Topic 'Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse' in forum '' - dslreports.com

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:49:18 EDT

BiggA posted : If they wanted to, they could do what Verizon did and use MoCA. MoCA is fast enough to support IPTV over coax, so they would have a gentle upgrade path. However, to get to gigabit in-house speeds, you need CAT 5.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Sun, 10 Feb 2013 05:39:12 EDT

davidhoffman posted : My bad. After your comment I did the math based on a standard Chicago city block from my childhood. There are approximately 8 blocks per mile with 50 houses per block. A 8 block segment would comprise 400 houses. The alley between the houses holds the telephone poles. I only need to take the fiber from the alley to the exterior wall. The fiber between the alley poles is already done. Assuming 6 hours per shift per day of actual wiring time, that leaves one house wired per minute for one wiring crew. Obviously not enough time. Increase that to a more reasonable 30 minutes, and you need about 32 wiring crews to do 400 houses. That would be 4 crews per block. My statement of a few trucks was inaccurate.

I still think it would be worth it to have a capped off fiber optic cable at every premises or house. If a request for service came in, the technicians would not have to do the big labor of running the fiber from the alley. In its most basic form for telephone and internet, the technician could install the Uverse NID and then connect into the existing telephone line infrastructure of the house. VDSL2 technology should then allow for 100Mbps symmetrical service over the typically under 300 meter in house wiring runs.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Sat, 09 Feb 2013 21:56:50 EDT

BiggA posted : I understand that. However, that goes back to the whole cable slowing down thing. If cable is properly set up, it doesn't have any shared bandwidth problems, and it is far faster than DSL-based products. The other factor is that U-Verse is shared at the node, DSL is shared at the CO... ultimately it's all shared at some point, it's just a matter of where. And either system can be poorly implemented. So basically, the whole shared thing doesn't matter. Cable at 860mhz is bringing 4,484mbps of data into your house, not including upstream, while U-Verse is LUCKY to be provisioned at 32/5. Also, in terms of being shared, U-Verse shares bandwidth between TV and internet, where cable doesn't.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Sat, 09 Feb 2013 20:23:41 EDT

DocGizmo posted : Ya but do you realize Cable is a shared Construct. Uverse Is Point to Point Bandwith thats them to you. Think of comcast and the cable companys as a bus Route.. it has stops... in a Loop.. At@t is more like a direct line one you have the connection + or - u should be close to what you get... With cable the Signal goes down and the Power amps get Going ....LOL

Doc

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Fri, 08 Feb 2013 12:35:41 EDT

BiggA posted : elray, Customers won't know the technical details, but when their internet slows down while watching TV harkens back to the days that you need two phone lines to talk on the phone and use the internet at the same time, or they can only get 2 or 3 HD streams into the house at once, they will start to notice how much U-Verse sucks. Especially when cable rolls out 6-tuner 4+ room DVRs that run on MoCA, and AT&T ran out of bandwidth at 4. Pair bonding can only get them so far. They are bandwidth starved, and they need to go to FTTH.

Unfortunately, it will take a few years for AT&T to either have U-Verse stagnate or start bleeding customers, or have very high churn, and THEN, after they've dumped millions more into an archaic copper plant before they are finally forced to go fiber. The other problem that they have is that U-Verse only gets some of the customers on a CO, whereas fiber, as long as you can get into MDUs, is 100%, as you can just keep running the fiber until you hit all the customers, since it's not distance sensitive at that scale.

tanzam75, Verizon knew what was right, and rolled out FIOS until their leadership got really stupid and stopped expanding it. AT&T CAN be fully competitive with cable over their entire territory. GPON fiber can get them there. They should shrink the capacity of their copper plant to reduce ongoing maintenance costs, instead of building more capacity into it with shoestrings and bubble gum to handle U-Verse.

Telcos surely can compete with coax. It's called GPON. It's faster than what cable has, and puts them at a slight advantage, and at worst case, causes the cable providers to burn through some money splitting nodes, rolling out SDV, and the like just to keep up with fiber.

In the long run, Verizon will do just fine with FIOS. It is a telling sign how stupid customers are though, as if customers understood anything about anything FIOS would have a 100% take rate and cable would have to adapt to dual-channeling with SDV and faster internet speeds to compete.

For AT&T it will be MORE expensive. They are losing customers who would otherwise sign up for a service, and they are DUMPING money into U-Verse for plant upgrades with limited benefit. The cost of maintaining a complicated FTTN network with so much active gear out in the field is significant. Verizon doesn't have active equipment out in the field, they have two passive networks that are passive from the CO to the customer.

tschmidt, There is definitely room for a second provider in most markets, especially with triple-play. Verizon needs to get better at marketing their service, especially in regards to upload speeds and HD quality. I can think of all sorts of funny ads they could create that visually show what Comcast is doing by triple-channeling their QAM.

Right, the time horizon is the issue. Long-term, U-Verse will be far less profitable than two right-sized passive plants, GPON and POTS, but U-Verse is cheap to install now.

I doubt we'd see a wholesale last-mile network, who would want to build it? The profit is in the content and phone services, not providing raw pipes. The other issue is that you'd need one fiber cable per customer, and not multiplex 32:1 like Verizon does with GPON.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Fri, 08 Feb 2013 11:18:15 EDT

tschmidt posted :

said by tanzam75:

The problem is that the cable companies have an unassailable cost advantage all the way up to the 10 Gbps capacity of the coax. Until that point comes, the telcos cannot compete on equal terms with the cable companies.

During the early days of residential broadband I though DSL would win since the cost of rolling it out was lower than what the MSOs had to do to modify HFC cable plant.

However DOCSIS advances have far outstripped DSL. Being copper, both have first-mile have distance limits, but it is much cheaper to add another cable node then a VRAD to improve performance. As mentioned DOCSIS channel bonding, while a kludge from an architectural perspective, is a cost effective way to add capacity. Throw in switching rather than broadcast to conserves cable bandwidth and Cable has a massive advantage over DSL today.

I’m a DSL subscriber about 13,000 feet with 6Mbps service. Unless there is some wonderful new physics/DSP magic that is the end of the line for DSL. That speed works fine for my family today but I’m sure in a few years it will be woefully inadequate.

said by tanzam75:

The longer they wait, the less costly it will be. First, because the equipment will cost less. Second, because a dollar in the future is worth less than a dollar today.

Fiber construction cost is decreasing but the bulk of the cost to roll out FTTP is labor. Waiting does not really help. The problem is first-mile CAPEX is high so ROI takes a long time, which is why it has been such a contentious issue all these years. As long as the Cablecos are able to offer ever increasing speed there is very little marketing advantage for a second player, too much risk and too little payback.

I was excited when Verizon aggressively rolled out FIOS. They could offer a compelling advantage and FIOS OPEX is much lower than copper reducing long term cost. But they, like most other publicly traded companies, seem to have gotten caught up in the profitability of the quarter club and walked away from wired networks all together. That may be good business for Verizon but bad for the rest of us. Long term wired fiber networks are a great investment, but one needs a reasonable time horizon.

Personality I'd love to see a wholesale first-mile network, sort of like what has happened in the electric utilities, but that is unlikely to happen.

/tom

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Thu, 07 Feb 2013 19:46:34 EDT

tanzam75 posted :

said by BiggA:

... AT&T will go FTTH, or they will die. At least the landline division.

Business is about maximizing your returns. Sometimes this means strategic retreat from an area where you cannot be competitive. In AT&T's case, this means opting for FTTN and choosing to keep only the customers without high bandwidth requirements.

If the landline division has to shrink, then that might be a better outcome for AT&T than pouring money into it and getting only negligible returns.

The problem is that the cable companies have an unassailable cost advantage all the way up to the 10 Gbps capacity of the coax. Until that point comes, the telcos cannot compete on equal terms with the cable companies.

If you do what Verizon did, then you find yourself paying off an expensive new physical plant, while the cablecos only have to maintain their already-paid-for coax. The cablecos can therefore afford to run customer-retention promotions, which limits your take rate, which makes it even harder to pay for the fiber.

said by BiggA:

The longer AT&T waits, the more costly it will be in the long run to go to FTTH.

The longer they wait, the less costly it will be. First, because the equipment will cost less. Second, because a dollar in the future is worth less than a dollar today.

There will be a window of opportunity that opens up in another decade or so, when the cable companies max out the bandwidth of the coax. At that point, the cablecos will also have to deploy FTTP. And it'll be an even playing field.

AT&T landline will be a smaller division then, because they'll have shed customers. But they will still have the right-of-way to build upon. And there's no real advantage to incumbency -- you're really competing for customers all over again when you deploy fiber. Verizon, Cincinnati Bell, etc. are getting roughly the same take rate for fiber as any cable overbuilder would.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Thu, 07 Feb 2013 19:24:22 EDT

elray posted : Consumers aren't going to realize how much AT&T sucks and switch.
They don't care as much as you or I do. AT&T's speed, services and gizmos are more than adequate.

The "leadership" you refer to doesn't assure profitability, only a race to the bottom with cable, and it ain't gonna happen so long as they are publicly traded.

$70 FTTH doesn't sell.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Thu, 07 Feb 2013 18:47:18 EDT

BiggA posted : The guys at Verizon who did FIOS get it. AT&T doesn't. They can't stay stagnant forever, and what they did is create a system that will be forever stagnant. Cable will keep upgrading with D3.1, small nodes, 8-channel bonding, etc, and U-Verse will have nowhere to go. The investors are driving AT&T into the ground with short-term thinking. They need leadership who actually has balls to go in there and do what's right for the company (lay as much fiber down as they physically can until they can serve nearly everyone) in the long term, not just for this quarter or next quarter, or the next 10 quarters, but for the long haul. When consumers realize how much U-Verse sucks, they'll switch back to cable or satellite, and AT&T will have to upgrade again, after having wasted millions on the kludge that is U-Verse.

AT&T should just cut their losses now, and wire their territory with GPON FTTH with IPTV, and then right-size the copper plant by reducing it's size and complexity significantly, scrapping a significant amount of the wiring out there, making as much of it as passive as possible, and using ADSL2+ to serve customers still on copper, as well as extremely rural customers with RDSLAMs where FTTH wouldn't pan out. They could differentiate their fiber and generate more profit by hitting the $70/1gbps price point, as opposed to bottom scraping like they sort of are now.

What would be even bolder is if they built an HSPA+/LTE microcell and public WIFI router into every home router, giving them a huge advantage in the wireless space.

Instead, they are throwing money down the drain by upgrading their copper system and making an already kludgy and overcomplicated system even worse.

The business is clear if you look at a couple of years. It's also very clear that FTTH is the right move for the long term business model.

OTOH, the government should allow them to start dismantling their copper plant in exchange for offering gigabit fiber service to each and every customer in each municipality where they want to dismantle copper.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 20:17:46 EDT

elray posted : That's simply inaccurate.
AT&T does just fine without upgrading to FTTH, and according to the peanut gallery and Dane Jasper and Google, the cost has come down dramatically, so AT&T is proven quite wise to wait.

It may turn out that indeed, they can choose to never upgrade, especially if the customer base continues to refuse to pay the price for higher speeds. Management and investors do "get it". Insulting their intelligence doesn't change the math.

Mind you, I think AT&T is a horrible company that does nothing right by their customers, and I take great pleasure in permanently disconnecting them at every turn. But the business case is pretty clear, and they're not a charity.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 18:15:47 EDT

BiggA posted : The reason they didn't do it is because they have impatient, technologically stupid investors who don't understand that in the long run, AT&T will go FTTH, or they will die. At least the landline division. Aside from the stock market, the rational business decision would be FTTH coverage nearly everywhere, and strategically building FTTH into markets with other telcos that haven't upgraded to fiber.

Yes, cable companies have a much easier upgrade path, but the telcos, in the long run, can't afford not to upgrade. The problem is, they have management and investors who just don't get it.

The longer AT&T waits, the more costly it will be in the long run to go to FTTH.

Cable could easily compete with FTTH if they decide they want to, but copper telephone lines will never compete.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 17:38:44 EDT

contsole posted :

said by RadioDoc:

So I guess Gigabit Ethernet over twisted pairs is magic?

4 pair and 100 meter limit.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:22:08 EDT

elray posted :

said by davidhoffman:

What if Verizon had used its rights as a utility provider, where they already provided "regulated" POTS, to take the fiber-optic cable to all the premises on a city block during one short period of time? They could have rolled a few trucks and gotten all the premises on several city blocks in one day. They would have only been going to the exterior wall, and probably could have terminated the fiber-optic cable at or very near the existing NID. That would have reduced the final connection and installation costs for those who signed up for actual service.

It doesn't happen in "one short period of time".
It doesn't involve "a few" trucks.
It is a massive event.

And that's just to wire to the premise.
Wiring the building is another massive undertaking.

Why should they go through all the effort and expense, if in the end, the customers aren't willing to buy the service?

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:28:49 EDT

c4junk posted : Fiber is expensive in large part due to the labor of splicing but I don't see why Telco could not run coax down property line on the pole from the RT (VRAD), it is easy , in my younger lineman days 2-3 guys could/did pull and hang a few blocks in a day of 50-100 pair copper ca. If they ran coax (lighter than copper ca.) you could put in a run and feed just the houses that had or could be sold VOIP, TV etc and leave the copper POTS alone for now.
As homes went VOIP they would not be allowed back on copper (after a period of trial time) like Verizon did with FTTH.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 02:20:37 EDT

davidhoffman posted : What if Verizon had used its rights as a utility provider, where they already provided "regulated" POTS, to take the fiber-optic cable to all the premises on a city block during one short period of time? They could have rolled a few trucks and gotten all the premises on several city blocks in one day. They would have only been going to the exterior wall, and probably could have terminated the fiber-optic cable at or very near the existing NID. That would have reduced the final connection and installation costs for those who signed up for actual service.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:04:04 EDT

tanzam75 posted :

said by Gib4500:

The Docsis 3.1 platform is aiming to support capacities of at least 10Gbit/s downstream and 1Gbit/s upstream.

You can already push about 6 Gbps over a 1 GHz cable plant. DOCSIS 3.0 gives you 38 Mbps of actual bandwidth per 6 MHz channel.

DOCSIS 3.1 gives you about 10 Gbps over the same 1 Ghz cable plant. That's a significant improvement, but not the game-changer that DOCSIS 3.0 was, with channel bonding.

It's essentially equivalent to a node split, except cheaper. You just mail modems to your customers, instead of stringing new fiber. That's why they're calling it 3.1 and not 4.0. It's evolutionary, not revolutionary.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:42:36 EDT

elray posted : I agree that CableCo has done a better job at investing in plant, and they usually do a better job at virtually all aspects of the last-mile compared to AT&T.

But speed isn't the consumer's primary or sole concern.
Google should already know this, but then again, they've proven before that the smartest guys in the room can be pretty dumb.

AT&T can compete without delivering cable speeds.
There is no application yet that requires them - until 4K/8K UHD happens, and that's a long time off.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:05:49 EDT

Gib4500 posted : The Docsis 3.1 platform is aiming to support capacities of at least 10Gbit/s downstream and 1Gbit/s upstream. The new specs will do away with 6 MHz and 8 MHz wide channel spacing and instead use smaller (20KHz-to-50KHz-wide) orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) subcarriers; these can be bonded inside a block spectrum that could end up being about 200 MHz wide.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 19:51:54 EDT

tanzam75 posted :

said by BiggA:

The problem is that AT&T built their system to barely keep up what cable is today. Add node splits, SDV, 1ghz plants, the next DOCSIS standard, etc, etc, and U-Verse will look just like DSL does today. The only way that AT&T can compete in the long run is FTTH, and that's what they should be looking to do.

The reason that AT&T didn't adopt FTTH is the same reason that Verizon gave up on FiOS expansion. It just costs too much, relative to the take rate. The headroom of coax gives the cable companies a cost advantage over phone companies moving to FTTP. The cable companies can survive any price war that they choose to fight against FiOS.

Verizon has to pay all of the cost upfront. Before the first customer pays a penny, they have to have the entire neighborhood wired up with fiber. Then, each new subscriber requires a truck roll, to install the customer drop. Truck rolls are expensive.

The cable companies, by contrast, can pay for the upgrades incrementally, as they're needed. Move to DOCSIS 3.1? Mail the customer a new modem. Node split? Transparent to the customer.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 19:35:40 EDT

tanzam75 posted :

said by Gib4500:

if you think at&t and u-verse is dead in the water now... wait till cable gets their docsis 3.1 going in a year or 2.

DOCSIS 3.1 only increases the spectral efficiency by 50%. Speeds will be 1.5x what they are on DOCSIS 3.0, given the same frequency allocation. That's not revolutionary, merely evolutionary.

The real order-of-magnitude gains came from channel-bonding. And you can do that already on DOCSIS 3.0. Today, a cable company might bond 4 channels for 152 Mbps, or 8 channels for 304 Mbps. But there are over 150 channels on coax!

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 17:48:15 EDT

BiggA posted : The problem is that AT&T built their system to barely keep up what cable is today. Add node splits, SDV, 1ghz plants, the next DOCSIS standard, etc, etc, and U-Verse will look just like DSL does today. The only way that AT&T can compete in the long run is FTTH, and that's what they should be looking to do.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 02:10:06 EDT

Gib4500 posted : if you think at&t and u-verse is dead in the water now... wait till cable gets their docsis 3.1 going in a year or 2.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:46:50 EDT

elios posted :

said by RadioDoc:

said by TriForce:

Twisted pair copper was meant for voice instead of data. It's like running water through a straw while cable internet is a hose.

So I guess Gigabit Ethernet over twisted pairs is magic?

Copper isn't dead, but U-Verse expansion certainly is.

said by TriForce:

Distance matters because twisted pair copper isn't as well shielded as coax so the signal leaks. Getting higher speeds would be tricky.

Ya might want to open a book once in awhile. Balanced twisted pair wiring doesn't "leak". That's unbalanced coaxial cable's malady...in fact leakage limits are about all that's left of cable regulation. What does happen to UTP is attenuation, which is why there are transmission distance limits on BOTH coax and UTP.

not the same thing
the magic in Giga-E is the number of twists and quaitly of the copper
both of which are awful in copper lines on poles now
short of them ripping out the 40+ year old copper on the poles now and replacing it with effectively ethernet cable which btw would cost MORE then installing fiber to home
its not going to happen

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 00:25:17 EDT

DataRiker posted :

said by TriForce:

Distance matters because twisted pair copper isn't as well shielded as coax so the signal leaks. Getting higher speeds would be tricky.

Unless you count the twisting, they are not shielded at all.

ATT's plant craps out at 8 Mhz, while coax can carry 860 Mhz readily. (often 1000+ Mhz)

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:34:13 EDT

RadioDoc posted :

said by TriForce:

Twisted pair copper was meant for voice instead of data. It's like running water through a straw while cable internet is a hose.

So I guess Gigabit Ethernet over twisted pairs is magic?

Copper isn't dead, but U-Verse expansion certainly is.

said by TriForce:

Distance matters because twisted pair copper isn't as well shielded as coax so the signal leaks. Getting higher speeds would be tricky.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:32:23 EDT

elray posted :

said by BiggA:

U-Verse can't compete. As soon as they get more people up to the 24mbps package, cable will do 50. Or 100. Cable can deliver several hundred mbps, and next year, there will probably be another version of DOCSIS.

The bundle price and feature set is what matters. Despite the lower-quality product, AT&T has demonstrated that they can sell triple-play U-verse by padding the video lineup and pitching the "one bill" concept to their cellular customers.

They can certainly compete.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:07:58 EDT

BiggA posted : Exactly. It will beat cable for a month or two while they split some more nodes to light up even faster speeds.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:07:14 EDT

BiggA posted : U-Verse can't compete. As soon as they get more people up to the 24mbps package, cable will do 50. Or 100. Cable can deliver several hundred mbps, and next year, there will probably be another version of DOCSIS.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 17:45:43 EDT

jimk posted : Speeds will be a big problem for U-verse at some point. They use pair bonding for some customers who are a bit too far from the VRAD, and there are rumors that they will eventually use the same technology to boost speeds for customers who are closer to the VRAD. This is far from a perfect solution... it will require a truck roll to upgrade customers (and replace hardware), and the fact of the matter is that today's cable standards (DOCSIS 3) can beat tomorrow's VDSL2 pair bonding.

To make matters worse, the handful of customers who are truly on fiber to the home are restricted to *slower speeds* than customers on old copper and are very close to the VRAD.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 17:12:27 EDT

davidhoffman posted : No, you will not see increased speeds soon. AT&T will most likely look at anyone with more than 3Mbps down as having good enough internet service to satisfy the FCC's watered down definition of adequate internet access. Since UVerse service starts at or above 3.0 Mbps, they will not do any upgrades soon. DSL customers may see speed increases if they are close enough to the CO or DSLAM. AT&T only has to UNLEASH their ADSL2+ system and they can deliver close to 24Mbps down and 3.5Mbps up to some customers who are very close to the DSLAM. Most of the existing customer ADSL2+ modems and gateways should handle the increased speed adequately. They could create a 12, 18, and 24 Mbps speed tier for pricing.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:56:44 EDT

TriForce posted : U-Verse is using an antiquated copper network to get from at&t's fiber network to your home. Though there are fiber to the home U-Verse installs, in new housing developments, it's still restricted to the same speeds. That is probably due to cheaper costs. Twisted pair copper was meant for voice instead of data. It's like running water through a straw while cable internet is a hose.

Distance matters because twisted pair copper isn't as well shielded as coax so the signal leaks. Getting higher speeds would be tricky.

Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:49:41 EDT

UverseTech posted : Hey Van you already know that I am not a tech now, but I have many friends still in the field that are. They all say nothing is going to happen until their contract is negotiated sometime around april/may timeframe. In the St louis area alone there were approx 20-40, depending who you ask, new VRADS sitting idle waiting on this as well. This was in the summer of 2012. I know I have ben a harsh critic but numbersa don't lie only people do, especially the marketing and legal weasels which are directed by upper management. They have to do a significant amout of further upgrades to their backend, as well as clean up a good amout of crossboxes in service now,to compete with the current cable offerings in regards to internet speeds, I do not think they will, and so do many of the current employees.

I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:36:24 EDT

Van posted : tech but I am stuck in an area where we have at MOST 18Mbit/s down.

It has been this way for awhile now and even Cox and others around me (and by 'around' I mean in cities hours away so I can't get use them myself) have increased speeds 2-3 times total the last few years.

Now, I believe I have seen people state that distance does matter for UVerse speeds so.....should people like me expect to see increased speeds soon under UVerse technology? Or is UVerse technology going to be one of the last ones able to really keep pushing up their speeds?