Markets Currently Launched
(in order of introduction: June 2006 to June 2007)

1. San Antonio, Texas
2. Houston, Texas
3. San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, Calif.
4. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, Calif.
5. Hartford, Conn.
6. New Haven, Conn.
7. Stamford, Conn.
8. Indianapolis, Ind.
9. Muncie, Ind.
10. Bloomington, Ind.
11. Anderson, Ind.
12. Milwaukee, Wis.
13. Racine, Wis.
14. Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas
15. Kansas City, Kan.
16. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, Calif.
17. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif.
18. Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, Calif.
19. Detroit-Warren-Livonia, Mich.
20. Ann Arbor, Mich.
21. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, Calif.
22. Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, Ohio
23. Akron, Ohio

SOURCE: AT&T

Check AT&T U-verse Availability http://localization.att.com/loc/controller?ltype=uvp&return-path=https://uversecentral1.att.com/uvp/home/explore
___________________________________________________________

AT&T: Lightspeed Could Dim Cable
By Karen Brown 1/31/2006 10:53:00 PM

AT&T Inc. continues to glow about its Project Lightspeed fiber-to-the-home initiative, this time telling a group of analysts at a New York conference Tuesday that the technology will force cable operators to pony up as much as $20 billion in plant upgrades to keep pace.

John Stankey, AT&T’s senior executive vice president and chief technology officer, told analysts at the daylong conference that Project Lightspeed is on track to expand from its San Antonio controlled deployment to include several new markets starting this summer. AT&T is on track to roll out the Lightspeed-powered “U-verse” video service in 20 markets by year’s end, Stankey added.

Based on the network build so far, AT&T is estimating that it will be able to offer big bandwidth to Lightspeed subscribers.

“We’ve got the speed we need to deliver IP-based [Internet protocol] services,” Stankey said. “We’ve seen speeds of 25 megabits per second and more at shorter loop lengths.”

Starting in late 2007, it can also pair bonding and compression technology to deliver even more bandwidth, Stankey added. In contrast, he said, cable operators will face a more constrained cable plant and limits to how much they can increase bandwidth using higher quadrature-amplitude-modulation transmission schemes.

“In my opinion, cable needs to respond to our Lightspeed offering through capital expenditures. At the low end, that could total $20 billion,” he told the analysts.

Lightspeed won’t come cheap for AT&T, however. The company expects to spend $1.4 billion this year, $1.7 billion in 2007 and $1.3 billion in 2008 for Lightspeed construction. That will expand Lightspeed from 3 million homes passed now to 9 million in 2007 and 18 million by 2008.

Replacing copper with fiber links leading to the customer premises could save the telco as much as $700 million in annual operational costs by 2011, Stankey said. It can also ramp up average revenue per user to at least $60 -- the average now for its Dish Network direct-broadcast satellite customers -- and it will be able to keep all of that revenue.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6303693.html?display=Breaking+News

If the golden age has passed, make way for the platinum era. Thanks for the great post.

I'd never heard of this service until this thread.
What markets will it be available in first?

I wonder if this will be available in Verizon territory and actually compete with FIOS.

AT&T has plans to make data travel at 'Lightspeed'
Oakland Tribune, CA - Jan 13, 2006
... John Britton said that AT&T plans to incorporate the Lightspeed technology to a 13-state area — including California — by the end of 2008. ...

I wonder if this will be available in Verizon territory and actually compete with FIOS.


There are no areas I know of where we over lap in territories

I'd never heard of this service until this thread.
What markets will it be available in first?

I beleive San Antonio is the major test market for the full array of services.

There are a few test markets on the internet side of things right now:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6979969&&#post6979969

It was also brought up in one of the FIOS threads:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6959755&&#post6959755

Between this and the possible D*/E* internet service, it's looking good for more options in the near future.

This is an interesting bit on the fiber that was promised to us years ago, and what is actually just now starting to be delivered..

http://techdirt.com/articles/20060131/2021240_F.shtml

I'd never heard of this service until this thread.
What markets will it be available in first?

Lightspeed/U-Verse was an SBC brainchild (prior to the merger with AT&T) so I'm guessing it's going to be available in all the SBC markets at least. Since I'm in one of those areas I've been trying to find out who's going to be seeing it first outside of Texas but haven't seen that info posted anywhere yet.

"ABI Research principal analyst Mike Arden said he heard that San Diego is on the (at&t) early rollout list. He said San Diego is seen as a lucrative market because customers here are likely to buy telephone and Internet service from the same company that provides TV."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/...n23telcotv.html

As mentioned earlier, Lightspeed is available in some San Antonio neighborhoods right now. The service will compete with Verizon in certain areas, I know here in Texas that Verizon is in Boerne and Dallas along with many other towns. Verizon has all of the old "GTE" locations which is primarily small towns (see Boerne) but does have some larger markets (see Dallas).

I tried to get on the beta list but our new home isn't serviced by a "Lightspeed" enabled wirecenter. So for now, I'll have to live with my 6MB DSL service and POTS line :D

Replacing copper with fiber links leading to the customer premises could save the telco as much as $700 million in annual operational costs by 2011, Stankey said. It can also ramp up average revenue per user to at least $60 -- the average now for its Dish Network direct-broadcast satellite customers -- and it will be able to keep all of that revenue.


I thought originally it wasn't going to be fiber to the premise, it was just going to be fiber to the pole, then copper to the customer premise. When did this change? I always thought that was a bad solution.

Unfortunately for all of us in CT, we are exclusive SBC territory, so it's not easy reading all the posts about FIOS. I really have nothing good to say about SBC, they are always so late to the game with everything.

25Mbps won't go far if you want to watch two HD channels at the same time. :(

Far as I've read Lightspeed does not go all the way the the Household. The only major Telco doing that is Verizon with their FiOS.

Early comments were that IPTV solutions would allow only three channels throughput to the house with 'Fiber to the Node' at any one time. Some breakthoughs have been noted, but even then they 'thought' they could get up to 5 channels into a home at the same time with IPTV.

25Mbps won't go far if you want to watch two HD channels at the same time. :(
Think MPEG-4.

Think MPEG-4.

Even at that compression you only get at best 3 excellent quality HD signals.
Besides that if they only have 25Mb then you know what will happen. They will be just like D* they will over compress so they can get a few more on that pipe. :confused:

People, remember that 25Mb is the 1st iteration of this technology for AT&T. There will be upgrades in technology coming next year that will push that ceiling higher.

AT&T: Lightspeed Could Dim Cable
By Karen Brown 1/31/2006 10:53:00 PM

AT&T Inc. continues to glow about its Project Lightspeed fiber-to-the-home initiative, this time telling a group of analysts at a New York conference Tuesday that the technology will force cable operators to pony up as much as $20 billion in plant upgrades to keep pace.

John Stankey, AT&T’s senior executive vice president and chief technology officer, told analysts at the daylong conference that Project Lightspeed is on track to expand from its San Antonio controlled deployment to include several new markets starting this summer. AT&T is on track to roll out the Lightspeed-powered “U-verse” video service in 20 markets by year’s end, Stankey added.

Based on the network build so far, AT&T is estimating that it will be able to offer big bandwidth to Lightspeed subscribers.

“We’ve got the speed we need to deliver IP-based [Internet protocol] services,” Stankey said. “We’ve seen speeds of 25 megabits per second and more at shorter loop lengths.”

Starting in late 2007, it can also pair bonding and compression technology to deliver even more bandwidth, Stankey added. In contrast, he said, cable operators will face a more constrained cable plant and limits to how much they can increase bandwidth using higher quadrature-amplitude-modulation transmission schemes.

“In my opinion, cable needs to respond to our Lightspeed offering through capital expenditures. At the low end, that could total $20 billion,” he told the analysts.

Lightspeed won’t come cheap for AT&T, however. The company expects to spend $1.4 billion this year, $1.7 billion in 2007 and $1.3 billion in 2008 for Lightspeed construction. That will expand Lightspeed from 3 million homes passed now to 9 million in 2007 and 18 million by 2008.

Replacing copper with fiber links leading to the customer premises could save the telco as much as $700 million in annual operational costs by 2011, Stankey said. It can also ramp up average revenue per user to at least $60 -- the average now for its Dish Network direct-broadcast satellite customers -- and it will be able to keep all of that revenue.

I'll beleive this when I see it. They better hurry up and get some fiber in my neighborhood, because I'm about ready to switch my internet access over to Wide Open West, my cable TV provider. All SBC aka "The new ATT" can provide around here is relatively pathetic 1.5Mb DSL at my loop length. The only thing that keeps me is the $14.95/mo price. Customer service is a joke, and they can't manage any ancillary ISP services to save their life (i.e., DNS and mail servers)

ATT has a lot of reputation repairing to do, at least for this customer. After all the splits/mergers and the screwing of us as a business LD customer and nationwide cellular customer, ATT to me is a big joke.

Even at that compression you only get at best 3 excellent quality HD signals.
Besides that if they only have 25Mb then you know what will happen. They will be just like D* they will over compress so they can get a few more on that pipe. :confused:

You do realize this isn't the same as cable, right? You don't have every channel running over the system at one time, but just a single video stream at a time per user. Two assuming there's a dual tuner option.

You do realize this isn't the same as cable, right? You don't have every channel running over the system at one time, but just a single video stream at a time per user. Two assuming there's a dual tuner option.SBC/ATT have said 1 HD and 3 SD streams at a time ... which kinda puts a crimp on a dual-tuner HD DVR (or even multiple single tuner HD DVRs).

An nDVR (network DVR) would be a very nice compliment to the FTTN IPTV providers. Otherwise ...

I'll beleive this when I see it. They better hurry up and get some fiber in my neighborhood, because I'm about ready to switch my internet access over to Wide Open West, my cable TV provider. All SBC aka "The new ATT" can provide around here is relatively pathetic 1.5Mb DSL at my loop length. The only thing that keeps me is the $14.95/mo price. Customer service is a joke, and they can't manage any ancillary ISP services to save their life (i.e., DNS and mail servers)

ATT has a lot of reputation repairing to do, at least for this customer. After all the splits/mergers and the screwing of us as a business LD customer and nationwide cellular customer, ATT to me is a big joke.


You do realise that a big part of your probelm there is the city its self. You cant tell me that given the amount of money there that both the phone and the electric company would love to come in and upgrade like mad. I know your power goes out at the drop of a hat. It's your city council holding up things

I wonder what kind of DRM they'll be using, or if you can even record at all. If they want me to buy into this, it'll take a lot of beggin' and pleadin'......on their part.

Why would you need a dual tuner DVR? If it is a dedicated 25 Mbs to each home the content can be cached at a server somewhere and requested at your pleasure

I still prefer FiOS

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060202-6104.html

"At the same time, concerns are being raised about exactly how much of Verizon's Fios network will be available to non-Verizon traffic. With over 80 percent of network capacity devoted to TV, that leaves the remainder for all other traffic. So will Google, ESPN.com, and Ars Technica be battling to squeeze through that last <20 percent devoted to broadband access? Not quite.

We contacted Dr. Marvin Sirbu, Professor of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University and an FTTP expert to see how the numbers really add up. In short, there's almost no cause for concern that Verizon's own traffic will relegate other services to the dark alleys of the Fios network. The video is actually being delivered on a separate wavelength from the other services. According to Sirbu, roughly 3.5Gbps of the network's capacity will be allocated for downstream video. That leaves 620Mbps of bandwidth for 'Net traffic, which is split up between the 32 users on each Broadband Passive Optical Network node. Once Verizon switches to Gigabit PON, that number will rise to 2.4Gbps. Video on demand will be delivered via IPTV."

Why would you need a dual tuner DVR? If it is a dedicated 25 Mbs to each home the content can be cached at a server somewhere and requested at your pleasureThat would be the nDVR model ... like I said, an nDVR would be the perfect compliment to an FTTN IPTV provider.

But, Time Warner has been wanting to do this for years and hasn't been able to get permission from content owners (beyond the limited Start Over model). A customer premises DVR gets around the issue ...

Far as I've read Lightspeed does not go all the way the the Household. The only major Telco doing that is Verizon with their FiOS.

Early comments were that IPTV solutions would allow only three channels throughput to the house with 'Fiber to the Node' at any one time. Some breakthoughs have been noted, but even then they 'thought' they could get up to 5 channels into a home at the same time with IPTV.

As far as I've read, AT&T will do FTTN on existing construction, then utilize existing copper to the home, and FTTH on new construction.

Friday, February 03, 2006
PAUL WYCHE
THE SAGINAW NEWS

Imagine a world where your cell phone, remote control and Internet work seamlessly together, and you receive an affordable bill for all.

If at&t Michigan has its way, the company will begin rolling out communication/entertainment packages in coming months.

President Gail Torreano discussed the ambitious plan Thursday during an Editorial Board roundtable at The Saginaw News.

Pledging to give consumers an affordable option to cable television services, she said at&t is investing at least $4 billion to bring the fiber-optic system to reality.

"People want this. They want more choices," Torreano said, adding that a communication/entertainment bundle could cost $100 a month.

"Cable has no competition, and people are tired of paying high prices," she said.

So far, Texas is on the fast track for the new offerings, she said.

For the technology to reach mid-Michigan, however, state lawmakers will have to pass a "franchise fee" arrangement whereby at&t could set up easily in neighborhoods.

Because SBC Communications Inc. completed its purchase of former parent AT&T Corp. in November and took its more well-known name, officials have touted their ability to foray into home entertainment.

Saginaw residents can look for a new sign atop the SBC building in downtown after March, Torreano said.

The company is one of Saginaw County's top employers, with some estimates showing at&t contributing as much as $1.6 billion annually to Michigan's economy.

SBC employs more than 1,000 workers in the county and 13,000 statewide.

On the charitable front, Torreano also dropped off a $38,000 check to the White Pine Library Cooperative of Saginaw.

The group -- it encompasses smaller libraries outside of the city -- will use the money to buy database software, Web site development equipment and for training.v

Paul Wyche covers business for The Saginaw News. You may reach him at 776-9674.

http://www.mlive.com/business/sanews/index.ssf?/base/business-1/1138980132157720.xml&coll=9

You do realize this isn't the same as cable, right? You don't have every channel running over the system at one time, but just a single video stream at a time per user. Two assuming there's a dual tuner option.
Huh? This is not the case. You do, in fact, have every channel active at once in a typical HFC network. There's no magic ping that tells the local node to change channels for you.

IPTV does only send active channels down the pipe, and thus, channel changes are a bit slower. Also, if memory serves me, AT&T is planning for 2 HD streams at once at give-or-take 12Mbps (equivalent to about 9 - 10 Mbps before the IP encapsulation).

IPTV does only send active channels down the pipe, and thus, channel changes are a bit slower.
Not so. In fact, AT&T's product changes channels so fast that they've applied for a patent.

AT&T Inc. executives told financial analysts last week that they intend to scale their Project Lightspeed IPTV rollout to 21 markets covering 3 million homes by year’s end, according to senior vice president and chief technology officer John Stankey.

By the end of 2007, 9 million homes will be passed, “and we will be able to deliver multiple HD streams,” Stankey added.

In fact, lab work into HD and digital-video recorders is giving AT&T enough confidence to raise its video-penetration expectations from 25% to 30% by 2010, Stankey said.

Cable, he added, “risks losing customers” because the industry is spectrum-constrained. AT&T doesn’t face the analog-digital conundrum because of the inherent nature of the switched IPTV infrastructure it’s putting into place.

Stankey said Lightspeed will cost the company $4.4 billion in incremental capital expenditures, largely in electronics, fiber and power. He broke down the spending at $1.4 billion in 2006, $1.7 billion in 2007 and $1.3 billion in 2008.

Over time, he estimated, per-subscriber “success-based costs” will drop from $750-$850 this year to $450-$500 in 2008 and $350-$400 in 2010.

Stankey said one super hub office has been completed, with the other expected to be online in 2007. The video hub office in San Antonio is complete, with 20 more offices to be built in 2006.

He added that AT&T expects video revenue per subscriber to be in line with the $60 per month AT&T generates with EchoStar Communications Corp.’s Dish Network direct-broadcast satellite service.

AT&T has rolled out TV service in 200 San Antonio homes with 200 channels, including TLC, A&E Network, Comedy Central, The Biography Channel, MTV: Music Television, Animal Planet, Home Box Office, NFL Network, TV Land, Discovery Channel, The Weather Channel, Cartoon Network, Travel Channel, Cable News Network, Sci Fi Channel, USA Network, Showtime, Starz and Bravo.

Stankey said that when Lightspeed launches, the company will focus on new builds and apartment houses and “we’ll maximize our retail relationships. And we will have a sales presence at the right local events."

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=nocclamp&doc_id=1340006518

February 1, 2006
By James S. Granelli, Times Staff Writer

Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle broke with mayors nationwide Tuesday by proposing to abolish local pay TV fees and to allow phone companies to sidestep the rules that cable companies currently must follow.

In his state of the city address, Pringle said the typical cable franchise agreements and "other restrictive policies" built into old laws were "standing in the way" of creating a more competitive pay TV market. He wants to allow AT&T Inc. to work on upgrading its network to carry video, even without a written agreement with the city.

Pringle's proposal puts the city in the middle of a heated war between regional phone companies and cable TV operators over rules governing the delivery of television programming.

In siding with AT&T, Pringle parted ways with state and national mayoral and municipal groups including the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities and its California chapter and the National Assn. of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, a group of local government telecom officials and consultants.

Those groups have insisted that phone carriers play by the same local rules as cable companies in an attempt to ensure, among other things, that all of a city's residents get service.

"Throwing away local franchising is not the solution that will bring competition or rapid entry by competitive providers," Lori Panzino-Tillery, president of the telecom officials' group, wrote in testimony prepared for a U.S. Senate hearing on the issue this month.

As Congress considers making changes to the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Panzino-Tillery said, it should be careful not to "deprive local governments of the tools necessary to ensure the timely deployment of services within our communities."

Phone carriers have been drumming up political support to get around local bargaining over rights of way, franchise agreements and other issues that the companies say are delaying their pay TV rollout.

Texas, for instance, has adopted legislation to let phone companies obtain statewide video franchises, removing the issue from local control.

AT&T and Verizon Communications Inc., California's two major local phone companies, have not begun delivering pay TV here. Nationally, they serve only a few cities, using a technology called Internet protocol television, or IPTV.

Pringle's stance could ease the way for AT&T to put Anaheim on the fast track for getting an IPTV network. He said the city and the carrier were in talks.

"Whether it is through cable, satellites or new concepts like Wi-Fi or this IPTV system, the more choices to the consumer, the better," Pringle said. "Let these various systems compete in price, quality and quantity, and let consumers decide."

However, satellite TV isn't bound by cable rules, and Wi-Fi wireless broadband networks sprouting up in Anaheim and hundreds of cities nationwide aren't yet robust enough to carry pay television.

Through a 5% franchise fee, which is passed on to cable subscribers, Anaheim raises $1.4 million a year in revenue. Pringle said in an interview that the money was important, but he predicted that residents would probably approve eliminating the fee, given their recent vote to drop a city utility tax.

He said that if he had his way, the city would have some kind of simple agreement with AT&T. But he couldn't say whether Time Warner Inc.'s cable unit, which is taking over cable service in the city, would be afforded the same loosening of its obligations.

Dennis Mangers, president of the California Cable & Telecommunications Assn., a cable industry group, said he would welcome any rollback of franchise fees, but he said Pringle needed to clarify what other changes he sought.

AT&T already has begun upgrading its network, said Mark Leslie, a local AT&T executive. But he would not give a date for starting service or completing work.

As for reaching all residents, he said: "We will start out with a small footprint and, over time, expand on it."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-iptv1feb01,1,1129013.story

$20 Billion Question
By Karen Brown 2/6/2006

AT&T Inc. continues to glow about its plan to beam television programming and other services as pulses of light on glass fibers feeding into neighborhoods around the country, this time telling a group of analysts at a New York conference last week that the technology will force cable operators to pony up $20 billion or more in network upgrades to keep pace.

Through AT&T’s Project Lightspeed, customers will be able to receive three streams of regular TV programming, one high-definition signal and high-speed Internet service, all at once, said John Stankey, AT&T’s senior executive vice president and chief technology officer. Connections will operate at 20 Megabits per second or more, he said.

Other technology improvements, such as better video compression, will free up even more bandwidth to deliver multiple HD streams, “which we expect to deliver in mid to late 2007 — as well as additional headroom for bandwidth in those circumstances where it is needed,” Stankey said.

By contrast, Stankey said cable operators will face a constrained cable plant because of their dependence on coaxial cabling, which has less capacity, he said. Cable also faces limited prospects for improvement in quadrature amplitude modulation, the core transmission technology that packs data bits onto signals sent through cables, he said.

Cable operators can fit more data within the signal by varying the height and the length of the carrier waves.

To keep up with what AT&T is doing, Stankey said, cable operators will still be forced to either cut analog channels or switch to new compression technologies such as MPEG-4, which can deliver an HD signal at half of the bandwidth of the current 19.8 Megabit-per-second MPEG-2 stream. MPEG-4 broadcast, though, will require costly new set-top boxes and network-transmission gear, Stankey said.

“Consequently, the reality is they are going to be faced with significant spending — at the low end probably around $20 billion in the coming years,” he told the analysts.

But Lightspeed won’t come cheap for AT&T, either. It expects to spend $1.4 billion this year, $1.7 billion in 2007 and $1.3 billion in 2008 for construction. That will buy Lightspeed a growing network that reaches 3 million homes passed now to 9 million homes by the end of 2007 and 18 million homes by the end of 2008.

Project Lightspeed is expected to expand from a controlled deployment in San Antonio, starting some time this summer. AT&T plans to roll out a Lightspeed-powered video service known as U-verse to more than 20 markets by the end of this year, Stankey said.

At $4.4 billion total for the next three years, the capital expense is “a little higher than we thought, due to our desire to build a more robust core video infrastructure,” Stankey said.

For that, AT&T will build two Internet Protocol superhub offices — one of which is already built and operational. AT&T won’t say where they’re located, but the superhubs will receive and process video content, sending it in a compressed format to regional video hub offices in each metropolitan market served. From there, the video go to local offices, serving an area a little larger than a traditional local office now supplying digital connections to customers.

By replacing copper with more fiber links reaching closer to the customer premise could save the telco as much as $700 million in annual operational costs by 2011, Stankey said. Stankey noted replacing copper with fiber optic line in the segments between the central office and a digital multiplexer — the telco equivalent of a cable headend — will cut out 99% of the maintenance costs for that segment. Likewise, replacing the segment from the multiplexer to the neighborhood drop connecting to customers will cut maintenance costs 47%.

It also can ramp average revenue per user, particularly when it comes to video now delivered under AT&T’s co-marketing agreement with EchoStar Communications Corp.’s Dish Network direct-broadcast service.

For just video, AT&T estimates its average revenue per U-verse IPTV user will be at least $60, in line with the typical monthly revenue for existing AT&T DISH customers, “and there is no reason Lightspeed can’t match or exceed these levels,” Stankey said.

AT&T also expects U-verse to claim 30 percent of the television homes in markets it serves, by 2010.

By the time AT&T extends Lightspeed at mid-year, it also aims to increase its lineups of cable networks and on-demand title s, including more HD channels. It also plans to have in place a digital video recorder service that can ship around content to multiple sets in the home, Stankey said.

“We’re working with some of the best in the business to make this technology and network a reality, and we fully expect to launch our service by mid-2006,” Stankey said.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6304927.html

San Francisco Chronicle
TV, Web move closer yet, using a telephone line
Ellen Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, February 6, 2006

A few years ago, a team of Microsoft engineers invited some SBC executives to a small Mountain View apartment. The engineers had jury-rigged an Xbox gaming console into a set-top box to control the television set.

The SBC executives were getting their first glimpse of IPTV, or Internet Protocol Television, which uses your phone line to deliver programming to your television. Much like cable or satellite television, IPTV uses a set-top box that allows customers to cruise hundreds of channels such as HBO, MTV and ESPN, and order movies and other shows anytime through video-on-demand.

"It looked really good," said Peter Barrett, chief technology officer of Microsoft TV. "The hair on the back of everybody's neck stood up, and they said, 'Wow, we really have something here.' "

Now SBC, which has since changed its name to AT&T, plans to roll out IPTV in the Bay Area, possibly as early as this year. Once it does, IPTV will offer another alternative for television service in the Bay Area and an entirely new way of delivering it to your home.

IPTV uses the same kind of technology that delivers high-speed Internet service to the computer. That opens the door to a host of new, untapped features, such as more interactivity and the potential for thousands, as opposed to hundreds, of channels.

"There are a lot of future applications," said Michelle Abraham, principal analyst at In-Stat, a technology research firm. "Videoconferencing through your television is one of the things they're talking about, or being able to chat with friends as the television program is going on."

Note: IPTV isn't the same as getting television programs through the Internet. Google, Yahoo, Apple and others are doing that -- offering television shows through their Web sites, from episodes of "Survivor" to amateur video produced by everyday Internet users.

With television through the Internet, the shows aren't live, and consumers have to stream or download them from the Internet to their personal computers.

IPTV, on the other hand, is managed by a telecommunications company like AT&T and is transmitted through a private, closed network to your living room. AT&T, like cable and satellite television providers, also controls the television programming it offers.

IPTV "is what we're used to today, but better," said Christine Heckart, general manager of marketing for Microsoft TV. "We're not in the same market (as Google, Yahoo and Apple)."

Big expenditures

AT&T is spending between $4.2 billion and $4.8 billion to upgrade and ready its network for IPTV.

In November 2004, it struck a $400 million partnership with Microsoft to develop IPTV software. It also made a $1.7 billion deal with Alcatel, the French telecommunications equipment-maker, to put together the necessary equipment.

That's quite an investment. But telecommunications companies, facing competition from cell phone, cable and other companies, are trying to move into new areas to compensate for their declining landline telephone business.

If all goes as scheduled, AT&T plans to have IPTV in as many as 3 million homes this year, with the goal of reaching 18 million homes by 2008. Despite speculation about delays, including problems with Microsoft's software, AT&T said it is on track, beginning with a test run in San Antonio in December.

"We've been pretty true to the schedule," said Jeff Weber, AT&T vice president of product and strategy. "There are things we work through every day, but no delays and no slips in the path we're on."

Weber declined to specify when it will offer the service in the Bay Area, but last year, AT&T Chief Executive Officer Ed Whitacre, speaking at an event in San Francisco, said he expects customers here to start seeing it during the first half of this year.

Meanwhile, what threatens to slow it down is the regulatory battle that AT&T is wrestling with on both on a national and local level as it seeks to deploy "Project Lightspeed" to improve its network.

Walnut Creek, for one, is requiring AT&T, like its main competitor, cable provider Comcast Corp., to pay the city a fee to offer IPTV in the area. AT&T, which has sued the city, contending that the network upgrade isn't all about television, but other services as well.

AT&T needs to update its network because for IPTV to work, high-speed Internet has to reach about 20 to 25 Mbps. Currently, AT&T offers 1.5 to 6 Mbps high-speed Internet service.

How it works

IPTV works by breaking the latest "Lost" episode into packets and sending them to your television, in much the way e-mail is sent to your computer.

That technology gives IPTV a degree of flexibility that cable and satellite providers don't have, said Tim Krause, Alcatel's North America chief marketing officer. Unlike traditional television, the IPTV set-top box does not store the hundred or so channels; instead, there is a constant two-way communication between the customer and AT&T. Select a channel, and the set-top box will retrieve the television show from AT&T's servers.

That means IPTV could theoretically offer an infinite number of channels, limited just by cost, including more high-definition and niche programming, from foreign-language soap operas to games of cricket to old episodes of "Howdy Doody."

"On the Hollywood studio side, they can dust off all this content that's been sitting on the shelves because no one was willing to offer it," Krause said.

IPTV could even potentially allow subscribers to have their own television channel where they could share their photos and video with their friends and neighbors or even the rest of the world.

Simultaneous viewing

With IPTV, couch potatoes will also be able to watch a lot more television at the same time: Microsoft's software allows users to keep an eye on six sports games at the same time, on the same screen, or study one game from multiple camera angles, or even channel surf at the bottom of the screen while the regular television show is still playing.

In the future, because the same kind of technology will join telephone, Internet and television services, it could allow consumers to program their recorders through the Internet or their cell phones, instant message during a television show, video conference through their television sets and see the image of the person who is calling during a show.

And it creates new opportunities to make television more interactive, such as ordering a product online that's been featured on a television show. "IPTV takes it to a new level," said Sam Pemberton, CEO of Softel-USA, which develops interactive television technology. "The technology enables greater imagination."

Not all of these features are novel. Comcast said it is already deploying many of the same features, such as caller ID on your television screen.

"AT&T is spending years and billions of dollars to imitate a network that Comcast has already built," Comcast spokesman Andrew Johnson said in a statement. "We've seen nothing ... that we can't exceed."

The threat of AT&T could lead to more competition and lower prices. AT&T declined to detail how much it plans to charge subscribers for IPTV, though it said it would be competitive with cable and satellite prices.

In parts of Europe and Asia, as well as just north in Sacramento, IPTV has already been installed. By 2009, the IPTV industry is projected to hit $3.4 billion in revenue with 8.8 million subscribers, according to the Multimedia Research Group. That's still a small dent in the cable television industry, which draws about 70 million to 75 million subscribers today.

"Cable and satellite services are already very good," said Bob Larribeau, a program director at Multimedia Research Group. "It's going to be tough to pull subscribers away."

SureWest Communications started IPTV in the Sacramento region about two years ago and now has about 11,000 IPTV customers.

One of them is Michael Marando, an information officer with the state's Office of Traffic Safety, who switched over a few years ago after being offered a deal he couldn't resist: 10 Mbps Internet service, as well as television and telephone service, for $100 a month. He had been paying $160 to buy each service separately.

A satellite subscriber before, he noticed that he's able to change channels faster on IPTV.

But the real highlight for him hasn't really been IPTV. Instead, it came after SureWest introduced more than a dozen high-definition channels on IPTV last fall.

"You can see the beads of sweat on (Sacramento Kings basketball player) Ron Artest's eyes," he said about the picture quality. "You can't get that on regular television."
IPTV at a glance

What is it? IPTV is the acronym for Internet Protocol Television, which is live television service delivered through a telephone line. Similar to subscribing to cable and satellite television, it offers hundreds of channels and features like video-on-demand.

What is it not? IPTV is not to be confused with watching television through the Internet. Google, Apple, Yahoo and others have begun to offer that service, in which users stream or download a show onto their computer.

Who's behind it? Telecommunications companies such as AT&T and Verizon are in the process of rolling out IPTV throughout the United States. In the Bay Area, AT&T is in the process of getting the necessary permits to upgrade its network to provide IPTV.

E-mail Ellen Lee at elee@sfchronicle.com.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/06/BUGG4H2GGO1.DTL&type=business

Nice IPTV overview article from the Chronicle. Thanks for the post. Only a few 'fuzzy' points, such as STBs don't 'store' hundreds of channels, but instead now have all the channels accessible at the STB input, all the time, thus requiring large bandwidths for cable delivery. IPTV, not necessarily just for telephone-line delivery, may be indirectly switched by a IPTV center's servers, but unlike cable VOD (video on demand), the programs aren't stored on servers but are instead switched broadcasts (switched video). So all the channels in the world, and more, could be accessible. Here's a somewhat more technical summary (http://www.ct-magazine.com/archives/ct/1105/1105_buildingaswitched.htm) of three switched-video techniques, including IPTV. -- John

Lightspeed Lights Up New Nev. Neighborhood
By Karen Brown 2/13/2006 1:02:00 PM

fiber-to-the-premises service, announcing an agreement to extend the network to a new 800-acre development in Kiley Ranch, a community in northern Nevada.

Located in the Spanish Springs Valley in northern Sparks, Nev., Kiley Ranch will be one of the first new-home developments for Project Lightspeed.

AT&T struck the deal with developer Kiley Ranch Communities to offer service through the fiber network, including broadband Internet connections ranging between 1.5 megabits per second and 6 mbps downstream.

It also plans to seek a cable-TV franchise to offer its “U-verse” video service, which provides 200-plus channels of TV, on-demand video and picture-in-picture features delivered via a digital-video-recorder box.

But at this point, U-verse is only available in portions of San Antonio, as part of a controlled launch. AT&T plans to expand the U-verse universe to other markets starting sometime this summer.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6307172

Hmm the SF Chronicle article is comparing SureWest to Lightspeed. Not really a fair comparison as Surewest is FTTH so they aren't going to have the bandwidth problems that at&t is going to face.

Hasn't SBC, (ATT), stated that new construction, (sub-divisions), would be FTTP, but that existing neighbourhoods would be FTTN?
I believe that they are making a huge and costly mistake by only going FTTN for the majority of their potential subscribers, as in the relatively near future, I can see households demanding 3 HD streams concurrently as routine +/- a couple of SD streams. Where's the bandwidth coming from?
Bish

Unless it's fiber all the way to the house, it will be inferior to Fios. Wavelength multiplexing to the house means virtually unlimited bandwidth.

Unless it's fiber all the way to the house, it will be inferior to Fios. Wavelength multiplexing to the house means virtually unlimited bandwidth.


Horse puckey.

Posted on Tue, Feb. 14, 2006

By Scott Marshall
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

.... The proposal became contentious when an AT&T representative gave the City Council a presentation on IPTV on Jan. 24 -- which was immediately blasted by a cable trade group representative.

The city is negotiating with AT&T to begin offering the new service, called Project Lightspeed, which would offer video, high-speed Internet access and voice service 25 times faster than what's available now on DSL. It would allow customers to select their own programming.

Jeffrey Sinsheimer, vice president for law and public policy for the California Cable and Telecommunications Association trade group, insisted to the council that Project Lightspeed is a cable system, which would require a franchise agreement under federal law.

San Ramon already has a franchise agreement with Comcast, a member of the trade group.

Shiyama Clunie, an AT&T manager, said Project Lightspeed is not a cable service as defined under San Ramon municipal code, state law or federal law. It would deliver video programming over a switched, two-way interactive IP-based network, which is different than a cable system, Clunie told council members.

Project Lightspeed is an upgrade, but it also would require installation of more than 41 above-ground cabinets throughout the city, Clunie said. It wouldn't be available to most residents for up to five years, Clunie said.

The cable association wants like services regulated similarly, and not differently from one another simply because their technologies are different.

SBC, which is now AT&T, sued the city of Walnut Creek last year over this same issue. The Walnut Creek City Council refused to permit video services as part of the upgrade of phone and Internet services without a written franchise agreement. The Lodi City Council made a similar finding Dec. 21.

The San Ramon council voted 3-0 to authorize an agreement with AT&T. The city is negotiating with AT&T but is not near an agreement, said City Attorney Byron Athan.

The council is holding a public hearing to consider several aspects of the proposal, including whether any agreement would have any impact on the city's involvement in universal cable service.

Scott Marshall covers the San Ramon area. Reach him at 925-743-2216 or smarshall2@cctimes.com.

Information: 925-973-2500 or visit www.ci.san-ramon.ca.us

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/states/california/13867724.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

By Ted Hearn 2/13/2006 5:33:00 PM

Senate Commerce Committee leaders are developing a plan that would empower a federal-state panel to propose changes to cable-franchising laws in an effort to bring uniformity and predictability to the process.

The federal-state joint board would be created by a new law this year, and its recommendations would be codified in another law next year, Senate Commerce Committee chairman Ted Stevens said Monday, two days prior to a cable-franchising hearing before his panel that is to include testimony by Cablevision Systems Corp. chief operating officer Thomas Rutledge.

“The idea would be that some of the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] and some of the state [public-utility regulatory] people would come up with some recommendations and we next year could enact a solution that would deal with that problem of franchising,” Stevens told reporters after an address to state regulators in which he said demands by local governments on new cable entrants “border on extortion and ought not to be permitted” in the franchising process.

“I understand one demanded a new football field,” Stevens said, adding that he was also concerned about burdens on cable incumbents seeking renewals.

Stevens said he borrowed the idea from the joint board Congress created in 1996 to keep the local-phone-subsidy program, which was designed to bring affordable communications to rural America.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6307434.html?display=Breaking+News

Speaking as a resident of the Bay Area . . .

Weber declined to specify when it will offer the service in the Bay Area, but last year, AT&T Chief Executive Officer Ed Whitacre, speaking at an event in San Francisco, said he expects customers here to start seeing it during the first half of this year.

Yay! Happy warm fuzzies all around! :)

Project Lightspeed is an upgrade, but it also would require installation of more than 41 above-ground cabinets throughout the city, (AT & T Manager Shiyama) Clunie said. It wouldn't be available to most residents for up to five years . . .

Boo! Five fricking years?!? :eek:

By NICK SLOAN, Special to The Kansan

The Video Competition Act, Kansas Senate Bill No. 449, has seen and will continue to see heavyweight corporations go at it.

The bill is supported by AT&T and opposed by cable companies such as Time Warner Inc. and Cox Communications Inc. Cox and Time Warner believe that the bill would give AT&T special treatment in the video market. The bill would allow the amending of laws covering cable franchises, making it easier for AT&T and other firms to offer alternative video services.

While the battle is primarily focused between the corporations, Time Warner’s Director of Public Affairs Damon Porter believes that the main losers of the bill could be the consumers of Wyandotte County, and other counties in the state of Kansas.

“Wyandotte County residents should be the most concerned,” Porter told The Kansan.

Porter charged that the bill would allow AT&T to “cherry-pick” its customers based on how much money each consumer spends on the different services. He added that the company would get to decide, not the public, on who would be serviced, and that “it’s a bad bill all around.”

Porter believes that if customers just want the basic, simple package from AT&T, the company may have the right to not serve them. He also said that customers would have to spend between $250 and $350 to receive service from AT&T.

“It [the bill] does not have the consumer’s interest at heart,” Porter said. “There is no consumer protection with this bill.” He also stated that the wording of the bill might create the scenario where entire neighborhoods fail to get service.

The bill would be similar to one passed in Texas recently. Due to this bill, the introduction of one in Missouri, another bill introduced in Detroit and one in Lenexa, Porter and Time Warner were ready for the bill to be introduced in Kansas.

“We had the Texas model to look at,” Porter said. Along with being prepared for the bill, Porter and Time Warner were prepared for the fight that has started, and will continue for the foreseeable future.

“As long as the bill stands as it is, there will be a fight,” Porter said.

Along with the consumer’s interest, Porter also charges that the bill would give AT&T a significant advantage over its competitors and that it would “not be a level playing field.”

Porter noted that in the Lenexa case, AT&T rejected an expedited franchise, passed by Lenexa’s city council. Porter said that the franchise offered “would have maintained a level playing field, requiring SBC/AT&T, Time Warner Cable and Everest to operate under the same set of rules.”

However, President of AT&T Kansas David Kerr defends the bill and said that residents in Kansas will benefit with the bill’s passing.

“The bottom line is that it provides competition,” said Kerr late last week to The Kansan. “There is a need for competitive alternates.” Kerr also said that the bill is consumer friendly and that AT&T is not the first carrier to attempt what the bill is doing.

Kerr also stated that AT&T has been “aggressive” to provide consumers as quickly as the company can. The company announced “Project Lightspeed,” which Kerr, and AT&T, believes that can reach 18 million nationally over the next three years. He also said that AT&T has spent $4 billion to lay fiber-optic cables deeper into individual neighborhoods, in order to provide service faster. The company plans to enter the TV market and Internet market this year.

However, Porter maintains that the bill would allow cherry-picking of customers and he has his supporters. He said that many organizations regarding civil rights are concerned with the bill, and other consumer groups.

However, like Porter, Kerr and AT&T has their share of supporters with the bill.

“Several consumer groups support the bill,” he said. Kerr said that the NAACP supports the bill as well.

Porter also had meetings with “members of the Unified Government.”

“There are concerns from them,” he said. However, he also said that he’s not in the position to say whether they are for or against the bill.

The bill was introduced on Jan. 25, and it was referred to Commerce the next day. The Senate hearing took place on Feb. 7. There have not been any actions since the meeting and both sides believe that there will be a long fight.

http://www.kansascitykansan.com/articles/2006/02/14/news/local/news2.txt

Hasn't SBC, (ATT), stated that new construction, (sub-divisions), would be FTTP, but that existing neighbourhoods would be FTTN?
I believe that they are making a huge and costly mistake by only going FTTN for the majority of their potential subscribers, as in the relatively near future, I can see households demanding 3 HD streams concurrently as routine +/- a couple of SD streams. Where's the bandwidth coming from?
Bish
Wouldn't that depend on the bit rates, compression, etc. of the streams? I hafta believe AT&T won't be sending standard MPEG2 streams.

Hasn't SBC, (ATT), stated that new construction, (sub-divisions), would be FTTP, but that existing neighbourhoods would be FTTN?
I believe that they are making a huge and costly mistake by only going FTTN for the majority of their potential subscribers, as in the relatively near future, I can see households demanding 3 HD streams concurrently as routine +/- a couple of SD streams. Where's the bandwidth coming from?
Bish

It was my understanding that new construction would be FTTH, and FTTN for existing homes.

Lightspeed Lights Up New Nev. Neighborhood
By Karen Brown 2/13/2006 1:02:00 PM

AT&T struck the deal with developer Kiley Ranch Communities to offer service through the fiber network, including broadband Internet connections ranging between 1.5 megabits per second and 6 mbps downstream.



http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6307172

I thought the internet speeds were going to be much higher with lightspeed.

I thought the internet speeds were going to be much higher with lightspeed.When you're trying to get data, voice, and video service over 20-25Mbps ... you gotta be judicious.

Although, I am surprised they aren't offering a higher data speed that only gets dynamically throttled when you are also using video and / or voice.

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 2/15/2006 10:12:00 AM

Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg and AT&T CEO Edward Whitacre pledged to the Senate Commerce Committee Wednesday that their companies were prepared to pay “the same franchise fees cable pays" if the government streamlines the franchise process.

At a hearing on video franchising, Seidenberg also promised to "carry public, educational and government (PEG) channels; supports preserving local governments’ authority over rights-of-way; and expects to be subject to federal redlining rules that apply to cable" for its FiOS video service.

The committee is rewriting the 1996 Communications Act to reflect the advent of broadband. A number of bills have been introduced to create a state or national video franchise process to speed telco and other competition to cable.

Whitacre argued that without state or national franchising, AT&T will have to strike 1,600 local franchising deals to roll out its video service. If we completed one deal a week, he said, that would take 30 years.

The committee appeared to be unanimous in its commitment to do something to ease entry so that neither new entrants nor incumbents are competitively disadvantaged, but also to protect the interests of municipalities and consumers, which Senator John Kerry (D- Mass.) called a vital but difficult balancing act.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6307772.html?display=Breaking+News

McCain Proposing A La Carte Bill

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 2/15/2006 10:43:00 AM

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) a frequent critic of cable rates, used a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on video franchising Wednesday to say he would introduce a bill encouraging a la carte cable offerings.

After again laying into the cable industry over rising rates and saying consumers have few competitive options, McCain said he planned to introduce a bill that would free new cable competitors from local franchising regs if they, in turn, would agree to offer their video channels a la carte.

That bill would be one of a growing number of proposed bills to streamline the video franchising process to encourage broadband roll-out and price and service competition to cable.

McCain's goal is at least twofold: Lower cable bills and give parents more control over cable indecency, which is beyond the reach of the FCC.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6307775.html?display=Breaking+News

It was my understanding that new construction would be FTTH, and FTTN for existing homes.

FTTP = Fibre To The Premises, i.e. FTTH, (Fibre To The House).
Bish

FTTP = Fibre To The Premises, i.e. FTTH, (Fibre To The House).
Bish
FTTN= Fiber to the Node.

I thought the internet speeds were going to be much higher with lightspeed.
The bulk of the bandwidth is reserved for video. My guess is that AT&T doesn't want competition for its higher-end data services, and doesn't want to give anyone any ideas of sharing one 25Mbps data line between 4 - 5 neighbors over wifi.

Armey Praises Senators' Competition Commitment

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 2/15/2006 4:27:00 PM

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, now co-chairman of conservate group Freedomworks (lower taxes, smaller government), Wednesday praised six Senate Commerce Commitee members for their support of video franchise regulation reform.

The John-heavy list comprised Senators John D. Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), John Ensign (R-Nev.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.)

In advance of a Wednesday hearing on video franchising, the six signed a statement of principles supporting competition and some revision of current franchising regs, saying: “Federal, state, and local policies regulating the offering of video services were developed in a different period. Laws, rules, and regulations that were once desirable now serve as barriers to competitive entry and disincentives to network investment,” according to Armey.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6308048.html?display=Breaking+News

Caught part of Wednesday's senate hearing where Verizon/AT&T claimed they would pay franchise fees just like cable companies, followed by a Cablecast executive testifying that telcos weren't actually signing up to pay local franchise fees but were instead campaigning against them.

Then I set my DVR, which failed to capture the Q&A portion, and viewed "Lost." Did these obviously conflicting cable/telco claims ever get resolved? -- John

Posted on Wed, Feb. 15, 2006
By Scott Marshall and Bonita Brewer
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

San Ramon is moving to embrace a proposal by AT&T to introduce Internet Protocol Television service -- the same plan being resisted in Walnut Creek and Livermore.

Though Walnut Creek and Livermore have stopped similar proposals, San Ramon appears likely to authorize it.

Project Lightspeed, which AT&T wants to begin introducing this year, would bring television to residential customers through DSL phone connections and super-high speed broadband. Instead of offering one-way video through a cable box, AT&T's service will enable customers to choose programs they want through two-way communication. The company says this would increase competition for television service, thereby benefiting consumers.

AT&T says it does not need a cable franchise to do this because it is a regulated telephone company.

Cable industry officials, meanwhile say AT&T's plan would create an unfair advantage for phone companies. Cable officials add that such "IPTV"-type service should be regulated under existing law to ensure it wouldn't hurt consumers in poor communities.

San Ramon agrees with AT&T, and Tuesday night authorized City Attorney Byron Athan to draft a resolution supporting it. It ultimately will be marketed as AT&T U-Verse, said AT&T spokesman Gordon Diamond.

The council held Tuesday's hearing as a precaution. Federal law requires a public hearing when a city wants to grant an additional cable franchise, and the city has a franchise with Comcast.

The City Council authorized the agreement last month, although negotiations are still in progress.

A cable industry representative blasted the proposal at the Jan. 24 San Ramon council meeting when the panel authorized the agreement with AT&T.

In Walnut Creek and Livermore, officials have resisted over concerns of the ultimate definition of IPTV under state and federal law.

In Walnut Creek, SBC began upgrading above-ground copper wires as part of a service upgrade. But the city concluded the lines would complement Project Lightspeed, and that a franchise agreement was needed, said AT&T spokesman Gordon Diamond. SBC, now AT&T, sued Walnut Creek over the disagreement last year.

Meanwhile, Livermore leaders have similar concerns and also have stopped installations of such cabinets. Livermore officials said that in August, SBC representatives came to city officials to discuss Project Lightspeed and equipment installation. The city wanted discussions about a franchise agreement, but none was held.

In early December, SBC applied for a number of encroachment permits for what the city thought was routine work on its regular phone service.

"There was no reference to a system upgrade for Project Lightspeed; our perspective was that it was for routine kind of work commonly done for phone service," said Assistant City Manager Jim Piper.

IPTV in San Ramon and elsewhere would require installation of cabinets that are five feet tall and 31/2 feet wide and other upgrades to AT&T equipment.

"It came to our attention they were in fact installing Lightspeed cabinets and equipment. When we determined that was the case, we sent a letter revoking the permits and telling them to stop work without talking to us first and getting our permission."

At Monday night's City Council meeting, Mayor Marshall Kamena cited "a rather deceiving incident" in which AT&T was issued a permit under what he thinks were "false pretenses."

Further discussions between Livermore and AT&T are planned.

AT&T says it hopes its IPTV will reach 18 million homes by 2008. A majority of San Ramon customers could have it within a few years, according to an AT&T presentation last month.
Staff writer Theresa Harrington contributed to this story. Reach Scott Marshall at 925-743-2216 or smarshall2@cctimes.com. Reach Bonita Brewer at 925-847-2120 or bbrewer@cctimes.com.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/13881671.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

02.22.06

AT&T Preps for IPTV

by Craig Johnston

SAN ANTONIO: IPTV began coursing through its fiber-optic veins in San Antonio in December, as "the new AT&T" (formerly SBC) rolled out what it terms a "controlled launch" of Lightspeed, the company's telco video-based service.

"It is precisely what we wanted it to be in terms of easy to use, simple, pretty intuitive for customers," said Jeff Weber, vice president of product and strategy at AT&T. "So that is a huge step in the right direction as we think about this product going forward."

Weber's comments were a vote of confidence for the software and user interface from Microsoft, which shipped Version 1.0 of its IPTV platform in October.

Besides IPTV's sing-song, catchy sounding name and the cutting-edge cache of having "IT" integrated into the name, Ed Graczyk, Microsoft TV director of marketing and communications said IPTV changes the very nature of video delivery to the home.

"Fundamentally, all the advantages are really enabled by the fact that all of the services are delivered over this two-way broadband network," he said. "Because it's a two-way network, you can do a lot of the so-called heavy lifting on servers."

In a broadcast environment the "heavy lifting" has to be done in the set-top box.

This speaks to the basic difference between IPTV and the QAM system that has dominated cable and satellite TV to date. With QAM, all channels are sent into the home, where the set-top box or boxes decide which channel to watch.

If 250 channels are being broadcast into your home, Graczyk said, "the set-top ignores the 249 you're not watching and displays the one you are. But those extra 249 take up a huge amount of bandwidth."

With IPTV, each set-top box in the home sends a request to a server located at the service provider, and the server sends back just the channel requested. Regardless of the number of channels available, even if many are HD, the amount of capacity into the home need only be enough to handle one channel per set-top box plus enough for data and voice.

"Twenty to 25 megabytes is in the ballpark as far as a couple TVs and the phone, Internet service, a couple of hi-def channels," said Charlie Guyer, spokesman for Alcatel, the French system integrator for Lightspeed, as well as the provider of critical hardware such as the edge servers.

IP ADVANTAGES

The 20 to 25 Mbps into the house requirement allows AT&T to use existing copper wiring from a neighborhood-serving node into the home. From that node, up through the network, everything is fiber. Servers at the service provider send individual IP video streams down the network through the serving node and into the house via the copper wire.

Guyer noted that for connecting from a serving node to new construction, "people by and large aren't putting new copper in the ground. If they're opening up the ground they're going to put fiber in."

While some day AT&T may find new services require replacing the copper wire with fiber into the house, "we're always having advances in how we can compress through compression technologies," said Guyer. He noted that IPTV already uses higher compression MPEG-4 or VC-1 rather than the older technology MPEG-2 used by broadcasters and digital cable.

Graczyk said that the ability to use existing copper wiring into homes served is only one of the advantages of IPTV. Another is that the channel switching is done in software on the server rather than in the set-top box.

"Channel tuning time for the consumer is significantly faster than in digital broadcast," he said. "So cable and satellite take one to two seconds to tune a channel; we do it in about 300 milliseconds."

In a demonstration on Microsoft's Redmond, Wash. campus, Graczyk showed a Major League Baseball application where the viewer can watch and listen to one game occupying most of the screen, with three smaller pictures of games taking place at the same time.

When the viewer switches to another game, the two pictures switch places with a DVE-ish move. And though the viewer is watching video from four games at once, they are combined upstream on the network and sent to the viewer as a single channel.

Because the network is truly two-way, a customer can request billing details or order an upgrade without phoning the service provider. "And every call costs around $7.50," Graczyk said.

He cited one cable provider who estimated they got 9 million calls per month. "You can do the math, 9 million times $7.50... if we can offload some little percentage just by giving people the ability to view it online, that's potentially a huge savings."

Because the IPTV infrastructure is computer-friendly, Graczyk said video-on-demand systems can be fully integrated in the service.

"The way VOD evolved in cable, it was kind of like a 'second class citizen,' because you were either in live TV, where you got the guide and you can navigate and change channels, but if you wanted to go to video-on-demand, it's kind of this whole different world."

This makes searching live channels and VOD libraries seamless from the user standpoint.

Because most of the functionality of IPTV is not in the set-top, the boxes themselves will require relatively little updating as incremental changes are made to an IPTV system. The servers will receive most of the upgrades.

With cable TV, "the challenge is, any time the software on the set-top box changes, it has to go through this big, long, expensive certification process with Motorola that's called 'Acadia,'" Graczyk said.

"With IPTV we don't have that restriction, in fact we can roll out these incremental updates very easily," he said.

Guyer said the newness of IPTV has required his company and other partners in AT&T's project to learn and invent as they've gone along. He said of the 30-plus IPTV projects Alcatel is leading or participating in around the world, AT&T is the largest.

"Lightspeed is the one that's under the microscope and everyone is using this as the barometer as far as the future of IPTV," he said.

One of the biggest questions he's seen the network's builder ask is if it will scale. "Will it support 18 million people? That's been a challenge but I think it's being addressed very well. AT&T is hitting all its milestones."

AT&T's Weber echoes that optimism.

"We're in the middle of massive network build, in the middle of, in our case, a complete system build, a new suite of systems that we're implementing, obviously a pretty complicated new technology around the IPTV platform, new set-tops, everything was new and new and new."

In spite of all the pioneering technical effort, he said "all came together in a way that's pretty simple for customers. So there's lot's of interesting technology behind the scenes, but from your perspective, sitting in your living room... turn it on, it's really good quality and it's easy to use."

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/news/2006.02.22-n_at_T_preps.shtml

Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal - February 27, 2006
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2006/02/27/story1.html
February 24, 2006
Andrew F. Hamm

A battle over how to create a level playing field between television service providers could stall AT&T's move into Silicon Valley living rooms, even as the state Legislature, the Federal Communications Commission and even Congress threaten to intervene.

The company formally known as SBC Communications Inc. does not want to negotiate franchise agreements with individual cities where it plans to provide television service. Instead, it is seeking a statewide or even national franchise agreement that would allow it to quickly move into the television market.

AT&T officials say they have no problems paying a "fee" to local governments -- as long as it isn't labeled a "franchise" or "utility" fee -- but they would prefer to avoid the time-consuming process of negotiating individual agreements with each city.

"Even if we do one city a day, it would take us seven years to gain all the approvals," says AT&T spokesman H. Gordon Diamond. " The city by city process is outdated. We're looking to streamline the process."

San Antonio-based AT&T is upgrading and expanding its fiber optic lines so that it can carry television channels as well as faster broadband Internet and improved voice-over-the-Internet service. The $4.4 billion project is known as "Project Lightspeed."

AT&T contends Project Lightspeed is merely an upgrade of its existing network and therefore it is exempted from any new franchise fee obligations.

Most cities disagree, contending they have a right to a franchise fee as well as regulatory authority because AT&T is using local rights of way to deliver a new service, i.e. television. They also contend a franchise agreement will make sure AT&T follows the same rules cable companies do, namely providing its service citywide and contributing to public access television programming.

The 5 percent fee usually goes into a city's general fund. For instance, Santa Clara collected $890,000 from Comcast Corp. in 2004-05. Santa Clara's general fund budget is $120 million.

AT&T has sued Walnut Creek and Lodi in federal court after those cities refused to issue work permits to AT&T.

AT&T officials would not say how far along its fiber optic upgrade and expansion is in Silicon Valley. However, a random check of six cities showed no permits have been requested by the telecom giant. Mr. Diamond says AT&T has held discussions with virtually every Silicon Valley city on the topic.

The AT&T television service, which will go by the trademark name "U-Verse," could be available to most AT&T customers by mid-year, Mr. Diamond says, but only if the cities get out of the way.

The increased competition in the television-delivery market has many in the state Legislature, FCC and Congress sympathetic to the telecom giant's needs, but there is concern over taking away local community oversight.

Three bills are being introduced in the state Legislature seeking a framework for a statewide franchise agreement. Texas and Virginia currently have statewide franchise agreements with AT&T and Verizon Communications Inc., respectfully. The FCC is investigating how to quicken AT&T, Verizon and other telephone companies' entrance into the television market. Both houses of Congress have held hearings on developing a framework for a national uniformed franchise agreement.

However, Comcast, the dominant cable provider in Silicon Valley, and other cable companies are lobbying against statewide and national franchise regulations, claiming it would give AT&T an unfair advantage.

"We didn't have problems getting franchise agreements," says Comcast spokesman Andrew Johnson. "We've invested money in the cities. (AT&T) will be competing with us... Making them follow the same rules makes for a level playing field."

State Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, understands the problem.

"AT&T wants a level playing field, which from some perspectives looks like it rolls right into their cash register," Mr. Simitian says. "These issues are so complex I'm not sure we are ready to handle it."

However, there is concern in the state Legislature that if it doesn't act quickly, Congress or the FCC will take away any state say in the matter. Mr. Simitian says an "interim solution" to get something on the books may be in the offing, although he admits he isn't sure what that might be right now.

"Neither the market nor the technology is going to wait on the California state Legislature to make up its mind," Mr. Simitian says. "My concern is that among all the pushing and shoving going on, the consumer gets forgotten."

Andrew F. Hamm covers Internet services for the Business Journal. He can be reached at 408-299-1841.

http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2006/02/27/story1.html?t=printable

Cisco Moves Into the IP Home With Scientific-Atlanta Buy
By Charlotte Wolter
Posted on: 03/01/2006

The Cisco Systems Inc. $7 billion ($5.1 billion net of Scientific Atlanta’s cash balance) acquisition of Scientific-Atlanta is billed by Cisco as bringing video into IP, but is as significant because it unites for the first time in one company a strong entertainment video heritage with an IP communications heritage.

Although video has long been incorporated into IP data and communication services, mostly as video conferencing and training video, there has been relatively little crossover between entertainment video and communication services. What video there is on the Internet has been of lower quality than the entertainment video distributed mostly via broadcast, cable or satellite.

Therefore, Cisco’s acquisition of Scientific-Atlanta, a company with strong entertainment video experience and nearly $2 billion in yearly revenue, positions the company to be as important a player in home entertainment services as it has been in home data services. Some analysts have suggested that Cisco retain the Scientific-Atlanta brand to increase its credibility in the entertainment video world where it has little presence today.

The combination of the two companies also raises the potential for Cisco to take advantage of making IP communications generally more dominant within the home as whole-house systems rather than the separate capabilities of high-speed data, IP voice, and digital and analog video that we see today.

Cisco has the potential to be at the forefront as those worlds move closer together, trumping Microsoft Corp., which has long yearned to be a major player in home entertainment, but has concentrated on the human interface and the set-top middleware rather than the network. A customer may see a program guide by Microsoft, but the services will be delivered and managed over a network system that is powered by Cisco gear.

Further, Scientific-Atlanta already combines IP communication with video in its home products. Many of its set-tops incorporate cable modems or DSL modems, features that can be exploited as the two communication systems start to combine.

At a basic technological level there is already a rapprochement going on between data and entertainment technologies. For more than a decade MPEG-2 has been the gold standard of video compression. When it first appeared, MPEG-4, which came out of the computer world, was considered inferior for serious providers of entertainment video, although the savings in bandwidth were significant. Today, with more powerful chips available to do the compression, MPEG-4 is widely accepted by entertainment video engineers, whose standards of quality are exacting.

MPEG-4 will be a key technology in AT&T Inc.’s Project LightSpeed, where Scientific-Atlanta has a $200 million contract. Scientific-Atlanta (Cisco) will provide a video distribution system that will transport multiplexes of video encoded in MPEG-4 to city headends, where local content will be added.

AT&T generally will combine IP on-demand video with traditional broadcast video (usually digital), with the capability to move individual channels dynamically from on-demand IP to broadcast as consumer demand increases.

MPEG-4 also is being used more and more in IP video communication, such as IP video conferencing and videophones. Therefore, that basic capability in an IP endpoint could support both video communication and video entertainment. This opens a range of new home devices and services beyond today’s separate worlds of IP voice and data and video entertainment.

The challenge for Cisco will be to pick its spots in home networks and devices. Today, its major presence in communication in the home is routers, where the company has a dominant position with its Linksys division. It will add TV set-tops with the Scientific-Atlanta acquisition. The question is how Cisco will use those two capabilities, and whether it makes sense to combine those capabilities in one box, such as adding router functionality to a TV set-top.

Another question is what Cisco will do in home-networking. Today, video is moved around homes on coaxial cable while data moves on CAT-5 cabling. Many homes today have both kinds of wires snaking around the household to feed both TVs and computers. Both systems have very high bandwidth capabilities, but Cisco’s natural preference likely would be for what it knows best, Ethernet networks. Possibly the future is set-tops and TVs with RJ-45s on the back rather than cable connectors and places to plug in IP phones and computers as well as TVs.

http://www.newtelephony.com/news/63h182239.html

Article Last Updated: 03/02/2006 2:50 AM PST
'Lightspeed' resolution seeks to provide level playing field
By Paul Burgarino, STAFF WRITER

SAN RAMON — Representatives from the city's current cable provider weighed in on a proposal to bring Internet-protocol television to San Ramon.

Marty Robinson of Comcast and Jeffrey Sinsheimer of the California Cable and Telecommunications Association addressed the council during Tuesday's meeting, challenging claims made by AT&T California that their proposed service upgrade "Project Lightspeed" was not cable television.

City Attorney Byron Athan prepared findings based on a presentation by AT&T representative Richard Parr and a public hearing that was held at the Feb. 14 council meeting.

The council approved the resolution to assist the city staff in negotiations with AT&T.

"It is not the province of the City Council to decide if it is a cable provider." Athan said, adding that will be decided in the courts.

The city attorney also spoke about whether AT&T was getting an unfair advantage.

"As far as a level playing field, I don't think you can have it any more level than proposed in the negotiations that are going on," Athan said. "Every step of the way weare requiring them to give the level of service and every obligation that we could to cable."

Robinson assured the council that Comcast is not fearful of AT&T, but he wanted the city to consider the incumbent company when entering negotiations about Project Lightspeed.

"The level playing field issue is important to us," he said. "We are not asking anything special of you, we are asking you hold AT&T to the standards we are held to and nothing more."

Comcast has a project similar to AT&T's proposal in the works, Robinson said.

"The interesting thing is that Comcast has the ability to provide greater bandwidth," Councilman Jim Livingstone said. "Competition may force them to do that and that's good for the citizens of San Ramon."

Sinsheimer said that he is concerned that the city is relying on AT&T to come to closure on the resolution, saying it's like letting the "fox guard the henhouse."

He said he was there to try to give the council a complete picture of the situation so they could determine of the resolution is "arbitrary and capricious" and contrary to the law.

"The presentation that was made by AT&T is replete with legal and factual errors with respect to the kind of service that they intend to provide," Sinshemier said.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_3561308

bgooch, thanks for posting these articles, Comcast and the City of Santa Rosa are currently in a 3 year long dispute and I'm hoping ATT will eventually come to town and provide some competition as Comcast is basically dragging their feet with upgrading an old 550Mhz system.

you're welcome

March 02, 2006

AT&T, Verizon and other telcos have been warning that they're going to demand money from Google and other sites if those sites want adequate bandwidth. But now a senator is proposing to ban the practice, and is standing up to the telcos, who are acting more like a cybermafia than legitimate businesses.

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon today introduced legslation that would ban network operators from charging sites for extra bandwidth. The law would also ban the practice of favoring some content providers over others. That, according to the New York Times.

Other Congressman are kowtowing to the telcos because the telcos are big campaign contributors. They'd let the telcos do what they want, and turn the Internet into their own private network.

The Wyden bill, called the Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006, faces tough sledding. Money talks, and the telcos are doing a lot of talking.

In addition, the FCC has made it clear it won't take any action on the matter, so we can't look to them for help.

So if you care about the future of the Internet, let your Congressmen know about it -- tell them to support Wyden's bill.

http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/2006/03/senator_to_att.html

Controversial Calif. Deal for AT&T
By Linda Haugsted 3/2/2006 12:52:00 PM

Bucking the trend set by other cities, the city council in San Ramon, Calif., approved a deal with AT&T Inc. that will allow the telephone company to place hardware in the rights of way that will deliver video signals.

The deal, approved 4-0 Feb. 28, was opposed by incumbent Comcast Corp. and the California Cable & Telecommunications Association. They both argued that AT&T's planned service meets the federal definition of a cable-television product and must be franchised.

Other California cities, including Walnut Creek and Livermore, agreed with incumbents regarding the service definition and have tried to compel AT&T to enter an equipment-siting agreement that will later bind the telephone company to cable-franchise agreements. AT&T has responded by suing those cities.

San Ramon officials, however, agreed with AT&T that Internet-protocol video is not a cable service and approved an agreement to allow the company to install 41 large, above-ground vaults needed to deliver, and cool, its cable plant.

Although AT&T stressed that it doesn't need a franchise, it offered to pay the 51,027-population city a 5% franchise fee to support Tri-Valley Community Television, the local public-access corporation, and to pay 50 cents per month, per subscriber to fund local programming, according to the city staff report.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6312356.html?display=Breaking+News

Controversial Calif. Deal for AT&T
By Linda Haugsted 3/2/2006 12:52:00 PM

Although AT&T stressed that it doesn't need a franchise, it offered to pay the 51,027-population city a 5% franchise fee to support Tri-Valley Community Television, the local public-access corporation, and to pay 50 cents per month, per subscriber to fund local programming, according to the city staff report.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6312356.html?display=Breaking+News

This stinks of bribery to get one city to use in the suits in other cities. :)

We don't need a franchise but are willing to pay a franchise fee?

That 5% franchise fee, is that a typical amount that a company like Comcast would pay as well..? And does that fee come entirely from the subscriber...as opposed to Comcast actually putting out the money?

Yep, franchise fees are typically 5%. Until one of the Comm. Acts ('92 or '96?), the TAX was embedded in the price. Now I believe most providers show it as a line item tax on the bill.

And that is paid entirely by the subscriber..? Do cablecos pay anything upfront to get the franchise, other than possibly bandwidth for city usage, maybe a local govt broadcasting center or equipment, things of that nature..?

And that is paid entirely by the subscriber..? Do cablecos pay anything upfront to get the franchise, other than possibly bandwidth for city usage, maybe a local govt broadcasting center or equipment, things of that nature..?

Pay upfront, I doubt it, all the other possibilities, certainly.

excerpt
"A recent study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University calculated that consumers are paying an extra $8.4 billion in costs in the form of higher rates for service, fees, and equipment as a result of video franchise regulations. The study also found $1.7 billion in "deadweight loss" or value that consumers forego because higher prices induce some consumers to go without cable television. That's a lot of money that could be saved and put to better use, making it imperative that Congress act now to fix the system."

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/48919.html

The IRS costs $10.9 billion a year, let's eliminate them too! :D

That's a lot of money that could be saved and put to better use, making it imperative that Congress act now to fix the system.

Sorry I couldn't resist. :)

Mar 2, 2006
Lodi's council weighs AT&T fee

LODI - The Lodi City Council was scheduled Wednesday to rescind an ordinance it passed in December to require telecommunications giant AT&T to pay a franchise fee in order to deploy a new fiber-optic television service within city limits.

AT&T, formerly SBC Communications, is suing Lodi in San Joaquin County Superior Court over the Dec. 21 ordinance that would allow the phone company to bring fiber-optic Internet and phone service to Lodi, but would require a fee to deliver TV or video service.
Lodi City Attorney Steve Schwabauer recommended the ordinance, expecting the TV service to be regulated in the same manner as cable television companies, which are required to pay franchise fees to cities.

Lodi will collect about $233,000 from Comcast Cable in 2006.

On Wednesday, Schwabauer recommended the resolution be rescinded based on a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in January in a possibly related case.

In Sprint v. The City of La Canada Flintridge, the city attempted to deny the construction of wireless communication towers based on their aesthetic appearance.

The appeals court ruled that telephone companies, under a state public utilities code and the federal Telecommunications Act, have the right to extend their reach of services and upgrade their networks wherever they want to as long as it doesn't interfere with the public well-being.

"We need to take some time to think about the case and possibly revisit the ordinance," Schwabauer said.

AT&T's fiber-optic network, which it calls Project Lightspeed, is set to deploy test services in Lodi and other cities in California this year.

Lightspeed spokesman Gordon Diamond said the company is upgrading its service to provide competitive service and is doing so within its rights.

Diamond said AT&T is not opposed to paying cities up to 5 percent of gross revenues or providing public access channels and emergency services, but it needs to upgrade its network in a timely manner first.

"If we had to get a decision from every city and enter into a franchise agreement, it would take seven years," Diamond said.

The California Cable & Telecommunications Association did not return a phone call Wednesday, but its Web site, www.calcable.org, does present an argument for all TV services to be regulated the same. A Comcast spokeswoman declined to comment.

Project Lightspeed will bring broadband Internet, TV and voice services through fiber-optic cables to homes in two ways: fiber-to-the-premises and fiber-to-the-neighborhood.

Direct connections will allow data to move as fast as 39 megabits per second. In comparison, typical cable and DSL broadband services offer speeds up to 6 megabits per second.

Neighborhood connections will bring fiber-optic wires to neighborhoods, where they'll connect to existing copper wires entering residents' homes. Up to 25 megabits of data per second could travel over those connections.

The new TV service would offer special features, including enhanced digital recording, multiple camera angles of sporting events via picture-in-picture views, an enhanced program guide and more, according to a demonstration on an SBC Web site.

Diamond said the company's goal is to reach 18 million customers nationwide by the middle of 2008. AT&T will spend $4 billion to $5 bill-ion to deploy the fiber-optic cables in California and 12 other states.

Contact reporter Keith Reid at (209) 367-7428 or kreid@recordnet.com

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060302/MONEY/603020357/1003

So let me get this straight. AT & T will collect the 5% franchise fee willingly, but will sue if required to do so? Too many lawyers. :)

Proposed IPTV service under fire

By Scott Marshall
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

A cable trade group representative on Tuesday again criticized a proposed San Ramon agreement with AT&T through which the company would introduce Internet Protocol Television service.

The city is "colluding" with AT&T to offer a service that requires a cable franchise, and cannot allow IPTV without one, asserted Jerry Sinsheimer, vice president for law and public policy for the California Cable and Telecommunications Association.

If the city goes forward with an agreement, then that decision "would be contrary to federal and state law and therefore arbitrary and capricious," Sinsheimer said in a letter to the council.

The city has concluded that IPTV is not a cable service, and therefore not subject to the cable franchise requirement. Similar plans are being resisted in Walnut Creek and Livermore.

Although Walnut Creek and Livermore have stopped similar proposals -- AT&T filed suit against Walnut Creek over the issue -- San Ramon appears likely to authorize it. The council approved a resolution 4-0 that accepts the legal finding by City Attorney Byron Athan that IPTV would be in the best interest of city residents.

Project Lightspeed, which AT&T wants to introduce this year, would bring television to residential customers through DSL phone connections and super-high-speed broadband. Instead of offering one-way video through a cable box, AT&T's service will enable customers to choose programs they want through two-way communication. The company says this would increase competition for television service, thereby benefiting consumers.

AT&T says it does not need a cable franchise to do this because it is a regulated telephone company.

Cable industry officials, meanwhile, say AT&T's plan would create an unfair advantage for phone companies. Cable officials add that such "IPTV"-type service should be regulated under existing law to ensure it wouldn't hurt consumers in poor communities.

Scott Marshall covers the San Ramon area. Reach him at 925-743-2216 or smarshall2@cctimes.com

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/states/california/13997553.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

So let me get this straight. AT & T will collect the 5% franchise fee willingly, but will sue if required to do so? Too many lawyers. :)
The problem is not the fee. AT&T is on record (as you point out) stating that they will pay such a fee.

The problem is having to negotiate and secure a franchise agreement before they start. AT&T's position (as I understand it) is that to have to stop and negotiate with every municipality would delay things greatly -- some municipalities can drag such negotiations on for months. And as should be obvious, AT&T is in a big hurry to get this service out there to compete with updated offerings from satellite and cable.

Hopefully they win out...the sooner this is rolled out, the sooner we have more competition.

I'm sure everyone's heard this by now, but in case you haven't, AT&T has announced its intention to acquire Bellsouth. The deal is expected to clear regulatory hurdles and take about a year to close. More here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060307/ap_on_bi_ge/at_t_bellsouth;_ylt=AjOOfGrQJlXGnWCTOHgYq8myBhIF;_ylu=X3oDMT A5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--). One assumes that, sooner or later, Project Lightspeed will be extended into Bellsouth territories once the deal closes.

So let me get this straight. AT & T will collect the 5% franchise fee willingly, but will sue if required to do so? Too many lawyers. :)

The issue isn't the fee, but a cable franchise requirement that compels AT&T to build out to every home in the city. Given the cost of the build-out and the fact their looking to build concurrently in all states they serve, it would be unworkable if they had to build out to every home in every locality they received authority to enter.

Sorry, I don't buy their double-speak. If it is an IP based service where a franchise is not required, no franchise fees. They are attempting to do just as Verizon is, pick and choose the cream of the crop neighborhoods.

Sorry, I don't buy their double-speak. If it is an IP based service where a franchise is not required, no franchise fees. They are attempting to do just as Verizon is, pick and choose the cream of the crop neighborhoods.


And what is exactly wrong with this? Should a business not be able to select their target markets and customers?

Cable can't. Either they are an IP based data system that does not require a franchise or franchise fees, or they are a video provider that must play by the same rules as everyone else. Their argument changes with the wind.....

AT&T Labs execs eye optical networks' future at the Optical Fibers in Communications conference

Loring Wirbel (03/07/2006 3:45 PM EST)
URL: http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=181501692

ANAHEIM, Calif. — Just days after their parent companies announced merger plans, senior executives from AT&T Labs and BellSouth Corp. provided a look into the future of optical backbones during keynotes at the Optical Fibers in Communications conference.

The irony of promising expanding traffic potential in a time of consolidation was not lost on OFC co-chairman Patrick Iannone as he opened the conference Tuesday (March 7) by quipping, “I’m from AT&T—but then again, who isn’t?”

G. Keith Cambron, formerly CEO of SBC Labs, was named senior vice president of AT&T Labs after SBC and AT&T merged in November. Cambron today is examining physical-layer implementations of Internet Protocol transport, particularly as first-generation broadband networks move to full IPTV capabilities. He told the OFC assembly that SBC’s Project Lightspeed is being broadened to encompass IP multimedia subsystem architectures that can handle wireless integration, home gaming and AT&T’s envisioned IPTV infrastructure, U-Sphere.

The combined SBC/AT&T global network now carries 5.1 petabytes of traffic per business day, most carried on multiprotocol label-switched IP networks with more than 1,500 ports. SBC did not bring in long-haul backbones, Cambron said, but it helped AT&T expand such last-mile access options as DSL. In the U.S. regional networks where SBC had operated, the AT&T Photonic Express backbone has connected states through OC-768 meshed dense wave-division multiplexed optical pipes.

AT&T will expand that network using photonic cross-connects that can unify existing Sonet and Ethernet traffic over IP. With the complex access network in place dominated by time-division multiplexed traffic, Cambron said, “the ROADM [reconfigurable optical add-drop mux] becomes an absolutely critical platform.” ROADMs can dispense with the need to install jumpers at intermediate transport points and eliminate “stranded bandwidth,” he said.

“In initial IPTV trials in one small region, we would have to do 30,000 individual fiber jobs without using ROADMs,” Cambron said. “And transition to Ethernet becomes easier with a ROADM infrastructure because we can react quickly.”

SBC began Project Lightspeed with ATM-based broadband passive optical networks connecting to VDSL in the neighborhood. This way, copper in the ground did not need to be replaced, but customers could gain bandwidth advantages beyond ADSL. As fiber buildout moves forward, AT&T will move to Ethernet-based gigabit PONs. As copper is removed from neighborhood networks, customers can transition from circuit-switched voice to voice-over-IP, Cambron said.

Henry Kafka, chief architect at BellSouth, used examples from the post-Katrina network rebuilding to make the case for preserving network resiliency. He noted that the storm had destroyed 32 offices in the Gulf region, affecting 1.2 million out of 20 million area customers.

BellSouth relied on “pre-WiMax” residential wireless service in the disaster area, offering customers DSL-like service over a four- to six-mile range, he said. Fixed wireless broadband access had previously been available only to small businesses but has since been expanded to residential customers, Kafka said. Where fiber networks have survived, they play a key role in backbone restoration. Where local broadband is required, RF is more reliable than free-space optics, Kafka said. Nevertheless, “wireless is in no position to replace fiber permanently, because of the large amounts of data we encounter.”

“If Katrina doesn’t drive next-generation network transport deployment, what will?” Kafka said. First-generation IPTV will be a largely multicast business using a broadcast and cable model, he said, but eventually customers will want multicast IPTV mixed with unicast and point-to-point Internet video, which drive up bandwidth requirements.

Kafka predicted that the access metric of the future won’t be bandwidth in gigabits per second, but capacity in gigabytes shared per month, reflecting the transition of IP video from passive transmission to interactive services.

From MultichannelNews,

Panel Leaders OK National Franchise
By Ted Hearn 3/9/2006 12:45:00 PM

In a setback for cable, key House lawmakers Wednesday night agreed in principle to award a national cable franchise to phone companies and to subject cable operators to continued local franchising requirements until phone rivals have reached 15% local-video-market penetration, industry and Capitol Hill aides said Thursday morning.

The agreement was reached by House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas), Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Reps. Chip Pickering (R-Miss.), John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), the sources said.

AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. have been urging Congress to adopt a national-franchise policy, but the agreement includes provisions that have not been publicly debated.

Senate Commerce Committee chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) is expected to unveil a bill soon that is expected to include cable-franchising relief for the large phone companies.

Under the House agreement, one provision would withhold regulatory relief from cable until the phone company had secured 15% of local video market. Under current law, cable operators are price-deregulated on the basic tier when pay TV competitors are serving more than 15% of local households.

Sources familiar with the agreement stressed that legislative language had not been crafted and that many details had not been worked out. Capitol Hill sources could not elaborate on the 15% test, including whether it meant 15% of local households, 15% of local TV households or 15% of local pay TV households.

A second provision would protect phone companies from predatory pricing tactics by cable incumbents. As explained by sources, if the cable company cut its rates to meet or beat phone-company video prices, the cable company would be required to make the price cuts available to its entire local subscriber base, not just those homes served or capable of being served by the local phone company.

Under current law, regulated cable operators are required to offer a uniform rate structure in a local market. This requirement is eliminated when competitors have met the 15% penetration test.

The House agreement came three days after AT&T announced its $67 billion takeover of BellSouth Corp. -- a massive deal that some predicted would hurt AT&T’s and Verizon’s chances of obtaining a favorable cable-franchising law from Congress.

National Cable & Telecommunications Association spokesman Brian Dietz declined to comment because the cable trade group had not reviewed legislative language.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6314469.html?display=Breaking+News
Panel Leaders OK National Franchise - 3/9/2006 12:45:00 PM - Multichannel News - CA6314469

SBC (AT&T) very recently tried to get me onto their E* program. I told the rep no, but would thoughtfully consider Lightspeed. Of course she had no idea when it would hit my area.

CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVES AGREEMENT WITH AT&T TO PROVIDE ENHANCED SERVICE INCLUDING IPTV

March 10, 2006

ANAHEIM, Calif. - (March 9, 2006) - On Tuesday night at its regularly-scheduled meeting, the Anaheim City Council unanimously approved an agreement with AT&T, opening the door for the telecommunications company to offer television services in Anaheim.

The initiative, known as Project Lightspeed, will bring television service to residents and businesses via AT&T's broadband connections throughout the City. As part of the agreement, AT&T will provide residents with access to enhanced telecommunications offerings, and will include Anaheim Community Television, ACTV-3, as part of the package.

The agreement with AT&T is part of a Citywide initiative, introduced by Mayor Curt Pringle during his 2006 State of the City address. The goal is to allow for greater competition among technology service providers in order to improve quality, service and choice for consumers. It is also consistent with Anaheim's efforts to serve as an innovation hub to take advantage of advancing efforts in technology. In January, the City Council approved an agreement with EarthLink to create a Wi-Fi broadband network, making Anaheim one of the first wireless cities in the nation.

Anaheim officials are also working to establish a virtual City Hall that is open to serve residents 24 hours a day, seven days a week through the Internet.

The agreement with AT&T allows the company to install the necessary equipment in Anaheim to establish the Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) service, provided it meets the City's aesthetic requirements. AT&T is eager to begin offering service to the residents of Anaheim as soon as possible and will begin the necessary network upgrades in the very near future.

http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=6733

AT&T says bill is good for local cable customers
By NICK SLOAN, Kansan Contributing Writer

Although the Kansas Senate approved Sen. Bill 449 unanimously, the battle continues between AT&T and cable television companies in the state.

Also known as the Video Competition Act, the bill effectively makes it easier for companies to become TV service providers, including AT&T and other companies.

Lastmonth, Damon Porter of Time Warner, Inc., told the Kansan that the bill would allow AT&T to “cherry pick” customers and deny service to those who would not be able to spend larger amounts of money.

This week, Chris Carroll of Southwestern Bell Communications said the charges leveled against AT&T by Time Warner and other cable companies is “just spin.”

“That’s a red herring,” Carroll said. “They just don’t want us in the market.”

Carroll said he is pleased with the progress of the bill. Approved by the Senate, it now awaits a committee hearing in the House.

“We are very optimistic,” he said. “The Senators see a real need for competition.”

The need for competition has been AT&T’s argument in favor of the bill.

In a PowerPoint presentation, Carroll illustrated how competition lowers prices on the market.

“The cable companies are concerned about their profit margins,” Carroll said.

Carroll also maintains that wherever cable companies faced competition, the consumers’ cable bills were lower than before the competition arrived.

To further combat the charge of “cherry-picking,” Carroll said that AT&T’s new Project Lightspeed will feature an aggressive schedule to cover more customers.

According to Carroll, over 18 million customers will covered in the new project by 2007, a time period Carroll sites as “aggressive.” The plan calls for AT&T to cover 50 percent of their customers.

Carroll also pointed out that cities in Texas have seen cable rates lowered due to a similar bill passed in the state.

David Kerr, president of AT&T Kansas, testified before the Kansas Senate Commerce Committee in early February.

In his testimony, he also pointed out that competition could benefit consumers in Kansas.

“Cable rates have increased 86 percent since 1995 and 40 percent in the last five years,” he said. “On the other hand, the Federal Communications Committee has reported that those few consumers with wire-line video competitors have seen their rates decrease by more than 27 percent.”

Kerr outlined his argument, using five points that he believes will benefit the consumer: “It will streamline the franchising process,” “it will protect local franchise revenues,” “it will continue local management of the right of way,” “it will preserve local community programming” and “it will ease barriers to entry.”

http://www.kansascitykansan.com/articles/2006/03/13/news/local/news2.txt

Found this article on IPTV..helps describe the basics of how the system works.

http://arstechnica.com/guides/other/iptv.ars/1

I am still a bit concerned with the bandwidth limit to each household (~25mbps). How will I be able to record two HD shows at once? Also seems like changing channels would take some time.

So this is still using the existing cable from the Node to your house, using two paris of wires. I'm not sure if most homes have 2 pair or 4 pair cable to the house, but couldn't they at least make sure you have 4 pairs to your house, to run 100mbps? Or is the distance from the Node to the house too great to carry that signal? I just see this as a major disadvantage compared to Verizon's service, where they bring fiber to the house, with speeds up to 5gbps, I believe.

Matt

I agree with you Matt in that the bandwidth limitations we hear about with Lightspeed since the fibre ends at the node, is of major concern. What happens to those of us with 3 HD sets, which at certain times are all viewing different HD programming? Also, what about watching a show in HD on one channel and wanting to record a differing HD show on an HD DVR at the same time at that same site in the house, while also wanting to watch other HD programming elsewhere? IF ATT can only deliver 2 HD programs at any one time without severely reducing the bandwidth alloted to each channel, (ala Directv's 'HD Lite'), then I for one won't be signing up for Lightspeed, (whereas I'd pay Verizon for their FIOS TV programming if only it were available here).
Bish

Eh, it's all vaporware. I'd be real surprised if SBC gets IPTV to work over my tired old copper infrastructure here in Cleveland... I can only get 2Mbps out of my 3Mbps SBC DSL Pro package here as it is... :rolleyes:

It would be cool if Verizon tried to poach out here in SBC, er AT&T land.

Yes it would, the more the merrier.

I am still a bit concerned with the bandwidth limit to each household (~25mbps). How will I be able to record two HD shows at once? Also seems like changing channels would take some time.
I'm not sure how well the bandwidth will work, but as far as channel changing, another member posted earlier that apparently their system is so fast, they've patented the process.

San Ramon, AT&T poised to sign IPTV agreement
By Scott Marshall, CONTRA COSTA TIMES
Posted on Wed, Mar. 15, 2006

SAN RAMON - San Ramon is expected to sign an agreement this afternoon with AT&T for the company to introduce Internet Protocol Television service here.

This would be the first AT&T deal with an East Bay city. Walnut Creek and Livermore have stopped similar proposals, contending a franchise agreement, something required of cable TV providers, is necessary.

In Walnut Creek, SBC -- now AT&T -- began modernizing above-ground copper wires as part of a service upgrade. But the city concluded the lines would complement Project Lightspeed, and that a franchise agreement was needed.

SBC sued Walnut Creek over the disagreement last year. The cable industry has filed a motion to intervene in the suit. The next hearing is scheduled for April 7.

Terms of the San Ramon agreement were not immediately available.

A spokesman for the California Cable and Telecommunications Association, an outspoken opponent of this deal, said the industry trade group had no immediate response. The association has staunchly opposed AT&T's Project Lightspeed, contending AT&T cannot proceed without a franchise agreement.

San Ramon has a franchise agreement with Comcast, but the city says no such agreement is necessary for AT&T's Project Lightspeed. AT&T says it does not need a cable franchise to do IPTV because AT&T is a regulated telephone company.

Project Lightspeed would bring television to residential customers through DSL phone connections and super-high-speed broadband. Up to 25 megabytes of data per second could travel over those connections, although Internet access would top out at 6 megabytes per second, and the rest of the capacity will be devoted to Voice Over Internet Protocol, or VoIP, according to AT&T.

Instead of offering one-way video through a cable box, AT&T's service will enable customers to choose programs they want through two-way communication. The company says this would increase competition for television service, thereby benefiting consumers.

Cable industry officials, meanwhile, say AT&T's plan would create an unfair advantage for phone companies. Cable officials add that such IPTV-type service should be regulated under existing law to ensure it wouldn't hurt consumers in poor communities.
Scott Marshall covers the San Ramon area. Reach him at 925-743-2216 or smarshall2@cctimes.com.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/14105840.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

And what is exactly wrong with this? Should a business not be able to select their target markets and customers?

Nothing - if one happens to be fortunate enough to receive service within such specific target areas; if not, your view may be different.

I have experienced this form of what I describe as discrimination based upon greed for many years. Originally Viacom was granted the exclusive cable franchise for my county. There was no provision within the agreement that required them to offer service to unincorporated and otherwise rural areas. Thus, Viacom enjoyed the luxury of providing service (and profits) to the heavily populated areas without sufferent the detriment of spending larger sums to provide the same service to the boonies. Thus, those of us in the latter category were not provided an opportunity to become cable subscribers and were forced to rely on rooftop OTA antennas in order to receive any reception at all, namely analog.

The same continues today. Although our rural area is now served by cable, it is a mom & pop organization that offers less than 1/2 of what the rest of my county receives from Comcast, who eventually replaced Viacom as the majority provider. It will be months (at least) before my provider has the capability to provide any HD while most people who read this forum are aware of Comcast's multiple offerings. Even though I appreciate the fact that we have upgraded to some form of cable service, I have always resented this economic discrepancy & continue to support those franchise agreements that truly have ALL consumers in mind & not just a geographical located few. Thus, when Verizon, AT&T, and other non-cable providers seek relief from franchise agreements I do not trust them to offer truly competitive service to every potential subscriber.

It would be cool if Verizon tried to poach out here in SBC, er AT&T land.
Seems unlikely, since Verizon has no network to build on; they'd have to start from scratch, which would be insanely expensive.

My theory (and this is just a theory) is that since U-Verse initially doesn't offer HD they're building FTTN -- but fiber-to-the-prem on new housing developments. As they start to roll out HD, perhaps they'll extend from the node to the prem at that point.

Unless they offer some type of network-based DVR service, I have to imagine they'll do this sooner or later.

Nothing - if one happens to be fortunate enough to receive service within such specific target areas; if not, your view may be different.

I have experienced this form of what I describe as discrimination based upon greed for many years. Originally Viacom was granted the exclusive cable franchise for my county. There was no provision within the agreement that required them to offer service to unincorporated and otherwise rural areas. Thus, Viacom enjoyed the luxury of providing service (and profits) to the heavily populated areas without sufferent the detriment of spending larger sums to provide the same service to the boonies. Thus, those of us in the latter category were not provided an opportunity to become cable subscribers and were forced to rely on rooftop OTA antennas in order to receive any reception at all, namely analog.
Well, OK. Except all of this assumes that there's some sort of fundamental right to services, regardless of where one lives.

A buddy of mine lives in a rural area. He has no nearby Pizza Hut that will deliver to his house, no Best Buy within 30 miles, no Circuit City within 60. Cellular coverage is spotty. He has only one choice for high-speed Internet (cable modem).

I live in a suburb of a major city. There are three Pizza Huts within 5 miles. I can throw a rock and hit either a Circuit City or a Best Buy. Cellular coverage is excellent from multiple providers. I have three choices of high speed Internet (cable modem, DSL, or fixed wireless).

That's just the way things are. On the other hand, my buddy paid a lot less for his house than I did for mine, and he doesn't live within earshot of a major expressway. His neighborhood is quiet, everyone is friendly, there's virtually no serious crime, and he has 2 acres of land. My neighborhood is reasonably quiet for a suburb, friendliness is mixed, there's not a lot of crime but there is some, and nobody out here has 2 acres of land unless they've hit the lottery.

Call it all an effect of greed if you like, but a business' duty is to make profits. Sparsely-populated areas are not going to be profitable unless the network buildout is very inexpensive. Franchise agreements that force universal builtouts just raise the costs for everyone and slow down competition, which just helps prop rates up further.

Obviously you disagree with all of this, but I just don't understand why something like IPTV service should be treated like a basic necessity. I mean, phone service, that I can understand, but...

I'm not sure how well the bandwidth will work, but as far as channel changing, another member posted earlier that apparently their system is so fast, they've patented the process.
They've applied for one; I don't think it's been issued yet. But yeah, it's fast.

Cox Communications and other groups no longer oppose a Kansas bill that lets AT&T compete with cable companies.

Posted on Thu, Mar. 16, 2006

Truce called in cable TV fight

BY JIM SULLINGER, Eagle Topeka bureau

TOPEKA - A cease-fire has been declared, at least in Kansas, in the national video wars between AT&T and cable television companies.

Cox Communications, one of the state's largest cable television providers, no longer opposes Senate Bill 449, a measure providing AT&T a state franchise to compete with Kansas cable operators. Currently, these franchises are granted on a city-by-city basis.

Even the Kansas Cable Telecommunications Association is no longer against the bill. Both the association and Time-Warner are taking a neutral position.

"You can't be an obstructionist when it comes to competition," said John Frederico, the association's lobbyist.

Colleen Jennison, lobbyist for Cox, told the House Utilities Committee during a hearing Wednesday that when it was first introduced, the bill gave AT&T a big competitive edge over current cable providers.

However, she said changes made by the Senate, which passed the measure several weeks ago, have largely eliminated that competitive disadvantage. Cox is now supporting the bill, she added.

The amended bill "is not perfect, but it is better than it was," Jennison said.

The Senate version allows traditional cable companies to renegotiate their contracts with cities and obtain a state franchise when AT&T moves into their areas. Without that provision, she said cable companies would still be opposed.

During the hearing, David Kerr, president of AT&T Kansas, said his company was planning to spend $4 billion nationally to bring cable television over fiber-optic strands and then over regular phone lines to homes and business in 1,500 communities nationwide over the next three years. The company has dubbed its program Project Lightspeed.

However, Kerr said it would take 30 years to deploy if his company had to negotiate a franchise agreement with each of the 1,500 cities. A statewide franchise would shorten that time considerably, he told the committee.

He said Texas passed a similar bill last year and Indiana's legislature approved the measure last week. Missouri lawmakers also are considering a video competition bill sought by AT&T.

Kerr said cable customers in Keller, Texas, saw their bills drop 25 percent when Verizon introduced a new video service there.

He added that his company's project already is providing an economic benefit to Kansas. An AT&T video operations center, which captures video programming and delivers it to homes, is being built in Mission. Company officials said 50 new jobs have been created and 50 more are coming.

Mission Mayor Laura McConwell said every city won't receive that kind of investment.

"However, Mission does illustrate the point that the promise of new providers does not just mean lower consumer bills and new options," she told the committee.

Opponents of the bill, which include Overland Park and the League of Kansas Municipalities, are expected to testify today.

Reach Jim Sullinger at (785) 354-1388 or jsullinger@kcstar.com.

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/legislature/14108596.htm

From InsideBayArea.com

AT&T brings competition into county

Cities to consider company's offer to bring in new technology
By Christine Morente, STAFF WRITER

Programming your DVR from your cell phone or watching four channels at once on your television set could be in your future.

AT&T wants to muscle its way into San Mateo County and compete with Comcast and RCN to provide Internet-based television and faster Internet services.

It's competition that city officials from Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Foster City, Millbrae, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo and San Mateo County welcome, because it lowers rates. But AT&T is unwilling to pay franchise fees to roll out Project Lightspeed.

For the past two months, the cities have formed a coalition and have negotiated with AT&T. The phone company needs the cities to approve encroachment permits to allow physical upgrades to its new system.

"We're ensuring that our interests are met and (the project) won't create problems for us," said Susan Loftus, deputy San Mateo city manager.

For at least 30 years, Comcast has paid cities 5 percent of its gross revenues — a value of $250 million to the county, said Anthony Thomas, telecommunications lobbyist for the League of California Cities.

A franchise agreement gives a company access to a community and also prevents discrimination. Without a franchise agreement, a company could bypass poorer areas of a city or focus on areas they think would be more profitable.

"This is a promising area for AT&T," said Dwight Stenbakken, deputy executive director for the League of California Cities. "Technology is running ahead of everything, so you have to increase competition for providing theseservices."

Anthony Thomas, telecommunications lobbyist for the League of California Cities, worries that cable providers will question the validity of their local franchise agreements with cities if AT&T is spared from paying the fees.

Meanwhile, there is a spot bill in the Senate that could do away with the city-by-city franchise negotiation process.

AT&T is willing to pay a percentage of its profit to the city, but doesn't want to be locked into a franchise fee, which would force AT&T to offer services universally. It also doesn't like that every city has a different fee structure.

"We want competition," Thomas said. "We're more than willing to take a new look at a state issued franchise that assures us that cities are not losing revenue."

Furthermore, despite what city and county officials believe, AT&T spokesman Gordon Diamond said the company is still in the telecom business. Only cable and
garbage companies pay franchise fees.

"We are not putting in a cable system," he said.

Under Project Lightspeed, existing fiber-optic wires would be pushed closer to homes for a larger bandwidth between 20 to 25 megabits per second to provide Internet Protocol Television service.

That means higher-speed Internet access, the ability to make phone calls through the Internet, and Internet-based television.

Some special features include enhanced digital recording, multiple camera angles of sporting events via picture-in-picture views, and an enhanced program guide. The system will later be marketed as AT&T's U-verse.

Comcast offers video services, On Demand, DVR, HDTV, High-Speed Internet, and Digital Voice. RCN provides fiber optic local and long-distance phone, cable television, and Internet services.

"Project Lightspeed is really the next evolution of our network," Diamond said. "IPTV is a much different way consumers receive TV service today. Everything within the telecom industry is converging to IP."

On Wednesday, San Ramon signed with the phone company's IPTV service. Under its agreement with the city, AT&T will pay up to 5 percent of gross revenues from subscribers, provide educational and public access programming — options required by cable providers.

Anaheim has also agreed to go with Project Lightspeed and AT&T is testing the service in Texas, Diamond said.

"We understand when we talk to cities, they receive revenue streams from cable companies," Diamond said. "We make it very clear that we understand how critical revenue streams are, and we'll work to make sure revenue streams are intact."

Diamond wants to come to an agreement by the end of the month, take it to the city councils for approval in April and begin network upgrades in the county.

Staff writer Christine Morente covers Burlingame, Millbrae, San Bruno and Hillsborough. She can be reached at (650) 348-4333 or at cmorente@sanmateocountytimes.com.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_3618525?source=rss
Inside Bay Area - IBA - Home

Editorial, 03/26/2006

Middle ground needed before going 'Lightspeed

While there are compelling reasons to wish "Project Lightspeed" godspeed in hopes of creating a competitive marketplace for cable television in our communities, there is at least one potential predicament to address.

AT&T has approached Vacaville, proposing to pipe cable TV signals into local homes via new and improved phone lines. An interested concept, but Project Lightspeed has Vacaville city officials understandably distressed.

If approved, it would allow local consumers to receive video services via their Internet connections.

AT&T and Verizon are vying in communities across the nation to break up the monopoly companies such as Comcast have enjoyed for years.

Consumers have long complained of feeling like hostages, handcuffed to a provider that has consistently raises local cable rates without regulation.

Sure, there are satellite alternatives, but none with the full complement that the local franchised cable provider offers.

Consumers could be the ultimate winners if new competitors drive down rates - or at least control them.

But the city's coffers stand to lose. According to Vacaville Assistant City Manager Pat Moreno, the city makes about $600,000 a year from its exclusive cable franchise agreement with Comcast.

The city, in turn, uses that money to fund public safety, public works and parks.

Allowing competition in would not only be the end of the contract, it would probably lead to a lawsuit.

The franchise agreement between Vacaville and Comcast also provides for universal access for all residents of the city, as well as public access, education and government channels.

Because it is not a cable provider, AT&T believes it is not subject to franchising laws. And it has not shied away from fights in other communities.

In Walnut Creek, city officials issued encroachment permits, but specified that Project Lightspeed could not be offered to the community. Perhaps it is no surprise that AT&T is now suing Walnut Creek.

Still, at least one Northern California city has found a way to make some money on the deal.

San Ramon has an agreement with AT&T, allowing the company to bring Lightspeed to its community in return for a 5 percent return of gross revenues, as well as a provision for public access and education channels.

There is pending legislation in the California to change franchising rules to allow AT&T and Verizon into markets without gaining franchise agreements.

Federal legislation is also in circulation, and a bill setting the table for national franchising has reportedly gained bipartisan support recently.

Approval of those changes would certainly open up the marketplace to competition, but could drastically hurt cities. So there needs to be some middle ground found that gives cities some protection, while offering incentives for the new competitors to engage in franchise agreements and provide public access television programs.

Why can't the new entries into the cable TV competition play by the same rules as the monopoly companies that have been here for decades?

Technology demands new regulatory approaches. We have seen that in the deregulation of utilities and phone service.

Why not in this instance? If we succeed, the consumer gets choices in how TV signals are delivered, no doubt leading to lower prices and fewer unilateral rate hikes. The city gets to retain its revenue stream. And local TV producers can keep their access and deliver their programs.

http://www.thereporter.com/editorials/ci_3642024

What all this probably means is, if the telcos get into cities without paying the franchise fees, maybe Comcast fights to get out of those fees or renegotiate them. Then there might be some price competition for awhile.

But then the city, faced with loss of revenue, would just raise them other ways, like higher property taxes, more speed traps, etc.

What all this probably means is, if the telcos get into cities without paying the franchise fees, maybe Comcast fights to get out of those fees or renegotiate them.
The City of Santa Rosa, CA believes that is one of the reasons reasons Comcast has been dragging it's feet in finalizing a franchise agreement here. In the meantime, we're left with a dated 550Mhz system with a pathetic channel offering, and paying the same rates as full-blown Comcast systems.

Phone, Cable Trade Fire Over Ads
AT& T Wants Spots on Legislation That Would Let It Enter TV Business

By Arshad Mohammed
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 28, 2006; D05

AT&T Inc. yesterday accused cable television companies of suppressing public debate by refusing to air ads that urge lawmakers to make it easier for phone companies to get into the TV business.

Time Warner Cable shot back that it was under no obligation to carry its competitors' ads while Comcast Corp. said it rejected the spots because they were riddled with false and misleading claims.

The charges are the latest in a long series of broadsides between phone companies, which want to offer TV without having to get thousands of franchise agreements at localities all over the country, and cable companies, which believe their rivals should have to secure local agreements just as they did.

Both sides have launched media campaigns to sway lawmakers debating whether to grant phone companies state or national franchises. The Federal Communications Commission is also studying whether local authorities are "unreasonably" denying franchises.

In a victory for the telephone companies, the House Commerce Committee yesterday released a draft bill that would grant new entrants a national video franchise within 30 days of filing certain information with the FCC. If enacted into law, this would let phone companies into the TV business much faster than if they had to negotiate franchises in every locality.

AT&T, the largest U.S. phone company, filed a complaint yesterday with the FCC claiming that cable companies are trying to thwart competition.

"Incumbent cable operators nationwide are refusing to carry paid issue advertising aimed at informing consumers, legislators and regulators of the enormous benefits of wireline video choice and the urgent need for franchising reforms that will make widespread video competition possible," the complaint said.

Verizon Communications Inc. issued a news release on March 15 criticizing Comcast and Time Warner for refusing to run telephone industry ads, accusing them of doing so "because they don't want consumers to know there could be a choice for cable TV."

Mark Harrad, a spokesman for Time Warner Cable, said his company was not required to run ads and said it was common practice for companies not to help out their competitors in this way.

"Coke doesn't promote Pepsi. McDonald's doesn't promote Burger King. NBC doesn't promote ABC. This is not news that you do not take an ad from a direct competitor," Harrad said.

Comcast questioned the accuracy of the ads, some of which include claims about how much cable prices have risen over the past decade that are disputed by the cable industry.

"Comcast will not run advertisements which contain unsubstantiated, false and misleading claims. This policy is very consistent with long-standing and generally accepted industry practices," Comcast spokesman Tim Fitzpatrick said. He called the phone ads "part of a larger lobbying effort intended to secure preferential legislative treatment at the expense of consumers."

AT&T's filing, which was signed by the USTelecom trade group, which represents major phone companies, suggested the cable industry was suppressing political speech.

"The incumbent cable operators' heavy-handed attempts to skew the political debate merely underscore the urgent need for opening up local video programming markets to real competition," AT&T wrote.

Regulatory analysts said that as a legal matter cable companies are under no obligation to run such ads and that in any case it was hard to regard the AT&T spots as anything but commercial in intent.

"These ads are solely aimed at telephone companies taking market share from cable," said Paul Gallant, who analyzes telecom and media regulation for the Stanford Washington Research Group

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/27/AR2006032701492_pf.html

Any word on Lightspeed in San Francisco? Seems that there is stuff happening outside The City but nothing that I've seen within our SF borders.

Phone Victory in US Capital

Telephone companies get most of what they asked for despite emotional lobbying from cable industry.
March 28, 2006

The U.S. House of Representatives conferred a crucial victory on the telecommunications industry with the introduction of a draft bill that, if passed, will dramatically change the competitive timetable and the overall landscape in the pay-TV distribution market.

Debate on the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006, which is sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas) and U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Illinois), is scheduled for Thursday.

The bill, which is couched in strong pro-consumer language, is a home run for the phone companies, for the most part.

It also touches on a laundry list of telecommunications issues, such as Net neutrality and municipal broadband, that have been hotly debated everywhere from academia to the blogosphere.

If passed, the bill will significantly shrink the telephone companies’ time-to-market by granting them national entrée into a market that has been the predominant preserve of about a dozen cable TV service providers since the market’s inception about two decades ago.

Lobbyists Face Off

AT&T and Verizon Communications, the two largest carriers in the United States, have spent millions getting their message to legislators, but their efforts have been matched, almost, by cable operators that have assembled an alliance of minority lobbyists to press the issue of digital rights in an election year.

Shares of Verizon fell $0.14 to $34.79 in recent trading, while AT&T shares rose $0.04 to $27.35.

Interestingly the pronouncements surrounding the bipartisan bill do not mention the digital divide issue that has been raised by K Street advocates who have lobbied on the side of the cable industry.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois), for instance, sticks to the pro-consumer label that is being attached to the bill.

“Competition drives down prices and encourages innovation,” said Mr. Hastert. “I want to thank the members … for putting consumers first as we prevent outdated regulations from stunting the growth of new pay-TV services, and drive down costs by giving people more choice.”

Franchising Problem

The bone of contention is the issue of franchising, a system that requires companies entering crucial industries such as the TV distribution market to negotiate individual agreements with each municipality in which they hope to do business (see FCC Pre-empts Franchising).

It is a time-consuming and expensive requirement for which the Bells have lobbied the federal government to remove and replace with a blanket, nationwide franchise.

A nationwide franchise will remove perhaps the second-highest barrier to entry for the telephone companies. The higher barrier is the billions the companies are investing in upgrading their networks.

Wall Street analysts and investors have not bought into the phone companies’ reasoning behind the extreme outlay of investment capital they have needed for the right to compete in an increasingly competitive market.

Five Elements

The bill includes five critical elements. First, it creates a nationwide franchise or approval process for the pay-TV services market. Phone companies will be allowed to operate on a national franchise only in markets where they face competition.

With satellite coverage, there are few markets the phone companies would enter initially that would not have an existing competitor.

The bill will also give the phone companies some elbow room in the VoIP market by requiring VoIP application providers to ensure E911 access to their users. The bill also requires phone companies to give VoIP providers access to their E911 communications networks (see VoIP’s 911 Woes).

The bill spells out the U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s role in the Net neutrality debate. The FCC will be responsible for making sure service providers do not throttle, block, or degrade bandwidth for any legal applications being transacted on the Internet (see Senator Would Ban Web Tolls).

There is also something for the local municipalities. They will be able to collect a 5 percent fee from pay-TV providers.

The bill also acknowledges the rights of cities and other municipalities to build their own broadband networks and compete with both the phone companies and the cable service providers.

http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=16280&hed=Phone+Victory+in+US+Capital&sector=Industries&subsector=Communications

I just moved into a new home in San Diego that has FTTH from SBC/AT&T.

I can't do anything with it (yet) and they gave me no timeline for when services would be available.

All I know is that they are making my electric bill higher because they installed a UPS battery backup in the garage to ensure telephone service in case there was an outage.

It also makes my home entertainment planning difficult because I don't know what services to plan for.

What are other people with FTTH doing with it, if anything?

are you sure it is FTTH? It's most likely FTTN or FTTC...don't SBC's plans involve bringing copper from the node and giving you VDSL type service? That is supposed to be capped at 6 mbps, which is less than what you can get today with communist cable.

are you sure it is FTTH? It's most likely FTTN or FTTC...don't SBC's plans involve bringing copper from the node and giving you VDSL type service? That is supposed to be capped at 6 mbps, which is less than what you can get today with communist cable.

I can tell you with certainty that, in California anyway, AT&T is installing FTTP in certain new housing subdivisions. It's the existing subdivisions that will get FTTN.

AT&T Ready to Bring Choice and Competition to Cable Subscribers in California; Speaker's Legislation to Pave the Way For Company's $1 Billion Investment
Wednesday, 29 March 2006

Powered By BusinessWire SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 29, 2006--AT&T California today announced its financial commitment to bring next-generation interactive television and video services to the state, a move to deliver competitive choice to consumers. The company said it is prepared to invest up to $1 billion over the next three years upgrading its fiber-optic network in California. This investment represents a portion of the $4.4 billion AT&T plans to spend on its Project Lightspeed initiative between now and the end of 2008.

Project Lightspeed will bring fiber closer to AT&T customers' homes, continuing the company's aggressive network build in California. More fiber in the ground, closer to customers, will make it possible for AT&T to provide new, next-generation Internet Protocol (IP)-based services over its existing network. These services will include AT&T Yahoo! High-Speed Internet, IP telephony (VoIP) and a new IP-based TV service called AT&T U-verse TV, allowing customers to enjoy features such as hundreds of television channels, movies on demand, electronic program guide, music and more.

At issue is an outdated city-by-city franchising system that significantly impedes California customers' ability to take advantage of a real competitive choice to cable companies. "The technology is available and consumer demand is here, but the current process to bring choice to customers is broken," said Ken McNeely, president, AT&T California.
Advertisment

Under existing regulations developed in the early 1960s, if AT&T were able to secure one municipal franchise agreement a week, it would still take more than seven years for the company to offer customers in California a choice in how they want to receive their TV service. "We simply don't think Californians should have to wait that long," said McNeely. In contrast, in just over seven years AT&T has been able to offer high-speed Internet access to approximately 85 percent or more of its California customer base.

The California Legislature can be the catalyst for delivering these competitive new technologies faster to Californians. McNeely said new legislation authored by Speaker of the Assembly, Fabian Nunez, (D - Los Angeles) and co-authored by Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee Chair, Lloyd Levine, (D - Van Nuys) will be a major step in the right direction.

"When companies compete, consumers win," said McNeely. "We stand ready to continue our investment in California and our tradition of bringing exciting technologies and new competitive choices to our customers."

About the New AT&T

AT&T Inc. is one of the world's largest telecommunications holding companies and is the largest in the United States. Operating globally under the AT&T brand, AT&T companies are recognized as the leading worldwide providers of IP-based communications services to business and as leading U.S. providers of high-speed DSL Internet, local and long distance voice, and directory publishing and advertising services. AT&T Inc. holds a 60 percent ownership interest in Cingular Wireless, which is the No. 1 U.S. wireless services provider with more than 54 million wireless customers. Additional information about AT&T Inc. and AT&T products and services is available at www.TheNewATT.com.

http://www.voip-magazine.com/content/view/2598/20060329005300/

bgooch,

You really should note the difference between a press realease and a news item. :D

bfoster - is this better?

AT&T plans $1B California fiber-optic upgrade
Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal - 9:03 AM PST Wednesday

AT&T said on Wednesday it will spend up to $1 billion upgrading its California fiber-optic network over the next three years.

The money is part of a $4.4 billion pool AT&T (NYSE:T) plans to spend on its Project Lightspeed Initiative.

The project will bring fiber closer to customers' homes, AT&T said, providing for greater high-speed Internet, VoIP and IP-based television service.

Legislation authored by Fabian Nunez, (D-Los Angeles) could ease the transition by speeding up the state's city-by-city franchising system, AT&T saids.

http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2006/03/27/daily29.html?t=printable

Dingell Quizzes AT&T on Franchise Law
By Ted Hearn 3/29/2006 1:58:00 PM

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) is questioning whether AT&T Inc. needs a federal video-franchising law when the company is insisting that its Project Lightspeed video service relies on a technology exempt from all traditional cable rules, including local franchising.

Dingell, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, expressed his concerns in a letter Wednesday to AT&T chairman and CEO Edward Whitacre. Dingell is expected to attend a House subcommittee hearing Thursday on the franchising bill.

“Serious questions remain in my mind as to whether AT&T will be able to receive the benefits of such sought-after legislation,” said Dingell, who asked to receive detailed responses by Monday.

Legislation backed by Energy and Commerce chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas) would award national video franchises to phone companies that agree to provide “cable service.”

Before state and federal agencies, AT&T has staked out a position that because its Internet-protocol-TV service isn’t a cable service within the meaning of federal law, it did not have to sign contracts with local government to compete with cable incumbents.

In his letter, Dingell indicated that he would be troubled if AT&T felt that the terms of the Barton bill would not apply to the company.

“It is unclear why it makes sense for the committee on Energy and Commerce to consider legislation to streamline the cable-franchise process when companies can define themselves out of the process,” Dingell said.

He indicated that all the ambiguities could be resolved if the Barton bill were amended to say that IPTV is a cable service under federal law.

“The committee clearly needs to receive information sufficient to evaluate whether the Communications Act definitions should be updated so that companies that offer IP-video services can benefit from the national cable franchising,” Dingell said.

When Barton unveiled his bill Monday, AT&T issued a statement that made no reference to a possible dispute over the classification of IPTV.

“The bill strikes the right note of accelerating video choice for consumers, while upholding the legitimate and important roles of local governments, such as maintaining their rights of way, preserving community-access programming and ensuring that localities will not lose needed revenue,” said Tim McKone, AT&T executive vice president of federal relations.

The cable-service issue is broader than franchising: AT&T could also claim that IPTV is exempt from an assortment of cable regulations, including must-carry, retransmission consent, program access and ownership limits.

“We will review Congressman Dingell’s letter and respond to him by the date requested,” AT&T said in a prepared statement.

“The fundamental issue is whether or not consumers can get meaningful video choice sooner rather than later,” the company added. “And AT&T has been absolutely clear in support of a legal framework that promotes speedy introduction of new services for consumers. The Barton-Rush bill strikes the right balance to bring consumers video choice and new services, while ensuring continuation of important and legitimate local interests, such as maintaining rights of way management.”

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6320114.html?display=Breaking+News

are you sure it is FTTH? It's most likely FTTN or FTTC...don't SBC's plans involve bringing copper from the node and giving you VDSL type service? That is supposed to be capped at 6 mbps, which is less than what you can get today with communist cable.

It is new construction, so I'm inclined to believe it is FTTH.

Besides, if it were only FTTN then I wouldn't need the UPS Battery Backup in case of a power outage, right?

Besides, if it were only FTTN then I wouldn't need the UPS Battery Backup in case of a power outage, right?

Not necessarily. An IP based telephone system needs a modem, which requires power.

Well enough with the press releases. It looks like this may becoming a reality in my neighborhood. SBC/ATT installed a new box in my neighboorhood a couple weeks ago, and sightings of these new boxes have been reported in other Ohio towns. Read about it here:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15784021

Roselle puts moratorium on AT&T network upgrade
Loss of control seen over video services

By Jon Van, Tribune staff reporter
Published April 1, 2006

Opposition to a network upgrade launched by AT&T Inc. is cropping up in Chicago suburbs that are concerned about losing control over video services offered in their jurisdictions.

The Village of Roselle passed an ordinance establishing a 180-day moratorium on the phone network upgrade, which AT&T dubs Project Lightspeed, and several municipal groups will meet to discuss how to cope with AT&T's upgrade plans, which include video services that will compete with cable television.

The issue has been raised because technological advancements allow telephone companies to compete with cable companies for video service. In the old days cable companies sought permission to install lines for service. But telephone companies already have access to homes and believe they do not necessarily have to go through the same process before upgrading to a level that allows for the delivery of video.

"Roselle passed an ordinance and our lawyers are looking at it," said Mike Tye, AT&T Midwest vice president for legislative affairs. "We're dismayed that Roselle halted a network upgrade to bring enhanced services to its citizens.

"But we have finite capital and will allocate it to communities that want us there," Tye said.

Roselle's village administrator, Robin Weaver, said she was concerned to hear that AT&T was filing for right of way permits to upgrade its network without mentioning that it will use the upgrades to offer video service.

"They're just calling it upgrades," Weaver said. "I called a meeting with other municipal officials to find out what's going on."

Weaver said that AT&T has declined to seek a municipal video franchise as is required for cable TV operators.

AT&T contends that upgrades will enable its networks to deliver content at much higher speeds than is possible over its current digital subscriber line service. Video will be among the new services enabled by the network upgrade, but that is not the only reason for the upgrade, said Tye.

"This isn't the same as cable service," he said.

While AT&T declines to seek cable franchises from municipalities, it will sign a memorandum of understanding and pay 5 percent of its video revenues to municipalities, he said. The company has also sought statewide franchising such as has been approved in Texas and Indiana and is under consideration in other states.

Also, AT&T and other phone companies support federal legislation that would grant them national video franchises.

Weaver said that she and other municipal officials believe that AT&T isn't playing fair by refusing to apply for franchises just as cable operators have done. She said there are also aesthetic and safety issues associated with large boxes of electronics the phone company wants to place in neighborhoods as part of its upgrade.

"We just want to take a step back and pause to discuss this situation," Weaver said of the moratorium her village enacted. "We hope that we can end the moratorium quickly. We favor competition to cable, but we want it to be fair and to follow the law."

jvan@tribune.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0604010107apr01,1,6977616.story?coll=chi-business-hed

April 01, 2006

Report takes issue with AT&T proposal

(Daily Oklahoman, The (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)

13-state project is pledged

Citing what it calls a track record littered with broken promises, a cable industry-backed report released this week calls AT&T's planned deployment of a $4.4 billion fiber optic network a "shell game."

In "Frayed at the Edges: The Bells' Broken Fiber Promises," the authors claim that AT&T -- and fellow Baby Bell Verizon -- demanded new legislation that allows them to skip local franchising negotiations before bringing promised high speed data and television services to consumers throughout their service territories.


"These monopolies, who for years had the temerity to accuse their competitors of cherry-picking the most affluent customers from their monopoly-service footprints, now ask state and federal regulators to exempt them from local video franchising agreements, which would by definition allow them to exclude many, if not most, neighborhoods from their rollout plans," the authors said.

The report was published by a group called Broadband Everywhere, a "coalition" backed by the American Cable Association and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.

AT&T Oklahoma spokesman Andy Morgan called the report a desperate attempt by the cable industry to halt its plans to compete directly with cable with its own menu of television programming services.

"We want to give consumers an alternative to the cable monopoly, and the cable industry is doing everything possible -- including patchwork-quilt fake research -- to try and stop us and others from competing in providing video choice," Morgan said.

AT&T's "Project Lightspeed" would allow it to bundle television, Internet and telephone services in the same way its cable competition does.

The "Frayed at the Edges" authors claim that AT&T and Verizon are targeting the most lucrative high income neighborhoods for fiber network deployment and bypassing low income areas.

"It took cable 35 years to reach 50 percent of the population," Morgan said. "Yet they have the audacity to demand that any new entrants into their monopoly market serve 100 percent of the population on day one.

"We will deploy our new technologies and will reach 80 percent of our traditional 13-state footprint within three years. Where we don't deploy Lightspeed, we will offer Homezone, a satellite version of the same services."

Sean Voskuhl, associate state director of the AARP, which represents 400,000 older Oklahomans, said the consumer group opposes relaxed franchising rules that take local communities out of the process.

"We think the local governments should have that right," Voskuhl said.

The cable-backed report also outlined what it called the history of broken promises by AT&T and Verizon. It cited SBC's decision in 2002 not to open a promised call center in Enid that would have brought 500 jobs to the community.

"The decision to not open the Enid call center was unfortunate, but 2002 was a depressing period for the telecom industry," Morgan said. "We were losing thousands of customers to competition, so adding several hundred jobs just didn't make good economic sense."

Officials with Cox Communications in Oklahoma City had no comment on the report.

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/04/01/1528307.htm

http://www.nyquistcapital.com/2006/03/30/att-project-lightspeed-and-the-jedi-mind-trick/


AT&T Project Lightspeed and the Jedi Mind Trick
Published March 30th, 2006

The Death Star is looking vulnerable these days.

AT&T (T ) COO Randall Stephenson, speaking yesterday at Bank of America’s 2006 Media, Entertainment and Telecommunications conference attempted to exercise his marketing skills with a poor attempt at a Jedi Mind Trick.

From IP Democracy:

In terms of Lightspeed’s ability to push through hundreds of video channels, including high-def video, “we’re not constrained by bandwidth. You’re not constrained by the size of the pipe anymore,” Stephenson said, referring to the switched-video capacity of the network which delivers only one service to a single customer at a time.

“In the foreseeable future, having a 15 Mbps Internet capability is irrelevant because the backbone doesn’t transport at those speeds,” he told the conference attendees. Stephenson said that AT&T’s field tests have shown “no discernable difference” between AT&T’s 1.5 Mbps service and Comcast’s 6 Mbps because the problem is not in the last mile but in the backbone.

This is total nonsense. Verizon delivers 15mbs consistently to my home. This is the latest of many odd and obtuse statements from AT&T which, to me, are begining to sound more and more like excuses rather than logical explanations. All of these statements clearly indicate to me that Project Lightspeed is not going very well.

Why this man is being forced to make a fool of himself?

AT&T (SBC originated the program) made a big gamble with Project Lightspeed when it decided not to build fiber directly to the home. Instead, AT&T brings fiber ‘almost’ to your home, then spans the last 1000 meters or less using conventional DSL technology to deliver next generation video and data services. The only major benefit to this approach, as opposed to using FTTH, is it eliminates the need to install new cabling to each and every home, saving install costs. AT&T’s approach is 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of putting fiber directly into the home.

The downsides could fill an entire page:

Inconsistent performance of DSL makes it hard to predict actual bandwidth after installation
DSL technology limited to 20-30Mbs
Requires a set top box for each TV in the home. Cable ready TV’s can’t tune IPTV
More expensive and complex IPTV head end hardware and software. Verizon FiOS and NTT’s approach copy Cable’s logical architecture exactly.
Requires more electronics in the field, more operational expenses
Requires use of MPEG-4 video compression, which doesn’t look as good as MPEG-2
Limited number of video channels can be viewed in the home at one time. Only one HD signal can be viewed in household at any given point
The theory is SBC has more underground wiring, where Verizon (VZ) is more aerial. Installing new fiber aerially is much cheaper than trenching- so some say Verizon had the luxury of using FTTH given the nature their infrastructure. AT&T is using FTTH for greenfield installs as it is now common knowledge that installing FTTH in new home developments is cheaper than copper when you take into consideration future operational expenses.

In short, AT&T is deploying a very complex architecture with major limitations in the interest of saving money. The major problem with this approach is it offers nothing better than what the incumbent cablecos can provide. Cable’s broadband is faster. Cable customers don’t need to worry about how many channels a household is watching simultaneously. Verizon’s approach delivers a user experience equivalent to cable with the ability to radically surpass it by deploying new bandwidth hungry applications as they emerge.

The only defense offered by AT&T is “IPTV is better”, and yes they are right - it is. IPTV gives you wide flexibility in content distrubution. But AT&T is using IPTV because they have to, not because they want to. The drinking straw bandwidth provided by DSL forces them to broadcast a few specific channels at a time. IPTV isn’t a technological strength, it is a technology deployed in order to make up for the inherent weakness of their DSL based approach. Nothing precludes building an IPTV infrastructure over fiber, or even DOCSIS 3.0 based cable modems.

AT&T is now preparing to trial the service. Assuming they can successfully navigate all of the above pitfalls, they will emerge with a product that is marginally better than the one offered by cable, and have done little to address the long term requirement of putting high bandwidth infrastructure into the home.

Verizon is making a major investment in FTTH, but I would bet the fiber they are installing will be in use for 100 years - they can just upgrade the equipment at each end. The complex hardware and electronics AT&T are deploying ‘near’ your home will junked within 10 years when they too are forced to put fiber through the last mile. Sure, they are saving money now - but the investment will have a much shorter timeline.

Hopefully, AT&T will stop the charade that their short-sighted investment is superior to FTTH and stop wasting capital on what is clearly a stopgap measure. When the Jedi Mind Tricks eventually wear off in the investment community the markets will extract their pound of flesh.

There are some good points in this article, and some silly nonsense too. But the worst:

http://www.nyquistcapital.com/2006/03/30/att-project-lightspeed-and-the-jedi-mind-trick/

Requires use of MPEG-4 video compression, which doesn’t look as good as MPEG-2
Utterly wrong, and ignorant, and beside the point. And it won't be long before the cablecos go MPEG4...just as the satellite companies are.

There are some good points in this article, and some silly nonsense too. But the worst:


Utterly wrong, and ignorant, and beside the point. And it won't be long before the cablecos go MPEG4...just as the satellite companies are.

Except ATT may use real low bitrate MPEG4. Actually, since they're using Microsoft's IPTV platform, it's probably low bitrate VC-1 right?

The rumor is less than 5 Mbps VC-1 stream for 720p?

While cable channels are giving you 15 Mbps or more MPEG2 streams for 1080i and 720p?

And one HDTV channel per home is not going to cut it.

Well enough with the press releases. It looks like this may becoming a reality in my neighborhood. SBC/ATT installed a new box in my neighboorhood a couple weeks ago, and sightings of these new boxes have been reported in other Ohio towns. Read about it here:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15784021


That is indeed a fiber to the node box. As of right now, you will only be able to get vDSL. ATT is in the process of trying to create a new job title for installers to work on the video. As of right now we are up in arms, and its not going smoothly. Once that gets figured out, thye have told us about 6 months till video starts to show up.

this technology is D.O.A.

They will be spending money AGAIN in a year or two trying to match verizon.

Hey they upgraded the utility boxes in my neighborhood a while ago and that is what one of them looks like now. Cool...

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/14230847.htm
MercuryNews.com | 03/31/2006 | AT&T going after Comcast's cable market

AT&T going after Comcast's cable market
TALKS ONGOING IN SAN JOSE
By Jessie Seyfer
Mercury News Posted on Fri, Mar. 31, 2006

What happens when a phone company tries to offer television service where cable TV already operates? A turf war. And in California, there's a battle under way between AT&T, which is trying to install a new TV service that runs over the Internet, and Comcast, one of the dominant cable providers in the state.

AT&T has been negotiating with several cities over the past year -- including San Jose -- to install its fledgling TV service, Project Lightspeed. At a press conference Wednesday in Sacramento, company officials said progress has been hampered by decades-old laws that require TV providers to strike franchise agreements with each community where the service will be offered. AT&T is pushing for a new law that would require only statewide franchises.

But Comcast and other state cable providers say AT&T is trying to get around perfectly good laws, and that the company's Lightspeed service won't provide high-quality TV service to poor communities.

The conflict is emblematic of the rapidly changing world of telecommunications, where phone, cable and even Web companies like Google and Yahoo are scrambling to offer consumers phone, Internet and video services. Federal, state and local lawmakers, meanwhile, are scrambling to figure out the best way to regulate these services.

Franchise agreements

At the center of this dispute are franchise agreements, which are designed to ensure that local communities get a share of revenues from television providers. Often such agreements require cable companies to upgrade technology in poorer areas, where the companies make less money, as well as affluent ones, where households can afford premium services. They also guarantee several public-access channels.

AT&T officials hope a bill in the works by state Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, D-Los Angeles, will allow the company to strike statewide franchise agreements instead of local ones. The Nuñez bill, AB 2987, however, does not yet describe any specific changes to the law.

``One of the things that Californians have been lacking is a choice in their television provider,'' said Ken McNeely, president of AT&T's California operations. ``That is something that has been the result of a regulatory mechanism that's been in place since the 1960s. That's something that we are excited might be changing.''

AT&T hopes to invest $1 billion in California to upgrade phone lines and install fiber-optic wires to bring the Lightspeed service over the next three years.

McNeely said a statewide franchise would speed the outlay of Project Lightspeed to consumers, yet would still grant local communities a 5 percent cut of revenues, as well as community-based channels. Increased competition for television would bring down prices for consumers, McNeely said.

But Dennis Mangers, president of the California Cable and Telecommunications Association, which represents the state's cable providers, denied AT&T's claim that cable has enjoyed a virtual monopoly on TV services.

``We've lost 25 percent of subscribers to satellite,'' he said. ``We already know competition.''

Comcast spokesman Andrew Johnson said Lightspeed wouldn't bring consumers anything they can't already get from Comcast.

``AT&T is spending years and $1 billion to imitate a network Comcast has already built,'' he said. ``We've seen nothing in their product roadmap that we can't exceed.''

Mangers accused AT&T of planning to install Lightspeed mostly in affluent areas of the country in a practice known as redlining. The same accusation was made last April by a Texas cable group that told the Associated Press it had seen an internal AT&T (then SBC) memo promising to bring Lightspeed to 90 percent of ``high value'' homes and 5 percent of those of ``low value.''

McNeely vehemently denied the accusation.

``This claim of redlining is a red herring,'' he said. ``We have every intention of deploying a product to all consumers regardless of income and race. It is an issue that is deeply, deeply of concern to all involved.''

While Mangers swears by the franchise system, San Jose's efforts to strike a long-term agreement with Comcast have dragged on for more than six years. Changes in cable-company ownership, disputes about community services and technological delays have brought the dispute as far as federal court. The case is currently in mediation, and Comcast has been operating on a month-to-month franchise.

San Jose's negotiations with AT&T for Project Lightspeed, which began in 2005, have hit some snags as well. AT&T has told city officials that it is comfortable with a standard cable-like franchise, as long as it is ``within the framework of a non-franchise agreement,'' according to a city staff report.

`Walks like a duck. . .'

The idea of creating an agreement that operates like a franchise but is not called a franchise left some city council members confused.

``I'm trying to understand the issue that we need to resolve,'' Councilman Forrest Williams (District 2) said at a meeting earlier this month. ``There's a saying that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.''

Discussions between the city and AT&T are continuing. Nuñez continues to develop his bill in Sacramento, and on a national level, the U.S. Congress is weighing several bills that propose major changes to telecommunications regulation.

this technology is D.O.A.

They will be spending money AGAIN in a year or two trying to match verizon.
IPTV is dead, and they'll be spending money again in a year or two trying to implement cable-style technology?

Really?

The rumor is less than 5 Mbps VC-1 stream for 720p?

While cable channels are giving you 15 Mbps or more MPEG2 streams for 1080i and 720p?
Comparing MPEG2 to MPEG4 bitrates isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, is it? The whole point to MPEG4 is delivering better quality in lower bitrates.

That said, I don't really know what will be delivered for HD since the initial release of U-Verse won't offer HD.
And one HDTV channel per home is not going to cut it.
Agreed, but the initial state is not the end state for this offer, I'm sure.

AT&T Promises to Abide by Barton Bill
By Ted Hearn 4/4/2006 5:07:00 PM

AT&T Inc. promised a top House Democrat that its video service will be regulated under the terms established by a new telecommunications bill expected to be approved Wednesday by a House subcommittee.

“To the extent … that you and other members may be concerned that AT&T would not be covered by the draft [bill], we would welcome discussions with the [Energy and Commerce Committee] to ensure that AT&T’s video offering falls under the bill,” an AT&T official said in a letter to Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) Monday.

The House bill, sponsored by Energy and Commerce chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas), would make a national cable franchise available to phone companies in effort to bypass franchising at the municipal level. Lawmakers on the House Subcommittee on the Internet were to begin debate on the bill Tuesday afternoon and vote on amendments Wednesday.

National franchises would be awarded to providers of “cable service” as defined by federal law. AT&T’s position was, and is, that its Project Lightspeed video service does not meet the cable-service definition. AT&T sued Walnut Creek and Lodi, Calif., when those cities rejected its claim that its video service isn't a cable service.

In a March 29 letter to AT&T chairman and CEO Edward Whitacre, Dingell demanded responses to his concerns that if the bill became law, AT&T would be in position to claim that it was exempt from its terms, including payment of 5% of gross revenue to local governments and requirements to serve all income strata in a community.

AT&T executive vice president Timothy McKone told Dingell that if it were “conclusively determined” that AT&T's video service was a cable service, “then clearly, the service would fall within the ambit of the national franchise.” But, he added, if it’s not a cable service, “then AT&T would not be subject to franchise regulations under the Cable Act, including as modified by this draft bill.”

McKone explained that in order to reassure Dingell and other House members, AT&T would cooperate in seeing that the House bill covered its video service.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6321989.html?display=Breaking+News

Sorry if this has been posted before/talked about. This was just posted by 'RandallA' over at SatGuys....

thanks

http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?p=532795#post532795

That is indeed a fiber to the node box. As of right now, you will only be able to get vDSL. ATT is in the process of trying to create a new job title for installers to work on the video. As of right now we are up in arms, and its not going smoothly. Once that gets figured out, thye have told us about 6 months till video starts to show up.

:confused: Who is up in arms? Are you an AT&T installer?

:confused: Who is up in arms? Are you an AT&T installer?Kind of obvious.

Kind of obvious.

Excuuuuse me for asking a simple question. Sheesh.

AT&T sues 2 suburbs blocking upgrade

By Jon Van
Tribune staff reporter
Published April 7, 2006

Chicago suburbs that blocked AT&T Inc.'s network upgrade faced lawsuits Thursday, as the telecommunications giant went to federal court to overturn actions by Roselle and Carpentersville.

The local tussle is part of a national dispute over whether AT&T's Project Lightspeed, which replaces much of its existing copper phone network with fiber, requires special approval from each municipality affected.

In its lawsuits AT&T said officials of Roselle and Carpentersville last month declined to provide the phone company with permits needed to install outdoor electronics equipment that is part of its network upgrade.

The village officials said that because AT&T's new network will have the ability to carry video programming, AT&T must apply for and receive the same kind of franchise required by cable television companies before continuing its upgrade.

AT&T's lawsuits challenge that interpretation, saying the upgraded network will supply telecom services--voice, data and video--but is not a cable TV operation and is not required to have a separate franchise approval from municipalities.

Citing federal and Illinois law, the telecom company asked the court to declare that AT&T does not need a cable franchise and to enjoin village officials from blocking its network upgrade.

Company officials said they plan to file a similar lawsuit next week citing Wheaton's blockage of Project Lightspeed.

Municipal officials from various suburbs have scheduled meetings to discuss how best to counter AT&T's efforts to bypass the traditional control they have through the cable franchise process.

Project Lightspeed was announced two years ago by SBC Communications Inc. before it acquired AT&T and took that name. The company has maintained that it would offer advanced video service using an Internet protocol, so the service would be just an improved version of the Internet service already delivered by the company's digital subscriber lines.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0604070178apr07,1,6031309.story

4/12/2006 02:49 AM

Local cable financing would change under new legislation
By Christine Morente, STAFF WRITER
Inside Bay Area

A future community access education channel could be in jeopardy should new legislation allowing AT&T to cut a deal with the state, not cities, to provide cable television be approved.

The Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006, still in the Assembly, would change how much money cities receive through franchise agreements with companies like AT&T, affecting how cities finance community television.

Phone company officials say they could create more jobs in the state and drive down prices with competition.

But Brian Moura, chairman of the San Mateo County Telecommunications Authority, said the legislation gives too much control to AT&T.

"Where do I begin?" Moura said. "I don't see where all the benefits are for the community. I only see a benefit for AT&T."

The bill, also called AB 2987, would give the state Department of Corporations authority to oversee statewide franchising.

Under the legislation, AT&T could get the go-ahead and upgrade its network in more than 400 cities in California — regardless of what city officials want, Moura said. It would make it easier for the company to roll out its Project Lightspeed, which offers higher-speed Internet access, the ability to make phone calls through the Internet and Internet-based television.

To do that, the phone company wants to bring existing fiber-optic wires closer to homes for a larger bandwidth— between 20 to 25 megabytes per second.

Right now, AT&T needs city approval, and the city must provide encroachment permits for the company, to upgrade its system along roadsides.

County officials have been meeting with AT&T to plan the eventual roll-out of the new service in Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Foster City, Millbrae, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo and elsewhere in San Mateo County.

For at least 30 years, cable company Comcast has paid 5 percent of its gross revenues to cities. RCN, another local cable company, also has a contract with various Peninsula cities.

"We offered AT&T the same deal as Comcast, and AT&T said no thanks," Moura said. "We don't have a problem with additional companies offering cable service; we have a problem with some being treated more favorably than others. Hopefully, we get to some agreement with them so they can get started in the area."

Moura and officials from the League of California Cities worries that some areas of the county wouldn't be able to access the service because they don't have DSL.

Libraries and schools would lose advanced broadband services, and under the bill, it takes away the possibility of adding a countywide education channel or school district channels. It also abolishes emergency-notification channels.

Although the bill continues a city's authority to impose a utility-user tax, they wouldn't be able to collect business license taxes, encroachment permit fees, and building permit fees, according to the league.

A final issue is that some low-income communities could be left behind when it comes time to expand services.

"According to AT&T, they would provide it to so-called high-value customers. I'm not sure what a high-value customer is," Moura said.

AT&T spokesman Gordon Diamond defended the bill Tuesday, saying it has anti-discrimination clauses, so that AT&T can't deny service to residents based on income.

The company would start in urban centers and then branch out.

"We will provide service to as many as we can and as fast as we can," he said. "We have to start somewhere, and have to start upgrading our network when it makes sense."

Randy Sahae, the general manager for Millbrae Community Television, worries that the legislation would have an adverse impact on local cable channels that bring school board, city council and planning commission meetings to people's homes. The less revenue cities get from companies through franchise fees would mean less money for cable channels.

Sahae said the community channel's budget is $155,000 annually. Eighty-five percent of that comes from Millbrae, San Carlos, and Brisbane. They cover 110 public meetings a year, sometimes partner with Peninsula TV, and post announcements.

Without the city's support, it would be impossible to serve residents, she said.

"The evolution of the way media is delivered to people is inevitable," Sahae said. "It's going to be faster, broader, more customized, and more flexible. It's good, but it's scary. We're trying our best. What will be the (new) funding model that supports us?"

To keep the providers happy, county officials will fight the bill if it's not changed.

"We hope legislators take our concerns into account," Moura said. "Anybody who's read this piece of legislation knows it's pretty bad."

Diamond wants a different outcome.

"I think it's important to be able to provide choices faster," he said. "The longer it's delayed, the longer customers won't have a choice."

Staff writer Christine Morente can be reached at (650) 348-4333 or by e-mail at cmorente@sanmateocountytimes.com.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_3701629

Analyst: AT&T’s local lawsuits a bad tactic
By Carol Wilson

Apr 12, 2006 8:07 AM

AT&T’s decision to file lawsuits against Illinois communities which are delaying construction of its Project Lightspeed upgrade could backfire on the telecom giant, a leading analyst said today.

Brian Washburn of Current Analysis, who tracks the competitive telecom industry, said in a report today that the lawsuits are a bad public relations move that could negatively impact AT&T’s efforts to see video franchise reform.

“AT&T may see strategic lawsuits as another arrow in its quiver of intense local, state, and national pressure to break down the existing franchise licensing regime,” Washburn said. “However, dragging the case through the courts will end up an expensive, time-consuming battle that presents AT&T as a $43.8-billion schoolyard bully that beats up little townships because they do not hand their lunch money over fast enough.?

AT&T has filed suit against the Illinois suburban communities of Roselle, Wheaton and Carpentersville because those three have not granted rights of way for Project Lightspeed, AT&T’s multi-billion dollar fiber-to-the-node upgrade that will enable the company to offer video service. Two of the communities – Roselle and Wheaton – had enacted 180 waiting periods before permits could be filed and the third, Carpentersville, is requiring AT&T to get a local video franchise before building its network. AT&T had previously filed suit against the town of Walnut Creek, Calif., for also requiring a video franchise.

By contrast, Verizon – which like AT&T, is also backing both national and statewide video franchising agreements – is working in the meantime to secure local franchise agreements in areas where it has built its FiOS fiber-to-the-home network.

AT&T’s legally contentious approach could hurt its other efforts, Washburn pointed out.

“AT&T is putting townships in a Catch-22, but unless it can get the townships to capitulate, it is AT&T that is entering a no-win situation if it decides to forge ahead,” he said. “Moving through the courts is likely to be more time-consuming and expensive for AT&T than negotiating franchise agreements would be. AT&T can do much more damage to its name and image nationwide than it will ever recoup from serving these small Chicago suburbs. On top of that, AT&T stands to poison its brand in the very communities that would buy its services.”

AT&T has said that it blames local cable companies, not the cities themselves, for the resistance it is meeting.

http://telephonyonline.com/regulatory/news/ATT_Lawsuits_Washburn_041206/

Towns battle with AT&T
• Geneva, North Aurora: Review set for cable, broadband, Internet ordinances

By Steve Lord and Angela Fornelli
staff writerS

Area towns are joining the effort to slow Project Lightspeed.

The city of Geneva and village of North Aurora this week both enacted 180-day moratoriums on utility box installations in their communities, targeted at an Internet-based communications network to be offered by AT&T.

While the moratoriums affect any utility installations above or below ground, they are aimed at delaying a decision on requests from AT&T for utility boxes for its Project Lightspeed program.

Project Lightspeed is an Internet-based network to deliver television, broadband and voice services using "fiber-to-the-neighborhood" and "fiber-to-the-premises" technologies, according to AT&T.

The company is planning to add 40,000 miles of fiber-optic cable as part of the initial project, reaching about 18 million households nationwide.

The service requires a utility box for every 300 homes. The company has been talking with municipalities and private landowners about locating boxes on public and private lands.

The moratoriums enacted this week would affect both private and public locations. Geneva officials said on private land, it would be regulated through the zoning ordinance, and on public land, it would be regulated directly.

While Geneva and North Aurora are the first in the immediate area to enact the temporary bans, other Chicago area municipalities passed bans previously — and AT&T already has sued them over it. The company has filed lawsuits over bans passed in Wheaton, Carpentersville and Roselle.

AT&T's lawyers are looking into the North Aurora and Geneva ordinances to determine whether a suit is necessary, said company spokesman Rick Fox.

Project Lightspeed has been the talk of municipal officials since a recent Municipal Mayors Caucus, which represents the 272 municipalities in the Chicago area. Officials there recommended city and village officials look at their ordinances and see how the installations fit in.

Fight over fees


Although the project is fairly new to Illinois, it has been on municipal radars across America. In San Ramone, Calif., for instance, the city struck a deal with AT&T on both how the installations will be done, and what kind of fees the municipalities will receive. Cities and villages across the country are looking at the San Ramone contract as a model.

The issue between municipalities and AT&T mainly has focused on fees. Municipal officials believe AT&T is trying to get its service in without paying either telecommunications fees or cable television franchise fees.

Because cable television is regulated through franchise agreements in individual towns, companies such as Comcast, which holds the franchises in most area municipalities and unincorporated areas, are saying AT&T is not competing on a level playing field. They say Project Lightspeed competes with cable television.

North Aurora Village Administrator Sue McLaughlin said Comcast has threatened to stop payments to the village if AT&T isn't required to enter into a franchise agreement. North Aurora receives about $60,000 a year for its general fund through its franchise agreement with Comcast, she said.

AT&T officials have said they are not in competition with cable television because of being Internet based.

"This is broadband-Internet-based," Fox said. "It's not a cable service, so cable television franchise agreements don't apply."

04/12/06
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/top/2_1_AU12_ATT_S1.htm

Calif. Court Rules Against AT&T
By Linda Haugsted 4/14/2006 1:58:00 PM

Cities are within their rights to demand a franchise of AT&T Inc. for its video service, according to a ruling from a judge in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The judge, however, did not rule specifically on whether Internet-protocol-delivered video is a cable service. But cities can pursue franchises because the action is not specifically precluded in the federal Cable Act, Judge Maxine Chesney wrote in a decision issued Friday.

The ruling is a blow to AT&T, which argued that its service -- which will deliver programming in data packets at the demand of consumers -- does not meet the definition of a cable service.

The company has challenged any attempts at franchising, filing this suit against Walnut Creek in California, as well as another city there, to go along with three suits in Illinois. AT&T argued that it has a right to deliver video under the authority given to it as a local-exchange carrier.

The dispute in this case arose when AT&T sought permits to place hardware in city-controlled rights of way. Walnut Creek issued the permits, but with the caveat that by accepting them, AT&T would be agreeing to enter later into a franchise agreement in advance of delivering video.

AT&T's suit alleged pre-emption of the city action by federal law, violations of the First Amendment and contracts policy, as well as state law violations. Chesney deferred the state arguments to state court. She dismissed the federal counts, but AT&T has 20 days to refile on those counts.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6324981.html

TV competition could save consumers big bucks

By Marguerite Reardon
http://news.com.com/TV+competition+could+save+consumers+big+bucks/2100-1034_3-6062015.html

Story last modified Mon Apr 17 16:39:49 PDT 2006

Competition in the cable TV market from phone companies could save consumers big bucks, according to a new study released Monday by an economist at the University of California at Berkeley.

Yale Braunstein, professor in the School of Information at UC Berkeley, found in a study focused on the California cable television market that prices dropped 15 percent to 22 percent when cable companies competed with another wireline paid-TV provider, such as a telephone company.

Braunstein's report, which was commissioned and paid for by AT&T, is one of the first studies to quantify how much consumers could save if phone companies competed directly against cable operators in the video market.

AT&T and Verizon Communications have already begun offering TV service in certain parts of the country.

If telephone companies compete on a wider scale throughout California, Braunstein anticipates average prices falling about $56.40 per month to between $43.99 and $47.94 per month. With more than 60 percent of California's 11.5 million households signed up for cable service, that's a savings of between $690 million and $1 billion, he said.

Despite the entrance of satellite service in the 1990s, cable still dominates the paid television market not only in California but throughout the U.S. Without much competition in the market, prices have soared. According to a report published by the Federal Communications Commission last year, cable rates increased 7.8 percent in the five years before the end of 2004.

"Over the last five years, cable rate increases have far outpaced inflation and the Consumer Price Index," Braunstein said. "But when faced with competitive television providers, cable rates have actually gone down in many markets while services increase."

Other parts of the country could see savings similar to those found in California, Braunstein said. But the majority of consumers won't see the benefits of competition overnight. The phone companies argue that outdated laws that require them to obtain franchise agreements from individual cities and towns are slowing their deployments.

AT&T and Verizon are currently lobbying in state houses and on Capitol Hill to change these laws making it easier and faster for them to obtain franchise agreements. Texas, Virginia and most recently Kansas have passed legislation allowing new entrants to get a statewide franchise.

"There is nothing wrong with phone companies paying franchise fees," said Braunstein. "But they shouldn't be used as some kind of barrier to keep competition out of a market. The process made sense 20 or 30 years ago when cable TV service was new. But now that the infrastructure is deployed in these communities, the whole process has lost reasonableness."

Cable companies argue that phone companies should not be given special treatment regarding franchise requirements.

April 18, 2006 (11:03 AM EDT)
techweb techweb
techweb AT&T Aims For Internet Television

By Laurie Sullivan, TechWeb News

In an effort to secure a position in Internet-based television, AT&T Inc. reported an agreement Tuesday with Akimbo Systems to offer Internet-based video-on-demand to its Homezone TV service subscribers. The service begins this summer.

The AT&T Homezone service, being trialed within several states, integrates AT&T Yahoo! high-speed Internet and AT&T DISH Network programming. The service provides video on demand, digital video, and Internet content, such as photos and music through a set-top box.

Akimbo's digital content library offers more than 10,000 television programs and movies-on-demand. The company said it adds daily more than 150 titles in 85 categories, from music and sports to movies and educational programs.

The service, which combines Internet and Dish Network programming, intends to complement AT&T's Project Lightspeed, a multi-billion dollar fiber upgrade that will let AT&T sell Internet protocol television (IPTV) service to homes, as the offering continues to roll out, an AT&T spokeswoman said.

An online guide with video search functions provides full program descriptions and previews. Remote access with an Internet-connected computer lets subscribers browse and download programs, so new shows are available for viewing when they get home.

http://www.techweb.com/wire/networking/185303601

Geneva slows down Project Lightspeed

04/19/06

• Fairness: Officials need to look at franchise in relation to cable provider

By Steve Lord, staff writer

GENEVA — The Geneva City Council this week enacted a 180-day moratorium that will delay any installation of infrastructure for AT&T's Project Lightspeed program.

The moratorium is on any utility installations above or below ground, but it is in response to inquiries on such installations by AT&T. In enacting the moratorium, Geneva joins other Chicago area municipalities, such as North Aurora, Carpentersville, Roselle and Wheaton.

The latter three already have been sued by AT&T over their moratoriums, and Geneva expects to be sued as well. Aldermen this week delayed approving the moratorium until after about an hour-long closed session in which they discussed the possible litigation. AT&T officials last week sent Geneva Mayor Kevin Burns an e-mail in which they threatened legal action.

"Simply put, we need time to look at issues," said Mary McKittrick, Geneva's assistant city administrator. "We want to stand back a little bit.

All we're asking for is 180 days (six months)."

In particular, McKittrick said the city needs to look at issues of possible franchise agreements and at the public safety and aesthetics of the proposed utility boxes themselves. AT&T needs a box for about every 300 homes to be served by Project Lightspeed.

Project Lightspeed is an Internet-based network to deliver television, broadband and voice services using "fiber-to-the-neighborhood" and "fiber-to-the-premises" technologies, according to AT&T. The company is planning to add 40,000 miles of fiber-optic cable as part of the initial project, reaching about 18 million households nationwide.

What particularly concerns Geneva officials is the access to service AT&T might offer as part of its new fiber network.

AT&T officials have said because their project is Internet-based, the company is not required to have a franchise agreement.

"But they're wrong," said Peter Collins, Geneva's Information Technology manager. "They have a competitive video service."

That means it is the city's contention AT&T must have a franchise agreement, just like cable television provider Comcast, Collins said. The issue is not the fee itself — AT&T has agreed to pay the 5 percent that is in the current Comcast franchise agreement. It is service, he said.

"They won't agree to serve the whole town," Collins said. "Under the cable franchise, we require Comcast to serve the entire city. That's just not fair."

Collins said municipalities believe they have to defend that fairness under the Illinois Fair Playing Field Statute.

Aldermen approved the moratorium unanimously.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/city/2_1_AU19_ATT_S1.htm

Posted on Wed, Apr. 19, 2006

PHONE COMPANY TO TEAM UP WITH AKIMBO IN ENTERTAINMENT

By Jessie Seyfer, Mercury News

AT&T announced Tuesday that it will team up with San Mateo-based Akimbo to allow customers to download movies and shows over the Internet through AT&T's upcoming television service this summer.

The new AT&T service, called Homezone, is set to start in California and 12 other states by late summer.

The partnership brings the phone company a step closer to realizing its long-held desire to serve all of a customer's entertainment needs with one, Internet-linked set-top box. It also highlights the massive shift the telecommunications industry has undergone in recent years, as phone companies -- seeing their traditional phone-line sales diminish -- are branching out into television.

``The television services that we will be using in coming years will look much different than the service we used over the last 30 years,'' said industry analyst Jeff Kagan. ``Phone companies like AT&T are rushing to offer a competitive television service to allow them to compete with the cable television companies.''

AT&T's TV ambitions would encroach on some cable providers, which have dominated the pay-TV landscape for decades. On Tuesday, the leader of California's cable trade group derided AT&T's upcoming TV service as ``warmed-over DSL.''

But Homezone is not AT&T's first foray into television. The company has been offering satellite television service through a partnership with Dish Network since 2003, and is working on building a TV network called Lightspeed that will reach homes through fiber-optic connections over the next few years.

Homezone will combine several services:

• Live TV from the Dish Network

• DSL Internet service

• Major-studio movies downloadable from Movielink

• Older TV shows and movies downloadable from Akimbo

• Digital video recording

• Caller ID that appears on the television screen; and

• Photo-sharing and radio services from Yahoo.

The set-top box will be manufactured by San Jose-based 2Wire. AT&T did not release price information.

Akimbo brings its library of 10,000 television programs, from both mainstream and niche broadcasters, to the deal. The company, which has 41 employees and is privately funded, has been striking Internet content agreements with broadcasters since its 2004 inception.

Akimbo now features selected shows from the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, A&E and CNN, among other channels, and its niche offerings run the gamut from Bollywood films to karaoke to coverage of yachting events.

``Our goal is to make the archive and libraries of all these content partners available,'' said Akimbo Chief Executive Josh Goldman. ``It's not a replacement for TV. But if you want to watch your favorite Discovery Channel shows, that's the kind of thing we do.''

Akimbo is also working with Movielink to launch a TV and movie service separate from the Homezone service later in the year.

Market research suggests customers are still uncertain about whether they're willing to buy television service from their phone company, according to In-Stat. Only 5 percent of satellite or cable-TV subscribers polled by In-Stat said they would be willing to switch to a phone company's service. Fifty-two percent were undecided.

Dennis Mangers, president of the California Cable and Telecommunications Association, a cable trade group, said Homezone is a cobbled-together product designed to please not customers, but politicians who are trying to figure out whether TV service from a phone company should be regulated the same way as cable TV.

``We think Homezone is really a fraud,'' Mangers said. ``AT&T is trying to use Homezone as a product to escape its obligations.''

Cable companies are required to strike franchise agreements with every city where cable TV is sold. These agreements ensure that cable service is rolled out to poor neighborhoods, which don't bring as much business to cable providers, as well as wealthy ones, which are more likely to buy premium service, Mangers said.

In California, AT&T has been lobbying for statewide, rather than local, franchise agreements. Mangers said he believes AT&T is trying to get out of bringing quality service to poor communities by offering such customers Homezone instead of the higher-tech Lightspeed service.

Ken Tysell, AT&T's director of broadband applications, rejected those allegations, calling Homezone a quality product that would ``complement'' Lightspeed service.

``We'll offer Homezone everywhere Lightspeed is available, but Homezone will still be an excellent product for those where we haven't deployed it,'' he said.
Contact Jessie Seyfer at jseyfer@mercurynews.com or (408) 920-5425.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/14376302.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Council opposes cable bill because of monetary path

By Graham Moes / Independent Staff Writer

Published 04/21/06 00:00:00

State politics took center stage April 17 as the Clovis City Council officially weighed in on two pieces of proposed legislation with ramifications at the local level.

In the first of two unanimous votes, the council said it would not support at least the current version of a recently introduced California Assembly bill designed to foster more competition to cable television markets.

The Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 would create a state-level entity granting cable franchises to companies statewide, replacing the current process in which companies wishing to enter a market must be approved on a city-by-city basis.

Representatives of AT&T were on hand to lobby the council for support on the measure. The company's $4.5 billion "Project Lightspeed" has $1 billion earmarked for California alone to bring in IP-based technologies, considered the wave of the future in which phone, cable, Internet service and more can be merged.

"This bill speeds up our ability to get to market. It will have a big effect. Cable prices usually go down 20 percent or more in markets allowed a choice of providers," said AT&T executive Eric Johnson, who indicated technology is evolving too fast to negotiate with all 478 cities in California individually — a process that would take a minimum of seven years to complete.

Council members said while they support streamlining the process and introducing competition proven to drive cable prices down, the idea of routing an estimated $500,000 per year in franchise fees through the state was troubling at best.

The money now comes to the city directly from current cable provider Comcast and is used to fund police, fire and other General Fund services.

"We don't trust the state to keep their commitments," said Council Member Jose Flores, summing up council opinion. "We do important work with this money. People will be watching more affordable TV but they could have no police."

Council Member Harry Armstrong and Mayor Nathan Magsig passionately agreed.

"Anytime we give any money to the state, they at some point come back and tell us, 'You don't need this anymore,'" Armstrong said. "You can't guarantee us one thing, because Sacramento can change things at the stroke of a pen."

Armstrong said he favored telecommunication companies sitting down with the League of California Cities to come up with better wording for the potentially workable piece of legislation.

Johnson said safeguards are specifically written into the law to protect both direct fee payment to cities and full service to all segments of the city.

"The question is, do you want this next-generation technology brought to Clovis sooner or later because that's what we're talking about," he said.

AT&T would spend its $1 billion over the next three years, the "first wave of investment" in the state, Johnson said.

The council emphasized its opposition is with the current bill, not AT&T directly.

AB 2987 has bipartisan support by Assembly members, the California Chamber of Commerce, telecommunications workers and minority groups.

http://www.clovisindependent.com/news/story/12081064p-12833938c.html

AT&T, Bedford Park hook up
Web connection to be municipal service

By Jon Van, Tribune staff reporter
Published April 22, 2006

Starting next week, high-speed Internet connection will become a basic municipal service available to Bedford Park residents, much like garbage collection, police protection and library access.

The southwest suburban village has struck a deal with AT&T Inc. to deliver digital subscriber line connections to all residents who want it, paid for by the village.

"We have only 580 residents and 206 homes," said David Brady, village president, "and we thought adding DSL as a municipal service might attract new residents, especially young people."

Several cities, large and small, are looking at wireless high-speed Internet services, but the Bedford Park service goes in a different direction by opting for wired high-speed residential connections.

It will be a first for AT&T throughout the 13-state region where it is the dominant phone carrier, said Virgil Pund, general manager for AT&T Illinois.

"In some communities, wireless Wi-Fi or Wi-Max might be the better option, but in Bedford Park, we think the standard technology is really a benefit," said Pund.

Brady said village officials and AT&T representatives will be available Tuesday and Wednesday to explain the new service to village residents, including the necessary computer requirements.

"We anticipate getting 100 homes signed up. That's what we're hoping for," Brady said.

Residents who already have DSL service can transfer to the village's program, but those who get high-speed connections from a cable operator will have to choose whether they want to continue paying for that or convert to the village-paid DSL service, he said.

"We've already talked to a lot of residents," Brady said, "and we haven't heard any complaints about financing this service with taxes. Mostly, people ask when it will start."

The additional tax levied will depend on how many sign up for the service, and Brady declined to comment on specific costs.

The Bedford Park deal with AT&T is in contrast to the company's disagreements with some western suburbs that have enacted ordinances to put a halt to AT&T's network upgrade, which it calls Project Lightspeed.

Those suburbs, which include Roselle, Carpentersville and Wheaton, object that AT&T plans to offer video over its upgraded network without applying for a cable TV franchise.

The phone company contends that cable TV franchise laws don't apply to its network and has gone to court against some suburbs to press its case. A proposal moving through Congress would eliminate local cable TV franchising authority.

Brady said his village started exploring high-speed Internet service nearly a year ago and found AT&T most receptive to the idea.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0604220104apr22,1,7346613.story

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6327187.html


AT&T Tries to Line Up Programmers
U-Verse Security a Factor In Talks With Networks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Linda Moss & Karen Brown 4/24/2006

AT&T Inc. remains in negotiations with big cable programmers such as Fox Cable Networks Group, The Walt Disney Co., NBC Universal and Scripps Networks as it tries to get its U-verse video service ready to launch commercially in 21 markets later this year, with 200 or more channels.

One element of the negotiations for filling up these channels: Concerns on the part of some programmers that their content will be delivered securely.

AT&T will send all programs as packets of computer-readable digits, using Internet protocol technology. If not properly protected, programs in such packets could be intercepted or copied at original quality and reused without any control or compensation to the programmers.

A wide array of programmers, from Discovery Networks U.S. to Home Box Office, have been participating in AT&T’s test of its TV service, which began in December in San Antonio, Texas.

The nation’s largest phone company is slated to start rolling out the service commercially later this year. But AT&T still needs to secure carriage deals with many of those programmers for the launch, according to more than a half-dozen cable-programming officials.

AT&T has been tight-lipped about its Texas trial and its proposed U-verse service in general.

But at an investors’ conference earlier this year, it said more than 200 channels were participating in the trial. AT&T cited channels from Discovery Networks U.S., NBC Universal, Turner Broadcasting System Inc. and Viacom Inc., A&E Television Networks, Home Box Office and Showtime Networks Inc., among others.

At the TelecomNext convention in Las Vegas last month, movies from Starz Entertainment Group were demonstrated under U-verse screen labeling at the Microsoft TV booth.

AT&T declined to discuss its talks with programmers, but executives at Fox, Disney, NBC and Scripps confirmed last week that they’re in negotiations with the company. Viacom and Turner — who are involved in the trial — couldn’t be reached for comment. Discovery, also in the trial, declined comment.

“We’re not talking specifics about content deals right now for competitive reasons,” AT&T spokeswoman Denise Koenig said. “We have secured content in a variety of areas, but we haven’t discussed specifically what we’re doing going forward.”

Programmers ranging from Fox to Scripps have been concerned about protecting their content from piracy when delivered over IPTV platforms, like AT&T’s U-verse.

“We are in the midst of negotiating probably 20 deals involving IPTV technology,” said Fox Cable executive vice president of affiliate sales and marketing Lindsay Gardner. “Because it’s new, we’re focusing with all of these distributors on the security of their plant and protection for our content.”

AT&T uses Internet protocol technology to deliver its programming for U-verse, but the channels are delivered over AT&T’s private fiber and copper wire networks, not the public Internet. That alone is not enough to alleviate all the programmers’ worries, though. The packets still could be captured and reused — possibly in some viewer’s home — if not solidly encrypted.

“The thing that terrifies us, the thing that concerns most content companies, is the incidence of someone in his home running a line from their set-top box to their computer and then Nip/Tuck ends up on the Internet, going worldwide,” Gardner said.

Scripps, parent of networks such as HGTV and Food Network, is watching the new technology closely.

“The thing that causes everybody concern, is that how secure is IPTV?” said John Baird, Scripps executive vice president of affiliate sales and marketing.

AT&T has tried to allay the programmers’ fears. Gardner, who expects to get a deal done with AT&T, lauded the telco for making its key engineers available “just to explain to our top engineers and content-protection experts exactly what they’re how they’re doing what they’re doing.”

That included a discussion of AT&T’s set-tops and its jacks.

The AT&T service is based on Microsoft Corp. technology. But the software giant, whose Web browser and server software have been subject to constant attack, says Internet protocol-based transmission systems may in fact be more secure than traditional cable-TV transmission systems.

The Microsoft IPTV platform encrypts the content as it flows through the AT&T network and into customers’ set-top boxes, according to Hemang Mehta, product management director of Microsoft TV.

The encryption relies on four sets of digital keys to lock and unlock the content. One is embedded in the set-top box’s circuitry, specifically identifying it as an authorized device tied to a particular customer. Three other keys that sit in software elsewhere are used to guard the content that flows into the box. The three keys provide: authentication for billing and subscription information; security for the content itself; and security for the transmission of that content.

The software-based keys are changed frequently to thwart attempts to hack into or divert that content, Mehta said.

That system is at work now as part of the “controlled-market entry” in San Antonio, where a small group of AT&T employees and some local residents are getting the video service. AT&T is confident in the security of its U-verse TV delivery system, and Koenig says digital-rights management “has not been an issue.”

Concern about AT&T’s ability to protect content being transported as digits “has not been a problem with any of our contracts” with programmers, Koenig said.

Koenig declined to provide specific dates for when AT&T will roll out U-verse on a commercial basis elsewhere, but said it will be in 21 markets before year’s end. One programmer said AT&T is hoping to start commercial deployment in July or August.

AT&T is running into the same problem that new distributors such as Verizon Communications Inc. and direct-broadcast satellite providers initially faced, according to network officials. Because AT&T has no subscribers, it has little leverage and will likely have to pay high license fees and carry all of a media company’s cable networks, even the ones it doesn’t necessarily want to offer.

Dan York, AT&T’s executive vice president of programming, is in charge of negotiations with networks. His eight-person team includes several veterans from the TV industry, such as Rob Thun, former vice president of national accounts at Fox Cable Networks Group, and Chris Lauricella, previously director of program acquisition at DirecTV Inc.

Um Nip/Tuck and every other show is already on the Internet.

Wahlman Takes Stock of AT&T IPTV Rollout
April 24, 2006

ThinkEquity Partners LLC analyst Anton Wahlman believes AT&T Inc. will scale back its Project Lightspeed deployment in order to work on improvements to VDSL2 (video-digital-subscriber-line) technology that will increase bandwidth speeds.

That will cause the company to boost marketing of its “Homezone” product with EchoStar Communications Corp.’s Dish Network direct-broadcast satellite service in the interim period, he said.

Wahlman has long felt that the 25-megabit-per-second speeds achievable with AT&T’s current VDSL deployment won’t be enough to compete with cable.

In a research note issued last week, he said: “We believe the so-called Project Lightspeed, substantially built on VDSL2, will see a scaling back in terms of homes passed over the next two to three years … Instead, we believe AT&T will put greater emphasis on its Homezone joint venture with EchoStar. We believe the fundamental reason AT&T is likely to do this is that it will realize that it will need a lot more bandwidth to be competitive with all-wired IPTV when competing against cable TV and satellite companies.”

Wahlman added that while AT&T will launch IPTV service in a handful of cities, it will only pass “perhaps one-half as many homes as originally planned.”

“We believe AT&T will switch gears from VDSL2 around 25 megabits per second to something faster, possibly faster versions of VDSL2 running on shorter loops with potential for as much as 100 megabits per second,” he wrote.

In the interim, Wahlman predicted that AT&T will push Homezone, which doesn’t require a DSL upgrade and can be deployed across AT&T’s 36 million-home territory, not just the 18 million homes targeted by Lightspeed.

“AT&T may blame this on any number of reasons, including slow upgrade cycle to VDSL2, Microsoft [Corp.'s] unstable software, lack of working HDTV and probably the pending BellSouth [Corp.] merger,” Wahlman wrote. “Either way, we believe the fundamental reason is that AT&T is likely realizing that 25 megabits isn't going to do the trick, but rather that it needs to plan for 100 megabits or more to the home today, with a path to Gigabit Ethernet to every home in the next five to 10 years at the most.”

http://www.multichannel.com/info/CA6327614.html

Hear, hear. They should just copy what Verizon is doing. Sounds like MS overpromised what WMA could do with low bitrates.

AT&T to slow down fiber rollout?
4/25/2006 11:54:25 AM, by Eric Bangeman

Project Lightspeed may be slowed down considerably, according to one industry analyst. His reasoning? It's not going to be fast enough.

AT&T's fiber network strategy differs substantially from rival Verizon's in that it is only laying fiber to the node. The primary implication is that bandwidth to the end user will be limited by the existing copper wire infrastructure that runs to individual homes. It also means that AT&T fiber customers will have their broadband speeds capped at 6Mbps, as AT&T will be reserving the rest of the 25Mbps node-to-home link for its IPTV programming.

In contrast, Verizon's Fios initiative is a fiber to the premises (FTTP) solution, which means that the beautiful optical stuff goes right to your doorstep. That enables Verizon to offer speeds of up to 30Mbps down/5Mbps up (albeit starting at US$179 per month) to its optical fiber customers. Even with those high speeds, Verizon will be using only about 20 percent of its network capacity for broadband. The rest of the roughly 4.2Gbps will be reserved for TV.

AT&T has countered, saying that the high speeds of Fios are "irrelevant" because of problems elsewhere on the backbone. As Nate pointed out in his coverage, that can definitely be the case for general web browsing, the speed of which is often dependent on factors other than the width of your bandwidth pipe. Of course, there are many other applications where the speed of your broadband connection is the limiting factor.

Industry analyst Anton Wahlman believes AT&T will in the short term begin to focus more on its Homezone package. Homezone is a partnership with DISH Networks parent EchoStar that combines AT&T phone and DSL service with DISH networks satellite programming. In the interim, AT&T may scale back Project Lightspeed deployment, running fiber to the premises in some locations (e.g., new developments) and bypassing others altogether.

"We believe the fundamental reason is that AT&T is likely realizing that 25 megabits isn't going to do the trick, but rather that it needs to plan for 100 megabits or more to the home today, with a path to Gigabit Ethernet to every home in the next five to 10 years at the most."

Since AT&T is casting its lot with IPTV, which is a switched system that only transmits a couple of channels at a time to the customer, it doesn't need the kind of bandwidth Verizon requires. Running fiber to the node instead of the home is also significantly cheaper. But if customers aren't going to bite, it makes sense to scale back on the next-gen network deployment until FTTP becomes cheaper. That is especially true if AT&T finds itself hard pressed to explain to current cable customers why its brand-new 6Mbps DSL + IPTV offering is better than the faster package they already have.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060425-6669.html

AT&T partners with Vongo
4/26/2006 1:05:48 PM, by Nate Anderson

AT&T has just announced a new partnership with Starz Entertainment Group which will allow AT&T to offer a branded version of the Vongo Internet movie download site. AT&T's existing DSL customers will receive a 14-day free trial of the new service, and AT&T will help to advertise the site.

Vongo is new (since the beginning of this year), and it allows broadband users to download movies over the Internet for a monthly fee and watch the movies on their computer for mobile devices. So what do you get for your money?

Vongo subscribers have unlimited access to more than 1,500 movie and video selections as well as a live, streaming Starz TV channel for a monthly cost of $9.99. Members may download movies and video selections onto three eligible devices of their choice for each account, allowing for multiple-viewing options and family enjoyment. Additionally, select popular pay-per-view titles are available for $3.99 a movie.

While the service offers a glimpse of the distribution model that will someday put the Netflix "DVDs by mail" system out of business, the truly interesting part of the deal is what it says about AT&T. As we've already reported, AT&T has run into some issues with its IPTV rollout, dubbed Project Lightspeed. Specifically, the company's plan to run optical fiber only to the node and not to the customer's home means that the system will be at a great competitive disadvantage compared to systems like Verizon's FiOS and to cable lines.

The new partnership may be a further indication that AT&T's television plans are unfolding more slowly than the company would like, and that they need some sort of offering immediately. Services like Vongo help AT&T sell more DSL lines, since they give consumers a reason to upgrade to high-speed connections, but the recent announcement of partnerships like this one and AT&T's work with DISH Network suggest that the company is still quite some ways from delivering any sort of large-scale IPTV solution.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060426-6681.html

AT&T, Starz Offer B'band VOD
APRIL 26, 2006

SAN ANTONIO and ENGLEWOOD, Colo. -- AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) and Starz Entertainment Group LLC (SEG), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation (NYSE: L, LMCb), today announced an agreement to offer SEG's Vongo Internet movie-delivery service to AT&T High Speed Internet customers. Vongo, unveiled earlier this year, delivers movies and other video content over the Internet for playback on Windows-based PCs, laptops and select portable media devices as well as on a TV.

The agreement -- the first distribution deal for Vongo with a broadband provider -- will feature a co-branded AT&T and Vongo Web site, www.att.vongo.com, with a special 14-day free trial offer to AT&T High Speed Internet subscribers. The companies will also market the Vongo service on the AT &T Worldnet portal at www.att.net.

"Vongo's compelling content increases the value proposition for AT&T High Speed Internet customers," said Scott Helbing, chief marketing officer-AT&T Consumer. "With Vongo, we're positioned to deliver quality content, as we build a digital lifestyle platform for our customers."

The agreement focuses on maximizing AT&T's industry-leading high speed DSL customer base and offering a differentiated service that consumers are increasingly demanding.

Vongo subscribers have unlimited access to more than 1,500 movie and video selections as well as a live, streaming Starz TV channel for a monthly cost of $9.99. Members may download movies and video selections onto three eligible devices of their choice for each account, allowing for multiple-viewing options and family enjoyment. Additionally, select popular pay-per-view titles are available for $3.99 a movie. Launched as a beta in January 2006, Vongo is currently available as a free download for broadband subscribers in the United States at www.vongo.com.

"We are delighted to work with AT&T as the first broadband distribution partner for Vongo," said Bob Greene, senior vice president of advanced services for SEG. "This relationship is a major step toward realizing our goal of building a complete ecosystem for digital-movie enjoyment so that consumers can access their favorite content whenever and wherever they want."

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=93396&print=true

I just got off the phone with a AT&T CSR as I was setting up new phone service in Dallas for when I move. The CSR stated that the new fiber offerings should be available in Dallas sometime in the summer, he actually mentioned it to me, I did not ask about it. Who knows how quickly it will truly be up and running.

AT&T should set sights higher than repackaging DSL with Project Lightspeed
Jim Carlini • Published 04/26/06

Are cable franchise agreements needed for AT&T to move forward on its deployment of Project Lightspeed?

If you're going to go through all this redeployment, AT&T should be setting its sights higher on real broadband and long-term capabilities. Providing another flavor of DSL is shortsighted.

The marketing strategy of Project Lightspeed should be to get fiber to the premises in order to provide more services in a true broadband package. Instead, it is a way to further utilize a hybrid transmission medium of fiber and copper to offer DSL. In addition to "high-speed” data, video services will also be provided through what AT&T and Lucent (the manufacturer of the platform) calls its IP multimedia platform (IMS).

There are some people questioning the deployment of this technology in various municipalities as they argue that it should only be granted through a cable franchise agreement. Does Project Lightspeed fit the definition of a "cable service” or is it something different that should not be viewed as a cable service? This is a huge question that is creating some friction across the country in some municipalities.

Marketing to the subscriber base

"IMS-based services allow for enhanced, customized and personalized services that offer compelling value to consumers. IMS is truly a transformational step in network development with the potential to reshape and radically improve the customer experience,” said David Heeren, vice president of sales for Lucent Technologies, in an AT&T press release in 2005. "We are excited to work with SBC to help bring product and service integration from conception to reality.”

According to a press release from AT&T this year, Kiley Ranch in Nevada is one of the first new-home developments that will benefit from AT&T's Project Lightspeed:

This will be a multibillion-dollar deployment of fiber that will reach approximately 18 million households as part of the initial rollout. As a result, AT&T is making plans to deliver AT&T U-verse products and services to homeowners as they become available, including:

1. High-quality video experience (featuring more than 200 channels) and set-top boxes (each with an internal DVR).

2. Video-on-demand (VOD) library featuring hundreds of hours of a variety of programming.

3. Picture-in-picture technology that allows subscribers to channel surf without leaving the program they're watching.

4. Fast channel changing to eliminate the delay experienced with other digital broadcast services whether you are surfing channels or recalling the last channel viewed.

In addition, the network will deliver [a service to offer] subscribers a leading combination of broadband access, services and content that provides a unique high-speed Internet access experience.

AT&T's initial offering will include three tiers of high-speed Internet access:

1. Elite: up to 6.0 Mbps downstream and up to 1 Mbps upstream

2. Pro: up to 3.0 Mbps downstream and up to 1 Mbps upstream

3. Express: up to 1.5 Mbps downstream and up to 1 Mbps upstream

After all the fuss, is 6 Mbps enough bandwidth? What is the maximum speed supported by these new boxes? With HDTV and other applications on the close horizon, how soon will you be able to increase speeds to 1 Gbps? California has a broadband initiative of 1 Gbps or bust by 2010.

I would think 100 Mbps would be a minimum roll-out service with 1 Gbps being the "elite” service option (rather than 6 Mbps). Maybe I'm the only one who thinks in a quantum leap, but if you are going to go through all this redeployment and installation of new building blocks, AT&T should be setting its sights higher on real broadband and long-term capabilities. Providing another flavor of DSL is shortsighted.

Cable franchise agreements

If this is truly a giant step forward for the average consumer, why did Geneva, Ill. (who wanted fiber in an earlier referendum) say no? This was found in a recent suburban Chicago news article:

AT&T officials have said because their project is Internet-based that the company is not required to have a franchise agreement.

"They're wrong,” said Peter Collins, Geneva's information technology manager. "They have a competitive video service.”

It is the city's contention that AT&T must have a franchise agreement just like cable television provider Comcast, Collins said. The issue is not the fee itself. AT&T has agreed to pay the 5 percent that is in the current Comcast franchise agreement. It is service, he said.

"They won't agree to serve the whole town,” Collins said. "Under the cable franchise, we require Comcast to serve the entire city. That's just not fair.”

Collins said municipalities believe they have to defend that fairness under the Illinois Fair Playing Field Statute.

Some other Illinois suburbs (including Carpentersville, Roselle and Wheaton) have stopped installation and have been sued by AT&T. Not all municipalities share the idea that it should be covered by a cable franchise agreement. According to a legal newsletter from Cooper White Cooper:

The Anaheim City Council in Anaheim, Calif. authorized on March 7, 2006 a primitive agreement with AT&T California (formerly Pacific Bell/SBC) under which AT&T's Project Lightspeed cable television may be delivered in Anaheim without a cable franchise.

The agreement approved by the city does not actually define or identify Project Lightspeed but appears to contemplate that AT&T's local telephone lines will be upgraded for the transport of data such as video and broadband signals for marketing to Anaheim customers in competition to established cable service. Notable features of the agreement include:

1. Project Lightspeed service is referred to as "IP-enabled” (apparently the fig leaf for not treating it as cable service and not requiring a cable franchise).

2. The agreement carries no franchise fee nor any other fee or payment to the city.

3. The agreement has no term of years and AT&T can abandon or terminate its service or the agreement at will.

4. AT&T "will work with Anaheim to … provide access to City Channel 3 (apparently as an analog signal outside the IP-enabled service).

5. AT&T can cover its video service territory through the technology of its choosing including direct-to-the-home satellite services (thus enabling it to draw its own boundaries for areas that will actually receive plant upgrades and investments).

If you read the letter to Congressman Dingel from AT&T executive vice president of federal relations Tim McKone, there are some valid arguments and some definitions put forth that question whether or not this service should even be covered under the cable franchise agreement of different states. In reading this letter, the arguments are strong as to the application of the definitions.

What is the right stance?

It is difficult to choose a direction until all the facts are weighed. While it is true that municipalities should adhere to the Illinois Fair Playing Field Statute, they also have to make a judgment as to whether or not they are comparing apples to oranges.

A cable service is currently considered to be a one-way delivery system. The new Project Lightspeed platform, according to AT&T, is a two-way interactive system. AT&T's argument is that you can't put it in the same category and make the service adhere to that regulatory standard. That is a valid argument to me.

Should it be sorted out in court? That is what may happen if both sides don't take some time to discuss and understand each other's position. I hope everyone can convey and understand those nuances. In a recent Multichannel News article, there is one court decision on a case involving Walnut Creek, Calif., which also barred AT&T from putting in the new service:

Cities are within their rights to demand a franchise of AT&T for its video service, according to a ruling from a judge in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The judge, however, did not rule specifically on whether IP-delivered video is a cable service. Cities can pursue franchises because the action is not specifically precluded in the federal cable act, judge Maxine Chesney wrote in a recent decision.

The ruling is a blow to AT&T, which argued that its service (which will deliver programming in data packets at the demand of consumers) does not meet the definition of a cable service.

The company has challenged any attempts at franchising – filing this suit against Walnut Creek in California – as well as another city there to go along with three suits in Illinois. AT&T argued that it has a right to deliver video under the authority given to it as a local-exchange carrier.

Some people are already starting to point to this decision to bolster their position, but to me, the key question was not answered or ruled on: Is IP-delivered video considered a cable service? In the past, I have always pointed out that the creation and acceptance of technology outpaces the regulatory framework that usually lags behind it both in application and enforcement.

Carlinism: An antiquated regulatory framework can only harm progress as the creation and acceptance of new technologies accelerate beyond its scope.

James Carlini is an adjunct professor at Northwestern University. He is also president of Carlini & Associates. Carlini can be reached at james.carlini@sbcglobal.net or 773-370-1888. Copyright 2006 Jim Carlini.

http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=2899

I just read about the Vongo service and it sounds amazing if you are able to connect your PC to your TV. My only two questions are:

1) What resolution are the movies?

2) The website shows fairly recent movies (2003-now). Do they have older movies such as the 70s or 80s?

Hey subwoofer

Check out Yahoo go TV

http://go.connect.yahoo.com/go/tv

bgooch, that only seems great if you have a PC connected to your HDTV and you want a cheap way to copy tv programs. I've always hated the idea of DVR or TiVo charging you a monthly fee. Last time I checked, I didn't have to pay someone for using my VCR.

I still want to find a company that will basically offer Netflix all through a box. Comcast On-Demand is getting closer and closer to that but it would be amazing if they had an endless amount of movies to choose from and a monthly fee where you could get anything at anytime. Imagine surfing through www.imdb.com and picking any movie on there that you want to see right this instant.

What you describe is the promise of IPTV.

In the meantime the players are posturing to be the preferred gateway. I too don't like the idea of paying for program guide information but I am pleased with my purchase of TiVo with lifetime service.

While it may seem counterintuitive for TiVo, I think Yahoo may have the right approach offering an ad supported platform free to consumers. It's in beta testing and they're asking for feedback.

AT&T Denies Lightspeed Delays
Tells us compression & channel bonding the answer
Posted 2006-05-01 17:16:12
Written by Karl Bode

Last week ThinkEquity Partners analyst Anton Wahlman claimed AT&T was having second thoughts about the future of its "Project Lightspeed" network upgrade and IPTV plan. "We believe AT&T will switch gears from VDSL2 around 25 megabits per second to something faster, possibly faster versions of VDSL2 running on shorter loops with potential for as much as 100 megabits per second," he wrote.

By the end of 2008, AT&T says 18 million homes will receive fiber to the node and VDSL2 for the last mile, offering them a total of 25Mbps for both IPTV and broadband. The company wants to deploy full fiber to the home (FTTH) only where it makes financial sense (read: developments like Kiley Ranch, Nevada). In places that can get neither, the company plans to push its "Homezone" DSL/Satellite DVR service.

With VDSL2, after video (& HD) capacity, 6Mbps has been set aside for data at this time, leaving the door open for criticism that this would not be enough bandwidth to "future-proof" the telco from cable competition. This skepticism was fueled by last week's AT&T earnings report, which made nary a mention of the project.

Despite Wahlman's commentary, AT&T tells us that nothing has changed, and "Project Lightspeed" remains on schedule. "We are seeing good results from our controlled market entry," says AT&T spokesperson Denise Koenig. "The service is working well and our subscribers are enjoying it today - we're pleased with the video quality and the features are working as planned."

Koenig says the company is likewise pleased with the speeds they are seeing in the company's controlled launch in San Antonio. "Using VDSL2, we're seeing speeds of 20-25 Mbps at up to 4,000 feet, even more at shorter loop lengths," she says. "On average, we're bringing fiber to within 3,000 feet of customers' homes."

"This gives us more than adequate bandwidth to provide four streams of high-quality video (including one high-definition stream), high-speed Internet access and, in the future, consumer voice over IP services," Koenig insists.

As for future-proofing, execs haven't ruled out someday replacing that last mile copper with fiber a la Fios, but only when it's financially viable. For now, Koenig insists that pair bonding and compression will deliver an additional bandwidth boost if and when 25Mbps becomes too tight a fit.

http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/74032

Well then AT&T/SBC is not a contender for my business.

Whatever happened to terrestrial digital TV? There were some licenses auctioned off and E* bought some for some major markets.

Cablevision had picked up some terrestrial spectrum which at the time was conjectured to be used in conjunction with Voom. Was that transferred to EchoStar?

AT&T Goes Light on Lightspeed Talk

Cingular Wireless’ results and the BellSouth Corp. merger dominated prepared remarks by AT&T Inc. executives during last week’s first quarter earnings call, with nary a reference to Project Lightspeed until the question-and-answer portion of the call.

Senior vice president and chief financial officer Rick Lindner said Project Lightspeed is on track for its commercial launch later this year.

“On the content side, we have a number of deals done, and we don’t see any issues with respect to either our current controlled launch or the commercial launch,” Lindner said. “Pricing is coming in where we have expected it.”

He indicated that while AT&T may be paying slightly more than what cable operators pay programmers, its costs associated with its all-digital IP platform will be less, leaving it with the same gross margins as cable.

As for AT&T’s other video product, Homezone, Lindner said it is “in trial right now, and it’s going very well. We expect to roll it out commercially late this quarter. We will focus on a lot of the areas that won’t have access to Lightspeed in the short term.”

The company added 511,000 digital-subscriber-line customers in the quarter, giving it 7.4 million. Revenue per subscriber is in the low-$30 range per month for consumers, Lindner said, while business revenue is averaging in the mid-$50 range.

http://www.multichannel.com/info/CA6330656.html#6330657

AT&T to Launch Lightspeed Next Month
MAY 02, 2006

AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T - message board) will launch its fiber-based Project Lightspeed services in San Antonio, Texas next month, the company told Light Reading Monday.

AT&T has been trialing the services with a limited number of subscribers –- many of whom are AT&T employees –- in the city, but now will take the next step. "We plan to expand our offering in June, and then we plan to be in 15-20 markets by the end of the year," says AT&T spokeswoman Denise Koenig. "It will be a commercial offering."

Koenig wouldn't say which areas of San Antonio would or could be offered the service in June. AT&T's critics have charged that the new services will be made available only in wealthy neighborhoods, calling it "fiber-to-the-rich (FTTR)." (See SBC Eyes Alamo City for Video and AT&T Readies Lightspeed in North Texas.)

According to city records, AT&T has already begun paying franchise fees to the city. The city council agreed to accept a $415,000 "pre-payment" from AT&T in April, which the city will use to subsidize educational and public access TV programming. AT&T will begin making quarterly payments to the city in the near future. (See SBC on TV Franchise Regs: We're Immune.)

Koenig also declined to say if any of the other markets would also launch in June. But the carrier has been quietly at work in California convincing city councils to grant it permission to offer video service. (See SBC Makes $800M Texas Pledge .)

AT&T is making the argument to cities that no new franchise agreement is necessary because it is simply upgrading its networks for video, city sources say. Using this reasoning, the carrier has reached agreements with the cities of Anaheim and San Ramon, California to move forward with the Lightspeed buildout. (See AT&T Shines a Light on Lightspeed.)

"We are moving forward with San Ramon, and we also have an agreement in Anaheim; in fact the mayor down there didn’t require us to pay any sort of a franchise fee, he just said go in and start building," says AT&T's California spokesman Gordon Diamond.

AT&T won't say when the two cities could launch Project Lightspeed services. San Ramon Parks and Community Services Director Jeff Eorio tells Light Reading that AT&T is now in the process of obtaining permits to install new node equipment in the city. Eorio believes Project Lightspeed services will be available "somewhere between six months and a year" in San Ramon.

Vendor sources close to the carrier say the video service part of Project Lightspeed, called U-Verse, still has some kinks. AT&T is relying on its vendor partners to work out some quality of service problems caused by packet loss within the IPTV distribution chain, the sources say. (See Scaling IPTV: Progress at SBC .)

As video packets travel across the network, making several hops along the way, packets can drop from the video stream when met with bandwidth constraints, software flaws, and other problems. It's not clear what the alleged issue is at AT&T. But anything other than a smooth delivery of data can be a problem in an IPTV network.

As the packets move through the switches and routers at each hop they can arrive out of order, which overload the buffers within the devices. The farther up the distribution chain the packet loss occurs, the more prominent the TV picture problems will be to consumers on the other end.

Vendors close to Project Lightspeed say AT&T may choose to use "forward error correction" technology to fix the problem. It may also attempt to "mask" the problem by adding a slight delay into the video distribution scheme. This would buy the network some time to fix errors before they reach the living room.

Neither Microsoft spokesperson Jim Brady nor AT&T's Koenig would comment on the alleged "packet drop" issue.

— Mark Sullivan, Reporter, Light Reading

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=93777&print=true

Cablevision had picked up some terrestrial spectrum which at the time was conjectured to be used in conjunction with Voom. Was that transferred to EchoStar?

No this would not be any kind of satellite based service.

I think it would require people to mount a rectangular antenna on a window facing the north.

I remember looking at the list of auction winners and no one company had all the markets. E* had bought a lot of the bigger markets.

This was several years ago and obviously they're not marketing these services so maybe they decided it wasn't worth it.

Looks like we're going to be stuck with satellite and cable. And for those lucky enough to be served by Verizon, Fios. Project Lightspeed is just uninteresting.

Looks like we're going to be stuck with satellite and cable. And for those lucky enough to be served by Verizon, Fios. Project Lightspeed is just uninteresting.
We'll see. I'd at least like to see it in action first, especially as it will be the first commercial IPTV offering.

AT&T Files Four More Lawsuits
By Linda Haugsted
5/4/2006 4:31:00 PM

Four more Chicago suburbs were sued by AT&T Inc. for delaying plant improvements that will lead to a launch later of the telephone company's video service.

The new defendants are Itasca, North Aurora, Wood Dale and Geneva. Suits were filed against the Illinois communities May 2 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Previously, AT&T sued the communities of Carpentersville, Roselle and Wheaton, Ill., as well as two communities in California.

The telephone company is taking a hard line against communities that approve moratoria on siting permits. City regulators say they need time to figure out how to safely site the large control boxes -- called 52Bs in the telco's shorthand -- in the public rights-of-way.

AT&T -- which is upgrading its plant to improve service, as well as make ready for video delivery -- said in the lawsuits that any conditions on the siting permits, such as language indicating that a cable franchise may be needed at a later time, are improper, unlawful and unenforceable under state and federal law.

According to local regulators, 10 communities have put the brakes to the improvement drive, called Project Lightspeed. Of those, seven have been sued and three more anticipate legal action.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6331622.html?display=Breaking+News

Thu, May. 04, 2006

AT&T California has appointed Birt Johnson Jr., a 29-year veteran of AT&T companies, to lead the company's construction and engineering in the Valley/Central Coast region.

As general manager for construction & engineering in the region, Johnson will oversee a workforce of more than 750 AT&T employees and be responsible for engineering, design and construction in the territory that stretches from Stockton to Bakersfield and Santa Cruz to San Luis Obispo. Based in Salinas, his new responsibilities will also include AT&T's Project Lightspeed.

Johnson has served as the chairman of the Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce and as a board member for the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, Monterey Peninsula United Way, Santa Cruz County United Way, Monterey County Business Council and Save Our Shores. He presently serves on the board for the United Way of Monterey County.

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/breaking_news/14500843.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Finally, some news from the right coast!


State won’t regulate TV over Internet
Cara Baruzzi, Register Staff
05/06/2006

NEW BRITAIN, CT — In a move designed to lower the cost of cable TV service, the state Department of Public Utility Control indicated Friday that AT&T Inc.’s planned Internet-based television service will not be subject to the same regulatory requirements as cable companies.

In a draft decision, the DPUC said its action should lead to "real choice for consumers."

Advertisement
A final decision is due June 7 after a period for comment, and DPUC commissioners rarely deviate significantly from their draft decisions.

AT&T plans to roll out its version of Internet protocol television, or IPTV, by the end of the year. It will use AT&T’s broadband network to deliver voice, data and television services to customers via an Internet protocol server.

Friday’s decision caps months of debate pitting AT&T against the state’s cable TV companies, which argued that IPTV should be subject to state regulations that require cable providers to obtain franchise agreements in each town they enter.

AT&T argued that IPTV is not a "cable service" because it uses the Internet rather than a broadcast system.

The DPUC determined that IPTV is a form of data streaming and therefore not subject to cable regulations.

"We believe the technology is the key, just as it is in Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), which is Internet telephone service but is unregulated, unlike legacy telephone service," DPUC Vice Chairman Jack R. Goldberg said in a statement.

John Emra, executive director of external and legislative affairs for AT&T, welcomed the decision.

"It’s good for us but, more importantly, it’s good for consumers," he said. "It gives them a choice."

AT&T has not yet determined packages and pricing for IPTV, Emra said, but "obviously, we’re in the marketplace and we need to be competitive."

Paul Cianelli, president of the New England Cable & Telecommunications Association, said the DPUC has created a playing field that is not level.

"While we are still analyzing it, the DPUC’s decision appears to strike a major blow against Connecticut’s consumers, taxpayers, cities and towns, and low-income areas," he said in a statement. "Consumers only win when the playing field is level. The draft ruling would exempt a single corporation from the consumer protections, financial obligations and civic responsibilities required of all other video and high-speed Internet providers in Connecticut."

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said he will fight the preliminary ruling, charging that an unregulated IPTV market would allow providers to "cherry pick" the wealthiest and most accessible customers, leaving the rest with no choice.

"IPTV has enormous potential to lower cost and expand choice," he said in a statement. "The state must guarantee that all citizens have access to those opportunities, while assuring continued public service programming."

DPUC commissioners rejected Blumenthal’s argument.

"The department is committed to public access and the company’s commitments were critical to our approvals," Goldberg said, noting that AT&T’s high-speed Internet service is available to 90 percent of Connecticut consumers.

http://www.nhregister.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=16593819&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=517515&rfi=8

Thu, May. 04, 2006

AT&T California has appointed Birt Johnson Jr., a 29-year veteran of AT&T companies, to lead the company's construction and engineering in the Valley/Central Coast region.

As general manager for construction & engineering in the region, Johnson will oversee a workforce of more than 750 AT&T employees and be responsible for engineering, design and construction in the territory that stretches from Stockton to Bakersfield and Santa Cruz to San Luis Obispo. Based in Salinas, his new responsibilities will also include AT&T's Project Lightspeed.

Johnson has served as the chairman of the Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce and as a board member for the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, Monterey Peninsula United Way, Santa Cruz County United Way, Monterey County Business Council and Save Our Shores. He presently serves on the board for the United Way of Monterey County.


That's good news bgooch I live in Soledad I hope this guy Birt Johnson can get our area done!

[May 08, 2006]

(Dallas Morning News, The (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) DALLAS _ AT&T Inc., criticized for planning to target higher-income customers with its new Lightspeed video programming, promised Monday to reach more than 5.5 million low-income households in the initial three-year rollout.

Internet Telephony Conference and Expo

Speaking to the Detroit Economic Club, AT&T chairman and chief executive officer Edward E. Whitacre said that Lightspeed, an advanced fiber-optic system, "will be deployed wide and far, in keeping with our desire to see broadband everywhere."

Project Lightspeed, in a limited launch in San Antonio since late 2005, will offer voice, Internet and video programming over a fiber-optic network.

By the end of 2008, AT&T expects to invest about $4.4 billion in Lightspeed and reach 18 million households.

Whitacre said AT&T would introduce the product next in Houston. AT&T expects to enter 15 to 20 more markets by the end of 2006.

The announcement about reaching low-income customers may quell some of the criticism AT&T has received over whether lower-income customers would get the advanced telecommunications services later than higher-income areas.

"The (AT&T) statement really isn't about serving consumers," said Kirsten Voinis, spokeswoman for the Texas Cable & Telecommunications Association. "It's about damage control. It's about trying to appease lawmakers."

When AT&T executives briefed analysts about the project in November 2004, they emphasized how Lightspeed would be built to "high-value" customers _ households that spend $160 to $200 a month for telephone, Internet and entertainment services.

AT&T estimated that by the end of 2008, the Lightspeed network would reach 90 percent of its high-value customers, which represent only about one-fourth percent of its customer base.

In the same time frame, AT&T has said it expected to reach 70 percent of its "medium-value" customers, those who spend $110 to $160 a month.

The medium-value customers represent about 40 percent of its total customer base.

The 5.5 million-plus low-income customers would represent about one-third of Lightspeed's potential customers by the end of 2008, roughly proportional to the percentage of AT&T's customers not considered medium- or high-value.

The question of low-income vs. high-income customer became an issue last year when the Texas Legislature made it easier for AT&T and other companies to begin offering video cable service.

Opponents alleged that AT&T would cherry-pick its customers to serve the most profitable homes and ignore lower-income neighborhoods.

AT&T and Verizon Communications Inc., which also supported the legislation, denied any intent to discriminate against poorer households, but also battled efforts by some lawmakers to require the telephone companies to offer video service to all their voice customers.

Analyst Albert Lin of American Technology Research, Inc. said AT&T is in a battle with major Internet companies that want Congress to guarantee "net neutrality" over the lines of AT&T and others.

AT&T is trying to avoid fears that it will discriminate against other companies and users.

"What they've done is to listen to this constant criticism that `Even if we buy into your view of competition, it's only going to serve the wealthy,'" Lin said.

AT&T also announced two other initiatives to bring broadband service to rural and less-populated areas.

It began offering wireless broadband service in the North Texas towns of Frisco, McKinney, Prosper, Centennial and Little Elm, and plans to expand it this summer to Red Oak and Midlothian.

It also said it is teaming up with Internet provider WildBlue to offer high-speed broadband service through satellite technology.

The service will be offered to "select rural markets later this month," AT&T said.

The monthly cost will run from $49.95 to $79.95 for download speeds up to 1.5 megabits per second.

AT&T shares finished up 17 cents, or 0.7 percent, to close at $26.14 in trading Monday on the New York Stock Exchange.

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/05/08/1641180.htm

Thu, May. 11, 2006

FRANCHISE AGREEMENT DEBATED
By Jessie Seyfer
Mercury News

Phone giant AT&T and cable giant Comcast -- the two rivals that want to deliver ``advanced'' TV service to San Jose residents -- each made their case Thursday before the San Jose City Council.

AT&T wants to sell its forthcoming TV package, known as Lightspeed, without having to strike the same kind of ``franchise'' agreements with the city that have governed cable companies for decades. AT&T's TV services would travel by underground fiber-optic networks and eventually reach homes over phone lines.

Franchise agreements are typically designed to ensure that local communities get a share of revenues from television providers. Often such agreements require cable companies to upgrade technology in poorer areas, where the companies make less money, as well as affluent ones, where households can afford premium services.

AT&T argues that having to strike franchise deals with cities will delay the installation of their TV services. Residents deserve these services as soon as possible, in part because the TV competition will lower cable rates, according to the company.

``We just want an opportunity to invest in San Jose,'' said Leon Beauchman, director of regional external affairs for AT&T. ``Not only would it provide the kind of savings that your citizens want, but we are also going to provide jobs in the deployment of our network.''

Comcast, however, holds that the franchise system has worked just fine for years, and ensures local investment into the community.

``Any competitor in the video service company ought to play by the same rules,'' said Eddie Garcia, Comcast's director of South Bay governmental affairs. ``They ought to have the same social and economic requirements that we do.''

AT&T is a new face on the pay-TV landscape, which has been dominated for decades by cable. Under the Lightspeed service, AT&T hopes to invest $1 billion in California to upgrade phone lines and install fiber-optic wires to bring upgraded Internet access and TV service over the next three years.

The California state legislature and the U.S. Congress are both discussing bills to change existing TV regulations, and many local communities are trying to figure out what to do in the meantime. In Sacramento, lawmakers are deciding whether statewide franchise agreements would work, and in Washington, Congress is mulling the idea of nationwide franchises.

For several months, AT&T has been in discussions with San Jose city staff, trying to convince them to strike a three-year agreement -- not to be labeled a franchise -- that would bring Homezone and Lightspeed to city residents while legislators hash out the regulatory issues.

The council is expected to revisit the issue, and possibly vote on a three-year agreement, sometime over the next three weeks.
Contact Jessie Seyfer at jseyfer@mercurynews.com or (408) 920-5425.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/14557965.htm

While the plan is some 18 million homes passed by 2008, AT&T is slated to launch the "Project Lightspeed" VDSL2 and U-Verse IPTV market officially in San Antonio next month, with a dozen or so additional markets slated to launch before year's end. Some users in our forums (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/forum/remark,16098037) claim to have been told the pricing structure for U-Verse.

Yahoo co-branded DSL tiers will come in 1.5Mbps (Express), 3Mbps(Pro), and 6Mbps(Elite) flavors, each with 1Mbps upstream. U-Verse IPTV will come in multiple flavors as well:

The "U-verse 200" package will include 170 channels and local channels, as well as a 1.5Mbps/1Mbps DSL connection, for $85.
The "U-Verse 200 elite" package will include the same 170 channels with local channels, but offer 6Mbps/1Mbps DSL for $94.
The "U-Verse 300" package will include more than 200 channels including all premiums (minus HBO & Cinemax) for $114.

While AT&T would neither confirm or deny these packages for us on the phone, this freshly launched website (http://www.sbcforyou.com/uverse/) would seem to do that for them. It's not clear if you'll be able to mix and match "express", "Pro", and "Elite" DSL speeds with the various U-Verse plans. The packages each include up to 3 tuners with integrated DVRs "at no additional charge", notes the website.

One poster claims that internal testing has shown that 6Mbps DSL tier has been reaching speeds up to 10Mbps. He also claims installations on average are taking AT&T around five hours. That same poster claims that AT&T has standard definition channels streaming at 2megs, with high definition channels streaming at 4megs.

As we recently discussed (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/74336), AT&T won't be offering VoIP bundles with this initial launch, though AT&T vendors are working hard on the new platform to ensure everything works smoothly with the new home gateway and softswitches. No detail was given on when VoIP will enter the mix.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/74521

Interesting. If those prices are for real, even doing a like-for-like comparison (SD only, no premium channels)...that beats the snot out of my current DirecTV plus fixed wireless broadband. Which is already cheaper than Comcast, here. (The big saver is the additional receivers at no charge...nice.)

Here's hoping these prices end up being in the ballpark. Also be interesting to see how much it costs for >3 receivers, HBO, etc.

Prices are good although Whitacre was talking about a $100 bundle for services costing $200 purchased separately. It was to include VOIP and mobile too.

But the question is, what is the reliability and quality? Will the MS software switch channels with no outages? Will it record correctly? Will it for instance miss it if the president gives a speech and cut off your automatic recording of 24?

And what about 2 Mbps for SD and 4 Mbps for HD? MS makes all kinds of claims about their codecs. Are they so good that it will look better than HD-lite at those bitrates?

But the question is, what is the reliability and quality? Will the MS software switch channels with no outages? Will it record correctly? Will it for instance miss it if the president gives a speech and cut off your automatic recording of 24?

And what about 2 Mbps for SD and 4 Mbps for HD? MS makes all kinds of claims about their codecs. Are they so good that it will look better than HD-lite at those bitrates?
All valid concerns, and obviously we won't know until we can see them in action.

But at worst, this will end up being a competitive sword that pushes the cablecos and satellite companies to provide better services for less money.

This may have been addressed already, but AT&T is saying that each of the receivers has DVR capabilities. Has it been announced if these are HD DVR's? Has the HD lineup been announced?

So the U-Verse 300 package includes all 200 channels (less HBO/Showtime), plus 6mb DSL for $114? Not bad, although the HD lineup and HD DVR functionality will make or break this for me.

If you click on the Television link, then look at the U200 or U300 package links here:
http://www.sbcforyou.com/uverse/

it has a lot of asterisks next to things, so it's hard to tell exactly what they're offering right now. It says "Coming soon: HDTV service with an extensive HD line-up available" so one would get the impression they're not even doing HD yet.

AT&T has previously stated that HD is not part of the initial offering but that they plan to add it as soon as possible.

Obviously that does not tell us whether the DVRs are HD-capable or not.

I'm pretty sure it is a Motorola 1216 w/integrated DVR that has HD capability out of the box so it would be good when HD programming is introduced (Sept 06 I think?).

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6336322.html?display=Breaking+News

Blog to Offer Peek at AT&T IPTV

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

By Linda Haugsted 5/19/2006 5:35:00 PM

AT&T Inc. has been quietly beta-testing its Internet-protocol-TV product, U-Verse, in San Antonio, but it has within that test base a potential nightmare client -- a technologically savvy blogger.

Alan Weinkrantz, a technology-public-relations firm owner, will begin Monday to detail his impressions of the product and relate the "save" offer made to him when he dropped his Time Warner Cable service in his blog (www.satechblog.com). He intends to continue his review throughout his four-month trial of the product.

Weinkrantz is the personal publicist of Jeff Pulver, co-founder of Vonage Holdings Corp., the voice-over-Internet-protocol company. He also has technology clients, although AT&T is not one of them, he stressed.

"I don't hate the phone company. I don't hate the cable company. I'm just having fun," he said of the blog.

So far, he misses his Time Warner-delivered HDTV and his digital-video-recorder service, he said. But he's impressed that his television screen now has its own IP address and he loves having a home media gateway controlling three TVs, he added.

==

Should be interesting !

Talk about a simple user interface screen: http://alanweinkrantz.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/dsc_7148_1.jpg

New AT&T Video Strategy Could Be In The Works

Maya Roney, 05.25.06, 12:18 PM ET, Forbes.com

Cowen & Co. expects AT&T to announce a new video architecture with increased revenue potential later this year. The research firm lowered estimates for AT&T based on the company's new reporting and accounting framework, but maintained an "outperform" rating on the stock.

AT&T's "Project Lightspeed" fiber- to-the-node (FTTN) architecture may be experiencing challenges and even if deployed could be un-competitive, said analyst Tom Watts in a note to investors. Watts expects AT&T to move to a fiber-to-the-curb (FTTC) or fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) architecture for selected markets, similar to Verizon Communications' FiOS.

"We do expect many investors to wait to purchase AT&T until its Lightspeed spending plans become clearer," said the analyst. "Once the strategy is announced, and Verizon demonstrates rising subscription rates for its FiOS and video products, we expect AT&T shares to appreciate."

Due to AT&T's new segment reporting, Watts reduced his fiscal 2006 estimates for the company to earnings of $2.04 per share on revenue of $85.48 billion, from earnings of $2.07 per share on revenue of $86.47 billion. The analyst still sees 27% upside versus the market over the next year.

"We do not view the move to FTTH as a changing of horses in the middle of the race," he said. "In fact, the race has barely started. Instead, this is a chance for AT&T to scratch a nag from the race, and replace it with a potential Triple Crown Winner."

http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/25/att-0525markets08_print.html

AT&T will spend $247 million in Kansas

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/14675633.htm?source=rss&channel=kansascity_breaking_news

Wow - what a joke. I was hoping that AT&T was going to keep up with verizon on this service. It looks like the customers at Verizon fios are enjoying their exp. with the TV service. The way things look Lightspeed in my view is going to be subpar. NO HD when launched or anything. I was extremely excited when reading about FIOS but quickly lost it when reading about lightspeed. I wish verizon was in my area:-(.

Couple things to keep in mind:

FIOS isn't IPTV
AT&T plans on adding HTDV pretty quickly

Also keep in mind that as more advanced compression techniques come out, AT&T can deploy them with a simple software push.

Based on the preliminary pricing we've seen, I will be keeping an eye on this. I won't seriously consider it until they add HDTV, but...

Telco television changes channels of distribution

29 May 2006

Telecommunications giant AT&T is reported to be spending $4.6 billion to provide television over broadband in up to 20 American markets by the end of 2006, reaching up to 19 million homes in over 40 markets by the end of 2008.

The company seems to be sticking to these plans, despite scepticism from some analysts that it will reach these targets in this timescale.

AT&T began a trial of its service in its home region of San Antonio in Texas last December, and is finally making at available to test users.

Technology blogger Alan Weinkrantz, who runs a public relations firm in San Antonio, has been posting his experiences of disconnecting his cable company to use the service.

He seems happy enough, and largely uncritical, although his new internet protocol television service does not currently include high-definition channels. He even issued a press release inviting AT&T chairman Ed Whitacre to come over to his house and hand out and watch IPTV over the Memorial Day holiday weekend.

The AT&T IPTV service, originally initiated by SBC as part of its Project Lightspeed, is reportedly due to launch next in Houston, Texas, followed by markets across the regions served by the company in the West, Southwest, Midwest and East Coast of America.

AT&T previously merged with SBC Communications to become the largest telecommunications company in the country and has since announced an agreement to merge with BellSouth.

Verizon is also rolling out its FiOS service with an ambitious fibre-optic network, although it is currently eschewing true IPTV and using technology that is closer to cable television.

There have been suggestions that AT&T may even follow Verizon in extending its fibre network closer to the home.

Both operators are using software from Microsoft, which has also been adopted by several leading European telecommunications companies.

Following a previous pact between Microsoft and Alcatel, the two companies have now announced a partnership with HP, further establishing their strength in the market.

The first impressions from users seem to be that the system is very intuitive. “It was clean, simple and fast to navigate,” commented Weinkrantz on his web site. “The quick changing channels is also a common theme of what people comment on when they come over to see it.”

It is ironic that the speed of channel surfing is one of the much vaunted features of the Microsoft system. It is hardly a tribute to television as a compelling and immersive media experience, and hardly a selling point to television networks or their advertisers.

In the past there may have been 57 channels and nothing on, but IPTV can potentially offer unlimited channels. As Jeff Weber of AT&T points out, changing channels is just like changing URLs on the web. Time will tell whether these will point to a vast wasteland or a world-wide wonderland of possibilities.

http://informitv.com/articles/2006/05/29/telcotelevisionchanges/

From Reuters,

http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-06-01T101408Z_01_N01278706_RTRIDST_0_TELECOMS-CABLE-CALIFORNIA.XML
Stock Market News and Investment Information | Reuters.com

California assembly votes bill easing cable rules
Thu Jun 1, 2006 6:14 AM ET

SACRAMENTO, Calif., May 31 (Reuters) - California's Democratic-dominated Assembly passed a bill on Wednesday that could increase competition among cable television providers and make it easier for telephone companies to enter the market.

The bill by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez would eliminate city-by-city franchises, which he said made it nearly impossible for rivals with new technologies to enter California's market for television entertainment services.

It passed by a rare unanimous vote of 70-0 in the often-divided Legislature, with 10 members not present during the Wednesday night vote. "We need to set a framework that is technology neutral, and we don't have that currently," said bill co-sponsor Lloyd Levine.

Telephone companies including AT&T Inc. (T.N: Quote, Profile, Research) have lobbied for legislation to eliminate laws requiring franchise deals with municipalities before they may offer television service.

AT&T plans to invest up to $1 billion in California through the end of 2008 to upgrade its telephone network in the state and to launch an Internet-protocol video entertainment service, which would would compete with cable-TV companies.

Cable companies have warned that the legislation could have unintended consequences paralleling the California energy crisis that followed deregulation several years ago.

"There we had brownouts, and we realized that it was not entirely a competent job of trying to deregulate the energy industry," said Dennis Mangers, president of the California Cable and Telecommunications Association.

"And if we're not very careful with this bill, we could screw up another whole field of important public policy, in this case telecommunications and video."

The California bill still needs to pass in the state Senate and get backing from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Nunez said his legislation would open the market to competition, leading to lower prices for consumers and investment in broadband technology.

"At the end of the day, consumers will keep some of their hard-earned dollars because we have created competition in a market where there was none," he said in a statement. (Reporting by Tamara Keith, writing by Adam Tanner, editing by J.S. Benkoe; Reuters Messaging: adam.tanner.reuters.com@reuters.net; e-mail adam.tanner@reuters.com, +1 415-677-2541, fax +1 415-986-5147))

Whitacre Sees No Video Price War

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 6/2/2006 2:58:00 PM

AT&T Chairman Edward Whitacre tried to assure Wall Street types at a Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. media conference in New York this week that the entry of telcos into the video space would not lead to price cuts in video service.

When asked whether a price war between telco video, like AT&T's Lightspeed service, and cable wasn't inevitable, Whitacre said: "If I were the cable companies I guess I wouldn't be offering discounts."

He pointed to AT&T's plan to bundle broadband, voice, long distance, wireless, and video (a quintuple play) and said that would give the company flexibility in pricing.

I don’t think there’s going to be a price war. I think it’s going to be a war of value and of services," he said. "I think we will be very well positioned."

Most legislators have pointed to price and service competition as driving forces behind revamping telecom legislation to make it easier to launch video service in competition to cable.

Wall Street is concerned that a price war would affect the long-term health of Lightspeed.

On the issue of 'net neutrality, Whitacre said that he would continue to try to educate Congress that company is "not going to do anything to affect the Internet. Zero."

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6340661.html?display=Breaking+News

AT&T Video Via Phone Approved by DPUC

By STEPHEN SINGER
AP Business Writer

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) _ In a blow to cable TV in Connecticut, state regulators on Wednesday approved a plan by AT&T to offer video over phone lines without requiring it to seek a cable franchise.

In a 3-2 vote, commissioners of the Department of Public Utility

Control said AT&T demonstrated that its video product is a packet of data streamed over a network that is ``fundamentally different'' from cable TV. DPUC Chairman Donald Downes said the agency's decision also met the intent of the state to foster competition, a DPUC spokeswoman said.

How consumers would benefit is up for debate. AT&T said the decision spurs competition, giving consumers more choice.

A representative of the cable TV industry denounced the decision as a boon to AT&T, which is now free of regulations intended to protect consumers. An industry group plans to appeal the ruling. The regulatory battle reflects rapid changes in an industry that is increasingly being blurred by technology and its ability to deliver images, data and telecommunications.

AT&T, once known for its telephone service, is now applying broadband technology to deliver Internet service, video and other products that challenge other businesses and state rule-making.

Following the DPUC decision, AT&T said it will now begin to deploy its Connecticut portion of a fiber optic and broadband network in its 13-state territory. The $4.6 billion system will eventually reach about 19 million households in Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas and Wisconsin. ``Connecticut consumers enjoyed a significant victory today,'' Michele Macauda, president and chief executive of AT&T Connecticut, said in a statement. ``Most importantly, Connecticut consumers will gain a much-needed alternative to their cable company.''

Cablevision Systems Corp., based in Bethpage, N.Y., criticized the decision as a ``special deal for a $100 billion phone company that creates an uneven playing field for competitors.'' Paul Cianelli, president of the New England Cable & Telecommunications Association, faulted the state agency. ``Thanks to the DPUC's decision, Connecticut now has the dubious distinction of exempting telecommunications giant AT&T from cable television regulations designed to protect the public,'' he said.

``Throughout the rest of the country, regulators have protected taxpayers and consumers by forcing the former telephone monopolist to play by the same rules as other cable television providers.'' Cianelli said the cable TV trade group will appeal the DPUC decision in state or federal court.

Cianelli and consumer advocates say the decision will allow AT&T to serve wealthy communities while ignoring others. John Emra, a spokesman for AT&T, said cable TV will now face competition.

``Satellite TV in Connecticut is not really providing competition,'' he said. ``Cable has a real stranglehold in Connecticut.''

http://www.wtic.com/pages/44026.php?

As It Starts TV Service, AT&T Hopes Its Pipes Are Fast Enough
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-att10jun10,1,6128111.story?coll=la-headlines-business&track=crosspromo
From the Los Angeles Times
The phone giant, using Net technology, aims to amaze. But its network isn't the speediest.
By James S. Granelli, Times Staff Writer

June 10, 2006

As phone and cable companies race to be the be-all and end-all connection to the home, AT&T Inc. is betting that its new broadband network will be fast enough to win over customers.

The nation's largest phone company said it would begin "changing the way people watch TV" this month by starting to pump programs over the network, which combines fiber optic cable with existing copper lines.

The move by AT&T comes as it is trying to thwart the advances of cable companies, which are aggressively trying to steal away phone customers.

The public rollout of the network and of AT&T's new pay-television service is scheduled to start within weeks in the company's hometown of San Antonio. Executives say they will add 20 more markets, including Anaheim, by the end of the year.

AT&T and its main partner, Microsoft Corp., have been keeping mum on most details about the service, including its plans for California beyond Anaheim. Nevertheless, industry experts are questioning whether the offering is enough to woo customers away from cable.

"A lot of eyes around the world are on AT&T because this launch is on a very large scale," said analyst Teresa Mastrangelo of Broadband Trends Research in Roanoke, Va. "Will it work? Will service meet expectations? Is there going to be enough bandwidth to do what they want?"

Microsoft also has a lot riding on the project. The Redmond, Wash.-based company wrote the software that will power the video system, which relies on Internet technology. Microsoft also has picked up contracts to provide the software to 14 other companies worldwide, including Deutsche Telekom in Germany, BT in the United Kingdom and T-Online Hungary.

Verizon Communications Inc., the second-largest U.S. phone company, has started adding some of the features of Microsoft's technology to its existing cable-like, pay-TV package, and BellSouth Corp., the next-largest phone company, has committed to using the technology.

"It's TV at the core, but a new type of TV," said Ed Graczyk, Microsoft TV marketing director.

A TV system using Internet technology TV doesn't broadcast all signals at once, as cable or over-the-air networks do. That would require more data than AT&T's copper lines could handle. Instead, the technology delivers only the channel the viewer wants. The software also predicts which channel a viewer is likely to visit next and buffers that data to give what AT&T promotes as instant channel changes.

"Boom, you're there," said Alan Weinkrantz, a technology industry public relations consultant and San Antonio resident who joined the U-verse test group in mid-May and posted his impressions on his daily blog.

Microsoft and AT&T say transmitting video using Internet technology offers richer colors than cable and makes it easier to order video on demand and to watch several picture-in-picture views.

"The user interface is so cool because it's a software metaphor with pull-down menus," said Weinkrantz, who gave up the high-definition TV service he had — and liked — with Time Warner Cable to join the test. "It's faster and more intuitive."

In his blog and an interview, Weinkrantz gave high marks for ease of use and picture quality, though he noticed a "couple of flickers" on the screen during an episode of "The Sopranos."

He knew he would be giving up high-definition television on two of his three sets, including a 56-inch model. He said he would wait for AT&T to introduce a set-top box in October that can handle high-definition and record one channel while he watches another.

"I did it because I really wanted to see what this was all about," Weinkrantz said. "I thought it would be fun to be a tester, and I was curious to see Microsoft's hand in it."

Searching for videos on demand is quick, but it takes 13 seconds to get a movie, he said. And a program guide not only lists what's on but also shows it in a box as he scrolls through the listings of 200-plus channels.

"Today, everything is fine. I'm just a consumer staying at home on the couch, saying, 'Oh, I like this,' and 'Wow, look at that,' " he said.

With TV running over a pipeline along with voice and other data, the company can integrate services, said Chris Rice, an AT&T executive vice president. Television programs, for instance, could be sent to a big-screen TV, computer, laptop or cellphone.

But industry analysts are skeptical about the network, dubbed Project LightSpeed, and the TV service, called U-verse.

"This is a complicated product launch on a scale that is pretty much unprecedented," said analyst Adi Kishore of the Yankee Group research firm in Boston. "They're going to have problems, especially given the relatively tight time frame to get things done."

Experts question the wisdom of creating a network that's likely to be technologically out of date by the time it's complete. LightSpeed is designed to send data at an average of 25 megabits per second by extending high-capacity fiber optic lines to within 3,000 feet of homes. To cover the remaining distance, AT&T plans to rely on new DSL gear to send data humming over existing copper lines.

That's sufficient for standard television, one high-definition feed and a 6-megabit-per-second Internet connection. But cable companies say they have the technology to better that. And Verizon offers as much as 30 megabits per second for Internet use on a fiber optic network that extends all the way to homes. It offers video on a separate fiber optic strand.

"This is a huge debate in the industry," said Maribel Lopez, lead telecom analyst for Forrester Research in Boston. "If you look at the technology three to five years out, this is not enough. But if you look at what most consumers use today, it is."

Unlike Verizon's separate strands for Internet and cable-like video, AT&T must send everything over a combined pipeline, so it's critical for LightSpeed to create an unhindered lane to the home, said analyst Matt Davis of International Data Corp. research firm.

LightSpeed customers would get as much as 6 megabits per second for their Internet connection; the rest would be devoted to the U-verse TV service, said Lea Ann Champion, AT&T's senior executive vice president in charge of the project. "We are seasoned players," she said. "We know how to deliver broadband. We know how to scale, and we build the systems that are necessary to support growth."

She says the company has a number of options to increase bandwidth as consumers' needs grow. For example, it could extend the fiber optic lines closer to homes. The shorter the run on copper, the faster the speeds.

In newly built neighborhoods the company is taking fiber optic lines directly to the homes for the ultimate bandwidth.

Lopez said AT&T also was looking at technology that would compress high-definition TV signals enough to allow two simultaneous streams.

Champion wouldn't comment on the compression technologies the company is using.

The U-verse TV service will be rolled out gradually in each new market, she said, and upgrades will be added along the way.

AT&T's strategy is to bring LightSpeed to 19 million homes in 41 of its markets by the end of 2008 — a little more than half the homes in its 13-state territory, including California. The rollout is expected to cost $4.6 billion. Other customers can get Homezone, a combination of satellite TV and high-speed Internet access, which will be available in the next few months.

Verizon says it will have fiber optic service available to 15 million to 20 million homes in 2008 or 2009. Fiber optic networks for 6 million homes, about 20% of Verizon's territory, will be ready by the end of this year, the company said. The build-out is expected to cost $6 billion by then.

"AT&T is saying, 'This is a good enough network and we'll try to make more interesting TV,' " Lopez said. "Verizon is making a big gamble on a solid infrastructure and will gradually add in more interesting TV."

Edward E. Whitacre Jr., AT&T's chairman, has led lobbying efforts to ease local cable franchising rules for new pay-TV providers. He has touted the need for competition to, among other things, lower prices. But he recently told analysts that he didn't envision a price war.

"I think it's going to be a war of value and of services," he said. With the ability to bundle landline and wireless phone service, video and high-speed Internet "all together, that gives us a lot of flexibility on pricing."

AT&T won't reveal its TV package prices yet. But Internet information company Broadband Reports said users of its online forums learned that the basic bundle of 170-channel TV service plus 1.5-megabit-per-second Internet access would cost $85 a month. The top tier of more than 200 channels with 6-megabit-per-second access would cost $114 a month.

AT&T is smart to look for ways to improve television viewing and make it different from cable TV service, said Kathie Hackler, an analyst at Gartner Inc. research firm. "To come in with a 'me too' offer would be a huge mistake," Hackler said.

As the first company out the door with Microsoft's TV technology, she said, AT&T should take the time it needs to make sure the product works flawlessly because viewers will notice.

Because the Internet technology being used by AT&T breaks signals into packets for delivery and reassembles them at the other end, a few lost packets could mean missing the winning field goal in the Super Bowl or a key scene in "Desperate Housewives."

"There's a big difference when you're trying to go into a market that has been working well," Davis of International Data Corp. said. "You can't have any hiccups."

AT&T rewrites rules: Your data isn't yours
- David Lazarus
Wednesday, June 21, 2006

AT&T has issued an updated privacy policy that takes effect Friday. The changes are significant because they appear to give the telecom giant more latitude when it comes to sharing customers' personal data with government officials.

The new policy says that AT&T -- not customers -- owns customers' confidential info and can use it "to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process."

The policy also indicates that AT&T will track the viewing habits of customers of its new video service -- something that cable and satellite providers are prohibited from doing.

Moreover, AT&T (formerly known as SBC) is requiring customers to agree to its updated privacy policy as a condition for service -- a new move that legal experts say will reduce customers' recourse for any future data sharing with government authorities or others.

The company's policy overhaul follows recent reports that AT&T was one of several leading telecom providers that allowed the National Security Agency warrantless access to its voice and data networks as part of the Bush administration's war on terror.

"They're obviously trying to avoid a hornet's nest of consumer-protection lawsuits," said Chris Hoofnagle, a San Francisco privacy consultant and former senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

"They've written this new policy so broadly that they've given themselves maximum flexibility when it comes to disclosing customers' records," he said.

AT&T is being sued by San Francisco's Electronic Frontier Foundation for allegedly allowing the NSA to tap into the company's data network, providing warrantless access to customers' e-mails and Web browsing.

AT&T is also believed to have participated in President Bush's acknowledged domestic spying program, in which the NSA was given warrantless access to U.S. citizens' phone calls.

AT&T said in a statement last month that it "has a long history of vigorously protecting customer privacy" and that "our customers expect, deserve and receive nothing less than our fullest commitment to their privacy."

But the company also asserted that it has "an obligation to assist law enforcement and other government agencies responsible for protecting the public welfare, whether it be an individual or the security interests of the entire nation."

Under its former privacy policy, introduced in September 2004, AT&T said it might use customer's data "to respond to subpoenas, court orders or other legal process, to the extent required and/or permitted by law."

The new version, which is specifically for Internet and video customers, is much more explicit about the company's right to cooperate with government agencies in any security-related matters -- and AT&T's belief that customers' data belongs to the company, not customers.

"While your account information may be personal to you, these records constitute business records that are owned by AT&T," the new policy declares. "As such, AT&T may disclose such records to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process."

It says the company "may disclose your information in response to subpoenas, court orders, or other legal process," omitting the earlier language about such processes being "required and/or permitted by law."

The new policy states that AT&T "may also use your information in order to investigate, prevent or take action regarding illegal activities, suspected fraud (or) situations involving potential threats to the physical safety of any person" -- conditions that would appear to embrace any terror-related circumstance.

Ray Everett-Church, a Silicon Valley privacy consultant, said it seems clear that AT&T has substantially modified its privacy policy in light of revelations about the government's domestic spying program.

"It's obvious that they are trying to stretch their blanket pretty tightly to cover as many exposed bits as possible," he said.

Gail Hillebrand, a staff attorney at Consumers Union in San Francisco, said the declaration that AT&T owns customers' data represents the most significant departure from the company's previous policy.

"It creates the impression that they can do whatever they want," she said. "This is the real heart of AT&T's new policy and is a pretty fundamental difference from how most customers probably see things."

John Britton, an AT&T spokesman, denied that the updated privacy policy marks a shift in the company's approach to customers' info.

"We don't see this as anything new," he said. "Our goal was to make the policy easier to read and easier for customers to understand."

He acknowledged that there was no explicit requirement in the past that customers accept the privacy policy as a condition for service. And he acknowledged that the 2004 policy said nothing about customers' data being owned by AT&T.

But Britton insisted that these elements essentially could be found between the lines of the former policy.

"There were many things that were implied in the last policy." He said. "We're just clarifying the last policy."

AT&T's new privacy policy is the first to include the company's video service. AT&T says it's spending $4.6 billion to roll out TV programming to 19 million homes nationwide.

The policy refers to two AT&T video services -- Homezone and U-verse. Homezone is AT&T's satellite TV service, offered in conjunction with Dish Network, and U-verse is the new cablelike video service delivered over phone lines.

In a section on "usage information," the privacy policy says AT&T will collect "information about viewing, game, recording and other navigation choices that you and those in your household make when using Homezone or AT&T U-verse TV Services."

The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 stipulates that cable and satellite companies can't collect or disclose information about customers' viewing habits.

The law is silent on video services offered by phone companies via the Internet, basically because legislators never anticipated such technology would be available.

AT&T's Britton said the 1984 law doesn't apply to his company's video service because AT&T isn't a cable provider. "We are not building a cable TV network," he said. "We're building an Internet protocol television network."

But Andrew Johnson, a spokesman for cable heavyweight Comcast, disputed this perspective.

"Video is video is video," he said. "If you're delivering programming over a telecommunications network to a TV set, all rules need to be the same."

AT&T's new and former privacy policies both state that "conducting business ethically and ensuring privacy is critical to maintaining the public's trust and achieving success in a dynamic and competitive business climate."

Both also state that "privacy responsibility" extends "to the privacy of conversations and to the flow of information in data form." As such, both say that "the trust of our customers necessitates vigilant, responsible privacy protections."

The 2004 policy, though, went one step further. It said AT&T realizes "that privacy is an important issue for our customers and members."

The new policy makes no such acknowledgment.

David Lazarus' column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. Send tips or feedback to dlazarus@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/21/BUG9VJHB9C1.DTL

Scary stuff. As excited as I've been about U-Verse, I don't much care for the erosion of civil liberties we've had lately, and AT&T agreeing to offer up information without the compulsion of a warrant bothers me significantly.

I'll have to email Mr. Lazarus & thank him for the info.

If the representations alleged to have been made by AT&T are true, then I won't be considering switching to Lightspeed if it ever becomes available in my area.

I'll have to email Mr. Lazarus & thank him for the info.

If the representations alleged to have been made by AT&T are true, then I won't be considering switching to Lightspeed if it ever becomes available in my area.
Same here, and in fact, I may switch to Comcast internet service. It looks like this covers regular DSL service as well.

Jun. 21, 2006

ST. LOUIS - State regulators in Missouri have demanded to know whether AT&T violated consumer privacy laws by giving the federal government customer phone and Internet records.

The subpoenas served Monday require AT&T to respond by July 12 with records and testimony by company officials under oath, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Wednesday.

They were filed after AT&T announced last week that it cannot and will not answer any questions. The company has said national security laws preclude it from revealing what it might have done.

New Jersey's state attorney general issued similar subpoenas last week. The Justice Department is seeking to block them.

Missouri's, New Jersey's and other legal challenges set the stage for fights between the state and federal government over competing interests - civil liberties vs. national security.

The challenges accuse the government of abusing anti-terrorism laws, and AT&T of allowing government agencies to monitor millions of phone calls and e-mails without legal authority.

The government maintains that confirming or denying sensitive information would put the phone company in a position to cause "exceptionally grave harm to the national security."

The Missouri and New Jersey subpoenas ask whether the phone company is releasing information to the government without any court order or search warrant.

In Missouri, Public Service Commissioners Steve Gaw and Robert Clayton have made numerous written requests with AT&T and its affiliates, for the company's legal authority to provide customer calling information to the government.

AT&T official Alfred Richter Jr. responded to Missouri last week, saying the company could be found in violation of federal law by stating whether it has provided information to the National Security Agency.

USA Today and The New York Times have reported that AT&T secretly gave the government records revealing who millions of customers have talked to.

Missouri regulators said they issued 12 subpoenas, one each for documents and testimony, because AT&T operates under at least six names in Missouri.

Gaw and Clayton said they have legal and moral obligations to enforce state consumer-privacy laws. They said they want to know if AT&T is releasing the private information of Missouri citizens illegally.

Meanwhile, a federal court in St. Louis is weighing a customer's civil lawsuit that seeks damages from AT&T over the issue.
Information from: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, http://www.stltoday.com

AT&T plan would cost city
Giant utility wants to install high-speed system that would mean less revenue for cities.
By Chris Wiebe
(Published: July 4, 2006)

BURBANK -- City officials are negotiating with representatives from telecommunications giant AT&T to accelerate a process to bring cable television services to Burbank residents over the Internet.

The proposed plan, dubbed Project Lightspeed, calls for installing broadband cables within 3,000 feet of homes in Burbank to facilitate quicker Internet speed and to enable AT&T to provide both cable television and telephone service online, Assistant City Manager Mike Flad said.

But with transmission lines for television and telephone signals moving from above-ground and underground cables to fiber optic networks under the plan, the city would lose its ability to impose traditional telecommunication taxes, Flad said. The city would also lose the ability to regulate the placement of the infrastructure required to provide a service, Flad said.

"If our wired telephone went over the Internet, we could lose $3.5 million per year in recurring money," he said. "For us, this infrastructure, while on its face is a great thing and gets customers and our citizens the fastest and highest and best technology available, what it could cause is a fiscal crisis for us in the short term. It's just a matter of figuring out how to make cities' revenue streams work."

A bill pending in the state Legislature would shift fees municipalities receive from companies that utilize city infrastructure to a statewide model, meaning a more uniform standard for telecom providers, but less revenue for cities, Flad said.

Through negotiations with AT&T, officials hope to forge an agreement that could put the city in a better financial position once the legislation is passed, Flad said.

The city, for instance, wants to recoup costs from AT&T that the city will likely incur to process the numerous permits required to supply power to AT&T's forming network.

Granting the city such amenities would allow AT&T to begin constructing its network, rather than waiting until the legislation progresses through the Legislature and is signed by the governor.

AT&T is negotiating with municipalities in order to expand consumer choice in the cable television market, AT&T spokesman Gordon Diamond said.

"There's certainly something going on at the state level but we still have been in discussion with cities, including the city of Burbank, and really what it means is to be able to provide this new technology, to provide consumers with a choice for video services," Diamond said.

But City Councilman David Gordon voiced concerns over the details of negotiations, which have not been made available for public input, adding that increased competition does not necessarily mean a better result for the consumer.

"I think providing better and alternative cable services is great," he said.

"I think people have been asking for that for a long time. But the problem is you don't want to sell your soul to the devil in order to get competition .... Just because there's more competition doesn't mean there's going to be better service or less cost."

QUESTION

What do you think about a plan to wire Burbank with cable television over the Internet? E-mail your responses to burbankleader @latimes.com; mail them to the Burbank Leader, 111 W. Wilson Ave., Glendale, CA, 91203. Please spell your name and include your address and phone number for verification purposes only.

* CHRIS WIEBE covers City Hall and the courts. He may be reached at (818) 637-3242 or by e-mail at chris.wiebelatimes.com.

http://www.burbankleader.com/front/v-printer/story/49790p-76172c.html

Check out www.uverseusers.com Looks to be a promising forum for getting *real* details from actual users and ATT techs. They also have a photo of the "top secret" channel lineup card.

Here's an interesting post (http://www.uverseusers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10):

U-Verse will use the Motorola VIP 1200 and VIP 1216 STB's, which support both SD and HD video. The current STB from Tatung supports only SD video. The 1200 is diskless, and the 1216 comes with a 160Gb HDD. Combined, this will allow for whole home DVR, with diskless STB's in the bedrooms, den, etc. accessing the HDD in the living room/home theater. As one writer noted, there are no tuners in the box, therefore no limit to the number of video channels and DVR sessions from a hardware perspective. The only limit is bandwidth into the home, with U-Verse supporting four simultaneous streams initially, meaning that there could be a combination of up to four Live TV, VOD or DVR streams into the household at any one time. As AT&T increases network bandwidth over time, the number of simultaneous streams supported will also increase, with no need to replace the STB's. DVR can be recorded in the background while another video activity (Live TV, VOD) is taking place, so long as the four stream threshhold into the household is not exceeded. If users on other TV's are watching currently recorded programs, then this has no impact on streams into the house, i.e. they can be watching/recording up to four additional streams whle watching DVR. The reason for limited info on this STB is because the product is in final stages of test and integration, before it is launched commercially, which is planned for later this year - it is very close to being ready. There is a brief description at:

http://broadband.motorola.com/catalog/productdetail.asp?ProductID=454

While it says Eurpoean version, this is the same platform for NA. Understand that Deutsche Telecom and other European operators are also launching IPTV.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/networktv/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002838929


AT&T U-Verse TV to Offer NFL Net

John Consoli

JULY 13, 2006 -

AT&T U-Verse TV will begin offering the NFL Network, including its Thursday-Saturday National Football League regular season package, under a deal announced today.

The distribution agreement will include both standard definition and high definition feeds of the network, as well as video-on-demand programming.

AT&T U-Verse is television delivered by fiber-optics technology. AT&T expects to reach nearly 19 million households by the end of 2008.

"We are eager to be part of the AT&T U-Verse experience and to further diversify our customer footprint by delivering NFL Network to U-verse subscribers," said Brian Decker, NFL Network vp of national accounts.

Just had AT&T U-Verse (IPTV) installed on Friday. Up to 30MBPS IP into the house. 6 MBPS dedicated to Internet and the rest to the IPTV.Some intial glitches, but as of now everything operating great. Lots of on-demand programming. HD Programming will not be available till later this year, but it should be well worth the wait. Still have my Dish HDTV programming till AT&T releases HD.

Just had AT&T U-Verse (IPTV) installed on Friday. Up to 30MBPS IP into the house. 6 MBPS dedicated to Internet and the rest to the IPTV.Some intial glitches, but as of now everything operating great. Lots of on-demand programming. HD Programming will not be available till later this year, but it should be well worth the wait. Still have my Dish HDTV programming till AT&T releases HD.

Where are you located?

San Antonio, TX. I believe that this is the first Test Market for AT&T.

Just had AT&T U-Verse (IPTV) installed on Friday. Up to 30MBPS IP into the house. 6 MBPS dedicated to Internet and the rest to the IPTV.Some intial glitches, but as of now everything operating great. Lots of on-demand programming. HD Programming will not be available till later this year, but it should be well worth the wait. Still have my Dish HDTV programming till AT&T releases HD.

Just had AT&T U-Verse (IPTV) installed on Friday. Up to 30MBPS IP into the house. 6 MBPS dedicated to Internet and the rest to the IPTV.Some intial glitches, but as of now everything operating great. Lots of on-demand programming. HD Programming will not be available till later this year, but it should be well worth the wait. Still have my Dish HDTV programming till AT&T releases HD.

TTF, thanks for the info. I think you may be the first U-Verse user to post on AVS!

Where are you located? San Antonio?

How many STB's do you have installed?

If you don't mind, what's the package you ordered and the price?

Do you have to be an AT&T landline phone customer to get U-Verse?

Where are you located? San Antonio? - Yes

How many STB's do you have installed? - 2. One is the main STB w/ DVR for my Living Room. Bedroom STB can use this DVR as well. Was surpised by the manufacturers choice - TATUNG. Had never heard of them before.

If you don't mind, what's the package you ordered and the price? I ordered the Top Tier Package U400 (all movie channels) and Elite DSL (up to 6 mbps). Price is only $25 a month for the 1st 3 months. After that it will boost to $126/m. Have not seen what increase there will be once they offer HD programming.

Do you have to be an AT&T landline phone customer to get U-Verse? I believe so.

Here is a link to there website

Uverse.att.co_m

Can check availabilty, pricing, and packages

-TTF

Sorry
.com

Do you have a DVR? If so, how is it? Is 6mb the max for internet connection, or can you purchase a higher plan?

Are they running fiber to your home or still copper to get those speeds?

I'd heard that unless AT&T went to fiber, they were going to be stuck between 20-25 Mbps total bandwidth so 30 Mbps is somewhat surprising.

Tatung used to make cheap PCs. Probably some Taiwanese manufacturer.

How is the channel switching? Two channels simultaneously? Are the STPs connecting to the phone jacks which were already in your home or did they put in new copper inside the home?

Are they running fiber to your home or still copper to get those speeds?Fiber to what they call the "Node" and copper to the home.

How is the channel switching? Instantly in a pip.

[/IMG]Two channels simultaneously? Yes

Are the STPs connecting to the phone jacks which were already in your home or did they put in new copper inside the home? They actually use COAX to an apapter that converts to CAT5.

There is a DVR, but it does not seem as advanced as Dish Network's.

6 mb is the highest you can get right now, but have heard that w/ the HD rollout there will a faster package you can purchase as well.

-TTF

U-Verse is supposed to get Discovery HD and NFL Network HD. Those are the only HD channels I've seen anything about so far.

For more info, check out the ever expanding AT&T Lightspeed thread that's been around since the beginning of the year:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=638947

AT&T U-Verse adds "TV One":

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6354222.html?display=Breaking+News

I'd heard that unless AT&T went to fiber, they were going to be stuck between 20-25 Mbps total bandwidth so 30 Mbps is somewhat surprising.
Most of the folks over at uverseusers.com have mentioned getting 30mbps+. And in theory they could do pair bonding at some point to double that.

At the farthest reachs of VDSL you should be able to get 20M.

Pair bonding is a definate possibility in the future.

Just like DSL, closer to the DSLAM the better, should get upwards of 40M+ at some of the closer points.

VDSL2 will only enhance this...

AT&T U-verse TV to Include Content From MTV Networks and BET Networks Program Services

SAN ANTONIO, July 20 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T), MTV
Networks and BET Networks, divisions of Viacom (NYSE: VIA and VIA:B), today
announced a distribution agreement to deliver MTVN and BET linear, high-
definition, on-demand and digital music programming as part of the AT&T U-
verse TV(SM) channel lineup.

Under the agreement, AT&T will provide its U-verse TV customers with
the following network entertainment brands: BET, BET J, BET Gospel, CMT,
CMT Pure Country, Comedy Central, LOGO, MTV, MTV2, MTV Hits, MTV Jams, MTV
Espanol (soon to become MTV Tr3s), Nickelodeon, Nick2, Nicktoons, Nick GAS,
Noggin, The N, Spike TV, TV Land, VH1, VH1 Classic, VH1 Soul and VH Uno.
Additionally, AT&T will deliver MTV Networks' and BET Networks'
video-on-demand content as part of the U-verse "Free On Demand" platform
and will also carry MTVN's recently-launched high-definition channel, MHD;
MTV's channels specifically designed to serve ethnic populations in the
United States, including MTV Chi, MTV Desi and MTV K; as well as digital
audio radio programming from URGE, MTV Networks' new digital music service.
"The MTV Networks and BET Networks brands are among the strongest in
television," said Dan York, head of programming, AT&T Operations, Inc. "We
are very happy to be offering the wide array of MTV Networks and BET
Networks program services to AT&T U-verse customers."

"MTV Networks and BET Networks are dedicated to bringing our audiences
the content they are passionate about," said Nicole Browning, president,
affiliate sales and marketing, MTV Networks. "As AT&T U-verse TV develops
new platforms to provide an advanced and personalized entertainment
experience for consumers, we are delighted to partner with them to deliver
our strong brands and services and further diversify our customer
footprint."

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!(R) 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.

AT&T going 40G
AT&T plans to begin upgrading its global MPLS backbone to 40Gbps OC-768 speeds this summer.
[AT&T going 40G]

The upgrade is part of AT&T's network expansion plan announced in February. That plan is funded by a 2006 capital expenditure budget of US$8 billion to $8.5 billion.

AT&T Senior Vice President and CTO John Stankey announced the 40Gbps upgrade, which will quadruple the backbone's current bandwidth, during a keynote address at this week's Globalcomm 2006 conference in Chicago. Stankey said initial deployments of OC-768 will be in 31 U.S. cities by the first quarter of 2007.

Global Crossing this week also disclosed it has begun upgrading its MPLS backbone (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/060706-global-crossing-upgrades.html?brl) to OC-768.

Stankey also said AT&T is on target to roll out IPTV in 15 to 20 markets by the end of this year. He said AT&T has been able to achieve 20Mbps to 25Mbps over 4,000 feet, and even more in shorter distances.

IPTV is one application of AT&T's $6 billion Project Lightspeed fiber and DSL deployment.

http://www.pcwelt.de/news/englishnews/NetworkingTelecommunication/41529/

No matter how fast the 'backbone' may be, the bottleneck for AT+T will be the fact that they are not using fibre to the house, unlike Verizon. Until I can have 3 or 4 different, high bit rate HD channels delivered at the same time to my house with the ability to record them to a HD DVR, I will not switch from Directv. Unless there is some kind of breakthru' in ADSL technology, I don't see how AT+T can accomplish the above, unless they compress the hell out of the HD signal, in which case I would not switch. If I could purchase verizon's FTTP service, I'd get it tomorrow.
Bish

I tend to agree, but with MPEG4 they could get at least 2 HD channels in that pipe at the same time so they could be recorded.

And with pair bonding they could double the rate into the house.

Comparisons to FIOS are silly, since FIOS isn't switched video.

comparisons to verizon are irrelevant since you're not going to have an option between the 2 services. Having SBC FTTN will be superior to any other service available to SBC regions.

Comparisons to Verizon are extremely relevant, in that both AT+T and Verizon are the only two major 'phone companies' investing in providing TV services to consumers, but that they choose differing paths to deliver it. It has been stated by analysts and mentioned here that SBC's, (AT+T's), decision to use FTTN and IPTV was based on economics, and ultimately may end up costing them more than Verizon if they are forced to installed FTTP eventually to compete with cable, DBS, etc. Frankly I am amazed that SBC made their decision since surely their analysts would have told them that 'bandwidth' to the consumer will be everything in the future, and FTTP provides 'unlimited' bandwidth; (not really but you know what I mean).

I would love to switch to AT+T as they are supposedly going to offer IPTV soon here and I am very unhappy with the quality of Directv's SD and HD; but it is a complete 'non-starter' for me as HD is my main goal, and as I said, it is not uncommon in my house for there to be 3 different HD programs being watched on differing displays at any one time, (as well as perhaps another HD program being recorded on the HD-Tivo).
Bish

Comparisons to Verizon are extremely relevant, in that both AT+T and Verizon are the only two major 'phone companies' investing in providing TV services to consumers,

I'm tired of DirecTV's HDLite.

I really liked the sound of Verizon providing many HD channels to the home with what I've been reading here is the best HD quality available. In the real world, Verizon will not be (for what ever the reasons) offering their service to me probably in my lifetime.

Soooo,

Is this AT&T service be like Verizon's? Another words, with many HD channels with just as high of HD quality that Verizon offers?

Comparisons to Verizon are extremely relevant, in that both AT+T and Verizon are the only two major 'phone companies' investing in providing TV services to consumers, but that they choose differing paths to deliver it.
The point was that it doesn't matter what the differences are to the end user as you will be locked into one or the other depending on your service area. For example, customers in Verizon's service area need not even pay attention to what AT&T is doing as they won't be doing it in a Verizon market, and vise versa.

Yes, I think the Verizon scheme is probably better, but being in a AT&T market it doesn't matter to me if Verizon could send 100 HD channels at once because I don't have the option to choose Verizon, I'm stuck with whatever AT&T decides to offer.

Is this AT&T service be like Verizon's? Another words, with many HD channels with just as high of HD quality that Verizon offers?

It remains to be seen. ATT has not yet launched the HD channels in it's initial market, San Antonio. I beleive they said HD channels will launch in a month or two.

Some people here have said DirecTV's new MPEG4 is as good as OTA, and ATT is using MPEG4, so we shall see...

AT&T's U-Verse Is Cable, Says NCTA
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 7/31/2006 3:20:00 PM

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association told the FCC in a July 31 letter that it should hold AT&T's U-verse video service to the same regulatory standard it does cable systems.

AT&T has been arguing that its IP (Internet Protocol)-delivered service is materially different and should not be subject to the same franchise-regulation scheme as its cable competition. NCTA counters that: "As a matter of policy, AT&T has not shown that it is offering any video services that are any different from the video offerings being provided by other multichannel video programming distributors," says NCTA. "And even if it had, to the extend laws need to be changed to facilitate deliver of such services, Congress must change them, and any changes must be applicable to all providers of like services."

AT&T recently won a victory in Connecticut, where the in a June 3-2 vote along party lines Wednesday, the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control basically ruled that "a byte is a byte is a byte," as department Chairman Jack Goldberg sad, whether it is video or data.

That means that AT&T, says Connecticut, is "merely another form of data stream," and therefore not subject to cable franchising requirements.

With the decision, Connecticut's incumbent local exchange carriers will now be treated differently as they seek to compete for video business. AT&T, which owns Southern New England Telephone, needs no franchise, while Verizon, which says its service is cable TV, must seek one.

AT&T has agreed not to discriminate in service, to provide public, governmental and educational channels (PEG) and made other guarantees that the DPUC said were "critical" to its approval.

NCTA says Connecticut made the wrong call, and points out it has been appealed.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6357968.html?display=Breaking+News

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6360906.html?display=Breaking+News

By Karen Brown 8/9/2006 1:48:00 PM

AT&T’s U-verse TV service now has Starz and Showtime thanks to two new programming deals.

AT&T announced Tuesday that it had inked a carriage deal with Starz Entertainment Group to carry the premium-network provider’s linear, HD and on-demand programming. That includes 18 Starz and Encore channels ranging from Starz on Demand and Starz HDTV to Encore, Encore on Demand and Encore Love.

On the heels of that deal, AT&T Wednesday announced that it had secured rights from Showtime Networks to distribute Showtime, The Movie Channel, Flix, Showtime Too, Showtime Showcase, Showtime Extreme, Showtime Beyond, Showtime Next, Showtime Women, Showtime FamilyZone, TMC xtra, Showtime HD, The Movie Channel HD, Showtime On Demand and The Movie Channel On Demand.

Both deals are helping U-verse to reach critical mass in its programming lineup in order to rival those of cable and satellite competitors. Recent deals also secured programming from Discovery Networks U.S., MTV Networks and BET Networks.

All the services will be delivered via AT&T’s Project Lightspeed fiber-optic network, which will extend optical lines into customer neighborhoods and supply high-speed connections through copper phone line or, in some new-home-construction projects, direct fiber links.

AT&T’s plan is to reach 19 million homes by the end of 2008.

==

Took 'em long enough !

Known U-Verse HD channels:

Discovery
NFL Network
MHD
Wealth TV
Starz
Showtime
The Movie Channel

Bellsouth (Soon to be AT&T) especially in S. Florida where they have fiber installed to many of the newer homes. Their plan 5+ years ago was called fiber to the curb. I had DSL, Digital TV and phone service for 4 years running (except on Video went with D*) on fiber. My DSL connection was a linksys 10/100 Ethernet network card to a RJ45 plug. that went by cat5 to a Fujitsu box located in a neighbors yard that was the termination for the backbone fiber supporting a cluster of 4 homes. (No modems, etc.)

But Bellsouth sold off their Broadcasting business to Cox Cable two years after their initial offering. I think they followed at&t selling TCI since AT&T was in the video market before. (I think it was TCI broadcasting or some similar company)

AT&T Still Has IPTV 'Jitters'
AUGUST 11, 2006

Industry sources say AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T - message board) is struggling with video packet loss on the eve of the major market launch of its U-verse IPTV service.

Word has it the U-verse network loses roughly two packets of data per minute. “A lost video packet is more than 1,400 bytes of information, and that's going to cost you a half second of video,” one source says. For the viewing public that can mean little annoyances like screen pixelation and jitter -- or, at worst, full screen freezes.

In the U-verse distribution network, video packets hop from AT&T’s video super headend, to regional headends, to the local central offices, to nodes in the neighborhoods. At each "hop," packets can arrive in incorrect order or overload the buffers within the routers and switches, leading to losses.

An AT&T spokesman chose not to comment on the packet loss issue.

Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT - message board), which supplies the IPTV middleware for the U-verse network, is said to be hard at work increasing its product's capacity for dealing with lost packets. Using a software algorithm called Resilient UDP, the set-top box, upon detecting missing or misplaced packets, sends a "resend" command up through the network. The missing packets are then sent down from a server. (See Microsoft Soups Up the Set-Top.)

That works fine if traffic levels are normal, the source says. But if packet loss should occur during the final minutes of the Super Bowl, a million resend requests could pummel the network at the same time, seriously burdening the system.

One source close to the situation says Microsoft has already built in a 15 to 30 second delay to live video streams to allow some time for dealing with packet loss. AT&T, the source says, is uneasy about the scaleability of the setup.

Microsoft TV Edition product manager Jim Baldwin says his company's middleware platform adds roughly a quarter of a second delay for packet error correction and another second of delay for instant channel changing, but that's it. Baldwin says AT&T is perfectly happy with his company’s Resilient UDP approach to packet loss, but says AT&T may decide to use forward error correction as well.

The Scientific-Atlanta Inc. encoders at the headend of the system, Baldwin says, will add a certain amount of latency to the video streams, but AT&T will decide how much. Scientific-Atlanta chose not to comment for this story. (See AT&T, Verizon Tout Telco TV .)

Meanwhile, AT&T may be hedging its bets. Sources close to the situation say AT&T engineers are experimenting with forward error correction (FEC) on one leg of AT&T's video network. Applied near the headend encoders, FEC adds additional video bitstreams that can be used to reconstruct damaged streams on the fly, downstream in the network. Also at the headend, the video packets are tagged sequentially so that the system can detect interruptions in the packet order downstream. The FEC technology monitors the bitstreams at several points in the network, including the set-top box, to detect missing or damaged packets.

Baldwin says FEC works well when the type and size of the packet loss is predictable. But IP networks can lose a whole packet, groups of consecutive packets, or just one bit within a packet, he says.

U-verse was already under criticism, as analysts have noted the initial Project Lightspeed rollout of broadband access won't have the punch to carry high-definition TV, and some question whether Lightspeed will roll out as quickly as AT&T hopes. (See Is Lightspeed Slowing?)

Flickers of trouble?
U-verse debuted in late June in AT&T’s home turf of San Antonio, Texas, and the AT&T spokesman says the service is getting good reviews from users. The few actual U-verse users contacted by Light Reading say the packet loss issue, at least so far, hasn’t been very visible on their TVs. (See AT&T to Launch Lightspeed Next Month.)

“The flicker [pixelation] has only appeared a few times,” says U-verse user Alan Weinkrantz. “But keep in mind that I also have HD Cable from TimeWarner, and there are times when I also get flicker or a nano-of-a-second blur on that.” Weinkrantz, whose day job is as a technology public relations man, has become a minor celebrity through his U-verse user's blog.

“I had some pixelation the very first day after I got service,” writes another U-verse customer, Chad Brantly. “The next day, I got a call from AT&T. They said that they had been having some problems in my area, but they had just done a hardware update and things should be better. Since then, I haven't seen any pixelation. The service has been great,” Brantly writes.

A few unhappy U-verse adopters, however, have shown up on a bulletin board called Uverseusers.com. One of the five discussion threads on the site is called “pixelations and freeze-ups,” wherein three users -– “eapinsatx,” “dilbert” and “nohbdy” -– complain of moderate to serious pixelation and screen freezes.

Heavy Reading analyst Rick Thompson points out the San Antonio debut is probably happening in a very "controlled" network environment. With the technology world watching, AT&T is surely taking steps to make sure the fledgling service makes a good first impression.

But the issue of scaleability looms for AT&T’s engineers, as the carrier plans to roll out U-verse in 15 to 20 markets by the end of 2006. (See AT&T Readies Lightspeed in North Texas.) "It's one thing to get a complex technology like IPTV rolled out to a group of a few thousand users," says independent telecom analyst Kermit Ross. "But it’s quite another thing to kick that up a notch to a few hundred thousand and then yet another thing to kick it up to a few million users."

In other words, once AT&T cranks up the numbers, any failure to tame packet loss will be evident on millions of TV screens.

— Mark Sullivan, Reporter, Light Reading
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=101056&print=true

From the middle of the following article comes this quote ".... in the Los Angeles basin - where there are no community access stations, also known as PEG channels (Public, Education and Government access)."

The preceding is misleading and inaccurate. TWC - Los Angeles has 5 PEG channels: 10 Local Origination/the California Channel, 25 PEG, 35 PEG LA Cityview, 36 The LA Channel, and 98 PEG.

The Fight for Local TV
Sunday, August 13, 2006
By Kate Woods
CMAP's director becomes "David" pitted against Goliath telephone companies
Don't look now, but if you live in Gilroy, Hollister or San Juan Bautista, you're on the verge of losing the few stations on your cable menu that give you what you want.
Channels 17, 18, 19 and 20 are the local CMAP channels that give you live, professional coverage of your teenager's football game, in-studio classes for painting and physical therapy, music and even emergency alerts from the front lines of a nearby catastrophe.
CMAP, which stands for Community Media Access Partnership, is the station that brings every local city council and supervisors' meeting into the homes of cable users, where viewers can scream privately at the local lawmakers without making a public scene. It's also the station that teaches locals how to create and produce their own shows.
All that could change with new legislation on both the federal and state levels that would, essentially, allow powerful phone companies Verizon and AT&T to get into the cable TV game at the expense of community TV stations. Verizon and AT&T are already cozy with the federal government, having opened up customers' records without a warrant to the National Security Agency.
At the forefront of this war is CMAP's director Suzanne Saint John-Crane, who has been in the local access business for 15 years.
If the phone companies, and more recently the cable companies, and their political patrons win, it means the end of CMAP, Saint John-Crane believes.
"If they win, we could close," she said, speaking from her office in the CMAP studios at Gavilan Community College in Gilroy. "The three cities of Gilroy, San Juan and Hollister spent years negotiating with the cable company that says a portion of this service has to go back to fund community cable. All that negotiating goes out the window."
For the past year, Saint John-Crane has spent every spare moment and more on trips to Sacramento and Washington D.C. to inform representatives on what's at stake, not an easy feat as the career woman juggles a family with a new toddler. It's frustrating for her and her colleagues because there has been little exposed about the struggle in the news.
That could be because only 35 percent of households (13,000 homes) in CMAP's footprint get the service, as media mogul Rupert Murdoch's DirecTV and the rest of the satellite industry gain more of the market with every passing year.
It's no wonder the tireless CMAP chief is neck-deep in this fight. Saint John explains that CMAP of Gilroy is a new model that other state public access channels have emulated, and it's one of the last franchises of its kind in California.
"And what happens in California sets the tone for the rest of the country," Saint John said. "It's like David and Goliath."

Double the corporate welfare
The fight over control of public access media comes replete with fat campaign contributions to those politicians sponsoring the new bills, a lack of understanding by both consumers and lawmakers, and a liberal use of a tool so prevalent in politics today - the Orwellian vernacular.
For those trying to keep public access TV truly public, they've seen it all before. On the federal level, the House bill, which recently passed, is regarded as an updated version of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which was supposed to spur competition and lower prices to consumers.
Opponents say just the opposite happened. According to SaveAccess, a national organization against the bills, the 1996 Telecom Act was ballyhooed as a job-maker that would herald a golden economic era: its backers touted it would create 1.4 million jobs and a $2 trillion-dollar boost to the nation's gross domestic product.
"But by 2003, elected officials were referring to a $2 trillion dollar loss in the marketplace value of companies in the telecommunications sector, and a loss of 500,000 jobs between 2001 and 2003," according to the SaveAccess.
In addition, cable rates rose by 50 percent and local phone rates went up by more than 20 percent. Local radio stations folded and now Clear Channel alone owns more than 1,200 stations. The group estimates about 10,000 people lost their jobs because of the takeovers.
"Both (the House and Senate bills) would give the Bells new incentives in the form of national franchises with no 'build-out' requirements for states or cities to be fully wired," writes Bruce Kushnick, a telecom analyst who directs Teletruth, an independent customer advocacy group focusing on broadband and telecom issues. "The cable companies currently have local franchises, where the companies have to meet specific requirements for local provisioning, such as local access channels. This new corporate 'one size fits all' national franchise is not about customers but about expediency and lack of community services, as the House bill allows the new entrants (that is, the phone companies) not to worry about local, existing obligations."
Ironically, the House bill is named COPE - the Communications, Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006, sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas). The Senate bill has an equally dubious title: Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006, otherwise known as the Steven's Bill because it is being pushed by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska).
"The phone companies have had extensive financial incentives before, but they have never fulfilled their obligations," Kushnick stated. "Rewarding them for such a record is brazen, and raises the question of whether Capitol Hill lawmakers are in cahoots with the telecoms."

Pork and pricy beans
What the texts of these bills don't tell people is that their sponsors have reaped hefty campaign contributions from those corporations drooling over passage. Save Access reports Democratic House co-sponsor Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois received a $1 million for a pet pork project, a nonprofit community center, from an AT&T/SBC foundation over the past five years.
In addition, an entire section of the bill is devoted to satellite services to be used in Alaska and Hawaii. TVPredictions, an online publication about new TV technologies, recently reported how a significant portion of Stevens's campaign contributions come from Rupert Murdoch's empire, including DirecTV. The report went on to say that Senator Stevens has not commented on the contributions.
On the state level, local access advocates are fighting AB 2987 - a designation that Saint John says is "seered into her mind." The bill, she says, will take away two-thirds of CMAP's budget and possibly close the station, as well as dozens of others throughout the state. A recent amendment to the Assembly bill designates the California Public Utilities Commission as the lead bureaucracy over the new state franchise, which the telephone companies would hold.
"That means when, say, a consumer like Ruth Erickson (of Hollister) is having a problem with her cable, she calls Clay Lee (Public Utilities Manager of Hollister)," said Saint John. "There's a person to deal with it. So under the new law she would have to call the PUC. They would be it!"
"The driving force behind AB 2987 is the telephone industry," Saint John added.
Kushnick agrees, and says the phone companies haven't lived up to their commitments.
"In California, the big thing is that the Pac Bell made promises to have the state rewired and never did it and that any plan SBC has put forward, like Lightspeed, is simply a crippled network and can't compete with anything being offered today in Asia," he told The Pinnacle.
Saint John goes on to note that the two Democratic Assembly representatives pushing the bill, Speaker of the House Fabian Nunez and Lloyd Levine, Chair of the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee, represents districts that are in the Los Angeles basin - where there are no community access stations, also known as PEG channels (Public, Education and Government access).
"They've never stepped into a community access station," Saint John said. "And AT&T is Fabian Nunez' biggest campaign contributor."

Stomping on Astroturf
According to the progressive educational advocates, Common Cause, there's a new "wolf in sheep's clothing" in the fight over local cable access. They are so-called "consumer advocates" paid for by the telephone companies, that pro-PEG fighters call "Astroturf lobbyists."
Saint John has had her own run-ins with the phenomena. Recognized as a national leader in the fight against the new legislation, Saint John was due last May to testify before a televised Senate hearing on the issue in Washington DC. At the last minute before the hearing, the group Saint John is involved in - the 30-year Alliance for Community Media - was pulled out of the testifying line-up and replaced with an Astroturf group called Video Access Alliance, made up of "concerned consumers" whom Saint John and many other true consumer groups say are paid by Verizon and AT&T.
"The frustrating thing was that there was no representative there testifying on behalf of community TV," Saint John said. "And the creepy thing is that Astroturf group sounds the same as the name of our group."
When she got bumped off the list, Saint John called the office of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif), who was on the Senate panel. Saint John armed herself with the transcripts of the House hearing that had occurred earlier this year, when Rep. Ed Markey exposed a woman who posed as a consumer advocate but who really represented the same Astroturf group that replaced Saint John's group. Now the same woman was talking before the Senate committee.
As the proceedings unraveled on a Web cast in her Watsonville home, Saint John frantically emailed to the blackberry of Boxer' aide, who then fed Boxer pertinent questions posed by Saint John. Contending with an unruly two-year-old, her husband baffled by the scene, Saint John watched the Web cast as one-by-one the senators asked the Astroturf woman innocuous questions, with Boxer's turn coming down the line.
"Markey had exposed her as a paid consultant for the telephone companies, and I was trying to alert Boxer of this," Saint John said. "I'm trying as fast as I can to type and by the time it came to Boxer she clearly had done her homework. Her assistant was handing my comments to her while my 2-year-old is screaming and my husband is, like, 'what in hell is going on?'"
In the end, Boxer exposed the woman as well. It was a small victory in a war that pits powerful corporations against local control of community TV.

Bake sales not enough
Saint John explains that CMAP's budget is $300,000 and should the state legislation pass, 75 percent of that will be cut with a mandate that it be plowed into capital, with no expenses for salaries, insurance or public training. Recently, a Verizon representative suggested she obtain the money for operating costs from local city governments.
"I invited him to a Hollister City Council meeting and ask that of Mayor Robbie Scattini," she laughed.
The Verizon guy declined.
"Bake sales and silent auctions won't cut it," she said. "I can write grants to produce videos, at maybe $6,000 a year. But there are no foundations that sponsor costs for our industry. It's not the answer."
"Honestly, I just want to go back to my desk and do my job," added Saint John. "But if you don't speak up, your representatives won't do the right thing."

For more information on the fight to keep local access cable local, go to the CMAP web site at http://www.mycmap.org/

Kate Woods
Pinnacle Senior Staff Writer http://www.pinnaclenews.com/news/co...ew.asp?c=192197

You know, I'm as left as they come, but that article is just loaded with off target hyperbole and rhetoric, very poorly written and as a result doesn't serve it's intention very well at all.

You know, I'm as left as they come, but that article is just loaded with off target hyperbole and rhetoric, very poorly written and as a result doesn't serve it's intention very well at all.
I gave up about a third of the way through it. It reminded me of the disjointed mumbling my last roomate would utter while taking a nap on the couch after work. The difference is, I think he may have actually repeated "the numbers"....

:p

Let me sum it up for you (though I couldn't get through it all the way either). Somebody's about to loose (or thinks they're about to loose) a mandated subsidy to public access TV and is all P'O'd about it. Well too bad! The article already mentions that 35% of the local area doesnt' receive public access because they've gone to satellite. Well guess what, that was their choice, and if others go to whatever AT&T provides (U-verse) and that package doesn't have public access, that'll be their choice as well.

So let public access be just like any other programming and for those that value it, they'll choose a provider that offers it, which I'd guess will include the telephone companies too in time.

What a bunch of socialist non-sense.

chris

I smell cable-tv money and legal resources behind Ms. Saint John. Of course, all lobbyists smell to me.

Article Last Updated: 8/13/2006 06:46 PM

Time Warner would get competition in city deal
BY JUDY O'ROURKE, Staff Writer
LA Daily News

SANTA CLARITA - Cable TV customers may soon get a choice between AT&T and Time Warner under a deal being negotiated by city officials.

Lawyers for AT&T and the city have not yet sealed the deal, but officials have given the go-ahead for a three-year contract.

"For the first time, residents will have multiple choices for TV services. They won't be limited to one cable company or satellite," said Kevin Tonoian, the city's technology services manager.

Before Time Warner Inc. and Comcast Corp. consolidated their systems Aug. 1, each company served cable customers in designated parts of town.

AT&T is expected to launch its video service at the end of the year or early next year. It will initially be offered to about 60 percent of the community, or about 32,000 households.

A company spokesman would not define the expected service area boundaries or how much the service would cost, but said the company eventually wants to serve all customers "in their territory."

"We want to be priced competitively," said Gordon Diamond, an AT&T spokesman. "We can't say the cost, we're not actually providing service in California yet, so it's premature to speculate on what pricing will be."

Under the plan, AT&T would route programming through its existing phone network, which the company is upgrading.

A Time Warner representative said the company will continue to court customers with competitive prices and investment in the community, like sponsorship of the annual Santa Clarita Cowboy Festival.

"We welcome competition," said Deane Leavenworth, a spokesman for Time Warner. "Satellite is a strong competitor and we compete with the phone company on our cable modem service and with our phone service."

In the fall, Time Warner Cable will offer digital cable, high-speed Internet and digital phone services - each for $44.95 a month - and discount packages for bundling a pair or all three.

Comcast is the largest cable operator in the country and Time Warner is the largest in Southern California, with 1.9 million subscribers in Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties.

Nevertheless, the Greater Los Angeles Area has the highest satellite subscription rate in the country.

The two major satellite providers in Santa Clarita are Dish Network and DirecTV.

Heather Black, a spokeswoman for Dish, said in an e-mailed statement that the company has no comment on AT&T's entry into the market.

DirecTV officials acknowledged the competition.

"Exclusive programming like NFL Sunday Ticket, CD USA, (and) advanced services that include interactive content, like the upcoming features for the U.S. Open telecast, DVRs and expanded (high-definition) programming create what we in the industry call extremely sticky customers," Robert Mercer, a DirecTV spokesman, said via e-mail.

He noted the company may offer a nationwide broadband service as well as bundled offers.

State law requires cable competitors to serve the same territory as existing providers. Usually, cities negotiate 15- to 20-year franchise contracts with cable operators.

Time Warner has signed a franchise agreement with the city, but AT&T's short-term deal is different. It allows the city to opt out if pending legislation stipulates more favorable terms.

A bill now in the Legislature would regulate telecommunication providers like AT&T and Verizon through a statewide franchise.

Assembly Bill 2987 must be passed by Aug. 31 or the process would need to start over in December, said Michael Murphy, the city's intergovernment relations officer.

If the law is adopted, it could take effect Jan. 1.

In the meantime, Santa Clarita City Council members approved the three-year deal with AT&T to fill the gap between AT&T's service launch and the time when the measure's terms could go into effect, Tonoian said.

The city has not taken a position on the bill, but the League of California Cities, a statewide group that advocates public policy on behalf of local governments, opposes it.

A league representative said opposition centers on three areas: The bill would allow providers to pick and choose which areas they service, potentially leading to discriminatory practices; cities would no longer be able to negotiate the number of public access channels and the amount paid for them; and the bill could allow current cable providers to walk away from their contracts with cities.

"We're not against competition," said Jennifer Quan, a league spokeswoman. "Under the current paradigm, AT&T can go to the city and negotiate a franchise agreement. Our concern is under 2987, they're bypassing local process and not addressing the three issues."

But Diamond said the agreement does not specify how the system will be built out, and that public access provisions should be comparable.

"We certainly are looking forward to providing customers with a new choice for video," he said. "They haven't really had much of a choice. That's evidenced by the fact that cable rates have gone up 86 percent in the last 10 years."

judy.orourke@dailynews.com

(661) 257-5255
http://www.dailynews.com/santaclarita/ci_4177203

http://www.uverseusers.com/article.php/exclusive-hd-and-motorola-stb-rollout

UverseUsers has received word from an insider close to AT&T's U-verse project that the launch of the new Motorola set top box is planned to begin on October 25th and run through the end of November. During this time, all of the Tatung boxes will be replaced by one Motorola VIP 1216 for the main TV and the VIP 1200 for all other TVs. The 1216 will contain a 160GB hard drive with the capacity to record both SD and HD content encoded in H.264 format. The 1200s will be diskless, but will be able to stream content from the 1260 towards the end of the year when the whole-home DVR is launched.

Along with the Motorola boxes, AT&T will be rolling out a new 2Wire gateway, the 3800HG-V with internal HPNAv3. This will eliminate the need for the little black HPNA adapters at every device on the network and should bypass some of the pixilation issues caused by loose connections.
HD programming will also be introduced alongside the Motorola boxes, but will be restricted to one HD stream at a time initially. This will allow AT&T to evaluate the impact that the larger data stream will have on the entire network before moving to 2 concurrent HD streams hopefully later in the year.

As with any forward-looking report, this information is subject to change should AT&T encounter any problems or delays. Stay tuned to UverseUsers.com for more info as it becomes available.

Please Note: The new set top boxes will be based on the models listed above, but may have a different name than the one shown. They will most likely also have a few U-verse-specific features that are not discussed in the linked documents.

Naperville pulls plug on Lightspeed

Posted Thursday, August 17, 2006
By Jake Griffin, Daily Herald Staff Writer

Living up to its name, AT&T’s plans to roll out its controversial Project Lightspeed multimedia service in Naperville were quashed in the blink of an eye.

An angry city council rejected the telecommunication giant’s request Tuesday to offer the service without full build-out in the city after learning the company had reneged on several negotiating points previously agreed upon.

City Manager Peter Burchard said the city received a letter Tuesday morning from AT&T officials indicating they were pulling back from the bargaining table after more than five months of talks.

“I’m very sorry I wasted my time meeting with AT&T,” Councilman James Boyajian said. “I have not dealt with many companies that showed less integrity than AT&T on this thing and if this is the way they are going to do business, other municipalities better watch out.”

AT&T officials said the council’s vote bars competition.

“The city council has known from the start that any build-out provision would be an absolute deal breaker and stop the competition dead in its track,” AT&T spokesman Rob Biederman said.

Project Lightspeed is touted as the telephone company’s response to cable companies dabbling in the phone industry. The AT&T service would offer video, phone and high-speed Internet through phone lines. But AT&T officials didn’t want to subscribe to state laws that govern other cable companies. They contend they are not a cable company.

The two cable companies currently offering service in Naperville, Comcast and Wide Open West, fought AT&T’s proposal, saying all the services should compete on a level playing field.

AT&T has sued other local municipalities — including Wheaton, Roselle and Geneva — for not allowing the company to offer the service to residents. The Naperville vote didn’t preclude the company from offering the service, it just requires AT&T to offer it to everyone in the city like the other cable companies do.

Burchard said the city even offered one option where AT&T wouldn’t have to provide full coverage if it paid the $1.7 million the city receives annually in cable franchise fees. He said that was rejected by AT&T.

When asked if the company would sue, AT&T Vice President Mike Tye said, “I can’t answer that. We’ll go find a community that wants us to be there.”

City officials said they believe AT&T never wanted a deal with Naperville, it just wanted to build a case against municipalities to show congressmen and senators why federal intervention is necessary. A court reporter sat through Tuesday’s debate on AT&T’s dime.

“They’re going to say they tried to negotiate, but the cities wouldn’t cooperate,” Councilman Doug Krause said. “There’s legislation that’s passed the House that will allow companies to do whatever they want in a municipality’s right-of-way and that would usurp all municipal authority.”

Councilmen said they would be contacting Illinois senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama to make sure they knew how AT&T handled the negotiations.

“We’ve wasted and spent an awful lot of time with those guys and if they really wanted an agreement to put that in our town, we sure made that available,” Councilman Richard Furstenau said. “This apparently was just posturing to them and I think they feel they’re going to do better in Congress where they’ve spent a lot of money to get legislation they want passed.”

http://www.dailyherald.com/story.asp?id=217696

Oh well, Naperville's loss will be some other cities gain. Just my opinion, but this is not the days of cable pioneering where the cities and towns could guarantee a monopoly to the cable entrant in exchange for full build out and whatever franchise fees, etc. they wanted. This is becoming a competitive market and towns won't be able to dictate terms to new entrant's like they did back when. They'll just go where the politician's are more open to providing more choice to their constituents.

Oh well, Naperville's loss will be some other cities gain. Just my opinion, but this is not the days of cable pioneering where the cities and towns could guarantee a monopoly to the cable entrant in exchange for full build out and whatever franchise fees, etc. they wanted. This is becoming a competitive market and towns won't be able to dictate terms to new entrant's like they did back when. They'll just go where the politician's are more open to providing more choice to their constituents.
That's one way of looking at it, although don't count on the service being deployed to all of that politician's constituents, which is exactly what ATT wanted to do above. ATT is cherry-picking, plain and simple.

AT&T has sued other local municipalities — including Wheaton, Roselle and Geneva — for not allowing the company to offer the service to residents. The Naperville vote didn’t preclude the company from offering the service, it just requires AT&T to offer it to everyone in the city like the other cable companies do.

When asked if the company would sue, AT&T Vice President Mike Tye said, “I can’t answer that. We’ll go find a community that wants us to be there.”

..at least part of that community anyhow...

Interview: Fighting AT&T

Peter Collins, IS Manager for Geneva, Illinois
Posted on 2006-06-08
Written by Karl Bode

Though one is using more fiber, both Verizon and AT&T have plans to upgrade their networks and offer video services. While they may not like them - Verizon is signing video franchise agreements with each community they want to serve.

AT&T meanwhile is arguing that existing franchise agreements do not apply to "Project Lightspeed", and any town or city that disagrees with this premise is being sued. Peter Collins, the Information Systems Manager of Geneva, Illinois, is on the receiving end of one of those lawsuits.

Peter has a unique view of the nation's broadband infrastructure, as his city tried twice to wire itself with fiber and offer residents fiber triple-play services, only to be beaten back by deep pocketed incumbent PR campaigns. We discuss his city's past battles, the current lawsuit, and Geneva's difficult technological dance with regional incumbents AT&T and Comcast.

BBR: Voters have twice decided to vote against your city's efforts to deploy fiber and IPTV services to your community. Can you briefly explain your role in that process, and explore what you believe happened?

PC: As most on BBR already know, citizens of Geneva, St. Charles, & Batavia had a municipal broadband question placed before them on the ballots in April 2003 and November 2004. In both referenda, approval by the voters would have brought a fiber to the home system run by a collective "TriCity" municipal entity to all that wanted to take service from the cities. That system would have offered cable television, high-speed internet & phone services initially, with later ideas being alarm services direct to our 9-1-1 center and remote meter reading for our electric and water utilities. It would have been a competitive option for our communities, not a requirement.

As all three cities each own their electric utilities (you pay the city not ComEd), we own our utility poles and have the trucks and linemen to support our outside plant. In addition, our electric linemen in all three cities are also trained in fiber splicing - we already run municipal fiber networks serving the needs of local government buildings, electric & water utilities, and our local school districts.

BBR: And the public was interested?

PC: Prior to the first referendum, the cities had done extensive in-house surveys of both the residential and business communities regarding interest in such a project and found a desire for such services. So the cities put out an RFP for a feasibility study to assess the costs and required market share to develop such an offering for commercial and residential uses. As part of that study, more surveys were conducted. Again, they showed a desire for services from the citizenry. Based on the results of that study and the continued support from the community, we went to ballot in April 2003.

BBR: Can you clarify the financials behind the plan?

PC:The entire plant would have been built across the three cities over the course of about 3 years - from engineering to rollout. The build costs would have been backed by General Obligation bonds - a potential property tax risk - at a total cost of $62 million. The issue failed at the polls by a 60/40 split.

BBR: But there was a second push -

PC: The citizen group that pushed the issue via education, yard signs, etc. - remember a city can not advocate "yes" or "no" once the item is on the ballots - brought the issue back in November 2004. While cities have the power to put an issue on the ballot via a city council vote, a citizen's group must collect signatures to bring a question to a vote. That is exactly what Fiber For Our Future did for the 2004 vote.

They, not the cities, took the initiative and did the legwork to bring the issue back to the polls. They, not the cities, got the original consultant to update the feasibility study to show that the dollar amount had actually dropped to about $55 million. Moreover, most importantly, Fiber For Our Future, rewrote the referenda questions to remove the possibility of any tax-backed financing for the build out. The cities were free to pay for the buildout any way they liked, but they could not put the taxpayers up as collateral.

Even with that, the issue lost at the polls by about a 55/45 margin.

BBR: But there was a lot of scare-mongering going on by incumbents, as we've reported. Can you go into that?

PC: How do I explain this? The citizenry, in both votes, thought there was a substantial tax risk or, in many cases, an actual tax increase. The main source of that logic was force-fed to our communities by SBC & Comcast (see examples here, and this video of an AT&T exec downplaying fiber -Ed.) The superior marketing power of these two companies squashed the under funded output of Fiber For Our Future.

One could certainly argue that the marketing prowess actually went in favor of the citizen's group that spent $4,325 and got 45% of the vote to the combined reported SBC/Comcast spending of $282,064 to achieve 10% more.

BBR: With it behind you, what do you think Batavia, St. Charles, and Geneva could have done differently?

PC: As I mentioned earlier, once the issue has been placed on a ballot, the cities themselves are prohibited from spending taxpayer funds to push a "yes" or "no" vote. All the cities can do is inform: "this is what the project is and here's what it aims to achieve." Elected officials and citizen's groups are obviously allowed to voice their views as they see fit. They are free to call press conferences to dispute misinformation. This is an area in which Lafayette, LA and their citizen's groups really played, and continue to play, the game right.

When the incumbents say something outlandish to confuse your citizenry, I think you've got to come right back and tell your community, "Actually, here's the real deal". You have to keep coming back again and again with the truth, not "truthiness", because you certainly can't outspend the incumbents. I think Lafayette might have known the "Chicago way" better than we did.

BBR: Did you see greater deployment or service improvement in your area by Comcast or AT&T after the vote?

PC: On the Comcast side of the fence, we went from having no cable modems to full coverage in all three cities. Of course, we also got the price increases as well.

As for AT&T (then SBC), we saw increased DSL rollout. The local POP is in Geneva so we were relatively covered, but Batavia & St. Charles were really hurting. That has largely changed now.

I live near downtown Batavia. It used to be that I was unable to get either a cable modem or DSL. Now I can get both.

BBR: Historically, Comcast and AT&T have a long backstory in your neck of the woods, could you elaborate on that?

PC: The current AT&T was made up of the merger of SBC and AT&T. In our area, SBC was the result of the absorption of Ameritech into the SBC family. Remember the Ameritech has already had a venture into the video arena with their Americast offering and failed.

Likewise, the former AT&T also gave up and sold of all of its local AT&T Broadband holdings to Comcast.

Now that the two companies - that have both failed in video delivery in the past - have merged to become the "new at&t", are we supposed to believe they'll get it right this time?

BBR: As far as "this time" goes, your city recently imposed a 180-day build-out moratorium on AT&T "Project Lightspeed". Can you explain why?

PC: The long and short if it is:

We believe AT&T is a competitive video service and is required play by the same rules to which other terrestrial based providers in our city (in Geneva's case - Comcast) have to adhere.

We believe that we have a responsibility under the Illinois Level Playing Field Statute [65 ILCS 5/11-42-11(e)] that we have a duty to defend our existing franchise holders. (More detail here -Ed.)

Since AT&T does not seem to have a desire to follow all the requirements of Geneva's video franchises, most notably a "full coverage" requirement, and will not currently agree to such a provision, AT&T will not be allowed to offer those services in Geneva.

BBR: You're now being sued by AT&T for your position. Can you explore any direct contact you've had with AT&T? Has the negotiation consisted of lawyer letters, or human-to-human contact?

PC: We have had direct discussions with AT&T. They have their outlook and we have ours. Obviously, we think our view is correct and in the best interest of our city.

In addition, Geneva is a member of the Metro West Council of Government, which is in turn a member of the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus and under that organization's umbrella, the larger group has had several discussions with AT&T.

In fact, the Mayor's Caucus issued a letter last week to all the 272 municipalities it serves concerning the status of negotiations. We hope that the larger group with be able to convey to AT&T how serious this issue is to all cities.

BBR: Other cities in California were similarly sued. Some, such as Lodi, decided to back off the legal battle. Others, like Walnut Creek, persisted, and have at least seen initial success in the courts. Will Geneva be willing to take this legal battle as far as they can?

BBR: We expected this path to be a potentially rocky one, and as such, did our legal homework upfront. Geneva sought advice from some of the top telecommunications lawyers in the country (see this pdf -Ed). We feel our case is sound, and more importantly, we believe it is vitally important that the cities defend the rights of all of their citizens equally. It would seem problematic, at best, for a city to enter into an agreement that allows for, and actively uses the power of the city to redline its own citizens.

As to the lengths Geneva will go, that will largely depend on the advice of counsel and ultimately the elected officials.

BBR: As other neighboring cities are sued by AT&T, do you have plans to work with them, legally?

PC: It appears this may be the best approach for all involved, as all the lawsuits are nearly identical. Four of us (North Aurora, Roselle, Wheaton & Geneva) are being represented as a group.

BBR: AT&T is clearly running local ads claiming you're impeding "progress & competition". Are you having success this time around educating locals on why you've decided to fight AT&T's notion that they need no franchise agreement?

PC: Most of the ads are largely transparent to our communities. In Geneva, we've been through the broadband referenda in the past, so their behavior here is really nothing new. AT&T continues to play the same games as they have in the past. We continue to publicly repeat our stance. And, in the end, we're simply upholding the law in the State of Illinois.

BBR: What happens if AT&T simply decides to move on and leave the area un-served? Would the city consider making a fresh run at building their own fiber network?

PC: I suppose you could look at it this way. If AT&T passes us by while we're upholding the law, we're really no worse off than we are now. In Geneva's case, we don't have direct cable competition as it stands currently. We certainly welcome AT&T trying to provide a competitive service to our citizens, but it all comes down to everyone being treated fairly - both the businesses that operate in our town, and most importantly, our residents.

As to a fresh run, that's a question for our elected officials. If they feel the time is right to move in that direction, it's always an option because of our existing electric utilities.

From a geek point of view, AT&T is still attempting to deploy equipment that is sub par to the offering that we, the cities, suggested in 2003 and again in 2004. Fiber to the Home is the Holy Grail and AT&T doesn't think we're worth it.

http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/75205

AT&T turns back on Chicago suburb over franchise agreement

8/18/2006 12:40:20 PM, by Eric Bangeman

AT&T is starting to roll out Project Lightspeed, its new fiber-to-the-node network, in selected areas around the US. Project Lightspeed will allow the telecom to offer integrated voice, data, and television service over a single pipe in wired areas. However, deployment has run into a few snags.

One catch has been franchise agreements. AT&T has been reluctant to negotiate franchise agreements with cities and towns, preferring to enter into a "memorandum of understanding" with each municipality. Negotiations have been contentious in some cases, and in one large Chicago suburb, have ground completely to a halt.

In Naperville, a city of over 100,000 people in Chicago's western suburbs, AT&T has decided against signing an agreement that would have allowed it to offer its IPTV service within the city limits. The sticking point? Naperville's insistence that the telecom offer its services throughout the city, instead of just within selected neighborhoods. AT&T says that's a no-go because of the expense. Citing precedent, AT&T VP of legislative affairs for the Midwest Mike Tye affirms that the company won't sign the agreement. "Nowhere in this country has AT&T agreed to a build-out requirement," he said.

Fiber deployments are expensive, but that is not what's at the root of the issue. Verizon and AT&T have both been lobbying Congress for a "national franchise" that would allow them to offer TV wherever they choose without having to negotiate franchise agreements like cable companies have in the past. In exchange for the national franchise, the telecoms would pay a defined percentage of local revenues to the local governing body.

By resisting Naperville's proposal, AT&T appears intent on stockpiling ammunition for a national franchise. If every city is going to insist on unreasonable terms, the argument goes, the fiber buildout will be too expensive and not worth doing.

The counterargument is that AT&T only intends to serve relatively affluent areas with its fiber network, leaving thousands of households out in the cold. (AT&T says it plans to offer its fiber services to 5.5 million low-income households by the beginning of 2009.) Illinois law supports Naperville's position, as it mandates that cable companies offer their services to all residents of a municipality, not just selected subdivisions; AT&T contends that it is not covered by the law, as it is a phone company with a TV offering.

A reworking of US telecommunications laws that emerged from the Senate Commerce Committee in late June would give Verizon and AT&T the coveted national franchises, but that law is currently stalled with the threat of a filibuster looming large. Unless AT&T and Verizon are able to convince Congress that—despite the fact that they offer television programming delivered to homes over wires—they are not cable companies and therefore deserve special treatment, there will be a lot of Napervilles in their future.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060818-7543.html

Once again, thanks bgooch, this thread gives me the feeling I'm staying right on top of what AT&T is doing, keep it coming. :)

Naperville's AT&T video deal collapses
Communications firm rejects plan city OKd

By Andrew L. Wang and Jennifer Taylor, Chicago Tribune. Andrew L. Wang is a Tribune staff reporter. Jennifer Taylor is a freelance reporter

August 18, 2006

Naperville officials say AT&T may have deliberately soured a video services deal with the city as part of a strategy to show federal lawmakers that it's not feasible to sign agreements with each locality, as cable companies must do.

At a meeting Tuesday night, the Naperville City Council unanimously authorized a deal with AT&T for its Internet protocol television service that included a so-called "build-out" provision, which would have mandated that every city residence be able to receive the service.

But Mike Tye, AT&T's Midwest vice president of legislative affairs, called the stipulation a "deal-killer" for AT&T because it would be too expensive in today's competitive climate.

"We will not sign the agreement," Tye said. "Nowhere in this country has AT&T agreed to a build-out requirement."

For about five months, AT&T and Naperville have been negotiating a deal that would have provided hundreds of channels of television content, video-on-demand and other digital extras via high-speed Internet networks. Until this week, it appeared the deal was moving toward completion.

But now the company argues that it never committed to a build-out requirement.

Naperville officials said they welcomed competition in television services but contended a deal including the build-out clause is the "most responsible" option for the city because it would allow all residents to choose between AT&T's service and the cable-television services already offered in Naperville.

AT&T has aggressively been trying--with mixed results--to break into the paid-television market in the Chicago suburbs, where cable companies have long dominated.

The company has sued seven suburbs--Wheaton, Roselle, North Aurora, Geneva, Wood Dale, Itasca and Carpentersville--for the right to upgrade its network to handle video traffic. It argues that state law allows it to offer television service without franchise agreements with local communities because they are not cable companies.

The municipalities imposed moratoriums on the upgrades because they have concerns about the effect that the new equipment--housed in 5-foot-tall control cabinets--would have on the appearance and safety of public land.

The cities, like Naperville, also worry that AT&T would not promise service to all residents. Critics say that would allow the company to cherry-pick more affluent customers.

That could potentially violate the cities' franchise agreements with cable companies and state law that requires cable companies to provide services to all residents of a city, said Naperville City Manager Peter Burchard.

AT&T has signed a deal with only one city in Illinois, north suburban North Chicago. The deal, signed in June, includes a commitment to provide video services to all residents of the city within 18 months but does not specify the technology to be used.

AT&T made a similar "technology-neutral" offer to Naperville, but in a memo to Burchard, city attorneys countered that the proposed deal was so vague that it didn't require the company to serve any part of the city with Internet-based video.

Still, Tye said the company would not agree to the build-out requirement for Internet-based video services because it would dull its edge against the cable companies already in Naperville, Comcast and WOW.

"We have an economic incentive to make the service as widely available as possible," Tye continued. "What we're not willing to do is make a commitment [to provide the service to all residents] in `x' number of months."

On Tuesday, before the council meeting, AT&T presented a letter to city officials stating the proposals on which they would vote didn't reflect the terms the parties had negotiated.

City Council members were visibly agitated when Burchard showed them the letter but still voted unanimously to authorize the deal with the build-out provision.

Burchard surmised in a statement released Wednesday that AT&T's strategy was to demonstrate the difficulty the company is having in hammering out local franchise agreements.

"We have some intellectual dishonesty taking place," Councilman James Boyajian said.

AT&T is pushing for a federal law that would allow phone and cable companies to provide video services to consumers after signing a national franchise agreement with the Federal Communications Commission.

A bill including the provision passed the U.S. House in June. The issue is now before the Senate but is unlikely to pass before the anticipated end of the legislative session at the end of September, said Jeannine Kenney, a senior policy analyst for Consumers Union, a non-profit consumers advocacy group.

Tye called the city manager's allegation "the wrong conclusion" and said the company would explore "North Chicago-type agreements" with other municipalities.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/lake/chi-0608180197aug18,1,3049228,print.story

AT&T Selects HomePNA3 Technology to Deliver Voice and Data Services to the Home
[August 23, 2006]
By Laura Stotler, TMCnet Contributing Editor

AT&T (News - Alert) Inc. has chosen HomePNA 3 technology for in-home distribution of the AT&T U-verse services which include AT&T U-verse TV, AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet and U-verse Enabled. Consumer VoIP services will also be included in the future.

The HomePNA 3 technology will be integrated into IP set-top boxes from Motorola (News - Alert) Inc. and Scientific Atlanta as well as residential gateways from 2Wire as key components of the U-verse deployment. AT&T made the technology choice after extensive testing in AT&T Laboratories and other test environments.

HomePNA 3 technology was standardized by the ITU in 2005 and is a leading option for in-home distribution of triple-play services likeIPTV ( News - Alert), voice and Internet access. It offers high speed, low cost, robust performance and the ability to operate simultaneously over phone lines and coaxial cables.

The AT&T U-verse TV services are being delivered through Project Lightspeed, an initiative to expand the fiber-optics network deeper into neighborhoods. This will enable delivery of U-verse TV, AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet and U-verse Enabled and eventually VoIP services. AT&T expects to reach up to 19 million households by the end of 2008 as part of its initial deployment of fiber-to-the-node and fiber-to-the-premises technologies.

"Based on our research, we believe HomePNA 3 technology is the best option for distributing IP-based video services inside customers' homes," said David Deas, vice president--networks & services, AT&T Laboratories Inc. "The ability to work over both coaxial cable and traditional phone lines is a key advantage and we look forward to working with the industry to enhance and standardize the technology."

"This represents an opportunity for HomePNA technology to be part of one of the largest deployments of true Internet-protocol television services in the world," said Rich Nesin, president of HomePNA alliance. "This selection is the culmination of a lot of work with AT&T and its strategic partners to develop and refine the technology for the delivery of IP-based services over the existing wiring in the home."

http://news.tmcnet.com/news/2006/08/23/1825036.htm

To hear some municipal officials tell it, AT&T and heavyweight cousin Verizon Communications are employing hardball tactics in their quests for video franchises.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

"We believe AT&T was trying to create an appearance of negotiation breakdown, to establish a record in support of statewide [and national] franchise law," says Peter Burchard, city manager of Naperville, Ill., where AT&T recently scrapped plans to deploy "Project Lightspeed" on claims the city council inserted a poison pill (i.e., buildouts) in its franchise proposal (Telecom Policy Report, Aug. 18). Adds sister publication CableFAX Daily, the telco already is knee-deep in a dispute with seven nearby municipalities over their collective moratoria on the issuance of construction permits for its video service. AT&T spokesman Rob Biederman refused to comment on the litigious debate, and repeated calls to additional execs went unanswered.

Late last week, the seven munis filed a response with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding AT&T's May 24 letter calling for Commission intervention and offering statements that underscore a common theme: "If AT&T is truly interested in rapid deployment and providing wireline competition, its tactic of suing the Illinois municipalities...does not reflect such a desire."

Many who are privy to the talks claim AT&T staunchly requires that it not be governed like a cable operator and, therefore, will not be subject to build-out requirements. When these demands aren't met, sources say, the gloves come off. "We want competition, but when somebody comes in and says 'my way or the highway,' well, it's been mostly the highway," says Bruce Anderson, a committee member for a Chicago-area municipal caucus attempting to draft a template to be used for franchise negotiations by some 230 members.

Verizon, meanwhile, is involved in a highly publicized lawsuit with Montgomery County, Md., over county franchise law. A federal judge denied Verizon's Aug. 8 request for an injunction to invalidate the law and to force county officials to negotiate a franchise deal in 60 days.

Says Libby Beaty, executive director of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, such legal action by Verizon is rare, but the telco makes negotiations difficult by budging little on its standard form agreement and by using its imposing heft to curry favor. "It's tough when a huge corporation comes in with [a standard] agreement that doesn't comport with community ways of doing business," Beaty adds. Earlier this month, Verizon mirrored AT&T when it ceased talks with six New Hampshire towns, only to subsequently announce it had suspended plans for a statewide video rollout. "This is merely a pause in discussions," says Verizon spokeswoman Jill Wurm. "It's a matter of limited resources [equipment and negotiators] that had to be allocated elsewhere."

http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/18825.html

The new U-verse system is capable of delivering close to VDSL's top speed of 100 Mbps, but AT&T is capping it at 6 Mbps.
by Dave Burstein of DSL Prime and Future of TV
[August 25, 2006]

97 Mbps down measured at AT&T
U-verse user still can't access more than 6 Mbps, however
Chad Brantly in San Antonio syncs at 97 megabits on his U-verse gateway, close to VDSL top speed of 100 meg. This is a remarkable demonstration of what's possible, only four years after John Cioffi's groundbreaking presentation about 100 megabit DSL. Presumably, the DSLAM is 100 meters or less from his home, and few other users are in the binder group. Unfortunately, AT&T is refusing to sell more than 6 megabits to the customer.

Now that I, Light Reading, and DSL Reports have reported on Brantly's site, expect it to become very visible. Wall Street and reporters are all starving for information about AT&T, a company that hides what they are doing. Brantly, a Macintosh programmer, confirms an AT&T problem with screen flickers due to packet loss in the Alcatel equipment. Some of this is corrected by better installation practices, but some is proving tough to troubleshoot.

Tut Systems last year suggested the solution would be forward error correction, and designed a unit for that purpose. Researching this two months ago, I got a firm "FEC isn't needed" answer from a senior engineer, but it may be back on the table. Microsoft unfortunately believed the sales talk that packet loss, jitter, and latency problems were totally solved in new IP networks, and only now is scrambling to develop an FEC program if needed.

Brantly hears AT&T will launch single channel HD on October 15, presumably at the 8.5 to 9.25 megabit speeds I've previously reported. Anything less than that with current production gear is "fake HD", simply not up to quality if you have a good set. Phil Swann reports some of the satellite HD is lousy because of low bandwidth. The difference is minor on all but the best 10 percent of sets sold to date, so it's tempting to cheat.

AT&T and others will be very glad to hear that David Price of Harmonic is telling me the newest chips and improved encoding tools bring 6 Mbps live programming close. Price has credibility, because he was (accurately) saying 9 to 12 Mbps for live HD when his competitors were saying 6 Mbps is enough. Expect demos at IBC in September, and units that may replace multi-million dollar headends as soon as next year, including some newly built.

User reports trickling out make clear AT&T is in an early beta of U-verse, not a "deployment." There are constant changes to the operation while field personnel are just starting to gain the experience they need. Brantly's install took over four hours, which if not improved virtually doubles the cost of Lightspeed. Another expensive change rumored is expensive equipment at the local exchange. Lightspeed originally was designed to send virtually everything from nationwide "headends," with only local programming and ads in each city. I haven't been able to determine whether that's due to the widely reported scaling problems of the Microsoft IPTV software or packet loss at the Alcatel edge routers. Inside AT&T, everyone is pointing fingers at the other guy.

Despite the problems, I expect AT&T will honor their pledge to Wall Street to have a volume of equipment installed at yearend and move wider from December to May. They may even surprise Wall Street with customer counts. A marketing machine is ready to drive demand as soon as they can handle it. Presumably, everything will be in selected territories with ideal network layout and controlled numbers of users.

Moving the DSLAMs costs more than fiber all the way home, so is constantly under consideration at AT&T, where Chris Rice has discussed the upgrade. BT, Telfonica and others face similar choices.

The "Fiber to the node" plans are particularly cheap because they use existing field cabinets (cross-connects), but the network was designed for cross-connects at 5,000 or 6,000 feet, and only a handful of customers are close enough for higher speeds. Rice of AT&T is carefully keeping expectations down, telling reporters consistent speeds at 3,000 feet are 20 to 25 Mbps down. One of the biggest problems at AT&T is vendors promised to deliver Mbps over 5,000 feet, but haven't come close. The original budget called for very little bonding; now, to get the speeds for HD, AT&T will need to bond many lines.

http://www.isp-planet.com/cplanet/tech/2006/prime_letter_060825_u-verse.html

I just love how these "journalists" are jumping all over ATT on this.

Presumably, the DSLAM is 100 meters or less from his home, and few other users are in the binder group.

Mr. Burnstein is ASSuming here, with no proof of the customer's actual loop length. Great reporting, chief.

Unfortunately, AT&T is refusing to sell more than 6 megabits to the customer.

"refusing"? :lol: What do you want them to do, promise everybody 50Mbit connections, then "presumably" you'll be right there to crucify them when they can't deliver. Do a little research on VDSL and note how throughput drops off a cliff at distance. Took me about 5 minutes of looking up "VDSL" and "VDSL2" in Wikipedia.

Project Lightspeed issued initial building permit North Chicago first in state for fiberoptic video service

By Ralph Zahorik RZAHORIK@SCN1.COM

NORTH CHICAGO — After hitting a series of speed bumps in Illinois this year, AT&T's Project Lightspeed is going ahead in North Chicago, the first community in the state to approve the controversial fiberoptic video service.

Lightspeed promises voice, Internet and video entertainment services through a single fiberoptic network into homes. Boosters claim the system will be a formidable rival to cable television, including Comcast in this area.

A ceremonial issuing of Lightspeed's first North Chicago building permit hosted by AT&T and attended by about 50 state, city, county, school, library and township officials was held this week in the Greenbelt Cultural Center.

"I think this business venture gives a big boost to the city of North Chicago and its citizens," said state Rep. Eddie Washington, D-Waukegan, wearing what he called his "AT&T" blue-and-white tie in a room festooned with blue-and-white balloons.


"AT&T is bringing competition to North Chicago," said state Sen. Terry Link, D-Waukegan, in a letter read by Evelyn Alexander, an aide. "Soon the entire state of Illinois will have a choice."

Link's wife, Suzy McCall Link, a spokeswoman for AT&T, called Project Lightspeed "an exciting new alternative to cable television."

Not everyone is so excited about the venture.

Wheaton, Carpentersville, Roselle, North Aurora and Geneva all have enacted temporary bans on AT&T utility boxes for Lightspeed. Naperville rejected AT&T's Lightspeed proposal Aug. 15 after months of negotiations.

AT&T has sued Wheaton, Carpentersville and Roselle.

According to published reports, the battles have focused on fees, whether the company will franchise agreements and whether the project will cover entire communities.

North Aurora officials have said Comcast has threatened to stop franchise fee payments if AT&T isn't required to enter into a franchise agreement.

In North Chicago, AT&T has agreed to pay the city a 5 percent franchise fee on gross revenues and an additional 1 percent to fund a public channel for education and governmental purposes, said Charles Smith, North Chicago city attorney.

It isn't known if Lightspeed will cover the entire city. A build-out map is part of the city's agreement, but the map is "confidential," said Deb Waszak, North Chicago Mayor Leon Rockingham's chief of staff.

"Project Lightspeed will be the finest 21st century service in the video market," said Michael Tye, AT&T vice president of Midwest legislative affairs, speaking at the Greenbelt Center on Tuesday. "When we roll this service out in North Chicago, people all over the state of Illinois are going to see it and want it."

Some towns "have thrown up roadblocks," Tye said. For residents of those communities who want Lightspeed, "My suggestion is, move to North Chicago!" he said.

AT&T's agreement with North Chicago is not only the first in Illinois but the "first in the Midwest," said Kirk Brannock, AT&T's president of Midwest Network Services. "There are going to be a lot of others following your lead."

"It can't come soon enough," said Mayor Rockingham, who worked for Illinois Bell/Ameritech/SBC and AT&T as a technician for more than 30 years before he was elected mayor.

To implement the Lightspeed system, Comcast executives said 25 to 30 utility boxes, called "V-Rad" boxes, each 52 inches high, will be installed around the city.

The boxes are linked to existing beige telephone utility boxes which, in turn, are linked to homes.

Construction will take seven to eight months, cost $20 million to $25 million and service could start going into homes next spring, AT&T executives said.

AT&T is also seeking an agreement with Waukegan.

08/26/06 http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/newssun/city/5_1_WA26_LIGHTSPEED_S10826.htm

Project Lightspeed issued initial building permit North Chicago first in state for fiberoptic video service

By Ralph Zahorik RZAHORIK@SCN1.COM



"AT&T is bringing competition to North Chicago," said state Sen. Terry Link, D-Waukegan, in a letter read by Evelyn Alexander, an aide. "Soon the entire state of Illinois will have a choice."

Link's wife, Suzy McCall Link, a spokeswoman for AT&T, called Project Lightspeed "an exciting new alternative to cable television."


:eek:

Cable gains ground while IPTV stalls
By Ed Gubbins

Aug 25, 2006 11:54 AM

Strong revenue and earnings growth in the second quarter suggests bright near-term prospects for cable companies in their war against the Bells, Merrill Lynch wrote in a research note released today.

“While [second-quarter] cable telephony subscriber results were only in line, the cumulative impact of strong growth and the knock-on benefits of bundling are showing through,” Merrill Lynch wrote. “Customers seem happy to plough savings from cheaper phone service into new digital TV services, driving high cable TV [average revenue per user (ARPU)] growth.”

On average, U.S. cable companies gained about 1.2 points in their telephony subscriber penetration rates in the second quarter while reporting 12% year-over-year revenue growth. Aggregate cable TV ARPU rose from 7% to 9% in the second quarter, driven by rate hikes and sales of digital set-top boxes.

The top seven U.S. cable operators now have 62 million telephony-ready homes, or 66% of the number of homes passed by their networks, Merrill Lynch estimated, and in aggregate, 60% of U.S. homes could get phone service from their cable company.

“With AT&T effectively delaying Project Lightspeed--awaiting [high-definition television] capability--cable’s trajectory looks very positive,” Merrill Lynch wrote.

Cable modem subscriber growth was also stronger than expected in the second quarter, reaching nearly 25% of the homes passed by major operators.

Meanwhile, access line loss among Bell companies began shifting from secondary lines to primary lines in the second quarter, Merrill Lynch wrote. Verizon Communications’ residential lines were down 9.5% from a year earlier, AT&T’s were down nearly 8%, and Qwest Communications’ were down nearly 6%. Business line loss swelled from an average of 2.6% in the first quarter to 3.1% in the second quarter.

Though Bell company wireline revenue was down nearly 4% in the second quarter from a year earlier, cost-cutting efforts allowed the Bells to report earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization margins of 30.5%.

“In general, [Bell] margin performance was better than expected, reflecting successful cost-cutting and merger integration,” Merrill Lynch wrote.

Merrill Lynch’s note comes the same month that an analysis by CableLabs, a cable industry research consortium, suggested it might be cheaper for cable operators to deploy fiber-to-the-home than to upgrade their existing networks as necessary to compete against the Bell companies in the long term. When the Wall Street Journal reported CableLabs’ conclusions earlier this month, however, major cable company executives said they disagreed with that assertion.

http://telephonyonline.com/home/news/cable_iptv_earnings_082506/

8/30/2006
CHICAGO – Strip back all the hype, all the emotional arguments and all the IP-driven features. Asks adjunct Northwestern professor James Carlini, what broadband speeds are you really getting?

In the “great race” for global competitiveness, economic development equals broadband connectivity and broadband connectivity equals jobs. The fuel for broadband connectivity is the need for speed. That’s all the consumer needs to know. In fact, that’s all politicians need to know.

Project Lightspeed offers data speeds that are nothing out of the ordinary and are not being well received by those in the know. Staying with copper to the door (CTTD) instead of upgrading to fiber to the premise (FTTP, which is also referred to as fiber to the home or FTTH) is like saying you’re going to put in a stagecoach to run a 500-mile NASCAR race.

They may slap all the fancy decals on your wagon and even give you a silver buggy whip, but in the long run, you will be far behind the competition if you even finish the race at all.

The misconceptions out there are rampant. Take, for example, one blog that talks about “switching to high-speed, fiber-optic DSL”. DSL is a copper-based technology and saying it is a “high-speed” solution is not true. A fiber backbone does not give you fiber speeds at the premise. In fact, 6 Mbps is not that fast compared to 1 Gbps. Now that is high speed.

A six-horse hitch is not going to compare with Dale Earnhardt Jr.’s supercharged horsepower. It sure isn’t going to keep up in a race. Copper “giddy up” just doesn’t cut it.

As asked in an earlier column this spring: “After all the fuss, is 6 Mbps enough bandwidth?” Most of this Project Lightspeed architecture is not even deployed yet and 6 Mbps speeds are starting to look like a far cry from state of the art.

The Need For Speed

In another example, this is the concern: “What if the demand for speed overcomes the limitation of Project Lightspeed’s hardware?” This is a valid concern about customers outgrowing the max speed of 25 Mbps to 30 Mbps. This apprehension is very real. The maximum will probably be hit faster than the anticipated lifespan of the network infrastructure.

Some would argue that we are already surpassing that as states like California set objectives like “1 gigabit or bust by 2010”. If any state is looking at establishing a broadband initiative at this point, it should be setting the bar at 1 gigabit like California. Take note, Illinois and others. There are no concessions for anything less.

For all the hype and fanfare as well as the proposed magnitude of capital expenditures on Project Lightspeed, I truly expected the three levels of speed to be more like 500 Mbps, 1 Gbps and 2 Gbps to the premise. If this were the case, AT&T would have blown the doors off its competition as well as its global rivals in this great race.

To me, this is where AT&T should be today. Instead, the three service levels of speed are:

1. Express at 1.5 Mbps
2. Pro at 3 Mbps
3. Elite at 6 Mbps

These are all the downstream speeds with a common upstream speed of 1 Mbps or less. You can get that and more on cable today and do better with some wireless services.

None of these “elite” services provide premium fuel for futuristic speeds. More important, the physical connection to your house is still copper. CTTD is not only your father’s copper connection but it was also your great grandfather’s connection.

Disappointingly, Project Lightspeed does nothing to push the global competitiveness of the U.S. network infrastructure. In fact, it puts us more behind other countries.

Korea just announced plans to build 60 ubiquitous cities by 2015. This approach includes high-speed networks as well as integrating RFID tags and smart cards that will impact the integration of supply-chain management within that country. This sounds more substantial than replicating cable and delivering 200 TV channels.

Setting the standard is the sign of an industry leader. Playing catch up or succumbing to providing mediocrity is the sign of a member of the trailing pack.

This lack of leadership does not adhere with the basic principle I established in 1984 for all organizations applying technology: “Leading-edge organizations do not maintain their positions using trailing-edge technology.” That statement still rings very true some two decades later. We are in a much bigger race today as global pressure has upped the stakes for everyone.

Is Project Lightspeed Project SCHMOE in Disguise?

Fiber to the node (FTTN) might as well be called “fiber that touches nothing” because it doesn’t even come close to being FTTH or FTTP. The node could be 3,000 feet away from your house. That means you still have more than a half mile of copper in the last mile. That can’t be just any copper.

A huge issue that doesn’t get much press is that the copper “must be pristine,” according to an installation expert. If Project Lightspeed is to work, the copper connecting to your house has to be really good. That in itself should be a red flag. Will they have to replace old copper with new copper?

They might as well go with new fiber because copper as a commodity has shot up in price. Is it still a cost-effective solution? I don’t think so. Project Lightspeed just perpetuates Project SCHMOE, which stands for stagecoach-era communications that hinder municipalities, organizations and employees.

In order to be globally competitive, some municipalities and industrial parks already understand that they need gigabit infrastructures today. For example, look at the 800-acre DuPage National Technology Park where they have 10 Gbps connectivity. Project Lightspeed does not promise that at all. The limitation is in the last mile of copper wire.

Why doesn’t AT&T want to spend the money to build the infrastructure right? This is the same company that when it was a monopoly and had locked-in profits would specify platinum connections instead of copper in central offices in order to ensure the highest quality connectivity and quality returns to themselves.

There is also an issue of jobs. How many more jobs could be created if AT&T took the right approach and made Project Lightspeed a full FTTH initiative? If you look at the IBEW in Illinois, they have lost more than 3,000 jobs since 2001. Making Project Lightspeed an FTTH or FTTP project would help create more jobs.

Will AT&T pressure Illinois for concessions by dangling a couple hundred jobs they could transfer out of state? Maybe Illinois should play hardball and say FTTP is a stipulation before any concessions are even considered. That way, everyone wins. Illinois gets a commitment for a real broadband infrastructure, more jobs get created to implement it and AT&T gets its concessions.

I doubt they’ll go for that that, though, as AT&T vice president Mike Tye clearly stated in a recent city council meeting in Naperville, Ill. that full “build out is a deal killer for AT&T”. Go to the bottom of the page to click on his speech in section 13. Some other interesting presentations can also be heard at that council meeting. Check out section 11 to hear an opposing view.

Is Project Lightspeed Project Slightspeed?

Let’s cut through all the marketing hype, the industry expert analyses and the bleating of company shills at municipal meetings and go directly to the last mile. In any race, this is very important to winning or ending as the first loser.

This is telecom 101. No matter what people pitch, copper does not come close to fiber in delivering bandwidth to the door. Twisted pair does not even match coaxial cable. Any new construction should be looking at FTTP. If they are cabling areas again, they should be pulling fiber – not copper – as fiber has a much longer useful life as a basic component of the network infrastructure of the future.

The average consumer doesn’t care about the physical wire that comes to the house until it becomes the deciding factor in terms of what speeds they can get.

The average consumer has gotten to be fairly sophisticated in knowing that copper DSL is better than dial-up but not as good as broadband. People back winners. They don’t back whiners. If you want to lead the pack, you have to offer a winning car with heavy horsepower. In this case, it’s heavy bandwidth rather than a stagecoach with flashy decals.

Carlinism: There’s no such thing as a turbo stagecoach on the information superhighway.

Check out the blog of James Carlini at http://www.carliniscomments.com

Well, I sort of agree with Carlini, if money is no object...but of course, money is always an object. AT&T may simply want to finance FTTN for now and then, as revenues from the new service roll in, upgrade the last mile. Comparing things to when AT&T was a monopoly and specified platinum whatever is pointless, since AT&T isn't a full monopoly anymore and, oh by the way, wireline revenues have shrunk drastically.

(Talking about other countries is pointless too -- in the first place, I don't want their tax burden, and in the second place, I'm pretty sure that Korea has less geography to deal with. It's easy to talk about ubiquitous networks when you're a small place with a dense population. Any idiot could deploy universal services in, say, Tokyo, but go ahead and try it in Texas.)

Looks like ATT got the "Family" connections going to break into North Chicago....I guess whatever it takes...certainly a different market than Naperville, Wheaton, etc....much different demographic...

With that said, not sure if anyone else has noticed the pounding of political TV ads ATT is quietly throwing out there in the Chicago market - nothing is branded ATT, but its all about voting to bring a "new generation" of TV to the area...i think there is a small ATT lightspeed text o nthe very last fram at the bottom...

Personally, I wish they would get in a few more suburban markets here, as for the msot part, its Comcast or D*/E*....Naperville would have been a big win...

I am also pretty surprised how quick they can get the system setup in a community - 6 months is pretty dang quick.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060831/BUSINESS/608310360/1003/BUSINESS

U-Verse, Lightspeed--whatever the heck you call it, has been greenlighted for my area. Personally, I had no doubt it would be approved here. They showed the AT&T rep on TV last month when he filed the papers with the city. He (I forget his name) said it would be up and running by year's end. We shall see.

For all the hype and fanfare as well as the proposed magnitude of capital expenditures on Project Lightspeed, I truly expected the three levels of speed to be more like 500 Mbps, 1 Gbps and 2 Gbps to the premise. If this were the case, AT&T would have blown the doors off its competition as well as its global rivals in this great race.

To me, this is where AT&T should be today. Instead, the three service levels of speed are:

1. Express at 1.5 Mbps
2. Pro at 3 Mbps
3. Elite at 6 Mbps

I'm glad Mr. Carlini pointed this out so clearly. Their speed offerings really are a joke. I get 8 Mbps now with Comcast, so what would advantage would Lightspeed provide me? Sure, there's different things that can be done with the IP protocol, but they really need to up the ante. 25 - 30 Mbps to the home isn't going to cut it.

Matt