rtfm join:2005-07-09 Washington, DC |
rtfm
Member
2015-Jan-19 5:42 pm
Recovering POTSSo 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 |
Doesn't AT&T want to get rid of POTS for VOIP? |
|
NetFixerFrom My Cold Dead Hands Premium Member join:2004-06-24 The Boro Netgear CM500 Pace 5268AC TRENDnet TEW-829DRU
1 recommendation |
NetFixer
Premium Member
2015-Jan-19 7:08 pm
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
|
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 |
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? |
|
NetFixerFrom My Cold Dead Hands Premium Member join:2004-06-24 The Boro Netgear CM500 Pace 5268AC TRENDnet TEW-829DRU
|
NetFixer
Premium Member
2015-Jan-19 7:33 pm
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). |
|
2 recommendations |
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 |
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? |
|
NetFixerFrom My Cold Dead Hands Premium Member join:2004-06-24 The Boro Netgear CM500 Pace 5268AC TRENDnet TEW-829DRU
|
NetFixer
Premium Member
2015-Jan-19 8:01 pm
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 |
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 |
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
|
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
2015-Jan-19 9:13 pm
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? |
|
NetFixerFrom My Cold Dead Hands Premium Member join:2004-06-24 The Boro Netgear CM500 Pace 5268AC TRENDnet TEW-829DRU
|
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
|
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 |
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.... |
|
NetFixerFrom My Cold Dead Hands Premium Member join:2004-06-24 The Boro Netgear CM500 Pace 5268AC TRENDnet TEW-829DRU
|
NetFixer
Premium Member
2015-Jan-19 9:34 pm
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
2015-Jan-19 9:37 pm
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. |
|
NetFixerFrom My Cold Dead Hands Premium Member join:2004-06-24 The Boro Netgear CM500 Pace 5268AC TRENDnet TEW-829DRU
|
NetFixer
Premium Member
2015-Jan-19 9:58 pm
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.
|
|
|
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? :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 |
to cramer
said by cramer 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. |
|
|
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
|
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 |
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. |
|
NormanSI 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
|
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. |
|
|
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
2015-Jan-20 1:57 pm
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
|