reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:Much of the return path was freed up with a couple of things.. one of them being that when many cable systems went "DIGITAL" that cleared alot of frequency noise in the return path for getting the 15mbit upload speeds. So, unless they are using unshielded rg59 or worse cable in the outside plant which is not properly conditioned, they are being cheap about upgrades (inside and outside plant).. even U-verse dsl could offer more than 5mbit upload..
My guess is that this limitation is technical more than anything else. A 3.2MHz wide return path channel only has 10-15 Mbps of capacity, depending on modulation. You don't want to push more than 5 Mbps of that to a single user. That's why neither TWC nor Grande scale beyond 5 Mbps on the upstream side right now, though both probably have upstream bonding enabled in a few select markets.
Contrast this to Cablevision, where they've got a 6.4MHz wide upload channel or two (and 15 Mbps uploads on their highest package). Or Comcast, where 2-4 upstreams, one or more of them with 6.4MHz of bandwidth, can be used to push up to 75 Mbp sup (though for the time being most plans will sit in the 5-20 Mbps range).
Trust me, I like upload speed just as much as the next guy. But you're dealing with a physical plant that was built with the express purpose of delivering a lot of data in one direction, with little thought to the other.
said by tmc8080:Here Bell Canada offers 10Mbps up via VDSL2 so AT&T should have no problem either.
even U-verse dsl could offer more than 5mbit upload..
·Verizon Online DSL
...and CenturyLink offers 20Mbps in certain places. However upload speeds are the first thing to go when you get more than a couple thousand feet from the DSLAM.
Honestly, it's probably easier for TWC/Grande to roll out higher upload speeds to the majority of their footprint than it is for DSL providers to do the same. But pockets of VDSL do make TWC et al look bad at 5 Mbps up. On the other hand, AT&T U-Verse won't sell more than 3 Mbps up.
This is because AT&T deployed U-Verse on the cheap.. to properly deploy the network, it would have cost much more than the 100 million or so that AT&T put into U-Verse before pivoting to wireless. Before AT&T pivoted, they were talking DSL channel bonding to offer 100/25 mbit tiers. Now it's just hot air.. AT&T will probably do nothing more to deploy U-Verse, FTTP or other wireline unless it is backhaul for wireless.
BTW, there was suppsoed to be a 25/8mbit tier offered to qualifying lines at 3k feet and under.. 3 mbit up was able to be offered in the 1990s.. since then it's somewhat better with vdsl2, 2+ However it was dropped because of the bad PR it would have with some haves and some have nots.. Bell Atlantic was plagued with this problem and necessary remedy costs, which forced their hand into FTTP. The problem being, they could have totally wired 2 states, not 13 with their budget. That would have obviously been Ny and NJ, and the rest would have been screwed...