Hey, John Pollard

Posted by R. C. White on June 19, 2007, 6:24 pm

Please log in for more thread options

Hi, John.

In view of our recent discussion here about email providers, etc., I thought
you (and others here) might be interested in this news item that my son sent
to me today. I haven't tried to locate it online because it doesn't
interest me directly.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(Retired. No longer licensed to practice public accounting.)
rc@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Currently running Vista Ultimate x64)

> Subject: $10 DSL

> By Peter Svensson

> ASSOCIATED PRESS

> Tuesday, June 19, 2007

> NEW YORK - Without any fanfare, AT&T Inc. has started offering a broadband

> Internet service for $10 a month, cheaper than any advertised plan.

> The DSL, or digital subscriber line, plan introduced Saturday is among the

> concessions made by San Antonio-based AT&T to the Federal Communications

> Commission to get its $86 billion acquisition of BellSouth Corp. approved

> in

> December.

> The $10 offer is available to customers in the 22-state AT&T service

> region,

> which includes former BellSouth areas, who have never had AT&T or

> BellSouth

> broadband service, spokesman Michael Coe said Monday. Local phone service

> and a one-year contract are required. The modem is free.

> The plan was not mentioned in a Friday news release about AT&T's DSL

> plans.

> On the AT&T Web site, a page describing DSL options doesn't mention the

> plan, but clicking a link for "Term contract plans" reveals it. The plan

> is

> also presented to customers who go into the application process, Coe said.

> The service provides download speeds of up to 768 kilobits per second and

> upload speeds of up to 128 kilobits per second, matching the speeds of the

> cheapest advertised AT&T plan, which costs $19.95 per month in the

> nine-state former BellSouth area and $14.99 per month in the 13 states

> that

> were covered by AT&T before the acquisition.

> BellSouth generally had higher prices for DSL before it was acquired, and

> the price difference persists, although AT&T cut the price of the cheapest

> advertised plan in the Southeast region from $24.95 on Saturday.

> The agreement with the FCC required the company to offer the plan for at

> least 2 1/2 years. Coe said he could not comment on future advertising

> plans

> for the offer.

> The introduction of the plan, slightly before the deadline at the end of

> June, was first reported by The Tennessean in Nashville.

> Another concession to the FCC is yet to come: a plan for DSL that doesn't

> require local phone service. AT&T has another six months to introduce that

> option, which should cost at most $19.95 per month.

> Consumer advocates have fought for a so-called "naked DSL plan" because

> DSL

> can carry Internet-based phone calls for less than the price of local

> phone

> service.

> However, at 768 kilobits per second, the download speed may be too low to

> appeal to customers who use the Internet for phone calls.

Posted by David H. Lipman on June 19, 2007, 6:40 pm

Please log in for more thread options

| Hi, John.
|

Bye spammer !

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

Posted by Bob Wang on June 19, 2007, 6:55 pm

Please log in for more thread options

Dave:

I think R.C. is a more valuable member of this community than you are.
Unless someone went to a lot of trouble to spoof the original post, R.C. is
posting a VALUABLE piece of news.

Bob

>>>

| Hi, John.
|

Bye spammer !

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

Posted by John Pollard on June 19, 2007, 7:33 pm

Please log in for more thread options

Bob Wang wrote:

> Dave:

> I think R.C. is a more valuable member of this community than

> you are.

> Unless someone went to a lot of trouble to spoof the original

> post,

> R.C. is posting a VALUABLE piece of news.

I had the exact same feeling ... and nearly posted those
feelings.

I am not that sophisticated about what spammers are capable of,
so I am kindof glad I didn't jump to a conclusion.

I finally decided that I would wait for the "real" R.C. to chime
in on the issue. If he sent that post, David Lippman owes us an
apology ... otherwise, ... well David Lippman may have alerted
us to a spammer, but I'm not sure what anyone can do about it.

I am convinced of one thing: I will support *whatever* it takes
to **destroy** spammers ... if I can do so without harming
non-spammers.

--
John Pollard
First initial underscore Last name at mchsi dot com
Please reply to newsgroup

Posted by Bob Wang on June 19, 2007, 7:55 pm

Please log in for more thread options

John:

This is actually a VERY interesting situation, usually "Follow the Money"
helps finger the perps.
However, in this case, AT&T seems quite unhappy to have to sign up any new
customers at the cut-rate.
So, AT&T wouldn't be spamming.
Someone with a bone to pick with AT&T would still be creating new customers
by spamming.
A really convoluted rationale would have someone happy to drive new
customers to AT&T, but at $10 instead of $15.

Occam's Razor would militate for our resident accountant emeritus being the
original author.

Bob

Hey, John Pollard - $10 DSL?