Actually all new neighborhoods that are being constructed where ATT is prelaying their network is Fiber to the Premises. My house was built at the beginning of last summer and my entire neighborhood is fiber to the premises. Verizon is converting their entire network to fiber to the premises as opposed to fiber to the node like ATT is doing with their pre-existing homes. However, the fiber to the premises is not needed until ATT starts offering the higher speeds of internet like Verizon is doing in the NE. I assume that since this higher internet speeds will be a specialized group of people who will be wanting it, ATT is taking the approach that they will lay Fiber to the Premises for those that want the higher speeds when they order it. This saves them a great amount of money in the short and long term as opposed the the billions that Verizon is shelling out right now to provide this to all the customers, even to the ones who will never use it!

---

I have no patience for the lazy and complacent society that we have become. Make an effort to fix it, or don't complain.

---

Know Thyself

No there is no official date when AT&T will start to convert its network into a 100% fiber optic network.  I'm sure you realize that it would be impossible for any telecommunication company to convert its entire network to 100% fiber on one day.  Instead it would take years and billions of more dollars than FTTN.  Before any company would decide to invest billions of dollars, it would certainly evaluate all of its options to make sure that it is the best possible investment.  In the case of AT&T, they decided that FTTN for existing homes would be the most cost effective technique.

 

brainstretch's criticism about HD is valid, since AT&T would have no problems offering multiple HD streams if it had gone with a 100% fiber network.  However, it's not true that those are permanent limitations of FTTN.  Between pair bonding and full implementation of VDSL2, a lot more bandwidth is possible through FTTN than 27 Mb/s.  In addition, compression technologies continue to improve.  MPEG-2 (the kind OTA and most cable operators use) is relatively inefficient.  U-verse uses MPEG-4 compression which allows better picture quality with less bandwidth.  At this point, the compression technology has not come along as far as AT&T would have probably hoped, but, like I said, that technology is improving, and there should be multiple HD streams and probably even improved HD quality over the course of about a year.  No date has been announced, but improved compression is definitely in the works, and could possibly come by the end of this year.

 

I think the main reason why AT&T wouldn't want to offer 25 Mb/s in pure internet at this point is because those internet customers would be unable to have U-verse TV.  The main point of U-verse is for AT&T to get into the TV business; AT&T already has a strong presence in offering broadband.  But starting next year, AT&T does plan to offer speed tiers faster than 6 Mb/s for customers that are close enough to the VRADs.  It wouldn't surprise me to see speed tiers in the 15 to 25 Mb/s range for some customers.

 

Please understand that I'm not saying that you shouldn't be complaining about the current limitations (one HD stream, poor HD compression, etc).  I'm only saying that FTTN is capable of a lot more relatively soon.  However, if those theoretical capabilities prove to be unattainable, maybe you'll see AT&T reevaluate its options.  But at this point, it doesn't seem likely since AT&T has consistently said that they're pleased with the speeds being delivered through U-verse at this stage.

Add the fact that HD televisions are going to increasingly replace SD sets in the near future, and AT&T's copper stategy looks even more counterproductive, because the low end SD customer will eventually disappear.  When even my Dad finally popped for a Zenith color TV in the early 70's, I knew the end for B&W TVs was near.  A similar end may be around the corner for SD, with millions needing to upgrade to digital sets in about a year. I'm a "low-end user," but I know I'll be looking hard at my first HD set when I have to replace my analog TV, and I'll want the best quality picture I can get, which it sounds like Uverse isn't delivering yet with its limited bandwidth.
Your dad had it about right. I went to RCA color technician training seminar in mid fifties and was part time repairman. The manufacturers did'nt get it right until about 1965 or so. HD is about on that same trajectory. As far as quality of HD source my suggestion is: Use off air HD as a reference and go from there. FCC regulates the technical standards and channel 11 in Houston consistently does full 1080i broadcasts. I have'nt ventured into the HDMI cable yet but Uverse HD (with component cable to TV) compares favorably with channel 11 (not quite as good but almost and seems to be getting better). National Geographic (all HD programming is not equal) is good for evaluating quality. Football games are usually a good source too (look for individual blades of grass & natural green color). We bought our HD Sceptre 42in LCD in February 07. Tried Homzone Dish All Distance Bundle for 3 months  or so (loved the photo download from PC feature) , did an Unbundle (but kept Dish Family service) and had Uverse installed first part of July with Cat5e to all STBs and PC. Not problem free but would not go back.

 

Trex

Well you guys are very knowledgable about this stuff and I think you have helped me understand why my picture quaility with ATT is not as good as it was with TW.

 

I had fiber-optic with TW and could use an HDMI cable from the Scientific Atlanta box to my 1080p TV.  For HD programming that was broadcast in 1080 the picture quailty was superb.  I could see the detailed blades of grass you mentioned when watching football and no wash out to green blurr when camera panned the field.

 

Now with ATT I have VDSL with 900' Vrad distance to Cat5 to a Motorola box that interpolates 1080 (1080i).  Even with my $100. Monster HDMI cable the picture quality is very noticably worse.  Not as sharp in detail and panning blurrs are annoying.  And regular non-HD channels are horrible, can barely read news text that runs across bottom of news channels.  I know my TV is still OK because when we watch Blu-ray DVD in full 1080p (not 1080i) the picture quality is incredible, similar to what we had with TW fiber-optic.

 

It is too bad ATT cannot give us a date when they will fix this.  My family is losing patience with me trying to get this fixed.  ATT has been good about having multiple technicians come out to our house and check everything several times, replacing boxes, cables, checking connections in house and to house, etc.  But all they come up with is: "This is the best signal we can deliver at this time with the current equipment and VDSL connection you have in your area".

 

Too bad they can't use the fiber-optic lines that are sitting right there ready to use again that have proven to give us high quality TV picture clarity.  And too bad I didn't realize the picture quality would suffer.  ATT's sales pitch really had me sold.  So we are hoping to get a commit date from ATT on when they can fix the issue (or switch to fiber-optic).  If soon, we will wait.  If it will take a year we may go back to TW until ATT fixes the problem.

 

 

---

Know Thyself

You make some very persuasive points. It's possible that at this stage of the game some versions of software work differently with some versions of TV hardware. It would be helpful if providers would bring back the old "Test Pattern", remember them. They would help resolve a lot of these questions and point the finger in the right direction. Digital TV should have eliminated most of the need for that since numbers are numbers and everyone theoretically is on the same page. Obviously that is not the case and IPTV and HD and HDMI and all that good stuff is still a work in progress. Just think how long "Fiber" has been touted as the end all and be all. Hang in there.

 

Trex