dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
6
TBBroadband
join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH

TBBroadband to NormanS

Member

to NormanS

Re: [CenturyTel] DSL phase out

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.

NormanS
I 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

NormanS

MVM

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.