dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2009-05-08 10:33:53: AT&T's decision to run FTTN instead of FTTH has remained a sticking point, with AT&T's top U-Verse speed (after video) sitting at 18Mbps downstream for customers within range. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next

dlewis23

join:2005-04-18
Boca Raton, FL

It can go faster then 18 Mbps

U-verse could go faster with out line bonding, its all about if AT&T wants to allow a faster tier.


burgerwars

join:2004-09-11
Northridge, CA

Should have done FTTH from the start.

FTTN instead of FTTH is the one reason I didn't sign-up with Uverse. It's never too late for AT&T to start laying fiber on the last mile. AT&T are you listening?


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Verizon doesn't look so dumb does it?

Once at&t gets FTTN everywhere they'll have to go start putting FTTH like they should have in the first place just to compete. It'll be YERAS before I even get at&t's 18 Mpbs u-verse here and yet righht NOW I can get 20 Mbps from Charter. Hmmm who am I going with? By then Charter will be offering 60 Mbps. A day late and dollar short at&t.


uverseh8r

@rr.com

UVerse Line Bonding

I have been a UVerse customer for nearly three years, having initially been a UVerse internet trial customer. My home is between 3000-4000 feet from the DSLAM, and I have been told that I cannot get UVerse TV service as a result. I am only able to get UVerse Internet service. I was told that I may be able to add the TV service next year, when they will be ready to deploy pair bonding.

It's been way too long for AT&T to still be working out these issues. If they've been working on UVerse since 2003, all of the bugs should have been worked out by now. There's a huge revenue stream available to them when they resolve the issues, and any equipment suppliers would also be drooling at the thought of huge revenues after the issues are resolved, so I don't understand why there isn't a stronger drive to iron out all of the problems.

Oh, I forgot...this is AT&T...

Never mind...


Traxless
Premium
join:2005-02-16
USA
reply to burgerwars

Re: Should have done FTTH from the start.

said by burgerwars:

FTTN instead of FTTH is the one reason I didn't sign-up with Uverse. It's never too late for AT&T to start laying fiber on the last mile. AT&T are you listening?
My many years of experience with AT&T is they only listen to themselves. And so it goes.


Madness
Like a flea circus at a dog show

join:2000-01-05
Quincy, MA
kudos:1

Hmmm....

Might it be appropriate to mention something about a blizzard in Hell?

jandar1

join:2006-01-16
Middleburg, FL
reply to Traxless

Re: Should have done FTTH from the start.

They went FTTN in some new neighborhoods around here that have fiber laid to the homes. Its just dark.

Instead of using the fiber to the residence, they decided to use the copper lines instead.

nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
reply to dlewis23

Re: It can go faster then 18 Mbps

said by dlewis23:

U-verse could go faster with out line bonding, its all about if AT&T wants to allow a faster tier.
yes, but it's also distance limited and the initial projections of what speeds could be available at greater distances from where the fiber is terminated haven't been meeting expectations. That's why they have to pair bond.

past 5000 ft. it gets harder and harder to deliver faster speeds. There is no way they can compete with docsis 3 or fiber when they start getting beyond that distance.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to jandar1

Re: Should have done FTTH from the start.

said by jandar1:

They went FTTN in some new neighborhoods around here that have fiber laid to the homes. Its just dark.

Instead of using the fiber to the residence, they decided to use the copper lines instead.
This is a crime!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL


spewak
R.I.P Dadkins
Premium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·SureWest Internet
reply to jandar1
said by jandar1:

They went FTTN in some new neighborhoods around here that have fiber laid to the homes. Its just dark.

Instead of using the fiber to the residence, they decided to use the copper lines instead.
That is what I am wondering.
Are they actually going to physically run a copper wire vs. Fiber to each home? Cost of running Fiber cannot be that much greater than digging up and running copper.
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer!

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

no excuse

There absolutely no excuse for not line bonding, a VPN software bonding solutions have existed for years. I could write my own VPN link bonding solution using TAP/TUN driver in linux in a few days if it didn't exist.


TheGuvnor

@corning.com

AT&T is doing it right.

Verizon deployments of FTTH were simple in trial and initial deployment areas because the majority of the installations are aerial. ATT's copper provisioning is underground, which is more expensive to deploy(equipment, manpower, permits, etc). The costs for ATT would have been astronomical. ATT's use of FTTN will allow them to build out with fiber in the next 5 to 10 years from the nodes while having their entire backhaul IP ready. The whole IP architecture puts ATT in top position regarding their backhaul. Furthermore, the whole services scenario still puts the majority of customers not needing 18 Mbps of internet downloads and doing fine with 1 HD and sometimes 2 HD and 3 SD Streams with 3 Mbps of internet. Also, compression is getting better so you will see your HD and SD streams shrink in download speeds.

If I was AT&T I would have done the same. They are the only company to succesfully deploy VDSL/VDSL2 to deliver video on a large scale! Many said this would have been impossible.


kapil
The Kapil

join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL

1 recommendation

Your World. Delivered.

I used to work with a bunch of former AT&T managers. If you knew these people, it would make perfect sense why AT&T doesn't have a next-gen plan that works.

Short-sighted, myopic oafs, they are. The whole lot of them.

At T, covering your ass is job #1. Nothing else matters. You attend meetings, schedule more needless meetings, talk in buzzwords strung together to look like coherent sentences, shit on the employee on a lower rung than you while you try your damnedest to deflect shit being hurled in your direction from the employee on a higher rung than you.

There is no time to think of customers or the good of the company when self preservation is at stake.

The ONLY reason this company is still in business is because of the shamefully lacking regulatory oversight and the lobbying they've been able to buy with their deep pockets. In a truly open, competitive, free market, AT&T would have died years ago. It almost did after the 1996 telecom act was passed.

The gang of former managers I used to work with? Well, they sucked dry the company where we worked together and have moved on to other companies.

They're a lot like the aliens from Independence Day...they are parasites who move from one host company to another, leaching all its life force and leaving only ruins behind them.
--
»www.Digium.com

Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Comcast
·CenturyLink

Great opportunity to push two line complete choice.

The LEC's including AT&T might have missed the boat. Before I moved out of South Florida I subscribed to BellSouth's Two Line Complete Choice Plan for $10.00 more than the One Line Plan. That is if you exclude the additional hidden charges which came to about $8.00. The LEC's need to try something clever like lower prices for a bundle of two land lines with unlimited residential long distance and bonded broadband service. That way the customer can obtain higher broadband speeds and two voice lines at reasonable prices.


kapil
The Kapil

join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL

Umm. Yeah.

Pair bonding is a myth. It doesn't work. a lot like BPL. It's a smokescreen used to cloak the utter incompetence of those running the big T as they scramble to find an alternative to their current 100-year old last mile plant.

They *almost* pulled it off. By buying up and consolidating RBOCs and the original AT&T. And the good fortune of owning the wireless business which happened almost by accident at a time when wireless was undergoing explosive growth. Almost.

AT&T is in deep trouble. It's almost a decade behind Verizon in replacing copper with Fiber to subscriber premises. Either it faces the reality of becoming a wireless and backhaul provider or it spends gobs of money trying to catch up. Neither one will make investors very happy.
--
»www.Digium.com

jandar1

join:2006-01-16
Middleburg, FL
reply to spewak

Re: Should have done FTTH from the start.

A lot of the new neighborhoods around here (built in last 5-6 years) had both fiber buried under each driveway as well as copper lines run for both cable and phone.

Hell, I had dark fiber here before they even offered DSL. Then instead of working with the available fiber, Bellsouth decided to install a DSLAM to provide 1.5Mb speeds. (this was 4 years ago)


S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
reply to kapil

Re: Umm. Yeah.

said by kapil:

AT&T is in deep trouble. It's almost a decade behind Verizon in replacing copper with Fiber to subscriber premises. Either it faces the reality of becoming a wireless and backhaul provider or it spends gobs of money trying to catch up. Neither one will make investors very happy.
I don't know, just when you think they're gone, they come back....like the flu you can't get rid of. Remember, T does best when its killing the competition, not actually competing with it!

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to kapil
Wrong, TW's "outright lie to the consumer" advertising and PR tactics have been working very well for TW, whats wrong with ATT using them? backbone fiber is equal to last mile fiber right?


dr3yec

join:2002-12-19
00000
I was going to switch to at&t uverse when it goes live next month here. But looking at there speed teirs. I think I will stay with cable. Really in my own opinion. Uverse is just like dsl but with tv. No improvemnts.


SrsBsns

join:2001-08-30
Oklahoma City, OK

Should have read

AT&T creates Rube Goldberg machine for delivering internet.

cornelius785

join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
reply to burgerwars

Re: Should have done FTTH from the start.

I don't understand this fanboy-ism of ftth vs fttn. all that matter is speed and much you pay for it, ignoring stuff like caps, throttling, and other wonderful 'features' ISPs are throwing in for free. it is just like the intel vs. amd processor/system architecture. people are so concerned on the architecture that the lose sight of what really matters, performance, power, and price


SrsBsns

join:2001-08-30
Oklahoma City, OK
reply to uverseh8r

Re: UVerse Line Bonding

AT&T got themselves in too deep on this project. The design was flawed from the start and they spent to much money to just walk away. I bet all kinds of engineer's are like "I told you so" right about now. Just look them trying to patch it paired bonding. It's much like their cell network. A rat's nest. I think in the next year or two Uverse is going to tank. IMO

jefflisa2

join:2003-05-21
Everett, WA
reply to kapil

Re: Your World. Delivered.

Technically, ATT DID die, remember that they just changed their name.....


djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO
reply to dlewis23

Re: It can go faster then 18 Mbps


Putting nodes closer to homes would have made a huge difference.
said by dlewis23:

U-verse could go faster with out line bonding, its all about if AT&T wants to allow a faster tier.
Remember, AT&T wants U-verse to be a triple play product. 18mbps is already pushing things when HDTV service is also on the line. They're looking at a speed bump to 32mbps allow 3HD and less video compression, but it won't be avaialble to all customers.

I don't think the FTTN strategy was necessarily a bad idea, but they needed to put nodes closer to homes. With closer nodes at 50-100mbps, the product would have so much more longevity. It just wasn't smart to bet on "uncooked" technology. By the time something comes along to improve on VDSL, it's going to be needed to match the competition.

Reading user experiences over the last year or so, it seems pretty clear that 25mbps is about all that AT&T's 3000' "target" is good for. It didn't take long for AT&T to introduce a 19mbps profile with even less capabilities. The RG will report higher sync availability, but you need some margin for it to work reliably. You'd think with all of AT&T's experience with ADSL, they'd know that you can't count on real world speeds to match what the specs say it ought to be able to do.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.


DaveDude
No Fear

join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
reply to cornelius785

Re: Should have done FTTH from the start.

That is very true, what about wireless N, who cares about the medium. I just want speed, and low latency.


Brandon1979

@comcast.net

AT&T is smart, IMO...

I'm no LEC lover, and that includes AT&T, but on this issue... I think AT&T made a wise decision to opt for a FTTN instead of a FTTH plan. FTTN is like 1/5 the cost of FTTH, and works just fine. Their UVerse product is among the highest rated in customer satisfaction. As well, by waiting, they let Verizon take the hit of initially high fiber equipment costs, and by the time they plan on going FTTH, unit costs on average will be considerably lower.

And lastly, since they will already have lots of already fiber-fed neighborhood UVERSE VRAD boxes close to residences, they're already about halfway there to deploy FTTH when they need to. As things stand now, they have the most competitive TV offering, and among the best overall value propositions out there... and great customer satisfaction.

It will be awhile before there is great pressure for more speed than 18 Mbps down / 1.5 Mbps up, and by then, they will either have good pair bonding options ready OR they will start deploying FTTH from their many neighborhood nodes.

Also, even if they get a late start to upgrading to FTTH, and their Internet speed competitiveness is substantially lacking, they can simply drastically under-price their Internet speeds to see them through until the FTTH is built out, since their wholesale bandwidth costs are quite minimal. That way, they could still keep most customers that have a keen eye on total value of their package TV, Internet, phone deal will provide compared to the competition.

As one commenter said, it really all simply comes down to value, and they can simply price appropriately to keep the competition at bay, especially since they have a cash cow of wireless to see them through any short-term competitiveness issues.


Technogeez
Agape in amazement.
Premium
join:2007-01-20
reply to cornelius785

Re: Should have done FTTH from the start.

I don't understand why you don't understand...


Technogeez
Agape in amazement.
Premium
join:2007-01-20
reply to Brandon1979

Re: AT&T is smart, IMO...

You don't happen to work for Comcast, do you?


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

Other telcos - LOOK AND LEARN!!!

Embarq/CenturyTel - I hope when you deploy a next gen network out here, that it is FTTH not crappy VDSL.

Otherwise I'll just stick with the cable company.


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39
reply to Brandon1979

Re: AT&T is smart, IMO...

It will be awhile before there is great pressure for more speed than 18 Mbps down / 1.5 Mbps up
Yeah, that's like, weeks away.