Alcatel Lucent: VDSL2 Line Bonding In 2010 AT&T will obviously be the most eager customer... Earlier this month Alcatel Lucent announced that their VDSL2 line-bonding technology will be available sometime during the first quarter of 2010. Release 4.0 of the vendor's Intelligent Services Access Manager platform includes support for bonding VDSL2 lines, and Alcatel Lucent's biggest vendor is AT&T. AT&T hopes to employ bonded VDSL2 not only to offer faster speeds (U-Verse's reserved data stream right now tops out at 18Mbps), but to offer those speeds at greater loop lengths. As we've explored in detail, AT&T's ambitions on this front have been repeatedly delayed, something that doesn't help AT&T's competitive position versus faster DOCSIS 3.0 cable tiers.
|
 patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Conexant Accelity chipset Will it really be VDSL2 or "pre-VDSL2" like it is now (proprietary Conexant Accelity chipset, isn't compatible with anything else on earth)? Will you finally be able to buy your own VDSL2 modem and use it in bridging mode? | |
|  |  trparkyApple... YUMPremium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1 | Re: Conexant Accelity chipset Probably not since UVerse requires a special gateway/modem to facilitate the use of the UVerse TV service. It has something in it to support the multicast streaming used with the TV systems.
--
Tom | |
|
|
1 edit | Ethernet over copper AT&T is not Alcatel-Lucent's biggest vendor, they are their biggest customer.
Be as it may, there is another technology called Ethernet over copper (sounds a bit redundant) or Long Reach Ethernet that reduces some of the ATM overhead and that may compete with VDSL2. It will be interesting to see what AT&T does with their copper lines. | |
| |  smunro622Premium
join:2006-02-15
Madison Heights, MI | Re: Ethernet over copper i am hoping they scrap the cooper and choose fiber like verizon did for there fios | |
| | | | | Re: Ethernet over copper said by smunro622:i am hoping they scrap the cooper and choose fiber like verizon did for there fios I second that.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| | | | | i see where they are coming from but if they want to hold long term profits they should try to get ahead of the market instead of just skimming by. AT&T you need to get fiber to the home going. you will bury your competitors if you do. | |
| | | | smunro622Premium
join:2006-02-15
Madison Heights, MI Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
 ·ViaTalk
| Re: Ethernet over copper not so much for faster internet but less errors on the cooper and a much needed upload speed, a 20/5 and a max of 50/20 internet would be great, i would settle for a 30/10 internet connection and a rg that you can pass static ips to a back end router would be better. I dont know why they just don't call cisco up and have then come up with a rg device. My suggestions would be
8 port gigabit
N wireless (optional)
ASA type interface
POE nice but not a must
This would make a lot of business and prosumers really happy. If they have to make it bigger so be it. I would even volunteer to even help test them. On install you get the option of a 3rd party service to configure (even a noc) or do it your self and they have a user called enable_15 or what ever. | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | I'd agree with you as well, however, only once the economy turns around and people have money to afford it... right now, I don't think, is the time to be dumping that kind of money out for a market that isn't too in a hurry to rush out and give a return on the investment. | |
|
| Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| You all insist on viewing fiber/copper as an either/or thing. The correct way to view it is that AT&T adopted a different route to fiber than Verizon did.
Verizon decided to spend a ton of money on laying fiber cabling to the home, but use old technologies on top of that (PON, RF signaling). So they get the raw speed, but their cost per subscriber is far higher than AT&T's, and their speed of growth is slower. Verizon still has copper (DSL) too and are neglecting it because they are focusing on fiber.
AT&T decided to focus on the technologies on top of the physical network. They went straight to Video over IP, which caused them to start up slower because they were using new technology, but now allows them to integrate all their traffic over their IP backbone network. They decided to run fiber to active, powered boxes (VRADs) so that they can manage their network effectively down to the neighborhood, and put intelligence out to the edge of the network. And, they have both fiber and copper to the home -- fiber in new neighborhoods, copper to existing. So they can grow faster than Verizon and have a much lower cost per subscriber.
AT&T has incremental steps they can take for their FTTN segment. As pointed out in this article, VSDL2 and Pair Bonding will increase both speeds and distances. In the future, AT&T can lay new fiber to the home incrementally as needed, and upgrade the VRADs to support a managed, active, powered fiber interface.
AT&T does have a path forward to faster speeds including FTTH. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric. | |
| | | | | Re: Ethernet over copper "So they can grow faster than Verizon and have a much lower cost per subscriber."
And yet they are growing slower. So hypothetical advantages that don't bring the service to more consumers are uninteresting to consumers. | |
| | | | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | Re: Ethernet over copper As of right now they are adding customers at about the same rate. I think ATT currently has slight lead over verizon customer adds. ATT is covering much more ground that verizon as far homes passed goes. | |
|
| |
1 edit | https://uma.att.com/general/856-AMSS-X-DMA1-IFRAME.html
A link to a support page for the ONT backup battery, just like the ones Verizon uses in some installs. Proof they have some FTTH systems live.
As for FiOS vs. U-Verse, both systems have some upgrading to do. AT&T has to complete their FTTH rollout, and FiOS has to go all GPON and make the transition to IPTV, because their current RF system will limit them from adding more HD channels in the long run. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Ethernet over copper said by ravensfan55:Proof they have some FTTH systems live. AT&T calls it "FTTP" for Premise -- I guess they don't want to limit themselves to "Homes".
My proof is that FTTP users post to the U-verse dedicated forum sites all the time -- uverseusers.com and utalk.att.com.
Also the neighborhood next to mine, which is currently being built out, is AT&T FTTP. I missed it by a couple of years, my neighborhood was started 7 years ago. Everything since about 5 years ago is all fiber. | |
|
| | | | The problem of new technologies is that they are not as mature as the good old proven ones. In the long run they may prove just as reliable if not more. These days when cost is such a major factor and technology does not have time to mature I doubt that.
Regardless of the higher level protocols used, if the foundation of the network -- the physical plant is old, unmaintained, unreliable, corroded copper or poorly deployed (bent or hastily spliced) fiber, then regardless of the complexity of the transport protocols, you are going to end up with unreliable service and unhappy customers. | |
| | | | | said by MyDogHsFleas:AT&T has incremental steps they can take for their FTTN segment. As pointed out in this article, VSDL2 and Pair Bonding will increase both speeds and distances. In the future, AT&T can lay new fiber to the home incrementally as needed, and upgrade the VRADs to support a managed, active, powered fiber interface. But what they don't tell you is pair-bonded DSL only inceases loop-length by a couple thousand feet AT MOST (and that's in the strictly controlled lab, not field trial). You sill need to put up multiple nodes in each neighborhood that is not situated next to a CO. On the other hand I think fiber only needs notes every 10-15 miles (usually about 5-10/per mile in neighborhoods where the fiber goes off in all directions). Pair-bonded (from what I have seen) offers only about 50mb/s... maybe 70mb/s if the CO or RT is in your back yard. I have also heard that the upstream speeds are still atrocious. Fiber can do what... 1+gb/s? (thats gb not mb). I just think that there are two problems with copper: 1. Research is not going fast enough and 2. Simply by it's physical shortcommings will probably never be able to compete with light.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| | | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Ethernet over copper said by jimbo2150:Simply by it's physical shortcomings copper will probably never be able to compete with light. Yes, absolutely correct. And prop airplanes will never be able to compete with jets. But that doesn't mean there's not a market need for props.
It's all about cost vs. benefit, and how best to meet consumer needs and expand your base.
AT&T's on a particular path. They chose to innovate in the layers above the physical connection first, to build fiber out to the neighborhood, to reuse existing last-mile copper not rip it out, and to leave themselves a path for upgrades to meet market needs -- including an eventual upgrade to FTTP in existing neighborhoods (they already have FTTP in new developments).
Hey, their strategy may fail miserably. We'll see. All I am trying to do is to counterbalance the knee-jerk reaction I see here: "AT&T sucks! They are stupid! They will have to rip everything out and start over again with fiber!" AT&T actually does have a strategy and a plan for the future. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Ethernet over copper said by MyDogHsFleas:Hey, their strategy may fail miserably. We'll see. All I am trying to do is to counterbalance the knee-jerk reaction I see here: "AT&T sucks! They are stupid! They will have to rip everything out and start over again with fiber!" AT&T actually does have a strategy and a plan for the future. I think a big part of what is trying to be shown here is how competition fails when competition does not exist. When AT&T and Verizon directly compete with one another, then we can all see who will come out on top. But as long as there is this "I don't invade your areas, you don't invade mine" pact there will not be any true competition, not in this corporate-dominated age.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Ethernet over copper said by jimbo2150:I think a big part of what is trying to be shown here is how competition fails when competition does not exist. When AT&T and Verizon directly compete with one another, then we can all see who will come out on top. But as long as there is this "I don't invade your areas, you don't invade mine" pact there will not be any true competition, not in this corporate-dominated age. This is a load of crap.
First, there is no "pact". AT&T and Verizon have historical DSL/landline territories that they have their hands full trying to build out with their advanced triple-play offerings. Verizon is building out in a very few AT&T terrories now. As their buildouts mature, expect to see more and more direct competition.
Second, there is a HUGE amount of competition from cable. In my town, there are constant TV ads and billboards on the highways from AT&T and Time Warner Cable, each directly attacking the other. There are salespeople knocking on doors. There are special switchover incentives.
Third, what do you mean "corporate dominated age"? The whole idea of corporate capitalism is competition! What would you rather have.... government dominated? Yeah, that'll really add to competition and provide better service. That usually works out well, doesn't it? | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Ethernet over copper said by MyDogHsFleas:This is a load of crap. First, there is no "pact". AT&T and Verizon have historical DSL/landline territories that they have their hands full trying to build out with their advanced triple-play offerings. That's a load of crap. Sure decades ago they had their hands tied when they were smaller and small companies spread across the country. Now, some of the largest national corps in the country and only today I have heard of only one area they recently are competing in. They have had DECADES to start competing with each other in many areas. They don't because to these corps 'competition' is as taboo a term as 'regulation'.
said by MyDogHsFleas:Second, there is a HUGE amount of competition from cable. In my town, ... I always stop reading when I hear "my town". Bull! Your town does not span the entire country and competition is not anywhere near the level they are in the few areas (mainly only in larger cities though).
said by MyDogHsFleas:Third, what do you mean "corporate dominated age"? The whole idea of corporate capitalism is competition! What would you rather have.... government dominated? Yeah, that'll really add to competition and provide better service. That usually works out well, doesn't it? Bull. See my first response above for the explanation. I want to see REAL competition. Not a couple or one company dominating the majority of the market. Here there is two companies AT&T or local cable co. Just a couple of miles away there is one: cable (no DSL). Why can't we have the best of both worlds I always say. Use Utopia as a base. Let munies or gov build out the last mile fiber then PROVIDE NO ACTUAL SERVICE. Let any company offer service to any customer over the network at a fair price. Letting the current cos. charge massive fees to provide service is not competitive. Letting them stomp out any small business that tries to offer service to the point where most do not want to is not competitive. I am not against capitalism. I am against greedy corporatism. Having a choice is what matters, without which the consumer no longer has any control of the market.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Ethernet over copper Your bias against telcos warps your judgement. I'm not saying that telcos are angels, but they are not demons either. They are what they are, and it's useful to see them for what they are, not make them whipping boys for your favorite cause.
Just to address your points:
1) No there is no non-compete pact. But you have to realize that it's extremely expensive to overlay someone else's terrority with brand new physical copper/fiber, and you'll get a limited return. As I said in my original post, the telcos have plenty of places to spend capital to get customers to buy more services without expanding out of their historical areas.
What are you going to do? Force them by regulation to build competing physical plants? That's not a good idea.
2) A huge majority (almost 90%) of the landline installs also offer DSL. An even huger majority (96%+) of the cable TV installs offer HSI. So it's highly likely that anyone in a population area with cable and landline available also has a competitive choice on broadband.
3) Your idea of "competition" is one that says that you use taxes to pay for the vast majority of the capital cost of entry to the market, then make that market available to all.
Do you really think this is an efficient way to get goods and services to the public? Do you really think the government will do this in a fair and innovative way? I don't. Every congressperson will be lobbying for the infrastructure funds to be localized to his/her district's benefit. It'll be massive waste, kickbacks, and fraud. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Ethernet over copper said by MyDogHsFleas:Your bias against telcos warps your judgement. I'm not saying that telcos are angels, but they are not demons either. They are what they are, and it's useful to see them for what they are, not make them whipping boys for your favorite cause. I am not biased solely toward telcos. The cable cos are in the same boat. We were simply discussing telcos at the time.
One phone company per area, one cable co per area. That does not sound like competition.
Cable and phone companies attempting to block potential competitors using caps, preventing or limiting access to such services. Does not sound like fair competition.
said by MyDogHsFleas:1) No there is no non-compete pact. But you have to realize that it's extremely expensive to overlay someone else's terrority with brand new physical copper/fiber, and you'll get a limited return. As I said in my original post, the telcos have plenty of places to spend capital to get customers to buy more services without expanding out of their historical areas. I know that there is no actual pact (that would be illegal), but noone will even try to put in physical equipment not just because of it's cost (or it would already be happening) but also because they know that incumbents would easily lower prices and destroy their business before they could even get going. In a sense that pact silently exists.
What are you going to do? Force them by regulation to build competing physical plants? That's not a good idea. Read the last part of my last post. What would you do? Leave everything as is: incumbents preventing decent competition over their own network so in turn no or little competition should exist?
said by MyDogHsFleas:2) A huge majority (almost 90%) of the landline installs also offer DSL. An even huger majority (96%+) of the cable TV installs offer HSI. So it's highly likely that anyone in a population area with cable and landline available also has a competitive choice on broadband. Ok, not even going to go into stats. Too many issues with them. I never believe statistics, especially not ones from the companies trying to protect their profits.
said by MyDogHsFleas:3) Your idea of "competition" is one that says that you use taxes to pay for the vast majority of the capital cost of entry to the market, then make that market available to all. Do you really think this is an efficient way to get goods and services to the public? Do you really think the government will do this in a fair and innovative way? I don't. Every congressperson will be lobbying for the infrastructure funds to be localized to his/her district's benefit. It'll be massive waste, kickbacks, and fraud. Why not? Use part taxes (part investment -- I'm sure many businesses and residents across the country would be willing to throw in a few bucks to get access to a selection of companies providing internet access) to pay for last-mile connections to everyone which can be paid back gradually (and eventually profit from) through a fairly set wholesale of bandwidth to any company who wishes to provide service. The gov. does not actually produce any competition. It eliminates individual companies preventing access to specific ports/services/etc. It could quickly settle the whole 'caps' and 'network neutrality' issue through direct competition instead of eventual legislation. It could easily be set up as a variable-rate pricing if deemed necessary. It would solve the already occurring 'digital divide'. It also preserves capitalism but takes out the issues of having a one or a few or no companies providing last-mile access through restricted and solely owned equipment.
Also, what do you mean fair and innovative? Fiber is innovative. Fair? Like if I want to start a business now I couldn't because I know they would easily put me out if I tried to build out my own. If I tried to resell their bandwidth over their equipment they set their prices just high enough that I cannot compete with their pricing. Many consumers have one, maybe two and some no choices of broadband. That is fair competition?
Sorry, but I would take my suggestion over leaving everything 'as is'.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Ethernet over copper OK I see. When I give you actual statistics proving competition is widespread you just ignore them, or denigrate them by saying "well that's not REAL competition" (whatever that means). BTW my stats are from the FCC, you can look it up.
You are simply on an agenda. You want the network taken away from the corporations and you want the government to fund and run it (up to the last mile at least). You want to define the word "competition" to mean your idea of how things should be run. This is simply Brave New World newspeak.
I prefer to see things as they really are before deciding what the solution should be, rather than deciding on the solution first then setting my fact filters accordingly. | |
|
| | You know.... I know that copper is a really outdated tech at this point and I agree that AT&T should invest in fiber like Verizon, but I think this VDSL2 would have been a great idea for the more rural areas that can only get things like Satellite. Even if they only got 3mbs on the download, I think it would really go along way with getting those areas connected. If fiber was placed in more dense areas, then it would actually help improve the connection in rural areas still using copper. I know it's just a pipe dream of mine but I think it has merit. | |
| |  Duramax08A Challenger AppearsPremium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX | Re: You know.... it would be much better then dial up. almost anything is better then dial up. Ill even take 128kbps.
--
OM NOM NOM | |
|
 alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA |  Now Who's Laughing?
| |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Now Who's Laughing? said by alchav: Now who's laughing, Verizon is the clear winner here, and the BellHeads at AT&T are just trying to keep their heads above water! First off, who says they "the clear winner"... and how exactly is at&t "trying to keep their heads above water"... or, are you just saying all this in order to sound like you know something.
at&t is doing just fine and Verizon's FiOS product is not "the clear winner"... there are facts and figures out there that you should read up on.
Your post is nothing more than fanboi rhetoric.. | |
| | | alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA |  Re: Now Who's Laughing?
said by fiberguy:said by alchav: Now who's laughing, Verizon is the clear winner here, and the BellHeads at AT&T are just trying to keep their heads above water! First off, who says they "the clear winner"... and how exactly is at&t "trying to keep their heads above water"... or, are you just saying all this in order to sound like you know something. at&t is doing just fine and Verizon's FiOS product is not "the clear winner"... there are facts and figures out there that you should read up on. Your post is nothing more than fanboi rhetoric.. Well Fiberguy, if your name is correct you should know more than anyone, Fiber is the future. If you followed my Post from the past, you should know I retired from PacBell and started working for them when AT&T ran everything. So yes, I have some knowledge of the Telco's. My Posts go back years when I made Verizon the clear winner over AT&T, because of the different technologies....FTTH vs FTTN. So what kind of qualifications do you have? | |
| | | | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | Re: Now Who's Laughing? I would say cost and market share would be too big factors. SO far fttp is costing verizon 2-3x as much and they are only getting marginally more marketshare with their product. | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | What qualifications? I've worked in the industry for 15 years, now retired. I was one of the first fiber certified techs at my company when fiber/coax was first introduced. I've worked every department from warehouse on up to head end technician including engineering and construction. I've worked for the government affairs department as well. I'm also one of the key people involved in why cable installers and technicians are now one in the same.. I've had some influence over my own industry as well.
You have made Verizon the clear winner, however, the numbers speak differently. Its not about the technology that's going to always matter.. it's sustainability. Sure, fiber is superior, however, what good is running and stringing up fiber just in time for no one to afford it? Have you not paid any attention to what's going on in the country/world around you? .. has anyone?
There are clear winners on the many sides of the game in their own way. ATT is spending less money and delivering advanced services and winning customers over just fine.. sounds like a clear winner to me. Verizon is spending a lot of money and deploying Fiber and gaining customers while ignoring their legacy customers... they win becuase they have a good network moving forward, but not everyone shops on the technology.. they're angering their current customers as well.. how is that a win? (For the record, I am NO fan of at&t) You've got cable that has a system that they can easily, and inexpensively push out new services.. they're a winner too.
In other words.. instead of calling out winners, which you didn't do very well on, you should talk about the pro's and con's of both.. you'd be hitting a better tone with some people.
Like I said, fanboi's will agree with you, but it's not always about the techies that drool over fiber. Cable and AT&T are offering digital services over copper and doing just fine. Verizon does it over fiber.. a gazillion meg per second is over kill for today's marketplace.. so.. now, you're still going to tell me Verizon wins.
I will tell you, you speak clearly as a field ops person.. not as someone that looks at the WHOLE picture. | |
| | | | | alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA | Re: Now Who's Laughing?said by fiberguy:What qualifications? I've worked in the industry for 15 years, now retired. I was one of the first fiber certified techs at my company when fiber/coax was first introduced. I've worked every department from warehouse on up to head end technician including engineering and construction. I've worked for the government affairs department as well. I'm also one of the key people involved in why cable installers and technicians are now one in the same.. I've had some influence over my own industry as well. You have made Verizon the clear winner, however, the numbers speak differently. Its not about the technology that's going to always matter.. it's sustainability. Sure, fiber is superior, however, what good is running and stringing up fiber just in time for no one to afford it? Have you not paid any attention to what's going on in the country/world around you? .. has anyone? In other words.. instead of calling out winners, which you didn't do very well on, you should talk about the pro's and con's of both.. you'd be hitting a better tone with some people. I will tell you, you speak clearly as a field ops person.. not as someone that looks at the WHOLE picture. Fiberguy, you do have some good qualifications, and I may have over simplified saying Verizon was the clear winner. I worked for Pacific Bell, now AT&T, for 31 years, and I started inside as a Frame Technician and retired in Second Level Management as a Service Manager. So I had a pretty good picture on how everything worked within my Company. To me AT&T was full of sluggish bureaucrats, that didn't know anything about Technology. When Judge Green broke us up in 1984, I thought that was the best thing for PacBell. We flourished and along with Al Gore, brought the Internet to California.
Back in the late '80's, PacBell started to experiment with a Broadband Product over Coax, that would provide High Speed Data, Phone, and TV. We took to long to roll it out, because of some problems and we were also very busy with High Capacity Data to the Silicone Valley Businesses. Anyway, when SBC took us over they scraped the Broadband Product. Then the AT&T BellHeads came in and dusted off The Product, and repackaged it over existing Copper and called it U-Verse. So this is why I say AT&T made a mistake not going with FTTH. You say it's overkill, I don't think that is the case anymore if you want quality High Speed Data, Phone, and HDTV. | |
| | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Now Who's Laughing? I don't think Fiber is over-kill at all.. what I'm saying is that for the over all picture and what the market and economy can take right now, I think that at&t is actually making good economic sense.
I don't believe that every company has to be everything for everyone.. they have to find a marketplace. Currently, I think that U-Verse has it's market as does cable, satellite, etc.
They could dump a butt-load of money into fiber which WOULD get them along through the future, however, right now... ask yourself.. "what IS the future...?" Right now, in my estimation, I don't see much of a "future" over the next 10 years. I think the fat-cat society that we've lived in for the past 20 years is coming to a MAJOR slow down for some time to come.. and the current political administration is possibly going to make my 10 years look more like 15 or 20. | |
| | | | | | | alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA |  Re: Now Who's Laughing?
You talk about the Big Picture and what is The Future, and even though we are going to be moving slow, we don't have enough capacity now in most homes for what people want. Steaming High Definition Video from Servers is already here, and what is needed for this? Right.....Fiber! | |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| VDSL2 will come first before pair bonding The hardware/firmware for VDSL2 is already in place with the latest updates pushed to the RGs. The VRADs have been VDSL2-ready for some time.
AT&T is currently in trials of the new U-11 profile which allows a total of 32 megabits down and 5 megabits upload, and will turn on the VDSL2 protocols. It is not known at this time exactly what offerings will take advantage of the U-11 profile, but it is widely expected that a new 3HD/1SD TV capability will be offered. That's three HD streams and one SD stream simultaneously.
Currently the maximum is a U-10 profile, 25/2 total bandwidth, 2HD/2SD on TV, and 18/1.5 on Internet. AT&T has the ability to dynamically reduce the Internet allowed bitrate in order to service the video streams.
Obviously, AT&T could also increase their Internet offering speeds, but the details of this are not known at this time.
Pair bonding, as I have been saying repeatedly over the last 18 months on this board, is primarily a distance-from-the-VRAD play, not really for higher speeds, although it technically will allow faster speeds. As noted here, pair bonding will require new hardware deployment at the home. I don't think any VRAD changes are required but I am not sure on this. | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| | Cust Service Does this mean that AT&T could have 2x worse DSL customer "care" in the future? Their level 1 overseas phone tech support is soooooooo awful. I can't wait; thanks T!!! | |
|  bencPremium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL
·Charter
| Longer Loop Lengths? How much longer? That's the question I have.
Fortunately, I can get Internet via the cable company. It's good because at my place, there is no DSL. The last time I asked about it, I was told that I was 22,000 feet from the C.O., and I have no reason to think that it's any different now.
So, for a backup Internet connection I got the cheapest unlimited dial-up account that I could find ($8/mo.).
If I could get DSL, even if it was the slowest DSL available, I'd ditch the dial-up and have DSL as a backup. Then I could even route certain types of traffic over the DSL when both links are up. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Longer Loop Lengths? Last I checked VDSL gives ADSL-like speeds over longer distances. Now pair bonding may mean that some areas will get VDSL-class speeds that don't now, but I'm not holding my breath.
For people in rural areas that can't get DSL as it stands, things probably won't change for you.
U_11 does sound interesting though. 32/5 might allow for less pathetic upload speeds on the top end.
As for RF video and HD channels, 860 MHz is the space on the network for Verizon FiOS TV. That's over 140 discrete channels, all of which may be watched simultaneously without dipping into the 2.488/1.244 internet pipe.
Also, PON means there's no need for powered equipment at a neighborhood level, lowering costs and improving reliability. Just sayin'
Lastly, U-Verse packages in FTTH areas are idebtical to those in copper ones. 18/1.5 is the highest internet tier... | |
|
Brisk
join:2003-07-11
Colorado Springs, CO | Qwest Isn't Qwest also supposed to be monkeying around with VDSL2 and/or line-bonding?
It's hard being the broadband runt, or living in their territory for that matter.
But I am getting 1.5M DSL at 23.5K or so from the CO, so I guess they're not as strict as AT&T would be. | |
| Reviews:
 ·AT&T Midwest
| ATT and Copper Since Ed Whitaker cut spending so much several years ago, (retired SBC/ATT CEO) it looked good on paper but the copper (plant) was left to die on the vine.
Its deteriorated and continues to do so as management does not allow full rehab and repair of copper cables.
Its the fast cheap "fix" thats pushed.
The rumored dslam's everywhere at RT's never came to be in rural areas.
By now if you dont have "dsl" better figure an alternative, cause all the spare money is being spent on their U Verse program. | |
|
| |
|
|
·