PDA

View Full Version : The vultures are circling around @ Home


Kyle Fenton
08-21-2001, 05:45 PM
I don't know if you don't know, but this article will tell it all.

http://www.techtv.com/money/businessnews/story/0,23008,3343410,00.html

@Home doesn't even know if it going to make it through the year. That is going to be a big disappointment to a lot of people. Because @Home most of the times is the cheapest High-Speed Internet around there. This is like the big DSL fiasco earlier this year that disconnected a lot of users. If @ home doesn't survive, than the cable companies will chose a service that is probably going to be more in price. I know a lot of people have @Home and this is a serious problem. I am just hopping for the best, and @Home will beat this problem.

David Kelly
08-21-2001, 06:03 PM
dude, that isn't even cool!! i had no idea that they were even having problems. if they go out of business me and a bunch of my friends are going to be VERY disappointed. it's a pretty good service, although we've had some connection problems recently here in Indy. I have no idea of what to do if this happens. thanks for the info Kyle. i'm gonna have to keep an eye on this.

Joel J
08-21-2001, 06:13 PM
That is the main reason AT&T is trying to sell its "broadband" division. Whomever purchases it will get the entire package: cable internet and television. It'll all work out, unless AOL/TimeWarner places the winning bid (AOL/TimeWarner and ComCast are the most interested companies)..

EddieMcD
08-21-2001, 08:36 PM
Why won't it work out if AOL makes the winning bid?

A. Leese
08-21-2001, 09:39 PM
I didn't even know what @Home was before I read that article. I just use 56K, so..yea..my house won't be affect. Now, if BellSouth suddenly went out of buisness, I wouldn't have I-net or phone service. Not fun.

~Angela who still doesn't get why IRCCNet uses BellSouth to actually provide it's I-net service

Kyle Fenton
08-22-2001, 12:16 AM
Broadband internet as whole is not really a good commodity because the general public doesn't see the need to spend $35 to $50 for internet + the $100 to $200 cable/DSL modem. There isn't a great need to go out and get high speed internet service becuase they feel it isn't neccessary. Most people don't download video clips or flash clips like some of us do. You see, the way to get more broadband customers is to make it a need to get around in life. Until then the most an average person would pay is the $21.95 AOL fee a month.

Matt Leese
08-22-2001, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by Kyle Fenton
Broadband internet as whole is not really a good commodity because the general public doesn't see the need to spend $35 to $50 for internet + the $100 to $200 cable/DSL modem. There isn't a great need to go out and get high speed internet service becuase they feel it isn't neccessary. Most people don't download video clips or flash clips like some of us do. You see, the way to get more broadband customers is to make it a need to get around in life. Until then the most an average person would pay is the $21.95 AOL fee a month.
High speed internet access (can we quit calling it broadband? broadband simply refers to using a wide variety of frequencies; it doesn't deal with speed; is a cable modem broadband at all? I don't believe DSL is) isn't really a commodity. It's really a service which is a bit different. And the cost isn't extrememly prohibitive if you use the internet regularly. The real reason Excite@home is losing money has less to do with their cable modem business and more with the Excite part. Excite is not making money and is a money sink for the company. That may take @home down with it but that'd be unfortunate.

Matt who's happy that he'll be on Road Runner in a few weeks :)

Jay Lundy
08-22-2001, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Kyle Fenton
Broadband internet as whole is not really a good commodity because the general public doesn't see the need to spend $35 to $50 for internet + the $100 to $200 cable/DSL modem. There isn't a great need to go out and get high speed internet service becuase they feel it isn't neccessary. Most people don't download video clips or flash clips like some of us do. You see, the way to get more broadband customers is to make it a need to get around in life. Until then the most an average person would pay is the $21.95 AOL fee a month.

I use pacbell DSL and not only is it cheap (free setup/free installation/free modem $40/month) its reliable (I haven't had to reset my router in over a month) and the speed is great (384Kbps - 1.5Mbps / 128Kbps). They even were giving their clients static dsl modems for a while and thats what some of my friends got, but by the time we got around to buying it they were using dynamic modems.

Unfortunately dsl isn't available anywhere, but I definately recommend it for those who can get it

Kris Verdeyen
08-24-2001, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Matt Leese

broadband simply refers to using a wide variety of frequencies; it doesn't deal with speed

Actually, the broader the frequency band, the more information that can get through at a time, the faster the connection. That's why FM radio stations sound better than AM stations, and why cable modems and DSL are faster than a dial-up service.

The reason for this is due to the nature of digital data. A digital signal takes up a wide array of frequencies, with the width corresponding primarily to the speed of the signal. If you tried to transmit data at a higher speed than what a line is designed for, some of the higher frequencies would be attenuated, and you would start to get a lot of errors.

Matt Leese
08-28-2001, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by verdeyw


Actually, the broader the frequency band, the more information that can get through at a time, the faster the connection. That's why FM radio stations sound better than AM stations, and why cable modems and DSL are faster than a dial-up service.

The reason for this is due to the nature of digital data. A digital signal takes up a wide array of frequencies, with the width corresponding primarily to the speed of the signal. If you tried to transmit data at a higher speed than what a line is designed for, some of the higher frequencies would be attenuated, and you would start to get a lot of errors.

While you are correct that the wider the frequency used, the more data that can be transmitted, higher bandwidth does not imply broadband. One of the main things to consider is the fact that higher frequencies can transmit more data than lower frequencies (I believe that's the reason FM sounds better than AM; it's the frequencies used, not the method of encoding). That's why DSL is faster than a regular modem (DSL transmits on frequencies higher than the human ear or a phone can detect). So there are a number of issues at work which is why broadband is a misnomer. So, broadband does imply more bandwidth but more bandwidth does not imply broadband.

Matt

Kris Verdeyen
08-28-2001, 12:22 PM
But higher frequency means higher bandwidth, in most practical cases. DSL doesn't just use some high frequency 'f' it uses the range of freqencies from 0 to 'f' (or from some other lower frequency to f). If DSL could only use one frequency (a very narrow band signal), it would only be able to broadcast a continuous sine wave, which, by itself, could carry no information. Once you start turning the sine wave on and off, in order to transmit some data, the band needed starts spreading out, and if you want to have high-speed data, then you have a broadband signal.

Likewise, an FM radio station has more frequency space available, not due to nature or physics, but because the FCC licences FM stations 200kHz apart (which is why some digital radio tuners only up and down by 0.2MHz), while AM stations are licenced only 10kHz apart. That means that audio frequencies above ~5kHz have to be filtered out of the AM station's broadcast signal before it's transmitted, while FM stations can keep frequencies up to 15kHz (I think).

Matt Leese
08-28-2001, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by verdeyw
But higher frequency means higher bandwidth, in most practical cases. DSL doesn't just use some high frequency 'f' it uses the range of freqencies from 0 to 'f' (or from some other lower frequency to f). If DSL could only use one frequency (a very narrow band signal), it would only be able to broadcast a continuous sine wave, which, by itself, could carry no information. Once you start turning the sine wave on and off, in order to transmit some data, the band needed starts spreading out, and if you want to have high-speed data, then you have a broadband signal.

Likewise, an FM radio station has more frequency space available, not due to nature or physics, but because the FCC licences FM stations 200kHz apart (which is why some digital radio tuners only up and down by 0.2MHz), while AM stations are licenced only 10kHz apart. That means that audio frequencies above ~5kHz have to be filtered out of the AM station's broadcast signal before it's transmitted, while FM stations can keep frequencies up to 15kHz (I think).
There are many different ways to transmit data with electromagnetic transmissions. FM Radio uses Frequency Modulation. AM Radio uses Amplitude Modulation. The reason FM needs a larger frequency is because FM modulates the frequencies up and down. AM Radio modulates the amplitude of the wave instead. AM doesn't need a large frequency band because the frequency doesn't change.

The reason having a larger range of frequencies available for transmitting increases the bandwidth is primarily because it increases the number of channels for transmission. The spectrum of available frequencies is divided into multiple channels and each channel can sustain a certain transfer rate; adding more channels increases bandwidth.

It's important to remember that just because something's broadband doesn't mean that it will have a higher transfer rate than something that is narrowband. The word broadband has begun (incorrectly) to refer to high bandwidth which is unfortunate because they mean different things.

Matt

Kyle Fenton
08-28-2001, 01:51 PM
Here is another article that says @Home owes 50 million dollars or the mortgage company will push them into bankruptcy.

http://www.techtv.com/money/businessnews/story/0,23008,3344550,00.html

Kris Verdeyen
08-29-2001, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Matt Leese

AM doesn't need a large frequency band because the frequency doesn't change.

No, the frequency doesn't change - there is a large carrier, but there are other frequencies there, and they are the ones who carry the information.

And as far as this:


The word broadband has begun (incorrectly) to refer to high bandwidth which is unfortunate because they mean different things.


...is concerned. I think you may be right (http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=broadband) . I concede victory on this point. It seems you can't trust anybody (http://www.attbroadband.com/services/) these days.
:)

Kyle Fenton
09-29-2001, 10:09 PM
I know this an old thread, but this article indicates that @ home is dead in the water

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/29/technology/29EXCI.html

Chapter 11

Mike Soukup
09-30-2001, 02:06 AM
Even though @Home is dead, it looks like AT&T will buy all its assets and will take over service. So those of us with @Home should still have the same service, just a different provider.

Mike