🚀 go-pugleaf

dye <dye@ppp-69-216-240-92.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net> wrote:

> I am assuming what they ordered was POTS and uverse internet,
> probably because they were told DSL is not available (this is
> what they had at the old house, and they were happy with it).
> Now that are being hooked up to something else, my guess is
> that it will be DSL.

> My question is, which uverse were they being told won't work,
> the real or fake?  Do fake uverse boxes have provisions for
> 2 sets of pairs?

It sounds like the setup I have at the house.

We used to have pots with the dsl on it, then I got the notice they HAD to
install Uverse, no choice in the matter.

What they ended up doing was leaving the pots line, taking off the dsl on
it, ran a new dual-pair (something like ethernet cable) into a different
modem/router/wifi box.

For all practical purposes, it's dsl, 6mb down, 784k up. It just seems to be
a slightly different transport where if they ever upgrade this area to "real
uverse", they don't have to do anything in here, everything is already wired
in and ready to go.

Even though I have a Uverse account and it's called Uverse internet, I
really don't have Uverse. I cannot get the tv service or phone service over
Uverse at all currently, just the internet service.

And the uverse internet service I have is exactly the same as the dsl I used
to have. It just seems like they treat DSL as a dirty word now, in areas
that had it, it's no longer available, just the uverse internet service which
appears to be a clone of it.

Like I said, if they ever install the real uverse around here, supposedly
with one phone call I can order and get the 24mb/3mb (or whatever it is)
internet with them just pushing a button, no further installation needed.

So your folks are probably better off getting the fake dsl over uverse.
It'll work like plain dsl and if they ever upgrade the area, can get better
speeds later without the hassle of a new install.

-bruce
bje@ripco.com

dye <dye11@ppp-69-216-240-92.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net> wrote:

>My parents have moved to a retirement community condo, and are
>having internets problems.

>They want POTS and internet service.  A guy came out and said the
>signal was too weak and 2 pairs would have to be used, and that
>can't be done.  When they told him about neighbors 2 doors down
>that have this exact setup, he told them his boss says they aren't
>doing that any more.

>They are coming out tomorrow afternoon to install something else,
>and of course my parents can't tell me what that is.  

>I am assuming what they ordered was POTS and uverse internet,
>probably because they were told DSL is not available (this is
>what they had at the old house, and they were happy with it).
>Now that are being hooked up to something else, my guess is
>that it will be DSL.

>My question is, which uverse were they being told won't work,
>the real or fake?  Do fake uverse boxes have provisions for
>2 sets of pairs?

>I made sure to have them call me when the installers arrive.
>If the uverse internet has better bang/buck than DSL, is tnere
>any thing I can say to the installers to make them do the 
>right thing?

I have POTS, with fake Uverse over that single pair, same as before
when I had DSL.

In article <k6sfie$vop$2@news.albasani.net>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>dye <dye11@ppp-69-216-240-92.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>>My parents have moved to a retirement community condo, and are
>>having internets problems.
>
>>They want POTS and internet service.  A guy came out and said the
>>signal was too weak and 2 pairs would have to be used, and that
>>can't be done.  When they told him about neighbors 2 doors down
>>that have this exact setup, he told them his boss says they aren't
>>doing that any more.
>
>>They are coming out tomorrow afternoon to install something else,
>>and of course my parents can't tell me what that is.  
>
>>I am assuming what they ordered was POTS and uverse internet,
>>probably because they were told DSL is not available (this is
>>what they had at the old house, and they were happy with it).
>>Now that are being hooked up to something else, my guess is
>>that it will be DSL.
>
>>My question is, which uverse were they being told won't work,
>>the real or fake?  Do fake uverse boxes have provisions for
>>2 sets of pairs?
>
>>I made sure to have them call me when the installers arrive.
>>If the uverse internet has better bang/buck than DSL, is tnere
>>any thing I can say to the installers to make them do the 
>>right thing?
>
>I have POTS, with fake Uverse over that single pair, same as before
>when I had DSL.

Does the fake uverse (data only) have provisions for 2 copper pairs,
like real uvers?

--Ken

-- 
Ken R. Dye                               an optimist is a guy             |
Chicago, Illinois                        that has never had               |
http://dye.datsun510.com/index1.html     much experience                  |
dye1146 at g mail dot com                                    archy        |

dye <dye11@ppp-69-216-240-92.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>dye <dye11@ppp-69-216-240-92.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net> wrote:

>>>My parents have moved to a retirement community condo, and are
>>>having internets problems.

>>>They want POTS and internet service.  A guy came out and said the
>>>signal was too weak and 2 pairs would have to be used, and that
>>>can't be done.  When they told him about neighbors 2 doors down
>>>that have this exact setup, he told them his boss says they aren't
>>>doing that any more.

>>>They are coming out tomorrow afternoon to install something else,
>>>and of course my parents can't tell me what that is.  

>>>I am assuming what they ordered was POTS and uverse internet,
>>>probably because they were told DSL is not available (this is
>>>what they had at the old house, and they were happy with it).
>>>Now that are being hooked up to something else, my guess is
>>>that it will be DSL.

>>>My question is, which uverse were they being told won't work,
>>>the real or fake?  Do fake uverse boxes have provisions for
>>>2 sets of pairs?

>>>I made sure to have them call me when the installers arrive.
>>>If the uverse internet has better bang/buck than DSL, is tnere
>>>any thing I can say to the installers to make them do the 
>>>right thing?

>>I have POTS, with fake Uverse over that single pair, same as before
>>when I had DSL.

>Does the fake uverse (data only) have provisions for 2 copper pairs,
>like real uvers?

They made me buy a Motorola NVG510 (which had terrible reviews when
I looked it up). The jack labeled DSL Broadband has two pairs in it.
Of course I have no idea if the second pair would connect to anything
internally. I'm just using the first pair.

When I had DSL, it shared the single pair with POTS. That interfered
with one of my cordless phones, so AT&T installed a whole house filter
in the network interface box. On the inside wire, the first pair is filtered.
The unfiltered signal was moved to the previously unused second pair. They
installed a second jack and connected the second pair to the first pair
inside that second jack, to which the NVG510 is connected.

When AT&T forced me to switch to fake U-verse, I never saw them changing
anything on the drop from the pole in the alley or at the gray box, so
as far as I know, I'm sharing the same pair in the outside wire and no
changes to the inside wire were required.

They never demanded that I drop POTS and switch to VoIP via U-verse, which
I wouldn't have done.

Several blocks away they do have a full-size VLAD (alien space ship
landing platform) so they must have real U-verse over there.

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

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.

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 just saying that NVG510 (same one I have) is supposed to support the
fastest they offer, the 24mb if purchased.

It is 4 wire, maybe only two in use now, not sure, but when the real uverse
shows up, it'll need all 4.

One tidbit for seeing if uverse is coming soon, I noticed on that Everyblock
site, building permits, sometimes you'll see one like this:

Permit issued for electric wiring
CH61427E DC CONNECTION TO NEW UPGRADE SYSTEM MODULE.
4754 N. Pulaski Rd. Issued August 20, 2012 

I think, but not sure, those are the vrad cabinets.

-bruce
bje@ripco.com

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.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> 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.

Yeah, Comcast is pretty bad with the rates, that package we bought from them
shot up to like $150 a month in the first 3 or 4 months. At least it's been
holding there, but even after a couple calls, they don't care. We didn't
understand the contract according to them, even though ours says "$79.95 for
12 months". That's not what it says, according to them. hmmm.

The thing is though, since we have both the AT&T fake-uverse and the Comcast
service, if someone put a gun to my head and said, pick one, I'd stay with
Comcast and dump AT&T, just for the speed performance alone.

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

Honestly, for $15 a month, it isn't bad. I mean it's still better than
dialup and you don't have to pay for a 2nd line to get it. The AT&T is
running me $34.95 for the 6/784, but that's like $19.95 for the service, an
additional $15 for the static addresses, then after a year it goes up $20 to
$54.95 a month.

But the problem with that figure is, I think if one can actually break down
the Comcast charges, it's what the cost is for the service I have now, and
that usually is 22mb/3mb. Yeah it slows down, sometimes 18, 12 or less for a
while, then up again, but it still works better than a fixed 6mb.

So it's not really a comparison, Comcast doesn't have anything on the low
end, AT&T does, but after that threshold of $30-$35 a month, the money seems
better spent with Comcast.

-bruce
bje@ripco.com

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

>> 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.

>Yeah, Comcast is pretty bad with the rates, that package we bought from them
>shot up to like $150 a month in the first 3 or 4 months. At least it's been
>holding there, but even after a couple calls, they don't care. We didn't
>understand the contract according to them, even though ours says "$79.95 for
>12 months". That's not what it says, according to them. hmmm.

The subscriber is always at fault.

>The thing is though, since we have both the AT&T fake-uverse and the Comcast
>service, if someone put a gun to my head and said, pick one, I'd stay with
>Comcast and dump AT&T, just for the speed performance alone.

How much bandwidth do I require to exchange flames with shawn?

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

>Honestly, for $15 a month, it isn't bad. I mean it's still better than
>dialup and you don't have to pay for a 2nd line to get it. The AT&T is
>running me $34.95 for the 6/784, but that's like $19.95 for the service, an
>additional $15 for the static addresses, then after a year it goes up $20 to
>$54.95 a month.

You can renegotiate after a year. Nobody pays list price.

>But the problem with that figure is, I think if one can actually break down
>the Comcast charges, it's what the cost is for the service I have now, and
>that usually is 22mb/3mb. Yeah it slows down, sometimes 18, 12 or less for a
>while, then up again, but it still works better than a fixed 6mb.

>So it's not really a comparison, Comcast doesn't have anything on the low
>end, AT&T does, but after that threshold of $30-$35 a month, the money seems
>better spent with Comcast.

I agree that Comcast offers more bandwidth for the price, but it's still
Comcast, and I never want to feel like I'm tied to them.

It was why I resisted U-verse as it appeared to be DSL in a different format
but same bandwidth for a higher price. I'm paying about the same monthly
price as with DSL.