|
Well...Well I'm a little surprised by how well it actually ended up reaching 18Mbps. I was expecting like 12-14.
But I'd still like to know what they plan to cap this tier at. | |
|
| |
Re: Well...i recently dumped att and went with bellsouth so sorry the caps are also another minus as att is getting stingy and losing out to cable competitor | |
|
| | AlakarFacts do not cease to exist when ignored join:2001-03-23 Milwaukee, WI |
Alakar
Member
2008-Nov-10 8:52 pm
Re: Well...said by jadebangle:i recently dumped att and went with bellsouth so sorry the caps are also another minus as att is getting stingy and losing out to cable competitor Uh, Bellsouth is AT&T. | |
|
| | | Metatron2008You're it Premium Member join:2008-09-02 united state |
Re: Well...LMAO | |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2008-Nov-10 6:14 pm
Question about STB on & tuned to channel but TV offI know most people leave their STB on all the time and tuned to the last channel they watched before turning the TV off. If you have a couple TVs and are not actually watching them but leave the STBs on, won't that then impact the internet speeds?
Does AT&T recommend some procedure to TURN OFF the STBs when not actually watching TV to keep internet speeds at max capability? | |
|
| en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA |
en102
Member
2008-Nov-10 6:46 pm
Re: Question about STB on & tuned to channel but TV offI wonder if its possible to 'sense' if TV is actually in use (i.e. different voltage/resistance/current level) and adjust accordingly. Eg. If the TV is off, the STB 'should' be smart enough to know that the TV isn't in use, and power off itself, and save bandwidth.
I have a 'cheapo' universal DVD to TV connector which does just that... and its only $15. | |
|
| | |
Re: Question about STB on & tuned to channel but TV offsaid by en102:I wonder if its possible to 'sense' if TV is actually in use (i.e. different voltage/resistance/current level) and adjust accordingly. You would have to have the TV connected to a power outlet on the back of the STB, like some cable boxes have. You could then monitor the current passing through to that outlet and could determine if the TV was on or not. However, the box would need an outlet and/or an ammeter. | |
|
| | djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV |
to en102
quote: I wonder if its possible to 'sense' if TV is actually in use (i.e. different voltage/resistance/current level) and adjust accordingly. Eg. If the TV is off, the STB 'should' be smart enough to know that the TV isn't in use, and power off itself, and save bandwidth.
The U-Verse receiver itself times out and shuts off if there's no activity for 6 hours (much to the ire of people trying to use it with a TiVo DVR). I have my universal remote programmed to turn the DVR off when I power off. | |
|
| | | en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA |
en102
Member
2008-Nov-10 10:23 pm
Re: Question about STB on & tuned to channel but TV offSounds like my OTA devices. They have a 4 hour no activity turn off. | |
|
| Smith6612 MVM join:2008-02-01 North Tonawanda, NY |
to FFH5
I don't know what AT&T recommends at all, but certainly even though I'm a Verizon user with satellite TV, I switch off my STBs when they're not in use. No particular reason other than to let the receivers update thee software and guide. | |
|
| ht4 @comcast.net |
ht4 to FFH5
Anon
2008-Nov-10 7:08 pm
to FFH5
yes the tv do inpact the speed. my friend got the service. he signed up for the 3mbps plan. but when he turns his hd tv the speed drop in half for him. att came out several time and said they can not do anything about that. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
to FFH5
Yes, the procedure for turning off the STBs when not in use is to press the Power Off button on the remote. A surprising number of people never turn off their STB. This is not just an AT&T phenomenon. As noted above, the U-verse STBs do go into "standby" mode if no activity for some number of hours. Now that AT&T is sharing bandwidth between TV and Internet, people really should learn to turn off their STBs when not watching TV. | |
|
|
attatt has some screwed up shit. watching tv affects your internet speeds that's a bunch of bull shit. | |
|
| Ikyuao join:2007-02-26 Wichita, KS |
Ikyuao
Member
2008-Nov-10 7:04 pm
Re: attYeah. ATT really sucks big time. | |
|
| | Ikarasu join:2004-01-09 Port Coquitlam, BC |
Re: attYeah. God forbid an ISP gets into the TV business with IPTV.
Innovation, it sucks big time! | |
|
| | | imrf Premium Member join:2002-06-06 Utica, MI |
imrf
Premium Member
2008-Nov-10 7:17 pm
Re: attNothing wrong with it, but they should have used a better delivery system than VDSL. | |
|
| | | | djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV 1 edit |
djrobx
Premium Member
2008-Nov-10 7:41 pm
Re: att Palladia |
said by imrf:Nothing wrong with it, but they should have used a better delivery system than VDSL. Agreed. However, I do give AT&T credit for making each and evey megabit out of the 25 count. Time Warner Cable, on the other hand, has all sorts of capacity, yet they're delivering poor quality HD video and a piss-poor selection of HD channels in our area. AT&T's highly compressed MPEG-4 video does have its flaws but it never completely loses its composure like what I've recently been getting from TW (I have both services.). It's a shame because the TW PQ was excellent prior to the recent channel additions. | |
|
| | | | | imrf Premium Member join:2002-06-06 Utica, MI |
imrf
Premium Member
2008-Nov-10 7:45 pm
Re: attYou know for a fact that they don't have open bandwidth? I tend to think they are out of capacity and haven't fully implemented SDV, and once they do they can remove the overcompression. | |
|
| | | | | | djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV |
djrobx
Premium Member
2008-Nov-10 8:24 pm
Re: attsaid by imrf:You know for a fact that they don't have open bandwidth? I tend to think they are out of capacity and haven't fully implemented SDV, and once they do they can remove the overcompression. I didn't say they had open capacity - just lots of capacity. Cable has so much potential, but from my perspective as a customer, a lot of it seems to get lost in slow upgrade cycles. Even if they get SDV and fix the compression tomorrow, what about the 6412 DVR with software from 2003 that doesn't allow me to watch my HD shows across TVs in the house? Verizon's essentially working with digital cable gear, but they're doing multi-room DVR. Why not Time Warner? Perhaps TW should have been a little more aggressive about getting SDV rolled out consistently across LA if that's their path to competitve HD service. The Adelphia/Comcast buyout is no longer a valid excuse, they've had the systems for over 2 years. Whatever the rationale for the current state of things is, I'm eager for the fix. I switched to AT&T expecting it to be a band-aid until TW got their upgrades done. At this rate the tortoise (AT&T) is going to beat the hare (TW). | |
|
| | | | | | | en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA |
en102
Member
2008-Nov-10 10:26 pm
Re: attTelco hasn't been fast on everything either... I'm still waiting for Uverse Voice. At least AT&T _finally_ pushed its 3G over 850MHz in Valencia | |
|
| | | | | | | imrf Premium Member join:2002-06-06 Utica, MI |
to djrobx
said by djrobx:what about the 6412 DVR with software from 2003 that doesn't allow me to watch my HD shows across TVs in the house? Verizon's essentially working with digital cable gear, but they're doing multi-room DVR. Why not Time Warner? Ok, first of all, the 6412 isn't MoCA capable like the newer version boxes that Verizon uses. That's why Verizon can already. And TWC, if the area uses SA boxes, they use a special splitter that is required and only allows for 4 boxes to be hooked up to it. Perhaps TW should have been a little more aggressive about getting SDV rolled out consistently across LA if that's their path to competitve HD service. The Adelphia/Comcast buyout is no longer a valid excuse, they've had the systems for over 2 years. Whatever the rationale for the current state of things is, I'm eager for the fix. I'm just gonna guess and they just think AT&T isn't a real competitor. I dunno. | |
|
| | | | | | | | djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV |
djrobx
Premium Member
2008-Nov-11 2:19 pm
Re: attquote: Ok, first of all, the 6412 isn't MoCA capable like the newer version boxes that Verizon uses. That's why Verizon can already. And TWC, if the area uses SA boxes, they use a special splitter that is required and only allows for 4 boxes to be hooked up to it.
Of course I don't expect them to make the old hardware to perform eccentric new tricks. But they could offer new, more advanced MoCA capable boxes to customers who want them for a fee. That's what I mean by slow upgrade cycles. With Direct or Dish I can go buy a new fancified receiver every couple years if I want to keep up with the latest and greatest. quote: I'm just gonna guess and they just think AT&T isn't a real competitor. I dunno.
Or DirecTV, or Verizon, or DISH Netork... TWC's sluggishness in deploying HD in LA made the front page of the Los Angeles Times in May. The channels they promised to deliver by July 1 in this article are still not rolled out in some areas! Now, when I read that article, I would have thought that meant they've been working to roll SDV out. 7 months later, the channels have been crammed in, PQ is suffering and there's still no SDV. Lord knows how long we'll be waiting for the next batch of channels. Meanwhile rumor has it AT&T's prepping for a new batch of HD channels for the end of Nov or early Dec. I'm sure a year or two from now they'll finally make their technological leaps and all will be well again. | |
|
| | EGThe wings of love Premium Member join:2006-11-18 Union, NJ 1 edit |
EG to Ikyuao
Premium Member
2008-Nov-10 10:39 pm
to Ikyuao
said by Ikyuao:Yeah. ATT really sucks big time. Why do you say that ? Can you please give some examples ? | |
|
| | | Ikyuao join:2007-02-26 Wichita, KS |
Ikyuao
Member
2008-Nov-10 10:44 pm
Re: attBecause ATT don't bring their own U-Verse in Wichita, KS so cox is my cable provider only I experienced with cox cable is really great and been faster speeds in fact. | |
|
| | | blips join:2001-04-17 Addison, IL |
blips to EG
Member
2008-Nov-11 8:50 am
to EG
1. Caps 2. They hand over all your communications to the NSA without any warrant. 3. I'm sure they will at some point throttle competitors from send data down "their pipe" unless there is a net neutrality law put in place. And it will be all for a "better user experience." | |
|
| KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to jchambers28
an HFC network likely is capable of tons more bandwidth then we have now, however it needs to be 1ghz and have DOCSIS 3.0 | |
|
| | |
Re: attsaid by Kearnstd:an HFC network likely is capable of tons more bandwidth then we have now, however it needs to be 1ghz and have DOCSIS 3.0 You can actually go beyond 1Ghz. Problem is that you have to replace all of the taps, amps, etc. and adjust the spacing of those various network elements. There is already one company, Vyyo, that has products capable of pushing 3Ghz over coax. Problem is getting the plant ready. | |
|
| | | imrf Premium Member join:2002-06-06 Utica, MI |
imrf
Premium Member
2008-Nov-11 1:28 pm
Re: attActually, that isn't true. The Vyyo system is one of the many failed attempts at Ultrawide band. The plant is left alone for the most part, and at certain points the Vyyo gear is installed to inject a data stream or to remove it. It's not practical, so it will fail, like all the others who have attempted before them. | |
|
| | | | 1 edit |
Re: attsaid by imrf:Actually, that isn't true. Based on what ? Their own documentation talks about replacing plant equipment like taps and amps to support 3Ghz. Or are you talking about the ability to go beyond 1Ghz? | |
|
| | | | | imrf Premium Member join:2002-06-06 Utica, MI |
imrf
Premium Member
2008-Nov-11 2:35 pm
Re: attsaid by NetAdmin1: Their own documentation talks about replacing plant equipment like taps and amps to support 3Ghz. The documents from their website that I read said the existing plant does not have to be touched, beyond splicing in their gear. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: attsaid by imrf:The documents from their website that I read said the existing plant does not have to be touched, beyond splicing in their gear. The documents on their website are very general. I've been told by people who have sat down face to face with them that some work needs to be done to the plant if your spacing between certain types of equipment isn't right. | |
|
|
| ••• |
|
Real data appreciatedKarl U-Verse was originally designed for 25 meg down, which would be 15 meg for 2 HD 2 SD and ten for data. Several senior at AT&T until recently asked question like "why does anyone need more than 3 megabits." A new team at the top understands more, and there are several moves underway for modest bandwidth increases, although nothing like FIOS is in the budget as far as they are telling Wall Street. I've had my disputes with some of them, but they are proving extremely competent at what they do. Which isn't necessarily a good thing for us, because some of what they say they do are things about how to get the most dollars from the customer while keeping the "headline price" much lower.
De La Vega, AT&T #2, specifically said they would sell the full 25 meg to people who didn't want their TV from AT&T, but that's apparently in the future. db | |
|
| |
Re: Real data appreciatedI'm also hoping that they will increase the 25 megabit profile for those who are synching at a higher native rate, and that they will intro VDSL2 sooner rather than later, which will also increase rates, but more importantly connection distances. | |
|
88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2008-Nov-10 7:54 pm
Reach that cap even faster!Seriously does it matter if they have stupidly low caps? | |
|
| ••• |
ftthzIf love can kill hate can also save join:2005-10-17 |
ftthz
Member
2008-Nov-10 8:01 pm
not too badtoo bad no uverse in my area | |
|
| ••••• |
hayabusa3303Over 200 mph Premium Member join:2005-06-29 Florence, SC |
Next in the news.Att starts metering Uverse Tv, to get the USA FIT.
Ok rant off. | |
|
jgkolt Premium Member join:2004-02-21 Avon, OH |
jgkolt
Premium Member
2008-Nov-10 8:59 pm
speedsSpeeds should by no way be reduced for internet if you are using one of thier other services (tv). This is a case against att tv. | |
|
| |
Re: speedssaid by jgkolt:Speeds should by no way be reduced for internet if you are using one of thier other services (tv). This is a case against att tv. That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is: They have a budget of 25 megabits. Before, they did static partitioning of that budget between TV, Voice, and Internet. Thus the highest Internet speed was 10 megabits. Now, they've gotten smart and have dynamic partitioning of the bandwidth budget. You can now use up to 18 megabits for Internet, and the TV and Voice services will reduce that somewhat, but only when they are in use. Personally, I think this is a plus. Would you rather they just never made the higher speeds available at all? | |
|
btaylor1Don't Tread On My Avatar MVM join:2002-10-13 Dallas, TX |
max18 nicei got this upgrade today and it's delightful
went from about 9.5Mbps down to 17.something instead
sweet and solid
i only went up to about 10Mbps down via a separate linksys i have in the line. that's not at&t's issue but i am hopeful a much smarter (than me) friend will help me resolved that | |
|
|
it kills meIt just kills me to think, that being ATT will always likely be my telco due to lack of provider options that I will be delayed probably another 10 years or till cable runs their lines another mile to service another 50 customers.. Why?
I personally feel they will eventually realize that the fiber to node method isn't sufficient for alotta applications and yet again, rebuild from city populations outward to ruralish areas.. What does this mean? Another long excuse/reason for our area not to be upgraded. Obviously Verizon proved that the fiber method works extremely well. I personally hope that verizon fills out their footprint and builds into ATT territory, but I won't be surprised if for some reason its not even legal for them to do so.. Some laws/permits absolutely make no sense for the benefit of the consumer..
Even this new US chief of Technology guy that Obama proposes to put into power will likely be nothing more than ATT's henchman in disguise ..
And yes, I bitch alot about this.. And I do write my soo called officials, and local papers... Amazingly, i've been published a couple times with folks agreeing ( imagine that )) | |
|
| fiber_manThings Happen For A Reason Premium Member join:2001-01-27 Port Saint Lucie, FL |
Re: it kills meGet real! After they broke up AT&T over 20 years ago all of the new Ilec had the power to go into the other territories and didn't. Now look at what is left of the breakup AT&T,Verizon,and Qwest. My guess is another merger/takeover is in the works. Verizon/Alltel merger just got approved by DOJ. Time will tell. | |
|
| | |
Re: it kills meRight, but did we have mainstream internet of today 20 years ago? Mainly no.. All they offered was phone, maybe some other service's, but DSL wasn't here. | |
|
|
Good...if...If you're not really interested in having TV from AT&T, at all, then this would be fine for people who want fast speeds; 18 meg down and 2 meg up is pretty good.
U-Verse is FTTN+VDSL to the home, right?
Why not go with VDSL2? It has a higher bandwidth potential and degrades way slower than VDSL (and at a certain distance just basically acts like ADSL2+). | |
|
| ••• |
ztmikeMark for moderation Premium Member join:2001-08-02 La Porte, IN 1 edit |
ztmike
Premium Member
2008-Nov-10 11:40 pm
Sad.U-Verse has a bandwidth cap to? lol I thought that was just for their dsl side..
lol at&t doesn't even have this rolled out all the way and they are capping users already? Then your TV experience might take a hit from your internet surfing? I'm surprised at&t is not capping how much people watch their TV also. | |
|
| |
Re: Sad.said by ztmike:U-Verse has a bandwidth cap to? lol I thought that was just for their dsl side.. lol at&t doesn't even have this rolled out all the way and they are capping users already? Then your TV experience might take a hit from your internet surfing? I'm surprised at&t is not capping how much people watch their TV also. If they capped how much TV you could watch, this will be the biggest flop in telecom history I think... Who the hell wants to be limited on TV choices when you can simply get Satellite TV, which unlike Satellite internet it works very well as an option for broadcasting.. With the proposed caps they are toying with and the very pathetic range limitations of Uverse from a Vrad, they would be better off just going back to offering HSI to people and let the TV service side sit till they get serious and want to offer fiber to the premisis..... Caps... What the hell man.... | |
|
| |
to ztmike
AT&T is running a trial of caps in Reno, NV. No caps have been put in place elsewhere, and it remains to be seen if caps actually do get imposed (but I would not bet against it), and how big they will actually be.
The caps trial is for both DSL service and U-Verse Internet service (VDSL).
No, there is no cap on U-verse TV. I think it's safe to say that would never happen.
First, U-verse TV does run over their IP backbone, but it's essentially a broadcast (maybe multicast would be a better term). Therefore it consumes only a small amount of the backbone capacity. Contrast this with home consumers running their Internet connections at full speed 24x7 (downloading videos or whatever). Each consumer is using the full capacity of their dedicated pipe. Thus the impact on the backbone is immensly greater than the TV impact.
Second, they could not possibly compete with satellite or cable if they somehow limited the amount of TV you could watch. That's a non-starter. | |
|
|
djsars
Anon
2008-Nov-11 5:30 pm
tier 2 supportNot that this would surprise anyone, but AT&T tech support level 2 stated that the internet bandwidth and tv bandwidth are seperate and not shared.
I then told them I can see my bandwidth decrease each time I turn on another set top box in my house.
I might call level 2 back later and see if I get a different answer.....
They did suggest making a change on the residential gateway but I wasn't at home and they wouldn't let me write down the instructions. Something about auto detect, but that's all I got out of them. | |
|
| David Premium Member join:2002-05-30 Granite City, IL |
David
Premium Member
2008-Nov-11 5:45 pm
Re: tier 2 supportsaid by djsars :
Not that this would surprise anyone, but AT&T tech support level 2 stated that the internet bandwidth and tv bandwidth are seperate and not shared.
I then told them I can see my bandwidth decrease each time I turn on another set top box in my house.
I might call level 2 back later and see if I get a different answer.....
They did suggest making a change on the residential gateway but I wasn't at home and they wouldn't let me write down the instructions. Something about auto detect, but that's all I got out of them. it kind of depends on the pkg, if you have the 18/1.5 I believe with turning on the STB's it should revert the internet side down as opposed to being set split. However, if you have say the 10/1.5 or 6/1 or one of the other pkgs. The speeds for the STB's and your internet are set. | |
|
| |
to djsars
said by djsars :
They did suggest making a change on the residential gateway but I wasn't at home and they wouldn't let me write down the instructions. Something about auto detect, but that's all I got out of them. I'm not at home now so I can't give specifics. But if you get into the management/diagnostic screen of your RG, you can change the settings for detecting the line and service type to what they actually are rather than "auto detect". This helps with some situations. But I doubt seriously it'd solve what you are looking at. | |
|
|
ATT makes your neighborhood look nice too....So do they put one of their refrigerator sized boxes on your street when you get u-Verse. I've read that townships and cities all over the country are suing them over those. That must be some state of the art technology to require a box the size of a coffin to deploy. | |
|
| |
ScrewMaster
Anon
2008-Nov-16 1:26 pm
Re: ATT makes your neighborhood look nice too....I think they have some pretty big batteries in those things. | |
|
|
|