dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5074
share rss forum feed

Gardentool

join:2013-01-18
Oklahoma City, OK

Leaving AT&T U-Verse FTTP after 2 years :(

I have spent just over two years with U-Verse Internet only service. The house was new when it was bought, it is in a newer neighborhood with lots of other new developments around it, and luckily it is a FTTP installation. I have not noticed any outages and also I never had to call customer service. There were several reasons that have caused me to switch to Cox, along with adding CATV for the first time in 8 years.

The 2Wire 3800 HGB-V is a piece of equipment that I hated. It is large so it didn't fit into my structured wiring enclosure with other equipment in it. It has outdated standards, which caused a slow network inside the house. And it doesn't have a proper bridge mode to set a decent router behind it. So it had to sit on my desk and take up both Ethernet ports, one for the service line coming from the ONT and the other back to the switch in the closet. The wireless signal was pretty spotty everywhere in the house and I assume this is because it used internal antennas. About 6 months ago I decided to test out cloning the MAC Address to my D-Link DIR-655 I had sitting around from the previous place using AT&T DSL. Solved all my problems, except the $6/month rental fee. But why again must I rent it when it's not really used outside of authenticating (at some point)?

The increased fees have also irritated me. When I signed up they weren't offering any discounts without bundling services. So I paid $48/month plus a $3/month modem rental fee for 12/1.5 the entire time. About 2 months later the rental went up to $4, which wasn't a big deal. Last year it increased to $6 plus they are increasing the service price to $51 per month in a few days.

Everybody else has been outpacing AT&T in offering faster speeds. Cox has had DOCSIS 3 in the area for awhile now. It's been bonded channels around here for at least a year and maybe a little bit more. Yet AT&T still only offers a maximum of 18/1.5 for FTTP customers. Although customer service did try to offer me a deal on 24/3. I asked him if he was sure I could get it and the best response I got back was a tech would have to come out to verify it. I'm sure after the tech visited, told me I could not get it, the next deal offered would not be as enticing. I declined. I did read AT&T has promised faster speeds starting later this year.

The other complaints are not directly related to service I had, since I never had TV through AT&T, but they are the reasons why I didn't. No CableCard compatibility was a big one. I already had a TiVo with a lifetime sub but it would have been served the same purpose of OTA recording if I decided to use U-Verse TV so what was the point? I didn't want to pay a $10/month HD Service fee, or $15/month for a DVR, or hell any money so every TV could receive the programming. $2/month for a CableCard from Cox isn't a terrible deal, since it is cheaper than even a standard receiver rental. Also AT&T should follow suit with some good programming at a much lower rate than their $60/month 150 tier. I am enjoying Cox TV Economy, which dumps the costly channels out of their basic digital lineup, and costs roughly half the price. I don't care about ESPN, MTV, or many of the other ones. There are about 3 channels I do wish I could add, but they aren't worth $10/month each.

I do hope I can switch back to AT&T, at least for Internet, but only after they do something about the speeds and the modem rental. Cox hasn't been too bad so far for the weekend I've had it. I am getting 28/3 sustained and more like 35/8 during speed tests and PowerBoost and it costs just a little bit more than I was paying but it evens out since I added TV service too.


Paralel

join:2011-03-24
Michigan, US
kudos:4

1 recommendation

Most of what you're complaining about is ridiculous. It's not ATT's problem that your structured wiring enclosure wasn't a good fit for the equipment. You'll have to elaborate how it caused a slow network inside your house since that is the first I'm hearing of it. Depending on the footprint of the house, and the location of the wiring enclosure, there is never any guarantee you'll have perfect wireless coverage with any piece of hardware.

The fact that the gateway can't be bridged is an issue that is well documented, even two years ago. Why would you expect a service that is not based on CATV systems to be CableCard compatible? That is just ludicrous.


nephipower

join:2012-02-20
San Antonio, TX

1 recommendation

said by Paralel:

Most of what you're complaining about is ridiculous. It's not ATT's problem that your structured wiring enclosure wasn't a good fit for the equipment. You'll have to elaborate how it caused a slow network inside your house since that is the first I'm hearing of it. Depending on the footprint of the house, and the location of the wiring enclosure, there is never any guarantee you'll have perfect wireless coverage with any piece of hardware.

The fact that the gateway can't be bridged is an issue that is well documented, even two years ago. Why would you expect a service that is not based on CATV systems to be CableCard compatible? That is just ludicrous.

I will have to disagree with you. You may be right that it is not AT&T fault that the wiring enclosure isn't a good fit for the equipment. However, it is AT&T fault that they decided to go with a RG that is twice as large as most routers these days.

Also it is AT&Ts fault that all their RGs are only 100 mbit connections, which is why i believe the OP is saying is part of the cause of the slow network inside the home. Not to mention that it only supports wireless G and also has a pretty crappy wifi built into the service.

Also it is understandable that a cablecard won't work on uverse because it is a totally different technology but the point I think the OP was trying to make is that it only costs $2 for the cablecard equipment which is a way better price than what uverse will charge you for an STB, all all the crazy DVR fees and stuff.

Gardentool

join:2013-01-18
Oklahoma City, OK

1 edit
reply to Paralel

No of course it isn't AT&T's fault that their equipment isn't a good fit. I could have ripped out the enclosure, installed one larger and made it fit. There still would have been other compromises such as even more reduced wireless signal to the point I probably would have needed to add an AP elsewhere in the house. So I choice the path I did, and still had other compromises.

But as for the HG, the problem is AT&T swearing up and down it's required, which isn't entirely true. Cloning the MAC Address and setting up the DNS servers was all that was required for me to start only using my DIR655. Now as I mentioned I never had a noticeable outage, so it's entirely possible if it was extended, I would have had to plug back in the HG to authenticate with their end again. But it's also possible for AT&T to come up with a solution around that, especially for Internet only customers. I get it if they need it with phone and TV, but Internet-only doesn't. I would be happy buying a little box that would authenticate (and just think of it as the "modem) or hell a dollar or two to lease one wouldn't be bad as long as it was small enough to be hidden and allowed me full use of my own equipment behind it. Or do something like the cable companies and authenticate with a router's MAC address (whereas the cable companies would use the modem's MAC). There's no need for a "modem" with FTTP as the ONT serves that purpose.

As for slower network speeds, the 3800 at least, is only 10/100Mb. It did performance worse than the DIR655 internally, which even though can't push the entire gigabit does perform higher than 100Mb. Now it didn't really improve anything else that is stuck on 10/100Mb such as the Xbox 360 or PS3, but it did work better for the desktop to NAS transfers.

As for wireless, the DIR655 had no problems covering the house with its 2.4GHz band while the 3800 did. I suspected it is because of the internal antenna design. Sure it looks better but at a cost of performance and coverage, in my case. It goes back to allowing a broader choice for customers so they can set it up for their needs instead of some cookie cooking template.

I get what you are saying about the CableCard, I do. IPTV does have its advantages and disadvantages. Unfortunately for me, no CableCard compatibility was a reason to not ever try out their TV service myself. I already owned the TiVo with a lifetime sub for use with OTA and for future use if I ever decided to get cable again. Verizon FiOS is also using FTTP, and decided to go with an RF system like traditional CATV so they can do it too. I just wish AT&T had followed suit. It would have solved any of my complaints just like the CableCard, allowing TVs without an STB to still receive ClearQAM channels, etc. But it was AT&T's choice and leaves out some customers. If/when I do go back to AT&T for Internet, I still won't be interested in their TV service just like I wasn't before. Not a big deal as I can stay with Cox for TV or go back to just OTA like before.

So like I said, I'm not here to completely diss U-Verse. I had a great experience, except for those complaints. Those you brought up were almost entirely fixed by dumping the 3800. I'd love to go back after some of this changes. My biggest reason for leaving was speed though. Really I could keep living with a $6/month rental for a piece of equipment I don't need. I did it for a year. But 18/1.5 as the highest FTTP tier, when most of the competition providers are offering well above that is absurd on their end.


UverseTech

join:2012-08-04
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to nephipower

The 3800 was replaced in 2010 with the 3801. All 3800 should have been removed or phased out but due to the greed factor they are still being put out today especially in the S Tex area. Hell thats all i could get while working in Houston and for that matter San Antonio and Dallas customers should all be up in arms over this BS as well.

It really appears that the poor maintenance of the outside plant and lack of quality CPE, the way of uverse is headed is in the wrong direction.

One more thing the ONTs should have been provisioned with a more realistic amount of bandwidth. 32/5 is such an insult to this equipment what a waste of money. Its as if they installed these just to say they had FTTP to compete with Verison.



brookeKrige

join:2012-11-05
San Jose, CA
kudos:3
reply to Gardentool

BreakingNews AT&T customers @arms length of fiber flee to cable

(It's not so Breaking News of course, but known for some time).

Google/Verizon (and rest of world) must be stupefied by the embarrassing, beyond sad state of AT&T FTTP. Where's the outrage or class action by the share holders at this gross mismanagement?

Off peak speed-testing: do you at least in fact routinely hit or slightly exceed (the artificial emulation of bad copper) 12/1.5?

fyi: Have seen forced upgrades from DSL to uverse (no TV) that gave a 3800, with no rental fee.


Gardentool

join:2013-01-18
Oklahoma City, OK

Re: BreakingNews AT&T customers @arms length of fiber flee to ca

I've always hit the 12/1.5 (minus the overhead so think it's around 11.5/1.25) any time of day and any day of the week. Never above as I'm sure they keep a tight "cap". But then again for awhile I was probably the only U-Verse user anywhere close to me. It's my understanding from the tech that the box in my backyard was for all 7 plots or so in my little section of the street, and they have never ran another piece of fiber to it. Granted I think only 4 of the houses are occupied right now.

Hmm even chatting to the guy on the phone, he never once offered to waive the rental fee, and that was my biggest complaint to him was I'm paying for something I don't really need to use. Although of course reading from a script and corporate policy, he thinks you really do. He offered Max Turbo for $44/month then $6 rental. But like I said, I'm 99.99% certain that 24/3 is still off limits to FTTP so it would have been a waste of time for them to schedule a tech to come tell me I can't get it. Oh well I'm sure they'll be offering just as good of a deal later to get me back as a customer.

I'm also not a forced upgrade, as I never had the option for anything but fiber here. I know when I signed up originally had I went with the next tier lower (which was the same speeds as the DSL Elite I had at the apartment I lived before buying the house) I had the option to purchase a 3600 for $100 instead of renting. I should have tried to do that then upgrade the tier in hind sight.



cybersleauth

join:2012-03-04
Livonia, MI
reply to Gardentool

Re: Leaving AT&T U-Verse FTTP after 2 years :(

The router can do bridge mode. I even have an IPV6 tunnel passing through.
»scottworldblog.wordpress.com/201···extreme/

cybersleauth
Hobby Website: »www.viewcrafters.com



dahan

join:2000-10-25
Leander, TX

said by cybersleauth:

The router can do bridge mode. I even have an IPV6 tunnel passing through.

DMZ+ isn't bridge mode, although it's close enough for a lot of things. But people who need a true bridge mode are SOL.

MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to Gardentool

I'm pretty sure AT&T is intentionally sabotaging their FTTP service at this point. This goes beyond incompetence.

They do NOT want their customers to know what true FTTP is capable of so they have made the strategic decision to keep their FTTP customers not just at their copper customers' level, but actually one notch below them.

I hope DOCSIS 3.0 cable continues to stomp all over AT&T.



cybersleauth

join:2012-03-04
Livonia, MI
reply to cybersleauth

Yes first I set the dmz zone on the router then reading the article I checked the router behind router box. Disabling everything except ping. I needed ping for the IPV6 Tunnel service from Hurricane Electric. I Tried automatic settings for IPV6 on MY D-link 825 version B. But not luck, so I used the manual settings page and I must have had enough information from Hurricane Electric to get IPV6 works on All my computers. Voila Route able IP address and a website on every pc using my At&T Uverse service.
»www.viewcrafters.com



Tech007
Premium
join:2013-01-25
Belleville, IL
Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
reply to MURICA

The reason fiber is restricted to 32mb is because of having copper and fiber infrustructure. Unless you rip out all the copper and replace it with fiber, you can't allow fiber to have higher speeds than you legacy copper can get(FCC regs) so when they start offering the higher speeds on copper with pair bonding, vectoring, etc they will be allowed to increase the speeds to fiber.



ilikeme
I live in a van down by the river.
Premium
join:2002-08-27
Sugar Land, TX
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Vonage

said by Tech007:

The reason fiber is restricted to 32mb is because of having copper and fiber infrustructure. Unless you rip out all the copper and replace it with fiber, you can't allow fiber to have higher speeds than you legacy copper can get(FCC regs) so when they start offering the higher speeds on copper with pair bonding, vectoring, etc they will be allowed to increase the speeds to fiber.

That is not the case at all! If that were, then Verizon FIOS would also be limited to about 12mbps lol, and I can guarantee you that it is not. I have FIOS at one location and U-Verse at another. It is just AT&T does not want to spend the money on additional equipment needed yet. I am considering switching my house with U-Verse back to Comcast because of the speeds.
--

Fiber Optics is the future of high-speed internet access. Stop by the BBR Fiber Optic Forum


Tech007
Premium
join:2013-01-25
Belleville, IL
Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service

Can you get FIOS on copper? Isnt FIOS only available if you have FTTP? Uverse is available on FTTP or copper so I am assuming that is the difference but correct me if I am wrong

That would be why FTTP has to be restricted. If uverse was only a FTTP product they could offer 100, 300 mb plans if they wanted to..



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

said by Tech007:

Can you get FIOS on copper? Isnt FIOS only available if you have FTTP?

There is a very small number of VDSL2 FiOS customers -- mostly in MDUs. Basically its Fiber to the IT room, and then a VRAD in the IT to connect with the copper pairs via VDSL2 to the units. So, in certain, limited situations, there is VDSL2 FiOS.

There are occasionally posts over in the FiOS forum regarding VDSL2 FiOS

UverseTech

join:2012-08-04
Reviews:
·Charter

There are a good number of these in the Dallas metro, very nice in some, especially in that new complex by the convention center in Irving. There is one thas still stands out, it was in an average apt complex in Houston and it was in a shed in the very back with no indication except for the yellow/black cross-connect wire wrapped around the door handle. In all cases there was good quality cat5 running to a smart panel in the units. This is a great concept, just not used in most situations.


Gardentool

join:2013-01-18
Oklahoma City, OK
reply to cybersleauth

Cybersleauth: I am happy it works for you, and others, but I never did get DMZ+ to work quite right for me.

Even if what Tech007 is saying is true, why can't they have matching speeds for both copper and fiber? I probably would have considered staying an Internet customer if 24/3 was really available on FTTP, but as far as AT&T's availability checker it still shows it is not. And I do not trust the words of a customer service rep who doesn't understand the differences between FTTP and FTTN installations. AT&T deciding to (re)brand all their services as U-Verse is only causing confusion for both customers and their low-level employees.


Zoder

join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL
reply to Tech007

said by Tech007:

Can you get FIOS on copper? Isnt FIOS only available if you have FTTP? Uverse is available on FTTP or copper so I am assuming that is the difference but correct me if I am wrong

That would be why FTTP has to be restricted. If uverse was only a FTTP product they could offer 100, 300 mb plans if they wanted to..

There is no such regulation. Fiber networks have been deregulated since Bush's 1st term


Tech007
Premium
join:2013-01-25
Belleville, IL
Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service

If its not regulation then it is self imposed since fttp usually is deployed for brand new neighborhoods but rarely replaced in old ones and they are doing it "in fairness" accross the board. I would expect to see fiber speeds increase when we start increasing the speeds on copper

I can't wait for the new modems, they will be so much better!


Zoder

join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL

Exactly it's self imposed. Of course it really doesn't make sense because they call IPDSLAM, FTTC VDSL2, and FTTH UVerse. IPDSLAM can't reach the speeds of FTTC VDSL2 lines yet they have no problem calling both UVerse. So why make the distinction on the other end by crippling their FTTH lines?

I'm sure there's a crazy reason that senior management has come up with to justify this.

Expand your moderator at work

Hilbe

join:2002-12-13
Fishers, IN
reply to Gardentool

Re: Leaving AT&T U-Verse FTTP after 2 years :(

I am in the same boat. I've been on U-Verse FTTP for 2 years. Comcast has a lot higher speeds on coaxial. I hate Comcast worse than AT&T, so that's the only reason I have AT&T at this point. I did call AT&T today and got them to compete with Comcast. They knocked off $15 / month for 12 months. That'll hold me over for a while...



Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state

There's no crazy reason. It would cost money to update the ONTs and At&t management is about as big penny pinchers as you'd find.

They have a hard time finding reasons to spend money on things that would make tons, much less spend for 5% of their customers.



Boricua
Premium
join:2002-01-26
Sacramuerto
reply to Hilbe

said by Hilbe:

I am in the same boat. I've been on U-Verse FTTP for 2 years. Comcast has a lot higher speeds on coaxial. I hate Comcast worse than AT&T, so that's the only reason I have AT&T at this point. I did call AT&T today and got them to compete with Comcast. They knocked off $15 / month for 12 months. That'll hold me over for a while...

I feel the same as you. It's either U-Verse or Comcrap , which of the lesser of two evils.
--
Illegal aliens have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian. Robert Orben

Oedipus

join:2005-05-09
kudos:1

said by Boricua:

said by Hilbe:

I am in the same boat. I've been on U-Verse FTTP for 2 years. Comcast has a lot higher speeds on coaxial. I hate Comcast worse than AT&T, so that's the only reason I have AT&T at this point. I did call AT&T today and got them to compete with Comcast. They knocked off $15 / month for 12 months. That'll hold me over for a while...

I feel the same as you. It's either U-Verse or Comcrap , which of the lesser of two evils.

Comcast. No question.


brookeKrige

join:2012-11-05
San Jose, CA
kudos:3
reply to Gardentool

(First an aside: If ATT were about ultimate customer service [ala sonic.net], for even copper ADSL/VDSL, couldn't the modems support trading-off more downstream bandwidth for up (in the bit-loading allocation)? Instead of 24/3, customer could elect to lose 12M down, to gain another 1.5M up: 12/4.5?)

On FTTP madness: Giving FTTP subscribers their due (even just giving near symmetric 24/24), is feared to eat into lucrative business class subscribers? Or near symmetric feared to drive up P2P, torrenting, content-serving, ... more off-peak data transfer, higher average utilization?

Are there two types of neighborhood nodes (VRAD) serving the FTTP?
1. Those serving 90% or more fiber ports, in areas of new buildouts.
2. Those with 10% or fewer fiber ports (dating when fiber was young, 20 years ago), but dominated by copper.

For type-2, can theorize aggregate/total node BW/capacity is maintained for all/most ports at fully-loaded copper (triple play). If fiber-port terminations heavily outperformed copper, and fiber customers given a big BW boost, it would come at expense of turning off copper ports.

Which means losing subscribers, and the fiber customers would not pay enough to make up for loss of other (potentially) triple-play copper customers. ATT in love with the margins at the bottom of the market: relatively low BW, heavily asymmetric, low utilization/caps, where they can better oversubscribe the node capacity?

But for type-1 (new buildouts), have to believe total node capacity was designed better. Maybe ATT are sitting on warehouses of inventory of obsolete fiber termination equipment, that they can't bear to write off?


Matt7

join:2001-01-02
Columbus, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Insight Communic..
reply to Gardentool


I am quite happy with AT&T's 24 down / 3 up.. I know it's not as fast as some of the cable providers.. Only thing I have against ATT is their pricing is not as competitive as cable.. $72 a month for 24MB down compared to around $45-50 for 20MB/2MB with Time Warner... [can't get cable here though so I am stuck with AT&T].



Mangix

join:2012-02-16
united state
reply to brookeKrige

From a technical standpoint, torrenting is not an issue. most torrent clients use uTP instead of TCP which helps tremendously with congestion.

But from a business standpoint, AT&T wants to sell their TV service. The sad fact is that Comcast(NBC) and AT&T are both TV companies. The internet is an afterthought.


Hilbe

join:2002-12-13
Fishers, IN
reply to Gardentool

So when you cancel on FTTP, do they take back RG and the battery backup unit as well? I just signed up with Comcast and will be canceling AT&T. Curious.


UverseTech

join:2012-08-04

BBU is yours and the RG will need to be sent back, usually UPS store can handle this, at least this was the procedure thru 8-2012 when I quit.