DTP


 
Lively discussions on the graphic arts and publishing — in print or on the web


Go Back   Desktop Publishing Forum > General Discussions > Hardware & Gadgets

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-05-2013, 01:02 PM   #21
BobRoosth
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 933
Default

AT&T is telling customers in LA that they have to switch from DSL to UVerse. I have not seen or heard the pitch, but I have several clients who have made the switch. The bummer is that the version of UVerse being offered is really DSL rev. 2.0 (or perhaps 3.0), not the FIOS equivalent that used to be available. That was fiber to the nearest pole and either good twisted pair or coax to the home.

I will say that my experience with AT&T tech support has been uniformly better than with Verizon's support. Especially true for AT&T business customers. They have been good, US-based, folk who don't ask a lot of stupid questions.
BobRoosth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 03:20 PM   #22
terrie
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,947
Default

Interesting on the DSL/Uverse switch. I'm not surprised it's not fiber because from what I understand while fiber was hot, hot, hot, it is now very, very cold because all the powersthatbe are pushing wireless...

Terrie
terrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 01:54 PM   #23
BobRoosth
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 933
Default

Quote:
because all the powers-that-be are pushing wireless...
A push I have never understood. Radio spectrum is limited. Higher the transfer rates require more spectrum for each channel.

Fiber is much less limited. A single fiber can service many computers with far more bandwidth than the servers at the other end can fill.

I continue to see decisions about network infrastructure that seem to be made by technical nincompoops.
BobRoosth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 02:26 PM   #24
terrie
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,947
Default

Quote:
bobroosth: A push I have never understood. Radio spectrum is limited. Higher the transfer rates require more spectrum for each channel.
Less money outlay for the powers-that-be than going with fiber combined with magical advertising flourishes saying it's WONDERFUL! '-}}



>>I continue to see decisions about network infrastructure that seem to be made by technical nincompoops.

I suspect that the decision making is at the corporate level where a technical mindset/approach is rarely, if ever, in found rather the mindset is geared almost exclusively to short-term profitmaking...

Terrie
terrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 06:20 AM   #25
Steve Rindsberg
Staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,742
Default

Start with a public that's ever more addicted to always-on/everywhere-on internet and that sneers at "old-school" wired connections, add a healthy dose of the aforementioned nincompoopery and top with "One tower's a helluva lot cheaper than a neighborhood full of fiber" and a cherry and there's your answer, I expect.

   
__________________
Steve Rindsberg
====================
www.pptfaq.com
www.pptools.com
and stuff
Steve Rindsberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Contents copyright 2004–2014 Desktop Publishing Forum and its members.