Talk:U-verse TV/Archive 1

Sorry- Some of this reads like Telco Propaganda to me
"U-verse is a good illustration of the increasingly competitive telecom marketplace".

This statements and others like it are unsupported, and typically seen in news releases from the companies such as the newly reconstituted Ma Bell seeking to evade regulation. U-Verse, like FIOS, Cable companies, and Satellite delivery systems seek to establish a walled garden where customers are locked in to specific set top box technology which block them from recieving content from competitors.

A case could be made that U-Verse is a very good example of how telecom companies are aggressively constraining the consumer's ability to exercise choice by using an expansion of the model of vertical integration that the Cell phone companies pioneered. Delivery hardware locks the consumer into the particular provider, and it's winner take all- enjoying not just revenues for video delivery, but also POTS and internet access.

The quoted statement above is controversial, and the opposing point of view regarding these consumer issues are not mentioned.

Besides a more neutral POV, this technology article requires more depth. For example- what are the STBs used with U-Verse? How do they differ in capabilities from other video distributors? What of Microsoft's involvement/ falling out with SBC? Who is doing the software now, and how is it addressing issues that Microsoft failed to address. Does HPNA only deliver 128Mbps, or something higher than what v3 typically allows? -Mak 07:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's an important function, none-the-less onerous, to have to catalog and decipher a monopoly's new invented propped-up terminology for yesterday's technology. It is equally frustrating to hear that while other area sgets FiOS and other countries now run 60+mbps we are getting marketed yet another repackaged 1-6Mbps: more of "the same old thing." Is it ever going to change? - RDK 5 Jan 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Katz (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this sounds too much like propoganda. It needs to be redone without all of the marketing jargon. - Charles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.30.123 (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm working as a phone support tech for u-verse so I know what the equipment is, unfortunately all my references are internal documents. -The Residential gateway, the VDSL modem/Ethernet router/HPNA Router/Wireless Router/VOIP modem all-in-one is a 2wire 3800 HGV-B -the DVR is a Motorola VIP 1216 -the regular receivers are Motorola VIP 1200's -there are new receivers being tested in select markets, that's as detailed as I'm comfortable getting -unfortunately I can't pony up any sources, and I realize that mentioning I work tech support confers no credibility, here's a person who has posted pictures of the equipment 69.155.117.80 (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Describing U-Verse as "leapfrogging competitors" is describing AT&T's marketing efforts and therefore inappropriate in this article. That sentence (first paragraph) needs to be deleted, and since the rest of the article seems generally well done, I would also remove the warning at the top of the page. Note: the article starts off describing an "IP-based" service, a term unfamiliar to most readers. 72.73.70.106 (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a good gutting. Marketing speak has filled what would normally be a stub or just a short article. currently cleaning it out and rewriting sections, feel free to revert me if I mess up horribly.Sndtech (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Areas Deployed
I think WP:NOT probably applies here, so the section should be removed. Also, since AT&T is most likely planning on making U-verse a nationwide service, this list will become very long very soon. b.y.w 05:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This list is valuable and the list will not be very long for a long time. Availability is limited even in cities that contain it. At this point the list is valuable for the history and progression of U-verse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.156.31 (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why that section might be helpful to the article, but I'm afraid I have to disagree. First, this list is already very long as it is. Second, including this list in the article means that it will need constant updating, which I assume would be done by comparing it to a list available on another website, thus making the article a directory. Third, a similar issue was discussed on the Verizon FIOS talk page. The editors decided to remove the list, and I think we should follow suit for the reasons listed there and also for the sake of consistency. Maybe we can reach some sort of compromise with the areas deployed - general areas instead of specific cities perhaps? b.y.w 00:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think general metropolitan areas would be a good compromise. The areas according to different channel guides are:

CA-Los Angeles CA-Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto CA-San Diego CA-San Francisco/Oakland CA-San Jose/Santa Clara CT-Hartford CT-New Haven CT-Stamford IN-Anderson IN-Bloomington IN-Indianapolis IN-Muncie KS-Kansas City MI-Detroit OH-Cleveland OK-Oklahoma City TX-Dallas/Fort Worth TX-Houston TX-San Antonio WI-Milwaukee WI-Racine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.94.24 (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Two Categories?
Why is it listed under Fiber Optics AND IPTV?JIMfoamy1 (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because U-verse is IPTV that travels over fiber optic lines. Uturnaroun (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What is so special about U-Verse
This article also sounds like propeganda to me.

In the San Diego, CA area, Cox cable delivers superior services to AT&T via traditional cable. I thought the goal of U-Verse was to deliver faster internet speeds? Verizon does this with FIOS, offering 30mb download and 15mb upload speeds, but AT&T only offers 10mb download/1.5 upload? My Cox cable already gives us this, so I fail to see what is so special about U-Verse.

Also, with U-Verse you can not watch HDTV in more then 1 room of your house at a time. If someone in the living room is watching HDTV, you can't watch a different HD channel in another room. This is an extreme limitation of U-Verse over cable.

I'm not sure if Verizon's FIOS has that limitation, but I definately think it would be helpful if someone could write a comparison of U-Verse to Verizon's FIOS, and to traditional Cable service from Cox, Comcast, and other competitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.25.103 (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The U-Verse sales girl was pitching 18 mbps down / 3 mbps up to me last week. NCdave (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

ATT recently dropped the 3 free recievers, now you only get one DVR. Article needs updating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.252.133.140 (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The list at the end was inaccurate, but it is to be expected. Actually, the region of Illinois just east of St. Louis was the first part of Illinois to recieve U-Verse service. Granted it was onlya few weeks ahead of Chicago, but to be fair the region should have at least been listed.

I think that the article is very good as presented. It's clear, and discusses the topic in enough breadth and depth so as to be useful to the uninitiated, and shouldn't be split up.--71.232.201.57 17:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree —-— .:Seth Nimbosa:.  (talk • contribs) 12:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though not entirely, for different reasons. Considering that the U-Verse service is still very buggy, incomplete, and that this article has so few references and is on the border of a stub, well, I'm not sure. I'm half-and-half. 99.13.70.165 (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Beware: Currently, you are only able to pause/rewind/fastfoward live tv with the main box in the house. The other boxes are unable to do this. To me this is a deal breaker. I am able to pause live tv on any box in my house with my current cable company. I will revisit the idea of switching over to ATT when they improve their technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magfour (talk • contribs) 21:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale access
It is my understanding that the FCC has interpreted the Telecom act of 1996 in a way that requires phone companies to provide wholesale-priced access to the lines to DSL resellers for DSL service, but not VDSL. So AT&T is squeezing independent ISPs out of business simply by not allowing them access to high-speed broadband. AT&T sells both regular/old (modest speed) DSL and much faster VDSL, but the independent ISPs who use their wires can only sell the regular/old DSL.

I'm guessing that this is probably covered in a different Wikipedia article somewhere, but if so I haven't found it. Does anyone know where it is?

Probably this article needs a link to it, wherever it is. NCdave (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Consumer Complaints
Okay, I hate AT&T too, but the Consumer Complaints section has no references at all and generally sounds like somebody ranting about poor service they personally received. Feel free to revert if I'm wrong, but I'm yanking that section. Thx1200 (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Advert tag
I read threw the article and its definitely not an encyclopedic article at least to me feel free to remove the tag once the article is fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Team6and7 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The current edit looks pretty good to me, and it provides some useful information like bandwidth options and credit requirements, which isn't easy to find on AT&T's site. Mcavic (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete Tag
This article is broken. Needs a fresh start with am encyclopedic rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.80.178 (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You can edit the article if you want, but I don't think it makes any sense to delete it. I've removed the delete tag.  Brian Geppert (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * U-verse TV is only available in VDSL service areas, and installation requires a technician visit.
 * EDIT** U-verse TV service is now available in VDSL and FTTP installations (in limited areas) but still requires a technician visit.


 * Right, needs to be beefed up but not deleted. Uncited personal observations like above will not last, thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Caps
Why isn't there any information about the caps that were implemented recently? That was a major change in their business model.173.60.95.232 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC).
 * There was some talk of instituting a 250 GB cap on Uverse data usage, but I haven't actually seen the cap or an official count of my usage. Mcavic (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * On 3/21/2012 I received a U-Verse notification that AT&T would be converting my DSL to U-Verse within 45 days. As part of their promo, it is stated that the "monthly bandwidth allowance will increase from 150 GB to 250 GB per month".  So, the inference is that my current DSL is capped at 150 GB and U-Verse will be 250 GB.  Joecook1 (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Insertion of removed content
I don't know why content is added back. Looking at it right now: packages may change for the next few years, channel numbers are unnecessary, and so-called "disputes" are sheer ploys to attract publicity. Is the re-addition an attempt to bring readers attention or to prove historical importance of this topic? Either way, generality is more of a key than specifics, especially for this article. --George Ho (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

att u-verse on SmartPhones
This might be relevant enough for somebody to insert into the article. AT&T U-verse is available as a smartphone App. An App to enable the smartphone user to watch TV on the cellphone. I use the pre-paid "GoPhone" fusion 2 smartphone. On My phone, I saw their disclaimer that ATT U-verse will be a $9.99 per month charge, after the first thirty days. If I dont get a data package, every megabyte is charged against my pre-paid Go-Phone balance. If I use ATT U-verse with a basic prepaid balance, Im paying megabyte data charges on top of a monthly fee. Its troubling: thats double dipping on their part. Marc S., Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Too many details?
I don't know if network disputes are necessary, but this article should contain general information for general readers. Why would anyone care too many details about the cable provider itself? --George Ho (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a problem of wikipedia articles in general. The self-interested internet users edit the articles more heavily than 'general users', and as a result, many articles end up with an overabundance of irrelevant lowlevel details that do not aide in understanding the topic at a broad level.

Technical Problems
It would be useful to discuss more of the technical issues that limit VDSL2 service in practice. VDSL2 signalling uses the spectrum from low frequency up to something over 8 MHz. This makes it sensitive to nearby sources of high frequency radio interference, such as broadcast and Amateur Radio stations. See http://www.aa6e.net/wiki/Uverse, for example. (My own work.) Likewise, the service is quite dependent on the quality of the last mile copper connection. A poor legacy plant can lead to unreliable service, even when path lengths are not excessive. This is a competitive factor in favor of traditional cable and fiber-to-the-premises services.--Albany45 (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Perfect for an article on VDSL2. I don't see how it belongs here. This isn't an advertisement for AT&T... nor for cable.Unfriend13 (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Customer Equipment
I've edited the customer equipment to provide some more details of the different type of the equipment that a customer could be getting (in terms of the gateway anyways). Also removed any references about a "true bridge mode" because there is no such thing as a true bridge mode in AT&T U-Verse due to the fact that the gateway uses 802.1x authentication and not PPPoE authentication. Work around is to use either DMZ+ or IP Passthrough.

I'll add more information about the set top boxes later.

Scsa20 (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Promotional?
I've flagged as promotional. It's borderline, so perhaps we could discuss it more on the talk page? An article that was speedy deleted was modeled directly on this, so I think that this article should be modified in the interests of fairness. I'm not entirely confident on this, so if anyone disagrees with me just let me know. O99o99 (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

WHERE'S THE CHANNEL LINEUP?
WIKIPEDIA HAD AN ATT UVERSE CHANNEL LINEUP WHAT HAPPEND TO IT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.66.159 (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but if I would oppose adding it. Maybe an EL to the channel line-up?  It varies by plan and over time... no need to include it in an encyclopedia article.Unfriend13 (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There used to be a list of channels available on Wikipedia showing U-verse's channels, but due to Wikipedia's policies, it's since been removed. As I think this information is relevant to readers, I've posted a link to a Wiki with a listing of U-verse's channels; however, the list could do with some updating, if anyone here is able to contribute. Wyp (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Required Migration of Existing AT&T ADSL Customers to U-Verse Internet - AT&T Phasing Out ADSL Service
Someone who can please add a section on AT&T's "migration" of existing ADSL customers to U-Verse VDSL, please do so; not as a soapbox, please keep it NPOV, but as a way to mention that AT&T is "phasing out" ADSL services and replacing with FTTN/FTTC VDSL implementations that are requiring customers to buy new CPE and lock in 2-year contracts. In many cases these changes are not being announced by AT&T or even made public until after the customers have already been disconnected @ the terminating junction box or had their port deactivated on the DSLAM and these same customers are being advised that due to high OA&M of existing copper lines ADSL service is being phased out with the resulting requirement to migrate to U-Verse. (AT&T & Verizon have DNC areas by region, North Texas is one such DNC for Verizon, i.e. AT&T U-Verse is the only non-cable broadband available and Verizon FiOS does not compete in the market.) I'd do it myself but I do not care for editing actual, live content. Please redirect this to the appropriate page if this is not the appropriate page for such a request or topic, or if any of the terms used in this edit require explanation for non-telecom folks. Paralyse78 (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 3 December 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Natg 19 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

AT&T U-verse → AT&T Entertainment – AT&T is planning to revamp both the U-verse name and the DirecTV name and move all customers to a derivative equipment currently used by DirecTV beginning next month. And here's the link to the article: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Plans-on-Killing-the-DirecTV-Name-Starting-in-January-135765 AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC) AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, more procedurally than anything else, because you've also proposed that DirecTV be moved to the same title. Are you trying to have us move one or the other (i.e. we need to debate which one's the primary topic), or are you suggesting a merge, or did you simply make a mistake?  Once they rename their services, of course we'll need to move or merge one or both pages, but I'd rather understand your intentions before supporting or opposing anything on substantive grounds.  Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, too soon and we can't move two articles to the same name. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

All of the U-verse member channels will be removed by the end of next month.
On February 29, 2016, the U-verse member channels: ATTention (channels 400, 962 in SD and 1100, 1400, 2500 in HD), Buzz (channels 300, 851, 961 in SD and 1000, 1300, 1851 in HD), Front Row (channels 100, 847 in SD and 1847 HD), Showcase (channels 800, 964 in SD and 1800 in HD), Sports (channels 600, 801, 963 in SD and 1600, 1801 in HD), and U-verse Movies (channels 200, 800, 945, 960 in SD and 1200, 1850 in HD) will be removed from the AT&T U-verse channel line-up. AdamDeanHall (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

New AT&T Internet speed tiers (VDSL2)
Several customers in VDSL2 service areas are starting to see new speed tiers. These include Internet 25 (25/5), Internet 50 (50/10), Internet 100 (100/20). Previously these were only avaliable in three markets according to att.net/speedtiers (Available in Lansing, MI South Bend, IN and Wichita, KS Only). However as you can see from the following post in the U-verse DSLReports forums these tiers appear to be leaving the trial stage and rolling out in several other service areas.

I added the internet 100 VDSL2 tier to the chart, and modfied the FTTH tier as "Internet 100s" to signify symmetrical speeds. AT&T uses this same wording on one of its product info pages.

https://www.att.com/gen/public-affairs?pid=20879&partner=LinkShare&siteId=TnL5HPStwNw-Ziy8SeiRJeTwul0nizlu_Q#content (scroll down to the "Performance Characteristics" section")

Was not sure about weather or not to replace the other tiers in the chart in the article. For example replacing Internet 45 with Internet 50 etc. I'll let someone else make that decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean8102 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)