AT&T disappointed with offers for struggling DirecTV

[NashGuy]

I don't understand why that is something that only works if you run fiber inside the house. If they put a fiber to ethernet bridge on the side of your house, they leave it there and the next person will just plug in the ethernet in the house. They don't even need some special AT&T gateway, that's what's on the side of the house. Inside the house it is just ethernet, they can plug in their own switch, wireless router or whatever and they're good to go and you aren't stuck using some telco abomination that restricts your ability to configure things the way you like.

Yeah, I'm honestly not sure why this new type of AT&T Fiber installation might allow for future self-installs where their original type of installation didn't. I'm just repeating what I've read from folks who seem to know a lot more about the technical specifics than I do (e.g. actual fiber installers).

If the topic interests you, you can dig around in the DSL Reports forums and learn more.

 

[Juan]

Yeah, I'm honestly not sure why this new type of AT&T Fiber installation might allow for future self-installs where their original type of installation didn't. I'm just repeating what I've read from folks who seem to know a lot more about the technical specifics than I do (e.g. actual fiber installers).

If the topic interests you, you can dig around in the DSL Reports forums and learn more.

You cant bend and twist fiber...not exactly self install friendly

 

[NashGuy]

You cant bend and twist fiber...not exactly self install friendly

I thought the same thing until I actually had it installed. The fiber cable that runs all the way to the little fiber jack on my living room wall is quite stiff because it has a protective layer of metal inside it. But it can be bent by the installer (and obviously has to be) in order to get it in place.

All of that stay will stay put right where it is. But there's a separate pliable fiber cable (with no metal inside it) that plugs into the wall jack at one end and into the gateway's SPF port on the other end. This cable is easily manipulated and would be no problem for the end user to connect.

If you want to see photos and learn more about it, check out this thread at DSL Reports:

BGW320-505 new gateway with integrated ONT, - AT&T U-verse | DSLReports Forums

Forum discussion: Can't find much info other than from the FCC site so far.

www.dslreports.com

 

[slice1900]

Ethernet tops out a just under 1 gig (about 940 Mbps, I think). AT&T Fiber is future-proofing by running glass all the way to the gateway because they know that they will eventually offer speeds above 1 gig.

Well ignoring that there's no use case for residential internet at anything like a gigabit, let alone higher speeds, twisted pair works fine for 2.5Gb, 5Gb, 10Gb and can go even higher (though that will never be seen in the home, and with good reason)

 

[Don in CT]

Well ignoring that there's no use case for residential internet at anything like a gigabit, let alone higher speeds, twisted pair works fine for 2.5Gb, 5Gb, 10Gb and can go even higher (though that will never be seen in the home, and with good reason)

How is there no use case? As we start pushing 4k as a standard and Zoom becomes the norm we will need more upload speed.

 

[Jimbo]

So where is the dmarc?

Side of the house ... like most others.

 

[Juan]

Well ignoring that there's no use case for residential internet at anything like a gigabit, let alone higher speeds, twisted pair works fine for 2.5Gb, 5Gb, 10Gb and can go even higher (though that will never be seen in the home, and with good reason)

That was a good laugh...we should all be back on 56k modems with that logic

 

[Ronnie-]

Well ignoring that there's no use case for residential internet at anything like a gigabit, let alone higher speeds, twisted pair works fine for 2.5Gb, 5Gb, 10Gb and can go even higher (though that will never be seen in the home, and with good reason)

People have been saying the same thing with each breakthrough speed tier since 56k. The last modem you will ever need.

Times change, uses evolve.

Even looking through the Speedtest thread here is quite eye opening as to how fast these things change.

 

[TheTechGuru]

AT&T Fiber is over-provisioned, I hear that if you get their new gateway with the 5G port and link it up with a 2.5G/5G/10G port on a computer you will get around 1200mbps...

 

[navychop]

Use case? HOLOSUITE!

 

[TheTechGuru]

Use case? HOLOSUITE!

I hear holographic TV will eventually be a thing and will probably need a lot of bandwidth...

 

[ncted]

AT&T Fiber is over-provisioned, I hear that if you get their new gateway with the 5G port and link it up with a 2.5G/5G/10G port on a computer you will get around 1200mbps...

Is that a complaint?

Aren't most ISPs over-provisioning their connections to avoid complaints about slowness when speed tests are slower than advertised speeds?

 

[TV Junkie]

That was a good laugh...we should all be back on 56k modems with that logic

Shotgun style bonded 56k modems thank you. Oh the power.

 

[Juan]

Shotgun style bonded 56k modems thank you. Oh the power.

View attachment 151438

How many phonelines?

 

[TV Junkie]

How many phonelines?

Two phone lines

 

[NashGuy]

Well ignoring that there's no use case for residential internet at anything like a gigabit, let alone higher speeds, twisted pair works fine for 2.5Gb, 5Gb, 10Gb and can go even higher (though that will never be seen in the home, and with good reason)

Where are you reading that twisted pair copper lines can support 5 or 10 gig speeds? Most I'm aware of is 2 gig on a very short run using G.fast. And that introduces additional complications into the network versus a simple passive optical network that's all fiber from end to end.

Anyhow, I agree with you that relatively few homes have much use for even gigabit speeds. Really only those folks who download and upload huge files regularly, which mainly seems to be avid gamers who download entire game files to temporarily store on the drives in the PS and Xbox consoles. (Why aren't video games still sold on physical media?) I guess there are also some video and graphics professionals who work from home and appreciate the much faster speeds too.

But honestly, most of us just stream content, surf the web, and the only downloading and uploading we do tends to be small files like mobile apps or photos and short video clips posted to social media. On the rare occasion that I download a seriously large file (like an OS update), it's just something that I start and then do something else while the download happens in the background. I don't care if it takes a half hour or whatever.

My 60/60 fiber connection, with no data cap and a very nice router included, is great. Plenty fast enough to stream 4K Dolby Vision on two or three screens at once while also surfing the web and allowing smart devices to do their thing in the background. (That said, I only have one 4K TV, so even 60/60 is overkill for my needs.) I have zero reason to pay additional money for anything faster. I don't think any major US ISP is offering anything better than this for a regular ongoing price of just $45/mo.

 

[Juan]

Where are you reading that twisted pair copper lines can support 5 or 10 gig speeds? Most I'm aware of is 2 gig on a very short run using G.fast. And that introduces additional complications into the network versus a simple passive optical network that's all fiber from end to end.

Anyhow, I agree with you that relatively few homes have much use for even gigabit speeds. Really only those folks who download and upload huge files regularly, which mainly seems to be avid gamers who download entire game files to temporarily store on the drives in the PS and Xbox consoles. (Why aren't video games still sold on physical media?) I guess there are also some video and graphics professionals who work from home and appreciate the much faster speeds too.

But honestly, most of us just stream content, surf the web, and the only downloading and uploading we do tends to be small files like mobile apps or photos and short video clips posted to social media. On the rare occasion that I download a seriously large file (like an OS update), it's just something that I start and then do something else while the download happens in the background. I don't care if it takes a half hour or whatever.

My 60/60 fiber connection, with no data cap and a very nice router included, is great. Plenty fast enough to stream 4K Dolby Vision on two or three screens at once while also surfing the web and allowing smart devices to do their thing in the background. (That said, I only have one 4K TV, so even 60/60 is overkill for my needs.) I have zero reason to pay additional money for anything faster. I don't think any major US ISP is offering anything better than this for a regular ongoing price of just $45/mo.

You don't have multiple tvs streaming at the same time

 

[NashGuy]

You don't have multiple tvs streaming at the same time

Some households do, I'm sure but I don't.

As a general rule, you want to allow about 5 Mbps of bandwidth for each 720p stream, 8 Mbps for 1080p, and 20 Mbps for 4K. Of course, those figures can vary depending on the amount of compression, the codec used, etc., but they provide a rough guideline. Even with a family of four, you can see how unlikely it would be for them to need more than 100 Mbps download speed if all they were doing was streaming video and audio, doing voice or video calls, surfing the web, playing online games, etc.

 

[Juan]

Some households do, I'm sure but I don't.

As a general rule, you want to allow about 5 Mbps of bandwidth for each 720p stream, 8 Mbps for 1080p, and 20 Mbps for 4K. Of course, those figures can vary depending on the amount of compression, the codec used, etc., but they provide a rough guideline. Even with a family of four, you can see how unlikely it would be for them to need more than 100 Mbps download speed if all they were doing was streaming video and audio, doing voice or video calls, surfing the web, playing online games, etc.

With cable...you get the 100mb package but at peak times you might get 50mb

So you really want the 200mb package and if you have a serious gamer you need the 400mb package

You dont really get the speeds you are supposed to in my area

 

[slice1900]

People have been saying the same thing with each breakthrough speed tier since 56k. The last modem you will ever need.

Times change, uses evolve.

Even looking through the Speedtest thread here is quite eye opening as to how fast these things change.

Oh yes, by all means compare "less than gigabit" with "56K".

The reason there has been demand for speed increases has been increases in the richness of sensory input. Back in the 80s the internet (and bulletin boards, since it was before the general public really had access to the internet) was mostly a text medium, with some low quality images if you were patient. In the 90s when analog modem speeds peaked at 56K we started seeing high quality still images and MP3s. In the 00s when broadband started becoming available to the general public low quality streaming video made its first appearance. Now broadband is fast enough that you can do high quality streaming video. Each step required about an order of magnitude of speed increase.

Problem is, 4K video is the richest sensory input there is. You can try to argue, 8K will replace 4K, then 16K will replace it, and so on but most people won't care. As it is most people have trouble telling the difference between high quality HD upscaled to 4K, and native 4K. Something that demands another order of magnitude does not exist, and isn't even on the horizon.

So where's the use case for a gigabit, let alone higher? You gonna watch 40 4K videos at once? Sure we download updates for our phones and PCs that may be several gigabytes in size, but we don't really care if they download in a few minutes or a tenth of a second, because speedier downloads of big files don't improve our user experience. You won't get web sites loading any faster upgrading a 50 Mbps connection to a gigabit, because that's limited by the latency of the back and forth communication. So tell me, what's your use case for a gigabit, something concrete not a hand waving "well you could have said this about 56K". Except no one said it then, because there were plenty of obvious things that could be done with faster speeds. Now there is nothing obvious that can be done by going faster than a gigabit.