dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3917
share rss forum feed


Bravedog

@sbcglobal.net

FTTH now on 24/3?

I called to cancel U-Verse because Time Warner offers Docsis 3.0 speeds for far cheaper in the Austin area. Uverse told me that select FTTH customers can now get 24/3 instead of the previous cap of 18/1.5. They just have to send a "special" technican to upgrade my equipment. I am letting them come and try because I don't believe it.
They will do this tomorrow afternoon.

My guess is AT&T has no idea what they are doing and my chances of being on 24/3 are slim to none. Still a joke compared to Docsis speeds, but why not see what happens?



ILpt4U
Premium
join:2006-11-12
Lisle, IL
kudos:9

If you can be upgraded to GPON, then yes 24/3 is available

If only BPON is available, then 18/1.5 is the tops


nephipower

join:2012-02-20
San Antonio, TX

I have a friend who has Uverse FTTP and i just checked online and found out that he is able to get 24 mbits too. So it looks like AT&T is finally giving some love to FTTP customers.

I guess that Constantine guys who ranted and raved about it for a long time on this forum can check to see if he can finally get 24 mbits.



Bravedog

@heydns.com
reply to ILpt4U

Click for full size
What took them so long?
Yep. I have it.

dustman81

join:2002-05-28
Tallmadge, OH
reply to ILpt4U

I haven't had Uverse in a while and never had Uverse FTTH, but the best they can do with FTTH is 24Mb? Seriously?! Verizon can do up 300Mb. Google can do 1Gb. Even cable can do better than AT&T, with Comcast and Optimum Online offering 101Mb.

AT&T, what you are offering is pathetic.



Bravedog

@sbcglobal.net

said by dustman81:

AT&T, what you are offering is pathetic.

I totally agree with this statement. Time Warner Docsis 3.0 can give me 50/5 in Austin and they told me that they would be up to 75/20 "very soon".

AT&T says they will have 75/10 by the end of the year (aka "sometime this century").

etaadmin

join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1
reply to Bravedog

said by Bravedog :

Yep. I have it.

WOW! look at the ping time, definitely not consistent with FTTH as it should be much lower.


mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:12
reply to ILpt4U

said by ILpt4U:

If you can be upgraded to GPON, then yes 24/3 is available

If only BPON is available, then 18/1.5 is the tops

That's just pathetic. VZ seems to have no problems running 35/35 and 50/20 over BPON.

/M

gia

join:2008-01-30
Mcallen, TX
reply to etaadmin

said by etaadmin:

said by Bravedog :

Yep. I have it.

WOW! look at the ping time, definitely not consistent with FTTH as it should be much lower.

I get 13 ms to a Houston, TX server on TWI.
»stage.results.speedtest.comcast.···4392.png

nephipower

join:2012-02-20
San Antonio, TX
reply to etaadmin

said by etaadmin:

said by Bravedog :

Yep. I have it.

WOW! look at the ping time, definitely not consistent with FTTH as it should be much lower.

I'm in San Antonio and when I had Uverse FTTN I would get ping time of about 46 ms for speedtests. Now I have TWC and get about 26 ms.

So for some reason in San Antonio there just seem to be higher ping times so 16 ms for Uverse FTTP IMO is pretty good.

nephipower

join:2012-02-20
San Antonio, TX
reply to Bravedog

Bravedog can you look on UVRealtime and see what profile you are setup with now.

I am curious if it is 32/5 profile or they are doing some different and new profile for FTTP users that have the 24 mbit internet package.


Matt7

join:2001-01-02
Columbus, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Insight Communic..
reply to Bravedog

said by Bravedog :

I totally agree with this statement. Time Warner Docsis 3.0 can give me 50/5 in Austin and they told me that they would be up to 75/20 "very soon".

AT&T says they will have 75/10 by the end of the year (aka "sometime this century").

Sure about that... The Time Warner speed tier I have seen launched in a few select areas is 75/5. [In Dallas they are doing 75/5 as indicated over in the Time Warner forum]

etaadmin

join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1
reply to nephipower

said by nephipower:

said by etaadmin:

said by Bravedog :

Yep. I have it.

WOW! look at the ping time, definitely not consistent with FTTH as it should be much lower.

I'm in San Antonio and when I had Uverse FTTN I would get ping time of about 46 ms for speedtests. Now I have TWC and get about 26 ms.

So for some reason in San Antonio there just seem to be higher ping times so 16 ms for Uverse FTTP IMO is pretty good.

Yeah but that is because of the interleaved path in VDSL2. FTTH/FTTP is a whole different beast and should be much lower. I remember asking this question some years ago to a guy with FTTH and his response was something around 1 or 2 ms.

etaadmin

join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1

1 edit
reply to nephipower

said by nephipower:

said by etaadmin:

said by Bravedog :

Yep. I have it.

WOW! look at the ping time, definitely not consistent with FTTH as it should be much lower.

I'm in San Antonio and when I had Uverse FTTN I would get ping time of about 46 ms for speedtests. Now I have TWC and get about 26 ms.

So for some reason in San Antonio there just seem to be higher ping times so 16 ms for Uverse FTTP IMO is pretty good.

Yeah but that is because of the interleaved path in VDSL2. FTTH/FTTP is a whole different beast and should be much lower. I remember somebody asking this question (some years ago) to a guy with FTTH and his response was something around 1 or 2 ms.

Edit: I found one post from ConstantineM See Profile
»[FTTH] 4ms+ ping to anywhere outside of the AT&T border
'complaining' about his FTTH 4 ms latency

nephipower

join:2012-02-20
San Antonio, TX

I know that FTTN uses interleave path which adds a lot more latency than fast path and especially FTTP.

What i was trying to say is in San Antonio with TWC where they mostly use fiber until the last length I get 26 ms. My friend who lives just down the road and has FTTP doesn't even get 26 ms.

So there much be something about the backbone in our city that seems to add a lot of latency.



jtudor
Xm 60's On 6 Freak
Premium,MVM
join:2002-12-07
Morganton, NC
reply to Bravedog

Either way, the issue is not the fiber, but the equipment that AT&T has chosen to use in their fiber installations.

With different equipment they could offer MUCH higher speeds.
--
Best of luck

"Do, or Do not, there is no try!" Yoda



Bravedog

@sbcglobal.net
reply to nephipower

I can get pings as low as 10-11ms when I send to a Dallas server. I am also running through a network switch, and I don't know how much that slows me down.

I don't know what profile I am on since UV Realtime doesn't tell you on FTTP (unless someone can tell me how to get that information).


i2Fuzzy

join:2009-02-25
Fort Worth, TX
reply to Bravedog

I'm just upset that I have the fastest U-verse package available to me on FTTP and am stuck at 18/1.5. I can't even get cable Internet here. Charter is in the ground, but they don't offer service.

The upload is what kills me. I work off this line, and occasionally have to upload 5GB+ files. It's awful.
--
Ali
Check Point Certified Security Expert


iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
reply to Bravedog

Anyone mind posting a traceroute from AT&T FTTP in central TX? You're right; speeds should be higher and latency lower on AT&T FTTP than TWC or anything other than competing fiber.


patt2k

join:2009-01-16
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to mackey

said by mackey:

said by ILpt4U:

If you can be upgraded to GPON, then yes 24/3 is available

If only BPON is available, then 18/1.5 is the tops

That's just pathetic. VZ seems to have no problems running 35/35 and 50/20 over BPON.

/M

dat ping

jtmccoy

join:2004-03-25
Austin, TX
reply to iansltx

said by iansltx:

Anyone mind posting a traceroute from AT&T FTTP in central TX? You're right; speeds should be higher and latency lower on AT&T FTTP than TWC or anything other than competing fiber.

Sure, to where?

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2

4.2.2.4 and dev.cloudyhills.com

THanks!


i2Fuzzy

join:2009-02-25
Fort Worth, TX
reply to Bravedog

Did you have to pay for the upgrade? I'm assuming yes.
--
Ali
Check Point Certified Security Expert


Enlightener

join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX
reply to Bravedog

I dumped my ATT FTTP in Cedar Park (Austin) 18 months ago for TWC's 30/5 package. Let me know when they can do gigabit. Until then, I'm done with this backwards company.


jtmccoy

join:2004-03-25
Austin, TX
reply to iansltx

said by iansltx:

4.2.2.4 and dev.cloudyhills.com

THanks!

No problem, here you go:
Tracing route to d.resolvers.level3.net [4.2.2.4]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
 
  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.254
  2     5 ms     3 ms     2 ms  99-58-60-2.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net [99.58.60.2]
  3     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  4     3 ms     3 ms     3 ms  12.83.68.137
  5    10 ms    11 ms    11 ms  gar26.dlstx.ip.att.net [12.123.16.109]
  6    27 ms    27 ms    27 ms  4.68.62.229
  7    27 ms    27 ms    26 ms  d.resolvers.level3.net [4.2.2.4]
 
Trace complete.
 
Tracing route to dev.cloudyhills.com [173.193.159.170]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
 
  1     1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.254
  2     3 ms     3 ms     2 ms  99-58-60-2.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net [99.58.60.2]
  3     3 ms     2 ms     2 ms  75.8.128.108
  4     3 ms     3 ms     3 ms  12.83.68.137
  5    12 ms    11 ms    11 ms  gar27.dlstx.ip.att.net [12.123.16.77]
  6     9 ms     9 ms     9 ms  ae-9.r01.dllstx04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.8.237]
  7     9 ms     8 ms     8 ms  ae2.bbr02.eq01.dal03.networklayer.com [157.238.224.230]
  8    10 ms     8 ms     8 ms  ae1.dar01.sr01.dal01.networklayer.com [173.192.18.255]
  9     9 ms     9 ms     9 ms  po1.fcr05.sr06.dal01.networklayer.com [66.228.118.221]
 10     9 ms     8 ms     8 ms  173.193.159.170-static.reverse.softlayer.com [173.193.159.170]
 
Trace complete.
 

UverseTech

join:2012-08-04
reply to Enlightener

Their FTTP speeds are an embarrassment, I would not even claim it to be fiber, my VZ Jetpack can get 20/20 in a good market, ATT you should be ashamed of the cheap infrastructure behind the FTTP product.


iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
reply to jtmccoy

Nice. THe Level3 hairpinning is odd, but this goes to show that, if AT&T actually wanted to do widespread FTTH, they'd go from the bottom of the pack on latency to at...or at least near...the top.



DPain
Premium
join:2004-02-19

Hmm I've had no problems with FTTP, wether it's streaming/gaming no issues here. Should look into 24/3




brookeKrige

join:2012-11-05
San Jose, CA
kudos:3

Do new FTTP customers, and those negotiating for upgrade/retention, yet receive an RG with Gigabit WAN port (ala moto NVG589), i.e. so you won't need to replace your RG within "months" for the real-soon-now 75-100Mbps speed upgrades?