dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4455
share rss forum feed


mikedz4

join:2003-04-14
Weirton, WV
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

uverse internet but not tv?

Another co-worker said att approached them about buying att uverse internet at 6megs down. I didn't think they offered just uverse internet let alone in eastern ohio but they keep marketing it for some reason.
Is this really uverse and if not why are they confusing customers why not call it uverse lite or something like that?


WhyMe420
Premium
join:2009-04-06
kudos:1

If they only offer Internet and no TV then it's not "true" U-verse.



mikedz4

join:2003-04-14
Weirton, WV

how can the market it as uverse ?



ILpt4U
Premium
join:2006-11-12
Lisle, IL
kudos:9

U-Verse is a brand name

AT&T could sell a cell phone package as U-Verse if they wanted to



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to WhyMe420

said by WhyMe420:

If they only offer Internet and no TV then it's not "true" U-verse.

AT&T uses "U-verse Internet" to distinguish IPDSL from ADSL. They do offer IPDSL without TV, and they do call it, "U-verse Internet".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO

1 recommendation

reply to mikedz4

I'm waiting for AT&T to deploy U-Verse Dialup in my area. If I'm lucky, I'll qualify for 56k. But, based on the conditions of my line, I may have to settle for 28.8.
--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.


WhyMe420
Premium
join:2009-04-06
kudos:1
reply to NormanS

said by NormanS:

said by WhyMe420:

If they only offer Internet and no TV then it's not "true" U-verse.

AT&T uses "U-verse Internet" to distinguish IPDSL from ADSL. They do offer IPDSL without TV, and they do call it, "U-verse Internet".

Yes but it's not really much different than ADSL (it actually still is ADSL2+) unlike "true" U-verse (VDSL2, rarely FTTP.)


ILpt4U
Premium
join:2006-11-12
Lisle, IL
kudos:9
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse

It is ADSL2+ and it comes out of an Alcatel-Lucent 7330 DSLAM (which is the same DSLAM that the VRADs are). Obviously the ADSL2+ 7330s have ADSL2+ Line Cards in them, and the VRADs have VDSL2 Line Cards in them

It is IP/DHCP based, like the "other" VDSL/FTTP U-Verse, as opposed to ATM/PPPoE based, as traditional ADSL is

Depending on distance from the CO (and in the future RTs/CEVs when they are upgraded to IPDSLAMs), you can qualify for up to 18 Mbps ADSL2+ U-Verse Internet, whereas with traditional ADSL, the max available was 6 Mbps

Other than that, yeah the IPDSLAM and traditional ADSL products are pretty similar


WhyMe420
Premium
join:2009-04-06
kudos:1

Yes and that is where the similarities between it and "true" U-verse end. All in all it's a lot more like the same old ADSL that has always been around.



mikedz4

join:2003-04-14
Weirton, WV
reply to mikedz4

so the u-verse internet they are selling my co-workers is the same that someday will be used to compete with comcast?



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to WhyMe420

"U-verse", being a trademarked product name, coined by AT&T, can be used any way they like.

"U-verse Internet", while ADSL2+, can't be accessed by any old ADSL2+ capable modem, such as the ZTE 831II I got from Sonic.net for their "Fusion" service. U-verse Internet can only be accessed by an AT&T issued IPDSL modem.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


WhyMe420
Premium
join:2009-04-06
kudos:1

said by NormanS:

"U-verse", being a trademarked product name, coined by AT&T, can be used any way they like.

"U-verse Internet", while ADSL2+, can't be accessed by any old ADSL2+ capable modem, such as the ZTE 831II I got from Sonic.net for their "Fusion" service. U-verse Internet can only be accessed by an AT&T issued IPDSL modem.

Thank you, Captain Obvious, but it's still just the same old ADSL, with a few changes. It is NOT going to compete with cable, like "true" U-verse can (but not for very long.)


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

"True this", "True that". There is nothing, absolutely nothing, "true" about "U-verse". It is just a brand name!

P.S. Speaking of "Captain Obvious":

quote:
It is NOT going to compete with cable...

Indeed. Until AT&T bites the capital bullet, and starts deploying FTTH, there is no way they will be able to offer a product competitive to cable.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


mmay149q
Premium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48
reply to djrobx

said by djrobx:

I'm waiting for AT&T to deploy U-Verse Dialup in my area. If I'm lucky, I'll qualify for 56k. But, based on the conditions of my line, I may have to settle for 28.8.

Oh, how much is that? Does it come with a 1GB cap? Or are we going back to the AOL days of being limited by the hours a month we use? xD

Matt
--
I am no longer an AT&T Employee. Check out my kudos! »/profile/1626573
Have U-verse questions? Please email uversecare@att.com and they will assist you!!

WhyMe420
Premium
join:2009-04-06
kudos:1

1 edit
reply to NormanS

said by NormanS:

"True this", "True that". There is nothing, absolutely nothing, "true" about "U-verse". It is just a brand name!

P.S. Speaking of "Captain Obvious":

quote:
It is NOT going to compete with cable...

Indeed. Until AT&T bites the capital bullet, and starts deploying FTTH, there is no way they will be able to offer a product competitive to cable.

When U-verse first came out, it was actually different than ADSL, in that it used VDSL. It is much faster than the stagnant 6Mbps or less that ADSL provides. This "U-verse Internet" crap is not much different than ADSL no matter what way you put it, and you know just as well as I do they only called it "U-verse" in order to deceive people into thinking it is a new product when in fact it is barely better than the ADSL we've been seeing since 2005. U-verse VDSL at least can compete with cable (barely) whereas that other junk you keep defending has no chance. Why is that concept so hard for you to grasp?

EDIT: I do agree, FTTP is the way to go, but we'll probably all be dead and buried before AT&T does that.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

I suppose ADSL2+ isn't squat, compared with ADSL. I can only get twice as much speed on ADSL2+ as I was getting with ADSL for my distance to the CO.

at&t Yahoo! HSI Pro (ADSL with PPPoE):


Sonic.net Fusion (ADSL2+ with DHCP):


--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


WhyMe420
Premium
join:2009-04-06
kudos:1

said by NormanS:

I suppose ADSL2+ isn't squat, compared with ADSL. I can only get twice as much speed on ADSL2+ as I was getting with ADSL for my distance to the CO.

Your post only proves my point further. You can't get 24Mbps with "U-verse Internet" as you (might) with "true" U-verse. Nor can you get 1Mbps+ upload as with "true" U-verse. Yes, ADSL2+ improves things for people with marginal lines and/or a good amount of distance.

Calling the ADSL2+ "U-verse" makes about as much sense as it would make to call AT&T's now VDSL2 implementation (as opposed to VDSL1 which U-verse started out with) *insert next-gen gimmicky name here*. Then again AT&T calls U-verse "fiber optics" so I guess there's not really any reason to expect them to make sense.


ILpt4U
Premium
join:2006-11-12
Lisle, IL
kudos:9
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse

said by WhyMe420:

Then again AT&T calls U-verse "fiber optics" so I guess there's not really any reason to expect them to make sense.

Your F1 is (basically) switched from Copper to Fiber when you go to FTTN U-Verse. Depending how far you are from the CO, that might be a substantial bit of Copper being replaced with Fiber. So its not total FUD by AT&T to call U-Verse "fiber optics"

Now calling CO-based ADSL2+ U-Verse "Fiber Optic" when compared to CO-based POTS/Traditional ADSL, that would be total FUD


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to WhyMe420

said by WhyMe420:

Your post only proves my point further. You can't get 24Mbps with "U-verse Internet" as you (might) with "true" U-verse. Nor can you get 1Mbps+ upload as with "true" U-verse. Yes, ADSL2+ improves things for people with marginal lines and/or a good amount of distance.

Maybe, but I am on a CO connection, and thus not eligible for any U-verse product. I do have "Fusion" (Sonic.net, LLC offering), but I am 9,156 feet from the CO. There is a VRAD much closer, but not for me, for some reason. OTOH, with just ADSL2+ (not "true U-verse"), if I was a mere 3,000 feet from the CO, I could get the 20 mb/s "Fusion". So, it isn't the protocol (ADSL, ADSL2+, or VDSL) but the distance which separates "True U-verse" from "Faux U-verse".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

WhyMe420
Premium
join:2009-04-06
kudos:1
reply to ILpt4U

said by ILpt4U:

said by WhyMe420:

Then again AT&T calls U-verse "fiber optics" so I guess there's not really any reason to expect them to make sense.

Your F1 is (basically) switched from Copper to Fiber when you go to U-Verse. Depending how far you are from the CO, that might be a substantial bit of Copper being replaced with Fiber. So its not total FUD by AT&T to call U-Verse "fiber optics"

Well that might be plausible but considering that a lot of the time AT&T will swear up and down that it is fiber to the home, not very. Still, even with fiber optics being ran to the neighborhood, using antiquated lines to deliver the rest of the way completely trounces the "fiber optics" claim. I mean, it makes about as much sense as claiming dial-up is "fiber optics" seeing as at some point even on dial-up your data will travel along some fiber optic line along the way.

They might as well cal ADSL "fiber optics" as well. Hell, why don't they call their 3G "fiber optics" seeing as that's what the cell towers are hooked up to.

Let's just call everything fiber optics while we're at it.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

U-verse IPTV is different from cable only in the last mile of delivery, where cable uses metal (coax) and telco uses metal (twisted pair). To paraphrase the corn industry's HFCS ads, "metal is metal".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


WhyMe420
Premium
join:2009-04-06
kudos:1
reply to NormanS

said by NormanS:

said by WhyMe420:

Your post only proves my point further. You can't get 24Mbps with "U-verse Internet" as you (might) with "true" U-verse. Nor can you get 1Mbps+ upload as with "true" U-verse. Yes, ADSL2+ improves things for people with marginal lines and/or a good amount of distance.

Maybe, but I am on a CO connection, and thus not eligible for any U-verse product. I do have "Fusion" (Sonic.net, LLC offering), but I am 9,156 feet from the CO. There is a VRAD much closer, but not for me, for some reason. OTOH, with just ADSL2+ (not "true U-verse"), if I was a mere 3,000 feet from the CO, I could get the 20 mb/s "Fusion". So, it isn't the protocol (ADSL, ADSL2+, or VDSL) but the distance which separates "True U-verse" from "Faux U-verse".

Okay now you're just going off about another company when I am referring to AT&T, but since we're getting technical here, allow me to retort with the following chart:




As you can see, the protocol does in fact make a difference, as at that same 3000 feet VDSL can (supposedly, but not on many of the antique lines AT&T uses) handle 30Mbps, versus the 20Mbps ADSL2+ (may) be able to handle, and that is just the VDSL1 protocol, not even taking into account VDSL2. So it is indeed the protocol as well as the distance that separates "true" U-verse from "faux" U-verse.

said by NormanS:

U-verse IPTV is different from cable only in the last mile of delivery, where cable uses metal (coax) and telco uses metal (twisted pair). To paraphrase the corn industry's HFCS ads, "metal is metal".

You couldn't be any more wrong here, either. Coax is shielded and sweeped for at least 900MHz of bandwidth (even more in many locations.) Twisted pair is unshielded and lucky to get 9MHz of bandwidth. Even at that, I wouldn't want the cable co's claiming that they're "fiber optics" either (some companies do.)


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11

Fair enough:
»www.uselessgraphics.com/doglastwd.gif


WhyMe420
Premium
join:2009-04-06
kudos:1

Not to worry, all of U-verse will be a joke in the next few years, as cable co's are pushing 60+ Mbps through their coax and U-verse will still be struggling to get people 24Mbps.

However, if things keep going the way they are, it won't matter if you have a 60Mbps connection, as you'll just have to worry more about your cap. I'm just glad Charter raises their caps for the higher speed tiers (250GB for 25/3, 500GB for 60/5.) Looks to me like everyone but Verizon will have caps, though, who knows how long they'll stay uncapped.



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

I have yet to see 60 mb/s at affordable rates. I don't consider Comcast affordable at all, here in San José, California. But they aren't pushing 60 mb/s here. Yet.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum



simplykristi
Cancer Sucks
Premium
join:2001-11-28
Blue Springs, MO
reply to mikedz4

My friends have U-Verse Internet. I had to do the inside install. The tech came out and turned it on outside.


WhyMe420
Premium
join:2009-04-06
kudos:1
reply to NormanS

said by NormanS:

I have yet to see 60 mb/s at affordable rates. I don't consider Comcast affordable at all, here in San José, California. But they aren't pushing 60 mb/s here. Yet.

Well, as the years go on, AT&T will still be overpricing slower DSL speeds while cable co's will make a lot faster connections more affordable.
Expand your moderator at work


maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:2
reply to NormanS

Re: uverse internet but not tv?

said by NormanS:

I have yet to see 60 mb/s at affordable rates. I don't consider Comcast affordable at all, here in San José, California. But they aren't pushing 60 mb/s here. Yet.

Not in the U.S.A., anyways. In The Netherlands for instance, UPC.nl can deliver s 60/6 Mbps connection for 35 Euro a month (approx: $50) and a 120/10 Mbps connection for 50 Euro a month (approx: $70) and they come with NO caps whatsoever.

And yea, The Netherlands is fairly small, about the size of Connecticut.... but that doesn't mean that companies in the U.S. can't deliver internet for roughly the same price to urban areas.

In Paris, France, you can get a 100 Mbit/s fiber optic line through Orange.fr for 33.90 Euro a month. In Stockholm, Sweden, 100 Mbit/s fiber can be gotten through Telia.se for 339 Swedish Crowns, which according to xe.com is about $52.

Why does a DOCSIS 3.0 connection in Los Angeles or New York, where they have petabytes of backbone bandwidth available, still cost $179 per month, or something ridiculous like that? If in the Netherlands, France and Sweden they can offer the same for $100 less a month ($1200 per year less) you can't tell me that is all because the U.S. is so big, or a city like New York would have different challenges (read: way more expensive challenges) then say Amsterdam, Paris or Stockholm.

I understand that the backroads of America can't be provided with connections like that any time soon. But the major urban areas, where 75% of all Americans live, SHOULD be able to get these types of bandwidth, for very similar cost.... or even 25% more expensive then in Europe, but not 150% more expensive.

It is actually what is SAVING AT&T right now. If DOCSIS 3.0 type connection would actually only cost about 25% more then what they cost in Europe, AT&T executives would wet their pants and go.... "ok, now what!" - Because they wouldn't be able to compete with their current infrastructure.

And who knows.... maybe in 2 years from DOCSIS 3.0 connections WILL be cheaper. And if AT&T isn't ready, they are going to lose out. Fast.

--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"


maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:2
reply to NormanS

said by NormanS:

U-verse IPTV is different from cable only in the last mile of delivery, where cable uses metal (coax) and telco uses metal (twisted pair). To paraphrase the corn industry's HFCS ads, "metal is metal".

The difference however.... that the one "metal" is able to deliver 100 Mbps DOCSIS 3.0 over 2 miles of cable, whereas the other "metal" is not.

To put it differently: Cable can offer 100 Mbps (or 60 Mbps) to EVERY single house in a DOCSIS 3.0 ready city, whereas AT&T's metal can do 24 Mbps in some instances, and within a 2 mile radius will only be able to do 6 Mbps to another customer, and no more then 12 Mbps to yet another. Basically it varies per customer.

My neighbor ACROSS THE STEET for instance can only get 12 Mbps U-verse, because his side of the street is served by a different VRAD. I am 800 feet away from mine, he is over 2000 feet away from his. I can get 24 Mbps.

So no.... "metal" is not "metal".
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"