|
to NetFixer
Re: Is this more unused U-Verse equipment?What I never understood is why AT&T didn't take ADSL2 further. Customers with shorter links could have been offered faster speeds. |
actions · 2013-Feb-18 1:32 pm · (locked) |
NetFixerFrom My Cold Dead Hands Premium Member join:2004-06-24 The Boro Netgear CM500 Pace 5268AC TRENDnet TEW-829DRU
1 edit |
NetFixer
Premium Member
2013-Feb-18 1:49 pm
said by Gilitar:What I never understood is why AT&T didn't take ADSL2 further. Customers with shorter links could have been offered faster speeds. I think it is just marketing pragmatism. Considering the PR problems that they have just trying to explain (to people who don't understand the technology) why everyone can't get 6mbps downstream speed, imagine trying to explain why only a select few can get 24mbps downstream speed. And speaking of shorter links, I am quite literally a stone's throw from the cross box feeding my neighborhood, and a few days ago AT&T dug a large deep pit around that cross box. If that means that my neighborhood is eventually going to actually get U-verse, I might have to give AT&T a second chance and try it out (because I am close enough to get the maximum speed from an RT based IPDSLAM or VRAD at that location with no problems). |
actions · 2013-Feb-18 1:49 pm · (locked) |
|
said by NetFixer:said by Gilitar:What I never understood is why AT&T didn't take ADSL2 further. Customers with shorter links could have been offered faster speeds. I think it is just marketing pragmatism. Considering the PR problems that they have just trying to explain (to people who don't understand the technology) why everyone can't get 6mbps downstream speed, imagine trying to explain why only a select few can get 24mbps downstream speed. And speaking of shorter links, I am quite literally a stone's throw from the cross box feeding my neighborhood, and a few days ago AT&T dug a large deep pit around that cross box. If that means that my neighborhood is eventually going to actually get U-verse, I might have to give AT&T a second chance and try it out (because I am close enough to get the maximum speed from an RT based IPDSLAM or VRAD at that location with no problems). I'm sure your right. It's just easier for them to offer slow speeds across the board. What I want to know is how they are all off a sudden offering 12mb and up packages via that same old ADSL2 technology under the U-Verse brand... |
actions · 2013-Feb-18 2:38 pm · (locked) |
NormanSI 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
2 edits |
to Gilitar
said by Gilitar:What I never understood is why AT&T didn't take ADSL2 further. Customers with shorter links could have been offered faster speeds. In 2005, AT&T, Bellsouth, and SBC were three distinctly separate entities. AT&T only offered dial-up access through, "AT&T Worldnet", SBC was mostly ADSL, with some insider hints of working on an ADSL2+ service. Only Bellsouth offered ADSL2 service on a regular basis. Then SBC bought AT&T, re-branded itself as AT&T, and finally bought Bellsouth. I suspect the current IP-DSL ADSL2+ service is the SBC-rumored ADSL rollout. I also suspect that Bellsouth ADSL2 deployment stopped with the AT&T buyout; and any future deployment of ADSL in AT&T Southeast (nee "Bellsouth") will be the IP-DSL service. It is my understanding that IP-DSL is served from RTs in other AT&T regions, so there is hope for AT&T Southeast. P.S. I am not flaking out on the "pluses". ADSL2+ is an extension of ADSL2. I am reasonably certain, from past responses by NetFixer , that Bellsouth was offering ADSL, while U-verse IP-DSL is either VDSL, or ADSL2+, depending on the nature of the deployed hardware; i.e., AT&T could upgrade the RT DSLAM in your photo to ADSL2+ IP-DSL capability. I am not an AT&T insider, so no clue if that will ever happen. But it isn't technically impossible. |
actions · 2013-Feb-18 2:39 pm · (locked) |
|
said by NormanS:said by Gilitar:What I never understood is why AT&T didn't take ADSL2 further. Customers with shorter links could have been offered faster speeds. In 2005, AT&T, Bellsouth, and SBC were three distinctly separate entities. AT&T only offered dial-up access through, "AT&T Worldnet", SBC was mostly ADSL, with some insider hints of working on an ADSL2+ service. Only Bellsouth offered ADSL2 service on a regular basis. Then SBC bought AT&T, re-branded itself as AT&T, and finally bought Bellsouth. I suspect the current IP-DSL ADSL2+ service is the SBC-rumored ADSL rollout. I also suspect that Bellsouth ADSL2 deployment stopped with the AT&T buyout; and any future deployment of ADSL in AT&T Southeast (nee "Bellsouth") will be the IP-DSL service. It is my understanding that IP-DSL is served from RTs in other AT&T regions, so there is hope for AT&T Southeast. P.S. I am not flaking out on the "pluses". ADSL2+ is an extension of ADSL2. I am reasonably certain, from past responses by NetFixer , that Bellsouth was offering ADSL, while U-verse IP-DSL is either VDSL, or ADSL2+, depending on the nature of the deployed hardware; i.e., AT&T could upgrade the RT DSLAM in your photo to ADSL2+ IP-DSL capability. I am not an AT&T insider, so no clue if that will ever happen. But it isn't technically impossible. The real problem for my neighborhood is the fiber to the curb that Bellsouth built out. The equipment in place is only capable of 6mb unfortunately. |
actions · 2013-Feb-18 4:37 pm · (locked) |
NetFixerFrom My Cold Dead Hands Premium Member join:2004-06-24 The Boro Netgear CM500 Pace 5268AC TRENDnet TEW-829DRU
|
to NormanS
said by NormanS:In 2005, AT&T, Bellsouth, and SBC were three distinctly separate entities. AT&T only offered dial-up access through, "AT&T Worldnet", SBC was mostly ADSL, with some insider hints of working on an ADSL2+ service. Only Bellsouth offered ADSL2 service on a regular basis. Actually, AT&T WorldNet did offer DSL service. Before the SBC assimilation of AT&T, BellSouth, et al, I was involved in setting up quite a few AT&T WorldNet DSL sites for business class customers. Technically, they would use a CLEC for the "last mile" (in this area that CLEC was Covad), but it was branded as AT&T WorldNet DSL service. AT&T WorldNet also offered DS1 and DS3 services with the ILEC (or occasionally a CLEC) providing the "last mile"; and I was also involved with setting up quite a few of those sites before the assimilation. FWIW, my ADSL2 service was from AT&T, not BellSouth, and that particular DSLAM was installed after the SBC/AT&T assimilation. The hardware was actually recycled from an RT about 50 miles from my location after the area serviced by that RT was converted to VRAD fed U-verse service. |
actions · 2013-Feb-18 7:45 pm · (locked) |
cramer Premium Member join:2007-04-10 Raleigh, NC Westell 6100 Cisco PIX 501
1 recommendation |
to Gilitar
said by Gilitar:What I never understood is why AT&T didn't take ADSL2 further. Customers with shorter links could have been offered faster speeds. It's an issue of cost and future network planning (that being Uverse.) ADSL2+ deployments are being made under the Uverse brand (using PTM -- "IPDSLAM" -- vs. ATM.) The CLLI code in the picture suggests it's some form of Uverse gear. They can (and do) put VRADs in the RT unit. |
actions · 2013-Feb-19 7:24 pm · (locked) |
Tech007 Premium Member join:2013-01-25 Belleville, IL |
Tech007
Premium Member
2013-Feb-19 11:46 pm
Most of your ADSL2+ is fed directly from a CO(Central Office) There are some RT(remote Terminals) for ADSL2+ in the field but most of the time it is directly from the CO. Now the picture from mobile does look like it is a RT, but it very well could have both ADSL & VDSL(TV service) equipment in it. I would have to do some more digging the next day I work.
As far as the speed and loop lengths are concerned, if your signal is coming from the CO, that's where the length starts and most of the time it does not run directly from point A to point B(which will increase how far you are away and how much or less speed u can get) Myself I am about 7,000' ft over the copper to my house and on 6mb(about 500-600' too long for 12mb) plus the condition fo the copper plays into it as well. The aerial cable in my area is not very good so if it was all pristine, I might be able to get that 12mb even though I am on the edge. |
actions · 2013-Feb-19 11:46 pm · (locked) |
|
Gilitar
Member
2013-Feb-20 11:17 am
said by Tech007:Most of your ADSL2+ is fed directly from a CO(Central Office) There are some RT(remote Terminals) for ADSL2+ in the field but most of the time it is directly from the CO. Now the picture from mobile does look like it is a RT, but it very well could have both ADSL & VDSL(TV service) equipment in it. I would have to do some more digging the next day I work.
As far as the speed and loop lengths are concerned, if your signal is coming from the CO, that's where the length starts and most of the time it does not run directly from point A to point B(which will increase how far you are away and how much or less speed u can get) Myself I am about 7,000' ft over the copper to my house and on 6mb(about 500-600' too long for 12mb) plus the condition fo the copper plays into it as well. The aerial cable in my area is not very good so if it was all pristine, I might be able to get that 12mb even though I am on the edge. I appreciate the info. My particular neighborhood is on FTTC (fitl-mx). » AT&T Southeast Forum FAQ » What's the difference between DSL, IFITL, DFITL, and MX FastAccess Service?Any idea what AT&T plans to do with those systems. |
actions · 2013-Feb-20 11:17 am · (locked) |