Excite@Home -- GONE!

[audiyoda]

Bang, and then there was RR and DSL:

http://www.techtv.com/siliconspin/fe...363100,00.html
http://news.excite.com/news/r/011201...h-exciteathome

AT&T has decided to NOT but Excite but rather over build the existing network to create their own broadband service. They should have most of the @home customers up and running within a week on AT&T's own service.

-Craig

[Byte 2.0]

I am one of those lost in the middle too. When i left my apartment today it was working. who knows if I will have service tomorrow night when i go home.

I have no Land phone line either, because i had cable internet and a ceilphone.

However if cable is Dead, i am about 1000 feet from the nearest DSLAM for DSL service, heaven forbid. The Catch to DSL service is, I would have to put in a phone. Which means, hook up fee, pay the phone bill for a month. then they would have to send a tech out to test my line to see if it can carry an ADSL signal. Then i would have to pay a 50 dollar setup fee, even if i got the self install kit. Might or might not have to buy a modem, depends what the local speical is at the time.

Hands down, cable was simple to get hook up and get going, like 3 days after i ordered.

Cable, plug in the modem to the cable. you either have sync or you have no sync.

Have sync, then you just have to get the computer right.

Have no sync Call the cable cable.

ADSL ---Throw out all the rule books.---

[glc]

I was out all day setting up dialup accounts for my AT&T@home customers. If anyone wants a standard dialup networking account - 60 days for $1, no contract, go to www.findanisp.com , put Earthlink in the Quick Search box next to Find by ISP and click the button. The page it takes you to has a link for "60 days for $1". This beats screwing up your system by installing AOL or Netzero. Earthlink works with standard dialup networking, NO proprietary software required (although it's offered).

[Christoph]

Well, there goes the Internet access. Bye-bye @home!! I am back on dial-up and it sucks big time - lost my cable internet access yesterday morning! Oh, well ...!

I hope those greedy bondholders and creditors of Excite @Home go home with empty pockets now that AT&T is no longer pursuing to buy the remaining parts of excite@home. I guess that they did not expect AT&T to bite the bullet.

I don't like to back in stone age but I prefer the way AT&T is going its own way and let those others go home with nothing.

Christoph

[troysvihl]

I hope those greedy bondholders and creditors of Excite @Home go home with empty pockets

Yeah, how dare they want to recoup their investment.

If there is any villian here (personally, I don't think there is one), it is AT&T. By letting Excite go belly-up, they get the chance to buy Excite's assets for a fraction of their value and sqeeze out Cox and Comcast. That way, AT&T won't have to share any of the profts.

AT&T owns 23% of Excite's shares, but has a 72% voting control. As soon as Excite filed for bankruptcy, AT&T filed an offer with the court to buy all of the assets for $307 million.

Excite's bondholders have asked the bankruptcy court to reject AT&T's low-ball offer though.

[Christoph]

If I would have had a choice - it would have been DSl. Unfrortunately I am on a fiberoptic loop and DSL does not work on that. Wireless is my only other option but I have to buy the whole equipment and I want to be sure about before I invest that much money about my options. I have my own cable modem being a dead investment now. )-:

I give them 10 days for bringing me back online!

Christoph

[figarowa]

what annoys me as i'm still on dial up where i live...sprint has DSL here but to wire my apartment would cost a fortune just in that and the fact that Comcast had finally stopped dragging their feet and got the system up for cable modems and now that Excite went belly-up means that i have to wait even longer...grrr

[morriswindgate]

Latest word is that most of the companies besides AT&T have reached an agreement with @Home. It was rumored that AT&T will announce a deal later today.

[christo418]

Out here in Seattle, downtime was limited to one day. Apparently, AT&Ts infrastructure was already in place for the move. The new network is already up and running.

[Christoph]

News-Flash:

ENGLEWOOD, Colo., Dec 3, 2001 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- AT&T Broadband moved about 330,000 cable Internet customers to its new high speed Internet network as of Monday morning, Dec. 3, less than 48 hours after the At Home Corporation shut off service for more than 850,000 AT&T customers. The At Home Corporation's action followed a decision in U. S. Bankruptcy Court to cancel cable company distribution agreements with At Home.

The customers moved to the new AT&T network so far reside in Oregon, Washington, and metro Dallas. Customers in San Francisco and Illinois are scheduled to be moved today and tomorrow, bringing the total added to the new network to about 657,000.

Within the next few days the company will move the balance of its customers in other areas to the new network. Customers in Denver and Salt Lake City will be added on Wednesday. Customers in Hartford, Conn., Pittsburgh, Sacramento, and the Rocky Mountain region in the mountain West will be added on Thursday. Customers in Michigan will be added on Friday.

"We're having good success in implementing our contingency migration plan. We deeply regret the temporary inconvenience to our Broadband Internet customers resulting from the Excite@Home service shut down, but we're in high gear and driving hard to complete the customer migration to the new network," said Susan Marshall, senior vice president, Advanced Broadband Services, AT&T Broadband. "I'm profoundly impressed by, and thankful for, the dedication and expertise of our network and customer care personnel, who are working literally around the clock to get customers back up and running. We're appealing to our customers to stick with us as we add them to a reliable, high-quality network that will serve them well."

AT&T Broadband has communicated with all of its high-speed cable Internet customers during the past few weeks to help them prepare for these developments.

The company will automatically issue credits to any customers who experience an interruption of service. Credits will be issued at the rate of two days free service for every day of interruption. In cases where the temporary outage is a bit longer, customers will receive free dial-up service from AT&T Broadband until they are restored to a high-speed network.

All affected customers will see these changes as part of their new service:

- Email domain names will automatically change from [username]@home.com to [username]@attbi.com. User names will stay the same;

- AT&T Broadband Internet will feature AT&T WorldNet High Speed service content;

- Upstream and downstream speeds will be managed to provide a faster and more consistent broadband service.

Customers formerly served by MediaOne are remaining on a separately operated network. The areas encompassing those customers include Ann Arbor, Mich.; Atlanta; Jacksonville; Los Angeles; the Stockton and Fresno areas of Central California; New England; Richmond, Va.; and St. Paul, Minn. A group of several thousand AT&T Broadband Excite@Home customers in Boston and Chamblee, Ga., - who had been acquired as part of recent cable system acquisitions - on Saturday were migrated to that separately operated network.

For the group of customers in the markets being served by this separately operated network, the service will be re-branded as AT&T Broadband Internet. For the majority of customers in these markets, the network, Internet service connectivity, email domain names, and data transmission speed won't be affected. The only change these customers will see is new content provided by Yahoo! To access this new content, customers can direct their browsers to http://home.attbroadband.com.

AT&T Broadband cable and local telephone service aren't being affected by these developments.

Uncertainty around the future of the Excite@Home service, coupled with service interruptions necessitating migration of customers to the new high-speed network, is expected to negatively impact growth in the company's number of Broadband Internet customers and revenue generating units in the fourth quarter of 2001.

[Christoph]

Oh, and di dyou noticed - they changed the download speeds:

I Understand That AT&T Broadband Has Changed Downstream Speeds On The New Service. Why Are You Limiting Downstream Band

The new AT&T Broadband Internet network as been built to optimize our customers’ high-speed Internet experience. This means that customers speed settings will be set at 1.5 MB downstream and 128kb upstream to ensure that all customers receive an optimized broadband experience. These speed settings are part of our continuous effort to provide customers with the fastest, most consistent broadband service at the lowest possible price.

Our lightning-fast connection enhances Internet experiences through fast e-mail communication, quick access to research and surfing, a fantastic gaming experience, quick video clip and music downloads and a whole lot more.

The AT&T Broadband Internet network also has been built for future advanced service offerings. We’re examining tiered speeds as a future service enhancement in addition to other offerings.

[christo418]

So all of you former @home users should change your e-mail address here at PC Mechanic if you want to be notified of threads that you've subscribed to.

[Christoph]

Never used the @home email or web space - so, no need to worry for me.

[shecky981]

Had excite (under Cox.) got the call last nite "your service could be suspended at any time."

so...............<-----just ordered Verizon DSL & a phone line. I was using just my cell phone. Now i hafta pay fer a phone line i don't wanna use. Total monthly charge = $62.50 per month plus tax. ($49.95 fer DSL + $12.50 fer a super low end dialtone only type phone line)


Oh.... they do give me a free webcam.




oh goody.

-Shecky

[Xayd]

Originally posted by troysvihl Yeah, how dare they want to recoup their investment. If there is any villian here (personally, I don't think there is one), it is AT&T. By letting Excite go belly-up, they get the chance to buy Excite's assets for a fraction of their value and sqeeze out Cox and Comcast. That way, AT&T won't have to share any of the profts.

Indeed, and why was excite losing so much money? How much were they paying AT&T for use of AT&T's network this whole time? I'll betcha they were paying the same 150 or 200 bucks a megabit that any ole local ISP pays. That's the same reason why the local ISPs can't compete in selling DSL.

It's called price fixing. The bigger AT&T gets, the worse off cable subscribers will be.

No one should be able to 'own' bandwidth.

[audiyoda]

Originally posted by Xayd Indeed, and why was excite losing so much money? How much were they paying AT&T for use of AT&T's network this whole time? I'll betcha they were paying the same 150 or 200 bucks a megabit that any ole local ISP pays. That's the same reason why the local ISPs can't compete in selling DSL. It's called price fixing. The bigger AT&T gets, the worse off cable subscribers will be. No one should be able to 'own' bandwidth.

Actually, AT&T, Cox and the others were 'paying' Excite. Excite's problem was advertising revenue -- there wasn't any. That's been the problem with most dot.coms -- no real form of revenue. Sure, Excite was paying for bandwidth, but the they were getting paid as the provider as well. AT&T and the others were sick of paying Excite and saw them as a middleman pure and simple.

At some point, the FCC will have no choice but to step in and start regulating bandwidth. I've read papers from various FCC committees and heard a few lectures on the subject and Chairman Powell is none too happy with what's going on in broadband. As far as I'm concerned, bandwidth has to be owned, if it's not, it won't be there at all. But the FCC must stepp in and start regulating AT&T and others so that broadband is accessable, useable, and affordable.

-Craig

[azscary]

Earthlink has an excellant DSL service and 24/7 tech support for $49.99 month. MSN Broadband is also good, but they are not very good when it comes to teching. Earthlink has real techs and MSN uses scripted teching.

[troysvihl]

Craig - yeah, advertising revenue was down, but that's not what did Excite in. And I wouldn't exactly call Excite a dotcom. Unlike most dotcoms, Excite had a real revenue stream and they had a real product with real assets. Excite was signing almost 200,000 customers a month and they were on track to for sales of $400 million this year. The future was looking very bright for them.

But you hit it right on the head with AT&T seeing them as an unnessary middle man. They were expected to pump more cash into Excite to hold them over until they got out of the red, but AT&T realized that they had a chance to squees Cox and Comcast out of the picture and pick up billions of dollars in assets for a few hundred million.

At some point, the FCC will have no choice but to step in and start regulating bandwidth. I've read papers from various FCC committees and heard a few lectures on the subject and Chairman Powell is none too happy with what's going on in broadband. As far as I'm concerned, bandwidth has to be owned, if it's not, it won't be there at all. But the FCC must stepp in and start regulating AT&T and others so that broadband is accessable, useable, and affordable.

How will regulating broadband make it more "accessable, useable, and affordable"?

IMHO, about the last thing we need is for the FCC to come in and make a complete mess of things just like they have with the cell-phone spectrum and the HDTV spectrum.

The goals of accessablility, useability, and affordability will only be frustrted by increasing the FCC's allready heavey hand in the broadband market.

[morriswindgate]

All the other broadband companies are just slowly handing the business over to AOL/Time Warner. I keep wondering when I will start my browser (Road Runner) only to find the lame a** AOL screen and a timeout if I leave the browser open.

[azscary]

Actually AOL popularity is on the decline. Earthlink right now is #2 and gaining rapidly. My bet is on Earthlink.

[morriswindgate]

Microsoft may leave the doors open, but AOL users insure that virus/trojans are spread.

[audiyoda]

Originally posted by troysvihl How will regulating broadband make it more "accessable, useable, and affordable"? IMHO, about the last thing we need is for the FCC to come in and make a complete mess of things just like they have with the cell-phone spectrum and the HDTV spectrum. The goals of accessablility, useability, and affordability will only be frustrted by increasing the FCC's allready heavey hand in the broadband market.

So what you are saying is that you don't want cellular services or HDTV? Let's use HDTV as an example:

Given: Gov't wants NTSC signal bandwidth for point-to-point secure communication. They are giving up a bandwidth that is basically useless for that need.

Given: Going digital is a major expense for broadcasters. CBS and NBC are already using usbsidized funds for the few broadcasts they have. They claim no one can get their signal because cable is so prevelent. (ABC has plans to use basic ad dollars and say they will be in hte black on HD within two years.) And FOX is refusing to upgrade to HD altogether. And local markets are a whole, more complicated argument.

Given: Cable doesn't want to or won't upgrade their infrastructure to handle the increased HD bandwidth. Each HD signal will use 1GHz of bandwidth so we're talking a MAJOR upgrade of service.

Given: HDTV's have gone down in price and there are market trends sowing an increase in consumer awareness to HDTV and willingness to buy HDTV units.

So what do you take from all that? As a telecomm policy junkie, I can tell you what I see. Cable has dropped the ball. Period. If the FCC doesn't get the cable companies to get rolling, there will be no HDTV -- but the government wants that NTSC signal bandwidth BAD. So what do you think will happen....

And don't get me started on cellular....I am about as far from the idea that bandwidth should be free as Osama is from loving the red, white and blue. If bandwidth should be free, how about I come over and look through your fridge, raid your snack drawer, watch a little TV and take over your bed for the night. I doubt most people would go for that, but that's the mentality behind "free bandwidth".

-Craig

[troysvihl]

So what you are saying is that you don't want cellular services or HDTV?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we should learn from the past failures of the FCC. Instead of heavily regulating the spectrum as they have done in the past, they should let contract, property, and free-market principals do the regulation for them. The 1996 Tellecom Act was supposed to do this, but they only went half-way. They still have all sorts of restirctions and limitations. It's as if Congress wanted market competition, but didn't trust the market enough to tell the regulators to step aside and allow markets to function on their own. Implementing bandwidth auctions to allocate spectrum and Bush's recent increasing of band-width caps are good first steps. But there's a lot of deregulation to be done yet.

If bandwidth should be free, how about I come over and look through your fridge, raid your snack drawer, watch a little TV and take over your bed for the night. I doubt most people would go for that, but that's the mentality behind "free bandwidth".

Allowing contract law, property law, and free marekts regulate the spectrum is not the equivalent of someone going through your home.

[Xayd]

I don't think bandwidth should be totally free, I think it should be price controlled by elected INDEPENDENT (as in, not allowed to take any sort of contribution political or not from any telecommunications entity) regulators who are held accountable for the evils of the telecom corporations.

Look at the Swedes. They've promised every citizen of that country 5 megabits sync by the year 2005 from what I'm told, and there are quite a few individuals there who have very near that now. American telecom companies, on the other hand, would have us believe that it costs over 800 dollars a month to maintain the hardware and infrastructure and network staff and what not to support a single T1 (assuming a hefty profit margin of 20%)??!?!?

That "who will maintain the networks" argument is a flat out lie. It's a scare tactic used to maintain power and the public perception of a necessity of being. We're being taken to the cleaners by these companies. They're sitting on unused bandwidth, because it's more profitable to sell us a little for a lot than to have to make us competitive with the rest of the world in home connectivity. But if I had a usable amount of bandwidth at home for a fair price, there'd be no 1000 dollar a month T1 contracts or 500 dollar a month co-lo contracts or even the petty 50 dollar a month site hosting contracts. That's the real issue at hand, isn't it.

The countries in Europe we like to make fun of, picking on their socialistic tendencies, have beaten us at this game. They don't have entire industries that survive on sucking home users and small businesses dry with outrageous bandwidth fees, so ask yourself if the free market is really so free after all...

Actually, the free market is pretty damned expensive for folks like me.

[troysvihl]

I don't think bandwidth should be totally free, I think it should be price controlled by elected INDEPENDENT (as in, not allowed to take any sort of contribution political or not from any telecommunications entity) regulators who are held accountable for the evils of the telecom corporations.

I didn't say that it should be free. Like I said, the new auction system is a pretty good first step. Under that, the market will determine the correct price. Not some board of regulators. (btw, there is no such thing as an "independent" regulator, even if they aren't allowed to take contributions)

Alternatively, they could have granted rights to parts of the spectrum, contingent on putting it to valuable use.

They're sitting on unused bandwidth, because it's more profitable to sell us a little for a lot than to have to make us competitive with the rest of the world in home connectivity.

That's precisely the problem that use of property law, rather than regulatory law, would eliminate. General property law allows someone to take a resource from another if it's not being put to good use.

so ask yourself if the free market is really so free after all...

Well since we don't have a free market in our telecom sector, you're objections to how it's been run so far aren't really a slam against the free market, but instead are a slam against the regulations we have now.

[Christoph]

Quote:

"It's the end of Excite@Home," said Mark Kersey, a broadband analyst for La Jolla, Calif.-based ARS. "Excite@Home had a very small window of opportunity to get a decent sale price...It seems like that window is now closed."

Greed makes many people (Bondholders and creditors) blind! So, it will just be another dot com failure! Other investor with other companies already learned their lesson - those from Excite@Home did not realize how bad their situation was - they wanted all - now they got nothing!

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-8060454.html

Christoph

[morriswindgate]

In one of the high-tech world's most prominent flameouts, high-speed Internet service provider ExciteAtHome will go out of business Feb. 28. (AP Business Wire)

[Christoph]

Oh, well ... - that's the 3 month contract term length they did with Cox and Comcast for the transition of their customers.

Anyway - I am back online with Highspeed Internet and AT&T - one day ahead of schedule. Speed is good - DNS was a little bumpy in the beginning.

Christoph

[mc2phat]

Look at the Swedes. They've promised every citizen of that country 5 megabits sync by the year 2005 from what I'm told, and there are quite a few individuals there who have very near that now.

I'm not up on the situation with the Swedes. But if "they" means the Swedish government, it is most definitely NOT free. Government totally taking over means more taxation, and dealing with a bloated bureaucracy. I'll take my chances with capitalism; if it is way overpriced to the end user, demand will drop and so will the prices. And one would still have the choice not to purchase such a connection, saving money. If the government "promises" it, we pay for it no matter what.

[KR0316]

Here in Billings Montana AT&T has there network almost done I was shutoff on Saturday afternoon but will have service Thursday. Right now I am using my computer at work and we are using DSL. It is quite a bit slower that my @Home but faster than dialup. Even using this DSL irritates me so I won't go back to dialup unless I absolutely have to.