dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1446
bobojay
join:2002-06-02
Leavenworth, KS

1 edit

bobojay

Member

Old DSL to so called U-Verse

We just were forced, (it's a long story that I won't get into here), but we just went from the old Speedstream DSL modem with 1.3 service, the max available, over to a Uverse Motorola gateway with the same speed, the max available on our decades old POTS lines.
The account of course is now a Uverse with the only hardware changes being the gateway, and a new wall plug and filter, and the corresponding new interior wires from the wall plug to the gateway etc.
This was installed about 2 weeks ago and for the first 7 days or so all was fine. Lately though we're just sailing along, then everything just stops or gets really slow for a few minutes, then picks back up. This is a daily thing now on & off all day, any time.
I haven't restarted the gateway or called tech support as yet because I figured I'd get more help either here or the Uverse forum.

Any ideas? And I need to redo the signature....

NetFixer
From My Cold Dead Hands
Premium Member
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Netgear CM500
Pace 5268AC
TRENDnet TEW-829DRU

NetFixer

Premium Member

said by bobojay:

We just were forced, (it's a long story that I won't get into here), but we just went from the old Speedstream DSL modem with 1.3 service, the max available, over to a Uverse Motorola gateway with the same speed, the max available on our decades old POTS lines.
The account of course is now a Uverse with the only hardware changes being the gateway, and a new wall plug and filter, and the corresponding new interior wires from the wall plug to the gateway etc.
This was installed about 2 weeks ago and for the first 7 days or so all was fine. Lately though we're just sailing along, then everything just stops or gets really slow for a few minutes, then picks back up. This is a daily thing now on & off all day, any time.

There is another hardware change, but this change is on AT&T's end of the circuit -- you are now connected to an IP DSLAM instead of the legacy ATM based DSLAM.

Have you looked at the modem/line stats and/or the connection logs in the new RG? Unless you have changed the RG's LAN IP address, you can view the status information at »192.168.1.254
Ky Nutcase
join:2003-03-03
Morganfield, KY

Ky Nutcase to bobojay

Member

to bobojay
I am still going this debacle but did found out that if your internet speed drops checks if someone is one the phone. The phone takes 1.5 MB just for VOIP.
bobojay
join:2002-06-02
Leavenworth, KS

bobojay

Member

It's not a being on the phone vs online issue, as we're never doing both at the same time.
bobojay

bobojay to NetFixer

Member

to NetFixer
No I have not changed the IP address and haven't looked at the status info. I have changed the broadcast channel a couple times to see if this made any difference. It did not.
Yes I knew there was a hardware change at the central office end because the "old" dsl modem just quit working it's magic about 2 hours before the tech showed at the house and we discussed that.
Since yesterday afternoon late, things seem to have settled down a bit, becoming more consistent. Still speed slow downs though

techguyga
Premium Member
join:2003-12-31
00000
ARRIS BGW210-700

techguyga to Ky Nutcase

Premium Member

to Ky Nutcase
said by Ky Nutcase:

The phone takes 1.5 MB just for VOIP.

I find that hard to believe. POTS uses G.711 and only takes 64k for a call. Other codecs such as G.729 or G.722 use the same or less bandwidth for better audio quality. While I've not been on U-verse for a while and can't sniff the traffic to see what is being offered/used, it's almost certainly G.711. Anything else would require transcoding to communicate with a POTS line, and I doubt AT&T wants to spend anymore than it has to on DSP resources.
Whoozits
join:2014-01-15

Whoozits to bobojay

Member

to bobojay
You should probably complain to the FCC about this, especially if they just forced you off your POTS line; the regulatory structure for phone service is much stronger.

If it's a practice you don't like, the worst thing you can do is be quiet about it.
bobojay
join:2002-06-02
Leavenworth, KS

bobojay

Member

"Forced" was probably the wrong term. We had to update the internet part of our land line because we upgraded our DirecTV service to be able to access online services.
There wasn't any option to not go to U-Verse in our case. There's nothing else available where we live, except satellite.

We have since the new install, found out that we could upgrade our speed to the 3.0 from 1.5 which was the fastest available to us on DSL. We did and it's a vast improvement which also so far has fixed our slowing to a crawl, to stop issue
Ky Nutcase
join:2003-03-03
Morganfield, KY

Ky Nutcase to bobojay

Member

to bobojay
After a few days of days things became more stable, and a little faster and more stable, maybe they used some of the "magic pixie dust" and got things working OK
bobojay
join:2002-06-02
Leavenworth, KS

bobojay

Member

So far so good. Yesterday we were running Netflix all day and evening, with a wonderful HD picture on our Vizio 60", and had 4 others, phones & laptops online at the same time, one of which was watching YouTube HD videos with no issues on any. We've never been able to do anything like that before, even close to it
jackal
join:2004-01-06
Ozark, MO

jackal to techguyga

Member

to techguyga
It almost certainly is G.711, but most PSTN networks support G.729 natively, too. See here: »support.flowroute.com/hc ··· support-.

AT&T's terminating equipment likely already supports G.729. Their objection to its use would likely have more to do with royalties for the CPE than any processing overhead.

Also, in a situation like AT&T's where they control the transport and can ensure proper QoS, there's little need for G.729's better handling of delay/jitter, and the lower bandwidth isn't really an issue, either, over a broadband link (is there really much of a difference on a 1mbps+ line between 64kbps and 8kbps?). G.729 is mostly useful in situations where there's the potential for significant congestion/delay/jitter over a low-bandwidth link (non-LTE cellular data is a great candidate for its use).

Also, while G.729 is a more efficient codec than G.711, that doesn't mean it provides better audio quality. I've done A/B testing between G.729 and G.711, and there's a noticeable difference. G.711 is definitely a bit clearer.

G.722 is a wideband codec and much better than G.711, but it is not natively implemented in the PSTN (yet).

techguyga
Premium Member
join:2003-12-31
00000

techguyga

Premium Member

My point was that none of the three codecs mentioned would take 1.5Mb of bandwidth as Ky Nutcase mentioned.