bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | reply to TK Junk Mail
Re: Could be solved by 3rd party investigation
Comcast just needs a scapegoat for their service issues. There'd be no reason for backfeeding to Comcast nor would the interference be unidirectional. |
|
compugeek
Have you pooped today?
Premium
join:2002-07-30
Pickerington, OH | It isn't a scapegoat, I have seen it first hand on an analyzer.
Geek
--
»www.itsnewtoyou.biz |
|
jt45
@comcast.net
| reply to bogey780
and how do you know it is not causing problems. you dont know you just think you know. i agree with the first person . get a 3rd party in voled to look into this. you dont know that it is or is not causing a problem. you just like to think you know. stupid people!!!!! |
|
justbits
More fiber than ATT can handle
Premium
join:2003-01-08
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to compugeek
So, is the interference being injected by installations where the HomePNA coax is accidentally left connected to the Comcast connection, or is it VDSL over POTS that's causing it?
Is it possible the enduser/customer is responsible for interconnecting the AT+T gateways that are using coax & Comcast coax networks? |
|
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
 ·VoicePulse
| According to the article, the problem arises when the customer mixes UVerse with cable internet. In that instance, the cableco line would NOT be disconnected. Both signals are being injected into the same wiring, and it's not hard to imagine one causing issues for the other. It sounds like the UVerse techs should be installing some sort of backstop signal filter, which would stop the uverse signal from traveling back up the cableco line feed.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/Seagate 750.10/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler |
|
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Corona, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
edit:
April 23rd, @07:49PM
| reply to jt45
Well, if AT&T equipment were to interfere with Comcast, it would be logically implied that the Comcast signals are interfering with AT&T's equipment, right?
Or am I missing something here..........?
And please register on the forums before you post. Being anon really doesn't give you much credibility. |
|
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
·VoicePulse
| said by a333  :Well, if AT&T equipment were to interfere with Comcast, it would be logically implied that the Comcast signals are interfering with AT&T's equipment, right? Or am I missing something here..........? And please register on the forums before you post. Being anon really doesn't give you much credibility. I have to disagree that the interference would HAVE to effect both systems. You have to remember that the Comcast gear has been in place for years, while AT&T's gear was designed after the fact. It's quite likely the designers took into account that this problem might come up, and designed the UVerse gear to deal with it, or at the very least to ignore the interferring signal they knew might be an issue.
But yeah an anon from comcast.net defending comcast is a pretty tough sell. 
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/Seagate 750.10/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler |
|
espaeth
Misanthrope
Premium
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
·Embarq
edit:
April 23rd, @08:32PM
| reply to a333
said by a333 :Well, if AT&T equipment were to interfere with Comcast, it would be logically implied that the Comcast signals are interfering with AT&T's equipment, right? Or am I missing something here..........? U-verse gear is one-directional on the coax side. It is DSL in, coax out. The impact on the U-verse side would be limited to the house that is hooked up wrong.
Comcast is 100% coax throughout the neighborhood.
If you connect a U-verse device to Comcast's cable plant you have the potential to affect everyone on that segment in the neighborhood.
I'm not sure why this would be limited to U-verse though; Verizon uses coax for FiOS as well, so one would have to imagine that this type of cross cabling has occurred on at least a handful of those installs as well. |
|
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
·VoicePulse
| The difference, and the reason VZ probably hasn't had to deal with this, is that there is no reason to have Fios but use cable internet. Maybe a select few using cable as a backup, but not nearly the number of customers who want UVerse TV/phone with the faster speeds of cable for the internet connection.
So there you have it, AT&T could avoid the problem all together by offering faster speeds so that they have a better than cable product, which would allow the install techs to disconnect the incoming cable co feed
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/Seagate 750.10/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler |
|
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Corona, NY | reply to espaeth
exactly, both FiOS and U-verse interface with coax in some way or the other. And one would think that Comcast would be quickest to lay blame to their biggest threat, which is Verizon FiOS, not U-Verse.
Peace,
a333 |
|
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Corona, NY
edit:
April 23rd, @09:11PM
| reply to Camelot One
nevermind, misspost |
|
cableguy619
join:2003-06-24
Chula Vista, CA
| reply to bogey780
LOL OMFG... you serious? it is called if the customer chosies to keep both services the new service needs to run their own lines or a seperate line. if nto the only person affected will eb the customer in the end result. they need to be told up fron.. you need to make a choice or have another line rant o seperate the services... |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| reply to bogey780
said by bogey780 :Comcast just needs a scapegoat for their service issues. And ATT needs a scapegoat, in this case, Comcasts supposed "service issues" for what is possibly a botched install.
After seeing telephone company AND cable company sabotage of each other's respective networks, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some hanky-panky going on in this situation...
How about the facts come out first, ehh ?
There'd be no reason for backfeeding to Comcast nor would the interference be unidirectional. Actually, there are a couple of reasons to back feed into Comcasts network and none of them are innocent.
It more than like comes down to an installer goofing up.
As for the interference being unidirectional, the ATT customer probably is having issues, but because it would only affect ONE ATT customer, it would be harder to pin down as opposed to an entire node of Comcast customers.
The reality of the situation is that both companies are probably at fault - ATT probably goofed on the install and Comcast probably has poor ingress filtering on that node or segment. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to cableguy619
said by cableguy619 :LOL OMFG... you serious? it is called if the customer chosies to keep both services the new service needs to run their own lines or a seperate line. if nto the only person affected will eb the customer in the end result. they need to be told up fron.. you need to make a choice or have another line rant o seperate the services... I was going to point out the same thing. AT&T is trying to use the Comcast installed coax instead of running their own. They should treat the situation as a TOTALLY new install where there is no pre-existent coax and run their own RG6 Coax (that goes to the places where the TVs live). |
|
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
·VoicePulse
| AT&T isn't using "comcast installed coax", they are using the in-home runs, which are owned by the owner of the property. With the exception of some of the more recent apartment/condo deals, the wiring IN the home is not run at the cost of the cable company. The builder puts it in. (or the owner adds it to an older home - still at the owner's cost)
So that end of the argument doesn't work. From a purely technical standpoint, Comcast should be taking the issue up with the customer who is choosing to connect both services to the same wiring. But it is the customer's wiring, atleast from the box in.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/Seagate 750.10/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to a333
RF interference would be limited to a short distance on Uverse (i.e. the node is --
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| reply to Camelot One
If your neighbor has FIOS, and left their coax connected it could interfere with your cable. Comcast is notorious for "disconnecting" its cable connection, yet not really disconnecting it and leaving it on for over a year before they actually get to the pole to remove it. I guess this means when someones cable is turned off, Comcast is going to have to send a tech right away to remove the connection. That will mean $$$ for comcast.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
|
|
cooperaaaron
join:2004-04-10
Rockford, IL | reply to Camelot One
That's only true if the owner had it installed. Where I installed ( Chicago suburbs, collar counties ) a high percentage of wiring was done by the cable companies, I'm talking 95 percent at the VERY least... |
|
forefun
join:2004-04-21
Austin, TX
| And once installed by the cable company, the inside wiring belongs to the customer. Normally, the cable company charges a customer to install wiring in their house. I know they charged me. Even if they didn't charge a dime, the wiring would still belong to the property owner. |
|
KingofCola
join:2007-02-07
Greer, SC | reply to espaeth
HPNA, VDSL2 and CATV operate at different frequencies, there is no overlap of services. U-verse is actually designed to allow CATV to run in conjunction with U-verse services. CATV and HPNA are separated by ~20MHz of spectrum. |
|
