It was around 2.5 years ago that we saw one of the first FiOS users in Texas
give his review of the fiber-based service. Now, we're seeing a U-verse subscriber from Ann Arbor give his take on whether or not it's living up to expectations. Essentially, the service was praised for delivering HD material for a low (relatively speaking) cost, and at least for this fellow, his experience with customer service has been satisfactory thus far. As for picture quality, he notes that SD is superior to that of DISH Network, though the HD signals could stand to lose some minor artifacting. Interestingly, the subscriber states that actually getting U-verse installed was "a major undertaking," and although he didn't urge consumers to steer clear of AT&T, he couldn't wholeheartedly recommend the service in its current state either. Check the read link for the full interview.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
carterman @ Apr 23rd 2008 9:52AM
My family's got U-Verse in San Antonio, and at least my verdict from the service and all its problems is that it's great if you want to save money (plus the SD is really good) but it is fraught with bandwidth issues if you've got a whole house using internet and TV service.
Mr. E @ Apr 23rd 2008 10:55AM
I took a brief look at U-Verse, and according to the listed specifications, their DVR will let you record/watch FOUR(!) channels at once. Of course, when you get to the detail that actually means only a single HD channel (and up to 3 SD channels) at once. I rarely bother with SD anymore, so that's a no go. With Cox, I can be recording two HD channels while watching a third. No contest there!
venk @ Apr 23rd 2008 11:08AM
I'm also a U-Verse Customer in Ann Arbor and I like everything about the service except the HD Quality. The guy in the article understates the artificating that can occur, it isn't macro-block heavy like a bad comcast feed, but it seems to introduce a ridiculous amount of jaggies when the service is stressed. We have four boxes in the house, so that is probably why. The quality is a bit worse than your typical 720p MKV rip. The DSL Connection is lightning fast thought, which is just plain awesome. AT&T says these features will be resolved over time and they plan to introduce such features as using and accessing the single DVR from any box in the house. Overall, I would never go back to Comcast or deal with a DISH contract.
Lakeonaut @ Apr 23rd 2008 11:54AM
My only problem stems from turning off the "gateway" (router) when going on vacation. The STBs have to be rebooted and their output resolution reset. On one, even this wouldn't work, but AT&T sent out a tech to do some sort of major reboot.
I agree with the guy that the customer service is excellent, especially so if you're used to Time Warner's lies, missed appointments, and ineptitude. Compared directly to the HD I get over my rooftop antenna, U-verse has noticeably lower resolution and color.
Simon P @ Apr 23rd 2008 12:02PM
I'm a happy U-verse customer. I think my summary is pretty simple, and from the forums, pretty typical. Great value for money. HD picture quality is not as good as my previous TWC. On some channels it's very good, almost comparable, others not great. Overall, I can certainly live with the picture quality, the difference is there but it's only small. Only 1 HD stream at a time is more of a pain than I expected but I'm willing to wait as it's on the cards to be increased to two streams soon....ish. Being able to see my photos from Flickr on the tv is a surprisingly nice perk, as is the U-bar, Yahoo games and Yellow Pages, they're more than just a novelty for us. The internet is where U-verse really shines. I signed up for the max package which gives me very close to the advertised speeds of 10megs down and 1.5 up. Very nice. My TWC gave me nowhere near advertised speeds. The install was not a major hassle at all. Not exactly a cake-walk either though. Allow 3-4 hours if you're the typical 2-3 tv's 2-3 computer household. They ran cat5 at no cost all around my basement. They have trouble in finished areas but that was only a small problem for me. Overall, it's not perfect but in most areas it's either comparable or superior to TWC, with picture quality being the main drawback. I get quite a lot more for the same money as TWC and I'm prepared to wait for them to iron out the very minor flaws.
thomas @ Apr 23rd 2008 12:04PM
i've had it now for a couple months. It's fine, with more HD offerings than Time Warner.. but you still feel like an early adopter with it; things (esp the DVR) are kind of glitchy.. software has the feeling of being brittle.. either forgetting to record things, or once I had it record something on its own (and there's no such equivalent "tivo suggestions" feature). And of course, no cable cards so using a Tivo is a hassle at best. SD really is a lot better than time warner though, I'll give them that. I'll stay with them for now... just hope their DVR software gets better here soon (or work some kind of thing out with Tivo).. biggest gripe.
Erik Hanson @ Apr 24th 2008 11:13AM
Hooray! I get my U-verse installed tonight, so I will be sure to report back on my own results. Considering I've been getting my HD only over the air, I'm going to be happy to see some of the non-local channels in high def, and getting the "Max" 10/1.5 package is a welcome step up from my existing maxed-out AT&T 6/600 DSL.
LargoMason @ Apr 27th 2008 12:42PM
I've got it in Austin and am satisfied with it. I grew tired of problems I had with TWC and haven't run into any of those problems with Uverse. My HD channels would totally drop out on TWC and go black for a few minutes before returning and my DVR would record for 7 minutes and stop and then record for another 9 minutes and stop again, if that is if it recorded at all. My only gripes are one HD stream and they seem to have halted adding channels down here, and a few gripes about navigating the DVR itself. I've been told to expect both the one stream and HD channels to be resolved durring the summer/fall. We shall see...