Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 80

Thread: Happy U-Verse customer here

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Chester, IL
    Posts
    7,063
    Device(s)
    iPhone X 64 GB Silver
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Unlimited
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT
    The ironic part about AT&T's FTTH is that it's slower than a good VDSL install. The fiber is capped off at 25mbit for reasons I will never understand. They should have had plans to do FTTH from day 1, as that is the future. If AT&T doesn't do FTTH, then HFC (cable) will kill them. Whoever has the most bandwidth will ultimately win, as long as they use it halfway intelligently.

    If they went FTTH they'd have to spend billions and billions more to reach a much smaller amount of customers. This makes sense in that they can always add FTTC then FTTH later on down the road after they've expanded over a large market. This has been Southwestern Bell/SBC/New ATT's way since they got spun off from Ma Bell. It should shock no one.

    Everyone loved Verizon's way of expanding FiOS until they stopped expanding it, now the people in non-FiOS areas don't like it much.
    Have you read the forum rules lately?

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    420
    Device(s)
    Current - Nexus One & N900 , sold - Jailbroken 3G 8gb / In drawer - Nokia N79
    Carrier(s)
    Tmobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Question for all of you... I went into an at&t store last week and got sold HARD on uverse...they threw everything at me and it pretty much worked. I haven't signed up yet but if I can make some money off the deal and not pay any extra per month compared to my time warner service, than why not? However I see alot of posts in this thread complaining about internet speeds? Is there an issue with not seeing good speeds? I'd be going for the 18mbit plan.

    THanks in advance

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    5,989
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fraydog
    If they went FTTH they'd have to spend billions and billions more to reach a much smaller amount of customers. This makes sense in that they can always add FTTC then FTTH later on down the road after they've expanded over a large market. This has been Southwestern Bell/SBC/New ATT's way since they got spun off from Ma Bell. It should shock no one.

    Everyone loved Verizon's way of expanding FiOS until they stopped expanding it, now the people in non-FiOS areas don't like it much.
    well that is what i try to tell thousands of people on a daily basis cause they all seem to think it costs penny's to run FTTH.... Trying to attempt to run FTTH now will cost in the hundreds of billions of $$.... which is NOT gonna happen. Its cheaper to repair and replace the exiting copper in the ground.
    Southern Bell started running FTTH in a select few smaller upper class neighborhoods but backed off and stopped. Those areas became regular copper fed and the fiber is still there and can be used, they just chose NOT to use it.
    Some of the newer areas that are ~10 ys old have FTTC but are only used for POTS and DSL... And you would have thought those would have been the 1st for U-verse but they are gonna be last. Just like when DSL came out, the 1st area's to get it were the copper fed area's and the FTTC area's were last... Yeah thats real smart thinking Bell...

    While most will agree that FTTH is the future and the probably the best route.. it wont happen cause the cost is just too great... Which is why Verizon stopped it. It was costing too much $$ for the amount of $$ coming in.

    But now AT$T is in the works of Wireless V-Rads which will eliminate the copper in the ground and eliminate lots of jobs... But get that Signal out to more people past the 3200 ft copper limit right now..

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Chester, IL
    Posts
    7,063
    Device(s)
    iPhone X 64 GB Silver
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Unlimited
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JigSaw
    Some of the newer areas that are ~10 ys old have FTTC but are only used for POTS and DSL... And you would have thought those would have been the 1st for U-verse but they are gonna be last. Just like when DSL came out, the 1st area's to get it were the copper fed area's and the FTTC area's were last... Yeah thats real smart thinking Bell...

    While most will agree that FTTH is the future and the probably the best route.. it wont happen cause the cost is just too great... Which is why Verizon stopped it. It was costing too much $$ for the amount of $$ coming in.

    But now AT$T is in the works of Wireless V-Rads which will eliminate the copper in the ground and eliminate lots of jobs... But get that Signal out to more people past the 3200 ft copper limit right now..
    Some of this is typical Bellhead mentality, but the early FTTC deployments used a type of fiber that is incompatible with the standardized U-Verse equipment, that's why they had the f*** up. Ivan was really a visionary with FiOS, but when the economy crashed, so did his strategy. As far as the wireless VRADS go, how are they going to implement this? Pair up VRADS and cell towers so each can use the same microwave backhaul?

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    5,989
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fraydog
    Some of this is typical Bellhead mentality
    ook
    but the early FTTC deployments used a type of fiber that is incompatible with the standardized U-Verse equipment
    ahh ya think...?? It was designed for POTS... Then the hardware & software was semi altered to incorporate DSL... So to get Uverse out of it, they must alter the hardware & software AGAIN...
    As far as the wireless VRADS go, how are they going to implement this? Pair up VRADS and cell towers so each can use the same microwave backhaul?
    ahh no, they put a wireless transmitter near each V-rad cabinet.. They are already testing this in South Florida.. And it does not take much to transmit that signal... Heck look at Sprint's and Verizon's MiFi... Same concept. Put that transmitter at each Vrad, then you have your Uverse MiFi that will pick up that signal and done..

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,406
    Device(s)
    SGS 7, Moto G6
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T MSV 10+10GB, Sprint Free for a year
    Feedback Score
    0
    Stop the talk about wireless VRAD's, that completely ridiculous.

    The problem is that these companies are publicly owned, and Wall Street has no vision. U-Verse might be able to keep it together this year, and maybe next year. But 5-10 years down the line when many households have 3 or more HDTV's, U-Verse isn't going to work for them, and AT&T will lose the most lucrative households. Granted, they will still be strong in the MDU area, where satellite isn't available, and people typically have fewer TV's.

    Yes, it costs over $1000 to bring FTTH to EACH HOME. It's 100% worth it, however, as once you have fiber, you have basically unlimited bandwidth, and future services that need more bandwidth will work just fine. As Fios is configured now, it can bring over 7.5 gigabits of downstream bandwidth into the house, counting both the broadcast and IP data side of things, while U-Verse has 0.032 gigabits of bandwidth in a best case scenario. A fully built out HFC cable plant has 6 gigabits of downstream bandwidth. A DirecTV SL5 has about 5.5 gigabits of bandwidith, while a single Dish Network dish has about 2.5 gigabits. Now, those numbers are not directly comparable, for a whole series of technical and geographic reasons, but when there is a difference of two orders of magnitude, as there is for U-Verse, the end result isn't good.

    The original idea of U-Verse was to have nodes within 1000 feet of the home. Then it grew to 2000, then 3000, now 4000. It's ridiculous.

    I think the idea of an IPTV platform is a very good one, because it can travel over about any physical medium, from phone wire to CAT-5 to RG-6 to fiber, and, unofficially, wifi. However, AT&T needs more bandwidth.

    The desire to get the service out to as many people as possible is a good one, but they should not have cut the corners that they did.

    AT&T should have:

    1. Figured out 10 million homes to get true FTTH.

    2. Figure out another 30 million homes to get 100mbit FTTN, and place VRADs appropriately, with the plans to eventually upgrade these homes to FTTH.

    3. Built a more robust set of hardware, using MoCA instead of HPNA, and better STB's with expandable HDD's, the ability to have multiple DVR's, etc.

    4. Bumped up the bitrate to the equivalent of DirecTV so that they didn't have such awful PQ on the HD channels.

    This would have given them the benefits of an IPTV platform with the ability to use FTTN, FTTC, or FTTH as appropriate and install into MDU's using all sorts of different technology, but without trying to push the system to its' outer limit, just because they are cheap. IPTV is the future, Fios will be IP eventually, cable probably will be too, bridged through DOCSIS. DOCSIS, however, can already handle over 100mbit down, and if a multicasting protocol was added, could handle IPTV using only a tiny fraction of the bandwidth currently used.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Greater Hartford, CT
    Posts
    12,423
    Device(s)
    iPhone XS Max 256Gb
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T Mobility
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    Stop the talk about wireless VRAD's, that completely ridiculous.

    The problem is that these companies are publicly owned, and Wall Street has no vision. U-Verse might be able to keep it together this year, and maybe next year. But 5-10 years down the line when many households have 3 or more HDTV's, U-Verse isn't going to work for them, and AT&T will lose the most lucrative households. Granted, they will still be strong in the MDU area, where satellite isn't available, and people typically have fewer TV's.

    Yes, it costs over $1000 to bring FTTH to EACH HOME. It's 100% worth it, however, as once you have fiber, you have basically unlimited bandwidth, and future services that need more bandwidth will work just fine. As Fios is configured now, it can bring over 7.5 gigabits of downstream bandwidth into the house, counting both the broadcast and IP data side of things, while U-Verse has 0.032 gigabits of bandwidth in a best case scenario. A fully built out HFC cable plant has 6 gigabits of downstream bandwidth. A DirecTV SL5 has about 5.5 gigabits of bandwidith, while a single Dish Network dish has about 2.5 gigabits. Now, those numbers are not directly comparable, for a whole series of technical and geographic reasons, but when there is a difference of two orders of magnitude, as there is for U-Verse, the end result isn't good.

    The original idea of U-Verse was to have nodes within 1000 feet of the home. Then it grew to 2000, then 3000, now 4000. It's ridiculous.

    I think the idea of an IPTV platform is a very good one, because it can travel over about any physical medium, from phone wire to CAT-5 to RG-6 to fiber, and, unofficially, wifi. However, AT&T needs more bandwidth.

    The desire to get the service out to as many people as possible is a good one, but they should not have cut the corners that they did.

    AT&T should have:

    1. Figured out 10 million homes to get true FTTH.

    2. Figure out another 30 million homes to get 100mbit FTTN, and place VRADs appropriately, with the plans to eventually upgrade these homes to FTTH.

    3. Built a more robust set of hardware, using MoCA instead of HPNA, and better STB's with expandable HDD's, the ability to have multiple DVR's, etc.

    4. Bumped up the bitrate to the equivalent of DirecTV so that they didn't have such awful PQ on the HD channels.

    This would have given them the benefits of an IPTV platform with the ability to use FTTN, FTTC, or FTTH as appropriate and install into MDU's using all sorts of different technology, but without trying to push the system to its' outer limit, just because they are cheap. IPTV is the future, Fios will be IP eventually, cable probably will be too, bridged through DOCSIS. DOCSIS, however, can already handle over 100mbit down, and if a multicasting protocol was added, could handle IPTV using only a tiny fraction of the bandwidth currently used.
    Concurred..... I'm amazed AT&T didn't go the fiber route like Verizon did. They need to bring fiber into the home, as copper is not going to cut it eventually.
    Hartford, CT Area

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,406
    Device(s)
    SGS 7, Moto G6
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T MSV 10+10GB, Sprint Free for a year
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DRC72 View Post
    Concurred..... I'm amazed AT&T didn't go the fiber route like Verizon did. They need to bring fiber into the home, as copper is not going to cut it eventually.
    Yeah, I think it's going to be two to three years before the real bandwidth crunch comes, but as more and more 19-24" HDTV's come out, and people want HD in the kitchen, HD in the bedroom, HD in the shop, HD in the kids' room, AT&T is going to be in a stick position. All the cable companies need to do is add a MoCA-enabled multi-room DVR, and drop their outrageous box rental fees, and their existing infrastructure will deliver all that HD.

    The big question is, do you think IPTV or Verizon's QAM-256 approach is better? The lure of un-recompressed HD on Fios and cablecard is big, but a better built IPTV platform on top of FTTH/FTTC with better bitrates could be pretty compelling, especially if it could make an MCE box the DVR through a software-only solution.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    5,989
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    Stop the talk about wireless VRAD's, that completely ridiculous. The problem is that these companies are publicly owned, and Wall Street has no vision. U-Verse might be able to keep it together this year, and maybe next year. But 5-10 years down the line when many households have 3 or more HDTV's, U-Verse isn't going to work for them, and AT&T will lose the most lucrative households. Granted, they will still be strong in the MDU area, where satellite isn't available, and people typically have fewer TV's. Yes, it costs over $1000 to bring FTTH to EACH HOME. It's 100% worth it, however, as once you have fiber, you have basically unlimited bandwidth, and future services that need more bandwidth will work just fine. As Fios is configured now, it can bring over 7.5 gigabits of downstream bandwidth into the house, counting both the broadcast and IP data side of things, while U-Verse has 0.032 gigabits of bandwidth in a best case scenario. A fully built out HFC cable plant has 6 gigabits of downstream bandwidth. A DirecTV SL5 has about 5.5 gigabits of bandwidith, while a single Dish Network dish has about 2.5 gigabits. Now, those numbers are not directly comparable, for a whole series of technical and geographic reasons, but when there is a difference of two orders of magnitude, as there is for U-Verse, the end result isn't good. The original idea of U-Verse was to have nodes within 1000 feet of the home. Then it grew to 2000, then 3000, now 4000. It's ridiculous.
    I think the idea of an IPTV platform is a very good one, because it can travel over about any physical medium, from phone wire to CAT-5 to RG-6 to fiber, and, unofficially, wifi. However, AT&T needs more bandwidth. The desire to get the service out to as many people as possible is a good one, but they should not have cut the corners that they did.
    AT&T should have:
    1. Figured out 10 million homes to get true FTTH.
    2. Figure out another 30 million homes to get 100mbit FTTN, and place VRADs appropriately, with the plans to eventually upgrade these homes to FTTH.
    3. Built a more robust set of hardware, using MoCA instead of HPNA, and better STB's with expandable HDD's, the ability to have multiple DVR's, etc.
    4. Bumped up the bitrate to the equivalent of DirecTV so that they didn't have such awful PQ on the HD channels.
    This would have given them the benefits of an IPTV platform with the ability to use FTTN, FTTC, or FTTH as appropriate and install into MDU's using all sorts of different technology, but without trying to push the system to its' outer limit, just because they are cheap. IPTV is the future, Fios will be IP eventually, cable probably will be too, bridged through DOCSIS. DOCSIS, however, can already handle over 100mbit down, and if a multicasting protocol was added, could handle IPTV using only a tiny fraction of the bandwidth currently used.
    wireless Vrads are ridiculous..?? its the same concept of cellular phones... so are you saying that cellular phones are ridiculous...??

    i agree with everything else you said, but the fact of the matter is that it costs $$$$$ to do all that and AT$T is not the one to spend the $$ to make the $$.... They are $CHEAP$....

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    5,989
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DRC72 View Post
    I'm amazed AT&T didn't go the fiber route like Verizon did. They need to bring fiber into the home, as copper is not going to cut it eventually.
    agreed, but its all about the $$$$, they are cheap... and they see it as fixing the copper over and over will come out cheaper than laying fiber to each home...

    heck, look at what randal stephenson said to Steve Jobs... Its cheaper to run on a ****** network that to build a new one... the #'s just dont work..

    they don't want to invest $$ to build a new network cause they feel the amount of $$ coming back is not feasible...

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,406
    Device(s)
    SGS 7, Moto G6
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T MSV 10+10GB, Sprint Free for a year
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JigSaw View Post
    wireless Vrads are ridiculous..?? its the same concept of cellular phones... so are you saying that cellular phones are ridiculous...??

    i agree with everything else you said, but the fact of the matter is that it costs $$$$$ to do all that and AT$T is not the one to spend the $$ to make the $$.... They are $CHEAP$....
    You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Say you serve 192 homes on a VRAD (can't recall if that's per shelf, or total). Each home has 32mbit of bandwidth, which is an aggregate of 6.1gbit of bandwidth for a VRAD. Even with multicast and bandwidth re-use, there is no way that wireless could EVER support that. GET REAL.

    Cell phones each use about 12kbit of bandwidth for a phone call, and an intermittent 1.5mbit for data (since many are still backhauled on T1's, some upgraded systems are use fiber backhaul and can push 7.2mbit of data).

    Yes, they are cheap. If they weren't they have FTTH. They are, so they use FTTN, and copper from there.

    Now, adding low-power cell phone sites to VRADs would be absolutely genious. It would create rock-solid coverage on existing fiber.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,406
    Device(s)
    SGS 7, Moto G6
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T MSV 10+10GB, Sprint Free for a year
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JigSaw View Post
    agreed, but its all about the $$$$, they are cheap... and they see it as fixing the copper over and over will come out cheaper than laying fiber to each home...

    heck, look at what randal stephenson said to Steve Jobs... Its cheaper to run on a ****** network that to build a new one... the #'s just dont work..

    they don't want to invest $$ to build a new network cause they feel the amount of $$ coming back is not feasible...
    Yes, and that's true over a short term. They clearly didn't look carefully at the long term, as the long term has U-Verse running out of bandwidth.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    5,989
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    You clearly have no clue what you are talking about..
    What part of what i said makes me not know what im talking about..??

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,406
    Device(s)
    SGS 7, Moto G6
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T MSV 10+10GB, Sprint Free for a year
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JigSaw View Post
    What part of what i said makes me not know what im talking about..??
    The fact that you compared a VRAD to a cell phone tower when in fact that are totally different, and talked about a wireless VRAD, which with current technology and data transmission densities, clearly defies the laws of physics. If you knew anything about communication technologies, you would know that the concept of wirelessly transmitting IPTV at that level is just plain ludiciris. Use your head.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    5,989
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    The fact that you compared a VRAD to a cell phone tower when in fact that are totally different
    HOW are they totally different..?? Are they both NOT transmitting signals over the air..?? I didnt ask you if it was the same technology.
    and talked about a wireless VRAD
    Yes cause AT$T is TESTING it as we speak in Flantation Fla.. and is already installing THIS equipment in other cities to get ready to launch it...
    which with current technology and data transmission densities, clearly defies the laws of physics. If you knew anything about communication technologies, you would know that the concept of wirelessly transmitting IPTV at that level is just plain ludiciris. Use your head.
    i didnt ask you if it was physically possible to transmit all that data over the air, did i..?? I didnt ask you nor state that they could support YOUR personal idea of what IPTV would be in the next 10 yrs did i..??

    Use my head... NO, use your head.. All i said was that their alternative to FTTH was to do a wireless VRAD.... Run FTTN and then run it to an antenna transmitter and feed that signal over the air and to a receiver in your home. I dont have a freakin clue on what equipment they are gonna use, let alone give 2 ***** on how it works right now, all i know is that their FTTN to copper to the house is limiting their # of possible customers..
    They dont want to invest on FTTH so their next method is a wireless VRAD.. whether you dont believe it will work or not... or you dont like that idea.. or think or know that todays current technology cant support it, its too bad cause thats where they are going to reach those customers that are past 3k ft... Whether is works or NOT.....

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Bookmarks