On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 22:27 -0400, Chad Bailey wrote: > > I'm well aware of distance limitations. What I was trying to convey > was that distance in and of itself isn't the issue, the issue is > distance causes attenuation issues. If your attenuation is fine, > regardless of distance, you should be able to get a solid connection, > Having said that, if there's too much distance, your attenuation wont > be fine.
I am with you there, and many factors can effect the attenuation. One of the main factors that effects attenuation or rate of loss is distance. > This touches on what I forgot to mention when speaking of distance. I > have not gone out and measured anyone with a measuring tape or > anything like that so it's highly probable that the tools we use for > measuring distance aren't accurate since I haven't personally verified > them. Its very difficult for them to be accurate, since when using things like copper medium. You can have variances from day to day based on temperature changes and other factors. Its why when the engineers were running tests, they never got consistent results. > I will say though, I worked on an escalation where a customer was > remediated to a slower speed due to 'distance limitations'. She was > highly upset because she got perfect 3meg speeds before and couldn't > understand how her line could have gotten "longer" overnight. Upon > further investigation, the customer had some inside wiring issues. > Once she was forcefully upgraded to 3mbit again and a technician > rectified the line issues, she could have easily gotten 6 meg service > with her line parameters. This was a customer we insisted could only > get 768kbit due to distance. Something to think about. I dropped in new Cat5e wiring in every room of my house when first moving in back in 03. Its a habit of mine to wire any location I reside in, unless its been wired. I still use wireless on top of that. Even when the U-Verse installers were here, there was a need for another line from the external router to the internal one. I hoped in the attic and dropped in another for them. Inside wiring is as good as it can be with short and direct runs. Same with cable, nice RG6. Its always the external wiring or path between A & B. I had a client with a PRI some time back, that went down at one point. The cable under the street bringing many copper pairs into the commercial building was going bad. There were only a couple left before the line had to be replaced. I can't recall specifics, its been years. Same year the CO had several MUX failures and took out DSL, T1, PRI and other services for an entire block for a few days. > > That might be the common case, but I assure you I had escalated the > > matter to At&t Engineers, not any level 1, 2 or 3 techs. It kept getting > > escalated till it got to the network engineers. I don't mess around with > > such things, given my past experience. > > I work executive (presidential) escalations. Not to toot my own horn > or something, but there's nothing higher. Engineers that have access to the local COs. The ones I was working with were running tests at the CO near me and then relaying back the information. In addition to coming by my location and running other tests. > We do work with the > engineering department, but the information I'm giving here is a > direct result of working with these other inner departments which has > taught me what I know. Process might have changed over the years as well, I am talking back in 03 :) > Like I said earlier, distance is an issue sure, but many times is > misdiagnosed. Believe me when I say, many people even in the > engineering departments aren't all on the same level of expertise. I very much agree there. I have conversations with many, and they know certain things quite well, at minimum what they are responsible for. However when it comes to other things, not always the case. > It's an unfortunate reality, but I say this only because I feel it's > important people become more educated about issues. Agreed! > I attempted to explore the clearwire route once, it seemed like the > worst of all worlds >_< It definitely has its uses, and is not bad. It was even better back in the day because the modem had a lithium ion batter pack. Thus you could take it with you, instead of always being plugged into a power source. Even now you could have had one in your car with a charger. While the other networks were maturing. Not sure about Clearwires speeds these days compared to other cellular data networks, At&t, Verizon, Sprint, T-Moble, etc. > In my experience it tapered off much quicker than that, however, I > probably had a much crappier plan than you (aka cheapest available, > but not the 1mbit/1mbit economy plan) I am just on Blast! its middle, they have 2 above, and 2-3 below. Residential service, not business. Not keen on the install fee for service I have already. Much less signing a contract and increases the cost for the same speeds I have now. Not to mention the only time I had a major blocking outage, even the business sales dept admitted, they could not have guaranteed restoration or resolution any faster or better. If that was the case, I would have switched to business then :) > > I can't recall what the other specs where of my line at the time back in > > 2003. I just know that it always came back to distance. Everything else > > was good, I was just to far to get faster speeds. > > They will tell you it's distance, but only because we're not allowed > to use technical jargon. The real problem was attenuation, which was > being caused by distance. Same thing, sure but I feel it's important > to address the root of the issue We spoke in jargon. I have no need for other terms when it comes to problems effecting things I will be depending on to make a living. But again there is only so much they can do to effect the attenuation over distances. Either way I was SOL :) > > Well I know people in distant areas that have Cable service, and could > > not get DSL. CO is miles away. Though for one, Comcast plopped a node in > > their front yard. Some what far out in in the country in St Johns > > county. > > In my experience, the contrary is normally true. There are instances > where cable is available and dsl isn't, but it's not as common as DSL > being available and cable not being. Sure, because DSL comes from CO's and the main limiting factor for service is distance from the CO. CO's have to be there for the pots network, which is a utility, and heavily regulated. Cable is some what a utility but not regulated nearly the same. For example with U-Verse, if you get phone service. They put a battery in the power supply for the external router. That way phone service will continue to work during power loss, just as pots phones do. > This is only based on personal > experience, but was true for any ISP. When I lived in rural kentucky, > my friends who could actually get cable considered themselves lucky. Its definitely not in all areas. Jacksonville was fortunate to an extent that it was an early wide adapter. Its everywhere for the most part, but not sure about the quality as a result :) > I > also speak with numerous customers who threaten they will switch as > soon as they can get some other provider in their area. I realize > that's no indication though, as I do not handle cable customers in > order to see both sides of the fence. Perhaps this is more common up > north in the KY/TN area that I'm from. If its older infrastructure, cable in the ground etc. Then can be lots of issues, and I have no doubt service varies all over the city and metro area. Just the same allot of the animosity might be customer service related not just service issues :) > I realize what ISDN is, however, this doesn't change the fact that the > government regulations were a deciding factor when deploying DSL > service to areas. The only reason I even know about this is because my > manager used to be a sales manager. Not typical for employees to be > aware of this. Not sure what you mean there, if you mean that DSL is not regulated as IDSN. Thats very likely the case, since they are very different products. I don't believe ISDN is regulated like POTS phone service is at this time. Though I don't really stay up to date on regulations. > DSL with POTS is regulated. DSL direct is not regulated. They operate > both as if they were both regulated to avoid confusion and > complication between the 2 services. Not sure what you mean by regulated. You can lose DSL service, while you will almost never lose POTS phone service. If you lose POTS phone service it must be restored within a certain period of time. I don't believe thats the case with DSL or any Internet medium. Unless its part of the SLA, and you usually pay a much higher rate for such. > I see, I know the dollar offer was accepted. Since the offer was > agreed upon by both parties I dont see why it would be refused. It can and might be for many reasons. Its the whole reason why they can't just merge after an agreement has been reached. > As has happened every other time AT&T purchased other companies, At&t was mostly reconstructing the old Ma Bell, that was broken up back in the day. Thus all the region Bell's. Which Verizon is also result of that break up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System > I expect there to be stipulations placed on the acquisition, but would doubt > they will straight up say no you can't. It could happen, or be required to sell off parts of one or the other, or other aspects. > They haven't yet, and AT&T has > purchased quite a few companies, some major players as well like > Cingular and Bellsouth. Not saying I support it, I also agree > competition is a good thing. Well some of that again was just buying back companies that were split off long some time ago :) > > Whats to say they keep their HQ here in the US? I always wondered that > > about like MS, if the government really went after MS or any company. > > They could just relocate to another country :) > > That's true, maybe additional rules should be placed on it haha. Don't > get me wrong, I'm not a fan of government dictating our every move, > but competition in free commerce is worth defending IMHO. I agree, monopolies are no good. > Outsourcing is destructive to our economy and the bottom line is > companies are forced to do it to stay competitively priced when > everyone else is doing it too. Kinda like child labor in foreign > countries, it's wrong, but profitable. I hate outsourcing, it has taken food off my table. I have had and lost some clients to Indian developers. It really stinks! Much less the amount of spam I get from foreign companies trying to get me to outsource to them. Its why I broke down and put a Made in USA on my website. Also being more conscious of buying Made in USA products, if/when you can find them. I can't believe how many items I posses made in Asia. > Had they been our local provider I suspect they would have. Their > deployment was typically in metropolitan areas (unless you mean > geographically large). FIOS is in Philadelphia, and Tampa. These > aren't small cities by any measure. I am speaking in geographic terms, Jacksonville is HUGE! They made it such back in the late 60s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksonville,_Florida#Geography We are the largest in the US, short of 3 cities in Alaska, which most of the area is uninhabitable. Largest in the contiguous US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_area > You'll hear many opinions that wildly vary in AT&T, most uninformed. But like you it was based on recent training as I was told, or briefings. I am sure all is subject to change at any time. Not to mention speculation tossed in etc. > I > make an intentional effort to base what I say on fact, or at least > advise my source of information when I'm unsure of the reliability. I > wouldn't disagree they are pushing wireless, it's only the time frame > I'm concerned about. Time frame is years. Even U-Verse is like on its 3rd year over all, but hardly available in areas of Jacksonville. Wireless service overtaking wired and replacing all inside wiring is definitely several years off. > Why would AT&T be investing in this wired U-Verse > network if only to replace it as soon as they finish their investment? Well its mostly using existing infrastructure. Short of the nodes, connected to CO by fiber. From there its the existing copper your old pots phones and dsl are or were using. In my case I wasn't using any copper, way more pairs there than the single coax coming in. Though allot can be done via a single coax. That would require all kinds of copper pairs :) Its also to regain some lost business, as DSL is just not keeping up with Cable these days. Much less the whole TV service, is a new product to sell to new customers. It all equals more revenue, and will likely offset costs and provide a ROI sooner than later. I think the Bells have learned their lesson about only getting long term ROI on infrastructure. Thus I think these days they look to have things paid for sooner than later, and move on to the next technology. Rather than constantly adapting old technology for new uses, IE copper wires :) > AT&T does a lot of unusual and unpredictable things, but wasting money > is not something they are in the business of. Oh it happens, and has for many years. Still trying to get a ROI on all that copper everywhere. > Perception is everything indeed. With all due respect, I get a much > more rounded understanding of the company than some techs who only > talk to their buddies and supervisor the few hours they're actually in > the office. I rarely speak to technicians other than in person. > In the position I'm in, I have the opportunity to speak > with many other departments and know things most employees on the > front line aren't privy to. Just the same they have testing equipment and other things, you do not have access to and rely on them to provide you with information. > Being a part of process, I also know > things management within my center may not know about. AT&T is very > good at giving information on a need to know basis only, so many > rumors are spread. No doubt, likely the same in many big companies. > I can guarantee you my sources of information are > much more reliable than the tech you spoke with you. There was a supervisor monitoring one of the U-Verse guys. There were 3 techs this time. Previously back in 03 when working with DSL there were like 10. However given the things I observed much less the conversations I had with the technicians and the supervisor. I have no doubt they were quite in the know. Though there was some speculation on the internal wiring being replaced by wireless. Much less speculation on external unit being wireless. Not sure what At&t's time frame there is, and likely depend on other technologies. Such as At&ts wireless network and the speeds it can carry and sustain, much less customers. > I only get this > exposure due to the position I have with process. I'm not even able to > speak at liberty with my co-workers about what I know/do. It's my > trustworthiness that's caused me to be trusted with the information. > This is why I've been careful not to give too many details, but think > I've stayed clear of providing information that is sensitive and > proprietary. Just as you cannot discuss some information, I am not sure you would be privy to say the future of U-Verse services and how they will be provided, via what mediums. > I don't think I'm necessarily in disagreement with you though, just > slightly different. I do agree wireless is the direction they're > pushing, but they aren't pushing that direction with intentions of > soon abandoning U-Verse in my (somewhat educated) opinion. U-Verse will not be abandoned. My understanding is it will continue on for some time. With the first phase being replacing external wired units with wireless ones. Then at some later date, having external wireless units capable of providing wireless service to replace inside wiring. That aspect might never materialize for many reasons, like interference. > Abandoning > DSL on the other hand? Yep, no questions there. It's my hope they will > continue to do what they've always done and support existing accounts > without taking drastic measures to eliminate DSL all together. Well DSL is not really going anywhere, just abandoning ADSL. Since U-Verse is very much DSL still, just another form. They are just marketing it under a sellable name that also applies to other services, TV, Phone, etc. All provided over a DSL medium. Some are very mislead assuming its fiber to the premises like FiOS. Its nothing like that and you will be no where near the fiber. U-Verse uses fiber just as cable service does. Copper to a node, and fiber from there. > If not, I'll be soon looking for a new job. This is probably what I > know least about to be completely honest, because I KNOW that if they > were intending to eliminate their DSL department, they would very > heavily protect their agents and even high level management from > knowing this because the recipients of this information would be in > fear of their jobs. They have sometimes repurposed/retrained agents > when things such as that happened in the past though, so hopefully if > it did happen I'd keep my job. I would imagine they would re-purpose or retrain. However there was some fear in the eyes of the non u-verse At&t tech. He was correct about the U-Verse techs having better and newer gear, including vehicles. Seems like they are treated much better all around, or at least that was the impression given off. Though it would not be beyond any big company to do layoffs in decent amounts. I sure hope that does not happen to you or anyone locally, or anywhere for that matter. But to have a job is to have the potential to lose it for many reasons just as any. One reason I have remained self employed. Only I can fire myself. Take that Trump! :) -- William L. Thomson Jr. Obsidian-Studios, Inc. http://www.obsidian-studios.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive http://marc.info/?l=jaxlug-list&r=1&w=2 RSS Feed http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml Unsubscribe [email protected]
