| |
to NormanS
Re: [CenturyTel] DSL phase outIn 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. |
|
 NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P
|
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P
|
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P
|
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P
|
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. |
|
| NormanS |
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. |
|
 moochNo Booing Allowed
join:2001-11-11
Sunbury, OH |
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 Member
join:2006-11-12
Saint Louis, MO
Asus RT-N66
|
ILpt4U
Premium Member
2012-Nov-26 7:41 pm
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/ ··· /main.do |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P
|
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. |
|
|
| |
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+.
|
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P
|
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 ... |
|
