At the bottom of the article the writer answers a reader question about whether he should get it. The Guy says he still wishes they had it where he lives and that he would get it in a heartbeat. Then he says he wishes he could also get Verizon FiOS.
What is event more frustrating is that ATT U-Verse and Microsoft have major operations for this venture two miles from my house and on a list of the 22 states they are in, Washington is not on the list, but Oklahoma is. !?!?!?! From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bosco Bosco Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 8:30 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Re: AT&T U-verse Doomed? I agree. I was a cable installer for a while and U-Verse smashes the next best competitor in my area to bits in all areas. They haven't failed yet. They may have issues but they also have incredible demand. Serious huge demand. Get on a waiting list to get it demand down here. I wouldn't rule them out just yet. B --- On Sun, 1/24/10, Kelwyn <ravena...@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Kelwyn <ravena...@yahoo.com> Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: AT&T U-verse Doomed? To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, January 24, 2010, 9:10 AM Isn't this always the way? As a unrepentant vidiot, I have done time with all the services and IMHO, ATT-U-verse is superior to all when you consider price, service and selection (for instance, DISH is cheapest but you can't get most of the black channels and BET is only available in the pricier tiers; Warner Cable is available everywhere - here in Milwaukee - but they don't carry the NFL network). Further, also IMHO, it is better to go without a dish instead of a dish (the ugly DISH Network dish is STILL attached to the front of my townhouse). It seems the best product always fails in the marketplace. That said, I have no sympathy for either AT&T or Microsoft - although I do find it fascinating that they are running into problems when they finally deliver a better product. ~(no)rave! --- In scifino...@yahoogro ups.com, "Tracey de Morsella" <tdli...@... > wrote: > > Many have heard of the difficulties in implementing AT&T's U-verse IPTV > <http://www.tmcnet. com/tmcnet/ snapshots/ snapshots. > <http://www.tmcnet.com/tmcnet/snapshots/snapshots.aspx?Company=IPTV> > aspx?Company= IPTV> > service. AT&T's U-verse network is actually a fiber/copper hybrid, which > pulls fibers to 3,000 to 5,000 feet from the homes they serve, where it then > connects to mini-DSLAMs called "52B" boxes and then it runs copper the last > mile to the home. This hybrid approach is a bargain when compared to the $20 > <http://blog. tmcnet.com/ blog/tom- keating/voip/ > <http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/voip/verizon-races-to-build-fiber-t> > verizon-races- to-build- fiber-t > o-fend-off-voip- and-cable- rivals.asp> billion Verizon > <http://www.tmcnet. com/tmcnet/ snapshots/ snapshots. > <http://www.tmcnet.com/tmcnet/snapshots/snapshots.aspx?Company=Verizon> > aspx?Company= Verizon> is > spending to build-out fiber all the way to the home. This hybrid > fiber/copper approach gives AT&T a 20Mbps+ link to customers, enough to > offer high-speed Internet, VoIP, and the company's IPTV service. The problem > is getting towns to grant public right of ways for these massive 52B boxes, > which hold DSLAMS, batteries, and cooling gear in rugged, weatherproof > cases. Many towns objected or wanted AT > <http://arstechnica. com/articles/ culture/u- verse.ars > <http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/u-verse.ars> > &T to sign video > franchise agreements. Lawsuits were filed, including cable companies that > want to classify U-verse service as a "cable service" to force AT&T to abide > by the same build-out rules, which has drastically affected U-verse > deployment . In addition, the IPTV service uses proprietary set-top boxes > from Microsoft, which had their own share of problems - mostly > <http://www.dmwmedia .com/news/ 2007/01/26/ wsj-at-t- iptv-deployment- > <http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/01/26/wsj-at-t-iptv-deployment-delayed-by> > delayed-by > -microsoft-software -problems> software related. > > > On top of all this, a new IPTV standard (DVB-IPI > <http://en.wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVB-IPI> .org/wiki/ > DVB-IPI> ) is about to be ratified (later this > month) by the Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) standards body. This > standard takes a very different technical approach than the strategy > embodied in the Microsoft > <http://www.tmcnet. com/tmcnet/ snapshots/ snapshots. > <http://www.tmcnet.com/tmcnet/snapshots/snapshots.aspx?Company=Microsoft> > aspx?Company= Microsoft> > solution that AT&T has implemented, and addresses many of the inherent > challenges with IPTV, including quality of service, scalability and fast > channel change times. Which reminds me, I really hate the slow channel > changing times on satellite TV. I wish the set-top boxes would buffer the > next channel UP and the next channel DOWN, so at least changing up or down > one channel is fast. > > In any event, The DVB-IPI standard is based largely on a hybrid of > well-established forward error correction (FEC) technology from Digital > Fountain <http://www.digitalf <http://www.digitalfountain.com/> > ountain.com/> called DF Raptor and a public > domain technology known as Pro-MPEG COP3. These technologies are currently > being evaluated by most IPTV providers in the U.S. and elsewhere. Several > new deployments using this technology are expected to be announced later > this year. According to Rose Anne Raphael, a representative of Digital > Fountain, "Whatever the actual problems in the AT&T/MS deployments (since > we're not part of these deployments, we have no firsthand knowledge), the > strategy employed is one that inherently poses scalability problems and > bucks certain foundation assumptions on which IP networks and broadcast > architectures are based." > > Could this new standard make AT&T's and Microsoft's gamble on their own > proprietary technology be the nail in the coffin for U-verse? Certainly, a > standards-based approach will eventually result in lower costs to deploy due > to economies of scale when multiple vendors all use the same technology. > This could give AT&T/Microsoft' s competitors a cost advantage. Who would > have thought that mega-titans AT&T and Microsoft would bet on the wrong > horse using proprietary technology? Wait a minute, AT&T and Microsoft are > the KINGS of proprietary technology, so I shouldn't be surprised. The > difference is that 20 years ago you could get away with it - now with > open-source and standards along with a global economy, a standards-based > approach is the only way to go. > > Update (I had some other thoughts and feedback from users) > One person emailed me and wrote: > > Read with great interest your comments about the possible doom of U-verse. > Taking those concerns into account, would you recommend it to a consumer > like me who is considering switching from Comcast > <http://www.tmcnet. com/tmcnet/ snapshots/ snapshots. > <http://www.tmcnet.com/tmcnet/snapshots/snapshots.aspx?Company=Comcast> > aspx?Company= Comcast> to > U-verse if and when it becomes available on the west side of Indianapolis? > The cost and channel availability seem to have cable beat by a mile, but > your technological concerns may trump other advantages. > > I'd appreciate your assessment on whether consumers should proceed to "sign > up" for this new service. > > > I responded: > > Put to you this way. If I could get U-verse in my area, I'd do it. Yes, I > knocked AT&T for not meeting their target goals, as did many media outlets. > While I think AT&T & Microsoft were perhaps 1-2 years too early with their > proprietary technology, it is still a good solution.I'm just not a fan of > proprietary solutions. AT&T and Microsoft have had a bumpy road, but I think > AT&T & Microsoft have worked out most of the kinks. > > Also, I am the least fan of cable. They are overpriced on everything. When I > looked into Cablevision' s Optimum Voice I believe it was like $39/month. > Their broadband was like $45/month. And to get the channels I wanted, it was > like $55/month for a grand total of around $139 for the "Triple Play" > package. On top of that, the number of HDTV (high-definition) channels was > only like 4 and of course, that was an additional $15/month. > > I personally switched to DirecTV satellite, which is better than cable, but > isn't a perfect solution either - since I then had to also sign up for AT&T > DSL + AT&T Unlimited Voice. So I have two separate providers - a Single Play > (DirecTV) and a Double Play (AT&T), which no doubt isn't the most cost > effective. I just can't get U-verse or even the competing Verizon FiOS > (fiber) solution in my area. I'd take either one. Both AT&T and Verizon are > building out their networks as fast as they can - but not fast enough for my > tastes. > > So if you can get Triple play - voice, video, data using AT&T U-verse, with > more HDTV channels and super-fast Internet, I say go for it! > > AT&T U-verse is in Stamford, CT, which is where my boss, Rich Tehrani lives. > I told him they're offering U-verse in his area. Of course, if he gets this > cool Triple Play package before I do, I'll be quite jealous and will be > forced to bitch & whine how come AT&T isn't offering U-verse in my > neighborhood area.U-verse not in area Maybe I'll see if Verizon FiOS is > available in my neighborhood. > > http://blog. tmcnet.com/ blog/tom- keating/triple- play/att- > <http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/triple-play/att-uverse-doomed.asp> > uverse-doomed. asp >
