AT&T U-verse HDTV - Page 9

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/te...5_u-verse.html

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/n...EED_S10826.htm

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...rnings_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