AT&T U-verse → Re: What is Pair Bonding? Do I have it?

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

Bollocks.

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.

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.

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.

"Streaming anything with Uverse SUCKS. Downloading files SUCKS."

From my point of view that is an general statement that means Uverse is a failed technology, not that the poster's personal situation sucks. And for that reason I threw the flag. Uverse may suck for some but as a whole the idea is working.

Uverse detractors think other providers, like Verizon or Google for instance, are much better. Perhaps so. But unless you are in one of the cherry-picked areas where these providers have set up their fiber, the comparison is not valid. Others tout the cable companies. Cable operators are great in some markets and terrible in others. So should we then say "Cable SUCKS" as a general statement if we are in a bad market? I don't think that is any more valid than the original comment about Uverse.

I was streaming NetFlix a couple of days ago to my Roku device and it played perfectly, no buffering, no constant bitrate change, no issues whatsoever.

Download speeds do vary from site to site but generally from places like Steam download speeds are more than capable of saturating my connection speed of 24 Mbps.

Personal customer experience is what 99.999% of the provider opinion posts are here. For every positive opinion there will be 6 or 7 scathing diatribes. I've had both good and bad experiences over the years with Ameritech, SBC, AT&T ADSL/Uverse, and Time Warner and Comcast cable. However, I am not your typical customer. Given what I know about network technology and network management, I have a strong technical opinion about which service choice is the preferred option. This does not mean it is the best option for everyone.

Of course, every customer has a different set of circumstances and set of options to choose from which makes all the difference in the world. If Google Fiber or Verizon FiOS were available, it would be my first recommendation. Google will give you the attention you need and the technology you want managed to a ridiculously high level of expetation. Unfortunately, that is mostly a moot point because they are all but non-existent. Verizon FiOS on the other hand is a rock star offering. They still suffer from limited footprint and administrative billing nightmares that seem to plague them. If I had the choice I would defect in a heartbeat. Telcos just know how to manage network subscription services.

AT&T Uverse, again, another telco. The network foundation is a well managed, well-oiled machine and can deliver at superior levels of service compared to most competitors. Of course, AT&T is plagued with last mile issues because of the choice to remain on copper to greater than 99% of the customer footprint, plus the fact that a large majority of customers will face inside wiring issues. From a customer service perspective, AT&T typically tries to do the right thing to workaround these shortcomings. In the right set of circumstances, Uverse is a killer service offering. Unfortunately, the pricing does not truly reflect the mediocre quality of service a large portion of customers feel they are getting. If and when AT&T decides to start offering FTTP as an option across their footprint, it will be a watershed moment in the industry. Average perceived service quality will rise significantly and ultimately lead to premium price justification.

Cable companies... not a telco. Cable companies are still trying to figure out how to deliver high availability service like a telco, 40 years later. The physical last mile is still copper, albeit a considerably higher quality cable plant than the telcos. Cable's big downfall has been network subscription management per node. Because Cable is a shared L2 carrier, they must manage node subscription very carefully. As DOCSIS has improved, the subscription management problem has become less of an issue. As cable providers move towards running entirely switched video, they will free up an enormous amount of capacity on their infrastructure which is great news for their subscribers. Regardless, they are still learning how to operate as network service providers. It is not uncommon to hear about city wide cable outages.

"Cable companies... not a telco. Cable companies are still trying to figure out how to deliver high availability service like a telco, 40 years later. The physical last mile is still copper, albeit a considerably higher quality cable plant than the telcos."

If you really believe that you obviously haven't seen the cable plant in many of Mediacom's service areas. They have a very poor plant here. The maintenace guys use "patch and pray" as their daily saying because they can't do the cable replacement that needs to be done.

I've used both Mediacom and AT&T for internet. Uverse has been much more stable, consistent, and reliable for me, and surprisingly , less expensive. If there was nothing else I would use Mediacom but I wouldn't be happy about it.