dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2766
share rss forum feed


jchambers28

join:2007-05-12
Alma, AR

[CenturyTel] DSL phase out

will century-link ever phase out DSL like AT&T and verizon?


toby
Troy Mcclure

join:2001-11-13
Portland, OR
If they phased out DSL, the company wouldn't exist anymore.

Nemesis158

join:2012-09-15
Spokane, WA
reply to jchambers28
I'd guess that 99% of CenturyLink's residential service is Hybrid DSL (FTTN using Copper phone lines, some areas without FTTN as well). It would be too large of an investment for them to convert any large portion of it to dedicated FTTH, as that would be the only way for them to phase it out.

neilsh

join:2004-08-12
Bellevue, WA
I doubt Centurylink will ever put in FTTH. Even Verizon and AT&T aren't upgraing everyone to that. They're pushing everyone to go LTE. Centurylink doesn't have a wireless infrastructure so unless they partner with another wireless provider, they have no where to go.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to jchambers28
said by jchambers28:

will century-link ever phase out DSL like AT&T and verizon?

I see no evidence that AT&T is "phasing out DSL"; unless by "DSL", you specifically mean, ADSL. What I am seeing is AT&T upgrading their ADSL circuits to ADSL2+, or VDSL. I expect that is pretty consistent with CenturyLink.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


xsbell

join:2008-12-22
Canada
kudos:8
reply to jchambers28
I think he means phasing out circuit switched networks for packet switched... from ATM to Ethernet.

And yes, they will.

Fibre

join:2011-06-11
reply to jchambers28
Doubt it. The massive amounts of greed and lack of innovation will not permit us to see the 'light' of day. It requires other companies moving forward like such example in recent weeks to shift communications forward.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to xsbell
said by xsbell:

I think he means phasing out circuit switched networks for packet switched... from ATM to Ethernet.

And yes, they will.

ATM and Ethernet are not necessary for "DSL". AT&T appears to be phasing out that which they had to share with CLECs; they'd rather not share. So IPTV (VDSL) and IPDSLAM (AT&T only applies them to ADSL2+/VDSL) will continue to be sold. And as fast as regulatory capture allows them to boot the CLECs from their ATM services, that fast will they retire ADSL.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


xsbell

join:2008-12-22
Canada
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Primus Telecommu..
said by NormanS:

ATM and Ethernet are not necessary for "DSL".

Can you please explain?

said by NormanS:

AT&T appears to be phasing out that which they had to share with CLECs; they'd rather not share. So IPTV (VDSL) and IPDSLAM (AT&T only applies them to ADSL2+/VDSL) will continue to be sold. And as fast as regulatory capture allows them to boot the CLECs from their ATM services, that fast will they retire ADSL.

That's exactly what I said, they are phasing out their circuit switched (ATM aggregated) network which is basically only used for wholesale access now. Their "IPDSLAM"/IPTV service runs on their packet switched (Ethernet aggregated) network.

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
reply to NormanS
In much of the AT&T regions they won't be able to phase out their ATM networks that easily. Still much of those customers can only get regular aDSL and nothing more. So unless AT&T wants to spend millions of dollars moving everyone over and soon, I don't see those CLECs and ISPs/ESPs going anywhere any time soon.

Even AT&T provides the links to become an ISP on their wholesale site very easy and up front, unlike Verizon. AT&T also makes MORE money off a 3rd party resold ISP then they do on retail.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to xsbell
said by xsbell:

That's exactly what I said, they are phasing out their circuit switched (ATM aggregated) network which is basically only used for wholesale access now. Their "IPDSLAM"/IPTV service runs on their packet switched (Ethernet aggregated) network.

On closer reading I see that. But why do people focus on DSL instead of the higher layer?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to TBBroadband
said by TBBroadband:

In much of the AT&T regions they won't be able to phase out their ATM networks that easily.

Those would be the areas AT&T was trying to sell off; and still would, if they could find a buyer.

AT&T also makes MORE money off a 3rd party resold ISP then they do on retail.

Which explains why a manager was telling another poster that they were looking for more ... wait, he said management was looking for ways to boot the CLECS, not encourage them.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
Those areas also feature IPDSL and VDSL with TV options- services that T wants to keep. So selling them off is hard to do. You can't sell off blocks of cities.

T could do as what Sprint used to; hire an outside ISP- Earthlink-- and allow them to deal with the customer and only provide the actual last mile. VZ did this in Ohio when they took over GTE until the state approved VZ to be an ISP under the merger. It worked out well as VZ made more $$$ than directly supporting a customer. They got $15 for the line - from the EU and then the ISP paid them as well.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by TBBroadband:

Those areas also feature IPDSL and VDSL with TV options- services that T wants to keep. So selling them off is hard to do. You can't sell off blocks of cities.

You are saying that AT&T isn't upgrading ADSL to ADSL2+ IP-DSLAM in areas where they have VDSL? News to me.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
Yes. Many areas are still too far out or powered by RTs. Take Ohio for example. Many areas are too far out to get ADSL2 that can barley get 1.5meg dsl. Some are lucky to even get that with no hope for VDSL or aDSL2+/IPDSL.

Ohio is one of Ameritech's main regions and still one of AT&T's happy hubs as they control 98% of the state, which most will never see upgrades past aDSL.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by TBBroadband:

Yes. Many areas are still too far out or powered by RTs. Take Ohio for example. Many areas are too far out to get ADSL2 that can barley get 1.5meg dsl. Some are lucky to even get that with no hope for VDSL or aDSL2+/IPDSL.

I am confused! One post you are saying they are keeping ADSL in areas with ADSL2+/VDSL, then next they are not deploying ADSL2+/VDSL in ADSL areas?

And Verizon did sell off FiOS in areas they did not want to continue offering ADSL services. AT&T would love to do the same.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
Some areas of ATT are ADSL2+ with VDSL some are ADSL2+ with regular DSL. Meaning some areas that may have the faster speeds available will never see anything above 6megs as AT&T isn't expanding their IPDSL to many more customers.

The customers with aDSL will never be able to upgrade to anything higher due to the distance from the COs and T not willing to put in an RT or VARD to allow for such higher speeds. So you can be in one town and be able to get VDSL and go a few streets away and end up with aDSL due to ATT not upgrading that area. There are also many areas where T has NO plans on upgrading the market past aDSL (6megs at most- but lucky to get 1.5). These are areas stuck in the middle of VDSL coverage areas.

and VZ only sold of those FiOS networks because it would not have made sense to keep one city in WA and the next in CA with nobody in between. And if VZ could have kept the FiOS networks they sold off I'm sure they would have but it's not possible to sell off all but a few streets. - well yet anyways.

TheMayor

join:2002-05-09
reply to NormanS
If you look at some of the news articles Karl has posted, any areas that AT&T doesn't want to upgrade & cannot sell, will probably have their DSL/Pots line service replaced with LTE (once they get all of the government "blocks" removed)

said by NormanS:

said by TBBroadband:

Yes. Many areas are still too far out or powered by RTs. Take Ohio for example. Many areas are too far out to get ADSL2 that can barley get 1.5meg dsl. Some are lucky to even get that with no hope for VDSL or aDSL2+/IPDSL.

I am confused! One post you are saying they are keeping ADSL in areas with ADSL2+/VDSL, then next they are not deploying ADSL2+/VDSL in ADSL areas?

And Verizon did sell off FiOS in areas they did not want to continue offering ADSL services. AT&T would love to do the same.


sestrada

join:2012-11-05
reply to jchambers28
Maybe.

They just rolled out a new IPTV service in my neighborhood.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to TBBroadband
said by TBBroadband:

Some areas of ATT are ADSL2+ with VDSL some are ADSL2+ with regular DSL.

Now I am even more confused. I know ADSL, ADSL2+, and VDSL can all coexist in a given service area, but how does a customer get "ADSL2+ with regular DSL"? Assuming that by "regular DSL" you mean ADSL, whether one can get "regular" (which seems should not be called that; unless 2+ is called, "ethyl"?), or "2+" depends on the equipment at the DSLAM location.

I know ADSL2+ doesn't depend on PTM because a relative can get ADSL2+/PTM from an AT&T CO, while I have ADSL2+/ATM from another provider. The AT&T ADSL2+ is their "IP-DSLAM" (U-verse HSI) service.

Meaning some areas that may have the faster speeds available will never see anything above 6megs as AT&T isn't expanding their IPDSL to many more customers.

Further confusion! I know that my relative who has AT&T "IP-DSLAM" (U-verse HSI) availability is only eligible for 3.0 mbps service (U-verse HSI Pro). That is because ADSL2+ has no magic power to deliver higher speed past about 7,000 feet or so.

The customers with aDSL will never be able to upgrade to anything higher due to the distance from the COs and T not willing to put in an RT or VARD to allow for such higher speeds.

But AT&T has installed ADSL2+ in a local CO! And offers IP-DSLAM to customers as far as 9,156 feet from that CO!

So you can be in one town and be able to get VDSL and go a few streets away and end up with aDSL due to ATT not upgrading that area.

So they aren't going to upgrade a customer too far for VDSL? Somebody must have forgotten to inform the folks at the CO serving my relative!

There are also many areas where T has NO plans on upgrading the market past aDSL (6megs at most- but lucky to get 1.5). These are areas stuck in the middle of VDSL coverage areas.

This is at odds with my local experience. I know of one case where a customer in the middle of a VDSL coverage area can get "IP-DSLAM" (U-verse HSI Pro) out of a CO.

I also set her up with a CLEC ADSL2+ service, and know that she doesn't qualify for U-verse HSI Elite, because her ADSL2+ modem will only sync at ~5800 kbps down. That is because past 7,500 feet, or so, ADSL2+ has no magic over ADSL. And AT&T caps to tiers, unlike the CLEC.

And, BTW, my relative is the only person I know unable to get 6.0 mbps from AT&T; but none I know who can get it can get ADSL2+ from the CLEC.

and VZ only sold of those FiOS networks because it would not have made sense to keep one city in WA and the next in CA with nobody in between.

Which would be different from selling off Wisconsin while keeping Illinois ......... how?

BTW, Verizon did not sell off their south S.F. Bay Area footprint (Los Gatos-Monte Sereno south to Morgan Hill); probably because neither FairPoint, nor Frontier serve the area. And AT&T surely doesn't need Verizon's castoffs.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to TheMayor
said by TheMayor:

If you look at some of the news articles Karl has posted, any areas that AT&T doesn't want to upgrade & cannot sell, will probably have their DSL/Pots line service replaced with LTE (once they get all of the government "blocks" removed)

I can believe that. The question is, where are they not willing to upgrade service. From what I can see, if they already offer VDSL in any given area, they seem quite willing to upgrade ADSL to ADSL2+ in the same area. I.e., if a neighbor two streets over can get either IPTV, or IP-DSLAM/VDSL, I will be able to get IP-DSLAM/ADSL2+.

I know of a CO in Yuba County which only has CLEC DSL service (Covad, so probably ADSL2+). I don't see AT&T upgrading that one; but the only likely buyer there is Surewest, and I doubt that they want to go through the same tribulations as FairPoint and Frontier are still facing trying to absorb Verizon's castoffs.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


mooch
No Booing Allowed

join:2001-11-11
Dublin, OH
Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
reply to TheMayor
said by TheMayor:

If you look at some of the news articles Karl has posted, any areas that AT&T doesn't want to upgrade & cannot sell, will probably have their DSL/Pots line service replaced with LTE (once they get all of the government "blocks" removed)

You folks are talking way over my head but when you say replaced by LTE, are you referring to mobile broadband LTE? If it is, that type of mobile broadband has caps that are pretty low...something like 10GB a month. If those kind of caps were in place how will folks deal with being moved over to LTE?


ILpt4U
Premium
join:2006-11-12
Lisle, IL
kudos:9
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
said by mooch:

You folks are talking way over my head but when you say replaced by LTE, are you referring to mobile broadband LTE? If it is, that type of mobile broadband has caps that are pretty low...something like 10GB a month. If those kind of caps were in place how will folks deal with being moved over to LTE?

Basically, yes, but using Fixed Broadband LTE. Verizon already sells the service, called Verizon HomeFusion

»www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/home···/main.do


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to mooch
said by mooch:

You folks are talking way over my head but when you say replaced by LTE, are you referring to mobile broadband LTE? If it is, that type of mobile broadband has caps that are pretty low...something like 10GB a month. If those kind of caps were in place how will folks deal with being moved over to LTE?

Pay tons of money. Or do without.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

TheMayor

join:2002-05-09
reply to NormanS
I believe the areas that they are not willing to upgrade is areas that cannot get any form of DSL & possibly the areas that only receive "1.5" Mbps

said by NormanS:

I can believe that. The question is, where are they not willing to upgrade service. From what I can see, if they already offer VDSL in any given area, they seem quite willing to upgrade ADSL to ADSL2+ in the same area. I.e., if a neighbor two streets over can get either IPTV, or IP-DSLAM/VDSL, I will be able to get IP-DSLAM/ADSL2+.



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by TheMayor:

I believe the areas that they are not willing to upgrade is areas that cannot get any form of DSL & possibly the areas that only receive "1.5" Mbps

quote:
I know of a CO in Yuba County ...


--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


jchambers28

join:2007-05-12
Alma, AR
reply to jchambers28
Is century link using Vrads like AT&T to deploy their TV and Internet service?


xsbell

join:2008-12-22
Canada
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Primus Telecommu..
said by jchambers28:

Is century link using Vrads like AT&T to deploy their TV and Internet service?

Yeah, it's the only way they can get closer to the customer to offer VDSL2 speeds.