view:

topics flat nest

aaronwt

Premium Member

join:2004-11-07

Woodbridge, VA aaronwt Premium Member Amazon doesn't even charge for streaming... You only get streaming with a prime membership. You can't separately buy streaming. So no surprise there is no extra charge for UHD content. travelguy

join:1999-09-03

Bismarck, ND Asus RT-AC68

Ubiquiti NSM5

travelguy Member Re: Amazon doesn't even charge for streaming... Not exactly. You can stream from a very large catalog from Amazon ala carte without being a Prime member, but you have to "buy" each episode/season/movie. The upside is that there's no expiration for anything you buy.



Prime members get unlimited access to a much smaller catalog, the trade being there's no charge for viewing anything in the Prime catalog.



The problem with any streaming service of course is that the studios can pull any title at any time.

w0g

o.O

join:2001-08-30

Springfield, OR w0g to aaronwt

Member to aaronwt

Actually an Amazon Prime Membership is a bundle of services including streaming, free 2 day shipping, and maybe some extra services. They have bundled it into one membership so one does not need to pay several times for separate memberships to Amazon. bop75

join:2013-11-08

0000 bop75 Member Why should they? ?

neill6705

join:2014-08-09 neill6705 Member Re: Why should they? It's notable because Netflix raised their prices a little while ago. bigballer

join:2014-09-25 bigballer Member 4K will never catch on Satellite can't handle it, Cable can't handle it, DTV can't handle it.



They still haven't even rolled out 1080P yet.



Anyone really thinks our dismal internet can handle 4k? Can't even handle 1080p.....



Only way 4k will catch on is through blu-ray and this current generation of gaming doesn't even support 4k (ps4/XBone)

neua

@50.205.2.x neua Anon Re: 4K will never catch on said by bigballer: Satellite can't handle it, Cable can't handle it, DTV can't handle it.



They still haven't even rolled out 1080P yet.



Anyone really thinks our dismal internet can handle 4k? Can't even handle 1080p.....



Only way 4k will catch on is through blu-ray and this current generation of gaming doesn't even support 4k (ps4/XBone) 4K is already catching on, PC Monitors are starting to go 4K, Some even 5K now, Mac's are pushing 5K screens... from a format perspective it will catch on, from a transmission perspective that's another story... it will probably catch on for streaming but that's about it bigballer

join:2014-09-25 bigballer Member Re: 4K will never catch on Just because they have it doesn't mean media content supports it.



Look at my 1080P TV. No OTA channels, no comcast tv channels, no dish, no directtv.



Only place I get 1080P is from PS4, some netflix movies, and blu-ray.



4k on computer monitors only makes sense because of the extremely high resolution of some pictures. Internet bandwidth isn't there. And even more importantly, wifi sucks right now in its current state. Until there are more unlicensed spectrum freed up for wifi it'll always suck and I can't see a decent wifi chip pulling 4K video content. 5.0 ghz is "ok" with 1080P right now

PW097

@174.21.223.x PW097 Anon Re: 4K will never catch on Timelines to consider.



from Wikipedia on H265:

On September 5, 2014, the Blu-ray Disc Association announced that the 4K Blu-ray Disc specification will support 4K video at 60 fps, High Efficiency Video Coding, the Rec. 2020 color space, high dynamic range, and 10-bit color depth.[47][48] 4K Blu-ray Disc will have a data rate of at least 50 Mbit/s and may include support for 66/100 GB discs.[47][48] 4K Blu-ray Disc will be licensed in the spring or summer of 2015 and 4K Blu-ray Disc players have an expected release date of late 2015.[47][48]



On September 9, 2014, Apple announced the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus which supports HEVC/H.265 for FaceTime over cellular.[49]



On October 31, 2014, Microsoft confirmed that Windows 10 will support HEVC out of the box, according to a statement from Gabriel Aul, the leader of Microsoft Operating Systems Group's Data and Fundamentals Team.[50][51]



--- So Spring or Summer 2015 and we'll see 4k become the reality as software and hardware manufacturers utilize the compression technique into their systems. bigballer

join:2014-09-25 1 edit bigballer Member Re: 4K will never catch on



4k download/upload over wifi?



First, phone wifi just stinks



Second, that'll require a internet connection that requires a satisfactory upload speed. So no DSL or even some cable too.



I'm sure the Directv/samsung duo will sure be a hugeee success cough cough



»www.engadget.com/2014/11 ··· samsung/ What good is it if the backbone (aka internet) sucks?4k download/upload over wifi?First, phone wifi just stinksSecond, that'll require a internet connection that requires a satisfactory upload speed. So no DSL or even some cable too.I'm sure the Directv/samsung duo will sure be a hugeee success cough cough vandergraff2

join:2005-10-17

vandergraff2 to bigballer

Member to bigballer

said by bigballer: Just because they have it doesn't mean media content supports it.



Look at my 1080P TV. No OTA channels, no comcast tv channels, no dish, no directtv.



Only place I get 1080P is from PS4, some netflix movies, and blu-ray.



4k on computer monitors only makes sense because of the extremely high resolution of some pictures. Internet bandwidth isn't there. And even more importantly, wifi sucks right now in its current state. Until there are more unlicensed spectrum freed up for wifi it'll always suck and I can't see a decent wifi chip pulling 4K video content. 5.0 ghz is "ok" with 1080P right now



So where to start.



Broadcast TV is 720P60 or 1080i60 - so that's why you don't get 1080P streams from OTA/Cable etc.



DirecTV (satellite) does have 1080P24 for some of their on-demand content. Here you'll find the bandwidth for the 1080P24 content is similar to the bandwidth used on their 1080i60 channels.



Much Amazon and Netflix content is native 1080P24 and can be output at either 1080P24 (if your playback device supports it) or more commonly at 1080P60.



Netflix already has 2160P (sometimes falsely referred to as 4K) content - albeit a very limited selection of titles. Those with TVs that support it seem to have no issues getting the 2160P streams if they have ~18 Mbps connections (the actual streaming rate is 15 Mbps).



A good WiFi connection should have no issues at 15 Mbps (check the SmallNetBuilder router tests where they have measured actual throughput up 75 Mbps on 2.4GHz and 140 Mbps on 5GHz »www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless···ghz-dn-c ) First it isn't really 4K - a more accurate description is 2160P.So where to start.Broadcast TV is 720P60 or 1080i60 - so that's why you don't get 1080P streams from OTA/Cable etc.DirecTV (satellite) does have 1080P24 for some of their on-demand content. Here you'll find the bandwidth for the 1080P24 content is similar to the bandwidth used on their 1080i60 channels.Much Amazon and Netflix content is native 1080P24 and can be output at either 1080P24 (if your playback device supports it) or more commonly at 1080P60.Netflix already has 2160P (sometimes falsely referred to as 4K) content - albeit a very limited selection of titles. Those with TVs that support it seem to have no issues getting the 2160P streams if they have ~18 Mbps connections (the actual streaming rate is 15 Mbps).A good WiFi connection should have no issues at 15 Mbps (check the SmallNetBuilder router tests where they have measured actual throughput up 75 Mbps on 2.4GHz and 140 Mbps on 5GHz »www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless···ghz-dn-c ) 46436203 (banned)

join:2013-01-03 1 edit 46436203 (banned) to bigballer

Member to bigballer

That is patently false. Your 1080p TV is getting plenty of 1080p content. The bulk of HDTV channels are transmitted at 1920x1080 resolution. In fact, only the News Corporation and Disney owned channels are the last remaining holdouts stuck on 720p.



Everything else is broadcast at 1080i, which is 1080p once your TV de-interlaces the signal. I dare you to try and find the difference between a Blu-ray encoded @ 1080i and one encoded @ 1080p in a double blind test. I bet you didn't even realize that tons of Blu-rays are authored at 1080i and not 1080p. Any concerts, documentaries, European programming (as Blu-ray only supports 1080p @ 24 FPS, but not @ 25 FPS, all European programs must be encoded as 1080i @ 25 FPS for BD; this also applies to any programming with a framerate higher than film - concerts, documentaries, sports, that kind of stuff)



It's because 1080i and 1080p are one and the same at the end of the day once that 1080i has been de-interlaced. big_e

join:2011-03-05 big_e Member Re: 4K will never catch on You must have not encoded much video, otherwise, you'd wouldn't be making that statement. Saying that 1080i and 1080p are the same thing is like saying that 480i@60hz and 480p@24fps are the same.



Interlaced video is absolute shit to deal with. Interlaced video is a CRT centric technology where our modern flat panel TVs are inherently progressive displays. There is no such thing a perfect deinterlacing. You can't take two odd-even fields that are out temporal sync and combine them into a single progressive video frame without combing artifacts or blurring them via interpolation.



Even if you have a 24fps progressive source video with no temporal mismatch, you still have to contend with the 3:2 pulldown to telecine it to 60hz video. Never mind the wasted bandwidth used for repeating frames and needlessly seperating frames into odd even fields. The variable ratio between frames will cause visible judder on panning shots. The whole reason for 120hz TVs is to avoid a variable ratio pulldown with a 24 fps video source.



The people who are authoring 1080i Blurays when the source material is 24 fps progressive are simply incompetent or lazy and are ripping off their customers. In Europe taking a 24 fps film, speeding it up so it encodes at 50 hz is butchery. The audio must also be sped up in pitch 4%, or an algorithm must be deployed to chop out 4% of the audio to remain pitch perfect. When this has to be done because broadcast TV is limited to fixed resolution and frame rate this would be a valid technical excuse for doing so. But for Bluray where the disc authors can select the frame rate to best match the source material, there is no valid excuse. 46436203 (banned)

join:2013-01-03 46436203 (banned) Member Re: 4K will never catch on said by big_e: You must have not encoded much video, otherwise, you'd wouldn't be making that statement. Saying that 1080i and 1080p are the same thing is like saying that 480i@60hz and 480p@24fps are the same.



I have terabytes of 1080i video from a wide range of sources including Blu-ray Disc remuxes, satellite feed backhauls, and broadcast TV.



I have no problems with them. The majority of them play back fine on my PC and look as good as 1080p video. They look considerably better than 720p.



As far as 24fps video, who the hell cares? Most of my 1080i content is 29.97 FPS so 3:2 is not a concern for me. Most stuff at a 23.976 framerate is available in 1080p via Blu-ray or a 1080p digital download so I don't waste my time with a 1080i HDTV source recordings for that type of content. The bulk of the 1080i content in my archive is not high budget scripted 24 FPS stuff that gets these types of releases. It's 30 FPS stuff like live concerts, documentary, awards programs, etc.



As for Blu-rays being authored as 1080i, they are authored that way because the source is not 24 fps. The Blu-ray Disc format does not support progressive at framerates higher than 24 fps so all European filmed content (which is filmed at 25 fps) and all stuff recorded at higher framerates (like concerts or porn) is 1080i on Blu-ray. There are very few 1080i authored Blu-rays that have been authored that way out of incompetence. Most European movie releases seem to be authored properly as 1080p24 although I do see some strange American TV releases where they've butchered the framerate to 25 fps for some reason like the That '70s Show German Blu-ray releases. Those are 1080i50 releases. I don't know what's the deal with that shit. Of course I haven't. Why would I waste my time re-encoding video when I have endless amounts of storage space and bandwidth for storing the original sources unmolested? Re-encodes are for peasants.I have terabytes of 1080i video from a wide range of sources including Blu-ray Disc remuxes, satellite feed backhauls, and broadcast TV.I have no problems with them. The majority of them play back fine on my PC and look as good as 1080p video. They look considerably better than 720p.As far as 24fps video, who the hell cares? Most of my 1080i content is 29.97 FPS so 3:2 is not a concern for me. Most stuff at a 23.976 framerate is available in 1080p via Blu-ray or a 1080p digital download so I don't waste my time with a 1080i HDTV source recordings for that type of content. The bulk of the 1080i content in my archive is not high budget scripted 24 FPS stuff that gets these types of releases. It's 30 FPS stuff like live concerts, documentary, awards programs, etc.As for Blu-rays being authored as 1080i, they are authored that way because the source is not 24 fps. The Blu-ray Disc format does not support progressive at framerates higher than 24 fps so all European filmed content (which is filmed at 25 fps) and all stuff recorded at higher framerates (like concerts or porn) is 1080i on Blu-ray. There are very few 1080i authored Blu-rays that have been authored that way out of incompetence. Most European movie releases seem to be authored properly as 1080p24 although I do see some strange American TV releases where they've butchered the framerate to 25 fps for some reason like the That '70s Show German Blu-ray releases. Those are 1080i50 releases. I don't know what's the deal with that shit. tyrant_

Wannabe Billionaire

join:2013-07-07 tyrant_ to bigballer

Member to bigballer



Where do you live and what ISP do you have that 1080p buffers?

Cause naturally I can run 1080p lag free on my 40mbps connection just fine, let alone a 10mbps one (which I used to have). And with Tom Wheeler pushing for the bandwith definition to be pushed up to 25mbps, which will make ISPs, especially like mine -centurylink, rethink what they can market and sell as broadband. Hence, forcing them to offer at least 25mbps in urban and suburban areas which is more than enough to run 4k. And even if the internet doesn't get better here, in the UK and other parts of the EU, you can get 100mbps connections for as low as $40. So it will catch on quickly there.



Anyways, I always know new resolutions will catch on. That's why people choose 1080p over 1080i atm. Because, while technology like 3D and Smart tvs aren't that really wanted or needed. (Cant say much about mine, since mine is a 3D Smart TV ) We all want to have the best, sharpest, clearest picture out there. And the adoption is already happening. Even phones are going 4K! Even Youtube's also going down that route fairly quickly too.



I have a question for you, why did you buy a 1080P tv when 720p is crystal clear -ey? Exactly, the best resolution on the market and it's affordable, which 4K tvs are increasingly becoming more affordable too.



I hope I gave some insight on what I think of all this to you, because when 4k first came out, I two saw it as a flop. However, I then rethought it and knew how much more affordable and mainstream it will become.



I know this was long, but hopefully semi-interesting. First thing, lets get bandwith/broadband out of the way.Where do you live and what ISP do you have that 1080p buffers?Cause naturally I can run 1080p lag free on my 40mbps connection just fine, let alone a 10mbps one (which I used to have). And with Tom Wheeler pushing for the bandwith definition to be pushed up to 25mbps, which will make ISPs, especially like mine -centurylink, rethink what they can market and sell as broadband. Hence, forcing them to offer at least 25mbps in urban and suburban areas which is more than enough to run 4k. And even if the internet doesn't get better here, in the UK and other parts of the EU, you can get 100mbps connections for as low as $40. So it will catch on quickly there.Anyways, I always know new resolutions will catch on. That's why people choose 1080p over 1080i atm. Because, while technology like 3D and Smart tvs aren't that really wanted or needed. (Cant say much about mine, since mine is a 3D Smart TV) We all want to have the best, sharpest, clearest picture out there. And the adoption is already happening. Even phones are going 4K! Even Youtube's also going down that route fairly quickly too.I have a question for you, why did you buy a 1080P tv when 720p is crystal clear -ey? Exactly, the best resolution on the market and it's affordable, which 4K tvs are increasingly becoming more affordable too.I hope I gave some insight on what I think of all this to you, because when 4k first came out, I two saw it as a flop. However, I then rethought it and knew how much more affordable and mainstream it will become.I know this was long, but hopefully semi-interesting.

firephoto

We the people

Premium Member

join:2003-03-18

Brewster, WA firephoto to bigballer

Premium Member to bigballer

4k = 4 times 1080p HD, aka 4 channels, so yes satellite can handle it since that stream shooting down from orbit is very large. On all channels? probably not but for those that want to have a channel with 4k content it's probably already planned out to work. biochemistry

Premium Member

join:2003-05-09

92361 biochemistry to bigballer

Premium Member to bigballer

DirecTV has already announced they are going forward with 4k. Needleinthha

join:2009-11-30

Chandler, AZ Needleinthha to bigballer

Member to bigballer

"4k will never catch on"

Really, NEVER? Not even by the year 3049 when we are all in flying cars? haha...Just saying "never" is a ridiculous thing to say. It might be a few years before broadcasts are in 4k, but to think that we will still be watching shows in 1080i forever is obviously not true

Plus h.265 is starting to become mainstream, in the next year or two its going to be pretty practical to stream stuff in 4k because of the way more efficent codecs. 46436203 (banned)

join:2013-01-03 46436203 (banned) to bigballer

Member to bigballer



»www.ses.com/15011813/ses ··· -channel

»www.eutelsat.com/en/serv ··· ion.html

»www.eutelsat.com/home/ne ··· ach.html

»latino.foxnews.com/latin ··· america/



Cable can handle it - a single QAM channel has 38.8 Mbps of bandwidth. Plenty for a 4K channel.



As more providers roll out IPTV-based solutions bandwidth for TV channels will essentially be unlimited. This is why AT&T U-verse carries a billion HD channels; they have the capacity for unlimited channels thanks to their IPTV technology. Their bandwidth limitation lies not between themselves and their VRADs, but rather between the VRADs and the customers' houses. Nevertheless, they still have enough bandwidth even with their crappy fiber-to-the-curb system that they could deliver two high bitrate 4K streams at once to any customer capable of qualifying for their 'Power Max' 45 Mbps speed tier if they wanted to.



OTA transmissions could handle it too. It's all just a matter of companies and consumers being willing to upgrade their equipment. The bandwidth is there, waiting to be used. It just has to be done in a smart way for 4K to work on it. The current way it's being used - pushing a bunch of 1080i channels using an ancient codec called MPEG-2 from the year 1996 - is not a smart way. There is plenty of bandwidth available via fiber, VDSL, coaxial cable, and satellite for delivering 4K video.



And yes, I think my 'dismal' 300 Mbps Internet connection could handle numerous 4K streams just fine. It already has sufficient capacity for streaming seven raw Blu-ray discs simultaneously.



Also, peasant boxes are irrelevant to gaming. Try to catch up. Consoles are going the way of the dodo. PC gaming is the 'current generation' of gaming. Consoles are last-gen. And PC gaming is wiping the floor with 4K right now. 2x GTX 980s can drive most games at 4K 60 FPS. Satellite can handle it. There's already 4KTV channels on satellites broadcasting the United States, Europe and Asia:Cable can handle it - a single QAM channel has 38.8 Mbps of bandwidth. Plenty for a 4K channel.As more providers roll out IPTV-based solutions bandwidth for TV channels will essentially be unlimited. This is why AT&T U-verse carries a billion HD channels; they have the capacity for unlimited channels thanks to their IPTV technology. Their bandwidth limitation lies not between themselves and their VRADs, but rather between the VRADs and the customers' houses. Nevertheless, they still have enough bandwidth even with their crappy fiber-to-the-curb system that they could deliver two high bitrate 4K streams at once to any customer capable of qualifying for their 'Power Max' 45 Mbps speed tier if they wanted to.OTA transmissions could handle it too. It's all just a matter of companies and consumers being willing to upgrade their equipment. The bandwidth is there, waiting to be used. It just has to be done in a smart way for 4K to work on it. The current way it's being used - pushing a bunch of 1080i channels using an ancient codec called MPEG-2 from the year 1996 - is not a smart way. There is plenty of bandwidth available via fiber, VDSL, coaxial cable, and satellite for delivering 4K video.And yes, I think my 'dismal' 300 Mbps Internet connection could handle numerous 4K streams just fine. It already has sufficient capacity for streaming seven raw Blu-ray discs simultaneously.Also, peasant boxes are irrelevant to gaming. Try to catch up. Consoles are going the way of the dodo. PC gaming is the 'current generation' of gaming. Consoles are last-gen. And PC gaming is wiping the floor with 4K right now. 2x GTX 980s can drive most games at 4K 60 FPS. bigballer

join:2014-09-25 2 edits bigballer Member Re: 4K will never catch on OTA, don't forget that European and Australian channels are 33.3% wider than American channels. Having 8 MHz available instead of 6 definitely provides a boost for more bandwidth per allocated channels. Less total channels are available, though. and don't expect a transition to h.265 anytime in the near future either.



Most people are lucky to even get 10 mbps down in Illinois (outside Chicago metro.) Unless there's a widespread rollout of FTTH , I don't expect much 4k content through comcast, which already is congested as is for spectrum.



The only way I can ever see this happening in the next 10 years would be FTTH through internet video. With shitastic overpriced mobile data, 4k is out of the picture. And many homes can't even run netflix in HD. America's internet just.... sucks. Using DSL is liek throwing shit out of a window and callign it sewage.



As far as "peasant boxes" online play is much better compared to PC games.



You have to keep in mind, we just completed a huge transition in DTV moving away from 4:3 to 16:9 along with HD. I don't think many people are willing to "upgrade" to 4k and considering the fact that lcd/led tvs will last a long time, who knows when the jump will happen. Going from 480i to 720/108p is not the same as going from 720p/1080p to faux 4k



And the only 1080p/24-30 direct tv/dish programs are pay per view movies downloaded in advance or through broadband 46436203 (banned)

join:2013-01-03 46436203 (banned) Member Re: 4K will never catch on said by bigballer: As far as "peasant boxes" online play is much better compared to PC games.





I just... after that statement. I can't do it. I can't even begin to be bothered with arguing with your post.





I just... after that statement. I can't do it. I can't even begin to be bothered with arguing with your post.

neill6705

join:2014-08-09 neill6705 to bigballer

Member to bigballer

I can stream 4k YouTube videos just fine over my 20/1 VDSL connection. Most cable users should be able to stream 4k just fine. neill6705 neill6705 to bigballer

Member to bigballer





»www.satellitetoday.com/r ··· is-year/



"DirecTV intends to stream Ultra-HD content live. DirecTV currently supports 184 channels in HD but the big push to include Ultra-HD will be supported by new satellites planned for launch over the next 18 months."



Also, 4k is being received now in much the same way 720p 1080i, and 1080p were in the late 90s and early 00s.



»www.lightreading.com/cab ··· d/708112



"During the Consumer Electronics Show (CES), exhibitors displayed new television models with much clearer pictures. The sets created a buzz despite questions about consumer demand, high prices, transmission capabilities and a lack of content for them.



But this wasn't 2014. The year was 1998, and the new marvel was high-definition TV. The first HDTV sets hit the market that year, bearing a hefty retail price of about $8,000, according to The New York Times." Addressing the first point -"DirecTV intends to stream Ultra-HD content live. DirecTV currently supports 184 channels in HD but the big push to include Ultra-HD will be supported by new satellites planned for launch over the next 18 months."Also, 4k is being received now in much the same way 720p 1080i, and 1080p were in the late 90s and early 00s."During the Consumer Electronics Show (CES), exhibitors displayed new television models with much clearer pictures. The sets created a buzz despite questions about consumer demand, high prices, transmission capabilities and a lack of content for them.But this wasn't 2014. The year was 1998, and the new marvel was high-definition TV. The first HDTV sets hit the market that year, bearing a hefty retail price of about $8,000, according to The New York Times." bigballer

join:2014-09-25 bigballer Member Re: 4K will never catch on Directv 4k is initially going to be video on demand with an internet connected DVR and only to samsung 4k tvs.



and I'm lucky as to having comcast and att dsl.



Next neighborhood from me only gets att dsl. so 6 down/768 up. Can't even shoot 1080p on that (technically you could with netflix connected through wired, but with wifi losses, not through wireless)

MSauk

MSauk

Premium Member

join:2002-01-17

Sandy, UT MSauk Premium Member Very little I believe just about every tv station shoots either in 720p or 1080i. Only 1080p content I get from DirectTV is on demand stuff you buy (movies) 46436203 (banned)

join:2013-01-03 46436203 (banned) Member Re: Very little Only live programming, local productions, etc. High budget scripted programming is shot on film or with 4K nowadays.



They are also experimenting with using 4K cameras now for things like concerts and sports.

neill6705

join:2014-08-09 neill6705 Member Re: Very little



»www.hollywoodreporter.co ··· g-434897 NHK is already doing live broadcasts in 8k!

Gilitar

join:2012-02-01

Mobile, AL Gilitar Member Not with AT&T fiber to the curb I won't ever see 4K streaming as long as I'm stuck with AT&T garbage internet service. I hate you AT&T! 46436203 (banned)

join:2013-01-03 46436203 (banned) Member Re: Not with AT&T fiber to the curb I don't see why not. AT&T U-verse offers a speed tier with a maximum download speed of 46 Mbps (padded to 49 Mbps) and they don't even enforce their bandwidth caps.



49 Mbps is plenty of bandwidth to stream 4K video. To put that into perspective, the maximum allowed bitrate for a Blu-ray video is 40 Mbps, and Netflix's 4K streams using HEVC are only 15 Mbps.



You could stream three Netflix 4K streams simultaneously on AT&T U-verse's fastest speed tier.



Although I do agree they still need to roll out GigaPower everywhere because their offerings are still positively sad compared to fiber and cable.

w0g

o.O

join:2001-08-30

Springfield, OR w0g Member Re: Not with AT&T fiber to the curb Most people cannot get 46Mbps tier. Its only available to very few houses in very few markets thanks to the limitations and distance issues with DSL. Most people only qualify for 1.5Mbps to 8Mbps tier, just like my house..

neill6705

join:2014-08-09 neill6705 Member Re: Not with AT&T fiber to the curb I always laugh at Centurylink advertising "speeds up to 40mbps" when it's probably one percent of customers who are right next to the DSLAM who can get that. 46436203 (banned)

join:2013-01-03 46436203 (banned) to w0g

Member to w0g

I don't think you know the definition of the word "most" - last I read, 60% of AT&T U-verse subscribers could qualify for the 46 Mbps tier and 80% for the 24 Mbps tier.



"Most" simply requires a majority, or 51%. So yes, most AT&T U-verse subs can get the 45 Mbps tier.

w0g

o.O

join:2001-08-30

Springfield, OR w0g Member Re: Not with AT&T fiber to the curb Really, never heard of DSL where most of the customers can get the advertised speed.



My house with AT&T: 8Mbps advertising much higher rates.

My house with century link: advertising 40Mbps but my house only gets 1.5Mbps. 46436203 (banned)

join:2013-01-03 46436203 (banned) Member Re: Not with AT&T fiber to the curb My house with AT&T: 45 Mbps advertised, gets 49 Mbps. U-verse modem reports that I can sync up to 65 Mbps downstream and 12 Mbps upstream per line, so with pair bonding I could potentially have a 130 / 24 Mbps connection if AT&T released such a profile.



Damn it feels good to be DSL master race.

Gilitar

join:2012-02-01

Mobile, AL Gilitar to 46436203

Member to 46436203

said by 46436203: I don't see why not. AT&T U-verse offers a speed tier with a maximum download speed of 46 Mbps (padded to 49 Mbps) and they don't even enforce their bandwidth caps.



49 Mbps is plenty of bandwidth to stream 4K video. To put that into perspective, the maximum allowed bitrate for a Blu-ray video is 40 Mbps, and Netflix's 4K streams using HEVC are only 15 Mbps.



You could stream three Netflix 4K streams simultaneously on AT&T U-verse's fastest speed tier.



Although I do agree they still need to roll out GigaPower everywhere because their offerings are still positively sad compared to fiber and cable. I am stuck with 6 meg dsl even though I can see where the fiber terminates from my window. AT&T is too damn cheap to upgrade those of us stuck with fiber in the loop. I hate the piece of garbage known as AT&T! tkdslr

join:2004-04-24

Pompano Beach, FL tkdslr Member Re: Not with AT&T fiber to the curb Ditto, (no love for the Deathstar co), 13 years ago, my At&t aDSL loop could run at ~2.5Mbps down. Over time, as they added more users, it deteriorated to a non-functional 384K, at which point I disconnected everything including the POT's.



I have no love for overpriced Comcrap, so I'm kinda stuck waiting for Dish to make a 4K sat receiver. floydb1982

join:2004-08-25

Kent, WA floydb1982 Member Pointless with out 4K display If you don't have a 4K display then watching 4K won't look 4K but what ever the maximum resolution of your display is. your comment..

