koolkid1563
Premium,MVM
join:2005-11-06
Powell, WY
clubs: | reply to KYOTO
Re: U-verse internet only justification
How are you not gaining anything? You are getting off the legacy PPPoE DSL network and onto a much more efficient one without overhead, and you are gaining some upload too. |
|
etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
| said by koolkid1563  :How are you not gaining anything? You are getting off the legacy PPPoE DSL network and onto a much more efficient one without overhead, and you are gaining some upload too. How is the network 'much more efficient'?
By not using PPPoE your 'gain' is maybe 300Kbps on the download and maybe 40Kbps on the upload in a 6000/1000 tier.
»/archive?zip=&···t=Search
The disadvantages are HIGH latency, a problematic system, severe distance limitations among many other things.
advantages - disadvantages = - not worth it. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by etaadmin :The disadvantages are HIGH latency, a problematic system, severe distance limitations among many other things. The distance limitation doesn't matter. Either you are close enough to qualify, in which case it doesn't matter, or you are not, in which case it still doesn't matter.
A "problematic" system is very vague; actually a useless description without any supporting evidence of a problem.
Can you demonstrate the high latency?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Basic differences:
DSL
1. Existing DHCP DSL (DSL-Extreme 3008/512) (month 2 month) - Requires POTS.
2. Low latency - ~9-10ms 1st hop
3. Renewal/migration will allow only 1500/384kbps packages. Available in many areas.
4. 3008/512 = $24.95 m2m + POTS
Uverse:
1. Jump through hoops to get this (i.e. only available through certain methods... still haven't see it yet)
2. Higher latency (interleaved on Uverse) ~20 ms first hop.
3. Multiple packages available : 3/1 and 6/1 as well as 1.5/1
4. No POTS/LD requirement, and it appears, no TV requirement $30/month 3/1, $40/month 6/1
TimeWarner:
1. Road Runner: 6/384kbps $44.95/month, low latency
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
1 edit | reply to NormanS
said by NormanS :The distance limitation doesn't matter. Either you are close enough to qualify, in which case it doesn't matter, or you are not, in which case it still doesn't matter. The closer you are to the VRAD the better your signal will be. You can still qualify and have an unstable or unreliable connection.
said by NormanS :A "problematic" system is very vague; actually a useless description without any supporting evidence of a problem. Will you accept uverse subscribers' posts as evidence?
»utalk.att.com/utalk/board/messag···ump=true
»utalk.att.com/utalk/board/messag···.id=1672
»Freezing, pixelation, etc.!
»utalk.att.com/utalk/board/messag···.id=3599
»Houston TV Outage
»utalk.att.com/utalk/board/messag···ump=true
»utalk.att.com/utalk/board/messag···d.id=425
»Is U-Verse really that bad
»utalk.att.com/utalk/board/messag···.id=4346
»utalk.att.com/utalk/board/messag···.id=1105
Just to name a few.
said by NormanS :Can you demonstrate the high latency? 1. Using the interleaved path adds latency to xDSL technologies.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interleaving
and page 10 and 11 of this document »www.ieee802.org/3/efm/public/jul···0701.pdf
2. ALL uverse subscribers are on the interleaved path.
»Re: Online gaming - latency issues
What a surprise our very own koolkid posted this in the uverse forum.
»utalk.att.com/utalk/board/messag···7723#M57
and of course en102 post just above. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Yeah, I suspect my nieghbor's AT&T DSL is on interleaved (vs. my connection on DSL-Extreme). Their first hop is ~20-25ms (3-5 ms added from Netgear XE-104 bridge).
My first hop (w/o bridge) is 9-10ms, and 12-15ms with bridge (HDX-101) on fast path.
Typically, I have no _real_ issues with ~10ms of 'extra' latency, as I'm not playing online games. I do however dislike the 'milk run' style of AT&T for typical routing.
L.A. --> Irvine, CA --> ?
DSL-Extreme
L.A. --> peering --> ?
I've typically had 45ms to my VPN in Plano, TX, which, IMO is excellent. I typically hit 50ms with my HDX-101 bridge.
My coworkers in San Jose over AT&T have more latency (typically +60ms)
I'm just waiting on pricing on the AT&T Uverse VoIP packaging to see if its worth it.
Eg. AT&T POTS/LD: $40/month + $5/month (Canada) + taxes = ~$60/month
'Pro' DSL = $24.95/month + tax = $26.81/month
Total: 86.81/month
Cable 'standard' offering: $69.95 + tax = ??? (should be still less than $86.81) for 6/384kbps + unlimited VoIP
Uverse packaging: $40/month (6Mbps/1Mbps) + CallVantage (24.95 + taxes) = 64.95 + taxes.
Uverse looks like a decent deal right now.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to etaadmin
said by etaadmin :The closer you are to the VRAD the better your signal will be. You can still qualify and have an unstable or unreliable connection. That is at odds with the way that they provision ADSL Internet. They have set the distances such that marginal lines are due more to the condition of the lines than the distance. At 9,156 feet from the CO I get my full Pro 'synch', and few CRC errors. Very reliable connection. I am surprised that they would provision marginal lines, give the cost of supporting them.
Will you accept uverse subscribers' posts as evidence?
Sure. Better than no evidence at all.
1. Using the interleaved path adds latency to xDSL technologies.
Yeah; I know all of that.
and of course en102 post just above.
Wow. A whopping HIGH latency of...20ms to the first hop. At least half of the customers posting to the Embarq, Qwest, and Verizon forums (and many in the AT&T Southeast forum; former Bellsouth) are automatically on Interleaved Path over ADSL/ADSL2/ADSL2+. I have always thought that 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' was pretty unique to start their customers on the Fast Path, when compared to the rest of the industry. Still, I don't think that a first hop latency of 20ms is all that high.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to en102
said by en102 :Typically, I have no _real_ issues with ~10ms of 'extra' latency, as I'm not playing online games. I do however dislike the 'milk run' style of AT&T for typical routing. L.A. --> Irvine, CA --> ? DSL-Extreme L.A. --> peering --> ? Routing is mostly a matter of what peering arrangements are made. There appears to be a major Tier 1 peering hub in San José, California. I don't really know where, in the Los Angeles region, there is another such. In any case, if ATTIS gets the best price for transit peering in San José, they will route from L.A. to S.J. before they hand off to their transit peer.
Comparing ATTIS peering with DSLX peering isn't really helpful. DSLX may get a better deal from different transit providers, in different locations than ATTIS.
As an aside, ATTIS is not a Tier 1 network; maybe Tier 2. ATTW (AT&T Worldnet Services) is a Tier 1 network. In spite of both operating under one corporate brand, ATTIS apparently doesn't have a heavy commitment to using ATTW for transit.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
| reply to NormanS
said by NormanS :That is at odds with the way that they provision ADSL Internet. They have set the distances such that marginal lines are due more to the condition of the lines than the distance. At 9,156 feet from the CO I get my full Pro 'synch', and few CRC errors. Very reliable connection. I am surprised that they would provision marginal lines, give the cost of supporting them. You are looking a things differently. It is not 'They have set the distances such that marginal lines' but at what distance a particular xDSL line becomes marginal. You have to consider more uncontrolled factors such as (I agree) the condition of the line, surrounding electrical environment (RF emissions, electrical noise, weather activity, etc) among many other things.
This is why I call a the service problematic
I can post many related links but I bet you already knew that?
said by NormanS :Sure. Better than no evidence at all. Then there you have it, roughly 70%-80% of all uverse posts are negative.
said by NormanS :Wow. A whopping HIGH latency of...20ms to the first hop. At least half of the customers posting to the Embarq, Qwest, and Verizon forums (and many in the AT&T Southeast forum; former Bellsouth) are automatically on Interleaved Path over ADSL/ADSL2/ADSL2+. I have always thought that 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' was pretty unique to start their customers on the Fast Path, when compared to the rest of the industry. Still, I don't think that a first hop latency of 20ms is all that high. Since I don't play online games I don't care about latency but apparently many uverse customers do and the additional 20ms+ delay is just part of the problem.
As what others are doing with interleave is irrelevant we are talking about uverse here. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| In general, I think Uverse (IP based TV service, in general) has a good future. The physical connectivity (VDSL based) is a limiting factor, and can have issues (maintaining it, future scalability, etc.), but allows for faster deployment, and a possible upgrade/replacement as needed in the future.
My current negative issues have been based on the overall platform:
1. MS-CE based IP-TV has had obvious outages. While it is a 'new' technology, many are not willing to be beta testers on this product
2. Wireless RG. Many end users will not want to have to change settings, update, reboot, or diagnose issues on the RG, including Wireless. This should be more of an appliance that is plugged in, and left alone. Rebooting due to upgrades, WiFi, coax cable, audio/video sync issues, etc.
3. Having to rewire home with CAT5e/6. For some, this might be a nice to have... For many, this is a pain.
On the 'good' side, IPTV does have many decent features (whole house DVR?, programmable over web, no theoretical channel limit due to IPTV vs. broadcast).
As far as plain ADSL goes, I'm at 13,200', and have been on pro for a few years, on fastpath, and haven't had any issues since AT&T fixed the wiring in the neighborhood (too much water in the lines)
Home> wan ad line near
relative capacity occupation: 60%
noise margin downstream: 13.5 db
output power upstream: 12.0 dbm
attenuation downstream: 50.0 db
Home> wan ad line far
relative capacity occupation: 65%
noise margin upstream: 16.0 db
output power downstream: 19.5 dbm
attenuation upstream: 31.5 db
Home> wan adsl chan data
near-end interleaved channel bit rate: 0 kbps
near-end fast channel bit rate: 3008 kbps
far-end interleaved channel bit rate: 0 kbps
far-end fast channel bit rate: 512 kbps
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
anon1
@sbcglobal.net | reply to koolkid1563
My UVerse speed. Nutting to gain. I'll switch back to dsl pro and save $5.00 a month |
|
koolkid1563
Premium,MVM
join:2005-11-06
Powell, WY
clubs:
·Bresnan Online
| This is a test that I just ran
It is much faster than the 4/387 I was getting with cable, so in my case yes it is for the better. This isn't the case with all people though... |
|
apeface
join:2000-09-16
Mckinney, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to treaders
How many people hunt down websites to post how great something. Not to many. You can find just as many people bitching about FiOs, Cable, or any other product offered by any company on the planet.
If you come here and say 'my service works good' your called a shill and flamed. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| My service works good (at least now that AT&T has done line conditioning). I may try it out for a bundled discount:
AT&T Wireless (Mobility?)
AT&T Uverse Internet
AT&T Uverse VoIP
Cable VoIP + Internet is similarly priced.
Triple play with TV isn't an option for me.
I don't need the top tiers of Internet (+10Mbps),
and I _really_ don't want to pay more than what I do now (I'd actually prefer to pay less).
Flame away. 
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Stringrazor
join:2003-05-07
Burbank, CA
| After years of frustration trying to get better than 1.5MB/312k Earthlink ADSL (over ATT lines), I switched to ATT provisioning and got the speed bumped to 3mb/512 and a lower rate to boot (not to mention direct American support instead of EL's India desk). I believe I'm about 7k ft' from the CO and with work I might be able to get ATT to clean up the line and bump up my speed to 6MB but it'll take some effort. U-Verse has just recently become available (at least that's what the web site says now when I put my tel# in - I also got a rebate offer via snail mail). I looked over the packages and was disappointed there are no ISP-only packages offered. The max connection speed of 6/1mb is still pretty dismal compared to what friends with FIOS have so I'll probably wait and see for now.
I also couldn't find anything that described what effect if any the U-verse digital TV traffic had on the effective internet bandwidth. How does that work? |
|
MarkyD
Premium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| said by Stringrazor :The max connection speed of 6/1mb is still pretty dismal compared to what friends with FIOS have so I'll probably wait and see for now. I also couldn't find anything that described what effect if any the U-verse digital TV traffic had on the effective internet bandwidth. How does that work? I don't think you'll hear any arguments about 6/1 being a little pathetic for this service. However, it's better than the speeds you're getting now! I'd do it if I were you.
The video streams do not cut into your internet speed, and vice versa. they are kept entirely separate. |
|
Stringrazor
join:2003-05-07
Burbank, CA
| Yeah, but I'm paying less than $25/mo for my current service. I don't need to be an early adopter in my area. I'll keep tabs on the service and wait at least another quatrer or two. One thing about the DSL service I have now is it's rock solid and only "goes out" when my old Netgear router crashes. |
|
BullyRED
join:2004-04-08
Grayslake, IL
1 edit | reply to en102
Ignore me...I somehow replied to this thread without seeing the entirety of it... |
|
wingrider01
join:2006-07-25
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to treaders
The main problem here with te bundling is the limitations that are imposed in the TV portion of the system. A total of 4 tuners is not flexible enough, add to the fact there can only be a single DVR, a single HD feed is just to big of a limitation. I am currently running 4 DVRs, all of them HD. The whole house viewing/dvr might be a saving grace depending on how the unit is setup.
I would love to dump Charter HSI, but I refuse to dump the capabilities of my TV installation for what Uverse is offering, if falls woefully short of what I currently have installed. |
|
