Southern Bell might have been nice
I said Southwestern Bell. Southern Bell was a different company entirely.
but the current AT&T is horrible
The point I was making is that they're a different company than the company that was called AT&T before 2005. While "this" AT&T may not be your cup of tea, it does many things better than the company that was called AT&T prior to 2005, i.e., the company that the previous poster was actually thinking about (based on the subsequent reply).
and if I could find another DSL provider in our area that didn't require cable, I certaily woouldn't be staying with AT&T.
This is one thing I can never understand: Consumers evaluating their options, determining one company to be the one that is offering the best option, and then proceeding to essentially undercut their own analysis by disparaging their choice in the way you have here. I'm not saying that what is being offered you is "ideal" (which seems to be the standard of acceptability that you are applying in your analysis). What I'm saying is that it isn't AT&T's fault that other companies
aren't offering you the high-speed broadband you treasure so much from AT&T. On the contrary, that's actually the fault of those other companies and consumers. That's really where your blame and ire should be directed.
I can't stand their customer service, which I think is in India, not sure, but those CS reps don't know anything, and the AT&T wireless serviec here is horrible, that is why I wouldn't get an iphone and I certainly don't want Verizon.
Yet, AT&T's customer service is a reflection of what American consumers in general are willing to pay for.
And Verizon actually provides excellent wireless service. Again, I think you have adopted the
ideal as your standard of
acceptability so nothing will ever appear good in your estimation. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it is important to keep that in mind when considering your analysis.
That would have extended my contract even longer. I have to figure out what to do now.....
