AT&T Adds Record Number Of U-verse CustomersThough regular DSL numbers mysteriously disappear from earnings... ( old news - 08:40AM Wednesday Jan 28 2009) tags: dsl · business · telco · AT&T U-VerseAT&T unveiled their fourth quarter earnings this morning. According to the nation's largest telco, a recession didn't stop them from adding a record 264,000 new U-verse TV customers last quarter. According to the telco, the VDSL & IPTV service now passes 17 million "living units." It's somewhat ironic that after several years of whining from investors concerning the high costs of next-generation broadband, those investments are helping both AT&T and Verizon weather the recession. Meanwhile, AT&T suffers more landline and DSL defections, they're getting increasingly sneaky about breaking down specific additions and losses in quarterly report press releases. AT&T says they added 357,000 broadband customers on the quarter, but include both U-Verse and HSDPA 3G wireless data card customers. The telco makes no mention -- through the entire release -- of any specific vanilla DSL numbers. An AT&T spokesman confirmed to me they're no longer breaking out individual DSL numbers -- likely because they continue to decline. Wireless growth was again huge -- the telco adding 2.1 million new wireless customers. While Verizon leapfrogged AT&T this quarter to become the nation's largest wireless carrier with their acquisition of Alltel, AT&T remains massive. The telco now serves 77 million wireless customers -- seven million of which were added in just the last year.
Related:- When U-Verse and FiOS Compete
- U-Verse Launches In Tulsa
- U-Verse Launched in Jacksonville
- U-Verse, Whole Home DVR Expand
- AT&T's New 18Mbps U-Verse Tier
- User Impressions Of AT&T's New 18Mbps U-Verse Tier
- And Here Come The Broadband Industry Job Cuts
- U-Verse Hits Raleigh, Orlando
|
 
bagels
@myvzw.com | so much for the "U-Verse can't compete" argument..... | |
|  | 
XBL2009
------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Re: so much said by bagels :
for the "U-Verse can't compete" argument.....
To bad it sucks and takes 6 hours and several techs to install. FTTH would have been a better long term investment.
How long do you think U-verse will last? | |
| | | 
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Re: so much said by XBL2009  :To bad it sucks and takes 6 hours and several techs to install. FTTH would have been a better long term investment. How long do you think U-verse will last? U-verse sucks way less than my cable company, and took only one installer about an hour and a half. A little over a half hour of that time was taken at the VRAD. I'm sure techs run into issues but the in-home portion of the install was not complicated in my case.
DirecTV and Dish are probably a better on the TV side of things, but U-verse offers huge cash rebates, so they've been marvelous on my pocketbook. The 18/1.5 internet speeds are great for my purposes. They do slow down a bit (to around 14mbps or so) when watching two HD streams, but I'm rarely ever doing both at the same time.
I do feel AT&T undershot their bandwidth requirements a bit. U-verse could be so much better with a bit more bandwidth behind it. Compare that to our cable company, Time Warner, who has loads of potential in their coax, but any technological advantage is entirely wasted on god awful cable boxes from 2003 with no upgrades in sight. At least AT&T really pushes the limites of what they can get out of their VDSL, and the product continues to evolve.
As long as U-verse continues to offer good deals and the cable companies continue their commitment to mediocrity, U-verse isn't going anywhere. Remember, U-verse will be judged against other options available to that customer. A very, very small number of people will ever have a choice between U-verse and FiOS.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| said by Eat Me :Cable companies can offer better than U-Verse if they get rid of the analog channels and use MPEG-4 transport for their video offerings. Remember that U-Verse is using LESS bandwidth than what a typical cable company has yet is offering more. They don't even need MPEG-4, they just need to get rid of analog expanded basic on most systems.
They will be losing a U-Verse customer in the next week, though. The PQ on the TV service isn't very good (on larger TVs..it's fine on my 720p 37" set despite looking like ass on my 47" 1080p set), the DVR isn't very good, and the Total Home DVR feature is nearly useless. I'd keep the Internet service if I wouldn't have to pay for the month of crappy TV, but since I can only pay zero dollars if I cancel entirely, that's what I'll be doing next week.
Not only that, it's more expensive than Cox for both the top tier Internet (although it is a little faster and will only be $5 more a month after Cox's rate increase next month) and the TV service. If they'd get rid of the $15 in junk fees to get all the HD channels the pricing would be more comparable.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
| | | | etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
| said by djrobx :said by XBL2009 :To bad it sucks and takes 6 hours and several techs to install. FTTH would have been a better long term investment. How long do you think U-verse will last? U-verse sucks way less than my cable company, and took only one installer about an hour and a half. A little over a half hour of that time was taken at the VRAD. I'm sure techs run into issues but the in-home portion of the install was not complicated in my case. Is this comment supposed to be positive? LOL
I think that your uverse sucks way more than whatever cableco you have and you are just being over zealous about that uverse thingie.
The funny thing is that you are comparing uverse with 20th century cable, well unless you compare it with that juggernaut called comcast with 50mbps internet and lots of low comp HD channels at least less compressed than uverse. I agree that most cable companies are not even trying but what will happen when the cablecos wake up? DOCSIS3.0, SDV etc it is going to be a massacre in non FIOS territory.
Other thing you failed to mention is that the vast majority of uverse TV subscribers will be very happy if they were allowed to drop the TV portion of the service. You even have FAQs in the uverse forum on how to do this. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Amazing. The first post is "so much for the argument that AT&T can't compete" and the very next post implies it is going to fail soon.
Y'all need to recognize that U-verse is a huge success from a business point of view, even though its technology is not as robust as DOCSIS 3.0 or FTTH from a raw bandwidth standpoint.
AT&T has met and exceeded every business goal they had for U-verse. They are installing it as fast as they can (and probably over-extending their install capability in some areas, leading to some of the poor install experiences you see posted here). They are laying the groundwork for future expansion into VDSL2 (cheap/easy, only firmware upgrades required), pair bonding (more expensive, requires new NIDs), and extending fiber to the last mile (most expensive). It's a real success story.
Those of you here who have consistently bashed U-verse because it's not FTTH and have parroted predictions of doom need to step up for their piece of crow pie.
Who's first? | |
| | | | 
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: so much said by MyDogHsFleas :AT&T has met and exceeded every business goal they had for U-verse. Not quite.
They were supposed to be above 10% penetration before 2008, and mid-teens penetration by the end of 2008. Instead they are just now breaking 6% (as I documented below).
It has not been a failure, but the penetration numbers being posted are certainly not enough to call it successful yet.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| | | | | | | | | | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | and in markets that have been open 18 months, they are geting ~15% market share. Remember they are passing several million new residences every quarter with the service and this will depress the overall numbers. | |
| | | | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: so much said by cwh :and in markets that have been open 18 months, they are getting ~15% market share. Remember they are passing several million new residences every quarter with the service and this will depress the overall numbers. Yet they are counting subscribers in newly passed households in their subscriber numbers. So, basically they are inflating total subscribers at the cost of deflating penetration?
Even if you only count mature markets, that is still an awful bad penetration number for video services.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| | | | | | | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | Re: so much I think the metric you want to see is total subs in mature markets/total passed in mature markets. | |
| | | |
XBL2009
------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| said by MyDogHsFleas :Amazing. The first post is "so much for the argument that AT&T can't compete" and the very next post implies it is going to fail soon. Y'all need to recognize that U-verse is a huge success from a business point of view, even though its technology is not as robust as DOCSIS 3.0 or FTTH from a raw bandwidth standpoint. AT&T has met and exceeded every business goal they had for U-verse. They are installing it as fast as they can (and probably over-extending their install capability in some areas, leading to some of the poor install experiences you see posted here). They are laying the groundwork for future expansion into VDSL2 (cheap/easy, only firmware upgrades required), pair bonding (more expensive, requires new NIDs), and extending fiber to the last mile (most expensive). It's a real success story. Those of you here who have consistently bashed U-verse because it's not FTTH and have parroted predictions of doom need to step up for their piece of crow pie. Who's first? 1. How many more years does copper have left before even cheapskates like att are forced to start running fiber all the way into people's home?
2. U-verse over copper was and is more complicated since you need VRAD's everywhere to get any real bandwidth from copper. With fiber they could have just run it straight from the central office and skipped the HUGE refrigrator sized equipment sitting on every neighborhood's lawn.
Fiber would have been a good long term investment and it has less maintenance cost. | |
| | | | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: so much said by XBL2009 :1. How many more years does copper have left before even cheapskates like att are forced to start running fiber all the way into people's home? I think a lot of years. First, as evidenced by today's news, they have a lot of room left to convert passed homes to customers even in areas they've already built out with VRADs. Second, they have two more technology jumps they can make before they go FTTH as I pointed out in the post you replied to -- those being VDSL2 and Pair Bonding, which will increase bandwidth AND distance by a significant amount.
The real impetus will come when competition from Verizon (FTTH) and the cable companies (DOCSIS 3.0) starts actually hurting AT&T. Right now it's not. Verizon and U-verse do not compete head to head, except in a very small number of areas. And DOCSIS 3.0 is rolling out really, really slowly from my POV. The slowing economy is only going to make these high-speed broadband rollouts slower, as customers will be less willing to pay for higher speed services.
Finally, you have to realize that "cheapskate" is not a bad thing, especially in today's economy. Your "cheapskate" is my "savvy business strategist". If you can conserve capital and still get 90% of the customers you would have, you survive to grow and participate in the next round. AT&T's plan to spend about 1/3 of what Verizon does per passed home, make service available, and also lay the groundwork for eventually running FTTH from the VRADs, is looking smarter and smarter.
Look, personally, I'd love to have fiber to my home, and I'd probably pay $100++ for high speed Internet over that fiber. But I don't extrapolate myself to the entire market.
2. U-verse over copper was and is more complicated since you need VRAD's everywhere to get any real bandwidth from copper. With fiber they could have just run it straight from the central office and skipped the HUGE refrigrator sized equipment sitting on every neighborhood's lawn.
Fiber would have been a good long term investment and it has less maintenance cost.
I don't know how you measure "complicated". All I know is that their cost per passed home is less than 1/3 of the cost to run new fiber to an existing home. The VRADs are essentially a replacement for the old DSLAMs, so they know how to do it. And, running PON from the central office is Verizon's way -- that is not the AT&T direction.
AT&T's architecture is to have powered intelligent nodes in the neighborhood and be active on the traffic on that node. In many ways this is a better architectural solution than PON because it gives them the opportunity to insert intelligence close to the home. Eventually they'll have a way to run fiber from the VRAD to the home just like they run copper now. Thus they don't lose their investment in the VRAD infrastructure, they reuse it in their FTTH-to-existing-homes eventual strategy.
Finally, you are just repeating cable company spin with the "VRADs on every lawn" shibboleth. You know that's not true in most cases, and in every case it's using a right-of-way or easement that already existed. | |
| | | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| Re: so much said by MyDogHsFleas : If you can conserve capital and still get 90% of the customers you would have, you survive to grow and participate in the next round. AT&T's plan to spend about 1/3 of what Verizon does per passed home, make service available, and also lay the groundwork for eventually running FTTH from the VRADs, is looking smarter and smarter. What they're doing is increasing long term opex for a short term reduction in capex. That's just dumb. In the long run, they'll be spending far more money than Verizon, even if only because they have to pay the power bill and maintenance on those VRADs for absolutely no benefit. Additionally, in power outage situations, their service will be dead in the water unlike Verizon, whose customers can make the choice to install a bigger battery backup or even a generator and still have phone/internet service.
My clients are seeing the impact of this first hand. Cox's active infrastructure in the field has their Internet service out thanks to widespread power outages that aren't affecting the customer. Same with DSL on remote terminals.
There's just no way to spin having powered electronics in the field as a good thing from an engineering standpoint when it's possible to avoid. It may not be terrible, but it's better not to have them.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. | |
| | |
bagels
@mycingular.net
| U-Verse will last indefinitely. Since it is IPTV, it will work over copper or fiber. AT&T is already placing FTTP in many "greenfield" developments. Also, the majority of U-Verse customers are thrilled with the service? Didn't you read the JD Powers report? | |
| | | Blade1901
join:2005-05-05
Lithonia, GA | 6hours? Try 11 days and 17 different techs for my install. | |
| | 
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by bagels :
for the "U-Verse can't compete" argument.....
You will always have a segment of people who will switch and try a new service, who actually love the phone company and will sign up for anything they sell, and people who are desperate to move off of cable or satellite. | |
| | vinnie97
join:2003-12-05
Mesquite, TX | It can't...FIOS is the real solution...how I regret living in an ass-backwards AT&T ILEC territory. | |
| | | Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX | Re: Wireless income up huge; wired down moderately Well, I would say that and increase of 7.7 % isn't too shabby in these days and times. | |
| | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Take note all you people that continuously argue concerning the big monopolies earnings.
AT&T had $23.6 billion in profit in 2008. As I have said numerous times..... they can pay cash for rolling out fiber to the home over every single customer in their service areas. Like they should be doing. | |
| | | vinnie97
join:2003-12-05
Mesquite, TX
1 edit | Re: Wireless income up huge; wired down moderately And they can also afford to not implement 10GB bandwidth caps. | |
| | |
huber biger
@swbell.net
| said by Skippy25 :Take note all you people that continuously argue concerning the big monopolies earnings. AT&T had $23.6 billion in profit in 2008. As I have said numerous times..... they can pay cash for rolling out fiber to the home over every single customer in their service areas. Like they should be doing. not exactly - they also owe $172 billion, which they have to pay off someday. | |
| hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Shouldn't be able to combine the SEC should not allow them to combine their income. Especially when they use two different names for business. Like VZW and VZ. VZW= Cellco Partnership. Verizon is Verizon.
AT&T is AT$T, Inc. AT&T Mobility is AT$T Mobility. only owned by AT$T, Inc. Still two separate companies according to their site. | |
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: Shouldn't be able to combine AT&T Mobility is a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. VZW is a private company, partially owned by Verizon Communications, Inc. Why would T and VZ not report their earnings? | |
| | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
1 edit | Re: Shouldn't be able to combine VZW is actually a separate company. they may share the same name with "wireless" at the end but its still separate. They're a private company with only VZ owning part of them. they're a joint venture. Mobility is still a separate company as well and has their own HQ as well. They only have the same parent company.
By mixing the numbers together one could argue that they're fixing the numbers and it could lead to either increase their stock price falsely due to they do not actually have that many of customers as far as Internet or voice is considered.
If it was Comcast or any other cable company doing that the Telco's would be calling for the numbers to be separate as well as people on here. | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Shouldn't be able to combine said by hottboiinnc :VZW is actually a separate company. they may share the same name with "wireless" at the end but its still separate. They're a private company with only VZ owning part of them. they're a joint venture. Mobility is still a separate company as well and has their own HQ as well. They only have the same parent company. That's what I said.said by hottboiinnc :By mixing the numbers together one could argue that they're fixing the numbers and it could lead to either increase their stock price falsely due to they do not actually have that many of customers as far as Internet or voice is considered. But T and VZ do own the respective companies (partial stake in VZ's case), so they do have that many customers, and the revenue streams that go along with them.said by hottboiinnc :If it was Comcast or any other cable company doing that the Telco's would be calling for the numbers to be separate as well as people on here. If the cablcos, or the telcos for that matter, spin off publicly traded companies, then the earnings should be reported separately. These subsidiaries aren't separate publicly traded companies, i.e. you aren't investing in the wireless segments separately, therefore you don't care about the financials separately. | |
| | | | | 
OSUGoose
join:2007-12-27
Columbus, OH
clubs:
·AT&T Midwest
 ·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon BroadbandA..
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Shouldn't be able to combine Granted, but in reality there shouldent be "subsididaies & affilated company's" Shoot nothing (at least in ohio) has changed, just the name. Were still Ohio bell d/b/a AT&T Ohio et al. Shoot, even the power company still is Columbus Southern Power d/b/a AEP Ohio, and they are fricken headquarted here, the main AEP that owns AEP Ohio.
Personaly i feel that these mergers and aqusitions need to be 100% fully absorbed. Meaning when at&t says its selling wireless or internet or phone, it realy is them, not a affilated company such as AT&T Internet Services, which realy still is Ameritech New Media, ect... | |
| | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: Shouldn't be able to combine I don't see the problem. Looking at the financials, you'll only find AT&T, Inc, which references the wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T Mobility. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: Shouldn't be able to combine That's endemic of antiquated support systems, not the corporate, legal structures. | |
| | | | | | | | |
OSUGoose
join:2007-12-27
Columbus, OH
clubs: | Re: Shouldn't be able to combine granted, but i was providing reasons for both sides | |
| gopnick
join:2005-01-07
Benton, AR | Good for them It's amazing how well things for the telcos when they offer services that people want (Uverse, wireless) instead of things they don't want (POTS, 768k DSL). | |
| | 
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Good for them said by gopnick :It's amazing how well things for the telcos when they offer services that people want (Uverse, wireless) instead of things they don't want (POTS, 768k DSL). I think it's U-Verse and iPhone. Their wireless service, itself, is not coveted by the masses. | |
| | | youngmoore
join:2001-03-16
Marietta, GA
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: Good for them Its more of a "lets cut a deal" than actually adding users by normal means. ATT blew through here last month selling their wares door to door. The "common" deal so far has been tv 400, 6meg internet, home phone with UL LD, and 5 UL ATT wireless cell phones all for the price of 100 bucks. Now that's a smoking good deal, so much so that I don't know of any other company even able to compete with that. Is it wrong for them to be able to make deals like that when alot of people pay more just for their cell phone? Maybe but it just goes to show how overpriced things have been for years.
ym | |
| | | | vinnie97
join:2003-12-05
Mesquite, TX | Re: Good for them geeze, I'd even try U-Verse for that bargain. | |
| | | | | | 
gigahurtz
Premium
join:2001-10-20
Palm Coast, FL
clubs: | Re: No thanks, AT&T Eh? | |
| | 
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs: | »/forum/sbcdirect
I do take pots complaints as well. | |
|
enamorate
@sbcglobal.net | love the service I have had the service for over a year. The installation was only the bad part. I love the service, and I will never return to Time Warner Cable. | |
| | vinnie97
join:2003-12-05
Mesquite, TX | Re: love the service until the 20GB caps go live...of course, if the 2 aforementioned providers have their way, we'll all be saddled with such miserable limitations. | |
| whocares
Premium
join:2003-07-26
..
1 edit | Wouldn't wish U verse on my worst enemy HERE I have EVERY OPTION,AT&T offers both landline & cell phone and i tried their Uverse when it 1st came out (said i try it for a week-4 days layer called to tell them to COME GET THIS OUT
1st the tec was here 3 hrs oncell phone every minute with a supervisor telling him what to do
2nd it took 4, (no kidding) 4 recievers out of the box to find one that worked & got past the Uverse intro screen on tv @ startup-that should have been my 1st warning about the service
3rd then so called tec didn't know know to run the while cord from reciever to opposite side of room for router / computer.
4thon 3rd day of eatching the tv,the tv part crapped out,(was offered another reciever)
I'll stick with my DSL elite & Directv until AT&T get some experienced tech pple to install & some better equipment, keeping att on;y for phone services.
no way would I recc & have steered some FRIENDS away from AT&T Uverse.
--
some know how listen to both side & discuss an issue,others have a closed mind & only know how to criticize
| |
| | 
italiansmoke
join:2005-07-21
Monroe, MI
2 edits | Re: Wouldn't wish U verse on my worst enemy HERE Just to let you know, when a new service comes out that is as instrusive to every device in your house as Uverse is. You will run into a few problems, and some techs that haven't really gotten up to speed with installation and real-world application.
You tried it for 4 days, and that was back when Uverse had just come out. Well, you gambled with a new technology and got bitten. If I were you, I might try it again especially since the technology has been out a bit longer and the tech have better learned installation procedures.
From what I've seen/heard from friends, Uverse isn't all that bad. They install new equipment, new wiring, and the actual service is overall really good and reliable. As for me, I don't have Uverse. Considered it recently, but eventually I just stuck with Comcast because they were giving me a pretty good deal on a triple play service with 16/2Meg internet. So I've just stayed. But eventually, I will test the waters(in 1-2 years) and possibly try Uverse if Fios isn't rolled out here. | |
| | | w4ncr
join:2000-10-27
| Re: Wouldn't wish U verse on my worst enemy HERE It was so funny this morning listening to AT&T conference
call after call discussing the decrease in numbers of DSL and voice services.
In southeastern U-VERSE deployment being so slow as there are not many RT-SITES out there.
All of their packages are way too expensive for what little service they offer. | |
| | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| Re: Wouldn't wish U verse on my worst enemy HERE said by w4ncr :In southeastern U-VERSE deployment being so slow as there are not many RT-SITES out there. '
Actually there are a lot of remote solutions in the SE territories. BellSouth led in the deployment of deep fiber till FiOS came along. There's just a lot of rework needed because AT&T does things their way with their equipment. | |
| | | |
Gflash
@bellsouth.net | What! - You never relocated to Verizion fios YET ? And still moaning about U-VERSE = Cable company shill | |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
|  6.15% Penetration?
Looking at their numbers from past presentations
In thousands
Subs Homes Penetration
1Q07 13 (1000) (1.30%)
2Q07 51 (3000) (1.70%)
3Q07 126 (5000) (2.52%)
4Q07 231 (7000) (3.30%)
1Q08 379 9000 4.21%
2Q08 549 11000 4.99%
3Q08 781 14000 5.58%
4Q08 1045 17000 6.15%
Homes passed is not reported before 1Q 2008, but no "ramp up" in deployment is reported before 3Q 2008, so the straight linear growth assumption might not be a bad one.
Market penetration is growing, but 6% would kill a cable company; this is definitely being backed by sheer investment and still has a ways to go to be a successful venture.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: 6.15% Penetration? Do you have links or can you post the source of "their goal had been mid-teens by the end of 2008" ?? I'm interested.
My first thought is, how do you reconcile that they've been tracking to their numbers on installs, if the penetration percentage is 1/2 or less of what they predicted? I don't see how that adds up -- unless they are passing way more homes than they predicted. | |
| | | | | | | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | Re: 6.15% Penetration? and they also said they are getting mid teens market penetration in markets open 18 months. | |
| JessieLC
join:2001-01-06
32829-8748
·AT&T U-Verse
| so much Hey Guys.......right now for the consumer its how much can i get for the money and for the Telcos it how much do I have to spend to keep getting customers.........for me its Uverse TV and Elite DSL........I switched from DISH Network after I went through 3 HD DVR's in 6mos the last 2 in 1 month....I cut my bill by 50$/month for the same capabilities in TV and DSL.........that pays my water bill........besides AT&T' plan to slow things down a bit is not all bad.......in the mean time who knows what some inventive tech could come up with to make things better and cheaper using existing technology.........every industry is doing that right now | |
| | | |
|
|
Wireless income up huge; wired down moderately
·