dslreports logo
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2007-10-15 11:47:44: AT&T's U-Verse currently locks users down at around 6Mbps, despite the fact that the FTTN system should be capable of offering users a bit more bandwidth. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

It would be nice....

To put some of that unused capacity to work, wether its multiple HD streams or faster net.

BodyBumper
join:2004-06-21
Beverly Hills, CA

BodyBumper

Member

Humph

Too bad they force their u-verse TV service on you.

Doctor Olds
I Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.
Premium Member
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30

Doctor Olds

Premium Member

AT&T consistently behind the curve.

It seems their game plan/business model is to do nothing unless they can bring up the rear after everyone else has innovated and implemented. Why even put out VRADs when mini stingers could supply faster ADSL2+ speeds to many more people. AT&T just seems to consistently stay behind the curve.
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

nasadude

Member

a guess from the ignorant

I don't have any technical knowledge in this particular area, but I wonder if capping the pure fiber customers at the same 6M is because of the equipment at the headend or elsewhere. Maybe ATT is too cheap or not ready to deploy whatever equipment is required for faster speeds to the fiber customers.

would a legacy VDSL system be limited as to the speeds it could deliver over fiber?

EverAndAnon
@verizon.net

EverAndAnon

Anon

"...the fastest broadband that you would ever want to have."

I guess this isn't as subjective a topic as I thought. They'll be kind enough to let you know just what you would ever want to have. Well, that's certainly "nice" of them, huh?
jimbo21503
join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH

jimbo21503

Member

Consistancy

...they are aiming for "a consistent user experience across the board."
It will be consistent when you can offer 100mb/s to everyone you provide service to, not just a select few getting FTTH or those lucky enough to be 'in-range' of your CO/RT.
caco
Premium Member
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK

caco to EverAndAnon

Premium Member

to EverAndAnon

Re: "...the fastest broadband that you would ever want to have."

said by EverAndAnon :

I guess this isn't as subjective a topic as I thought. They'll be kind enough to let you know just what you would ever want to have. Well, that's certainly "nice" of them, huh?
I was thinking the same thing. Talk about being short sighted.

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

djrobx

Premium Member

10mbps is ok but how about more upload

If AT&T can give 1mbps to the lowest priced tier surely they can figure out a way to offer 10/2 to elite customers.

bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
USA

bigunk to jimbo21503

Member

to jimbo21503

Re: Consistancy

said by jimbo21503:
...they are aiming for "a consistent user experience across the board."
That's like when they first rolled out DSL with PPPoE, and we had to use that EnterNet 300 garbage software. Remember their defense of PPPoE? "We want to preserve the dial-up experience for our customers."

Uncle Paul
join:2003-02-04
USA

Uncle Paul

Member

I love my local telephonymonopolyinmylocalhometowny

While I personally feel ATT's plan is purely investor driven, lacking imagination, and wholly unimpressive from the country's largest telecom,

Cue Rick to explain it to you in 5.... 4..... 3....
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4 to BodyBumper

Member

to BodyBumper

Re: Humph

I know someone in MI that has U-verse FTTH and they only have Internet and phone and they don't have IP TV or coax cable.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102 to djrobx

Member

to djrobx

Re: 10mbps is ok but how about more upload

I think there's a limit on upload on the VDSL2, but I don't see where the 'cap' is on upload, only a limit.

»Only 1 HD viewing at a time / COAX or CAT5?
quote:
Broadband Link – Statistics
DSL Down Up

Current Rate: 27264 kbs 2048 kbs
Max Rate: 106600 kbs Not Available

Current Connection:
Current Noise Margin: 28.5 dB Not Available
Current Attenuation: 10.2 dB Not Available
Current Output Power: 13.9 dBm -24.9 dBm
en102

en102 to hottboiinnc4

Member

to hottboiinnc4

Re: Humph

Their sales grunt stated that you 'could' order a package (TV + Internet) and then cancel the TV portion. There were a few specifics that i had to drag out. They won't cancel it if..

You order an Internet service thats faster than DSL thats available to you today (i.e. 6Mbps/1Mbps is faster than the 3Mbps/512kbps that I can get).
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

is that for the v-DSL or their FTTH. My friend never ordered TV at all. even to cancel it. He told them he didnt want it at all and didnt get it. They may try to get you to sign up but not required at least there with AT$T FTTH

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102 to Uncle Paul

Member

to Uncle Paul

Re: I love my local telephonymonopolyinmylocalhometowny

I would tend to agree that AT&T's deployment is primarily investor driven. While IPTV offers many new features, its limits are the physical deployment medium. AT&T will have to resolve those issues as some time.
adsldog
join:2000-12-01
Woodstock, GA

adsldog

Member

Before ATT took over Bellsouth

Before ATT took over Bellsouth the IPTV project there was seeing speeds of 40mps using ADSL2+ at distances of 5000 to 7000 feet. And using MMX we saw speeds of 80-90mps, once ATT took over they scraped all of that and went to VDSL 1.5 which is only capable of speeds of 24mps and much shorter distances. I understand the need for BS to change the platform that ATT is using but why not offer multiple platforms when you already have it in place. Add to what they have not change it, they would have been able to server more customers some with ADSL2+, some with MMX and some with VDSL. If you have someone that id too far to serve with VDSL then you could offer ADSL2+. Just a thought.
Rick5
Premium Member
join:2001-02-06

Rick5

Premium Member

There's only one thing that could start to impress me about

Uverse.

Well, make that two.

The first is to abandon it altogether and let the copper thieves rip the old crap wiring out while they replace it with FTTH.
And who knows? Maybe it's still early enough to salvage the name even.

Uverse..FTTH. Or..Uverse..done right. Or, finger lickin Uverse..or..something like that. So few people now have it anyway...I think the name could be salvaged for a new service while they quietly admit that Verizon..and Rick..have been right all along.

And, the second is..if they're REALLY die hard dead set against doing this and keeping the copper crap...make the whole service based on flexible bandwidth.

Open them pipes up as wide as they can go..for whatever a customer can get out of it. AND..make that bandwidth be available for whatever the customer wants it for at the time.

In other words..no ones home and you don't want to watch tv?
Let ALL the bandwidth be directed towards your HSI connection. 25Mb..50Mb..whatever you can get...with no caps at all.

If it's family time and you're all settling in for a night of HDTV..let the bandwidth be routed back towards that creating some REAL quality HDTV..uncompressed.

If you want two tv's on..and no HSI? Same deal.
It's all up to the customer to control and decide for themselves.

I think that this whole concept would truly create a one home..one connection type of service. User adjustable..flexible bandwidth..and a pretty cool service at that. Something new and quite revolutionary actually.
And, it WOULD let AT&T and their Uverse service compete with the likes of Comcast and others in terms of speeds..if the customer wanted it to at that point in time.

If you think about it..that is exactly what Comcast and Cox are now doing with their powerboost service. Except on a network level. If the extra bandwidth is there and not being used by others..we get it as individuals up to certain limits.

Uverse wouldn't have to have limits in that regard though.
It would be the customer who decides.

When you get right down to it..this whole idea of caps is needed..for what? 6Mb now they say. 10Mb next year.
Why? If there's a 25Mb pipe rolling into the homes now..with sync rates really as high as they say..the bandwidth to even blow away fios and comcast is there..RIGHT NOW.
It's just in how they're trying to divide it up.

AT&T..I think there is your answer.if you're still bound and determined to milk the copper.

Uverse..open it up all the way. Unrestricted bandwidth up to a persons sync rates. User adjustable bandwidth across all the whole service.

Even I could get excited about that.

~Rick
etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
united state

etaadmin

Member

...and we think...

quote:
and we think that's going to go to 10 next year

Are you or are you not going to offer 10mbps down? If so when January, February, December 2008? Place your bets.

Uverse cancellations must be on the rise and of course there is that little DOCSIS3.0 thingie putting on some pressure.

S_engineer
Premium Member
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

S_engineer to Doctor Olds

Premium Member

to Doctor Olds

Re: AT&T consistently behind the curve.

and yet they have some of the best lobbiests. Shows where they have their priorities set.

apeface
join:2000-09-16
Mckinney, TX

apeface to hottboiinnc4

Member

to hottboiinnc4

Re: Humph

Not all ftth is uverse.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102 to Rick5

Member

to Rick5

Re: There's only one thing that could start to impress me about

While I tend to agree with the 'open the pipes' analogy (they _should_ be allowing more than 25Mbps through if users can sync up at even better than 40Mbps)... it _should_ be used to push other services such as 2nd HDTV or higher bandwidth. I personally don't care or need it, but it would sell service better for at least being able to provide more than 1 HD stream.
It would be definately better to have the pipe flexible, and I think that there would have to be some prioritization:

1. VoIP
2. TV/HDTV
3. Internet

Like Rick stated... if there's 50Mbps, you could have a couple of HD streams, and slower Internet (upto ?? Mbps)
If it was all internet, up to ?? whatever package you pay for (lets say this is a special 'flex' power package... "

The only problem that I could see with it is customer support. AT&T's current model is easier to implement, and standard across the board, while a flexible model would benefit some, it would probably cost more to support than AT&T would probably want to pay out.
ace1974
join:2007-06-09
Goldsboro, NC

ace1974 to Rick5

Member

to Rick5
Its funny you talk about how bad copper is but at the same time you boast about your powerboost which comes in on copper lol!!!What is it going to be Rick? Do you hate copper one sentence and love it in another?

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

I know... 'old' twisted pair copper, or old RG59.
In my area, the RG59 copper (or RG-6) to the curb is ~37 years old, while the POTS copper was installed new to the Xbox last year after Edison's 16kV line melted a block's worth of POTS wire.
kcir
join:2005-07-30
Butner, NC

kcir to etaadmin

Member

to etaadmin

Re: ...and we think...

It's really conditional on whether we can force Google that we figure will be using all that extra bandwidth to pay for it all.

MarkyD
Premium Member
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK

MarkyD

Premium Member

what? I actually agree with Rick. Stop the presses!

Rick is right on the money. U-Verse would not be such a joke if AT&T would do some dynamic bandwidth allocation and offer more than one HD stream. Those are the two things that make U-Verse...well...pathetic. Slow speeds compared to the competition, and only one HD stream.
Look at the sync rates that these RGs are hitting! It's not uncommon to see 50mbps or more in terms of sync rates. What's being used? 29mbps of that, MAX, including all four TV streams. It would not be too hard to implement a system that allows for dynamic bandwidth allocation as Rick mentioned. If all my TVs are off, open up my internet pipe and give me the bandwidth that the TVs would be using! I don't understand why AT&T doesn't do this. How could this do anything but benefit them? Maybe they think the average customer won't "understand." However, with people on FTTP having the same limitations imposed as the FTTN people, I don't see dynamic bandwidth allocation happening. AT&T obviously has no desire to be a LEADER in terms of innovative services.
Rick5
Premium Member
join:2001-02-06

Rick5 to ace1974

Premium Member

to ace1974

Re: There's only one thing that could start to impress me about

said by ace1974:

Its funny you talk about how bad copper is but at the same time you boast about your powerboost which comes in on copper lol!!!What is it going to be Rick? Do you hate copper one sentence and love it in another?
Please. Trying to compare telco's copper with coaxial cable is somewhat akin to comparing a hamburger off mcd's dollar menu with a fillet minion because they're both "steak".
siouxmoux
join:2007-09-25

siouxmoux to en102

Member

to en102

Re: It would be nice....

If ATT U-verse would offer speeds of 24/2 I would jump ship from comcast to U-verse in a instant. Since comcast in sf/sj bay area should be rolling out their blast tier 16/2 in 2008. 10/1 would not make the grade for me.

Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium Member
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1

Anonymous_

Premium Member

good

this should force TWC to 15/1 or 2

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536 to MarkyD

Premium Member

to MarkyD

Re: what? I actually agree with Rick. Stop the presses!

What if you want to watch two DIFFERENT hd channels in two DIFFERENT rooms? nogo?
LAME!
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4 to apeface

Member

to apeface

Re: Humph

I know that. Thats why i put FTTH.
page: 1 · 2 · next