Wily_One Premium Member join:2002-11-24 San Jose, CA |
to ConstantineM
Re: new speeds only more than 100× slower than the competisaid by ConstantineM:My guess is, by the time AT&T decides that anyone would find any use of 50/50, providers like »Paxio.net in the Bay... This intrigued me since I am also in San Jose. Checking their website, they clearly do NOT offer FTTH to most residences; only the very few new developments they've managed to get into. So until there's fiber coming to my demarc, Paxio is irrelevant. Small companies like that are easy to start up, but they simply do not have the infrastructure of miles of cable already laid. This is why AT&T and Comcast continue to rule the roost; they've got the cabling in place. |
|
rolandeCertifiable MVM, join:2002-05-24 Dallas, TX ARRIS BGW210-700 Cisco Meraki MR42
|
said by Wily_One:Small companies like that are easy to start up, but they simply do not have the infrastructure of miles of cable already laid. This is why AT&T and Comcast continue to rule the roost; they've got the cabling in place. Too bad it's the wrong kind of cabling. |
|
Wily_One Premium Member join:2002-11-24 San Jose, CA |
Wily_One
Premium Member
2013-Mar-11 7:46 pm
said by rolande:Too bad it's the wrong kind of cabling. Gotta crawl before you can run, but I'm not disagreeing. The reality is running fiber to every home would cost millions/billions of dollars, while at the same time consumers want affordable service. The old-guard behemoths like AT&T don't want to eat the cost of that outlay, especially when they know they will be forced to "share" the infrastructure like they had to with telephone wire. |
|
|
to Wily_One
said by Wily_One:said by ConstantineM:My guess is, by the time AT&T decides that anyone would find any use of 50/50, providers like »Paxio.net in the Bay... This intrigued me since I am also in San Jose. Checking their website, they clearly do NOT offer FTTH to most residences; only the very few new developments they've managed to get into. So until there's fiber coming to my demarc, Paxio is irrelevant. Small companies like that are easy to start up, but they simply do not have the infrastructure of miles of cable already laid. This is why AT&T and Comcast continue to rule the roost; they've got the cabling in place. Wrong way to look at it. Paxio does have the cabling in place; they could probably wire down your whole neighbourhood for 500$/house, which, I must say, is REALLY cheap and is a great deal, and you could be having 1000/1000 for 140$/mo after that. The problem is not a level-playing field. AT&T has the free copper, and lots of existing customers that generate lots of revenue, so they could easily shell out a 500$/house passed (like Verizon did with FiOS), yet they still won't. But Paxio simply doesn't have that kind of money yet. Let's hope Sonic.net upcoming GigE in SF is successful, and would spread. If you're in the Bay, and MDU, you might also check out » WebPass.net, they offer 100/100 @ 50$, and use a line-of-sight wireless-to-the-building model. |
|
|
You forget to mention that Paxio doesn't service everyone. it's select HOAs/"communities".
Also don't count on Sonic doing anything major. They're only building in select areas and have teamed up with DSLX. The next thing I see is Ikano buying them out as well. Plus Sonic refuses to take on debt and investors so money is going to be super tight with them building out. |
|
Wily_One Premium Member join:2002-11-24 San Jose, CA |
to ConstantineM
said by ConstantineM:Paxio does have the cabling in place; they could probably wire down your whole neighbourhood... Non-sequitur. They do not have fiber run to my neigh borhood, no less my particular house, so the cabling is not in place. The "last mile" is the hard bit and the most expensive to build out, which is why the vast majority of consumers don't have FTTH. Don't get my wrong, I'd love to have FTTH available here, but talk is cheap. When I see actual fiber runs then I'll get interested. |
|
|
BillP
Anon
2013-Mar-14 6:17 pm
I have Fiber to my house for UVerse. But I'm in the greater Austin, TX region, and they still only offer 18Mbps service. I had 24Mbps at my old home in California over copper. Go figure! |
|
|
Wily_One Premium Member join:2002-11-24 San Jose, CA |
Wily_One
Premium Member
2013-Mar-16 5:45 am
said by BillP :I have Fiber to my house for UVerse. But I'm in the greater Austin, TX region, and they still only offer 18Mbps service. I had 24Mbps at my old home in California over copper. Go figure! That is odd. Then again I never said the ideal would be FTTH from AT&T. |
|
|
Nope. That's just what FTTH customers are stuck with. As it stands now (not taking future "possible" changes into account), you DO NOT want FTTH from AT&T. You'll be stuck on a lower profile than the VDSL folks. |
|
bplein join:2013-03-14 Leander, TX |
bplein
Member
2013-Mar-16 1:51 pm
said by doubleohwhat:Nope. That's just what FTTH customers are stuck with.
As it stands now (not taking future "possible" changes into account), you DO NOT want FTTH from AT&T. You'll be stuck on a lower profile than the VDSL folks. Can someone explain why they cap FTTH/FTTP at 18 while allowing copper to go to 24? Seriously thinking of trying a cable provider, but with my luck, I'd end up capped or dealing with other issues. AT&T has been pretty good for me, technically, with the only exception being flaky RGs (needed to reboot periodically to resume voice lines that fail) and their abysmal customer support phone people. |
|
|
ATT has more restrictive caps than the Cable providers in my area. |
|
|
to bplein
said by bplein:Can someone explain why they cap FTTH/FTTP at 18 while allowing copper to go to 24? Because their copper can only do something like 30/5, but FTTP/FTTH/FTTU is easily capable of 80/40 even without any hardware upgrades. They artificially restrict the fibre, so that they don't have to upgrade the copper, and then because so few people have fibre from at&t in the first place, they simply outright forgetting the fibre when introducing new copper profiles. |
|
|
Rangersfan to bplein
Anon
2013-Mar-16 5:20 pm
to bplein
said by bplein:Can someone explain why they cap FTTH/FTTP at 18 while allowing copper to go to 24? Seriously thinking of trying a cable provider, but with my luck, I'd end up capped or dealing with other issues. AT&T has been pretty good for me, technically, with the only exception being flaky RGs (needed to reboot periodically to resume voice lines that fail) and their abysmal customer support phone people. This was discussed at length in the thread below: » AT&T U-verse FTTP speeds, why do they limit fibre to 18/1.5? |
|
|
to DataRiker
U-verse (VDSL/Fiber) is virtually uncapped at the moment. |
|
|
to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:ATT has more restrictive caps than the Cable providers in my area. That is a half-truth. AT&T may have a theoretical cap at 250 GB but there has never been one report of a single person here for Uverse service to be charged any overage fees. That is because Uverse is not tracking usage for customers yet. |
|
1 edit |
said by nephipower:said by DataRiker:ATT has more restrictive caps than the Cable providers in my area. That is because Uverse is not tracking usage for customers yet. Technical difficulties have kept it from enforcement. I wouldn't depend on this for much longer. |
|
your moderator at work
hidden : Trolling hidden :
|
DataRiker 4 edits |
to Anon
Re: new speeds only more than 100× slower than the competiI used to install uverse and we were told enforcement was coming. All other unofficial info we got turned out to be credible, don't see why this one will be any different.
Anybody who is involved on the Uverse side can tell you the whole operation is a cluster fuck.
A big priority and a lot of faith is being put into the new universal RG. Once that is standard, I promise you the meter will be back.
Ask our corporate friend "fakarooz" if his corporate line is any different than what the techs have been hearing. Bet its not. |
|
Wily_One Premium Member join:2002-11-24 San Jose, CA |
Wily_One
Premium Member
2013-Mar-17 8:03 pm
We've heard talk about caps since 2009. Now it's 2013 and we're hearing the same thing: "it's just around the corner."
When it finally happens, then we can talk about it. |
|
2 edits |
Caps were first announced in May 2011, and were not scheduled to begin until 2012 *IF* I remember correctly.
Your implying this was just some unsubstantiated rumor.
It has already been applied to the ADSL side, with overages. Its not a question of if but when for the Uverse side. |
|
|
Uverse Newbi
Anon
2013-Mar-18 2:06 am
question how would the new speeds be implemented to those on single pairs?
hell my single pair sync rate is over 59k+Kbps |
|
|
Mario100 to DataRiker
Anon
2013-Mar-18 2:05 am
to DataRiker
Your Right. The time is correct |
|
Wily_One Premium Member join:2002-11-24 San Jose, CA |
to DataRiker
Now we're going to argue timeline? Search this forum - talk of caps coming started in 2009. I'm not going to do your homework for you.
I'll worry about it when it actually happens to me on my account. Forum posts I don't worry about. |
|
|
to Uverse Newbi
said by Uverse Newbi :question how would the new speeds be implemented to those on single pairs? From what I understand, a second pair would be setup. Apparently the max syn required for the new tier is 69mbps. Very few (if any) people will have lines with a max sync that is both higher than that and stable. It also makes sense to go ahead and switch everyone over to two pairs whenever there's a truck roll. That way you'll be good to go in the future when another tier is announced. |
|
|
I have a friend who is literally only 300 ft away from the VRAD and even he doesn't get 69 mbps sync rate. So i definitely think your logic sounds right. |
|
|
Some here fail to notice that the 'max' sync rate is just an overly optimistic estimate and doesn't mean anything.
The point here is that with the 17a or 30a VDSL2+ profiles that number is going to go up as more bits are assigned to the down/up stream. The result is more carrying capacity at the expense of stability. Gateways close to the vrad wont have too much problems using the higher frequencies for the rest is pair bonding. |
|
Motorola MG8725 Asus RT-N66
2 edits |
to nephipower
said by nephipower:I have a friend who is literally only 300 ft away from the VRAD and even he doesn't get 69 mbps sync rate. So i definitely think your logic sounds right. With our attenuator we only sync at about 57k. |
|
4 edits |
to Wily_One
said by Wily_One:Now we're going to argue timeline? Search this forum - talk of caps coming started in 2009. I'm not going to do your homework for you.
I'll worry about it when it actually happens to me on my account. Forum posts I don't worry about. Yes you are incorrect on your timeline, by about 3 years. I did a quick google check and indeed Caps were first announced for Uverse in May 2011, with enforcement later. (~2012) Further, you suggest some random postings here as your official timeline (which means zero) to suggest Caps will never be implemented. Yet they were implemented in both testing phases on ADSL and Uverse, with the Uverse side pulling out until infrastructure changes are in place. ADSL caps are already up and running. Long delays in implementation are nothing new for Uverse. We were being told the new universal RG was "coming soon" for over a year. Once the new RG and Fiber cards and tech side testing software LSBBT is fully updated and integrated into a new system you can expect your meter to once again show up in your account. |
|
|
Seriously? We're going to argue about when caps were announced?
This thread is about the new speeds. If you want to argue about something go start another thread. |
|