Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
| reply to borked
Re: It's funny that...
Yea..yea.
From quarter one..i've heard nothing but #'s that never materialized and projections that were never met.
I did however...read the report here at BBR of last Quarters Uverse results to date. After all this time..all this hype.
All these projections. It was what..390 something thousand customers nationwide for this next generation service?
Talk about an unenthusiastic response if i've ever seen one.
Perhaps i'm missing something here, but it seems that 70% of everything i read everywhere about the service has some negative connotation attached to it.
No excitement. No "jeesh..I wish THAT was here for me".
Then..look at verizon and the fios comments.
It's really like night and day.
And, you just have to remember..that this is the NEXT generation we're talking about here. I wouldn't be so critical if it wasn't that. And, I do realize they're in a difficult spot with a nationwide network of older style copper lines to contend with. My point is that if you're going to go to all this trouble and expense to fix it and upgrade it..Why in the world would you do it this way when already it seems so obsolete?
It makes no sense. Think about 2010 or 2011. Cable customers might very well be sailing along at 50Mb + speeds.
Heck..comcast is even saying up to 100Mb by then.
Verizon..the same.
And AT&T? I just don't get it.
Where uverse WOULD make sense is if they opened up the lines to their full potential just for HSI.
A 20 to 25Mb pipe would be very competitive..and nothing to sneeze at. But..trying to be a tv company in this hd generation..and a phone company..and a hsi provider..all over twisted pair copper to the home..is just a very bad idea. And, one that I don't think people are buying.
At least in large enough #'s to make it work out.
Sorry if I offend anyone with that opinion.
But I think it's the right one.
~Rick
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by Rick  :It makes no sense. Think about 2010 or 2011. Cable customers might very well be sailing along at 50Mb + speeds. so you can reach that 40 GB cap even faster. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
2 edits | reply to Rick
I don't have anything for or against Uverse being VDSL, what I do have against Uverse is the sales attempt - typically forcing bundling with TV.
Eg.
Cable (TWC here) you can ORDER and receive:
VoIP, HSI, TV as a standalone or bundled
FiOS, if I'm not mistaken, can be ordered similarly.
Uverse: Typically requires TV service to be ordered, VoIP is not available in many markets (unless you consider CallVantage)
Internet only - available on DSL dry loop only
VoIP only - available through CallVantage only (number not transferrable if you have AT&T as your DSL)
Its a REAL pain - I could order TWC Internet + VoIP and have it up and number transferred w/o issues.
If I wanted Internet + VoIP, I'd have to
a) Order a full bundle
b) Cancel Uverse TV service,
c) Order Call Vantage and transfer my POTS # (if they would let me do it) Uverse VoIP is not available in the L.A. area (~17 million people live in this area)
AT&T doesn't really want Internet+VoIP, they want TV service, but are not willing to properly compete.
I will add that after a few calls, AT&T would let me order Uverse Internet only, as long as I ordered Uverse MAX (10/1.5Mbps) and kept it for 6 months - they were also willing to cut the rate on it to $45/month.
As far as the 50-100Mbps service goes, with the current amount of either caps/traffic shaping, I suspect that this will be a niche market for a while. 100Mbps would require 'super G' or 'N' wireless in their RG's to deliver it.
I'd be happy with
a) decent internet service at a decent price
b) no caps below 200-300GB/month
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
HEDP
join:2008-04-27
Miami, FL
| reply to Rick
I think you also need to realize that the consumer does not care about the delivery medium but the amount he gets for the price.
If AT&T can still milk those two strands of copper which is far more cheaper than a cable line, then I see that as innovation. In the end if they can squeeze even 50mbps through two strands of super thin copper, the technology they use is by far more efficient and capable than anything the cable industry might have in place.
Unlike cable the lines are not shielded and because a phone line exists in just about every home in the united states and is at least wired for one, you can best bet that it has the largest footprint next to electricity.
Eventually AT&T will reach a point where they simply cannot get anything much more from that copper line, which from there instead of proceeding with standard RJ11 they are going with RJ45 and now have a ethernet network to every home, with simply more strands per line.
When that happens and they are able to offer gigabit ethernet in the next 10-20 years down the road. Nobody likes that green dildo in the neighborhood either as much as nobody likes a VRAD.
Also maybe if HD where more efficient the need for such pipes wouldn't be needed. By that I mean more efficient software and lossy codecs that provide superior picture quality with minimal data transferred. Or music that is 400KB at 16kbps in size but sounds like a standard 192k mp3 song at 5.6MB? |
|
