Frontier's 'Next Gen' Plan is.....AT&T U-Verse? Frontier in Talks to License U-Verse Technology Stop The Cap! has gleaned some interesting information from their source inside Frontier noting that Frontier's next-generation plan for many users will be -- AT&T U-Verse? According to documents obtained by the website, Frontier is in talks with AT&T to license AT&T's U-Verse technology and offer it to select portions of Frontier's footprint sometime in the latter part of 2012. The 100,000 FiOS customers (or what's left of them after extensive price hikes) will still be supported, but any new "next gen" expansion will be AT&T U-Verse. It's not clear if the deal includes broadband and TV, but the arrangement was apparently born out of their existing wireless partnership: The documents suggest Frontier’s 2011 negotiations with AT&T to resell mobile phone service to Frontier customers have now expanded to include the development of improved broadband at a cost less likely to antagonize Wall Street and the company’s investors. Sources familiar with Frontier’s operations tell Stop the Cap! although the company will continue to support Verizon-acquired FiOS fiber-to-the-home networks in Indiana and the Pacific Northwest, Frontier plans to rely on less-expensive alternatives for the rest of its service areas and has no plans to further expand the FiOS branded fiber-to-the-home service. Frontier generally benefits from limited competition in many of its markets, allowing the company to make upgrades less of a priority. In markets where Frontier does compete with a DOCSIS 3.0 upgraded cable operator they're generally outclassed -- with DOCSIS 3 providing speeds up to 50 or even 100 Mbps while Frontier's services top out at 10 Mbps. Most Frontier customers see closer to 1.5 - 3 Mbps. While U-Verse will improve Frontier's competitive position, AT&T too has trouble competing with cable given their top offered speed is 24 Mbps. AT&T's U-Verse build is over, leaving roughly half of AT&T's DSL users stuck on slower speeds with no upgrades in sight. There has been some growing analyst chatter that AT&T may want to give up on landline entirely. In this case, if they're already working closely with Frontier, AT&T will likely try to lay the groundwork to offload some of these customers to Frontier in the next several years. Frontier eats upgrade costs, takes on markets AT&T doesn't want, and AT&T gets a licensing fee for upgrades. Incumbent telco big boys AT&T and Verizon have decided that landline broadband isn't worth further expansion, and have focused their eye on wireless -- where the promise of charging $10 per gigabyte makes executive and Wall Street stock jocks' knees weak. With Verizon cozying up to cable, AT&T's likely looking for their own brand expansion opportunities and likely envisions a future when Frontier handles landline under the AT&T brand, and AT&T themselves add the bundled wireless.
|
 | | Sad I feel sorry for those in Frontier areas whose next generation technology upgrade ends up being last generation U-Verse. On the other hand, it's even worse for me because I'm in AT&T territory! Oh, that Frontier would instead use FiOS since they already have that technology from acquiring Verizon territory. | |
|  | |
 fukitolSolon for PresidentPremium
join:2001-06-11
PonziWorld
 ·Callcentric
| ah yes, Frontier Frontier has started selling something called "Second Connect" in a few areas. Oh, and it's lineshare, not dry loop. Talk about a poor substitute for pair bonding...
And damn, I missed that speculation that Frontier could take over T's wireline plant. Awesome! Not really.
--
The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens. - Tolstoy | |
| | | seriously? Way to go Frontier! Using 2008 technology in 2012. That will keep you ahead of the competition. oh wait.... | |
| | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Re: seriously? Isn't FIOS the same age?
I'll give credit to Frontier for trying to work with what they have. It does seem like AT&T and Verizon rip off the weaker telcos, we'll see what happens. | |
| | | | | Re: seriously? said by axus:Isn't FIOS the same age? Arguably yes, but copper really has no future whereas FIOS is the future. | |
| | | | | | Re: seriously? and U-Verse could be upgraded at a later date from FTTN to FTTH if need be. but they will be like others and double spend but when Indie CLECs do this; they don't get bashed- just others.  | |
|
mogamer
join:2011-04-20
Royal Oak, MI | Poor management Why would Frontier buy ATT's aging infrastructure? Didn't they learn from the Verizion deal? Instead of wasting money buying the landline that ATT doesn't want, how about improving what they already have. If they don't have the money to maintain and improve what they have, why would they buy anymore neglected systems? | |
| | | | Re: Poor management Because, if they manage it properly, a mediocre service can still make them lots of money. All they have to do is deploy DSL in these areas, and, as long as it's a better deal than satellite, they'll get customers, since there likely won't be any other competitors. Sure, it will suck compared to what they could deploy, but, as long as revenues come in, they're satisfied.
In short, it may not be great for customers, but the companies like Frontier consider it good enough because it will generate a steady profit. | |
| | | | I think you misread the story, it's about Frontier licensing the U-verse technology, not about Frontier buying AT&T landlines. | |
|
 trparkyApple... YUMPremium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:2
 ·Time Warner Cable
| Welcome to mediocrity... Welcome to a service that offers yesterday's Internet speeds with absolutely no hope at all of getting anything better than 24/3. Oh, and you better get used to "HDTV" and I put that in quotes since really, I don't even call it HDTV since it's over-compressed to the point that it looks like shit.
And if you're one of the unlucky ones that get pair bonding because you're too far from the VRAD, get used to having to call technical support when the wind changes direction for you're probably going to be looking at one of your lines dropping out, maybe even both!
And while you're at it, get used to working with a router that's so underpowered that when you get your HDTVs going, you can't download shit on your Internet connection because the router is too "busy" trying to keep up with the data flow. Oh... you want XBOX 360 Live to work? Good luck! No UPnP! So that means having to forward all of the ports yourself and hoping that you got it right!
Welcome to 2008! Isn't technology great!
--
Tom
Boycott AT&T uVerse! | Tom's Android Blog | Galaxy Nexus LiquidSmooth by TeamLiquid | |
| | | | Re: Welcome to mediocrity... Better than 1900s technology that many ADSL users are stuck with 0.768/0.128 or 1.500/0.384 speeds. | |
| | | | | Re: Welcome to mediocrity... I imagine this is what they are doing in my area with fiber in the ground along all of the county highways. While it would be great to get a speed faster than 1.5MBs it would be even better if we didn't have congested circuits. Frontier will never get out of the stone ages at this rate. I can't even get them to fix the constant hum and buzz on the phone line. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Welcome to mediocrity... And when you get satellite a hurricane will.break it while cable and vdsl2 work just fine. | |
| | | |  Smith6612Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:22
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Frontier Communi..
| Re: Welcome to mediocrity... Hurricanes also do damage physical plant but it certainly does hold up a lot better during storms, so I'll give you that. But as far as I know a good chunk of Frontier areas don't get hit by Hurricanes. Maybe Tornadoes but that's about it.
The reason why I mentioned satellite because in all of the years I've had it, Cable's been down completely than my dish has been down completely, and Cable itself is rarely down around here. Maybe when my Dish got damaged from something hitting it I lost a few stations but it still worked and I fell back on antenna service for the stations I lost. I don't lose TV service during snow storms, and I also don't lose it during thunderstorms. | |
| | | | mogamer
join:2011-04-20
Royal Oak, MI | said by chgo_man99:And when you get satellite a hurricane will.break it while cable and vdsl2 work just fine.
Not if you're in an area that has your wireing hanging on telephone poles. | |
| | | | | | said by chgo_man99:And when you get satellite a hurricane will.break it while cable and vdsl2 work just fine.
Don't be ridiculous. My Dish TV was back in action weeks (as in the same day that power was restored) before Charter cable was back in service after the April 27, 2011 tornado events in my area. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Welcome to mediocrity... But the heavy snow will still degrade picture | |
| | | | | | Smith6612Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:22 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Frontier Communi..
| Re: Welcome to mediocrity... I've not had problems with heavy, lake-effect snow messing up our satellite service. We get it all the time here during the winter.
UPnP is a security risk and a router stability issue in many techie minds so it's best to keep it disabled unless it is absolutely needed. | |
| | | | | | JTY
join:2004-05-29
Ellensburg, WA | Never had snow fade issues where I live. Even during winter storms that forced the freeway to close, TV kept working just fine. | |
|
| | | etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | said by chgo_man99:And when you get satellite a hurricane will.break it while cable and vdsl2 work just fine.
LOL obviously you don't understand how xDSL works. The first lightening strike the hurricane produce (even at 20 miles away) will cause a surge of CRC/FEC errors in your gateway. A few lightening strikes here and there and there goes your "vdsl2 work just fine" service go down the drain. | |
| | | |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
1 edit | said by chgo_man99:And when you get satellite a hurricane will break it while cable and vdsl2 work just fine.
Do they? If hurricane knocks out satellite, it will also likely knock out electric too. So you won't be watching much TV without power. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Charter
| said by chgo_man99:And when you get satellite a hurricane will.break it while cable and vdsl2 work just fine.
For what its worth -- even after Katrina here in Southern Louisiana, if you 1) still had a home, 2) had power and 3) had a compass and/or a steady hand, your satellite TV worked. I lost my home, but I know from experience that even weeks after we got back our business held on with one POTS line, no T1, and no DSL... | |
|
| Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| I'm not a huge U-verse fan (dumped it myself personally for cable/DOCSIS3) but I think it's important not to hysterically overstate its flaws. It's a very successful service.
said by trparky:Welcome to a service that offers yesterday's Internet speeds with absolutely no hope at all of getting anything better than 24/3.
not true they have headroom to go higher with better revs of VDSL, pair bonding, and offering higher speed offerings to those closer to the VRAD. Not saying they're going to, but saying "no hope" is very much overstating it.
Oh, and you better get used to "HDTV" and I put that in quotes since really, I don't even call it HDTV since it's over-compressed to the point that it looks like shit.
And if you're one of the unlucky ones that get pair bonding because you're too far from the VRAD, get used to having to call technical support when the wind changes direction for you're probably going to be looking at one of your lines dropping out, maybe even both!
And while you're at it, get used to working with a router that's so underpowered that when you get your HDTVs going, you can't download shit on your Internet connection because the router is too "busy" trying to keep up with the data flow. Oh... you want XBOX 360 Live to work? Good luck! No UPnP! So that means having to forward all of the ports yourself and hoping that you got it right!
I'm not familiar with the lack of uPnP. But you can just put your own router behind the U-verse box if you need this. Agree it sucks that they don't enable it. | |
| | | | | Re: Welcome to mediocrity... He can easily put xbox behind DMz or more flexible firewall settings.
And uverse service is quite good. It definietly works better than their old dsl. | |
| | | etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | said by MyDogHsFleas:I'm not a huge U-verse fan (dumped it myself personally for cable/DOCSIS3) but I think it's important not to hysterically overstate its flaws. It's a very successful service.
Uverse 'success' is not the result of its quality. Yes at&t has managed to increase their uverse numbers but how?
1. Exploiting the hate for the cable companies.
2. Touting uverse as a fiber service which is not.
3. A successful grass roots referral system which is starting to dwindle as the 'rats abandon the sinking ship'.
not true they have headroom to go higher with better revs of VDSL, pair bonding, and offering higher speed offerings to those closer to the VRAD. Not saying they're going to, but saying "no hope" is very much overstating it.
Really overstated. Many people find it completely satisfactory. I personally dumped it for cable because I'm picky and I like to watch sports in HD. For movies and regular shows it's quite adequate. Their growing subscriber base attests to the fact that it's "good enough".
?? sounds like you had a particular issue. There's no reason a pair bonded setup is any worse than a non-pair-bonded setup.
The router isn't underpowered and it's not "too busy". What happens is there is a variable bandwidth partitioning going on. If you have 18 or 24 Mbit service, and there are multiple HD streams running, you'll be incrementally reduced to approx. 12 Mbits on the Internet so that the TV streams can keep going. One tip: turn off your STBs when you're not watching them, otherwise they'll keep using up a stream.
The truth is that uverse is practically dead with no new expansion plans, no feasible upgrade path. As DOCSIS3.0 becomes mainstream and the defacto standard uverse subscribers are left with a 'good enough and satisfactory' service. Their subscribers hungry for upgrades and news believe every false prophet that crosses their path
»45 MB internet service
»Re: 45 MB internet service
I think Frontier's 'next gen' plan should be to license DOCSIS3.0 technologies instead of uverse. Frontier should become an Earthlink-like company reselling what the cablecos offer, but after all here is a company that made FiOS fail. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Welcome to mediocrity... etaadmin:
re U-verse "success" -- you really come across as a hater. Real people keep signing up for real U-verse, not because they "hate" the cable companies, or because they give a crap what kind of conduit comes into their home, but because they're OK with it. A good example is my daughter who just moved to Austin and bought a home. She could have had satellite TV (dish already on the house), Time Warner Cable, or U-Verse. I recommended cable to her... we have DOCSIS 3. She went with U-verse. Why? Because, with their advanced Video over IP technology, you can record 4 shows at once. When I told her she could do that with TWC using 2 DVRs and Whole Home support, she looked at me like that was the stupidest suggestion ever. On top of that U-verse told her they would install boxes over wireless support (which they have now, which is also BTW a big tech advantage for them) and they would not have to mess up her new house with a bunch more cabling in certain rooms. Sold, done, and done.
I have several other friends with U-verse (non tech types) and they are by and large OK with it.
Look, the business evidence is obvious. U-verse is a success by any measure. And it's about to overtake FIOS.
Does it compete with DOCSIS 3? Clearly not in terms of available bandwidth to the home. Certainly the early adopter, need-for-speed people like you and me see the obvious benefits of DOCSIS 3 vs. U-verse. I think the mass curve that cares much about this is a ways off.
re: U-verse "practically dead"
Again way overstated.
I know that AT&T maintains the ability to respond by (a) upgrading their profiles for FTTN, and (b) retrofitting FTTP onto their brownfield FTTN deployments, just as they are currently supporting FTTP to greenfields. They have the hardware, network, provisioning, and support already in place, and they have fiber to a node which can relatively easily be upgraded to be a FTTP node. So they are not out of competitive responses.
Will they execute these responses? I don't know, but they do have significant headroom.
Re: the router
The router is not "a nightmare". It's perfectly adequate for its use case, which is to serve as a home gateway for Internet, TV, and phone. Does it have advanced router capabilities that people setting up an advanced network in their home expect? No. Can you get most of that capability by putting your own damn router in behind the U-verse router? Yes. Does this matter to more than 1% of their subscriber base? No.
I really never understood the whining about the gateway when I had U-verse Internet (before they deployed DOCSIS 3 here and I jumped to it). I am an advanced user, I have a server farm at home, I do software development and testing, and it all worked fine for me. Is it a little tricky to set up port forwarding? Sure, but once you do it once, it's straightforward to do it again.
It's like, you bought an SUV, and you complain it's not a race car. If you want a race car buy a freaking race car!
re: Frontier should license DOCSIS 3
Ummm... what? That makes no sense. Frontier is looking for a DSL replacement over twisted pair. DOCSIS 3 is for coax. | |
| | | | | etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | Re: Welcome to mediocrity... As for the 'success' story of uverse I have nothing more to say. I don't believe the numbers that at&t is providing the public and I use at&t's history of twisted statements (lies) to support my point.
Again way overstated.
I know that AT&T maintains the ability to respond by (a) upgrading their profiles for FTTN, and (b) retrofitting FTTP onto their brownfield FTTN deployments, just as they are currently supporting FTTP to greenfields. They have the hardware, network, provisioning, and support already in place, and they have fiber to a node which can relatively easily be upgraded to be a FTTP node. So they are not out of competitive responses.
Will they execute these responses? I don't know, but they do have significant headroom.
Probably at&t don't want to deploy fiber because that will stir up the cablecos competitive juices and look what the cableco have accomplish is a couple of years using DOCSIS3.
The router is not "a nightmare". It's perfectly adequate for its use case, which is to serve as a home gateway for Internet, TV, and phone. Does it have advanced router capabilities that people setting up an advanced network in their home expect? No. Can you get most of that capability by putting your own damn router in behind the U-verse router? Yes. Does this matter to more than 1% of their subscriber base? No.
I really never understood the whining about the gateway when I had U-verse Internet (before they deployed DOCSIS 3 here and I jumped to it). I am an advanced user, I have a server farm at home, I do software development and testing, and it all worked fine for me. Is it a little tricky to set up port forwarding? Sure, but once you do it once, it's straightforward to do it again.
It's like, you bought an SUV, and you complain it's not a race car. If you want a race car buy a freaking race car!
Funny, I just bought a new 2012 SUV... and my complain is that it doesn't behave like a family car... it is a race car 
Ummm... what? That makes no sense. Frontier is looking for a DSL replacement over twisted pair. DOCSIS 3 is for coax.
| |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Welcome to mediocrity... etaadmin: again you come across as a huge AT&T hater, don't know if you even realize this. Wildly exaggerated statements and accusations of lies and conspiracies (i.e. that AT&T is providing its investors and the public false information -- HIGHLY unlikely for a huge, closely followed, public corporation) really just make me not want to even engage with you.
I mean, I provide specific points about how AT&T can expand and improve FTTN and upgrade to FTTP and you just repeat "uverse is basically dead and has no room to deliver the future" when I just told you the roadmap.
The link you gave to the light reading story is just talking about EPoC, which is not fiber, and about CCAP, which is the standard for the equipment they'd install in their nodes (headends) to support FTTP. It also says nothing like "cable is better positioned to support FTTH than telco" as you assert.
Well, guess what, AT&T's road forward to fiber is exactly similar to the CCAP story. Leverage their hybrid network (fiber already going to the area), put new cards in their node, lay last mile fiber, and you're done.
The difference is that AT&T is actually closer than cable to that extension. Why? (a) Their nodes are closer to the home and their fiber net to the nodes extends further outwards than cable's HFC. So they have less infrastructure to put in place. (b) AT&T already has an all-fiber FTTP service up and running, which cable does not, so they already have all the provisioning, billing, gateway in the home, and support for that service. Cable will have to do all that over again. (c) AT&T already is running IP to the settop with video/audio/Internet over IP, so they are well positioned to deliver advanced services, and exploit their IP backbone. Cable has none of these.
Look, it's a given that coax has a much higher potential bandwidth to the home than twisted pair copper. That is not in dispute. But you gotta look at things realistically and not from a hater POV.
You've at least backed down from "the router is a nightmare" to "the router is a nightmare FOR ME" which is a much more reasonable position, and I agree with you, if you try to make it do what it's not designed to do, you will not have a good experience. It's not a "matter of opinion", there are facts involved. | |
| | | | | | | trparkyApple... YUMPremium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
| Re: Welcome to mediocrity... uVerse as it is right now, is dead in the water. Technologically speaking, it's obsolete. Yes, there are some advances coming in terms of xDSL but like I've said in the past and if you've read any of my past posts you'd know that in a lot of areas AT&T's copper network is crap.
An example of this is right here in my area. Whenever the wind kicks up really bad, my grandmother's telephone line across town gets really bad static on the line. She's called AT&T multiple times, many people on her street has called AT&T multiple times. Nothing has been done about it. Seems like all they care is if you get a dial-tone.
Now, you're trying to take a copper network that is in deplorable shape and shove VDSL down it? Because that's what AT&T is doing in my area. And yes, my grandmother's area has uVerse in it. Can't imagine the issues these people have whenever the wind kicks up on their uVerse lines.
In order to fix these issues they'd have to replace all of the copper lines in the area. OK... that costs money, I understand that. But, why put new copper in when you can put fiber in all the way to the home and be done with it. It seems that having to spend money to replace the aging infrastructure just to have to replace it again later on down the road with fiber is just completely stupid.
And let's not get into the whole distance limitations issues of uVerse. It creates a series of have's and have-not's. Yes, pair-bonding was supposed to help improve the distance for the service but so far pair-bonding has been causing more issues than it solves. Not only are they already running VDSL at distances it was never designed to run at, now you're putting two lines in causing potential cross-talk, and you wonder why it doesn't work right half the time.
AT&T tried to do it cheap and it's biting them in the ass. And then you wonder why AT&T is in talks about selling unprofitable areas to other companies. They know that unless they invest heavy amounts of money into their network to support the next generation services, they will fall behind their competitors. The bad part is... they don't want to invest, so they offload it so they don't have to.
--
Tom
Boycott AT&T uVerse! | Tom's Android Blog | Galaxy Nexus LiquidSmooth by TeamLiquid | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Welcome to mediocrity... Trparky: in my experience U-verse techs just pick another pair if the ones they are using are bad. And before they deploy ( or deployed ) U-verse to a new area they are supposed to sweep and qualify the copper. A buddy of mine at AT&T did exactly that in Austin for about 2 years. Sounds like your area isn't great on copper.
And one man's "doing it cheap" is another man's "engineering a system to meet requirements within cost". In the tech business good enough and cheap usually beats technically superior.
Etaadmin: seriously you are just a hater. EVIL LIARS! GMAFB. this is ridiculous. What lies about t mo and NSA? Bellsouth merger I don't know what you are referring to.
If its true that HFC is more fiber dense than uverse fttn that's a surprise to me. Are you sure those head ends are fed by fiber? I'm willing to be educated. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1
1 edit | said by MyDogHsFleas:etaadmin: again you come across as a huge AT&T hater, don't know if you even realize this. Wildly exaggerated statements and accusations of lies and conspiracies (i.e. that AT&T is providing its investors and the public false information -- HIGHLY unlikely for a huge, closely followed, public corporation) really just make me not want to even engage with you.
AT&T's lies are public knowledge, BBR has done a good job reporting them in this site. From AT&T's domestic espionage to Bell South merger promises to uverse's franchise reform to the latest T-Mobile merger. Those are the facts and they remain undisputed. What do you expect me to do? Give AT&T my eternal love?
And YES I do believe that AT&T lie to the public, investors and the US government.
said by MyDogHsFleas:I mean, I provide specific points about how AT&T can expand and improve FTTN and upgrade to FTTP and you just repeat "uverse is basically dead and has no room to deliver the future" when I just told you the roadmap.
Ok then, what is at&t waiting for? Let's do it!
You also made an ominous reply to trparky 
quote:
"not true they have headroom to go higher with better revs of VDSL, pair bonding, and offering higher speed offerings to those closer to the VRAD. Not saying they're going to, but saying "no hope" is very much overstating it"
The above statement sounds like uverse is... well dead or to be politically correct stagnant waiting for a divine sign.
said by MyDogHsFleas:Well, guess what, AT&T's road forward to fiber is exactly similar to the CCAP story. Leverage their hybrid network (fiber already going to the area), put new cards in their node, lay last mile fiber, and you're done.
The difference is that AT&T is actually closer than cable to that extension. Why? (a) Their nodes are closer to the home and their fiber net to the nodes extends further outwards than cable's HFC. So they have less infrastructure to put in place. (b) AT&T already has an all-fiber FTTP service up and running, which cable does not, so they already have all the provisioning, billing, gateway in the home, and support for that service. Cable will have to do all that over again. (c) AT&T already is running IP to the settop with video/audio/Internet over IP, so they are well positioned to deliver advanced services, and exploit their IP backbone. Cable has none of these.
I agree that at&t has a head start on FTTP but probably that is about to change, much sooner that you might think. Cable HFC plant has a more dense node distribution than uverse. In my neighborhood I can see a HFC node every two blocks compare that to uverse with one VRAD every 5 or more city blocks which gives cable a better coverage advantage but all this is academic and subject to different perceptions, you can believe what you want to believe.
If you watch the video in the link Comcast is expecting to run CCAP trials later this year, it is just a matter of time before we see some real life deployments but we are not talking about cable, we are talking about uverse's demise.
As uverse upgrades become stagnant and as cablecos continue to surpass uverse in every aspect from price to speed to features to quality more uverse subscribers (like you) will continue to defect to other ISPs and this is where we don't know the rest of the story. I would like to know how many uverse subscribers have cancelled the service and moved on to cable or satellite. If you have a link to those figures I would like to know. If the posts in the uverse forum is an indication I would say at&t is in trouble.
Why stay with a service that offer slow internet speeds, the worst HD picture quality and is more expensive? Beats me. | |
|
| |
 wesmPremium
join:1999-07-29
Redmond, WA
 ·Frontier FiOS
| Price hikes and such Karl,
I'm not sure why you keep linking to previous stories about the $500 TV install fee and the doubling of prices in Fort Wayne without also mentioning that both of those have been eliminated. Frontier's FiOS website has current pricing and neither is listed. They're actively marketing all FiOS services again--including television--and if anything are slightly cheaper than Verizon because the equipment price increases on Verizon's side haven't been implemented by Frontier.
I have no connection to Frontier other than being a customer, but as a long-time DSLReports member, I can't help but wonder why you have such a hatchet job out for them. Yes, they've screwed up in the past and in such a glorious manner but they've stopped most of the idiocy and, Fort Wayne layoffs notwithstanding, seem to be getting their act back together. What else would you have them do? | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
 djdanskaRudie32Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
San Diego, CA
kudos:4 | this? This from the company who told me they had a 5Gb cap on their dsl when i looked into them a year ago? (west central IL) What's the catch here? lol | |
| | Smith6612Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:22 | Re: this? What cap? I'm well aware of the 5GB cap they were proposing but as far as I know in my area I've been doing way more than 5GB a month and I haven't heard a peep from Frontier. | |
| | | | | | | Smith6612Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:22 | Re: this? Ah, ok. I know there was something going on with data limit trials last year but I haven't heard of anything since. Maybe Phil at Stop The Cap might have some information but since the initial push to get a 5GB cap was shot down, they've been quiet. | |
|
1 edit | I still don't like the company They are our local LEC and I can't say that I will ever use them willingly for private use. I'm not sure I've dealt with another company who is as worthless as they are. I have two separate locations one dealing with 400ms+ latency to the first hop, the other with 10% packet loss to the first hop, but Frontier absolutely refuses to look into either issue...I was actually told my modem being in bridge mode caused the packet loss....apparently they think I'm unintelligent.
You'd almost have to pay me to take this service over Charter. | |
| | | Yay! Let's Hear It For Mediocrity! So the SBC disease spreads. What a shame. I guess the days of the U.S. being the technological leader truly are over  .
Time to more seriously consider moving, I guess. | |
| | | Really? Saw this months ago when they started testing the i3812v router with their service. Figured they'd have to get AT&t's help eventually, funny to see the INiD in a non-att area. | |
| | | post bankruptcy post bankruptcy the company can begin the REAL work of FTTP. DSL is a dead to the world technology and has no merit beyond 2010. | |
| | | Article This article has soooo many topics going in just the first few lines it's not even funny.
First they're NOT deploying ATT U-Verse. Frontier would be using the TECHNOLOGY. Nothing was said about the brand being used.- So that should be noted- except Karl does a great job at avoiding the true facts a good 99% off the time anymore.
And 2nd NOTHING has been said about any T markets going to Frontier. Again this is Karl and Stop The Cap's half ass "reporting". | |
| | | | Re: Article said by 25139889:This article has soooo many topics going in just the first few lines it's not even funny. Pot. Kettle. Black.
said by 25139889:First they're NOT deploying ATT U-Verse. Frontier would be using the TECHNOLOGY. From the very second line in the article: "According to documents obtained by the website, Frontier is in talks with AT&T to license AT&T's U-Verse technology..."
said by 25139889:And 2nd NOTHING has been said about any T markets going to Frontier. Again this is Karl and Stop The Cap's half ass "reporting".
He didn't "report" it. He's obviously prognosticating. Industry analysts do it all the time. | |
| | DampierPhillip M Dampier
join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY | Frontier has a long history being comfortable using other company brands in their product catalog. They will resell AT&T cell phone service, HughesNet, and have been comfortable pitching both DISH and DirecTV for several years. The documents we've seen specifically call the service "U-verse," not "AT&T technology."
We were surprised they would not opt for something like CenturyLink's FTTN solution which they brand themselves, but then we remembered something important: Frontier's biggest problem with FiOS is... programming costs. If they negotiate on their own, they're screwed. If they deploy an AT&T-branded product, they can pitch video, let AT&T administer it, and win AT&T's volume pricing. Frontier wins market protection, signup bonuses, and a reduced cost entry into a more reasonable triple play.
I think this is probably the key reason they would opt to partner with an existing player, especially after they weren't smart enough to join the programming co-op smaller players always have.
If this were just about broadband, they would have consistently called it VDSL, as some parts of the documents do show -- mostly for business clients. But they are assigning a point person to manage the project with AT&T, and it's no surprise considering they've been talking together since last fall about reselling AT&T mobile service.
Yes I'd rather see Frontier do fiber to the home, but if they license AT&T U-verse, it's sure a helluva lot better than what they sell right now and I think it's a positive development for them. If they bring U-verse usage caps, we'll do what we did with Time Warner and picket their HQ and bring Chuck Schumer back to town. He's still very interested in usage caps -- one of the reasons you don't see a lot of them in NY State on wired broadband.
We have not reported Frontier picking up any AT&T landline customers, nor Frontier taking over AT&T DSL in AT&T markets. This is strictly a solution for Frontier's urban markets. Frontier remains the local provider.
--
Phillip M. Dampier
Editor, Stop the Cap!
»stopthecap.com | |
| | | | | Re: Article Again- it's not the network; its the technology.
And who is "we"? you and Karl? And Bloggers do NOT report. You BLOG. There is a difference. Just because you have a website that got hit hard with readers from the TWC capping that was linked from here- you are NOT a reporter; again you are a BLOGGER. Reporters go to school and are well known and actually work for news outlets instead of their own website. | |
| | | wesmPremium
join:1999-07-29
Redmond, WA Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
| said by Dampier:We were surprised they would not opt for something like CenturyLink's FTTN solution which they brand themselves, but then we remembered something important: Frontier's biggest problem with FiOS is... programming costs. If they negotiate on their own, they're screwed. If they deploy an AT&T-branded product, they can pitch video, let AT&T administer it, and win AT&T's volume pricing. Frontier wins market protection, signup bonuses, and a reduced cost entry into a more reasonable triple play. Frontier has obviously found some way to deal with programming costs since they're selling FiOS TV again. According to people who claim to be Frontier employees and who post in /frontiernet, the company no longer buys any programming through Verizon and only leases capacity via the existing "super headend" to transport to Frontier-owned receive facilities. Frontier obviously does handles programming on its own because Verizon would have no cause to carry channels like ROOT Sports Northwest and Frontier continues to carry FUNimation Channel, a channel which Verizon dropped nationwide in early March. Regarding Frontier not being "smart enough to join the programming co-op smaller players always have," both Frontier employees and the (Oregon) Metropolitan Area Communications Commission have stated that Frontier buys its contracts for television service via the National Cable Television Cooperative. | |
|
BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | U-Verse Is good for internet, not for TV. AT&T has the money to do FTTH, they just don't want to. Frontier, OTOH, may not, so FTTN could be a good option for them to expand faster internet access. | |
| Chawk12Premium
join:2011-12-26
Everett, WA Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| Still going to require an outside plant upgrade. Thank God I'm in an area that has FIOS.
Knew about U-Verse (they called it VDSL) from a meeting earlier this year. The woman giving the presentation seemed to think it would give FIOS speeds over copper. She did not know it requires fiber to a neighborhood hub. | |
| | bobgrv
join:2012-04-13
Knoxville, TN | Re: Still going to require an outside plant upgrade. actually uverse is provided over a fiber neighborhood hub, the copper plant can more than handle the bandwidth, and in most cases it's already in place
I don't know about your neighborhood but mines not been roaming with fiber splicers | |
|
| | u-verse in west virginia? Does this mean frontier will offer u-verse in areas like rochester,ny and the state of west virginia? I'd like to see what packages they will offer and if they will be competitive with time warner and comcast. | |
| | | | Re: u-verse in west virginia? I think it will be a cold day in hell when citizens invests in anything | |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Senseless unless AT&T negotiates with content providers Frontier doesn't need AT&T for the technology but if AT&T is willing to allow Frontier to benefit from AT&T's negotiations with content providers it could make some sense for Frontier to license U-Verse. | |
| | | FiOS TV will change too And more importantly for FiOS customers, it breathes new life into the "fios tv" product. A platform that is withering on the vine because the ipg is all proprietary Verizon and they no longer support it. We've been told that existing set tops already deployed in fios areas will still be used.
With the exception of the DCT700s, all the other set tops are QIP - Q as in QAM for the current RF broadcast TV service and of course IP for the interactive features and VOD.
Are the Motorola QIP set tops capable of being upgraded with the U-Verse (Microsoft Mediaroom) software? | |
| | | Citizens biz model They will continue to bleed frontiers current infrastructure until the clamor is too much and then dump the whole aging (geriatric) infrastructure onto someone even worse who won't even answer the phone! So much for the great American business model--"bleed it dry and throw it away". Maybe the govT will take it over and the it won't even work slowly, but it will cost twice as much. | |
| bobgrv
join:2012-04-13
Knoxville, TN | at&t uverse I've read every post on this feed and felt compelled to to put in my 2 cents worth in this forum. a majority of you on here have no idea what the technology is, how it works, or it's limitations.
I'm a field technician, condition the circuits, and make them good to the house - I see what they do, can do, and won't do on a daily basis. The job really sucks, uverse has gone way beyond taking the fun and satisfaction out of being a phone man,
I'll probably lose my job to a guy that was hired last November that was trained by a guy that was hired in September, however I'm a phone man and this is my plant - I take great pride in my work and if I come to your house - this shit is done just right - thats what I do
fyi- Uverse is fiber, at&t had deployed a fiber route to a box they call the Vrad, it communicates with the main central office. The circuit is then extended by a copper pair of wires to your house, and I mean 2 wires twisted together terminated to an interface on the house,
think about that for a second, everyone with uverse has at least 2 twisted wires conditioned to the house, bonded pairs with an Inid 2 twisted pairs - so, logic would dictate every circuit is different, every circuit is unique
it may work great at your house, may suck at the neighbors. however it's a dedicated circuit, everyone else's is shared. if you have at&t you're dedicated, good or crap it's yours, if you have the other guys......it's a crap shoot-might not be able to check your email when school lets out | |
| Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
|  According to AT&T, U-verse expansion is *NOT* over
She had told me that she, too, was awaiting word for her specific address also in Atlanta to be upgraded, didn't have any specific time frames for a specific address, but that -- in the case of metro Atlanta -- they were "yes, absolutely" still expanding U-verse.
She also mentioned to me -- after I shared with her the basis for the news story that is also linked in my forum posting about U-verse stoppage -- that "nothing had crossed her desk" regarding such an event.
Here is the quote in question from AT&T's CEO:
"Our U-verse build is now largely complete, so we have in place an IP video and broadband platform that reaches 30 million customer locations, which gives us significant headroom now to drive penetration," Stephenson said. "We have been apprehensive on moving, doing anything on rural access lines because the issue here is, do you have a broadband product for rural America? And we’ve all been trying to find a broadband solution that was economically viable to get out to rural America and we’re not finding one to be quite candid." [emphasis added] It appears that DSLReports.com and subsequently its readers are taking the emboldened part of the above quote a bit too far with respect to further rollouts.
Remember, AT&T does *not* have a nationwide land line service area, so the idea that they're "largely complete" with their service area rollout (especially when this statement is unqualified) could just as easily mean "within our lineline service area," similar to VZ's inability to provide landline service to many consumers in, say, Georgia.
Anyway, some food for thought. Now it's just a waiting game. | |
| | | | Re: According to AT&T, U-verse expansion is *NOT* over Uverse and fios is almost the same thing... The difference is all fios customers are fiber to prem... AT&T does not care about dsl or pots phone service over copper. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
