Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 80

Thread: Happy U-Verse customer here

  1. #61
    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
    HOW are they totally different..?? Are they both NOT transmitting signals over the air..?? I didnt ask you if it was the same technology.
    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...
    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.....
    How are they different? A few orders of magnitude different amount of bandwidth.

    Get me some pictures of this so-called wireless VRAD. Oh wait, you can't because it doesn't exist.

    Yeah right. AT&T uses copper phone lines, not wireless. Copper phone lines are starved for bandwidth, but they do [mostly for now] work, unlike wireless VRADs, which will not work in the forseeable future.

    They are pair bonding beyond 3000 feet. A "wireless VRAD" is even funnier/ more stupid beyond 3000 feet, because at that point, it may not even be able to handle VOIP, much less internet or TV. The only way to do wireless triple-play is using some sort of wireless data like Wifi, Wimax, or UMTS, VOIP on top of that, and DirecTV for the TV side of it.

    That's not my opinion, that's just the facts. At 3,000 feet with a few hundred or thousand customers, you wouldn't even be able to run a blurry webcam feed, much less IPTV. Period.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    5,989
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    How are they different? A few orders of magnitude different amount of bandwidth.
    OMG bro u just dont get it.. I said they are the same... BOTH TRANSMITTING A SIGNAL FROM POINT A TO POINT B... WHAT PART OF THAT DONT YOU UNDERSTAND... i didnt ask HOW MUCH data could or could NOT be transmitted over the air and over how much distance..... But you obviously keep going there and that is NOT the point of my argument with you... use your head...

    regardless of how right you may think you are, that is the route they are going.... If it works and works well, you were wrong, if it fails, you was right and they was wrong... IRDGAF....

    Im done... have a great day

  3. #63
    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
    OMG bro u just dont get it.. I said they are the same... BOTH TRANSMITTING A SIGNAL FROM POINT A TO POINT B... WHAT PART OF THAT DONT YOU UNDERSTAND... i didnt ask HOW MUCH data could or could NOT be transmitted over the air and over how much distance..... But you obviously keep going there and that is NOT the point of my argument with you... use your head...

    regardless of how right you may think you are, that is the route they are going.... If it works and works well, you were wrong, if it fails, you was right and they was wrong... IRDGAF....

    Im done... have a great day
    The point is, you are wrong. It is impossible to transmit that amount of data. The relevant point is not that they are transmitting data from point A to point B, we've been doing that for years, it's how much data and how reliably. Anyone who thinks that there are wireless VRADs needs to take a dose of reality, because just by suggesting such a notion shows clearly that they have not the slightest clue what they are talking about. Flying cars are literally more practical than a wireless VRAD.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    5,989
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    The point is, you are wrong. It is impossible to transmit that amount of data. The relevant point is not that they are transmitting data from point A to point B, we've been doing that for years, it's how much data and how reliably. Anyone who thinks that there are wireless VRADs needs to take a dose of reality, because just by suggesting such a notion shows clearly that they have not the slightest clue what they are talking about. Flying cars are literally more practical than a wireless VRAD.
    Let me say it AGAIN... maybe have someone else with you to read it and have them explain what it means to you..

    I dont give a rats *** how they are doing so, if it will work or not.... The point is they ARE DOING SO whether you like it or not.. If it works great, if it fails, oh ***** well... I DONT CARE
    and again...

    IM DONE, HAVE A GREAT DAY..

    UNSUBSCRIBED JUST FOR YOU..!!!!

  5. #65
    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
    Let me say it AGAIN... maybe have someone else with you to read it and have them explain what it means to you..

    I dont give a rats *** how they are doing so, if it will work or not.... The point is they ARE DOING SO whether you like it or not.. If it works great, if it fails, oh ***** well... I DONT CARE
    and again...

    IM DONE, HAVE A GREAT DAY..

    UNSUBSCRIBED JUST FOR YOU..!!!!
    You haven't shown a credible source about or picture of this project, because it doesn't exist, and cannot exist because it's not possible. You are full of sh*t, and, amazingly, when it is explained to you why it is completely impossible, it still doesn't seem to penetrate your thick skull.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles/Canada
    Posts
    11,372
    Device(s)
    LG G7 (T-Mobile), iPhone 8 (AT&T)
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    Now, adding low-power cell phone sites to VRADs would be absolutely genious. It would create rock-solid coverage on existing fiber.
    I agree with you on that one. For each VRAD, have a microcell to cover ~1/2 mile.

    This isn't much bigger than a VRAD

    AT&T... your world, throttled.

  7. #67
    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 formercanuck View Post
    I agree with you on that one. For each VRAD, have a microcell to cover ~1/2 mile.

    This isn't much bigger than a VRAD

    Yeah, and it could be even smaller than that. Even a small antenna directly on top of the VRAD would fill in coverage from the towers. Either that, or share the fiber and hang another box off the other side of the pole to balance the VRAD out.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    5,133
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JigSaw View Post
    Your forgetting one important thing about at$t... And that is they don't want to spend $ to make $.
    We all know where this path leads. Those who don't prepare for the future will decline and get bought out by those that do. The cable companies and the fiber companies will take all the market share, and ATT's stock will sink so low that they will get bought out by someone who is willing to invest the $$$.

  9. #69
    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
    Yup, that's where AT&T is headed. Hopefully they realize that U-Verse needs to move to FTTH before it is too late. For the foreseeable future, HFC is going to be king outside of the relatively few areas that have Fios, and with SDV, HFC could actually end up with more bandwidth in use than Fios. Fios can move to IPTV though, so the future is going to be interesting indeed.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Berkeley and Miami
    Posts
    4,779
    Device(s)
    Pixel 3aXL, wife S10
    Carrier(s)
    T-M
    Feedback Score
    0
    Most of the talk here has to do with internet speed. For those who are considering U-verse for TV, I would suggest they see comments elsewhere on the web that universally rate their HD pic quality below cable and sat.

    ...mike
    GoogleVoice (domestic call forwarding and cheap intl. calls) Use GV to give us a "home" number in a 2nd location
    8 T-Mobile lines - Unlimited talk and text, data. TM One plan. Get $10/mo. rebate on 7 lines for low data use. Net cost about $185-190/mo. We haven't had a landline in more than 17 years.

  11. #71
    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 mikethaler View Post
    Most of the talk here has to do with internet speed. For those who are considering U-verse for TV, I would suggest they see comments elsewhere on the web that universally rate their HD pic quality below cable and sat.

    ...mike
    Yup. Quite true.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Greater Hartford, CT
    Posts
    12,379
    Device(s)
    iPhone XS Max 256Gb
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T Mobility
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mikethaler View Post
    Most of the talk here has to do with internet speed. For those who are considering U-verse for TV, I would suggest they see comments elsewhere on the web that universally rate their HD pic quality below cable and sat.

    ...mike
    Doesn't surprise me at all considering their using copper coming in from the street.... Gotta give Verizon credit on this one.
    Hartford, CT Area

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    1,167
    Device(s)
    Motorola Droid
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    If I were to get uverse it would be for phone and internet only. I would probably stick with directv for their HD packages! Too bad its not in my area yet...

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    108
    Device(s)
    Nokia 3589
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    I'm like others here that would like to have u-verse but can't get it? Other neighbors north, south, east & west some as close as 150 yards but still no u-verse.
    Jimmy

  15. #75
    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
    Pair bonding might help you out.

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

Bookmarks