Slashdot Mirror

1. You do need a new IRD and a triple-LNB dish, but aiming the dish isn't considerably harder than aiming the standard dish.

2. DirecTV also offers Showtime in HD. You won't get your local stations in HD, but can continue to recieve the standard feed of your local stations. Also, several HD-capable DirecTV IRDs also include a built-in tuner for local OTA HD stations. Add a standard antenna, and you have local stations in HD.

None of the terrestrial cable systems that I am aware of are currently offering HD signals. AT&T here won't even indicate when or if they will start carrying HD feeds.

DirecTV has to add additional satellites to add capacity. Local terrestial carriers have to upgrade their distribution networks to add more capacity. Where's the difference?

I can't comment on Time Warner's quality, but I can on AT&T in this area. AT&T cable has frequent dropouts on many digital channels, and horrible pixelation everywhere. Analog channels are fuzzy and ghosty. My DirecTV picture has never dropped out, even in the worst weather, and pixellation is minimal on everything I watch. AT&T can't compete on price, either. I have a comparable set of channels as my in-laws down the street, yet I pay about $15 less for my service than they do for theirs, even after including the charges I pay for additional recievers (2 at $5 each) - which they would also have to pay in order to recieve digital cable on more than one set (assuming they had more than one TV).

I'm a happy DirecTV subscriber. I don't yet have HD-DirecTV at home, mostly because I am unwilling to give up my TiVo. Now, if someone builds a box which integrates TiVo service, DirecTV standard and HD tuner, and a local OTA HD tuner, I'll buy it.

By using TiVo, you don't need their services, hence they can't sell it to you.

TNT runs the same movie many times in a given week. This is so that people that were watching something else the first time it ran gets another chance to see it.

I run an 802.11b network at the house so that my roommate, myself, and any hardware equipped guests can share the 'net. Of course, I don't tell AT&T this because I don't want them scrutinizing my account, looking for reasons to drop me for EULA violations. But what I find interesting is that AT&T has partnered with Linksys and is pimping the wired and wireless products on their home networking page. While this is not in direct violation of the EULA, which does allow for a home network to be created, it only allows for a network that is accessed the the account holder, and residents of the immediate household (family, roommates, that Guy on the Couch). I just hope that AT&T realizes that Wi-Fi radiates, and that the range will surpass the walls of most of the houses that it is installed in.

Many cable companies seem to think that trying to restrict their users from wireless solutions is a good idea, but AT&T seems to have the right approach.

http://www.attbroadband.com/homenetworking
redirects to
http://www.computers4sure.com/linksys/store/att_zi p.asp

If you drop in your zip code you will see that AT&T not only doesn't deny you wireless but in fact offers a one-stop-shopping for wireless products from Linksys.

So, while this specific article is about sharing your wifi with people that don't live in your apartment/home/discarded fridge box, I have to wonder if AT&T will even care about such sharing. They're pushing wifi as a solution, so they have to expect this sort of thing to happen...

I've been frustrated with AT&T Broadband ever since I signed up. They block port 80 (which wasn't spelled out in my user agreement, although the 'no servers' rule was), they use your MAC address to limit your access to a single computer, they don't offer static IPs at all.

(Obviously, most of these things are easy to get around. They're just annoying. When I signed up, AT&T was the only broadband service available to me, since you asked. :)

What's interesting to me is that no where on AT&T Broadband's site do they mention that they also provide consumer DSL service, hidden in their business site. I actually stumbled across this during another unrelated search.

I just found it interesting that AT&T isn't promoting this at all. Apparently they want consumers only on cable modems. Any thoughts as to why, especially when they've been having so many problems with their cable network?

I agree, "Digital Cable(TM)" is nothing more than an MPEG-2 (DVD quality) encoded stream of the existing channels that run on the same copper. The bandwidth required by these signals is at a higher frequency, therefore more channels are able to get pushed down the pipe. I would not expect them to look any better than regular cable on an HDTV box. Maybe less noise, but not better picture quality.

However I have not seen or heard of a Digital Cable service--the local offerings are AT&T Broadband or Click! Network--that has any HDTV channels, since IIRC the required bandwidth of one 1080i encoded channel is approx 4 analog channels.

This is not to say that they don't pipe them in by copper in your own city, or have them beamed in by DirectTV or Dish Network (I know one of those services offers HDTV programming)

What are the Upstream and Downstream Rates for AT&T Broadband Internet?

The new AT&T Broadband Internet network as been built to optimize our customers' high-speed Internet experience. This means that customers speed settings will be set at 1.5 MB downstream and 128kb upstream to ensure that all customers receive an optimized broadband experience. These speed settings are part of our continuous effort to provide customers with the fastest, most consistent broadband service at the lowest possible price.

Our lightning-fast connection enhances Internet experiences through fast e-mail communication, quick access to research and surfing, a fantastic gaming experience, quick video clip and music downloads and a whole lot more.

The AT&T Broadband Internet network also has been built for future advanced service offerings. We're examining tiered speeds as a future service enhancement in addition to other offerings.

For lots of useful information and experiences from ATTBI users, see the ATTBI forum on DSLReports.

I most certainly did read the post, in fact I quoted most of it in my reply. I assure you I have also read all of the correspondance from AT&T concerning this matter. The official support site is http://help.attbroadband.net.

Linux is unoffically supported, Yeah, they'll mention unofically supported thing is a TOS, gawd you are dense

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here, since you were unable to form a coherent sentence. It's funny that you use a post so full of grammatical and spelling error to call me dense. As I stated before, there is no mention of Linux at all in the Official Subscriber Agreement, nor is there mention in the Acceptable Use Policy(AUP), which is directly contrary to what the parent post asserted as fact.

as for the servers part, they mention that you can allow others to access your computer but they are not responsible for being hacked, etc. and you cant do commercial or business. you obviously looked at a old or different services TOS. read the one you were sent retard.

The Subscriber Agreement that I quoted is dated December 6th, do you have a more recent copy? Can you supply a reference to such a document? They explicitly state on their support site that servers in any form are not allowed. AT&T Broadband's site seems to be the definitive reference for the terms of the service. You say I should "read the one you were sent retard", but AT&T has not sent an updated agreement. The only correspondance I have received from AT&T subsequent to the network changeover is a standard welcome message directing me to help.attbroadband.net, which is the source for my statements.

What the hell is the theft of service thing for? the yguy didint say that you could happily give it away... you sir are pretty damned stupid for a troll.

Nowhere did I state that the original poster said I could give away the service, and I don't intend to do so. However, I do like to distribute the service to other computers throughout my home, which the new Subscriber Agreement specifically prohibits (either on or outside the premises). I was using this as an illustration of the point that the new AT&T agreement is much more restrictive than the previous Excite@Home agreement. The original poster asserted that the opposite was true. I supplied links and references to prove my statements. I gave specific instances where the agreement is more restrictive. You submitted a badly written post with no information or references, full of degrading language and personal attacks. Then you have the audacity to call me a troll. You, sir, are the very definition of a troll. I regret replying to such an obviously goading post, but I am quite upset about the degradation of service I have experienced and I feel this an appropriate forum to express my disgust.

I most certainly did read the post, in fact I quoted most of it in my reply. I assure you I have also read all of the correspondance from AT&T concerning this matter. The official support site is http://help.attbroadband.net.

Linux is unoffically supported, Yeah, they'll mention unofically supported thing is a TOS, gawd you are dense

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here, since you were unable to form a coherent sentence. It's funny that you use a post so full of grammatical and spelling error to call me dense. As I stated before, there is no mention of Linux at all in the Official Subscriber Agreement, nor is there mention in the Acceptable Use Policy(AUP), which is directly contrary to what the parent post asserted as fact.

as for the servers part, they mention that you can allow others to access your computer but they are not responsible for being hacked, etc. and you cant do commercial or business. you obviously looked at a old or different services TOS. read the one you were sent retard.

The Subscriber Agreement that I quoted is dated December 6th, do you have a more recent copy? Can you supply a reference to such a document? They explicitly state on their support site that servers in any form are not allowed. AT&T Broadband's site seems to be the definitive reference for the terms of the service. You say I should "read the one you were sent retard", but AT&T has not sent an updated agreement. The only correspondance I have received from AT&T subsequent to the network changeover is a standard welcome message directing me to help.attbroadband.net, which is the source for my statements.

What the hell is the theft of service thing for? the yguy didint say that you could happily give it away... you sir are pretty damned stupid for a troll.

Nowhere did I state that the original poster said I could give away the service, and I don't intend to do so. However, I do like to distribute the service to other computers throughout my home, which the new Subscriber Agreement specifically prohibits (either on or outside the premises). I was using this as an illustration of the point that the new AT&T agreement is much more restrictive than the previous Excite@Home agreement. The original poster asserted that the opposite was true. I supplied links and references to prove my statements. I gave specific instances where the agreement is more restrictive. You submitted a badly written post with no information or references, full of degrading language and personal attacks. Then you have the audacity to call me a troll. You, sir, are the very definition of a troll. I regret replying to such an obviously goading post, but I am quite upset about the degradation of service I have experienced and I feel this an appropriate forum to express my disgust.

I most certainly did read the post, in fact I quoted most of it in my reply. I assure you I have also read all of the correspondance from AT&T concerning this matter. The official support site is http://help.attbroadband.net.

Linux is unoffically supported, Yeah, they'll mention unofically supported thing is a TOS, gawd you are dense

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here, since you were unable to form a coherent sentence. It's funny that you use a post so full of grammatical and spelling error to call me dense. As I stated before, there is no mention of Linux at all in the Official Subscriber Agreement, nor is there mention in the Acceptable Use Policy(AUP), which is directly contrary to what the parent post asserted as fact.

as for the servers part, they mention that you can allow others to access your computer but they are not responsible for being hacked, etc. and you cant do commercial or business. you obviously looked at a old or different services TOS. read the one you were sent retard.

The Subscriber Agreement that I quoted is dated December 6th, do you have a more recent copy? Can you supply a reference to such a document? They explicitly state on their support site that servers in any form are not allowed. AT&T Broadband's site seems to be the definitive reference for the terms of the service. You say I should "read the one you were sent retard", but AT&T has not sent an updated agreement. The only correspondance I have received from AT&T subsequent to the network changeover is a standard welcome message directing me to help.attbroadband.net, which is the source for my statements.

What the hell is the theft of service thing for? the yguy didint say that you could happily give it away... you sir are pretty damned stupid for a troll.

Nowhere did I state that the original poster said I could give away the service, and I don't intend to do so. However, I do like to distribute the service to other computers throughout my home, which the new Subscriber Agreement specifically prohibits (either on or outside the premises). I was using this as an illustration of the point that the new AT&T agreement is much more restrictive than the previous Excite@Home agreement. The original poster asserted that the opposite was true. I supplied links and references to prove my statements. I gave specific instances where the agreement is more restrictive. You submitted a badly written post with no information or references, full of degrading language and personal attacks. Then you have the audacity to call me a troll. You, sir, are the very definition of a troll. I regret replying to such an obviously goading post, but I am quite upset about the degradation of service I have experienced and I feel this an appropriate forum to express my disgust.

From http://help.attbroadband.com/faq.jsp?content_id=41 6&category_id=34&lobid=1

Can I Host a Server?
AT&T Broadband does not allow servers to be connected to the cable modem. This means that no computer in a personal network can be used as a server.

linux specifically mentioned

There is no mention of Linux in the AT&T Broadband Internet Subscriber Agreement, are you referring to a different document when you quote "AT&T's TOS"?

As far as I can tell, the only difference between the old service and the new service is that my bandwidth is now limited and latency to internet locations is higher. They still have a draconian subscriber agreement, to the point of telling me I can't even have servers on my HOME network. It also mentions that I am not allowed to NAT my home network to the internet. If I want to have more than 1 computer access the internet, I have to buy their "home networking solution" and pay $9.95/month. I am only allowed to connect 3 computers to the internet, if I want to connect more than that, I am SOL. If I NAT my computers, AT&T treatens to prosecute. From the subscriber agreement:

(g.) Theft of Service. Customer shall not connect the Service or any AT&T Broadband Equipment to more computers, either on or outside of the Premises, than are reflected in Customer's account with AT&T Broadband. Customer acknowledges that any unauthorized receipt of the Service constitutes theft of service, which is a violation of federal law and can result in both civil and criminal penalties.

Oh yeah, sounds like AT&T is a great benevolent father-figure and @Home is the bad guy. I am shocked that anyone would be taken in by such propaganda.

From http://help.attbroadband.com/faq.jsp?content_id=41 6&category_id=34&lobid=1

Can I Host a Server?
AT&T Broadband does not allow servers to be connected to the cable modem. This means that no computer in a personal network can be used as a server.

linux specifically mentioned

There is no mention of Linux in the AT&T Broadband Internet Subscriber Agreement, are you referring to a different document when you quote "AT&T's TOS"?

As far as I can tell, the only difference between the old service and the new service is that my bandwidth is now limited and latency to internet locations is higher. They still have a draconian subscriber agreement, to the point of telling me I can't even have servers on my HOME network. It also mentions that I am not allowed to NAT my home network to the internet. If I want to have more than 1 computer access the internet, I have to buy their "home networking solution" and pay $9.95/month. I am only allowed to connect 3 computers to the internet, if I want to connect more than that, I am SOL. If I NAT my computers, AT&T treatens to prosecute. From the subscriber agreement:

(g.) Theft of Service. Customer shall not connect the Service or any AT&T Broadband Equipment to more computers, either on or outside of the Premises, than are reflected in Customer's account with AT&T Broadband. Customer acknowledges that any unauthorized receipt of the Service constitutes theft of service, which is a violation of federal law and can result in both civil and criminal penalties.

Oh yeah, sounds like AT&T is a great benevolent father-figure and @Home is the bad guy. I am shocked that anyone would be taken in by such propaganda.

From http://help.attbroadband.com/faq.jsp?content_id=41 6&category_id=34&lobid=1

Can I Host a Server?
AT&T Broadband does not allow servers to be connected to the cable modem. This means that no computer in a personal network can be used as a server.

linux specifically mentioned

There is no mention of Linux in the AT&T Broadband Internet Subscriber Agreement, are you referring to a different document when you quote "AT&T's TOS"?

As far as I can tell, the only difference between the old service and the new service is that my bandwidth is now limited and latency to internet locations is higher. They still have a draconian subscriber agreement, to the point of telling me I can't even have servers on my HOME network. It also mentions that I am not allowed to NAT my home network to the internet. If I want to have more than 1 computer access the internet, I have to buy their "home networking solution" and pay $9.95/month. I am only allowed to connect 3 computers to the internet, if I want to connect more than that, I am SOL. If I NAT my computers, AT&T treatens to prosecute. From the subscriber agreement:

(g.) Theft of Service. Customer shall not connect the Service or any AT&T Broadband Equipment to more computers, either on or outside of the Premises, than are reflected in Customer's account with AT&T Broadband. Customer acknowledges that any unauthorized receipt of the Service constitutes theft of service, which is a violation of federal law and can result in both civil and criminal penalties.

Oh yeah, sounds like AT&T is a great benevolent father-figure and @Home is the bad guy. I am shocked that anyone would be taken in by such propaganda.

Probably not directly related to what you're talking about, but...

Has anybody tried visiting http://home.attbroadband.com yet? Since yesterday morning (and still, to this minute), it's been pointing to www.yahoo.com.

Hmm, I wonder. "The enemy of my enemy...?"

< tofuhead >

I changed DNS to the old Mediaone servers and I'm working again. My DHCP-generated IP address changed. Mail and news are not up yet.

Details on how to change are here. I assume other folks can replace the "ga" in the URL with their state or city name. There was an email sent out last week with more details.

I live in a brand new subdivision that basically has no hope of getting any kind of dsl/cable broadband any time soon (God bless Qwaste and the Deathstar).

Then a neighbor told me about a small isp (Mesa Networks) that was offering fixed 802.11b connections for residential service in my area with 1-mbps up/down for $58/month. I called them up, arranged an installation time for a week later and have been up and running with no problems for a few weeks now.

Since then, it occurred to me that small shops like these offering fixed wireless access are a perfect compromise between the bloated-beauracracy-from-hell providers (ie here, here and here) and the unreliable, unmanaged, unavailable you-get-what-you-pay-for communal neighborhood nets that have been spawned as a backlash. It's become obvious that turning a profit offering broadband where last mile wiring is involved is extremely difficult if not impossible. But, the infrastructure to manage fized wireless seems a lot more manageable from a small business perspective to me

Anyway, I don't have the time, inclination or expertise to professionally manage an isp network and I really hope that the model these guys are pursuing pays off - I think small local providers have a much better chance of tailoring solutions that can cost effectively meet the broadband needs of neighborhoods and communities.

You know you're screwed when the only internet access available to you is from Ma Bell, because the other Ma Bell refuses to serve you. That's me, screwed! And Teledesic won't be available for years...

What is the solution? Well, the ideal mix of users includes a large majority who view the ads, and a small minority (this usually turns out to be the technically-inclined Slashdot crowd) who knows how to avoid them. Keep this mix, and everything is great for both groups. Let the balance get out of hand, and the result will disappoint us all.

The rise of PVRs can improve our enjoyment of TV, or it can destroy the content providers. And at this point, it could go either way.

-all dead homiez

AT&T has had things like this for a while now. Plugs into your cable modem...

That option has been available for about two years. In fact, they now even have packages for 'home networking' where they're selling Linksys gear via a third party but supporting it themselves. linkified

I just HAVE to weigh in with my own experience here. Sorry in advance for the rambling. It's therapeutic. SWB has been jacking me around the same way for the last 6 months. I moved into my new apartment in December and ordered DSL then (we are within walking distance of the CO). The order was approved, and slated for installation on Jan 2. Around Christmas time, I get a letter saying something to the effect of oh, something is wrong and we can't install it after all. No further explanation. So I call them. At this point I first hear the term pair gain though with no further explanation, and I also didn't ask. But I do get told that it is slated to be fixed sometime in the first quarter of 2001. Later in January, the helpful SWB salesperson leaves a message saying that the problem on my line now has been fixed, and she is reinstating my order. It should be installed in February. The day of the installation the install technician realizes that I am still on pair gain, and leaves a message to that effect. At this point I am really curious about what pair gain really is, call SWB, and finally end up with a technician from Advanced Solutions, which handles their DSL installations. He informs me that though I am within the required distance from the CO, the phone company is running fiber to my apartment (pair gain), but - but - there is an RT in my neighborhood, which should give me a really good DSL connection, ONCE THE DSLAM IS INSTALLED, which is part of SWB/SWB Internet/Advanced Solutions' Project Pronto. Pronto my ass. We now constantly get flooded with advertisement from SWB, saying DSL is now available in your area, and why wait on the old dial-up connection. Well, the first time I got the ad in the mail, I again reinstated my order, only to be followed by a very rude message on our answering machine from a fellow at Advanced Solutions named Steve, who, frustrated as he was, couldn't understand why the salespeople would keep taking [our] order, when [we are] on pair gain. So why am I still bothering with the telcos in order to get DSL? Aren't there other alternatives? Well... Yes and no. I can't get AOL Time Warner's RoadRunner, as our apartment complex has Optel. I can't get Optel's cable modem service as our apartment complex doesn't subscribe to it, and has no plans to. I can't get Sprint's ION, because they don't install it in multi-dwelling units. I can't get Sprint's Broadband Direct, because there is no direct line-of-sight between our balcony (which is the only place where the apartment complex will let us put up the transceiver) and the Sprint's central antenna. I can't get DirecPC's satellite feed, because said balcony is facing north and the satellite is due South. And finally, I can't get ATT Broadband (another fixed wireless technology, that does not require line-of-sight) because their antennae, on a building 4 blocks south of us either is not turned on, or they are pointing in the wrong direction, or they are simply honoring their agreement with AOL Time Warner to not sell to customers who are in an AOL Time Warner served area (which we technically are). For now, DSL is my only option. But since there apparently is no incentive for SWB to install the DSLAm in the remote terminal, I, and everyone else in our apartment complex, are screwed.