1 edit | reply to mrexcelion
Re: IP-DSLAM FAQ Hi, I had one other question regarding this service:
Does it require an active home phone service like traditional DSL?
Edit: Well, I see you're calling yours Dry Loop, which would mean it wouldn't need an active phone service. The one that says available for me is:
"AT&T U-verse Internet Pro - D 3.0"
Is that the Dry Loop service? If all versions of this IP-DSLAM don't require an active phone line, this might be a good question to add to the FAQ for people. |
|
| No active phone line required. |
|
 ILpt4UPremium
join:2006-11-12
Lisle, IL
kudos:4
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to mrexcelion
said by mrexcelion:Does it require an active home phone service like traditional DSL?
U-Verse IPDSLAM does not require POTS/Active Phone Service
Then again, neither does traditional ADSL service. I had Dry Loop "normal" ADSL for a couple years before getting U-Verse ADSL2+ IPDSLAM Dry Loop |
|
| reply to gdm
I have a question about equipment. I am in the process of getting IP-DSLAM HSI installed (there is a problem I am told near the central office and they couldn't finish it today. The tech left the 2Wire gateway, but in the past I have used a modem with my own router (currently a Sonicwall). I have the static package ordered. Can I use the Motorola 2210-02-1ATT with my Sonicwall they way I have previously with ADSL or will their be problems? |
|
|
|
ILpt4UPremium
join:2006-11-12
Lisle, IL
kudos:4 | For Static IPs on IPDSLAM, only the 2Wire 2701 is allowed. The Moto 2210 has no way to assign out/deal with the Static IPs |
|
| Can't I put the modem in bridge mode and use the PPPoE in the router? |
|
ILpt4UPremium
join:2006-11-12
Lisle, IL
kudos:4 | Read the first page of this FAQ
But in short, U-Verse internet has no PPPoE |
|
| reply to gdm
I've heard from several techs that the 2Wire is a superior piece of equipment too, FWIW. |
|
ILpt4UPremium
join:2006-11-12
Lisle, IL
kudos:4 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by Ukiah Jim:I've heard from several techs that the 2Wire is a superior piece of equipment too, FWIW.
It is more familiar, as the other U-Verse modems are 2Wires. Just because something is different does not make it inferior, but many techs would feel that way
An example: To qualify for the Max 12 or Max 18 speeds on IPDSLAM, you HAVE to have the Moto 2210. The 2Wire 2701 is not compatible with the faster speeds. Superiority? I'll let each decide on his/her own |
|
| said by ILpt4U:said by Ukiah Jim:I've heard from several techs that the 2Wire is a superior piece of equipment too, FWIW.
An example: To qualify for the Max 12 or Max 18 speeds on IPDSLAM, you HAVE to have the Moto 2210. The 2Wire 2701 is not compatible with the faster speeds. Superiority? I'll let each decide on his/her own Yeah, they did say it's only good up to 6mbps, but much more reliable. Just what I heard. |
|
| I current have traditional DSL with 6Mb/768K plan with DSLExtreme. If I move to AT&T, I can only qualify for IP-DSLAM PRO 3.0Mb. Why is this ? |
|
Reviews:
·LUS Fiber
 ·Brown Dog Networks
| said by kn2011 :I current have traditional DSL with 6Mb/768K plan with DSLExtreme. If I move to AT&T, I can only qualify for IP-DSLAM PRO 3.0Mb. Why is this ?
who knows man. Att has very bizarre business models. Personally ..i wouldn't change then. |
|
| reply to kn2011
@KN: I originally qualified for ATT Traditional DSL 6mb when I signed up for it a year ago. Now that they've transitioned over, I too only see 3mb. I assumed it was because they saw that my attenuation is usually around 48 and SNRs were around 6-9, which is borderline for the 6mb plan, and the service did lose sync in the evenings because of that, so I assume they changed it in their system only offer me 3 now. Could be an automatic thing the system does based on line stats, or maybe they got a tad bit more stringent with requirements for IP-DSLAM. |
|
| reply to gdm
why doesnt att offer pair bonding for adsl2? |
|
| ill ask again ..why doesnt att do pair bonding on adsl2? Their competitors are doing it on their networks ... and then their other telco competitors are doing it too..
so why would they not do it? |
|
| reply to gdm
im sorry i am just coming back form being off for a few days. Right now pair bonding is only available for certain areas for fiber to the node. other than that i cannot say why it is not.
--
Andy - U-Verse Social Media Support Team T2 uversecare@att.com |
|
privdog
join:2011-09-21
Corpus Christi, TX | reply to gdm
This seems like a good thread to ask my question in. So here it goes, any input would be greatly appreciated.
Okay, I have a field office in the middle of Texas, originally we got regular 'ol DSL. AT&T screwed up and had us on a higher tier than our distance would allow. Over 6k feet, @ 6 down and .5 up I think. They tell me my choices are to down grade, or I could try an IP DLSAM(uverse) connection. Well naturally my connection was already slow and I could really used the extra .5(really .3) upstream increase I decided to try the IP DSLAM. Motorola modem only. My connection seems to much improved over the previous DSL connection. The one major problem I'm having is I can't connect to my network drives on my server in Oklahoma. With the old DSL when it was up and didn't error out too much I could at least connect to my drives briefly. I have them mapped by IP Address, and had put my file server in the DMZ and created a rule to allow all file sharing no matter the credentials with no luck. This is all while being connected directly to the modem, no router involved on one end. Full access to the one on the other though. Any other internet connection i connect to(there are two open wifi connections in the area) I have full access to all my network drives and have no problem authenticating on the domain. My IP of the server i'm connecting to is 192.168.0.2, the Motorola has a factory(seemingly permanent) IP of 192.168.7.254. Which I thought the 7 to be a little strange(non standard) but didn't think would matter. Any thoughts at all? AT&T 360 Business support was absolutely no help. |
|
| reply to gdm
It seems like this is the modem being sold for IP-DSLAM now. Anybody have experience with this equipment?
ig51x Internet Gateway
The AT&T U-verse Internet gateway is a single, intelligent device that brings together both your U-verse High Speed Internet and U-verse Voice to distribute them throughout your home.
Internet gateway - front
Get connected
The Internet gateway enables wireless networking capabilities throughout your home. It's powerful enough to help eliminate wireless dead spots and, with encryption security, safeguard against outside access of your Internet connection. In addition, four Ethernet ports for wired LAN connections are included along with connections for phones to your U-verse Voice service.
Your gateway will connect to:
Your personal computers via WiFi and Ethernet so you can use AT&T U-verse High Speed Internet service.
Your personal devices such as WiFi cameras, network printers, mass storage devices, and more...
Your phones, faxes for U-verse Voice service
Features:
Router Functionality
Wi-Fi (wireless Internet)
4 Ethernet ports
Analog Telephone Adapter (for U-verse Voice)
Firewall/security
Easy to install and use
Professional Grade Firewall
Defends your home network against common Internet threats such as Distributed Denial of Service attacks. As well, Internet gateway software updates are made automatically.
Internet gateway - rear
U-verse Internet Gateway connections
Phone Line - Supports 2 Voice lines with single port
Wi-Fi
RJ-11 for DSL service
Local Ethernet - RJ-45 for 4 Ethernet ports
Hi Power 802.11g wireless connection;
no external antenna
Installation
The U-verse Internet gateway is designed for self-install of Internet services. With the Internet self install, you save money by completing the simple install yourself.
For a fee, a highly trained AT&T professional will install your Internet gateway and make all the necessary Internet connections. U-verse Voice service requires a technician to install. |
|
| I'm guessing this is why ATT is now charging $100 to buy the IP-DSLAM modem on their website instead of $75 a few months ago. |
|
Reviews:
·LUS Fiber
·Brown Dog Networks
| I just finished speaking with an att uverse tech/installer working in the building next to mine...
I asked him about the new hgv510 and he said it seems to sync slower than the 2210-2 ... and he couldn't figure out why... saying it was only 800-900kb slower generally ...it was definitely slower syncing.
Also says he received a document or literature on upcoming bonding for adsl2 and will be rolled out beginning at the end of this year ..and that its sole purpose is to extend the lengths at which they can offer to customers ...not to increase speed for existing customers. |
|
