dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
AT&T's '1 Gbps' Service in Austin Now Actually 1 Gbps
by Karl Bode 01:26PM Monday Aug 11 2014 Tipped by telcodad See Profile
After Google Fiber announced their expansion plans to Austin, AT&T rushed to announce that they too would be offering 1 Gbps service in the weird city. There were of course caveats for AT&T's service, including a bevy of fees not included in Google Fiber connections and a $30 surcharge if you refused to have your online behavior tracked and monetized. There was another little catch as well: AT&T rushed so quickly to field their "Gigapower" product that it was only able to deliver 300 Mbps downstream.

Click for full size
AT&T has announced that this has changed, with 1 Gbps customers in Austin now actually seeing 1 Gbps. An AT&T announcement notes that the upgrades should occur automatically for free.

"Those already subscribed to U-verse with AT&T GigaPower featuring speeds up to 300 Mbps will see their Internet speeds upgraded to up to 1 Gbps at no additional cost in the coming weeks," notes the telco. "Existing customers don't need to do anything, the upgrades will happen automatically."

AT&T's Gigapower is primarily aimed at higher-end developments and apartment complexes, and the ultra-fast speeds will not be extended to the majority of the telco's customers despite a bevy of recent "fiber to the press release" announcements. If you're one of the select few Austinites that actually can get these speeds from AT&T, let us know what you think in the comment section below.


59 comments .. click to read

Recommended comments



BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

2 recommendations

reply to elray

Re: Does it still have a datacap?

said by elray:

They aren't.

They in effect are if providers can be blocked out of certain locations.

said by elray:

Indeed, they aren't.
But they are the most practical way to do so, especially if you're surrounded by neighbors unwilling to pay market rate to obtain those services.

NO. That concept is patently false. Except for one, every MDU that I know of in my area has access to both cable companies. Both of them built out to each and every MDU, and AT&T serves not much of anywhere. MDUs are attractive in the first place, no need for exclusivity.

said by elray:

MDU contracts lose their value if they aren't exclusive. You are, in effect, wanting to punish those buildings that have chosen to leverage their position and group purchasing power, instead, forcing everyone accept the lowest common denominator of service at the highest price - or worse, no service.

Management's job is to manage - and obtain the best service packages for the building.

Why do you need a contract in the first place? The concept of having one is somewhat corrupt in the first place. Most MDUs that I know of are served directly by the utilities just like SFUs are, with the same products and services available. There is no deal between the provider and the MDU. The apartment complex that I lived in previously recommended Comcast to new tenants, and it's possible that there was money changing hands there, but tenants were free to choose the other cable company if they wanted to, and I know for a fact that some did. Many also mounted dishes, which were allowed well outside of the OTARD-protected areas. DirecTV is pretty popular there.

Allowing multiple providers into a complex is in no way forcing people to use the lowest common denominator. Quite to the contrary. It's giving the residents more choices, and forcing the providers to compete for business.

said by elray:

The bottom line is that exclusivity is not corrupt or unethical - it is just a means to an end, for those groups or buildings who wish to enter into contracts for it. If you don't want to partake, that is your choice - you don't have to reside in one of those buildings.

Fortunately, our government generally recognizes the rights of people to associate as groups, and the rights of building owners to negotiate such contracts.

It's absolutely corrupt. The monopoly system isn't good in the first place, but it is often the only system that works, since it costs too much to have multiple providers in many areas. HOWEVER, where there are multiple providers, artificially creating a monopoly within a building is just plain corrupt, as it shuts the other providers out, and eliminates choice and competition for the affected users.

Tenants in a building should have an absolute right to every provider that wants to serve them. No building association or ownership should EVER be able to shut a provider out. And that includes Verizon in NYC with FIOS. For that matter, no building should be allowed to stop Verizon from running fiber directly to the units in order to get the same level of service that other subscribers get.

No entire building is ever going to agree on what service they want, so the individual users should be allowed to choose the service that they want if multiple providers serve that area. And MDU residents should have the exact same choices that SFU residents have to the maximum extent practicable (this would include ALL wireline providers and maybe satellite providers depending on the circumstances, although that is protected by OTARD).

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

2 recommendations

reply to elray
said by elray:

Wrong. Exclusive MDU deals are often the only way you're going to get the advanced service.

No one is forcing you to live there.

People shouldn't be forced to choose where they live based on what cable or telco is available there. Exclusivity deals are NOT the only way to get advanced service. A lot of condos in MA have gotten FIOS, even though they already have cable. Some buildings in NYC have FIOS, RCN, and TWC. Conversely, providers shouldn't be blocked from a building because of some shady/corrupt deal that the management cut with another provider.

The grey area is a bundled deal where the condo bundles expanded basic cable, making it uneconomical for other providers to come in, even if they aren't blocked per se. That's an instance where AT&T is unlikely to put a VRAD in to a complex where there is bundled expanded basic, although I suppose they could try to grab internet/voip subs.

The bottom line is that an exclusivity deal is a corrupt and unethical way of doing business, and should be illegal. Unfortunately, our government has no backbone to create and enforce such rules.