JasonX
join:2008-04-08
Houston, TX | AT&T is wrong here This always really annoyed me about AT&T DSL. When you think about it, it is pretty outrageous that AT&T advertises speeds that no customer, under even perfect circumstances, can EVER actually achieve due to the way they provision the line. It is misleading, and if this causes them to change their practice, I'm all for it. Why must AT&T always err on the side of screwing the customer? |
|
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
 ·row44
1 edit | It is not due to the way they provision the line.
If you are syncing at 3000 kbps, then you are getting 100% speed but you will most likely only be able to download at 2500 kbps due to the overhead from pppoe.
I could never understand why they used pppoe when the only way someone could get DSL was for ATT to physically connect the line. Cable definately could have used pppoe to prevent against mac cloning, but for DSL it made no sense.
I also did not agree with how ATT was stepping down sync speeds. They claimed it was due to line quality, but people who had the fastest speeds for years were stepped down to slower speeds for no real reason.
Now what will this lawsuit seek??? No one really has quantifiable losses and ATT technically did provide the speed.
Also I thought they always avertised at "Up to.."" so really anything under the amount is their advertised speed.
ATT might suck, but lawsuit is not going to go anywhere.
--
Republicans: less fiscally conservative than that other party. |
|
JasonX
join:2008-04-08
Houston, TX | said by r81984:It is not due to the way they provision the line. If you are syncing at 3000 kbps, then you are getting 100% speed but you will most likely only be able to download at 2500 kbps due to the overhead from pppoe. Uh, that's what I meant by "provision the line." The overhead is about 15% or so. |
|
