# How does AT&T Uverse compare to D*?



## bradpr (Sep 8, 2007)

AT&T recently made their Uverse service available in my area. I've had a tenuous experience with D* and am considering dumping them for Uverse. 

Can anyone here give me your opinions of the service - channel selection, PPV/On demand options, HD programming, impact on available bandwidth for DSL, etc...

Thanks!


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

The good:

- It's cheap
- Internet speed is good

The bad:

- Infrastructure was designed for a max of 4 SD streams (the equivalent of tuners) for the entire house. TV bandwidth is fixed and not expandable. Compression was increased to allow 1 HD and 3 SD channels, and then 2 HD and 2 SD channels. There are plans to compress even further to allow 3 HD/1 SD, but there are already complaints about the PQ now. People want HD, and they want multiple tuners, and Uverse can't deliver both due to the decision to go FTTN (Fiber To The Node, meaning to a box in the neighborhood) instead of FTTH (Fiber To The House) like Verizon.

- The DVR is not great and has a tiny storage capacity, and can't currently be upgraded. DirecTV's DVRs are generations more advanced.

In my area, Uverse has gotten a lot of new subscribers, mainly from cable customers. But we do have customers who leave sat for Uverse, and a lot of them come back. Out of 13 jobs my company did yesterday, 3 were Uverse reconnects.


----------



## jimmyv2000 (Feb 15, 2007)

*You will be sorry* my brother on the left coast has it and he says it sucks
The PQ isn't great even on a 26 inch HD set
Stay with D*  You will be much better off


----------



## Xalky (Nov 10, 2008)

I agree with IIP except for thae cheap part. 

I'm a long time DTV subscriber, but I wanted to save a few bucks so I had u-verse installed but I chose not to disconnect my DTV till I could compare the two.

The AT&T sd picture is a little better than DTVs sd. DTVs HD is superior to At&ts HD. But I probably could have lived with that. The problem came when you're trying to watch 2 live HD streams or record 2 HD shows and watch 3 sd live shows. You cant'do it. There's only one dvr, you can watch shows recorded on that dvr in any other room, but what they won't tell ya is that you can't set shows to record from any of the other rooms. You have to physically record shows from the DVR location.

With DTV you don't have those kinds of system limits. If you have 10 HD tuners in the house they can all be on HD at the same time... 

Theres 5 TVs in my house. 2HDdvrs, 1 sd dvr, 2 hd STBs. Thats a total of 8 tuners. Many times all 8 of those tuners are on either recording or being watched live.

DTvs DVRs are second to none.

I was gonna keep At&t because it was a little cheaper. So I called DTV to cancel and they made me a deal I couldn't refuse to stay. So now I have superior DTV at a great price. I'm Happy.

30 day Money back guarantee on At&ts service meant no skin off my back.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

bradpr said:


> AT&T recently made their Uverse service available in my area. I've had a tenuous experience with D* and am considering dumping them for Uverse.
> 
> Can anyone here give me your opinions of the service - channel selection, PPV/On demand options, HD programming, impact on available bandwidth for DSL, etc...
> 
> Thanks!


Have U-verse installed at your house, leaving Directv completely untouched. Then later that day, simply call Directv and suspend your account. Then you can test out U-verse for a while and see if you like it. If you do, cancel Directv at that time. If not, call Directv, restart the service, and call and have U-verse yanked.

Frankly, if your a one tv household, probably won't make to much difference... if you are like me and have 6 HD DVRs... U-verse is a no go. Period.


----------



## bradpr (Sep 8, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Have U-verse installed at your house, leaving Directv completely untouched. Then later that day, simply call Directv and suspend your account. Then you can test out U-verse for a while and see if you like it. If you do, cancel Directv at that time. If not, call Directv, restart the service, and call and have U-verse yanked.
> 
> Frankly, if your a one tv household, probably won't make to much difference... if you are like me and have 6 HD DVRs... U-verse is a no go. Period.


Great advice. I have 1 HD DVR and 1 HD receiver.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Go to an AT&T owned/company store, they usually have a U-Verse set up there so you can play with it and see what it looks like. I was not impressed with the HD that I saw.


----------



## ansky (Oct 11, 2005)

bradpr said:


> AT&T recently made their Uverse service available in my area. I've had a tenuous experience with D* and am considering dumping them for Uverse.


You're posting this on a D* message board. Of course everyone is going to say D* is better.


----------



## drded (Aug 23, 2006)

Check out the channels you watch and the prices for the tiers that have them. You will probably not find U-verse to be competitive. The DVR also does not have RF remote, which means you need to be in front of the unit to do anything.

A nice feature is the Multi-Room-Viewing. If you have multiple receivers you can watch something recorded on the DVR in any of the rooms.

Judge for yourself the costs, picture quality, and convenience.

Dave


----------



## Captain Spaulding (Jul 12, 2005)

RAD said:


> Go to an AT&T owned/company store, they usually have a U-Verse set up there so you can play with it and see what it looks like. I was not impressed with the HD that I saw.


I had the same experience here in Ohio. The AT&T store had Uverse running on two high end Samsung plasma sets. The HD picture was just awful. It looked like a badly transferred DVD (and that's being kind). I'm amazed that more people don't notice, but perhaps they're just not as picky and are looking at price only. I love my DirecTV and will not change to Uverse at any price.


----------



## bradpr (Sep 8, 2007)

ansky said:


> You're posting this on a D* message board. Of course everyone is going to say D* is better.


I didn't see a "Thinking about switching from D* to Uverse" board on this site, so this seemed like a reasonable place to ask the question.

Some people here are capable of giving an honest opinion, so at a minimum, I'll get some opinions. Speaking of...*do you have one*, or are you just going to comment on where I choose to post my questions???


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

bradpr said:


> I didn't see a "Thinking about switching from D* to Uverse" board on this site, so this seemed like a reasonable place to ask the question.
> 
> Some people here are capable of giving an honest opinion, so at a minimum, I'll get some opinions. Speaking of...*do you have one*, or are you just going to comment on where I choose to post my questions???


+1


----------



## Glen_D (Oct 21, 2006)

U-Verse advertising emphasizes their "no commitment - no contract" policy, so it probably wouldn't hurt to try it alongside your current service. In my area, they sometimes have cash-back promotions for first-time customers that run anywhere from $50-$200, depending on the package.

One thing that made me reluctant to give U-Verse a try was the switch last year from Music Choice to Urge Radio.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

I got it last June and kept DTV at the same time. The SD was the same but thr HD is very bad. The internet and voice over IP work very good. After the 30 free uverse TV I droped the TV and kept the rest. That works well as ATT will not hook up uverse without the TV, now I have the faster internet.


----------



## bradpr (Sep 8, 2007)

PCampbell said:


> I got it last June and kept DTV at the same time. The SD was the same but thr HD is very bad. The internet and voice over IP work very good. After the 30 free uverse TV I droped the TV and kept the rest. That works well as ATT will not hook up uverse without the TV, now I have the faster internet.


Interesting - so, do all devices connect to your LAN and share a single interface through the DSL modem, or does each device have a copper connection and have dedicated bandwidth?

I'm looking for a good technical description of how this all works.


----------



## Xalky (Nov 10, 2008)

bradpr said:


> Interesting - so, do all devices connect to your LAN and share a single interface through the DSL modem, or does each device have a copper connection and have dedicated bandwidth?
> 
> I'm looking for a good technical description of how this all works.


Yes, everything connects thru a DSL modem/router. Each device ,stb/dvr, is connected to the router via either coax or cat5 network. The router determines which device needs the most bandwidth much like a computer network router. If your drawing full bore bandwidth via tvs, say 2hd/2 sd feeds simultaneously, your dsl computer connection will slow to a crawl. This is because your allocated 25 mbps total max for all devices ie:tv/phone/ internet. It all runs thru ip addresses each device is assigned an ip address and is treated like a seperate computer would be on a network.

The farther away you are from the node, which is the central swiitching neighborhood box, the more problems you will encounter. They won't normally install past 2500' from the node to your house as available bandwidth drops off tremendously over distance.

I hope that explains things.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

The ATT website has a good technical description of both of there systems, fiber to node (most common) and fiber to home. Also note the system is just a big DSL and dose not send all channels of TV at once, only the channel being watched.


----------



## Xalky (Nov 10, 2008)

PCampbell said:


> The ATT website has a good technical description of both of there systems, fiber to node (most common) and fiber to home. Also note the system is just a big DSL and dose not send all channels of TV at once, only the channel being watched.


That is correct. It's sorta like a hyperlink. First you request it and then it sends it. That happens quickly though. I never had an issue waiting for channels to appear when I had it.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

The very fast channel change is nice but the poor HD is a killer for me.


----------



## kokishin (Sep 30, 2006)

This seems to be happening a lot because U-verse provides very good HS internet but is a less than mediocre HDTV provider.



PCampbell said:


> I got it last June and kept DTV at the same time. The SD was the same but thr HD is very bad. The internet and voice over IP work very good. After the 30 free uverse TV I droped the TV and kept the rest. That works well as ATT will not hook up uverse without the TV, now I have the faster internet.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

dont know too much about U-verse, based on the post's above everyone hates it, but i do know FiOS is amazing..   
pure uncompressed picture and 50meg download speeds !! 

move to a fios area my friend lol.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

There is a podcast I heard from another DBS site that stated that U-vers has DRM on it's recordings.

The speaker on the pod cast stated that service was down. 

He decided to watch a recording but it couldn't connect to the server to verify the rights so it would play.

The podcast also said that he could only watch one HD stream at a time. If someone in another room was watching it would give a message asking if you wanted to disconnect the other viewer. 

I don't know if it's still that way. The podcast was from the begining of this year.

Mike


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

I like uverse I dont like there HD. If ATT would use the fiber to home it could kick butt. Directv with uverse internet for VOD is a great way to go.
You can now get two HD streams at the same time but it is way over compressed.


----------



## andy2356 (Dec 30, 2007)

I was very interested in U-Verse but when it finally came here, I could not get it on my street. I did, however, visit an AT&T store and play with it awhile. I have DirecTV and the U-Verse HD PQ did not measure up to DirecTV's on a similar size screen. However, the set in the store was Samsung and mine at home is a Sony Bravia, which likely was comparable. I did not check the SD at all. Since I've had DirecTV for over 11 years and AT&T DSL for about 5 years, I would be very interested in the U-Verse internet when/if it ever becomes available to me. The only positive in my comparison was the speed with which the U-Verse channels changed.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

bradpr said:


> AT&T recently made their Uverse service available in my area. I've had a tenuous experience with D* and am considering dumping them for Uverse.
> 
> Can anyone here give me your opinions of the service - channel selection, PPV/On demand options, HD programming, impact on available bandwidth for DSL, etc...
> 
> Thanks!


Stay with D. The service is so so. But their recievers are extremly slow flipping channels. You won't URGE their music servive. I had U-verse for 3 weeks. I'm back with Dish. However the U-verse Internet part is great.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

ansky said:


> You're posting this on a D* message board. Of course everyone is going to say D* is better.


Not true at all. FiOS, Verizon's fiber service, with is FTTH, can provide more bandwidth, and thus has slightly better picture than DirecTV can provide.

For someone who posted earlier that FiOS was "uncompressed", that's false. All HD video is compressed. The only question is: "how much"? The answer lies in how much total bandwidth is available. In order to fit more channels in the same bandwidth, a higher compression rate has to be used, and because this is "lossy" compression, it means that more data has to be thrown away in order to reduce the filesize. The total number of colors are reduced, washing out the picture quality, and even more noticable, more macroblocking occurs in scenes were lots of frame-to-frame movement is happening.

FiOS has the most bandwidth available out of all the services.
DirecTV is next, followed by Dish, with Uverse last.

Note that you can't really rank cable, because each local franchise has its own head-end equipment, so what is true in one town, or even neighborhood, may not apply to the next one over.

As I said before, Uverse was spec'ed out for 4 streams of standard def TV. In order to fit HD signals down the same pipe, they had to choose between reducing the number of streams, or increase the rate of compression. They choose the latter. They've increased compression again to offer 2 HD and 2 SD streams, and are talking about going to 3 HD/1 SD, but haven't done it yet because there have been a lot of complaints about low PQ.

There are plenty of articles online about Uverse, its limited bandwidth due to choosing the FTTN over FTTH strategy, and the affects on its PQ. Regardless of what service the folks here use, the facts are the facts.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

PCampbell said:


> The ATT website has a good technical description of both of there systems, fiber to node (most common) and fiber to home. Also note the system is just a big DSL and dose not send all channels of TV at once, only the channel being watched.


Ah. That's why channel surfing was slow.


----------



## GBFAN (Nov 13, 2006)

In my neighborhood they are using FTTN. You then get the same old copper wire to the house that your current phone service resides. Needless to say, this old copper wire is not ideal for carrying TV.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

IIP said:


> For someone who posted earlier that FiOS was "uncompressed", that's false. All HD video is compressed. The only question is: "how much"?


Correct - I believe Verizon has stopped with their 'uncompressed video' ads. I like my FiOS service, but I believed that statement bordered on false advertizing. What they're really saying is that they themselves don't do any additional compression. Wherever possible, they pass the signal as they receive it. The only exception to this is with channels that are transmitted in mpeg4 (e.g. the HBO HD channels). Since FiOS is all mpeg2, they have to convert the mpeg4 feeds to mpeg2. In all other cases, though, they pass the signal un-messed with.

You're correct - their bandwidth allows them to do this. MPEG-2 HD video peaks at ~19.4 Mbps. A single QAM channel can handle data at a rate of ~40Mbps. Verizon carries 2 HD channels per QAM channel, allowing them to carry those channels without having to do any additional compression. Comcast, in comparison, puts 3 HD channels per QAM channel for most of their national HD channels, resulting in degraded PQ.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I've seen Fios... its not any better picture than Directv....

Fios however seems to be more consistent across markets than U-verse, from what I have read in terms of feedback. I still suggest trying it out and then deciding...


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Fios however seems to be more consistent across markets than U-verse, from what I have read in terms of feedback.


Any inconsistencies you see lie with the users, not with the services. Because of the design of each service, you're getting the same PQ as everyone else, regardless of your location. The *vast* majority of people simply don't know how to judge PQ.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Any inconsistencies you see lie with the users, not with the services. Because of the design of each service, you're getting the same PQ as everyone else, regardless of your location. The *vast* majority of people simply don't know how to judge PQ.


Sorry, but I'm confused by what your eluding to, so I need some clarification. It sounds like you just said that the picture quality between Fios, U-verese, Directv, Dish, and all the cable companies is the same. Is that what you mean?

I very much know how to judge pic quality, and there are differences among providers.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Sorry, but I'm confused by what your eluding to, so I need some clarification. It sounds like you just said that the picture quality between Fios, U-verese, Directv, Dish, and all the cable companies is the same. Is that what you mean?


No, not at all. I'm saying that PQ for U-verse in Town A is the same as PQ for U-verse in Town B. Same with FiOS.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Jeremy W said:



> No, not at all. I'm saying that PQ for U-verse in Town A is the same as PQ for U-verse in Town B. Same with FiOS.


Ok... I agree with that... I'd say the only thing that might offer an exception in terms of PQ that may vary from market to market is the local channels, because I don't know if some send a feed via fiber directly to them or if they are like Diretcv, and pick it up OTA and then compress it themselves. Any Idea? Even that would be a minuscule difference.. and based more on the local station than ATT's system.

But the main thing I am referring to in differences in markets is offerings, and speed on the internet part...


----------



## narrod (Jul 26, 2007)

bradpr said:


> AT&T recently made their Uverse service available in my area. I've had a tenuous experience with D* and am considering dumping them for Uverse.
> 
> Can anyone here give me your opinions of the service - channel selection, PPV/On demand options, HD programming, impact on available bandwidth for DSL, etc...
> 
> Thanks!


AT&T was purchased by SBC. I retired from SBC and have alot of respect and loyalty to the company so take my comments with this in mind.

Uverse is not ready for primetime. We always rolled out products before they were technically ready for the market. The goal was to get revenue flowing as quickly as possible and correct the problems along the way. If Uverse follows the normal pattern it will, in time, be an excellent product. Now is not that time.

Being a retiree I expect them to roll out a nicely priced program for us. Regardless of the cost I will be staying away from it until I know the product is fully cooked. Until then I will stay with DirecTv. In time, I will make the transition.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Uverse and Directv work very well for me, I do not see them getting the HD correct until they go fiber to home. I am only 1000 feed form the vrad but it is a copper pair that I dont think will ever handle the bandwith needed for HD. As for the rest of uverse it works well here and I like the internet.


----------



## narrod (Jul 26, 2007)

PCampbell said:


> Uverse and Directv work very well for me, I do not see them getting the HD correct until they go fiber to home. I am only 1000 feed form the vrad but it is a copper pair that I dont think will ever handle the bandwith needed for HD. As for the rest of uverse it works well here and I like the internet.


AT&T is not going to take fiber to the home. Their IP solution is cheaper to deploy.
Copper can handle the necessary bandwidth as long as drops aren't to long. I'm not convinced IP is the way to go. FIOS is a better solution but more expensive to deploy.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

To bad they will not take fiber to the home, that should work very well.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

narrod said:


> AT&T is not going to take fiber to the home. Their IP solution is cheaper to deploy.
> Copper can handle the necessary bandwidth as long as drops aren't to long. I'm not convinced IP is the way to go. FIOS is a better solution but more expensive to deploy.


But in the long run I wonder how much cheaper it will be? There's all those VRAD's that need to be maintained, they need to pay for the electric bill to power them and some cities are asking for compensation for landscaping to hide them in neighborhoods. Then they need to do upgrades to support more bandwidth, like pair bonding which is supposed to happen one of these days. Plus when you start talking about getting outside of the city centers the distance betweens homes starts to grow so more VRAD's are needed to be deployed to keep the distance down. IMHO their decision to go this route will come back and bite them in the a** and they'll end up with FTTP like FIOS eventually.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

Fios, Copper wire, all those data connections to every house. I am worried. reminds me of


----------



## narrod (Jul 26, 2007)

RAD said:


> But in the long run I wonder how much cheaper it will be? There's all those VRAD's that need to be maintained, they need to pay for the electric bill to power them and some cities are asking for compensation for landscaping to hide them in neighborhoods. Then they need to do upgrades to support more bandwidth, like pair bonding which is supposed to happen one of these days. Plus when you start talking about getting outside of the city centers the distance betweens homes starts to grow so more VRAD's are needed to be deployed to keep the distance down. IMHO their decision to go this route will come back and bite them in the a** and they'll end up with FTTP like FIOS eventually.


I agree that FIOS is a better solution. They simply did not want to make the capital commitment. I don't believe they will change platforms but, I guess, you never know for sure.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

FTTN allows them to roll-out large areas at one time where FTTP requires much more 'ground-work' to bring on-line. Right now they appear to be concentrating on maximum market penetration and not necessarily HD. As a matter of fact, my in-laws are slated for installation in January and the AT&T rep actually is trying to talk them out of signing up for the HD service. He told them that when they see the quality of the normal digital signal, they may decide they don't even want the HD package.
It may actually turn out to be a smart business decision when all is said and done. If they can build a large enough customer base on the FTTN service, they can then begin to go back and 'update' the more affluent areas with the FTTP service and charge a premium for it.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

BattleScott said:


> As a matter of fact, my in-laws are slated for installation in January and the AT&T rep actually is trying to talk them out of signing up for the HD service. He told them that when they see the quality of the normal digital signal, they may decide they don't even want the HD package.


That rep is simply downplaying the weaknesses of the system; almost everyone who is *changing* providers today wants HD, but Uverse's HD is lousy and slated to get worse. Lots of customers switch to Uverse and switch back after a week or two due to low HD quality. The rep is trying to save the sale by selling SD only, so that expectations can be managed.

That's like trying to sell someone a Ferarri but recommending that they don't go over 55 MPH in it, "for their own good." What's the point?


----------



## paja (Oct 23, 2006)

I don't where some of the responders live but in suburban Chicago,where I live, my U-verse hd is the same quality as the DISH hd I had. And what is even better is that the sd stations are much better than the DISH sd. Plus I'm getting many more stations, especially movie channels. I get 51 pay stations, 39 in hd. DISH can't come close. I don't have any problem with switching channels, it is just as fast as DISH or DIRECT(which I had before DISH). And NO dropouts during storms.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

IIP said:


> but Uverse's HD is lousy and slated to get worse.


How's it planned to get worse? In what ways? and when?

Thanks...


----------



## Albie (Jan 26, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> How's it planned to get worse? In what ways? and when?
> 
> Thanks...


Rather curious about this myself. The only way I can imagine that it would get worse is if they hard allocate more bandwidth to the internet only, or they try to run the streams to 3HD 1 SD.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

IIP said:


> That rep is simply downplaying the weaknesses of the system; almost everyone who is *changing* providers today wants HD, but Uverse's HD is lousy and slated to get worse. Lots of customers switch to Uverse and switch back after a week or two due to low HD quality. The rep is trying to save the sale by selling SD only, so that expectations can be managed.
> 
> That's like trying to sell someone a Ferarri but recommending that they don't go over 55 MPH in it, "for their own good." What's the point?


That is the point I was making. I think they are trying to capture a chunk of the market from non-hd service customers. Then after they have a significant presence, they can begin to push more upscale HD products out to areas that are will to pay extra for higher quality FTTR service.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> How's it planned to get worse? In what ways? and when?





Albie said:


> The only way I can imagine that it would get worse is if they hard allocate more bandwidth to the internet only, or they try to run the streams to 3HD 1 SD.


That's exactly what's going to be happening. They want to get up to 3 HD streams, and the only way to do that is to further compress the HD channels.

As far as when, I seem to remember reading that it would be early next year.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> That's exactly what's going to be happening. They want to get up to 3 HD streams, and the only way to do that is to further compress the HD channels.
> 
> As far as when, I seem to remember reading that it would be early next year.


Are they using MEPG-2 or MPEG-4?


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

They are going to MEPG-4 but as they add HD streams it needs more bandwidth. If you only have uverse the HD PQ looks good untill you see Directv. My buddy with uverse came over last Sunday saw my picture and could not beleave how much better it is.


----------



## ClubSteeler (Sep 27, 2005)

There are a few advantages to Uverse.

You only need 1 DVR because you can watch recorded content on any TV in your house from that one DVR. And that one DVR can record something like 4 shows at the same time.

You can bundle TV, Internet, and phone, and the cost includes equipment including the wireless router. I believe internet is $30 and phone is $30 if you have TV.

Now this I can not confirm, but I read a forum posting that said that if you have wireless, all of your set-top-boxes can link up to eachother wirelessly. Therefore, all additional boxes in your house can be set up without wires (other than the wire from the box to the tv)...??? So no need for coax or cat5 runs to the bedrooms. Not sure if that is true or not.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Boxs are connected with cat5. The DVR only holds about 40 hr of HD, not much for a whole home use. The price is good for now.


----------



## elaclair (Jun 18, 2004)

ClubSteeler said:


> There are a few advantages to Uverse.
> 
> You only need 1 DVR because you can watch recorded content on any TV in your house from that one DVR. And that one DVR can record something like 4 shows at the same time.


But if you're recording 4 shows, they have to be in SD. Most areas are still 1HD/3SD streams, a growing number of areas are 2HD/2SD streams. And that's total active at one time. In other words, if you're watching an HD stream on two TVs, then anything else you watch or record will be have to be SD, and you can only record 2 shows while you're watching those other two.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> How's it planned to get worse? In what ways? and when?


As I mentioned twice on this thread already, Uverse will be increasing the compression of its HD programming again, in order to fit 3 HD and 1 SD streams into the bandwidth that was designed for 4 SD streams. They are currently at 2 HD and 2 SD.

Article here:

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/09/22/atandt-will-increase-hd-compression-on-u-verse/

"The (potentially) bad news is that comes with the price of additional compression, as AT&T's IPTV service squeezes its MPEG-4 video streams down to 5 Mbps from a current size of 6-8 Mbps, according to CTO John Donovan."


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Are they using MEPG-2 or MPEG-4?


They use MPEG4 AVC, just like DirecTV.


----------



## BLWedge09 (Jan 6, 2007)

I just got U-verse connected about a week ago and the HD is OK...not great...but I've seen much worse. The only major problems that I've seen so far were with very dark scenes during a showing of The Bourne Ultimatum. The encoders just couldn't quite handle a couple scenes properly. Other than that, it has been fine. Yes, at the present time, D*'s HD is better, but not quite by the leaps and bounds that some seem to think. On the other hand, I have been pleasantly surprised by the quality of SD channels on U-verse. Through my eyes, the few SD stations that I regularly watch (Comedy Central, etc.) look significantly better on U-verse than from D*.

For the record, I made the switch because I am an AT&T employee. My job has nothing to do with sales, outside techs, or even U-verse. I'm not here to defend it...just give my honest impressions. I loved D* and if U-verse wasn't available here, I'd jump back to it over anything else in a heartbeat.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

I did a side by side of the uverse and directv SD and I could not see any difference. With Two HD TVs and two DVRs we use more streams of HD than they can handle at this time.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Glen_D said:


> U-Verse advertising emphasizes their "no commitment - no contract" policy, so it probably wouldn't hurt to try it alongside your current service. In my area, they sometimes have cash-back promotions for first-time customers that run anywhere from $50-$200, depending on the package.
> 
> One thing that made me reluctant to give U-Verse a try was the switch last year from Music Choice to Urge Radio.


They charged me $177..00 for three weeks after I cancelled the junk...:nono2:


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

ClubSteeler said:


> There are a few advantages to Uverse.
> 
> You only need 1 DVR because you can watch recorded content on any TV in your house from that one DVR. And that one DVR can record something like 4 shows at the same time.
> 
> ...


No. The boxes have lights inside that pulsates, which was frustrating at night trying to sleep.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

ClubSteeler said:


> There are a few advantages to Uverse.
> 
> You only need 1 DVR because you can watch recorded content on any TV in your house from that one DVR. And that one DVR can record something like 4 shows at the same time.
> 
> ...


Their MRV advantage of Directv isn't going to last much longer... and being so limited on the amount of HD channels you can watch at any one time.. If your someone who only watches a little tv, it might be a great option.. but for me, its far inferior just because of the limitation of the number of HD channels you can have on in your house at any one time.

The only thing that is nice for them, they should only have to have one version of any channel, since all their boxes can receive all the channels and down convert outputs if necessary. Thats something Diretcv can't do at this time. That would free up TONS of bandwidth for Directv...


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> The only thing that is nice for them, they should only have to have one version of any channel, since all their boxes can receive all the channels and down convert outputs if necessary.


They still have separate SD and HD channels, and there's no reason not to. Since it's a pure IPTV system, they can have an unlimited number of channels.


----------



## SatelliteJim (Mar 3, 2006)

I've had Uverse since last April and really like it, though, to me DTV was and still is better. I think their HD is pretty good, certainly better than cable. Sometimes, I think it depends on the tv. I've got a Panasonic rear projection 47 in. screen and the HD comes in just fine. I've got the U-300 with 3 mbps internet and phone service and I pay about $170 a month for all. The only negative I have about Uverse is that they don't offer hardly any of the sports subscription pkg's, like Center Ice, NBA League Pass and, MLB Extra Innings. They do offer Game Plan and Full Court but, I'm quite disappointed over not being able to get the NHL. They don't even offer The NHL Network, though, it's rumored to be coming in the next set of HD additions. Those, according to the AT&T head guy himself, were supposed to be added about a week ago but, so far, nothing. I'm kind of torn over whether or not to switch to another provider to have the NHL or to stay with AT&T and see if they add it in the near future. 
Another bummer is their Sports Pack. You get most of the same channels with it as DTV offers but, there was really nothing to watch on it since any pro games on there are blacked out. Plus, alot of people in the Bay Area have complained because CSNBA is not offered by AT&T and they cannot watch their teams. But overall, Uverse is a good system and can only get better. I just hope it gets better sooner than later.


----------



## iDrewDogg (Jan 14, 2009)

Definitely disappointed in the follow points, which have been expressed already:

1) Cannot schedule DVR from non-DVR receivers. This is simply unacceptable. The boxes are obviously networked (NOT wireless btw... through the pre-wire). I can stream a DVR's recording to a non-DVR receiver but a simple back to set a record isn't available? Goodness.

2) Can only record/watch one HD channel at any time. In my area the door to door sales guy said 'record FOUR channels at the same time.' HD? 'Yes, 4 HD channels'. Nope... if I watch HD on one TV... go to another room and try to change to another HD channel... it prompts me to interrupt the other TV. This is just sad.

3) There should absolutely be the option (on ALL brand of DVR's) to do the insta-skip forward and back versus the fast forward/rewind option. Dish's quick skip I just can't live without... I really can't stand the scrolling way. The sales guy also called the skip 'instant'... it is not. Dish's IS.

4) Don't like the layout of the recording programs menu compared to Dish or DirectTV (when seeing/using other people's receivers that have it). This might be more than just preference... Dish's is much more intuitive.

5) No HD picture in picture... or pausing two channels at once on one TV... although I guess you can work it by recording the channels and then swtiching between, but it's much more of a hassle. And then you have remove the shows from your recorded library unless you want it to just roll off when the disk gets full. I'm too OCD for that.


There are some good things. 

1) Obviously the shared DVR in the house (which it seems like Dish/Direct could do with the existing prewire fairly easily).
2) Channels change very fast compared to Dish. Especially when switching between HD and SD.
3) When browsing other channels without using the guide... you can preview what the other channel is seeing and it does it smoothly. I thought that was slick.


I had (still have) the full Dish package: Everthing, all movies, plat HD, locals, whatever. I had 3 HD DVRs (2 were 2-tuner 622s or whatever). This compared to UVerse-400 is about $25 more a month more for Dish... and that's mostly because I was able to cancel my local landline phone, which I never use, but is required for Dish.

If I can get UVerse to give 2 DVRs... I might stay. Or if I can get Dish to take off $10-20 to handle the phone (or remove the phone requirement), I'll definitely go back to Dish.

Very happy and non-resentful with ATnT either way. Free 30 days is no skin off my back.

-Drew

-Drew


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

My sister has it and loves it. She has two hd TV'S and it looks good on her TV's. She has the Uverse Internet too and its pretty damn fast. I guess it's just a matter of choice. I have D* and I love it. I love the DRV's and I love the fact you can have multiple DVR's. As for my sister she loves the DVR for Uverse because she can record 4 programs at once and then watch them in her room with her regular HD box. It's a nice set up for her. 

People on here will put down Uverse alltogether and thats because this is a D* forum. In another thread I was saying how well my sister liked it and that the HD looked good. Someone posted that there was no way it could look as good as D*. I don't know which one is better,but her HD looked pretty good. It just amazes me how someone would post that. Like they've been to my sisters house and seen it. I would just go on the websites and check it out. Plus go to an AT&T store and really check it out. For me I chose D*. To each his own I guess.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

I like uverse internet and voice but the HD is a bad point, I have done a side by side of uverse and ditectv and there is a big difference in HD PQ. That is a fact not a put down. If you go th the uverse users forum you will see the same comments. As I said I like the uverse service and there customer support is great, thats why I kept the internet and voice they work very well!!!


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

drded said:


> A nice feature is the Multi-Room-Viewing. If you have multiple receivers you can watch something recorded on the DVR in any of the rooms.


Patience my yound Padawan, it will be there for DirecTv.....


----------



## Piratefan98 (Mar 11, 2008)

dodge boy said:


> Patience my yound Padawan, it will be there for DirecTv.....


"Soon", no doubt.

Or, at the very least, DirecTV will have the "capacity" to offer multi-room viewing. 

Jeff


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

The only good thing about Uverse now is the broadband download speed (not upload speed). I just found out they had made the 18M availabe so I called them to upgrade, they not only did so but said I would still pay the same price as the 10M I had.


----------



## mikhu (Oct 10, 2006)

U-verse recently rolled out in our area. Being curious about it I checked it out in depth. Between the technological issues and the fact that I would save at best $20/month for TV/Phone/Internet the switch wasn't worth it for me even if I was willing to give up NFLST.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Interesting thread.

My father lives in Detroit and currently has Comcast. He's probably going to switch to u-verse in a couple of weeks so I thought I'd look into it for him (D* is not an option for him).

In reading this thread, it appears that U-Verse would not be for me, but it is probably a good option for him.

He only has 1 TV (might be getting a second one for the basement, but they'll never both be watched at the same time - just him and his wife and she's not much of a TV watcher).
He doesn't record a lot of shows, so it's doubtful he'd need more than one HD stream at a time.
HD PQ might not be as good as D*, but it might be on par with Comcast that he currently has.
It'll save him a lot of money over his current Comcast arrangement.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> Interesting thread.
> 
> My father lives in Detroit and currently has Comcast. He's probably going to switch to u-verse in a couple of weeks so I thought I'd look into it for him (D* is not an option for him).
> 
> ...


My in-laws, both 70+, just had the full system installed. They seem to like it and it has some features that really work well for them. One is that the Channel changing (surfing, guide, key enter) is lightning fast. This is good for them as this is their first experience with a guide-based service and it is still a foreign concept to them. They just grab the handy channel listing and find the number they need to push in, or plain old surf up and down. Try as I might to push them into exploring the on-screen guide concept, I just don't know if I will be able to succeed. The recording capacity is much less, but I don't see that becoming an issue, EVER!
The bundling of the services also is very nice for them as it saves quite a few bucks, provides a very fast internet connection (that she is largely afraid of) and gives them a single point for support when they need it.
The HD offering, channel-wise, is equal to if not slightly better than D* although the PQ is slightly softer. To their eyes, however, it is crytal clear. The SD quality is significantly better than D*, which is good since without the guide they tend to tune the first number they find for a channel which is always the SD version. 
If D* is not an option, I would certainly recommned it, as a matter of fact, D* has some work to do in the next year to keep me from exploring the change for myself.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Thanks for the info Scott.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> I've seen Fios... its not any better picture than Directv....
> 
> Fios however seems to be more consistent across markets than U-verse, from what I have read in terms of feedback. I still suggest trying it out and then deciding...


My neighbor just switched from Direct to FiOS. Using the same TV with the same settings and same input, I can honestly say the FiOS pictures did look better, especially HD.


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

It's been more than 2 years since the last post. U-Verse is hitting my neighborhood with sales folks knocking on doors. Has U-Verse improved in the last two years? How is the HD quality today vs Directv?


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

HD is still less than Directv, but not bad on smaller TVs. Internet rocks and voice is OK.
DVR hard drive is much smaller than Directv.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I have never seen any indication that the number of HD streams has improved. Of course how many you get all depends on your location.

As the posters said a few years ago, the best thing to do is suspend your DirecTV account and try out Uverse for a while. That makes it much easier to switch back, then you can drop Uverse TV service and keep the Internet if it doesn't work out.


----------



## broeddog (Sep 12, 2009)

I had both installed in my new home because I was't sure I would be able to get LOS due to a large tree in the backyard. The internet is great the HD is no where near the quality of my direct signal. Side by side pictures D* kicks butt and I will be cancelling the the TV portion of uverse.


----------



## narrod (Jul 26, 2007)

I'm an AT&T retiree and can get uVerse. I've been with DirecTv for a dozen years. I'm still not convinced an IP based service is ready for prime time. There are still to many HD limitations regarding simultaneous streams. I would like to be loyal to my employer of 30 years. I use their voice, data and cell services but, not yet, their television service.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

I am now a U-verse subscriber. The HD is definitely below DirecTV quality, but ESPN 3D looks *much* better on U-verse than it does on DirecTV. Obviously this isn't something most people care about, especially since AT&T charges $10 extra per month for this one channel, but I just wanted to point it out.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

I will never put all my eggs in one basket. One misdirect shovel cut and I would be rocking back and forth in a dark corner of my house with my knees pulled to my chest.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

armophob said:


> I will never put all my eggs in one basket. One misdirect shovel cut and I would be rocking back and forth in a dark corner of my house with my knees pulled to my chest.


Whatever you do, don't ever go shoveling in a severe thunderstorm


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

Is U-Verse HD quality consistent across all areas, or does it depend where you live?


----------



## Kevin F (May 9, 2010)

jal said:


> Is U-Verse HD quality consistent across all areas, or does it depend where you live?


It can depend on where you live and how far away you live from the VRAD.


----------



## mis3 (Mar 4, 2010)

jal said:


> Is U-Verse HD quality consistent across all areas, or does it depend where you live?


It very much depends where you live, specifically, how close you are to the uverse VRAD (main neighborhood box). If you are too far away from that box, you will get lots of pixelating.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Kevin F said:


> It can depend on where you live and how far away you live from the VRAD.





mis3 said:


> It very much depends where you live, specifically, how close you are to the uverse VRAD (main neighborhood box). If you are too far away from that box, you will get lots of pixelating.


That's not what the experts at AVS say when I asked them: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=20350908#post20350908


----------



## Kevin F (May 9, 2010)

"sigma1914" said:


> That's not what the experts at AVS say when I asked them: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=20350908#post20350908


I stand corrected, thanks Sigma.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Kevin F said:


> I stand corrected, thanks Sigma.


I'm not sure how right they are, but no one there contradicted them. :lol:


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

My Brother-in-law was as far from the VRAD as ATT would install and he had to drop uverse and go back to cable due to many video freezes. The PQ may still be OK but you will have more problems if you are to far.


----------



## pinkertonfloyd (Jun 5, 2002)

I was with Surewest's FTTH system, which uses the exact Motorola Boxes that Uverse uses. Basically I have a 100Mb Fiber connection at the terminal, and Cat5E running to each room.

And I just dumped it and after 2 years went back to Directv.

Main Issues... even on Fiber, I was limited to 2-3 HD Programs at a time... so If I recorded one, and watched two others... you got a "All HD Services are in use". It was annoying... should have not been anywhere near saturating the line.

HD Quality on this system was quite good (and they had BBC America HD). And Channel changing was quick, same with the PNP. Box was VERY stable (I think I reset it once in the time I had it). SD Quality was horrid! waaaay to much compression.

I liked the interface Microsoft produces.. it's clean and to the point. The Multi-Room DVR works similar to D*. They just added the pause/replay live TV on the slave unit, but it seemed to be a cost to the response speed of the DVR unit. 

So it was annoying, but overall I liked the box. Biggest issue I had was the price kept creeping up. Started with 10Mb Internet, and two HD/DVR boxes, and Telephone (triple Play) for $120/mo... I think I got 1-2 months at that rate... even under contract they started charging a fee for (get this) "Free" Antivirus ($5/mo), then they upped the Internet to 15Mb (50Mb was available, but basically this allowed them to kick the pricing up, and say it was "faster" than Comcast's 12Mb service. then they added a "local channel" fee of $4. then they "reduced" the "Package Discount" from $14-$10.

Basically my bill went from $120 to just under $180... for Basic HD/DVR (no premiums). 15Mb Internet, and Telephone.

I switched back to D*, got the Multiroom, Got Comcast Internet (12Mb) for $20/mo (Promo, ends up at $41 after 6 mo, no contract). Switching phone over to a SIP provider I use at work). Basically cutting my bill in half.

The pricing of course doesn't apply, but did remind me that Directv overall doesn't raise their rates (much) compared to the different cable companies overall. Partly due to the lack of need to own/maintain wires, cables, and phone lines).


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> I'm not sure how right they are, but no one there contradicted them. :lol:


They're 100% correct. The channels are multicasted, so regardless of what your line can support you're getting the same quality as everyone else. The only difference is the number of streams you're limited to, but even that maxes out at 3 HD streams.


----------

