dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9
share rss forum feed

Paralel

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

1 recommendation

reply to Gardentool

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

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.