First, cable speeds are shared and not exactly comparable. Second, they've said before they do plan to offer higher speeds; they're being conservative since the product is still really in beta. They want to get multiple HD streams flowing to see how the load looks.

First, cable speeds are shared and not exactly comparable.So is my shared 8mb speed roughly the same as a dedicated 6mb?

Second, they've said before they do plan to offer higher speeds; they're being conservative since the product is still really in beta. They want to get multiple HD streams flowing to see how the load looks.Understood, but say you have 30 mb coming into your home. You have the 6mb internet service, so 24 mb for TV. Say you want to record a HD show and watch another - 12 mb each, right? That just doesn't sound like much to me. And do they plan on offering voice over this as well?

I like the idea, but I just agree with the author that they should've set a higher baseline than 30 mb.

So is my shared 8mb speed roughly the same as a dedicated 6mb?You cannot directly compare the two. Depends on your neighbors.
Understood, but say you have 30 mb coming into your home. You have the 6mb internet service, so 24 mb for TV. Say you want to record a HD show and watch another - 12 mb each, right? That just doesn't sound like much to me. And do they plan on offering voice over this as well?You're assuming HD streams of 12mb, which may be high given MPEG4 compression, etc. I'd bet they get it down to 6-8. And yeah, eventually VoIP, but that takes a miniscule amount of bandwidth.

I don't disagree that 30mb will be an issue sooner or later...but if the choice was wait two more years until we had FTTP or get this now and FTTP later, I'll take this.

And FYI many U-Verse users have gotten significantly better than 30mb...and pair bonding would double the rate.

Just spotted this in the LA Times on Sunday...

SACRAMENTO — During the legislative session that ended Thursday, lawmakers sent hundreds of bills to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for his signature or veto in the next 30 days. Here are some highlights. Click a bill topic for more information.

Bill would allow telephone companies that can provide video services over phone lines to compete more easily against cable television companies by granting them a single statewide permit. It would also shift regulation of pay TV services from cities and counties to the state. (AB 2987 by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, D-Los Angeles)

Today's http://www.telcomedianews.com/

"As part of the agreement, Comcast will offer to U-verse TV customers E! Entertainment, Golf Channel, OLN (soon to be re-branded Versus), AZN Television, PBS Kids Sprout, Style Network, G4, Comcast SportsNet Chicago, Comcast SportsNet West and SportsNet New York. "

Roselle, IL is near me, here is a letter the mayor put up:

Roselle and AT&T

You might have seen the article in the April 2 edition of the Chicago Tribune reporting that Roselle recently passed a 180-day moratorium prohibiting construction of large ground mounted utility structures. The moratorium is designed to give the Village an opportunity to investigate and assess the legal, franchising, zoning and technical issues associated with the project to make certain that the Village and its residents are not unfairly prejudiced by the project. AT & T requires these structures for upgrades to their system, which includes offering a video component to their services, allowing them to compete with other cable providers.

Roselle is all for competition-as long as it is on a level playing field. The Village Board and I believe that what AT & T wants is to compete with Comcast to provide service, without the franchise benefits and controls, which makes this a very uneven playing field.

Currently, our franchise agreement (applicable to any cable provider) provides that Comcast (our current and only provider) pay us a 5% franchise fee, penalties for non-performance, provide service to everyone in Roselle, provide emergency interruptions in programming, and provide local and public access programming and studio use. The Village receives around $250,000 a year from the franchise fee and another $40,000 for non-performance penalties. (I would gladly not collect the second amount if Comcast could get their performance problems solved). This money subsidizes our newsletter and website, as well as other communication tools, such as Roselle's own cable program. Our local access channel allows us to show Inside Roselle and Comcast sends out crews to tape community events such as the Rose Queen pageant and Parade, to air them for those who are interested. Our public access channel allows us to announce timely messages and we can change them at a moment's notice.

AT & T would not be required to do any of this if we just allow them to use their existing lines to compete with Comcast. In addition, 6-10 huge boxes (6 ft. tall, 8 ft. wide and 4 ft. deep) would be constructed in our right-of-way, along with about 70 smaller boxes (5X4X3), to provide this service. I am not thrilled about that visual! In Wheaton, they contacted a private property owner and paid him to allow the construction of the big box on private property adjacent to the public sidewalk. It is at 1300 S. President Street. This was the reason Roselle passed the moratorium on this construction.

With AT & T coming into a community, they are not bound to offer their services to the whole community and, without a franchise agreement, do not have to remit any fees to the Village. I predict a rapid drop in our revenues.

I am the vice-chair of the Metropolitan Mayor's Caucus, a consortium of the 227 mayors in the Chicagoland area. Our goal is to bring in competition, but under the same terms and conditions that already exist for the current cable providers.

I hope this helps you better understand the recent actions of the Village Board. Even if the revenues issue was not involved, I do not feel any service provider, who is using our right-of-way, should be able to select the people to which they want to provide service. I also want to preserve the other benefits we now get with Comcast. The public access channels are very important to us.

http://www.roselle.il.us/villagegovernment/mayormessageATT.html

and one from the local newspaper:

"A few months ago, I informed you about AT & T’s “Project Lightspeed” and its potential impact on our community. This project will bring many services to our area, including a video component which would directly compete with our current cable provider. Competition is good – as long as it is fair competition. To assess this, Roselle passed a 180-day moratorium on construction of the large utility boxes needed for this project and AT & T promptly sued us. Over the last few months, we have been part of a negotiation team, to try and craft a universal agreement which can be used by any community and AT&T. Some of the issues covered are: franchise fees, service standards and universal coverage. It is the last issue that is a sticking point to move forward. AT&T does not want to agree to offer these services to everyone in the community, even within a reasonable time frame. In order for the first cable provider to come into Roselle, they needed to ensure that the cable service would be available to all residents within a reasonable time frame. Since AT&T intends to use the public rights-of-way, which belong to all of use, the Board of Trustees and I believe the competitive services they claim to offer should be made available to all of us – not to just the most lucrative areas of town. I will keep you posted on any further developments."

http://www.roselle.il.us/villagegovernment/mayormessage.html

In the Midwest, looks like Wisconsin will be next for Lightspeed and Michigan sometime next year.

AT&T (SBC, et al) has been running fiber all over for quite awhile now, and putting in the last few pieces is not that time consuming. They may be having new hardware delays, but I'd bet the greatest delays are financially related.

Of course, my comments are exclusive of the legal issues mentioned above.

They've dropped fiber all over central Indiana, also. But I don't know, someone like ITVN could possibly supplant them, especially if they can significantly improve the PQ of their offerings.

Roselle, IL is near me, here is a letter the mayor put up:



http://www.roselle.il.us/villagegovernment/mayormessageATT.html

and one from the local newspaper:



http://www.roselle.il.us/villagegovernment/mayormessage.html


The issue is not paying a franchise fee. AT&T will pay that. It is the full build out requirements which they can not agree to. Agreeing to it for Roselle would set a precedent that they can't afford to do. The service is distance sensitive and full build out would not be economically attractive in a fully competitive environment. A different story when Comcast built out. They had a full monopoly then and a guaranteed return basically. I don't think the Mayor's position is really in the best interests of his community, but hey, I don't live in Roselle, IL.

The issue is not paying a franchise fee. AT&T will pay that. It is the full build out requirements which they can not agree to. Agreeing to it for Roselle would set a precedent that they can't afford to do. The service is distance sensitive and full build out would not be economically attractive in a fully competitive environment. A different story when Comcast built out. They had a full monopoly then and a guaranteed return basically. I don't think the Mayor's position is really in the best interests of his community, but hey, I don't live in Roselle, IL.
Then AT&T needs to re-think their technology. They should be required to at least pass every home the incumbent cable company does. If the technology is not robust enough to reach the outlying points then they need to go back to the drawing board.

Then AT&T needs to re-think their technology. They should be required to at least pass every home the incumbent cable company does. If the technology is not robust enough to reach the outlying points then they need to go back to the drawing board.You skipped over the part of the argument wherein Comcast (or whoever they were at the time) did their build-out as a monopoly.

If they really want a "level playing field" then should AT&T expect several years of exclusivity?

I think it's ridiculous to limit consumer choice unless it passes "every" home. It helps consumers not one whit. How is "nobody has a choice" better than "some have a choice and some do not?"

This isn't a technology argument, and stating that AT&T needs to rethink their technology is just silly.

The cable company has never been a monopoly, there are areas where there is more than one servicing the same area.

The point about buildout is that AT&T wants to do what amounts to red-lining, basically cherry-picking affluent areas over lower income areas. Since the infrastructure requires use of City-owned right-of-way the City has the obligation to see that all of it's citizens benefit from it. California has legislation that prohibits red-lining if AT&T wants to provide their service, expect other states/communities to do the same.

You skipped over the part of the argument wherein Comcast (or whoever they were at the time) did their build-out as a monopoly.

If they really want a "level playing field" then should AT&T expect several years of exclusivity?

I think it's ridiculous to limit consumer choice unless it passes "every" home. It helps consumers not one whit. How is "nobody has a choice" better than "some have a choice and some do not?"

This isn't a technology argument, and stating that AT&T needs to rethink their technology is just silly.

Once one overbuilder comes in and does a half ass job and creams the low hanging fruit, the likelyhood that a second more diligent overbuilder will challenge him is extremely dimished.

Be careful what you ask for. You may be one of the "have nots" when it comes to a competative choice. You're assuming you're on the short list.

There needs to be protection against strategic turf building.

The cable company has never been a monopoly, there are areas where there is more than one servicing the same area.That's extremely rare; in the VAST majority of cases, the cable company was a monopoly for a long, long time.
The point about buildout is that AT&T wants to do what amounts to red-lining, basically cherry-picking affluent areas over lower income areas. Since the infrastructure requires use of City-owned right-of-way the City has the obligation to see that all of it's citizens benefit from it.We'll have to agree to disagree. And for what it's worth, for a long time around here only certain parts of town could get cable modems, or digital cable. Hmm...they were the more affluent parts, too.

Strange, that.California has legislation that prohibits red-lining if AT&T wants to provide their service, expect other states/communities to do the same.
I don't doubt they will.

Once one overbuilder comes in and does a half ass job and creams the low hanging fruit, the likelyhood that a second more diligent overbuilder will challenge him is extremely dimished.

Be careful what you ask for. You may be one of the "have nots" when it comes to a competative choice. You're assuming you're on the short list.Don't assume what I am assuming. I have no idea whether I'd be a "have" or "have not."

Explain to me, though, how my choice or situation would be ONE IOTA WORSE if I was a "have not." I'd still have cable, wouldn't I?There needs to be protection against strategic turf building.Every time the government tries to protect, it just ends up denying everyone.

The cable company has never been a monopoly, there are areas where there is more than one servicing the same area.

The point about buildout is that AT&T wants to do what amounts to red-lining, basically cherry-picking affluent areas over lower income areas. Since the infrastructure requires use of City-owned right-of-way the City has the obligation to see that all of it's citizens benefit from it. California has legislation that prohibits red-lining if AT&T wants to provide their service, expect other states/communities to do the same.

You're a shill for the cable companies and they have been virtual monopolies until sat providers came along. The same thing happened in telecom over the past 20 years, first in long distance, now local. The cable companies have entered the local phone market but no one told them where they had to offer it or how soon or even if they had to offer E-911 or operator services or you name it. The cable companies can do pretty much what they please, build where they want and charge what they want. Now the AT&T and VZ are entering the video market, cableco's want all the restrictions they've avoided in phone service applied to the telco's. The argument just does not hold water in the current competitive environment. It's like saying satellite providers can't enter a market until they provide all of the local channels cable does.

FYI...this just in from Governor Schwarzenegger's office.

Gov. Schwarzenegger Signs Groundbreaking Bill to Increase Competition for Cable TV, Ultimately Lower Prices for Consumers

Gov. Schwarzenegger announced the signing of AB 2987 by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) that increases the number of competitors in the cable television market and will lead to decreased costs for the people of California.

“Increased competition will translate into better service and lower prices for everyone,” said Gov. Schwarzenegger. “This bill will add another significant player into the cable television marketplace and help speed the spread of new and innovative technologies across the state.”

Specifically, the bill allows telecommunications companies to receive a single permit to deliver Internet and television services to homes and businesses instead of having to apply for individual permits with cities and counties.

URL: http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4190/

Judge tosses suit by cable industry

DALLAS - A federal judge Thursday dismissed a cable industry challenge to a 2005 Texas law that eased the way for phone companies to sell video service. Phone companies praised the judge's ruling, saying it would lead to more competition and lower prices. The law let phone companies obtain a single franchise to offer video service anywhere in the state instead of going through the costly and time-consuming process of winning licenses in each city they serve.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4223251.html

Layin' the grid for Skynet.........:p

Layin' the grid for Skynet.........:p
Didn't Skynet use satellite technology? Of course, this would mean we really have to wonder what D* is doing with all those satellites....

You're a shill for the cable companies
Right, get a clue. :rolleyes:

Now watch the cable companies sue to not pay franchise fees to cities.

Then cities will raise property taxes to make up for lost revenues.

But the prices of cable bills will be no different and cable companies and ATT will still charge taxes.

FiOS is suppose to be in some parts of Southern California. Maybe only data, not FiOS TV. Wonder if they charge taxes.

FYI...this just in from Governor Schwarzenegger's office.

Gov. Schwarzenegger Signs Groundbreaking Bill to Increase Competition for Cable TV, Ultimately Lower Prices for Consumers

Gov. Schwarzenegger announced the signing of AB 2987 by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) that increases the number of competitors in the cable television market and will lead to decreased costs for the people of California.

“Increased competition will translate into better service and lower prices for everyone,” said Gov. Schwarzenegger. “This bill will add another significant player into the cable television marketplace and help speed the spread of new and innovative technologies across the state.”

Specifically, the bill allows telecommunications companies to receive a single permit to deliver Internet and television services to homes and businesses instead of having to apply for individual permits with cities and counties.

URL: http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4190/


:) :) :)

Now maybe AT&T will have some incentive to actually start laying cable. Of course, the law doesn't go into effect until January 1st.

:) :) :)

Now maybe AT&T will have some incentive to actually start laying cable. Of course, the law doesn't go into effect until January 1st.

Since the site is trying to reign in my exuberance by not letting me post 12 smiles, I'll add another 3 just to spite them :) :) :)

Now watch the cable companies sue to not pay franchise fees to cities.

Then cities will raise property taxes to make up for lost revenues.

But the prices of cable bills will be no different and cable companies and ATT will still charge taxes.
AT&T can legally only charge taxes that it is legally allowed to -- in other words, if a tax is no longer required/collected, they can't keep collecting it from consumers.

Yes, I expect cities to do something to replace lost revenue. So what? Consumers have to pay it one way or another.

Not sure what you mean when you ask whether FIOS will collect taxes.

Now watch the cable companies sue to not pay franchise fees to cities.

Then cities will raise property taxes to make up for lost revenues.

But the prices of cable bills will be no different and cable companies and ATT will still charge taxes.

FiOS is suppose to be in some parts of Southern California. Maybe only data, not FiOS TV. Wonder if they charge taxes.
So did you read the Bill ?? It specifically says that the cities still receive their franchise fees from the State. All the parties agreed with that, Telco's and Cable, to sue to stop payment of franchise fees would require a change to the Bill and would not sit well with the State Legislature that brokered the Bill.
Here's the applicable section of the Bill,

"The bill would provide that cities, counties, cities and counties,
or joint powers authorities would receive state franchise fees in
exchange for the use of public rights-of-way for the delivery of
video services provided within their jurisdictions, based on gross
revenues, pursuant to a specified formula."

Laters,
Mikef5

FYI...this just in from Governor Schwarzenegger's office.

Gov. Schwarzenegger Signs Groundbreaking Bill to Increase Competition for Cable TV, Ultimately Lower Prices for Consumers

Gov. Schwarzenegger announced the signing of AB 2987 by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) that increases the number of competitors in the cable television market and will lead to decreased costs for the people of California.

“Increased competition will translate into better service and lower prices for everyone,” said Gov. Schwarzenegger. “This bill will add another significant player into the cable television marketplace and help speed the spread of new and innovative technologies across the state.”

Specifically, the bill allows telecommunications companies to receive a single permit to deliver Internet and television services to homes and businesses instead of having to apply for individual permits with cities and counties.

URL: http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4190/


For those of us who reside in rural areas, I'll believe it when I see it. My local mom & pop cable company will not adjust their prices downward because there is no threat of competition because my local phone carrier (AT&T) will not spend the resources to provide Lightspeed or any other wireless technology here.

For those of us who reside in rural areas, I'll believe it when I see it. My local mom & pop cable company will not adjust their prices downward because there is no threat of competition because my local phone carrier (AT&T) will not spend the resources to provide Lightspeed or any other wireless technology here.No, and that's not new, and that's not changing any time soon. Rural areas will never be as well-served as urban ones.

No, and that's not new, and that's not changing any time soon. Rural areas will never be as well-served as urban ones.

Never is a long time. I'll give one example of something that could deliver TV programming to rural areas in the near term. I'm not talking about a farm in the middle of Kansas, but a community with a couple thousand people in a close geographic area.

Wi-Max rollout is starting in earnest. Sprint/Nextel has chosen it as the next generation wireless solution, in addition to companies like clearwire that already are deploying Wi-Max hi speed internet solutions. If Wi-Max can indeed deliver anywhere near the 100mbps that it claims, over a distance of several miles, you have the possibility of video distribution. Of course, this all depends on how many individual streams one tower could support, but you get the idea.

The history of telecommunications, especially the recent history, has demonstrated that it's all about sending more data faster over longer distances. There is no reason why this will all of a sudden stop. At some point, I would guess 10 years even in the most remore areas, high speed access including video will be a given. IMHO.

Never is a long time. I'll give one example of something that could deliver TV programming to rural areas in the near term. I'm not talking about a farm in the middle of Kansas, but a community with a couple thousand people in a close geographic area.

Wi-Max rollout is starting in earnest. Sprint/Nextel has chosen it as the next generation wireless solution, in addition to companies like clearwire that already are deploying Wi-Max hi speed internet solutions. If Wi-Max can indeed deliver anywhere near the 100mbps that it claims, over a distance of several miles, you have the possibility of video distribution. Of course, this all depends on how many individual streams one tower could support, but you get the idea.

The history of telecommunications, especially the recent history, has demonstrated that it's all about sending more data faster over longer distances. There is no reason why this will all of a sudden stop. At some point, I would guess 10 years even in the most remore areas, high speed access including video will be a given. IMHO.

Still, if Wi-max lives up to the hype and is commercialized, it will be deployed to rural areas last. Just plain economics, which no politician can change by fiat.

Wi-Max rollout is starting in earnest. Sprint/Nextel has chosen it as the next generation wireless solution, in addition to companies like clearwire that already are deploying Wi-Max hi speed internet solutions.

This is amusing considering Sprint had broadband wireless in Chicago years ago, and it failed miserably. IIRC, they failed to consider signal issues with these things called "trees" near the customer's premise.

Never is a long time. I'll give one example of something that could deliver TV programming to rural areas in the near term. I'm not talking about a farm in the middle of Kansas, but a community with a couple thousand people in a close geographic area.

Wi-Max rollout is starting in earnest. Sprint/Nextel has chosen it as the next generation wireless solution, in addition to companies like clearwire that already are deploying Wi-Max hi speed internet solutions. If Wi-Max can indeed deliver anywhere near the 100mbps that it claims, over a distance of several miles, you have the possibility of video distribution. Of course, this all depends on how many individual streams one tower could support, but you get the idea.

The history of telecommunications, especially the recent history, has demonstrated that it's all about sending more data faster over longer distances. There is no reason why this will all of a sudden stop. At some point, I would guess 10 years even in the most remore areas, high speed access including video will be a given. IMHO.
Assuming WiMax isn't a gigantic flop (and I'm not at all convinced it won't be), by the time it's available in rural areas, urban areas will have gigabit speeds and multiple HD streams. Newer technologies will be deployed in urban areas first.

Rural people: get over it. There's a reason your house was $150. You get things last.

Assuming WiMax isn't a gigantic flop (and I'm not at all convinced it won't be), by the time it's available in rural areas, urban areas will have gigabit speeds and multiple HD streams. Newer technologies will be deployed in urban areas first.

Rural people: get over it. There's a reason your house was $150. You get things last.

There are lots of benefits to living in a rural setting; less traffic, cleaner environment, more access to nature, less crime, etc., but getting cutting edge technology early is not one of them. That's just life!

There are lots of benefits to living in a rural setting; less traffic, cleaner environment, more access to nature, less crime, etc., but getting cutting edge technology early is not one of them. That's just life!
I do not disagree -- in fact, about once a year (or even more often) I give serious consideration to moving to Missoula, MT...but with the understanding that I won't get HD locals (or much HD at all), multiple broadband providers to choose from, or even a Circuit City. :)

AT&T's video service gets mixed reviews

Web Posted: 10/10/2006 09:31 PM CDT

Sanford Nowlin, Express-News Business Writer

AT&T Inc. promised a lot when it rolled out U-verse, the high-tech video service it hopes will be a key weapon in its battle with rivals such as Time Warner and Comcast.

Is it delivering?

Some customers in San Antonio — the first market in the U-verse rollout — say there have been technical flaws with the service but that the phone giant has done a good job of fixing them.

Others, however, say they're fed up with waiting for U-verse to work.

Customer satisfaction with U-verse is key for San Antonio-based AT&T, which is hoping to promote the Internet-based video service largely via personal testimonials and neighborhood promotional events.

"They're trying to grow on word of mouth and use some guerrilla marketing techniques," said Paul Erickson, who is following the rollout for IMS Research in Austin. "If people are experiencing problems or are angry about the kind of service they're getting, that's not the kind of word of mouth you want."

Officials with AT&T, which plans to spend $4 billion on the U-verse rollout, said there have been occasional customer complaints but the overall response to its pay-TV product has been favorable.

One AT&T customer who first complained but is now happy with U-verse is Gina Beadles, who signed up within a couple of weeks of the service becoming available in her Northwest Side neighborhood.

"The first week or two it was a bit frustrating," Beadles said. "We would be watching a movie and it would just stop in the middle — it just froze."

But, Beadles said, company technicians worked through the problem. She's now satisfied with the service and impressed with AT&T's responsiveness:

"Time Warner's going to have to jump through a lot of hoops to get us back."

Beadles' son, Michael, is less forgiving about the outages, however. He said he still experiences occasional freezes while watching TV late at night.

"I like it when it's working," he said. "But when it's unreliable, it's just frustrating."

Another subscriber who gave only her first name, Ruth, said she suspended her U-verse before her free three-month trial was up. The service froze several times, she said, and to get it running again after each outage, she had to spend a half-hour on the phone with AT&T's customer service center.

She has since returned to Time Warner cable.

But Michael Grasso, assistant vice president of consumer marketing for the U-verse project, said most customers think AT&T has gotten it right.

"Customers expect more from us because of the quality of phone service they've gotten from us," Grasso said. "If they're getting a little pixelization or freezing, they hold us to a higher standard than they would a cable company."

The company has made the cable-like TV service available to tens of thousands of homes in its home market and held neighborhood parties to drum up interest, and it's sticking by its plans to expand into 15 to 20 more markets by year's end.

The company is spending billions to make U-verse available to 19 million homes by the end of 2008, moving aggressively into the TV business to counter cable rivals such as Time Warner that have made inroads into the phone and high-speed Internet markets.

Because U-verse operates via Internet connections, Grasso said users might need to reboot their set-top boxes about once a month like they do a computer.

The company expects to ship new Motorola set-top boxes during the fourth quarter that should cut down on the number of reboots. The boxes also will enable subscribers to get high-definition channels.

If a customer has a problem, Grasso added, the company's around-the-clock support center will dispatch a repair truck the same day it receives a complaint.

AT&T constantly makes improvements to the service, he said, from finding ways to sharpen the signal on individual channels to installing new Internet routers that make its connections more stable.

"We're definitely getting smarter every day," Grasso said. "We've continued to upgrade software and to improve parts on the network."

Customer Chris Harrison said U-verse works better than his old cable service and he will probably keep subscribing. Even so, he's waiting for the new Motorola boxes to arrive before he makes a final decision.

Many people who sign up at the launch of a new service such as U-verse expect a few technical glitches along the way, Harrison added.

"I think it's almost unavoidable," he said. "It's one thing to make a service like this work in a lab, and it's another to make it work in the real world."

http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/stories/MYSA101106.1E.UVerse.2aa25c6.html

AT&T is finally ready to add HD to its much-delayed Project Lightspeed (U-verse) but the project is still dogged by questions and controversy.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/10/17/atandt-defends-hdtv-via-fttn-networks/

AT&T chases tempting idea
Updated 10/18/2006 3:51 AM ET
By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
SAN ANTONIO — The Andrews household used to spend $80 a month to buy satellite TV services from DirecTV, $40 for cable with Time Warner and $50 for high-speed Internet services with AT&T. The family also invested $300 in a TiVo DVR and program service, using it to record Desperate Housewives,Gilmore Girls and other shows.

Not anymore.

"We're done," says Donna Andrews, a mother of three. Time Warner (TWX) and DirecTV (DTV) are out. Her TiVo (TIVO) sits in a closet.

Their replacement: "U-verse," the new TV service from AT&T (T). Her U-verse receiver has a built-in DVR, and high-speed Internet is part of her package. Monthly cost: $110.

STORY: Bumps show challenges that new system faces

Thanks to the AT&T system's underlying IPTV technology — short for Internet Protocol TV — Andrews also finds some features, including the DVR, simpler. "It's so much easier than what we had before," says Andrews, whose three-month promotional rate of $15 expires this month.

AT&T is betting billions of dollars that there are millions of other families who will like its TV service as much as Andrews does.

The telecommunications giant is building an advanced broadband network to offer a fat package of phone, wireless, Internet and video services, all under the vaunted AT&T brand name.

Desperation is the driver. Phone company customers are increasingly dumping traditional phone service in favor of VoIP, a cheaper Internet-based phone service now being hawked by cable operators. The number of traditional lines in service dropped by 7% last year, and the losses are escalating. By diving into video, phone companies — Verizon also is rolling out video — hope to blunt the financial pain.

Consumers stand to benefit from the coming street brawl. When the companies start competing on the full range of services, prices and features should improve substantially, says Adi Kishore, director of Forrester's media and entertainment practice. "This is definitely good for the consumer."

The big question for AT&T, he says, is how fast it can roll out U-verse. Time Warner estimates that U-verse has only about 500 customers. AT&T won't be specific, but claims the figure is "in the thousands," and the company says it still plans to expand the service to 15 to 20 markets by December and to offer it to 19 million households by 2008.

Kishore, for one, is skeptical, noting that AT&T has made several deployment announcements, only to roll them back.

"It's one thing to say you're going to deploy. It's another thing to actually do it," he says.

Jeff Henry, a local marketing manager for Time Warner, agrees. U-verse currently is being sold only in some parts of San Antonio, AT&T's headquarters. To meet the 20-market goal, he says, AT&T would have to start deploying immediately.

It will work — but when?

Holding things up, says Rick Thompson, an analyst at Heavy Reading, is the ornery nature of the cutting-edge IPTV technology. He says nobody doubts that AT&T can make IPTV work, but it requires getting a circus of hardware and software — all of it brand new — to work together seamlessly.

The largest IPTV deployment in the world, he notes, is in Hong Kong, where PCCW, a local broadband carrier, claims 650,000 users — about half the population of San Antonio.

Thompson's point: Nobody knows for sure how the technology will hold up under the strain of millions of simultaneous users.

IPTV offers AT&T major cost advantages over other network options because it can deliver video over the existing copper phone lines that run to homes and buildings. AT&T needs only to run upgraded fiber-optic lines to neighborhoods.

Nagging concerns about IPTV figured into Verizon's decision to go the costlier route of replacing all the copper and running high-capacity fiber all the way to the home, Thompson says. That allows Verizon to use a more traditional, more cable-like design to deliver video, making the system relatively easy to manage.

In part because it is using existing technology, Verizon is ahead of AT&T in rolling out its FiOS TV service, which it now offers in parts of 100 markets to about 100,000 homes.

Some of AT&T's vendors "may have underestimated the challenges and complexities" of IPTV, acknowledges Chris Rice, AT&T executive vice president for engineering and network planning, though he won't name names.

For example, AT&T has touted that its system would offer true "whole home" recording and viewing: A customer could record a show on the DVR and watch it on any TV set in the house. Many providers offer some form of multi-room viewing, but this would be more complete.

Microsoft, which is developing the operating system, originally promised it would deliver a whole-home feature in the first phase of U-verse. But sorting out the technical complexities turned out to be a lot harder than anybody expected, Rice says, and the feature now is expected to be added "sometime in 2007."

Racing to hit the rollout

AT&T's biggest focus now is a race to meet the end-of-year deployment schedule. Rice says final lab tests are being conducted seven days a week, 24 hours a day, in some cases.

The industrial-strength testing is necessary, he says, to ensure that IPTV equipment — software and hardware — meshes perfectly and is bug-free. Otherwise, Rice says, "It's like dominoes. If something doesn't land in exactly the right spot, it doesn't just affect that spot, it affects everything down the stream."

The final hurdle to the rollout, he says, is perfecting the capacity to deliver TV in high definition. Rice says Microsoft is sending AT&T code updates almost daily.

But Microsoft (MSFT) isn't the only bottleneck. Other vendors, working on other aspects of HDTV, also have to deliver, says Christine Heckart, a general manager at Microsoft.

"The whole thing is very chicken-and-eggish," she says. "We are developing 80% of the code, but it doesn't work unless it all works."

Rice says he expects final testing on HDTV by the end of the fourth quarter, allowing AT&T to proceed, as planned, with the national launch. At that point, he says, U-verse will be able to "support millions of customers."

Asked why U-verse took so long to launch — almost two years, assuming AT&T meets its latest deployment schedule — Rice pushes back. He argues that the development cycle actually has been pretty fast, considering AT&T was working with "brand-new technology to create a brand-new product" from the ground up.

"It's like creating the cable industry, from inception to launch, in 18 months," Rice says. "We hit a few bumps along the way, but overall, we are pretty pleased."

Value is the key feature

None of this means much to Donna Andrews. Like many consumers, she is far more interested in getting the best value for her money.

Compared with the $110 per month she now spends, she used to spend $120 just for cable and satellite TV, plus $50 for AT&T's Internet service. Like many families, the Andrewses got both satellite and cable because they like extra programming options, such as more sports channels.

But money was only one part of the value equation. She also likes all the bells and whistles that are part of U-verse, particularly the video recording feature. It requires just one click of the remote's "Record" button to set up and initiate recording a show, and just one more click to record an entire season of the show.

Another plus, she says, is the "search" function that lets her hunt for a movie or program by simply typing in an actor's name. "I just love that," she says.

She's less wowed by this system's "picture-in-a-picture" feature, which lets customers open a window to see what's playing on other channels without changing the channel they're watching. Microsoft and other vendors spent months developing PIP for U-verse, and they're still tinkering to add audio. "It's OK, I guess," she shrugs.

She also isn't so keen on the set-top box, made by Tatung. Her biggest gripe: the color.

"It's white," she says, wrinkling her nose with palpable disdain. "It's really ugly."

One thing she likes a lot: the iconic AT&T name.

Like many Americans, Andrews grew up with the brand, and she likes what it represents. She says she'd consider buying any product that had AT&T's name attached.

Why? "Because it's AT&T," she says, gently chiding a reporter for even asking. "It's a brand I like, and a name I trust."

But brand loyalty goes only so far. Andrews says she'd reconsider Time Warner "if it would save us a whole bunch of money."

As for her TiVo DVR, she's holding on to that, just in case.

Willing to wait — for now

Jerry Talmadge, also of San Antonio, was another U-verse convert.

A medical consultant who works from home, Talmadge says he'd heard about U-verse but didn't pay much attention until an AT&T salesman showed up at his door.

Talmadge says he was impressed by the salesman's manner and product knowledge. "I could sense his integrity," Talmadge says.

He signed up and says it shaved his video and broadband bill by about $24 a month, to $120. For that, he's also getting a fast, reliable Internet connection. Talmadge says his old cable Internet service was starting to slow at "peak" usage hours, and that influenced his move.

When a reporter calls back a few weeks later to see how things are going, there's bad news: An AT&T technician is there trying to fix a TV that keeps overheating. Talmadge says the picture also occasionally "freezes up" for no apparent reason.

He isn't worried. New, slim, silver tuners from Motorola are to be installed by December.

"They told me that right off the bat," he says. Talmadge guesses that will take care of the overheating and the frame-freeze problems.

The good news for AT&T: Thanks to features, price and faith in the brand, he's willing to be patient while the kinks in U-verse are worked out.

Says Talmadge: "I do feel they are going to get this right at some point. And when they do, I think it will be a superior product."

HOW IPTV IS DIFFERENT

Traditional cable TV service

In a typical cable TV system, the subscriber receives all the available channels -- analog and digital -- all the time and uses the TV tuner or cable TV tuner box to select which one to display. The number of channels that can be offered is limited by how many can be stuffed into the cable, or "pipe," into the home. Such a system requires a very large "pipe," generally coaxial or fiber-optic cable.

IPTV

Short for Internet Protocol TV, IPTV is a system that transmits TV content in the form of digital Internet Protocol data packets. It is a "switched" system that delivers just the channels viewers want to watch when they want to watch them. The data traffic to the home is controlled by complex IPTV software. Because it delivers only what is wanted at the time, an IPTV system can offer unlimited choices with no worries about clogging the pipe.

In the case of AT&T's planned system, the efficiencies allow the relatively limited existing copper phone wire into the house to be used to deliver TV.


Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-10-17-att-iptv_x.htm?csp=34

But money was only one part of the value equation. She also likes all the bells and whistles that are part of U-verse, particularly the video recording feature. It requires just one click of the remote's "Record" button to set up and initiate recording a show, and just one more click to record an entire season of the show.

So does Tivo.

Another plus, she says, is the "search" function that lets her hunt for a movie or program by simply typing in an actor's name. "I just love that," she says.

So does Tivo.

One thing she likes a lot: the iconic AT&T name. Like many Americans, Andrews grew up with the brand, and she likes what it represents. She says she'd consider buying any product that had AT&T's name attached. Why? "Because it's AT&T," she says, gently chiding a reporter for even asking. "It's a brand I like, and a name I trust."

:rolleyes: Sounds like the "Because that's the way it's always been done." mentality. Which is probably what AT&T is hoping for.

I'm not knocking a new technology or AT&T, but I want to see real tangible value before it's a consideration.

From tvover.net:

AT&T Anticipates U-Verse HDTV Launch
AT&T reported strong third-quarter earnings today driven by revenue gains and margin expansion in wireless, merger-integration progress, and continued solid execution in wireline operations, including improved trends in business services. The results showed an earnings increase of 74 percent to $2.17 billion. Third-quarter consolidated revenues totaled $15.6 billion, up from a pre-merger $10.3 billion in the third quarter of 2005.

In the report, AT&T projects the first launch of HDTV over the IPTV U-Verse service to be in San Antonio in late November. According to AT&T, the initial results from a HDTV trial in Houston have proved to be positive.

AT&T launched its U-Verse service earlier this year in San Antonio. Since then, AT&T is reporting around 3,000 customers, which is a 10 percent penetration rate for the homes with availability.

AT&T plans to launch the U-Verse service in approximately 15 markets across 13-states by the end of 2006. According to AT&T, all markets would include the capability of HDTV service.

HDTV rolled out in San Antonio! channels are:

Channel Network
1004 WOAI HD
1005 KENS HD
1012 KSAT HD
1029 KABB HD
1102 Discovery HD
1103 TNT HD
1104 Universal HD
1105 HDNET
1106 HDMov
1107 HDNETa
1110 Wealth HD
1111 A&E HD
1113 HGTV HD
1114 Food HD
1115 National Geographic HD
1116 MTV HD
1201 ESPN HD
1202 ESPN2 HD
1203 NFL HD
1348 Fox Sports MW HD
1353 Fox Sports SW HD
1400 HBO HD
1401 HBO West HD
1402 Cinemax HD
1403 Cinemax West HD
1404 Showtime HD
1405 Showtime West HD
1406 TMC HD
1408 Starz HD
1409 Starz West HD

http://www.uverseusers.com/article.php/hd-rollout-begins-in-san-antonio

Quite a lineup, how's the PQ? AT&T apparently has plans to move into Santa Rosa CA next year, which is good news as Comcast has done nothing in over 3 years and only has 5 locals, ESPN and Discovery, and 3 premiums in HD.

Is it true that only one HD channel is viewable at one time?

Quite a lineup, how's the PQ?

On uverseusers.com they posted pictures of someone's TV playing HD content, and I was underwhelmed with the PQ. Time will tell.

When they light up Cleveland, I'll prolly give it a try if I can cancel within the first 3 months and they offer the $15/mo trial deal.

On uverseusers.com they posted pictures of someone's TV playing HD content, and I was underwhelmed with the PQ. Time will tell.

When they light up Cleveland, I'll prolly give it a try if I can cancel within the first 3 months and they offer the $15/mo trial deal.
Yes, I saw that, but it looked to be a handheld camera shot so it really can't be used as a way to judge quality.

Frankly, as I understand the AT&T technology, I'm a bit underwhelmed by it but maybe it will be better in the future, the one HD channel only situation would be a non-starter for me. At the very least, if AT&T coming to town prompts Comcast to get off their ass to upgrade our system then I don't care how well the AT&T tech works. :)

On uverseusers.com they posted pictures of someone's TV playing HD content, and I was underwhelmed with the PQ. Time will tell.

When they light up Cleveland, I'll prolly give it a try if I can cancel within the first 3 months and they offer the $15/mo trial deal.

The admin at Uverseusers and users chiming in on the forum compares both TimeWarner cable and Uverse and says the Uverse is at least as good if not better. Its difficult to tell from the pictures.

Drawback is only 1 HD stream at a time currently so you can't watch one HD channel and record another for example.

Still, ESPN2 HD and NFL Network HD with those restrictions is much better than the none at all I get with Time Warner.

I keep hammering the AT&T website checking to see when its available where I'm at in Houston.

On uverseusers.com they posted pictures of someone's TV playing HD content, and I was underwhelmed with the PQ. Time will tell.

Tough to tell until someone posts a screen capture rather than a digital picture.

Drawback is only 1 HD stream at a time currently so you can't watch one HD channel and record another for example.


With three HD set's and two HD DVR's this is a big show stopper for me wanting to even think about switching from D*.

Same here. I need to be able to record two concurrent HD streams at a MINIMUM. As intriguing as IPTV is to me, I'm not taking a drop in feature/functionality to move.

one HD stream at a time = dead on arrival.

I'll stick with Time Warner.

one HD stream at a time = dead on arrival.


Agreed. 2 HD DVRs and the ability to record up to 4 HD programs at a time is better than a few extra channels at this point. I'm still hopeful that they'll be able to increase the number of HD streams coming into a house at a time. It might be the only way I'll ever see our local FSN in HD.

What is their pricing like?

Especially in bundles with voice and data?

They aren't bundling voice yet; only data. Prices seem reasonable (e.g. 300 channels, hbo/cinemax/showtime/encore/starz, 3 receivers (1 is a networked DVR), 3mbps internet for $119/mo) compared to other offerings, but it's hard to be sure. The only-one DVR thing threw me for a while, but evidently it's networked such that the non-DVR receivers can watch stuff off the DVR.

Which begs the question...how many streams can the DVR record? Right now I can record eight from satellite/OTA; going down to two would be unacceptable.

Looks like HD will cost $10/month, but I don't see a list of channels.

Thing is, I think AT&T is missing the boat on the whole DVR thing. Since IPTV isn't a broadcast technology, then only the stations tuned to are actually being sent to the customer, right? So...why even HAVE DVRs? Why not have massive DVRs at the network edge (or even closer to the center)? I'm sure there are licensing/copyright/whatever issues with creating a giant DVR library, so you partition everything off on a per-customer basis. Customers would still schedule DVR recordings like normal, only they wouldn't be recorded at the customer's house. Save you gobs of bandwidth. There are four people in my house, and at any given time we can' t be watching more than four things. If all of my DVR stuff is happening back at the data center, then I can live with four streams.

Because even if AT&T can push more data via VDSL, and even if they start pair bonding to double that, and even if compression technologies get better (I presume they're already using MPEG4 or the like)...before long I'm going to want 4 to 8 high definition streams. I don't see it happening on this network.

The only thing I can figure is that AT&T wanted to be very aggressive with the rollout for cost recovery reasons and will go after the less-techy consumers first, then use the revenue to finance upgrades to the "last mile" to ultimately bring fibre and/or a much faster copper technology to the home.

Thing is, I think AT&T is missing the boat on the whole DVR thing. Since IPTV isn't a broadcast technology, then only the stations tuned to are actually being sent to the customer, right? So...why even HAVE DVRs? Why not have massive DVRs at the network edge (or even closer to the center)? I'm sure there are licensing/copyright/whatever issues with creating a giant DVR library, so you partition everything off on a per-customer basis. Customers would still schedule DVR recordings like normal, only they wouldn't be recorded at the customer's house. Save you gobs of bandwidth. There are four people in my house, and at any given time we can' t be watching more than four things. If all of my DVR stuff is happening back at the data center, then I can live with four streams.

Cablevision and TimeWarner wanted to do this but backed off once the content providers started to raise hell with them.

They use VC-1 or WMV since Microsoft is providing the whole platform to AT&T.

Picture quality bears monitoring because there have been rumors about them using an aggressively low bitrate. MS claims their codec is 3 times more efficient so does that mean they would use 1/3 the bitrate of 19.2 Mbps?

Yeah the content providers are holding out for more money. Like Comcast is trying to negotiate putting Disney (ABC and ESPN) shows on their In Demand VOD system. HBO and Showtime have been receptive to putting their stuff up so you would think the AT&T offering would have say the last season of the Sopranos up for viewing on demand.

Do they break out the data portion of the bundled price? I would need that for reimbursement.

You know, with IPTV, there's no technical reason they can't have a la carte video programming is there? Like maybe get just the HD channels from them.

WMV isn't a codec, but I take your meaning. I had thought I had read that they were using some variant of MPEG4/H.264, but I'm not certain, and given that it's an MS platform VC-1 would make sense.

If the codec truly is that efficient, then yeah 1/3 the bitrate is what I'd expect.

The bundling shows one price but billing might show the data separate -- I dunno.

As for a la carte, I don't think the roadblocks have ever been technical -- even broadcast-type providers like cable/sat could do it the same way they handle pay channels. It's more of a billing issue (having to account for lots of different configurations) and a cost/programming issue (if CBS forces the carrier to take a bunch of channels they don't want in order to get the local affiliate or Nick or something, you can't then sell Nick a la carte to customers).

I guess it's an OT and a nitpicking, but...

> WMV isn't a codec

Well, it is. There are several versions of Windows Media Video codecs, though. VC-1 was evolved from WMV9, and I know that there is WMV8, at least.

Of course, WMV also refers to an AV file format (which is actually an ASF file with a different file name extension).

Hong.

one HD stream at a time = dead on arrival.

I totally agree with this.

I think Verizon has chosen the better option with their FiOS implementation than this IPTV effort.

IPTV could have made sense when the bandwidth is limited, but for broadcasting, nothing really beats, well, broadcasting.

Hong.

Most (if not all) IPTV installations use multicast streams for all regular (SD and HD) channels. What this means is that each channel is in essence broadcast out from the head end over the core network and onto the distribution network. Also, only channels with at least one viewer at any given time is being multicast.

The only streams that are unicast are those originating from the VOD server(s).

one HD stream at a time = dead on arrival.

I'll stick with Time Warner.

From what I've been reading over the past few months about the service is that San Antonio is the testing ground for what they want to do, so it's constantly being updated. I'd also seen it mentioned that AT&T would start out with only one stream then upgraded to multiple HD streams. If you're in another city, this shouldn't be an issue by the time it rolls out to your area. Why anybody needs more than 3 HD streams is beyond me. :D

If you're in another city, this shouldn't be an issue by the time it rolls out to your area. Why anybody needs more than 3 HD streams is beyond me. :D
That statement doesn't make any more sense than, "Why anybody needs more than 50 channels is beyond me." It's silly and irrelevant. But OK...suppose you want to DVR The Sopranos, Desperate Housewives, and Cold Case while watching NBC Sunday Night Football? Or suppose you have four HDTVs? They're not expensive anymore -- heck I just ordered one for my son for xmas that was under $700, and I saw an RPTV in the paper on Black Friday for under $500.

Doesn't matter. You can get more than three HD streams Right Now from the competition. Meanwhile, AT&T can test all it wants, but unless it finds some magic way to ramp up bandwidth (or some new magic compression), AT&T will hit a wall before long.

Most (if not all) IPTV installations use multicast streams for all regular (SD and HD) channels. What this means is that each channel is in essence broadcast out from the head end over the core network and onto the distribution network. Also, only channels with at least one viewer at any given time is being multicast.

The only streams that are unicast are those originating from the VOD server(s).
I understand that, but the bottleneck isn't core->distribution; it's distribution->customer prem.

From what I've been reading over the past few months about the service is that San Antonio is the testing ground for what they want to do, so it's constantly being updated. I'd also seen it mentioned that AT&T would start out with only one stream then upgraded to multiple HD streams. If you're in another city, this shouldn't be an issue by the time it rolls out to your area. Why anybody needs more than 3 HD streams is beyond me. :D

MAYBE, they'll be able to do two HD streams but after that they're just out of bandwidth using their present connection from the node to the home.

I understand that, but the bottleneck isn't core->distribution; it's distribution->customer prem.
Ok, I guess I don't know what transport they use. We (the company I work for) use Alcatel GPON (2.4Gbps down) with 1x16 optical splitters to the ONT at the customer prem. That gives a worst case bandwidth to each household of 2.4Gbps / 16 = 150Mbps. The Alcatel LET shelves (where we go from active to passive fiber for the distribution to the optical splitters) are feed by 1 or 10GigE links from the core network.

Most (if not all) IPTV installations use multicast streams for all regular (SD and HD) channels. What this means is that each channel is in essence broadcast out from the head end over the core network and onto the distribution network. Also, only channels with at least one viewer at any given time is being multicast.

The only streams that are unicast are those originating from the VOD server(s).

Hmm... Are you sure? AFAIK, one of the benefits of IPTV (not FiOS, it's just treating the fiber as a coax) is less bandwidth usage because it only transmits the stream to the client box that is selected by the client box (I am sure the back-end needs to send everything to somewhere closer to the clients).

I thought that was the main reason that IPTV (or Microsoft's implementation of it) was having such a problem in scaling up (they were sending the initial stream in bursts to reduce the channel changing delays), which has been causing the delay in IPTV deployment (especially in Europe).

AFAIK, the FiOS solution is different from Lightspeed in this way. That is, FiOS TV is not IPTV. It is the same cable TV system, just on a different medium (well, I am sure they use IP protocols for VOD stuff).

Hong.

technical limitations are not the only barrier for wide adoption of AT&T video services. AT&T's brain trusts must have been reading some of the psychographic data about households with HDTV and concluded the majority of these households would not hesitate paying more for a video subscription service.

cable TV in my area includes ABC-CBS-NBC-Fox-PBS in HD for no additional charge unless a subscriber needs to rent an HDTV set-top box. For digital cable subscribers a few more HD networks are included at no additional charge. Above that is the HDTV plus tier for an additional five dollars per month and more HD VOD content is being added at no additional charge for digital cable subscribers.

Yes, FiOS is using RF Overlay, which, as you state, basically just treats the fiber as a regular old coax distribution. Most all ONTs support this backward compatible mode, but its not true IPTV at all.

So let's say household A turns on their STB and picks a channel. A multicast join command is sent out over the network looking for the closest hop (access router like a Cisco 7609) that has this channel active. If nobody else on the whole network is watching the channel, the request goes all the way to the router just behind the headend. A multicast stream is then established for that particular channel.

So now household B down the street from household A requests the same channel and another multicast join command is sent out. It will be picked up by the first access router it finds, and then latch onto the same multicast stream at that point.

So the path for household A all the way back to the headend would be:

Cust Prem ONT -> Optical Splitter -> LET Shelf -> Access Router -> Core Network -> Headend Router -> Headend

The path for household B would be:

Cust Prem ONT -> Optical Splitter -> LET Shelf -> Access Router

TBut OK...suppose you want to DVR The Sopranos, Desperate Housewives, and Cold Case while watching NBC Sunday Night Football?

For some reason, I was under the impression that you wouldn't have a DVR box per se, but rather on the server end there would be storage and you choose what to "Record."

I thought, in your hypo, I could be watch NBC Sunday Night Football while recording the HD versions of all the other shows you just mentioned, but that those would be housed on a server somewhere that I could recall later.

Is this an inaccurate statement about AT&T's service? I don't need to have multiple HD streams if there is a server-end "DVR" like feature storing HD programs that I can retrieve to watch one at a time.

Microsoft offers both local DVR storage as well as VOD services:

http://www.microsoft.com/tv/IPTVEdition.mspx

A very simple network diagram of the Microsoft IPTV solution:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/embedded/getstart/devplat/stb/ipstbview/iptvmarket/default.aspx

AT&T Announces HD, Expanded U-verse Features

By Todd Spangler 11/28/2006 6:23:00 PM

AT&T Tuesday officially announced the availability of HD programming to San Antonio subscribers to its U-verse TV service and detailed other new features including the ability to schedule digital-video-recorder programs via the Web.

The company said it is offering “more than 25 HD channels” in the market, including HD broadcasts of local NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox affiliates, as well as several HD cable networks, including ESPN HD, ESPN2 HD, NFL Network HD, HBO HD, Cinemax HD, Showtime HD, The Movie Channel HD, Starz HD, Discovery HD Theater, TNT HD, Universal HD, HDNet, HDNet Movies, A&E HD, HGTV HD, Food Network HD and National Geographic Channel HD.

All of the HD channels are currently live in San Antonio, which is the only area where U-verse is currently available. A report earlier Monday on U-verse customer-forum site UverseUsers.com said a limited number were initially viewable.

Additional new features AT&T is offering include Web-based access to subscribers' DVRs; the availability of new set-top boxes from Motorola; and the ability to record up to four standard-definition programs at once using a DVR receiver.

AT&T is currently offering a single HD stream. Spokeswoman Jenny Parker said the telco plans to enable a second HD stream in 2007, which will allow subscribers to use two streams of HD programming and still have two standard-definition streams to either watch or record.

New U-verse TV HD customers can receive two months of free HD programming, after which HD service is $10 extra per month.

AT&T continues to say that U-verse services will be available in Houston in late November, and that they will be available in a total of 15 markets by the end of the year. The company hasn’t disclosed which additional cities will be covered in the expanded rollout.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6394749.html?display=Breaking+News

AT&T Launches HDTV
NOVEMBER 29, 2006

AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T - message board) said Tuesday it has begun delivering high-definition (HD) TV services as part of its U-verse IPTV offering. (See AT&T Launches HD.)

AT&T says its San Antonio customers can now buy a package of 25 HD channels for an extra $10 a month. Local rival Time Warner Cable Inc. says it's offering 24 HD channels.

Sources say the rollout of HD has been delayed because of a scarcity of MPEG-4 HD chipsets needed for the U-verse set-top boxes. (See IPTV's High-Def Holdup.)

Now that bottleneck has been cleared: Just last month set-top box makers Cisco Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: CSCO - message board), Motorola Inc. (NYSE: MOT - message board), Royal Philips Electronics NV (NYSE: PHG - message board; Amsterdam: PHI), and Tatung announced the availability of HD-ready products compatible with Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT - message board)'s IPTV middleware, which AT&T is using. (See STB Makers Support MSFT and SBC Awards Microsoft $400M IPTV Deal .)

"We're pleased with the progress we’re seeing from our customers in the field," says Microsoft TV spokesman Jim Brady. "Right now AT&T and [Deutsche Telekom] are offering commercial HD services with the platform. IPTV is a better TV experience that will get increasingly better and more differentiated over time."

AT&T told Light Reading it will replace the Tatung boxes it's been using with new Motorola Inc. (NYSE: MOT - message board) HD-compatible boxes. (See Microsoft Says Middleware Not a Problem.)

Cisco's set-top box business Scientific Atlanta will supply its products as the U-verse service expands into new markets, AT&T says. (See Cisco to Acquire Scientific-Atlanta.)

U-verse video and data bundles start at $74 per month, depending on the channel package and Internet service selected by the customer. (See AT&T Waits on Lightspeed VOIP and Selling Telco TV: You Got $99?.)

A Time Warner Cable customer service rep in San Antonio quoted Light Reading a $90 per-month price for a voice, video, and data bundle that includes HD and on-screen caller ID.

The speed of Time Warner's data offering has a slight edge on AT&T's. The Roadrunner connection in Time Warner's triple-play bundle is 7-Mbit/s downstream, while the fastest of AT&T's three tiers of data service is 6-Mbit/s downstream. The U-verse bundle with 6-Mbit/s downstream costs $119 per month, according to the company's Website.

The Time Warner rep we talked to pointed out that all TVs in the U-verse household rely on the 2Wire Inc. home gateway for their service. "It runs on a little box that controls all the TVs in the house. The downside of that is that if one TV goes out they all go out," the rep says. "With us they work individually."

The rep believes the U-verse service remains unavailable to residents in many San Antonio zip codes.

AT&T says that, as of Tuesday, U-verse is available in more San Antonio neighborhoods, but declined to say how many new zip codes have been added. Nor will it say how many households have already signed up for the service citywide. (See It's a Small U-Verse for AT&T.)

U-verse is available only in San Antonio, but AT&T says the service will launch in up to 20 more markets by the end of this year. Houston -- where AT&T has held a limited HDTV trial -- will be the next market to go live with a commercial service, the carrier says. (See AT&T Set to Expand Its U-verse and Lightspeed Unauthorized.)

Asked if AT&T expects any uptick in service problems and support calls related to the new HD service, spokesman Wes Warnock replied: "Absolutely not. In fact it's just the opposite. The feedback we've gotten from customers -- and I've seen public postings on this -- is that our HD exceeds what our competitors offer."

— Mark Sullivan, Reporter, Light Reading
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=111517&print=true

Ok, I guess I don't know what transport they use. We (the company I work for) use Alcatel GPON (2.4Gbps down) with 1x16 optical splitters to the ONT at the customer prem. That gives a worst case bandwidth to each household of 2.4Gbps / 16 = 150Mbps. The Alcatel LET shelves (where we go from active to passive fiber for the distribution to the optical splitters) are feed by 1 or 10GigE links from the core network.
AT&T isn't doing fibre to the home, except in some new housing developments. AT&T is doing fibre to the node and then copper (VDSL and, eventually, VDSL2) to the home. Nowhere near 150mbps.

For some reason, I was under the impression that you wouldn't have a DVR box per se, but rather on the server end there would be storage and you choose what to "Record."

I thought, in your hypo, I could be watch NBC Sunday Night Football while recording the HD versions of all the other shows you just mentioned, but that those would be housed on a server somewhere that I could recall later.

Is this an inaccurate statement about AT&T's service? I don't need to have multiple HD streams if there is a server-end "DVR" like feature storing HD programs that I can retrieve to watch one at a time.
That's how it ought to be done, but no, that's not how it's being done -- the DVR will live in your house. So yes, you need the bandwidth to stream everything you're recording.

My understanding is that AT&T wanted to do it as a server-based solution but the content providers balked, but I have nothing to back that up other than reasoning.

technical limitations are not the only barrier for wide adoption of AT&T video services. AT&T's brain trusts must have been reading some of the psychographic data about households with HDTV and concluded the majority of these households would not hesitate paying more for a video subscription service.

cable TV in my area includes ABC-CBS-NBC-Fox-PBS in HD for no additional charge unless a subscriber needs to rent an HDTV set-top box. For digital cable subscribers a few more HD networks are included at no additional charge. Above that is the HDTV plus tier for an additional five dollars per month and more HD VOD content is being added at no additional charge for digital cable subscribers.
Yeah I think it really depends on the local market. $10 is certainly competitive with D*, for example. Here you do get the local nets for no charge (assuming you have a box), and while I think the HD tier might be $5, a DVR is another $5 (whereas U-Verse automatically comes with a DVR, I believe). Plus if the current prices on their web site are accurate, the base U-Verse costs are a lot cheaper than Comcast around here.

That said...if they are working to be able to offer 2 HD and 2 SD streams at once...that's laughable. Double that and I might start thinking about it, but 4 total streams? Are you kidding me? This isn't 1988.

Some welcome Technology news:
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6396850.html?display=Breaking+News

Cisco Speeds IPTV Channel-Changing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Todd Spangler 12/4/2006 11:48:00 AMDigg This | add to Del.icio.us |

Cisco Systems introduced an appliance that provides rapid channel-change for Internet-protocol-TV systems and also fixes video-packet-transmission errors.

The vendor’s Visual Quality Experience technology will initially ship as an appliance and will “soon” be integrated into Cisco 7600-series routers, according to Cisco. The company made the announcement Sunday at the ITU Telecom World conference in Hong Kong.

Cisco claimed that VQE technology reduces channel-change times to less than one second by initiating video streams less than 100 milliseconds after a user makes a channel-change request. The product uses various industry standards, including Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP) and Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP).

In addition, VQE can detect and fix video-packet-transmission errors that result from line degradations. In this scenario, a set-top box that detects lost packets requests a retransmission while holding the video sequence in queue. The network then transmits the missing packet, which is resequenced by the set-top box without interruption to the video signal, according to Cisco. The entire error-repair cycle takes less than 100 milliseconds.

"Users who have grown up in the Internet era have a very high expectation of new-generation video services," Mike Volpi, senior vice president of Cisco’s router and service-provider technology group, said in a prepared statement. But, he added, viewers "also expect the basics, such as high picture quality and rapid channel-change."

AT&T: we don't need no stinking fiber to the premises

12/5/2006 12:14:45 PM, by Eric Bangeman

Did AT&T make the right call when it decided to only run fiber to the node instead of to each dwelling? The telecom thinks so. AT&T CFO Richard Lindner defended the company's decision at a conference held by investment bank Credit Suisse First Boston, according to Reuters.

"Our view at this point is that we're not going to have [to run] fiber to the home," Lindner told the conference. "We're pleased with the bandwidth that we're seeing over copper."

Verizon, in contrast, has chosen to go with a more costly strategy of running fiber to the premises with its FiOS service. It costs much more, about $900 to pass a home during deployment, but not every home passed will sign up for FiOS. As a result, analysts estimate that the actual cost per customer acquired is along the lines of $9,650.

AT&T's cost is significantly less. By running fiber to the local node and using the existing copper wiring to cover the distance between node and dwelling, AT&T is able to cut costs. AT&T plans to make its U-Verse service available to 19 million homes by the end of 2008 at a cost of around $5.1 billion, which works out to around $270 per home. Verizon expects to spend approximately $18 billion to reach around 18 million homes.

From a financial standpoint, the numbers add up. But questions remain over the ability of AT&T's U-Verse network to scale with traffic growth. Verizon FiOS subscribers can get speeds of 30Mbps/5Mpbs (for $179.95 per month) and 15Mbps/2Mbps for $44.95; those figures appear to be fairly future-proof. AT&T's U-Verse offering looks downright paltry in comparison, maxing out at 6Mbps down and 1Mbps up; when the copper link between the node and each home is only capable of 25Mbps, that's the best the company can hope to do given current technological limitations.

AT&T's reliance on existing copper infrastructure is the driving force behind its decision to use IPTV for its cable television offering. By treating television as just another type of switched packet traffic, AT&T is able to make the most of that 25Mbps of bandwidth. In contrast, Verizon is using plain old television service for its cable offering, with IPTV reserved for video on demand. Verizon has up to 620Mbps of bandwidth available just for Internet traffic.

In the near term—maybe the next three to five years—AT&T should be fine; not everyone wants or needs 6Mbps Internet. Will AT&T regret its fiber-to-the-node strategy down the line? It might, especially if subscribers are unable to fully take advantage of especially bandwidth-hungry services. Should that be the case, the telecom will be faced with an expensive network upgrade. Perhaps most importantly, the company's Internet offering might prove lacking in the eyes of consumers, especially as the cable industry moves towards the rollout of DOCSIS 3.0 and 100Mbps speeds. In areas with meaningful broadband competition, AT&T may find itself coming in third place—a bad position in a three-horse race.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061205-8356.html

Can anyone confirm AT&T's plan to light up U-verse in Santa Clarita or how the U-verse trial in San Diego went?

AT&T CFO Richard Lindner defended the company's decision at a conference held by investment bank Credit Suisse First Boston, according to Reuters.

"Our view at this point is that we're not going to have [to run] fiber to the home," Lindner told the conference. "We're pleased with the bandwidth that we're seeing over copper."

Just what I'd expect them to say. What's he going to do, come out and say that we're cheap a** SOB's that's why we're taking this route. They might be OK for homes that don't have HDTV's but the bandwidth required for that will be there downfall with the current infrastructure.

Just what I'd expect them to say. What's he going to do, come out and say that we're cheap a** SOB's that's why we're taking this route. They might be OK for homes that don't have HDTV's but the bandwidth required for that will be there downfall with the current infrastructure.

Exactly. I was initially excited about the possibilities when this service was first talked about a year or two ago. Now not so much with two HDTV and two dual-tuner HD DVRs in the house. If they can't provide me with the same or better there's no need to switch, no matter what their channel lineup is.

Frustrated With Time Warner Cable? So Is the City of Santa Clarita

Commentary by Darren Hernandez
"LIVE" From City Hall
Thursday December 7, 2006

In recent weeks, residents throughout Santa Clarita have contacted the city to express frustration with the level of customer service they are receiving from their cable operator, Time Warner Cable. Like the majority of residents in the community, the entire City Council and our staff are equally frustrated by the unacceptable level of service currently being provided by Time Warner.

As the cable television administrator for our community, we would like to take this opportunity both to share information that better explains our role in managing cable service, and to tell you what actions we have taken to open the door for additional, competitive television services.

In August of this year, Time Warner assumed responsibility for all cable services in Santa Clarita. The consolidation of customers who previously contracted with Comcast for their cable service was the result of a corporate transaction in excess of $13 billion approved by various agencies and courts at the federal level.

The consolidation of all cable television services under Time Warner in Santa Clarita occurred without the Santa Clarita City Council's formal approval, and in spite of legal efforts to prevent this action from occurring.

Frustrating as it may sound, the fact is, under current federal law, the city of Santa Clarita does not have any legal ability to dictate what Time Warner charges for its services or how it sets its channel lineup. In fact, as currently written, federal law allows all cable providers to operate in a deregulated manner when it comes to issues not only concerning pricing, programming or channel lineup, but also in the area of Internet services.

The city, within our role as franchise administrator, ensures that the public roadways that cable operators in essence "rent" to store their fiber lines are maintained in a good state of repair.

We also advocate for stronger and more robust public, educational and government programming on SCVTV Channel 20. The city and Time Warner currently partner to produce valuable community programming that includes City Council and Planning Commission meetings, distance learning programming made available by College of the Canyons, and programs of interest such as "Newsmaker of the Week."

The city also has the responsibility of representing the interests of residents in areas of customer service and responsiveness by cable operators to subscribers' needs.

City staff members continue to individually respond to the hundreds of calls and letters received from residents, and serve as facilitators to help residents and Time Warner resolve service issues.

The City Council has and will continue to aggressively hold Time Warner accountable for providing a level of customer service that is consistent with the high level of service provided to residents by the city.

The availability of competitive services is a value for our community. The city advocates that residents benefit when they have multiple service providers available to choose among.

As a result, in July 2006, the City Council executed a Public Benefits Agreement with AT&T which authorizes the company to make competitive television service available to the residents of our community. It is the city's understanding that AT&T will begin offering television services to approximately 60 percent of Santa Clarita (roughly 30,000 homes) in early 2007.

The city appreciates the opportunity to let you know what is happening with regard to cable television and to explain our role as the cable television administrator, while informing residents what steps we have taken to ensure competitive television service.

While we are frustrated with the disappointing service interruptions and inexcusable customer service provided by Time Warner, we will continue to serve as a liaison between residents and Time Warner in an effort to solve service issues and hold Time Warner accountable to the residents of Santa Clarita.

Darren Hernandez is the director of administrative services for the city of Santa Clarita. His column reflects the city's views, and not necessarily those of The Signal.

http://www.the-signal.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=34887&format=html

AT&T races to launch 13 FTTN markets in 3 weeks
By Ed Gubbins

Dec 6, 2006 11:53 AM


AT&T will begin launching more live markets for its Project Lightspeed fiber-to-the-node (FTTN) services next week, the company said today. Though the carrier has so far only launched those services in two cities (San Antonio in June, followed by Houston), it is still striving to use the last three weeks of the year to meet its goal of launching Lightspeed in 15 markets in 2006.

“I think we’ve got a good shot at hitting the 15 market launches by the end of this year,” AT&T’s chief financial officer Rick Lindner said at an investor conference this morning. “But while that’s kind of a nice headline, the important thing is that we look ahead to 2007. Our expectation in 2007 is one where we’re going to move into a launch and a ramping stage of the product.”


AT&T intentionally avoided expanding its service launches sooner so it could include high-definition television service and the necessary set-top boxes, Lindner said. “Those two components are now in place. Would we have liked it to have gone faster and be in the market faster? Yes. We’re not a company that’s tremendously patient with those things. We want to move forward.”

Still, given the complexity involved in AT&T’s mission, which includes the use of new technology, new software, new set-top boxes and new operating systems, he said, “We’re pleased with where we are. It’s been a tremendous development effort.”

Lindner also reaffirmed AT&T’s commitment to FTTN for overbuilds and fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) for new home construction, despite calls from some (even some inside AT&T, it has been reported) for AT&T to use more FTTH. “The average household is less than 3,000 feet from the fiber serving node,” he said. “When we get inside that 3,000-foot limit, we’re producing in many cases 30 Mb/s or significantly more--55 Mb/s, 60 Mb/s per home.”

What’s more, he said, AT&T will be able to start using pair-bonding technology in the second half of next year to increase the amount of bandwidth the carrier can send over copper to homes outside that 3,000-feet range.

“Through pair-bonding, we’ll be able to not quite double but significantly increase the bandwidth on those households,” he said.

link:
http://telephonyonline.com/fttp/news/att_launch_fttn_marktes_120606/

AT&T races to launch 13 FTTN markets in 3 weeks

And those markets are?????

And those markets are?????


We'll that's a secret but I hear the CT launch is likely in the Norwalk area. Take it for what its worth.

And those markets are?????

This article from November http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=109292 speculates which markets are next.

This article from November http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=109292 speculates which markets are next.

1.) encouraging to see other big markets next on the potential roll-out list. Even if it's not quite worth it for me yet, it's nice to have more choices.

2.) that guy's name is really Kermit in that article? huh. :cool:

Just what I'd expect them to say. What's he going to do, come out and say that we're cheap a** SOB's that's why we're taking this route. They might be OK for homes that don't have HDTV's but the bandwidth required for that will be there downfall with the current infrastructure.

Just a follow up on this. Wouldn't a company as big as AT&T have the foresight to look out 5+ years in the future and realize that everyone is going to be wanting multiple HD streams into the home? Either they 1) see the current copper "home run" as a stopgap measure that will work until such time as they need to do another upgrade where they bite the bullet and put fiber in the ground for the last 1/2 mile to each home, or 2) they believe that a solution can be found that will allow them to send Fios like bandwidth, or close to it, over the existing copper such that they can be a competitive force in the 5+ year time frame. After all, technology is evolving pretty rapidly, maybe higher speed over copper is possible? There certainly is a big payoff in cost savings if they can do it.

They must have thought this through. No way the company is going to not plan for the next step beyond the current deployment.

Just a follow up on this. Wouldn't a company as big as AT&T have the foresight to look out 5+ years in the future and realize that everyone is going to be wanting multiple HD streams into the home? Either they 1) see the current copper "home run" as a stopgap measure that will work until such time as they need to do another upgrade where they bite the bullet and put fiber in the ground for the last 1/2 mile to each home, or 2) they believe that a solution can be found that will allow them to send Fios like bandwidth, or close to it, over the existing copper such that they can be a competitive force in the 5+ year time frame. After all, technology is evolving pretty rapidly, maybe higher speed over copper is possible? There certainly is a big payoff in cost savings if they can do it.

They must have thought this through. No way the company is going to not plan for the next step beyond the current deployment.One would hope, but here you have a case of another large telecommunications company (Verizon) who is running fiber right to the home, and a uniform industry analysis of the issues with AT&T's approach.

I believe I've read that AT&T may be using the current approach to accelerate the rollout of video services, and will probably go to FTTH at some point; this is probably just speculation. It does make sense from the perspective that once fiber is in a neighborhood, it could easily be ran the final distance to the home as needed. In a perfect AT&T world, technical developments will overcome the issues.
We shall see.

One would hope, but here you have a case of another large telecommunications company (Verizon) who is running fiber right to the home, and a uniform industry analysis of the issues with AT&T's approach.

I believe I've read that AT&T may be using the current approach to accelerate the rollout of video services, and will probably go to FTTH at some point; this is probably just speculation. It does make sense from the perspective that once fiber is in a neighborhood, it could easily be ran the final distance to the home as needed. In a perfect AT&T world, technical developments will overcome the issues.
We shall see.
This is almost certainly the case -- AT&T is determined to be aggressive with the rollout strategy, and some recent projections I saw suggest that by early next year AT&T will already be available to more homes than FIOS.

With the cash rolling in from that deployment, AT&T could then finance a FTTH upgrade.

If that's not the case...then at best U-Verse will end up being a lower-tier niche product.

...then at best U-Verse will end up being a lower-tier niche product."

Thought that was what Homezone is. :rolleyes:

...then at best U-Verse will end up being a lower-tier niche product."

Thought that was what Homezone is. :rolleyes:
Hah. Yeah, well...you can't stand still in this business. Today's lower-tier niche product is tomorrow's defunct product. You have to have a new lower-tier niche product ready to go.

Will AT&T Seek Satellite Help?
DECEMBER 19, 2006

While AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T - message board) has only 12 days left to launch its U-verse service in 13 new markets, Wall Street is hinting that the carrier may need some satellite TV partners to really bring video to the masses. (See AT&T U-verse Debuts and AT&T Set to Expand Its U-verse.)

"We believe the company's current Lightspeed network of 25 Mbit/s of bandwidth to provide voice, data, and video services will prove to be insufficient," writes UBS AG analyst Jon Hodulik in a note released Monday. "We continue to believe the current Lightspeed network is enough only for data, making a satellite deal more likely."

"AT&T's IPTV rollout has been slower than expected while it has been more vocal about its Homezone product," Hodulik adds. AT&T currently partners with EchoStar Communications Corp. (DISH Network) for the satellite video in its Homezone service, which also features DSL, voice, and home networking features. (See AT&T Hits Homezone.)

AT&T says it's not pushing Homezone as a substitute for U-verse. "We're touting Homezone right now because it's available across our entire broadband footprint, except for Connecticut, while we're just beginning to scale U-verse," responds AT&T spokesman Wes Warnock.

Hodulik suggests the slow rollout out of IPTV has allowed the cable guys to grab an important early lead in the battle for the living room. Cable triple-play services will be available to 81 percent of U.S. homes by the end of 2007, UBS predicts, while a similar telco offering will be available only to about 15 percent of households. (See AT&T Waits on Lightspeed VOIP.)

If AT&T were to offer consumers satellite instead of IPTV as part of U-verse, that would be a dramatic strategy reversal. The carrier and its technology partners have been talking up the unique benefits of a bi-directional IPTV for years. (See AT&T Launches HDTV and IPTV's High-Def Holdup.)

On the other hand, one fear associated with AT&T's fiber-to-the-curb deployments is that the carrier won't be able to get enough bandwidth out of the copper that connects consumer homes to its IP equipment. Today, U-verse's bandwidth allows the service to carry only one channel of HD content at a time to a household. So if two people in different rooms want to watch different HD programs -- forget it. (See AT&T: We're Sticking With FTTN.)

AT&T says there's no bandwidth problem with U-verse. "I'm not going to comment on speculation, but I will say the assumption that we're not pleased with the bandwidth we're seeing with FTTN is flat out wrong," AT&T's Warnock says.

Hodulik, further, says AT&T might even acquire a satellite company in 2007: "We believe that the acquisition of a DBS company would help AT&T improve its competitive positioning by supporting the rollout of a triple- or quad-play (voice, data, wireless, and video), improving retention of its core base while allowing a larger bandwidth for data services."

UBS analyst Aryeh Bourkoff says DirecTV Group Inc. (NYSE: DTV - message board) might be a better acquisition target for AT&T, despite AT&T's existing relationship with EchoStar/DISH Network. "DirecTV offers a premium brand, stronger footprint, and features a greater subscriber overlap for DirecTV/BellSouth vs. DISH/AT&T," Bourkoff writes in a note to clients.

"We believe that DTV shareholders could be more willing sellers versus DISH CEO [Charles] Ergen, who controls 73 percent of the vote," he adds.

— Mark Sullivan, Reporter, Light Reading
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=113193&print=true

(excerpt) UBS analyst Aryeh Bourkoff is thinking ahead to AT&T’s next deal. In a report issued late yesterday, Bourkoff asserts that AT&T could back away from its Lightspeed IPTV project and switch its focus to a satellite strategy for delivering television programming to its customers. As Bourkoff notes, the company’s HomeZone service does exactly that, reselling satellite service from EchoStar (DISH). But he thinks AT&T may be better off owning one of the satellite TV companies outright - and he says the logical target is not EchoStar, but instead DirecTV (DTV).

For one thing, he notes that Bellsouth resells DirecTV’s service, and in fact has more satellite customers than AT&T does. He also thinks News Corp.’s (NWS) reported sale of its 39% stake in DirecTV to Liberty Capital (LCAPA) makes the company a much more likely seller than EchoStar, which is 73% controlled by COE Charlie Ergun. Moreover, he contends that DirecTV has a better brand. And he says that 55% of the satellite customers in AT&T’s footprint use DirecTV; the figure is 59% for BellSouth.

Bourkoff notes that AT&T’s rollout of its Lightspeed service has been slower than expected; they have several thousands customers in San Antonio, and just launched in Houston; so far, that’s it, despite the company’s statement that it will be in 15 markets by year-end. Meanwhile, he notes that by the end of 2007, 81% of homes will have cable triple play access, versus only 15% for telecos, who come up short on video. Buying a satellite broadcaster could improve retention of core customers and allow more bandwidth for data, Bourkoff asserts.

http://telecom.seekingalpha.com/article/22687

Today may be the day that the FCC makes the critical vote on Franchise Reform:

http://news.com.com/FCC+vote+could+speed+up+telco+TV/2100-1037_3-6144945.html

From letting Local Officials drag out Franchise negotiations for an average of 18 months to forcing them to decide within 90 days.

* Also posted in the Verizon Thread.

AT&T adds 27 HD channels to TV lineup

12/19/2006 11:09:45 AM, by Eric Bangeman

AT&T is about to raise the HD ante (http://users1.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkLogin?mg=wsj-users1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB11665010542615 4228.html%3Fmod%3Drss_whats_news_technology) with the addition of 27 HD channels to its U-Verse TV service. It's a significant milestone, given that the telecom had previously offered only standard-definition programming. The new HD lineup, which includes high-definition versions of ESPN, HBO, Showtime, and the Discovery Channel, among others, will become one of the most extensive in the cable and satellite TV industry.

IPTV is the key to AT&T's HD plans. The protocol treats video traffic as IP packets and sends only a couple of channels at a time instead of simultaneously streaming all channels over the cable or satellite linkup. It also makes the most out of the limited bandwidth inherent to AT&T's fiber-to-the-node network (For a detailed overview of how IPTV works, check out "An introduction to IPTV.")

AT&T has only recently flipped the switch on the U-Verse service in parts of Houston and San Antonio, and there are still some technical limitations. For instance, the reliance on copper wiring to bridge the gap between the node and the home means that only one TV in the house is capable of watching HD programming at a time. The company says that technical limitation will be overcome in the next year.

Both cable companies and telecoms are vying to become triple-play providers. Comcast and other cable providers are currently capable of offering a package of voice, video, and data, while until recently, the only way the telecoms could offer a comparable package was with by partnering with a video provider such as DISH Network or DirecTV.

Among the telecoms, Verizon's FiOS service has gotten off to a stronger start. Although more costly, Verizon's decision to run fiber to every home leaves it with an order of magnitude more bandwidth available to each home than AT&T has. Verizon is also holding off on IPTV, choosing to offer video via tried-and-true cable technology. It also avoids the kind of problems that often crop up with newer technologies, problems that have some early adopters of U-Verse considering a return to cable.

AT&T claims that they have the quality kinks worked out, and being able to offer more HD programming than most of its competitors will make its IPTV offering more attractive to consumers who have been bitten by the HD bug. Unfortunately, both consumers and AT&T face some other significant barriers as the company continues deploying U-Verse.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061219-8450.html

I have three HD sets, two of which have dual tuner DVR's attached. AT&T's plan does not have enough bandwidth to handle that many streams, even with bonding they're not going to cut it.

Uverse Available in San Fan Bay AreaPress Release Source: AT&T


AT&T Introduces U-verse in Bay Area
Thursday December 21, 10:18 am ET
High Definition Programming and Other Compelling Features Make AT&T U-verse TV the Most Advanced Video Offering in the Market
Through March 31, New Customers May Receive Two Months of Free TV with 60-Day Money Back Guarantee


SAN RAMON, Calif., Dec. 21 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- A new world of communications and entertainment is now available to Bay Area residents. AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T - News) today announced the initial launch of AT&T U-verse(SM), which utilizes AT&T's fiber-rich network that extends optical connections deeper into neighborhoods. U-verse services are initially available in limited areas across the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont metropolitan statistical area (MSA), including parts of the cities of San Ramon and Danville. AT&T plans to expand to additional areas on an ongoing basis.
AT&T U-verse offers customers a combination of next-generation digital television-including more than 25 High Definition (HD) channels-and high speed Internet access. The award-winning AT&T U-verse TV includes cutting-edge features that are unmatched in the market, while the new U-verse enabled AT&T Yahoo!® High Speed Internet builds on AT&T's position as the nation's leading provider of broadband DSL.

"AT&T U-verse gives Bay Area customers a better television option and will change the way they experience communications and entertainment," said Melba Muscarolas, AT&T vice president and general manager for the San Francisco Market Area. "It's fitting Bay Area residents, known around the world as early adopters of new technology, are among the first to receive our innovative U- verse services."


Beginning today, AT&T U-verse TV will offer Bay Area residents:

* A compelling variety of TV packages with more than 300 channels,
including digital music, local, and premium movie and sports
programming.

* HD technology that produces images more than twice as detailed as
standard analog TV delivering rich, realistic video and multi-channel,
movie theater quality sound. AT&T U-verse offers customers access to a
growing lineup of more than 25 HD channels, more than the local cable
providers. New HD customers can receive two months of free HD service
($10 per month thereafter).

* Web remote access to digital video recorder (DVR), which allows
customers to schedule recordings using their AT&T Yahoo!® Internet
account. This feature is unique to AT&T among local providers.

* The ability to record up to four programs at once using a DVR receiver,
another exclusive feature unmatched in the marketplace.

* Built-in picture-in-picture functionality that allows subscribers to
"channel surf" on any television without leaving the program they're
watching.

* Specially designed set top boxes, manufactured by Motorola, all of
which are HD-capable and include universal remote controls that provide
backlit buttons and one-touch access to video-on-demand, DVR, and other
services.

* A premium Spanish-language package featuring novelas, movies, news,
sports, children's programming, talk shows and more. New customers can
receive the package at no charge for the first two months ($10 per
month thereafter).

* A growing video-on-demand library with one-touch access to movies and
events.

* Fast channel-changing, eliminating the delay experienced with other
digital broadcast services.

* The ability to search for programs using title or actor's name.

* Three TV receivers - one with a DVR, which allows customers to pause,
rewind, replay and record live TV - at no extra charge with most
programming packages. (Customers may add more receivers for $5 each per
month.)

AT&T plans to continue adding more channels and interactive applications in the future.

Customers can choose from five TV and three Internet packages to customize their entertainment experience. In addition to the popular U300 and U400 packages, AT&T also offers U-family, a market-leading family-friendly programming option. Current AT&T U-verse TV offers start as low as $44 per month, depending on the selected programming and Internet packages (other monthly charges apply).

Now through March 31, qualified new customers can join AT&T U-verse and receive free TV service, including HBO® and Cinemax®, for the first two months when they choose the U300 or U400 programming package (other monthly charges apply). Thereafter, customers will continue to receive recurring monthly discounts when they subscribe to a bundle of TV and Internet service. In addition, AT&T will offer new customers a 60-day money-back guarantee.

Three packages of AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet U-verse Enabled will be made available to AT&T U-verse customers:


* Elite: Downstream up to 6.0 Mbps, upstream up to 1.0 Mbps.
* Pro: Downstream up to 3.0 Mbps, upstream up to 1.0 Mbps.
* Express: Downstream up to 1.5 Mbps, upstream up to 1.0 Mbps.

All high speed Internet packages offered as part of AT&T U-verse include wireless home-networking at no charge, giving users the freedom to access online photos, streaming video, games and other information using a wireless- enabled laptop or other device. Subscribers also receive virtually unlimited e-mail storage and powerful anti-virus and anti-spam software.

The deployment of next-generation video services reflects AT&T's strategy to become customers' preferred communications and entertainment provider and to deliver a video solution through its traditional footprint that provides greater value, flexibility and simplicity than competitors' offerings. AT&T U- verse TV represents a critical new service in the company's video portfolio, which today includes AT&T | DISH Network and AT&T Homezone(SM) service, which integrates AT&T | DISH Network and AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet. AT&T U- verse TV also underscores the company's strategy to deliver integrated services to the three screens many consumers say are most valued today: the PC, the TV, and the wireless phone.

AT&T now expects to launch AT&T U-verse in eleven markets by the end of the year, with plans to launch in additional markets in early 2007.

Customers seeking additional information on AT&T U-verse - or to find out if it's available in their area - can visit uverse.att.com. The site will be regularly updated over the coming weeks as AT&T expands to additional areas. Additionally, AT&T will soon begin direct marketing in the areas where the service is initially available.

Uverse Available in San Jose Area

Press Release Source: AT&T Inc.


AT&T Introduces U-verse in San Jose Area
Thursday December 21, 10:08 am ET
High Definition Programming and Other Compelling Features Make AT&T U-verse TV the Most Advanced Video Offering in the Market
Through March 31, New Customers May Receive Two Months of Free TV with 60-Day Money Back Guarantee


SAN RAMON, Calif., Dec. 21 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- A new world of communications and entertainment is now available to Bay Area residents. AT&T Inc. today announced the initial launch of AT&T U-verse(SM), which utilizes AT&T's fiber-rich network that extends optical connections deeper into neighborhoods. U-verse services are initially available in limited areas across the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara metropolitan statistical area (MSA), including parts of the cities of Cupertino and Saratoga. AT&T plans to expand to additional areas on an ongoing basis.
AT&T U-verse offers customers a combination of next-generation digital television -- including more than 25 High Definition (HD) channels -- and high speed Internet access. The award-winning AT&T U-verse TV includes cutting-edge features that are unmatched in the market, while the new U-verse enabled AT&T Yahoo!® High Speed Internet builds on AT&T's position as the nation's leading provider of broadband DSL.

"AT&T U-verse gives Bay Area customers a better television option and will change the way they experience communications and entertainment," said Melba Muscarolas, AT&T vice president and general manager for the San Francisco Market Area. "It's fitting Bay Area residents, known around the world as early adopters of new technology, are among the first to receive our innovative U- verse services."


Beginning today, AT&T U-verse TV will offer Bay Area residents:

-- A compelling variety of TV packages with more than 300 channels,
including digital music, local, and premium movie and sports
programming.
-- HD technology that produces images more than twice as detailed as
standard analog TV delivering rich, realistic video and multi-channel,
movie theater quality sound. AT&T U-verse offers customers access to a
growing lineup of more than 25 HD channels, more than the local cable
provider. New HD customers can receive two months of free HD service
($10 per month thereafter).
-- Web remote access to digital video recorder (DVR), which allows
customers to schedule recordings using their AT&T Yahoo!® Internet
account. This feature is unique to AT&T among local providers.
-- The ability to record up to four programs at once using a DVR receiver,
another exclusive feature unmatched in the marketplace.
-- Built-in picture-in-picture functionality that allows subscribers to
"channel surf" on any television without leaving the program they're
watching.
-- Specially designed set top boxes, manufactured by Motorola, all of
which are HD-capable and include universal remote controls that provide

backlit buttons and one-touch access to video-on-demand, DVR, and other
services.
-- A premium Spanish-language package featuring novelas, movies, news,
sports, children's programming, talk shows and more. New customers can
receive the package at no charge for the first two months ($10 per
month thereafter).
-- A growing video-on-demand library with one-touch access to movies and
events.
-- Fast channel-changing, eliminating the delay experienced with other
digital broadcast services.
-- The ability to search for programs using title or actor's name.
-- Three TV receivers - one with a DVR, which allows customers to pause,
rewind, replay and record live TV - at no extra charge with most
programming packages. (Customers may add more receivers for $5 each per
month.)


AT&T plans to continue adding more channels and interactive applications in the future.

Customers can choose from five TV and three Internet packages to customize their entertainment experience. In addition to the popular U300 and U400 packages, AT&T also offers U-family, a market-leading family-friendly programming option. Current AT&T U-verse TV offers start as low as $44 per month, depending on the selected programming and Internet packages (other monthly charges apply).

Now through March 31, qualified new customers can join AT&T U-verse and receive free TV service, including HBO® and Cinemax®, for the first two months when they choose the U300 or U400 programming package (other monthly charges apply). Thereafter, customers will continue to receive recurring monthly discounts when they subscribe to a bundle of TV and Internet service. In addition, AT&T will offer new customers a 60-day money-back guarantee.

Three packages of AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet U-verse Enabled will be made available to AT&T U-verse customers:


-- Elite: Downstream up to 6.0 Mbps, upstream up to 1.0 Mbps.
-- Pro: Downstream up to 3.0 Mbps, upstream up to 1.0 Mbps.
-- Express: Downstream up to 1.5 Mbps, upstream up to 1.0 Mbps.

All high speed Internet packages offered as part of AT&T U-verse include wireless home-networking at no charge, giving users the freedom to access online photos, streaming video, games and other information using a wireless- enabled laptop or other device. Subscribers also receive virtually unlimited e-mail storage and powerful anti-virus and anti-spam software.

The deployment of next-generation video services reflects AT&T's strategy to become customers' preferred communications and entertainment provider and to deliver a video solution through its traditional footprint that provides greater value, flexibility and simplicity than competitors' offerings. AT&T U- verse TV represents a critical new service in the company's video portfolio, which today includes AT&T . DISH Network and AT&T Homezone(SM) service, which integrates AT&T . DISH Network and AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet. AT&T U- verse TV also underscores the company's strategy to deliver integrated services to the three screens many consumers say are most valued today: the PC, the TV, and the wireless phone.

Customers seeking additional information on AT&T U-verse -- or to find out if it's available in their area -- can visit uverse.att.com. The site will be regularly updated over the coming weeks as AT&T expands to additional areas. Additionally, AT&T will soon begin direct marketing in the areas where the service is initially available.

FCC backs telephone companies in TV fight
The agency makes it easier for AT&T and Verizon to compete against cable firms.
By James S. Granelli
Times Staff Writer

December 21, 2006

Federal regulators Wednesday handed a victory to the nation's two biggest phone companies by barring local governments from imposing unreasonable conditions on new pay- television providers.

The 3-2 vote by the Federal Communications Commission makes it easier for AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. to roll out TV programming to compete against cable companies.

AT&T and Verizon have long complained that cities and other municipalities make them jump through unnecessary hoops before they are allowed to sell television service.

Critics of the FCC's decision argue that local officials understand their communities and are in the best position to know what conditions are appropriate to protect their constituents.

Analysts predicted that the rules would be challenged in court.

The decision doesn't override recently passed statutes in California, Texas and seven other states that have removed the authority of cities and counties to issue video franchises. But it does streamline the rules for new pay-TV providers.

For instance, local governments won't be able to take more than 90 days to act on requests or require networks to be completed before service can be offered.

"It is critical to make sure we're doing all we can to bring competition to the marketplace," FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin said.

The phone carriers hailed the decision, which did not free cable companies from their existing obligations.

"Today's action will fast-forward the delivery of new choices, lower prices and better services to consumers," said Susanne Guyer, Verizon's senior vice president for regulatory affairs.

Robert J. Quinn, Guyer's counterpart at AT&T, said video competition and broadband deployment shouldn't be "held hostage" to old rules designed for a time when cable TV had a monopoly.

But the action drew sharp rebukes from the two dissenting Democrats on the commission, Michael J. Copps and Jonathan S. Adelstein, as well as from the cable TV industry and local governments. Copps and Adelstein, who questioned the legal authority for the agency's action, said customers needed more choices for video and broadband service.

"But agreeing on the many benefits of video competition is hardly the same thing as coming up with rules that will actually encourage honest-to-goodness competition," Copps said.

The cable industry drew hope from what it saw as an FCC warning that the order "isn't a license for AT&T to ignore the franchising process and operate under different rules from its competitors," said Kyle McSlarrow, president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. trade group.

Nevertheless, he said, the decision doesn't provide a level playing field on which cable and phone companies can compete.

Don Borut, executive director of the National League of Cities, said he was "confounded" by the FCC's action because it wasn't in the best interest of consumers.

The franchising vote came after the FCC received a staff report on soaring price increases for cable TV service. Adelstein said the findings showed that cable companies were using unilateral market power to set unreasonable prices, which have risen 93% in a decade.

Satellite TV service has not been effective in forcing the cable industry to reduce prices, the report found. But in the few areas of the country where phone and small cable companies compete, the staff found that monthly prices were cut by 17%.

Martin, the chairman, cited situations in which cities and counties took more than two years to act on applications and imposed conditions that bore no relation to providing TV service.

Those conditions, he said, included requiring phone companies to provide cameras to film a holiday visit from Santa Claus and to film a math tutoring program, build a recreation center and pool, and pay fees upfront and above the 5% levy on revenue allowed by law.

Copps and Adelstein said such stories were out of context, considering all other applications for video franchises. The local franchising system wasn't broken beyond repair, they argued.

Any ideas on the U-Verse pricing in the Bay Area? Guess they're not rolling out to the South BAy yet.

Is the data part of it still the SBC-Yahoo branded thing? Will they lay out new copper from the node or just use existing copper? What do they offer in the way of USENET support?

City sues AT&T over Internet TV offering
The Business Journal of Milwaukee - 11:04 AM CST Thursday
by Rachel McCormick-Jennings

The city of Milwaukee filed a federal lawsuit against AT&T Wisconsin that seeks to require the company to pay franchise fees for its new Internet television called U-Verse TV.

If a judge rules in favor of the city, AT&T would could be forced to obtain a cable franchise from the city before it could provide its television service within the city. The city is also seeking an injunction preventing AT&T from installing anymore underground fiber and from providing any customer in Milwaukee with the U-Verse service, which is not currently running. Attorney and court fees are also being sought.

AT&T spokesman Jeff Bentoff said AT&T will not obtain a cable franchise from the city because its service isn't cable operated.

"We're not a cable operator and this is not a cable service. Under the law, we're not subject to those requirements," Bentoff said.

According to the Federal Cable Act, the city grants franchises to cable television operators authorizing construction, operations and repair of cable television systems.

AT&T has agreed to pay the city 5 percent of its revenue from U-Verse but doesn't know how much money it will amount to because they have no customers yet, Bentoff said.

" We have told the city that we're willing to voluntarily provide it with the same percentage of gross revenue from U-Verse as cable does," Bentoff said. "We've also agreed to transmit public channels over our system, the same channels cable transmit now."

AT&T's commitments to the city were made prior to the lawsuit being filed, Bentoff said.

AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T), of San Antonio, is facing similar lawsuits from municipalities across its 13-state coverage area. At least one state regulatory agency, the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control, ruled earlier this year that Internet video was not subject to cable franchising requirements. That decision has been challenged in court by consumer groups and a cable industry association.

Calls to Grant Langley, Milwaukee's city attorney, were not returned for comment.

Time Warner Cable understands that it will be competing with AT&T soon for video customers but believes all video providers should be playing on an even field, said Bev Greenberg, a spokeswoman for Time Warner Cable.

In 2007, Time Warner will pay the city close to $4 million in franchise fees, Greenberg said.

"The city has sued to enforce the laws which provide important protections to Milwaukee residents, ensure a level playing field to competitors and promote competition," Greenberg said in an e-mail.

Bentoff declined to disclose when U-Verse would launch in Milwaukee. AT&T is spending $4.6 billion on the service's build-out across 13 states. The build-out covers more than 19 million households, Bentoff said.

http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2006/12/18/daily38.html?t=printable

AT&T U-verse TV Hits Northern Calif.
By Todd Spangler 12/21/2006 12:30:00 PM

Launching into Northern California, AT&T announced Thursday that its U-verse TV service is now available in limited areas of Silicon Valley and San Francisco.

The service, which offers about 25 HD channels, is available in certain neighborhoods in the cities of San Jose, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Cupertino and Saratoga. Further north, U-verse TV services will be available in limited areas across the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont metropolitan statistical area, including parts of the cities of San Ramon and Danville

"AT&T U-verse gives Bay-area customers a better television option and will change the way they experience communications and entertainment," Melba Muscarolas, AT&T vice president and general manager for the San Francisco market area, said in a prepared statement.

U-verse TV has only been available in two Texas markets. AT&T initially launched the service in San Antonio in June and began offering it in limited areas of Houston last month. The company said in October that it expects to start selling U-verse TV in a total of 15 markets by year-end.

AT&T also announced a promotion running through March 31 that offers new customers free U-verse TV subscriptions, including HBO and Cinemax, for the first two months when they choose the U300 or U400 programming package.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6402030

Any ideas on the U-Verse pricing in the Bay Area? Guess they're not rolling out to the South BAy yet.

Is the data part of it still the SBC-Yahoo branded thing? Will they lay out new copper from the node or just use existing copper? What do they offer in the way of USENET support?

https://uverse1.att.com/launchAMSS.do

They are going to use existing copper. If they were to replace it, they would probably place fiber. A lot of the Bay Area, especially areas that are less than 30 years old have buried cable, no conduits involved, a very expensive replacement.

UPDATED: Web Posted: 12/21/2006 03:03 PM CST
Sanford Nowlin
Express-News Business Writer

San Antonio-based AT&T Inc. has for the second time scaled back early rollout plans for U-verse, the video service it’s offering to compete with cable companies.

The phone giant, which once said it expected to introduce U-verse in 15 to 20 U.S. markets by year-end, today said it will reach just 11. In October, officials said the company would reach 15 in that time frame.

The company — which today announced it’s offering U-verse in San Jose and California’s Bay Area — said it’s slowing the expansion to tweak the technology it uses to deliver video signals over its Internet lines. It’s sticking with earlier projections that it will reach 19 million homes by the end of 2008.

“We’re continuing to fine-tune the software and the systems based on the markets where we’ve had rollouts,” spokesman Marty Richter said. “We want to provide the best customer experience we can. We’ll be announcing additional markets in early 2007.”

AT&T made U-verse available in San Antonio in June and in Houston in late November. The launches in San Jose and the Bay Area brings the total number of markets to four.

Le Keough, a Frost Bank telecom analyst in Austin, said he’s not alarmed by the company’s decision to slow the initial stages of its expansion — as long as it doesn’t reverse course over the long term.

“They can afford to wait, but they can’t afford to fail in one of their launches due to a technical glitch,” Keough said. “The pace of the rollout may have slowed, but we’re not seeing them turn in the other direction.”

snowlin@express-news.net
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA122106.uverse.en.2fd77f26.html

OK, I was going to try pricing packages because Mercury said it should be available in Saratoga and Cupertino but the AT&T site says it's not available (given my phone number).

The site lists various packages but you can't select them to customize. The U100 starts at $59 and presumably, you can choose higher data speed packages along with adding HD channels. But it doesn't let you customize those bundles/packages yet.

dslreports.com have few customer reviews or reports of speeds on the U-Verse forums. Just people discussing things like HTTN vs. HTTP.

Threads merged.

AT&T battles cable, satellite TV services
New bundle uses telephone lines for video, voice, Net
Comparing AT&T and Comcast TV service
- Ellen Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, December 22, 2006

AT&T launched a new television subscription service in select Bay Area cities Thursday, as it faces off against cable and satellite carriers and ushers in a new era of competition.

Called U-verse, AT&T's new television service is available in San Ramon, Danville, Cupertino and Saratoga, with plans for the rest of the Bay Area over the next two years.

Like AT&T's high-speed Internet service, U-verse uses telephone lines to send more than 300 television channels into the home. It represents a formidable threat to the cable television business since both can now sell discounted bundled packages, wrapping telephone, Internet and television services in one bill.

"There's a lot of pent-up demand for it," said Robert Serrano, an analyst at JupiterKagan Inc. "A lot of people just want to have that choice of competition."

AT&T's entrance into the Bay Area television market comes as the entertainment industry is undergoing a dramatic shift, with more and more consumers tuning in to the Web and watching video clips on YouTube, "Ugly Betty" on ABC.com or movie downloads from iTunes.

AT&T is spending $1 billion to upgrade its network in California so that it is fast enough for its services.

But the deployment has been delayed as AT&T, which teamed up with Microsoft Corp., Alcatel and Motorola, faced technical problems and local, state and national regulatory roadblocks. Key wins in California and the Federal Communications Commission are expected to lower those hurdles.

The East Bay and South Bay mark the third and fourth markets for AT&T's rollout. Already in San Antonio and Houston, with about 3,000 subscribers, AT&T plans to launch the service in 11 more markets before the year ends.

It expects to make it available to 19 million homes in the next two years.

"We're building as fast as we can," said Melba Muscarolas, vice president and general manager of AT&T's San Francisco Bay Area market. "We're eager to provide consumers with choice."

U-verse is comparable to Comcast's cable service, offering more than 300 channels from HBO to Disney and such features as video-on-demand and picture-in-picture. The price ranges from $44 per month for about 100 channels to $99 for 300 channels.

It also lets customers use the Web to program recordings remotely, something that Comcast doesn't now offer.

The package also includes three Motorola set-top boxes, one with a digital video recorder that can record up to four programs at once.

Because of the system's limitations, however, consumers can only watch one high-definition program at a time; AT&T said it expects consumers to be able to watch two high-definition programs simultaneously on their television sets next year. HD channels cost $10 more a month.

Even as AT&T moves into TV, Comcast is making inroads into AT&T's telephone market. It offers a special, one-year $99 package for telephone, television and Internet services.

AT&T's package costs $109 for similar services, known as the "triple play" in the telecom business.

Comcast said Thursday that AT&T will have to spend years and billions of dollars to catch up to the network it's already built.

"We don't see anything in their playbook that we can't meet or exceed," said Comcast spokesman Andrew Johnson. "We welcome them into the arena."

Though the cable industry has shrunk as consumers moved to satellite, it remains the dominant source for television service. Cable carriers made an estimated $68.2 billion in revenue this year from 67.4 million U.S. subscribers, according to JupiterKagan.

The satellite carriers made $22.7 billion from 29 million subscribers. AT&T is partnering with EchoStar to offer a package of satellite television, Internet and telephone services.

IPTV, or television service through telephone lines such as AT&T's U-verse, however, is only expected to reach 8 million subscribers and $4 billion in revenue by 2010, according to the Multimedia Research Group.

"They have a long way to go before they make a dent into Comcast," said Bob Larribeau, a San Francisco analyst with the Multimedia Research Group.

AT&T is also introducing three tiers of high-speed Internet access: $19.95 for speeds of up to 1.5 Mbps, $24.99 for speeds of up to 3.0 Mbps and $34.99 for speeds of up to 6.0 Mbps.

Comparing AT&T and Comcast TV service

Comcast

350 channels

25 HD channels

7,500 video-on-demand titles

$45 to $105 per month for television service only

$99 for unlimited local and long distance telephone, 100 television channels, 6 Mbps Internet access for 1 year, $129 thereafter

$5 per month for HD channels

Not available

AT&T

300 channels

25 HD channels

Declined to state, except to say "hundreds of hours" with more on the way

$44 to $99 per month for television service only

$109 for unlimited local and long distance telephone, 100 television channels, 6 Mbps Internet access, with a $15 monthly discount for bundling three services

$10 per month for HD channels

Remote access via Internet to digital video recorder

For more information: uverse.att.com

E-mail Ellen Lee at elee@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/12/22/MNGI6N4GNA1.DTL

Threads merged.
When you merged the threads, the subscribed links were broken for those of us who were subscribed to the original thread.

I'll be charging you 10 mins for time spent hunting for the new thread. :D

AT&T battles cable, satellite TV services
New bundle uses telephone lines for video, voice, Net
Comparing AT&T and Comcast TV service
- Ellen Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, December 22, 2006

AT&T launched a new television subscription service in select Bay Area cities Thursday, as it faces off against cable and satellite carriers and ushers in a new era of competition.



Comparing AT&T and Comcast TV service

Comcast

350 channels

25 HD channels

7,500 video-on-demand titles

$45 to $105 per month for television service only

$99 for unlimited local and long distance telephone, 100 television channels, 6 Mbps Internet access for 1 year, $129 thereafter

$5 per month for HD channels

Not available


This comparison is being quite favorable to Comcast as there is no city in the SF bay area that I'm aware of that has 25 HD channels from Comcast, the number is closer to 18-20 max, and that not with every system either.

This comparison is being quite favorable to Comcast as there is no city in the SF bay area that I'm aware of that has 25 HD channels from Comcast, the number is closer to 18-20 max, and that not with every system either.

Could be a typo.

Could be, but the numbers probably come from Comcast so they might be "stretching the truth" just a bit to gain some parity with the AT&T offering.

Plus, at $22 per premium channel under Comcast, I don't know ANYONE who has ALL of the available HD channels. Comcast doubles the price of premium channels over every other cable company I've dealt with.

Plus, at $22 per premium channel under Comcast, I don't know ANYONE who has ALL of the available HD channels. Comcast doubles the price of premium channels over every other cable company I've dealt with.

I have all of the available HD channels including HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, and Starz. You do get a break from $22 a premium when you order them all. I have the Platinum package.

12/10 -1/9 Digital Platinum Package 56.95
Includes: Digital Classic, Digital Plus,
HBO, HBO Plex, Cinemax, Cinemax
Plex, Showtime, Showtime Plex, TMC,
TMC Plex, STARZ, Starz Plex, Encore,
Encore Plex, Music Choice, Digital
Converter and Remote, if Applicable.

12/10 -1/9 Standard Cable 48.25
Includes: Limited Basic and Expanded Basic Service

12/10 -1/9 DVR Service With HDTV 9.95
12/10 -1/9 Digital Sports Tier 4.95
12/10 -1/9 Digital Addl Outlet 6.95
Includes: Digital Converter and Remote, if Applicable.

Cable Television
Franchise Fee 7.84
FCC Regulatory Fee 0.06
State and Local Sales Tax 0.23

Franchising Authority: City Of Rohnert Park, Asst. To The City Manager, 6750 Commerce Blvd., Rohnert Park, CA 94927. FCC Unit # Ca0318.

AT&T Expanding TV Service to Seven More Markets

AT&T plans to announce later this week that it is kicking off its telco TV service in seven markets, giving it a total of 11 markets by Jan. 1.

That's down from the 15 it initially promised by that date, but the company needed the delays to ensure that all the kinks were worked out, writes MediaPost. The expansion will continue next year, an AT&T representative said, and hopes to reach 19 million homes by the end of 2008 (competitor Verizon says its similar service, FiOS TV, will reach 18 million homes by 2010).

AT&T's service, called U-verse, is currently offered in parts of San Antonio, Houston, San Francisco, and San Jose.

Services such as U-verse could offer advantages over large cable operators in that the bandwidth capability is higher, allowing them to potentially offer more channels, according to the article. The speed of U-verse's rollout is significant to advertisers, as it offers a third option to running spots on local cable channels. AT&T may lower prices, too, in order to undercut cable and satellite operators and jump-start interest.

http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com/2006/12/26/att-expanding-tv-service-to-seven-more-markets/

Verizon Leading AT&T on IPTV…for now

The triple-play derby is normally viewed as a contest between the cable providers and the phone companies. Cable companies have been busy stealing the phone company customers with cheap voice plans, and seem to have an early lead against their archrivals.

As 2006 comes to an end, it is time to take a look at the performance of two major phone companies - Verizon and AT&T - and the progress they have made in their IPTV/New Broadband business. To our surprise, despite Verizon’s dig-to-add-fiber strategy, it is doing much better than the new new Ma Bell.

John “CZ” Czwartacki over on Verizon’s PoliBlog lists some of the big achievements of Verizon FiOS efforts in 2006, in a fairly elaborate document. And despite our constant skepticism, they have made some solid progress, though Wall Street tends to be as much of a Grinch as us.

While CZ doesn’t update the number of FiOS TV subscribers (118,000 at the end of third quarter 2006) or the number of fiber broadband subscribers (522,000 at the end of third quarter 2006), he does point out that as of late December 2006, Verizon had 274 local video franchises. (That’s before Kevin Martin, the FCC commish, gave the phone companies an early Christmas present and helped get rid of the franchise laws that were slowing down the video rollouts.)

Those 274 franchises translate to about 5.4 million households, CZ says. He brags that with churn rate below 1.5%, customers seem to like what VZ has to offer. At the end of 2006, Verizon expected to have 175,000 video customers.

In comparison, AT&T seems to be making much slower progress. For instance, it had promised to roll out its LightSpeed Network in 15 markets by end of 2006. Last week, it changed its tune, and now says it will have 11 markets on “LightSpeed” by the time the clock ticks over to 2007.

The service is available in some parts of San Francisco, Oakland, Fremont, San Jose, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. Not the entire Bay Area, mind you, but parts of it. Other cities where the service is available include San Antonio and Houston, TX. Service is expected to be rolled out in Indianapolis shortly.

It is a disturbing development. “The delay in launching in its target 15 markets by year-end is further evidence of the hurdles the company faces in getting the HD IPTV product to market in scale,” writes John Hodulik, telecom services analyst with UBS, in a note to his client.

Good point! This makes us think that AT&T might not be able to meet its own goals of reaching 8 million homes with Lightspeed by end of 2007 and 17 million by 2008. They were supposed to pass 2.4 million homes by end of 2006, but that clearly isn’t happening. In cities AT&T has announced availability, it is limited availability. Hodulik in part blames the delays to Microsoft IPTV software.

We believe much of the delay AT&T has been experiencing is due to the slower than expected delivery of Microsoft’s IPTV software embedded on new, system on a chip (SOC) infrastructure. MSFT 1.1, launched on October 9, supports single stream HD and VOD. Later next year, Microsoft plans to upgrade its software to provide whole home DVR capabilities. The delay in opening new markets is likely caused by the inevitable tweaks and patches that will be needed to make sure the infrastructure scales given the expected demand for HD, VOD, and fast channel change, which all add to the complexity. (UBS Telecom Daily Report, December 22, 2006)

These delays might put AT&T at a disadvantage. In San Francisco, Comcast is being super-aggressive in getting folks to switch, and they are not even enforcing annual contracts. (Tells you something when cable companies are nice to customers, doesn’t it!) 2006 was full of fireworks; I cannot wait for 2007 to unfold.

http://gigaom.com/?p=7666&akst_action=share-this

AT&T Introduces U-verse in Hartford Area

Wednesday December 27, 9:00 am ET

High Definition Programming and Other Compelling Features Make AT&T U-verse TV the Most Advanced Video Offering in the Market Press Release (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061227/cgw007.html?.v=88)

AT&T U-verse TV Connects in Conn.

By Todd Spangler 12/27/2006 7:37:00 AM

AT&T, striving to hit the goal of rolling out U-verse TV service to 15 markets by the end of 2006, on Wednesday announced availability of the service in parts of three Connecticut metro areas: New Haven, Hartford and Stamford.

The announcements bring the telco’s tally to seven metro markets so far. It launched U-verse TV in San Antonio in June and added Houston in November. In California last week, it announced limited availability in San Francisco and San Jose neighborhoods.

In Connecticut, U-Verse TV will be available in the Stamford metropolitan statistical area (MSA) in parts of Danbury, Fairfield, Norwalk, Stamford and Trumbull, AT&T said. The New Haven area includes parts of Cheshire and Milford, and Hartford’s deployment includes parts of Newington and Wethersfield.

AT&T’s U-verse TV has been resisted by some cities where the company has not secured cable-franchise rights. The city of Milwaukee, for example, on Dec. 20 filed a lawsuit against the telco seeking to require it to pay the same franchising fees that cable operators pay. AT&T has responded that U-verse TV is not a cable service as defined by cable-franchising laws.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6402762.html?display=Breaking+News

AT&T U-verse TV Connects in Conn.

In Connecticut, U-Verse TV will be available in the Stamford metropolitan statistical area (MSA)

What good is a rollout if they don't let us know we can subscribe? I wonder if I can get it? Not that their limited HD product is all that exciting to me. They have been doing a lot of wiring in my area recently.

The benefits of competition?

Comcast Upgrades San Fran System

By Todd Spangler 12/27/2006 9:47:00 AM

Comcast on Wednesday said it will spend $80 million over the next 18 months upgrading cable systems in eight cities near San Francisco -- an announcement coming less than a week after AT&T said its U-verse TV service is now available in parts of the Bay Area and Silicon Valley.

Comcast said it will upgrade networks serving more than 250,000 homes passed in Los Gatos, Milpitas, Saratoga, Santa Rosa, Hayward, San Leandro, Sunnyvale and Half Moon Bay.

The new hybrid fiber-coax networks will provide 1 gigahertz of bandwidth; most cable systems today top out at 750 or 870 megahertz. Comcast did not disclose equipment vendors it will use for the project.

“An investment of this magnitude is further evidence of Comcast’s commitment to our Bay Area customers and community,” Comcast regional senior vice president Rick Germano said in a statement.

Comcast said it plans to lay more than 2,200 miles of fiber-optic cable in those areas by mid-2008. The network upgrade will let Comcast provide voice and video-on-demand services, as well as more channels.

Since acquiring 128 cable franchises in the Bay Area from AT&T in 2002, Comcast will have invested more than $663 million on infrastructure improvements including the latest $80 million upgrade, according to the company.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6402790.html?display=Breaking+News

From the top of this thread

Find out if U-verse is available in your neighborhood by checking Availability (https://uverse1.att.com/launchAMSS.do)

What good is a rollout if they don't let us know we can subscribe? I wonder if I can get it? Not that their limited HD product is all that exciting to me. They have been doing a lot of wiring in my area recently.

Well according the to the press release, they are offering around 25 HD channels at launch. How is that a limited HD product by today's standards?

AT&T extends digital television footprint to Connecticut
Wednesday December 27, 4:08 pm ET


AT&T Inc. is expanding its U-verse digital television service in three markets in Connecticut, after debuting the service in Texas earlier this year.
The San Antonio telecommunications giant is making the service available in Hartford, Stamford and New Haven. AT&T is bringing the competition to the doorstep of its rival Time Warner Cable, which is based in Stamford.

ADVERTISEMENT


As in all of the company's roll-outs, AT&T (NYSE: T - News) is offering local customers more than 300 channels, including 25 high-definition channels, and AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet access.

The standard package offers customers a mix of digital music, local news, premium movies and sports.

AT&T also recently expanded the U-verse service into the Houston market. U-verse officially kicked off in AT&T's hometown San Antonio market in June.

AT&T is investing $4 billion in building out a fiber-optic network to connect homes in its local telephone territory. The company is working to make U-verse available to more than 18 million households by the end of 2008. It also is supplying the digital content through a technology called Internet Protocol television, or IPTV.

Published December 27, 2006 by the San Antonio Business Journal

Has anybody here actually got U-verse or know somebody that has seen it in action? 25 HD channels, would place then second only to E*, methinks. Does this stuff actually work?

Has anybody here actually got U-verse or know somebody that has seen it in action? 25 HD channels, would place then second only to E*, methinks. Does this stuff actually work?

UverseUsers (http://www.uverseusers.com/)

December 21, 2006
(Almost) Every Man's Dream
By Jim Barthold

Alan Weinkrantz positions himself as an everyman. He's not ... although there's no reason to be harsh about it. Because the public relations executive lives in San Antonio, he got an opportunity to trial AT&T's U-Verse IPTV service. Because he's accustomed to dealing with the media, he took the initiative to start a blog – www.3screens.net – to detail his experiences.

So far, according to what he sees, AT&T will be a competitive threat to cable. Weinkrantz is also not every man in that he continues to have Time Warner Cable service so he can compare the two – including the high definition service AT&T is now delivering.

"I'm watching this on an IP network, and that's pretty cool," he said, pointing out that the AT&T HD service delivers a good picture and 5:1 audio.

"It genuinely works," said Weinkrantz, who is savvy enough to know how the service is being delivered – again, not something every man would know. "They're shoving this stuff down a phone line. Their signal is going to a DSLAM about four blocks from me."
Free time

Since he's been doing this since May when the free service trial – that's right, he's paying for Time Warner, but he's getting AT&T for free – started, Weinkrantz has formed relationships with the AT&T folks who are installing and maintaining his service – an everyman feat – and "some of the executives at AT&T that I've visited with" – a non-everyman accomplishment.

Because it's his goal to compare AT&T's performance in the TV space, he doesn't reveal what he learns in conversations with his executive buddies.

"I do know about advanced stuff that's coming. I don't write about it, I don't talk about it, I don't share it," he said. On the other hand, he does tell about the experiences everyone would have in getting the service. "I've been able to watch how they're deploying the service. On my HDTV install, I had five trucks," he said.

That's because AT&T has deep pockets, right? Nah, they're training the troops to go out among the plebs and conquer.
Getting into training

"It doesn't take a crew of 10 people to do this, but they're bringing people to watch the install, so they're doing a lot of training," he said. "There was one guy from California who came to the install because he's handling deployment and logistics in California, and they like to do real-world installs," he said.

Weinkrantz invites others to see what's going on in his world, opening his doors for anyone who wants to drop by, ignore the unmade beds and dirty dishes, and admire the HDTV signal. That's a side issue. The main point of all his work and the blog and everything else, he said, is to provide an everyman perspective on a big phone company's efforts to level the cable playing field.

"I'm an IPTV end user, consumer, blogger and an advocate. We now have a choice, and all I'm trying to do is take the role of sitting at my home, having a choice. The phone company has to earn my business," he said.

So far, it has.

"People ask if it's a better signal, better quality picture, and the answer is it's not better; it's pretty much the same, (and) it's not fair to compare it," he said. "The challenge is what types of services and product offerings you can offer the consumer that you can't offer on cable other than pure programming and pricing. There's a lot more interactivity; hopefully one day more user-generated content; hopefully one day community building; hopefully one day more global programming."
That's a chest full of hope

That's a lot of hope, but it's also enough that it should scare those cable execs who don't consider AT&T a threat. What's happening in San Antonio, at least according to one everyman tester, is a new way of delivering and watching television. More importantly, it's working.

"I'm looking at what you can do with IPTV that you can't do with cable," he continued. "Today what's better is the interface; it's the fast channel changing, some of the programming features; there is more content, especially HD, because they're using switched video."

Of course there are mistakes and problems that a veteran cable company shouldn't – or if you prefer, wouldn't - make.

"There are some limitations still, but to AT&T's credit they've managed the expectation of the end user," he said.

So far he's concluded, "I don't think Time Warner Cable is going to go out of business anytime next week," he said. "I'm not anti-anything; I'm pro-consumer and I'm just trying to think, 'pretty cool, different; be a little patient and let them take their time.'"

And, no matter how you shake the chicken bones, that attitude, multiplied by several millions of true everymen (and women), should make for an interesting 2007. - Jim Barthold

http://www.cable360.net/ct/video/21309.html

Has anybody here actually got U-verse or know somebody that has seen it in action? 25 HD channels, would place then second only to E*, methinks. Does this stuff actually work?

4 of those HD channels are west coast feeds of the movie channels. Here is what's available to me in CT.
https://uma.sbc.com/assets/files/Stamford.pdf
For those of you in CT a Yahoo forum has been set up to discuss U-Verse in CT.
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/UVerseCT/

Stamford, Norwalk (CT) get cable competition

By Jim Zebora
Business Editor

Published December 28 2006

Stamford and Norwalk residents are among the first in the state with access to AT&T's U-verse cable television service that will compete with Cablevision and satellite TV.

AT&T, which provides telephone services in lower Fairfield County, except parts of Greenwich, announced yesterday that U-verse, offering packages with as many as 300 TV and music channels, is available to homes in certain areas in both cities.

It will be rolled out over the coming months to other neighborhoods and municipalities, spokesman Seth Bloom said. "We want to get it to as many neighborhoods as we can," he said.

Across the state, sections of Danbury, Fairfield, Trumbull, Milford, Cheshire, Newington and Wethersfield also have access to U-verse.

The service ranges in price from $59 per month for a package that includes 50 channels and broadband Internet service, to $129 for 300 channels, including premium movie networks and faster Internet service.

High-definition channels, after an introductory period, and optional packages such as sports, Spanish-language and additional movie networks cost extra. U-verse is initially offering about 25 stations in high definition.

Lower Fairfield County subscribers will see 16 New York area broadcast TV stations, including network affiliates WNBC, WABC, WCBS and WPIX, on U-verse. WTNH, Channel 8 from New Haven, is the only Connecticut station on the lower Fairfield County lineup.

Those who sign up for U-verse in the Hartford or New Haven areas will receive Connecticut broadcast stations and network affiliates.

Community and public access channels and Cablevision's local news programming are missing from U-Verse's channel list.

Bloom said offerings are "evolving," and other stations may be added based on local demand.

"There have already been additions," Bloom said. "Most notably the YES Network, and NESN in certain packages." YES shows most New York Yankees games; NESN is the Boston Red Sox station.

Customers will be able to get four telecommunications services from AT&T: landline telephone, Cingular cellular telephone, television and Internet, he said.

TV service gives AT&T a new weapon in its high-tech competition with Cablevision and other cable providers, who have lured customers away from phone companies with deals that include Internet and telephone service, as well as television.

Cablevision has captured nearly 25 percent of the market for landline telephone in its service areas, and signed up more than 2 million high-speed Internet customers. The company provides cable TV to 3.1 million customers in markets that include Fairfield County and Long Island, N.Y.

A Cablevision spokesman said the firm is ready for the challenge.

"Cablevision competes successfully because our Internet access is faster, our phone service delivers much more value, and our television product is far superior to satellite or telephone company TV, and Connecticut consumers know the difference," Cablevision's Jim Maiella said.

AT&T won the right to deliver competitive television service when regulators decided that its Internet-protocol TV technology was not a communications service as defined under law, and therefore not subject to local franchising and other requirements mandating that a cable TV system must carry certain channels.

But government officials, including state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, continue to seek some control, fearing that without regulation Internet-protocol TV will discriminate against urban and poorer consumers.

"AT&T's IPTV plan is deeply disappointing, confining service to a few suburban towns, bypassing cities and less affluent areas," Blumenthal said in a statement yesterday. "The company has confirmed what we said all along: Without . . . regulation, IPTV providers will cherry-pick the wealthiest and most accessible customers, denying many consumers the huge potential benefits of this new type of TV.

"My office will continue fighting in court for state regulation to assure that providers make IPTV widely available and meet their civic obligations to the community," he said.

Copyright © 2006, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-u-verse3dec28,0,1399343.story?coll=stam-news-local-headlines

Hartford Courant

AT&T Launches TV Service, Fueling Tangle With Cable (http://www.courant.com/hc-atttv1228.artdec28,0,3427130.story)

Well according the to the press release, they are offering around 25 HD channels at launch. How is that a limited HD product by today's standards?

The limited HD is not the number of HD channels that they have, it's the fact that they can only send one HD channel to your house at a time. So if you have two HDTV's your not going to be able to watch HD on both at the same time, and you can't record two HD streams at once on the DVR.

AT&T Introduces U-verse in Indianapolis (http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=23287)

AT&T Misses U-verse TV Target
By Todd Spangler 12/28/2006 2:50:00 PM

AT&T fell short of its goal of offering U-verse TV in 15 markets by the end of the year, announcing the availability of the service in four Indiana markets Thursday: Indianapolis, Anderson, Bloomington and Muncie.

The Indiana rollouts bring AT&T to 11 markets where the TV service is available and being advertised -- at least in limited areas. For example, in the Indianapolis metropolitan statistical area, U-verse TV isn’t actually available within the city itself, but only in parts of the towns of Beech Grove, Carmel, Fishers, Greenwood, Lawrence and Noblesville.

In October, the telco told investors it would begin commercially offering the service in a total of 15 markets by the end of 2006, but now, AT&T confirmed that it will hit only 11 by New Year’s Eve.

The other areas where AT&T has announced U-verse TV availability are its initial test market of San Antonio, as well as some Houston neighborhoods; four cities near San Francisco and San Jose, Calif.; and parts of the Connecticut markets of New Haven, Stamford and Hartford.

AT&T is deploying infrastructure for U-verse TV elsewhere in the 13 states where it and its legacy companies provide telephone service, including several suburban Chicago communities; Milwaukee; Anaheim, Calif.; and Reno, Nev. But the telco has met with local resistance in some areas, as cities seek to require it to pay for cable-franchise licenses. AT&T has insisted that U-verse TV isn’t a cable-TV service and should not be regulated as one.

The city of Milwaukee, for example, filed a lawsuit Dec. 20 that sought a preliminary injunction preventing AT&T from offering U-verse TV until an agreement on cable-franchise fees is worked out. AT&T spokesman Brad Mays claimed that the Milwaukee lawsuit and others filed by local governments have not slowed the rollout of the TV service.

As of Sept. 30, AT&T reported having a total of 3,000 U-verse TV subscribers, all located in San Antonio. The company said it expects to be able to offer U-verse TV to 19 million homes by the end of 2008.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6402913.html?display=Breaking+News

This is the HD lineup available to me with U-verse.
A&E HD
Cinemax HD
Cinemax HD - West
Discovery HD Theater
ESPN HD
ESPN2 HD
Food Network HD
HBO HD
HBO HD - West
HDNet
HDNet Movies
HGTV HD
MHD
National Geographic Channel HD
NFL Network HD
Showtime HD
Showtime HD - West
Starz HD
Starz HD - West
TMC HD
TNT HD
Universal HD
WABC-HD-7 (ABC)
WCBS-HD-2 (CBS)
Wealth TV HD
WNBC-HD-4 (NBC)
WNYW-HD-5 (FOX)
WTNH-HD-8 (ABC)
So not including west coast feeds they have 12 HD channels that I can't get with Cablevision. But Cablevision has 8 HD channels that U-verse doesn't.
INHD
WWOR-HD-9 (MY)
WPIX-HD-11 (CW)
WNET-HD-13 (PBS)
YES-HD
SNY-HD
MSG-HD
FSN-NY-HD

U-verse needs to figure out how they can get me 3 HD streams at once though before I would consider switching. Then they need to add Versus-HD for golf and hockey, and PBS. I doubt they will ever get MSG-HD since Cablevision only sold Verizon the SD version. The other channels I can live without.

It says a lot where are are more press releases about service in a thread than reports from customers using the service.

Thanks,
Mike

Here's what I'm getting out of this discussion.

I like that there's competition in the cable market, but I hate AT&T's strategy vs. Verizon's, and I'm in an area where AT&T controls the phone lines.

I think I read that Verizon has 650 mbps of bandwidth vs. 25 for AT&T? There's no way AT&T will succeed with that model.

I also don't like the whole 1 HD stream thing, especially when 2009 hits and most people will have HD in the home (if anything out of panic because they think everything is going high def by '09...I thought that was the case and was really disapointed when I found out it wasn't. IMO HD should be the industry standard with every channel being HD, none of this SD crap).

Here's what I'm getting out of this discussion.

I like that there's competition in the cable market, but I hate AT&T's strategy vs. Verizon's, and I'm in an area where AT&T controls the phone lines.

I think I read that Verizon has 650 mbps of bandwidth vs. 25 for AT&T? There's no way AT&T will succeed with that model.

I also don't like the whole 1 HD stream thing, especially when 2009 hits and most people will have HD in the home (if anything out of panic because they think everything is going high def by '09...I thought that was the case and was really disapointed when I found out it wasn't. IMO HD should be the industry standard with every channel being HD, none of this SD crap).

That 25 Mbps is a little dicey. They haven't been selling that as a non-video speed tier in any market, and have had a lot of issues with hitting that speed without taking lots of errors, even when the user is supposed to be range of the DSLAM.

Some markets have pretty decent outside plant. Others aren't so lucky. Keeping the number they actually depend on for the service down by limiting HD streams and other such tactics is important, as I think they have discovered the 25 mbps is harder to hit reliably than they expected.

AT&T is way behind in capacity to the home compared with cable and FIOS. Well, maybe Qwest is still behind them, so you can't say they are dead last.

Mike

That 25 Mbps is a little dicey. They haven't been selling that as a non-video speed tier in any market, and have had a lot of issues with hitting that speed without taking lots of errors, even when the user is supposed to be range of the DSLAM.

Some markets have pretty decent outside plant. Others aren't so lucky. Keeping the number they actually depend on for the service down by limiting HD streams and other such tactics is important, as I think they have discovered the 25 mbps is harder to hit reliably than they expected.

AT&T is way behind in capacity to the home compared with cable and FIOS. Well, maybe Qwest is still behind them, so you can't say they are dead last.

Mike

It think it worth noting that everyone on uverse is provisioned at 25 meg. They originally tested the san antonio market out past 3000 at 25meg, but then set the limit at 3000 feet.

You are right this is much less capacity than what is delivered by cable or fios, but since it is only transmitting what is actually being viewed, it does not need as much capacity. This works great for SD as that is more bandwidth than a typical household could consume in programming. The trick is the multiple HD streams. I think with improved codecs(apple does have nice HD in 5meg streams, but it currently cant be done in realtime) they might be able squeeze 2 HD streams, 2 SD and the 6 meg internet in 25meg. More than that and they going to have to go with pair bonding which turns the 25meg connection into a 50meg connection. That would be good enough for 4 10 meg HD streams and 10 meg internet.

I have had the service since may and overall I think it is going to be a very nice service when all the kinks get worked out. It may not be enough to satisfy many avsforum members, but it will be more than enough to keep the cable companies on their toes.

Welcome cwh.

Would you be willing to share more about your experience with U-verse?

AT&T describes changing channels as almost instantaneous. Can you describe the look and feel beginning with the program guide and user interface in general?

thank you

AT&T: IPTV Software Slowed Rollout
By Todd Spangler 12/29/2006 4:38:00 AM

AT&T blamed the slower-than-expected rollout of its U-verse TV service in part on the need to “make enhancements” to the Internet-protocol-TV software provided by Microsoft.

This week AT&T confirmed it would offer U-verse TV in 11 metro areas by the end of 2006 -- four shy of the goal it set in October. Earlier in the year, AT&T had been even more optimistic, telling Wall Street it expected to launch in 15 to 20 markets.

Asked why it missed the 15-market goal, AT&T responded in a statement Thursday: “We revised the number of markets to make enhancements to our IPTV software and other systems based on some key learnings in our initial markets … We want to ensure we’re doing everything possible to meet and exceed customers’ expectations.”

AT&T spokesman Brad Mays would not disclose details of what “enhancements” were required.

The telco is using Microsoft’s IPTV Edition software to provide key functions for U-verse TV, including an interactive program guide, video-on-demand, digital-video recording services and high-definition video.

Microsoft spokesman Jim Brady said the company would not comment on AT&T’s specific launch plans.

SBC Communications, which acquired AT&T and assumed its name, began working with Microsoft on the IPTV project in 2004. The companies at the time said the deal would be worth more than $400 million over 10 years. SBC originally planned to launch commercial service in “late 2005”; in fact, U-verse TV first became available in June 2006 in San Antonio.

Meanwhile, Verizon Communications, which is using a different version of Microsoft’s TV platform software, took over more of the development work for its set-top box software after it became “frustrated with delays and technical glitches with Microsoft’s technology,” according to a report in The Wall Street Journal in September. Microsoft said Verizon always had a stated strategy for “extensive” in-house development of its set-top software.

AT&T said it remains “on track” to be able to offer U-verse TV to 19 million living units by the end of 2008. As of Sept. 30, AT&T reported having a total of 3,000 U-verse TV subscribers, all in San Antonio.

U-verse TV, according to AT&T, is currently available in limited areas in or around San Antonio, Houston, San Francisco, San Jose, Calif., New Haven, Conn., Stamford, Conn., Hartford, Conn., Indianapolis, Anderson, Ind., Bloomington, Ind., and Muncie, Ind.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6403079

opps doublepost...

Welcome cwh.

Would you be willing to share more about your experience with U-verse?

AT&T describes changing channels as almost instantaneous. Can you describe the look and feel beginning with the program guide and user interface in general?

thank you

The experience has been generally good. There were minor pixelation problems when we first got the service, but those are fairly rare now. I see occasional compression artifacts, but overall the picture quality is quite good. Still waiting for my HD order to go though, so hopefully I will be able to comment on that soon.

The channel changing is fast, but not as fast as it once was. It is still faster than a cable channel change. The UI on the STB is great, very simple and very easy to use. The UI uses the same drop down menu paradigm that any computer user would be naturally familier with. The channel guide/favorites list also has PIP for when you are browsing channels looking for something to watch. You can search the guide 2 weeks in advance by show title or actor name.

There are still some bugs in the STB. The severity of these bugs I think is dependant on how heavily you use the dvr for recording shows. Our dvr sometimes forgets it is a DVR, which is usually after it boots back up. Simply changing the channel seems to fix that problem. Also the UI seems sluggish at times. There have been a few video outages, but the vdsl portion has been HIGHLY reliable. The internet has always worked even if the video was out.

Hopefully you'll continue to see improvements. I for one wouldn't mind experiencing growing pains as long as there's progress. But when the technology glitches are ever present and customer service best effort is a rabbit's foot it would be time to back away from early adoption. I hope your optimism is rewarded.

What is VOD like? do they offer trailers, synopsis and four-star ratings?

AT&T Post-Merger: Time to Pull the Plug

(excerpt) To counter cable's 'triple-play' AT&T is rolling out its own version of voice/video/data, Project Lightspeed, which combines fiber and copper wires to deliver video to customers' homes. But skeptics worry whether the company can make the technology work over large areas. The system sometimes crashes or freezes, and there are rumors that AT&T is finding its servers can't handle as many homes as expected. The company might need to use more servers. Other solutions, such as buying a satellite company or rolling optical fiber to homes as competitor Verizon was forced to do, are costly but potentially unavoidable. Some analysts speculate that once the BellSouth deal closes, AT&T will acknowledge Project Lightspeed isn't working.

http://telecom.seekingalpha.com/article/23259

Hopefully you'll continue to see improvements. I for one wouldn't mind experiencing growing pains as long as there's progress. But when the technology glitches are ever present and customer service best effort is a rabbit's foot it would be time to back away from early adoption. I hope your optimism is rewarded.

What is VOD like? do they offer trailers, synopsis and four-star ratings?

The customer service has been fairly good. I know they have been fairly liberal with bill credits to make the glitches less painful. Last month my wife called to tell them that the dvr forgot it was dvr again and they issues a bill credit for it. We expected it to be just a small credit, but they gave us the video portion free.

Thd VOD has trailers and a decent amount of content. Last time I checked it had over 150 PPV titles. Stars and Encore on demand have been around since we first signed up, but stars on demand keeps coming and going. Other premium on demand has yet to make their debut. Non premium VOD content has been added recently as well(MTV, noggin, history channel,...)

This is the interesting thing about IPTV, is they are not bandwidth constrained in the respect of being able to host content.

But that's the problem with AT+T's plan: it IS bandwidth constrained, and severely. So much in fact that it a doomed business plan, i.e. FTTN then existing copper to the house. There is no way currently that AT+T can deliver 3 differing full resolution HD streams to a single residence, and that is what it is going to take at a minimum, imho. Many houses have an HDTV with a DVR, and people expect to be able to watch one HD stream while recording another. For others, like many of us here, it is not un-common to be simultaneously watching/recording up to 4 differing HD streams on multiple HDTVs. This is going to take FTTP, like Verizon is doing, and ultimately AT+T need to stop wasting time, and adopt the same plan. I am a huge supporter of the telco's getting into the video business, and really want to see AT+T succeed, BUT they need to actually offer what the consumer wants/needs!
Bish

AT&T Post-Merger: Time to Pull the Plug

(excerpt) To counter cable's 'triple-play' AT&T is rolling out its own version of voice/video/data, Project Lightspeed, which combines fiber and copper wires to deliver video to customers' homes. But skeptics worry whether the company can make the technology work over large areas. The system sometimes crashes or freezes, and there are rumors that AT&T is finding its servers can't handle as many homes as expected. The company might need to use more servers. Other solutions, such as buying a satellite company or rolling optical fiber to homes as competitor Verizon was forced to do, are costly but potentially unavoidable. Some analysts speculate that once the BellSouth deal closes, AT&T will acknowledge Project Lightspeed isn't working.

http://telecom.seekingalpha.com/article/23259

Using MSFT code for an application like this is so stupid it's not funny. Just goes to show how much the folks at SBC understand technology. Rather than take the blame for things not working if they made a mistake, they outsourced the IPTV software design to MSFT (just like they did the IP networking part to the "B" team - Alcatel). That way they get to blame MSFT or Alcatel. Good for their job security, but assuring the fact the service will be a fiasco at scale.

Anytime you hear statements about "needing more servers" on a launch like this one, be very suspicious. Only an idiot would launch a high profile service like this with anything less than massively over provisioned servers (servers are really cheap these days, so no reason to scrimp, esp. on your launch markets!). And SBC is not THAT stupid. So with a tiny number of users, the system is overloaded? That's not an issue with needing more servers, it's lousy architecture. And it won't be fixed with more servers. Coming from MSFT, who would be surprised? They even run the applications on Windows servers! What a joke.

As for everyone getting 25 Mbps, I am very dubious about that. I believe they engineered it so that everyone should be getting 25 Mbps, but with the outside plant that SBC has, I do not think that is going to be reliable. There already have been reports of substantially greater packet loss than expected on these loops, and the associated need to "tweak" the software to deal with it. This is another huge mistake - fix the loop, or clock down the data rate so you don't see packet loss.

I work in the telecom sector (not for telco or cable), and have seen demos of u-verse from the various vendors. Not one demo ever worked right unless a bunch of server stuff had to get rebooted. This was as recently as last month.

The whole thing is a joke, but noone is willing to say the emperor has no clothes. Short the AT&T stock now... :-)

Thanks,
mike

But that's the problem with AT+T's plan: it IS bandwidth constrained, and severely. So much in fact that it a doomed business plan, i.e. FTTN then existing copper to the house. There is no way currently that AT+T can deliver 3 differing full resolution HD streams to a single residence, and that is what it is going to take at a minimum, imho. Many houses have an HDTV with a DVR, and people expect to be able to watch one HD stream while recording another. For others, like many of us here, it is not un-common to be simultaneously watching/recording up to 4 differing HD streams on multiple HDTVs. This is going to take FTTP, like Verizon is doing, and ultimately AT+T need to stop wasting time, and adopt the same plan. I am a huge supporter of the telco's getting into the video business, and really want to see AT+T succeed, BUT they need to actually offer what the consumer wants/needs!
Bish

I am going to have to disagree with you. FTTN is going to be a decent plan for the masses, however I will concede it may not be so good for the folks that post here.

1. Codecs are going to improve. As I stated earler apple has a great HD codec that fits in 5 megs. The problem is the encoding is not real time, but it does show what is possible. HD streams are going to shrink as time passes.
2. Pair bonding is going to double the bandwidth available. 4 10meg mpeg4 streams and 10 meg internet would fit in 2x25 meg lines.
3. A 25meg connection is just a starting point, not the ending point.
4. The consumer wants value and is not really concerned with the medium as long as it works. FTTN is a fraction of the cost of FTTP and can be rapidly deployed.
5. By the time ATT has to deploy FTTP it will be cheaper to do so than it is now. Verizons fiber installation cost is falling, but it is still a huge cost.

These are my predictions for u-verse for 2007.
Improved codecs and improving VDSL will allow for 2HD and 2SD on a single pair. This will satisfy >95% of the cable consuming population for the next several years. For those that need more, we will start to see pair bonding as this hardware becomes available.

CWH, Codecs will improve, somewhat. There is a declining of the improvements we have seen since MPEG4. I don't think you'll see another 2X bandwidth for equivalent quality soon, at least when compared to a very good H.264 codec.

Pair bonding is an interesting idea, but last time I looked I didn't think there was a lot of extra copper out there. Bonding means you double the copper count requirement. And if you need to lay additional copper, why not fiber? Plus there is the crosstalk problem that haunts DSL.

I do agree the consumer doesn't care much about technology - early cable systems were hardly advanced, though the HFC plant today is very good. But as you said, it has to work. It is unclear that U-verse is going to work. Of course, if U-verse flames out because of MSFT's problem, even 15 or 20 Mbps makes for a competitive DSL service, where all of the capacity is used for data. Assuming you can run that fast and not have issues with error rate.

I disagree about the cost of FTTP dropping. It's not electronics that drive the cost, or even fiber. It's tearing up the street, the lawn, the driveway, and everything else that is needed to get a new cable to the home. This cost if anything is going up, not down.

I suppose they could try HFC, as that has very well understand costs and performance, but the fundamental problem is the drop to the home.

I wish AT&T luck in pulling this off, but U-verse is clearly on a path to be a flaming failure. The lucky thing for SBC staff is that MSFT will take the brunt of the blame, and will blow up before the pair issues kill them.

BTW, do you work for a telco or a supplier to them?

Thanks,
Mike

CWH, Codecs will improve, somewhat. There is a declining of the improvements we have seen since MPEG4. I don't think you'll see another 2X bandwidth for equivalent quality soon, at least when compared to a very good H.264 codec.



I think you are right, but marginal improvements will mean quite a bit.



Pair bonding is an interesting idea, but last time I looked I didn't think there was a lot of extra copper out there. Bonding means you double the copper count requirement. And if you need to lay additional copper, why not fiber? Plus there is the crosstalk problem that haunts DSL.


There is extra copper already in the ground. Most houses have been capable of getting more than phoneline for a long time. I dont think they are worried about running of pairs to deliever this service as that would mean the service is having a strong signup rate.



I disagree about the cost of FTTP dropping. It's not electronics that drive the cost, or even fiber. It's tearing up the street, the lawn, the driveway, and everything else that is needed to get a new cable to the home. This cost if anything is going up, not down.
[quote]

Well according to verizon the cost of laying fiber is dropping. When they started it cost about $1400 per home passed and they are hoping to have that cost below $900 per home passed this year. Process improvement is driving these costs down, however it is still a very expensive task.
[quote]

I suppose they could try HFC, as that has very well understand costs and performance, but the fundamental problem is the drop to the home.

I wish AT&T luck in pulling this off, but U-verse is clearly on a path to be a flaming failure. The lucky thing for SBC staff is that MSFT will take the brunt of the blame, and will blow up before the pair issues kill them.

BTW, do you work for a telco or a supplier to them?

Thanks,
Mike

I do not work for ATT or any of their suppliers for U-verse nor do I have any significant investment in ATT. I was just lucky enough to be in early market area and pissed off enough at Time Warner to try something new. From what I see in my living room, U-verse is experiencing some new service problems, but no where near a flame out.

It may not be 'flaming out' at the moment BUT there are what? a few thousand of you using U-Verse at this time? What happens to the software/hardware problems when a hundred thousand households decide to try U-Verse because it's $10/month cheaper than cable? The system sounds like it will crash, and often. Never-mind the quality and number of HD streams that people like myself want but will never get with AT+T using their current delivery system; when the average consumer loses their TV 'reception' in the middle of American Idol, they will flee U-Verse and quickly. Once those individuals have been burned by U-Verse, AT+T will never get them back to re-try the service, and the bad word of mouth will cost AT+T a huge number of possible converts.

All of the above could be/could have been avoided IF AT+T had decided not to try the cheap way of delivering their new TV service, and had adopted Verizon's FTTP. Using FTTP there is no need for IPTV or having to rely on Microsoft, etc. to deliver a product that actually works 99.99% of the time. Further, using FTTP means NOT having to use compression programs that potentially decrease the quality/quantity of HDTV; (Verizon's FTTP does not use extra compression at all, and in fact delivers all of the HD channels using the full bit-rate as supplied to Verizon by the channel provider. How do they do this?, because the damn bandwidth to the house is huge via FTTP).

There is still time for AT+T to realise that IPTV TV over their current infra-structure is not working and certainly won't work when ramped up; I just hope they realise it NOW. I do not want them to fail as I'd love to have another competitor to cable and DBS, but it looks like I'm stuck with one or the other for the for-seeable future.
Bish

It may not be 'flaming out' at the moment BUT there are what? a few thousand of you using U-Verse at this time? What happens to the software/hardware problems when a hundred thousand households decide to try U-Verse because it's $10/month cheaper than cable? The system sounds like it will crash, and often. Never-mind the quality and number of HD streams that people like myself want but will never get with AT+T using their current delivery system; when the average consumer loses their TV 'reception' in the middle of American Idol, they will flee U-Verse and quickly. Once those individuals have been burned by U-Verse, AT+T will never get them back to re-try the service, and the bad word of mouth will cost AT+T a huge number of possible converts.


I think you are overly pessamistic to assume that ATT is incapable of doing simple load demand calculations to make sure they enough back end to feed the number of subscriber they have. Even if their backend is not performing as well as expected, I have sure they have a pretty good idea much hardware they need on the back end to feed demand. While U-verse may not provide the number of HD streams you want now, it is also overly pessamistic to assume the service will never improve in its level of service.

Also nevermind the fact that cable is an imperfect service and also suffers from outages from time to time. I know I have experienced them with Time Warner and I have little doubt you have experienced them as well from your cable provider.



All of the above could be/could have been avoided IF AT+T had decided not to try the cheap way of delivering their new TV service, and had adopted Verizon's FTTP. Using FTTP there is no need for IPTV or having to rely on Microsoft, etc. to deliver a product that actually works 99.99% of the time. Further, using FTTP means NOT having to use compression programs that potentially decrease the quality/quantity of HDTV; (Verizon's FTTP does not use extra compression at all, and in fact delivers all of the HD channels using the full bit-rate as supplied to Verizon by the channel provider. How do they do this?, because the damn bandwidth to the house is huge via FTTP).



Your right about this. ATT could have adopted FTTP and gone with a well understood system that cable uses. However, it is fairly easy to see the investment may not work out that well. As an analyst pointed out recently it costs them about $1000 to pass a home with fiber and then they only get 10% take rate on their service, which means each new FIOS sub costs them at least $10k to get. Verizon took a path that had great financial risk and ATT has take a path technological risk. Only time will tell who took the right path.

I also hate to break this to you, but HD on cable is mpeg2 and the industry is moving to mpeg4 as well to save bandwidth.



There is still time for AT+T to realise that IPTV TV over their current infra-structure is not working and certainly won't work when ramped up; I just hope they realise it NOW. I do not want them to fail as I'd love to have another competitor to cable and DBS, but it looks like I'm stuck with one or the other for the for-seeable future.
Bish

IPTV is the future and at some point everyone is going to switch to IPTV because the current broadcast of video is terribly inneffecient. It does not make sense to broadcast 500 channels to each household when only a handfull get watched. Mpeg4(or better) and iptv will be the standard in the not so distant future.

Don't knock IPTV just because SBC blew it. MSFT decided to concentrate on all kinds of bling and features that no one cared about to try and differentiate from cable's offerings, but didn't focus on the core technology pieces needed to make it scale and work reliably. Of course, if they did that, they probably wouldn't be running on windows servers! :-)

IPTV is alive and well in europe and other places with fiber and advanced network connectivity and doing well from the reports I see. But these carriers emphasized different things and didn't outsource the job to the "reliability experts" at MSFT.

I don't think there is any point on debating this too much more - time will tell, and pretty soon about how this is will work. I do think it's funny to see AT&T offering to do the DISH TV /DSL combo where they give away video service for a year for free, and not doing anything of the sort for the u-verse stuff. This tells you what they want you to buy. The last thing they want is a lot of users on u-verse. The service clearly doesn't scale right now.

Thanks,
mike

Don't knock IPTV just because SBC blew it. MSFT decided to concentrate on all kinds of bling and features that no one cared about to try and differentiate from cable's offerings, but didn't focus on the core technology pieces needed to make it scale and work reliably. Of course, if they did that, they probably wouldn't be running on windows servers! :-)

IPTV is alive and well in europe and other places with fiber and advanced network connectivity and doing well from the reports I see. But these carriers emphasized different things and didn't outsource the job to the "reliability experts" at MSFT.

I don't think there is any point on debating this too much more - time will tell, and pretty soon about how this is will work. I do think it's funny to see AT&T offering to do the DISH TV /DSL combo where they give away video service for a year for free, and not doing anything of the sort for the u-verse stuff. This tells you what they want you to buy. The last thing they want is a lot of users on u-verse. The service clearly doesn't scale right now.

Thanks,
mike

If it is does not scale, why are they opening more markets to the service?

And homezone users are not getting video free for a year either. Homezone is just to service those who cant get u-verse right now.

Let me clarify: I am not knocking IPTV; I know that it is an excellent way to deliver video services in an efficient manner. My problem is with SBC's, (AT+T's), use of it using a severely limited 'pipe' to the house, i.e. copper wire from the FTTN junction. It simply appears not to be working to supply what many people want now; i.e. excellent 'un-compressed' quality video streams to multiple TV's and DVR's including HD streams, and high speed internet access.

To me, the fact that many now, and perhaps most in the future, would like the 30Gb/sec speeds of Verizon's FTTP along with as many channels including HD channels as a family could possible want to watch/record, means that AT+T has made a crucial tactical mistake in simply believing what they were told about IPTV and FTTN architecture: i.e. that it can be 'scaled' up to handle the video and internet needs of families now and in the future; it simply isn't working. Ultimately, AT+T will realise their error, and then will have to go back and place FTTP anyway!

For myself, I just see it as an incredible opportunity lost, and as an individual living in an area serviced by AT+T I believe that my chances of being able to replace Directv with an excellent, robust and high quality service from AT+T is now years away. Hell, I would even help subsidise the cost of bringing fibre to my house from the street, if AT+T would give me programming credits in return for a long term commitment on my part; and I'd imagine that there are quite a few others like myself. BUT, there's no way I will sample the AT+T product in it's current state; it needs a drastic 're-think'. IF CWH, some miraculous compression scheme comes along that allows AT+T to offer me what I need/use, then perhaps I'll stand corrected; (I hope so); but I'm not holding my breath.
Bish

BUT, there's no way I will sample the AT+T product in it's current state; it needs a drastic 're-think'.That's a pretty rigid additude. If it was available, I'd at least try it.

Don't get me wrong, you may turn out to be 100% correct, and I agree that a better long term plan is FTTP, but you also must admit it's early on for anyone to know just how well AT&T's approach will turn out.

U-verse is supposed to come to my area very soon and I'll definitely try it, as long as there is no commitment associated with it, and I already have 4 providers, of course, not a single one has everything I want, no surprise there.

U-verse is supposed to come to my area very soon and I'll definitely try it, as long as there is no commitment associated with it, and I already have 4 providers, of course, not a single one has everything I want, no surprise there.

Well you can certainly try it. The current offer for my area is the first 60 days free for the u300 and u400 packages with a $50 install fee which is refunded if you cancel within 60 days. If I want to stay home for a day for the install I can try it, but I know I won't keep it after 60 days as long as there is only 1 HD stream. So U-verse is only worth it to me long term right now if I want two monthly TV bills.

Let me clarify: I am not knocking IPTV; I know that it is an excellent way to deliver video services in an efficient manner. My problem is with SBC's, (AT+T's), use of it using a severely limited 'pipe' to the house, i.e. copper wire from the FTTN junction. It simply appears not to be working to supply what many people want now; i.e. excellent 'un-compressed' quality video streams to multiple TV's and DVR's including HD streams, and high speed internet access.


I think you think your HD demands are typical of the average consumer. Current trends have HD tv penetration only reaching 50% by 2010. ATT has time to grow the capabilities ot its service as demand for more HD rises.


To me, the fact that many now, and perhaps most in the future, would like the 30Gb/sec speeds of Verizon's FTTP along with as many channels including HD channels as a family could possible want to watch/record, means that AT+T has made a crucial tactical mistake in simply believing what they were told about IPTV and FTTN architecture: i.e. that it can be 'scaled' up to handle the video and internet needs of families now and in the future; it simply isn't working. Ultimately, AT+T will realise their error, and then will have to go back and place FTTP anyway!


not sure where you get 30Gig from as verizon bpon is only good for for 622m/155m which is then divided up to 32 ways. THeir gpon is 2.4g/1.2g which will probably get divided a bit more than 32 times. It is very capable system, but now here near 30 gig.

To say that ATT FTTN is failing after they opened up service to 10 new markets in the past week is just a bit a foolish statement if you ask me. IF they were still stuck in San Antonio at this point, you would have a point,but we know that is not the case.


For myself, I just see it as an incredible opportunity lost, and as an individual living in an area serviced by AT+T I believe that my chances of being able to replace Directv with an excellent, robust and high quality service from AT+T is now years away. Hell, I would even help subsidise the cost of bringing fibre to my house from the street, if AT+T would give me programming credits in return for a long term commitment on my part; and I'd imagine that there are quite a few others like myself. BUT, there's no way I will sample the AT+T product in it's current state; it needs a drastic 're-think'. IF CWH, some miraculous compression scheme comes along that allows AT+T to offer me what I need/use, then perhaps I'll stand corrected; (I hope so); but I'm not holding my breath.
Bish

Let me ask you this. When sat tv first come out, was it wasted because you could only watch one channel at a time? Were you surprised that technology became more capable as the technology became more mature?

I think we both know the answer to that....

If you are willing to have fiber run to house, pick up the phone and talk their fiber services. I am sure if you are willing to pony up the cash they will be more than happy to run some fiber to your house, but I suspect you are not willing to pay that price and most of neighbors are going to be unwilling to subsidize your fiber desires.

Laying a new path to your TV

By Marguerite Reardon
http://news.com.com/Laying+a+new+path+to+your+TV/2100-1034_3-6146207.html

Story last modified Thu Dec 28 12:20:19 PST 2006

The TV war is heating up.

AT&T is preparing to deliver its TV service en masse in 2007, and cable operators such as Comcast are already gearing up for what will likely be a long battle to win control of the living room.

I think you think your HD demands are typical of the average consumer. Current trends have HD tv penetration only reaching 50% by 2010. ATT has time to grow the capabilities ot its service as demand for more HD rises.


The problem here is -- There are other providers out there than can support his demands RIGHT NOW. U-Verse is launching a crippled service, and they expect the customer to wait on them while other options are available?

They don't even support 2 HD streams out of the gate, which cable has been doing for a few years.

In the spirit of posting articles about AT&T's U-verse service in lieu of reports from someone who's actually managed to get it installed at their home, here's another story that stays that things may not be well in the AT&T U-verse. This is an excerpt from a Barron's story:

FOR TRADITIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANIES, the best defense against a new breed of competitors may be a good offense. In other words, the phone companies need to offer their own triple play of services and take market share in video from the cable providers. But AT&T's offensive strategy has been weak, to date, and beefing it up -- or rethinking it -- could cost a bundle.
The company is rolling out Project Lightspeed, laying fiberoptic lines that connect to a "node," or small cabinet of electronics, in a serviced neighborhood. Copper wires then run from the node to individual homes. It is over this system that AT&T plans to deliver its own triple play of voice, video and data services, dubbed U-verse.
AT&T launched U-verse in San Antonio in June but didn't have the capability to offer high-definition television until November. At the end of the third quarter, the company had signed up 3,000 of the 30,000 customers to whom it had marketed the product. While that's 10% of the targeted audience, it represents less than 1% of the city's 1.2 million households.
Houston came online in November, and the San Francisco and San Jose metropolitan areas in December. Last week the company launched U-verse service in three additional markets in Connecticut -- Hartford, New Haven and Stamford -- and four in Indiana.
Lightspeed uses IPTV, or Internet protocol to deliver television service over copper telephone wires. When a customer clicks the remote, the channel requested is transmitted from the node to the copper line.
The jury is out on U-verse, and is likely to be for some time. Some early users have praised the system's features, such as instant channel change and user interface, and some industry experts believe it will have sufficient capacity to support one or two high-definition televisions operating concurrently per home, as well Internet and phone service, which should satisfy customers for the next few years.
AT&T, which expects to offer IPTV to half its current customers by the end of 2008, says it will be able to boost capacity with better compression technology, the installation of
more nodes per neighborhood or copper-pair bonding, in which two wires are intertwined. "We believe we have a robust, high-quality service today, and it will be enhanced going forward," the company spokesman says.
Skeptics worry, however, about whether the company can make the technology work, especially over a large area. The system sometimes crashes or freezes, much like an ill-tempered computer, and data travel at slower speeds to the homes farthest from a node.
There is also talk in the market that AT&T is finding its servers can't handle as many homes as expected. The company might need to use more servers, which would result in higher costs. AT&T says it doesn't need more servers than it initially expected, and that as servers get more powerful in the future, it may need fewer.
New York-based Verizon, the nation's other large phone company, faces the same cable threat in its markets. But the company has opted to roll out fiber directly to customers' homes. Its system offers 50 megabytes of capacity, which should double shortly as technology improves. AT&T offers 25 megabytes of capacity.
In the near term, Verizon's approach has been far more expensive than AT&T's. It's rollout will cost about $20 billion, compared with $6 billion for AT&T. In 2006 Verizon's earnings will be reduced by $906 million to $935 million, or 31 to 32 cents a share, while AT&T's will be clipped by $195 million to $272 million, or just five to seven cents a share. Verizon's shares rallied about 29% in 2006, underperforming AT&T's.
Mark Wegleitner, Verizon's chief technology officer, stands by the company's decision to spend up front. "It was an attempt to build a future-proof system from Day One," he says. "We wanted to do it right the first time. We just did not feel that copper is the type of system to ride into the 21st century."
Verizon has rolled out optical fiber past 5.3 million homes as of the end of the third quarter, and plans to add three million homes a year until it reaches 18 million in 2010, or more than half the homes in its territory. Data traveling downstream, or from Verizon to customers, travels at a speed of 50 megabytes per second, according to the company. Data moving upstream travel at 10 megabytes per second. On AT&T's U-verse, the fastest speed downstream is six megabytes per second; upstream, it's one megabyte per second. In addition, Verizon says its system currently can support one high-definition television per home and three in the future. As of now, says AT&T, U-verse can support only one, two in the future.
Comcast faces both competitors in its markets but has kind words only for one. "The Verizon technology is expensive, but it works, and they are going to be a real competitor in some markets," says Comcast's Burke. "IPTV has a host of technical challenges, and it looks like a marginal competitor" in the near term.
Some telecom analysts speculate that after the BellSouth deal closes, AT&T will acknowledge Project Lightspeed isn't working. J&W Seligman's Wagle thinks the company eventually will be forced to adopt the Verizon model and connect fiber directly to homes. Others wager that AT&T will buy a satellite company to transmit video, or buy a satellite company as a short-term fix, while rolling out fiber over the longer term.
"They'll have to spend a great deal of money just to compete," says Owen Fitzpatrick, head of the U.S. equity group at Deutsche Bank Private Wealth Management. His group is underweight the telecom-services sector and owns a small AT&T stake. "This is a group we would be underweight in '07," he says.
An AT&T spokesman declined to comment on speculation about a satellite acquisition. "We plan to continue rolling out U-verse," the spokesman said. "AT&T investors know we're committed to this."
AT&T has an existing relationship with Echostar Communications (DISH), having sold 583,000 AT&T subscribers the satellite service. Echostar shares rose almost 42% in 2006, while shares of competitor DirecTV (DTV) were up almost 77%.
DirecTV also is considered up for grabs; John Malone's Liberty Media Capital (LCAPA) will own about 38.5% of the stock after an asset swap with News Corp. (NWS) closes, probably by the second half of 2007. BellSouth has a relationship with DirecTV; it has sold 756,000 customers DirecTV satellite service.
Bourkoff of UBS is betting AT&T "will revisit its video strategy in favor of direct-broadcast satellite in 2007." He thinks the company will buy a large stake in DirecTV because it has the stronger brand, higher revenue.

Thanks,
Mike

The problem here is -- There are other providers out there than can support his demands RIGHT NOW. U-Verse is launching a crippled service, and they expect the customer to wait on them while other options are available?

They don't even support 2 HD streams out of the gate, which cable has been doing for a few years.

You are right there that cable can deliver more HD content concurrently that u-verse can, but for 80% of the population right now that is not even an issue as they dont have HD sets. They have time to bring their system up to speed as HD becomes more widespread.

I apologize about my mis-quote above re: Verizon's FTTP speeds. I meant that Verizon can deliver internet speeds now of up to 30Mb/sec downstream, (not 30Gb/sec. Duh!! LOL).

CWH, I am glad that you are satisfied with U-Verse. However, I believe that consumers like myself, (any MANY of the posters here), are exactly the type of customer that the telco's want more than anything; i.e. customers who are willing and able to pay high prices for a quality system, that gives me want I want now, and in the future. Further, with the continuing increase in HD DVR products, the average consumer in the not so distant future will be dissatified with just one HD stream; maybe two.

As for me being 'narrow minded' by stating that I would not try the U-Verse product as it current exists: why would I? I don't care for my Directv service as the quality stinks, BUT I am able to have six differing HD streams at this time should I choose to, (I have 3 HDTVs-HD-TIVOs combinations). While my family rarely uses this full capability, we do at times, so why would I want to reduce that aspect of my viewing choice? My cable company delivers slightly better 'quality' video BUT with less HD content, (we watch only HD approximately 75% of the time), so my choice is to remain with Directv at this time.

My neighbour is an executive with AT+T and when I first learned of AT+T's plans for a video competitor to cable/DBS from him, I was very excited. Unfortunately, U-Verse is not the product yet, (ever, as it presently exists?), that can supply what I need.
Bish

CWH, I am glad that you are satisfied with U-Verse. However, I believe that consumers like myself, (any MANY of the posters here), are exactly the type of customer that the telco's want more than anything; i.e. customers who are willing and able to pay high prices for a quality system, that gives me want I want now, and in the future. Further, with the continuing increase in HD DVR products, the average consumer in the not so distant future will be dissatified with just one HD stream; maybe two.



I have not disagree with this at all. I do think this product will leave heavy HD users wanting more, however it still remains that U-verse in its current state is going to satisfy a large majority of the consumers out there. The service is also likely to grow in capability as consumer demand more. I know it is not going to stand a 1 HD stream forever or even very long as HD sets seems to be flying off the shelves.

Even if you dont opt for the service, it still going to make the cable companies work harder to keep your business and that is a good thing.


And on a good note, my HD finally got turned on today.

AT&T added Yankees Entertainment & Sports Network to its U-verse TV channel lineup under terms of a distribution agreement announced Wednesday.

The telco’s video subscribers in Connecticut will now have access to the regional sports network’s fare, including New York Yankees Major League Baseball games and New Jersey Nets National Basketball Association contests.

“Now AT&T U-verse TV customers in Connecticut can enjoy one of the most-watched regional sports networks in the country,” AT&T Operations head of programming Dan York said in a prepared statement. “We're thrilled to add YES to our expansive sports programming lineup so Yankees and Nets fans in Connecticut can watch their favorite teams.”

YES chief operating officer Ray Hopkins added, “The New York Yankees enjoy arguably the most passionate and loyal fan base in all of sports, and AT&T U-verse customers in Connecticut now have the opportunity to follow their favorite players and team more closely than ever before. They can also catch the Nets and our full slate of award-winning Yankees- and Nets-themed studio and magazine shows.”

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6403665.html?

I have not disagree with this at all. I do think this product will leave heavy HD users wanting more, however it still remains that U-verse in its current state is going to satisfy a large majority of the consumers out there. The service is also likely to grow in capability as consumer demand more. I know it is not going to stand a 1 HD stream forever or even very long as HD sets seems to be flying off the shelves.

Even if you dont opt for the service, it still going to make the cable companies work harder to keep your business and that is a good thing.


And on a good note, my HD finally got turned on today.
One HD stream will not get it for most users with DVR service IMHO. BTW, have you formed an opinion yet on the PQ of the HD service?

One HD stream will not get it for most users with DVR service IMHO. BTW, have you formed an opinion yet on the PQ of the HD service?

Hopefully u-verse will not be stuck at one stream of HD for too long. Th quality seems very good. As good as what TW was delivering I think and more channels.

One HD stream will not get it for most users with DVR service IMHO. BTW, have you formed an opinion yet on the PQ of the HD service?

A network based DVR service would fix the HD-DVR limitations - have the content recorded on an AT&T server. If you can get two HD streams at a time, and record almost any number, now that would be close to heaven. However, I hear the content providers are against this, but not sure why as it would seem more secure to have the stored content on a (very?) secure server than a million subscriber boxes. Either way, I think that's what they'll need to do at some point.

Old news.

From Broadcast Engineering

AT&T accelerates introduction of U-verse across the U.S.
Jan 6, 2007

AT&T has announced the initial launch of AT&T U-verse in numerous locations across the United States. The TV delivery system uses AT&T’s fiber-rich network that extends optical connections deeper into neighborhoods. U-verse services are available in limited areas across the Hartford, CT, metropolitan statistical area (MSA), including parts of Newington and Wethersfield, as well as Stamford and New Haven. AT&T plans to expand to additional areas in Connecticut on an ongoing basis.

This deployment follows the announcement of U-verse availability to Bay Area residents. Residents of the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont MSA, including parts of the cities of San Ramon and Danville, can now receive DTV over their broadband DSL Internet connections. Availability has also been announced for locations in Indiana, including Muncie, Indianapolis and Bloomington.

I wonder how long it will take till they get to the smaller towns :confused: took my town 8 years to get DSL, and I know their still a lot of rural towns out there that don't have DSL yet.

I wonder how long it will take till they get to the smaller towns :confused: took my town 8 years to get DSL, and I know their still a lot of rural towns out there that don't have DSL yet.

Where I live (former BellSouth area), DSL is not currently available; it is about 4 miles from the downtown Albany switching facilities. Given that AT&T agreed to have DSL in one form or another available to all current BellSouth customers by the end of this year, and that much of the fiber optic infrastructure is apparently already in place, I would not be too surprised to see DSL, and for that matter U-verse, around here in the future.

In the spirit of posting articles about AT&T's U-verse service in lieu of reports from someone who's actually managed to get it installed at their home, here's another story that stays that things may not be well in the AT&T U-verse. This is an excerpt from a Barron's story:

On AT&T's U-verse, the fastest speed downstream is six megabytes per second; upstream, it's one megabyte per second. In addition, Verizon says its system currently can support one high-definition television per home and three in the future. As of now, says AT&T, U-verse can support only one, two in the future.

Thanks,
Mike

If your going to quote an article. Make sure it can at least get it's facts right and know what they are talking about.... LOL

six megabytes per second? :rofl:

TW & Comcast don't offer what AT&T does. I don't know why your so negative about it. The "microsoft" servers are feeding multicast routers. When you connect your making a connection to a network appliance not a winblows server. The server is just feeding the multicast. Granted all the rest of the services are bound to MS servers, guide, DVR recording DB... yadda yadda...

And man relax. Their system has been out for what a few months? It takes time to get things right on a large scale. Unforeseeable bugs that you couldn't test in a lab environment. Perhaps some they could have seen. I'ved worked for a very large telco (7 years) and they had the same problems launching new services.

I'm a unix admin, so I'm not happy about it being on Microshaft Winblows either. But they can make their stuff work. And yes, microsoft is an ARROGANT company thinking they know how to do everything. And they release crap to start, but they usually fix it over time. This stuff is just a few months old. Where were you when the 1st digital cable system were released? They had issues too, same with 1st cable modems and DSL systems. (yes, I know Verizon uses same system and has complaints about MS)


And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that mostly people with problems go on to forums. So it's not a big suprise you moslty hear people complaining on uverseusers.com Do you frequently join appliance forums to praise your refrigerator? Heating A/C system? no, you seek them out when you have problems.

And tell me who's service is better than AT&T's? In my area I have a choice of Everest, Comcast and Timewarner (and soon At&T). AT&T offers more than all of them at a good price. Timewarner is about to "upgrade" everyone to new crappy DVR software. Which is going to be a major step backwards as well.

Someone has to make some steps forward. AT&T is getting the ball rolling... someone has too. TW and Comcast surely aren't. Competition is always a good thing, even if you don't like the competition. I'm sure this will force TW and Comcrap to upgrade *finally*.

I'll check out the service when it's available in my area. I'll also keep TW while I'm testing it.

p.s.

this is a better article to post:
http://www.newnetworks.com/fioslightspeed.htm

http://telephonyonline.com/broadband/news/att_lindner_uverse_010907/

AT&T’s Lindner paints optimistic picture
By Carol Wilson

Jan 9, 2007 4:54 PM


AT&T is very optimistic about its immediate future and that includes its U-verse IPTV service, Chief Financial Officer Rick Lindner told the Citigroup 17th Annual Global Entertainment Media and Telecommunications Conference today.

Acknowledging the questions about U-verse, which fell short of the original projections for deployment in 2006, Lindner, who is also executive vice president, said AT&T is “pleased” with how the product is performing to date and the bandwidth it is generating.

“We get lots and lots of questions about U-verse and IPTV,” Lindner said at the event, which was Webcast from Las Vegas. “I know there is a lot of concern about whether the product will work--and much of that is centered around [whether] the fiber-to-the-node architecture will work and supply enough bandwidth. The concern is that we will be coming back and announcing a large capital program to take fiber to the home. What I would tell you is that we are pleased with the rollout at this point. We would always like it to go faster--we’re more impatient than all of you here in terms of wanting to see revenue.”

The complexity of U-verse and the fact that it requires new software, new set-top boxes, and new operations and support systems for provisioning and customer service has slowed the ramp-up, but that is underway now, Lindner said.

“The issues have nothing to do with fiber to the node,” he added. “We are pleased with the bandwidth we are getting – it is greater than we expected to have with the outside plant architecture at this time.”

In addition, changes coming in the second half of 2007 will enable AT&T to increase the available bandwidth by 60% to 70%.

“We’re pleased with the product so far,” Lindner said. “The platform is stabilizing, you will see us beginning to ramp it up in terms of households. We are going to be methodical because we want the customer to have a good experience.”

Lindner also defended AT&T’s two-pronged video strategy, saying the HomeZone product, which combines AT&T Yahoo! DSL service with digital video from DISH Network, is what has enabled AT&T to take the time it needed to roll out U-verse and is likely to be used for some time to come to reach customers not on the FTTN upgrade path.

Overall, Lindner painted a rosier picture than in past years, saying industry conditions have improved, demand is strong particularly for wireless and wireless data, broadband access and business services, and AT&T expects to return to overall revenue growth in the coming year, after six quarters of double-digit earnings per share growth.

One significant move the company has made, he said, was to lower and simplify its voice services packages, to make it easier both for its own call center personnel and for outside agents to sell.

“Another thing we have begun is working to simplify the bundles and the pricing we have both for DSL services as well as bundles of voice services, vertical services and long-distance,” Lindner said. “That makes it more efficient in our call centers, because it’s an easier set of services to sell and explain to customers, and going forward [we will] begin to sell those services through other distribution methods. We will begin selling DSL through an agent agreement with WalMart, and sell DSL and U-verse with Cingular. It adds value and will help us increase ARPU in terms of the overall ARPU we generate.”

The AT&T CFO also touted a total of $9 billion in cost savings generated by the series of mergers that began with AT&T Wireless and Cingular and including AT&T/SBC and now AT&T/BellSouth.

Several things bother me about U-Verse.

First, there's the extremely narrow pipe to the home. 25 Mb/sec in 2007? You've got to be kidding me. Places like Sweden and Korea have had 100 Mb/sec to the home for years now. I have 3 HDTVs in my house, all with Comcast DVRs. It's not unusual for me to record two HD programs while watching a third. U-Verse is a non-starter here.

Second, AT&T is announcing U-Verse availability in several new cities. After doing some checking, their claims are highly misleading. In many (most?) of these new cities, U-Verse is only available in small parts of the city. I live in San Ramon, one of the cities where AT&T recently announced availability, and I can't get it. Neither can several of my friends who live in different parts of San Ramon. I've heard similar reports from people who live in the other cities where AT&T announced availability.

Third, the U-Verse Internet offerings are far, far short of the mark. The highest data rates they offer are 6 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up. This is only slightly better than the 6 M/768K DSL I've had for some time now, and far short of what Verizon and the cable companies are offering (or about to offer).

In my opinion, AT&T made several bad choices. The decision to go with FTTN instead of FTTP is an obvious one. So was the choice of Microsoft to provide the IPTV software. We all know that Microsoft never gets anything right until the third revision. Does AT&T really think their guinea pigs will stick around until Microsoft fixes all of the inevitable scaling problems? Fat chance.

I predict that U-Verse will be dead (or on life support) before the end of the year.

Competition is always a good thing, even if you don't like the competition.Exactly.

Several things bother me about U-Verse........


I predict that U-Verse will be dead (or on life support) before the end of the year.Although I agree with your observations in general, your final comment is dead wrong.

First, they are just rolling it out in limited areas. It's way too soon to know how it will work on a large scale basis. Second, and more importantly, AT&T has way too much riding this venture to simply walk away after a year.

.., AT&T has way too much riding this venture to simply walk away after a year.

The same AT&T that paid big for TCI and Media One? (and Cellular One. . and NCR . . ) I have not heard much mention of these experiences in this latest re-inventing of AT&T.

Krusty: And now, everybody's favorite, the Spin Cycle Fantastique trick! It's a great piece of buffoonery if you pull it off, but if you blow it, you'll look like a fool.

The same AT&T that paid big for TCI and Media One? (and Cellular One. . and NCR . . ) Yup, one and the same as the one that bought Ameritech, AT&T, Bell South, Cingular.....

Yup, one and the same as the one that bought Ameritech, AT&T, Bell South, Cingular.....


Don't forget Pacbell :D

I'll say this much...

Reading through this thread has me very interested in seeing how this all plays out over the next 16-24 months. Before I read through this (entire) thread a few hours ago, I had done some light research on U-verse and decided it wasn't worth signing up for right now. I'm in a market where I couldn't get verizon and I was very upset about that. Then I heard about U-verse and my expectations went up again, until I realized it wasn't the alternative I was hoping for. I now have a bit more hope for it in the future, but IMO it isn't worth waiting for when other providers (Surewest) offer better services in the present. However, I love the competition.

My personal thoughts aside, though, this banter has me very curious to see who ends up being right.

Several things bother me about U-Verse.

First, there's the extremely narrow pipe to the home. 25 Mb/sec in 2007? You've got to be kidding me. Places like Sweden and Korea have had 100 Mb/sec to the home for years now. I have 3 HDTVs in my house, all with Comcast DVRs. It's not unusual for me to record two HD programs while watching a third. U-Verse is a non-starter here.

Second, AT&T is announcing U-Verse availability in several new cities. After doing some checking, their claims are highly misleading. In many (most?) of these new cities, U-Verse is only available in small parts of the city. I live in San Ramon, one of the cities where AT&T recently announced availability, and I can't get it. Neither can several of my friends who live in different parts of San Ramon. I've heard similar reports from people who live in the other cities where AT&T announced availability.

Third, the U-Verse Internet offerings are far, far short of the mark. The highest data rates they offer are 6 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up. This is only slightly better than the 6 M/768K DSL I've had for some time now, and far short of what Verizon and the cable companies are offering (or about to offer).

In my opinion, AT&T made several bad choices. The decision to go with FTTN instead of FTTP is an obvious one. So was the choice of Microsoft to provide the IPTV software. We all know that Microsoft never gets anything right until the third revision. Does AT&T really think their guinea pigs will stick around until Microsoft fixes all of the inevitable scaling problems? Fat chance.

I predict that U-Verse will be dead (or on life support) before the end of the year.

I think you are going to win the award for biggest missed prediction about u-verse this year. U-verse is both for FTTP and FTTN. IF the FTTN does not work out, they just run FTTP from the node. There will not be much lost if FTTN does not work out, however there much will gained if it does as costs significantly less than FTTP.

So looking at todays comments from the CFO a 65% increase in VDSL speed on a 25 meg connections brings it to ~41meg. Enough for 3HD and faster internet. The current offerings are just a starting point, not the final offer.

The same AT&T that paid big for TCI and Media One? (and Cellular One. . and NCR . . ) I have not heard much mention of these experiences in this latest re-inventing of AT&T. ]

Not really. That was the old AT&T, or Ma Bell. The new AT&T, though using the same brand, is operated by SBC exec's at the top. SBC bought the old AT&T last year, well after old AT&T made these cable purchases.

The Pacbell and Ameritech purchases were made by SBC. Two different companies that just came together last year and are using the AT&T brand now.

Not really. That was the old AT&T, or Ma Bell. The new AT&T, though using the same brand, is operated by SBC exec's at the top. SBC bought the old AT&T last year, well after old AT&T made these cable purchases.

The Pacbell and Ameritech purchases were made by SBC. Two different companies that just came together last year and are using the AT&T brand now.
Thank you for the clarification.

The Pacbell and Ameritech purchases were made by SBC. Two different companies that just came together last year and are using the AT&T brand now.

Ahh, PacBell. The same PacBell that overbuilt a state of the art HFC system in San Jose, California to compete against a woefully obsolete TCI system . . . and lost the battle.

A detailed review of AT&T's U-verse service can be found on SatelliteGuys.us
http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=87544

Unfortunately my view of the U-VERSE HD picture quality is not quite as good as I hoped it would be. In fact after doing some tests this weekend I have come to the conclusion that the high definition picture quality is a bit worse then it is on Dish Network.

In my tests I recorded a show from Discovery HD on both my U-VERSE DVR and my Dish Network 622. In playback I first started watching Dish Network then flipped to the same show on U Verse, the U-verse backrounds show heavy boxes floating around the screen. I repeated this with a program from HBO and another from Food HD, the same backround blocking was seen in the U-Verse picture.

In doing some checking on this I found out that U-Verse was sending the HD in about 10Mbs MPEG4 streams, the same stream on Dish (Food HD) was using 12 - 14 Mbs. The extra 2 MB of data was enough to make a big difference in the picture quality.

However with that said I will admit that while the HD did not look great on my 50 Inch Sony SXRD set, it was find on my 32 inch LG set in the bedroom.

However this brings up another major flaw in the U-VERSE, at the moment you can have up to 4 receivers in your house, all of their receivers are HD. The flaw is at this time you can only watch 1 HD channel on any given receiver in your house at a time. This means only 1 receiver can watch a HD channel, if a second person in the house wants to watch something in HD they will see an error message that all HD streams are in use to turn to a non HD channel or it gives you the option to boot the other receiver out of the HD stream it's tuned to.

For me this is a major problem especially considering I have 5 HDTV's in my house. The word going around is that they hope to have 2 streams available per house sometime soon, but even that is not enough.

On the plus side for the most part I do like the receivers when they are working.

What does this mean "when they are working?" For whatever reason the units like to freeze up a lot, the one in the living room sometimes need to be reset 3 times a night, while the DVR has been better behaved only needing to be rebooted once. The problem with these receivers is that a reboot can take close to 3 minutes, kind of annoying when your 4 year old wants his barny back on NOW

I think that is the most significant portion of the review for me personally, although I do recognize that over time these things will get better. Also, there is no PPV ordering. I'm a big fan of boxing so that's rough on me.

Brandon

From the Morning Bridge:

AT&T U-verse So Far: 3K Video, 4K Web Subs

This morning, AT&T detailed subscriber numbers for its U-verse brand of services, the next-generation communications offering that became available in 11 markets in four states last year.

The telco reported that as of the end of 2006, it had about 3,000 U-verse TV video connections. U-verse High-Speed Internet connections numbered 4,000 through Dec. 31, AT&T said.

Consumer DSL lines for the telco grew to 7.255 million, and AT&T's satellite broadband service, offered through a partnership with WildBlue, grew to 5,000, the company said.

AT&T's relationship with EchoStar to sell DISH Network was serving 632,000 customers at the end of 2006, the company said.

AT&T's said fourth quarter net income was $1.9 billion, up 17.1 percent when compared to $1.7 billion for fourth quarter 2005. Consolidated revenues for the three-month period totaled $15.9 billion, up from $12.9 billion reported in fourth quarter 2005.

WSJ: AT&T IPTV Deployment Delayed by Microsoft Software Problems
Submitted by mark on January 26, 2007 - 3:21pm.

New York - The deployment of AT&T's Internet-based TV service, U-verse, has been slowed by problems with the Microsoft software that powers the service, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.

AT&T chief financial officer Rick Lindner told The Journal that the company has "decided against heavy marketing of the TV service because it doesn't want demand to increase until the problems are solved."

The U-verse service is now available in 11 markets, including San Antonio, parts of Connecticut and Bay Area cities including San Jose, Calif. The company had initially expected the service to be available in 15 markets by the end of 2006.

Despite the delays, the company says it expects U-verse to be available in 8 million homes by the end of 2007.

The Microsoft IPTV software powering AT&T's U-verse service is also being used in Europe by telecom providers including BT, Deutsche Telekom, T-Online France and Telecom Italia.

http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/01/26/wsj-at-t-iptv-deployment-delayed-by-microsoft-software-problems

AT&T to ramp up IPTV's expansion
By Marguerite Reardon
http://news.com.com/ATT+to+ramp+up+IPTVs+expansion/2100-1037_3-6153354.html
Story last modified Fri Jan 26 08:27:39 PST 2007

AT&T's IPTV service is working better than the company expected--and AT&T plans to ramp up deployments in the coming year, Chief Executive Officer Ed Whitacre said Thursday.

Whitacre commented on the expansion of AT&T's IPTV service during the company's fourth-quarter 2006 earnings call. By the end of the year, AT&T's U-verse IPTV service will be available to 8 million homes, he said.

"Our fiber-to-the-node network is performing better than we had anticipated," he said. "We're getting better bandwidth both on the short and long loop links. And the customer feedback has been very good, outperforming what's available from cable."

So far, AT&T's IPTV service is available in only 11 markets. And in those markets, it's available only to a handful of subscribers. AT&T had said it expected to have service available in 15 markets in 2006, but the company changed its projections toward the end of the year.

Since the company first began testing the service, it has experienced glitches that have caused a series of delays. Executives on the conference call said the delays had been caused by software issues and did not reflect any problems with the network architecture, which AT&T has spent millions of dollars upgrading.

"It works and it works well," Whitacre said of the infrastructure. "The delays and difficulties have been related to programming. And we think we are just about to get all those issues solved."

Microsoft developed the IPTV software that AT&T is using. Microsoft is also supplying other major carriers around the world with its IPTV Edition software including Deutsche Telekom, Telecom Italia, T-Online France, British Telecommunications and Swisscom. Several others are testing the software as well.

AT&T's foray into the TV market is a response to increased competition from cable operators, which now offer TV service, high-speed Internet access and telephony. To compete, AT&T and Verizon Communications have been upgrading their networks to add television to their list of services.

Unlike Verizon, which has chosen to install new fiber that reaches directly into subscribers' homes, AT&T has extended its fiber network into neighborhoods, but is using its installed copper cables to deliver services the rest of the way.

AT&T's fiber-to-the-node approach is much less expensive than Verizon's fiber-to-the-home project, but in some ways it's riskier. Because AT&T's network does not use fiber all the way to the doorstep, its bandwidth capacity is limited compared with Verizon's Fios network. AT&T is using a flavor of broadband technology called VDSL (very high bit rate DSL) to provide higher-capacity links over the existing copper infrastructure, which delivers the high-speed broadband and IP-based television services.

But simply getting the IPTV technology to work has not been easy. And AT&T has taken its time in introducing new services and features. For the first several months, the service was being tested in San Antonio, Texas, subscribers were not able to access high-definition programming. Today, Whitacre said all U-verse customers in all 11 markets can get HD programming.

AT&T executives wouldn't say how many subscribers have signed up for U-verse so far, but Whitacre did say the company will make the service available to 8 million homes by the end of 2007. Among current subscribers, 75 percent have subscribed to the top-tier cable package, and 75 percent are also signed up for the highest speed Internet service, he said.

Initially, AT&T will expand U-verse throughout AT&T's existing territory. But Rick Linder, chief financial officer for AT&T, said that within a few months, the company may also unveil plans for expanding service to the BellSouth territory (AT&T completed its $86 billion purchase of BellSouth in late December). Whitacre says he believes U-verse deployments may actually be faster in the BellSouth territory than they have been in the AT&T territory.

"BellSouth has significant fiber plant in the ground already," he said. "So I expect the rollout to be much quicker there than the roll out in the old SBC footprint."

Is Microsoft AT&T’s Scapegoat?
Unrealistic expectations may have caused Internet TV delays.
January 26, 2007
By Cassimir Medford

At least one analyst believes that AT&T might be using Microsoft as a scapegoat for extended delays in its highly anticipated and expensive rollout of IPTV services.

AT&T CFO Rick Lindner was quoted in The Wall Street Journal on Friday as saying that problems with Microsoft’s IPTV set-top boxes slowed the rollout of AT&T’s IPTV service, known as U-verse, which is still in its infancy, while Verizon Communications’ TV rollout is much further ahead.

‘In these kinds of new deployments there is rarely one thing to blame.’ -Bruce Leichtman, Leichtman Research Group

But Bruce Leichtman, president and principal analyst for Leichtman Research Group, believes that AT&T is passing the buck for its own poor judgment, and perhaps its unrealistic expectations.

“I am very skeptical of how large a factor Microsoft’s set-top box was in the slow process of AT&T’s video rollout,” said Mr. Leichtman. “It is very convenient to pin the blame on a big name like Microsoft, rather than taking the ultimate responsibility.”

There are many moving parts to the rollout of a brand new, complex delivery system like IPTV, Mr. Leichtman said.

Shares of AT&T fell $0.40 to $36.39 in recent trading, while Microsoft shares rose $0.15 to close at $30.60.

Instant Street Cred

IPTV has to emerge from the womb with instant channel-change capability, DVR features, video-on-demand, and HDTV capability just to be competitive.

Verizon chose to go with the tried-and-true signaling system used by traditional cable TV operators rather than IPTV, so its TV rollout has been a lot smoother and less eventful than AT&T’s.

It’s not the first time Microsoft’s set-top boxes have been blamed for service delays. But Microsoft’s set-tops are being used in numerous deployments around the world. Only a handful of carriers have publicly blamed the software giant for testing and deployment delays.

In mid-2005 Telstra, the largest Australian carrier, said it was ending its IPTV beta test in part because of software problems. But Microsoft said Telstra’s network rather than its software was to blame for the carrier’s problems (see Telstra Cancels Microsoft TV).

Swisscom also blamed Microsoft’s set-top box because the box, at that time, had no hard drive and customers could only view a single program at a time.

But analyst Ford Cavallari said at the time that Swisscom was a victim of its own unrealistic expectations.

IPTV was a completely new technology that had to live up to technology standards and consumer expectations set by decades-old traditional cable TV systems.

Mr. Leichtman also questions AT&T’s desire in the IPTV arena.

“During their fourth-quarter call yesterday AT&T listed its five priorities, and consumer and rollout of U-verse were at the bottom,” he said. “Consumer is not their No. 1 priority and neither is video, nor should it be. Microsoft may be a factor in the delay but so is AT&T’s desire.”

AT&T’s announced priorities in descending order were: wireless, enterprise, small and medium businesses, consumer, and video (see AT&T Edges Past Estimates).

“In these kinds of new deployments there is rarely one thing to blame,” Mr. Leichtman said. “AT&T chose to go with Microsoft, a neophyte at set-top box technology, rather than Scientific-Atlanta or Motorola, so the first round of blame should be laid there.”

AT&T did not provide a promised interview by press time. A Microsoft representative said the company’s IPTV carrier customers worldwide were already delivering a better experience than other premium pay TV services.

“We are confident that the Microsoft IPTV software platform is on track to help these customers redefine the way consumers experience TV and enable them to successfully deploy a highly competitive new TV service,” said Microsoft TV spokesperson Jim Brady.

He noted that the Microsoft IPTV Edition software has been deployed by seven service providers and is undergoing trials by another 10, representing a footprint of 17 customers across 15 countries on four continents.

In the past six months, he added, AT&T, BT Group, Deutsche Telekom, Swisscom, Slovak Telecom, Magyar Telecom, and T-Online France have begun deployments. Microsoft expects even more deployments in 2007.

http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=20970&hed=Is+Microsoft+AT%26T%E2%80%99s+Scapegoat%3F&sector=Industries&subsector=Communications#

Interesting how the WSJ article and the CNET article come away with completely different spins on the exact same conference call.

Indeed...and to go from a current sub count of around 3000 to being available to 8 million in one year seems wildly optimistic.

From the Morning Bridge:

AT&T U-verse So Far: 3K Video, 4K Web Subs

This morning, AT&T detailed subscriber numbers for its U-verse brand of services, the next-generation communications offering that became available in 11 markets in four states last year.

The telco reported that as of the end of 2006, it had about 3,000 U-verse TV video connections. U-verse High-Speed Internet connections numbered 4,000 through Dec. 31, AT&T said.

Consumer DSL lines for the telco grew to 7.255 million, and AT&T's satellite broadband service, offered through a partnership with WildBlue, grew to 5,000, the company said.

AT&T's relationship with EchoStar to sell DISH Network was serving 632,000 customers at the end of 2006, the company said.

AT&T's said fourth quarter net income was $1.9 billion, up 17.1 percent when compared to $1.7 billion for fourth quarter 2005. Consolidated revenues for the three-month period totaled $15.9 billion, up from $12.9 billion reported in fourth quarter 2005.


Wow, 3000 whole subscribers in 11 markets?? No wonder they ran out of server capacity so quickly. They really need to tell the hordes of customers beating down the doors to hold on for a month or so while they increase capacity... After all, the most important thing is to deliver a quality service consistent with the vaunted AT&T brand!

No wonder real customer experience is so hard to come by. The whole thing is a big joke, and the AT&T folks must know it. At least MSFT is playing it's traditional role - bloated unreliable software that overpromises and underdelivers. Somethings in the universe are constants at least.

Mike

Indeed...and to go from a current sub count of around 3000 to being available to 8 million in one year seems wildly optimistic.

Not really. In QTR3 they said they had already passed 1.5M homes and would pass more than 2M homes by the end of qtr4. If the major bugs are worked out the IPTV portion they can just start marketing and continue deployed more equipment.

Indeed...and to go from a current sub count of around 3000 to being available to 8 million in one year seems wildly optimistic.

I think they mean 8 millions homes passes, not 8 million subs. THey would have to have a huge army of installers to get that done. But if they get a 10% take rate that would be about 800,000 subs.

Wow, 3000 whole subscribers in 11 markets?? No wonder they ran out of server capacity so quickly. They really need to tell the hordes of customers beating down the doors to hold on for a month or so while they increase capacity... After all, the most important thing is to deliver a quality service consistent with the vaunted AT&T brand!

No wonder real customer experience is so hard to come by. The whole thing is a big joke, and the AT&T folks must know it. At least MSFT is playing it's traditional role - bloated unreliable software that overpromises and underdelivers. Somethings in the universe are constants at least.

Mike

It looks like they did not add many subs in the last qtr and used the time to make sure the system stable before ramping up. If they dont add subs over the next qtr or 2 you may have a point, but until then it is still too early to tell.

Interesting how the WSJ article and the CNET article come away with completely different spins on the exact same conference call.

My thoughts exactly.

Brandon

At least MSFT is playing it's traditional role - bloated unreliable software that overpromises and underdelivers. Somethings in the universe are constants at least.

MikeYes, and how convenient for AT&T to place blame on Microsoft for the issues. It could never be their system, could it?

Yes, and how convenient for AT&T to place blame on Microsoft for the issues. It could never be their system, could it?


So you are saying it is beyond the realm of possibilities for MS IPTV code to be causing more problems than FTTN.

I can say this, I have had u-verse for 6+ months now. The vdsl is VERY reliable. The STB code has been on the buggy side, but it does appear to be improving.

So you are saying it is beyond the realm of possibilities for MS IPTV code to be causing more problems than FTTN.No, I'm saying it is convenient for AT&T to have MS to blame. Due to the newness of the system issues are most likely in both areas.

No, I'm saying it is convenient for AT&T to have MS to blame. Due to the newness of the system issues are most likely in both areas.

That maybe the case, but it appears fairly obvious that the vdsl network is ourperforming the iptv software. Even when there have been video outages the VDSL has always remained functional.

That maybe the case, but it appears fairly obvious that the vdsl network is ourperforming the iptv software. Even when there have been video outages the VDSL has always remained functional.
This is an assumption I would not make. It may appear that way to you, but there is a lot more to how it works than what you probably know.

This is an assumption I would not make. It may appear that way to you, but there is a lot more to how it works than what you probably know.

Your right it is an assumption, but I would have to say it is a better grounded assumption than yours. Most people with u-verse are reporting that vdsl is working well from the end users perspective, so I dont think it is that big of assumption to go with FTTN not being the major problem at this point.

Your right it is an assumption, but I would have to say it is a better grounded assumption than yours.I'm not making an assumption.

I think it's rather funny that I keep seeing this "fast channel changing" ability touted. Big f'ing deal. Give me better or equivalent HD PQ than cable, and more channels, at a good price point, and I'll be interested. With the SA8300HD on cable, the channel changing delay really isn't an issue anymore, IMHO.

After a flurry of activity at the VRADs in November, there's not a hint of a Uverse announcement here in Cleveland. So much for launching all these markets by the end of 2006....

Your right it is an assumption, but I would have to say it is a better grounded assumption than yours. Most people with u-verse are reporting that vdsl is working well from the end users perspective, so I dont think it is that big of assumption to go with FTTN not being the major problem at this point.

I think there are plenty of problems to go around. There have been many reports of packet loss on the VDSL links that shouldn't be there. This has required some changes to the video streaming parameters that are used, to increase receive buffering somewhat, and also retransmission in some reports. While it's hard to say what's true here from the outside, there is certainly some smoke here.

And in many areas, SBC's outside plant management has been far from good in the past. Some areas did a great job, but in some territories there was a lot of penny pinching done and it can cause problems here.

I think the overbuilt the FTTN in several of the launch markets to assure there was not a problem, but how this scales will be interesting to see.

In any case, the VDSL "going down" is not what you would expect to see. the issues would be packet loss on the network, even a little of which is highly toxic to an aggressive codec like h.264.

And don't forget that SBC had the incredible foresight of choosing an also ran in the IP routing world, Alcatel, to build out all their telecom transport for u-verse. While I like French food, there is a reason why Cisco and Juniper eat these guys for lunch in the IP networking space.

But right now, our French friends and the SBC plant management folks are all happy to see MSFT botch the most customer visible pieces so glaringly. If the MSFT pieces were working well all the other problems would be exposed. This way they have some time to figure out how to try fix all their junk before the spotlight turns to them. The good news for them is it doesn't look like MSFT can fix these issues any time soon.

Of course, there is a reason why SBC isn't selling pure VDSL transport to people. After all, if the VDSL network were working so well, why not have a premium 25 Mbps all data product to compete with cable and bundled with Dish? That might show folks they actually can go toe to toe with the MSO's. But the moment they did that, all the issues in the transport network and outside plant would surface. People would see packet loss and router problems first hand, so I doubt you'll see this any time soon.

While MSFT is the main source of problems here, there are plenty of problems to go around. The whole thing is a fiasco.

Thanks,
Mike

I think there are plenty of problems to go around.......

.......The whole thing is a fiasco.

Thanks,
Mike
Thank you for the very detailed and well thought out analysis.

I pretty much agree, at least for now.

I think there are plenty of problems to go around. There have been many reports of packet loss on the VDSL links that shouldn't be there. This has required some changes to the video streaming parameters that are used, to increase receive buffering somewhat, and also retransmission in some reports. While it's hard to say what's true here from the outside, there is certainly some smoke here.


There have been reports of packet lose since the beginning of the trial rollout and IMHO the reports were greatly exaggerated. For the first few months I had service you had a pretty good chance of seeing one or two small by noticable image errors that was probably due to packet loss during an entire night of watching tv. About once a week you would probably see an entire frame drop and the screen blip go green for a split second. While these are annoying errors, at no point was did the content become unwatchable.

Since then I have received a new VDSL RG and the new moto STBs. At this point image errors are history. The stats on VDSL are reported to be greatly improved(faster max sync speeds, fewer reported errors) over the previous model.


In any case, the VDSL "going down" is not what you would expect to see. the issues would be packet loss on the network, even a little of which is highly toxic to an aggressive codec like h.264.


Funny just the other day I recorded 1HD and 3SD streams at the same time without a single problem. IF there was significant packetloss it would have showed up. Ahd just so you know I am currently outside of 3000 feet, which is the limit they are doing for new installs right now.


But right now, our French friends and the SBC plant management folks are all happy to see MSFT botch the most customer visible pieces so glaringly. If the MSFT pieces were working well all the other problems would be exposed. This way they have some time to figure out how to try fix all their junk before the spotlight turns to them. The good news for them is it doesn't look like MSFT can fix these issues any time soon.


If there were serious packet loss problems with VDSL it would be showing up now that HD is available. The only problems that are visable from the outside is the the STB code. Every thing else appears to working reasonable well.


Of course, there is a reason why SBC isn't selling pure VDSL transport to people. After all, if the VDSL network were working so well, why not have a premium 25 Mbps all data product to compete with cable and bundled with Dish? That might show folks they actually can go toe to toe with the MSO's. But the moment they did that, all the issues in the transport network and outside plant would surface. People would see packet loss and router problems first hand, so I doubt you'll see this any time soon.


There is no reason why they could not sell a vdsl only option and that will probably come in the future, but my guess is they have more pressing things to get finished first(build out the video infrastruture,uverse voice,..). I hate to break it to you, but most consumers are not clamoring for 25meg meg pipe.



While MSFT is the main source of problems here, there are plenty of problems to go around. The whole thing is a fiasco.

Thanks,
Mike

There probably are problems with FTTN, however if there were major problems with vdsl at this point, they would have been exposed. The major problem with FTTN right now is the reach of the VDSL for this product

Thiey may have sliped their schedule a bit this qtr, but it is not at fiasco status. A fiasco would have involved then not get HD turned, losing all their customers due MS software problems and significant packet loss.

Well its here. U-Verse has been installed at my neighbors on either side of me. Both of these installs have been all day long service calls involving two or more ATT trucks. Does anyone know why it is so labor intensive?

BHorn, why don't you ask one of them if you can come over for a test drive? What side of town are you on, BTW (if I may ask)?

rezzy,

I am west of the airport. I believe the main fiber station (or what ever you call it) is located south of Brownsburg.

I have an invitation arranged for Monday or Tuesday to check it out.

Will report my findings.

Update

Turns out AT&T is only installing in their employees homes. Also these installs are considered training opportunities for the local service reps.

The only concern from a user was the lack of the ability to integrate local off-air HD easily into the system. If he could do this he could watch one HD channel while recording a local or vise versa.

Lightspeed's Slow Start
Business Week Online
FEBRUARY 12, 2007

Questions dog the new high-speed AT&T network that offers phone, Net, and TV

AT&T is on top of the telecom world. A few weeks ago, chairman and CEO Edward E. Whitacre Jr. put the latest touch on his empire by closing an $86 billion deal to acquire BellSouth. That completed a whirlwind of acquisitions in which Whitacre has virtually remade the old Ma Bell by gobbling up 13 companies over the past decade with a combined price tag of $285 billion, including assumed debt. Last year, investors rewarded "Big Ed's" voracious appetite by bidding up AT&T's (T ) stock price 46%. The cherry on top? Well, that came last month at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, where Cingular Wireless, the company's cell phone arm, stole the spotlight by partnering with Apple Inc. (AAPL ) to introduce the sleek iPhone.

Now AT&T is gearing up for the next big telecom battle—for the supremacy of the Internet. AT&T's weapon of choice is Project Lightspeed, a new Internet network that sends bits of data through copper and fiber-optic cables buried in the ground. The high-speed network and its Internet-protocol television (IPTV) technology are crucial to AT&T's plan to bundle phone service, Net connections, and TV—the vaunted telecom triple play. In theory, the system will let AT&T steal customers from rival phone giant Verizon Communications (VZ ) and cable companies such as Comcast (CMCSA ) and Time Warner (TWX ). AT&T says it will pump $4.6 billion into building enough fiber-optic cable and supporting technology to reach 19 million homes by the end of 2008.

But despite AT&T's stellar performance of late, the company faces serious questions about whether Project Lightspeed can deliver on its promise. Technology glitches hobbled the rollout last year. And though the TV service is up and running in fewer than a dozen markets with prices that undercut cable bills, a growing chorus of rivals, analysts, and engineers are skeptical that the network will offer enough bandwidth a few years from now to handle phone service, high-speed Internet, and multiple streams of high-definition TV.

Cable operators have taken full advantage of AT&T's slow start, gleefully swiping phone customers with their own triple-play offerings. Having invested more than $110 billion in network upgrades over the last decade to provide Internet and digital video, cable companies only have to tweak their networks to offer phone service. As of the third quarter, the five largest U.S. cable operators have signed up about 6 million new Net-based phone customers. By contrast, AT&T and Verizon have swiped a combined 222,000 TV customers.

Verizon is placing the most ambitious and risky bet. It plans to spend $18 billion—three times as much as AT&T—to lay fiber to every one of the 18 million homes it hopes to cover by 2010. AT&T is laying fiber into neighborhoods but is using existing copper phone lines to carry video the last few thousand feet. As a result, it will cost Verizon $1,750 to connect each home, vs. $450 for AT&T. Despite the higher price tag, ubs Investment Research expects Verizon to produce a return on its investment by 2011. The reason? It believes the Verizon network's higher bandwidth will lure more phone, Internet, and video customers—at higher prices—and thus generate about four times as much revenue as Lightspeed. On Jan. 29, Verizon backed up the theory when it announced that it ended its first full year of operations with 207,000 TV customers, representing 9% of the 2.4 million homes capable of receiving its video service in 2006. Just a few months ago, the company was hoping to finish 2006 with 175,000 video customers.

AT&T's problems became apparent last December when it was forced to pull back on targets for its TV service. Throughout 2006, AT&T told investors that it intended to deliver TV in 15 to 20 markets by yearend. By November it was in just two cities, San Antonio and Houston. In the last 10 days of December, AT&T unleashed a flurry of press releases announcing it was up and running in nine more markets, including New Haven, Indianapolis, and San Francisco. Still, that's short of its original target. And UBS analyst John C. Hodulik estimates that AT&T has only 15,000 total TV customers in the 11 announced markets, generating $2 million in revenue. The company isn't providing numbers.

It's not surprising, then, that some analysts are skeptical about another claim for Lightspeed: that two years from now, it will produce net earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization costs are taken out. Even if AT&T succeeds in building out Lightspeed, analysts believe it will never produce a huge return from video. Rather, they say its value will be more defensive in nature—mostly to help stem phone customer defections, attract new Net customers, and make it cheaper to resolve consumer requests for adding, dropping, or changing services. Handling customer changes are the largest costs faced by a phone company. And by meeting more of those requests electronically with Lightspeed rather than sending technicians to homes, AT&T will save money. But it's far from the video revolution that the company has been selling.

Doubts about AT&T's video project are fueling speculation it will have to buy one of the two U.S. satellite operators, DirecTV Group Inc. (DTV ) or EchoStar Communications Corp.(DISH ), to accelerate delivery of TV service. "The AT&T IPTV technology is just inferior to satellite or cable in terms of delivering video, and they don't have much time to figure it out," says Aryeh B. Bourkoff, a UBS cable and satellite analyst.

FIXING GLITCHES
On a Jan. 25 conference call, though, Whitacre reaffirmed AT&T's commitment to Lightspeed. "This is our Plan A, and Plan A we're sticking with," he vowed. In an e-mail interview, Whitacre said various technological fixes, such as bonding phone wires, will enable AT&T to "greatly increase bandwidth as needed." Moreover, executives claim to have solved most of the technical and customer-service problems that slowed the rollout. And they remain confident in their decision to bet on a system that's more technically complex than Verizon's, arguing it will result in a TV service superior to anything else on the market. Chris Rice, AT&T's chief technology officer, says creating broadband video "was a lot more complex than people thought it would be. Did we have some bumps along the way? Yes. Did we solve them? Yes."

So far, AT&T TV customers seem happy. The pricing is particularly attractive, given the steep rise in cable fees. AT&Ts basic package of 190 digital cable channels, a digital video recorder, and a high-speed wireless Internet link costs $74, vs. about $90 for a comparable cable package. Alan Weinkrantz of San Antonio, a customer since May, says compared with cable the programming guide is easier, channels change faster, and he can record four programs at once. Most cable systems allow two. "Have I had some jitter and granulation? Absolutely," says Weinkrantz. "I have had the same thing in cable. Tony Soprano froze up on me while he was about to kill someone."

But couch potatoes are not pleased by the unadvertised fact that AT&T is only supporting one high-definition TV stream per household. Services from Verizon and cable companies support multiple HDTV signals. Since the capacity of copper phone lines decreases as the wires get longer, Jean Walrand, a professor of electrical engineering and computer science at the University of California at Berkeley, says Lightspeed may not have enough bandwidth in the future when households have several HDTVs. If copper loops are "longer than a few hundred feet, the bandwidth will drop," he says. AT&T says the average length of its copper loops is 3,000 feet.

Chad Townes, vice-president and general manager of Connecticut for AT&T, told BusinessWeek that homes farther away from its fiber nodes can't handle multiple high-definition streams. But Rice says bonding the two copper wires that run into each home will double the bandwidth of the Lightspeed network. That's possible, Walrand says. He cautions, however, that the fix hasn't been tried in suburbs or office buildings.

In coming months, AT&T plans to roll out some whiz-bang features. Soon you'll be able to program digital video recorders from a cell phone. Deals are being struck to deliver new channels and video-on-demand. But given AT&T's history of overpromising and underachieving in TV, that may not convince skeptics that Lightspeed is ready for prime time.

By Spencer E. Ante, with Roger O. Crockett in Chicago, Jay Greene in Las Vegas, and Ronald Grover in Los Angeles

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_07/b4021067.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_technology

Jean Walrand, a professor of electrical engineering and computer science at the University of California at Berkeley, says Lightspeed may not have enough bandwidth in the future when households have several HDTVs.

In the future? Sheesh-- at last count, I had three HD capable tv's in my house right now, and regularly record four overlapping HD streams on my current cable feed from Time Warner. I'm anxious for what U-Verse might bring, but not in its current incarnation. I hope it improves quite a bit before they roll it out en masse.

In the future? Sheesh-- at last count, I had three HD capable tv's in my house right now, and regularly record four overlapping HD streams on my current cable feed from Time Warner. I'm anxious for what U-Verse might bring, but not in its current incarnation. I hope it improves quite a bit before they roll it out en masse.
I must agree as I have three HD units myself and I live alone. I can record two HD streams at one time and frequently wish I could do more. They must improve the offering to have any hope of success IMHO.

AT&T Signs Retransmission Consent Agreement with Hearst-Argyle Television for AT&T U-verse TV

[AT&T Press Release]
San Antonio, Texas, New York, New York, February 5, 2007

AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) and Hearst-Argyle Television (NYSE:HTV) today announced a long-term agreement providing retransmission consent for Hearst-Argyle television stations in six designated market areas (DMAs) as part of the AT&T U-verse(SM) TV channel lineup.

The agreement covers Hearst-Argyle stations in six DMAs where AT&T plans to offer AT&T U-verse TV. The stations will be made available as AT&T launches U-verse services in additional markets.

AT&T U-verse TV is delivered by Project Lightspeed, the company's initiative to expand the fiber-optics network deeper into neighborhoods to deliver U-verse TV, AT&T Yahoo!® High Speed Internet U-verse Enabled and, in the future, Voice over IP services. Through its subsidiaries, AT&T expects to reach nearly 19 million households by the end of 2008 as part of its initial deployment, using fiber-to-the-node (FTTN) and fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) technologies.

http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=23351

NOTE: The PR did not identify the six DMAs in the agreement, but there is one possibility I personally know of: WYFF, owned by Hearst-Argyle, is the NBC affiliate in the Greenville/Spartanburg, SC DMA (a former BellSouth area, and one which IMO will be one of the first to get U-verse, based on its population density).

AT&T Signs Retransmission Consent Agreement with Hearst-Argyle Television for AT&T U-verse TV

[AT&T Press Release]
San Antonio, Texas, New York, New York, February 5, 2007

AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) and Hearst-Argyle Television (NYSE:HTV) today announced a long-term agreement providing retransmission consent for Hearst-Argyle television stations in six designated market areas (DMAs) as part of the AT&T U-verse(SM) TV channel lineup.

The agreement covers Hearst-Argyle stations in six DMAs where AT&T plans to offer AT&T U-verse TV. The stations will be made available as AT&T launches U-verse services in additional markets.

AT&T U-verse TV is delivered by Project Lightspeed, the company's initiative to expand the fiber-optics network deeper into neighborhoods to deliver U-verse TV, AT&T Yahoo!® High Speed Internet U-verse Enabled and, in the future, Voice over IP services. Through its subsidiaries, AT&T expects to reach nearly 19 million households by the end of 2008 as part of its initial deployment, using fiber-to-the-node (FTTN) and fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) technologies.

http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=23351

NOTE: The PR did not identify the six DMAs in the agreement, but there is one possibility I personally know of: WYFF, owned by Hearst-Argyle, is the NBC affiliate in the Greenville/Spartanburg, SC DMA (a former BellSouth area, and one which IMO will be one of the first to get U-verse, based on its population density).
Boston, MA 7 ABC WCVB 5/20 2.2%
Manchester, NH ABC WMUR 9/59
Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL 12 WMOR 32/19 1.5%
Orlando, FL 19 NBC WESH 2/11 1.1%
Orlando, FL CW WKCF 18/17
Pittsburgh, PA 22 ABC WTAE 4/51 1.1%
Baltimore, MD 24 NBC WBAL 11/59 1.0%
Greenville-Spartanburg, SC 36 NBC WYFF 4/59 0.7%
W. Palm Beach, FL 38 ABC WPBF 25/16 0.7%
Lancaster, PA 41 NBC WGAL 8/58 0.6%
Greensboro/
Winston-Salem, NC 47 NBC WXII 12/31 0.6%
Louisville, KY 48 CBS WLKY 32/26 0.6%
Portland-Auburn, ME 74 ABC WMTW 8/46 0.4%
Burlington, VT/
Plattsburgh, NY 90 NBC/
NBC WPTZ/
WNNE 5/14
31/25 0.3%


Back to Top



CENTRAL REGION STATIONS


Market DMA
Rank Affiliation Station Channel U.S.
Household
Coverage

Kansas City, MO 31 ABC KMBC 9/7 0.8%
Kansas City, MO CW KCWE 29/31
Milwaukee, WI 34 ABC WISN 12/34 0.8%
Cincinnati, OH 33 NBC WLWT 5/35 0.8%
New Orleans, LA 54 NBC WDSU 6/43 0.5%
Oklahoma City, OK 45 ABC KOCO 5/7 0.6%
Des Moines, IA 73 CBS KCCI 8/31 0.4%
Omaha, NE 75 ABC KETV 7/20 0.4%
Jackson, MS 85 ABC WAPT 16/21 0.3%
Fort Smith/
Fayettville, AR 102 ABC/
ABC KHBS/
KHOG 40/21
29/15 0.2%


Back to Top



WESTERN AND PACIFIC REGION STATIONS


Market DMA
Rank Affiliation Station Channel U.S.
Household
Coverage

Sacramento/Stockton/
Modesto, CA 20 NBC KCRA 3/35 1.2%
Sacramento/Stockton/
Modesto, CA MNT KQCA 58/46
Albuquerque, NM 45 ABC KOAT 7/21 0.6%
Honolulu, HI 72 ABC KITV 4/40 0.4%
Monterey-Salinas, CA 124 NBC KSBW 8/10 0.2%

From Hearst-Argyle Television website

In the future? Sheesh-- at last count, I had three HD capable tv's in my house right now, and regularly record four overlapping HD streams on my current cable feed from Time Warner. I'm anxious for what U-Verse might bring, but not in its current incarnation. I hope it improves quite a bit before they roll it out en masse.
I think they mean typical households -- us enthusiasts who hang out on forums like avs tend to forget that the vast majority of households don't even have a single HDTV.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I am convinced (because it's the only explanation that makes sense) that AT&T is trying to nab the low-hanging fruit in order to get a revenue stream going, and that they'll use that stream to go back and start doing last-mile upgrades. They wanted to expand fast and felt that a FIOS-type of slow buildout would be death.

Either that or they're unbelievably short-sighted... :)

Thanks, vmanu2, for posting the Hearst-Argyle owned stations from their website.

I would not be too concerned with stations in the Northeast, in Tampa and Hawaii; many of those communities are served by Verizon and, therefore, may end up getting FiOS. Similarly, several stations in the upper Midwest and New Mexico are in territories served by Qwest; I am not sure of their IPTV plans.

I have added a list of Hearst-Argyle owned stations in AT&T states as an addendum to my similar post in the Hot Off the Press thread.

I signed up for U-Verse last September. It wasn't installed until the first week in December due to a lack of qualified technicians. The first month was plagued with service outages (lasting hours), and freezing. I got the "new" Motorola boxes. Supposedly these are better than the original boxes. If that's the case, I can't imagine what people with the original boxes had to withstand. The original package I signed up for expired at the end of November, so I was put into a less favorable package at install. Getting that corrected was a nightmare. Customer support has been pitiful due primarily to inexperienced CSR's. I got "we never offered service at that price" when I called about the package I was SUPPOSE to be in. Just this week, I was credited back for being put into the wrong package. I called and e-mailed about it in early January.

Service reliability improved significantly in January. The quality of the picture is a step up from Time-Warner. If AT&T can get their act together on the customer service side, and maintain the quality standards, I will definitely keep the service. It's considerably cheaper then TWC when factoring in high speed internet, television, and phone service. Bundling will saving me around $40 per month versus the individual services. The good news is that I am now getting 3 months of regular channels + all the movie channels free because of their screw up.

I recommend to wait until the glitches are worked out. You can get several months free if you sign up now, but do so only if you are a very patient person.

Regarding the limited bandwidth discussion. I am not technologically inclined, so I don't fully understand the technical aspects of IPTV. I can say five years ago, the idea of having "cable" t.v. service through the phone company was just a pipe dream - I have hated Time Warner for years. Of course, ten years ago, who would of thought you would be able to buy a terabyte HDD. They will figure out how to provide multiple HD feeds to all rooms in the house. AT&T is putting too much money into this for it to fail because of a lack of bandwidth.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I am convinced (because it's the only explanation that makes sense) that AT&T is trying to nab the low-hanging fruit in order to get a revenue stream going, and that they'll use that stream to go back and start doing last-mile upgrades. They wanted to expand fast and felt that a FIOS-type of slow buildout would be death.

Either that or they're unbelievably short-sighted... :)I tend to agree.

In the end one or the other will be true.

Regarding the limited bandwidth discussion. I am not technologically inclined, so I don't fully understand the technical aspects of IPTV. I can say five years ago, the idea of having "cable" t.v. service through the phone company was just a pipe dream - I have hated Time Warner for years. Of course, ten years ago, who would of thought you would be able to buy a terabyte HDD. They will figure out how to provide multiple HD feeds to all rooms in the house. AT&T is putting too much money into this for it to fail because of a lack of bandwidth.

Think of it this way. Cable/Satellite/FIOS/OTA are all, essentially, broadcast technologies. Every subscriber is continually receiving all of the channels offered by the provider. The TV tuner or set-top box tunes to individual channels, assuming they are authorized.

IPTV, on the other hand, only sends a feed for whatever you're watching (or recording). When you change channels on the IPTV box, it sends a request back to some type of head-end device, which starts transmitting the feed.

One big advantage of IPTV is that the provider can offer as many channels as they can sign up. Satellite providers run out of room and are forced to launch new satellites, change compression technologies (and upgrade the set-top boxes), or both. Cable systems must also upgrade infrastructure, set-top boxes, etc. An IPTV provider doesn't have to do any of that.

The drawback is that the IPTV provider needs enough bandwidth to deliver the number of concurrent streams users want. As a DirecTV customer, I can run 8 DVRs, each with dual tuners, if I want to (and can afford it) -- to DirecTV it doesn't matter in terms of bandwidth, so long as the sats are in place to broadcast all the channels I want.

There's no doubt in my mind that AT&T will have to fix the bandwidth issue. They may also find that they need to do it rather quickly, at least if they want to start attracting the higher-end, higher-margin customers. (I need 4 concurrent HD streams along with 4-8 SD streams before I can consider it.)

There's no doubt in my mind that AT&T will have to fix the bandwidth issue. They may also find that they need to do it rather quickly, at least if they want to start attracting the higher-end, higher-margin customers. (I need 4 concurrent HD streams along with 4-8 SD streams before I can consider it.)

Amen to 'dat. In a household with two adults and one rugrat, we have three hi-def DVRs and consistently have two of them active at any given time. Granted, sometimes we're DVRing the same show on two separate DVRs so that we can location-shift from the living room to the bedroom (or to the theater) if we choose, but more often than not, the living room is DVRing two shows, while the bedroom is DVRing another one or two, while the theater is grabbing a movie off of HDNet Movies or UniHD.

Give me a networked DVR and my tune might change a bit, but realistically, unless you also give me more on-demand choices, I've got so many timing conflicts, I need the ability to grab that many streams at the same time.

Technology has shown me the promise of time shifting. Don't take it away.

AT&T announced last week it will carry Music Choice's digital music channels:
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=23359

Oh boy...

They seem to be slowly expanding their service areas, at least in the Houston market. Up till recently I believe it was only available in west and southwest Houston. A check this PM shows it is now available in my area, Friendswood, in the far south/southeast Houston area. Now if they could only deliver more than one HD stream I might consider their service.

How does the service affect online gaming? If I have 2 tv's on at the same time I'm on Xbox Live, how bad would the lag get?

How does the service affect online gaming? If I have 2 tv's on at the same time I'm on Xbox Live, how bad would the lag get?
Shouldn't affect it at all -- the Internet access is carved out (up to the 6mbps Elite service). If they've implemented QoS correctly, the IPTV stuff shouldn't ever impinge upon the data stuff.

Think of it this way. Cable/Satellite/FIOS/OTA are all, essentially, broadcast technologies. Every subscriber is continually receiving all of the channels offered by the provider. The TV tuner or set-top box tunes to individual channels, assuming they are authorized.

Thanks for the information, makes much more sense now. I was wondering why I can only access HDTV channels on one TV at a time. I can see how that would be a big issue for persons with multiple high def sets. I only have one HDTV- the others are CRT's.

FWIW I did talk to a CSR about accessing recorded shows on the DVR from the other rooms. I believe the boxes are already capable based on some of the menus, and it's set up as a network. Supposedly that is something else in the works.

Thanks for the information, makes much more sense now. I was wondering why I can only access HDTV channels on one TV at a time. I can see how that would be a big issue for persons with multiple high def sets. I only have one HDTV- the others are CRT's.



As of right now, the VDSL for u-verse is syncing at 25-27meg. The newer profiles appear to be getting the higher sync rate. Assuming HD requires a 10meg stream, SD requires a 2meg stream and you still need 6meg for broadband, it would require a sync rate of slightly over 30meg to get 2 HD streams, 2SD and broadband.

The CFO of ATT did recently state they were going to boost the sync rate 60-70% over the current profile this year, which would bring it up to 40meg.

As of right now, the VDSL for u-verse is syncing at 25-27meg. The newer profiles appear to be getting the higher sync rate. Assuming HD requires a 10meg stream, SD requires a 2meg stream and you still need 6meg for broadband, it would require a sync rate of slightly over 30meg to get 2 HD streams, 2SD and broadband.

The CFO of ATT did recently state they were going to boost the sync rate 60-70% over the current profile this year, which would bring it up to 40meg.
Is the current in home equipment capable of handling multiple HD streams; recording, buffering, streaming, etc.? If not, any estimates when it might be available?

Think MPEG-4.that speed is for BROADBAND, learn to read before jumping to conclusions, my Fios broadband plan is 20MB download speed and 5MB upload speed, and I get every drop of it, it is not shared like a Cable network.

AT&T announced last week it will carry Music Choice's digital music channels:
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=23359
I have had Uverse now for almost 2 months and it has always had Music Choice. (AT&T also put out a press release saying that they were adding A&E HD and again it has been available on the service since I have had it)

I think AT&T is just putting out press releases so that it keeps the UVERSE name out there.

Is the current in home equipment capable of handling multiple HD streams; recording, buffering, streaming, etc.? If not, any estimates when it might be available?

The in home equipment might be able to 'handle it'; unfortunately the system that gets the multiple HD streams to your house can't at this time; (ever?).
Bish

The in home equipment might be able to 'handle it'; unfortunately the system that gets the multiple HD streams to your house can't at this time; (ever?).
Bish

I think the correct answer is at this time. I fail to see any reason why AT&T would not improve this system as time passes. If they get 60-70% bandwidth increase this year, 2 or 3 HD streams should not be a problem. The math says they only need a modest boost in bandwidth to get 2 streams.

Does anyone out there have any information regarding rollout of the U-Verse service to the San Diego region?

I've already seen the maps that are out there, but they don't have any dates or more specific information. So, if there are any AT&T/SBC employees out there that can shed some light on this, it would be much appreciated.

what maps, where?

what maps, where?


The map from this article:

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=109292

Update: I just got off the phone with the AT&T rep regarding U-Verse in this area. She said that the earliest it would be rolled out here would be April, but realistically it won't be until summer time.

New article posted by fredfa in the Hot off the Press thread several hours ago, where an investment analyst thinks AT&T may buy E* later this year:

http://www.cable360.net/business/22081.html

The story does not mention U-verse by name (only brief mention of rolling out video services), but does quote the analyst as saying that AT&T may eventually use E* primarily as an HD distribution platform, freeing up the fiber network for broadband access.

I'm here in San Jose. Of course this is an interesting thread, but let's go over
some of the promises made here in the valley:

1. ISDN deployment by 90's. Reality: Sharply limited by circuit quality and
distance. Later the service was dropped in favor of DSL. I was an early 90's
user of ISDN.

2. DSL. I got a limited form of DSL, equivalent to ISDN speeds of 120kb or so.
This was implemented by a third party provider (not bell), who was implementing
it for my employer (A large silicon valley concern). When the bust came, that
company went out of business, and Pac Bell (then the name of the local bell),
declined to offer any DSL to our area at all. There is still no DSL here. We are
"too far", from the central office. Note that we are less than 7 miles from
San Jose city hall and Intel, Cisco, AMD and Sun. Pac bell claimed it was going
to roll out RCO's (remote Central Offices, basically a fibre driven box in the local
area) to extend DSL. That was more than 5 years ago.

3. HFC (Hybrid Fibre coax). This system was deployed at considerable expense
by Pac Bell in the 90's, then promptly abandoned. SBC bought Pac Bell, then
sold the system to Comcast (then TCI). This is in fact how I get internet access
today, at up to 20mbs. Its great, but it varies between months of working
perfectly, and several week periods where it is out every morning, needing to
have the cable modem unplugged and repowered to clear the "fault", whatever
it is. Comcast has never made any effort to fix it, and we got tired of trying to
get them to do it.

So the bottom line here, in Silicon Valley, is we will believe it when we see it.

Now subject two. This thread has a lot of interesting information on the political
battles of AT&T vs cable cos.

The original reason local governments were supposed to be in charge of cable
"franchises" is because the building of one was so large a project that only a
company awarded an effective monopoly would find it feasible.

Now, the cities are raking off a fee for the installation of systems, even though
they are apparently willing to do it without this monopoly status. What does this
mean?

It means, to me, that the franchise fee has effectively turned into a revenue
generation system for the local governments. Since I don't believe in financial
fairy tales, that tax has to be passed on to consumers, which means you are
effectively getting a "communications" tax, on top of the sales tax you are
charged, and several other fees that are listed on your cable bill.

The local communities don't do anything for that money. They don't open or
close the streets for the cable crews, or do anything other than hire clerks to
process the paperwork. And judging by the stories in this thread, the fees are
clearly used to provide city revenue over and above the cost even to run these
self justifying beaurocracies.

So lets tell it like it is. Your city knows you want to pay for these services, and
they want their cut. There is nothing noble going on here.

Scott Moore

Digital Deprivation in a Land of Affluence
The New York Times
By WOODY HOCHSWENDER
Published: February 25, 2007

MANY Americans take high-speed Internet service for granted. But in Connecticut, the state with the highest per-capita income in the country, there are still pockets of people without broadband, perhaps the keystone utility of the digital age.

For all its suburban affluence, Connecticut remains a fairly rough-hewn state — 60 percent is still agricultural or open space — and in the woodlands between cities, there are areas where broadband connections are difficult and expensive to wire.

Without a high-speed connection, life slows to a standstill. Photos and music files move through dial-up phone wires like a pig being ingested by a snake. Surfing the Net is like crawling up a huge sand dune. Telecommuters are bereft. Small, independent businesses languish.

“You’re not able to compete economically and intellectually with other areas,” said Jessica Clerk, an artist and writer who lives on a dirt road in the back country of Sharon and needs broadband to do music research.

Nearby, Brian Wilcox, an equine photographer who depends almost entirely on e-commerce for his business, spent more than five years mailing CDs of his horse show pictures to a commercial Web site as he waited and hoped for a high-speed connection.

For homeowners deep in the woods or far from a telephone company switching station, waiting to get broadband is a bit like waiting for Godot. It can take years. High-speed Internet providers are quick to point out that when you choose to live in a remote or rural area, you can expect problems with your utilities.

However, there is an existential dimension. As the digital age transforms the culture and the economy, it seems there are more people who wish to live life on their own terms. Ms. Clerk refers to such people as “a brain cottage industry” — writers, booksellers, artists, craftsmen, traders and entrepreneurs to whom the Internet can be indispensable. By leaving parts of the state unwired, she said, “we’re creating pockets of economic discrimination.”

Seth Bloom, a spokesman for AT&T Inc., the biggest telephone and D.S.L. provider in the state, acknowledges the problem. “There are areas all over the state where there are topographic anomalies and very spread-out neighborhoods,” he said, noting that Litchfield County in the northwest and Windham County to the northeast both present challenges. Nevertheless, he says, 93 percent of Connecticut residents now at least have access to D.S.L.

D.S.L. is a distance-driven product. If you live more than 18,000 feet from a switching station, for example, you may be out of luck. Beyond a mile and a quarter, bandwidth becomes attenuated, resulting in slower speeds.

To extend D.S.L.’s reach, AT&T in December introduced AT&T U-verse, a program that runs an advanced fiber-optic cable into neighborhoods, then uses the existing copper wire to connect to homes.

Cable companies have greater infrastructure obstacles than the phone company. For example, cable providers do not own the telephone poles and can be reluctant to bring a cable line across a state road without an existing pole crossing, since burying the line involves expensive excavation. They will not generally do it for a handful of homes.

“There are definitely pockets of remoteness,” said Robert Spain, the director of governmental relations at Charter Communications, a cable company active in rural Connecticut. In the southern part of the state, including towns around Danbury like Brookfield and Woodbury, and extending as far as Trumbull, Charter’s franchise communities are “fully built out,” he said, while in rural Windham County — towns like Canterbury, Chaplin, Pomfret, Willington and Woodstock — “we’re still in the process.”

Typically, cable providers sign agreements with individual towns to obtain the franchise for wiring the area. For example, several towns in northwest Connecticut are wired by Comcast. An examination of all 24 franchise agreements filed with the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control shows that the key clause regarding “line extensions” — or the wiring of outlying “new growth” neighborhoods — always contains the phrase “as expeditiously as possible.” This has been interpreted in various ways.

“We have certain criteria from a business perspective,” Mr. Spain said. “If it doesn’t provide a reasonable return on investment, you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.”

Paul Cianelli, president of the New England Cable and Telecommunications Association, a trade group, said that with satellite companies competing with cable for television subscribers, the industry dynamics have changed. No longer can cable companies assume that line extensions will net dual subscribers — television and Internet. This makes it costlier to offer cable to every corner of the state.

Meanwhile, absent government subsidies or a technological breakthrough, some people, like digital Flintstones, will be without broadband for years to come.

E-mail: conn@nytimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/25ctcol.html?_r=5&ref=technology&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login

Fayetteville, AT&T Reach TV deal
This article was published on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:03 PM CST in News
By Dug Begley, The Morning News

FAYETTEVILLE -- Letting your fingers do the walking in Fayetteville will soon include your remote.

Tuesday evening, the Fayetteville City Council approved a contract with AT&T to provide Internet-based television service in the city.

City Attorney Kit Williams said the agreement is similar to one the city has with Cox Communications. Williams also noted the contract guarantees AT&T will carry local educational, government and public access channels at its basic level of service.

He said the contract is similar to agreements AT&T has with other cities in Arkansas, such as Little Rock and Maumelle. Fort Smith also contracted with AT&T on Tuesday evening, Williams added.

Cathy Foraker with AT&T said the company will fund all necessary upgrades to deliver local channels via the Internet-based television service. She added competition in the area will benefit consumers.

"The rates for both providers tend to go down, as much as 25 percent," Foraker said.

The service, called Uverse, will transmit television channels to subscribers over the same lines delivering phone service to homes. Foraker said last month Fayetteville should have the service later this year.

Concerned citizens told the council that gives the city plenty of time to mull over the contract. Jim Bemis, a supporter of the local public access channel, said he worried the proposed contract was too vague.

"We have no firm assurance of really anything that they are offering," Bemis said.

Colleen Pancake, president of the Community Access Television board, said maintenance on the new equipment needed to work with AT&T should be covered.

"Our main concern at access is we're not killed somehow by some loophole," she said. http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/02/25/news/022107fzcouncil.txt

It exceeds satellite, cable in many ways

Ryan Kim, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, February 26, 2007

The concept of a telephone company providing television service sounds vaguely groundbreaking and almost revolutionary.

You mean the same people I pay my phone bills to are now going to be my television provider a la cable or satellite? You bet.

AT&T's budding U-verse TV service delivers a full plate of television programming through upgraded DSL. It's not unlike the switch achieved by cable companies such as Comcast, which are now offering voice telephone service, though the task is considerably harder.

Still, the delivery of video through existing phone infrastructure is not quite a cause for wonderment, at least for the TV savvy. The U-verse experience is more a collection of thoughtful little features and improvements.

That's not to say the service suffers in comparison to its rivals. It is every bit as good as the best of cable and satellite and exceeds them in some subtle ways.

That in itself is good news for consumers, because it provides the promise of a third television competitor after cable and satellite, which will mean more choice and potentially lower prices as the marketplace exerts some pricing pressure on the providers.

But how does it feel to get television from AT&T? I recently got a chance to view the service at a demonstration in a Danville home. Here's what I saw.

The first thing you notice about the service is the quick channel changes. Compared with cable and especially satellite, the switches are almost twice as fast, about a second. It's not a deal-maker or deal-breaker for many people, but it showcases one of the strengths of the AT&T system.

The picture itself looks good with no distortion. High-definition shows also come out clear like cable.

The set-top box also allows you to watch picture in picture, which is something dual-tuner televisions are capable of doing, though most people don't own one. The picture-in-picture window can look slightly pixelated at times, but it's fine for checking out other shows while you're watching something else.

When you pull up the program guide, it is transparent so you can see the current show in the background, even as you check out what's on other shows in a picture-in-picture window.

The interface itself looks very much like what you expect on cable or satellite. The television guide pops up with the click of a button. From there, you can record a show on your built-in digital video recorder. Again, that's not much different from what cable DVRs or TiVo provide.

One nice touch is that an AT&T set-top box can handle four television streams, meaning you can record four shows at one time on your free digital video recorder. Or you can watch one high-definition show and record three standard-definition shows.

AT&T says it will be able to handle recording two HD channels simultaneously later this year like Comcast. Most people don't find themselves needing to record more than two channels at once, but for families with varying interests, this could come in handy.

Because of its Internet protocol infrastructure, the system allows you to do a few cool things that many traditional cable users can't. You can look up actors on the program guide and set your DVR to record any future shows or movies that will feature them. Or you can program your DVR remotely through an AT&T portal. TiVo carries these features, but you pay extra for the DVR, which comes standard with AT&T's packages.

In the future, the strengths of AT&T's TV service will be more apparent. The company expects to add "whole home" DVR services later this year that will allow you to watch a recorded program in one room and then finish it up in another. The IP infrastructure also means customers will eventually be able to get caller ID flashed on their television screen or move pictures, music and video from the PC to the television.

Cable provider Comcast will also make the eventual move to a similar architecture, so its services should keep pace down the road.

For consumers, the new technology means a changing television landscape, competition among the television providers and the possibility of lower prices.

E-mail Ryan Kim at rkim@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/26/BUG5LOA7921.DTL

AT&T's TV alternative

Ryan Kim, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, February 26, 2007

The AT&T U-verse television system. Chronicle graphic by ... Lori Kingshott and Alan Hugo of Danville were among the f... The U-verse set-top box can handle four television stream... One of the main menu screens is displayed on the new AT&T... More...

It's been two months since AT&T last announced new markets for its cablelike television service called U-verse.

The company fell behind its initial projection to hit 15 markets by the end of 2006 and instead rolled out in 11 regions, including parts of San Ramon, Danville, Saratoga and Cupertino.

Since then, AT&T hasn't announced any new markets. That has disappointed some would-be customers and stoked skepticism among analysts and observers, who question whether AT&T can hit its larger goal of bringing the service to 19 million homes by the end of 2008.

AT&T says the service, which was rolled out in San Antonio in June, is on track after some initial delays and adjustments and will ramp up aggressively in the coming months.

The delays underscore the complexity of the new service, which utilizes Internet protocol -- sending a television stream in packets through DSL -- and involves huge network upgrades and new software and hardware deployments. It also highlights U-verse's vital role to AT&T, which is investing more than $6 billion on the ability to offer a so-called triple play of voice, Internet and now television services against similar offerings from cable competitors like Comcast.

Unlike cable or satellite, which broadcasts all of its programming to a customer's set-top box, U-verse maintains the programming at local centers. When customers select a channel at home, U-verse will instantly beam the video packets for that channel to their set-top box.

The service works to AT&T 's advantage. The company can use much of its existing DSL rather than rely on bigger coaxial cables. By sending the entire program lineup to the home, U-verse can facilitate quicker channel changes and can send up to four video streams to a home. And because it operates on Internet protocol, it allows the TV to become part of a home network that interacts with the PC and Internet telephone services.

But the jump to U-verse requires a number of upgrades. Three years ago, AT&T began extending its fiber-optical network closer to its customers to ensure they received the 20 to 24 megabits per second necessary for U-verse. That has meant extending fiber to nodes, physical boxes that sit on sidewalks within about 3,000 feet of customers.

AT&T has also had to install new software to help run everything from the user interface on the set-top boxes and handle the transmission of the video feeds. Most of that has come from Microsoft, which is deploying its Internet protocol TV software in five countries.

"It's infinitely harder for telecommunications companies to offer video than cable to offer voice," said Vince Vittore, senior analyst with the Yankee Group. "There are so many moving parts in video service -- a breakdown in one part can break down the system."

Christine Heckart, general manager of marketing at Microsoft TV based in Mountain View, said the challenges early on have been to make sure the system can grow to handle the increasing number of customers. But she said the software is performing well and in the future will provide more-personalized experiences for users.

It's little comfort for some television fans who have been hoping for an alternative to their current choices. Arye Bender, 64, of San Francisco said he'd like to get out of his Comcast service because of its price, but he's had no alternatives. The building he lives in won't allow him to receive a satellite signal.

"I'm disappointed (U-verse) is not available now, but when it becomes available, I'll be right there saying, 'Switch,' " said Bender. "I want an option."

People like Bender represent the promise of U-verse for AT&T and underscore its strategic importance. Bender already buys phone and Internet service from AT&T, so providing television would sew him up as a full triple-play customer. And it would also provide AT&T a defensive move for other customers like Bender who might be tempted to switch to Comcast for all three services.

But while the need to start getting a return on its investment continues to grow, AT&T can't afford to rush headlong into video. Patrick Comack, an analyst for Zachary Investment Research who has criticized AT&T's U-verse delays, said the company nonetheless needs to make sure it nails its TV product if it wants to be a viable player.

"It's got to be flawless," said Comack. "When it comes to video, people live off this stuff."

Analysts, though, wonder whether the company may be falling behind. AT&T reported just 3,000 households with U-verse at the end of 2006, almost unchanged from the end of September.

"I don't think they will have U-verse available to all 19 million homes by the end of 2008," said Michelle Abraham, an analyst with In-Stat, a research firm. "The pace so far has been pretty slow; they would really have to increase the pace very quickly."

AT&T said it is confident it can meet its goals, which include reaching 8 million homes by the end of this year. It won't say, however, what markets are due to receive service next.

"The delays are old news," said AT&T spokesman John Britton. "We're happy with the platform and the way it's preforming and we expect to see significant deployments in 2007. We think the speed bumps are behind us."

Britton said the delays have had to do with fine-tuning the service to ensure a consistent experience for users. Specifically, engineers have had to make adjustments to the software and middleware developed by Microsoft that allows users to receive programming on their set-top boxes. At one point last year, AT&T exchanged its customers' existing set-top boxes with new devices that could handle high-definition video.

Britton also said some reasons for the delays are more mundane, such as hiring installers and other employees to support the U-verse service.

AT&T should also get a boost soon when the California Public Utilities Commission grants a statewide franchise to AT&T, allowing it to bypass individual municipal franchise agreements. The company has only started marketing the service in the past two weeks, which should also stimulate sales.
AT&T's U-verse television service

Cablelike television service offers 300 channels, including 25 high-definition channels

Price ranges from $44 per month for about 100 channels to $99 for 300 channels

Features include quick channel changing, four streams of TV, picture in picture, search for shows and movies by actor's names.

Rollout began in the Bay Area in December in Danville, San Ramon, Saratoga and Cupertino
The AT&T U-verse television system

Internet protocol television

U-verse sends video content in data packages over AT&T’s Internet Protocol network using a combination of fiber-optic lines to local neighborhood nodes and then existing copper wires that connect to the home. While cable broadcasts all of its programming to a subscriber’s television or set-top box, AT&T’s service sends out just a few channels at a time, depending on what a subscriber selects. The technology helps compress the video and also creates fast channel changes. It also allows U-verse to eventually offer an almost limitless amount of programming.

-- Requesting a channel

When a viewer selects a channel, the set-top box sends an IP request to switch the signal to the desired program.

-- Node

Switching boxes found within 3,000 feet from homes convert fiber-optic signals to standard copper wire.

-- IP video hub

Receives programming from super hub, adds local programming and stores video-ondemand programming.

-- IP serving office

Distributes programming to homes.

-- IP video super hub

Acquires programming from providers. Encodes content.

Source: AT&T

John Blanchard / The Chronicle

E-mail Ryan Kim at rkim@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/26/BUG5LOA7961.DTL

Any Houston residents have UVERSE? If so can you comment on Picture quality? Also is it true you can only have 1 box tuned to an HD channel at 1 time?

Is AT&T's U-Verse Going Anywhere?

AT&T announced a distribution agreement today to deliver Scripps Networks' programming as part of the AT&T U-verse TV channel lineup. But while AT&T continues to announce new programming agreements here and there, where's the new market announcements?

AT&T expects to reach nearly 19 million households by the end of 2008 as part of its initial deployment. AT&T thoroughly defended this projection and strategy during AT&T's fourth quarter earnings conference. At the call, AT&T's CEO Ed Whitacre said, "It works and it works well. The network is good. All of the delays and some of the difficulties we've had are due to programming and we think we're just about to get all of them solved. Everything seems to be working well so this is our plan A and plan A we're sticking with. We like this stuff."

However, since late 2006, AT&T hasn't announced any new markets for the U-Verse IPTV service. If only having around 4,000 customers by the end of 2006 wasn't enough for analysts to be skeptical, the lack of announcements is really adding fuel to the fire.

http://www.tvover.net/2007/02/26/Is+ATTs+UVerse+Going+Anywhere.aspx

AT&T U-Verse Behind Schedule?
Where are the new launch markets?
2007-02-26 12:45:43 by Karl
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/81893

Since rushing to announce their first eleven markets at the tail end of last year, AT&T has been surprisingly quiet when it comes to announcing new U-Verse VDSL & IPTV launch markets. In January, the Wall Street Journal reported that Microsoft software was to blame for AT&T U-Verse launch delays, despite assurances from AT&T that the kinks had been worked out, and the service launch was "full speed ahead." It's the tail end of February and despite claims from Microsoft and AT&T that all is well, there is increased concern among investors that AT&T is falling behind its target to pass 19 million homes by the end of 2008.

Any Houston residents have UVERSE? If so can you comment on Picture quality? Also is it true you can only have 1 box tuned to an HD channel at 1 time?
Yes, 1 HD channel at a time. They plan to make it 2 sometime later this year. For most households that's plenty, but for those of us who are video enthusiasts and have more than one HD TV set, it's not enough. :)

Oh man, att announced that they would start laying fiber in Michigan this spring, but that is a 100% deal breaker, 1 HD channel at a time?

The one HD stream is the main reason I haven't signed up yet. I have been able to get it for two months now but I have 2 HDTV's so that's a deal breaker. While U-verse has a few channels that my current provider Cablevision doesn't, they also don't have a few important channels to me that Cablevision has. I would need to have some form of both services at the same time which I'm willing to do, but just not yet.

AP
AT&T Resumes Rollout for Cable TV
Wednesday February 28, 1:54 am ET
By Bruce Meyerson, AP Business Writer
AT&T Resumes Rollout, Marketing for Cable TV Service After Addressing Technological Hiccups


NEW YORK (AP) -- AT&T Inc.'s push into cable TV is ramping back up after a pause prompted by glitches that the company says have been resolved with key network software upgrades.
Over the past two weeks, AT&T resumed direct mailings and distribution of promotional "door hangers" for the new U-verse television service, the first marketing activities since those efforts were suspended starting in October.


AT&T also plans to announce on Wednesday it is introducing U-verse in parts of Milwaukee and Racine, Wis., immediately, followed by the Dallas-Fort Worth market in early March and then Kansas City later that month. Those four launches, bringing the total to 15 markets, are the first since nine cities were added at the end of December.

U-verse, delivered over a high-speed Internet connection, is crucial to AT&T's strategy to fend off cable companies now selling telephone service. The San Antonio-based company aims to keep and win customers with next-generation features melding TV sets, cell phones and computers.

To provide such robust capabilities over the plain copper phone wires connected to most homes, AT&T is using relatively unproven technology known as IPTV, short for Internet Protocol TV. That approach has enabled AT&T to spend only a fraction of the $23 billion Verizon Communications Inc. is investing to rewire half its local phone network with fiber-optic lines all the way to each home.

But because the software, provided largely by Microsoft Corp., has never been deployed on such a large scale, assorted glitches have forced AT&T to repeatedly delay and scale back the service rollout even though the required network upgrade remains on pace.

"We have had our fits and starts, but right now we feel we're in a pretty good place," John Stankey, AT&T's group president for operations support, said in an interview. The deployment of the latest software for the system was completed in early February, he said, stressing that the upgrade addressed many "small annoyances" rather than any one big problem.

The systems are now operating smoothly enough that, "We're ready to play the game and put numbers on the board," he said.

Microsoft, which has encountered multiple bumps in its early dominance of the IPTV software market, is "very pleased with the progress we've made with AT&T on its software platform" to enable the wider-scale rollout, said spokesman Jim Brady. "These challenges are absolutely behind us."

The renewed marketing efforts also include a new tactic: door-to-door sales calls, with agents deployed in every neighborhood, began earlier this month.

With the return to more active marketing, sales volume has already risen 138 percent in February as compared with December. Stankey projected "that number will probably be three times that level by the end of March based on the last few weeks of work."

With all the delays, there are now roughly 7,000 U-verse subscribers, up from 3,000 at the close of 2006, even though AT&T's network was U-verse-ready in areas with 2.2 million homes at year's end. By contrast, Verizon had signed up 217,000 homes for FiOS TV by the end of last year, and cable companies lured away hundreds of thousands of AT&T's phone customers during 2006.

A full U-verse launch was originally slated to begin in late 2005. It took until mid-2006 to bring the service to just one market, the company's hometown of San Antonio, and even then with availability to just 5,000 homes and without promised capabilities such as high-definition TV.

The company also backtracked multiple times on a pledge to introduce the service in 15 to 20 markets during 2006, first saying those launches wouldn't be market-wide, then trimming the goal to 15 markets. The second launch -- Houston -- came in November, but it took until three days before the end of 2006 to introduce U-verse to another nine markets, for a year-end total of only 11.

Possibly owing to lessons learned about making predictions, AT&T hasn't made any public projections for the number of markets or customers it expects to be served by U-verse by the end of 2007 -- though the company does say its network upgrade will cover 8 million homes by then.

Stankey said the company expects at least one U-verse launch this year within the nine-state region served by BellSouth, which AT&T acquired at the end of 2006.

Despite the recent system improvements, AT&T is sticking with its phased approach to introducing and expanding the U-verse service area rather than launching across entire markets.

Stankey said the recent software upgrades resolved assorted glitches such as stabilizing the picture quality of high-definition channels to avoid spurts of "tiling" or pixilation. Another problem addressed was that the audio would be louder on one channel than another.

"It's not any one big thing. It's fixing a large number of small annoyances," said Stankey, estimating he was working on 18 to 20 such issues over the past few months. "None in themselves were cataclysmic."

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070228/at_t_tv.html?.v=2
Thanks to killa_milla for posting this at UverseUsers.com

See the following story from the San Antonio Express-News about AT&T's plans for U-verse this year, which essentially touches on the same points as the AP article above:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/stories/MYSA022807.1E.ATTuverse.2d448ee.html

Also, here are the press releases from the company announcing U-verse in Milwaukee and Racine:

http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=23445
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=23446

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070301/tc_usatoday/atamptslowslightspeedreleasegoals;_ylt=A9G_Rw3Y1OZFzfoAhhYjt BAF

AT&T won't reach 18 million homes this year with its "Lightspeed" broadband network, after all. Instead, it will reach less than half the original target: 8 million.

AT&T unveiled its latest 2007 target in an unusually quiet manner: It was offered up to Wall Street analysts on an earnings call on Jan. 25. The 8 million figure later showed up in a few investor notes, where it did not attract much attention.

Jan Dawson, a telecommunications analyst at Ovum, says he isn't surprised by AT&T's under-the-radar approach.

"When things are upbeat (with Lightspeed), they broadcast it," he says. "When they have to make downward revisions, they try to bury it."

AT&T Stands By U-verse Projections
MARCH 01, 2007

Has AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T - message board) cut the number of homes it expects to pass this year with the network powering its U-verse service?

Nope. But media reports this morning mistook a breakout of the carrier's 2007 buildout plans as a huge disruption in the U-verse space/time continuum.

Ma Bell CFO Rick Linder, during the company's conference call Jan. 25, gave a breakdown of where the company is in its U-verse goal. "We will expand our build to pass 8 million living units by the end of this year," he said. He also noted: "We're working now on a few final adjustments to the software and video infrastructure, and then we will begin ramping the product launch." (See AT&T Reports Healthy Q4.)

Several articles and blog posts this morning described the 8 million figure as a "new goal" for a new year. AT&T spokeswoman Destiny Belknap says that's not accurate. "Our goal of passing 19 million living units by 2008 hasn't changed," she says.

What Linder revealed, though, is that in 2007 AT&T is aiming to pass 8 million homes, apartments, etc., so it will tackle about 42 percent of its goal in the next several months.

Of course, Linder's comments have attracted attention because AT&T's U-verse rollout is under constant scrutiny and because the carrier has moved the goalposts in the past.

Table 1: Project Lightspeed/U-verse Projection Tracker

Date Homes Passed Goal Time Projected
Nov-04 18 million By 2007
Feb-05 19 million By 2007
Mar-05 18 million By 2007
Dec-05 18 million First half of 2008
Feb-06 18 million End of 2008
May-06 19 million End of 2008
Mar-07 19 million End of 2008, with 8 million passed in 2007 alone
Source: Light Reading reports and SBC/AT&T public statements

In 2004, back when the new AT&T was still the old SBC, the company's initial talk about its Project Lightspeed network, the network U-verse runs on, had the carrier hitting 18 million households by 2007.

In early 2005, the company upped the ante to say it would reach 19 million homes by the end of 2007. By the end of March 2005, it quickly ratcheted that figure back down to 18 million homes passed by 2007. (See Give or Take a Million.)

In December 2005, public statements show the company's goal began to tiptoe out a few months. At that time, the company said it would reach "approximately 18 million households by the first half of 2008 as part of initial deployment."

In February 2006, the first half of 2008 suddenly seemed a bit brash. "AT&T is deploying a two-way, interactive, switched IP video network and extending approximately 40,000 miles of new fiber optics to initially reach 18 million households by the end of 2008," the company said in a press release.

By May 2006, the carrier was standing by its end-of-2008 timeline, but this time it added another million homes to the goal. "AT&T plans to spend approximately $4.6 billion on its Project Lightspeed initiative to reach nearly 19 million homes by year-end 2008 as part of its initial deployment," the company said in a press release.

For the record, it appears the carrier has been singing the same hymn since early 2006: 19 million homes (well, "living units") passed by the end of 2008. And that goal still hasn't changed.

What did change, toward the end of 2006, was the carrier's stance on how many markets it would occupy with Project Lightspeed and its associated U-verse services. In December, AT&T moved back -- and hit -- its goal regarding the number of markets its U-verse service would appear in. (See AT&T Hits Lowered U-verse Goal).

Table 2: Project Lightspeed/U-verse Market Watcher

Date Project Lightspeed/U-verse Event
25-Jul-06 AT&T says it will offer U-verse services in 15 to 20 markets by the end of 2006.
23-Oct-06 AT&T backs off on its U-verse goal slightly, saying now it expects to launch services in "approximately 15 markets" by the end of 2006.
21-Dec-06 In its announcement regarding the launch of U-verse services in the Bay Area, AT&T again lowers its goal. The release states: "AT&T now expects to launch AT&T U-verse in eleven markets by the end of the year, with plans to launch in additional markets in early 2007."
28-Dec-06 AT&T clears its lowered hurdle with the launch of U-verse services in four Indiana cities: Indianapolis, Anderson, Muncie, and Bloomington.
Source: AT&T press releases and Light Reading reports

CFO Linder's other notes about U-verse from the company's conference call included more praise for the often derided fiber-to-the-node architecture. "We've now launched U-verse service in 11 markets; all of these markets have HDTV. Our fiber-to-the-node architecture is performing well," he said. "Bandwidth delivered to homes is as good as, or better than, originally forecast."

He also noted that 70 percent of the customers who sign up take high-end video packages, and 70 percent of the customers are taking AT&T's highest offered broadband speed, which is only 6 Mbit/s.

— Phil Harvey, Managing Editor, Light Reading

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=118535&print=true

Ready or Not, AT&T Sells Uverse

Written by Om Malik, Thursday, March 1, 2007 at 8:41 AM PT

It is hard to get a grip on AT&T’s IPTV efforts. Dubbed Uverse, some say AT&T’s television service it is still stuck in neutral, plagued by technical problems. AT&T, however feels otherwise, and has started making a strong marketing push for the service, according to a report in San Antonio-Express News. The company claims that it has ironed out all the technical glitches and is now ready to take on the cable operators.

“We’re ready to take our foot off the brake and step on the accelerator,” John Stankey, AT&T’s group president for operations, said Tuesday. “By the end of the year, we will be up and running in every significantly sized market where we operate.”

Fascinating, since it was only a couple of months ago that the company’s tech troubles were highlighted in the Wall Street Journal, pointing to the problems with Microsoft IPTV software. The company was supposed to launch in 15-to-20 markets last year, and could not make the number despite its best efforts.

Anyway, the company has announced Uverse availability in four new markets - Milwaukee and Racin, WI starting today, and Dallas-Fort Worth and Kansas City in March 2007.

AT&T has about 7,000 users, up from 3,000 at the end of 2006. That works out to about 100-subscribers a day, though the company thinks it is going to hit 300 new subscribers a day by March 2007, thanks to some aggressive selling by “door-to-door salespeople.” UBS estimates with those kind of numbers, the gross additions per quarter could be around 23,000, and 93,000 by end of 2007.

UBS’s John Hodulik in a note this morning writes: “management’s confidence suggest that we may be reaching an inflection point with regards to Lightspeed and investors’ perception of the residential strategy.”Something tells me the costs of rolling this service are just going to be too high, and that John is being a bit too optimistic. The risk of losing voice customers is just too high, as pointed out earlier.

According to a report from Pike & Fisher’s Broadband Daily, indicates that despite having fiber deployed in much of the region, ‘AT&T does not plan to launch IPTV service in the Southeast territories it acquired through its BellSouth merger until late this year, CFO Richard Lindner said Feb. 28.’

Bonus: Alan Weinkrantz is blogging his U-Verse experiences (http://www.3screens.net/) , and has posted this video of IPTV in HD and Internet TV over Vista, all on one screen. One of our readers didn’t think too highly of the Uverse service.

http://gigaom.com/2007/03/01/ready-or-not-att-sells-uverse/