AT&T Now Has 10 Million U-Verse Subscribers
AT&T has announced that the company's U-Verse service now has 10 million subscribers, with 60% of all AT&T broadband customers now on U-Verse. AT&T credits the strong growth to AT&T’s "Project Velocity IP," a U-Verse expansion effort
that has AT&T filling in U-Verse deployments in areas previously blocked by various reasons (like in San Francisco, where the city fought against ugly VRAD cabinet placement
). In the announcement AT&T reiterated plans to offer 75 and 100 Mbps speed tiers sometime down the road.
said by silbaco:That's exactly what they meant. Cable technology will end up winning out against U-Verse in the end.
They worded it pretty badly, but I think they meant U-Verse now accounts for 60% of At&t's total broadband subscribers.
Told ya: AT&T U-verse telco broadband strategy vs. Verizon FIOS A few years ago, EVERYONE in this forum was saying AT&T's U-verse strategy of starting from their copper base and moving up was a terrible strategic choice vs. Verizon FIOS' all-in-on-fiber strategy. I was the only one saying, wait a minute, maybe they have the right strategy.
I'm here to say, told you so. According to latest reports, FIOS has less than 60% of the subs that U-verse has. And FIOS is flat, no more expansion, while U-verse continues to grow.
AT&T's strategy of starting with what they had, producing a "good enough" service that was not capital-intensive, then growing that service's speed and reach, ended up winning. And they clearly have more room to go, squeezing out 75 and 100 Mb/sec service over copper, and having all but the "last loop" firmly entrenched for the eventual build-out of FTTH/FTTC solutions. By contrast, FIOS shot their wad on expensive fiber deployments and found that model unsustainable.
So, now, I see everyone forgetting that their previous predictions were wrong, and next up is Cable DOCSIS x.x as the new telco knockout contender. Well, maybe, but don't count AT&T out of the race like you did last time. They are already planning rollout of gigabit fiber here in Austin.
Re: Told ya: AT&T U-verse telco broadband strategy vs. Verizon FIOS Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Verizon ran out of capital and corporate will to keep on their fiber-only expansion, and you could have seen it coming. Good enough and cheap enough usually wins.
I personally am happy that cable is exploiting their coax plant to deliver very high speed wired broadband to homes. I'm personally a customer of TWC 50/5 service, not AT&T's 24/3 U-verse that isn't always 24/3 if you have multiple HD video streams running over their TV service (been there, done that), and I'm eagerly waiting to see who delivers the next speed bump and I'll jump on that.
But for the market as a whole, U-verse is good enough and cheap enough. And the numbers show it.
Re: Told ya: AT&T U-verse telco broadband strategy vs. Verizon FIOS "Verizon running out of capital? HAHAHA. Verizon makes a crapload of money. They could afford to go 100% FIOS tomorrow if they wanted to."
I meant this in the context of FIOS, not Verizon as a whole. For the FIOS project, the capex required to expand was providing much smaller returns to Verizon than if they invested that capex elsewhere (e.g. wireless). Therefore they made a business decision to stop FIOS expansion. I obviously did not mean that Verizon as a corporation was running out of money.
And my point is, thinking people (like me) saw this coming a mile away.
"The limiting factor is literally how fast Corning can supply them with glass fiber."
ummm, WHAT? There is no shortage of optical fiber media from Corning. And even if there were, that's not why Verizon stopped expansion.
"Pretty much everyone I've talked to, even people who don't know much about tech know that FIOS is the best thing ever, and that U-Verse sucks."
That epitomizes my point. "I think U-verse sucks, so does everyone I've talked to, therefore it's going to fail in the market." Um, no. That's not how it works. You have to actually do some thoughtful market analysis. You have to set aside your own biases and realize you do not represent the target market.
Will the sweet spot of the target market move upwards? Sure it will, and probably pretty fast. Who is better positioned to move upwards in speed across their current footprint, and to expand into new footprints? Verizon, who has literally stopped FIOS expansion because they didn't get decent ROI from it, but has the fiber-to-the-home technology? Or, U-verse, who is actively expanding on their copper base, has already increased speeds almost 3x since their initial rollout and is about to do another 2x increase on top of that using pair bonding, and who is positioned to move from FTTN to FTTH by selectively laying the "last 2000 feet" of fiber from their nodes to the homes? The "selectively" part of that is important. They can pick and choose which brownfield copper deployments get upgraded to fiber, as opposed to FIOS which is fiber-only.
U-verse has left FIOS in its rear-view mirror and is now free to concentrate on cable and emerging fiber as its next challenges. And I called it. Admit it, I'm right.
Re: Told ya: AT&T U-verse telco broadband strategy vs. Verizon FIOS The problem is that the investors are too childish to think more than a quarter or two ahead. Fiber is a great investment, but it's a 30 year investment, not a year investment. They easily could have afforded to do a 100% FIOS build out, contingent on Corning making enough fiber, and done the upgrades that they didn't do on their wireless network by increasing site density so that they wouldn't be in the clogged Band 13 mess that they're in now.
So AT&T grabs a bunch of subs, and they leave for cable in a year or two because AT&T's horrible kludge of a POS system can't deliver them the upgrades they want. Average joe doesn't know a VRAD from DOCSIS, but does know when his service is slow, can't be upgraded, and it doesn't look very good on his new 80" TV from Costco.
The IP platform is a good idea, to be forward thinking, but the fiber HAS to go to the house in order to be successful in the long run, as they need the 1gbps speeds in order to deliver a compelling service. If they had done that, coupled with IPTV, they could have been far more successful, and not only offered the fastest, highest quality service, but also have by far the most channels, since with IPTV, there's not really any limit to the number of channels you can carry...
Re: Told ya: AT&T U-verse telco broadband strategy vs. Verizon FIOS The point is not whether it's good enough for you. The point is whether it's good enough to win in the market. Look, I personally use cable for Internet because it's cheaper/faster/better than U-verse, although if AT&T comes through with gigabit fiber to my house I'd certainly jump on that. But I know what I am, a high-end tech guy who needs the speed. That doesn't mean the market as a whole needs and is willing to pay for that. If I were in a FIOS area I'd probably be using it too.
You can't extrapolate yourself and people like you and me, a small part of the market, to the whole market. I'm just here to say i was right when I said AT&T would end up beating Verizon in the telco wired broadband space, and you all were wrong when you said AT&T was stupid for not going fiber-only like FIOS did. Sometimes the tortoise beats the hare. And I called it.
BTW a similar thing applies to the high-speed wireless cellular market. Verizon went all-LTE and neglected upgrading their base 4G capability. AT&T went for upgrades of 4G and a less aggressive rollout of LTE. Result -- AT&T is now set for reasonably high speed in most areas and full out LTE that's a bit faster than Verizon, with fallback to pretty good speed 4G. Verizon by contrast is now getting slammed because when their LTE is overloaded they fall back to a much lower speed.