Hello. Love the site. Been reading it for years. I have been working at AT&T for a while now. While I have been working at AT&T I have always kept an eye out for ways that can save people money. i have found a way around the connection fee for new connections or transfer orders.

When you set up service set up Internet only, also known as stand alone fast access (STAFA) dsl. There is no fee for connecting StAFA dsl,but there is for hooking up phone service at the new location. Once your order has completed and your dsl is up and running, call us and then order your phone service. Since your dsl is connected we already have the connection needed for a phone line. Wwe flip a switch and your phone normally works by midnight. No connection charges are applied to the new phone connect or dsl if you order it this way.

Depending on what state you are in you can save between 40 - 46 dollars. I dont know if this works nationwide but I know it does for customers in the Southeast region (AL, FL, GA, MS, LA, KY, TN, NC, SC).

So will this work? Let us know in the comments if you try it out.

(Photo: qthrul)

"When AT&T provides broadband service by speed, it will do so in discrete, non-overlapping tiers," Quinn said in written testimony. "We will strive to provide service within the speed tier purchased by the customer and, if we find that we are not providing service within the ordered speed tier, AT&T will take action either to bring the customer's service within the ordered tier or give the customer an option to move to a different tier."

There's actually no word on pricing yet, but we're going to make a bold, brave prediction that you'll pay more than your current package for the better tiers.

"AT&T To Create Tiered Internet Access For Subscribers" [CNN Money]
(Photo: Getty)

Sprint is NOW LIMITING DATA USAGE - 5GB - just like the rest... [Sprint Users] (Thanks to everyone who sent this in!)

Customer service has been no help, so Matt emailed people at the executive level. Although several addresses bounced back the message, Matt did receive a promise that Qwest's executive VP that someone from customer service would contact him to resolve the matter. That was on March 31st, and he still hasn't heard back from anyone.

Here's the email Matt sent to the Qwest bigwigs:

Dear Teresa Taylor,
 
My name is Matt [redacted] and I am writing to you on behalf of my mother, [redacted]. Recently, she was the victim of some very bad customer service, of which I wanted to make you aware. My mother was satisfied with her service, but when she attempted to add a long distance plan to her decades-old account, adding to Qwest's bottom line, she was bumped off her plan, signed up for a two year contract without her knowledge, presented with false claims that she would save money, asked to pay an additional $60, and prevented from using the service for which she paid, for approximately a week at the time of writing.
 
My mother has had the same phone service for over three decades, including Qwest and your predecessors in the area, at the phone number [uh-oh redacted as well]. She has had DSL internet with Qwest for approximately 8 years, signing up for a 256 kbps line with an internal DSL modem. Her bill in February for these two services totaled approximately $63. For most of this time, she has been very satisfied, except for the times when her connection would be unavailable for days or weeks at a time. Tech support representatives were often completely unhelpful, despite keeping her on the phone for hours. On one occasion, over a three-day weekend, she had to wait three and a half days to have someone reset her password after she had forgotten it and accidentally erased it from her computer.
 
Recently, she made a phone call to Qwest to try to sign up for a long distance plan to replace her plan with AT&T. This should have been a simple call to add a relatively inexpensive service, but she was given a hard sell to change her plan. She was told that she could save $11 by switching to a bundle that would include phone and internet service at 1.5 mbps, and an additional discount for bundling her phone, internet, and DirecTV service. The operator failed to mention that she would be signing a two year contract with Qwest as part of the Price for Life program, the new bill for phone and internet would total approximately $66, she would be ineligible for the new DirecTV equipment that new customers receive, and that the service would fail to work with her current modem, requiring her to buy or rent a new one. Soon after, she was unable to use her internet and approximately a week passed before the issue was resolved when my mother and I spoke with someone in the sales department.
 
When I called into Qwest and had an opportunity to speak with a salesperson about the problem, she was the first person we found remotely helpful and was able to find the tech support operator, "Roger," who finally discovered the problem. It was at this point that the representative told us that my mother would have to pay $60 for a modem or pay $5 a month to rent the moment. She had the audacity to claim that my mother would still be saving $6 if she paid $5 every month in perpetuity for the modem, despite the fact that a $5 increase would bring the cost to $71, which would be $8 more than she paid on her February bill. My mother could receive credit for the time her internet was down before the source of the problem was found, but if she did not choose to take advantage of the offer to send a modem, she would have to keep paying for unusable internet.
 
I asked to have my mother's plan revert back to her original plan and after a long time spent on hold, I was told that this would not be possible as the plan was no longer offered. I asked to at least have the Price for Life contract removed and she was eventually able to do this after another period on hold. A supervisor offered to have the modem sent overnight with no additional shipping costs, but we were told that we would still have to pay for the modem. The operator gave us her personal work email to us so that we could contact her with further questions, which was a nice gesture, and my mother and I ended the call.
 
Although I am happy that we eventually discovered what had happened to bring my mother's internet down, we are both completely unsatisfied with the proposed resolution and the road which brought us here. As I said in the first paragraph of this letter, my mother had been satisfied with her service, but when she attempted to add a long distance plan to her decades-old account, adding to Qwest's bottom line, she was bumped off her plan, signed up for a two year contract without her knowledge, presented with false claims that she would save money, asked to pay an additional $60, and prevented from using the service for which she paid, for approximately a week.
 
We ask that you instead consent to a resolution which we believe is fair, where my mother receives local phone service, DSL internet at 1.5 Mbps, and a free modem that will make the service usable, at the same price she was already paying, as well as a free upgrade to new DirecTV equipment, discounts for bundling her current DirecTV with her phone and internet, and credit for the time she has been unable to use her internet service. We believe that the upgrade to 1.5 Mbps and new DirecTV equipment is fair for a long time customer whom has happily put up with so much frustration for years, and will prevent future confusion with tech support operators who have been unfamiliar with her current modem and TV equipment. This will also allow Qwest to stop maintaining an outdated line. If you wish to propose an alternative, please let us know. My mother is already looking at prices for competitors and working on a letter to Consumerist.com, the Better Business Bureau, and the Iowa Attorney General, so we ask that you respond to this message promptly or by April 4th at 5:00 pm at this address.
 
Thank you for your time, and your attention to this matter.

Hi,
 
I've been using TimeWarner's road runner service for a few months. The bill is for a speed of 10 mbits/sec, but their tech people confessed that their server is unable to deliver more that 8 mbits/sec in the area; marketing is stretching their capabilities by 20% !
 
They sent 12 people to my house, all but one totally incompetent.
 
Here's the story in numbers:

Advertised speed Real speed in dry weather Real speed during rain Average speed Computers tried Modems tried Cables laid out Technicians dispatched Time on the phone

10mbps 1 to 7 mbps <1 mbps 2.5 mbps 4 4 1 original + 3 new sets 12 >15 hours

Here are some of the gems coming from their tech people:
 

• Can you sign up my work sheet? My friend is waiting for me to go to lunch
• to have high speed, you need a fixed IP
• 3mbps is fast enough!
• why don't you sign up for a slower service? That way you will pay for what you have right now
• I removed the old cable, but I don't have the right drill to put the new one so I cannot finish today
• this is a free world, there are other internet providers. If we haven't managed to fix it so far, it will continue
• I see the problem, it is the splitter! (a new splitter later) I have no idea why it doesn't work
• Do you know a website to check the speed?
• it's the router causing the problem! (I show the router is not plugged in) I have to call my supervisor to see if he knows
• It doesn't rain anymore, so your internet will be fine!
• Why do you have a router if you don't use wireless?
• the wireless signal is slower, that's why it's slow (no it's not slower and I don't even use it)

"Time Warner is sorry" [Sibylle and Thomas]
(Photo: Getty)

The committee chairman, Rep. Ed Markey, said this about requiring the FCC to collect data more accurately:

The state of knowledge around the status of broadband services in the United States also affects the ability of policymakers to make sound decisions. The federal government can do a much better job in reforming multibillion-dollar grant and subsidy programs—whether at the Rural Utilities Service or the universal service program at the FCC.

Since the bill was introduced earlier this year, Markey has compromised with Republicans by no longer redefining broadband as speeds of at least 2M bps. Republicans also rejected Markey's idea that broadband providers give the government information on prices and speed.

BusinessWeek wonders whether this will trigger the standard Wal-Mart cost-cutting war that leads to lower prices for consumers, or whether Wal-Mart will try to be more competitive through offering superior customer service—an area it hasn't excelled at lately. As an example, they cite Wal-Mart's successful flat-panel TV push last Christmas, which was a disaster for Circuit City and CompUSA, but led to many returns from Wal-Mart customers who were left on their own when it came to installation.

"Broadband Across America: Through Wal-Mart, Hughes Brings High-Speed Internet to Rural Communities" [press release]
"Wal-Mart's Latest Sale: Broadband" [Business Week]
(Photo: Getty)

This fairytale-like story of consumer choice prompted Brodsky to look for comparison charts of services. What he found—a mag's list of 25 common UK broadband companies versus what we presume to be his own local set of offerings—can't be used for true side-by-side measurement, but it's still a striking illustration of the stunted state of "innovation" and competition in the US market.

Click the links for more details on pricing and plan details, if you dare.

US Broadband Companies (offerings available in Montgomery County, Maryland, from HuffingtonPost.com)	25 UK Broadband Companies (most of which are available nationwide; from Which? magazine, August 2007)
Verizon Comcast	AOL Be BT Bulldog Demon Eclipse Freedom2Surf Global Karoo Internet Madasafish MetroNet Nildram Orange (formerly Wanadoo) Pipex PlusNet Sky Supanet TalkTalk Tesco Telecoms Tiscali Toucan UK Online Utility Warehouse Virgin Media (cable/DSL) Waitrose Zen Internet

"Our Internet Policy Is A Disgrace: Here's The Proof" [HuffingtonPost via Yahoo! News]
(Photo: Getty)

The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the department's Antitrust Division added, "Consumers and the economy are benefiting from the innovative and dynamic nature of the Internet." The department also said that its antitrust enforcers will take action when necessary to allow broadband competition, which removes the need for net neutrality regulation.

"DoJ Opposes Net Neutrality Rules" [InformationWeek]

Why? Poor policy decisions at the Federal level, leading to lack of competition in the marketplace. (This is why Net Neutrality could be a good thing.) In most markets, there's only a couple of choices for broadband access. In the European and Asian countries that score higher, there may be up to a few dozen competitors sharing the same platform.

Regardless of how funny the term "broadband penetration" may be (and we know it's making us smirk), that's pretty disappointing news. US customers live and compete in an increasingly interconnected world, but—as in the mobile sector—have to deal with the underdeveloped technologies of an anti-competitive market.

Read the report, or at least the announcement about it, and see for yourself, so that the next time your favorite political representative regurgitates official corporate PR spin, you'll be able to write a nice, polite letter of correction.

Shooting the Messenger [Free Press]

(Photo: Adam Caudill)

From the bill:

SEC. 4. STUDY ON ADDITIONAL BROADBAND METRICS AND STANDARDS.
(a) IN GENERAL- The Comptroller General shall conduct a study to consider and evaluate additional broadband metrics or standards that may be used by industry and the Federal Government to provide users with more accurate information about the cost and capability of their broadband connection, and to better compare the deployment and penetration of broadband in the United States with other countries. At a minimum, such study shall consider potential standards or metrics that may be used—

(1) to calculate the average price per megabyte of broadband offerings;

(2) to reflect the average actual speed of broadband offerings compared to advertised potential speeds;

(3) to compare the availability and quality of broadband offerings in the United States with the availability and quality of broadband offerings in other industrialized nations, including countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; and

(4) to distinguish between complementary and substitutable broadband offerings in evaluating deployment and penetration.

Broadband Data Improvement Act clears Senate Commerce Committee [Ars Technica]
Commerce Committee Approves Inouye Broadband Data Collection Bill (Press Release) Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
S.1492 - Broadband Data Improvement Act [THOMAS]
Write Your Senator
Write Your Representative
(Photo: SHEARSHEAR)

Unlimited Data Plans and Features (such as NationalAccess, BroadbandAccess, Push to Talk, and certain VZEmail services) may ONLY be used with wireless devices for the following purposes:
(i) Internet browsing;
(ii) email; and
(iii) intranet access (including access to corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like customer relationship management, sales force, and field service automation). The Unlimited Data Plans and Features MAY NOT be used for any other purpose.

Verizon continues:

Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) continuous uploading, downloading or streaming of audio or video programming or games; (ii) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing; or (iii) as a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections. This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services and/or redirecting television signals for viewing on laptops is prohibited. A person engaged in prohibited uses, continuously for one hour, could typically use 100 to 200 MBs, or, if engaged in prohibited uses for 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, could use more than 5 GBs in a month.

For individual use only and not for resale. We reserve the right to protect our network from harm, which may impact legitimate data flows. We reserve the right to limit throughput or amount of data transferred, and to deny or terminate service, without notice, to anyone we believe is using an Unlimited Data Plan or Feature in any manner prohibited above or whose usage adversely impacts our network or service levels. Anyone using more than 5 GB per line in a given month is presumed to be using the service in a manner prohibited above, and we reserve the right to immediately terminate the service of any such person without notice. We also reserve the right to terminate service upon expiration of Customer Agreement term.

We had toyed around with getting one of these cards, but what if we decide to watch a baseball game? Or use Skype? Or listen to NPR? For $79.99 a month we would likely want to do some of those things.—MEGHANN MARCO

Broadband Access [Verizon via Torrent Freak]

Ars Technica has posted a rumor that AOL — hemorrhaging over 850,000 customers per quarter — is going to give free access to its broadband service. Dial-up users will still have to pay, but if you've got your own pipe, you can experience all the great content AOL has to offer... for free!

Which is... what, exactly? We here at the Consumerist would never be AOL subscribers, but we're a bit unclear what AOL offers its current broadband subscribers besides outsourced, branded broadband. If you take the broadband out of the equation, why would you go through AOL, even for free? The great selection of ads they'll profusely vomit on your desktop?

AOL may offer free Internet access [Ars Technica]

Not so Homeland Security or the FCC. They've ordered broadband providers to comply with wiretap access requirements by 2007 and pick-up all the associated bills. For some companies, this could cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Of course, everyone knows by now that the "Internet wants to be free!" meme was just so much cybertronic granola packed up some naive futurist's butthole.. Still, it's discouraging to see VoIP go the same route as all other forms of communication: another government finger dipping into the pool of our thoughts to double check their tepidity.

In Brief: FCC tells broadband firms to pay tap costs [Physorg] (Achtung: Intellitext bukkake within!)

There's gotta be a better method for doing cable installation, internet installation, and phone installation, some kind of futureworld routing system. It may simply be known as "showing up when you say you're going to."

Until then, we have Jenna's Comcast snafu, after the jump.

Jenna writes:

"This may seem like a minor complaint, but it annoyed me sufficiently that I feel like venting in your general direction.

We have cable service with Comcast (also Internet and digital voice, so we pay them waaaay more money than we should). A couple of weeks ago, one of our boxes went on the fritz and I called their helpline to schedule a repair. This was a Thursday, and I arranged for someone to come out on the following Saturday. Instead, Thursday evening, a dispatcher called my husband at work and said the techs were at our house and wondered why no one was home. He explained that we'd arranged for a Saturday visit, and she apologized for the error and confirmed that someone would come out on Saturday, between 11 and 2.

I hung around all morning on Saturday waiting for a tech, and at 2 I called the Comcast helpline. The guy who answered looked up our record and said that we'd instead been scheduled for Friday and the tech had reported that...drum roll...no one was home. I explained that this was the second time in a row their helpdesk had been unable to determine what day "Saturday" is, and I was less than pleased at having wasted a morning waiting for a repairman. He said that he would put me down for a "VIP" call, which meant that I would be put at the top of the repairman's work list, and he would get to me some time that day. So I waited the rest of the day.

Around 5 p.m. I received a call from someone at Comcast, asking if we were still having trouble with our cable box. I replied uneasily that we were, and she said that she would go ahead and schedule a repair call. As smoke began trickling out my ears, I explained the situation and informed her that we were supposed to be scheduled for a repair
that very day. She looked at our record and said that she didn't see anything about that. I asked to speak with a manager, but she said that there was no one on the floor and asked if I wanted to have one call me back. I certainly did, but no one ever called.

I e-mailed a complaint about my experience to Comcast, and received a boilerplate apology and an assurance that a manager would call me todiscuss the situation. I never received a call. I have since spoken to someone at Comcast again (a poor girl who called to survey me on my recent repair experience and definitely got an earful) and again asked to speak to a manager. So far, no callbacks. I can understand the occasional scheduling error, but I think that Comcast's inability to figure out how to schedule an appointment four times in a row moves into the realm of "The Three Stooges Work the Dispatch Desk."

:::whew::: Now I feel better. Thanks for letting me rant.

Jenna"

People kvetched in an online forum two years ago. Yesterday it got posted to the popular technology social bookmarking site Digg.

Judging by the amount of communual bitching that ensued, Comcast's service is still a problem.

Comcast Oversells Bandwith [via Digg]

Muni Wireless has read an advance copy and offers up an overview. Most interesting is the per-household figure of $2,000—the amount we as citizens paid for through the various government-sanctioned breaks for the phone companies.

This news is especially enlightening as all the Baby Bells continue to merge back into Ma Bell 2.0.

From Muni Wireless's report:

• The phone companies pulled a bait and switch. In order to offer DSL over copper, it was not necessary to have state regulation changed. Their plan was to get rid of regulations and enter long distance.

• The Bell mergers resulted in the death of the state plans for fiber optic broadband. Over 26 states had fiber optic projects closed when the mergers of SBC and Verizon were completed. That affected almost 80% of all phone customers in the US.