how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
Merlin
join:2012-06-08
Dallas, TX | reply to BiggA
Re: How to get full 12/2 speed.....?? said by BiggA:That's a good point, I didn't even think of rural installations that use RDSLAMs. That's pretty pathetic to be fed with T1, while Verizon is running gig fiber to their LTE systems in the same territory. Is it also pathetic that Verizon runs T1 to their RDSLAMS in their territory while AT&T runs fiber to their LTE towers in the same territory?
ADSL RT's will be phased out for AT&T, just like they are for other RBOC's and replaced with ADSL2+ or vDSL2. Both of the latter are fiber fed solutions.
said by BiggA:@Merlin: It's not the ADSL gear, it's what the ADSL gear is connected to. It's backhaul again. See the theme here? It transcends the wireline and wireless sides of things. Why are you comparing the way a 10 year old ADSL network is designed compared to the new technology from other providers? U-verse has a fiber backhaul either at the VRAD or in the CO for ADSL2+. There is no bottleneck in the backhaul for U-verse.
said by BiggA:@WhyMe420: Cable has more bandwidth for everything at every step than U-Verse does. Fios has more bandwidth than cable for everything. All except for phone, of course, which doesn't use much of anything anyways.
AT&T has the largest and fastest network in the world. Cable and FiOS might provide more bandwidth over the last mile for purposes of residential discussion but once it moves towards the core, AT&T's network is most assuredly faster than all others. | | |
|
| said by Merlin:said by BiggA:That's a good point, I didn't even think of rural installations that use RDSLAMs. That's pretty pathetic to be fed with T1, while Verizon is running gig fiber to their LTE systems in the same territory. Is it also pathetic that Verizon runs T1 to their RDSLAMS in their territory while AT&T runs fiber to their LTE towers in the same territory? Yes.
said by Merlin:ADSL RT's will be phased out for AT&T, just like they are for other RBOC's and replaced with ADSL2+ or vDSL2. BWAHAHAHA! That's a good one! Last I checked, they were NOT deploying ADSL2+ to RTs. Also, I know of at least 1 user here on BBR (I think he posted this in the Midwest forum but I may be mistaken) who was forced off ADSL and when they came to hook him up to the ADSL2+ system they found he was too far out for it. As AT&T will not put someone back on ADSL, he is now "unserviceable." Expect to see a lot more people become unserviceable as this "upgrade" is forced out.
said by Merlin:said by BiggA:@Merlin: It's not the ADSL gear, it's what the ADSL gear is connected to. It's backhaul again. See the theme here? It transcends the wireline and wireless sides of things. Why are you comparing the way a 10 year old ADSL network is designed compared to the new technology from other providers? U-verse has a fiber backhaul either at the VRAD or in the CO for ADSL2+. There is no bottleneck in the backhaul for U-verse. And how exactly did you come to that conclusion? Please provide your sources showing exactly how much bandwidth they have going to each VRAD and the maximum number of users/ports in the VRADs as I have not seen anything listing hard numbers for T's deployment. Without knowing both of those you cannot make that no-bottleneck claim. FiOS is also fiber yet it has a limit of 2.4 gbit/s per 32 users. Fiber != no bottleneck.
said by Merlin:said by BiggA:@WhyMe420: Cable has more bandwidth for everything at every step than U-Verse does. Fios has more bandwidth than cable for everything. All except for phone, of course, which doesn't use much of anything anyways.
AT&T has the largest and fastest network in the world. Cable and FiOS might provide more bandwidth over the last mile for purposes of residential discussion but once it moves towards the core, AT&T's network is most assuredly faster than all others. Again, links please. Comcast, TWC, Verizon, Sprint, and L3, among others, all have a LOT of fiber in the ground. CC, V, and T all have 100 gbit links live. I doubt T has the biggest/fastest backbone.
/M | |
 maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1 | reply to Merlin
said by Merlin:Is it also pathetic that Verizon runs T1 to their RDSLAMS in their territory while AT&T runs fiber to their LTE towers in the same territory? Hmmm..... I guess Verizon has been focusing - at least in other, more populated areas - to actually run fiber to HOUSES. 
I'm sort of waiting till AT&T comes up with a 50 Mbps tier, preferably with a much larger upload, but I don't think AT&T's technology is ready for a 50/25 plan like FIOS has. Looks like TWC's 50/5 plans are starting to become affordable though.
AT&T may run fiber to their LTE towers all they want, but in the mean time they are sort of neglecting their U-Verse subscribers by not offering any higher speeds.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
Merlin
join:2012-06-08
Dallas, TX | reply to mackey
said by mackey:BWAHAHAHA! That's a good one! Last I checked, they were NOT deploying ADSL2+ to RTs. Also, I know of at least 1 user here on BBR (I think he posted this in the Midwest forum but I may be mistaken) who was forced off ADSL and when they came to hook him up to the ADSL2+ system they found he was too far out for it. As AT&T will not put someone back on ADSL, he is now "unserviceable." Expect to see a lot more people become unserviceable as this "upgrade" is forced out. How exactly do you perform your checks? No press release has been issued but doesn't change the fact that AT&T already has about 1,000 RT's across their service area that have been converted to ADSL2+ and fiber is ran to each one of them.
I can't dispute that for whatever reason a person might have lost service in trying to switch back to ADSL but there are processes in place to address those types of issues so it's curious without having all of the facts.
Considering that ADSL2+ provides 50% higher rate over reach vs. ADSL out to 15k feet, most customers would benefit from said deployment.
said by mackey:And how exactly did you come to that conclusion? Please provide your sources showing exactly how much bandwidth they have going to each VRAD and the maximum number of users/ports in the VRADs as I have not seen anything listing hard numbers for T's deployment. Without knowing both of those you cannot make that no-bottleneck claim. FiOS is also fiber yet it has a limit of 2.4 gbit/s per 32 users. Fiber != no bottleneck. AT&T U-verse Field Engineering is my source. Again, a press release isn't issued for this type of information and I doubt Verizon did either for whatever information you consider to be solid from them.
said by mackey:Again, links please. Comcast, TWC, Verizon, Sprint, and L3, among others, all have a LOT of fiber in the ground. CC, V, and T all have 100 gbit links live. I doubt T has the biggest/fastest backbone.
/M
Comcast and TWC are not even considered Tier 1 backbone providers and globally speaking, only Verizon (through UUNET purchase) and L3 are players though at a rounding error of reach compared to AT&T. You can doubt all you want but the fact is that AT&T has the largest and fastest core network in the world. You can Google it for yourself. | |
 NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Merlin:Considering that ADSL2+ provides 50% higher rate over reach vs. ADSL out to 15k feet, most customers would benefit from said deployment.
I went from ADSL to ADSL2+ over a 9,156 foot loop. I switched between the SBC-issue ADSL modem and the Sonic.net-issue ADSL2+ modem without seeing so much as a 10% difference. Even if AT&T had IP-DSLAM available out of the CO serving my premises (and they may have by now), they'd likely only qualify my residence for "U-verse Pro". While I would pick up some speed from the change to a PTM backhaul (2.5mb/s to 2.9mb/s), Sonic.net "Fusion" still delivers better speed (4.9mb/s), even with an ATM backhaul.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to mackey
@Merlin: Where?
Even EDGE had backhaul problems in 2007 when the iPhone hit. It's fundamentally the same issue, even if the timescale is different.
I don't really care what AT&T's backbone looks like, as long as it can handle the last-mile. And they have poor last-mile. AT&T should be looking towards 100% GPON coverage, and they aren't even looking at 1% GPON coverage.
Mackey, I'm pretty sure T does, they are a larger backbone/ global carrier than just about anyone else. Comcast and Verizon pale in comparison.
You do need a decent sized file to notice PB. However, it helps a LOT with starting streaming, and it makes it FEEL faster. It's worth something to me. | |
3 edits | said by BiggA:You do need a decent sized file to notice PB. However, it helps a LOT with starting streaming, and it makes it FEEL faster. It's worth something to me.
Bet the cable co loves people like you that can "FEEL" that placebo effect!
Ahh yes, now I see why in my experience PowerBoost has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to make streaming/web page browsing ANY faster than the equivalent connection without PowerBoost:
quote:
Powerboost is per user connection, not per TCP flow. All
simultaneous TCP flows from a subscriber’s cable modem
will share the same Powerboost token buckets. This includes
multiple users in the subscriber's household.
»groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publica···auer.pdf
SOO basically only the first few MB of a website are "boosted" PERIOD. Not the first few MB of every single image/text/whatever that is loaded per page. Also PowerBoost doesn't work EVERY time you load a page. THEN there's the fact that when downloads are negotiated, when the "boost" kicks in the server (if it has the capacity) will send the data at that rate, then, when the PowerBoost goes away, then you've got a bottleneck, so the server is still sending the data at the "boosted" rate, thus packets are dropped and the server has to resend/renegotiate the connection.
In other words, LITTLE to NO advantage (other than tiny files, artificially inflating speed tests and/or making it harder to diagnose QoS/connection issues!) Just look at the data in the PDF! So much for "benefits!"
Not to mention, that latency and QoS matters MUCH MORE for most Internet applications than raw speed! | |
BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| I KNOW that I am getting it. I can SEE that my computer is using about 2.5MB/s, and that loading times are lower. Connections without it feel slow now.
It's the first 20MB, and oftentimes, if you have a lot of stuff downloading, or a batch process like file backup, you will get Powerboost over and over and over, creating all sorts of spikes in bandwidth that speeds up everything a LOT.
That's all nice in theory, but IRL, you're just wrong. | |
| Yeah OK! lol enjoy your placebo! My U-verse connection gets 2.5MB/s without PowerBoost... Oh and did I mention no cap? lol | |
BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Well, we got upgraded to 16mbps yesterday, so I'll take that over a crappy 1.5mbps AT&T DSL line any day! | |
|
