Still Waiting On Faster AT&T Speeds, Line Bonding

any idea when they are going to increase regular dsl speeds from 6mb?

Not everyone will want the bundle. Some will want just internet, and for those customers, they should give more bandwidth to the internet, allowing customers to perhaps get 20Mbps down maybe 2mbps up. If a customer only wants internet, then give the customer more bandwidth for internet only. This is where Verizon shines, as even with HD, the bandwidth is there to provide everything one would want.

what in at&t's past has indicated they would ever do that?

I'm kind of confused by this article it was my understanding that VDSL2 and pair binding are completely different solutions, although I assume you could pair bond VDSL2 if you can do so for VDSL. Also it states there are problems with maintaining 25mb lines using VDSL2 and as we all know AT&T is using VDSL and is maintaining 25Mb sych out to 3000' in most cases and that VDSL2 like pair bonding is expected to double distance and bandwidth. So some inconsistencies for me.

Now as for their strategy only time will tell whether FIOS, VDSL or something else wins. I am a UV user, I don't need more than a 6Mb Internet connection but I would like 3-4 HD streams. I like UV because while the AT&T infrastructure might be a limitation I think IPTV is the correct delivery mechanism.

In the end the market will decide, UV has to be competative or they will loose to satellite, cable, FIOS or something new. In the end more choice helps everyone.

Except for the whole part of At&t paying to have 1000's of contractors put in pair bonding in all homes, then pay for fiber and have 1000'd of contractors put it in all homes?

Lets not dorget the multi million dslams.

At&t is doing it right, if doing it right means burning more money then Verizon ever will.

how about using your list of what really matters and compare U-Verse to a FTTH option. i'd love to see the results and how you don't see why people here are upset about AT&T's technology choices.

no, many said it was a short-sighted plan by AT&T. i'm not sure any large number of people said it couldn't be done.

There are a few factors to consider:

1. Aerial vs. Buried (as you noted) this varies in each location, as it will affect cost
2. Cost now vs cost later (this is the gamble) - hoping to offset future upgrades with current subs
3. Do they really need +18Mbps residential ? If AT&T's costs are less, they 'can' (even though they don't) sell for less.
4. Attempted not to scare wall-street.

If AT&T 'had' the ability to wire at the curb every few residents from fiber, it would be close to 100Mbps/house. I'd say within 5 years it'll be overhauled, or AT&T will be offering cheaper Internet service to keep subscribers.

Apparently, Brandon1979 is sucking up ATT Prozac by the hand full. His world view is just a wee bit too rosy... not to mention illogical, illusionary and delusional.

I live in an ATT monopoly area, five miles or less from Verizon land. It is like living in East Berlin looking over the wall to the free world. It is the juxtaposition of the efficacy of well-funded modern western medical pharmacology (Verizon) vs a slimy snake oil salesman's (ATT) preposterous, ineffective and likely poisonous concoctions. As the industry is presently constructed, as in the world of Highlander, in the end, there can be only one. Unless, territorial distinction and monopoly area based competition is eliminated in favor of true competition.

How do you figure AT&T has the most competitive TV offering? We have 3 HDTVs in our house each with a Directv DVR that is able to pull 2 HD channels at the same time. Cable can do this, satellite can do this, Uverse cannot and probably won't be able to until they go fiber.

They are pretty much hitting the wall already?

It's going to be fun to see them trying to offer 20Mb internet (or 40Mb bonded) while dealing with various distance limitation for each customer.

In the mean time, cable and FTTH can expand their speed up to 100Mb and beyond.

I don't think they can easily change to FTTH with the existing design. All the Electronics have to be changed, and it takes AT&T 5 to 10 years to research and change Technologies. 5 years ago, Uverse with VDSL sounded good, but now it's obsolete and like I said years ago, AT&T dug themselves into a hole. Now the Bean Counters and BellHeads at AT&T are doomed to fail!

Some areas under Project Lightspeed were rebuilt from Copper to FTTH. They're very very limited though. One is in the Monroe Michigan area. But they're still limited on bandwidth. They're capped at what ever DSL is. So really ATT is just playing games with the money. They'll milk it out until Comcast really runs them out and ATT sells off the network.

Too bad it crashes all the time for me...

Just how are they supposed to do that? The VRAD nodes are placed adjacent to the existing SAI fan out points of the F2 lines.

Placing more nodes would require chopping up and re-engineering the copper network to include "mini-SAI"s with each of these new nodes (mini-VRADs) that you want to deploy. Can you imagine the POTS outages this re-engineering program would cause while the new SAIs were installed?

If, say, they halved the copper loop distance with these closer nodes than what they have now, that would mean they would be installing at least four times more SAI/node boxes than they are now. Certainly these hypothetical boxes would be smaller than the current VRADs because they would be designed for fewer connections, but four times more installations would cause more grief from four times more property owners that would find these new boxes installed on their property ROW.

The current overbuild VRADs are installed next to existing SAI cabinets which are often the same height or taller than the VRAD additions (a fact that Karl always fails to report in his "VRAD exposes" ). The property owners already know that they have a cabinet on their property so the addition of a VRAD shouldn't be such a shock to them.

Here in Tustin, CA, AT&T has started going back and installing more VRADs where they just finished installing them. These are the full VRADs they've used before and at some places they're placing new full SAIs too. Some of these new ones are just a block from another. I'm guessing they're having some serious issues getting things working properly here when even 2000' loops aren't working.

The VRADs the use here are just as tall at the SAIs but twice as wide, so they block the sidewalks more which as been causing them to move things around a lot. Some of "mega" VRADs they install near housing developments are nearly 6' tall and 4' square. I've seen a few "tall and skinny ones around in nearby cities, their like 5'x2'x3', but they have only been installed next to the old PacBell DSLAMs that are the size of a small SUV.

I'm a recent uverse customer. I'd prefer to see FTTH, but I don't think going FTTN is a deal killer. There are many alternative ways to maximize the connection:

- Networked DVR, recording 100% of the content and allowing users to go backwards in the program guide. Microsoft already has this technology enabled in Mediaroom. If ATT deploys that, you'll only consume bandwidth on channels you're currently watching since you won't need to record anything local.

- Wireless integration - their new 3g stuff is what - 20mb down? Integrate some of that technology in the RG to support additional bandwidth when needed - or set up local Wifi mesh-like networks in dense areas.

- ATSC Tuners - add a couple of the DVR ala Dish/Direct. Further reduction of bandwidth needs when watching local content

- Improvement in technology - 10 years ago, 'fast' over copper was 128k ISDN. Today, I'm 2700 feet from the VRAD and sync at over 40mb/sec. Who knows what we'll see 10 years from now. Similar things with compression technology - the quality/size ratio seen today with MPEG4 was unthinkable a few years ago.

With FTTH, they wouldn't have to worry about any of this - but technology has a way of fixing things if you wait long enough, and it appears ATT's strategy is to wait.

FTTH is gross overkill in rebuilding a network when there is so much copper already in the ground. FTTH does make sense in new or replacement construction.
Speeds over 10meg for Internet is a "fools wish" .. as long as TV gets delivered competitively.
I have seen 3meg & 8meg access .. hardly a "hairs difference" for the average internet user and I am not a fan of ITV, so U-versus TV is just fine.
And I didn't let AT&T screw me on the landline phone number either. I backed that down to "basic residential line" of under $20 and use my cell phone for LD.
Comcast can take their 50Mbps and DOCSIS 3.0 and "sell it to somebody that gives a crap". The cable industry screwed me for years and I will NEVER go back to cable...!!

And how often do you actually have all 6HD streams going? How often do you think the average joe has all 6 going? While such a limitation may be problem for yourself, for the vast majority it is not even an issue.

U-verse is currently limited to 4 incoming streams and they still have no problem getting customers. ATT has spent 1/3 to 1/2 of what verizon did and they are both attracting customers at about the same rate.

Close, SBC bought them and kept the at&t name which I though was stupid. They should have let the name die!

The Vrad deployment cost + distance serviceable for Uverse is rather horrid.. It would work for the projects and dense subdivisions and the like, but for normal deployments it just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.. why deploy such a range limited technology when other things are available? Do they want to fail? Or are they just that happy to be unsatisfactory in quality of service?

I still wish ATT would sell my territory to a local provider that'll actually take care of us.. I've seen a many local's upgrade their equipment, granted the cost is slightly higher than ATT's, but damn, i'd pay it in a heart beat... I just want to be a customer with an option

Actually, being that 3 of us live here and all watch different prime time shows, quite often. And remember, anyone buying a new TV or even a second or third TV for their house will be buying an HDTV.

I thought that AT&T was only able to push 2 HD streams and 2 SD, or 4 SD at the same time.

You are quite correct on that. And it is still going to take a decade or so to replace every SD tv out there.That would still be 4 total.

Probobly about the same time as when I will be able to get DSL and up upgrade from 19.2K dialup.

I drove by one of the tall, skinny ones at lunch, they're taller than the DSLAMs (which are already 6'), I'd say they're 7'x4'x2.5'. They're huge actually, they just don't look like it next to those monstrous DSLAMs.

Data is the future. to be so short sided that they wouldnt rebuild their network doesnt make much sense.

All of the new "smart" devices will use some sort of bandwidth, consumers will continue to pull more and more information/entertainment from the internet. In 10 years will 20/40 mbps be enough?? ATT is doing its customers and our country a disservice by not building their network out to support increased speeds and capacity.

Cannot get AT&T to install a DSLAM BOX by the time they do they will have to install two or three boxes at each location, here comes the BIG REFRIGERATOR BOXES.

The name doesn't matter to me, all that matters is if the service is reliable, has good customer's support, and have good internet speed and good prices.

The Company paid $6 Billion on the 700 mghz spectrum last year. 700 mghz can go 25 miles between towers,key is, due to it's low freq., it can penetrate concrete walls without interference. Now, add wireless cell repeaters to Vrads and give the customers a new wireless router. At&t's costs of deployment now,solved. No digging in gated communities to cut bridgetap in the buried, No more 6 hr installation nightmares. Condos and apartments now don't need rewiring. Why waste money on pair anything, or even fiber, when they plan to get it to you over the AIR. They cannot afford to wait and play later game, because it will be too late then.