# Why my brother left DirecTV for UVerse



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

My brother and his family in NW suburban Houston were longtime DirecTV customers. Last week he completed his separation from DirecTV and went with AT&T's UVerse. In short, he tells me he is VERY satisfied. His wife is, too.

I've been with DirecTV since the mid-1990s, but I wanted to share this info with the masses FWIW. Unlike similar threads here, this isn't intended to be a blast DirecTV; rather, it's just an informational one. However, I do believe it would be in DirecTV's best interests to heed a few of the points my brother had, because I doubt he's alone in his experience and opinions.

The reasons why he left DirecTV are, among others:


Constant loss of signal and pixelization. He called DirecTV repeatedly but got the runaround from them, being told that it's the climate he's in and nothing can be done. (He had a Slimline dish.)
No MRV officially for DirecTV yet. UVerse has it and he says it works well, no buffering or other screw-ups.
Better value package. He has STRZ and Showtime and a few similar channels--"many" more than what he had with DirecTV--and for LESS money than what he was paying for DirecTV.
Comparable HD channels. He said he has almost as many but isn't complaining because he never watched all them anyway and doesn't feel like he's missing any at all. Moreover, with more on the horizon, he's not worried about channel count, for as he told me, "Even with DirecTV's new satellite, they won't get any new national HDs until mid-next year it sounds."
"MUCH faster" DVRs, as he put it. He said the difference is like night and day. He hated how slow his DirecTV DVRs were--he had an HR22 and an HR23. His UVerse DVRs are much more responsive and reliable.
Everything is done through a gateway with UVerse. Now, I personally am not familiar with this setup of UVerse, but from what my brother tells me, it makes things much easier for him connection-wise. In addition, it allowed him to dump Comcast Internet.
As far as sports packages go, as a displaced Chicagoan, he uses my Slingbox to watch the Bears and is very happy with that arrangement. Also, with the Cubs on WGN and other channels, he'll have no problem watching them without DirecTV.

When he called to cancel, my brother said DirecTV tried one negotiation after another, but this irritated my brother even more. As he told me, "It was as if they finally realized I was serious, that I was pulling the plug, when they decided to make an effort to keep me. They had their chance with constant signal loss and other problems, but they pretty much condescendingly dismissed that."


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

I work for At&T and can get a concession price on Uverse if I switch. But I won't.
I will admit though, if it were not for constant monitoring of this forum, my frustrations with Directv would have pushed me away a long time ago.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Much like insurance, one really needs to take a good look at their programming package and providers from time to time. You need to see what fits your needs and your budget the best. No single provider is going to be the best for everyone.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

RobertE said:


> Much like insurance, one really needs to take a good look at their programming package and providers from time to time. You need to see what fits your needs and your budget the best. No single provider is going to be the best for everyone.


What are you talking about?
DirecTV and Hughesnet/Wildblue are THE ONLY service providers EVERYONE should have!


----------



## cjever19 (Jun 2, 2007)

I've recently been thinking about the insurance look too. Got eSurance a few years ago and it seems they've steadily increased my rates since. Seems like the good ol' bait and switch. Time for another look...


----------



## soloredd (Oct 21, 2007)

I would love to switch to U-Verse and they have everything I want...except the stream limit. Now, I could be wrong here but if I am watching an HD channel and my wife is watching an HD channel, the DVR cannot record an HD program at that time because you are using up your two streams. For our situation, that won't work. I also was under the impression the other boxes throughout the house, when used in total home DVR format, are unable to pause or rewind a LIVE show. Granted, they aren't DVR boxes but still - this sounds no different than just streaming from a PC. 

I've read that AT&T is supposed to be coming out with a new phase of upgrades and these things can possibly be fixed/updated. However, for the time being, having 2 HD DVRs from D* will do the trick. As soon as AT&T rectifies these nagging things I'll jump. Oh...they need League Pass, too


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I really didn't try convincing my brother to stick with DirecTV--he's a very stubborn individual--but who knows if he will eventually regret his decision or come to like it? I think it'll take some time to see either way. Right now he appears to be happier than when he was with DirecTV.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> My brother and his family in NW suburban Houston were longtime DirecTV customers. Last week he completed his separation from DirecTV and went with AT&T's UVerse. In short, he tells me he is VERY satisfied. His wife is, too.
> 
> I've been with DirecTV since the mid-1990s, but I wanted to share this info with the masses FWIW. Unlike similar threads here, this isn't intended to be a blast DirecTV; rather, it's just an informational one. However, I do believe it would be in DirecTV's best interests to heed a few of the points my brother had, because I doubt he's alone in his experience and opinions.
> 
> ...


You miss a couple of the biggest drawback for Uverse - the ability to only have maybe a max of 4 streams running IF you have the correct profile - 2 HD 2 SD at one time (normal is 1 HD and 2 SD), so if you are watching on HD on one set, recoding another HD and someone else wants in the house wants to watch a HD on another set they are SOL, will not be able to.

Add to the fact their "whole house DVR" has such a low record time that having mutiple family members try to record what they want is a joke - this household will blow though that in 3 days.

As far as programming goes, they have a decent spread, sports in this household is a waste of bandwidth, but the rest of the kids channels are there, if they ever get over the tech limitation of the viewable HD Streams (have 4 HD-DVR's here that are in use - so 8 HD tuners) and the horrible lack of disk space on thier whole house dvr(all the HD dvr's have 1 tb drives on them) it would be a viable switch for me also, and I have been with Directv since 1996. Really want their internet access to get rid of the only thing I have cable for, but the installation charge for internet only is 150.00 which is a joke


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

The stream problem would make uverse a non-starter for me too. In my location I would be limited to one HD stream - with three DVRs and two HD receivers I currently often have five or six HD streams with DirecTV. Also the HD picture quality is by far the worst of any of the major providers. And the recording capacity on the DVR is just ridiculously small - what's the point of being able to record four programs at a time if there is no room left on the disk drive.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

I have a lot of experience with Uverse as well. I've had it for about 6 months now Internet only but I had the TV service the first couple months and know several people that have it (this is a Charter town and *everyone* is switching to AT&T, I wouldn't doubt Charter will fold up around here in another year.

Uverse is *very* good and very competative with DirecTV. Honestly the only thing holding me back is the 4 stream (2 HD) limit and Sunday Ticket. But once Sunday Ticket is over this year I am seriously thinking about suspending DirecTV and giving Uverse a more serious spin.

To your comment below:



Lord Vader said:


> [*]Constant loss of signal and pixelization. He called DirecTV repeatedly but got the runaround from them, being told that it's the climate he's in and nothing can be done. (He had a Slimline dish.)


This one is probably a badly aligned dish followed by poor customer service. Bad customer service more then anything will drive people away.



> [*]No MRV officially for DirecTV yet. UVerse has it and he says it works well, no buffering or other screw-ups.


It does work very well.



> [*]Better value package. He has STRZ and Showtime and a few similar channels--"many" more than what he had with DirecTV--and for LESS money than what he was paying for DirecTV.


The Uverse U300 TV package is the same level as Choice Xtra but includes more then a dozen Starz, Encore and Showtime movie channels. And it's about the same price (for me it would be a couple bucks more, but then you get those movie channels). This is considering I wouldn't need all the extra receiver fees I pay DirecTV now. Uverse pricing is very similar to DirecTV, couple bucks either way depending on what you get. There is no DVR fee either and no MRV fee. They have the same $10 HD fee though.



> [*]Comparable HD channels. He said he has almost as many but isn't complaining because he never watched all them anyway and doesn't feel like he's missing any at all. Moreover, with more on the horizon, he's not worried about channel count, for as he told me, "Even with DirecTV's new satellite, they won't get any new national HDs until mid-next year it sounds."


Uverse does have a very competitive HD lineup, they also have several that DirecTV does not have. But they do lack in the sports department of course. HD quality is less then DirecTV but it's not too bad. That may be though because our area was run with all fresh fiber and we are a higher provisioned area, 52meg. We may one of the first areas to get 3 HD of the 4 at once.



> [*]"MUCH faster" DVRs, as he put it. He said the difference is like night and day. He hated how slow his DirecTV DVRs were--he had an HR22 and an HR23. His UVerse DVRs are much more responsive and reliable.


It is night and day. The Uverse DVR is lightning fast. I mean fast. Very responsive. While my HR20 and HR21 aren't what I would call slow, they feel quite slow next to the Uverse DVR. I can't answer reliability, they both were for me.



> [*]Everything is done through a gateway with UVerse. Now, I personally am not familiar with this setup of UVerse, but from what my brother tells me, it makes things much easier for him connection-wise. In addition, it allowed him to dump Comcast Internet.


Basically you have a coax coming into the house to a splitter. From the splitter is coax going to the RG (residential gateway) and another to your DVR (and other TVs). The RG is a 4 port router and has WiFi built in with a surprising number of features including port forwarding and the like. Your TV service also goes thru the RG and communicates back down the main coax to your DVR. Basically 2-way communication down the coax which I think DirecTV is trying to do with DECA in the future.

All in all I find AT&T very competitive. And this coming from a long time DirecTV and Sunday Ticket customer since 1996.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

wingrider01 said:


> You miss a couple of the biggest drawback for Uverse - the ability to only have maybe a max of 4 streams running IF you have the correct profile - 2 HD 2 SD at one time (normal is 1 HD and 2 SD), so if you are watching on HD on one set, recoding another HD and someone else wants in the house wants to watch a HD on another set they are SOL, will not be able to.


It is the main thing that gives me pause. But for *most* people it's a non-issue actually. Even some of my friends who I would classify is "power users" don't find it a limitation. For people like you and me? Yea, we have to think about it.



> Add to the fact their "whole house DVR" has such a low record time that having mutiple family members try to record what they want is a joke - this household will blow though that in 3 days.


Yea, it depends on usage. Their DVR actually has a good size hard drive and there is now a model with a bigger hard drive if you sign up with the top level package (U450). So you can get U400 when you get it installed to get the bigger hard drive then knock it down after a month. One nice thing with AT&T, no commitments to anything.



> Really want their internet access to get rid of the only thing I have cable for, but the installation charge for internet only is 150.00 which is a joke


Here is the trick for this, it's what I did. Get both Internet and TV installed (get the lower end U200 package). Not only will you get free installation but most of the time you'll get between $200 and $250 in rebates. You only have to keep the TV service long enough for the rebates to process (30-45 days) then you can cancel the TV service. When you cancel they will send you paper work in the mail. Take that paperwork with your DVR down to UPS and they will take care of shipping it back (no charge to you).

Easy as pie and when you're all done you've got their vastly superior Internet service which they ended up *paying you* to install.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

wingrider01 said:


> You miss a couple of the biggest drawback for Uverse - the ability to only have maybe a max of 4 streams running IF you have the correct profile - 2 HD 2 SD at one time (normal is 1 HD and 2 SD), so if you are watching on HD on one set, recoding another HD and someone else wants in the house wants to watch a HD on another set they are SOL, will not be able to.
> 
> Add to the fact their "whole house DVR" has such a low record time that having mutiple family members try to record what they want is a joke - this household will blow though that in 3 days.


This isn't going to be an issue with my brother. He has a wife and two kids, an 8-year-old son and an 11-year-old daughter. My brother himself is hardly ever home, including weekends. My sister-in-law watches their living room 55" HDTV most of the time. The kids watch the kid channels in their respective rooms, and most of what they watch is in SD. They wouldn't really tell the difference between HD and SD. Basically what I'm saying is that they're not going to run up against this SD/HD limitation to which you refer. They just don't watch that much TV at the same time.


----------



## soloredd (Oct 21, 2007)

I am scheduled for U-Verse internet only on the 30th and I don't have an installation charge. It was waived. Guess I'll need to call and verify that :lol:

In theory, I didn't think the stream limit would bother us much but when you have, say, two shows coming on in HD at 8pm and I want to watch a basketball game in HD, what do you do? Like I mentioned, if they can increase it to even 4 streams then I would jump. But, I bet you D* will MRV rolling at that point, too. Good to have options 

Lord Vader: thanks for the thread, let us know as time goes by how your brother likes the service.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

I'd be willing to give U-Verse a shot except for one MAJOR problem, I have 7 HD sets and they support only 2 HD streams at a time. Until they fix that problem they're a nogo here.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> When you cancel they will send you paper work in the mail. Take that paperwork with your DVR down to UPS and they will take care of shipping it back (no charge to you).


That explains why I saw a lady with a stack of U-verse receivers in the UPS Store the other day. I figured they must have some kind of deal with UPS to process their returns. I guess I was right.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

There DVR is fast but VERY BASIC. Yes I had one. No DLB and if you have two HD sets the two HD limit becomes a problem very fast. As for customer service I have no current problems with Directv but I have unsolved problems with uverse voice that thay can not fix and do not know when they will get to it. As far as I can tell they are software problems in the RG.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Here is the trick for this, it's what I did. Get both Internet and TV installed (get the lower end U200 package). Not only will you get free installation but most of the time you'll get between $200 and $250 in rebates. You only have to keep the TV service long enough for the rebates to process (30-45 days) then you can cancel the TV service. When you cancel they will send you paper work in the mail. Take that paperwork with your DVR down to UPS and they will take care of shipping it back (no charge to you).

Easy as pie and when you're all done you've got their vastly superior Internet service which they ended up *paying you* to install. [/QUOTE]

Thats what I did and the internet is ths best you can get here.


----------



## mishawaka (Sep 11, 2007)

as soon as my commitment is up, im gone to uverse. already have the internet.

dont really see how anyone who doesnt get sunday ticket doesnt do the same.

DTV charged ahead of the pack, then sat down on their behinds.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

mishawaka said:


> dont really see how anyone who doesnt get sunday ticket doesnt do the same.


HD quality is crap. Limit of two HD streams is crap.

Very simple. U-verse would be U-seless for me.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> <snip>
> Constant loss of signal and pixelization. He called DirecTV repeatedly but got the runaround from them, being told that it's the climate he's in and nothing can be done. (He had a Slimline dish.)
> <snip>


Lord Vader, I can certainly understand your brothers frustration. I never understand when people have these kinds of issues and DirecTV can't fix them. I have a slimline dish without a single problem (admittedly with a completely clear view of the sky...no trees). I find it hard to believe that it can't be fixed (assuming good LOS).

It seems this is a situation where DirecTV dropped the ball and lost a customer.

Mike


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

RAD said:


> I'd be willing to give U-Verse a shot except for one MAJOR problem, I have 7 HD sets and they support only 2 HD streams at a time. Until they fix that problem they're a nogo here.


From what I heard they may start allowing customers to have more than 1 DVR some time in 2010. I would have liked to try U-verse but they still havent reached my area yet.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Movieman said:


> From what I heard they may start allowing customers to have more than 1 DVR some time in 2010. I would have liked to try U-verse but they still havent reached my area yet.


Two DVR's still doesn't address the two HD stream limitation.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Uverse also wants $7 per box.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> HD quality is crap. Limit of two HD streams is crap.
> 
> Very simple. U-verse would be U-seless for me.


+1 for me too;

Have six DVRs, two of which are HD (soon to be three) so an HD limit of only 2 HD and 2 SD simultaneous streams combined with poor HD PQ is a complete no-go here.

Besides U-verse is not yet available in my area anyway. Therefore AT&T is actually viewed as a sort of pariah around here since not only as the iLEC do they block FiOS service, but they also offer no U-verse on top of it. Thus leaving only TWC, DirecTV, and dish network as the only pay TV alternatives for my area.


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

RAD said:


> Two DVR's still doesn't address the two HD stream limitation.


With 2 DVR's would you then get 4 HD and 4 SD plus the client receivers?


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

Movieman said:


> With 2 DVR's would you then get 4 HD and 4 SD plus the client receivers?


No. AT&T basically supplies a 25Mbit link over telephone copper, which is where the technical limitations is. It doesn't matter how many DVRs you have at the end of the link, the link itself can only support 2HD + 2SD at this time. I think they're working to upgrade to VDSL2 that might support more streams though.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Jeremy W said:


> That explains why I saw a lady with a stack of U-verse receivers in the UPS Store the other day. I figured they must have some kind of deal with UPS to process their returns. I guess I was right.


You got it. There is a bar code on the return paperwork and one on each receiver. UPS just scans in both, gives you a confirmation code and you're on your way. Pretty slick deal actually, something DirecTV should seriously think about.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

JoeTheDragon said:


> Uverse also wants $7 per box.


For any additional rooms. The 4 tuner DVR itself doesn't cost anything monthly (and no DVR fee either).

Each additional receiver in other rooms is the $7 flat rate.
DirecTV is $5 flat rate plus the $6 DVR fee per account.

So with 3 additional receivers the cost for both is the same, DirecTV would be cheaper on the 4th and beyond.

Now if DirecTV then charges for MRV then DirecTV is more expensive across the board.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

tuff bob said:


> No. AT&T basically supplies a 25Mbit link over telephone copper, which is where the technical limitations is. It doesn't matter how many DVRs you have at the end of the link, the link itself can only support 2HD + 2SD at this time. I think they're working to upgrade to VDSL2 that might support more streams though.


Yep. My max link rate is around 50 so once they roll out VDSL2 we should be able to get at least 3 HD at once.

However they are also rolling out faster Internet speeds as well...24 mb and 32 mb are rolling out now.

Copper is definitely their limitation. If they had only done fiber...


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

By the way, here are the hard drive info in the Uverse DVR.

If you sign up with U450 initially you get the bigger hard drive: Store up to 233 hours/SD or 65 hours/HD of programming
Otherwise you'll get the smaller one: 133 hours of SD or 37 hours of HD

More detailed info from Uverse Users says you may get differing models as well:



> What is the size of the hard drive in the DVR and how many hours of content can the DVR store?
> 
> The Motorola VIP1216 and Scientific Atlanta 430 DVRs (digital video recorder) have a 160 GB hard drive and can store 133 hours of SD (standard definition) content, 37 hours of HD (high definition) content or any combination of the two.
> 
> ...


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

uverse HD and number of streems will not get better untill they go fiber to the home. The ATT people I have talked with say that will never happen in existing locations. In new construction they do fiber to home.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> This isn't going to be an issue with my brother. He has a wife and two kids, an 8-year-old son and an 11-year-old daughter. My brother himself is hardly ever home, including weekends. My sister-in-law watches their living room 55" HDTV most of the time. The kids watch the kid channels in their respective rooms, and most of what they watch is in SD. They wouldn't really tell the difference between HD and SD. Basically what I'm saying is that they're not going to run up against this SD/HD limitation to which you refer. They just don't watch that much TV at the same time.


Have a wife and 3 kids - 5 HD sets, 4 HD DVRS, 1 HD reciever - each with 1TB external drives. All of them average 70 percent usage. The small drive on their U400 would not last in our house. Will hit their limit the first time we turn on the TV's

Only thing I want is the internet service, but to get the waived installation charges I have to allow them to put their tv service into the house then cancel it, do not want their people mucking aound in my wiring infrastructure for the house, last time I did that with the phone it took me 3 days to fix what their tech did.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

wingrider01 said:


> Only thing I want is the internet service, but to get the waived installation charges I have to allow them to put their tv service into the house then cancel it, do not want their people mucking aound in my wiring infrastructure for the house, last time I did that with the phone it took me 3 days to fix what their tech did.


The only additional thing they need to do for TV over Internet is run an extra coax to where the TV is. So just pick a TV near where the cable will come in the house and you're all set. Or just go take a TV and put it near that location, have them hook it up, they won't be running any extra cables and such you can't easily remove. Then as soon as they leave, unhook it, take the TV back to where it should be, wait for your rebates to process and send them back. It's all I did. Heck, I had the guy put the receiver on the floor since I had no room in my cabinet. Didn't last 5 minutes after he left.

They won't question it, they won't care. My guy asked why and I said I was just trying the TV service but was keeping DirecTV unless they blew me away. He tried to "sell" me on the benefits, I just said "Sunday Ticket" and he said "ahh, ok no problem" and just finished the install.

It's no biggy.


----------



## sailermon (Oct 17, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> HD quality is crap. Limit of two HD streams is crap.
> 
> Very simple. U-verse would be U-seless for me.


Couldn't agree more. I don't ever watch SD and couldn't live with 2 HD limitation, small HDD and poor quality HD picture. And now with DTV MRV even more reason not to switch.:grin:


----------



## Prince Oz (Jan 15, 2009)

This is funny. Our friends left Comcast for Uverse and now they wish they had Comcast back. They said the Comcast picture was better and that the Uverse DVR S----. Being in an apartment, they are not allowed D*.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

bonscott87 said:


> The only additional thing they need to do for TV over Internet is run an extra coax to where the TV is. So just pick a TV near where the cable will come in the house and you're all set. Or just go take a TV and put it near that location, have them hook it up, they won't be running any extra cables and such you can't easily remove. Then as soon as they leave, unhook it, take the TV back to where it should be, wait for your rebates to process and send them back. It's all I did. Heck, I had the guy put the receiver on the floor since I had no room in my cabinet. Didn't last 5 minutes after he left.
> 
> They won't question it, they won't care. My guy asked why and I said I was just trying the TV service but was keeping DirecTV unless they blew me away. He tried to "sell" me on the benefits, I just said "Sunday Ticket" and he said "ahh, ok no problem" and just finished the install.
> 
> It's no biggy.


Hey bonscott87;

Briefly, just to be clear, for me anyhow, on the typical U-verse set-up;

I gather with the exception of some new housing constructions that may use fiber all the way to the premises (FTTP), U-verse is an IPTV service currently transmitted using VDSL to the home over the existing multi-pair telephone cables to some type of terminal device which converts it to HomePNA 3.1 for distribution over the home's installed coaxial cable plant to either (through RF signal splitting of course) a WiFi capable network gateway for connection to the home computer network and VoIP. And/or to the U-verse TV DVR or STBs?


----------



## islesfan (Oct 18, 2006)

CJTE said:


> What are you talking about?
> DirecTV and Hughesnet/Wildblue are THE ONLY service providers EVERYONE should have!


In some places, they are the only provider you CAN have. Where I work, the local cable company went belly up earlier this year, and the only way to get a signal is D* or E*.

Where I live, there is a lousy cable co. (Charter) and an even worse government owned phone company. The government owned phone company keeps other rivals out of the town, so even though they offer low speed DSL and a few channels on their own expensive and unreliable TV service, the only realistic option is DirecTV or Dish.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> Hey bonscott87;
> 
> Briefly, just to be clear, for me anyhow, on the typical U-verse set-up;
> 
> I gather with the exception of some new housing constructions that may use fiber all the way to the premises (FTTP), U-verse is an IPTV service currently transmitted using VDSL to the home over the existing multi-pair telephone cables to some type of terminal device which converts it to HomePNA 3.1 for distribution over the home's installed coaxial cable plant to either (through RF signal splitting of course) a WiFi capable network gateway for connection to the home computer network and VoIP. And/or to the U-verse TV DVR or STBs?


Kinda.

On installation they replaced the phone box on my house that the copper from the pole goes to (probably because it was 30+ yrs old).
Coax from there goes into my house to a splitter.
From the splitter there is a coax to the receiver on my TV and a 2nd coax that goes to the RG (Residential Gateway).
The RG is a wireless/4 port router for use to connect to your computers/home network. It also processes the TV signal to your DVR.
I don't know if they can use the current coax already in the house because I think regular additional splitters can't be used.
The DVR/receivers can also be connected via Cat 5 instead of coax.

My understanding is that the TV service is kinda like IPTV within your home from the RG to your receivers.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> My understanding is that the TV service is kinda like IPTV within your home from the RG to your receivers.


The service is 100% IPTV from AT&T's headend to your STB. The RG's main job is to act as a VDSL modem, as well as a router for your Internet connection.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

bonscott87 said:


> Kinda.
> 
> On installation they replaced the phone box on my house that the copper from the pole goes to (probably because it was 30+ yrs old).
> Coax from there goes into my house to a splitter.
> ...


OK;

But you say the RG also "processes the TV signal to your DVR?" Do you mean when a STB or DVR is hooked up using the Cat 5 ethernet cable option to one of the ports on the RG instead using a coaxial feed?


----------



## soccergrunt (Nov 17, 2005)

I left DirecTv for Uverse about a year ago. I put up with it for seven months and then came back home to DirecTV. No matter how much you say the 2HD Stream limit will not be a problem, it will be if there are more than two people in your house and two TVs. My wife cound not put up with their search capability either. It is very basic (no keyword search) and many times it takes two or three times to provide any meaningful results. The DVR is faster, but I would gladly put with with delays for the more advanced features of the DirecTV dvrs. I still have the Uverse internet, It works with no headheaches at all. The TV is not quite there yet.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Good luck with the inferior UVerse PQ.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Good luck with the inferior UVerse PQ.


This is a really good discussion about UVerse PQ from AT&Ts own site. Post 11 is especially informative.

http://utalk.att.com/utalk/board/message?board.id=HSIA&thread.id=13385&view=by_date_ascending&page=1

Mike


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

soccergrunt said:


> I left DirecTv for Uverse about a year ago. I put up with it for seven months and then came back home to DirecTV. No matter how much you say the 2HD Stream limit will not be a problem, it will be if there are more than two people in your house and two TVs. My wife cound not put up with their search capability either. It is very basic (no keyword search) and many times it takes two or three times to provide any meaningful results. The DVR is faster, but I would gladly put with with delays for the more advanced features of the DirecTV dvrs. I still have the Uverse internet, It works with no headheaches at all. The TV is not quite there yet.


Unfortunately is will be a problem for me, last night wife had one show recording in HD, watching another show in HD, Daughter 1 and 2 where watching their show in HD, Daughter 2 was watching her show in HD, I had National Geographics on in HD. So at that one point was watching/recording 5 HD shows.

When the Uverse sales person came around when they first made it available in our neighborhood, I just walked him around and pointed out all the HD DVRs, he picked up his sales matieral and just left.

Have had charter internet only service, only thing that is stoping me right now is the installation cost for internet access only and do not want to screw with the order TV then cancel (which some forums are stating will not work any more). have not had a lot of issues with charter as far as internet goes, but if they jack their prices again I will look at Uverse, as long as I can plug my network setup into the RG, use a professional level Cisco firewall, a IronHorse spam filter and a appliance for website restrictions for the kids. Not going to give up that configuration.

Supposedly the ability to turn off the RG's wireless and set my router/firewall in the DMZ to give it a public address is available, at least according to dslreports forums it is.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> OK;
> 
> But you say the RG also "processes the TV signal to your DVR?" Do you mean when a STB or DVR is hooked up using the Cat 5 ethernet cable option to one of the ports on the RG instead using a coaxial feed?


If I remember correctly there is a 5th ethernet port on the back just for TV should that option be used. But from what I understand the vast majority of installations will use Coax.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

wingrider01 said:


> Have had charter internet only service, only thing that is stoping me right now is the installation cost for internet access only and do not want to screw with the order TV then cancel (which some forums are stating will not work any more). have not had a lot of issues with charter as far as internet goes, but if they jack their prices again I will look at Uverse,


I thought the same thing too but paying $25 less a month for the same speed (or triple the speed for the same price) as Charter was a pretty big intensive to me to deal with the hassle which actually was no hassle at all. 



> as long as I can plug my network setup into the RG, use a professional level Cisco firewall, a IronHorse spam filter and a appliance for website restrictions for the kids. Not going to give up that configuration.
> 
> Supposedly the ability to turn off the RG's wireless and set my router/firewall in the DMZ to give it a public address is available, at least according to dslreports forums it is.


The RG does support "router behind router" setups but it's buggy. Some people get it to work with no problems. I had all kinds of problems plugging it into my Linksys router which ran my home network. Basically the Linksys would "lose sync" and I would have to reboot it to get it back and running again. Once that started happening once a day I gave up. Frankly the RG has all the features I used on my Linksys so I don't miss it at all. Biggest headache was inputting a new wireless key on any wireless devices, but only took a couple minutes each.

One nice thing is that there is no commitment beyond 30 days so you can try it with your setup and if it doesn't work cancel and send it all back. Just keep Charter around until you're sure Uverse will work for you. That's what I did.


----------



## soccergrunt (Nov 17, 2005)

bonscott87 said:


> If I remember correctly there is a 5th ethernet port on the back just for TV should that option be used. But from what I understand the vast majority of installations will use Coax.


The RG only has 4 rj45 ports on the back. These can be used to connect the STBs or any network device. My setup did not use any coax except from the street to the RG. The STBs were connected directly to the RG using Cat5e. I also had a 2 network switches connected used to serve two hardwired desktops, xbox, tivo and printer. According to the installer, if the existing coax in a home is usable (up to standards), they will always try to use that method first. All they do is feed a coax from the RG into the homes existing wiring. If the coax is old, then it can cause problems with the multi-room viewing functions.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Mine is pots line from the vrad to the house, cat5 to the RG and cat5 now to my HR20and HR21. One desktop and a printer fill the other two.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

bonscott87 said:


> I thought the same thing too but paying $25 less a month for the same speed (or triple the speed for the same price) as Charter was a pretty big intensive to me to deal with the hassle which actually was no hassle at all.
> 
> The RG does support "router behind router" setups but it's buggy. Some people get it to work with no problems. I had all kinds of problems plugging it into my Linksys router which ran my home network. Basically the Linksys would "lose sync" and I would have to reboot it to get it back and running again. Once that started happening once a day I gave up. Frankly the RG has all the features I used on my Linksys so I don't miss it at all. Biggest headache was inputting a new wireless key on any wireless devices, but only took a couple minutes each.
> 
> One nice thing is that there is no commitment beyond 30 days so you can try it with your setup and if it doesn't work cancel and send it all back. Just keep Charter around until you're sure Uverse will work for you. That's what I did.


If it is buggy then this is a major issue for me. The problem is the RG is a residential level device, it does not have the security nor the features that I require.

The move to Uverse for internet would be a downgrade in speed for me, so that is another consideration, but just getting tired of the increases from Charter


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

The uverse RG has more security than my old Linksys. As for speed I have 6mbps and get 10 ore 18 if I want.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

wingrider01 said:


> The move to Uverse for internet would be a downgrade in speed for me, so that is another consideration, but just getting tired of the increases from Charter


How is that possible? Charter around here is horribly expensive and very low speeds. 10 meg is the fastest speed and costs $99 a month! :eek2: I had 6 meg and paid nearly $70 a month. It's only $35 a month with Uverse. For $70 a month I could get 24 meg for crying out loud. Anyway, maybe your Charter is a bit better with speeds then around here. I wouldn't doubt Charter pulls out around here in a couple years, nobody is sticking with them, everyone is switching to AT&T because the Internet is faster and way cheaper and the TV service is cheaper for a ton more channels (it's about the same as DirecTV).

As for your security thing, only thing you can do is give it a try and see if it works for you. Many people do the router behind router thing with no issues. I personally did have problems and then found out the RG does everything my Linksys did so I shoulda just went with the RG as it is. Note, the RG just replaced my Linksys router, I still have all my other network gear like switches and hubs working just fine as they did before. I simply swapped out my router with the RG and everything functioned as it did before.


----------



## elaclair (Jun 18, 2004)

Does anyone know if they have general support for static IP addressing? I currently have a /29 network and would not really be willing to try and reconfigure the systems and DNS if I have to go to a DHCP setup.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

PCampbell said:


> The uverse RG has more security than my old Linksys. As for speed I have 6mbps and get 10 ore 18 if I want.


I use commercial grade equipment from Cisco, including a Ironport Spam filter appliance, so the RG's security flexiblity will not come anywhere near the Cisco equipment's. As far as speed goes I am in one of the test markets for 60 MB internet connection. As much as I would love to combine billing for my cell phones, land line and internet connection it still is not acceptable with m needs


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

elaclair said:


> Does anyone know if they have general support for static IP addressing? I currently have a /29 network and would not really be willing to try and reconfigure the systems and DNS if I have to go to a DHCP setup.


I know you can purchase a block of 5 ip's, 8 total block with 3 reserved, from Uverse for $15 a month. I'm not sure if more blocks are available. From posts on the site it seems that the RG basically gets a static ip unless you need to completely redo your setup as well.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> I use commercial grade equipment from Cisco


And what exactly does that commercial grade equipment accomplish for you that a regular home router wouldn't? I want specifics, not just "more security" or any such trite crap like that.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> And what exactly does that commercial grade equipment accomplish for you that a regular home router wouldn't? I want specifics, not just "more security" or any such trite crap like that.


Not speaking for the original poster, but I use a commercial grade Cisco router that is connected to both U-Verse and Comcast. With "Optimized Edge Routing" active, the Cisco does ping testing to IP addresses accessed in the past, as well as bandwidth usage and jitter montoring to decide whether U-Verse or Comcast has the better route and sends out the traffic on what it thinks the better route is. It works great. Also means if one goes down, my traffic is automatically and transparently switched to the other connection, which was the point of the Cisco.

The cisco also manages the VPN connections to both my office and production networks, so that specified clients on my home network (my work laptop and work phone) can access both networks, and it takes care of NATing the SIP phone. Again not something many home routers can handle.

Also I know what the Cisco is rated for, performance wise, and I don't have to reboot the thing ever, unlike the Comcast and U-Verse supplied routers.

Also having a Cisco here keeps my Cisco skills sharper too.

Obviously I'm not a typical home user either


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

tuff bob said:


> Obviously I'm not a typical home user either


Obviously not, you've clearly got needs that only a real router can handle. I understand that there are legitimate reasons for using pro-grade stuff at home, and I also understand that a lot of people do it just to do it. There's nothing wrong with that, but in those cases let's not pretend that it's _necessary _to have a Cisco router connected to your U-verse connection.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

You mean you didn't know, Jeremy, what _could _ happen if one _doesn't_ use a Cisco router?


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> I understand that there are legitimate reasons for using pro-grade stuff at home, and I also understand that a lot of people do it just to do it.


I'm not so sure that is often true. Typically when someone chooses to use commercial versus consumer grade equipment (and I'm not referring only to computer or network here), they have a full understanding of the differences, both in performance and cost, and make a conscious decision to go the commercial route. Almost without exception, it is considerably more expensive to do so.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Lord Vader said:


> You mean you didn't know, Jeremy, what _could _ happen if one _doesn't_ use a Cisco router?


One might avoid a number of security issues documented on the Cisco website: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/products_security_advisories_listing.html

:backtotop
Its unlikely that the major motivation for leaving DIRECTV was uVerse's broadband service.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I'm visiting my brother in Texas this week and have seen first hand his UVerse setup. I must admit, I'm quite impressed. He seems to have more HD channels than I have at home with DirecTV, and I've got DirecTV's top package. 

I was teasing him about this limitation of not being able to watch/record more than 2 HD channels at once, and he tells me I'm full of it, that he can record an HD program in his bedroom, watch an HD channel in the living room, and do the same in one of the kids' rooms, all at the same time. So I challenge him on this, and lo and behold, he does it.

Interesting.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> I'm visiting my brother in Texas this week and have seen first hand his UVerse setup. I must admit, I'm quite impressed.


Did you look at the PQ, and not just the number of channels?


Lord Vader said:


> I was teasing him about this limitation of not being able to watch/record more than 2 HD channels at once, and he tells me I'm full of it


I do recall hearing that they bumped the limit up to 3 in some areas, although it still depends on your distance from the VRAD.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> Did you look at the PQ, and not just the number of channels?


Yup. Pretty damn impressive.



> I do recall hearing that they bumped the limit up to 3 in some areas, although it still depends on your distance from the VRAD.


Well, it was definitely 4 here!


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> Yup. Pretty damn impressive.


 That's not possible.


Lord Vader said:


> Well, it was definitely 4 here!


Neither is that. They don't do 4 HD streams anywhere.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> That's not possible.
> 
> Neither is that. They don't do 4 HD streams anywhere.


It's not only possible, Jeremy, but it's happening. Ever the skeptic, I demanded my brother put his money where his mouth was. He did.

My own eyes didn't deceive me.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Lord Vader said:


> It's not only possible, Jeremy, but it's happening. Ever the skeptic, I demanded my brother put his money where his mouth was. He did.
> 
> My own eyes didn't deceive me.


Were they all different shows?


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Yup. Football on one, three other shows on the remaining sets.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

You can have 3 streams and watch one from the hard drive. For P. Q. look at fast motion, also if you could do a side by side on the same TV like I did you would see a big differnce with Ditectv.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Also dose he have fiber to home or to node?


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> It's not only possible, Jeremy, but it's happening. Ever the skeptic, I demanded my brother put his money where his mouth was. He did.
> 
> My own eyes didn't deceive me.


There he is doing something that ATT states is not possible - 4 Streams max, 2HD and 2 SD if you are within the required distance from the VRAD. Go ask the Tier 2 techs for Uverse if that is possible, you brother MAYBE in a location and distance of where they are trying that out, but for the majority it is not possible, Sister has Uvers, 950 feet from VRAD, 2HD/2SD and internet accessability is degregaded with 4 live streams to the TV's going.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

I saw PQ on new Uverse here near Dallas & it was atrocious...and yes it was calibrated correctly.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

I did much reading on several sites and talked to many users. Uverse PQ never once was rated above Dish or Directv. With a 55", PQ matters more than counts at this point.


----------



## blocko (Dec 28, 2009)

I love verizons hd quality.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> One might avoid a number of security issues documented on the Cisco website: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/products_security_advisories_listing.html
> 
> :backtotop
> Its unlikely that the major motivation for leaving DIRECTV was uVerse's broadband service.


Ok, I know this post is a month old, but since the thread was made active again, here's something.

Is Cisco equipment (particularly commercial grade) more vulnerable, or is it that they disclose problems with fixes, while the other guys have vulnerabilities that don't get fixed?


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

Lord Vader said:


> I'm visiting my brother in Texas this week and have seen first hand his UVerse setup. I must admit, I'm quite impressed. He seems to have more HD channels than I have at home with DirecTV, and I've got DirecTV's top package.
> 
> I was teasing him about this limitation of not being able to watch/record more than 2 HD channels at once, and he tells me I'm full of it, that he can record an HD program in his bedroom, watch an HD channel in the living room, and do the same in one of the kids' rooms, all at the same time. So I challenge him on this, and lo and behold, he does it.
> 
> Interesting.


The key is live recordings or channels. You can watch multiple pre-recorded shows but it's limited to 2 (3 in some areas if you are lucky) Live tuners at once.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> Is Cisco equipment (particularly commercial grade) more vulnerable, or is it that they disclose problems with fixes, while the other guys have vulnerabilities that don't get fixed?


It's a bit of both. More features = more security holes. Also high-end equipment gets attacked more since its used by big sites, so holes get found. And people pay thousands in support per device, so the vendor will fix holes and publicize new firmware.

Consumer grade has holes as well: eg
http://text.broadbandreports.com/shownews/2Wire-Router-Vulnerability-93446


----------



## scottjf8 (Oct 5, 2006)

Interesting thread.

I just ordered U-Verse TV and Internet.

I needed to switch away from TWC Business Class internet, and to avoid the $149 install fee, I got TV with the Internet. I'm gonna try it out and see how i like it. 

I can live w/out NFL ST (since the Lions suck beyond belief) but I am concerned about other sports. Are NHL games blacked out out of market? 

I'm gonna give it a looksee, but I suspect I'll stick with DTV... especially if the 2 SD / 2 HD streams things holds true here. Thursday nights we record 3-4 shows at once.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

scottjf8 said:


> ...
> 
> I can live w/out NFL ST (since the Lions suck beyond belief) but I am concerned about other sports. Are NHL games blacked out out of market?
> ...


Uverse doesn't even carry NHL Center Ice to see any out of market games.


----------



## scottjf8 (Oct 5, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> Uverse doesn't even carry NHL Center Ice to see any out of market games.


Of course the AT&T "sales person" told me that if I put on Fox Sports Det and the Wings are playing, I'd be able to see it.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

scottjf8 said:


> Of course the AT&T "sales person" told me that if I put on Fox Sports Det and the Wings are playing, I'd be able to see it.


Glad to see a fellow Redwings fan in DFW. Our Wings are sucking pretty bad this year, anyway. :lol: I wish I could get a refund for CI.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

scottjf8 said:


> Of course the AT&T "sales person" told me that if I put on Fox Sports Det and the Wings are playing, I'd be able to see it.


AT&T would be violating their carriage agreement if that were the case.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> [*]"MUCH faster" DVRs, as he put it. He said the difference is like night and day. He hated how slow his DirecTV DVRs were--he had an HR22 and an HR23. His UVerse DVRs are much more responsive and reliable.


Maybe they use different equipment in Houston, but my M-I-L has U-Verse in IN, and if you don't have the remote pointed square at the box, it doesn't get the command. And the response is slower than any D* receiver I have.


----------



## guffy1 (Apr 23, 2006)

I had a chance to check out UVerse at my sisters house over the holidays. The limited stream issue wouldnt be an issue for me at all. But the quality of the HD would definitely be a problem. As far as my eyes can tell Directv is blowing away UVerse in regards to HD quality, and to me that is the only thing that matters. I dont think Id go with Uverse unless it was darn close to free :lol:


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

If you have a new house where they run fiber to the home and not a copper from the VRAD then Uverse should rock. But here in Mi all I have seen is copper to the home.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

PCampbell said:


> If you have a new house where they run fiber to the home and not a copper from the VRAD then Uverse should rock. But here in Mi all I have seen is copper to the home.


have seen copper to a brand new suibdivision that the VRAD was installed when the subdivision was being built


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

I seen it on there web site and the installer told me about it but I have not seen fiber to the home at this point.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Herdfan said:


> Maybe they use different equipment in Houston, but my M-I-L has U-Verse in IN, and if you don't have the remote pointed square at the box, it doesn't get the command. And the response is slower than any D* receiver I have.


I'm watching UVerse right now with my brother's Harmony remote and am not experiencing any slowness in the remote commands.

Anyway, I don't see any way my brother is going back to DirecTV. He and his family are very happy with UVerse. They see NO difference in PQ--none (doesn't mean there is none, of course) and they're very happy with their 4 DVRs and the ease of their use. One of the biggest problems they had with DirecTV was reception. They were getting loss of sat. signal more than once a day, and DirecTV refused to do anything about it, saying that they lived in a bad area. Huh? Northwest suburban Houston a "bad area"? I don't think so; and there is no line of sight issue problem, either.

BTW, the final straw was DirecTV not having or getting WGN America in HD. As a transplanted Chicagoan, my brother was really interested in that HD feed. UVerse has it.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> I'm watching UVerse right now with my brother's Harmony remote and am not experiencing any slowness in the remote commands.
> 
> Anyway, I don't see any way my brother is going back to DirecTV. He and his family are very happy with UVerse. They see NO difference in PQ--none (doesn't mean there is none, of course) and they're very happy with their 4 DVRs and the ease of their use. One of the biggest problems they had with DirecTV was reception. They were getting loss of sat. signal more than once a day, and DirecTV refused to do anything about it, saying that they lived in a bad area. Huh? Northwest suburban Houston a "bad area"? I don't think so; and there is no line of sight issue problem, either.
> 
> BTW, the final straw was DirecTV not having or getting WGN America in HD. As a transplanted Chicagoan, my brother was really interested in that HD feed. UVerse has it.


Please, how did they get 4 DVRs? Uverse here will only allow 1 whole house (only option on the website, phone and brick and mortar storefronts) and they are supposedly converting all earlier install multiple dvr households to whole house dvr's


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I can't answer your question, but he does have 4 DVRs--one in the living room, one in their master bedroom, one in my nephew's room, and one in my niece's room, each with its own remote, of course.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> He and his family .......are very happy with their 4 DVRs


How many are in his family? 4 DVR's.

I don't know how his U-Verse is structured, but my M-I-L in IN couldn't get 4 DVR's. She is limited to 4 streams and an HD feed uses 2. So if she is recording something in HD and watching something else in HD, her other 2 SD receivers can only watch a recorded program.

There is no way 4 total streams would work in my house and there are just 3 of us.

OTOH, I can understand how one could get frustrated over signal dropouts and there is no way I would stay with a provider with whom I was experiencing those kinds of problems. My neighbors had DISH installed when they moved in and lost signal constantly. The must have had a half dozen service calls in a year. They dropped DISH and went to Comcast, but the lack of HD was not acceptable. So they used the D* offer and got $100 off and me $100 off and are quite happy.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

There are 4 in his family, with 4 rooms connected, each with its own DVR.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

PCampbell said:


> If you have a new house where they run fiber to the home and not a copper from the VRAD then Uverse should rock. But here in Mi all I have seen is copper to the home.


Even where they run fiber, the service is the same. The way they have it setup currently, having fiber only gives you the top service that they provide via copper.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> There are 4 in his family, with 4 rooms connected, each with its own DVR.


Are you sure they're all DVRs? U-verse has MRV and remote scheduling from all receivers, the only thing you can't do is pause live TV.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Yup, but more significantly, even his UVerse technician told him that due to his bandwidth availability, he'd be able to get 4 separate, indiviidual HD feeds, which I've seen first hand.


----------



## spamstew (Feb 16, 2006)

I had U-verse for a 30 day trial. I have (2) complaints.. 1. Max of (2) HD Streams 2. HD PQ


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Lord Vader, looks like that setup is a very rare exception to the rule. AT&T usually follows set standards no matter what the actual connection can support. When I had AT&T DSL my modem synced at a lot faster speed then the fastest profile AT&T sold and they wouldn't budge about increasing it.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I'm actually sitting here discussing this with my brother. A few of his exact comments:

"Three others at work and I all switched from DirecTV to UVerse and don't regret it."
"I find the picture quality just as good if not better."
"I can do more with my UVerse DVRs than with my DirecTV ones."

And the kicker:

"DirecTV told me there was nothing they could do to fix my signal issue. They made all these settings adjustments then told me that there's nothing that can be done in such situations, that in certain parts of the country the signal is simply very poor."

This last statement by my brother floored me, because if what he says is true, and I habe no reason to believe it isn't, it's evidence of either stupidity or laziness on the part of DirecTV. My brother lives in The Woodlands, Texas in an area where there's no line of sight issue.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

ATT told me ONE DVR per house. The standard STBs do look like a Uverse DVR.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

"I can do more with my UVerse DVRs than with my DirecTV ones."

LV, I'd like clarification of this one. . . I spent a weekend at a uVerse house and didn't see any MediaShare / player capability. . . so what can he do with his DVR?

Also, the HD recording time is a very low number of hours. . . that's certainly not more.

I thought his Internet speed was great, picture quality was better than cable (says a lot), the DVR was a cute Cisco box (8x11x 2 or so) that runs WinCE.

Remote response was very poor, I noticed my BIL went to the guide to change channels. I tried 1202 (or whatever CNN was) and never got it from the remote.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Guys, remember I'm sharing what *he *is saying, not me. I'm still a DirecTV customer and don't prefer UVerse over DirecTV. My brother, however, does. As far as the remote response, even I will be the first to admit that AT&T's DVRs *blow away* the HR20-700s, HR21-100s, and HR22-100s I have. (Yes, I said, "blow away" intentionally and accurately.) Those aforementioned DirecTV DVRs are, to put it mildly, pathetically and unacceptably slow, so that argument is lost.

I understand the standard receivers look like their DVRs, but we can pause in each room. They're DVRs all right.


----------



## kstefanec (May 13, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> How is that possible? Charter around here is horribly expensive and very low speeds. 10 meg is the fastest speed and costs $99 a month! :eek2: I had 6 meg and paid nearly $70 a month. It's only $35 a month with Uverse. For $70 a month I could get 24 meg for crying out loud. Anyway, maybe your Charter is a bit better with speeds then around here. I wouldn't doubt Charter pulls out around here in a couple years, nobody is sticking with them, everyone is switching to AT&T because the Internet is faster and way cheaper and the TV service is cheaper for a ton more channels (it's about the same as DirecTV).


TimeWarner cable internet- $59.99 20M down, 1M up. 
DirecTV Sunday Ticket. 
'Nuff said.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> Here is the trick for this, it's what I did. Get both Internet and TV installed (get the lower end U200 package). Not only will you get free installation but most of the time you'll get between $200 and $250 in rebates. You only have to keep the TV service long enough for the rebates to process (30-45 days) then you can cancel the TV service. When you cancel they will send you paper work in the mail. Take that paperwork with your DVR down to UPS and they will take care of shipping it back (no charge to you).
> 
> Easy as pie and when you're all done you've got their vastly superior Internet service which they ended up *paying you* to install.


just signed up for the U200 and internet. i can't tell you how happy i am to get rid of time warner internet cable . . . until uvrse, time warner cable was the only high speed option for my area.

i never thought i would say this but, THANK YOU AT&T!


----------



## mcmattyo (May 27, 2007)

AT&T is to cheap to upgrade most areas to run U-verse. They spend all their money advertising and sponsoring everything there is instead of putting it to really upgrading their networks. I work for them I know! Too bad the FCC approve the mergers a few years ago AT&T is just about greed!


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Here's another reason why my brother doesn't regret leaving DirecTV: the availability of the NFL's Red Zone channel on UVerse. If you thought that channel shows just a team's brief appearance in the Red Zone, guess again. While watching Sunday's games on UVerse, my brother tuned to the Red Zone channel, and to my surprise, we watched good portions of a few teams' whole games, and not just when they were in the red zone. We watched most of the 4th quarter of the Eagles game, including its ending.

As my brother rhetorically asked me, "Why would I want to pay $300 or more when I can get almost the same thing at no charge through the Red Zone channel?"

My brother further opined that DirecTV's exclusivity for the NFL Sunday Ticket was significantly lessened by the availability of the Red Zone and similar such "features" to non-DirecTV customers.

I actually agree with him.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> I can't answer your question, but he does have 4 DVRs--one in the living room, one in their master bedroom, one in my nephew's room, and one in my niece's room, each with its own remote, of course.


verify they are not recievers that pull and record to the central dvr. What you describe is standard. Sister has 1 DVR in the living room and 3 remote recievers in the other rooms


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Uverse only needs one DVR to do 4 TVs and the service is good but the DVR dose not as of the last time I used one have all the features like DLB. Also uverse has the fastest channel changes out there, but HD PQ and around here 2HD streems is a killer for me. That said if I had to drop Directv I would go to ATT.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Lord Vader said:


> Yup, but more significantly, even his UVerse technician told him that due to his bandwidth availability, he'd be able to get 4 separate, indiviidual HD feeds, which I've seen first hand.


Most likely it's the standard install which is one whole house DVR and receiver boxes at the other TVs. Those boxes in the other rooms act just like DVRs but are pulling in TV streams thru MRV from the whole home DVR. But the way it's all integrated it may seem to be their own DVR but they aren't. It is pretty slick.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

I don't want to enflame things here, and I'm not a U-Verse customer, and I have no reason to doubt the OP on this, but what I'm reading about the set-up contradicts all other information that I've read about U-Verse. For example:
http://www.uverseusers.com/index.php?option=com_openwiki&Itemid=36&id=faq#hardware

Granted this isn't an official AT&T site, but seems to be pretty popular among U-Verse customers (I see references to it alot on other forums). Take a look under Hardware. The lowest package (U100) doesn't come with any DVRs. All other packages come with one whole home DVR. Nowhere does it say that there's a package that allows for more than one DVR. Next, take a look under where it asks the question of 'Can I convert one of the regular STBs (set top boxes) into a DVR (digital video recorder)?' The answer, in effect, is 'no'.

This conforms with my understanding of their architecture. You're not able to get a second DVR if you wanted one. Next, in terms of the HD streams... again, whether you're talking FTTN or FTTP areas, U-Verse works the same way. That is, even if he's in an FTTP area, he would still be limited by the number of HD streams going to his house.

Why? Because there are very few such areas, and they're served by local offices that also serve FTTN areas. That's why. The control of the programming feed is very much like a SDV set-up. The feed comes not from the VRAD directly, but from the equivalent of their cable office (I forget what they call it, but it's analgous to a cable office).

I know they're working on 3 HD feeds in some areas, if you're really close to the VRAD, but I don't believe it's out there yet... nevermind 4 HD feeds. Again, I have no reason to doubt the OP, and it's possible that his brother lives in an area that has a very unique U-Verse configuration (I have FiOS and I know that Verizon experiments with upgraded archictures in some areas - e.g. here in PA we were among the trial markets for GPON service). But realize that what the OP saw is NOT the standard configuration for U-Verse by any stretch.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I have no idea what the norm is, but considering my brother seems to have contacts in many fields, I wouldn't doubt that his setup is a tad more advanced than the average UVerse customer. Just reporting what I've seen first hand.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> I have no idea what the norm is, but considering my brother seems to have contacts in many fields, I wouldn't doubt that his setup is a tad more advanced than the average UVerse customer. Just reporting what I've seen first hand.


Understood... that's why I said that I don't doubt what you wrote. I don't. I believe that your brother has the setup that you said. It's just that, in case anyone is thinking of going with U-Verse and they have an expectation that they'll see the same thing. From my understanding, they won't. Although, U-Verse has extremely high customer satisfaction... there has to be some reason for that.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I agree. As far as UVerse' customer satisfaction goes, I'd chalk part of it up to the lack of knowledge as to what's out there. In addition, when compared to cable, UVerse looks like a technological wonderment.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> As my brother rhetorically asked me, "Why would I want to pay $300 or more when I can get almost the same thing at no charge through the Red Zone channel?"


It depends on your reasoning for getting NFLST in the first place. If you're getting it only to flip around to interesting games, then obviously NFL RedZone is a perfectly suitable replacement. If you're a displaced fan who wants to watch all of your team's games, NFL RedZone doesn't even come close to replacing NFLST. The bottom line is that there are very good reasons that NFLST exists, and NFL RedZone has little to no impact on most of those reasons.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

My brother's in the former camp while I'm in the latter, which is why I have subscribed to NFLST since its inception and will continue to do so, provided its price doesn't get out of line.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

Lord Vader said:


> My brother's in the former camp while I'm in the latter, which is why I have subscribed to NFLST since its inception and will continue to do so, *provided its price doesn't get out of line.*


Not sure that it hasn't already gotten out of line. They just know that some of us want it bad enough to pay the going rate (and some of us just ask for credits ).


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> It depends on your reasoning for getting NFLST in the first place.......If you're a displaced fan who wants to watch all of your team's games, NFL RedZone doesn't even come close to replacing NFLST.


Or live in a market without a team, but are force fed a diet of regional games that you have no interest in. We get nothing but Bengals, Steelers and Redskins. That gets old very quickly. I have had ST since I got D* back in 1994.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

That's one of the main reasons I have ST--because as a STEELERS fan living in the Bears market, I wouldn't otherwise get as many Pittsburgh games.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Well, I'm home now (where it's some 60+ degrees colder, dammit!) and I have to admit that I am very impressed with UVerse. While the limitation on number of DVRs in one's household per your guys' explanations is an issue with me, the entire quality and operation of my brother's setup is impressive. 

First, he does get more than 3 different HD streams simultaneously. I verified that myself when I challenged him on this. Second, the response of the units to my entering remote commands absolutely and unequivocally blows away DirecTV's HR2Xs, hands down. I can't figure out where some folks here get this slow responsiveness from, because when I press a channel button on a UVerse remote, it instantly tunes to it. Not even a millisecond of lag time. In fact, it happens so quickly that I caught myself more than once looking at the TV wondering how come the channel had not changed yet when in fact it did. I was just to slow to notice!

The PQ of the HD channels, including ESPN, ESPN-U, and WGN America was outstanding! Sharp, crisp, clear--everything one would want in an HD signal.

As far as the limitation of number of HD recording hours, my brother has two kids, ages 8 and 11. They don't record much, and neither do my brother and sister-in-law. Consequently, they don't find it an issue. This would be a problem for those UVerse customers who obviously did a lot of recordings.

Lastly, his Internet performance is also excellent. He likes it better than his previous Comcast service. 

If I had to grade UVerse overall compared to DirecTV, I'd give them a solid A-. Moreover, with one being able to replace the hard drive in their DVR with a larger one, I would give serious consideration to switching from DirecTV if and when it ever came to it.


----------



## Araxen (Dec 18, 2005)

This month's consumer reports graded Uverse better than Directv. Uverse was #3 and Directv was #4. Rounding out the top was WOW #1 and Verizon #2. Comcast was at the bottom of the list. 

The only thing that I wouldn't like about Uverse is the maximum amount of recording at once. I live in a very recording intensive household and it's more than likely a deal breaker.


----------



## BKC (Dec 12, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> Well, I'm home now (where it's some 60+ degrees colder, dammit!) and I have to admit that I am very impressed with UVerse. While the limitation on number of DVRs in one's household per your guys' explanations is an issue with me, the entire quality and operation of my brother's setup is impressive.
> 
> First, he does get more than 3 different HD streams simultaneously. I verified that myself when I challenged him on this. Second, the response of the units to my entering remote commands absolutely and unequivocally blows away DirecTV's HR2Xs, hands down. I can't figure out where some folks here get this slow responsiveness from, because when I press a channel button on a UVerse remote, it instantly tunes to it. Not even a millisecond of lag time. In fact, it happens so quickly that I caught myself more than once looking at the TV wondering how come the channel had not changed yet when in fact it did. I was just to slow to notice!
> 
> ...


Surely you are mistaken.  :lol:


----------



## mishawaka (Sep 11, 2007)

my contract is up in october 2010. after that, im following your brother.

heck, even comcast is starting to blow DTV out of the water as far as HD offerings, in the bigger metros. 

but thank god we're getting 3d HD :nono2:


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Araxen said:


> This month's consumer reports graded Uverse better than Directv. Uverse was #3 and Directv was #4. Rounding out the top was WOW #1 and Verizon #2. Comcast was at the bottom of the list.
> 
> The only thing that I wouldn't like about Uverse is the maximum amount of recording at once. I live in a very recording intensive household and it's more than likely a deal breaker.


Better in what?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Shades228 said:


> Better in what?


Value, reliability and the availability of telephone and broadband services would appear to be what gave the nod in Consumer Reports' ratings.

The comparison was bundled service providers as opposed to subscription television services.

DIRECTV was recommended over DISH for areas were fiber-based services are not available.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

BKC said:


> Surely you are mistaken.  :lol:


I am definitely not.



mishawaka said:


> my contract is up in october 2010. after that, im following your brother.
> 
> heck, even comcast is starting to blow DTV out of the water as far as HD offerings, in the bigger metros.
> 
> but thank god we're getting 3d HD :nono2:


The number of HD offerings isn't what would attract me--DirecTV will this year surpass UVerse, IMHO--it's the overall functionality of the system.

Right now, among DirecTV's biggest advantages are: sports packages, more than one DVR, # of simultaneous HD streams (in some areas), and recording capacity. Yes, these are significant, but UVerse will eventually--soon?--close the gap in # of HD streams, so that one will be moot. One can replace the UVerse DVRs hard drive with a much bigger one, thereby increasing the recording capacity, so that, too, will be moot.

UVerse has the faster and more reliable DVR, that's for sure. Is it as feature-rich as the HR2X series? That's debatable, but it IS more reliable and absolutely much faster--there's just no comparison. PQ is just as good as DirecTV, if not better on some channels, so that's another nod for UVerse.

That leaves only the sports packages in the first paragraph of mine above as a big advantage. If that's a dealbreaker, a DirecTV customer won't switch. However, if that's not a big deal, with UVerse's lower costs and their fast Internet, switching to them becomes much more logical and attractive.


----------



## mishawaka (Sep 11, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> The number of HD offerings isn't what would attract me--DirecTV will this year surpass UVerse, IMHO--it's the overall functionality of the system.


when i checked the numbers for the HD channels, i was shocked to see how far behind DTV had fallen. it will be a tall order for DTV to catch uverse.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I'll tell you one thing--while watching WGN America HD and ESPN-U HD this past week at my brother's, I was very impressed by the HD PQ of both, and kept wondering why it has taken so frickin' long for DirecTV to add these two major HD channels. Instead, they're more interested in adding some shopping channel or artsy fartsy channel in HD. Those are fine, but where are their priorities?

If DirecTV was running a TV network, they'd go out of business soon, because as we all realize, it's all about ratings. Networks focus on what is more viewed by the masses, even if it's something considered boring or stupid. If a network was running DirecTV, said network would easily pick WGN America, ESPN-U, the HBO group of HD channels, and other big name channels to light up in HD. That network certainly wouldn't ignore those and instead light up channels that a hundred thousand farmers or ten thousand housewives would watch.

Footnote: I find it interesting but somewhat paradoxical that DirecTV, which prides itself on being the "sports leader" and focuses so much on sports, ignores such boffo sports networks like WGN America HD, ESPN-U HD, etc.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

WGN is not a sports channel unless you care about the chicago market. ESPNU until recently only had about 6 million subscribers because it was in the sports pack. They've already announced that they are launching ESPNU 1Q10. I think you'll find that once the D12 is confirmed a go that some of your wants will be filled.

To say that DirecTV doesn't go by revenue, ratings as you put it, is silly. I can assure you that they make the decisions that will bring the most profit. Just because what you would like to see and what is happening might not be the same thing doesn't make them making bad decisions. It just means they made decisions that don't have an impact for you.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Shades228 said:


> WGN is not a sports channel unless you care about the chicago market.


So you have never heard about the Chicago Cubs, the 2005 World Series Champion Chicago White Sox, or the Chicago Blackhawks, who are probably the NHL's biggest draw right now.

If you think that only those who care about the Chicago market care are interested in WGN America HD, you are sorely mistaken and quite ignorant of the nationwide fan base those aforementioned teams have, especially the Cubs and Blackhawks. People all across the country are interested in those teams and would love nothing more than to see them in HD on WGN America HD.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Lord Vader said:


> So you have never heard about the Chicago Cubs, the 2005 World Series Champion Chicago White Sox, or the Chicago Blackhawks, who are probably the NHL's biggest draw right now.
> 
> If you think that only those who care about the Chicago market care are interested in WGN America HD, you are sorely mistaken and quite ignorant of the nationwide fan base those aforementioned teams have, especially the Cubs and Blackhawks. People all across the country are interested in those teams and would love nothing more than to see them in HD on WGN America HD.


Considering I grew up in the NW subarbs and have been to hundreds of live events in those stadiums I think it's safe to say that I know what I'm talking about. Sure people who don't live in Chicago have an interest. However it's not nearly as much as other channels. Again just because you like it doesn't change what it is. Go do some ratings research and tell me that WGN A has consistantly higher ratings than other national channels they've added.

Again once the D12 is confirmed a go I think you'll be happier. If not go to U-Verse.


----------



## Araxen (Dec 18, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> So you have never heard about the Chicago Cubs, the 2005 World Series Champion Chicago White Sox, or the Chicago Blackhawks, who are probably the NHL's biggest draw right now.
> 
> If you think that only those who care about the Chicago market care are interested in WGN America HD, you are sorely mistaken and quite ignorant of the nationwide fan base those aforementioned teams have, especially the Cubs and Blackhawks. People all across the country are interested in those teams and would love nothing more than to see them in HD on WGN America HD.


Blackhawks aren't on the National Feed of WGN. The NHL will not allow it.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Shades228 said:


> Considering I grew up in the NW subarbs and have been to hundreds of live events in those stadiums I think it's safe to say that I know what I'm talking about. Sure people who don't live in Chicago have an interest. However it's not nearly as much as other channels. Again just because you like it doesn't change what it is. Go do some ratings research and tell me that WGN A has consistantly higher ratings than other national channels they've added.
> 
> Again once the D12 is confirmed a go I think you'll be happier. If not go to U-Verse.


Why should I go to UVerse? I'm happy with DirecTV. I'm simply stating what is felt by many others, and one of these is the issue of why so many significant channels are in HD on other providers but not DirecTV.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Lord Vader said:


> Why should I go to UVerse? I'm happy with DirecTV. I'm simply stating what is felt by many others, and one of these is the issue of why so many significant channels are in HD on other providers but not DirecTV.


Bandwidth and they weren't the best choice to add at the time.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Shades228 said:


> Bandwidth and they weren't the best choice to add at the time.


Bandwidth is a debatable reason, as has been much discussed in this forum. As far as "best choice" to add, I'm sure many will find it interesting that other providers, DISH included, added many of these significant channels in HD when DirecTV didn't.


----------



## BKC (Dec 12, 2007)

BKC said:


> Surely you are mistaken.  :lol:





Lord Vader said:


> I am definitely not.


Just a little joke Vader because it seems like no one wants to believe you...


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Oh?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

BKC said:


> Just a little joke Vader because it seems like no one wants to believe you...


I'm sure Vader isn't lying. The thing is, what he's reporting doesn't match any U-verse system that anyone else is aware of. In every other U-verse system, you can stream 2 or 3 HD channels, get one DVR per household, and the HD PQ is simply awful. Aside from what Vader has said in this thread, there is absolutely no evidence out there to show that such a U-verse system exists.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Jeremy W said:


> I'm sure Vader isn't lying. The thing is, what he's reporting doesn't match any U-verse system that anyone else is aware of. In every other U-verse system, you can stream 2 or 3 HD channels, get one DVR per household, and the HD PQ is simply awful. Aside from what Vader has said in this thread, there is absolutely no evidence out there to show that such a U-verse system exists.


I haven't seen it announced that 3 is official. I believe they were doing tests in certain markets. However not everyone can get 2 either. So the problem is it's really an up to number rather than a set number. So you can get up to 3 HD feeds and 1 standard.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> I'm sure Vader isn't lying. The thing is, what he's reporting doesn't match any U-verse system that anyone else is aware of. In every other U-verse system, you can stream 2 or 3 HD channels, get one DVR per household, and the HD PQ is simply awful. Aside from what Vader has said in this thread, there is absolutely no evidence out there to show that such a U-verse system exists.


I think my brother is a rarity, perhaps because of his wheeling and dealing with the UVerse rep--I don't know--but I DO know he DOES get more than 2 HD streams simultaneously, because I saw it myself. As far as the multiple DVRs in one home, in hindsight I don't think he has an actual 4 because of what I was trying to do with the units in the two kids' rooms; however, he IS a rarity in that he does have at least two DVRs. That much is certain, because the one in the living room and their master bedroom both pause live TV and can do things the kids' ones cannot do. I didn't play around much with the kids' units, though. I did test out the other two, and both operated in the same manner.

Now, I'm not saying my brother is a test case or is beta testing this somehow; rather, I tend to think that because he seems to have contacts everywhere and tends to make deals for stuff all the time, I wouldn't doubt it if the UVerse technician did something for him that the average customer doesn't yet have. Just my 2c.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> I think my brother is a rarity, perhaps because of his wheeling and dealing with the UVerse rep


But that doesn't explain the good HD PQ. The PQ on U-verse is supposed to be consistent across all areas.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Lord Vader said:


> I think my brother is a rarity, perhaps because of his wheeling and dealing with the UVerse rep--I don't know--but I DO know he DOES get more than 2 HD streams simultaneously, because I saw it myself. As far as the multiple DVRs in one home, in hindsight I don't think he has an actual 4 because of what I was trying to do with the units in the two kids' rooms; however, he IS a rarity in that he does have at least two DVRs. That much is certain, because the one in the living room and their master bedroom both pause live TV and can do things the kids' ones cannot do. I didn't play around much with the kids' units, though. I did test out the other two, and both operated in the same manner.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying my brother is a test case or is beta testing this somehow; rather, I tend to think that because he seems to have contacts everywhere and tends to make deals for stuff all the time, I wouldn't doubt it if the UVerse technician did something for him that the average customer doesn't yet have. Just my 2c.





Jeremy W said:


> But that doesn't explain the good HD PQ. The PQ on U-verse is supposed to be consistent across all areas.


I'm willing to bet he's in a test area and they're testing a new head end with shorter runs. Talked to a friend a bit ago who has U-Verse and had him check his router and he cannot request a 3rd HD.

Since this is 100% speed driven based on bandwidth it's also possible in these area's they decreased the compression as well to test out what they can and can't do.

The salesman would have nothing to do with this aspect.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> But that doesn't explain the good HD PQ. The PQ on U-verse is supposed to be consistent across all areas.


That I can't answer, Jeremy. I'm not one of these DirecTV bashers so often prevalent here, but I'm not a lapdog fanboy, either, of course. I had tried to dissuade my brother from switching to DirecTV, but what pushed him over the edge was DirecTV's total refusal to even try to fix his incessant loss of satellite signal problem. When they told him that there was nothing they could do, that the problem was permanent because of where he lived, that was enough for him to tell them to pound sand. He then switched to UVerse.

I explained all the differences and limitations that folks in this thread had even mentioned, but I'll tell you what--hardly any of those are/were an issue. When my brother said the PQ was superb, I figured he was, as usual, purposely exaggerating and pulling my leg. Well, when I went down there to visit him, I noticed he was right. I browsed through a LOT of UVerse's HD channels he had, and not one of them looked even mediocre. They were all outstanding.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

I have a stupid question, Vader. Is it possible that your brother has more than one U-Verse account set up? That would certainly explain things - meaning he has multiple U-Verse feeds to his house. That way he could easily get more than one DVR... and more than 2 - 3 HD feeds. I don't know if AT&T allows for that as a matter of course, but it seems to me to be the most likely reason for your brother's unique set-up.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I never asked him, but I'd bet the farm that he has one and only one account. Knowing my brother, he's too frugal to have two separate accounts, and he wouldn't want to chance it anyway.


----------



## Sackchamp56 (Nov 10, 2006)

You should see if your brother wants to join the forum.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I've mentioned it to him. He refuses to participate in any Internet forums. He's a bit too paranoid about such things.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Jeremy W said:


> But that doesn't explain the good HD PQ. The PQ on U-verse is supposed to be consistent across all areas.


HD PQ is actually pretty good around here. Probably because they ran new fiber everywhere. My RG is actually provisioned at 52 meg which in the Uverse world could easily support 4 HD streams if they wanted to. Right now our area is 2HD/2SD and from my couple weeks I tested the TV and from what neighbor has in HD the PQ really isn't that bad. At least on 55" or smaller screens. I can tell it's a bit less then DirecTV but my no means horrible. But again, our whole area and at least our block is provisioned quite high. Heck, they are rolling out 24 meg and 32 meg Internet service as well around here. So 3 HD is around the corner here and they are working on new tech to get 4 so I don't doubt it's in testing somewhere by now.

As for 2 DVRs, I don't doubt that either. They used to give out multiple DVRs until they got the whole house DVR going so if his buddy has a contact he may very well have gotten 2. But I will say that those I know with Uverse think they have a DVR at every TV because even though they aren't actually DVRs, they act like them in that you can pause, rewind, record etc because *everything* goes thru the main DVR. Their multiroom is very, very slick and FREE I should say.

The receivers/DVR is also lighting fast on channel changes and UI. It blows away a fast HR20 on even it's best day. SD PQ is outstanding, almost DVD quality. HD quality not as good as DirecTV but in my opinion would be plenty good enough for most people. In any case around here it's not bad at all, probably due to our higher bandwidth given to each home.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> I think my brother is a rarity, perhaps because of his wheeling and dealing with the UVerse rep--I don't know--but I DO know he DOES get more than 2 HD streams simultaneously, because I saw it myself. As far as the multiple DVRs in one home, in hindsight I don't think he has an actual 4 because of what I was trying to do with the units in the two kids' rooms; however, he IS a rarity in that he does have at least two DVRs. That much is certain, because the one in the living room and their master bedroom both pause live TV and can do things the kids' ones cannot do. I didn't play around much with the kids' units, though. I did test out the other two, and both operated in the same manner.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying my brother is a test case or is beta testing this somehow; rather, I tend to think that because he seems to have contacts everywhere and tends to make deals for stuff all the time, I wouldn't doubt it if the UVerse technician did something for him that the average customer doesn't yet have. Just my 2c.


wheeling and dealing does not transcend corporate policies and technological limitations of the systems.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Perhaps not, but my brother's system is as I have described.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Lord Vader said:


> Perhaps not, but my brother's system is as I have described.


Any chance to obtain pictures of those DVRs ? Or model IDs at least ?


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Now that I'm home, no. You should have asked me while I was down there visiting.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Can we ask you to ask your bro to get those model numbers ?


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I can ask, but don't be surprised if he declines. My brother is just weird in this respect. Even if I tell him why he's likely to either ignore me or tell me no.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Flattering him by refer to our 8 pages 150+ posts in Internet !


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I told him about this thread, and his question to me was, "Why are you discussing this on the Internet? I don't want my information on the Internet!"


----------



## MyDogHasFleas (Jan 4, 2007)

hi so I'm kind of a U-verse expert, I obsessively read and post on the U-verse forums. I think I can fill in some details and provide some facts for you all.

I currently have U-verse Voice and Internet, but Time Warner Cable for TV. I tried U-verse TV when I first got U-verse back in April 2008, but canceled it in favor of Time Warner due to TWC's superior HD PQ. 

I'm getting kind of annoyed with TWC due to various issues and am considering switching to either U-verse or DirecTV. (I don't think I'll consider Dish -- it seems to me it's the poor country cousin compared to DirecTV's young urban professional.) 

Anyway, here's the scoop on what's happening with U-verse and speeds/feeds.

They have this system of "profiles" that users are provisioned with depending on the quality and distance of their copper pair connection to the VRAD, which is the neighborhood junction box between incoming fiber and the copper pairs going to the houses. (U-verse also supports an all-fiber deployment which exists in new developments, but we won't talk about that here.) 

The current general deployment supports two profiles: 25/2 (25 Mb down/2Mb up) available bandwidth, or 19/2. They back off to 19/2 if the line can't support 25/2. Within the total bandwidth, they support TV streams, Internet access, and voice (VoIP). 25/2 supports 2 HD and 2 SD streams (2HD/2SD), and 19/2 supports 1HD/3SD. If you do the math you see that U-verse operates on somewhat low bitrates for HD streams (in the 6-7 megabit range), which causes IMO reduced PQ. However their SD PQ is outstanding. 

If you have 2HD/2SD this means that the most you can ever have coming into your house is 4 separate streams, whether they are being recorded and/or watched live, and only 2 of the 4 can be HD. Of course you can also be watching previously recorded shows in addition to the 4 live streams. In addition U-verse provides a single DVR, additional TVs have non-DVR STBs. However any STB can play back and manage recordings off the single DVR (they call this Total Home DVR). TV streams are carried as Video over IP multicast packets in your local home network. The new Cisco DVRs have 320GB drives but there is currently no way to add more storage via eSata or whatever. 

In the old days, there were fixed bandwidth allocations, and the maximum Internet service you could get was 12 Mb/sec download. Now, the allocations are variable, and you can get 18 Mb/sec Internet service, but they do not guarantee you'll get the full 18Mb if you are also full out on TV streams at that time. 

AT&T is just now introducing and pushing firmware upgrades to their 2wire gateway box (model 3800-HGV-B) which allow use of newer VDSL2 protocols to the VRAD, upgrading from old VDSL. VDSL2 allows them to then upgrade to a new 32/5 profile. This profile currently supports a new 24/3 Internet service called Max Turbo, which has been rolled out to 3 cities for now. Soon, it will support 3HD/1SD for TV. 

So, bottom line, I suspect this mysterious brother is in a test cell of some kind for U-verse and is getting the early deployment of 32/5, and 3HD/1SD. 

I hope this has been informative and would be willing to answer any questions you may have to the best of my ability.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Could you post pictures of those TH DVR and non-DVR STBs for LV's recognition ?


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Truthfully, they all look the same to me. It's like trying to tell the difference among an HR21, HR22, or HR23. One can't tell by picture alone.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Shame of you  - stirred the pot and put your hand into sand now.


----------



## MyDogHasFleas (Jan 4, 2007)

P Smith said:


> Could you post pictures of those TH DVR and non-DVR STBs for LV's recognition ?


here ya go: https://uma.att.com/general/2086-AMSS-X-DMA1-IFRAME.html


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

P Smith said:


> Shame of you  - stirred the pot and put your hand into sand now.


No, I just reported what my brother has. It was never my intention to make this an argument.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

MyDogHasFleas said:


> here ya go: https://uma.att.com/general/2086-AMSS-X-DMA1-IFRAME.html


See, from looking at those pictures or at the units without using them, how can one ever tell which is a DVR and which is a regular receiver?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> See, from looking at those pictures or at the units without using them, how can one ever tell which is a DVR and which is a regular receiver?


Those pictures are literally identical, same file and everything. While the regular receivers do look very similar to the DVRs, they are *not* identical.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Lord Vader said:


> See, from looking at those pictures or at the units without using them, how can one ever tell which is a DVR and which is a regular receiver?


Damn ! You got the Joker card.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> Those pictures are literally identical, same file and everything. While the regular receivers do look very similar to the DVRs, they are not identical.


Oh, I know that, Jeremy. My point was that we woudlnt be able to tell anything by having taken just a picture of my brother's receivers. When I was checking out his system, I did go around playing with each one on each of the 4 TVs to which they were connected.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Someone with those STB/DVR - what remote code will bring setup menu with model ID info ?


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

I don't remember the sequence but I did get into an info screen that listed the Windows CE version (and Bios Version, I think) of my brother in laws uV DVR. He only had the DVR so I couldn't compare MRV.

But he did say our picture quality was better than his on his visit over Christmas.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I don't doubt it. Note that when I state that my brother's UVerse HD PQ is outstanding, I'm not saying it's better than DirecTV's (or worse, for that matter). PQ, as we all should know, also depends a lot on one's TV.


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

By looking at that link on the recievers. Are all the receivers high-def, being both of them say hd enabled?


----------



## MyDogHasFleas (Jan 4, 2007)

Yes, all receivers are HD capable. There is not a separate SD and HD receiver product line. That said, there is a fee to enable HD on your U-verse account. (I think it's $10/month?)


----------



## ChrisPC (Jun 17, 2003)

U-verse announced a local rollout here over a year ago. Comcast did everything they could to stop it, but thankfully, they lost. Until now, there were no other options but Comcast, D* and E*. I'd say at least 75-80% of people have Comcast here. U-verse seems to be doing well, though. My wife and I went in a couple of houses for sale and they both have it.

Their VRAD has been on my street almost a year, but I didn't see anybody running fiber in the area until a month ago, and we finally got a flyer in the mail last week. My mother-in-law only 3 miles away got one over 6 months ago. This must be the last area in town to get it!

I love D*, but have been really tempted by U-verse. I have AT&T landline, 3MB DSL, and D*, and it comes to almost $200 a month. I made a comparable U-verse bundle and it's only about $150 a month. I lose a few channels I don't watch like Planet Green and Centric, but gain several HD channels that D* doesn't have yet, like WGN and ESPNU.

I finally ordered a couple of days ago; I couldn't pass up the $400 new subscriber deal. If the PQ isn't good enough, I'll probably drop the TV and keep D*. Even then, I'll still be saving $20-30 on the phone service.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

ChrisPC - I'm almost in same boat as you - it would kill me to drop DBS, but U-Verse is a very tempting product for those with AT&T landline and DSL already.


----------



## scottjf8 (Oct 5, 2006)

Getting U-verse installed here tomorrow. Expect a report tomorrow night or Tuesday.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Cool. I'm curious to see if your as happy and satisfied about it as my brother is.


----------



## scottjf8 (Oct 5, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> Cool. I'm curious to see if your as happy and satisfied about it as my brother is.


It's gonna be tough... they told me I'll see OOM NHL games, but you guys here say no, so that's a biggie. Also if I can only record 2 HD at a time, that's another big hurdle.

But we'll see.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

scottjf8 said:


> It's gonna be tough... they told me I'll see OOM NHL games, but you guys here say no, so that's a biggie. Also if I can only record 2 HD at a time, that's another big hurdle.
> 
> But we'll see.


They can't show out of market games, it violates rules & regulations. There is no Center Ice on Uverse.


----------



## scottjf8 (Oct 5, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> They can't show out of market games, it violates rules & regulations. There is no Center Ice on Uverse.


Not according to http://www.indemand.com/sports/nhl/


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

scottjf8 said:


> Not according to http://www.indemand.com/sports/nhl/


It's wrong. Here's Uverse forums regarding it.

http://utalk.att.com/utalk/board/message?message.uid=175578
http://utalk.att.com/utalk/board/message?board.id=Uverse_TV_Programming&thread.id=41295&page=9
http://utalk.att.com/utalk/board/message?board.id=Uverse_TV_Programming&thread.id=41582


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I guess he'll find out today and let us know.


----------



## Tonedeaf (Jun 13, 2006)

I am getting U-Verse installed on 19th. I was curious to try it out and with no commitment to deal with it makes it a no brainer. Have been wanting to upgrade my DSL and also my current land line phone was as barebones as you can get. Getting TV, Internet, and Phone all for same price I am paying DirecTV and ATT currently. Also get $425 back in card/rebate after 30-45 days. 

Not giving up on DirecTV yet though. Will most likely just suspend the account until I decide which I will stick with. Would be very costly if I had to start over with DirecTV and my 3 HD-DVR's.


----------



## scottjf8 (Oct 5, 2006)

So I told them for me to keep the TV, they'd have to knock my socks off.

Well, the boxes are unplugged and my Directv is hooked back up.

Worth a shot.

Things we didn't like:

1) it was slow. And the remote only worked if you were RIGHT in front of the set top
2) Only one box can pause/rewind (obv the DVR.) So the other TV was just a plain receiver.
3) Both boxes locked up on us, and we couldn't change the channel.

It was just blah. Guess I"m staying with Directv for now.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

So you didn't even have them connected for more than a few hours? Wow. That's not good! 

I admit that I *was *impressed with my brother's UVerse. I'm not leaving DirecTV to go with UVerse, but like I said, I *was *impressed. Moreover, his system didn't have the same negative results as yours does. For one thing, the response from his remote was lightning fast when compared to my HR2Xs.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

scottjf8 said:


> 1) it was slow. And the remote only worked if you were RIGHT in front of the set top


Definately different then what I saw. The Uverse boxes are the fastest I have ever used and very responsive remote.



> 2) Only one box can pause/rewind (obv the DVR.) So the other TV was just a plain receiver.


Something wasn't hooked up correctly then because the receivers at the other TVs will act just like a DVR.



> 3) Both boxes locked up on us, and we couldn't change the channel.


Given all 3 issues I'd say it was a botched install for sure. Good luck!


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I agree. It sounds like something on the installation went wrong.


----------



## scottjf8 (Oct 5, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> Something wasn't hooked up correctly then because the receivers at the other TVs will act just like a DVR.


The tech even told me this. And when I hit pause, it says the receiver doesn't have that function or something.

Now if I'm watching a recording, I can pause/FF/Rew, but not Live TV.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Sounds like you're playing with the receivers that are not DVRs but just standard receivers. They can pause recordings, because they're showing recordings via MRV, but they can't pause live TV because they're not DVRs.


----------



## ChrisPC (Jun 17, 2003)

I got the service installed today, and I'm pretty impressed. The installer did a really good job, and was very nice. He even ran new Cat 5, instead of using my old D* lines. 

The HD PQ is pretty good; very close to D*, in my A/B comparison. The HD compression is a bit heavier, but the SD is less compressed. Once I calibrated the TV for U-verse, it was hard to tell a difference on HD. It's nice to have Travel Channel and Versus HD. The receivers are a lot faster, too. 

The phone service is clear, and louder than the old phone line. The internet seems faster, even though it's the same speed as DSL. So far, everything works well.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

So what's plan you selected ? And what's total price ? Phone/TV/internet tiers ?


----------



## ChrisPC (Jun 17, 2003)

I have U200 with HD and DVR, and just HD in another room. I also have 3MB internet, and unlimited long distance, which is about $30-40 less than landline. All together, I'm paying $150 per month before fees/taxes, instead of $190.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

ChrisPC said:


> I got the service installed today, and I'm pretty impressed. The installer did a really good job, and was very nice. He even ran new Cat 5, instead of using my old D* lines.
> 
> The HD PQ is pretty good; very close to D*, in my A/B comparison. The HD compression is a bit heavier, but the SD is less compressed. Once I calibrated the TV for U-verse, it was hard to tell a difference on HD. It's nice to have Travel Channel and Versus HD. The receivers are a lot faster, too.
> 
> The phone service is clear, and louder than the old phone line. The internet seems faster, even though it's the same speed as DSL. So far, everything works well.


I spent the day at my boss's house, waiting for a 1pm U-Verse install (from Comcast). The tech arrived at 1:15, and got right to work. After it was all set up (3 rooms to 3 HDTV's), I noticed they were connected with composite video cables. I asked the tech about it, and he said the work order showed a SD install. I told him I absolutely know that work order was wrong, because I had seen my boss's invoice, and the $10 HD extra charge was checked (and circled). The tech was really great, and said the office must have got the order typed into the computer wrong. He told me to have my boss call their 800 number to upgrade to HD, and he went out to his truck, and changed all the boxes over to HDMI and tested them, set the TVs to HDMI, and programmed all the remotes. My boss called me back, and said she couldnt get through to AT&T, so I asked the tech if he had a "secret number" he could call and get it changed to HD. He did, and proceeded to do so. He told me it would take 5 minutes or so, and would pop on. He got his stuff and left. After an hour, I still had no HD, so called AT&T U-verse tech support, who verified the order for HD was "processing" and said the tech was in error on the 5 minutes, that it normally takes 1 to 2 hours. He answered several questions for me so I could pass on the info to my boss, and was not in a hurry to get me off the line, and even sent text messages to other CSRs trying to find the answer to a question I had, which he did not know the answer to. Ive absolutely NEVER had better tech support.

After an hour, like he told me, it was working in HD. I set her Sony Bravia up, and calibrated it to look as good as I could, and then sat down to watch a while until she got home.

I could definantly see more HD artifacts than I see on DirecTV, although at normal distances, it wasnt very noticable. SD channels upconverted to 1080i looked LOTS better than DirecTv. All the boxes had DVR functions, and the telephone was LOUD and CRISP (she doesnt have internet at home, so no speed test).

All in all, I sure wouldnt give up DirecTv right now, but U-Verse would be right on the top of my list of providers to switch to, were I to give up D*. The DVR's were FAST and functional (they installed Cisco boxes). Since she lives alone, and doesnt tend to record a lot, the 2 HD limitation probably wont affect her (it would kill me, as Im often recording 3 or 4 HD programs at the same time).

I was quite impressed, and I went into the install with a negative attitude to begin with since she wouldnt go with DirecTv (dish to ugly, goes out during storms). I wanted that $100 refer a friend  I think she will be very happy with U-verse, however, and Id sure be happy with the speed of her DVR.


----------



## ChrisPC (Jun 17, 2003)

I'm really starting to like U-verse, now that I took all the SD duplicates and barker channels out of my guide. I just suspended my D* account.


----------



## Tonedeaf (Jun 13, 2006)

Uverse was out to install on Saturday this past weekend. Couldn't get a good signal as I was about 300 feet too far from their box.


----------



## mlb (Jul 31, 2008)

Just thought I'd give my thoughts...

A friend of mine just switched to UVerse outside of Dayton, Ohio. We watched the NFL games yesterday, and the quality is still not there for HD. Way too much compression on the CBS game, I'm guessing because it is 1080i. The Fox game was passable (not as good as D* obviously, but I could handle it), CBS was possibly the worst looking HD I've ever seen.

Stationary shots were good, anything with motion had all kinds of compression issues. I'm pretty sure if you aren't a sports fan you could get by with their system, but football and basketball look attrocious.


----------



## ahintz (Jan 14, 2007)

I had U-Verse back when they first came to my neighborhood a couple years ago, and at the time they had significantly fewer HD channels, you could only record 1 HD stream at a time, and the boxes froze regularly. So I dropped the TV service (though I kept the internet service) and stayed with DirecTV. I've decided to take another look, and have them coming out to install in a couple weeks. Going through the channel listing, I won't be missing anything (I don't need the RSNs or other sports packages) and will actually gain a couple of things. 2HD and 2SD is now live in my area, and hopefully the firmware in the boxes is a better now. I'll hold onto DirecTV for a little while in case I don't like U-Verse, but getting rid of the dish from my apartment balcony would be nice.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

mlb said:


> Just thought I'd give my thoughts...
> 
> A friend of mine just switched to UVerse outside of Dayton, Ohio. We watched the NFL games yesterday, and the quality is still not there for HD. Way too much compression on the CBS game, I'm guessing because it is 1080i. The Fox game was passable (not as good as D* obviously, but I could handle it), CBS was possibly the worst looking HD I've ever seen.
> 
> Stationary shots were good, anything with motion had all kinds of compression issues. I'm pretty sure if you aren't a sports fan you could get by with their system, but football and basketball look attrocious.


I can tell you this much about CBS and their 1080i--on my HDTV, their PQ is far superior to FOX's 720p. In fact, every HD show on CBS, including their prime time shows, blows away 720p shows I see on other networks. Oh, and the sound rocks as well!


----------



## cariera (Oct 27, 2006)

mlb said:


> Way too much compression on the CBS game, I'm guessing because it is 1080i. The Fox game was passable (not as good as D* obviously, but I could handle it), CBS was possibly the worst looking HD I've ever seen.


Are you sure its the provider? In my area the CBS feed is full of artifacts and looks horrible on Directv. So, I bypassed my Directv receiver and connected my tvs directly to my off air antenna. The picture quality is the same, horrible.

This makes sense if Directv is getting the local CBS off air and retransmitting it. But my point is that most people would blame Directv and not the local CBS station for the poor picture.


----------

