QTR4 2009

[uverse]

Article: QTR4 2009
Nothing terribly interesting was revealed at this quarters review.  U-verse surpassed 2 million users and is generating almost 3 Billion annually in revenue. There were 250k net adds during the quarter and they are still on pace to pass 30 million units by the end of 2011.




 Of course there are still some out there that think U-verse is an absurd contraption that is not worthy enough for anyone to subscribe too.  FIOS may have better wires, but U-verse outsold FIOS by 100,000 during this quarter.  AT&T is now ranked the 10th largest Cable operator and rising quickly. It would be 6th if you ranked it just against cable(not sat or Verizon).  It should be painfully obvious by now, that this is service that is not having problems in the marketplace.  In the end it is not the wires, it is the service, price and reliability that gains and keeps customers.

[ILpt4U]

Of course there are still some out there that think U-verse is an absurd contraption that is not worthy enough for anyone to subscribe too.  FIOS may have better wires, but U-verse outsold FIOS by 100,000 during this quarter.  AT&T is now ranked the 10th largest Cable operator and rising quickly. It would be 6th if you ranked it just against cable(not sat or Verizon).  It should be painfully obvious by now, that this is service that is not having problems in the marketplace.  In the end it is not the wires, it is the service, price and reliability that gains and keeps customers.

Well, maybe this site is hosted by the Company

At the least, that is a very Pro-AT&T interpretation of the facts of the 4th qtr numbers

Then again, the conclusion is valid: It is not how the service works, it is the fact that it works

And if AT&T is #10...

Comcast (1), Time Warner Cable (2), Charter (3? 4?), Cox (3? 4?), CableVision (5? 6?), Bright House (5? 6?), DirecTV (7), Dish Network (8? 9?), Verizon (8? 9?).... Could be Insight instead of CableVision

The major entrenched players are still there to compete with

[uverse]

Largest MSOs.

http://www.ncta.com/Stats/TopMSOs.aspx

Up until very recently(last few weeks), sat and telcos were left off this list. 


And we are still not run by at&t.

[supergirl260@gmail.com]

homes passed is now 23 million acording to that


maybe they pass 30 million homes ahead of schedule

[Pete53FR]

Largest MSOs.

http://www.ncta.com/Stats/TopMSOs.aspx

Up until very recently(last few weeks), sat and telcos were left off this list. 


And we are still not run by at&t.

Uverse does not act like AT&T I can testify to that. I have gotten good service and CSR's who were pleasant and helpful. They also listen to customers at least that has been my experience.

I don't have to wait on hold and except for one time maybe have not had to deal with India the Country.

I am anxious to get the Turbo Max but I can wait. TV works great and I get a lot more channels for less than DirecTV was charging me.

So keep it up Uverse I have talked over a dozen new customers into trying you out'

[mis3]

For a large percentage of the population, u-verse is a great option that works well.  For me, however, the problem was the wires.  I'm 3200 ft from the VRAD, had the service for 6 months, and lack signal strength ended the experiment.  6 outages and that required service calls in a month, and I gave up (even downgrading to 19200 profile did NOT fix my problem).  Several others in my neighborhood have had the same problems (all the houses around me), as have others I work with.  We are not in a rural area, but in Dallas, about 10 miles from AT&T's headquarters.  Also, it is not (as techs have claimed) the inside wiring, as both time warner and Directv work with the coaxial and ethernet combination I was using with u-verse, and POTS works with the phone lines.

It's a good product (when it worked), and customer service was above average.  It has other issues, but so do Directv However, it is wrong to just blanket say "it is not the wires" just like it would be wrong for me (or anyone else with problems) to say that the product is a joke.  This is a product that works well for many and AT&T has chosen a methodology to accommodate the largest population in the least expensive way, which makes good business sense.  I still occassionally check this site to see if/when pair bonding will become a reality.  If that happens, maybe I'll try again after it's been out a year and well tested.

[2ndDivWarrior]

Be kind of nice if they celebrated their nice 4th quarter by giving their customers some of the programming that other providers offer, like MLB Network and the sports subscription services from MLB, NBA and, NHL. Then everybody would be happy.

[scatr]

For me, the list of all the competitors is not relevant - and probably for a lot of people.  For me, I have Charter cable, or a satellite.  Until Uverse gets here, I don't really have any alternatives, unless I cut a lot of trees down to use satellite (not an option).  So my suspicion is that once people start to be able to have real choices, there will be a lot of shifting in who the 'top' providers are.

An interesting statistic would be to see % penetration - i.e., of households where people have the option to get Uverse, what percent of them try it (retention once tried would be another interesting view.)  For example, if they need to get infrastructure to 200 million homes in order to get 30 million subscribers, versus getting infrastructure to 100 million homes in order to get 30 million subscribers - that would give you a view of pent-up demand.  It would also give a view of the extent to which this is supply-constrained (I just can't get it) or demand-constrained (I don't like the service/price/features, etc.)

My sense (from talking to people - very unscientific) is that people will jump at the chance to get away from their government-mandated provider.  All I can say is that it's a good thing that local municipalities were not convinced that cell phone service needed to be a public utility with providers given monopolies on territory, like the cable cos.  What a disaster that would be.

[Fyrfox]

It also would be very nice to have any option other than Cable, especially living in Chicago. I'm bordered with Norridge and Harwood Heights and as of today, March 15, 2010, I have been told that there is nothing in the forseeable future regarding Uverse expansion to my area.

It's very disheartening when you are told by CSR's of AT&T that "by 2010, most of Chicago will be wired and ready for Uverse!". That was 2 years ago, and at that time I was told that at the end of 2009, I would have NO problem getting Uverse. Of course, I wasn't going to hold my breath based on that promise by a CSR, who I am sure was told to "keep us with AT&T no matter what".

In the end, it looks like its either stay with this crappy 384 DSL, of which I am now about the only one in my neighborhood with anymore as everyone else is with ComCast, or, bow to the "devil" order ComCast, and kiss AT&T goodbye. I'd rather not, as my phone service is very dependable, however, my poor kids are tired of hearing Dad asking "what on earth are you d/ling? My computer is frozen online now!!". It's certainly not fair to them that in this day and age, they can't do their surfing, gaming or d/l a vid from Grandma, because our internet can't handle it.

The only reason, thus far, that I have not switched is the cost of ComCast. But, alas, that soon may not even be enough to keep me from switching. IF and when I DO switch, though, I'll also switch the phone with it, as the price is cheaper if I do. I've not heard a lot of complaints about ComCast phone service, so that option is also very doable.

*sigh*.....AT&T, get moving here. In a city this big, there is absolutely no reason that Uverse hasn't been expanded yet.

It's costing you customers.

[BushWacker]

Of those 23 million homes pasted maybe 20% can actually get the service.

[NeedaName]

If it makes you feel better one installer in Chicago moved from one apartment building to another in the same complex and could not get uverse. They went for the easy locations first and will do the harder more expensive locations sometime.  i would go to ComCast if it works for your neighbors. Unless you see them installing equipment right now in your neighborhood it will be more then a year at best before you will be offered Uverse.

[ILpt4U]

If it makes you feel better one installer in Chicago moved from one apartment building to another in the same complex and could not get uverse. They went for the easy locations first and will do the harder more expensive locations sometime.  i would go to ComCast if it works for your neighbors. Unless you see them installing equipment right now in your neighborhood it will be more then a year at best before you will be offered Uverse.

That "One Installer" might just be me

Out in the 'Burbs though -- not in the City

The Build is still going strong in the City from what I understand

[BiggAW]

U-Verse is an interesting product, but it is being poorly implemented by AT&T. The IP-based system is very flexible, and can be rolled out on VDSL in places where AT&T isn't going to run fiber anytime soon or though FTTC, but they should have a plan to wire up a LOT of homes with FTTH and crank up the bitrates and HD streams, as VDSL is already crunched for capacity.

They are also taking a piecemeal approach to wiring, which is a real pain, as some houses can get it and some can't. They should be running GPON FTTH, and when they wire it to a CO, they should run FTTH to every living unit served by that CO. Period.

[NeedaName]

U-Verse is an interesting product, but it is being poorly implemented by AT&T. The IP-based system is very flexible, and can be rolled out on VDSL in places where AT&T isn't going to run fiber anytime soon or though FTTC, but they should have a plan to wire up a LOT of homes with FTTH and crank up the bitrates and HD streams, as VDSL is already crunched for capacity.

They are also taking a piecemeal approach to wiring, which is a real pain, as some houses can get it and some can't. They should be running GPON FTTH, and when they wire it to a CO, they should run FTTH to every living unit served by that CO. Period.

If they did what Verizon did with Fios at&t would be way down the list. Doing Uverse on copper is not a long term solution and will need to go to FTTH in the future. There are many small cities and town that do not have any Uverse equipment.  Verizon has pulled back from Fios and at this point they only plan to infill where Fios is already deployed. at&t is at least planning to bring Uverse to most of the customers in their 22 state foot print if there is enough density to justify the cost. More areas  may get the service if the government broadband programs helps push broadband out to villages and rural areas. The telephone and electrical grid was not built in 10 years.  There are two reasons they are not moving faster the vendors can only manufacture the equipment so fast and construction building the plant in the neighborhoods.

[BiggAW]

U-Verse is an interesting product, but it is being poorly implemented by AT&T. The IP-based system is very flexible, and can be rolled out on VDSL in places where AT&T isn't going to run fiber anytime soon or though FTTC, but they should have a plan to wire up a LOT of homes with FTTH and crank up the bitrates and HD streams, as VDSL is already crunched for capacity.

They are also taking a piecemeal approach to wiring, which is a real pain, as some houses can get it and some can't. They should be running GPON FTTH, and when they wire it to a CO, they should run FTTH to every living unit served by that CO. Period.

If they did what Verizon did with Fios at&t would be way down the list. Doing Uverse on copper is not a long term solution and will need to go to FTTH in the future. There are many small cities and town that do not have any Uverse equipment.  Verizon has pulled back from Fios and at this point they only plan to infill where Fios is already deployed. at&t is at least planning to bring Uverse to most of the customers in their 22 state foot print if there is enough density to justify the cost. More areas  may get the service if the government broadband programs helps push broadband out to villages and rural areas. The telephone and electrical grid was not built in 10 years.  There are two reasons they are not moving faster the vendors can only manufacture the equipment so fast and construction building the plant in the neighborhoods.

The problem is, they don't seem to have plans for large-scale FTTH. VRADs are quick, and appropriate for some areas that wouldn't see fiber for a while, but AT&T is a massive company with deep pockets, FTTH should be becoming available to 500K houses a month until it can be installed in every living unit that AT&T is legally allowed to serve in the US.

Part of the slowdown on U-Verse is that they have to figure out how to get existing copper lines to actually work with VDSL. If they abandoned them (i.e. left them for the POTS they were designed for) they wouldn't have to be fooling around with decades-old lines, they would just come in and put all new fiber in, and it would just work.

These companies need to be a part of the solution for rural broadband. I think that there should be more licensing and franchising where AT&T should be required to do FTTH to some extremely rural areas if they want to be able to serve lucrative suburban and urban areas.

This country needs FTTH to every house, not wireless, not VDSL, not RDSLAMs with ADSL, not cable. GPON FIBER.