 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
edit:
December 10th, @10:41AM
|  AT&T attributes rollout to statewide franchise law
A new world of communications and entertainment is now available to residents in the St. Louis area. AT&T will continue to increase U-verse availability throughout the area on an ongoing basis.
The introduction of AT&T U-verse services in Missouri follows progressive legislation passed in March 2007 by the Missouri General Assembly and signed by Gov. Matt Blunt. AT&T attributes the U-verse rollout to the statewide franchise law passed by the state.
Here is a local St.Louis paper's take on the rollout:
»www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine···Document
But one thing U-verse brings for sure is more choice of providers. Until now, local consumers have had two options: cable and satellite. The emergence of AT&T in the market will likely drive new services, and perhaps lower prices, analysts say.
It's unclear just how many people are switching to U-verse. It's been slowly rolling out during the past year and, at the end of September, AT&T had 126,000 customers in 18 markets nationwide, with 5.5 million homes having access to it.
While packages vary, here's a breakdown of the main offerings from three major video and Internet providers in the area: Charter, U-verse and DirecTV.
Charter cable - About 100 channels with expanded basic. High-end packages can include more than 200.Internet speeds of 5 megabytes per second or 10 mbps. On Demand programming and high-definition channels available. Prices range from $55 to $130 a month and can include phone service.
U-verse from AT&T - Basic package of 50 channels and 1.5 mbps Internet for $59 a month. Most advanced package of 320 channels and 6 mbps Internet for $129 per month. High-definition and TV-on-your-PC packages available. Multiple-channel DVR recording available. Phone service is separate.
DirecTV - satelliteTV packages range from 45 channels for $29.99 to 265 channels for $99.99. High-definition and DVR service available. Phone service is separate. --
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
join:2005-01-03
Riverside, WA
·CableOne
| Seems a little slow. I don't live in an AT&T area; all I know about U-Verse is what I read here. But, for a new service that is touted as highly as it is, 6/1 is the best they can do? Hell, I can get 8/768 and 8/1 from CableOne, and certainly no one thinks they're the greatest ISP.
It seems like Verizon is indeed proving that fiber is the way to go. If this is the best AT&T can offer, they'll lose the bandwidth race quickly.
--
There comes a point in your life when you get tired of fixing everything and wiping everyone's ass. But it’s not giving up. It’s realizing that you don’t need certain people and the bullshit and drama they bring to your life. | |
|
 | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| Re: Seems a little slow. When G.dmt first hit America it was generally 1.472Mb/s
A few years later they moved it up to 3Mb/s. They changed almost nothing to do so.
This is by no means the best they can do. This is the "good enough for now" that they can do. The purpose of U-verse is to build out an IPTV network. It's incrementalism. | |
|
| | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
·Rogers Hi-Speed
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: Seems a little slow. I was thinking the same as aaron,
But then I thought about what an anticompetitive load of crap uverse is. This is the latest attempt at DRM'ing us into a no choice digital economy.
AT&T has absolutely no business in the TV market and furthermore should be barred from doing so as the move is completely against any concept of neutrality on the net.
Do we want the people who control the network to limit our choices and force them through the existing channels of distribution or would we as consumers benefit more from the increased competition of an open market where anybody can bring content to the market?
Congrats AT&T on a billion dollar but fu*K | |
|
| | | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| Re: Seems a little slow. said by backness  :But then I thought about what an anticompetitive load of crap uverse is. This is the latest attempt at DRM'ing us into a no choice digital economy. AT&T has absolutely no business in the TV market and furthermore should be barred from doing so as the move is completely against any concept of neutrality on the net. What are you talking about? DRM? Net Neutrality? What does any of this have to do with the addition of another competitor in the TV market? Talk about reaching... | |
|
| | | | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: Seems a little slow. For the sake of time, i'll only respond to one of these.
don't you mean added another layer/reseller?
The internet allows us to cut the middle man and deal directly with the content creators.
Instead...we get.. a new way to access "dancing with the stars" and other fabulous crap from big media.
The internet is about freedom of choice not about having big media conglomerates dominate every facet of our lives.
my point is that reselling crap from the "big 4" on another medium does nothing to open up the marketplace to the content creators. In fact it does the opposite, it monetizes the content to the people who are supposed to be providing a pipe not tv service.
AT&T the new middle man (and here i was hoping that the new digital age would put the bucks in people who made the content's pockets) | |
|
| | | | | 
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
| Re: Seems a little slow. said by backness :The internet allows us to cut the middle man and deal directly with the content creators. Instead...we get.. a new way to access "dancing with the stars" and other fabulous crap from big media. The internet is about freedom of choice not about having big media conglomerates dominate every facet of our lives. my point is that reselling crap from the "big 4" on another medium does nothing to open up the marketplace to the content creators. In fact it does the opposite, it monetizes the content to the people who are supposed to be providing a pipe not tv service. Buddy, we are talking about IPTV here. The whole point of IPTV is to deliver television over internet. This isnt supposed to be some revolutionary thing, simply another delivery method. I think you are confused about what IPTV is, and what it isnt.
If you want user generated content (free of the "conglomerate"), simply go to sites like youtube.com or metacafe.com. I find interesting things on those sites, but its not TV in the traditional sense. Contrary to what you believe, most people do want to watch shows produced by media companies because thats what TV is!
ATT's IPTV offering isnt meant to compete against the TV networks (ABC, NBC, etc), and I think this is where you are confused. Its meant to offer an alternative to cable and satellite (or over the air) deliver methods currently in place. THAT is what consumers want, they are NOT looking for a new network operator to come in and make programming.
--
время индейки! | |
|
| | | | | | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: Seems a little slow. I'm not talking about user generated content. I'm talking about small startup film businesses having freemarket access. Big corporations love to set the bar to high (called barriers to entry) for the little guy to have a chance (forcing them to join in on the racket).
I am talking about ANOTHER RESELLER for the SAME DRIBBLE except this time they control, some would argue, the most influential network in the world.
Say hello to another 100 years of crappy network television, because guess what, AT&T has already announced its plans to attack anything that is not approved by them.
Say hello to your new middle man. Hope he uses a least a bit of lube. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | |
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| said by backness :I was thinking the same as aaron, But then I thought about what an anticompetitive load of crap uverse is. This is the latest attempt at DRM'ing us into a no choice digital economy. AT&T has absolutely no business in the TV market and furthermore should be barred from doing so as the move is completely against any concept of neutrality on the net. Do we want the people who control the network to limit our choices and force them through the existing channels of distribution or would we as consumers benefit more from the increased competition of an open market where anybody can bring content to the market? Congrats AT&T on a billion dollar but fu*K What does that even mean? Customers in those areas now have a 3rd (or even 4th) choice in voice, internet, and television. THAT is a good thing, in way you dice it. ATT providing TV also has absolutely nothing to do with "net neutrality".
--
время индейки! | |
|
| | | stunod2002
join:2003-11-07
Carol Stream, IL
| said by backness :I was thinking the same as aaron, But then I thought about what an anticompetitive load of crap uverse is. This is the latest attempt at DRM'ing us into a no choice digital economy. AT&T has absolutely no business in the TV market and furthermore should be barred from doing so as the move is completely against any concept of neutrality on the net. Do we want the people who control the network to limit our choices and force them through the existing channels of distribution or would we as consumers benefit more from the increased competition of an open market where anybody can bring content to the market? Congrats AT&T on a billion dollar but fu*K What you say make no sense at all! How is AT&T or Verizon getting into the TV business any different that Comcast, TimeWarner, etc.. getting into the internet or phone business????
Last I checked, no one is forcing you to buy TV from anyone. You can get it free over the air like so many of us do. | |
|
| | | | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | Re: Seems a little slow. or we could have a content creators utopia who can deal directly with their consumer( you know actually respond to the tastes,wants and needs of the consumer instead of having them dictated by a network and of course AT&T now also). | |
|
| | | | | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Seems a little slow. said by backness :or we could have a content creators utopia who can deal directly with their consumer( you know actually respond to the tastes,wants and needs of the consumer instead of having them dictated by a network and of course AT&T now also). All this crap you're posting has nothing to do with the article. Most new shows aren't even produced by the networks like they used to be. They are made and sold to the highest bidder. If these people wanted to offer them to you over the internet they could. Are you willing to PAY for such content? I thought not. | |
|
| 
JasonD
@comcast.net
| Yeah AT&T probably can do better, but common sense and prudent business practices prevail. With their huge geographic footprint, they really have no competitive reason to do so in the vast majority of markets.
Years from now when cable, fios, or 'x' service impinges on their competitiveness, they'll do what is necessary. Until then, it would only serve to make their stockholders angry. | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| I'd be extremely happy with the U100 package...and that's only 1.5/1.0. Price is king. As long as consumers have minimal capabilities for the smallest cost possible, a majority of them will be happy. Evidenced by the popularity of some of the 768/128 DSL (and now some cablecos jumping on the bandwagon...especially for retention purposes) packages rolled out. | |
|
| | 
Matt
You can't fix stupid
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
 ·Corporate Colocation
| Re: Seems a little slow. said by openbox9 :I'd be extremely happy with the U100 package...and that's only 1.5/1.0. Price is king. As long as consumers have minimal capabilities for the smallest cost possible, a majority of them will be happy. Evidenced by the popularity of some of the 768/128 DSL (and now some cablecos jumping on the bandwagon...especially for retention purposes) packages rolled out. 92.67% of all statistics are made up on the spot and like usual, your sample size is relatively small.
--
Pretty Fly for a White Guy™ | |
|
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: Seems a little slow. What sample size would that be? The fact that low cost DSL packages are growing in popularity and that cablecos are beginning to compete on price instead of "my bandwidth tier beats your bandwidth tier" tactics seem to speak for themselves...without me making up 92.67% of statistics. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Seems a little slow. said by wifi4milez :said by Matt :said by openbox9 :I'd be extremely happy with the U100 package...and that's only 1.5/1.0. Price is king. As long as consumers have minimal capabilities for the smallest cost possible, a majority of them will be happy. Evidenced by the popularity of some of the 768/128 DSL (and now some cablecos jumping on the bandwagon...especially for retention purposes) packages rolled out. 92.67% of all statistics are made up on the spot and like usual, your sample size is relatively small. While that may be true (stats are made up), he is still correct. Other than the people on this forum (and others like it), the vast majority of Americans dont care about having 20+Mbps internet connections, nor are they interested in paying for them. The fastest growing DSL tier is the 768k/128k, and for good reason. Most people want the cheapest internet service they can get, period. Try surfing the net on dial-up. That's $10 month. I don't see people flocking to that. So yes people do go on price but to a point. In the not so distant future, 768 Kbps will seems like dial-up as more and more website use bandwidth hogging apps. Some sites it's already like that.
Go to »buccaneers.com and tell me how long it takes the page to load. For me 5 seconds on a 5 Mbps connection. Warning if you don't have a wide screen monitor and have it set at at least 1280X800 you might have issues seeing the vast majority of the page. And this is the future of websites. | |
|
| | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Seems a little slow. Wow! I went to the site and I must say that Bucs fan or not, all men should visit the cheerleader pages. Caution: Before you visit make sure you haven't pissed of your significant other and, if necessary, brothers Cialis and Viagra are in the house. | |
|
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Hollywood, FL
clubs: | How about just bringing those of us in the South East (former BellSouth) equal pricing and speeds. I could give a rip about U-Verse at the moment.
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
|
| AtlGuy
join:2000-10-17
Marietta, GA
| Re: How about said by ropeguru :just bringing those of us in the South East (former BellSouth) equal pricing... No doubt ropeguru. I've been waiting patiently for that. | |
|
| 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | good point. the "it takes time to merge the different systems (Bell South and AT&T)" excuse has now officially expired.
the real reason/excuse is money. they get more money from BS customers and provide slower speeds. win win for them! | |
|
| | 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Re: How about They skipped my town. It looks like they are just deploying along the main trunks on 101 to 5. | |
|
| | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | Bellsouth's DSL profiles (excluding U-verse) are actually faster than AT&Ts speed profiles (3008kb/s vs 3552kb/s) as well as having a pretty good footprint. | |
|
| | |
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Hollywood, FL
clubs:
| Re: How about said by bogey780 :Bellsouth's DSL profiles (excluding U-verse) are actually faster than AT&Ts speed profiles (3008kb/s vs 3552kb/s) as well as having a pretty good footprint. I need the additional upstream for all the VoIP that I do and the reduction in $$$ would be nice also. The downstream, if reduced, would be plenty for me.
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
|
| | | 
dot_null
Premium
join:2004-06-28
Kennesaw, GA | Hopefully BellSouth/ATT Southeast will maintain MaxSync on U-Verse. Probably wishful thinking, but it would be nice. | |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | need faster speeds. How come FioS can get speeds of 15 Mbps or even 20 Mbps and at&t is stuck at 6 Mbps? Hell I can get 10 Mbps from Charter and soon they are going to up that to 16 Mbps. Why should I get this service if it was available to me? | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL | Re: need faster speeds. You can save some money. Bandwidth isn't everything...at least outside of the BBR forum. | |
|
| | BoMarty
join:2001-02-01
Ballwin, MO
| Re: need faster speeds. Good! I now have a choice! I have been a Charter customer in St Louis for as long as I can remember. I had no other choice. Tried DSL a few years ago, and very slow speeds. I was too far out to get good speeds.
Most likely, I will not give up my 10/1 internet and soon 16/2. Maybe Charter will be a little more aggressive in pricing with the new guy on the block. (AT&T) | |
|
| | | sroudebush
join:2007-04-20
Riverside, CA | Re: need faster speeds. If you were too far out with 768 or 1.5 Dsl...what makes you think that AT&T will work for you now? | |
|
| | | | BoMarty
join:2001-02-01
Ballwin, MO
| Re: need faster speeds. said by sroudebush :If you were too far out with 768 or 1.5 Dsl...what makes you think that AT&T will work for you now? LOL, I dont live in the 80's anymore  | |
|
| | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by openbox9 :You can save some money. Bandwidth isn't everything...at least outside of the BBR forum. well that's true then why not just get at&t DSL 768 Mbps for $20 a month. That'll save a lot of money. No thanks.
first of all I don't even see a choice of getting the internet part by itself. Secondly in a few months when Charter rolls out it's 16/2 tier the 10/1 tier will be $50 a month. That beats $47 at&t's 6/512 they offer in my area for naked DSL.
Unfortuneatley each company thinks it's own shit doesn't stink so neither will feel the need to compete on price. | |
|
icp1
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Saint Louis, MO
clubs: | not in my area I am in st. louis (city) and get rejected on the availability page. I'd consider it if we were, I don't know, available? | |
|
| markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO | Re: not in my area Don't feel bad, all those places listed lots of them can't even get DSL yet STILL. Friend in st.louis county calls every year and they say every year its coming..for last 6 years. :P | |
|
| | fpilot
join:2007-02-24
Camino, CA
·Remotely Located W..
| Re: not in my area said by markopoleo :Don't feel bad, all those places listed lots of them can't even get DSL yet STILL. Friend in st.louis county calls every year and they say every year its coming..for last 6 years. :P Yep. It's Ma Bell's fake orgasm. | |
|
| | | tanker001
join:2003-04-23
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: not in my area Same here... I don't know how many on this site (in the St. Louis area) read the article on the front page of the Sunday St. Louis Post Dispatch about a month back regarding the lack of coverage in some areas of the St. Louis Metro area.
I happen to be in one of the areas in ST. Louis County they wrote the article about. I have no CHOICE in HSI providers and they (AT&T) don't seem to care about doing anything to close these availability holes. The CO I am linked to is to far to support "reliable" DSL service.
I have enough problems with my Charter Cable reception and there so called system enhancements. It's funny, every time they enhance the service, channels disappear from my analog line up. That's an enhancement? Maybe for someone else. | |
|
| | | |
southstl
@sbcglobal.net
| Re: not in my area i'm in stl city as well (by 55/loughborough) and i'm withjout u-verse... i get their 3m now and they don't even have the 6m available here...
i call up fully prepared to throw money at them for a better line and the best they can do is notify me when it's available...
i moved away from charter about a year ago and my only complaint has been lack of higher speeds... i will never return to charter. | |
|
|
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | Re: Screw TV. Just give me my 10/10 (or higher). they offer 6/768 dsl (static ip) for slightly more than what you are paying charter now. the 3/512 is about what you are paying.
is it not available in your area? | |
|
| | benc
Premium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL
·Charter Pipeline
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Callcentric
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Screw TV. Just give me my 10/10 (or higher). said by morbo :they offer 6/768 dsl (static ip) for slightly more than what you are paying charter now. the 3/512 is about what you are paying. is it not available in your area? If I could get DSL I would've gotten it. I'm apparently too far from both the C.O. to the north and the C.O. to the south, so I'm in the DSL "black-hole" that's in-between.
I signed up with Charter Business in May. I got the one-year contract, since their choices were one, two, and would you believe it three year contracts. They didn't offer mo-to-mo and static IP.
They also said that it would cost $67 for 1.5M/256k or $104 for 3.0M/??? (probably 384k or 512k).
Last month I checked again on the website and I *still* couldn't get it. I checked again despite my Charter contract because I was curious about a possible Dual-WAN, so I could get faster speeds most of the time and redundancy, so I could do away with my back-up Copper.net dial-up (which costs $10/mo.).
I also asked DSL-Extreme on this website, and they said "No, we can't do it." I know they wouldn't say so just to aggravate me, since they'd rather say "Yes we can" and hope I sign up.
Funny thing is that my next-door neighbor in my apartment complex claims that the previous tenant in his unit had DSL, and he *could* get it. This is contrary to what the AT&T website says, and what DSL-Extreme told me, so I don't know what gives.
Maybe I should call AT&T up and see what they say. The $20/mo. Dynamic IP 768k/128k DSL would do everything the dial-up can, and then some for not much more $$$. | |
|
| | | |
|
| Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: where is it available in St. Louis area? Of the 40 address I checked (I do private tech support) none had uverse available (all were in the cities cited). I am guessing that the areas that have it are vastly outnumbered by those who do not. | |
|
| |
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | Re: where is it available in St. Louis area? i agree. very misleading. | |
|
|
icp1
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Saint Louis, MO
clubs: | Of people at my work who've checked, 1 can get it (Clayton address)
2 cannot - st. louis city (me) and des peres areas | |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| This is B.S. Either this is B.S. or they don't have their system updated to recognize that it's now available in St. Louis. The article mentions Chesterfield. I tried my address and countless other addresses all over the Chesterfield area and NONE qualify.
When they say select areas, they REALLY mean it. I guess the service is only available to customers who can hear the the CO's air conditioning units.
Regardless of name (Southwestern Bell->SBC->AT&T) or decade, it's the same old AT&T. DSL has been coming soon since 1998. Does anyone think the statewide franchise will help motivate more remote facilities to increase coverage? Yeah, right. If you believe that did I mention I own a bridge in Minneapolis that's for sale. | |
|
waltl
join:2001-04-25
Fenton, MO
·Charter Pipeline
·Charter Pipeline
edit:
December 10th, @11:01PM
| Why the promise of U-Verse matters, at least to me One reason U-Verse is interesting to me in suburban St. Louis is Choice. Charter HSI is still my only option, and the service is terribly intermittent, especially in the warm months, which is most of the year, here. After a dozen truck-rolls here, Charter still cannot resolve my intermittent HSI problem.
Ten years after my home was built, AT&T DSL is still not available, and I doubt U-Verse will be available anytime soon. But the fact that I see fiber going in along nearby interstates and state highways at least gives me hope there will one day be an alternative to Charter, for me. | |
|
|
UCity
@swbell.net | Re: Why the promise of U-Verse matters, at least to me I live in UCity and am scheduled for installation on 12/31. Does anyone have any StL Uverse experiences?? | |
|
|
|
|
AT&T Launches U-Verse in St. Louis
where is it available in St. Louis area?