  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | It would be nice.... To put some of that unused capacity to work, wether its multiple HD streams or faster net.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
 | | | 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. | |
|
| | Humph Too bad they force their u-verse TV service on you. | |
|
| | | 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. | |
|
| | en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | 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).
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | | | | 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
kudos:3 | Re: Humph Not all ftth is uverse. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Humph I know that. Thats why i put FTTH. | |
|
 Doctor OldsI Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
kudos:17 | 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.
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time? | |
|
| | | Re: AT&T consistently behind the curve. and yet they have some of the best lobbiests. Shows where they have their priorities set.
--
Burn a tire, but make sure you buy that carbon offset! | |
|
|  JigsawStardust We ArePremium
join:2000-10-21
Cleveland, OH | 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.
--
»www.auralmoon.com/ Stimulating ears for 7 years | |
|
|  SplitpairPremium
join:2000-07-29
Cow Towne
kudos:3 | 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
--
If you cannot fix it with a buttset and some beanies you ain't a technician. | |
|
| SplitpairPremium
join:2000-07-29
Cow Towne
kudos:3
2 edits | 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
--
If you cannot fix it with a buttset and some beanies you ain't a technician. | |
|
| | |
| | | SplitpairPremium
join:2000-07-29
Cow Towne
kudos:3
3 edits | 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
--
If you cannot fix it with a buttset and some beanies you ain't a technician. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | SplitpairPremium
join:2000-07-29
Cow Towne
kudos:3
1 edit | 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 | |
|
| | | SplitpairPremium
join:2000-07-29
Cow Towne
kudos:3 | BTW I guess you missed this.
»Neighborhood upgrade?
Wayne
--
If you cannot fix it with a buttset and some beanies you ain't a technician. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| 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? | |
|
| | "...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? | |
|
| cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | 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.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil | |
|
| | 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.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
|  bigunkGort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
USA | Re: Consistancy said by jimbo2150:...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."
--
There is not a man in the country that can't make a living for himself and family. But he can't make a living for them AND his government, the way his government is living. What the government has got to do is live as cheap as the people.
- Will Rogers | |
|
| |
2 edits | 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
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA | 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.
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams. | |
|
| en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | 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
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | 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.... | |
|
| en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | 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.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
adsldog
join:2000-12-01
Woodstock, GA |  Before ATT took over Bellsouth
| |
|
 RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | 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
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
|
| en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | 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.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| ace1974
join:2007-06-09
Goldsboro, NC | 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? | |
|
| | en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: There's only one thing that could start to impress me about I know... 'old' twisted pair copper, or old RG59.
In my area, the RG59 copper (or RG-6) to the curb is ~37 years old, while the POTS copper was installed new to the Xbox last year after Edison's 16kV line melted a block's worth of POTS wire.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | said by ace1974: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? Please. Trying to compare telco's copper with coaxial cable is somewhat akin to comparing a hamburger off mcd's dollar menu with a fillet minion because they're both "steak".
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
|
| | | en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: There's only one thing that could start to impress me about They're both beef... just one's of a lesser quality.
Telco copper isn't low quality... it just isn't shielded, and because of that, its subject to noise and distance limitations much more so than sheilded coax.
Copper is copper. But what shields the copper is a whole different issue.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | ...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 | 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. | |
|
 MarkyDPremium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK | 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.
--
MarkyD, Paper Tiger
MCSA 2K3, SCNP, MCDST, MCITP, ACHDS, ACDT, ACPT, ACTC, A+, Network+ Security+, Server+, ITIL Foundations | |
|
|  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: what? I actually agree with Rick. Stop the presses! What if you want to watch two DIFFERENT hd channels in two DIFFERENT rooms? nogo?
LAME!
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
| | RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | Re: what? I actually agree with Rick. Stop the presses! said by dvd536:What if you want to watch two DIFFERENT hd channels in two DIFFERENT rooms? nogo? LAME! Well, if they'd open up the pipes to allow for users to get close to whatever their sync rates are..there certainly could be room enough for 2 hdtv streams. Maybe not with HSI being used but again...this is part of the concept i'm suggesting to allow for user control over their bandwidth.
There are a lot of households out there with just 2 or 3 people in them...and Uverse could fit the bill for a family that size. If someone sync rate was 50 to 60Mb..that family could be watching 2 hd streams while someone was surfing the net. Maybe not at Fios like HSI speeds...but still something reasonable. Here's the key though to my suggestion. There would be NO caps on that HSI service. So..lets say someone wanted to kick their HSI up a notch..they shut off a hdtv.
All that bandwidth then could be used for the HSI connection instead.
Flexible..user controlled..on demand..bandwidth.
This could really help set uverse apart..and it seems to me to be something very doable with their whole system..even as it exists today.
Again, this is essentially what powerboost is on the comcast service I'm on..which is what had me thinking in this direction for Uverse.
Except it's controlled at the network level..not user controlled.
Bottom line is..I really don't understand WHY AT&T needs to put caps on the HSI. Why make it 6Mb when there's 50, 60Mb or more sync rates available there right now?
They're trying to allocate bandwidth..when instead they could leave it up to the customer.
I'm seriously starting to think that AT&T should just send me a check for helping save their company..and namely this disaster of a service called Uverse.  
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
|
| | | |
 Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2 |  good
--
( . Y . ) | |
|
|  a333A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
 ·Cingular Wireless
| 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 | |
|
| | en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | 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.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
 dancy70Premium
join:2005-01-29
Hudson, FL | 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. | |
|
|  XBL2009------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
 ·EarthLink
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Speed vs. useful speed said by dancy70: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. Upgrade your lame cards and take advantage of all that speed that they are offering. I work from home and upload at a lousy 384kbps is pain in the ass. I would love 20/5, it would awesome.
I once again wonder what is wrong with American Broadband that we have such unequal access to good service in the birthplace of the internet?
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin
| |
|
|  pc319Premium
join:2002-04-24
North Royalton, OH | Your wireless card speeds are up to 11 Megabytes per second. Your Internet speeds are up to 20 Megabits per second (which equals 2.5 Megabytes per second). Unless your wireless signal sucks you should be fine. | |
|
| |  B52GUNRKM 7D love and D3 NirvanaPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-06
Vallejo, CA
1 edit | Re: Speed vs. useful speed Uh. Wrong. 802.11b is 11 Mbps (small "b" - bits). 11 MBps (big "B" means bytes) would be 88 megabits per second, which is about what you get over 100 Mbps ethernet.
ETA: Due to the nature of 802.11x, realized throughput is about half of rated speed (5 Mbps on b, 20 on g). | |
|
| | | | said by pc319:Your wireless card speeds are up to 11 Megabytes per second. Your Internet speeds are up to 20 Megabits per second (which equals 2.5 Megabytes per second). Unless your wireless signal sucks you should be fine. ROFLMAO! | |
|
| | Pew-Verse I just want 10Mb DSL, without the Pew-Verse TV crap. I'm very happy with DirecTV, thankyouverymuch. | |
|
|
beast_usaPremium
join:2003-10-01
Costa Mesa, CA
1 edit | 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 | |
|
| | | Re: They Sell it as Fiber/DSL ...ATT-U-Verse What do you do on the internet that allows you to utilize 31883 down? | |
|
|
|
·