MarkyD
Premium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK
clubs:
 ·Cox HSI
| Pair Bonding WHEN?
Until Pair Bonding comes into play, I don't see AT&T being much of a threat to Cable in terms of speed and features. You can't polish a turd, and squeezing all that into 25mbps is...well, a tight fit.
--
MCSE, ACSA, and a lot more |
|
Enlightener
join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX | DVR
2 is still a little short, but I could probably accept it.
But when's the WH-DVR coming? Without that, it's a deal breaker. |
|
guppy_fish
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Lakeland, FL
 ·Verizon FIOS
| U-Jerk
Wow, way to go AT&T, super-duper compress the HDTV for a whopping 2 channels at the same time ...
meanwhile, Verizon just ran the conduit for FIOS on my street this week, I'll get 100 channels of uncompressed HDTV
If I was a AT&T shareholder I'd be selling and shorting the stock for sure |
|
rahlquist
Redeye
join:2001-10-30
Villa Rica, GA
| Pair bonding, dont make me laugh
The only Pair I see bonding is AT&T's billing department pairing with your wallet. Considering how many cant even get a good dsl speed is this even realistic? I think not.
--
Fed Up With Stupidity?
Patentlystupid.com |
|
Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA
| reply to MarkyD
Re: Pair Bonding WHEN?
I don't get what all the hoopla is about. ATT is just now being able to get two HD feeds into a home which still puts them behind other offerings.
We're entering an age where in the next three years a whole lot of stuff is going to be moved into the HD area. Even with Pair Bonding they're still going to be bandwidth starved.
People are simply going to expect to be able to do as much with their HD channels as their SD channels. This means multiple TVs watching different channels while maybe a DVR is recording; Mom is uploading 100 pictures to Wally and talking to Aunt Sue on the phone.
I just don't get them... |
|
deadzoned
Premium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA
·Cox HSI
| Hilarious!
Why is at&t making these baby steps with their U-Verse service? I just don't get it. Why not go directly to pair bonding at least? Noooooo, they decide to compress and drag their feet and fall further behind.
I can't imagine what they are thinking - other than "Spend as little money as possible, no matter what!" No one ever accused at&t of being forward-thinking though... |
|
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs: | dvr
I am waiting for multi room dvr. What is that coming? The date keeps gettin delayed. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| reply to Neyland
Re: Pair Bonding WHEN?
said by Neyland  :I don't get what all the hoopla is about. ATT is just now being able to get two HD feeds into a home which still puts them behind other offerings. We're entering an age where in the next three years a whole lot of stuff is going to be moved into the HD area. Even with Pair Bonding they're still going to be bandwidth starved. People are simply going to expect to be able to do as much with their HD channels as their SD channels. This means multiple TVs watching different channels while maybe a DVR is recording; Mom is uploading 100 pictures to Wally and talking to Aunt Sue on the phone. I just don't get them... Pair bonding will get them to 50Mbps. You can do a LOT with 50Mbps right now. 50Mbps should be enough for the next 5 years as well. If they can squeeze 2 HD streams, 2 SD streams and 10Mbps of internet into 25Mbps, 50Mbps will give them breathing room.
Although that means their internet product will likely not be competitive with cable. Not as if it currently is anyway. |
|
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL | reply to guppy_fish
Re: U-Jerk
2 is a joke. I have a dual tuner HD DRV + 1 more hd tuner. And ATT can't even do that + some areas are still at 1 HD. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | reply to Matt
Re: Pair Bonding WHEN?
Ah you stepped in it. You said "50Mbps should be enough for the next 5 years as well" whe you should have added the caveat, "for most cosumers" otherwise you'll be tor limb from limb by a lot of people here. |
|
cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| reply to Neyland
is 2 simultaneous HD feeds all that bad when it'll satisfy the vast majority of people out there? most people either have one tuner or 2 tuners (2 TVs or 1 tuner for live TV and the other to record). don't start with that some people have 7 TVs all with 4 tuner DVRs BS. Also not every channel is in HD, so until the typical consumer is actually hindered by 2 HD feed and 2 SD feeds, I'd say they are on par. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Stick with DBS for video
I think they should have worked the DBS deal, saving the copper for data services including VOD. They're trying to do too much with too little. |
|
rahlquist
Redeye
join:2001-10-30
Villa Rica, GA
| reply to cornelius785
Re: Pair Bonding WHEN?
said by cornelius785 :is 2 simultaneous HD feeds all that bad when it'll satisfy the vast majority of people out there? I guess I am in the minority then with 3 DVRs all 2 channel capable in the house. So I guess Uverse just isnt a place for me. I can record 6 shows at once 2 of them HD and still currently surf at 6mbps, Uverse cant compete with that.
--
Fed Up With Stupidity?
Patentlystupid.com |
|
barqsdrinker
What Can I Photograph Today?
Premium
join:2001-02-26
Apo, AE
clubs:
1 edit | reply to cornelius785
said by cornelius785 :is 2 simultaneous HD feeds all that bad when it'll satisfy the vast majority of people out there? Count me in as a minority, too, then. I've got two HD DVR units - each capable of recording two HD streams for a total of 4 - plus a non-recording HD tuner. If every tuner was on HD - which occurs more often because the picture quality is so much better than SD - then U-Verse can't hold up and AT&T's service isn't for me. For now, I'll stick with the DBS for my television viewing pleasure.
Now, if they want to give me all that BW for data, I'd be almost all for that!
(edit: typo) |
|
ccallana
Huh?
Premium,VIP
join:2000-08-03
Folsom, CA
| 50M just for internet
They should allow you to turn the TV part off and use all the bandwidth for internet... if they bond to 50Mb, that would make a pretty nice internet connection 
--
"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us.... We are far too easily pleased." C.S. Lewis |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| These are not the droids you are looking for.
U-verse seems to be quite successful in its market. But it is not for you, the average BroadbandReports.com reader. It does not deliver the most HD at the highest bandwidth and the greatest picture quality. It does not provide the cheapest pipe nor the lowest cost VoIP. Accept these things, step back, and take an objective business view.
Just so you know, I personally tried U-Verse TV and cancelled it, for many of the same reasons cited here.
Here are some facts about U-verse:
-- It's growing quite nicely, thank you. AT&T is installing as many customers as they had predicted, and more. And customer satisfaction seems to be generally good.
-- It is not "losing to FIOS". It doesn't compete with FIOS. With very few exceptions, FIOS and U-verse are deploying in different territories -- each in their legacy POTS areas.
-- It is targeted squarely against cable. And it seems to be succeeding there -- coming in with a comparable feature/function set at a lower price point, and requiring the cable companies to lower their prices and speed their rollouts of new capabilities. One proof point right here in Austin is that Time Warner is spending money to run anti-Uverse ads. They wouldn't do that if they didn't feel some pain.
-- There is still lots of headroom in their FTTP rollout. First, don't forget VDSL2. The VRADs they've installed are already VDSL2 capable, and this will increase bandwidth and, more importantly, increase the distance from the VRAD for which they can offer service. The broadbandreports.com types here (Karl) seem to keep ignoring this as they focus only on raw bandwidth. It's just as important to AT&T to be able to serve more distant homes from a VRAD. Second, pair bonding will be used as a tool to increase distance, and secondarily, increase bandwidth to the home. Third, AT&T could very easily uncap the 25M limit for the many customers who are synching at a higher rate -- it's just a provisioning thing. For example, I am synching at over 50 megabits. |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to ccallana
Re: 50M just for internet
This is just a question of what markets they choose to server. Technically, it'd just be adding another provisioning profile to allow a 50M connection for me, personally. I am currently a U-verse Internet (not TV) customer with the 10/1.5 service, but my modem is synching at 57 megabits with the VRAD.
Right now, AT&T is rolling out U-verse as fast as they are capable of doing, and are OK with the business results, so they have no real need of offering these "fringe" sorts of services (yes you are at the bleeding edge). |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | reply to guppy_fish
Re: U-Jerk
said by guppy_fish :Wow, way to go AT&T, super-duper compress the HDTV for a whopping 2 channels at the same time ... meanwhile, Verizon just ran the conduit for FIOS on my street this week, I'll get 100 channels of uncompressed HDTV If I was a AT&T shareholder I'd be selling and shorting the stock for sure U-verse doesn't actually compete with FIOS. They are, in almost all cases, not offered in the same area.
Oh, and BTW, all HDTV is compressed on its way to your house, even OTA. It's just a question of how and how much. |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to deadzoned
Re: Hilarious!
said by deadzoned :Why is at&t making these baby steps with their U-Verse service? I just don't get it. Why not go directly to pair bonding at least? Noooooo, they decide to compress and drag their feet and fall further behind. I can't imagine what they are thinking - other than "Spend as little money as possible, no matter what!" No one ever accused at&t of being forward-thinking though... They're not stupid. They are rolling out U-verse as fast as they are able, and they are meeting their business plans. Their market is not you, the services-intensive bleeding edge consumer. They have enough to compete in their market. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to guppy_fish
Re: U-Jerk
But they're not done compressing it! According to an AT&T investor conference, they expect to fit 4HD in the current 25mbps profile.
I'm near the designed 2700' lmit, and I can sync at 49mbps. I really think they've got the headroom to bump up the sync some. Moving to 4HD and 15/2 internet would go a LONG way towards modernizing this product.
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams. |
|
