dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
67893
share rss forum feed

etaadmin

join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1
reply to djrobx

Re: 45 MB internet service

said by djrobx:

AT&T can compete on price. It's what they did with ADSL. They had Expert Plus 6mbps at $159. In a single day that went to $44.95. They can compete with caps, too. Comcast is still only giving customers 250GB. AT&T could increase their caps, making them more attractive to some, even if they're a bit slower.

Actually it was $179.99 when I got it back in 2000, back then it was called the enhanced DSL package and came with 5 true (not sticky) static IPs. You are right one day it came down to 159.99 and afterwards lower

StLCardsFan

join:2011-06-06
Lafayette, LA
reply to fltelman
well why would ATT settle for the "just in case" provider? I don't care if they roll out ftth or if they use a flying razorback pig to deliver internet. If the latency is good and the speed is better than the competition ... people will buy it.


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state
Latency and speed good compared to the competition? Interleaving, 24 megs? What is the competition here, 3g and satellite internet??!!


maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3
reply to djrobx
said by djrobx:

It would be nice to have FTTH, but the state of U-verse doesn't seem that dire to me.

You are right in this particular moment in time. My cable company offers 30/5 and 50/5 connections at the moment, and if AT&T is able to get their proposed speed increases of 36/6 and 45/6 to about 75% of its U-Verse customers, they have leased a little bit more life.

Problem is.... DOCSIS 3.0 is already easily capable of 100/10 connections, and with upstream bundling things like 100/50 are very, VERY close in the future. Currently, DOCSIS 3.0 specification allows for 1.5 Gbps down, and 150 Mbps up with upstream bundling.

Not that we are going to get that any time soon, but cable companies can be ready FAST for 1 Gbps deployment. So can Verizon with FIOS, they share 2.4 Gbps per 16 users at the moment (or something like that), so you can effectively guarantee about 150 Mbps per person, and really, if you give everyone 250 Mbit/s, you are probably always going to get it also, as not everyone uses their connection in full. And the 2.4 Gbps limit is a limit set in the neighborhood boxes, and can easily be increased. The infrastructure is ready for Gbps to homes.

What is AT&T going to do? In 5 years from now, copper isn't going to cut it. What speeds did you have 5 years ago? 10 years ago?

10 years ago, it was 2 Mbps for me. 5 years ago it was 8 Mbps for me. Now it is 24 Mbps. Notice a trend? Bandwidth is growing, and it is growing FAST. If AT&T doesn't have a strategy, or banks on the notion it will probably not grow that much anymore, they are going to get hurt.

You have to spend money to make money. Yes, you have to spend it wisely, but spending it on copper isn't the best plan.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

WhyMe420
Premium
join:2009-04-06
kudos:1
reply to Metatron2008
Where AT&T competes and wins for me over the alternative (Charter) the lack of caps. Latency is still decent enough to not matter in my online gaming. 24 Mbps uncapped is far better than 100Mbps capped any day of the week. As long as AT&T is uncapped, and the competition is capped, I will stick with 24 Mbps forever even if I can get 1Gbps for $5 a month from Charter.

StLCardsFan

join:2011-06-06
Lafayette, LA
reply to Metatron2008
I meant IF att can deliver good latency / speed (which they dont) people will buy it.

I'm speaking in future terms here. Two years until upgrades seems like a business killer to me.

StLCardsFan

join:2011-06-06
Lafayette, LA
Reviews:
·LUS Fiber
reply to WhyMe420
said by WhyMe420:

Where AT&T competes and wins for me over the alternative (Charter) the lack of caps. Latency is still decent enough to not matter in my online gaming. 24 Mbps uncapped is far better than 100Mbps capped any day of the week. As long as AT&T is uncapped, and the competition is capped, I will stick with 24 Mbps forever even if I can get 1Gbps for $5 a month from Charter.

Well ... I'm sure charter will give you the option of more data. Id gladly take 250gb or 500gb/month @ 1gig speeds over 24mbit and never being able to watch tv, use the dvr, or even use the phone ... at least and expect low latency @ full speeds.

Now if ATT can offer 50mbit / 10-15mbit they would satisfy even those on the fence ... but apparently by the time they "might" be able to offer that in 2 years cable will be ready to offer eoc over cable or docis4 and will be in a prime position to do whatever is necessary to retain/attract even more business from ATT.

Whats really going on ... ATT has been and will continue to play catch up. What they will release in 2 years time hey actually need today. I guess they are at least 2 years behind cable then ... and seem to be gambling everything on this vectoring.

One question ..what if it doesn't work? There is a very strong possibility it wont. I seem to remember pair bonding would be the ticket ... NO. Why would this vectoring be any different? Bonding is an apparent EPIC FAIL ..otherwise they would be rolling that shit out as fast as people ask for it. I mean why wouldn't they... especially when it means the difference in attracting/retaining customers or them leaving for cable or FOIS ...or even wireless in some cases.

WhyMe420
Premium
join:2009-04-06
kudos:1
said by StLCardsFan:

said by WhyMe420:

Where AT&T competes and wins for me over the alternative (Charter) the lack of caps. Latency is still decent enough to not matter in my online gaming. 24 Mbps uncapped is far better than 100Mbps capped any day of the week. As long as AT&T is uncapped, and the competition is capped, I will stick with 24 Mbps forever even if I can get 1Gbps for $5 a month from Charter.

Well ... I'm sure charter will give you the option of more data. Id gladly take 250gb or 500gb/month @ 1gig speeds over 24mbit and never being able to watch tv, use the dvr, or even use the phone ... at least and expect low latency @ full speeds.

No doubt U-verse TV sucks, but I don't have a problem with using the phone (POTS & Cell Phone,) nor watching TV or using my (multiple) DVRs, that's the beauty of having satellite TV instead of U-verse TV. Of course I wouldn't expect certain people such as yourself to care about data caps, but I couldn't live with such low caps. I pay for my Internet connection so that I can use it anytime I want. I don't pay for it only to worry about going over my cap. With cable and their caps, faster speeds are worthless as all that does is increase your chance of going over the cap ON TOP OF already paying a higher price.

StLCardsFan

join:2011-06-06
Lafayette, LA
yeah i cant say i agree with one flat cap regardless of speed. I think faster tiers should also include more data or even better ... no caps.


Nuckfuts
Premium
join:2003-10-18
Joliet, IL
Having Caps is a pure money grab. They have been monitoring their networks for years and see how much usage is going on. Between legal and illegal downloading, lol, netflix and the other million streaming services, online gaming, etc., etc., etc., their reasons are BS. Comcast on the other hand I do not understand. Why would you attempt or just shut someone off. Do they not realize that in future years to come 250GB is not gonna cut it. If AT&T wants to compete with slower speeds I agree, they need to stay away from caps.

WhyMe420
Premium
join:2009-04-06
kudos:1
said by Nuckfuts:

Having Caps is a pure money grab. They have been monitoring their networks for years and see how much usage is going on. Between legal and illegal downloading, lol, netflix and the other million streaming services, online gaming, etc., etc., etc., their reasons are BS. Comcast on the other hand I do not understand. Why would you attempt or just shut someone off. Do they not realize that in future years to come 250GB is not gonna cut it. If AT&T wants to compete with slower speeds I agree, they need to stay away from caps.

Well the thing about Comcast/Charter/etc. is, cable Internet has fiber nodes that are shared between neighborhoods/subdivisions. The idea is that if everyone is downloading wide-open then an oversold node will become congested. However, that's still a BS excuse as all that means is that Comcast can gain more profit by overselling nodes without upgrading fiber networks. Then they can promise out-of-this-world speeds that you can only use occasionally, out of the entire month, all the while still having congestion on nodes in which people can't even get the speeds they pay for.

ERIC8585

join:2012-02-03
Pleasant Hill, CA
reply to fakarooz
What happened to the so-called announcement of faster speeds?

WhyMe420
Premium
join:2009-04-06
kudos:1
It was hogwash.

ERIC8585

join:2012-02-03
Pleasant Hill, CA
reply to Metatron2008
The problem with Cable, at least Shitcast, is their "Anyroom DVR" functionality and guide software is garbage. Not to mention their bandwidth throttling and horrible customer service.


Nuckfuts
Premium
join:2003-10-18
Joliet, IL
reply to WhyMe420
That has been Comcast's problem around my area since I can remember. That is why I never went with them because of the shared-node BS. One good thing about AT&T for me so far since I have had them (since '02) is my speeds have always been consistent and I get what I am paying for and not dropping out because half the neighborhood is downloading donkey porn.

ERIC8585

join:2012-02-03
Pleasant Hill, CA
reply to Metatron2008


dslfan90

@sbcglobal.net
reply to ERIC8585
said by ERIC8585:

What happened to the so-called announcement of faster speeds?

Did AT&T says that an announcement would be made or that something was in the works?

ERIC8585

join:2012-02-03
Pleasant Hill, CA

1 edit
said by fakarooz :

Don't worry everyone, the announcement for the faster speeds is coming on Jan. 26th during at&t's earnings report. I'm hearing things that at&t is not doing so well with uverse net adds this last quarter after they stopped rolling out uverse. Its gonna be roughly around 25k new adds. In their report they are gonna discuss on how to penetrate uverse to get a higher percentage of users onto their system. Part of their strategy is to bring the total number of households capable of uverse to 25% within the next 3 years. In order to do so, they observe that the vast majority of people not signing up for uverse includes uverse not having the internet speeds that customers want. Thus, uverse will be rolling out pair bonding to customers who request faster speeds. The news speeds include 36/3 and 48/6 on the new 60Meg profile. This is only for the FTTN customers. FTTP customers are not being upgraded at this time.

Someone on this forum said they were going to announce it on Jan 26.


fakarooz

@sbcglobal.net
Yes the announcement was supposed to be made on Jan. 26 with the positive net addition of over 200k subscribers to U-Verse services, but it was called off on Jan 20 due to management not agreeing about the cost to deploy only slightly faster internet (6-12mbps more) with pair bonding. AT&T is currently analyzing a new profile that is going to be in the 40-45meg range. We are currently testing a few different profiles, but at&t will probably settle for a new 40meg profile. Also if you don't know already, all profiles have a 4:5 overhead ratio so that means you must have a max sync rate of atleast 1.25x what the profile is. Thus for the 40meg profile you will need atleast 50mbps max sync and 56.25mbps for the 45meg profile. Since most of the POPs that can have a max sync rate above 50mbps are in the 1000-1400ft range from the VRAD, this profile upgrade will only affect those. Pair bonding will not be an option as pair bonding does not have the upload capacity to off er the higher profiles. You are basically out of luck if you are farther than 1000-1400feet depending on your line conditions. Pair bonding will be tested once management can get some kind of deal with Alcatel-Lucent going, but its not going to happen for atleast 2 years.

StLCardsFan

join:2011-06-06
Lafayette, LA
Reviews:
·LUS Fiber
said by fakarooz :

Yes the announcement was supposed to be made on Jan. 26 with the positive net addition of over 200k subscribers to U-Verse services, but it was called off on Jan 20 due to management not agreeing about the cost to deploy only slightly faster internet (6-12mbps more) with pair bonding. AT&T is currently analyzing a new profile that is going to be in the 40-45meg range. We are currently testing a few different profiles, but at&t will probably settle for a new 40meg profile. Also if you don't know already, all profiles have a 4:5 overhead ratio so that means you must have a max sync rate of atleast 1.25x what the profile is. Thus for the 40meg profile you will need atleast 50mbps max sync and 56.25mbps for the 45meg profile. Since most of the POPs that can have a max sync rate above 50mbps are in the 1000-1400ft range from the VRAD, this profile upgrade will only affect those. Pair bonding will not be an option as pair bonding does not have the upload capacity to off er the higher profiles. You are basically out of luck if you are farther than 1000-1400feet depending on your line conditions. Pair bonding will be tested once management can get some kind of deal with Alcatel-Lucent going, but its not going to happen for atleast 2 years.

»youtu.be/vJ4sEXiRP4k

doubleohwhat

join:2008-10-25
Birmingham, AL
reply to fakarooz
said by fakarooz :

Yes the announcement was supposed to be made on Jan. 26 with the positive net addition of over 200k subscribers to U-Verse services, but it was called off on Jan 20 due to management not agreeing about the cost to deploy only slightly faster internet (6-12mbps more) with pair bonding. AT&T is currently analyzing a new profile that is going to be in the 40-45meg range. We are currently testing a few different profiles, but at&t will probably settle for a new 40meg profile. Also if you don't know already, all profiles have a 4:5 overhead ratio so that means you must have a max sync rate of atleast 1.25x what the profile is. Thus for the 40meg profile you will need atleast 50mbps max sync and 56.25mbps for the 45meg profile. Since most of the POPs that can have a max sync rate above 50mbps are in the 1000-1400ft range from the VRAD, this profile upgrade will only affect those. Pair bonding will not be an option as pair bonding does not have the upload capacity to off er the higher profiles. You are basically out of luck if you are farther than 1000-1400feet depending on your line conditions. Pair bonding will be tested once management can get some kind of deal with Alcatel-Lucent going, but its not going to happen for atleast 2 years.

I'd just like to say that while I agree with the others that AT&T is on a downward spiral, I most definitely appreciate you posting information here. Otherwise we wouldn't have the slightest clue what's going on.

ERIC8585

join:2012-02-03
Pleasant Hill, CA
reply to fakarooz
Lame. I'm at 1,400' and only getting a max rate of 50 so I could only get the 40 meg profile?

said by fakarooz :

Yes the announcement was supposed to be made on Jan. 26 with the positive net addition of over 200k subscribers to U-Verse services, but it was called off on Jan 20 due to management not agreeing about the cost to deploy only slightly faster internet (6-12mbps more) with pair bonding. AT&T is currently analyzing a new profile that is going to be in the 40-45meg range. We are currently testing a few different profiles, but at&t will probably settle for a new 40meg profile. Also if you don't know already, all profiles have a 4:5 overhead ratio so that means you must have a max sync rate of atleast 1.25x what the profile is. Thus for the 40meg profile you will need atleast 50mbps max sync and 56.25mbps for the 45meg profile. Since most of the POPs that can have a max sync rate above 50mbps are in the 1000-1400ft range from the VRAD, this profile upgrade will only affect those. Pair bonding will not be an option as pair bonding does not have the upload capacity to off er the higher profiles. You are basically out of luck if you are farther than 1000-1400feet depending on your line conditions. Pair bonding will be tested once management can get some kind of deal with Alcatel-Lucent going, but its not going to happen for atleast 2 years.


WhyMe420
Premium
join:2009-04-06
kudos:1
I just don't understand why AT&T is so inflexible when it comes to what speeds are allowed on what profile. Why can't they just offer a 32/5 tier for everyone on the 32/5. The general consensus is that AT&T is leaving room for the TV product but what about those without TV? What does TV need with an extra 2Mbps of upload anyway?

ERIC8585

join:2012-02-03
Pleasant Hill, CA
said by WhyMe420:

I just don't understand why AT&T is so inflexible when it comes to what speeds are allowed on what profile. Why can't they just offer a 32/5 tier for everyone on the 32/5. The general consensus is that AT&T is leaving room for the TV product but what about those without TV? What does TV need with an extra 2Mbps of upload anyway?

I've been asking that as well. What is the extra 2mbit being wasted on? Surely at least 1mbit of that could be allocated to the internet speed.

doubleohwhat

join:2008-10-25
Birmingham, AL
Yeh, doesn't make sense at all does it. The AT&T bean counters are worried about spending a penny and yet they're sitting on extra downstream AND upstream bandwidth they could offer right now.

etaadmin

join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1
reply to ERIC8585

Lame. I'm at 1,400' and only getting a max rate of 50 so I could only get the 40 meg profile?

This is the weakest link in uverse installations, there is no guarantee that everyone at 1,400 ft will get the same stability in the service. It all depends on so many factors like the condition of copper pairs, interference, crosstalk among many other things.

doubleohwhat

join:2008-10-25
Birmingham, AL
reply to ERIC8585
said by ERIC8585:

Lame. I'm at 1,400' and only getting a max rate of 50 so I could only get the 40 meg profile?

Well, I'm at 900' and only getting a max rate of 53. I wonder how close you have to be to get 56.25 or higher.


fakarooz

@sbcglobal.net
reply to doubleohwhat
AT&T doesn't see U-Verse as a downward spiraling product. With the net addition of customers year after year, quarter after quarter, at&t has no motive to invest in its current landline networks. If you look at the number of customers that want faster speeds vs the amount of revenue increase you'll get from them upgrading, you are looking at a pretty big investment for a small return. AT&T in around 2004 decided landline telephone network is going to pretty much die a slow death. So, in order to stay in business, at&t(under sbc name at the time) revealed to investors that they were going to invest in their network over the next few years to better compete with cable who's docsis speeds were greater than telco dsl lines. This project named "project lightspeed" was aimed to bring fiber from the central office to neighborhood nodes (VRADs). It would provide faster internet and tv service via VDSL over 25meg profiles though they didn't feel HDTV would really be in almost all the rooms of most households. This prompted them to upgrade to VDSL2 and increase profiles to the current 32 meg profile. Cable companies on the other hand feeling increased pressure from telcotv responded via a rollout of DOCSIS 3.0 technology to possibly bring back customers fleeing for SAT or telcotv. Cable companies typically compete with at&t and the likes by offering superior speeds. At&t feels that speed is not end all be all of broadband. What they feel is that the customer should have a polished product that puts a lot of work of TV and HSI out of the customer's hands. The RG was created as triple play device that needs very little customer attention. All the customer needs to know is how to connect a computer via wireless to it. Nothing more. With cable, you would have a long list of cable modems that were supported, some unsupported with various different cable technologies. When a customer complained of slow internet speeds on a cable line, customer service can't simply give a customer a new modem unless the customer leases it for a monthly fee. On top of that the customer would need to purchase a wireless router to connect devices in the home. The RG really needs very little thought for the average customer. This creates a product that is uniform whether you live in california or in texas. For the TV STBs, at&t markets that the DVRs can record 4 shows at a time. At the time these were released, most cable company dvr's could only handle 2 recordings at a time. The software on the STB/DVR designed by microsoft uses a very polished looking user interface that gives the customer a feeling of ease of use. The remote is small and functional. At&t doesn't simply compete on simply speed speed speed, but instead offers a customer a polished finished product that is hard to leave and go back to their former cable/Sat provider. An example of this is the iphone vs android debate. AT&T is a lot like the iphone, it provides a nice looking finished product that is easy to use, though it only supports 3G functionality. Android phones on the other hand have 4G LTE now and have super fast processing power compared to iPhones. Cable companies are a lot like android, they focus on specs spec and specs. The most popular internet tier on U-Verse right now is the 12/1.5 mbps. The truth is most consumers simply want their internet to "just work" and tv "easy to use". Yes there are the techies that will always demand the fastest speeds and functionality to tinker with settings, but we/you are an elite few and is just not worth it in the eyes of at&t. Until at&t sees a net loss of subscribers to U-Verse they will have two options at that point. Option A is to invest in their network again and gain more subscribers/customers or Option B which is to simply sell off their landline footprint to someone else. Project lightspeed was created in 2004, at the time sbc didn't own all of cingular and mobile data was almost non existant. The investment to their landline network only came because that was their only option to stay in business or risk a slow death for loss of POTS customers. Now that at&t has acquired all of cingluar and changed its name to at&t mobility and smartphones are a popular item thus creating a business for highly profitable mobile data. Further investment in mobile data for at&t can result in higher revenues. Investing in the at&t landline business is not a very good business strategy at this time. Eventually at&t will have to make a decision for the future of landline in 3-5 years down if they can't cost effectively increase data rates to customers homes. Your best source of knowing when at&t will take action is when you read at&ts quarterly earnings reports and mention U-Verse gains. Once you see very small gains or even loss of customers, I can guarantee you at&t will direct investments towards U-Verse as investors would be inclined for an investment in landline. I hope you all understand that at&t's U-Verse is a well rounded product that a lot of customers want to hold on to as the experience around it is better than what any cable/satellite provider has done before so it will be a while until you see some speed improvements. If you feel Uverse has slow internet speeds, feel free to call customer service and ask for higher speeds, and this can help send a message to management that customers want higher speeds. Or simply drop your slowpoke uverse internet and switch to cable. If at&t is gaining subscribers, why mess with a formula that is already working. Clearly at&t is doing something right if we are adding customers quarter after quarter.

doubleohwhat

join:2008-10-25
Birmingham, AL
I'd switch to cable for internet in a heartbeat if I could. However, AT&T struck a deal with the developer of my community (large home builder in the southeast) to be the sole provider in the community. It's the same for all of their communities apparently. I found this out a good while after construction began. So it's my fault for not researching this beforehand and AT&Ts fault for weaseling in as the only provider and offering a slow-@ss service.

Btw, what's your take on AT&T not offering the full profile rate for internet only customers? Seems like a dead simple way to bring in extra cash with little work on their part.

ERIC8585

join:2012-02-03
Pleasant Hill, CA
If you have 24/3 there is no point switching to cable unless you want your bandwidth throttled, inconsistent speeds and to pay more.