comcast vs att
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,970
From: Upper North Bay
Car Info: '15 LE STI, '06 WRX White Wheeled Wagon, '06 B9
i'd say comcast > att
speed
what are you about though?
Setting up a home LAN with comcast was a bit of a pain; the solution was the clone my PC's MAC address to the router after establishing the initial connection to the comcast node.
I'm a fan of their downsteam in most aspects. Downloading the newest greatest backups from Bit-tor is great, but if you're trying to stream a movie or even surf while moderately seeding and leaching.... forget it.
I'm not sure if it's on my LAN or if it's the ip/port connection noise that trackers bog my system down with on tor or what.
ATT seems to just utilize what SBC left off with, which to me was **** in most of Santa Rosa.
speed
what are you about though?
Setting up a home LAN with comcast was a bit of a pain; the solution was the clone my PC's MAC address to the router after establishing the initial connection to the comcast node.
I'm a fan of their downsteam in most aspects. Downloading the newest greatest backups from Bit-tor is great, but if you're trying to stream a movie or even surf while moderately seeding and leaching.... forget it.
I'm not sure if it's on my LAN or if it's the ip/port connection noise that trackers bog my system down with on tor or what.
ATT seems to just utilize what SBC left off with, which to me was **** in most of Santa Rosa.
They would never release it.
OTA has the least compression, uses h.264 I believe for video and ac3 (i think) for audio.
Next up would be Dish. Satellite has a very large amount of bandwidth, but the LNBs on the ends of the dishes in your homes are only so small, so what they do is they tune certain transponders at a time. Each satellite might have 10 to 30 TPs, depends on how big that sucker is up there. Each TP will have 6-15 channels, so the compression is isn't so bad. It's definitely there, just it's so much really. Most SD channels are still Mpeg2, all HD Channels are Mpeg4 by now. Eventually it will all be Mpeg 4 to save space and add more channels in HD.
DirecTV is next. They've got a lot of channels in Mpeg 4 now, but due to massive amount of sports channels and sports packages they compress more than Dish. I watched a live PPV MMA fight on directTV and I was kinda shocked it had so much macroblocking and banding, and it wasn't the TV, it was the signal. Didn't think it would look like that from DirecTV on HD PPV event like that.
Next up would be Cable. You get 1 pipe.. I piece of copper pipe that carries all the channels to your set top box or TV. TO fit 700 or so channels over a single piece of copper means you have to compress heavily, there isn't any way around it.
OTA has the least compression, uses h.264 I believe for video and ac3 (i think) for audio.
Next up would be Dish. Satellite has a very large amount of bandwidth, but the LNBs on the ends of the dishes in your homes are only so small, so what they do is they tune certain transponders at a time. Each satellite might have 10 to 30 TPs, depends on how big that sucker is up there. Each TP will have 6-15 channels, so the compression is isn't so bad. It's definitely there, just it's so much really. Most SD channels are still Mpeg2, all HD Channels are Mpeg4 by now. Eventually it will all be Mpeg 4 to save space and add more channels in HD.
DirecTV is next. They've got a lot of channels in Mpeg 4 now, but due to massive amount of sports channels and sports packages they compress more than Dish. I watched a live PPV MMA fight on directTV and I was kinda shocked it had so much macroblocking and banding, and it wasn't the TV, it was the signal. Didn't think it would look like that from DirecTV on HD PPV event like that.
Next up would be Cable. You get 1 pipe.. I piece of copper pipe that carries all the channels to your set top box or TV. TO fit 700 or so channels over a single piece of copper means you have to compress heavily, there isn't any way around it.
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,585
From: Los Altos, CA
Car Info: The Latest From WayneTech.
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,585
From: Los Altos, CA
Car Info: The Latest From WayneTech.
i'd say comcast > att
speed
what are you about though?
Setting up a home LAN with comcast was a bit of a pain; the solution was the clone my PC's MAC address to the router after establishing the initial connection to the comcast node.
I'm a fan of their downsteam in most aspects. Downloading the newest greatest backups from Bit-tor is great, but if you're trying to stream a movie or even surf while moderately seeding and leaching.... forget it.
I'm not sure if it's on my LAN or if it's the ip/port connection noise that trackers bog my system down with on tor or what.
ATT seems to just utilize what SBC left off with, which to me was **** in most of Santa Rosa.
speed
what are you about though?
Setting up a home LAN with comcast was a bit of a pain; the solution was the clone my PC's MAC address to the router after establishing the initial connection to the comcast node.
I'm a fan of their downsteam in most aspects. Downloading the newest greatest backups from Bit-tor is great, but if you're trying to stream a movie or even surf while moderately seeding and leaching.... forget it.
I'm not sure if it's on my LAN or if it's the ip/port connection noise that trackers bog my system down with on tor or what.
ATT seems to just utilize what SBC left off with, which to me was **** in most of Santa Rosa.
For http downloading comcast was stupid fast, but when it came to p2p, it always takes forever to build speed and hardly ever sustained - at least in my area. My friend in Davis doesn't seem to have a problem with it.
I went from my 12mbp comcast connection to 6mbp with DSL yet I can sustain higher TB downloads.. go figure!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
