djeremy
join:2004-07-12
San Francisco, CA | reply to Brandon1979
Re: AT&T is smart, IMO... How do you figure AT&T has the most competitive TV offering? We have 3 HDTVs in our house each with a Directv DVR that is able to pull 2 HD channels at the same time. Cable can do this, satellite can do this, Uverse cannot and probably won't be able to until they go fiber. |
|
| Wow They are pretty much hitting the wall already?
It's going to be fun to see them trying to offer 20Mb internet (or 40Mb bonded) while dealing with various distance limitation for each customer.
In the mean time, cable and FTTH can expand their speed up to 100Mb and beyond. |
|
 alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA | reply to burgerwars
Re: Should have done FTTH from the start. said by burgerwars:FTTN instead of FTTH is the one reason I didn't sign-up with Uverse. It's never too late for AT&T to start laying fiber on the last mile. AT&T are you listening? I don't think they can easily change to FTTH with the existing design. All the Electronics have to be changed, and it takes AT&T 5 to 10 years to research and change Technologies. 5 years ago, Uverse with VDSL sounded good, but now it's obsolete and like I said years ago, AT&T dug themselves into a hole. Now the Bean Counters and BellHeads at AT&T are doomed to fail! |
|
| reply to jandar1
Some areas under Project Lightspeed were rebuilt from Copper to FTTH. They're very very limited though. One is in the Monroe Michigan area. But they're still limited on bandwidth. They're capped at what ever DSL is. So really ATT is just playing games with the money. They'll milk it out until Comcast really runs them out and ATT sells off the network. |
|
| reply to TheGuvnor
Re: AT&T is doing it right. Too bad it crashes all the time for me... |
|
 d_lBarsoomPremium,MVM
join:2002-12-08
Reno, NV
kudos:7 | 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. Just how are they supposed to do that? The VRAD nodes are placed adjacent to the existing SAI fan out points of the F2 lines.
Placing more nodes would require chopping up and re-engineering the copper network to include "mini-SAI"s with each of these new nodes (mini-VRADs) that you want to deploy. Can you imagine the POTS outages this re-engineering program would cause while the new SAIs were installed?
If, say, they halved the copper loop distance with these closer nodes than what they have now, that would mean they would be installing at least four times more SAI/node boxes than they are now. Certainly these hypothetical boxes would be smaller than the current VRADs because they would be designed for fewer connections, but four times more installations would cause more grief from four times more property owners that would find these new boxes installed on their property ROW.
The current overbuild VRADs are installed next to existing SAI cabinets which are often the same height or taller than the VRAD additions (a fact that Karl always fails to report in his "VRAD exposes"  ). The property owners already know that they have a cabinet on their property so the addition of a VRAD shouldn't be such a shock to them. |
|
| Here in Tustin, CA, AT&T has started going back and installing more VRADs where they just finished installing them. These are the full VRADs they've used before and at some places they're placing new full SAIs too. Some of these new ones are just a block from another. I'm guessing they're having some serious issues getting things working properly here when even 2000' loops aren't working.
The VRADs the use here are just as tall at the SAIs but twice as wide, so they block the sidewalks more which as been causing them to move things around a lot. Some of "mega" VRADs they install near housing developments are nearly 6' tall and 4' square. I've seen a few "tall and skinny ones around in nearby cities, their like 5'x2'x3', but they have only been installed next to the old PacBell DSLAMs that are the size of a small SUV. |
|
poolek
join:2003-11-04
Austin, TX Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·ViaTalk
| more to it than just current line speed I'm a recent uverse customer. I'd prefer to see FTTH, but I don't think going FTTN is a deal killer. There are many alternative ways to maximize the connection:
- Networked DVR, recording 100% of the content and allowing users to go backwards in the program guide. Microsoft already has this technology enabled in Mediaroom. If ATT deploys that, you'll only consume bandwidth on channels you're currently watching since you won't need to record anything local.
- Wireless integration - their new 3g stuff is what - 20mb down? Integrate some of that technology in the RG to support additional bandwidth when needed - or set up local Wifi mesh-like networks in dense areas.
- ATSC Tuners - add a couple of the DVR ala Dish/Direct. Further reduction of bandwidth needs when watching local content
- Improvement in technology - 10 years ago, 'fast' over copper was 128k ISDN. Today, I'm 2700 feet from the VRAD and sync at over 40mb/sec. Who knows what we'll see 10 years from now. Similar things with compression technology - the quality/size ratio seen today with MPEG4 was unthinkable a few years ago.
With FTTH, they wouldn't have to worry about any of this - but technology has a way of fixing things if you wait long enough, and it appears ATT's strategy is to wait. |
|
 TMMerlinThe Devil made me do it
join:2003-06-19
Oxford, MI
 ·EarthLink
·AT&T U-Verse
| FTTN makes great business sense FTTH is gross overkill in rebuilding a network when there is so much copper already in the ground. FTTH does make sense in new or replacement construction.
Speeds over 10meg for Internet is a "fools wish" .. as long as TV gets delivered competitively.
I have seen 3meg & 8meg access .. hardly a "hairs difference" for the average internet user and I am not a fan of ITV, so U-versus TV is just fine.
And I didn't let AT&T screw me on the landline phone number either. I backed that down to "basic residential line" of under $20 and use my cell phone for LD.
Comcast can take their 50Mbps and DOCSIS 3.0 and "sell it to somebody that gives a crap". The cable industry screwed me for years and I will NEVER go back to cable...!!
--
Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy but they become legend. |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | reply to djeremy
Re: AT&T is smart, IMO... And how often do you actually have all 6HD streams going? How often do you think the average joe has all 6 going? While such a limitation may be problem for yourself, for the vast majority it is not even an issue.
U-verse is currently limited to 4 incoming streams and they still have no problem getting customers. ATT has spent 1/3 to 1/2 of what verizon did and they are both attracting customers at about the same rate. |
|
| reply to jefflisa2
Re: Your World. Delivered. Close, SBC bought them and kept the at&t name which I though was stupid. They should have let the name die! |
|
decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| Waste The Vrad deployment cost + distance serviceable for Uverse is rather horrid.. It would work for the projects and dense subdivisions and the like, but for normal deployments it just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.. why deploy such a range limited technology when other things are available? Do they want to fail? Or are they just that happy to be unsatisfactory in quality of service?
I still wish ATT would sell my territory to a local provider that'll actually take care of us.. I've seen a many local's upgrade their equipment, granted the cost is slightly higher than ATT's, but damn, i'd pay it in a heart beat... I just want to be a customer with an option |
|
djeremy
join:2004-07-12
San Francisco, CA | reply to cwh
Re: AT&T is smart, IMO... Actually, being that 3 of us live here and all watch different prime time shows, quite often. And remember, anyone buying a new TV or even a second or third TV for their house will be buying an HDTV.
I thought that AT&T was only able to push 2 HD streams and 2 SD, or 4 SD at the same time. |
|
|
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | said by djeremy:Actually, being that 3 of us live here and all watch different prime time shows, quite often. And remember, anyone buying a new TV or even a second or third TV for their house will be buying an HDTV. You are quite correct on that. And it is still going to take a decade or so to replace every SD tv out there.
I thought that AT&T was only able to push 2 HD streams and 2 SD, or 4 SD at the same time.
That would still be 4 total. |
|
| reply to bigd9834
Re: regular dsl speeds Probobly about the same time as when I will be able to get DSL and up upgrade from 19.2K dialup. |
|
| reply to tad2020
Re: It can go faster then 18 Mbps I drove by one of the tall, skinny ones at lunch, they're taller than the DSLAMs (which are already 6'), I'd say they're 7'x4'x2.5'. They're huge actually, they just don't look like it next to those monstrous DSLAMs. |
|
slckusrPremium
join:2003-03-17
Maumee, OH
kudos:1 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| FTTH is the future. Data is the future. to be so short sided that they wouldnt rebuild their network doesnt make much sense.
All of the new "smart" devices will use some sort of bandwidth, consumers will continue to pull more and more information/entertainment from the internet. In 10 years will 20/40 mbps be enough?? ATT is doing its customers and our country a disservice by not building their network out to support increased speeds and capacity. |
|
| Cannot get AT&T to install a DSLAM BOX by the time they do they will have to install two or three boxes at each location, here comes the BIG REFRIGERATOR BOXES. |
|
MadtownPremium
join:2008-04-26
Madera, CA | reply to CaptainRR
Re: Your World. Delivered. said by CaptainRR:Close, SBC bought them and kept the at&t name which I though was stupid. They should have let the name die! The name doesn't matter to me, all that matters is if the service is reliable, has good customer's support, and have good internet speed and good prices. |
|
| Why wait for fiber? The Company paid $6 Billion on the 700 mghz spectrum last year. 700 mghz can go 25 miles between towers,key is, due to it's low freq., it can penetrate concrete walls without interference. Now, add wireless cell repeaters to Vrads and give the customers a new wireless router. At&t's costs of deployment now,solved. No digging in gated communities to cut bridgetap in the buried, No more 6 hr installation nightmares. Condos and apartments now don't need rewiring. Why waste money on pair anything, or even fiber, when they plan to get it to you over the AIR. They cannot afford to wait and play later game, because it will be too late then. |
|
