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).
They have been "testing" higher profiles for quite some time now, at least WELL over a year. Whether it pans out to be something that can be used in a practical environment.... remains to be seen.
The distance limitations of xDSL will continue to plague this type of infrastructure for some time to come, so I personally don't think we'll see much coming out of AT&T, and if we do.... it will be limited to a small portion of subscribers that are within a certain distance. -- "I reject your reality and substitute my own!"
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 @$$ and get them to speed their offerings up.
iNids are the biggest pain in the ass for both customers an techs. By definition you are too far for the single pair and should probably stick with what you have or make another choice.
They only run off HPNA (coax, or phone wires) unless you get an experienced tech that can activate the ethernet port and uses this instead. Even then the Inid inside unit (wireless router) is only good when you connect directly to this port. 45 Mbps is a pipe dream over HPNA, customers have a hard time just getting their 12,18Mbps currently.
All INids have either a 19Mbps or 25Mbps profile as it is. Anybody paying for the 18 is getting hosed as they are not able to achieve this with much more than 1 tv on their service. The video is left to fight for that 7Mbps left over on the 25, it's smoke and mirrors from the sales clowns. iNid= Headache
The whole U-Verse system is a total Kludge anyways. From what a previous poster said, it would be an interior unit with two phone lines, which could be a wiring nightmare in some houses. I'm hoping AT&T goes ahead with this, even if I can't get it, or it's very limited, or hard to install, just to light more of a fire under the @$$ 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.
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.
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.
I am 1700 ft from the vrad and was put on inid with the 25 profile. Each bond was getting 50 meg each which was causing a bottleneck and causing majorsstability issues. My neighbor is on the 45 meg trial program with no issues. My end result was they took me off the inid and put me on the 32 meg profile.
I don't see all the hype about 100mbps cable speeds. What website allows you to access info at 100mbps. From an average user standpoint, I have 3 computers, all the game systems, Netflix, etc and the 18mbps works just fine.
"640k ought to be enough for anybody." -Bill Gates
It's not about being ready for today's applications, it's about being ready for tomorrow's. I tire of seeing all these "there is no reason for someone to have that much speed" quotes. It's short sighted. Just because it's "good enough" for you today doesn't mean that holds true for the future.
I just choose to not worry about distant future issues today. I don't need the speeds now and when the day comes that I will need them then I can explore my possibilities then for internet. It's like all the people going crazy over Y2K, stocking up with years worth of food and water, and nothing happened. And that was a possible world changing event. I wish my only problem in life was wishing I had 200mbps internet for what might be needed in the future.
Except there are practical methods of using high speed connections today. Hell, there's such things as 3d internet, which has long been discussed but never implemented due to bandwidth. Or things people don't think of.
Innovation can come with you have plenty of a resource. You are comparing panic to something that can spur innovation. Try and use your head.
The average US broadband speed is 5.8Mbps so perhaps you should go to the forums for every other broadband provider in the US and troll tell them how they need to speed things up so that we can have 3d Internet in the future.
Reading comprehension fail. Nowhere did I state anything about the past. My point was that AT&T still offers speeds that are 4 times faster than your average broadband Internet connection. Until the average broadband connection is 25+Mbps I'm not too worried about having 100Mbps at $90+ a month on a capped cable connection.