|
| smitmor join:2004-04-10 Springhill, LA |
Re: New uverse = old adslI, too, am in an unupgraded market. We moved offices a couple weeks ago and had AT&T move the phone lines. When they did, they terminated our legacy DSL service. When I inquired about it, they told me that DSL was no longer available and I'd have to upgrade to U-Verse. I went along with it, but neither U-Verse voice nor U-Verse TV are available, only Internet. The "new" service is the same 3 meg service we've always had. Even the modem they sent is a plain old ADSL2+ modem. As far as I'm concerned, it's not U-Verse unless it's VDSL with TV and voice. I guess this is AT&T's way of making the public "think" they are improving things, without actually putting any money into the network. | |
|
| | nplnUs Army join:2000-07-17 Martinez, CA |
npln
Member
2012-Jan-29 3:23 am
Re: New uverse = old adslAT&T is calling anything and everything that connect to their U-verse "backbone Uverse! in your case, you got hooked up to an IPDSLAM at the central office. That equipment has no TV capabilities thus its just DSL. | |
|
| |
to etaadmin
Actually higher speeds were available to me and I am on VDSL but sales would not sign me up without a tech visit, even though theoretically they support self-install up to 12mb profile (18 and higher with pro). I guess some locations have very old twisted pare and they dont wanna oversell tier only later to receive complaints. Don't remember if they wanted to charge for a visit, but I refused and went with 6 as I had no time to be at Illinois to deal with this. | |
|
| | MacBridgerLate to the party Premium Member join:2001-01-11 Morgantown, WV |
Re: New uverse = old adslVerizon is the same deal. I am in an area that will be one of the last ever upgraded. I supposedly can get 3.0 Mbps DSL. The problem with that is that the copper here is so old it won't even support 56k dial up over pots. In fact, my line has so much attenuation that adding more than 2 ringers to the line causes pots to drop.
So much easier to go to Comcast. | |
|
| | | |
Re: New uverse = old adslExactly the same which happened here,
I have recently been looking for a dsl provider to help cut costs but there just isn't any here because the copper here is so old and neglected.
I love how we spouted off about this for the past 5 years since fios started and now it's hurting the investors bottom line and they will complain about it, sorry but Im not going capped wireless, at this point i have even dumped some value added services on verizon wireless to get away from verizon. Tired of when a ceo has a vision and has a direction for the future the boards of this country dump them instead of embracing the future. We can not all live only for today we need to start developing for the future.
IVAN WE MISS YOU ALREADY ! | |
|
| dslwanter20 years on this site Premium Member join:2002-12-16 Mineral Ridge, OH ·Armstrong Ubiquiti UniFi AP-LR Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X SFP
|
to etaadmin
AT&T tried to get me to sign up for "U-Verse Elite" at 6mbps for $24.95 a month or upgrade to "Elite DSL" for $43 at my 1 year last month. I threatened to switch to TWC and got a $19.99 "Elite DSL" promo. Why would I care to upgrade to U-Verse? I don't qualify for any package higher than "U-Verse Elite". I did qualify for "Max" at 12mbps at one time, but that option went away. 1 choice for a modem which I would have to pay $100 for.
I don't come close to the 150GB cap and I get to keep my good ol' Speedstream 4100 and Linksys WRT54G. | |
|
|
Not obsoleteDSL is not obsolete as long as you're close enough. What else does the telco have for consumers? Nobody's using wireless for home with the per byte billing and low caps. I switched from cable since I can get 40/6 on DSL. | |
|
| |
Re: Not obsolete"...Nobody's using wireless for home with the per byte billing and low caps..." I personally know of 4 families who are dependent on cellular broadband. They use the Millenicom resell of Verizon. They all live with a limit of 20GB per month. They all live in areas with no cable or DSL service. They had either dial up or satellite. One family lives in an area filled with well to do horse owners and large horse pastures. In spite of the income those people have, AT&T and the cable company refuse to build high speed internet in those areas. AT&T did install a tower to handle some of the no cellular service problems in the area, so AT&T mobile broadband customers are getting much better service, at least as far as signal strength is concerned. Now if AT&T would reduce the cost per GB, getting broadband through them might be tolerable. | |
|
| Tobester join:2000-11-14 San Francisco, CA |
to mlcarson
said by mlcarson:DSL is not obsolete as long as you're close enough. Agreed. Here in San Francisco we have a local company Sonic.net who I believe is eating AT&T's lunch by those who hear about Sonic's Fusion package of ADSL2+ service package of internet, unlimited calling, custom calling features, and voicemail. Like your example, I'm only 5,000' from the Central Office so I get great speeds (10.2Mbps); no usage caps, and it's much cheaper than anything Comcast offers. Sonic's fiber to the home will eventually replace copper, but for now, ADSL2+ can work in densely populated areas if the local Bell company would provide it. | |
|
| | |
Re: Not obsoleteIf I understand Sonic.net correctly, they can bond two telephone lines together to double the data rate. So in your example you would normally get 5.1 Mbps on one line, but due to bonding of two lines you get 10.2Mbps. Or am I not understanding the various technologies Sonic.net uses. Or is the telephone line bonding something else. | |
|
| | | Tobester join:2000-11-14 San Francisco, CA |
Re: Not obsoleteYou are correct about Sonic being able to bond two copper pairs in order to double your speeds. My speed of 10.2Mbps is with one pair. Of course, I could upgrade to bonded service (like my neighbors) and double my speed, but my current package is best for saving money. BTW, the bonded Fusion service is still cheaper than Comcast's similar services. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Not obsoleteI want, I want, I want Sonic.net here in central Georgia. Bonding two lines would get me about 12 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload. I dread having to someday needing to switch to Cox cable to get higher data rates. And no cap threats. What a treat. We need more companies in the USA like Sonic.net for all kinds of services. | |
|
| | | | | Tobester join:2000-11-14 San Francisco, CA |
Re: Not obsoleteYes, Sonic is a great company.
ADSL2+ speeds drop off considerably depending distance to the central office, but I more than doubled my speed when I left AT&T DSL for Sonic's Fusion.
Getting back to the initial post, there is value to be found in using the old copper lines, if a company had the inclination.
It might be a smaller market for densely populated areas, but the equipment costs would have to be much less than digging up streets for FIOS, etc.
I just don't see myself ever using my Verizon LTE cellphone for internet browsing due to cost and data caps. | |
|
redxii Mod join:2001-02-26 Michigan
1 recommendation |
redxii
Mod
2012-Jan-26 6:44 pm
Quite a dilemma..Why get 1.5Mbps DSL when 107Mbps cable is available. I was in a Verizon area, and they said they didn't want to deploy FIOS anymore.
Poo on the telcos. | |
|
| r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX |
r81984
Premium Member
2012-Jan-26 9:47 pm
Re: Quite a dilemma..said by redxii:Why get 1.5Mbps DSL when 107Mbps cable is available. I was in a Verizon area, and they said they didn't want to deploy FIOS anymore.
Poo on the telcos. Why have 107 Mbps if you are capped? The best thing att can do is drop the capping bs. They would become the best isp overnight compared to anyone that caps. | |
|
| Tobester join:2000-11-14 San Francisco, CA |
to redxii
said by redxii:Why get 1.5Mbps DSL when 107Mbps cable is available. Here in San Francisco Comcast offers 105Mbps for $105.00, not including modem rental and taxes; after the first 12 months, monthly service charge goes to $129.95 for months 1324. While that's blazingly fast, most users don't require such high-speed and cost. Of course, 1.5Mbps ADSL doesn't work for me either EDIT: typo | |
|
|
AT&T is cluelessAn AT&T Senior VP told me and a few others that they do not see a threat from Cable. When on of us asked why he said that Cable can't do a quad play. That's their mind set. They honestly think that as long as Cable can't offer wireless they are no threat. | |
|
| KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2012-Jan-26 7:00 pm
Re: AT&T is cluelessThis is why companies like AT&T sit on and squat spectrum though. if Comcast where able to buy spectrum they would not need deals with Verizon, they could build out their own cellular network. And in areas they service with Cable just use their own fiber backbone as the back feed for the tower. | |
|
| | pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2012-Jan-27 8:14 am
Re: AT&T is cluelessComcast could buy Sprint. Comcast has decent management, a lot of cash, and a track record of updating technology. | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK
1 recommendation |
to battleop
I guess Muni-Fiber is no threat, then.... but why do they oppose it every time it's suggested? | |
|
| | |
Re: AT&T is cluelessIt is a threat to them. Dont let them confuse you. They see everything as a threat. Even you! | |
|
| |
to battleop
When on of us asked why he said that Cable can't do a quad play. That's their mind set. They honestly think that as long as Cable can't offer wireless they are no threat. What do they think of the new quad-play cable industry partnership with Verizon Wireless? | |
|
| | |
Re: AT&T is cluelessMaybe I'll get another chance to ask in June. | |
|
| djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV
1 recommendation |
to battleop
At one point I had all four services from AT&T. I didn't bother to integrate my wireless bill, there was no advantage in doing so. Now all I have left is my AT&T wireless account.
AT&T's dumbest move was to add 150gb caps to these un-upgraded markets. If I was a heavy user I might put up with slower speeds if I could use it unlimited. | |
|
| | |
en103
Member
2012-Jan-27 12:37 am
Re: AT&T is cluelessyup... TWC speeds here in Santa Clarita area pretty good. Looks like they finally fixed wireless on Seco Canyon for you. | |
|
| |
to battleop
Wow indeed!
Who cares about quad-play? Nowadays, it's cheaper to get all the services unbundled anyways. Noone uses quad play, it's stupid and there are not even any incentives at all whatsoever.
I've been with U-verse for 1.5 years, never received anything about AT&T Wireless that wasn't already available to regular non-U-verse customers in the first place. | |
|
| | |
Re: AT&T is cluelesssaid by ConstantineM:Wow indeed!
Who cares about quad-play? Nowadays, it's cheaper to get all the services unbundled anyways. Noone uses quad play, it's stupid and there are not even any incentives at all whatsoever. Sometimes bundling makes sense. I pay $55 for 10/1 and unlimited phone. | |
|
|
brand0n
Anon
2012-Jan-26 6:57 pm
att dslDSL is only 14.99 for a year so i signed up because I live in an apartment complex that doesn't offer cable unless you sign up with one of these no name re-sellers. So I use a tv antenna for local broadcasting, the roku + my computer for all the rest. If DSL goes down then I still have my rooted android to fall back on during any outages. | |
|
|
Nothing from AT&TMy brother can't get nothing from them at all. Stuck with TW. | |
|
| trparky Premium Member join:2000-05-24 Cleveland, OH |
trparky
Premium Member
2012-Jan-26 8:05 pm
Re: Nothing from AT&TI wouldn't say that about TWC. I have them and I wouldn't give them up for nothing. I have TWC Wideband service. | |
|
| | |
Re: Nothing from AT&TThey are OK. just still mad at them trying to push per GB billing as an industry standard. | |
|
| | | 45612019 (banned) join:2004-02-05 New York, NY |
45612019 (banned)
Member
2012-Jan-27 12:05 am
Re: Nothing from AT&TThat would be Comcap and AT&Trash, although Time Warner tried and failed at hopping on board their bandwagon.
Right now Time Warner and Verizon are the last major providers with no bandwidth caps at this time. Comcap has had that 250 GB cap for almost 4 years now. | |
|
kaila join:2000-10-11 Lincolnshire, IL |
kaila
Member
2012-Jan-26 7:28 pm
We're still labeled a 'future market' by AT&TWe have no DSL here in the middle of Chicago suburbia. My sleepy village of Lincolnshire has been promised DSL since SBC's 'project pronto' days, some 12 years ago. Then 'project lightspeed' 8 years ago. Then U-Verse. Actually, U-Verse VRAD's were installed in late 2007, and they've been sitting unused ever since and are currently rusting away.
Dealing with AT&T has been an exercise in frustration, with a trail of broken promises strewn over more than a decade. Meanwhile, with that kind of head start, Comcast has built a staggering 90% broadband penetration rate. | |
|
1 recommendation |
It's all about the money.There are scores of people who'd be fine with 3000/768 speeds--they just don't need 50/20 or even 15/2 speeds. But can they get it for the price it's worth? Nope! And these days it's worth about $15/mo. [if that]. If the telcos won't invest, then they need to go for the "value" market and drop their prices. If they aren't going to compete on product, then they need to compete on price. | |
|
| •••••••••••••••• |
Frank Premium Member join:2000-11-03 somewhere |
Frank
Premium Member
2012-Jan-26 9:11 pm
Most people dont even know the phone company exists anymore.I was looking at several different apartments in an area of another state that only has dsl recently and it seems nobody (including neighbors or rental office people) seems to know what the incumbent phone company even is. When asked they would all mention the name of the cable company.
In the state I live in now, everybody knows of verizon due to fios (most apartment buildings usually advertise the fact that they have fios and cable). | |
|
legendNYCSoon Premium Member join:2003-06-04 Jamaica, NY |
Stick a fork in DSLWe've been with Verizon for ten years. It's been seven years with no upgrade in service. Waiting and waiting for Fios, but it seems like that bus is not coming anytime soon.
As much as I do not want to give TWC more money, we want fast Internet. 3M/768 is old news. | |
|
| ••• |
|
No Internet?No broadband internet where you live? Contact your local councilman, state senator, state congressman, US congressman and US Senator. They get annoyed when you ask them the same thing over and over and eventually they wield their influential power just to get you to shut up. | |
|
| |
Re: No Internet?You are naive. If you want politicians to pay attention to you, then you need to pay them more cash than the phone and cable companies. | |
|
| | |
Re: No Internet?What would you rather do? Take $1000 to vote one way and put up with people pestering you all the live long day or get peace and leave the $1000 on the table. I'd do the latter. | |
|
|
consumers in the midwestthis is a historical reality etched in consumer apathy and over time apathy will push consumers over time to the better broadband deal which is cable. will telcos do anything about losing subscribers to cable? doubt it-- until there are none left.
Maybe the DOJ will perk up and see the collusion between cable companies and telcos is bringing about a mix mosh of monopoly and duoplies which have the goal of jacking up the price of broadband no matter which service provider your with. This already happened with DIGITAL VOICE AND CABLE-TV... what's next for 2012? jacking up broadband prices as well! First, with wireless and then with wireline services. | |
|
|
1st mileAnd guess whats Att calls the last mile ?? They call it the first mile.....go figure | |
|
elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA |
elray
Member
2012-Jan-27 10:49 am
Pure SpeculationKarl continues to beat the drum that DSL customers are bailing to Cable "in un-upgraded markets", without ever offering any data to back up his charge. | |
|
| ••••• |
|
U-verse IS DSLStop calling U-verse anything other than DLS. It is vDSL - the VRAD has fiber feeding it...just like a cable node does. | |
|
|
hehatemeidot
Anon
2012-Jan-27 5:44 pm
Who Cares?LTE will be and already is good enough. | |
|
|
Its the same here in Canada.I was happily using my dsl in the previous city I lived in. It was running at 25mbps, they weren't enforcing caps, all good.
Then I move to a different city and they haven't rolled out the hardware in the area I live in, so its still 15mbps.
Meanwhile the cableco here offers speeds up to 100mbps (with plans to go to 250). I found the 50mbps package to be the sweet spot for me in terms of price and bandwidth.
How does the DSL provider here expect me to stay with them when the Internet from the cableco is some much faster? I'd consider staying on vdsl if it still offered 25mbps, but 15mbps.. meh. | |
|
| |
Chucks Truck
Anon
2012-Jan-28 10:49 am
Re: Its the same here in Canada.If Rogers cable internet actually worked dsl would be extinct in Canada. Out in Ontario it's either Teksavvy cable internet or move to another country for internet service. | |
|
Sukunai Premium Member join:2008-05-07 |
Sukunai
Premium Member
2012-Jan-28 7:54 am
If you don't build it, they won't comeLots of people around here are also jumping the DSL ship in favour of cable and the claimed better speeds.
But if you look, you can see that even with companies like Teksavvy that a great many like, you can find all sorts of bitching directed at service. Cable service.
I am on DSL and have absolutely no interest in going to cable regardless of the claims of better speed etc etc etc.
Party because it appears Cogeco only looks better than Bell only because I have never given them a means to screw me with lousy service long enough I suppose.
But until the cable situation is actually 'fixed' I am in no rush to join those paying for a good reason to be on a forum complaining.
DSL, it might not sound as good, but at least it works. | |
|
dragger Premium Member join:2002-06-19 united state |
dragger
Premium Member
2012-Jan-28 12:33 pm
My situation, described perfectlyBode could have been writing about my experiences. Just last month I moved my access to cable after at least a couple of decades with ATT.
I used them for long distance just due to their reputation. Then, they came out with the One Rate cell plan and no one was even close. After Southwestern Bell did their merger, all of my eggs were in one basket with ATT.
I was the guy all my friends would ask for tech advice, and I strongly supported DSL over cable. Back then, there was a real advantage but ATT simply threw it away.
Not too long after they started the Uverse push, my DSL began getting worse and worse. Terrible pings, amazingly high latency with the request dying between hops, a mail server that a couple times of week wouldn't accept my credentials -- it got really bad.
A couple of months ago, I had Charter come in (yes, I know, but absolutely no problems yet) and connect me. I ran a consistent 30/4 against the inconsistent 6/.7 from DSL.
So as of this month, I no longer have any business with ATT. Wish they would have paid attention to the business they had. | |
|
|
tmc8080
Member
2012-Jan-29 12:51 pm
want to raise prices? collude or investtelco is not colluding with cablecos to tame upgrades of acutal offered speed tiers.. no doubt the country COULD have had 100/100 megabits in 50% of the country by now offered by TWO carriers.. but AT&T dropped the ball on FTTP.
they could always change their minds.. but they'll keep swinging on that rope until it hangs them with a DOJ & Congressional drumbeats for the CEO's head on a platter that looked much like MCI worldcom's!! | |
|
|
|