kxrm join:2002-07-18 Fort Worth, TX |
kxrm
Member
2012-May-30 4:32 pm
That really sucks since...Uverse really sucks in my area. Their DSL service was always more reliable where I live. | |
|
|
No more DSL?It sounds as if AT&T is going to abandon traditional DSL completely, between, forcing the current DSL customers to Uverse where the upgrades have taken place and talks of selling all the lines that aren't upgraded. | |
|
| Netgear R6300 v2 ARRIS SB6180
|
Re: No more DSL?figures, i was hoping some day id finally get DSL where im at, but alas it seems that will never happen. its annoying in on a main road, hell the AT&T backbone fiberoptic line literally runs across my front drive (remember that outage accross the south east a few months back? yeah, tree took out that fiber) guess ill be stuck with mediacom | |
|
| me1212 join:2008-11-20 Lees Summit, MO |
to Gilitar
I thought Uverse was VDSL, with iptv and voip. | |
|
| | cramer Premium Member join:2007-04-10 Raleigh, NC Westell 6100 Cisco PIX 501
|
cramer
Premium Member
2012-May-30 5:54 pm
Re: No more DSL?Uverse HSI (high speed internet) aka IPDSLAM is ADSL2+ based. It uses the same "ethernet" transport (PTM) and 802.1x authentication systems. (so you're still forced to use their crap gateways. not that there are any adsl2+/ptm gear in the consumer market. even the cisco 880va series doesn't (at last press release)) | |
|
| | | |
iansltx_
Anon
2012-May-30 6:21 pm
Re: No more DSL?Just looked up IP-DSLAM speeds. They max out at 18/1. 1 Mbps up for 12M, lower for lower tiers. Yuck...I mean, not quite as poor as legacy DSL but still crap compared to cable. | |
|
| | | | cramer Premium Member join:2007-04-10 Raleigh, NC Westell 6100 Cisco PIX 501
|
cramer
Premium Member
2012-May-30 6:51 pm
Re: No more DSL?Yes. Yes, they are. ADSL2+ max. is 24mbps. Also, they charge a great deal more for those higher speeds. (around here, the jump from 6 to 12 is an additional $5 per month, so not so bad, but it goes up a lot beyond that.) My $41.95 Earthlink (TWC) cable modem has been the same cost for years; speed has gone from 5/384 to 10/1 today. (they haven't negotiate access to wideband speeds.) | |
|
| | r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX |
to me1212
said by me1212:I thought Uverse was VDSL, with iptv and voip. ATT now offers two DSL services. aDSL that provides Internet and VOIP (the equipment is different than the old aDSL) vDSL that provides Internet, VOIP, and TV They call both services UVerse just for marketing to confuse people when many cant get TV service. | |
|
| | | cramer Premium Member join:2007-04-10 Raleigh, NC Westell 6100 Cisco PIX 501
|
cramer
Premium Member
2012-May-30 10:04 pm
Re: No more DSL?Voice not VoIP. You get an analog phone just like you've always had. (and in many states, it falls under most of the same rules as traditional POTS.) You have no access to how they deliver your voice service -- it is transported by IP which make is "Voice over IP", but that does not mean it's SIP or could be terminated on anything other than the AT&T gateway.
(Also, I was not aware of them offering voice via IPDSLAM [ADSL2+] service.) | |
|
| | | | r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX |
r81984
Premium Member
2012-May-30 10:15 pm
Re: No more DSL?So its VOIP like I said? | |
|
| | | | | cramer Premium Member join:2007-04-10 Raleigh, NC |
cramer
Premium Member
2012-May-30 10:46 pm
Re: No more DSL?Not in any legal or regulatory sense, no. | |
|
| | | | | | r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX |
r81984
Premium Member
2012-May-30 11:06 pm
Re: No more DSL?You kind of confused me for a moment. I did search and ATT calls their Uverse voip. » www.att-services.net/att ··· oip.htmlI tried searching for protocol they use, but I cant find it. They probably use some proprietary protocol instead of something like SIP. | |
|
| | | | | | | cramer Premium Member join:2007-04-10 Raleigh, NC Westell 6100 Cisco PIX 501
|
cramer
Premium Member
2012-May-30 11:45 pm
Re: No more DSL?I know, but please don't. When they give me the actual IP packets, maybe I'll accept them calling it VoIP. The day I can login to my Aastra phone and register my home phone number, then I'll call it VoIP. Until then, what is presented to the customer is POTS; it's regulated as POTS. How they get it to me or connect me to someone else is irrelevant. (for all we know, the phone part could nothing more than a DSL filter in the RG ) (it actually is digital voice, btw. most likely SIP, but who knows what tweaks they've done to the router firmware to lock it down. the manual for the NVG510 suggests it could be linked to any SIP service.) | |
|
| | | | | | | |
1 recommendation |
Re: No more DSL?It's VoIP with an analog hand off and certainly not POTS. Stop trying to make up your own definition. | |
|
|
I almost wish they'd do this to meThat's funny. I wanted to switch from DSL Extreme (reselling AT&T DSL in my area) to U-Verse, but AT&T told me that I had to have DSLX completely disconnect me before they would even start the U-Verse process, which could take up to three weeks.
Much as I might like having 18Mbps, I'm not going without home business Internet for three damn weeks. | |
|
| mmay149q Premium Member join:2009-03-05 Dallas, TX |
mmay149q
Premium Member
2012-May-30 5:05 pm
Re: I almost wish they'd do this to mesaid by invalidname:That's funny. I wanted to switch from DSL Extreme (reselling AT&T DSL in my area) to U-Verse, but AT&T told me that I had to have DSLX completely disconnect me before they would even start the U-Verse process, which could take up to three weeks.
Much as I might like having 18Mbps, I'm not going without home business Internet for three damn weeks. You can thank regulation for this, it's because once a 3rd party provider is using the line a "line lock" is place on that line, and AT&T cannot come in and remove it, if they do remove it then they would be facing upwards of a $10,000 fine and court costs/attorney costs/etc, these regulations were put in place because back in the POTS days companies like AT&T would just come and switch your service and completely disconnect the 3rd party you were going through, then at the beginning of the month you'd get hit with 2 bills. Unfortunately I feel your pain as I used to have to explain this to a lot of different people on here on a daily basis when I worked for U-verse, the best option for you would be to get service through your local cable provider temporarily while the disconnect and etc is going on, once that's done you can then install U-verse in the same premises (it won't block services) and either keep both and get a dual WAN router, or disconnect the cable service, unfortunately AT&T is not willing to pay out that huge amount just to keep you as a customer and this is the only viable option. Matt | |
|
| | cramer Premium Member join:2007-04-10 Raleigh, NC Westell 6100 Cisco PIX 501
|
cramer
Premium Member
2012-May-30 6:04 pm
Re: I almost wish they'd do this to meActually, you can blame AT&T's provisioning systems. They cannot even begin the order process as long as the system shows the pair in use. A sane system would block at some point down the line waiting for the UNE to be released, but their system kills the entire order at step one. There are ways around all this, but they won't bother for residential services.
(Regulations do have something to do with it -- and for a damn good reason otherwise they'd be breaking services all over the place -- but a provisioning system won't even let you enter an order is going a bit too far.) | |
|
| | | mmay149q Premium Member join:2009-03-05 Dallas, TX |
mmay149q
Premium Member
2012-May-30 7:13 pm
Re: I almost wish they'd do this to mesaid by cramer:Actually, you can blame AT&T's provisioning systems. They cannot even begin the order process as long as the system shows the pair in use. A sane system would block at some point down the line waiting for the UNE to be released, but their system kills the entire order at step one. There are ways around all this, but they won't bother for residential services.
(Regulations do have something to do with it -- and for a damn good reason otherwise they'd be breaking services all over the place -- but a provisioning system won't even let you enter an order is going a bit too far.) Yeah, internally I think they do that so that somewhere an employee/contractor doesn't either accidentally create the order disrupting the potential customers service, or does it just to please the potential customer and get them off the phone thus leaving that potential customer with broken services waiting for new service and at the same time AT&T getting slapped with huge fines and etc. Of course it could be required as part of the regulations for the ordering system to do this, I know as a help desk/IT admin for a mortgage company here locally in Texas we had a regulation stating all PC's holding customer data (with the exception of the servers) had to be rebooted at 12AM every night, so as an admin I had to create a task every night to run shutdown -f -r -t 01 at 12AM and verify once a month that all PC's were in compliance and no one removed that task. Want to talk about some pissed off users in your environment, try having about 700 people send in support tickets in one day because their PC rebooted while they were out of the office and they had to re-do 3 - 4 hours worth of work, and then those same people not accepting your reasoning when you sent them the federal regulation stating it had to be done or we could lose our license to do mortgaging..... That part of that job was the biggest headache for 3 months straight. Matt | |
|
| | | | cramer Premium Member join:2007-04-10 Raleigh, NC Westell 6100 Cisco PIX 501
|
cramer
Premium Member
2012-May-30 10:30 pm
Re: I almost wish they'd do this to meNot required by, but, yes, in response to regulations. The RBOCs and ILECs have such a horrible history of screwing with competing 3rd party services -- which can come with some of the most unimaginable legal consequences -- that their provisioning systems are programmed to not allow anyone to remotely affect a 3rd party circuit. If they weren't such clowns, they wouldn't have to setup such a dead-stupid system. (they're a large company; statistically, they're going to have a fair number of idiots on staff.) | |
|
| | | | JoelC707 Premium Member join:2002-07-09 Lanett, AL |
to mmay149q
said by mmay149q:Want to talk about some pissed off users in your environment, try having about 700 people send in support tickets in one day because their PC rebooted while they were out of the office and they had to re-do 3 - 4 hours worth of work, and then those same people not accepting your reasoning when you sent them the federal regulation stating it had to be done or we could lose our license to do mortgaging..... That part of that job was the biggest headache for 3 months straight. Sadly the users were 100% to blame in that case. What were they doing leaving 3-4 hours of work UNSAVED? And it doesn't really matter whether they accept your answer as "it's federal regulation;, if they don't accept it, that's a problem between them and their boss. Hopefully their boss is smart enough to tell them to save their work more often and go pound sand. Although I am curious why you had to reboot machines every night? Was it so they couldn't do exactly what they were doing? | |
|
| | | | | mmay149q Premium Member join:2009-03-05 Dallas, TX |
mmay149q
Premium Member
2012-May-31 1:10 pm
Re: I almost wish they'd do this to meYou know honestly that was about 5/6 years ago, so I may be a little off but I think it had to do with "human error" so for example, person leaves computer on over night (they all locked after 15 minutes due to group policy of course) hacker get's into computer and see's left open work as well as 1 or more customers personal information and takes that information and steals those people's identities and uses them to buy all kinds of stuff before caught.
With the PC being rebooted the hacker would then have to hack in to the PC system, hack into the customer database software, spend countless minutes/hours looking through emails/documents looking for customer information.
I think the other reason was to guarantee that another office worker (say cleaning or etc) couldn't just come up and access the information and walk off with the personal information as well as possibly walk off with credit card #'s and etc, I mean we handled this kind of stuff daily and on a large scale, when our main database crashed once we were looking at over $100 million in capital lost if it couldn't be recovered.... :-X
Matt | |
|
| | r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX |
to mmay149q
said by mmay149q:said by invalidname:That's funny. I wanted to switch from DSL Extreme (reselling AT&T DSL in my area) to U-Verse, but AT&T told me that I had to have DSLX completely disconnect me before they would even start the U-Verse process, which could take up to three weeks.
Much as I might like having 18Mbps, I'm not going without home business Internet for three damn weeks. You can thank regulation for this, it's because once a 3rd party provider is using the line a "line lock" is place on that line, and AT&T cannot come in and remove it, if they do remove it then they would be facing upwards of a $10,000 fine and court costs/attorney costs/etc, these regulations were put in place because back in the POTS days companies like AT&T would just come and switch your service and completely disconnect the 3rd party you were going through, then at the beginning of the month you'd get hit with 2 bills. Unfortunately I feel your pain as I used to have to explain this to a lot of different people on here on a daily basis when I worked for U-verse, the best option for you would be to get service through your local cable provider temporarily while the disconnect and etc is going on, once that's done you can then install U-verse in the same premises (it won't block services) and either keep both and get a dual WAN router, or disconnect the cable service, unfortunately AT&T is not willing to pay out that huge amount just to keep you as a customer and this is the only viable option. Matt The linelock is no excuse. The day the 3rd party provider turns off, ATT can switch over in the CO in minutes. It still should not take 3 weeks. All ATT has to do is have the customer give them the 3rd party confirmation number and termination date and log that into their records. If the customer ever lied and the 3rd party tried to get ATT fined, the records would protect ATT from ever getting fined. This is common sense, its just ATT has not learned customer service in the last 130 years. | |
|
| | | cramer Premium Member join:2007-04-10 Raleigh, NC Westell 6100 Cisco PIX 501
|
cramer
Premium Member
2012-May-30 10:43 pm
Re: I almost wish they'd do this to mesaid by r81984:The linelock is no excuse. The day the 3rd party provider turns off, ATT can switch over in the CO in minutes. It still should not take 3 weeks. Not without all the other bits of order processing. Yes, it takes seconds to repunch a pair, but they won't without the paperwork. (if they're union, they won't even pull a bridge clip without a work order.) If their systems weren't programmed so stupidly they could have everything in the system waiting for the line release. But they cannot touch the line until it's released; and the release process is not instant. As the DSLX customer, you don't own the circuit and thus have no say in it's disconnect. (it's quite likely DSLX will delay the disconnect order just to screw with the telco, esp. if they know your switching to their competing services.) | |
|
| | | | r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX |
r81984
Premium Member
2012-May-30 10:55 pm
Re: I almost wish they'd do this to meYou do the paperwork in advance and setup the service so the only thing left on the work order is to physically connect the line. No reason to touch the line until it is disconnected. On the day of the 3rd party disconnect ATT just has to connect the wires and process is complete.
All ATT needs is the customer to provide the disconnect date and confirmation number so they can keep it in their records if there ever was a problem.
ATT is lazy if they wont do the paperwork in advance to have the work order for the CO ready to go to keep the down time to hours instead of weeks. | |
|
| | | | |
to cramer
said by cramer:Not without all the other bits of order processing. Yes, it takes seconds to repunch a pair, but they won't without the paperwork. Typical dinosaur ILEC BS. This is why I'm ditching "AT&T" to the extent possible. The company is a poster child for all that's wrong with TelCom, and business in general, in the U.S. Years ago, when AT&T was still AT&T and SBC still called themselves SBC, we wanted to put in a new AT&T T1. Problem was: Due to outside plant neglect, SBC could not come up with a clean pair. But wait! We had not less than two SBC T1s we were dropping. (They'd been tie lines that had been decommissioned.) After three months of SBC screwing around, AT&T somehow finally put a hammer-lock on somebody, got an AT&T person on the phone with me with a CO supervisor, and they made it happen in mere seconds. I sat there and watched as the CSU/DSU went into alarm and right back up as the circuit was moved. Years later, after SBC became the owner of those same T1s, after having bought what remained of the wreckage Armstrong & Co. made of AT&T, those T1s started becoming unreliable. (As I knew they eventually would.) By the time of the last round of problems I'd already arranged with Bright House Networks to move our phone and Internet service to them. When "AT&T" cable techs managed to kill all of our phone service one day, I said "Screw this," called BHN and asked if they could do an "emergency port" two weeks early. Three hours later it was done. Bright House Networks managed to port all our numbers before the thing that calls itself "AT&T" could even dispatch a Hi-Cap repair tech. I cancelled the ticket before the tech was dispatched. I cancelled the service before the second circuit was repaired. (It subsequently took them five [5] months to figure out how to stop billing us.) They can do better. They simply believe they have no reason to. After all: They're the ILEC. They have a lock on you. They don't have to try harder. Except they do. That was $2500/month in business I moved to a competitor that does not use SBC's local loops. It's unlikely we'll ever move back. They'll not likely get my employer's wireless business. They'll certainly never get my personal wireless business. They'll absolutely never get my personal Internet business. Over the years, since Michigan Bell Telephone became part of, first Ameritech, then SBC, they have so repeatedly fallen down on the job that they're now one of my most hated (mostly ex-) vendors, both professionally and privately. One of the best things that could happen in the U.S. TelCom market would be for the thing that calls itself "AT&T," these days, to go flat out of business. | |
|
| | | | | cramer Premium Member join:2007-04-10 Raleigh, NC |
cramer
Premium Member
2012-May-31 11:12 am
Re: I almost wish they'd do this to meIt's all a matter of mergers and takeovers. When company A buys company B, they never fully takeover and integrate the systems and infrastructure from the acquired company. In 99% of these cases, "A" just wants the customers and their checks. | |
|
| | | mmay149q Premium Member join:2009-03-05 Dallas, TX |
to r81984
I agree, unfortunately most customers are uneducated about this and so are most customer service reps so it never gets brought up during phone conversations, plus as a contractor at AT&T it's always hung over your head that if you aren't off the phone in X amount of time and can't meet Average Handle Time requirements that you can pretty much kiss your job goodbye, and in this economy most people would rather give their customers the middle finger than lose their job because they were actually trying to be helpful.
I always hated that about working there, and that's why I was so happy to be moved to the social media team, you didn't have to worry about resolution time and didn't have a metrics system to go by, and you had so many contacts in the company that you had actual power to resolve issues instead of being stuck on the phone with someone screaming at you feeling like you were helpless.
I remember one time a line technician didn't want to do what I was asking, so I had a dispatcher assign the ticket to another technician while I was still on the phone with him, and I remember him going "WTH?! The ticket was just un-assigned from me!" to which I replied "Yes I know, I asked a dispatcher to assign it to someone whose actually willing to do their job, I'll be emailing your manager about this shortly and I'll CC you on it, have a great rest of your shift!"
Matt | |
|
| | | David Premium Member join:2002-05-30 Granite City, IL |
to r81984
said by r81984:All ATT has to do is have the customer give them the 3rd party confirmation number and termination date and log that into their records. If the customer ever lied and the 3rd party tried to get ATT fined, the records would protect ATT from ever getting fined. This is common sense, its just ATT has not learned customer service in the last 130 years. That never works, and never will. confirmation numbers have a way of mysteriously "disappearing". After all if you had a chance to collect $10k and all you had to do was lie, would you? yea... we all know the answer to that one! | |
|
| | mogamer join:2011-04-20 Royal Oak, MI |
to mmay149q
said by mmay149q:said by invalidname:That's funny. I wanted to switch from DSL Extreme (reselling AT&T DSL in my area) to U-Verse, but AT&T told me that I had to have DSLX completely disconnect me before they would even start the U-Verse process, which could take up to three weeks.
Much as I might like having 18Mbps, I'm not going without home business Internet for three damn weeks. Unfortunately I feel your pain as I used to have to explain this to a lot of different people on here on a daily basis when I worked for U-verse, the best option for you would be to get service through your local cable provider temporarily while the disconnect and etc is going on, once that's done you can then install U-verse in the same premises (it won't block services) and either keep both and get a dual WAN router, or disconnect the cable service, unfortunately AT&T is not willing to pay out that huge amount just to keep you as a customer and this is the only viable option. Matt The trouble with that (for ATT) is that most cable internet is faster, both up and down at the same price points that ATT offers. I left U-Verse last spring for a local cableco. I had 6/1 internet with unlimited phone. The cableco was 8/1 with unlimited phone for $10 cheaper. And I was upgraded to 15/1 internet last fall with no price increase! | |
|
| | Rekrul join:2007-04-21 Milford, CT |
to mmay149q
said by mmay149q:You can thank regulation for this, it's because once a 3rd party provider is using the line a "line lock" is place on that line, and AT&T cannot come in and remove it, if they do remove it then they would be facing upwards of a $10,000 fine and court costs/attorney costs/etc, these regulations were put in place because back in the POTS days companies like AT&T would just come and switch your service and completely disconnect the 3rd party you were going through, then at the beginning of the month you'd get hit with 2 bills. I'm confused... How does the regulation apply in this case? DSL services use the telephone line and U-Verse is a cable service. Yes, it can also provide phone service, but it's possible to just get U-Verse internet, or internet and TV. Besides that, the U-Verse services are provided through a coax cable, not the phone cable. As far as I can see, they wouldn't have to disconnect anything, other than the DSL modem from the computer/router. I know the rules don't apply to cable companies because I've switched between Cablevision and U-Verse before canceling the other service. | |
|
| | | j1349705 Premium Member join:2006-04-15 Holly Springs, NC |
j1349705
Premium Member
2012-May-30 11:17 pm
Re: I almost wish they'd do this to meU-verse is VDSL which goes over phone lines (in some very rare cases it is fiber to the home instead of VDSL). U-verse set top boxes can run off coax using HPNA. They can also run over Ethernet. U-verse shares basically nothing in common with normal Cable TV service such as Cablevision, Time Warner, Comcast, etc. | |
|
| | | mmay149q Premium Member join:2009-03-05 Dallas, TX |
to Rekrul
Because U-verse uses the same telephone lines that DSL uses, you can essentially call U-verse a more powerful DSL in the fact that it uses VDSL, that's also why it's so distance constrained to only 3,000 feet if you want the max level services (depending on how good your pair is that is)
Matt | |
|
| | | cramer Premium Member join:2007-04-10 Raleigh, NC Westell 6100 Cisco PIX 501
|
to Rekrul
said by Rekrul:Besides that, the U-Verse services are provided through a coax cable... Incorrect. Uverse is DSL delivered via twisted pair. You can run it through your house over coax, but it got there on a regular telephone line. (in fact, analog POTS can cross it at the same time. as does the HPNA signal used by the set-top box(es).) It's not a "cable" service. It's a multi-channel pay TV service just like cable, 'tho. There's an acronym for it, but I don't recall what at the moment. | |
|
| | |
to mmay149q
"You can thank regulation for this, it's because once a 3rd party provider is using the line a "line lock" is place on that line, and AT&T cannot come in and remove it, if they do remove it then they would be facing upwards of a $10,000 fine and court costs/attorney costs/etc, these regulations were put in place because back in the POTS days companies like AT&T would just come and switch your service and completely disconnect the 3rd party you were going through, then at the beginning of the month you'd get hit with 2 bills."
Do you have any data to back this up? As someone who has worked in this business who has had AT&T slam DSL customers on a regular basis I've never had the ability to "line lock" customers and our legal group has never found this $10,000 fine to stop it. | |
|
| | | |
Digdeeper
Anon
2012-May-31 3:56 pm
Broadband was deregulated years ago!The FCC stopped regulating Cable modem and DSL more than a decade ago. And states followed suit, except some (like NC) stepped back in and are (illegally) regulating broadband only when municipalities want to provide it. | |
|
| | | | |
Dee_T
Anon
2012-Jun-1 2:55 pm
Re: Broadband was deregulated years ago!The FCC did not stop regulating cable modem service. The 2005 Supreme court case found that cable modem service is an information service rather than a telecommunications service. This changed the dichotomy of how they were regulated, however cable companies would still get fined for Slamming customers, and are required to provide e911 service and CALEA support just like the LECs. | |
|
| |
to invalidname
said by invalidname:That's funny. I wanted to switch from DSL Extreme (reselling AT&T DSL in my area) to U-Verse, but AT&T told me that I had to have DSLX completely disconnect me before they would even start the U-Verse process, which could take up to three weeks. I was in the same boat as you with DSLExtreme. AT&T said I would be without service for at least 2 weeks. So I went with Comcast HSI. | |
|
| |
to invalidname
when i called to switch from at&t fast access dsl to comcast hsi, they offered new customer u-verse to me as an alternative (save offer), without service interruption. go to retention... | |
|
|
what about areas without u-verse?What happens in areas not upgraded to u-verse? | |
|
| •••• |
hdmanFlt Rider Premium Member join:2003-11-25 Appleton, WI |
hdman
Premium Member
2012-May-30 5:04 pm
What about areas that NEVER got DSL?It truly amazes me that after several years of paying AT&T for land line service, they never ever lit my area up for DSL. A while back they stopped deploying DSL, and recently, they stopped deploying UVERSE. If thats the case, my State should force AT&T to give up the monopoly on areas they refuse to service properly. That will never happen because AT&T has such a strangle hold on Wisconsin, its not even funny. They petitioned hard to remove local control over cable contracts and once they had that, they rolled out U-Verse to select areas. The local municipalitites had zero control over where and when ANY cable company could build out and that included Uverse and any other cable service. AT&T really screwed up Wisconsin and for that, I would love to dump them for landline, but they got me over a barrel because there is no decent cell coverage in my area that would allow me to use a cell indoors. Man, I dislike AT&T...... | |
|
| ••••••• |
norbert26 Premium Member join:2010-08-10 Warwick, RI |
verizon not forcing FiOS ?Quote from last sentence: Verizon recently decided to stop selling DSL service in FiOS areas, but to our knowledge aren't forcing DSL users to upgrade to FiOS -- yet. end Quote.
During the forum outage while i was at work the verizon goons made rounds in the neighborhood. I arrived home to a tag on the door you MUST call verizon at 1-800-bla-blaa . We are upgrading our lines . call for an appointment however there was no deadline. Since i could see the end was coming and i did not to get assimilated by the FiOS Borg and enjoy the bi annual rate hike festivities i yanked BOTH POTS lines and ditched Verizon DSL. They will SOON be forcing the remainder off the copper. | |
|
| ••••• |
woody7 Premium Member join:2000-10-13 Torrance, CA |
woody7
Premium Member
2012-May-30 5:23 pm
hmmm.................I have Covad in my area since 2000, will go to cable when the need arises. I have directv and don't want uverse tv, just the internet part, good luck in that.............................. | |
|
| dslchipheadFailure Is Not An Option Premium Member join:2002-01-11 Grayslake, IL |
Re: hmmm.................You can just get Internet and Phone. I was in the same boat with DTV. | |
|
|
There is actually a reason for this:U-Verse and DSL don't play well together over the same cables. From what I understand, the VDSL2+ signal that is used by U-Verse causes tremendous amounts of interference on the old-fashioned DSL lines, via interfering cross-talk. This being the case (and U-Verse obviously being the newer technology), they want to abandon traditional DSL out of SAIs that are connected to a VRAD.
If you don't have a VRAD, you can still get traditional DSL, or keep it if you already have it. | |
|
| cramer Premium Member join:2007-04-10 Raleigh, NC |
cramer
Premium Member
2012-May-30 6:14 pm
Re: There is actually a reason for this:You can keep it if you already have it, but there's no ordering a new legacy DSL connection. They just don't do it -- the often seen line is "all ports are in use." (and they can make that true by removing linecards.) | |
|
NOCTech75 Premium Member join:2009-06-29 Marietta, GA
1 recommendation |
So glad I kicked them to the curb last yearBetween the rumored impending farming of the 10/8 block and now this it makes me happy they are out of my home. | |
|
| |
Re: So glad I kicked them to the curb last yearThis is dumb... I have a dsl line just for games and I hear uverse sucks for gaimz, no better than cable or worse.
Luckily no uverse in my area, just comcast and att dsl... I have both atm. | |
|
tkdslr join:2004-04-24 Pompano Beach, FL 1 edit |
tkdslr
Member
2012-May-30 5:29 pm
I tried to get the Real-Uverse service for several years..Since my Bridged DSL 1.5M/384K deteriorated, (nearby Uverse installs), down to 384K at night. (And that was with every error correction scheme(FEC/interleave in both directions) they could throw at it. )
Since I'm just beyond 3000ft from the VRAD, 12-18kft from CO, all at&t would offered me is another non-functional CO based dsl service. Just rechecking today.. same thing.. (clue.. max 1.5 mbps/down or less == no vrad connect).
Instead of going with Comcast >50$ mo, I went 100% wireless, and saved ~$60/mo.
So far, I've just about recouped my upfront investment costs by switching. And now for the gravy.
At&t will have to offer me free service for a couple of years to make up for the nightmare they inflicted upon my psyche/internet service. | |
|
| cramer Premium Member join:2007-04-10 Raleigh, NC |
cramer
Premium Member
2012-May-30 6:16 pm
Re: I tried to get the Real-Uverse service for several years..Just over 3k ft would be iNID bonded territory, which may not have been available when you last looked. | |
|
| | tkdslr join:2004-04-24 Pompano Beach, FL |
tkdslr
Member
2012-May-31 6:42 am
Re: I tried to get the Real-Uverse service for several years..Only if you needed or wanted At&t's bundled video service..
Just a single pair internet over vdsl2 should do fine for me.. 6Mbps would be nice for a change. But, even that is not being offered. | |
|
ctceo Premium Member join:2001-04-26 South Bend, IN |
ctceo
Premium Member
2012-May-30 5:38 pm
x WORD OF WARNING xThis statement is a reflection of my personal experience with ADSL -> VDSL upgrades. I have personally dealt with over 6 people in the last year who were convinced that an upgrade would be better. This is not always the case. 5 of them encounter problems with their service daily despite the promises. I can attribute this to understaffed, underpaid whiny union workers who feel that VDSL installation was not in their contract and will do everything they can to make the transition a living PR hell for some to make their point to their bosses.
None-the-less I hope that your experiences are far better than mine. Best Wishes. | |
|
| •••••••••• |
|
WhyMe420
Premium Member
2012-May-30 5:51 pm
AT&T Forcing DSL Users to Upgrade to DSLI love how everyone talks as if U-verse isn't still DSL. AT&T is still milking the copper, folks. Most will probably get "upgraded" to "U-verse" ADSL2+ that is barely any better than the current DSL. The rest that are close enough to a VRAD will get upgraded to VDSL2, which is a great improvement, but you have to be lucky enough to be next to the VRAD and have decent lines. Not everyone will be able to get the 24/3, which is already by today's standards just average. I wouldn't expect U-verse to have any faster speeds available for a long time if ever. Even if it were the case only a select few will be able to get it.
Oh there is also the FTTH, in 10% of homes, but the sad thing is they can only get 18/1.5.
That being said, I'm fine with AT&T's 24/3 as long as there are NO CAPS. If they get the caps going, I will be going with the local cable co (Charter) since they have much faster speeds. | |
|
| |
iansltx_
Anon
2012-May-30 6:21 pm
Re: AT&T Forcing DSL Users to Upgrade to DSLUh, they do have caps. 150GB or 250GB, with $10 per 50GB overages. At least, that was the plan... | |
|
| | |
WhyMe420
Premium Member
2012-May-31 8:41 pm
Re: AT&T Forcing DSL Users to Upgrade to DSLUh, they do not have caps. They are not in effect on VDSL users therefore they do not have caps. | |
|
|
anonimouse
Anon
2012-May-30 6:26 pm
I doubt any more U-verse buildoutsIts a shame their LTE network is already faster than their landline network.
I understand the limitations for the VDSL side of U-verse, but certainly for the FTTH customers they could do better than 18/1.5. | |
|
| |
DigDeeper
Anon
2012-May-31 3:56 pm
Re: I doubt any more U-verse buildoutsAT&T's CEO announced in December the company is DONE building U-verse, so if it is not offered to you now, you can kiss that one goodbye. | |
|
|
what about directv Bundles?U-verse has streams limits. Higher per box fees NO NHL network.
Have to buy showtime and starz to get MLB Network NBA TV Destination America Centric Reelz Channel Smithsonian Channel Current TV Investigation Discovery NASA TV (FTA) and others | |
|
IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
I would take the U-Verse over DSLIf we had AT&T in this area and I was forced to upgrade to u-verse, I would do so in a heartbeat if I hadn't done so already.
I wish Verizon would sell their Western Massachusetts wireline assets to AT&T as Enfield, CT (which is less than a 15 minute drive from where I live in Springfield) has U-Verse and they could expand that into Western Mass. Verizon does not seem to want to expand FiOS here even though there are affluent communities (particularly Longmeadow and Wilbraham) that would be very profitable. I live right near the Wilbraham line in the Indian Orchard subdivision of Springfield. The reason I think U-Verse is more viable is that there is existing U-Verse infrastructure nearby in Connecticut that could be easily expanded where FiOS is about 40 miles away east of Worcester. The state line is basically the demarc between u-verse and outdated DSL.
As for me, the only viable Internet option is Comcast, which is way faster than DSL. | |
|
| |
| | |
Re: I would take the U-Verse over DSLThey Never Will. Mass is vz territory while CT belongs to AT&T. | |
|
|
vpsj
Anon
2012-May-30 8:40 pm
power supply?Well... this could be sweet and sour. For me, after being brow beaten by at&t to increase the speed, my 130mbs DSL system did not go to "as high as 300mbs" but settled in at 135mbs. Sixty dollars a year more for an additional 5 mbs! (I do live outside of town.) Then again I was paying a lower rate because of past loyality programs that have now vaporized. (They caught up with me?) Now I have a chance of a better speed. But unless the techs get to the boxes with generators before the batteries die, it could also be the preverbal dam in the middle of the stream. | |
|
r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX 2 edits |
r81984
Premium Member
2012-May-30 9:04 pm
ATT IS destroying themselvesI feel sorry for anyone that works for this crappy company. ATT used to be such a great company. Their aDSL w/ PPPOE has been rock solid and their modems have worked flawlessly for over a decade. I was already forced on Uverse. The modem's IP passthrough feature is broken. The Uverse routing is slow for video sites like youtube so with a 12 meg connection you will have constant buffering.
You would think ATT would be experts at being an ISP by now. They have over a decade of experience just with broadband and like 2 decades with home internet. Like 4 decades with commercial internet. They are a tier 1 isp. They provided phone service since like 1890s. THEY SHOULD BE EXPERTS AT THE INTERNET AND CUSTOMER SERVICE BY NOW. THEY INVENTED THE TRANSISTOR THAT HAS MADE ALL OF THIS POSSIBLE. Without ATT the transistor would have been German technology. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
It seems like with Uverse they fired everyone with experience in ATT, hid all of their history records and training materials, and started from scratch with people who have no idea how the internet even works. For 1 thing you would think they would have strict specs and testing requirements for their modems that prevent all past issues they have had from happening in the future with new models.
Switching from DSL to Uverse takes a few weeks for no reason. I literally will take them a few minutes to setup the new patch cable to the new equipment and under a minute to make the new connection or to do the splice. They are not organized to stream line this to keep the customers downtime to just minutes instead of weeks. I see a huge firing of upper management in ATT in the next year for all of these screw ups. They are running the company into the ground.
All I can tell anyone that will be forced to switch right now is not to accept a NVG510 motorola modem as the IP passthrough does not work. Tell them you want a different model that works correctly. | |
|
| ••••••••••• |
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2 Zoom 5341J
|
KrK
Premium Member
2012-May-30 11:37 pm
That is some BS right thereBS. I'm sure some people wouldn't mind U-Verse if they could get it, but I'm positive there are many people who deliberately chose DSL for various reasons.
This is what happens when there is almost no competition in the marketplace. Corporations don't have to fear loss of customers--- they simply tell you how it's going to be, how much you are going to pay, and tell you that you're going to like it.... or else go screw yourself.
Wow. And don't forget AT&T is going to migrate U-Verse to private NAT. Enjoy. | |
|
|
Houston????Is this happening in Houston? Have not received anything? | |
|
goldy5 join:2000-11-14 Augusta, GA |
goldy5
Member
2012-May-31 2:45 am
Augusta GaI have actually tried to get it here but its unavailable. just straight dsl 6.0. sounds kinda weird since att hasn't expanded its uverse service in Ga for years. | |
|
| |
Re: Augusta Gauverse gets 10-20ms higher pings, unnaceptable thankfully i am out of uverse place and other att dsl and comcast i have both ;x 50 megabit + 15 + 15 + dsl line | |
|
|
|