AT&T U-Verse almost a complete failure
leaf.dragonflybsd.org
leaf.dragonflybsd.org
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.