# ATT discontinuing 3G service



## Phishfry (Jun 20, 2019)

Got an interesting email from my Sierra Wireless guy. Seems 3G is biting the dust.


> June 30: AT&T’s 3G Activation Deadline Is Almost Here
> 
> What Is Happening?
> 
> ...


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jun 20, 2019)

I have not been concerned with anything ATT does since 2001 when Charter internet services (now Spectrum) came into my area. Is everyone up to speed on ATT's "5Ge" plan (notice the 'e').

Except for my restaurants which were stuck with ATT internet in a business area till 2010 or so when, again, Charter moved in.

When I look out the front window of my house into the beautiful city park that's almost like an extension of my front yard, I can glance to the right and see two beige ATT boxes marked "fiber optic". I am aware that the ATT switch building is in the city hall parking lot behind that but, until last year, the best ATT had to offer was 20Mb service DSL to me. It's now a "fiber" offer of 100Mb for $50/month but I've had 200Mb service from Spectrum/Charter for $45/month for several years now.

ATT is as much the devil to me as Microsoft is and has been since the late 1990s.


----------



## Phishfry (Jun 20, 2019)

ATT is really big with mobile computing and fleet sales.
Most Sierra modems are LTE/4G since 2012.


drhowarddrfine said:


> but I've had 200Mb service from Spectrum/Charter for $45/month for several years now.


Man that is a good deal. I am paying Cox $73.95 for 100megabit.
They keep jacking it up a couple of bucks every 2 years.
In 11 years at my house I have went from $40 month to $74.
I have really considered running an unofficial neighborhood network. All my neighbors are game.
I live in an old neighborhood and fiber is not available. I am paying fiber prices though.


----------



## aht0 (Jun 20, 2019)

drhowarddrfine said:


> When I look out the front window of my house into the beautiful city park that's almost like an extension of my front yard, I can glance to the right and see two beige ATT boxes marked "fiber optic". I am aware that the ATT switch building is in the city hall parking lot behind that but, until last year, the best ATT had to offer was 20Mb service DSL to me. It's now a "fiber" offer of 100Mb for $50/month but I've had 200Mb service from Spectrum/Charter for $45/month for several years now.


Prime example how monopolies are bad for end-users.

I live in Northern Europe. I have 3 ISP's (half a dozen in total in-country) offering fiber in my apartment block, I am currently paying Telia (one of the Scandinavian telecoms) about 25€ (perhaps 27USD?) for 100/100MBit/s + IPTV, but since I also have phone under the same ISP, they uplifted broadband to 200/200 as a kind of reward to a loyal customer. Actual Scandinavians have it even cheaper. My brother always calls me from Finland because while I have to pay extra rates for calling abroad, he has no such restriction, for him calling into certain set of countries is priced like making local cellular calls.

For IPTV I have to rent ISP's STB but for router I can use whatever the hell I want that's compatible if I happen to dislike theirs. Just forget tech support when you do. And Telia's considered "expensive" ISP here, others are cheaper but slightly less reliable+more restrictive on ISP hardware.


----------



## Phishfry (Jun 20, 2019)

aht0 said:


> Prime example how monopolies are bad for end-users.


In America we have a system of dualopolies. What was previously the phone company and the cable TV company.
Because they both had franchises from the city for cable runs they have a massive advantage.
The city regulating these utilities is the problem. They gouge users and there is no viable alternative.
Cities just bow to these large corporations.

I find it amusing that Google Fiber can't make inroads because of the big cartels.








						Why Google Fiber stopped its plans to expand to more cities
					

The move comes as a disappointment to those who were hoping the search giant would bring competition and faster speeds to their area.




					www.sacbee.com


----------



## Sevendogsbsd (Jun 20, 2019)

I have AT&T and Spectrum available for Internet and Television, no other choice, except satellite but wife hated it. Anyway, AT&T Internet is DSL I believe and about $50-60 a month for 6mb down. Spectrum, who I have, is roughly what drhowardfine mentioned, but I pay about $68 US after taxes for 200mb down and around 10mb up.  Had AT&T initially before Spectrum came in and it was horrible: sine wave connection (slow, fast, slow fast, ad nauseum). 

Most of the reason here in the US the providers are few and far between is competition: big telecoms (ATT, etc) don't want the little guys around because they cut into their business. Google fiber is here in my city, HOWEVER, ATT refused to let them use the poles to run fiber so Google expansion is slow, having been forced to trench instead. The telecoms have zero interest in upgradeing their infrastructure because that costs $ and cuts into profits. If they are the only game in town, they get to charge whatever they want and they know folks need Internet and /or TV so will pay regardless.

Me gets off soap box now....


----------



## Phishfry (Jun 20, 2019)

How about the FCC getting in on the action with Universal Service Fee.
My parents live in boondocks of Florida but are stuck with the last mile dilemma.
Because there are only 30-40 homes in their subdivision no entity wants to serve them.
They are 3 miles down a dirt road on a beautiful lake. Only 25 miles from Ormond Beach, yet stuck.
They only have county franchises in their area.
When my dad contacted the nearest Cable TV provider they quoted him $40,000 to run service down to them.
Needless to say they are still cobbling together service with satellite and cellular internet.
Somehow my Mom still manages to run a business with these hinderances.
Where is the FCC mandating last mile runs. They seem woefully underwhelming yet like to cash in.
They seem more worried about getting schools wired than homes. That seems like a backward priority.


----------



## Sevendogsbsd (Jun 20, 2019)

Wow, agree. And guess who the head of the FCC is:  a former Verizon exec, the very one that nixed net neutrality.  Not sure they have our best interests at heart...

Sorry, soap box again...


----------



## Phishfry (Jun 20, 2019)

Yes I am aware of the current FCC clown.
Regardless this has been a issue since 1996. No one party/person is responsible.
It is a broken system.


----------



## Nicola Mingotti (Jun 21, 2019)

Guys, i want to say something related that may surprise you as it surprised me. In the Bay Area mobile internet sucks !!! It works as bad as in my God forgiven village in Italy !

There are fantastic cars all around, but hey, no Internet. Amazing.


----------



## toorski (Jun 21, 2019)

Nicola Mingotti said:


> There are fantastic cars all around, but hey, no Internet. Amazing.



There are fantastic/exotic Italian and tons of Tesla/EV cars in Silicon Valley that are screaming at 55MPH, or slower, with 3Mbps wireless data connectivity  This is the part of our USBS for the the dumb, rich and free  - hehe

On the other hand, there are fantastic/exotic Italian cars screaming on "no speed limit" sections of German Autobhan at 300KMH with 50Mbps wireless data connectivity.
LOL


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Jun 21, 2019)

Nicola Mingotti said:


> There are fantastic cars all around, but hey, no Internet. Amazing.


Same as in Canada. It goes back to early telephone system development. I think it goes back to the Mann Elins Act of 1910, but in any case it has evolved into what is now called *regulatory capture*. Canada has followed a similar development, since it's the same money with the same tactics. There is essentially no way out in the foreseeable future. The public will not have any meaningful input.


----------



## Nicola Mingotti (Jun 21, 2019)

I mean, surely there is a logical explanation in econmics theory as: the area is not enough densely populated... like my dear village in Italy. Or OJ regulatory capture, or else. 

But on the other side, Google, Facebook, Apple and MANY others are here. They could wifi all the area if they only wished... they must lack fantasy. 

Probably there are more rich people here than in Beverly Hills, damn buy a few repeaters for the poor AT&T ! 

Now i understand why there are so many bugs in Android and iPhone. People make them here, but they can not test them properly  since the network sucks


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Jun 21, 2019)

Nicola Mingotti said:


> They could wifi all the area if they only wished... they must lack fantasy.


It's not a matter of imagination, not even money or will. It is a matter of laws. If we only had competition here it would be different.


----------



## Nicola Mingotti (Jun 21, 2019)

OJ said:


> It's not a matter of imagination, not even money or will. It is a matter of laws. If we only had competition here it would be different.



to be true, and i speak as an ignorant on the regulation here in California, i think competition and oligopoly in this case are not the main issue. 

bringing a decent mobile network cover here is not profitable for a telecom company. it does not cover cost of investment. so nobody will bring it if driven by the sheer profit law. cristal. 

on the other side. f* direct profit i say. all company of the bay have their employee on poor network. this is a damage for them. they could invest on it.

i go to eat a pizza in Menlo park and Hey Siri ... does not work. doh. 

Enogh, next time i will complay about ApplePay implementation. bye.


----------



## Nicola Mingotti (Jun 21, 2019)

toorski said:


> There are fantastic/exotic Italian and tons of Tesla/EV cars in Silicon Valley that are screaming at 55MPH, or slower, with 3Mbps wireless data connectivity  This is the part of our USBS for the the dumb, rich and free  - hehe
> 
> On the other hand, there are fantastic/exotic Italian cars screaming on "no speed limit" sections of German Autobhan at 300KMH with 50Mbps wireless data connectivity.
> LOL



Oh this place is wired from the eyes of an Italian at least. in Menlo park people respect traffic law as the bible. it is a pleasure to respect laws here, because everydbody does. Every single Stop sign. Amazing. No honking, never. 

Also speed limits are generally respected. Pushed up by about 15% in the Freeway.

The only cars i see speeding are Mustang, Dodge and some old 4x4. Most probably young people.  

enough OT, bye


----------



## Phishfry (Jun 21, 2019)

Nicola Mingotti said:


> bringing a decent mobile network cover here is not profitable for a telecom company. it does not cover cost of investment. so nobody will bring it if driven by the sheer profit law.


Last I checked of Americas 4 cell carriers all were very profitable. Less competition equals higher stockholder profits.
Look at the current merger under consideration. Merging Sprint and T-mobile.
That will take us to 3 major carriers.
I used to work on Intellicall/GTE payphones around 20 years ago. That turned into Sprint. Now it might go away.


----------



## Nicola Mingotti (Jun 21, 2019)

Phishfry said:


> Last I checked of Americas 4 cell carriers all were very profitable. Less competition equals higher stockholder profits.
> Look at the current merger under consideration. Merging Sprint and T-mobile.
> That will take us to 3 major carriers.
> I used to work on Intellicall/GTE payphones around 20 years ago. That turned into Sprint. Now it might go away.



A condition of oligopoly can be as profitable as monopoly if you secretely agree with you "comptetitors" on prices. There is no doubt on this. 

I may certanly agree telecom company are profitable. I just belive it. I don't even check. 

It is perfectly logical for the Menlo park area not to be well covered by mobile internet, since it is quite scarcely populated. (i don t have data, i just see large forest here and there when i move by car) 

But the point is that this is Internet heart. It just can not be poorly connected. It is like training a football team where you don't have a regular football field. it is just suboptimal.

In consequence, it is not the phone companies who are to blame here, but the local internet giants. They are training their football teams on an indecent football field, on a stadium where seats are all broken. 
They should do something.


----------

