# TiVO for AT&T's U-Verse



## cokyq (Jan 21, 2007)

Has anyone heard if TiVO will come up with an HD set that will work with *AT&T's U-Verse system? * 

I am not very familiar with U-Verse, but I noticed they can record 4 channels simultaneously. Interestingly, if you have 4 TV's in you home, they can only watch one of the channels being recorded. U-verse has a huge modem/router which accepts an ethernet cable capable of handling extremely large bandwith. No RG-6 Coax cables from the modem/router to the (DVR) cable boxes.

ANother interesting fact is that it appears all boxes are identical, but only one can record and be the DVR. I understand later this year any box in the house will be able to play any of the recorded programs (sort of like one box behaves like a media server and records the 4 streams) which then can be distributed over the network, sort of like TIVO2GO/MRV.

A friend had ATT install his system a few days ago, and I had a chance to see it. Very interesting. Which brings me back to my original question... Will TIVO make a box compatible for U-Verse customers? Any rumors out there? They are claiming 26 HD channels available (for an additional $10/mo!

SUbject for another topic, when will providers realize HD will be the "normal" way in the future and there should be no surcharges for HD content!

cokyq


----------



## 20TIL6 (Sep 7, 2006)

If there was some way to get the S3 and HD to work with UVerse (like they can with FiOS), I'd like that. I have the bad feeling that Verizon is locked out of my area, so no FiOS for me. I see UVerse trucks around here, and I've gotten their flyers in the mail recently.

But if I can't bring TiVo along, I won't switch. Comcast is sufficient for the time being, but the reports of them cutting off broadband users for too much downloading has my attention. I use TiVoCast and Unbox quite a bit. Perfectly legitimate broadband use.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Last I checked, you could only get one HD channel at a time with U-Verse, so no dual tuning functionality in HD. That would make it a hard sell to me.


----------



## cokyq (Jan 21, 2007)

Any U-verse experts out there?


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

U-Verse uses a completely different distribution system compared to traditional cable companies and FIOS. They use fiber to the node and then DSL over copper to individual homes. FIOS uses fiber all the way to the home and then traditional QAM & NTSC over coax for distribution inside the house (same as cable). U-Verse instead of QAM are using IP over DSL that only gives you a 24Mbps pipe (6Mbps reserved for internet) that only leaves 18Mbps for video which is why there is a restriction on how many unique streams of video you can view at a time (about 4 SD channels and 1 or 2 overly compressed HD channels). It's not a worthy replacement to traditional cable providers or FIOS that's for sure, at least in it's current incantation... The S3 & THD units with their ATSC, NTSC and QAM tuners would therefore be useless for U-Verse.


----------



## 20TIL6 (Sep 7, 2006)

moyekj said:


> U-Verse uses a completely different distribution system compared to traditional cable companies and FIOS. They use fiber to the node and then DSL over copper to individual homes. FIOS uses fiber all the way to the home and then traditional QAM & NTSC over coax for distribution inside the house (same as cable). U-Verse instead of QAM are using IP over DSL that only gives you a 24Mbps pipe (6Mbps reserved for internet) that only leaves 18Mbps for video which is why there is a restriction on how many unique streams of video you can view at a time (about 4 SD channels and 1 or 2 overly compressed HD channels). It's not a worthy replacement to traditional cable providers or FIOS that's for sure, at least in it's current incantation... The S3 & THD units with their ATSC, NTSC and QAM tuners would therefore be useless for U-Verse.


Wow, thanks for the technical explanation. I won't be a UVerse TV customer, that's for sure.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

They've been installing Uverse in our neighborhood over the last couple weeks (technically, they're installing the infrastructure to support it). New ATT boxes around the neighborhood with fiber optic lines running in, and (on some streets) new cable along the poles for individual houses. (I'm not sure why some lines had to be replaced, and others not?)

I've spent some time learning about Uverse, and moyekj pretty much nailed it. You can get up to four IP streams, but only one can be HD. And from reading a few forums, it appears the PQ is highly compressed and only so-so.

It's hard to understand what ATT is thinking. HD is the big gorilla these days. We have two HD TVs. But to only watch one HD stream at a time? Huh? Can you imagine the arguments this will cause. "Honey, can you flip to Desperate Housewives in SD, so I can watch SNF in HD?"

_ETA: We're near Rice U in Houston, if you're curious where ATT is adding Uverse._


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

astrohip said:


> It's hard to understand what ATT is thinking.


No kidding. When I first read about it, it looked interesting. When I read some more, I was sure that I must be missing something, since the idea of ONE HD channel at a time into a house seemed ludicrous and insane. But that's what they're doing.

I can't imagine who would want this.

The only (and I mean ONLY) reason I see for them to do this is as an intermediate step towards a FIOS like fiber-to-the-home solution. Even then, it would make more sens to me to build that out fully but gradually instead.


----------



## dkwong (Aug 27, 2007)

I had AT&T Uverse and cancelled it after a week. The HD quality is horribly overcompressed. Here is a link to some screenshots I took to compare Uverse with Comcast. This poll that I started seems to indicate that over half of the poll takers agree that AT&T's HD quality is subpar. I would wait until AT&T fixes their bandwidth problems before jumping in.


----------



## cokyq (Jan 21, 2007)

Very interesting information! Thanks guys... Looks like ATT has some work in front of them!


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

astrohip said:


> _ETA: We're near Rice U in Houston, if you're curious where ATT is adding Uverse._


They've been rapidly rolling out the infrastructure for uverse in my town, but have yet to go live with it. It's been amazing to see how much effort is put into each box, the one for my subdivision has had at least two people there, probably 10 of the last 14 days.

I'd be interested in it for it's ability to give both Comcast and DirecTV some level of competition, but would much rather it were FIOS, I'd love to be able to use an S3 or THD with it.


----------



## kmill14 (Dec 11, 2006)

Does AT&T EVER get it right? They basically make money via brute force, but at the end of the day always provide a crappy product.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

For now, you can use a Series 2 with U-Verse.

Were AT&T to open their API, there is an outside chance TiVo could apply that to the HD boxes (which have MPEG4 decoders in them).


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

SullyND said:


> They've been rapidly rolling out the infrastructure for uverse in my town, but have yet to go live with it. It's been amazing to see how much effort is put into each box, the one for my subdivision has had at least two people there, probably 10 of the last 14 days.


Same here. I finally had to stop and ask the workers what they were doing, since it was obvious after a couple weeks this was not a normal repair job.



> I'd be interested in it for it's ability to give both Comcast and DirecTV some level of competition, but would much rather it were FIOS, I'd love to be able to use an S3 or THD with it.


+1. That's why I did a bunch of research. I would *love* to have an alternative to ComCast, but only if the PQ is comparable (or better). At first I thought "Oh boy, we're getting FIOS", but then I remembered that was Verizon, not ATT. I don't think Verizon even has a presence here.

Unless they ultimately run fiber to the house, I think Uverse is doomed.


----------



## tlight (Mar 4, 2003)

moyekj said:


> U-Verse uses a completely different distribution system compared to traditional cable companies and FIOS. They use fiber to the node and then DSL over copper to individual homes. FIOS uses fiber all the way to the home and then traditional QAM & NTSC over coax for distribution inside the house (same as cable). U-Verse instead of QAM are using IP over DSL that only gives you a 24Mbps pipe (6Mbps reserved for internet) that only leaves 18Mbps for video which is why there is a restriction on how many unique streams of video you can view at a time (about 4 SD channels and 1 or 2 overly compressed HD channels). It's not a worthy replacement to traditional cable providers or FIOS that's for sure, at least in it's current incantation... The S3 & THD units with their ATSC, NTSC and QAM tuners would therefore be useless for U-Verse.


U-Verse in my neighborhood (Richardson Texas) is fiber to the premise (my house). Not sure about the rest of the above though. Anyone know where I can find out?


----------



## HDTivoDesire (Apr 6, 2003)

I just dumped Uverse. If you have ever owned a Tivo, you will not be able to tolerate the pathetic & awful DVR. The HD picture quality is very poor, especially on a TV larger than 24".


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

tlight said:


> U-Verse in my neighborhood (Richardson Texas) is fiber to the premise (my house). Not sure about the rest of the above though. Anyone know where I can find out?


Are you absolutely sure? It's not that I doubt you, but everything I have read states that Uverse is fiber to the neighborhood, and phone lines to the house. It's been pointed out often that the difference between FIOS & Uverse is FIOS *does* run fiber to the house (premise), and Uverse doesn't. This is also why Uverse is limited to *one HD stream only*, and FIOS has no limits.

It would be news to me (and others) if there is a version of Uverse that runs fiber to the premise. And it could possibly change the dead-end future most see for Uverse.


----------



## tlight (Mar 4, 2003)

Yes I am sure that I have fiber all the way to my house. Although you are right, the majority of the U-verse branded service is FTTN (fiber to the node) with copper to the house.

See the following article in Sound and Vision where they mention that AT&T is running FTTP (fiber to the premise) in some new construction.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/2433/the-hd-deluge-is-here.html

I guess my house is considered new construction even though the house is 5 years old. Of course this says nothing of whether or not they utilize that bandwidth for multiple HD feeds or not. I'm sure they can configure it however they want.

HDTivoDesire- Do you know if your U-verse was fiber to the premise? If the HD quality is that bad on a 24" TV, I'd hate to see what it looks like on my 110" FP.


----------



## tlight (Mar 4, 2003)

HDTivoDesire said:


> I just dumped Uverse. If you have ever owned a Tivo, you will not be able to tolerate the pathetic & awful DVR. The HD picture quality is very poor, especially on a TV larger than 24".


Do you know if you had fiber to your house or just to your neighborhood? Also, how did you find the link between your set top box and TiVo worked or did you ever hook the two up?

One big thumbs down for me is having to control the TiVo via IR blasters. That never worked well when I had to control my digital cable box. Once I got the serial port version of the box and wired ti directly to the TiVo I never had another problem.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

tlight said:


> Yes I am sure that I have fiber all the way to my house. Although you are right, the majority of the U-verse branded service is FTTN (fiber to the node) with copper to the house.
> 
> See the following article in Sound and Vision where they mention that AT&T is running FTTP (fiber to the premise) in some new construction.
> 
> ...


How about from the fiber drop at your house to your TV, what connection is being used there? If it's still a phone line then there are still bandwidth limitations though being a much shorter run will be much better than from the node. So maybe instead of 24Mbps it can be about double that - i.e. still limitations on bandwidth but not as severe. The problem however is for HD channels you are probably getting same feed as others with the fiber to the node restriction which means overly compressed mpeg4 HD channels still, so I don't think picture quality will be any better.


----------



## s2kdave (Jan 28, 2005)

20TIL6 said:


> If there was some way to get the S3 and HD to work with UVerse (like they can with FiOS), I'd like that. I have the bad feeling that Verizon is locked out of my area, so no FiOS for me. I see UVerse trucks around here, and I've gotten their flyers in the mail recently.
> 
> But if I can't bring TiVo along, I won't switch. Comcast is sufficient for the time being, but the reports of them cutting off broadband users for too much downloading has my attention. I use TiVoCast and Unbox quite a bit. Perfectly legitimate broadband use.


If you've gotten flyers for U-verse then you'll never get FIOS. Same thing with me. I called verizon and they said they can never go into my area because of the FCC ruling of non-competition between phone companies. Until that rule gets changed, it's not going to happen.


----------



## HDTivoDesire (Apr 6, 2003)

tlight said:


> Do you know if you had fiber to your house or just to your neighborhood? Also, how did you find the link between your set top box and TiVo worked or did you ever hook the two up?


I believe I had fiber to a box down the street, then copper up to my house. From a box on the outside of my house ran a coaxial cable to my Residential Gateway. The RG reported 38Mbps total bandwidth. Or maybe that was 28Mbps.

I never used a Tivo with Uverse.

I said that Uverse HD picture looked bad on TVs LARGER than 24".

Uverse HD looked fine on my 24" Dell LCD. On my 1080p 47" Westinghouse I thought the HD channels looked terrible compared to OTA, DirecTV, and cable HD.

Check out the forums at uverseusers.com.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

moyekj said:


> U-Verse uses a completely different distribution system compared to traditional cable companies and FIOS. They use fiber to the node and then DSL over copper to individual homes. FIOS uses fiber all the way to the home and then traditional QAM & NTSC over coax for distribution inside the house (same as cable). U-Verse instead of QAM are using IP over DSL that only gives you a 24Mbps pipe (6Mbps reserved for internet) that only leaves 18Mbps for video which is why there is a restriction on how many unique streams of video you can view at a time (about 4 SD channels and 1 or 2 overly compressed HD channels). It's not a worthy replacement to traditional cable providers or FIOS that's for sure, at least in it's current incantation... The S3 & THD units with their ATSC, NTSC and QAM tuners would therefore be useless for U-Verse.


That is mpeg4 though right? Not MPEG2?


----------



## doormat (Sep 15, 2004)

I believe it is MPEG-4. However I'm inclined to think that AT&Ts encoders stink because they should be able to get very good quality out of H264 (the part of MPEG-4 they chose to use) and medium bandwidth (2Mb/s for SD, 12Mb/s for HD).


----------



## MadScience (Dec 31, 2003)

I just had to go through Guided Setup again today because we were replacing my cableCARDs on my S3. Now AT&T has been sending me lots of flyers about U-verse and they were even signing people up door to door this past weekend ... so it's been on my mind. Well, as I was clicking through the guided setup, choosing my Cable Provider (Charter), it also listed AT&T U-Verse. I thought that was VERY odd since I was sure they had incompatible equipment. But if they do, why would it even be an option during guided setup? Things that make you go hmmm ...


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

MadScience said:


> I just had to go through Guided Setup again today because we were replacing my cableCARDs on my S3. Now AT&T has been sending me lots of flyers about U-verse and they were even signing people up door to door this past weekend ... so it's been on my mind. Well, as I was clicking through the guided setup, choosing my Cable Provider (Charter), it also listed AT&T U-Verse. I thought that was VERY odd since I was sure they had incompatible equipment. But if they do, why would it even be an option during guided setup? Things that make you go hmmm ...


 Well you can presumably use S1/S2 Tivos to IR blast the U-Verse boxes so it's not too surprising...


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

s2kdave said:


> If you've gotten flyers for U-verse then you'll never get FIOS. Same thing with me. I called verizon and they said they can never go into my area because of the FCC ruling of non-competition between phone companies. Until that rule gets changed, it's not going to happen.


That's flatly not true. Thanks to the 1996 Telecom Act, Verizon is free to build out anyplace they choose. In Tulsa, AT&T has a facilities based competitor (they're half fiber and half copper), although they refuse to sell residential service.

The ILECs have a policy of not building out in each other's areas, though. It costs boatloads of money and there just aren't boatloads of money to be made with facilities based competition between two 800 pound gorillas. They do have some competition in many of the major metros using unbundled local loops, but there's little to no actual wire being run by ILECs outside of their original areas.

If it's going to happen anywhere, it will probably happen in the Dallas area, however, where Verizon and AT&T each already have a facilities based network built to service the various parts of the metro, although they don't currently compete with each other. They could choose to invade each other's territory, so to speak, by merely burying some fiber, rather than building out a whole new CO like they would in other areas.

Regarding Richardson having fiber drops, that's all well and good (and they do, from back when SBC was testing FTTH beginning about 10 years ago, and why those areas were stuck with 1.5/128 internet service until very recently), but AT&T has a long standing policy of offering the same service whether it's delivered over fiber or copper, so the people with fiber drops get the same (very poor) service that the folks with only copper get. One HD stream and 6/1 internet.


----------



## s2kdave (Jan 28, 2005)

wierdo said:


> That's flatly not true. Thanks to the 1996 Telecom Act, Verizon is free to build out anyplace they choose. In Tulsa, AT&T has a facilities based competitor (they're half fiber and half copper), although they refuse to sell residential service.


I sure hope you're right. I was just saying what the verizon rep told me. I'd consider getting FIOS, but won't get U-verse.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

s2kdave said:


> I sure hope you're right. I was just saying what the verizon rep told me. I'd consider getting FIOS, but won't get U-verse.


 Well now with the news out that FIOS will switch from QAM to IPTV in 3 years or so you may re-consider FIOS as well (since in that configuration the current S3/THD would not be compatible).


----------



## qili (May 31, 2006)

moyekj said:


> U-Verse uses a completely different distribution system compared to traditional cable companies and FIOS.


they are really quite similar, as you pointed out. One is FTTN and another FTTP.

the thinking behind FTTN is that in the near future, the demand for large bandwidth pipeline isn't going to be more significant than what copper can handle, and with the advance of technologies we can hopefully stuff more into the same copper - ie. what's happening with dark fiber in the last 10 years or so.

plus, fttp is c onsiderably more expensive to deploy than fttn.

from a software layer point of view, ATT is considerably more advanced (iptv) and flexible, which fios is less.

unless verizon / att helps, it is unlikely that tivo will be able to build a box that talk to either natively.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

qili said:


> they are really quite similar, as you pointed out. One is FTTN and another FTTP.
> 
> the thinking behind FTTN is that in the near future, the demand for large bandwidth pipeline isn't going to be more significant than what copper can handle, and with the advance of technologies we can hopefully stuff more into the same copper - ie. what's happening with dark fiber in the last 10 years or so.


Similar, dissimilar, all that matters to the end user is their experience. UVerse appears to have a limitation of *only one HD feed at a time.* This would prevent 50%+ of the users I know from even considering it. FTTN, FTTP, whatever. Even my lousy Comcast signal can feed me all the HD I want.

As I stated several posts above, unless there is a change coming for UVerse, it is dead man walking.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Sometimes I'm recording 12 HD things at once bewteen my 5 HDTiVos and my two HD tuners for my PC. I was recording two HD channels back in 2001. I couldn't imagine only being able to watch/record one HD channel.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

If ATT bought Dish as many are currently speculating they could use satellite to get more bandwidth into the house and only use the FTTN\DSL for internet and local channels.


----------



## Jay M (Sep 27, 2007)

Some U-Verse sales kids came to my door today. I was really impressed with their knowledge of the system and the difference between theirs and FIOS. 

Normally I would have just sent them on their way, but because of the bad service I received from Time Warner today I am willing to try something different. I just got a Series3 last night so I called Time Warner about cable cards- they said I just need to go to the store to pick them up. I asked if she was sure they had them in stock, she said they have no way of knowing the inventory, then I asked can I have their number so I can call and ask- she said that they don't have a phone! SO I left work early to go to the store and there they told me that cable cards can not be picked up, they must be "professionally installed". I asked the bit bit about not having a phon was true and she said yes because they don't have time to answer. My somewhat blunt reply was that I don't have time to waste a trip to the store for no reason. I also don't have 3 hours to wait for a guy to come to my house to insert a square peg into a square hole.

sorry for the rant. I was hoping that U-Verse would look good enough, and work with cable cards. I guess not. At least I will have first hand knowledge of technology before I cancel.

I guess the problem is trying to use a pots line to deliver internet and tv. If they could pull cat5e to the house then I could have dozens of HD streams all at once.

~Jay


----------



## cmonroe (Sep 1, 2007)

Does anyone know what flavor or DSL ATT is using, either ADSL2+ or VDSL? What is the typical loop length from the fiber fed RT to the customer prem?


----------



## Joybob (Oct 2, 2007)

aaronwt said:


> Sometimes I'm recording 12 HD things at once bewteen my 5 HDTiVos and my two HD tuners for my PC. I was recording two HD channels back in 2001. I couldn't imagine only being able to watch/record one HD channel.


Actually with just one M-card you can decode up to 16 high-definition channels. U-verse isn't that superior.


----------



## demon (Nov 15, 2006)

Joybob said:


> Actually with just one M-card you can decode up to 16 high-definition channels. U-verse isn't that superior.


No, an M-Card, can only decode 6 streams simultaneously, not 16. And you still have to have enough tuners to feed those bitstreams into the card for decryption.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

MadScience said:


> Well, as I was clicking through the guided setup, choosing my Cable Provider (Charter), it also listed AT&T U-Verse. I thought that was VERY odd since I was sure they had incompatible equipment. But if they do, why would it even be an option during guided setup? Things that make you go hmmm ...


TiVo and/or Tribune are probably not setup to discern between IPTV services and cable.


----------



## bmoura (Oct 20, 2002)

astrohip said:


> They've been installing Uverse in our neighborhood over the last couple weeks (technically, they're installing the infrastructure to support it). New ATT boxes around the neighborhood with fiber optic lines running in, and (on some streets) new cable along the poles for individual houses. (I'm not sure why some lines had to be replaced, and others not?)
> 
> I've spent some time learning about Uverse, and moyekj pretty much nailed it. You can get up to four IP streams, but only one can be HD. And from reading a few forums, it appears the PQ is highly compressed and only so-so.
> 
> ...


Yes and AT&T is talking one compressed HD stream per home - not per TV Set !
Definitely feels like a tough sell to me.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

Jay M said:


> I guess the problem is trying to use a pots line to deliver internet and tv. If they could pull cat5e to the house then I could have dozens of HD streams all at once.


The speed/distance tradeoffs are still there with cat5e the same as cat1, getting more than half a dozen HD streams would be a stretch. If you're going to invest in pulling new cable, it might was well be optical fiber.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Cat5e can easily handle a gigabit connection. I've been running a gigabit network on Cat5e for 6 years now.
With a gigabit connection half a dozen HD stream is nothing.


----------



## nmiller855 (Sep 26, 2000)

I came to stay with my dad at the end of December due to his health. He had changed from cable to DirecTv in the past. He didn't have clear reception & spent many hours searching for signal. He gave in to the ATT Uverse system & has had so many problems I can't even list them all. First there can only be 1 DVR but several other receivers on one account. I was able to hook my original Series 1 Philips up using an ir blaster & using a zip code I found on this forum. It seems to be working with very few glitches of not changing the channel. It took me several months to get the internet hooked up because they were more interested in installing complete systems rather than servicing already established accounts. Although he has the phone, Uverse & now the internet, he gets separate bills for the phone & TV/internet. Every time he gets a bill, there are added charges & when we call to complain, we get an additional $5 charge. Also the TV signal freezes randomly. We were told that was because the gateway was searching for the internet connection & would stop when we finally got the internet hooked up. It still freezes.
Will one of the newer dual tuner units work with Uverse? I'm used to the dual tuners on my combination units & don't have a way to compensate for scheduling conflicts.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

The Series 3/TiVo HD will not work with U-verse.

The Series 2 DT will work with U-verse, but only as a single tuner system, for the S2DT only supports one box, and Uverse is a box only all digital service.


----------



## NickIN (Dec 26, 2002)

classicsat said:


> For now, you can use a Series 2 with U-Verse.
> 
> Were AT&T to open their API, there is an outside chance TiVo could apply that to the HD boxes (which have MPEG4 decoders in them).


I think Microsoft :down: does the software for their boxes. Therefore we can all safely say that this will NEVER happen.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

bmoura said:


> Yes and AT&T is talking one compressed HD stream per home - not per TV Set !
> Definitely feels like a tough sell to me.


Got this in the mail yesterday. They are really selling hard in our area. I added one teensy bit of info to make a fair comparison . . .


----------



## McCarron (Jun 6, 2007)

U-verse has begun roll-out of 2 HD channels now. 3 is due next year.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/05/01/atandt-activates-2hd-2sd-u-verse-service-in-st-louis-more-citi/


----------

