U-Verse TV Hits 1 Million Subs

1 million less customers for Comcast.

They don't all come from Comcast. There is Bright House, Time Warner, Dish Network, DirecTV, Charter, etc etc. And some just have "Bunny Ears" before getting U-Verse.

One from TWC right here.

DO I See a ATT fan Boy?

Nope, a former battered and abused Comcast customer.

No you see someone who can't stand Comcast's services

It took them this long to hit a million.... I would hardly call that break neck speed. I'd probably never switch from Dish due to Dish's equipment being the best in the business.

Fios took about as long to hit a million TV subs from its inception. This isn't a bad roll out.

Considering they added nearly a quarter of all their subs in the 3rd quarter alone, I don't think they're doing too bad. They came in right behind FiOS in terms of new subscribers for 3Q 2008. Aside from FiOS, U-Verse, and DirecTV, all the other big boys lost subscribers in that same period. Yeah, they got a slow start, but they've been really rocking and rolling lately. And no, I'm not a U-Verse subscriber.

U-Verse hasn't really been around all that long. The majority of existing customers are in markets served by legacy SBC. SBC's previous territory covered 13 states including the big hitters of California, Texas, Illinois, and Ohio. SBC bought out the old AT&T long distance company and changed its name to AT&T around the time of the first U-Verse rollout. AT&T selected a FTTN architecture to carry data to customers. Fiber is fed from a CO to a node within the general neighborhood of those customers that it is designed to serve. Newer flavors of DSL such as VDSL, VDSL2 and bonding two ports of those technologies together to form a single large "pipe", as they they, then ride on traditional copper wire to the customer's home/business.

At the same time, BellSouth was gearing up for its own yet to be named IPTV service in its nine state territory. Just like AT&T, it also selected Microsoft's software to provide the user interface. However, it selected a FTTC transport architecture that is similar to FTTN except that there are more fiber nodes needed because they are closer to the customer (the curb). Copper was still to be used for the final connection but used older and slower flavors of DSL such as ADSL2 adn ADSL2+. BellSouth wasn't ready to trust the newer VDSL technologies but needed to continue forward in building this new network. The biggest markets in BellSouth's region are in Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina.

AT&T and BellSouth already jointly owned both Cingular and the Yellow Pages and it made alot of sense for AT&T to buy BellSouth. Instead of having three of everything (corporate offices, legal, advertising, customer care etc.), costs could be reduced substantially by combining redundant operating units. The entire industry has been in this mode since the collapse of WorldCom. Per minute cell phone rates have dropped significantly in recent years and there isn't enough total money in the pie for all operators to exist as they once did.

Therefore, AT&T bought out BellSouth and so took control of the decision making process regarding the IPTV product that it had yet to rollout to market. AT&T decided to scrap the older and slower ADSL flavors that BellSouth had intended to use so as to increase economies of scale when purchasing the newer VDSL equipment. This change also reduced the number of fiber nodes that needed to be installed and created a consistent nationwide architecture that would be easier to manage from a centralized location. Customer support would have been a nightmare if the same product needed to be handled by seperate help desks depending on the underlying architecture used to provide service. This is something that previous Nextel subscribers have had to deal with ever since Sprint took that company over. The bills now arrive in the mail from Sprint but you have to deal with a different help desks because Nextel's network architecture is not the same or even compatible with that of Sprint. This is one of the main reasons that merger has been considered by many to be a failure and also why Sprint has been hemorrhaging both customers and cash ever since. But I digress....

To make a long story even longer, AT&T's decision to align BellSouth's IPTV efforts with its own and create a consistant U-Verse product delayed the launch within BellSouth's 9 state region by at least a year. Comcast is the biggest competitor in markets such as Atlanta, Miami, and Charlotte. You may think that the 1 million mark took too long but I wouldn't be surprised if the next million takes less than half that time. The old BellSouth states should see an exponential increase in U-Verse availability in 2009/2010 and service coverage in existing markets will continue to expand. I will say though that even if the "phone company" is considered to be slow in bringing new products to its customers, it is fully committed to support them when they do. I waited forever for DSL to be available at my home when it was the next best thing to sliced bread about 8 years ago. When it finally did arrive it worked flawlessly 99% of time and when it didn't they were quick to send someone out to repair it. I've read alot of postings on here from folks complaining about poor and/or slow DSL service so maybe I got lucky. However, I'm a bonafide tech-junkie-nerd and most instances in which I've had problems with DSL it is almost always a fault with my wireless router, a crimp in phone wire connecting my DSL modem to the jack, or even the wire not being fully inserted into the jack iself (doh!). Non-techs generally prefer to assume it is the provider's fault even though a quick modem/router reboot is usually all it takes to make life better again.

SOURCES:

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fi ··· to_the_x
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-Verse

Somewhat but not quite. But the gist of there being a schism in network design for IPTV is true. ADSL/VDSL wasn't a major part of it though.

but i dont see me being on of those 17 million yet, not even any sign they are gonna serve my sub div. while all rounds us is

The probably never will. If the layout of the trunk lines doesn't suit putting a VRAD in cheaply and easily, ATT won't do it.

im fully aware of that, untill they pairbond, i wont see it. im got several techs im friends with, i know exactly how and where my dialtone travels back to the RT and then where my CO is

to Uverse.

Isn't that what those numbers really mean? Umm..hello?
You have this supposedly exciting new product that is supposedly all the latest rage and undercutting cable..it
finally makes it's way to 17 million homes..and 16 million say..thanks..but no thanks.

That's how I see those numbers. And it is PATHETIC at best.
And spells the END of AT&T..at worst.

Yes ladies and gentlemen. The END of AT&T.

Because you simply cannot lose as many landlines as they have..and take almost HALF your DSL customers to try to fill in those uverse gaps and expect this company to survive.

Notice that other statistic..because that is exactly what is occurring. 46% of these customers for uverse internet are being cannibalized from their own customer base.

What we have going on here is similar to if mcd's posted quarter after quarter about how their HAMBURGERS and FRY's customers were abandoning them left and right..and they hoped that hot pumpkin pies at Halloween would somehow fill the gap. Well..guess what? It won't. Because it was the landline and dsl business that was their backbone. And one of 17 people saying yes to Uverse..and almost HALF them being their own customers coming from somewhere else..is not a recipe for future success.
It is a recipe for DISASTER when you are a company of this size and magnitude.

They are being whittled down to an operation similar in scope to what AOL is today. A mere blip on the screen of what they once were.

I wish I knew what could save them. 2 years ago when I first began foretelling of this great American disaster approaching..I had ideas.

Today..I have none. Layoffs and more layoffs I fear I see coming. More and more cannibalization while they try to paint a pretty picture on the titanic going down. Comcast surpassing them as the largest broadband provider before years end.

What ever happened to this company? What happened is they never saw or cared about the threat that began developing over a decade ago. Didn't care enough to improve their network the way they needed to to compete in this new world of hdtv and very high speed broadband. Cared too deeply about growing this relic of a company even larger..by adding just more of the same. Cared about their profits and dividends. And never saw the nukes coming at them.

16 Million people...just saying No.

No..to Uverse. No..to AT&T.

The same old rick roll copy and paste rant. And you hate competition because......

I hate Sprint but I don't want to see them die off. I hate Comcast but I don't want to see them die off either. Competition is good for the consumers.

Where in the world did you ever read into my post(s) that I hate competition?

Quite the reverse. I'd just like to see something competitive is all...not a next generation disaster.

My posts simply call it like I see it as it relates to the technology from a business perspective.

And call them what you will..but my predictions for 2 years now are all coming to fruition. Nowhere in the country has this mega disaster played out like it has here in Ct.
From the political to legal battles..the dislike for vrads..
and our state being surrounded by Verizon and their FIOS rollout..here we are..stuck in the middle with AT&T.

In all honestly..I feel sorry for the AT&T workers in this state..many who are former SNET workers. SNET was a great company and to be so shackled by the mismanagement that is occurring is devastating to them I'm sure. We're also seeing many of the diehard snet/at&t customers even jumping ship in the Ct. forum. That tells the real story I think about how they're fed up with what has occurred and have decided that they too want something better. And who can blame them? Certainly not I. It's up to AT&T to change my mind. And the minds of everyone who has finally said..

enough is enough.

And until that day comes the demise of this company will continue.

Sad ..but true.

The problem with this analysis is bad method.

NONE of those (46% of 1 Million is....) ~460,000 customers that switched from DSL to U-Verse had AT&T TV. Some may have had the AT&T|Dish Network service, but no one had a purely AT&T TV service. AT&T gets all the U-Verse TV revenue.

~6% of potential customers have already adopted, and the service has been available (in select areas) for what, 2, 2.5 years?. If you take into account that many areas are in their first and second years of availability (some areas in their first few months), and combine that knowledge with the fact that potential customers might be in contracts with current providers, there is already a built-in bias against switching to AT&T U-Verse when it first appears.

Anyone have any idea how fast POTS grew in terms of customers vs service available? Cable? Cell Phone Service? It would be interesting to compare these growth numbers. I doubt they are too far out of line.

I think U-Verse is doing OK so far.

You have NINTY FIVE PERCENT of people who can get this service right now...

saying NO to it.

That is NOT a winning product no matter how you try to slice and dice it.

And that 5 percent who are saying YES includes ALL The built up anticipation of their die hard fans who get to finally say..It's HERE. I can switch from cable.

And so..in reality..you're probably really looking at something like a 2 1/2% success..conversion rate from cable.

Sir..that won't even begin to save this company from the demise of landlines and dsl that is occurring.
And will continue to occur in the many years ahead.

And remember..the cable co's barely even have docsis 3.0 out yet.

Sorry to say..but I think that AT&T is finished.
And at best..will someday be but a former shell of what it is today.

That's my prediction..has been my prediction..and I'm sticking to it unless something dramatic happens.

Comcast has had 30+ Years to market their product and have about a 40 percent take rate, leaving on average 60 percent of the potential customers saying no to comcast. ATT has in about 18 rolling months (meaning house one has had u-verse available for 18 months and house 17m has had it available for a day.) time gotten to a 6 percent take rate. 6 percent at this point is not bad. People are slow to change even if they dislike their current provider. If ATT can sustain 6 percent per year in about 5 years they will pass Comcast on take rate.

But the telco's are losing their mainstay business at the same time. What you're saying would be similar to saying comcast is gaining 5% market share in landlines..while having their cable tv business wiped out.

And again..that 5% is coming from half their own customers moving up from dsl based products.

AT&T is probably gaining at most..2 to 2 1/2 % share.
And no way..no how..does that balance out the demise of both landlines..and dsl for them.

AT&T..is in BIG trouble as a company.

What are you (comcast) afraid of?

Rick5 , we have the same old crap coming from you as we did when verizon was in the news. funny how you only open your mouth to spout pro-comcast, anti-telco drivel. it makes me wonder what your real motive (and the motive of comcast really is). some utopian wet dream of cable (comcast) dominance with no threat from outside competition (be it from the telcos or from indie-sources), perhaps?

funny, in trying to find some information regarding *comcasts* footprint, i was looking through the old comcast press releases. funny that in q3 2003, you were actually *concerned* with penetration rates and providing that information to your stockholders (as can be referenced here). however, q3 2008 gives a different picture, one that is only given by "how much the customer is spending" and "how much we are making as our shareholders". after fumbling around your website, i found this page. this page states that you have this penetration

Customers: As of September 30, 2008, Comcast served customers in 39 states and the District of Columbia.

•24.4 million cable customers
•14.7 million high-speed Internet customers
•6.1 million voice customers

now, assuming that all voice customers are *more than likely* all hsi customers, and that most hsi customers are video subs, its safe to say that you have ~25 million customers total. now, you have penetration in 39 states and the dc. follow me on some math now...

total us population is around 320 million people. given that most big msos only cover the "densely populated" areas, i feel that we could assume a pretty standard distribution of people in relation to comcasts footprint. if we divide the 320 million people evenly distributed across all 50 states and multiply that number by the 39 states that comcast has footing in, we get about 250 million people. dividing this number by 25 million gives about 10%. this is very rough but (a) i am assuming that if comcast has a presence in a state, then it covers the whole state (b) the use of (a) cancels out the fact that i am using a standard average distribution of the population across all states.

now, the last mention i could find of comcat mentioning its penetration rates was on this page here:

Comcast Cable added 1.664 million high-speed Internet subscribers in 2003, a pro forma increase in net additions of 38.7% over the same period last year. Comcast finished the year with nearly 5.3 million subscribers, representing a penetration rate of 15.2%. More than 87% of the homes in Comcast's footprint, or over 34.7 million homes, now have access to High-Speed Internet service.

(from »www.comcast.com/About/Pr ··· ootprint)

now Rick5 , granted this mentions hsi penetration in q4 2004, but your company is *purposely* hiding all of the relevant information from more current years. given this hsi penetration of 15%, i would be more than willing to give you around 6 or 7 percent on top of what i had already figured (but just goes to show that my figures were *not* that far off).

so, we can decide on around 17 or so percent of penetration for comcast. how many *millions* of customers saying "no" does that represent Rick5 ?
for ease of comparison, 1/16 is about 6.25%. given that it is a new technology, i'd say u-verse isn't doing too bad now. comcast has had how many years to push its hsi product (as well as digital voice and cable)?
again, this is just more of the same comcast-shill that spews on regular intervals from your mouth anytime a telco is discussed.so how soon before comcast flops, given the numbers above Rick5 ?i'm sure that att would have loved to have been able to add an anti-competitive cap to prevent outside sources from taking away business. do you really think that if a customer was on a docsis3 line that they would *really* need a cable line for video? i wouldn't.drop the burgers and fries Rick5 . if you haven't been to a mcdonalds lately, they offer salads, chicken selections, and deserts that *bolster* sales. its not just a big mac anymore.well, verizon is looking at fiber to the home rollouts, which will be a total infrastructure upgrade (similar to what you and your touted msos did 10 years ago running fiber to the node). you praise msos but ridicule verizon. att is using their current infrastructure and you ridicule them. which is it Rick5 ? more contradictory statements from the cable industry, nothing new.comcast in ten years. planning your funeral yet, Rick5 ?do you really want me to copy and paste your anti-competitive comments regarding verizon's entry into comcast's home town? very few of us here have amnesia.so what you are saying is that you'd like competition, but not on a product based on something that *you think* will fail. doesn't the upstart rogue company most often provide the impetus for change? not to say that att is an upstart, but many companies count on ideas to fail (such as vdsl or ftth), but when the subscriber base actually responds positively, it is the doomsayers that are really screwed.nope, only your anti-telco spin that you seem to quote for truth. is this what a comcast staff meeting looks like? i'd love to have recordings to cheer me up and make me laugh. sell them. it would be added revenue to comcast.i would daresay that there is a very select few that can afford high end cars (bentley, ferrari, lambo, etc) but they seem to be doing well.again, u-verse is a buzzword. it gets attention. people wouldn't be willing to switch if cable provided a better product with more satisfaction, now would they?like comcast folding and they shut the doors and they give you walking papers and a boot in the ass?will never happen because comcast will lower the cap if their digital video subs start to hemorrhage.based solely on a fact that you *made up* in a previous post...see. you're assuming again.

now, i applaud you on one fact. you are attacking the *real* concern. but again, i will echo the sentiments of an above poster (there is always a first time for everything...)because its true. there is a quote from a song...

"if you still hate me, you're thinking of me".

you try *soooo* hard to rag on telcos. is that because you are really scared sh!tless?

q.

edited to fix a hanging quote. did everything from the qreply box

Even if AT&T is trading 1 for 1 (losing a local phone line for each new video sub), they will lose pre-tax cash flow dollars and their margin % will fall...it already has but they're blaming it on a tough economy. Here's how it works...the local land lines are very high gross margin services. Virtually zero cost of goods sold. Video on the other hand is very high cost of goods sold...you have to pay a HUGE chunk of the revenue to the networks. When they lose a phone customer, the cost of the switch, the techs, the care folks and executive overhead stays in place. When they add a video sub, they may not have to add much in terms of overhead, but they do have to pay ESPN, TNT, The Weather Channel, etc. So, while they stay still in terms of revenue, they are adding cost. You can't make that up in volume...

The only way this thing works is if they assume some huge % of landlines they would have lost if they didn't do anything. And then there's the capital investment, which isn't as bad as FiOS but is still there. These guys are pinned against the wall. They have to do something.

Cable-sat-telco all with a 33% take rate works for me. If you take a start date of 1/01/2004 comcast had 1.2million circuit switched phone customers and zero digital voice,today they have zero circuit switch customers and 6.1 million cdv a net gain of 5 million over 5 years. Verizon on 1/01/2004 had 55 million pots subs,sold over 3 million an now have 37 million a loss of 15 million over 5 years.

I'm in my 2nd place now where Uverse is NOT offered in Austin. I say they are full of shit on that 17 million number.

This marks the end of year 2 of open availability. From 06/06 to 12/06 it was available on a trail basis in 1 or 2 markets.

this is wildly off-base.

AT&T builds a business plan based on a number of subs and a certain uptake rate. They are on track for that business plan (even a little ahead). And this is doom?

Say what you will about AT&T, they have managed a reasonably rapid rollout of U-verse, and are doing it at a much lower cost per passed house and cost per sub than Verizon, and are providing a competitive offering to cable.

Over dramatize much?

AT&T has profitable wireless as well as Internet--- and they get USF slush from VOIP and so on.

AT&T isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Even if all POTS die.

Why do I hear the voice of "Tokyo Rose" or the one from the european front when reading one of Rick's rants?

Edit: Lord Haw-Haw

That's not a crackling coming from me. It's coming off your own bell system and returning the static to your ears.

I'm on a cable co's digital fiber/coax soon to be docsis 3.0 connection which is crystal clear.

Maybe that's the problem with AT&T?

Actually I see in rick's reviews the voice of an unbiased and intelligent analysis.

Who cares about Docsis 3 at this point I just want comcast to ditch there crappy Ibone. It increases ping times way to much. There is no reason for me to peer to atlanta when chicago is 110 miles away except comcasts engineers are idiots.

Ricks not a Tokyo Rose he just sees the writing on the wall for AT&T. The demise of this company in its current form is needed. My uncle was talking with a AT&T tech and the tech told him they wish the copper would rot. They want to focus on going all wireless. The Cable company's are eating AT&T for lunch. I recently got a land line telephone through my provider its so much better than AT&T . I can view my call logs online, see caller ID on my tv. Bell is behind the curve.

With U-Verse Voice (VoIP) phone from AT&T, you can see the call logs on either your TV and/or online. Caller ID on TV is coming soon. You can initiate call-backs from the TV or online as well. You can check your voicemails online too.

The cable company in my area already does the call logs and caller ID on the tv. The call back or click to call sounds pretty useless to me. The point I'm trying to make is AT&T is behind.

Too bad they force the TV on people who just want to move to faster DSL speeds. When will they offer VDSL/ADSL2+/whatever to people without TV, and on the static IP tiers? I can't wait to sign up for that, but they don't offer it.

I have it. I like it. I hope more people adopt it.

I've had Comcast and Direct TV and I like the bundling opportunities with U-Verse better. It's not perfect, but the little things like fast forwarding my DVR (which I had problems with Comcast) and picture going out in bad weather with Direct TV (when I actually WANTED to watch TV) they don't happen.

I actually downgraded my service from 10Mbps to 6Mbps and it's acceptable. Most of the websites I've ever connected to when I've had faster connections were throttled by the host anyway. Now I'm just not paying for what I'm not getting.

Something else that's incredible (to me) is the upload speed. I'm thinking about setting up a video server through TVersity so I can watch my movies at my girlfriend's house. (I just gotta be careful *which* movies I share... hehe...)

They have been at my door twice in the last week and rude each time talking down to me and trying to tell me it is a Fiber connection to the house and that they had already made special connections to my house. LOL I said what special connections as it is just copper and Uverse is just VDSL. He swore up and down it was fiber in my NID.

This last guy (fiber in the NID guy) I literally had to tell him to get off my property and he still tried to talk/yell over me while I was polite the whole time. He just couldn't get into his thick head that I don't want it and that I would willingly pay 3 times as much to not have any AT&T products and their monthly caps, TOS/AUP limitations on the service and dropped Usenet.

Are they that pushy and can't get anyone to join unless they use intimidation?

What a crock of BS. Government contracts, backhauls, interconnections, GLOBAL MARKET,etc...and WIRELESS something Comcast does not have. Wake up RIck.
Most of the other ISP's connect to AT&T's network at some point to provide service including Comcast. Rick is blowing smoke up his ass as usual.

Down here we are taking their customers away. One Vrad recently turned up and less than a month we had to place a second vrad in the cabinet. So 192 customers in 1 months time. I would say that is a good take up rate for a new product in this area.

It was said before people are in contracts with current providers and have to wait for the contracts to run out. One HOA down here just dumped Comcast for Uverse because their contract was up.

Well, Isn't that nice... They get to sc the public without any of us able to speak. Have you seen their service, It stinks.. How about PEG service, worst deal going.. What else do they do so great.. Oh yes, Advisory council help or attendance.. NO ____ Way, they "don't have too"..So everybody have fun,, see you in hell.

For the area I live in, there aren't any plans yet to install or even setup Uverse. I have DSL 1.5, yeah 1.5. so when AT$T decides to setup Uverse in my area, I might be living on the moon.