AT&T won't be reaching 18 million homes this year with its "Lightspeed" U-Verse IPTV & VDSL broadband network, giving more credence to my AT&T U-Verse Doomed? article. The ironic thing is that AT&T just a few days go stated it was ready for an aggressive rollout of U-verse. They told the San Antonio Express News that it had ironed out technical glitches with the service and is readying a breakneck expansion that will take it to all major cities in its 22-state service area and 8 million households by year-end. "We're ready to take our foot off the brake and step on the accelerator," John Stankey, AT&T's group president for operations, said Tuesday. "By the end of the year, we will be up and running in every significantly sized market where we operate."
Nice marketing snowjob job, AT&T! Instead, AT&T will reach less than half the original target of 8 million. USA Today stated today, "AT&T unveiled its latest 2007 target in an unusually quiet manner: It was offered up to Wall Street analysts on an earnings call on Jan. 25. The 8 million figure later showed up in a few investor notes, where it did not attract much attention." Fletcher Cook, an AT&T spokesman says Microsoft's IPTV software isn't to blame: "We're building a brand new service from scratch, and we want to make sure we do it right the first time." Blaming Microsoft is almost as fashionable as blaming President Bush for everything & anything - from global warming to knowing about 9/11 beforehand. (See: Wiki - Bush Derangement Syndrome. So, I'm glad to hear AT&T isn't blaming Microsoft for failing to meet their goals.
Update (I had some other thoughts and feedback from users)
One person emailed me and wrote:
Put to you this way. If I could get U-verse in my area, I'd do it. Yes, I knocked AT&T for not meeting their target goals, as did many media outlets. While I think AT&T & Microsoft were perhaps 1-2 years too early with their proprietary technology, it is still a good solution.I'm just not a fan of proprietary solutions. AT&T and Microsoft have had a bumpy road, but I think AT&T & Microsoft have worked out most of the kinks.
Also, I am the least fan of cable. They are overpriced on everything. When I looked into Cablevision's Optimum Voice I believe it was like $39/month. Their broadband was like $45/month. And to get the channels I wanted, it was like $55/month for a grand total of around $139 for the "Triple Play" package. On top of that, the number of HDTV (high-definition) channels was only like 4 and of course, that was an additional $15/month.
I personally switched to DirecTV satellite, which is better than cable, but isn't a perfect solution either - since I then had to also sign up for AT&T DSL + AT&T Unlimited Voice. So I have two separate providers - a Single Play (DirecTV) and a Double Play (AT&T), which no doubt isn't the most cost effective. I just can't get U-verse or even the competing Verizon FiOS (fiber) solution in my area. I'd take either one. Both AT&T and Verizon are building out their networks as fast as they can - but not fast enough for my tastes.
So if you can get Triple play - voice, video, data using AT&T U-verse, with more HDTV channels and super-fast Internet, I say go for it!
AT&T U-verse is in Stamford, CT, which is where my boss, Rich Tehrani lives. I told him they're offering U-verse in his area. Of course, if he gets this cool Triple Play package before I do, I'll be quite jealous and will be forced to bitch & whine how come AT&T isn't offering U-verse in my neighborhood area.
Maybe I'll check to see if their competitor, Verizon FiOS (fiber to the home - FTTH) has availability in my neighborhood.
Nice marketing snowjob job, AT&T! Instead, AT&T will reach less than half the original target of 8 million. USA Today stated today, "AT&T unveiled its latest 2007 target in an unusually quiet manner: It was offered up to Wall Street analysts on an earnings call on Jan. 25. The 8 million figure later showed up in a few investor notes, where it did not attract much attention." Fletcher Cook, an AT&T spokesman says Microsoft's IPTV software isn't to blame: "We're building a brand new service from scratch, and we want to make sure we do it right the first time." Blaming Microsoft is almost as fashionable as blaming President Bush for everything & anything - from global warming to knowing about 9/11 beforehand. (See: Wiki - Bush Derangement Syndrome. So, I'm glad to hear AT&T isn't blaming Microsoft for failing to meet their goals.
Update (I had some other thoughts and feedback from users)
One person emailed me and wrote:
Read with great interest your comments about the possible doom of U-verse. Taking those concerns into account, would you recommend it to a consumer like me who is considering switching from Comcast to U-verse if and when it becomes available on the west side of Indianapolis? The cost and channel availability seem to have cable beat by a mile, but your technological concerns may trump other advantages.I responded:
I'd appreciate your assessment on whether consumers should proceed to "sign up" for this new service.
Put to you this way. If I could get U-verse in my area, I'd do it. Yes, I knocked AT&T for not meeting their target goals, as did many media outlets. While I think AT&T & Microsoft were perhaps 1-2 years too early with their proprietary technology, it is still a good solution.I'm just not a fan of proprietary solutions. AT&T and Microsoft have had a bumpy road, but I think AT&T & Microsoft have worked out most of the kinks.
Also, I am the least fan of cable. They are overpriced on everything. When I looked into Cablevision's Optimum Voice I believe it was like $39/month. Their broadband was like $45/month. And to get the channels I wanted, it was like $55/month for a grand total of around $139 for the "Triple Play" package. On top of that, the number of HDTV (high-definition) channels was only like 4 and of course, that was an additional $15/month.
I personally switched to DirecTV satellite, which is better than cable, but isn't a perfect solution either - since I then had to also sign up for AT&T DSL + AT&T Unlimited Voice. So I have two separate providers - a Single Play (DirecTV) and a Double Play (AT&T), which no doubt isn't the most cost effective. I just can't get U-verse or even the competing Verizon FiOS (fiber) solution in my area. I'd take either one. Both AT&T and Verizon are building out their networks as fast as they can - but not fast enough for my tastes.
So if you can get Triple play - voice, video, data using AT&T U-verse, with more HDTV channels and super-fast Internet, I say go for it!
AT&T U-verse is in Stamford, CT, which is where my boss, Rich Tehrani lives. I told him they're offering U-verse in his area. Of course, if he gets this cool Triple Play package before I do, I'll be quite jealous and will be forced to bitch & whine how come AT&T isn't offering U-verse in my neighborhood area.
Maybe I'll check to see if their competitor, Verizon FiOS (fiber to the home - FTTH) has availability in my neighborhood.
actually, the USA Today piece is wrong:
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=118535&WT.svl=news1_2
It's too bad you don't live in Sacramento where you can get 50x50mb fiber internet through Surewest. You can also get HDTV over their iptv network and telephone service to complete the triple play.
I am fascinated by the ATT Lightspeed/Uverse comments. ATT is a 19th century monopoly that acquires phone companies, and invests little in infrastructure. I live in Concord, California, 26 miles from San Francisco. Reception is awful, so almost everyone has cable or satellite. Uverse is coming to Stockton, the closest Uverse point. Concord has given persmission to put up boxes, lay cable yet not one Uverse truck can be seen in Concord.
I have DISH and will upgrade to HDTV. I have the free Internet MetroFi for now, which will not be sufficient for ITV or anything similar.
Cable is outrageous, and can't handle many HDTV channels. Eventually, Wimax from Sprint or Clearwire will arrive in Concord and at that time I plan to go full out HDTV, IPTV, etc.
AT&T can drop dead, as far as I am concerned.
If they make a special offer to switch I might take, but long term they're just a 19th century greedy monopoly. Drop dead, AT&T.
tonys right, at&t sucks, big time, i believe they are the biggest reason the us is falling behind tech. wise. is it just me... or are they trying to milk as much money out of the old technology(dsl) as they can? i mean i give props to verizon, yea it took them awhile to get fiber but hey, at least they are running it now. and its fairly cheap, except for the 30mbps package... thats a diff story. my point is this, how come korea had fiber to the house years ago and we are treating it like its something we dont know how to use? ask them if you dont know! i mean we are falling back because of companies like microsoft and at&t, do your self a favor, tell at&t to f*@k off and switch to linux, help make the world a better place
thank you and goodbye
Proprietary or not, AT&T's IP based architecture is leagues ahead of any entertainment/communication system available by far. As time goes on, AT&T with about as much intense IP routing and backbone experience will I'm sure adhere to open-standards. The fact is, open standards are always being revised, so a proprietary solution to give convergence a boost is almost a necessary evil. Any improvement AT&T makes to Lightspeed/U-Verse will only make it even more embarassing for almost every other comm medium available. Also, it would be entirely silly to think that fiber to the prem (FTTP) architecture is not coming. We are simply approaching it this way to save costs and penetrate the market for revenue and branding purposes. Standardized or not, U-Verse is the first truly converged service package and I applaud the effort
If DSL is such an old technology, why is AT&T carrying twice the bandwidth of Road Runner Turbo on 26 awg wire. Pretty impressive if you ask me. Keep in mind this is not even VDSL2 which is well in the works and will pump out over 50mpbs. Pretty sad when VDSL2 is going to deliver higher datarates than the 30mpbs fiber package (which is the absolute biggest joke and actually insulting that a company would offer such a small fraction of the potential of the media to the customer). I can't stand anti corporate losers that just wine all day. Maybe the reason Korea has fiber, just like any damn near third world country, is because they haven't had an existing telecom infrastructure for almost 100 years. Iraq is going to have the most advanced phone system in the world. So why don't you go cry about it. I can't wait until the day AT&T purchases Verizon seeing as how they are over twice the size. From a business stand point, it is retarded to focus all your assets on fiber to the premis when you can achieve the same product over existing architecture. You guys need to go to business school or just read the paper more and stop blogging like a bunch of know nothing idiots.
I keep getting the run around from att workere as to when uverse will be available in my area. they keep changing their stories to me making me believe they are just trying to tell me what i want to hear to just get me off the phone. you are only as good as your word and their word is not good to me anymore. can you tell me where i may find out wheni will be getting uverse
I'm an At&T technician and I can tell you all we are working as hard as possible but there are many factors that weigh into rolling out fttp. One is if you roll it out in neighborhoods that are older and don't have CAT5 or CAT3 wiring or a high standard cable t.v. lines, it won't work. Running new lines all over a expensive older home is ugly and in most cases not acceptable to home owners. New neighborhoods w/MI homes are getting FTTP in Columbus, Ohio where fiber is available. Not all builders will agree to use CAT5. Some pinch pennies wherever possible and someone building a brand new home doesn't want it to be a mess of wires because their builders won't let anyone but their contractors pre-wire the home w/standards that are questionable @ best. Most of these guys don't even know the correct color scheme used to wire the jacks and often split pairs of CAT5 wires to complete circuits instead of using the obviuos twisted pair together. Rendering CAT5 usless. Running FTTP in rural areas is not cost effective because of the sparse population & that's bad business. All companies are in business to make money. As for third world contries having a better infrastructure than the U.S., many of them had none previously so it is easier to start from scratch. And of course they will use the latest technology, why not? Not to mention there is nothing else there so getting an easment right-of-way isn't a problem not to mention the lack of laws in place to govern the utilities like there is in the U.S. The list goes on & on not to mention all the millions of other things I don't even know about. As for getting the run around about rolling out U-verse, there are certain things that work in some areas but won't in others due to the type of facilities, ie. aerial or buried lines. Aerial lines are on poles shared by other utility companies and if the ground wires have been stolen by recycling thieves then the company that owns the pole must replace it. At&T is not allowed to. Not to mention it must be a solid segment of ground wire not spliced. Getting other companies to do this is not easy, even though it is their responsibilty, proper bonding & grounding is paramount to getting U-verse to work. There a whole bunch of other issues w/buried plant. My point is that AT7T may plan to role out U-verse in your area on XXXXX date but unforseen problems could push this date back several times. Questions?
In LOS ANGELES, we still cant get over 4.5M down and 768k up. CAVEMEN had better internet service lol. Get with the program, AT&T, it's 2009.