dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5561
share rss forum feed

mfranzel

join:2011-02-05
Boca Raton, FL

What is Pair Bonding? Do I have it?

Hi all,
I have read the U-verse forums here for a long time but have never posted anything.

I am curious to know what pair bonding is and how it affects me? I know that my service is FTTH, that is, I have an actual fiber line coming into my home connected to an OTN going to the RG via ethernet. From what I have read, pair bonding is for customers that are FTTN and have their service coming into their house via copper. So am I correct in assuming that pair binding does not affect me?

How does having FTTH do me better than others?

All I know is that I hate U-verse. I came from Maryland to Florida where I had Verizon FiOS and had 75/75 FTTH internet. Now I am in Florida where I pay almost a half more for the service for 24/3 service and while speed tests show about 22, I usually can't even stream YouTube videos without it pausing every 15 seconds.

Why is it so hard for U-verse to roll out faster speeds and GOOD service? When will it get better?


AMDUSER
Premium
join:2003-05-28
Earth,
kudos:1
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Time Warner Cable
".. So am I correct in assuming that pair binding does not affect me?

How does having FTTH do me better than others?.."
--

If you are one of the fortunate ones to have fttp / ftth then pair bonding does not affect you at all. It generally has less problems with it then customers who have Uverse [tm] over copper via VDSL or IPDSL services due to issues with the wiring in the outside telephone plant.

reply to mfranzel
So issue is with streaming YouTube not issue with ATT FTTH as the following example shows
»forums.verizon.com/t5/FiOS-Inter···9/page/4

I have offically made arrangments to leave FIOS over this. It's ashame too because I feel like it is a otherwise soild product. I am sick of drinking the kool-aid about there internet with my 75/35 connection that cant load a youtube video. And I am sick of the flat out lack of care from everyone at verizons call centers. My neighbor was kind enough to let me have there wireless router password for the last week just to see what would happen with comcast when verizon is being very slow!! Well Even with a fair wireless connection I have no problems watching youtube in HD while big bad FIOS cant stop buffering a video at 360 res. No more kool-aid for me!! Just to let everyone know comcast is also giving me money to help towards leaving my contract and putting me on the newer Xfinity X1 platform witch looks promising.

And response
Here is Verizon's response to my message to them on FB..

Verizon FiOS

We are looking into these issues but there is really nothing that you as a customer can do. This is really an issue with the servers that you are trying to view or the ammount of bandwidth that they have allowed for the Verizon network. Here is a thread where some of customers are talking about this and from my experience offers the best esplination. ^Matt

»Why Is Everyone Having YouTube Streaming Issues?


rolande
Certifiable
Premium,Mod
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX
kudos:6
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·ViaTalk
said by my thoughts :

Verizon FiOS

We are looking into these issues but there is really nothing that you as a customer can do. This is really an issue with the servers that you are trying to view or the ammount of bandwidth that they have allowed for the Verizon network.

It's called Internet Extortion and the customers are caught in the middle and pay the price. The market needs to figure it out or the Government is going to "figure it out" for them. Then we will all lose.
--
Scott, CCIE #14618 Routing & Switching
»rolande.wordpress.com/

mfranzel

join:2011-02-05
Boca Raton, FL
reply to my thoughts
It isn't JUST YouTube. It is pretty much everything. Streaming anything with Uverse SUCKS. Downloading files SUCKS.

I have never had any issues with FiOS


alchav

join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT
Reviews:
·ooma
Pair Bonding is just that, instead of using just one pair of Copper Wires they use two. If you do have Fiber from the VRAD to your house and it's still slow, then my suspicions are correct. If AT&T is trying to use Fiber from the VRAD to the home and still not properly upgrading the VRAD, then the Fiber is useless. The U-Verse Infrastructure was meant for Copper in that Last Mile.

Paralel

join:2011-03-24
Michigan, US
kudos:4
reply to mfranzel
With pair bonding for copper, it will be interesting to see what they do for customers that have FTTP. I imagine there are limits to what a given card can push, and it's not like they have two fibre lines going to the optical terminal. As such, I would imagine there are two likely scenarios:

1) The FTTP people will be screwed and be stuck with the same service as if they had a single copper line indefinitely (I think this is most likely)

2) AT&T will find some way to push the same speed profiles that pair bonded customers get to people that have FTTP (I think this is very unlikely)

AT&T has never really had any qualms about screwing their FTTP customers, so I find it highly likely that the first scenario will undoubtedly come to pass.

mfranzel

join:2011-02-05
Boca Raton, FL
I just don't get it. Why would att network be so much worse than FiOS? Supposedly, I'm getting 45Mbps service here soon.


alchav

join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT
Reviews:
·ooma
said by mfranzel:

I just don't get it. Why would att network be so much worse than FiOS? Supposedly, I'm getting 45Mbps service here soon.

Verizon FiOS was designed as a FTTH Infrastructure from the beginning. AT&T U-Verse was designed as FTTN then Copper from there to the home. Now AT&T in some select Communities is running FTTP, but still using the equipment in the Central Office designed for Copper in that Last Mile. So to me it would seem this equipment would have some limitations even if Fiber was used all the way.


rolande
Certifiable
Premium,Mod
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX
kudos:6
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·ViaTalk
reply to alchav
said by alchav:

The U-Verse Infrastructure was meant for Copper in that Last Mile.

It is funny you say that when the Alcatel 7330's used by AT&T in the VRADs are a modular chassis with full support for both ADSL2/2+ and VDSL over copper and GPON depending on the cards installed. AT&T happens to use the copper ADSL2+ and VDSL cards in the vast majority of the VRADs because they have decide not to invest in laying fiber in the existing neighborhoods, yet. When they do decide to lay fiber, it is simply an add-on card or a card swap to support GPON, plus an ONT installed in place of the NID at each customer premise. So, you could say the Uverse VRAD infrastructure is "meant" for both copper and fiber support but is currently deployed to only deliver service over copper in the last mile.
--
Scott, CCIE #14618 Routing & Switching
»rolande.wordpress.com/


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
reply to mfranzel

Why is it so hard for U-verse to roll out faster speeds and GOOD service? When will it get better?


I'll bite. I won't go through the entire history of the Bell System in this post. I'll start at TA96 (1996 telecommunications act).
The misguided intentions of TA96 were intended to foster competition and technology, thereby reducing costs to consumers. Looking back, the actual result was pretty much the opposite (pretty much always what happens when the government gets involved). TA96 fostered a massive amount of "paper" CLECs with UNE-P. Any swinging dick could start a company "________ Communications, Inc." and resell RBOC services while paying a deeply discounted government mandated rate. Basically, all they had to do was mail a bill and collect checks. That's it.
Obviously the RBOCs didn't like this and decided they would no longer invest in proactive maintenance or upgrades in the OSP (outside plant). At this time, the RBOCs became fixated on long distance (remember long distance?). They were waiting for a magic number of CLEC UNE-P access lines. Once this number hit, the RBOCs could roll out LD.
As you know, at the very same time this was going down, the cost of LDS was plummeting to pennies per minute. Couple that with massive line losses and customers ditching LD altogether for 1010 numbers and cell phones, and you see where the RBOCs took a severe beating.
The whole "facilities based" CLEC idea never caught on. Why go through all that messy work of building an overlay network when you can collect "money for nuthin' and your chicks for free" on the Bell System?

That brings us to your question. By the mid 2000's, the cable company have quietly been upgrading their networks. From about 2006 on, the cableco's are so far ahead of the telco's, it's not even funny.

Verizon was the biggest ILEC to "do it right" (partially). They were very late to the party, but they FIOS buildouts. There still isn't enough FIOS territory for them to compete with the likes of cable.

SWBT/SBC/AT&T pissed around and pouted for a long time. Then they decided they would not rebuild their networks. These are the same networks they, for all intents and purposes, "abandoned" following TA96. The OSP was in serious disrepair. They were trying to push the limits, literally, of 90 year old cables in some cases. FTTP is a rarity in the AT&T OSP.
This is why U-Verse sucks for so many users. It's basically a "stop-gap" solution to try and compete with cable. Probably too little, too late.
AT&T has made it clear that they have little to no interest in the wired OSP. They are just going through the motions right now. Wireless is their cash cow and focus.

So, it may never "get better"; it may simply just go away.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.


rolande
Certifiable
Premium,Mod
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX
kudos:6
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·ViaTalk
said by nunya:

So, it may never "get better"; it may simply just go away.

They have too much invested in hardware and too many interested customers to just walk away from it. Unless they decide to roll out microwave as a last mile service, I don't think they have enough spectrum to supplant the residential broadband market with fixed wireless at least at the speeds and feeds that customers are demanding. Wireless definitely has its niche, but it is just that. They will at least have to do something to continue to milk the cow to pay off the remaining years of depreciation of all the VRAD hardware which I would guess is at least an average of another 7 years or so.
--
Scott, CCIE #14618 Routing & Switching
»rolande.wordpress.com/


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
Spread out properly, the exact same frequencies can be re-used over, and over, and over...
The fixed terminals are pretty big sellers, especially in more rural / low income areas. But even that is passe. Everyone has a cell phone. The traditional "land line" user is literally dying off or adapting to new technology.
As far as internet connectivity, cable will dominate (eat the telco's lunch, trip them in the hall, and give them a wedgie at recess) for the next 5-10 years at the most.
By then, FTTT (fiber to the tower) will be a widespread reality. And... it may not be the RBOCs or traditional cellular companies that do it. I can totally see somebody smarter, less arrogant, and more efficient doing it better.

It makes me sad because I have a pension at AT&T.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.


whamel
billhamel .net
Premium
join:2002-05-09
Hinsdale, IL
kudos:10
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
reply to mfranzel
I thought of this pair-bonding stuff. I have an EXCELLENT copper drop to the VRAD. See this thread for my line stats: »/speak/slid···DA&dsz=s

Since I have a 4-pair copper drop, and i'm using two now, I can pair-bond not once but twice, logic comes here (one line is for the u-verse and the line other for phone - now i'm quoting a level 1 tech here, maybe these 2 lines function differently) but if he's right, I can use 3 copper lines bonded together, theoretically. I don't know a whole lot about the VRAD cards and their config, but for 3 pair bonding I gues we need a new generation of RG's and VRAD tech.
NOW I hypothesized all this, i'm not a u-verse expert, but it seems like it feasible. AT&T can just keep pair-bonding to increase thir broadband speeds till the cows come home. Yea, more copper to lay, but by then they should just migrate to FTTH...
--
Bill - Hinsdale, IL - »www.billhamel.net


TestBoy
Premium
join:2009-10-13
Irmo, SC
kudos:1
Reviews:
·tw telecom
said by whamel:

AT&T can just keep pair-bonding to increase thir broadband speeds till the cows come home. Yea, more copper to lay, but by then they should just migrate to FTTH...

I seriously doubt more copper will get dropped in the ground.
I just don't see that happening.
The infrastructure would go wireless first


whamel
billhamel .net
Premium
join:2002-05-09
Hinsdale, IL
kudos:10
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
YEA...I know, but I thought it hilarious imagining AT&T dropping copper and bonding it, dropping more, and bonding it....funny sight to imagine
--
Bill - Hinsdale, IL - »www.billhamel.net

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
reply to rolande
The gov't can try to figure it out all they want. The fact is the Gov't does not govern the Internet and how it totally operates. The VZ and YouTube/Google issue is between two private companies. It does not involve gov't butting their nose into a private matter. Any time the Gov't gets in the middle, things are worse for everyone.

Paralel

join:2011-03-24
Michigan, US
kudos:4

3 edits
They won't ever go above two pair bonding, unless they plan to switch to either a true 8P8C 568A connection for the gateway, or they adopt some kind of unorthodox wiring standard no one has ever used before with RJ-25.

The current RJ-14 jack they use has the 1st pair as the inner pair and the 2nd pair as a split outer pair. With that wiring scheme, it would be impossible to add a 3rd pair and conform to any known standard for data cabling, not to mention, they would never meet NEXT/PSNEXT tolerances splitting the 3rd pair that far apart.


whamel
billhamel .net
Premium
join:2002-05-09
Hinsdale, IL
kudos:10
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
ThaNks for the lesson....as I've said...I'm no att tech or engineer etc...but thanks for being on top of my stuff. I like sarcastic informative responses.
--
Bill - Hinsdale, IL - »www.billhamel.net


BlueandGold

join:2005-11-26
Go Bears!
reply to rolande
said by rolande:

said by alchav:

The U-Verse Infrastructure was meant for Copper in that Last Mile.

It is funny you say that when the Alcatel 7330's used by AT&T in the VRADs are a modular chassis with full support for both ADSL2/2+ and VDSL over copper and GPON depending on the cards installed. AT&T happens to use the copper ADSL2+ and VDSL cards in the vast majority of the VRADs because they have decide not to invest in laying fiber in the existing neighborhoods, yet. When they do decide to lay fiber, it is simply an add-on card or a card swap to support GPON, plus an ONT installed in place of the NID at each customer premise. So, you could say the Uverse VRAD infrastructure is "meant" for both copper and fiber support but is currently deployed to only deliver service over copper in the last mile.

rolande, quick question for you.

I was driving by a VRAD 1/2 mile from my house here in the SF Bay area a few minutes ago. An AT&T tech had rolled up in a pick up and was removing equipment (it looked like a metallic box the size of a microwave maybe wider) out of the VRAD and replacing it with something else in an Alcatel-Lucent box. Could this possibly be VRAD upgrades so the area can get 45 mb speeds?


alchav

join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT
Reviews:
·ooma
reply to rolande
said by rolande:

said by alchav:

The U-Verse Infrastructure was meant for Copper in that Last Mile.

It is funny you say that when the Alcatel 7330's used by AT&T in the VRADs are a modular chassis with full support for both ADSL2/2+ and VDSL over copper and GPON depending on the cards installed. AT&T happens to use the copper ADSL2+ and VDSL cards in the vast majority of the VRADs because they have decide not to invest in laying fiber in the existing neighborhoods, yet. When they do decide to lay fiber, it is simply an add-on card or a card swap to support GPON, plus an ONT installed in place of the NID at each customer premise. So, you could say the Uverse VRAD infrastructure is "meant" for both copper and fiber support but is currently deployed to only deliver service over copper in the last mile.

Okay I'll go along with that, you only need to swap out a card and Fiber is supported to the Premise, and the Theoretical Speed is 45mbps. Which it seems they are falling way short. So my point is that AT&T did not design their U-Verse Infrastructure as a true FTTH System.


alchav

join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT
Reviews:
·ooma
reply to nunya
said by nunya:

Spread out properly, the exact same frequencies can be re-used over, and over, and over...
The fixed terminals are pretty big sellers, especially in more rural / low income areas. But even that is passe. Everyone has a cell phone. The traditional "land line" user is literally dying off or adapting to new technology.
As far as internet connectivity, cable will dominate (eat the telco's lunch, trip them in the hall, and give them a wedgie at recess) for the next 5-10 years at the most.
By then, FTTT (fiber to the tower) will be a widespread reality. And... it may not be the RBOCs or traditional cellular companies that do it. I can totally see somebody smarter, less arrogant, and more efficient doing it better.

It makes me sad because I have a pension at AT&T.

Now you seem to favor the Cable Companies and you think Wireless is the Future. You retired from AT&T, like myself, but you were probably not in management. My predictions on Infrastructures is FTTH, like the Google 1Gbps Fiber. This is the only Infrastructure that has the Bandwidth and Consistency needed for Streaming Video and Data needs. Wireless will have it's place, but it doesn't have the Bandwidth or Consistency. I have used TWC and now Verizon FiOS, and FiOS wins hands down there is no way TWC can compete with Verizon without going Fiber to the Home 100%.


rolande
Certifiable
Premium,Mod
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX
kudos:6
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·ViaTalk
reply to alchav
said by alchav:

Okay I'll go along with that, you only need to swap out a card and Fiber is supported to the Premise, and the Theoretical Speed is 45mbps. Which it seems they are falling way short. So my point is that AT&T did not design their U-Verse Infrastructure as a true FTTH System.

No. You swap out a VDSL card for a GPON card and lay fiber in place of the existing copper and they deliver theoretical Gigabit speeds. AT&T designed the VRADs to bridge between the existing copper last mile and the future FTTP model. The current upgrades are leveraging a new VDSL profile plus copper pair bonding to combine 2 VDSL lines into a single virtual connection.
--
Scott, CCIE #14618 Routing & Switching
»rolande.wordpress.com/


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
reply to alchav
I don't enjoy it, but I've been around long enough to see the writing on the wall. Under Uncle Ed, SWBT/SBC/AT&T went from a proactive company to a reactive company. I blame TA96 and other misguided deregulation attempts for much of that - but a lot was just poor management decisions. Randy seems to be following the same path, but at least they are focusing on wireless.

If AT&T were to oust their leadership and do a massive FTTP build starting *right now*, they might have a chance. I don't see it happening.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.


rolande
Certifiable
Premium,Mod
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX
kudos:6
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·ViaTalk
reply to BlueandGold
said by BlueandGold:

Could this possibly be VRAD upgrades so the area can get 45 mb speeds?

It could have been a shelf upgrade to provide greater slot expansion to support more customers on pair bonded connections out of that VRAD. It all depends on what was originally deployed in the cabinet. AT&T uses the Alcatel 7330 chassis in their VRADs. It could have also been something simpler like an RMA of a dead/failing box. The new VDSL profiles and pair bonding is supported on the existing hardware. It is just a matter of firmware support.
--
Scott, CCIE #14618 Routing & Switching
»rolande.wordpress.com/

Merlin

join:2012-06-08
Dallas, TX

1 recommendation

reply to mfranzel
said by mfranzel:

It isn't JUST YouTube. It is pretty much everything. Streaming anything with Uverse SUCKS. Downloading files SUCKS.

I have never had any issues with FiOS

Bollocks.


alchav

join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT
Reviews:
·ooma
reply to nunya
said by nunya:

I don't enjoy it, but I've been around long enough to see the writing on the wall. Under Uncle Ed, SWBT/SBC/AT&T went from a proactive company to a reactive company. I blame TA96 and other misguided deregulation attempts for much of that - but a lot was just poor management decisions. Randy seems to be following the same path, but at least they are focusing on wireless.

If AT&T were to oust their leadership and do a massive FTTP build starting *right now*, they might have a chance. I don't see it happening.

I think AT&T is a great Company, but you are correct they have made some poor decisions, and now under R.L. Stephenson they are stronger and coming back but still lag behind Verizon. I came up through the ranks at Pacific Telephone before Divestiture in 1984 under the old Bell System. Everything was under the umbrella of AT&T, and talk about an archaic system that was it. The old System management style and Bean Counters just didn't work anymore, it took the Break-up of 1984 to shake things up. Pacific Telesis emerged as one of the Golden Boy Operating Companies. PacBell was right in the middle of the Silicon Valley explosion, and we were innovative and successful like Apple, HP, Cisco, Oracle, and Intel just to name a few. I retired in 1996 and you were talking about the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that changed things for the worse. I don't think that had anything to do with it, AT&T just made some poor decisions and I feel the name took them back to the Bell Heads and Bean Counter Days.

Frodo

join:2006-05-05
kudos:1
reply to mfranzel
said by mfranzel:

Streaming anything with Uverse SUCKS.

I've never streamed any high def from Youtube, so I went to the site and searched on high def and came up with this clip.
(www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v2L2UGZJAM)

The entire clip streamed without a hiccup. Played it out the HDMI port which sends the picture to the television.
3600HGV Modem, VDSL 12M plan.
Using AT&T's default IPv4 DNS servers, 68.94.156.1, 68.94.157.1
MTU 1500 on the Win 7.


rstrick
Premium
join:2003-06-02
Springfield, MO
I was also interested in this streaming question so I tried the same video. I have a very similar setup to Frodo and the download filled and maintained a 30-45 second buffer for the entire 1080p playback with no stutter or pausing.

I will say that was quite a video. I think those guys jumping into that giant hole in the earth must be a bit loco.

Anyway, I do believe I will have to throw the BS flag on the OP's comments about streaming, at least based on my experience.

Frodo

join:2006-05-05
kudos:1
said by rstrick:

Anyway, I do believe I will have to throw the BS flag on the OP's comments about streaming, at least based on my experience.

I'm not so sure the comment is "BS". No matter who the provider is, everything with internet is local. Not every "last mile" is the same. And there seems to be at least 3 flavors of "Uverse", VDSL, ADSL and FTTP.

That said, there are other things that can screw up video streaming, and one of those is picking an alternative DNS server. Many content delivery networks manipulate DNS so that the end user connects to the closest server. So, often, things work better if one sticks with the internet provider's DNS server.

The OP said something about bad file downloads too; unlike content providers, I don't see geographic issues or DNS issues with that, rather, I see a bad "last mile" or a computer whose MTU settings and other network settings not configured correctly.

If he has a neighbor whose Uverse works correctly, then it is something with his equipment. But, if the neighborhood is having problems, then the problem is with Uverse.

But, my experience in another city or state only proves that the problem doesn't extend to all users with Uverse.