🚀 go-pugleaf

Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:

> It's still stupid but they have something up their sleeve with this billing
> change, which is really all it comes down to. 

Ha, hate following up my own posts but I ran across a possible reason, they
going to abandon us.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-May-Sell-Off-Many-DSL-Markets-118709

Getting us DSL people off the AT&T phone bill under a new account, they can
sell all us dopes to another company without a last minute bums rush.

Like I said, the uverse business office said around these parts (Albany Park),
there isn't any uverse and none on the horizon. We must be one of the
unprofitable segments of the empire.

-bruce
bje@ripco.com

Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
> It's still stupid but they have something up their sleeve with this billing
> change, which is really all it comes down to. 

Given ATT, I'd say don't ascribe to malice that which can be explained by
incompetence.  It's a gi-fucking-normous company where the left hand often
has no idea what the right hand is doing.

At work, we have an interface to send incident tickets to them for circuit
problems (ebonding) direct from our ticket system.  Depending on what kind
of circuit it is, it goes to one of at least *3* different ticket systems on
their side, and that's only data circuits, we don't even use the interface
for voice.  and then, of course, if our guys have to call in to escalate or
something, they have to make sure they pick the right phone number based on
the kind of ATT ticket it is.  call the wrong number and the ATT person has
no idea what you're talking about and can't possibly transfer you to the
right desk.

Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote in
news:slrnjlmpeh.p3o.glg@ftupet.ftupet.com: 

> and then, of course, if
> our guys have to call in to escalate or something, they have to make
> sure they pick the right phone number based on the kind of ATT ticket
> it is.  call the wrong number and the ATT person has no idea what
> you're talking about and can't possibly transfer you to the right
> desk. 
> 

I went through that recently with my business Uverse account. I called the 
number on a letter and after letting me walk through my problem told me I 
was at the wrong department. 4 transfers later I was disconnected. I found 
a place to chat with support online and had it fixed relatively quickly. 

They really need to work on their account integration. My problem was a 
simple username and password issue. 

-- 
Coming to you from the beautiful Chicago suburbs

Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote in
news:jjflps$a7k$1@remote5bge0.ripco.com: 

> 
> I don't remember what the original thread was, or even if it was in
> here (chi.internet) but I posted a message a couple months ago about
> receiving a letter from ATT about having 45 days to contact them to
> change my dsl service to uverse.
> 
> At that time, after getting transfered to 3 different departments, it
> ended up with them telling me to toss the letter because there is no
> uverse in this area and no projections when it would be available.
> 
> Well, well, well.
> 
> I still have been getting "your time is running out" letters with one
> arriving the other day saying if I don't get this changed by 3/23, the
> internet service will be turned off as a warning and will be totally
> disconnected (becoming an ex-customer) by 4/3.
> 
> So I tried calling the number again and got a slightly different story
> this time. What it sounds like to me, uverse availability or not, they
> do want to move the old dsl customers to uverse, which basically
> involves not being billed on your phone service anymore.
> 
> Instead it being charged to your home phone service, they actually set
> up a new account from att/uverse, new account number and the
> dsl/internet service is removed from your monthly phone bill.
> 
> They still need to have someone come out to replace the modem/router,
> which they didn't have any information on, it's mandatory for "S"
> customers, the ones on static addressing, and whatever "professional"
> they are sending, is supposed to be here next tuesday, the 13th.
> 
> The only thing they had for hard-core facts was pricing, currently I'm
> paying $70 a month for 6mb/784kb and 5 usable static addresses, the
> service level stays the same but the price drops to $19.95 + $15 for
> the statics for the first 12 months ($34.95). That also increases the
> bandwidth cap from 150gb a month to 250gb.
> 
> After the 1st year, it goes up to some goofy amount like $53.72
> including the statics, so it's still about $17 cheaper a month.
> 
> But that was it, they had no clue if my current ip addresses would be
> carried over, new ones issued or what the story is. Also, besides
> telling me it's not the same router they give to residential, they had
> no info about it either. Make, model, features, nothing. But there is
> no "self install" for it, they have to send out a "professional
> installer" to put it in. 
> 
> They ate the costs of the replacement router, the service call and all
> other fees. It's just a new account number for the dsl and a reduction
> in rates. 
> 
> The only plan I have is before the installer does anything, make sure
> he has the list of ip's, paperwork for the router and who to call for
> the reverse dns updates. They missing any of those, I'm going to send
> him packing with a customer cancellation and risk losing the service
> later. It's going to be a lot of work changing everything to new ip's
> around here and I don't need a tech that can get all green lights
> saying he's done, leaving me hanging. 
> 
> Thats what happened in Jan of 2002 when I first ordered the dsl with
> static addresses, back then it was like a $200 service charge for
> "professional installation", not optional. Fucker came in, plugged the
> power pack in, hooked the phone line up to the router and called it a
> day when it synced up. When I asked him about the static addresses, he
> didn't know anything about it and suggested I call some 1-800 for any
> questions about them. 
> 
> It's still stupid but they have something up their sleeve with this
> billing change, which is really all it comes down to. 

I had to switch to Uverse DSL to get Elite at work. The guy they sent out 
was competent though he wasn't aware the modem they sent me had Wireless 
N on board and offered to set up my seperate router for me. To his credit 
I found out it was a new modem to them, and he was offering to do more as 
I was the last call of the day and if he called in that he was done, he'd 
get another install. 


-- 
Coming to you from the beautiful Chicago suburbs

Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:

>Thats what happened in Jan of 2002 when I first ordered the dsl with static
>addresses, back then it was like a $200 service charge for "professional
>installation", not optional. Fucker came in, plugged the power pack in,
>hooked the phone line up to the router and called it a day when it synced
>up. When I asked him about the static addresses, he didn't know anything
>about it and suggested I call some 1-800 for any questions about them. 

Wow. You got hosed. I would have screamed bloody murder at those SBC
bastards till they ate the charge.

I once had Comcast Digital Voice. That required "professional installation"
because at the time, they refused to let you pick up the embedded
multimedia terminal adapter (EMTA) over the counter. All the guy did
was swap the data-only TA (cable modem) for an EMTA. He plugged it into
the electrical outlet and backfed the voice connection into a nearby
phone jack.

Those bastards did not get away with charging me for the installation visit.

Today, I believe they'll mail EMTAs to you.

Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:
>Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:

>>It's still stupid but they have something up their sleeve with this billing
>>change, which is really all it comes down to. 

>Given ATT, I'd say don't ascribe to malice that which can be explained by
>incompetence.  It's a gi-fucking-normous company where the left hand often
>has no idea what the right hand is doing.

>At work, we have an interface to send incident tickets to them for circuit
>problems (ebonding) direct from our ticket system.  Depending on what kind
>of circuit it is, it goes to one of at least *3* different ticket systems on
>their side, and that's only data circuits, we don't even use the interface
>for voice.  and then, of course, if our guys have to call in to escalate or
>something, they have to make sure they pick the right phone number based on
>the kind of ATT ticket it is.  call the wrong number and the ATT person has
>no idea what you're talking about and can't possibly transfer you to the
>right desk.

I assume that the reverse isn't true, that you call the correct number
and reach someone who is helpful on the first try.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:
>>Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
>
>>>It's still stupid but they have something up their sleeve with this billing
>>>change, which is really all it comes down to. 
>
>>Given ATT, I'd say don't ascribe to malice that which can be explained by
>>incompetence.  It's a gi-fucking-normous company where the left hand often
>>has no idea what the right hand is doing.
>
>>At work, we have an interface to send incident tickets to them for circuit
>>problems (ebonding) direct from our ticket system.  Depending on what kind
>>of circuit it is, it goes to one of at least *3* different ticket systems on
>>their side, and that's only data circuits, we don't even use the interface
>>for voice.  and then, of course, if our guys have to call in to escalate or
>>something, they have to make sure they pick the right phone number based on
>>the kind of ATT ticket it is.  call the wrong number and the ATT person has
>>no idea what you're talking about and can't possibly transfer you to the
>>right desk.
>
> I assume that the reverse isn't true, that you call the correct number
> and reach someone who is helpful on the first try.

not sure, luckily I'm not the one having to do that much.  I'd guess they're
okay though.  The business end of the carriers tends to be better.
Obviously helps when you're spending a shitload of money with them every
month.

On 2012-03-10, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:
>>Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
>
>>>It's still stupid but they have something up their sleeve with this billing
>>>change, which is really all it comes down to. 
>
>>Given ATT, I'd say don't ascribe to malice that which can be explained by
>>incompetence.  It's a gi-fucking-normous company where the left hand often
>>has no idea what the right hand is doing.
>
>>At work, we have an interface to send incident tickets to them for circuit
>>problems (ebonding) direct from our ticket system.  Depending on what kind
>>of circuit it is, it goes to one of at least *3* different ticket systems on
>>their side, and that's only data circuits, we don't even use the interface
>>for voice.  and then, of course, if our guys have to call in to escalate or
>>something, they have to make sure they pick the right phone number based on
>>the kind of ATT ticket it is.  call the wrong number and the ATT person has
>>no idea what you're talking about and can't possibly transfer you to the
>>right desk.
>
> I assume that the reverse isn't true, that you call the correct number
> and reach someone who is helpful on the first try.

Not sure about business accounts, but I saved level 2 and 3 DSL numbers in a 
notebook last time my residential line had trouble. Both were quite helpful, 
and not in India, to boot.

-- 

Kristian M Zoerhoff

Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
> Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
>
>> It's still stupid but they have something up their sleeve with this billing
>> change, which is really all it comes down to. 
>
> Ha, hate following up my own posts but I ran across a possible reason, they
> going to abandon us.
>
> http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-May-Sell-Off-Many-DSL-Markets-118709
>
> Getting us DSL people off the AT&T phone bill under a new account, they can
> sell all us dopes to another company without a last minute bums rush.
>
> Like I said, the uverse business office said around these parts (Albany Park),
> there isn't any uverse and none on the horizon. We must be one of the
> unprofitable segments of the empire.

since they're talking about markets, I read it as more that they're looking
to sell off some more rural or far suburban areas, not neighborhoods within
the city.

Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:

> since they're talking about markets, I read it as more that they're looking
> to sell off some more rural or far suburban areas, not neighborhoods within
> the city.

I don't see why not.

Several people on here mentioned they have seen those VRAD boxes installed,
but no service available.

Around here, we don't even have the boxes.

I can see them finishing up the areas where they started the process, but
from that article, an area like here, where zero effort has been had, I
dunno, them starting up just doesn't make sense.

It's not that big of a deal for them to sell off the DSL people to another
company, even if it needs their facilities to run the service. That was sort
of the offer they made Ripco about 10 years ago, they would sell/lease us
like 500 dsl ports for a fixed price and we would brand them Ripco. 

Remember it was somewhat the problem when Chicago first allowed cable tv in
the city, they sectioned off the whole thing into 5 areas or zones and
wanted 5 different companies rather than one monopoly.

Problem was, the ones interested wanted the prime locations, the high
density ones where a single drop could feed 12+ units/customers.

Like I mentioned before, this block is next to worthless to them, there is
probably only 3 other houses with some kind of internet access, based on
sniffing around with wifi networks. It's not that much better expanding out
to the surrounding blocks. Central Park has dozens of them, but it's mostly
high density apartments and condos.

Bringing in full service Uverse to this hood would just draw a big yawn.

Them dividing up the city makes sense as much as the early cable days where
if you living east of Ashland, was one company and west of there was
another.

-bruce
bje@ripco.com

Well, the ordeal is over.

I think the theory about them separating the non-real uverse customers from
the real ones still holds water. Basically what I have now is the same thing
I had before, all they did was run a new line (dry pair), stuck the dsl on
it, leaving the normal copper phone line alone.

So if they wanted to, AT&T could keep the pots line, sell off the dedicated
DSL circuit to Bob's HySpeed Intranet Services. In theory anyway.

Nothing went smoothly, the installer they sent out admitted he was only on
the job for a month and didn't do too many of these yet. He also got deer
in the headlights looks when I told him I already had a business/static dsl
service, and have had it for over ten years. Appeared the work order was a
bit light with details.

After he made a phone call or two, he got the idea on what needed to be done
and managed to get it done, which included connecting up a new line. The big
disappointment for him was getting only 90 minutes for the install and it
ended up taking about 4 hours total. Not sure what that ends up being on his
permament record, but being the work order only specified "new install",
it's not really his fault.

The circuit and new router (Motorola NVG510) did come up, we went through
the auto-registration process, he even put in the static addresses. But
after he left, something just didn't seem right.

For one thing, the fastest it would sync up was somewhere between 3Mb and
3.5Mb, not the "around 6Mb" I was getting on the old dsl line. The other
thing was the static addresses they issued didn't make sense. The routers
"real" ip address was not in the same range he had for statics. I even found
several copies of the instructions saying the line you put in for the
gateway/router address should match the real ip as shown on the device
status page.

So before I started to re-ip the machines here on the statics, I went online
to the chat system, level 1 tech only was able to verify it was configured
correctly, but connected me to a level 2 chat person for more information.

Although it was just a chat window, that level 2 tech seemed kind of snotty.
They confirmed the account was configured properly, I had the static
addresses available, the real ip of the router was always out of the range
of the static subnet (?!?) and in fact the "real ip" was itself static,
mostly for law enforcement. They even said this, "In case the FBI or other
law enforcement required a wire trap, that is the ip we would trap".

So there ya go.

I'll spare the boring networking explanations but after setting up a test
machine, the statics did appear to work, sort of. Odd as it sounds, they
seemed to be intermittent. Outbound (from the machine) it always worked,
from the net to it, was there for a while, then not, came back, gone again.

After a bit of screwing around I also discovered they put the outbound port
25 block on the statics (oddly again, not on "the real ip"). So I went back
to the online chat, amazingly whoever it was knew what to do and fixed it
within a minute or two.

But within 5 minutes of that fix, most of the lights on the router turned
red or blinking red, it looked like it would reboot, go all green, then as
soon as it synced up, went to red and the whole cycle started again.

After a couple hours wait (it was dinner time anyway), figured a phone call
was in order, talked to sabu in india, they were unable to see the router
(no surprise) and opened up another appointment for the early morning. The
router was in that reboot mode at least till 10pm, last time I looked at it.

Next morning, it was online and working again, but only as good as it was
before (3.5Mb/784k), but no reboots or red lights. The tech called
confirming the appointment (russian guy, thick accent) and I told him maybe
to cancel the job because for whatever reason, it was working again.

Somewhat in a strong voice he said no, I already looked at the line from the
office and something is wrong somewhere, they never should of closed out the
install order, he wanted to come over and test it from here.

So he did, from the router, then outside from the wall box, then from the
pole and finally "the box" which is around Hamlin and Montrose. After about
an hour he came back and said the problem was between the pole out back and
"the box", but there wasn't anything he could do, but he submitted the
repair to the line crew and said it would be fixed within 24 hours.

That I found hard to beleive but they did show up in the morning on day 3,
did something (they never called or came in) but after they left the speed
was back to what I was paying for 6Mb/784k. No drops or reboots.

Spent the rest of the day changing the ip addresses and testing things out,
and I have to say, it's the same as it was before with the plain DSL.

One plus, I did manage to get them to delegate reverse DNS for the static ip
addresses. This was possible with the DSL, but they had some odd
requirements which I never understood or persued. They allowed to "enter in"
two of the five usable addresses, but to do all 5 required more paperwork
and hoop jumping. I guess on uverse, since the statics are common, a couple
of emails is all that is needed these days.

Anyway, everything is up and running, not saying I'm happy about it, but
glad it eventually fell into place. According to the sales drone, my cost on
it drops from the $70 a month to $35 ($19.95 a month + $15 for the statics)
for 12 months, then it's $34.95 plus the $15 afterwards, the cap goes from
150GB to 250GB.

But the "UVerse" is just plain dsl in this area...

Line State			Up
Broadband Connection		Up
Downstream Sync Rate (kbps)	6016
Upstream Sync Rate (kbps)	765
Modulation			ADSL2+
Data Path			Fast

But I was able to confirm the bastards would of disconnected the DSL on
4/12, that was already in the system as a disconnection date and from what
the russian said, there isn't any real uverse north of Montrose around here
and heard of no plans to move it into this area, anytime soon.

So I still don't get the point of changing it over now, except to get people
off the AT&T pots lines and separate billing under the Uverse name.

Still smells like a sellout to me.

-bruce
bje@ripco.com

Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
> Still smells like a sellout to me.

here's a random alternative theory for you.  since uverse is all voip these
days, maybe they're trying to ditch the pots?

Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:

> here's a random alternative theory for you.  since uverse is all voip these
> days, maybe they're trying to ditch the pots?


Would make sense to me if they were aggressively getting uverse deployed,
but it just doesn't seem that way. 

Areas like mine (lovely Albany Park) have nothing installed, a couple people
I know in the NW side of the city, they had those vrads installed two or
three summers ago, and they still don't have anything available to them.

I read somewhere recently that the old fashioned copper pots is at an all
time low, something like 52 million in the U.S. now, that's combined at&t
and verizon (I think), all because of cell phones and voip services.

I'm also wondering if AT&T came to the realization that uverse isn't a match
for what Comcast offers. Comcast is already offering 105mb service to
certain areas, it looks like uverse tops out around 22mb. And thats probably
if no one is watching any tv at the same time. If that's the best they can
do without converting the copper to fiber, maybe they know they already lost
the race.

One thing the tech with the russian accent mentioned is the real uverse
installs are using two-pair now. The single pair installs "didn't go well"
according to him. 

-bruce
bje@ripco.com
 

Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
> Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:
>> here's a random alternative theory for you.  since uverse is all voip these
>> days, maybe they're trying to ditch the pots?
>
> Would make sense to me if they were aggressively getting uverse deployed,
> but it just doesn't seem that way. 
>
> Areas like mine (lovely Albany Park) have nothing installed, a couple people
> I know in the NW side of the city, they had those vrads installed two or
> three summers ago, and they still don't have anything available to them.

same thing by me, they installed a VRAD last summer, nothing.

Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
>Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:

>>here's a random alternative theory for you.  since uverse is all voip these
>>days, maybe they're trying to ditch the pots?

>Would make sense to me if they were aggressively getting uverse deployed,
>but it just doesn't seem that way. 

>Areas like mine (lovely Albany Park) have nothing installed, a couple people
>I know in the NW side of the city, they had those vrads installed two or
>three summers ago, and they still don't have anything available to them.

Are they VRADs if they don't have the ability to offer television?
That's what I got on my block.

>One thing the tech with the russian accent mentioned is the real uverse
>installs are using two-pair now. The single pair installs "didn't go well"
>according to him. 

That's very interesting.

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

> Are they VRADs if they don't have the ability to offer television?
> That's what I got on my block.

I'm going to guess no, since VRAD seems to be shorthand for "video ready
access device".

Not sure if one size fits all but this is a picture of one...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video-ready_access_device

I know I've seen people say they seen them on poles, but according to the
russian again, if we ever get it around here, it's going to look like that
picture (on the ground). He said to keep an eye out if another box gets
built next to the one at Hamlin/Montrose, after 60 days of testing it should
be able to provide service.

Seems kind of far away to me, but maybe after it gets there, they have some
kind of repeater or extender.

-bruce
bje@ripco.com

Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> Are they VRADs if they don't have the ability to offer television?
>> That's what I got on my block.
>
> I'm going to guess no, since VRAD seems to be shorthand for "video ready
> access device".
>
> Not sure if one size fits all but this is a picture of one...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video-ready_access_device
>
> I know I've seen people say they seen them on poles, but according to the
> russian again, if we ever get it around here, it's going to look like that
> picture (on the ground). He said to keep an eye out if another box gets
> built next to the one at Hamlin/Montrose, after 60 days of testing it should
> be able to provide service.

here's the one in my alley on a pole
<http://www.ftupet.com/upload/vrad.JPG>

In article glg@tanzenmb.com says...
> here's the one in my alley on a pole
> <http://www.ftupet.com/upload/vrad.JPG>

After seeing your pic I happened to spot one in my neighborhood that I 
had walked by all the time without noticing.  How many subscribers can 
one of these boxes handle?

barbie gee <booger@nosespam.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Geoff Gass wrote:
>> Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are they VRADs if they don't have the ability to offer television?
>>>> That's what I got on my block.
>>>
>>> I'm going to guess no, since VRAD seems to be shorthand for "video ready
>>> access device".
>>>
>>> Not sure if one size fits all but this is a picture of one...
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video-ready_access_device
>>>
>>> I know I've seen people say they seen them on poles, but according to the
>>> russian again, if we ever get it around here, it's going to look like that
>>> picture (on the ground). He said to keep an eye out if another box gets
>>> built next to the one at Hamlin/Montrose, after 60 days of testing it should
>>> be able to provide service.
>>
>> here's the one in my alley on a pole
>> <http://www.ftupet.com/upload/vrad.JPG>
>
> and what do they store in the refrigerator next to it?

you mean the little one on the pole?

barbie gee <booger@nosespam.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Geoff Gass wrote:
>> barbie gee <booger@nosespam.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Geoff Gass wrote:
>>>> Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
>>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are they VRADs if they don't have the ability to offer television?
>>>>>> That's what I got on my block.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm going to guess no, since VRAD seems to be shorthand for "video ready
>>>>> access device".
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure if one size fits all but this is a picture of one...
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video-ready_access_device
>>>>>
>>>>> I know I've seen people say they seen them on poles, but according to the
>>>>> russian again, if we ever get it around here, it's going to look like that
>>>>> picture (on the ground). He said to keep an eye out if another box gets
>>>>> built next to the one at Hamlin/Montrose, after 60 days of testing it should
>>>>> be able to provide service.
>>>>
>>>> here's the one in my alley on a pole
>>>> <http://www.ftupet.com/upload/vrad.JPG>
>>>
>>> and what do they store in the refrigerator next to it?
>>
>> you mean the little one on the pole?
>>
>
> no, the big box on the ground. Which one is the vrad, and what's the other 
> thing?  we have nothing like it over by here.

I'm pretty sure the little one on the pole is the power box and the big one
is the vrad itself.  There's a ginormous bundle of cables (like 3-4" in
diameter) that comes down the poles and goes into that one.