Re: Sheesh... in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20507886 en Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:56:12 EDT Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:56:12 EDT Re: Sheesh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20548767 a333 : Ehhh, anyone with half a brain knows that AT&T decided to first invest in FTTN, then extend the fiber to homes, using active FTTP tech. To get PON, they'd have to remove all the expensive VDSL DSLAM's, and all the active electronics, and sell it in a market where few would be interested in buying, I.e., at the point that AT&T decides to go FTTP, their copper active electronics will be WORTHLESS. Also, to install the PON splitters, they have to make sure the existing fiber is compatible. Also, they have to replace the equipment at the CO, since it'll have to transmit to an entire neighbourhood simultaneously. Not to mention the cost and hassle of replacing the existing RG's and CPE with ONT's. AND paying for the splicing and whatnot labor that goes into setting up the PON. Verizon? They'll be milking their fiber by that time, while AT&T has to handle copper Re-Verse cancellations, and get people to switch to the 'revolutionary' PON infrastructure. Considering the hard time Verizon is having, even after doing it right the FIRST time, I seriously doubt people will switch to U-Verse, especially by the time Comcast starts rolling out DOCSIS 3.0.
Now, if you expect AT&T to just chuck the old stuff into the junk yard, that's a whole new point, but I doubt that's happening. They're likely going to go active FTTP, not PON. Except the greenfield installs, of course.
And I probably know a lot more than you do in your dizziest daydreams, so I'll take that for a (sarcastic) compliment. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20548767 Tue, 27 May 2008 21:19:45 EDT Re: Sheesh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20512259 travanx : There is definitely some issues about calling AT&T and getting straight answers for anything regarding the service. But I am at the very end of where DSL can go in our area and am so extremely happy that I actually get the full 10/1.5 speed with 23ms ping using speedtest. Also the quality of the HD and SD compared to DISHtv is just amazing. And its cheaper too. I can understand the complaints, but this service is still pretty new right?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20512259 Tue, 20 May 2008 14:05:42 EDT Re: Sheesh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20511612 jester121 : joe, thanks for clearing this up -- I'll probably give Uverse a try in 2009 if they get these issues taken care of.
I hope they increase the storage capacity of their DVRs as well... 24 hrs of HD content for a household isn't very much if there is fast turnover.

Not sure what pull you have, but it would be great if AT&T would address some of these (probably) common questions on their website, and train their online chat personnel as well. :) ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20511612 Tue, 20 May 2008 12:09:53 EDT Re: Sheesh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20509712 bogey780 : Huh? Why would they need to power a cabinet if they go to FTTP? They'd go PON. At that point the cabinet just becomes a major aggregation point.

And you only have one fridge sized box per neighborhood and really less boxes overall as crossconnect cabinets would be pulled.

You're talking a lot of points but you don't know the engineering.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20509712 Tue, 20 May 2008 00:01:31 EDT Re: Sheesh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20509505 cwh :
said by a333 See Profile :

I'm not talking about the Greenfield installs. I mean that areas with pre-existing FTTN (aka cheap 99cent VDSL Re-Verse) will be a lot more expensive to maintain if and ever they are upgraded to FTTP, and have more aspects that can go kooka-dooka. (i.e. power, active equipment, waterproofing, more expensive repairs after calamities, etc...) As to the BPON installs, I pray that they offer something more than 6 Mbit/sec over the new fiber. The least they can do is match existing cableco offers. Also, to add insult to injury, the greenfield developments don't get DHCP, but are instead routed over the existing old and crappy DSL backbone. Sad........
currently uverse vdsl and uverse fttp have 10/1.5 for the max tier. Legacy fttp is still on pppoe and atm, but uverse fttp is on dhcp.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20509505 Mon, 19 May 2008 23:10:25 EDT Re: Sheesh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20509087 a333 : I'm not talking about the Greenfield installs. I mean that areas with pre-existing FTTN (aka cheap 99cent VDSL Re-Verse) will be a lot more expensive to maintain if and ever they are upgraded to FTTP, and have more aspects that can go kooka-dooka. (i.e. power, active equipment, waterproofing, more expensive repairs after calamities, etc...) As to the BPON installs, I pray that they offer something more than 6 Mbit/sec over the new fiber. The least they can do is match existing cableco offers. Also, to add insult to injury, the greenfield developments don't get DHCP, but are instead routed over the existing old and crappy DSL backbone. Sad........]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20509087 Mon, 19 May 2008 21:45:20 EDT Re: Sheesh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20508537 arealdsltech : AT&T FTTP is BPON and can be software upgraded to GPON.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20508537 Mon, 19 May 2008 20:03:57 EDT Re: Sheesh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20508411 ILpt4U : As far as the boxes not being networked, that is incorrect. They are networked. However, at present, the DVR is not shared. This WILL CHANGE before the end of the year. WH-DVR(Whole Home DVR) is due out before 2008 is over, at which point every TV that has a U-Verse STB will have access to the recordings on the DVR.

You have mis-information as far as Comcast SportsNet Chicago not being on U-Verse. It is on the U200 and higher packages.

It is Channel 741 in the Chicago TV market. Channel 742 is Comcast Sportsnet "Plus" (the games that are bumped to CLTV on Comcast cable when both the Cubs and Sox are scheduled to be on Comcast SportsNet at the same time).

The HD version of CSN-Chi is presently not available on U-Verse, but I would suspect that will change soon.

Latency is slightly increased. I don't know if I would call it "high" -- it adds about 15-20 ms of latency over fast-path DSL. Basically the only people this really affects is hard-core First Person Shooter online gamers, where 15 milliseconds really matters...

If you have any more questions, feel free to message me.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20508411 Mon, 19 May 2008 19:38:46 EDT Re: Sheesh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20507886 a333 : hell, even if they DO go to FTTP in future, it'll be a helluva more expensive to maintain, with all that active cabinet equipment to keep powered up and serviced. IMHO, VZ took the best approach, in using a passive network. Expensive, yes, but a LOT cheaper to maintain. Also, fridge-size boxes on customer lawns not included...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20507886 Mon, 19 May 2008 18:04:00 EDT Re: Sheesh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20507870 ztmike : U-Verse internet speeds are Crap. They seriously need to bump their top tier up to at least 30/5, but then you have distance limitations..lol Atat made a wrong choice going with dsl technology. It WILL bite them in the ass in the future sooner or later.
--
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdYueIC1pjM]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20507870 Mon, 19 May 2008 18:00:23 EDT Sheesh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20507757 jester121 : Things I didn't know about Uverse until I started evaluating them:

1. Only 1 DVR per household, and it's not networked with the other $5/month boxes in your house. Comcast's DVRs are hella-expensive but at least you can put as many as you want wherever you want, picture quality be damned.

2. Only 1 or 2 HD streams per household, depending on where you are in the transition. VOD is reported to be limited.

3. Apparently no Comcast Sports Net subscription is available, only a problem when the Cubs aren't on WGN. This is the death knell on the W.A.F. for my household.

4. Internet speeds are nice but reports of high latency.

5. None of this is really explained on the website during ordering (not that I'd expect them to list the limitations) but if they're paying for a truck roll and installation labor and then the customer gives them the heave the first week once they realize all that's missing, Uverse is going to go over with a big thud.

I was really looking forward to giving them a try ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20507757 Mon, 19 May 2008 17:39:29 EDT