U-verse updates

[uverse]

Article: U-verse updates
Finally there is something to report! ATT held a couple of investor talks.  The first was with John Stankey.
He mentioned that ATT had no plan to compete purely on broadband speed but the total package(options, reliabity, service...). The companies surveys have ATT 6meg service feeling faster than cables 8+meg service.



He also had several comments regarding u-verse bandwidth.  He said that ATT engineers networks to meet peak demand and U-verse is doing that. He notes that when bandwidth usage is at its highest, tv usage is at its lowest. Households often watch the same stream on more than 1 TV and that people are watching more recorded content.  He did admit there is probably about 10% of the market that will demand more bandwidth than u-verse can deliver. However vdsl and codec improvements will help the bandwidth situation.  Codecs are currently at 6meg and will decrease bitrate in the near future.  Pair bonding is being trailed in Dallas and 3rd HD stream should show up in the 4th qtr.



He also noted that the RG was too expensive(triple play device) for broadband only and that was the reason they have not offered broadband only.  However they do have less expensive vdsl adapter and are planning a self install to go with it.



Randall Stephenson was next. And for those of you wondering why ATT is sticking with this absurd FTTN contraption, Randall Stephenson made it pretty clear why.  U-verse is generating 2 billion a year in revenue. Markets with U-verse are doing better by any metric they choose(wireless, wireline, arpu,..) 75% of U-verse subs are triple or quad play.



They have also forcast that FTTN will have no problem delivering the required bandwidth for the next 5 or so years as pair bonding and digital spectrum management  will increase VDSL speed.  New builds are of course FTTP, but he expected U-verse to follow the build out of DSL and eventually cover most of the territory.  DSL build out started in 1998 and today covers more than 90% of their territory.




The webcats can be found here  

[wase4711]

Amazing how these guys walk around with their heads up their asses, thinking everything they do and everything they plan for  is just the cats's meow..

Who did they survey, that said their 6meg service "felt" faster than cables 8 meg?  Their own employees, no doubt, who wouldn't say anything bad about ATT if their life depended on it..
10% of the market wants more bandwidth then they can deliver?  Which 10% is THAT?  Probably the demographic they most closely identify with, the 65-90 year olds....

Reducing bitrates will make a poor quality picture even shittier..and, 3 HD streams wont stop the churning of customers either; why they hell don't they realize that households should have the number of HD streams to match how many boxes they have in their houses? If you have one box in your house, then 1 HD stream is plenty; if you have 6 boxes in your house, you should have access to 6 hd streams..Jeez, what a bunch of morons!!

And, the king of all idiots, Mr. Stephenson, makes it crystal clear as to the ONLY priority that ATT EVER cares about...Revenue generation, and the hell with giving customers what they want, deserve, and are clamoring for...

ATT.....THEIR WORLD, DELIVERED!!

[houkouonchi]

Bleh. The only good thing/thing I liked about the entire article is it sounds like they are eventually going to have a VDSL box which is a simple bridge device which I honestly can't wait for.

[uverse]

Reducing bitrates will make a poor quality picture even shittier..and, 3 HD streams wont stop the churning of customers either; why they hell don't they realize that households should have the number of HD streams to match how many boxes they have in their houses? If you have one box in your house, then 1 HD stream is plenty; if you have 6 boxes in your house, you should have access to 6 hd streams..Jeez, what a bunch of morons!!

IF they can reduce bitrate without affecting quality, what is the problem in doing that.  So far they have pretty successful at doing that.
And so far churn is not one of their problems.  And as far as the number of boxes go, it is not the number of tvs that a house has, but the number of tvs that are turned on at one time.  Apparently they have a little insite on the number of streams used vs the number of tvs used.

And, the king of all idiots, Mr. Stephenson, makes it crystal clear as to the ONLY priority that ATT EVER cares about...Revenue generation, and the hell with giving customers what they want, deserve, and are clamoring for...

ATT.....THEIR WORLD, DELIVERED!!

You of course realize they cant generate revenue without giving the customer what they want.  And to generata 2B a year in revenue(and growing), they must be supplying many customer with what they want.

[wolfen]

Apparently they have a little insite on the number of streams used vs the number of tvs used.

I don't believe this statement could be true since there are only 4 streams available. There may be instances where subs would use more streams but they couldn't because there are no more available.

And to generata 2B a year in revenue(and growing), they must be supplying many customer with what they want.

With all due respect, that statement is really nothing more than conjecture. The only way to truly know if customers are getting what they want is to independently survey every customer. I'll admit that the statement makes for great advertising BS which many lemmings...oops!...customers may fall for.

[wase4711]

Frankly, I think its the hate of Comcrap/Time Warner, and the 200-400 in cash back, and free installs with NO Commitment, that has made Uverse the success that it appears to be, financially at least..
Once they stop "buying" subscribers, and, begin to act the way the competition does, their new business will drop dramatically..Plus, as many current and former subs have been clamoring for better pictures, higher net speeds, and have been having alot of PQ problems, ATT will either have to start spending/re-investing in the infrastructure, or they will have the same issues that Tw and Comcrap have..Lets see  how their balance sheet looks a couple years from now..

[SW13]

does that mean we can start sleeping in people's houses ?? i hope so, sometimes that last install I'm pretty tired

[wase4711]

you are welcome to sleep over any time, my friend!

[uverse]

Apparently they have a little insite on the number of streams used vs the number of tvs used.


I don't believe this statement could be true since there are only 4 streams available. There may be instances where subs would use more streams but they couldn't because there are no more available.

There are no doubt time when more than 4 streams are required.  It has happened to me a handful of times in the past 3 years.  But it is not nearly as big of an issue as it is being made out to be as about 90% of the subscribers out there have 4 or fewer boxes installed.  Also realize that household do not use all 4 streams as ofter you think they do.

And to generata 2B a year in revenue(and growing), they must be supplying many customer with what they want.


With all due respect, that statement is really nothing more than conjecture. The only way to truly know if customers are getting what they want is to independently survey every customer. I'll admit that the statement makes for great advertising BS which many lemmings...oops!...customers may fall for.

There server have ranked quite well in independent studies. JD Powers game them good rankings against their cable peers.

[wolfen]

There server have ranked quite well in independent studies. JD Powers game them good rankings against their cable peers.

Statistics 101: The BS ain't gonna fly here. "Independent studies show 4 out of 5 (insert your flavor of so called expert)....." Unless some independent firm contacted every single Uverse subscriber and surveyed them then the study doesn't mean a hill of beans. And I'm 100% sure that hasn't happened because nobody has surveyed me.

[ILpt4U]

Completely Unrelated & off-topic...

But since the mighty Mod is here & present...

Any chance to get Louisiana, Mississippi, and Kentucky state boards up & going? I believe U-Verse exists now in these places!

[wase4711]

There server have ranked quite well in independent studies. JD Powers game them good rankings against their cable peers.

Statistics 101: The BS ain't gonna fly here. "Independent studies show 4 out of 5 (insert your flavor of so called expert)....." Unless some independent firm contacted every single Uverse subscriber and surveyed them then the study doesn't mean a hill of beans. And I'm 100% sure that hasn't happened because nobody has surveyed me.

I hate to say it, Wolfen, but when I was a member, I got surveyed often....and look where it got me..back to Comcrap!!!

[wolfen]

There server have ranked quite well in independent studies. JD Powers game them good rankings against their cable peers.

Statistics 101: The BS ain't gonna fly here. "Independent studies show 4 out of 5 (insert your flavor of so called expert)....." Unless some independent firm contacted every single Uverse subscriber and surveyed them then the study doesn't mean a hill of beans. And I'm 100% sure that hasn't happened because nobody has surveyed me.

I hate to say it, Wolfen, but when I was a member, I got surveyed often....and look where it got me..back to Comcrap!!!

And I believe you. That still doesn't change the validity of my statements.

[brianofhouston]

Who did they survey, that said their 6meg service "felt" faster than cables 8 meg?  Their own employees, no doubt, who wouldn't say anything bad about ATT if their life depended on it..

I've never been surveyed, but before I went with U-verse, I switched from plain ol' AT&T DSL service to Comcast internet (I believe it was 6/1).  I found the Comcast connection to be far more flaky.  My online gaming got very laggy, and browsing felt more sluggish.  I'm only one person, but AT&T internet services have always been rock solid for me, preferable to Comcast.  Why is it so hard to believe that different people can have different experiences?

If you have one box in your house, then 1 HD stream is plenty; if you have 6 boxes in your house, you should have access to 6 hd streams..Jeez, what a bunch of morons!!

Aside from my own (5 TVs), I can't think of a single household I know (both friends and family) with more than three TVs.  There's nothing scientific in that, but it suggests that there are a lot of people out there for whom U-verse's two HD streams will be sufficient.  If you need 6 HD streams, then don't get U-verse, it's just that simple.  Why all the vitriol and name-calling?

[jayhawks]

I would like more than two HD streams and I only have two TV's hooked up.  There are plenty of times when my wife or I want to record more than 2 shows in HD at the same time and we have decide which ones we dont get to record in HD.  It sucks but I knew I would be limited when I got uverse so its not that big of a deal.