Comments on: Who Wins: Verizon FiOS vs AT&T U-Verse

By: AT&T U-verse vs. Verizon FiOS: a quick look

AT&T U-verse vs. Verizon FiOS: a quick look — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:28:36 +0000

[...] (FTTN). This results in a much quicker deployment time, much lower cost for consumers, and much lower initial out-of-pocket costs from AT&T’s coffers. AT&T also has the option of switching from FTTN to FTTP once the overall need for additional [...]

By: big mule

big mule — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 01:11:33 +0000

What isn't mentioned here is that Uverse isn't DSL. It will has much, much faster speeds than DSL. I'm an installer/repairman for AT&T and I assure you, it is far faster than AT&T standard DSL and any cable DSL I have used. The big problem for AT&T is that in so many areas, the old copper cables have been neglected for years. It seems the company who swears they are all about customer service believes that it's techs should get X number of jobs done per day. Period. So, in an effort to clear the maximum number of jobs, the copper cable that the big wigs planned to use for the final 3k-5k feet to the customer is in sorry shape. So, it must be repaired and/or replaced to get the new Uverse offering up and running. The only problem? The big wigs don't realize the shape their facilities are in thanks to middle management insisting that the techs scramble to get the work done. And to top it off, the copper cable required for Uverse to work is 40 or more years old. One entire section of the town I work in everyday has phone cable that was placed in 1947.

If the big wigs could ever get middle management to pull their heads out of their rumps, Uverse could be the best Phone/TV/Internet option out there. However, that could be a big "if".

By: girly girl

girly girl — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 06:46:20 +0000

FIOS VS U-VERSE

What I have is a direct relationship with both companies. I have worked for both in FIOS AND U-VERSE Departments. I also have an BSIT degree and a good understanding for computer networks. I am also a guy that loves TV and ESPN, Sci-Fi, History CH, Smithsonian to name a few. I guess that’s mostly what I watch but my opinion about the two services is based on what I know and what I have experienced over the last few years. Getting right to the point, FTTP is always better than FTTN, PERIOD. Why would I limit my data availability if I had the choice? Two, future advancements is not limited to the condition of OLD COPPER. U-verse is limited to four TV streams, MAX TWO HI DEF; I currently have four HI DEF TV'S. (TWO KIDS, MASTER AND LIVING AREA). I could not get hi-definition to all TV’s on deferent channels with U-VERSE. The prices of TV’S are coming down and they will continue in the future. That said, IPTV is great if not for the limitations of the copper network that AT&T uses. NOISE, ADSL CROSSTALK, BAD WIRE, PACKET LOSS, ERRORS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE COPPER WILL ALWAYS BE PRESENT IN U-VERSE Unless they replace the cable. How costly would that be? Copper, man power and the upcoming strike...WOW. I would like to know what everyone out here thinks and do they see it like I do. Also, the benefit of fiber to the prem removes the bandwidth issues and will provide a platform for advancements in the future. 4, 6, 8 Hi Def TV's 15, 20 30Mgs-DS, 5-30Mgs-US and with no loss in TV quality and or any limit in video streams. Oh yes, FIOS is not full IPTV, but if they decide to do so they can with no issues and or problems but the code used to do it. As a past employee of both (I would choose FIOS without a second thought. That’s just my opinion.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:23:49 +0000

I am a regular non-tech savvy person who appreciates reading these comments. I ordered U-Verse, which is schedluled for a 2/28 install; but, i’m getting cold feet after looking more closely. The level 2 tech support at att told me fiber to node installation is standand; but fiber to premises is available as a field supervisor call; i’ll have to wait for day of install to make the request. I’m not looking forward to the possible confrontation about that and being labeled as a problem customer even before I get the service. My question is, if i insist on fiber to premises install, will that give me results more similar to FIOS. I really wanted FIOS but it’s not coming to my area and i’m tired of tha satelite problems.

By: David

David — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:13:25 +0000

I disagree with AT&T. I was once the U-verse tech and had a real look at them both. I worked on uverse from the start and now have FIOS. I will always believe that its better to have FTTP than FTTN and that the limit of 4 streams of TV, two hidef is one factor that has stopped many people from leaving cable and sat service. I have three TV’s and all are HI def on different ch and I have 15Mgs ds and 5Mgs US with no problem. Try that with u-verse, you can’t. I know of people that have installed u-verse and have removed it when it was understood that they could not get more than two hi def signals. I guess thats better than before, it was one stream for about a year into the service in the LA area. Penny wise and a pound foolish is the truth.

By: Brendan

Brendan — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 10:19:13 +0000

The U-Verse service offered by AT&T is the most cost effective solution in the industry at the moment as it offers you acceptable speeds at prices that rival cable companies. The support leaves something to be desired, but currently the service is quite adequate for the residental user. Currently the only advantage I see Verizon having is in the Business Sector where speeds like their fastest internet package offers, 50mbps Download and 20mbps Upload, would even really be needed. As for where Verizon is making it major money it would is not really the wireless sector though as even though they do have quite a large wireless sector they get a larger volume of income from the business sector which relies largely on fibre optic communications. This is where I see the FTTP rollouts really benefiting them. These FTTP rollouts by Verzion are ultimately providing better resources for the home based business.

By: HAwkish

HAwkish — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:48:25 +0000

I think AT&T is the wiser one overall. AT&T is cranking out the U-verse installs on a faster and BROADER national scale than Verizon. Yes, FTTP is much better than FTTN. But...., All AT&T's gotta do is get the customers with U-verse tv, hispeed internet, and U-verse voice ( which allows you to merge your cell and home phone messaging among other things). Then they whip out the fiber the rest of the way at thier convenience. AT&T is already rolling out FTTP in all new areas. Verizon will probably be way behind except in "Verizon only " areas.

I'm telling you U-verse works fine if you are near the Xbox (< 3000 ft )don't have a impedence mismatch on the drop line (for ex. 22 ga. to 26ga wire or any other gauge size change), good coax or cat5, cat6 even better and clean tight connections. My internet speed doesn't really matter to me, just as long as it stays up and running.

By: Universal Broadband: The Begging Begins

Universal Broadband: The Begging Begins — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:07:42 +0000

[...] I’m glad they’re making money, especially because they are doing so while they also invest in the next generation infrastructure in their service areas. If there’s profit in a venture, a corporation can take it without picking Uncle Sam’s pocket. Look at Verizon’s FiOS deployments. It’s not spending $23 billion laying fiber out of the goodness of its heart, but out of interest in offering competitive services that will keep it in business. [...]

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 04:59:12 +0000

I sure am glad you chimed in, Jack. I just signed up for U-Verse here in Columbus and thought I may have made a big mistake leaving Time Warner from reading all of the proceeding comments. I hope to have the same experience you are reporting. Once it is installed in mid-December I will report what I find.

By: Jack

Jack — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:39:06 +0000

We live in Oakwood, Ohio, near Dayton. We got rid of Time-Warner and got ATT U-verse at the end of September. I think U-verse is superior to the cable service we had. I now get many more channels, including many more HD channels. Pictures on our plasma TV are much clearer and noise-free. We only have the one TV. We can record 2 HD and 2 non-HD simultaneously while using two hard-wired computers and two wireless laptops. The wireless signal strength is better than we had before. We can use VOIP with video between here and Germany without a problem. I’ve read some of the earlier comments on U-verse that suggest limitations and problems that we haven’t encountered. I believe ATT just introduced U-verse in this area, and I conclude that the previously-described issues must have been worked out before we signed up. We got the top-end tv-phone-internet package with internet speed guaranteed at 6 MB/sec or better. (In the tests I’ve run, it clocks at 9+ mbps to 17+ mbps download and 900+ mbps upload.) Installation took about three hours. I think ATT will be able to get as many customers as they want in this area. Time-Warner just dropped NBC from their channel offering because the local NBC outlet wants 30 cents more per customer per month. And Time-Warner converter boxes have had a lot of problems (I had to replace my HD converter box five times in a little over a year.)

By: Ray Delagarza

Ray Delagarza — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 01:32:01 +0000

Finally someone decided to address a couple of issues. First, and foremost, is the initial capital costs associated with providing media based services. Offer TV over existing facilities with minimal costs boosts net income. ROI is quick and Wall Street loves that. New sub-divisions will be served to the home with fiber. The transition will occur over time, but mass coverage helps drive revenue to allow for the upgrades in the future.

As for the speed of a copper based service, most average consumers do not need high speed, low latency connectivity. People speak of VoIP, but that is what the voice service with AT&T is. LD costs are going to be a thing of the past. A global IP network, based on MPLS within the core will suffice. "On Net" calls will eventually be free regardless of where you are at in the world. There are only a couple of companies with a world wide network that can capitalize on this strategy, with AT&T being the leader.

So I will continue to enjoy my U-Verse service and all of the niceties that come with it. I have not heard a single complaint in the Northern Ohio region and people are begging for it over Time Warner and Cox Cable due to the features. For the average Joe it is great. Yeah, they will have to do something down the road for the next generation, but you have to make money in order to upgrade the infrastructure. I like the plan and I like my returns on my AT&T stock.

By the way, check out the Time Warner Telecom stock. 20% loss in one day due to revenue concerns. Tough to continue to supplement voice and data networking when the Bells are moving in. So TW and Comcast can continue to steal away the $23 voice lines while the phone company continues to capture the $100 TV services. The answer to the question on who is going to win out is simple: The Bell tolls for thee.

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:10:10 +0000

"regular DSL packages whose speeds are spanked silly by cable offerings"

I agree with Paddy. My cable provider markets a 10 Mbps connection, while my AT&T DSL connection is a mere 6 Mbps. How much does a consumer need? I've had both services at the same address and I cannot tell the difference. Honestly, most web servers aren't going to serve up a web content at 10 Mbps anyway.

By: Paddy

Paddy — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:24:00 +0000

I see this is what Uverse offers for Internet speed: Downstream up to 10 Mbps Upstream up to 1.5 Mbps. Why would I need more than that, at this point? Everyone also seems to ignore the fact that all new subdivisions in AT&T areas are being constructed with fiber to the home, only existing plant is being converted fiber to the node.

By: Rocky Agrawal

Rocky Agrawal — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:16:53 +0000

I have been less than thrilled with the offerings on AT&T's U-Verse. They actually have me wishing I could get Comcast! I live in a SF building where management has an exclusive arrangement (i.e. kickback) with AT&T.

I'd get FIOS in a heartbeat if it were an option.

By: Ajay

Ajay — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:49:28 +0000

Raymond: You’re right, I’m not differentiating between upstream and downstream and the difference is dramatic. However, even upstream ranges between 256 Kbps and 1-2 Mbps, many times more than the 40-80 Kbps necessary for VoIP. The real problem for VoIP on any of these connections is latency. If I run bit torrent or some other p2p service while using VoIP, the call quality is degraded regardless of how high my Mbps cap is.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:04:06 +0000

What get's lost in this argument is that both Verizon and AT&T are effectively wireless companies now, with some wireline assets. In the grand scheme of things, both of them can afford to be wrong with their wireline strategy becuase its not the core of their business going forward. Whichever one selected the wrong strategy will have the wherewithal to adjust, change course, and recover. AT&T's thinking is, let's wait a while longer before pulling the trigger, get fiber deeper and deeper into the network, and pull the trigger (or not) once we have more insight into the marketplace. If cable takes 30% of my wireline voice customers in the interim, so what. Oh and by the way, let Verizon lower our eventual costs (should we decide to go that route) because of the massive investment they're putting into FTTH, and lowering the per unit costs across the board for everyone.

Not arguing that Verizon is wrong either. They've pulled the trigger, and will probably be better for it in the future. But FiOS is no slam dunk. They don't exactly have Cablevision shaking in their boots.

The point is, there is no absolute right or wrong here. Just different approaches to the same end.