Search similar:
|
|
uniqs 7782 |
|
|
|
|
to rolande
Re: Why did you choose U-verse over traditional cable? | |
your moderator at work
hidden : Trolling
| Boricua Premium Member join:2002-01-26 Sacramuerto |
to Mr Matt
Re: Why did you choose U-verse over traditional cable?Not sure if anyone mentioned this but for me it is NO CAPS. Some months I download more heavily than others. I have yet to get a notice I've downloading too much. | | Wily_One Premium Member join:2002-11-24 San Jose, CA |
Wily_One
Premium Member
2014-Jun-28 6:19 pm
That's because U-verse has no cap. | | BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT ·Frontier FiberOp.. Asus RT-AC68
|
to rolande
Most cable systems are better off than U-Verse in terms of bandwidth, however, because they have so much more in the first place. Comcast' 105mbps package is way more oversubscribed than U-Verse, and yes, it slows down, but if it's running 70 or 80mbps, that's still way faster than U-Verse's 24mbps package.
Basically everything except FIOS is oversubscribed. FIOS is shared, but it's probably not oversubscribed, or if it is, it's oversubscribed at a very, very low ratio, because there's so much bandwidth on the system in the first place. But they still way oversubscribed their Netflix links before they were able to extort their protection money. So basically, everything is oversubscribed, and that's just the way it is. | | tkdslr join:2004-04-24 Pompano Beach, FL |
to Mr Matt
Beware, At&T "Uverse" has many different flavors..
Some of the "Uverse" packages are just renamed duplicates of their old crappy CO based, PPPoE aDSL service. Something you really will want to avoid at all costs.
Plug in your new address into at&t U-verse availability web page, if they offer you "AT&T | DIRECTV" service or state "U-verse TV U-verse Voice are not available", then your going to be stuck in twilight zone of unreliable old tech service. | | CAP @68.42.244.x |
to Wily_One
Their website states they have a 250GB data cap. Whether or not they enforce it is another thing, but it is in writing if they decided they wanted to. | | BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT |
to tkdslr
Sure VDSL is better than an upgraded ADSL2+ system, but it still sucks compared to cable... | | 2Wire 3801HGV
|
to Mr Matt
When I had Charter an "independent contractor" installed the cable modem incorrectly. Made a call to the Charter toll-free number and believe it or not, was routed to a Comcast support person. We both had a good laugh and he transferred the call to Charter support. Makes you wonder if the major cable companies share a call center!
When a Charter employee eventually came to fix the problem, he cursed the installer saying this kind of stuff happens frequently with the 3rd party contractors.
In addition we had to reboot the modem several times a week. Those were some of the reasons we opted Uverse when it was offered in 2007. Plus I'm grandfathered with the DVR and 2 more STBs at no monthly charge.
In Connecticut, the AT&T techs are professionals and work with customers. A recent DVR issue not solved by a reconditioned DVR (sent by Tier 1) was resolved by one email to the AT&T Social Care team. They sent a local technician who replaced it with a new, larger capacity model. | | Wily_One Premium Member join:2002-11-24 San Jose, CA |
to CAP
said by CAP :Their website states they have a 250GB data cap. Whether or not they enforce it is another thing, but it is in writing if they decided they wanted to. Yes same thing we've been hearing for years. If it happens I'll worry about it, but as of now U-verse has no cap. | | Kiwi88 Premium Member join:2003-05-26 Bryant, AR |
to Mr Matt
Easy, Cable was faster, U-Verse gave the two thing I needed that cable could not. • Customer Service. • Reliable connection.
Every area is different though, it would be far better to review area specifics than American wide. Having worked in technology since 1983, I have found that the larger a company the less reliable it becomes and the greed has it's own growth factor. Unfortunately there is little choice and few controls for consumers. In this day and age broadband should be a 'Service Utility.' *Shrug*
Cheers | | | BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT ·Frontier FiberOp.. Asus RT-AC68
|
to Catch22
And you had a cable modem installed why? One of the nice parts about cable is that everything downstream of the demarc is user servicable, and user-configurable and can be installed by the user. And once you're hooked up at the demarc, you don't have to have the cable guy do much of anything- it's all upgradable by the user. Not like U-Verse. | | |
That was our initial installation and activation of Charter high-speed internet in the mid-2000s. At that time, it was their process, you either rented the modem or purchased it outright. The installer brought it on the day of activation. | | ImpldConsentScouts Out Premium Member join:2001-03-04 North Port, FL ·Comcast XFINITY
|
to Tel
said by Tel:Charter is my only other choice for and during the 5 years I had them, my TV was out more than it was in. Their customer service was even worse. Even after I cancelled and turned in my modem, they continued sending past due modem rental bills for almost a year. +1 - Ditto (don't have to type much) | | TestBoy Premium Member join:2009-10-13 Irmo, SC |
to Mr Matt
In my area I have 2 choices... TWC soon to be Comcastic! And.. UVerse... TWC is oversubscribed.... they need node splits real bad but won't do it. So that leaves me little choice. | | rolandeCertifiable MVM, join:2002-05-24 Dallas, TX ARRIS BGW210-700 Cisco Meraki MR42
|
said by TestBoy:TWC is oversubscribed.... they need node splits real bad but won't do it. Herein lies the problem with Cable/DOCSIS. Node splits are currently required at a much smaller subscriber base because the relatively few upstream channels to transmit on with respect to the typical number of customers subscribed on any given node. These few channels become so saturated that everyone's performance suffers, since there is still contention with S-CDMA, even though there may be plenty of downstream bandwidth for everyone. This is the Achille's Heel of DOCSIS 3.0 and earlier. DOCSIS 3.1 looks like it will finally put this problem to bed. By using many more smaller channels with Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) for the downstream and (OFDMA) for the upstream multiplexing. ~7600 active 25KHz subcarriers in either direction. It will provide a much more statistically fair allocation of the carrier channels and prevent relatively few users from starving the rest of a node's subscribers of resources. Regardless, in the end, all networks are shared at some point. The question is where the threshold is for performance degradation and what the relative cost is to maintain that threshold far enough above the typical subscription usage rate. Historically, the telcos have erred on the side of shared uplink capacity plans that support solid oversubscription models, in addition to very high core network availability and reliability metrics. However, they have done a poor job at consistent last mile delivery and availability, mostly due to maintaining reliance on an aging copper infrastructure that was never originally built to support these services. The Cable companies have erred on the side of widespread availability yet have done a very poor job at providing adequate capacity planning and arguably have done a poor job at providing high availability or reliability within their core networks. They both pretty much suck at customer service and support. So, pick your poison. Whichever can provide you the lesser of two evils, go for it. It used to be for most people they could only get one or the other. Then over time it evolved to you could possibly get either but one sucked and the other was much better. As time is going on, more of us can get both services and both are relatively close to one another in service features. The primary differences are more and more coming down to cost, reliability, and customer service/support (as it should be). I believe that once AT&T gets towards 70-80% of their footprint with FTTP/GPON availability that the Cable companies are going to have a real difficult time remaining competitive in those markets. The primary competitive differentiator of bandwidth will no longer be a factor. I see it happening here in my own neighborhood where bandwidth is not a competitive differentiator. I don't know a single neighbor currently subscribing to Cable Internet access. I know many who did and they have all switched to U-verse for better reliability. If the cable companies can't figure out how to achieve higher availability and reliability while delivering comparable customer service they will die a slow death. Right now they are winning the general battle for simple bandwidth supremacy. But there will be a point where that will become mostly irrelevant. At that point, the customer decision will come down to a number of factors that the Cable companies have ignored and neglected for far too long and will be easily beaten by the telcos. | | coryw join:2013-12-22 Flagstaff, AZ |
to BiggA
But, didn't you yourself say that FiOS was likely oversubscribing by as much as 64:1?
Rolande suggests that there are 192 xDSL connections per VRAD and each port has 24 megabits, in that case, a maxed U-Verse DSL deployment is "only" over-subscribed 2:1. Of course, that will change as AT&T enables faster speeds on the existing profiles, over-provisions 45M plans to 50/55 megabits of throughput. Though, AT&T can always (and presumably is, especially in Austin, TX) add more backhaul to that 7330 shelf. | | coryw |
to BiggA
Just like it depends on what DSL service you have, this seems to depend on what cable service you have. My housemate has cable and voice service with the local cableco, and instead of just being lit up and told to activate her cable modem, she was given an Arris docsis and voice gateway, and that gateway hosts her phone line, and an Ethernet hand-off. She chooses her own router, but the "modem" and everything up to it is the responsibility of the cableco.
On the other hand, I have a different DSL provider and everything on my side of the demarc is my responsibility, and my telco doesn't care what DSL modem I use, doesn't care where it goes in my house, and so on.
I think the difference is that U-Verse is really trying to be your all-in-one communication service, and the best way AT&T knows to support that notion is to install hardware in your home and ask you not to touch it or look at it funny. Though, there are definitely a lot of things that users can do on their own in a U-Verse situation, though the fewer services you have, the more options you have in terms of owning/choosing a gateway, positioning, types of wiring, etc. | | rolandeCertifiable MVM, join:2002-05-24 Dallas, TX ARRIS BGW210-700 Cisco Meraki MR42
|
to coryw
said by coryw:Rolande suggests that there are 192 xDSL connections per VRAD and each port has 24 megabits, in that case, a maxed U-Verse DSL deployment is "only" over-subscribed 2:1. Well, technically it is a max of 32Meg per port right now based on the actual maximum available VDSL port profile. Currently anything above that profile (e.g. Power Tier) requires pair-bonding. Power Tier customers use 2 ports each with a ~27.5Meg profile which works out to a ~55Meg synch profile. So, right now, the over-subscription ratio doesn't get any worse even on the highest tier. Once they enable the 17a profiles and vectoring that will change it. But, even still, the over-subscription ratio is still so good that no one will notice. | | BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT ·Frontier FiberOp.. Asus RT-AC68
|
to rolande
I know that "upload jamming" can happen at the individual subscriber level, as I've had it happen to me, and it will cripple the connection, but I've never heard of it at the node level. The highest demands by far are on the downstream, so I don't see how the upstream would get jammed on an entire node except in very rare circumstances. Cable does pretty darn well with some absurdly large oversubscription ratios, although as a result the performance varies from neighborhood to neighborhood, with some places like certain apartment complexes having some significant slowdowns while almost everywhere else runs along at full speed nearly 100% of the time.
Right now, cable wins because of bandwidth. If AT&T can put in place widespread FTTH, offer 300+mbps internet at a reasonable price, and increase the bitrate on their channels and offer 6+ HD streams for FTTH customers, they will be very competitive with cable. However, on the flip side, cable has the technology to be competitive even with the very best, FIOS. If cable moved to all MPEG-4 for HD channels and rebuilt every plant to 860mhz (I think Comcast has already gone to 860mhz in FIOS markets), they have the ability to compete with almost anything the telcos throw at them.
On the other hand, even though cable cannot compete speed wise, at least for a few more years with the gigabit speeds that U-Verse FTTH and GPON FIOS are capable of (although don't currently offer), for many users 100-200mbps will be "good enough" for way longer than it takes to get DOCSIS 3.1 out there.
At the point where U-Verse improves picture quailty, increases the number of HD streams, and is offering gigabit internet, then it really does boil down to pricing, customer service, and other factors. We're already seeing some more competition (FINALLY) on the hardware/DVR side of things with FIOS doing the 12-tuner Quantum DVR, Comcast doing the X1 DVR system, and Cablevision getting in a pissing match with Verizon and doing the comically absurd 15-tuner cloud DVR that you can fill up completely in 5 hours.
AT&T and Verizon are telcos, and they have the telco mentality of running a neg 48 system that NEVER goes down unless the wire is physically cut. CableTV never used to be a high reliability service, because up until the late '90's, nothing of importance ran on those systems. Then, over time, internet became more critical, and cable cos started offering phone service. Now, reliability can be very important. AT&T and Verizon keep up very reliable networks. However, no amount of reliability can make up for an overall crappy product like U-Verse. Also, most people can't take advantage of the telco-style reliability during a power outage/ weather event, as they don't have their own source of local power to keep their RG and boxes up and running, even as AT&T puts generators out in the fields to recharge the VRADs. Verizon has the best system with FIOS, as GPON just needs automatic diesel at the CO and backup power for the ONT, and you're good to go.
Outside of major power/weather events, cable can be very reliable. Even during the last hurricane, the cable worked where I was living. Where I am now, we never have cable outages. | | BiggA |
to coryw
That math is ridiculous. What I said is that they COULD easily offer gig symmetrical service, which would oversubscribe 32,000mbps on a 2400mbps downstream GPON port, for a ratio of 13.3. On GPON, they aren't oversubscribing at all, as they have a mix of 50 and 75mbps packages, which works out to no oversubscription, and sometimes extra bandwidth left over, and with BPON, even if they have a fully loaded port with 32 subs on it with 1/4 75 meg packages and the rest 50mbps (that is probably beyond a worst case scenario), they would be subscribing 1800mbps on a 622mbps port, which is just shy of an oversubscription ratio of 3. If Comcast has 100 subs per node on my system, they are somewhere in the oversubscription range of 23. I don't think Verizon has ANYTHING to worry about on the last mile. Their issues are farther up the chain, but the Netflix issue was self-inflicted as part of their extortion of Netflix for protection money, so that's a totally different issue...
U-Verse would never have an issue at that ratio, however, it's not as low as it looks, because you have a MUCH higher utilization of the bandwidth by each sub, since it is used for TV, internet, and phone, whereas Comcast and Verizon are only doing internet on the IP side. However, if AT&T is doing IP-multicast at the VRAD level, that would cut video considerably, especially during large events where there are only a couple of channels (SD and HD typically, maybe 2 DMAs) tuned for a huge number of subs that can be IP multicast. | | BiggA |
to coryw
On Comcast, you can provide your own eMTA. Also, if your provider forces you to use their eMTA don't like the it, you can use that for voice, and use a separate modem for data, which people were doing for a while on Comcast because you could bring your own eMTA with 8x4 D3. Even with FIOS, you can bring your own router and TiVos. They don't really support people using their own routers, but they don't stop anyone from hooking up directly via Ethernet either if you have the technical know-how to do it.
U-Verse, OTOH, will ONLY work with their RG, as they have to run voice and TV through it, and it has the VDSL2 modem in it. And even with GPON and an ONT with internet only, they actively block you from using your own router, although someone may have gotten their own router working if they did some MAC address spoofing...
The problem U-Verse has is that they are trying to run everything over VDSL, so they have a weird proprietary cluster**** of equipment, as opposed to FIOS, which breaks the three services out at the ONT on a hardware level, or cable, where you can own all of the stuff, and it's all standard-based. The flip side of U-Verse is that it's the only truly large provider to use a fully converged IP platform to deliver triple play services to the home. Everybody else is running a bunch of different stuff over HFC or fiber... That being said, I'd take FIOS any day over full convergence. Maybe someday everything will work like Google Fiber, but until then, FIOS reigns supreme, with cable in second place, and U-Verse a distance third.
Old school DSL worked with your own equipment in some situations, but the only people left on DSL are old people who don't notice how horrible their 3 meg DSL is, and probably don't know a router from the box of left-over pizza in their fridge. | | coryw join:2013-12-22 Flagstaff, AZ |
coryw
Member
2014-Jul-2 7:10 pm
The "Only AT&T RGs" was definitely an AT&T business decision and not necessarily part of the technology. It was probably the easiest way to sell phone and TV service to people on that fully converged platform and easily swap out hardware when technologies change.
On CenturyLink's VDSL2 and fiber platforms, you can handily use your own router, though there's some specific VLAN shenanigans that are going on with Prism Television, I've heard that people who have it (people who unfortunately aren't vocal in the CenturyLink subforum) have gotten their own hardware working on FTTP and with VDSL2/ADSL2+ PrismTV service.
FiOS is nice on the equipment front because it's even simpler. If you have a router with an Ethernet port, just plug it in and go. Of course, there's TV guide shenanigans if you're using that. There's a fairly strong contingent of people who believe that an Internet connection should either involve an Ethernet port on an ONT, or an Ethernet port on a DSL bridge, much like how normal DOCSIS modems work. (Good tip on the eMTA thing, it hadn't occurred to me that those might be able to be separated.)
I'm still on DSL Because Reasons(TM) but I'd likewise take FiOS (or U-Verse) over what I've got any day of the week. I'd probably take U-Verse over the cable though, even though in so many ways, the distinctions that give me that instinct are now gone and part of history. | | |
adrenatek01
Anon
2014-Jul-2 7:59 pm
Because I hate the cable company more.
I'm on 18Mbps ADSL2+. It's very reliable too. Got my NVG510 running like a modem/bridged using the "semi-static" IP method. Works great. | | BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT ·Frontier FiberOp.. Asus RT-AC68
|
to coryw
Interesting. I didn't realize that you could get IPTV to work through something else.
If you're using FIOS's crappy boxes and your own router, you can just have a LAN MoCA bridge, either a pure bridge, or use the router as a bridge, and not as a router. However, the users who provider their own router are likely to be running TiVos too. And if you have TiVos for your DVR, and then one FIOS box for VOD, the FIOS box can get MoCA from the TiVos, which can get internet connectivity from Ethernet...
Why is that? You must have a really crappy cable company, as I like my 105/10 cable from Comcast (105/20 in many areas) a lot more than a 24/3 connection that U-Verse would offer if they even served my neighborhood, and if I was close enough to the VRAD to get it... The other cable company here offers 110/20 I think, but their TV service isn't that great. | | rolandeCertifiable MVM, join:2002-05-24 Dallas, TX ARRIS BGW210-700 Cisco Meraki MR42
|
to BiggA
said by BiggA:Right now, cable wins because of bandwidth. If AT&T can put in place widespread FTTH, offer 300+mbps internet at a reasonable price, and increase the bitrate on their channels and offer 6+ HD streams for FTTH customers, they will be very competitive with cable. My perspective was looking more broadly across the average market and not specific neighborhoods where there is a significant bandwidth gap. On average I've discovered that the local Cable competitor doesn't necessarily provide significantly more bandwidth. And, if they do, the premium is usually not insignificant. Where there is significant bandwidth gap, that competitive advantage will pretty much trump everything else. But, where there is not a significant difference, I've found that the Cable companies seem to be ignored like yesterday's trash. That should scare the hell out of every cable exec out there. They can not rest on their laurels with respect to all of the other key competitive differentiators or they are going to get eaten for lunch in every FTTP expansion and retrofit market. Yet the jokes still continue about cable company lack of reliability and less than mediocre customer service (not that AT&T should win any awards). But, if people rank the cable companies as the worst for customer service, knowing what AT&T can be like, that is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. There is a real challenge in front of the cable companies to change and improve how they do business in those areas. They can not afford to continue riding the bandwidth gap wagon as their ace their back pocket. It will take multiple years to change that culture. It isn't just a $ problem. If they don't start getting in front of it now and they wait to react when they start bleeding customers, it will likely be too late for some of them. | | BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT ·Frontier FiberOp.. Asus RT-AC68
|
BiggA
Premium Member
2014-Jul-3 6:56 pm
For internet, I look at Comcast and AT&T, which compete a lot around here. Comcast's standard plan is 50/10, and their Blast! plan is 105/10 or 105/20 depending on the area. AT&T has nothing to compete with that. Many areas still can't even get 24mbps from U-Verse. It's pathetic. They have to have FTTH to get the upper hand on Comcast. And even in areas with other cable providers, most seem to be around 25mbps on the "standard" package, and 50mbps on the "fast" package. U-Verse can compete with that, but only in select locations where there are two pairs available, and that are close to a VRAD, and not in an MDU. Cable can do that over their entire plant. And U-Verse and cable are cost-competitive.
I really think that AT&T's business strategy with U-Verse is based on the concept of "we're NOT Comcast/TWC/Cox/CV" more than what they are, because they don't have the technology to stand on their own. Verizon stand on their own as "we ARE FIOS". In fact, here in Groton, CT, I see relatively few VRADs, and I believe that's partly due to the fact that we have a local cable overbuilder, which has already taken a lot of the business of people who want something that's "not Comcast", without actually looking at what it IS (Comcast is the least crappy provider, but they haven't rebuilt their 650mhz system, the overbuilder is even crappier and still has analog on their 860mhz system, and U-Verse sucks in it's own right). OTOH, across the river in Waterford, CT, where Metrocast is a very weak cable provider, VRADs have sprouted like weeds.
Cable clearly has nothing to worry about, although more competition will erode their margins a bit. In the areas covered with FIOS, FIOS is seeing 20% market penetration, which means cable still has the lion's share, although I find that 20% number to be very low, as I hear of people who can get FIOS getting FIOS. OTOH, I do know one person who got a really cheap bundle and stayed with Cox because she didn't want to pay a large premium for FIOS. If AT&T puts GPON in everywhere and doesn't have to compete on price, that gives the cable providers a huge market to tap.
And from a technical perspective, cable providers can compete with FIOS, and can just about compete with GPON U-Verse, even if AT&T fixes their PQ problems. An 860mhz cable plant with all MPEG-4 HD, no analog, and a lot of D3 channels can carry a LOT of HD channels, and a LOT of internet bandwidth.
I've never really had issues with Comcast customer service, although I've heard that Cox over in RI is horrible, and their service isn't very reliable. My #1 issue with Comcast is picture quality, as on most channels it looks like utter garbage, with a few exceptions where it looks AMAZING. My #2 is that they haven't upgraded our system, while we pay the same as other systems, but I think most people are utterly oblivious to that fact.
The other thing cable has is universal coverage. In most areas that they have built out, they cover EVERYONE, whereas it will take years for even an aggressive FTTH build-out to reach everyone.
As of right now, AT&T has a very, very bleak future on the wireline side. I think the U-Verse platform and converged IP concept is good, but they need to go to GPON to properly leverage it. | | BiggA |
to rolande
It looks like U-Verse offers about 225 HD "channels". Cable would have to push to get 225 HDs on an 860mhz plant, but with 5 HD's per QAM with MPEG-4, it might be possible to get pretty close, especially once you weed out all the east/west feeds of the same thing... If you move to SDV, then the sky is the limit, and matching U-Verse's channel lineup that way is easy.
And in terms of internet bandwidth, current D3 technology, if deployed with enough channels and current oversubsription rates, cable could do 300-400mbps of downstream bandwidth.
So yes, cable has the bandwidth to compete directly with FTTH if they want to push it that far. So far, no cable provider has. | | |
to Mr Matt
The cap isn't enforced on U-Verse yet. | | Kiwi88 Premium Member join:2003-05-26 Bryant, AR |
to BiggA
It's not always about competition for the end user, I was the second person in central Arkansas to get DSL and ran Comcast as well, at that time before the big dog was too big I had one occasion to interact with Comcast's big cheeze, seemed to take Comcast awhile to understand that sub par UPLOAD actually mattered (Everybody was and still is so focused with download) the idea of a stable connection related to upload hardly entered their minds, let alone a synchronous connection.
The turning point for me was a service (Comcast) that happily digested $200+ a month for a business line, but the only offering different to residential was the bill, no cap and a static IP, at the time major downsides in "Sharing the line" didn't go away from the residential group. Bottom line, it's a Nigerian scam. Customer service was no better on a business line AND Comcast couldn't deliver the speed advertised. The irony here was that the lower tier was maximum for the area, but never a word said, found that out the hard way.
AT&T have been traditionally LAZY about technology, however their techs are far superior to Comcast. At the end of the day a lack of latency and reliability did matter! A $45.00 AT&T business line is nothing to sneeze at either.
Cheers | |
|