US Telco Support > AT&T > AT&T U-verse > 45 MB internet service

reply to WhyMe420

Re: 45 MB internet service

reply to fltelman
In the mean time.... Verizon is upping their speeds. Upload speeds that are faster than AT&T's fastest download..... are available.

I really don't need AT&T investing in stretching out copper so we can get a whopping 36/6 or something like that. Waste of money. Let them invest in the next generation of Internet, and let them bring fiber to homes. Perhaps then they can upgrade the horrid U-Verse TV picture quality to something better looking.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

At&t and invest... Does the tooth fairy exist too?

reply to maartena

reply to fltelman
well ... I left the midwest and ATT uverse behind. I recently had DirecTV installed here and they tried to bundle me with att dsl heh. I told them no thanks..they pressed on and finally asked what i was using...

I always push for upload but in reality I almost never take advantage of it. I have 5mbps now with TWC. There is one or two times in 6 months where I need to upload something large that makes me happy I have at least this much / wish I had more, but the majority of the time the upload channel sits barely used.

I personally would love to have it, but I just don't think there are enough people that care about cutting edge speeds to justify the cost of FTTH. As streaming / cloud services get more popular, the need to transfer massive quantities of data in one shot actually lessens. Why download a matroska at 100mbps when you can stream it at 7mbps?
--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.

thats a good point, but the file has to get to the cloud first ... and then if youre using 7mbit to stream a matroska and you also have VOIP, home alarm system, your 2 kids wanting to watch netflix, your wife surfing the web, and all your smartphones connected to your wifi ..all of a sudden there isn't enough speed to compensate.

Then you get into data caps ... and well .. we all know how great they are.

the real cloud will only be possible on super low latency high speed networks with equal up and down access... that is unless you are happy with a little higher quality GUI than DOS.

The cost for me is 79.99 for the internet which has 100mbit in-network performance and up to 100mbit for the rest of the world ...soon it will be 1gbit in network and 150mbit for the rest of the net.

reply to fltelman
There continue to be more and more internet applications. For me, it is just the two of us.... me and my wife, but between us we have several computers, several online games, several streaming service, online backup, and I run a game server for OpenTTD with 5 different maps.

A family with teenagers is going to need bandwidth, and lots of it. Phones streaming video, online gaming, Netflix, satellite boxes with VOD, your run-of-the-mill internet usage, and nowadays you can't buy software anymore without it being updated over the internet every other week, including your XBox/Playstation and what not. Want to actually back it all up to the cloud with something like Carbonite, you'll need more bandwidth still.

And its not going to stop. Future applications will require more bandwidth. There will be higher quality video. There will be bigger updates. There will be more equipment using bandwidth.

Hell, there are CARS nowadays that while in your garage, hooked up to the wireless network of the house, update the on-board computer with the latest firmware, latest maps, latest road-construction info, and transmit your oil levels to the dealer so they can call you to make an appointment. Not that this all will take huge amounts of data, but start adding it all up.... and your 21st century household will require more and more and more and more bandwidth.

Cable is working on DOCSIS 3.1, which focuses heavily on the upload. AT&T might go the wireless route.... and quite frankly, it is fine by me as long as the have enough bandwidth to go around, do not have ridiculous caps attached to it, and don't cost a fortune a month to maintain.

But they better have a plan to get about 100 Mbps to houses within the next 4 to 6 years or so, because..... well, everyone else is. Cable will be there by that time (they can offer it already in some places but it is still very expensive), FIOS is already more or less there or close to it, AT&T in my opinion gambled with U-Verse, and is losing. Copper will just not do it for high-bandwidth applications, at least not the telco copper, DOCSIS cable will be fine for some time to come.

I have cable available to me. Right now it is about the same price, but if TWC starts increasing their speeds for the same price.... I don't see a reason to keep AT&T U-verse any longer.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

As long as Randall Stephenson runs the company I see AT&T continuing to allow their residential wireline division to stagnate.

But that's what happens when you have a finance guy rise to be CEO of a telecommunications company.

For a finance guy he sucks. Tell me, how much of their money put into uverse have they made back? Between the vrads, constant truck rolls, and then maintenance and power use should people leave in droves.

All for a decaying product that's been obsolete for a few years now

But you see it cost less then FTTH so quarterly profits have been higher each quarter for now as U-verse is still adequate enough to compete for most people.

So in the short run, he makes out with big bonuses and compensation. When it's too late and customers are bailing he'll probably already have moved on from the company with a huge retirement package. So what does he care.

This is a guy who is kept up at night over lost SMS revenue due to products like iMessage.

Customers will have completely bailed while he's still there.

reply to Metatron2008

Considering how many people call in with issues juston these forums, considering the number of truck rolls, line replacements, vrads, other types of expensive equipment used, just to get crappy copper to work, are you really sure?

Considering what I've seen on these and other forums, i am guessing that AT&T will in the end have spent more money on their systems then Verizon. In the end of course.

It's a classic case of penny wise pound foolish.

reply to Metatron2008
Which is perfect for Stephenson since that's long term and he'll be gone.

You expect him to be gone in the next 2-3 years?

reply to fltelman
Thx for the info y'all. One more question - are the latest U-Verse installs (the big rush 2008-2012) VDSL or VDSL2? If 2, isn't the "theoretical maximum of 250 Mbit/s at source to 100 Mbit/s at 0.5 km (1,600 ft) and 50 Mbit/s at 1 km (3,300 ft)". (I stole that from Wiki.)
If I remember right (it's been a minute since I've been home), I am on profile 8b. What would it take to have AT&T upgrade to the other higher profiles? I mean heck, look at profile 30a, 200mb down. Yikes.

Just curious as my mind wonders ...
--
That's "MISTER" Kafir to you.

All installs (at least the ones that aren't ADSL2+) are VDSL2. The problem with the theoretical rates is that they are betting on the lines being in decent condition. Most of AT&T's lines are barely good enough for POTS. Bridge taps, age, animals, weather, and even radio stations all play hell on the VDSL2 bandwidth availability. For example, compare the bandwidth in MHz required for the 8x profile versus the 30a, 17a, and 12x profiles. 8x needs around 8.5-9 MHz just to reach 50Mbps. AT&T's lines struggle to even supply that much, thus the reason that the highest profile is 32Mbps. Then compare to the 12x, which needs 12MHz, then 17a which needs almost 18MHz, then finally 30a that needs 30MHz. So to reach 200Mbps, we need over 3 times the amount of bandwidth that AT&T's lines already struggle with.

Now look at some bitloading graphs I found around on the Internet:

Here is one that I would consider a pretty "decent" line:

Absolutely correct.

People tend to ignore or don't understand this information and when they see that VDSL2+ is capable of this or that maximum throughput they get blinded by the unattainable utopian numbers.

Yes profile 30a looks and sounds great but who is capable of using the RF spectrum up to 30MHz? Perhaps someone under 500ft from a VRAD.

All this profiles look encouraging but when it comes to real world deployments and like you said condition of the lines, Mr. Squirrel, RF interference patterns and many other factors the house of cards collapses.

Technologies like vectoring and others are way over optimistic and most likely they will offer no significant gains. I still remember when pair bonding was in the drawing board, some people thought that if I have this bandwidth with two lines I'll double it... we all know that this is not the case.

I think at&t knows this and they have finally come to their senses and realize that under the current fttn model they will not be able to keep up much less exceed what cable (docsis3) offer.

My guess is that this is why they have stopped all further uverse expansion and they are betting now on wireless solutions which by itself is another can of worms.

reply to fltelman
I think wireless isn't going to be it either. The 3G networks are already overloaded, and I am expecting the LTE networks to be overloaded as well.

Currently my cable company is offering 20/2 for less money then AT&T's 24/3, and 30/5 for about $5 more then AT&T's 24/3.

DOCSIS is currently finalizing its 3.1 version, which is basically DOCSIS 3.0 with extra upload capabilities to get much more upload out of it. And that runs on all the existing 3.0 infrastructure, so it will be an easy upgrade.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"