I have both Comcast Xfinity (50/10) and AT$T Uverse (6/.768)
Obviously Comcast is 9x faster but they are both very stable and
I have not had a problem with either one.
The only thing I don't like about the Uverse Motorola NVG510
modem is that it doesn't have a true bridge mode so your
stuck with the NVG510s built in router...which really sucks.
I have Uverse 3 pro internet with uverse ip phone. Local tech/install
I can honestly rate excellent.
Have had to contact tech support one time for an outage during a nasty
thunderstorm. No phone service so I had to use my cellphone. Uverse
tech support was very good and reset the connection which restored
You didn't ask about billing so I won't go into rant and rave mode on
this but I will say "Get it in writing!!!".
NVG510 can be "bridged" according to this link:
"NVG510 bridge mode" in a Duck or Google search brings more
AT&T does a fair/good job with service in the Cleveland area. I used their
DSL service for about 6 years and then switched to U-verse when it became
available in the neighborhood. The standard DSL failed several times until
AT&T switched to another line a few poles away. They said squirrels had
chewed the lines in the junction box. But it was slow such that any
streaming video stopped and started and was a pain to watch.
Neighbors told me they had switched to U-verse so I called AT&T to find out
if I could get it too. They insisted it was not available on my street; but
the pole 10 feet from my house fed the neighbor's house and they had it, so
AT&T finally came out and checked. We had U-verse installed the next week
for both the phone and internet. That service has been fine now for the
last couple of years. I recall only one brief failure. There's a battery
back-up that's supposed to take the system through a couple of hours when
the power goes out. Just checked the speed (AT&T supplies the modem and
router for a monthly fee) and it's running 11.5 Mbps down and 1.5 Mbps up
with the computer hard wired to the modem. My wireless speed is about 10
Mbps down on the laptop.
On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 6:28:08 AM UTC-5, CRNG wrote:
lems. -- Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers a
nd having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one. Email list-
server groups and USENET are like having all of those newspapers delivered
to your door every morning.
But a bridge tap, that is open at the far end, will look like a short-circu
it somewhere back toward its junction with the main line. The length of br
idged line that will look like a short-circuit at the bridge tap depends on
the electrical characteristics of the bridging wire and the frequencyof th
e signals. But if the overall circuit is close to being marginal, the extr
a 50 feet of wire bridged onto the main wire may very well be just enough o
f an impedance discontinuity to render the DSL ineffective. When we conver
ted to DSL, I made sure that the line/wire from the telco point of presence
to where the DSL signal was filtered/split off from the main telephone lin
e was a straight shot, no splices or any dicontinuities. Once past the DSL
filter, the phone line goes to several locations in both star and mesh con
On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 18:57:07 -0700 (PDT), " firstname.lastname@example.org"
While that's true, it forgets (at least) two thing. For realistic
taps, the resonant frequency is far above what DSL uses (or what the
phone line is capable of). The other assumption is that there is no
learning between the modems. The modems are capable of negotiating
baud rates and symbol depths to avoid network anomalies (sometimes
down shifting because of crappy networks - i.e. you don't get
Bullshit. DSL isn't go/no-go. It isn't that dumb.
That's a good thing to do, but it doesn't matter much. Most homes now
have telephone "stared" from a media closet to each room. DSL modems
tend to be put next to the computer. It works.
Every new house is wired this way. It doesn't matter.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.