dslreports logo
User Impressions Of AT&T's New 18Mbps U-Verse Tier
Easy upgrade, decent HD image quality....

Last week AT&T unveiled their new 18Mbps U-Verse "Max" tier, and users in our U-Verse forum are putting the new offering through its paces. As we discussed last week, the new tier is aimed at all VDSL customers -- even those with connections that are distance-limited at 25Mbps for both TV and data bandwidth. That means that not only does AT&T need to get rather fancy with compression, but they had to introduce QoS that effectively adjusts to TV bandwidth demands on the fly. In other words, the 18Mbps tier may become considerably less than 18Mbps -- depending on how many HD or SD sets are currently on in your house.

Click for full size
While that sounds like trouble, initial user reports seem promising. Users say the upgrade for existing customers is fairly painless, and customers on a 25Mbps downstream and 2Mbps upstream VDSL profile aren't seeing profile changes.

As for speeds, "tests are around 17250/1450," one new user e-mails me. "When 2HD+2SD streams are in use it drops to 12-13mbps," he says. "When just dual HD streams are in use, it hovers around 15, which isn't too bad." At the moment it looks like the HD compression is topping out at around 5.5-5.8mbps per stream, but that can lower depending on how much line activity is occurring (that's why AT&T recently changed their TOS).

With all this HD rate and prioritization going on, you'd think you'd see a significant hit on HD quality, but users so far say that isn't the case. Or, at least the compression and artifacting is no worse than what they're seeing from local cable operators. "There are some obvious flaws in the picture due to the compression but it's nowhere near as bad as the mess we now get from Time Warner since they've squeezed in 11 new HD channels without SDV," user djrobx See Profile says.

According to some users at the official AT&T forums, when customers call in to get the $65 tier (as opposed to upgrading online), AT&T's offering a $10 discount for six months. Some of our users also say that calling in resulted in them getting $20 AT&T VISA gift cards, a promotion AT&T is running throughout Novemeber for users who upgrade.
view:
topics flat nest 

tad2020
join:2007-07-17
Orange, CA

tad2020

Member

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.

jadebangle
Premium Member
join:2007-05-22
00000

jadebangle

Premium Member

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

Alakar
Facts do not cease to exist when ignored
join:2001-03-23
Milwaukee, WI

Alakar

Member

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.

Metatron2008
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

Metatron2008

Premium Member

Re: Well...

LMAO

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Question about STB on & tuned to channel but TV off

I 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?

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

en102

Member

Re: Question about STB on & tuned to channel but TV off

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.

I have a 'cheapo' universal DVD to TV connector which does just that... and its only $15.

NetAdmin1
CCNA
join:2008-05-22

NetAdmin1

Member

Re: Question about STB on & tuned to channel but TV off

said 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

djrobx to en102

Premium Member

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.

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

en102

Member

Re: Question about STB on & tuned to channel but TV off

Sounds like my OTA devices. They have a 4 hour no activity turn off.

Smith6612
MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY

Smith6612 to FFH5

MVM

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

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.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

1 recommendation

MyDogHsFleas to FFH5

Premium Member

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.

jchambers28
Premium Member
join:2007-05-12
Peculiar, MO

jchambers28

Premium Member

att

att 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

Re: att

Yeah. ATT really sucks big time.
Ikarasu
join:2004-01-09
Port Coquitlam, BC

Ikarasu

Member

Re: att

Yeah. 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

Re: att

Nothing 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

Re: att

Click for full size
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

Re: att

said by djrobx:

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.
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.

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

djrobx

Premium Member

Re: att

said by imrf:
said by djrobx:

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.
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).

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

en102

Member

Re: att

Telco 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

imrf to djrobx

Premium Member

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

Re: att

quote:
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.

EG
The wings of love
Premium Member
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ

1 edit

EG to Ikyuao

Premium Member

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

Re: att

Because 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

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."
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to jchambers28

Premium Member

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

NetAdmin1
CCNA
join:2008-05-22

NetAdmin1

Member

Re: att

said 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

Re: att

Actually, 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.

NetAdmin1
CCNA
join:2008-05-22

1 edit

NetAdmin1

Member

Re: att

said 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

Re: att

said 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.

NetAdmin1
CCNA
join:2008-05-22

NetAdmin1

Member

Re: att

said 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.

Harddrive
Proud American and Infidel since 1968.
Premium Member
join:2000-09-20
Fort Worth, TX

Harddrive

Premium Member

I want U-Verse.

i want U-Verse so bad, i could dump water on a cat.
»How To Get A Cat Off The Hood

•••
daveberstein
join:2002-07-15
New York, NY

daveberstein

Member

Real data appreciated

Karl
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
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: Real data appreciated

I'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

Reach that cap even faster!

Seriously does it matter if they have stupidly low caps?

•••

ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17

ftthz

Member

not too bad

too bad no uverse in my area

•••••

hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium Member
join:2005-06-29
Florence, SC

hayabusa3303

Premium Member

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

speeds

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.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: speeds

said 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?

btaylor1
Don't Tread On My Avatar
MVM
join:2002-10-13
Dallas, TX

btaylor1

MVM

max18 nice

i 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
decifal7
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN

decifal7

Member

it kills me

It 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_man
Things Happen For A Reason
Premium Member
join:2001-01-27
Port Saint Lucie, FL

fiber_man

Premium Member

Re: it kills me

Get 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.
decifal7
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN

decifal7

Member

Re: it kills me

Right, 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.

Fox McCloud
Crazy like a fox.
join:2006-07-23

Fox McCloud

Member

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+).

•••

ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium Member
join:2001-08-02
La Porte, IN

1 edit

ztmike

Premium Member

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.
decifal7
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN

decifal7

Member

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....
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas to ztmike

Premium Member

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
@exacttarget.com

djsars

Anon

tier 2 support

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.

David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL

David

Premium Member

Re: tier 2 support

said 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.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas to djsars

Premium Member

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.
rmergner
join:2002-02-02
Pipersville, PA

rmergner

Member

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
@comcast.net

ScrewMaster

Anon

Re: ATT makes your neighborhood look nice too....

I think they have some pretty big batteries in those things.