# Why I'm leaving DIRECTV (for now anyway)...



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

My wife and I have found that we've been watching much less TV in the past year or so than in past years. That, combined with my frustration over DIRECTV's lack of a few notable items, I have decided to suspend my DIRECTV for 6 months and take AT&T U-verse for a spin.

I've had U-verse internet service for almost 2 years. When I called in a couple weeks ago to pay my bill, they made me a very appealing offer to give their TV service a try. In the end, I'm getting essentially the same setup that I have with DIRECTV for $44/month for 6 months. After the promotion ends, so will my account suspension with DIRECTV, and I'll compare prices and weigh my options at that point.

Despite a couple of bumps in the road caused (oddly enough) by my Google TV, my first week with U-verse has been great.

-The installation was a breeze, requiring only an existing ethernet run from each STB back to my office where the RG (residential gateway [modem]) is located. My coax hasn't been touched, so if I return to DIRECTV, it will be extremely easy.

-The HD PQ is right on par with DIRECTV. The difference is negligible, if any. And I've been analyzing it quite a bit.

-I now have several HD channels I didn't have with DIRECTV (AMC HD, CNN HLN HD, Cooking Channel HD, DIY HD, E! HD, G4 HD, HIST Int. HD, Investigation Discovery HD, Lifetime Movie Network HD, Outdoor Channel HD, OWN HD, TCM HD, TMC HD (East & West), TruTV HD). While this wasn't a factor in my decision to leave, it's always nice to have more HD.

-I can manage recordings and series links from their iPhone/iPad app and from a web browser. I can also stream and/or download quite a bit of content on the iPhone/iPad app.

-A couple of other cool notables: Series links are stored on your account, not on the DVR. Buffers are transferrable between STBs.

Don't get me wrong. The AT&T service is not perfect. It does have its limitations. But it seems to fit our needs pretty well. It's certainly better than an OTA & streaming only option that we considered trying. We couldn't find quite an elegant enough solution to do this though.

As you can imagine, this was a very hard decision for me to make. In the end, it came down to the fact that the cost of DIRECTV started to exceed its value in our books. I'm not leaving DBSTalk. I'll still be around, helping out wherever possible. So this isn't a goodbye.  Just wanted to share with you guys. Have a great weekend!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Traitor


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Good luck on your new TV experiment.

Most of us know you'll be back soon enough like many others....


----------



## NardVa (Jul 12, 2006)

If you can save money and get a comparable service that's a good move in my books. That's weird that Directv does not get the HD channels you listed.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I tried that with Comcast...problem was, they couldnt keep my cable modem running if I had TV hooked up (since it required a splitter, and they just could not get enough signal to compensate for that loss of 3.5db). I had planned to come back to DirecTv in October, but having the internet go out several times a day wasnt worth having those extra HD channels.

Hope you enjoy U-Verse. Seriously. Around here, I dont know a single person that kept it over two months. They cant get it right in our area.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Tom, does this mean you'll need to find a new mod? 

:lol:

Seriously Greg, do what you have to do in this economy.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Weird, I thought you left a long time ago.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> Seriously Greg, do what you have to do in this economy.


It's not all about the money. It's more about the _value_ for the money. It just wasn't there for us anymore. Partly because our viewing habits have changed, and partly because I feel like DIRECTV fell behind in a couple of areas.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

spartanstew said:


> Weird, I thought you left a long time ago.


!rolling


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

Nothing wrong with going for the better deal. I'm sure if I were to leave, the next day is when all the new hardware, GUI, and HD channels would show up. So in my mind Greg, you're really, really brave.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> It's not all about the money. It's more about the _value_ for the money. It just wasn't there for us anymore. Partly because our viewing habits have changed, and partly because I feel like DIRECTV fell behind in a couple of areas.


Viewing habits change for many reasons. From time to time I've considered changing packages (not leaving DIRECTV) for similar reasons. Then the next great grandtibber would come along and we'd change habits in another direction for awhile. 

Enjoy life, hopefully some of it still here. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Greg, you continue to be a trusted friend and "coworker" despite your recent poor judgment


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Greg, you continue to be a trusted friend and "coworker" despite your recent poor judgment


When was this obvious traitor/spy ever trusted. 

I hope uverse does well for you. The better the competition does, the more diretcv will have to continue to add to their experience.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Ok, let me just say something. 

I have never said DIRECTV service was for everyone, and I'm sure we all wish Greg the best. His reasons make sense, and I really understand why he did what he did.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

I have uverse for internet and phone, they offered me the same thing for 6 months. After that it will cost about 20$ a month more than directv. That is U200 on ATT and Total Choice on directv. The free HD and the savings I get for having an old package make it hard for them to beat. Both have the channels I watch and the HD is not that great, I did a side by side when I hade the uverse TV.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

And here I was earlier today reading one of your posts thinking "I haven't seen him post much lately."

I do like the idea of series link's being on the account, though I usually just hope I don't have a unit go bad. Not sure I could handle the HD stream limits, but I know that's very location dependent.


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

I still love ya Greg.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Greg, you continue to be a trusted friend and "coworker" despite your recent poor judgment


Very well said. 

And while we can't say too much about what goes on behind the moderator veil, Greg is a great, hard worker for the DIRECTV forums and DIRECTV members in particular as well as for the entire DBStalk site.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Tom Robertson said:


> And while we can't say too much about what goes on behind the moderator veil, *Greg is a great, hard worker for the DIRECTV forums *and DIRECTV members in particular as well as for the entire DBStalk site.


Totally agree.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

You'll be back. Once a fanboi, always a fanboi.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

You gotta do what is best for you and the family.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Good luck, Greg. We all need to make choices that make sense for us.


----------



## usnret (Jan 16, 2009)

C U back at Xmas time then....


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

Greg, other than the missing HD channels, was there anything else you found lacking from Directv that encouraged you to make the switch?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Greg's gotta do what Greg's gotta do...that's his call for sure.

But I bet he's gonna miss having a *real* HDD in his HD DVR, as opposed to the rinky dinky ones they put in those UVerse DVR's.

But good luck and best wishes from alot of folks here! We appreciate the fine work you've done here to date.


----------



## Rob77 (Sep 24, 2007)

When I had some technical problems a couple of years ago, Greg took the time via PM to help track down the problem and resolve it. When going through a process like that, you get to see what makes a person tick.

He is a very talented and caring person and I am sure anyone who has had contact with him, wish him nothing but the best.

p.s. well now that I think about it.....we do need to talk about this Apple product fixation you have :lol::lol:


----------



## FHSPSU67 (Jan 12, 2007)

Don't be a stranger Greg
Your work here has ben very much appreciated.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> But I bet he's gonna miss having a *real* HDD in his HD DVR, as opposed to the rinky dinky ones they put in those UVerse DVR's.


Not sure what you mean. The HDD in the U-verse DVR is the same size and has the size recording capacity as an HR24.


----------



## iceturkee (Apr 1, 2007)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> My wife and I have found that we've been watching much less TV in the past year or so than in past years. That, combined with my frustration over DIRECTV's lack of a few notable items, I have decided to suspend my DIRECTV for 6 months and take AT&T U-verse for a spin.
> 
> I've had U-verse internet service for almost 2 years. When I called in a couple weeks ago to pay my bill, they made me a very appealing offer to give their TV service a try. In the end, I'm getting essentially the same setup that I have with DIRECTV for $44/month for 6 months. After the promotion ends, so will my account suspension with DIRECTV, and I'll compare prices and weigh my options at that point.
> 
> ...


unlike others, greg, i applaud your decision to try the alternative!


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

mreposter said:


> Greg, other than the missing HD channels, was there anything else you found lacking from Directv that encouraged you to make the switch?


The HD Channels weren't really a determining factor. Just more of an added bonus.

My biggest frustration was the lack of additional mobile options. The amount of content that people consume on a mobile device has been shifting dramatically over the past several years. While DIRECTV's mobile applications are very slick and eye appealing (especially the iPad app), they lack features that their competitors had 2 or 3 years ago. Also along the same lines, I'm baffled how the self-proclaimed "sports leader" can't have an agreement in place with ESPN to offer the WatchESPN app.

There are a few other items, but mostly still along the lines of me feeling that DIRECTV has fallen behind in the technology category.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Rob77 said:


> When I had some technical problems a couple of years ago, Greg took the time via PM to help track down the problem and resolve it. When going through a process like that, you get to see what makes a person tick.
> 
> He is a very talented and caring person and I am sure anyone who has had contact with him, wish him nothing but the best.
> 
> p.s. well now that I think about it.....we do need to talk about this Apple product fixation you have :lol::lol:


My pleasure Rob. Glad I was able to help. Thanks for the kind words.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Good luck Greg.

It's always nice to get a competitive view.

For me, FiOS is the other option, and I could save significant $.

The main DirecTV drivers for me (vs FiOS) are:

NFL Sunday Ticket
MRV any-to-any connectivity (all 7 receivers can watch any of the 4 DVRs)
FiOS lacks one local RSN in HD
Small size of the DirecTV H2x receivers, they fit perfectly in a few small tight spots, I'm also not sure FiOS supports RF remotes.
Ability to internally upgrade an owned DirecTV HD-DVR with a Western Digital AV-GP 1TB+ hard-drive, that with MPEG4 provides well over 200+ hours of HD.
No complaints from the family with DirecTV's HD line-up, we really don't watch much of anything on the missing DirecTV HD channels. I'm missing nothing, the rest of the family missing maybe E!, HLN, and a couple others, but nothing significant.
Future - 5 tuner HD-DVR (with MRV) in DirecTV's future roadmap which is very appealing. It will be awesome to never worry about a tuner recording conflict ever again!
Reluctance to change - would need to swap out 7 receivers that work fine and need to start all over again. I actually like the DirecTV UI, vs all the glitz of the FiOS interface.
DBSTalk camaraderie 
Again, good luck, don't be a stranger (I'm sure you won't), and I think it's always good to have a friendly competitive view, it keeps everyone on their toes.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> Not sure what you mean. The HDD in the U-verse DVR is the same size and has the size recording capacity as an HR24.


Then you must have gotten the latest unit, as the "standard HD DVR" with UVerse has only 120GB of storage....cool...you're in better shape then.


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

Good luck Greg! I'm glad you have a choice in services as that keeps everyone honest. My only choice is between Dish and Directv, so not much at all...  I hope you'll keep us in the loop as your "experiment" progresses.


----------



## txfeinbergs (Nov 16, 2005)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> There are a few other items, but mostly still along the lines of me feeling that DIRECTV has fallen behind in the technology category.


but but..... AT&T Uverse uses *copper wire *to the home! That said, I have been tempted myself because AT&T has been advertising Uverse VERY aggresively in my area. They even offered me $400 to switch which is about what tipped me over the edge - but at the end of the day, I don't mind paying more for higher quality, and the HD compression AT&T is using to fit everything on that copper wire, along with the much slower Internet speeds compared to what I currently have *(30 mbps through Time Warner), keeps me where I am.

One other point, I see multiple AT&T trucks on the main street by our housing division every single day. Either the service must be really unreliable, or they are adding people like hot cakes. Hopefully the latter.


----------



## txfeinbergs (Nov 16, 2005)

Sixto said:


> Good luck Greg.
> 
> It's always nice to get a competitive view.
> 
> ...


If I had FIOS in my area, DirecTV would get dropped immediately, along with Time Warner Cable for my Internet. Better product, for less money. Simple as that. (I define a "better product" as less compression on TV channels and faster internet speeds).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

mreposter said:


> Greg, other than the missing HD channels, was there anything else you found lacking from Directv that encouraged you to make the switch?


The primary reason, as very clearly stated, was perceived value.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

I'm giving TWC a spin. Added Digital Cable to my Roadrunner account early this month for $79.99/mo. for 12 months, just $25/mo. more than I was paying for RR, RR Turbo free until 2012. I have a TiVo HD and am looking @ CableCard solutions for my W7 Home Premium PC. The fact that the DirecTV tuner for Windows never materialized was a disappointment for me since it's my fave DVR platform.

Yes, there are HD channels that TWC has that DirecTV doesn't, none of which are my primary motivation for checking out changing providers. The biggest thing for me is that TWC offers a viable HSI solution that I can bundle with my programming and DirecTV can only bundle me with Verizon DSL, which tops out @ 1.5 Mbps down in my area. IMO, this is what DirecTV needs to address, not niche HD channels.

So on the 25th of this month I'll call DirecTV to suspend for six months and I'll take the time to let them know why. I've been for the most part very happy with DirecTV. If in the interim Verizon deploys LTE in my area and I'm allowed to bundle, that might be enough to woo me back. In the meantime I'll use the fact that I've been a happy DirecTV customer as leverage when dealing with TWC. None of this affects my participation here.


----------



## kokishin (Sep 30, 2006)

Greg,

What is the speed of your internet? 
Does it fluctuate like cable internet? 
Does U-Verse TV affect your internet bandwidth?
How many HD streams can your DVR simultaneoulsy record and playback?

BTW, I think it is very useful and healthy for a well respected moderator (Greg) to report back on the competition.

Many of us are curious so please keep posting your feedback on U-Verse.

Thanks and All the Best


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

David Ortiz said:


> Nothing wrong with going for the better deal. I'm sure if I were to leave, the next day is when all the new hardware, GUI, and HD channels would show up. So in my mind Greg, you're really, really brave.


No bravery, if you read the opening post, He suspended for 6 Months. A wise move.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> My wife and I have found that we've been watching much less TV in the past year or so than in past years. That, combined with my frustration over DIRECTV's lack of a few notable items, I have decided to suspend my DIRECTV for 6 months and take AT&T U-verse for a spin.
> 
> I've had U-verse internet service for almost 2 years. When I called in a couple weeks ago to pay my bill, they made me a very appealing offer to give their TV service a try. In the end, I'm getting essentially the same setup that I have with DIRECTV for $44/month for 6 months. After the promotion ends, so will my account suspension with DIRECTV, and I'll compare prices and weigh my options at that point.
> 
> ...


I applaud your approach and appreciate your sentiment. I wish you all the best on your journey away from Direct Broadcast System Talk dot Com (considering you're now wired).  I kid, a little. I can't recall where it was said, but I think it was SixTo who's been has pointed out that we've seen the decay in DirecTV's grip on leading the technology of home entertainment television. Value is very important quality especially for something we all can without a doubt live without, we choose to have this entertainment, and our choices have had a paradigm shift over time. Again, I sincerely applaud your decision, good luck!


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

kokishin said:


> Greg,
> 
> What is the speed of your internet?


I had the 24down/1.5 up package. I dropped to the 12 down now that it offers 1.5up as well.



kokishin said:


> Does it fluctuate like cable internet?


No, it does not. U-verse is ADSL2+/VDSL technology. It does not fluctuate due to neighbors usage... or at all for that matter. Every time I've checked it, it is the same.



kokishin said:


> Does U-Verse TV affect your internet bandwidth?


No. Each U-verse service has an allotted amount of bandwidth based off of the speed you have coming to the side of your house (your "speed profile"). The technician that was out said I had a very high speed profile. Something like 60mbps to the side of my house. 24 of that could be used for internet, ~34 for TV, and < 1 for VOIP (which I don't have). I say 34 for TV because I believe each HD stream is 8.5Mb/s. I'm not positive on that, so don't quote me.  Since U-verse is limited to 4 streams (see below), I don't think the TV usage would exceed 34mbps.

Also worth noting, the TV service does not count toward the recently imposed data caps.



kokishin said:


> How many HD streams can your DVR simultaneoulsy record and playback?


This depends on your speed profile mentioned above. Since I'm in one of the higher profiles, I can:

-Watch 4 Live HD streams at once
-Record 3 HD streams + 1 SD at once 
-Watch 3 pre-recorded HD streams while any of the above happens

This was one of the limitations I mentioned in my original post. While not ideal, I think this will still work for us. I can see where it wouldn't work for a lot of people though. I've heard that these limits may be increased in the future.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

txfeinbergs said:


> but but..... AT&T Uverse uses *copper wire *to the home!


While it is copper to the home, it is at least FTTN (Fiber to the node). FTTP (premises) [like FIOS] is available in limited areas. I don't think that's available in Memphis at this time though.



txfeinbergs said:


> and the HD compression AT&T is using to fit everything on that copper wire, along with the much slower Internet speeds compared to what I currently have *(30 mbps through Time Warner), keeps me where I am.


The compression is the same used by DIRECTV... MPEG-4, h.264. And as I said, the difference in HD PQ is negligible, if any. I've compared them side by side and don't see a difference. I will be curious how fast moving sports look, if they ever return. :lol:

You also have to remember that AT&T is not "cramming" every channel down the copper like Time Warner is down the coax. Only (a max of) 4 streams are coming into my house at one time.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> While it is copper to the home, it is at least FTTN (Fiber to the node). FTTP (premises) [like FIOS] is available in limited areas. I don't think that's available in Memphis at this time though.
> 
> The compression is the same used by DIRECTV... MPEG-4, h.264. And as I said, the difference in HD PQ is negligible, if any. I've compared them side by side and don't see a difference. I will be curious how fast moving sports look, if they ever return. :lol:
> 
> You also have to remember that AT&T is not "cramming" every channel down the copper like Time Warner is down the coax. Only (a max of) 4 streams are coming into my house at one time.


Does AT&T use MPEG4 CABAC? That is where some of the tightest compression happens (and the highest requirement for pre and post processing.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Sports on Uverse is where I saw the big difference.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

5.6Mbps sure seems narrow. When recording DirecTv with my HDPVR, I use 13mb/s, and notice artifacts on fast scenes when I get below 10mb/s, using H.264 and DD.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Does AT&T use MPEG4 CABAC? That is where some of the tightest compression happens (and the highest requirement for pre and post processing.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


MPEG-4 AVC I believe. I will try to confirm.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> 5.6Mbps sure seems narrow. When recording DirecTv with my HDPVR, I use 13mb/s, and notice artifacts on fast scenes when I get below 10mb/s, using H.264 and DD.


Which is why I said not to quote me. :lol:

Just did a little more research and came up with 8.5Mb/s to 9.3Mb/s. That seems a bit more accurate. I updated my post.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

I've got the same U-verse package as you (U200 for $44/month) and I'm not hating the service nearly as much as I expected to. I had to switch for different reasons, though. I get *tons* of brief dropouts, where the video and audio will pause for a second, but that's my only real complaint with the service. The GUI, which is HD, is far nicer than DirecTV's current GUI. And being able to preview what's on other channels while in the guide and info bar is cool as hell!

Overall, I'll probably be back with DirecTV next year. But U-verse is absolutely a worthy competitor.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Did a quick check on the my uversre account, the cost after 6 months is 93 a month to the the 82 I pay for Directv. not a big deal, if I could not use Directv I would go to uverse but the 3 HD streems would be a big problem.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> Which is why I said not to quote me. :lol:
> 
> Just did a little more research and came up with 8.5Mb/s to 9.3Mb/s. That seems a bit more accurate. I updated my post.


That sounds more realistic. That would compare to the minimum compression I can tolerate on my recordings. You should only notice artifacts on things like water (waves), fireworks, strobe lights, and 1080i sports. That's more than adequate for 720p stuff.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> Just did a little more research and came up with 8.5Mb/s to 9.3Mb/s. That seems a bit more accurate. I updated my post.


There is no way they're using bitrates that high. That's higher than what DirecTV uses, and the PQ is not as good as DirecTV's.

AT&T is like DirecTV, in that their PQ doesn't vary throughout the nation. The channels are compressed centrally, and then distributed out from there. So everybody's getting the same stuff, the only difference is how many concurrent streams are supported by the line.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> That sounds more realistic. That would compare to the minimum compression I can tolerate on my recordings. You should only notice artifacts on things like water (waves), fireworks, strobe lights, and 1080i sports. That's more than adequate for 720p stuff.


You're re-compressing content that's already been compressed. It will require a higher bitrate to maintain quality.


----------



## p3pilot (Oct 27, 2008)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> -Watch 4 Live HD streams at once
> -Record 3 HD streams + 1 SD at once
> -Watch 3 pre-recorded HD streams while any of the above happens


This I could live with, but when I attempted to go with UVerse, all I could get was 1 Live HD stream. No way, I could live with that. I went with the internet and I love that, but it is a no go for the TV for me.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

I am glad I live in FiOs territory and not U-Verse territory. FiOs and U-Verse are worlds apart with FiOs being much more superior.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

DodgerKing said:


> I am glad I live in FiOs territory and not U-Verse territory. FiOs and U-Verse are worlds apart with FiOs being much more superior.


From what I've seen/read/heard, FIOS definitely seems to be the superior of the two.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

"txfeinbergs" said:


> If I had FIOS in my area, DirecTV would get dropped immediately, along with Time Warner Cable for my Internet. Better product, for less money. Simple as that. (I define a "better product" as less compression on TV channels and faster internet speeds).


It is actually not less when everything is done. You have to pay a receiver fee on each receiver, including your primary one. When you add the expensive HD DVR fee to the basic package, FiOs is actually more money. I looked into it many times.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

"Greg Alsobrook" said:


> From what I've seen/read/heard, FIOS definitely seems to be the superior of the two.


My sister and grandma have U-Verse and most of my neighbors have FiOs. I have seen how much superior it is.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> I get *tons* of brief dropouts, where the video and audio will pause for a second, but that's my only real complaint with the service.


I haven't seen this at all. I'm sure it has alot to do with distance from the V-RAD. The tech even made the comment that with as strong as my signal was, I shouldn't have any issues.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> There is no way they're using bitrates that high. That's higher than what DirecTV uses, and the PQ is not as good as DirecTV's.
> 
> AT&T is like DirecTV, in that their PQ doesn't vary throughout the nation. The channels are compressed centrally, and then distributed out from there. So everybody's getting the same stuff, the only difference is how many concurrent streams are supported by the line.


You may be correct. Upon reading further, I see that was an old post, and there were even comments in the thread that they were going to lower it to somewhere in the 6.5Mb/s range. Either way - I'm not going to get all caught up in the numbers. As long as it looks okay, that's all that really matters in the end. To us, it looks fine. I suppose that could also go back to the proximity to the V-RAD? And as I said in my OP, since we considered a streaming only option, this is obviously better... so we'll deal with it.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

smiddy said:


> ... I can't recall where it was said, but I think it was Sixto who's been has pointed out that we've seen the decay in DirecTV's grip on leading the technology of home entertainment television. ...


Nope, it wasn't me that said that.

I'm quite happy with DirecTV for TV, and FiOS Double-Play for Internet (35/20 Mbps) & Voice. FiOS would have the Triple-Play but they're lacking in the areas mentioned earlier. I have the perfect setup for the requirements of this household, at this point in time.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> I haven't seen this at all. I'm sure it has alot to do with distance from the V-RAD. The tech even made the comment that with as strong as my signal was, I shouldn't have any issues.


I'm only a couple hundred feet from the V-RAD, and my signal is perfect. I don't know if it's the receiver, the RG, the line, etc. All I know is it's annoying, but I also know that calling up AT&T to get it fixed would probably be even more annoying. So I live with it.


Greg Alsobrook said:


> To us, it looks fine. I suppose that could also go back to the proximity to the V-RAD?


I agree that it looks fine. They don't use adaptable bitrates or anything like that. Everyone sees the exact same thing.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

txfeinbergs said:


> If I had FIOS in my area, DirecTV would get dropped immediately, along with Time Warner Cable for my Internet. Better product, for less money. Simple as that. (I define a "better product" as less compression on TV channels and faster internet speeds).


RE: PQ, I've got both FiOSTV and DirecTV hooked up to my 65" 1080p plasma. I've also got OTA from the Empire State Bldg in NYC (source of the east coast network feeds). From normal viewing distance (10 feet), I've got 20-20 vision and see no difference in HD picture quality looking at the same show using all three methods. If I stand as close as 3-4 feet, I _think_ I can see some differences, but you really have to look for them because they're subtle. DirecTV does a great job transcoding MPEG-2 to MPEG-4, IMHO.

I do notice that FiOS and OTA HD trickplay are silky smooth compared to DirecTV's, but that's just the difference between MPEG2 and MPEG-4. If FIOS ever starts transmitting MPEG-4 sources, I'd expect the same quality as DirecTV's.

SD picture quality is another story. FiOS does a much better job than DirecTV on those channels, IMHO.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve said:


> SD picture quality is another story. FiOS does a much better job than DirecTV on those channels, IMHO.


Everybody does, really. But at the end of the day, if you care about PQ, you probably don't care about SD all that much anyway.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Everybody does, really. But at the end of the day, if you care about PQ, you probably don't care about SD all that much anyway.


Ya. Unfortunately, there are a couple of shows each I watch on BBCA and AMC. FiOS does carry AMC in HD, tho. Neither carries BBCA in HD.


----------



## Groundhog45 (Nov 10, 2005)

Good luck, Greg. This sounds like a worthy experiment. I hope it all works out as you expect. I'm sure many of us here have thought about changing service or dropping back to a lower package because of how much expense we can/will tolerate for entertainment. We'll be looking for continuing updates.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

More than your posts, I'll miss seeing the Choc Lab in so many threads. 

We're making similar moves here. 2 kids off to college leaving us with a household of 3. I'm close to moving on, as my bill has climbed to $175/month. I can get rid of tuners, but because of the lease deal, I'm afraid of what it will cost to get those back if I want them. I like having "everything", but if that price tips $200, I will need to look elsewhere. I really do understand that the content piece is what's driving the costs to astronomical levels, but at some point I need to be a bit more responsible and look at options.

It's a bummer that the X-Box appears to be the only viable Media Center Extender. Ideally, I'd like to see a Media Center Extender in the form of a ROKU that allowed NetFlix, MLB.TV and HULU Plus.

For me in Phoenix, it's either Cox, Dish or DirecTV. Cox charges over $20 for each HD DVR which is a game-stopper for me.

Enough about me...Good luck with AT&T and thanks for your contributions!


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> It's not all about the money. It's more about the _value_ for the money. It just wasn't there for us anymore. Partly because our viewing habits have changed, and partly because I feel like DIRECTV fell behind in a couple of areas.


I understand and totally agree with your reasoning. That's the same logic I used when I suspended my account between the NHL season and NFL season. I'm surviving with an OTA DVR and watching other channels at hotels when I travel (which is almost every week). I honestly hope more people do what you did, because if enough subscribers do this, prices might stabilize. I can't leave DIRECTV, because they still have the best HD sports offerings, including NFL ST and NHL CI. Good luck with U-verse, hope it works out for you.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

RACJ2 said:


> I understand and totally agree with your reasoning. That's the same logic I used when I suspended my account between the NHL season and NFL season. I'm surviving with an OTA DVR and watching other channels at hotels when I travel (which is almost every week). I honestly hope more people do what you did, because if enough subscribers do this, prices might stabilize. I can't leave DIRECTV, because they still have the best HD sports offerings, including NFL ST and NHL CI. Good luck with U-verse, hope it works out for you.


Unfortunately, unless one leaves PayTV completely, the people who raise the prices, the channels, don't even notice. If you switch from DIRECTV to anything else, they still get their money.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> I've got the same U-verse package as you (U200 for $44/month) *and I'm not hating the service nearly as much as I expected to.* I had to switch for different reasons, though. I get *tons* of brief dropouts, where the video and audio will pause for a second, but that's my only real complaint with the service. The GUI, which is HD, is far nicer than DirecTV's current GUI. And being able to preview what's on other channels while in the guide and info bar is cool as hell!
> 
> Overall, I'll probably be back with DirecTV next year. But U-verse is absolutely a worthy competitor.


I say you certainly must not be hating Uverse the way you expected to since just a little over one and a half years ago you stated quite emphatically. ...



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


http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2280903#post2280903


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Good luck Greg. And I'm joining you soon!

As some may remember I dropped DirecTV and all pay TV completely in Jan 2010 due to loss of job. Well I've been back to work for a few months now but both wife and I have been completely happy still with OTA and streaming only.

BUT things have recently changed that. First, Netflix jacks their rates up 60% to the point we'd be paying $18 a month for streaming and just 1 disc out at a time. Are you kidding me? Even bigger though, which we all knew would happen, is Comcast screwing everyone that streams now that they own NBC Universal. Comcast is in the process of killing Hulu, our main source of TV. First most shows have gone to 30 day delay, sucks but we can live with it. But now it's "available when the season is over" delay which is unacceptable. And they want money for this? On top of that looks like Hulu will only be usable soon if you can prove you pay for cable service. 

So since we have Uverse for Internet I did my research and went down to the local AT&T store. I'm getting Uverse TV for basically $6 a month more then I'm paying for Internet alone right now *and* $200 cash cards rebate. Sure, after 6 months the rates go to normal and if they don't give me a deal then I'll drop the TV and go back to OTA/streaming again until they give me a new deal. No biggy.

But why not hook DirecTV back up? As Greg stated, the value just isn't there anymore. Little fees for everything, just like cable. More expensive and less channels. HD quality is just fine on Uverse here so no worries there unless something drastic has changed since I last tried it. My big reason for staying with DirecTV for so many years was Sunday Ticket which has priced itself out of my reach. I can go to the bar a couple Sunday's a month for less money and have more fun.

Anyway, not to thread jack but there is my update.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

bonscott87 if you compare you will see little or no differnce in cost for Direct and uverse, there DVR and MRV are in the U200 package and you can not drop them and save a little like you can with Directv. I also took the 200$ also then cancled the TV. I have the chouice of 4 providers here and they are all about the same after the deal runs out. If I find I can do without the Red Wings I will go to OTA as it is free.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

It is really sad to see so many long time people leaving.

As far as value (not including special new customer rates), it is terrible for all services.

The providers are cramming more and more commercials into their programming. Recently, I have actually seen the show cut to make room for an extra commercial. Channels are showing programming not even related to their niche...Commercial laden movies on a music channel for example. Animated lower 1/3rd adverts DURING the programming. Yet no one has offered a commercial free pay channel except for movies.

Value is going down the tubes more each day. Providers arent helping...

$9 a month to watch your recorded programming in your bedroom for example ($6 for box, $3 for MRV). Double charging for HD (HD fee + HD Extras). Charging $10 a month per box to watch HD on your own equipment (Xfinity). Adding in extra unmentioned charges that add 50% to your bill (AT&T), Letting anyone cram charges on your bill whether they are legit or not (AT&T).

Even our city owned Electric Co has billing so complicated, there is NO WAY to figure out how high your electric bill will be, even if you know the exact KWH usage.

*Good luck to you guys.* Here is hoping that collectively, the corporations will start waking up and stop this nonsense, because we know the source Hollywood studios and program originators wont help unless they are forced into a corner.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

I really wonder about people's perception of PQ when they say Uverse is "good enough" or "as good as." I don't mean it as a personal attack...I just haven't seen a moving scene on Uverse not become an overly compressed mess. Talking heads look ok, yes, but once cameras move it goes bad. 

I know many don't care about PQ, but it stuns me on geek sites, like we are here, have fellow geeks not seeing the differences.


----------



## davidatl14 (Mar 24, 2006)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> My wife and I have found that we've been watching much less TV in the past year or so than in past years. That, combined with my frustration over DIRECTV's lack of a few notable items, I have decided to suspend my DIRECTV for 6 months and take AT&T U-verse for a spin.
> 
> I've had U-verse internet service for almost 2 years. When I called in a couple weeks ago to pay my bill, they made me a very appealing offer to give their TV service a try. In the end, I'm getting essentially the same setup that I have with DIRECTV for $44/month for 6 months. After the promotion ends, so will my account suspension with DIRECTV, and I'll compare prices and weigh my options at that point.
> 
> ...


Kudos Sir. Text book Procedure on how things should be handled when Looking for a TV provider that better suits your needs.

Much better than the "Squeaky Wheel" mode that some take in this forum.

Best of Luck whatever you decide. Keep in Touch and let us know how it goes.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I'm only a couple hundred feet from the V-RAD, and my signal is perfect. I don't know if it's the receiver, the RG, the line, etc. All I know is it's annoying, *but I also know that calling up AT&T to get it fixed would probably be even more annoying. So I live with it.*


All I can say is give them a try. I'm sure the quality of customer care varies widely but my in-laws have had the service for close to 3 years now and my parents almost a year. They both say the customer service has been outstanding. Unfortunately, my parents have had several opportunities to test the services (several issues with the phone service initially) but in every case they have been there same day and got the problems resolved quickly.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> I say you certainly must not be hating Uverse the way you expected to since just a little over one and a half years ago you stated quite emphatically. ...
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2280903#post2280903


Wow Jeremy, your very own stalker, you must feel honored!


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"sigma1914" said:


> I really wonder about people's perception of PQ when they say Uverse is "good enough" or "as good as." I don't mean it as a personal attack...I just haven't seen a moving scene on Uverse not become an overly compressed mess. Talking heads look ok, yes, but once cameras move it goes bad.
> 
> I know many don't care about PQ, but it stuns me on geek sites, like we are here, have fellow geeks not seeing the differences.


I think some of it depends on the tv, but also some are more sensitive to the video. Like an audiophile really notices audio issues more than other people.

Then add things like local conditions and what one person sees might not be the same as another.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> I think some of it depends on the tv, but also some are more sensitive to the video. Like an audiophile really notices audio issues more than other people.
> 
> Then add things like local conditions and what one person sees might not be the same as another.


Good point with the audio. I'm one who can't blindly tell the difference between the audios if tested, but can hear it when pointed out.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> I say you certainly must not be hating Uverse the way you expected to since just a little over one and a half years ago you stated quite emphatically. ...


Well, I have three HD streams. :lol: And yes, I really did expect to truly hate the service, but it's not so bad. And the promotional price is fantastic.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> Wow Jeremy, your very own stalker, you must feel honored!


You know you've arrived on a message board when someone digs up a post of yours from over a year ago. :lol:


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

PCampbell said:


> bonscott87 if you compare you will see little or no differnce in cost for Direct and uverse, there DVR and MRV are in the U200 package and you can not drop them and save a little like you can with Directv. I also took the 200$ also then cancled the TV. I have the chouice of 4 providers here and they are all about the same after the deal runs out. If I find I can do without the Red Wings I will go to OTA as it is free.


Yep, all providers are indeed about the same, plus or minus. They key for me is that DirecTV doesn't provide the *value* anymore. For example, I originally signed up with DirecTV 15 years ago because cable was $40/mo for 35 channels and DirecTV was $30 a month for 90 channels, although it was $800 up front for a single LNB dish and receiver that I had to install myself. 

And Sunday Ticket has about priced itself out of the market, at least is has for me.

But yea, I did the comparisons when looking at coming back. Uverse U200 was about the same price, cheaper on the "extras" and more channels. Quality is great here so it's a no brainer really. By the way U300 is really the "sweet spot" value package for Uverse. $84 a month for every non premium channel PLUS you get all the Showtimes, Starz and Encore movie channels. That's quite a bit cheaper then DirecTV or other providers, available to me anyway.


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> The providers are cramming more and more commercials into their programming. Recently, I have actually seen the show cut to make room for an extra commercial. Channels are showing programming not even related to their niche...Commercial laden movies on a music channel for example. Animated lower 1/3rd adverts DURING the programming. Yet no one has offered a commercial free pay channel except for movies.


Not that I disagree with what you said, but it looks to me that the so called movie channels are moving more towards the commercial free pay channel you're talking about. I rarely watch movie on HBO, Showtime, etc. but I do watch a number of the series' on them. In fact, without shows like Weeds, Game of Thrones, etc. I most likely wouldn't be a premiere subscriber.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

sigma1914 said:


> I really wonder about people's perception of PQ when they say Uverse is "good enough" or "as good as." I don't mean it as a personal attack...I just haven't seen a moving scene on Uverse not become an overly compressed mess. Talking heads look ok, yes, but once cameras move it goes bad.
> 
> I know many don't care about PQ, but it stuns me on geek sites, like we are here, have fellow geeks not seeing the differences.


Uverse actually still surprises me that it even works at all as a viable service. Particularly for much above talking heads scenes as you say. In my area for instance, while I can't speak for any upgrades to the telephone cable plant AT&T may have, or will, do below ground to make way for Uverse TV here (Uverse internet is available, but not TV or phone yet), the above ground telephone cables on the poles have to be at least 50+ years old.

And when I consider that its hard to imagine Uverse capable of sending high quality HD streams through those old twisted wire pair cables.

Oh well ... its a non-starter for me anyhow in a full household right now with six DVRs (three of them HD) and one HD STB. That's thirteen satellite tuners with five of them HD.

A major no-go for Uverse here ... :nono2:


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

bonscott87 said:


> Good luck Greg. And I'm joining you soon!
> 
> Comcast is in the process of killing Hulu, our main source of TV. First most shows have gone to 30 day delay, sucks but we can live with it. But now it's "available when the season is over" delay which is unacceptable. And they want money for this? On top of that looks like Hulu will only be usable soon if you can prove you pay for cable service.
> 
> .


Do you have a PC that can record your favorite OTA programs so you can watch your favorites from there instead? I really think a two-tuner Media Center DVR may be all I need, in addition to some streaming options.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> Wow Jeremy, your very own stalker, you must feel honored!





Jeremy W said:


> Well, I have three HD streams. :lol: And yes, I really did expect to truly hate the service, but it's not so bad. And the promotional price is fantastic.


Not so much stalking as it was your catchy quip of "*U*-verse would be *U*-seless" at the time which stuck with me for some reason.

Then that phrase plus your screen name made it simple for the search engine to dig it up ...


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

bonscott87 said:


> As some may remember I dropped DirecTV and all pay TV completely in Jan 2010 due to loss of job. Well I've been back to work for a few months now but both wife and I have been completely happy still with OTA and streaming only.
> 
> BUT things have recently changed that. First, Netflix jacks their rates up 60% to the point we'd be paying $18 a month for streaming and just 1 disc out at a time. Are you kidding me?


I suspended Netflix prior to the announcement. The streaming was a nice supplement to my BD access, but I found it wasn't something I used every day. Right now I'm leaning towards the $9.99/mo one-at-a-time BD, but I may just cancel altogether and use Redbox for BD.



bonscott87 said:


> Even bigger though, which we all knew would happen, is Comcast screwing everyone that streams now that they own NBC Universal. Comcast is in the process of killing Hulu, our main source of TV. First most shows have gone to 30 day delay, sucks but we can live with it. But now it's "available when the season is over" delay which is unacceptable. And they want money for this? On top of that looks like Hulu will only be usable soon if you can prove you pay for cable service.


I personally never considered Hulu all that "big" since you had to pay to get HD resolution and it was always in the back of my mind it was an industry-owned effort and that very rarely turns out well.

I have to admit to a certain schadenfreude over the recent turn of events for the more effete level of "cord-cutters". Not the ones who are forced to down scale or eliminate services due to economic hardship, but the ones who act snobbish about the fact. Like the folks who'll tell you at every opportunity they don't even own a TV. I've had to suspend and downscale due to hardship and I found it not to be the paradise some portray it.



bonscott87 said:


> And Sunday Ticket has about priced itself out of the market, at least is has for me.


I used to like that there was a direct number to call to ask about what specials you might qualify for and I'd take advantage of it every six months or so. Now I have to play the "cancel service" game. It just made me feel more like a valued customer when I had the direct access. Got plenty of ST-related deals that way. I understand that the procedure got abused, but do you want to tell me there's no abuse with the "cancel service" procedure?


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

MikeW said:


> Do you have a PC that can record your favorite OTA programs so you can watch your favorites from there instead? I really think a two-tuner Media Center DVR may be all I need, in addition to some streaming options.


Yes, built a dedicated HTPC on day one when I left DirecTV a year and a half ago. So that takes care of all OTA networks (in HD) but we use Hulu for the "cable" networks like USA, FX and SyFy. These are what Comcast is trying to kill off and force people back to cable. Guess it's working. :lol:


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> The HD Channels weren't really a determining factor. Just more of an added bonus.
> 
> My biggest frustration was the lack of additional mobile options. The amount of content that people consume on a mobile device has been shifting dramatically over the past several years. While DIRECTV's mobile applications are very slick and eye appealing (especially the iPad app), they lack features that their competitors had 2 or 3 years ago. Also along the same lines, I'm baffled how the self-proclaimed "sports leader" can't have an agreement in place with ESPN to offer the WatchESPN app.
> 
> There are a few other items, but mostly still along the lines of me feeling that DIRECTV has fallen behind in the technology category.


Good luck in your transition. I found U-Verse to be absolutely horrible with picture freezing, skipping and such, but hopefully you have a good experience. This was at a relative's house, not my own personal experience.

I do have one question for you, however. Your claim about the sports leader really baffles me. Is DTV supposed to be the sports leader AT ALL COSTS or at ANY COSTS? Most providers do not have the WatchESPN app for a reason. I can tell you from the industry insider perspective that ESPN is trying to force providers to carry LongHorn Network, ESPN3, ESPNApps along with melding in their Disney and ABC properties. The asking prices are north of several billion dollars and they won't separate them out is the latest negotiating strategy. Some MVPDs got in before this strategy, like Time Warner, but others are unable. So to be the sports leader DTV has to be really stupid and take on product at ridiculous pricing?

Being the sports leader does not mean doing stupid deals. No different than the US being the military leader but cancelling or not pursuing certain weapon systems that many military leaders think are needed. At some point you have to make decisions and it makes you no less the leader in the category.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

bidger said:


> I personally never considered Hulu all that "big" since you had to pay to get HD resolution and it was always in the back of my mind it was an industry-owned effort and that very rarely turns out well.


Hulu was "big" for us since that was the main source of "cable channel" content. That's just us of course.



> I have to admit to a certain schadenfreude over the recent turn of events for the more effete level of "cord-cutters". Not the ones who are forced to down scale or eliminate services due to economic hardship, but the ones who act snobbish about the fact. Like the folks who'll tell you at every opportunity they don't even own a TV. I've had to suspend and downscale due to hardship and I found it not to be the paradise some portray it.


Wife and I have been doing great for a year and a half cutting the cord. And that would continue if not for the hefty price increases (that will continue) and companies like Comcast wanting to kill it to force people back to the cord.



> I used to like that there was a direct number to call to ask about what specials you might qualify for and I'd take advantage of it every six months or so. Now I have to play the "cancel service" game. It just made me feel more like a valued customer when I had the direct access. Got plenty of ST-related deals that way. I understand that the procedure got abused, but do you want to tell me there's no abuse with the "cancel service" procedure?


Sure you can play the game. I did to. Sometimes I got deals off ST, other years not. One thing I learned last year being laid off is that I can easily live without ST and now it's priced so high that even if you get some awesome half off deal, that's still a lot of Sunday's at the bar.  I also have 5 friends in my fantasy leagues that are of the same mind that ST is just too dang expensive now and ST was the only reason they were with DirecTV. All are looking at Uverse (or even Charter...shudder) as alternatives.

Obviously everything I've posted is just my situation (just as Greg and others). There is no "right" or "wrong" answer here. I only post to give people information they may want to help them make their own decisions.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Greg, I think you approach to this is very good. You will have a long time to compare and decide. 

I'm on the verge of trying uVerse internet. What worries me is that I had to do the legwork. I had to get uVerse to open up cases to verify my address. I'm about 2000 from the VRAD so not sure of the quality I will get. May take the TV 30 day money back guarantee offer to compare it to Direcv.

A friend who switched from Directv to uVerse due to rain fade has been happy but made comments on some outages and the off shore tech support being a problem. If it one thing that Directv excels in for me, is customer support. Please drop back now and then and let us know how their support is and where it is located. To me, I'll pay a bit extra for great support.

And thank you to all your help and support over the years. Have a feeling you won't be too far from here.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

ChicagoBlue said:


> Being the sports leader does not mean doing stupid deals. No different than the US being the military leader but cancelling or not pursuing certain weapon systems that many military leaders think are needed. At some point you have to make decisions and it makes you no less the leader in the category.


+1

The "sports leader" card is played way too much here. There are ramifications for being a leader and sometimes that means saying no to certain things because of costs, etc.


----------



## gomezma1 (Mar 28, 2006)

I am glad I live in this great country where we have the choice to buy what we want and speak. We would not be communicating with each other in this forum that DBS has given us the opportunity to do. Buy what you want and don't worry about what other people say about the decision you made because in the long run you are supplying the funds to watch what you want.


----------



## davidjplatt (Sep 22, 2007)

I can understand why there is a desire to leave DirecTV. My bill has grown to over $150 a month and I don't have Premier. I've been with them for 15 years and I have now become very tired of rain fade. The new satellites for HD have caused those signals to be very picky and very prone to outage.

The only real thing that has kept me from going to FiOS TV was their crappy and super expensive DVRs.

However, with the new Ceton 4 tuner HD PC card I could record 4 HD streams on a Windows 7 Media Center PC. The cable card is only $4 a month with no DVR fees. Even if I get 2 of the cards to get 8 simultaneous recordings, I'm only at $8 a month instead of $7 + $3 for MRV. The nice thing about the Ceton cards is that the tuners can be allocated over a home network to another PC. I could have my HTPC in the living room and another in the bedroom with 4 tuners each and use some of those tuners on the PC in the office or in the family room. And Xbox 360s (I have one) work as Media Extenders.

I currently have FiOS for Internet at 30/5. With the Triple Play from Verizon, I would get telephone, 35/35 internet and Ultimate HD with HBO (Showtime, Movie Channel, Starz and Encore are included in Ultimate). Right now I'm paying $243 a month for DirecTV, Vonage and FiOS internet. With the Triple Play it would be $168 a month including 2 cable cards.

Considering that Windows Media Center is just about as good as the HR2X DVRs, I just might switch.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

"Greg Alsobrook" said:


> The HD Channels weren't really a determining factor. Just more of an added bonus.
> 
> My biggest frustration was the lack of additional mobile options. The amount of content that people consume on a mobile device has been shifting dramatically over the past several years. While DIRECTV's mobile applications are very slick and eye appealing (especially the iPad app), they lack features that their competitors had 2 or 3 years ago. Also along the same lines, I'm baffled how the self-proclaimed "sports leader" can't have an agreement in place with ESPN to offer the WatchESPN app.
> 
> There are a few other items, but mostly still along the lines of me feeling that DIRECTV has fallen behind in the technology category.


I agree with you and more and more I am leaning to going to Uverse again this month. I need a PC and Mobile option and can't wait for DIRECTV to pull it's head out and finally get with the program. Nomad, Shomad!! I am tired of waiting! How long foes it take??

This is my biggest and truly only real gripe with DIRECTV.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

"hdtvfan0001" said:


> Then you must have gotten the latest unit, as the "standard HD DVR" with UVerse has only 120GB of storage....cool...you're in better shape then.


That's old news! You Fanbois need to catch up, LOL!


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Same with FiOS TV. They're now shipping 500GB DVR's and I believe still beta testing the ability to attach an external drive. My understanding is the external drive will become the primary "go to" drive. If a recording won't fit on it, it will record it entirely on the internal drive, because individual recordings can't span drives.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

"Jeremy W" said:


> There is no way they're using bitrates that high. That's higher than what DirecTV uses, and the PQ is not as good as DirecTV's.
> 
> AT&T is like DirecTV, in that their PQ doesn't vary throughout the nation. The channels are compressed centrally, and then distributed out from there. So everybody's getting the same stuff, the only difference is how many concurrent streams are supported by the line.


I just watched the Women's WC on Uverse at my neighbors on a 55"DLP. the HD quality looked as good as DIRECTV. On my neighbors 50" Panny 720p plasma ( I have 2 42" Panasonic Plasmas) I again saw NO difference watching previous soccer and other sporting events, PERIOD. For 99% of consumers, they can't and won't see a difference in PQ. Its the TV and tech geeks that see this perceived difference.


----------



## ENDContra (Dec 8, 2006)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> -The HD PQ is right on par with DIRECTV. The difference is negligible, if any. And I've been analyzing it quite a bit.


Well Im exploring DirecTV, and this makes me nervous about making the switch. One of my friends has U-verse, and it looks like absolute garbage. Even another friend, who doesnt notice these things usually, commented about it. I hope it has to do with his location/setup or something...my dad has DirecTV and it looks pretty good, but he also has a nicer TV.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"ENDContra" said:


> Well Im exploring DirecTV, and this makes me nervous about making the switch. One of my friends has U-verse, and it looks like absolute garbage. Even another friend, who doesnt notice these things usually, commented about it. I hope it has to do with his location/setup or something...my dad has DirecTV and it looks pretty good, but he also has a nicer TV.


PQ for DirecTV in HD is probably more comparable across the country than comparing Uverse. If someone in your immediate neighborhood has bad Uverse quality, yours probably wold be the same unless they had a badly calibrated tv.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> PQ for DirecTV in HD is probably more comparable across the country than comparing Uverse. If someone in your immediate neighborhood has bad Uverse quality, yours probably wold be the same unless they had a badly calibrated tv.


Uverse is equal everywhere. (I asked the experts at AVS awhile back.)


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"sigma1914" said:


> Uverse is equal everywhere. (I asked the experts at AVS awhile back.)


Ok, so only the number of streams changes? Just seems odd, I've rarely heard so many different views on Uverse quality. From horrible to as good as DirecTV. Didn't think it all could come down to TV set ups.


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

Seems like DBS talk has a mutiny of sorts on it's hands.. I have and enjoy Fios as part of their triple play. The PQ has great pop to it but is fairly equivalent to D*.. Csn Philly is it's biggest advantage to me as well as the extra MTV music channels. That might sound silly but mtvu is always playing videos of a wide variety of artists truly not being played by anyone else on pay tv... D* and it's sports options are why I stay. MRV is also nice but the Fios equivalent just as good for my small house...


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"Mutiny" is a bit strong . I think of it this way, if the other providers weren't worth considering, then DirecTV would have no incentive to innovate. While they may be slower than some like, it would be worse with no competition.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

gio12 said:


> I agree with you and more and more I am leaning to going to Uverse again this month. I need a PC and Mobile option and can't wait for DIRECTV to pull it's head out and finally get with the program. *Nomad, Shomad!! I am tired of waiting! How long foes it take??*
> 
> This is my biggest and truly only real gripe with DIRECTV.


Pardon me for missing this in Greg's original post, but I still don't have a clear understanding of what really "GREAT" mobile options U-verse offers.

And you really should be careful of such hasty and disparaging dismissals of Nomad before its even been released. It's official release is very soon and from what I've seen of it and what technicians now being field trained in it have said about it's features are quite impressive.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Obviously, DBStalk'ers are very smart... 

So generalizing on that, they will examine their options and likely be more open to some options that others might not consider.

Thus, from time to time, we lose some to other MSOs, only to have some of them come back. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

Sure(referring to my use of the word mutiny), but I've noticed a fairly steady stream of D* super supporters not seeing value in what D* is offering. Not sure what other word to use honestly... Fios and U-verse seem to be tempting more and more consumers around these parts even though many on this board continue treat those options as somehow being unworthy... Nice to see some counter to that sentiment because most of it is over passionate blathering. A thread like this makes it plainly obvious. Just sick of the D* corporate speak being parroted by so many on these pages.. No free lunch, quark, no free lunch, quark, no free lunch. Sat racer and mike white use it so it seems like everyone here must..just an example of a simple phrase I see over used.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

I did a careful side-by-side comparison of the two and could see no difference either ... until there was motion. Then Uverse's lower bit rate became apparent.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

mdavej said:


> I did a careful side-by-side comparison of the two and could see no difference either ... until there was motion. Then Uverse's lower bit rate became apparent.


Excellent point. When DIRECTV first added the Salt Lake locals, I could tell a difference between OTA and via satellite during movement.

Now that DIRECTV has tuned the encoders, I'm not sure I can tell anymore. (I haven't compared in awhile.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

"HoTat2" said:


> Pardon me for missing this in Greg's original post, but I still don't have a clear understanding of what really "GREAT" mobile options U-verse offers.
> 
> And you really should be careful of such hasty and disparaging dismissals of Nomad before its even been released. It's official release is very soon and from what I've seen of it and what technicians now being field trained in it have said about it's features are quite impressive.


Nomad still holds some interest to me but with more tidbits of info leaking out about the device it has me losing interest fast. Seems like comcast+others are at least trying to understand what people want from their on the go options while D* seems to be struggling with the concept...

Heck, I can stream a whole computers worth of tv, movies and music from my home computer to an iPhone with an app like zumocast.. If providers don't give people what they want we will always find ways to do it while companies like D* struggle with their tango skills. netflix users will passthepopcorn and so on.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

gio12 said:


> That's old news! You Fanbois need to catch up, LOL!


Yea, I even checked on this when I signed up. Used to be you could only get the bigger hard drive DVR if you got the top end package. Not anymore, everyone gets the same HD DVR with the bigger hard drive now.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> Pardon me for missing this in Greg's original post, but I still don't have a clear understanding of what really "GREAT" mobile options U-verse offers.


The mobile app is far from "great", but is a step or two above DIRECTV's IMO, as it allows mobile control of the DVR and has some streaming/downloading options. On my last check, there were 52 streamable series and 116 series available for download. You can sort alphabetically or by network.. and there were a few big name shows in there. Also, when viewing your list of recorded programs from the app, if any of those can be streamed or downloaded to the phone, it will let you know by placing a down arrow next to it.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

ChicagoBlue said:


> I do have one question for you, however. Your claim about the sports leader really baffles me. Is DTV supposed to be the sports leader AT ALL COSTS or at ANY COSTS? Most providers do not have the WatchESPN app for a reason. I can tell you from the industry insider perspective that ESPN is trying to force providers to carry LongHorn Network, ESPN3, ESPNApps along with melding in their Disney and ABC properties. The asking prices are north of several billion dollars and they won't separate them out is the latest negotiating strategy. Some MVPDs got in before this strategy, like Time Warner, but others are unable. So to be the sports leader DTV has to be really stupid and take on product at ridiculous pricing?
> 
> Being the sports leader does not mean doing stupid deals. No different than the US being the military leader but cancelling or not pursuing certain weapon systems that many military leaders think are needed. At some point you have to make decisions and it makes you no less the leader in the category.


I hear you loud and clear. No, I don't expect them to do "stupid deals". I suppose I just expected a little more for the near $100 I was paying for one of the lowest packages (Select) package and the sport pack... which brings me back to the value for the money point. It just wasn't there anymore. In my eyes, DIRECTV offers very little that their competitors don't (aside from Sunday Ticket), yet lacks several things that their competitors have. Granted, the items that are missing may be more important to some than others, and vice versa. With my current promo, I get to try out a couple of the missing things and see how important they become to me, and save ~$50/month in the process. 

For your reference:

SELECT Monthly* * 44.99*
SPORTS Monthly* * 12.99
HD ACCESS Monthly* * 10.00
DIRECTV DVR Service Monthly* * 7.00
DIRECTV CINEMAplus Tune to Ch. 1000 for more info* * 0.00* 
DIRECTV Whole-Home DVR Service Monthly* * 3.00
Additional Receiver* * 6.00
Additional Receiver* * 6.00
TN Satellite Programming Sales Tax* * 7.44* ** **
AMOUNT DUE $97.42*


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

ENDContra said:


> Well Im exploring DirecTV, and this makes me nervous about making the switch. One of my friends has U-verse, and it looks like absolute garbage. Even another friend, who doesnt notice these things usually, commented about it. I hope it has to do with his location/setup or something...my dad has DirecTV and it looks pretty good, but he also has a nicer TV.


I wouldn't be nervous about the switch. DIRECTV has great HD PQ, and great service overall.

I definitely didn't mean to start an HD PQ war. I'm honestly just not seeing much of a difference... and I'm pretty picky. I have no idea why some have had such a bad experience with it. Maybe it's my signal quality (distance from the V-Rad)? Maybe I just haven't seen the right type of content yet? Maybe I'm not as picky as I thought I was?  Either way, we're satisfied with it, and that's all that matters.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

*Greg*,

I wish you well with the change.

I understand plenty of what you have expressed.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> For your reference:
> 
> SELECT Monthly* * 44.99*
> SPORTS Monthly* * 12.99
> ...


For a penny over $3/mo more I personally would do Choice rather than Select and Sports. But maybe you follow Collegiate Sports which usually aren't blacked out.

I forego the RSNs and do Select w/out locals for 41.99/mo. and I don't do Whole Home since I use DirecTV2PC to stream to my bedroom. DirecTV did issue a $10/mo. credit on my account for one year when I called last December. It comes to $57.98/mo. after equipment and DNS (CBS and FOX) are factored in. If TWC can keep my charge for Digital TV and Roadrunner combined around $100/mo. after my promo period is up, I think I can live with that.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

"dpeters11" said:


> Ok, so only the number of streams changes? Just seems odd, I've rarely heard so many different views on Uverse quality. From horrible to as good as DirecTV. Didn't think it all could come down to TV set ups.


I find that VERY hard to believe it's just TVs. Must be something more to it. The only people I hear complaining about UVERSE PQ is guys here on this dIrectv forum...hmmm...

Then again, I only visit this forum. I know at least 45 people with uverse tv. No complaints about PQ. I have seen about 18 set-ups. All looked nice.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

gio12 said:


> I find that VERY hard to believe it's just TVs. Must be something more to it. The only people I hear complaining about UVERSE PQ is guys here on this dIrectv forum...hmmm...
> 
> Then again, I only visit this forum. I know at least 45 people with uverse tv. No complaints about PQ. I have seen about 18 set-ups. All looked nice.


Now the overall system PQ on Uverse may be the same across the country (I find that hard to believe but let's go past that) but it is effected locally by a couple things:

1) How much bandwidth are you personally provisioned for. If you're only a 30 meg provision and you try to do 3 HD channels at the same time you're doing a huge download on the Internet, well, something is going to suffer and PQ is usually the first to go.
2) How far you are from the VRAD. This is related to #1 but this is a form of DSL after all and thus the farther you are away from the VRAD the weaker the signal is to your house and the more problems you may have (dropouts, pixelization, bandwidth limitations, etc.).

At my house I'm provisioned for 52 meg last I checked. In my neighborhood there is a VRAD box every other block so I'm within a block and a half from 3 of them so my signal is rock solid strong. But that may not be the case for others at the farthest end of the road. They may only have half the bandwidth available that I do.

But here at least they built things out pretty well. Fiber down every street and I personally have a brand new copper from the pole to my house and a new network interface box on my house as well. All that helps to produce solid speeds.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> -A couple of other cool notables:.......Buffers are transferrable between STBs.


Isn't that because the main DVR is also the tuner for the client boxes?

My M-I-L has U-Verse, and while it is fine for her, whenever the family gets together, the tuner limitation rears its ugly head.

I think the hardest thing, it is for me at least, the HD channels and SD channels are not the same number. I *****ed when DirecTV stated they were doing this, but it turns out they were right.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Isn't that because the main DVR is also the tuner for the client boxes?


Yes, the clients boxes are thin .. Heck, I suppose down the road, if AT&T were to adopt RVU, they could work well with the new Samsung TVs.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> Now the overall system PQ on Uverse may be the same across the country (I find that hard to believe but let's go past that) but it is effected locally by a couple things:
> 
> 1) How much bandwidth are you personally provisioned for. If you're only a 30 meg provision and you try to do 3 HD channels at the same time you're doing a huge download on the Internet, well, something is going to suffer and PQ is usually the first to go.
> 2) How far you are from the VRAD. This is related to #1 but this is a form of DSL after all and thus the farther you are away from the VRAD the weaker the signal is to your house and the more problems you may have (dropouts, pixelization, bandwidth limitations, etc.).


Both of these are incorrect. They would require adaptive bitrate streaming, which U-verse simply does not use. If you're watching 3 HD streams and trying to max your Internet connection, your Internet speed is what's going to get killed. And distance from the VRAD affects how many streams you can use, not PQ.


----------



## mborner (Jan 12, 2011)

dpeters11 said:


> Ok, so only the number of streams changes? Just seems odd, I've rarely heard so many different views on Uverse quality. From horrible to as good as DirecTV. Didn't think it all could come down to TV set ups.


Agreed. One thing is for sure, how often do you hear people complain of a horrible picture on DirecTV? Personally, I've seen Uverse a few times at a friends house and the picture was what I would call "substandard" on a Sharp Aquas 42" LCD.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Jeremy W said:


> And distance from the VRAD affects how many streams you can use, not PQ.


Long distance can introduce dropouts and pixelization which of course effects PQ. I know for a fact the farther you are from the VRAD the weaker signal you have and it impacts everything to the negative. It's easy enough to see in action which I have and the Uverse techs (yes, they may or may not know anything) confirm this is the case. Which is why they try not to install people that are close to or over the distance limit.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> Long distance can introduce dropouts and pixelization which of course effects PQ.


No. Those are *signal *quality issues, not *picture *quality issues. It's a very important distinction, because signal issues happen at a lower level and with a digital system that doesn't use adaptive bitrate streaming, they have no effect on picture quality.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Jeremy W said:


> No. Those are *signal *quality issues, not *picture *quality issues. It's a very important distinction, because signal issues happen at a lower level and with a digital system that doesn't use adaptive bitrate streaming, they have no effect on picture quality.


The bottom line is the picture sucks when you have dropouts and quality issues. Thus people complain about "picture quality" because it looks all the same to them. Fine if you want to get super technical about it.

But whatever, no use arguing about it anymore. It is what it is.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> The bottom line is the picture sucks when you have dropouts and quality issues. Thus people complain about "picture quality" because it looks all the same to them. Fine if you want to get super technical about it.
> 
> But whatever, no use arguing about it anymore. It is what it is.


I thought we were having a discussion about picture quality. If that is indeed the case, bastardizing the term "picture quality" adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. If you want to discuss signal quality issues, go right ahead. I brought some up myself. But the real bottom line is that this is a technical forum, and so this stuff matters.

PQ and SQ issues don't look the same to anyone. They may not understand the difference without an explanation, but they are two totally different things.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I would think brief lack of picture blackouts would be part of what most people would consider picture quality even if it's not technically the case.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I would think brief lack of picture blackouts would be part of what most people would consider picture quality even if it's not technically the case.


I understand, and I agree with you. But that doesn't mean we have to use that incorrect definition in a technical discussion.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> The mobile app is far from "great", but is a step or two above DIRECTV's IMO, as it allows mobile control of the DVR and has some streaming/downloading options. On my last check, there were 52 streamable series and 116 series available for download. You can sort alphabetically or by network.. and there were a few big name shows in there. Also, when viewing your list of recorded programs from the app, if any of those can be streamed or downloaded to the phone, it will let you know by placing a down arrow next to it.


Where can all the streaming, downloading, and mobile DVR control take place?

On the home network, over the internet, or both?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> Where can all the streaming, downloading, and mobile DVR control take place?
> 
> On the home network, over the internet, or both?


It's important to note that streams and downloads come from AT&T's servers, not the DVR itself, which is why the selection is limited. However it can be done from anywhere, as can the DVR control.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

mborner said:


> Agreed. One thing is for sure, how often do you hear people complain of a horrible picture on DirecTV? Personally, I've seen Uverse a few times at a friends house and the picture was what I would call "substandard" on a Sharp Aquas 42" LCD.


I personally haven't heard complaings on DirecTV HD, but plenty of complaints on SD though that is primarily from people with HD sets so not necessarily a fair comparison (SD on an HDTV vs SD on an SD set.)


----------



## dmurphy (Sep 28, 2006)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> My wife and I have found that we've been watching much less TV in the past year or so than in past years. That, combined with my frustration over DIRECTV's lack of a few notable items, I have decided to suspend my DIRECTV for 6 months and take AT&T U-verse for a spin.
> 
> I've had U-verse internet service for almost 2 years. When I called in a couple weeks ago to pay my bill, they made me a very appealing offer to give their TV service a try. In the end, I'm getting essentially the same setup that I have with DIRECTV for $44/month for 6 months. After the promotion ends, so will my account suspension with DIRECTV, and I'll compare prices and weigh my options at that point.
> 
> ...


Hey Greg!

I'm in a very similar boat. Not going anywhere -- still love DBSTalk, and still love DirecTV, but I recently bought a new house in a FiOS area. The FiOS bundle saves me $100/mo compared to my former cable internet/phone & DirecTV bundle.

I'm giving FiOS a spin; so far, the service is decent. I still think DirecTV's DVR is better, but the FiOS one isn't terrible either.

My problem has been with customer service so far -- I've had one outstanding issue (with my PHONE service, believe it or not!) that they haven't been able to resolve in several weeks. WEEKS! They've got about one more week before I get really PO'd.

But the actual service itself is pretty good. Picture quality is outstanding. The DVR is fast, but takes more 'clicks' than the DirecTV one. I also think the DirecTV guide is more usable.

Next week, I'm supposed to get a software update on the FiOS DVRs, so I'm reserving holding the less-than-optimal guide against them until after I try the new software.

Anyway, welcome to the "I love my DirecTV but suspended my account for now" club! Sometimes, dollars and cents matter... and with a much bigger mortgage right now, it's more important than ever for me.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I would think brief lack of picture blackouts would be part of what most people would consider picture quality even if it's not technically the case.





Jeremy W said:


> I understand, and I agree with you. But that doesn't mean we have to use that incorrect definition in a technical discussion.


It's more than just a "technical difference", it is a BIG distinction when the comparisons being made are about the actual normal picture quality between the 2 carriers which is the main debate. Signal quality issues are the result of a particular installations and are usually adressable case by case. Picture quality "is what it is" for everyone.

If we're not going to make that distinction, then I have BIG HD PQ issues with DirecTV when thunderstorms come through... some of the worst PQ I have ever seen (or not seen)!


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> Now the overall system PQ on Uverse may be the same across the country (I find that hard to believe but let's go past that) but it is effected locally by a couple things:
> 
> 1) How much bandwidth are you personally provisioned for. If you're only a 30 meg provision and you try to do 3 HD channels at the same time you're doing a huge download on the Internet, well, something is going to suffer and PQ is usually the first to go.
> 2) How far you are from the VRAD. This is related to #1 but this is a form of DSL after all and thus the farther you are away from the VRAD the weaker the signal is to your house and the more problems you may have (dropouts, pixelization, bandwidth limitations, etc.).
> ...


THIS is the correct answer in my opinion.

It all depends on the final run into the house \ neighborhood. Not all things are created equally. Some people have a great U-Verse experience and others, like folks in my neighborhood, do not. It has to do with that last connection and therefore, not all are created equally.

There are some fun forums on U-Verse where customers weigh in on this stuff to back up my point. I wouldn't want to be accused of being a homer.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Greg, 

Good luck with whatever works best for you!  

~Alan


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> THIS is the correct answer in my opinion.
> 
> It all depends on the final run into the house \ neighborhood. Not all things are created equally. Some people have a great U-Verse experience and others, like folks in my neighborhood, do not. It has to do with that last connection and therefore, not all are created equally.
> 
> There are some fun forums on U-Verse where customers weigh in on this stuff to back up my point. I wouldn't want to be accused of being a homer.


And some people have horrible experiences with their dish installations, coax runs, etc., etc., etc. When it comes to comparing PQ between carriers these are not applicable to the discussion. Do they effect the overall quality of the service?, absolutely. But when discussing HD PQ head to head, they are not relevant.

If I said Time Warner has superior HD PQ because my DirecTV HD Picture sucks during heavy rain storms, it would not be an accepted argument (rightly so).


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> And some people have horrible experiences with their dish installations, coax runs, etc., etc., etc. When it comes to comparing PQ between carriers these are not applicable to the discussion. Do they effect the overall quality of the service?, absolutely. But when discussing HD PQ head to head, they are not relevant.
> 
> If I said Time Warner has superior HD PQ because my DirecTV HD Picture sucks during heavy rain storms, it would not be an accepted argument (rightly so).


Thank you, this is exactly what I was trying to say.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> I think the difference is that if a dish or D* customer is having a PQ issue, a simple realignment or local fix at the home can cure the issue.


Unless they're encoder issues that go on for months and affect almost everyone. :lol:


----------



## Joke (Jun 15, 2011)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Then you must have gotten the latest unit, as the "standard HD DVR" with UVerse has only 120GB of storage....cool...you're in better shape then.


This is incorrect. When I got U-verse installed 2 years ago, I got the "standard" Motorola VIP 1225, which had a 250GB hard drive.

However, I agree that U-verse hard drive size is a problem. My main motivation for switching to DirecTV last month was the option to upgrade my DVR hard drive size with an external.

Greg, are you loving the web-based scheduling for the U-verse DVR? That's the functionality I miss most. 
In fact, everything about U-verse's backend mirroring of the DVR schedule is cool. When my DVR died after about 18 months, just plugged in the new one and it knew what shows to record. On the other hand, it sucked that the DVR died and I lost all my previously recorded content.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Joke said:


> This is incorrect. When I got U-verse installed 2 years ago, I got the "standard" Motorola VIP 1225, which had a 250GB hard drive.


Interesting...since I know 2 close friends who both got 120GB drives in their UVerse "standard" HD DVRs...


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Interesting...since I know 2 close friends who both got 120GB drives in their UVerse "standard" HD DVRs...


My standard HD DVR has a 160GB hard drive. But the 500GB hard drive on my HR23 never got below 90% free, so I know I'm not going to run into any issues.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

BattleScott said:


> If we're not going to make that distinction, then I have BIG HD PQ issues with DirecTV when thunderstorms come through... some of the worst PQ I have ever seen (or not seen)!


Me, too. It's even worse when the power goes out....


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

> Greg, are you loving the web-based scheduling for the U-verse DVR? That's the functionality I miss most.


DirecTV's web site allows for scheduling, and there's an app for the iPhone. The also have a new app for the iPad, which is slick, and does a lot more than scheduling.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> DirecTV's web site allows for scheduling, and there's an app for the iPhone.


The U-verse app allows for much more than just scheduling. You can manage your recordings as well as your to-do list. From anywhere. DirecTV's remote scheduling app pales in comparison.


Laxguy said:


> The also have a new app for the iPad, which is slick, and does a lot more than scheduling.


But you can only use it on your home network.


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

Jeremy W said:


> The U-verse app allows for much more than just scheduling. You can manage your recordings as well as your to-do list. From anywhere. DirecTV's remote scheduling app pales in comparison.
> 
> *But you can only use it on your home network.*


Only the receiver remote control functions require your home network. Everything else works with any internet connection.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Go Beavs said:


> Only the receiver remote control functions require your home network. Everything else works with any internet connection.


Everything else being... remote DVR scheduling.


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

Jeremy W said:


> Everything else being... remote DVR scheduling.


I get your point but there's a lot more you can do with the app "on the road" than just scheduling. Just sayin' 

Now, back to your regular scheduled topic.


----------



## Groundhog45 (Nov 10, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> Obviously, DBStalk'ers are very smart...
> 
> So generalizing on that, they will examine their options and likely be more open to some options that others might not consider.
> 
> ...


Well, they say we learn from our mistakes. Guess we'll find out. :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Groundhog45 said:


> Well, they say we learn from our mistakes. Guess we'll find out. :lol:


:lol:

Speaking of seeing....

I had to pick up a car phone charger for the Mrs at AT&T yesterday...and happened to spend about 20 minutes examining the side-by-side display at the AT&T store with UVerse and DirecTV next to each other.

Observations:

1) For those who indicate there is no difference in the HD quality - I'd recommend you do this comparison. For both Mrs HDTVFan and me...UVerse was a clear 2nd place of the 2, in terms of HD picture quality. Even one of the personnel in the store agreed.

2) The HD DVRs are certainly smaller, but also their operation seemed pretty simpleton. Nothing special and certainly nothing overly impressive in terms of capabilities than what I use today.

3) Even the AT&T store personnel (3 of them, including the manager) indicated that they see lots of folks take advantage of the discounted "get into UVerse" deal....only to leave when the regular pricing kicks in.

30 minutes at the AT&T store simply reinforced what I've seen at several households already. Guess we'll see....


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The HD DVRs are certainly smaller, but also their operation seemed pretty simpleton. Nothing special and certainly nothing overly impressive in terms of capabilities than what I use today.


The MediaRoom GUI blows away what DirecTV has today. It's a gorgeous HD interface, with quick animations that make everything flow very nicely. I have no idea what you mean by "simpleton" because it has pretty much every feature DirecTV offers aside from DoublePlay.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> The MediaRoom GUI blows away what DirecTV has today. It's a gorgeous HD interface, with quick animations that make everything flow very nicely. I have no idea what you mean by "simpleton" because it has pretty much every feature DirecTV offers aside from DoublePlay.


The MediaRoom UI is neat...but <1% of my time is spent with the UI. I suspect that's the case with most folks.

Doubleplay was not there as you indicated, and some of the other menu-based features seemed "clunky" in terms of how they worked. It's also not all that intuitive. Flash with no sizzle undernear us just flash.

Then there's the HD channel offerings...pros and cons on that front...


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The MediaRoom UI is neat...but <1% of my time is spent with the UI. I suspect that's the case with most folks.


While that may be true, I will not accept any argument against a nice UI. U-verse has one, FiOS has one, and DirecTV and Comcast are working on theirs. It's clearly something that's needed in this day and age, otherwise the big boys wouldn't be bothering.


hdtvfan0001 said:


> and some of the other menu-based features seemed "clunky" in terms of how they worked. It's also not all that intuitive.


After almost two months of use, I have to completely disagree. I think the layout is very logical, with similar things grouped together and in many cases making much more sense than how DirecTV does things. I'm not going to say it's better than DirecTV's layout, but they both have pros and cons.


hdtvfan0001 said:


> Flash with no sizzle undernear us just flash.


There's plenty of sizzle, not quite sure how you missed it unless you weren't looking.


hdtvfan0001 said:


> Then there's the HD channel offerings...pros and cons on that front...


I'm curious here, what are the cons? Sure they're missing a couple channels that DirecTV has, but there are many more that they have and DirecTV doesn't.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> I'm curious here, what are the cons? Sure they're missing a couple channels that DirecTV has, but there are many more that they have and DirecTV doesn't.


I'd rather not turn this into a comparison thread...but in general...I saw absolutely nothing superior, innovative, or cutting edge with the UVerse offering, in comparison to the products/services I have available today.

As the OP indicated...price (at least the introductory offer) seems to be the tipping point at this time.

So like the OP also indicated...it comes down to the financial choices that people make - on that front - there's nothing right or wrong....it's just a personal choice.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'd rather not turn this into a comparison thread...but in general...I saw absolutely nothing superior, innovative, or cutting edge with the UVerse offering, in comparison to the products/services I have available today.


There are plenty of ways that U-verse is superior to DirecTV, and vice-versa. You spent a few minutes with it in a store. For the people who have actually switched, I guarantee most will disagree with you. Just look at the opinions in this thread.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> but in general...I saw absolutely nothing superior, innovative, or cutting edge with the UVerse offering, in comparison to the products/services I have available today.


I find your observations very confusing to be honest. The current U-verse UI is very slick and innovative IMO. The channel groupings are more intuitive, the "U-Bar" is more visually appealing and works a bit better than "TV Apps", the custom Multiview (Mix) channels are a nice feature, the On-Demand is laid out nicely and offers 48-hour rentals on big name movies, the media share works much better, the ability to see a live preview of channels while scrolling through the 'mini guide', and then there's the remote management of the DVR from a web browser and/or smartphone apps, and the availability of streaming/downloading content. There are many things available with this service that aren't available with DIRECTV. I suppose you just need more time with it to discover all of those things.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> There are many things available with this service that aren't available with DIRECTV. I suppose you just need more time with it to discover all of those things.


That was a great overview of some superior and exclusive features of U-verse. And I completely agree, like I mentioned above, these are things that are very easy to miss when you're just playing around with the service in a store.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> I find your observations very confusing to be honest. The current U-verse UI is very slick and innovative IMO...
> 
> I suppose you just need more time with it to discover all of those things.


I guess their UI isn't the "turn on" for many folks that it is for some... 

I subscribe to an HD TV service, not a UI service....the UI is just a means to the end. 99% of the time or more is spent watching HDTV, not the UI.

I can assure you that spending 30 minutes of hands-on with UVerse at AT&T, as well as the hours at 2 personal friends homes (one of which has already switched back), was more than enough to be underwhelmed by it being anything special.

All that said...alot of that stuff comes down to personal taste, and as stated earlier...there's no right or wrong there...just difference in taste. Wish you all the best in your new service experiences.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> All that said...alot of that stuff comes down to personal taste, and as stated earlier...there's no right or wrong there...just difference in taste.


Whether you care or not is definitely an opinion. But the features are there, and the fact that DirecTV doesn't have them is definitely not an opinion. So if you modified your post to say


hdtvfan0001 said:


> I saw absolutely nothing superior, innovative, or cutting edge with the UVerse offering *that matters to me*, in comparison to the products/services I have available today.


I'd have absolutely no problem with it.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> [...] and then there's the remote management of the DVR from a web browser and/or smartphone apps [...]


This is one area I feel strongly DirecTV lags the competition. Several MSO's have been offering the capability to remotely manage their DVR _To Do Lists_ and _Series Managers_ for at least a year now, if not longer.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve said:


> This is one area I feel strongly DirecTV lags the competition. Several MSO's have been offering the capability to remotely manage their DVR _To Do Lists_ and _Series Managers_ for at least a year now, if not longer.


The problem is that DirecTV doesn't have their own back-channel into the DVR. Cable companies do.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I guess their UI isn't the "turn on" for many folks that it is for some...
> 
> I subscribe to an HD TV service, not a UI service....the UI is just a means to the end.
> 
> ...


Considering the UI is the sole way to interact with any TV service, I would say the features and intuitiveness of it is very important. I assume you will be totally uninterested when the HD GUI from DIRECTV comes out then. I expect no posts from you regarding that topic. 

As far as "HD TV service" goes, they offer the same HD channels that DIRECTV does plus several top name HD channels that DIRECTV doesn't. From the first post: AMC HD, CNN HLN HD, Cooking Channel HD, DIY HD, E! HD, G4 HD, HIST Int. HD, Investigation Discovery HD, Lifetime Movie Network HD, Outdoor Channel HD, OWN HD, TCM HD, TMC HD (East & West), TruTV HD.

I find it odd that you're "underwhelmed" when it offers several nice features that DIRECTV doesn't. Whether you're interested personally in the features or not, it's hard to discount the offerings by U-verse. As you said, it does come down to personal taste. But so far this morning you've called it: simpleton, not overly impressive, clunky, flash with no sizzle, not intuitive, inferior, not innovative, and not cutting edge. Based on the info that Jeremy, myself, and others have provided, I just don't see how you can justify those claims.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> I find it odd that you're "underwhelmed" when it offers several nice features that DIRECTV doesn't. Whether you're interested personally in the features or not, it's hard to discount the offerings by U-verse.


It's easy to discount channels one never watches or features one will almost never use. That why folks have choices. Only 2 of those channels ever get viewed here...so no big deal.

Like I said earlier...personal taste.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It's easy to discount channels one never watches or features one will never use. That why folks have choices.
> 
> Like I said earlier...personal taste.


Then as Jeremy said, perhaps it should have read:



hdtvfan0001 said:


> I saw absolutely nothing superior, innovative, or cutting edge with the UVerse offering *that matters to me*, in comparison to the products/services I have available today.


Because as I pointed out, there are several things that are superior, innovative, and cutting edge compared to what DIRECTV offers.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> The problem is that DirecTV doesn't have their own back-channel into the DVR. Cable companies do.


Don't think a large enough number of DirecTV DVR's are network connected by now to make this a worthwhile project? Even if it's a small %, the number of DirectTV customers is so high that 10% is almost 2 million households.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> Because as I pointed out, there are several things that are *superior, innovative, and cutting edge *compared to what DIRECTV offers.


Then I guess our definitions of what qualifies to earn those descriptions differ.

No big deal.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> the On-Demand is laid out nicely and offers 48-hour rentals on big name movies


I guess that shoots down the theory put forth by many here, that D* has nothing to do with the 24 hour window, that it is simply being forced on them and that all providers have to adhere to it.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

raott said:


> I guess that shoots down the theory put forth by many here, that D* has nothing to do with the 24 hour window, that it is simply being forced on them and that all providers have to adhere to it.


Indeed. That was the first thing I thought when I saw that. I have no idea why the studios would let AT&T offer it for 48 hours but restrict DIRECTV to 24. I wonder what it's like with the other big name services.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Then I guess our definitions of what qualifies to earn those descriptions differ.
> 
> No big deal.


Just for fun then, lets spin it the other way. What features does DIRECTV offer that U-verse doesn't... that makes them superior, innovative, and cutting edge to you? Maybe I'll learn something here.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> Indeed. That was the first thing I thought when I saw that. I have no idea why the studios would let AT&T offer it for 48 hours but restrict DIRECTV to 24. I wonder what it's like with the other big name services.


My guess, (and it is only a guess), it has to do with how much money the provider is willing to part with for each PPV rented.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> Indeed. That was the first thing I thought when I saw that. I have no idea why the studios would let AT&T offer it for 48 hours but restrict DIRECTV to 24. I wonder what it's like with the other big name services.


Perhaps AT&T is paying a higher % back to the studios for a 48 hour window? :scratchin


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

raott said:


> My guess, (and it is only a guess), it has to do with how much money the provider is willing to part with for each PPV rented.





Steve said:


> Perhaps AT&T is paying a higher % back to the studios for a 48 hour window? :scratchin


I suspect you guys may be correct. That's the only thing that really makes sense.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> Just for fun then, lets spin it the other way. What features does DIRECTV offer that U-verse doesn't... that makes them superior, innovative, and cutting edge to you? Maybe I'll learn something here.


:lol: That sucking sound you hear isn't me entering into *that* conversation. 

I just found it "interesting" that you first mentioned you're not watching that much TV anymore as before as a reason to switch...then cited other channels as an advantage somehow...

Look at it this way...there are millions of folks who have Dish....Dish for goodness sake... :eek2:

So obviously...there's a flavor for every taste.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve said:


> Don't think a large enough number of DirecTV DVR's are network connected by now to make this a worthwhile project? Even if it's a small %, the number of DirectTV customers is so high that 10% is almost 2 million households.


I think a large part of the problem is that it would either require opening ports on the subscriber's router, or sending each request via satellite and then waiting for the receiver to respond via the Internet. Neither of these are very attractive options.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> :lol: That sucking sound you hear isn't me entering into *that* conversation.


You started it. :grin:



hdtvfan0001 said:


> I just found it "interesting" that you first mentioned you're not watching that much TV anymore as before as a reason to switch...then cited other channels as an advantage somehow...


I don't understand what this has to do with you saying that AT&T offers nothing over DIRECTV. That's what I'm asking you to justify. As far as the extra channels go... I've actually found myself watching a couple of new channels now that I actually have them in HD. Sure, I watch less TV as a whole, but they're still nice to have there. More value for the money.  But as I said all along, that wasn't an incentive to switch. Just an added bonus.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

I have a quick question regarding picture quality. I have AT&T U-Verse in my area. The V-Rad hub thingy is on the side of my house, right over my fence. I’m talking less than 100’ feet from my house. I also had all new copper wire installed from the street to my house less than a year ago. The installer said my signal was so strong he had to “cap” it with a filter. Not sure what the H that means. Anyhow, assuming my signal is tiptop, will I still see pixilation on fast moving scenes? From all I read, I’m not sure if pixilation is inevitable for all AT&T customers or just customers with poor/weak signals. I’ve been going back and forth on switching to AT&T ever since this thread started.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Hutchinshouse said:


> assuming my signal is tiptop, will I still see pixilation on fast moving scenes?


Yes. PQ has nothing to do with how strong your signal is.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Yes. PQ has nothing to do with how strong your signal is.


Bummer. I guess I'm sticking with DIRECTV.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Hutchinshouse said:


> I have a quick question regarding picture quality. I have AT&T U-Verse in my area. The V-Rad hub thingy is on the side of my house, right over my fence. I'm talking less than 100' feet from my house. I also had all new copper wire installed from the street to my house less than a year ago. The installer said my signal was so strong he had to "cap" it with a filter. Not sure what the H that means. Anyhow, assuming my signal is tiptop, will I still see pixilation on fast moving scenes? From all I read, I'm not sure if pixilation is inevitable for all AT&T customers or just customers with poor/weak signals. I've been going back and forth on switching to AT&T ever since this thread started.


I will say this... I finally noticed some blocking last night in a shot on Iron Chef America on the Food Network that I don't know would have been there with DIRECTV. They were zoomed into a skillet, and when the chef "shook" the skillet, I saw the black area that was the side of the skillet block up a bit. I still haven't watched any fast moving sports on U-verse yet. I'll try to catch a baseball game soon.

I've also seen a couple quick audio drops outs. Since my audio is hooked up to a receiver via optical, it's going to be pretty sensitive... and possibly over-exaggerate a drop since the Dolby Digital has to kick off and kick back on. If it were hooked up any other way, they may not be noticeable. It's also hard to say that U-verse was the cause of them. Could have been in the broadcast. I saw them often with DIRECTV as well.

I believe AT&T offers a 30 day trial on the TV if you were considering trying it out.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Hutchinshouse said:


> Bummer. I guess I'm sticking with DIRECTV.


Why not put your DirecTV account on hold and give U-verse a shot? There's no contract. You might just be surprised how much you enjoy it.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> The problem is that DirecTV doesn't have their own back-channel into the DVR. Cable companies do.





Jeremy W said:


> I think a large part of the problem is that it would either require opening ports on the subscriber's router, or sending each request via satellite and then waiting for the receiver to respond via the Internet. Neither of these are very attractive options.


Though dish also has remote DVR management. So I wonder how they deal with no back-channel and what to and fro paths their system uses for it and how well it performs?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> Though dish also has remote DVR management. So I wonder how they deal with no back-channel and what to and fro paths their system uses for it and how well it performs?


I wasn't aware Dish had this capability, so I have absolutely no idea how they do it or how well it works. I'd be interested in finding this out as well.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> I wasn't aware Dish had this capability, so I have absolutely no idea how they do it or how well it works. I'd be interested in finding this out as well.


Unless its the same as what DirecTV offers ...see the channels, see the scheduled programming...determine if you want to record something...request the recording to be scheduled all via remote device...


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Why not put your DirecTV account on hold and give U-verse a shot? There's no contract. You might just be surprised how much you enjoy it.





Greg Alsobrook said:


> I will say this... I finally noticed some blocking last night in a shot on Iron Chef America on the Food Network that I don't know would have been there with DIRECTV. They were zoomed into a skillet, and when the chef "shook" the skillet, I saw the black area that was the side of the skillet block up a bit. I still haven't watched any fast moving sports on U-verse yet. I'll try to catch a baseball game soon.
> 
> I've also seen a couple quick audio drops outs. Since my audio is hooked up to a receiver via optical, it's going to be pretty sensitive... and possibly over-exaggerate a drop since the Dolby Digital has to kick off and kick back on. If it were hooked up any other way, they may not be noticeable. It's also hard to say that U-verse was the cause of them. Could have been in the broadcast. I saw them often with DIRECTV as well.
> 
> I believe AT&T offers a 30 day trial on the TV if you were considering trying it out.


thx, maybe I'll read up on the 30 day test drive.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Unless its the same as what DirecTV offers ...see the channels, see the scheduled programming...determine if you want to record something...request the recording to be scheduled all via remote device...


No its a lot more than DIRECTV's AIUI. I remember a somewhat recent thread here from former dish sub who had just switched to D* assuming they had something similar and became very disappointed when he found out otherwise.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Unless its the same as what DirecTV offers ...see the channels, see the scheduled programming...determine if you want to record something...request the recording to be scheduled all via remote device...


You can do all that with the Dish app or with Dish Online. With the Dish app at home on my iPad, I can also watch what is on my units and what is on at Dish Online's site. Pretty slick overall.

I use it on the iPad at night after I've gone to bed to one-eye some late night viewing...


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Unless its the same as what DirecTV offers


Nope, I just checked Dish's site. It's full remote DVR management like U-verse offers. So it looks like DirecTV is alone here as well.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

lparsons21 said:


> You can do all that with the Dish app or with Dish Online. With the Dish app at home on my iPad, I can also watch what is on my units and what is on at Dish Online's site. Pretty slick overall.
> 
> I use it on the iPad at night after I've gone to bed to one-eye some late night viewing...


If you know, what are the forward and return paths it uses outside the home network?

Both to and fro over the internet or is one data path partly via the satellite?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> If you know, what are the forward and return paths it uses outside the home network?
> 
> Both to and fro over the internet or is one data path partly via the satellite?


I don't know, sorry. But I think the interaction between you and the app is all via the Internet. I don't know if the sat comes into play at all outside the home network.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

lparsons21 said:


> I don't know, sorry. But I think the interaction between you and the app is all via the Internet. I don't know if the sat comes into play at all outside the home network.


The satellite receivers (and dishes) have no way to transmit back to DIRECTV. That requires a whole new level of alignment and FCC approvals. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

lparsons21 said:


> I don't know, sorry. But I think the interaction between you and the app is all via the Internet. I don't know if the sat comes into play at all outside the home network.


This could be a clue ... do you have to open any ports in router's firewall for this feature?


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> The satellite receivers (and dishes) have no way to transmit back to DIRECTV. That requires a whole new level of alignment and FCC approvals.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


What I question though is whether the dish remote user outside the home network is sending to dish's servers over the internet for them to then forward to the DVRs by satellite. The DVRs then respond back to the user via the internet of course.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> This could be a clue ... do you have to open any ports in router's firewall for this feature?


If you're able to control this from outside the home, I can't imagine doing this _without _ports being opened. That said, if the device supports UPnP, shouldn't be a big deal. Worst case, you'd need to set up port forwarding on your router. That could be a support headache for some non-technical customers.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

I didn't have to open any ports on my AirPort Extreme to be able to access my U-verse DVRs.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> I didn't have to open any ports on my AirPort Extreme to be able to access my U-verse DVRs.


You may be talking to them via AT&T, since you said your SL's are all backed up there. They probably know your TDL as well.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

On cable, the set top boxes have dedicated communications channels back to home base. They don't need "internet" service enabled.

Dish and DIRECTV can use the satellite link to send information to the receivers. And we know that DIRECTV uses that mechanism for DVR Scheduler.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Steve said:


> You may be talking to them via AT&T, since you said your SL's are all backed up there. They probably know your TDL as well.


Ah, true. I take back what I said. The STBs are plugged directly into the U-Verse RG (residential gateway/modem). They don't pass through my Airport.

It's not that they know my TDL list as well... I can actually interact (i.e. delete programs) from the DVR.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> Ah, true. I take back what I said. The STBs are plugged directly into the U-Verse RG (residential gateway/modem). They don't pass through my Airport.
> 
> It's not that they know my TDL list as well... I can actually interact (i.e. delete programs) from the DVR.


Yup. I can do that with my Verizon FiOS DVR. FiOS remote access is great because when she needs the help, I'm also able to manage my mom's Verizon FiOS set-up from my home... her SL's, recordings, deletions, etc.

And I can do it via smartphone, iPad or web browser.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The MediaRoom UI is neat...but <1% of my time is spent with the UI. I suspect that's the case with most folks.


I'm curious then, if the UI is not of any specific interest to you, what is the basis of your "simpleton" obeservation?

I have a good deal of experience now with the UVerse DVRs at both the parents and the in-laws and like Greg and Jeremy, find that observation to be completely off-base. I realize that people have different priorities in what matters to them about their service, but "simplistic" compared to what you use today (assuming that's still DirecTV) is very hard to understand. It would lead me to believe that perhaps you did not really explore it enough to make an accurate assessment and that it's not simply a differing opinion based on solid comparison.


----------



## chadb97 (Jun 28, 2010)

I haven't posted much here, but I've been reading this forum for quite a while now. The information gained in these forums have been quite useful for me. This particular thread caught my attention because I just recently switched from Directv to Comcast for almost the same reasons that Greg is trying out Uverse. 

Uverse isn't available in my area yet (I live in an at&t area where Uverse availability is still being built out), so my only options for TV service currently are Comcast Xfinity (went through the digital migration last fall), Directv, and Dish. I got a fantastic deal from Comcast to bundle in their tv with my current internet and phone services they already provide me. Basically I get all three of my services for just $10 more than what 1 month of Directv service was costing me. Believe it or not Comcast now has more HD channels than Directv in my area. Many are the same that Greg mentioned (amc hd, history international hd, trutvhd, tcmhd, and etc.) Comcast offers a 30 day money back guarantee so I decided to suspend my Directv account and give it a try.

The picture quality is every bit as good as Directv's. The remote dvr features are much much better. You can control your series priority's, start and end times for recordings, and set up series recordings all remotely. Along with this, I can also stream/download all OnDemand offerings to my PC or Android phone. Now Comcast's guide ui still looks like something from the mid '90's, but apparently Comcast will be introducing a brand new HD GUI sometime in 2012. 

I'm with Greg and Jeremy on this one...I have nothing against Directv, and the quality of there service is great. However, I just feel that Comcast Xfinity, At&t Uverse, and probably Verizon Fios all offer a better "value" to some customers at the moment. I specifically say "some customers" because the additional hd offerings and advanced DVR controls and OnDemand streaming is not of "value" to everyone. However, it is for me. When Comcast installed I had them keep as much of the Directv set-up intact as possible, so if I decide to reactivate my account with Directv in the next 6 months it won't be a hassle.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

chadb97 said:


> Believe it or not Comcast now has more HD channels than Directv in my area.


That's not hard to believe at all. Most Comcast systems that have undergone the full analog reduction have more HD channels than DirecTV. That's the case in my area as well.

DirecTV came out and said that they no longer care to compete on HD channel count, which is disappointing to me. They don't care that they're behind.


----------



## kmax (May 23, 2007)

I'm a fourteen year customer ready to suspend in about 2 weeks. Local providers (Comcast and Fios) have more HD offerings (in regards to what I find important.)

With 4 tuner cable cards and media extenders, this eliminates high DVR fees, crappy interfaces, and provides the MRV solution.

Who knows, this experiment may be a complete failure. But what really pushed myself and my wife over the edge has been the abysmal DVR speed. Pure frustration.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> This could be a clue ... do you have to open any ports in router's firewall for this feature?


None that I'm aware of. I have a stock Airport Extreme setup with nothing special done to make all this work.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> That's not hard to believe at all. Most Comcast systems that have undergone the full analog reduction have more HD channels than DirecTV. That's the case in my area as well.
> 
> DirecTV came out and said that they no longer care to compete on HD channel count, which is disappointing to me. They don't care that they're behind.


Insight ditched analog altogether as well, freeing up a bunch of room. Not sure of the exact count of channels but they do have any that I watch.

My biggest issue is sports packages and equipment. Even with the new network storage multi-room DVR solution by Pace, it only supports 3 DVRs (I need four rooms supported) and is still buggy (from what I have read).

Cable has stepped up its game, which will hopefully force D* to as well.


----------



## chadb97 (Jun 28, 2010)

Jeremy W said:


> That's not hard to believe at all. Most Comcast systems that have undergone the full analog reduction have more HD channels than DirecTV. That's the case in my area as well.
> 
> DirecTV came out and said that they no longer care to compete on HD channel count, which is disappointing to me. They don't care that they're behind.


I find this very discouraging. For most of this decade I always viewed Directv as the leader in HD. I always considered anybody else's tv service second rate. (in my head at least) Directv basically conceding that they won't compete with cable, or telco companies on adding more national hd channels is incredibly disappointing.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

chadb97 said:


> I find this very discouraging. For most of this decade I always viewed Directv as the leader in HD. I always considered anybody else's tv service second rate. (in my head at least) Directv basically conceding that they won't compete with cable, or telco companies on adding more national hd channels is incredibly disappointing.


DIRECTV never said that and never would say that. No company would every say they concede to anything from a competitor . They have tons of cliche's they will always use.

Some people are just pissed off because there's a channel they want and they say should be there already. You can read the HD anticipation thread and you'll find out who's who. You'll also see that more HD is coming this month. However some people are never happy.

In fact:


Jeremy W said:


> That's not hard to believe at all. Most Comcast systems that have undergone the full analog reduction have more HD channels than DirecTV. That's the case in my area as well.
> 
> DirecTV came out and said that they no longer care to compete on HD channel count, which is disappointing to me. They don't care that they're behind.


Where's your source link on this?


----------



## chadb97 (Jun 28, 2010)

Shades228 said:


> DIRECTV never said that and never would say that. No company would every say they concede to anything from a competitor . They have tons of cliche's they will always use.
> 
> Some people are just pissed off because there's a channel they want and they say should be there already. You can read the HD anticipation thread and you'll find out who's who. You'll also see that more HD is coming this month. However some people are never happy.
> 
> ...


Problem is...Directv pretty much did say that. Here's a direct quote from an article in Multichannel News.

The HD Wars Are Over. What's the Next Battleground?.


> "To be honest, I think right now, everyone's got most of the important stuff in HD," Derek Chang, DirecTV executive vice president of content strategy and development, said. "Once we got to 100 channels, it became about delivering the overall experience."
> 
> There's less benefit in trying to hit 200 HDs because those by their nature will be less-watched networks, he noted. DirecTV is going to continue to add channels "selectively as we see fit and where we can deliver value to the customer," Chang said. The satellite operator is advancing along several new fronts, including 1080p HD (Blu-ray Disc quality), early-premiere movies, sports, iPad apps, multiroom viewing and enhancing the guide.
> 
> "HD is just one piece of the puzzle," Chang said."


The more HD being added this month are simply more premium channels in hd. If directv were truly competing in the hd content field they would already have amc hd, E!hd, trutv hd, diy hd, tcm hd, bbcamerica hd, National Geographic Wild hd, style hd, oxygen hd, lifetime movies hd, reelz hd, and cooking channel hd, . to name a few. The fact is Directv has fallen behind in the hd channel count war, and the mobile dvr controls/mobile streaming and downloading of television show and movies. It's not that Directv has bad service...in fact, Directv is very very good. There picture quality is fantastic. There implementation of whole-home dvr was great. However, I just think that other providers are offering a better "value" right now. I sincerely hope Directv ups there game because of the increased competition from Xfinity, Uverse, and Fios.

[Moderator Edit: Please link to your source of copyrighted materials. Thanks.]


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I read that as they won't add channels just to up their count, but ones it makes sense to add.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

"Satelliteracer" said:


> DIRECTV said nothing of the kind.


The relevant quote has been posted. I'm sure it's "nothing of the kind" to you, but I think most people would agree with my interpretation.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> The satellite receivers (and dishes) have no way to transmit back to DIRECTV. That requires a whole new level of alignment and FCC approvals.


That's the short-sighted view. If they had wanted to provide the service, they would be using the landline modem or Internet connection for sending information back. Did they learn nothing from Hughes about established back channels?

They might even push a few hundred more over the edge for DECA.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> Though dish also has remote DVR management. So I wonder how they deal with no back-channel and what to and fro paths their system uses for it and how well it performs?


Remote Access uses any kind of an Internet connection to talk back to the servers. Because all DISH ViP series DVRs have HomePlug built in, only one of the DVRs needs to be connected to the router.

It shows you all the channels you have available, has average search capability, shows all the content on the internal drive as well as all the content you have on an active archive drive. You can also delete any individual program from either hard drive. It shows you what's scheduled and if there are any conflicts or why a recording was skipped. You can edit existing schedules (priority, number to keep, once/new/all/weekday/everyday, beginning padding and ending padding).

Finally, it also provides an interface to your Slingbox to watch live or recorded programming from satellite, internal drive or archive drive.

Most of the time it works very well. Occasionally there are outages but typically no worse than any other Internet based service from a satellite provider.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> Both to and fro over the internet or is one data path partly via the satellite?


All of it travels via the Internet except where the receiver isn't Internet connected. For the disconnected, it is pretty much the same as DIRECTV's Internet programming setup in features and functions.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> The relevant quote has been posted. I'm sure it's "nothing of the kind" to you, but I think most people would agree with my interpretation.


+1

Others do agree with you. Just read the comments at the bottom of this page: link

DIRECTV starts an HD arms race. Now that they're behind in basic HD channels they're calling off the battle? :scratch:

Sounds like a bad time to announce the battle is over.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> The relevant quote has been posted. I'm sure it's "nothing of the kind" to you, but I think most people would agree with *my interpretation*.


Key words highlighted. 

Nothing wrong with that...just noting it.

Back to the OP....the reasons for that individual leaving for now are *his*...also nothing wrong with those (for him).


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> The relevant quote has been posted. I'm sure it's "nothing of the kind" to you, but I think most people would agree with my interpretation.


I don't see how it could be interpreted any other way. I would imagine the quote was a direct response to being questioned about no longer being the "HD Leader".


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

Satracer, actions speak louder then any misquoted interpretation. Soon. Soon. Soon. Everyone else had their soon many months previous. Not soon enough.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> 4 more HD channels are launching 7 days from now. .


Premium or (basic/HD Extra) ?


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> Premium or (basic/HD Extra) ?


Premium... More Cinemax and ESPN3D Full time


----------



## Jon J (Apr 22, 2002)

Satelliteracer said:


> 4 more *premium* HD channels are launching 7 days from now.


 FYP


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> The idea that DIRECTV is not interested in adding more HD or doesn't care about HD is laughable.


And nobody has said either of those things. Nice strawman.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"Jeremy W" said:


> And nobody has said either of those things. Nice strawman.


Come now. It has been said many times on this forum. Maybe not this thread but there are some who believe it.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> Come now. It has been said many times on this forum. Maybe not this thread but there are some who believe it.


I didn't mean that nobody has ever said either of those things in the history of mankind. I was referring to this thread, and mostly to things I've said in it. I can't be responsible for much else, especially when it's my post being quoted.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

When exactly did this morph into the HD Channel Anticipation thread?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

I agree that DirecTV shouldn't care about HD channel counts, as Chang referenced. It's about quality and not quantity. Yeah, there's some questionable "quality" channels in HD. Brighthouse appears to have the highest amount of HD (according to the debated AVS chart), but even they lack some quality HD channels like HDNet, HDNet Movies, NFL Network, Sony Movie Channel, and a lot of Starz channels.


----------



## admdata (Apr 22, 2011)

:backtotop


Good Luck, I also made the trip to the dark side (cable) main reason cost, I can get my basic channels (ABC,CBS,FOX etc) for a little over $20 a month, and I am fine with that.

Waiting on install today.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

bidger said:


> When exactly did this morph into the HD Channel Anticipation thread?


The OP pointed to several things in the original post as reasons for his switch. While not ultimately a "deciding factor", one of the specific things referenced as part of an overall perception of "better value", was additional HD channels offered by the new provider.

It seems to be a very relevant part of the ongoing comparison between the 2 providers, especially when trying to determine what plans, if any, that one might have to try and close the gap.

As someone who is seriously considering making this switch within the next year, I find this thread to be one of the most valuable started in several months. Everything discussed to this point has been right on topic in my opinion.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> ...
> 
> As someone who is seriously considering making this switch within the next year, I find this thread to be one of the most valuable started in several months. Everything discussed to this point has been right on topic in my opinion.


And exceptionally civil. Personally, I appreciate these type of "switching/leaving" threads, and it's because of how it was started. Greg gave a well written and level headed post, which has been reciprocated by our fellow users. It's a lot better than the "DirecTV sucks and I'm gone" threads bashing everything.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> It's a lot better than the "DirecTV sucks and I'm gone" threads bashing everything.


Well, it all depends on why they're leaving DirecTV.

I left DirecTV because they suck! :lol:


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I left DirecTV because they suck! :lol:


Not 'cause you moved?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve said:


> Not 'cause you moved?


It was because I moved, that's why I added the :lol:.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> It was because I moved, that's why I added the :lol:.


Thought I remembered that. Your last post was too subtle for me.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve said:


> Thought I remembered that. Your last post was too subtle for me.


It's not the first time my attempt at humor has gone undetected.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> And exceptionally civil. Personally, I appreciate these type of "switching/leaving" threads, and it's because of how it was started. Greg gave a well written and level headed post, which has been reciprocated by our fellow users. It's a lot better than the "DirecTV sucks and I'm gone" threads bashing everything.


100% agree. Being who he is and how it was posted also helped keep the fan-boy attacks to a minimum as well. Both things are equally destructive to these threads.

Hopefully, someone at DirecTV will at least take notice (based on the rational debate and status of participants) and pass the thread along to "whom it may concern".

There is only one reason I am still with DirecTV (well 2 reasons for 8 more months) and that's the edge in HD PQ. But for many of the reasons Greg and Jeremy W have shared, as well as a few of my own, it is no longer enough. If the HD GUI promise (more the speed increase than just "HD" but that is nice too) is lived up to and the addition of HD channels (non-premium) returns, then I will likely stay. If things stay status quo, they will lose one more long time customer.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> It was because I moved, that's why I added the :lol:.


Well, if you can't get DirecTV where you moved to, it's hard to suck worse than that!!!


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> Well, if you can't get DirecTV where you moved to, it's hard to suck worse than that!!!


Yeah, my current HD PQ with DirecTV is about as bad as it gets.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> IIt's about quality and not quantity


If Directv is concerned about quality, they might want to take another look at their bit-starved SD channels. They have far worse picture quality compared to most other provider's SD channels I've seen.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

mreposter said:


> If Directv is concerned about quality, they might want to take another look at their bit-starved SD channels. They have far worse picture quality compared to most other provider's SD channels I've seen.


Good job taking it out of context; PQ had zero to do with my comments.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

mreposter said:


> If Directv is concerned about quality, they might want to take another look at their bit-starved SD channels. They have far worse picture quality compared to most other provider's SD channels I've seen.


Who cares about SD?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

mreposter said:


> If Directv is concerned about quality, they might want to take another look at their bit-starved SD channels. They have far worse picture quality compared to most other provider's SD channels I've seen.


My sense is DIRECTV does not wish to repeat the SD and HD light problems they got forced into. Fortunately they planned very strategically for this situation with so many satellites slots.

Unfortunately, the only way to get more SD bandwidth is to move some off the 101 position or remove them altogether.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Joke (Jun 15, 2011)

Jeremy W said:


> Who cares about SD?


I care about SD, but only with respect to the channels not offered in HD.

Picture quality on BBCAmerica is terrible. Which is sad -- the Inbetweeners is, in my opinion, the funniest show on television today.

But overall my DirecTV viewing experience is way better than it was with U-verse. With my 2GB external drive with DirecTV I can record everything I want in HD. With my 250GB drive with U-verse I ended up canceling HD service because I was recording everything in SD anyway to save space.


----------



## Joke (Jun 15, 2011)

Laxguy said:


> DirecTV's web site allows for scheduling, and there's an app for the iPhone. The also have a new app for the iPad, which is slick, and does a lot more than scheduling.


Yeah, "scheduling" wasn't the right word for me to use; as other people have mentioned U-verse offers complete DVR management via the web.

Since I keep my laptop on the coffee table, with U-verse I did everything DVR-related via laptop, with the exception of starting a program and deleting it when it finished. The mouse-and-keyboard inputs of the laptop made searching/changing/deleting much easier than via clicker, and the much smaller font appropriate to the laptop display made it easier to see a lot of info at once (e.g. all search results, or a big list of upcoming recordings, etc). And the added bonus was I could do all that without obscuring what we were watching on TV.

The "a lot more than scheduling" you mentioned about the DirecTV iPad app sounds appealing, but I don't have an iPad. Would love for DirecTV to make that capability, whatever it is, available for my laptop.


----------



## Joke (Jun 15, 2011)

Jeremy W said:


> The MediaRoom GUI blows away what DirecTV has today. It's a gorgeous HD interface, with quick animations that make everything flow very nicely. I have no idea what you mean by "simpleton" because it has pretty much every feature DirecTV offers aside from DoublePlay.


The U-verse interface certainly looks better - DirecTV is too busy. This is particularly true in the DVR menu; all those icons and different colors and use of italics make it hard for me to scan through my (very long list) of recorded shows on DirecTV. I also don't like the expanded-folder concept for multiple-episode recordings; it's too many clicks to un-expand the folder once I'm inside the list.

DirecTV kills U-verse on two UI things, though, and that's ease of access to closed-captioning and to changing the screen format/zoom.
It takes like 5 clicks to turn on or off CC in U-verse, and the menus you have to go into take up the whole screen -- just terrible. And changing the zoom level on U-verse appears to have a dedicated button, but they kept packing more random crap into that side menu AND for some reason that menu was unbelievably slow to respond.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Joke said:


> And changing the zoom level on U-verse appears to have a dedicated button, but they kept packing more random crap into that side menu AND for some reason that menu was unbelievably slow to respond.


Yes, I did notice that menu being ridiculously slow. I have no idea why, but at least it's consistently slow. :lol: The U-verse DVR doesn't suffer random slowdowns like the HR2x. It's not super fast, but it always runs at a decent speed.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Joke said:


> I care about SD, but only with respect to the channels not offered in HD.


Add me to that list.



> Picture quality on BBCAmerica is terrible [...]


Amen to that. Was absolutely painful to watch _Luther _last season on my 65" plasma. Same with _Mad Men_ and _The Killing_ on AMC.

In the interim, I wish DirecTV would create a new class of "higher quality SD" channels, made up of the half-dozen or so most-requested HD channels. BBCA is not availabe in HD on my FiOS box either, but the difference in PQ between FiOS SD and DirecTV SD is like night and day.


----------



## txfeinbergs (Nov 16, 2005)

Steve said:


> Add me to that list.
> 
> Amen to that. Was absolutely painful to watch _Luther _last season on my 65" plasma. Same with _Mad Men_ and _The Killing_ on AMC.
> 
> In the interim, I wish DirecTV would create a new class of "higher quality SD" channels, made up of the half-dozen or so most-requested HD channels. BBCA is not availabe in HD on my FiOS box either, but the difference in PQ between FiOS SD and DirecTV SD is like night and day.


I refuse to even watch BBC America on DirecTV. When a show comes on that channel I want to watch i.e. Outcasts, I order a season pass on my XBOX 360. It is sad that I have to pay close to $20 for something that I am already paying DirecTV to deliver. I had to do the same thing with The Walking Dead on AMC (it was like this small pixelated box with huge black borders on all sides on DirecTV - what the hell!).


----------



## satguy801 (Jul 21, 2011)

I went to U verse then back to Directv,


----------



## beeper3000 (Mar 4, 2004)

Satelliteracer said:


> DIRECTV said nothing of the kind.


The HD Wars Are Over. What's the Next Battleground?
After Rush to Add High-Def Channels, Operators Focus on New Fronts

By Todd Spangler -- Multichannel News, 7/11/2011 12:01:00 AM



> ...
> For DirecTV, the HD "bigger is better" battle is over. "*To be honest, I think right now, everyone's got most of the important stuff in HD," Derek Chang, DirecTV executive vice president of content strategy and development, said. "Once we got to 100 channels, it became about delivering the overall experience." *
> 
> There's less benefit in trying to hit 200 HDs because those by their nature will be less-watched networks, he noted. DirecTV is going to continue to add channels "selectively as we see fit and where we can deliver value to the customer," Chang said. The satellite operator is advancing along several new fronts, including 1080p HD (Blu-ray Disc quality), early-premiere movies, sports, iPad apps, multiroom viewing and enhancing the guide.
> ...


[Moderator Edit: Copyright rules do not permit fully quoting copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright holder. The article has been trimmed to include the lines underlined and bolded by the post's author.]


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

beeper3000 said:


> The HD Wars Are Over. What's the Next Battleground?
> After Rush to Add High-Def Channels, Operators Focus on New Fronts
> 
> By Todd Spangler -- Multichannel News, 7/11/2011 12:01:00 AM
> ...


Anyone who knows Derek Chang knows this is complete nonsense. This idea from some people here or this Swanni clown that DTV is done launching HD or is doesn't care about HD is bizarre. Some of the comments here truly are bizarre and show a glaring lack of knowledge about business, this particular industry and the realities of the pay television world.

I agree that the HD wars are over, it's all fringe stuff at this point. Of course one day everything will be HD so channels will continue to be added, but the race is over. DISH uses their HD one way, DTV uses theirs another way, Comcast another way. No one has it all. Personally, I like my NFL Sunday Ticket games in HD every Sunday and I know that's one of the tradeoffs for not watching Style and Outdoor Channel in HD. Somehow I survive. No, wait, I THRIVE as a result because I'd rather have those games in HD 100X more than Style or Outdoor Channel. If not, I'd leave. It's really that simple.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

sigma1914 said:


> It's about quality and not quantity.


I suspect there's some other motivation in play or they wouldn't be carrying the MTV family of channels in HD.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

ChicagoBlue said:


> Anyone who knows Derek Chang knows this is complete nonsense. This idea from some people here or this Swanni clown that DTV is done launching HD or is doesn't care about HD is bizarre. Some of the comments here truly are bizarre and show a glaring lack of knowledge about business, this particular industry and the realities of the pay television world.
> 
> I agree that the HD wars are over, it's all fringe stuff at this point. Of course one day everything will be HD so channels will continue to be added, but the race is over. DISH uses their HD one way, DTV uses theirs another way, Comcast another way. No one has it all. Personally, I like my NFL Sunday Ticket games in HD every Sunday and I know that's one of the tradeoffs for not watching Style and Outdoor Channel in HD. Somehow I survive. No, wait, I THRIVE as a result because I'd rather have those games in HD 100X more than Style or Outdoor Channel. If not, I'd leave. It's really that simple.


Can you please link to some of those "non-sense" comments?

The comment that was directly questioned previously was about DirecTV stating they no longer care to compete in terms of HD Channel COUNT. I fail to see how that is not an accurate summary of Mr. Chang's statements.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

BattleScott said:


> The comment that was directly questioned previously was about DirecTV stating they no longer care to compete in terms of HD Channel COUNT. I fail to see how that is not an accurate summary of Mr. Chang's statements.


Agreed.

The channel count competition is indeed "over", at least for the time being, with specific channel offering provider differences being the only real remaining issue.

I haven't seen any mass exodus from DirecTV based on their current HD lineup...if anything...the net subscriber numbers seem to continue to gorw for years now...supporting the case that they must be doing enough right to remain in the lead position of sat providers, and near the top on the list of all providers overall...


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

It wasn't that long ago that we got our first HDTV and HD receiver from DirecTV. I had to use OTA to receive the very limited programming that was HD from our local stations and I paid pretty good money to watch the few HD channels that DirecTV offered. Jump forward to today, I still use that HDTV every day, in fact I've since added many more and rarely use OTA with the exception of getting the locals from Chicago and have almost every channel that I watch in HD. 

Still DirecTV adds channels in HD on a pretty regular basis so I don't understand the whole DirecTV doesn't care argueement. It won't be long before every channel I watch is in HD and SD will be completely forgotten in our home.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

satguy801 said:


> I went to U verse then back to Directv,


Thanks for your valuable contribution to this thread.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Scott Kocourek said:


> Still DirecTV adds *premium* channels in HD on a pretty regular basis


Fixed.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

harsh said:


> I suspect there's some other motivation in play or they wouldn't be carrying the MTV family of channels in HD.


The shows on MTV/VH1 may not be "quality" to you or others, but they've got some highly rated shows.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Scott Kocourek said:


> Still DirecTV adds channels in HD on a pretty regular basis so I don't understand the whole DirecTV doesn't care argueement. It won't be long before every channel I watch is in HD and SD will be completely forgotten in our home.


There's nothing to understand because that's not currently, nor has it ever been, part of this discussion. The point is that if there is an HD channel (non-premium) that an individual wants but does not currently have with DirecTV, there is not a high probability it will be added any time soon. This is completely re-inforced by the statements made by Mr. Chang as well as the channel additons made over the last year. Several posters have tried to skew the message by coloring it as an exterme view, but that's not what is really being said.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Jeremy W said:


> Fixed.


That's fair, some of the premiums added were channel I really wanted, HBO Zone & HBO Comedy. I'll also admit there are a couple of SD channels that I still watch and would like in HD but the point of my first post was it hasn't been that long since there were only a couple of HD channels and now there are many. Looking at the whole picture I would say DirecTV has been adding HD channels on a regular basis.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

We really should take the "HD Anticipation or lack thereof" discussion back to its homebase: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=194351

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> We really should take the "HD Anticipation or lack thereof" discussion back to its homebase: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=194351
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom


With all due respect, it's an integral part of the value comparison of providers. It has nothing to do with who wants what channels or how many are coming, it's about DirecTV's current standpoint on the additon of them and how that compares to other providers.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> With all due respect, it's an integral part of the value comparison of providers. It has nothing to do with who wants what channels or how many are coming, it's about DirecTV's current standpoint on the additon of them and how that compares to other providers.


Understand completely, but what has ultimately happened is fractured and duplicated discussion on the same topic existing in multiple threads.

So I'm steering the HD part back into its home.

Therefore, I have moved the last several posts to: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=194351

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Understand completely, but what has ultimately happened is fractured and duplicated discussion on the same topic existing in multiple threads.
> 
> So I'm steering the HD part back into its home.
> 
> ...


[redacted]

I have gotten what I needed from it and would like to again publicly thank Greg for taking the time and sharing his personal reasons and creating a truely objective thread (while it lasted). I would also like to thank all those, especially Jeremy W, who objectively shared their own experiences with Uverse to make a great and helpful discussion.

It is one thing to think you you might be happier with something else, it is quite another when people you consider to be real experts in the matter and bring no particular bias, ESPECIALLY towards the competition, post many of the same things you have been seeing.

A year ago, I woud not have made the switch. As it stands now, I will be switching when my current lease comittment is up unless things change for the better at DirecTV. Who knows, if they cover some or all of the ETF fees as I have heard from others, it may be sooner.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

BattleScott said:


> Who knows, if they cover some or all of the ETF fees as I have heard from others, it may be sooner.


Just an FYI that AT&T gives $150-$300 in rebate cards on pretty much any new TV install. Heck, I got $200 and I already had the Internet service.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> Just an FYI that AT&T gives $150-$300 in rebate cards on pretty much any new TV install. Heck, I got $200 and I already had the Internet service.


I only got a $50 card.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> ...
> I have gotten what I needed from it and would like to again publicly thank Greg for taking the time and sharing his personal reasons and creating a truely objective thread (while it lasted). I would also like to thank all those, especially Jeremy W, who objectively shared their own experiences with Uverse to make a great and helpful discussion.
> 
> It is one thing to think you you might be happier with something else, it is quite another when people you consider to be real experts in the matter and bring no particular bias, ESPECIALLY towards the competition, post many of the same things you have been seeing.
> ...


We all are happy to help. You touch upon another good point--we who aren't Uverse customers can only mention what we hear. This thread has been an excellent update for us too.

Keep up the great work, everyone!
Tom


----------



## Groundhog45 (Nov 10, 2005)

I appreciate all of the objective comments here. Most have been very informative, since I don't have much experience with U-verse. It's always good to know the alternatives.

The only thing I don't get is where the above quoted article can be interpreted to say that DirecTV is giving up on HD. It sounds to me like they are agreeing that all of the providers are offering a lot of HD and they are focusing on giving a good overall entertainment experience. We still see additional HD channels, although recently only in premium packages. I expect that we will eventually see more in the basic packages also. I certainly hope so.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

BattleScott said:


> There's nothing to understand because that's not currently, nor has it ever been, part of this discussion. The point is that if there is an HD channel (non-premium) that an individual wants but does not currently have with DirecTV, there is not a high probability it will be added any time soon. This is completely re-inforced by the statements made by Mr. Chang as well as the channel additons made over the last year. Several posters have tried to skew the message by coloring it as an exterme view, but that's not what is really being said.


What numerous DBSTalk.com posters have attempted to do is manipulate others into a debate as if DirecTV's failure to add, say (for one example), AMC HD has merits. So, numerous posters have desperately _reached_ for excuses, be it contract "tangos" to a generally dismissive attitude toward this channel because of commercials; meanwhile, Dish Network, Comcast, Time Warner, Bright House Networks, WOW, etc. - along with AT&T U-verse - have not failed to carry AMC in high definition.

The impression that I have with Mr. Chang is that he is very much the wrong person to be in charge of overseeing DirecTV's programming lineup. Hopefully he will not occupy that position for much longer.

As I mentioned early in response to Greg: I wish him and his wife well. That there is continued satisfaction with his service from AT&T U-verse.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

APB101 said:


> ...
> 
> The impression that I have with Mr. Chang is that he is very much the wrong person to be in charge of overseeing DirecTV's programming lineup. Hopefully he will not occupy that position for much longer.
> 
> ...



Why? Because they haven't added every HD channel you want? You don't have a clue what he has or hasn't done for the company.

I get a kick out of posts like this and others where posters think they know what's good for a billion dollar company. I'm pretty sure these people running the ship have a better idea to what they're doing than us TV and tech nerds. If you feel otherwise, please contact http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/careers and apply for the positions. But hey...If you can run the ship at DirecTV, then I'm sure you're way too valuable to leave your current position.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> I get a kick out of posts like this and others where posters think they know what's good for a billion dollar company.


I get a kick out of posts like this and others where posters think they need to defend a billion dollar company.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I get a kick out of posts like this and others where posters think they need to defend a billion dollar company.


I'm sorry...I forget...We can't possibly have an opinion that sometimes supports a company.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> I'm sorry...I forget...We can't possibly have an opinion that sometimes supports a company.


Your opinion is that we (forum posters) can't have a negative opinion on the way a company is run. You don't have to agree with it, but don't come out and say that the poster can't have it.

There are many people who have run billion dollar companies into the ground. Just because you've made it to a very high level in a very highly valued company doesn't mean you're immune to making bad decisions. Mr. Chang and every other executive at every other billion dollar company is still human.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Your opinion is that we (forum posters) can't have a negative opinion on the way a company is run. You don't have to agree with it, but don't come out and say that the poster can't have it.
> 
> There are many people who have run billion dollar companies into the ground. Just because you've made it to a very high level in a very highly valued company doesn't mean you're immune to making bad decisions. Mr. Chang and every other executive at every other billion dollar company is still human.


I never said he can't have an opinion.

Yes, Chang, White et al could run it into the crapper. But right now isn't the time to dump them. It sucks we don't have AMC & others in HD and I wish that would change.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> I never said he can't have an opinion.


Sure sounded that way:


sigma1914 said:


> I'm pretty sure these people running the ship have a better idea to what they're doing than us TV and tech nerds.


To me, that says that we shouldn't question the people in charge, because they're in charge and we're not. If my interpretation is incorrect, please correct me.

I don't think Mike White and Derek Chang are doing a great job. I'm not saying they're doing a terrible job, and I'm not saying they haven't done some good things. But I don't agree with the direction in which they're steering the company.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"Jeremy W" said:


> Sure sounded that way:
> 
> To me, that says that we shouldn't question the people in charge, because they're in charge and we're not. If my interpretation is incorrect, please correct me.
> 
> I don't think Mike White and Derek Chang are doing a great job. I'm not saying they're doing a terrible job, and I'm not saying they haven't done some good things. But I don't agree with the direction in which they're steering the company.


And so you became a customer of another company. Yet you are here bashing people you don't pay. Hmmmm.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> Yet you are here bashing people you don't pay.


Since when is saying "I don't think they are doing a great job" bashing? You're being way too sensitive.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Sure sounded that way:
> 
> To me, that says that we shouldn't question the people in charge, because they're in charge and we're not. If my interpretation is incorrect, please correct me.
> 
> ...


It's incorrect; I don't ever believe in not allowing opinions posted. I encourage all views, as I may learn something. I just find humor in some.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"Jeremy W" said:


> I don't think Mike White and Derek Chang are doing a great job.


Well, it is rather obvious that they are doing extremely well.


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

"Jeremy W" said:


> I don't think Mike White and Derek Chang are doing a great job. I'm not saying they're doing a terrible job, and I'm not saying they haven't done some good things. But I don't agree with the direction in which they're steering the company.


I agree with you!


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

The direction they are steering the company? Towards new products, services, and channels? Towards ever growing sub numbers? Towards even greater success? Wow...remove the blinders.


----------



## Groundhog45 (Nov 10, 2005)

Good luck, *Greg.* I hope your experiment works out for the best for you and your family.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Groundhog45 said:


> Good luck, *Greg.* I hope your experiment works out for the best for you and your family.


In the end...that's what is most important...and what most of us wish for ya...


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

"Hoosier205" said:


> The direction they are steering the company? Towards new products, services, and channels? Towards ever growing sub numbers? Towards even greater success? Wow...remove the blinders.


No, you towing the party line? Get out of the city.. Hah.

I agree with the above comment about mike white completely . Though I'm not clamoring for new HD per se I do feel the others pain on the subject. I love the HD sports and things like random rugby fixtures thrown in at no extra charge.. It makes it worth the price of admission for me currently.

I do believe D* has to change it's pricing structure somewhat to compete with the bundle pricing of the day... Their subscriber base is huge now but will take a hit when Fios and other services become more wide spread. It's obvious that many people stay with D* simply because of their contracts give them little choice otherwise.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

fireponcoal said:


> No, you towing the party line? Get out of the city.. Hah.
> 
> << Snipped bits out >>
> 
> It's obvious that many people stay with D* simply because of their contracts give them little choice otherwise.


That'd be pushing the party line?? Too heavy to tow. :lol: But there's no line to toe, really.

How are contracts *"obviously"* making people stay with DirecTV more than any other provider??


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> How are contracts *"obviously"* making people stay with DirecTV more than any other provider??


I'm not getting involved in the current fight here but just an FYI that Uverse has no contracts. You only have to keep the TV service for 30 days after which you can dump it with no penalty.


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

"Laxguy" said:


> That'd be pushing the party line?? Too heavy to tow. :lol: But there's no line to toe, really.
> 
> How are contracts "obviously" making people stay with DirecTV more than any other provider??


People who would leave but can't because they refuse to pay the ETF. There are plenty that would leave for more HD friendly pastures if they could. I've always loved when people on this board tell others to just leave when they are unhappy.. Not an easy option for most..


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

fireponcoal said:


> People who would leave but can't because they refuse to pay the ETF. There are plenty that would leave for more HD friendly pastures if they could. I've always loved when people on this board tell others to just leave when they are unhappy.. Not an easy option for most..


This doesn't answer the question I asked of you.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

bonscott87 said:


> I'm not getting involved in the current fight here but just an FYI that Uverse has no contracts. You only have to keep the TV service for 30 days after which you can dump it with no penalty.


Appreciate the reminder! I don't see myself in a fight; just asking for clarification/facts to backup statements.


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

"Laxguy" said:


> This doesn't answer the question I asked of you.


I have nothing else for you.. Have fun with that porsche. Buddy.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> In the end...that's what is most important...and what most of us wish for ya...


True. Satisfaction for a customer, rather than profits for a company, is more important to most people here and everywhere.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

fireponcoal said:


> I have nothing else for you.. Have fun with that porsche. Buddy.


Not mine. CES floor. Is your name "Buddy", or are you calling me that?

In any event, how can you not even attempt to try to support your statement? 
_This is a discussion board, _after all is said and done.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

APB101 said:


> True. Satisfaction for a customer, rather than profits for a company, is more important to most people here and everywhere.


And that's another area DirecTV excels in. You're not helping your argument.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> And that's another area DirecTV excels in. You're not helping your argument.


:lol::lol::lol: "Excel" is a bit of a stretch. Last survey I saw showed DirecTV getting an F and the competition getting an F-.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Laxguy said:


> Not mine. CES floor. Is your name "Buddy", or are you calling me that?


I'm guessing his name must be Buddy since he used a period and not a comma.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"mdavej" said:


> :lol::lol::lol: "Excel" is a bit of a stretch. Last survey I saw showed DirecTV getting an F and the competition getting an F-.


I'm assuming that was a typo, as that would mean they're all bad, but DirecTV is slightly less bad than others. But if you'r referring to the BBB, there are many issues there.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

mdavej said:


> :lol::lol::lol: "Excel" is a bit of a stretch. Last survey I saw showed DirecTV getting an F and the competition getting an F-.


2nd behind Fios.


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

Laxguy said:


> Not mine. CES floor. Is your name "Buddy", or are you calling me that?
> 
> In any event, how can you not even attempt to try to support your statement?
> _This is a discussion board, _after all is said and done.


my name is buddy. perhaps? i just don't care enough to discussion bored with you. my words are just an opinion i have. i'm not actually going to do a survey and then discuss the results with you... perhaps at ces we will? or perhaps i won't be there. i'm sure others will have a tech nerd discussion about it with you. have at it with em'.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Although this thread went off topic near the end I did want to post an update.

Got Uverse TV installed over the weekend (have had the Internet for a couple years), some thoughts:

1) Picture Quality - SD is certainly the best I've ever seen, but I rarely watch SD content so I don't really care. HD to be frank is awesome. It's a bit under OTA HD quality (as is DirecTV) but from what I remember of DirecTV it is right up there in quality (granted I haven't had DirecTV for nearly 2 years now). Even in fast moving sports like a college football game replay on ESPNU-HD looked fantastic. No pixelization at all. Granted I don't have an 80 inch screen but honestly I don't get all the hate for the PQ on Uverse.

2) HD channel selection really blew me away. Well over 20 more "general" HD channels then DirecTV has. Many of which my wife will watch so that's a big plus.

3) HD DVR is great. It's fast, very fast. Channel changes even HD to HD channel are 1 second or less. UI is very clean, easy to read and easy to navigate. Took my wife less then 5 minutes to pick it up. I am still on the 2.0 version though, I hear the 3.0 is even better. I do miss a "series recording defaults" option. But easy enough to get around.

4) 80 hours of HD recording. Plenty for us. TIP: Be sure to sign up for U300 or higher to get the DVR with the larger hard drive. Then after the first month you can drop down to a lower package. U200 or lower only gets you 16 hours of HD recording. Yuk.

5) We are provisioned for 3 HD at once (plus 1 SD). Plenty for us. Installer noted that they were planning to upgrade to 4 HD soon.

6) The online access to your DVR is really nice. You have full access to the guide and can set recordings from there and you can also manage your season passes and see what upcoming recordings there are. This really helped me in finding older episodes to catch up on some shows.

7) VOD...speaking of catching up, the VOD selection is quite large. Most TV shows say on USA or TNT have the last 3-5 episodes up and quality is pretty good (not HD, but is widescreen). I don't know what the VOD selection is on DirecTV anymore to compare though.

9) Cost...I do like not having a bunch of extra fees like DVR fee and MRV fee. It's all included and the package prices are a bit less then DirecTV with more channels. NFL Red Zone channel for $5 a month (along with a bunch of other premium HD channels)? Priceless. 

10) Remote...while I programmed my universal remote I did use the provided Uverse remote for a while. It's actually very nice, kinda reminded me of the old Tivo peanut remote although a bit wider.

All in all Uverse TV is a very, very good product. I'd see no reason for people to not try it at least. Around here anyway the HD PQ is a non-issue. Only issue I can see for bigger families is the 4 channel at once limit.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

bonscott87 said:


> All in all Uverse TV is a very, very good product. I'd see no reason for people to not try it at least. Around here anyway the HD PQ is a non-issue. Only issue I can see for bigger families is the 4 channel at once limit.


I'd agree there's never any issue with trying out new things. 

Also glad to hear that things are working out for you...no choice is wrong if it works out for your situation.

That said, I know of at least 4 people who had entirely opposite results - with their "switch to UVerse" experiences being nearly horrific. Poor customer service, poor installs, and even malfunctioning equipment with multiple replacements. two have switched back after the 6 month intro period, and a 3rd is about to next month.

One other item - UVerse is very randomly available, much like FIOS... so there are plenty of folks who couldn't get it if they wanted to either.

So the point is not to debate the good, the bad, and the ugly, rather... that there are no guarantees others will have one form of experience or another with a different provider.

Or...your mileage may vary when trying this "switching" process...


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'd agree there's never any issue with trying out new things.
> 
> Also glad to hear that things are working out for you...no choice is wrong if it works out for your situation.
> 
> ...


Most definitely. Although I will say I am switching from basically nothing to Uverse having dropped DirecTV nearly 2 years ago when I got laid off.

Great thing about Uverse is you can drop it at any time with no penalty. I have a friend that is really interested in it as well since he has crappy Charter for Internet and while he likes DirecTV, Sunday Ticket is beyond him in cost (like many of us) now so he has no compelling reason to stay. I told him that if he wanted Uverse to get it installed and try it. Don't cancel anything else until he knows it's good for him.

I guess the big question for me some may have is why didn't I go back to DirecTV? Five reasons really:
1) Sunday Ticket is too expensive now so that's not a draw for me, I wouldn't get it anyway.
2) Cost. DirecTV is more expensive.
3) Uverse has more channels, a LOT more HD channels
4) Many of my neighbors have had the TV service for nearly 2 years and never have an issues with it. I've had the Internet Uverse that long and it's been nearly perfect. Even during an ice storm that knocked out power I still had Internet thru Uverse on my generator. That alone says a lot to me. 
5) Customer service has always been great and both their call centers are here in the U.S. (yes, DirecTV's also are for the most part).


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> Most definitely. Although I will say I am switching from basically nothing to Uverse having dropped DirecTV nearly 2 years ago when I got laid off.
> 
> Great thing about Uverse is you can drop it at any time with no penalty. I have a friend that is really interested in it as well since he has crappy Charter for Internet and while he likes DirecTV, Sunday Ticket is beyond him in cost (like many of us) now so he has no compelling reason to stay. I told him that if he wanted Uverse to get it installed and try it. Don't cancel anything else until he knows it's good for him.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the update. Your experience really seems to jive with what I have seen at my parents and in-laws as well. Although I will say, I see a slightly "softer" HD PQ with their uverse than with DTV. But it isn't nearly as drastic as most people think. The power outage is a little biscuit I hadn't thought about. AT&T has back-up generators that are deployed in situations like that to make sure the phones stay operational. Guess the TV/Internet service gets to take advantage of that!


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

BattleScott said:


> The power outage is a little biscuit I hadn't thought about. AT&T has back-up generators that are deployed in situations like that to make sure the phones stay operational. Guess the TV/Internet service gets to take advantage of that!


Yea, not sure how that happened since more then half the city was without power including my whole neighborhood. I fired up my generator to keep my fridge going and plugged my computer and router in for the heck of it and what do you know if I didn't have Internet. So they must have UPS units at each VRAD, which would explain it.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

"bonscott87" said:


> Yea, not sure how that happened since more then half the city was without power including my whole neighborhood. I fired up my generator to keep my fridge going and plugged my computer and router in for the heck of it and what do you know if I didn't have Internet. So they must have UPS units at each VRAD, which would explain it.


Don't you remember the stories few years ago about VRAD's blowing up due to battery problems?
.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> Yea, not sure how that happened since more then half the city was without power including my whole neighborhood. I fired up my generator to keep my fridge going and plugged my computer and router in for the heck of it and what do you know if I didn't have Internet. So they must have UPS units at each VRAD, which would explain it.


In our area they use actual deisel generators at the various distribution hubs, not a the actual VRADS. They probably only have a short-term UPS solution there. A few years back, a wind-storm (left-overs for Hurricane Ike) came through here and knocked out power to the majority of the area for several days. Some places were out for weeks. I have some relatives that work for the contractor that provides the emergency power, they had crews that did nothing but drive around and re-fuel the generators.


----------

