http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20456496 en Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:27:58 EDT Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:27:58 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20467803 Hayward : Seems like you aswered your own question. ATT is going to be dependent of net infratructure... dynamically down scale vs total loss of signal.... Cable and Sat are taking stuff directly of sats and relaying them (sometimes downgraded from 1080i to 720p at worst... but not then also funneling through the often congested/bottlenecked internet, even on the regional level.
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West)
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20467803 Sun, 11 May 2008 23:44:39 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457315 wings10 : »AT&T U-verse]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20457315 Fri, 09 May 2008 13:57:48 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20456496 zoommb : OK Let me tell you about AT&T U-Verse TV. I loved the idea of it being delivered over the phone lines and that it was 30% cheaper. However, what is delivered cannot in my opinion be called HDTV. I would call it 16:9 LOW definition TV. First they crop the picture. I'm guessing the crop is 20-30%. I compared this to the signal I receive over my antenna (yes, it's digital and HD). If the crop is 20%, they can deliver 36% less signal. However, they are delivering much less than that. They are compressing the signal so much that there is almost no dynamic range. The highlights are blown out and the shadows have no detail either. A black man's beard still has texture but NOT with AT&T U-verse. The pic is also very noisy, like a home video tape made in the early '70's. Also, everything is soft focus, possibly due to the compression. You can watch a person's expression as it changes from serious to a smile and the subject's cheeks will pixelate which is creepy-crawly to me. Also, if I wanted soft focus TV, I would have bought Plasma units instead of one rear-projection (bulbs) and two LDC's. Even my wife, who is a less than critical person especially regarding technology, said that the picture was unacceptable.

Despite the cost we had to return to Comcast.
--
My site: »home.comcast.net/~mberner13]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20456496 Fri, 09 May 2008 11:21:15 EDT