 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | We'll see... especially if they move to metering.... Wonder how many people get UVerse for TV, or get it to get faster broadband... | |
|  | 
punker
deleted by moderator
Premium
join:2004-06-21
Palmdale, CA
clubs: | Re: We'll see... especially if they move to metering.... i going to be getting it for the 1.5mbps up
cable only has 1.0mbps
YES i will willing to switch for .5 mbps more up | |
| | | bfreese
join:2003-08-18
Wadsworth, IL | Re: We'll see... especially if they move to metering.... Now if only they would improve that pesky latency I would actually get it... | |
| | | | | | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Well maybe I took it wrong, but I'm pretty sure at&t was talking about metering service for DSL not Uverse. Perhaps they meant both. | |
| | | alfnoid
Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-18
 ·Comcast
| Re: We'll see... especially if they move to metering.... said by BF69  :Well maybe I took it wrong, but I'm pretty sure at&t was talking about metering service for DSL not Uverse. Perhaps they meant both. The internet portion of Uverse IS DSL so expect it there too.
ATT was bitching about backbone capacity being used up and not making any more money for it.
That is the excuse they gave to be looking into metering so no matter what the delivery to the end user will be as far as DSL or fiber or wireless of some kind...it will all hit the backbone at some point. | |
| | 
indianapoolis
| I live in a Uverse area... and still don't know anybody that has it.
I already have the DSL, but invested in HD receivers for DirecTv...
So that will keep me from moving over, even if the speeds are incredibly faster. | |
| | starfighter
join:2000-12-11
Valencia, CA
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·RoadRunner Cable
| Getting a stable tv and internet signal was our motivation. Getting a tv signal that was visibly superior even on our old analog sets, an internet signal whose speeds never varied more than a few percent, and a system that stayed functional even when thunderstorms rolled over the area were bonuses we did not expect, but are enough to keep us on U-verse and away from TW cable. | |
| 
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
| It's funny that... if Uverse has passed Ten MILLION units in 43 markets..
Why then as of their last earnings report did they only manage to sign up a whopping less than 400,000 customers so far?
And that..is with their rollout in their own corporate backyard.
The fact of the matter is..AT&T..after all this time..has only managed to bring that many customers over to their "next generation" service.
While fios has signed up what..about 2 Million or so?
Imagine..passing ten MILLION potential customers and managing to get less than 400,000 of them to say yes.
Why is that do you think? I think it's because as I sit here staring at a piece of twisted pair phone line I'm asking myself one question.
Phone?
HSI?
And HDTV?
Over this?
This is what that company calls Next generation? I call it desperation ladies and gentlemen.
I call it a flop. A bad idea from the start.
An idea who's time was maybe 10 years ago..but not now.
For what must be going on two years now..I've been saying on this web site what a really bad idea uverse is.
And how compared to both cable and Verizons rollout..it simply was not going to make it.
Today..the numbers speak for themselves. There is little more anyone has to say. This company..Ma Bell..the largest telco on planet earth..has managed to scrounge together less customers than they have lost in landlines in THREE MONTHS in quarters past for their uverse service.
People are speaking out and saying NO ...to vrads.
NO...to AT&T's style of politics and strong arming themselves in communities.
And NO..to decades old copper technology.
In fact..even the State of Ct. has apparently had enough of them...recently passing a ruling saying not only future vrads need to be approved..but now they need to go back to square one and get approval from landowners for the ones they've already hauled into neighborhoods..unwelcomed..and unwanted.
AT&T...you can redeem yourself. Time however..has grown amazingly short I think. Because of the size and scale of the project you must now complete. You must stand up to your dividend loving shareholders and tell them it's time to start spending some of that cash you rake in every quarter.
It's time..for AT&T Fiber to the home.
AT&T supporters and critics alike..employees and shareholders as well..should join in with me and tell this company it is time to change. It is time to work with communities..not against them. It is time to take down the vrads and begin to install a truly next generation service.
Because if they don't. If they continue to refuse...
I seriously think there will be no more AT&T in a few years.
It really has come down to that.
Thank you.
~Rick
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
| | 
borked
Cheese With That Whine?
Premium
join:2003-08-10
Kalamazoo, MI
| Re: It's funny that... AT&T is completing more than 10,000 new installations per week, and expects that to grow to more than 40,000 per week by the end of 2008. At this rate, AT&T projects it will have more than 1 million U-verse customers by the end of 2008.
More than 90 % of U-verse customers bundle with broadband; 40 % of U-verse customers are new AT&T broadband users.
--
It is much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem.
Malcolm Forbes (1919-1990) | |
| | |
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| Re: It's funny that... Yea..yea.
From quarter one..i've heard nothing but #'s that never materialized and projections that were never met.
I did however...read the report here at BBR of last Quarters Uverse results to date. After all this time..all this hype.
All these projections. It was what..390 something thousand customers nationwide for this next generation service?
Talk about an unenthusiastic response if i've ever seen one.
Perhaps i'm missing something here, but it seems that 70% of everything i read everywhere about the service has some negative connotation attached to it.
No excitement. No "jeesh..I wish THAT was here for me".
Then..look at verizon and the fios comments.
It's really like night and day.
And, you just have to remember..that this is the NEXT generation we're talking about here. I wouldn't be so critical if it wasn't that. And, I do realize they're in a difficult spot with a nationwide network of older style copper lines to contend with. My point is that if you're going to go to all this trouble and expense to fix it and upgrade it..Why in the world would you do it this way when already it seems so obsolete?
It makes no sense. Think about 2010 or 2011. Cable customers might very well be sailing along at 50Mb + speeds.
Heck..comcast is even saying up to 100Mb by then.
Verizon..the same.
And AT&T? I just don't get it.
Where uverse WOULD make sense is if they opened up the lines to their full potential just for HSI.
A 20 to 25Mb pipe would be very competitive..and nothing to sneeze at. But..trying to be a tv company in this hd generation..and a phone company..and a hsi provider..all over twisted pair copper to the home..is just a very bad idea. And, one that I don't think people are buying.
At least in large enough #'s to make it work out.
Sorry if I offend anyone with that opinion.
But I think it's the right one.
~Rick
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
| | | | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: It's funny that... said by Rick :It makes no sense. Think about 2010 or 2011. Cable customers might very well be sailing along at 50Mb + speeds. so you can reach that 40 GB cap even faster. | |
| | | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
·DSL EXTREME
edit:
June 15th, @06:34PM
| I don't have anything for or against Uverse being VDSL, what I do have against Uverse is the sales attempt - typically forcing bundling with TV.
Eg.
Cable (TWC here) you can ORDER and receive:
VoIP, HSI, TV as a standalone or bundled
FiOS, if I'm not mistaken, can be ordered similarly.
Uverse: Typically requires TV service to be ordered, VoIP is not available in many markets (unless you consider CallVantage)
Internet only - available on DSL dry loop only
VoIP only - available through CallVantage only (number not transferrable if you have AT&T as your DSL)
Its a REAL pain - I could order TWC Internet + VoIP and have it up and number transferred w/o issues.
If I wanted Internet + VoIP, I'd have to
a) Order a full bundle
b) Cancel Uverse TV service,
c) Order Call Vantage and transfer my POTS # (if they would let me do it) Uverse VoIP is not available in the L.A. area (~17 million people live in this area)
AT&T doesn't really want Internet+VoIP, they want TV service, but are not willing to properly compete.
I will add that after a few calls, AT&T would let me order Uverse Internet only, as long as I ordered Uverse MAX (10/1.5Mbps) and kept it for 6 months - they were also willing to cut the rate on it to $45/month.
As far as the 50-100Mbps service goes, with the current amount of either caps/traffic shaping, I suspect that this will be a niche market for a while. 100Mbps would require 'super G' or 'N' wireless in their RG's to deliver it.
I'd be happy with
a) decent internet service at a decent price
b) no caps below 200-300GB/month
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | | 
HEDP
join:2008-04-27
Miami, FL
| I think you also need to realize that the consumer does not care about the delivery medium but the amount he gets for the price.
If AT&T can still milk those two strands of copper which is far more cheaper than a cable line, then I see that as innovation. In the end if they can squeeze even 50mbps through two strands of super thin copper, the technology they use is by far more efficient and capable than anything the cable industry might have in place.
Unlike cable the lines are not shielded and because a phone line exists in just about every home in the united states and is at least wired for one, you can best bet that it has the largest footprint next to electricity.
Eventually AT&T will reach a point where they simply cannot get anything much more from that copper line, which from there instead of proceeding with standard RJ11 they are going with RJ45 and now have a ethernet network to every home, with simply more strands per line.
When that happens and they are able to offer gigabit ethernet in the next 10-20 years down the road. Nobody likes that green dildo in the neighborhood either as much as nobody likes a VRAD.
Also maybe if HD where more efficient the need for such pipes wouldn't be needed. By that I mean more efficient software and lossy codecs that provide superior picture quality with minimal data transferred. Or music that is 400KB at 16kbps in size but sounds like a standard 192k mp3 song at 5.6MB? | |
| | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | No matter how many times your lies get corrected you just keep posting them.
You really are as useful as tits on a bull. | |
| | | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| Re: It's funny that... said by bogey780 :No matter how many times your lies get corrected you just keep posting them. You really are as useful as tits on a bull. He's trying to sneak his FUD in on a Sunday afternoon this time so he doesn't get flamed like always during the week with his anti-at&t drivel... | |
| | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
edit:
June 15th, @04:30PM
| said by Rick :While fios has signed up what..about 2 Million or so? Imagine..passing ten MILLION potential customers and managing to get less than 400,000 of them to say yes. »newscenter.verizon.com/press-rel···-to.htmlVerizon offers FiOS Internet service in more than 2,000 communities and currently has more than 1.3 million FiOS Internet customers. Verizon's FiOS TV service is available to more than 4.7 million premises in 12 states, and the company has more than 717,000 FiOS TV customers. --
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | |
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
edit:
June 18th, @09:28AM
| Re: It's funny that... The news release you linked to was from November 2007.
I believe at last count they had 1.8 + million.
Also note that the number of homes passed in that story was less than HALF what at&t has..and yet even as of that report, they signed up more than THREE times the number of customers.
If these numbers don't tell the story..I don't know what does.
EDIT: Note..that in this news release out today verizon says they have 1.8 million fios customers.
That is an increase of five hundred thousand in just ONE QUARTER alone from the last release noted above.
That is more than uverse has in total customers as of their last press release.
»newscenter.verizon.com/press-rel···nds.html | |
| | 
apeface
join:2000-09-16
Mckinney, TX | If you actually knew what the hell you where talking about, you might be dangerous. Otherwise, it is just a bunch of yawnworthy drival of little substance.
I think Comcast has your check ready. | |
| | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| I think AT&T has a good chance to succeed long-term.
They have clearly chosen to compete with cable TV. They lead with the TV service and bundle voice and Internet with it. They are not trying to compete with FIOS or satellite.
I think this is smart because:
a) Cable has clearly been the most successful, by far, TV delivery service. So there's a big pent-up demand for competition there.
b) Cable users don't want a solution that adds another ingest technology to their house (satellite dish, fiber rewiring). They want something that uses wiring that's already there.
c) Cable users tend to NOT be on the cutting edge of technology, so are less demanding, and more interested in going with an established, big company. They will pay $40 for VoIP because it's bundled and easy. They will put up with fewer HD channels because they either don't do HD, or they aren't really into distinguishing HD picture quality.
The friends I know that have installed U-verse TV are very happy with it, compared to cable.
U-verse TV is installing new users just as fast as they can. There are no barriers to growth that I can see. They are taking a pretty big bite out of cable.
As far as technology goes, they have lots of headroom before they have to run FTTP and incur that huge capital investment cost. They only need 28 megabits of bandwidth to get 4 TV streams, 10/1.5 Internet, and VoIP. Most VDSL users are synching at way above that (I'm seeing 57 megabits myself) and are artifically capped. Now, granted, the HD streams at that bitrate aren't as good as cable -- but apparently most users aren't smart enough to notice.
And, the current synch rates will probably double when they upgrade to VDSL2, and they will be rolling out pair-bonding later this year to increase the reach from the VRAD, allowing them to expand even more. So there's plenty of headroom for them to expand further.
They are rolling out a Whole House DVR solution soon which none of the cable companies have.
To say that they are doomed, that their statistics are smoke and mirrors, and that FIOS rules, or Comcast rules, is just crazy talk. | |
| | | 
MisterMarcus
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: It's funny that... Sorry. Some of what you state is inherently flawed.
The problem with U-verse, and companies like this, is that they purposely make it difficult to go a-la-carte. If I just want Time Warner's fastest internet (15/2, which is what I currently have), they don't beg me to bundle up to save money. They'll ask me why I don't want TV - to which I say their TV offering blows compared to DirecTV (and it does). They'll ask me why I don't want their phone - to which I say their phone offering is blatantly overpriced compared to AT&T, whether or not evenly configured. They let it go, and give me just internet and charge me for that.
AT&T on the other hand wants you to bundle up. They want you to take all of these services you don't want or need because you save on the one feature you do want. Or in the case of Uverse, force you to take the TV offering in order to get the internet offering. No thanks.
Customers want choice. | |
| | | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
edit:
June 18th, @02:04PM
| Re: It's funny that... said by MisterMarcus :Sorry. Some of what you state is inherently flawed. The problem with U-verse, and companies like this, is that they purposely make it difficult to go a-la-carte. If I just want Time Warner's fastest internet (15/2, which is what I currently have), they don't beg me to bundle up to save money. They'll ask me why I don't want TV - to which I say their TV offering blows compared to DirecTV (and it does). They'll ask me why I don't want their phone - to which I say their phone offering is blatantly overpriced compared to AT&T, whether or not evenly configured. They let it go, and give me just internet and charge me for that. AT&T on the other hand wants you to bundle up. They want you to take all of these services you don't want or need because you save on the one feature you do want. Or in the case of Uverse, force you to take the TV offering in order to get the internet offering. No thanks. Customers want choice. Everything you say is true, but I really was commenting on the "AT&T is doomed! Their business model and rollout is a failure!" message -- not on the details of how they go to market. I really think that message is way, way overstated. As far as I can tell, AT&T is specifically targeting U-verse at Cable TV users, and is quite successful in the sense that they are growing and installing new users about as fast as they can.
The fact that they don't offer a la carte (e.g Internet without TV) is really because they don't have to, right now. They are getting plenty of business with their current packages. I expect there'll be more flexibile packages and options offered once they finish their initial set of rollouts.
That said, are you aware that it is free, and even not very painful, to order U-verse TV/Internet, and then cancel the TV? That is exactly what I did, and it worked out fine for me.
I left Road Runner for AT&T originally because the quality of their Internet connection was just not good enough. Too many packet drops, too much latency variability, and too many service outages (once a month or so it'd go down for anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours). My VoIP service couldn't deal with the dirty link.
I went to AT&T DSL and everything just smoothed out. It's a very consistent, high quality connection, and it's well managed. When U-verse showed up in my neighborhood, and they started offering the Max tier, I jumped to it. Now I'm getting really fast and CONSISTENT speeds for a very reasonable price (10/1.5 for $55/month). | |
| | | | |
MisterMarcus
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: It's funny that... I'm aware there is a backdoor to get internet only. But why should I have to do that? AT&T should just price the internet by itself, TV by itself, I'm more than happy with DirecTV for my TV viewing pleasure and TWC for my internet pleasure and quite frankly, I don't think any carrier will surpass them in the near future in terms of quality of what you get for the price you pay. Also, their customer service to me is far and away better than anything AT&T has.
Then again I fall in the old school category of consumers. I believe each company has a core model that they're good at, and should stick to it. Pacific Bell, or "AT&T" does POTS like nobody else, and it's the only thing they do without other issues, IMO. $20 for a line and some features is way better than Time Warner's $50 for a line and forced features. I've had SBC DSL and it was a nightmare to set up, nightmare to troubleshoot, nightmare dealing with their so-called "Tech Support", not to mention all of the constant upsale attempts. Matter of fact I think my review is still out there about that nightmare. No thanks.
You're right about how AT&T is targeting their product. They're going after cable TV users. However I don't think that's the proper way to go, and the reason I think the way I do is what I explained above. I'm not the only consumer who thinks AT&T = phone because that's what they get right 9 times out of 10. I'm not the only consumer who believes that AT&T forcing you to bundle stuff up is heavy handed and ultimately a turn off. Lots of consumers think the way I do. It's really the tech nerds who see otherwise and are willing to dig into the innards of Uverse to get to the benefits. | |
| | | | | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: It's funny that... quote:
frankly, I don't think any carrier will surpass them in the near future in terms of quality of what you get for the price you pay. Also, their customer service to me is far and away better than anything AT&T has.
if by "them" you meant Time Warner Road Runner, I had exactly the opposite experience (in Austin, TX). First there's the hold times -- 15-20 minutes was not uncommon. Second, they had no capability to monitor/manage the network remotely. The techs on the phone could look at my modem, but they had no clue what to do if the network was messing up. All they could do was schedule a tech to come out.
And, when I found out that I was getting dropped packets and latency jitter which was screwing up my VoIP, they refused to do anything about it. That's when I decided to dump them and go with AT&T DSL (really SBC, they'd recently completed the merger/acquisition).
It was like night and day for me. I got a solid, consistent connection. I only had two problems. The first was like 3 days after install -- I lost connection. I called them up and the tech looked at the network and immediately saw a provisioning problem, fixed it, and I was back online in FIVE MINUTES. The second time I got a red light. I called them up and they ALREADY KNEW ABOUT IT! Their network management system had alerted them and they were already working on it. About 15 minutes later I was back in business.
You talk about companies' core competencies -- AT&T's is not so much POTS as it is managing a network. They really know how to do that. Cable companies, by contrast, have a core competency of wiring a city to broadcast RF. This is very, very different than a network. | |
| | | | | | |
MisterMarcus
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: It's funny that... I've learned, not only with my consumer experiences but also having worked for both Cox (during the @Home days) and SBC (just after the Pacific Bell rebrand merger), that quality is definitely specific to area. In one city/subcommunity, a provider can be downright trash, yet stellar in another.
When I said "them" I was really referring to both DirecTV and Time Warner.
First, DirecTV has way more HD than anyone, but beyond that the standard def programming is decent quality as well. The only thing I don't like about DirecTV is their combination of standard and HD programming on one numbered channel, because it makes it confusing when they set up a channel for HD and you already had the standard version set on DVR. The DVR is not smart enough to automatically convert over to the HD side, and there are no notifications to tell you when a channel has had HD programming added. But I love the paper billing option, love the much cheaper price overall, love the customer service (only had to call them once to inquire about CW HD.
Time Warner, I had the package deal and it was $100/month - $60 cheaper than Cox every month for better service. I had one downtime on the internet side, called up Tech Support, he did something and told me to powercycle, and I was back up. Haven't had a problem since. Plus they never pulled credit and never required a deposit.
Again, anyone who wants to know how I feel about PacBell/SBC/AT&T, can look at my review. That incident that caused a poor girl to end up quitting. | |
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | units served by ATT Landline So how many units does ATT Landline serve? so we can calculate what % of ATT Landline customers can get Uverse. | |
| | | campinfool
join:2006-02-24
Austin, TX
| 14% Considering how many on here discount the efforts AT&T is making to become a video provider and how their HSI and TV is behind what current providers have, you can't say it is a flop with a 14% market share is less than 2 years. Their original DSL rollout was full of problems and roadblocks and now they are one of the largest internet providers. While I don't see Uverse over taking cable, you have to be somewhat impressed that they may have a good product. All you have to do is read the reviews on this site. Can't be too shabby. | |
| 
NetAdmin
join:2008-05-22
| I'm curious the effect special promos have on the numbers... With ATT offering all sorts of deals to gain customers, like service A free X months or a year and what not, I'd love to see how many people stick around when those offers expire. It is really easy to gain customers when you give stuff away or have a cut rate for the first couple of months, but the real outcome of all of ATT's efforts is when those deals expire and customers feel they have the option of switch again. How many of them stay and how many of them switch ? | |
| | 
SpyderCKE
We call that the Dennis Miller Ratio
Premium
join:2000-10-26
Milwaukee, WI
| Re: I'm curious the effect special promos have on the numbers... This was my question. I'm sure they are boasting about the number of added, but the stats of how many people are leaving is not readily available. I was tempted by a few months of cheap service, etc, but now that the price is escalating, other options are better.
This is all marketing BS, and I would say it is almost a given we aren't seeing the true picture. | |
| | starfighter
join:2000-12-11
Valencia, CA
·AT&T U-Verse
·RoadRunner Cable
| We were given a $40 a month discount on the U-400 package plus the elite internet service for 6 months. That expires next month. All we will change is to downgrade from U-400 to U-300. Frankly, we will not miss HBO and Cinemax. We have been pleased with the quality of the tv signal, the internet service, and overall functionality of U-verse to the point that going back to TW cable would be painful. | |
| GaffMan
join:2007-08-10
Sedalia, MO
| I whold take Uverse I live in a suburb that has about 400 houses in it just one mile east of Sedalia MO (25000 to 30000 people). I am in a AT&T area I can not get DSL or Uverse or any kind of high speed internet.
I just don't understand if AT&T needs more costumers why don't they bring their Uverse to areas that don't have high speed internet. I was told by AT&T that my area will never have DSL or Uverse be case it wold cost them to much money.They just don't get it be case I wold pay any price for Broadband. | |
| starfighter
join:2000-12-11
Valencia, CA
·AT&T U-Verse
·RoadRunner Cable
| U-Verse better than TW cable We switched from TW cable to U-Verse last January, and I can say that the switch was definitely an improvement. The tv signal on our analog tv sets is MUCH better on U-verse than on TW cable or Comcast when we had them. The internet speed is constant, never varying more than a few percent and never going down. The modem they supplied has 4 wired plus 6 wireless ports, more than enough for us. The only sore spot has been the converter boxes. Not being able to tie directly into a cable is a pain in the bedrooms, and the boxes have a habit of committing software suicide every so often, a condition that takes 10 - 15 minutes to correct. The tv guide in the box could use a lot of improvements too. We also have an AT&T landline without long distance service to complement the cell phones. We would not go back to cable. | |
| | | |
|
|
Investors Review Positive U-Verse Developments
·
·
·