AT&T Bringing $180/Month 5-Gigabit Internet to 70 Cities

[MacBH928]

Well, you can disagree all you wish, doesn't change the fact of how VPN works.

How about this, can my ISP have worse hop route than another ISP?

Lets imagine I am in USA, I want to reach a Japanese website based in a Japanese server.

My ISP: bad route to Japan

Connect to a VPN server in Canada which has a better route means:-

My ISP --Bad short route to Canada--> VPN Canada server ---Great/fast long route--> Japan

wouldn't this makes my VPN hops better and faster to Japan?
Or are all routes/hops standard for everyone to take?

 

[GBaughma]

How about this, can my ISP have worse hop route than another ISP?

Lets imagine I am in USA, I want to reach a Japanese website based in a Japanese server.

My ISP: bad route to Japan

Connect to a VPN server in Canada which has a better route means:-

My ISP --Bad short route to Canada--> VPN Canada server ---Great/fast long route--> Japan

wouldn't this makes my VPN hops better and faster to Japan?
Or are all routes/hops standard for everyone to take?

A VPN isn't a magic "Make it work" thing.

When you connect to a VPN, your computer becomes a part of the network you're connecting to. So, let's say you're connecting to a VPN in Canada, to route to Japan.

You have to make the connection to Canada. The traffic has to get from your computer to the computer in canada. That is going to take so many "hops" to get there. However, once you're connected, the hops start counting at your VPN connection gateway, not from your computer.

So, if it takes 5 hops to get to Canada, and another 3 hops to get to Japan, your computer is going to report 3 hops, because that's where your gateway is. The 5 hops that it's taking to get to Canada are encapsulated in the VPN tunnel, so your computer wouldn't be reporting them.

Now, if your ISP blocks traffic to Japan or China or whatever, but the VPN service in canada does not block that traffic, then making the VPN connection to Canada (which makes your computer part of THAT network, with all accompanying routes) would allow you to connect to Japan or China or whatever. It's still not less "hops", it's just that your computer thinks it's part of the Canada network, and therefore starts counting from that point. It would appear as you were connecting from Canada as well, because your computer is part of that network, thanks to the VPN tunnel.

Another scenario; you want to watch an American youtube video that has been geo-blocked in Japan. You're in Japan, so you would make a VPN connection to an American server; your computer now becomes a part of that American server network, Youtubt thinks you're connecting from America, because that is the network that you are a part of, and voila, your Youtube video is now not geo-blocked.

The bottom line is, it's kind of like dial-up in a way. If I dial into an ISP in Canada, my computer is originating it's traffic to the internet from Canada. A VPN is like a virtual direct phone call to another server. BUT... since you're still going over the Internet, it will take so many "hops" to get to the VPN server to begin with; just like it would take more connections and more copper wire to dial in to a Canadian server. Once you make the connection though, your count of hops to anywhere else start at THAT connection point, not from your computer, because as far as your computer is concerned, it thinks that it's internet gateway is there in Canada.

 

[MacBH928]

A VPN isn't a magic "Make it work" thing.

When you connect to a VPN, your computer becomes a part of the network you're connecting to. So, let's say you're connecting to a VPN in Canada, to route to Japan.

You have to make the connection to Canada. The traffic has to get from your computer to the computer in canada. That is going to take so many "hops" to get there. However, once you're connected, the hops start counting at your VPN connection gateway, not from your computer.

So, if it takes 5 hops to get to Canada, and another 3 hops to get to Japan, your computer is going to report 3 hops, because that's where your gateway is. The 5 hops that it's taking to get to Canada are encapsulated in the VPN tunnel, so your computer wouldn't be reporting them.

Now, if your ISP blocks traffic to Japan or China or whatever, but the VPN service in canada does not block that traffic, then making the VPN connection to Canada (which makes your computer part of THAT network, with all accompanying routes) would allow you to connect to Japan or China or whatever. It's still not less "hops", it's just that your computer thinks it's part of the Canada network, and therefore starts counting from that point. It would appear as you were connecting from Canada as well, because your computer is part of that network, thanks to the VPN tunnel.

Another scenario; you want to watch an American youtube video that has been geo-blocked in Japan. You're in Japan, so you would make a VPN connection to an American server; your computer now becomes a part of that American server network, Youtubt thinks you're connecting from America, because that is the network that you are a part of, and voila, your Youtube video is now not geo-blocked.

The bottom line is, it's kind of like dial-up in a way. If I dial into an ISP in Canada, my computer is originating it's traffic to the internet from Canada. A VPN is like a virtual direct phone call to another server. BUT... since you're still going over the Internet, it will take so many "hops" to get to the VPN server to begin with; just like it would take more connections and more copper wire to dial in to a Canadian server. Once you make the connection though, your count of hops to anywhere else start at THAT connection point, not from your computer, because as far as your computer is concerned, it thinks that it's internet gateway is there in Canada.

thank you

 

[max2]

That's what happens when they silent stamp out Net Neutrality.
Charging you a surcharge for lower latency would have been illegal under Net Neutrality.

Yep.

 

[max2]

It is not so much the speed itself but the bandwidth or being able to have higher speeds in many devices simultaneoulsy or not having buffering or drops when using bandwidth intensive applications

Exactly. Bingo.

Someone told me 25 Mbps is enough lol. Not if you have multiple people in your household.

 

[JavaMan07]

Would be nice if they invest in those slightly older neighborhoods, like ones that are 15 years old and a few miles from downtown still stuck with only 50Mb/s down and 5Mb/s up. The neighborhoods being built in the past 5 years get all the gigabit goodness so they can get new customers. They think just screw the older customers, we already get their money, and nobody else can service their apartments so they have no choice.

 

[JavaMan07]

56 Wi-Fi devices would saturate most Wi-Fi routers, not at the bandwidth level but at the latency level. For this reason, I try to avoid Wi-Fi smart home devices when alternatives exist (e.g., bridge-based solutions).

Cheap consumer routers and gaming routers perhaps. There's a market for the prosumer equipment, like Meraki, Ubiquiti, TP-Link Omada, Netgear Business Essentials. Even the lowest models can support 60 devices, the higher end models can service 600 devices. Of course the devices they are planning for useage are high bandwidth like phones and laptops, not tiny bandwidth internet of things like devices, so they could handle much more IoT devices than that.

 

[JavaMan07]

Exactly. Bingo.

Someone told me 25 Mbps is enough lol. Not if you have multiple people in your household.

The typical recommendation now is 25Mbps down and 5Mbps up per person in the home. On the upload side, a family of four would need 20Mbps, which is not available on any residential internet plan lower than gigabit.
Many ISPs limit upload to 25 to 35Mbps even on the so-called gigabit plans. Which I find very misleading.

 

[JavaMan07]

On edit: With all that being said, this is all marketing. If they have the infrastructure, they'll advertise it because we live in a society where bigger and more is better, even if someone can't use it. Just once though I'd prefer them spend their time rolling out full gig to the rest of the country and not concentrate on bragging rights for small sections of cities. I'd also like to see increased upload bandwidth. It seems that many are getting 300mb/s+ download but only 5-10 upload. Yeah, for streaming upload is irrelevant, but general network performance will benefit from more upload speed.

I used to pay $85 for 350Mb/s plan with COX cable, I didn't need that much download, but I needed the 5mb/s upload. I tried to get by with the less expensive $65 for 150Mb/s down 2Mb/s up, but that sucked for online meetings and VoIP. The 5Mb/s up was not great, but it wasn't worth it to me to pay $120 for gigabit (aka 20Mb/s upload).
Just had to tell the family not to use OneDrive during the day, only upload at night, because OneDrive sync would kill the internet for everything else.

 

[JavaMan07]

Our house is about 200 yards from a cemetery. The cemetery has AT&T fiber coverage, but we do not. *

The cemetery has a higher population density. 😃
Was probably done so the funeral home could broadcast live services.

 

[JavaMan07]

I just wish they could do something about my supposed 25 Mbps speed that are really in the low teens. With that gripe out if the way. I hope they have enough takers to keep deployments moving forward.

It's ok. Their marketing department made sure you'd always get the best service available. You are actually getting say 12Mbps, which is perfectly in line with their promise of "up to 25Mbps". SO you may want to send them a tip for outstanding service.

For a couple of years I was paying $80 per month for 350Mbps down 5 Mbps up, even though download speeds would drop to around 30-50Mbps between 2pm and 10pm, due to network congestion in the neighborhood, even at 3am, the fastest speed was 120Mbps. But I was content because it was much faster than when I was paying $65 for 150Mbps down 3Mbps up, which during the congestion time caused Netflix/Hulu/etc to struggle with 720p content. Did I complain about slow service, of course, did I get them to come test the line, yes, and had decent service that day (even before they got there "on time" between 8am and 5pm), the next day, it was back to crap.

 

[danielsutton]

AT&T today announced the launch of upgraded AT&T Fiber plans, which support speeds of up to 5 Gigabits for some customers. There are two separate plans, one "2 GIG" plan and one "5 GIG" plan, available to new and existing AT&T Fiber subscribers.

According to AT&T, the new plans are available to nearly 5.2 million customers across 70 metro areas including Los Angeles, Atlanta, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Raleigh, Miami, and Dallas, with a full list available on AT&T's website.

AT&T Fiber 2 GIG is priced at $110 per month plus taxes, while the highest-speed AT&T Fiber 5 GIG plan is priced at $180 per month plus taxes.

AT&T is enacting a new "straightforward pricing" policy, which means there are no data limits, no equipment fees, no annual contract, and no "deals" that will see prices increase at 12 months. These high-end plans include AT&T ActiveArmor internet security, "next-gen WiFi support," and HBO Max access.

With the launch of these new multi-gigabit internet plans, AT&T is calling itself the "fastest major internet provider." AT&T intends to continue to expand its faster connection speeds to additional customers, with plans to cover 30 million customer locations by the end of 2025.

Article Link: AT&T Bringing $180/Month 5-Gigabit Internet to 70 Cities

Is AT&T bundling this with television and phone service, or is it a standalone Internet connection?

 

[danielsutton]

The cemetery has a higher population density. 😃
Was probably done so the funeral home could broadcast live services.

Call AT&T and see if you can persuade them to install fiber service for you and the people who live around you. You could even start a little petition drive and get some signatures to show them; they need to see that there is a market for it

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

LMAO.... this is what is available in my area.... Ill stick with the Cox Gigablast... View attachment 1948776

I'm with you. Just because it lists a city, doesn't mean the whole city has fiber available.
AT&T Fiber availability is very limited. Even though my neighborhood recently had fiber pulled (not sure if by COX or AT&T), still no fiber service from either. I, too, stick with Gigablast.

 

[max2]

I'm with you. Just because it lists a city, doesn't mean the whole city has fiber available.
AT&T Fiber availability is very limited. Even though my neighborhood recently had fiber pulled (not sure if by COX or AT&T), still no fiber service from either. I, too, stick with Gigablast.

Cox High Speed Internet is expensive. Though I realize it is the only thing you have.