Floid
join:2002-02-11
Ridgefield, CT | reply to MyDogHsFleas
Re: FAQ needed! - and from the peanut gallery.. Thanks for the above MyDogHsFleas, basically nailed everything down. Shame the TV-on-PC option isn't available yet but hopefully that means they'll "do it right" if they ever do. [re: 'doing it right' -- as far as I'm concerned, just being able to address the DVR in a manner equivalent to a 'HDHomeRun' box would be the way to go, avoiding the need for any wacky authentication or encryption techniques on each host].
quote:
First, U-verse Voice comes with an AT&T supplied UPS for the RG -- it's not supplied by the consumer. Second, cable has exactly the same scheme -- a UPS for the cable modem -- it's not better. Third, you can have POTS and VDSL on the same pair, so technically you could have both U-verse Voice and POTS together, but I don't think AT&T allows you to order/provision that. You can have either U-verse Voice or POTS on a given pair.
If I were you and really, really wanted a real POTS backup line, I'd simply order a second phone line with minimal POTS -- you can get it for like $15/month with all fees/taxes with metered service.
Note that I certainly never said that cable was "better," and I'm aware that T is "providing" the UPS (which means the customer is paying, in the end... just as the customer pays for the more reliable off-premises backups with POTS). I just honestly believe (or can't believe) the chance was missed to leverage the existing infrastructure and know-how to build a more resilient voice offering that'd outshine cable and be fully idiot-proofed.
Obviously going co-POTS or U-Verse sans-voice is an option... Just kind of a silly option for the obvious reasons. (So much for a combined bill; so much for 'going with the flow' of the infrastructure upgrades if the infrastructure isn't resilient enough to replace POTS in a true disaster -- or yearly New England winter storm...)
...
Also @ Mr. Anon: This is why further technical detail would be useful. If the Cisco 'just works' where something 'cheaper than Cisco' doesn't then chances are the switch simply needs to support some known and named standard for QoS tagging. Being told "buy XXX" is not very helpful, but being told "the standard involved is ___" allows an informed geek to do the right thing. (Probably also some sort of jumbo-framing issue there for all I know; I haven't had a reason to play with GbE yet so I don't know how bad the lowest-of-low-end hardware is.)
There are at least a half dozen ways to implement QoS on ethernet-like networks before you even get into the mechanisms for QoS at the IP level, so (I know, repeating myself) an actual answer that narrows it down would... be common courtesy, as far as informing customers how to use the service properly and not 'break' it. |
| said by Floid:Shame the TV-on-PC option isn't available yet but hopefully that means they'll "do it right" if they ever do. I believe it currently can be done, but you'll need a video card or PC TV tuner card with video inputs on it. You can then connect the analog outputs of the STB, and you should be good to go. Note that you'll pay another $7/month for the additional STB connected. |
