 ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 | Better than nothing.... It's funny how people can complain about this so much, but any advancement in abilities, etc is better than none. It may be a small move forward, but I won't knock it. |
|
deadzonedPremium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA | But it's not really an advancement - and therein lies the rub.
Real advancement in abilities would be running FTTH. at&t is DOA before they even finish deploying their coveted "U-Verse" "Next Generation" services in all of cherry-pick land. |
|
|
|
ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·VOIPo
| said by deadzoned:But it's not really an advancement - and therein lies the rub. Real advancement in abilities would be running FTTH. at&t is DOA before they even finish deploying their coveted "U-Verse" "Next Generation" services in all of cherry-pick land. So for areas that Verizon and then major cable companies don't service this isn't an advancement? |
|
deadzonedPremium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA | So at&t is going to build it's awesome U-Verse in non-competitive areas huh?
*Hint* They won't. They are deploying U-Verse in competitive areas only. The day at&t deploys U-Verse in an area in which major cable companies and/or Verizon are not is the day we see pigs fly and Hell freeze over. |
|
ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 | According to the AT&T tech who installed my DSL, we are scheduled to get it (eventually). |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to deadzoned
said by deadzoned:But it's not really an advancement - and therein lies the rub. agreed. AT&T is competing not on technology -- as they can't compete with cable here -- but on being an "alternative" to cable and satellite. they also aren't competing on price, as the price of Uverse is not different enough to justify leaving established the established players.
i mean, it's great for AT&T that they are planning to reach 2 HD streams. but as mentioned in this thread, what about those people that want to record multiple HD streams while watching a 3rd, 4th, or 5th? |
|
| reply to deadzoned
i call BS on 'not really an advancement'. last time i checked, fiber is still pretty scare between any house in the US to their local TELCO office. maybe i'm just living in woods or something for all my life.
how is Uverse DOA when there is the possibility to upgrade to FTTH and it offers vastly increased speeds to the end user? only fanboys care on how the speed is achieved, most end users only care about the end result (speed and TV services). looking purely from this prespective, Uverse is nearly equal to FIOS. |
|
| reply to deadzoned
You're in Baton Rouge.
When do you think you'll see it? |
|
| reply to cornelius785
Uverse's growth is about the same (if not slightly better than ) as FiOS TV on a per inception basis. With an install cost much lower, I can see it staying as long as FiOS. |
|
| reply to ptrowski
Naw, I think the people would rather have nothing. Just let Comcast run around free, unchecked raping everyone after Christmas time with rate hikes. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to morbo
said by morbo:said by deadzoned:But it's not really an advancement - and therein lies the rub. agreed. AT&T is competing not on technology -- as they can't compete with cable here -- but on being an "alternative" to cable and satellite. they also aren't competing on price, as the price of Uverse is not different enough to justify leaving established the established players. I'll say they are competing on price. They don't have anything else going for them, except people who swear off cable and satellite (customers with a grudge). Uverse is like Walmart, cheap and shitty. |
|
deadzonedPremium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA | reply to bogey780
Soon, they just got some state franchise law passed. We have Cox, at&t dsl, and Eatel Fiber though. They are just trying to keep up with the big dogs that already have service that far surpasses even their Holy Grail - U-Verse.
No way I am leaving Cox for shitty U-Verse.  |
|
deadzonedPremium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA | reply to cornelius785
That is fantasy land you are living in - plain and simple. All the cable companies offer much better service that U-Verse does, even with the pair bonding crap they are doing. When the 3.0 stuff hit's - it puts them even further behind.
When you compare it to Verizon's FTTH - it's not even in the same league, end of story.
The crazy thing is this. With all of the stuff on the horizon from the cable co.s and Verizon, it just puts U-Verse even further behind and basically obsolete. Why not just spend the bucks and do the FTTH now like they will have to do anyway to compete? It just makes no sense, it's not like they don't have the cash to go FTTH. I mean seriously. |
|
 apeface
join:2000-09-16
Mckinney, TX
kudos:3 | reply to deadzoned
2009. |
|
apeface
join:2000-09-16
Mckinney, TX
kudos:3 | reply to deadzoned
They already have.
The cherry picking fallacy is getting beyond old. |
|
| reply to ninjatutle
Well said.
I don't see how anyone can knock what AT&T are doing with U-verse, unless they're being paid by the competition, or are just some fanboys of another service provider.
Fact is, U-verse is a competitive alternative to cable or satellite. If one doesn't like it, don't buy it. But how is having U-verse as an option a bad thing? |
|
 AlpinePremium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA | reply to apeface
No doubt... "Cherry Picking" is also know as "Business 101."
Why would you deploy first in areas that aren't going to be profitable?
Also known as "common sense." |
|
 Old_GrouchDon't just sit there silly DO somethingPremium
join:2004-05-26
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | said by Alpine:Also known as "common sense." Wait a danged minute. It's not fair to confuse a good discussion with logic or facts.
Ain't from around here are you? 
--
At Team Discovery we know how to get more outta that danged 'puter of yours!
If you paid taxes it's a rebate. If you didn't, it's welfare. |
|
