how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
392 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 MarkyDPremium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK | Of course they are downplaying it. The issue here is lack of bandwidth. Why no multiple HD streams? not enough bandwidth. Why max speeds of 6/1mbps on the internet side? Not enough bandwidth. Why crappy compression that transmits at a much lower bitrate than the competition? Not enough bandwidth.
--
-Put this in your profile if you know someone who is fighting, has survived, or died from ninja attacks. | |
|   60127178K.U. Sweet 16Premium
join:2001-02-15
Wichita, KS
kudos:1 | Re: Of course they are downplaying it. Alot of people are seeing sync rates upwards of 90-100 mbps, correct? Should that be sufficient for a better product? (Higher speeds, multiple HD)
--
Join #dslr unofficial chat! | |
| | MarkyDPremium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK | Re: Of course they are downplaying it. said by 60127178:Alot of people are seeing sync rates upwards of 90-100 mbps, correct? Should that be sufficient for a better product? (Higher speeds, multiple HD) those people are mostly right on top of a VRAD. AT&T can't deliver that consistently across their entire UVERSE footprint. Not to mention, I'm not so sure their nodes could handle everyone actually getting that kind of throughput.
--
-Put this in your profile if you know someone who is fighting, has survived, or died from ninja attacks. | |
| | | | | Re: Of course they are downplaying it. ATT is conservative in their product. Just like with their 3M speeds. A lot of their platforms could support it from the start. They wanted to do a shakedown run before trying to hit the throttle.
I can see them upping the speeds progressively as time passes. | |
| | | 60127178K.U. Sweet 16Premium
join:2001-02-15
Wichita, KS
kudos:1 | Thanks for the info, I wonder how much bandwidth they give to a node, I will check the U-Verse forum.
--
Join #dslr unofficial chat! | |
| | |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | VRADs (at least here in Santa Clarita) are pretty much in every neighborhood (next to the F2) meaning most VRADs here are deployed within 1000 to 3000' (they're pretty much every 2-3 city blocks). 90-100Mbps is sufficient ... to START.
I agree that FTTN is NOT a long term strategy. I suspect they'll upgrade as it becomes necessary / cost effective.
I do agree that FTTH would be ideal, however, deploying VRAD/FTTN is MUCH quicker than FTTH, and less expensive (typically less damage as well).
One can only hope that AT&T will use Uverse FTTN as seed money to buildout / upgrade properly to FTTH. | |
| | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Of course they are downplaying it. And that is a perfectly valid explanation of what I think at&t is trying to do. However, the problem with this plan is it ignores competition.
It will be a lot harder to make U-Verse profitable if the local cable operator can smoke the doors off it with 30mbit internet, hundreds of channels, and many HD streams, which at&t's interim solution just can't deliver on.
This means the only way at&t could beat a superior offering from a competitor would be to compete on price, as in, sell it cheap.... which doesn't leave much money for upgrades and in the long run could be more damaging then just biting the bullet up front with FTTH and rolling out the good stuff up front.
Of course, in areas where the competition is little or nothing, or gimp, well, the interim solution could work for awhile.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | | en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Of course they are downplaying it. I agree on that... Cable 'can' sell it cheap here in So-Cal, but they haven't been.
TimeWarnerLA (called C.S.), sells 1.5Mbps for 34.95, 6Mbps for 44.95 and 8Mbps for 54.95.
Digital Cable prices haven't come down
TimeWarner's VoIP is just as expensive at AT&T POTS service.
Until they start pushing cheaper service (not just multiple high end services), they CAN lose customers.
Personally I (and probably MANY others) want:
1. Cheap TV... I'd settle for 13 channels for $10 if they sold it.
2. RELIABLE cheap Internet (i.e. I don't need more than 3Mbps, and I don't want to pay more than $40).
3. VoIP or POTS thats CHEAP. Both AT&T and TW charge ~ +$40/month for unlimited. My Skype line in $15/year for unlimited.
While Cable CAN push out 30Mbps, what's the chance of getting a 5Mbps cable connection for $35/month (no 3 month intro service cr@p either!).
Lets see...
at&t POTS unlimited = $45/month (including Canada) + fees/taxes
DSL = $24.95/month (3Mbps)
DirecTv plus = $61/month (for 3 sets, including ALL taxes)
wireless = $50/month for 2 lines @ 700 minutes/month
bundle discount = $5/month
CableCo (TW LA)
VoIP/Digital Phone = $44.95/month + fees/taxes
Standard Internet = $44.95/month
Digital basic = $44.95/month + $7.95 x 2 + fees/taxes
Uverse 400 + Internet (3Mpbs) = $119 including 3 tuners + DVR
Uverse 300 + Internet (1.5Mbps/1Mpbs) = $94 including 3 tuners
Uverse 200 + Internet (1.5Mbps/1Mbps) = $74 including 3 tuners
-----------------------------------------------------------
Here's what those that want 'cheap' access will do.
Uverse 200 + Internet - Can't beat it. Add Vonage, Skype or even Call Vantage, and the price is less than $100/month, and comes with 3 digital sets. | |
|
| | | |
| | So we're supposed to be happy that in 2008 AT&T will finally be able to deliver multiple HD streams (what, 2 or 3??), BFD. OK, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a normal consumer but I have three HD sets and two HD DVR's. This means at one time I could want 7 HD streams concurrently into my home, when will AT&T be able to provide that bandwidth? And while I have requirements for more HD streams then most, that will be changing as more and more folks get HD sets and will be looking for companies that can provide that bandwidth, and AT&T may not be able to provide it with their FTTN system. | |
|
| |
|
