AT&T DSL vs. U-Verse

AT&T DSL vs. U-Verse

I am currently a 5-year SBC/AT&T Yahoo DSL Express subscriber with average download speed 644Kbps and upload of 324Kbps. I am wanting to upgrade my DSL speed but apparently I'm near the max distance from the CO and unable to upgrade to any faster speed, according to the web-site.

 

While looking into upgrading my DSL I started researching the U-Verse TV/Phone/Internet package U400 (it closely resembles my current DirecTV package as far as television) and while doing so discovered that I could receive much higher internet download speeds, at least according to the web-site. What gives? Is this information correct? Why can I get faster internet through U-Verse but not through my current DSL? Am I going to have to spend an hour going through all the phone prompts and holding to finally get a representative that can answer this?

 

It should be noted that I'm also a very satisfied 10-year subscriber of DirecTV. I don't really want to ditch DirecTV for U-Verse, especially if I'm not going to be able to get the internet speeds advertised.

Message Edited by Indyracefan on 09-30-2008 02:35 PM
Message 1 of 22 (5,290 Views)
Master

Re: AT&T DSL vs. U-Verse

well its ran diff than copper all the way from the co to your house  (as u have now)

its fiber optic to the vrad then copper the last 3000'  or less to your home...

if u are in good distance and everything is a go u will get a 25/2 profile...

2hd and 2sd streams for total  4  tv streams......  u can also record  up to 4 diff stream or watch...

when installed properly and all the kinks ironed out its pretty neat stuff  imho

 

my take

randy

Message 2 of 22 (5,289 Views)
Contributor

Re: AT&T DSL vs. U-Verse

This U-Verse looks like Cable not DSL. Everything in my house has a coax cable going into it ( three tv's and a computer ).What is this service really. tim
Message 3 of 22 (5,289 Views)

Re: AT&T DSL vs. U-Verse

I should have noted that I live in an apartment, one close to 40 years in age. I don't know for certain about the wiring from the box to the building but I do know that the wiring within the building has not been upgraded. Would late 1960's-early 1970's wiring be effecient with U-Verse?,...would there be any performance or quality loss? I admit at being ignorant at not knowing anything in detail about U-Verse.
Message 4 of 22 (5,289 Views)
Expert

Re: AT&T DSL vs. U-Verse


Indyracefan wrote:
I should have noted that I live in an apartment, one close to 40 years in age. I don't know for certain about the wiring from the box to the building but I do know that the wiring within the building has not been upgraded. Would late 1960's-early 1970's wiring be effecient with U-Verse?,...would there be any performance or quality loss? I admit at being ignorant at not knowing anything in detail about U-Verse.

How is the service performing for you now?  You would be the best judge of performance quailty imo.  Are you happy with the picture quality and internet speed?  

Message 5 of 22 (5,289 Views)
Master

Re: AT&T DSL vs. U-Verse


tim_townsend wrote:
This U-Verse looks like Cable not DSL. Everything in my house has a coax cable going into it ( three tv's and a computer ).What is this service really. tim

 

        its  iptv  and it can run on coax or cat5  (or both)   u dont have to have coax (hpna)

        its deff not cable    :smileyhappy:

 

 

        my take

        randy

 

 

        not exact but an easy read imho  >> http://www.intellon.com/pdfs/IPTV_White_Paper.pdf

Message Edited by randyl on 09-30-2008 07:00 PM
Message 6 of 22 (5,289 Views)

Re: AT&T DSL vs. U-Verse


RCSMG wrote:
How is the service performing for you now?  You would be the best judge of performance quailty imo.  Are you happy with the picture quality and internet speed?  

 
As I said previously I have DirecTV for television in which I installed all the components and cabling myself. I am a very satisfied customer and really have no reason or real desire to cancel based on anything such as disastisfaction or unreliabilty. I'm totally happy with DirecTV and would only contemplate dropping them for U-Verse if the some issues I have are addressed, and then I'm still debating the switch.
I have DSL through AT&T/Yahoo which has worked for the most part problem-free. However I'm unable to upgrade to anything faster than the AT&T basic DSL package which for me is about 640Kbps. So in one sense I'm happy with the reliability yet un-happy with the speed and the inability to upgrade.
 I'm curious too as I've heard the term 'lag' mentioned associated with U-Verse. It makes me wonder if U-Verse has the same ebb & flow with speed as I've heard Comcast Cable/Internet customers complain of.

 

Message 7 of 22 (5,289 Views)
Master

Re: AT&T DSL vs. U-Verse

basically with uverse internet speeds wysiwyg. doesn't have the burst speeds that the cable companys use. my elite speeds are a constant 5.7 down and .94 up...
Dennis
Message 8 of 22 (5,289 Views)
Mentor

Re: AT&T DSL vs. U-Verse

I have the whole package voice/tv/internet.  I can't really compare the TV as we have used OTA for the last 30 years.  The internet I have is the most basic.  I get 1.5mb down and 1 mb up.  When I had DSL, I was at the very fringe of service 14000'  and could never upgrade it either.  I typically got 160kb down and 300kb up, which never made sense.  And once I figure out my local calling area, I will love the phone:smileyvery-happy:

 

torgrot

Message 9 of 22 (5,289 Views)
Scholar

Re: AT&T DSL vs. U-Verse

So many questions ... Before you get too carried away about Uverse versus your DSL - go to uverse.att.com and see if it is available at your location.  If it is not available, it is a non-issue versus your current DSL & DirectTV setup.

 

If AT&T has installed a VRAD closer in to your location (sub 3000 feet) than the DSLAM serving you then you may be able to get the service.  If you can get the service, then your data speeds will be as described - ~3.0M, ~6.0M, ~10M - depends upon what you buy.  And - if you are out at the 3000 foot range, as described in many other of these posts - you may not be able to buy the higher download speeds.  Generally speaking, I do not believe AT&T will proceed with an install if they cannot get you at least 19M of total bandwidth - hence allowing the 1HD, 3SD, 3M data package.

 

And Uverse is still a DSL transmission technology.  go to wiki and look up VDSL2.  That is the underlying transmission technology being used.

 

And regarding the question of Cable vs DSL ... that debate has raged forever.  Technically you can wiki DOCSIS2 and DSL and decide for yourself.  Honestly, that debate really boils down to how each provider provisions their network upstream of its customers.  All carriers "oversubscribe" their equipment (Meaning they sell 100 x 10M connections, yet only have say 155M* of capacity leaving the neighborhood.  Hence if more than 15 customers all start huge downloads at once - they all slow down.  * Illustrative example.) - that is a fact of life in making the economics work.  Likewise, all customers are not online consuming full resources all the time.  Kind of like life insurance - some die early, some die late.  It all averages out!

 

In the event of heavy usage, DOCSIS has to share resources on the cord between the houses up a street (or two or ten).  With DSL - the bandwidth you get is the bandwidth you get from the DSLAM primarily based upon line conditions between you and the DSLAM - regardless of other peoples usage.  

 

HOWEVER, that brings into question how much bandwidth the carrier has from the DSLAM (or upstream to the Cable Headend) upstream.  I'm sure some of the AT&T employees on this board could describe the ordinary DSLAM backhaul configs for AT&T and their oversubscription practices, but I suspect they were in chunks of 155M as per ATM circuits the way the DSLAMs originally were connected to backhaul networks.  Not sure how many circuits they would dedicate to a particular DSLAM. 

 

So the difference really boils down to how each carrier architects their network.  The more profitable their setup - likely the more variable your experience will be during heavy usage times - on both networks (cable or DSL).

 

In our area, I have found the latency of AT&T's network to be less than that of our cable provider - hence for 95% of my internet usage, my 3M DSL performs considerably better than my former 7M cable service.  However, once I began a download of that latest Linux distro DVD - the cable modem would cut the download time in half.  But most web sites are a collection of numerous small files - hence advantage to the low latency provider, not the big bandwidth provider.


So you be the judge.  More than you asked, but ... the answer really is that "it all depends".

Message 10 of 22 (5,289 Views)
Expert

Re: AT&T DSL vs. U-Verse

And you can keep your current provider and compare it to UV...just make sure the installer knows you want to do that and does NOT CUT the line for your DirecTV.  30-day-trial/money-back guarantee. 

Indyracefan wrote:

I am currently a 5-year SBC/AT&T Yahoo DSL Express subscriber with average download speed 644Kbps and upload of 324Kbps. I am wanting to upgrade my DSL speed but apparently I'm near the max distance from the CO and unable to upgrade to any faster speed, according to the web-site.

 

While looking into upgrading my DSL I started researching the U-Verse TV/Phone/Internet package U400 (it closely resembles my current DirecTV package as far as television) and while doing so discovered that I could receive much higher internet download speeds, at least according to the web-site. What gives? Is this information correct? Why can I get faster internet through U-Verse but not through my current DSL? Am I going to have to spend an hour going through all the phone prompts and holding to finally get a representative that can answer this?

 

It should be noted that I'm also a very satisfied 10-year subscriber of DirecTV. I don't really want to ditch DirecTV for U-Verse, especially if I'm not going to be able to get the internet speeds advertised.

Message Edited by Indyracefan on 09-30-2008 02:35 PM

 

Message 11 of 22 (4,964 Views)
Teacher

Re: AT&T DSL vs. U-Verse

Just to throw in my own annectdote - just had U-verse installed yesterday.  U400 + 6MB DSL.

 

I had ATT/Yahoo 6MB DSL already for a long time.  However I was never getting "full speed".  My typical speedtest.net and real-life downloading experience was about 4.5Mb tops.  And for whatever reason (that I never tried to investigate), our Sony PS3 on wireless got about 2.8M.

 

After U-verse was installed yesterday with the same 6MB cap, I am now getting speedtest.net 5.8/5.9Mbs on both the PC's and PS3 (via wireless or hardline RJ45).  Haven't tried any "large downloads" yet but web pages load noticably more "snappily".

 

Martek

Message Edited by Martek on 10-07-2008 12:27 PM
Message 12 of 22 (4,964 Views)
Expert

Re: AT&T DSL vs. U-Verse

Glad you like the service.  Wecome to Uverse.:smileyhappy:
Message 13 of 22 (4,964 Views)
Scholar

Re: AT&T DSL vs. U-Verse

I had AT & T Internet/DSL plan with the max speed of 6.0.  and that speed tests came in at about 3.4.

With Uverse Elite may speed test at around 5.7

Message 14 of 22 (4,964 Views)

Re: AT&T DSL vs. U-Verse

With old style DSL, basically you have a copper hard wired connection (loop) all the way back to the CO/DSLAM and I believe the DSL standard can put that distance at 18,000 feet maximum (3.4 miles). Granted they would never try to push it that far, but say your at 12,000 feet and you have a standard DSL 3M/768K package. That 12,000 feet of copper wire can produce a lot of errors in your data and that's where "error correction" comes in. Error correction is just that, it keeps all your data correct (or tries to), but error correction requires bandwidth of it's own. The more error corection required the more bandwidth required. That bandwidth is deducted from your total bandwidth. Thus, theoretically, you could be losing half your bandwidth to error correction if you are on a long (or bad) "loop" to the CO/DSLAM and half of a 3M package would equate to 1.5Mbps downloads.

 

Now with U-VERSE, they basically are replacing 80-90 percent of the nasty copper wire in your "loop" with fiber-optic cable (and a few other pieces of hardware) thus drastically reducing the need for error correction. So, instead of losing up to 50% of your bandwidth to error correction on DSL, your losing much less bandwidth on U-VERSE to error correction (mine is about 1 or 2 percent) and that can equate into getting higher downloads speeds without actually moving to a higher speed package when switching from DSL to U-VERSE.

                              

Message 15 of 22 (4,964 Views)
Share this topic
Announcements

Welcome to the AT&T Community Forums!!! Stop by the Community How-To section for tips on how to get started.