| reply to burgerwars
Re: Should have done FTTH from the start. I don't understand this fanboy-ism of ftth vs fttn. all that matter is speed and much you pay for it, ignoring stuff like caps, throttling, and other wonderful 'features' ISPs are throwing in for free. it is just like the intel vs. amd processor/system architecture. people are so concerned on the architecture that the lose sight of what really matters, performance, power, and price |
|
|
|
 SrsBsns
join:2001-08-30
Oklahoma City, OK | reply to uverseh8r
Re: UVerse Line Bonding AT&T got themselves in too deep on this project. The design was flawed from the start and they spent to much money to just walk away. I bet all kinds of engineer's are like "I told you so" right about now. Just look them trying to patch it paired bonding. It's much like their cell network. A rat's nest. I think in the next year or two Uverse is going to tank. IMO |
|
| reply to kapil
Re: Your World. Delivered. Technically, ATT DID die, remember that they just changed their name..... |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
 ·VOIPo
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to dlewis23
Re: It can go faster then 18 Mbps
Putting nodes closer to homes would have made a huge difference. |
said by dlewis23:U-verse could go faster with out line bonding, its all about if AT&T wants to allow a faster tier. Remember, AT&T wants U-verse to be a triple play product. 18mbps is already pushing things when HDTV service is also on the line. They're looking at a speed bump to 32mbps allow 3HD and less video compression, but it won't be avaialble to all customers.
I don't think the FTTN strategy was necessarily a bad idea, but they needed to put nodes closer to homes. With closer nodes at 50-100mbps, the product would have so much more longevity. It just wasn't smart to bet on "uncooked" technology. By the time something comes along to improve on VDSL, it's going to be needed to match the competition.
Reading user experiences over the last year or so, it seems pretty clear that 25mbps is about all that AT&T's 3000' "target" is good for. It didn't take long for AT&T to introduce a 19mbps profile with even less capabilities. The RG will report higher sync availability, but you need some margin for it to work reliably. You'd think with all of AT&T's experience with ADSL, they'd know that you can't count on real world speeds to match what the specs say it ought to be able to do.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
|
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 | reply to cornelius785
Re: Should have done FTTH from the start. That is very true, what about wireless N, who cares about the medium. I just want speed, and low latency. |
|
| AT&T is smart, IMO... I'm no LEC lover, and that includes AT&T, but on this issue... I think AT&T made a wise decision to opt for a FTTN instead of a FTTH plan. FTTN is like 1/5 the cost of FTTH, and works just fine. Their UVerse product is among the highest rated in customer satisfaction. As well, by waiting, they let Verizon take the hit of initially high fiber equipment costs, and by the time they plan on going FTTH, unit costs on average will be considerably lower.
And lastly, since they will already have lots of already fiber-fed neighborhood UVERSE VRAD boxes close to residences, they're already about halfway there to deploy FTTH when they need to. As things stand now, they have the most competitive TV offering, and among the best overall value propositions out there... and great customer satisfaction.
It will be awhile before there is great pressure for more speed than 18 Mbps down / 1.5 Mbps up, and by then, they will either have good pair bonding options ready OR they will start deploying FTTH from their many neighborhood nodes.
Also, even if they get a late start to upgrading to FTTH, and their Internet speed competitiveness is substantially lacking, they can simply drastically under-price their Internet speeds to see them through until the FTTH is built out, since their wholesale bandwidth costs are quite minimal. That way, they could still keep most customers that have a keen eye on total value of their package TV, Internet, phone deal will provide compared to the competition.
As one commenter said, it really all simply comes down to value, and they can simply price appropriately to keep the competition at bay, especially since they have a cash cow of wireless to see them through any short-term competitiveness issues. |
|
 TechnogeezAgape in amazement.Premium
join:2007-01-20 | reply to cornelius785
Re: Should have done FTTH from the start. I don't understand why you don't understand... |
|
TechnogeezAgape in amazement.Premium
join:2007-01-20 | reply to Brandon1979
Re: AT&T is smart, IMO... You don't happen to work for Comcast, do you? |
|
| Other telcos - LOOK AND LEARN!!! Embarq/CenturyTel - I hope when you deploy a next gen network out here, that it is FTTH not crappy VDSL.
Otherwise I'll just stick with the cable company. |
|
| reply to Brandon1979
Re: AT&T is smart, IMO... It will be awhile before there is great pressure for more speed than 18 Mbps down / 1.5 Mbps up Yeah, that's like, weeks away. |
|
| regular dsl speeds any idea when they are going to increase regular dsl speeds from 6mb? |
|
kd6caeP2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Palmdale, CA | offering more speed for those that want it Not everyone will want the bundle. Some will want just internet, and for those customers, they should give more bandwidth to the internet, allowing customers to perhaps get 20Mbps down maybe 2mbps up. If a customer only wants internet, then give the customer more bandwidth for internet only. This is where Verizon shines, as even with HD, the bandwidth is there to provide everything one would want. |
|
| reply to djrobx
Re: It can go faster then 18 Mbps said by djrobx 
I don't think the FTTN strategy was necessarily a bad idea, but they needed to put nodes closer to homes. With closer nodes at 50-100mbps, the product would have so much more longevity. It just wasn't smart to bet on "uncooked" technology. By the time something comes along to improve on VDSL, it's going to be needed to match the competition. [/BQUOTE :Why did AT&T go with FTTN vs. FTTH, IMHO it was strictly cost. Now the question is in the long run will it really be a cost savings to AT&T? How much more will it cost to go back and retrofit the VRad's for pair bonding? How much more will it cost for extra hardware at the home? What about where there isn't an extra pair of copper availble in tne existing infratstucture, how much more to install some? How much more to install more VRad's to reduce the distance to get the faster speeds? How much more for the maintance and electrical costs for those VRad's? Even then, after spending all these dollars to get to what, 4 concurrent HD streams of TV will that be enough to support what consumers want? HDTV penatration rates are going up and between moew HD sets in the homes and HD DVR's IMHO 4 streams won't be able to handle demand in a few years. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to Brandon1979
Re: AT&T is smart, IMO... said by Brandon1979 :
Also, even if they get a late start to upgrading to FTTH, and their Internet speed competitiveness is substantially lacking, they can simply drastically under-price their Internet speeds to see them through until the FTTH is built out, what in at&t's past has indicated they would ever do that? |
|
stonecrd
join:2001-08-04
Fort Lauderdale, FL
2 edits | reply to Technogeez
I'm kind of confused by this article it was my understanding that VDSL2 and pair binding are completely different solutions, although I assume you could pair bond VDSL2 if you can do so for VDSL. Also it states there are problems with maintaining 25mb lines using VDSL2 and as we all know AT&T is using VDSL and is maintaining 25Mb sych out to 3000' in most cases and that VDSL2 like pair bonding is expected to double distance and bandwidth. So some inconsistencies for me.
Now as for their strategy only time will tell whether FIOS, VDSL or something else wins. I am a UV user, I don't need more than a 6Mb Internet connection but I would like 3-4 HD streams. I like UV because while the AT&T infrastructure might be a limitation I think IPTV is the correct delivery mechanism.
In the end the market will decide, UV has to be competative or they will loose to satellite, cable, FIOS or something new. In the end more choice helps everyone. |
|
Reviews:
·Charter
| reply to TheGuvnor
Re: AT&T is doing it right. Except for the whole part of At&t paying to have 1000's of contractors put in pair bonding in all homes, then pay for fiber and have 1000'd of contractors put it in all homes?
Lets not dorget the multi million dslams.
At&t is doing it right, if doing it right means burning more money then Verizon ever will. |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
·Charter
| reply to cornelius785
Re: Should have done FTTH from the start. said by cornelius785:I don't understand this fanboy-ism of ftth vs fttn. ...snip... that the lose sight of what really matters, performance, power, and price how about using your list of what really matters and compare U-Verse to a FTTH option. i'd love to see the results and how you don't see why people here are upset about AT&T's technology choices. |
|
morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to TheGuvnor
Re: AT&T is doing it right. said by TheGuvnor :
Many said this would have been impossible.
no, many said it was a short-sighted plan by AT&T. i'm not sure any large number of people said it couldn't be done. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
1 edit | reply to TheGuvnor
There are a few factors to consider:
1. Aerial vs. Buried (as you noted) this varies in each location, as it will affect cost
2. Cost now vs cost later (this is the gamble) - hoping to offset future upgrades with current subs
3. Do they really need +18Mbps residential ? If AT&T's costs are less, they 'can' (even though they don't) sell for less.
4. Attempted not to scare wall-street.
If AT&T 'had' the ability to wire at the curb every few residents from fiber, it would be close to 100Mbps/house. I'd say within 5 years it'll be overhauled, or AT&T will be offering cheaper Internet service to keep subscribers. |
|
| reply to Brandon1979
Re: AT&T is smart, IMO... Apparently, Brandon1979 is sucking up ATT Prozac by the hand full. His world view is just a wee bit too rosy... not to mention illogical, illusionary and delusional.
I live in an ATT monopoly area, five miles or less from Verizon land. It is like living in East Berlin looking over the wall to the free world. It is the juxtaposition of the efficacy of well-funded modern western medical pharmacology (Verizon) vs a slimy snake oil salesman's (ATT) preposterous, ineffective and likely poisonous concoctions. As the industry is presently constructed, as in the world of Highlander, in the end, there can be only one. Unless, territorial distinction and monopoly area based competition is eliminated in favor of true competition. |
|
