Frontier's 'Next Gen' Plan is.....AT&T U-Verse? > Welcome to mediocrity...

reply to MyDogHsFleas

Re: Welcome to mediocrity...

etaadmin: again you come across as a huge AT&T hater, don't know if you even realize this. Wildly exaggerated statements and accusations of lies and conspiracies (i.e. that AT&T is providing its investors and the public false information -- HIGHLY unlikely for a huge, closely followed, public corporation) really just make me not want to even engage with you.

I mean, I provide specific points about how AT&T can expand and improve FTTN and upgrade to FTTP and you just repeat "uverse is basically dead and has no room to deliver the future" when I just told you the roadmap.

The link you gave to the light reading story is just talking about EPoC, which is not fiber, and about CCAP, which is the standard for the equipment they'd install in their nodes (headends) to support FTTP. It also says nothing like "cable is better positioned to support FTTH than telco" as you assert.

Well, guess what, AT&T's road forward to fiber is exactly similar to the CCAP story. Leverage their hybrid network (fiber already going to the area), put new cards in their node, lay last mile fiber, and you're done.

The difference is that AT&T is actually closer than cable to that extension. Why? (a) Their nodes are closer to the home and their fiber net to the nodes extends further outwards than cable's HFC. So they have less infrastructure to put in place. (b) AT&T already has an all-fiber FTTP service up and running, which cable does not, so they already have all the provisioning, billing, gateway in the home, and support for that service. Cable will have to do all that over again. (c) AT&T already is running IP to the settop with video/audio/Internet over IP, so they are well positioned to deliver advanced services, and exploit their IP backbone. Cable has none of these.

Look, it's a given that coax has a much higher potential bandwidth to the home than twisted pair copper. That is not in dispute. But you gotta look at things realistically and not from a hater POV.

You've at least backed down from "the router is a nightmare" to "the router is a nightmare FOR ME" which is a much more reasonable position, and I agree with you, if you try to make it do what it's not designed to do, you will not have a good experience. It's not a "matter of opinion", there are facts involved.

uVerse as it is right now, is dead in the water. Technologically speaking, it's obsolete. Yes, there are some advances coming in terms of xDSL but like I've said in the past and if you've read any of my past posts you'd know that in a lot of areas AT&T's copper network is crap.

An example of this is right here in my area. Whenever the wind kicks up really bad, my grandmother's telephone line across town gets really bad static on the line. She's called AT&T multiple times, many people on her street has called AT&T multiple times. Nothing has been done about it. Seems like all they care is if you get a dial-tone.

Now, you're trying to take a copper network that is in deplorable shape and shove VDSL down it? Because that's what AT&T is doing in my area. And yes, my grandmother's area has uVerse in it. Can't imagine the issues these people have whenever the wind kicks up on their uVerse lines.

In order to fix these issues they'd have to replace all of the copper lines in the area. OK... that costs money, I understand that. But, why put new copper in when you can put fiber in all the way to the home and be done with it. It seems that having to spend money to replace the aging infrastructure just to have to replace it again later on down the road with fiber is just completely stupid.

And let's not get into the whole distance limitations issues of uVerse. It creates a series of have's and have-not's. Yes, pair-bonding was supposed to help improve the distance for the service but so far pair-bonding has been causing more issues than it solves. Not only are they already running VDSL at distances it was never designed to run at, now you're putting two lines in causing potential cross-talk, and you wonder why it doesn't work right half the time.

AT&T tried to do it cheap and it's biting them in the ass. And then you wonder why AT&T is in talks about selling unprofitable areas to other companies. They know that unless they invest heavy amounts of money into their network to support the next generation services, they will fall behind their competitors. The bad part is... they don't want to invest, so they offload it so they don't have to.
--
Tom
Boycott AT&T uVerse! | Tom's Android Blog | Galaxy Nexus LiquidSmooth by TeamLiquid

reply to MyDogHsFleas

quote:

---

"not true they have headroom to go higher with better revs of VDSL, pair bonding, and offering higher speed offerings to those closer to the VRAD. Not saying they're going to, but saying "no hope" is very much overstating it"

---

reply to trparky
Trparky: in my experience U-verse techs just pick another pair if the ones they are using are bad. And before they deploy ( or deployed ) U-verse to a new area they are supposed to sweep and qualify the copper. A buddy of mine at AT&T did exactly that in Austin for about 2 years. Sounds like your area isn't great on copper.

And one man's "doing it cheap" is another man's "engineering a system to meet requirements within cost". In the tech business good enough and cheap usually beats technically superior.

Etaadmin: seriously you are just a hater. EVIL LIARS! GMAFB. this is ridiculous. What lies about t mo and NSA? Bellsouth merger I don't know what you are referring to.

If its true that HFC is more fiber dense than uverse fttn that's a surprise to me. Are you sure those head ends are fed by fiber? I'm willing to be educated.