And before anyone starts the discussion all over again... That's 70,000 customers who have reported outages on a single site, and is by no means indicative of the total number of customers who are actually without service.
"If we stop counting, then the problem will stay small." - an "unpresidented" cheeto
Thanks, I forgot about that.
Yeah that worked out so well...
I mean, it did. It made republicans even more averse to facts.
Dammit. Now I want Cheetos...
Doesn't help that the title implies that's the actual count, not the number of reported problems from one website.
Normally ArsT is pretty good about that, but I guess in the race to publish first, they put up a poor title.
Yeah I agree, it should have at least said something like "have reported service issues..." Of course the article makes that more obvious, but even the comments below the original article were filled with people who didn't read it.
Can't even sign into AT&T to view/report the outage. You can (conveniently enough) sign in to pay your bill if you want. AFAIK, the 70k number is the number of reports at Downdetector. It's probably 100s of thousands affected, if not millions.
Honestly, that makes sense. Outage reporting service is nice to have. A way to pay your bills is a requirement. They clearly have different SLAs.
The other commenter said "bill", but you added the S. I got the impression that you could log in to pay your AT&T bill and nothing else. And if the service being billed for is down, maybe it's ok if people don't pay that particular bill right away...
And before anyone starts the discussion all over again... That's 70,000 customers who have reported outages on a single site, and is by no means indicative of the total number of customers who are actually without service.
"If we stop counting, then the problem will stay small." - an "unpresidented" cheeto
Thanks, I forgot about that.
Yeah that worked out so well...
I mean, it did. It made republicans even more averse to facts.
Dammit. Now I want Cheetos...
Doesn't help that the title implies that's the actual count, not the number of reported problems from one website.
Normally ArsT is pretty good about that, but I guess in the race to publish first, they put up a poor title.
Yeah I agree, it should have at least said something like "have reported service issues..." Of course the article makes that more obvious, but even the comments below the original article were filled with people who didn't read it.
Can't even sign into AT&T to view/report the outage. You can (conveniently enough) sign in to pay your bill if you want. AFAIK, the 70k number is the number of reports at Downdetector. It's probably 100s of thousands affected, if not millions.
Honestly, that makes sense. Outage reporting service is nice to have. A way to pay your bills is a requirement. They clearly have different SLAs.
The other commenter said "bill", but you added the S. I got the impression that you could log in to pay your AT&T bill and nothing else. And if the service being billed for is down, maybe it's ok if people don't pay that particular bill right away...