just smiling on me this week, but spreading around that new Eminem CD just got a whole lot quicker.

    6. Re:A Global problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since cable is a monopoly, the only way to "vote with your feet" is to go to DSL-not always feasible.

    7. Re:A Global problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet this will make some people mad, but I noticed a few days ago that my DSL ISP Means [means.net] seems to have uncapped my upload speed. I'm not sure if someone just screwed up or if the gods are just smiling on me this week, but spreading around that new Eminem CD just got a whole lot quicker.

      Eminem? What a fucking waste of bandwidth. I hope they put those caps back on quickly.

    8. Re:A Global problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Piss off, foreigner. We invented the Internet. Without us, you'd be German.

    9. Re:A Global problem! by Bigfishbowl · · Score: 1
      Eminem? What a fucking waste of bandwidth

      Hey, its a whole lot better then Celine Dion.

    10. Re:A Global problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >

      That's what gets me about the "get over it" crowd both here & elsewhere. IF everyone just "gets over it", and "stops whining", and accepts whatever unwanted change happens just like sheep, then we'll get shit on even more

    11. Re:A Global problem! by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      But the sad fact of the matter is that Comcast is looking to purchase AT&T's cable business. AT&T has also announced that they will be making the cable modem speeds on their network 'uniform'. Which, for previous MediaOne customers like myself, is a raw deal beacuse my upstream will drop for 384kbps to 256kbps. AT&T to make broadband speed uniform [com.com] It won't really affect me as I don't host a lot of upstream traffic, but I'm still paying the same price. Now I will also be lucky enough to chip in an extra $7/month because I purchased my own modem? And to top it all of AT&T has hinted at an upcoming tiered pricing structure. Let me guess, the prices will stay the same, but the speeds will drop to 1/2 or 1/4 what they currently are. Because, after all, what choice do the customers have? I'm sure I won't mind paying $80/month for the 'service' I have now. Maybe I'll get even luckier and they will start sniffing for NAT setups. Sure, here's another $150/month. I don't mind...



      I am quite happy with the new uniform speeds, for many of us this means a speed increase. :) Many of the @Home affilates where using the recommended 128kbit cap, so the new 256kbit cap is rather nice by comparison.

      Also hopefuly AT&T is doing all of this so as to be able to make the cable internet access portion of their company (more?)profitable so as that they can keep ahold of it. At least I hope so. . . . ^_^

    12. Re:A Global problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Al Gore? Is that you?

    13. Re:A Global problem! by lionchild · · Score: 1

      Please, correct me if I'm wrong...but hasn't Australia been in the market practice of charging per megabyte because of limited bandwidth to the country as a whole? I was under the impression that there had been limits and quotas on data throughput for some time.

      This isn't to say that throughput shouldn't be unlimited, but is it a new idea that home users will have data limits?

      Back on subject -- I have to say that $7/month for someone who owns their own modem is an expensive proposition for support. But, it seems to me, that the 10% of AT&T's users who own their own modems, are likely the 10% that work in the IT field, for the most part, wouldn't you think? Those who are a bit more savvy at hardware, own their own modem. Not a universal truth, but a generalization.

      It seems silly to me to effectively penalize those 10% who are not likely the morons needing help on the local end, and who call only when the problem is outside their local network edge. I suppose I'll just be thankful I'm not on AT&T. :-/

      --
      Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
    14. Re:A Global problem! by analog_line · · Score: 2

      Then you either get a new ISP, start your own if there's none around (or start a grass roots movement to get an alternative provider in your area), drop the Internet altogether, or deal with it.

      Those are your only choices. Unless you actually DO SOMETHING about what you complain about, then complaining is completely and uttterly useless. You're still giving money to them, that's all they care about. AT&T doesn't care one iota if you complain. They only care if you don't want their service. All the damn advertising is intended to convince you that you want/need their service. Once they've convinced you of that, all you're willing to do is complain about it, and they're having a nice chuckle at your rantings and ravings, because they know you're too spineless to do anything about it. How's it feel to be a slave to your broadband Internet, eh?

      Not me. If broadband Internet service costs more than I'm willing to pay, then I'm just not going to have it. End of story. Thanks, have a nice day, AT&T. Dialup is plenty fine for me. It gets me my e-mail, basic web browsing, and the other small parts of the Internet that are actually useful, rather than the %99.99999999999 of it that is merely diversionary (like Slashdot).

      If more people actually put their money where their big mouths are, things would be alot more resonable around here. However, America is the Land of Cheap Talk. No one bothers to follow through with anything. So companies happily continue to screw people over, because the people are too sheepish to do more than talk about it.

      You, my complaining brethren are the problems. The devil didn't make you buy broadband. Either do something about it, or keep it down. Some of us are trying to live over here.

    15. Re:A Global problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't sweat it. No matter what CD you mentioned someone who have ragged on it.

    16. Re:A Global problem! by ThatTallGuy · · Score: 1
      If anyone gets as incensed as you all were about it, I would certainly tell them to vote with their feet.
      Only one little problem with that. There is nobody else in the area.

      The high-speed Internet market is about as competitive as the cable TV market -- lots of companies fighting for turf, but on their little patch of turf they reign supreme.

      What other business has this model? Shady characters on the street corner with large rolls of cash and little packets of powder.

      I do own my own cable modem, and have had it long enough for it to "pay for itself." But now I'll be asked to pay for it again... and again... and again...

    17. Re:A Global problem! by Bartab · · Score: 1

      Now that a major US provider is changing the rules, it'll be interesting to see how Slashdot readers take the news when it affects them a bit closer to home.

      AT&T users should get over it and find a new ISP that won't change the rules on them.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
  9. So, private companies can do it too. by hokanomono · · Score: 1

    In countries that have national phone companies, you can often hear people lamenting about it and suggesting if it were private, everything would be better. Sure, some things would, but it's interesting to see that the "free market" can fail too.

    --
    This sig is a true statement, but I cannot prove it.
    1. Re:So, private companies can do it too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot, but thanks for playing.

    2. Re:So, private companies can do it too. by Chicane-UK · · Score: 1

      Irrespective of what the dumbass Anonymous Coward said, I agree with you.

      You only have to look the British Railway network which is in real trouble as an example.. as they say, the grass is always greener on the other side.

      --
      "Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
    3. Re:So, private companies can do it too. by DrSkwid · · Score: 2

      Ownership isn't the problem but what the true mission statement is.

      In a world that says look after the profit and the social consequences will look after themselves then the user/providers interface is one of conflict.

      Maybe if we were in a world that was dedicated to providing the best telecoms per user then we'd easily have fider to the door by now.

      In the UK we had to sit gnashing teeth while BT made 93 GBP profit per second the dividends of which were going to private pockets rather than infastructure investment.

      By breaking the UK telecoms we now have 2 struggling cable providers [:ntl & telewest] and one profit slurping behemoth [Bt]. A BT that sends a cease and desist notices if you actually use the service ['You have been using the flat-rate service too much - up to 16 hours per day - in violation of our T&Cs]. As a small but rich country we could have been world leaders in domestic telecoms, instead the users are being squeezed.

      oh well, I get mine for free anyway :)

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    4. Re:So, private companies can do it too. by heckman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Free Market? Excuse me? I have one choice for Cable -- AT&T. I have one choice for local phone service -- SBC. I have one choice for Broadband Cable -- AT&T. I have no choices for DSL. How exactly is this a free market when the FCC limits which companies can offer service in my area? If you want a real free market, get the FCC to either enforce the rules of the 1996 telecom act requiring local providers to open their markets or have Congress rewrite the rules. Me, I won't hold my breath. Political contributions from Fortune 500 companies always win out over the desire of the people.

    5. Re:So, private companies can do it too. by Mario+B · · Score: 1

      I have one choice for local phone service -- SBC.

      I'm pretty sure MCI offers local phone service in your area (as they do in most states now).

    6. Re:So, private companies can do it too. by efficacymanUM · · Score: 1

      I think the solution to the problem is to have the government own fiber optic cable that goes to everyone's house. Have the switching at a central location, and let any company that signs up for a lisence pay a reasonable fee to acess the fibre. That way we would 1) solve the problem of the last mile, 2) have the infrastructure to take off as a country and get even further ahead as far as the internet goes 3) enable any future applications that we can think of (until something replaces fibre optic. Of course this would require something like insight/foresight, but think of it along the lines of the Eisenhower Freeway system in the US. Heck, in this day we could even justify it in the name of defense (like the highway system that lead to wider interstate commerce). It would even stimulate the economy and use up the glut of hardware produced in the dot bomb. Of course, not everyone would pay for an OC-192, but i think it would be nice to have dirt cheap bandwidth everywhere. I think we would be much better off as a society (with the downside that DDOS and what not would be infinitely more lame).

  10. Well, cable modems got cheaper by kubusja · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cable modems got cheaper so the difference between
    those who own c modem and those who don't should be
    smaller - down to $5. This means that overall
    this is a rise for everybody - just for
    those who don't own cable modems the rise is
    compensated by the fall of cable modem prices.

    1. Re:Well, cable modems got cheaper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IC. But why should
      people who spend the
      money & assume the
      risk by buying their
      own c modem that can
      go bad have to pay
      more? It would seem
      that when AT&T has
      to replace a leased
      modem everybody will
      bear the brunt in
      their bills but its
      ok to soak the
      people who aren't
      giving AT&T this
      liability?

    2. Re:Well, cable modems got cheaper by Suilven2000 · · Score: 1

      I don't feel very compensated. I decided to buy a modem a few weeks ago on the basis of the current prices. I reckoned that it would take less than a year to pay for itself. A $3 a month saving? Its hardly worth it. I feel annoyed because the people that I spoke to at AT in fact it was the modem rental fee that was mentioned in the small print.

  11. Dont close your eyes by jukal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When the modem is leased from the provider, they have more control on everything. They can be more prepared for customer oriented oddities, failure claims etc resulting in better predictability of incomes and less uncertainties in general.

  12. AT&T is abusive, in my experience. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Try to avoid having any involvement with AT & T. My experience with them is that they look for ways to abuse you, like many big companies.

  13. Small correction by awptic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    According to the ZDnet article, the additional charge for renting a cable modem is $10; you're still getting a discount if you own your own cable modem (albeit a very small one).

    1. Re:Small correction by awptic · · Score: 2

      Oops, should of read the whole thing :)

    2. Re:Small correction by fishnuts · · Score: 1

      Should have!

  14. glad I don't own my own... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I considered briefly buying my own cable modem, but for the monthly cost of leasing, it was cheaper in the short term. (I live in an apartment, don't want to buy a cable modem in case I move to an area that doesn't supply that type of service)

    That being said, I rather expected this move. In case you haven't noticed, telcos are struggling right now, and any move that can keep them afloat (ok fine, keep the share holders happy) they are going to do. Rather nifty of them to tell anyone, as I am a subscriber, and I didn't receive any information on this. Yeah, of course the rights and all that are subject to change, but enough of running rough-shod over your customers. We are people too, and don't always have the convienence of having a ton of loot sitting around, or customers we can up prices on without telling.

    In a similar rant, a lot of these companies do these things without even pausing to consider what the risks are, simply because there (for the most part) ARE NONE. Customers will bitch, a few will change providers (those lucky few that can) and other than that, NOTHING WILL CHANGE. YOU might care enough to drop service, but most people are so apathetic about stuff like this, it's comical. Bitch, moan, give em the money. Hell, it makes business sense to do this. Too bad the customer gets it in the end eh?

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
    1. Re:glad I don't own my own... by stevey · · Score: 1

      Over in the UK ADSL is just beginning to take of. However there are some things which make it pricey for users such as 'setup' fees. You're almost certain to have to get a 1 year contract as a minimum as well. (This is a shame; as it stops most Students from getting ADSL).

      When I signed up I bought a cablemodem+router for around 130UK pounds. On top of that I had to pay 50 UK Pounds setup fee.

      The alternative was to pay 240 UK Pounds for a provider loaned modem and setup - clearly much more expensive.

      There is no way I would have the providers modem at a price like that; (not to mention the fact that the providers modems usually are USB based...)

    2. Re:glad I don't own my own... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3. Profit!

    3. Re:glad I don't own my own... by Zathrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Customers will bitch, a few will change providers (those lucky few that can)

      That's the real issue. Change providers? To who? Cable is an unregulated monopoly in the US, so you can't just change cable companies and get different service. And the FCC and Congress decided that allowing customers to choose their ISP on cable/DSL was unimportant, so you are stuck with AT&T/Charter/Time Warner/whoever for what you do have. DSL is going down the same path now, if you can even get it.

      What other options are there really? Partial T1 tends to be too expensive, even in major cities with heavy telecomm systems.

      The rule is simple - when there is no competition then the companies have all of the cards. Traditionally the consumer has the ultimate power in the form of voting with their wallet. However when there is a monopoly that sole ability is removed, because the consumer has no place else to go.

      It's sad, really... the Telecomm Act of 1996 was supposed to fix all this. All it's done is move us backwards 50 years AND removed government oversight. Happy happy, joy joy.

    4. Re:glad I don't own my own... by flatrock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In case you haven't noticed, telcos are struggling right now, and any move that can keep them afloat (ok fine, keep the share holders happy) they are going to do.

      This is exactly the point. These companies aren't gouging their customers, they're just trying to make a little bit of money and not lose money. They brought out the service at as low of a price as they could reasonably afford to do to gain market share. With the economy being shaky, they haven't been able to scale up as high as they'd like to be able to pay off their initial investments with lots of subscribers. The result is they have to raise prices. If you look at how they did it, it was done pretty fairly. Cable modem prices have dropped significantly, and the cost of leasing the modem was reduced accordingly. If they kept the price of the modem high, those who lease their modem would be subsidizing those whose who owned theirs. Everyone got a $7 increase in the cost of their service. That's a pretty big increase, but it may very well be justified by their costs. If AT&T or other providers were making a fortune providing cable modem service, you're complaints would be justified, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

      Yeah, of course the rights and all that are subject to change, but enough of running rough-shod over your customers. We are people too, and don't always have the convienence of having a ton of loot sitting around, or customers we can up prices on without telling.

      It doesn't look like AT&T sent this info to ZDNet in a press release. The article said that AT&T was planning on announcing this later in the day. The article also states the current subscribers will get coupons so that they don't feel the bite of the price increase for 6 months. That seems like a pretty generous amount of warning of a price increase. I don't blame you for being upset about a price increase. No one wants to pay more for the same service, and most people don't have the choice of just switching to a different provider.

      In a similar rant, a lot of these companies do these things without even pausing to consider what the risks are, simply because there (for the most part) ARE NONE.

      They do have some risks in not raising prices. As we found out from the dot com crash, you can only have a business model where you don't make money for a rather limited period of time. Telephony companies are losing lots of money right now. They either need to find a way to start making money again, or your choices of providers could go from one to zero. How to you increase revenues when you can't do it by lowering the price and gaining more customers? You raise the price and hope you don't lose customers.

    5. Re:glad I don't own my own... by NFNNMIDATA · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the percentage of those owning the modem is small. So you can't justify the rate increase on the basis of "AT&T needs money to stay afloat" since the rate increase is really only getting them a small amount of revenue. I think it's plain they just want to discourage people from having their own equipment.

    6. Re:glad I don't own my own... by xenocide2 · · Score: 1
      Local monopolies are slowly being eroded by competing companies. Unfortunately, they also charge by usage. You can get different speeds of cable modem from them at different costs, which after checking /. recently, is the sum of all evils. I guess we'll have to look elsewhere for their cheap high speed bandwidth. Maybe packet radio is the solution, or stationwagons full of CDs.

      But honestly, I look forward to everest getting off their ass to provide service to me. I read that everest was granted a cable liscence in my area, but they won't offer service until they get the liscences to offer a full suite of services like phone, cable and long distance.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    7. Re:glad I don't own my own... by flatrock · · Score: 2

      They probably do want to discourage people from having their own equipment. People having their own equipment does likely increase their support costs. They may be looking at their support database and seeing that it costs significantly more to support people who have their own modems, it's hard to tell without having access to that informantion. It's pretty plain to see that the cost of cable modems have dropped to a fraction of what they were several years ago. The $3 a month probably represents what they are paying for the modem. So if it's easier to support people who lease their modems, and the costs have gone down, why shouldn't they change the pricing structure so that the people leasing their modems aren't subsidizing those who don't?

      I'm pretty sure AT&T isn't just restructuring their pricing for the fun of it. They're likely doing it because it helps their bottom line. Something as drastic as changing their pricing is going to get a lot of internal scrutiny before it happens. I find it hard to believe they would do this "just to discourage people from having their own equipment". I'm pretty sure it traces back to revenues.

    8. Re:glad I don't own my own... by Bartab · · Score: 1

      That's the real issue. Change providers? To who?

      While Cable may be a regulated (not unregulated as you claim) monopoly, it is not the only broadband provider. While my choices for cable broadband are limited to one (AT&T) I have an overall choice of seven broadband providers, and am happily a customer of one of them (not AT&T).

      Now, it may be the only one to offer speeds you want (although with recent caps I tend to doubt it) but that's not a monopoly. Uncapped cable service is a -better- service than their competitors, and thus the service provider can and in fact should charge more for it.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
    9. Re:glad I don't own my own... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your point is that since you yourself have a choice of seven "broadband" providers, cable operators are not monopolies everywhere?

    10. Re:glad I don't own my own... by Electrum · · Score: 2

      Yes, Everest needs to come to Lawrence and give Sunflower Broadband some competition!

  15. Grammar and spelling by Telcontar · · Score: 0, Troll

    Editors, please correct grammar and spelling errors submitted. In this story, those are even above the /. average ("ammount", "it's", "privilage"). I would like to see this average going down rather than up.

    1. Re:Grammar and spelling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't that mean that the moderators would have to have good spelling and grammar as well? I don't think that slashdot supports a spellchecker yet..

  16. FUCKING SPELLING!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not ONLY does the stupid son of a slimy whore NOT make ANY sense, he can't fucking spell a goddamn simple word like 'P R I V I L E G E'.

    damn it all to hell, you dumbshit motherfuckers, USE a spellchecker.

    1. Re:FUCKING SPELLING!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you should use a spell checker, Mother Fucker is in fact two words, not one.

      cretin

      ---

      I didn't post this, a big boy did it and ran away

    2. Re:FUCKING SPELLING!!! by robtm · · Score: 1

      If you spell it like that, aren't you talking about a Mother named Fucker then?

    3. Re:FUCKING SPELLING!!! by Neil_Bailey · · Score: 1

      Wow... did someoone forgget to taeke thier medikatoin tuday?

  17. This is wrong... by phunhippy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    from the article "Customers who lease their modem from AT&T will have their lease fee reduced by $7, paying an additional $3 per month for the modem."

    And the customers that own their own modem are having they're bill increased by 7 dollars.... So essentially by owning your own modem, your now helping to subsidize the cost of users who don't want to buy their own modem but lease it.. That seems very wrong to me, hell completely wrong.. why should I have to pay 7 dollars to have my own modem as opposed to 3 dollars to rent it? I smell some lawsuits here..

    Glad I have Comcast Cable modem here in PA..

    1. Re:This is wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are a retard. Read the article.

      Base fee (now): $35.95
      Cable modem surcharge (now): $10.00
      Total bill to lease the modem: $45.95
      Total bill w/o the modem: $35.95

      Base fee (June): $42.95
      Cable modem surcharge (June) $3.00
      Total bill to lease the modem: $45.95
      Total bill w/o the modem: $42.95

      Everyone is paying $7.00 more per month for the service. The difference is that people who lease their modem will not notice the difference because the lease fee has dropped.

      As often happens, the headline is not accurate, and no one else bothers to read the original article.

      There is no subsidy. Cable modems used to be $300. At $10.00/mo, the lease paid for the modem in 30 months. Now that cable modems are $100, dropping the lease to $3.00/month means that it is paid off in 33 months.

      The metrics are basically the same. You're just dumb.

    2. Re:This is wrong... by Geek+In+Training · · Score: 2

      The Leasing of equipment always helps subsidize "other costs."

      I have been paying $3 a month for 50 months (so far) to "rent" a set-top cable descrambler, that probably cost the cable company $20 in bulk. Also, I pay $1.35 "remote control rental" for the remote for that box... $65 so far. Why? "Because it is part of the cost of service."

      I'm more concerned as to why my local cable monopoly has been promising digital cable to our community for four years, and still has not delivered. 100,000 residents of surrounding communities have subscribed to it, but not us. After getting the third ad in a month via mail, I finally called and said "do you have it for our city yet?" "THEY'RE working VERY HARD on it."

      What is there to work on, and who are THEY? This town was built mostly from the ground up about 15 years ago from a farming community into a surging suburb!
      They should have "it" done by now!

      I'm just pissed because they don't have Cartoon Network. Too many frickin' movie channels...

      --
      SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a .sig, someone WILL complai
    3. Re:This is wrong... by ameoba · · Score: 2

      Gah... you don't want digital cable. I've never been impressed w/ the picture quality (I would -much- prefer a bit of light snow/static/ghosting to digital compression artifacts and the way picture quality completely goes down the tubes when some noise does (and it will) get on the line). To make things even better, when they finally get digital cable on your system, the picture & sound quality of existing analog transmissions will degrade, so those that don't upgrade will get a reduced quality of service.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    4. Re:This is wrong... by phunhippy · · Score: 2

      I have been paying $3 a month for 50 months (so far) to "rent" a set-top cable descrambler, that probably cost the cable company $20 in bulk. Also, I pay $1.35 "remote control rental" for the remote for that box... $65 so far. Why? "Because it is part of the cost of service."

      Then sir! yer an idiot! what you describe is subsidizing stuff for your self... what they are doing now is making people who have there own modem subsidize people who don't... thats whats wrong about it!

    5. Re:This is wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I'm more concerned as to why my local cable monopoly has been promising digital cable to our community for four years, and still has not delivered.

      Fight Back against unfair TV monopolies the only way you can. Plus you get free TV while you're at it!

    6. Re:This is wrong... by thmitch · · Score: 1

      According to AT&T those with AT&T modems are not paying $10 more but those owning their own modems are getting a $10 discount. AT&T is reducing the discount to &3 so by their reasoning they are not charging more but giving back less.

      Terry

    7. Re:This is wrong... by Peyna · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm with Time Warner Road Runner Cable Internet service, and I think the way they do it is pretty fair. The service is $45 or so a month, which includes rental of the cable modem. If you choose to use your own, obviously they aren't going to support it, and you don't get a special discount or anything. Perfectly legal. Sort of like when you go to McDonald's and ask for a no mayo. They don't refund you the money for the mayo.

      I don't understand why they would need to charge extra for someone not using a cable modem. They are saving them money, since that cable modem can used by someone else. Support? They don't have to support the cable modem/router itself, only the cable line in this case. Sort of like when you have to pay extra to NOT be in the phone book.

      --
      What?
    8. Re:This is wrong... by Krya · · Score: 1
      Glad I have Comcast Cable modem here in PA..

      Sorry to tell you this but yesterday I received shareholder documents that were an inch thick describing the planned merger of AT&T Broadband and Comcast.

      You can run but you can't hide. :-(

      Krya - Kim

    9. Re:This is wrong... by avdp · · Score: 2

      They're not charging extra for people NOT using the company-provided modem, they're just discounting LESS than they were before ($3 instead of $10), resulting in an increase on the bill.

      I agree with you that just like RoadRunner, AT&T has no obligation to discount anything at all for those that don't use the provided modem. So the bottom line is that cable modem owners should still be happy that they now get $3 discount.

    10. Re:This is wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AHEM, Comcast is soon to become AT&T... the bad of both companies will soon be combined to give you a new more horrible than before ISP and Cable company. expect comcast snooping coupled with shady AT&T pricing tricks to combine to become your worst nightmare....

      All brought to you by your favorite comcast family...

      have a nice day :-)

    11. Re:This is wrong... by IronicCheese · · Score: 1
      Holy Cow.
      Retard?...
      Dumb?...
      Have you condsidered decaf?

      This is a perfect example of the best AND the worst that Slashdot has to offer:
      • A crisp breakdown with a well-phrased analysis coupled with
      • a childish and gratuitous insult, both opening and closing the posting.

      Does the put-down make you feel better? It shouldn't. Slashdot isn't the only source of good Karma. ;)

      ----

      MODERATORS: Oddly, I seem to be the only one reacting to this posting. Go ahead, mod me up. Make the world (or at least Slashdot) a more civil place.
    12. Re:This is wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i modded this up.

      it's off-topic, but fuck it!

    13. Re:This is wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      d'oh! that removed the moderation!

      i hate slash. so pedantic.

  18. Is this legal ? by Betcour · · Score: 1

    That sounds pretty shaky as far as consummer protection laws are concerned (but then I live in Europe...)

    1. Re:Is this legal ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm still waiting for my 30 day notice for the fee increase.

  19. You know nothing! or your one of the morons! by phunhippy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    you say: This involves them doing the standard, is your modem turned on, is it working, is the green light flashing.... you don't have a green light, oh its your own modem, so how do you tell if thats working ?

    You do realize the people that they have working the "LEVEL 1" call centers are complete morons right? They are probably over-qualified if they are taken from the welfare to jobs progams. You'd think if you explain to a level one tech that yes your compitent and you've already done some basic check troubleshooting(like being able to ping the local edge router for example, but nothing else) would make it so that you dunt have to listen to them say: ok go the left corner of your screen and hit the start button with one click of your mouse, now go to control panels and click once... and etc etc etc...

    If anything they want everyone to use the same modem so they're dumb ass level 1 techs have a slim to none chance of ever helping someone out.. I really do hope those people don't make more then minimum wage too!

    2 weeks ago with comcast there was an outage in our area(could ping the routers) and i had to go through all that, and after much pain i asked the level 1 dweeb to try and ping my assigned IP. She/He/It said that her/his/its ping program was not working and could not verify it for me. I asked if he/she/it could then ping from the command line on his/her/its desktop and they had no idea what i was talking about!!!!
    So then i asked to be passed off to the next level tech so i could talk to someone who might be able to help me or i could realisticly explain my problem too. but the the DUMB ASS LEVEL 1 tech said he/she/it could not transfer to a higher level tech until she diaganosed my problem.
    So I then mentioned that she/he/it was unable to diagnose my problem(in their eyes) cuz there ping tool was down and they should transfer as a result of that, but no they said! because of that i'd have to wait until thier network came back up and they could test & they said they would not know when that would be and just to try and call back through out the day...

    ::sigh:: ok i hope they make less then minimum wage!

    1. Re:You know nothing! or your one of the morons! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well...

      This kinda makes sense, don't you think that maybe, just maybe when their network is down they know about it? Would you rather have the higher level techs talking with you to make you feel better that yes, you are smart and yes you are right we do have a problem. or, would you rather they find the real problem and fix it ASAP

    2. Re:You know nothing! or your one of the morons! by Hott+of+the+World · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Actually, My brother works for a local Cable-provider, and they make 10-13 dollars an hour.

      --
      | - | - |
    3. Re:You know nothing! or your one of the morons! by phunhippy · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Actually, My brother works for a local Cable-provider, and they make 10-13 dollars an hour.

      If he works in level 1 tech support he is WAY overpaid!

    4. Re:You know nothing! or your one of the morons! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moderation Totals: Offtopic=1, Total=1.

      right... how is that offtopic to the thread??

      dumb moderators as always....

  20. Or another way of looking at it... by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They have increased the price of their service by $7. They are reducing the sting a little by allowing people to rent their cable modems for free. People who have their own modem can still take advantage of this offer. People who do not will not be paying more. They simply will not be paying less.

    What we really need is more competition in the marketplace. We need at least a dozen different services, then one of them would relaise the good niche market of people with their own cable modems.

    1. Re:Or another way of looking at it... by Catskul · · Score: 2, Interesting
      People who own their own cable modems (like me) cant really take advantage of the "offer". I could try and sell my cable modem to get the value back out of it, but then again nobody would buy it because ATT customers are most of the market. On this point:
      What we really need is more competition in the marketplace. We need at least a dozen different services, then one of them would relaise the good niche market of people with their own cable modems.

      I agree... As soon as I get my next bill, I intend on getting on the phone with a manager at customer service and letting them know that I will switch broadband cariers as soon as annother option becomes available.... If enough people do this they might just get scared and listen...

      ...or they might just tighten thier grip on their monopoly
      --

      Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
    2. Re:Or another way of looking at it... by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      What we really need is more competition in the marketplace. We need at least a dozen different services, then one of them would relaise the good niche market of people with their own cable modems.

      Maybe. But you may be forgetting a bit of microeconomics. Recall that AT&T has almost monopoly power in the markets they serve (not too many places have two cable modem providers.) Recall also that they are making very little actual profit, but as a monopoly, they are making economic profits. The fact that people are bitching about their prices show that their economic profits are substantial.

      Now, consider what happens if the market becomes competitive. If it were perfectly competitive, firms would be making no economic profits at all, so their actual profits would be much less than AT&T's. In other words, every cable company would be losing money. Even if the market were imperfectly competitive, companies would be making little or no money. And that is a bad thing because if companies go out of business then none of us has cable.

      The reason that the market is not competitive is that there are significant barriers to entry, namely the cost of servers, the cost of laying cable, and the small amount of money that you make from it. The upshot of all this is that the market will not be competitive for the forseeable future, and five years from now, you will still be on /., bitching about bandwidth prices.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
  21. Ownership Tax by Chardish · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Essentially what AT&T has done is imposed an ownership tax that penalizes its users for owning their own equipment. The folks there probably just saw the latest reports and saw cable modem leasing was down. And of course AT&T prefers that the money is in their own hands, not the cable modem manufacturers'.

    I'm surprised AT&T hasn't made their own cable modem yet and FORCED users to buy it. That wouldn't surprise me. This does.

    -Evan

    1. Re:Ownership Tax by avdp · · Score: 2

      not at all. They've just reduced the discount for owning a cable modem to $3 (a reduction that reflects the fact the cable modems are much cheaper now than they were before) along with raising the base price for EVERYONE. Cable modem owners still pay $3 less than those that use the company-provided modem? What's wrong with that?

    2. Re:Ownership Tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an odd turnaround from my provider, Charter. They'll actually tell you to go down to Circuit City and buy your own modem. They don't want the hassel of renting, which they only do because they feel obligated to do so.

      They list 5-6 modems that are offically supported by their network, and I suppose that helps limit problems with them having to troubleshoot problems with modems they don't own.

      Oh, and the modem that top their list of recommendations? $99 at Circuit City.

  22. Trying to make a profit? by welshdave · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to this AT&T aren't doing so good. Could it be that they've decided to try and make some money? Yeah it's crap for those of you who have to pay an extra $7 a month or whatever but at the end of the day big companies are always gonna try and make money. I guess cable modem users are just an easy target.

    1. Re:Trying to make a profit? by twitter · · Score: 2

      They are more likely to make a profit if they would provide something better than others for less money. I suggest to you that their sagging bottom line reflects other poor decision making like this. Fast browser, dedicated propriatory box phone, no services service is a loser.

      --

      Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  23. Dial-up ISPs... by Rayonic · · Score: 2

    ...have to deal with different brnads of modems all the time. It's called Life, and AT&T should get over it.

    1. Re:Dial-up ISPs... by welshdave · · Score: 2, Interesting

      and having worked in support for a dial-up ISP I can tell you that it's fairly common to blame problems on the wrong kind of modem. I was told to always recommend 3Com modems.

    2. Re:Dial-up ISPs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I was told to always recommend 3Com modems.

      Ahh, the new owners of the [PAUSE] venerable [PAUSE] sportster [PAUSE] line.

      Thank God they test their modems for at least 1 minute before going gold with the mask ROM, and I really appreciate their saving $0.10 by not putting in sockets.

  24. cable modems by kalanar · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've had ATT cable for about 3 months now. I've been leasing a modem from them as well. This is the first time I've had cable, so I wanted to test it out before paying the 100 bucks for a modem that I may never use again.

    Once I reach the upstream cap (300) the connection dies completely. If I upload a file to an ftp site the connection is broken until I stop the transfer. If I start loading a few webpages, or have several ssh sessions opened to different servers, it dies until i can close all the windows, and power cycle the modem. I've seen this happen while watching tcpdump and getting 100-150 arp requests every second for about 5 minutes, the modem sits and crunches while I'm getting 75% packet loss to their router.

    From mailing list archives the general feeling is that when this happens your modem is faulty. Well I've been trying for 2 months to get a new modem, and I've gotten nowhere. With that information, and the fact that it powercycles itself about 4-5 times every 8 hours, I've decided that it is the modem.

    There definately isn't any perks to paying them monthly for a modem. I'd rather be able to take the damn thing back to Best Buy and exchange it. I think I'd rather have my own modem just for that reason, even if I'm only saving 3 bucks a month.

    oh yeah, posting comments on /. breaks it too. go figure. click, preview, argh, click, preview, argh!

    1. Re:cable modems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      looks more like you have an RF problem (most likely upstream). The modem needs to send and receive RF signals at certain levels and you probably have one too many splitters between your outlet and your cable modem. Try taking off the splitter and see what happens. You may also be at the "end of the line" and have a bad signal. Your cable provider CAN fix that.

    2. Re:cable modems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had similar symptoms on my modem. I went outside, and opened up the splitter that came into the house. It was full of water. I replaced it with a new, dry one, and the problem went away.

    3. Re:cable modems by kalanar · · Score: 1

      Hrm, something else i forgot to mention is that the Power levels/Signal strength don't change from when its functioning properly and when its given up and died. At least from what the modem diag page shows.

      There *is* one splitter inside the house, though, that I havent worked around yet. I'll try taking that out and seeing if it makes any difference.

      Thanks a lot for the info.

    4. Re:cable modems by dohcvtec · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. One advantage of leasing the modem is that if the modem is faulty, it is ATT's responsibility to replace it. You say you have been trying for 2 months to get a new modem? Then the problem is with ATT customer service. *That* is what you should be complaining about. If you own your own modem, can you really just take it back to the store, while they gladly hand you a brand new one? Or do you have to get an RMA, ship it to the mfg. and wait for them to send you a new one? Theoretically, it should be much more convenient for ATT to simply bring you a new modem, right?

      --
      -- Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with a baseball bat.
    5. Re:cable modems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to register your cable modem with AT&T. If you don't it won't work for more than short bursts at a time. They need your device's MAC address in one of their tables. Once you do that it's smooth sailing.

    6. Re:cable modems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've had the same issue with hitting the cap and the whole connection dying. I've called in a million times, had the modem replaced 3 times, multiple nics, new switches, tons of truck rolls and it still does the same thing.

    7. Re:cable modems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably not your modem, but your neighborhood bandwidth. The exact same thing happens to me around peak times (5pm-11pm) and it's because there are a lot more ATT Cablemodem users in my area than ATT was anticipating. Unfortunately, they say there's nothing they can do until they lay some more fiber-optics. And I've been having and reporting this problem for over 6 months. *sigh*

  25. HEY DUMBASS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, I see why you're steamed. You forked out $80 or so for your own cable modem. Now, you're not getting a discount that you once were. Whats your answer? DSL.

    1. Re:HEY DUMBASS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you cant get dsl in your area...
      your argument = pwned by simple logic harder next time, read, comprehend, post.
      YARR

  26. correction by dollargonzo · · Score: 1

    sorry, thought the title was something different. for once /. DID name something appropriately!

    --
    BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
  27. No Matter... by j4ck50n · · Score: 1

    Because until the price reaches some ridiculous point, I will continue to pay whatever they ask for high speed service.

    Let's see...I can use:
    1) DUN - *please*
    2) DSL - See No. #1
    3) Cable Modem - OK!

    Do I like it? No. But what are the choices? I don't have any complaints with the service. It is extremely fast here and almost always on.

  28. Could it be that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ma Bell is a cheap mother.

    --
    boy that will teach you to use the phone company for your ISP.

  29. (I'm joking, of course, I'd never advocate this) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Remove the coaxial cable, power supply cable, and Ethernet cable(s?) from the modem.

    2. Find an A/C adapter that'll output a shitload more power than your cable modem A/C adapter does.

    3. Connect adapter to modem. Don't worry if it doesn't fit, just push harder.

    4. Connect adapter to wall outlet.

    5. Turn modem on. When you smell smoke, turn modem off.

    6. Unplug adapter.

    7. Contact provider, tell them that modem has completely kicked it and won't do anything now. Try not to laugh if they ask you if it's getting power.

    Good luck!

  30. Just another F U from the cable company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What did you expect. The cable companies have been F'ing us for years. And all the sudden, they're nice guys because they have broadband?

    Nope, being with a cable company is like living with a rabid dog. Sooner or later you're either going to get bit or you get rid of the dog.

  31. I work at tech support for an aussie cable isp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The thing with DOCSIS modems is you can query them for info such as Uptime, and ping their internal network IP remotley (we do this from the helpdesk). The only other thing to check is the link light to the PC, which you can check on the back of the ethernet card anyway. The DOCSIS tools also give info on wheater the modem is up, and if not if its in any of its initialisation stages. Eg. Ranging, IPComplete etc.. so we can tell if its stuck somewhere.

  32. Nice logic AT&T by oolon · · Score: 2

    I love that they say it reflects the change in the costs of Cable Modems. 100/3 On that rate it will take 33 months to break even on buying your own modem!

    Personally, I think they would prefer people didn't own there own modems for management reasons.. If this is the case why not just say that.

    James

    1. Re:Nice logic AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have more control over your modem than you think. Those things are embedded computers, and the cable company can do what they want with it, no matter who owns it.

  33. How quickly we forget. by drxyzzy · · Score: 5, Informative
    There was a time when the Phone Company would only let you connect their phones to your local loop. And you heard a lot about how dangerous it would be to allow a person to hook up any third party equipment instead of bona fide Ma Bell telephones.

    In order to hook up a modem, you had to get a special Data Access Arrangement from them, for which the monthly charge was more than you'd pay for a modem today.

    Eternal vigilance, etc.

    1. Re:How quickly we forget. by truesaer · · Score: 1

      I've never had a defective phone, but I've had a lot of computer equipment go bad on me. Also, if you're having a problem with your phone they will usually ask you to plug a different phone into the jack to see if that solves it. Most people don't have extra cable modems.

    2. Re:How quickly we forget. by Peale · · Score: 2

      My mother 'rented' a phone from the phone company for years and years, and old rotary phone. It sat in the upstairs, where she very rarely goes (she's kinda old).

      The monthly charges on the phone were like $5.00 or something. We took the phone back to the company. Turns out she paid, over like thirty years, like $3000 or something, for a lousy rotary dial phone.

      I read a similar story recently, on how to cut down living costs, and this was listed too.

      So if you know any old people, check out their phones; you might be doing them a favor.

  34. Mods of a crack orgy again! by Disevidence · · Score: 1, Troll

    FFS Mods, its got something to do with the fucking article posted. Stop being dipshit moderators and save your points for good clear-thought posts, and for modding down the trolls. Don't use pissy offtopic moderations for a reasonable request like the parent. FFS some moderators, they're like a fucking disease.

    Go on mod me down, you'll prove me 100% correct. (And see these idiot moderators explode their brain with the reverse psychology).

    --
    Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
  35. D.C. Appeal Courts: This is Competition by loggia · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And don't forgot the D.C. Appeals Court decision from last week. This is part of the "competition" to DSL that is sufficient to let the phone companies not line-share.

    Notice how the "competition" is driving prices down?

    Ummmm....

  36. this boils my blood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i will laf when att has to be auction-blocked

  37. Not just ATT, everyone is doing this. by purpledinoz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm on Rogers, and they raised prices. I know Bell Sympatico raised prices. All companies are doing this because of the small percentage of people sucking up a huge amount of bandwidth. It's costing them too much money.

    1. Re:Not just ATT, everyone is doing this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but Rogers and Sympatico are putting up bandwidth caps too, not just changing the pricing structure.
      They are just as greedy as ATT if not more. Heck someone has to pay for that new corporate Rogers building downtown Toronto on Jarvis St. They will milk us until that monstrosity is paid off for years.
      Oh, and if you did not know Rogers is switching from 24. subnet that belonged to @Hom to 66. subnet.
      Well what I was told by a Rogers tech is that they do not have enough IP addresses and that they (Rogers) hope that not all users will be online at the same time.
      Imagine the chaos if everyone wants to be online during the weekend, and with inability to get online and acquire an IP address because there isn't one for you. LAME !
      CRTC is just sitting and watching all this, I gather Rogers and Bell greased their hands to let them rampage on the Internet Market in Canada.

    2. Re:Not just ATT, everyone is doing this. by thelexx · · Score: 2

      The pipes cost the same to maintain regardless of how much data is flowing. Unless you're arguing that it costs them so very much more in management for those users, which I find specious.

      LEXX

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    3. Re:Not just ATT, everyone is doing this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. I found an ISP have decent combined 20G caps at $30 and sell extra at $3/G and $20 /10G. It goes not to show someone else can make money while Sympatico can't.

  38. What is this? by genka · · Score: 1

    "If I don't have a long distance service with any phone company, I have to pay for the privilage of not depending on them."

    I am not sure what original poster means by this. I used to have a landline phone with no long distance provider, and I am pretty sure I didn't pay a dime to AT&T or anyone else.

    1. Re:What is this? by Kredal · · Score: 2

      The fee would be taken by your local provider. Some local providers ate the charge themselves, so you might not have seen it.

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
  39. Corporate whim by pumkinut · · Score: 1

    Cripes people will bitch and moan till the sky falls.

    There may be tech assist issues that AT&T will use to support the move. Yes, they can honestly say that it saves them money to have a limited pool of modem types to ease support. In the long run, they're doing this simply because they can. What are the majority of their customers going to do? Yes, that's right, absolutely nothing. The very few might switch providers, if possible, or drop the service (unlikely). Most will quietly, if begrudginly, stay with the service and pay the extra $.

    AT&T as well as all the other broadband providers have us by the short and curlies. They can pretty much change their agreements at will and ad infinitum without fear of retribution because of the monopoly powers they hold. Don't like it...drop it.

    Either look into class action suits on the basis of consumer protection (which will go absolutely nowhere), or....quit yer bitchen and suck it up.

    --
    "It's hard to be a man when there's a gun in your hand"
    1. Re:Corporate whim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why "suck it up"?? Why not fight back in whatever ways you can---either change services if possible, dump AT&T(along w/their Universal Card, LD phone service, Worldnet, etc)wholesale, give them a lot of bad publicity, etc.

      The only downside is the 10% of us who won't suck it up is offset by the vast majroity of sheep out there who complain for 5 minutes and then give in to whatever corporate of govt practice they're upset about.

  40. Im going to get attacked for this by Disevidence · · Score: 2, Insightful

    but what the hell... deal with it.

    Thats right, get over it. The precedent in slashdot was set when a lot of posters told us Aussie to get over our shitty cable modems.

    The businesses are going to keep sending up prices, and finding new ways to tax the consumer. It would be half-acceptable if they bought it down again in times of growth, but they don't. So first of all, if you don't want to get reamed, don't get cable.

    But if you want cable, there are a few options. First of all, contact you industry ombudsman, if you have one. Also lobby the nearest democrat member of congress and the senate, make sure your complaints about this discrimination reaches someone who could possibly give a shit, and do something about it.

    In other words, if you cannot change from AT&T to another cable server or adsl, make sure yo fight dirty (a.k.a political). What is another option is to publicly shame AT&T, perhaps with a few letters to the editor of you local newspaper. So instead of bitching about it, get over it, and do something about it. The more people that give a shit, the more people that read about it, the more bad publicity the company will get, and that WILL get their shareholders pissed.

    (Recent example of bad publicity at work, our biggest bank in Aus (NAB) were making a drastic change to their reward scheme. Quite a few people got pissed, and they half-reversed the scheme just as quickly as they had announced it. Bad publicity works, and it starts with their own customers.)

    --
    Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
  41. You Wanna Fight Back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    If you live in an apartment building, development, or neighborhood of any kind then get together with your neighbors and form a buying association. Tell AT&T if they don't waive the fee then 50 of you are going to a competitor. 50 not enough? Organize your town. At some point, the pricing equation will swing your way and they won't be able to afford to say no.

    Or talk to your town or borough council about setting up a Metropolitan Area Network. God knows there have been enough Slashdot posts about how to do it.

    1. Re:You Wanna Fight Back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What competitor? There is no choice in my area.
      That's why they can just jack the price and know that they can get away with it.

  42. Pricing by LordYUK · · Score: 0

    ya know, up until like 3 months ago I believe the service was this price anyway, if not more expensive. I seem to recall being somewhat happy when they stated they were dropping their price by $10 dollars(I live in Virginia). And I'd rather pay an extra 5-10 dollars a month and continue to use gigabytes upon gigabytes of bandwidth (gotta love KaZaA Lite and Audiogalaxy, not to mention the gaming fix of WC3!!!) over my home network as opposed to having that capped at some rediculously low amount of bandwidth. just my $.02

    --
    This is my sig. Its pathetic.
  43. Amen by FreeUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some days ago, users in Australia had their broadband access severely limited [slashdot.org] as the major providers changed the rules [slashdot.org]. There were many Slashdot posts effectively telling these users to 'get over it'.

    [...]

    Now that a major US provider is changing the rules, it'll be interesting to see how Slashdot readers take the news when it affects them a bit closer to home.


    A-fucking-men. I get so utterly sick of these Randian libertarianesque businesses-can-do-no-wrong every-consumer-should-be-an-expert-at-deciphering- contracts (even those with obscure clauses, or that get rewritten by the vendor after they have your money) posts. This whole meme that businesses have as their sole responsibility to make money, and ethics, much less their customers' satisfaction, be damned is nonsense from start to finish, doubly so when you're dealing with telco type situations (of which cable companies are an example) where there is an effectively monopoly (or duopoly) on your choices.

    Most homes can only get cable/cable-modem service from one providor, or local telephone service from one providor (in both cases, the company that owns the last mile of copper going to your house), so telling people to "vote with their feet" is literally tantamount to telling them to physically move to a new community or do without what is becoming an increasingly vital service.

    It is utter crap when these self-styled free marketeers (who apparently can't recognize a limited, non-free market when it hits them in the face) tell folks in Australia that sort of nonsense, and it will be equal crap when they do so in this thread.

    It is past time that people and consumers organize once again and restore some social responsibility to these businesses. Businesses and corporations exist at the sufferance of the people ... perhaps we should end that sufference in a couple of high-profile cases and the other behometh's will fall in line. That presupposes, of course, that our democracy isn't so far gone, and our leaders so profoundly corrupt, that the people can still have a voice politically. The jury is definitely still out on that, but it would certainly be worth a try.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:Amen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...sick of these Randian libertarianesque..."

      "...is utter crap when these self-styled free marketeers..."

      "Businesses and corporations exist at the sufferance of the people..."

      "...end that sufference in a couple of high-profile cases..."

      Yeah...vila la revolution!! and stupid shit like that...

      Gawd, shave off your goatee,toss the beret,and move out of your parent's basement, troll...

      The whole reason the wireless freenet movement is catching on is because of little things like thing...
      And yeah, I said little...$7/month...woo-fucking-hoo...

      If you don't like it DO SOMETHING about it...don't wail that we need some "high-profile cases"...which I can only take to mean either:

      1)Big lawsuits...sure,lawyers need your money
      2)Big Govt stepping in...great,now we're on gov.carnivore.net...super

      Guess what...I'm not playing that game.

      I've got my wireless hub,my FREE software,and my know-how...I've got access.

      ahem..
      "If you want things done right,you have to do them YOURSELF"

    2. Re:Amen by Hard_Code · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Guess what...I'm not playing that game."

      Great. Now do that with:

      * the food you eat (unless of course you are explicitly sactioning Monsanta et al., big agribusiness)
      * the clothes you wear (unless of course you are explicitly sactioning the sweatshop labor that goes into most imported clothing)
      * the air you breath, the land you use (unless of course you are explicitly sactioning the gross malfeasance and greed that results in the polluting of our public land)
      * every fucking product or service you use in any concievable way

      I support the notion, but in a world that is so highly specialized that we completely isolated from the origins of the products and services we use and for which we come to depend on society (and its big black box of tangled interactions), it is just not practical, fair or even possible to expect everybody person become an expert on all economic chains they participate in as a consumer. In reality, it is *also* a company's responsibility to behave ethically and shoulder half the burden, and we enforce this by laws and regulation. There should not be a double standard where people have to behave ethically but companies can behave like assholes just "because". Maybe we should just abolish the Bill of Rights and have people "vote with their bats"?

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    3. Re:Amen by ryanvm · · Score: 3, Funny

      It is past time that people and consumers organize once again and restore some social responsibility to these businesses. Businesses and corporations exist at the sufferance of the people ... perhaps we should end that sufference in a couple of high-profile cases and the other behometh's will fall in line.

      I like what you have to say. When does your fight club meet?

    4. Re:Amen by ZoneGray · · Score: 4, Insightful

      self-styled free marketeers (who apparently can't recognize a limited, non-free market when it hits them in the face)

      Well, a real free-market thinker would understand that cable ISP's aren't even close to being a free market. In the US anyway, each cable company is granted a legislated monopoly in a given town. Only one company can run a cable to your house. Same for phone companies. So... service sucks and prices are too high.

      restore some social responsibility to these businesses

      An easy platitude to utter, but exactly what are you proposing? Brainwash the management? Throw 'em in jail as an example? Pass a law that says they have to be nice? I mean, how do you make a company more responsive to consumers, other than open it up to some good old free-market competition? Get rid of the last-mile monopolies, and you'll see the benefits of the free market.... the same greedy people will have to treat their customers much better.

      To quote the old line, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

    5. Re:Amen by Kylow · · Score: 1

      The only reason these monopolies and duopolies exist is because government regulations give them exclusive access to the consumers. This practice is counter to the concept of a free market, and creates monopolies. You speak of ATT as if its dumping toxic waste into the local river. I hardly think raising rates by 7 dollars constitues that response. In fact, if you do value democracy and a free market, as you say, you would understand that a company should be allowed to charge any price it likes for its services. Of course, for this to work, the regulations need to be toned down or removed entirely. The FCC set a restriction on modem connect speeds of 53k (somewhere near that, anyway). I do wonder if the cable modem and DSL business would have ever come about, if not for that restriction. When the government messes with the rules, strange things happen.

    6. Re:Amen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please mod parent up (insightful).

    7. Re:Amen by smaug195 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it still would have, I have yet to see a modem connect at 53k, most I've seen is 50k. I think at a certain point you just do not have enough bandwith in a voice line to carry that much data. So no, the reason cable/DSL came about is to replace the modem, not take advantage of regulations.

    8. Re:Amen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A-fucking-men. I get so utterly sick of these Randian libertarianesque businesses-can-do-no-wrong every-consumer-should-be-an-expert-at-deciphering- contracts (even those with obscure clauses, or that get rewritten by the vendor after they have your money) posts. This whole meme that businesses have as their sole responsibility to make money, and ethics, much less their customers' satisfaction, be damned is nonsense from start to finish, doubly so when you're dealing with telco type situations (of which cable companies are an example) where there is an effectively monopoly (or duopoly) on your choices.

      I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you haven't picked a very good example to make your argument with. Libertarians/capitalists/freemarketers think that as long as there are choices and competition, then everything's good. I don't think you'll find any of them saying that we should have monopolies like this and let the company do whatever it wants. However their solution would focus on adding competition, rather than preventing the monopoly from doing what it wants via regulation.

    9. Re:Amen by MagnaMark · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid you are missing the point of the post you replied to.

      Like you, the parent-poster was saying that the cable ISP's do not operate in a free market. ("Most homes can only get cable/cable-modem service from one provider, or local telephone service from one provider")

      I think the poster's point was that, because these ISP's are effectively monopolies, it is disingenuous to invoke free-market arguments and tell their customers to get smart and find an ISP they like.

      The resolution, as I'm sure you'd agree, is to admit that you can't have it both ways. If it's going to be a free market, then bust up monopolies and give the consumer true choice. If it's going to be a monopoly, then regulate the market, and, yes, as you say, "Pass a law that says they have to be nice". That's what regulation is.

      Anyway, please read a little more carefully. You're both sort of saying the same thing.

    10. Re:Amen by FreeUser · · Score: 4, Interesting

      restore some social responsibility to these businesses

      An easy platitude to utter, but exactly what are you proposing? Brainwash the management? Throw 'em in jail as an example? Pass a law that says they have to be nice?


      Don't be silly. Suspend their corporate charter and take away their license to do business for acting against the common interest. If you look at the wording of the laws that allow for coporations to exist, you'll see that they require said corporations serve the public interest.

      Indeed, it was very uncommon in the early republic for corporate charters to be granted, and not so terribly uncommon for them to be revoked, essentially putting the offending company out of business. Of course, back then corporations were not considered "real" people like they have been since a particularly bizzar (and unprecedented) California court case some eighty years ago that turned everything on its ear and granted corporations all the rights and priveleges of real, breathing, living human beings.

      I think one or two revocations of corporate charters would be sufficient to change the behavior of other large corporations, without the need for managerial brainwashing or laws telling people to be nice, don't you?

      As for jail time, if someone is managing a company (like, say, Monsanto) that knowingly falsifies FDA test results in order to get dangerous milk hormones approved for public consumption [c.f. Into the Buzzsaw] or knowingly and with premeditation poisons the groundwater of a town in the southern U.S. in the 1990's (and gets caught with the memos discussing how to deal with the political fallout should they ever get caught) [c.f. just about every major American Newspaper, pre 9/11], then yes, I do think the fucking bastards should be put in jail. Perminently, if their behavior, or negligence, has resulted in the loss of human life.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    11. Re:Amen by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      An easy platitude to utter, but exactly what are you proposing? Brainwash the management? Throw 'em in jail as an example? Pass a law that says they have to be nice? I mean, how do you make a company more responsive to consumers, other than open it up to some good old free-market competition?

      Brainwashing isn't a bad idea. Here's another: take monthly polls of all the customers, and if their customer approval rating falls too low, the management is taken to the public square and caned. And then their salary for the month is revoked.

      If the people in charge had to face consequences from the public they serve, they wouldn't treat them so badly.

    12. Re:Amen by mjstrom · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly. Suspend their corporate charter and take away their license to do business for acting against the common interest. If you look at the wording of the laws that allow for coporations to exist, you'll see that they require said corporations serve the public interest.

      Just out of curosity, who is going to define what the "common interest" is? The government? With the majority of (powerful) policians being bought be large companies - um, don't think so. The courts? They interpret the law, which is passed by the politicians. To use your phrase "don't be silly"

      I think one or two revocations of corporate charters would be sufficient to change the behavior of other large corporations, without the need for managerial brainwashing or laws telling people to be nice, don't you?

      Again, when the individuals who are responsible for making this happen have a vested interest in making sure it doesn't happen, guess what, it won't happen.

      What you're saying sounds nice but, call me a cynic, I don't think it would work.

    13. Re:Amen by ZoneGray · · Score: 2

      >> You're both sort of saying the same thing

      True, but only sort of. I came right out and said we should get rid of last-mile monopolies. The other poster seemed to accept the monopolies, but lamented the way companies behave when granted one. Personally, I expect them to be greedy, but in a truly free (but lawful) market, greed isn't rewarded. When you guarantee somebody a monopoly, then that changes.

    14. Re:Amen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      doubly so when you're dealing with telco type situations (of which cable companies are an example)

      Good post.

      But, uh, (at least in the US) cable companies are NOT telcos. Phone companies are. Cable companies fought long and hard to avoid the label because telcos are so heavily regulated.

    15. Re:Amen by Kylow · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the only reason that's the fastest you've seen a modem connect is because the regulation keeps you from seeing the full power. Unless, of course, you have some scientific data that corroborates your contention that a voice line (which is actually a data line) can only carry ~50k.

  44. I'd *rather* rent a modem by AsnFkr · · Score: 1

    Cause if you own, and it gets hit by lightning or a surge, your out. If it's thiers, they replace it for free. It happened to me once, and saved me a load of cash.

    1. Re:I'd *rather* rent a modem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all of us live in a Star Trek Universe. The Fuse and surge protector has been invented in this universe =)

    2. Re:I'd *rather* rent a modem by AsnFkr · · Score: 1

      actually, in this universe we plug out cable modems into the *cable* line in which most "surge protectors" dont have a line for. the other end of a cable modem goes to cat5 cable, and there are even *less* devices that support protection for those.

    3. Re:I'd *rather* rent a modem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If memory serves me correctly.... Lightning doesnt strike twice in the same place =)

    4. Re:I'd *rather* rent a modem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because there are less devices that handle surges for Cable lines and Cat5 doesn't mean there aren't any.

      For CAT5 just make sure that you have everything the CAT5 plugs into surge protected and you should be safe enough. For the cable get a splitter that handles surge protection.

      It's not impossible My little padawan.

  45. Out to get you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's high time that we all learned that there are real people out there in these large, powerful corporations whose sole aim is to absolutely screw the little guy.

    The sooner we realize this, the better off we will be.

  46. Isn't this illegal?? by RazorJ_2000 · · Score: 1

    I thought that it was illegal for a company to basically charge 2 different prices for the same product/service that is advertised to end-users? Isn't this known as price discrimination, which is illegal under law by the Sherman Act and by the FTC?

    Sounds like today's new and up-and-coming business leaders haven't studied their relevant business history lesson's in B-school. Or their ethics for that matter...


    --
    pi=sigma{n:0-infinity}[(1/16)^n][(4/(8n+1))-(2/(8n +4))-(1/ (8n+5))-(1/(8n+6))]
    1. Re:Isn't this illegal?? by micq · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but currently they only charge one price for the service. They rent you the modem, which is in addition.

      This sounds like they're going to charge one price for service, if you need a modem it's free. Doesn't seem like they're doing anything wrong, just redefining what they're doing.

      If this becomes the case, I'm going to get the leased modem and use it... like some other poster said, no sense in putting my modem on the line risking damage if they're going to do it for me.

      Mike

    2. Re:Isn't this illegal?? by micq · · Score: 1

      Nevermind my previous post... Write before I read...

    3. Re:Isn't this illegal?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      They are raising the price of the service itself $7, lowering the modem lease by $7. So if you lease no diff, but if you own, that $10 savings from owning becomes $3.

      Word is that they will mail out six(6) $7 dollar coupons to modem owners to cover the first 6 monthes of the hike

    4. Re:Isn't this illegal?? by mudder · · Score: 1

      Yeah, price discrimination is illegal, which is why the movie theaters are getting sued for charging less for students, not to mention the airlines being sued for charging less for child's tickets. Let's think first, then post.

  47. Open Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Maybe they should make the modems open source so that it will lower costs?

    1. Re:Open Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are open source to a degree, with DOCSIS, a major factor in the price drop.

  48. What's "broadband" in AT Cable? by gallir · · Score: 2
    I am a reader from Spain and wanted to compare prices between local cablemodems and adsl vs. USA prices. I've read the article but although it does describe prices, it doesn't specify the bandwidth (it's like saying "bananas price is 10 cents" and you get no idea, one banana? a pound?..).

    So, what's the bandwidth of the prices described in the link?

    PS: In Mallorca (Balearic Islands, Spain) a 300 kbps cable modem is about $38. 256 kbps ADSL about the same, taxes included.

    --
    sgis ddo ekil t'nod i
    1. Re:What's "broadband" in AT Cable? by forkboy · · Score: 2

      It varies with location....unlike DSL, cable customers usually do not get to choose their bandwidth configuration, you just take what is the standard in your area. The standard bandwidth is presumably whatever AT&T's main trunk and equipment is set up to allow in your locality. For instance, in the Denver Colorado area the bandwidth is 1.5Mbs downstream, 128Kbs upstream. I pay about $50 after taxes and fees. They're actually pretty good about not saturating the link with oversubscribing and my service has only gone out on me once since I've had it (1 year) and that was when @Home went tits-up and AT&T took over ISP duties. And that was only a 2 day outage.

      I lease my modem so this doesn't really affect me anyway. I learned the hard way when I had DSL at my last apartment that owning a $200 broadband router bites if you don't renew the same service. Anyone wanna buy a cisco 675?

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
    2. Re:What's "broadband" in AT Cable? by Indras · · Score: 1

      Standard AT&T Broadband is $45 a month renting a cable modem, $42 a month if you buy your own cable modem (approximately). In most areas, it is 1.0Mbps to 1.5Mbps downstream and 128Kbps to 256Kbps upstream.

      --
      The speed of time is one second per second.
    3. Re:What's "broadband" in AT Cable? by z84976 · · Score: 2

      I have the AT we're soon going to block it so HAHA you HAVE to pay now!"

      Let me rate them, 1-100:
      Quality of service: 95
      Tech Support (rarely needed, tho): 20
      Respect Earned: 0

  49. Phone support can't get much worse by Little+Dave · · Score: 1

    Here in the UK, the Cable company Telewest seems to have the worst telephone support I've ever encountered. A couple of weeks ago, I phoned up with a query about network outages and if there was any reason why my connection was dead.

    The monkey I got handed to proceeded to deny that there was anything wrong with the network, and launched into his heavily trained diagnosis routine. He first did the usual routine of asking me to power cycle the modem. I duely did this and reported that the modem was coming back, send light flashing...

    And before I could go any further, he'd cut me off and said that the lights flashing were a sign that the modem was faulty and that I would require a tech visit. Before I could interject and tell him that it was only rebooting, he'd began the proceedure of booking me an appointment.

    So I told him to calm down and wait for a second. Sure enough, the modem completed its reboot. I then asked him to go away and seriously check if the network was buggered. Sure enough, two minutes later, he came back and sheepishly told me that connections in the Wimbledon area were suffering.

    It seems that Telewest support chimps will book a tech visit at the slightest provocation. I wonder how much time has been wasted, both in terms of tech hours and people having to take the day off?

    1. Re:Phone support can't get much worse by hexdcml · · Score: 1
      I agree... I shudder at the thought of calling tech support simply because of the LONG waiting queues :( Apart form that, Telewest broadband blueyonder are pretty good considering what folks in the US and Aus are getting.

      So far (and touch wood) my service has gone down only once for like a day and there are no limits or caps which is as serious as our buddies in other continents are suffering. The price is good, £29.99 per month or even less if you subscribe to another service like TV or telephone.

      Still, I don't see the big deal in owning or leasing a cable modem. As long as it works and the service is good, then it shouldn't really matter. I think I lease mine from Telewest, but they simply don't tell you. Maybe the price is inculded in the monthly fee? well, ignorance is bliss :)

      Well, i guess i should go back to work now..

      --
      Fight Crime - Shoot Back!
  50. You forget the first law of stupid people by Theonewhois · · Score: 1

    Well, not the first, but one of them. They're are a lot of people out there that can get a cable modem from their cousin's friend's roomate who found it in a barn auction, that's probably made by connect-o-corp. Or possibly they just got the cheapest thing they could find in the bargain bin of Computer City, barely understanding enough to realize that they at least think they're saving some money by doing it themselves. AT&T is just protecting themselves from these sors of people who really don't understand that there is a definite difference in quality and support between devices on the market.

    Plus, they probably figure that those people who really DO know what they're doing, and want a better modem, would be willing to pay a small extra fee (though 7$/month is too much. maybe 25 a year?) in order to use their own. Another possibility is to have a list of 'supported' modems, but that's hard to implement, more work for them, and leaves you stuck if you have an obscure modem, or one that was just released and 'not yet supported'.

    Conclusion: Understandable, but too expensive.

    --
    Common sense is what tells us that the world is flat
  51. Considering the Risk... by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Chances are if you're the kind of person who would want to own your own cable modem, you're the kind of person they'd really rather leave anyway. It probably means you're more technically inclined and not willing to simply be a "consumer" -- you probably want to run some services, perhaps use some VPN tools to get to work, and all that other stuff that really pisses them off. They really just want customers who might browse the web for a couple of hours a night or send an E-mail to grandma. Once customers actually start really using the internet for serious applications, their revenue model gets all screwed up.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Considering the Risk... by zbuffered · · Score: 2

      They charge ~$50/month, dial-up ISPs charge ~$20/month for unlimited access. Since there are no other benefits to you other than faster speeds and always-on access, you're basically paying $30/month for bandwidth, for using a fat piece of their pipe (versus 5k/sec if you're dialup). So, how much bandwidth does $30/month buy?

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    2. Re:Considering the Risk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Who said bandwidth was the issue?

      Running your own mail server doesn't take any
      more bandwidth than downloading it from their
      mail server.

      Logging in with ssh doesn't take much bandwidth
      at all.

      And none of it takes 1/10 the bandwidth of
      videoconferencing, which the providers just
      love to depict in their ads. Pure fantasy.

    3. Re:Considering the Risk... by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      my guess is 50 buys you 2.5x bandwidth so 12.5kb/s

    4. Re:Considering the Risk... by King_TJ · · Score: 2

      Everyone says this, but my response to that is "Get with the program, telcos/cable co's!" America is becoming more advanced with its Internet usage. A recent Yahoo Internet Life survey showed that most people using the web nowdays spend the vast majority of their time on the same 8 or 9 web sites. That tells me people have figured out where the content is that they find truly useful, and instead of idle "surfing" - they're trying to really get things done.

      If the revenue model doesn't take into account these changing habits of Internet users, then the revenue model needs to be re-evaluated. Trying to make everyone conform to their ideal customer who "only uses the net to check his/her email and look at a homepage now and then" is just going to piss off more and more of their customer base.

    5. Re:Considering the Risk... by zbuffered · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Good point. If the fixed/infrastructure costs were the same, the formula should be something like

      bandwidth = multiplier * (monthly charge - fixed costs)

      for dial-up, it'd be

      4k/s = multiplier * (20 - (i. cost))

      assume fixed (by which I mean everything but the bandwidth) was, say, $12(making this up), and the multiplier is .5. So, for cable, let's say the fixed cost is, what, $12 still? they don't have to pay for business phone lines, all they really do is maintain the existing infrastructure that they have, which they're already doing anyway. So it should be less. Let's say $10.

      So, X = .5 * (50 - 10)
      X = 20
      20k/sec.

      Of course, I'm sure there are a million other factors, but the bottom line is, if the fixed costs the same amount to maintain, you're buying another $30/month worth of bandwidth. If $1 = .5k/sec, that's 15k/sec.

      Let's say that 20k/sec is what you've purchased, but that you can average it out over a month. That'd work really well; it would allow them to uncap your line until it looked like you were going to go over your quota, then slow you down so that you ended up averaging 20k/sec over a month. During peak times, they could cap it to prevent congestion, but when you needed 400k/sec for 5 minutes at 3am, they could give it to you. That's what they should really do. Because when they buy bandwidth, they don't buy it by the gig, they buy it by the kbps. Therefore, you should get it by the kbps. The trick is, to get it to where what you're paying and what you're getting is fair. They're trying to do this, and they may be acting in good faith, but they're going about it the wrong way. They need to charge you:

      (fixed costs + bandwidth costs)* (1 + (%profit margin))

      That's it, that's all there is to it.

      Is that not a good idea? I really think it is. Critique it if you disagree.

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    6. Re:Considering the Risk... by Electrum · · Score: 2

      They charge ~$50/month, dial-up ISPs charge ~$20/month for unlimited access. Since there are no other benefits to you other than faster speeds and always-on access, you're basically paying $30/month for bandwidth, for using a fat piece of their pipe (versus 5k/sec if you're dialup). So, how much bandwidth does $30/month buy?

      I believe that you're forgetting what is probably the biggest benefit to broadband: decreased latency. Usually "faster speeds" means more bandwidth. For me, the 3-4k/sec that dialup provides would be quite usable for 95%+ of the time that I use the computer (which is a lot, considering that I telecommute every day). But the 200-300ms latency makes the connection unusable for me. Sure, web surfing is annoying when the connection is slow, but it's usable. Trying to work over SSH is almost impossible (and forget playing StarCraft).
  52. Does anyone think... by Indras · · Score: 2

    This might lower the prices on cable modems?

    For people signing on to AT&T Broadband, it is obvious that buying a cable modem isn't such a great benefit anymore, and it would actually be more cost effective in the long run to rent. Won't cable modem manufacturers lower their prices to try to encourage people to buy?

    --
    The speed of time is one second per second.
    1. Re:Does anyone think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      One ATT broadband customer (YES CUSTOMER, NOT CONSUMER (tired of being labeled consumer)), one cable-modem used. I think the cable modem Co. prefer one big consumer (:^) to a few thousand one_unit_customer.

  53. ATT charges for phone rentals by kyoko21 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This doesn't come as a shock for those 'senior' citizens who never looked at their bill that was once an AT&T customer.

    AT&T used to bill senior citizens, and still do in some part of the country, for renting out their 'touch-tone' phones. Not that I am trying to bash on senior citizens or anything, but many individuals who never looked at their bills for years and knew their rates were remaining fairly constant never knew that they were being billed for a phone that they had in their home that was actually installed and owned by AT&T.

    There was a news report done on this where an individual took care of his mom and when he started to do her bills, he had noticed that she was getting charged for having an 'AT&T' phone. The funny thng is when he found ou that for years his mom was paying for the rental of the phone, he rushed right out to the nearest store and bought her a simple $9.99 phone with big buttons (so she could see). Called AT&T and told them to remove the phone.

    This may not be the oldest form of AT&T milking their customers, but it certainly is one of the most interesting ones that I have heard. Fleecing of America (especially our senior citizens). *sigh*

    1. Re:ATT charges for phone rentals by sheldon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Umm... That's because prior to breakup there was no way for you to have a phone in your home without leasing it from AT&T. AT&T owned the lines, and you could only place AT&T phones on those lines.

      So people who remember the days of party lines were so used to this that they never bothered to question it.

      On the positive side, those old phones from Western Electric were much better than the $9.99 phones from the dime store. They were probably worth $200 or so, good solid and lasted forever.

    2. Re:ATT charges for phone rentals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you can bitch about ATT for a lot of things, but this sounds legit. Once upon a time, the phone company did rent phones. If she still had a rental agreement - and the phone - then what's the problem? Her son did the right thing by having ATT retrieve the equipment and remove the charge, but she wasn't being charged unfairly - just unnecessarily.

    3. Re:ATT charges for phone rentals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would you like rust proofing on your undercoating with that?
      How about fancy floormats?
      Imitation Wood knob for your gear shifter?
      Hell, We will throw in window glazing for free!

      Weres the class action lawsuit against ATT, they are still milking senior citizens across the us. There are scams everywhere, ATT looks very unprofessional.

    4. Re:ATT charges for phone rentals by Nugget · · Score: 2

      I really miss the sound of those mechanical ringers. Somehow it's just not as satisfying to slam down the phone in frustration now that the telephone doesn't half-ring in protest when you do it.

    5. Re:ATT charges for phone rentals by north.coaster · · Score: 2

      My parents continued to rent telephones for many years after they were allowed to purchase their own phones. Why? Because if something broke the phone company would fix it for free.

      Later on, the phone company quit offering this service to new customers. That's why senior citizens made up the majority of customers who rented phones. They happen to be the majority of folks who have lived in the same place for the longest time.

      So for some customers, renting the phone was a conscience decision.

      /Don

    6. Re:ATT charges for phone rentals by grayeliz · · Score: 1

      Still happening here in Ireland. Everytime I move apartments, I have to return a leased-phone back to Eircom (the semi-state phone company over here that's supposed to be being decentralised...hmmm...) and ask them to stop the rental fee.

      Of course, after 6 years of living outside of the States, this is the least of my phone bill worries. Gotta love paying per-minute on local calls in this day and age. Imagine what that does to your home Internet bill!

    7. Re:ATT charges for phone rentals by ivan256 · · Score: 3, Funny

      My great grandmother had a rotary phone in her house that was owned by the local phone company (SNET). It was wired directly into the wall. They charged her $2 a month to use it for almost 60 years. When we moved her out of her house a few years ago, they wanted to charge $50 to send a technician to come remove the phone, or there would be a $100 fine for damages from cutting the wire from the wall. The tech came, cut the wire, and threw the phone out in the trash can by the curb as he left.

    8. Re:ATT charges for phone rentals by sheldon · · Score: 2

      All I can do today is push the off button on my cordless. Maybe if we still had those old ringer wall phones the telemarketers would get the point!

      Picking up the car in 2 hours! WOO HOO! :)

    9. Re:ATT charges for phone rentals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      was a conscience decision

      s/conscience/conscious/

    10. Re:ATT charges for phone rentals by fishbowl · · Score: 2


      >So people who remember the days of party lines
      >were so used to this that they never bothered to
      >question it.

      Okay, now I feel old.

      For me, "the days of party lines" included some of the Reagan years.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  54. Class Action? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't the idea that you suddenly have to pay for something that you don't use, that isn't being provided to you in the first place strike anyone as illegal? Sounds like a class action target if there's ever been one! (Hey, why don't we start charging them for not renting our unused computer parts! We'll make a mint! Besides, they started the negative consumer market, not us!)

  55. One thing good about renting by f00zbll · · Score: 1
    In the past, way back in 97 when cable isp service started, cable modems would break. For that reason, I used to rent and was able to get a new cable modem in 1 day. From personal experience with motorola cable modems on Cox. I had two cable modems break. The cable modems were fast and good, but it did break. Cox came out the next day both times and replaced it. Had I bought the cable modem, I would have been up a creak.

    Just recently, I had to help others with their cable modem. One was killed because it wasn't on a surge protector. The other one simply wouldn't work with 802.11 router. I tend to prefer renting, because when new cable modems come out, I can get them to come out and switch it. So far the cable company has been good about that, so it's one more reason to not buy the modem.

  56. This is not the same thing as the "No PIC" charge by circle_jerky · · Score: 1, Informative

    The "No PIC" (Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier) charge is mandated by the FCC (although each telco can choose whether or not to pass the cost on to coonsumers). Check out Verizon's explanation:. The fact that ATTB is charging their customers for not using THEIR modems is just a way for them to make an extra buck and screw the consumer. It's ridiculous.

  57. If geeks weren't such suckers, the answer would be by Dast · · Score: 2

    obvious. Cancel your service. Call them up, explain to them why you are canceling (and yell at them for good measure, especially if you can get a manager on the phone) and when they offer you the half-assed deal to keep you on, cancel anyway. And threaten to cancel your phone service if you have access to another provider. I did this to bellsouth with great results, but you have to be willing to step down to 56k land.

    But geeks are suckers, they can't be without their broad-band fix. And as long as people are willing to pay, companies are willing to charge. Stand up and let them know how much the service is worth. (And go outside.) Or you can continue to be a sucker and pay $7 more per month.

    --

    This sig is false.

  58. don't forget, you can flash the prom... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Most of these ISP cable modems have upstream bandwidth caps coded in the prom. If you flash the prom to eliminate the cap and it's *their* modem they can kick you for violating TOS.

    If the customer owns the modem then it's harder for them to deal with bandwidth abuses. This is just their free-market way of coping with the costs associated with people trying to run high-bandwidth servers w/o paying the business rates.

    1. Re:don't forget, you can flash the prom... by lanalyst · · Score: 1

      Didja ever hear of standards? Cable Modem DOCSIS configs are pushed down from the head end no matter the manufacturer - Linksys, Motorola, 3Com, Toshiba, etc. All have SNMP. Hack it, you're out, usually within 24 hours. One is not 'harder' than the other otherwise they wouldn't support it at all.

      Uhh... flash the prom? Is that what an exibitionist high school senior does before graduation???

  59. Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Cause if you own, and it gets hit by lightning or a surge, your out

    Yeah, my appliances are always getting struck by lightning.

  60. WTF by lanalyst · · Score: 1
    ...roughly 162,500 AT&T customers who own... ...AT&T's 1.63 million customers who own...

    okay, she did say rough...

    It is interesting after Comcast was @homeless, their price increase was $5 to those who chose to rent their cable modem. Seemed fair - if you didn't want an increase, you could spend $100.

    This move by attbi smacks of unfairness... those that were duped into purchasing are now penalized? On what grounds? Higher support costs? bah! They can count on the income because the only out is to sell the cablemodem on eBay to a comcast customer. Jerks.

    Should be interesting to see how these pricing differences are reconciled if/when the merger is completed.

  61. But the original company told me to buy it! by writermike · · Score: 1

    Heh.

    I suppose I'm going to get evolutionally-penalized.

    I originally signed up with MediaOne here in Boston. They directed me to the nearest Circuit City to purchase the modem. I bought it and now use it with ATTBB, who gobbled up MediaOne 1.5 years ago or so.

    Ah well.

    m

    --
    If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
    1. Re:But the original company told me to buy it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with the subsidies they where giving out on the modem it should have paid for itself by now, I know mine has.

  62. Control over the network by smiff · · Score: 1
    Quite simply, AT&T wants prefers that people rent. AT&T is doing this for two reasons:

    1. To guarantee a revenue stream from renting. Way back before the Justice department broke up AT&T, they didn't want anyone buying their own phone (or so I read in a Slashdot post).
    2. They want control over the technology. They don't want anyone adding features to a cable modem, if they could charge for those features in the future.
  63. Some History Behind This for @Home Users by Schlemphfer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    About a year ago, I got my dad set up with @home. At the time, you could save about $10 a month off your @home bill by buying your own cable modem. Cable modems then cost about $170, so we figured buying one was a no-brainer, as it would pay for itself in less than two years.

    Then @home went down the toilet and my dad's service was taken over by AT&T. Now it looks like our decision to buy wasn't so smart after all. My take-home lesson from this: never bet your own money on the assumption that your cable provider won't change the rules of the game.

    --
    I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
    1. Re:Some History Behind This for @Home Users by FallLine · · Score: 2

      10 dollars a month? I had Comcast@home (Philadelphia area) and they billed me 1.50 a month or something. I think they raised it to 3 dollars a month now, but it's certainly nothing like 10 dollars. Leasing it basically made sense then and I still think it does now, especially since I was just sent a letter stating that they wish to upgrade my cable modem to some sort of new technology...ugg. (I question if this "new" technology isn't just some kind of firmware to better manage bandwidth) Anyways, I'm still getting excellent speed with comcast, haven't run into any bandwidth caps or slow downs that other people seem to describe.

  64. lease theirs... by moby · · Score: 1

    use yours !

    1. Re:lease theirs... by flatcat · · Score: 1

      Most deffinately, get the lease.

      Since you are screwed already, and the cost will be the same, get their modem, use it and keep yours on the side as a backup. Hopefully a huge request for new leased modems will hurt them. If you feel like it, return it in a few months, minus any documentation and packaging and let them pay the costs to repackage and give to someone else.

  65. Making up for other divisions... by Asprin · · Score: 2

    Maybe they're trying to make up for agressive pricing in other divisions?

    Example: We have the "AT&T Ultimate" long distance plan - for $20/month we can call anyone for $0.07/minute except other AT&T customers - those calls are FREE. That cut our average LD phone bill by an order of magnitude. (Not kidding - wife + sister-in-law + mother-in-law talk several times a day for at least an hour. Don't ask me what they talk about, they won't tell me and I'm certain I really don't want to know.)

    --
    "Lawyers are for sucks."
    - Doug McKenzie
  66. Yay for local monopolies! by Yam-Koo · · Score: 1

    Since we do a lot of work at home, broadband is necessary to get things done in a timely manner... and guess who the sole provider of broadband in the area is? AT&T! They have decent service and all, but it's always nice to know they're free to charge me whatever they want and I have to pay it.

  67. This quote sums it up... by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 2

    "People who own their modems are pretty much locked in to staying with AT&T," Kersey said. "It's a way to extract a little more money out of a small percentage of people. That's a fairly politically smart thing to do because it doesn't affect the vast majority of customers."


    /Spicole from Fast times at ridgemont high

    You DICK!!

    /Spicole off

    Sounds like a good plan:
    Charge more to the people who invested in the technology, are your best/longest customers and probably sold your service to *other* people before you fscked it up and capped to the point of being useless.

    "extract a little more money", eh?
    Yeah, the more you tighten your grasp, fsck-head the more your business will slip thru your fingers.

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
  68. I'm NOT sympathetic, I've got it much worse..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering that cable modems have dropped considerably in price in the past year and a half, people should expect that the discount for owning your own modem would would also drop. As cable modems hit the sub-$100 mark, I'm sure that anyone still getting a $10 discount/month is dropping their leased model off on the doorstep of their ISP.

    You want a real problem to complain about? Here in the midwest, Mediacom charges an extra $10/month to broadband subscribers who don't also subscribe to one of their cable TV packages. Just because they arrive over the same medium doesn't make them similar enough in my book to warrant these coercive bundling tactics. The worst part is that, except for the delivery method into my home, the services are 100% unrelated. It's like if the gas station charged me an extra quarter a gallon unless I buy a case of mountain dew when I fill my tank.

    Stuart Kahler

  69. Re:Ask for a "PICC freeze" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can definitely have no carrier, and there shouldn't be a fee for it... you should be saving money because the LD carriers usually charge one! I was in Qwest territory, and am now on a small-town telco, both of which allow it. I asked for "absolutely no long distance carrier, so I can only call long distance with 1010 numbers, and put a PICC (pronounced 'pick') freeze on the line." Then you can't even be slammed by the scam artists who try to change your carrier, because only you can change it by calling your local carrier directly. I make so few long distance calls that my wireless plan with free long distance is enough, and if I need more I can use a dial-around code without paying a $5+ monthly fee.

    Yes, I'm a sick geek that enjoys the challenge of this crap.

  70. Erosion by bihoy · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is a rate increase, pure and simple. Let's face it. This has nothing to do with the cost of supporting modems. I lease my modem. I first got it when I started with Highway1, the name that preceeded MediaOne. They have simply found it easier to raise rates by couching it in terms of "lowered cost of equipment". In my view it's part of a trend that continues to provide me with lower services at an increased price.

    I'm only glad that at the moment this price increase does not affect me. There are other things that bug me a whole lot more.

    My top ten pet peeves with AT&T Broadband:

    10. Playing with the pricing structure so much that it's starting to resemble the price structure for Cable TV. That means it's going to end up being nothing short of confusing.

    9. Being moved from only 3 hops to a backbone to 7 hops. A move that now forces *all* of my IP traffic to go to new york instead of cambridge. I have a lot of traffic that ends up at POP's in Cambridge.

    8. Elimination of "vanity" hostnames. Soon we will all have hostnames like h000102030405.ne.client2.attbi.com instead of nice names like vanity.mediaone.net. I suppose it helps them to discorouge people from running services on their machines.

    7. Having my upstream bandwidth reduce by 15% because the @Home folks only had 256KBps so now we all have to. Why not give the @Home folks a little bandwidth boost rather than punish the rest of us?

    6. Having to deal with Teir 1 Tech Support. I remember the days when you got to talk to a knowledgable person immediately. You didn't have to wrestle with someone verbally for 20 minutes before they would let you talk to a real network admin.

    5. Getting all those calls from AT&T trying to cross sell other services such as Broadband Telephony. For a while I didn't even qualify for Digital Voice yet I still would keep getting the calls for it. Go figure.

    4. All the changes in added services such as e-mail and personal pages. I enjoy improvements in these services but do they really need to be "improved" on a yearly basis. It seems that everything has to totally change each time this happens.

    3. The confusion and fingerpointing everytime my broadband service is sold to or merged with someone else. I really miss the days when you could just pick a good service provider and know that they would always be there for you.

    2. Having to print new busniess cards and notify *all* my contacts that my e-mail address has changed from "mediaone.net" to "attbi.com". (I tell them that the attbi stands for AT&T's Big Inconvenience.)

    1. The voice menu "from hell" system. I think Jon Katz could write another popular column on this one. Heck he could probably write three columns. It's so convoluted it want's to make you scream. To top it off you can no longer pretend you have a rotary phone and jump straight to a person. It now has voice recognition. Arrggghhh!

    1. Re:Erosion by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2

      Having to print new busniess cards and notify *all* my contacts that my e-mail address has changed from "mediaone.net" to "attbi.com". (I tell them that the attbi stands for AT&T's Big Inconvenience.)

      If you don't like that, get a la carte email from somebody else. Then, when you finally ditch ATT, you don't have to tell anybody.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:Erosion by bihoy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually I decided to register a .org domain name with e-mail forwarding. Now I don't give out my attbi e-mail address anymore. This does add 20 bucks a year to the cost but I like having complete control.

    3. Re:Erosion by zbuffered · · Score: 3, Funny

      Good god yes. My mom started a business and decided to use email@att.net as the address for the business. She wrote a book and that e-mail address is in the book. Now she can never ever ever stop paying AT&T. Meanwhile, I drop $15/year and I can give everybody different addresses (yourcompany@mydomain.com) so that if somebody spams me I can redirect that address back to them. I could just block it, but it's more fun to redirect it's destination to abuse@yourcompany.com.
      Life is good. No spam, complete control, easier filtering (mailing lists automatically filtered to specific folders), no more fear. Aaah.

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    4. Re:Erosion by PhxBlue · · Score: 2, Funny

      1. The voice menu "from hell" system. I think Jon Katz could write another popular column on this one.

      Sure, he could, but do we all want to hear about how crappy voicemail relates to post-Columbine society and the aftermath of 9/11?

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    5. Re:Erosion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! At least for this ex-@home member, we only got 128kbps up (15KB/s). Now with Comcast, I'm lucky if I get 20KB/s up, which is usually only to webhosts. I wish I still had @home, at the end of it's life, I was uncapped. 128KB/s up was sweet.

    6. Re:Erosion by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      if somebody spams me I can redirect that address back to them. I could just block it, but it's more fun to redirect it's destination to abuse@yourcompany.com.


      Do you run your own mail server? Will NameZero do DNS for your mail server or do you use a different service?

      thanks.

    7. Re:Erosion by zbuffered · · Score: 2

      They run the mail server and give me a simple web client that allows me to redirect an alias to a central address. I only have one actual e-mail address (they let you set up as many as you want, with a mailbox limit up to 10mb total), but unlimited aliases. By default, obfuscation@mydomain.com is simply forwarded to my real address along with all the other aliases I make up. I can change the default behavior of undefined aliases to not forward to my account, but it's a great way to find out who got your e-mail address.

      They allow you to do DNS in as much as you can map www.mydomain.com to wherever you want it to go (I think it currently goes to www.slashdot.org, actually). www or any other prefix you can think of. pr0n.mydomain.com could go to my own personal web server if I wanted it to. Again, via web client. I don't know if you can update their DNS server automatically, you could ask them about that.

      No web space included.

      $15/year covers the service plus .cc domain registration.

      E-mail seems reliable so far as I can tell, I've only tested the DNS feature but it seemed easy enough.

      A bargain at twice the price.

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    8. Re:Erosion by filbo · · Score: 1

      Worse than having your upstream bandwidth reduced, IMHO, was the vast reduction in downstream bandwidth for @Home customers. I used to get 4.6 Mbps down, now I get about 1.2. When I'm downloading something serious that reduction makes a big difference.

  71. Why this makes sense from their perspective by Xrkun · · Score: 1

    First a quick rundown of how cable modem networks work. Think of the bandwidth of a cable modem network like a tree. each branch comes together and is supported by a larger branch and then eventually the trunk of the tree. all these branches have to share the bandwidth. If one of the branches is utilizing a lot of bandwidth, the rest suffer for it.
    How can the cable companies prevent this from happening? There are two ways. They can either boost the bandwidth so that everyone can get maximum speed or they can throddle down everyone's connections so that nobody can get more than anyone else. Well, to boost everyone's bandwidth, that would cost the company millions upon millions. They would have to order tons of circuits to every neighborhood not to mention router upgrades and such. However, cable modems now a days have bandwidth limiters. That's right. You can throddle connections down right from the cable modem. Well, that makes more sense now doesn't it?
    What AT&T and many other cable modem companies are doing is throddling down your connection. It's slower ,but at the same time within the boundaries of your agreement. By doing this, they don't have to upgrade their infrastructure as fast and you don't have to worry about someone else hogging all your bandwidth. AT&T is allowing people to still use their own modems (Which they cannot throddle) but at a cost of an additional 7$ a month. So, for an extra 7$ a month, you can make everyone off your router miserable by hogging their bandwidth :) Other cable companies won't even allow you to use your own cable modem. (Time Warner in Rochester NY for example)
    Basically, from their perspective this makes sense. They can help to control the hogging situation and at the same time slow down their need to expand their network. I've seen companies go down the tubes because the need for bandwidth got out of control and they could not afford to expand. I just wish that they would come out with some sort of burst rate for these cable modem networks similar to how Frame relay works. That way, when the bandwidth is not in use, I could get the extra speed I want. Perhaps somewhere down the road.

    1. Re:Why this makes sense from their perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the beauty (or ugliness, depending on your point of view) of DOCSIS cable modems is that AT&T can throttle the cable modem in your house regardless of who owns it. Ownership of the modem has absolutely no effect upon AT&T's ability to remotely manage and provision the modem with respect to bandwidth limitations, filters, etc.

      If a user creates a custom firmware for their modem, AT&T can simply upgrade the modem the next time it boots, or immediately, for that matter. They can do this without your explicit consent (read the subscriber agreement) or even your knowledge, assuming you're not there to see it happen.

      DOCSIS 1.1, which AT&T and other cable companies will be rolling out in the near future, even allows them to authenticate the firmware in the modem, so that modems with doctored firmware will not register at all! My theory is that AT&T is reducing the discount/lease fee whatever to
      1) Make more money (this should be obvious)
      2) Make it less attractive for subscribers to go on Amazon/Ebay/buy.com/Circuit City etc. and buy one of the current crop of DOCSIS 1.0 modems.

      Having a fleet of leased modems makes it easier for AT&T to roll out DOCSIS 1.1 because they can simply tell people "You have to make an appointment so we can swap out your modem" as opposed to telling people "We're upgrading our service so the modem you bought six months ago is not a boat anchor"

  72. so???? by ZoneGray · · Score: 2

    I never understood why anybody would want to buy a cable modem anyway. Modem prices have come down, but even before AT&T's rate change change, buying your own only saved $10 a month anyway. So that means that if you bought a cable modem for $150, it would be 15 months before you broke even. That's too long a payback time for a technology investment.

    1. Re:so???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What accounting planet are you from?

    2. Re:so???? by ZoneGray · · Score: 2

      >> What accounting planet are you from?

      The planet where Moore's Law is in effect.

  73. The market's free, but not profitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The FCC doesn't prevent competitors from stepping in to your local market. Anybody is welcome to set up shop.

    However, the numbers are *not* working out. The nat'l average for broadband usage is something like 15%, and is expected to stagnate until prices come down. If you already have one broadband option, a new entrant can expect to split that with the existing incumbant, so they might expect to wire up 7.5% of the homes. Is that worth the investment to build the infrastructure? No way.

    If the new entrant thinks that broadband might reach something like 40% of the homes, and their take might be 20%, then that starts to make some sense. However, that's "bubble math" - there's no way you'll see 40% penetration until prices either come down, or there's some new demand for broadband (like Napster is legal and free).

    Unfortunately, this is a waiting game....

    1. Re:The market's free, but not profitable by s.fontinalis · · Score: 1

      The FCC doesn't prevent competitors from stepping in to your local market. Anybody is welcome to set up shop. True. The FCC has the power to force the phone companies, and the cable cos, to share the lines into subsriber homes. They aren't doing this - because of a)cash donations to various politicians b) very good telephone compnay lawyers. No Company is going to string new lines into subscriber homes - so in order for competition to exist, we need sharing of access lines.

  74. I guess AT&T likes to milk it's customers. NO by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 2

    Look, this is simple. Bandwidth is expensive, or at least it's not the free resource everyone likes to think that it is. You ever look at the prices for T1 lines? They're expensive for a reason. Some of that is gouging, sure, the bottom line is that *somebody* is paying for crazy-high bandwidth. Cable ISPs started out with cheap prices to attract customers, then the realization hit that they couldn't keep it up forever. This is not a surprise to anyone except college students who are used to having "free" high bandwidth connections in their dorm rooms.

  75. NOT NEW by Com2Kid · · Score: 2

    AT&T announced this price increase over a year ago, hardly new.

    They are actualy REDUCING the price of the modem rental, granted by just $1 a month but. . . . This is quite fair and I consider it JUSTIFIED and a LOT better then, say, implementing shitty ass bandwidth caps.

    Considering the high quality level of their service (they have recently increased the upload speed cap from 16KBP/s to 30KBp/s!!!! YAHOOO!!!! :) ) I have no objection to paying a few more dollars a month for high quality cable modem access.

  76. The answer to this has been stated MANY times... by Orangedog_on_crack · · Score: 1

    ...vote with your wallet. If there is DSL or some other high speed option in your area and you're with ATT, drop them like a hot potato. Make sure you tell them WHY you are leaving. When you call to install the new service, tell THEM why you left ATT. If you do nothing and take it up the ass, the rest of the companies will follow suit. I get cable modem service through Time/Warner Communists...er, I mean communications. If they start charging me extra for downloading big files (Hal-Life patches, MP3's or the like, I'm lucky enough to have access to Ameritech/SBC DSL. If they pull a stunt like ATT, then I might go w/satellite. I know that everyone doesn't have another option, but those who do should look view tactics like ATT's the same way the average person would if a dead rat was thrown onto their kitchen table.

  77. Bravo for AT&T! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I used to be a happy customer of Excite@Home before AT&T took over. The effect was immediate: the service deteriorated dramatically, with more outages and slower connections. And now, this. I am glad I ditched them.

    AT&T, if you are listening: You are a monster who manages to foul up everything you touch. Get bloody lost.

  78. Good thing there's competition... err.... by sterno · · Score: 2

    Is it just me or does this scream out the fact that there's clearly not enough competition in the broadband market these days? I mean AT&T suddenly decides to start charging people an extra $7/month to people who went through the trouble and expense of buying their own hardware. Sounds like a good motivation to get service from a different provider, but then what are your choices really?

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
  79. Alternatives by deanj · · Score: 1
    This is exactly why there should be more competition in the cable industry. That goes for TV and Internet services.

    If there were a good reliable SAT service for Internet, I'd go for that, the same way I dumped my local cable company.

    And yes, I know about Sat Dish Internet. Last time I looked they were unreliable. Has that been fixed?

  80. I'm an AT&T bband user looking for an alternat by MrJerryNormandinSir · · Score: 1

    I'm tired of AT&T. I have an alternate for TV, Direct TV. But... internet access.. Verizon if you are listening please bring DSL to Swansea, MA! AT&T sucks!

  81. YASE (Yet Another Spelling Error) by dbretton · · Score: 2

    Now I'll have to pay for the privilage of not depending on AT&T for a modem?"

    -If there is a mistake...well, you should have used the 'Preview' button!-

  82. The real reason is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    att wants true control of the device.
    If you own it, then you can hack it to provide faster bandwidth.
    If att catches you, all they can do is cut your service.
    If att owns the device, then if you hack it, they can now cut your service, take the modem, and sue you. Big difference.

    As to all the other reasons that I ahve seen here about the modem differences and/or prices, that is a joke. ATT has always been paying US$20/unit. And all cable modems comply with docsis, so they are easily updateable.

  83. Re:lease theirs... (YOU CAN'T!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my case, I CAN'T lease the modem from the cable company and use my own instead. They lock down access by MAC address, so I'd have to have their modem plugged into the cable, not mine, to get it to work. Life's a bitch, eh?

  84. Cable Monopoly Rant by txdadu · · Score: 1

    I would have to agree with your point about most homes being able only get cable service from one provider. Personally, I believe cable companies are one of the most disgusting monopolies in this country. The rates they charge 1) seem utterly random 2) change every month. However you do have a choice in some areas, you can choose DSL or cable and generally if you are able to choose DSL, you can choose one of a few DSL providers (XO and Earthlink to name a couple). Yes I know they run off the same telco, however the services they provide do change based on the DSL reseller.

    I, personally, am very happy with my cable provider, Optonline

  85. No benefit to owning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aside from the shrinking difference in monthly cost I never could think a real benefit from owning cable modem. It's a device that has the SOLE function of plugging in to a proprietary network. At least where I live there is only one cable company. If I drop AT&T what I am going to do with that modem? Owning a cable modem actually ties you in to AT&T at least until you recover your purchase cost through lower monthly charges.

  86. My Complaint to the BBB by -ThePope- · · Score: 1

    Here is a copy of the complaint I submitted to the Better Business Bureau. If I were to charge them for my time spent as a result of their incompetance, it would be a bill of $4800.00 at my current cunsulting rate.

    "About the time AT&T took over @Home I tried to get a purchased Cable modem authorized to replace my leased modem. Due to problems with their authorization database, it could not be done. After a number of calls to support over a period of weeks, two of those calls resulted in them wanting to send a truck out to see if they could get it resolved. Since the problem was software related on their servers, I told them that a service tech would not be able to rectify it either. I was assured that I would not be charged if they couldn't get it authorized and they couldn't do it as I had told them, both times.

    I don't have exact dates on these issues but I do have over 8 support ticket numbers on all the calls. Every time I have called, I have been told that they cannot access those tickets to get any information. The tickets were 885076, 1340254, 1356031, 1360218, 1381019, 1398948, 1404179 and 1451848. In every case I was promised a follow-up call and never recieved one. The most recent ticket was one where the billing dept. was supposed to address my billing issues, take off the service call charge, cancel charges for a second IP and bill only for a year in advance for 1 IP. I had already paid for a year in advance for 2 IP's.

    What they did was to remove the yearly fee for 2 IP's and start sending me bills for monthly service, which is a greater cost to me, and add the charge for the service call where they did absolutely nothing to fix the problem they came out for. I canceled the second IP because their network department never resolved my issues with getting the second IP working so that I could communicate between my two servers over the internet. That was a problem with their internal network and those support calls were never responded to."

    I actually think that I will now issue a bill to them for my time and send it by certified mail, along with a copy of this complaint.

  87. Re:I'm NOT sympathetic, I've got it much worse.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Mediacom charges an extra $10/month to broadband subscribers who don't also subscribe to one of their cable TV packages.

    That's pretty much standard practice. Looking at it another way, if the TV signal is unscambled on the wire, you can get a $25.00 basic cable subscription for $10. Theft of services disclaimers apply....

  88. All you Aussie fags need to shut the fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, that's right. You Australian pieces of shits bitching about how we told you to shut the fuck up because your country is behind the times with cable modems, need to shut the fuck up. No one cares what you have to say, go back to basting in the sun and getting skin cancer because there is a large hole in the O-Zone layer above your shitty country.

    K? K.

  89. ATT = Big scam by Fitascious · · Score: 1

    I am completely fed up with at&t. I got a voice/cable/internet package advertised for $100, and within 6 months I was paying ~$130. I shelled out the extra $2 for an unlisted number, when I cancled the service a year later, just for fun I looked at my local phone directory only to notice that even though they collected $2 a month from me tbo not list my number it was listed anyways. They wouldn't credit me money back for the whole year since the phone book I was using as reference was only 4 months old. When I decided to move after I bought a house, we requested service to be cancled on 3/25. Of course they decided to cut my line a month early, no phone, tv, or internet. Bla.

    So I move in to my new home convinced I'll never have to deal with ATT again, I'll just get DSL, satellite and good ol' baby bell phone service... Well, it turns out the satellite signals are a bit too lazy to fly though trees, and DSL companies are very picky about whom them will service.
    So its back to ATT I went. Of course I decided to buy my own modem. Of course Att decided to charge me for a leased one anyways. I called and complained, and they actually hung up on me. Eventually, I had to fax them a copy of the work order for the install where their tech had clearly written "CUST SUP MODEM".

    What a bunch of pricks

    Oh yeah, I forgot about their digital cable I refuse to get anymore. Their on screen graphics take up the bottom third of the screen, and 30% of that area is filled with... you guessed it, banner ads.

    They are a monopoly and have to be stopped.

    Now go ahead and tell me to deal with it, I'm used to it.

  90. Cable Modems breaking? Impossible! by rob-fu · · Score: 0
    I've been fortunate enough to have the pleasure of subscribing to AT&T Broadband for 3 years now with the same cable modem (a great General Instruments Surfboard, which they provided). These things don't break!

    Next time when your connection starts to eat shit (which it never should, because AT&T is the best), do the following:

    1. Go to cable modem, and pull plug.
    2. Wait about 30 seconds, and plug it back in.
    This usually works every time, but sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't work, then you'll have to wait until one of the great technicians can come out to your residence and take a look at it. These guys are awesome! They're very qualified and know everything there is to know about computers and they'll have your cable modem up and running in no time!
  91. request a model... by david2050 · · Score: 1

    So those of us who own can now request
    a new modem to lease? Seems like a reasonable
    request and a chance to upgrade...

  92. Me too: No LD carrier! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I also purchased a SAMS club ATT card (600 minutes for $20.82), and got Ameritech to DUMP my Long Distance Carrier. (ATT!)

    I don't mind dialing all the numbers and waiting a few moments, recharging is easy via credit card.

    However, I HAVE received a few telemarketing calls FROM ATT where they try to get me to sign up for a cheaper calling plan.

    I tell them: "I already have a great calling plan with ATT, 3.4 cents per minute! Can you beat that?" It's amusing to listen to them stammer and try to figure out how I manage to get 3.4 cents per minute with ATT, since they don't apparently have any regular "plans" like that.

    Then if I choose to explain that I'm using a calling card and have DUMPED my monthly LD provider, they tell me "Well, you know, your LOCAL phone provider is authorized to charge you UP TO $7 per month to NOT have a LD carrier. "

    "So what?" I say, "You guys used to charge me $10 per month for a plan that charged me 10 cents per minute! Plus I don't pay any of those stupid taxes on the calls! I WIN no matter what !"

    (click)

    Since then, we've managed to convince several friends to completely drop their LD carrier and use the SAMS ATT card, which is still the cheapest solution I've yet found.

    No one I know has yet been charged this surcharge for *not* having a LD carrier. yet.

    1. Re:Me too: No LD carrier! by hazem · · Score: 1

      If you're in the continental US, try http://www.bigzoo.com. It's like a prepaid card, but with no card. I've used it for about 2 years very happily!

      In certain communities they have local access numbers, and when you use that, it's 2.9c/minute. Otherwise, it's 1-888.. and it's 3.9c/minute. International rates are great too. I was calling England last fall for 4.5c/minute!

      One nice feature is that if you call from specified numbers (home, cellphone, etc), it will assume it's you (if you want it to) and it will not ask for your PIN.

      Also they just recently added "family tree" (stupid name) speed dialing. So, I put all my favorite people as 1-1-1, 1-1-2, etc. So, I dial 10 digits to get the local number, and 3 digits to reach my friends.

  93. At the rate we are going.. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Between pay per use, bandwith caps, invasive controls on content, and what ever else they cook up to get $$ out of us, i can see us heading back to 'point to point' dialup modems..

    May be slower but at least it wont be controlled by the Man..

    Not that im against paying for somethign i use, but come on.. this is getting really stupid.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  94. Customer No-Service by Dannon · · Score: 2

    My sympathy to those using AT&T for broadband internet. It is a fate that I myself narrowly escaped.

    Earlier this month, I found myself moving to a new apartment, and needing new internet access. The cable provider monopolizing my new neighborhood? None other than AT&T.

    I called up on the 3rd, ordered service, and was told that the cable guy would be out on a Saturday. That Saturday came and went, and of course, the cable guy never showed up. Seems the first person I had spoken to had failed to put in a work order.

    Next appointment: Wednesday afternoon. My roommate takes off early from work so he can meet Cable Guy. Cable Guy arrives 10 minutes before my roommate gets there, leaves a note, and disappears.

    So, he calls in to set up another appointment, and is told about installation fees. Fees which I was told, just last weekend, wouldn't apply, since I was ordering the 'basic' (do-it-yourself) modem installation. Here's where the fun begins.

    I call them up to get a straight answer on the pricing. I get referred to two 'local' 1-800 service numbers. The first is disconnected. The second is for Long Distance (no, I don't want to buy any, thank you!)

    I get referred to other phone numbers. Somehow, I end up getting a local broadband support office... on the other end of the country.

    Indeed, until I declare my intentions to cancel my order (after the 8th toll-free phone call, and the 10th time on hold), it seems there is not one person in the entire company who can give me a straight answer on pricing. And by then, I've made up my mind to look into DSL and Dish Network. Both of them such good deals in my area that it's a wonder I ever considered AT&T in the first place.

    On a side note, I recently heard on the radio that in a survey of satisfaction with the customer support services of various industries, Cable TV ranked at rock-bottom. And the worst of the worst? Charter, Comcast, and AT&T.

    Gee, I wonder why.

    --
    Good judgment comes from experience.
    Experience comes from bad judgment.
  95. Common Math Blunder by SharpNose · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but it's incorrect to say that x/0 = infinity. The division operation is not defined for a denominator of zero.

    1. Re:Common Math Blunder by jci · · Score: 1

      Then couldn't it approach infinity?

      lim 7.00/x = infinity
      x -> 0

    2. Re:Common Math Blunder by PurpleFloyd · · Score: 2

      No, because since the limits from the left and right are different (from left, it approaches negative infinity, from right, it approaches positive infinity), the limit does not exist.

      --

      That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
  96. Re:You fucking moron by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    It is not, "You fucking moron" but "You are a fucking moron", unless you meant that the moron in question was actually in the process of fucking when he wrote that.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  97. Get your facts straight. by glrotate · · Score: 1

    Cable is an unregulated monopoly in the US

    Not in any city I've ever lived in. Cable cos are regulated at the local level. Go to your local public utility commission hearing and complain. Have you ever been to one of these hearings, or do you just like to whine on a message board?

    1. Re:Get your facts straight. by Zathrus · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Been there, done that. Local public utility commission referred me to the cable company. That's it.

      This was after a lightning induced surge did $500 of damage to my electronics because the cable company didn't bother to ground their wire. They refused to acknowledge culpability and the PUC didn't give a crap.

      The thin veer of regulation doesn't count for anything when it's the monopoly pulling the strings behind the puppets. The cable "regulation" is significantly different than gas, power, or water since they are considered essential services (and yes, they are, far more so than internet).

      And write this off as whining, but it's funny how it seems to be the same thing happening over and over again in any market where there is no choice for such services. And how things are markably different in the few markets where there is actual competition.

  98. There is a ridiculously simply solution, people... by Greedo · · Score: 1

    So, if you own a modem, your bill goes up $7. If you lease/rent from AT&T, your bill stays the same.

    Uh ... so go rent a modem from AT&T and stick it in your closet.

    ... assuming, of course, that the modem-owner's bill was originally <= (the renter's bill + $7)

    --
    Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
  99. Spell checkers are not that difficult to use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You can throddle connections..."

    What the hell is "throddling"? I think you meant THROTTLE.

  100. What keeps a few people from sharing? by thogard · · Score: 1

    Can a typical cable modem talk to other modems on the same area? If so can one person get two, subscribe one to the service, set the second one up in a peer to peer setup and then NAT through a gateway?

    Years ago we found that Arcnet cards would work over the local cables wires for quite some distance.

  101. Screw the people who are in it for the long term by ruiner13 · · Score: 1

    So if you made a commitment to stick with them for a while (which is pretty much you're doing when you buy the modem instead of leasing it), you are the one that has to pay more? That makes no sense whatsoever. AT&T should be rewarding people who make the decision to buy their modem and stick with the service for a while, not punishing them. This is the most lame-brained idea they have had in a while.

    --

    today is spelling optional day.

  102. Aaah! Aaaah! My ribs!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I understand what is happening here because they're doing something similar with their CATV service. A while back, AT my dick gets hard when the wind blows," whereas Ms. Nipple Stud will get THE MATRIX instead of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

    Once AT where everyone is kept in a cocoon and is only allowed to see those parts of the world that reinforces the individual's existing view of the world as measured and extrapolated via their watching/surfing habits.

    If you don't think this could be done in a way to seriously impact how people live their lives, imagine what would occur if the example people I used above were suddenly to have their "programming" switched on purpose or accidentally. Both people, without really understanding why, would suddenly feel alienated and even passively persecuted. What would happen in a big city where a couple million people have all been made to feel alienatied and persecuted, all at the same time?

    This, my fellow /.ers, is an illustration of what technological change enables powerful media companies to do: alter the very fabric of society itself, in fact, turn it on a dime. This is something that no government - democratic, communist, socialist - has ever been able to achieve.

  103. Re: I guess AT&T likes to milk it's customers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    The "bandwidth is sooo expensive" bot strikes again!

  104. Why by Ur_Hariador · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The reason that AT&T is doing this is simple. They don't want you to own the modem. It actually saves them money when you use your own modem, they don't have to replace it when it breaks and they don't have to maintain a stock of modems, which is why they tried to encourage people to buy modems. They have changed their minds, because they realized that they cannot control modems that they do not own. There is nothing stopping you from running diffrent firmware on a modem that you own, getting around any speed caps that they may have placed on your account. All of AT&T's traffic shaping takes place at the modem. What you are going to soon see is tired service, pay more to get a faster connection, pay less to get a limited connection. However, the only real diffrence will be the firmware that they send to your modem. Hence, they want to stop the spread of modems that they cannot control.

  105. Bell Sympatico (Canada) did the same... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... a few years ago. If we picked them as our long distance calls company, we had a 10$ rebate. At the very same time, the modem was no longer free of charge (they did not want to sell them at that time, you simply couldn't buy one) and you had to ditch 10$ for it every month.

    As a result, today I don't have a regular phone line with bell, I only have a cellular from AT&T.

    It seems no matter what, I'll end up giving my money to those who don't really deserve it.

  106. Re:There is a ridiculously simply solution, people by Ur_Hariador · · Score: 1

    Won't work. They will only allow one modem on the account to connect, the one that you leased.

  107. AT&T licks anus by George+Michael · · Score: 1

    You may wonder how an enormous, impersonal, faceless conglomorpation can physically lick anus, but I will explain it to you.

    I am unfortunately and temporarily an AT&T BI customer. I got a call last week, at 9 AM, from a computer, saying there was an error in my account somewhere and I should call the tech support number to get it straightened out. Never mind that the call woke me up and confused the hell out of me. I was woozy and I only caught the last 4 digits of the number. The message did not repeat, and when I asked it questions about what the hell it was talking about, the computer just kept talking.

    So I went to their website, found the number I was supposed to call, called it...and was told that account-related stuff was a sales issue. So the guy gave me a number and I called it.

    The guy at the sales line asked me what my problem was. I told him I didn't know. The computer voice just told me I had a problem. Doesn't your database tell you why it told me I had a non-specific problem? No... let me transfer you to someone...

    After I was transferred, the person at the other end of the line told me I was an idiot for calling a Boston area number, when I live in Minnesota. I told her you have got to be kidding me, this is the PHONE company...

    We're not the phone company, we're the cable company sir.

    Well, I was transferred to you. If you're so smart, give me the right number, then, jackass.

    She gave me another number and I talked to another person who didn't know what the hell the computer voice had called me about, and thought I was stupid.

    So I gave up and bought a house in Minneapolis, where Time Warner is the cable company.

    And that is the story of how AT&T ate my balls.

  108. I can't complain about AT&T by CovertSquirrels · · Score: 1

    I switched my long distance service off of AT&T and promptly received a check for $100 if I would return. Seeing no minimum time requirement in the contract, I cashed the check, switching back to AT&T, then called my other long distance provider to switch back. I received another $100 check a few weeks later, cashed and switched again. Now AT&T is out a couple hundred bucks and I'm still not a customer. They might be getting a clue because I received one last check for $50 which I did the usual with and I haven't heard from them since. Maybe you guys could keep the cable modems but drop your long distance service with AT&T and hope for a similar incentive?

  109. What do we expect? by localman · · Score: 2

    Corporations have to make more money this year than last year - no matter what. It doesn't matter how much profit they're making or how large their market share is - they've simply got to make more money this year, or they are letting down their shareholders.

    It sounds more or less like a Ponzi scheme to me, but it's capitalism (at least our brand) and it "works" (according to those it works for), so expect more of the same... until the people decide to change what corporations are and what they can do.

  110. At least they let you keep the modem... by fo0bar · · Score: 1
    ... or perhaps their internal systems are so screwed up that they lost track of mine. When I moved from CA to NV and dropped at&t for cable internet, I called to cancel and specifically said "what should I do with this modem?" "We'll send you a shipping label to send it back to us."

    3 months later and the modem is still sitting in a corner collecting dust. Unfortunately, these specific CyberSURFR modems are not 100% DOCSIS compatible, meaning they won't work on pretty much any other cable system. And AT&T is smart (mean?) enough to not provision customer-bought modems that are not DOCSIS. So that leaves me with a useless piece of hardware. Maybe I'll turn it into a wall clock.

  111. Isn't Deregulation Wonderful? by blair1q · · Score: 2


    I hope you're all happy.

    --Blair

    1. Re:Isn't Deregulation Wonderful? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't exactly call a government-granted monopoly "deregulation".

  112. Slashdot just happened to miss this one.. by EvilStein · · Score: 2, Interesting

    AT&T Broadband *increased* upstream transfer rates for many customers. They're making it a flat 256kbps across the board. Funny to see how the articles about bow AT&T Broadband is screwing people make big news, but when they increase the piddly upstream cap that people bitch about constantly, nobody seems to care.

    Article here

    1. Re:Slashdot just happened to miss this one.. by nigelo · · Score: 1

      Did you read the article you linked to? It says that while some customers would see an increase, a far larger number of customers had a decrease in upload speeds.

      Should we make a fuss about this, too, then?

      --
      *Still* negative function...
    2. Re:Slashdot just happened to miss this one.. by EvilStein · · Score: 2

      Of course I read the article. I said they're making it a flat 256kbps across the board. People complained when they capped downstream at 1.5mbit, and I'm sure a few articles about the upstream were submitted but rejected.

      Feel free to make a fuss. Capping bandwidth at 1.5mbit down/384kbps up certainly wouldn't hurt. It'd make it more attractive to current DSL users, that's for sure.

  113. quite your bitchin by Cyno · · Score: 1

    You should just shut up and be happy you still got the freedom to surf the net. You're lucky, y'know. When I was a kid we didn't even have the internet. Now you can get it for $50 a month. We should all bow down and thank AT&T for bringing this to us ignornat lazy citizens. And I'm sure they won't let the government look at ALL your mail.

  114. general trend with AT&T?? by Reziac · · Score: 2

    I'd had AT&T as my interstate and local long distance carrier for many years (having been happier with them than with the alternatives). This year, they started playing games with the monthly service fee -- trying to figure out which fee plan and which rate plan worked best suddenly turned into such a maze that you can't even make a good guess at the best rate. The last straw came when they began charging the monthly fee in advance (which caused me to be charged twice for the month when they made that transition).

    My point is, AT&T seems to be playing these games in other areas too, not just with cable modems.

    BTW as a direct result of these games, my long distance is now provided thru Costco (lower rate, no monthly fee... take that, AT&T). Too bad cable modem users generally don't have the choice of jumping ship to another provider.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  115. No calls, no bill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use some company called ITT or something like that, and if you don't make any long distance calls they don't charge you for anything. You might want to see if someone brighter than I might have the name and a link for them.

  116. Re: I guess AT&T likes to milk it's customers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The AC idiot bot strikes again!

  117. Buying your own cablemodem is in fact worth it. by kobaz · · Score: 1

    You don't seem to see the actuall benefit of buying a cablemodem. Number one anything you have, that you own outright, you can sell (legal things of course). Buying a cablemodem is so you say $150 or so, which is about the average cost, so you are NOT PAYING the cable company for the modem, you are (key words here) NOT PAYING the extra $10 a month. So after 15 months, you have saved paying the cable company $150. Now there is where your point is almost valid. You are now at the point, as if you have never bought the cablemodem outright. But each month after that, you are still paying the cable company $10 less per month because you have the cablemodem. Who only gets cable for 15 months? I know I've had cable for more then 3 years now. So buying my modem was well worth it. Now what am I going to do when I move? Why sell it of course.

    --

    The goal of computer science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.
    1. Re:Buying your own cablemodem is in fact worth it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Who only gets cable for 15 months?

      Anyone eagerly anticipating the day they can dump those monopolist control freaks in favor of DSL and a real ISP that allows servers.

  118. Adding insult to injury; "vanity" hostnames by battlemarch · · Score: 1

    This is the email I got recently about vanity hostnames:

    Subject: Important Announcement About Vanity Hostnames
    Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 08:13:48 -0500 (CDT)
    From: Network Notifications
    To: NAME_REMOVED@ATTBI.COM

    Important Announcement About Vanity Hostnames

    Our records show that you have a vanity hostname (i.e., hostname
    other than h+MAC address) assigned to your account. While the
    ability to provision vanity hostnames was discontinued in November
    of 2001, any vanity hostname provisioned prior to then was migrated
    to the AT&T Broadband Internet network in the format
    vanityhostname.ne.client2.attbi.com.

    Due to upcoming network changes, we will no longer officially
    support this service. Every effort will be made to continue to
    keep existing vanity hostnames active, but this cannot be
    guaranteed. This also means that we can no longer transfer an
    existing vanity hostname to a replacement Ethernet adapter. If
    you replace your Ethernet adapter, note that your new hostname
    will utilize the h+MAC address convention (defined below).

    Our hostname policy is to set the hostname to the MAC (Media
    Access Control) address of your Ethernet adapter preceded by the
    letter "h". For example, if your Ethernet MAC address were
    00:80:D7:3D:23:B0, your hostname would become
    h0080d73d23b0.ne.client2.attbi.com. We selected this hostname
    because the MAC address is unique, and because it is already
    discoverable on the Internet. We precede it with the letter "h"
    to avoid a completely numeric hostname, which is discouraged.

    Persistent host names have never been officially supported on our
    network and should we need to renumber the network, we can make
    no guarantee as to the amount of time that will be needed for the
    hostname to resolve to an IP address.

    Sincerely,

    AT&T Broadband

    This email is for informational purposes only. Please note that
    any forwarded emails will not be responded to.

    Copyright AT&T Broadband 2002

    --
    Oh, come, come, come. Without a monster or two, it's hardly a quest... merely a gaggle of friends wandering about. - Owl
  119. this is an incentive away from nat and tcp by mr_burns · · Score: 2

    The broadband providers perceive nat as a threat. Several months ago, there were stories here about the broadband industry seeing nat as a kind of theft, where they were missing out on revenues from leasing IP's for each of those machines that without nat, would have real internet IP's.

    So their solution is to provide modems with a different protocol which can identify machines behind nat...so that the connection between the ISP and your home is not IP.

    Given that those schemes are on their minds, it seems only natural that they would want to discourage the use of a modem they do not control, or can not recall and replace with their new ones. Even if you don't cave in and pay for more IP's (which is ridiculous, you don't pay for additional phones hooked up to the same line/number, even though those numbers are scarce as well) they still get some extra ca$h.

    I suggest we coin a term to combat the idea that every net connected device should be paying for an IP, even if behind a firewall/nat. I propose "IP Gouging". I also think people should contact the local public utility commission and explain how shady a practice it is. We pay primarily for bandwidth and connectivity, we only need one IP to make use of the utility.

    --
    "Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
  120. Pass on cost savings to the customer by n-baxley · · Score: 2

    Here is the real problem coming from this story. When a cost of doing business rises, it is immediatly passed on to the customer. If cable prices had gone up, you bet we would have seen an increase in leasing prices and overall. When the reverse is true, we don't see the change. We should lobby AT&T to pass their modem saving on to us.

  121. Lock in $33/month now for 12 months by rochlin · · Score: 1

    In most areas you can "lock in" your current rate and get one month free if you commit to one year of AT&T cable modem service. My current rate (Souther Cal) is $35.95 - which would be $42.95 when the price is jacked.
    I just paid $395.45 for 12 months (about $33/mo) with their pay for 11 get 12 plan.
    Apparently their "billing" dept can't cope, so if you want to see if you can get the deal, call customer service (for me, that's 866-447-7333).
    Bon Luck.

  122. Mediacom by hendrickx · · Score: 1

    Mediacom just did the same trick in my area. Rates went up $10/month, but the modem lease went from $10 to $5.

    The twist in Mediacom's case: they screwed up the marketing. Inteasd of print up flyers that said "Your rate's going up, but you now save $5 off the old price of leasing a modem." They simply said "$5 off".

    Guess who owns a modem? Me. Guess who's getting his $5 off a month? I might have to frame the flyer, send them a photo every month, but hey, $5 is another pizza.

  123. Two-way satellite broadband = the future by Boomer2 · · Score: 1

    This kind of crap is why services like -- and I said "_like_" -- DirecWay are so important for the future. When I can get broadband and phone service from satellite, the local telco can kiss my butt. The only reason AT&T and Cox and Qwest and the like have a chance right now is because they own the only convenient high-speed medium...phone/cable lines.

    Sure...they'll try to buy up all of the satellites. Sure will be much more difficult to monopolize, though. After all, if all else fails I could contract with a *shiver* French company, if I must.

    The sky is literally the limit.

    Of course, now that they've found scads of water on Mars, Earthly issues won't concern me in about twenty years....

    1. Re:Two-way satellite broadband = the future by retro128 · · Score: 1

      Satellite won't be a viable broadband/phone solution anytime in the near future, mostly because:

      a) Satellites are expensive to launch. If you thought the price of DSLAMs was bad....
      b) They aren't exactly easy to upgrade with new, faster technology
      c) Bandwidth is too limited for a widespread and bandwidth hogging activities such as local telephone and Internet service. Increasing bandwidth runs you into problems with a) and b)

      I would instead say that land-based wireless is the future, for these reasons:

      a) Cost of infrastructure is mimimal, at least compared to running fiber underground
      b) The technology is here, and it works.
      c) Easy to upgrade. No need to worry that the cables you spent billions of dollars running can't carry your super duper new broadband speeds.

      Of course the problems with this are mostly range, obstructions, and interference. But last I checked DSL was subject to the same things, just in different ways (18000 ft limit, RSU's, and crosstalk, respectively. Throw in phone company stupidity as an added bonus)
      I've heard rumblings of talk about "flying wings" taking over satellite functions, but at a much lower cost and much easier maintenance. I'm not well versed on the details, but this article should explain what I am trying to say.

      --
      -R
  124. Easy way out: by Artifex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let them ship you their modem. Take it out of the box, examine it, make sure it isn't damaged, and then... put it back in the box and stick it in your closet. Use your own modem. Who's going to know?

    If they run tests and decide that you're not using their equipment (either by checking MAC addrs, which, as a practical matter, they really can't keep on file, or by issuing instructions to the modems), what can they do? You're "testing alternatives."

    Besides, hey. This way you get a backup modem, in case the spiffy one you bought dies. And you can plug the modem in and turn it on when you're having service problems, if you feel like it, too.

    --
    Get off my launchpad!
    1. Re:Easy way out: by alien · · Score: 1

      because they charge you extra to use their modems. That's why it's called "leasing" it.

    2. Re:Easy way out: by Artifex · · Score: 2

      because they charge you extra to use their modems. That's why it's called "leasing" it.

      The whole point of this was was it costs more overall if you refuse to lease their modem. In other words, they charge you extra to not use their modems. That's why I say take the modem... you're not obligated to actually use it.

      --
      Get off my launchpad!
    3. Re:Easy way out: by fliplap · · Score: 2

      Uhg, did you even read the article?

      It doesnt cost you more if you own your modem. the service used to be $35.95, now its $42.95, regardless if you rent the modem or not. The price for service went up $7, period. At the same time they lowered the price of renting the modem by $7 (from $10 to $3).

      So as you can see, before the change, modem renters paid $45.95 a month, so add $7 in service fees and subtract $7 in rental fees and they're still paying $45.95 a month.

      On the other hand, people who own a modem were paying $35.95 a month, so add $7 in service fees, and now they're paying $42.95. So now you see that renting a modem still costs more, it just doesn't cost as much more as it used to.

  125. COX sucks worse. by twitter · · Score: 2
    8. Elimination of "vanity" hostnames. Soon we will all have hostnames like h000102030405.ne.client2.attbi.com instead of nice names like vanity.mediaone.net. I suppose it helps them to discorouge people from running services on their machines.

    Cox no longer has any names for their modems. You are a number. Services are explicitly prohibited. Only port 21 is left open to incomming requests because AOL's instant messenger needs it, so you can run ftp in a normal fashion. No, they don't want you to run ftp, but they have yet to cut me off for my little read only site.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  126. They were *selling* modems before by kiscica · · Score: 1

    At some point in the past year, shortly after AT&T took over from MediaOne here in Los Angeles (and things started going downhill), they sent out a lot of junk mail heavily promoting the option of buying a modem (from them) for $200, pointing out that you'd save $10/month from then on.

    I didn't bite as it wasn't at all clear to me that I would be using the service for a year and a half more (and at this point, it's even less clear -- if they institute transfer limits, as an earlier article suggested they might, our relationship is over). But I wonder how many people did. I bet those folks are somewhat torqued now -- it's going to take a lot longer to recoup their $200 by "not paying $3/month" than by "not paying $10/month"!

    To give AT&T a little credit it sounds like they are giving current customers with their own modems a $42 credit to offset the unequal increase. My guess is that even they couldn't justify screwing people whom they'd sold $200 modems to just a few months back THAT brutally.

    kiscica

  127. WHOAH, hold your horses there! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure AT&T can do this legally.

    I happen to know that a certain local cable company was forced by the governmnet to allow people to OWN their remotes rather than pay a monthly fee to RENT them. The boxes still cost a monthly fee of course.

    I'm not sure what the issue was exactly with the remotes, but perhaps it had something to do with people being able to buy other companies remotes which would work just fine with the boxes, but the cable company was actually telling the boxes not to accept remote input if you didn't pay the rental fee.

    This sounds like the same sort of thing. AT&T is taking away incentive for people to buy cable modems from competitors even though they will work just fine with their service by charging them a fee EVEN IF they own their own hardware which could do the same job.

  128. Cablevision/Optimum does the same thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Old price: $29.95/month + $10 rental fee=$39.95

    Buy your own modem & you are subject to their "upgraded pricing plan" which costs $10/month more for the same service... but you save the rental fee. :(

  129. Re:Good thing there's competition... err.... by RAVasquez · · Score: 2

    The Seattle P-I has a piece this morning about the monopoly aspect of this. Bottom line: In Tacoma, where there's competition for cable and broadband, you pay less; in Seattle, where AT&T has a monopoly, you'll be paying more.

    --

    --- Work, worry, consume, die. It's a wonderful life. -- Bill Griffith

  130. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  131. True prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is so true. As somebody who doesn't watch tv or subscribe to cable, it really burns me. When comparing cable broadband prices to dsl, or citing average prices for service, the price for the service without cable tv is the one that should be used. And the ftc shouldn't allow them to advertise any other price. It's pure deception.

  132. Competition In the Marketplace by hndrcks · · Score: 2

    "...What we really need is more competition in the marketplace..."

    I live in Montgomery County, Maryland, where only 18 months ago (in my neighborhood, at least) there were at least 5 competing broadband providers:

    One Large crappy overpriced Telco;

    Two DSL CLECs marketed by a dozen resellers;

    One (or Two?) satellite 'dish' providers;

    One huge national cable company; and

    One regional cable company.

    One would think, with all this competition, that we would have decent prices and maybe some modicum of customer service. But after the failure of one CLEC, the other hanging on by a thread, and the major cable company gobbled up by another - we had then, and still have, some of the highest cable and broadband prices in the United States. And customer service? I think it must be a law here that telco / cable service must suck or else.

    18 months and four email addresses later, I can state that what passes for 'competition' around here sure isn't helping much.

    --
    Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
  133. Just Great by Grapes4Buddha · · Score: 1

    Oddly, this information comes to me just two days after a lightning storm fried the cable modem I purchased not six months ago.

    Looks like I'm going back to the lease plan. At least I can get them to replace the modem when it fries.

  134. Re:lease theirs... (YOU CAN'T!) by moby · · Score: 1

    of course you can, simply spoof the MAC
    most Intel cards pefrom this in software right on the properties page...

  135. Amen, brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're still billing me for my long distance, and threatening to shut me off if I don't pay. I switched in February when they hosed me on my T-1 for the last time. I finally got out of that fiasco, but they still keep charging me for that too, and threatening to shut off my hosting company. That contract was cancelled in April. Bastards. They're grubbing money as fast and furious as they can, because they're poised on the brink to be the next Enron. Watch and wait, they're in some real shakey shape, 6 months tops before they make the network news. Remember WorldCom and Global Crossing.

  136. ATT Raises Prices for Cable Modem Owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is really interesting since just about a year ago, ATT@Home pushed for ownership of the Motorola Cybersurfer 4100 for the bargain price of $100 plus IIRC $10 less on your monthly bill. Now a year later the trout who got hooked on this one (me included) are out 100 bucks and STILL have to pay a modem fee...

  137. For Once My Laziness Pays Off by filbo · · Score: 1

    I've been meaning to buy my own modem for about six months now so I could cut my bill by $10 per month. My laziness in this regard has saved me $30. Amazing.

  138. and they port scan you and use exploitz and lie by linuggz · · Score: 1

    i had a long ordeal where the tenth AT&T employed tech-support person finally admited that AT&T will port scan all of its customers and attempt to access machines offering HTTP or telnet access.... but now i know a lot more about firewalls.

  139. wtf .... by foodb4nk · · Score: 1

    there gonna raise prices for capped bandwidth?? And a DHCP set-up? NO static IP!!!!eeerrrrrr Makes no-sense to me at all. The jprice here in washington is already to high 43.00$ some change. God damn greedy people taking advantage of not being able to go with a different supplier of service in my area. I would totally avoid them in all cost if i could live with out high speed accss.the pricks!!!!

    --
    *huh* Sig? WTF?
  140. rpm or not rpm - that is the question by towatatalko · · Score: 1

    One issue is that RH is rpm (RedHat Package Manager) based software that other Linux companies use as well: Caldera, SuSE, Turbo, Mandrake, etc., are all rpm based. To make one Linux standard they'd need to include Slackware, Debian and some more. Therefore this is a hoax, because even if they release such distro it'll be rpm as well, unless they do their own package manager, which I doubt they'll do, it'd take time and $, which they don't have.

    RH's dominance in the US is also due in part to IBM's support for RH mainframe releases. Even though SuSE and Turbo were way ahead of RH in releasing their mainframe Linux software, IBM still took RH as their main Linux supplier even though RH software on S/390 or AS400 as buggy as hell. Guess what, apparently, other Linux companies being weak in tech support can't afford their engineers to focus on IBM support.

    Would you believe that in Turbo there's only one tech support eng?, SuSE doesn't even have mainframe Linux support in the US, etc., and what is laughable is that while Turbo had good S/390 software it gave away support to mainframe vendor Sytek, which obiously did their own installation by tape so they can claim it as propriatory. It's a sham created by upper managment. They're destroying what's let of Linux. In other words M$ doesn't have to worry about anything.

    --

    IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
  141. I'm so sick of them by Crazydiamond21 · · Score: 1

    I hate monopolies. I'm so sick of having to send AT&T a check every month. I want competition!!

  142. putting your money where your mouth is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I pay close to $200.00 per month for 1 megabit
    (bidirectional) DSL with a small CIDR block of
    IP's. Privately owned local DSL provider.

    Lots of people claiming there's 'no competition'
    in broadband have deals like this available to them, but consider them too expensive.

    I'm very, very happy with my expensive broadband connection.

  143. One more by bihoy · · Score: 2

    I'd like to add one more item to my list.

    - The loss of dial-up as a backup when my cable modem connectivity is down. This morning it was down for four hours.

    In my lengthy discussion with a tech. support "supervisor" I was told that the dial-up numbers were discontinued because a survey revealed that "business people" mostly wanted it to access e-mail while on the road.

  144. Quick Fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so, you own the modem, well it broke, and now you need one. since you dont have to lease it anymore, make THEM supply you with one!!!
    just a suggestion