dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed


Oklahoma City, OK

1 edit
reply to Paralel

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

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.