I hate Uverse

[bobnoakridge]

I live in Oak Ridge, TN.I guess within the past year ATT installed Uverse internet only in parts of the town.I moved,to a different building in the same complex,in March.When I went to transfer service I was told I had to "upgrade" to Uverse.I thought,great,Uverse is supposed to be much better than standard DSL.I can offically say here and now that it is garbage.I went from a 6mbs download speed to 768k download speed.Same price of a third of the speed.I was told the way Uverse works we are far out so this is the best speed there is.Why would you install such a substandard product knowing that the speed would be that low?Then force people to use it.I have been told by ATT techs that they have no idea when the speed will be upgraded.Nice job ATT.

P.S I have DirecTV.I cannot use my On Demand service because it take a day to download a 1 hour TV show.

[RCSMG ACE - Master]

Send Julie a PM she is an ATT Community Specialist on the forum.

http://forums.att.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/2363489

[angelranger]

I agree Bob, same thing happened to me, in the same building!  New service has to be Uverse, no transfer of he DSL. It takes me nearly 10 minutes to write tihs with Uverse, and I'm in a big city. They sure know how to pump the silly advertising in though.  It's corporate greed pure and simple.

[CaptainEli]

First you shouldn't believe all what AT&T sales persons tell you, and second U-Verse is better than DSL if you have Fiber-Optic. If you don't, both are the same. For the price, I still believe AT&T provides the best Internet connection and speed. My advice, get everything in writing before you sign up.

Stay well

[DonNewcomb]

I've recently learned that U-verse presents some serious issues if you want to set up some types of servers which would be easy with either DSL or cable modem.  At the end my my promotional period I'll be evaluating my alternatives to see which way I should go. I'm really not thrilled with U-verse Internet right now.

[oufanindallas]

---

DonNewcomb wrote:

I've recently learned that U-verse presents some serious issues if you want to set up some types of servers which would be easy with either DSL or cable modem.  At the end my my promotional period I'll be evaluating my alternatives to see which way I should go. I'm really not thrilled with U-verse Internet right now.

---

HUH? What kind of serious issues?

[DonNewcomb]

---

oufanindallas wrote:

---

DonNewcomb wrote:

I've recently learned that U-verse presents some serious issues if you want to set up some types of servers which would be easy with either DSL or cable modem.  At the end my my promotional period I'll be evaluating my alternatives to see which way I should go. I'm really not thrilled with U-verse Internet right now.

---

HUH? What kind of serious issues?

---

It essentially has to do with the design of the RG. Unlike either a DSL or cable modem it has no way to go into a true "passthrough" mode where it only functions to connect your device to the Internet. It is always there acting as a NAT even when it's in DMZ+ mode. This has serious implications if you want to run a SIP or PPTP (VPN) server. I also understand that it will not allow SSL connections. The RG will not pass a PING to your router. It either blocks it or answers it. Even running a SIP client  from a U-verse LAN you need to use ICE & STUN to get a connection.

In short, U-verse is fine for 99% of users who have no idea what the acronyms I've mentioned mean but for an advanced user who want to run a SIP or PPTP server on his network it appears to be a show-stopper.  I'm looking for work-arounds, if anyone has any suggestions.

ITMT, I'm going to be recommending to the local Linux UG that they avoid U-verse like the plague.

DRN

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

You may indeed have problems with SIP or inbound PPTP when using the DMZPlus mode. Those are known limitations.

But inbound ping works properly when the gateway is set up correctly, and inbound SSL works fine as well as long as you do not have wireless STBs.

You can also make inbound SIP and PPTP work properly if you purchase static IPs.

[DonNewcomb]

---

SomeJoe7777 wrote:
You can also make inbound SIP and PPTP work properly if you purchase static IPs.

---

Why would inbound PPTP require a static IP with U-verse when it didn't require one with cable modem?

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

Inbound PPTP through NAT requires helper code in the router to associate the GRE tunnel with the source and destination IPs. The 2Wire RG has this helper code for inside-to-outside initiated PPTP connections, but not outside-to-inside PPTP connections (i.e. PPTP server on the LAN).

With static IPs, there is no NAT, so no helper code is required.