Great Idea! Lets race to get to that data cap as fast as possible each month.
Re: Great Idea! There are no bandwidth caps being enforced on U-verse internet.
Re: Great Idea!
said by Rangerfan :but they do exist.
There are no bandwidth caps being enforced on U-verse internet.
| |DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
Granite City, IL
Re: Joke Someone quoted it around here that apparently the board didn't approve the first plan for fiber. From the shareholders meeting I am assuming.
Saw it here though.
Sign me up I'd welcome some bandwidth
Re: Sign me up
said by FicmanS:IF... your line can handle the faster speeds if not you can file a formal complaint with the screwing department
I'd welcome some bandwidth
I'll take it. It's not fiber.. but I will gladly accept AT&T pushing me more bits down that VDSL2 line. [My Sync rate to the VRAD is around 64MB right now on a single pair]
You are incorrect, Karl.
quote:AT&T's maximum speed offering has an upload of just 3 Mbps - although technically the profile assigned to the U-verse modem is 32/5 Mbps, 8/2 Mbps of that is reserved for U-verse TV, regardless of whether or not the customer subscribes to that product or not.
Most current U-Verse markets see top speeds of 24 Mbps downstream and 5 Mbps upstream if they're fortunate.
So you can really only use 24/3 Mbps. AND - If you subscribe to U-verse TV, and watch more than one HDTV channel at a time, that speed drops to 20/3 Mbps; then 14/3 Mbps; and finally, when watching all four HDTV channels you are allowed to simultaneously on U-verse your connection speed drops to just 8 Mbps.
Each HDTV channel eats into 6 Mbps of your U-verse Internet bandwidth allotment. You should probably address this limitation in your post as well.
Re: You are incorrect, Karl. Usually all those numbers tend to confuse consumers. When they hear 32/5 Mbps people usually think they'll be getting that in internet speeds LOL. Nobody should be surprised by this considering that a lot of people that get uverse still think it is fiber-to-the-home.
There are two different profiles one is the gateway profile and the other is the internet. You correctly pointed how this 'thing' actually works and yes the max upstream for internet is only 3 Mbps.
But, hey! It is spin-time at CES and the floor is full of spin-meisters.
| || |said by MURICA:Doesn't this remind you of DSL Commercials advertising Cable INTERNET having trouble sharing? Guess the truth really came out TELCO is the one that has problems sharing with their own services.
So you can really only use 24/3 Mbps. AND - If you subscribe to U-verse TV, and watch more than one HDTV channel at a time, that speed drops
Each HDTV channel eats into 6 Mbps of your U-verse Internet bandwidth allotment.
OK There's nothing wrong with getting "only" 25/5 (or thereabouts, presuming for now one actually does get that). The percentage of customers who can actually use anything faster and notice the difference is low. So it's not a problem for U-Verse that it hasn't "kept up" with cable as speeds go. Keeping up with cable prices, though, doesn't seem to bother them.
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!"
Re: OK Very true.
AT&T's 6Mbps or 12Mbps in 'cost' to the subscriber is similar to 20-25Mbps to a cable co's package.
Eg. I'm paying $125 for triple play + DVR and 2nd cable box with 20Mbps/2Mbps service and no caps.
AT&T's base charge is higher for less and with caps.
Latency Does U-Verse still suffer from that 15-20ms of extra latency at the first hop or has it been resolved?
Re: Latency I don't think so - its part of the error correction scheme if I'm not mistaken.
'Fast path' vs. 'Interleaved'.
I remember when I had DSL Extreme - they allowed me to have FastPath - and I had something like 8ms to the first hop on 3Mbps DSL. When I had it on AT&T it was somewhere around 15ms.
Interleaving adds latency but is a bit more tolerant to line conditions.
| |morboComplete Your Transaction
AT&T: We have no strategy for the future;here's some fiction File this claim under meaningless hype.
I'll believe it when... They stop treating FTTP customers as if they were copper DSL customers and limiting their speeds based on distance from the vrad. Seriously, I've got fiber to my house, what do you mean that I'm not eligble for that tier bandwidth based on distance? Dorks.
stop posting their lies I really wish you guys would stop helping ATT (a marketing co. not a tech co.) with the spreading these silly lies. They live off this stuff. To cause ATT to really feel the pain cut off their ability to spew out BS. Who writes this crap at ATT? »goo.gl/maps/2Jhc9
I have had it with Uverse and moving to the other bandit; time warner. only game in town from what I can see
Lakewood Accountability Action Group | »www.LAAG.us | Demanding action and accountability from local government
Re: Bad news! Notice the wording! When did att start giving users fiber? You sure your not getting confused with verizon fios?
Re: Bad news! Notice the wording! AT&T has pockets of FTTH. I am on it.
Re: Bad news! Notice the wording!
said by Hilbe:Network-wide there are most likely less than 225,000 FTTP [RESIDENTIAL] customers on fiber.. out of how many MILLIONS of copper lines they've bought up in the last 1/2 dozen years..
AT&T has pockets of FTTH. I am on it.
Compare to a Verizon, or even Google Fiber which will surpass them quite handily this year, if they haven't already...
Try geting fiber into communities which have been begging for it first.. then compete with the cable companies.. which will force them to spend money on upgrades..
As of late, the to major telcos, AT&T and Verizon were locked in a battle for wireless customers.. spending just about every cent they have on upgrading, promoting and price gouging for LTE services.. and not interested in promoting landline networks and investing in them...
Pehaps the right ear was bent to make some changes in certain districts.. afterall, congress has not much else to do except whine and complain about things.. what better to complain about then a telecom's not serving the public interest!!
| |skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
AT&T is an utter joke Slow speeds, high prices, overage fees as soon as they can figure out how to meter it...they are the AOL of the major providers. They're holding their own now but it won't last.
All you gotta be... Is 5 feet from the vrad.
Re: All you gotta be... Well I'm about 15 feet from the AT&T boxes if that counts :P. Wire just doesn't go to me directly so meh .
80/20 »www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bUjltYurKg . Some of u-verse is ftth,or fttb, or fttc. AT&T said they will be using small form modules from the VRADs to extend the reach and speed of tv and HSI. Covering 57 million customer locations with high speed ip broadband will make AT&T WIRELESS difficult to compete with, in its 22 STATE footprint.
See 16 replies to this post
unacceptable. Come on Karl! You are going soft, I thought you'd mention AT&Ts new vision for the u-verse mobile app to let you stream on demand movies to it... if you purchase the new service at an extra $5 a month.
No mention that the price of their current tiers if extrapolated to the those speed would way too much.
Not saying you have been wrong to (over) critisize them.
Up to I see old school, up to X mbps marketing making a come back.
New Orleans, LA
I have UVerse and am stuck on 18mbs so how about they concentrate on just getting us (in my area) near 30 before talking about 100
How about just delivering... anything? lolverse. Brand new subdivision, totally capable of supporting uverse with a simple change of cards in the boxes (according to the service tech that hooked up my phone/DSL 2 years ago). Why no uverse? $$$ cherry picking of course.
I'll take anything faster than DSL at this point for my data-hungry household.