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

Agree with everything Dave . Though as it currently stands FTTP is (artificially) at a disadvantage in the bandwidth department, and 1.5Mbps upload is pretty bad for FTTP, IMO. Heck, I'd probably still choose it though, (that is, if I actually had a choice.)

Ridiculous?

I would say more like semi-retarded and primitive. ATT's home run swing!

Now you know the secret to how the death star works

I did a bit of research to find out the exact numbers as they relate to my equipment installed.

I found out that the ONT that I have is an Alcatel HONT-C, which supports "155.52 Mbps upstream and 622.08 Mbps downstream", according to Alcatel's specification. (This is an exclusive from ConstantineM, you won't hear it elsewhere! Noone seems to know what ONTs they have with U-verse!)

As it's a PON device, where a 16, 32 or 64 beam splitter must certainly be used for cost savings, this bandwidth is shared between all the 16/32/64 users, but, luckily, the notion of oversubscription of bandwidth is supported, according to wikipedia.

I presume AT&T is using either 32- or 64- beam splitters? In any case, these numbers clearly indicate a relationship of 4/1 of downstream/upstream bandwidth. I believe the total capacity in each direction is fixed regardless of distance (it either works or not), and I would equally imagine that there won't be any savings by leaving any of this bandwidth unused, since the downstream and upstream are entirely separate.

This brings into question why instead of going with something like 30/7.5 profile for FTTP, AT&T supposedly provisions FTTP with 30/3.6 instead, whereas FTTN VDSL gets 32/5.
Not sure if this is not news to other people, but IMHO this certainly brings it up to light the fact that there are really no hardware limitations whatsoever in offering 24/3 package to FTTP customers. In fact, I'd argue that the upload speed should really more closely represent the technology at hand, and the HSI offerings over FTTP should be something like 6/1.5, 12/3, 18/4.5 and 24/6, and not the outdated copper-style 6/1, 12/1.5, 18/1.5 and 24/3. In fact, since some speed must be reserved for AT&T's IPTV, which mostly (or even always) is to occupy the downstream portion of the connection, the upstream HSI spec offered might even be higher than that 4:1 ratio compared to downstream.

Not exactly sure about VDSL specifically (sorry, don't feel like researching technology I might never end up using!), but I think with copper as you get further away on the loop distance, any extra frequency you'd use in upstream, would have to dip into your downstream potential, so with VDSL, it indeed might make some sense to offer disproportionally lower upstream than downstream. However, with FTTP and fixed light capacity in both directions with a 4:1 ratio, it simply makes very little sense.

I want my 18/4.5! When you sell "18Mbps" (without upload speed being explicitly specified), and provide it via the above PON technology, it's only natural to assume that the upload speed would be exactly 4.5. Where's my 4.5? Why do I only get a third of that?

You need to look at it differently... you're barking up the wrong tree. You need to look at where FTTP and FTTN customers meet. Have you thought the limitation(s) may be the CO equipment instead? Stop looking at the medium its delivered on, and start looking at the equipment providing the stream.

I thought I remember hearing a AT&T employee say that VRAD's and stuff had like 10 gig uplinks or something?

The upstream still seems low but the 30 meg sync rate makes sense for bpon on uverse. With all the people using IPTV the network bandwidth would be a lot higher than say with FIOS where TV is handled on a different wave length and the full 622 megabits down is used for internet only (or 2.4 gigabits if on GPON like I am). Even if multicast is used I would think a big chunk of that 622 megabits would be used for TV traffic if split between 32 users.

VRAD's for FTTN take 1G links, and its shared between 192 customers... with a possibility of 384 depending on the cabinets config. However, the Alcatel 7330 will not accept fiber and copper. A single VRAD is not the common point. You'd have to know if the FTTP people tie into the same Alcatel 7450/7500 equipment that the FTTN people do at the CO. For video we installed some sort of Fujitsu equipment, and they'd have to tie into it at some point... Dave006 would know much more about this than me, because I'm simply a hardware installing knuckle dragger

The CO can't possible have more strict limitation than the 622/155 PON G.983 FTTU hardware that is provided to the premises. Also, my complaint is now explicitly regarding upstream, and surely stuff at the CO has symmetrical bandwidth.

I looked more at the datasheet for HONT-C from Alcatel, and it seems like they suggest that 1:32 delivery must be used, e.g. all this 622/155 is shared by a mere maximum of 32 users.

155.52Mbps divided by 32 is clearly 4.86Mbps, as if the bandwidth could not be oversubscribed. In such light, the 3.6Mbps upstream part that, supposedly, everyone on FTTP is provisioned for, simply makes exactly zero (0) sense whatsoever. The alleged 30/3.6 FTTP profile should be more like 30/7.5 (if not higher in the first place), or, at the very least, 30/5 (with corresponding increase in HSI upload speeds), but not 30/3.6.

3.0Mbps is really the absolute minimum HSI upload speed that should be offered on the most expensive downstream package that's already been oversubscribed as far as FTTP profiles are concerned. This upload speed is a big value-add that comes entirely for free, yet rests absolutely unused and unaccounted for! This utter nonsense on AT&T's part is why stuff like internet hard drives still have virtually no place in our life today.

All I see is wall of text, because you obviously are lost on this. Who cares what the ONT is listed for? It has NOTHING to do with the equipment thats installed in the field, and in the CO's.

The network card in my computer is 100M, and my switch is 1G. What does this have to do with anything? Nothing.

It's a lost cause arguing with this guy. He's some guy that came in 15 days ago on a load of turnips that thinks he knows more than the entire DSLR community. Almost starting to think he's a troll.

Successful Troll is successful

I do not think he is a troll. Just because a group of people are easily pacified and willing to go with the flow does not mean they are correct. It just means they are easily pacified and willing to go with the flow. Those who are willing to easily bend over get it in many ways ;]

Those who have a cause are able to fight for what they believe in whether it be small or big. These forums give me the LULS because people are so malleable. Do you ever wonder why your government and big companies do not represent your interests? A majority of people cannot even stand up for their interests.. why would anyone else (i.e. to the looks of it people on this forum)?

At least he is researching and looking for answers. I respect that sort of will.

Your switch supports 100M in addition to 1G, that's why your 100M card works. The ONT that I have only supports 622/155 PON, G.983, it does not support any other ON standards.

If you have some info about the equipment at the CO, or why exactly is this limitation sound or not, I'd be happy to hear it. But suggesting that the equipment at the CO is less powerful than the lowest standard equipment available to end users (which in fact matches specs for the network itself from third-party sources, too) just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Also, your response of "wall of text" to some explicit technical details I've contributed can only suggest that you're actually the one who's trolling here; in fact, I don't see you providing any contributions in this thread on the FTTP side of things.

...Except for when the "cause" is wrong, and the masses are stating correct information. I am more inclined to believe all the U-verse technicians that post here, and the majority of people's experiences, than a single claim otherwise.

It's fine to look for answers, but to refuse to believe information stated by tons of people including technicians is just asinine. Why bother to look for answers, if you're only willing to listen to the answer that you believe is "correct?" If one were so smart on the matter, why would they be asking the question in the first place?

he is talking about upload speeds and their potential. ATT clearly doesn't want people uploading...and he seems to want to know why technically speaking ...why is ATT artificially limiting upload.

I wonder the same thing and no one ever really answers the question with anything other than ..why do you need that ..or blahblahblah is plenty.

+1

If at&t didn't want uploading, then why does att's 3g have better upload usually then uverse?

The answer you are looking for isn't in what at&t wants you to do, the answer you are looking for is how much at&t is willing to spend to get you good speeds.

i dont think they have to spend anything to offer more speed for the fttp equipment.

as far as the phone data ...@$10/gb id sure as hell try to offer as much speed as possible.

I know exactly whats inside of every Central Office in both Central & North Florida. As well as in nearly all RT's in the same areas. Why? Because I either installed it, supervised the installtion of it or quality checked the final product.

I'm sure you'd be happy to have a tour, see some pics, know the technical aspects of the backbone; you're simply not going to get it. Just like you'd like your 24/3 speeds, but you're simply not going to get those either.

Our government/law enforcement doesnt want us uploading at a fast rate so they can attempt to keep ahead of all the snooping they do. They are worried terrorists or a powerful influential group or individual would be able to gather enough forces to challenge thier authority.

But clearly this guy knows way more than everyone else, as evidenced by his walls of text. The more fancy words one uses, the more knowledge one has on the subject at hand. I can't believe we lived all these years without his vast amounts of invaluable knowledge. I am so glad he joined 2 weeks ago to enlighten us all and open our eyes to the truth. From now on I will be directing all of my questions and concerns about AT&T's U-verse and how it works his way, as he clearly can get things done that nobody else can.

/sarcasm

LOL !

This is the perfect thread for my situation.

1) I understand FTTP vs FTTN and why we are where we are.
2) I understand AT&T does what AT&T does so deal

So let's deal. I'm paying $55/mo for stand alone 18/1.5 FTTP service. TW is now offering 30/5 service in my area for $60/mo.

Can anyone give me any guestimate when I'll be able to get a 24/3 service with AT&T? 3 mos, 6 mos, 12 mos, 24 mos, maybe never?

I've liked by FTTP service for the last 4 1/2 years but it's now reaching a point of not being competitive with cable.

When you're a Level-4 installer who specializes in everything from DS0 to OC192, installed DSLAMs from the Alcatel 1000 microRAM to the Alcatel 7330, had your hands in the installation of the Uverse backbone up and down both coasts of Florida and engineered their new BLM1500 GPoN equipment you'll have room to talk. Until then, have a nice day

Weaseled386,

WhyMe420 was talking to you about ConstantineM not talking about you.

Anywhere between now and never... I don't think that anyone can answer that question...This.

Surely, if you're that smart, you would've been able to figure that out?? Seems to me like everyone else did... I don't think you're the one that joined two weeks ago?? Sheesh... No YOU have a nice day!

Meh. Nice of you guys to resort to personal attacks and clarifications on who it is that's being attacked, but the thread stands, and the new discoveries I've made about the ON that I specifically have stand.

weaseled386, thanks for trolling on how cool you are, we get it, you're too cool and we're too inferior to talk with someone of your level of AT&T CO expertise. WhyMe420, please let go of me coming here two weeks ago and disagreeing with you on the subject of DSL relative capacity occupation and on the validity of the 80% rule; I still disagree firmly on the generality of such rule as it relates to CO provisioning, and the PDF you've supplied only proves my points (just look at what they explain about the "0 dB noise margin" and retransmission).

Still, the basic question is left unanswered: why is AT&T wasting so much capacity of their FTTP installations, offering speeds below FTTN? Why is it not offering upload bandwidth that'd be appropriate for FTTP? Based on my first-hand discovery, AT&T's FTTP internet is based on the same BPON standard with the same speed specs as first-generation Verizon FiOS, yet where are the speeds? As weaseled386 just slipped above, AT&T now even has GPON in some areas or at least in plans, yet still offers only ADSL2 speeds through FTTP? Seriously?!

You can disagree firmly all you want, doesn't change the fact that you are wrong! You can misinterpret documentation all you want, doesn't change the fact that you are wrong! You can question question AT&T's decisions all you want, doesn't change their minds in the least!

Well, since there's no rumors of improvements for FTTP customers I'm going to simply take my business elsewhere rather then get into a pissing contest.

I've got TW coming over tomorrow to install a 30/5 connection for $50/mo no install charges. I'll run that side by side the Uverse connection for a week and if it seems all systems are a go it's good bye to my FTTP. Good thing I have Vonage, my own domain for email and DirecTV for video. Makes it easy.

It's certainly a good idea to vote with the wallet.

I hope AT&T employs some means of keeping track about business losses due to lack of appropriate profiles on setups that are already capable of higher speeds with a mere provisioning profile update. But, hey, wouldn't it be easier to simply create the profiles instead of keeping track of any such thing?