said by burgerwars :

FTTN instead of FTTH is the one reason I didn't sign-up with Uverse. It's never too late for AT&T to start laying fiber on the last mile. AT&T are you listening?

said by dlewis23 :

U-verse could go faster with out line bonding, its all about if AT&T wants to allow a faster tier.

said by jandar :

They went FTTN in some new neighborhoods around here that have fiber laid to the homes. Its just dark.

Instead of using the fiber to the residence, they decided to use the copper lines instead.

said by jandar :

They went FTTN in some new neighborhoods around here that have fiber laid to the homes. Its just dark.

Instead of using the fiber to the residence, they decided to use the copper lines instead.

said by kapil :

AT&T is in deep trouble. It's almost a decade behind Verizon in replacing copper with Fiber to subscriber premises. Either it faces the reality of becoming a wireless and backhaul provider or it spends gobs of money trying to catch up. Neither one will make investors very happy.

said by dlewis23 :

U-verse could go faster with out line bonding, its all about if AT&T wants to allow a faster tier.

It will be awhile before there is great pressure for more speed than 18 Mbps down / 1.5 Mbps up

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.
reply

---

BF69 @ 8th May 01:30PM:
Re: AT&T is smart, IMO...

what in at&t's past has indicated they would ever do that?
reply

---

stonecrd @ 8th May 01:41PM:
Re: AT&T is smart, IMO...

I'm kind of confused by this article it was my understanding that VDSL2 and pair binding are completely different solutions, although I assume you could pair bond VDSL2 if you can do so for VDSL. Also it states there are problems with maintaining 25mb lines using VDSL2 and as we all know AT&T is using VDSL and is maintaining 25Mb sych out to 3000' in most cases and that VDSL2 like pair bonding is expected to double distance and bandwidth. So some inconsistencies for me.

Now as for their strategy only time will tell whether FIOS, VDSL or something else wins. I am a UV user, I don't need more than a 6Mb Internet connection but I would like 3-4 HD streams. I like UV because while the AT&T infrastructure might be a limitation I think IPTV is the correct delivery mechanism.

In the end the market will decide, UV has to be competative or they will loose to satellite, cable, FIOS or something new. In the end more choice helps everyone.
reply

---

Metatron2008 @ 8th May 01:47PM:
Re: AT&T is doing it right.

Except for the whole part of At&t paying to have 1000's of contractors put in pair bonding in all homes, then pay for fiber and have 1000'd of contractors put it in all homes?

Lets not dorget the multi million dslams.

At&t is doing it right, if doing it right means burning more money then Verizon ever will.
reply

---

morbo @ 8th May 01:48PM:
Re: Should have done FTTH from the start.

how about using your list of what really matters and compare U-Verse to a FTTH option. i'd love to see the results and how you don't see why people here are upset about AT&T's technology choices.
reply

---

morbo @ 8th May 01:53PM:
Re: AT&T is doing it right.

no, many said it was a short-sighted plan by AT&T. i'm not sure any large number of people said it couldn't be done.
reply

---

en102 @ 8th May 01:54PM:
Re: AT&T is doing it right.

There are a few factors to consider:

1. Aerial vs. Buried (as you noted) this varies in each location, as it will affect cost
2. Cost now vs cost later (this is the gamble) - hoping to offset future upgrades with current subs
3. Do they really need +18Mbps residential ? If AT&T's costs are less, they 'can' (even though they don't) sell for less.
4. Attempted not to scare wall-street.

If AT&T 'had' the ability to wire at the curb every few residents from fiber, it would be close to 100Mbps/house. I'd say within 5 years it'll be overhauled, or AT&T will be offering cheaper Internet service to keep subscribers.
reply

---

ross @ 8th May 02:30PM:
Re: AT&T is smart, IMO...

Apparently, Brandon1979 is sucking up ATT Prozac by the hand full. His world view is just a wee bit too rosy... not to mention illogical, illusionary and delusional.

I live in an ATT monopoly area, five miles or less from Verizon land. It is like living in East Berlin looking over the wall to the free world. It is the juxtaposition of the efficacy of well-funded modern western medical pharmacology (Verizon) vs a slimy snake oil salesman's (ATT) preposterous, ineffective and likely poisonous concoctions. As the industry is presently constructed, as in the world of Highlander, in the end, there can be only one. Unless, territorial distinction and monopoly area based competition is eliminated in favor of true competition.
reply

---

djeremy @ 8th May 02:51PM:
Re: AT&T is smart, IMO...

How do you figure AT&T has the most competitive TV offering? We have 3 HDTVs in our house each with a Directv DVR that is able to pull 2 HD channels at the same time. Cable can do this, satellite can do this, Uverse cannot and probably won't be able to until they go fiber.
reply

---

anon @ 8th May 02:58PM:
Wow

They are pretty much hitting the wall already?

It's going to be fun to see them trying to offer 20Mb internet (or 40Mb bonded) while dealing with various distance limitation for each customer.

In the mean time, cable and FTTH can expand their speed up to 100Mb and beyond.
reply

---

alchav @ 8th May 03:36PM:
Re: Should have done FTTH from the start.

I don't think they can easily change to FTTH with the existing design. All the Electronics have to be changed, and it takes AT&T 5 to 10 years to research and change Technologies. 5 years ago, Uverse with VDSL sounded good, but now it's obsolete and like I said years ago, AT&T dug themselves into a hole. Now the Bean Counters and BellHeads at AT&T are doomed to fail!
reply

---

hottboiinnc @ 8th May 03:36PM:
Re: Should have done FTTH from the start.

Some areas under Project Lightspeed were rebuilt from Copper to FTTH. They're very very limited though. One is in the Monroe Michigan area. But they're still limited on bandwidth. They're capped at what ever DSL is. So really ATT is just playing games with the money. They'll milk it out until Comcast really runs them out and ATT sells off the network.
reply

---

jjeffeory @ 8th May 03:46PM:
Re: AT&T is doing it right.

Too bad it crashes all the time for me...
reply

---

d_l @ 8th May 03:55PM:
Re: It can go faster then 18 Mbps

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" :uhh: ). 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.
reply

---

tad2020 @ 8th May 04:16PM:
Re: It can go faster then 18 Mbps

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.
reply

---

poolek @ 8th May 04:30PM:
more to it than just current line speed

I'm a recent uverse customer. I'd prefer to see FTTH, but I don't think going FTTN is a deal killer. There are many alternative ways to maximize the connection:

- Networked DVR, recording 100% of the content and allowing users to go backwards in the program guide. Microsoft already has this technology enabled in Mediaroom. If ATT deploys that, you'll only consume bandwidth on channels you're currently watching since you won't need to record anything local.

- Wireless integration - their new 3g stuff is what - 20mb down? Integrate some of that technology in the RG to support additional bandwidth when needed - or set up local Wifi mesh-like networks in dense areas.

- ATSC Tuners - add a couple of the DVR ala Dish/Direct. Further reduction of bandwidth needs when watching local content

- Improvement in technology - 10 years ago, 'fast' over copper was 128k ISDN. Today, I'm 2700 feet from the VRAD and sync at over 40mb/sec. Who knows what we'll see 10 years from now. Similar things with compression technology - the quality/size ratio seen today with MPEG4 was unthinkable a few years ago.

With FTTH, they wouldn't have to worry about any of this - but technology has a way of fixing things if you wait long enough, and it appears ATT's strategy is to wait.
reply

---

TMMerlin @ 8th May 04:41PM:
FTTN makes great business sense

FTTH is gross overkill in rebuilding a network when there is so much copper already in the ground. FTTH does make sense in new or replacement construction.
Speeds over 10meg for Internet is a "fools wish" .. as long as TV gets delivered competitively.
I have seen 3meg & 8meg access .. hardly a "hairs difference" for the average internet user and I am not a fan of ITV, so U-versus TV is just fine.
And I didn't let AT&T screw me on the landline phone number either. I backed that down to "basic residential line" of under $20 and use my cell phone for LD.
Comcast can take their 50Mbps and DOCSIS 3.0 and "sell it to somebody that gives a crap". The cable industry screwed me for years and I will NEVER go back to cable...!!
--
Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy but they become legend.
reply

---

cwh @ 8th May 04:51PM:
Re: AT&T is smart, IMO...

And how often do you actually have all 6HD streams going? How often do you think the average joe has all 6 going? While such a limitation may be problem for yourself, for the vast majority it is not even an issue.

U-verse is currently limited to 4 incoming streams and they still have no problem getting customers. ATT has spent 1/3 to 1/2 of what verizon did and they are both attracting customers at about the same rate.
reply

---

CaptainRR @ 8th May 04:51PM:
Re: Your World. Delivered.

Close, SBC bought them and kept the at&t name which I though was stupid. They should have let the name die!
reply

---

decifal @ 8th May 04:52PM:
Waste

The Vrad deployment cost + distance serviceable for Uverse is rather horrid.. It would work for the projects and dense subdivisions and the like, but for normal deployments it just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.. why deploy such a range limited technology when other things are available? Do they want to fail? Or are they just that happy to be unsatisfactory in quality of service?

I still wish ATT would sell my territory to a local provider that'll actually take care of us.. I've seen a many local's upgrade their equipment, granted the cost is slightly higher than ATT's, but damn, i'd pay it in a heart beat... I just want to be a customer with an option
reply

---

djeremy @ 8th May 04:58PM:
Re: AT&T is smart, IMO...

Actually, being that 3 of us live here and all watch different prime time shows, quite often. And remember, anyone buying a new TV or even a second or third TV for their house will be buying an HDTV.

I thought that AT&T was only able to push 2 HD streams and 2 SD, or 4 SD at the same time.
reply

---

cwh @ 8th May 05:04PM:
Re: AT&T is smart, IMO...

You are quite correct on that. And it is still going to take a decade or so to replace every SD tv out there.

That would still be 4 total.
reply

---

CaptainRR @ 8th May 05:23PM:
Re: regular dsl speeds

Probobly about the same time as when I will be able to get DSL and up upgrade from 19.2K dialup.
reply

---

tad2020 @ 8th May 05:27PM:
Re: It can go faster then 18 Mbps

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.
reply

---

slckusr @ 8th May 05:32PM:
FTTH is the future.

Data is the future. to be so short sided that they wouldnt rebuild their network doesnt make much sense.

All of the new "smart" devices will use some sort of bandwidth, consumers will continue to pull more and more information/entertainment from the internet. In 10 years will 20/40 mbps be enough?? ATT is doing its customers and our country a disservice by not building their network out to support increased speeds and capacity.
reply

---

w4ncr @ 8th May 05:58PM:
Re: FTTH is the future.

Cannot get AT&T to install a DSLAM BOX by the time they do they will have to install two or three boxes at each location, here comes the BIG REFRIGERATOR BOXES.
reply

---

Madtown @ 8th May 07:25PM:
Re: Your World. Delivered.

The name doesn't matter to me, all that matters is if the service is reliable, has good customer's support, and have good internet speed and good prices.
reply

---

pizmo pete @ 8th May 08:13PM:
Why wait for fiber?

The Company paid $6 Billion on the 700 mghz spectrum last year. 700 mghz can go 25 miles between towers,key is, due to it's low freq., it can penetrate concrete walls without interference. Now, add wireless cell repeaters to Vrads and give the customers a new wireless router. At&t's costs of deployment now,solved. No digging in gated communities to cut bridgetap in the buried, No more 6 hr installation nightmares. Condos and apartments now don't need rewiring. Why waste money on pair anything, or even fiber, when they plan to get it to you over the AIR. They cannot afford to wait and play later game, because it will be too late then.
reply

---

HKM @ 8th May 10:24PM:
U-Verse (VDSL) is obsolete.

As I have been saying for sometime now what others have been saying except for few clueless fanboy's what AT&T's U-Verse (VDSL) is already obsolete before/short after its launch.

First of all you have to take in consideration that your network will even be picked by consumers who already have access to higher tiers from cable ISP even where DOCSIS 3 or FiOS is not available and best AT&T offers in the same area is below 3mbps. The second thing depends on value which will always be competitive if there is another HSI vendor; more buck for your money.

Verizon choose to deploy FTTH and invest in the future which is very bold move as positive result has been successfully seen in other countries with fiber based transit. Even when Comcast's is deploying DOCSIS 3 and other cable companies moving in its footsteps it is still behind true compression to FiOS as their network is limited due to its design.

The key argument here is that AT&T choose to ignore hard data and take in less competitive unproven technology which will be deployed to mass. What they failed to understand is that in the end its the consumers decision. If U-Verse tier is available in the same area along with Verizon's FiOS or Comcast's DOCSIS 3.0 most likely people won't go with U-Verse.

PS: Fiber is the future, copper is the past. I hope Verizon and Comcast rip AT&T open in HSI by end of this year. Remember what happened to AOL? They failed to adapt and look where they are now? LOL
reply

---

cwh @ 8th May 11:15PM:
Re: U-Verse (VDSL) is obsolete.

The hard data says that ATT is collecting customers at the same rate as fios with 1/3 to 1/2 of the investment.
reply

---

HKM @ 8th May 11:58PM:
Re: U-Verse (VDSL) is obsolete.

Data also says most area served by AT&T's U-Verse tier is not fully competitive as its not in same market competing with DOCSIS 3.0/FiOS. The data also says that majority of the users were ADSL users who switched to U-Verse for bundling voice, tv, internet.

I would love to see AT&T deploy in a area that is already being served by Comcast's DOCSIS and FiOS and not in random cherry picking small town and see the result as I am sure other than AT&T's fanboy's granny less than 5gb/month usage for email, surfing most likely alot of folks will pick anything other than obselete U-Verse.

Where is AT&T again? maybe by 2012 they will deploy U-Verse to 30% of their users by then FiOS and DOCSIS will rip open sad attempt at broadband provider aka AT&T.


reply

---

cwh @ 9th May 12:36AM:
Re: U-Verse (VDSL) is obsolete.

But it is competitive enough for them to have little problem attracting customers. And according to their quarterly reports most of the uverse customers are coming from cable.

ATT hit major markets first and is only now starting to small towns. Smallest i have seen so far is pop 100k. Uverse currently has more coverage than fios with their initial deployment covering 50% of sbc(18million residences) and still expanding in bell south area. And this is now, not 2012. Uverse is not same product it was 3 years ago when it rolled out, and I doubt it will be the same product in 2012 either.
reply

---

CaptainRR @ 9th May 01:59AM:
Re: Your World. Delivered.

True, I have had good support from at&t as I should say I am on former SBC/Ameritech were I am at. As far as speed goes, all I get is dialup at the house and it is normaly 19.2k and on a good day it may get up to 24k.
reply

---

patcat88 @ 9th May 04:19AM:
Re: It can go faster then 18 Mbps

Wrong.

Here are 2 examples of VRADS 100s of feet away from the neighborhood cross connect cabinets. Doesn't help loop length either.
reply

---

patcat88 @ 9th May 05:03AM:
Re: Your World. Delivered.

AT&T LD and internet? AT&T LD CLEC? or SBC?
reply

---

fatmanskinny @ 9th May 08:05AM:
Re: U-Verse (VDSL) is obsolete.

I could not have said it better. AT&T is behind the times, IMHO. They consistently send me "come back to us" letters and one day, I am going to write them and tell them why I am not coming back and sticking with Comcast.

Their DSL service cannot go above 6MB down / 512K up. Their local and long distance phone service is expensive ($72 for AT&T versus $40 for Comcast and it has more features).

Like you said, AT&T will eventually go the way of AOL if they do not adapt. With the mass exodus of landline users from telcos to cable phone providers, you would think they would take it as a clue. Nope! AT&T has "head in the sand" thinking.

I hope Verizon buys AT&T when they finally hit the bottom (or near it) and bring FIOS to those previously served by AT&T.
--
Satan is always busy. He makes bad things look good and good things look bad! Watch that Devil.
reply

---

Authority @ 9th May 02:49PM:
Re: U-Verse (VDSL) is obsolete.

My AT&T DSL is 6/768. What else are you wrong about?
reply

---

anon @ 9th May 03:20PM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply

---

fatmanskinny @ 9th May 05:30PM:
Re: U-Verse (VDSL) is obsolete.

Hey guy. The info I stated may be incorrect for your area but not where I am.... all we get is 512k up. Have a nice day.
--
Satan is always busy. He makes bad things look good and good things look bad! Watch that Devil.
reply

---

Authority @ 9th May 05:36PM:
Re: U-Verse (VDSL) is obsolete.

I understand that's what you meant, but it's not what you said. If you're going to bash a company, at least be accurate.

You have a good day too.
reply

---

fatmanskinny @ 9th May 05:52PM:
Re: U-Verse (VDSL) is obsolete.

So you correctly understood what I meant yet posted "what else are you wrong about?" because of the words typed and not the meaning????

BTW, I am accurate for my experience with AT&T for my area. I cannot speak for people in other AT&T regions. That should have been obvious.

--
Satan is always busy. He makes bad things look good and good things look bad! Watch that Devil.
reply

---

vinnie97 @ 9th May 06:03PM:
Re: UVerse Line Bonding

one can only hope!
reply

---

vinnie97 @ 9th May 06:10PM:
Re: AT&T is smart, IMO...

That's because customers don't have a choice. Kill off the territorial contracts and AT&T would be in a world of sh*t.
reply

---

vinnie97 @ 9th May 06:14PM:
Re: U-Verse (VDSL) is obsolete.

Oh, you mean the U-Verse box doesn't crash as frequently as it did 3 years ago?
reply

---

Authority @ 9th May 06:47PM:
Re: U-Verse (VDSL) is obsolete.

No, I mean understand you now, before I thought you were just someone with bad information.
reply

---

jsz0 @ 9th May 08:01PM:
Architecture doesn't really matter

AT&T may have not gone for the best architecture but they had to get their services to market quickly and it made more sense to leverage what they already had. Same thing with DOCSIS 3 on the cable side. It gets the job done. Consumers don't care how it works.
reply

---

HKM @ 9th May 10:16PM:
Re: U-Verse (VDSL) is obsolete.

Oh look another AT&T fanboy on SBC's transit or last mile. Good for you that you get 768kbps upstream. So how much are you paying for your 6mbps/768kbps ADSL tier? I know I am paying $22/month for 6mbps/512kbps. Are you that stupid that you trying to defend AT&T's for not even having 1mbps upload? When most cable HSI is offering 2-3mbps+ upstream on just below 20mbps downstream tiers? Now I am not saying everyone should get max tier available by the ISP. What I am saying is at least they should OFFER it then as a consumer people have a choice which to get. I mean how many years did BellSouth/AT&T upgrade their ADSL tier? They shouldn't as its useless and they should upgrade to fiber. I know as a BellSouth customer it has been almost 5 years and since then I haven't seen any upgrade, have you?
reply

---

tmc8080 @ 10th May 07:08AM:
does speed matter enough?

the question becomes, does speed matter when the closest overlapping footprint, comcast applies 250gb limits on most of their tiers?

you can look at this two ways.. they either have breathing room to build the network out, or rope to hang themselves with.. depending upon your perspective on how market share will churn from one duopoly provider to another.

IMO, they are both evil and want to provide the customer the least amount of service at the highest possible profit.

Don't bother with your comparisons to Qwest or Verizon. We're talking about the footprint of AT&T and COMCAST!
reply

---

fiber_man @ 10th May 09:58AM:
Passive Optical Networks

The Vrads are the first leg of this architecture. AT&T is getting the fiber to within a mile of most homes first and then they can use that same fiber to distribute out the last mile to the homes. In the mean time they are using the Uverse to provide capital for the last mile deployment.
--
GO NOLES!!
reply

---

cwh @ 10th May 11:55AM:
Re: U-Verse (VDSL) is obsolete.

3 years ago the dvr woulc reboot maybe once every couple of months. No it reboots not at all. I cant remember the last time that happened.
reply

---

anon @ 10th May 06:01PM:
ATT will be fine

I live in Atlanta and all i have to say is that as of right now i get around 50Mb/s at least as of right now to my house. That means that i could have a 25Mb/s downloads. Now with pair bonding and vdsl2, att could easily get a lot of people using uverse download speeds of around 30Mb/s (that is including overhead). Now att could then price this at a more competitive price than at which comcast could offer there 30Mb/s speed. Most people will settle for 2nd best if they save a significant amount of money. Its like buying a processor you could buy the latest and greatest or you could save 200 dollars and take the 3% performance hit. ATT could then start laying FTTH over the next 3-5 years and remain competitive. Or for all we know by then the wireless internet from the 700Mhz spectrum could be faster, who knows.
reply

---

linicx @ 11th May 01:39AM:
Don't believe it.

In a rural area SBC had the best Internet service available anywhere, It was down for 30 minutes once in four years. I have a friend who lives 8 miles from Dallas and loves UVerse.

Century Telephone lives on another planet.. I had miserable service for over a year even though I was less than one mile from the CO. It was months before they decided to install new copper to the house. Even then the high speed DSL was rarely faster than dialup. They never got it. They thought they were doing me a favor by bundling a phone and 512k down for $100 when I got the same thing from SBC for $40; I got 3M down. Every time nothing worked it was the same old tired spiel. There service was perfect, it was my computer. I heard that in 1992.

Now I have cable, VoIP and 5M down for $90 from a competing home owned telco and Iove it.

I've been in rural areas on small home spun ISPS for 17 years. I've seen all the tricks and I've heard all the lies. AT&T does not allow competition in rural areas.

Cox had miserable service and poor programing in rural areas. Their cable was populated with more free religious and free home shopping channels and piggybacked channels than any cable service I ever had at anytime in any part of the US. My kid in California also had Cox. I could not believe I was watching programming from Cox. It was that much better.

Then came the outfit from New Jersey that bought all of Cox middle markets that they had already milked dry. I could not believe that Sudden Link could be worse, but I was wrong. I kept basic cable for the Internet which was better than Cox but not nearly as good as AT&T and got Direct-TV.

The moral of the story is this. Big telco and cable companies milk rural areas and then sell off to the highest bidder. The last grab by Century Telephone netted them the rank of the 4th largest telco in America. People who live in rural areas should not have any expectation of FIOS or FTTH or any other type of high speed Internet or even good tech service unless they get really lucky.

It's going to be interesting to see who does what and where and how fast. You can bet it will be anywhere except rural America.
--
Mac: No windows, No gates, Apple inside
reply

---

vinnie97 @ 11th May 07:42AM:
Re: does speed matter enough?

You think the footprint of AT&T or Comcast is bad? Try AT&T & TWC!
reply

---

Sammer @ 11th May 01:51PM:
Re: Passive Optical Networks

Putting VRADs within a mile of most homes doesn't make sense if the ultimate goal is passive FTTH because PONs can easily handle six miles line distance.
reply

---

jadebangle @ 11th May 01:54PM:
Re: Your World. Delivered.

sbc did not buy att
they merged
they were related all along aka affiliated :)
reply

---

jandar @ 11th May 08:26PM:
Re: Don't believe it.

I pay for my mother's dialup internet. She lives inside the city limits of Jacksonville, FL, yet has no DSL, Cable, or even a decent 3g signal.

If they cannot get city limit customers high speed, rural are truly screwed.
reply

---

OSUGoose @ 13th May 06:27PM:
Re: Your World. Delivered.

i think hes talking at&t clec version
reply

---

kapil @ 16th May 02:35AM:
Re: Your World. Delivered.

What's the difference? They were all messed up. I worked at two predecessor entities myself and it was a clusterfuck.
--
»www.Digium.com
reply

---

Duramax08 @ 15th Jul 11:53AM:
so how far..

can this technology go? (miles)
--
OM NOM NOM
reply

---

moddestmike @ 16th Jul 11:58AM:
Re: Why wait for fiber?

You are correct but I see this being a future alternative, maybe after deploying LTE, they still have not even began to maximize the capabilities of HSPA/+. Although I must say their 3G service is spotty at best, while coverage appears to be good I get frequent drops/timeouts even when standing still. Not to mention speeds are not even within 50% of expected from 3G radio enabled devices.
reply

---

Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC