 
odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL | I just want the whole 25Mbps+6Mbps pipe for the net streams I dont need no stinking streams | |
| Enlightener
join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
1 edit | Moving on.... I just don't see how they can do it at 25mbps. Even if MPEG4 cuts the bandwidth in half, that's still 9mbps because 1080i ATSC is speced at 18mbps.
Drop in 2 streams and that's 18mbps, add in 6mbps for elite and that's 24mbps. Now where is the bandwidth for the two SDTV channels?
BTW my definition of `doing it` isn't cutting corners. If multiple stream requires reallocation of the internet bandwidth or overcompressing of 1280x1080 HD-Lite then count me out... Oh wait, I'm already out! I close on my new house tomorrow and DirecTV is coming on Monday. I have FTTP but I'll only use it for internet acess and a $8/mo basic line that I don't really even want. VOIP is alot cheaper.... | |
|  | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Moving on.... 25 Mbps... hell, I can't even get a consistant 3Mbps... and there's VRAD boxes all over the city, and I have to hit the CO at 12k feet. | |
| | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | They are probably going to raise the sync rate later this year. The ATT CFO recently said they were going to increase the bandwidth being deliverlied 60-70% this year. That would put the sync speed at 40 and not 25. | |
| | 
Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA | If you're concerned about HD-Lite then why are you going with DirecTV? | |
| brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL | IPTV I see the future in this, but not through the cable modem internet. Cable companies will cap bandwidth on purpose to prevent IPTV from taking off. Perhaps the phone companies will cut them a deal in the future. | |
| 
Placebo
Premium
join:2005-12-14
Huntley, IL | Puhhhhleeeeease Does anyone really think AT&T is going to squeeze all of that into their 25Mbps pipe????
It's the fiber, stupid! | |
| | KingofCola
join:2007-02-07
Greer, SC | Re: Puhhhhleeeeease U-Verse users post max sync rates of 50-60Mbs all the time, they are capped at 27Mbs. All AT&T has to do is raise the cap and you have your additional HD streams and increased HSI. Plenty of room to move. | |
| 
jessegr
join:2005-03-05
Gatineau, QC | HD tv + pings Would ping skyrocket if your watching HD streams. | |
| | | | | | | | 
fiber_man
Things Happen For A Reason
Premium
join:2001-01-27
Port Saint Lucie, FL | T-3= bandwidth T-3 have been around for a long time running over copper up to 5000 ft. They are approximate 44 mbps. So with that information I would think they have plenty of room for the added streams.
--
GO NOLES!! | |
| | 
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| Re: T-3= bandwidth said by fiber_man  :T-3 have been around for a long time running over copper up to 5000 ft. Copper in the form of two coax lines, mind you, not twisted pair... | |
| | | jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
| Re: T-3= bandwidth said by sporkme :said by fiber_man :T-3 have been around for a long time running over copper up to 5000 ft. Copper in the form of two coax lines, mind you, not twisted pair... They also keep throwing out bonded pair, but I don't know if that will even do it. What about those who are getting the service and don't have bonded? Will boosting the sync past the 'on-paper' limit work? What about those who are further out and are not seeing the in-city speeds? How far are they going to deploy?
To me, it is looking like AT&T is going to have too many variables in the future. Some of which probably won't be answered.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| | | | 
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
| Re: T-3= bandwidth Regarding the speed boosting, I can relate a bit
I'm on an ISP here that allows you to set the DSLAM mode
"serenity" means the DSLAM will let you sync below specs, but you're sure to have zero errors, etc.
"fastpath" allows a faster sync, but some errors might appear
"patate" allows full speed, regardless of attenuation, noise, etc... Your modem just syncs as high as it can
My "paper" spec is 720Kbps, I'm 4.4km from the DSLAM, with 60db attenuation.
In "patate" mode, I'm syncing at almost 3Mbps. MPEG2 SD TV is almost watchable.
In "Serenity", I drop to 1.8Mbps. When the ISP switches to MPEG4, 480p streams should fit in my 1.5Mbps
BTW, the set top boxes also have a ReADSL2+ amp that turns on automatically, which is why even in "serenity" mode, I'm still at more than twice the paper spec for my connection.
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison) | |
| | | | | jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
| Re: T-3= bandwidth But you've only touched on ONE idea. Getting ONE channel over your connection.
What about the math of fitting multiple channels through at one time (and even with HD channels: they are claiming 2 at a time), plus voIP, plus internet?
Cable is now offering 15mb/s, how are they ganna compete with the increases in internet speed when they are claiming to only go 6mb/s max with UVerse (they already offer 6 with ADSL)?
They also claimed they would build out more. You seem to be claiming to have ADSL2. Why is it that you have ADSL2 yet are getting a much slower speed than I am on ADSL?
Catch my drift? There are just too many questions with how they are ganna upgrade and compete that I am going to switch to cable once my contract is up. I can only hope that they don't deploy in my area before March 2008 and hope even more that when Whitacre retires and the next CEO takes over that he (or she) will decide to go FTTH.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| | | | | |
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
1 edit | Re: T-3= bandwidth said by jimbo2150 :But you've only touched on ONE idea. Getting ONE channel over your connection. In my case, this is all I'll ever get. Cable will never come to my end of the mountains.
Plus I have only 1 TV, so no need for multiple streams
said by jimbo2150 :What about the math of fitting multiple channels through at one time (and even with HD channels: they are claiming 2 at a time), plus voIP, plus internet? The ISP here can get up to 20Mbps at up to 1.5km of dslam, iirc. That's enough for 2 HD streams in MP4, and internet surfind
said by jimbo2150 :Cable is now offering 15mb/s, how are they ganna compete with the increases in internet speed when they are claiming to only go 6mb/s max with UVerse (they already offer 6 with ADSL)? You're talking for areas where cable is. If AT&T wanted, those areas could be served with better DSL connectivity, therefore higher speeds for the user.
Also, it could also mean that the IP data part is capped at 6Mbps to save the rest of the BW for IPTV?
said by jimbo2150 :You seem to be claiming to have ADSL2. Why is it that you have ADSL2 yet are getting a much slower speed than I am on ADSL? 4.4 km of copper between the DSLAM and me(that's almost 13 thousand feet, I think), 60db attenuation. I have ReADSL2+. With basic ADSL I'd be getting no more than 700Kbps.
With a good DSLAM connection, ADSL2+ can get you almost 25Mbps per copper pair, whereas ADSL has a smaller distance cap and maxes at 8Mbps.
said by jimbo2150 :Catch my drift? There are just too many questions with how they are ganna upgrade and compete that I am going to switch to cable once my contract is up. Understood your point. However, I was merely stating that it IS probably doable with a DSL architecture. Wether that's what AT&T will do I have no clue.
Also, I am not sure of their claims of doing it with U-Verse will be cheaper than FTTH. Some areas will require new DSLAMs, etc... But a mix of FTTH for high density areas, and reusing DSLAMs to extend the DSL reach further could be a more cost effective approach in the long run.
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison) | |
| dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| Cable vs IPTV = Cable vs DSL I don't know the specifics behind AT&Ts IPTV offering, but the author is assuming worst-case scenarios of multiple, simultaneous HD and SD streams. It's true that they'd have a tough time providing a significant majority of customers with enough bandwidth to offer this.
Thing is, they don't have to.
Just as typically slower DSL competes successfully with faster cable broadband on price, IPTV could offer video with, say, a one HD stream limit- something the vast majority of people wouldn't even notice or care about if the price was right.
Yes, there are people who now or in the future will have multiple HD sets, but these likely will be a small minority of potential customers; even among those, many would accept having only one HD stream at a time for a lower price. | |
| | 
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
 ·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Cable vs IPTV = Cable vs DSL said by dynodb :Yes, there are people who now or in the future will have multiple HD sets, but these likely will be a small minority of potential customers; even among those, many would accept having only one HD stream at a time for a lower price. 'problem is -- many will rely on "collective wisdom" -- i.e. "FTTN is limited". Still, with massive time shifting and WAP phone viewing -- coupled with predatory pricing -- this could be big! ( for the masses )
--
Give up all hope for a better past. | |
| | | dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| Re: Cable vs IPTV = Cable vs DSL For the 99.9% of the population that doesn't read BBR or Slashdot, they don't care if it's FTTN, FTTC or FTTH. They care about what can be offered at what price. WAP phone video is a non-starter; few are going to pay very much to watch TV on a 1.5" screen.
Oh, and I love the "predatory pricing" bit. Charge too much, it's Corporate Greed. Charge less and it's "predatory pricing". | |
| | | | | 
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH | The problem facing DSL is that due to distance many subscribers are limited to 1500 or 768 kbps down. That makes any sort of IPTV a very tight squeeze. Much less HD IPTV.
/Tom | |
| | | dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| Re: Cable vs IPTV = Cable vs DSL said by tschmidt :The problem facing DSL is that due to distance many subscribers are limited to 1500 or 768 kbps down. That makes any sort of IPTV a very tight squeeze. Much less HD IPTV. /Tom You didn't read the article at all, did you?
It wouldn't be a tight squeeze, it would be an impossible squeeze. If all you can get is 1.5M, you're not going to be eligible for IPTV. | |
| | | | | nonymous
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ | Qwest vdsl Qwest has vdsl but uses a separate copper pair for each hdtv line. One gateway to three normal tv. Then one for one on the hdtv. | |
| Derfel
join:2004-06-06
Winnipeg, MB | MTS TV MTS TV (In Manitoba, Canada) uses two separate lines for HD service - one 25MB feed for regular TV and internet (at 6MB), the other line is a pure 25MB feed for HD signal. Just an option that could work. | |
| radougherty
join:1999-07-23
Austin, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| AT&T not happy with their supplier For those that didn't see the 3/20 edition of Dave Burstein's neweletter:
"Alcatel/AT&T: Three Years Battling
They made nice in public, but …
Everyone in the industry has known the conflict between AT&T and Alcatel/Microsoft has been intense. Alcatel’s tough moves included:
Alcatel in 2004 promised the system would be ready to market in 9 months, while other bidders would take at least two years. It is now 2007, and many features are not yet working.
SBC was told performance would be 30 Mb/s at 5,000 and 6,000 feet, per SBC Labs lead Gene Edmon in 2005 in Telephony. in 2006 they were only getting 20-25 consistent megabits at 3.000 feet, per Randall. U-verse is currently turning away everyone over 2500 feet, one-third of prospective customers, per Bear Stearns. | |
| | campinfool
join:2006-02-24
Austin, TX | Re: AT&T not happy with their supplier Rumor mill has it that once a VRAD achieves 50% capacity at&t will convert the area it serves to FTTP. | |
| | | 
RIRWIN1983
join:2005-08-30
Columbus, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: AT&T not happy with their supplier now dosent that just sound stupid, waist the money on the 52b crap thats being used as a stop gap measure, only to come back after they have 50% penetration, and run the fiber the final 1 to 2 miles. I am discusted that we are stuck with at&t as our provider (verizon please come take over Columbus!) as verizon is the only one that seems to have a realistic system. at&t way is comparable to pre-digital cable, where it was all copper, no HFC plant. to verizon's fttp is comparable to HFC. in general terms. | |
| | | | 
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533 | Re: AT&T not happy with their supplier I second that! | |
| | sensualpoet
join:2004-09-19
Toronto, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| If I'm not mistaken, Bell Canada in Toronto and Ottawa is using the AT&T/Alcatel/Microsoft model for its "TV For Condos" VDSL product. Launched in the summer of 2004, users were told HD, PVR and VOD would be "coming soon". This would roll out in an upgraded VDSL2/IPTV model and be on market in Q2 2005.
We are now on the cusp of Q2 2007 and so far the product is exactly the same as it was in 2004: no HD, no VOD, no PVR installed or in sight. Bell executives are now talking about "completing IPTV development" in 2007 as one of the corporate goals. Sounds like a launch to consumers in Q1 2008 at the earliest.
Meanwhile all those condo dwellers itching to get actual HD signals on their shiny new plasma screens are getting over-compressed SD, some of which looks ghastly on medium size screens.
I am sure Bell will get there eventually but digital cable locally has improved constantly during the same time period and now offers 40 HD channels, 3 24/7 commercial free HD movie stations, HD On Demand and over 60 channels catering to non-English language audiences (Toronto, a key market for Bell and the local cable operator Rogers, has a very high recent immigrant population).
Launched in 2005 with some reasonable level of utility, Bell's IPTV dreams might be a reality. Launched in 2008 its going to be a much harder, longer and more expensive foray into market share. | |
| 
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| what is OTA Bandwidth? I only watch HDTV via OTA transmissions. Granted, I'm pretty close (20 miles) from the transmitters, but most of the shows are 720p. What is the bandwidth for OTA transmissions. I know I never get pixilization like my sister does (via comcast), but very rarely I have zero signal. For me, it's either perfect, or not there. At my sisters house, it DEFINITELY looks a LOT worse, because I suspect comcast is lowering the quality with compression.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
| | 
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
| Re: what is OTA Bandwidth? said by karlmarx :What is the bandwidth for OTA transmissions 19.4 Mbps MPEG-2 stream per 6 Mhz channel for HDTV.
--
Don't mind me, I'm just trying to help...
| |
| 
thender2
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
| MPEG-4? I don't want MPEG-4. I can get 720p MPEG-4 off of usenet for $15/month. Paying for TV implies quality, and quality is something I can get with a free $20 antenna at any nearby electronics store.
IPTV via DSL is a failure waiting to happen. It's the worst choice for TV. | |
| | | |
|
|
MPEG-4 Gives IPTV Breathing Room
·
