AT&T U-Verse: I like. I want. I can't.
I've finally taken AT&T's U-Verse for a test drive this afternoon. Much as I lust for it, I can't justify it. Are they pricing it out of reach of those with lesser means (like me)?
My parents have been long-time Time Warner customers. I'm 28 years old, and we've had cable in the household as long as I can remember. In my own apartments, I've been a Time Warner customer. I still am, partly because I am not allowed to get a dish-based service where I live. So when AT&T announced their new TV and Internet service in our area, I couldn't help but be a little curious. But on my preliminary comparisons, it looked like the service was way out of my price range. Purely on an apples-to-apples basis, U-Verse appeared to be $48 per month higher than comparable service I get now through Time Warner (a few missing channels excepted).
My father has recently been griping about his cable bill, most likely coming off a promotional rate onto to standard pricing. If there were ever a better window of opportunity for my parents to be sold on something new, this was it. Imagine my surprise to find that an AT&T representative paid my parents a visit one day, and a rather successful visit, might I add. They ordered AT&T's U200 package with Internet, plus an additional receiver and HD service. They also shifted their phone service, so I'm not sure exactly what the pricing ended up being, but it was lower than what they were paying with Time Warner at the time. They were told the installation would take an hour -- fat chance, I thought -- and they would be coming at the end of the month to get everything all set to go. They got their confirmation email soon after, which pegged their install day as today. They were due to arrive between 8:00 and 10:00 AM, and were expecting to spend 4-6 hours for the installation, which is widely regarded as the average.
They showed up around 10 AM, and by the time I arrived on the scene at 1 PM, they were just about ready to go. Three hours is undoubtedly "rock-star" timing for something like this, but they did say that my previous wiring job at my parents house cut down on the time it took to install. I had them wired with category 5E network cable and two routers (one main router and one acting as a repeater for wireless strength), and the techs were able to use the existing RG6 coaxial cable in the walls. This installation is not always typical, so your times will vary. The tech who installed the new AT&T wireless router gateway configured my existing routers as repeaters for wireless signal strength too. That's a nice perk, as not all cable installers will work with or support your existing equipment.
Upon playing around with U-Verse's DVR receiver and guide for an hour, I have to say that the service and features seem far and away superior to Time Warner's current offering. Whereas Time Warner's Scientific Atlanta-branded HD DVR is clunky, buggy and aesthetically-unpleasant, the Microsoft-based U-Verse guide is sleek, sexy and responsive. On my parents' 32-inch LCD HDTV, the readability of the text is a vast improvement. Channels change much smoother and snappier than Time Warner's digital cable receiver. A slew of advanced features including keyword search, guide display customization, picture-in-picture channel scrolling, Yahoo Games, Flickr photo integration, easily navigatible video on demand and more make Time Warner Cable's software and hardware seem very primative.
For my parents, who have long been used to a slew of about 70 channels in a certain low-numerical order, navigating U-Verse's channel lineup will take some getting used to. Most channels numbers are in the three-digit sphere. Between that and the sheer number of new channels available to them, there will be a bit of a learning curve ahead. The remote, a highly-functional universal remote very closely modelled on Windows Media Center remotes, is also going to be a hurdle to get accustomed to. For all the new channels they are looking forward to, such as Big Ten Network, NFL Network and lots of smaller ones, there are a few notable omissions that I could tell they are disappointed to lose. While they have all the Green Bay stations in high-definition, they very notably omit WBAY and WPNE's digital subchannels. My father was an avid recorder of WBAY's Retro Television Network and my mother followed WPNE's Create channel. Those are missing in action, but I wouldn't be surprised if they showed up sometime in the future.
One feature they -- and I -- will be watching closely for in the coming months is the whole-home DVR. While my mom enjoyed being able to record shows easily on the Time Warner DVR, she often had to wait until my dad was out of the house to watch her shows since they only had one DVR in the house. When AT&T enables the whole-home DVR functionality, she will alledgedly be able to view DVR recordings on the other receiver in the bedroom whenever she wants. That is one feature that will be a major selling point for AT&T when it becomes available, and another advanced feature Time Warner appears unlikely to match.
I didn't get a chance to try pressure-testing U-Verse's online capabilities (they have the "express" tier), but after one hour's worth of testing out the TV side of the service, I must admit a primal, wanton lust for what AT&T has to offer. Though I had waffled on ordering it for myself in past, I found myself thrust upon the U-Verse website pencilling in an order. Then I remembered why -- though I desperately wanted it -- I couldn't get it. I can't afford it. After my test drive, I was perfectly willing to strip down my apples-to-apples comparison to its bare bones. I would forego HBO. I would choose the 1.5 Megabit "express" service instead of the higher speed comparable to my current standard Road Runner service.
Even with that, I'm still finding the pricing too outside of my range to pull the trigger on U-Verse.
I make around $25,000 a year, so I'm not flush with disposable income. Cable and Internet have been two luxuries I've never been able to go without, though. I currently have basic and standard cable, with an HD DVR, HBO and standard Road Runner service, for which I am currently paying approximately $75-80 per month. I have no doubt there are promotional offers in there somewhere, and I don't delude myself into thinking that'll be my monthly bill until the end of time. Even without HBO and dropping to a much lower speed of Internet, I'd find myself spending more to go U-Verse. The U100 package is largely for those who don't use a DVR since it doesn't include one. If you were to add a DVR, you'd be just as well going U200 instead. So assuming U200 and the "express" tier of Internet, I'd be looking at $84 a month. I have two TVs I use on a regular basis, so that's another $5 per month for the second receiver. My TV's are both HD-capable, so getting the best quality out of them pretty much means I'd be on the hook for the $10 per month "technology fee" for HD programming as well. That's $99 per month. Though not as polished, plump and perfect as U-Verse, I can't earmark another $20 per month out of my already razor-thin budget just for the bells and whistles. I'd love to. My nerd-lust begs me to. I just don't think it's in the cards.
Would I recommend AT&T U-Verse? Absolutely. Without reservation. Is it for everybody? I can't honestly say it is. Those who bemoan inflated cable bills and jump to U-Verse as an alternative, I think, would largely be doing so out of spite for cable and not for any real "cost savings." AT&T U-Verse is feature-rich, refined and extremely desirable, but I think it's priced too far out of the price range for true mass appeal. Someday, if I ever come to earn a more livable wage, I would certainly look at U-Verse for my media delivery needs, but for the time being, I'm sticking with cable to save some money. (Damn, I never thought I'd find myself saying that.)
Fox Cities TV is an independent blog and member-driven community based in Green Bay, Wisconsin and serves the Northeast Wisconsin area, including Green Bay, Appleton, and Oshkosh. TV lovers can come here to learn about what's happening in local (and national) television, interact with other TV viewers and express their opinions.
Mark David Zahn is the founder and chief editor of Fox Cities TV, as well as an avid pop culture geek, writer and technology lover. Learn more about Mark on his
Cool. Thanks for the review.
Cool. Thanks for the review. I've been waiting to read a detailed review of the local service since it hit here. Please follow up with a review of the internet service if/when you get a chance to give it a good run through.
I will, wihogfan. I was
I will, wihogfan. I was willing to give U-Verse a try even at 1.5 Mbps "express" if it was responsive enough for my needs, but the $5 receiver fee and $10 HD tech fee sunk it for me.
If you get a chance could
If you get a chance could you please give a review of the HD channel quality as well?
As far as the HD quality, I
As far as the HD quality, I thought it was quite good. I couldn't give you an exhaustive technical breakdown of it by any means since I only sat with it for an hour, but I was more impressed with the HD quality than I expected to be. I would say it's every bit as good as cable HD is, if not slightly better. U-Verse uses the much more efficient and higher-quality MPEG-4 video compression. I wouldn't imagine it would be superior by any means, considering it might have to be compressed quite a bit to squeeze two HD and two SD streams down a copper wire, but I didn't notice any blocking or artifacting at all. Of course, I wasn't watching movies at the time or anything with a lot of motion or rapid cuts where you'd see a lot of artifacting, but just on an hour of casual viewing, I was quite impressed. The biggest thing I noticed in comparison to Time Warner's HD channels is the channel changing time is nearly instantaneous with U-Verse, while I sometimes get a bit of lag changing digital and HD channels on my TWC HD-DVR. If it were my system, I would be very happy with the HD quality.
Their TV, in case I missed mentioning it in the article, is a fairly late-model JVC 720p LCD HDTV connected via component cables. The receiver does have an HDMI port. The tech set up the box to output 720p.
Another thing I might have only briefly hit on in the review... as the box is largely based on Microsoft technology, it has a Windows Media Center feel and look. The navigation is very well-designed and easy-to-understand, and the guide information is also far and away superior to Time Warner. One thing I particularly like is that in the program search, you can search for actors as well as programs. I believe if you look at the information for the program you're watching, you see the actors in it and can then search on the name right from there. That's damn handy. It's very TiVo-esque and just altogether a well-designed interface.
Another thing I may have forgotten to mention for those like my parents who only watch certain channels -- your U-Verse receiver gives you both the option to set favorite channels, but also to hide channels you don't watch. This is handy since there are dozens of channels in the U200 package that my parents have no interest in, and it allows a much more customizable experience for different types of viewers.
I'm blown away by the feature-rich service, and I can't wait until the day I can afford such a slick service for myself ;)
"I am not allowed to get a
"I am not allowed to get a dish-based service where I live"
Mark...it is against FCC regulations for apartment managers to dictate if you can or can't get Dish. I have a good friend who is an owner of a 400 unit complex in Darboy and have me all the info. I'm sorry I do not have a citation where the FCC codes states this, but its worth looking into...
That is partially
That is partially correct.
They cannot prevent you from getting a Dish if your unit has an outside area that is under your exclusive use (ie. patio, balcony, etc. I do not have such a space as I am in an upper unit with no patio, balcony or other outdoor space off my apartment.
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
"The rule applies to antenna users who live in a multiple dwelling unit building, such as a condominium or apartment building, if the antenna user has an exclusive use area in which to install the antenna. "Exclusive use" means an area of the property that only you, and persons you permit, may enter and use to the exclusion of other residents. For example, your condominium or apartment may include a balcony, terrace, deck or patio that only you can use, and the rule applies to these areas. The rule does not apply to common areas, such as the roof, the hallways, the walkways or the exterior walls of a condominium or apartment building. Restrictions on antennas installed in these common areas are not covered by the Commission's rule. For example, the rule would not apply to restrictions that prevent drilling through the exterior wall of a condominium or rental unit and thus restrictions may prohibit installation that requires such drilling."
You're assessment of U-verse
You're assessment of U-verse is spot on. It isn't for everyone because we do not have a package for just someone who wants basic cable television service. If anything it will force TWC to step up their game and get with the times with their DVR, their digital boxes, and their ability for interactivity.
What I see on a daily basis is that the people that switch to U-verse aren't necessarily looking to save money. They are looking for additional content that is worth the extra money (in your case $30-40). What's even more amazing is that there are essentially two types of customers for TV service. There are those who just want cheap and don't value cable/sat/IPTV, these are typically cable customers with analog service that can plug as many tv's as splitters that they have, and those two are really into watching TV and they have satellite or U-verse, or are disstatisfied with cable's premium offerings.
Long term, what will be interesting to see where AT&T goes to market its product. Do they cater to the people who want quality service, more HD, more features, or do they go after the people who have cable just to have cable. These customers really don't care what kind of TV, Internet, or phone service they have and are likely to go for a one-size-fits all bundle.
I used to work in tech
I used to work in tech support for u-verse, and admittedly that was when they were prevalent in Texas and just a few other markets and the reliability was awful.It does appear they have improved their infrastructure with each new market they have entered. But U-verse still cannot match the speed of Road Runner over TWCs network, so to say that cable is for customers who are "not sophisticated" is way off base. Techie people like Zahn may be impressed with the slicker interface, but the network is still slower to most homes than TWC due to the copper to premises problem. From a pure performance standpoint, TWC's reliability is still better. That is what counts in the long run. I do not want to bash U-Verse, but holy cow, this site is more anti TWC than For News is anti Obama. I am no fan of monopolies, but I think U-Verse is no panacea for those who think the grass is greener.
Allow me to step out of my
Allow me to step out of my editorial shoes for a minute or two:
I am a customer of Time Warner Cable. I've been a user and/or customer of Time Warner Cable all my life, whether it was via my parents' service or of my own. Would I qualify TWC as reliable? Absolutely. Fast internet? More often than not, depending on variables like how crowded your local node is, time of day, signal quality/strength, and so forth. Is TWC service rock-solid? Mostly, but not always. I've had my share of TWC issues in my life. Like when a tech told me they were out of connections in my local node, so another tech must have split my connection to service a new customer, thus making my signal drop out and my analog channels look extremely fuzzy. Granted that's an isolated incident, and satellite and telco services are inevitably going to have similar things crop up. Have issues been fairly easily resolved? Mostly. Have I been a happy camper with TWC? 95% of the time over the past 20 years, absolutely.
That said, as a TWC customer, if I am anywhere near 'anti-TWC,' it is only because I grow increasingly frustrated with how stagnant and stale their lineup and user experience has become in the face of competition from satellite and telco services. Another aspect that may suggest that I'm harsh on Time Warner is that the site sometimes tends to focus on it a bit more because Time Warner is a local franchise, and not everything that happens here is universal to Time Warner across the nation. If DirecTV adds 20 channels, it's the same here as it is in Walla Walla, Washington.
Yes, AT&T is slick and I enjoy the advanced features. AT&T makes no bones about competing on service and value, rather than price. I am befuttled by those who flee Time Warner for U-Verse purely because they're sick of their cable bill. They are, for the most part, competitive if not pricier than TWC on an apples-to-apples basis. If you've read the site in past, you know I have on many occasions bemoaned -- what I consider -- AT&T's lackluster fiber-to-the-node method, resulting in limited HD viewability inside the home. I've said time and time again... U-Verse is a crippled offering for people who are serious about HD. I've also been railing against the eyesore VRAD cabinets that have invaded our neighborhoods. Though the interface is slick and graceful, I know if I got U-Verse that I would find the 2 HD stream limitation a serious headache in the end. You can add all the HD channels in the world to your lineup, but when I try to record a lot of shows across many channels in primetime, it's forced sacrafice.
If a Time Warner market's physical infrastructure is that much better -- and I have no doubt it could be as long as switched digital video works out -- why not shake up the user experience once in a while? I don't know how long TWC's current digital cable guide has been around, but it's old, outdated, slow, occasionally buggy and uglier than sin on an HDTV. The best experiences I've ever had with Time Warner Cable have been with my old TiVo and with my Windows Media Center PC. Compare those to TWC's digital cable guide and it looks like DOS vs. Windows. It's night and day. Yes, I know the long-awaited Navigator is coming, but if it's anywhere near as unrefined and prone for glitches as other markets' customers say it is, I'm not too sure it's really an upgrade. As a Time Warner customer who loves high-definition programming, it does get rather frustrating when satellite competitors are winning the HD arms race by such a wide margin. It's hard to be a constant cheerleader for TWC when Dish adds 20 new channels one week and TWC only adds 4 or 5. I'm nowhere near the level of sports fan that some of my friends are, but I too would like to get this whole NFL Network / Big Ten Network and WLUK HD spat put to bed once and for all.
Now do I love Road Runner? Hell yes. Hands down. Best Internet provider I've ever had, and I've had many. But while they get sidetracked with things like Digital Phone and the like, I've felt they've let their cable business get stale over the years.
I think what Jon was getting at with cable being for the "less sophisticated" is that cable gives you that option. Not every service is for everyone. If you could care less about HD or a program guide or on-demand or any of those slick advanced features, you can still plug your TV into a coaxial cable and just channel-up and channel-down with TWC. There are a lot of people out there who consume TV this way. Would I give my grandmother U-Verse? Absolutely not. I don't want her calling me with tech questions about rebooting set-tops and remote control navigation and so on. So Time Warner does serve two different bases -- the basic consumers and those who are more advanced consumers who want more diverse programming and advanced features. Is Time Warner winning the programming battles? With several key omissions, not yet. Not yet. Are they winning the PR war? Absolutely not. They're playing defense against their rivals when they need to innovate and be competitive on go on the offense. Is it winning the technological battle? Not by itself. Again, it's easy to get a TiVo HD or Media Center and use it with cable. But you have to foot the expense, and if you're looking for HD with these devices, CableCard doesn't give you all the options because of SDV. TWC's own equipment is a disappointment compared to others, and as a customer, I beg... nay, plead, Time Warner work to beef up its advanced offerings. Just having a DVR or a program guide is no longer "premium."
I changed to U-Verse
I changed to U-Verse recently. The picture is better than Time Warner. The guide is better and available on all TVs. The DVR is better and much smaller. I can use all the channels on all 4 TVs, including HD. I haven't noticed any difference in the speed of the internet changing from Roadrunner. They installed wireless internet for two computers. Most importantly, I now get FOX, Big Ten Network and NFL Network in HD.
My first full month bill for U200 service, HD DVR, 4 TV boxes and 1.5 speed internet was $113. My Time Warner bill with HD DVR (no other TV boxes), Roadrunner and HBO/Showtime was $157. Adding HBO/Showtime to U-Verse would be about $30 per month. For me, U-Verse was slightly cheaper.
It's time to dump Time Warner. I waited for FOX in HD for over 7 years. If I stayed with them I would still be waiting. I also missed several Badger football games last year. By not meeting my needs, they treated me like dirt. Time Warner preyed on us and with no competition got too fat to move on issues like Big Ten, NFL and Fox in HD.
Well put then, Mark. I admit
Well put then, Mark. I admit I do have an anti AT&T bias, right out having worked with the services and the company executives in charge of the U-Verse support. At any rate, I am still all for competition and choice above all else. Cable has one plus, that is rarely mentioned here if at all, for non techies in that all old analog sets will work with a standard TV, no box required, for many more years. Cable will be sending the analog channels 1-99 out for many more years so that these types of subscribers do not have to get any sort of converter for the digital transition. Nobody ever mentioned it here most likely because these users wouldnt be reading this website LOL. BTW when cable finally does get rid of that bandwidth-hogging analog segment of their feed, their lineup wil be virtually limitless. But I do believe they are required to keep that by law, whereas satellite and U-verse never had to to begin with.
I would have to agree, every
I would have to agree, every type of TV service has it's pros and cons. Which service is the best really just depends on what you are looking for. Are you going to save money by switching to Uverse probably not it all depends on what packages you get and how many TVs you really need hooked up. Personally for me if Uverse was available at my house it would only cost me about $10 more then TWC, which I would consider worth it for me. I would get a few more channels, all digital tv, and all of the extra little features that come with it. Plus my boxes would be half the size of TWC's
Like Mark, I would
Like Mark, I would absolutely LOVE to get AT&T U-VERSE, but am also unable…though my circumstances are a bit different. I have the money to pay for the service and would make the switch from TWC in a heartbeat, but unfortunately the service is not yet available in the Town of Menasha area. I had then planned to switch over to DirecTV in September so I could see the Packers and Badgers…and eventually, the baseball playoffs, the World Series and the Super Bowl in HD. But alas, after spending more time than I care to admit researching and talking with DirecTV reps, I am not willing to make an 18-24 month commitment, especially since I would like to get AT&T the minute it becomes available.
So…it looks like it will be another football season and baseball post-season watching the sports I love in glorious analog. Oh well, there are 1.3 billion Chinese people who don’t give a damn so I’ll survive, though it’s really too bad TWC can add Playboy OD, Too Much for TV OD and Adult HD, but still won’t throw a bone to their customers who have been asking – and waiting – for FOX HD for four plus years!
Post new comment