1 edit | wireless networking that's some crazy shit I am doing that here and it don't work that great. there goes your 1080i | |
|
 |  MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: wireless networking said by jchambers28:that's some crazy shit I am doing that here and it don't work that great. there goes your 1080i I agree. I tried it as well and it was awful. I was only going through one floor and about 15 feet maybe. The issue was the reliability of the connection, not the max throughput that could be achieved. I eventually replaced the bridges with Motorola NIM-100 MoCA bridges and see a solid 100Mbps all day.
I could hit 280Mbps (802.11n Draft 2.0) but every 2-3 minutes the signal would get muddled and the rate would drop, causing a video pause. Actually, when the rate had to change at all, either decrease due to a interference and then when it cleared up and increased the rate again, I'd would experience problems. The 5GHz spectrum would help, so I hope they are deploying it there. | |
|
| |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: wireless networking Personally, I'd rather use Ethernet over powerline (Netgear HDX-101 or newer).
I typically have ~100mbps to almost any outlet in my house (100mbps port, so ~70mbps throughput).
The only issue occurs when there's something with a high load (microwave oven, vacuum, hairdryer). | |
|
| | | | | Re: wireless networking 720P would be the highest quality achieved nothing more. | |
|
| | | | bsoft
join:2004-03-28
Boulder, CO | Re: wireless networking 1080p Blu-Ray discs usually run around 30Mbps, which is well within the real-world performance of 802.11n (60+ Mbps).
You can get excellent quality 1080p video with H.264 at 15Mbps, so you could easily send three video streams simultaneously over 802.11n.
The major stumbling block is going to be interference, but there's a good chance that AT&T will be using the 5GHz band instead of the 2.4GHz band (802.11n can use either). | |
|
| | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by en102:Personally, I'd rather use Ethernet over powerline (Netgear HDX-101 or newer). I typically have ~100mbps to almost any outlet in my house (100mbps port, so ~70mbps throughput). The only issue occurs when there's something with a high load (microwave oven, vacuum, hairdryer). The MoCA devices are much simpler and offer higher throughput. There is ZERO configuration required, you just plug them in and go. They are also not sensitive to load on the coax. As the other poster said, I see a solid 100Mbps all day long. | |
|
| | | | en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: wireless networking I have no issues with MoCA, however these devices are plug/play, no config required either. Its basically an ethernet bridge over 120V, usable at any outlet.
My longest run is probably ~300' of wire (far end of house to circuit breaker and back over a different circuit, and I have ~70Mbps (~55Mbps thoughput) - and my electrical is aluminum :P | |
|
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | I've tried a few powerline adapters without success. The best throughput I was able to achieve was ~17 Mbps. This was in a house built in 2005. | |
|
|  dslwanterIt's comingPremium
join:2002-12-16
Niles, OH
 ·AT&T Midwest
| said by jchambers28:that's some crazy shit I am doing that here and it don't work that great. there goes your 1080i Never 1080i anyway. It's all compressed. But AT&T would do something like this.
AT&T= You're world, our way.
--
Check our my internet radio station: »www.thebomb102.com, featuring new music and hits of the millennium, powered by FTTH! | |
|
| | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: wireless networking said by dslwanter:said by jchambers28:that's some crazy shit I am doing that here and it don't work that great. there goes your 1080i Never 1080i anyway. It's all compressed. But AT&T would do something like this. Resolution has nothing to do with compression. You can have 1080i at 1Mbps if you want to. You won't be able to make out what is in the video, but it's still technically video.  | |
|
| | | | | Re: wireless networking Though technically right.... just as you pointed out though compression has EVERYTHING to do with resolution quality.
No matter how good it is, you are going to loss details and the more compression the more details lost. | |
|
| | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: wireless networking said by Skippy25:Though technically right.... just as you pointed out though compression has EVERYTHING to do with resolution quality. No matter how good it is, you are going to loss details and the more compression the more details lost. I said resolution, not quality. | |
|
| | | meh I cant get standard video working at all.
I don't know what I doing wrong. | |
|
|  aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
 ·Verizon FiOS
2 edits | said by jchambers28:that's some crazy shit I am doing that here and it don't work that great. there goes your 1080i I have zero problems transmitting 1080P24 video over my 5Ghz wireless N segment of my network. I can transfer multiple streams with zero problems. I easily have consistent 100mbs+ speeds from it.
As long as it's setup properly there should not be any dropouts. | |
|
| El GaupoPremium
join:2006-07-15
Buckhorn, NM | sounds like a loser to me | |
|
| | | | Re: wireless networking my point of view is that you cant beat a wired connection for vidieo that's just it, my point of view. | |
|
 gigahurtzPremium
join:2001-10-20
Palm Coast, FL | This would be interesting.. I like that AT&T is exploring different options. It's unusual that a company like AT&T would move away from "traditional means". When times are tough, even the giants move away from their normal ways. I am interested to see how this turns out. | |
|
|  alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA |  Re: This would be interesting..
said by gigahurtz:I like that AT&T is exploring different options. It's unusual that a company like AT&T would move away from "traditional means". When times are tough, even the giants move away from their normal ways. I am interested to see how this turns out. I like the way you say, "Traditional Means," AT&T is just trying to plug holes and it's not going to work. AT&T lost all their talent, and they are left only with BellHead Bean Counters. These guys and their U-Verse are going to fail. Their VDSL just doesn't have the bandwidth for HD Video, and this Wireless venture is no better. People just have to bit the bullet and run Ethernet. What is the big deal with Wire? | |
|
 NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | It will not work once density increases in a neighborhood Eventually there will be oversaturation of the wifi channels and everyone's speeds will go in the crapper. Here the b/g channels are like a jungle now and speeds suck. 2-3 years ago used to be 3 AP's in my area, now there are over 30 showing up.
--
Play a Death Knight?
www.theebonhold.com | |
|
|  DarkLogixPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | Re: It will not work once density increases in a neighborhood simple solution blast the power and over power most
250ma+9DBi ant+wireless spectrum analizer (to find what part of the rang the microwave is in) = 54Mbit across the street on 802.11g
then hide the ssid + wpa2 aes = no problems | |
|
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: It will not work once density increases in a neighborhood Until someone else turns around and does the same thing. More power isn't the answer with WiFi. And yes, the 2.4 GHz spectrum is ugly in many areas with 5 GHz quickly catching up. I'm surprised AT&T is attempting something that they will have absolutely no control over. At least with MoCA and existing phone line connections, they have control and can run new coax drops if needed. | |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1 |  How about some new frequency assignments for data!
| |
|
| RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: How about some new frequency assignments for data! That'll last about six minutes. This has (predictably) turned to shit just like CB did thirty years ago, and digging a new hole everytime the latrine fills is an exercise in futility. Unregulated radio transmission always ends up being a putrid mess.
White space devices would not escape this either, and you can forget 700 MHz.
How about going back to the almost-unused 900 MHz band? | |
|
| | HomePNA I've found wireless to be VERY unreliable in terms of bridging points around the house. The average throughput was adequate, but the instantaneous transfer was highly variable. Neighbor turns on a microwave, switches on their baby monitor, or picks up their 2.4GHz cordless phone, and your movie is done! Even with a fair amount of buffering (which takes time while seeking), you would always have a few hiccups. Furthermore, even 802.11n does not have the bandwidth to stream more than 1-2 HD streams over more than a few ft. From my experience, I seriously doubt this will be a viable solution for most people, especially those in urban areas.
I've never used homepna equipment, but the coax moca bridges I have (nim-100's) are bulletproof. They run internally at 254mbits even over half a dozen splitters and REALLY crappy coax in my house. They introduce only about 5 ms of latency, and I can pull the full 100Mbits out of the ethernet port. | |
|
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | I hope they're using 5.8 GHz... The best parts of 802.11n simply won't work on 2.4 GHz networks along side other 802.11b/g networks, cordless phones, baby monitors, security systems, AV setups, and etcetera. That gloriously generalized statement happens to be true for over 95% of the population. Sure, they can set their APs to ignore interference and force bonding and phasing, but when they do that, then they're the cause of interference.
I hope they're planning on using 5.8 GHz for this.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
|
|  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: I hope they're using 5.8 GHz... said by funchords:I hope they're planning on using 5.8 GHz for this. Their web site says they are using the 5GHz band. | |
|
| | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: I hope they're using 5.8 GHz... said by Romney2012:said by funchords:I hope they're planning on using 5.8 GHz for this. Their web site says they are using the 5GHz band. That should eliminate a lot of the issues. I hope they figure out a buffering system that isn't sensitive to the radio changing it's transmission rate too. | |
|
| | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: I hope they're using 5.8 GHz... said by Matt:said by Romney2012:said by funchords:I hope they're planning on using 5.8 GHz for this. Their web site says they are using the 5GHz band. That should eliminate a lot of the issues. I hope they figure out a buffering system that isn't sensitive to the radio changing it's transmission rate too. That should happen at two different levels of the stack, although if the radio takes too long, there is nothing the application can actually do about it.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
|
 Hookem99Deep In The Heart
join:2007-07-18
Pflugerville, TX
kudos:1 | 4-6? 'The MediaFlex 7000 device manual says it can support four to six MPEG-4 HDTV IPTV streams running at 10 Mbit/s each.'
To bad at&t itself only supports 2! | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: 4-6? said by Hookem99:'The MediaFlex 7000 device manual says it can support four to six MPEG-4 HDTV IPTV streams running at 10 Mbit/s each.' To bad at&t itself only supports 2! actually the in-home network has to support more than that. The DVR can record two streams and also be playing back streams to other TV STBs via the Whole Home DVR feature, at the same time. | |
|
| | | uh, what about WATCHING a recorded show? | |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| HomePNA *or* Ethernet for in-home network quote:
Karl Bode said: AT&T currently uses HomePNA technology for in-home networking.
This is incorrect. They use either HomePNA or straight Ethernet over Cat5/5e/6, or a mixture of the two. The installers prefer Ethernet if the cabling is available. | |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | I see problems with this. IDK if it would work this way, but signal interference could cause big problems. Say a box near the edge of the house accidentally picks up a signal from the house next door, and a kid goes to watch spongebob and the guy next door is watching an adult movie, like I said IDK if that could happen but I would not be surprised to hear it did. My microwave messes with my wifi(both r 2.4), so just what if....... | |
|
|  tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | Re: I see problems with this. please...
do you pick up your neighbor watching internet pr0n while you are watching youtube videos?
same principle. just because you attach it to a vdsl stb doesn't mean all security goes out the window...
q. | |
|
| | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: I see problems with this. No, but this works different from normal wifi, I asked cause I do no understand what they r trying to do. What I was trying to say was, if u have to have a box in a room to get tv from the main box how do they know that you will never pick up something from ur neighbor's main box.
And none of my neighbors even have highspeed. | |
|
| | | tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | Re: I see problems with this. said by me1212:No, but this works different from normal wifi, how so? they are using 802.11n. they set up a network and tie all of the stbs over this network. in fact, per the diagram posted here, they even say that they are using a bssid - a basic service set identifier; a wireless network name.
this *is* normal wifi, just repurposed.
again, i pose the question
said by tubbynet:do you pick up your neighbor watching internet pr0n while you are watching youtube videos? to which you answered
problem solved.
q. | |
|
| | | | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: I see problems with this. Ok, I was just checking, thanks answering my question dude. | |
|
| | 802.11n in the 5GHz range 802.11n in the 5GHz range (this is the same frequency that 802.11a uses) eliminates much of the interference problems associated with 802.11b/g deployments. The 5 GHz frequency does not travel through solid objects as well as the 2.4 GHz frequency, but it should work well enough in household areas. The 5 GHz channel will also allow for up to 20 non-interfering instances, so it will play well in high density deployments (apartment buildings). 802.11n also employs WPA2-AES encryption by default, so this, in combination with non-broadcast SSIDs, will keep neighboring implementations from "snooping" on what each other are viewing. | |
|
| | | Re: 802.11n in the 5GHz range Just an FYI, hiding the SSID is NOT a security measure. In fact it can cause more trouble down the line. Please stop spreading this as such.
Adi | |
|
| tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | i can see the 5ghz spectrum being an issue though in some instances. i prefer to use 5ghz as all of my devices are tri-band. i run high gains on my 5ghz band to push it where i need it. i can see someone getting u-verse and running the 5ghz n-band and having it never come up because some guy actually planned his network to be used when everyone else was on the 2.4ghz band...
i'd do it just to mess with people too 
q. | |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon Online DSL
| Ehhh.. I stream ripped 480p DVD movies to several TVs at home via wifi-g and it's acceptable should nothing else be transmitting on the same radio.
Dumb move. It's not gonna work. Just like cellular and wimax, microwave transmission is best-effort at best and susceptible to everything else in the spectrum that shares time slices in the same space.
Good cost-saving idea on paper, stupid implementation. | |
|
| | | Re: Ehhh.. Good cost-saving idea on paper, stupid implementation........
that sums up at&t perfectly! | |
|
| | Wrong focus area Perhaps they should focus on being able to deliver more HD feeds to the house first...
Just last night... 2 HD feeds being watched, two more being recorded... | |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | at least AT&T is consistent with their strategy... i know this is a trial, but at least AT&T is consistent with their strategy of doing things very half assed. u-verse itself and now this stop gap measure to deal with the problem of the transporting video around a house. imagine the new problems this will create... | |
|
| MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: at least AT&T is consistent with their strategy... said by morbo:i know this is a trial, but at least AT&T is consistent with their strategy of doing things very half assed. u-verse itself and now this stop gap measure to deal with the problem of the transporting video around a house. imagine the new problems this will create... Ha ha, I was thinking the same thing when I read the article. | |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
| Meh I have 802.11n and I've had no problems pushing 32 Mbps (the limit of my cable connection speed) over wireless. I hear 60 Mbps is possible with 802.11n gear without much of a problem (D-Link's higher-end gear or Linksys' stuff). However it would have to be 5GHz or it'd be an epic fail.
As far as Ethernet goes, what's so terribly expensive about it? I can get cabling for 20¢/foot these days... | |
|
| tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | Re: Meh said by iansltx:As far as Ethernet goes, what's so terribly expensive about it? I can get cabling for 20¢/foot these days... the materials aren't expensive, its the knowledge to pull cable and do it correctly (i.e. to all local, state, national codes). the installation would also take a larger amount of time, especially if the customer wanted it done professionally. over short distances, yes, it works fine. i can just imagine someone expecting to get their whole house wired with cat5 and then suing because it was ugly.
q. | |
|
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Meh Ruckus wireless gear is expensive last time I checked *shrugs* | |
|
| | | tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | Re: Meh said by iansltx:Ruckus wireless gear is expensive last time I checked *shrugs* but the customer can be charged for it. in terms of time, its a simple procedure to set everything up (in fact it can be passed off to the customer).
pulling ethernet is an intense job (if done well) and it would take the time out of the tech's day (reducing his usefulness). they could require the customer to deal with an outside contactor (att approved, of course), but i'm not sure the customer would appreciate seeing the bill to wire up four rooms with ethernet cable and then have the proper switching infrastructure to handle it all.
in my book its 6 of one, half-dozen of the other.
q. | |
|
Rob2647
join:2008-08-12
Rochester, MI | No Thanks HomePNA works perfectly fine. If your home is already wired with RG6 to all your TV's Then a Uverse install is a breeze. Especially if you are a former cable customer. | |
|
| | So in ATT time They should be ready to roll out this 2012?? It only took ATT over four mouths to to get off their duff to finally get around to add those six Viacom HD channels. VDSL2, pair bonding, 3HD stream, THDVR phase 2 and 3 are still mouths away to be rolled out national wide. | |
|
| | Your FUNERAL delivered Their U-VERSE is $hit from broadband speed point of view...as a matter of fact i dont consider it broadband, i call it Dial up....And why would this invention (LOL) be any diffrent? besides the fact that it will obviously get source from their same old slow copper infrastructure.
AT&T your FUNERAL delivered.... | |
|
 FiOS LIVESo fast, it's LIVE
join:2008-11-25
Collegeville, PA | Shortcuts much? Well what else is new, seems like everyone is trying to take shortcuts and trim off the extra fat for savings (ex. Verizon's selloff of less profitable states).
Wireless is not the way to go for HDTV and other stationary networked devices. 802.11 should still be focused on being applied for mobile devices and not stationary ones. There just isn't the reliability and stability of 802.11 yet even with N. For the near future, it's just another possibilty for something to go wrong on the customer's end.
I think if AT&T wants to go ahead with this, it should be OPTIONAL to the customer if they agree and are tech savvy enough to troubleshoot majority of issues on their own. Otherwise this will only reduce the quality on the end user if not properly configured and maintained.
--
AT&T + Comcast
Your world. Destroyed.
Throttle and put a cap on it. It's Comcastic! | |
|
|
|
Ruckus 802.11n connectivity diagram
