Still Waiting On Faster AT&T Speeds, Line Bonding ADSL2 bonding working, VDSL2 bonding 'later this year' AT&T's decision to run FTTN instead of FTTH has remained a sticking point, with AT&T's top U-Verse speed (after video) sitting at 18Mbps downstream for customers within range. While that speed's nothing to laugh at, it's quickly being overshadowed by Comcast deployment of 50Mbps DOCSIS 3.0, arriving in all Comcast markets by the end of 2010. Pair bonded VDSL will be AT&T's retort, with AT&T enlisting a second copper pair to each house to increase speeds. AT&T says they should be able to double the bandwidth they're currently delivering, though other estimates peg the speed bump at closer to 25-30%. To offer bonded VDSL, AT&T needs to assign two DSLAM ports to each customer, and deploy a special residential gateway outside the house that can terminate two pairs -- assuming they're available. Pair bonding isn't just about speed -- it's about reaching more customers at ever-greater distances. However, bonded hardware testing has been troubled by early technical snags, pushing AT&T's bonded VDSL deployment schedule forward several times. But the pair bonding gridlock may be easing. In a recent earnings call, Centurytel CEO Glen Post proclaimed that "bonding is really working now," and that the carrier believes the the technology gives them "a real opportunity for us in the months ahead." But that's ADSL2+ -- and AT&T's using VDSL. Broadband industry analyst Dave Burstein doesn't predict movement on this front from AT&T until later this year: Based on promises from chip and modem makers, AT&T expected to deploy bonded VDSL2 widely in 2007 but is just getting into trials now. In 2003 when they designed U-Verse, they expected to need bonding for fewer than 10% of homes. The VDSL2 performance was projected at a solid 25 megabits 3,000-5,000 feet, but hasn't come close. Michael Coe, speaking for AT&T, tells me they estimate bonding will be required on about 25% of lines. The current hope is later this year. Distance remains a thorn in AT&T's side. Some U-Verse customer gateways sync at 100Mbps, but at 1,400 feet from the DSLAM. 25Mbps sometime works well at distances of 3,000 feet, but issues arise closer to and beyond 5,000 feet. Many users are further than 3,000 feet -- and with AT&T now offering dual-HD streams, things are quickly getting pinched, which is why AT&T recently changed their TOS to "manage customer expectations." It's the price the carrier paid when AT&T decided to placate impatient investors by milking their copper infrastructure -- instead of following Verizon's lead, biting the bullet, and directly investing the company's absolutely phenomenal profits back into fiber to the home technology. Of course AT&T can always migrate to FTTH later, but they may not have much time to waste with projections of 99% DOCSIS 3.0 coverage by 2013.
|
 | | It can go faster then 18 Mbps U-verse could go faster with out line bonding, its all about if AT&T wants to allow a faster tier. | |
|  | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: It can go faster then 18 Mbps said by dlewis23:U-verse could go faster with out line bonding, its all about if AT&T wants to allow a faster tier. yes, but it's also distance limited and the initial projections of what speeds could be available at greater distances from where the fiber is terminated haven't been meeting expectations. That's why they have to pair bond.
past 5000 ft. it gets harder and harder to deliver faster speeds. There is no way they can compete with docsis 3 or fiber when they start getting beyond that distance. | |
| |  djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| 
Putting nodes closer to homes would have made a huge difference. |
said by dlewis23:U-verse could go faster with out line bonding, its all about if AT&T wants to allow a faster tier. Remember, AT&T wants U-verse to be a triple play product. 18mbps is already pushing things when HDTV service is also on the line. They're looking at a speed bump to 32mbps allow 3HD and less video compression, but it won't be avaialble to all customers.
I don't think the FTTN strategy was necessarily a bad idea, but they needed to put nodes closer to homes. With closer nodes at 50-100mbps, the product would have so much more longevity. It just wasn't smart to bet on "uncooked" technology. By the time something comes along to improve on VDSL, it's going to be needed to match the competition.
Reading user experiences over the last year or so, it seems pretty clear that 25mbps is about all that AT&T's 3000' "target" is good for. It didn't take long for AT&T to introduce a 19mbps profile with even less capabilities. The RG will report higher sync availability, but you need some margin for it to work reliably. You'd think with all of AT&T's experience with ADSL, they'd know that you can't count on real world speeds to match what the specs say it ought to be able to do.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
| |
| | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: It can go faster then 18 Mbps said by djrobx 
I don't think the FTTN strategy was necessarily a bad idea, but they needed to put nodes closer to homes. With closer nodes at 50-100mbps, the product would have so much more longevity. It just wasn't smart to bet on "uncooked" technology. By the time something comes along to improve on VDSL, it's going to be needed to match the competition. [/BQUOTE :Why did AT&T go with FTTN vs. FTTH, IMHO it was strictly cost. Now the question is in the long run will it really be a cost savings to AT&T? How much more will it cost to go back and retrofit the VRad's for pair bonding? How much more will it cost for extra hardware at the home? What about where there isn't an extra pair of copper availble in tne existing infratstucture, how much more to install some? How much more to install more VRad's to reduce the distance to get the faster speeds? How much more for the maintance and electrical costs for those VRad's? Even then, after spending all these dollars to get to what, 4 concurrent HD streams of TV will that be enough to support what consumers want? HDTV penatration rates are going up and between moew HD sets in the homes and HD DVR's IMHO 4 streams won't be able to handle demand in a few years. | |
| | |  d_lBarsoomPremium,MVM
join:2002-12-08
Reno, NV
kudos:7 | said by djrobx:I don't think the FTTN strategy was necessarily a bad idea, but they needed to put nodes closer to homes. Just how are they supposed to do that? The VRAD nodes are placed adjacent to the existing SAI fan out points of the F2 lines.
Placing more nodes would require chopping up and re-engineering the copper network to include "mini-SAI"s with each of these new nodes (mini-VRADs) that you want to deploy. Can you imagine the POTS outages this re-engineering program would cause while the new SAIs were installed?
If, say, they halved the copper loop distance with these closer nodes than what they have now, that would mean they would be installing at least four times more SAI/node boxes than they are now. Certainly these hypothetical boxes would be smaller than the current VRADs because they would be designed for fewer connections, but four times more installations would cause more grief from four times more property owners that would find these new boxes installed on their property ROW.
The current overbuild VRADs are installed next to existing SAI cabinets which are often the same height or taller than the VRAD additions (a fact that Karl always fails to report in his "VRAD exposes"  ). The property owners already know that they have a cabinet on their property so the addition of a VRAD shouldn't be such a shock to them. | |
| | | | | | Re: It can go faster then 18 Mbps Here in Tustin, CA, AT&T has started going back and installing more VRADs where they just finished installing them. These are the full VRADs they've used before and at some places they're placing new full SAIs too. Some of these new ones are just a block from another. I'm guessing they're having some serious issues getting things working properly here when even 2000' loops aren't working.
The VRADs the use here are just as tall at the SAIs but twice as wide, so they block the sidewalks more which as been causing them to move things around a lot. Some of "mega" VRADs they install near housing developments are nearly 6' tall and 4' square. I've seen a few "tall and skinny ones around in nearby cities, their like 5'x2'x3', but they have only been installed next to the old PacBell DSLAMs that are the size of a small SUV. | |
| | | | | | | Re: It can go faster then 18 Mbps I drove by one of the tall, skinny ones at lunch, they're taller than the DSLAMs (which are already 6'), I'd say they're 7'x4'x2.5'. They're huge actually, they just don't look like it next to those monstrous DSLAMs. | |
|
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by d_l:said by djrobx:I don't think the FTTN strategy was necessarily a bad idea, but they needed to put nodes closer to homes. Just how are they supposed to do that? The VRAD nodes are placed adjacent to the existing SAI fan out points of the F2 lines. Placing more nodes would require chopping up and re-engineering the copper network to include "mini-SAI"s with each of these new nodes (mini-VRADs) that you want to deploy. Can you imagine the POTS outages this re-engineering program would cause while the new SAIs were installed? If, say, they halved the copper loop distance with these closer nodes than what they have now, that would mean they would be installing at least four times more SAI/node boxes than they are now. Certainly these hypothetical boxes would be smaller than the current VRADs because they would be designed for fewer connections, but four times more installations would cause more grief from four times more property owners that would find these new boxes installed on their property ROW. The current overbuild VRADs are installed next to existing SAI cabinets which are often the same height or taller than the VRAD additions (a fact that Karl always fails to report in his "VRAD exposes" ). The property owners already know that they have a cabinet on their property so the addition of a VRAD shouldn't be such a shock to them. Wrong.
Here are 2 examples of VRADS 100s of feet away from the neighborhood cross connect cabinets. Doesn't help loop length either. | |
|
| | Should have done FTTH from the start. FTTN instead of FTTH is the one reason I didn't sign-up with Uverse. It's never too late for AT&T to start laying fiber on the last mile. AT&T are you listening? | |
| | Reviews:
·Cbeyond
| Re: Should have done FTTH from the start. said by burgerwars:FTTN instead of FTTH is the one reason I didn't sign-up with Uverse. It's never too late for AT&T to start laying fiber on the last mile. AT&T are you listening? My many years of experience with AT&T is they only listen to themselves. And so it goes. | |
| | | jandar
join:2006-01-16
Middleburg, FL | Re: Should have done FTTH from the start. They went FTTN in some new neighborhoods around here that have fiber laid to the homes. Its just dark.
Instead of using the fiber to the residence, they decided to use the copper lines instead. | |
| | | |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Should have done FTTH from the start. said by jandar:They went FTTN in some new neighborhoods around here that have fiber laid to the homes. Its just dark. Instead of using the fiber to the residence, they decided to use the copper lines instead. This is a crime!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
| | | |  spewakR.I.P DadkinsPremium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1
 ·Clear Wireless
 ·SureWest Internet
| said by jandar:They went FTTN in some new neighborhoods around here that have fiber laid to the homes. Its just dark. Instead of using the fiber to the residence, they decided to use the copper lines instead. That is what I am wondering.
Are they actually going to physically run a copper wire vs. Fiber to each home? Cost of running Fiber cannot be that much greater than digging up and running copper.
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer! | |
| | | | | jandar
join:2006-01-16
Middleburg, FL | Re: Should have done FTTH from the start. A lot of the new neighborhoods around here (built in last 5-6 years) had both fiber buried under each driveway as well as copper lines run for both cable and phone.
Hell, I had dark fiber here before they even offered DSL. Then instead of working with the available fiber, Bellsouth decided to install a DSLAM to provide 1.5Mb speeds. (this was 4 years ago) | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·Time Warner Cable
| Some areas under Project Lightspeed were rebuilt from Copper to FTTH. They're very very limited though. One is in the Monroe Michigan area. But they're still limited on bandwidth. They're capped at what ever DSL is. So really ATT is just playing games with the money. They'll milk it out until Comcast really runs them out and ATT sells off the network. | |
|
| | | I don't understand this fanboy-ism of ftth vs fttn. all that matter is speed and much you pay for it, ignoring stuff like caps, throttling, and other wonderful 'features' ISPs are throwing in for free. it is just like the intel vs. amd processor/system architecture. people are so concerned on the architecture that the lose sight of what really matters, performance, power, and price | |
| | |  DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 | Re: Should have done FTTH from the start. That is very true, what about wireless N, who cares about the medium. I just want speed, and low latency. | |
| | |  TechnogeezAgape in amazement.Premium
join:2007-01-20 | I don't understand why you don't understand... | |
| | |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
·Charter
| said by cornelius785:I don't understand this fanboy-ism of ftth vs fttn. ...snip... that the lose sight of what really matters, performance, power, and price how about using your list of what really matters and compare U-Verse to a FTTH option. i'd love to see the results and how you don't see why people here are upset about AT&T's technology choices. | |
|
|  alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA | said by burgerwars:FTTN instead of FTTH is the one reason I didn't sign-up with Uverse. It's never too late for AT&T to start laying fiber on the last mile. AT&T are you listening? I don't think they can easily change to FTTH with the existing design. All the Electronics have to be changed, and it takes AT&T 5 to 10 years to research and change Technologies. 5 years ago, Uverse with VDSL sounded good, but now it's obsolete and like I said years ago, AT&T dug themselves into a hole. Now the Bean Counters and BellHeads at AT&T are doomed to fail! | |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Verizon doesn't look so dumb does it? Once at&t gets FTTN everywhere they'll have to go start putting FTTH like they should have in the first place just to compete. It'll be YERAS before I even get at&t's 18 Mpbs u-verse here and yet righht NOW I can get 20 Mbps from Charter. Hmmm who am I going with? By then Charter will be offering 60 Mbps. A day late and dollar short at&t. | |
| | | UVerse Line Bonding I have been a UVerse customer for nearly three years, having initially been a UVerse internet trial customer. My home is between 3000-4000 feet from the DSLAM, and I have been told that I cannot get UVerse TV service as a result. I am only able to get UVerse Internet service. I was told that I may be able to add the TV service next year, when they will be ready to deploy pair bonding.
It's been way too long for AT&T to still be working out these issues. If they've been working on UVerse since 2003, all of the bugs should have been worked out by now. There's a huge revenue stream available to them when they resolve the issues, and any equipment suppliers would also be drooling at the thought of huge revenues after the issues are resolved, so I don't understand why there isn't a stronger drive to iron out all of the problems.
Oh, I forgot...this is AT&T...
Never mind... | |
| |  SrsBsns
join:2001-08-30
Oklahoma City, OK | Re: UVerse Line Bonding AT&T got themselves in too deep on this project. The design was flawed from the start and they spent to much money to just walk away. I bet all kinds of engineer's are like "I told you so" right about now. Just look them trying to patch it paired bonding. It's much like their cell network. A rat's nest. I think in the next year or two Uverse is going to tank. IMO | |
| | | | | Re: UVerse Line Bonding said by SrsBsns:I think in the next year or two Uverse is going to tank. IMO one can only hope! | |
|
 MadnessLike a flea circus at a dog show
join:2000-01-05
Quincy, MA
kudos:1 | Hmmm.... Might it be appropriate to mention something about a blizzard in Hell? | |
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | no excuse There absolutely no excuse for not line bonding, a VPN software bonding solutions have existed for years. I could write my own VPN link bonding solution using TAP/TUN driver in linux in a few days if it didn't exist. | |
| | | AT&T is doing it right. Verizon deployments of FTTH were simple in trial and initial deployment areas because the majority of the installations are aerial. ATT's copper provisioning is underground, which is more expensive to deploy(equipment, manpower, permits, etc). The costs for ATT would have been astronomical. ATT's use of FTTN will allow them to build out with fiber in the next 5 to 10 years from the nodes while having their entire backhaul IP ready. The whole IP architecture puts ATT in top position regarding their backhaul. Furthermore, the whole services scenario still puts the majority of customers not needing 18 Mbps of internet downloads and doing fine with 1 HD and sometimes 2 HD and 3 SD Streams with 3 Mbps of internet. Also, compression is getting better so you will see your HD and SD streams shrink in download speeds.
If I was AT&T I would have done the same. They are the only company to succesfully deploy VDSL/VDSL2 to deliver video on a large scale! Many said this would have been impossible. | |
| | Reviews:
·Charter
·Clearwire Wireless
| Re: AT&T is doing it right. Except for the whole part of At&t paying to have 1000's of contractors put in pair bonding in all homes, then pay for fiber and have 1000'd of contractors put it in all homes?
Lets not dorget the multi million dslams.
At&t is doing it right, if doing it right means burning more money then Verizon ever will. | |
| | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | said by TheGuvnor :
Many said this would have been impossible.
no, many said it was a short-sighted plan by AT&T. i'm not sure any large number of people said it couldn't be done. | |
| |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
1 edit | There are a few factors to consider:
1. Aerial vs. Buried (as you noted) this varies in each location, as it will affect cost
2. Cost now vs cost later (this is the gamble) - hoping to offset future upgrades with current subs
3. Do they really need +18Mbps residential ? If AT&T's costs are less, they 'can' (even though they don't) sell for less.
4. Attempted not to scare wall-street.
If AT&T 'had' the ability to wire at the curb every few residents from fiber, it would be close to 100Mbps/house. I'd say within 5 years it'll be overhauled, or AT&T will be offering cheaper Internet service to keep subscribers. | |
| | | | Too bad it crashes all the time for me... | |
|
 kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | Your World. Delivered. I used to work with a bunch of former AT&T managers. If you knew these people, it would make perfect sense why AT&T doesn't have a next-gen plan that works.
Short-sighted, myopic oafs, they are. The whole lot of them.
At T, covering your ass is job #1. Nothing else matters. You attend meetings, schedule more needless meetings, talk in buzzwords strung together to look like coherent sentences, shit on the employee on a lower rung than you while you try your damnedest to deflect shit being hurled in your direction from the employee on a higher rung than you.
There is no time to think of customers or the good of the company when self preservation is at stake.
The ONLY reason this company is still in business is because of the shamefully lacking regulatory oversight and the lobbying they've been able to buy with their deep pockets. In a truly open, competitive, free market, AT&T would have died years ago. It almost did after the 1996 telecom act was passed.
The gang of former managers I used to work with? Well, they sucked dry the company where we worked together and have moved on to other companies.
They're a lot like the aliens from Independence Day...they are parasites who move from one host company to another, leaching all its life force and leaving only ruins behind them.
--
»www.Digium.com | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
| kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | Umm. Yeah. Pair bonding is a myth. It doesn't work. a lot like BPL. It's a smokescreen used to cloak the utter incompetence of those running the big T as they scramble to find an alternative to their current 100-year old last mile plant.
They *almost* pulled it off. By buying up and consolidating RBOCs and the original AT&T. And the good fortune of owning the wireless business which happened almost by accident at a time when wireless was undergoing explosive growth. Almost.
AT&T is in deep trouble. It's almost a decade behind Verizon in replacing copper with Fiber to subscriber premises. Either it faces the reality of becoming a wireless and backhaul provider or it spends gobs of money trying to catch up. Neither one will make investors very happy.
--
»www.Digium.com | |
| | | | Re: Umm. Yeah. said by kapil:AT&T is in deep trouble. It's almost a decade behind Verizon in replacing copper with Fiber to subscriber premises. Either it faces the reality of becoming a wireless and backhaul provider or it spends gobs of money trying to catch up. Neither one will make investors very happy. I don't know, just when you think they're gone, they come back....like the flu you can't get rid of. Remember, T does best when its killing the competition, not actually competing with it! | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Wrong, TW's "outright lie to the consumer" advertising and PR tactics have been working very well for TW, whats wrong with ATT using them? backbone fiber is equal to last mile fiber right? | |
| | | | | Re: Umm. Yeah. I was going to switch to at&t uverse when it goes live next month here. But looking at there speed teirs. I think I will stay with cable. Really in my own opinion. Uverse is just like dsl but with tv. No improvemnts. | |
|
SrsBsns
join:2001-08-30
Oklahoma City, OK | Should have read AT&T creates Rube Goldberg machine for delivering internet. | |
| | | AT&T is smart, IMO... I'm no LEC lover, and that includes AT&T, but on this issue... I think AT&T made a wise decision to opt for a FTTN instead of a FTTH plan. FTTN is like 1/5 the cost of FTTH, and works just fine. Their UVerse product is among the highest rated in customer satisfaction. As well, by waiting, they let Verizon take the hit of initially high fiber equipment costs, and by the time they plan on going FTTH, unit costs on average will be considerably lower.
And lastly, since they will already have lots of already fiber-fed neighborhood UVERSE VRAD boxes close to residences, they're already about halfway there to deploy FTTH when they need to. As things stand now, they have the most competitive TV offering, and among the best overall value propositions out there... and great customer satisfaction.
It will be awhile before there is great pressure for more speed than 18 Mbps down / 1.5 Mbps up, and by then, they will either have good pair bonding options ready OR they will start deploying FTTH from their many neighborhood nodes.
Also, even if they get a late start to upgrading to FTTH, and their Internet speed competitiveness is substantially lacking, they can simply drastically under-price their Internet speeds to see them through until the FTTH is built out, since their wholesale bandwidth costs are quite minimal. That way, they could still keep most customers that have a keen eye on total value of their package TV, Internet, phone deal will provide compared to the competition.
As one commenter said, it really all simply comes down to value, and they can simply price appropriately to keep the competition at bay, especially since they have a cash cow of wireless to see them through any short-term competitiveness issues. | |
| |
See 10 replies to this post | |
| | Other telcos - LOOK AND LEARN!!! Embarq/CenturyTel - I hope when you deploy a next gen network out here, that it is FTTH not crappy VDSL.
Otherwise I'll just stick with the cable company. | |
| | | regular dsl speeds any idea when they are going to increase regular dsl speeds from 6mb? | |
| | | | Re: regular dsl speeds Probobly about the same time as when I will be able to get DSL and up upgrade from 19.2K dialup. | |
|
kd6caeP2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Palmdale, CA Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
·AT&T U-Verse
| offering more speed for those that want it Not everyone will want the bundle. Some will want just internet, and for those customers, they should give more bandwidth to the internet, allowing customers to perhaps get 20Mbps down maybe 2mbps up. If a customer only wants internet, then give the customer more bandwidth for internet only. This is where Verizon shines, as even with HD, the bandwidth is there to provide everything one would want. | |
| | | Wow They are pretty much hitting the wall already?
It's going to be fun to see them trying to offer 20Mb internet (or 40Mb bonded) while dealing with various distance limitation for each customer.
In the mean time, cable and FTTH can expand their speed up to 100Mb and beyond. | |
| poolek
join:2003-11-04
Austin, TX Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
| more to it than just current line speed I'm a recent uverse customer. I'd prefer to see FTTH, but I don't think going FTTN is a deal killer. There are many alternative ways to maximize the connection:
- Networked DVR, recording 100% of the content and allowing users to go backwards in the program guide. Microsoft already has this technology enabled in Mediaroom. If ATT deploys that, you'll only consume bandwidth on channels you're currently watching since you won't need to record anything local.
- Wireless integration - their new 3g stuff is what - 20mb down? Integrate some of that technology in the RG to support additional bandwidth when needed - or set up local Wifi mesh-like networks in dense areas.
- ATSC Tuners - add a couple of the DVR ala Dish/Direct. Further reduction of bandwidth needs when watching local content
- Improvement in technology - 10 years ago, 'fast' over copper was 128k ISDN. Today, I'm 2700 feet from the VRAD and sync at over 40mb/sec. Who knows what we'll see 10 years from now. Similar things with compression technology - the quality/size ratio seen today with MPEG4 was unthinkable a few years ago.
With FTTH, they wouldn't have to worry about any of this - but technology has a way of fixing things if you wait long enough, and it appears ATT's strategy is to wait. | |
|  TMMerlinThe Devil made me do it
join:2003-06-19
Oxford, MI
·EarthLink
·AT&T U-Verse
| FTTN makes great business sense FTTH is gross overkill in rebuilding a network when there is so much copper already in the ground. FTTH does make sense in new or replacement construction.
Speeds over 10meg for Internet is a "fools wish" .. as long as TV gets delivered competitively.
I have seen 3meg & 8meg access .. hardly a "hairs difference" for the average internet user and I am not a fan of ITV, so U-versus TV is just fine.
And I didn't let AT&T screw me on the landline phone number either. I backed that down to "basic residential line" of under $20 and use my cell phone for LD.
Comcast can take their 50Mbps and DOCSIS 3.0 and "sell it to somebody that gives a crap". The cable industry screwed me for years and I will NEVER go back to cable...!!
--
Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy but they become legend. | |
| decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
| Waste The Vrad deployment cost + distance serviceable for Uverse is rather horrid.. It would work for the projects and dense subdivisions and the like, but for normal deployments it just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.. why deploy such a range limited technology when other things are available? Do they want to fail? Or are they just that happy to be unsatisfactory in quality of service?
I still wish ATT would sell my territory to a local provider that'll actually take care of us.. I've seen a many local's upgrade their equipment, granted the cost is slightly higher than ATT's, but damn, i'd pay it in a heart beat... I just want to be a customer with an option | |
| slckusrPremium
join:2003-03-17
Maumee, OH
kudos:1 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| FTTH is the future. Data is the future. to be so short sided that they wouldnt rebuild their network doesnt make much sense.
All of the new "smart" devices will use some sort of bandwidth, consumers will continue to pull more and more information/entertainment from the internet. In 10 years will 20/40 mbps be enough?? ATT is doing its customers and our country a disservice by not building their network out to support increased speeds and capacity. | |
| | | | Re: FTTH is the future. Cannot get AT&T to install a DSLAM BOX by the time they do they will have to install two or three boxes at each location, here comes the BIG REFRIGERATOR BOXES. | |
|
| |
|
|
Great opportunity to push two line complete choice.
The LEC's including AT&T might have missed the boat. Before I moved out of South Florida I subscribed to BellSouth's Two Line Complete Choice Plan for $10.00 more than the One Line Plan. That is if you exclude the additional hidden charges which came to about $8.00. The LEC's need to try something clever like lower prices for a bundle of two land lines with unlimited residential long distance and bonded broadband service. That way the customer can obtain higher broadband speeds and two voice lines at reasonable prices. 
