> AT&T U-verse is a registered service mark under which AT&T offers VDSL and ADSL2+ services in various parts of the United States. It provides broadband internet access, TV, and phone through a fiber-to-the-node or Fiber to the Premise communications network.
† it merely, inscrutably says “everything is better” on U-Verse. And requires Adobe Flash to say so.
One of the rare instances where we might be better served with a title different from that of the article. Even Matt Dillon probably wouldn't suggest U-Verse is a "complete failure" for normal people.
U-V (I hate this name) is AT&T's high-speed service; it's FTTN (fat pipe to a DSLAM in the alley) 10-15mb over phone copper. It's a triple-play service (you get your TV and phone over it). I know a bit about it because, uh, I have it.
Dillon is pissed because the U-V router/firewall, which you can't really replace, is so bad that it breaks power user configurations. He's right, it does. BitTorrent also chokes it (yay!). I can add other problems: the set-top boxes are flaky, the reliability isn't awesome, customer service is atrocious.
On the other hand: it is f-a-s-t and cheap. I had Comcast before it, and before that I had Speakeasy (who I'd been loyal to since before the Best Buy takeover until I couldn't ignore the terrible performance anymore). I wouldn't go back to any of them. I hear good things about Vzn's fiber service, but in Chicago, I think AT&T is the best available bet.
> Dillon is pissed because the U-V router/firewall, which you can't really replace, is so bad that it breaks power user configurations. He's right, it does.
I don't know which router you and he have, but the one I have (a 2wire, don't know the model details) is configured to DMZ a pfSense box. I can torrent, use Vonage (QoSed in pfSense), etc.
I agree that they have atrocious customer service (still having connectivity issues after numerous technician visits due to old/crappy last mile cabling), but what large ISP's don't?
From what I can tell, even the "DMZ" box has state table tracking; if you torrent from it (I will admit to torrenting TV shows that I pay for, even though this is an ethical gray-area), it still murders the Internet connection for everyone else.
Probably 3800HG (V?), or something else in the 3000 series. I haven't been inside AT&T for many years, but Lightspeed/U-verse is all the 2wire 3000-series ("MediaPortal?" Fuzzy on that).
When I first started in IT I teched its regular DSL brother, the 2701. I still have one flashed with employee firmware, which unlocks what AT&T doesn't want you to have (parental controls and remote management and so on).
I say this without any former employee bias (my parting from Ma Bell was unsavory at best): the HomePortal line is a pretty solid device, for its target market. At least with traditional DSL if you don't dig the device (and if you know what QoS means, you won't), there's a plethora of other things out there. You can find something else to do gateway things, and the 2701 will act as solely a DSL modem if you ask it nicely.
Lightspeed/U-verse, though, well...
> I agree that they have atrocious customer service (still having connectivity issues after numerous technician visits due to old/crappy last mile cabling)
Finding an excuse to blame it on your in-house wiring, too?
Count your blessings, though, I'm in the same boat with Comcast and I pay per-visit unless I yell, which I hate doing because I've sat in that chair.
> Finding an excuse to blame it on your in-house wiring, too?
Actually, no. The technicians visited, looked at the in-house wiring, discovered new problems, looked at the last mile cabling, agreed it was in very poor shape, and then proceeded to replace only parts of it, most likely in order to save money. After several complaints, they've replaced the majority of it, but there are still times when the connection goes down.
I have the 2wire 3600hgv and it is garbage. Regularly requires a reboot and it will crash immediately if I try to transfer a file over ssh. The last 2wire modem I had from them, before I had U-Verse, would also crash when using ssh.
Vzn's fiber service is money. The router isn't particularly amazing (though competent) -- but the speed of the service is insanely fast and good all around.
I have Verizon FiOS as well. As luck would have it, you are not required to use the router as your router (though I agree that the router is serviceable). I have an ethernet cable coming directly out of the FiOS ONT to my FreeBSD-based router. I use the Verizon router on my LAN as a MoCA bridge for my TV's set top box. Seems to work perfectly fine, though Verizon claims that their router is required for optimal QoS (I use ALTQ instead).
Set top boxes are flaky? I've had quite the opposite experience. These have been the fastest, most responsive STB's I've ever worked with. Kicks the crap out of the Time Warner boxes.
For different data point, I'm ecstatic about U-verse here. It's definitely the fastest, most-stable residential Internet connection I've had. I know that some cable service and things like FiOS are faster, but U-verse is the fastest thing available to me here in the 'burbs.
I believe I do have a different router/modem than he's describing though. Mine's a 2Wire that doesn't seem to be as invasive. My only gripe is that it doesn't support 802.11n.
I don't use U-verse, but everybody I know that has it swears by it, which is why I was surprised at the sentiment of this article.
Looking at all the technical gripes the user raises, I guess its just another case of average person vs enthusiast-geek gap rearing its ugly head again.
"I guess its just another case of average person vs enthusiast-geek gap rearing its ugly head again."
Agreed.
The only problem I have had with U-Verse was on the first day. I was required to use a Windows computer because the activation page absolutely refused to load in any browser but Internet Explorer. Imagine if I didn't have anything other than my Macbook Pro?!
another case of average person vs enthusiast-geek gap rearing its ugly head again.
That's certainly a valid perspective if the reason that it works for the average person is the reason that it breaks for the enthusiast. e.g. one button mice, no user accounts on an iOS device, and so on.
However, if it appears to work for an average user but irritates the enthusiast for no reason other than apathy on the part of the vendor, this is not the same calibre of trade-off.
For what it's worth, I don't think my satisfaction with U-verse has anything to do with my (not) being an average user. Working from home as a developer, I put my Internet connections through the wringer. That's not even considering the half dozen other connected devices in the household, including some that are streaming Netflix and Hulu fairly regularly.
I also have U-verse here in Austin. It isn't great, and the DVR is pretty sad compared to Tivo, but it beats the PANTS off Time Warner cable. The ability to record 4 shows simultaneously is killer.
Woah, so it's £40 for 24Mbit line? That sounds like a rip off to me (even for UK, where I pay a lot less than that for a stable 50MBit fibre internet. And the state of the infrastructure in the UK is quite poor).
My only gripe with U-Verse was that they have had a ridiculously long-standing problem with DNS (this was a problem when I had the service installed in 2008 and there's nearly a 2-year-old thread on DSLReports about it). Downloads were super fast but the DNS latency made browsing feel painfully slow.
I threw the AT&T provided router into "DMZ plus" mode (which is the closest you'll ever get to bridge mode), then used my own wireless base station with Google DNS programmed into it, with no problems after that.
Last year I moved and can't get it at my house right now, and ended up back with Charter who is giving me 18/1.5 internet service for $40/month. I had been paying AT&T $65/month for 24 down/3 up before.
I pay a lot ($109/mo including 5 static IPs), but I am extremely pleased with Comcast's business class DOCSIS3 cable. 22/5 guaranteed, never seen less than ~35/8. No limits, no throttling/blocking, great SLA. When I first got DOCSIS3 I was dropping packets. Called them at 5:30PM and someone was at my front door 20 minutes later.
I switched my friend to U-Verse one year ago from Comcast. The switch was... PAINFUL. After repeated service calls and guys climbing the poll outside, the picture and internet worked fairly well. Did it work with our state-of-the-art home theater I just installed? NOPE. When we adopted U-Verse
AT&T didn't support 5.1 or 7.1 sound over HDMI. Only 2.0 sound would be available. I was sooo upset. I spent hours complaining to the tech support, they insisted it did support it. Higher level tech would reveal the cablebox is running a version of MS Windows that only supports 2.0 sound over HDMI. While all this is happening AT&T is running commercials all over the place advertising HD picture and digital surround sound.
EDIT: months later a box software update was released to fix the problem. AT&T was almost completely silent during the issue, and acted like they did me a favor when it was fixed.
I was making my costumer voice heard. There is no other recourse. It would be nice if it was that simple. Bool, if you will. But the fact was they were advertising something that didn't exist; like a phone company advertising '4G', doesn't exist. It's not right. These companies need to be called on their shit. People need to start getting upset. These companies walk all over us and are making billions. Meanwhile, we have the worst internet access and expensive of most all developed nations. Hong Kong is now serving 1Gb connections for $26 per month!!!
Hong Kong residents can also drive from one side of their country to the other in ten minutes! I demand that Big Transportation in the USA enable me to drive from NYC to LA in under twenty minutes!
In Canada the company in the west that's running this is Telus and they have the exact same issue. Originally they were offering it with the 15mb and 19mb ADSL 2+ profiles with a Thomson Speedtouch modem and a D-Link gateway or you could substitute your own router. When they moved to the VDSL2 profiles they started using the Actiontec VDSL modem/router combo which is a requirement.
There's no way to turn bridge mode on and the best you can do is turn on the DMZ and run your own router out of that. However, you're then double NAT'd which possibly could slow your connection down and it also allows the ISP to have a direct line into your personal network with wich they can mess any settings.
The main complaint is that the ISPs used to just own the line form the node to your modem and now they are DEMANDING to control your internal network as well which is a fucking joke.
35 comments
[ 9.2 ms ] story [ 91.2 ms ] thread> AT&T U-verse is a registered service mark under which AT&T offers VDSL and ADSL2+ services in various parts of the United States. It provides broadband internet access, TV, and phone through a fiber-to-the-node or Fiber to the Premise communications network.
† it merely, inscrutably says “everything is better” on U-Verse. And requires Adobe Flash to say so.
U-V (I hate this name) is AT&T's high-speed service; it's FTTN (fat pipe to a DSLAM in the alley) 10-15mb over phone copper. It's a triple-play service (you get your TV and phone over it). I know a bit about it because, uh, I have it.
Dillon is pissed because the U-V router/firewall, which you can't really replace, is so bad that it breaks power user configurations. He's right, it does. BitTorrent also chokes it (yay!). I can add other problems: the set-top boxes are flaky, the reliability isn't awesome, customer service is atrocious.
On the other hand: it is f-a-s-t and cheap. I had Comcast before it, and before that I had Speakeasy (who I'd been loyal to since before the Best Buy takeover until I couldn't ignore the terrible performance anymore). I wouldn't go back to any of them. I hear good things about Vzn's fiber service, but in Chicago, I think AT&T is the best available bet.
I don't know which router you and he have, but the one I have (a 2wire, don't know the model details) is configured to DMZ a pfSense box. I can torrent, use Vonage (QoSed in pfSense), etc.
I agree that they have atrocious customer service (still having connectivity issues after numerous technician visits due to old/crappy last mile cabling), but what large ISP's don't?
Probably 3800HG (V?), or something else in the 3000 series. I haven't been inside AT&T for many years, but Lightspeed/U-verse is all the 2wire 3000-series ("MediaPortal?" Fuzzy on that).
When I first started in IT I teched its regular DSL brother, the 2701. I still have one flashed with employee firmware, which unlocks what AT&T doesn't want you to have (parental controls and remote management and so on).
I say this without any former employee bias (my parting from Ma Bell was unsavory at best): the HomePortal line is a pretty solid device, for its target market. At least with traditional DSL if you don't dig the device (and if you know what QoS means, you won't), there's a plethora of other things out there. You can find something else to do gateway things, and the 2701 will act as solely a DSL modem if you ask it nicely.
Lightspeed/U-verse, though, well...
> I agree that they have atrocious customer service (still having connectivity issues after numerous technician visits due to old/crappy last mile cabling)
Finding an excuse to blame it on your in-house wiring, too?
Count your blessings, though, I'm in the same boat with Comcast and I pay per-visit unless I yell, which I hate doing because I've sat in that chair.
Actually, no. The technicians visited, looked at the in-house wiring, discovered new problems, looked at the last mile cabling, agreed it was in very poor shape, and then proceeded to replace only parts of it, most likely in order to save money. After several complaints, they've replaced the majority of it, but there are still times when the connection goes down.
I believe I do have a different router/modem than he's describing though. Mine's a 2Wire that doesn't seem to be as invasive. My only gripe is that it doesn't support 802.11n.
Looking at all the technical gripes the user raises, I guess its just another case of average person vs enthusiast-geek gap rearing its ugly head again.
Agreed.
The only problem I have had with U-Verse was on the first day. I was required to use a Windows computer because the activation page absolutely refused to load in any browser but Internet Explorer. Imagine if I didn't have anything other than my Macbook Pro?!
That's certainly a valid perspective if the reason that it works for the average person is the reason that it breaks for the enthusiast. e.g. one button mice, no user accounts on an iOS device, and so on.
However, if it appears to work for an average user but irritates the enthusiast for no reason other than apathy on the part of the vendor, this is not the same calibre of trade-off.
I threw the AT&T provided router into "DMZ plus" mode (which is the closest you'll ever get to bridge mode), then used my own wireless base station with Google DNS programmed into it, with no problems after that.
Last year I moved and can't get it at my house right now, and ended up back with Charter who is giving me 18/1.5 internet service for $40/month. I had been paying AT&T $65/month for 24 down/3 up before.
EDIT: months later a box software update was released to fix the problem. AT&T was almost completely silent during the issue, and acted like they did me a favor when it was fixed.
No equipment associated with U-verse runs Windows, aside from a PC connected to it.
There's no way to turn bridge mode on and the best you can do is turn on the DMZ and run your own router out of that. However, you're then double NAT'd which possibly could slow your connection down and it also allows the ISP to have a direct line into your personal network with wich they can mess any settings.
The main complaint is that the ISPs used to just own the line form the node to your modem and now they are DEMANDING to control your internal network as well which is a fucking joke.