AT&T's U-Verse Push in Milwaukee

[gparris]

Churn is very important and I am certain that AT&T will be looking at the final numbers (new signups and the churn figured in) as the year progresses, once, of course, they start delivering service.

[jt0340]

Honestly, if 1 HD stream is the best they can do, it's just not good enough. I wouldn't switch unless they could guarantee at LEAST 4 simultaneous HD streams into the home. I know that I often record at least two at the same time, and may want to watch a third on another set... and that's just for me, that's not others in my place.

U-Verse is such a joke compared to FIOS. Fiber to the node is just plain lame when fiber to the premises is clearly doable. It's just another in a long line of "do it now and do it cheap" plans from AT&T, rather than do it right the first time.

You have to remember that AT&T is in business to make money.  When they make a decision about how to deploy IPTV, there is more that must be considered then just the absolute perfect technical architecture.  Have you considered, for example, that many people (clearly not including you) don't want their lawn's dug up, fences torn down, trees removed, etc that might be required with running fiber to their home?  So, maybe it makes sense to use FTTN in established neighborhoods and FTTP in new subdivision developments.  That is what AT&T is doing.  Also, consider the time to market it would take if you only focused on FTTP.  Digging in every customer's yard is messy, expensive and time consuming.  Why not work on new technologies to try and boost the bandwidth of what is already there, and push the fiber out as far as is feasible from a cost, time to market, and customer inconvenience perspective.

I know this forum is probably filled with folks that like to talk tech, but it's good business decisions that make companies like AT&T successful.  So, U-verse is not right for you at the moment.  Then, stick with cable, but don't suggest that it's an ignorant or irresponsible  move by AT&T.  I can assure you that they have plenty of techy types working for the company that made the same arguments you make.    They know the nirvana of a technical solution is fiber all the way.  Give them some credit, and understand that they are looking at a bigger picture then you are.

Glad to  hear that you are excited about Verizon FIOS.  Did you know that most of their service isn't even IP-based?  It's Radio Frequency over fiber???  Is that the future of television?  I like the idea of IPTV much better.  AT&T has made a huge jump offering a fully-functional tv service using IP.  FIOS is just the same old thing as cable.... just with newer wires.

[LoadStar]

You have to remember that AT&T is in business to make money.  When they make a decision about how to deploy IPTV, there is more that must be considered then just the absolute perfect technical architecture.  Have you considered, for example, that many people (clearly not including you) don't want their lawn's dug up, fences torn down, trees removed, etc that might be required with running fiber to their home?  So, maybe it makes sense to use FTTN in established neighborhoods and FTTP in new subdivision developments.  That is what AT&T is doing.  Also, consider the time to market it would take if you only focused on FTTP.  Digging in every customer's yard is messy, expensive and time consuming.  Why not work on new technologies to try and boost the bandwidth of what is already there, and push the fiber out as far as is feasible from a cost, time to market, and customer inconvenience perspective.

I know this forum is probably filled with folks that like to talk tech, but it's good business decisions that make companies like AT&T successful.  So, U-verse is not right for you at the moment.  Then, stick with cable, but don't suggest that it's an ignorant or irresponsible  move by AT&T.  I can assure you that they have plenty of techy types working for the company that made the same arguments you make.    They know the nirvana of a technical solution is fiber all the way.  Give them some credit, and understand that they are looking at a bigger picture they you are.

Glad to  hear that you are excited about Verizon FIOS.  Did you know that most of their service isn't even IP-based?  It's Radio Frequency over fiber???  Is that the future of television?  I like the idea of IPTV much better.  AT&T has made a huge jump offering a fully-functional tv service using IP.  FIOS is just the same old thing as cable.... just with newer wires.

You must work for AT&T.

[jt0340]

You must work for AT&T.

I'm just excited to see new competition in the television service arena.  Cable and Satellite have been the only options for far too long.  Even if you don't decide to go with AT&T or Verizon (or some other telecom), this will have to put pressure on cable to drop prices.  From what I have read, that is already happening in markets where there is another wire line option to cable.  I don't think AT&T would have a chance if they didn't get something to market quickly.  As quickly as things are changing in these industries, they have got to get some TV customers and quick!

Sorry if the original post had a negative tone.  I guess I woke up on the wrong side of the bed.  Anyway, I'm trying to build a website myself that informs people about IPTV.  Not selling anytyhing... just telling people about what IPTV is, how it's different, etc.  I'm going to include a section for both AT&T's product and Verizon's product (because it has an IPTV component to it, and my guess is that eventually Verizon will head more in that direction).

If you are interested, please take a look at //www.rabbit-ears.com.  I'd love your feedback.  I just started the site, so it's a work in progress.

[jt0340]

No........not the weather, but the picture. That has been my experience with watching videos on the internet, and that is with AT & T DSL.

 Would this also be a problem with "U" Serve? If so, why would:confused:  anyone want it?

What sort of speed were you getting with your DSL service.  Remember that the U-verse product AT&T is deploying is running an new fiber lines that they are pushing to neighborhood nodes (fttn) or in some deployments all the way to customer homes (fttp).  That's upwards of 30 mbps, in order to make this service work.  From what I have read, it works just like regular cable or satellite service.  No delays at all.  Actually, because IPTV eliminates the need for any "tuner", it boasts "fast channel change" which means no delay at all when switching channels... even faster then what we are used to with cable and satellite.  And one other thing... remember Picture-in-Picture?  You had to have two tuners in order to make it work, so it sort of went away (at least for satellite customers like me).  Well, with IPTV and U-verse, there is no tuner, so the service actually comes with PIP...  on any TV!  How about multiple PIP's on the same TV?  I don't see why not...

[jt0340]

TWC is a complete joke.  Not adding any HD channels all year, come on.

They should be very worried about AT&T.  I think UVerse will be here sooner rather than later.  A ton of activity out here in New Berlin.

I talked to a rep and a nice feature is that you can set up DVR through the internet.  Even if you are not home, you can hop on the net and program your DVR.  That and the fact you'll have over 25 HD channels to start with is a big selling point.

I am counting the days.  TWC is going to face a big hit on this deal..

I agree... any competition for the cable companies is a good thing.  It's bound to drive the price of cable down.  

One other nice feature with U-verse & the DVR is the ability to record up to 4 channels at the same time.  I don't know about 4, but there have been times when I wish I had 2 going at once.  Well, now you can.  And. the set-top-boxes in the home can be networked together, so you can record your DVR shows, and play them back on any television in your home (as opposed to just the TV connected to the DVR unit, like my current situation with satellite).

I say bring it AT&T.. and bring it quick!

[jt0340]

For many applications, this competiton will help out those whose needs for TV and other products will a good thing, even those with one HDTV and watch without need for more bandwidth... then there is us, including LoadStar and me, who require more than that.

I don't think AT&T is unaware of the HD channel situation and has not addressed it.
But then again, their track record is not the best, either, from what I have read.

Will AT&T affect me - no - not directly - only if it gets TWC off its butt with more HD channel additions and better pricing stategies.

You see, I live in a Verizon area.

I have signed up for FIOS when and IF it ever comes to me..

Hey, let me know when you get the FIOS setup.  I'm interested in how it works.  I'm actually building a website to inform folks about IPTV and how it's different from traditional cable and satellite.  I'm dedicating a section of that site for both AT&T's U-verse and Verizon's FIOS.  I'd be interested in your perspective on FIOS.  I've never seen it work, or spoken with anoyone who has it.

If you are interested, check out //www.rabbit-ears.com.  I'm just starting it, but would love your feedback.  I'm going to start building out the AT&T and Verizon sections of the site next.

[jt0340]

Even at 3, color me less than impressed when compared to cable or fiber-to-the-home. I might be able to get by on just 3, but it's still incredibly disappointing.

I don't think I would be able to get U-Verse myself. I'd continually be thinking about how much better it'd be if they had actually gone and done things right the first time and ran fiber-to-the-home instead of fiber-to-the-node.

I think fiber to the node (FTTN) is just AT&T's attempt to get into the market quickly.  They are actually running FTTP in new construction areas.  They know that's the best, but can't go out and dig up everyone's yard initially.  It costs way too much, is too messy, and by the time they did it, the technology would have changed so much, they would be too late for the game anyway.  Instead, they are looking at ways to shorten the copper loop as much as possible, and beef up the bandwidth of that loop  as much as possible to make it work well.  So, it's get in the game early, or not at all;  and try and make improvements as you go along.

[gparris]

I agree with that analogy:
Make the improvements and fixes as required and just get the ball rolling.
Just getting the AT&T U-verse up and running without running fiber to every house, required or not, is not good practice.

Once the need is there for the subscriber to deliver more bandwidth, it will be provided with a new line to the premises like fiber.

If the  household has only analogue TVs, no internet requirements or only one HDTV, they should be good to go already...nothing else...except a loss to TWC's subscriber base!:D

[gparris]

Hey, let me know when you get the FIOS setup.  I'm interested in how it works.  I'm actually building a website to inform folks about IPTV and how it's different from traditional cable and satellite.  I'm dedicating a section of that site for both AT&T's U-verse and Verizon's FIOS.  I'd be interested in your perspective on FIOS.  I've never seen it work, or spoken with anoyone who has it.

If you are interested, check out //www.rabbit-ears.com.  I'm just starting it, but would love your feedback.  I'm going to start building out the AT&T and Verizon sections of the site next.

Hey, I only signed up because they asked me if wanted to, Verizon is not allowed to do anything else in Kenosha for now, just as AT&T is "outlawed" in my area.
Verizon FIOS looked amazing, even the SD channels looked like DVDs and the quality/selection of HD channels were great when I viewed them in the Tampa area.

[mhz40]

clip... Have you considered, for example, that many people (clearly not including you) don't want their lawn's dug up, fences torn down, trees removed, etc that might be required with running fiber to their home?...end clip

I think you are over reacting a bit.  Cable and telephone companies have been burying drop cables to houses for decades now.  Plowing in a fiber to a home can't be much worse than burying a piece of coax or a few pairs of twisted copper pairs.
I'm not sure of their in-home technology, but it seems like one would have to leverage existing coax or twisted pair outlets in the home or rewire for ethernet for this IPTV solution they are deploying.  If I had a choice, bury the fiber to the house... don't rip more holes in my walls.  Also, many people still want the advantage to hook up a TV in the garage or other area without messing around with a set top of some kind... and don't want the expense.
IMO, phone companies clearly have the oldest 'last mile' infrastructure of any wired communication industry in urban areas, with cable running a very distant second.  IMO, ATT is simply cutting what would amount to tremendous upgrade costs by deploying FTTN and know they will need to replace the twisted pair in some areas.  The strategy may very well work, but the twisted pair can only handle so much bandwidth (right now), which may exceed it's capacity in short order unless they deploy mpeg 4.

[Bebop]

I think they are using microsoft software for the box. So it is safe to say they are not using mpeg-2, but VC-1( a variant of mpeg-4/h.264) right now.

[Gregg Lengling]

To read a good (and long) review on U-verse go to this post at Satellite Guys.
http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=87544

[Bebop]

Wow. Cox offers 15Mb down and 2Mb up for $50. :Shoot: TW

[Absopo]

It sounds like for now this is a Milwaukee only thing, is that the case or is it region wide suburbs and all.