dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
15023
share rss forum feed
Expand your moderator at work

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

1 recommendation

reply to dbeatson

Re: 45MB Internet on 55MB Bonded Profile?

Personally, I couldn't care less about these arguments about how large AT&T is, seeing as this thread is about the "45Mb Internet," NOT "How large is AT&T? Do you thing AT&T should have FTTH? Are there better options out there than U-verse?"

I am interested in whether or not this "45Mb Internet" is going to be a reality, but really, there's not a whole lot to discuss about it because nobody really knows what AT&T's plans are.



fakarooz

@sbcglobal.net
reply to dbeatson

Okay if Merlin isn't going to tell everyone of the new service tier, I'll tell everyone of the new hardware that is going to be rolling out in tandem to the 45Meg profile. The new RG is going to have 802.11N with both 2.4 and 5Ghz bands, gigabit ethernet. You will no longer need that little access point for a wireless receiver, instead a dedicated WAP is on board this device. This RG will also support pair bonding so that an iNID is no longer required. There will also be a 500GB hard drive inside the RG which will be used for storing your recorded content. I believe Pace will be producing this box.



Chris 313
Come get some
Premium
join:2004-07-18
Houma, LA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Vonage
·Comcast
·Comcast Digital ..

said by fakarooz :

Okay if Merlin isn't going to tell everyone of the new service tier, I'll tell everyone of the new hardware that is going to be rolling out in tandem to the 45Meg profile. The new RG is going to have 802.11N with both 2.4 and 5Ghz bands, gigabit ethernet. You will no longer need that little access point for a wireless receiver, instead a dedicated WAP is on board this device. This RG will also support pair bonding so that an iNID is no longer required. There will also be a 500GB hard drive inside the RG which will be used for storing your recorded content. I believe Pace will be producing this box.

So what? No more Cisco DVR boxes? Or is the HDD in the RG used as a backup source if your DVR goes bad?


David
hours are m-th 1130-10p central
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:96
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Midwest
·magicjack.com
·Google Voice

1 recommendation

reply to dbeatson

man, I read all the pages. You guys and speculation are about as bad as craig moffet. I could "speculate" all afternoon, but I won't waste my time till I see "results." So why don't we just discuss the option at hand about the higher speeds? Assuming it is reasonably priced and such why not?


dragonman300

join:2011-03-02
Anaheim, CA
reply to fakarooz

Seem interesting. Hope it wont be BIGGER than their previous generations 0__o



David
hours are m-th 1130-10p central
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:96

Well assuming they install a 1.5 to 3 TB hard disk, you are looking at as least an inch on the height for sure and cooling. my DroboFS is as least a foot tall, but that box sure is cramped for room!


BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
reply to fakarooz

Great. More and more reason I like cable. I can own my modem, get whatever router and wireless I want, build my own DVR with Windows 7, install my own tuners, as many of them as I want, and split and maintain the entire system myself.

At least with FIOS you get coax for TV and Ethernet for internet, and you can do with it what you want from there with your own router and cablecard devices. Here you're forced to use carrier-supplied equipment, which just sucks.


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

Perhaps you would like your cable co's forum better as well?

»Comcast HSI

There, you guys can discuss your DMCA notices and 250GB caps.

Expand your moderator at work


maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1
reply to dbeatson

Re: 45MB Internet on 55MB Bonded Profile?

I personally don't have much faith in this profile. It has been discussed for about a YEAR now (see previously closed topics), and the fact it hasn't launched yet, or even announced.... tells me that either there are probably too many issues with field tests.

IF it even exists, there are NO official announcements on AT&T's forums, and we simply don't know if anyone on this forum is who he says he is. Merlin could just be a AT&T fanboi for instance, instead of a employee. Nothing is proven.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"


etaadmin

join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1

said by maartena:

I personally don't have much faith in this profile. It has been discussed for about a YEAR now (see previously closed topics), and the fact it hasn't launched yet, or even announced.... tells me that either there are probably too many issues with field tests.

IF it even exists, there are NO official announcements on AT&T's forums, and we simply don't know if anyone on this forum is who he says he is. Merlin could just be a AT&T fanboi for instance, instead of a employee. Nothing is proven.

AT&T only has to prove that they can offer higher speeds... it doesn't mean that everyone will be able to get them. It is like Howard Hughes 'flying' the 'spruce goose' for only a mile.

According to the 'National Broadband Plan' »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_B···_States)
100 million homes should have access to real 100Mbps downstream and 50Mbps upstream speeds by 2020.

We all know that cable can easily offer those speeds today... but uverse? The fiber-to-the-node uverse? Gateways as close as 300 feet are only able to sync (max rate) at 60~75 Mbps some people have seen some gateways max at 90 Mbps... I haven't. So pair bonding is AT&T's only chance.

As for the AT&T fanboi I've never seen someone so disruptive for his cause.

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

Speed means nothing with caps.

I'd rather have "slow" 24Mbps and not have to worry about a cap than 100Mbps with a 250GB cap where I can only have 100Mbps for 0.0077083333333333% (5.5 hours) of the month, and that's not even counting upload.

It's funny that the FCC is mandating how much speed a connection should have yet they don't seem to give a rat's ass about these ridiculous caps.


decifal

join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1
reply to loser3

said by loser3 :

That would require the current investors to be willing to allow for a future but they only think about the here and now.

Maybe after the world doesn't end in December this year they will start to think about the future... :-/


Juneau

@sbcglobal.net
reply to etaadmin

It doesn't say "100 million homes should have access to real 100Mbps downstream and 50Mbps upstream speeds by 2020."

It says:

"The goals of the plan as described in broadband.gov:

1.At least 100 million U.S. homes should have affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 megabits per second by the year 2020."

If you are any student of government planning at all you know that those kinds of plans rarely pan out as well as they are described.


zed260
Premium
join:2011-11-11
Cleveland, TN
Reviews:
·Charter

said by Juneau :

It doesn't say "100 million homes should have access to real 100Mbps downstream and 50Mbps upstream speeds by 2020."

It says:

"The goals of the plan as described in broadband.gov:

1.At least 100 million U.S. homes should have affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 megabits per second by the year 2020."

If you are any student of government planning at all you know that those kinds of plans rarely pan out as well as they are described.

those numbers are relalstic comcast and charter combined already pass/offer on the download side atleast 100 meg to close to 40 million homes add to that the other cable provoders fios etc and the 100 million number has probably already been hit on download speed side

now on upload speed side the number of people who have access to 50 meg or greater on it is pretty much limited to fios and a few small other deployments so im guessing around 5.2 million (5 million fios plus 200k plus or so in comunity fibers like those in chattnooga tn)

point being 100/50 goal i bet could be hit by 2016


David
hours are m-th 1130-10p central
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:96
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Midwest
·magicjack.com
·Google Voice
reply to Anon

said by mackey:

Why can't this thread just die already?

/M

I kind of hope it would have by now.

etaadmin

join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1

1 edit

1 recommendation

said by David:

said by mackey:

Why can't this thread just die already?

I kind of hope it would have by now.

It is not the thread, the problem are the people creating threads with the same subject expecting they'll get different answers.

»45 MB internet service

»Why does AT&T have slower speed packages?

and this one.

Maybe someone should make these threads sticky.

Answers:

1. Currently there is no 55 Mbps bonded profile.
2. We don't know when it will be available.
3. We don't know how much it will cost.
4. We don't know who will qualify.
5. Yes, cable offer much faster speeds than uverse.
6. Yes some cable outlets have usage caps... like uverse.
7. Yes at&t has the largest and fastest network in the universe.
8. Yes at&t takes good care of their institutional investors.

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

Uverse "caps" aren't enforced (on the VDSL side anyway.)

Have you EVER seen a thread here discussing overages? Thought so.


etaadmin

join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1

said by WhyMe420:

Uverse "caps" aren't enforced (on the VDSL side anyway.)

But they do exist... right? »Exclusive: AT&T To Impose Caps, Overages

»stopthecap.com/2012/07/09/att-cr···tations/

said by WhyMe420:

Have you EVER seen a thread here discussing overages? Thought so.

No, but I've seen some threads discussing uverse caps like this one
»Re: Uverse Caps

or this one

»Re: Holy AT&T Caps!

or this one

»Re: Sign here if you're cancelling because of the UBB policy!

or this one

»Re: Uverse Caps


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state
reply to etaadmin

6 is half way bs since the caps are not working.

7 is straight up BS.


etaadmin

join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1

said by Metatron2008:

6 is half way bs since the caps are not working.

7 is straight up BS.

Take number 7 to Merlin See Profile... if you can still find him here

As for number 6, the caps are working... the meters are not.

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

Argue semantics all you want but bottom line is U-verse VDSL isn't capped and nobody has been charged or even warned for going over the "cap."


BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Because AT&T is too dumb to figure out how to separate out the IPTV traffic. Once they figure it out, they will enforce the cap.


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

Yeah but until then, U-verse VDSL is as good as uncapped.


seaprobe

join:2006-07-16
Sunnyvale, CA

Yes, and once they turn on the 10.x.x.x range for internal (IPTV, VoIP) traffic, they will have a clean way to separate the external traffic. Once that is turned on, we'll have our caps again.


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

1 recommendation

The 10.x.x.x-related changes being made are for IPv6, not cap enforcement.


Zilveari

join:2012-07-30
Bloomington, IL
reply to dbeatson

Last I heard while I was a prem tech they had tested 75Mb profiles(very closed testing to some higher ups in the Schaumberg/Hoffman Estates area) through bonding, and that they had a theoretical maximum of something like 170-something Mb. Obviously the theoretical maximum was in a controlled environment with dedicated, simulated CO/SAI/VRAD/etc...

Honestly they don't REALLY want to compete with cable in throughput. If they did then they wouldn't limit FTTP customers to the same profiles as FTTN customers. Their stance was "Well we don't want to piss off the FTTN customers when they see the FTTP customers getting much better speeds).

If they truly wanted to compete through throughput, they would drive those FTTP profiles through the roof to show what CAN be done(the laymen wouldn't realize the massive tech differences between twisted pair/pair bonded twisted pair and FTTP).