[colug-432] Comcast and connectivity alternatives

Fri Mar 7 18:36:27 EST 2014

I'm six days in and haven't had any issues so far. Hoping it stays that
way. The installer did give me his cell number and asked me to call him
personally if I had issues, which was impressive. Never had an installer do
that before.
On Mar 7, 2014 5:01 PM, "Rick Hornsby" <richardjhornsby at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mar 7, 2014, at 16:16, "Keith Larson" <klarson at k12group.net> wrote:
>
> I have tried U-verse in two different houses and had absolutely horrible
> results both times.  If you get through the first 30 days and it works for
> you, it is probably a great service.  I was down 12 of the first 30 days.
> I hadn't canceled my WOW either, so the switch back was easy.  You have to
> watch the installers though.  They like to cut any cable that isn't the one
> that they just pulled.
>
>
> That last statement ^
>
> While I don't think they do it to intentionally disable your other service
> provider, it can definitely have the effect of making it much harder to go
> back.
>
> When I'm making an ISP change, I usually have both for a couple of months
> overlapping.  It lets me switch back and forth while I work out the issues,
> and ultimately like Keith said easily revert if the new guy isn't working
> out.
>
>
>
>
> Keith Larson
> Franklin Computer Services - K12group
> klarson at k12group.net
> (614) 561-4887 (mobile)
>
>
>
> >>> Robert Grimm <robertgrimm at gmail.com> 3/1/2014 11:44 PM >>>
> I got my U-verse installed on Friday. I'm taking it out on Monday. Netflix
> looks terrible, Hulu is often bad, the higher latency is noticeable in web
> browsing, and I don't think I've ever disliked a networking device as much
> as this gateway. Fortunately, I haven't cancelled my WOW yet.
>
>
> Robert Grimm
> Voice only: (614) 212-4625
> http://www.datablitz.net
> http://www.grimmphotography.com
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Jeff Stebelton <jeff.stebelton at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Got my uverse installed today. I'm getting consistent 35 Mbs down and 5
>> Mbs up. I've seen as high as almost 40 down when I can kick my daughter off
>> of Netflix. I'm a happy man.
>>  On Feb 19, 2014 6:55 AM, "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar at sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>   I switched to U-verse about 15 months ago when the monthly charge for
>>> DSL went up again. I didn't realized at the time that the telephone
>>> service, included with what I wanted was VOIP! The phone service kept
>>> dropping while maintaining the internet connectivity. It took three service
>>> calls by techs (?) of questionable ability (I was convince that the first
>>> one wasn't sure as to what end of the screwdriver was the handle). To
>>> shorten the story a bit the third technician did, indeed, know what he was
>>> doing solved the problem. Part of his solution was my calling the AT&T
>>> Business Office and demanding that my telephone service be returned to an
>>> analog line, while maintaining the same overall monthly rate (that was his
>>> suggestion and a learning experience for the customer service person I
>>> talked to).
>>>
>>>  All was then well until two months ago when the U-verse bill increased
>>> by ~40%, it was the end of the introductory year. I solved that problem by
>>> allowing the download rate to be degraded. I'm still getting good
>>> transmission rates.
>>>
>>>  Bottom line is that I'm satisfied with U-verse (at least so far). Oh
>>> yes, they did try to bundle TV with the service, but had no answer to the
>>> question 'why should I pay for many channels of garbage when I never watch
>>> what's available over the air?'
>>>
>>>  Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D. Life is a fuzzy set
>>>
>>> Foundation for Chemistry Stochastic and multivariate
>>>
>>> www.FoundationForChemistry.com
>>>
>>> (614)312-7528 (c)
>>>
>>> Skype: smolnar1
>>>
>>>  *From:* colug-432-bounces at colug.net [mailto:colug-432-bounces at colug.net]
>>> *On Behalf Of *Jeff Stebelton
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 18, 2014 6:44 PM
>>> *To:* David Reed
>>> *Cc:* Central OH Linux User Group - 432xx
>>> *Subject:* Re: [colug-432] Comcast and connectivity alternatives
>>>
>>>    I looked at this again and it says:
>>>
>>> Residential AT&T High Speed Internet service includes 150 gigabytes (GB)
>>> of data each billing period, and residential AT&T U-verse High Speed
>>> Internet service includes 250 Gigabytes (GB) of data each billing period.
>>> U-verse with Gigapower, where available, includes 1 terabyte (TB) of data
>>> each billing period. The data you send and receive each month contributes
>>> to your monthly data plan.
>>>
>>> I'm on the U-verse site, looking at Internet only plans and they are
>>> calling it U-verse High Speed Internet. It looks to me like I'd be ordering
>>> U-verse High Speed which is capped at 250 Gb. Am I missing something?
>>> (probably am which is why I'm asking.. =-)
>>> "Get new U-verse High Speed Internet and receive a discounted rate for
>>> 12 months... blah blah"
>>>
>>> And...
>>>
>>> I watched the video "Broadband Usage Overview" in your link and it also
>>> made a distinction between AT&T High Speed Internet and U-verse High Speed
>>> Internet. I couldn't find anything that mentioned TV or bundling. Is that
>>> hidden and if I sign up I'd find "U-verse High Speed Internet" really means
>>> U-verse Bundled TV and High Speed Internet? Not trying to pick at what you
>>> said; I just want to make sure if I sign up I know what I'm getting.
>>>
>>>  On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:54 AM, David Reed <dave256 at mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This says 150GB if you don’t also have tv.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB409045&cv=812#fbid=wpWmyP0XTGj
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 17, 2014, at 7:35 AM, Jeff Stebelton <jeff.stebelton at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I chatted with a service rep who told me it was 250 Gb per month. I'll
>>> find that on their site before proceeding. If ordered online they're
>>> offering a $50 gift card right now, including Internet only.
>>> > The setup process is telling me:
>>> >
>>> > A $100 one-time Internet equipment fee automatically applies for
>>> orders without U-verse TV or orders with select lower Internet speeds.
>>> >
>>> > It's put in the cart as $99.00. Go figure. =-)
>>> > So in my cart I have the following:
>>> >
>>> > AT&T Rewards
>>> > Additional online only $50 reward card when you order today! $50.00
>>> >
>>> > Monthly Charges TOTAL $71.95
>>> > One-Time Charges TOTAL $99.00
>>> > Your Estimated First Bill* This total is only an estimate of your
>>> first bill. The monthly charges on your first bill will be slightly higher
>>> than normal. The charges may vary based on the following:
>>> >
>>> > Monthly charges are billed one month in advance
>>> > Prorated monthly charges from date of installation to start of bill
>>> period
>>> > Taxes, fees, and surcharges
>>> > Applicable installation charges
>>> >
>>> > $170.95
>>> >
>>> > My next option is to order, so it looks like the $99.00 install fee is
>>> the only one. But I've dealt with AT&T before.. heh.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:09 AM, <davelist at mac.com> wrote:
>>> > AT&T only sends the channel(s) you are watching to your house so in
>>> effect everything you are watching is streamed to you. Note this means you
>>> need one of their boxes on every tv you want to use with their service. So
>>> the phone lines can (at least with their current technology) carry a max of
>>> 45 Mbps total so 3 HD channels takes over 30 Mbps leaving less than 18 Mbps
>>> for internet.
>>> >
>>> > Rick answered Jeff’s other question, but Jeff, check the 30 day
>>> guarantee if you’re just getting internet (and then I think the cap is
>>> 150GB instead of 250GB). And I suspect they won’t waive the fees (and no
>>> gift card) since they’re not getting as much money from you per month as if
>>> you were getting UVerse.
>>> >
>>> > Dave
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Feb 16, 2014, at 1:27 PM, FiL Farris <philipfarris at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > When you say your recording HD channels @ 10 - 12 Mbps are you
>>> referring to some type of streamed media or HD shows coming into the
>>> digital tuner(s) of your cable box?
>>> > >
>>> > > On Feb 16, 2014 12:30 PM, <davelist at mac.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > AT&T has run fiber to newer neighborhoods so you if you are lucky
>>> enough to have fiber to your house, you might be able to get those speeds.
>>> I made another post about this but maybe you didn’t see it. I finally got
>>> fed up with TW (after about 13 years with them) and switched to AT&T
>>> U-Verse. I don’t have fiber to my house. There is an AT&T box near my
>>> neighborhood (about 1/4 mile straight line distance from my house) that I
>>> suspect has fiber to it and then phone lines to my house. I’m paying for
>>> the 18 Mbps (and I think 2 Mbps up) service and speed tests report 16-20
>>> Mbps (and 1.5-2 Mbps up) so I’m reasonably happy.
>>> > >
>>> > > I think right now the max they can get is 45 Mbps total over the
>>> phone line with their current technology so if I’m recording 3 HD channels
>>> (I think those take around 10-12 Mbps each), the internet drops to
>>> 7-10Mbps, but as long as no more than 2 HD channels, the internet seems
>>> consistent (where I live in Hilliard - obviously YMMV). I hear that max
>>> over phone lines may go up to 70 Mbps this year in which case I shouldn’t
>>> see any slowdown when recording 3 HD channels. But I don’t think you’ll get
>>> 45 Mbps internet if you’re watching/recording tv unless you have fiber to
>>> your house.
>>> > >
>>> > > AT&T will give you 30 days to try out their system before you’re
>>> locked into a 1 year contract so I kept TW for 3-4 days while I tested
>>> AT&T’s service. I had a 6-7 year old TW HD DVR that I hated. It would
>>> occasionally not record shows it should and interface was sluggish and took
>>> too many button presses to do some things IMO. And it only held about 30
>>> hours of HD shows whereas the AT&T DVR seems to hold around 150 hours of HD
>>> shows (if you get their U300 or U450 service you get that larger capacity -
>>> don’t recall what capacity is for U100 or U200 but it’s less). TW signal so
>>> it would occasionally cut out for 1/2 a second so watching tv was annoying
>>> at times. TW’s internet service was reasonably reliable but the extreme
>>> cold caused my internet to go out for half a day multiple times in January.
>>> > >
>>> > > After 4 weeks with AT&T’s service, I’m happy as DVR hasn’t missed a
>>> show and internet has been reliable even in the cold temperatures. AT&T
>>> will waive some, but not all of the installation fees and then give you a
>>> gift card so the end result is all the fees are covered. They seem to be
>>> making a big push to get new subscribers right now. They do give you a big
>>> discount to get you hooked. We’ll see what price they’re willing to give me
>>> in a year when the contract is up. I’m hopeful it will be reasonable since
>>> I’m lucky enough to have the options of TW, WOW, and UVerse in my
>>> neighborhood. At this point, I’ll stick with them if the price is
>>> reasonable and if not look into WOW.
>>> > >
>>> > > Right now I’m paying what I was before with TW (and I had a pretty
>>> decent discount from TW’s listed prices) but also have a second box in the
>>> basement so I can watch tv while exercising. I’ve got a few more channels I
>>> actually want to watch and a larger capacity DVR that works well. I had
>>> TW’s 12-15 Mbps (can’t remember exact speed) internet service so internet
>>> speed is slightly faster than what I had.
>>> > >
>>> > > I had checked my usage on my router last year and I was using
>>> 100-150 GB a month so the 250 GB (gigabyte not 250 Gb - gigabit) data cap
>>> doesn’t bother me too much. I suspect if you watch a lot of streaming video
>>> (we don’t have netflix) that could be an issue.
>>> > >
>>> > > And yes, watch what the installer does so you can go back to TW if
>>> you want easily. I wanted the internet router in an upstairs bedroom/office
>>> so they ran the internet service (which is what the tv runs over too) up
>>> the phone line to that office. Then the box in the office splits out the tv
>>> and internet and they ran the tv data back down to the basement using the
>>> coax line in the office. Since I only have two tvs they put the actual DVR
>>> in the basement there and then are using a wireless box for the first floor
>>> tv. I think we could have run the signal back up to the first floor over
>>> the coax if we wanted.
>>> > >
>>> > > I still have Vonage for my home phone (AT&T offered me 200 minutes
>>> for the price I’m currently paying Vonage for unlimited so I didn’t switch
>>> the phone). I told the installer I still wanted the phone outlets to work
>>> and he ran the internet up to the office over two of the four phone wires,
>>> put a double jack in the office and the other two wires run the phone back
>>> to the phone outlets throughout the house.
>>> > >
>>> > > Dave
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > colug-432 mailing list
>>> > colug-432 at colug.net
>>> > http://lists.colug.net/mailman/listinfo/colug-432
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Jeff Stebelton GCIA GCIH GPPA GWAPT CEH SFCP
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > colug-432 mailing list
>>> > colug-432 at colug.net
>>> > http://lists.colug.net/mailman/listinfo/colug-432
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Jeff Stebelton GCIA GCIH GPPA GWAPT CEH SFCP
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> colug-432 mailing list
>>> colug-432 at colug.net
>>> http://lists.colug.net/mailman/listinfo/colug-432
>>>
>>> Spam detection software, running on the system "lists.colug.net", has
>>> identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
>>> has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
>>> similar future email. If you have any questions, see
>>> the administrator of that system for details.
>>>
>>> Content preview: I switched to U-verse about 15 months ago when the
>>> monthly
>>>
>>> charge for DSL went up again. I didn't realized at the time that the
>>> telephone
>>> service, included with what I wanted was VOIP! The phone service kept
>>> dropping
>>> while maintaining the internet connectivity. It took three service calls
>>> by techs (?) of questionable ability (I was convince that the first one
>>> wasn't
>>> sure as to what end of the screwdriver was the handle). To shorten the
>>> story
>>> a bit the third technician did, indeed, know what he was doing solved the
>>> problem. Part of his solution was my calling the AT&T Business Office and
>>> demanding that my telephone service be returned to an analog line, while
>>> maintaining the same overall monthly rate (that was his suggestion and a
>>> learning
>>> experience for the customer service person I talked to). [...]
>>>
>>> Content analysis details: (5.6 points, 5.0 required)
>>>
>>> pts rule name description
>>> ---- ----------------------
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> 1.0 MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT Message-ID contains multiple '@' characters
>>> 1.8 ONE_TIME BODY: One Time Rip Off
>>> 0.7 MIME_HTML_MOSTLY BODY: Multipart message mostly text/html MIME
>>> 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
>>> 2.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60%
>>> [score: 0.5000]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> colug-432 mailing list
>> colug-432 at colug.net
>> http://lists.colug.net/mailman/listinfo/colug-432
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> colug-432 mailing list
> colug-432 at colug.net
> http://lists.colug.net/mailman/listinfo/colug-432
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> colug-432 mailing list
> colug-432 at colug.net
> http://lists.colug.net/mailman/listinfo/colug-432
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.colug.net/pipermail/colug-432/attachments/20140307/75a34a90/attachment-0001.html 