| It can go faster then 18 Mbps U-verse could go faster with out line bonding, its all about if AT&T wants to allow a faster tier. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by dlewis23:U-verse could go faster with out line bonding, its all about if AT&T wants to allow a faster tier. yes, but it's also distance limited and the initial projections of what speeds could be available at greater distances from where the fiber is terminated haven't been meeting expectations. That's why they have to pair bond.
past 5000 ft. it gets harder and harder to deliver faster speeds. There is no way they can compete with docsis 3 or fiber when they start getting beyond that distance. |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·VOIPo
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to dlewis23
Putting nodes closer to homes would have made a huge difference. |
said by dlewis23:U-verse could go faster with out line bonding, its all about if AT&T wants to allow a faster tier. Remember, AT&T wants U-verse to be a triple play product. 18mbps is already pushing things when HDTV service is also on the line. They're looking at a speed bump to 32mbps allow 3HD and less video compression, but it won't be avaialble to all customers.
I don't think the FTTN strategy was necessarily a bad idea, but they needed to put nodes closer to homes. With closer nodes at 50-100mbps, the product would have so much more longevity. It just wasn't smart to bet on "uncooked" technology. By the time something comes along to improve on VDSL, it's going to be needed to match the competition.
Reading user experiences over the last year or so, it seems pretty clear that 25mbps is about all that AT&T's 3000' "target" is good for. It didn't take long for AT&T to introduce a 19mbps profile with even less capabilities. The RG will report higher sync availability, but you need some margin for it to work reliably. You'd think with all of AT&T's experience with ADSL, they'd know that you can't count on real world speeds to match what the specs say it ought to be able to do.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
|
|
| said by djrobx 
I don't think the FTTN strategy was necessarily a bad idea, but they needed to put nodes closer to homes. With closer nodes at 50-100mbps, the product would have so much more longevity. It just wasn't smart to bet on "uncooked" technology. By the time something comes along to improve on VDSL, it's going to be needed to match the competition. [/BQUOTE :Why did AT&T go with FTTN vs. FTTH, IMHO it was strictly cost. Now the question is in the long run will it really be a cost savings to AT&T? How much more will it cost to go back and retrofit the VRad's for pair bonding? How much more will it cost for extra hardware at the home? What about where there isn't an extra pair of copper availble in tne existing infratstucture, how much more to install some? How much more to install more VRad's to reduce the distance to get the faster speeds? How much more for the maintance and electrical costs for those VRad's? Even then, after spending all these dollars to get to what, 4 concurrent HD streams of TV will that be enough to support what consumers want? HDTV penatration rates are going up and between moew HD sets in the homes and HD DVR's IMHO 4 streams won't be able to handle demand in a few years. |
|
 d_lBarsoomPremium,MVM
join:2002-12-08
Reno, NV
kudos:7 | reply to djrobx
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. |
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to d_l
said by d_l: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. Wrong.
Here are 2 examples of VRADS 100s of feet away from the neighborhood cross connect cabinets. Doesn't help loop length either. |
|
