 |  | 
Neyland85
join:2003-02-04
North Augusta, SC
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Pair Bonding WHEN? I don't get what all the hoopla is about. ATT is just now being able to get two HD feeds into a home which still puts them behind other offerings.
We're entering an age where in the next three years a whole lot of stuff is going to be moved into the HD area. Even with Pair Bonding they're still going to be bandwidth starved.
People are simply going to expect to be able to do as much with their HD channels as their SD channels. This means multiple TVs watching different channels while maybe a DVR is recording; Mom is uploading 100 pictures to Wally and talking to Aunt Sue on the phone.
I just don't get them... | |
| | | 
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
 ·Corporate Colocation
| Re: Pair Bonding WHEN? said by Neyland85  :I don't get what all the hoopla is about. ATT is just now being able to get two HD feeds into a home which still puts them behind other offerings. We're entering an age where in the next three years a whole lot of stuff is going to be moved into the HD area. Even with Pair Bonding they're still going to be bandwidth starved. People are simply going to expect to be able to do as much with their HD channels as their SD channels. This means multiple TVs watching different channels while maybe a DVR is recording; Mom is uploading 100 pictures to Wally and talking to Aunt Sue on the phone. I just don't get them... Pair bonding will get them to 50Mbps. You can do a LOT with 50Mbps right now. 50Mbps should be enough for the next 5 years as well. If they can squeeze 2 HD streams, 2 SD streams and 10Mbps of internet into 25Mbps, 50Mbps will give them breathing room.
Although that means their internet product will likely not be competitive with cable. Not as if it currently is anyway. | |
| | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | Re: Pair Bonding WHEN? Ah you stepped in it. You said "50Mbps should be enough for the next 5 years as well" whe you should have added the caveat, "for most cosumers" otherwise you'll be tor limb from limb by a lot of people here. | |
| | | | 
Squeezing
@tds.net
| said by MattE :said by Neyland85 :I just don't get them... Pair bonding will get them to 50Mbps. You can do a LOT with 50Mbps right now. 50Mbps should be enough for the next 5 years as well. If they can squeeze 2 HD streams, 2 SD streams and 10Mbps of internet into 25Mbps, 50Mbps will give them breathing room. Although that means their internet product will likely not be competitive with cable. Not as if it currently is anyway. The problem for me is that the HD streams better NOT be compressed like Comcrap. As I've said here before, I had DirecTV HD and then moved and now have Comcrap. The HD is soft and overly compressed on Comcrap compared to DirecTV. How will the 2 HD streams on U-Verse look? | |
| | | | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Pair Bonding WHEN? said by Squeezing :
The problem for me is that the HD streams better NOT be compressed like Comcrap. As I've said here before, I had DirecTV HD and then moved and now have Comcrap. The HD is soft and overly compressed on Comcrap compared to DirecTV. How will the 2 HD streams on U-Verse look?
Not as bad as Comcast, but not as good as DirecTV. | |
| | | |
Neyland85
join:2003-02-04
North Augusta, SC
·AT&T Southeast
| said by MattE :said by Neyland85 :I don't get what all the hoopla is about. ATT is just now being able to get two HD feeds into a home which still puts them behind other offerings. We're entering an age where in the next three years a whole lot of stuff is going to be moved into the HD area. Even with Pair Bonding they're still going to be bandwidth starved. People are simply going to expect to be able to do as much with their HD channels as their SD channels. This means multiple TVs watching different channels while maybe a DVR is recording; Mom is uploading 100 pictures to Wally and talking to Aunt Sue on the phone. I just don't get them... Pair bonding will get them to 50Mbps. You can do a LOT with 50Mbps right now. 50Mbps should be enough for the next 5 years as well. If they can squeeze 2 HD streams, 2 SD streams and 10Mbps of internet into 25Mbps, 50Mbps will give them breathing room. Although that means their internet product will likely not be competitive with cable. Not as if it currently is anyway. I'm not so sure. Everyone is pushing HD right now and expect to see even more upswing over the next two years.
We have three people in the house that all like to watch different things plus record different things we like as well.
I just don't see how 50MB is going to offer them enough to compete on product over the next 5 years. I have a feeling they'll keep doing what they're doing now. Being the Wal-Mart of the TV/Internet market. | |
| | | | |
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation
| Re: Pair Bonding WHEN? said by Neyland85 :I'm not so sure. Everyone is pushing HD right now and expect to see even more upswing over the next two years. We have three people in the house that all like to watch different things plus record different things we like as well. I just don't see how 50MB is going to offer them enough to compete on product over the next 5 years. I have a feeling they'll keep doing what they're doing now. Being the Wal-Mart of the TV/Internet market. If they pair bond to 50Mbps using current technology, they can get 8 streams, 4 HD and 4 SD, or I'm sure some mix there about. Probably 6 HD streams. So that's 2 HD streams per TV in your house.
While I don't think the AT&T solution is by any stretch of the imagination high tech, I think they are just aiming for the widest target possible and to be honest, very few households have more than a TV or two. | |
| | | | | | 
maartena
Obama 2008
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
edit:
July 24th, @03:15PM
| Re: Pair Bonding WHEN? said by MattE :While I don't think the AT&T solution is by any stretch of the imagination high tech, I think they are just aiming for the widest target possible and to be honest, very few households have more than a TV or two. I know two friends of mine who have 1 HDTV..... but TWO dual tuner HD-DVR's. It is not uncommon that they record two HD shows from the major networks, on one HD-DVR, and watch football on the other HD-DVR on ESPN-HD. That's three streams right there.
You don't have to have more TV's, just more DVR's. Another friend of mine has a "his" and "hers" HD-DVR from Time Warner - no kidding! We have 35 or so HD channels now in SoCal, (most areas, not all yet), and according to their customer service staff, we should be seeing 70 HD channels by the end of 1st quarter 2009.
My wife is already recording the heck out of Food Network HD and HGTV HD, often at the same time..... and since I hooked up my "analog" cable as well, sometimes I just watch the HD channels in QAM on the TV itself, which is 3 HD streams with just one DVR and one QAM tuner.
This year will see more HD channel launches (we are waiting till BBC America HD gets launched later this year), and within the next 5 years we WILL have 150 or so HD channels. (we are closing in on 100 already).
Two streams just won't cut it. Four will do just fine I think with pair bonding, but they would have to bond by default for every new install. | |
| | | | | |
Neyland85
join:2003-02-04
North Augusta, SC
·AT&T Southeast
| I think you might be surprised. Especially family households. Yea I can see two person homes only having two TVs, but not families with children... especially children over the age of 8.
Uncompressed HD runs roughly 1.5Gbps (Based on a Wiki article). ATT believes their HD channels take 8-10Mbps, just how much compression to they plan on using?
Old '06 IPTV article, but talks to 3.1 TVs per house and 8-16Mbps for HD at MPEG-2. (»www.iptvarticles.com/IPTVMagazin···HDTV.htm). | |
| | | | | | |
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation
edit:
July 24th, @03:41PM
| Re: Pair Bonding WHEN? said by Neyland85 :I think you might be surprised. Especially family households. Yea I can see two person homes only having two TVs, but not families with children... especially children over the age of 8. Uncompressed HD runs roughly 1.5Gbps (Based on a Wiki article). ATT believes their HD channels take 8-10Mbps, just how much compression to they plan on using? Old '06 IPTV article, but talks to 3.1 TVs per house and 8-16Mbps for HD at MPEG-2. (» www.iptvarticles.com/IPTVMagazin···HDTV.htm). Yes, but that's not 3.1 HD televisions.
MPEG-2 is ooooooold. AT&T is using an MPEG-4 standard to compress their HD to 8.5Mbps. That has to be a worst case scenario at 8.5Mbps, because they can get 2 HD and 2 SD into 15Mbps right now.
So, w/ 10Mbps of internet allocated out of 50Mbps, that's about 5 simultaneous HD streams. In 5 years they'll have improved upon that I bet with better technology.
Is U-Verse the answer for everyone? Nope. But neither is DirecTV nor Cable. The main thing, is you now have 3 choices. | |
| | | | | | | |
Neyland85
join:2003-02-04
North Augusta, SC
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Pair Bonding WHEN? Yea that's why I said it was an old article...
We have three people in our family. I watch my set of shows, my wife watches hers and our daughter has her own needs. In one of the articles I've recently read, HD sets have almost doubled in the last year. The more you move into 09, the more sets you'll see as the average consumer believes the 09 cutoff to digital means a cut over to HD. And salesmen sure like to feed that myth.
We currently have Dish with two dual HD tuners and an off air tuner. It simply isn't all that uncommon with the offerings today that we're not each watching something different with two of us recording 2 other shows on different networks. That's easily 5 programs right there, today. As more and more content comes on...
The DVR really has spoiled us to how we watch TV. The more people adopt the technology, the more demand you'll see for content.
I guess to me when you really stack the hardships DSL brings to upload speeds,distance, line quality, bandwidth,and overhead vs the adoption rate in the next 3-5 years I feel ATT has really set them up for a fall. I mean look at how long it's taken them just to deploy UVerse on their existing plant. Where's ATT going to be sitting when cable goes 3.0 and Verizon areas are almost all fiber? Exactly where they are now, behind..
I want ATT to do more. I'm in a ATT area and want a real competitor to cable, but to me a real compitor has the ability to offer the about the same level of service... | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
maartena
Obama 2008
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
| said by MattE :Pair bonding will get them to 50Mbps. And if you are 11000 Ft from the CO like me, All I will get is a whopping 6 or 7 Mbps out of that 50.
Distance is a problem for copper wires, and even if they place a DSLAM in my neighborhood (which they may have done anyways), you still need to be within 3000 feet to get anything above about 10 Mbps. | |
| | | | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Pair Bonding WHEN? said by maartena :said by MattE :Pair bonding will get them to 50Mbps. And if you are 11000 Ft from the CO like me, All I will get is a whopping 6 or 7 Mbps out of that 50. Distance is a problem for copper wires, and even if they place a DSLAM in my neighborhood (which they may have done anyways), you still need to be within 3000 feet to get anything above about 10 Mbps. With U-verse, they are using VRADs and running fiber to them, rather than DSLAMs. They are installing more VRADs because they sell video and voice, not just Internet connectivity. So hopefully you will get a VRAD closer to you and can take advantage of higher speeds. | |
| | | cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| is 2 simultaneous HD feeds all that bad when it'll satisfy the vast majority of people out there? most people either have one tuner or 2 tuners (2 TVs or 1 tuner for live TV and the other to record). don't start with that some people have 7 TVs all with 4 tuner DVRs BS. Also not every channel is in HD, so until the typical consumer is actually hindered by 2 HD feed and 2 SD feeds, I'd say they are on par. | |
| | | | 
rahlquist
Redeye
join:2001-10-30
Villa Rica, GA
| Re: Pair Bonding WHEN? said by cornelius785 :is 2 simultaneous HD feeds all that bad when it'll satisfy the vast majority of people out there? I guess I am in the minority then with 3 DVRs all 2 channel capable in the house. So I guess Uverse just isnt a place for me. I can record 6 shows at once 2 of them HD and still currently surf at 6mbps, Uverse cant compete with that.
--
Fed Up With Stupidity?
Patentlystupid.com | |
| | | | | Enlightener
join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Pair Bonding WHEN? Count me in there also. :-(
We have DirecTV with an HR20-100 upstairs and another one downstairs. My wife tends to `own` the downstairs one and my sister in law owns the upstairs one. They both like to record HD content and watch on their own schedules.
That's not counting yet another HD receiver in the master bedroom and an SD receiver in the guest bedroom. | |
| | | | 
barqsdrinker
What Can I Photograph Today?
Premium
join:2001-02-26
Apo, AE
clubs:
edit:
July 24th, @10:57AM
| said by cornelius785 :is 2 simultaneous HD feeds all that bad when it'll satisfy the vast majority of people out there? Count me in as a minority, too, then. I've got two HD DVR units - each capable of recording two HD streams for a total of 4 - plus a non-recording HD tuner. If every tuner was on HD - which occurs more often because the picture quality is so much better than SD - then U-Verse can't hold up and AT&T's service isn't for me. For now, I'll stick with the DBS for my television viewing pleasure.
Now, if they want to give me all that BW for data, I'd be almost all for that!
(edit: typo) | |
| Enlightener
join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX | DVR 2 is still a little short, but I could probably accept it.
But when's the WH-DVR coming? Without that, it's a deal breaker. | |
| guppy_fish
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Lakeland, FL
·Verizon FIOS
 ·ViaTalk
| U-Jerk Wow, way to go AT&T, super-duper compress the HDTV for a whopping 2 channels at the same time ...
meanwhile, Verizon just ran the conduit for FIOS on my street this week, I'll get 100 channels of uncompressed HDTV
If I was a AT&T shareholder I'd be selling and shorting the stock for sure | |
| | Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL | Re: U-Jerk 2 is a joke. I have a dual tuner HD DRV + 1 more hd tuner. And ATT can't even do that + some areas are still at 1 HD. | |
| | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
edit:
July 24th, @11:15AM
| said by guppy_fish :Wow, way to go AT&T, super-duper compress the HDTV for a whopping 2 channels at the same time ... meanwhile, Verizon just ran the conduit for FIOS on my street this week, I'll get 100 channels of uncompressed HDTV If I was a AT&T shareholder I'd be selling and shorting the stock for sure U-verse doesn't actually compete with FIOS. They are, in almost all cases, not offered in the same area.
Oh, and BTW, all HDTV is compressed on its way to your house, even OTA. It's just a question of how and how much. | |
| | | 
NowVOIP
In the beginning there was POTS
join:2006-03-05
Round Lake, IL
·ViaTalk
| Re: U-Jerk
Just for the record OTA is not compressed. OTA (Over-the-Air) is a direct signal for your local station affilate. There is no compression in that signal, as there is no middle man (i.e. cable, satelite, FIOS, or U-verse to compress the signal and save bandwith. | |
| | | | beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH
| Re: U-Jerk that is absolutely INcorrect. ALL broadcast digital television (namely HD) is quite compressed. The ATSC broadcast spec is an MPEG2 Stream. IIRC the spec tops out somewhere around 20-30mbps. If that signal were "uncompressed" you are looking at..well..for 1080i = 1920pixels*540lines*60hz*3bytes color = 186,624,000 BYTES/second - or 1.5gb/s. Sorry but you are not getting a 1.5gb/s feed OTA or otherwise.... | |
| | | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| said by NowVOIP :Just for the record OTA is not compressed. wrong... beaups beat me to the punch explaining it...
only commercial broadcast studio quality equipment handles full native HD streams.
Here's some words from the Wikipedia article:
quote:
Television studios as well as production and distribution facilities, use the HD-SDI SMPTE 292M interconnect standard (a nominally 1.485 Gbit/s, 75-ohm serial digital interface) to route uncompressed HDTV signals. The native bitrate of HDTV formats cannot be supported by 6-8 MHz standard-definition television channels for over-the-air broadcast and consumer distribution media, hence the widespread use of compression in consumer applications. SMPTE 292M interconnects are generally unavailable in consumer equipment...
| |
| | | | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: U-Jerk said by djrobx :But they're not done compressing it! According to an AT&T investor conference, they expect to fit 4HD in the current 25mbps profile. That is correct. They are heading down the "HD Lite" path. Not quite as badly as DirecTV did back in the day, but it's not great. This is one of the reasons I did not keep U-verse TV (I am running U-verse Internet only and quite pleased with it).
However, it seems to resonate with the great mass of cable customers. They are not all that picky about HD picture quality.
Personally, I found that a true A/B comparison of HD pictures was the only way to really see the difference. It's not night and day. You do not look at a U-verse HD picture out of context and say, "Wow, that's awful". It's good enough for many people.
I'm near the designed 2700' lmit, and I can sync at 49mbps. I really think they've got the headroom to bump up the sync some. Moving to 4HD and 15/2 internet would go a LONG way towards modernizing this product.
Increasing Internet speeds could be done. They'd have to create and price the offering, change their qualification system to a tiered one (right now it's just "you can get it or you can't"), and then implement and rollout the provisioning and billing changes. This would be no small matter for them to do. They are rolling out U-verse as fast as they can under their current business plan, so I don't think they are really motivated to do that.
4 HD streams could also be done, but again they'd have to have a tiered qualification system and new provisioning. I would imagine they will do this faster than they'll do new Internet offerings, since they are really a TV service. | |
|
rahlquist
Redeye
join:2001-10-30
Villa Rica, GA
| Pair bonding, dont make me laugh The only Pair I see bonding is AT&T's billing department pairing with your wallet. Considering how many cant even get a good dsl speed is this even realistic? I think not.
--
Fed Up With Stupidity?
Patentlystupid.com | |
| deadzoned
Premium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA
 ·Cox HSI
| Hilarious! Why is at&t making these baby steps with their U-Verse service? I just don't get it. Why not go directly to pair bonding at least? Noooooo, they decide to compress and drag their feet and fall further behind.
I can't imagine what they are thinking - other than "Spend as little money as possible, no matter what!" No one ever accused at&t of being forward-thinking though... | |
| | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Hilarious! said by deadzoned :Why is at&t making these baby steps with their U-Verse service? I just don't get it. Why not go directly to pair bonding at least? Noooooo, they decide to compress and drag their feet and fall further behind. I can't imagine what they are thinking - other than "Spend as little money as possible, no matter what!" No one ever accused at&t of being forward-thinking though... They're not stupid. They are rolling out U-verse as fast as they are able, and they are meeting their business plans. Their market is not you, the services-intensive bleeding edge consumer. They have enough to compete in their market. | |
| 
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs: | dvr I am waiting for multi room dvr. What is that coming? The date keeps gettin delayed. | |
| | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: dvr said by jgkolt :I am waiting for multi room dvr. What is that coming? The date keeps gettin delayed. good question... i would expect by the end of the year, but that's just a guess. | |
| 
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud | Stick with DBS for video I think they should have worked the DBS deal, saving the copper for data services including VOD. They're trying to do too much with too little. | |
| | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Stick with DBS for video said by Skeedatl :I think they should have worked the DBS deal, saving the copper for data services including VOD. They're trying to do too much with too little. I think they positioned themselves to go either way. They had (and still have) the "Advanced TV" brand that includes both the re-marketed Dish Network offering, and U-verse where available. They are frequently rumored to be in talks with DirecTV on remarketing, and I'm sure at some level they are ready to go in whatever business direction makes sense.
However -- the U-verse experiment seems to be working pretty well for them so far, so I don't expect them to dump it and go with a DBS deal (or even acquiring one of the DBS providers) in the near future, anyway. | |
| | |
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud | Re: Stick with DBS for video They should let E* continue doing all the work while taking a cut of the customers they sell. Then work with E* on VOD services like DirecTV's VOD Beta which could work great on a 25Mb service. | |
| | Enlightener
join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
| I've said this before. DBS is great for multicast broadcasting and IP is great for unicast. Overlap the two networks and you could do some really, really powerful things.
There are a bunch of applications coming down the road that aren't yet invented because the bandwidth isn't there and no one has throught them up yet. | |
| 
ccallana
Huh?
Premium,VIP
join:2000-08-03
Folsom, CA
·AT&T Yahoo
| 50M just for internet They should allow you to turn the TV part off and use all the bandwidth for internet... if they bond to 50Mb, that would make a pretty nice internet connection 
--
"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us.... We are far too easily pleased." C.S. Lewis | |
| | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: 50M just for internet This is just a question of what markets they choose to server. Technically, it'd just be adding another provisioning profile to allow a 50M connection for me, personally. I am currently a U-verse Internet (not TV) customer with the 10/1.5 service, but my modem is synching at 57 megabits with the VRAD.
Right now, AT&T is rolling out U-verse as fast as they are capable of doing, and are OK with the business results, so they have no real need of offering these "fringe" sorts of services (yes you are at the bleeding edge). | |
| MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| These are not the droids you are looking for. U-verse seems to be quite successful in its market. But it is not for you, the average BroadbandReports.com reader. It does not deliver the most HD at the highest bandwidth and the greatest picture quality. It does not provide the cheapest pipe nor the lowest cost VoIP. Accept these things, step back, and take an objective business view.
Just so you know, I personally tried U-Verse TV and cancelled it, for many of the same reasons cited here.
Here are some facts about U-verse:
-- It's growing quite nicely, thank you. AT&T is installing as many customers as they had predicted, and more. And customer satisfaction seems to be generally good.
-- It is not "losing to FIOS". It doesn't compete with FIOS. With very few exceptions, FIOS and U-verse are deploying in different territories -- each in their legacy POTS areas.
-- It is targeted squarely against cable. And it seems to be succeeding there -- coming in with a comparable feature/function set at a lower price point, and requiring the cable companies to lower their prices and speed their rollouts of new capabilities. One proof point right here in Austin is that Time Warner is spending money to run anti-Uverse ads. They wouldn't do that if they didn't feel some pain.
-- There is still lots of headroom in their FTTP rollout. First, don't forget VDSL2. The VRADs they've installed are already VDSL2 capable, and this will increase bandwidth and, more importantly, increase the distance from the VRAD for which they can offer service. The broadbandreports.com types here (Karl) seem to keep ignoring this as they focus only on raw bandwidth. It's just as important to AT&T to be able to serve more distant homes from a VRAD. Second, pair bonding will be used as a tool to increase distance, and secondarily, increase bandwidth to the home. Third, AT&T could very easily uncap the 25M limit for the many customers who are synching at a higher rate -- it's just a provisioning thing. For example, I am synching at over 50 megabits. | |
| |
See 13 replies to this post | |
mjh2901
join:2001-08-02
Livermore, CA
·AT&T U-Verse
| h.264 All of the AT&T Uverse boxes have an h.264 decoder chip in them. That chip is currently not in use. AT&T is redoing the infrustructure to start using that chip. Those streams compress very small with very good quality. Probably not as good as over the air, but much better than what comcast is doing with the signal. Since Comcast is compressing the crap out of everything I much rather have 2 HD streams than an unlimited number of HDTV's showing over compressed garbage. | |
| |
Mr Anon
@sbcglobal.net | Re: h.264 How do you no this is true? | |
| | | mjh2901
join:2001-08-02
Livermore, CA | Re: h.264 I know someone involved with selling the original boxes to AT&T for uverse. The specs are not secret. Those Set top boxes could be used to do a lot of things. | |
| 
odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL | 10Mbps when? My girlfriend has Uverse and the highest speed I could get on her PC was a little under 3Mbps, now on the TV side it's nice for SD with all the channels and the one HDTV they have it looks ok | |
| | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: 10Mbps when? said by odreian615 :My girlfriend has Uverse and the highest speed I could get on her PC was a little under 3Mbps, now on the TV side it's nice for SD with all the channels and the one HDTV they have it looks ok Which tier did she sign up for? The tiers are:
Express: 1.5/1.0
Pro: 3.0/1.0
Elite: 6.0/1.0
Max: 10.0/1.5
If she signed up for Pro you're getting what you paid for.
I have Max and I get 90% or better of the rated speed in actual throughput to my PC. I'm happy. | |
|
maartena
Obama 2008
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
| Two is not enough Right now, I have one HDTV.... and almost DAILY I watch one HD channel, and record something from another.
At the same time, my regular TV in another room is often on a SD channel.
With Cable, FIOS and Satellite, I can hook up three HDTVs, and have each of them hooked up to a dual tuner DVR, record on al three sets, and still flip to HD channels.
When will AT&T realize that they can only deliver so much through copper? Pair bonding is nice, but in dense neighbourhoods you are going to run out of pairs pretty fast if U-Verse proves to be pretty popular.
Cable companies don't have to go FTTH just yet.... (they will in 10 years though), but Telco companies like Verizon and AT&T need to run fiber to the house if they want to deliver PROPER HD and PROPER internet speeds that are ready for the 21st century.
U-Verse is just a stop-gap measure until the time comes they realize they really do need fiber. 
--
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -
Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father. | |
| | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX | Re: Two is not enough Actually your current setup would be nicely supported by U-verse. Two HD streams to your HD TV, and two SD streams to your other TV.
I explain AT&T's approach in my topic "These droids are not the ones you are looking for". | |
| | |
maartena
Obama 2008
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
| Re: Two is not enough said by MyDogHsFleas :Actually your current setup would be nicely supported by U-verse. Two HD streams to your HD TV, and two SD streams to your other TV. I explain AT&T's approach in my topic "These droids are not the ones you are looking for". Yup. But now that Time Warner Cable is offering 32 HD channels, and my wife is recording the hell out of Food Network HD and HGTV HD, my DVR is getting full way too fast. Plus half the time we are watching baseball in HD, and the tuner complains it needs to switch channels to record something else.
So I am thinking of shelling out another $10 a month for a second DVR, and then I would have a "his" and "hers" DVR, with 4 tuners in total..... and then we can continue to watch baseball in HD, while her two Food and HGTV HD streams are recording on the other one.
Believe it or not, a friend of mine already does it this way, and no more fighting about who gets to record what and when, and how long they get to keep it.  | |
| | | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Two is not enough said by maartena :said by MyDogHsFleas :Actually your current setup would be nicely supported by U-verse. Two HD streams to your HD TV, and two SD streams to your other TV. I explain AT&T's approach in my topic "These droids are not the ones you are looking for". Yup. But now that Time Warner Cable is offering 32 HD channels, and my wife is recording the hell out of Food Network HD and HGTV HD, my DVR is getting full way too fast. Plus half the time we are watching baseball in HD, and the tuner complains it |
|
|
|
All Markets Will See U-Verse Dual HD Streams By Q3
