US Telco Support > AT&T > AT&T U-verse > 45MB Internet on 55MB Bonded Profile?

reply to etaadmin

Re: 45MB Internet on 55MB Bonded Profile?

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

7 is straight up BS.

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."

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.

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

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.

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

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).

reply to dbeatson

Re: 45MB Internet on 55MB Bonded Profile?

reply to Zilveari
Yeah, they are really pissing off the FTTP folks, as they are running BPON and yet they can't get the same speeds that someone on the same block as a VRAD with copper can.

I understand that they can't crank the video bandwidth up, since they use one set of streams, but at least crank the internet up to 100/50 or something like that. Our neighborhood as an extra conduit for fiber, and it lays empty since AT&T isn't running brownfield FTTH. The U-Verse platform with IPTV offered the perfect way to start running brownfield fiber where it's easy in parallel with VDSL, but no, AT&T is too cheap to do that. At least if they did it in a few neighborhoods, it would light a fire under the local cable incumbent's @$$ and get them to speed their offerings up.

reply to dbeatson
iNids are the biggest pain in the ass for both customers an techs. By definition you are too far for the single pair and should probably stick with what you have or make another choice.

They only run off HPNA (coax, or phone wires) unless you get an experienced tech that can activate the ethernet port and uses this instead. Even then the Inid inside unit (wireless router) is only good when you connect directly to this port. 45 Mbps is a pipe dream over HPNA, customers have a hard time just getting their 12,18Mbps currently.

All INids have either a 19Mbps or 25Mbps profile as it is. Anybody paying for the 18 is getting hosed as they are not able to achieve this with much more than 1 tv on their service. The video is left to fight for that 7Mbps left over on the 25, it's smoke and mirrors from the sales clowns. iNid= Headache

The whole U-Verse system is a total Kludge anyways. From what a previous poster said, it would be an interior unit with two phone lines, which could be a wiring nightmare in some houses. I'm hoping AT&T goes ahead with this, even if I can't get it, or it's very limited, or hard to install, just to light more of a fire under the @$$ of the local cable monopoly. Our whole state has worse connectivity than our neighboring states, because they all have Verizon, and Verizon has pushed FIOS out, and even in places that can't get it, cable has upgraded their systems so much that they have much better connectivity.

reply to UverseTech
I wouldn't call the INiD the biggest pain in the ass, the tech I had install mine didn't have an idea how to enable the ethernet port. But after literally 1 minute of searching I found it. I've never ran the HPNA bridge because I don't need to. What seemed like a major pain in the ass is getting the install techs to work with the "outside" crew to figure things out. Once the stars aligned its been flawless ever since. Then again YMMV.

yeah that used to be an issue until i just started to tone my own second pairs back they are never connected unless you have an encapsulated connection. now i can get both pairs up in about the same amount of time an ir tech can. we are not supposed to but i cannot let the ir tech dicatate my efficiency so its just easier that way.

reply to guhuna
also the telco port underneath is always active and the interface is 172.17.0.1, it is fast enough for a couple of setop boxes. if the tier2 clowns ever reset your inid it will turn off the ethernet by default that is why i sometimes use the telco connection to ensure no matter what support wont break more than they fix:)

I've been using the telco port since I got the service. That way if the ethernet port ever got disabled somehow I wont even notice.
Makes you wonder why they even have two? Why not just have one and can serve a dual purpose.