Switching to U-verse

[AndrewP]

I have Dish Network, and the MPEG4 HD PQ problems you described remind me about earliar Dish problems with StarzHD, which they lunched in MPEG4. From the start the PQ was very bad, I couldn't even watch it. Later, they upgraded encoders and now PQ is pretty good. So, ask ATT to consult with Dish an buy the same encoders:-)

[TPK]

I have Dish Network, and the MPEG4 HD PQ problems you described remind me about earliar Dish problems with StarzHD, which they lunched in MPEG4. From the start the PQ was very bad, I couldn't even watch it. Later, they upgraded encoders and now PQ is pretty good. So, ask ATT to consult with Dish an buy the same encoders:-)

I would be a really sad thing, if the source of the PQ problems stem from the MPEG encoding instead of the bandwidth limitations..  But I am afraid you may be correct...   I have noticed recently that the ESPN HD channel really looks a lot better than most of the other channels, although I have yet to actually sit through a sporting event on ESPN at this time, so its hard for me to say for sure...  But if it were truly a bandwidth problem, and not an encoding problem, then how is it possible for ESPN to look so good, when all other channels look so bad...

If they can't deliver a high quality HD channel because there isnt enough bandwidth in the pipe to deliver the channel to my box, then fine, I accept that as a technical limitation and there is nothing they can really do about that...

But if they can't deliver a high quality HD channel because they are too cheap or not knowledgable enough to use the proper encoding, then that to me is unacceptable, and they really need to correct that...   I have faith that they will, if that is really where the problem lies, and the future for U-verse looks bright indeed..

Another thing I was thinking about is that if they can indeed increase the bandwidth to 40Mb or so, they can then deliver the HD channel in its original MPEG-2, and not re-encode the thing at all (hopefully the boxes are capable of decoding MPEG-2)...  This would result in the highest possible PQ, as this is how the signal gets delivered to them from the broadcaster in the first place...   Of course this would still limit the service to 1 channel, but why not provide the MPEG-2 channel as an option when only one channel is selected in the home, and 'downgrade' the signal to MPEG-4 when multipe channels are selected...

They have a fiber backbone, right??  It shouldnt be a problem to push onto that backbone a MPEG-2 version and an MPEG-4 version simuiltaneously for each HD channel, and push the proper version to the box, using MPEG-2 when it can and MPEG-4 when it has to....    Can they make their service smart enough to do that???  

AT&T decided to go the cheap route, and not bring fiber directly to the premesis... But this comes at a price, and that price is that they have to re-encode the channels and limit the service through the DSL bottleneck, and/or make the service smarter about how it allocates that bandwidth...  The least they can do is do the best they can with these limitations...  My guess is that its still a lot less expensive to encode the channels properly, than it would be to run fiber out to the home...   I mean really, your talking about processing here..  Yeah I know it requires a lot of computing power, but this is the route they decided to take...  ITs not like they have to visit every home to fix this problem... IT is a backend server-side problem, and should be easily correctable simply by upgrading those servers (with some expense)...

In any case, I am trying not to be impatient here....   I really hope that AT&T is hearing the calls for improved PQ on the HD channels, and I have faith that they will respond in time...  That is why I am not ditching the service for a while...   Hopefully they spent some money on their testing labs, and put in a 50" or large television set, so the technicians can actually SEE how bad the PQ is when compared to cable or digital OTA...   I can definitley see how this could slip by them, if they are watching the PQ on a 12" LCD monitor...

[mhz40]

I've been reading your posts with great interest.  Very interesting information.  It seems like you are saving a few bucks vs TW and will sacrifice some level of quality for quantity for now....  an interesting trade-off. considering some think 1080p should be a de facto transmission standard!
IMO, its unfortunate that HD consumers have to make these types of decisions,  considering where we are and where we seem to be headed in the overall HD deployment.  I'm sure you are looking forward to the bandwidth increase later this year...  you should get faster Internet speeds then too.  Best of luck with the new service!

mhz40

[gparris]

While I have been perhaps one of the more vocal complainers about TWC HD service, I still enjoy the few-er HD channels available in our lackluster TWC location vs. the other choices currently available.
1080p is a bandwidth-eater, just like analogue cable channels, so 1080i, at full bitrate should suffice for cabled type installations, even for today's 1080p-display  HDTVs,  IMHO.
AT&T U-Verse is a competitor to TWC and holds great promise once it gets some of the bugs out on the HD delivery side, those primarily being some of the transmission errors and the problem of only one vs. at least two full-bandwidth HD channels at a time delivery to the premises, currently.
For other users not requiring HD delivery, those without the need for 2 HD channels at a time, including perhaps those with 720p sets of 42-50" sizes (or less), U-Verse may have the advantage even now.
U-Verse wanted to get started somewhere/somehow here in SE Wisconsin and I believe that over time, their HD service will become a greater competitor to TWC and satellite delivery systems for HDTV programming.
What I don't like is TWC-MIlwaukee's total lack of HD channel additions, as every location in the country continues to add HD channels, even those Sinclair HD locals (what happened to that, mhz40?) and we sit here in Milwaukee without a single HD channel addition to the lineup.
Oddly enough, AT&T's U-Verse's presence has yet to "shakeup" a single TWC manager locally and that, too, is a bit depressing.
So I recently called AT&T directly, inquired about service in my area and offered them, due to my somewhat strategic location, a trial of fiber to premises, two HD channels at time at full bitrate and the appropriate signage outside my home stating/advertising same.
Now, whether they will "bite" is anybody's guess, but at the same time, I will keep my current TWC service for comparison.
I will use my three HDTVs (60" and bigger) and these should clearly indicate the "quality" of both delivery systems side by side, IMO.
This will better assist me and others and perhaps, to make a better decision in regards to which service will be/is the best "value" and perhaps further enchance competition, at the very least if this happens.
My full report when and if this happens will be coming.
It's time to wake up TWC-Milwaukee's managers from their (HD) "slumber", once and for all!:D

[bubbaridesfast]

So I recently called AT&T directly,

How did you get past the CSR's in India? I have AT&T/Yahoo DSL and the few times I have had to call I can't seem to get past the call centers in India.:mad:

[gparris]

The U-Verse site has a number that worked very well, as  the woman I talked to was very friendly and helpful and spoke excellent American English, no accent at all.
She sounded like she was from Milwaukee as far as could tell, including the call attendant that I first talked to.

Maybe your helpline from AT&T has a differnent phone number than the one I called.

[bubbaridesfast]

The U-Verse site has a number that worked very well, as  the woman I talked to was very friendly and helpful and spoke excellent American English, no accent at all.
She sounded like she was from Milwaukee as far as could tell, including the call attendant that I first talked to.

Maybe your helpline from AT&T has a differnent phone number than the one I called.

Yes, it most definitely must be a different number. The goofiest thing was, in December, when I switched my DSL from Milw. PC to AT&T/Yahoo, I had to get "special" technical help because I was coming from Milw. PC and the normal folks at AT&T all found their systems telling them that DSL was not available even though I already had it. Long story short, I got a number for Tech Support that was in Michigan but now that number is answered at a call center in India!:confused:

[Gregg Lengling]

The U-Verse site has a number that worked very well, as  the woman I talked to was very friendly and helpful and spoke excellent American English, no accent at all.
She sounded like she was from Milwaukee as far as could tell, including the call attendant that I first talked to.

Maybe your helpline from AT&T has a differnent phone number than the one I called.

Uverse support is all US Based.

[gparris]

Uverse support is all US Based.

TWC advertises (or used to) that their call centers are also, referring to local people with local service inquiries, a good thing.

Great that AT&T U-Verse is following the same lead and if they change this model of service, they will lose.