AT&T U-verse → AT&T U-verse FTTP speeds, why do they limit fibre to 18/1.5?

There's an urban legend that AT&T limits fibre offerings to 18/1.5, whereas xDSL customers can get 24/3. Is there any way for me to get 24/3 on my fibre line? Or, at the very least, 3 on the upload side? The 1.5Mbps upload is kinda pathetic, and is more than twice slower than what I can get on my UMTS HSUPA phone.

I tried finding any official piece of evidence regarding this, and I've also filed a few complaints within AT&T itself in that they fail to honour their advertisements and mere common sense, where failure to offer 24/3 does not seem to derive from any kind of unfeasibility or technological limitation — they merely refuse to offer it without providing any plausible explanation.

AT&T does not have to justify why it uses the outdated technology it does, why it has sometimes seemingly arbitrary data rate limits, why it charges what it does for outdated technology, or why it thinks it it doing fine. As a private company in a nation that has deregulated internet telecommunications, AT&T can do or not do whatever it wants. The AT&T network engineers know that FTTH is the way to go. They have seen electric utility companies do it, they have seen small local telephone companies do it, and they have seen small municipalities do it. But Wall Street analysts and AT&T stockholders hate capital expenditures, think dial up is good enough for the lower classes, and that the only thing to invest in is mobile wireless. So if you want real high speed internet, you will have to become a corporation, locate in an area zoned for industrial or commercial that has an enterprise level access to an OC-3072/STM1024 fiber data system (159.252 Gbit/s 19.907 GB/s), and request service using a portion of that system. Then AT&T will be willing to provide real customer satisfaction.

LOL !

Fiber is on a 30/3.6 profile. Until they get around to upping that to 32/5 or more, you'll just have to sit back and wish you had the same awesome FTTN technology that the rest of us have today.

</sarcasm>

How do you know fibre is on 30/3.6?

Looks like the Motorola U-verse TV box shows some info about ingress / egress profiles and such, but there's none on the 2Wire RG, as it's not acting as a modem at all.

Regardless, the question is then:

Why is it on 30/3.6? Even if it really is on 30/3.6, how come it's not possible to offer a "best effort" 24/3 package.

I mean, come on, 1.5Mbps upload provisioning being the fastest they do on last mile fibre — it's laughable! Is anyone aware of any other company in the world that even allows customers to subscribe to a package with such low speeds if the said customer has fibre on their premises? If you trust their website, Cincinnatibell's slowest upload tier on Fioptics is 2Mbps upload, fastest — 20Mbps upload. AT&T's? Way under 1Mbps, to merely 1.5Mbps. What a joke!

Fiber is on 30/3.6 -- trust us

Q: Why do they limit fibre to 18/1.5?

A: Because they're AT&T.

No, the limit of 18/1.5 is simply due to the FTTP profile. The HSIA profile is always a subset of the provisioned profile.

To support the HSIA of 24/3, you need the 32/5 ( UvClass11 Stream Profile ). Since the FTTP profile is only 30/3.6 there is not enough additional headroom to currently support a higher HSIA profile.

The reason for the 30/3.6 service profile is due the plant currently installed and not the raw native capacity of fiber. Until the plant is upgraded the profile is limited.

Dave

...and only AT&T would have limitations like that for FTTP.

Thank you for your response, dave006.

So, AT&T actually has a technical limitation with the active equipment that is used for fibre?

Pardon me, but this makes no sense. Why is AT&T wasting money on fibre equipment that is rated for slower service than the copper equipment they deploy at the very same time? This certainly seems like a backwards approach. Are you getting it refurbished from foreign countries as they upgrade their fibre networks? Why does noone else offers fibre service that is really so slow?

How much of the equipment presents the bottleneck, and where is it located? In my case, would it be in my bedroom, one of the cabinets in this 2010-build apartment complex in San Jose, or somewhere else in the city?

Is the upstream really limited to 3.6 on the profile? I'm getting 20000000 (e.g. 20M) reported on my TV box for "Egress Profile". Together with "26960400 (Ingress)" text on the line above on the same screen, doesn't this suggest that I'm on a 26960400/20000000 profile, e.g. 26/20?

Are you firmly suggesting that active equipment is limited to 30Mbps down and 3.6Mbps up? Or might the upstream limit be more adequate?

In either case, if I am not watching TV, or if one doesn't have it in the first place, wouldn't such a line still benefit from 24/3 internet being provisioned, which would likely at least supply speeds on the order of 22/2 or 22/2.5 minimum, and probably even up to the full 24/3 if no TV is being watched?

AT&T, I really wanna pay you 10 extra dollars for honest best effort increase in speed. I'm a software engineer, I'm not asking for anything that cannot be implemented with the technology that's already there, I'm just asking for you to flip a switch on the stuff you already have and offer, and which is even in line with what you already advertise as available in the market. Why do you not want my 10 extra dollars?

I was under the impression it was more the CO equipment that limits the line to 30/3.6, but don't quote me on that

Egress/Ingress on your DVR mean nothing about network connection -- that is the description of bandwidth for live tv & shared/whole home DVR tv

Yes, FTTP is currently limited due to an older plant which is a combination of hardware and software located in a number of locations between the CO and your termination. Until the plant is upgraded you are limited to 30/3.6 service profile.

AT&T / SBC / BellSouth/ ...other bell names have been rolling out FTTP/H since about 1998. The older plant was built using specific technology that is being upgraded. Fiber technology has changed quite a bit since SMF.

As another poster indicated, the Ingress / Egress profiles that you see on your DVR are only for the number of IPTV streams inbound and the number of outbound IPTV streams your DVR can support (recorded shows delivered to additional STBs) The Egress profile from your DVR has nothing to do with your upstream service profile or HSIA profile.

Yes FTTP customers are limited to 30/3.6 until the plant is upgraded. To have the 24/3 HSIA profile you need to be on the 32/5 service profile. So given your existing profile of 30/3.6 the max HSIA service you qualify for is 18/1.5 today.

Dave

Thanks, dave006, this is probably one of the most informative replies I got from AT&T so far. How come noone knows that AT&T (and whatever it used to call itself prior to the last rebranding) was installing FTTP since 1998? Are all, or almost all, new residential housing prewired with fibre since 1998?

Anyhow, this still doesn't solve my problem or answer my question: why am I denied purchasing something that will surely improve my experience, and that is still technologically possible?

Let me tell you a story:
I used to have 512Kbps ADSL with Sprint in NC, which was the fastest they offered. After a while and some price changes, they started offering 1.5Mbps for a price cheaper than what I was paying for 512; I was upgraded to 1.5 through sales, but they have a habit of leaving people not fully capable of 1.5 on the old 512 profile at DSLAM/whatever.
Well, long story short, but I researched the question with multiple sources (including all the line statistics offered by the modem), contacted ZyXEL support for my Prestige modem to discuss the issue, etc etc. I came to the conclusion that the line was absolutely capable of higher speeds (just not full 1.5 with 1.7 sync), it was all technologically possible (unlike they insisted that it was not — either 512 or 1.5, with nothing in between), and I insisted to be put on a higher profile that I was already paying for.
Well, guess what? After a dozen of attempts, and talking with a number of support folks through all means possible, I finally got in contact with someone who could make the change. He told me if he does the change, my line will become very unstable etc etc. I took full responsibility. Guess what happened? My ZyXEL modem started syncing with 1.2Mbps (the maximum possible on the line, my/modems prior estimate about line potential ("relative capacity occupation") was even lower than that), the line got much faster, upstream totally faster, and I was consistently getting more than twice the speed than what I was getting prior. Was it stable? Heck yeah! Why would it not be, that's why all those seamless downgrade retrain and error correction protocols are there for! It was a brand new stable line in a new apartment complex, merely being very far away from the CO. Working at the lowest noise margin and above 100% relative capacity occupation. Yes, what's wrong with that? Yes, it was absolutely stable; I had many days between connection resets / complete retrains (it was long time ago, don't recall any more details or technical terms).
Funny thing: even after it all worked for weeks before I moved out, and I occasionally shared my success on here at dslreports, Sprint's / Embarq's unofficial employees in this forum in my threads continued to insist that they know their network better, that people paying for 1.5 can (and should always under circumstances such as mine) be artificially limited to 512 without their knowledge that they could as well be reliably receiving higher speeds. I.e., according to Sprint, everyone should be below 80% relative capacity occupation for the 1.5 line, and due to Sprint not supporting anything between 512 and 1.5 (what?), everyone is strongly advised against any line provisioning with more than 80% relative capacity occupation! Yeah, right! I had 102%, and going strong for days!

What am I trying to say? I believe in technology, and I don't believe in artificial limitations. Even if your equipment is absolutely setup at 30/3.6 software limit that cannot be changed for unspecified reasons (still no word on what the limit exactly is all about or where exactly is it at), I'm absolutely certain that I can get "free" speed improvements should I be put on the 24/3 HSI profile, away from 18/1.5. I will not give up until the commercials are honoured. I demand getting my promised upgrade gift card, demand being charged more monthly, and demand being provisioned up to what I'd be charged. There is no technical limitations that I can't get at least somewhat higher speeds with my line.

OK, good luck with that attitude.

It is not techniically possible given your current configuration, you will have to wait for the upgrade or better yet consider moving to a better served location.

Dave

Away from the largest city in the prosperous northern California, to the province like Brigham City, UT with UTOPIA and symmetrical 50Mbps/50Mbps fibre for 77 dollars monthly? I'm not that extreme, but Sebastopol, CA with 1Gbps/100Mbps Sonic Fusion for 69 dollars sounds interesting, I'll see how it ends up being.

Well, I meant "kindly demand" above. Dave006, I'm grateful for your help, I doubt you represent the higher management that makes these questionable decisions, and I agree that people might not like my attitude as above, but how would you feel in my situation, with having fibre in your closet in a major metropolis and being offered broadband speeds below those you'd find in second world countries?

When will the upgrade happen for fibre customers? Will AT&T offer competitive 1Gbps speeds anytime before 10Gbps comes in into our home networks and takes over? (Read, "anywhere within the next 5 or even 10 years?") I'm being serious here, I don't understand why I can't have cheap symmetric 1Gbps here in San Jose today, without spending a fortune.

P.S. No offense, but "it is not technically possible" were the words I kept being told by Sprint/Embarq back in the day. I just searched this forum, and found out in my 5-year-old thread someone even continued to insist that it was not technically possible to have an ADSL speed higher than 512K if the line didn't support full 1.5M provisioning (with 1.7M sync). Sprint's anonymous employee volunteer continued with such claims even after I successfully had a very stable 1.2M sync when against their regular practice I was finally placed onto the 1.5M provisioning profile, which was supposed to make my far-away line very unstable. 'just saying. ^_^

Don't get me wrong, Dave, I know from your posts above you have good intentions. Thing is, I get these emails from AT&T every now and then, offering me to upgrade my internet, yet when I arrive to the web-page, the 24/3 option is disabled, and no options, other than a downgrade from 18/1.5, are available. I call the sales department, and they keep on insisting that I live too far from the CO / VRAD / whatever. I tell them I have all fibre in a metropolis, and distance doesn't matter, yet many of them would still insist that I live too far, or some even claim that everyone has fibre (failing to realise that the majority of customers are on the copper). One former-tech/now-sales guy claimed that even though I have FTTH, some other parts of the network between me and AT&T are still through copper, thus the limit; yeah, right! Even the U-verse guy that came to connect the 2Wire RG to the ONT insisted that even with FTTH, distance matters (and he was like more than 200% certain of that). After all of this, how can you expect advanced customers to have any confidence in the company as a whole where so many of the employees are misinformed? I'm not suggesting that everyone is, and I know it's not likely their own fault, but I hope you get my point. I'd really just like to be offered at least the advertised service — 24/3 — and call it a day.

In summary, I'm very interested in learning more about the architecture and the technologies involved, and what makes the whole thing work (or not), and on why exactly is it deemed impossible to honour the ads in the current configuration.

Best regards,
Constantine.

Actually the U-verse guy is correct, even with FTTP distance matters.

It is true that fiber is not as distance sensitive as copper for HSIA, distance still matter even with fiber. Fiber distribution segments are only good to a total of 12.4 miles (20 km) from the Central Office (CO). This is the max distance between the OLT and the ONT. Just a simple FDF cross-connect in the CO or the VRAD is a loss of about 0.3dB. This equates to about 3000 feet of fiber. Now add a splitter and your ONT termination and the available distance drops quickly...

Dave

Yes, Dave, of course that guy's right! In the middle of San Jose, I must surely be too far away from the CO! Hey, that huge AT&T building / tower in downtown San Jose (next to The Blank Club and Greyhound), which apparently might be the one famous for an employee trying to clean up the fridge from rotten food (google it), is a whole 10 minute bike ride away from my place! Too far, man, too far! Wish I lived closer! Oh, wait, lemme guess, that building is probably too far away from the CO, too! Man!

I'm actually curious: how's your internet at work, guys? Do you have Gigabit Ethernet with full-speed Internet access, or are you stuck with 2Wire modems and 18Mbps fibre with 1.5Mbps upload speeds? What about the upper management? I recall them going on record that current AT&T offerings are more than enough for everyone. Do they also enjoy 1.5Mbps upload speeds in their office and at home?

I never indicated that you were "too far" away from the CO for 24/3 HSIA service. We covered that issue already above based on the only FTTP service profile currently available on U-verse, you are limited to a max of 18/1.5 HSIA.

I just explained that distance still matters even with fiber. Just a thought, since you mentioned a 10 minute bike ride, you do understand that we are not talking about physical distance?

In the case of fiber technology we are talking about the equivalent distance as a loss of db signal from the OLT to the ONT.

Dave

Yes, of course, it's not the straight line distance, and that AT&T tower downtown probably doesn't act as a CO, either.

Anyhow. Still no word on how come FTTP is limited to 30/3.6 link layer provisioning. What's holding it from the 32/5 that is available for FTTN?

AT&T has old/crappy fiber equipment and they are too cheap to replace it as FTTP customers only account for 10% or less of their consumer base. They don't think the ROI would be worth it and their shareholders still think dial-up is a viable option so in order to maximize profits and please shareholders they don't "waste" any money on FTTP customers as shareholders already think that 18/1.5 is "fast."

I looked more at what people say about U-verse. People mention that watching TV slows down the service. My conclusion: if I really do have 30/3.6, and that's the line limit, AT&T should have absolutely no problems whatsoever getting me onto the 24/3 internet profile, it's going to make my internet faster, and even TV would still continue to work.

(This reminds me of the double standards of Sprint, where only those who were subscribed to 1.5Mbps were (in my opinion fraudulently) provisioned with the inferior 512 service if their line was rated for below the full 1.5 sync, whereas everyone with higher plans was getting their full provisioning, even if it meant synching below their expected maximum rates.)

I'm looking for an AT&T U-verse sales/tech person who could sign me up for 24/3 package, and then I'm looking for a tech person who could do the provisioning. Any help is appreciated. I firmly believe that, apart from the ordering system itself, there is no known technical limitation of why my line cannot deliver faster internet; I kindly demand AT&T honours their price list and provides ability to purchase the internet service advertised.

If, and that's a big if, you were to somehow get 24/3 as an FTTP customer, you would be the first person in known existence on DSLR to be an AT&T U-verse FTTP customer to ever have accomplished such.

In other words, good luck in your quest, you're gonna need it.

I echo WhyMe's sentiments, as well as the wishes of success.

I have enough trouble sometimes convincing tech support that FTTP can support 4 HD streams on IPTV, which I know for a fact can be done, but I still get roadblocks when I try to get FTTP customers upgraded to it

I have yet to witness a successful U-Verse FTTP 24/3 Internet customer, but that is not to say it is impossible. Just that to this point it has not been done that I know of, and the times I have attempted it I have been roadblocked.

Good Luck! And May the Force be with You

You guys are all wrong. FTTPIP U-Verse is a different product, and because of it's smaller footprint it doesn't get the investment to keep up with FTTN. There are changes coming soon. The delay is software related, the hardware is perfectly capable of running the 32 and 55 profiles.

There is a "55" profile? Can you explain more about this profile, and when it will be made available to the public?

Oops.

Yeah yeah, I'll believe it when I see it.

What, "Oops", it is a highly guarded corporate secret or something?

So there IS a 55-profile. If you are looking for testers, I am @ 800ft. from VRAD according to UVerse Realtime with a maximum rate of 59914.

Your line wouldn't be able to handle it as any profile over 80% of line capacity will likely be unstable.

Come on, guys! Proper lines with proper wirings and lack of non-normal interference, which are merely distance-limited, would be totally fine to work at 100% capacity. And, equally, nearby lines running at the max. I'm not familiar with VDSL/VDSL2, but based on my prior ADSL research, and personal experience with having a far-away brand new line that would sync and later show around 100% relative capacity occupation at about 1.2Mbps downstream with ITU G.992.1(G.DMT) with ZyXEL P645ME+ back in 2005 (being finally provisioned against the protocol for the unattainable 1.5), running at full capacity should be totally acceptable in the majority of cases.

All of these xDSL standards have a lot of engineering provisions about keeping the line stable, including automatic speed downgrades if the line becomes less stable, etc etc. All these artificial limits imposed by monopolistic telcos are merely a way to generate more revenue through tiered speeds, and, perhaps, also ensure that the minority of people that'd have problems with higher speeds simply would not get those higher speeds for any potential of having any problems whatsoever.

I'd argue that a crappy non-compliant line that can't be stable at all at 100% would also most certainly lose sync often enough even at 80%, yet a good line would run for days or weeks at a time at 100% (achieving either high speeds should it be nearby the CO or VRAD, or low yet consistent speeds should it be far away).