Sitting in the belly of the beast today as I listen to AT&T talk about DSL, U-Verse, ASE (switched Ethernet), LTE and other products. It's interesting to hear AT&T talk about the $21 Billion that they spent on the network in 2013 and the same amount for 2014. (It isn't all wireless CAPEX; it is also wireless network CAPEX and spectrum acquisition costs.) But this weekm the Ma Bell PR machine said, "AT&T Wants to Replace DSL with Wireless in TDM-to-IP Transition Trials" [telecompetitor] Why would Ma Bell dump more capital into a network that they are going to transition?

They may spend on U-Verse like they did in Connecticut before selling off SNET.

Even ASE is a replacement for the old Metro Ethernet service based on Cisco 7609s. Truly, with CIR and no over-subscription, ASE looks an awful lot like frame relay, which AT&T retired two years ago.

It's like the two big Cellcos pushing video on mobile devices at the same time that they lobby for 500 MHz of spectrum to actually provide it. It's schizoid policy.

As Hunter Newby mentioned, "There is no nationwide LTE network. It's a fallacy."

The marketing doesn't stand up to the policy and the reality. That's not really good branding at all.

Also, the attorneys mentioned that AT&T floated the idea at the FCC in an ex-parte filing that they would be willing to sell the copper plant around the central office for the CLEcs to still offer T1 and EoC. What would that cost? Well, since SNET sold for $2B that would seem to be the most current valuation.

As Congress gets feedback for the revamped Telecom Act of 2015, I urge you to weigh in on how you feel about the TDM-to-IP transition. Public safety, AARP, consumer groups, state PSCs and of course Public Knowledge are all on the sides of the CLECs.