Suburb Internet Provider (Chicago, McHenry, Henry: house, subdivisions, live in)

[chgodon]

Just moved to McHenry County from West Coast. I know most cable and internet customer service sucks. Trying to decide on Comcast cable internet or AT&T fiber optic?

Xfinity internet $19.99 up to 10 mbps/$49.99 after 12 mos

U-verse internet (fiber optic) $30.00 up to 6 mbps/$40.00 after 12 mos


If I go with the fiber optic, I can use the existing cable in every room for my Directv. If I use the
existing cable for the internet, I will have new Directv cable installed in 2 rooms.

Any thoughts on the lessor of two evils?

[chet everett]

Right now ATT is running specials on Uverse triple package of 24 Mbs, TV, and VOIP phone for $60.

Xfinity has similar deals.

[damba]

Originally Posted by chgodon

Just moved to McHenry County from West Coast. I know most cable and internet customer service sucks. Trying to decide on Comcast cable internet or AT&T fiber optic?

Xfinity internet $19.99 up to 10 mbps/$49.99 after 12 mos

U-verse internet (fiber optic) $30.00 up to 6 mbps/$40.00 after 12 mos


If I go with the fiber optic, I can use the existing cable in every room for my Directv. If I use the
existing cable for the internet, I will have new Directv cable installed in 2 rooms.

Any thoughts on the lessor of two evils?

Understand, quality/speeds can vary from location to location. My brother in law near San Francisco has FTTH (fiber to the home), which is not available where you currently live in IL. Xfinity DOCSIS 3 would be my choice if max speed was a priority. If the Directv wiring is more important to you, then perhaps go with ATT.

IMHO, discounted or not, sub 10Mbps speeds are ridiculous if you are near an urban area such as Chicago.

[damba]

Originally Posted by chet everett

Right now ATT is running specials on Uverse triple package of 24 Mbs, TV, and VOIP phone for $60.

Xfinity has similar deals.

Most people won't actually receive the 24 as advertised by ATT unfortunately.

[chet everett]

From what I understand ATT has upgraded the technology for its whole network, including each "node" to support speeds of up to 100Mbs -- AT&T's $14B Project VIP: breaking out the business service, U-verse numbers | FierceTelecom

AT&T U-verse Expands Speed Upgrade | Multichannel

There have been numerous lawsuits over ISPs failing to deliver advertised speeds I suspect that ATT is not so foolish at to promise speeds that are not possible, that would explain why they are promoting the 24Mbs service, they achieve 45 Mbs by "bonding" two 24Mbs channels...

Frontier to pay $150M to West Virginia to settle lawsuit over broadband speed | FierceTelecom

CenturyLink Accused Of Falsely Advertising Internet Speed - Law360

[sfcambridge]

Originally Posted by chgodon

Just moved to McHenry County from West Coast. I know most cable and internet customer service sucks. Trying to decide on Comcast cable internet or AT&T fiber optic?

Xfinity internet $19.99 up to 10 mbps/$49.99 after 12 mos

U-verse internet (fiber optic) $30.00 up to 6 mbps/$40.00 after 12 mos


If I go with the fiber optic, I can use the existing cable in every room for my Directv. If I use the
existing cable for the internet, I will have new Directv cable installed in 2 rooms.

Any thoughts on the lessor of two evils?

Note.... AT&T may fail to mention that they now "rent" their modems to you, adding another ?$7+ dollars per month. And Xfinity tries to sneak in many start up/installation costs (as does AT&T). AT&T is easier to get them to waive those start-up costs though.

They are both evil, but Comcast more so. Every area is individual, but I had more problems with Comcast customer service.

So now I re-negotiate with AT&T every year, when they try to increase my price. I always review the current Comcast offer, ask them to beat it and give me a loyalty discount.

[damba]

Originally Posted by chet everett

From what I understand ATT has upgraded the technology for its whole network, including each "node" to support speeds of up to 100Mbs -- AT&T's $14B Project VIP: breaking out the business service, U-verse numbers | FierceTelecom

AT&T U-verse Expands Speed Upgrade | Multichannel

There have been numerous lawsuits over ISPs failing to deliver advertised speeds I suspect that ATT is not so foolish at to promise speeds that are not possible, that would explain why they are promoting the 24Mbs service, they achieve 45 Mbs by "bonding" two 24Mbs channels...

Frontier to pay $150M to West Virginia to settle lawsuit over broadband speed | FierceTelecom

CenturyLink Accused Of Falsely Advertising Internet Speed - Law360

I will repeat, IL is not in the area of FTTH, so speeds won't be good for residential ATT UVERSE customers in the vast majority of areas. At least not for the near future. If you re-read the article you posted, it's mostly referring to their business customers and not focusing on residential. They only offer FTTH to new housing developments in areas that are less built out such as TN or NV. Those areas are also much less costly for ATT to roll out such services vs the expensive northern cities with 'old' infrastructre headaches to deal with.

Keep in mind even bonding two 24Mbs channels is still less desirable technology for residential locations than cable companies that are using DOCSIS 3.

[chet everett]

The service marketed as "uverse" is primarily supported by "fiber to the node". ATT had invested significant resources in the underlying technology of VDSL2 and their copper-to-the-home is essentially on par with Comcast infrastructure. The technical features of DOCIS 3 transmission standards are well known and suffer from limitations too...

[bellhead]

Originally Posted by damba

I will repeat, IL is not in the area of FTTH, so speeds won't be good for residential ATT UVERSE customers in the vast majority of areas. At least not for the near future. If you re-read the article you posted, it's mostly referring to their business customers and not focusing on residential. They only offer FTTH to new housing developments in areas that are less built out such as TN or NV. Those areas are also much less costly for ATT to roll out such services vs the expensive northern cities with 'old' infrastructre headaches to deal with.

Keep in mind even bonding two 24Mbs channels is still less desirable technology for residential locations than cable companies that are using DOCSIS 3.

I will add to this, ATT has two types of UVERSE, the old copper based which is limited to 45 mbs at best. They also have fiber to the house which is usually on found in newer subdivisions which have fiber vs. copper. My subdivision is 1/3 of the way finished and ATT came in and put fiber to every house here.

It is based upon your little area not total geography overall.

[damba]

Originally Posted by chet everett

The service marketed as "uverse" is primarily supported by "fiber to the node". ATT had invested significant resources in the underlying technology of VDSL2 and their copper-to-the-home is essentially on par with Comcast infrastructure. The technical features of DOCIS 3 transmission standards are well known and suffer from limitations too...

Yes, but DOCSIS 3.1 is backwards compatible and will offer 1GBps speeds over the same HFC without the headaches of UVERSE upgrades that require a lot more digging to achieve. That's why ATT focuses on new developments in the southern and western US. They don't have to absorb as many infrastructure expenses there to gain additional revenue.