Future internet speeds - must suck to be AT&T...

[kjnorman]

Verizon, Comcast pump up the bandwidth. Where's AT&T?

It looks like AT&T will be left a long way behind in the next couple of years, so it is a bummer that here in SE Wisconsin we are stuck with them.  One thing this article did not mention is Time Warner Cable, though I would assume that their speeds will be similar to Comcast.

While I bemoan the fact that AT&T will lag behind, what I am really bummed about is that we will be lacking in consumer choice.  I have TWC Roadrunner now and I think it is expensive at $45 per month for 6Mbps download (typically 4mbps real world).  Though presently I would be happy to switch to u-verse and have a 1.5mbps speed for only $20/month, my fear would be that once higher cable internet and fios connection become more common web content will start to push in that direction (needing higher bandwidth) which would make 1.5mbps seam as slow as dial-up.

But perhaps it is not all that bad?  Perhaps by 2009 AT&T will other 6mbps download at only $20/month (3 at $15/month and 1.5 at $10/month)  because they'll have to - to compete with cable that will offer between 10 and 80mbps.

Who's to know?

Regardless, I still think it sucks that we are in an AT&T area and that we do not have the possibility of getting FIOS into the home...

[gparris]

Checking in my area, Kenosha County, it does not offer AT&T at all in AT&T areas so served,  I found out that I am strickly in a Verizon area, so FIOS could become an option, but I understand your concerns.
Isn't there an option for 6 Mbps with U-Verse?
So if you have TV service bundled, I thought it was $5 more:
Their website was confusing when I tried understand it, maybe it needs some clarification.

By the time TWC has a FIOS-type internet service (50+Mbps) speed, AT&T should have better solutions in the future.
Right now, I believe that AT&T is having some growing pains, like all new services do.
Given time, the bugs and the oddball issues will go away - or U-Verse will - go away.

As for me, I just signed up for future FIOS service on the Verizon site, just in case they plan to offer it since I am in a new area with new homes going up all around me.

IMHO, FIOS is going to have any easy time signing these folks up because their fiber lines, probably all in place already underground and unlike AT&T, FIOS TV offers all the HD locals that are available where FIOS TV exists, quite unlike the 1018 and 1024 situation here from reading the threads about what AT&T has been doing to it. It doesn't even list these channels on their site as available, anyway.

When I visit Florida, FIOS TV has all the HD locals and the only complaint I hear from friends there is that a channel or two is missing, usually something local sports-related or a specialty channel.
Their overall selection and equipment is excellent and seems to have almost limitless potential...I can hardly wait!

[picopir8]

Actually with U-verse there are three options
1.5MB/s for $20/mo (included in advertised package price)
3.0MB/s for $25/mo ($5 upgrade to advertised package)
6.0MB/s for $35/mo ($15 uprade to advertised package)

Keep in mind with cable, the bandwidth is shared with others in your general vacinity.  DSL is a dedicated connection to the telco switch.  So a 6MB/s DSL connection will be faster than a 6MB/s cable connection if your neighbors also have cable and are using internet at the same time.

BTW, I switched from TWC to uverse a few weeks ago and my 6.0MB/s connection actually clocked out at 6.9MB/s (while watching TV).  Later this year (second half of 07) they are also uprading the service and max download speed will be 8.0MB/s (so actual speeds may be closer to 9MB/s).   I dont recall the specifics of the upgrade but it was enough to provide up to 3 HD streams, 1 SD stream, and still have enough bandwith left over for a 8MB connection.  So I dont know why this article claims that ther is a 6MB limit (heck Im already exceting that).  Should TWC upgrade their speeds (we all know their track record), I have little doubt that Uverse will as well.

No matter how you cut it, right now, the top tear DSL though uverse is less expensive and at least as fast or faster than TWC so I dont understand the complaint.

As for lack of 18/24 on Uverse, it has NOTHING to do with any sort of bandwidth limitation. Its because the owners of those stations are money hungry.  They are requiring anyone who carries them to pay more for them.  So far NOBODY carries those channels in HD, not D*, not TWC (though they have managed to work out an agreement), not Uverse.  Uverse does have placeholders for those channels at 1018 and 1024 but those placeholders just broadcast the SD content.  However, at least they have the placeholders there which leads me to beleive that they will have the channels soon.

[gparris]

picopir8:
Thank you for the information about U-Verse, considering you have spent some actual subscriber time with them; your comments are very encouraging.
Sad to say the SBG stations are not yet offered due to owner restraints.

[TPK]

I too am quite pleased with my U-verse internet service, for now...  I opted for the 'pro' or the 'deluxe' version, or whatver it is for the 6.0Mb down (I think it was $10/month extra above the normal internet that comes with the U400 package)...

Although speed tests consistently give me 5.7Mb down and 970Kb up using speakeasy.net...  Close enough to the advertised 6.0Mb down and the 1Mb up to keep me from complaining, however in light of what picopir8 just posted, I guess I need to check it out a bit more...  

picopir8, where are you doing your speed tests??  I would like to compare directly to your results...

Of course if I complain to AT&T that someone else is getting a faster speed than me, they might react by slowing down everyone else down to my speeds instead of finding out if there are any problems with my line or anything...  :bang:

... Ill try to be careful if I do end up complaining, I promise ....

Downspeeds are more or less on par with what RoadRunner was giving me, however Upspeed is significantly improved (From 330k to 970k)... And hopefully with their planned 40Mb DSL speed increase later this year (so they say), maybe they will up the speeds for the internet a bit more..

However, the long and short of it is, unless and until there is fiber going out to the home, we will never see a significant advancement in internet speeds...   For now, 5 or 6Mb appears to be the broadband standard...  I bet the standard 10 years from now will be signifcantly faster...   Without fiber, we will all be left behind...

My hope is that it is AT&Ts (or Verizon's?) long range plan to replace all the coppor pairs in the Milwaukee area with fiber over the course of the next decade or so...   If they do that, then I wont feel compelled to move elsewhere just so I can get highspeed internet...  I am not sure if the hold-up is strictly the fault of AT&T or if there might be some politics involved...  I think that there may be political hurdles to go through first though, and some palm greasing may be needed before anyone can roll out fiber to the home...  Hopefully this will be done before its too late...

The super-highspeed internet requires fiber...  Thats all there is to it...

[Jimboy]

As for lack of 18/24 on Uverse, it has NOTHING to do with any sort of bandwidth limitation. Its because the owners of those stations are money hungry.  They are requiring anyone who carries them to pay more for them.  So far NOBODY carries those channels in HD, not D*, not TWC (though they have managed to work out an agreement), not Uverse.  Uverse does have placeholders for those channels at 1018 and 1024 but those placeholders just broadcast the SD content.  However, at least they have the placeholders there which leads me to believe that they will have the channels soon.

AT&T only offers the top four affiliates in HD in every market which is why you don't see 18 & 24 in HD. And what you do see on UVerse "Is" our HD channels presented in 4:3 aspect ratio mode (or 4:3 full screen) in SD resolution.

[kjnorman]

Do not get me wrong, I am keen for U-verse.  Currently Whitefish Bay is not served by them, but as soon as they do, I am keen to try the service.  

Presently I would be happy to save some money and so the 3mbps (dedicated) at $25/month would be ideal for me - rather that the $45 a month currently for 6mbps (shared) at TWC.

My concern would be if AT&T could keep up in the bandwidth race?

One could argue though that at the moment by keeping the service fiber to the node they are reducing the installation costs and so are able to offer a competitive service at low rates now (after all most people do not need more that 6mbps currently).  It also gives them time to work out their iptv strategy though I still would have concerns on this until they are able to offer 4 HD channels simultaneously.

But perhaps AT&T will have the last laugh?  By being cheap now, they can build their subscriber base on value and then as they get more competitive pressure they could switch to fiber to the home, by which time I would imagine the cost per house installation would be whole lot cheaper.

I can certainly see business sense in this.  Perhaps not a bad strategy after all....?

Edited for typos

[tencom]

It would be just as easy for cable to have fiber to the home as   Uverse because cable already has installed Fiber to  the neighborhood, that was in service for several years now. How else can they have 800 MHZ bandwidth, without a fiber backbone.


"REMEMBER"  Fiber Optical Cable does not come cheap!

[kjnorman]

Of course if cable switched to IPTV then they would not even need to worry about fiber to the home.  They would have more than enough bandwidth for the foreseeable future.

[tencom]

Cable television, also use the IPTV format for their digital cable converters as does Uverse. Most posters to this site don't appear to know that!

[picopir8]

picopir8, where are you doing your speed tests??  I would like to compare directly to your results...

I used http://www.speedtest.net/

I tried both chicago and twin cities.  IIRC, twin cities was the one that resulted in about 6.9M/s.  I think chicago was down around 6.2-6.4.  Also, to to an apples to apples comparrison, you might want to use the same DNS server (I have mine set to 4.2.2.2).  I would assume that the speed tests are written to use ip addresses but who knows, they may use domain names in which case a slow DNS server could affect the results.

Like any DSL, I believe that the speeds slow down the farther you are from the telco (I am 1 mile away).  So if you are father away then that might be another explanation.

[kjnorman]

Cable television, also use the IPTV format for their digital cable converters as does Uverse. Most posters to this site don't appear to know that!

This is not my understanding of cable TV.  Cable needs a tuner - be it analog or digital.  While digital cable may send some sort of packeted stream it is not in the same respect as IPTV for U-verse.  Cable continuously broadcasts their digital signal on channels that the tuner then tunes into.  This is 180 degrees opposite to IPTV an U-verse.  There, the receiver requests a "channel" and then the broadcaster's digital packets are then routed from AT&T to the subscriber.  

Hence the difference is that TWC will fill all their bandwidth with all available information - whether you want it or now.  U-verses bandwidth (though much limited) is only filled when the subscriber requests a particular channel (or two).  

One might argue that TWC will begin going down a more IPTV route when they migrate to Switched Digital Video and so invalidate all those cablecards out there...

[TPK]

I used http://www.speedtest.net/

I tried both chicago and twin cities.  IIRC, twin cities was the one that resulted in about 6.9M/s.  I think chicago was down around 6.2-6.4.  Also, to to an apples to apples comparrison, you might want to use the same DNS server (I have mine set to 4.2.2.2).  I would assume that the speed tests are written to use ip addresses but who knows, they may use domain names in which case a slow DNS server could affect the results.

Like any DSL, I believe that the speeds slow down the farther you are from the telco (I am 1 mile away).  So if you are father away then that might be another explanation.

Looks like I'm getting about a 1Mb speed difference from you to the twin cities:



Test to chicago pretty much the same:



There really shouldnt be that much of a difference...  All U-verse customers should be getting pretty much the same speeds, since everyone is required to be within a certain line distance from the node (I think its within 2200 feet, or something like that)...     The internet part of the DSL link is just a fraction of what the entire link bandwith can handle...   Your distance from your Telco is irrelevant, the DSLAM is at the node, not the telco, which is the difference between u-verse and traditional DSL...

If you browse to your 2-wire gateway ( http://192.168.1.254 ) and click on "View Summary" (from the Broadband link), and then "View connection details", what do you see for your DSL Connection Details??

For me I get the following:

DSL Connection Details
DSL Line (Wire Pair): RJ-11
Protocol: G.993.1
Downstream Rate: 27264 kbps  
Upstream Rate: 2048 kbps  
Channel: Interleaved
Current Noise Margin: 26.0 dB (Downstream), Not Available
Current Attenuation: 20.8 dB (Downstream), Not Available
Current Output Power: 8.1 dB (Downstream), -15.5 db (Upstream)
DSLAM Vendor Information: Country: {0x4E} Vendor: {GSPN} Specific: {0x3937}

[LoadStar]

Cable television, also use the IPTV format for their digital cable converters as does Uverse. Most posters to this site don't appear to know that!

Uh, no. You might be thinking of some of the diagnostic screens that you see on your digital cable box that show stuff like an IP address and other TCP/IP related information. This is strictly how for the "addressable" part of the cable box - it's what it uses to get the cable guide and other information, and how the cable company contacts the box. It has nothing to do with the video.

Digital cable channels contain MPEG-2 MP@ML compressed video transmitted via QAM 256 modulation over the coaxial line. HD cable channels are also transmitted via QAM 256 - not sure what they used to compress the video. I think it might be MPEG-2 MP@HL.

IPTV is a completely different beast. Instead of modulating the different channels to run across a coaxial line like cable TV does, the whole thing is one giant TCP/IP network. The "channels" are just multicast H.264 video streams that your box connects to when you tune to that channel. It's really not much different than if you were to load up Windows Media Player or RealPlayer on your computer and connect to a live stream - the set top box just makes it "feel" more TV-like by automating and hiding all the process of connecting to the different streams.

[LoadStar]

"REMEMBER"  Fiber Optical Cable does not come cheap!

Fiber itself really isn't that bad... and with the sharp increase in costs of copper, the difference in cost is shrinking.

The major cost difference is the labor involved, the equipment needed, and the training for your employees to know how to properly install, terminate, and repair fiber. There's lots of expensive, very technical equipment required to properly handle fiber optic line, and if it isn't installed properly, it don't work.