AT&T U-verse HDTV [Text View] - Page 4

bgooch

09-27-07, 12:14 AM

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 3:43 PM PT Posted by Mark Sullivan

Today I'm attending the IPTV World conference near San Francisco. A good many in the growing IPTV industry are gathered here to talk about ways to improve the IPTV experience for viewers.

AT&T's VP of programming, Amy Friedlander, is here to talk about the state of her company's IPTV product, U-verse TV. Along with Verizon's FiOS TV, U-verse is the IPTV service you've most likely heard about or considered buying.

It was interesting talking to AT&T after I gave U-verse fairly low marks in a review of the service for PC World.com. In the review I complained that U-verse looked and acted like just another cable service.

IPTV, we are promised, should be able to do much more in the way of giving us choice and control over our TV watching time. There should also be much more integration of the TV service and all the content that's available on the public Internet, I argued.

After chatting with Friedlander, I got the impression that it will be awhile before U-verse starts living up to its IP potential. AT&T still has not made any meaningful moves to offer Internet TV or user-generated video in the U-verse service. Nor has it figured out how to suggest shows to viewers based on their previous content choices.

Friedlander says the immediate goal of U-verse is to "get the basics down," and to reach all the markets in AT&T's 13-state territory. Then, she says, the company will begin adding features and content that will make U-verse a clear choice over cable.

To be fair, AT&T has introduced a couple of new services that cable, for the most part, has not. U-verse customers can use their cell phone to order U-verse to record a certain program at a certain time. U-verse is now rolling out something called U-bar, a crawl" at the bottom of the TV screen with weather, traffic and news information selected by the user.

And it's true that the speed at which U-verse is spreading is impressive. Friedlander says that by the end of the year her company will be installing new U-verse customers at a rate of 10.000 per week. Today the company is installing about a thousand new customers a day. Compare that to the number of U-verse customers U-verse had at the beginning of this year--3,000, total.

The U-verse service is fed by new fiber optic cable planted in our neighborhoods by AT&T. Friedlander says that fiber is now within reach of about 5 million households in 9 states. By the end of the year, the fiber will pass 8 million homes, she says.

U-verse has also been criticized for being able to deliver only one HD stream into the household at a time. That's because unlike Verizon FiOS TV, AT&T does not bring the fiber optic cable all the way to home; the TV signal must travel from a "node" in the neighborhood to the household over old-school copper cable. So only one TV in the house can watch HD, while the other TVs must watch standard definition TV. Friedlander says AT&T will soon increase its HD capacity from one to two, probably some time next year. How? Better compression technology, she says.

Finally, I asked Friedlander if AT&T has gained access to any premium content that the cable companies can't get. She says not yet, although they've been trying to do so every day for quite a while now.

So is there any really compelling reason to choose U-verse over the local cable provider? No, not really, not yet. But I expect AT&T to focus all its resources on that after it finished its initial push, which should be completed by the end of 2008.

http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/005522.html

RemyM

10-03-07, 08:31 AM

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-att6oct03,0,907128.story?coll=stam-news-local-headlines

AT&T's TV service in Connecticut suffers a setback in federal court
By Brian Lockhart
Staff Writer
Stamford Advocate

October 3, 2007

AT&T lost some ground yesterday in its ongoing battle with cable and satellite television.

The telecommunications giant's efforts to compete through its fiber-optic U-verse, available in several Fairfield County communities, were dealt a setback by a federal judge in New Haven.

According to the state attorney general, U.S. District Court Judge Janet Bond Arterton issued a final judgment that the U-verse television service must be regulated by the state like cable.

Her decision overturns a state Department of Public Utility Control decision from June 2006.

"AT&T has been operating a cable service illegally without a franchise for almost a year," Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said yesterday. "It must immediately get a lawfully required franchise to comply with federal and state law."

In a statement issued yesterday, AT&T said it disagreed with the court's conclusion and was considering its legal options. An AT&T spokesman said the company would like the judge to consider a new state video-service provider law that went into effect Monday.

AT&T yesterday applied for a DPUC permit allowing it to operate as a video service provider. That law was passed earlier this year by the legislature in response to AT&T's emerging U-verse technology. The DPUC has 45 days to decide.

Supporters of the new legislation said it would help provide more cable competition. But critics counter it does not provide as many consumer protections as the law regulating cable companies.

Blumenthal and the state Office of Consumer Counsel, which took DPUC's original U-verse decision to court, yesterday called on the department to stop AT&T from signing up new customers until it has received a state cable license.

DPUC spokeswoman Beryl Lyons had not seen Arterton's ruling but said it could affect AT&T's application for a video service provider's license.

The DPUC in June 2006 ruled that U-verse was not cable and AT&T did not need to apply for the necessary franchise.

The Office of Consumer Counsel took the DPUC's decision to court, arguing AT&T should be held to the same consumer protections as cable companies.

Blumenthal has said he was concerned that AT&T did not have to offer U-verse throughout the state and may cherry-pick wealthier areas. AT&T has denied the allegation.

U-verse's 300 television and music channels are now available in 40 municipalities, including Stamford, Norwalk, Westport, Fairfield and Old Greenwich.

Last year, AT&T hailed the DPUC's initial decision as a victory for consumers seeking alternatives in the state's limited and increasingly expensive television market.

AT&T has employed novel advertising methods. In Norwalk, home of Cablevision's Connecticut operations, the company unleashed "stealth" marketing in the form of a character named "Bobby Choice."

The stocky, balding Choice had a Web site and made personal appearances at city nightspots, claiming he was a resident who for years had suffered with cable television until U-verse arrived.

In the meantime, the legislature passed a law requiring new television providers like AT&T to apply with DPUC to be licensed as a "certified competitive video provider."

The new law was touted by lawmakers and the governor's office as providing competition to cable and satellite television. But it was opposed by Bill Vallee, the Office of Consumer Counsel attorney who fought to classify U-verse as cable.

Vallee said the legislation has even weaker consumer protections than what he considers the state's already watered-down cable regulations. He said the new law does not provide a level playing field.

"Nobody wants competition more than the Office of Consumer Counsel," Vallee said.

AT&T spokesman Seth Bloom yesterday said the company has asked the judge to review the new video provider law and factor it into her ruling.

"If you are providing video service in Connecticut, you apply for a (video provider) certificate from the DPUC. It doesn't matter what technology you're using," Bloom said. "The only exception is companies that have been operating in the past with a cable franchise in Connecticut. That's not us."

Vallee disagreed.

"A federal judge has decreed quite expressly that they are a cable operation, pure and simple, which is what I've maintained all the time," Vallee said.

Bloom yesterday would not speculate whether AT&T ultimately would decide to apply for a cable franchise but said the company has no intention of abandoning the Connecticut market.

"We remain solidly committed to providing a choice to consumers in Connecticut," he said. "We've invested significant amounts of money and added jobs. . . . We are singularly committed to remaining in the market place with this product."

Vallee agreed U-verse customers should not worry about AT&T pulling up stakes.

"There is no way AT&T is going to give up the Connecticut market . . . the richest state in the United States," he said.
Copyright © 2007, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.

MyDogHasFleas

10-03-07, 10:02 PM

AT&T's VP of programming, Amy Friedlander, is here to talk about the state of her company's IPTV product, U-verse TV. Along with Verizon's FiOS TV, U-verse is the IPTV service you've most likely heard about or considered buying.

This Mark Sullivan guy immediately loses all credibility by calling FIOS an IPTV service, which it most definitely is not.

bgooch

10-05-07, 12:34 AM

DPUC says U-Verse court ruling is moot

ROB VARNON rvarnon@ctpost.com
Connecticut Post Online
Article Last Updated:10/03/2007 09:49:29 PM EDT

State regulators will continue to review AT&T's application to provide Internet TV, despite a federal court ruling saying the service should be regulated as a cable franchise.

Beryl Lyons, a Department of Public Utility Control spokeswoman, said the agency is aware of Tuesday's court ruling but, because of a new state law that governs video service, the issue of licensing AT&T as a cable franchise is moot.

AT&T filed an application for a certificate of competition with the DPUC on Monday, the day the law took affect. Lyons said the DPUC is reviewing the application and must make a decision within 45 days.

The law allows companies to provide video service in competitive markets, which include those with existing cable service.

This is the same position AT&T is taking on the court decision.

Despite agreement between regulators and the company, the issue may not be dead. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Tuesday the court decision proves AT&T should be regulated like a cable company.

More than two years ago during a Legislative Appropriations Committee meeting, DPUC Chairman Don Downes said the issue of how to regulate video services in Connecticut would become more pressing because television and the Internet were merging. He also said companies were breaking free of their traditional roles as telephone and cable providers and crossing into new service areas.

In 2006, the issue came to a head when the DPUC ruled AT&T's U-Verse was not a cable service, prompting Blumenthal to appeal the decision in federal court. Tuesday's decision seemed to vindicate Blumenthal.

But the state's new law makes it unclear what will happen next.

In a press release Tuesday night, Blumenthal said his office is considering its next move to "ensure that both AT&T — and the DPUC — follow the law in the face of a clear-cut court ruling and obtain a proper cable franchise license."

AT&T spokesman Seth Bloom said his company will continue to comply with the new state law and also considers the court ruling moot. He said many of Blumenthal's concerns about U-Verse are unfounded: The company is not "cherry picking" wealthier communities but is offering the service in economically diverse communities, including Bridgeport. He noted the new law stipulates a company cannot refuse to offer service based on an area's income.

Rob Varnon, who covers business, can be reached at 330-6216.
http://www.connpost.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=7075974&siteId=96

Marcus Carr

10-09-07, 01:26 AM

AT&T U-verse TV to Include TBS and CNN in HD

Baseball Fans Can Now Enjoy the MLB Playoffs in HD with AT&T U-verse TV

San Antonio, Texas, October 8, 2007

AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) today announced a distribution agreement with Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. to deliver TBS in HD and CNN HD as part of the AT&T U-verseSM TV High Definition (HD) channel lineup.

Under the agreement, AT&T U-verse TV customers now have access to TBS in HD, just in time for the Major League Baseball divisional playoffs. The agreement also allows for the continued carriage of TNT HD and will give AT&T U-verse TV customers access to CNN HD later this year.

“Major League Baseball is followed by loyal fans across the country, and we’re proud to offer the playoffs in HD to our U-verse TV customers,” said Rob Thun, senior vice president of Programming, AT&T Operations, Inc. “We realize that HD programming is becoming increasingly important to our viewers, and we’re excited to continue expanding our HD lineup throughout the year.”

"We are pleased to partner with AT&T to further expand their HD offering and enhance their customers' viewing experience of TBS and CNN in an HD format," said Coleman Breland, executive vice president, Sales and Marketing, Turner Network Sales.

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 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 HomezoneSM service and satellite broadcast offerings. AT&T U-verse TV also underscores the company's strategy to deliver integrated services to the three screens that consumers value most: the TV, the PC 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 uverse.att.com. AT&T U-verse customers can get more information about AT&T U-verse programming and television events by visiting uverse.att.com/uconnect.

http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=24513

bplewis24

10-09-07, 04:26 AM

a_greer

10-14-07, 12:30 PM

Ken H

10-14-07, 01:05 PM

Can I call ATT or is there some local utility board that I can call so I don't have to pay the $1000+ lease termination fee and move across the street just to get modern telecomm services...
In almost all areas where U-verse is available, AT&T has received a blanket exemption from the conventional governmental requirements that cable has. What this means is that it's entirely up to them where they offer service. You can always call them, but don't get your hopes up. I'd canvas others in your complex and see if you can start a grass roots effort; if AT&T gets lots of requests from a specific area, they may change their mind, who knows....

bgooch

10-14-07, 01:28 PM

FCC Revives MDU Drywall Rule
Video Competitors Can Tap Existing Cable Plant
By Ted Hearn -- Multichannel News, 5/31/2007 4:52:00 PM

The Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously Thursday to revive a court-rejected rule intended to aid new video providers that want to serve consumers located in apartment buildings and other multiple-dwelling units.

The FCC said it was promoting video choice and competition by declaring that existing cable wiring located behind drywall was “physically inaccessible.” As a result, new video providers can tap into the existing cable plant at a junction box many feet from the customer’s entrance instead of cutting into drywall closer to the front door.

In the same ruling, the FCC said it was helping Cox Communications compete against phone incumbents in Oklahoma apartment buildings by reaffirming voice competitors’ “right of direct access to an incumbent [local phone company’s] unbundled inside wire subloops at any point of technically feasible access.”

“Importantly, we are seeking to support all new entrants and do not favor one technology or industry over another,” FCC chairman Kevin Martin said.

Cable won in federal court a few years ago when it fought the FCC’s declaration that cable wiring behind drywall was as physically inaccessible as concrete, justifying competitive access at some other location.

“The Appeals Court reversed the last time the FCC made this finding. We will have to review the order closely before determining next steps,” National Cable & Telecommunications Association vice president of communications Brian Dietz said in a prepared statement.

Evidently, the FCC believes it has done a better job in the new rule of demonstrating that drywall is a structural element so costly to penetrate and repair that it deters building owners from welcoming new video providers.

The FCC’s latest drywall rule applies chiefly in circumstances where the cable incumbent has lost an individual MDU video customer or lost access to the entire building. It’s not exactly clear what happens under the rule if the customer dropped cable-TV service while continuing as a high-speed-data customer.

The FCC has different rules depending on whether the cable wiring is located inside the customer’s apartment or hidden behind walls in corridors and common areas.

When a customer terminates service, the cable company has to offer to sell the home wiring to the departing customer at replacement cost before removing it within a mandatory seven days. Home wiring includes plant inside the apartment leading to a point 12 inches outside the unit. The external location is known as the demarcation point.

A cable operator has three options concerning the disposition of wiring in the building not governed by the FCC’s home wiring rules. This plant, known as“home-run” wiring, can be removed, abandoned or sold at a negotiate price by the cable operator.

The FCC’s new drywall rule automatically moves the 12-inch demarcation point to another location in the building that isn’t “physically inaccessible” -- a shift that subjects more cable plant to the FCC’s less economically favorable home-wiring rules than would otherwise be the case.

At bottom, the FCC’s new drywall rule would reduce the amount of home-run wiring the cable operator could sell to someone at a negotiated price. Wiring covered by the rule that isn't sold to the customer at replacement cost or removed within one week would be there for the new entrant -- possibly AT&T or Verizon Communications -- to use it free-of-charge.

FCC Democrat Michael Copps, referring to both decisions, said the agency was dealing with “narrow implementation questions.”

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6448232

FCC Opens Up MDU Market
JUNE 01, 2007

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has introduced a new ruling aimed at giving cable operators, telcos, and other service providers easier entry to the sometimes hard-to-crack video and voice service market for multiple-dwelling units (MDUs).

Telcos and other providers had previously complained that exclusive MDU contracts prevent them from entering the market. Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ - message board), which has been more vocal about the situation, introduced an "aggressive plan" last March designed to bring its fiber-fed FiOS Internet and video services to apartments, condos, and other MDU sites.

"New entrants to the video services and telephony markets should not be prevented from competing for consumers in multi-unit buildings based on costly and inefficient industry practices," the Commission said.

In the ruling, the FCC outlined two specific elements:

* Competitive video providers must not be forced to cut through sheetrock to connect their cable wiring to existing cable home wiring inside the MDU. Like brick and cinder block materials, sheetrock, the Commission said, is defined as "physically inaccessible" for the purpose of inside wiring.
* Competing telcos, meanwhile, must have access to the incumbent provider's inside wire sub-loops in MDUs at the terminal block in order to install service.

The second part of the ruling will ensure that service providers do not harm their competitors' facilities in MDU environments. "Such anti-competitive and tortuous behavior will not be tolerated," said FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, in his statement on the matter.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin noted that the agency also granted a petition from Cox Communications Inc. , which sought a "declaratory ruling regarding the scope of access to incumbent telephony companies' inside wire in apartment buildings."

The clarification on inside wiring rules "address the legal and practical bottlenecks that may currently stand in the way of fledgling competition," added FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps, believing the rules will benefit both cable operators and telcos. "I see no reason why Americans who happen to live or work in multi-unit buildings should have a narrower range of choices when it comes to phone, video, and broadband services than Americans who live in single-family homes."

FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein agreed with the "worthwhile steps" of the ruling, but he also expressed concern that rules for the use of cable inside wiring "may be in need of an overhaul" because, if special care is not taken, people living in MDUs stand to be "slammed" by service providers much in the way consumers have been by long distance service providers.

"Unless consumers only purchase bundles of services from either their cable or telephony company, customers may need to make decisions about which provider is entitled to use the existing wire, and which provider must install new inside wire," he said.

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) offered a mixed reaction to the FCC's action, having some concerns about the item on video wiring and sheetrock.

"We support a competitive marketplace and the current rules already allow that competition to thrive with no impediments. The Appeals Court reversed the last time the FCC made this finding. We will have to review the order closely before determining next steps," the NCTA said, in a prepared statement.

RCN Corp. -- a competitive cable provider with systems in Boston; New York; Pennsylvania; Washington; Chicago; and Los Angeles -- did one better by applauding the FCC's action.

"This is a significant victory for consumers living in multi-unit buildings who want a competitive choice in video, voice, and data. The FCC ruling ensures companies like RCN will not be handcuffed in competing effectively," said RCN President and CEO Peter Aquino.

Although the ruling aims to open up competition, incumbents will likely continue to have a distinct advantage. According to Frost & Sullivan , first-movers with an MDU stand to get 90 percent of the market, while a competing service provider might only hope to obtain a share of 30 percent to 35 percent.

— Jeff Baumgartner, Site Editor, Cable Digital News
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=125413&print=true

FCC publishes rulemaking notice on competition for video services in MDUs

Apr 5, 2007 1:00 PM

The FCC made public its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on March 27 regarding its proposed steps to promote greater competition among multichannel video programmers in providing service to multiple dwelling units, such as apartments and condominiums.

The notice is seeking comment on several specific points including what steps the commission might take to make sure exclusive contracts to provide multichannel video services in such dwellings don't impede competition.

For details, see: "FCC launches proceeding on video competition in multiple dwelling units."

For more information, visit: hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-32A1.pdf

He Save Dave

10-14-07, 06:43 PM

I live on the west side of Indianapolis, the eagle creek area...I saw a forum post yesterday somewhere online that said that an apartment complex just across the parking lot from mine could get Uverse, so I spoke to their manager yesterday: It turns out that they have had Uverse for MONTHS! She went on to tell me that "the ATT fiber techs said they were going to offer to wire your complex at the same time..."

I approached the manager on duty for my complex yesterday (saturday) this "manager" had never heard of ATT Uverse, so he claimed: when I mentioned that I had seen ATT trucks in OUR complex in June doing fiber termination, he looked at me with a blank stare...followed by "We offer you comcast; that is enough for anyone...and you can just get a dish" Never mind the fact that I have filed a complaint to management because they will not help me find an agreeable solution for Dish LoS

When I asked why they refused it, he said "they are a higher end complex, they offer better amenities for richer people" but on average, there is a $40-60/Mo difference...

Can I call ATT or is there some local utility board that I can call so I don't have to pay the $1000+ lease termination fee and move across the street just to get modern telecomm services...

I'm sorry your manager appears to to be a dud. From what I understand its mutually beneficial for a property and AT&T for them to bring this service in. Ya might want to try calling the company that owns the apartments.

I just wanted to let you know that AT&T just finished running their lines at my apartment community down here on the Southside of Indy (near Southport). It took them about 2 months for them to get all the wiring ran. We are a nice property but by no means "high end". We're quite affordable actually. Not a real fancy place. I'd call AT&T and try to see when they're coming to your apts. Or keep your eye out for a gaggle of AT&T vans and ask the workers. When they were running ours they practically lived on site and thats where I got all my infos.

They haven't switched us on yet but we're getting close. I just wanted to give you a little local info. Good luck fellow Hoosier. GO COLTS!

RemyM

10-16-07, 01:18 PM

Connecticut Regulators order AT&T to apply for cable TV license for 'U-verse'
October 15, 2007

NEW BRITAIN, Conn. -- State utility regulators on Monday ordered AT&T to get a cable television license for the Internet protocol-based TV service it is currently providing in Connecticut.

Department of Public Utility Control commissioners said a recent ruling by a federal judge made it clear that AT&T's "U-verse" constitutes a cable television service, and the company is operating it without proper authorization.

Commissioners unanimously rejected the company's application for a "video franchise" certificate, which state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said would have allowed AT&T to run "U-verse" under regulations that are less strict than those for cable television. The DPUC ordered AT&T to apply for a cable TV license no later than Dec. 31.

The agency, however, is allowing AT&T to continue offering "U-verse" to existing customers until a decision is made on the cable television license. The company will be prohibited from signing up new customers and installing new equipment related to the Internet protocol service while the cable TV application is pending.

AT&T vowed to appeal the ruling in state Superior Court on Tuesday. The company said that if the ruling stands, it will be forced to eliminate more than 300 jobs in the state related to "U-verse," not hire or eliminate about 1,000 other jobs in Connecticut and disconnect the more than 7,000 households in the state that currently subscribe to the service.

The company also said the Connecticut ruling would be the first in the country to force it to obtain a cable franchise for "U-verse," and would harm consumers by reducing competition.

Blumenthal, however, called the DPUC ruling a "landmark victory" for consumers because it would ensure "real" cable competition throughout the state.

"Plainly and simply AT&T is illegally operating a cable service without a franchise, required to provide real competition and a level playing field," he said.

Blumenthal said that if AT&T was granted a video franchise, it would have been allowed to provide cable TV service to a select number of customers in certain parts of Connecticut without requirements for consumer protection or service quality.

He said the cable television license rules require basic service packages including local, governmental and educational programming.

AT&T officials strongly disagreed with the DPUC and Blumenthal.

The company said agency commissioners contradicted a law approved by Gov. M. Jodi Rell and state lawmakers earlier this year that was intended to make it easier for video providers like AT&T to enter the market and compete against cable companies.

"In making this ruling, the DPUC ignored both the spirit and the letter of a brand-new consumer-friendly law and is protecting the cable monopoly," said Ramona Carlow, who oversees regulatory and external affairs as AT&T's state president.

AT&T says "U-verse" is available to more than 150,000 households in more than 40 cities and towns across the state. The service is provided over the company's telephone wires and is set up like traditional cable TV service.

John Emra, an AT&T regional vice president, said the DPUC's decision "is bad for consumers who are finally getting a choice."

He said the company is going to immediately stop its $336 million investment in video service in Connecticut.

State Sen. John Fonfara, D-Hartford, and Rep. Stephen Fontana, D-North Haven, who wrote the new video providers law, urged the DPUC to approve AT&T's video franchise.

"AT&T is the type of applicant that we foresaw applying when we passed (the law) so overwhelmingly, the type of applicant the governor likely sought to encourage to apply by signing the legislation into law," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to the DPUC.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/state/hc-15192355.apds.m0940.bc-ct--attoct15,0,2470765.story?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire

mcspeed

10-16-07, 07:21 PM

Just an update. I have the phone only portion of U-verse (fibre to my house) and thought I would start there before going down the TV and internet roads. Remember they are a phone company right?

First phone bill projected $50
Actual $700+

No voice mail which I was initially quoted and charged for. Customer no-service told me I have vmail....just need to change my number to get it. Long distance has been shut off by ATT twice even though they are not my LD carrier. Calling my neighbor is a long distance call.

Remember they are a phone company and they can't come close to handling my phone appliance. Hold times are long, customer no-service reps are rude and not helpful. One even told my wife that he couldn't help her get the LD reinstated.

Neighbors with TV have issues with pic freezing or low quality HD. Others have LD calls getting cut off.
As soon as my bill gets credited, ......by by AT&T. If you like poor service, high prices, hassles beyond belief, you will love AT&T. In other words, not recommended.

bgooch

10-17-07, 02:32 AM

October 15, 2007
AT&T’s all-IP TV and Internet access service has a pulse.
By Peter D. Shapiro

AT&T launched U-verse for real at the end of 2006 after a rocky false start earlier last year. Now, finally, U-verse is beginning to show signs of life.

To recap, U-verse is delivered via a hybrid-fiber-wire-pair network architecture. AT&T runs fiber to neighborhood nodes and then uses existing telco copper wire-pair loops for node-to-household connections. U-verse is all-IP and 100% switched. Subscribers can receive up to four TV programs simultaneously, plus Internet access.

By early September, according to AT&T, U-verse passed 5 million households and was being actively marketed to "nearly half" of these homes pending full readiness of back-office and other prerequisites to support the service. U-verse had 100,000 subscribers, reflecting approximately 4% penetration of 2.5 million actively marketed homes. The service was growing at 6,000 new installs per week, up from 400 per week at the beginning of the year.

New U-verse installs are ramping up as more techs are trained and as homes are released for marketing. Notably this growth appears more a function of supply than of demand. AT&T reports that U-verse is being installed typically within one week of the customer order. There is no waiting list. Perhaps this is due to the early stage of U-verse marketing, or to ample and efficiently managed resources to install the service.

Alternatively, U-verse might still lack what it takes to excite most consumers. As summarized in the table below, while some U-verse features appear potentially differentiating versus cable, other U-verse features may be perceived less positively. As might be expected, AT&T reports that enhancements to its U-verse product are in the works, for example, to use pair-bonding to expand transmission capacity beyond one HD signal at a time.

AT&T reports spending $330 in capex per U-verse home passed. Given U-verse’s current penetration level, which may change as the number of actively marketed households approaches the number of homes passed, AT&T’s capex per sub is $8,250 ($330/4%), plus the cost of CPE and installation, neither of which is cheap. For example, AT&T reports that each install now takes 6.5 hours on average.

AT&T forecasts that U-verse HP will increase to 8 million by the end of 2007 and to 18 million by the end of 2008, equivalent to 55% of AT&T’s footprint of 32 million residential primary access lines. AT&T also forecasts that new installs will reach 10,000 per week by the end of this year. Keep several grains of salt handy: AT&T has had to backtrack on earlier U-verse projections. However, if AT&T’s current forecasts do turn out to be accurate, U-verse will morph from an interesting technology concept into a significant contender for cable’s market share.

Peter D. Shapiro is an industry veteran and principal at PDS Consulting, a cable & telecoms consultancy (www.pdsconsulting.net). He can be reached at: peter@pdsconsulting.net.
http://www.cable360.net/competition/26065.html

http://www.cable360.net/images/articles/26065_1192130233.jpg

cwh

10-17-07, 07:02 AM

mcspeed

10-17-07, 07:13 AM

cwh

10-18-07, 06:58 AM

All the hardware and install are the same as multiple neighbors who have U-verse with fibre to the door. Could I still have diff system? I'm no techie but know terrible service when I see it. These guys have a long way to go based on my experience (30+ hours on the phone and counting).

They are a phone company who can't provide me with reliable phone and support. I wouldn't consider TV and internet which are way more complicated in terms of potential issues.

Just trying to make sense of what you are telling me. There is no u-verse voice yet, unless you are in some sort of test market. There is no U-verse at all in Atlanta, unless it is some sort of test market. U-verse has no install fees.

However legacy fttp customer do seems to get the run around at ATT, because there are so few of them. This should get better as they get switched to the new u-verse network.

Marcus Carr

10-23-07, 12:49 PM

AT&T's Fast IPTV Growth May Have a Downside

Subscribers Hit 126,000 as of End of September, But IPTV Service's Infrastructure May Be Stressed Under Load

By Todd Spangler -- Multichannel News, 10/23/2007 8:07:00 AM

AT&T said Tuesday that its U-verse TV service hit an "accelerated" growth curve in the third quarter, with the telco more than doubling video subscribers in three months to reach 126,000 as of Sept. 30.

But the company's Internet Protocol TV infrastructure has shown signs of strain under such relatively fast growth: AT&T confirmed that U-verse TV suffered a massive, nationwide outage on Sunday, which prevented viewers from tuning to dozens of cable networks for most of the day.

AT&T, which said it fully restored service as of 8:30 p.m. ET on Oct. 21, claimed it was still investigating the cause of the outage and did not provide any technical details about the glitch. The telco advised affected customers to reboot their set-top boxes at appointed times to restore their full channel lineups.

Industry analysts have been skeptical that the IPTV architecture adopted by the phone company, which sends video signals down traditional copper wiring to subscribers' homes, would be able to scale up to handle millions of customers comfortably. U-verse TV uses networking equipment from Alcatel-Lucent and IPTV middleware and set-top software from Microsoft.

In the last three months, the pace of U-verse TV customer installs picked up dramatically, according to AT&T. The company said weekly install rates for U-verse TV in the last weeks of September approached 10,000, up from approximately 5,500 three months earlier.

Meanwhile, the telephone company still has 10 times as many TV customers through agreements with DirecTV and EchoStar Communications as it does for U-verse TV. AT&T had 2.0 million direct-broadcast satellite subscribers at the end of September, having added 140,000 in the quarter.

Total video connections, combining AT&T U-verse TV and DBS, increased by 215,000 in the quarter to 2.1 million. At the end of the third quarter, 6.7% of AT&T's primary consumer lines had a video solution from either AT&T, DirecTV or EchoStar, up from 4.2% a year earlier.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6493387.html?desc=topstory

RemyM

10-24-07, 08:00 AM

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-att5oct24,0,841594.story?coll=stam-news-local-headlines

Blumenthal changes mind about U-verse

By Brian Lockhart
Staff Writer

October 24, 2007

In another twist in the legal battle over U-verse, AT&T's new fiber-optic television service, the Connecticut attorney general yesterday reversed his earlier opposition to the company signing up subscribers while its operating license remains in limbo.

Reacting to a federal court ruling, the state Department of Public Utility Control last week had ordered AT&T to stop signing up U-verse customers until it obtained a license for a cable television franchise.

DPUC said AT&T could continue servicing existing U-verse customers, including those in several Fairfield County communities.

AT&T has appealed the decision, believing U-verse should be licensed under a new state video franchise law, and is due in state Superior Court on Friday.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal had last week hailed DPUC's decision. But yesterday, fearing the legal battle over U-verse could stretch on for at least a year, Blumenthal wrote to AT&T, saying he was asking the DPUC to grant the company a stay while the court proceedings play out.

"We all agree that consumers should have access to U-verse - as many as possible, as soon as possible," Blumenthal wrote. "If the stay is approved by the DPUC, AT&T may proceed to install and market new service while it contests the federal court's conclusion that U-verse service is cable. . . . I hope that AT&T will support our motion."

But AT&T spokesman Seth Bloom yesterday said the company had decided not to seek a stay from the DPUC.

"We really felt it would add more confusion to the marketplace to start signing up customers," Bloom said. "We want to wait until there's clarity to continue the investment and continue to aggressively court customers looking for a new change from their cable company."

The confusing battle over U-verse began in June 2006, when the DPUC ruled that the fiber-optic service was not cable and AT&T did not need to apply for a license as a cable franchise.

Later that year, the company began rolling out the new television product, offering 300 channels to about 40 municipalities, including Stamford, Norwalk, Westport, Fairfield and Old Greenwich.

But the state's Office of Consumer Counsel and Blumenthal disagreed with the DPUC's position and appealed it in federal court. They agreed with AT&T, however, that U-verse provides competition to existing cable and satellite television.

But the consumer counsel and Blumenthal claimed it should be regulated as a cable franchise to better protect consumers and ensure AT&T does not limit the product to wealthier communities.

As the parties awaited a ruling, the Democratic-controlled legislature and Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell passed a law requiring new television providers like AT&T to apply with the DPUC for licenses as a "certified competitive video provider."

That bill went into effect Oct. 1, and AT&T's application was pending when U.S. District Court Judge Janet Bond Arterton ruled U-verse must be regulated by the state, just as cable is.

The DPUC last week also rejected AT&T's video franchise application and ordered the company to get a cable license. That led to AT&T's appeal.

Blumenthal yesterday said he decided to support AT&T's continuing sign-up of U-verse subscribers during the court proceedings because it is apparent the company intends to expend all legal recourses, which could take months, or years.

"What's changed is their 'scorched-earth' policy in the courtroom," Blumenthal said. "I was hoping they'd accept what seems to be the law."

Blumenthal said that in the "highly unlikely" chance AT&T prevails in state Superior Court on Friday, his office would push for an appeal; he noted that AT&T also can appeal an unfavorable ruling.

Bloom said if the Superior Court judge sides with AT&T, he would hope Blumenthal and the DPUC would "heed the calls" of Rell and the Democratic co-chairmen of the legislature's Energy and Technology Committee.

"Connecticut's new law was carefully and deliberately written to make it clear that service such as U-verse would be certified as competitive video service operators," Rell stated yesterday. "Other states that have taken this step have seen their cable rates drop while investments and job growth have increased.

"Connecticut stands to see exactly the opposite happen if the DPUC decision stands."

State Sen. John Fonfara, D-Hartford, and state Rep. Steve Fontana, D-North Haven, co-chairmen of the Energy and Technology Committee, have scheduled a news conference today to discuss the new video franchise law and urge the DPUC to reconsider AT&T's application.

The two lawmakers said that DPUC ignored clear legislative language and intent by rejecting AT&T's bid for a video franchise.
Copyright © 2007, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.

BHorn

10-24-07, 10:29 AM

I approached the manager on duty for my complex yesterday (Saturday) this "manager" had never heard of ATT Uverse, so he claimed: when I mentioned that I had seen ATT trucks in OUR complex in June doing fiber termination, he looked at me with a blank stare...followed by "We offer you comcast; that is enough for anyone...

I am a small investor in a apartment complex. Comcast pays us about $5 per unit/year for access rights. Phone company doesn't have to pay. May not sound like much but lets say you have 200 units x $5 x 5 yr = $5,000. Funny thing is until we got a new management company that $5,000 check never showed up and none of the investors new anything about it.

Me thinks last manager got a new fishing boat.

RemyM

10-25-07, 07:55 AM

AT&T says no U-verse in Connecticut if license is necessary
By Brian Lockhart
Staff Writer, Stamford Advocate

October 25, 2007

HARTFORD - If AT&T must apply for a cable franchise for its fiber-optic U-verse, it would stop offering the television service in Connecticut, a company vice president said yesterday.

"It's not a threat," said John Emra, AT&T regional vice president of legislative affairs. "We will not enter the marketplace."

AT&T launched U-verse late last year as an alternative to cable and satellite television and hoped to operate it under a new competitive video service law.

The company said it has about 7,000 subscribers, or 20 percent of the state, in 40 towns, including Stamford, Norwalk, Westport, Fairfield and Greenwich.

State Sen. John Fonfara, D-Hartford, and state Rep. Steve Fontana, D-North Haven, co-chairmen of the legislature's Energy and Technology Committee, said they may push for emergency legislation to reverse a recent order by state utility regulators that AT&T apply for a cable license.

"We wanted to let the public know we take this very seriously," Fontana said. "We don't believe the Department of Public Utility Control has done the right thing and would like to fix it."

Last year, the DPUC decided that U-verse is not cable and AT&T did not have to apply for the franchise. The state Office of Consumer Counsel appealed the decision. Earlier this month, a federal court judge ruled that U-verse is a cable service.

Last week, the DPUC ordered AT&T to stop signing up customers and get a permit.

The case is complicated by the competitive video service law that took effect Oct. 1. AT&T expected it would apply to U-verse.

Fonfara and Fontana said they helped craft the legislation to help AT&T and other television providers overcome archaic cable franchise rules that gave a few companies a monopoly.

"Our legislation was not about AT&T," Fonfara said. "AT&T is clearly the elephant in the room, (but) we crafted this legislation universally. . . . It is our belief and hope we'll see additional entrants."

Several years ago, when AT&T was SNET, the company offered a cable service but "fairly heavy regulation requirements" made it "impossible," Emra said.

The Office of Consumer Counsel and state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal have said they want competition, but the video service law lacks consumer protections, including a requirement that applicants offer their television service statewide.

Joe Cordero, an AT&T project manager, disputed Blumenthal's allegation that the company is singling out wealthier towns for the service.

"Our plans not only cover a large percentage of our (phone) customers but a diverse cross section" that includes inner-city neighborhoods in Bridgeport, New Haven and Hartford, Cordero said. "AT&T is in the business of selling to as many customers as possible."

Fonfara said he understands concerns about the bill but said it has enough merits to move forward.

"Some of the attorney general's outspokenness has taken us a little by surprise," Fonfara said.

AT&T is appealing the federal court ruling and is due in state Superior Court tomorrow to ask a judge to overturn the DPUC order.

Even if the federal court ruling is upheld, DPUC may allow U-verse to operate under the video service law, Emra said.

Fontana and Fonfara said DPUC "misinterpreted" the law and they may ask the legislature to vote on changes to the bill during a special session.

Blumenthal this week encouraged the DPUC to let AT&T resume signing up customers while the legal battle proceeds.

But Emra said AT&T disagrees with the move.

"We are not interested in going out to market to new customers to disappoint them later and have the service turned off," he said.
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-uverse5oct25,0,1715557.story?coll=stam-news-local-headlines

bgooch

10-25-07, 10:50 AM

AT&T: IPTV Is Past ‘Will It Scale?’
By Todd Spangler -- Multichannel News, 10/24/2007 7:03:00 AM

ATLANTA -- Peter Hill, vice president of video and converged services at AT&T Labs, said Internet Protocol TV has proven it can scale up -- now that the company has passed the 100,000 subscribers -- and he outlined potential future IPTV applications the telco has in development.

“We’re in a sort of exponential growth stage for U-verse,” Hill said here at the TelcoTV conference Wednesday.

AT&T ended the third quarter with 126,000 U-verse TV customers, up from 3,000 at the end of 2006. In the last weeks of September, AT&T said it was nearing 10,000 installs per week for the service, up from 5,500 per week three months ago.

“We’re past the point of, ‘Will IPTV scale?’” Hill said. “Because we have over 100,000 subscribers -- you can’t get to that number without having significant automation.”

At the same time, however, AT&T this week experienced a widespread glitch with U-verse TV that blocked access to dozens of cable channels.

On Sunday, Oct. 21, subscribers in all of the 33 markets where AT&T provides U-verse TV service lost service to all or some of their channel lineups early in the morning. AT&T restored local broadcast TV channels and some cable channels within a few hours but did not restore the full lineup to all markets until 8:30 p.m. ET.

What caused the outage? Hill didn’t directly address the snafu in his remarks, but other AT&T executives have said the problem stemmed from a back-end software upgrade gone awry.

AT&T chief financial officer Rick Lindner, on a conference call with analysts Tuesday, said the channel outages were caused by a “software load” that the telco put on its operations support system (OSS). OSS software handles tasks related to managing network devices.

Lindner said the glitch was unrelated to the U-verse TV architecture “or the scaling of the platform.”

The software load, Lindner said, “unfortunately impacted the database that’s used to track and maintain the programming packages that customers are subscribed to. And what that caused on Sunday is it caused customers to lose some channels for part of the day.”

AT&T is providing customers with some credits to compensate for the loss of service. Lindner said that “since we’ve identified what the issue is, we’re going to work to make sure that it does not happen again.”

Hill, in his presentation at TelcoTV, described IPTV applications AT&T has in the labs. “These are services that are concepts, not a roadmap of applications that AT&T is working on a from a marketing sense,” he said. “It’s from a labs, ‘art of the possible’ perspective.”

One was a “family finder” on the TV, which showed the location of family members and friends using GPS-based phones to plot them on a Yahoo map. Hill zoomed in on a dot representing his own phone in the Georgia World Congress Center, where TelcoTV is taking place.

Hill also demonstrated “uCast,” an application for sharing home video clips to other IPTV subscribers. “This is really niche content,” he said. “But my mother in Great Britain would be interested in it.”

At another point, Hill logged in to the U-verse TV service using an Apple iPhone, which then loaded a remote control to navigate menus and control the DVR. The iPhone communicated with the Motorola IPTV set-top through an infrared link.

Other applications included more familiar ideas, such as caller ID on the TV, playing back voicemail, sending messages from a cell phone to the TV, pulling up local weather forecasts, downloading Internet-based content like podcasts, and shopping for DVDs on Amazon.com from the TV.

“We’re not having to go out and create all this stuff in IPTV,” Hill said. “We’re reaching out to these decades of innovation on the Web and incorporating that into IPTV.”

Meanwhile, rumors continued to circulate that AT&T plans to acquire either EchoStar Communications or DirecTV to accelerate its TV business.

The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday reported that AT&T “appears to be getting ready to swoop in” on one of the satellite companies. The company has consulted lawyers in Washington, D.C., to determine how long government approval would take for such a deal, according to the paper.

The Journal noted, however, uncertainties associated with a bid for EchoStar and DirecTV, including a price tag of between $30 billion and $40 billion.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6493869

RemyM

10-29-07, 01:33 PM

U-verse TV battle moves to Connecticut state court

BY DAVID KRECHEVSKY REPUBLICAN-AMERICAN

HARTFORD — The fate of AT&T's U-verse television service now rests with a state superior court judge.

Judge Robert F. McWeeny conducted a hearing Friday before a packed house in Hartford Superior Court on a request from AT&T Inc. to overturn a ruling by state regulators that requires the company to seek a cable TV franchise license for U-verse.

AT&T has said it will pull the plug on U-verse in Connecticut if it is forced to seek a cable license, even though it has invested in constructing lines to deliver the service, hired or plans to hire about 1,300 workers, and has more than 7,000 subscribers in 42 communities. The company plans to invest $336 million over three years to install the service.

McWeeny focused on two points: what legislators intended when they created the new video franchising law, and whether the federal judge's ruling affected the new law.

Attorneys for AT&T said it is clear from language in the new state law and from statements by the legislators who crafted it that they want AT&T to compete with cable without being regulated in the same way.

Attorneys representing the DPUC countered by saying legislators relied on an incorrect assumption, that U-verse "is not a cable service," when they crafted the law.

After hearing all of the arguments, McWeeny said he would not issue a ruling Friday, but intends to have one "soon."
http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2007/10/26/business/293511.prt

RemyM

11-01-07, 07:27 AM

AT & T Wins In Connecticut Court; TV Service To Continue

By MARK PETERS

Hartford Courant Staff Writer

November 1, 2007

A Hartford Superior Court judge ruled Wednesday that AT&T can resume signing up customers for its TV service, possibly ending the battle over how to regulate the company's alternative to cable television.

Judge Robert McWeeny overturned a ruling by the state Department of Public Utility Control that required AT&T to follow the same rules as cable companies. McWeeny ruled that AT&T should instead be regulated under a new state law designed to promote TV services that compete with cable companies, something the state hopes will lead to lower rates and improved service.

"The legislature has made a policy determination to encourage competition in the area of cable services by reducing the regulatory burden on providers… The DPUC and [state Office of Consumer Counsel] are created by the legislature to facilitate and implement their policy determinations, not to frustrate them," the judge wrote.

As a result of the recent DPUC decision, AT&T threatened to lay off hundreds of workers, call off hundreds of millions of dollars in construction and shut down the TV service for its 7,000 existing customers.

AT&T now plans to continue expanding its TV service known as U-verse, which is available in parts of 42 towns and cities in Connecticut. The company uses an Internet-like technology to deliver ESPN, HBO and other TV programming over telephone lines.

As part of the new state law, AT&T will have to receive a new kind of license from the DPUC as a competitive video provider. The company said it won't start signing up new customers until it gets the license.

"Connecticut consumers will have a chance for video choice at last. We are proud and pleased today to have gotten clarity from [the court]," Seth Bloom, an AT&T spokesman, said in a statement.

It wasn't clear Thursday whether the state might appeal the ruling. Neither officials at the DPUC nor the Office of Consumer Counsel, which represents TV service customers, could be reached for comment.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal had argued that U-verse should be treated the same as cable TV companies and abide by the same rules. But he softened his position in recent days, and said Thursday he doesn't believe McWeeny's ruling should be appealed. He may seek legislative changes to ensure competition for TV service is fair.

"We may differ on legal issues, but we share the goal of providing cable consumers with this new service so they, hopefully, have the benefits of lower prices and better service. Continued legal combat ill-serves that common objective," Blumenthal said in a statement.

The battle over AT&T's U-verse service had focused on whether the phone giant should be compelled to get a franchise license for the whole state and provide service to anyone who wanted it, statewide. Cable companies like Comcast and Cox Communications currently have that requirement for their franchise areas, which encompass several municipalities and not the whole state.

The consumer counsel and Blumenthal had argued that if AT&T wasn't required to serve everyone, then only certain areas of the state would benefit from competition. The company could then pick and choose the most lucrative areas, leaving others particularly the poor or those in rural areas with no competitive choice.

AT&T argued that to offer the service to everyone would be burdensome as it entered a market where cable companies have had a decades-old monopoly. If the state wanted competition, the company maintained, it would have to drop the so-called universal service requirement.

The General Assembly did just that in a law passed earlier this year that prevents AT&T from discriminating against low-income areas, but doesn't require the company to offer U-verse to all customers. The law also set up a lighter regulatory system that still included customer service requirements and public access TV funding.

However, that law came into question after a federal court ruled that AT&T was a cable company in a lawsuit brought by the consumer counsel and cable industry. The federal ruling resulted in the DPUC ruling on Oct. 15 that AT&T didn't qualify under the new state law and had to stop signing up customers until it received a cable franchise license.

AT&T balked and appealed the ruling to state court, leading to Wednesday's ruling.

Contact Mark Peters at mrpeters@courant.com.

courant.com/business/hc-uverse1101.artnov01,0,3164193.story

LYU370

11-01-07, 01:23 PM

State allows AT&T to offer TV service

By Anna Marie Kukec | Daily Herald Staff Contact writer
Published: 10/25/2007 12:14 AM

The Illinois Commerce Commission gave the final nod Wednesday so AT&T can begin its statewide rollout of its U-verse video service -- a bone of contention with some suburban officials and a competitive pain-in-the-cable for Comcast.

AT&T will start working to build its network and offer area consumers a chance to have Internet protocol video services during a revolutionary time in the telecommunications industry. Service could start early next year in some areas, AT&T spokesman Andrew Ross said.

"This is a huge victory for both Illinois consumers, who will now have a real choice when it comes to selecting their video provider, and the Illinois economy," Ross said.

In June, the Cable and Video Competition Act became law and allowed AT&T to submit its application to the ICC to provide its video service. The state agency regulates utilities, including AT&T. Because new technology has often blurred the lines between telephone companies and multi-media services, the new law offered AT&T the chance to compete head-to-head against Comcast.

"Delivering next-generation broadband, voice and video TV services to Illinois families will require a significant amount of capital investment in the Illinois economy and requires new AT&T employees to build the network, install and sell our new U-verse video service to Illinois consumers," said Ross. "From our experience in others states, we know that it will be hundreds of millions of dollars and significant job creation."

The entrance of AT&T continues the competitive battle with Comcast, which also offers video, data and phone services.

"Comcast has already done what AT&T claims it's going to do in the future: Comcast brought Illinois consumers a real choice for local phone service, and today we add 1,000 new Comcast phone customers every day we do installations, most of whom have left AT&T," Comcast spokeswoman Angelynne S. Amores said.

"We have already made a $3 billion investment on broadband networks in the state. We have already actually added about 1,000 local new jobs this year to serve Illinois residents. AT&T is now trying to play catch-up because we've already built a network, already added jobs, and already delivered a real triple-play bundle to Illinois consumers," Amores said.

AT&T's U-verse service starts at what the company calls video super hubs, which acquire programming from providers. A central office will then distribute the programming to homes, which are connected by fiber optics or copper wires.

Package prices range from $44 to $129 per month, depending on downloading power and number of channels.

U-verse, part of AT&T's Project Lightspeed, has been controversial in many area suburbs.

Wheaton, Wood Dale, Roselle, Geneva, North Aurora, Itasca and Carpentersville were being sued by AT&T for preventing it from upgrading its network.

The towns said AT&T was required to follow the same franchising process as Comcast, pay the same fees for public rights of way, allow for services to all residents regardless of ability to pay and provide local access channels. AT&T argued it's not a cable company and shouldn't be treated like one.

In light of the ICC approvals Wednesday, those lawsuits now are in settlement talks, according to Ross.

The city of Geneva welcomed competition but it's been a bumpy road, Mayor Kevin Burns said.

"We believe the road ahead will be a lot smoother," said Burns. "We're now working with them on their final plans."

Schlepper

11-02-07, 11:02 AM

Spoke to an employee who said ATT was lighting up the Chicago area on January 28th.

Bye Bye Comcast!

BDCat

11-02-07, 11:24 AM

... Bye Bye Comcast!Don't forget that U-Verse can only handle a single HD stream at the present time.

No watching one HD show while recording another! No watching HD program 1 in one room while watching HD program 2 in another!

I believe they say it will be fixed later in 2008.

joperio

11-02-07, 11:32 AM

I originally had U-Verse but switched to Comcast.
U-verse HD was a little washed out, but the SD channels were nice.
1 HD recording at a time on U-verse was not horrible for me, but the biggest reason I switched to Comcast was the lack of PPV on U-verse.

RemyM

11-02-07, 11:34 AM

I believe they say it will be fixed later in 2008.

Their original timetable was now then they pushed it back a year. Let's see if they hit that target. Even if they do it still won't be enough for me. I need 3 HD streams, when and if they upgrade, you will only get 2.

Schlepper

11-02-07, 02:50 PM

I really want the Big Ten Network without putting up a dish. Comcast has enough of my money. Competition will be a good thing.

jefbal99

11-02-07, 03:10 PM

I really want the Big Ten Network without putting up a dish. Comcast has enough of my money. Competition will be a good thing.

Hiding a dish is really easy, mine is on the back of my roof and you can only see it at one angle.

I got so sick of Comcast and their crap that I made the only change I could.

bgooch

11-03-07, 12:37 AM

The Capital Times - Oct 31, 2007

As cable deregulation picks up steam in the Legislature, critics say AT&T has a long track record of broken promises.

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/254205

RemyM

11-03-07, 02:14 PM

Connecticut DPUC Issues Certificate For U-Verse
By Anthony Cronin , Day Business Editor

Published on 11/2/2007
AT&T and union officials on Thursday welcomed state regulators' approval of the communications company's new U-verse offering, which provides television services over its phone network.
The state Department of Public Utility Control issued a “certificate of video franchise,” making AT&T the first competitor to offer television services under a new state law designed to increase competition with the cable industry.

New London is one of the introductory markets for the new U-verse television service. AT&T, whose statewide headquarters is in New Haven, launched the service last December in a handful of towns and cities. Since then, it has expanded to 42 municipalities and serves more than 150,000 customers. Company officials said AT&T would continue to expand the service to more towns and cities across Connecticut.

In addition, downtown New London is home to a service center for the new U-verse service that employs about 100.

Ramona Carlow, president of AT&T's Connecticut operations, said her company is pleased with the DPUC decision, saying that Connecticut consumers “have long desired more choice in the video marketplace.”

The U-verse service comes into a residence via the telephone network. Once inside the home, equipment essentially “splits” the television signal off from the voice or data signals, providing cable-like service to individual television sets in a home.

Earlier this week, AT&T won an important court victory when a Hartford Superior Court judge backed the communications company in its battle to convince state regulators to let it sell the service without being considered a regulated cable provider.

The DPUC had ruled this past month that AT&T needed a cable-television license for its new service. AT&T objected, along with its union workers and many of its customers. AT&T officials said they have invested more than $300 million in the new service and disputed that it is a cable-like service.

William F. Henderson III, president of the Communications Workers of America Local 1298, said the DPUC decision on Thursday offers welcome relief to his union, which had forecast the loss of at least 1,300 jobs across the state if the new television offering were halted.

The CWA workers include various technicians and service personnel who are working to install the new service and broaden the U-verse network to more municipalities across the state. “I'm happy that they (DPUC) moved so quickly because jobs were at stake and the economy in the state of Connecticut would suffer” if jobs were lost from the initial DPUC ruling in October, Henderson said.

U-verse basic service starts at $44 a month, but the price increases depending on the level of service, such as adding television offerings or Internet-related packages.

a.cronin@theday.com

http://www.theday.com/re_print.aspx?re=0bd1b110-c700-459a-a29b-ca81f3e3f1a8

jacmyoung

11-03-07, 10:00 PM

jabbathespud

11-04-07, 01:01 AM

I had U400 Elite for 2 months but i cancelled the TV portion and keep the Internet (6Mb/1Mb) with no problem. I was charged a few bucks (< 20), which for 2 months of everything, was fine.

91er

11-04-07, 01:27 AM

I had U400 Elite for 2 months but i cancelled the TV portion and keep the Internet (6Mb/1Mb) with no problem. I was charged a few bucks (< 20), which for 2 months of everything, was fine.

I'm giving them a shot starting Monday. If the TV does not work out, I will cancel that and (probably) hang on to the internet. I can't get DSL Elite at my location.

ahintz

11-04-07, 01:03 AM

This is the weirdest thing I have ever seen, most posts are endless news stories, the rest are either people who signed up then left, or those who are looking into something else.

I have ATT for both my phone and broadband services, and ATT has been sending me U-Verse deals. The bundled price looks so good I have been trying to justify at least a trial installation because of the 30-day guarantee. I can even see keeping my E* service at a lower tier and still come out even by adding U-Verse.

Yet there is just nothing here I read that can get me off the fence.

For those who actually tried and canceled, do you also have to cancel the broadband and phone services for ATT to honor the 30-day money back deal?

I just had U-verse installed in Sacramento about a week ago (I'm in Natomas) and so far, I am pretty sure I'll cancel at the end of the month. Service shows a lot of promise, and I think in 6 -18 months, it may be a strong competitor to cable and satellite, but so far I haven't been impressed. Main issues for me is that I get more HD channels from DirecTV, that I can only record one HD stream at a time, that there is no HD VOD/PPV, and most importantly, that the box keeps crashing on me. I find I can't turn off the box, or it is about 50/50 whether it will turn on again with a restart. Even leaving the box on all the time I have seen it lock up. I have had recordings that just froze 3/4 of the way into them. Basically, a lot of little stuff that adds up to TV being more work than it should be.

Now, all that said, if AT&T will let me keep just the Internet portion, I will probably do that, since that has worked great so far - plus it will allow me to easily dip into U-verse again as it improves, which I fully expect it to. It just doesn't quite fulfill my needs in a TV provider yet.

Aro

11-04-07, 09:35 AM

Even if the service isn't up to par yet, anything that sends Comcast running to the legislature to try and stamp it out is a good thing.

thebishman

11-04-07, 12:06 PM

I'm giving them a shot starting Monday. If the TV does not work out, I will cancel that and (probably) hang on to the internet. I can't get DSL Elite at my location.

If they can't get you their 6Mb/sec Elite internet DSL service, how are they going to get you the necessary 25Mb/sec U-Verse?

Bish

cwh

11-04-07, 04:10 PM

If they can't get you their 6Mb/sec Elite internet DSL service, how are they going to get you the necessary 25Mb/sec U-Verse?

Bish

Legacy dsl network versus the new lightspeed network. My guess is it is going to take a while to turn off the old dsl network.

Marcus Carr

11-06-07, 12:38 PM

AT&T Ups U-verse Spending Estimates by $500 Million

Telco Also Cuts Projected Number of Homes Passed, to 17 Million by End of 2008

By Todd Spangler -- Multichannel News, 11/6/2007 7:14:00 AM

AT&T is having to open its checkbook again to fund the expansion of U-verse TV, even as it once more cuts the number of potential subscribers who will be able to sign up for the service by the end of 2008.

The nation’s biggest phone company plans to spend $500 million more than it previously reported to build out the network underlying U-verse TV in 2007-08. At the same time, that network will reach 1 million fewer homes than AT&T had anticipated as recently as May, according to a quarterly filing Tuesday with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The company said spending on U-verse from January 2007 to the end of 2008 will be between $4.5 billion and $5.0 billion. In May, AT&T said capital spending for the U-verse rollout for that two-year period would be $4 billion to $4.5 billion, an increase of up to $1.4 billion more than previously estimated for 2004-08.

Part of the additional $500 million in spending is earmarked for the former BellSouth territories. AT&T completed the $86 billion acquisition of BellSouth earlier this year. AT&T “will be shifting some of that capital to startup costs to expand in the initial markets in the Southeast region,” it said in the 10-Q filing.

AT&T also lowered the estimated number of homes the U-verse network will pass, from 18 million living units by the end of 2008 to 17 million. The company said it cut the estimate because “these startup activities are in preparation for, but do not immediately result in, passed living units,” according to its 10-Q.

The pullback follows similar forecast cuts for U-verse. In May, AT&T reduced estimates from 19 million homes at the end of 2008. Back in 2004, SBC Communications (which acquired AT&T two years ago) said it projected U-verse would be available to 18 million households by the end of 2007.

The slower-than-expected deployment of U-verse is even more dramatic considering that the current forecast of 17 million homes passed includes areas within the former nine-state BellSouth territory, whereas AT&T’s previous estimates were for the 13-state SBC footprint alone.

In the 10-Q filing Tuesday, AT&T also noted that “additional customer activation capital expenditures are not included in this capital spending forecast.”

Earlier this year, AT&T announced it would spend $1.1 billion over the next few years on fiber-optic network upgrades, broadband deployment and Internet technologies in three states in the Southeast U.S.: North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. In Texas, AT&T said it will spend nearly $1.25 billion this year on U-verse, wireless and other network infrastructure. www.multichannel.com/article/CA6486105.html

AT&T said U-verse TV was available to 5.5 million living units as of Sept. 30, and that it was marketing services to about 40% of those units. The company reported 126,000 U-verse TV subscribers at the end of September.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6497700.html

Ken H

11-06-07, 10:26 PM

CedMagazine.com - November 06, 2007
AT&T to spend more to pass fewer people with U-verse
By Brian Santo

AT&T said it will have to upgrade its network in the areas that were formerly controlled by BellSouth before it can even begin to start running fiber close enough to subscribers for them to get U-verse services.

The result will be that AT&T expects to spend as much as a half a billion dollars more on U-verse than most recently reported, to reach 1 million fewer homes passed than it had planned to have by the end of 2008.

The admissions were included in the company’s most recent 10-Q. Using figures in millions, the company wrote, “We expect spending to be between $4,500 to $5,000 on our U-verse services for network-related deployment costs and capital expenditures from January 2007 through the end of 2008, and we will be shifting some of that capital to start-up costs to expand into the initial markets in the Southeast region. Since these start-up activities are in preparation for, but do not immediately result in, passing living units, there is a corresponding change in living units we expect to pass by the end of 2008 to approximately 17 million.”

The most recent spending estimate was $4.5 billion to $5 billion (that range was an increase from original projections), and the most recent homes-passed target was 18 million by the end of 2008.

AT&T’s 10-Q concluded by saying, “Additional customer activation capital expenditures are not included in this capital spending forecast. We expect that the business opportunities made available, specifically in the data/broadband area, will allow us to expand our products and services.”

Ken H

11-09-07, 07:16 AM

From Mltichannel News

AT&T Targets Houston
AT&T, set to begin installing U-verse TV for customers in parts of the Austin area Nov. 19, will come hard after Time Warner Cable with a number of incentives to make the switch in Texas’ fourth largest metro area. The telco, which is offering the service in parts of Austin, Pflugerville and Round Rock, said it will continue to increase U-verse availability throughout the area on an ongoing basis.

devotiondoubt

11-09-07, 12:06 PM

(Chicago area) Just spoke to a tech behind my house...they were updating the existing wiring in the box in the alley. Couldn't give me a date but he say most of the boxes have been updated.

Hey they even invested in 20 cent "Lightspeed Ready" stickers for the hubs...so bring it on. I'm in need of some faster internet.:cool:

jandar

11-09-07, 01:42 PM

My area has had VRADs for about a year now.

Current info for my area is the CO is getting the equipment installed right now.

I would love to see more HD channels on it, but that bundled price sure is enticing!!!

jacmyoung

11-13-07, 10:13 PM

I just had U-verse installed in Sacramento about a week ago (I'm in Natomas) and so far, I am pretty sure I'll cancel at the end of the month. Service shows a lot of promise, and I think in 6 -18 months, it may be a strong competitor to cable and satellite, but so far I haven't been impressed. Main issues for me is that I get more HD channels from DirecTV, that I can only record one HD stream at a time, that there is no HD VOD/PPV, and most importantly, that the box keeps crashing on me. I find I can't turn off the box, or it is about 50/50 whether it will turn on again with a restart. Even leaving the box on all the time I have seen it lock up. I have had recordings that just froze 3/4 of the way into them. Basically, a lot of little stuff that adds up to TV being more work than it should be.

Now, all that said, if AT&T will let me keep just the Internet portion, I will probably do that, since that has worked great so far - plus it will allow me to easily dip into U-verse again as it improves, which I fully expect it to. It just doesn't quite fulfill my needs in a TV provider yet.

I just checked uverse availability it is no longer offered at my address. Two months ago it was available, in fact an uverse sales rep almost setup an install for me.

Judging from this thread, it wouldn't surprise me if ATT is scaling back on it.

nightowl

11-14-07, 12:04 AM

Now, all that said, if AT&T will let me keep just the Internet portion, I will probably do that, since that has worked great so far - plus it will allow me to easily dip into U-verse again as it improves, which I fully expect it to. It just doesn't quite fulfill my needs in a TV provider yet.

I cancelled the TV portion last week, as the quality, selection, and reliability was much better from E*. There are a lot of problems still with UVerse television.

They let me keep the internet portion of the service with no questions asked, and even confirmed that I was keeping internet and dropping just the TV portion.

EchoTony

11-17-07, 01:57 AM

This is very dissapointing to hear all the negatives... I really want to get away from Time Warner. I'm going to give it a try if they can actully get service to my house (the node box accross the stree is up and running but their web/customer service says no service at my address). If it sucks... I'll likely run an antenna for awhile and give my money to netflix.

thebishman

11-17-07, 10:43 AM

cracknut

11-29-07, 01:59 AM

vinnie97

11-29-07, 06:03 AM

AT&T is done....should've not minced pennies and thought more about the future like Verizon did.

ahintz

11-29-07, 04:09 PM

Just got it installed this am.

PQ is terrible compared to Comcast HD. Price is excellent with 6/1 broadband and no phone (over 30% less $). However, I don't think I can suffer the massive banding, blocking, etc. All the common problems with low-bandwidth video. Looks like HD U-tube. Blech.

DVR is nice, much more modern interface than the older motorola DVR for comcast. I haven't played with it enough to determine how buggy it is.

Time to look into DirectTV. Sigh...

I did end up canceling the TV portion and keeping the Internet portion. DirecTV is just too good right now. Tons of HD, a good DVR (which allows you to record two HD programs at once...) - what isn't to like? I still think AT&T can be a good competitor to cable/satellite. Options like pair bonding and better encoders should get the quality and feature-set up, but I will be surprised if they are a viable alternative until late next year at the earliest.

genma saotome

12-03-07, 06:44 PM

re:Uverse
=========
DVR is good.
SD TV PQ is excellent, at least compared to Dish.
Have not seen HD yet.
Web pages are hopeless.
Price is decent.
=========

Has anyone seen NHL HD games on Uverse? What can you say about it?

paule123

12-03-07, 07:17 PM

cheer

12-06-07, 01:15 PM

Does anybody know if ATT is planning a U-Verse internet package for business customers? This would be great for small businesses like myself that are currently at the outer limits of DSL (a whopping 384Kb here) but within close range of a new VRAD box.

I suspect the answer is probably no, since that would cut into their overpriced T1 business.

Well that doesn't make sense -- if they'll sell traditional DSL to businesses, then cutting into T1 business isn't really an issue.

My understanding is that they will work to shift DSL to the Lightspeed network, so at that time you would probably be able to get the Elite-class DSL.

Harley_Dude

12-11-07, 10:16 AM

Does anybody know if ATT is planning a U-Verse internet package for business customers? This would be great for small businesses like myself that are currently at the outer limits of DSL (a whopping 384Kb here) but within close range of a new VRAD box.

I suspect the answer is probably no, since that would cut into their overpriced T1 business.

The answer is actually yes :) There is a 30 day trial going on in the West region and if all goes well, you could expect it to be in the MW region within the next 60 days. There are also higher speed tiers for Business planned in 1Q08.

Ken H

12-11-07, 11:38 AM

From Broadcasting & Cable, by Glen Dickson

AT&T Rolls Out U-verse TV in St. Louis
Telco to Take On Incumbent Cable Operator Charter Communications In Its Hometown

Telco AT&T deployed its U-verse-TV Internet-protocol-TV service in the St. Louis market, bringing new competition to incumbent cable operator Charter Communications.

U-verse TV, which delivers an MPEG-4-based TV service over existing phone lines, is available in parts of the City of St. Louis, Ballwin, Bridgeton, Chesterfield, Clayton, Creve Coeur, Florissant, Kirkwood, Maryland Heights, Mehlville, Oakville, Olivette, Sappington, Shrewsbury, St. Charles, St. Peters, University City and Webster Groves. AT&T said it will expand the service's footprint in St. Louis on an ongoing basis.

The U-verse TV service offers packages with up to 320 channels and more than 30 HD channels. AT&T is offering promotional deals for new customers that include free HD service for one year (HD programming costs $10 per month with U-verse TV) or cash back. The telco is also offering bundled high-speed-data packages with downstream speeds of 1.5, 3 and 6 megabits per second.

Last month, AT&T increased by $500 million its U-verse capital expenditure estimate for the 2007-08 period to $4.5-$5 billion, but also revised lower its homes-passed estimate by 1 million to 17 million. AT&T's subscriber roll for U-verse TV stands at just 126,000 after adding 51,000 subscribers in the third quarter.

rsandor

12-11-07, 12:09 PM

The answer is actually yes :) There is a 30 day trial going on in the West region and if all goes well, you could expect it to be in the MW region within the next 60 days. There are also higher speed tiers for Business planned in 1Q08.

Hey Harley Dude,

Do you know how one could be part of the 30 day trial in the West? I'd like to get Uverse with static IP but can't find any way to do so.

I've got a server project going right now that I'd love to avail myself of the higher bandwidths over my standard AT&T/Yahoo/PacBell 1.5 service. I'm too far away from the CO to get higher speeds, but right across the street from a VRAD. Uverse is available in my location, but no static IP.

Appreciate your letting us know,
Bob

Ken H

12-17-07, 12:11 PM

AT&T U-verse TV Expands HD Channel Lineup

U-verse TV Offers More HD Programming Than Local Cable Providers in Current U-verse Markets

San Antonio, Texas, December 17, 2007

Meeting the growing demand from TV viewers for quality High Definition (HD) programming, AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) today announced the addition of eight HD channels to its AT&T U-verseSM TV channel lineup.

U-verse TV now offers Animal Planet HD, CNN HD, Discovery HD, Science Channel HD, Starz Kids & Family HD, Superstation WGN in HD, TLC HD, VERSUS and GOLF CHANNEL HD.

With these additions, AT&T U-verse TV subscribers with the HD service option have access to a lineup of more than 40 HD channels in most markets, which is more HD programming than local cable providers in current U-verse markets.

HD service is available for $10 a month with any U-verse TV programming package. All U-verse TV packages include HD-ready equipment, and most include an HD-capable DVR.

"We know that consumers are craving more and more HD content, and our AT&T U-verse TV HD lineup will keep expanding to meet their needs," said Dan York, head of content and programming, AT&T Entertainment Services. "All of these networks are great additions to our extensive HD lineup. We're providing more of the content that our customers want."

Customers seeking additional information on AT&T U-verse — or to find out whether it's available in their area — can visit uverse.att.com. AT&T U-verse customers can get more information about AT&T U-verse programming and television events by visiting uverse.att.com/uconnect.

Joel802

12-29-07, 10:33 AM

Any one else get this service yet? I like it very much but the HD channels are somewhat a disappointment. I have it hooked up via HDMI. The SD channels look good but the HD there is alot of noise and blocking in the backround.

Posty-McPost

12-29-07, 01:30 PM

BTW U-verse is now doing installs in Columbus, OH and dozens of immediate burbs.

paule123

12-29-07, 01:52 PM

renesis27

12-31-07, 12:22 PM

I have had it for a week and a half and am really enjoying it. I have a new Panasonic TH-42PZ77U and everything looks fantastic. SD on most stations is better than I thought it would be and with HD, some stations just look better than others so that must be the signal from the station itself, not U-Verse or they would all be the same.

Rambozo

01-02-08, 09:50 AM

I've had Uverse in Akron for almost 2 months now. Overall, I'm really happy with it. My sticking points though are the DVR and HD quality.

The DVR can be slow, and gets slower if you don't reboot it periodically. I often have issues with sound sync, especially if it's under load (recording multiple streams, etc.)

The HD could be better, but it's not bad. I came from TWC, where I watched HD via clear QAM. I didn't have the patching or "moving grass" issues with cable. Uverse's compression leaves some to be desired with the patchiness and lack of detail. However, the non-network channels (i.e. not ABC, Fox, CBS, etc) seem to look better at times. I usually notice the picture quality issues on larger dark, flat areas of color, or on sport presentations.

It's a fledgling technology, and whether you like it or not, we are early adopters. We get the honor of seeing it grow and hopefully get better with time.

Barovelli

01-22-08, 09:22 AM

http://www.cedmagazine.com/SCTE-ET-TV-expert-says-ATT-video-play-has-12-18-months-left.aspx

AT&T will be out of the video business within the course of the next 12 to 18 months, according to TVPredictions.com president Phillip “Swanni” Swann.

Swann was speaking at the luncheon keynote address during Wednesday’s SCTE Conference on Emerging Technologies (ET) when he made his prediction about AT&T’s future in video. Swan, who claims an 89 percent success rate with his prognostications, made nine other video-related predictions for the year.

In the case of AT&T, Swann said the company has spent too much time and money for its 250,000 video customers while Verizon has racked up one million subs for its service.

AT&T could buy more subs by attempting to acquire Dish Network or DirecTV, or by getting out of the video business altogether, Swann said.

AT&T could also continue its third-party partnerships with Dish or DirecTV, but Swann said that would also lead to the end of AT&T’s video service, as the company would fade to the background.

Rambozo

01-22-08, 09:45 AM

Uh huh.

Too many points to rehash for this. Just visit AT&T's Uverse Board (http://utalk.att.com/utalk/board/message?board.id=Uverse_TV_Programming&thread.id=6887).

paule123

01-22-08, 09:50 AM

AT&T U-verse Voice Debuts in Detroit

Next-Generation Voice Service Offers Reliable Call Quality, Convenient Integrated Features, Combined Billing

Detroit, Michigan, January 22, 2008

AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) today announced the availability of AT&T U-verseSM Voice, a next-generation digital voice service delivered over the AT&T U-verse Internet Protocol (IP) network. Detroit is the first area in the nation where AT&T U-verse Voice is available.

The company began a controlled launch in late December and has since expanded the service's availability. The service will continue to expand to more local customers and additional markets in 2008.

AT&T U-verse Voice completes the company's IP triple play. With U-verse Voice, U-verse customers receive all the benefits of having advanced video, broadband, voice and wireless services from a single provider, and having their services work together for a new level of integration, functionality and convenience.

AT&T U-verse Voice is a managed Voice over IP (VoIP) service that is delivered over AT&T's fiber-rich network, unlike many cable and VoIP providers that offer best-effort digital phone services over the public Internet. This allows U-verse Voice customers to enjoy great sound quality and reliability, as well as unmatched calling features that combine with customers' AT&T U-verse TV, broadband and AT&T wireless services.

U-verse TV customers can choose from two flexible U-verse Voice calling plans:

* U-verse Voice Unlimited, which includes unlimited local and nationwide minutes to any location in the U.S., Canada or U.S. territories for $40 a month.
* U-verse Voice 1000, which includes 1,000 Call Anywhere minutes to any location in the U.S. or U.S. territories for $30 a month.

"The launch of AT&T U-verse Voice is the next step in our vision to bring customers a complete set of IP services that work together seamlessly for them," said Jennifer Jones, AT&T vice president and general manager for Michigan. "U-verse Voice uses the power of IP to enhance the calling experience. Customers will be able to do more with their phone service than ever before and connect in more ways through all of their AT&T digital services."

AT&T U-verse Voice has advanced features that go beyond traditional phone service and many competitors' offerings, including:

* An online management portal that gives users the option to easily and conveniently manage their call preferences, voice mail, contacts, call history and more from any PC, in addition to the ability to access voice mail and control call preferences from their home phone.
* U-verse Messaging, which combines AT&T wireless and U-verse Voice messages into a single voice mailbox that can be accessed from any phone line or PC. Customers can listen to, manage and forward voice mail from the online portal, much like an e-mail inbox.
* Call History, which is viewable online or on a customer's AT&T U-verse TV screen, with a list of the 500 most recent call records.
* Click to Call, which will connect a call to any number in a customer's Call History with one click of a mouse or the U-verse TV remote control.
* An online Address Book that is accessible from any PC and allows customers to Click to Call and to create and share contact groups or distribution lists for voice messages.
* Locate Me, a feature that allows incoming calls to ring up to four numbers at the same time so that a customer never misses an important call.
* And traditional calling features, such as Call Screening, Call Blocking, Do Not Disturb and privacy settings.

Where available, U-verse Voice customers will have Enhanced 911 (E911) service.

A second phone line, which shares the primary line's calling plan, can be added for $20 a month, and each plan features competitive international rates with no recurring monthly charge. Professional installation is included for new AT&T U-verse customers who order through Jan. 31, 2008.

Customers who want additional information on AT&T U-verse can visit http://uverse.att.com or www.att.com/uverse/voice

http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=25068

RemyM

02-19-08, 10:24 AM

So an AT&T Uverse salesman shows up at my front door last night. I told him I am well aware of their service but I have two HDTV's and one has a DVR so their one HD stream won't cut it for me. So he goes on to say that they are working on adding other streams but "you have to realize that unlike cable, our HD is 1080p so it takes up more bandwith." What a load of crap they are trying to sell. I told him that is false since no one is broadcasting in 1080p and don't come back until I can get 3 HD streams at once.

pschwartz

02-20-08, 09:57 PM

I've had Uverse for almost a month. I've had to call in 4 separate times for different issues. Each time, I've spent long periods of time on the phone holding down the button on the 2wire unit, or holding down, down, OK, and then holding power for 10 seconds.... so on, and so forth. There is a problem. Most definitely with the HD feed, freezing and skipping. It can happen 4 or 5 times a minute with some stations at different times. If this is not fixed very soon, I'm out. It seems to me, to be a bandwidth problem. Especially being the biggest problem with HD. So... how are they going to be adding another HD feed by the end of the year, I was told (with no guarantee, of course). Right now, we have only one HDTV, but if this continues, I will go to DISH and be able to record and watch HD without the VERY CONSISTANT hickups...damn, they always seem to happen at critical points in a show/movie/concert.

tex1080

02-27-08, 07:03 PM

I'm confused... so you can only receive one hd stream at any time? I was looking at the available packages here in dfw area and it shows up to three hd receivers. Am i missing something?

Up to three HD-ready TV receivers*, one with DVR

Nevermind..... I see now that you can only record on Hd stream at a time with the dvr.

ahintz

02-27-08, 07:11 PM

While you can have multiple HD-capable receivers, only one HD stream (channel) can be tuned at a time. So all HD receivers can be tuned into the same HD channel, or one could be tuned into an HD channel and the others to different SD channels, but you couldn't have one tuned into HD ABC and the other to HD CBS, for example. This also means that the DVR, while it can record 4 streams (channels) at once, cannot record more than one HD program at a time. So if you want to record both American Idol and NCIS in HD, you're out-of-luck.

TrueBlueLS

02-27-08, 09:04 PM

2nd HD stream is supposed to be available by Q2. I just wish it'd get here already and that they'd throw us a couple more HD channels.

RemyM

02-27-08, 10:19 PM

Even 2 HD streams isn't enough for some of us.

cbrox

02-27-08, 10:37 PM

For anybody else that has U-verse, if you're watching an HD channel and do the picture-in-picture guide to another HD channel, do you see the preview? I do, which means I have 2 HD streams coming into my STB, so why don't they just let me record both of them at the same time yet!

cwh

02-28-08, 06:28 PM

EchoTony

03-01-08, 01:57 AM

New to U-Verse as of this evening.... So far I love the quantity of HD choices and the quality of SD signals. The box is okay. Much better than the last Digital box from TimeWarner Cable. I guess I'm just not a fan of STB's. HD compression and HD only being available for one TV at a time is going to take some getting used to, if ever.

I do love the quality of my internet connection. Way better than the DSL. I'll keep you posted.

josephmckinney

03-06-08, 08:02 PM

Even 2 HD streams isn't enough for some of us.
Amen to that!

NetworkTV

03-06-08, 08:08 PM

It means you have 1 HD stream and 1 very small stream for the PIP.
There's a medication for that now...

bgooch

03-10-08, 06:14 PM

AT&T turning on TV in South Bay
By Muhammed El-Hasan Staff Writer
Article Launched: 03/09/2008 10:17:11 PM PDT

Telecom giant AT&T Inc. will roll out its digital television service in the South Bay starting today.

Initially, the service dubbed U-verse will be available in parts of Carson, Gardena, Hawthorne and Lomita.

AT&T plans to expand its TV service to additional areas as its work crews lay more fiber-optic lines that carry the signals, said Amber Anderson, AT&T's chief of staff for the Greater Los Angeles area.

"We have selectively determined where we will provide our fiber-optic network, and we will look forward to looking where we will expand," Anderson said.

AT&T began to offer television service in June 2006 in San Antonio, Texas. In May 2007, the telecom introduced U-verse in parts of Los Angeles, Riverside and Ventura counties.

The TV service has gradually expanded nationwide, with 231,000 U-verse subscribers at the end of last year, AT&T spokeswoman Debbie Lieberman said.

AT&T's new service is part of a larger trend by telecoms and cable and satellite TV companies to cross over into nontraditional services.

Telecom giant Verizon Communications Inc. also offers digital TV, and cable TV provider Time Warner Inc. offers phone service.

Companies involved in these crossover offerings are bundling phone, TV and high-speed Internet services - often teaming with other companies - to provide discounts to consumers.

For example, AT&T customers also have the option to subscribe to Dish Network satellite TV as part of a bundled service.

"A lot of people I think still view us as just a phone company," Anderson said. "We want our customers to know that we are a one-stop shop for our customers. ... They don't need to go anywhere else."

Despite being relatively new to TV, AT&T and Verizon "can be extremely competitive because they realize it's such an important part of their future," said Jimmy Schaeffler, senior analyst at The Carmel Group, a telecommunications research and consulting firm in Carmel.

As companies increasingly cross over into other industries, the consumer will benefit, Schaeffler said.

"It means better products and better services," he said. "It's great for the consumer. Competition is what it's all about."

AT&T's U-verse will benefit from the company's familiar brand.

"But that's not the only part," Schaeffler said. "It has to be a good product. And so far, their (subscriber) numbers are suggesting it is."

AT&T's U-verse service starts at $44 a month. The company said it is the only national service provider to offer a 100 percent Internet Protocol-based television service, meaning the signals travel over lines used for the Internet.

That will give subscribers numerous features, AT&T said. U-verse offers more than 40 high-definition channels in most markets, the ability to program the digital-video recorder from a remote location through the Internet and the option to place on the TV customized information such as stock listings, weather and scores from specified sports teams.

By the end of March, U-verse will allow subscribers to transfer music and photos from their computer to their TV.

"It'll be a telephone company on steroids, just like Verizon and just like the other big cable companies," Schaeffler said.

http://www.dailybreeze.com/business/ci_8516763
muhammed.el-hasan@dailybreeze.com

danno321s

03-12-08, 11:23 AM

With all the problems I have read about installing Uverse, think of the massive on-site tech costs...Is Fiber-to-Home still more expensive to install?

Ken H

03-12-08, 04:09 PM

Topics merged.

SowegaBowler

03-12-08, 10:28 PM

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
AT&T is now (albeit quietly) rolling out U-verse in parts of the Atlanta area.

http://www.ajc.com/search/content/bu.../ATT_0312.html

Marcus Carr

03-13-08, 11:07 AM

University of Houston to Install 1,000 AT&T U-verse Connections in New Residence Hall

Planned Deployment of Cutting-Edge U-verse TV and High Speed Internet Services Is the First for University Housing in the United States

Houston, Texas, March 11, 2008

The University of Houston and AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) today announced the nation's first planned deployment of AT&T U-verseSM services into student housing on a college campus. The cutting-edge TV and high speed Internet services will be included in every room of a 547,000-square-foot residence hall under construction for graduate and professional students.

The Calhoun Lofts, next to the University of Houston's C.T. Bauer College of Business, will contain more than 700 one- and two-bedroom apartments with 1,000 AT&T U-verse connections, along with 10,000 square feet of retail space. School officials chose Internet Protocol-based television (IPTV) as the next-generation video service best suited for the university's next-generation living space.

"Outfitting an entire facility with AT&T U-verse keeps with the University of Houston's forward thinking on technology and the quality of student life," said Elwyn Lee, vice president for Student Affairs at the University of Houston. "We chose what best represented our vision for the university."

AT&T is the only national service provider to offer a 100 percent IP-based TV service, making AT&T U-verse TV one of the most advanced television offerings anywhere. Industry analyst firm Stratecast recognized U-verse TV as its 2007 Best Business Strategy.

Texas was the first state in which AT&T U-verse services were deployed, thanks to progressive legislation passed in September 2005 by the Texas Legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Perry. In the Greater Houston area, more than 500,000 living units have the service available just 16 months after it was introduced, and expansion continues.

The university's new $108 million residence hall broke ground in fall 2007 and is scheduled for completion in 2009. It is one of several projects undertaken as part of the University of Houston's Master Plan, a framework for development during the next two decades. The school will double the square footage of its buildings (without expanding the overall 550-acre campus) and add another 10,000 students to increase enrollment to 45,000.

"We are delighted that University of Houston students will be able to enjoy the same advanced AT&T U-verse services as an ever-expanding number of consumers across the Houston area," said Ed Cholerton, AT&T vice president and general manager for the Houston area. "We share the university's commitment to the best communications and entertainment technology."

The deployment of next-generation AT&T Advanced TV services, including AT&T U-verse TV, is part of the company's mission to connect people with their world, everywhere they live and work, and do it better than anyone else.

More information on the University of Houston's Master Plan is available at http://www.uh.edu/about/initiatives/masterplan. Customers who want additional information on AT&T U-verse service — or to find out whether it's available in their area — can visit http://uverse.att.com.

http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=25320

Skippman

03-15-08, 09:32 AM

I'm currently a DirecTV customer with the Total Choice package and the HD upgrade. I have two of the DireTV HR-20 DVR's. One I own, the other is leased from DirecTV.

Recently my rates went up to $75 a month from the $50 a month I was paying while "in contract". I feel this is to high and am considering leaving them in favor of AT&T's UVerse. I like the idea of one recorder for the whole house vs the two DVR's I have right now. Sometimes I wish I could watch a program in my theater that I'd recorded in my bedroom (Lost, Jericho, etc). I could program my DVR in the theater to record the program as well, but then I'd have to delete things from two DVR's which is a hastle.

Most of my questions are for UVerse owners.

1.) How do you like the service?

2.) How's the HD quality?

3.) Have you had HD service from another company to compare to AT&T?

4.) Hows the channel line up compare?

5.) Any service interruptions?

I guess what I'm looking for is a reason to stick with DirecTV. I've got quite a bit of equipment and time invested in thier service. If I have to replace it, so be it.

Ken H

03-15-08, 10:26 AM

A primary difference is that U-verse does not have access to more than one HD channel at a time. In other words, if you are watching one channel, you can not record another at the same time.

HD quality is reported as being Ok.

See the HDTV Programming topics at the top of this forum for details on HD channels from both.

Marcus Carr

03-15-08, 11:33 AM

U-verse thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=700011&highlight=u-verse

NetworkTV

03-15-08, 11:52 AM

Don't walk - RUN AWAY from U-Verse. Aside from all the technical issues cited by others, AT&T is quite possibly one of the worst companies regarding customer privacy.

Skippman

03-15-08, 11:54 AM

I was not aware of that, and I work for them. What makes you say that?

NetworkTV

03-15-08, 12:06 PM

I was not aware of that, and I work for them. What makes you say that?
Aside from reading their customer privacy statement, which offers no protection at all, they were the first telco to give up records to the feds under the warrentless anti-terror request. There is currently a lawsuit pending in that regard.

impulse630

03-15-08, 01:31 PM

I like the idea of one recorder for the whole house vs the two DVR's

This would be nice, if it were available. AT&T says that Whole House DVR service will become available anywhere from "later this month" to "before the end of the year" depending on who you ask.

1.) How do you like the service?

So far, i'm relatively happy. I've had it for just over a month now.

2.) How's the HD quality?
Pretty good. Not perfect, better on some channels than others. But, based on what i had heard, i've been much happier w/ the HD quality than i expected.

3.) Have you had HD service from another company to compare to AT&T?
Yup; Comcast. Comcast had better picture quality, but it's not a HUGE difference between the two.

4.) Hows the channel line up compare?
I've got more channels over all than i did. I have many more HD channels, but i do miss USA/Sci-Fi (which i had w/ Comcast). From the line-up card i was given when i was shopping around, it looks like these will be added very soon.

5.) Any service interruptions?
Yes, i was out for 15 minutes one night at 2am. No biggie

6.) If I try to record 2 shows at once that are HD does the box simply not record one, prompt you for action, or record at SD?
When you set up the recordings, the DVR notifies you of the conflict and you can choose to resolve it. If you try to tune in an HD channel while another is recording (or tuned in elsewhere in the house) you get a message giving you the option to interrupt the other stream or continue what you wanted to do. According to AT&T, 2 HD streams will be coming soon. Same time-frame as the whole home DVR thing, so who knows....

-dave

Skippman

03-15-08, 03:19 PM

Ken H

03-15-08, 03:25 PM

Topics merged.

TrueBlueLS

03-15-08, 03:45 PM

Looking at the current lineup card it lists SciFi which is in my 9 must have channels. (ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS, History, SciFi, Discovery, Cartoon Network, BBC America) Are you refering to it not being in HD? It definatly seems DirecTV has more HD channels.

DirecTV does have more HD channels. I've got Uverse and it's not the best... but it works. The only channels in HD that I don't have that I'd like are F/X and FSN Detroit.

impulse630

03-16-08, 10:47 AM

Marcus Carr

03-28-08, 10:31 AM

''They told us they're (AT&T) looking to free up some room, but they just don't have any room for [SportsTime Ohio] HD.''

http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/17077556.html

Posty-McPost

03-28-08, 11:32 AM

http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/17077556.html

It's amazing how quickly TWC added STO HD considering they own part of the channel. Just like D* owns around half of BTN. Yet the article doesn't mention any of this and continues in the lie that everyone loves and needs sports. Before I complain about which games I can watch in HD I think about all the non-sports fans who pay for me to watch those games. They deserve a provider that doesn't pay out the ass so loudmouth sports jerks can have HD access to games they may not even watch if the team struggles.

paule123

03-28-08, 12:02 PM

http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/17077556.html

I wonder why AT&T needs to "free up some room" ? I thought the "beauty" of IPTV was for all practical purposes, unlimited bandwidth on the fiber backbone of the system ? Do they already have capacity constraints at the head end ?

Bottom line, all their cable and DBS competitors in NE Ohio have STO HD, and the "all HD" STO is being heavily promoted in this area. The Indians are a real contender this year and their viewership will be very high. ATT is going to lose on this one.

jefbal99

03-28-08, 12:24 PM

It's amazing how quickly TWC added STO HD considering they own part of the channel. Just like D* owns around half of BTN. Yet the article doesn't mention any of this and continues in the lie that everyone loves and needs sports. Before I complain about which games I can watch in HD I think about all the non-sports fans who pay for me to watch those games. They deserve a provider that doesn't pay out the ass so loudmouth sports jerks can have HD access to games they may not even watch if the team struggles.

D* doesn't not own half of the BTN, Fox Cable Networks owns 49%. D* is owned by the DirecTV Group which is now controlled by Liberty Media (and the deal which was approved recently, had been in the works for quite some time).

paule123

04-01-08, 12:17 AM

Caray's widow peeved over ads

April 1, 2008

Dutchie Caray is furious with AT&T over television commercials featuring comic John Caponera pitching cable TV while impersonating the late Harry Caray.

"I just get shivers when I even think about it," she told WGN-Ch. 9 on Monday morning. "I was gone the whole month of March and I didn't come back until a couple of days ago. ... It made me so sick and disgusted. ... What they did [was] so unprofessional, so jerky. ... I might make an AT&T commercial, wrap myself in telephone wire, ughl-ughl-ughl and act like an idiot dope."

Tribune

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-01-dutchie-carayapr01,0,7968953.story

Rammitinski

04-01-08, 04:52 AM

Posty-McPost

04-01-08, 10:11 AM

As a Chicago person who saw and heard Caray a lot over the years doing both our ball clubs' games, let me tell you this - that guy IS NOT doing an impersonation of him at all - he's doing an impersonation of Will Farrell doing him.

As someone who knows comedians let me tell you this: John Camponera's Harry Carey impression predates Will Farrell's. Camponera has been doing sports based comedy since the late 80s/early 90s.

Marcus Carr

04-01-08, 11:07 AM

AT&T U-verse Expands HD Channel Lineup to Include More HBO HD

NetworksWEBWIRE – Tuesday, April 01, 2008

San Antonio.- AT&T U-verseSM TV customers can now enjoy even more High Definition (HD) channels as part of their extensive HD lineup. AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) and Home Box Office, Inc. (HBO) today announced the addition of three HBO HD channels to the U-verse TV channel lineup, including HBO2 HD, HBO Comedy HD and HBO Family HD.

With these additions, U-verse TV customers who subscribe to the HD service option have access to a lineup of more than 40 HD channels. Customers receive HBO channels with a U400 subscription or the addition of an HBO or Movie Package.

"We’re excited for U-verse TV customers to experience HBO’s original and compelling content in HD" said Dan York, head of content and programming, AT&T Entertainment Services. "Today’s viewers demand an HD experience that offers more HD and more value — and we’re delivering on that demand with a growing HD lineup and important items like HD-capable equipment included in every programming package"

HD service is available for $10 a month with any U-verse TV programming package. All U-verse TV packages include HD-ready equipment, and most include an HD-capable DVR.

AT&T is the only national provider to offer a 100 percent Internet Protocol-based television (IPTV) service, making AT&T U-verse TV one of the most advanced television offerings available anywhere. AT&T is deploying next-generation video services, including AT&T U-verse TV, as part of the company’s mission to connect people with their world, everywhere they live and work, and do it better than anyone else.

Customers who want additional information on AT&T U-verse TV — or to find out whether it’s available in their area — can visit http://uverse.att.com. U-verse TV customers can get more information about U-verse TV programming and television events by visiting http://uverse.att.com/uconnect.

http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=62434

oztech

04-01-08, 07:23 PM

Now that comcast is compressing their hd to death how is u-verse in comparison.

JimboG

04-01-08, 08:48 PM

Now that comcast is compressing their hd to death how is u-verse in comparison.

Still worse than Fios and DirecTV.;)

RemyM

04-01-08, 10:22 PM

Now that comcast is compressing their hd to death how is u-verse in comparison.

They still only offer one fair HD feed.

Posty-McPost

04-01-08, 10:47 PM

They still only offer one fair HD feed.

I have Dish and U-Verse both running through an HDMI switcher. Dish looks better. AT&T are going to put future bandwidth towards more HD streams/internet speed and not increasing the HD bitrate.

Rammitinski

04-02-08, 06:37 AM

As someone who knows comedians let me tell you this: John Camponera's Harry Carey impression predates Will Farrell's. Camponera has been doing sports based comedy since the late 80s/early 90s.Whatever. My point is, it's a lousy impersonation.

Actually, that's even worse - for a Chicago comedian, you'd think he could do a lot better impersonation than that. It's not even a good caricaturization.

SpySnake

04-02-08, 02:15 PM

Posty-McPost

04-02-08, 03:16 PM

Hello. Can anybody tell me what kind of wiring U-Verse uses? Do they use Coax or actual ethernet connections from the router to the receivers? I'm just curious. I'm having it installed Saturday after reading all of the threads and posts about it on here. Thanks!

You can use either. If you use ethernet it hubs out from the Residential Gateway. If you use coax it runs off a splitter. Some people suggest that the ethernet is better but I have the coax and haven't had any problems. When the Whole Home DVR finally comes out some people think it will be happier with ethernet especially cat5e or cat6.

Posty-McPost

04-02-08, 03:23 PM

D* doesn't not own half of the BTN, Fox Cable Networks owns 49%. D* is owned by the DirecTV Group which is now controlled by Liberty Media (and the deal which was approved recently, had been in the works for quite some time).

You mean my oversimplification was not only oversimplified but inaccurate? In this case my point was that RSN's are often owned (at least in part) by cable or DBS companies. So when people ask how come X carrier can get XSN so easily but carrier Y can't, it's often cause carrier X owns some of XSN and is trying to ream carrier Y. But you're not always right JB. You said Ruiz was playing for the Galaxy but I didn't see him out there on Saturday. ;)

SpySnake

04-02-08, 03:59 PM

Thanks Posty. If they have to pull CAT5 wiring through the house, I'm sure they will impost those $55 per jack and $20 per pull fee they have in the fine print. My house is new and wired in most rooms with Coax so I'm assuming they will just do that. We are only going to use the DVR in one room anyway.

How is the DVR? Is it smooth, or does it burp and hickup/freeze as the Comcast one seems to do? Are you happy with the recording?

Also, how do the SD channels look? Do you know if their system does any kind of upconversion?

bigjohns1997SS

04-02-08, 05:47 PM

I have Dish and U-Verse both running through an HDMI switcher. Dish looks better. AT&T are going to put future bandwidth towards more HD streams/internet speed and not increasing the HD bitrate.

That is saying alot considering that Dish is still HD-lite. Although one could pretty much guess if anyone would be doing hd-lite it would be Uverse as they are already so bandwidth starved they can only allow 1 HD signal at a time.

Posty-McPost

04-03-08, 01:33 AM

Ya I agree Big John. U-verse HD looks worse than HD-lite. To answer your question SS the DVR is great. Very smooth and nice skip features. Also if you turn it off in the middle of a DVR event it's in that spot when you turn it back on. SD looks better than any provider I've ever had and comes close to SD subchannels OTA. This is because iptv only delivers the channel or channels you are watching.

SpySnake

04-07-08, 01:46 PM

We just got it installed on Saturday. The HD is much more sharp then Comcast's was. Both units were/are using the HDMI connection at 1080i upscaled to 1080p. Maybe it varies between your bandwidth throughput to your home, but for us the HD is leaps and bounds clearer then Comcast's. We do live only a block away from the VRAD so we are getting the full potential of the service.

Every HD station seems to be as sharp as the next, and I'm very picky about the picture quality. There was only one station that didn't seem as sharp, or the picture was softened a bit, but the effect was much more subtle then Comcast having those annoying pixelated sqaures all over the place when coming close to the screen.

Overall, I am very happy with the service and can't wait to start using it more.

WilliamR

04-07-08, 02:37 PM

Foosinho

04-14-08, 09:47 AM

I've been mulling this over for quite some time, and there are a few issues that have held me back so far.

(1) How many simultaneous HD streams can I record? (The comments in this thread are actually what prompted this question. The answer is unclear to me. If it's "one", like I suspect, is there a timeline for improving this?)

(2) Is there a working firewire output on the non-DVR boxes? (I'd really like to be able to stitch one of these into my MythTV setup - in HD.)

(3) I noticed some MLS fans in here - can you get DirectKick? (I'd guess not, but I've never seen anything definitive either way.) The Big Ten Network?

SiGGy

04-14-08, 10:44 AM

Pretty good. Not perfect, better on some channels than others. But, based on what i had heard, i've been much happier w/ the HD quality than i expected.

What size HDTV do you have?

I've noticed anyone with a screen larger that 40-43" doesn't like the quality when compared to FIOS or TW. When I read on http://www.uverseusers.com

ahintz

04-14-08, 12:05 PM

Currently, you can record only one HD stream at a time. It looks like Q2/Q3 is when AT&T plans to start rolling out the ability to record two HD streams at once. How long this will take to reach all markets is anyone's guess.

Capek

04-17-08, 06:03 PM

Well, I've had major issues with Comcast in the last week (don't ask), so today I signed up with Uverse. The unfortunate thing is that apparently their installers are totally booked through the end of the month, so the earliest they could install was the 1st of May. So that's another two weeks I'm out of internet at my house, though that's Comcast's fault more than Uverse. But as far as the services I'm getting, on paper at least, for the price I was quoted (I hope I don't have any issues with my bill..), I'm actually starting to get excited over the move.

Checking out the channel listings for the various TV packages, I discovered that U200 has all the channels that I want. I was planning on going with U300, which is $20 a month more, but as it turns out the only real difference between the two are some movie channels, which I never watch anyways, so U200 at $59/month it is. So I applied that $20/month savings to get the highest internet package they have, which is 10 Mbps/1.5 Mbps versus the 6 Mbps/320 Kbps service I had with Comcast. The normal price for the "Elite" 10 Mbps service is $55/month, but bundled with TV, you get $10 off. Over the phone, I received the free HD service for a year discount, along with the free month of TV service.

So after that first month, my bill will be $59 (TV) + $45 (10Mbps Internet) = $104 per month. Included in that is an extra STB I can now stick in a spare bedroom that was STB-free because I didn't want to pay the extra $10/month or whatever it is to get another STB with Comcast for a room I never use.

So hopefully install goes smoothly, and the level of service is good. But for $104 a month and 1 month of free TV, for a significate increase in internet speed and a much better TV lineup, I'm expecting this to be a significant upgrade over the issue laden service I've gotten from Comcast.

SpySnake

04-17-08, 06:29 PM

You won't be dissappointed. The HD quality amazes me daily. It's so much clearer then Comcasts was, but I live literally walking distance from the switch, so I'm getting the full bandwidth available.

So far, it's been great. There are a few DVR glitches that are supposedly going to be resolved with an upcoming software update to the system soon.

The people I have been dealing with at AT&T (including my kick-ass installer) said the next update which will allow 2 HD channel streams simultaniously should be happening in the first or second week of May, at least in our area (Plainfield, Joliet).

WilliamR: Right now, no, you can't record or watch more then 1 HD stream. That will change though. That's only until they tweak their infrastructure. The other item that will also be included in the next software/firmware update is DVR access from any receiver in your home, which all are HD recievers. They all have Component and HDMI connections, as well as optical audio out. All of my receivers are completely HD-Ready.

You can't beat that.

Capek: Turning in my Comcast equipment on Saturday was the best feeling in the world, other then ordering my first BR player this week :) You will notice the HD quality right away. Just watch some Discovery HD shows or TNTHD and before you get your UVerse installed and you'll notice it immediately once it's set up.

Sorry I'm rambling, I'm just loving this system. It has is quarks, but nothing like Comcast.

Posty-McPost

04-18-08, 03:24 AM

WilliamR

04-18-08, 08:54 AM

Man, if they can get this worked out and have multiple HD feeds, I may switch. I am soooo tired of not having HD channels that someone else a couple miles away (with the same cable company) does have.

SpySnake

04-18-08, 09:22 AM

I think the implementation of more then 1 HD stream is dependant on your location. I was told my the customer service people, the installer and their manager that they were going to try to implement it the first or second week of May in my area. Apparently we have the largest concentration of users of the service.

I don't know how true any of this is, but it's just what I've been told.

RoyBell

04-20-08, 03:26 PM

i only have 1 tv in the house so i dont need 2 feeds :)

Alan Wong

04-20-08, 03:37 PM

Uverse just started charging for more than 1 set top box. Price still isn't bad but it's now creeping closer to the cost of other services that don't have the issues Uverse has. Low price kept me contemplating about Uverse. I guess now that price is becoming less of a factor, Uverse is less attractive for me.

Rammitinski

04-21-08, 05:32 AM

They always charged for more than the 1st box here. That's one of the things that made it not worth it for me to switch from Dish (along with their package pricing). I only need one dual-tuner from Dish, and it's free.

I thought competition was supposed to lower prices. None of these new alternatives seem to really offer much in the way of potential cost benefits.

danno321s

04-21-08, 05:58 PM

i only have 1 tv in the house so i dont need 2 feeds :)

What if you need to record two HD programs with overlapping times?

RoyBell

04-21-08, 06:21 PM

What if you need to record two HD programs with overlapping times?

i guess i would have a problem then ;) I highly doubt that would happen (for me). I rarely watch any tv as it is. what are the chances im gonna want to watch 2 shows at the same time? Besides, SD is so good to begin with i might just have to sacrifice ;)

jnickrand

04-25-08, 03:19 PM

I just wanted to say that I've had uverse since August 2007 and I love it. I have not had one single problem. I do not recall my TV service going out even once. I switched from TWC for 2 reasons: they did not have the Big Ten Network and it saved me $30 per month. Right now my total bill (tax and all fees included) is $80 a month for the U200 package with 1 DVR and 4 TV's hooked up in the house, and a middle of the road internet package. I notice no difference in internet speed between this and TWC's road runner, although I primarily use the internet just for browsing (both pull up web pages instantly).

I do not currently have HD, so I can't comment on that.

ahintz

04-25-08, 05:15 PM

Posty-McPost

04-25-08, 05:50 PM

I will say, as an SD-only service, UVerse is pretty decent. For me the main place it falls down is in HD. It has a limited number of HD channels compared to DirecTV, and it can only record one HD channel at a time. Once those problems are corrected, I think UVerse will be a nice alternative.

I think the HD PQ is also a big problem. As of April 22nd the addition of more HD streams is listed as 2Q 2008. So look for in the next couple months.

http://www.att.com/gen/investor-relations?pid=5647

RemyM

04-25-08, 06:36 PM

I do not currently have HD, so I can't comment on that.

I would assume most SD only users would like Uverse, but this is an HDTV thread, and to those of us with HDTV's Uverse is a joke. It's been available to me for over a year but I have two HDTV's and a HD DVR. Uverse's single HD stream just doesn't cut it for me.

doogiehowser

04-26-08, 02:22 PM

RoyBell

04-26-08, 03:00 PM

doogiehowser

04-26-08, 03:33 PM

i checked the PQ again last night- I am actually pretty disgusted with it. As I mentioned before, it is sharp, then blurry, then sharp. Someone mentioned packet loss. It's pretty bad. On still/slow shots its especially noticeable. I'm gonna give them a call and see what they say. If they can't fix it, I'm just gonna cancel.

If Uverse works like DSL, the more people who subscribe to the service, the worse it will be. Everyone shares the same line, and the more using it the less bandwith you get.

neil0311

04-26-08, 07:04 PM

If Uverse works like DSL, the more people who subscribe to the service, the worse it will be. Everyone shares the same line, and the more using it the less bandwith you get.

Huh? I think you have it backwards. With DSL you get dedicated bandwidth to the CO or DSLAM no matter how many other people are using the service. Cable HSI is a shared bandwidth technology which in theory could become bottlenecked.

keenan

04-26-08, 09:18 PM

Yes, it's cable that suffers from the more it's slower syndrome. Doesn't matter how many with DSL.

joffer

04-30-08, 07:00 PM

I was pretty excited to hear uverse is now available in my area, but reading this thread is a little disappointing, especially the PQ reviews :(

ahintz

04-30-08, 08:18 PM

If UVerse is offering a free month of service in your area, and other aspects of the service compare favorably to your current provider, you should try it out. There are a lot of very happy Uverse users out there. Personally I didn't have any issues with PQ compared to DirecTV - but I was watching a 30-inch set. This definitely seems a service where the phrase "YMMV - your mileage may very" is appropriate.

RoyBell

04-30-08, 09:31 PM

i think anything would look good on a 30" set ;)

Marcus Carr

05-01-08, 02:12 PM

AT&T activates 2HD / 2SD U-verse service in St. Louis, more cities to come?

by Darren Murph, posted May 1st 2008 at 1:19PM

Stop the presses: AT&T has just yanked a huge hurdle out of U-verse's way, and if St. Louis' luck is passed on throughout the country, its fiber-based HD service just got a whole lot more attractive. To be honest, many have scoffed at AT&T's U-verse service due to the inability to watch one high-def channel while recording another (even though you could record an SD channel while watching an HD telecast), but now a swarm of St. Louis, Missouri based customers are joining in celebration as 2HD / 2SD service has been activated. In short, this enables four total streams to be accessed at once, but unlike the previous 1HD / 3SD setup, users can now get their fingers on dual high-definition broadcasts. Unfortunately, we've heard nothing official about this rolling out elsewhere, but we can't imagine AT&T only letting STL have all the fun here.

http://www.uverseusers.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,2/topic,7475.60/

http://www.engadgethd.com/

Capek

05-01-08, 03:11 PM

OK, take this with a grain of salt, as I've had the service all of 1 hour, but so far I am ecstatic with the quality all around. I have their top internet package of 10 Mb/s, and am seeing a solid 1.13 MB/s downstream, which is great. As to their TV service, the interface and users guide are miles above Comcast. I still have a lot of playing around to do, but it's all very responsive and pleasant to use. There's basically no load time when changing channels, which is something I was wondering about, since this is my first experience with IPTV. But it actually feels very slick, so I'm very happy there.

As for the HD picture quality, as that was my main concern, and I'm sure the main concern of a lot of people here. Let me preface my comments by saying that my HD display is a Panny 900 projecting a 135" diag image. And let me say that I was only in my main theater for about 40 minutes before I had to go check out the internet, so my firsthand experience is limited. But I'll tell you, my reactions in that ~40 minutes ranged from "WOW!" to "meh".

So some myths to bust.

1) Uverse HD is not pixelated garbage. It's not unwatchable on a screen larger than ~40".

My criticism would be that it's uneven, nothing more, nothing less. But then again, that's HD TV for you. Half the crap on HD channels is either not HD or poor HD, and so I really can't say that this is a problem with Uverse. With Comcast there was plenty of "HD" programming that I wouldn't bother watching in my main theater room. But just scrolling through the HD lineup on Uverse, American Chopper on HDT looked absolutely as good as any HD programming I've ever seen with Comcast. I can honestly say that it looked better than I remember American Chopper looking on Comcast, it looked sharper, and had more 'pop', kind of along the lines of what you get from a good HD-DVD or BD. The movie on HDNET also looked great, as did CSI on A&E I think it is. This stuff looked as good as any of the HD I've been used to from Comcast. Of couse there were some stinkers, like what was playing on NatGeo, but without seeing multiple programs on these channels, I have to allow for the possibility that it was just that one show that looked bad. The only pixelation I saw was on a promo for some racing programming, when there was a bunch of fast moving graphics on the screen, but that was in the solid colored background, and compared to what I've been seeing with Comcast for a while now, this is no big issue at all. It will be interesting to see how my impression changes as I have more time to use this service, but so far I am very pleasantly surprised with the PQ quality. SD looks great too, even on my 135" display. I could never watch SD programming from Comcast, but this is actually watchable. The other particulars are that I have the STB in my theater room connected via ethernet, and my projector hooked up via component.

Installation was pretty smooth too. There was a hiccup after the installer updated the RG, but that was fixed quickly enough with a factory reset, and other than that it was pretty quick.

So with all the pro's over comcast I've listed, plus and extra STB and the extra 4 Mb/s of downstream and about 3x the upstream, I'll actually end up paying about $10 less a month with Uverse than Comcast.

Now THIS, I can say, is absolutely freakin' COMCASTIC! :D

rick4him

05-14-08, 03:07 AM

I am moving to Dallas and getting u-verse installed on Friday - how is it in Dallas?

SteveK123

05-15-08, 11:32 AM

I have Dish and U-Verse both running through an HDMI switcher. Dish looks better. AT&T are going to put future bandwidth towards more HD streams/internet speed and not increasing the HD bitrate.

Posty-McPost try running the Uverse through component cable I did an comparison between the HDMI and Component and component looks much better from their box.

SteveK123

05-15-08, 11:34 AM

SteveK123

05-15-08, 11:49 AM

Uverse is overpriced junk.

I checked their order page, and they want $14.99 for a DVR. My buddy who has a dish only pays $5 a month for his DVR.

I was looking at prices, and Uverse is much more expensive and offers less. Why don't they have a HD only package like dish for $29.99? Or a family package like dish for $19.99.

Uverse is a rip off.

um The DVR is only extra if you purchase the cheapest plan the U100, U200 and above come with the DVR at no charge. Additional set top boxes after that are 5 bucks now.

lomax

05-15-08, 01:44 PM

how is U-verse in the Houston area?

are they going to have 2 HD streams up soon?

i am looking to dump dish after the Voom disaster, i have the Dish ATT combo package so it would be easy to switch over to U-Verse.

SteveK123

05-15-08, 02:16 PM

doogiehowser

05-15-08, 03:46 PM

um The DVR is only extra if you purchase the cheapest plan the U100, U200 and above come with the DVR at no charge. Additional set top boxes after that are 5 bucks now.

This is from the Uverse website-

U100
Enjoy up to 100 channels included in our basic package—starting at $44 per month. The service price includes one HD-ready receiver, which does not include a DVR. Additional receivers are $5 per month. You may rent a DVR for $15 per month.

And they charge extra for HD access-

HD Service — Only $10.00 more per month!

U-verse is a rip off. What does U-verse 200 start at? $69.99 to have HD access?

BTW, where is Sci-Fi HD on uverse or USA HD on uverse or ESPN News HD on uverse or Disney HD on uverse? U-verse seems to have about half as many HD channels as the $29.99 Dish HD offer.

RemyM

05-15-08, 04:36 PM

The word on the street is all areas should have 2HD streams by end of may early april

:confused:
The calender is now moving back wards?;)

Posty-McPost

05-15-08, 05:21 PM

Posty-McPost try running the Uverse through component cable I did an comparison between the HDMI and Component and component looks much better from their box.

The problem is not my connection. It's their bitrate.

Posty-McPost

05-15-08, 05:23 PM

:confused:
The calender is now moving back wards?;)

Actually according to people on Uverseusers.com 2HD/2SD is rolling out now. They started about 2 weeks ago.

SteveK123

05-15-08, 07:31 PM

:confused:
The calender is now moving back wards?;)

long day ment June

SteveK123

05-15-08, 07:33 PM

This is from the Uverse website-

And they charge extra for HD access-

U-verse is a rip off. What does U-verse 200 start at? $69.99 to have HD access?

BTW, where is Sci-Fi HD on uverse or USA HD on uverse or ESPN News HD on uverse or Disney HD on uverse? U-verse seems to have about half as many HD channels as the $29.99 Dish HD offer.

like I said the U100 is the only one where the DVR cost you 15 dollars like you pointed out again. I'm not trying to argue whether dish is a better deal or not. I did not have that option, no good place for the dish to go in my condo. My option was TWC and for the Same price Uverse with more then twice as many HD channels as i had on TWC. Besides that the 29.99 is 45 channels. There are still some SD channels I watch. So to match what I have with Dish would cost 69.99.

paule123

05-16-08, 09:59 PM

Hello there. I am new to this forum, but have some very interesting feedback to this discussion.

I am part owner of the company Clear View Enclosures, Inc., located in Port St. Lucie, FL. We have designed a product that will solve the problem of the huge Emerson 52B and Commscope ALP-248C unsightly utility boxes.

The first installation of our hermetically sealed enclosure will be approximately July 15th, 2008.

Due to pending patents our company webpage is still in the developmental phase.

Perhaps you should be in contact with someone at ATT corporate instead of spamming this forum with your vaporware product ?

... and quite frankly in this day and age, if you don't have a website up for your product, you might as well not exist.

colortv

05-21-08, 04:45 AM

I live in Los Angeles and recently decided to give U-Verse a try. I'm disappointed in U-Verse HD picture quality which is obviously bitrate constrained. Take a look at the 1-second interval stepping effect in medium to low luminance video and you'll see what I mean. The effect is distracting and unacceptable. I retained DISH Network for an overlap month and I am dual recording programs on both DISH and U-Verse DVRs for close comparison. The low luminance stepping problem is just not an issue on DISH Network which consistently has superior HD video on all channels when compared to U-Verse.

I work on HD network programs in Los Angeles, perhaps I'm too picky. But my 70" Sony Qualia 006 shows U-Verse's glaring flaws. Dark scenes on filmed material inherently has film grain, and seeing the grain pattern stepping from one frozen grain pattern to another every second is bothersome not just to me, but others who have stopped by my home to check out U-Verse before considering the service for themselves. When doing A/B comparisons of identical scenes recorded on the DISH Network DVR and U-Verse DVR, DISH wins hands down.

Want a quick demo of this low bitrate stepping effect? Watch David Letterman, and watch the dark blue background behind him. Notice what happens every second, you can set your stopwatch by the step-step-step effect in the dark blue.

American Idol looked pretty ugly in U-Verse on May 20. The low level noise pattern showed the typical U-Verse 1 second stepping, and there were occasional frame stutters on camera cuts. Playing the exact scenes back on the DISH DVR showed neither of these flaws. The DISH Network video was ever so slightly less crisp than U-Verse, but much more pleasing to the eye.

Other comments: U-Verse looks nasty through HDMI. Weird color balance (non-linear gray scale), and occasional missing frames resulting in a jump between frames. Most noticeable on pans and fast motion. Viewing U-Verse through the component connections results in a much better picture, better color balance, linear gray scale, no missing frames. But the low bitrate low luminance stepping effect is omniprescent in both HDMI and component video.

U-Verse positives:
U-Verse has cool menus, pleasing animation. I like the clean transitions during channel changes. Setting the DVR over the internet is a cool feature. U-Verse DSL elite service seems to be identical to the AT&T DSL elite which I had before installing U-Verse.

U-Verse negatives:
No dual stream HD in Los Angeles yet. Since the bitrate on one HD stream is already painfully low, what's it going to be like with 2 HD streams? Half the bitrate of one stream resulting in even worse compression and poorer HD picture quality? Supposedly my area will be getting dual stream HD on June 10, but I may have cancelled by then so I may not enjoy that feature which should have been offered when U-Verse was rolled out in LA.

Inability to set a series recording to start earlier than the scheduled time. Example: for some reason, Fox starts Wednesday's American Idol early, resulting in the loss of about the first minute of the show. (Thankfully I dual recorded on DISH, starting the recording 2 minutes early, so I was able to switch back to the DISH DVR to see the beginning of the show which was not recorded on U-Verse). My previous Comcast DVR had the early start option, and DISH Network does as well. It is possible to manually set a single event to start recording at any time on U-Verse, but the option to set a series recording to start early is not available. Confirmed by U-Verse tech support. My standard procedure to avoid missing the beginning and end of programs is to start a series recording 2 minutes early, and end it 10 minutes late.

When scrolling through the U-Verse channel guide to several days ahead, the U-Verse guide shows "information not available" until you stop scrolling, then the guide fills in. Start scrolling again and "info not available" shows on all channels until you stop scrolling. Neither DISH Network nor Comcast had this annoyance. The guide on Comcast and DISH Network is apparently pre-loaded and displays continuously as you scroll through the days ahead. Apparently U-Verse does not pre-load the guide.

U-Verse tech support tested my connection and found no problems. I'm 700' from the fiber optic node and have a strong signal to their equipment in my home through the copper wires. Tech support was friendly and admitted that dual stream HD was a major annoyance among U-Verse customers. Which begs this question... why in the world did AT&T ever rollout U-Verse before dual stream HD was ready to go? Their competition has offered that capability for a long time.

It's cool that AT&T is sending so much over a pair of skimpy copper wires. Unfortunately, the inferior picture quality forces me to cancel and retain DISH Network for the time being. When U-Verse is ready for prime time, I may return. I'm disappointed, I expected better.

paule123

05-21-08, 09:18 AM

bgooch

05-21-08, 07:44 PM

AT&T U-verse Marks One-Year Anniversary of Giving Los Angeles Consumers Real Choice in Television Service

Strong Market Response Reflects Customer Desire for Enhanced TV Viewing, State-of-the-Art Interactive Features
20 May 2008 , Los Angeles, California :

AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) today announced that AT&T U-verseSM TV is now available in parts of more than 50 communities in Greater Los Angeles area, marking a significant expansion since AT&T U-verse launched locally in May 2007. In the year since service has been available, AT&T U-verse TV has redefined the television experience for Los Angeles consumers, using a 100 percent IP-based platform that enables new, innovative features and raises TV viewing to a whole new level.

"More Los Angeles consumers are realizing that AT&T U-verse TV is more than just TV; it's about a complete entertainment experience," said Kurt Engstrom, general manager for AT&T Los Angeles. "U-verse TV offers better choice, a huge HD lineup, popular programming and greater control and features. No wonder customer response has been so strong."

The rapid expansion of AT&T U-verse in the Los Angeles area mirrors the growth of U-verse services nationwide. AT&T recently announced that it ended the first quarter with has 379,000 U-verse customers and is on track to reach 1 million customers by the end of 2008.

Los Angeles customers can choose from a variety of U-verse packages, which include popular programming options, unmatched features and prices that start as low as $44 a month, depending on the selected programming and Internet packages (other monthly charges apply).

Since introducing U-verse services in Los Angeles, AT&T has launched several new features that take advantage of its 100 percent Internet Protocol (IP)-based platform. IP technology helps U-verse TV offer advanced capabilities that customers don't get from other local providers, such as the ability to record four programs at once on the digital video recorder (DVR), Web and Mobile Remote Access to the DVR and access to more than 40 High Definition (HD) channels.

The interactive features — available to customers at no extra charge — that were added in the past year and further differentiate U-verse TV from cable include:

* AT&T Online Photos from Flickr, which lets you simply and conveniently browse the photos you've uploaded to flickr.com and watch slide shows on your U-verse TV screen from the comfort of your couch.
* AT&T U-bar, which brings customizable weather, stock, sports and traffic information to the U-verse TV screen, without interrupting the current program. AT&T High Speed Internet subscribers can personalize the U-bar from the AT&T portal to display weather at specific locations, your personal stock portfolio and scores for your favorite sports teams.
* YELLOWPAGES.COM TV, for fast and easy searches to find local businesses and other information via your TV screen.
* AT&T Yahoo! Games, so you can now play your favorite online games — including Sudoku, Solitaire, JT's Blocks, Mah-jongg Tiles and Chess — on the TV screen.

"This has been a tremendous year for both Los Angeles consumers and AT&T U-verse TV," said Engstrom. "But this is only the tip of the iceberg. We've got a lot more in store for our customers and are ready for a big 2008."

AT&T is the only national provider to offer a 100 percent IP-based television (IPTV) service, making AT&T U-verse TV one of the most advanced television offerings available anywhere. AT&T is deploying next-generation video services, including AT&T U-verse TV, as part of its mission to connect people with their world, everywhere they live and work, and do it better than anyone else.

AT&T U-verse is now available in the following Greater Los Angeles-area communities: Alhambra, Altadena, Anaheim, Arcadia, Bell Canyon, Brea, Buena Park, Burbank, Canoga Park, Carson, Chatsworth, Corona, Costa Mesa, Encino, Fontana, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Gardena, Glendale, Hawthorne, Irvine, La Crescenta, La Habra, Laguna Niguel, Lomita, Mayflower Village, Montebello, Moorpark, Moreno Valley, Norco, Northridge, Orange, Palmdale, Placentia, Rancho Santa Margarita, Reseda, Riverside, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Santa Clarita, Sherman Oaks, Simi Valley, South Pasadena, Stanton, Temple City, Topanga, Tustin, West Hills, Westminster and Yorba Linda.

For additional information on AT&T U-verse — or to find out whether it's available in your area — visit http://uverse.att.com, call 800-ATT-2020 or stop by one of the 137 Greater Los Angeles-area retail locations.

http://www.prdomain.com/companies/A/AT&T/newsreleases/200852157093.htm

colortv

05-21-08, 09:05 PM

Sounds like ATT is stretching the MPEG GOP (group-of-pictures) out to a one-second interval between I frames. That's an easy way to cheat a little more bandwidth (DirecTV used to do this on their MPEG2 HD feeds, not sure if they still do) Seems that when this is done to 720p material in particular, such re-encoding tricks are very obvious and degrading to video quality.

Does U-Verse HD use MPEG2 compression? Regardless of the "cool factor" of IPTV technology, it's got to look better than it currently does to win me over. The problem looks the same whether on 720p channels or 1080i channels. Also, it doesn't seem to be worse or better on any HD channels - the problem is equally evident on all channels I viewed.

I just called ATT to cancel the U-Verse TV service on the day that the "first month free" expires. I'll retain U-Verse internet service for now, I can't think of any reason why not assuming the price is the same compared to my previous ATT DSL. The only downside is the separate U-Verse internet-only bill plus the usual ATT landline and ATT/DISH Network combo bill. By keeping the current U-Verse installation minus the TV receivers I will return to ATT, if I decide to try U-Verse TV again in the future, the installation should be a breeze.

During the cancellation call, I was passed over to the retention department - very professional and courteous. They could not tell me when dual HD streams would be available in my area, nor could they tell me what the HD bitrates would be on the dual HD streams. Since 6MB/s is obviously not enough for great quality single stream HD, does anyone know the bitrate on U-Verse dual stream HD?

I was surprised that ATT's retention department showed no interest in sending someone to my house so I could demonstrate my complaint. I've got plenty of dual-recorded material to compare DISH to U-Verse. Taking personal preferences out of the equation, the A-B comparisons say it all.

ieko

05-21-08, 10:17 PM

I think U-verse uses an MPEG-4, maybe VC-1? But for sure it's not MPEG-2 or you'd really see some awful HD.

jabbathespud

05-21-08, 10:42 PM

It's H.264

danno321s

05-22-08, 11:16 AM

AT&T must be waiting for something like super fast Fractal Compression. Then they can shove all that stuff down the POTS copper wires. I think this encoding is already used for military purposes...I didn't tell you!

Capek

05-22-08, 05:10 PM

No dual stream HD in Los Angeles yet. Since the bitrate on one HD stream is already painfully low, what's it going to be like with 2 HD streams? Half the bitrate of one stream resulting in even worse compression and poorer HD picture quality?

The cap is raised from 20 MB to 30 MB when 2/2 is turned on, so the second HD stream doesn't eat into the first one.

colortv

05-22-08, 06:55 PM

The cap is raised from 20 MB to 30 MB when 2/2 is turned on, so the second HD stream doesn't eat into the first one.

That's good news, thanks for that info. I will wait a while and let someone else in my area give U-Verse a try. I'll re-evaluate it in a few months to see if it meets my needs. Since I'm retaining U-Verse internet service, it won't be too difficult to get the TV service going again if I like what I see. I really want U-Verse to work for me - I like viable alternatives to satellite and cable.

BHorn

05-22-08, 07:01 PM

Take a look at the 1-second interval stepping effect in medium to low luminance video and you'll see what I mean. The effect is distracting and unacceptable. I retained DISH Network for an overlap month and I am dual recording programs on both DISH and U-Verse DVRs for close comparison. The low luminance stepping problem is just not an issue on DISH Network which consistently has superior HD video on all channels when compared to U-Verse.

Uverse's 1-second interval stepping effect on the discovery channel "Sunrise Earth" series is the pits.

What a shame!

colortv

05-22-08, 10:38 PM

Since U-Verse offered the first month free here in Los Angeles, my first month will end June 4. That's when I've scheduled the TV service to be cancelled, so I'll continue to use the service occasionally until shutoff day. Today I made use of one of the benefits of U-Verse. I forgot to set either my DISH or U-Verse DVR to record "So You Think You Can Dance" tonight, so I set up the series recording from my internet connection at work. No doubt, it's a compelling feature. Now if ATT can fix that funky compression along with dual stream HD, the benefits of IPTV will be appreciated by me.

cbrox

05-22-08, 10:49 PM

renesis27

05-26-08, 11:34 PM

I've had U-verse for about 3 months now. It's been good to be and got even better today. After reading that some people were getting the 2nd HD stream I called up customer care. An hour later and I know have 2 HD streams.

Where are you located? We still don't have 2 streams in Austin Tx. yet but I am going to ask about it when I call this week for a couple of small complaints that I need them to address.

Skippman

05-27-08, 09:10 AM

I've had U-verse for about 3 months now. It's been good to be and got even better today. After reading that some people were getting the 2nd HD stream I called up customer care. An hour later and I know have 2 HD streams.

What other HD services have you had? I'm interested in going to UVerse but wonder how it compares to my DirecTV service. I fear the channel line up isn't as robust.

Snickering Hound

05-27-08, 02:43 PM

2 streams has apparently gone live in Houston but you may have to call AT&T to get it enabled.

http://www.uverseusers.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,2/topic,7736.0/

Capek

05-27-08, 04:16 PM

I called to see if it was ready in my neighborhood, and was told that it would be available on Jun 5th and I'd have to call back then to get it switched on. This is in 77019, inside the loop.

RemyM

05-29-08, 08:20 AM

AT&T must seek OK for its U-Verse boxes
By Monica Potts
Staff Writer
Article Launched: 05/29/2008 02:44:32 AM EDT

AT&T failed to obtain consent from property owners and city officials before it began installing boxes used to transmit its new telephone, Internet and television services, the state Department of Public Utility Control said Tuesday.

Stamford, Bridgeport, and Danbury filed a complaint with the DPUC in March 2007, stating they had not been notified before the boxes' installation and expressing safety concerns about the equipment.

The DPUC, which oversees installation of telecommunications equipment, said state law requires companies to notify and obtain consent from municipal officials and adjacent property owners, a DPUC spokeswoman said.

"They did not do what they were supposed to," in at least some cases, said Patty Riley, the supervisor of DPUC's telecommunications unit.

Riley said the department has no comment on how many boxes were installed without consent.

An AT&T spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

The DPUC has not made a ruling on safety issues involving the equipment, which are installed in public rights of way.

"To the extent there's a problem, it would come back to us," Riley said. "We're hoping they negotiate in good faith with the customers and most of this will be resolved."

Many boxes are already operating. They provide Internet protocol-based services through a service package called U-Verse.

Burt Rosenberg, Stamford's assistant corporation council, said the boxes contain high-voltage equipment and, because they sit on the ground, sometimes near sidewalks, they can be dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists. Rosenberg said Bridgeport city attorneys presented evidence that blind pedestrians had walked into them.

"It's our position that none of these boxes are ADA compliant," Rosenberg said.

Some of the boxes may contain batteries, made by a now-defunct company, which have exploded and caught fire, Rosenberg said.

Rosenberg said the boxes, which he said were about the size of "dorm-room refrigerators," are already throughout Stamford.

He said attorneys from the cities believe they should be at least 84 inches off the ground.

Blumenthal filed a motion with the DPUC yesterday requesting that AT&T provide the locations of all boxes so the state can properly monitor the notification process, according to a statement from his office.

Blumenthal said the DPUC's ruling should not disrupt service for AT&T customers.

"Today's request should provide no impediment to existing or future U-Verse service, which promises to provide welcome and sorely need competition in the cable market," he said.

AT&T must now provide information to owners of property adjacent to existing boxes and request informed consent from them, according to the DPUC's decision. The company must relocate the equipment if the DPUC finds it "necessary and reasonable." It cannot place new boxes until it obtains consent.

A June 3 DPUC hearing will review the equipment's safety.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/localnews/ci_9410799

paule123

05-29-08, 10:37 AM

AT&T Builds on U-verse Platform to Deliver 10 Mbps Download Speeds to Small Businesses

AT&T Business U-verse Also Offers Free Wireless Connectivity, Access to 17,000 Wi-Fi Hot Spots, Added Benefits for Customers in More Than 40 U.S. Markets

San Antonio, Texas, May 13, 2008

Demonstrating its position as a leading provider of wired and wireless networked business solutions, AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) today announced the immediate availability of the AT&T U-verseSM platform for high-speed Internet access to small businesses in more than 40 U.S. markets.

AT&T High Speed Internet U-verse Enabled Business Edition offers download speeds up to 10 Mbps, which, depending on the applications needed, can serve up to 32 Internet access connections over existing telephone wiring in the customer's business.

AT&T Business U-verse also provides free unlimited access to the company's nationwide Wi-Fi network, the largest in the United States, to small business subscribers. The network comprises more than 17,000 Wi-Fi hot spots nationwide, which includes expansion into more than 7,000 U.S. company-operated Starbucks locations, allowing businesses to stay connected from almost anywhere — whether they're in the office or on the road.

In addition, AT&T Business U-verse, which uses advanced, fiber-based Internet Protocol (IP) infrastructure to deliver high speed wired and wireless connectivity, offers subscribers virtually unlimited e-mail storage and powerful online protection packages, including anti-spyware, anti-virus, pop-up blocker and SpamGuard Plus.

AT&T Business U-verse also features wireless office networking at no additional charge, giving users the freedom to receive and send large data files, view streaming video and access other high-bandwidth applications by using a wireless-enabled laptop or other device.

"Today's small businesses need velocity to better serve their customers, stay ahead of their competitors and continue moving forward," said Roman Pacewicz, senior vice president, AT&T Regional Business Marketing. "Our new Business U-verse provides outstanding connectivity at a great price for small businesses by offering higher speeds than ever before."

Among the markets with AT&T Business U-verse availability are portions of Los Angeles; Sacramento, San Diego; the Bay Area, Riverside, San Bernardino and Carlsbad, Calif.; Hartford, Stamford and New Haven, Conn.; Atlanta, Ga; Anderson, Bloomington, Indianapolis and Muncie, Ind.; Northeastern Illinois; Kansas City and St. Louis, Mo.; Detroit, Mich; Cleveland, Akron and Columbus, Ohio; Oklahoma City, Okla.; Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio, Texas; and Milwaukee and Racine, Wis.

AT&T Business U-verse service will be made available to businesses in additional markets within AT&T's 22-state local service footprint over the coming months. AT&T is the largest provider of broadband service in the United States, with more than 14 million customers.

The company offers several cost-effective tiers for AT&T Business U-verse, ranging from as little as $40 a month up to $100 a month, depending on the downstream speed. The AT&T Business U-verse network also expands the company's footprint of business-class broadband availability, so more customers can access AT&T High Speed Internet services.

At this time, AT&T is waiving installation charges for AT&T Business U-verse — a $95 value. The wireless-enabled equipment also comes with four Ethernet ports, a USB port for direct connection and AT&T's two-tier firewall.

For more information or to order AT&T Business U-verse, please visit http://smallbiz.att.com/businessuverse or call 1-888-288-8339. For information about other small business solutions from AT&T, please visit www.att.com/onwardsmallbiz.

http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=25692

Skippman

05-29-08, 10:49 AM

Has anyone had both UVerse and DirecTV? I'm wondering how UVerse compares to DirecTV. I know I've asked this in the past but I've not received any response back.

BHorn

05-30-08, 06:54 AM

Woke up to find my box had been reset last night and now I gots me two HD streams.

Bout time!

TV2 client version 1.2.43048.3 (RELEASE)

Bud-man

05-30-08, 07:06 AM

I'm moving to a new house soon, after reading here i think i'll stick with Cox Cable.
There HD lineup seems close the same as cables.
2 weeks ago they installed one of those huge grey boxes on a pole near me, i can see why there stopping them here in Ct.
Cox's 20 meg internet cant be beat right now, Fio's is just that here......Whats that???

ahintz

05-30-08, 11:48 AM

Has anyone had both UVerse and DirecTV? I'm wondering how UVerse compares to DirecTV. I know I've asked this in the past but I've not received any response back.

I tried out Uverse and have DirecTV. The reason I kept DirecTV was that it allowed me to record 2 HD channels at once (Uverse only had one) and it has far more HD channels then Uverse. The DVR also locked up more often then I liked, and I preferred the interface on the DirecTV DVR. While Uverse's quality wasn't an issue for me, you will hear some complaints from others on this thread. I figure if and when Uverse gets more HD channels, and now that they have 2HD streams rolling out, I might take another look. But right now, I would say the main issue (for me at least) with Uverse is lack of HD channels.

Skippman

05-30-08, 12:09 PM

I would say the main issue (for me at least) with Uverse is lack of HD channels.

That's what I throught. I'd miss things like Cartoon Network HD, Sci Fi HD, and a few others. I currently have two HR-20's from DirecTV. The idea of being able to watch a recorded show in any room in the house strongly appeals to me and I wish DirecTV would get onboard with that.

I do work for AT&T and would get a discount on UVerse but it's not enough to warrent the lack of HD channels.

david118383

05-30-08, 01:58 PM

Any word on if and when Uverse will be adding Sci Fi HD, ESPNEWS HD, USA HD?

cheer

05-30-08, 02:13 PM

That's what I throught. I'd miss things like Cartoon Network HD, Sci Fi HD, and a few others. I currently have two HR-20's from DirecTV. The idea of being able to watch a recorded show in any room in the house strongly appeals to me and I wish DirecTV would get onboard with that.
Sad thing is, the older Tivo-based SD DVRs had the ability to do just that, but the code was disabled per DirecTV's request. The hacking community worked out how to enable it. (The Tivo-based HD DVR had the code removed entirely.) It's so insanely useful that I wish the service providers would fight the content providers (who object to this sort of thing without oodles of new ultra-secure DRM).
I do work for AT&T and would get a discount on UVerse but it's not enough to warrent the lack of HD channels.
I'm not really worried about the channel selection per se; the downside of the U-Verse implementation is the stream limitation, but the upside is that they can continue to add channels as they sign deals. They could triple the number of channels they offer without having to upgrade the network edge; cable and satellite cannot.

One presumes they will keep signing up channel providers as they expand.

cheer

05-30-08, 02:16 PM

Any word on if and when Uverse will be adding Sci Fi HD, ESPNEWS HD, USA HD?

They don't pre-announce; we likely won't find out until they're available. One presumes they're in the works, though...in fact, I have to believe that Sci-Fi HD is the most-requested HD channel for U-Verse.

Capek

05-30-08, 06:56 PM

Any word on if and when Uverse will be adding Sci Fi HD, ESPNEWS HD, USA HD?

Beyond reports from users who talked to CSRs who said they were coming?

http://www.uverseusers.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,2/topic,7555.0/

I'll believe it when I see it, but I REALLY hope they get Sci-fi HD before this July when Charlie Jade airs. It's one of the best serialized genre shows ever, and the dvds from the R2J boxset look amazing, so it should look stellar in HD. Hopefully it won't be just upconverted though...not sure how much programing on Sci-fi HD is actually HD.

wildpanda86

05-30-08, 07:39 PM

I hope ATT Uverse brings on Sci-Fi HD and Speed in HD... I used to have DirectTV and had those channels in HD, but dropped them because of customer service issues.

cheer

06-02-08, 10:44 AM

I REALLY hope they get Sci-fi HD before this July when Charlie Jade airs. It's one of the best serialized genre shows ever, and the dvds from the R2J boxset look amazing, so it should look stellar in HD. Hopefully it won't be just upconverted though...not sure how much programing on Sci-fi HD is actually HD.

I would imagine that if the show itself is available in HD that Sci-Fi will air it as such. (E.g. Doctor Who isn't available in HD, BSG is, etc.)

But I doubt you'll get it in time...looks like Charlie Jade starts this friday (June 6), and not in July.

Capek

06-02-08, 11:03 AM

I would imagine that if the show itself is available in HD that Sci-Fi will air it as such. (E.g. Doctor Who isn't available in HD, BSG is, etc.)

But I doubt you'll get it in time...looks like Charlie Jade starts this friday (June 6), and not in July.

Ahh, you're right, good call. Well, if it does air in HD (it was shot with HD video cameras, so hopefully Skiffy will do more then a half-assed job of bringing the show over, and get an HD version to show on its HD channel), hopefully it'll show up on usenet.

XCgeoff

06-02-08, 09:11 PM

Has anyone had both UVerse and DirecTV? I'm wondering how UVerse compares to DirecTV. I know I've asked this in the past but I've not received any response back.

I tried out u-verse a little over a year ago. I don't know how much it has changed since then so my comments may be outdated. At the time, the HD quality was horrible. Directv's MPEG-2 channels looked like blu-ray in comparison to the HD quality on U-verse. There was constant macroblocking and artifacts all over the place. At the time you could only watch/record 1 HD stream at a time. They said they would add another stream, but I don't know if it has happened yet. At the time, u-verse offered the most bang for your buck, but the HD quality and single HD stream killed it for me and I canceled it. A few months ago, I switched to D* from Comcast and I've been very happy with D*. The HD quality is great on the MPEG-4 channels. The MPEG-2 still leaves something to be desired, but I expect them to be converted to MPEG-4 later this year.

Excalibur_LH

06-05-08, 01:08 AM

Scott Greczkowski

06-05-08, 07:48 AM

UVERSE also runs a credit check.

I had UVERSE and got rid of it because of the poor PQ, however I am getting it installed again next week as I purchased a new house and it can not see any of the satellites due to tree cover.

I will update my review of things after that install is done. :)

Capek

06-05-08, 09:55 AM

Ok, I read almost the entire thread. Obviously there are mixed reviews about the picture quality. I noticed that most negative reviews are coming from people who have bigger tv sets. Also, it seems PQ quality varies from location to location.

I'm thinking about getting U-Verse because I don't think I'll pass a credit check with Directv, and I'm already an AT&T internet subscriber.

Can anyone from the Houston area (or Texas in general) comment on the picture quality of HD channels? I have a 42" 1080P HDTV, so HD is important to me.

I don't care for DVRs or one stream or two streams, or the fact that they don't have as many HD channels, etc... Just the picture quality of HD channels compared to Comcast and Directv.

I appreciate any comments.

Well, they compress their HD streams heavily, down to something like 6 MBs. Since they're using MPEG4 for their reencoding, they get passable results, but the loss in quality due to the low bitrate and chopping off some rez is obvious. On the one hand, I really haven't seen any blocking, banding or other compression artifacts, so at least they're doing their job on the compression side. So it's just like with HD media, there's some stuff that compresses well, some stuff that doesn't. Programs shot on HD video still look very good even on my 130" diagonal screen, stuff like American Chopper etc. And also, what I think they do is boost the colors and contrast a little bit, in an effort to make up some for the lower rez and bitrates. All in all, the limits of the bitrate are obvious in the PQ, but the HD is not horrible by any means. I wasn't totally thrilled with the PQ of comcast either, and while Uverse might be a step down, it's not a big step.

Bill787

06-11-08, 01:43 PM

Has anyone had both UVerse and DirecTV? I'm wondering how UVerse compares to DirecTV. I know I've asked this in the past but I've not received any response back.

Hi, Skippman. Hope I don't annoy by answering a different question. This month, I have AT&T U-Verse running side by side with Dish Network. The AT&T picture quality, both standard def and high def, is superb compared to Dish. But then Dish is infamous for soft pictures and artifacting in order to keep low bit rates. But I am frustrated to report that I won't be keeping U-Verse. Their Receiver/DVR locks up at least once a day requiring a 4-minute re-boot, but what really drives me crazy is that every single DVR recording I make starts a few seconds into the show. There is no option to start 30 seconds or a minute early (like for every other DVR on the planet), and AT&T technical service is clueless. A sad commentary on how little things can undermine a multi-billion dollar initiative . . . at least during the early versions of their software.

jabbathespud

06-11-08, 01:54 PM

I had U-Verse and DirecTV. Now I only have DirecTV.

kahalstead

06-12-08, 01:28 PM

Posty-McPost

06-14-08, 09:43 AM

Keith in Houston, TX:
tried uverse for 4 months, going back to comcast.
pros - lots of channels, the internet is fast
cons - first off, the sales people flat out lied and said the 'whole house' dvr was available
i don't think they even advertise it anymore
1 hd stream, also apparently only 3 streams of any kind, i have 5 tv's but can only watch any 3 at once, don't like the dvr - inflexible programming options, poor ffwd,rwd,etc and it is not that fast when changing channels-sometimes takes several minutes to get a signal after being off for awhile
- too much annoying 'pixelating' and 'gargling' of video and audio oh yeah they have lots of sports channels but a lot of 'not available in your veiwing area'
quality of SD is better than comcast but HD channels, some are better than others
have to change the aspect ratio when switch from hd to sd channels
no PIP
no VOIP
must have a box at each set and box and tv often out of synch on power on/off by remote

all-in-all NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME

Much like your analysis.

You do not have to change aspect ratio when changing from sd to hd. I'm not sure what you were doing wrong.

Those sports channels you are not getting are out of market RSN's. You are not entitled to them unless you subscribe a specific sports package. Even then games will be blacked out.

The box and tv becoming out of sync in the power cycle is not a problem with the stb. My stb has no issue with accepting signals from almost any angle (even away from the unit). It's more responsive than the dish stb it sits next to using the same logitech remote.

The whole house dvr has never been advertised and is still expected to be released. Never listen to CSR's.

therascaldude

06-15-08, 04:07 AM

NetworkTV

06-15-08, 11:02 AM

They don't pre-announce; we likely won't find out until they're available. One presumes they're in the works, though...in fact, I have to believe that Sci-Fi HD is the most-requested HD channel for U-Verse.
D* never used to either. The channel would just appear and D* would say, "by the way, we just added..."

Times have changed. Now that everyone is scrambling to add what's out there, the next phase is boasting about what you PLAN to add next, even if it doesn't exist yet.

I'll bet they'll be joining the herd and pre-announcing everything eventually.

colortv

06-15-08, 12:29 PM

I just signed up for U-Verse (reeaallllyyy looking for a good excuse to ditch TWC) for installation next week and was wondering a bit about the picture quality of the channels. I've heard that the quality depends a lot on the location. So, is there anyone out there who's a Los Angeles U-Verse customer? If so, how would you compare U-verse's picture quality to TWC? In fact, how would you compare the whole service to TWC? Streams don't matter much as I'm in a 1bedroom apartment and have only one (big) TV. Any comments would be great, thanks.

I live in LA (Hancock Park) and tried U-Verse for a month and ditched it, back to Dish Network. HD PQ was not acceptable to me, the worst compression I have seen on my 70" HDTV compared to Comcast, TWC, an Dish Network. Dark scenes showed the problem much worse than bright scenes. SD channels look better than DISH though, but I rarely watch SD programs. Maybe the ugly compression is less noticeable on a smaller TV. The lack of dual HD streams will matter to you when you want to watch one HD show while simultaneously recording another HD show on a different channel. I am 700' from the node, and AT&T said I should be getting the best they can deliver at that short distance. They're not delivering high quality HD. Disappointed.

Capek

06-15-08, 01:29 PM

I live in LA (Hancock Park) and tried U-Verse for a month and ditched it, back to Dish Network. HD PQ was not acceptable to me, the worst compression I have seen on my 70" HDTV compared to Comcast, TWC, an Dish Network. Dark scenes showed the problem much worse than bright scenes. SD channels look better than DISH though, but I rarely watch SD programs. Maybe the ugly compression is less noticeable on a smaller TV. The lack of dual HD streams will matter to you when you want to watch one HD show while simultaneously recording another HD show on a different channel. I am 700' from the node, and AT&T said I should be getting the best they can deliver at that short distance. They're not delivering high quality HD. Disappointed.

Out of curiosity, how long ago did you try Uverse?

btw, the 2HD/2SD profile is live just about everywhere, so the one HD stream is a thing of the past.

colortv

06-15-08, 01:56 PM

Out of curiosity, how long ago did you try Uverse?

btw, the 2HD/2SD profile is live just about everywhere, so the one HD stream is a thing of the past.

I tried U-Verse for a month. I assumed it would be as good as Fios, which a friend of mine in another part of SoCal has. But U-Verse is not nearly as good. The compression stuff is just too annoying. Dish Network is a bit softer, but in the end, much more watchable. When I start noticing compression problems, it's just too distracting. That's not why I spend the big bucks on a large HDTV. Too bad U-Verse PQ is just not as good as it should be. If they get it together in the future, I'll give it another try.

Glad to hear dual stream is up and running, but that's just catch-up to what everyone else has long offered.

Capek

06-15-08, 02:50 PM

I tried U-Verse for a month. I assumed it would be as good as Fios, which a friend of mine in another part of SoCal has. But U-Verse is not nearly as good. The compression stuff is just too annoying. Dish Network is a bit softer, but in the end, much more watchable. When I start noticing compression problems, it's just too distracting. That's not why I spend the big bucks on a large HDTV. Too bad U-Verse PQ is just not as good as it should be. If they get it together in the future, I'll give it another try.

Glad to hear dual stream is up and running, but that's just catch-up to what everyone else has long offered.

I asked you when you had tried out Uverse, because from what I read there has been some improvement on the compression side of their HD programming from when Uverse was in its early stages. So it makes me wonder if you were one of those early adopters that formed your opinion when the HD PQ was at its worst. Speaking of my own experience, compression artifacts are not the problem with Uverse HD PQ. My main display device is a projector shooting a 138" diag image, and I've only noticed 2 instances of compression artifacts, one in the red background of a Speed TV promo they run, and the other in the dark night back ground of an episode of Lost.

The problem with Uverse HD is the low bitrate they use for their HD streams. So stuff that compresses well can still look very good, but stuff that is more difficult to compress ends up looking worse. But for me, the result of this low bitrate is not in artifacts, but in and increasing softness of the picture. The problem is still obviously with them over-compressing their HD, but at least compression artifacts like tiling etc are not the issue.

colortv

06-15-08, 04:21 PM

I asked you when you had tried out Uverse, because from what I read there has been some improvement on the compression side of their HD programming from when Uverse was in its early stages.

I had U-Verse from early May-early June 2008. Recently cancelled it. There was definitely no improvement in PQ while I had it. Most noticeably annoyance is compression in dark areas of the HD picture on all channels. One second stepping of noisy/grainy areas drove me nuts. For example, the dark blue background in the backdrop behind David Letterman. Or when American Idol was on, the same effect in dark areas. When 24 returns, it would drive me nuts during the dark scenes. The film grain would constantly be changing, almost as if the grain pattern is frozen, then every second the grain pattern jumps to a different pattern. I don't see any of that on Dish Network, and when I had Comcast (then TWC) I didn't see it there either. Only on U-Verse.

therascaldude

06-15-08, 05:27 PM

colortv

06-15-08, 05:36 PM

wow....thats a bummer. Seems like the PQ for U-Verse is pretty bad according to you guys. I personally don't even think TWC has that great of a picture, so to hear that U-Verse is much worse is pretty disheartening. Guess I'll call and cancel.....bummer.

Or do what I did since they were offering 1 free month. Have a dual subscription, try both services and compare for yourself. U-Verse is a major installation in your house. I felt bad that they did all that work then I cancelled. But since AT&T is my DSL provider, I retained U-Verse internet access which is the same speed as regular AT&T DSL service, same price. I still have the base station, and if I decide to try U-Verse TV again, I'll be mostly set. Just re-add the tuners/DVR.

In my case, I retained Dish Network during the 1 month trial period, recorded all shows on both DVRs, then did comparisons. Since I cancelled U-Verse TV and kept Dish Network, you know which I prefer. Not as many HD channels for you on TWC though, although there are apparently more HD channels coming on TWC July 1.

Posty-McPost

06-15-08, 06:26 PM

We still have 1HD/3SD.

Capek

06-15-08, 07:45 PM

We still have 1HD/3SD.

Most people have had to call and request the 2/2 profile be added to their service. That might work for you, assuming you haven't called already.

Posty-McPost

06-15-08, 10:18 PM

Most people have had to call and request the 2/2 profile be added to their service. That might work for you, assuming you haven't called already.

I haven't but it looks like people on uverseusers are confirming availability in Columbus.

magnumplusp

06-16-08, 01:50 PM

Does AT&T Advanced TV distribute the signal in the digital QAM format? b/c this format allows a PVR TV-Tuner (such as Hauppauge HVR1800) to record digital content such as Oxygen channel and FX channel.

Thanks in advance

Posty-McPost

06-16-08, 03:41 PM

magnumplusp

06-17-08, 08:42 AM

No it's distributed via IPTV.

Thank you for your prompt response:)

jtmarshiii

06-21-08, 11:52 AM

Note I have all of the At@t reps names and ID numbers but are withholding.
-Monday June 16 tech was suppose to be out 12-2pm. No Show.
-I call At@t they after six transfers I get a hold of someone in dispatch.
-She tells me the tech tried to call me but no answer. I tell her this isn't true I don't see any record of him calling my cell or home number.
-After a while on hold I'm told the install tech lied and was "not going to be able to help us anymore" (He was FIRED)
-She then told me it was impossible to have it installed Monday. We could however install on Saturday June 21. I said OK. I told her I took a day off work and she said for me to call customer service.
-Customer service gave me $100 in credit and upgraded me to U400 for 6 months.
-Saturday I call dispatch when I don't here from the tech (Dispatch girl gave me the direct number) they tell me they can't help.
-After several transfers I get a hold of Uverse service. After several long holds he tells me my order was canceled buy some tech. He could not understand why because he saw dispatch had changed the order to install 6/21/08
-He then informs me that his computer just went down and he would write down my name and number and call me to reschedule Monday or Tuesday

If this is how I can expect At@T to treat a new customer how will they treat someone paying???

TS1970

06-21-08, 01:48 PM

doogiehowser

06-21-08, 01:58 PM

Capek

06-21-08, 02:03 PM

My experience with Uverse CS has only been positive, but I guess when it's bad it's really bad.

eugenile

06-29-08, 11:09 PM

colortv

06-30-08, 04:47 AM

I have directv and the offers for U-verse in my area has led me to do some research. If I switched, I would actually save some money and have double the internet speed. Right now on ATT DSL 3mbps.

But only having 2 hd streams, if even offered in my area, and inferior set top boxes and quality have got me thinking twice. We have 3 HDTVS in our house, and all 4 of our receivers are HD boxes. Even though the 1 SDTV has an HD box, it allows that room to watch the hd programming which does look better even though on an SD set. It would just seem like taking a step back of all 4 sets happen to turn to an HD channel and we would be yelling for 2 people to get off an HD channel.

I guess I'll just wait until they improve on it. thanks to the directv subscribers for posting their comparisons.

Maybe U-Verse will be better in years to come, but for now it's just no comparison to what you get from DirecTV or Dish Network. HD PQ is just better, but if you get the chance to try U-Verse free for a month, do what I did. Retain both services, dual record shows on both DVRs, and do a critical comparison. You'll be able to make an informed decision, and if you're picky about PQ, the choice will be clear. U-Verse internet is good though, and you can retain that even if you drop the TV service.

jabbathespud

07-01-08, 12:07 PM

Agreed, while I dropped the TV service I kept the Internet.

N.B. Forrest

07-01-08, 06:06 PM

I'm not sure why you are surprised. AT&T has long had a reputation for being the absolute worst in the telecommunications industry in the area of customer service. You pay for what you get sometimes.

With AT&T, you get what you pay for ALL the time.

Ken H

07-02-08, 02:43 PM

AT&T won't even tell me when U-verse will be available in my area.They don't say when, until after it's available. Too many technical issues can happen that would make them look bad.

BHorn

07-07-08, 07:18 PM

Wow!

Over the weekend I watched the swimming trials in HD flipping back and forth between Off Air, Comcast, and Uverse. Man Uverse really really sucked! The picture totally broke up as water is splashed during all the events. Compression artifacts were off the scale. Off Air looked great. Comcast looked good also.

Who would have guessed a few years ago Off Air would be my best bet choice!

rickmccamy

07-08-08, 07:29 AM

Wow!
Who would have guessed a few years ago Off Air would be my best bet choice!

Uh, OTA has always been the best choice, all these others are just for "Cable Channels".

Posty-McPost

07-08-08, 01:53 PM

I got my 2/2 profile turned on with a call. I went to Tech Support and he said it had to be done through billing. Instead of making me do it he called billing and got the whole thing done while I waited. Best customer service I've had from them. It was on next time I checked with no restart. So yes for 2/2 in Columbus.

Marcus Carr

07-09-08, 01:22 AM

USA Network HD, Sci Fi Channel HD, Bravo HD, CNBC HD to be added by 7/10.

http://utalk.att.com/utalk/board/message?board.id=Uverse_TV_Programming&thread.id=15144

Marcus Carr

07-21-08, 11:34 AM

AT&T Inc. today announced the launch of AT&T U-verse(SM) TV and AT&T U-verse High Speed Internet in parts of Miami-Dade and Broward counties. AT&T U-verse services will be launched in Palm Beach County on July 28

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/att-u-verse-arrives-south-florida/story.aspx?guid=%7B7705F1F2-220B-4B4D-A6C5-E1A256775124%7D&dist=hppr

magnumplusp

07-22-08, 07:25 AM

Does AT&T Advanced TV have the ability to connect the RG6 coax directly to an analog TV and get the analog channels only? In other words, If I have 3 TV's but only want to use AT&T equipment on 1 TV, can I still get channels on the other 2 TV's?

Thanks in advance for your prompt response,
Dave

RemyM

07-22-08, 09:52 AM

You need a box for every TV to get any Uverse channels.

jstrazz

07-22-08, 05:49 PM

Does AT&T U-VERSE work with Tivo Hd and CableCards?

nightowl

07-22-08, 09:46 PM

Does AT&T U-VERSE work with Tivo Hd and CableCards?

Nope. Their boxes only. Their box isn't bad too bad overall, and the ability to record up to 4 channels at once in SD is a nice bonus. It's definitely not my Tivo, however. :)

thebends22

07-23-08, 03:50 PM

Has anyone in the Chicagoland area tried Uverse and compared it to any other HD dervice? I could care less about the SD really. I was thinking about getting Uverse Tv and internet service after my Comcast internet promotion expires. Im extremely happy with the Comcast speeds, but the price hike is gonna kill it for me. Dont get me started on their customer service. Do I really have to read out my MAC address 3 times to 3 different people? I mean come on...

Anyway, I only have one HD TV and I dont really need the DVR. The price is pretty sweet for the internet and TV package, but if I can get better quality at a reasonable price Ill jump with that. I'd compare different services, but I dont have the patience or time to have 3 different services installed at relatively the same time. Any answers would be greatly appreciated!

GO CUBS!:D

Rammitinski

07-23-08, 04:09 PM

Has anyone in the Chicagoland area tried Uverse and compared it to any other HD dervice? I could care less about the SD really.

GO CUBS!:DThat's too bad, because the word is that the SD is the only thing really worth having.

GO BREWERS!! (Sox fan here.)

thebends22

07-23-08, 08:17 PM

That's too bad, because the word is that the SD is the only thing really worth having.

GO BREWERS!! (Sox fan here.)

I must say, that answer is not appreciated.

Rammitinski

07-24-08, 01:28 AM

Lighten up, man - I realize you're probably a bit on edge about the way things are going lately, but it's just meant as some good-natured, cross-town, competitive razzing.

As far as the first part of my post, I was being totally serious. That seems to be the general consensus.

Marcus Carr

07-24-08, 09:08 AM

AT&T Enables Two HD Streams for U-verse

Bob Wallace

06/24/2008

AT&T Inc. today confirmed release of its U-verse IPTV service, which will support concurrent high-definition (HD) video streams to consumer homes, previously the key shortcoming of the service.

While other telco TV offerings, such as Verizon Communications Inc.’s FiOS supported multiple concurrent HD streams, U-verse did not. That means, for example, a subscriber could view one HD feed, but not record a second on a DVR at the same time.

The ability to support two HD streams simultaneously is critical to the success of U-verse, considering the ongoing, industry-wide competition to provide HD programming. Combine that with the proliferation of DVR’s promise of whole-home DVR services and the stakes are high.

Some U-verse customers expressed frustration at the lack of support for two concurrent HD streams, while some telco TV service seekers looked elsewhere.

Further upping the ante is Verizon’s plan to compete head-to-head with AT&T in certain markets, adding another powerful player to the list of cable giants and satellite-based providers to compete with.

“We've begun rolling out the ability to watch or record two HD programs simultaneously,” said an AT&T spokesperson, who added the effort began earlier this quarter. The effort required changes in the company’s video hub offices and in provisioning systems. The company would not say what markets have the capability, nor provide additional detail.

With the spread of this capability quietly underway, another top priority for AT&T will be to enable whole-home DVR service, which it has reported will be deployed in the second half of this year.

Multi-room DVR services enable consumers to view content recorded in one room, throughout the house, without every other networked set requiring a DVR. At NXTcomm last week, Entone Inc. launched support for it on their in-home video gateways, which obviate the need for set-top boxes.

http://www.xchangemag.com/hotnews/att-uverse-fios-hd-content-delivery-broadband.html