No "Local on the 8s" on Weather Channel- AT&T needs to get this resolved with the

[Dead_Terrorist]

---

dhascall wrote:

---

michail77 wrote:

---

dhascall wrote:

---

SomeJoe7777 wrote:

I don't think most of the comments here are rude or sarcastic.  Most of them are actually trying to point out alternatives that you might find work (or at least suffice) until such time as LOT8s is available or another substitute that you like just as well is available.

All of us are customers, not AT&T reps, employees, or anything else, and as such, we have no power.  I sympathize with you and anyone else who wants a particular service that U-Verse doesn't have at this time, but ultimately, we can't really do anything about it other than try to assist you in working around the limitation.

By the way, this isn't a "blog".  This is a threaded discussion forum.  There is a large difference.

---

Good points, SJ.  The posts may not be rude but there is plenty of sarcasm to go around on most if not all the LOT8 threads over the past few years.  Sarcasm followed by more of the same can seem like rudeness.  "Turn your computer on....," "look out the front door," "The weather app (227) is all that we need" and so on. LOT8's is a polarizing topic - folks either want it or they don't.  Count me in the "want it" camp.  I'd be willing to bet that if a survey was done amongst a fair sample of UV subscribers (and not just U-Talkers) it would be about fifty/fifty (educated guess).  Fifty percent of 2 million is a fair number.  Maybe AT&T could work with TWC and develop a way of plugging in ads to offset the cost.

---

I'd want it too but I'd bet the STB could pull it directly rather than needing the extra equipment deployed to the local video offices.  LOT8 is outdated technology.

Also, if something really bad is going on TWC covers it on the national level.

---

Absolutely!  Verizon FIoS has widgets why not UV?  Can they call themselves "Advanced TV without them?  LOL.

---

Not to argue dshcall, but the equipment in the central phone office is necessary to make LOTS 8 to work.  This is fact..  as I've mentioned numberous times before, I am in the TV industry and I know this particular issue to be fact.

[dhascall ACE - Professor]

---

Dead_Terrorist wrote:

---

dhascall wrote:

---

michail77 wrote:

---

dhascall wrote:

---

SomeJoe7777 wrote:

I don't think most of the comments here are rude or sarcastic.  Most of them are actually trying to point out alternatives that you might find work (or at least suffice) until such time as LOT8s is available or another substitute that you like just as well is available.

All of us are customers, not AT&T reps, employees, or anything else, and as such, we have no power.  I sympathize with you and anyone else who wants a particular service that U-Verse doesn't have at this time, but ultimately, we can't really do anything about it other than try to assist you in working around the limitation.

By the way, this isn't a "blog".  This is a threaded discussion forum.  There is a large difference.

---

Good points, SJ.  The posts may not be rude but there is plenty of sarcasm to go around on most if not all the LOT8 threads over the past few years.  Sarcasm followed by more of the same can seem like rudeness.  "Turn your computer on....," "look out the front door," "The weather app (227) is all that we need" and so on. LOT8's is a polarizing topic - folks either want it or they don't.  Count me in the "want it" camp.  I'd be willing to bet that if a survey was done amongst a fair sample of UV subscribers (and not just U-Talkers) it would be about fifty/fifty (educated guess).  Fifty percent of 2 million is a fair number.  Maybe AT&T could work with TWC and develop a way of plugging in ads to offset the cost.

---

I'd want it too but I'd bet the STB could pull it directly rather than needing the extra equipment deployed to the local video offices.  LOT8 is outdated technology.

Also, if something really bad is going on TWC covers it on the national level.

---

Absolutely!  Verizon FIoS has widgets why not UV?  Can they call themselves "Advanced TV without them?  LOL.

---

Not to argue d?hascall, but the equipment in the central phone office is necessary to make LOTS 8 to work.  This is fact..  as I've mentioned numberous times before, I am in the TV industry and I know this particular issue to be fact.

---

Right  - I did not make myself clear.  A LOT8 type app / widget could be sent to the STB.  It would not be LOT8 but there are widgets / apps out there that could do the same thing and be on the STB, which is what I'm asking for.

Yes there are computers, broadcast radios, Digital subchannels, weather rocks and so on but you can not access those from the STB.

[JefferMC ACE - Wizard]

I agree with dhascall, if something that runs on the STB provides the same LOT8 information as a feed composed at the VOH, I don't know that anyone would compain that it's not LOT8.

I could see it like this: you tune to the new app "Channel" and the app takes over your screen.  It shows the live TWC feed except from :08 to :10 (and :18 to :20, etc.) where it does the same thing that the LOT8 gear does at the head end, and displays a radar and local information that it can obtain directly from the Internet.  It could also do Watch/Warning crawls across the bottom of the screen, etc.

Now, would TWC allow this sort of integration?  I kind of think not.

[michail77]

If they get enough money out of it they would .

But I think it all goes back to the times we are in now.  The need, while valid, just isn't as relevant as it once was. 

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

Apps are not run on the STB.  All applications deployed on the U-Verse platform actually run on an application server in the VHO, and the STB gives you basically a remote desktop session to the app.

If AT&T were to open up their application server to 3rd-party apps, then The Weather Channel could deploy a weather application into each VHO, and then the STBs could access it like any AT&T-deployed app.

However, I don't see AT&T allowing a 3rd-party app unless the 3rd-party is paying AT&T.  Since TWC wants AT&T to pay for Intellistar, I doubt TWC would spend money to deploy the app either.

[JefferMC ACE - Wizard]

You mean Yahoo games (et al) are being run as an session to a Terminal Server at the VHO using RDP protocol?

Dang... you'd think they could have better applications on a real Windows server.

What about Mulltiview and the u-bar?

[michail77]

That's weird.  

I understand thin client architecture and all since it's my profession.  But it seems kind of funny to have a terminal services session open to run solitaire and the barbie channel.  Much more should be capable then.

I turned down a job as a set top box developer one time.  However, I'd be really curios to see how this platform is architected. 

How many terminal sessions can the VHO handle?

[JefferMC ACE - Wizard]

Ooooh, something else just set in.

I'd not want to pay AT&T's bill for terminal service licensing from Microsoft under SPLA.  The base price is like $3.68/named user/month.

[michail77]

If it's part of the Mediaroom package they may have a different kind of license.

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

Correct, all the Yahoo games, etc. are all run on the terminal server.

I don't think this is an actual Windows terminal server as you might see in a corporate environment, it's a specialized version specifically for the Mediaroom platform.  It's designed to have simpler remote sessions that are running a single app (i.e. there isn't a large number of spawned processes on the terminal server when you connect).

Multiview, U-Bar, and Public/Education/Government (PEG) channels are also implemented like this except for the live video.  The live video comes in as multicast IPTV and then the STB overlays the live video on top of the RDP session.

For example, for multiview, the three preview windows on the right are from the terminal server session, the live video in the windows on the left is from multicast IPTV shown on top of the RDP session.  For bandwidth reduction purposes, and since the RDP session frames the reserved area for the live video as 4:3, the SD IPTV stream is used even for HD multiview.

U-Bar works the same way, overlaying live IPTV video on top of the RDP session.

PEG uses the RDP session mainly for display of the various different PEG channels in the menu.  There are then 2 ways that PEG can work -- it can use a live IPTV stream and overlay the video on top like the other apps do (San Diego VHO uses this method), or the video can be rendered on the terminal server and sent to the STB inside the RDP session (most other VHOs use this method).  The video quality suffers with the 2nd method, the RDP session limits the data rate to less than 1 Mbps.

[Glynne]

Let me reassure all of you about LOT8s.  AT&T will never do it!  How do I know?  Simple, AT&T has shown themselves to be notoriously cheap. They depend on 40+ year old copper to deliver their video IP service, rather than deploy fiber.  Saves money for bonuses for the CxOs and pay off the CWA.  But, in the long run, would save them service costs.  We've had 6 visits from AT&T in the past 1 1/2 years.  In the same time period we had the cable company out twice.  Once for the hook up and once for take down.  Also LOT8s (as traditionally installed, anyway) would require an IntelliStar at each VHO plus a dish, satellite receiver and encoder.  That all costing ~$20K + labor and taking ~10U rack space.  Each IntelliStar likely costs $2500.  I don’t know how many VHOs AT&T has but 200+ would still be a lot.  Sure AT&T could come up with some alternative method of providing the same overlay data but the development costs would also be high.  Since the IntelliStar is more or less a PC, that kind of power is not In the STBs so using them to do it is out.  Some have asked why TWC does not pay for the box.  Every other cable company had to pay TWC for their IntelliStar (formally WeatherStar) why should AT&T be any different?  It’s back to them being cheap.  They want to be a cable company w/o being considered a cable company.  Cuts costs down.  Mind you, we don’t see these savings!

Solutions?  We could revolt, calling in asking for it, writing letters or (what AT&T would most listen to) unsubscribe.  But I don’t think enough of you are that serious to make that happen.  So there we are.  AT&T is too cheap to make it happen and we the customer are not active enough to show AT&T we care.

As for me, LOT8s would be nice but quite frankly since the parent company of NBC bought TWC back in 2007 their service has become more about entertainment and less about weather.  I so wish AccuWeather would start their own channel but I don’t think they’ll do it.  I don’t think the market can support 2 weather channels and getting cable companies to carry your channel is a big uphill climb.  Though it would be nice to see some of those (babes) who left TWC back on the air.  <smile>  On an unrelated matter how much could be take of Jim kosek?   <hehe>  Because of all of this I have not watched TWC in a while.

FYI, I really don’t work for TWC. AT&T, a cable company or any of their contractors or competitors.  What I know is from research on the internet and general electronic knowledge.

Glynne

[oufanindallas]

---

Glynne wrote:

Let me reassure all of you about LOT8s.  AT&T will never do it!  How do I know?  Simple, AT&T has shown themselves to be notoriously cheap. They depend on 40+ year old copper to deliver their video IP service, rather than deploy fiber.  Saves money for bonuses for the CxOs and pay off the CWA.  But, in the long run, would save them service costs.  We've had 6 visits from AT&T in the past 1 1/2 years.  In the same time period we had the cable company out twice.  Once for the hook up and once for take down.  Also LOT8s (as traditionally installed, anyway) would require an IntelliStar at each VHO plus a dish, satellite receiver and encoder.  That all costing ~$20K + labor and taking ~10U rack space.  Each IntelliStar likely costs $2500.  I don’t know how many VHOs AT&T has but 200+ would still be a lot.  Sure AT&T could come up with some alternative method of providing the same overlay data but the development costs would also be high.  Since the IntelliStar is more or less a PC, that kind of power is not In the STBs so using them to do it is out.  Some have asked why TWC does not pay for the box.  Every other cable company had to pay TWC for their IntelliStar (formally WeatherStar) why should AT&T be any different?  It’s back to them being cheap.  They want to be a cable company w/o being considered a cable company.  Cuts costs down.  Mind you, we don’t see these savings!

Solutions?  We could revolt, calling in asking for it, writing letters or (what AT&T would most listen to) unsubscribe.  But I don’t think enough of you are that serious to make that happen.  So there we are.  AT&T is too cheap to make it happen and we the customer are not active enough to show AT&T we care.

As for me, LOT8s would be nice but quite frankly since the parent company of NBC bought TWC back in 2007 their service has become more about entertainment and less about weather.  I so wish AccuWeather would start their own channel but I don’t think they’ll do it.  I don’t think the market can support 2 weather channels and getting cable companies to carry your channel is a big uphill climb.  Though it would be nice to see some of those (babes) who left TWC back on the air.  <smile>  On an unrelated matter how much could be take of Jim kosek?   <hehe>  Because of all of this I have not watched TWC in a while.

FYI, I really don’t work for TWC. AT&T, a cable company or any of their contractors or competitors.  What I know is from research on the internet and general electronic knowledge.

Glynne

---

Really,  how is that working out for Verizon. They underestimated the cost of FTTP and are paying the price for it.  Copper still has lots of useful life left.

Leave a service just because you don't get weather reports every 8 minutes? Wow, I can think of much better excuses to leave a provider than that.  TWC has gone downhill in the past several years and LOT8s has never really impressed me, even when I had it, can't say that I ever tuned to it.

[ddbklb]

I don't see many comments from AT&T here, you might get better results on their facebook page.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=lf#!/uverse

[spd2demun ACE - Master]

I didn't think I could live w/o LOT8s, but guess what, going on 4 years and I've survived!

You have to decide if LOT8s is important enough to leave UV or not.

[dhascall ACE - Professor]

---

Glynne wrote:

Let me reassure all of you about LOT8s.  AT&T will never do it!  How do I know?  Simple, AT&T has shown themselves to be notoriously cheap. They depend on 40+ year old copper to deliver their video IP service, rather than deploy fiber.  Saves money for bonuses for the CxOs and pay off the CWA.  But, in the long run, would save them service costs.  We've had 6 visits from AT&T in the past 1 1/2 years.  In the same time period we had the cable company out twice.  Once for the hook up and once for take down.  Also LOT8s (as traditionally installed, anyway) would require an IntelliStar at each VHO plus a dish, satellite receiver and encoder.  That all costing ~$20K + labor and taking ~10U rack space.  Each IntelliStar likely costs $2500.  I don’t know how many VHOs AT&T has but 200+ would still be a lot.  Sure AT&T could come up with some alternative method of providing the same overlay data but the development costs would also be high.  Since the IntelliStar is more or less a PC, that kind of power is not In the STBs so using them to do it is out.  Some have asked why TWC does not pay for the box.  Every other cable company had to pay TWC for their IntelliStar (formally WeatherStar) why should AT&T be any different?  It’s back to them being cheap.  They want to be a cable company w/o being considered a cable company.  Cuts costs down.  Mind you, we don’t see these savings!

Solutions?  We could revolt, calling in asking for it, writing letters or (what AT&T would most listen to) unsubscribe.  But I don’t think enough of you are that serious to make that happen.  So there we are.  AT&T is too cheap to make it happen and we the customer are not active enough to show AT&T we care.

As for me, LOT8s would be nice but quite frankly since the parent company of NBC bought TWC back in 2007 their service has become more about entertainment and less about weather.  I so wish AccuWeather would start their own channel but I don’t think they’ll do it.  I don’t think the market can support 2 weather channels and getting cable companies to carry your channel is a big uphill climb.  Though it would be nice to see some of those (babes) who left TWC back on the air.  <smile>  On an unrelated matter how much could be take of Jim kosek?   <hehe>  Because of all of this I have not watched TWC in a while.

FYI, I really don’t work for TWC. AT&T, a cable company or any of their contractors or competitors.  What I know is from research on the internet and general electronic knowledge.

Glynne

---

I don't usually agree with you but AT&T being "notoriously cheap," sounds about right.  I look at Urge as another example.  There are "less expensive" solutions and then there is "cheap."  AT&T went the "cheap" route.

[skeeterintexas]

---

spd2demun wrote:

I didn't think I could live w/o LOT8s, but guess what, going on 4 years and I've survived!

You have to decide if LOT8s is important enough to leave UV or not.

---

 DH was somewhat 'obsessed' with LOT8s back when we had TW.  He wasn't too happy when he realized it wasn't available when we changed to Uverse.

But he got over it. 

[bedwards_1]

---

Glynne wrote:

Let me reassure all of you about LOT8s.  AT&T will never do it!  How do I know?  Simple, AT&T has shown themselves to be notoriously cheap. They depend on 40+ year old copper to deliver their video IP service, rather than deploy fiber.  Saves money for bonuses for the CxOs and pay off the CWA.  But, in the long run, would save them service costs.  We've had 6 visits from AT&T in the past 1 1/2 years.  In the same time period we had the cable company out twice.  Once for the hook up and once for take down.  Also LOT8s (as traditionally installed, anyway) would require an IntelliStar at each VHO plus a dish, satellite receiver and encoder.  That all costing ~$20K + labor and taking ~10U rack space.  Each IntelliStar likely costs $2500.  I don’t know how many VHOs AT&T has but 200+ would still be a lot.  Sure AT&T could come up with some alternative method of providing the same overlay data but the development costs would also be high.  Since the IntelliStar is more or less a PC, that kind of power is not In the STBs so using them to do it is out.  Some have asked why TWC does not pay for the box.  Every other cable company had to pay TWC for their IntelliStar (formally WeatherStar) why should AT&T be any different?  It’s back to them being cheap.  They want to be a cable company w/o being considered a cable company.  Cuts costs down.  Mind you, we don’t see these savings!

Solutions?  We could revolt, calling in asking for it, writing letters or (what AT&T would most listen to) unsubscribe.  But I don’t think enough of you are that serious to make that happen.  So there we are.  AT&T is too cheap to make it happen and we the customer are not active enough to show AT&T we care.

As for me, LOT8s would be nice but quite frankly since the parent company of NBC bought TWC back in 2007 their service has become more about entertainment and less about weather.  I so wish AccuWeather would start their own channel but I don’t think they’ll do it.  I don’t think the market can support 2 weather channels and getting cable companies to carry your channel is a big uphill climb.  Though it would be nice to see some of those (babes) who left TWC back on the air.  <smile>  On an unrelated matter how much could be take of Jim kosek?   <hehe>  Because of all of this I have not watched TWC in a while.

FYI, I really don’t work for TWC. AT&T, a cable company or any of their contractors or competitors.  What I know is from research on the internet and general electronic knowledge.

Glynne

---

Obsess much???? That's alot of time spent on a weather rant. Should have saved it for your next session. Remember the poster who only posted about TWC? Who was that? I would suggest a radio tuned to the national weather service, I would also suggest you pay close attention to the weather, it's dangerious out there right now, with winter coming and all. Cold in the mornings, warm in the afternoon, cold at night, also dark, with continuted darkness utill morning. I found some weather humor!! LOL at theses!! I love the weather!!!!!

Q: How did you find the weather on your vacation?
A: I just went outside and there it was.

Q: What is a king's favorite kind of precipitation?
A: Hail!

Q: What's the difference between a horse and the weather?
A: One is reined up and the other rains down.

[dhascall ACE - Professor]

Actually I use Mediashare and TVersity and I found the live National Weather Service streaming audio feed and at least I can hear the forcecast on my STB any time of day or night.

[NorthLineTony ACE - Czar]

---

skeeterintexas wrote:

---

spd2demun wrote:

I didn't think I could live w/o LOT8s, but guess what, going on 4 years and I've survived!

You have to decide if LOT8s is important enough to leave UV or not.

---

 DH was somewhat 'obsessed' with LOT8s back when we had TW.  He wasn't too happy when he realized it wasn't available when we changed to Uverse.

But he got over it. 

Who's "DH"?

---

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

DH = Darling Husband

[dhascall ACE - Professor]

Yeah Tony in forum speak D* means "Darling" or "Dear" x - relative.  DS = Darling Son, DD = Darling Daughter and so on. 

[bedwards_1]

A woman on a board I comment on, says DH = DUMB HUBBY!!! LOL

[skeeterintexas]

---

bedwards_1 wrote:

A woman on a board I comment on, says DH = DUMB HUBBY!!! LOL

---

I prefer IH...[Word Filter Violation] Husband!

note: I guess [Word Filter Violation] is a banned word....LMAO!

[TexasEd]

Surprising they let LMAO thru!

[JefferMC ACE - Wizard]

LM[afv]O, you mean.

[dinglesby]

You have too much time on your hands.  If the local on the 8 is that important to you than go to cable.  I have always been able to get weather information.  The weather channel has a nice desktop application you can load on your computer and get local weather.  Also their is a product called weatherbug that will chirp if you have a severe weather warning.  Not to mention weather radios, all local stations have weather reports and if their is a servere weather warning they will put a flyer accross the bottom of the screen.  To me spending hours on the phone and bothering them with letters is a waste off time.  I bet you are the object of a lot of jokes around the water cooler.  I am suprised they stayed on the phone with you for 2 hours.  I would have hung up on you after about 5 minutes.  The best thing you can do is find a hobby.

[skeeterintexas]

---

skeeterintexas wrote:

---

bedwards_1 wrote:

A woman on a board I comment on, says DH = DUMB HUBBY!!! LOL

---

I prefer IH...[Word Filter Violation] Husband!

note: I guess [Word Filter Violation] is a banned word....LMAO!

---

OMG...this is HEEE-larious! 

After 38 years you'd think I could call the old coot anything I wanted but I guess not!

[text removed]

[dhascall ACE - Professor]

---

dinglesby wrote:

You have too much time on your hands.  If the local on the 8 is that important to you than go to cable.  I have always been able to get weather information.  The weather channel has a nice desktop application you can load on your computer and get local weather.  Also their is a product called weatherbug that will chirp if you have a severe weather warning.  Not to mention weather radios, all local stations have weather reports and if their is a servere weather warning they will put a flyer accross the bottom of the screen.  To me spending hours on the phone and bothering them with letters is a waste off time.  I bet you are the object of a lot of jokes around the water cooler.  I am suprised they stayed on the phone with you for 2 hours.  I would have hung up on you after about 5 minutes.  The best thing you can do is find a hobby.

---

Well dingle, may have to go to Comcast.  Not because of LOT8 but if HGTV and Food are not back on I may not have an option.  Of course I would then have LOT8's, great HD, subchannels, the Hoosier Sports Network and Music Choice BUT WOULD ALSO HAVE  frequent outages, frequent price increases, bad SD PQ and BAD CS. 

[oufanindallas]

---

dhascall wrote:

---

dinglesby wrote:

You have too much time on your hands.  If the local on the 8 is that important to you than go to cable.  I have always been able to get weather information.  The weather channel has a nice desktop application you can load on your computer and get local weather.  Also their is a product called weatherbug that will chirp if you have a severe weather warning.  Not to mention weather radios, all local stations have weather reports and if their is a servere weather warning they will put a flyer accross the bottom of the screen.  To me spending hours on the phone and bothering them with letters is a waste off time.  I bet you are the object of a lot of jokes around the water cooler.  I am suprised they stayed on the phone with you for 2 hours.  I would have hung up on you after about 5 minutes.  The best thing you can do is find a hobby.

---

Well dingle, may have to go to Comcast.  Not because of LOT8 but if HGTV and Food are not back on I may not have an option.  Of course I would then have LOT8's, great HD, subchannels, the Hoosier Sports Network and Music Choice BUT WOULD ALSO HAVE  frequent outages, frequent price increases, bad SD PQ and BAD CS. 

---

But you'd have a happy spouse.  Of course when the bill keeps going up for bad service what will happen then?

[slicktroutman]

Ok is why the version the weather channel on ATT is so inferior to Comcast? It is really urine poor like I get in cheapo hotels when out on the road in hicktown USA.