AT&T U-Verse

[EricP]

I think I threw up in my mouth a little bit. You are not making anybody switch to u-verse with your broken record "faster channel switching" and "better looking SD" arguments. What most people would do is not involve their own companies in discussions like this beyond a little peep because the information they provide is going to be biased garbage. Hopefully you realize that by now..

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

HD poke you are losing a lot of credibility posting things completely misleading about the U-verse product!  Cox needs all the extra bandwidth because of the kind of receivers they are using, no? Why does the Cox channels take soooooo looooooong to change? Is it because of the receiver or because of all their extra bandwidth? Ha ha!  14 HD titles? Are you kidding? Tulsans get 45 channels!! What zip code are you using when you visit the easy-to-navigate uverse.att.com site? Unless you are seeing something different, you must think the readers here are stoopid or something!

Again, the slower speed of the delivery of the 'on-demand' product - really a hodge-podge patchwork of forced programming (previews, clips, snippets of shows) - and the richer digital quality of the SD make U-verse a better value IMO.

By saying 'completely untrue' you are saying I am a liar; I am calling you are a Damned Liar! Protocol suggests that you "double-damn" me before I "double-damn-you-to-hell." And then, it would be On like Ron. In civil debate when such a broad accusation has been leveled by an opponent, the offended mistakes greatly if he/she does not immediately ask for an apology or resignation of the argument from the opponent.

#

HDPOKEMINTHEARASEFAN - Okay we get the fact your crappy Cowgirls lost - but your bitter tirades are boring and useless.  Feed the birds rather than trolls, Tulsan! Ha ha! QUACK QUACK QUACK!!!

As I mentioned I have had both U-Verse and Cox (and I really do not miss the crappy insulting commercials every ten seconds demanding that I surrender all my communication products to some blue-shirted she-male). I can tell you that Cox's has way way way way more "On Demand" content is a JOKE!

Your information is misleading and incorrect, and I really do not have time to try and correct your poor attempt at debate.

THIS IS A FACT: "Reputation" is very important, and I know when I am being "struggled against" by thugs and I will not stand for it!! I apologize for even getting involved in this discussion. Things may have gotten heated a time or two but what is going on is not even cool. If I posted anything that was taunting or playfully worded at the Cox company I never intended to mislead or misdirect or misconstrue any claim they made about their service or the capabilities.  I have made every effort to have Tulsans visit the att website, pay attention to their mail, visit a store, or even engage any of the hordes of clipboard carrying neophytes descending on your neighborhood/subdivision for information about the U-verse service.

When it happens for all of Tulsa, then you might not look like such an arse.  But instead AT&T picks and chooses where Uverse is deployed instead of getting the infrastructure set up for everyone.  Kinda like what Cox did with the digital rebuild.  But at least they (Cox) were very upfront about that.

And I'm guessing the reason you 'don't have time to debate' him is because you can't.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by cmatt1

These a**hole companies can't use the its too hard to offer individual channels crap for so long.  If people don't want to buy them they will either 1) lower their price or 2) go out of business.

Those companies have been the content providers, who set the prices all the carriers must pay.
When you buy ESPN, you also have to subsidize the parent company's Disney and ABC losses.  Likewise when you subscribe to Comedy Central your paying to keep MTV, BET and Spike afloat.

I cant say the carriers have "nothing" to do with provider's pricing schemes, but publicly they have testified before the FCC that they support ala-carte programming.

[Cats Cats Cats]

quote:Originally posted by patric

quote:Originally posted by cmatt1

These a**hole companies can't use the its too hard to offer individual channels crap for so long.  If people don't want to buy them they will either 1) lower their price or 2) go out of business.

Those companies have been the content providers, who set the prices all the carriers must pay.
When you buy ESPN, you also have to subsidize the parent company's Disney and ABC losses.  Likewise when you subscribe to Comedy Central your paying to keep MTV, BET and Spike afloat.

I cant say the carriers have "nothing" to do with provider's pricing schemes, but publicly they have testified before the FCC that they support ala-carte programming.

That is why I said if people don't buy them (the channels) they will go out of business.  Now you pay double to keep Hallmark, Hallmark Western, Hallmark Halloween, Hallmark Touch By An Angel, Hallmark Touched by An Uncle channels on the air for the .5% that watch them.

[MDepr2007]

With Cox going up on DVR service , it looks like I might as well pick up a 2nd Tivo now and get their reduced price for having 2.

http://www.cox.com/oklahoma/emailoffers/TUL_Feb_2009_RateNotice.htm

[inteller]

what's that up from?  I thought it was already $11.

If Cox were to include Tivo IPG for $11.99 that would be killer, and a death blow to any crap ATT could offer.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

what's that up from?  I thought it was already $11.

If Cox were to include Tivo IPG for $11.99 that would be killer, and a death blow to any crap ATT could offer.

From what I understand Cox is working on the TIVO IPG, but they're dragging their feet due to the economy, is my understanding.

And I think what he's referencing is the yearly summary of fees that all cable companies are required to provide to their consumers.  Doesn't mean any rates have gone up, it's just policy.  Although I'll admit I haven't completely looked through it yet.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

And I think what he's referencing is the yearly summary of fees that all cable companies are required to provide to their consumers.  Doesn't mean any rates have gone up, it's just policy.  Although I'll admit I haven't completely looked through it yet.

Cox has an annual rate increase every spring for as long as they have had the franchise with the city.  TCI was the same way.

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

HD poke you are losing a lot of credibility posting things completely misleading about the U-verse product!  Cox needs all the extra bandwidth because of the kind of receivers they are using, no? Why does the Cox channels take soooooo looooooong to change? Is it because of the receiver or because of all their extra bandwidth? Ha ha!  14 HD titles? Are you kidding? Tulsans get 45 channels!! What zip code are you using when you visit the easy-to-navigate uverse.att.com site? Unless you are seeing something different, you must think the readers here are stoopid or something!

Again, the slower speed of the delivery of the 'on-demand' product - really a hodge-podge patchwork of forced programming (previews, clips, snippets of shows) - and the richer digital quality of the SD make U-verse a better value IMO.

By saying 'completely untrue' you are saying I am a liar; I am calling you are a Damned Liar! Protocol suggests that you "double-damn" me before I "double-damn-you-to-hell." And then, it would be On like Ron. In civil debate when such a broad accusation has been leveled by an opponent, the offended mistakes greatly if he/she does not immediately ask for an apology or resignation of the argument from the opponent.

#

HDPOKEMINTHEARASEFAN - Okay we get the fact your crappy Cowgirls lost - but your bitter tirades are boring and useless.  Feed the birds rather than trolls, Tulsan! Ha ha! QUACK QUACK QUACK!!!

As I mentioned I have had both U-Verse and Cox (and I really do not miss the crappy insulting commercials every ten seconds demanding that I surrender all my communication products to some blue-shirted she-male). I can tell you that Cox's has way way way way more "On Demand" content is a JOKE!

Your information is misleading and incorrect, and I really do not have time to try and correct your poor attempt at debate.

THIS IS A FACT: "Reputation" is very important, and I know when I am being "struggled against" by thugs and I will not stand for it!! I apologize for even getting involved in this discussion. Things may have gotten heated a time or two but what is going on is not even cool. If I posted anything that was taunting or playfully worded at the Cox company I never intended to mislead or misdirect or misconstrue any claim they made about their service or the capabilities.  I have made every effort to have Tulsans visit the att website, pay attention to their mail, visit a store, or even engage any of the hordes of clipboard carrying neophytes descending on your neighborhood/subdivision for information about the U-verse service.

When it happens for all of Tulsa, then you might not look like such an arse.  But instead AT&T picks and chooses where Uverse is deployed instead of getting the infrastructure set up for everyone.  Kinda like what Cox did with the digital rebuild.  But at least they (Cox) were very upfront about that.

And I'm guessing the reason you 'don't have time to debate' him is because you can't.

I guess what I mean is that I am not going to go through each line and show in exhaustive detail why everything he said is incorrect, misleading, and designed to confuse.

The reason deployment is spotty is because the equipment is expensive.  I do not know but suspect the neighborhoods are carefully chosen based on ability to pay.  That way, if some deadbeat tries to skirt off with equipment or just magically stop paying the bill they are worried about losing more than the trailer.  Oh.  Sorry. Ha ha ha! Just kidding!  Laugh!

And EricP next time you throw up in your mouth - spit it out, do not swallow.  Ewwwwww.

There are scads of forums, blogs, and websites devoted to all this and a lot of them are geeky netpicking BS that want to argue the number of angels on the head of a pin.  The concept is really simple: no contract, sign-up incentives, exciting new options.

 http://www.att.com/uverse

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

HD poke you are losing a lot of credibility posting things completely misleading about the U-verse product!  Cox needs all the extra bandwidth because of the kind of receivers they are using, no? Why does the Cox channels take soooooo looooooong to change? Is it because of the receiver or because of all their extra bandwidth? Ha ha!  14 HD titles? Are you kidding? Tulsans get 45 channels!! What zip code are you using when you visit the easy-to-navigate uverse.att.com site? Unless you are seeing something different, you must think the readers here are stoopid or something!

Again, the slower speed of the delivery of the 'on-demand' product - really a hodge-podge patchwork of forced programming (previews, clips, snippets of shows) - and the richer digital quality of the SD make U-verse a better value IMO.

By saying 'completely untrue' you are saying I am a liar; I am calling you are a Damned Liar! Protocol suggests that you "double-damn" me before I "double-damn-you-to-hell." And then, it would be On like Ron. In civil debate when such a broad accusation has been leveled by an opponent, the offended mistakes greatly if he/she does not immediately ask for an apology or resignation of the argument from the opponent.

#

HDPOKEMINTHEARASEFAN - Okay we get the fact your crappy Cowgirls lost - but your bitter tirades are boring and useless.  Feed the birds rather than trolls, Tulsan! Ha ha! QUACK QUACK QUACK!!!

As I mentioned I have had both U-Verse and Cox (and I really do not miss the crappy insulting commercials every ten seconds demanding that I surrender all my communication products to some blue-shirted she-male). I can tell you that Cox's has way way way way more "On Demand" content is a JOKE!

Your information is misleading and incorrect, and I really do not have time to try and correct your poor attempt at debate.

THIS IS A FACT: "Reputation" is very important, and I know when I am being "struggled against" by thugs and I will not stand for it!! I apologize for even getting involved in this discussion. Things may have gotten heated a time or two but what is going on is not even cool. If I posted anything that was taunting or playfully worded at the Cox company I never intended to mislead or misdirect or misconstrue any claim they made about their service or the capabilities.  I have made every effort to have Tulsans visit the att website, pay attention to their mail, visit a store, or even engage any of the hordes of clipboard carrying neophytes descending on your neighborhood/subdivision for information about the U-verse service.

When it happens for all of Tulsa, then you might not look like such an arse.  But instead AT&T picks and chooses where Uverse is deployed instead of getting the infrastructure set up for everyone.  Kinda like what Cox did with the digital rebuild.  But at least they (Cox) were very upfront about that.

And I'm guessing the reason you 'don't have time to debate' him is because you can't.

I guess what I mean is that I am not going to go through each line and show in exhaustive detail why everything he said is incorrect, misleading, and designed to confuse.

The reason deployment is spotty is because the equipment is expensive.  I do not know but suspect the neighborhoods are carefully chosen based on ability to pay.  That way, if some deadbeat tries to skirt off with equipment or just magically stop paying the bill they are worried about losing more than the trailer.  Oh.  Sorry. Ha ha ha! Just kidding!  Laugh!

And EricP next time you throw up in your mouth - spit it out, do not swallow.  Ewwwwww.

There are scads of forums, blogs, and websites devoted to all this and a lot of them are geeky netpicking BS that want to argue the number of angels on the head of a pin.  The concept is really simple: no contract, sign-up incentives, exciting new options.

 http://www.att.com/uverse

Then why 'pimp' something if not everyone can have it?  That just does not make a whole lot of marketing sense.

[nathanm]

Apparently at&t has folks going door-to-door now. I decided that in the interest of fairness and just seeing what the competition has to offer, I'll give U-Verse a shot, since they have the 30 day money back guarantee, which I'll probably be using.

The install is on Thursday. I'm just wondering whether the installer will be more than a little annoyed that there is zero chance in hell I'm letting him touch my existing cable lines, given that I plan on keeping Cox and doing a side-by-side comparison. If I could use TiVo with U-Verse, they'd have a much greater chance of keeping my business when the 30 days come around.

They'd have a 100% chance of getting $10 a month for me if I could get only the HD channels for their HD service upcharge. (HDNet and HDNet Movies are worth that much to me) They'd also have a better chance of keeping my business if they'd make use of the extra speed my line will almost surely support. (The U-Verse cabinet is next door, so my gateway will probably sync at 100Mbps)

Speaking of Cox, they gave me a free month and charged me no money to install a couple of outlets when I moved this past weekend, although it looks like come February 1st, my bill will be going up big time. A dollar here and a dollar there and soon it adds up to real money.

Edited to add: Surely when Hoss said 'project lightspeed,' he really meant 'Project Pronto,' which was canceled half complete, leaving any additional remote terminal installs to be done as the normal budget allowed. And this when profits were already high.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

...edited for brevity and to answer...

Edited to add: Surely when Hoss said 'project lightspeed,' he really meant 'Project Pronto,' which was canceled half complete, leaving any additional remote terminal installs to be done as the normal budget allowed. And this when profits were already high.

You're exactly right.  I had DSL for exactly one year from SBC when the rep told me I was 9500 feet from the CO, the tech came out and said 'you were given bad information, you're about 16.5 from the CO, which renders you down to 384 kbps'.

At the time, that was faster than dial up, and I was waiting for Cox to finish the 'rebuild' as it was called in the day.

My first two weeks with SBC were utter hell.  The modem would not sync for more than 30 minutes at a time, and instead of getting someone local when I called about it, I got someone from their outsource in Wichita (pre India outsourcing I guess).  They were horrible.  I called a total of 20 times in a month and got zero resolution.  Finally, after some time they finally got the line working.

I carried it until the rebuild was finished, which just so happened to be as my 1 year contract (yep, SBC made you sign a contract back then) expired with them.  This is back in 2002 mind you.  I called to cancel, and they had the nerve to ask why.  Couldn't they see the notes all over my record?.  They said 'is there anyway we can retain you?'.  I said 'yeah, get me 3mbps service to start'.  Of course that didn't happen.

I went from 384kpbs to 3mbps with Cox@Home.  I got caught in th @Home demise too and still the rollout of Cox only was pretty smooth.

And to top it all off, I found out they had been charging me for DSL from April until August without my knowledge (I had not been receiving bills because I had ALL my SBC services turned off since I had a cell phone at this point).  I called them and it was taken care of...or so I thought.

Until last year, when I started receiving collection notices, none of which showed up on my credit report until after I started receiving the notices.  I had paperwork in hand, faxed it to them, and they STILL would not clear and have not cleared the entry from my credit record.  I have to keep an addendum on file explaining this to anyone peeking at my credit info.

So to say I'm a little pissed at AT&T is like saying the Pope is 'a little Catholic'.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

Until last year, when I started receiving collection notices, none of which showed up on my credit report until after I started receiving the notices.  I had paperwork in hand, faxed it to them, and they STILL would not clear and have not cleared the entry from my credit record.  I have to keep an addendum on file explaining this to anyone peeking at my credit info.

Just FYI, you should read the forums over at creditboards.com. At this point, at&t (or the debt collector) probably owes you at least $1000 for FDCPA or FCRA violations. If you have the time, it's certainly worth suing them in small claims court, where you can get your $1000 per violation plus get your credit report fixed.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

They'd have a 100% chance of getting $10 a month for me if I could get only the HD channels for their HD service upcharge. (HDNet and HDNet Movies are worth that much to me) They'd also have a better chance of keeping my business if they'd make use of the extra speed my line will almost surely support. (The U-Verse cabinet is next door, so my gateway will probably sync at 100Mbps)

Sometimes getting what you really want depends on how determined you are to talk to the person who has the authority to complete your order.
My brother had to talk to a few at&t reps before he was escalated to one that could hook him up to just internet without a TV package.
Something to consider if you prefer your TV from one provider but your internet from another.

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

Then why 'pimp' something if not everyone can have it?  That just does not make a whole lot of marketing sense.

I did not start this thread remember. 'Small claims court' = arbitration.  Hopefully there is a class-action suit that you can get into to be restored.

Excellent, Nathanm! I hope everything goes as well for you as it did for me!