Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AT&T's 'Expansion' of 1 Gbps to 100 Cities is a Big, Fat Bluff

dslreports.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 48 posts

Re: AT&T's 'Expansion' of 1 Gbps to 100 Cities is a Big, Fat Bluff

#11

Post by dm2 »

wmf wrote: post #10
Igglyboo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google comes across as a hero because the end result is cheap and fast internet access. AT&T and Google both play the regulatory game but AT&T ends up gouging their consumers and not delivering on advertised speeds.

Is Google Fiber actually cheap or is it just passing on their regulatory savings to customers?

Google charges a $300 one-time install fee for the free 5 Mbps internet and $70 a month for the 1 Gbit internet (install fee waived). Many people have calculated that they are making up the costs in just a couple of years.

I haven't seen it but I'd be willing to bet that the Google TV experience is far superior to what Time Warner and AT&T offer, which is horrible. They've been selling TV service for a long time and still have laggy and unintuitive on-screen menus and guides.

Re: AT&T's 'Expansion' of 1 Gbps to 100 Cities is a Big, Fat Bluff

#13

Post by [deleted] »

dm2 wrote: post #11
wmf wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Google Fiber actually cheap or is it just passing on their regulatory savings to customers?

Google charges a $300 one-time install fee for the free 5 Mbps internet and $70 a month for the 1 Gbit internet (install fee waived). Many people have calculated that they are making up the costs in just a couple of years. I haven't seen it but I'd be willing to bet that the Google TV experience is far superior to what Time Warner and AT&T offer, which is horrible. They've been selling TV service for a long time and…

[deleted]

Re: AT&T's 'Expansion' of 1 Gbps to 100 Cities is a Big, Fat Bluff

#14

Post by daigoba66 »

ATT UVerse is the one of the biggest disappointments I've faced as a consumer.

When Verizon FIOS first came about I was super excited. And then I learned that since my town is part of ATT-land, I'm forever locked out of obtaining it.

A few years later ATT announces UVerse (fiber-to-the-home) in select markets. Again I'm super excited, and I anxiously await the day it's available for my street.

Years later that day finally comes. Only then do I realize that they have since re-branded their entire DSL product line as "UVerse". So all ATT customers can get UVerse, great! But only a very select few will actually get fiber-to-the-home.

What a load of crap.

Re: AT&T's 'Expansion' of 1 Gbps to 100 Cities is a Big, Fat Bluff

#15

Post by earlz »

This article is spot on. I've had countless reps try to sell me on U-Verse "It's fiber to your neighborhood, so it's faster"! My next question is of course "How fast?" "Well, you can get up to 18mbit/s".. I have faster than that with cable. wtf

That's not to even mention their HORRIBLE modems that they force you to use after migrating to U-Verse. Search for "nvg510" and you'll see how happy your service will be afterwards, assuming they aren't using old unreliable DSL pairs that make it so your specific house can only get 6mbit or 1.5mbit, despite your neighbor getting 16mbit

Oh, and also in my city you can't even buy just U-Verse internet. you have to buy into their crap "digital" (another word for heavily MPEG compressed) TV service

Re: AT&T's 'Expansion' of 1 Gbps to 100 Cities is a Big, Fat Bluff

#16

Post by sureshv »

daigoba66 wrote: post #14

ATT UVerse is the one of the biggest disappointments I've faced as a consumer. When Verizon FIOS first came about I was super excited. And then I learned that since my town is part of ATT-land, I'm forever locked out of obtaining it. A few years later ATT announces UVerse (fiber-to-the-home) in select markets. Again I'm super excited, and I anxiously await the day it's available for my street. Years later that day fi…

Most of UVerse is FTTN, after which it is VDSL2 to the premise site; hence bandwidths that are 24Mbps at most. I have U-Verse and get around 18Mbps at most but since the line is shared with their TV service it can drop down from there.

Re: AT&T's 'Expansion' of 1 Gbps to 100 Cities is a Big, Fat Bluff

#17

Post by [deleted] »

earlz wrote: post #15

This article is spot on. I've had countless reps try to sell me on U-Verse "It's fiber to your neighborhood, so it's faster"! My next question is of course "How fast?" "Well, you can get up to 18mbit/s".. I have faster than that with cable. wtf That's not to even mention their HORRIBLE modems that they force you to use after migrating to U-Verse. Search for "nvg510" and you'll see how happy your service will be after…

[deleted]

Re: AT&T's 'Expansion' of 1 Gbps to 100 Cities is a Big, Fat Bluff

#18

Post by JonFish85 »

xhrpost wrote: post #5
dm2 wrote: post #3

I had an AT&T salesman come to my door just a few days ago to try and sell me their new "fiber" they had just installed in my area (I'm in a large city mentioned in the article), telling me all of the benefits of having fast internet. I had to lie and tell him I didn't own a TV in order to get him to stop talking about the 300 channel TV/internet bundle. When I finally squeezed the actual speed of it out of him the a…

They run fiber to their Uverse nodes and then apparently tell their salespeople to sell this as a feature. I remember one telling me the benefits of a "fiber optic signal" somehow going to my house over copper. I still ended up switching later on since they're cheaper than my local cable provider, though network performance doesn't seem to be as good.

Maybe they're using Monster cables, for a better digital signal? (Kidding, hopefully obviously)

Re: AT&T's 'Expansion' of 1 Gbps to 100 Cities is a Big, Fat Bluff

#19

Post by ryoshu »

rayiner wrote: post #6

> In short, if your city plays nice and gives AT&T what they want legislatively (namely gut consumer protections requiring they keep serving DSL users they don't want so they can focus on more profitable wireless) I think the author is being hypocritical in holding this against AT&T while ignoring the fact that Google is only rolling out fiber in cities that agree to basically leave them alone from regulatory standpo…

The $200 Billion Rip-off: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_0026...

The telcos have already promised to lay fiber, received concessions for it, and delivered little to nothing. Google may start ripping off taxpayers like that, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until I see it.

Re: AT&T's 'Expansion' of 1 Gbps to 100 Cities is a Big, Fat Bluff

#20

Post by cones688 »

xhrpost wrote: post #5
dm2 wrote: post #3

I had an AT&T salesman come to my door just a few days ago to try and sell me their new "fiber" they had just installed in my area (I'm in a large city mentioned in the article), telling me all of the benefits of having fast internet. I had to lie and tell him I didn't own a TV in order to get him to stop talking about the 300 channel TV/internet bundle. When I finally squeezed the actual speed of it out of him the a…

They run fiber to their Uverse nodes and then apparently tell their salespeople to sell this as a feature. I remember one telling me the benefits of a "fiber optic signal" somehow going to my house over copper. I still ended up switching later on since they're cheaper than my local cable provider, though network performance doesn't seem to be as good.

> benefits of a "fiber optic signal" somehow going to my house over copper

This is what is sold in the UK a lot, its called fibre to the cabinet (FTC) and does indeed make a difference, if your cabinet is on the street corner (100m) that beats the 1 mile maybe to the actual exchange as a lot of internet speed is dictated by the decay one gets with copper signals.

[0] http://www.thinkbroadband.com/guide/fibre-broadband.html

Post reply on HN