http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/ Engadget HD Comments for The problem with AT&T's U-verse http://www.engadgethd.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadgethd.com en-us Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
One of the happier days of my life was the day I plopped the two set-top boxes and associated equipment on the counter at the local COMCAST office and said "Turn us off and cancel our account." Comcast was a mess....bad service....bad equipment....terrible technical customer service.]]>Jan 31st 2008 1:04AMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
I guess that every coin has two sides. Some of the "challenges" with which I've recently been working through with multiple tech support calls and technician visits. Set top box replacements due to DVR programs showing a black screen, including the recent Superbowl (that was almost a deal breaker...period).

I have lost well over half of my recorded programs in the last week and have lost confidence in my dvr's ability to record and retain the programs.

I have also been noticing sound cutting out during HD broadcasts, both through my TV and 7.1 channel surround sound system.

Ongoing electro-magnetic interference from electric appliances causing massive pixelation and then a total freeze of the broadcast, requiring a hard reboot has yet to be resolved.

Some of the above issues are addressed in some of the online forums as "known issues". My question is if they are known, what is preventing them from being resolved?]]>Feb 5th 2008 6:15PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/Feb 8th 2008 8:29PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/Feb 16th 2008 2:07PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/Mar 10th 2008 12:07PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
But two HD channels showing content at the same time is common. I am with Time Warner Cable and I wanted to record Office, American IDOL and watch a different channel. All in HD. The other 22 hours of the day it wouldnt be a problem. But there's this tiny problem of scheduling.

I think this was covered earlier in the thread by the way.]]>Mar 11th 2008 9:50PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
Second is that some of the "techies" on here need to get a grip. Fiber to your house WILL NEVER HAPPEN. It's too expensive, and un-needed. Fiber is designed for long runs. Currently CAT-5/CAT-6 copper twisted pair is running on 10gb networks, more (80gb) if you can ether-channel it. That is more than what is needed by todays standards. RG59 or COAX supports more speed than what is available as well. The next logical move, for internet anyhow, is cellular high speed. The means of taking the internet with you via Wi-Fi will be key for the future. As security improves Wi-Fi WILL replace your typical copper connections. Eventually flat rate cell/internet plans will make it the obvious choice. It will not be uncommon to see Verizon or Sprint offering "cable" packages. When IPv6 gets going you just give the REP the IP of your TV and zap you have Wi-Fi TV programming. Also the future of TV will change. I see integration of DVR (high end TV's have 'em), PC, and cable cards (already out there but will become obsolete) elimiating the need for a desktop PC, and a cable box for content and recording.

The future technology is awesome.]]>Mar 9th 2008 5:56AMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
This service freezes randomly and for great lengths of time. It has actually gotten worse in the last few months and cannot be fixed, apparently. In fact, I was just watching Alan Dershowitz on Anderson Cooper, and I was quite engaged by what he was saying about Spitzer and... FREEZE...pictures freezes, no response for 5 minutes. Alan's big face plastered on the screen while I give up and go find something else to do for a while. When the show comes back on, someone else is talking and I missed the while segment. Happens randomly and all the time. The TV is unwatchable.

Same with internet--'net isn't too bad if you're just browsing. But the TV experience is a complete nightmare.

We had dish network and Yahoo DSL. We don't watch a lot of TV, so I was looking for faster 'net connectivity mainly, and any dvr capability (doesn't need to be fancy) in a single provider. They came to my door. I never like being pestered door to door, but they were in luck. I signed up!
They sold me a pile of poop. 7 months with this crap. I'm done.

I have been charged too, when their techs have tried to fix it. 70 bucks for some effwad to come install cat-5 in my house. Why? The problem isn't in the house, it's the connection to the house, so of course, it made no difference. Like a naive turd, I was all smiles, thinking this guy had solved my problems.
Sucker.

They made it seem as though the problem was within my house--using coax instead of cat-5. Bull.

It sucks. Run. I'm currently waiting for Time Warner. They're going to survey the house, and I'll sign up with them as soon as I can.

]]>Mar 11th 2008 11:30PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/Dec 18th 2007 9:27AMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
We have 5 televisioins hooked up to the service and four work great but we have a brand new 47" LG LCD and the picture through U-Verse is not good. We had a tech out here today and he replaced the HDMI Cable with a new one and the picture was better but their was no audio. We ended up using a component cable through our surround sound to get audio and the HDMI to get video but the picture is still not good. We also tried to get the picture using component cables but that picture was worse than the HDMI (which suprised me because ATT says while HDMI will work they dont support it. They said to use component cables because there is not a difference in quality between the two.

Does anyone know if it is a compatiblility issue with LG and U-Verse or if U-Verse just doesn't have a true High Def signal?]]>Mar 10th 2008 8:58PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
Dubya]]>Dec 18th 2007 10:10AMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
Oh boy thank god fibre is here.]]>Dec 18th 2007 10:17AMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
I'll let you figure out which is more likely.]]>Dec 18th 2007 10:49AMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/Dec 18th 2007 11:45AMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/Dec 18th 2007 12:03PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
FYI, the VDSL2 30MHz profile delivers 100M/100M today. ]]>Dec 18th 2007 1:42PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
Any idea how long before it's seen in the wild? I'm not aware of residential DSL being offered with speeds higher than 6 mbps or business DSL over 10-15 mbps.]]>Dec 18th 2007 2:27PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/Had the chance to see Uverse HD live and compared it side by side to cable. Not only can you watch only one HD signal at at time, but the compression looks like someone smeared crisco over the monitor. Even worse when played back through the DVR. One tip i would offer is make sure the tech wires Cat-5 back to the Telco interface as that improved performance a bit. ]]>Dec 18th 2007 1:44PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
Still it beats the hell out of $118 for Digital cable and 5MB Broadband that slows to a crawl anytime after 5 PM. Sorry but I will never be willing to pay for FIOS unless it drops to $25 a month for 10/10 service.]]>Dec 18th 2007 2:27PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
With faster Internet, capable of supporting streaming HD in real time both up and down, you are no longer held hostage to the channel line up of your provider. You could go straight to content providers and get content or streams that AT&T doesn't offer. Getting content ala carte over the Internet may cost more than a bundled price, but it's the content YOU want, that isn''t available any other way...]]>Dec 18th 2007 2:39PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
768Kb DSL for $15 from Verizon and AT&T
3Mb DSL for $29
5-8Mb Cable for $35

Anything faster is not worth the added cost. In fact cable internet is way too costly. Sure you can get 20mb service but I'm not paying $70-100 a month for it.

Basic 10/2 FIOS is $40 a month. When you add a TV package to that it balloons to over $100 a month. Sorry too expensive.

If you don't need 3 tuner boxes a basic U-Verse package with 3/1 DSL is $59 a month. The better package starts at $74, still better than over $100.



FIOS]]>Dec 18th 2007 10:50PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.3screens.net tracking my impression of not only U-verse, but AT&T's three screen strategy.

1. I've had blurs and a few outages, just like I used to have on cable. U-verse is just as reliable.
2. When I have had a problem, their service is superior. They actually take calls and they fix problems.
3. So far, so good....I have HD over IP in our home and it works. Yes, on paper FTTH sounds great, but it's like getting a Ferarri when most of the world just needs a good, reliable transportation.
4. Yes, we "only" get 1 HD stream at a time (for now). Uh.....how many homes in the U.S. actually have HD, let alone 2 HD sets? We have HD - in fact two HD sets in our home, but they are rarely used at the same time. This is a bullshit issue to bring up, because the miniscule numbers of people in the US who have HD, let alone 2 HD sets, let one the cosmic timing of having the need for 2 HD streams at once I will bet is pretty small.
5. Comparing it to cable, just on TV alone does not do justice to what these guys are up to.

AT&T aint perfect, but their technology platform, their service, and future plans to roll out three screens is a whole lot more compelling than what I was getting from the cable company.

Alan Weinkrantz
San Antonio TX
http://www.3screens.net

]]>Dec 18th 2007 4:21PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
1. Good to know.
2. Good to know.
3. I'd take a Ferrari over a Ford any day of the week and twice on Sundays, especially when the price difference is a marginal 10-20%. FTTH is not only superior to FTTN on paper, its superior in the real world and anywhere else you want to evaluate it. To say that FIOS's benefits are somehow a knock against it is utter nonsense.
4. Can you record one HD program and watch another live with your 1 stream?
5. I don't know what that means, but ok.

I'd take Uverse over the crap I have now any day, but to say that Uverse is comparable to FiOS is a joke.]]>Dec 18th 2007 4:36PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
I was told I could record up to 4 shows at the same time - how many can be in HD?]]>Dec 18th 2007 5:33PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/Sorry Alan, I disagree with you on the one HD Stream at a time comment. First off their are QUITE a few times i record 2 programs at a time, or record one watch another. I dont watch a lot of tv, but it so happens that many shows i do like are on at the same time.

As far as multiple HD-TVs. Its growing. I have two now, and even with two of us we often watch tvs in different rooms.

Bottom line is, the biggest thing Uverse has for me over TWC is the HD lineup is FAR superior; however, what good is that advantage when i can only have one tv use it at a time.]]>Jan 12th 2008 12:21AMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/Dec 18th 2007 9:44PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
I came from Comcast and did not really have any issues except price. I am getting the same service from U-verse for about (albeit on one HD channel at a time and less fidelity) $40 less a month.

So I would like it if the HD quality was better, but given the price I will stay with U-verse. No other problems except Windows CE being the operating system for the cable boxes (You get a AT&T blue screen of death quite often, but just needs a reset and it is back in 2-3 minutes).

Some comments if someone is looking to move to U-verse:

Get informed by reading the U-verse forums or articles like this. Be very weary of the salesperson, they don't know what they are talking about or just want to sign you up period.

1) I asked specifically if I would get fiber to the house - answer yes.
2) I asked is this DSL for Broadband Internet - answer no this is broadband (but since they didn't make me get local phone service I was ok with it).
3) How many HD channels could I watch - answer why up to 4 as all our boxes are HD capable.
4) You can watch a recorded program from any location (other cable boxes in the house) in the house

Truth:

1) You don't get fiber to your house
2) AT&T considers WDSL as Broadband
3) Only one HD channel (stream) is available to watch or record at one time but all boxes support HD
4) Maybe sometime in 2008 but not today

I will also comment that the compression on the HD is very aggressive and leaves much to be desired in quality. Just flipping between OTA and U-verse you can see the difference (OTA is much better). Additionally U-verse doesn't broadcast CW or PBS in HD. While watching HD it commonly freezes for a second or two and just back to live a couple time an hour (this seems to be more prevalent on the NBC,CBS and ABC channels). If you have an receiver hooked up to the optical audio out you see this drop out every 10 minute or so. People on the U-verse forum say new encoders are on the way to save bandwidth and increase quality. Although I wish this is true I see AT&T just looking to get more bandwidth and not increase the quality.
]]>Dec 19th 2007 9:41PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/Dec 18th 2007 10:31PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/Dec 19th 2007 7:56AMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
the way it works is that uverse allows up to 4 streams, viewing an HD channel requires 2 streams, leaving two left over where you can view another hd channel on another set.

other than that i do not recommend the basic DSL speed, at least get the middle one, the lowest package DSL is too slow that you cant even watch netflix at its best quality.

and if you do have u-verse, i recommend using cat-5 connection over coax, its just faster and more reliable. ]]>Dec 19th 2007 12:11PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
It's 8mb/s of MPEG4. To me, that sounded bad when they told me, and it looks even worse. Even the SD channels are suspect.

If you're an HD buff, don't bother with U-verse.]]>Dec 19th 2007 4:08PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/Dec 22nd 2007 11:30PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/My current TWC service (also crap) is $80/month and I get everything that AT&T gives me plus 7 mbps Internet speeds. I, however, do not get NFL network on TWC (whoop-dee-do).]]>Dec 25th 2007 8:41PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
There are significant numbers of people who pay over $100/month for TV services and some that pay over $200/month by the time all the add on charges for HD, DVR's, multiple TVs with HD and DVR functionality, optional services like ethnic channels or sports packages, etc. Just ask poor cable subscribers! You may start on cable at under $100/month but between rate increases and other sneaky, greedy tricks from the cable company you're very likely to end up over $100/month.

For me personally, my Interent connection is much more valuable than my TV services... I'm using the Internet now, but every TV in my house is off at the moment. :-) I know that's not typical of everyone though.

When we have Internet with 15/10+ Mbps speeds and higher, we can do things like send our own HD program or videoconference to friends, relatives, business associates. We can also have services like NetFlix in HD but we won't have to wait for the mail. We can just logon to a future NetFlix+ HD service and start watching any movie immediately because 15/10+ Mbps is fast enough to stream HD in real time. It's going to give the consumer greater freedom in getting digital content and you won't be locked into your TV provider for everything. It will enable new applications that haven't even been thought of yet when enough people have 15/10+ Mbps connections to provide a profitable market for the new applications. Faster Internet 15/10+ Mbps is definitely worth it to me today, especially in places where it's available for $39.95/month. It's worth it to quite a few other people, but certainly not everyone yet. People who don't have or want a computer wouldn't even need an Internet connection. Every person makes the best, hopefully informed, decision for their needs, wants and budget.

15/15 Mbps is available in some areas for $39.95/month. The areas where speeds like this are available at $39.95/month and less will expand. As more people subscribe to these rates the prices will continue to go down while the speeds go up.

It wouldn't surprise me Iridium, if within three years you have a 10/4 Mbps connection. In that time frame, 10/4 may be the slowest speed you can get in a combined Internet / TV package. If you bump up a package or two, within that same three years, you could have TV and 15/10 Mbps Internet for under $100/month.
]]>Dec 31st 2007 2:20PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
I'm so sick of Comcast's freezes and inability to follow through and fix problems even after multiple tech visits when the techs aren't very good and haviong to miss work for the appointments that I'll switch to U-Verse for a while. If they deliver on half of what they're promising it will be a big step up from Comcast, epsecially considering the competence of their technicians relative to Comcast and price. When I have service for several years, the Comcast 6 month promotional prices aren't very relevant and I find them insulting since I'm treated worse as a loyal customer with high prices, continual price hikes, versus someone who just joins the service and pays 30 percent or more less. That's not how I like to be treated!

My personal U-Verse wishes, in priority order.
1. Faster Internet
Within 1 year: 15/10+ Mbps for $49.95/month
Within 3 years: 15/15 Mbps for $29.59, 50/30 Mbps for $49.95, 100/60 Mbps for $89.95
2. Whole Home DVR (WHDVR) (Note WHDVR helps a bit for multiple HD streams unless you need two live events at the same time.)
3. Mutliple HD Streams
Within 1 year: 2 HD streams
Within 3 years: 4 HD streams


(Original post with the question: Steve @ Dec 19th 2007 7:56AM
Does any know what type of compression is being used on AT&T Uverse? IS it MPEG2 or MPEG4?)
]]>Dec 31st 2007 2:47PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
Firstly, while they advertise up to four channel recording on their DVR, they fail to make clear that the units can only handle one HD stream. So if someone is watching or recording a HD program on one TV, the other TV cannot.

Secondly, for some reason, AT&T will not install more than one DVR per household. DirecTV afforded us two DVRs with the ability to record two programs each. We didn't subscribe to the HD programming when they finally offered it, because though they were first to promise their customer-base HD viewing, their HD availability STILL excludes network television programming. I don't subscribe to HBO, SHOWTIME or CINEMAX and I can only watch so much Discovery Channel, Animal Planet and National Geographic to get my HD jollies. The main reason I dropped DirecTV was that I finally grew tired waiting (after 10 years of patronage) to watch my favorite NBC, CBS, and ABC programs in High Def.

Lastly, the most irritating feature of AT&T U-Verse, is that when you program the DVR (remember...only one per household) the recorded shows get automatically deleted within a 48 hour period to make room for more data. If my wife has missed her 2-day window her recorded show is gone. We've lost out on quite a few shows because of this ridiculous feature. Unlike DirecTV DVR, there is no menu function that allows you to "delete recording at your request"...The AT&T box decides when your recorded show goes away. If you haven't watched it yet... tough crap!

To add insult to this injury, the single DVR in our home has now decided when it will or won't record a show we've programmed. Just this morning, I had to physically start recording the Today Show THREE TIMES and within 15 minutes of each record command, the box stopped recording on it's own.

Faulty equipment, only 1 DVR per house, limited HD viewing...I don't care if the package is $20 a month cheaper. I'm done with this effing garbage.

I left cable TV behind when I bought my first HD ready unit back in 1998 because DirecTV claimed they would be first to offer HD television. Boy, what a crock that was! 10 years later and they STILL don't offer network programs in HD. AT&T is also shaping up to be the next disappointment.

My Song (sung to seasons in the sun)

Hello cable, my old friend
My son grew up without you, now he's ten
HD promised, never came
Offers were not as they claim
Now I'm stuck with something lame

Oh please forgive me cable guy
I left you for a dream of pie in sky
Dream has come and dream has split
Other options did not fit
Now I'm stuck in knee-deep sh!t

I had joy, I had fun, now I'm off to buy a gun
HD promises betrayed, I'm a sucka bein' played!]]>Jan 4th 2008 8:25PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
U-Verse should be getting 2 HD streams this year.

It does appear the latency or ping times of U-Verse Internet Elite are 50+% worse than DSL Interent Elite. That's a most unfortunate step backwards. Hopefully AT&T will wake up soon and realize that very fast 15/10 Mbps Internet with low latency (less than 15 mS ping times to Yahoo's content distributed www.yahoo.com) is essential to have a real integrated media offering that combines Internet and TV.]]>Jan 8th 2008 2:33PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
Internet Speed Tiers
-60% of current DSL sales are for 3 Mbps or 6 Mbps tiers
-A 10 Mbps internet offering will begin in the first quarter of 2008 and AT&T "plan[s] to bring higher speeds after that"


Coming Features
-U-verse customers will be able to share photos and home media "inside and outside the home" in 1Q08.*
-Second HD stream (2Q08 or 3Q08) -- this is possibly a one quarter pushback from last June's estimate. Two steps forward, one step back.
-Whole-home DVR (2H08) -- this is possibly a one quarter pushback from last June's estimate. Again, two steps forward, one step back.
-Pair bonding to nearly double throughput, and iNID (remote gateway) to reduce install times by 2H08

As an ironic note, wireless speeds may exceed wired in a few years if the wired people don't get their act together. Mind you wireless tends to drop the connection more, isn't always available but it's staggering to say what can be done and how the wired providers are making such slow progress. Just check out AT&T's wireless plans. Wow. Sprint and other are also working on very fast wireless.

AT&T Wireless
-3G currently being deployed with 500-800 kbps up, 600-1400 kbps down.
-HSPA+ (R7) with 11.5 Mbps up, 28 Mbps down is planned for 2009
-LTE (R8) with peak download speeds of over 100 Mbps planned "more in the 2010-2011 period"

]]>Jan 8th 2008 2:42PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/Jan 10th 2008 12:35AMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/Jan 10th 2008 9:37PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/Jan 14th 2008 8:15PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
To make matters worse, the DVR will kick me out of my current show without asking, even if I have time saved up (using the pause button). That seems easy to fix with a software update, but still...

Our house has 5 tvs for 6 people, so there is always a battle over who gets to actually watch. Throw the DVR into the equation, which can eat up all 4 streams by itself... Its just stupid! Its like having an entire house share a 56k dialup connection.

I'm sure there's more to the story, but shouldn't it be possible to simply pull an extra wire from the distribution box to my house, to double the bandwidth? The wires are already there, since we used to have lots of phone lines. Why do they limit themselves to just one line?
]]>Jan 17th 2008 12:27PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/Jan 18th 2008 11:30PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/
As for U-Verse, I haven't seen a more hyped B.S. laden scam since AT&T tried to foist DSL on me by claiming it was faster than the broadband provided by cable companies. As I explained to the installer "expert" then, coax is thicker than a copper twisted pair wire. Thicker pipe = more bandwidth. Basic physics. Which explains why U-verse relies on coax to get the signal from their fiber optic line to your house... And yet, the door-to-door U-verse whore who harassed me a couple weeks ago still wanted to claim that regular DSL is faster than cable broadband--this, while pimping U-verse, which doesn't even rely on phone lines anymore because they know it sucks.

By the way, there's little difference in the U-verse "fiber-to-curb" network and what pretty much any digital cable provider has been doing for years now. Most cable providers also use fiber-optic cable, and get the signal to your house over coax. Same as what U-verse is *finally* offering.

And when you read the mound of brochures you'll get in the mail if you happen to live in their planned roll-out areas, be sure to read the fine print. Every single instance the brochure claims the service has some advantage over Time Warner (or Cox), there's an asterisk, which if you take the time read, tells the whole, ridiculously expensive story. Sure, if you *believe* what the U-verse salesmen tell you, it seems as if U-verse is much cheaper than Time Warner for the same service. But after you read the fine print you'll find that it's about the same cost for all but the most basic package (which judging from the comments here, sucks balls).

And don't forget switching costs. Bottom line, if you have a decent digital cable service that offers HD and broadband, stick with it until FIOS or some other fiber-to-home solution comes to your area. U-verse is NOT new technology, only new to AT&T (the same people who tried to convince me that DSL is faster than cable). ]]>Jan 22nd 2008 10:19AMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/18/the-problem-with-atandts-u-verse/Jan 19th 2008 3:44PM