dslreports logo
 story category
AT&T Suffering Major U-Verse Outage
Users Unable to Use TV, Voice or Internet Services

AT&T customers in our forums note that AT&T has been experiencing a service outage across numerous states. According to our users in Louisiana, Kentucky, Texas, Georgia Tennessee, Florida, and Arkansas, they have been unable to use U-Verse voice, television or Internet services -- in some cases since yesterday morning.

AT&T's not getting high marks from users for their response to the outage. Many users tell me they've been on hold for hours, and the company's Twitter account was dead silent on the issue for most of the day -- until a very generic announcement was posted a short while ago.

Customers have taken to the company's MLK statement on Facebook to try and get AT&T's attention:
Click for full size
Update: AT&T gave us the following statement:
quote:
“A limited number of AT&T customers in some markets may be experiencing issues with U-verse service. A team of engineers and technicians are working to resolve the issue, and we apologize for any inconvenience to our customers."
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next

jbob
Reach Out and Touch Someone
Premium Member
join:2004-04-26
Little Rock, AR

jbob

Premium Member

No Explanations yet

They still have no explanation for the outage? Single point failure?

Epicfail
@rcn.com

Epicfail

Anon

Re: No Explanations yet

Single point of failure is the poor management team

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Some info on outage

Consumerist fielding many reports of the U-Verse outage:
»consumerist.com/2013/01/ ··· -states/

AT&T support forum thread on outage:
»forums.att.com/t5/Featur ··· /3407509
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

So tell me again why landlines are better?

OK, I know that U-verse voice is more of a VoIP service than a landline, but that's the direction that the telcos want to move in. So, when that happens, won't that negate any advantages of a landline in terms of reliability?

What I'm curious about is what could cause such a widespread outage. If it's a failure in a single piece of equipment, then it seems that AT&T's infrastructure isn't very robust. Not very comforting for something as important as telecommunications.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

1 recommendation

morbo

Member

Re: So tell me again why landlines are better?

NSA cable switchover is causing some problems. Hold tight-- your phone, internet, and wireless communications will be 100% monitored by the NSA again very soon.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora

Premium Member

Re: So tell me again why landlines are better?

said by morbo:

NSA cable switchover is causing some problems. Hold tight-- your phone, internet, and wireless communications will be 100% monitored by the NSA again very soon.

All find and dandy, but what about the Mossad, MSS and KGB? Shouldn't we let the various interested parties install their stuff at the same time? Israel, China and Russia should be spliced in to assure fewer interruptions after this NSA upgrade.

Skywarn
@sbcglobal.net

Skywarn

Anon

Re: So tell me again why landlines are better?

I am very suspicious about this too..sounds to me from my experience that they are switching servers to run though NSA or homeland security.
funny0
join:2010-12-22

funny0 to morbo

Member

to morbo
said by morbo:

NSA cable switchover is causing some problems. Hold tight-- your phone, internet, and wireless communications will be 100% monitored by the NSA again very soon.

shhh your not supposed to tell them ... your supposed ot say
Hold tight-- your phone, internet, and wireless communications will be 100% FIXED BY OBAMA FRIENDS very soon.

EliteData
EliteData
Premium Member
join:2003-07-06
Philippines

EliteData to ISurfTooMuch

Premium Member

to ISurfTooMuch
said by ISurfTooMuch:

OK, I know that U-verse voice is more of a VoIP service than a landline, but that's the direction that the telcos want to move in. So, when that happens, won't that negate any advantages of a landline in terms of reliability?

What I'm curious about is what could cause such a widespread outage. If it's a failure in a single piece of equipment, then it seems that AT&T's infrastructure isn't very robust. Not very comforting for something as important as telecommunications.

from reading the forum posts, it sounds like hardware/power failure at a major facility.

MovieLover76
join:2009-09-11
Cherry Hill, NJ
(Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AC68
Asus RT-AC66

MovieLover76 to ISurfTooMuch

Member

to ISurfTooMuch
Reliability is something that comes in time, newer technologies have growing pains. Remember when Verizon had LTE outages which are now a thing of the past.

And U-verse hasn't had a lot of widespread outages, this is the first I've heard of.

More reliability comes with time. POTS can have downtime too, but they are normally more localized.

What
@ensafe.com

What

Anon

Re: So tell me again why landlines are better?

Ok, Verizon just had outages in TN because it snowed! The towers wher overwhelmed!

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to ISurfTooMuch

Premium Member

to ISurfTooMuch
said by ISurfTooMuch:

What I'm curious about is what could cause such a widespread outage.

From what I read in the AT&T forum on the outage, it appears to be a problem with the DHCP servers that hand out IP addresses. They may have been doing a software upgrade on those servers and the software update bombed out.
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
united state

b10010011 to ISurfTooMuch

Member

to ISurfTooMuch
Government regulation require 99.9% up-time on POTS lines or the carrier faces fines.
Kipper63
Premium Member
join:2012-12-30
Nashville, TN

Kipper63 to ISurfTooMuch

Premium Member

to ISurfTooMuch
Customers can opt for POTS phone (a real, traditional copper analog telephone line just like it's been for decades) and U-Verse VDSL. That arrangement separates telephone availability from internet service availability.

Dial tone is routed to the VRAD separately from Internet Service, but both travel down copper to the home. That means that if a storm were to cause a tree to fall and take out the line between your home and the VRAD, both phone and internet service would be down even you had POTS and U-Verse VDSL. However, if either U-Verse VDSL or POTS had a separate issue of its own before reaching the VRAD, only one service might be down at a time.

Similarly, for those thinking wireless is superior to a landline, if an issue interrupts the availability of cell towers in your area, your wireless service would be down but your landline and U-Verse internet service would remain up.

Most fiber runs underground. Most copper runs above ground. Microwave towers need line-of sight within a distance range to remain connected. Each has its own pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses of quality and reliability.
amungus
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
America

amungus

Premium Member

possible?

Hmm, is it possible that this could be due to massive NAT failure?
I recall reading about some ISP's wanting to NAT out tons of IPv4 addresses since they are so 'rare' anymore... could it be that they were attempting to implement something like this, and it all fell apart?

Sorry to hear about all the fail. Taking it to a recent FB post is probably one of the only ways to reach out and touch them, being such a massive and impossible to penetrate tangled web.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: possible?

I'm going to venture a guess that AT&T has no shortage of IPv4 addresses.

NetFixer
From My Cold Dead Hands
Premium Member
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Netgear CM500
Pace 5268AC
TRENDnet TEW-829DRU

1 recommendation

NetFixer

Premium Member

Re: possible?

said by ArrayList:

I'm going to venture a guess that AT&T has no shortage of IPv4 addresses.

Perhaps not, but they are nonetheless conserving their use by using NAT:


C:\>tracert -4 att.yahoo.com
 
Tracing route to ds-any-ycpi-uno.aycpi.b.yahoodns.net [206.190.57.60]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
 
  1     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  2   381 ms   401 ms   401 ms  172.26.248.2
  3   359 ms   365 ms   368 ms  172.16.7.82
  4   348 ms   406 ms   401 ms  10.251.11.32
  5   365 ms   399 ms   474 ms  10.251.10.2
  6   323 ms   349 ms   340 ms  10.252.1.1
  7   315 ms   365 ms   337 ms  209-183-048-002.mobile.mymmode.com [209.183.48.2]
  8   327 ms   370 ms   365 ms  172.16.75.1
  9   339 ms   400 ms   388 ms  12.94.97.13
 10   368 ms   399 ms   410 ms  cr1.dlstx.ip.att.net [12.122.100.26]
 11   340 ms   411 ms   364 ms  dlstx02jt.ip.att.net [12.122.214.245]
 12   340 ms   342 ms   389 ms  192.205.37.50
 13   355 ms   365 ms   383 ms  ash-bb3-link.telia.net [213.155.130.70]
 14   350 ms   491 ms   414 ms  ash-bb1-link.telia.net [80.91.248.161]
 15   386 ms   443 ms   352 ms  yahoo-ic-141068-ash-bb1.c.telia.net [80.239.193.54]
 16   333 ms   398 ms   388 ms  UNKNOWN-206-190-56-X.yahoo.com [206.190.56.13]
 17   351 ms   411 ms   388 ms  r1.ycpi.vip.dcb.yahoo.net [206.190.57.60]
 
Trace complete.
 



The above traceroute example is on an AT&T Mobility 3G connection, but they are doing the same thing to U-verse in many areas (and the plan is to make NAT universal for all customers who do not pay for static IPv4 public addresses).
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501

1 recommendation

cramer

Premium Member

Re: possible?

That's not "NAT". It's private addressing on the-internet-doesn't-need-to-talk-to-them internal routers. ISPs have been doing that for a decade! Yes, there are minor issues with router generated messages (ICMP), but I've found it to be rare. (and even then, it's the result of deliberate configuration(s) by the local admin(s). yes, sometimes that's *me*.)

NetFixer
From My Cold Dead Hands
Premium Member
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Netgear CM500
Pace 5268AC
TRENDnet TEW-829DRU

NetFixer

Premium Member

Re: possible?

said by cramer:

That's not "NAT". It's private addressing on the-internet-doesn't-need-to-talk-to-them internal routers. ISPs have been doing that for a decade! Yes, there are minor issues with router generated messages (ICMP), but I've found it to be rare. (and even then, it's the result of deliberate configuration(s) by the local admin(s). yes, sometimes that's *me*.)

With a private local IP address of 10.185.97.169, and a different public Internet IP address of 32.150.98.172, it most definitely is Network Address Translation:


C:\>hostname
rws-wks
 
C:\>ipconfig
 
Windows IP Configuration
 
Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection 2:
 
        Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . : dcs-net
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.9.100
        Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2601:5:c80:90:88f8:cb38:9ea:b79
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2601:5:c80:90:e291:f5ff:fe95:b69d
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : fe80::e291:f5ff:fe95:b69d%4
        Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.9.254
                                            fe80::1e7e:e5ff:fe4c:e6ff%4
 
PPP adapter AT&T Mobility:
 
        Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . :
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 10.185.97.169
        Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.255
        Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 10.185.97.169
 
C:\>dig rws-wks.dyndns-ip.com
 
; <<>> DiG 9.9.2 <<>> rws-wks.dyndns-ip.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 40851
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
 
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1280
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;rws-wks.dyndns-ip.com.         IN      A
 
;; ANSWER SECTION:
rws-wks.dyndns-ip.com.  60      IN      A       32.150.98.172
 
;; Query time: 125 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.9.2#53(192.168.9.2)
;; WHEN: Tue Jan 22 16:18:56 2013
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 66
 

cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501

1 recommendation

cramer

Premium Member

Re: possible?

Well, yeah. That's NAT. I was just going on the traceroute showing private addresses, which is quite common these days.

Mobile networks have been known to do that for at least 8 years now? I remember my older Cingular phone having two WAP profiles... one for "VPN" that was public IP and the other was NAT'd. (the former was an additional cost add-on. naturally.) Honestly, I never bother to look at the address a phone gets -- I don't need to get to it directly over the internet, so "it's never come up".

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

1 recommendation

Selenia to NetFixer

Premium Member

to NetFixer
said by NetFixer:

said by cramer:

That's not "NAT". It's private addressing on the-internet-doesn't-need-to-talk-to-them internal routers. ISPs have been doing that for a decade! Yes, there are minor issues with router generated messages (ICMP), but I've found it to be rare. (and even then, it's the result of deliberate configuration(s) by the local admin(s). yes, sometimes that's *me*.)

With a private local IP address of 10.185.97.169, and a different public Internet IP address of 32.150.98.172, it most definitely is Network Address Translation:


C:\>hostname
rws-wks
 
C:\>ipconfig
 
Windows IP Configuration
 
Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection 2:
 
        Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . : dcs-net
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.9.100
        Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2601:5:c80:90:88f8:cb38:9ea:b79
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2601:5:c80:90:e291:f5ff:fe95:b69d
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : fe80::e291:f5ff:fe95:b69d%4
        Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.9.254
                                            fe80::1e7e:e5ff:fe4c:e6ff%4
 
PPP adapter AT&T Mobility:
 
        Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . :
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 10.185.97.169
        Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.255
        Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 10.185.97.169
 
C:\>dig rws-wks.dyndns-ip.com
 
; <<>> DiG 9.9.2 <<>> rws-wks.dyndns-ip.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 40851
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
 
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1280
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;rws-wks.dyndns-ip.com.         IN      A
 
;; ANSWER SECTION:
rws-wks.dyndns-ip.com.  60      IN      A       32.150.98.172
 
;; Query time: 125 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.9.2#53(192.168.9.2)
;; WHEN: Tue Jan 22 16:18:56 2013
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 66
 



AT&T Mobile and most other mobile providers have been doing that for years and years. Some also have a transparent proxy that gives an NAT effect, but also compresses certain web data. Given the low res of cell phone screens vs pc screens(even high res mobile screens are too small to see the detail a pc can provide), this can actually be good for capped web users. Not so good for running a server, which one would not want to do on a capped connection, anyways. NAT traversal in mobile VoIP clients has advanced to a point this does not bother me. Fixed line has not taken to this tactic in the US yet. The network topology of a fixed line network is much different than most mobile networks. Besides, all these mobile devices that are always online would kill far more of the IP address pool than computers. Think of the number of families where each member runs an internet enabled phone 24/7. Most people turn off their PC sometimes. Most families with multiple PCs opt for a router instead of separate lines, which uses 1 IP 24/7 per family/household. A family with 5 phones without mobile being NATed would use 5.

NetFixer
From My Cold Dead Hands
Premium Member
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Netgear CM500
Pace 5268AC
TRENDnet TEW-829DRU

1 recommendation

NetFixer

Premium Member

Re: possible?

The whole point of my original post was that AT&T is utilizing their AT&T Mobility experience and is starting to implement NAT for their U-verse customers too. It is not done in all areas yet, but that is their plan.

Search the news and U-verse forum on this site if you want to see the official AT&T announcements and discussions of the implementation.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia

Premium Member

Re: possible?

Anything I could dig up on Google or our own search here seems like a load of FUD to me. People were bugging out about the need to switch internal LAN addresses and AT&T's statement that they are taking measures to more efficiently use IPv4 addresses. Only confirmation we have is random forum people who supposedly talked to X person from AT&T, who may be telling the truth, but talked to an uninformed rep(happens to me with any provider, but I know tech enough to sniff it out). A forum member may have hit it on the head though. AT&T may be switching to private addresses for internal IPTV services and such(maybe even DNS and other customer-only services), which would make perfect sense. AT&T does this on wireless. Such servers are routable to their customers, but try reaching them from another provider. Not going to happen. Given I could not dig up any reports of NATed users almost a year after this mandatory internal LAN IP change, it only makes sense that it is most likely AT&T allocating internal servers internal addresses, which an LAN address in the same range would have the router thinking you're trying to access a LAN resource instead of said AT&T servers. It makes just as much sense as the FUD that has yet to materialize. Think about it.
Selenia

2 edits

Selenia to NetFixer

Premium Member

to NetFixer
I have a link of my own that refutes your theory thus far »wiki.vuze.com/w/Bad_ISPs ··· _America Before jumping to conclusions, look at note 11 under unresolvable NAT problem for ADSL2+ HSI(which VDSL isn't noted to cause an NAT problem at all, neither is regular ADSL): "Note 11: The Motorola 2210-02-1ATT DSL modem (and probably also the other DSL modems that work with U-verse ADSL2+ HSI) does not have a bridge mode and is apparently overwhelmed by the different number of nodes communicating with your PC over DHT. Disable DHT as a work-around, and possibly also reduce the total number of connection allowed by your BitTorrent client to 100 or so." A better solution to me would seem to be to ask for a different model gateway. No idea why TWC is on the list of limiting BT bandwidth and unresolvable NAT problem, as a side note. I always get incoming connections and I can get full speed from Linux ISO torrents that I download and seed without a VPN. In fact, one reason I torrent them is that it's often the only way to max out my line on such downloads, which can be a few gigs(making you want to max it out), besides wanting to help the community.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to NetFixer

Member

to NetFixer
You are comparing apples an oranges here. UVerse does not have the same network design as AT&T Wireless. All mobile carriers NAT their customers.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia

Premium Member

Re: possible?

See my post above. He is yet another chicken little thinking the sky is falling because people had to move from a 10.x.x.x LAN address before world IPv6 day and AT&T stating they are trying to conserve IPv4 addresses. I believe they just want the 10 block for internal servers to route internally and save IPv4 addresses. Try telling that to these guys, though, who always think AT&T is evil. Maybe the company is, but I have received better customer service from them than the likes of TWC and Verizon, to name a couple.
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC

cramer

Premium Member

Re: possible?

Indeed. It's (Uverse CGN) all been speculation to this point. IMO, the most likely logical reason for remove 10/8 from CPE networks is to use 10/8 for their VOICE AND VIDEO network, which co-mingles with the customers internet traffic.
funny0
join:2010-12-22

funny0 to amungus

Member

to amungus
said by amungus:

Hmm, is it possible that this could be due to massive NAT failure?
I recall reading about some ISP's wanting to NAT out tons of IPv4 addresses since they are so 'rare' anymore... could it be that they were attempting to implement something like this, and it all fell apart?

Sorry to hear about all the fail. Taking it to a recent FB post is probably one of the only ways to reach out and touch them, being such a massive and impossible to penetrate tangled web.

ooops we thought AT&T was copyright infringing and seized its domain name ROFL

fcp
@spcsdns.net

fcp to amungus

Anon

to amungus
Probable. When they told me that I had to switch my internal 10.x to a 192.168 I knew there was going to be a trouble with their design I should have cancelled then.

jjoshua
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ

jjoshua

Premium Member

Don't complain via twitter

Everyone should pay their bill a few days late when this happens.
slckusr
Premium Member
join:2003-03-17
Greenville, SC

slckusr

Premium Member

Re: Don't complain via twitter

said by jjoshua:

Everyone should pay their bill a few days late when this happens.

You lose then and ATT benefits by reaping in a late payment fee.
funny0
join:2010-12-22

funny0

Member

Re: Don't complain via twitter

said by slckusr:

said by jjoshua:

Everyone should pay their bill a few days late when this happens.

You lose then and ATT benefits by reaping in a late payment fee.

if 30 million people paid late they might panic actually

jjoshua
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ

jjoshua to slckusr

Premium Member

to slckusr
said by slckusr:

You lose then and ATT benefits by reaping in a late payment fee.

Nah. I have never had a utility company charge a late fee or interrupt service for late payment.
Expand your moderator at work
tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL

tkdslr

Member

My bet.. DHCP servers crashed..

And forgot all the existing IP address lease assignments..

When it comes back up.. it starts handing out already leased(still in use) IP addresses.. to newly rebooted boxes.. I.E. A real mess.

People who left their boxes plugged in/on.. stayed on.. sort of, until a the freshly restarted u-verse box get's a dup'd DHCP IP assignment. Then the games begin.

This type of mayhem could continue on for several days. (depending on DHCP lease interval).

••••

Metatron2008
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

Metatron2008

Premium Member

The REAL reason for the crash

Is that Uverse is run by At&t.

shortyd999
join:2008-10-21
Birmingham, AL

shortyd999

Member

Info

We were told there are 32 VHOs are affected by the outage and the DHCP server in TX. No ETR or what cause the outage.

Kara
@comcast.net

Kara

Anon

TOS covered when att has outages

Sorry but terms of service will cover their butts when outage ect happen don't matter that is phone or tv same apply. Try reading it
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Re: TOS covered when att has outages

TOS will not save them from a court battle though. TOS allows for outages yes, But they might still have to "face the music" from the franchise authorities due to the outage going over 24hrs and not being nature related.

Mr Anon
@k12.il.us

Mr Anon

Anon

Glad I missed it.

I feel bad for all those having issues but my service Oak Lawn IL, is fine.

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

maartena

Premium Member

Southern California still up

Glad I still have internet
djnrg787
join:2009-06-10
Saint Louis, MO

djnrg787

Member

uverse

Glad it wasnt the midwest i just had someone switch from flaky cable and told them uverse is much more reliable lol. Ive seen those 172...... addresses here and there at clients they seem like they are internal to att however when accessing them via other providers they still have external access.

Helene
@mycingular.net

Helene

Anon

Re: uverse

Our Internet is down about 12 hours now and we are in St Louis

EliteData
EliteData
Premium Member
join:2003-07-06
Philippines

EliteData

Premium Member

hmm

they are very quiet on their FB page about this but if you post something related but off topic they are quick to remove it.

drjosh121
join:2002-01-06
Matthews, NC

drjosh121

Member

Online

Charlotte NC back online

Smith6612
MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
·Charter
Ubee EU2251
Ubiquiti UAP-IW-HD
Ubiquiti UniFi AP-AC-HD

Smith6612

MVM

Eggs in one basket

Sounds like the case of the 'ole Eggs in One Basket deal and someone decided to step on the basket rather than spill an egg. I've always wondered why AT&T, Verizon and the like seem to have massive regional outages that take ages to be resolved. In the case of Verizon, it seems once a year a key router in the Northeast takes a dump and breaks about 90% of Internet access that often takes nearly a day to get fixed. I don't know if they're overdue for an outage but Verizon hasn't had their routing fail since last summer.

Granted, even redundancy is capable of breaking as seen with Amazon's hosting service many times but I'm surprised there are not some additional safeguards built in to stop huge outages like this.

The lack of communication is not very assuring though. Sometimes giving customers a technical reason for why something is down is helpful.

graysonf
MVM
join:1999-07-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL

graysonf

MVM

Addicted for sure.

"Many users tell me they've been on hold for hours....."

Is there a twelve step program for this?

Uverse Emp
@rr.com

Uverse Emp

Anon

Uverse down of course

Uverse is down due to major problems with cicso server equipment and it is just about all south east and west states. Not eta and it might be a long long time since it started yesterday better off going back to prev provider

Columbus Oh
@myvzw.com

Columbus Oh

Anon

Canceled U-Verse

Due to the service outage. Just canceled my U-Verse and switched to WOW, scheduled for install tomorrow. AT&T gave me a refund for last month with few questions asked.

tommytorres
@mycingular.net

tommytorres

Anon

Glad I still have dsl and have not upgraded to uverse!

My dsl working on the old tdm network is working just fine.
So much for the new stuff........

mackey
Premium Member
join:2007-08-20

mackey

Premium Member

Re: Glad I still have dsl and have not upgraded to uverse!

said by tommytorres :

My dsl working on the old tdm network is working just fine.
So much for the new stuff........

Several months before we switched to Uverse, our "old stuff" DSL line went down for ~20 hours due to a problem with the PPP server. I don't think this new stuff is any less reliable then the old stuff was.

/M

Frustrated
@97.65.252.x

Frustrated

Anon

Update

So just got off the line with an AT&T rep Santosh (sk0042) he says that "Currently, old and new DHCP servers are having capacity issues" and that the "issue impacts 32 VHO's. Apparently AT&T is working with Cisco to fix the issue.
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next