dslreports logo
U-verse Whole Home DVR Arrives
California users get new service alert...

Broadband Reports user and Union City, California resident cbrock See Profile writes in to note that AT&T U-Verse users are receiving e-mails alerting them to the fact that the company's "whole home DVR" concept is now being deployed. This comes on the heels of upgrades that finally allowed users to receive two simultaneous HD streams. The new service allows U-Verse IPTV customers to watch recorded DVR content on any television in the home. According to the letter, the upgrade is a free and automatic software update of existing gear. From the letter:

quote:
The AT&T U-verse Total Home DVR feature lets you:

- Record up to 4 shows at once

- Record on your DVR and play back in any U-verse connected TV in your home

- Pause in one room - play back in another

Simply press the "RECORDED TV" button on any of your U-verse remotes

to watch your standard or high definition recorded programs from any

of your U-verse receivers.
The next major upgrade to wait for will of course be line bonding, which should allow AT&T to provide faster data speeds than their current 10Mbps top of the line offering.
view:
topics flat nest 

MarkyD
Premium Member
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK

MarkyD

Premium Member

Bonding.

When this comes around I may give them another shot. Until then...they can't touch the speed I'm getting with Cox.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

1 recommendation

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: Bonding.

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.

MarkyD
Premium Member
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK

MarkyD

Premium Member

Re: Bonding.

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 Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

1 recommendation

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: Bonding.

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).

Uncle Paul
join:2003-02-04
USA

Uncle Paul to MyDogHsFleas

Member

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 Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: Bonding.

said by Uncle Paul:

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.

Uncle Paul
join:2003-02-04
USA

Uncle Paul

Member

Re: Bonding.

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 Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: Bonding.

said by Uncle Paul:

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.

Mari
@comcast.net

Mari

Anon

Re: Bonding.

AT&T is using HPNA. Info on that and specs on the Moto set-tops for U-verse WHDVR here: »connectedhome2go.com/200 ··· service/

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3 to MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

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?
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: Bonding.

said by Matt3:

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.

S_engineer
Premium Member
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

S_engineer

Premium Member

just curious....

just how much is att asking per month for this "experience"?

and will it be enough to finance the rebuilding of the deathstar?
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: just curious....

said by S_engineer:

just how much is att asking per month for this "experience"?
see »att.com/uverse for pricing and package. On the whole, it's competitive with cable (who they see as their competitor). They don't overlap with FIOS, and they don't view satellite as a competitor, really.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

Nice!

I like the whole house idea. My wife has mentioned a few times she would like to have a feature like this. Too bad I can't get U-verse in my area.
magnushsi
join:2002-11-06
Cedar Springs, MI

magnushsi

Member

Re: Nice!

Both Moto and SA systems support multi-room DVR. Has been around for a few years. I don't know if it was poor marketing or what, but the take off has been very limited. Ask your cable provider if they offer it.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: Nice!

said by magnushsi:

Both Moto and SA systems support multi-room DVR. Has been around for a few years. I don't know if it was poor marketing or what, but the take off has been very limited. Ask your cable provider if they offer it.
I don't know of *any* cable provider that offers multi-room DVR... do you?
magnushsi
join:2002-11-06
Cedar Springs, MI

magnushsi

Member

Re: Nice!

I know Time Warner, Charter and Comcast have all deployed multi-room DVR in some markets.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: Nice!

said by magnushsi:

I know Time Warner, Charter and Comcast have all deployed multi-room DVR in some markets.
Which ones? I'm curious.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536 to magnushsi

Premium Member

to magnushsi
said by magnushsi:

I know Time Warner, Charter and Comcast have all deployed multi-room DVR in some markets.
areas where fios is i bet
magnushsi
join:2002-11-06
Cedar Springs, MI

magnushsi

Member

Re: Nice!

It's been available for a lot longer than FIOS has been around...

Uncle Paul
join:2003-02-04
USA

Uncle Paul to MyDogHsFleas

Member

to MyDogHsFleas
1 SVideo Modulator (»www.solidsignal.com/prod ··· d=SVM-24)
+
1 RFtoUHF Remote Converter (»www.nextgenerationhomepr ··· cts.com/)

= Win for SD.

We've used it for years. Pause a SD show in one room, finish watching it in another.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: Nice!

said by Uncle Paul:

1 SVideo Modulator (»www.solidsignal.com/prod ··· d=SVM-24)
+
1 RFtoUHF Remote Converter (»www.nextgenerationhomepr ··· cts.com/)

= Win for SD.

We've used it for years. Pause a SD show in one room, finish watching it in another.
Good solution but it's different from Whole Home DVR.

With your solution, you have one video output on the DVR driving two TVs. Both TVs have to watch the same stream. If that's OK with you all well and good.

What WHDVR does, however, is allow you to access the DVR's recorded shows from a remote TV completely independent of what the DVR is doing at the local TV (watching a live stream or playing back a different recorded stream). Both TVs can be in use at once, doing different things.

Uncle Paul
join:2003-02-04
USA

1 edit

Uncle Paul

Member

Re: Nice!

Yea we have 3 watchers in the house. Two dual tuner DVRs and a DVD player on the Modulator (one of the dual tuner DVR outputs is tied to the set big TV). These are then pumped out to the house coax in a structured wiring closet.

We take the OTA from outside and splice the modulation on top of it so every tv in the house has access to OTA + the four video feeds from the DVR and DVD player.

We only pay for two DVRs that then feed the whole house.

It seems based on your explination that it's a better solution (one we've been waiting on trust me) but you'd have to still have a box on each tv in the house plus the networked DVR.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski to magnushsi

Premium Member

to magnushsi
We went from cable to DirectTV, ditched cable. The nice thing with DTV is being able to log into the account online and schedule the DVR from there, picking your receiver.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: Nice!

said by ptrowski:

We went from cable to DirectTV, ditched cable. The nice thing with DTV is being able to log into the account online and schedule the DVR from there, picking your receiver.
Actually U-verse has this feature also.

Personally, I've stuck with Time Warner Cable (despite misgivings) for TV service. I use a SlingBox to do my DVR scheduling over the Internet. It's nicer in many ways than a Web-based service, because you see exactly the same screen and remote control as you would at home, and can access all the features (including reviewing and deleting recorded programs). Plus, you can watch the damn show on your PC, not just schedule its recording.

PoloDude
Premium Member
join:2006-03-29
Aiken, SC

PoloDude

Premium Member

Re: Nice!

How can it record 4 shows at once? do they mean 2 shows at a time on two different dvrs? I am sure they don't mean 4 shows at once on one dvr (quad tuner?) If so this still is not that great. Other systems alreay have the multiroom dvr and you can record 2 shoes at a time on each one. Have 7 dvrs? record 14 shows at the same time.
I guess thats what happens when you stick with copper to the house.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: Nice!

said by PoloDude:

How can it record 4 shows at once? do they mean 2 shows at a time on two different dvrs? I am sure they don't mean 4 shows at once on one dvr (quad tuner?)
Yes they do mean exactly that. And there are no tuners at all, it's an IP stream, not RF.
If so this still is not that great. Other systems alreay have the multiroom dvr and you can record 2 shoes at a time on each one. Have 7 dvrs? record 14 shows at the same time.
I think you're missing the basic concept of "multiroom DVR". It means a single DVR that you can access from a different STB connected to a different TV. It does not mean "multiple DVRs".
I guess thats what happens when you stick with copper to the house.
That's got nothing to do with it, you're just buying into the "AT&T is stupid for not running fiber to every house for free" narrative.
quirt
join:2003-09-23
North Richland Hills, TX

quirt to PoloDude

Member

to PoloDude
said by PoloDude:

How can it record 4 shows at once? do they mean 2 shows at a time on two different dvrs? I am sure they don't mean 4 shows at once on one dvr (quad tuner?)
It does record 4 shows at once. This is not satellite which needs physical tuners to get the job done.

NOCMan
MadMacHatter
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO

NOCMan

Premium Member

Verizon is behind in the home dvr now

I hated their DVR and I got a Tivo. They've had the home media function for awhile. I like the idea of being able to record 4 shows. I just wonder if it has the space so you do not record over content too fast.
EPS4
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA

EPS4

Member

Re: Verizon is behind in the home dvr now

Speaking of VZ's whole home DVR, when are they going to get the upgrade to allow it to record HD? Long overdue, I think...

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

djrobx

Premium Member

Re: Verizon is behind in the home dvr now

According to a post I saw on AVS, it sounds like FIOS has multiroom HD capability enabled in new firmware it started rolling out in Oregon.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Uverse has new DVR, but no VoIP yet in SoCal

AT&T's still trying to milk that POTS line to death.
Uverse Voice not available, VoIP not available

Uverse voice for $40 gives the same sevice as POTS for $58/month. Call Vantage gives similar (now dead) for $25

If they ever want me back as a customer, I need something that works... Uverse packages are too expensive as they are for just one or the other.

•••
siouxmoux
join:2007-09-25

1 edit

siouxmoux

Member

Maybe for Once SF/SJ Silicon Valley will get The Latest

According to the letter, the upgrade is a free and automatic software update of existing gear. Yea. at least I can keep my Current Motorola DVR and not have them swap out for Cisco STBs.

And now ATT would make their target dates to add more HD channels like CSN BA HD before the end of 4Q and upgrade UV to line bonding for faster Net access for Q1 2009, that would be great.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: Maybe for Once SF/SJ Silicon Valley will get The Latest

said by siouxmoux:

And now ATT would make their target dates to add more HD channels like CSN BA HD before the end of 4Q and upgrade UV to line bonding for faster Net access for Q1 2009, that would be great.
You mean FSN I think not CSN. U-verse has been pretty poor at picking up the HD RSNs.

Check out my post under the "Bonding" topic for the real scoop -- it's not really about Internet speed.

jimbo48
join:2000-11-17
Asheville, NC

jimbo48 to siouxmoux

Member

to siouxmoux
Hope Springs Eternal
I'm still waiting for something beyond 1.5 copper or Comcast's pathetic cable here in the Greater SF Bay/Silicon Valley. Neither Comcast nor AT&T (forget Verizon) are going to spend any money to bring in cutting edge performance or services when they can get premium prices for their current bedraggled offerings. The only time I ever see anything with a "WOW" factor is when there is competition and the consumer has a choice. It costs me over 105.00 dollars a month for copper DSL that is unstable,a VOIP line with service that requires a reboot of the ATA router daily(a least once). The only decent working portion is the LPV voice which remains stable and dependable.(Analog POTS)
My TV is Direct TV and its been pretty decent but I'm not overly blown away by them either. The HD receiver has such a long lag when changing channels that you wonder if the feed is there.With pops and pixelation galore and I have an unobstructed line of site. Another 100.00 plus per month. I figure 240.00 per month between the two services and neither is on the curve. Guess I can only wish for the kind of offerings that some areas of the US enjoy. I sometimes figure that by the time I get the really good stuff I won't have a need for it.
deandashl
join:2008-08-06
Osseo, MN

2 edits

deandashl

Member

Dear Comcast....

I and millions? of others have been suffering with your garbage MOTO DVR's for almost 5 YEARS now and they STILL don't really work right.

Please read article above and let me know when your version will be available. I will start giving you my updated addresses after 2012, since anything before that is a waste of time.

LOL
EPS4
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA

EPS4

Member

Re: Dear Comcast....

The worst part about the Moto DVRs is that you get the exact same things (with IP features I guess) from Verizon for FiOS... and they're just as bad.
deandashl
join:2008-08-06
Osseo, MN

1 edit

deandashl

Member

block

delete

siouxmoux1
@sbcglobal.net

siouxmoux1

Anon

Yes Comcast Bought out FSN BA. Its now CSN BA

Yes Comcast Bought out FSN BA. Its now CSN BA