Mari
@comcast.net
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
Re: Bonding.
AT&T is using HPNA. Info on that and specs on the Moto set-tops for U-verse WHDVR here: »connectedhome2go.com/2008/08/29/···service/ |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Matt
said by Matt  :said by MyDogHsFleas :AT&T has plenty of headroom to increase Internet connection speeds well above their current 10/1.5 top offering, without resorting to pair bonding. First, many users synch with the VRAD well above the current allowed rate of 25 Mb/sec. For example I synch at 45 Mb/sec. AT&T could easily sell new higher speeds to those users. And so do the folks on fiber, but according to AT&T, until they can get higher speeds to EVERYONE, they won't because they want to keep the user experience "consistent." So, it really boils down to what percentage of people can get higher speeds without pair bonding? Aw c'mon. That "consistent user experience" crap is just their PR spin on the truth, which is that they choose not to offer a higher speed tier for business reasons. If they decided to go to a higher speed tier that you had to qualify for, or that you had to trade off against VoIP or TV, they would. And they'd have some other PR spin to explain how it is really good for you that they did that. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas :AT&T has plenty of headroom to increase Internet connection speeds well above their current 10/1.5 top offering, without resorting to pair bonding. First, many users synch with the VRAD well above the current allowed rate of 25 Mb/sec. For example I synch at 45 Mb/sec. AT&T could easily sell new higher speeds to those users. And so do the folks on fiber, but according to AT&T, until they can get higher speeds to EVERYONE, they won't because they want to keep the user experience "consistent."
So, it really boils down to what percentage of people can get higher speeds without pair bonding?
--
Linux Haters Unite! |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Neyland
said by Neyland :So I guess that's a no on the OTA recording? Right, the boxes do not have ATSC tuners.
Is that Video over IP stream from the remove DVR via Cat5 or your internal phone lines?
It's over your home IP network. Depending on how this is wired, it can be Cat5/6 or HPNA over coax. Not phone wiring. |
|
Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA | reply to MyDogHsFleas
So I guess that's a no on the OTA recording?
Is that Video over IP stream from the remove DVR via Cat5 or your internal phone lines? |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Neyland
said by Neyland :First I think the whole house DVR is fantastic. Currently we have to do the same thing with a multiplexer. Wonder how they send a HD signal to the remote TV? They don't. They send a Video over IP stream from the remote DVR to the local STB (non-DVR). Then the local STB sends it to the TV it's attached to.
But, 2HD+2SD+VOIP isn't enough for our family now. We very often are either recording or watching 4 HD feeds at one time. If they allow OTA HD recording like Sat then it might solve some issues.
Yep. U-verse is not a premium, top-of-the-line, does-everything-you-want, most-HD-channels, best-quality service -- at all. I think DirecTV owns that space.
U-verse is more a competes-reasonably-well-for-most-cable-customers service. |
|
Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
First I think the whole house DVR is fantastic. Currently we have to do the same thing with a multiplexer. Wonder how they send a HD signal to the remote TV?
But, 2HD+2SD+VOIP isn't enough for our family now. We very often are either recording or watching 4 HD feeds at one time. If they allow OTA HD recording like Sat then it might solve some issues. |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to MarkyD
said by MarkyD :said by MyDogHsFleas :AT&T has plenty of headroom to increase Internet connection speeds well above their current 10/1.5 top offering, without resorting to pair bonding. I know this is right...I was on U-Verse FTTP, and still could not get anything higher than 6mbps at the time (before 10mbps tier came out.) Pretty pathetic. AT&T is doing this purposefully, and are actually being rather successful. They are lining themselves up vs. cable and are doing just enough to compete for the mass market, and not trying to chase small markets (i.e. those who want "super-fast" Internet connections). They see no need to spend money or energy creating new offerings to serve a small market (like us who would actually consume such a thing). As a result they are installing U-verse just as fast as they can, and expanding like crazy (they seem to announce a new city rollout once or twice a month). This is the same reason they did not opt to do a full FTTH buildout but stopped at the node (except for new developments where they are doing greenfield installs of FTTH). |
|
MarkyD
Premium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK
clubs:
 ·Cox HSI
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas :AT&T has plenty of headroom to increase Internet connection speeds well above their current 10/1.5 top offering, without resorting to pair bonding. I know this is right...I was on U-Verse FTTP, and still could not get anything higher than 6mbps at the time (before 10mbps tier came out.)
Pretty pathetic. |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to MarkyD
said by MarkyD :When this comes around I may give them another shot. Until then...they can't touch the speed I'm getting with Cox. I've tried to correct Karl a few times but he keeps putting out this canard that "bonding is to increase speeds". He's wedded to the narrative that AT&T has boxed themselves into 10/1.5 as the max because they stupidly did not run new fiber to every home. Unfortunately it's just not true.
AT&T has plenty of headroom to increase Internet connection speeds well above their current 10/1.5 top offering, without resorting to pair bonding.
First, many users synch with the VRAD well above the current allowed rate of 25 Mb/sec. For example I synch at 45 Mb/sec. AT&T could easily sell new higher speeds to those users.
Second, AT&T currently allows for 2HD+2SD+VoIP within the 25 Mb/sec budget, along with 10Mb/sec Internet. They could easily provide other profiles that increase the Internet speeds at the expense of VoIP service or TV service.
Third, the rollout of VDSL2 (which is already supported in the VRAD and the STB) will increase speeds significantly.
I think what AT&T will primarily use pair bonding for is to increase the coverage range of current VRADs in less-densely-populated areas, rather than to increase speeds. |
|
