Customers who flee Bell Canada’s products and services for lower prices and less abusive Internet Overcharging are being encouraged to visit what Bell internally calls its “customer winback” website.  It’s Bell Canada’s place to extend special pricing and promotional offers to those considering a return to the telephone company.  But Stop the Cap! found the offers less than compelling and some of the company’s claims a real stretch:

There are many reasons to switch to Bell.

Switch to Bell for the most reliable home phone service¹. We’ve made many enhancements and are so confident you’ll enjoy our services, they come with a complete 30-day satisfaction guarantee, or your money back².  Switching is easy.  You can keep your existing home phone number³ and we’ll take care of the details with your current service provider.

With Bell Home phone you’ll enjoy:

• The most reliable service
• No reconnection fees

Plus, take advantage of savings on more great Bell services for your home.

Bell Internet – Perfect for sharing

• The largest fibre optic network in Canada
• Upload speeds up to 3x faster than cable⁴
• Free Wireless Home Network

Bell Satellite TV- Over 100 HD channels

• Stunning HD picture quality – 10x better than regular cable
• Canada’s best HD PVR⁵ – set and manage recordings from anywhere
• On Demand movies in 1080p HD – the highest quality of any provider

With Bell Install, you get a complete and customized installation at no charge⁶. Sit back, relax and we’ll set everything up for you.

Join the thousands of customers switching to Bell every week and start saving.

With six footnotes to the fine print in as many paragraphs, warning bells begin to ring almost immediately.  Those footnotes can cost customers some real money:

1. Applies to traditional copper-based (excluding fibre-based) wireline telephony; compared to cable telephony and based on continued service during extended power outages at customer’s home.

In other words, Bell phone service is more reliable because it works when the power goes out, unless it’s from Bell’s Fibe TV.  When power drops, your Bell Fibe phone line goes with it.  But if your phone lines are rotten, nothing will save you from a phone service outage, whether you are a wireline or “fibre-based” customer.  By the way, although Fibe is fibre part of the way, it ultimately arrives for most customers on the same copper wire phone line technology you’ve had for decades.

2. Credit offered on service fees for TV, Internet, Home phone (excluding Mobility), and applicable installation, activation or equipment fees; does not apply to usage fees (such as long distance, additional Internet usage capacity, On Demand TV programming). Client must call within 30 days of activation. Conditions apply, see bell.ca/satisfaction.

Among the other terms and conditions not immediately disclosed:

• No refunds will be issued to customers modifying or upgrading any existing Eligible Services;
• Prior to issuing a refund for equipment purchased directly from Bell, the equipment must be returned to Bell in the same condition as when it was purchased, with all original packing materials, manuals, accessories and associated equipment, along with proof of purchase;
• You may claim no more than one (1) refund under the Bell Satisfaction Guarantee in any 12 month period;
• You must be fully compliant with the terms and conditions applicable to your Eligible Services, and
• All accounts for Bell services must be in good standing.

3. Within same local calling area

A no-brainer.

4. Current as of May 1, 2011. Comparison between Bell Fibe Internet 25 (upload up to 7 Mbps) and Rogers Ultimate Internet (upload up to 2 Mbps).

Bell apparently doesn’t think Quebec’s Videotron is worth mentioning.  They upgraded to 3Mbps upload speeds for their highest tiers last February.  Like AT&T’s U-verse, “fiber to the neighborhood” networks simply cannot deliver the fastest download Internet experience that fiber to the home or cable DOCSIS 3 providers can deliver, although the upload speed for Fibe (when you actually achieve 7Mbps) is a nice change from the neutered speeds cable companies provide for “the up side.”  But Bell counts your upload traffic against the usage allowance.

5. Based on a combination of 30-second skip function, 9-day programming guide, expandable recording capacity and remote PVR feature. Additional equipment required.

Additional equipment costs additional money.

6. Conditions apply; see bell.ca/fullinstall for Bell Internet and bell.ca/installationincluded for Bell TV. For Home Phone, available to customers with Home Phone Choice or Complete, or with Unlimited Canada/US long distance plan, or the Bell Bundle; one-time activation fee (up to $55/line) applies, credited on the account before taxes, and additional charges may apply for installation of a new phone jack.

A complete and customized installation “at no charge,” except for that pesky $55 “activation fee” eventually credited on the account (but you still pay GST/PST on the ‘rebated’ amount).  Some of our readers have complained to us that they’ve had to call Bell, sometimes repeatedly, to get that activation fee credited back.  Bell sometimes forgets.

Unfortunately, for too many in suburban and rural Canada, it’s Bell telephone infrastructure or nothing — no cable provider exists to offer a competitive alternative.  They are the company that charges more for less.

Considering Bell is Canada’s number one advocate for Internet Overcharging, you can do better with almost any other provider.  Let Bell know they can “win you back” when they deliver scheme-free service at a fair and reasonable price.  Until then, tell them they can swing alone.

“We’ve been talking for some time that broadband for us is not just about customer growth… it’s about revenue growth.” — Anthony Thomas, Windstream’s Chief Financial Officer

For the first time in some time, Windstream reported revenue growth during the second quarter of 2011.  The independent landline telephone company that last week acquired Rochester-based PAETEC Corporation managed to win new revenue from its business services unit and equipment sales, even as it continues to lose core landline customers, who are disconnecting service in favor of cell phones or cable telephone products.

It added up to a measurable, but meager growth of 0.1 percent for the company year-over-year during the second quarter.

Like many traditional wireline phone companies, Windstream is betting the farm in their largely rural and suburban service areas on selling broadband and maintaining the allegiance of their business customers, challenged in larger cities by increasingly aggressive “Business Class” products from competing cable companies.

Windstream executives responded to questions from Wall Street bankers during their second quarter conference call held last Friday.

While several investment firms were happy to see Windstream manage some revenue growth, several zeroed in on the company’s increased capital expenditures.  Windstream reports the company will continue major investments in fiber and broadband services, but not primarily for their residential retail customers.  Instead, Windstream hopes to capitalize on the “high margin” business of selling fiber-based cell tower services, primarily to support forthcoming 4G deployments.

Windstream officials faced some hesitancy from Wall Street about the company’s spending during Friday’s conference call, particularly from Bank of America and Goldman Sachs.

Anthony Thomas, chief financial officer for Windstream, defended the investments.

“The most important part of fiber-to-the-tower projects are the initial investments. Those are very high-margin businesses,” Thomas said. “But you have be comfortable with the upfront capital and be patient at recognizing those are 6-to 12-month investment time horizons. But once you start bringing those revenues in, the actual cost of operating a tower is low.”

Wall Street also expressed concerns about consumer broadband traffic growth, but did not broach the subject of usage control measures like usage caps or metered billing.  Windstream acknowledged the growth, primarily from online video, and said it had well-equipped data centers to handle the traffic.

Windsteam’s Consumer Strategy: Bundle Customers & Keep Them Away from Cable TV

It's all about the bundle.

Online video may be an asset for Windstream, which is facing increasing challenges retaining landline customers and up-selling them other products like broadband.  That competition comes primarily from cable companies, who are targeting Windstream customers with invitations to cut their landline service and bring all of their telecommunications business to cable.

Traditional phone companies have a major weakness in their product bundle: video.  Independent phone companies, in particular, are usually reliant on satellite TV partners to support the television component of a traditional “triple play” bundle.  Windstream’s network is capable of telephone and slow speed broadband in most areas, but the company’s involvement in video is largely left to a third party satellite-TV provider.

Customers who do not want satellite TV service may be easily attracted to a local cable provider.  But as an increasing amount of video viewing is moving online, Windstream may find customers increasingly tolerant of doing their viewing online, reducing the importance of a video package.

Windstream’s strategies to keep customers:

• Sell customers on product bundles, now enhanced with online security/antivirus options and on-call technical support for computer-related technical issues;
• Pitch Windstream’s Lifetime Price Guarantee, which locks in a single price for basic services, good as long as you remain a customer;
• Challenge cable competitors head-on with its “Quitter Campaign,” which tries to convince cable customers to “quit cable” in favor of Windstream;
• Offer faster broadband speeds in limited areas to satisfy premium customer demand.

Windstream Tries to Convince Customers the Broadband Speeds It Doesn’t Offer Do Not Matter for Most

Windstream’s efforts at winning over new broadband customers have been waning as of late.  One of the primary issues Windstream faces is the cable industry’s effective portrayal of DSL as “yesterday’s” technology, incapable of delivering the broadband speeds consumers crave.

Instead of investing in improved broadband speeds for everyone, Windstream spends its time and efforts trying to convince most customers they don’t need the faster speeds being pitched by most cable companies in the first place.

Windstream tries to convince customers they can make do with less speed (as low as 1.5Mbps), and there is no difference in speed between different providers — both questionable assertions.  (4 minutes)

The COO says 3Mbps is Windstream's biggest seller -- their website says something else.

Windstream chief operating officer Brent Whittington says his customers “don’t want to pay for incremental speed,” but is expanding their capacity to offer somewhat faster speeds.

“We still see that long term as [an increased revenue opportunity] because we know the demand is going to be there,” Whittington told investors.  “As we’ve rolled it out currently, it’s largely to — from a marketing benefits standpoint to talk about our competitiveness relative to our cable competition, but [consumers] are largely buying at 3Mbps.”

Either Whittington is mistaken, or Windstream’s website is, because it promotes the company’s 6Mbps $44.99 option as its “top seller.”  Many of Windstream’s cable competitors charge less for almost twice the speed, which may be another reason why Windstream’s broadband signup numbers are lagging behind.

Finding More Revenue: Universal Service Fund Reform & Business Services

Among the most important components of Windstream’s strategy for future growth are reform efforts underway in Washington to overhaul the Universal Service Fund.  Rural, independent phone companies like Windstream have reaped the rewards of this subsidy for years in its rural service areas.  But now Washington wants to transform the program away from simply underwriting rural landline phone service and redirect revenues to enhancing broadband access in areas too unprofitable to service today.

Windstream sees the reform as a positive development.

“It focuses USF on high-cost areas,” said Windstream CEO Jeff Gardner. “If you were a customer in a rural area of Windstream versus a customer in a rural area of a small carrier, your subsidy would much be higher, and we would get very little USF for that going forward. In this proposal, USF is really targeted towards those high-cost areas, so we kind of deal with this issue that we refer to as the rural-rural divide.”

Gardner says USF reform will end disparity of access.

“All rural customers are going to have the opportunity to get broadband out to them under this plan,” he said. The more customers paying monthly service fees, the higher the company’s revenues, assuming nothing else changes.

While redirected subsidies may help rural broadband customers, Windstream’s capital investments in expanding their network are going primarily to benefit their business clients, not consumers.

“On the small business side, our service there is very superior to our cable competitors,” said Windstream’s chief financial officer Anthony Thomas. “We’ve made investments in our network to offer VDSL and higher-speed data services. That’s going to be directed predominately toward those small business customers.”

Whittington added most of the company’s efforts at deploying VDSL technology are focused on the company’s small business segment to bring faster speeds to commercial customers.  For consumers, Windstream’s efforts are targeted primarily at keeping up with usage demands.

“Like a lot of folks in the industry, we’ve definitely seen increases in network traffic really due to video consumption,” Whittington said. “No question Netflix and other related type services are driving some of that demand. We continue to invest in broadband transport like we have in years past. And the good thing with a lot of things we’ve been doing from just a network perspective like rolling out as I mentioned before, VDSL technology in our larger markets. That’s really all about fiber deployment, which helps solve some of those transport issues. So we feel like we’ve been in good shape there, but it’s certainly something we’ve been very focused on operationally so our broadband customers don’t see a degradation in the quality of their experience.”

For the past two years, we’ve watched a lot of expansive fiber broadband projects get promoted by local media as broadband nirvana for individual homes and businesses that are either stuck with molasses-slow DSL or no broadband at all. Now, we’ve found another, sold by Springfield, Mass. media as salvation from Verizon’s ‘Don’t Care’ DSL for western Massachusetts.  But will the 1,300 miles of fiber actually reach the homes that need a broadband boost?

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSHM Springfield Broadband in Berkshires 7-26-11.mp4[/flv]

WSHM-TV in Springfield covered the start of MassBroadband 123’s fiber optic project as the solution to rural broadband woes in western Massachusetts.  But most residents won’t actually get to use the new network, at least initially.  (2 minutes)

Last month, Gov. Duval Patrick joined public officials and firefighters at the Sandisfield Fire Department to kick-off construction of the MassBroadband 123 fiber-optic network project to expand broadband access to more than 120 communities in western and north central Massachusetts.

MassBroadband 123 Service Area (click to enlarge)

“For too long, families and businesses in western Massachusetts have lived without reliable and affordable high-speed Internet access,” said Governor Patrick. “Today, as we commence the installation of more than 1,000 miles of fiber-optic cable across the region, we start the critical final step in delivering broadband access to everyone. The digital divide in Massachusetts is about to close.”

Don’t hold your breath.

Don’t get me wrong.  The Massachusetts Broadband Institute means well.  Judith Dumont, the group’s director, is well-aware of the challenges rural Massachusetts has getting 21st century broadband.  She’s helping to oversee the construction of an enormous middle-mile, fiber backbone network that will eventually reach those ten dozen communities.  But much of the funding for the project precludes the possibility of directly wiring that fiber to the people who actually need it.  The incumbent providers’ lobbyists have seen to that, broadly warning it would represent ISP Socialism to allow government money to deliver service to homes and businesses — customers they themselves claim to be committed to serve.  But ask any resident in Sandisfield how well they manage that.

Gov. Patrick splices fiber cable at inauguration ceremony for fiber expansion project. (Courtesy: MBI)

A good part of upgraded broadband on the way in the Berkshires will be provided to government institutions like local government, public safety, schools, and libraries.  There is nothing wrong with that either, but when local media blurs this distinction into belief fiber-fast Internet access is on the way to Mr. & Mrs. Jones living on Maple Street, they do a real disservice to the cause for better broadband.

Dumont optimistically believes that opening the state’s fiber network to incumbent providers on a wholesale basis will dramatically help the pervasive problem of reaching rural customers.  Unfortunately, this has simply not been our observed experience watching these projects develop.  The “last mile” problem doesn’t get solved with the existence of a middle mile network, because providers are rarely willing to invest in the construction costs to wire the unwired.  Political and business matters too often get in the way.

Cable companies frequently boycott participation in these networks, and phone companies like Verizon Wireless -may- utilize them for backhaul connectivity to their cell towers, but don’t expect to see lightning-fast Verizon FiOS fiber to the home service springing up anytime soon in western Massachusetts, even if fiber connectivity is provided just a mile or so up the street.  If they didn’t build it themselves, many providers just are not interested.

“Last mile” is often the most expensive component in a broadband network.  It’s the part of the project that requires digging up streets and yards, stringing cables across phone poles, and literally wiring the inside and outside of individual homes and businesses.  Verizon FiOS works in densely populated areas where large numbers of potential customers are likely to deliver a quick return on investment in the network.  But Wall Street has always disagreed, declaring the capital costs too high to make sense.  AT&T won’t even match Verizon’s commitment, relying instead on fiber-to-the-neighborhood networks that deliver access over a more modern type of DSL, delivered on fiber to copper wire phone lines already in place.  That’s their way of not spending money rebuilding their own last mile network.

Wireless ISPs are expected to take advantage of the state's new middle-mile network.

If any part of the broadband network in rural America needed subsidies, the “last mile” is it.  But Washington routinely delivers the bulk of federal assistance to the construction of middle mile networks and institutional broadband that doesn’t deliver a single connection to a homeowner or business.  That suits incumbent providers just fine, judging from their lack of interest in applying for broadband subsidy funding made available two years ago and their hard lobbying against community broadband networks, or anything else smacking of “competition.”

Thus far, the limited grants that are available for “last mile” projects require substantial matching funds and are often limited to $50,000 — a ridiculously low amount to solve the “last mile” challenge.  Those trying are primarily fixed wireless providers valiantly attempting to serve the areas DSL and cable forgot, but deliver woefully slow speeds at incredibly high prices.  WiSpring, one such Wireless ISP, wants to expand coverage with the help of the new fiber network.  But their top advertised wireless speed for residential customers is 1.5Mbps, and that will set you back $100 a month after a $500 installation charge.  Oh, and their customer agreement limits use to 25GB per month with a $10/GB overlimit fee.  That’s hardly the kind of broadband solution a multi-million dollar fiber network should bring to individual consumers.  It’s as frustrating as filling a pool, one cup of water at a time, with an eye-dropper.

Now imagine if a quarter of the state’s $40 million investment in broadband — $10 million, was spent physically wiring individual homes with fiber broadband.  Would that make a bigger splash in the lives of ordinary consumers than a middle mile network they cannot directly access?  Is construction of a state-of-the-art fiber network a good investment when many of the providers scheduled to use it are Wireless ISPs delivering bandwidth suitable for e-mail and basic web browsing only?

In West Virginia, we learned last month the state is swimming in middle mile stimulus grant money it can’t spend fast enough on behalf of institutions — many who either already have super fast service or can’t afford the Cadillac pricing that represents the ongoing service charges not paid for by grant funds.  Is this a good way to spend tax dollars?

Communities large and small need to think big when it comes to broadband.  Building a middle mile network does not by itself solve the access problem.  It’s a fine start, but absolutely requires a follow-up commitment to solve the last mile problem.  Here are our recommendations:

1. Demand the federal government eliminate restrictions on the kinds of network projects that can built with stimulus funds, especially those that prohibit investment in last-mile networks;
2. Don’t believe for a moment large cable and telephone companies will bring better broadband to consumers just because you have a middle mile network.  Historically, they have lobbied hard against last-mile projects they do not own or control, and fund conservative political groups to oppose your community’s right to develop and govern your own broadband future;
3. If incumbent providers won’t provide the service your community needs, consider exploring the possibility of doing it yourself.  Just as MBI contracts the wholesale part of its service out to a third party to administer, nobody says the village clerk has to be a billing agent for a community broadband service that directly serves your residents;
4. Involve local citizens in rallying for better broadband instead of sitting around and waiting for the local phone or cable company to provide it.  They won’t.  It’s a simple matter of economics for them – will they get a sufficient return on their investment within five years? If not, you are not getting improved broadband.  That works for them but doesn’t work for your community, and providers have made it clear most of the networks they intend to build are already built.  That leaves a lot of communities behind.
5. While wireless may be an answer for the most rural or difficult-to-reach homes, it is not a realistic solution for 21st century broadband inside village or town limits.  Wireless networks often lack the capacity to sustain the growing demand for multimedia, high-bandwidth content that is becoming more important for today’s online experience.  When a provider limits usage to 25GB a month, that’s a big problem for any community that will soon find itself stuck in a broadband swamp while the rest of the country passes it by.
6. The biggest financial challenges seem to come to those who think small about broadband projects.  Don’t rely on yesterday’s technologies for tomorrow’s networks.  Fiber-based broadband will deliver the best bang for the buck and is infinitely upgradable.  That’s why rural phone companies and cooperative telecom providers are constructing fiber networks themselves.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WGBY Springfield The State Were In Judith Dumont 7-11.mp4[/flv]

WGBY-TV in Springfield talked with Judith Dumont about western Massachusetts’ broadband future.  (19 minutes)

An example of an 801.22 Wireless Regional Area Network

The mainstream media and technology blogs have been running away with coverage about the IEEE’s recent approval of the so-called “white space” 802.22 wireless standard with stories of up to 100 kilometers of wireless coverage for home Wi-Fi over unused UHF television channels.  The thought of installing a router that can deliver reception of your personal broadband connection for up to 62 square miles sounds very exciting, but don’t get as carried away as some media outlets have.

The truth is, 802.22 benefits wireless providers, not consumers (unless you happen to receive your Internet service from a commercial provider over this technology.)

The new standard was designed to benefit Wireless Regional Area Networks (WRANs).  In general terms, this means Wireless Internet Service Provider (WISPs), who are most likely to adopt the new technology to enhance wireless service over long distances in rural areas not covered by DSL, cable broadband, or other wired networks.  To achieve the maximum amount of coverage noted in the popular press, providers will need to utilize specialized transmitters using antennas considerably higher than what one would find in a home environment.

Unlike today’s Wi-Fi networks, 802.22 uses much lower frequencies which tend to propagate over longer distances.  Using frequencies in the Megahertz range instead of the Gigahertz range makes it much more likely ground-based wireless signals will penetrate buildings and reach across the rural landscape.

To accommodate “white space” wireless, the Federal Communications Commission last year approved the use of unused broadcast channels for these data transmissions.  But providers will not simply be able to fire up their white space Wi-Fi network just anywhere.  The standard includes a provision that will automatically register the exact location of each transmission site with a central coordinating body.  Providers must agree to vacate channels if harmful interference to licensed broadcasters is “sensed” by the technology, and even though multiple operators may be able to operate concurrently in an area at the same time, there are important limitations on how many available “white space” channels will exist in different television markets.

Realistically, the most sensible implementation of 802.22 will come in very rural areas with few, if any, local broadcast signals to contend with.  If the FCC has its way, a considerable amount of the so-called “white space” will be sold off to America’s largest cell phone companies, leaving even fewer channels open for this kind of wireless broadband.  In large urban markets, it’s doubtful many channels will be available for 802.22 use, if any at all.  Currently, the FCC dictates these networks cannot operate on an occupied broadcast channel, or the adjacent channels on either side.  That means if your city has a station on channel 31, these networks cannot use channels 30, 31, or 32.

Another problem is the available bandwidth for individual users.  Each “channel” has 6MHz of bandwidth, which can realistically provide 12Mbps service to a single user.  The IEEE specifies a maximum speed of 22Mbps, but that is more theoretical than actual when taking into account the longer distances average customers will be from the transmitter.  Providers will almost certainly pack each channel with multiple users.  A dozen customers concurrently using the service would probably get around 1.5Mbps on average (384kbps upstream), assuming nobody saturates the channel at maximum speeds. That is equivalent to some rural DSL providers.  Should providers “oversubscribe” the network, and dozens of customers try and use the service at the same time, speeds could drop precipitously.  The further users are from the transmitter, the lower the speeds they will receive regardless of how many users are on the network at that time.

To handle demand, one solution is to run multiple transmitters to handle the traffic, but how many transmitters can operate will depend on how much “white space” is available.  That is why this technology is best suited for rural areas where UHF television signals, and customers, are few and far between.

Home Wi-Fi users will need to wait for the development of a different standard — 802.11af — to take any advantage of “white-space” Wi-Fi, sometimes called White-Fi or “Super Wi-Fi.”

Since the much used 2.4 GHz band for Wi-Fi is congested in urban areas, IEEE 802.11af can provide additional open frequencies for home users.  But most 802.11af home equipment will operate at considerably lower power and range, and will suffer some of the same bandwidth limitations created by narrow channel spacing.  An even bigger problem will be available channel space.  The same urban areas experiencing over-congested Wi-Fi will also likely have the largest number of operating television signals, limiting the use of this technology.

Some theorize White-Fi wireless will not be of much use to home broadband users at all, instead opening up connectivity for devices we might not normally associate with wireless connectivity.  A home security system could plausibly work well with limited bandwidth.  So could home electronic devices that want to communicate their status.  A washer and dryer could use the technology to communicate with each other to synchronize completion time and signal the homeowner that their laundry is ready.  Home weather stations could deliver data over longer distances, refrigerators could signal owners they need to be restocked, and so on.

If you are waiting for wireless broadband nirvana, unfortunately there is not much to see here with these developments.  Increasing usage demands continue to make wireless among the least suitable technologies to deliver the substantial-sized data pipeline broadband consumers increasingly require.

Rest in Peace, AT&T DSL

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson doesn’t think much of the company’s largest-reaching broadband product – DSL service, telling an audience at the the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners summer seminar in Los Angeles that AT&T developed DSL mostly to compete with Comcast, but “now that’s obsolete.”

That’s a remarkable admission for AT&T, which continues to provide the bulk of its Internet access to consumers over DSL on its copper-wire telephone network.  Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice, in attendance, promptly tweeted the news to her followers: “AT&T CEO — to chase comcast we built dsl, it is obsolete now”

The story from GigaOm’s Stacey Higginbotham only got stranger when an AT&T spokesperson tried to explain away Stephenson’s careless remarks:

Stephenson was answering a question from an audience member about how state regulators should think about new technology cycles when they are considering things like USF. He said that new technology used to be amortized over a 10-15 year period, but that has shrunk to about 5 years now. He said that DSL was introduced in the 1990s, it has been surpassed in speed by U-verse and Comcast’s DOCSIS 3.0. He also gave the example of deploying 3G in 2006 … and now 5 years later we are rolling out 4G. His point was — new technology is being surpassed by the next generation much quicker than ever before. We have millions of customers using DSL and remain fully committed to the technology — even as we constantly look to bring innovation to the marketplace.

That innovation comes mostly from the company’s more advanced DSL platform U-verse, which is only slowly working its way across urban AT&T service areas.  Unfortunately, that service will not likely be forthcoming for AT&T’s rural landline customers, who will be left with “obsolete” DSL service, if available at all, indefinitely.

With an increasing amount of AT&T’s revenue coming from its wireless division, there is little incentive for AT&T to expand DSL service into areas where it is not already sold.  In fact, most of the company’s landline-oriented lobbying has been directed at allowing the company to abandon its “universal service” obligations to provide decent, basic telephone service in rural areas.  The company has already won that deregulation in several of the states it serves, but has given no indication if and/or when it plans to shut off its landline service.

Landline providers hope American consumers will lead the way, as an increasing number disconnect their home phone lines permanently.

More than half of adults between the ages of 25 and 29 reside in wireless-only homes, according to the Federal Communications Commission.

“The number of Americans who rely exclusively on mobile wireless for voice service has increased significantly in recent years,” the FCC said, citing a January-June 2010 National Health Interview Survey.

Unfortunately, rural Americans overwhelmingly receive broadband over that landline network in the form of basic DSL, usually at speeds of 1-3Mbps.  If that network is discontinued, their opportunity for broadband service goes with it.