AT&T has released the company's third quarter earnings, which show AT&T saw a net income of $3.8 billion on revenues of $32.2 billion. AT&T added 989,000 wireless subscribers in the third quarter, 363,000 postpaid, Still, just 178,000 of those were smartphone additions suggesting a saturated market and continued price pressure from T-Mobile. The company also sold a record 6.7 million smartphones during the quarter. AT&T's CFO hinted at as much in the company's earnings conference call, suggesting the company is seeing pressure from "price-sensitive" customers.
Still, existing customers remain quite profitable, with wireless revenues rising 5.1% on the quarter to $17.5 billion with wireless service profit margins at 42%. According to AT&T, 30% of the company's Mobile Share accounts have been choosing allotments of 10 GB or higher.
On the wireline side of the equation, AT&T stated that the company now passes (not serves) 10 million homes with U-Verse.
The company added 265,000 U-Verse TV customers and 655,000 U-Verse Internet customers on the quarter. Still, the company saw a net loss of 26,000 broadband customers because of the departure of DSL customers in un-upgraded markets. AT&T stated the company's new 45 Mbps tier now covers two-thirds of their U-Verse footprint, though as we've recently noted many of those customers still may not be able to get the tier.
178K Additions likely due to market sat than anything else
More than likely due to market saturation than price pressure from T-Mobile. Only time will tell for sure, but one thing is obvious - if T-Mobile was aggressively stealing customers from T or VZW the price war would have already suited up much quicker.
You're technically correct. But the power of the market might mean you're simultaneously wrong. Plenty of technically challenged people have their cable TV boxes set to 4:3 standard definition mode and their TV stretches it out to fill the screen. Plenty of people listen to 128Kbps .mp3 copies of songs, 3Mbps "HD" YouTube, overcompressed satellite "HD," or even Comcast's 3 HD in 1 QAM or even 4-in-1 "HD."
"Passed" != active subscriber. Also, a significant number of those (probably around 1/3) are IPDSLAM/ADSL2+ and thus not eligible for TV service even if they wanted it and are a Uverse internet customer.
Thus, of the 10M passed, only some % are subscribers of any Uverse service, only a percentage of those are eligible for TV service, and only a percentage of those actually subscribe to the TV service. So no, there are not 10M users with poor Uverse picture quality.
so in the picture they advertise like they already have gigabit in austin texas, so basically that means the 2/3rds upgrade to 45mbps is false and fiber to multi-tennant buildings means they have vdsl (if even) and they are advertising all u-verse like its all fiber, which in reality almost none of it is
Cities will mostly have cable, which typically seems superior. Rural areas Att DSL is frequently the only choice anyway. Sounds like they just plan on upgrading whatever portion of their DSL network is profitable, let the remaining DSL users wither away and do whatever they can to expand wireless profits.
I know of an area where At&t is expanding Uverse like crazy and it is in areas that are suburban and rural but they are close to the DFW metroplex and close enough to be considered dense enough population wise for At&t to deploy Uverse FTTN VDSL2 to. My aunt just got Uverse availability about a month ago and at first they were showing only 3Mbps as the max speed and then they bumped it up to 18Mbps max with TV and phone offered. Currently she has 6Mbps POTS ADSL. My aunt's neighborhood got 45Mbps from the get go along with the standard 18Mbps max if you are too far away from the VRAD.
Ouch, yeah, it sounds like very little expansion of wireline services to new areas will be happening in the near future without government subsidies. I'm in a somewhat rural area (3 miles from a small town) served by Att DSL anxious to see if I'll make the cut. I keep an eye on LTE services, maybe someday years from now they'll have caps competitive with DSL (150 GB for att). At least LTE is competitive or better for bandwidth and latency now.
They are building out U-Verse in many areas of Ohio. Fremont, OH- has 20,000 people has full blown U-Verse (TV, HSI,VoIP), Fostoria (10-20k) has IPDSL and U-verse is currently being put in to handle TV now as well. Many of the more "rural" areas are seeing upgrades, they're slow and just down farther on the list. But with all things AT&T does they do not announce where they are expanding. Hell your area could have IPDSL now and just not have it turned up.
I've been a customer of AT&T uverse for almost a year and for the most part have been very satisfied with it. I have their u200 tv package with their 24/3 internet speed tier. The comparison I'm using is Time Warner Cable.
1. User interface (program guide) is much faster and sleeker.
2. Channels change much faster.
3. Internet is reliable (being with 600 feet of the VRAD helps).
4. Availability of streaming apps, is much better than compared to Time Warner.
5.Total home DVR is definitely nice. It's great to watch one show in the bedroom & finish it in the living room.
1. Only 3 HD streams/1 SD stream can be used (not a big deal at my place since I only have 2 TVs & there's multiple airings of the same show on cable networks and East/West feed of certain channels definitely help, along with uverse app).
2. Picture quality isn't quite as good as Time Warner Cable, but isn't so horrible that I wouldn't watch (expectations were lowered). I mostly watch sports so there isn't much issues with "confetti" effects, so it meets my satisfaction standards.
3. Internet Data Cap is 250 gigs, but a) I've haven't come close to using that much b)AFAIK the data cap still isn't being enforced.
unless fiber gets on your block and is within dsl distance/qc limitations you get nothing at high prices. as for wireless, 2/3 of their customers are on PREPAID, which is to day customers don't trust the company to provide contracted services in post paid. Verizon has much more POSTPAID customers and nearly has the same amount of ROI as AT&T and is MORE profitable despite at&t having more wireless customers.
some of these defections are from Sprint and the newly minted Tmobile/MetroPCS merger. Customers were EXPECTING LOWER PRICES.. not a marketing blitz on NO CONTRACT CELLULAR AT THE SAME PRICES!! That's like gas stations spending millions to advertise $4 a gallon gasoline... nobody cares!! Only those who absolutely need the product will buy it at those prices!! Customers wanted competition, not deflated competition and consolidation that leaves prices intact and if anything puts the unlimited plans under squeezed margins of worse QOS, unless you pay more money. Seriously, a data plan w/ 500mb of data at 4g/lte is really a 3g plan in the $40 - $50 pricetag range. It SHOULD be in the $20 - $25 range, IMO.