Thread: So, what exactly was At&t thinking?

Alright, so to make Uverse, they installed fiber to $1,500,000.00 nodes the size of fridges, and then ran copper to peoples houses, which gave them a highest speed of 18 mBIT internet and 2 hd signals per home, of which the internet speed gets killed already by cable and fios, and the 2 hd signals get killed from everything, and quality gets killed by satellite and fios.

If At&t ever wants to keep up with technology, they'll hafta bring the contractors back out, and connect fiber to the home, which means they'll have wasted 1.5 million on each of the fridge sized devices with not much in return.

So I ask, how the hell has At&t stayed in business this long?

Monopoly phone service most places where they are. Nothing else. Where there's a competitor they sure can't compete against it.

Usually there's a cable competitor where At&t is.

If you've noticed, they've cut back on Uverse deployment and are spending 11 billion on wireless.

It's not reasons due to monopoly for At&t. Part of it maybe, but most of it is incompetence.

So Zellio, have you tried UVERSE?

My debate isn't over how good or bad Uverse is. That's really irrelavant. My debate is over how much At&t is wasting and will waste in the next few years, just to keep Uverse up to date.

Have you seen Uverse though? If not, how do you come to the quality conclusion? I am not saying it is correct or not, I have not seen it. Just curious

Ive seen uvers its great.. Installed customer in 07 with dish HomeZone then he jumped on uvers when it came out . called me 3 weeks later and now hes back on dish.

U vers was great when he recorded 2 hd shows the other 2 TVS in his house went black. When he wanted to watch what he recorded only 20% of the show was recorded the rest was blank. He clamed att was at his house 2x a week and came out 4x the last week. Lucky he used all those service calls to his advantage att closed his contract (Had to keep the net) and now hes back on dish with 722 and a 612.

Why are you guys interested in me seeing Uverse?

Why are you talking about Uverse quality, whether good or bad?

I don't care about the quality of the service, I am talking Uverse from a technical standpoint.

Uverse is the FIRST service to ever come out gimped and needing upgrades its first YEAR just to compete.

How many cable or satellite companies do you know that started out with too little tv streams the first year? In today's world 2 hd streams is crap, it would be like a limit of 1 tv stream in the early 90s.

How many internet services did you know that start out and already needed upgrades? Dsl or cable, which started in the mid to late 90's, ISDN from the late 80's, or even satellite, which sucked but grew in some ways?

Originally Posted by Zellio2008

Usually there's a cable competitor where At&t is.

If you've noticed, they've cut back on Uverse deployment and are spending 11 billion on wireless.

It's not reasons due to monopoly for At&t. Part of it maybe, but most of it is incompetence.

Alot of people don't want satellite service, for one reason or another. So, like in my area, Comcast is their only option. When people see AT&T has a TV service, and it offers these cool new features, and there's finally competition, they get excited.

Not that I agree with AT&T's FTTN model, but it is what it is.