how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to ReVeLaTeD
Re: It's funny that... said by ReVeLaTeD:Sorry. Some of what you state is inherently flawed. The problem with U-verse, and companies like this, is that they purposely make it difficult to go a-la-carte. If I just want Time Warner's fastest internet (15/2, which is what I currently have), they don't beg me to bundle up to save money. They'll ask me why I don't want TV - to which I say their TV offering blows compared to DirecTV (and it does). They'll ask me why I don't want their phone - to which I say their phone offering is blatantly overpriced compared to AT&T, whether or not evenly configured. They let it go, and give me just internet and charge me for that. AT&T on the other hand wants you to bundle up. They want you to take all of these services you don't want or need because you save on the one feature you do want. Or in the case of Uverse, force you to take the TV offering in order to get the internet offering. No thanks. Customers want choice. Everything you say is true, but I really was commenting on the "AT&T is doomed! Their business model and rollout is a failure!" message -- not on the details of how they go to market. I really think that message is way, way overstated. As far as I can tell, AT&T is specifically targeting U-verse at Cable TV users, and is quite successful in the sense that they are growing and installing new users about as fast as they can.
The fact that they don't offer a la carte (e.g Internet without TV) is really because they don't have to, right now. They are getting plenty of business with their current packages. I expect there'll be more flexibile packages and options offered once they finish their initial set of rollouts.
That said, are you aware that it is free, and even not very painful, to order U-verse TV/Internet, and then cancel the TV? That is exactly what I did, and it worked out fine for me.
I left Road Runner for AT&T originally because the quality of their Internet connection was just not good enough. Too many packet drops, too much latency variability, and too many service outages (once a month or so it'd go down for anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours). My VoIP service couldn't deal with the dirty link.
I went to AT&T DSL and everything just smoothed out. It's a very consistent, high quality connection, and it's well managed. When U-verse showed up in my neighborhood, and they started offering the Max tier, I jumped to it. Now I'm getting really fast and CONSISTENT speeds for a very reasonable price (10/1.5 for $55/month). | |
| I'm aware there is a backdoor to get internet only. But why should I have to do that? AT&T should just price the internet by itself, TV by itself, I'm more than happy with DirecTV for my TV viewing pleasure and TWC for my internet pleasure and quite frankly, I don't think any carrier will surpass them in the near future in terms of quality of what you get for the price you pay. Also, their customer service to me is far and away better than anything AT&T has.
Then again I fall in the old school category of consumers. I believe each company has a core model that they're good at, and should stick to it. Pacific Bell, or "AT&T" does POTS like nobody else, and it's the only thing they do without other issues, IMO. $20 for a line and some features is way better than Time Warner's $50 for a line and forced features. I've had SBC DSL and it was a nightmare to set up, nightmare to troubleshoot, nightmare dealing with their so-called "Tech Support", not to mention all of the constant upsale attempts. Matter of fact I think my review is still out there about that nightmare. No thanks.
You're right about how AT&T is targeting their product. They're going after cable TV users. However I don't think that's the proper way to go, and the reason I think the way I do is what I explained above. I'm not the only consumer who thinks AT&T = phone because that's what they get right 9 times out of 10. I'm not the only consumer who believes that AT&T forcing you to bundle stuff up is heavy handed and ultimately a turn off. Lots of consumers think the way I do. It's really the tech nerds who see otherwise and are willing to dig into the innards of Uverse to get to the benefits. | |
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| quote:
frankly, I don't think any carrier will surpass them in the near future in terms of quality of what you get for the price you pay. Also, their customer service to me is far and away better than anything AT&T has.
if by "them" you meant Time Warner Road Runner, I had exactly the opposite experience (in Austin, TX). First there's the hold times -- 15-20 minutes was not uncommon. Second, they had no capability to monitor/manage the network remotely. The techs on the phone could look at my modem, but they had no clue what to do if the network was messing up. All they could do was schedule a tech to come out.
And, when I found out that I was getting dropped packets and latency jitter which was screwing up my VoIP, they refused to do anything about it. That's when I decided to dump them and go with AT&T DSL (really SBC, they'd recently completed the merger/acquisition).
It was like night and day for me. I got a solid, consistent connection. I only had two problems. The first was like 3 days after install -- I lost connection. I called them up and the tech looked at the network and immediately saw a provisioning problem, fixed it, and I was back online in FIVE MINUTES. The second time I got a red light. I called them up and they ALREADY KNEW ABOUT IT! Their network management system had alerted them and they were already working on it. About 15 minutes later I was back in business.
You talk about companies' core competencies -- AT&T's is not so much POTS as it is managing a network. They really know how to do that. Cable companies, by contrast, have a core competency of wiring a city to broadcast RF. This is very, very different than a network. | | |
|
| I've learned, not only with my consumer experiences but also having worked for both Cox (during the @Home days) and SBC (just after the Pacific Bell rebrand merger), that quality is definitely specific to area. In one city/subcommunity, a provider can be downright trash, yet stellar in another.
When I said "them" I was really referring to both DirecTV and Time Warner.
First, DirecTV has way more HD than anyone, but beyond that the standard def programming is decent quality as well. The only thing I don't like about DirecTV is their combination of standard and HD programming on one numbered channel, because it makes it confusing when they set up a channel for HD and you already had the standard version set on DVR. The DVR is not smart enough to automatically convert over to the HD side, and there are no notifications to tell you when a channel has had HD programming added. But I love the paper billing option, love the much cheaper price overall, love the customer service (only had to call them once to inquire about CW HD.
Time Warner, I had the package deal and it was $100/month - $60 cheaper than Cox every month for better service. I had one downtime on the internet side, called up Tech Support, he did something and told me to powercycle, and I was back up. Haven't had a problem since. Plus they never pulled credit and never required a deposit.
Again, anyone who wants to know how I feel about PacBell/SBC/AT&T, can look at my review. That incident that caused a poor girl to end up quitting. | |
|
