  tad2020
join:2007-07-17 Orange, CA | Well... Well I'm a little surprised by how well it actually ended up reaching 18Mbps. I was expecting like 12-14.
But I'd still like to know what they plan to cap this tier at. | |
|
 |   jadebangle Premium join:2007-05-22 Olathe, KS | Re: Well... i recently dumped att and went with bellsouth so sorry the caps are also another minus as att is getting stingy and losing out to cable competitor | |
|
 |  |   Alakar Facts do not cease to exist when ignored
join:2001-03-23 Milwaukee, WI
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Well... said by jadebangle :i recently dumped att and went with bellsouth so sorry the caps are also another minus as att is getting stingy and losing out to cable competitor Uh, Bellsouth is AT&T. -- "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the arguments of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt the Younger | |
|
 |  |  |  |
 |
 |   en102 Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Question about STB on & tuned to channel but TV off I wonder if its possible to 'sense' if TV is actually in use (i.e. different voltage/resistance/current level) and adjust accordingly. Eg. If the TV is off, the STB 'should' be smart enough to know that the TV isn't in use, and power off itself, and save bandwidth.
I have a 'cheapo' universal DVD to TV connector which does just that... and its only $15. | |
|
 |  |   NetAdmin CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| Re: Question about STB on & tuned to channel but TV off said by en102 :I wonder if its possible to 'sense' if TV is actually in use (i.e. different voltage/resistance/current level) and adjust accordingly. You would have to have the TV connected to a power outlet on the back of the STB, like some cable boxes have. You could then monitor the current passing through to that outlet and could determine if the TV was on or not. However, the box would need an outlet and/or an ammeter. -- --- Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  |  |   en102 Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | Re: Question about STB on & tuned to channel but TV off Sounds like my OTA devices. They have a 4 hour no activity turn off. | |
|
 |   Smith6612 Premium join:2008-02-01 united state | I don't know what AT&T recommends at all, but certainly even though I'm a Verizon user with satellite TV, I switch off my STBs when they're not in use. No particular reason other than to let the receivers update thee software and guide. | |
|
 |   ht4
@comcast.net | yes the tv do inpact the speed. my friend got the service. he signed up for the 3mbps plan. but when he turns his hd tv the speed drop in half for him. att came out several time and said they can not do anything about that. | |
|
 |  |
  jchambers28
join:2007-05-12 Alma, AR | att att has some screwed up shit. watching tv affects your internet speeds that's a bunch of bull shit. | |
|
 |   Ikyuao Pro. debian Linux
join:2007-02-26 Wichita, KS | Re: att Yeah. ATT really sucks big time. | |
|
 |  |  Ikarasu
join:2004-01-09 Port Coquitlam, BC | Re: att Yeah. God forbid an ISP gets into the TV business with IPTV.
Innovation, it sucks big time! | |
|
 |  |  |   imrf Premium join:2002-06-06 Utica, MI | Re: att Nothing wrong with it, but they should have used a better delivery system than VDSL. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |   imrf Premium join:2002-06-06 Utica, MI
·WOW Internet and C..
| Re: att said by djrobx :Time Warner Cable, on the other hand, has all sorts of capacity, yet they're delivering poor quality HD video and a piss-poor selection of HD channels in our area. You know for a fact that they don't have open bandwidth? I tend to think they are out of capacity and haven't fully implemented SDV, and once they do they can remove the overcompression. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |   djrobx
join:2000-05-31 Valencia, CA
·PHONE POWER
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: att said by imrf :said by djrobx :Time Warner Cable, on the other hand, has all sorts of capacity, yet they're delivering poor quality HD video and a piss-poor selection of HD channels in our area. You know for a fact that they don't have open bandwidth? I tend to think they are out of capacity and haven't fully implemented SDV, and once they do they can remove the overcompression. I didn't say they had open capacity - just lots of capacity. Cable has so much potential, but from my perspective as a customer, a lot of it seems to get lost in slow upgrade cycles. Even if they get SDV and fix the compression tomorrow, what about the 6412 DVR with software from 2003 that doesn't allow me to watch my HD shows across TVs in the house? Verizon's essentially working with digital cable gear, but they're doing multi-room DVR. Why not Time Warner?
Perhaps TW should have been a little more aggressive about getting SDV rolled out consistently across LA if that's their path to competitve HD service. The Adelphia/Comcast buyout is no longer a valid excuse, they've had the systems for over 2 years. Whatever the rationale for the current state of things is, I'm eager for the fix.
I switched to AT&T expecting it to be a band-aid until TW got their upgrades done. At this rate the tortoise (AT&T) is going to beat the hare (TW). -- AT&T U-Hearse Your funeral. Delivered.
| |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |   en102 Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | Re: att Telco hasn't been fast on everything either... I'm still waiting for Uverse Voice. At least AT&T _finally_ pushed its 3G over 850MHz in Valencia | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |   imrf Premium join:2002-06-06 Utica, MI
·WOW Internet and C..
| said by djrobx :what about the 6412 DVR with software from 2003 that doesn't allow me to watch my HD shows across TVs in the house? Verizon's essentially working with digital cable gear, but they're doing multi-room DVR. Why not Time Warner? Ok, first of all, the 6412 isn't MoCA capable like the newer version boxes that Verizon uses. That's why Verizon can already. And TWC, if the area uses SA boxes, they use a special splitter that is required and only allows for 4 boxes to be hooked up to it.
Perhaps TW should have been a little more aggressive about getting SDV rolled out consistently across LA if that's their path to competitve HD service. The Adelphia/Comcast buyout is no longer a valid excuse, they've had the systems for over 2 years. Whatever the rationale for the current state of things is, I'm eager for the fix. I'm just gonna guess and they just think AT&T isn't a real competitor. I dunno. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   djrobx
join:2000-05-31 Valencia, CA
·PHONE POWER
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: att quote: Ok, first of all, the 6412 isn't MoCA capable like the newer version boxes that Verizon uses. That's why Verizon can already. And TWC, if the area uses SA boxes, they use a special splitter that is required and only allows for 4 boxes to be hooked up to it.
Of course I don't expect them to make the old hardware to perform eccentric new tricks. But they could offer new, more advanced MoCA capable boxes to customers who want them for a fee. That's what I mean by slow upgrade cycles. With Direct or Dish I can go buy a new fancified receiver every couple years if I want to keep up with the latest and greatest.
quote: I'm just gonna guess and they just think AT&T isn't a real competitor. I dunno.
Or DirecTV, or Verizon, or DISH Netork...
TWC's sluggishness in deploying HD in LA made the front page of the Los Angeles Times in May. The channels they promised to deliver by July 1 in this article are still not rolled out in some areas!
Now, when I read that article, I would have thought that meant they've been working to roll SDV out. 7 months later, the channels have been crammed in, PQ is suffering and there's still no SDV. Lord knows how long we'll be waiting for the next batch of channels. Meanwhile rumor has it AT&T's prepping for a new batch of HD channels for the end of Nov or early Dec.
I'm sure a year or two from now they'll finally make their technological leaps and all will be well again. | |
|
 |  |   EG The wings of love Premium join:2006-11-18 Union, NJ
1 edit | said by Ikyuao :Yeah. ATT really sucks big time. Why do you say that ?
Can you please give some examples ? | |
|
 |  |  |   Ikyuao Pro. debian Linux
join:2007-02-26 Wichita, KS
·Cox HSI
| Re: att Because ATT don't bring their own U-Verse in Wichita, KS so cox is my cable provider only I experienced with cox cable is really great and been faster speeds in fact. -- 64K TCP WIN is officially dead for long high latency fat network connection across internet. | |
|
 |  |  |  blips
join:2001-04-17 Addison, IL
| 1. Caps 2. They hand over all your communications to the NSA without any warrant. 3. I'm sure they will at some point throttle competitors from send data down "their pipe" unless there is a net neutrality law put in place. And it will be all for a "better user experience." | |
|
 |  Kearnstd Elf Wizard Premium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ | an HFC network likely is capable of tons more bandwidth then we have now, however it needs to be 1ghz and have DOCSIS 3.0 -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
 |  |   NetAdmin CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| Re: att said by Kearnstd :an HFC network likely is capable of tons more bandwidth then we have now, however it needs to be 1ghz and have DOCSIS 3.0 You can actually go beyond 1Ghz. Problem is that you have to replace all of the taps, amps, etc. and adjust the spacing of those various network elements. There is already one company, Vyyo, that has products capable of pushing 3Ghz over coax. Problem is getting the plant ready. -- --- Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. | |
|
 |  |  |   imrf Premium join:2002-06-06 Utica, MI
·WOW Internet and C..
| Re: att Actually, that isn't true. The Vyyo system is one of the many failed attempts at Ultrawide band. The plant is left alone for the most part, and at certain points the Vyyo gear is installed to inject a data stream or to remove it. It's not practical, so it will fail, like all the others who have attempted before them. | |
|
 |  |  |  |   NetAdmin CCNA
join:2008-05-22
1 edit | Re: att said by imrf :Actually, that isn't true. Based on what ? Their own documentation talks about replacing plant equipment like taps and amps to support 3Ghz.
Or are you talking about the ability to go beyond 1Ghz? -- --- Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   imrf Premium join:2002-06-06 Utica, MI
·WOW Internet and C..
| Re: att said by NetAdmin : Their own documentation talks about replacing plant equipment like taps and amps to support 3Ghz. The documents from their website that I read said the existing plant does not have to be touched, beyond splicing in their gear. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |   NetAdmin CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| Re: att said by imrf :The documents from their website that I read said the existing plant does not have to be touched, beyond splicing in their gear. The documents on their website are very general. I've been told by people who have sat down face to face with them that some work needs to be done to the plant if your spacing between certain types of equipment isn't right. -- --- Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. | |
|
  Harddrive Premium join:2000-09-20 Norwich, CT | I want U-Verse. i want U-Verse so bad, i could dump water on a cat. »How To Get A Cat Off The Hood -- I have come to realize that God doesn't want to hear from me anymore. | |
|
 |  jca2050 Premium join:2002-02-04 Lewisville, TX
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: I want U-Verse. Wow that's pretty ghetto, lol. Honey my download dropped from 1mb/sec to 600k/sec! Turn off the TV I don't care what you are watching!
What percentage of their U-Verse customers can get this speed package? Doesn't one's phone line need to be very close to the CO to get that kind of provisioning? | |
|
 |  |  Oedipus
join:2005-05-09 | Re: I want U-Verse. Within 3000 wire feet of the VRAD. As long as you're capable of the 25mbps profile (2HD/2SD) you should be able to get it. | |
|
 |  etaadmin
join:2002-01-17 Dallas, TX
| Probably the news that you can't get it will feel like a cold water bucket poured all over your head  | |
|
 daveberstein
join:2002-07-15 New York, NY
| Real data appreciated Karl U-Verse was originally designed for 25 meg down, which would be 15 meg for 2 HD 2 SD and ten for data. Several senior at AT&T until recently asked question like "why does anyone need more than 3 megabits." A new team at the top understands more, and there are several moves underway for modest bandwidth increases, although nothing like FIOS is in the budget as far as they are telling Wall Street. I've had my disputes with some of them, but they are proving extremely competent at what they do. Which isn't necessarily a good thing for us, because some of what they say they do are things about how to get the most dollars from the customer while keeping the "headline price" much lower.
De La Vega, AT&T #2, specifically said they would sell the full 25 meg to people who didn't want their TV from AT&T, but that's apparently in the future. db | |
|
 |  MyDogHsFleas Premium join:2007-08-15 Austin, TX | Re: Real data appreciated I'm also hoping that they will increase the 25 megabit profile for those who are synching at a higher native rate, and that they will intro VDSL2 sooner rather than later, which will also increase rates, but more importantly connection distances. | |
|
  BF69
join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | Reach that cap even faster! Seriously does it matter if they have stupidly low caps? | |
|
 |  |
 |  |  MyDogHsFleas Premium join:2007-08-15 Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | Re: Reach that cap even faster! said by jadebangle :
Exactly my friend low caps is useless ATT is becoming like a deathstar... Its eating itself out... AT&T is betting that you're wrong and that the vast majority of consumers will accept their service with these "low caps". If you're right, customers will leave them in droves and they'll lose.
So far all the dire predictions about how U-verse will fail (first because of FTTN vs. FTTH, now because of caps) have proven completely wrong. U-verse is very successful and is growing about as fast as it can.
We'll see how it goes in the future. I'm not betting against them. | |
|
 |  MyDogHsFleas Premium join:2007-08-15 Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | said by BF69 :Seriously does it matter if they have stupidly low caps? "stupidly low caps" = "I can only average downloading one full-length HD movie or three full-length SD movies every day of the month" ??
does not compute for me.
I would call 50GB or less "low", and 10GB or less "stupidly low". I would call 150GB "reasonable" and 250GB "high".
Obviously these numbers will change over time but that's where I think the market is right now. | |
|
  ftthz If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | not too bad too bad no uverse in my area | |
|
 |  |
 |  |  iansltx
join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO | Re: not too bad Let me be quick about this...
18 Mbps > 8 Mbps. 1.5 Mbps 2 Mbps but not by much.
Then again, if UVerse were here I'd have Blast or DOCSIS 3 right?
Any word on caps on this tier? 250GB? | |
|
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |
 |  |   Ikyuao Pro. debian Linux
join:2007-02-26 Wichita, KS
·Cox HSI
| My cox cable really pretty much faster and cheaper with no taxes I experienced with cable. ATT cost too much with too much taxes and ATT still sucks very big time. -- 64K TCP WIN is officially dead for long high latency fat network connection across internet. | |
|
  hayabusa3303 Over 200 mph Premium join:2005-06-29 clubs: | Next in the news. Att starts metering Uverse Tv, to get the USA FIT.
Ok rant off. | |
|
  jgkolt Premium join:2004-02-21 Lakewood, OH clubs: | speeds Speeds should by no way be reduced for internet if you are using one of thier other services (tv). This is a case against att tv. | |
|
 |  MyDogHsFleas Premium join:2007-08-15 Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: speeds said by jgkolt :Speeds should by no way be reduced for internet if you are using one of thier other services (tv). This is a case against att tv. That's one way to look at it.
Another way to look at it is:
They have a budget of 25 megabits. Before, they did static partitioning of that budget between TV, Voice, and Internet. Thus the highest Internet speed was 10 megabits. Now, they've gotten smart and have dynamic partitioning of the bandwidth budget. You can now use up to 18 megabits for Internet, and the TV and Voice services will reduce that somewhat, but only when they are in use.
Personally, I think this is a plus.
Would you rather they just never made the higher speeds available at all? | |
|
  btaylor1 Don't Tread On My Avatar Premium,MVM join:2002-10-13 Dallas, TX
·AT&T Southwest
| max18 nice i got this upgrade today and it's delightful
went from about 9.5Mbps down to 17.something instead
sweet and solid
i only went up to about 10Mbps down via a separate linksys i have in the line. that's not at&t's issue but i am hopeful a much smarter (than me) friend will help me resolved that | |
|
 decifal
join:2007-03-10 Bon Aqua, TN
| it kills me It just kills me to think, that being ATT will always likely be my telco due to lack of provider options that I will be delayed probably another 10 years or till cable runs their lines another mile to service another 50 customers.. Why?
I personally feel they will eventually realize that the fiber to node method isn't sufficient for alotta applications and yet again, rebuild from city populations outward to ruralish areas.. What does this mean? Another long excuse/reason for our area not to be upgraded. Obviously Verizon proved that the fiber method works extremely well. I personally hope that verizon fills out their footprint and builds into ATT territory, but I won't be surprised if for some reason its not even legal for them to do so.. Some laws/permits absolutely make no sense for the benefit of the consumer..
Even this new US chief of Technology guy that Obama proposes to put into power will likely be nothing more than ATT's henchman in disguise ..
And yes, I bitch alot about this.. And I do write my soo called officials, and local papers... Amazingly, i've been published a couple times with folks agreeing ( imagine that )) | |
|
 |   fiber_man Things Happen For A Reason Premium join:2001-01-27 Port Saint Lucie, FL
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: it kills me Get real! After they broke up AT&T over 20 years ago all of the new Ilec had the power to go into the other territories and didn't. Now look at what is left of the breakup AT&T,Verizon,and Qwest. My guess is another merger/takeover is in the works. Verizon/Alltel merger just got approved by DOJ. Time will tell. -- GO NOLES!! | |
|
 |  |  decifal
join:2007-03-10 Bon Aqua, TN | Re: it kills me Right, but did we have mainstream internet of today 20 years ago? Mainly no.. All they offered was phone, maybe some other service's, but DSL wasn't here. | |
|
 |
 |  cwh
join:2006-05-14 San Antonio, TX | Re: Good...if... vrads already have the vdsl2 line cards. ATT is waiting for 2wire to finish up the vdsl2 inid.... | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  MyDogHsFleas Premium join:2007-08-15 Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| U-verse is FTTN + VDSL last mile for existing neighborhoods. New neighborhoods are built out with FTTP and U-verse supports that too.
VDSL2 is coming. Word is that the VRADs are already VDSL2 capable and the 2wire gateway they use may be able to support it with a firmware upgrade.
Right now, people are running 2 HD streams + Internet on U-verse and still getting like 12-14 megabits on the Internet side. So it looks pretty reasonable, even without AT&T modifying their 25 megabit total profile. | |
|
  ztmike Mark for moderation Premium join:2001-08-02 Michigan City, IN
·Comcast
1 edit | Sad. U-Verse has a bandwidth cap to? lol I thought that was just for their dsl side..
lol at&t doesn't even have this rolled out all the way and they are capping users already? Then your TV experience might take a hit from your internet surfing? I'm surprised at&t is not capping how much people watch their TV also. | |
|
 |  decifal
join:2007-03-10 Bon Aqua, TN
| Re: Sad. said by ztmike :U-Verse has a bandwidth cap to? lol I thought that was just for their dsl side.. lol at&t doesn't even have this rolled out all the way and they are capping users already? Then your TV experience might take a hit from your internet surfing? I'm surprised at&t is not capping how much people watch their TV also. If they capped how much TV you could watch, this will be the biggest flop in telecom history I think... Who the hell wants to be limited on TV choices when you can simply get Satellite TV, which unlike Satellite internet it works very well as an option for broadcasting.. With the proposed caps they are toying with and the very pathetic range limitations of Uverse from a Vrad, they would be better off just going back to offering HSI to people and let the TV service side sit till they get serious and want to offer fiber to the premisis..... Caps... What the hell man.... | |
|
 |  MyDogHsFleas Premium join:2007-08-15 Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| AT&T is running a trial of caps in Reno, NV. No caps have been put in place elsewhere, and it remains to be seen if caps actually do get imposed (but I would not bet against it), and how big they will actually be.
The caps trial is for both DSL service and U-Verse Internet service (VDSL).
No, there is no cap on U-verse TV. I think it's safe to say that would never happen.
First, U-verse TV does run over their IP backbone, but it's essentially a broadcast (maybe multicast would be a better term). Therefore it consumes only a small amount of the backbone capacity. Contrast this with home consumers running their Internet connections at full speed 24x7 (downloading videos or whatever). Each consumer is using the full capacity of their dedicated pipe. Thus the impact on the backbone is immensly greater than the TV impact.
Second, they could not possibly compete with satellite or cable if they somehow limited the amount of TV you could watch. That's a non-starter. | |
|
  djsars
@exacttarget.com
| tier 2 support Not that this would surprise anyone, but AT&T tech support level 2 stated that the internet bandwidth and tv bandwidth are seperate and not shared.
I then told them I can see my bandwidth decrease each time I turn on another set top box in my house.
I might call level 2 back later and see if I get a different answer.....
They did suggest making a change on the residential gateway but I wasn't at home and they wouldn't let me write down the instructions. Something about auto detect, but that's all I got out of them. | |
|
 |  |
 |  MyDogHsFleas Premium join:2007-08-15 Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| said by djsars :
They did suggest making a change on the residential gateway but I wasn't at home and they wouldn't let me write down the instructions. Something about auto detect, but that's all I got out of them. I'm not at home now so I can't give specifics. But if you get into the management/diagnostic screen of your RG, you can change the settings for detecting the line and service type to what they actually are rather than "auto detect". This helps with some situations. But I doubt seriously it'd solve what you are looking at. | |
|
 rmergner
join:2002-02-02 Pipersville, PA
·Verizon FIOS
| ATT makes your neighborhood look nice too.... So do they put one of their refrigerator sized boxes on your street when you get u-Verse. I've read that townships and cities all over the country are suing them over those. That must be some state of the art technology to require a box the size of a coffin to deploy. | |
|
 |   ScrewMaster
@comcast.net | Re: ATT makes your neighborhood look nice too.... I think they have some pretty big batteries in those things. | |
|
 |
|
 |