AT&T To Offer TV Over Phone Lines 303
ppadala writes "AT&T is upgrading their phone lines to offer video programmes over phone line. The service, called U-verse TV will be available in parts of Southern California communities initially. Channel lineups will be similar to traditional cable and dish offerings. AT&T is insisting that, 'This offering is on par with those of its cable rivals. But AT&T claims that it offers customers more for their money, including fast channel changing, video-on-demand, three set-top boxes, a digital video recorder, a picture-in-picture feature that allows viewers to surf channels without switching channels and an interactive program guide.'"
This is news? (Score:4, Informative)
Having used it quite a bit myself, it's very similar to digital cable (isn't that what it is?). There's also the added bonus of choosing very customizable channel packages and individual channels to subscribe to, which I think is a good change from the limited Tiers from cable companies.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
I have this already (Score:3, Informative)
VDSL (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Informative)
1) The TV shares the VDSL bandwidth. This can potentially cause an impact on browsing speeds if you're streaming all 4 channels at once. I don't have the numbers with me currently, but SD channels stream at approx 1Mbit, while HD stream at around 5Mbit. VDSL connection is anywhere up to 24Mbit, although as this is based on line length, most customers could only expect 15 or so.
2)Yes, real time for all 4 channels.
3) Multicast for all live TV streams. Unicast for video on demand. Essentially the same way cable does distribution, except over IP. This is exactly the kind of thing that multicast was designed for. The actual number of multicast streams AT&T are streaming now is over 600 (each channel is actually 2 streams - 1 for the content, and 1 for the little picture-in-picture stream for the channel guide).
4) As live TV is multicast, this question is redundant. However, for video on demand, the content will come from servers physically close to the customer's location. Multicast sources are mostly centralized.
5) Yes.
Old news (Score:2, Informative)
I've already got this (Score:5, Informative)
The TV is H.264 encoded and streamed over IP to the DVR box. You can record up to 4 standard definition channels, or a single HD channel, while watching another. The standard def television looks better than regular standard def. More like 480p. The 'Hi def' channels look similar to 720p but with noticeable compression, and the occasional dropped frame. If someone were really looking for full 1080i HD, highest possible quality, I'd have some reservations recommending it. But the SD looks good enough that we're pretty happy with it. A lot of what we watch is still only on the SD channels.
Since everything is streaming, it always buffers about 90 minutes worth of footage of whatever you're watching (a la tivo). It also has some neat features like being able to show thumbnail previews of channels while you're surfing around, along with a representation of how far into the show it is.
Overall, the DVR functions are quite primitive. Its can be difficult to make the recordings you want. There doesn't seem to be any way to make only recordings of new episodes of Stargate SG1 (This is slighly less of a problem since there's only like 4 episodes left in the series. This was the only show we record that had problems.
For TV + broadband for under $100, its well worth it for us.
Not just California . . . (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Catching up with the rest of the world (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Informative)
1) TV uses up part of your total bandwidth. We have a 6Mb connection, and an HD stream probably uses about half of it. SD probably uses a quarter of that (or @ 1/6 the original).
2) The DVR records 4 shows in real time. Everything has a sense of real time, but the box constantly buffers up 90 minutes or so of whatever channel you're on. You can only record one HD stream at a time, although you can watch another.
3) If multicast means the data for all the channels is transmit at once, this is clearly impossible. We've got about 25 HD channels, and 300+ other channels. I'm assuming there's some packet sharing peer-to-peer scheme for distributing content, but I'm not sure how it would work without losing the concept of scheduling.
4) They're laying fiber for the bandwidth. Does that help? I mean, I don't know. If they alot a certain amount of bandwidth per customer, it seems feasable.
5) Nope. First, the question itself is silly to begin with, given the nature of networking (since its a consumer product). HD definitely has a frame drop every now and then, but its generally very good. HDFoodTV seems to be worse about it. What's much more noticeable is the compression during fast action sequences, if you're familiar with HD and H.264. SD is really good, much better than actual NTSC SD.
Other areas too... (Score:3, Informative)
It is also available in San Antonio, TX, Dallas, TX, Austin, TX, Milwaukee, WI, and Indianapolis, IN. Source [att.com]
Re:a momentary blip of anticipation (Score:5, Informative)
I personally hated that I was only getting 70 or so channels with 4 or so ones worth watching and several channels that we were supposed to get were unviewable. The worst part was that one of the local channels comes in better without an antenna in the basement than it did through the cable. Pretty much the contempt that they showed me for complaining when I had a cable modem about it being advertised as always on and having it be out for three or four hours a day for several weeks in a row was enough to switch to DSL even if it is on paper a bit more sluggish.
So in general Comcast sucks and doesn't actually care about providing the service they promise. I had no problem with Earthlink and non yet with qwest.
So the service wouldn't have to be that great to beat the low quality cable service around here. It would be really cool, that way they could probably provide a way of just watching it on a computer at home, in addition to a set top box.
Re:"three set-top boxes"!!! (Score:3, Informative)
Notice they mention instant channel changes. These are all problems to overcome with IPTV that cable doesn't have to deal with, and they are setting up their defense for the cable company's media blitz on why you don't want TV from AT&T (american telephone and television?). When you click a button on your remote to change channels in an IPTV system, a ton more things have to happen to before you see fluid video. Think of it as the difference between tuning a station on your FM dial versus clicking a link in iTunes to change radio stations. If the system isn't right and can't switch off the old channel fast enough, it still streams in and clogs your pipe. Add about 5 of those and you have no decent bandwidth for the next channel, not to mention your internet access or your new VOIP phone.
The big deal here is two-fold. AT&T finally has the back end server mess for all this ready. They are using Microsoft IPTV, you would not believe how many servers and disk space this takes up. MSIPTV uses multicast only for the small PIP preview feed, when you select a channel it is a (hold on to your hat) unicast stream from one of those servers over your DSL link to your set top box. AT&T must also feel they are reaching critical mass with their rollout of ADSL2, which can give up to 24Mbps to a home close to the DSLAM (which is ending up in those curbside pedestals now, being fed by fiber from the Central Office - baby stepping that last mile problem). That gives them the bandwidth to offer compressed HDTV streams to the three set top boxes, with a smidge of room left over for internet and VoIP. Oh yeah, if you want more bandwidth for your torrent downloads to avoid Video-on-Demand fees, turn off your television!
Pretty thorough review of Uverse at Satelliteguys (Score:2, Informative)