dslreports logo
10Mbps U-Verse
de la Vega hints at faster speeds...

AT&T's U-Verse currently locks users down at around 6Mbps, despite the fact that the FTTN system should be capable of offering users a bit more bandwidth. Faster speeds are coming in '08 through pair bonding and compression tricks, but so far, the company hasn't been specific. AT&T's Ralph de la Vega (now the company's wireless boss) talked briefly to the Dallas Morning News about U-Verse, hinting that the company's 6Mbps "elite" tier will become 10Mbps:

quote:
"When you look at what we can provide with that technology, it's not just a great TV service based on Internet protocol, but we also provide you with the fastest broadband that you would ever want to have. Today, we offer a 6-megabit-per-second broadband connection, and we think that's going to go to 10 next year." [emphasis added]
Click for full size
While 6-10Mbps might be plenty for standard users, it's still not going to be enough to battle cable on the marketing front. We've seen reports of U-Verse gateways syncing at nearly 100Mbps, though we're talking about only 1,400 feet from the DSLAM. It seems that 25Mbps is working well at distances of 3,000 feet; distances higher than 5,000 feet are where the trouble starts.

Even AT&T's select FTTH customers are being capped at 6Mbps, with the company telling us they are aiming for "a consistent user experience across the board." Hopefully, in addition to the 10Mbps elite tier, they'll be willing to offer a little extra juice to VDSL customers close enough to the CO, or FTTH customers with ample bandwidth to spare.
view:
topics flat nest 

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

It would be nice....

To put some of that unused capacity to work, wether its multiple HD streams or faster net.
siouxmoux
join:2007-09-25

siouxmoux

Member

Re: It would be nice....

If ATT U-verse would offer speeds of 24/2 I would jump ship from comcast to U-verse in a instant. Since comcast in sf/sj bay area should be rolling out their blast tier 16/2 in 2008. 10/1 would not make the grade for me.

BodyBumper
join:2004-06-21
Beverly Hills, CA

BodyBumper

Member

Humph

Too bad they force their u-verse TV service on you.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Humph

I know someone in MI that has U-verse FTTH and they only have Internet and phone and they don't have IP TV or coax cable.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: Humph

Their sales grunt stated that you 'could' order a package (TV + Internet) and then cancel the TV portion. There were a few specifics that i had to drag out. They won't cancel it if..

You order an Internet service thats faster than DSL thats available to you today (i.e. 6Mbps/1Mbps is faster than the 3Mbps/512kbps that I can get).
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Humph

is that for the v-DSL or their FTTH. My friend never ordered TV at all. even to cancel it. He told them he didnt want it at all and didnt get it. They may try to get you to sign up but not required at least there with AT$T FTTH

apeface
join:2000-09-16
Mckinney, TX

apeface

Member

Re: Humph

Not all ftth is uverse.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Humph

I know that. Thats why i put FTTH.

Doctor Olds
I Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.
Premium Member
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30

Doctor Olds

Premium Member

AT&T consistently behind the curve.

It seems their game plan/business model is to do nothing unless they can bring up the rear after everyone else has innovated and implemented. Why even put out VRADs when mini stingers could supply faster ADSL2+ speeds to many more people. AT&T just seems to consistently stay behind the curve.

S_engineer
Premium Member
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

S_engineer

Premium Member

Re: AT&T consistently behind the curve.

and yet they have some of the best lobbiests. Shows where they have their priorities set.

Jigsaw
Stardust We Are
Premium Member
join:2000-10-21
Cleveland, OH

Jigsaw to Doctor Olds

Premium Member

to Doctor Olds
I may be wrong but back in the day even SBC was very very slow getting even dial-up out the door.They(att) are very slow to do anything and very cheap.Lest around were i live Cox Kicks there ass all day long.all they do is look up at em.

Splitpair
Premium Member
join:2000-07-29
Cow Towne

Splitpair to Doctor Olds

Premium Member

to Doctor Olds
said by Doctor Olds:

Why even put out VRADs when mini stingers could supply faster ADSL2+ speeds to many more people.
Not true as they where sub-tended under the Alcatel 1000's in the CO and limited to a 6 meg maximum backhaul on IMA'ed DS1's. In the future you need to do a little more research before posting such untrue blanket statements.

Wayne
Splitpair

2 edits

Splitpair to Doctor Olds

Premium Member

to Doctor Olds
said by Doctor Olds:

AT&T just seems to consistently stay behind the curve.
Hardly. In my district alone we have deployed over 500 new DSLAMs this year and that is more than many CLEC's have in their entire network. In many cases we are deploying faster than the suppliers can provide us. Here we have hired over 100 new techs to work the big U project and continue to hire more as rapidally as we can. Our training center in Sunrise is operating two shifts 7am to midnight to keep up with the training demand (pole climbing safe ladder handling and I&M school). Bids are open and many remain un-filled for DLC techs (DLC turns up and maintains the DSLAM's) we are trying to fill the positions internally in order to avoid the training process of hiring off the street for that rather technical position but may begin to do so next year.

We are hardly "staying behind the curve".

Wayne

Doctor Olds
I Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.
Premium Member
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30

2 edits

Doctor Olds

Premium Member

Re: AT&T consistently behind the curve.

What about FiOS?

AT&T is behind and I'm just repeating what all the news outlets online have been saying from just a few years ago to right now.

»arstechnica.com/news.ars ··· 498.html

Splitpair
Premium Member
join:2000-07-29
Cow Towne

3 edits

Splitpair

Premium Member

Re: AT&T consistently behind the curve.

said by Doctor Olds:

What about FiOS?

AT&T is behind and I'm just repeating what all the news outlets online have been saying from just a few years ago to right now.
I guess you consider right now to be year and a half ago as the article is dated 03/06. None the less one can view progress from the front lines or read about it from someone who sits behind a keyboard and really has no idea of what is happening in telecommunications. Myself I will always put more credence to what I hear from the troop’s on the front lines vs. rumor and gossip from a continuously less than accurate media.

BTW FiOS is a product of Verizon Communications not at&t.

Wayne

Doctor Olds
I Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.
Premium Member
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30

Doctor Olds

Premium Member

Re: AT&T consistently behind the curve.

Duh and Doh, Verizon's FiOS blows away anything AT&T offers hence the reference to it. AT&T is way behind. You also want today's news and need me to point out where you can read it? That's funny.

»National U-Verse TV Outage [63] comments

»AT&T Realizing 25Mbps Not Enough [54] comments

»Verizon Stock Outperforms AT&T Stock [35] comments

»When Does FTTH Yield Just 6Mbps? [66] comments

Splitpair
Premium Member
join:2000-07-29
Cow Towne

1 edit

Splitpair

Premium Member

Re: AT&T consistently behind the curve.

said by Doctor Olds:

Duh and Doh, Verizon's FiOS blows away anything AT&T offers hence the reference to it.
Yes if you can get and are on the right side of the of the thin red line which if you are not Verizon is in the process of trying to dump you off as a subscriber to another smaller telco in which case your broadband future may be quite limited if at all.

And of course Wall Street loves the plan as it supports profit over service. Verizon if they get what they want will be able to cherry pick the most profitable areas for rollout and screw the rest of ya.

At least at&t is deploying a system that will scale to a level that allows more subscribers to be served and still remain profitable. While FTTC may not be able to “meet” the bandwidth numbers of FTTP it will profitably serve a greater number of subscribers in the long run which for the subscriber is a better deal then the limited coverage of FTTP.

It may not be the darling of Wall Street but in the end at&t will retain more subscribers and if is successful in acquiring Dish will be able to make a quad-play in a manner that will make Verizon’s business plan look pale and place the triple-play CATV providers behind the 8 ball for the foreseeable future.

I am also dumbfounded that a person of your intelligence cannot grasp the demographic contrasts of Verizon’s turf as far as density and at&t’s as it makes a world of difference as to the proper technology to deploy system-wide.

Wayne
Splitpair

Splitpair to Doctor Olds

Premium Member

to Doctor Olds
BTW I guess you missed this.

»Neighborhood upgrade?

Wayne
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

nasadude

Member

a guess from the ignorant

I don't have any technical knowledge in this particular area, but I wonder if capping the pure fiber customers at the same 6M is because of the equipment at the headend or elsewhere. Maybe ATT is too cheap or not ready to deploy whatever equipment is required for faster speeds to the fiber customers.

would a legacy VDSL system be limited as to the speeds it could deliver over fiber?

EverAndAnon
@verizon.net

EverAndAnon

Anon

"...the fastest broadband that you would ever want to have."

I guess this isn't as subjective a topic as I thought. They'll be kind enough to let you know just what you would ever want to have. Well, that's certainly "nice" of them, huh?
caco
Premium Member
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK

caco

Premium Member

Re: "...the fastest broadband that you would ever want to have."

said by EverAndAnon :

I guess this isn't as subjective a topic as I thought. They'll be kind enough to let you know just what you would ever want to have. Well, that's certainly "nice" of them, huh?
I was thinking the same thing. Talk about being short sighted.
jimbo21503
join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH

jimbo21503

Member

Consistancy

...they are aiming for "a consistent user experience across the board."
It will be consistent when you can offer 100mb/s to everyone you provide service to, not just a select few getting FTTH or those lucky enough to be 'in-range' of your CO/RT.

bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
USA

bigunk

Member

Re: Consistancy

said by jimbo21503:
...they are aiming for "a consistent user experience across the board."
That's like when they first rolled out DSL with PPPoE, and we had to use that EnterNet 300 garbage software. Remember their defense of PPPoE? "We want to preserve the dial-up experience for our customers."
jimbo21503
join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH

2 edits

jimbo21503

Member

Re: Consistancy

said by bigunk:

"We want to preserve the dial-up experience for our customers."
Haha! Who even wanted to remember their dial-up experience???

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

djrobx

Premium Member

10mbps is ok but how about more upload

If AT&T can give 1mbps to the lowest priced tier surely they can figure out a way to offer 10/2 to elite customers.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: 10mbps is ok but how about more upload

I think there's a limit on upload on the VDSL2, but I don't see where the 'cap' is on upload, only a limit.

»Only 1 HD viewing at a time / COAX or CAT5?
quote:
Broadband Link – Statistics
DSL Down Up

Current Rate: 27264 kbs 2048 kbs
Max Rate: 106600 kbs Not Available

Current Connection:
Current Noise Margin: 28.5 dB Not Available
Current Attenuation: 10.2 dB Not Available
Current Output Power: 13.9 dBm -24.9 dBm

Uncle Paul
join:2003-02-04
USA

Uncle Paul

Member

I love my local telephonymonopolyinmylocalhometowny

While I personally feel ATT's plan is purely investor driven, lacking imagination, and wholly unimpressive from the country's largest telecom,

Cue Rick to explain it to you in 5.... 4..... 3....

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: I love my local telephonymonopolyinmylocalhometowny

I would tend to agree that AT&T's deployment is primarily investor driven. While IPTV offers many new features, its limits are the physical deployment medium. AT&T will have to resolve those issues as some time.
adsldog
join:2000-12-01
Woodstock, GA

adsldog

Member

Before ATT took over Bellsouth

Before ATT took over Bellsouth the IPTV project there was seeing speeds of 40mps using ADSL2+ at distances of 5000 to 7000 feet. And using MMX we saw speeds of 80-90mps, once ATT took over they scraped all of that and went to VDSL 1.5 which is only capable of speeds of 24mps and much shorter distances. I understand the need for BS to change the platform that ATT is using but why not offer multiple platforms when you already have it in place. Add to what they have not change it, they would have been able to server more customers some with ADSL2+, some with MMX and some with VDSL. If you have someone that id too far to serve with VDSL then you could offer ADSL2+. Just a thought.
Rick5
Premium Member
join:2001-02-06

Rick5

Premium Member

There's only one thing that could start to impress me about

Uverse.

Well, make that two.

The first is to abandon it altogether and let the copper thieves rip the old crap wiring out while they replace it with FTTH.
And who knows? Maybe it's still early enough to salvage the name even.

Uverse..FTTH. Or..Uverse..done right. Or, finger lickin Uverse..or..something like that. So few people now have it anyway...I think the name could be salvaged for a new service while they quietly admit that Verizon..and Rick..have been right all along.

And, the second is..if they're REALLY die hard dead set against doing this and keeping the copper crap...make the whole service based on flexible bandwidth.

Open them pipes up as wide as they can go..for whatever a customer can get out of it. AND..make that bandwidth be available for whatever the customer wants it for at the time.

In other words..no ones home and you don't want to watch tv?
Let ALL the bandwidth be directed towards your HSI connection. 25Mb..50Mb..whatever you can get...with no caps at all.

If it's family time and you're all settling in for a night of HDTV..let the bandwidth be routed back towards that creating some REAL quality HDTV..uncompressed.

If you want two tv's on..and no HSI? Same deal.
It's all up to the customer to control and decide for themselves.

I think that this whole concept would truly create a one home..one connection type of service. User adjustable..flexible bandwidth..and a pretty cool service at that. Something new and quite revolutionary actually.
And, it WOULD let AT&T and their Uverse service compete with the likes of Comcast and others in terms of speeds..if the customer wanted it to at that point in time.

If you think about it..that is exactly what Comcast and Cox are now doing with their powerboost service. Except on a network level. If the extra bandwidth is there and not being used by others..we get it as individuals up to certain limits.

Uverse wouldn't have to have limits in that regard though.
It would be the customer who decides.

When you get right down to it..this whole idea of caps is needed..for what? 6Mb now they say. 10Mb next year.
Why? If there's a 25Mb pipe rolling into the homes now..with sync rates really as high as they say..the bandwidth to even blow away fios and comcast is there..RIGHT NOW.
It's just in how they're trying to divide it up.

AT&T..I think there is your answer.if you're still bound and determined to milk the copper.

Uverse..open it up all the way. Unrestricted bandwidth up to a persons sync rates. User adjustable bandwidth across all the whole service.

Even I could get excited about that.

~Rick

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: There's only one thing that could start to impress me about

While I tend to agree with the 'open the pipes' analogy (they _should_ be allowing more than 25Mbps through if users can sync up at even better than 40Mbps)... it _should_ be used to push other services such as 2nd HDTV or higher bandwidth. I personally don't care or need it, but it would sell service better for at least being able to provide more than 1 HD stream.
It would be definately better to have the pipe flexible, and I think that there would have to be some prioritization:

1. VoIP
2. TV/HDTV
3. Internet

Like Rick stated... if there's 50Mbps, you could have a couple of HD streams, and slower Internet (upto ?? Mbps)
If it was all internet, up to ?? whatever package you pay for (lets say this is a special 'flex' power package... "

The only problem that I could see with it is customer support. AT&T's current model is easier to implement, and standard across the board, while a flexible model would benefit some, it would probably cost more to support than AT&T would probably want to pay out.
ace1974
join:2007-06-09
Goldsboro, NC

ace1974 to Rick5

Member

to Rick5
Its funny you talk about how bad copper is but at the same time you boast about your powerboost which comes in on copper lol!!!What is it going to be Rick? Do you hate copper one sentence and love it in another?

•••
etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
united state

etaadmin

Member

...and we think...

quote:
and we think that's going to go to 10 next year

Are you or are you not going to offer 10mbps down? If so when January, February, December 2008? Place your bets.

Uverse cancellations must be on the rise and of course there is that little DOCSIS3.0 thingie putting on some pressure.
kcir
join:2005-07-30
Butner, NC

kcir

Member

Re: ...and we think...

It's really conditional on whether we can force Google that we figure will be using all that extra bandwidth to pay for it all.

MarkyD
Premium Member
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK

MarkyD

Premium Member

what? I actually agree with Rick. Stop the presses!

Rick is right on the money. U-Verse would not be such a joke if AT&T would do some dynamic bandwidth allocation and offer more than one HD stream. Those are the two things that make U-Verse...well...pathetic. Slow speeds compared to the competition, and only one HD stream.
Look at the sync rates that these RGs are hitting! It's not uncommon to see 50mbps or more in terms of sync rates. What's being used? 29mbps of that, MAX, including all four TV streams. It would not be too hard to implement a system that allows for dynamic bandwidth allocation as Rick mentioned. If all my TVs are off, open up my internet pipe and give me the bandwidth that the TVs would be using! I don't understand why AT&T doesn't do this. How could this do anything but benefit them? Maybe they think the average customer won't "understand." However, with people on FTTP having the same limitations imposed as the FTTN people, I don't see dynamic bandwidth allocation happening. AT&T obviously has no desire to be a LEADER in terms of innovative services.

•••

Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium Member
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1

Anonymous_

Premium Member

good

this should force TWC to 15/1 or 2

a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY

a333

Member

Re: good

dunno, but lets do the math:
2 HD streams unccompressed: 40 Mbps
Internet: at LEAST 40-50 megs left over, assuming a 90 meg sync.
And obviously, phone is over the voice band.
So, U-verse I think has the potential to offer way more speed than cable:

Cable (assuming Comcast instantly upgrades to DOCSIS 3.0):
480 megs down.
If it is split EVEn among 100 subs, that's 4.8 megs/sub, unless comcrap decides to oversell =(.
So, I reckon U-verse is only getting warmed up.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely support verizon's FiOS, however, I'm merely pointing out the fact there is still quite a fight left in copper, unless all of a sudden Comcrap runs dedicated coax to each house, then we'd see gigabit speeds of course.
In short, trust me, AT&T and the other telcos are only getting started. The measly 6 meg speeds will soon grow into comcasts's worst nightmare, and throw in pair bonding= 200 Mbps aggregate, LOL. Also, remember, I'm saying this assuming AT&T does NOT compress HD.
The best
a333

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: good

I wouldn't expect AT&T Uverse to be getting a consistent sync rate better than 50Mbps across the board. +90Mbps is for those really close to the VRAD.

AT&T is pushing compressed HD , so getting 2 -3 streams and 10Mbps should not be an issue across the board.

In the area that I live in, there's 2 VRAD's within 3 city blocks (0.87 miles) (4500'), and I'm 0.25 miles (1320') from the VRAD that serves me.

dancy70
Premium Member
join:2005-01-29
Mooresville, NC

dancy70

Premium Member

Speed vs. useful speed

I know, I know ... this story is about AT&T, but ... Verizon just raised my FIOS speed to 20/5 because of a phone plan change. The speed is nice, but, alas, most of the laptops connected to my 6-computer (+guests) network have older 802.11b cards, so I am maxed out at somewhat under 11 Mps wireless, while getting 19 Mps+ wired. At the old 5/2, I never noticed The point: sometimes raw speed is not the whole story and, for some, the increase in speed may actually turn out to be somewhat of a dissatisfier.

••••

Jim Kirk
Premium Member
join:2005-12-09
49985

Jim Kirk

Premium Member

Pew-Verse

I just want 10Mb DSL, without the Pew-Verse TV crap. I'm very happy with DirecTV, thankyouverymuch.

houkouonchi
join:2002-07-22
Ontario, CA

houkouonchi

Member

You suck U-verse!

whats up with all the people saying 'uncompressed' HDTV. I think you guys mean OTA bit-rate HDTV as uncompressed HDTV would require gigabit ethernet to stream if not more. I think AT&T is destined to die as their u-verse service is indeed a joke. It is bad enough that they force everyone at low speeds even if you can sync better but they also forced everyone on interleave path too. Stupid... I also really LOL'd at the picture associated with the news story:

»/r0/do ··· erse.jpg

Sharing photos, and online conferencing as well as gaming would be no different between the three packages as they all have the same upstream. Stupid... You could possibly argue the online-gaming one in that it would be harder to cause latency spikes due to downloading but most 'regular' folk don't do that anyway!
beast_usa
Premium Member
join:2003-10-01
Costa Mesa, CA

1 edit

beast_usa

Premium Member

They Sell it as Fiber/DSL ...ATT-U-Verse

It's just plain slow, TV is fine cheaper then cox,
but the internet is a joke. I have both cox & att I
wouldn't cancel cox until I tested att. I'm keeping cox
and att is down the road. If they opened it up past
32000 I would pay more and keep it in a heart beat.
But at 5700/913 and cox at 31883/1188 it just funny!
It's going to be a hard sale where I live.
"If you drop cox ... we can offer you 1/6 the speed" LOL

authagent
Premium Member
join:2002-11-08
Fenton, MO

authagent

Premium Member

Re: They Sell it as Fiber/DSL ...ATT-U-Verse

What do you do on the internet that allows you to utilize 31883 down?