how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | reply to houkouonchi
Re: Finally getting U-verse Will attempt to add DSL after its up Finally got the DSL line up. Aparrantly AT&T had some outages right during my activation time =(
Anyway I am getting full speed on the DSL Line and my latency is looking much better now:
DSL:
root@sabayonx86-64: 04:06 PM :~# traceroute 208.97.141.21
traceroute to gameserver.houkouonchi.jp (208.97.141.21), 30 hops max, 46 byte packets
1 gateway.houkouonchi.jp (1.1.1.1) 0.062 ms 0.069 ms 0.066 ms
2 netblock-68-183-221-1.dslextreme.com (68.183.221.1) 8.497 ms 8.081 ms 8.077 ms
3 lax1.cr1.gig10.0.1.121.dslextreme.com (66.51.197.177) 8.148 ms 8.591 ms 8.120 ms
4 * * *
5 te8-3.ccr02.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.237) 115.040 ms te4-3.ccr02.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.6.241) 185.251 ms te8-3.ccr02.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.237) 115.827 ms
6 te7-1.mpd03.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.28.142) 148.075 ms 182.928 ms te8-1.mpd03.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.28.146) 191.551 ms
7 38.104.230.10 (38.104.230.10) 8.535 ms 11.821 ms 8.813 ms
8 ip-66-33-201-114.dreamhost.com (66.33.201.114) 9.107 ms 9.535 ms 8.846 ms
9 gameserver.houkouonchi.jp (208.97.141.21) 9.189 ms 8.534 ms 9.109 ms
U-verse:
root@sabayonx86-64: 04:08 PM :~# traceroute 208.97.141.21
traceroute to gameserver.houkouonchi.jp (208.97.141.21), 30 hops max, 46 byte packets
1 gateway.houkouonchi.jp (1.1.1.1) 0.132 ms 0.082 ms 0.077 ms
2 1.2.2.1 (1.2.2.1) 0.804 ms 0.786 ms 0.534 ms
3 99-10-164-3.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net (99.10.164.3) 22.224 ms 21.588 ms 23.454 ms
4 * * *
5 * * *
6 * * 75.20.0.4 (75.20.0.4) 27.080 ms
7 151.164.95.174 (151.164.95.174) 24.047 ms 151.164.42.196 (151.164.42.196) 24.541 ms 151.164.95.174 (151.164.95.174) 24.455 ms
8 ex2-p15-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.39.225) 25.621 ms 25.989 ms 25.871 ms
9 te4-5.mpd01.lax05.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.12.53) 25.755 ms 25.943 ms 25.901 ms
10 te4-1.ccr02.lax05.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.28.70) 25.988 ms te2-1.ccr02.lax05.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.28.66) 26.757 ms te4-1.ccr02.lax05.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.28.70) 26.221 ms
11 te4-2.ccr01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.6.229) 213.904 ms te7-1.ccr01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.77) 26.000 ms 26.198 ms
12 te8-1.mpd03.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.28.146) 26.058 ms te7-1.mpd03.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.28.142) 26.179 ms te8-1.mpd03.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.28.146) 26.025 ms
13 38.104.230.10 (38.104.230.10) 25.233 ms 25.403 ms 25.216 ms
14 ip-66-33-201-114.dreamhost.com (66.33.201.114) 25.259 ms 25.015 ms 25.318 ms
15 gameserver.houkouonchi.jp (208.97.141.21) 24.691 ms 25.228 ms 25.332 ms
And... almost no change on my SnR on my u-verse:
As I knew all along it wasn't a technical limitation its just AT&T's order/billing system being LAME!
The other day when I was playing Quake Live I was getting a 70 ping to northern california and 55-60 ping to Los Angeles (horrible). In general AT&T's routing sucks (I never got that with DSL Extreme).
Anyway here is some screenshots I took of the lagometer of dslextreme, charter and u-verse:
DSL Extreme
U-verse:
Charter:
These were all to the same server and just the other day u-verse was 55-60 to this same server.
--
100mb/100mb OCN fiber connection for $50/month. YAY! | |
| said by houkouonchi:As I knew all along it wasn't a technical limitation its just AT&T's order/billing system being LAME! While a few have here have said there are technical limitations; it is only in rare cases that the crosstalk between the two pairs would interfere with one another.
It is true and many others can attest to having run into the stumbling block of having a third party [CLEC] DSL provider when ordering UVerse. As an end user, I completely understand the frustration that people have when they hit this roadblock.
There are many twists and turned to regulations thanks to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as well as in the various states in which Telcos do business. While the end user feels like the big Telco is not being fair; one must look at it from the Telcos business viewpoint to better understand.
Most third-party [CLEC] providers at some point must use the ILECs copper; this is known as a line share. Because the ILEC is the big guy in town most states say that these "common carriers" must treat the CLECs fairly just like they would any other customer. Giving preferential treatment to one company [or its customers] and/or providing sub-par service to another company usually draws the regulators eyes and we know some of them like to use fine comb tooth when they think the ILECs are playing unfairly.
In the case of UVerse, think of it this way; AT&T [an ILEC] comes into town and announces UVerse is available. If AT&T were to go after just the customers who had third party [CLEC] DSL I am sure you can imagine that the CLECs would be up in arms and trying get the attention of the state PUC/PSCs or possibly even the FCC if the CLEC is is more than one state.
AT&T does not want a bad wrap; so it plays fair. In our UVerse case, to order UVerse you must disconnect you third party [CLEC] service that is a line share before the order will go through. For AT&T this shows the CLEC and the regulators, "Hey, I didn't force him/her to disconnect, he/she chose to leave XYZ, Inc." When you as the end user pull the plug on the third party [CLEC] its saving everyone the headache of a he/said she said argument if things get dirty.
There is no policy that states your UVerse will be disconnected if you choose to add another DSL line or even a third party [CLEC] DSL service on a separate pair. The technical limitation here is that ADSL & VDSL use some of the same portions of the copper line [some of the frequencies allocations overlap] and you cannot run ADSL & VDSL on the same pair. In this case AT&T pays fair and does not limit your choice on who [whom all] you may want data service from so long as they don't interfere [trying to use ADSL & VDSL on one pair].
In the end I'm sure that many may feel like they are going in circles and that all the non-sense that one must go through just to get a similar setup is hogwash. Just remember it is the regulations that are in place that the ILECs are trying to follow so they are stay in business; and the regulators put such rules in place to prevent you from feeling like you don't have a choice [imagine if all you had what just one ISP]. Nothing is as simple as we like, but as you have shown us all, if you navigate the system you can truly use the rules to your advantage to exercise your freedom of choice you have been given.
--
AT&T UVerse Dispatch Center - SouthWest |
Covering AL, AR, CA, FL, GA, KS, KY, LA, MO, MS, NC, NV, OK, SC, TN, & TX | |
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| I do understand where you are coming from on some of your message however:
said by bluepoint951 
AT&T does not want a bad wrap; so it plays fair. In our UVerse case, to order UVerse you must disconnect you third party [CLEC : service that is a line share before the order will go through. For AT&T this shows the CLEC and the regulators, "Hey, I didn't force him/her to disconnect, he/she chose to leave XYZ, Inc." When you as the end user pull the plug on the third party [CLEC] its saving everyone the headache of a he/said she said argument if things get dirty. This is dumb. In fact it was the direct opposite. AT&T *DID* force me to disconnect my DSL provider with my third-party CLEC service in order to get u-verse. I never wanted to do this in the first place. This also made me lose all my static IP addresses I had for 5 years which is why I was *really* reluctant to do this until my lines deterioated and U-verse finally offered higher speeds. It took over 10 hours of my time and dealing with AT&T and 4 attempts to get u-verse installed over a 2 year period. If AT&T didn't have these lame requirements and hoops to jump through AT&T would have been receiving my money for u-verse service for 2 years and instead they lost out on 2 years of payments for u-verse service.
I was actually told by someone at AT&T when ordering u-verse when I said I was planning on bringing in a DSL line after the u-verse got back up in running with my old provider since they wouldn't let me get u-verse installed while It was running that my order would be canceled by AT&T even if it was on another phone-line. I sure am glad I ignored them and tried anyway.
You don't even want to know how many u-verse personnel told me it was a technical limitation and that u-verse and DSL couldn't go to the same premises *even* on different pairs which is what I was trying to do. This made no sense to me since its no difference then going to a different house as they are different pairs. Getting this u-verse line up was a huge nightmare and U-verse is possible to get installed on a dry-loop but DSL is not so going the route I went also required I pay AT&T for another phone line for the DSL line which I think is pretty lame as well.
It seems to me that the only thing AT&T is doing by preventing a u-verse install when you have existing DSL service with another provider is being anti-competitive plain and simple.
--
100mb/100mb OCN fiber connection for $50/month. YAY! | |
Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by houkouonchi:This is dumb. In fact it was the direct opposite. AT&T *DID* force me to disconnect my DSL provider with my third-party CLEC service in order to get u-verse. I never wanted to do this in the first place. yes, it's dumb, but it's the regulatory/legal system that's dumb. A giant like AT&T cannot afford to be tied up in the lawsuits and the regulator inquiries that would ensue if they started replacing competitors' DSL installs. So they don't.
AT&T wants to walk into an install with either no DSL, or AT&T's own DSL, currently up and running. They simply won't, as a matter of policy, replace a competitor's DSL, even if that's the customer's wish.
What's worse is that the disconnect of the customer's DSL must be documented to AT&T before they'll start. Yes this is CYA, but they have a very big A to be C'd.
This is simply a case (among countless others) of unintended consequences of a law/regulation that was supposed to protect and aid consumers, but in fact makes their experience much worse.
Frankly, what the law/regulation does is protect stupid, lazy consumers from themselves. Someone like you who knows what they are doing and is perfectly capable of managing multiple vendors gets shafted. | |
| Yeah well what sucks is I wasn't trying to replace my DSL to begin with, I was just trying to add U-verse!
--
100mb/100mb OCN fiber connection for $50/month. YAY! | |
|
