dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
2018

rtfm
join:2005-07-09
Washington, DC

rtfm

Member

Recovering POTS

So my client the IP-only guy was on POTS. His spouse was trying to set up bill on-line and she reports they told her she could get free call-waiting and free VM and free etc...

She bit, and only later told me; yep, the crew showed to yank them off POTS and give them VOIP. But they could not make the gatephone work. (It connects to the RJ31X that's really a RJ45 until I can find a true 31X supplier....)

They told her to call the gate people.... Yea Sure. I suspect the modem is not supplying -48VDC loop, just 20V or so, and the gatephone can't deal with that.

In any case, the client raised hell this AM, and only after he got 50 minutes of stalling and buck passing, did he get an order # to restore POTS. The crucial argument he used to win was "I want my copper loop, CPUC/FCC regulated line back, period.." and they folded.

Jeeze....

Craiger
join:2012-07-05
Chesterfield, MO

Craiger

Member

Doesn't AT&T want to get rid of POTS for VOIP?

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

1 recommendation

NetFixer

Premium Member

said by Craiger:

Doesn't AT&T want to get rid of POTS for VOIP?

Actually they want to divest all of their land-line operations (including the current hybrid fiber/copper U-verse services) and become strictly a wireless provider (and U-verse can be easily supported via fixed wireless connections should AT&T wish to continue providing that particular product). And as soon as they can get enough politicians on their payroll to kill current regulatory requirements, that is exactly what they will do. They already did it in CT.
ramsaso
Premium Member
join:2014-01-04
Houston, TX
ARRIS SB6183

ramsaso to rtfm

Premium Member

to rtfm
She should have seen the Guidebook on AT&T's website for promotions... »cpr.att.com and/or skimmed carefully about the "free" things from U-Verse.

Anyway, it seems that most Americans (or most people) fall for "traps" (POTS > VoIP because of "free" stuff) initiated by the (evil) companies.

Hell, there's something on POTS that's not available on U-Verse. Priority Call.

I feel sorry that you have to deal with it.
Craiger
join:2012-07-05
Chesterfield, MO

Craiger to NetFixer

Member

to NetFixer
said by NetFixer:

said by Craiger:

Doesn't AT&T want to get rid of POTS for VOIP?

Actually they want to divest all of their land-line operations (including the current hybrid fiber/copper U-verse services) and become strictly a wireless provider (and U-verse can be easily supported via fixed wireless connections should AT&T wish to continue providing that particular product). And as soon as they can get enough politicians on their payroll to kill current regulatory requirements, that is exactly what they will do. They already did it in CT.

What about FTTP and Gigapower? Doesn't AT&T still want to expand that?

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 Craiger:

What about FTTP and Gigapower? Doesn't AT&T still want to expand that?

I think that they want to divest "all land-line" services. Copper is at the top of the list because it is older and more in need of constant maintenance, but fiber lines also have to be maintained (and installed for new customers), and I suspect that AT&T would just as soon sell that part of their business and just lease the lines for any service they wish to continue marketing that might not be easily converted to a wireless service. They already do this for such things as cell tower back-haul in areas where AT&T is not the ILEC (and sometimes even in areas where they are the ILEC).
ham3843
join:2015-01-15
USA

2 recommendations

ham3843

Member

If it means that AT&T (the fake AT&T no relation of Ma Bell) wants to sell off all their wire services the quicker the better. We need a organization that WANTS to be in the wireline business and invest in it as well.

I wish that somehow a resurrected Bell System could be instituted and we could return to regulated service..I would stipulate that if Verizon and
AT&T want to get that deal accomplished they must make large return payments of past received tax dollars to fund the new US Bell System.

We need another dedicated long lines telco company NOW in the USA.
Craiger
join:2012-07-05
Chesterfield, MO

Craiger to NetFixer

Member

to NetFixer
said by NetFixer:

said by Craiger:

What about FTTP and Gigapower? Doesn't AT&T still want to expand that?

I think that they want to divest "all land-line" services. Copper is at the top of the list because it is older and more in need of constant maintenance, but fiber lines also have to be maintained (and installed for new customers), and I suspect that AT&T would just as soon sell that part of their business and just lease the lines for any service they wish to continue marketing that might not be easily converted to a wireless service. They already do this for such things as cell tower back-haul in areas where AT&T is not the ILEC (and sometimes even in areas where they are the ILEC).

As part of the merger if approved, AT&T said they want to have a wireless LTE internet service by the end of the year but I think they said it can only do 18 Mbps. That might be in rural areas at first, not sure on that. How can they compete with Cable Internet's 100 to 300 Mbps speed only doing LTE?

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 Craiger:

As part of the merger if approved, AT&T said they want to have a wireless LTE internet service by the end of the year but I think they said it can only do 18 Mbps. That might be in rural areas at first, not sure on that. How can they compete with Cable Internet's 100 to 300 Mbps speed only doing LTE?

Are you assuming that the equipment and RF spectrum that is available to AT&T today is the same equipment and RF spectrum that will be available to AT&T tomorrow? Plus, in the interim they can always lease whatever land-line resources (including fiber) they need instead of installing and maintaining it in-house. The 21st Century is officially the Out-Sourcing Century.
Craiger
join:2012-07-05
Chesterfield, MO

Craiger

Member

said by NetFixer:

said by Craiger:

As part of the merger if approved, AT&T said they want to have a wireless LTE internet service by the end of the year but I think they said it can only do 18 Mbps. That might be in rural areas at first, not sure on that. How can they compete with Cable Internet's 100 to 300 Mbps speed only doing LTE?

Are you assuming that the equipment and RF spectrum that is available to AT&T today is the same equipment and RF spectrum that will be available to AT&T tomorrow? Plus, in the interim they can always lease whatever land-line resources (including fiber) they need instead of installing and maintaining it in-house. The 21st Century is officially the Out-Sourcing Century.

Sorry I don't know that much about LTE. I just read that in a news article.

mackey
Premium Member
join:2007-08-20

mackey to Craiger

Premium Member

to Craiger
said by Craiger:

As part of the merger if approved, AT&T said they want to have a wireless LTE internet service by the end of the year but I think they said it can only do 18 Mbps. That might be in rural areas at first, not sure on that. How can they compete with Cable Internet's 100 to 300 Mbps speed only doing LTE?

In this part of L.A. "Uverse" can only do 18 mbps max, so 18 mbps LTE isn't a big limitation. They don't seem to care that cable offers 300 mbps.
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501

cramer to NetFixer

Premium Member

to NetFixer
said by NetFixer:

U-verse can be easily supported via fixed wireless connections should AT&T wish to continue providing that particular product

Internet: maybe. Voice: certainly. TV: not a chance in hell.

mackey
Premium Member
join:2007-08-20

1 recommendation

mackey

Premium Member

said by cramer:

said by NetFixer:

U-verse can be easily supported via fixed wireless connections should AT&T wish to continue providing that particular product

Internet: maybe. Voice: certainly. TV: not a chance in hell.

Actually for TV they just need to throw up the "other" antenna while installing the fixed wireless one. Why do you think they bought a satellite TV provider?

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

NetFixer to cramer

Premium Member

to cramer
said by cramer:

said by NetFixer:

U-verse can be easily supported via fixed wireless connections should AT&T wish to continue providing that particular product

Internet: maybe. Voice: certainly. TV: not a chance in hell.

If your "TV: not a chance in hell" declaration is based on technology, then you are focusing too closely on currently deployed technology instead of what could be deployed in the not so distant future if AT&T were permitted to use the required RF spectrum (and I am talking about dedicated fixed wireless stations -- possibly even satellite based, not cellphone style mobile LTE).

If you are instead referring to business decisions, I agree that some in AT&T management would probably be glad to see U-verse TV as it is currently implemented sold to someone else (as was already done in CT).
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501

cramer to Craiger

Premium Member

to Craiger
said by Craiger:

What about FTTP and Gigapower? Doesn't AT&T still want to expand that?

They want to look like they do. The only reason they're doing it now (as much a joke as it is) is simply marketing. Too many others are starting to offer much faster connections than AT&T can ever do over copper, and they want to look they aren't falling behind.

rtfm
join:2005-07-09
Washington, DC

rtfm to NetFixer

Member

to NetFixer
said by NetFixer:

Are you assuming that the equipment and RF spectrum that is available to AT&T today is the same equipment and RF spectrum that will be available to AT&T tomorrow?

I strongly doubt anyone will find a large cache of lost bandwidth in a cave anytime soon....

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 rtfm:

said by NetFixer:

Are you assuming that the equipment and RF spectrum that is available to AT&T today is the same equipment and RF spectrum that will be available to AT&T tomorrow?

I strongly doubt anyone will find a large cache of lost bandwidth in a cave anytime soon....

But it might be found in a stationary orbital platform.

rtfm
join:2005-07-09
Washington, DC

rtfm

Member

said by NetFixer:

But it might be found in a stationary orbital platform.

3E8 m/s; it's not just a good idea, it's the law.

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 rtfm:

said by NetFixer:

But it might be found in a stationary orbital platform. ;)

3E8 m/s; it's not just a good idea, it's the law.

Long lag times using RF connections on AT&T is nothing new for me:

C:\>use-att
C:\>route change 0.0.0.0 mask 0.0.0.0 192.168.9.10 metric 10
You are now using the Windcrest AT&T backup connection!
 
C:\>tracert www.dslreports.com
 
Tracing route to www.dslreports.com [64.91.255.98]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
 
  1     3 ms     3 ms     3 ms  ap2.dcs-net.lan [192.168.9.10]
  2     *      800 ms   370 ms  192.168.1.254
  3   211 ms   166 ms   158 ms  99-71-148-3.lightspeed.nsvltn.sbcglobal.net [99.71.148.3]
  4   166 ms   174 ms   182 ms  99.131.205.88
  5   253 ms   240 ms   274 ms  12.83.112.21
  6   308 ms   379 ms   274 ms  gar24.attga.ip.att.net [12.122.141.181]
  7     *      329 ms   269 ms  agg-eth-1-pe05.56marietta.ga.ibone.comcast.net [75.149.228.85]
  8   220 ms   362 ms   445 ms  he-3-0-0-0-cr01.56marietta.ga.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.86.81]
  9   464 ms   415 ms   421 ms  he-0-6-0-0-cr02.chicago.il.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.86.245]
 10   760 ms   580 ms   527 ms  be-10406-cr01.350ecermak.il.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.84.210]
 11   426 ms   525 ms   426 ms  pos-0-13-0-0-pe01.350ecermak.il.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.87.250]
 12   223 ms   302 ms   301 ms  50.242.150.130
 13   351 ms   208 ms   201 ms  lw-dc3-core1-te8-16.rtr.liquidweb.com [209.59.157.244]
 14   565 ms   320 ms   189 ms  lw-dc3-dist15-po5.rtr.liquidweb.com [69.167.128.241]
 15   168 ms   131 ms   177 ms  www.dslreports.com [64.91.255.98]
 
Trace complete.
 
C:\>use-att3g
C:\>rasdial "AT&T Mobility"
Connecting to AT&T MOBILITY...
Verifying username and password...
Registering your computer on the network...
Successfully connected to AT&T MOBILITY.
Command completed successfully.
 
C:\>tracert www.dslreports.com
 
Tracing route to www.dslreports.com [64.91.255.98]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
 
  1     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  2   318 ms   369 ms   379 ms  172.26.248.2
  3   304 ms   779 ms   349 ms  172.16.7.82
  4   282 ms   360 ms   348 ms  10.251.11.42
  5   289 ms   349 ms   359 ms  10.251.10.2
  6   282 ms   359 ms   349 ms  10.252.1.1
  7   504 ms   349 ms   339 ms  209-183-048-002.mobile.mymmode.com [209.183.48.2]
  8   286 ms   349 ms   349 ms  172.16.75.1
  9   303 ms   339 ms   359 ms  12.90.228.21
 10   334 ms   399 ms   389 ms  cr2.dlstx.ip.att.net [12.122.138.114]
 11   634 ms   589 ms   369 ms  gar26.dlstx.ip.att.net [12.123.16.109]
 12   303 ms   470 ms   368 ms  be-200-pe02.1950stemmons.tx.ibone.comcast.net [75.149.230.161]
 13   457 ms   509 ms   519 ms  be-17-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.83.121]
 14   336 ms   378 ms   399 ms  be-17-pe04.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.84.230]
 15   313 ms   529 ms   619 ms  be-10717-cr01.denver.co.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.84.225]
 16   347 ms   419 ms   389 ms  he-5-9-0-0-cr01.350ecermak.il.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.89.41]
 17   347 ms   399 ms   429 ms  pos-3-14-0-0-cr01.denver.co.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.86.22]
 18   322 ms   389 ms   419 ms  50.242.150.130
 19   356 ms   389 ms   399 ms  lw-dc3-core1-te8-16.rtr.liquidweb.com [209.59.157.244]
 20   341 ms   389 ms   409 ms  lw-dc3-dist16-po5.rtr.liquidweb.com [69.167.128.93]
 21   366 ms   629 ms   589 ms  www.dslreports.com [64.91.255.98]
 
Trace complete.
 
smk11
join:2014-11-12

smk11 to Craiger

Member

to Craiger

said by Craiger See Profile
As part of the merger if approved, AT&T said they want to have a wireless LTE internet service by the end of the year but I think they said it can only do 18 Mbps. That might be in rural areas at first, not sure on that. How can they compete with Cable Internet's 100 to 300 Mbps speed only doing LTE?

:BS.

Fixed LTE a.k.a. real 4G can do 1Gbps. Real world would range from 500-800Mbps. However, ATT won't bother with these speeds for uncompetitive rural areas. Whatever the lowest speed ATT could legally offer is what you will see from their fixed LTE internet and it will be expensive just because.
smk11

smk11 to cramer

Member

to cramer

said by cramer See Profile
Internet: maybe. Voice: certainly. TV: not a chance in hell.

LTE broadcast (LTE-B) can deliver video content via unicast or multicast. Live TV would be limited, but your favorite shows/DVR'ed content can all be loaded to an LTE box with a hard drive during offpeak times.

ham3843
join:2015-01-15
USA

ham3843 to smk11

Member

to smk11
said by smk11:

Fixed LTE a.k.a. real 4G can do 1Gbps. Real world would range from 500-800Mbps. However, ATT won't bother with these speeds for uncompetitive rural areas. Whatever the lowest speed ATT could legally offer is what you will see from their fixed LTE internet and it will be expensive just because.

Whatever the scenario LTE 4G will be priced at a small fortune for the fortunate few that can afford this luxury.

Bring back a regulated Bell System that wants to compete in the wired world. If you look at Canada it puts the US to shame as far as national fiber coverage is concerned with Bell leading the pack. Heck I'd be happy to see Bell Canada buy the long lines from SBC/Fake ATT. LOL At least they are dedicated to wired fiber across their entire footprint.
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501

cramer to smk11

Premium Member

to smk11
I've seen their attempt at LTE-B. The amount of RF spectrum it would take to do this for more than a few fad ESPN events is insane. "Wireless Cable" has been tried many times before -- and failed every time.

How well is your cell reception? How about traditional OTA broadcast stations? (and they operate at many orders of magnitude more power)

rtfm
join:2005-07-09
Washington, DC

rtfm to mackey

Member

to mackey
said by mackey:

Actually for TV they just need to throw up the "other" antenna while installing the fixed wireless one. Why do you think they bought a satellite TV provider?

TV is one of the few things that makes sense from a bird. [GPS is another....]
Being one-way, the inherent latency can be ignored.

Further, it's a (one->many) broadcast protocol. Multicast IP is outright ugly.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS to ham3843

MVM

to ham3843
said by ham3843:

(the fake AT&T no relation of Ma Bell)

Actually, the "fake" AT&T is a relation of Ma Bell; the bastard daughter, so to speak.

I would stipulate that if Verizon and
AT&T want to get that deal accomplished they must make large return payments of past received tax dollars ...

You do realize that the amount returned under that stipulation would be $0.00, yes? Verizon and AT&T cashed no government checks.
billydunwood
join:2008-04-23
united state

billydunwood to mackey

Member

to mackey
said by mackey:

said by Craiger:

As part of the merger if approved, AT&T said they want to have a wireless LTE internet service by the end of the year but I think they said it can only do 18 Mbps. That might be in rural areas at first, not sure on that. How can they compete with Cable Internet's 100 to 300 Mbps speed only doing LTE?

In this part of L.A. "Uverse" can only do 18 mbps max, so 18 mbps LTE isn't a big limitation. They don't seem to care that cable offers 300 mbps.

How many people truly need 300mbps or even 100mpbs on a daily basis?

mackey
Premium Member
join:2007-08-20

mackey

Premium Member

said by billydunwood:

said by mackey:

said by Craiger:

As part of the merger if approved, AT&T said they want to have a wireless LTE internet service by the end of the year but I think they said it can only do 18 Mbps. That might be in rural areas at first, not sure on that. How can they compete with Cable Internet's 100 to 300 Mbps speed only doing LTE?

In this part of L.A. "Uverse" can only do 18 mbps max, so 18 mbps LTE isn't a big limitation. They don't seem to care that cable offers 300 mbps.

How many people truly need 300mbps or even 100mpbs on a daily basis?

How many people find 12-18 mbps too limiting? Just under half of the Uverse deployments top out at 18 mbps if you live next door to the CO. If they could do 30-48 mbps then it would be much, much more usable.
Craiger
join:2012-07-05
Chesterfield, MO

Craiger to rtfm

Member

to rtfm
I was wrong its going to be a 15 Mbps wireless bundle and it is only going to be in rural areas. Sounds like its not even going to be LTE.

»variety.com/2014/digital ··· 1304451/
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501

1 edit

cramer to NormanS

Premium Member

to NormanS
said by NormanS:

Verizon and AT&T cashed no government checks

Everybody loves to trot out that straw man. Just because the gov didn't "write a check" does not mean they didn't get money from them. (i.e. by not paying various taxes, fees, rents, etc. and by that gov granting them a monopoly to protect and guarantee their revenues.)

It is, in fact, we that have been writing those checks. USF, "fcc line access fee", "touch tone surcharge",...
cramer

cramer to billydunwood

Premium Member

to billydunwood
I would agree. Few, at the moment, have much need for such high speeds. My 100/100 office averages about 5M over a month. (56.1M peak late Sunday, no clue what that was) My home 15/1 averages 122k (9M peak)

If I were steaming video constantly, then those numbers would be a lot different. If I go back to when I was testing VoD, I had 6-8M constant for 36hrs. Factor in 2.1 children, and 25+ would be a safe bet.

Upstream on the other hand, needs to be much higher EVERYWHERE. TWC sat at 384k for over a decade. The only reason the standard rate jumped to 1M was because greater than 12M down required it -- the ACK stream alone could use more than 384k.