AT&T's TV rollout slowed by glitches
Rules making it easier for phone firms to compete with cable are near, but the service isn't ready to go statewide.
By James S. Granelli, Times Staff Writer
March 1, 2007

California regulators are expected to adopt rules today to make it easier for phone companies to compete for cable TV customers. But don't expect new competition next month — or even count on it next year.

AT&T Inc., the state's dominant provider of landline service, covering 78% of California, is getting more aggressive in the TV business after pulling back its efforts to fix glitches in its newly crafted technology. But the company that lobbied ferociously last year for a statewide video franchising law still isn't ready to turn on the switch everywhere in California, its biggest market.

Verizon Communications Inc.'s effort in television so far has exceeded AT&T's. But Verizon is a quarter the size of its rival in the state.

Further delaying any rollout is the need to secure permits from each city for upgrading to market TV service.

"The thing that's always so humorous is that when people think of statewide franchising, especially in California, they think that all of a sudden AT&T flips a switch and it's on," said Maribel Lopez, an industry analyst at Forrester Research Inc. "But it always was a town-by-town rollout."

Though it entered 11 markets last year, AT&T stopped advertising its U-verse TV largely because of problems with the Microsoft Corp. software that powers the service. AT&T says those issues are now resolved.

"There has been a lot of talk about, does this stuff work. It works and it works well," AT&T Chairman Edward E. Whitacre Jr. told analysts in late January.

Yet cable companies hope AT&T continues to take its time. "Nobody knows for certain, other than AT&T, when they are going to come out," said Marc Burgat, government affairs director at the California Cable and Telecommunications Assn., a cable trade group. "The longer time we have to provide our service before AT&T comes into the market, the better it is for us from a business standpoint."

Currently, AT&T offers U-verse TV in the California communities of Cupertino, Danville, San Ramon and Saratoga, and in 11 markets in other states.

The rules expected to be approved by the Public Utilities Commission would let AT&T and Verizon file for one statewide franchise instead of needing approval from each city where they have landline phone service.

AT&T and Verizon plan to file applications by next week. The state agency then has 44 days to deem the applications complete and approve or deny them.

Verizon already operates TV service in 18 California cities. It will be ready to add new cities within weeks after its statewide franchise is approved. It covers mainly Southern California's beach communities and some inland neighborhoods. "We're anxious to bring video choice to tens of thousands of consumers who would be able to get video service," said Timothy J. McCallion, Verizon's Pacific region president. "We can hook up most of them right away."

In the last two months, AT&T has more than doubled the number of its TV customers to 7,000 from 3,000.

"Where we have the facilities built and upgraded, we're going to start marketing the U-verse product aggressively," said Kenneth P. McNeely, AT&T's president of external affairs for its Western region. "But we're also in the process of upgrading the network and we have more challenging districts to deal with here in allowing us permits to build these systems."

In Anaheim, which welcomed AT&T's upgrade last year, things haven't moved as quickly as expected, and U-verse service that was to launch late last year has yet to arrive.

Los Angeles is doing what it can to help. The city has approved a majority of the requests for permits to install up to 3,000 electronic nodes in neighborhoods across the city. It expects to complete the approval process soon.

AT&T is installing fiber to each node and relying on existing copper wires to send TV signals the remaining 3,000 to 5,000 feet to each home served by a node.

AT&T expects to reach 8 million homes by the end of the year in California and 12 other states — its basic phone territory before December's purchase of BellSouth Corp. In all, it is spending $4.6 billion to reach 19 million homes, which account for a little more than half of that territory, by the end of 2008.

The company had a tough start last year with a pilot offering in San Antonio, where it is headquartered.

Analysts said that with the all-new Microsoft technology AT&T is using, a series of glitches was inevitable.

Analysts and industry experts said the set-top box features were limited, voice quality was erratic, the companies' software wasn't always working together and features like instant channel change didn't work well as more customers were added to the system.

AT&T didn't go into another market until last fall, when it launched service in Houston. It added nine additional markets in December.

Verizon is taking a slower and more expensive approach by installing fiber-optic lines to homes in about half of its 28-state territory, essentially replacing the copper network with what most people consider the gold standard of networks.

But that is costing Verizon $23 billion, and it will take through 2010 to reach its target of 18 million homes. At the end of December, the network reached 6 million homes, and the company expects to add 3 million homes a year through 2010.

So far, Verizon serves 702,000 pay TV customers in more than 200 cities in 10 states.

ames.granelli@latimes.com
Times staff writer Marc Lifsher contributed to this report.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-paytv1mar01,1,7614852.story?coll=la-headlines-business

"In Anaheim, which welcomed AT&T's upgrade last year, things haven't moved as quickly as expected, and U-verse service that was to launch late last year has yet to arrive.

Los Angeles is doing what it can to help. The city has approved a majority of the requests for permits to install up to 3,000 electronic nodes in neighborhoods across the city. It expects to complete the approval process soon."

I didn't see any information in the article about San Diego. Any news on this?

U-verse is slowly entering neighborhoods in the Castleton/Fishers area of Indianapolis. AT&T has opened two demo centers in that part of the city, where you can see and work the U-verse setup. One is located inside the Castleton Square Mall. The other setup is located next to a bank inside the Meijer store on E. 96th St. @ I-69.

I saw the setup at Meijer a few days ago and I liked what I saw. Channel changes were very fast, the program guide was very informative with PIP, and PQ appeared to be very good (on a Sony Bravia). I want to go back soon and spend more time with it. To date, the service is not yet available in my neighborhood.

AT&T Introduces U-verse in Dallas-Fort Worth
Press Release
High Definition Programming and Other Compelling Features Make AT&T U-verse
TV the Most Advanced Video Offering in the Market
Through June 30, New Customers May Receive Two Months of Free TV With
60-Day Money Back Guarantee

DALLAS-FORT WORTH, March 6 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- A new world of
communications and entertainment is now available to residents in the
Dallas- Fort Worth metroplex. AT&T Inc. today announced the launch of AT&T
U-verse(SM) services, which utilize AT&T's new fiber-rich network to offer
cutting-edge television and high-speed Internet services. AT&T U-verse
services are initially available in limited areas across the Dallas-Fort
Worth metropolitan statistical area (MSA), though the company intends to
increase availability throughout the area on an ongoing basis.
AT&T is the only national provider to offer a 100 percent Internet
Protocol (IP)-based television service, making U-verse TV one of the most
robust and feature-rich services available today. AT&T U-verse services are
available in parts of 14 markets across five states, with plans to continue
expansion into new markets throughout 2007.
AT&T U-verse offers customers a combination of next-generation digital
television -- including more than 25 High Definition (HD) channels -- and
high speed Internet access. The award-winning AT&T U-verse TV includes
cutting-edge features that are unmatched in the market, while the new
U-verse enabled AT&T Yahoo!(R) High Speed Internet builds on AT&T's
position as the nation's leading provider of broadband DSL.
"AT&T U-verse is like no other offering in the marketplace. We're
launching a television service that truly offers a new entertainment
experience," said Deb Peoples, AT&T vice president and general manager for
Dallas-Fort Worth. "We're confident customers will recognize the unique
features and integrated capabilities of AT&T U-verse services, and we're
proud to make AT&T U-verse available in Dallas-Fort Worth."
Beginning today, AT&T U-verse TV will offer Dallas-Fort Worth area
residents:
-- A compelling variety of TV packages with more than 300 channels,
including digital music, local, and premium movie and sports
programming.
-- More HD programming than the local cable provider. HD technology
produces images more than twice as detailed as standard analog TV
delivering rich, realistic video and multi-channel, movie theater
quality sound. AT&T U-verse offers customers access to a growing lineup
of more than 25 HD channels, along with HD digital video recording
(DVR) capability. New HD customers can receive two months of free HD
service ($10 per month thereafter).
-- Web remote access to digital video recorder (DVR), which allows high
speed Internet customers to schedule recordings using their AT&T
Yahoo!(R) account. This feature is unique to AT&T among local
providers.
-- The ability to record up to four programs at once using a DVR receiver,
another exclusive feature unmatched in the marketplace.
-- Built-in picture-in-picture functionality that allows subscribers to
"channel surf" on any television without leaving the program they're
watching.
-- Specially designed set top boxes, manufactured by Motorola, all of
which are HD-capable and include universal remote controls that provide
backlit buttons and one-touch access to video-on-demand, DVR, and other
services.
-- A premium Spanish-language package featuring novelas, movies, news,
sports, children's programming, talk shows and more. New customers can
receive the package at no charge for the first two months ($10 per
month thereafter).
-- A growing video-on-demand library with one-touch access to movies and
events.
-- Fast channel-changing, reducing the delay experienced with other
digital broadcast services.
-- The ability to search for programs using title or actor's name.
-- Three TV receivers - one with a DVR, which allows customers to pause,
rewind, replay and record live TV - at no extra charge with most
programming packages. (Customers may add more receivers for $5 each per
month.)
AT&T plans to continue adding more channels and interactive
applications in the future.
Customers can choose from five TV and three Internet packages to
customize their entertainment experience. In addition to the popular U300
and U400 packages, AT&T also offers U-family, a market-leading
family-friendly programming option. Current AT&T U-verse TV offers start as
low as $44 per month, depending on the selected programming and Internet
packages (other monthly charges apply).
Now through June 30, qualified new customers can join AT&T U-verse and
receive free TV service, including HBO(R) and Cinemax(R), for the first two
months when they choose the U300 or U400 programming package (other monthly
charges apply). Thereafter, customers will continue to receive recurring
monthly discounts when they subscribe to a bundle of TV and Internet
service. In addition, AT&T will offer new customers professional
installation and a 60- day money-back guarantee.
Three packages of AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet U-verse Enabled will
be made available to AT&T U-verse customers:
-- Elite: Downstream up to 6.0 Mbps, upstream up to 1.0 Mbps.
-- Pro: Downstream up to 3.0 Mbps, upstream up to 1.0 Mbps.
-- Express: Downstream up to 1.5 Mbps, upstream up to 1.0 Mbps.
All high speed Internet packages offered as part of AT&T U-verse
include wireless home-networking at no charge, giving users the freedom to
access online photos, streaming video, games and other information using a
wireless- enabled laptop or other device. Subscribers also receive
virtually unlimited e-mail storage and powerful anti-virus and anti-spam
software.
The deployment of next-generation video services reflects AT&T's
strategy to become customers' preferred communications and entertainment
provider and to deliver a video solution through its traditional footprint
that provides greater value, flexibility and simplicity than competitors'
offerings. AT&T U- verse TV represents a critical new service in the
company's video portfolio, which includes AT&T Homezone(SM) service and
AT&T | DISH Network. AT&T U-verse TV also underscores the company's
strategy to deliver integrated services to the three screens consumers
value most: the PC, the TV, and the wireless phone.
Customers seeking additional information on AT&T U-verse -- or to find
out if it's available in their area -- can visit http://uverse.att.com .
Note: This AT&T release and other news announcements are available as
part of an RSS feed at http://www.att.com/rss .
About AT&T
AT&T Inc. is a premier communications holding company in the United
States and around the world, with operating subsidiaries providing services
under the AT&T brand. AT&T is the recognized world leader in providing
IP-based communications services to business and the U.S. leader in
providing wireless, high speed Internet access, local and long distance
voice, and directory publishing and advertising services. As part of its
"three screen" integration strategy, AT&T is expanding video entertainment
offerings to include such next-generation television services as AT&T
U-verse(SM) TV. Additional information about AT&T Inc. and the products and
services provided by AT&T subsidiaries and affiliates is available at
http://www.att.com .
AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures. Subsidiaries
and affiliates of AT&T Inc. provide products and services under the AT&T
brand. For more information, please review this announcement in the AT&T
newsroom at http://www.att.com/newsroom .
Yahoo!, the Yahoo! Logos, and other product and service names are the
trademarks and/or registered trademarks of Yahoo! Inc. Subsidiaries and
affiliates of AT&T Inc. provide products and services under the AT&T brand.
Prices subject to change. Services provided by AT&T Texas are available
in limited areas. Residential customers only. AT&T Yahoo! High Speed
Internet U- verse Enabled may not be purchased separately; purchase of AT&T
U-verse TV required. Taxes, installation, city video cost recovery fees,
and additional fees extra. Equipment rental fees are included as part of
monthly recurring charges. Acceptance of Terms of Service required. AT&T
Yahoo! High Speed Internet maximum speed achieved depends on customer
location, line condition, and concurrent use of other U-verse services.
Credit and other restrictions apply. 2 Months Free TV Offer: Applies to
monthly charges for first 2 months of U300 or U400 programming packages
only. Video on Demand and Pay Per View charges not discounted. HBO(R) &
Cinemax(R) 2 Months Free Offer: Requires purchase of U-verse programming
package. No credits for cancellation prior to 2 months of service. After
promotional period, monthly HBO(R)/Cinemax(R) charges apply. HD 2 Months
Free Offer: Purchase of U-verse programming package required. Premium HD
channels require subscription fees. No credits for cancellation prior to 2
months of service. After promotional period, monthly $10 HD Technology Fee
applies. Money-Back Guarantee Offer: Offer for customers ordering TV or TV
and Internet who cancel all U-verse services within 60 days from service
activation. Money-Back Guarantee includes adjustment of initial
installation and up to two month's service charges only. Customer is
responsible for Video on Demand, Pay Per View, and non-returned equipment
charges. Offers expire 6/30/07. New orders only. Other restrictions apply.
HBO(R) and Cinemax(R) are service marks of Home Box Office, Inc.
For more information and detailed disclaimer information, please review
this announcement in the AT&T newsroom at http://www.att.com/newsroom

Ill. Municipalities Look to Box In AT&T

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6423669.html?display=Breaking+News

Itasca, Naperville Place Ugly Boxes Throughout Towns to Bring Attention to AT&T Issues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Linda Haugsted 3/12/2007 10:14:00 PMDigg This | add to Del.icio.us |

Hot-pink and highway-yellow boxes have cropped up in at least two municipalities in Illinois as a protest of a state bill community officials believe will give AT&T total control of the placement of huge powering vaults it needs to operate its planned video service.

The boxes were constructed and placed in the village of Itasca and nearby Naperville, both in DuPage County. The pink Itasca boxes were in place beginning Feb. 21. Naperville's are in place now, bearing the message, "This big ugly box brought to you by AT&T Project Lightspeed in the name of competition."

On closer inspection, posted letters to residents explain the boxes and urge constituents to contact their state legislators to oppose HB 1500, an AT&T-supported bill that will move video franchising to the state Corporations Commission.

"This was the best way we could think of to raise awareness. It's tough to get the attention of the media," said Dan Di Santo, assistant to the Naperville city manager.

The box placement last month in Itasca resulted in 84 letters from residents to legislators opposing the bill, added Itasca city manager David C. Williams.

Representatives of both communities said they welcome competition, but they want to retain some of the authority they now have over incumbent operators.

Last year, Naperville tried to reach an agreement to bring AT&T's Project Lightspeed infrastructure project to town. Itasca put a moratorium on infrastructure permits in advance of any power-box placement by AT&T.

Itasca and a handful of other Illinois communities that delayed or considered delaying permitting were sued in federal court by AT&T. Williams said those suits are "grinding along," although the box stunt attracted outreach from the telco to possibly open talks in the community.

If I were a resident of Itasca or Naperville, I'd be furious beyond belief. Why not just push a bunch of money into a pile and set it on fire?

What a waste of taxpayer funds.

If I were a resident of Itasca or Naperville, I'd be furious beyond belief. Why not just push a bunch of money into a pile and set it on fire?

What a waste of taxpayer funds.

I don't see anywhere in that story where it says the local government has anything to do with the protests, so there is no taxpayer money involved. It seems to me that those protests are by the same type of people who live in the kind of neighborhood where you need to consult the neighborhood association before you put a garden gnome outside your house.

I can't stand yuppies like that.

I saw the setup at Meijer a few days ago and I liked what I saw. Channel changes were very fast, the program guide was very informative with PIP, and PQ appeared to be very good (on a Sony Bravia). I want to go back soon and spend more time with it. To date, the service is not yet available in my neighborhood.I was in that very store about a week-and-a-half ago. I didn't notice the setup, but it may not have been up and running at the time. I'll try and shoot by there this weekend, perhaps.

I don't see anywhere in that story where it says the local government has anything to do with the protests, so there is no taxpayer money involved. It seems to me that those protests are by the same type of people who live in the kind of neighborhood where you need to consult the neighborhood association before you put a garden gnome outside your house.

I can't stand yuppies like that.

""This was the best way we could think of to raise awareness. It's tough to get the attention of the media," said Dan Di Santo, assistant to the Naperville city manager."

I don't see anywhere in that story where it says the local government has anything to do with the protests, so there is no taxpayer money involved. It seems to me that those protests are by the same type of people who live in the kind of neighborhood where you need to consult the neighborhood association before you put a garden gnome outside your house.

I can't stand yuppies like that.
bgooch has already pointed out that it was, indeed, the local municipalities involved. As to your comment about associations...I can certainly understand your point of view. On the other hand, if a private association wants to set up rules, and the homeowners agree, then it's fine with me -- so long as the rules are spelled out before you buy a house, you can choose to live elsewhere. I don't live in a neighborhood that is regulated so tightly, but I can understand the appeal. I have, in the past, lived in a neighborhood with no rules and gotten stuck with a neighbor who didn't give a crap. Eyesore-a-mundo.

Now if the government tries to mandate such rules, I have a problem with that. (Here in Gurnee, your driveway has to have a "flare" at the bottom. I don't know why. The flares serve no useful purpose, and really, we're talking about slabs of asphalt -- how pleasing are they going to look? Even $0.01 of taxpayer money enforcing this dumb rule is a waste.)

In any case...I don't know about most folk, but I rarely notice the utility boxes, no matter the size. They're the visual equivalent of white noise. Bigger ones don't bother me one whit.

AT&T says U-verse is ready to roll; some early users not so sure
Web Posted: 03/14/2007 10:02 PM CDT
Sanford Nowlin, Express-News Business Writer

Jennifer Wilson has seen U-verse at its best — and its worst.
The 33-year-old tech support worker signed up for AT&T's new cablelike video service when it became available in San Antonio last summer and has enjoyed its state-of-the-art features.

But she said she's also sick of lengthy phone sessions with AT&T technicians, service outages and digital video recorders that sometimes stop recording in the middle of a show.

"It's happened to me twice during 'Grey's Anatomy,'" she said. "I just wanted to kill it. We've had our set-top boxes replaced three times now."

Wilson is one of several frustrated San Antonio U-verse customers who wonder whether TV service from the nation's biggest phone company is ready for prime time.

The state of the U-verse

TV over the Internet: AT&T's U-verse operates over the company's Internet lines. It's spending more than $4 billion and working with vendors including Microsoft to deliver the service.

Race with cable: The phone company is eager to expand into the TV business because cable providers now offer phone and Internet service and are chipping away at its revenue.

Rollout delay: Late last year, AT&T put the brakes on its U-verse rollout to fix technical problems, mostly with the Microsoft software it's using.

Expanding again: The company last month resumed its rollout, saying it had smoothed over the problems. It recently expanded into Dallas-Fort Worth and Milwaukee, saying it's got more than 7,000 customers.

San Antonio-based AT&T last month said it had ironed out early flaws — mostly with the Microsoft software that lets it deliver TV signals over its Internet lines — and was ready to bring U-verse to new markets including Dallas-Fort Worth and Milwaukee.

Even though it had announced an ambitious plan to reach 19 million households by the end of 2008, the company late last year put its expansion on hold to fix the glitches and train more customer service workers and installers.

It now says U-verse is adding hundreds of happy customers daily and that the number of local subscribers still experiencing problems is probably small.

"AT&T is being held to a very high standard when it comes to reliability and service," spokesman Wes Warnock said. "We feel that any problems people may have had with U-verse are largely in the past."

The company wouldn't discuss its service statistics from the past year but said its reliability rose to 99.98 percent last month from 99.93 percent in January.

"We're aware that some people had problems," Warnock added. "But San Antonio was in a unique position in that it was our first market to introduce the technology."

Wilson and some other San Antonio customers who have encountered U-verse problems said the service has been largely bug-free for the past three weeks. And several in Houston — where AT&T launched in December — said the service is working fine.

"From what I was reading on the Internet, I had expected a lot of problems," said Gaynell Adams, who had U-verse installed in her Houston home six weeks ago. "But I'm really pleased with it. The picture is outstanding."

Adams said she regularly programs her DVR from an AT&T Web site — a feature her old cable company wasn't able to offer. That comes in handy because she has a long commute from her office and risks missing her favorite shows if she leaves late.

Katy resident Rebecca Lankowski said she's been nothing but impressed with the service since signing up a month ago. It offers more channels than her old cable company — at $7 less a month.

"The color and picture have been crisp," she added. "It's been wonderful."

But some San Antonio U-verse customers remain unimpressed with U-verse — and with AT&T's ability to correct its technical problems. Several said they've had recent visits from company technicians to fix problems such as picture freezing or poor video signal.

"We're hoping it's going to get better," said Joe Cavallero, who signed up at a neighborhood "U-verse party" last summer. "But there's going to come a time when you just say, 'Forget it.'"

Others said they're frustrated that the company hasn't returned some on-demand channels it took away last year or delivered a DVR that can work on every TV in a house — something the company has promised.

Dan Klein said he's encountered continual problems since installing the service in October, repeatedly juggling work appointments so he can be home when AT&T technicians arrive.

Most frustrating, he said, is that AT&T's salespeople never warned him it might take time for the company to work bugs out of its nascent technology.

"I figured there might be a glitch or two, but the problems have been continuous — and they started with day one," Klein said. "No one at the top level knows the full extent of them. I'm convinced of that."

AT&T officials said they take customer complaints seriously and are working to smooth things over with any subscribers still having problems. The company plans to add the whole-home DVR it promised, and it's adding more on-demand content, Warnock said.

He said the company did warn San Antonio customers that they were signing up for a new service that might have some kinks at the beginning. Its earliest trial customers received the service for free.

"This is new technology, and we've made adjustments to it, but we'll take U-verse over cable any day of the week," he added.

IMS Research analyst Paul Erickson said early glitches from software — such as the Microsoft platform AT&T is using — are par for the course in a rollout of Internet-based TV. European and Asian companies have worked through similar issues with their video launches, he said.

But, he added, even small flubs can anger customers accustomed to service from a cable provider that's had years, perhaps decades, to perfect its systems.

"There's a certain amount of expectation that people have when they see a major, world-class company like AT&T come in and offer TV service," Erickson said. "Especially after they've promised the world."

Wilson, the frustrated "Grey's Anatomy" fan, said she's kept U-verse because she thinks TV-over-Internet is the wave of the future. She's frustrated when she watches cable at a friend's house and it doesn't offer the same features.

But she also wonders whether Houston or Dallas customers will want to keep U-verse if they have to deal with the same glitches she did. Her husband, after all, wanted to can the service in November.

"He would have left after they took away some of the on-demand channels," Wilson said. "He doesn't see how wonderful this technology could be. It's got wonderful capabilities, but I'm not sure if other people are as patient as I am."

snowlin@express-news.net

Online at: http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/stories/MYSA031507.1E.ATTuverse.2e2ea26.html

Not sure if it refers to U-verse or Homezone, but AT&T has a huge billboard saying they are 'reinventing television' found along a major Detroit area expressway.

Just 7000 customers? :confused:

Missouri bill would let phone companies join cable market
By Derek Kravitz
POST-DISPATCH JEFFERSON CITY BUREAU
03/16/2007

JEFFERSON CITY — Missourians could soon have another option when it comes to cable television service: the phone company.

State legislators on Thursday approved and sent to the governor a plan that would make it easier for large telecommunications companies, such as AT&T, to enter the cable TV market in Missouri. Gov. Matt Blunt says he'll sign it.

Under the bill, consumers could see more companies jockeying for their cable dollar by offering "bundled" service options — including phone, cable and high-speed Internet — at discounted prices, said the bill's sponsor, Sen. John Griesheimer, R-Washington.

Eleven states have similar legislation.

The downside, some consumer advocates and local municipalities say, is that customer service could suffer.

"If you're fortunate to live in an urban area, you'll probably benefit. But the vast majority of us won't have a choice and, in the end, customer service will be forgotten," said Gary Markenson, executive director of the Missouri Municipal League.

Cable companies currently negotiate agreements with the state's 550 cities and counties to offer cable service, a lengthy process that, critics say, delays cable service being offered in some areas.

Under the new plan, cable companies could apply for one statewide contract through the Public Service Commission.

For AT&T, that means it could offer cable service to any of its 1.6 million customers in Missouri without having to go through local governments first.

The only stipulation is that companies offering cable TV provide service to 25 percent of its customer base within the first three years and 50 percent within the first six years.

So far, AT&T's roll-out of its new U-Verse television service has been modest, and analysts say it could take several years, and a significant investment, for the telecommunications company to be a player in Missouri's cable TV market.

For example, in San Antonio, where AT&T has offered U-Verse for nearly a year, about 30,000 homes — or 6 percent of the city's households — can get it. About 10 percent, or 3,000 customers, subscribe to the service there.

AT&T has 12 local service agreements with St. Louis-area communities, including Creve Coeur, Florissant, Kirkwood, Rock Hill, University City and Webster Groves.

Cable companies have historically resisted such statewide agreements, largely out of fear of being put at a competitive disadvantage.

However, one of the biggest opponents in the past of a cable TV expansion bill — St. Louis-based Charter Communications — signed off on this year's version. The company asked that a provision be added allowing cable companies to leave their existing local contracts in favor of the statewide plan.

Critics say that provision could violate the state constitution and put cable service in poorer neighborhoods at risk.

"We're worried about 10, 15 years down the line, when these companies opt out of their agreements, that some areas of the county won't have cable," said Darin Cline, chief of governmental affairs for St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley.

Proponents of the statewide cable bill disagree.

"We have research that says low-income residents are some of our best customers," said Kerry Hibbs, a spokesman for AT&T. "It would make no sense not to include them in a roll-out plan."

Some rural legislators expressed concern that their areas might be underserved. Senate Majority Leader Charlie Shields, R-St. Joseph, said some small towns could take the issue to court.

AT&T Inc., the state's largest telephone service provider, lobbied heavily for the bill's passage over the past two years, with the San Antonio-based company pledging to invest at least $100 million in its existing fiber-optic Internet network in Missouri for cable TV programming.

That figure is likely to rise, AT&T says, citing a $250 million investment for infrastructure in Kansas and a $300 million buildup in Indiana after similar legislation passed in those states.

Blunt signaled his support for new statewide cable television regulations in his State of the State speech in January.

The Senate approved the bill 32-2 on Thursday. The House passed an amended version Wednesday 143-4.

dkravitz@post-dispatch.com 573-635-6178
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/E2250AD3644D596E862572A00002D865?OpenDocument

AT&T Stands By U-verse Projections
original table format (http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=118535&WT.svl=news1_3) & click thumbnails for full-size image

Table 1: Project Lightspeed/U-verse Projection Tracker

Date Homes Passed Goal Time Projected
Nov-04 18 million By 2007
Feb-05 19 million By 2007
Mar-05 18 million By 2007
Dec-05 18 million First half of 2008
Feb-06 18 million End of 2008
May-06 19 million End of 2008
Mar-07 19 million End of 2008, with 8 million passed in 2007 alone
Source: Light Reading reports and SBC/AT&T public statements

Table 2: Project Lightspeed/U-verse Market Watcher

Date Project Lightspeed/U-verse Event
25-Jul-06 AT&T says it will offer U-verse services in 15 to 20 markets by the end of 2006.
23-Oct-06 AT&T backs off on its U-verse goal slightly, saying now it expects to launch services in "approximately 15 markets" by the end of 2006.
21-Dec-06 In its announcement regarding the launch of U-verse services in the Bay Area, AT&T again lowers its goal. The release states: "AT&T now expects to launch AT&T U-verse in eleven markets by the end of the year, with plans to launch in additional markets in early 2007."
28-Dec-06 AT&T clears its lowered hurdle with the launch of U-verse services in four Indiana cities: Indianapolis, Anderson, Muncie, and Bloomington.
Source: AT&T press releases and Light Reading reports

21-Dec-06 In its announcement regarding the launch of U-verse services in the Bay Area

I don't know of anyone who frequents these boards that has this service in the bay area yet, there's even a thread, but I don't believe any actual subs have posted they have it yet. Not to say no one has it, but it seems to be extremely slow going...

AT&T, Verizon hiring and wiring in North Texas
Robert Francis - March 19, 2007

AT&T is looking to hire approximately 1,000 workers in the Metroplex to help carry out its cutting-edge television and high-speed Internet plans over the next few years.

The San Antonio-based telecommunications giant isn’t alone. Verizon officials say they have stepped up hiring as the company implements its FiOS Internet and television services across the area and the state. While Charter Communications officials wouldn’t say if they were hiring any additional personnel, officials said they were investing heavily in new products and services in the area.

AT&T officials point directly to a reason for all the hiring: the passage of Senate Bill 5, the telecommunications reform bill that was signed into law in September 2005.

“That law enabled all of this,” said Gary Terry, regional vice president for external affairs for AT&T Texas. “The passage of that law gave us a platform to compete with the cable companies out there and we’ve responded by investing in new technologies and new jobs.”

The law deregulated phone service in many areas of the state, allowed for additional data deployment and set up statewide video franchising to replace local video franchising. Similar laws have been passed in several states since Texas passed its law, and other states are now debating telecommunications deregulation, according to telecom officials. Passage of the bill wasn’t easy. Cable operators fought it, arguing that it created a market that favored the phone companies.

Terry said the company has held several job fairs in the area and, at times, hired people right on the spot.

“If they’ve got all their information together and can do it, we’ve hired them on the spot,” he said.

AT&T currently has about 4,700 employees in Tarrant County.

Much of the hiring is related to the launch of AT&T U-verse services that happened earlier this month. Dallas-Fort Worth is one of 14 markets across the county where the company is rolling out the service. U-verse provides an Internet-based television service, giving users a wide variety of cable channels, 25 High Definition (HD) channels and high-speed Internet access.

While Verizon officials wouldn’t point directly to Senate Bill 5 as the reason for its area expansion, company officials said the passage of the bill fit in with their plans to roll out the new high-speed Internet and advanced television services, called FiOS. The company originally rolled out the service in Keller and recently began offering it in north Fort Worth.

“We started out building our fiber-optic network in Keller when Senate Bill 5 was just a pipe dream,” said William Kula, director of area media relations for Verizon. “All told, we’ve added about 1,400 to the area since January of ’04 and spent hundreds of millions of dollars in investment in the area in building the network.”

Investment for these new services is steep. To install FiOS, Verizon has so far installed more than 25 million feet of fiber-optic cable. AT&T said it planned to invest an additional $800 million in Texas to build out its video and high-speed Internet network. Cable companies have not been standing still in the face of this new competition either.

“It’s an exciting time in the industry,” said Kevin Allen, director of government relations for Charter Communications in Texas. “We’ve been busy rolling out our phone services and high-speed Internet offerings.”

While the cable industry opposed many of the provisions of Senate Bill 5, Allen said the winner has turned out to be the consumer.

“There are a lot of offerings out there because of the competition,” he said. “There are still some aspects of the law that we in the cable industry don’t feel are fair, but we’re out there competing and doing well. The real winner has been the consumer, no doubt about that.”

Bill Peacock, director of the Center for Economic Freedom, a part of the Texas Public Policy Foundation in Austin, said the law appears to be doing what it was intended to do.

“Sure enough, everyone is making the investments they said they would,” he said. “The telecom companies made a lot of promises as that legislation was being debated, but AT&T and Verizon have spent millions in the state. You can hardly drive down a street in Austin without seeing an AT&T truck doing some work related to building out their network.”

Contact Francis at rfrancis@bizpress.net
http://www.fwbusinesspress.com/display.php?id=5875

Not sure if it refers to U-verse or Homezone, but AT&T has a huge billboard saying they are 'reinventing television' found along a major Detroit area expressway.

Noticed the same thing here in Cleveland. Big green billboard "reinventing television". FWIW, I've seen a lot of ATT trucks parked by their underground vaults lately.

AT&T prepares to turn on cable TV service in KC area
Kansas City Business Journal - March 16, 2007
by Jason Shaad, Staff Writer

AT&T Inc. plans to roll out its U-verse video service in the Kansas City area during the next few weeks, marking the beginning of the telecom company's entry into the traditional domain of cable companies.

"It's possible we could see a deployment as early as next week," AT&T spokesman Don Brown said on March 12. "Right now, it's technical issues that we're still sorting out."

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2007/03/19/story15.html?from_rss=1

AT&T's TV serving nine cities in KC area
BY: Jack “Miles” Ventimiglia, Editor
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4:50 PM CDT

AT&T took less than a year to wire nine Johnson County cities in preparation for Tuesday's launch of U-verse TV and high-speed Internet services.

“We're going into tens of thousands of homes on day one,” Matthew Roesner, AT&T local marketing execution director, said Friday.

Billed as “a new world of communications and entertainment,” AT&T leaders plan to invest more than $4 billion nationally and about $250 million in Kansas to offer the service. They said customers will prefer better technology regardless of potential price cuts from cable competitors.

“Once you get the remote control in your hand and you start to use it, you'll never go back,” Roesner said.

Traditional cable and satellite TV providers will not play dead for AT&T. Time-Warner spokesman Damon Porter said competition is nothing new to cable and

satellite TV service providers.

“Time-Warner Cable has a proven track record of delivering a quality video product. It's one that's reliable, it's one that's easy, it's one that has good value,” Porter said. “We have been playing in a competitive market for many years, so AT&T is nothing new.”

Gary Ransom sat with remote in hand in an overstuffed chair at his Olathe residence while explaining the AT&T difference. Several other company leaders joined Ransom, who is AT&T's director of emerging networks in Kansas City.

Ransom's decision to channel surf while keeping his eyes on an NCAA playoff game illustrated a difference between AT&T and some other TV service providers.

Ransom opened a small picture box on his TV screen to flip through programs in progress on other stations. The picture-in-picture service meant channel surfing without missing any of the game.

Changing channels occurred without delay or picture breakup. For intense TV watchers, a delay lasting a couple of seconds could make the difference between seeing Russell Robinson sink a three-pointer on one station and Albert Pujols blast a homer on the other.

For fans of soaps, sports, reality TV or prime time dramas, Ransom said AT&T technology allows recordings of four shows at once.

“Sometimes you'll want to do multiple games,” he said.

One feature, Ransom said, lets a subscriber record every episode of a show for an entire season.

AT&T's service also allows viewers to learn when a favorite actor will appear on TV, and in which show or film. Ransom demonstrated by searching for Milo Ventimiglia, who stars on TV's “Heroes” and “Gilmore Girls,” and has appeared in films such as “Rocky Balboa.” His name came up in the AT&T search because he will appear in a film this week, “Cursed.”

“It is a powerful search engine,” Roesner said.

Porter said cable providers also allow for recordings and other services, leaving consumers with choices to make about which service is best.

“We continue to be the innovative leaders and it really is going to be up to the consumer to decide what kind of service they want,” Porter said. “It really doesn't matter how the video gets into the home, it's what the customer can do once it's in the home.”

People trapped on the job could use work computers to tell their AT&T-wired TV to record a favorite program, Roesner said. He used Ransom's computer to demonstrate. Remote TV access will improve further when the company integrates the service into Cingular phones, he said.

“When we say AT&T is reinventing TV, we're all about the experience,” Roesner said.

The new service offers video on demand and boasts nearly 200 channels, including 25 in high definition. When coupled with high-speed Internet, the total comes to about $74 per month, which compares well to cable coupled with an Internet service, Roesner said.

Porter said more HD channels may sound better than reality delivers.

“The fact of the matter is you only watch one HD program at a time with the AT&T product. It will not allow you to watch two HD programs simultaneously. It will not allow you to have more than one DVR (digital video recorder) in the home and our products can do that,” Porter said.

The advantage for Time-Warner customers, Porter said, is consumers can watch HD TV on sets in different rooms.

AT&T has a basic package with 100 channels and a more expensive package with more than 300 channels.

Because price points are about equal, Roesner said, AT&T expects customers will prefer the new service. As a result, cable providers will have to find another way to battle for subscribers, he said.

“There is going to be competition. Prices are going to come down,” Roesner said.

There will be competition, but do not expect Time-Warner to take the recumbent role, Porter said.

“When (consumers) make that choice, they have to consider what's best for them and whether they're getting good value for money. When you compare the things that people really want, our product is superior,” Porter said.

AT&T's presence in Kansas resulted from a bill presented to the Legislature by Sen. Karin Brownlee, R-Olathe, last year. The bill drew opposition from cable providers. They argued that cable companies had to provide service everywhere in a city, but AT&T does not. They suggested AT&T could “cherry pick” the best neighborhoods to do business and bypass others.

AT&T spokesman Don Brown declined Friday to say which parts of the nine Johnson County cities got wired, or when the company might go into Merriam, for example. He denied cherry picking.

“It benefits us to be in the most markets in the fastest amount of time,” he said.

Based on a Kansas Corporation Commission agreement, AT&T has five years to offer service to customers in designated service areas.

Exactly where AT&T will offer service remains a competitive secret.

“Time will tell where their commitment is,” Porter said.

Those who sign up through June 30 can get the first two months of AT&T TV service free, plus free HBO and Cinemax channels.

AT&T has added a Tupperware approach to marketing. The set-up outside Ransom's house involved a TV on the back of a truck fitted with an awning to cut glare. Kansas City Marketing Manager Angelique Matthews stood ready with a remote control to explain to individuals or community groups the differences between AT&T and other TV service providers.

Some cable customers may not be able to try AT&T for a while because they are on contracts. Roesner said AT&T requires no contract and provides a 60-day, money-back guarantee.

AT&T's entry into the Kansas City TV market marks a first step, with more planned to give people the viewing experience the company believes they want, Roesner said.

“We're looking for where we're going to go,” he said. “We're not going to turn around and look backward.”

http://www.kccommunitynews.com/articles/2007/03/22/northeast_johnson_county_sun/news/all_news032207c.txt

Noticed the same thing here in Cleveland. Big green billboard "reinventing television". FWIW, I've seen a lot of ATT trucks parked by their underground vaults lately.


I've started seeing a few of those here in San Diego area. Has anyone heard of San Diego being somewhere on the roll out list?

I've started seeing a few of those here in San Diego area. Has anyone heard of San Diego being somewhere on the roll out list?
Upcoming U-verse rollout dates, from JoJuu's post at Uverseusers.com:

Oklahoma City Aug 6
Sacramento Aug 20
St. Louis Nov 5
Austin Nov 19
Columbus Dec 24

Chicago, interestingly enough, is not on this list, despite recent reports of new VRADs being installed in the area.
Also, no word yet on firm launch dates for former BellSouth service areas in the Southeast, although I have learned on SatelliteGuys.us that it is being tested in Atlanta. AT&T has said such an announcement should come later this year.

Ive spent some time catching up on this thread after recently learning i can get Uverse in my dallas burb neighborhood.

I would love to be able to ditch TW....possibly the worst company in the United States when it comes to customers.

That said, my main issues are of course the 1 HD feed at a time....the other is that you can only get 1 DVR, no option to add another for a fee. Is this a bandwidth issue? Doesnt seem like it would be. Or is it just that they dont have enough eqt to hand out lots of DVRs?

Also. For those with Uverse. The DVR is stated to be able to record 4 channels at once. Is it like having 4 separate tuners? Can you swap between mulitiple paused live TV feeds like you can on the 2tuner cable DVRs?


Thanks for the help.

I have been using Uverse for a short time now. I really have not had the time to give it some thorough testing.

My short answers. And sorry HD not yet set up.

Price -- cheaper than cable.

SD quality -- much worse than cable if you watch anything with a lot of movement(such as NCAA basketball). I mean it seems really bad, leaning towards pod-castish. About the same or better than cable for other SD.

DVR- Problematic. Sometimes the shows seem to get cut up into more than one recording with a few seconds missing. No 30 sec or Min skip. On the plus side it is much quieter than my Pioneer DVR and there is no apparent loss of quality. In general the on screen graphics tie in nicely with operation.

edit --- 30 sec skip found

Channel packages -- Good. Basically like what you would expect from a satellite. Showtime is sorta thrown in my package -u300. Will look to down grade my package in the future perhaps.

Internet- speed is on the low side of their guidelines. My package should be at 3 ro 6 meg and clocks out at 2.8 megs. I am going to follow up on this.

edit -- it now generally clocks at about 5.6 meg on most internet speed testing programs. I have doubts about the quality of these tests.

Maybe my imagination but it seems like I get more over scan now.

Channel scanning is fast.

Unlike my old cable box it is VERY easy to select which channels will show up. No more skipping over QVC and the like.

Worst glitch -- Very loud sound like a pop in a bad mp3 file sometimes while surfing channels.

I have watched one channel while recording another -works well.

Channel guide -- so far so good. PIP Channel preview is a nice touch along with the time left bar.

My overall impression is -- promising.... reevaluate when I get HD fully set up.


With all AT&T has at stake in this I gotta believe they will do what it takes to get it right.

SD quality -- much worse than cable if you watch anything with a lot of movement(such as NCAA basketball). I mean it seems really bad, leaning towards pod-castish. About the same or better than cable for other SD.



there seems to be some sort of problem with the encoding. Somtimes these events play just fine, other times they they can have severe compression artifacts. Hopefully these issues will get worked out, but at least I dont watch much sports.


DVR- Problematic. Sometimes the shows seem to get cut up into more than one recording with a few seconds missing. No 30 sec or Min skip. On the plus side it is much quieter than my Pioneer DVR and there is no apparent loss of quaility. In general the on screen graphics tie in nicely with operation.


There is 30 second skip and 7 second rewind under the yellow pause button.


Worst glitch -- Very loud sound like a pop in a bad mp3 file sometimes while surfing channels.


there is sound that plays when you make a mistake with the remote. It can be turned off and should be turned off by default.

Found the skip. Thanks.

About the sound glitch. It is not the sound effects. Those are turned off. It is like a ripping sound which lasts about half a second after you change channels. It does not happen all the time but it is quite annoying when it happens. If I am listening through my sound system I am muting before surfing.

Also. For those with Uverse. The DVR is stated to be able to record 4 channels at once. Is it like having 4 separate tuners? Can you swap between multiple paused live TV feeds like you can on the 2tuner cable DVRs?



In SD it can record 4 channels at once. It seems like there are four independent channels each with it own DRV. Yes you can pause each live TV feed.

In the future I have been told all of the remote boxes with be able to access the main DVR. So it seems like each might be able to do its own recording and such.

Also. For those with Uverse. The DVR is stated to be able to record 4 channels at once. Is it like having 4 separate tuners? Can you swap between mulitiple paused live TV feeds like you can on the 2tuner cable DVRs?


I don't have Uverse but I understand the technology. It's not about tuners, it's not like there are multiple channels each at a different frequency. It's about a video feed being carried in IP packets. The set-top box talks to the home gateway which talks to the local VRAD, and sets up which streams are going to be carried across the VDSL connections in your neighborhood. The VRAD sends the streams (up to 4 at a time) down the DSL connection to your gateway and thus to your DVR. You are only limited by total DSL bitrate to your home gateway, not by "number of channels". That is why you can only get one HD stream right now, because it takes a much higher bitrate to send it.

AT&T Has Done the Deals. Now It Needs Results.
By MATT RICHTEL, The New York Times
March 27, 2007

Edward E. Whitacre Jr., the chairman and chief executive of AT&T, is captivating several hundred employees in an Atlanta auditorium with a pep talk about the rosy future of the world’s largest telephone company. His demeanor is commanding, cut with a practiced avuncular charm.

Then he opens the floor to questions and, for just an instant, is tripped up. The first question, from a man near the front row, is about whether AT&T’s much-debated strategy for deploying broadband on the cheap will give consumers what they need.

Mr. Whitacre begins to answer, pauses, chooses another path, then stops, and smiles. “Where did you get this question?” he finally responds, feigning exasperation with fine comedic timing, prompting an eruption of appreciative laughter.

It is a moment that sums up the new state of affairs for Mr. Whitacre and AT&T. In December, the company closed on an $86 billion acquisition of BellSouth, capping a string of multibillion-dollar takeover deals, and leaving the company ready and needing to compete through execution, not acquisition.

Wall Street is thus far charmed, having endorsed the acquisition strategy by sending the stock on a steady two-year rise to above $39 from the low $20s. And Mr. Whitacre, never a shrinking violet, has the swagger of a man whose grand plan has worked.

But there are nagging questions. Is AT&T’s broadband strategy flawed? Is its foray into television in shambles and destined for failure? Has the revenue growth from acquisition obscured more fundamental, underlying vulnerabilities?

“Mr. Whitacre is a very, very smart man,” said Dave Burstein, editor of DSL Prime, an online newsletter that follows the broadband industry. “He knows what he’s doing. He’s making good short-term decisions, and risking the long run.”

Mr. Whitacre has plenty of promoters, who credit him with transforming Southwestern Bell, the smallest of the seven Bells when he took it over in 1990, into SBC, the telecommunications giant that swallowed AT&T and took its name. For his part, the 65-year-old Mr. Whitacre — a native Texan and company man who started as a facilities engineer with Southwestern Bell in 1963 — says the heaviest lifting may at last be done.

“I’ve always been trying to put all the pieces together,” he said. “We’ve got them now.”

The drama for AT&T is what happens now that it has all those pieces in place — now that, it seems at last, Mr. Whitacre is sated.

In late 2005, a year before the company closed on the BellSouth deal, it completed the $16 billion acquisition of the AT&T Corporation. A year before that, Cingular Wireless, jointly owned by SBC and BellSouth, closed on a $41 billion acquisition of AT&T Wireless. In the late 1990s, Mr. Whitacre’s company acquired Pacific Telesis, Southern New England Telecommunications and Ameritech.

The new AT&T has 66.5 million land-based telephone lines, 61 million wireless subscribers, 12 million broadband lines, and sells local phone service in 22 states. It has 302,000 employees, including the several hundred acquired from the BellSouth and Cingular acquisitions who gathered in Atlanta for Mr. Whitacre’s recent pep talk.

AT&T’s $242.77 billion market capitalization by far surpasses that of the next largest phone company, China Mobile, at $ 183.13 billion, and is double that of the nearest American competitor, Verizon Communications, at $109.62 billion. “The company’s come a long way — largely on Ed Whitacre’s vision,” said John C. Hodulik, an analyst with UBS. “Right from the beginning, he realized the benefits of scale in the telecommunications business.”

Investors have been impressed, too, by the cost savings AT&T has generated after its acquisitions. The company initially projected that it would save $15 billion by merging with the former AT&T, but it saved $18 billion. It had initially said that it would save $18 billion through the BellSouth merger, but in January it upgraded that estimate to $22 billion.

Randall L. Stephenson, AT&T’s chief operating officer, said that the integration was carried out in each case more swiftly than projected, allowing the savings to accrue earlier.

“Speed is the No. 1 thing,” Mr. Stephenson said. “Our core competency has been doing exactly this: buying companies and integrating them quickly.”

The savings have improved the company’s margins, said Qaisar Hasan, an analyst with Buckingham Research. He said that in the fourth quarter of 2006, margins hit 34.4 percent, up from 23.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2004.

The results have created “widespread enthusiasm” on Wall Street, Mr. Hasan said. So much so that Mr. Hasan in September downgraded AT&T stock to a hold.

“There’s not much room for the stock to surprise on the upside,” he said.

There are Wall Street analysts who disagree. Simon Flannery, an analyst with Morgan Stanley, titled his January report on AT&T “Time for an Encore; More Upside in 2007” and said the company remained his favorite large-capitalization stock.

But there is potential downside for AT&T, too, analysts said, particularly when it comes to its closely linked broadband and television strategies. Some analysts say that AT&T has set itself up poorly to compete in those areas, which are considered essential to the telecommunications product bundle.

In the case of TV, the strategy is called Uverse, and it entails delivering programming over the Internet, so-called IPTV. But the service has been plagued by delays and glitches and, even now, takes, on average, more than six hours to install in a home.

“If it cannot be called a complete failure, it’s at least struggling,” said Phillip Swan, president of TVPredictions.com, a Web site that tracks the television technology industry. He said that if things did not pick up soon, AT&T might have to get back into the acquisition game to buy a TV distributor, like a satellite or cable company.

Mr. Whitacre declines to comment about such a purchase. But he and other executives say Uverse needs a chance to flourish and, they say, it is an essential piece of the company’s overall strategy.

The television initiative is tied in closely with AT&T’s strategy for deploying a high-speed fiber optic network, which will deliver the TV programming. That strategy is called “fiber to the node” because it brings high-speed fiber optic cables within 4,000 feet of individual homes. Then it delivers the last part of the digital signal over conventional copper wires.

That strategy stands in contrast to “fiber to the premises,” a strategy being pursued by Verizon, which entails connecting fiber optic cables directly to individual residences.

There are pros and cons to each strategy. Verizon’s version of fiber to the premises allows it to give customers data speeds of 100 megabits, while AT&T’s can deliver around 25 megabits. On the other hand, AT&T’s concept is projected to cost $5.1 billion — $15 billion less than it says it would cost to lay fiber to the premises.

The question of which strategy is ultimately superior depends on how much bandwidth customers will need in the future.

“It’s an outstanding question for everybody in the industry,” said John T. Stankey, president of the network operations support group at AT&T. “The question for us is whether we’re investing enough. The thing I go home thinking about at night is, What is the amount of bandwidth the customer is going to need in the future?”

For Mr. Whitacre, the answer is that AT&T’s strategy is the right one, unequivocally.

It’s a “no-brainer,” he said. He asserts that as technology improves, AT&T will be able to increase its speeds from 25 megabits without facing the expense of laying fiber to every household. “I have no doubt that the bandwidth will be plenty large,” he said.

The results may play out after Mr. Whitacre is no longer in charge. His term as chief executive ends in March 2008, and while the company has not announced whether it might renew his contract, there is speculation among analysts that he will take the title of chairman and move away from day-to-day control.

But he was plenty engaged during his pep talk in Atlanta, as he ran down the company’s accomplishments. The meeting exhibited his Reaganesque style: big-picture commentary, a statesmanlike presence, humor and down-home patter.

He told those assembled that he understood how much change the acquisitions had wrought, and that it was causing turmoil and confusion in the short run.

“It ain’t exactly easy to get things done around here,” he said. “I hate it. Don’t y’all hate it?”

A few sentences later, he got another round of warm laughter when he added, “ ‘Ain’t.’ That’s a new word in the dictionary, isn’t it?”

His chief request to the audience was to make nice with customers, when offering assistance or closing a sale.

“I’m asking you, I’m pleading, don’t let them go until they’re happy,” he said. “You just can’t let them go. Hang on till it’s done.”

Generally, Mr. Whitacre seemed at pains to connect with the common worker. But that common-man persona is at odds with his compensation, which has drawn criticism from watchdogs in recent years. The compensation included stock options worth tens of millions of dollars, even during the telecommunications downturn.

A proxy filing last week showed Mr. Whitacre’s 2006 pay at $31.5 million, not including deferred compensation, about 94 percent more than in 2005. AT&T shareholders earned 53 percent more than in 2005, including reinvested dividends.

In an interview after his pep talk, Mr. Whitacre said the critics failed to realize the extent of the post-bubble downturn and everything he did to keep the company from faring worse. It was during that time, too, that Mr. Whitacre continued to push his acquisition strategy, telling Mr. Stephenson, his chief financial officer at the time, to get rid of the company’s debt so that it could go on a buying spree, Mr. Stephenson said.

Now that the pieces he says he sought are in place, will Mr. Whitacre depart as chief executive? He declined to say, but he did say that if he were to choose retirement, he knows what he would do with it.

“Take more time to breathe,” he said.

Eric Dash contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/business/27telecom.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

Project LightSpeed: AT&T's IPTV Architecture

Posted on Mar 26th, 2007

Bill Koss submits: I have posted several times on Verizon (VZ) and their FiOS program. As such it is fitting to take a look at the other large telecom TV program underway in the US: Project LightSpeed or U-verse by AT&T (T).

Two conclusions are clear from reading, listening to AT&T presentations and discussing the program with people who are familiar with deployments of the IPTV architecture by AT&T.

(1) Fiber to the premise is much easier to complete then originally estimated and (2) receiver state control and delivery of video over copper is much harder to deliver in a high quality then estimated. Investors looking for a revenue boost to Microsoft from receivers in 2007 will be disappointed.

It is likely that AT&T will be forced to make an architecture change for video delivery. The clear challenge is speed and distance over the copper plant from DSLAM. Back office integration issues are well documented in the press, but they will be worked out over time. These issues do not mean a vendor selection change, but rather a delay in the deployment schedule and subscriber growth and may imply a fiber to the premise strategy (i.e. Verizon) or switched video to the node (i.e. traditional cable HFC architecture) with QAM modulation to the set top box.

I think the service will not be working to expectations until mid to late 2008. AT&T’s video service is limited to 1 HD and 2 SD receivers with no DVR. The main limitation is the maximum downstream rate achieved is 25 Mbps, with 2 Mbps upstream over 3k from the FTTN architecture.

In a bonded copper architecture, they are achieving 25Mb/s to around 5k feet. Copper bonding allows AT&T to support multiple HD set tops (which is not available today). The primary vendors of the program are: Alcatel (ALU), Microsoft (MSFT), Motorola (MOT), Cisco (CSCO), and Fuji.

Some stats:

# U-Verse video subs are up to 7000 (more than doubling this quarter). They recently reached the 1000 new subs per week rate, which indicates for the first time they can attract and process orders.
# Pair bonding will not be ready to deploy until late Q1 or early Q2 '08. This makes U-Verse a second class citizen to cable and satellite.
# Along with bonding will be a deployment of the INID. The INID will terminate VDSL and will remain permanent on the home (eliminating the modem). This allows for DSL and VOIP Uverse customers to self-install their service.
# HD streams are running at 8.5Mb/s per stream. SD is 1.8Mb/s. Later this year, HD will drop into the 6 - 6.5Mb/s range.
# All set top boxes are HD capable. However only 1 HD stream per customer is allowed. (Note this is an issue as Comcast and DirecTV allow for multiple HD streams to multiple receivers)
# DVRs are SD only
# AT&T is averaging 2.85 set tops per home
# FTTN costs per home passed is $350. This includes everything (transport, access, etc).

http://telecom.seekingalpha.com/article/30657

# HD streams are running at 8.5Mb/s per stream. SD is 1.8Mb/s. Later this year, HD will drop into the 6 - 6.5Mb/s range.


I just can't imagine quality HD at 6.5 Mb/s. Would it be fair to refer to this as Semi-HD? I would really rather have just one 10 Mb/s HD feed if the trade off is quality. And about the SD feed, based on what I see with sports programing, 1.8 Mb/s is not going to cut it. I wonder if they have a new set of codexs in the works because they are not getting much for their 1.8Mb/s.

In Tennessee, Comcast has been running a bunch of anti-AT&T ads on their cable systems. They REALLY don't want any competition.

I just can't imagine quality HD at 6.5 Mb/s. Would it be fair to refer to this as Semi-HD? I would really rather have just one 10 Mb/s HD feed if the trade off is quality. And about the SD feed, based on what I see with sports programing, 1.8 Mb/s is not going to cut it. I wonder if they have a new set of codexs in the works because they are not getting much for their 1.8Mb/s.When I read that, I assumed they meant 6.5 MB/s compressed (MPEG-4). If not, then that really sucks.

I really hope AT&T offers an internet-only option for U-Verse. After pair bonding, a 25mb connection at a reasonable price is definitely something I'd be interested in.

6.5 MB/s compressed? Even if it's MPEG-4, that's still too little bandwidth. I was looking forward to U-Verse maybe heading down this way, but sounds like I may just stick with E* and OTA if it does.

AT&T says U-verse sales up "dramatically," total 10,000 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032800760_pf.html)

I really hope AT&T offers an internet-only option for U-Verse. After pair bonding, a 25mb connection at a reasonable price is definitely something I'd be interested in.


I wish they would offer an internet-only option as well. The problem is that it conservatively cost over $800 in labor (AT&T's cost 10hr@$80/hr) to get me completely installed. That figure does not include the cost of necessary equipment. It would have been about the same effort if it was internet-only. The installer said it usually takes about a half day per install.

I figure that I will have to use U-verse for at least a year for AT&T to make a dime off me.

When it was all said and done I had the pleasure to work with 4 different AT&T field personnel all who really seemed to care about getting it done right. That was a nice change from the cable installers.

In Tennessee, Comcast has been running a bunch of anti-AT&T ads on their cable systems. They REALLY don't want any competition.

Apparently, Mediacom in Albany, GA does not want any either. They have been running similar anti-AT&T spots from the Cable Television Assn. of Georgia. OTOH, the local TV stations here are running ads from TV 4 US (a coalition of several IPTV industry firms, including AT&T) touting the benefits of competition.

This comes as the Georgia state legislature is considering a bill to allow statewide franchises for TV service providers (heavily backed by TV 4 US); it passed the state House of Representatives last week and is awaiting a vote in the Senate.

I just can't imagine quality HD at 6.5 Mb/s. Would it be fair to refer to this as Semi-HD? I would really rather have just one 10 Mb/s HD feed if the trade off is quality. And about the SD feed, based on what I see with sports programing, 1.8 Mb/s is not going to cut it. I wonder if they have a new set of codexs in the works because they are not getting much for their 1.8Mb/s.
Depends on the codecs used -- isn't U-Verse using VC-1? In any case, the MPEG2 feeds from DirecTV are sometimes as low as 6-8 mb/sec.

Hafta see it with my eyes, frankly. Bandwidth numbers by themselves are somewhat meaningless.

More worrying is that the DVR doesn't seem to record HD. What's the point?

More worrying is that the DVR doesn't seem to record HD. What's the point?

From my DVR owners manual:

"..DVR holds 120 hours SD or 24 hours of HD..."

I just feel so dirty looking at the manual!

AT&T could soon offer U-verse to households
By HEATHER CHAMBERS, The Daily Transcript (http://www.sddt.com/News/article.cfm?SourceCode=20070328czg)
Wednesday, March 28, 2007

AT&T, a leader in high-speed Internet and telephone services, could soon offer a service it calls the next generation of TV if a state regulatory agency grants it permission.

Depends on the codecs used -- isn't U-Verse using VC-1? In any case, the MPEG2 feeds from DirecTV are sometimes as low as 6-8 mb/sec.

Hafta see it with my eyes, frankly. Bandwidth numbers by themselves are somewhat meaningless.

More worrying is that the DVR doesn't seem to record HD. What's the point?

Just got U-Verse installed, the DVR (provided for free) is an HD DVR and it records HD just fine. The problem is it can only record one HD show at a time (but up to 4 SD channels at a time). That is supposed to change, but nobody knows for sure when that will happen.

I'll give a good review after a week of using it, but I can already say that the biggest problem with this system so far (in my opinion) is bandwidth. I can notice compression artifacts, and I'll get the occasional hiccup when recording an HD show and watching another. And the Internet comes in three weak flavors, 1.5Mbps down, 3Mbps down, and 6Mbps down. My Cablevision internet connection kicks the crap out of it. I really think SBC/AT&T made a stupid decision by going FTTN and not FTTP. Yea it's cheaper than pulling fiber at every install, but they are going to pay for it in the long run with sub par quality and features, bandwidth issues, and support calls trying to utilize all that old copper.

My other biggest gripe so far is the slowness of the hardware, especially the DVR. It runs Microsoft CE software so the eye-candy is nice (looks like Windows MCE) but it's laggy and unresponsive most of the time. I don't know if that's a Microsoft issue or a hardware/processor issue. Time will tell I guess.

Also had u-verse installed yesterday.

Thoughts:
1. SD looks fine - same as Time warner cable
2. HD looks a bit softer than cable some artifacts on my 61" Samsung DLP
3. Much cheaper than cable and better HD channel offering.
4. My internet speed is much faster. 5.6 down with ATT and only 2.9 with Road runner. Don't know why. Installer said I was close to the hub??
5. The wireless inet link is good. I can go to my alley and surf.
6. One HD stream is annoying, but I just told the wife I always get the HD :)
7. Haven't played with DVR or guide much yet. More later
8. Setting my recording from the web is very cool, with nice simpe search feature.
7. Verdict is still out. We'll see if they deliver on whole home DVR and multiple HD streams.

I'm willing to put up with the glitches to get out from under Time warner for a while at least.

I'll keep posting my experiences.

Also had u-verse installed yesterday.


5. The wireless inet link is good. I can go to my alley and surf.
6. One HD stream is annoying, but I just told the wife I always get the HD :)



You may have to get you a desk in that ally if ya keep hogging the HD. :p ;)

AT&T Wins California Video Franchise
U-Verse TV IPTV Service to Expand Throughout Golden State
By Todd Spangler 3/30/2007 4:12:00 PM

The California Public Utilities Commission Friday formally approved AT&T’s application for a statewide franchise to provide video service in California.

"The CPUC's approval of our application brings Californians one step closer to finally having a real choice to cable TV,” AT&T California president Ken McNeely said in a prepared statement. The telco, he added, will be “rolling out our TV/video service -- AT&T U-verse -- in cities throughout the state as soon as possible."

AT&T has already begun offering U-verse TV service in limited areas (http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6402030.html) of Northern California, including neighborhoods in San Jose, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and Cupertino.

The Golden State earlier this month granted Verizon Communications’ application for a video franchise, under which the telco plans to offer FiOS TV service in 45 cities throughout Southern California. Verizon last week announced availability of video service in 12 Southern California communities.

California’s Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006, enacted Jan. 1, provides a mechanism for service providers to receive a statewide video franchise. It requires the PUC to rule that a franchise application is complete within 30 days, and gives it another 14 days after that to issue a franchise.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6429582.html?display=Breaking+News

bgooch, does this mean that Verizon could roll out their FIOS tv to any part of the state now?

Brandon

4. My internet speed is much faster. 5.6 down with ATT and only 2.9 with Road runner. Don't know why. Installer said I was close to the hub??


2.9 on roadrunner? wow...

I get 6.5 consistently...5.6 is a downgrade for me :-p

"does this mean that Verizon could roll out their FIOS tv to any part of the state now?"

In the previous article there was another link Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/FINAL_DECISION/65225.htm) which may have your answer.

The only video service offering from a telephone company I have read that will possibly be made available outside their traditional service areas is AT&T's Homezone.

Anyone know whatever became of all those lawsuits that were being lobbed back and forth between AT&T and a bunch of Illinois communities?

I heard about when they were filed, but never heard anything about them again.

Geneva protests cable, video bill
(http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/322669,4_1_JO02_CABLE_S1.article)

April 2, 2007
By STEVE LORD sun-times news group

GENEVA -- The latest structure at City Hall here is a refrigerator-size, day-glo green box on the front lawn. Built to look like the boxes AT&T proposes to build as part of its Project Lightspeed, it includes a sign that asks residents if they are, "Green with Envy?"

It then goes on to say that if House Bill 1500, known as the Cable and Video Competition Law of 2007, is passed, AT&T will have the power to build a box like that in a property owner's yard - without permission.
Eminent domain
The box was built by the city of Geneva - following the lead of Naperville and Itasca, which have done the same thing - to show graphically what Project Lightspeed boxes look like. The warning sign is about a section of House Bill 1500 that would give a provider such as AT&T or Verizon limited eminent domain power to build a box on private property.

Officials from municipalities and counties have been testifying recently in Springfield and otherwise strenuously opposing the bill, with the eminent domain section being one of the key reasons for their objections. They also don't like the fact the bill would take away local control by governments over highway rights-of-way.

The bill would end local franchise agreements for cable television and any other telecommunications video service and make the cable business regulated by the state instead. Companies would apply to the Illinois Commerce Commission for a franchise to serve anywhere in the state.

Supporters say the bill would force video providers to compete by taking away exclusive local franchises, thus lowering prices to consumers. With the state awarding franchises, there is more clout to force video providers to serve everyone, including low-income customers, supporters say.

Opponents say the bill will obliterate local control, not just over customer service, but over local rights-of-way. Companies would no longer have to get a permit to build in public places.
Only the beginning
The box in front of City Hall is only the beginning for Geneva. City officials say they will build several more in front of other public buildings.

Ill. Municipalities Look to Box In AT&T
Itasca, Naperville Place Ugly Boxes Throughout Towns to Bring Attention to AT&T Issues
By Linda Haugsted 3/12/2007 10:14:00 PM
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6423669.html?display=Breaking+News

Hot-pink and highway-yellow boxes have cropped up in at least two municipalities in Illinois as a protest of a state bill community officials believe will give AT&T total control of the placement of huge powering vaults it needs to operate its planned video service.

The boxes were constructed and placed in the village of Itasca and nearby Naperville, both in DuPage County. The pink Itasca boxes were in place beginning Feb. 21. Naperville's are in place now, bearing the message, "This big ugly box brought to you by AT&T Project Lightspeed in the name of competition."

On closer inspection, posted letters to residents explain the boxes and urge constituents to contact their state legislators to oppose HB 1500, an AT&T-supported bill that will move video franchising to the state Corporations Commission.

"This was the best way we could think of to raise awareness. It's tough to get the attention of the media," said Dan Di Santo, assistant to the Naperville city manager.

The box placement last month in Itasca resulted in 84 letters from residents to legislators opposing the bill, added Itasca city manager David C. Williams.

Representatives of both communities said they welcome competition, but they want to retain some of the authority they now have over incumbent operators.

Last year, Naperville tried to reach an agreement to bring AT&T's Project Lightspeed infrastructure project to town. Itasca put a moratorium on infrastructure permits in advance of any power-box placement by AT&T.

Itasca and a handful of other Illinois communities that delayed or considered delaying permitting were sued in federal court by AT&T. Williams said those suits are "grinding along," although the box stunt attracted outreach from the telco to possibly open talks in the community.

Geneva takes aim at AT&T
By KAREN LONG - klong@kcchronicle.com
http://www.kcchronicle.com/articles/2007/03/31/news/local/doc460dfff8e585e269409672.txt

GENEVA – City officials have put out a lawn ornament at City Hall that they hope residents dislike enough to complain to their state legislators about.

Facing First Street just north of James Street, the bright yellow box with orange and white stripes stands about 5 feet tall. It’s representative of what AT&T could put in residents’ yards if House Bill 1500 passes, Mayor Kevin Burns said.

“We’re taking a page from the state of Missouri: Show me,” he said. “The box at City Hall is our own homemade demonstration project.”

City officials say that House Bill 1500 would give control of local cable franchising to the state and allow telecommunications boxes on the public right of way or on private property.

“It’s creative language being written into the bill that allows AT&T to do what they want, where they want and when they want,” Burns said.

AT&T Illinois spokesman Rob Biederman said the company would not put the boxes on private property, but instead on the public right of way, public utility easements or existing private easements.

“It’s not as though we’re going to be putting it in people’s backyards,” he said.

Biederman added that the bill would give residents alternatives to cable TV. Technology in the boxes also would be part of Project Lightspeed – an AT&T plan to upgrade its telecommunications network and distribute video to customers over a fiber-optic network.

Geneva and North Aurora are among a handful of Chicago-area communities that were sued by AT&T last year for allegedly halting the company’s Project Lightspeed by imposing a moratorium on the construction of utility boxes in rights of way.

Geneva information technologies manager Peter Collins said AT&T would need to install about 20 to 30 boxes to serve the city’s residents. The locations of the boxes have not been determined, he said.

House Bill 1500 has been referred to the 25-member Telecommunications Committee, which includes state Rep. Tim Schmitz, R-Geneva.

County may join chorus against TV legislation
Daily Herald Staff Writer, By Lisa Smith
http://www.dailyherald.com/search/searchstory.asp?id=295770
Posted Thursday, March 29, 2007

Kane County is poised to join a growing group of local governments fighting a proposal to eliminate local franchise agreements with cable and video service providers.

The county board’s legislative committee Wednesday agreed to draw up a resolution opposing House Bill 1500, which would transfer franchising authority from local governments to the Illinois Commerce Commission.

The measure, introduced by state Rep. James Brosnahan, an Oak Lawn Democrat, is being considered by the state legislature. A Naperville city official spoke out against the measure in a hearing before the House Telecommunications Committee last week.

The Illinois Municipal League and the 272-member Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, of which Batavia Mayor Jeff Schielke serves as the executive board vice chairman, also oppose the measure.

Opponents claim the proposal does not guarantee that telecommunications companies would make service available to everyone in the community, regardless of race or income level. It also would allow the companies to condemn properties and maintain control of public rights-of-way, powers that now rest with government agencies.

“It’s really a power grab by a private company,” said Kane County Board member Gerry Jones, an Aurora Democrat.

Sponsors of the bill, called the Cable and Video Competition Law of 2007, say it would create competition among pay-TV service providers such as Comcast and AT&T. It would help AT&T expand its controversial Project Lightspeed video-over-Internet service.

The concept is controversial because it has spurred several lawsuits. AT&T is suing North Aurora and several other communities, contending it does not need to enter franchise agreements with individual towns like other TV service providers do because AT&T's service is inherently different from cable television.

Project Lightspeed provides high-definition television programming, video on demand and other services through a fiber-optic network, allowing customers to watch television over phone lines rather than via cable or an antenna.

The company has applied for permits to construct a technological infrastructure upgrade on Kane County rights-of-way.

AT&T resolves 'lightspeed' issues
March 5, 2007
By STEVE LORD SUN-TIMES NEWS GROUP
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/283143,4_1_JO05_LIGHTSPEED_S1.article

GENEVA -- It may not be by the speed of light, but AT&T's Internet video program Project Lightspeed is making its way through Kane County.

While AT&T has resolved many of its problems with municipalities about building in its rights-of-way -- some issues still remain -- it also is looking at unincorporated Kane County.

The company has applied to build the boxes necessary to hook up houses in five county road rights-of-way, although only one -- along Empire Road -- is in an unincorporated area.

Others were along Army Trail Road, where AT&T signed a deal with the village of Wayne to install Project Lightspeed. Wayne was the first municipality in Kane to sign a deal with AT&T -- and is one of only four in the Chicago area so far -- in large part because some places in Wayne have lot sizes so big, they have never been served with other cable video.

Other municipalities are negotiating with AT&T, both over agreements similar to franchise agreements the towns already have with cable television, and over construction of the necessary boxes in municipal rights-of-way.

At first, AT&T resisted making agreements, saying they did not need them because they are Internet-based. But municipalities fought that idea, saying because they deliver video that would compete with cable, AT&T would have to follow the same rules.

The company filed suit against many area municipalities when those towns enacted moratoriums on any construction to see how they would deal with the situation. While the court case remains unresolved, it is largely moot, because the six months have passed, and many municipalities, such as Geneva, enacted guidelines for right-of-way construction.

Since then, the company has agreed to follow rules similar to a franchise agreement, notably paying the 5 percent of revenues fee to the municipalities.

Hi All..

Just wanted to add to the postings, I got uVerse several weeks ago and have been pretty well pleased. I had digital cable with TW in San Antonio, which was fine, but then they raised their rates in January by 10% without warning. Sorry TW- when there's competition, you need to be worrying about lowering your prices not raising them! :-<

So ATT calls me and says they can offer uVerse at about the same price, 400 channels, HD and DVR, hi-speed Internet, and I tell them yes. It took them all day to install it, but they showed up on time and it was working when they left.

Here's the technical scoop:

Residential Gateway- Has a DSL modem, router, wireless access point, 2WIRE 3800HGV-B. Supports 100BaseT, HPNA and USB connections.

Cable boxes- Motorola 1216 w/ built-in DVR, 1200 on the other TV. They're running Windows CE- whether that's good or bad remains to be seen. ATT says that you'll be able to watch a program recorded on the 1216 from the TV connected to the 1200 sometime later this year- they called it Whole Home DVR.

According to the RG admin screen, I appear to be getting about 27MB/s, which is enough for 1-HD and 3-SD's concurrently. My TW service gave me two streams, but both could be HD. This is annoying because you can't watch one HD and record another, but ATT says they're going to add another towards the end of the year (I can't wait). On the other hand, you really can record four programs at once, which beats the heck out of TW's limit of two.

The SD service is *much* better than TW, even on a regular set. I think they're still working on the HD (maybe the encoders are still new?), but it seems to be improving. There are not as many dropouts as there were a month ago, but there's still a sound drop-out occasionally. My only real complaint (other than just one HD) is that the DVR box is often S-L-O-W in executing its tasks. I guess Microsoft needs to tweak it a bit.

Programming your DVR from your Yahoo web page is COOL. Go into it from work when you forget to set the timer- it's simple and it works..

I'm getting about 5.8MB on Internet, so no complaints there, and the wireless works as well as my old Linksys AP.

All in all, I'm pleased with the switch. The ATT people have been very attentive (haven't talked to any people in India yet) and haven't really had any problems that rebooting the cable box or RG didn't fix (thank you Windows!). It just seems like they're trying to get everything together and it's taken a little more time than they thought. But the quality is certainly up to par, the price is as good or better than what I had, and the technology does have a lot of promise.

Hope you all find this useful.

jimbo

It sounds like a great SD service.

Sounds like the folks that signed up are beta testers, which is ok if it's substantially cheaper.

AT&T Illinois spokesman Rob Biederman said the company would not put the boxes on private property, but instead on the public right of way, public utility easements or existing private easements.

“It’s not as though we’re going to be putting it in people’s backyards,” he said.

But many easements are in people's backyards or along their front yard. I swear one of these boxes has appeared in our neighborhood in someone's front yard! These things are big and ugly. I haven't done enough investigating to see if this box is indeed an AT&T box though.

I guess that's the price of buying land and not knowing where the easement is. :rolleyes:

But many easements are in people's backyards or along their front yard. I swear one of these boxes has appeared in our neighborhood in someone's front yard! These things are big and ugly. I haven't done enough investigating to see if this box is indeed an AT&T box though.

I guess that's the price of buying land and not knowing where the easement is. :rolleyes:

There is something to said about property owners understanding where their public utility easements are. That said, in California, ATT tries very hard to put these cabinets in the most unobtrusive areas possible.

The size of the VRAD, the box used for most of the fiber to the node installations is 63"H, 43"W, 21"D. That all sits on a concrete pad that is 46"x81."

This PDF will give the dimensions and also has a photo of the box itself.

www.ci.tracy.ca.us/city_council/meetings/agendas/2006/12/19/04.pdf

Bill in Wisconsin Legislature could provide cable competition for consumers, loss of revenue for cities

Posted April 2, 2007
By Bethany K. Warner of The Northwestern

A state legislative move to bring better cable rates to customers could result in the loss of revenue for the city of Oshkosh and rising equipment costs for Oshkosh Community Access Television.

Local leaders who testified at a legislative committee meeting last week in Madison raised concerns about how a current bill allowing cable franchise competition could hurt municipalities and urged lawmakers to amend the bill to keep it from ending a revenue source for local government.

"If it would pass … it could have some devastating impacts on local governments across the state," said Oshkosh City Manager Richard Wollangk.

The city currently is in the middle of a 15-year contract with Time Warner Cable. Were the bill to pass, the contract Time Warner has with the city would be nullified. Moreover, the new law would not require new competing video service providers – like AT&T, a major backer of the bill – to honor existing franchise contracts.

That could mean a loss of franchise fee revenue for the city of $128,000 to $192,000 annually, or between $1.5 million and $1.7 million less over the remaining nine years of the contract, city estimates show, based on projections from what Time Warner currently pays the city in franchise fees. The range in revenues come from estimates of how many cable subscribers are in an area paying franchise fees as part of their cable bills.

Combined with the loss of other funds for capital equipment and having to possibly pay for expenses like transmitting the signal that Time Warner currently provides for the city's community access television stations, the city could see a financial impact of $2.8 million to $3.5 million during the nine years remaining in the current contract, Wollangk said.

Part of that revenue, about $240,000, supports OCAT operations, but the rest, another $400,00, funds regular city operations.

But using money for the access channels for general city operations is one thing that bill sponsor Rep. Phil Montgomery, R-Ashwaubenon, wants to see changed, said Adam Raschka, committee clerk for the Assembly Energy and Utility committee.

"We're not trying to kill the channels," Raschka said. "It's all about competition. Consumers haven't had a true choice in video."

According to Jeff Bentoff, spokesman for AT&T, the cable competition bill is a "pocketbook issue" for many consumers. Cable rates in the Green Bay market, Bentoff said, have risen 24 percent from 2000 to 2006. Competition, he said, will drive down prices for consumers.

Jon Urben, executive director of OCAT, says the bill also requires public access channels to air 12 hours of programming a day, with 10 hours locally produced and non-repeating. If a station fails to meet that requirement, video service providers would be able take the channel back from local access television.

"They shouldn't dictate to us our hours of programming," Urben said. "That should be set by the communities in response to the support of their … channel."

The bill also would require local access channels to get their station to the cable provider, where currently the cable company supports the infrastructure for distributing the signal. Paying for the hardware and the fiber optics to send the signal would cost about $380,000.

Local leaders and OCAT officials are quick to mention that they are not against cable competition for consumers, citing only their concerns about the financial impact on the city and OCAT.

Urben, Wollangk, Rep. Gordon Hintz, D-Oshkosh and others were among those who testified to state lawmakers about the bill's impact last week.

"I would like to think Tuesday's hearing was an eye-opener for lawmakers," Urben said. "The key now is to convince legislators we are not against competition."

OCAT and statewide public access channel groups are pushing for amendments to the bill that would remove many of the provisions that would harm municipalities.

Raschka said some considerations like the programming requirements are being looked at.

State consumer groups also have raised concerns that the bill, as it now stands, would strip away some consumer protections like the right to have service repaired within 72 hours.

"If we're going to open up competition we're not going to do so at the expense of consumer protection or local government," Hintz said.

Bethany K. Warner: (920) 426-6668 or bwarner@thenorthwestern.com.

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070402/OSH0101/704020378/1128/OSHnews

The cable debate heats up in Madison

By jfoust, Community Blogger
Reader submitted blog Published April 1, 2007 at 8:19 p.m.
Category: Politics

On March 27, 2007, a joint hearing took place at the Capitol to discuss a proposed “Video Competition” bill AB-207/SB-107. The hearing room overflowed with citizens deeply concerned about the threats posed by this bill. Most were associated with small-town “public access-governmental-educational” (PEG) channels.

The proponents of the bill were associated with AT&T, their lobbyists, large business organizations like WMC, or the unions of workers who'd get the jobs associated with new video build-outs. I parked myself in the hearing from 9:30 until 4:30. It dragged on for about ten hours.

It's frightening to watch the sausage being made. It was horrifying to hear bill sponsor Rep. Phil Montgomery (R-Ashwaubenon) describe how they'd written the bill over the course of many months of meetings with AT&T, and how he deliberately excluded others from that process. Not good government in my book.

This video debate has been largely absent from the Wisconsin blogosphere. I guess they’re too busy with their blue-versus-red Rock’em-Sock’em Robots. There’s been a few guest posts about it on “Waxing America,” Paul Soglin’s blog, the former Madison mayor. The posts are by Prof. Barry Orton, a UW-Madison professor with nationally-known expertise in telecom law. There's plenty of spin in this debate. Another blogger aptly described it as a “full employment act for lobbyists.”

The money flood started last summer, from AT&T and the cable companies, and some of the most well-connected I’ll-do-anything-for-money PR flacks lined up with their hands outstretched. Slick web sites and TV commercials were born. Take “TV4US” for example, funded by AT&T. Over and over in press releases and news bites, they call themselves a “non-profit, grassroots organization.” How stupid do these Astroturf groups think “US” are? It was hilarious to watch them at the hearing trying the old "Miracle on 34th St." trick of hauling in the dolly with 30,000 postcards from "people who want choice". They declined to pour them on the table, which greatly reduces the dramatic effect. Who paid to print and mail those pre-paid reply cards? Or the millions for all those commercials? AT&T and its sock puppets spin this as “video competition.” I think that’s bull. Look at the facts.

Since 1984, the FCC has prohibited cities from granting exclusive franchise agreements. If you have Time-Warner Cable, there’s nothing to prevent Charter or AT&T from entering your neighborhood. All they need to do is work with your city to create a franchise agreement. FCC rulings already require cities to give every provider the same terms. Spinmeisters quickly contradict themselves, too. In one sentence they’ll cry about monopolies, in the next they’ll remind us that 30% of us are using satellite. Spin, statistics and lies. That counts all the satellite customers in our rural areas who don’t have a choice of a wired provider and who probably never will. No monopolies are possible, yet the sock puppets and sponsors of the bill use that word all the time. The very definition of "monopoly" implies a sole supplier of a good without reasonable substitutes, and in which there's some barrier to entry into that market. If there are alternatives and no barriers to entry, there's no monopoly. Cities often have one provider because the other providers apparently didn’t like the idea of actually competing nor with the prospect of capturing only half or a third of the market. Go for it, AT&T, we’re not stopping you. Give me a choice.

Take a look at your cable bill, down in the section with all the taxes. We tend to ignore the fine print on our utility bills, don’t we? You’ll find a “Franchise fee” that’s roughly five percent of the your non-Internet-related services. Your municipality worked out a contract, the franchise agreement, with your cable provider. Think of it as a building permit that lasts about a decade. The FCC allows cities to grab up to 5% of the cable provider’s gross revenues as an administrative fee to oversee the contract and the duties connected to allowing the cable provider to use city right-of-way for its wires and boxes. City Hall handles the first line of complaints about outages and poor service, too. They’ll deal with the cable provider for you, particularly if everyone in your neighborhood as the same problem. The definition of “gross revenues” is spelled out in the franchise agreement. Cities might calculate it in different ways. It always includes what you paid for cable but it probably also counts the money the provider made in selling commercials. The bill includes a new definition that’s less inclusive than what most cities use, so most cities can expect 15-25% less franchise fee revenue. Yes, franchise fees are in effect a local tax, allowed by the FCC and approved by city councils across the state. Yes, the franchise fee smells like pork when you cook it. Cable companies pass them along to us. The FCC did not restrict how they can be used. Some cities use it all for PEG, some use a little, and some keep it all as “general revenue.” When they collect money and don't tag it for a purpose and use it for general spending, cities often refer to this as "tax relief" - and I do see the contradiction in that. Yes, cities are still reeling from the limits and reductions in shared revenue from the state, so they're eager to take any allowed revenue source up to the maximum - in this case, 5% of gross revenues of franchise holders. Five percent of everyone’s cable bill ends up being quite a chunk of change in most cities. I live in Jefferson, pop. 7,800, in the space between Madison and Milwaukee. They harvested about $72,000 last year in franchise fees from about 2,000 subscribers, or roughly 1% of the city’s annual budget. Add zeroes as appropriate in your larger city.

Mind you, those state legislators knew better than to slaughter the golden calf. The new bill preserves franchise fees as-is. If Rep. Montgomery really wants to shave the bottom line of zero percent. If he'd proposed to eliminate them, cities would have screamed even louder than consumer cable bills by 5%, he should convince city governments to reduce their franchise fee to they did. There's always the possibility that AT&T has written themselves a loophole or plans a larger court case that ultimately exempts themselves. Again, more disappearing revenues for cities. It’s a zero-sum game. Pick one: higher taxes or fewer services. Depending on your city’s franchise agreement, you might also find a “PEG Fee” item on your bill. This is a separate percentage they’ve negotiated to explicitly support your public access channels in some way. In Jefferson, it’s 15 cents a month per subscriber. It slowly pays back a $30,000 loan from Charter that was used to purchase equipment to start the PEG channels. Again, you pay it, not the cable provider. This specifically disappears under the bill. The bill has a half-dozen loopholes and exclusions that in effect would not require any video provider to broadcast our existing PEG channels. For example, the bill says video providers can drop PEG channels if they’re "underutilized,” defined as less than 12 hours a day of new, non-repeating programming, 80% locally produced. This loophole alone eliminates all PEG channels. No consideration for program sharing between communities or the community announcement slideshow channels. No definition of "locally produced". By the same definition, every ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox channel in the state is "underutilitized." Coupled with the reductions in franchise fee revenue that supports them, and the elimination of separate PEG fees, it could mean the death knell for PEG. Without local franchises, growing communities can’t negotiate new PEG channels, either. That’s why the hearing was packed with PEG supporters. I am fully aware that PEG channels are considered comic relief. As a public forum open to all, they can attract the homegrown nutcases. On the other hand, I think of them like local volunteer fire departments. They run on a shoestring and they provide a valuable public service. An informed citizenry makes better decisions about government, no matter where you stand on the political spectrum. Where else can you watch local government in action? Or your kid’s band concert? Or church services? Where else can the Kiwanis advertise their next fundraising dinner for free? Yes, some PEG programs are cheesy, or heaven forbid boring, but I don’t hear people praising the intellectual qualities of “Fear Factor.” Chances are, your PEG channel is a cooperative effort with your school district, so kids learn video production there, learning life-long communication skills and perhaps even growing up to make the next “Chad Vader” or Mystery Science Theater 3000. Rep. Montgomery rolled his eyes at yet another PEG producer giving testimony about the “wonderful” high school programs they produce, but he also said his 17-year-old son made shows at his local PEG station. Sorry, son, they’re gone. PEG is the raw feed of your community, goofy or not. Or would you prefer to read the pre-chewed version in your local newspaper or watch the 30 second summary from a talking head who wasn’t there, if you’re in a city big enough to have that? I’m willing to weigh the burdens of negotiating a franchise agreement.

The proponents of this bill suggest that the franchise process is an unfair obstacle to entry. TV4US repeats that a new video provider would need to negotiate with 1,850 towns, villages and cities in Wisconsin. Again with the spin. They damn well know perhaps only 300 have any franchise now. In reality, AT&T could offer their product to the greatest number of customers by negotiating franchise agreements with less than one-one-hundredth of the 1,850. Hit Milwaukee, Madison and the Fox Valley, and that’s most ‘Sconsinites, aina? And that’s what AT&T plans to do – cherry-pick the most profitable spots. Jefferson won’t see it for a long time. I’d be happier if AT&T could figure out a way to deliver DSL to more than half the town. It doesn’t now. From the perspective of a video provider like AT&T, they will be spending millions of dollars to enter a new market, hiring subcontractors, launching marketing campaigns. They’re complaining about the cost of sending one more middle manager to a city to hammer out a franchise contract that’s probably 99.8% the same as the last one. Sure, their lawyer will review it. It’s not rocket science. It is a tiny, relatively inexpensive task in a much bigger process.

The bill wants to eliminate local control of franchises. It wants to simplify the process so much that the state Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) can’t even reject an state-wide franchise application or even make a rule to change the process. From the perspective of a city, they’re accustomed to retaining local control over decisions over who gets to dig up their streets and fasten boxes and wires to their poles. AT&T’s U-verse / Project Lightspeed brings high-capacity fiber optic connections to your neighborhood in the form of a fridge-sized box for every 200-300 homes. They pose questions of safety and visibility, not to mention the digging. If there was one in front of your house or at the street corner where your kids cross, I bet you'd like your City Hall to have a say about it. With the bill as-is, they don't. No one would, except AT&T. Who’s in charge when the AT&T backhoe hits a sewer pipe? Madison or City Hall? Competition? Lower prices? Doesn't everyone welcome that? I still haven't met a single person who says they're opposed to competition and choices. Level the playing field? Sure, why not. Except for those closet-sized AT&T boxes at first base and third base that we can't control.

To me, satellite is an apples-and-oranges comparison. They don’t pay a franchise fee because they aren’t using our public right-of-way. They don’t carry PEG channels. For years, the cable companies have actively supported PEG channels because it gives them an edge in selling their product. They’re local content with broad appeal. If you want to watch your kid’s band concert or the city council meeting, you need cable. What’s not to like? On the other hand, cable companies have also complained about franchise and PEG fees, because a smart consumer might realize that $30-a-month satellite doesn’t include the franchise and PEG taxes they’d get with $30-a-month cable.

City reps spoke at the hearing to complain about the loss of local control in the bill. The Dept. of Consumer Protection reps were there to tell the lawmakers that the bill erases existing consumer rights and protections, like getting a refund if your service goes out for four days. This bill - as-is - throws out several babies with the bathwater. Let’s hope it’s heavily amended to protect important local controls, not kill PEG, and preserve consumer rights. Rep. Montgomery said there were lots of "gets and puts" with AT&T but given the language and loopholes in the bill, it's hard to imagine how that was done. When AT&T asked for the clause that said that DFI couldn't reject any application for any reason, or to ever make a rule to control a franchise, what exactly was Montgomery's response? Did he think it would be a good idea to eliminate existing consumer protections? When AT&T asked for a half-dozen excuses to never carry an existing PEG channel, what exactly was the give and take? Over and over I imagined an AT&T lobbyist slipping a pre-written bill into Montgomery's coat pocket along with a campaign contribution. It was scary to hear Rep. Montgomery laugh about how he'd first learned what YouTube was just a few weeks ago. We can't expect every lawmaker to be smart about technology, but I think we should expect them to seek experienced advice. I don't know how any guy from Ashwabenon can be expected to understand a century of telecom law, but he does seem confident that he's smart enough to write a law that'll undo decades of complicated and subtle court precedents, hundreds of contracts made between cable providers and cities, eliminate existing consumer protections, and decimate PEG channels all around the state.

http://www.onmilwaukee.com/myOMC/blog/show/443

According to the RG admin screen, I appear to be getting about 27MB/s



Hey Jimbo8002

How did you get to the RG admin screen? My installer was a bit tight lipped about such things.

Hey Jimbo8002

How did you get to the RG admin screen? My installer was a bit tight lipped about such things.

By default, I think the LAN address of the 2Wire gateway is 192.168.1.254. If you go to http://192.168.1.254 and put in the password (which is on a sticker on the back of the RG) you can get into the router configuration pages. I think the page is where the speeds are listed is
http://(your router's IP address)/mdc

Hey Jimbo8002

How did you get to the RG admin screen? My installer was a bit tight lipped about such things.


hmm.. my installer set up a URL "gateway-2wire-net" (use dots, not dashes, did this for the post), which takes you to the System Summary screen. As Chris said, the password is on a sticker on the RG, as is the Wireless Network Key. You can then view/set options for System, Broadband Link, Home Network and Firewall. Everything you'd expect from a combined modem, router and WAP- doesn't appear to have many restrictions.

happy hunting!

jimbo

AT&T Offers Year of Free HD to Fight Cable

Promo Applies to U-Verse TV and DBS via DirecTV, EchoStar

By Todd Spangler 4/3/2007 12:15:00 PM

The nation’s largest telephone company will offer new video customers one year of free HD programming -- an attempt to convert cable subscribers to its U-Verse TV service or the satellite services it resells from DirecTV and EchoStar Communications.

In a promotion scheduled to run for a few months, AT&T said it will provide more than 25 channels of HD programming, including those of local broadcast affiliates, free to new U-verse TV subscribers.

AT&T regularly charges $10 per month for HD service with U-verse TV, which is now available in parts of 15 metro areas. Most cable operators also charge an additional monthly fee, about $10 to $15, for a tier of HD channels.

"Free access to HD programming for a year gives consumers yet another reason to select AT&T over the competition," AT&T chief marketing officer for consumer marketing Rick Welday said in announcing the deal.

In areas where U-verse TV is unavailable, AT&T will offer free HD service -- up to 31 channels -- to customers who sign up for direct-broadcast satellite service from DirecTV or EchoStar’s Dish Network.

AT&T said the free-HD offer through Dish will be available until May 31 and through DirecTV until June 26. The U-verse TV offer is available through June 30.

Also Tuesday, AT&T announced that U-verse services are available to more than 200,000 Dallas-Fort Worth households, expanding from its initial limited launch in the market last month. Overall, the telco at last count reported about 10,000 customers for the Internet-protocol-TV service, up from 3,000 at the end of 2006.

Meanwhile, California last week granted AT&T a statewide video franchise, although the telco would not specify new areas in the state where it plans to roll out U-verse.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6430372.html?display=Breaking+News

I live in a burb near Dallas and U-Verse is available in my neighborhood now.

After reading some comments, I am gonna wait and see how this new technology holds up.

1 HD stream at a time is Deal killer for me. Until they improve the bandwidth and quality of picture caused by compression, I'm holding out.

Nuts!

I had my first thunderstorm of the season go through today and it ended my U-verse.

During the storm my TV had problems with the video stream glitching at most lightning strikes. Nothing major but it was noticeable.

Ain't gots no TV at all now.

I called the service hotline and was told that it might take awhile to revive the system. Strangely my Hi Speed is still cooking. I bet they lost power at the main hub and the backup generator failed.

All I have on my TV is the blue AT&T startup screen.

If it only had the IBM flying ducks of death. :(

Bhorn, please provide an update as to how long it takes to get you up and running again.

Brandon

Bhorn, please provide an update as to how long it takes to get you up and running again.

Brandon

Last night it took more than 2 hrs for it to work again. I watched a dvd instead of the un-verse.

This morning it went out again and took the high speed with it. I had lunch at home today and it was still out. When I came home from work it was back on. I think most of the west side of indy was out. I have a friend who works for them and maybe I can find out if this was a one time event.

This is bad news for AT&T. There are several good and bad points with regard to U-verse. If they do not get their act together quickly the window is going to start to close. Right now I can say because it is a less expensive somewhat equivalent service, it is better choice for me than cable. If they both charged the same i would reconsider the cable. Man, reconsider the cable company-- that would suck!!

I read above about the free HD. Since I have had this service for just a short time I am going to try to squeeze it out of them.

Thanks for the update. I read that U-verse may be rolled out in Sacramento (where I live) around August/Sept. I believe I am a patient person, so when subscribing to a new service I could live with some bugs and kinks that need to be worked out in the short term, but I want to know exactly what I would be getting myself into.

Brandon

Thanks for the update. I read that U-verse may be rolled out in Sacramento (where I live) around August/Sept. I believe I am a patient person, so when subscribing to a new service I could live with some bugs and kinks that need to be worked out in the short term, but I want to know exactly what I would be getting myself into.

Brandon


Hopefully it will be better by then, but don't be in any hurry to get it. If/when you do get it, do not get rid of your current cable/satellite provider! Run both side by side if you can for the 2 month free promotional period.

I have cable also, and I've had so many hiccups, dropouts, DVR issues, and audio/video sync issues on U-Verse that I keep switching back over to the cable input.

AT&T, cable firms wage war of words over digital TV bill (in Tennessee)

Competitive choice, lower prices toughted by AT&T while cable firms, municipalities say consumers at risk
Thursday, 04/05/07
By NAOMI SNYDER, Staff Writer

AT&T and the cable industry — along with legions of lobbyists and public relations specialists — are clashing over a bill in the Tennessee legislature that would let AT&T sell digital TV without having to get permission from every municipality where the service is sold.

Cable companies have had to get such cable franchises from local governments for decades.

The cable industry and municipalities are fighting the bill, saying it strips local municipalities of control over franchising and the ability to protect consumers. AT&T, which bought BellSouth last year, says the bill will provide competitive choice and lower prices by easing the entry of the company's new digital TV service to the state. The service would be delivered to neighborhoods via fiber-optic and copper cables and then into homes over existing copper telephone wires.

Both sides are making claims that sometimes need more explaining — from AT&T's assertions of drastic price decreases to the cable TV association's assertion that AT&T will serve only the wealthy.

The claim

"When cable had to compete for customers in other states ... it dropped its prices between 28% and 42%."

— A flier printed for TV4US, a group supported by AT&T Fact check

Fact check

This claim comes from Banc of America Securities analysts looking at prices in January 2006, when the phone companies brought their new digital TV service to some cities.

When the analysts looked at prices in those cities again in October, they found the cable companies had increased prices.

The analysts' conclusion? Because it was the early days of the phone companies offering TV, "these products have little impact on the current state of big picture competition and pricing."

The claim

"Cable TV prices have gone up 93% in the last decade."

— A flier printed for TV4US, a group supported by AT&T

Fact check

That's true. The Federal Communications Commission found expanded basic cable prices almost doubled in a decade to $43.04 per month on average in 2005. More than half of that increase was programming costs, while the number of channels have gone up on average from 44 to 70.

The FCC also found that prices were about 17 percent lower in areas where two cable TV companies were competing.

The claim

"(The bill) is critical to get broadband (Internet) out into the rural areas. That's what this is about."

— One of the bill's sponsors, Rep. Steve McDaniel, R-Parkers Crossroads

Fact check

AT&T already agreed as part of federal approval for its acquisition of BellSouth to provide broadband Internet by the end of this year to all of its traditional phone service territory.

AT&T is allowed to provide 15 percent of that territory with satellite broadband service, a technology that is not compatible with its new TV product. Hence, rural customers who only get access to AT&T's satellite broadband Internet will not be able to get AT&T's digital TV service.

McDaniel believes the bill will encourage AT&T to offer wired broadband Internet to rural areas because the company then will be able to sell both Internet and TV service to rural customers.

The claim

"This new bill helps (AT&T) save money by only servicing the wealthy."

— Cable industry TV ad

Fact check

The bill does not require AT&T or other TV competitors to offer TV service to entire cities or counties, as typically is the case with local cable franchise agreements. AT&T argues that it would be impractical to require it to serve its entire service territory in Tennessee, which encompasses much of the state, with its new digital TV service.

The claim

"AT&T has been able to provide Tennesseans with cable for more than a decade."

— Cable industry TV ad

Fact check

In fact, AT&T only just started rolling out its new digital TV product, called U-verse, in some markets last year.

BellSouth, which had been the phone company in the Nashville market for more than a decade until being bought by AT&T late last year, had not developed the technology for a commercial rollout of TV service.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070405/BUSINESS01/704050352

AT&T, cable firms wage war of words over digital TV bill (in Tennessee)

Competitive choice, lower prices toughted by AT&T while cable firms, municipalities say consumers at risk
Thursday, 04/05/07
By NAOMI SNYDER, Staff Writer.................



Have you seen the movie 'Thank you for Smoking'?

"Fact check", give me a break!

40 to 77 channels? I wonder if QVC 1, QVC 2, The Reverend Ernest Ainsley Channel etc are considered to be part of the additional 37 channels?

Until congress mandates ala cart channel selection as an option this whole debate is a battle between two or more sets of lobbyist.

By the way,

Comcast is now running an add with the dark haired older Comcast lady, the one with the dimple or scar by her nose, saying that if you switch to the "phone company" you will have to sign a two year agreement with a $550 fine for canceling you service.

Total BS designed to scare their current users in staying. Just like the anti-dish adds they used to put out that more or less suggested you were stupid to switch away from their service.

After I canceled I got several calls from Comcast trying to get back my business. The first one was very polite, the last was from a women who must make here living trying to collect unpaid bills whose mannerisms bordered on threatening. In my neighborhood every day I see at least one person with the U-verse installation truck parked out front. I will bet that at least 25% of comcast customers are going to switch. The new demand is so great that they are even doing installations on Sundays.

The claim

"AT&T has been able to provide Tennesseans with cable for more than a decade."

— Cable industry TV ad

Fact check

In fact, AT&T only just started rolling out its new digital TV product, called U-verse, in some markets last year.

BellSouth, which had been the phone company in the Nashville market for more than a decade until being bought by AT&T late last year, had not developed the technology for a commercial rollout of TV service.

AT$T (or anyone for that matter) was free to build and operate a traditional HFC cable system in the same footprint as established cable companies after securing a franchise. Some companies like RCN and Astound! did just that.

Early Termination Fees? There's enough hoops and twisted language that they have an entire website - attdisclaimers.com - to list them.

Because this is such a great offer it does come with an early termination fee payable to AT&T should you drop one of the 3 required packages (or any of its components) – ALL DISTANCE, AT&T Yahoo High Speed Internet and AT&T | DISH Network. The early termination fee [ETF] is prorated at $25 per month based on the number of months you have completed of your 2 year contract. During year 1 it starts at $25 in the first month and increases by $25 per month up to a maximum of $300 ..

AT$T (or anyone for that matter) was free to build and operate a traditional HFC cable system in the same footprint as established cable companies after securing a franchise. Some companies like RCN and Astound! did just that.
As did Ameritech, which sold their midwest cable system to WOW about the time SBC bought them.

As did Ameritech, which sold their midwest cable system to WOW about the time SBC bought them.

Forgot to mention SBC. PacTel ran a HFC cable system in San Jose CA. Shortly after the SBC takeover it went dark and was sold to TCI. Comcast finally lit it back up.

More on u-verse feedback. Had the service for a few weeks now.

I watch mostly HD stuff.

HD is pretty good on movies and pre-recorded stuff. Still not up to par with TW unfortunately. The dark scenes are so dark you can't see anything.

HD is terrible on live broadcasts and especially any sporting event with alot of motion. NCAA Bball was particularly bad. The HD also seems much better at night than during the day...Strange?? The audio and video are way off on live broadcasts also.

I have a 42" LCD and a 61" DLP and the quality loss is much more noticeable on the Sammy as you would expect. I'm pretty pleased with the 42".

Overall I'm going to stick with it for at least the free 3 months I got when signing up. ATT really needs to improve their HD quality. I may call and try to get them to honor the free HD for a year since the $10 a month is steep considering the poor quality. I'm think going to get an OTA antenna for my local HDs - sad..:(

Still love the channel offerings, always a movie to watch.
Like the simple DVR and web programming, I use the web pretty much exclusively to search for programs.

Thanks for your review. To me, the FTTN choice of AT+T was short-sighted at best, and will eventually cost them more money than the route Verizon took using FTTP, since if AT+T really want to be competitive in the video business they will ultimately have to lay fibre to the house. U-Verse is a fine technology for SD TV, but due to its technical limitations, (i.e. highly restricted bandwidth), it is very poor for HD viewing, and will not reach critical mass because of it.
Bish

From what I've read on Uverseusers, AT&T is going to dial back the HD stream to 6.5Mbps this summer, presumably so they can get the 2nd simultaneous HD stream turned on. Seems like the HD PQ will only get worse if the currently allocated 8.5Mbps can't handle it. I figure AT&T's "new math" will be something like:

HD stream #1 - 6.5Mbps
HD stream #2 - 6.5Mbps
Internet - 6Mbps
2 to 3 SD streams @ 2Mbps each = 6Mbps

Total = 25Mbps

I may call and try to get them to honor the free HD for a year since the $10 a month is steep considering the poor quality.


I did and they did with out any questions. Since I was still considered a new customer the rep even asked me at what date I would like to start my free year.


I am picking up a 42" X42GV-Komodo soon. I have high hopes that on that small of a set the HD will be fine. I can't believe I am calling a 42" small!!

From what I've read on Uverseusers, AT&T is going to dial back the HD stream to 6.5Mbps this summer, presumably so they can get the 2nd simultaneous HD stream turned on. Seems like the HD PQ will only get worse if the currently allocated 8.5Mbps can't handle it. I figure AT&T's "new math" will be something like:

HD stream #1 - 6.5Mbps
HD stream #2 - 6.5Mbps
Internet - 6Mbps
2 to 3 SD streams @ 2Mbps each = 6Mbps

Total = 25Mbps

I think the math is includes 2-3Mbps of Housekeeping bits as well. My box is current saying that it is receiving at 27.4 Mbps.


I can't remember were I read it but it seems like they are planing to use a newer codec with the lower bit stream. I have 5 locals which I can get OTA. As vicini said "Sad".

More on u-verse feedback. Had the service for a few weeks now.

I watch mostly HD stuff.

HD is pretty good on movies and pre-recorded stuff. Still not up to par with TW unfortunately. The dark scenes are so dark you can't see anything.

HD is terrible on live broadcasts and especially any sporting event with alot of motion. NCAA Bball was particularly bad. The HD also seems much better at night than during the day...Strange?? The audio and video are way off on live broadcasts also.

I have a 42" LCD and a 61" DLP and the quality loss is much more noticeable on the Sammy as you would expect. I'm pretty pleased with the 42".

Overall I'm going to stick with it for at least the free 3 months I got when signing up. ATT really needs to improve their HD quality. I may call and try to get them to honor the free HD for a year since the $10 a month is steep considering the poor quality. I'm think going to get an OTA antenna for my local HDs - sad..:(

Still love the channel offerings, always a movie to watch.
Like the simple DVR and web programming, I use the web pretty much exclusively to search for programs.

I agree on every point. The HD is not acceptable. The a/v sync issues are really annoying me. I've made two service calls already. The last time the tech ran cat 5 from the box on the outside of my house to the gateway, replacing the coax line (& diplexer) that the lazy installer used. This made the picture a little more stable with less breakups, but it's still not good. Now they say they want to try replacing the DVR, even though I tell them that it is happening on every box!? It could be the gateway, but I'm pretty sure it's a problem with the conversion/compression on AT&T's side. Good to know I'm not the only one experiencing these issues. I just don't know if this will ever get escalated to the proper people, or if they even care. The support people just keep wanted to reboot the box, replace it, make a service call, etc. That will never solve the problem.

I hate to say it, but so many people will just say the HD "looks fine" when we think it's total crapola. It's sad that a lot of people cannot even tell the difference between HD and stretched SD. :(

I agree on every point. The HD is not acceptable. The a/v sync issues are really annoying me. I've made two service calls already. The last time the tech ran cat 5 from the box on the outside of my house to the gateway, replacing the coax line (& diplexer) that the lazy installer used. This made the picture a little more stable with less breakups, but it's still not good. Now they say they want to try replacing the DVR, even though I tell them that it is happening on every box!? It could be the gateway, but I'm pretty sure it's a problem with the conversion/compression on AT&T's side. Good to know I'm not the only one experiencing these issues. I just don't know if this will ever get escalated to the proper people, or if they even care. The support people just keep wanted to reboot the box, replace it, make a service call, etc. That will never solve the problem.

I hate to say it, but so many people will just say the HD "looks fine" when we think it's total crapola. It's sad that a lot of people cannot even tell the difference between HD and stretched SD. :(

This could be the result of some of the well known issues with the alcatel gear. Packet loss on the loop can cause the issue you are seeing. As the MSFT issues get slowly worked out, the alcatel problems get more significant.

Thanks,
Mike

New (Georgia) franchise rules for cable may yield choices, lower costs

By SCOTT LEITH, SONJI JACOBS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 04/12/07

Georgia lawmakers have approved a plan meant to create a new wave of competition for the state's cable providers. If proponents are right, changes in franchising rules will lead to more choices in TV and cheaper bills for consumers.

But even with the overhaul looking all but certain after state Senate approval Wednesday, the biggest advocate isn't ready to say when — or where — it will mount a challenge to cable rivals in Georgia.

San Antonio-based AT&T, which bought Atlanta's BellSouth in December, has long talked of big ambitions in video, dating to three years ago. Changes in state laws, in Georgia and elsewhere, are an important part of the company's plans.

Both houses of the General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of an AT&T-backed bill. While the company said its video services will arrive in the state later this year, AT&T isn't ready to announce a schedule.

"I think we're one big step closer," Sylvia Anderson, president of AT&T's Georgia operations, said Wednesday.

AT&T is starting to speed its rollout of what it calls U-verse — cable-like video services that, at the moment, have about 10,000 customers in 15 U.S. markets. AT&T thinks it can lure customers from cable by offering snazzy options such as a digital video recorder that can record four programs at the same time.

While the current number of people who can get U-verse is fairly small, AT&T expects the system to be available in about 8 million homes by the end of this year and 19 million by the close of 2008.

Getting video services up and running in hopes of taking on cable is a complex affair, with hurdles that include a thicket of regulations and expensive equipment upgrades.

AT&T first announced plans to develop its own video in 2004. It involves delivering television to homes via a technology known as Internet protocol television, or IPTV.

From a tech standpoint, it isn't easy. For one thing, many homes are served by copper phone lines that aren't stout enough to deliver video, given that it requires a lot of bandwidth.

AT&T's tactic is to enhance its network with fiber connections that get close to end-users, such as a facility near a neighborhood. This allows copper wires to handle the job the rest of the way to houses.

In addition to technical challenges, there have been bureaucratic obstacles. That's where the Legislature came in.

Cable companies such as Comcast spent decades assembling local franchise agreements that allow them to provide services. AT&T and other interested parties, notably Verizon Communications, didn't want to go through the difficult, time-consuming process of going to each community for approval, so the companies sought help in state legislatures. The plan would replace local franchises with statewide franchises.

In Florida, lawmakers pondered reforms last year but didn't act. A bill is under consideration this year. In Tennessee, the issue has proved contentious, with AT&T battling the cable industry. The fights involve local control and whether a new entrant should be required to provide services in poor areas.

Georgia, in contrast, has been smooth sailing for AT&T. In part, that's because AT&T — including staffers from the former BellSouth — sat down with representatives from cable companies and local municipalities to iron out differences before the introduction of a bill.

House Bill 227 breezed through the House March 20. It passed the Senate 52-2 Wednesday.

While the measure must go back to the House for procedural approval, that isn't expected to pose a problem. The bill then would go to Gov. Sonny Perdue for consideration.

Sen. David Shafer (R-Duluth), who carried the bill in the Senate, said the measure sticks to four important principles: it creates a level playing field among telephone and cable companies; it protects revenues already received by counties and cities; it allows local governments to manage right of ways; and it promotes competition.

Sen. Regina Thomas (D-Savannah) voted yes but had reservations. "We gave the people choice when we deregulated natural gas, and look at what happened," Thomas said, referring to rising prices.

AT&T lobbied heavily in favor of the bill, including via TV ads. Georgia's cable industry, meanwhile, aired anti-AT&T ads.

"We have not supported the bill because we do not feel that it is necessary," said Nancy Horne, president of the Cable Television Association of Georgia. "Having said that, we do feel that the state Legislature has made a very good effort at making sure that all providers of video services are treated in a similar, like fashion, from a regulatory standpoint."

Assuming the bill becomes law, a statewide franchise system will take effect in 2008. In the meantime, AT&T could roll out video services in several areas, given that the former BellSouth had some local franchises.

Whether customers flock to U-verse remains to be seen.

The company is offering multiple packages. One features 190 channels, plus a digital video recorder and Internet service, for $74.

Early on, the fledgling system had problems. Chad Brantly of San Antonio started using U-verse last summer and created a Web site, Uverseusers.com, to chronicle his experiences and those of others.

Brantly, 28, a software engineer, said U-verse costs less than cable and works well. He said the user menu is easy to navigate and AT&T's video-on-demand offerings are good.

"Everybody that sees it is really impressed," Brantly said. "They had some technical problems from the beginning, but their customer service has been better than what I've had with everybody else."

Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/metro/legis07/stories/2007/04/11/0412metlegcable.html

Loophole could expand Wheeling’s (Illinois) service options

By Avian Carrasquillo
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Wednesday, April 11, 2007

A possible deal between the village of Wheeling and AT&T could give some Wheeling residents an alternative to cable television.

The village agreed to pursue a possible deal with AT&T for an Internet video service that would play on televisions and provide users with the same services that a cable operator would provide.

Currently, Wheeling has an agreement with Comcast for cable television service, which does not allow any other provider to do business in town.

AT&T officials claim because this service would be provided over the Internet, Wheeling would not be in violation of that agreement. AT&T officials said they are ready to pay court costs or settlements levied against the village should there be any.

According to the AT&T Web site, AT&T U-verse offers customers a combination of next-generation digital television — including more than 25 high-definition channels — and high-speed Internet access.

Currently, the service is available in 15 markets across six states and provides more than 400 channels, including digital music, local and premium movie and sports programming.

Wheeling Village Manager Mark Rooney said one of the drawbacks to the proposal is that if it were to be launched, the service would not immediately be available to all residents and would only cover slightly more than 50 percent of the village.

Upgrades to existing AT&T equipment are required for the service, which is done in phases, and results in limited availability, officials said.

AT&T would not disclose which portion of the village would be covered, but officials said the plan is to expand coverage over time. Packages for the service begin at $59 a month.

“I have a little reluctance with this. It’s the devil you know versus the one you don’t,” said Trustee Pat Horcher.

Trustee Dean Argiris was in favor of giving residents choice.

“I think we need to look at this. We’d be doing the residents who are eligible for this a disservice by not looking into this,” Argiris said.

Final approval could come from the village this month at a village board meeting.

http://www.dailyherald.com/news/cookstory.asp?id=300573&cc=c&tc=&t=

I hate to say it, but so many people will just say the HD "looks fine" when we think it's total crapola. It's sad that a lot of people cannot even tell the difference between HD and stretched SD. :(
AT&T wouldn't be the first company to make money off of that misconception. Have you ever seen TNT-HD, or pretty much anything from DirecTV in HD? :)

AT&T expands U-verse TV to Los Angeles
Los Angeles Business from bizjournals - 12:12 PM PDT Wednesday, April 18, 2007
by San Antonio Business Journal

Television viewers in the Los Angeles area will soon have the option of ordering AT&T Inc.'s U-verse digital video service.

San Antonio-based AT&T (NYSE: T) said Wednesday that the company has built out its fiber-optic network in California as part of its expansion strategy. This will allow the company to begin signing up U-verse TV and high-speed Internet subscribers in L.A.

Since debuting the service last June in San Antonio, the company has been able to sign up 18,000 subscribers throughout its residential service territory.

AT&T is currently averaging 2,000 installations a week for U-verse service. And with the availability of the service in the Los Angeles area within the next several weeks and other markets slated for later this year and 2008, the company has high expectations for growth.

"Our video strategy is showing strong momentum as we add new subscribers at an increasing rate," says Ralph de la Vega, group president of regional wireline operations for AT&T. "Consumers are clearly hungry for an alternative to the cable companies." http://losangeles.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stories/2007/04/16/daily31.html?t=printable

AT&T U-verse TV Targets L.A.
Time Warner Cable Troubled in Los Angeles Market
By Todd Spangler -- Multichannel News, 4/18/2007 3:17:00 PM

AT&T plans to launch television service in the Los Angeles area “in the coming weeks,” hoping to poach customers from the Time Warner Cable system there that has been wrestling with customer-service problems.

The telco declined to provide more details about when and where it will roll out U-verse TV in the L.A. market. Last month, AT&T won a statewide franchise from California to offer video services. Meanwhile, Verizon Communications is marketing FiOS TV in 29 communities in Southern California.

AT&T, which has been stymied by various delays in deploying U-verse TV, also claimed that it has started to ramp up subscription growth for the service with an average installation rate of 2,000 per week. The telco said it currently has a total subscriber count of 18,000, up from 3,000 at the end of 2006.

In the first three months of 2007, AT&T launched U-verse TV in four markets: Milwaukee and Racine, Wis.; Kansas City; and Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, where the service passes 200,000 homes.U-verse TV is now available in parts of 15 markets.

AT&T recently launched a limited-time promotion offering free HD programming for one year to drive up its subscriber counts for both U-verse TV, as well as the satellite-TV services it resells from EchoStar Communications and DirecTV.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6434887

I worked on my first system using this service yesterday in San Antonio. I have to say it was the worst looking HD I have seen so far. The Motorola box had issues because it was remapping the video to computer levels and the bit rate appeared to be very low. The remapping caused banding in the image because of loss of bit depth and it required the level settings to be different than other devices negating the use of a video switcher for this source.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6435037.html


AT&T Debuts Wireless DVR Scheduling for U-Verse TV

Telco’s Wireless-Phone Subscribers Can Manage Recording
-- Multichannel News, 4/19/2007 1:22:00 PM
AT&T U-verse TV subscribers can now control their digital-video recorders through their AT&T wireless phones and devices, the telco announced Thursday.

U-verse TV and Internet customers can use any compatible AT&T wireless phone or handset to search program listings, schedule program or series recordings and manage or delete stored DVR content, AT&T said.

Late last year, the telco introduced Web-based access to subscribers’ DVRs via its AT&T Yahoo! broadband portal.

I worked on my first system using this service yesterday in San Antonio. I have to say it was the worst looking HD I have seen so far. The Motorola box had issues because it was remapping the video to computer levels and the bit rate appeared to be very low. The remapping caused banding in the image because of loss of bit depth and it required the level settings to be different than other devices negating the use of a video switcher for this source.


Thanks for the 'heads up'. One more reason for those of us who care about HD quality video, (and more than just one channel), to avoid U-Verse until AT+T decide to run fibre to the house.
Bish

I worked on my first system using this service yesterday in San Antonio. I have to say it was the worst looking HD I have seen so far. The Motorola box had issues because it was remapping the video to computer levels and the bit rate appeared to be very low. The remapping caused banding in the image because of loss of bit depth and it required the level settings to be different than other devices negating the use of a video switcher for this source.
Cool, some objective observations, thanks.

How does it compare to a local cable feed, I'm assuming you've cal'ed some of those as well?

Thanks for the 'heads up'. One more reason for those of us who care about HD quality video, (and more than just one channel), to avoid U-Verse until AT+T decide to run fibre to the house.
Bish
Their history indicates that even where they do run fiber to the premises, the same bitrates will be used. They will not likely make fiber users "more equal" than copper users. That's just the way they do things, sadly.

I am having U-verse installed in my home next Wednesday.

My home is currently run with FiberOptic lines. As to the extent of my knowledge AT&T/ SBC is only installing this service into homes that currently have FiberOptic feeds.

I am available but friends in the same city living only blocks away in older homes cannot have the service.

I will post my thoughts about this service as to compared to DirecTV which is what I have had for the Past 8 years minus a brief week with Voom a couple years back.

I hope that the PQ is at least better than DirecTV, because IMO DirecTV is lacking in PQ and even worse their Audio quality is aweful. I get skips and pauses when watching programs broadcast in Dolby Digital.

I am excited at this point to try something new. Hope this system can live up to the hype.

Matt Simrell
Olathe, Kansas
(suburb of Kansas City)

I got a phone call from AT&T today trying to sell me Uverse. I told them to call back when they can deliver more then one HD channel at a time.

I got a phone call from AT&T today trying to sell me Uverse. I told them to call back when they can deliver more then one HD channel at a time.

Tell them to call back when they can deliver ONE high definition channel with acceptable PQ. All the reviews I've read so far rate their bandwidth allocation/encoding horrible for sports. That's a deal killer for me.

Tell them to call back when they can deliver ONE high definition channel with acceptable PQ. All the reviews I've read so far rate their bandwidth allocation/encoding horrible for sports. That's a deal killer for me.

I think by the time it is available in our area, they will have this problem fixed.

Cool, some objective observations, thanks.

How does it compare to a local cable feed, I'm assuming you've cal'ed some of those as well?

I travel through most of the USA and have seen all major markets with various HD products including fiber optic, cable, satellite, short range RF, 8VSB, Internet HD Downloads, HD-DVD, Muse Laserdisc, D-Theater, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD and D5 masters. This product is the abosulte worst I have seen. Between the box that is used and the low bit rate I can't believe anything could be any worse for picture quality that is called HD. The only thing I have seen that is close to this bad is Muse Laserdisc.

Seeing as AT&T cable in New England (before Comcast took over) was absolutely dreadfull, I'm not surprised to see them fumble the play on this project as well.

I travel through most of the USA and have seen all major markets with various HD products including fiber optic, cable, satellite, short range RF, 8VSB, Internet HD Downloads, HD-DVD, Muse Laserdisc, D-Theater, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD and D5 masters. This product is the abosulte worst I have seen. Between the box that is used and the low bit rate I can't believe anything could be any worse for picture quality that is called HD. The only thing I have seen that is close to this bad is Muse Laserdisc.
That's what I figured, but wanted to be sure, sounds like this product is a long ways from being ready for primetime.

You have to wonder, do the execs who market this stuff actually sit down and compare their product with other types of providers? How could they put out such a poor product, maybe they are playing on the ignorance of the public, that anything with a 16x9 image ratio is HD?

It's too bad, I was hoping for someone to provide competition to Comcast in my area, but it sounds like AT&T is not that someone.

That's what I figured, but wanted to be sure, sounds like this product is a long ways from being ready for primetime.

You have to wonder, do the execs who market this stuff actually sit down and compare their product with other types of providers? How could they put out such a poor product, maybe they are playing on the ignorance of the public, that anything with a 16x9 image ratio is HD?

It's too bad, I was hoping for someone to provide competition to Comcast in my area, but it sounds like AT&T is not that someone.

I would have to disagree that ATT is not that someone. While u-verse may fall a bit short for users of this forum, it still remains a competitive system for >90% of the population. So what has changed at TWC since u-verse came to San Antonio. U-verse had more HD channels and now after several months TWC has added a few more HD channels, so they are about the same now. TWC is now running sub $100 triple play deals(base digital cable, phone and RR), something they were not doing before. Hopefully they have fixed their tech support because it became quite bad here or more importantly they fixed their network so calls to tech support are not needed.

They do need to fix HD problem, but I think the problem exist with the encoders at this point and not the bitrates of the output. The superbowl was broadcast without problem, but the NCAA final had bad problems with artifacts on both HD and SD. This tells me something went wrong on the encoding side, not the HD bitrate. But for non sporting events, HD seems to work without too many problems. I do see occasional jitter on the HD feeds, but nothing that makes it unwatchable.

Overall I find u-verse to be a better value and more reliable than TWC. I would not have switched if I did not have TWC coming to my house to fix something every 3 months. The horrible tech support made this even less pleasant.

In short this is greatly needed competition, even if its capabilities dont fit your needs.

TWC is now running sub $100 triple play deals(base digital cable, phone and RR)

Now that you mention it, where's ATT's VOIP service as part of this thing? It's rather ironic that "Ma Bell" doesn't have a VOIP phone offering as part of UVerse yet.

Now that you mention it, where's ATT's VOIP service as part of this thing? It's rather ironic that "Ma Bell" doesn't have a VOIP phone offering as part of UVerse yet.


I do find it odd that voip is missing as I would think voip would be alot easier to implement than video.

Now that you mention it, where's ATT's VOIP service as part of this thing? It's rather ironic that "Ma Bell" doesn't have a VOIP phone offering as part of UVerse yet.
What would be the point? So they can spend money on more new infrastructure that's not needed and make your phone service go out if your power goes out for too long? Those 5ESS switches cost a whole lot of money. I doubt they're very interested in pushing them aside without a good reason. The bandwidth they could reclaim by moving the voice portion onto data is minimal compared to the effort they would expend. There's just no ROI in doing it that way.

What would be the point? So they can spend money on more new infrastructure that's not needed and make your phone service go out if your power goes out for too long? Those 5ESS switches cost a whole lot of money. I doubt they're very interested in pushing them aside without a good reason. The bandwidth they could reclaim by moving the voice portion onto data is minimal compared to the effort they would expend. There's just no ROI in doing it that way.

The point would be to get away from the all the taxes that drive the cost of POTS line up. These taxes alone keep their pots from being cost competitive with cable voip as they fall under different taxing regulations.

What would be the point? So they can spend money on more new infrastructure that's not needed and make your phone service go out if your power goes out for too long? Those 5ESS switches cost a whole lot of money. I doubt they're very interested in pushing them aside without a good reason. The bandwidth they could reclaim by moving the voice portion onto data is minimal compared to the effort they would expend. There's just no ROI in doing it that way.

AT&T already has a VOIP product -- CallVantage. It would be a simple matter to bundle that with UVerse. My guess is their installers are already overwhelmed with the typical video/internet install and adding a VOIP gateway to the mix would explode the brains of their installers. :D

Yes, but why waste what little data bandwidth you get on that? CallVantage local is more expensive than a regular line, at least in Arkansas and Oklahoma. And again, it's a waste of expense and effort, as far as they're concerned. They'd have to supply a VoIP adapter capable of several REN, and you still lose phone service when your power goes out. The FCC doesn't like that very much, so they'd have to install a UPS like Verizon is doing, driving the cost per home up even higher.

They're doing U-Verse the way they are because it's cheap. If they wanted to spend a bunch of money on it, they'd have gone FTTP.

CallVantage doesn't exist to sell to existing at&t customers (of course, when it was rolled out, AT&T wasn't really SBC), they continue to sell it to attract people who would otherwise go without a phone line from their local divisions. Putting more people onto CallVantage only costs them more money, especially since they have the infrastructure and capacity already in place for standard service.

Yes, but why waste what little data bandwidth you get on that? CallVantage local is more expensive than a regular line, at least in Arkansas and Oklahoma. And again, it's a waste of expense and effort, as far as they're concerned. They'd have to supply a VoIP adapter capable of several REN, and you still lose phone service when your power goes out. The FCC doesn't like that very much, so they'd have to install a UPS like Verizon is doing, driving the cost per home up even higher.

They're doing U-Verse the way they are because it's cheap. If they wanted to spend a bunch of money on it, they'd have gone FTTP.

CallVantage doesn't exist to sell to existing at&t customers (of course, when it was rolled out, AT&T wasn't really SBC), they continue to sell it to attract people who would otherwise go without a phone line from their local divisions. Putting more people onto CallVantage only costs them more money, especially since they have the infrastructure and capacity already in place for standard service.

Right now my "$35" ATT CallPak on the landline is $62.00/mo after taxes and various fees. Does not include LD. CallVantage is $24.99/mo unlimited long distance and includes all the bells and whistles (voice mail, caller ID, etc). I am going to attempt to switch to CallVantage but from what I understand ATT will not port an existing ATT landline number to CallVantage. If that is true, it's a terrible mistake on ATT's part. They will lose my $25/mo to another provider such as Vonage. ATT has the option to get $25 of my money a month, or ZERO if they refuse to port the number. Technology marches on and they've got to deal with the realities of the marketplace.

Yes, but why waste what little data bandwidth you get on that? CallVantage local is more expensive than a regular line, at least in Arkansas and Oklahoma. And again, it's a waste of expense and effort, as far as they're concerned. They'd have to supply a VoIP adapter capable of several REN, and you still lose phone service when your power goes out. The FCC doesn't like that very much, so they'd have to install a UPS like Verizon is doing, driving the cost per home up even higher.

They're doing U-Verse the way they are because it's cheap. If they wanted to spend a bunch of money on it, they'd have gone FTTP.

CallVantage doesn't exist to sell to existing at&t customers (of course, when it was rolled out, AT&T wasn't really SBC), they continue to sell it to attract people who would otherwise go without a phone line from their local divisions. Putting more people onto CallVantage only costs them more money, especially since they have the infrastructure and capacity already in place for standard service.

The gateway they are using for u-verse can support voip lines. It is just a matter if getting this feature working and turning it on.

The Motorola box had issues because it was remapping the video to computer levels
What do you mean by this? Do you mean they're changing the color space?

Wow. That's just...wow. Though since it's a Microsoft-based engine I suppose that shouldn't be surprising. Still...eww.

The point would be to get away from the all the taxes that drive the cost of POTS line up. These taxes alone keep their pots from being cost competitive with cable voip as they fall under different taxing regulations.
They want to do this very much.

You sort of have to view AT&T is two different companies (irrespective of BellSouth and the wireless stuff): legacy "T" and legacy "S". Legacy S came up with Lightspeed/U-Verse. Legacy T created CallVantage (consumer), BVOIP (business), and other VoIP offerings.

AT&T is trying to figure out the best way to do VoIP across the T/S products and divisions. They want to combine VoIP with U-Verse, and they will, but they evidently wanted to get the rest of U-Verse working correctly (and it sounds like they're not there at all, yet) before adding another piece to it. They also want to figure out how to do it without cannibalizing CallVantage, but that's mostly an internal process/tools/headcount issue.

Right now my "$35" ATT CallPak on the landline is $62.00/mo after taxes and various fees. Does not include LD. CallVantage is $24.99/mo unlimited long distance and includes all the bells and whistles (voice mail, caller ID, etc). I am going to attempt to switch to CallVantage but from what I understand ATT will not port an existing ATT landline number to CallVantage. If that is true, it's a terrible mistake on ATT's part.
That's not true. I did it myself. Who told you this couldn't be done?

What do you mean by this? Do you mean they're changing the color space?

Wow. That's just...wow. Though since it's a Microsoft-based engine I suppose that shouldn't be surprising. Still...eww.

This is not a color space error. Video levels are 16 to 235 for RGB while computer graphics are 0 to 255. When you remap video to computer levels it is easy to generate errors that show up as banding in the image. The unit I saw was not outputting video levels it was computer levels. This means the box is recalculating the RGB values and unless this is done with great precision it will induce the problems that I saw. Some displays are also not capable of mapping to computer levels on video inputs which can be another problem.

This type of problem is also pretty common on HTPC's using Microsoft operating systems.

That's not true. I did it myself. Who told you this couldn't be done?

The CallVantage online prequal says my existing ATT number cannot be transferred. I also read something somewhere (DSLReports maybe) about a problem with it. I'll have to give them a call and see what the deal is. (shudder)

My first real problem with U-verse.

It seems that using VPN is a bit dicey. I work from home sometimes and use VPN. Sometimes it works just fine other times the built in fire wall in the gateway causes problems. I have no issues connecting through any other network or behind other routers. I have put in a few pinholes and other tricks but still I get issues. The fact that I can not connect in front of the AT&T firewall might just kill the deal for me. I am sure that in a parallel U-verse were my I.T. guy and AT&T could get together it could be resolved but for now it is looking like it will be problematic.

Edit 4-30-2007

I can now usually get past the firewall. I have done several things to the firewall using the /mdc command. I am not sure which of the changes was the one that did the trick. It is still is more problematic than any other network connection I have used but I can live with it.

My first real problem with U-verse.

It seems that using VPN is a bit dicey. I work from home sometimes and use VPN. Sometimes it works just fine other times the built in fire wall in the gateway causes problems. I have no issues connecting through any other network or behind other routers. I have put in a few pinholes and other tricks but still I get issues. The fact that I can not connect in front of the AT&T firewall might just kill the deal for me. I am sure that in a parallel U-verse were my I.T. guy and AT&T could get together it could be resolved but for now it is looking like it will be problematic.


what kinda VPN solution does your company use? I specialize in VPN issues/connectivty for my job so I might be able to help diagnose the issue.

I recently hit up the UVERSE demo store in dallas, from what I saw in their tech demo there should be no reason for ATT to actively block VPN connections

what kinda VPN solution does your company use? I specialize in VPN issues/connectivty for my job so I might be able to help diagnose the issue.

I recently hit up the UVERSE demo store in dallas, from what I saw in their tech demo there should be no reason for ATT to actively block VPN connections


My company uses nortel V6 vpn.

AT&T has told me that some things like stateful packet inspection is very problematic.

My specific problem is that after checking for banner text, I get a message that my connection has been lost. In other words it seems that after I get on the network it will kick me off. If I get past the log on for a second or two then I have no problems.

Again through the AT&T gateway is the only place I have this problem.





Open to suggestions

SportsTime Ohio is advertising AT&T TV service during Indians games. I'm guessing this is U-Verse.

When is it coming to the Cleveland Area? is it available now if they're advertising it?

SportsTime Ohio is advertising AT&T TV service during Indians games. I'm guessing this is U-Verse.

When is it coming to the Cleveland Area? is it available now if they're advertising it?

I spoke to an AT&T tech who was fixing a problem with my phone line last week. He said that he heard U-verse was going to be available in Cleveland by May 4th, and in our area (central Ohio) by July. Take that for what it's worth.

My company uses nortel V6 vpn.

AT&T has told me that some things like stateful packet inspection is very problematic.

My specific problem is that after checking for banner text, I get a message that my connection has been lost. In other words it seems that after I get on the network it will kick me off. If I get past the log on for a second or two then I have no problems.



interesting, my experience is with Cisco's client but essentially I believe the troubleshooting should be the same. Does the Nortel Client have a logfile option?? If you can enable that you might be able to see what is happening on the backend of the VPN client everytime you try to connect from home


There is also an option for IPSEC tunneling, if it is set to UDP then switch it to TCP and visa versa, that might resolve the issue since UVERSE is your new ISP. It's very much possible UVERSE likes to have its traffic flow over TCP and your old ISP was preferring TCP.

My company uses nortel V6 vpn.

AT&T has told me that some things like stateful packet inspection is very problematic.

My specific problem is that after checking for banner text, I get a message that my connection has been lost. In other words it seems that after I get on the network it will kick me off. If I get past the log on for a second or two then I have no problems.

Again through the AT&T gateway is the only place I have this problem.






Open to suggestions

Any chance you work for GM or one of their companies?

PM me if you do

SportsTime Ohio is advertising AT&T TV service during Indians games. I'm guessing this is U-Verse.

When is it coming to the Cleveland Area? is it available now if they're advertising it?

That ad is a bit misleading. IIRC, it mentions a "triple play" of video/data/voice, and the only thing that could be is their weird lame-o Dish TV package. U-Verse is only 2 out of 3 -- no voice yet.

Supposedly June 18 U-Verse is coming to Cleveland - that was posted over on uverseusers.com a couple weeks ago.

Uverse rolls out a bit differently into markets because of the type of equipment that is required. Once you see a VRAD installed in your neighborhood within 2000ft of your home you will be about 30-60 days away from availability. I say 2000ft liberally since you will need to be conected to the VRAD over your UTP line under 3000ft as the line runs. You could literally be 100ft from the VRAD and be too far away as the line is layed. But 2000ft as the crow flies will generally get you service.

I had the service installed earlier this week. I am so far impressed with the PQ over that of DirecTV. HD is a bit shaky. But I had my system hooked up a bit differently than most and when you are available for the service I reccomend that if you are a videophile at all you have them do you some favors when hooking things up. First have them hook directly into the twisted pair. (as opposed to over your phone line) Then have them network your set top boxes with cat5e instead of using your existing coax network.

This will give you the best signal available.

Also if you are still 60 days out you will be most likly gettig the service at the best possible time. Since they are appx 45-60 days from releasing the new software that will enable both multiple HD streams as well as the whole home DVR feature. Also in that software update will be the caller ID display capability on your TV. Plus a few other added features.

Anothe thing I really like about the system is the RG (Residential Gateway) The wireless signal that thing puts out is incredible. I get full signal on my laptop about 500 ft from my house. I still have connectivity 3 blocks away. (signal is low 5mbs)

I have read a lot of bad reviews in this thread, and I have to say that for this being as new as it is I am so far impressed with the capabilities and excited to see what they are able to do with this technology over the next year or so.

Thew750, what market are you in? I think as we hear both positives and negatives of the new technology it's good to understand the different markets that are seeing these positives and negatives.

Brandon

My first real problem with U-verse.

It seems that using VPN is a bit dicey. I work from home sometimes and use VPN. Sometimes it works just fine other times the built in fire wall in the gateway causes problems. I have no issues connecting through any other network or behind other routers. I have put in a few pinholes and other tricks but still I get issues. The fact that I can not connect in front of the AT&T firewall might just kill the deal for me. I am sure that in a parallel U-verse were my I.T. guy and AT&T could get together it could be resolved but for now it is looking like it will be problematic.


I can now usually get past the firewall. I have done several things to the firewall using the /mdc command. I am not sure which of the changes was the one that did the trick. It is still is more problematic than any other network connection I have used but I can live with it.

Also if you are still 60 days out you will be most likely getting the service at the best possible time. Since they are appx 45-60 days from releasing the new software that will enable both multiple HD streams as well as the whole home DVR feature. Also in that software update will be the caller ID display capability on your TV. Plus a few other added features.



About the multiple HD streams. Do you know if they will be using a better codex? I understand that in order to get two HD streams they will be lowering the bitrate by 25%.

Caller ID - I was not offered VoIP I when I signed up. Will it be a standard offering?

AT&T launches TV service in L.A. area

It will bundle U-verse with Internet and phone plans to lure consumers.
By James S. Granelli
Times Staff Writer
May 1, 2007

Residents of more than 14 Southern California locales will now have a third option, besides satellite and cable, for subscribing to pay TV.

AT&T Inc. said it would offer pay television service, with bells and whistles not provided by its rivals, beginning today, in Anaheim, Burbank, Glendale, Riverside and other parts of Southern California.

Its first foray into the area, however, will not include the city of Los Angeles, where AT&T has been working with officials to install a high-speed fiber-optic network needed to deliver pay TV.

The nation's largest telephone company would not say when it expects to offer its U-verse brand television and Internet service in the city.

"It is a critical market for us," AT&T spokesman H. Gordon Diamond said. "We're working on getting power to the network, and we're moving as aggressively as we can."

Under a new law, AT&T must make the U-verse service available to half its phone customers within five years. AT&T is California's dominant local phone company, providing service to about 79% of the state.

"It'll be a challenge for them to meet 50% of the households in California in five years," said analyst Bruce McGregor at Current Analysis Inc., a research firm. "This is a big initiative for them."

AT&T is packaging pay TV with Internet and phone services to give customers a so-called triple play, which typically includes discounts that make the pay TV packages less expensive than those offered by cable and satellite providers.

Studies have shown that the price of pay television typically drops after a phone company enters a market.

Today, residents in parts of four Los Angeles suburbs, six Orange County cities, three Riverside County cities and Simi Valley can order the service.

The packages compete with those offered by cable TV companies but go one step further by offering cellphone service. Cable companies, which now offer TV, high-speed Internet and phone service, are testing similar wireless service in a venture with Sprint Nextel Corp.

"It's going to be a big year for these companies to get their services out there and to sway customers with the right package," McGregor said. Such bundles, with all services on one bill, are key to marketing plans because they attract customers and keep them longer, reducing the rate at which customers quit.

Carriers also are getting the products in the bundles to work together better. Caller ID numbers, for instance, pop up on television screens, allowing customers to decide whether to answer the phone or let the call go to voicemail while they are watching their favorite show.

"Customers are demanding more high-definition TV and more interactive TV, and that's what AT&T's U-verse is doing," said Kieran Nolan, general manager of AT&T's Los Angeles market.

Customers can use their cellphones, for instance, to program their digital video recorders when they're on the road, he said. And they can take a picture or a video clip with the handset's camera, send it to the home computer and watch it on TV when they get home later.

But AT&T must continue upgrading its network to meet future demand, McGregor said.

"Down the road, AT&T is going to have to offer as many high-definition channels as possible," he said. "Satellite already is going to 100 HD channels, and cable is getting there too."

AT&T is seeing "a very nice demand" in other metropolitan markets it serves, including four cities in the Bay Area, Nolan said. The three metro markets in Southern California bring the total served by AT&T in the country to 18.

The San Antonio-based company had a number of technical problems last year as it readied its pay TV for the mass market. It had only 3,000 customers at the end of December and now has nearly 20,000.

By the end of 2008, it plans to spend $4.6 billion to make U-verse TV available to 19 million customers in the 13-state territory it controlled before it acquired BellSouth Corp. at the end of December.

The new California law, adopted last year at the behest of AT&T and Verizon Communications Inc., made it easier for the phone companies to offer pay TV service by simplifying the regulatory process.

Verizon said Monday that it had 348,000 pay TV customers in its 29-state territory. Its fiber network in California reaches 350,000 homes in 29 cities and will cover 500,000 by the end of the year.

Neither company would provide more specific local figures.

AT&T's initial Southern California offering is for residents in parts of Altadena, Anaheim, Burbank, Corona, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Glendale, Laguna Niguel, Norco, Santa Ana, Santa Clarita, Riverside, Simi Valley, Tustin and parts of Orange and Riverside counties.

Residents can figure out whether they are within reach of the U-verse service by checking uverse.att.com.

james.granelli@latimes.com
http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-fi-uverse1may01,0,4539180,print.story?coll=cl-tv-features

Since they are appx 45-60 days from releasing the new software that will enable both multiple HD streams as well as the whole home DVR feature. Also in that software update will be the caller ID display capability on your TV. Plus a few other added features.




I just had my U-verse installed on monday, and I'm more or less impressed with it. The Whole house DVR is somehting I want as soon as possible, as my previous CHarter setup had DVR's in each TV. I've been looking for estimates as to when the whole house DVR will be set up and was wondering where you might have received this info. Any ATT person I speak estiamtes it as coming sometime this year, with few specifics.

AT&T launching TV service in Simi

By Allison Bruce
Tuesday, May 1, 2007

The tussle for TV dollars is creating more choices for customers as telephone companies step into an arena once reserved for cable and satellite providers.

Starting today, Simi Valley residents can buy their television through AT&T. The company is launching its AT&T U-verse television and high-speed Internet service in Ventura, Los Angeles and Riverside counties, starting in a few select markets.

Verizon already offers similar FiOS (or fiber-optic service) television and Internet service in Camarillo and Thousand Oaks, and the company recently expanded its offering to the unincorporated areas of the county.

Basic television service plans from AT&T or Verizon start at about $44 a month.

The two companies don't compete against each other for TV customers because they operate in different locations. But they are stepping into areas where cable companies, such as Time Warner Cable or Charter Communications, have been the heavyweights when it comes to TV service.

The competition has been heating up as cable providers step in to offer telephone service and telephone companies move into TV.

Verizon is spending $23 billion to install its FiOS fiber-optic network to support high-speed Internet and television services. By the end of 2008, AT&T plans to spend $4.6 billion on the network upgrades to support U-verse.

"It's a competing service to what is out there today," said Kieran Nolan, vice president and general manager for AT&T West's Los Angeles and Central Coast market. "It gives the customer a lot more choice."

Recent changes, such as the transition from Adelphia to Time Warner Cable, are causing customers to take a new look at who is providing their television service, said Verizon spokesman Jon Davies.

A law that went into effect Jan. 1 lets the California Public Utilities Commission review and approve applications for state video franchises. Before, companies had to negotiate with local governments for a franchise.

The new law "has been a tremendous advantage for us to get out there and offer this competitive TV service," Davies said.

In the first two years that it rolled out its FiOS service, Verizon was going from community to community to negotiate franchise agreements, he said. Verizon secured 18 franchises, including Camarillo and Thousand Oaks. Then, it received the state franchise in March.

"Since then, we've added another 12 (franchises) already," Davies said. "It almost doubled our penetration in the marketplace."

AT&T spokesman Gordon Diamond said the legislation was critical. He noted that AT&T serves more than 400 cities in California and, at the rate of one franchise agreement per week, it would take seven years to secure all of those without the state franchise.

He emphasized that the company still needs to work with the cities, particularly as it upgrades its network.

"That hasn't changed," he said. "The fact that we have a state franchise certainly helps us, but we still need to work with individual cities."

Must meet criteria

Jan Orfini, Simi Valley's deputy director of compliance, said once a company receives a franchise from the state, it notifies the city about when it will begin operating.

The company still needs to meet certain criteria, such as customer service standards, and has to pay a 5 percent franchise fee to the city.

"We're looking forward to sitting down to meet with AT&T so we have a better idea of the services they are going to provide to the customers of Simi Valley," Orfini said.

Orfini said residents now have a choice between Time Warner Cable or satellite television. AT&T will bring in another choice, adding more competition to the mix.

A new kind of TV

TV competition isn't new to the telephone companies. Verizon offers packages to customers that include DirecTV satellite television; AT&T offers packages with DISH Network. That isn't changing, but now the companies have a new kind of TV to offer.

Proponents of television sent over broadband lines, so-called Internet Protocol Television or IPTV say it allows more channels and more of the perks people are seeking, such as high-definition channels and video on demand.

Television service also can be tied in with high-speed Internet and phone service for a complete package to lure customers. Combining wireless phone service, television and broadband gives a customer more choices for less money than those things would cost individually, Nolan said.

There's also the ability with IPTV to reach across platforms and find new ways to interact with your television.

Customers with U-verse can use their AT&T cell phone to access their digital video recorder from any location. That would let you record a show on a DVR at home when you are away.

Future possibilities include more interactivity and more opportunities for advertisers, such as clicking on an ad to go to the advertiser's Web site or find out more about a product.

There are about 20,000 U-verse subscribers in the United States.

AT&T plans to continue deploying its new service in multiple markets into 2008, Nolan said. The goal is to reach nearly 19 million homes by then.

New markets by summer

Other cities the company's franchise covers includes parts of Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, Thousand Oaks, Ventura and Westlake Village.

Verizon plans to bring new markets online before this summer. Its state franchise agreement also covers Oxnard.

Davies said the additional competition in Verizon's markets has led to some lower prices from cable companies, but the most visible changes are in what companies are offering. More variety and more choices follow more competition, he said.

"We feel very pleased with the way things are shaking out," he said.

Verizon plans to have fiber-optic cable reaching past 500,000 homes in Southern California by the end of the year, which would mean 500,000 potential customers. The company does not release actual customer numbers for California, but it reported that the number of FiOS TV subscribers throughout the nation grew by 141,000 homes during the first quarter to total 348,000.

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/may/01/atampt-launching-tv-service-in-simi/?printer=1/

AT&T to launch U-verse in parts of Inland region

Monday, April 30, 2007
By KIMBERLY PIERCEALL, The Press-Enterprise

A year after Verizon Communications Inc. brought fiber-optic television service to the Inland region, AT&T Inc. will launch its own subscription service in parts of Riverside, Norco and Corona today.

Officials say the Internet-based service, dubbed U-verse, will offer more than 300 television channels and the ability to record four shows at once at the command of a computer or a mobile phone.

The company's entry into Riverside County comes about a month after the state's Public Utilities Commission launched its state video franchise agreement, which allows telecommunications providers -- including AT&T, Verizon and cable companies -- to apply for a California franchise rather than negotiate franchises with individual cities.
Story continues below
AP photo
AT&T Inc. announced it will launch its subscription television service today in parts of Riverside, Norco and Corona.

As a result, AT&T can now provide a person's cell and home phones, Internet and television service in any location in California where it already has telephone customers .

"AT&T is now able to have a service portfolio that has bundles," said Chris Percy, vice president and general manager of AT&T's Orange and Riverside counties market.

Cable companies such as Time Warner have been entering the telephone service business and, last week, Cox Communications, a San Diego cable provider, was the first cable company to be granted a statewide franchise agreement.

AT&T's Inland launch follows Verizon's foray into offering high-speed fiber-optic television in Murrieta and Beaumont last year.

Craig Watson, vice president of communications for Charter Communication's Western division, said he was not concerned about the new competition.

"We've been competing for many, many years," Watson said. "We started competing with satellites for television customers. We've been competing with telephone providers for broadband service for years. We're confident in our ability to compete."

http://www.pe.com/business/local/stories/PE_Biz_D_att01.3b741b1.html#

April 30, 2007
AT&T launches TV in OC:

Big news for OC residents who want more choice in video: AT&T is the latest telephone company to start offering TV. And I'm not talking about obscure Internet TV channels, but the whole gamut of major networks, HBO and two types of Cartoon Networks (woo hoo!)

uverselogo.gifRead my story about the launch HERE (http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/money/article_1675745.php) , which delves into the technology behind AT&T's U-Verse. It's very different from Verizon's FiOS TV service, which launched in parts of some OC cities last month.

The main details of U-Verse: Up to 350 channels, prices start at $44 (for 100 channels and TV only) and you can get discounts if you bundle this with Internet service, telephone service or mobile-phone service.

But the print edition of the paper never gives me enough space to say everything I know. The web does. I spoke to Chris Percy, AT&T's vice president and general manager, earlier today (that's Monday) for the overview and got a lot of MY questions answered. If you have more, send them to me and I'll forward them along...

Q: Who can get this?
A: Certain residents in Fullerton, Laguna Niguel, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Garden Grove and Tustin. Check the U-Verse (https://uverse1.att.com/launchAMSS.do) site to see if your home is eligible. Chris wouldn't tell me how many residents are eligible on day one, unlike Verizon, so even if you live in one of these cities, you may not be able to get U-Verse yet.

Lots more questions and answers...

Q: How much?
A: As always, a complicated answer since there are multiple packages. I've tried to boil it down to the basics. First, all packages include 3 set-top boxes and one digital video recorder, except the basic U100, which has just one set-top box.

So, starting with TV only:
$44 = U100 (100 channels)
$44 = U-family (50 channels)
$59 = U200 (190 channels)
$79 = U300 (240 channels, plus 31 premium channels)
$99 = U400 (300 channels, plus 49 premium channels)

Add Internet and prices go up. Three options available -- all with upload speeds of 1 Mbps. Choices are Express (1.5 Mb download), Pro (3 Mb download) or Elite (6 Mb download):

U-family $59/mo $64/mo $74/mo
U100 $59/mo $64/mo $74/mo
U200 $74/mo $79/mo $89/mo
U300 $94/mo $99/mo $109/mo
U400 $114/mo $119/mo $129/mo

Q: What channels can I get?
A: You really want me to list them all? Go to U-Verse's (https://uverse1.att.com/launchAMSS.do) site for channel lineup.

One quick breakdown: 215 regular cable/local channels, 27 HD channels, 50 premium channels, 25 Spanish channels, 2 adult channels and 34 music channels.

Q: Are there discounts for bundlers?
A: Of course! That's the whole point of a telephone company getting into TV, Internet and mobile phone service. The best part, at least for some consumers, is one bill. In some cases, there will be joint bill discounts, but I don't have more details on exact discounts.
TV specials are pretty good right now, depending on what package you order:
* Free HD TV for a year (saving $10/month)
* Two months of free service for U300/U400 subscribers
* $50 gift card if you order TV and Internet online

Q: What's the technology behind all this?
A: This is a truer Internet-based TV than Verizon's FiOS, which is more like a cable company since it supplies fiber-optic cable to the house. AT&T runs fiber-optic cables to local neighborhood nodes (remember this with DSL?). So, you do have to be within a certain proximity to your local node. For the route to the house, U-Verse relies on good old copper wiring. Good or bad, this is up for debate. Read my story (http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/money/article_1675745.php) for more on this topic.
uversemoto.jpg

Once service is running to your home, it uses a "gateway" from 2Wire, which also serves as a wireless router. The DVR is from Motorola and the software is from Microsoft.
uverse2wire.jpg

Q: If U-Verse isn't in my area, when is it coming?
A: AT&T won't talk about the future. They only tell me that at the end of 2006, about 2 million people nationwide could get U-Verse. By the end of the year, they estimate the number will jump to 8 million households and then 19 million by 2008.

If you have AT&T phone service, chances are that U-Verse is coming to your home in the future. Maybe not this year but someday... In the meantime, you could subscribe to AT&T's Homezone service, with TV supplied by Dish Networks.

Q: AT&T doesn't even offer phone service in my area. Will I be able to get U-Verse?
A: Nope. And while AT&T can technically offer it, it is concentrating on its current base of customers. Same with Verizon. But cross your fingers and give it a few years. Why would either company limit themselves? Both already offer mobile phone service nationwide. When times get tough, they should think about bundling TV and mobile phone service.

Q: If I subscribe to Homezone, will it be a hassle to switch to U-Verse?
A: Possibly. If you took advantage of the buy-one-year-get-one-free special for Homezone, you are out of luck. You're stuck with Homezone for two years. BUT if you don't have a contract with Dish, the switch to U-Verse should be simple.

Q: What's the cool stuff about U-Verse?
A: A few things.
- The Motorola DVR can record four channels at the same time. It's also a very petite box.

- Program your DVR using any web browser using Yahoo TV
- For $10 a month, access 30 TV channels on your PC without affecting the channel your home TV is currently playing. Here's my pic:
uversepctv.jpg

- Includes a "Gateway" from 2Wire that serves as AT&T's connection to the house and a wireless router.
- Picture in picture, even if you're TV doesn't offer this.
- Rent movies on demand and the movie is stored on the DVR for 24 hours. In the demo I saw, the movie "Amelie" was selected for download and instantly began playing. No lag, no buffering.
- Search for shows by name or actor (Microsoft Media Center offers the same service, so this shouldn't be a surprise since U-Verse is using Microsoft software).

Q: Can apartment dwellers and condo owners get U-Verse?
A: Most likely, yes. Since AT&T doesn't dig up your drive to lay down fiber-optic cables to your door (that's what Verizon's FiOS does), your dwelling just needs to be near a U-Verse node (check with AT&T on this) and there must be copper wiring or Cat 5 cable or coaxial cable to your house. Chris said 80 to 90 percent of all apartments are eligible but there are cases when the wiring is too old and AT&T will need permission from the landlord.

Q: Can I see a demo of this?
A: Not yet in OC. At the former Cingular stores (now called AT&T), the stores will show video demos. But each site needs to be retrofitted to provide U-Verse service and a proper demo.

Q: So, FiOS or U-Verse?
A: Considering that I've only seen demos and have yet to test either option, I shouldn't say. But I live in a FiOS city (that's Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Westminster and Stanton) and FiOS offers 30 megabit downloads!!! Sure, it'll cost $180 a month, but 30 megs!

http://blogs.ocregister.com/gadgetress/archives/2007/04/att_launches_tv.html

Those internet speeds and prices make me drool at the thought of FTTP.

Brandon

Thursday, May 3, 2007
By NAYELI PAGAZA, STAFF WRITER

AT&T plans to offer some Rancho customers faster Internet and other services through its "Lightspeed Initiative."

Carol Tagayun of AT&T said that through the project, customers will be able to call up from their cell phone and set up their DVDs to record their favorite shows. In addition, data and messages will be shared over various IP-based devices (wireless, voice, gaming and music can all work together).

"We are not separate cable and phone services anymore," said Tagayun. "We want to offer TV/video technologies to consumers by providing new choices and the best prices."

Consumers could pay from $74 to $124 a month for these services said Tagayun.

About 50-60 new utility boxes will need to be installed to cover 16,000 homes in Rancho. Each box will reach approximately 200-500 homes. They will be located close to existing AT&T boxes in order to utilize their technology.

"There will be pretty minimal impact on the infrastructure," said Thomas Wheeler, city engineer. He said only about 15-20 feet of ground will need to be dug up for each box.

The new utility boxes will be about 4-feet-tall, 4-feet-wide and 2-feet-deep.

AT&T is set to work closely with the city in order to finalize the location of each of the utility boxes, and to minimize the impact that construction might have on parkways and surrounding areas.

Contact the writer: npagaza@ocregister.com or 949-454-7347
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/local/rsm/article_1679625.php

AT&T Ups U-verse Spending by $1.4 Billion
By Bob Wallace
Posted on: 05/07/2007

Facing challenges on all fronts with the deployment of its IPTV-driven U-verse triple-play bundle, AT&T Inc. confirmed Monday that it will spend an additional $1.4 billion on its initial plan to drive the offering and is reducing it subscriber target by 1 million.

AT&T said the changes reflect additional investments that “will further strengthen the service – such as new infrastructure to support our expansive channel lineup, development and introduction of new features for the platform, and additional network conditioning to help ensure an optimal customer experience. AT&T is also paying a premium to lock up contractors who will continue their work on U-verse deployments.”

The news comes as little surprise as the company ended 2006 by missing its long stated U-verse deployment mark by four cities. AT&T execs have cited software problems as a big challenge and the telco has run into franchising problems in its region that have resulted in drawn out negotiations, impasses and lawsuits.

All of these factors, combined with the need to bulk up the service with greater HD capabilities and distinguish it marketing-wise from its Homezone satellite bundle have likely driven up the cost of AT&T’s video efforts.

While AT&T had already spent billions in deploying DSL to the home to provide the infrastructure, the carrier also likely incurred sizable expenses from almost pulling together billing and back-office systems form scratch, as opposed to using it legacy systems.

AT&T said it now plans to pass approximately 18 million households by the end of 2008. The company said that number doesn’t include its plans for the Southeast, which could increase the number past 19 million homes.

The new projections will not impact AT&T’s overall 2007 capital expenditures, the company said.

http://www.xchangemag.com/hotnews/75h7125351.html

A few months ago AT&T bought out BellSouth and there have been sightings of cable commercials in Memphis saying that competition is a bad thing and that prices will increase. We are guessing it is for Uverse. Other than the availability link from above, does anyone have any contacts or know anyone who might be able to tell if they are coming to Memphis?

A few months ago AT&T bought out BellSouth and there have been sightings of cable commercials in Memphis saying that competition is a bad thing and that prices will increase. We are guessing it is for Uverse. Other than the availability link from above, does anyone have any contacts or know anyone who might be able to tell if they are coming to Memphis?

Have you checked out www.uverseusers.com for rumors?

High-tech TV available near you
By Dean Takahashi, San Jose Mercury News
Article Launched:05/14/2007 01:39:16 AM PDT

When it comes to getting TV in the Bay Area, there are only a few choices: cable, satellite or over the air. Cable is the established service, but with advances in broadband, AT&T's U-verse TV subscription service is worth checking out.

The AT&T service is based on a new technology dubbed IPTV, or Internet Protocol TV. It sends your TV shows over high-speed Internet phone lines. These lines, dubbed VDSL for "very high bit rate digital subscriber lines," can pump data many times faster than the old DSL lines. And that allows AT&T to offer broadband Internet access and subscription TV over a single phone line. Later this year, AT&T will add Internet phone service.

Comcast, the dominant local cable TV provider, has been muscling in on AT&T's turf with its "triple play" service for a special rate of $99 a month. With that, you get high-speed Internet via cable modem, cable TV channels, and Internet phone service. AT&T says it will offer Internet phone service later this year.

With U-verse, you can get fast broadband, subscription TV with more than 100 channels, and you can fetch movies from a big library in a service dubbed "video on demand." This part of the service has a long way to go to catch up with Comcast, which offers 9,300 video-on-demand programs, about 95 percent of those for free. With U-verse, you can also record shows with a built-in, TiVo-like digital video recorder.

I visited the home of Linda and Rick Atkins in Cupertino to get a demo of U-verse for an afternoon. Rick is an employee of AT&T and so he was one of the first people to get it installed last December. Since then, AT&T has signed up about 20,000 customers nationwide and is adding 2,000 a week.

Andrew Johnson, a spokesman for Comcast, isn't concerned; he says AT&T is deploying a service like the one Comcast did years ago.

You have to live in an AT&T phone service area to be able to get U-verse. It's available in cities such as San Jose, San Francisco, Cupertino, Saratoga, East Palo Alto and other parts of the region. AT&T's U-verse Web site at www. uverse.att.com tells you if it offers U-verse in your area if you enter your address and ZIP code.

U-verse isn't quite as fast as cable, but its broadband pricing is slightly better. You can get download speeds of 6 megabits a second (1 megabit upstream) for $40 a month, or you can opt for a slower download speed of 1.5 megabits a second (1 megabit upstream) for $25 a month. Those compare to cable's 8 megabits a second download (768 kilobits per second upstream) for $53 a month or 6 megabits a second (384 kilobits a second upstream) for $43 a month.

AT&T also throws in for no extra charge a wireless router, which delivers WiFi wireless broadband for you home, in addition to a Motorola set-top box. With 6 megabits a second, you can download three songs in 6.6 seconds.

One of the best things about IPTV is fast channel switching, which you won't get with cable. With typical cable TV, the operator sends all of the channels through the cable to your set-top box, which then decodes the images and displays the one you want. With U-verse, AT&T only sends the actual channel. It's a better way to use your Internet bandwidth. As a result, changing channels happens in a fraction of the time (300 milliseconds). It feels instantaneous.

That's important because you're going to have a lot of channels to switch through. To make it easier to navigate, the menu presents you with choices of video on demand, live TV, or recorded TV. Within each, you can do searches for particular actors, movie types, or your favorite channels. The favorites is especially helpful because you can essentially use it to cut out all of the channels that you never watch.

You can also watch and actually see the movie because the guide for the channels is transparent. You can also navigate using the tiny "picture in picture" window in the lower left part of the screen. That way, you can keep watching one movie while you're surfing through other channels.

The U-verse video on demand feature allows you to rent movies for $2 to $4 each from a library that totals a few hundred hours. Once you pick a movie, it takes about 10 seconds before it starts streaming, or moving from the Uverse hub to your TV set. You can interrupt that show as you watch it to look at other channels, but you can still go back to the same spot where you left off. The service comes with parental controls in case you want to block your kids from watching shows.

With U-verse, you can pay anywhere from $44 a month for the basic 100-plus channels option dubbed U100, which includes free local channels. If you add the 1.5-megabit-per-second download speed for high-speed Internet service, you pay a special rate of $59 a month. (It's a $10 monthly discount if you bundle TV and Internet.)

With U400, you pay as much as $129 a month for three set-top boxes and more than 300 channels and Internet at 6 megabits a second downstream. U-verse offers 25 high-definition channels, more than you typically get on cable. But Comcast offers a lot of HD shows on demand.

You can use U-verse's digital video recorder to record your favorite TV shows or movies at the touch of a button. The standard U-verse set-top box can record 120 hours of standard definition TV on its hard disk, or it can record 75 hours of high-definition TV.

In contrast to DirecTV's ability to record two channels at once, you can record as many as four shows at the same time on U-verse; on Comcast, you can record two shows and watch another at the same time. You can also program U-verse to record a show from your cell phone or from a laptop computer connected to the Internet. Those latter features aren't available with cable.

If you sign up for U-verse, you are trading one monopoly provider for another. But in this case, AT&T is offering more channels, more HD channels, competitive speeds, and slightly lower subscription fees. At some point, consumers are going to get more entertainment and faster Internet access for less money. It's about time.

Contact Dean Takahashi at dtakahashi@mercurynews.com or (408) 920-5739.
http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=5891709&siteId=568

Quick Look: AT&T U-verse
www.uverse.att.com
San Jose Mercury News
Article Launched:05/14/2007 01:39:23 AM PDT
What it is:

A subscription TV and broadband service over very high speed phone lines

Technology:

Based on IPTV, or Internet Protocol TV, and VDSL (very high-speed digital subscriber lines).

Connection charges:

$40 a month for broadband with download speed of 6 megabits a second (1 megabit upstream). $25 a month for broadband with download speed of 1.5 megabits a second (1 megabit upstream).

TV charges:

$44 a month for the basic 100-plus channels . $59 a month if you bundle with the 1.5-megabit-per-second download speed for broadband service.

Other features:

WiFi wireless router, digital video recorder and video-on-demand with $2 to $4 fees per movie.

http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=5891711&siteId=568

More products planned in post-merger activity
Web-based TV service slated for Birmingham area
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
CHARLES R. McCAULEY, News staff writer

AT&T's post-BellSouth and Cingular merger focus is not just providing voice, video and data on televisions, computers and wireless devices but offering ways to link the services and products, a regional executive said Monday.

"You'll see more and more over time, the ability to get content across all of the three screens that we sell services to our customers," said former Birmingham resident David W. Scobey Jr., president and chief executive for AT&T Southeast.

What AT&T will "try to do is provide good products at prices that represent the value that we deliver and wrap good service around that." It has to provide what consumers want, said Scobey, who held one of his "traveling staff meetings" Monday in Birmingham with employees who interact with customers.

One future offering will be U-Verse, an Internet-based television service that AT&T offers in 15 markets now. Scobey said it is working on a rollout schedule for the Southeast that would include Alabama. "Birmingham is the kind of market we would want to be in and you can look forward to some announcements forthcoming," he said.

U-Verse subscribers can access TV programs online while away from home. At home, consumers can connect at least three TV sets to the service, have access to more high-definition content and get digital video recorder capability that would link with other services. For example, a customer will be able to remotely access the DVR by cell phone to program recording of a TV broadcast, he said.

Scobey said AT&T will continue to focus on all customers - rural and urban. Last week, it launched satellite-based broadband in Alabama. "It helps some of our rural customers get the Internet." The satellite broadband speed, 6 megabits, is not as fast as the traditional high-speed service available in Birmingham and more populated areas, but "a lot of customers in rural areas don't have any option for high-speed service," Scobey said.

He said investments will continue each year to add cell sites to reduce dead spots where wireless calls are disconnected. AT&T and BellSouth have spent more that $300 million in Alabama to improve the wireless network to handle more calls and data transmissions, said spokeswoman Dawn Benton.

Scobey, who was named the company's regional chief in January, grew up in Vestavia Hills, graduating in 1974 from Vestavia Hills High School and later from Auburn University as an electrical engineer. At Auburn, he participated in a cooperative education program with BellSouth Corp., which offered him a full-time job in network engineering and operations when he graduated.

He worked in several leadership positions during his 29 years at BellSouth. Scobey lives and works in Atlanta, where he moved in the early 1990s after stints in Birmingham, Denver and Birmingham again.

E-mail: cmccauley@bhamnews.com
http://www.al.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/business/117921719759760.xml&coll=2

Have you checked out www.uverseusers.com for rumors?
Sorry for the late response, I didn't get an update email until today. I checked the site and no there is nothing about Memphis or TN.

Cable's future up for grabs in Cape Girardeau
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
By TJ Greaney ~ Southeast Missourian

Cable television in Southeast Missouri is about to change for good.

New legislation means competition is on the horizon for current monopoly-holder Charter Communications, while municipal oversight and funding for public access channels are both in jeopardy.

In March, Gov. Matt Blunt signed Senate Bill 284 into law changing the way cable companies can negotiate contracts. Municipal franchise agreements like the one held by Charter to provide service in Cape Girardeau through December will be replaced by statewide franchise agreements allowing providers to operate anywhere in Missouri.

This is a major coup for fans of competition; most notably, other cable providers.

"We're very excited about this. Generally, when consumers have another choice that ends up being better for the consumer," said Marsha Haskell, AT&T's regional director for external affairs.

AT&T is hoping to make a splash in the market. Earlier this month the company announced it will spend $335 million to expand its fiber-optic network and upgrade video and Internet services across Missouri.

Haskell said in Southeast Missouri the money will go toward expanding DSL Internet service to 18 rural communities including Delta and Oak Ridge. Area residents eventually will have access to its "U-Verse" package, a bundle of digital video with interactive features and high-speed Internet.

Haskell said the new law allows for better integration of different mediums. Today, she said, special laws protecting cable companies don't make sense because increasingly the cable companies are also the Internet or phone service provider.

"The industry is really changing, and this is another indication of how these technologies are all converging. The old rules no longer serve the consumer," she said.

But the new law has drawbacks, critics say. It no longer requires a cable company to provide service to all homes in a municipality. This leaves open the potential for certain isolated or poorer areas of a town to be left out.

Previously, cable providers were required to give service to newly annexed areas in a franchise within one year of annexation. If they delayed, city officials could typically apply pressure.

"We won't have any say-so anymore," said Cape Girardeau public information coordinator Michelle Hahn. "Those developers will just have to go to Charter and push for it themselves."

The new statute requires only that providers build out to 25 percent of their footprint within three years and 50 percent of their footprint within six years. This, critics say, leaves large swaths of area potentially without coverage.

Consumers with complaints about service from the cable company will route their complaints through the Public Service Commission rather than city government.

"Under the current system, the city has recourse to go after and threaten them with canceling the franchise, but under the state bill the only real recourse is going to the PSC," said Andrew Chronister, who has sat on the Cape Girardeau Cable Television Advisory Board for eight years.

The law could also hurt cable access or "PEG" channels. Cape Girardeau currently receives about $30,000 annually from Charter to help run channels 5 and 23.

The new law does not require a provider to contribute money toward the operation of PEG channels and actually gives cable providers the right to determine whether community channels are "utilized" or not.

"The way it's written, any PEG channel or cable access channel that's not substantially utilized can be eliminated by the franchise. The cable company can just decide whether it's substantially utilized or not," Chronister said.

The new law also requires that all PEG channels have 40 hours of original programming per week. Cable Access Channel 5 currently airs about 15 hours of original programming weekly.

Hahn said she has begun examining how to expand the station's programming, but thinks it will be very difficult to reach the 40-hour mark.

Dr. James Dufek of Southeast Missouri State University, who also sits on the board, thinks it would be a shame to see the public channels taken away.

"That's the saddest part of all this, the PEG channels are really the last great soapbox that people could utilize," he said.

The law takes effect Aug. 28.

335-6611, extension 245
http://www.semissourian.com/story/print/1211697.html

Montebello Residents get new U-verse TV

MONTEBELLO - Some consumers in the city now have a third choice, along with satellite and cable, for subscription pay television.

Earlier this month, AT&T, the telephone company giant, launched U-verse - a new television and high-speed Internet service folded into one package.

"We were looking to roll out this new system in communities that had a customer base with a desire for choice in their TV and broadband services," said Kieran Nolan, At&T vice president and general manager for the Los Angeles area. "Montebello was on the top of the list."

Currently, consumers living near the Montebello Country Club and Golf Course, 901 Via San Clemente, have access to U-verse.

Other cities that have also launched U-verse include Anaheim, Burbank, Glendale, Fullerton, Laguna Niguel, Riverside, Tustin, Santa Clarita, Garden Grove and Altadena.

"We are definitely going to expand within Montebello," said Nolan, stressing this is not a test market. "Montebello is a very important marketplace."

http://www.whittierdailynews.com/ci_5909992?source=most_viewed

^^

Thank-you! for the news bgooch. Although I have D*, its always nice to have other options.

Any (other) fellow Los Angelinos that live on that side of Montebello, that plan to get it? Since I don't drink, I can't bring over the beer, but I bring over a gift certificate to like Netflix or something. :)

I would be very hesitant about signing up for this service at this point in time. I have been following some of the threads on the UverseUsers forum for the last few weeks and the reports are, at best, mixed. Complaints about all aspects of the service abound. Call it "beta" if you wish but it defintely is not ready for prime time. GMHO.

Last modified: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 5:03 PM CDT
BY: Jack “Miles” Ventimiglia, Editor

AT&T marked a big year in the Kansas City area with more progress expected in coming months as the company works to build out the U-verse system.

In less than 12 months, AT&T officials:

• Received permission from the Kansas Legislature to build a TV fiber optic network without having to pay city franchise fees or follow the usual rules;

• Began providing Internet-based TV service in March to at least parts of several cities in Johnson County; and

• Received permission from the Missouri General Assembly to build the fiber network needed to bring the same services to that state, including to Kansas City.

The Missouri measure takes effect Aug. 28 and Kansas Citians could begin ordering service by this time next year, company External Affairs Director Chris Carroll said.

“It truly has been a light-speed initiative,” Carroll said.

AT&T's Don Brown said launching the new product in Johnson County went well.

“Members of the Kansas City news media were very interested in our new U-verse video product and we continue to get requests for product demos. Even more importantly, customer feedback on the picture quality, features and overall experience has been extremely positive,” Brown said.

Company officials launched a bundle of services in the metropolitan area under the name AT&T U-verse. U-verse consists of cutting-edge TV and high-speed Internet services, according to the company.

The system makes AT&T the only national provider to offer a 100 percent Internet Protocol-based TV service. The IP system offers advantages for consumers, such as no picture breakup or pauses when changing channels, and the ability to use a computer or phone to access a residential television.

“We listened to our customers and we're ready to give them a better entertainment experience with the value and unique features AT&T U-verse offers,” Mark Thomp-son, AT&T vice president and general manager for the Kansas City area, said.

Depending on which of three packages a person wants, AT&T's TV features include up to 300 channels, 25 high-definition TV stations, the ability to record four programs simultaneously, a video-on-demand library and the ability to search by an actor's name to find shows in which he appears.

All of this is good for consumers, Matthew Roesner, AT&T local market execution director, said.

The cost is $70 per month for a mid-range package of TV channels combined with Internet service. The company states that AT&T U-verse should be price-competitive with cable companies offering a similar package.

The video services reflect AT&T's strategy to become customers' preferred communications and entertainment provider and to deliver greater value than competitors offer, according to AT&T information.

With AT&T in parts of 10 Johnson County cities and planning to move into the Missouri market within a year, Roesner said what the public sees marks the beginning of a plan to compete aggressively with cable providers for customers metrowide. Brown declined to say how many subscribers have purchased the service in Johnson County.

“We're seeing positive results in the marketplace, and we're pleased with our progress. For competitive reasons, we are not sharing the number of U-verse subscribers in individual markets, and we're not providing specific market projections, percentages or details on the scope at this point,” Brown said.

http://www.kccommunitynews.com/articles/2007/05/17/blue_valley_sun/news/p-all-news-continues.effort.prt

AT&T Targets Comcast With Detroit Launch

By Steve Donohue -- Multichannel News, 5/21/2007 11:42:00 PM

AT&T began marketing its U-verse TV service in Detroit and Ann Arbor, Mich., Tuesday morning, challenging incumbent cable operator Comcast.

Boasting that it offers more high-definition programming than its cable rivals, AT&T said its U-verse TV packages began at prices of $44 monthly, plus an additional $10 for HD programming.

The telephone giant is also pitching packages of high-speed Internet access, telephone service, digital video recorders (including remote DVR access) and video on demand programming. U-verse TV contains more than 25 HD channels.

The Detroit and Ann Arbor U-verse TV rollouts follow recent deployments in the Los Angeles area and Dallas-Fort Worth.

While AT&T says it is installing U-verse TV in about 2,000 households weekly, the company counted just 18,000 subscribers for its video service in April, up from the 3,000 that it said it had at the end of 2006.

http://multichannel.com/article/CA6445241.html

AT&T TV: Worth a look?
It has some nifty features, but its pay-television rivals are stepping up their game too
By James S. Granelli, Times Staff Writer
May 27, 2007

YOU'VE got another pay television provider that wants your business. But are AT&T Inc.'s upgraded phone lines a smart way to watch TV?

The behemoth of phone companies is pushing into a new field, offering video programming in parts of 14 Southern California communities, from Simi Valley to Anaheim to Riverside. And that's just for starters.

A mere infant in pay television, AT&T is spending up to $6.5 billion in its initial phase to build a hybrid network of fast fiber-optic and conventional copper wires to deliver its U-verse TV service. It expects to cover 18 million homes in California and 12 other states by the end of next year.

If U-verse is a success, AT&T is expected to offer the program eventually in most of the places it has telephone service.

"It's very revolutionary for AT&T to say, 'We're going to use a phone system to deliver video,' " said analyst James McQuivey at Forrester Research Inc. "They have to make sure it works just as well as cable. Then they have to differentiate it. Because if it works just as well, why switch?"

The answer depends on your desires and your budget.

U-verse customers are telling AT&T that picture quality is generally better than cable and satellite. And they like a few of U-verse's free features, including faster channel changing than digital TV and the ability to record as many as four shows at once on a rent-free digital video recorder.

On the flip side, U-verse can send only one high-definition signal at a time, which means you can't record one HD show while watching another. You can with cable and satellite providers and with the FiOS TV service from Verizon Communications Inc., which runs on an all-fiber network to the home.

What's more, if you want to get Internet access from the same provider, the connections from cable companies and FiOS can be faster than U-verse.

The marketers at AT&T and Verizon have tough jobs: Many of the things that make their services different from cable aren't very easy to get across.

The key distinctions lie largely in the boring details of how the systems are put together. That's one reason the phone companies are trying to get closer to customers by showing off their TV offerings at neighborhood functions and in traveling vans.

The phone giants do have some cool, new features:

• Hate that annoying lag time switching channels on digital TV sets? U-verse has an answer called fast channel change.

• Want to build your own alerts for local news, weather and sports that move across your TV screen at the push of a button? Verizon's FiOS service can do that, and U-verse is getting ready to offer something similar.

• Need a digital video recorder that can capture up to four TV programs at once, including one high-definition channel? U-verse has the only one that does that.

• Need to go to another room to finish watching a video-on-demand movie when your husband's poker buddies stop by? U-verse lets you pause the program and pick it up again on another TV set.

• Want to search the video-on-demand library easily, even by actor? U-verse offers that, and FiOS soon will.

• Need to have your computer and TV on the same network so you can listen to your music, see your home pictures and movies or watch video from the Internet on your TV? Try FiOS and, soon, U-verse.

To get those features and others, such as video on demand, you may need a high-end, multi-room digital video recorder. Verizon leases it for $20 a month, on top of the regular $43 pay TV fee. AT&T includes a DVR, along with two standard set-top boxes, in its package.

Forrester Research's McQuivey, for one, believes that all of the features amount to "very minor changes in customer experiences." But AT&T executives say that's not what customer focus groups are telling them.

"The customers are saying, 'You're providing us with features we didn't think about,' " said Lee Ann Champion, an AT&T senior executive vice president.

Time Warner Cable Inc., Southern California's dominant cable firm with 1.9 million customers, isn't waiting for the new competition to come its way.

One of its hottest new features is its free Start Over control, which lets customers coming home in the middle of a show hit one button to restart the program. Its Look Back function can recall programs that appeared in the previous 24 hours. Both are expected to be available this year.

There are no contracts to sign with Time Warner, as there are with the phone companies, and no activation or termination fees.

Its digital phone service, meanwhile, comes with multiple calling features and allows caller ID numbers to flash on the TV screen so customers can decide whether to take a call or let it go to voicemail.

Cable and phone companies are chasing the holy grail of convergence. They want to tie together all the devices — TV, personal computer, cellphone, laptop, wireless hand-held organizer — so customers can watch or listen to what they want, wherever they want, whenever they want and on whatever device they choose.

To do that, they need to get more customers buying digital programming and DVRs that interact with other set-top boxes in the house. Often, the companies say, customers ordering a basic bundle decide to pay more to upgrade one or more of the services, such as higher Internet speeds or a movie tier.

Many people like the convenience of having phone, TV and Internet access service from one provider and the charges on one bill — the so-called triple play. In many cases, discounts are available because each company wants all your business.

Ultimately, customers will decide which features take off and which companies thrive. And it may be price that dictates how market share is split up.

Charter Communications Inc., for instance, is enticing residents in its service area in Southern California — including Long Beach, Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena — by offering 38 basic TV channels, high-speed Internet and nationwide calling for $70 a month.

Subbing in basic extended TV, with more than 200 channels, bumps the cost to $100.

AT&T isn't putting its phone plans in the U-verse bundle yet. But those who buy a typical package of more than 200 channels and 3-megabit-per-second Internet connections would pay $79 a month, a $10 discount off the price of both sold separately.

The companies say they don't want to compete on price, but they recognize that with similar services, they have to do something to stand out.

"The winner is going to be who delivers the best value, makes it simple and gives the best customer service," said Joseph Ambeault of Verizon.

(INFOBOX)
Selling the bundle

Here are prices for typical bundles of phone, TV and Internet access,* as well as discounts off standalone prices:

Company Bundle Savings
AT&T U-verse $79** $10
Charter 100 61
Cox 127.53 10
Time Warner 115 15
Verizon FiOS 100-110 15-20

*Based on nationwide calling, basic extended TV (not including set-top box rental) and Internet speeds of 3 megabits per second (AT&T and Charter) to 15 Mbps (Verizon).

**AT&T phone service not included in the bundle.

james.granelli@latimes.com
Sources: The companies
http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-fi-uverse27may27,0,1572511.story?coll=cl-tv-features

AT&T Scraps Plan to Launch U-verse in Tennessee
6:30 am on May 28, 2007

America’s largest telephone company, AT&T Inc., is backing off an ambitious plan to roll out its U-verse television service throughout Tennessee and compete with traditional cable companies in over 70 cities across the state.

The telecom giant made its decision late last week after state lawmaker, Steve McDaniel, withdrew a piece of legislation that would have established statewide cable franchising throughout Tennessee, amid heavy opposition from local governments and franchising authorities.

AT&T says that the bill would have increased competition in the pay-TV sector, by presenting viewers with another option aside from cable and satellite providers.

Opponents of the legislation, however, claim that it would have allowed AT&T to cherry-pick high-income neighborhoods for the service, potentially widening the so called “digital divide” between rich and poor.

As more and more U.S. states adopt streamlined cable franchising processes, however, video regulation at a local level is looking like an inefficient obstacle to fair market competition, rather than a measure to protect underprivileged consumers.

Rep. McDaniel will consider reintroducing the statewide cable proposal sometime next year, but for the mean time, it looks like Tennessee customers will have to do without the U-verse service.

John Bright, a Nashville-based telecommunications analyst with the equity research firm, Avondale Partners, says that AT&T will likely focus its pay-TV efforts on the 13 states that have already established a statewide regulatory process, rather than navigating the tricky waters of local franchising in jurisdictions like Tennessee.

It seems to me as if a whole new “digital divide” is forming between states, and Tennessee just ended up on the wrong side…

http://www.teleclick.ca/2007/05/att-scraps-plan-to-launch-u-verse-in-tennessee/

Triple play not enough? Say hey to quad play
Telecoms adding cell service to TV, Internet, landlines
Ryan Kim, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, May 28, 2007

In the fast-moving telecom industry, it's apparently not enough for a company to offer television, broadband Internet and home phone service, the so-called triple play.

Today, AT&T, Comcast and others are going for the quad play, with the addition of cell phone service in their quest to win and retain customers.

For consumers, the quad play means they can buy all four services from one provider and pay for it on one bill, increasingly at a reduced price. But the companies say it's not only about the convenience and savings from one-stop shopping.

They see the new mega-bundles as a collection of services that will increasingly work together, giving you a new level of access and interaction with your entertainment and communications services. The cell phone will play a pivotal role as a portal to receive television or personal content from home, access home voice mail and e-mail, and program digital video recorders.

The move to the quad play is the latest escalation of a battle that's been building between phone and cable companies, who, because of deregulation, are allowed to compete on each other's traditional turf. The two industries have cranked up the competition recently, with cable entering the phone market while telecom companies have started to provide television services.

Both sides see the quad play as a way to hold onto customers, who are even more prized and valuable if they can be made to pay for four services.

Some critics, however, wonder how popular or necessary the bundled services will be for customers, given the hefty price and the premium that will be charged for individual pieces of the package.

Comcast introduced its first quad play late last year in Boston and Portland, Ore., when it began offering cell phone service through a joint venture with Sprint Nextel called Pivot. It came quickly on the heels of Comcast's home phone service, which was introduced in the Bay Area last year.

Comcast users can add wireless to their bill and get a discount on the entire package. The company plans to expand the Pivot service but hasn't released any details. Comcast's deal with Sprint is part of a larger $200 million venture Sprint started in 2005 with four cable companies including Time Warner, Cox and Advance/Newhouse.

AT&T has been working on a quad play since it entered into an agreement with Dish Network in 2004 to resell the satellite TV service. But with the introduction last year of its U-verse Internet television, a cable-like video service, and its acquisition of Cingular Wireless, the company is increasing its marketing efforts for quad-play packages.

U-verse is available in 20 markets in the United States, including parts of 26 Bay Area cities including San Ramon, Danville, Cupertino, San Jose and Saratoga. AT&T is not offering a discount for subscribing to its four services, although a discounted bundle should be available later this year for customers with access to U-verse, the company said. AT&T is, however, offering a $10 price cut for subscribers to both U-verse and DSL.

Analysts said customers will initially be drawn by the simplicity and value of ordering a set of services from one provider.

"That value proposition should not to be underestimated. That's what drove early broadband bundles in the early years," said Matt Davis, an analyst at
IDC.

AT&T customers, for example, can expect to pay about $135 a month for a bundle of unlimited home phone service, DSL, wireless phone and Dish Network satellite TV service. Comcast offers a similar package for $132 a month in its first two markets, although that price is good for only one year.

But quad-play providers said the real draw will be providing an integrated, seamless experience for users wherever they go with their cell phones.

"What we're doing is taking the triple play and taking that experience and integrating that with wireless," said Jennifer Khoury, senior director of corporate and consumer communications at Comcast. "We'll continue to make products that work better together because that's what's attractive to customers. It's a combination of value and features."

In its initial rollout, Comcast subscribers in Boston and Portland are getting a taste of that service. For instance, subscribers can use their cell phones to check voice mail from their landline phone at home.

They can also view a television program guide on their cell phone. Live television will be accessible on cell phones through Emeryville's MobiTV, which is incorporating local newscasts and content from Comcast-owned television channels like music video channel Havoc and G4, a video game station. The cell-phone television service, however, doesn't carry the same shows as the cable lineup at home.

The company plans to conduct tests later this year in which subscribers will be able to remotely program a digital video recorder from a cell phone.

AT&T is countering with remote DVR programming from a cell phone or PC. They're also betting on a "three screen" strategy that allows subscribers to get unique content through their television, PC and cell phone. Clips and highlights from last month's Masters golf tournament, for example, are available to AT&T users.

AT&T customers can also sign up for a plan that allows them to make free calls to any other AT&T phone, cellular or landline.

Ultimately, both cable and telecom companies plan to offer a greater degree of remote control for users, allowing them to watch their own recorded content or their live home TV content on their handsets.

"This is just the tip of the iceberg right now," said Frank Mona, executive director of marketing at AT&T. "We're only limited by our imagination. We're going to get to the point where you'll have complete control over customizing your experience."

Davis, the IDC analyst, said the quest for the quadruple play is a savvy move by companies, who see it as a way to cover all their bases and retain customers while wringing the most revenue from them.

In a study last year, IDC found that 41 percent of customers subscribed to a bundle of some sort. Sixty-six percent of the respondents said that once they bought a bundle they had no plans to switch providers, which suggests that the more customers buy, the less likely they are to go through the hassle and cost of switching.

"This has been the goal," Davis said of the quad play. "This is where the highest revenue per users is right now."

But getting all users to sign up for all four services could be a challenge. Some analysts say the triple play will probably be the favored bundle, with wireless replacing wireline as the preferred voice service.

IDC predicts only 7.8 million households will use a quad play in 2010, or 7 percent of the 116 million households in the United States. Triple plays, by comparison, are expected to account for 39 percent of households by 2010.

Charles Golvin, an analyst with Forrester Research, said his studies have found consumers drawn to bundles primarily for the savings they offer, rather than for simplicity or advanced integration of services. He said operators will find the going tough if they emphasize integration instead of delivering noticeable discounts for bundled service.

"People don't have much frustration right now saying 'I really need to be able to tell my DVR to record something,' " Golvin said. "It's a nice feature, and this is the long-term direction they have to go to differentiate themselves, but this is largely a supply thing. Consumers are not asking for these capabilities."

Critics like Bill Nusbaum, a telecom attorney with The Utility Reform Network in San Francisco, said quad plays might lead to confusion for some customers, who have to wade through a number of services that they may or may not need. He said operators might have less incentive to sell low-priced individual services or even advertise them to customers looking to buy a la carte.

"There are plenty of potential downsides, because the transaction itself becomes much more complex and expensive," Nusbaum said.

AT&T's Mona said customers are more than welcome to pick and choose what they want without being forced into a bundle. But he expects many customers to be drawn to the larger packages.

Kevin Packingham, vice president of product and marketing for Sprint, agrees, saying consumers just need to be introduced to the benefits of a quad play to start understanding its overall appeal.
CHART:

FIRST LOOK AT THE QUAD

What AT&T and Comcast are offering in some areas of the country.

Provider: AT&T {+a}

Quad play cost: $135/month

Home phone: $40 for unlimited local and long distance

Broadband: $20 for DSL 1.5 Mbps

Video: $35 for Dish Network's top 100 channels

Wireless: $40 for 450 anytime minutes

Integration benefits: Remote programming of home DVR

Provider: Comcast/Sprint {+b}

Quad play cost: $132/ month{+c}

Home phone: $33 for unlimited local and long distance

Broadband: $33 for cable 6 Mbps

Video: $33 for more than 100 channels

Wireless: $33 for 200 anytime minutes

Integration benefits: Access home television guide on cell phone.

(+a) AT&T is offering its quad play with Dish Network throughout its coverage area and U-verse in selected cities in the East Bay and South Bay. Cost of the quad using U-verse can run a few dollars more.

(+b) Comcast is offering its quad play only in Boston and Portland ,Ore. c Promotional one-year price. Reverts to $132.89 after one year without wireless.

{+c} Promotional one-year price. Reverts to $132.89 after one year without wireless.

E-mail Ryan Kim at rkim@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/28/BUG0LQ1F1I1.DTL

This article appeared on page C - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Any news about Cleveland,OH or just Ohio?

AT&T Introduces U-verse in San Diego (http://sev.prnewswire.com/computer-electronics/20070603/AQM05504062007-1.html)

I just moved into a new place in Dublin, California. Initially was scheduled for Comcast to come out last Friday to set me up with cable TV & internet. When setting up for phone service, AT&T said that U-Verse was just rolled out in our area. I cancelled the Comcast appointment and decided to be U-Verse guinea pig. We’ll see Wednesday how it turns out, as I’ll be one of the first customers in the area with the service. According to the AT&T rep, it’ll take about 8 hours. I hope that’s a HUGE overestimate.

I just moved into a new place in Dublin, California. Initially was scheduled for Comcast to come out last Friday to set me up with cable TV & internet. When setting up for phone service, AT&T said that U-Verse was just rolled out in our area. I cancelled the Comcast appointment and decided to be U-Verse guinea pig. We’ll see Wednesday how it turns out, as I’ll be one of the first customers in the area with the service. According to the AT&T rep, it’ll take about 8 hours. I hope that’s a HUGE overestimate.
You might want to check-out UverseUsers.com. Good luck.

According to the AT&T rep, it’ll take about 8 hours. I hope that’s a HUGE overestimate.Mine took close to 12 hours to complete and I only had service installed in two rooms.

I have since canceled the service due to its issues, UVERSE was nice but its not ready for primetime yet. (Especially when its primetime and you go to sit and watch TV and get a message "Television Vieiwing is currently unavailable, please try again later.")

AT&T Introduces U-verse in San Diego (http://sev.prnewswire.com/computer-electronics/20070603/AQM05504062007-1.html)

Will it sell in San Diego? The make or break point on this for many people will be the answer to the question: Do you or will you carry 4SD so we can watch the Padres, especially in HD?

If the answer from AT&T is "no" or "maybe in the near future", there won't be as many takers as they thought they would have.

Will it sell in San Diego? The make or break point on this for many people will be the answer to the question: Do you or will you carry 4SD so we can watch the Padres, especially in HD?

If the answer from AT&T is "no" or "maybe in the near future", there won't be as many takers as they thought they would have.

The deal breaker for me is that they currently cannot record two HD channels simultaneously. Also, I've heard from others that the SD quality is better than cable, but the HD quality is inferior.

Can anyone comment on this?

James

The deal breaker for me is that they currently cannot record two HD channels simultaneously. Also, I've heard from others that the SD quality is better than cable, but the HD quality is inferior.

Can anyone comment on this?

James
Just read over on the UverseUsers.com forum a post stating the end of this year or next year before multiple HD streams will be offered. With only one DVR per installation and the Whole Home DVR well down the road they are really not ready for prime time IMHO.

Mine took close to 12 hours to complete and I only had service installed in two rooms.

I have since canceled the service due to its issues, UVERSE was nice but its not ready for primetime yet. (Especially when its primetime and you go to sit and watch TV and get a message "Television Vieiwing is currently unavailable, please try again later.")


12 Hours OUCH! I'll only need cable in the living room but prefer the internet hub in one of the bedrooms. What device did you need for tv viewing and what device for internet, or is it from the same unit?

The deal breaker for me is that they currently cannot record two HD channels simultaneously. Also, I've heard from others that the SD quality is better than cable, but the HD quality is inferior.

Can anyone comment on this?

James
This is true. The SD PQ is very good. However the HD quality is VERY poor, this matched with the fact that you can only watch 1 HD channel in your house at a time is a major issue.

And the fact that multipule HD streams has now been delayed (again) until sometime in 2008 is going to really hurt UVERSE.

UVERSE is going to be cool when its working, but I don't see them being viable for at least another year or so, it has too many bugs and service issues.

Take a look at UVERSEUSERS.COM and look at the comments. Lots of big issues they need to overcome.

12 Hours OUCH! I'll only need cable in the living room but prefer the internet hub in one of the bedrooms. What device did you need for tv viewing and what device for internet, or is it from the same unit? They hook a coax from your phone box (NID) to your house where it is hooked to a 2WIRE gateway (RG). From here you get a settop box which is hooked to the 2wire gateway via ethernet. The gateway also has the wireless internet built in.

This is true. The SD PQ is very good. However the HD quality is VERY poor, this matched with the fact that you can only watch 1 HD channel in your house at a time is a major issue.

And the fact that multipule HD streams has now been delayed (again) until sometime in 2008 is going to really hurt UVERSE.

UVERSE is going to be cool when its working, but I don't see them being viable for at least another year or so, it has too many bugs and service issues.

Take a look at UVERSEUSERS.COM and look at the comments. Lots of big issues they need to overcome.
They seem to be a little bit peeved at you over at UverseUsers.com. Makes you wonder how many of their forum participants are AT&T employees. I have no ax to grind concerning the service because it is one of the few available where I live. In fact I hope they get a lot of the glitches worked out in the next 2 or 3 months so I can consider it when my D* commitment runs out.

Just got hooked up today with U-Verse. The total install of hardware took a mere 45-60 mins. Within the 45 min mark, the 2 wire hub was setup in my distribution box and internet was available. The BIG delay which extended it to a 6 hour install was getting their system to recognize the iptv Motorola box/dvr as an authorized unit.

The tech had to power cycle the Moto box numerous times in approximately 20-30 min intervals to re-test if the iptv would work. In between the cycles, he was communicating to tech support and they were trouble shooting on their end as well.

The unfortunate thing is that the techs had to escalade the problem to upper management so that things could be processed quicker on the tech support side. He explained that the TV portion of U-Verse was where most of the delays from others were coming from and that tech support had initially closed the door on all similar inquiries from the install crew until they could find out what the exact problem was.

Luckily I was busy painting so the 6 hours wasn't too bad.


Some things I noticed:
-The Moto box software was Windows based. It did have a gemstar channel guide type feel. My most current cable dvr is the SONY DHG-HDD250 which has a gemstar based guide. The U-verse guide had ALOT of similarities, but was a lot quicker to change channels, was more aesthetically pleasing, and easier to operate.
-SD channels looked good, the HD channels from Fox, ABC, CBS didn't POP like over-the-air HD, but HD Foodnetwork and other HD channels did. Possibly due to the content. I'll have to view some shows that I normally watch to be certain.
-When you use the channel guide, you can see a scaled down version of the content of the highlighted channel while the original channel still plays in the background.
-Connection to the 2Wire box can be distributed via coax or cat5. 2 phone jack ports behind the 2 wire box are covered but will be available for future use.
-Trying to contact a customer service rep on the phone took a lot of patience. Hold times were at least 5 mins.

They seem to be a little bit peeved at you over at UverseUsers.com. Makes you wonder how many of their forum participants are AT&T employees. I have no ax to grind concerning the service because it is one of the few available where I live. In fact I hope they get a lot of the glitches worked out in the next 2 or 3 months so I can consider it when my D* commitment runs out.
They are mad at me, because I am describing the service as it really is, NOT READY FOR PRIMETIME.

They are rushing to get thise service to as many as possible instead of fixing the issues it has first, what this is going to mean is constant upgrades and always trying to play catch up.

UVERSE is a great idea, however at this point in time it needs some work before it will be a viable solution to cable or satellite.

It's gotta drive the ATT people nuts that there's a high school kid on that forum that knows more about the system than their own techs and supervisors. :D

Yeah I know, whats funny is he don't even have the service yet, he was saying last week he was trying to order the service but AT&T's computers were down.

Quite honestly if AT&T worked I would consider getting rid of satellite completely. That would make my house look so much better getting rid of all the Dishes. (My neighbor who works at ESPN says my house looks like his work) :)

First time roll outs of anything are going to have problems and/or lack things that people want. At&t did look at what the competition is doing and is creating something similar but distinguised. You can't invest money on what the company THINKS people want or need. Just look at the PS3. Ooops! Did I say that? No worries, I have one and do not regret the purchase.

They are mad at me, because I am describing the service as it really is, NOT READY FOR PRIMETIME.

They are rushing to get thise service to as many as possible instead of fixing the issues it has first, what this is going to mean is constant upgrades and always trying to play catch up.

UVERSE is a great idea, however at this point in time it needs some work before it will be a viable solution to cable or satellite.

Actually Scott, no one is mad at you, but you do put u-verse in the wrong light. It may not be a mature product like cable, but it is not beta either. THe service works without frequent service calls that I had to endure with TW. They simply refused to fix problems that existed on our node and lost customers because of this.

U-verse currently has more than enough features and stability to move forward with a national rollout. I will agree the HD needs work, but currently HD is no reason to stop a national rollout as more than 70% of population still does not have a single HD tv. Free HD for a year is a good plan to move forward with what they have.

You look at u-verse from from a high end point of view, but you forget that there are only an average of 2.5 tvs per household and that it will take the next decade or so to replace every tv with HD. The truth is scott, you dont know what the average consumer is looking for and this is why your view on u-verse is far to negative.

Uverse is not a viable product for HDTV at this time. If all you have are SDTV's then you'll probably like it. But if you are like Scott and myself who have multiple HDTV's and are used to recording two HD shows at once, then Uverse is a waste of time and money. That's not being negative, that's being realistic for what we want from our TV service provider, and Uverse can't deliver that at this time.

Nationwide, about HALF of all cable customers are still Analog-Only,
and only about 20 percent of TV Households (TVHH) have HDTVs:
http://www.srgnet.com/pdf/February%2007%20TV-PC%20Metrics%20Summary%20(SRG).pdf

And if we believe several surveys, half of all HDTV's aren't hooked to an HD source:
http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/hd-service-fewer-hdtv/

So there are plenty of budget and HD-Entry customers looking for a cost effective 4-Play package....
When they are all new to watching HD, it's hard to quibble re Dual HD Tuner capability....

And if we believe several surveys, half of all HDTV's aren't hooked to an HD source....I believe.

Uverse is not a viable product for HDTV at this time. If all you have are SDTV's then you'll probably like it. But if you are like Scott and myself who have multiple HDTV's and are used to recording two HD shows at once, then Uverse is a waste of time and money. That's not being negative, that's being realistic for what we want from our TV service provider, and Uverse can't deliver that at this time.


That is a very reasonable opinion to have and one that I have stated several times in this thread. Scott on the other hand thinks they service is not worth anything to anybody because it does not satisfy his needs.

ANd I would say it is very likely that we will see 2-3 HD streams by the end of year making this all irrelevant.

And if we believe several surveys, half of all HDTV's aren't hooked to an HD source:
http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/hd-service-fewer-hdtv/

There's no doubt about that.

In fact, just 2 weekends ago I stopped by my Grandparents house to take a look at their plasma that was hooked up to a non-hd source. I told them all they needed from Comcast was a new HD-DVR/Tuner box and they'd have HD channels with that TV (720p). They point me to a HD-DVR/Tuner box that Comcast had delivered to another room in the house a few months earlier, but it was set up on an old CRT TV. I asked why the guy didn't put that one in the bedroom with the plasma and put the SD tuner box in the living room where the CRT tv is. I assumed maybe he didn't realize there was a plasma in the bedroom, but she tells me that the installer said "they couldn't hook up the DVR in that room."

I explained to them that they could've had HDTV for the past 6 months but the box was in the wrong room. It took me about 5 minutes to unhook the HD-DVR and put it in the bedroom and they were up and running. They NEVER would've known otherwise.

Brandon

That is a very reasonable opinion to have and one that I have stated several times in this thread. Scott on the other hand thinks they service is not worth anything to anybody because it does not satisfy his needs.

ANd I would say it is very likely that we will see 2-3 HD streams by the end of year making this all irrelevant.

You can download content off of 4 different channels at one time though, with a maximum of one being HD. No complaints yet as there are no HD shows that I need to watch that overlap .

NBA finals in HD wasn't bad. It still wasn't as good as over the air HD content though.

On another note, is the coax connection from the 2Wire box output or input? If output, I wonder what would happen if I plugged in my Sony DHG-HDD250 DVR to it. I guess there's only one way to find out.

ANd I would say it is very likely that we will see 2-3 HD streams by the end of year making this all irrelevant.

I thought all of the recent talk has been that additional HD streams won't be available until 2008.

ANd I would say it is very likely that we will see 2-3 HD streams by the end of year making this all irrelevant. yes the Senior VP just recently said that additional HD streams will not be available now until sometime in 2008.

You look at u-verse from from a high end point of view, but you forget that there are only an average of 2.5 tvs per household and that it will take the next decade or so to replace every tv with HD. The truth is scott, you dont know what the average consumer is looking for and this is why your view on u-verse is far to negative. When one of the main things they are advertising about UVERSE is all the HD they have an how you can get a free year of HD, then alerting folks about UVERSE's HD problees is something we all should be doing.

I know a few installers and they say about 90% of their installs have at least 1 HDTV. In fact they say most of the houses they install at have more then 1 HDTV.

And their HD problems are just one of many issues with UVERSE, what about when you sit down and there is a scrolling message on your TV saying "Video Service is temporarly unavailable, please try again later"

Or what about their VOD service? Why do most VOD channel have only 2 or 3 shows listed?

Again I will say UVERSE is not ready for primetime, i wouldn't even say it was in BETA state yet, far too many bugs, so I will say its in a Alpha state.

While I no longer have UVERSE installed in my house, I still have access to UVERSE via a Slingbox, so I can keep an eye on things.

I truely believe that IPTV IS THE FUTURE OF TELEVISION, but what AT&T is putting out now may turn a lot of people off on IPTV. Go take a look at UverseUsers.COM and see how many people are canceling their service because of these issues.

yes the Senior VP just recently said that additional HD streams will not be available now until sometime in 2008.

Actually if had listened to the webcast, which obviously you did not, 2HD will be coming in the back end of this year or early 2008, with more HD streams becoming available later in 08.

When one of the main things they are advertising about UVERSE is all the HD they have an how you can get a free year of HD, then alerting folks about UVERSE's HD problees is something we all should be doing.


The HD, while it does need some work, is not nearly as bad as you make it to be. Watched a bit of spurs game last night, nice picture. They fixed whatever problem they had during march madness.


I know a few installers and they say about 90% of their installs have at least 1 HDTV. In fact they say most of the houses they install at have more then 1 HDTV.


Call me skeptical of this anecdotal number. I have little doubt it is above average as they are hitting affluent areas first, I have a hard time buying 90%.


And their HD problems are just one of many issues with UVERSE, what about when you sit down and there is a scrolling message on your TV saying "Video Service is temporarly unavailable, please try again later"


In the year i have had u-verse I have yet to see such an error.



Or what about their VOD service? Why do most VOD channel have only 2 or 3 shows listed?


right now there are about 160 pay movies in VOD, stars and encore have about 40 movies each, various channels have a reasonable amount content online as well. Showtime still has little content on VOD, but the problem is not really a bigissue. My guess is there easily somewhere between 500-700 hours of VOD content, not exactly 2 or 3 shows....


Again I will say UVERSE is not ready for primetime, i wouldn't even say it was in BETA state yet, far too many bugs, so I will say its in a Alpha state.


Sure scott. Not sure what your agenda is, but for the past year I have had very few problems with the service. IF it was alpha,, they system would be consistently unreliable. If it was beta it would still have significant problems, but that is just not the case. Sure the dvr is not tivo, but it works. The menu has some performance issues but it will no doubt be resolved.



While I no longer have UVERSE installed in my house, I still have access to UVERSE via a Slingbox, so I can keep an eye on things.



Then you should know there is more VOD content and that it is reliable.


I truely believe that IPTV IS THE FUTURE OF TELEVISION, but what AT&T is putting out now may turn a lot of people off on IPTV. Go take a look at UverseUsers.COM and see how many people are canceling their service because of these issues.

A few have. But given the userbase is growing(>30k and probably nearing 40k) and the install rate is growing(more than 3k week now), it appears there are far more satisfied customers than unsatisfied.

Actually if had listened to the webcast, which obviously you did not, 2HD will be coming in the back end of this year or early 2008, with more HD streams becoming available later in 08.

Early 2008 is sometime in 2008 isn't it? Stop being an apologist for a poor HD service.

Early 2008 is sometime in 2008 isn't it? Stop being an apologist for a poor HD service.

But the back end of this year is not. I guess it is just too much for some people to be honest about the situation. Maybe two streams shows up in 2008, but there is very reasonable chance it will show up earlier. We will see what happens.

But the back end of this year is not. I guess it is just too much for some people to be honest about the situation. Maybe two streams shows up in 2008, but there is very reasonable chance it will show up earlier. We will see what happens.

I am very honest about the situation. I have already looked at Uverse and have determined it is not a viable service for me. I need multiple HD streams and my RSN's in HD. They have neither so I am staying with Cablevision. Maybe in 2 or 3 years things will change, but right now it's not an option for me. Just because it meets your needs doesn't mean it meets everyone elses.

The deal breaker for me is that they currently cannot record two HD channels simultaneously. Also, I've heard from others that the SD quality is better than cable, but the HD quality is inferior.

Can anyone comment on this?

James

My experience after a week of having this is that the HD quality is indeed inferior, and the SD quality is better than cable. I would prefer it to be the other way around, but oh well. I'll also add that the DVR interface is very cumbersome and full of unneeded hoops you have to jump through to be able to either execute a command, or get to a part of the menu you want to browse to. As this is being rolled out in Michigan, I've heard two types of people who are interested in this.

1 - People who hate Comcast (a virtual monopoly in my part of Michigan)
2 - People who have HDTVs and want more HD channels.

I am willing to keep u-verse for the time being, but I'm another person who wishes they'd have focused way more on making sure their HD broadcasts looked at least as good as Cable and OTA. Has anyone seen HD from Europe? I understand that they skipped MPEG-2 altogether and went straight to MPEG-4 (h264) in the U.K. and what I've seen is very impressive, almost as good as the 1080p Quicktime HDTV Movie Trailers . . .

Today AT&T Hit the Brakes on UVERSE

AT&T Held an Investor Relations Webcast and they announced some rather disapointing news for the immediate future of its new UVERSE service.

Many of its planed features have now be pushed off to the 2nd 3rd and 4th quarter of 2008. This includes:

The Ability for TWO HD Steams in a house
The Whole Home DVR
Caller ID on the TV screen
As well as other prviouslly announced (and promised) features.

To me this is really bad news for UVERSE, as it really does have so much promise yet AT&T is not rolling it out correctly, and instead they building an obsoluite network which is going to constantly need to be upgraded to match the offerings of its competitors.

For more information on todays webcast I invote you to check out http://www.uverseusers.com/content/view/138/1/

Whoa...not looking good...I'll bet in another 6-9 mos we'll see AT&T re-thinking this present technology and start looking hard at the Verizon FIOS method.

BTW, how freaking hard is it to get Caller-ID on screen..? I'm pretty sure I have a 7yr old Samsung D* HD STB that can do that.

Very disappointing. Guess I will stick with D* since it is one of my few options at my present locale.

Whoa...not looking good...I'll bet in another 6-9 mos we'll see AT&T re-thinking this present technology and start looking hard at the Verizon FIOS method.This is exactly what I have been saying.

I honestly believe that IPTV is the future of television, but the way AT&T is doing is not even good enough to handle the TV needs of today much less the future.

They should be building for the future, not keep upgrading to meet the present.

This is exactly what I have been saying.

I honestly believe that IPTV is the future of television, but the way AT&T is doing is not even good enough to handle the TV needs of today much less the future.

They should be building for the future, not keep upgrading to meet the present.
I agree, and the thing I don't understand is why they didn't go with FTTH in the first place, it's not like they don't have the capital to do it, these telcos are massively huge companies with the ability to do and/or build pretty much anything they want. It seems as if somebody got sold a bill of goods, so to speak, and this whole thing will be scrapped and they'll come out with a viable, more future proof system.

I agree, and the thing I don't understand is why they didn't go with FTTH in the first place, it's not like they don't have the capital to do it, these telcos are massively huge companies with the ability to do and/or build pretty much anything they want. It seems as if somebody got sold a bill of goods, so to speak, and this whole thing will be scrapped and they'll come out with a viable, more future proof system.

AT&T has less avaliable capital than one would think as they are not that far removed from coughing up 56 Billion in acquisitions the last few years (40B for Cingular to buy up AT&T Wireless, and 16B for SBC to buy what was left of Ma Bell-AT&T). Yes somebody sold Ed Whitacre & Co a bill of goods, they showed them the differences in timeline and capital expenditures betwen FTTN and FTTH and you can guess which became the easier sell to the shareholders.

Just think they will need to redo most of it when they do pair bonding in late 2008 Early 2009.

AT&T has less avaliable capital than one would think as they are not that far removed from coughing up 56 Billion in acquisitions the last few years (40B for Cingular to buy up AT&T Wireless, and 16B for SBC to buy what was left of Ma Bell-AT&T). Yes somebody sold Ed Whitacre & Co a bill of goods, they showed them the differences in timeline and capital expenditures betwen FTTN and FTTH and you can guess which became the easier sell to the shareholders.
SBC's part of the ATTWS purchase was cash, as was BLS's part, although they had to sell off their wireless properties in central and south america to come up with it.

For some reason, I thought AT&T was bought mostly with stock, but I have no idea how they did the BLS merger.

I do recall that they both had several billion on hand after buying ATTWS. I was shocked at how small a dent it put in their financial statements. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the BLS deal paid for itself out of their cash on hand and other short term investments. If there's one thing that Ed Whitacre knew how to do, it was buy companies without risking the existing empire. That said, they must have assumed a crap ton of debt with all the purchases, but they're not in a bad business. Buying AT&T saves them a bundle on transit fees for their ISP operations and termination for their voice operations. With BellSouth in the fold, those costs will only be decreasing further.

SBC was incredibly short sighted with their choice to go FTTN. You can get better than BPON speeds to the home with VDSL, but only if the VRAD is within a thousand to 1500 feet of the home, which most will not be. Additionally, pair bonding is a farce. It increases crosstalk enough that it degrades the performance of the existing lines, making the gain from using two pairs much lower than one would think. You would think they would have learned something from their DSL operations in high density areas, but apparently not.

Today AT&T Hit the Brakes on UVERSE

AT&T Held an Investor Relations Webcast and they announced some rather disapointing news for the immediate future of its new UVERSE service.

Many of its planed features have now be pushed off to the 2nd 3rd and 4th quarter of 2008. This includes:

The Ability for TWO HD Steams in a house
The Whole Home DVR
Caller ID on the TV screen
As well as other prviouslly announced (and promised) features.

To me this is really bad news for UVERSE, as it really does have so much promise yet AT&T is not rolling it out correctly, and instead they building an obsoluite network which is going to constantly need to be upgraded to match the offerings of its competitors.

For more information on todays webcast I invote you to check out http://www.uverseusers.com/content/view/138/1/
Wow! Another reason why I love this forum. Great info, thanks. So much for me considering trying out U-verse any time soon.

I'd recommend trying it out, especially if you already have Cat5 prewired through out the household. 2 months free of the U400 plan which gives you the majority of their channel lineup, then you can stop the trial with nothing to lose... Except for the 6 hours it usually takes for the install time.

Mine was 10 hours. :)

Mine was 10 hours. :)

How long ago did you have the service installed?

AT&T Selects Vendors for U-verse G-PON Fiber Deployment in New Residential Construction Areas

New-Generation Gigabit Passive Optical Network (G-PON) Equipment from Alcatel-Lucent, Ericsson Will Be Used in "New Build" Neighborhoods across AT&T's Local Telecommunications Footprint

San Antonio, Texas, June 15, 2007

AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) today announced that Alcatel-Lucent (Euronext Paris and NYSE:ALU) and Ericsson (NASDAQ:ERIC) have been selected to provide equipment for the planned deployment of Gigabit Passive Optical Network (G-PON) in "new build" areas of AT&T affiliates' local service territories as part of the overall U-verseSM network strategy. Financial terms of the awards were not disclosed.

G-PON is the newest standard for fiber-to-the-home technology, with capacity to deliver greater speeds than current-generation Broadband Passive Optical Network (B-PON) technology.

With its U-verse strategy, AT&T is deploying fiber-to-the-home technology, including PON, in new-build residential areas throughout the local telecommunications service territories and will deploy a fiber-to-the-node network infrastructure in existing neighborhoods. Both of these network infrastructures enable delivery of the U-verse portfolio of IP-based services.

AT&T U-verse offers customers a combination of next-generation digital television — including access to more than 25 High Definition (HD) channels — and high-speed Internet access. The award-winning AT&T U-verse TV includes cutting-edge features that are unmatched in the market, while the new U-verse enabled AT&T Yahoo!® High Speed Internet builds on AT&T's position as the nation's leading provider of broadband DSL.

The Alcatel-Lucent and Ericsson G-PON solutions consist of several passive-optical-network-based elements, including equipment for the central office and home terminals. Both suppliers will soon begin lab testing and certification by AT&T Labs prior to field testing, which will include configurations for general deployment in single-family residences, apartment and condominium complexes. Pending successful resolution of testing and certification, general deployment of G-PON is expected to begin in 2008.

http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=23962

Hopefully this new software will be less buggy than the previous version... ;)

Microsoft spiffing up Internet TV software with Mediaroom
By TODD BISHOP
P-I [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] REPORTER

Microsoft Corp. is releasing a new version of its Internet Protocol Television software Monday and giving the product a new name: Microsoft Mediaroom.

It's the latest step for the company in the IPTV market, in which traditional telephone lines deliver high-quality television signals to the home. Microsoft says telecom companies and others that use its IPTV software will be able to tout Microsoft Mediaroom as an "ingredient brand," similar to the way computer makers cite "Intel Inside" for their machines.

The product used to be known as "Microsoft TV: IPTV Edition."

That didn't exactly roll off the tongue, acknowledged Ed Graczyk, Microsoft TV marketing director, explaining that it wasn't meant as a consumer brand. The companies that use Microsoft's IPTV software generally apply their own brands to the service. Examples include AT&T's U-Verse, which is in 21 U.S. markets.

New features in Mediaroom include the ability to use a home network to access, on a TV screen, photos and music stored on computers in the home. Another new feature will let IPTV service providers offer Web-based content via the television.

Microsoft has been putting more focus on IPTV and less on its software for cable providers, Microsoft TV Foundation Edition. Comcast had been the only company using Microsoft's cable software in the U.S., and only in the Seattle market. But last month the cable company announced plans to switch to the GuideWorks software and on-screen program guide it uses elsewhere.

By contrast, Microsoft says 18 service providers have signed up for its IPTV technology, and 10 of them have deployed it commercially. The version of the IPTV software to be released Monday is Microsoft's third. The first was released in fall 2005.

Much of the momentum in the IPTV market has come from telecom companies seeking to expand offerings to compete with traditional cable TV providers. IPTV works by sending out only the channels a viewer wants to receive at any moment, requiring less bandwidth.

Research firm Gartner has predicted that subscriptions to IPTV will rise to 50 million in 2010, from 3 million in 2005.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/320197_msfttv18.html

AND: A thread about the new Mediaroom software is up in the Reception Hardware forum:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=863090

How long ago did you have the service installed?
January

AT&T's new chief dialed in
Clearing some regulatory static in Illinois, telephone giant intends to bring in video

Published June 24, 2007

Following a long tradition, AT&T Inc.'s new chief executive has worked for the phone company all his life, starting when he was in college. But that won't keep Randall Stephenson from trying to take the Ma Bell he grew up with in a new direction.

Speaking at the industry's big trade show in Chicago last week, Stephenson vowed that wireless service will become the core of the new AT&T's operations. While the company doesn't intend to abandon its wired tradition, it will embark upon a radically different approach to the business.

"Your wireless phone is your first, most personal decision," said Stephenson. "It's something you carry with you."

Other decisions such as whether to have a wired phone, getting an Internet connection and ordering video are all secondary to the wireless decision, Stephenson said, and the company that wins a wireless customer stands a good chance of winning on the other fronts.

And it's not just young people who embrace cell phones, said Stephenson.

"If you move to another city you'll probably take your mobile phone with you," he said. "If we're your mobile company you're more likely to get other services from us than someone else."

That's a revelation from someone who has spent more than two decades in the phone business.

While he was in graduate school at Oklahoma University in Norman in 1982, Stephenson moonlighted as a self-described "tape monkey" for Southwestern Bell, handling the big reels of tape that ran on the old mainframe computers to process customer records. After getting his master of accountancy degree Stephenson joined Southwestern Bell's headquarters, then in St. Louis.

Stephenson's career path mirrors those of other top telecom executives. Edward Whitacre, the man he replaced at AT&T this month, once climbed telephone poles; Richard Notebaert, who once headed Ameritech Corp. and who will retire soon as chief of Qwest Communications International Inc., washed Wisconsin Bell trucks while in college.

Stephenson, 47, inherits a phone company that Whitacre built into the nation's largest by acquiring a string of other Bell companies, including Ameritech in 2000. The collection was renamed AT&T, which was the name of the monopoly that spawned the Bells in 1984 when it was broken apart.

While Stephenson doesn't rule out further acquisitions, he acknowledged that his main task now is to integrate the components of the new AT&T.

"Within three years dealing with AT&T should be a single experience for the customer," said Stephenson, who added that retail stores that once sold only Cingular cell phones will be refitted to sell AT&T's array of broadband, video and voice services.

The networks, both wired and wireless, will be integrated with an Internet protocol platform to enable content to move seamlessly from one to another.

"AT&T will present one face to the customer," he said.

It is an attractive notion, but Stephenson's road to the future is far from smooth. Comcast and other cable TV operators are winning wired phone customers away from AT&T, while its own efforts to provide competitive video have been slow getting started.

Many cost savings related to the acquisitions that AT&T anticipates may be illusory, said Dave Novosel, a senior analyst at Gimme Credit.

"For the most part their integration has gone well," Novosel said, "but it gets tougher going forward. The biggest hurdle is integrating acquisitions effectively."

Stephenson's elevation may be well-timed to meet this challenge: the dealmaker steps aside for the numbers man.

"Randall was groomed for this job -- was integral to all Whitacre's decisions -- and he's the perfect guy for it," said Rick Franklin, an Edward Jones analyst in St. Louis. "Mergers are sexy. Running a business is gritty, but I think he's got the background to make it work."

Stephenson's biggest challenge in guiding AT&T's consumer business may be in delivering video to homes. With cable companies stealing their basic voice customers, phone companies feel compelled to respond by offering video, but AT&T has taken a path that is different from its peer, Verizon Communications Inc.

While Verizon has chosen to upgrade its network with optical fiber running all the way to the customer's home, AT&T is going with a system that uses more fiber but still connects to the home over traditional copper wires. That is less expensive but it delivers less bandwidth.

"If your customer has more than two TV sets running high-definition, AT&T will come up short," said Imran Shah, managing director of the Interactive Broadband Consulting Group based in Princeton, N.J.

AT&T also chose to deliver its video over a new platform called Internet Protocol TV supplied by Microsoft, Shah noted, instead of using the proven technology used by cable operators, which is what Verizon selected.

"IPTV is new and untested, so the delays AT&T has had in delivering video aren't surprising," said Shah.

Stephenson is familiar with this view, but he said that he believes more than ever that AT&T's decision was right. With the superior performance of IPTV, which seems finally to be scaling up, a network doesn't need to have as much bandwidth as has been the case with older delivery platforms, he said.

"IP changes everything," Stephenson said.

AT&T is in 21 markets with its U-Verse video service now and is installing 600 new customers daily, Stephenson said, and it is headed toward bringing 10,000 video customers a week to U-Verse.

No Illinois customers are yet offered U-Verse, but Stephenson said that will soon change now that state lawmakers have approved a measure to bypass the necessity of getting individual agreements from each municipality before AT&T could offer video services.

jvan@tribune.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-sun_front_0624jun24,0,3337832.story?track=rss

Cleveland
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=23998

"AT&T U-verse services are initially available in parts of the Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor metropolitan statistical area (MSA), including Bay Village, Berea, Broadview Heights, Brooklyn, Euclid, Fairview Park, Lakewood, Lyndhurst, Mayfield Heights, Mentor, North Royalton, Orange, Solon, South Euclid, Warrensville Heights, Westlake, Willoughby Hills and Willowick. AT&T will continue to increase availability throughout the area on an ongoing basis."


Akron
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=23997

"AT&T U-verse services are initially available in parts of the Akron metropolitan statistical area (MSA), including Cuyahoga Falls, Fairlawn, Kent,
Munroe Falls, Silver Lake, and Stow. AT&T will continue to increase availability throughout the area on an ongoing basis. "

June 26, 2007, 12:38AM

By DWIGHT SILVERMAN
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

PEOPLE love to hate the cable company. For years, cable TV had monopoly status in most cities, and customers hate it when they feel they are at the mercy of one business supplying what they need.

With the rise of alternatives such as satellite TV in the 1990s, the feeling of being shackled to cable began to wane. And now there's a new wave of technology bringing TV into your home, once again from an institution consumers historically loathe:

The phone company.

As Time Warner Cable completes its transition to Comcast in Houston, AT&T has begun to roll out a TV service called U-verse. It comes into your home via the phone network, using the same technologies that bring you high-speed Internet. It's television over Internet Protocol, or IPTV. It uses DSL, but on steroids — around 100 megabits per second, compared with the 1.5 Mbps associated with most consumer-level DSL.

Locations a mystery
U-verse has been available in various AT&T markets for about a year, but because it's new, it's still not everywhere in any given city. AT&T won't say where exactly it's offered in Houston, but you can put your phone number into a form at uverse.att.com to find out.

This is part of a larger trend in which communications and entertainment companies are getting into each other's businesses, often using the Internet as a delivery mechanism. Comcast now sells a phone service, for example, in which conversations are transmitted across the Net.

The video dispatched through U-verse doesn't traverse the public Internet, but rather a closed network created by AT&T. But the content it offers arrives just the same way, as packets of information moving from server computers to a set-top box in your home that's essentially a computer with a hard drive. The box is a Digital Video Recorder, or DVR, that spools out video live, or later if you've saved it to watch.

Many HDTV channels
I've been trying U-verse for about a month. While AT&T touts it for the number of high-definition channels it offers, I'm like the majority of TV watchers who not only don't have a high-definition television, but also still use picture-tube-style analog sets. Because I didn't want to give up my Comcast cable during the test period, I only connected U-verse to the 32-inch TV in our living room.

But the company's packages will let you connect up to three TVs — more if you are willing to pay extra. The DVR connects to one TV, and the others can pull stored shows off it.

I tested the U400 service option, which comes with more than 300 non-HD channels and starts at $99 a month. Adding HD is an additional $10.

AT&T has bundled deals that combine U-verse and Internet access, but don't start drooling at the notion of 100-Mbps Web surfing. The Internet access packaged with U-verse is basically the same as AT&T's standard package, though upload speeds are greater in some cases.

The aspect that most impressed me as a TV watcher was the picture quality. My Toshiba television has never had a picture that good. In fact, I've never seen a picture that good on any tube TV, even one using digital cable.

Recording limitation
I also like the fact that the DVR can record up to four non-HD channels at one time. But HD fans should know it can only record one HD channel at a time, and only one HD channel can be watched in your home at a time. High-definition gobbles bandwidth, requiring all of U-verse's pipeline.

The DVR is powered by Microsoft's IPTV software. It has some interesting features, including a thumbnail preview and information about what's on each channel as you click through the list, and almost instant channel changing. Some DVRs have a noticeable delay as you move to another channel.

AT&T says installation takes two to four hours, depending on whether your home's wiring needs to be changed to accommodate U-verse. In my case, technicians had to alter the wiring behind some of the phone jacks, and they had to fix a problem in the neighborhood switchbox. Then, the U-verse network was so busy with new installations that my DVR couldn't make its initial setup connection to AT&T's authorization servers.

Total time for my installation: seven hours.

Because I've been using analog cable, I'd not yet tried a Video on Demand service, which U-verse includes. This allows you to select from both movies and TV episodes from a variety of networks, including Showtime, Starz and Flix, and play them on your TV as though they were stored on your own DVR. Conspicuously absent from the lineup: HBO on Demand.

The on-demand lineup is relatively sparse, compared to Comcast's listings. And there are irritating gaps in what's available.

For example, Showtime on Demand offers Dexter, the acclaimed Michael C. Hall series about a serial killer who works for the Miami police. I'd always wanted to see it, but I don't have Showtime and it's not yet available on DVD.

Unfortunately, even though Showtime on Demand's Web page says the complete first season should be available, episodes 3, 7, 8 and 9 are missing from the U-verse offering. Other series suffer from similar gaps.

There are other minor, irritating glitches. I occasionally see what I'd describe as digital ghosting or smearing, particularly when Video on Demand has been paused or rewound, and during live sports broadcasts. It's as though the screen can't keep up with the movement.

I've also experienced several outages in which Video on Demand coverage wasn't available, and once when the entire service went out. The latter may have been traced to a short in my home phone line, as I also lost dial tone.

Falling short of TiVo
Some of the DVR features aren't quite as polished as TiVo, which is considered the gold standard.

For example, when you fast-forward through a commercial block, TiVo has the uncanny ability to snap back to exactly the spot you wanted, such as when the ads end and the show resumes. The U-verse fast-forward routinely overshoots the mark, requiring you to rewind. There's a separate button on the U-verse remote that lets you jump ahead a few seconds at a time, and that helps, but you really should need only one button to accomplish this task.

I was considering switching to U-verse once this review was finished if I liked the service, but I opted to stick with Comcast for now.

While I love the quality of the picture and the pricing is competitive — particularly if you bundle it with AT&T's DSL service — it's still very much a Version 1.0 product. It may be more attractive to those with high-definition TVs who are willing to put up with some growing pains.

The combination of Comcast and TiVo suits me better, so I'll stay put for now. But U-verse's potential is great, and I could easily see myself becoming a customer in the future.

I'll take a look again at Version 2.0.

dwight.silverman@chron.com / http://blogs.chron.com/techblog
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/silverman/4919846.html

I've made the just to U-Verse from Comcast. Install should be sometime next week. It'll be interesting to compare it to Comcast and DirecTV. My copper run is about 400 feet, if that. Physically, I'm about 100 feet from the remote-CO/DSLAM. This will save about 30/mo over Comcast and I'll be getting more channels.

For those in the SFBA who care, I'm in the Monta Vista area of Cupertino.

jabba,

I'd like to invite you to comment in the Bay Area U-Verse thread. You'll be the first U-Verser in our region.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10889052#post10889052

does u-verse offer phone service in there u200 u300 ect. packages?

does u-verse offer phone service in there u200 u300 ect. packages?

I didn't think they were offering phone (VOIP) until Q4 2007 ?

http://www.uverseusers.com/content/view/138/1/

... or are they offering a traditional POTS service combo deal until they get VOIP up and running?

The copper versus fiber approach
July 9th, 2007, George Ou, ZD Net

AT&T’s hybrid fiber/copper approach:
AT&T’s “U-Verse” service on the other hand doesn’t need to worry about running a separate fiber and copper cables to the home because they’re not generally deploying FTTP (Fiber To The Premise/Home). For the most part AT&T is only bring fiber to within 3000 feet of your home to a miniature DSLAM called a 52-B which terminates the existing copper cabling for the final 3000 feet. There will be a few exceptions where AT&T will deploy fiber to the home in some areas where they feel it makes sense financially. The plus side to this approach is that AT&T doesn’t incur large installation costs of installing fiber to your house and they can maintain compatibility with existing analog phones and devices that rely on analog phone cabling whereas fiber forces you to switch to a VoIP (Voice over IP) telephone or use an ATA (Analog Telephony Adapter).

Copper’s Achilles heel is bandwidth:
The downside to AT&T’s approach is that severely bandwidth constrained with a peak performance of 31 mbps and possibly 58 mbps though 25 mbps is probably more realistic for the typical U-Verse deployment. At 25 mbps, AT&T is setting aside 6 mbps for Internet access and leaving the remaining 19 mbps for Video and VoIP. VoIP bandwidth is a trivial 0.08 mbps for both up and down stream bandwidth but Video (especially HD quality) is a killer on bandwidth. Even if we’re using degraded over-compressed H.264 1080i video streams of 8 mbps, there’s only enough room for two HD streams along with one low-quality SD (Standard Definition) 480i video stream.

To deliver good HD video quality, video should be between 16 to 25 mbps but only a single HDTV stream can be supported on AT&T’s copper-based service. So what the U-Verse customer ends up with is a decent 6 mbps Internet service and two low-quality HDTV channels that can be watched at the same time. While U-Verse might offer an alternative to the offerings of Cable companies, it simply isn’t all that compelling. Even though standard twisted pair CAT-6 (4 pair) copper cabling might be able to deliver 10 gbps at a range of less than a few hundred feet, a single pair of copper cabling at 3000 feet in length is a dead end from a triple-play perspective.

FiOS in the gigabit era:
The most important aspect of FiOS is its massive bandwidth capacity. The current implementation of FiOS uses a technology called BPON (Broadband Passive Optical Networking) which offers 622 mbps of total down-stream and 155 mbps up-stream bandwidth split amongst 32 homes for Internet access and the current premium FiOS Internet service caps users to 50 mbps down-stream for burst speed. FiOS TV broadcasts come over a separate wavelength using a technology called GPON (Gigabit Passive Optical Networking) which supports 2.4 gbps down and 1.2 gbps up. Since it’s a broadcast technology, the downstream doesn’t have to be split amongst 32 homes so it can offer a massive number of high-quality video broadcasts to every home. Video-on-demand on the other hand requires a unicast technology and that’s delivered using IPTV technology over the BPON data channels.

Currently, every FiOS home has two high-speed streams on two separate wavelengths over a single fiber delivering BPON and GPON which is more than enough for the near-term. But fiber to the home can just as easily support 10-GPON which is ten times faster than today’s gigabit PON technology and the price of 10-GPON transceivers will inevitably come down in the future. Because FiOS architecture runs a single-mode optical fiber out to the neighborhood and then uses an optical splitter to connect up to 32 homes, bandwidth is divided up 32 ways. That’s fine for today’s applications in the near term but it may not be in the future so when more bandwidth to each home is needed, 32 separate wavelengths of light can be used and each home would use its own dedicated wavelength. That means it would be possible to deliver more than 10 gigabits of dedicated bandwidth to each and every FiOS enabled home making fiber to the home the ultimate long-term investment.

more here (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=571&page=1)

I had to get POTS with U-Verse. VOIP was not an option. (BTW, it's been two plus weeks and I've nothing. So much for 5-10 business days. They had to have me redo the 3rdparty verification for some reason.) Since the POTS is separate of U-Verse, I'm wondering if they are tying the two installs together...

I had to get POTS with U-Verse. VOIP was not an option. (BTW, it's been two plus weeks and I've nothing. So much for 5-10 business days. They had to have me redo the 3rdparty verification for some reason.) Since the POTS is separate of U-Verse, I'm wondering if they are tying the two installs together...

What's the cost for the POTS and what features are provided? I assume this POTS line would be subject to all the lovely federal taxes and junk fees.

The copper versus fiber approach
July 9th, 2007, George Ou, ZD Net
clip....
Copper’s Achilles heel is bandwidth:
The downside to AT&T’s approach is that severely bandwidth constrained with a peak performance of 31 mbps and possibly 58 mbps though 25 mbps is probably more realistic for the typical U-Verse deployment. At 25 mbps, AT&T is setting aside 6 mbps for Internet access and leaving the remaining 19 mbps for Video and VoIP. VoIP bandwidth is a trivial 0.08 mbps for both up and down stream bandwidth but Video (especially HD quality) is a killer on bandwidth. Even if we’re using degraded over-compressed H.264 1080i video streams of 8 mbps, there’s only enough room for two HD streams along with one low-quality SD (Standard Definition) 480i video stream.

To deliver good HD video quality, video should be between 16 to 25 mbps but only a single HDTV stream can be supported on AT&T’s copper-based service. So what the U-Verse customer ends up with is a decent 6 mbps Internet service and two low-quality HDTV channels that can be watched at the same time. While U-Verse might offer an alternative to the offerings of Cable companies, it simply isn’t all that compelling.
clip....
more here (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=571&page=1)
The ZDNET author has erroneously quoted MPEG2 data rate requirements (16-25 Mbps).
First generation MPEG4 Encoders provide roughly 2:1 improvement, hence 8+ Mbps.
Second generation MPEG4 Encoders has dramatically reduced that to about 4+ Mbps:
http://www.screenplaysmag.com/Editor/Article/tabid/96/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/442/Default.aspx
http://images.apple.com/quicktime/pdf/H264_Technology_Brief.pdf

Hence, even without pair bonding, U-verse would have enough "capacity"
to simultaneously carry 4-5 HD channels at equivalent PQ or 3-4 HD with better PQ.
Pair bonding would double these numbers.

BTW: Be careful comparing MPEG4 PQ---you might be still watching the results
of the interim MPEG2:MPEG4 Transcoding---which is slowly being replaced with
MPEG4 Encoding at the SOURCE....

AT&T Selects Next-Generation Sun Microsystems Servers to Power Delivery of Video Services

Jul 11, 2007, SOURCE Sun Microsystems

SANTA CLARA, Calif., July 11 - Sun Microsystems (Nasdaq: SUNW) has announced that ATandT Inc. (NYSE: T) will utilize Sun servers and modular arrays to help deliver the groundbreaking Internet Protocol (IP)-based video service, ATandT U-verse(SM) TV.

Building on a long-standing relationship between the two companies, ATandT selected Sun for the performance and overall value of its technologies. Sun Fire X4600 servers will help deliver video to customers of ATandT U-verse TV, the only 100 percent IP-based television service to be offered by a national provider. ATandT U-verse TV currently offers a robust channel lineup with more than 320 linear channels and more than 26 high-definition (HD) channels. ATandT will also deploy Sun StorageTek storage arrays, which will provide easy and continuous access to the U-verse TV Video-on-Demand library.

The servers and arrays will be rolled out in new deployments of IP-video super hub offices and IP-video hub offices in the ATandT U-verse network.

"ATandT continues to expand the scope of its U-verse TV offerings to include more video and multimedia services to more and more customers," said Ernie Carey, vice president, Advanced Network Technologies, ATandT. "As we expand availability, we are also building out a world-class, IP-based infrastructure that offers strong performance and serviceability for the needs of consumers both today and tomorrow. Sun's high-capacity servers bring next-generation technology, processing power and storage capacity to the U-verse network."

The complete ATandT solution from Sun will also include Sun Fire X4500 servers, which combine the performance of a four-way Sun x64 server and the highest storage density available, with high-data throughput for about half the cost of traditional solutions. ATandT will also use Sun Support Services and Sun Professional Services to help manage the system.

"Sun is helping to radically reset the economics of IPTV," said John Fowler, executive vice president of the Systems Group, Sun Microsystems. "Sun offers an exceptional IPTV infrastructure that scales to support a massive number of consumers. This means we can help ATandT deliver video and other online services to consumers in a cost-effective way which wasn't possible just a few years ago."

ATandT U-verse services are available in parts of 23 markets across eight states. ATandT plans to continue launching new markets throughout 2007 and in 2008 and to expand availability in current markets.

More information about the Sun Fire X4600 can be found at: http://www.sun.com/x4600/ and about the Sun Fire X4500 at http://www.sun.com/x4500/.

Carrie Kasten
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
(347) 534-2093
carrie.kasten@sun.com

I've been using U-verse for about 2 full months with a total of 2 hard reboots that I had to do with the 2wire gateway, whichwasn't a big deal.

What is a big deal is me realizing that I can't watch live events on Pay-Per-View! I contacted U-Verse and they said that it was something that was originally implemented but taken out because it didn't function correctly. He did say they are working on it though.

Anyone have any info on Pay-Per-View?

That ZD Net article is not entirely accurate as far as it relates to the MS IPTV solution. Even if one delivers GPON directly to the home, the MSTV system, and the STBs they utilize impose severe bandwidth limitations.

The Motorola VIP1200/1216 STBs can only handle 20Mbps of video traffic. This is not really an issue for non-DVR STBs, but it introduces some serious limits with DVRs.

MSTV 1.1 only allows limiting the number of SD and HD streams on a per account basis. So even if you had plenty of bandwidth allocated to a home, say 90Mbps, you would still only be able to allocate 20Mbps to the entire account to keep a DVR from going past its limit.

MPEG2 HD video is not supported at all.

MPEG4/VC-1 HD video streams can't exceed 10Mbps.

SD video (MPEG2/MPEG4/VC-1) is limited to 5Mbps.

So even with 90Mbps to each household, you are forced to do the following:

1. Transcode all your 19.2Mbps MPEG2 HD streams to 10Mbps MPEG4/VC-1.
2. Transcode all your >5Mbps MPEG2 SD streams to <=5Mbps MPEG4/VC-1.
3. Create sub-accounts for each DVR and limit them to 2 HD streams (which means they can record/view 2 SD/HD streams at once)

How AT&T Plans to Conquer the U-Verse
Ice Cream Trucks, Virtual Neighbors Key Marketing Push
By Gary Arlen -- Multichannel News, 7/23/2007
In this story:
SERVICE AND BUNDLES
PROGRAMMING TONNAGE
UP TO 26 HDTV NETS
BUNDLES IN PROFUSION
BUTTON CONFUSION
SMALL STUMBLES

Sharon Bywater, a real estate agent in Carlsbad, Calif., marveled at AT&T’s recent installation of U-verse TV video service.

Two AT&T employees (not contractors), wearing paper “booties” to protect her floor and carpet, spent five hours setting up the system. Then, later that day, another AT&T employee came by to show her and her husband how to use the service.

The 30-minute lesson included tips about the digital video recorder and other features, including how to program the DVR directly from My Yahoo Online, the portal bundled into their video-and-Internet package.

Within the next two weeks, AT&T U-verse service representatives were readily available by phone for follow-up questions about integrating the DVR service and the online programming features.

Bywater, who was among U-verse’s first customers in north San Diego County, Calif., signed up for AT&T’s video service to accompany her family’s new HDTV monitor. Not everything was perfect, but her enthusiasm about the installation process and her comments about U-verse’s impressive video quality mirror comments from many of the 40,000 customers who have signed up for AT&T’s multichannel-video service.

Quality service is key, because word of mouth matters to a company like AT&T, which is coming late into a service category dominated by cable, with 66 million plus video customers, and direct-broadcast satellite, with about 30 million.
Services The U-verse Internet Protocol package integrates digital video and AT&T Yahoo! High-Speed Internet access. Voice-over-IP telephone service will be added (timeframe not set).

Current offerings: Four packages of video, basic monthly fees:

$59 for 100 channels (DVR not included)
$74 for 190+ channels (includes DVR)
$94 for 240+ channels (includes 31 premium movie channels + DVR)
$119 for 320+ channels (includes 49 premium channels and DVR)
(At all levels, customers may add more receivers @ $5 per month)

Features

Video-on-demand
High-definition TV (up to 30 channels depending on market)
Interactive program guide and navigation
Digital video recorder can record up to four shows at once
Picture-in-picture
Web and mobile remote access to TV controls via Yahoo!
Parental Controls

Homes Passed

June 2007: 3 million
December 2007: 8 million *
December 2008: 18 million *
* AT&T Forecast

Current Customer Base 40,000 homes

Markets Currently Launched (in order of introduction: June 2006 to June 2007)

1. San Antonio, Texas
2. Houston, Texas
3. San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, Calif.
4. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, Calif.
5. Hartford, Conn.
6. New Haven, Conn.
7. Stamford, Conn.
8. Indianapolis, Ind.
9. Muncie, Ind.
10. Bloomington, Ind.
11. Anderson, Ind.
12. Milwaukee, Wis.
13. Racine, Wis.
14. Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas
15. Kansas City, Kan.
16. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, Calif.
17. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif.
18. Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, Calif.
19. Detroit-Warren-Livonia, Mich.
20. Ann Arbor, Mich.
21. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, Calif.
22. Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, Ohio
23. Akron, Ohio

SOURCE: AT&T

SERVICE AND BUNDLES

AT&T’s U-verse assault in the Time Warner Cable service territory surrounding San Diego, like its efforts in about two dozen other widely scattered communities so far (from Fairfield, Conn., to the San Francisco Bay area), have put the emphasis on customer service and bundled pricing.

In some markets, a variety of quirky guerrilla campaigns — notably the promotion in southwestern Connecticut featuring an energetic pitchman with a receding hairline known as “Bobby Choice” — have swung hard at incumbent cable TV subscribers.

Meanwhile, a fleet of “ice cream” trucks, laden with HDTV monitors and U-verse promotional offers, is jingling through neighborhoods, seeking to attract customers to AT&T’s video alternatives. And the company is offering up to a $50 bounty for every neighbor its U-verse customers recruit.

“Sixty percent of U-verse eligible customers who tried the service actually bought it,” an AT&T spokesperson claimed of initial promotional efforts.

Although AT&T stumbled in launching U-verse last year, with delays blamed on a Microsoft software glitch, the company expects a quick rollout of its video service during the next 18 months.

Now, U-verse plans are to pass 8 million homes by the end of this year, and pass 18 million households in the AT&T landline footprint by the end of 2008, company CEO Randall Stephenson said at a telephone-industry conference last month.

“We’re moving as fast as … legislators can remove those out-of-date franchise” requirements, Stephenson said.

The homes-passed target is expected to climb as the former BellSouth territories are integrated into the AT&T plan. New forecasts for the U-verse footprint could emerge this week in AT&T’s second-quarter earnings report (due on July 24).

U-verse marketing campaigns are popping up in selected areas just as AT&T accelerates its massive rebranding campaign. The “New AT&T” campaign is seeking to establish its migration from the “old” SBC Communications, Cingular Wireless and BellSouth. Significantly, none of the current U-verse promotions in target communities is tied to the simultaneous hoopla about Apple Inc.’s iPhone, for which AT&T wireless is the exclusive carrier.

“IPhone fits in with our three-screen strategy,” said Destiny Belknap, an AT&T spokesperson, although she emphasized that “nothing special” is now planned for cross-promotions of iPhone with U-verse.

In fact, U-verse’s tie-in with existing voice services or future Voice over IP products is invisible at this stage, although AT&T’s primary targets are its existing telephony customers.

Although Belknap declined to reveal AT&T’s budget for the U-verse campaigns, which are being done strictly on a local basis, she acknowledged that the focus will be on AT&T’s “evolving from a phone company to an entertainment brand.”

“We’re trying to help customers make that connection,” Belknap said. “Since [U-verse] is a new service, it’s really different from any campaign we’ve done. We want customers to know that this is something different for AT&T.”

PROGRAMMING TONNAGE

As it seeks to lure cable and satellite subscribers to its video package, AT&T is emphasizing the program bundles it offers, including up to 320 channels. Four video tiers are available, ranging from $59 to $119 per month. About 80% of customers have bought the U300 (240 channels plus AT&T Yahoo High Speed Internet Express) or U400 (more than 300 channels plus Internet access) tiers at $94 and $119 per month respectively, according to people at AT&T familiar with the information.

All but the lowest-priced package come with three high definition-ready receivers, which are fed via one DVR. Currently, AT&T is using the Motorola VIP 1216 as the set-top box for all installations. The built-in DVRs can hold up to 120 hours of standard definition video or 24 hours of high-definition video. The tuner-less software also enables picture-in-picture displays, even if the customers’ TV sets do not have that feature.

Marketing tactics vary, although — in keeping with the entertainment branding goal — many of the retail promotions, especially those using the revamped ice cream trucks, involve handing out U-verse branded ice cream, popcorn and other treats.

“The trucks let people know that U-verse is here, and it directs them to local demonstrations,” Belknap explained.

In some locations, AT&T has installed “living room” set-ups in AT&T retail stores and high-traffic areas, such as supermarkets. AT&T has also deployed U-verse mobile trailers to local events, and is using direct mail and a door-to-door sales force in target communities where U-verse is available.

“We’ve focused on getting the remote in customers’ hands and letting them try the service,” Belknap said.

UP TO 26 HDTV NETS

AT&T also emphasizes that it offers more HDTV than cable, she noted, adding that it is a “strong selling point.”

Most U-verse systems offer up to 26 HD channels, depending on the number of local broadcast HD stations carried.

Web and mobile access to DVR controls have also been popular with customers, along with the ability to record up to four channels simultaneously.

Among AT&T’s most dramatic efforts is the “Bobby Choice” campaign in Norwalk, Conn. AT&T characterized that effort as “another example of the highly-localized, nontraditional tactics we’re using.”

The company claims that it does not plan to bring Bobby Choice elsewhere. The hyperkinetic character “bought” local advertisements and set up a Web site, handed out T-shirts and posted billboards to encourage “neighbors” to seek more cable choice.

The Bobby Choice campaign, in the backyard of Cablevision Systems’ Connecticut operations, is similar to a guerrilla tactic that Verizon used for its video rollout across Long Island Sound. At the NxtComm telephone-industry trade show in June, Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg showed a video of his company’s 500,000th FiOS video customer, the Bayer family, of Massapequa, N.Y., about five miles from Cablevision’s headquarters.

AT&T insists, though, that it is not planning to monitor or copy the tactics of the larger FiOS service as it introduces its telco TV operations.

BUNDLES IN PROFUSION

While U-verse is AT&T’s most technically advanced service, the company continues to offer a variety of video bundles — potentially a confusing array for would-be customers, depending on where they live.

Although AT&T deems its lineup as a “robust video portfolio,” the packages involve co-branded satellite and online components. By far, most of AT&T’s current 1.7 million video customers receive service from EchoStar Communications’ Dish Network.

AT&T’s oft-repeated mantra points out that 187,000 video customers signed up for AT&T video services during the first quarter of this year, far exceeding the new subscribers of the four largest reporting multiple-systems operators for the full year of 2006.

Overwhelmingly, that bevy of new customers bought the Dish Network satellite service, which AT&T resells. As part of the legacy relationship with SBC (currently under review), AT&T also offers Yahoo Internet as its broadband content portal –— potentially another confusing component as Yahoo adds on-demand video to its online line-up.

And although Apple TV — and Internet Protocol TV service — has no connection to AT&T at this time, the Apple iPhone relationship with AT&T could open the doors for future consumer confusion, or at least misguided expectations.

“We haven’t yet seen all the partnerships that telcos can do,” said Steve Hawley, principal at Advanced Media Strategies, an Issaquah, Wash., telecommunications-analysis firm.

“The cynic in me says AT&T is doing all of this to hedge its bets in case U-verse fails,” Hawley added. “In reality, it’s because AT&T wants to do what telecom operators have always done: provide a like range of services to all subscribers; and if one access network can’t do it, they use another.”

For now, AT&T is pushing ahead with its U-verse efforts, trying to leverage AT&T’s historic service legacy.

In his recent remarks, CEO Stephenson acknowledged that a typical installation now takes about five hours. He said that AT&T currently installs about 600 U-verse homes per week, and that number will grow to 10,000 installations weekly by year-end.

U-verse installation appointments are “shorter than the industry standard,” said Belknap, declining to specify time frames. She said this precision timing process can scale up as AT&T moves toward hundreds of thousands of installations.

BUTTON CONFUSION

Customers have expressed confusion about some of the U-verse features. Some customers think that the three buttons (each a different color) in the middle of the U-verse remote control are for electronic shopping services. Actually, they are soft keys for future interactive options, “allowing the remote to adapt as we continue evolving the service and adding new features,” according to AT&T.

Not surprisingly, a “user group” has already taken shape to comment on U-verse progress.

UverseUsers.com, the threaded blog where U-verse customers can share experiences and offer praise and criticism about the service (www.uverseusers.com), is run by a former AT&T employee in San Antonio. Its recent postings have ranged from reports about a new generation of small neighborhood node boxes to warnings about “packet inspection and monitoring.”

AT&T monitors that site closely, said Belknap, who added that the company is looking for other forums and sources of feedback.

Meanwhile, AT&T is implementing marketing tactics to lure customers away from cable and satellite video.

For example, its “Rewards for Referrals” program is intended to exploit the word-of-mouth campaigns. AT&T pays customers $25 per service (U-verse video and “U-verse enabled” Yahoo High-Speed Internet) for each customer they encourage to sign up — a potential of $50 per referral.

“AT&T is facing an extremely competitive market, and our localized approach allows us to remain nimble and respond to each market’s unique landscape,” the AT&T spokesperson explained.

SMALL STUMBLES

Even enthusiastic early adopters, such as the California real estate agent, have faced small stumbling blocks as AT&T’s customer service personnel learn how to cope with video services.

Bywater could not find HBO and Cinemax listings in the on-screen menu, and as the U-verse customer support staff directed them to the HD tier, somehow a week’s worth of DVR programs — 23 shows — were expunged.

For Bywater, it was frustrating, but not debilitating. She still likes U-verse’s ability to record four shows simultaneously, which will quickly rebuild her video inventory.

Now AT&T faces the challenge of convincing more people like her that this new “entertainment brand” is the right choice to make for their video programming.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6461991

Posted earlier today in the Hot Off the Press thread: a federal court in Connecticut ruled that U-verse is a "cable" TV (rather than two-way data) service subject to local franchising laws; this may hamper efforts to expand the service, at least in Connecticut.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6463465.html

If this ruling holds then all of you U-verse subs in CT can look forward to a 5.5% franchise tax added on to your bill like all the cable companys have to pass along. And then the 6% sales tax charged on top of that.

I posted a PR from earlier today in the Hot Off the Press thread announcing AT&T's retransmission agreement with Tribune Co., meaning that U-verse subs will soon be able to watch WGN and other Tribune stations that broadcast in their local markets:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11169183#post11169183

I would guess that this means some areas of Thousand Oaks...I knew I hated AT&T for a reason...

18. Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, Calif.

New AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson recently told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the company plans to launch U-verse in Atlanta by the end of this year, and that they are working on a rollout schedule for the Southeast (no other details available):

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/2007/07/27/ATTqa.html

I read they are going to offer service in the Carolinas. Is U Verse better than TWC?

Is U Verse better than TWC?

If you have a HDTV Uverse isn't better then anything. Uverse can only deliver one HD stream at a time to your house so you can't record one HD show and watch another, can't record two HD shows at the same time, and if you have more then one HDTV forget about it completely. Plus their internet service is slower then cable at any price.

The only way Uverse is worth looking at is if you don't use a HD-DVR, have only one or no HDTV's, and just want a low cost internet connection and don't care about speed.

Soon to show up in the Oklahoma City metro area too, apparently:

http://www.normantranscript.com/localnews/local_story_206004947.html

Just popping into this thread to post that I had Uverse installed Monday, and had them remove the equipment Wednesday.

This system is not ready for prime time.

I had terrible compression artifacts on all HD channels. Stuttering on SD channels with only one TV on in the house. And the HD channels all looked like they were down-rezzed to 480p.

The techs worked about 9 hours to get everything set up and I didn't have the heart to tell them to just take it down. After 24 hours, I called to disconnect.

If you are into HD programming, I would stay far far away from Uverse. SD looked better than my current cable, but HD was a big quality drop. I liked the program guide, DVR and price savings from my current cable provider (WOW). I just don't think the quality is there yet.

EDIT: After reading more thread, apparently I'm not alone!

Just popping into this thread to post that I had Uverse installed Monday, and had them remove the equipment Wednesday.

This system is not ready for prime time.

I had terrible compression artifacts on all HD channels. Stuttering on SD channels with only one TV on in the house. And the HD channels all looked like they were down-rezzed to 480p.

The techs worked about 9 hours to get everything set up and I didn't have the heart to tell them to just take it down. After 24 hours, I called to disconnect.

If you are into HD programming, I would stay far far away from Uverse. SD looked better than my current cable, but HD was a big quality drop. I liked the program guide, DVR and price savings from my current cable provider (WOW). I just don't think the quality is there yet.

EDIT: After reading more thread, apparently I'm not alone!

FYI, they now have an Ohio thread at uverseusers.com where you can report your experiences.

http://www.uverseusers.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,2/board,23.0/

Plus their internet service is slower then cable at any price.

Eh, a bit of an exaggeration...

U-Verse internet tiers:

Express
Downstream up to 1.5 Mbps
Upstream up to 1 Mbps

Pro
Downstream up to 3 Mbps
Upstream up to 1 Mbps

Elite
Downstream up to 6 Mbps
Upstream up to 1 Mbps

Eh, a bit of an exaggeration...

U-Verse internet tiers:

Elite
Downstream up to 6 Mbps
Upstream up to 1 Mbps

It's no exaggeration. Elite costs $35 a month (with bundle discount) for 6/1 and that's the best they can offer. I can't get a faster speed even if I wanter to pay more. I pay $45 a month (after discount) for 15/2 from Cablevision. For $10 more a month (after discount) I can get 30/5 from Cablevision. Even with shared bandwith cable gives faster speeds then uverse can offer.

I stand by my original statement. I can't get faster internet on Uverse at any price.

I tried to get Uverse installed yesterday. They showed up and guess what? I am too far from the VRAD. What a waste of time! In the age of Google Earth, you would assume they know how far someone is from the VRAD

Dave

It's no exaggeration. Elite costs $35 a month (with bundle discount) for 6/1 and that's the best they can offer. I can't get a faster speed even if I wanter to pay more. I pay $45 a month (after discount) for 15/2 from Cablevision. For $10 more a month (after discount) I can get 30/5 from Cablevision. Even with shared bandwith cable gives faster speeds then uverse can offer.

I stand by my original statement. I can't get faster internet on Uverse at any price.

Perhaps you mean to say "I can't get faster internet on UVerse than what CABLEVISION provides" :D

Plenty of other cable operators are offering tiers like 768K/512K, 2M/512K, 4M/512K, 6M/512K, 6M/1M. When you compare to that, UVerse 6M/1M doesn't look so bad. You're extremely fortunate to only pay $45 for 15/2. That's awesome. TWC and WOW around here charge $79 - $89 (internet unbundled) for speeds lower than that. 30/5 is a total pipe dream here in NE Ohio.

I called the 800 number for uverse to get it set up in my new home. Let me share the process with you:
1) logged on to u-verse site
2) Identified that Dallas has u-verse
3) spent 10-15 min's filling out their forms and setting up an order install
4) would not allow me to place order on line
5) called back a couple days later on a Sat morning
6) after spending 10 min's on hold I reached a rep who didn't speak English. I gave her about 10 minutes and hung up after repeating my zip code for the 5th time
7) called again, another 10 minutes on hold. Spoke with a rep who fumbled around for 5-10 minutes. Was not sure if I could get u-verse. Then told me I had to call another number.
8) called the new number, another 10 min's or so on hold. Got a similar story as point 7 above but this person was able to transfer me
9) on hold 15 min's for special u-verse line since my zip is fiber optic and the "normal" reps don't handle this.
10) after about 70 minutes of hold/conversation I speak to a person who tells me the dept. I need to talk to is closed on Saturday. He was kind enough to take my number and have a rep call on Monday.

I thought....hmmn, over an hour to determine that they are not open? I wonder what might happen if I have an issue with their service. Did a quick google search and found page after page of complaints about problems.

For kicks I thought I would call Time Warner. They have bundle featuring super fast internet, tv and phone. I dialed them up, got an answer after the third ring....an actual human answered!!! I picked myself up from the floor and continued to order the three services mentioned and completed the process in 10-15 minutes. This was still on Saturday.

I thought I would share my story with this community. This experience with AT&T is the worst I've ever had with any company I've dealt with in my nearly 5 decades on this planet.

If it takes AT&T over an hour to tell me the department is closed, I'm wondering how long it would take to fix a problem once one had service?


Cheers

Perhaps you mean to say "I can't get faster internet on UVerse than what CABLEVISION provides" :D

Plenty of other cable operators are offering tiers like 768K/512K, 2M/512K, 4M/512K, 6M/512K, 6M/1M. When you compare to that, UVerse 6M/1M doesn't look so bad. You're extremely fortunate to only pay $45 for 15/2. That's awesome. TWC and WOW around here charge $79 - $89 (internet unbundled) for speeds lower than that. 30/5 is a total pipe dream here in NE Ohio.

TWC Roadrunner service offers 10mbps speed...fastest I've seen in Dallas, TX. Cost doesn't matter, just needs to work if it's your business life line.

Perhaps you mean to say "I can't get faster internet on UVerse than what CABLEVISION provides" :D

OK, fair enough. Sorry you are not as fortunate with your cable internet speed as I am.

I thought I would share my story with this community. This experience with AT&T is the worst I've ever had with any company I've dealt with in my nearly 5 decades on this planet.


Sounds like the experience I had with SBC (now ATT) a couple years ago when I attempted to renew my DSL service for another year. The website only handled new orders, not renewals, so doing it online was out of the question. So I was on the phone for at least an hour, and got switched all over the country (Ohio, Texas, Detroit, and a couple others) while they tried to figure out who did what.

When I called to cancel DSL with them a couple months ago, the lady made me an incredible offer for naked DSL which they don't seem to advertise anywhere. Too little, too late.

If you are into HD programming, I would stay far far away from Uverse. SD looked better than my current cable, but HD was a big quality drop. I liked the program guide, DVR and price savings from my current cable provider (WOW). I just don't think the quality is there yet.


Your conclusions above match mine.

I went from Comcast to uverse in march of this year. The reason I left Comcast was over price gouging. My "triple play $99 special" went up from $130 to $160 after the one year deal was over. Yes that right, my $99 service cost $130 because of taxes, misc fees and a cable box rental fee.


In addition:

About the HiSpeed
The 6 Mbps download speed clocks in at about 5.5 Mbps, sounds good. BUT when I download from my news server (same one I used with my cable hi speed at 3 Mbps) it can only reach half of the download speed (~500kbs) of what my cable hi speed did(~1mbs). Also in general I am faster than the server sending me any file. I am going to dump the elite and save some $.

About the HD
Only having one HD feed is an unexpected problem. If I am recording a hd feed I can only watch SD material as the second feed. I did not think this would be a problem but it drives me nuts.

For awhile I had both Comcast and uverse. HD is much better on cable. And forget about watching sports in SD. Even on my bedroom 23"crt the motion artifacts make the picture unwatchable.


About the Future of Uverse
If the predicted upgrades happen in the next year or two uverse will live.
If not uverse will fade away.

Sounds like the experience I had with SBC (now ATT) a couple years ago when I attempted to renew my DSL service for another year.After the initial 12 month (DSL) committment ends, there's shouldn't be a need to renew. Unless that's changed recently.

After the initial 12 month (DSL) committment ends, there's shouldn't be a need to renew. Unless that's changed recently.

The problem is when the 12 month committment is about to end the ONLY notification you get is one email to a never-used SBC email account. No notice via snail mail, no telemarketing phone call, or a mention on the bill. You just get a big slap in the face on the 13th month when your DSL service goes from $15 - $25/mo to $45 - $59 a month. I'm sure they count on most people being too ignorant/lazy to call after the term is up to renew at the lower rate, so they effectively make bank on these questionable practices. In the 7 years I've had DSL with SBC, I've NEVER got a snail mail or postcard saying "gee you've been a great customer, we'd hate to have you leave so please call XXX to renew at our $14.95 or $24.95 rate we offer to everybody else" It's always been an ordeal year after year and I've been screwed out of hundreds of dollars.

I also think it's mildly deceptive that they never mention naked DSL as an option. I originally had naked DSL with them way back when, but they eliminated that option and required landline voice service with the DSL. Now they've gone back to offering naked DSL but there would be no way for J6P customer to know that.

That's strange; I've never had the price go up after initial committment. If so, I'd have promptly dumped them.

Now in the Oklahoma City metro area: http://newsok.com/article/3099487

By Jim Stafford
Business Writer
AT&T is bringing a new television programming alternative to the Oklahoma City area today when it launches its "U-verse” service.


The telecommunications giant is launching the U-verse service in parts of Oklahoma City, Edmond, Moore and Norman, bringing up to 320 channels of television programming in an Internet protocol-based network that combines high-speed Internet and digital television in the package. ...

TWC Roadrunner service offers 10mbps speed...fastest I've seen in Dallas, TX. Cost doesn't matter, just needs to work if it's your business life line.

I think, but am not sure, that TWC plans that speed here in Northeast Ohio.

For now, it's only 6mpbs, which I have. But they've been in the process of consolidating Adelphia into TWCNEO. (There's also another "incumbent" TWCNEO system based in Akron.) I have no idea if they're kicking it up to 10mbps over here in Ex-AdelphiaLand yet.

As for AT&T U-verse, we have it here, but might not. I live in the main city in this county, but have a mailing address of the nearby suburb (long story). There's one of those refrigerator-sized AT&T boxes out front of our subdivision, but we may not be able to get it on this side of the city line until a statewide law takes effect in the next month or two.

AT&T's fiber-optic TV is tied up in knots
Issues in Connecticut
By Brian Lockhart
Staff Writer
Advocate (Stamford, CT)
August 12, 2007

For months, AT&T has been attempting to lure Cablevision and satellite customers in Norwalk, Stamford and 33 other municipalities to its new U-verse fiber-optic television service.

But a recent court decision has state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal calling on the state Department of Public Utility Control to stop AT&T from signing up new customers.

"AT&T right now is in a kind of regulatory limbo," Blumenthal said last week. "It's providing a service but has no franchise (and) no license to undertake the activity that it is doing."

Late last month, a U.S. District Court judge issued a summary judgment overturning the DPUC's decision allowing AT&T to offer U-verse without applying for a cable franchise.

Blumenthal last week petitioned DPUC to order AT&T to seek a cable license.

But spokesmen for AT&T and the DPUC called Blumenthal's request premature because the telecommunications giant still can challenge the decision.

AT&T's Seth Bloom said the company filed a "motion for reconsideration" Thursday, believing the judge "overlooked or misconstrued several crucial legal and factual matters."

AT&T could appeal the decision, Bloom said, saying the company has no intention of halting expansion of U-verse.

"We're going forward full-throttle," Bloom said.

The DPUC issued a 3-2 decision that U-verse could be offered in June 2006.

"We took the Federal Communications Commission's definition of what constitutes cable television and said 'OK, this is different. You're not a cable company,' " DPUC spokeswoman Beryl Lyons said last week.

AT&T and its supporters touted the decision as a victory for consumers seeking alternatives in a limited cable market with ever-increasing prices. But opponents like the state Office of Consumer Counsel, which challenged DPUC's decision in court, said the DPUC freed AT&T from restrictions that provide protections for consumers.

Blumenthal said he welcomes AT&T's entry into the television field but is concerned AT&T will offer U-verse only in wealthier communities or where it is cheaper to locate the necessary infrastructure. Bloom flatly denies the allegation.

In late December, AT&T began offering packages with as many as 300 TV and music channels in Stamford and Norwalk.

AT&T found some novel ways of advertising, including a specially outfitted ice-cream truck with a flat-panel TV on the side.

In Norwalk, home of Cablevision's Connecticut operations, AT&T unleashed some "stealth" marketing in the form of the fictional "Bobby Choice," a stocky, balding man who claimed to live in the Silvermine section of the city where trees blocked satellite transmissions.

Choice touted U-verse at various nightspots, doling out T-shirts with his grinning image, and claimed on his Web site that "AT&T U-verse is Awesome!" after years of suffering with cable television.

Residents of 33 other towns and cities, including Bridgeport, Danbury, New Haven, Waterbury, New London and Middletown, also can receive U-verse television, Bloom said.

"The intention is to offer it to as many as we can," he said, likening the service to AT&T's digital subscriber line, available in 90 percent of the state.

Lyons said that if AT&T is required to apply for a cable franchise, it "won't happen overnight."

"It (the application) is a foot-and-a-half," Lyons said. "Cable franchise applications are very complex. . . . And if they come in for a cable franchise, everybody in the world will want to put restrictions on it."

So where does this leave current U-verse subscribers?

Bloom said the cable franchise process could take up to a year.

"Our hope would be that there would be no disruption," Bloom said.

Blumenthal said he expected DPUC would require AT&T to maintain the status quo as it goes through the cable franchise process.

Lyons said a potential problem for customers would be if AT&T decided to "fold-up" the U-verse service. She said the company would then be ordered to notify its customers and give them time to decide whether to return to cable or satellite.

"But that's not likely," Lyons said. "I wouldn't be terribly concerned."

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-cablefight2aug12,0,6561867.story?coll=stam-news-local-headlines

This service came to Milwaukee in a few areas about 3 months ago, my friend has it and it is very bad, glitchy always having to reboot unit. He is done with it and going back to dish already. at & t rushed to get this to market and will get burned as a result. They need to get fiber into the house to get this working.

I am trying to figure out what the best setting (1080i vs 720p) is for my set top uverse box to my hd tv.

Anyone know if uverse is delivered to the home in 1080i or 720p. I think they re encode everything to one standard and let the home box convert it to either 1080i or 720p.

My guess is 480p based on my experience.

My guess is 480p based on my experience.

Well for SD content I would say your being generous!

Bumped for WilliamR

Thanks to AVS Member Marcus Carr.

From Multichannel News:

U-verse TV will soon launch new content, according to AT&T, including five HD channels scheduled to be added by the end of this year: Lifetime Movie Network HD, History Channel HD, Animal Planet HD, TBS HD and Comcast's combo Versus/The Golf Channel HD. The telco typically has offered 26 national HD channels in the markets where U-verse TV is available.

U-Verse is IPTV and does not work with CableCARD equipped devices, such as my TiVo Series3, so I am not interested in it, although it is now available in the OKC area.

Even if U-Verse were an option for me, I would probably pass because Cox OKC, while often a pain in the neck, provides a convenient, reliable service that already allows me to receive a single monthly statement for cable, high speed Internet, and telephone. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, yada, yada.

BHorn

I have U-Verse and ordered the HD service.
I wasn't getting it on screen until I went in
and changed the setting to 1080.

Go --Menu:Options:System Settings:Aspect Ratio

U-Verse is the bomb. Compared to TimeWarner Cable anyway.


dxr

Telecom AT&T Hits TV Milestone

Sep. 5, 2007 (Investor's Business Daily)

AT&T said Wednesday that it has reached the 100,000-customer milestone for its U-verse TV service.

That's up from just 3,000 in January, but still far less than the 500,000 Verizon Communications (NYSE:VZC) (NYSE:VZ) VZ has signed up for its FiOS fiber-optic network. Many FiOS subscribers use it to get TV service.

Both phone companies are building networks that provide faster Internet speeds and TV. Verizon plans to spend $23 billion on FiOS through 2010. AT&T (NYSE:SBT) (NYSE:T) T says it will have spent $6.5 billion on U-verse through 2008.

Verizon has opted to use an all-fiber approach. It rewires homes with new optical fiber.

AT&T chose a less costly approach.

The wiring to the neighborhood nodes is a mix of fiber-optic and digital subscriber line technology, but service still comes into the home via old copper wires.

AT&T's U-verse rollout was delayed because of technical problems, but now seems to be ramping up fast in more markets.

In a recent interview with IBD, AT&T's chief technology officer, Chris Rice, addressed lingering questions about U-verse.

IBD: Is the 100,000 mark a big milestone for U-verse?

Rice: It represents the coming-of-age of IPTV (Internet protocol TV), a new type of content delivery. It shows IPTV is scaling (to more customers) and maturing very nicely.

IBD: Will this number satisfy AT&T's critics?

Rice: I'm sure there will be people who believe 100,000 isn't enough. But the fact that we've ramped up from just a few thousand in January to 100,000 says a lot about the capability of the service platform and about AT&T as a video content provider.

IBD: Some critics say that AT&T's broadband network is inferior to Verizon's.

Rice: Those people are very misinformed about our technology and what its capabilities are.

We achieve the same cost savings (as Verizon does with FiOS, from running a state-of-the-art network).

It would be good for them to look at whether Verizon is actually shutting down its old network in an overbuild environment as opposed to maintaining both old and new (in that some customers want to keep the copper wire, so Verizon might have to keep running both networks, adding to its costs).

In a recent press release, Verizon said that if you're a customer on FiOS and want to go back to copper, they'll move you back to copper.

That indicates to me they're not shutting down the old (copper) network.

In AT&T's case, we're moving customers to a fiber-to-the-node network as they come on.

People also don't understand IPTV technology. Today we're doing high-definition (broadcasts). People don't understand the compression technologies, the IPTV technologies, the architecture or the capabilities of an all-IP network.

Verizon says they're going to do IPTV, but that's not going to be easy for them (using FiOS).

IBD: AT&T's critics say Verizon will sign up more data and TV customers because FiOS provides faster Internet speeds and better high-definition video.

Rice: People don't understand Verizon's network either.

Today, Verizon has 622 megabits of downstream bandwidth on a BPON (first-generation fiber) network.

If that single fiber pair is split by 32 (customers, which is typical) that's 20 megabits each for high-speed Internet.

They have an 870-megahertz broadcast system that's run over a single (fiber) wavelength.

So they will be capacity-constrained to deliver content just like cable companies, and capacity-constrained to deliver broadband beyond 20 megabits.

They will either have to upgrade to GPON (next-generation fiber), which will give them more bandwidth but involve another (costly) overbuild, or they can convert to IPTV.

In that case, they would have to replace every set-top box they've deployed.

IBD: Some analysts say AT&T still has problems streaming hi-def programs to TVs in multiple rooms.

Rice: I think compression technology will continue to improve. I don't think we'll be challenged to offer two high-def streams along with two standard streams (to any given customer). I think we'll be more than competitive on the high-def front.

IBD: What improvements does AT&T plan for U-verse?

Rice: Today we do video sharing mobile-to-mobile. Long term, (users will be able to share) video from a mobile device to the PC in homes and ultimately to the TV.

I think having podcasts on TVs (is not) outside the realm of things we could deliver.

We've looked at pulling in iPhone personalization, family finder, flight trackers, any number of things that would take advantage of wireless assets.

IBD: Will there be an IPTV deal between Apple and AT&T, building on the iPhone relationship, in 2008?

Rice: Not that I'm aware of.

IBD: In May, AT&T hiked its capital spending estimate for U-verse to $6.5 billion through 2008, up from $5.1 billion. Why the increase?

Rice: It's tied to the success of our solution. U-verse has always had a component that was fixed, the cost to deploy the service, and a success-based component, based on the number of customers.

That success-based component includes the residential gateway (connecting to each home) and the set-top boxes, as well as a line card that goes into an electronic box in the neighborhood.

IBD: That $6.5 billion cost estimate doesn't include the Southeast U.S. region formerly served by BellSouth. When will AT&T announce IPTV plans for those nine states?

Rice: We'll be turning up Atlanta as our first market later this year or the first part of '08. I'd expect announcements after third-quarter earnings are done.

The architecture is going to be the same. It'll be fiber to the (neighborhood) node and a fiber-to-the-premises solution for all new builds.

IBD: BellSouth's fiber wiring comes closer to some homes than in most of AT&T's other markets. Will some BellSouth customers get more bandwidth for TV and data services?

Rice: Same architecture, same services, all 25 megabits per second.

IBD: Does AT&T have enough bandwidth to compete against cable companies?

Rice: We have a lot more bandwidth to homes than we're actually utilizing.

At the site of my home in San Antonio, I'm 1,500 feet away from the (neighborhood) electronics, there's 54 Mbps of service (available). We're only allocating and using 25 Mbps (so there is more available for high-def and faster Internet services).

We only need to use 25 Mbps for the video service we're offering as well as high-speed Internet and ultimately the voice over IP service we'll launch later this year.

As other services come along that need more bandwidth, we have the capability to bring it up.

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-19375710.htm

Bumped for WilliamR

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Not good from what I've been reading so far. Hmmmm, my cable bill is going through the roof and I have so few HD channels now, sure wish I could get something with great HD quality, and channels.

I think, but am not sure, that TWC plans that speed here in Northeast Ohio.

For now, it's only 6mpbs, which I have. But they've been in the process of consolidating Adelphia into TWCNEO. (There's also another "incumbent" TWCNEO system based in Akron.) I have no idea if they're kicking it up to 10mbps over here in Ex-AdelphiaLand yet.

As for AT&T U-verse, we have it here, but might not. I live in the main city in this county, but have a mailing address of the nearby suburb (long story). There's one of those refrigerator-sized AT&T boxes out front of our subdivision, but we may not be able to get it on this side of the city line until a statewide law takes effect in the next month or two.

According to a billboard I pass on the way home from work (in the Cleveland area) it says it is available now. I could of sworn it said 15mb but it might of only been 10, I'll check again tonight.

bgooch,

Save the above post somewhere so that when eventually AT+T come to their senses and deploy FTTP, we can all have a good laugh.

I for one do not want 'more compression' applied to my HD programming; it already has enough thank you. Also, with more and more people buying HDTVs, 2 HD streams are simply not enough. Most people have more than one TV; when both of those are HDTV capable AND are connected to an HD DVR, you need 4 HD streams at a minimum. Many people require more, even today.

Sounds like the spokeman was just trying to slam Verizon's business plan and trying to make it sound like AT+T's 'UVerse' was equivilent: it's not.

Bish

BHorn

I have U-Verse and ordered the HD service.
I wasn't getting it on screen until I went in
and changed the setting to 1080.

Go --Menu:Options:System Settings:Aspect Ratio

U-Verse is the bomb. Compared to TimeWarner Cable anyway.


dxr

Thanks for the pm.

I have found that the box will reset itself on its own to 480. grrrrr!:mad:

Its done it a few times this summer.

AT&T closes in on upgrades in C'ville

September 10, 2007
By Rebecca O'Halloran STAFF WRITER

CARPENTERSVILLE -- Since Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed a law in June leveling the playing field for companies that want to offer cable service, AT&T has been quick to roll out its $8 billion, 22-state "Project Lightspeed" in Illinois.

AT&T will install 33 new equipment cabinets at public rights of way and private properties in Carpentersville to offer more fiber that will provide quicker Internet service, clearer phone service, and "provide video over telephone lines to compete with cable and satellite," said Marc Blakeman, AT&T's regional vice president for external affairs.

"Because of the technology we use and the fact that we're using fiber to send it to them, it's going to be a clearer picture," Blakeman said.

The company had a difficult time rolling out the project last year, because it had to enter into franchise agreements with each municipality.

"Going town by town was very cumbersome and a long, drawn-out process that was slowing our ability to get into the market," Blakeman said.

The law signed June 30 is a franchise agreement with the entire state, and the company now only has to receive building permits from towns, Blakeman said.

Once building permits are issued to AT&T, the company will begin installing the green or tan boxes that each hold about $200,000 worth of equipment. There already are 44 boxes for the current service.

AT&T will submit its application for a license to the Illinois Commerce Commission this month, Blakeman said. Although equipment installation already is going on in area towns -- including Algonquin, Lake in the Hills and South Elgin -- the service can't be turned on until the ICC approves it.

The service, already offered in cities in Indiana and Wisconsin, should be running in a matter of "months, not years."

AT&T filed a federal lawsuit in April 2006 against the village because officials didn't issue building permits, Blakeman said. The company argued that AT&T wasn't trying to provide "cable service," but rather video through phone lines, Blakeman said.

The lawsuit still is pending, but Village Manager Craig Anderson said he hopes to resolve the matter out of court in the next couple of weeks.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/couriernews/news/549769,3_1_EL10_A1CABLE_S1.article#

Your conclusions above match mine.

I went from Comcast to uverse in march of this year. The reason I left Comcast was over price gouging. My "triple play $99 special" went up from $130 to $160 after the one year deal was over. Yes that right, my $99 service cost $130 because of taxes, misc fees and a cable box rental fee.


In addition:

About the HiSpeed
The 6 Mbps download speed clocks in at about 5.5 Mbps, sounds good. BUT when I download from my news server (same one I used with my cable hi speed at 3 Mbps) it can only reach half of the download speed (~500kbs) of what my cable hi speed did(~1mbs). Also in general I am faster than the server sending me any file. I am going to dump the elite and save some $.

About the HD
Only having one HD feed is an unexpected problem. If I am recording a hd feed I can only watch SD material as the second feed. I did not think this would be a problem but it drives me nuts.

For awhile I had both Comcast and uverse. HD is much better on cable. And forget about watching sports in SD. Even on my bedroom 23"crt the motion artifacts make the picture unwatchable.


About the Future of Uverse
If the predicted upgrades happen in the next year or two uverse will live.
If not uverse will fade away.


WHat are you saying here? that even though i have 3 HDTV's i can only watch HD on one of them or even just one at a time? ATT is scheduled to arrive on Friday but this is not good news you're saying if i understand correctly?

wendek..

WHat are you saying here? that even though i have 3 HDTV's i can only watch HD on one of them or even just one at a time? ATT is scheduled to arrive on Friday but this is not good news you're saying if i understand correctly?

wendek..

You should have done your research. It is true that Uverse can only deliver one HD channel to your home at a time. No recording two different HD shows at one time. No watching one HD show while recording another HD show. No watching two different HD shows at the same time on different HDTV's. So if your wife is watching the Food Network in HD on Monday night, you won't be watching MNF in HD. They don't expect to be able to increase to two HD streams for another year.

You should have done your research. It is true that Uverse can only deliver one HD channel to your home at a time. No recording two different HD shows at one time. No watching one HD show while recording another HD show. No watching two different HD shows at the same time on different HDTV's. So if your wife is watching the Food Network in HD on Monday night, you won't be watching MNF in HD. They don't expect to be able to increase to two HD streams for another year.

thanks. i'm doing the research now and can surely tell the techguy to not come over on Friday. some sales guy in the neighbor came to my house and "sold" it to me for a free 30 day trial. Sounds like i either get comcast boxes or make the jump to directv then. I'd prefer to wait till directv can split their signal though.

So, is the HD Feed dynamic or do i only get to watch HD channels on one tv in the whole house?

thanks.

You can currently only get 1 HD stream at a time and it can go to any of your TVs. You can watch that same HD stream on all your TVs, but I doubt that helps much.

You can currently only get 1 HD stream at a time and it can go to any of your TVs. You can watch that same HD stream on all your TVs, but I doubt that helps much.


I guess that would be helpful if i didn't want to miss a second of the game and put one in the bathroom, and the kitchen, and the office. (who doesn't want a tv in the bathroom anyway?) or i guess i could watch tv like i would at Best Buy or something with them all lined up.
this is helpful to know. thanks.