10-31-2012 11:11:18 AM - edited 10-31-2012 11:13:57 AM
I've gone through some threads here but I'm still not entirely clear on a few things. I'm an existing DSL customer, and I've got an internet-only install scheduled for Friday.
I want to state now that this would not have happened were it not for Andy, the wonderful Social Media Manager that assisted me after I contacted CC via this forum. I had been gotten to by a rogue sales rep but Andy straightened it all out and made sure I got only what I wanted and nothing that I didn't, and he made me laugh several times even though only a few minutes before I was ready to quit all AT&T services. Andy is awesome, and I can't thank him enough for his help.
I had thought the hardest part of this would be sorting out my network after the fact, but thanks to this forum, I'm going to be able to restore order to it right after the install is finished. Thank you to the members here that share such valuable knowledge.
(This is starting to sound like an acceptance speech...)
When I got DSL the first time, waaaay back in 2001, there was no designated line - it worked on any POTS line. At the time, I simply installed a line in the living room with a 2x wallplate jack because that's where I wanted it. I got the install kit, hooked it up, it worked. When I temporarily moved to Florida, I closed my DSL acccount and my roommate got his own. I don't know if there was any difference in the process at that time and he doesn't remember. (The DSL modem is currently in his bedroom, but I'm having the uverse gateway placed in mine so that all major network components will be where I can get to them easily.)
I was under the impression that internet-only uverse operated in a similar fashion, but now I'm seeing mentions of a dedicated home run to the jack the gateway is attached to. I also see mentions of the possibility of a Cat3 direct from the NIC to the gateway. Is this only on a larger full-service gateway, or is this also on an internet-only gateway?
The reason I'm asking is that I know inside wiring changes are not covered by the install. I am quite capable of doing them myself, but that does me little good if the installer is already here before I'm made aware of a problem. After what I've already gone through, I just might lose it if I'm told the install will be delayed over wiring issues. There is an existing and working phone jack where I want the modem, but I'd like to head off any problems. If a stable home-run is required, I can run either an RJ11 or ethernet run, terminate the inside end and let him do what he needs to outside. I have access ports (which is how I refer to the holes left in the floor and basement wall by years-old cable installs) for ethernet or I can fish new phone line using the existing line.
Any clarification on this would be greatly appreciated.
Christa in Nashville
EDITED TO ADD: I'm getting the 12Mbps, which I thought I should mention as it seems higher speeds have different requirements?
Solved! Go to Solution.
10-31-2012 12:43:01 PM
Higher speeds have higher requirements as to the quality of the cable and connections (I thought I'd just get that out there).
My installer used my existing Cat 5 in the wall between the NID and my office and I got great signal at my RG even though it is plugged into the very last box that Cat 5 cable visits on its way snaking through my house. Other people's mileage may vary. Some installs have been done with a balun at the NID and using a pre-existing coax run from the NID to where the RG is located. And others have had a Cat 5e cable run direct (a "home run") from the NID to the RG.
If you want to be absolutely sure, you can run the Cat 5e or Cat 6 from the NID to the wall box where you want the RG and leave it unterminated for your installer. That way it'll be there for him to use if he needs.
11-02-2012 08:15:42 PM
Additionally, the main concern here is that the wiring to the NID is correct. If you are running ADSL already, chances are good that it is. That said, a potential problem that could arise is quality of existing lines to the NID. If they are deteriorated then they would of course need to be replaced or the speed being pumped through them reduced. That however will not pose a cost problem as this is an outside line issue. It sounds as though you know what you are doing as far as inside wiring. If by some twist of fate there is deterioration on the inside lines, as a workaround, you can have the technician run a single cable into the house (I've heard of people actually having a line run through the window). This will allow the install to be completed while you work on your inside wiring, then when all is said and done you can simply reconnect the existing wiring at the NID and nix the single cable that allowed the install.
The main thing here is to ensure that the initial setup is able to be completed in one shot with no cost to you.
11-04-2012 01:10:43 PM
I went ahead and ran my own cat5 from the room where the gateway was to be placed, out to where the NID is. Or, rather, where it was going, as thy sent an outside line tech first who replaced the box with a new NID. (We had old Bellsouth interface.) The Uverse install tech was thrilled that I made his job a lot easier.
Unfortunately, the outside line tech apparently did not properly reconnect the landline in the process of installing the NID, which went unnoticed until today because we so rarely use the landline. Someone will be out tomorrow to take care of that. But my Uverse internet is working great, and I was able to get my network online behind the gateway in less than five minutes. This also gave me an extra access point for slower devices that don't actually need to be on the network, so i can broacast n-only on my netgear without problems or slowdowns. Streaming HD tuner feeds doesn't work well on g, but now i can once again stream live tv to my Dell Duo and watch the morning news on the back porch. My roku also no longer chokes on internet or local content. So while i didn't anticipate the improvement in configuring my local network traffic, it worked out nicely without having to invest in an additional WAP. Bonus!
11-04-2012 01:16:59 PM
I'm slightly disturbed that the forum apparently thinks I'm posting from a Kindle Fire. Not that I don't like Fires, mind you, I just don't have one. Wierd. (Acer Iconia A200, if you were wondering,)
11-04-2012 07:58:34 PM
It is probably using a set of media queries to attempt to ID your device. The most popular device that matches the characteristics your device returns is apparently a Kindle Fire.