"At least it's some form of internet and seeing it might give local entrepreneurs ideas for competing and offering REAL internet."
Except that those local entrepreneurs would be at an immediate advantage if they can't afford to pay Facebook for honorary, cap-exempt status. So they might have the idea, but the implementation would be hamstrung by a totally broken and closed content market and ecosystem.
Yep. They lobbied the ITU to effectively change the definition of 4G to technically mean anything short of cans and string. I believe they can even argue 2G speed connections around 256 kbps are "4G." It's kind of meaningless, as was the White House's proclamation that it helped drive 4G networks to 98% of the public.
Five years ago, there was a big push by consumers and regulators to force many of the telcos to offer "naked" DSL, so there was a notable uptick. AT&T had to adhere to it as a BellSouth merger condition. But over the last few years they've all shifted back to forcing people to bundle the landline, and regulators no longer seem to care.
They usuaully offer up all kinds of ridiculous justifications for why. One telco claimed that if they weren't allowed to offer voice over copper those lines would "oxidize and fail."
They're both comparably bad. Fairpoint may be a little worse in that it struggled through bankruptcy and is a tad smaller. But I'd avoid both. Most of those second tier telcos have a near-disdain for their subscribers.
Yes they're forcing a lot of people with no options to take a vanilla landline as well, turning what should be a $40 DSL line into a $90-$110 price tag in some areas. A friend in upstate NY has to pay nearly $100 a month for 3 Mbps DSL.
"It really bothers me when tech sites blame AT&T for not maintaining an outdated service."
It really bothers me when people don't read the article. AT&T's not only refusing to upgrade lines, they're actively trying to drive away paying DSL customers, and they're lobbying for state laws preventing those same individuals from supporting community networks.
AT&T and Comcast are also seeking merger approvals that are highly uncertain, and Verizon is not. Also -- we're talking $1 to $2 declines? Surely the resounding devastation that was supposed to take place would see a more substantive reflection in stock performance?
Also, you're intentionally ignoring the entire central point of the article.