AT&T Uverse

[LCHIEN]

The door-to-door AT&T guys came thru the neighborhood offerring trial subscriptions to AT&T Uverse service which can be called IPTV or TV over internet.

I signed up for a two month free trial.

Anyone using this service, have any comments, suggestions, what?

Apparently the broadband feed comes over Fiber to the local node located within 3000-5000 feet of your house, from there it uses the existing wire pairs (2) to your house carrying 20MBit/s of info to your house. The receivers, up to four, request the electronics in the node to stream those channels to you. Unfortunatley, reading user comments, i hear while you can have 4 receivers and four channels, only one HD channel can be on at one time.

I'm currently getting regular DSL and Comcast cable.



you also get 6 MBit internet service.

[JR]

I don't have this service (I'm not in and AT&T service area), but have seen it in the labs in Plano.

I'm surprised about the one channel of HD thing. That doesn't really make any sense to me.

Yes, it's IPTV. It's delivered on a fast IP backbone, with DSL going the last mile (as you describe, Loring). The basic idea is that they can start service with a single big honking video server, adding servers as more users come on line.

It uses multicast technology to optimize the backbone usage. A single stream for each active video channel emanates from the server toward your your home. As that stream traverses the backbone it is replicated (split) at each node that requires the same stream. So, if you're the only subscriber requesting New Yanke Workshop, then only one stream will exist, from the server to your home. If you have a neighbor who also requests NYW, the stream will be replicated at the nearest node supporting multicast. If someone in the next town requests NYW, it's replicated a bit farther up stream.

There should be a number of interesting user features to watch for. Picture in picture, of course. How about the phone number of an incoming telephone call displayed on the TV screen? Integrated telephone directory on screen. Web surfing on screen. Link to web sites seen on infomercials.

One big thing to watch for is your experience when channel surfing. Because your remote control command to change channels is actually an IP packet heading to the server, and then causing the server to change the stream it is sending you, it is subject to delays you may find unacceptable. The network has deployed a number of tricks to mitigate this issue, but if your experience is unacceptable, make sure you report it.

FWIW, the similar Verizon service being deployed here is reported to cost ~$100/mo for 175 channels of TV, DV recorder, 6Mb DSL, and telephone with unlimited long distance in the USA.

I'm acutely interested in your impressions of this service. Keep us posted!

JR

[cabinetman]

I think if a guy from AT&T knocks on our door, my wife will beat the holy feces out of him...literally. For the past two weeks, our DSL has been on for 5-10 minutes, then off for 5-10 minurtes, all day and night. When support was called, (in India) they recommended sending a tech guy to check out our house. Well, he came here two different times and nothing was wrong. Kept getting the same BS, from some guy named Joe Smith or something like that. We even replaced the router, thinking that something might be wrong with that.

Well, somehow we've been connected on a regular basis for about 4 days. I doubt if we will be adventuring into anything AT&T anytime soon.

[LCHIEN]

I don't have this service (I'm not in and AT&T service area), but have seen it in the labs in Plano.

I'm surprised about the one channel of HD thing. That doesn't really make any sense to me.

...

The way i understand it, they use 2 pairs of wires to carry 20 MBit/sec
and I'm not sure if that's aggregate or per pair, sounds like aggregate.
So due to bandwidth limitations or maybe the way its programmed, you cannot receive 2 HD channels (I think they require 10+ Mbits/sec, each) but can receive 1 HD ch + 2 or 3 SD channels.
Also the DVR can receord 1 HD program or up to 4 SD programs but not 2 HD programs or even 1 HD program + SD program.
At least, that's what I read from user sites on the internet.

The trial package is $119 with three receivers + 1 DVR, HD (+$10) , 6Mbit internet 300 channels.
They have a $79 package with 190 channels, 3 Rx+1DVR, 6Mbit which if i stay i'll probably get.
Right now, DSL is $25 for 2 MBit service, and cable (TW->Comcast last month) is $48 for basic service, (no HD, analog cable only). I called the cable company a few weeks ago and they have no earthly idea where they're going as far as whether analog will be around and standarizing digital receivers so I'm not impressed.

[Ken Massingale]

I'm surprised about the HD limitations.
We have DirecTV (I haven't a clue about satellite bandwidth but surely it isn't 20 MBit/sec) HD and can record 2 HD channels at the same time.

[LCHIEN]

I'm surprised about the HD limitations.
We have DirecTV (I haven't a clue about satellite bandwidth but surely it isn't 20 MBit/sec) HD and can record 2 HD channels at the same time.

I think its a function of the "last mile to the house" which is still copper and limited in bandwidth. The big bandwidth probably several GB) just goes to the local node and from there they select what stream you will be getting - they can get 1 HD or 4 SD streams on that one small pipe.

Its a choice they made to avoid the costs of installing fiber all the way to the curb.

With your satellite the satellite bandwidth (probably several GB) goes all the way to your receiver at your house.

[JR]

Its a choice they made to avoid the costs of installing fiber all the way to the curb.

This is true. The AT&T capital expenditure for this buildout is budgeted at ~$4-5B. Verizon's is ~$11B, for their fiber to the home architecture.

The differences are usually characterized as the choice between getting something pretty good to market in a short period of time vs getting something really good in a longer period of time (it taking longer to raise and spend $11B).

JR

[mpc]

One thing about digital TV that broadcasters/content suppliers tend to not mention is that the signal is compressed. There are two main types of "data compression" for digital files:

* Lossless compression like PKZIP/WINZIP, LHA, etc. that you use to compact files on your hard disk or download from the Internet. When uncompressed, these files are 100% identical to the original.

* Lossy compression. JPEG/JPG, MPEG/MPG, MP3, and HDTV use this format. Basically the compression program looks at the input and decides "this change is too small for an eyeball to see, I'll skip it." The threshold for "too small" is variable though. And when the data is uncompressed, it is NOT 100% identical to the original. Minor color changes, loss of sharpness, etc. are common results. Rapidly changing scenes ("action shots") are the toughest for compression - too much "new detail" in every scene that must be preserved.

Some satellite/cable providers compress more than others, reducing image quality... yet it's still called "HDTV" because it's supposedly better than old style analog broadcast - more "pixels" possible. When you see "bands" instead of a smoothly varying color graduation (typically in blue sky shots) those are usually artifacts of the lossy compression scheme; sometimes it's just a poor display though. Some TVs/video processors are better at recognizing this artifact and correcting it. Which is why there are so many options and choices in the digital TV world; so many types of video processors, etc... the "high quality perfect digital signal" that folks think they are buying is often trashed by the compression process.

For folks with cable or sat. providers that include local channels, try compairing the over-the-air (OTA) HDTV channels with the cable/sat equivalents. I'll bet the OTA version will be slightly better - over-the-air broadcasts are more-or-less 1, 2, or maybe 3 subchannels sharing a chunk of frequency bandwidth; cable/sat has 10, 20, or 30 times as much bandwidth to work with but tries to cram 100 to 200 subchannels into it. Net result: less bandwidth for each channel compared to over-the-air. That'll get better in the future though as fiber and other high-bandwidth technologies replace older cable. The satellite setups will have to work harder to keep up - not easy to update a satellite already in orbit.

mpc

[SwingKing]

I had the UVerse services for about a month in the DFW market, but ended up cancelling it. The HD limitations are correct: you only get 1 HD channel at a time. This was the deal breaker for us, since I was initially interested in the service because it has a better selection of HD channels than DirecTV.

Some other pros/cons I had with the service:
Pros:
- SD channels were better quality than DirecTV. I've got an HD-TiVO and did some direct comparisons. The HD picture quality was similar between the two, although neither compared to OTA. SD quality was definitely better with UVers.

- Internet access was fast, but we did have some reliability problems. I suspect this was due to their expansion in our area and I expected the link to stabilize.

Cons:
- One HD channel at a time. When I asked about this, AT&T rep said the VDSL link to the house has the bandwidth for multiple HD channels, but they were reserving it for other services.

- IPTV. I guess I'm spoiled by the TiVO interface, but I found the on-screen interface frustrating. One example: I use the guide to record programs in the future. With IPTV, scheduling a program will dump you back out of the guide, so you have to navigate back again to record another show. Very frustrating, especially since the interface is a bit slow.

-- Ken

[LCHIEN]

One thing about digital TV that broadcasters/content suppliers tend to not mention is that the signal is compressed. There are two main types of "data compression" for digital files:

* Lossless compression like PKZIP/WINZIP, LHA, etc. that you use to compact files on your hard disk or download from the Internet. When uncompressed, these files are 100% identical to the original.

* Lossy compression. JPEG/JPG, MPEG/MPG, MP3, and HDTV use this format. Basically the compression program looks at the input and decides "this change is too small for an eyeball to see, I'll skip it." The threshold for "too small" is variable though. And when the data is uncompressed, it is NOT 100% identical to the original. Minor color changes, loss of sharpness, etc. are common results. Rapidly changing scenes ("action shots") are the toughest for compression - too much "new detail" in every scene that must be preserved.

Some satellite/cable providers compress more than others, reducing image quality... yet it's still called "HDTV" because it's supposedly better than old style analog broadcast - more "pixels" possible. When you see "bands" instead of a smoothly varying color graduation (typically in blue sky shots) those are usually artifacts of the lossy compression scheme; sometimes it's just a poor display though. Some TVs/video processors are better at recognizing this artifact and correcting it. Which is why there are so many options and choices in the digital TV world; so many types of video processors, etc... the "high quality perfect digital signal" that folks think they are buying is often trashed by the compression process.

For folks with cable or sat. providers that include local channels, try compairing the over-the-air (OTA) HDTV channels with the cable/sat equivalents. I'll bet the OTA version will be slightly better - over-the-air broadcasts are more-or-less 1, 2, or maybe 3 subchannels sharing a chunk of frequency bandwidth; cable/sat has 10, 20, or 30 times as much bandwidth to work with but tries to cram 100 to 200 subchannels into it. Net result: less bandwidth for each channel compared to over-the-air. That'll get better in the future though as fiber and other high-bandwidth technologies replace older cable. The satellite setups will have to work harder to keep up - not easy to update a satellite already in orbit.

mpc

Yes, that is something that is not good - the fact that bandwidth costs the telecom companies money and better HD costs more bandwidth. If not one complains to the telecom companies, they will save money and gradally increase the compression and reduce the HD quality as much as possible until someone yells. Since HD/digital are synonomous to the public and the general press, telecom companies will try and get away and call/imply anything digital is HD no matter what compression they apply.

I can already tell its going to **** in handbasket. Most analog broadcasts in SD are converted to digital within the studios and the network handling processes, only converted back to analog for final broadcast. Its full of digital artifacts. At sporting events, watch the pictures of the crowds in the stands- all broken up and blocky. The analog trasnmissions are nowhere near as good as they were 5 - 10 years ago.

[jackellis]

Y'all have to excuse me but what's TV?

Just kidding.

We have cable and really don't get our money's worth because there's not much on that we like except college basketball and ice skating (LOML's passion). In fact, we might drop it at some point.

I've been suggesting we should get one small HDTV before they change over the signalling system but the wife is not interested. For all the use we'd get out of it, she's right of course.

[mpc]

Try a PC HDTV tuner card. ATI, Hauppage, and others make PCI cards or USB attached widgets that'll tune old style NTSC (analog) TV, digital ATSC (HDTV), and both NTSC & ATSC. Most require WinXP SP2 to work. I have a little USB tuner from Hauppage (WInTV-HVR 950), it's about the size of a fat USB memory stick. It works pretty well with a simple UHF style bowtie antenna for Los Angeles over-the-air broadcasts. For 100 bucks you can try HDTV. It'll also receive unencrypted cable stuff but not the QAM style cable. The OnAir USB tuner can do QAM too. Pinnacle makes a USB one that looks identical to the Hauupage (don't know who actually makes the raw guts that Pinnacle, Hauppage, and others use - there are several USB tuner sticks that look very similar) but the Pinnacle software was a disaster for me. There is a shareware program (watchhdtv.net) that works with lots of the tuners and tends to be more reliable than the "factory" software included with the tuner.

They're cheap ways to try out HDTV... and your PC becomes a "Tivo" of sorts too.

mpc