baumgrenze
join:2004-05-29
Palo Alto, CA
| Switch to U-verse - CLEC or ISP - Importance in Switch
I've read that if one has dsl service through an AT&T competitor, the competitive service must be disconnected before AT&T will begin the process of considering installation of U-verse service and that this can lead to an internet disconnect of 1-2 weeks. Is this true when AT&T is the CLEC via ASI? See the last paragraph in this Wiki entry:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLEC
Earthlink, in their short-sighted wisdom, switched my CLEC from COVAD at 300 kbps down to AT&T at 200 kbps down (on a good day.)
Previously, AT&T flat out refused to provide me with DSL. While I am physically close enough to my CO (12,200'), the copper (1920's to 1950's) is so encumbered with extra distance elements like bridge taps that they put me at 17,900'. Clearly COVAD made it work, sort-of. AT&T (ASI) has no incentive to do so if I can be convinced to move from Earthlink to U-verse.
Am I correct in understanding that a VRAD requires a power meter to run? I'm basing my conclusion on the photos in:
»s157.photobucket.com/albums/t60/uverseuser/
It shows a POTS Cabinet in row 2 and a VRAD in row 5. If the photographer/creator of this webpage is correct, telling one from the other should be a slam-dunk.
Thanks,
baumgrenze |
|
ILpt4U
Premium
join:2006-11-12
Lisle, IL
 ·AT&T Yahoo
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·magicjack.com
| Yes, VRADs need power, so there is a power meter at its location.
Occasionally, VRADs are buried in vaults called CEVs. They stick up a little from the ground, but not too much.
I thought all AT&T DSL was technically the CLEC ASI? Not sure. Not my area of expertise... |
|
scooby
Premium
join:2001-05-01
Schaumburg, IL
| reply to baumgrenze
I would guess its probably still true if you are paying Earthlink for the service.
Yes, VRAD's require a working power meter. I'm still confused where my VRAD is. Usually they are right by the cross connect box but unless it is in the ground, there is not one by my cross connect box. It is a larger cross connect box so maybe inside it? I should get some pictures some time. |
|
ILpt4U
Premium
join:2006-11-12
Lisle, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T U-Verse
·magicjack.com
| Very rarely, a single VRAD will server more than one Cross-Box.
My VRAD serves 2 Cross-Boxes that are across the street from each other. The Cross Box that serves me is adjacent to the VRAD, but the other Cross Box it servers is across the street & down the street about 100' |
|
baumgrenze
join:2004-05-29
Palo Alto, CA
| Thanks for all three replies so far.
1) If the VRAD is in a vault or not, the power meter ought to be up where the meter reader can see it. We do not have 'smart meters' here.
2) The Cross-Box I can see looks exactly like the one I referenced in the link.
3) I can find a setup that looks like the VRAD in the link, but it is ~0.4 miles south of my Cross-Box. That is 20 times 100'.
Thanks again,
baumgrenze |
|
ILpt4U
Premium
join:2006-11-12
Lisle, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T U-Verse
·magicjack.com
| Yeah no way a VRAD is .4 of a mile away from a X-Box. That would only leave ~1000' radius in copper left to give U-Verse service.
There is one VRAD/X-Box combo that the VRAD is~1000' away from the X-Box. That is about the farthest I have ever seen. They are supposed to be within 300' in copper distance max between the VRAD & X-Box.
1) Yes if the VRAD is in a CEV Vault the power meter should still be visible above ground
2) K
3) There has got to be another VRAD. Could be in a back yard, pole mounted, buried in a Vault, surrounded by bushes, something. It has to be there... |
|
cfm117
join:2004-02-13
Woodland Hills, CA | reply to baumgrenze
ASI is no longer considered a CLEC according to instructions we get at work. |
|
baumgrenze
join:2004-05-29
Palo Alto, CA
1 edit | said by baumgrenze  :Earthlink, in their short-sighted wisdom, switched my CLEC from COVAD at 300 kbps down to AT&T at 200 kbps down (on a good day.) Thanks, baumgrenze Last night and today I've run dslreports speed tests with the following result. I thought I owed it to sbcglobal to publish them:
Speed Test #73705580 by dslreports.com
Run: 2009-06-23 18:10:02 EST
Download: 633 (Kbps)
Upload: 314 (Kbps)
In kilobytes per second: 77.2 down 38.3 up
Tested by server: 55 java
User: 1015332 @ dslreports.com
User's DNS: sbcglobal.net
Compared to the average of 964 tests from sbcglobal.net:
* download is 82% worse, upload is 56% worse
Contrast this with what I got before my original post:
Run: 2009-06-03 11:57:42 EST
Download: 185 (Kbps)
Upload: 105 (Kbps)
In kilobytes per second: 22.5 down 12.8 up
Tested by server: 55 java
User: 1015332 @ dslreports.com
User's DNS: sbcglobal.net
Compared to the average of 868 tests from sbcglobal.net:
* download is 94% worse, upload is 83% worse
My thanks to whoever at sbcglobal for working on my connection.
I make this ~2.4 x slower than the maximum speed of the 'up to 1.5 Mbps' slowest service from U-verse. By the same token, it is the service that Earthlink sells me as being 'up to 1.5 Mbps' (and your mileage may vary.) It costs me $40/month. From the U-verse website, I gather that the same speed is offered at $25/month, and that this is not a 3 month (or other limited time offer) come-on.
I guess I need to decide if and when I am willing to suspend anything but 56 K dialup for the time it takes to make the switch.
Thanks,
baumgrenze |
|
baumgrenze
join:2004-05-29
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to baumgrenze
said by baumgrenze :Earthlink, in their short-sighted wisdom, switched my CLEC from COVAD at 300 kbps down to AT&T at 200 kbps down (on a good day.) Thanks, baumgrenze Last night and today I've run dslreports speed tests with the following result. I thought I owed it to sbcglobal to publish them:
Speed Test #73705580 by dslreports.com
Run: 2009-06-23 18:10:02 EST
Download: 633 (Kbps)
Upload: 314 (Kbps)
In kilobytes per second: 77.2 down 38.3 up
Tested by server: 55 java
User: 1015332 @ dslreports.com
User's DNS: sbcglobal.net
Compared to the average of 964 tests from sbcglobal.net:
* download is 82% worse, upload is 56% worse
Contrast this with what I got before my original post:
Run: 2009-06-03 11:57:42 EST
Download: 185 (Kbps)
Upload: 105 (Kbps)
In kilobytes per second: 22.5 down 12.8 up
Tested by server: 55 java
User: 1015332 @ dslreports.com
User's DNS: sbcglobal.net
Compared to the average of 868 tests from sbcglobal.net:
* download is 94% worse, upload is 83% worse
My thanks to whoever at sbcglobal for working on my connection.
I make this ~2.4 x slower than the 'up to 1.5 Mbps' slowest service from U-verse. By the same token, it is the service that Earthlink sells me as being 'up to 1.5 Mbps' (and your mileage may vary.) It costs me $40/month. From the U-verse website, I gather that the same speed is offered at $25/month, and that this is not a 3 month (or other limited time offer) come-on.
I guess I need to decide if and when I am willing to suspend anything but 56 K dialup for the time it takes to make the switch.
Thanks,
baumgrenze |
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null | reply to baumgrenze
Don't worry about the DSL. Place an order with U-Verse and if they deny it file a complaint with the FTC, FCC and your state's attorney general.
--
PRescott7-2097 |
|
Shadow01
Premium
join:2003-10-24
Wasteland
·AT&T Midwest
| said by joako :Don't worry about the DSL. Place an order with U-Verse and if they deny it file a complaint with the FTC, FCC and your state's attorney general. The CLEC has to release the line before at&t can legally use it. A complaint about a non-regulated service will not go very far. I bet you stir a lot of shit with no results, don't you?
--
GUN CONTROL:
using both hands |
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by Shadow01 :said by joako :Don't worry about the DSL. Place an order with U-Verse and if they deny it file a complaint with the FTC, FCC and your state's attorney general. The CLEC has to release the line before at&t can legally use it. A complaint about a non-regulated service will not go very far. I bet you stir a lot of shit with no results, don't you? That has nothing to do with AT&T installing a new service. There is no reason why they should intentionally make it hard to order their service if you have a competitor's service.
--
PRescott7-2097 |
|
Alakar
Facts do not cease to exist when ignored
join:2001-03-23
Milwaukee, WI
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by joako :said by Shadow01 :said by joako :Don't worry about the DSL. Place an order with U-Verse and if they deny it file a complaint with the FTC, FCC and your state's attorney general. The CLEC has to release the line before at&t can legally use it. A complaint about a non-regulated service will not go very far. I bet you stir a lot of shit with no results, don't you? That has nothing to do with AT&T installing a new service. There is no reason why they should intentionally make it hard to order their service if you have a competitor's service. You don't know what you're talking about. Per Federal Law, AT&T cannot even begin an order or talk about services and bundles until the competitors service is completely off the line. This is to prevent AT&T, as the ILEC, from using it's position to gain an unfair competitive advantage.
--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt the Younger |
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by Alakar :unfair competitive advantage. And clearly, forcing you to cancel a competitor's service is nothing of this nature.
--
PRescott7-2097 |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by joako :said by Alakar :unfair competitive advantage. And clearly, forcing you to cancel a competitor's service is nothing of this nature. Hmmm. Uverse is VDSL. If you have a competitive ADSL service on the line, you can't put VDSL on the same line. AT&T has to disconnect at the DSLAM, then switch the cross connect from the CO to the VRAD, before starting the service. Should AT&T be allowed to just pull the plug on the competitive DSL service?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to baumgrenze
You have your elected representatives and your federal government to blame for this, not AT&T. In their wisdom, they've decided to protect you from yourself and not allow you to order AT&T services when you already have services from someone else -- because stupid people complained and THERE OUGHTTA BE A LAW.
You get the government you deserve. Enjoy. |
|
