 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| reply to The Dv8or
Re: Only 1 HD viewing at a time / COAX or CAT5? quote:
Its kinda like a public beta. It will get better.
According to a recent AT&T press release we won't be seeing more than 1 HD stream until mid-2008!
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams. |
|
 d_lBarsoomPremium,MVM
join:2002-12-08
Reno, NV
kudos:7 | According to a WSJ article, 1 HD stream may be more than what half of the HD TV owners are watching now!
When it comes to HD, consumers could use some help. Bruce Leichtman, president of Leichtman Research Group, based in Durham, N.H., said only half of people with HD sets watch HD programs, with many not realizing they must subscribe to a special service. »online.wsj.com/article/SB1184273···rs_picks
I wouldn't have believed that statistic -- that people would shell out for an HD set, but not know to buy HD service -- except I recently noticed that Costco had to place stickers on their flat panel sets that state that you must subscribe to an HD service to see an HD picture. Of course, they are ignoring OTA HD. |
|
|
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon Wireless..
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T U-Verse
·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| I think "needing to subscribe to HD service" is a little misleading, HD locals (which is where the most popular HD programming is) is usually offered as part of a basic TV subscription. You do (usually) need an HD receiver to pick them up.
And yes, I completely believe that statistic. My sister and her husband fall into that category.
Whenever I go over there, they seem to have some sporting event on their $10,000 65" plasma (its a few years old now) in glorious, magnified standard definition. Argh.
I immediately grab the remote and punch in the appropriate HD channel number. They think I'm some sort of voodoo magician because I can punch in a code in that makes the picture look amazing. I keep telling them to use the HD channel numbers but they just don't get it (or forget). Some people strictly operate off of channel numbers ("The football game is on channel 2 tonight") and have trouble with the concept of simulcasting.
Of course, they don't really know how to use their DVR either. 
But, for those who DO know what they're doing with a HD DVR, multi-stream HD is a bigger deal. Being limited to single-stream HD is a deal killer for my non-tech savvy mother, most of my friends, and me.
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams. |
|
d_lBarsoomPremium,MVM
join:2002-12-08
Reno, NV
kudos:7 | Obviously there is a segment of the HD TV owners (some fraction of the 50% that do watch HD on their TVs) that find 1 HD stream to be too limiting.
Have you ever wondered how AT&T plans to use the available untapped bandwidth that they have to their users now? Virtually all U-Verse customers are capped at 27 mbps right now from what I've read. The charts I posted before: »Re: How much bandwidth is available to a VRAD? show that only ~19-21 mbps is potentially in use now.
They could add the 2nd HD stream into that 27 mbps. Reading between the lines, perhaps they haven't because M$ has fumbled the software development for the second stream. I doubt that AT&T would make an announcement explaining that M$ blew their IPTV development schedule, but instead grit their teeth and announce a delayed 2nd steam arrival. Meanwhile, if the bandwidth can't be used for the 2nd HD stream until M$ completes the programming, maybe they will up up the internet speeds. Just a thought. |
|
| said by d_l:Have you ever wondered how AT&T plans to use the available untapped bandwidth that they have to their users now? Virtually all U-Verse customers are capped at 27 mbps right now from what I've read. You bring up a good point. I wish they would let the modem/RG sync at the maximum possible rate for what the line conditions will allow it to, then utilize that extra throughput for something...whether it be that second, third, or even fourth HD stream, or be it a 50Mb/s internet connection. Instead of capping everybody regardless of line quality at 27Mb/s, why not open up the full potential (and yes, there is some) of the FTTN architecture? I for one would really like to see this implemented faster, as my modem reports a max sync speed of 104Mb/s. I could be running a few simultaneous HD streams, while enjoying a fairly decent internet connection on what my RG could sync at.
This tailored environment would also raise some debate, especially the people at the end of the VDSL/VDSL2 limit, since their RG can't and won't sync as fast as someone say 50ft from the DSLAM. The down side to the tailored environment can be seen in this example. A power user that is at the end of the local loop limit can't get the speeds that Joe down the street can get just because Joe is a few houses closer to the DSLAM than he is. This is somewhat parallel to ADSL except the rate at which the VDSL signal deteriorates is much greater. As most know, the further you are from the CO with ADSL, the slower your sync speeds are. The same effect is seen here, only rapidly accelerated. |
|
| reply to d_l
Standard over-the-air HDTV is 20Mbps, and while AT&T could recompress video with a more modern codec (which they probably have) and crank up the compression rate (which I'd rather they didn't) there really isn't room for a second HD channel without noticeable sacrifice. Yes, maybe the 7Mbps they devote to Internet use would be sufficient to cram in a second HD stream but that begs the question of why not ditch the HD stream and offer 20M/5M Internet? Or better yet, up the bandwidth cap when extra bandwidth is available (73Mbps in my case)? Or best of all, realize that FTTN is a shortsighted kludge and switch to FTTH before they waste any more money on copper? |
|
aztec
join:2007-07-03
Dallas, TX | reply to koolkid1563
said by koolkid1563:my modem reports a max sync speed of 104Mb/s Here are my statistics, FWIW:
Broadband Link – Statistics
DSL Down Up
Current Rate: 27264 kbs 2048 kbs
Max Rate: 88952 kbs Not Available
Current Connection:
Current Noise Margin: 23.5 dB Not Available
Current Attenuation: 17.5 dB Not Available
Current Output Power: 8.3 dBm -17.4 dBm |
|
Kylan
join:2000-07-31
Houston, TX | My stats are very close to yours aztec and I'd be interested in seeing the absolute minimum anyone would have to get U-verse period. I think the distance limitations are not too much more than what I'm at (2,000ft) and with us both getting 80Mbps, that makes me think that even people on the very edge probably get 40Mbps. If not, way more.
I ordered the HD package a while ago and it's annoying only being able to watch one HD stream. |
|
| Here is mine with the new (revision 28 vs 26) RG:
Broadband Link – Statistics
DSL Down Up
Current Rate: 27264 kbs 2048 kbs
Max Rate: 106600 kbs Not Available
Current Connection:
Current Noise Margin: 28.5 dB Not Available
Current Attenuation: 10.2 dB Not Available
Current Output Power: 13.9 dBm -24.9 dBm |
|
Kylan
join:2000-07-31
Houston, TX
1 edit | Current Rate: 27264 kbs 2048 kbs
Max Rate: 85492 kbs Not Available
Current Connection:
Current Noise Margin: 23.0 dB Not Available
Current Attenuation: 23.9 dB Not Available
Current Output Power: 10.6 dBm -10.0 dBm
Mine started off 92Mbps or so when I first got the service, but has since dropped. I could see that being a problem with people barely making it.
I wonder if uverseusers has a compiled list of people's connections. I'd like to see what kind of variation we're looking at. |
|
| We don't ATM, but I don't see how getting one started would be a problem. |
|
| reply to djrobx
Is it possible to buy my own HD receiver (it's not built in on my LCD tv) and get the local HD channels without paying the extra $10/month?
(I know, I know, HD receivers aren't cheap, that's not the point). |
|
