AT&T's 'IP Transition' Will Make U.S. Broadband Even Less Competitive
from the ill-communication dept
AT&T has spent a massive amount of time the last few years harping on the need to speed up the "IP transition." On its surface the idea seems reasonable; the nation needs to begin migrating from older copper DSL and phone technology toward new IP solutions, such as wireless and fiber to the home, the former being easier to deploy to rural areas, and the latter having much lower maintenance costs while being able to deliver faster speeds. AT&T is going state-by-state insisting that if lawmakers gut consumer protections governing these older networks, newer, better networks will spring forth from the ashes to help forge a better tomorrow, as this charming video makes clear:Aren't those little railroad men saddled with antiquated regulations and ancient technology adorable?
The problem is that AT&T's version of the network of tomorrow for millions of users is going to mean significantly fewer choices and worse, more expensive service than ever before. While it's true many people are moving away from copper phone service, unmentioned by AT&T's video is the fact that millions of customers remain on copper-based DSL because it's the only choice they have and the only one AT&T offered. While AT&T has selectively upgraded some users to their faster but still not fiber to the home U-Verse VDSL platform (about half of their fixed-line network), tens of millions of AT&T and Verizon's DSL customers aren't going to be upgraded anytime soon. Instead, they're going to be hung up on or sold to smaller telcos with even less interest in upgrading them than AT&T did.
Enjoy the magic of tomorrowland, everyone!
While new DSL deployments and upgrades can be expensive (AT&T has always had the funds, they've just long placed investor returns well above offering quality product and support), existing DSL customers are perfectly profitable. They're simply not profitable enough for impatient investors, whose eyes are squarely fixed on wireless with its low usage caps and per gigabyte overages, even if wireless is not (especially at AT&T prices) an adequate replacement for a fixed line. Refusing to upgrade fixed-line networks could almost be excused if it wasn't for the fact that, with their other hand, AT&T has long lobbied for protectionist legislation across multiple states banning towns and cities from upgrading themselves - - even in cases where nobody else will.
Once AT&T has gutted any remaining consumer protections and regulations on copper lines (which were over time quite heavily subsidized by taxpayers, but who cares, right?), they're going to walk away from many areas -- leaving users with either the choice of more expensive wireless (many rural users won't be able to get), or a suddenly emboldened and stronger cable monopoly. AT&T and Verizon are quietly ceding huge swaths of America's fixed-line broadband market to cable, who'll be sure to jack up prices in the face of less competition than ever. This before you even factor in the smaller ISPs that might have been using those telco lines to offer competing services (whoops, sorry!).
The use of "all IP" is also quite a lovely bit of conflation and misdirection, given the company's U-Verse and DSL users are already IP-based. You'll see the "all IP" rhetoric popping up in an endless series of editorials (like this one by Steve Forbes) AT&T has been running nationwide to convince people they really don't need that DSL line they're using. Larry Downes at CNET recently informed readers that AT&T's simply interested in "connecting more Americans to the broadband ecosystem." Nothing quite says connecting more Americans like disconnecting Americans.
The FCC recently started paying closer attention to this "IP transition" when Verizon's version of it involved refusing to repair east coast DSL customers after Hurricane Sandy. Instead, after waiting months for repairs, customers were given something Verizon is calling Voice Link -- a wireless service that locals complained was dramatically less functional and reliable than their previous copper DSL and phone lines, failing to offer basic features or data, leaving Comcast (which had no problem financing coaxial repairs) as the only regional fixed-line broadband competitor in many of these areas. Verizon was using the storm as cover to back out of areas they no longer want to service, though they fell under criticism by the New York AG for violating PSC rules.
To tackle the general technical problems with the "IP transition" (will my home security system still work? Can I even get a reliable LTE signal in my basement? Will 911 work?), the FCC has proposed a series of observed technical trials. AT&T has announced that their version of these trials will involve migrating two tiny towns to presumably LTE wireless and U-Verse over the next few years, after which AT&T and the FCC will likely proclaim the trial to be a smashing success. Ignored by AT&T, the FCC, and the press so far has been the fact that as AT&T and Verizon back away from DSL, they're going to be leaving an even less competitive broadband market than we have now -- at a time when everyone pays endless lip service to improving broadband competition.
The next time you read in the press about the "IP transition," (and you'll be reading about it a lot) notice how quickly everybody applauds the idea that copper is just so lame, old fashioned and unnecessary. Then notice how, buried under the pageantry, nobody seems to recognize that what's actually happening here is simply the lopping off of unwanted DSL customers that companies are refusing to upgrade. That in turn will lead to a stronger cable monopoly across half the country, resulting in cable companies -- like the freshly-merged Time Warner Cable Comcast -- feeling free to impose more draconian usage caps than ever before. Welcome to the "all IP" networks of tomorrow. Watch that first step.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband, competition, dsl, ip transition
Companies: at&t, verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm sure with the billions we've given them over time we could find someone willing to run wires. Perhaps if it is to difficult for them to do it, it is time to pay some upstarts to come in and shake things up.
I'm sure for billions Google could wire up lots of places, and maybe re-purpose some POTS lines to offer service to those the monopolies just want to hand off to each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so
we have tech to hand bomb and share that way fuck these jerk off peeping tom sick pedophiles that run these networks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: so
hahahhahahahhahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't let them fool you...
If they wanted "All IP", then why would they require this? Obviously, to make more money of me. I don't need both phone lines, but I do currently need two separate DSL circuits - one for work, one for personal.
The fact is, they hate maintaining their wireline services, period. They would much rather ditch it all and have wireless-only services. I can't get U-Verse here, I can't get cable (Comcast is our regional provider, but they don't have service out where I am). If DSL was not available to me, I would be stuck with wireless or satellite. To make matters worse, I can barely get a wireless signal at my house due to the rural hilly terrain.
Basically, AT&T wants to ditch me as a customer completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't let them fool you...
Therefore you are an undesirable customer.
Thanks for your input.
Sincerely,
AT&T
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't let them fool you...
Oh - yes indeed, we do include a Universal Service Fund in your bill. Why do you ask?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't let them fool you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't let them fool you...
yes and no.. they want to force you to take "uverse", so they can abandon their copper plant eventually. 2020 is when they plan to be all wireless service.
they're selling 18mbps adsl2 as uverse when it's really just their legacy dsl at a different frequency. uverse is tv service with the option of internet and ip phone service.
so basically they get out of their requirements to maintain the lines because the FCC is giving them exception for some reason once the dial tone is taken off the line.
slick move but will lead to worse service down the line. it's already happening, just depends which market you're in. so if you're area isn't covered, then they no longer have to provide you with pots service (same method of delivery as dsl), so they can legally drop you as a customer at that point. and they will
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has the FCC approved the merger?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
'This is all before you realize that former FCC boss Michael Powell now runs the top cable lobbyist organization the NCTA. Or that former FCC ommissioner Meredith Attwell Baker is also now a Comcast lobbyist. Or that DOJ Antitrust Division director William J. Baer also represented NBCUniversal during Comcast’s acquisition. Or that top Comcast policy man David Cohen is a huge Obama fund raiser, and he and CEO Brian Roberts are golfing friends.'
Pretty much the only thing holding back the merger(assuming it hasn't been approved already), is them trying to figure out a good enough spin on it so people won't be overly up in arms about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://forums.att.com/t5/Features-and-How-To/UVerse-and-IPv6-Tunneling-with-3800-HGV-B/td-p /3511251
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You just answered your own question. The "great" thing about capitalism is that it encourages every company to externalize all costs, whether it be monetary, environmental, or social. AT&T externalized their costs by buying favors in government to give them billions to establish and maintain a oligopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They've got away with it for so long by conflating Mom 'n' Pop businesses with multinational corporations and claiming it's the same thing, but bigger. It's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It would certainly help if you would stop blaming the greedy more than the corrupt! Keep these things in mind next time you vote R or D. The greedy are just greedy, but corrupt politicians are a bigger problem you can't seem to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Socialized losses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A more accurate rendering of your comment should actually be:
"Anyone that praises Democracy should be slapped in the face and directed to this."
as it is politicians, not the market, ruining everyone's day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not capitalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
in areas where they're required to offer legacy services, it's a whole different company. and that company offers a reliable product. too bad they're doing everything they can to get rid of it.
hopefully the US gvmnt will not let the copper network go to ruin once ATT has dropped it. even if it means they have control over the backbone/services. you'll never beat a wired connection for security and reliability with satellite or wireless service.
the worst thing that can happen is to let small isp's purchase what they can randomly, all with a different idea of what their service should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AT&T is trying to hasten the transition in MI
http://www.timmins.net/2013/12/11/how-att-verizon-and-comcast-are-working-together-to-screw-you -by-discontinuing-landline-service/
The law as written tries to force the IP transition by 2019, and if it doesn't happen, they can just "leave the market" entirely, which would free them of all wholesale obligations and let them disconnect any remaining POTS lines they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AT&T is trying to hasten the transition in MI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AT&T is trying to hasten the transition in MI
and most the time they lie and say they can get up to 18mbps for half the price. most people on the 6 or 12m legacy service agrees to swap on that promise alone.
then the installer gets there, has to have maintenance (legacy group) come out because they can't even get the signal to the premise. i've seen 6m dsl work over 24k feet. the cutoff for uverse is 15k ft. and that's 768kbps. but now they got their legacy service turned off, instantly denied when they try and get it hooked back up due to "uverse" not working like the salesman promised.
the simple solution is keep the same laws and regulations protecting pots service with their ip based services. they are delivered almost identically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: AT&T is trying to hasten the transition in MI
don't get me wrong, the ipdsl is a great product and is better tech, but it's being used to get out of government protections , no other reason. cheaper labor, more political power to do what they like to the consumer, and the employee. (phasing out union protected legacy jobs for low paid/trained work force who doesn't even get taught how the service works)
don't see how that benefits the customer at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
still waiting for my u-verse
That town still doesn't have any fiber installed.
A year later I move a bit up the road, towards Covington, and the route they've said they'd be installing along. Until 09, every time the AT&T guy came out, I'd ask and be told 'its planned, but it's been delayed'. Then they're just not bothering at all now.
So this area, our only option is AT&T DSL. or we could go for verizon 4G (there is a tower for it here, but it's the only cell service here, and expensive as hell) Or hughesNet. We can't even go Comcast because they couldn't even be bothered to run POCS here let alone any sort of internet. Which is why 8 years on, I'm still paying the same amount for the same connection - $55 for a 6/0.5
I'm sick and tired of AT&T.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: still waiting for my u-verse
I called tech support once for a problem we were having, and elevated to Tier 1 tech support. While the tech was checking the line, I asked him if there was any way to get a faster connection. He said I was provisioned for 3 Mbps, so I told him to go ahead and increase the speed to that. He went offline to check with his supervisor, came back, and said he couldn't do it unless I was willing to switch to U-Verse.
AT&T is actively jacking up the rates on DSL connections and refusing to upgrade speeds even if the line can handle it, all to force people to switch to their U-Verse packages, which are all more expensive and more profitable for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you have anything to say about the matter, by all means, please do make some noise about this at the very least in their direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The lesson of cell phones
I don't want a wireless-only internet, because when I'm at home, I don't need portability. I need speed, reliability, and a reasonable cost. None of which wireless provides.
It's a bad, bad tradeoff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The lesson of cell phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The lesson of cell phones
And I have to educate them on the speed, reliability, and security consequences of using wireless over wired ethernet.
The average Joe seems adverse to wires, and I don't understand why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The lesson of cell phones
i know this is an old post, but now is a pretty important time in the telecommunications world. the consumer doesn't know anything about it and are being told the wireless service will be an upgrade. which is probably only true in like 10% of their market, lol. make some noise to any local department if you can. unless you want to be paying comcast $150 a month for similar service.
or people can reach out and support the local telephone union, Communication Workers of America (covers a lot of att and verizons rapidly disappearing workforce) who are fighting for these things every day even if the public knows little to none about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
World of Tomorrow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: World of Tomorrow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: World of Tomorrow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lies ... Racists ...
Maybe I will play the race card here ... all us poor white people get crap service in the country and you go to the ghetto and they have cable modems, DSL, FIOS, full cell signal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lies ... Racists ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lies ... Racists ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lies ... Racists ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lies ... Racists ...
instead they're putting that money into ip based services which basically allows them to wipe their hands clean of any situation they fell like. fiber and ip based services is the future, but they should be regulated just like pots service. end of discussion
but an upside to living rural if you're in the right spot, they are still required to offer you their services that work. sold, maintained, and installed by a work force who is protected and trained to do the job correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem with fiber/wireless that gets overlooked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem with fiber/wireless that gets overlooked
Where I live, we have a lot of trees, and a lot of bad weather in the winter. It's common to be out of power due to trees taking out the lines, but with functioning POTS using the same poles due to this redundancy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem with fiber/wireless that gets overlooked
for being promised the same service, there's so many cases of home security alarms, businesses entire phone systems, fax machines, any customer personal equipment you can think of really ( EVEN HEART MONITORS and other medical equipment), that has failed to work on the CVoIP platform.
so these isp's can start with a product that works, that they're required by law to provide anywhere in the country, then force you on to a product that may not work in your specific situation and along with that give them the ability to deny service if it doesnt. who's benefiting here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I concur with the others AT&T is only trying to force current landline subscribers to more expensive alternatives
This is a 1 hour drive from Sacramento, CA !!!
When I visit Europe, India, and South KOrea I brag about what their internet provides to others, just to get somekind of fire under the politicians who allowed this sorry state of affairs. MOre competition , more choices, NO MONOPOLIES AT ALL !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I concur with the others AT&T is only trying to force current landline subscribers to more expensive alternatives
so basically if copper and fiber networks to the prem isn't the future then someone needs to get some protection for these new "entertainment" services that the current "utility" services have.
i've seen 60 year old pre existing phone lines pushing their highest profile services they have. you could potentially get 1G service running on the same copper. the backbone is there, but they just don't want to be told what they can and can't do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ATT Propaganda that copper wire is obsolete
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ATT Propaganda that copper wire is obsolete
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ATT Propaganda that copper wire is obsolete
if att wants to abandon their network, fine. but what's important is what happens to it next. hopefully the US Government won't let these mega corporations force us into purchasing services that aren't as secure, reliable, or regulated (among many other red flags). Data storage, records, privacy, price... you name it. these things can't be left up to a company who is concerned with dollar signs first, customer service last.
if it wasn't clear that they were doing this for monetary reasons, then why do all the legacy services have great customer support, great response times on outages, techs who fix the problems etc. and just overall better products vs some indian guy in a call center promising you products that you aren't even eligible for, an installer who can't even diagnose or repair the problems unless it's inside the home, getting paid nearly half as much because they literally aren't trained to fix the cable. in most cases it's a terminal offense to even attempt the repairs. what's left of the legacy group (and these jobs are disappearing by the hundreds every year) are the only ones who are allowed to work on the copper cable pairs (protected by the worker union).
it's really set up as 2 companies now... the low paid, but still physically demanding and high skill level employees, who aren't being trained to worry about these things and then the very spread out legacy employees who are responsible for maintaining the network, engineering new projects, construction of new projects, basically the ones fighting to keep their jobs while struggling under the weight of holding up the new uverse team as well as the "phone company" responsibilities. which is always only been a means to an end for the company.
basically to answer your question though. unless you're a government building or a bank, hospital, etc with the means of paying construction costs, engineering, whatever other fees they want to throw in, you name it, to get the service to said location then you're completely out of luck. but you MIGHT be eligible for some crappy data capped satellite service or throttled down 4g LTE connection. thanks to them probably only having a couple "core" technicians capable of handling these projects left for huge parts of the whole state.
example, that uverse service a mile from your home is probably ready to be hooked up at your home. but that would require engineering to dedicate a cable count to the dslam, update company records, a maintenance tech to splice the pairs in, construction to do this or that. you see where i'm going. they've already got rid of most of these positions. sure they are losing money by not just sending a line crew to that location for a week to get things running. but they're losing more if they aren't advancing toward the 2020 agenda. that's att and verizion in a nutshell. despite the face 2016 was att's most profitable year to date as a company. they can't afford things such as this.... even though the irony is it's probably already there and is being ignored to save them backlash when they step away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Refusal of AT&T to restart DSL service from Vacation Hold
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refusal of AT&T to restart DSL service from Vacation Hold
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What they don't tell you about Uverse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What they don't tell you about Uverse
they aren't even trained to know or deal with these things. they were literally brought in to push out (force layoffs) the teams who in some cases built these platforms and networks and are the only ones capable of running them. they're the ones who you used to be escalated to in situations like this. now they're offered a severance package or a position on the uverse team.... all the while you get to wait on hold for someone overseas to hopefully not put you through the same thing again.
they caused a divide within the company by making it "core" workers and uverse workers (thanks to fcc allowing the uverse team be classified under entertainment service and not utility). so the union doesn't know who to fight for and both wind up suffering. all the while keeping the uverse techs underpaid, overworked, under trained, letting them think one day they can move up to the "core" group. and the core group has good pay, vacation, insurance, retirement, you name it... but the company keeps them in fear of lay offs. so both groups go to the same union to fix things. not remotely possible. even though the uverse guys dream of getting a core job, at the same time see them work 5 days a week while they're forced to work 6 and weekends, they get to see the core guys leave regardless of what's going on after 8 hours every day while they will be there for another 4 hours doing uverse installs they can't even complete because all the core techs who gets the service to their customers house has gone home, seeing the core techs with 4 weeks vacation time vs their 5 days, some wage gaps of 32/hr for core techs to 22/hr for uverse techs, amongst so many other things, despite them hoping for a core job one day they're bitter for seeing the unfair treatment. while at the same time, the core techs want the installers to have the same treatment, but they're noticing that the company doesn't even plan on keeping them around with those benefits. so the uverse guys go to the same union stewards complaining about how much better the core has it, vs the core realizing that the uverse team having the same benefits would mean huge layoffs and with core techs having seniority, the uverse guys would just be pushing themselves out the door. very bad politics on top of a network set up to self implode if they aren't allowed to get out.
most people just don't know how much this will effect them, hopefully the government puts its foot down on this before it's too late. it's the backbone of our country and is being destroyed purposefully by greed. /rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]