I Canceled AT&T UVERSE

Scott Greczkowski

Scott Greczkowski

Thread Starter
Welcome HOME to SatelliteGuys!
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
Sep 7, 2003
100,787
20,491
Newington, CT
Today I canceled AT&T UVERSE service. They are sending me boxes so I can return my receivers to them.

The reasons for canceling were many.

Over the past few weeks when I go to watch TV at night I go to UVERSE and get a message that "Television Service is Currently Unavailable, please try again later"

What kind of crap is that?

In addition the other night I went through the UVERSE Video on Demand menus and it really did not have anything to offer, and movies such as CARS were way overpriced to order. AT&T UVERSE still does not offer any real VOD programming and no subscription VOD such as WWE 24/7 and Howard TV.

But the MAJOR problem with UVERSE is their HD

The Picture quality of the HD SUCKS. Sometimes the SD version of the HD channels look better!

The fact that I can only watch HD on one TV in the house at a time also was a big factor for me. I have 5 HDTV's in the house, if my wife is watching CSI down the stairs then I can't watch MHD in the bedroom.

In addition I have yet to sit through a HD program without the picture breaking up its a ton of pixels and squeeking sound coming out of my speakers.

Cancelation was not to hard yet not too easy, they did offer to give me the HD services for free instead of charging me $10 a month HD technology fee, but that was not enough to keep me. And they kept trying to sell me local AT&T phone service durring the call to cancel. I was told that HD was the main reason people were canceling.

The included internet was also TOO SLOW AND TOO EXPENSIVE. Last week my local COX upgraded us to 20 MB/s service for $49 a month! AT&T's top speed was 6MB/s for almost the same price. Whats up with that? That is definately something that also needs to be fixed.

If I want to watch TV, I should just turn on the TV and have it there. I should never be told to try it again later.

When I first reviewed UVERSE I called UVERSE a band aid, and I still call it that today. Sure they can double the bandwith and allow 2 HD streams into your house, but whoopie, try recording one HD show while watching another. Again HDTV 2 cant watch HD. Many folks I know already have more then 1 HDTV and as we gear up for the 2009 Analog switchoff I expect the number of households with 2 or more HDTV's to increase greatly. I feel that AT&T will continue trying to play catch up with the technology. And unfortunatelly they are going to just have to keep upgrading and upgrading. They should have bit the bullet now and went fiber to the home. It would have saved them more in the long run.

AT&T UVERSE - Its not ready for primetime. (Especially when you try watching in Prime Time and are told to try again later!)
 
rad

rad

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 7, 2003
10,621
4,253
Dripping Springs, TX
IMHO, AT&T's decision to go the FTTN route will come back to bite them in the a** and end up costing them more in the long run from lost customers and having to eventually dump the system and go FTTH eventually.
 
Brewer4

Brewer4

SatelliteGuys Pro
Supporting Founder
Mar 12, 2005
4,022
0
Hartford Connecticut
I had a feeling this was going to fail as it appears to be. Now if they buy a satellite company and bundle voice, data and TV and use all the bandwidth for voice and data and leave sats for TV. You can do what D* is doing by adding internet to supplement their VOD.

I just think the whole strategy is just as wrong as rain. Verizon appears to have a better model by doing the fiber. Copper end to end is dead. Copper still works in some parts but the only strategy that is going to work for in the near future is fiber or data over copper combined with TV over sat.

To show how screwed up AT&T is, I cant even get basic DSL. I had DSL when it was SNET and SBC but as soon as AT&T buys them up, its no longer available. I've also called 5 times (not kidding) to have someone research why their data is incorrect about my distance from the switching station and why I was able to get it 2 times before. Not a single person has researched and/or called me back. So forget Uverse as even an option in my town. Heck forget them as an option for even phone service.

Thank goodness I have Vonage for Phone, Comcast for Data and Directv for TV. I wish it was cheaper but very happy with service of each.
 
dfecarter

dfecarter

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 14, 2006
482
37
Connecticut
Not everyone is unhappy with U-verse

I've had U-200 with U-Verse since second week of January, in Danbury. And overall would rate it a 7 out of 10. You can record 3-4 programs at once, albeit only one HD but that ought to be changing soon. I save$35 per month oveer what I was paying Comcast and I don't have to settle for analog channels. I think it'll succeed eventually and most customers aren't as picky as Scott (and that's not a knock on him but the truth). granted it's not perfect but a really coll technology which has been quite reliable for me...also get both Ct and NYC locals so that's plus over satellite. Gotta give it some time.
 
Scott Greczkowski

Scott Greczkowski

Thread Starter
Welcome HOME to SatelliteGuys!
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
Sep 7, 2003
100,787
20,491
Newington, CT
Last night really killed it for me, I was actually going to keep UVERSE and get rid of my COX internet and phone. But when I turned on the TV the first time and tried to watch HD and it kept breaking up and when I tried again later and it told me to try again later I said to myself "why am I paying for this?"

If I turn on TV the picture should be there, not an error message.

Dont get me wrong it is amazing technology, but it dont work like its supposed to yet.

Dfecarter, how often do you need to reset your boxes because they locked up? For me it was about every day or two.
 
dfecarter

dfecarter

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 14, 2006
482
37
Connecticut
haven't had to do it for about one month, the only issue I've had lately and it seems to have gotten better, is the channel guide locking up and occasionally brief seconds of time where the picture deteriorates but resumes seconds later...
 
DWS44

DWS44

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Apr 14, 2004
7,411
4,618
Rock Hill, SC
...20 MB/s service...

:eek: :bow

20 MB/s...dang that'd be nice. The local monopoly here is finally getting up to 5 MB/s, and I consider that a miracle for them...and they actually recently raised their rates from $40 to $45 for that. Can't imagine them EVER getting that fast.
 
P

Paul3637

New Member
May 11, 2007
4
0
2 Questions - Does location matter? HD-DVR?

Today I canceled AT&T UVERSE service. They are sending me boxes so I can return my receivers to them.

The reasons for canceling were many.

Over the past few weeks when I go to watch TV at night I go to UVERSE and get a message that "Television Service is Currently Unavailable, please try again later"

What kind of crap is that?

In addition the other night I went through the UVERSE Video on Demand menus and it really did not have anything to offer, and movies such as CARS were way overpriced to order. AT&T UVERSE still does not offer any real VOD programming and no subscription VOD such as WWE 24/7 and Howard TV.

But the MAJOR problem with UVERSE is their HD

The Picture quality of the HD SUCKS. Sometimes the SD version of the HD channels look better!

The fact that I can only watch HD on one TV in the house at a time also was a big factor for me. I have 5 HDTV's in the house, if my wife is watching CSI down the stairs then I can't watch MHD in the bedroom.

In addition I have yet to sit through a HD program without the picture breaking up its a ton of pixels and squeeking sound coming out of my speakers.

Cancelation was not to hard yet not too easy, they did offer to give me the HD services for free instead of charging me $10 a month HD technology fee, but that was not enough to keep me. And they kept trying to sell me local AT&T phone service durring the call to cancel. I was told that HD was the main reason people were canceling.

The included internet was also TOO SLOW AND TOO EXPENSIVE. Last week my local COX upgraded us to 20 MB/s service for $49 a month! AT&T's top speed was 6MB/s for almost the same price. Whats up with that? That is definately something that also needs to be fixed.

If I want to watch TV, I should just turn on the TV and have it there. I should never be told to try it again later.

When I first reviewed UVERSE I called UVERSE a band aid, and I still call it that today. Sure they can double the bandwith and allow 2 HD streams into your house, but whoopie, try recording one HD show while watching another. Again HDTV 2 cant watch HD. Many folks I know already have more then 1 HDTV and as we gear up for the 2009 Analog switchoff I expect the number of households with 2 or more HDTV's to increase greatly. I feel that AT&T will continue trying to play catch up with the technology. And unfortunatelly they are going to just have to keep upgrading and upgrading. They should have bit the bullet now and went fiber to the home. It would have saved them more in the long run.

AT&T UVERSE - Its not ready for primetime. (Especially when you try watching in Prime Time and are told to try again later!)

***************
My situation:
I have a brand new HDTV still in the box and was ready to switch from DirecTV to U-verse for HD until I read your decision to quit. I am in the Greater Kansas City area and two people I know say their U-verse HD signal is great. I am already on ATT for Land Line and DLS Elite with 6 MB download speed. A switch to U-verse from DirecTV saves $20/month and I would get more channels. Big difference is that ATT HD-DVR is free and a DirecTV HD-DVR costs $300 and demands two year contract (but I can keep my TIVO for the non-HDTV).

My Questions about ATT U-verse HDTV:
1) Is it possible HD picture quality can vary from one city to another due to the quality or timing of the installation of the fiber cable?
2) Re: U-verse HD-DVR operation - Once a program is stored on the DVR, can the signal be sent to any TV in the house or can it only be watched on the television to which it is wired?

thanks in advance for a response from Scott or anyone !!
 
Scott Greczkowski

Scott Greczkowski

Thread Starter
Welcome HOME to SatelliteGuys!
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
Sep 7, 2003
100,787
20,491
Newington, CT
1) the only channels encoded locally are the local channels. Everything else is encoded elsewhere.

2) You can only watch DVR programs on the DVR not on other TVs
 
Scott Greczkowski

Scott Greczkowski

Thread Starter
Welcome HOME to SatelliteGuys!
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
Sep 7, 2003
100,787
20,491
Newington, CT
BTW check out more reviews on UVERSE at uverseusers.com :)
 
R

rredman62

Member
Feb 1, 2007
5
0
Well you've definitely made up my mind to sell my HDTV for 50 bucks. It wasn't worth the mint it cost to buy it.
 
P

Paul3637

New Member
May 11, 2007
4
0
Today I canceled AT&T UVERSE service. They are sending me boxes so I can return my receivers to them.

The reasons for canceling were many.

Over the past few weeks when I go to watch TV at night I go to UVERSE and get a message that "Television Service is Currently Unavailable, please try again later"

What kind of crap is that?

In addition the other night I went through the UVERSE Video on Demand menus and it really did not have anything to offer, and movies such as CARS were way overpriced to order. AT&T UVERSE still does not offer any real VOD programming and no subscription VOD such as WWE 24/7 and Howard TV.

But the MAJOR problem with UVERSE is their HD

The Picture quality of the HD SUCKS. Sometimes the SD version of the HD channels look better!

The fact that I can only watch HD on one TV in the house at a time also was a big factor for me. I have 5 HDTV's in the house, if my wife is watching CSI down the stairs then I can't watch MHD in the bedroom.

In addition I have yet to sit through a HD program without the picture breaking up its a ton of pixels and squeeking sound coming out of my speakers.

Cancelation was not to hard yet not too easy, they did offer to give me the HD services for free instead of charging me $10 a month HD technology fee, but that was not enough to keep me. And they kept trying to sell me local AT&T phone service durring the call to cancel. I was told that HD was the main reason people were canceling.

The included internet was also TOO SLOW AND TOO EXPENSIVE. Last week my local COX upgraded us to 20 MB/s service for $49 a month! AT&T's top speed was 6MB/s for almost the same price. Whats up with that? That is definately something that also needs to be fixed.

If I want to watch TV, I should just turn on the TV and have it there. I should never be told to try it again later.

When I first reviewed UVERSE I called UVERSE a band aid, and I still call it that today. Sure they can double the bandwith and allow 2 HD streams into your house, but whoopie, try recording one HD show while watching another. Again HDTV 2 cant watch HD. Many folks I know already have more then 1 HDTV and as we gear up for the 2009 Analog switchoff I expect the number of households with 2 or more HDTV's to increase greatly. I feel that AT&T will continue trying to play catch up with the technology. And unfortunatelly they are going to just have to keep upgrading and upgrading. They should have bit the bullet now and went fiber to the home. It would have saved them more in the long run.

AT&T UVERSE - Its not ready for primetime. (Especially when you try watching in Prime Time and are told to try again later!)
Thanks for the updated advice as to why not to get this service yet. We were going to get ATT U-vrerse until I read your retraction of your January post. We stayed with DirecTV

*****************************

DirecTV installation was fantastic. It included a new outside dish satellite receiver that is far larger in size than the old one but not intrusive and blends well with our current house color.

The picture quality is virtually perfect. The installer worked for DirecTV and was not a subcontractor. He was articulate and knowledgable about his product. After an hour or so installing the new Dish itself outside, he spent another two hours on the interior installation including moving our (heavy) 32 inch non HDTV Sony to the bedroom. He made sure our non HDTV still worked with the DirecTV TIVO and that the new HDTV (Sony Bravia)worked correctly including the software updates.

He said four hours had been scheduled to make the installation but it only took three hours because the factory settings of the new HDTV were about the first he had ever seen that could not be improved upon.

He then made sure we could operate the new DVR with the remote as adeptly as the TIVO by first showing us how to operate it then nicely "forcing" us to do it ourselves.

For once, everything relative to a retail purchase went right. DirecTV installation was fantastic. It is nice to deal with honest and competent people, even if it more expensive.


I thank you for that.
 
Last edited:
P

Paul3637

New Member
May 11, 2007
4
0
Thanks Scott. Based on your experience we continued on DirecTV. For our New Sony Bravia KDL-40V2500: Installation, customer service, and picture quality are all flawless. Further, our old TIVO works perfect with the old NON HDTV 32 inch Sony which has now been moved to the master bedroom.
 
tonyp56

tonyp56

SatelliteGuys Pro
Supporting Founder
May 13, 2004
799
0
Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States
Here is my take on this.

AT&T wasn't done getting DSL EVERYWHERE. I don't want to hear about how hard it is blah, blah. If they can't get 100% coverage of their basic DSL, then they had no business even messing with U-Verse. The plain and simple reason why is this: Without 100% availablity, U-Verse is a nich product. Add to that, very few that can even get U-Verse, and it is a failed buisness venture from the get-go. I guess a few would say, that isn't correct, but we'll see in 5 years or so (or less) when U-Verse, and possibly AT&T along with it, goes belly up!

AT&T should finish one project, before starting a new one. And it should have been done with fiber everywhere (perhaps in a star network kind of configuration, one fiber run to a neighborhood node, and then fiber to all houses and buisnesses) Copper needs to retire. LOL Especially if you are going to be streaming movies (1-15 or so GB's) Copper seems to be a bottleneck and therefore needs to be removed. If not, the whole idea is a waste of money IMHO.

YAY, 600 posts! :D
 
WyrTwister

WyrTwister

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jul 6, 2004
769
0
Here is my take on this.

AT&T wasn't done getting DSL EVERYWHERE. I don't want to hear about how hard it is blah, blah. If they can't get 100% coverage of their basic DSL, then they had no business even messing with U-Verse. The plain and simple reason why is this: Without 100% availablity, U-Verse is a nich product. Add to that, very few that can even get U-Verse, and it is a failed buisness venture from the get-go. I guess a few would say, that isn't correct, but we'll see in 5 years or so (or less) when U-Verse, and possibly AT&T along with it, goes belly up!

AT&T should finish one project, before starting a new one. And it should have been done with fiber everywhere (perhaps in a star network kind of configuration, one fiber run to a neighborhood node, and then fiber to all houses and buisnesses) Copper needs to retire. LOL Especially if you are going to be streaming movies (1-15 or so GB's) Copper seems to be a bottleneck and therefore needs to be removed. If not, the whole idea is a waste of money IMHO.

YAY, 600 posts! :D



DSL got stopper / slowed down because of government regulation .

The present copper system was 100 years of work , and some people expect it to be replaced in a few years ?

I suspect the VRAD's are just one step in the direction of getting fiber to the homes .

And the truth is , I have my doubts if the Telcos would be trying to push so hard into the TV business if the Cable companies had not started pushing into the Telco business .

Each wanting what the other has . Think about that for a little while ........

Myself , I have been watching Sat TV for several years & would hate to be stuck with Cable .

Wyr
 
Brewer4

Brewer4

SatelliteGuys Pro
Supporting Founder
Mar 12, 2005
4,022
0
Hartford Connecticut
DSL got stopper / slowed down because of government regulation .

That may be but I think the problem with the Uverse model is exactly what the Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal was against. They are cherry picking select more affluent neighborhoods and providing an unequal service to those that have more disposable income. Now on one hand of course you want to go after areas that will prove to have a higher ROI but its illegal. And for reasons others have posted, its taking away resources from neighborhoods that could use other services like DSL.

I know I have posted my story so many times even I am sick of it but I had DSL with SNET/SBC but AT&T changed some rules and now will not turn it on at my house. Instead of them installing relays I think they are called, they are not doing a darn thing. They also changed the distance of my house to 17,000 feet from the switching station which was under 13,000 when I worked with the SNET years ago.

So as much as I want another competitor in the video distribution market, I want AT&T to stick with DSL and make it available everywhere. So if there are technical ways of making DSL work beyond 13,000 feet from a switching station, then do it. Dont spend money on something you are doing half ass in cherry picked neighborhoods. And I do think they chose the wrong model. Verizon is going through their struggles but I think the only way to do this was fiber all the way. Thats probably the reason why they have a 3 to 1 subscriber rate to AT&T.

Also HD is the future. Who the hell would spend billions on a project that will not be able to fully service more then 1 room adequately with an HD signal. Its just flat out dumb.
 
WyrTwister

WyrTwister

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jul 6, 2004
769
0
That may be but I think the problem with the Uverse model is exactly what the Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal was against. They are cherry picking select more affluent neighborhoods and providing an unequal service to those that have more disposable income. Now on one hand of course you want to go after areas that will prove to have a higher ROI but its illegal. And for reasons others have posted, its taking away resources from neighborhoods that could use other services like DSL.

I know I have posted my story so many times even I am sick of it but I had DSL with SNET/SBC but AT&T changed some rules and now will not turn it on at my house. Instead of them installing relays I think they are called, they are not doing a darn thing. They also changed the distance of my house to 17,000 feet from the switching station which was under 13,000 when I worked with the SNET years ago.

So as much as I want another competitor in the video distribution market, I want AT&T to stick with DSL and make it available everywhere. So if there are technical ways of making DSL work beyond 13,000 feet from a switching station, then do it. Dont spend money on something you are doing half ass in cherry picked neighborhoods. And I do think they chose the wrong model. Verizon is going through their struggles but I think the only way to do this was fiber all the way. Thats probably the reason why they have a 3 to 1 subscriber rate to AT&T.

Also HD is the future. Who the hell would spend billions on a project that will not be able to fully service more then 1 room adequately with an HD signal. Its just flat out dumb.





I wonder if AT&T's competitors have to provide universal service ?

Is Verison ?

Again , government regulation stopped / slowed down DSL . Blame them . Remember , government IS NOT your friend . :-(

As far as cherry picking , it would be stupid to start the service first , in the neighborhoods that are so poor they could not afford it .

Start in the high dollar neighborhoods , first , so you have a chance of generating some cash flow to offset , to some extent , the cash you are speding to install the service .

It seem some people have no business experience .

Wyr
 
Brewer4

Brewer4

SatelliteGuys Pro
Supporting Founder
Mar 12, 2005
4,022
0
Hartford Connecticut
I wonder if AT&T's competitors have to provide universal service ?

Is Verison ?

Again , government regulation stopped / slowed down DSL . Blame them . Remember , government IS NOT your friend . :-(

As far as cherry picking , it would be stupid to start the service first , in the neighborhoods that are so poor they could not afford it .

Start in the high dollar neighborhoods , first , so you have a chance of generating some cash flow to offset , to some extent , the cash you are speding to install the service .

It seem some people have no business experience .

Wyr

Not disagreeing that you would go after the high dollar neighborhoods but that is completely illegal. The government has regulated cable and telcos and they are not allowed to only pick certain neighborhoods and provide select services.
 

Similar threads

R
Replies
1
Views
10K
jegrant
jegrant
Scott Greczkowski
Replies
33
Views
11K
jamesnet
J
R
Replies
0
Views
2K
RIRWIN1983
R
R
Replies
0
Views
2K
RIRWIN1983
R
bluegras
Replies
0
Views
740
bluegras
bluegras
Top