1 edit |
to weaseled386
Re: 45 MB internet servicewell there certainly isnt 15000 feet of cable between me and the next building over... so yes it is somewhat relative.
My point about the building being no more than 3000 feet from most of st. louis city is that vrads could be installed in the highrise CO and uverse served to most of the city without the use of mdu's.
Actually ..if there was 15,000 feet of cable from my building to that one ... it only shows how crappy the networks really are and how much ATT as a company is in disarray.
IF cable was laid efficiently or is laid efficiently there shouldn't be a vast variance in cable ft v. line of site. |
actions · 2011-Oct-17 4:16 pm · (locked) |
maartenaElmo Premium Member join:2002-05-10 Orange, CA |
to ConstantineM
But then..... MAYBE.... this elusive, secretive, maybe not-even-existing-but-who-knows, 55 Mbit profile, might just be for FTTH customers only. Now THEN you would probably be happy. |
actions · 2011-Oct-18 2:33 pm · (locked) |
|
Above all else, I'm realistic, and realistically, there's an order of magnitude higher chance that either one of paxio.net, webpass.net or sonic.net would come and serve our building with symmetric 100/100 Mbps under 100$, than anything like 50 Mbps even on the downstream side from AT&T. |
actions · 2011-Oct-18 4:16 pm · (locked) |
1 recommendation |
said by ConstantineM:Above all else, I'm realistic, and realistically, there's an order of magnitude higher chance that either one of paxio.net, webpass.net or sonic.net would come and serve our building with symmetric 100/100 Mbps under 100$, than anything like 50 Mbps even on the downstream side from AT&T. well my sis "had" the uverse ftth and like you was limited to 18/1.5 which would crap out when she started turning tv's on. needless to say she called charter and they gave her everything they offer with 60mbit internet for about 15 dollars cheaper monthly. I guess I'm kinda with you on why ATT would not offer full line capacity to their greenfield ftth customers.... especially when its those same greendfield people that obviously have the money to spend. What a shitshow att has. |
actions · 2011-Oct-18 4:30 pm · (locked) |
elios join:2005-11-15 Springfield, MO |
to fltelman
hmm if they did 40Mbps id drop mediacom for thm |
actions · 2011-Oct-18 5:55 pm · (locked) |
|
said by elios:hmm if they did 40Mbps id drop mediacom for thm I think a good number of people would .... provided they don't force you to bundle it with tv and phone. Like it or not ... dumb pipes will be the main revenue stream for any telco or cable company... thats inevitable ... its just a matter of when ..not if. |
actions · 2011-Oct-18 6:52 pm · (locked) |
|
|
to ohh
is AT&T aware of the lost opportunity cost, esp. w/ FTTU?BTW, whilst on this topic. AT&T appears really quite dumb, in that instead of offering above-market speeds to a handful of lucky customers with FTTH or minimal copper loops, and who'd be willing to pay more for the premium speeds, they simply wait until the whole technology becomes more outdated, and without any hardware upgrades whatsoever, simply push it to the max at the lowest income now at the point of being outdated, instead of offering it at a premium when it was brand new. WTF?
What's the life of 622/155 32:1 PON? Basically, 622 Mbps down and 155 Mbps up are shared in a non-exclusive way between 32 users. The "simple" average would be about 20 down / 5 up; the real average provisioning, considering that resources are shared, is more like 64/16. In reality, many people would still want 4/1 for cheap, but others who want to pay extra and above average, could have easily been sold 40/10 or 80/20 for close to 100 bucks, or even above (that is, many advanced users would pay that price for those speeds "yesterday"), without any noticeable service degradation. However, it's only now that everyone's already moaning that AT&T U-verse is too slow, AT&T may finally be considering about putting those speeds back on the table! How moronic does AT&T management have to be to have been writing off such a significant opportunity cost during all the prior years?
Now, "tomorrow" they'd probably have to start offering a 45Mbps package for the official price of today's 24Mbps one. Whereas "yesterday", they could have easily charged nearly twice as much for it as for 24Mbps. Notice that there are no last-mile network upgrades in between whatsoever. AT&T. Rethink possible. Meh. |
actions · 2011-Oct-18 7:25 pm · (locked) |
|
to fltelman
Re: 45 MB internet serviceJust outta curiosity, does pair bonding mean sending another copper wire, or use existing ones?
If they are sending a new wire, it seems a waste when they can send a fiber wire in its place. |
actions · 2011-Oct-18 9:10 pm · (locked) |
|
said by thatissick:Just outta curiosity, does pair bonding mean sending another copper wire, or use existing ones?
If they are sending a new wire, it seems a waste when they can send a fiber wire in its place. They pick a second pair out of an existing cable. |
actions · 2011-Oct-18 9:11 pm · (locked) |
cfm117 join:2004-02-13 Winnetka, CA |
cfm117
Member
2011-Oct-19 1:32 am
I don't know why they couldn't bond several dry circuits to get to a certain speed profile. There a 2 companies I know of market it as Ethernet over Copper. I have seen up to 8 dry circuits plugged into and Adtran via RJ11 right off the Nid. They just keep adding dry loops until they get to whatever profile the end user ordered. Theres really no reason that Att couldn't do this except if Adsl wouldn't work doing that. These other dry circuits have been H or Idsl. |
actions · 2011-Oct-19 1:32 am · (locked) |
trparky Premium Member join:2000-05-24 Cleveland, OH ·AT&T U-Verse
|
to thatissick
said by thatissick:it seems a waste when they can send a fiber wire in its place. Been saying that for some time now. Fiber, deploy and never have to worry about speed profiles and distance again. Copper... yeah, limitation after limitation. |
actions · 2011-Oct-19 1:41 am · (locked) |
AdamB0 join:2001-01-07 Columbus, OH |
to fltelman
It really is comical how much AT&T is trying to squeeze out of their copper. Just give us fiber you tightwads. |
actions · 2011-Oct-19 10:37 pm · (locked) |
|
Ummm
Anon
2011-Oct-19 11:08 pm
Expect an announcement on this really, really soon.
Yes, At&t are cheap in all the wrong ways. They (We?) spend as little as possible on deployment and last mile maintenance while blowing massive money fixing the cheap solutions. This behavior is driven by a need to please investment analysts at all cost, the tail does wag the dog. |
actions · 2011-Oct-19 11:08 pm · (locked) |
maartenaElmo Premium Member join:2002-05-10 Orange, CA |
maartena
Premium Member
2011-Oct-20 2:55 am
said by Ummm :Expect an announcement on this really, really soon. [Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on AT&T's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.Oh yeah, the small print, you forgot the small print. (In my personal dictionary, "really, really soon" is tomorrow at the latest, "really soon" is within a week, and although "soon" for me would mean "before the end of the month", the above description probably more accurately captures it.) |
actions · 2011-Oct-20 2:55 am · (locked) |
trparky Premium Member join:2000-05-24 Cleveland, OH ·AT&T U-Verse
|
trparky
Premium Member
2011-Oct-20 10:39 am
Spend lots and lots of money repairing and maintaining an outdated and aging infrastructure on which we're already seeing the drastic limitations of that system. Or spend the money to deploy fiber that has virtually limitless potential.
I don't know about you but it seems like the smart business decision is to drop support of copper and deploy fiber. It's newer, faster, has limitless potential, and it won't send you chasing your own tail year after year when your competition is once again eating your lunch.
Spend the money now the reap the benefits for decades to come.
They have the potential to deploy a network that will never be obsolete but they just won't do it. Money, that's why. That and stupid shortsighted investors.
Copper will be the death of AT&T, just you wait. Cable is continuing to innovate and deploying better and better next generation services whereas AT&T will continue being stuck in the dark ages. |
actions · 2011-Oct-20 10:39 am · (locked) |
dmxrob Premium Member join:2005-06-24 Saint Peters, MO ·Charter ·StarLink ·Suddenlink
|
dmxrob
Premium Member
2011-Oct-20 11:40 am
It isn't as easy as "just go do it". Who is going to spend the money to pay for such services when they are available?
Is grandma who pays $30 a month for her home phone going to/willing to/able to pay $75 a month because now the copper has been ripped out and its all fiber based?
Someone has to pay for the infrastructure costs; and some people just don't understand how many millions of miles of copper cabling AT&T has out there. |
actions · 2011-Oct-20 11:40 am · (locked) |
3 edits |
said by dmxrob:It isn't as easy as "just go do it". Who is going to spend the money to pay for such services when they are available?
Is grandma who pays $30 a month for her home phone going to/willing to/able to pay $75 a month because now the copper has been ripped out and its all fiber based?
Someone has to pay for the infrastructure costs; and some people just don't understand how many millions of miles of copper cabling AT&T has out there. well ...an article posted here today says ATT lost 328,000 dsl customers and gained 176,000 uverse customers (328,000-176,000=152,000). 152,000 x 30 dollars = 4,560,000 dollars monthly they have lost. 4,560,000 dollars monthly x 12 months = 54,720,000 dollars lost in yearly revenue from wireline. So ... lets just say ATT is losing $55 million in yearly revenue from just the quarter ...then you could multiply that by 4 quarters and we are getting to the $220million dollar range. With 220million you could argue to shareholders that installing ftth (even if it was something as high as 1000 per home) you could light up 220,000 homes yearly and see no loss in spending in cap ex. Thats huge ... 220,000 homes. If they were to charge customers 200 dollars for installs you could then reach 275,000 homes yearly with no additional capex. So im wondering whats really behind att not rolling out ftth. the 1000 dollar per home cost to ATT is probably high as most ATT cities already have fiber close to homes. So .. a step further ... now those homes that were paying 30 dollars now are paying over 100 dollars for tv, phone, and internet. Lastly, just because ATT has a zillion billion miles of copper doesn't mean squat. If people aren't using it ... then its worthless. Automakers have a zillion billion cars they can't sell .. solution: build a network people will buy. |
actions · 2011-Oct-20 1:30 pm · (locked) |
|
dslfan90
Anon
2011-Oct-20 1:57 pm
Your numbers are not correct. The 176,000 number was U-verse TV customers not U-verse internet customers. From the article in the link below: "While the company added 504,000 U-verse High Speed Internet subscribers to reach a total of 4.6 million, it lost 501,000 traditional DSL customers. AT&T said more than 70% of consumers have a broadband plan of 3 Mbps or higher." » www.multichannel.com/art ··· tral.php |
actions · 2011-Oct-20 1:57 pm · (locked) |
1 edit |
not according to the article posted here on this site
On the landline front, the company added a net 176,000 U-Verse customers, bringing their total on that front to 3.6 million. Those gains come as the company continues to bleed DSL users in unupgraded markets, the company losing 328,000 DSL users on the quarter. |
actions · 2011-Oct-20 2:03 pm · (locked) |
|
dslfan90
Anon
2011-Oct-20 2:10 pm
|
actions · 2011-Oct-20 2:10 pm · (locked) |
|
however you want to look at it ... ATT lost 328,000 dsl subscribers in non-upgraded markets ..which means they didn't switch to uverse ..they just left att period. |
actions · 2011-Oct-20 2:15 pm · (locked) |
|
dslfan90
Anon
2011-Oct-20 2:21 pm
Not sure how you come to that conclusion. They lost 501,000 DSL internet subscribers and gained 504,000 U-verse internet subscribers.
What is now considered U-verse internet now comes in different flavors. You can get U-verse internet but be unable to get U-verse TV. It appears that a lot of customers moved from DSl internet to U-verse internet. |
actions · 2011-Oct-20 2:21 pm · (locked) |
2 edits |
to fltelman
read the article
AT&T this morning released their latest quarterly earnings, which show the company reported third quarter earnings of $3.6 billion, or 61 cents a share, on revenue of $31.5 billion -- down only slightly from one year earlier. The company notes they added 2.1 million new wireless customers on the quarter, taking the company over the 100 million (100.7 million) subscriber mark for the first time. On the landline front, the company added a net 176,000 U-Verse customers, bringing their total on that front to 3.6 million. Those gains come as the company continues to bleed DSL users in unupgraded markets, the company losing 328,000 DSL users on the quarter. "More than 70 percent of consumers have a broadband plan of 3 Mbps or higher," AT&T's earnings report states.
the key word here that is not in the press release is unupgraded markets ..which the att press release makes no mention of.
bean counters look at things like you are ..which is ok ... but they still lost 328,000 customers ...even if they gained 500,000 somewhere else.
I dunno where the site admin got his information, but hes generally spot on with details. If karl posts it ... I tend to believe it. |
actions · 2011-Oct-20 2:23 pm · (locked) |
|
dslfan90
Anon
2011-Oct-20 2:28 pm
Some comments in the article on this site do not match the press release. You need to read the press release. |
actions · 2011-Oct-20 2:28 pm · (locked) |
|
so you think karl is making this stuff up? |
actions · 2011-Oct-20 2:31 pm · (locked) |
|
dslfan90
Anon
2011-Oct-20 2:58 pm
said by StLCardsFan:so you think karl is making this stuff up? His number do not match the press release or other articles that I have read about AT&T's 3rd quarter results. |
actions · 2011-Oct-20 2:58 pm · (locked) |
dmxrob Premium Member join:2005-06-24 Saint Peters, MO ·Charter ·StarLink ·Suddenlink
|
to StLCardsFan
To quote from the press release, "Fifth consecutive quarter of year-over-year growth in wireline consumer revenues, driven by AT&T UverseĀ® services".
That copper you said that noone is using and is outdated sure seems to being used by me. In fact, they have a net gain of 3,000 more "users" of copper this quarter.
I've been hearing copper is dead for years... and it just keeps going. Sort of like the mainframe and COBOL... yeah, it's dead alright. Keeping IBM dead rich. |
actions · 2011-Oct-20 4:30 pm · (locked) |
|
you guys are still missing the point... this is where the term spending thousands pinching pennies comes from bean counters ...
you can gain 500000000 million uverse subscribers in "upgraded areas" ..but where the areas are not upgraded they have lost 328,000 dsl subscribers. That doesn't mean 328,000 dsl users went to uverse... that means 328,000 less customers. Thats a huge number.
I read through the financial statements myself ...and on wireline it specifically says Uverse is helping with losses with dsl. |
actions · 2011-Oct-20 5:07 pm · (locked) |
Nuckfuts Premium Member join:2003-10-18 Joliet, IL |
Nuckfuts
Premium Member
2011-Oct-20 5:44 pm
Well, all I can say is I have a family member who works for AT&T. He tells me this all the time that AT&T's main focus is wireless. Look how many wireless subs they have over U-Verse subs (100 million+ versus 3.6 million?). Let alone I cannot imagine how much profit they get from business service revenue. My bro-in-law just turned up a piece of equipment today that feeds 4 lines @ 10GB each to a business customer. How much you think that business pays on something like that? Will U-Verse become a dead stick someday? IMO and many others here yes if it continues in this path but IMO I do not think they care. It almost seems like it would not be a loss to them or they would just sell it off. They so much revenue coming from other things. |
actions · 2011-Oct-20 5:44 pm · (locked) |
|
said by Nuckfuts:Well, all I can say is I have a family member who works for AT&T. He tells me this all the time that AT&T's main focus is wireless. Look how many wireless subs they have over U-Verse subs (100 million+ versus 3.6 million?). Let alone I cannot imagine how much profit they get from business service revenue. My bro-in-law just turned up a piece of equipment today that feeds 4 lines @ 10GB each to a business customer. How much you think that business pays on something like that? Will U-Verse become a dead stick someday? IMO and many others here yes if it continues in this path but IMO I do not think they care. It almost seems like it would not be a loss to them or they would just sell it off. They so much revenue coming from other things. I think thats probably right. Wireless seems to be the lions share of telco investment. I sure do hope Google shakes things up. Pretty soon Google will have enough network to roll out their own wireless network fed off their own fiber backbone. |
actions · 2011-Oct-20 5:49 pm · (locked) |