U-verse internet only justification in AT&T U-verse http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19131159 en Sat, 30 Aug 2008 06:19:27 EDT Sat, 30 Aug 2008 06:19:27 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19889118 wingrider01 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19889118 Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:02:09 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19888102 BullyRED : Ignore me...I somehow replied to this thread without seeing the entirety of it...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19888102 Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:09:40 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19572077 Stringrazor : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19572077 Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:49:56 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19571648 MarkyD :
said by Stringrazor See Profile :

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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19571648 Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:28:48 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19571282 Stringrazor : 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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19571282 Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:39:14 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19514208 en102 : 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. :D
--
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19514208 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:59:31 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19513774 apeface : 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19513774 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:57:25 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19513396 koolkid1563 : 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...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19513396 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:02:12 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19512667 anon :

My UVerse speed. Nutting to gain. I'll switch back to dsl pro and save $5.00 a month]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19512667 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:21:22 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19511600 en102 : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19511600 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:42:34 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19509726 etaadmin :
said by NormanS See Profile :

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 See Profile :

Sure. Better than no evidence at all.
Then there you have it, roughly 70%-80% of all uverse posts are negative.

said by NormanS See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19509726 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:49:28 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19509344 NormanS :
said by en102 See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19509344 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 02:06:48 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19509320 NormanS :
said by etaadmin See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19509320 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 01:59:25 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19509105 en102 : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19509105 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:31:49 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19506360 etaadmin :
said by NormanS See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19506360 Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:30:33 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19505454 en102 : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19505454 Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:11:24 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19505135 NormanS :
said by etaadmin See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19505135 Sun, 25 Nov 2007 12:12:37 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19505000 etaadmin :
said by koolkid1563 See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19505000 Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:42:46 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19504685 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19504685 Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:29:21 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19504469 anon : From my xperience, you gain nutting by switching to UVerse enabled internet. I had Pro Uverse enabled internet at the same speed as the non Uverse enabled internet(HSI Pro) but got charged more so I cancelled.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19504469 Sun, 25 Nov 2007 09:10:31 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19498997 en102 : It looks like AT&T CAN and DOES offer VDSL (dry no less) Internet service... you just have to order it through a San Antonio office.

I received one of those $50 reward junk mail items if I sign up for AT&T Yahoo Internet 'pro' or higher speed.

Well, AT&T no longer offers pro speed at my address (even though I have 3008/512 package on DSL-Ex, and I'm sync'd at that rate!).

I called the 1-866 # to find out what the deal was, as I don't qualify for 'pro'. The C.S. rep was nice enough, and apologized for the confusion, as I don't qualify for it on DSL, but attempted to sell me on Uverse 'pro' or 'elite', which doesn't have the rebates :p
I told him that its no good, as I'm in contract for my TV, and don't want to deal with the outages reported (vs. ~5 minutes since 2003 on DTV due to heavy rain).

He then went to say that I could purchase Uverse Internet ONLY 'pro' for $30/month, or 'elite' for $40/month.
This is GOOD NEWS! I even made sure it didn't require POTS/LD! I mentioned that I'd have to wait for my DSL contract to be up, as well as AT&T to launch VoIP before I'd switch. I have the callback # for ordering it :)
--
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19498997 Sat, 24 Nov 2007 01:46:58 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19352887 en102 : I'm sure there are many that would like to have Internet and Wireless or Internet and VoIP without TV from AT&T.
Qwest appears to be going for high speed DSL w/o TV... why can't AT&T.
--
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19352887 Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:59:00 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19351018 Enlightener : You left out the word (Build Your Own ) `package`. And if there concept of a package is a single service, starting at $54.95 sure is expensive for 1.5MB service.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19351018 Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:21:15 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19350913 d_l : Maybe internet only is under the "build your own" section?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19350913 Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:06:29 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19349945 treaders : At »www.att.com/Uverse/files/u-verse···ml#Order it now says:

"May I order only AT&T U-verse TV, or only AT&T Yahoo! High-speed Internet U-verse Enabled service?
Yes, but you get a discount for having both services. Please visit »uverse.att.com for more product and service information."

I have not yet worked out how to order internet only though.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19349945 Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:27:50 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19322145 koolkid1563 : You do get TV for free for the first month, but you still have to pay for the internet, which isn't that bad anyways.

As for the option to keep the internet after you cancel TV, that used to be a loophole in their system, but I don't know if it is still there.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19322145 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:58:26 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19322113 anon : I just ordered U-Verse because the sales rep who came to my door told me the TV connection is free for the first month and I could cancel it anytime during that month to get just the internet.

Was the guy lying to me?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19322113 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:53:18 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19281563 en102 :
said by NormanS See Profile :

VDSL allows for 52Mbps/16Mbps. Assuming that AT&T will offer it.

»electronics.howstuffworks.com/vdsl2.htm

I am just wondering how they will react when Comcast begins to deploy Docsis 3.0 in my region?
VDSL is good for 52/26Mbps,
VDSL2/VDSL2+ is good for +100Mbps
»ist-muse.org/Documents/NOC2005/S···orks.pdf
--
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19281563 Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:28:02 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19280369 kilometers : I'd be extremely happy if they just let me have 10/10. If they're spending the money on setting up these FTTN connections they need to offer more than just TV tied with lackluster speeds when the line is capable of more. Why turn down extra business because they don't want to offer straight internet connections that utilize the bandwidth capabilities of vdsl...

Oh well. Their loss. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19280369 Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:29:31 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19280070 rugby : Hell yeah, I pay $80/month for Static Elite, I would pay $20 more/month for that speed.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19280070 Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:44:30 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19276099 NormanS : VDSL allows for 52Mbps/16Mbps. Assuming that AT&T will offer it.

»electronics.howstuffworks.com/vdsl2.htm

I am just wondering how they will react when Comcast begins to deploy Docsis 3.0 in my region?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19276099 Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:29:39 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19275985 kilometers : I'm just wondering. Even if they ever did offer an internet only package (haha, yeah right) would their vdsl setup allow for faster upload speeds than 2mbps?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19275985 Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:12:58 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19274898 MarkyD :
said by Freezone See Profile :

I would sign up for $100 25/2 service so fast it would not even be funny.
Ditto. I'm on FTTP, as well...I'd pay for 25/2 if they'd give it to me. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19274898 Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:11:12 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19274872 Freezone : I would sign up for $100 25/2 service so fast it would not even be funny. I used to pay $110 a month for speakeasy 6/768. I currently pay for both comcast and u-verse internet. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19274872 Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:07:22 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19272038 langanfam : My post before was from "Bradddd", I forgot I had a registered account.

Anyways we took the plunge and canceled DirectTV and DSLExtreme and now have ATT U-Verse.

I will say I'm impressed. The internet is a full 1mbps faster even though I supposedly had the 6.0 package through DSLextreme. Also my upload speed doubled, which is nice considering I use my upload very often.

Also I like the tv better then directtv. We got double the channels for the same price. Also you don't have to wait to watch certain movies on HBO, Cinemax, ect. you simply watch them WHENEVER you want, no set stop or start time, best feature in my opinion.

I had to pay $200 to get out of contract with DirectTV, but at this point it seems worth it. Also ATT is growing so fast that I see many more great features being added in the future.

Oh yea one other thing, the install tech told me they have the capability to run 15mbps or faster, but they just havent allowed it yet, but the technology is supposedly there, hopefully we will see it soon.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19272038 Wed, 17 Oct 2007 05:32:35 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19228241 en102 :
said by Frohike See Profile :

said by MarkyD See Profile :

order internet+TV and then cancel the TV portion. They're not going to go to the effort of moving you off the lightspeed network (moving you off the VRAD).
Won't work. Cancel TV - the internet goes with it. The ordering system doesn't allow the rep to seperate it.
According to the 'sales kid' that was here, if you have Internet, they can't offer the same rate on standard DSL (i.e. I have 3000-1500/512 on DSL as 12,000', and I went to 6Mbps/1Mbps), they would allow you to keep the Internet service. I haven't tried this (yet), but may try it after my DTV and DSL-Extreme contracts are up.
--
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19228241 Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:07:46 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19224180 KrK :
said by Frohike See Profile :

Won't work. Cancel TV - the internet goes with it. The ordering system doesn't allow the rep to seperate it.
... By design. Unless you're saying that software cannot be updated.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19224180 Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:56:30 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19224157 KrK : It's purely for (anti)Competitive reasons. This keeps you off Cable and off DirecTV, for example. It also means they know you're more likely to suffer with problems with the TV service in order to not forfeit your solid DSL line. Yes, it does suck.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19224157 Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:53:32 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19207463 NormanS :
said by Bradddd :

Anyone know why they only allow 6.0mbps
It is not what is "allowed", it is what is provided. AT&T installs FTTN (the VRAD being the "N") for the sole purpose of selling TV. They don't want to not put TV out of those fancy, expensive boxes that have to be paid for by subscription.

Perhaps if you offer to pay them double for fast Internet (25mbps, tops) what they collect for IPTV?

Would you really pay $100 per month for Internet only? I wouldn't, and I think very few would (I would not pay my old dial-up provider $99 per month for their SDSL product, either).

If I can't get HSI for under $30 per month I'll go back to dial-up.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19207463 Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:24:05 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19206242 anon : Actually a u-verse employee came to my house and said you CAN cancel the TV and not the internet.

Anyone know why they only allow 6.0mbps

Verizon allows 30 on their fiber optic network]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19206242 Sat, 06 Oct 2007 05:33:33 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19204457 richierudman : I got stuck with only UVerse internet because they couldn't get the TV at 3150ft. I had ADSL, but they cancelled it thinking I had UVerse. So, I am stuck, unless I change m mind with only UVERSE internet. Only keeping it because of the 800kb uploads. Hopefully sometime soon they will be able to enable the tv portion.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19204457 Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:24:46 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19146278 treaders : I'll live in hope that 1 day I'll be able to increase my DSL speed, whether it comes in the form of ADSL, VDSL or another variation.

I just cannot face going back to cable (Time Warner now Comcast) in the Houston area. The unreliability of their network drove us crazy!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19146278 Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:15:00 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19143876 ftthz : wouldn't mind internet only ... but if there tv is even a little better than cable i'm all for it for the right price.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19143876 Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:35:43 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19137801 mjwise : I'm almost in the same boat as you, except that I'm apparently slightly too far from the VRAD for U-Verse at all at this point. I'm sure I could get a heck of a faster than 1.5Mbps DSL internet-only service from the VRAD though, which is what I'm stuck with right now from the CO.

But the TV portion is viewed as the cornerstone of the service (ha!) so you're unlikely to see unbundled internet offers anytime soon. And letting people get U-Verse internet-only that would generally not qualify for TV+Internet would cause non-uniformity of the service, or something. And unbundled high-speed internet connections? Ye gods! That cannot be allowed!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19137801 Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:46:39 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19137435 MarkyD :
said by Freezone See Profile :

That may be true, but i would pay them $100+ a month for 25mbs. They could run a second line or use the bandwidth available if it is thyere.
What I don't understand:
Why won't AT&T offer some crazy high speed internet-only profile, say, 30mbps, for a high price? I mean, at LEAST OFFER those kinds of speeds...for those who want to pay it. It doesn't make sense to me.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19137435 Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:46:25 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19137258 Freezone : That may be true, but i would pay them $100+ a month for 25mbs. They could run a second line or use the bandwidth available if it is thyere. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19137258 Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:18:20 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19136342 Shadow01 : Everyone is missing the point that at&t is not banking on internet for profit growth. IPTV is what they have CHOSEN to promote. In short IPTV sales is important and an internet sale is not or is a lot less important. You need to get past thinking that internet is the most important product in their bundling.
--
R.I.P. Moby 1964 - 2007]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19136342 Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:30:45 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19135323 MarkyD :
said by en102 See Profile :

how much does VRAD based Internet only option cost them ?
normal prices. $35 for elite.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19135323 Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:44:37 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19135230 en102 : how much does VRAD based Internet only option cost them ?
--
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19135230 Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:28:33 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19134549 MarkyD :
said by Frohike See Profile :

said by MarkyD See Profile :

order internet+TV and then cancel the TV portion. They're not going to go to the effort of moving you off the lightspeed network (moving you off the VRAD).
Won't work. Cancel TV - the internet goes with it. The ordering system doesn't allow the rep to seperate it.
actually, several people have done this successfully. It's a "loophole" if you will.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19134549 Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:44:24 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19133983 Frohike :
said by MarkyD See Profile :

order internet+TV and then cancel the TV portion. They're not going to go to the effort of moving you off the lightspeed network (moving you off the VRAD).
Won't work. Cancel TV - the internet goes with it. The ordering system doesn't allow the rep to seperate it. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19133983 Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:05:26 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19133287 vinnie97 : Let the forced bundling continue, aye. Fuhgettabout it, AT&T.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19133287 Mon, 24 Sep 2007 07:33:54 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19132919 en102 : I'm at 12,300' from the CO, and I'm capped at 1984/512kbps.
Uverse brings the fiber to the node (breakout box) typically up to 3000', allowing overall speeds over 100Mbps on VDSL 2+.
Rates are currently capped at 25Mbps, and 6Mbps is the max allowed for Internet :p

I suspect, just as AT&T didn't want dry loop DSL, they don't want Internet only Uverse. You could probably get U100 + Internet 6Mbps and that's as cheap as it'll get.

--
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19132919 Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:30:40 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19132417 cwh : My guess is for the time being they are going to have enough people willing to take the tv/internet bundle to not worry about losing the few customers who only want the internet portion. At some point, they will migrate legacy adsl customers onto the new network. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19132417 Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:33:44 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19132187 treaders : Agreed, your explanation makes sense but why not offer the internet only at a lower rate?

Given that the U-verse VDSL internet speeds appear to be faster (and more accessible) than the AT&T ADSL speeds.

I cannot obtain faster than 1.3Mbps on my AT&T ADSL connection because of my house's distance from the exchange (approx. 12,500 feet). I am assuming that U-verse will have fiber-optic cable closer to my house and therefore my accessible internet speed would increase, at least greater than 1.3Mbps.

Appreciate your thoughts.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19132187 Sun, 23 Sep 2007 22:48:16 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19132184 en102 : Yeah - sort of sucks. I have DTV as well.

I suspect that TV service is a service that more people are willing to pay for the infrastructure overhead than Internet, which is why they've chosen to do it this way.

Eg. DTV x 3 tuners on plus package (+180 channels) = $55/month
While the U200 package 'has more' channels, it misses many of the ones I currently have (more isn't always better), forcing me to look at U300.

U200 = 59/month for 3 tuners
U200 + 1.5Mbps = 74/month
U200 + 3.0Mbps = 79/month
U200 + 6.0Mbps = 89/month

U300 = 79/month, discounted to 64/month for 1st year (2nd year = add $15/month for all U300 items)
U300 with 1.5Mbps = 79/month (same as w/o Internet)
U300 with 3Mbps = 84/month
U300 with 6.0Mpbs = 94/month
Note: the $15/month 'movies' discount is good for a year, and looks like 'movies' can't be removed from U300 :mad:
BASICALLY: ADD $15/month to ALL U300 packages AFTER 1 YEAR :mad:

U400 = 99/month, discounted to 84/month (1st year $15/month discount)
U400 + 1.5Mbps = 99/month (+15/month after 1 year)
U400 + 3.0Mbps = 104/month (+15/month after 1 year)
U400 + 6.0Mbps = 114/month (+15/month after 1 year)

What I currently have:
DTV (old plus package x 3 tuners) = $55 + tax ($59)
POTS
DSL-Extreme 3.0 (2Mbps capped) = $24.98 + tax ($26)
Total: 85 + ~10/POTS = 95
Which puts me about the same as U300 + 1.5Mbps.

Assuming I get rid of POTS (currently use POTS unlimited for $45/month) and go to CallVantange (or similar)

U300 + 3.0: 84/month (really $100) + Vonage/Call Vantage $25 = $125 + taxes

DTV + DSL-Extreme + POTS = $58 + $26 + $45 = $128 + taxes/fees

POTS fees are expensive.

Cable (TW): (TV/HSI/Phone)
'All the best' for 12 months = 89.85 (extra charges for 2nd/3rd tv not listed $6.95/tv programming fee, $4.01/device 'rental' fee x 3)
Regular non-promo price: 114.95 (6Mbps/512kbps)

Prices all look pretty similar once you're done nickel and diming and adding in the taxes/franchise fees/usf, etc.

It comes down to stating ... who has what YOU want for the best price?
--
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19132184 Sun, 23 Sep 2007 22:48:12 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19132145 MarkyD : order internet+TV and then cancel the TV portion. They're not going to go to the effort of moving you off the lightspeed network (moving you off the VRAD).
--
MarkyD, Paper Tiger
MCSA 2K3, SCNP, MCDST, MCITP, ACHDS, ACDT, ACPT, ACTC, A+, Network+ Security+, Server+, Certified Ethical Hacker]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19132145 Sun, 23 Sep 2007 22:40:32 EDT Re: U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19131403 NormanS :
said by treaders See Profile :

On www.att.com/UverseModifiedNeighborhood/index.html it states:

"Because AT&T U-verse members will gain the most features and benefits from having both AT&T U-verse TV and AT&T U-verse Enabled Internet, Internet must always be bundled with TV. Customers can purchase AT&T U-verse TV service as a stand-alone product, but they cannot order AT&T U-verse Internet service only."

I do not understand this reasoning for not offering Internet as a stand-alone product?
Would you pay the same price for Internet only as AT&T will charge for U-Verse? I didn't think so. When it comes to business decisions, the bottom line is the bottom line.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19131403 Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:35:33 EDT U-verse internet only justification http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19131159 anon : On www.att.com/UverseModifiedNeighborhood/index.html it states:

"Because AT&T U-verse members will gain the most features and benefits from having both AT&T U-verse TV and AT&T U-verse Enabled Internet, Internet must always be bundled with TV. Customers can purchase AT&T U-verse TV service as a stand-alone product, but they cannot order AT&T U-verse Internet service only."

I do not understand this reasoning for not offering Internet as a stand-alone product?

I would like to increase my current AT&T ADSL speed from 1.5Mbps but due to my distance from the exchange this is not possible. I thought U-verse's VDSL option would solve the problem but apparently I'm not eligible because I do not want the TV portion (I have DirecTV because they offer the international sports I want).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19131159 Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:48:36 EDT