Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Uverse - First Impressions

POTS, literallyImage by doegox via Flickr
As noted in the prior post, we are switching to AT&T Uverse.  Formerly, we had Comcast cable for TV, AT&T DSL (6 Mb/s) for Internet, and plain old telephone service (POTS) from AT&T.  Now we get all 3 services from Uverse - the so-called triple play.  Voice is now VOIP carried over the underlying DSL technology.

The installation went very smoothly, and the technician was not too fazed by my 1 KW ham transmitter or my Linux-based household network. (Of course, he didn't guarantee how well things would work in an intense RF environment.)

It turns out our distance from the neighborhood node is 2,554 feet. (This is FTTN service - fiber to the node.) By phone, AT&T had quoted ~750 feet from their not-too-accurate database estimate.  The service limit is 3,500 feet, according to our tech.  Our airline distance may be 750 ft, but our lines don't go direct.  This matters, because the ultimate data rate declines with increasing cable length.  We have ended up in the bottom tier of service, sigh.  This limits the number of TV channels that can be recorded or viewed simultaneously.  That's probably OK for us, but Internet service will be capped at 12 Mb/s for the foreseeable future.  Having double our previous speed is good, but eventually 12 Mb/s may feel too slow.  (Meanwhile, Comcast is saying 100 Mb/s service is coming.  No mention of cost.)

Preliminary observations: Everything works.  That's very good - much better than our early struggle with DSL.  We get a real 11+ Mb/s of data download.  TV works, but somehow the order was bungled and we do not have HD service yet.  A little worrying, the picture on SD TV is rather softer than we had with Comcast.  That probably reflects excessive compression by AT&T.  I wonder how much better HD will be.

Phone service by VOIP works nominally, but now we rely on a UPS to keep service up in a power failure.  POTS emergency service was much superior!
The level of system integration and the TV user interface is much better than what we had before.  Of course, Comcast also offers the triple play, but their HD video recorder system (and its control options) was inferior.  AT&T's services available through the TV are very interesting - receiving your phone voicemail?  I haven't tried that yet.

The industry has still not solved the command and control problem for home entertainment systems.  Even with the new system, we are in remote control hell if we ever want to use our DVD or other add-ons.  This is particularly frustrating for the less technical members of the household!  Why this could not have been resolved by now with some kind of standardized control bus among "home theatre" devices is not clear to me.  No one seems to take this major consumer interest very seriously.

Stand by for occasional further reports.

Update:  A few worrisome but non-fatal issues emerging.  Uverse VOIP service gives too many "fast busy" signals when calling some "well known" local numbers -- and even when calling Uverse support!  You would think "the phone company" would understand phone technology, even if it's VOIP.  This is a problem that almost never happened with the POTS network.

On the TV side, accessing some Uverse help files (apparently a TCP/IP web transaction?) return a 404 Page Not Found screen, which should never happen.  A while later, the request worked correctly.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

It Begins Again... (AT&T)

I've been enjoying stable "Elite" DSL service (6 Mb/s download) for about 5 years now.  Time to update to AT&T's "Uverse" service?  It just arrived in my neighborhood.


Southern New England TelephoneImage via WikipediaMy initial DSL service was a pretty grim story. SBC took over the Connecticut territory from SNET not long before.  (SNET, of blessed memory, was a member of the original Bell network, having been Connecticut's own phone company for a very long time.  Sigh!)


Surely, AT&T would have figured out their new Uverse TV/Internet/Voice technology by now. Nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong.

Actually, they've made 3 errors so far just scheduling the installation, and I've had to talk to 4 or 5 people on the phone.

The interesting technical issue is that their internal database shows that I am supposed to be 733 feet from the "node" (VRAD) in my neighborhood.  But, tracking real phone cables, I come up with some long zigs and zags that may add up to triple that number.  So there's a chance the tech will show up (at the newly appointed hour, we hope) and declare that my connection would be substandard.  And the whole thing is off.

I'm not canceling my Comcast TV just yet.

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Required Reading (FCC)

Image via Wikipedia
Logo of the United States Federal Communicatio...
(From the FCC Dept. of Ugly Logos)
My Amateur license is coming up for renewal.  Logging in to the FCC's Universal Licensing System (ULS) to make a correction, I came across this interesting language:
Amateur or GMRS applicant/licensee certifies that the construction of the station would NOT be an action which is likely to have a significant environmental effect (see the Commission's rules 47 CFR Sections 1.1301-1.1319 and Section 97.13(a) rules (available at web site http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html).

Amateur applicant/licensee certifies that they have READ and WILL COMPLY WITH Section 97.13(c) of the Commission's rules (available at web site http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html) regarding RADIOFREQUENCY (RF) RADIATION SAFETY and the amateur service section of OST/OET Bulletin Number 65 (available at web site http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/).
 So I guess I better read up:
Then there is the ARRL book "RF Exposure and You" by Ed Hare. ($22.95 from ARRL or $9 used at Amazon.com)  That's on my shelf, as it happens. Now I better crack it open.

Silly me, I thought applying for and receiving an FCC license meant you agreed to follow the rules.  But no, I have to promise extra hard and agree to read all this in advance.

Glad to know every other ham has done that!

Sunday, July 25, 2010

QS1R SDR QST Review

My first-ever product review for QST is coming in the September, 2010, issue.  This is for the Quicksilver QS1R Software Defined RadioARRL members may find it here. [pdf]

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Pillar Question

I note that ARRL now has "five pillars", recently up from four. But wait, there are five pillars of Islam, too. Some forms of Buddhism have ten pillars. So what's this about "pillars"?

Inquiring minds want to know how many pillars are optimum. We consult the oracle - Google - with a request to find all occurrences of "N pillars" - from "One pillar" to "twenty pillars". The following is the result -- worthy of deep contemplation.

Monday, May 31, 2010

Memorial: The Audion


One of the neatest displays at ARRL headquarters is in the W1AW station entry -- a couple of early radios using the DeForest Audion. You have to know where to look for them. The League is many things, but it lacks a real museum curator.

Remember the Audion here. (Gizmodo)

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Ubuntu Hams!


Are you into software development, Ubuntu Linux, Amateur Radio? Then you need to know about Ubuntu Hams!

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Weird Words: Wattage, Architect

Some words bother me. Maybe I'm showing my age, I know. But consider.

Wattage - The better word is "power" or "power rating". A 60 Watt light bulb has a 60 Watt power rating. A 10 Watt bulb is a low power bulb.

On the other hand, "wattage" is a parallel of "voltage", and I don't have the same reaction to that word. The "correct" words would be "potential" or "electromotive force".

Then why don't we say "amperage", "ohmage", "faradage", or "henryage"? Actually, I do hear "amperage", but not commonly.

[We seem to have some confusion between a quality (power) and the unit used to measure the quality (the Watt). In economics, there is something similar. The currency system may be called Stirling or RenMinBi, while the unit is the Pound or the Yuan. In the US, alas, we can only say "the Dollar" for both.]

Architect - When did we start using "architect" as a verb? I think I noticed it first in the computing world in the late 1980's. Why isn't "design" good enough? Maybe we IT gurus want to give the impression that we are a cut above traditional engineering professions? (Alas, the opposite is more often true.)

That's all for now from your local curmudgeon shop.