🚀 go-pugleaf

Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>I don't know what terminal adapter is used with real U-verse.

>I think it's the same unit.

>Remember I had line problems after the switch from dsl to the fake-uverse
>and they all said that once the real uverse shows up that no changes will be
>needed inside unless we add the tv or voip service.

Motorola NVG510 has a telephone port that supports two line, but three
pairs appear in the jack, so I'm sure the third pair isn't connected to
anything. So that appears to be used for the same thing that Comcast does
with VoIP. If the subscriber wants to use existing inside wire, it's
disconnected from the phone company's drop and backfed from any jack.

Would AT&T U-verse VoIP be installed in the network interface box outside
to avoid back feeding? Do they have a mini version of the terminal adapter
to split off voice signals?

Comcast reserves a specific channel for voice so you certainly get more
bandwidth than other options, and it doesn't rob your general Internet
connection, but it's still overpriced $33 per month bullshit if you
subscribe to television.

>Of course one of those guys was the same one saying I should be seeing
>9mb/1mb service by the end of the summer, it's still the 6mb/784k now.

I'm getting 2.84 Mb/s down, 0.48 Mb/s up, same as DSL, paying $15 per month.