# TiVo-HD is now compatible with ATT Uverse



## lessd

I just talked with TiVo and they told me the the Series 3 (or TiVo-HD) is compatible with ATT-Uverse as long as you use the wireless Internet (most likely wired is OK also) connection (Can't use a phone). You also must have v9.4 software installed. I did a setup for a friend and ATT-Uv was one of the options that was offered (he had Comcast so I did not use the ATT option). I have seen many posts saying that ATT-Uverse was not compatible so i want to correct that now incorrect information.


----------



## rainwater

Are you sure they didn't just mean the S2s can control a Uverse cable box?


----------



## lessd

rainwater said:


> Are you sure they didn't just mean the S2s can control a Uverse cable box?


YES TiVo told me that ATT was now supplying Cable Cards for the Series 3 TiVos (HD-TiVo also). The Series 2 do not have cable card possibility.


----------



## Philmatic

lessd said:


> YES TiVo told me that ATT was now supplying Cable Cards for the Series 3 TiVos (HD-TiVo also). The Series 2 do not have cable cards possibility.


You simply heard wrong, unless TiVo has been secretly developing the software needed to support IPTV multicasting for the past year and slipping it into the software upgrades without any of the TiVo elites knowing about it, it's just not possible.

U-Verse cannot and will not support Cable Cards, U-Verse is not QAM and does not work over Coax. I suppose they CAN support it if TiVo and AT&T got together, but trust me, we would have certainly heard of this months before it came to fruition.

Perhaps you are confused with Verizon's IPTV solution (FiOS), which does work on the QAM system and DOES support Cable Cards (and the S3/HD TiVo)?


----------



## 20TIL6

PhilipSaad said:


> You simply heard wrong, unless TiVo has been secretly developing the software needed to support IPTV multicasting for the past year and slipping it into the software upgrades without any of the TiVo elites knowing about it, it's just not possible.
> 
> U-Verse cannot and will not support Cable Cards, U-Verse is not QAM and does not work over Coax. I suppose they CAN support it if TiVo and AT&T got together, but trust me, we would have certainly heard of this months before it came to fruition.
> 
> Perhaps you are confused with Verizon's IPTV solution (FiOS), which does work on the QAM system and DOES support Cable Cards (and the S3/HD TiVo)?


I am skeptical too... But one correction, U-verse DOES work over coax. You can feed U-verse receivers through wired ethernet or coax. I had U-verse for a few months so I know this is fact.

But I am skeptical too.


----------



## moyekj

20TIL6 said:


> I am skeptical too... But one correction, U-verse DOES work over coax. You can feed U-verse receivers through wired ethernet or coax. I had U-verse for a few months so I know this is fact.
> 
> But I am skeptical too.


 Probably the receivers have built in MOCA or HPNA capabilities which allow IP over coax. I also am very skeptical about this pronouncement.


----------



## TolloNodre

If you run guided setup with v9.4, it does show AT&T U-Verse as an option.

Doesn't mean it's supported, but it is there...

EDIT: I guess I should say I am in a U-Verse area...


----------



## lessd

PhilipSaad said:


> You simply heard wrong, unless TiVo has been secretly developing the software needed to support IPTV multicasting for the past year and slipping it into the software upgrades without any of the TiVo elites knowing about it, it's just not possible.
> 
> U-Verse cannot and will not support Cable Cards, U-Verse is not QAM and does not work over Coax. I suppose they CAN support it if TiVo and AT&T got together, but trust me, we would have certainly heard of this months before it came to fruition.
> 
> Perhaps you are confused with Verizon's IPTV solution (FiOS), which does work on the QAM system and DOES support Cable Cards (and the S3/HD TiVo)?


OK the TiVo tech CS person could be incorrect BUT

TiVo in the guided setup DOES now give you the option of ATT-Uverse as a cable provider if you do a guided setup using v9.4 software..that a fact that anybody that is near ATT-Uvers can check.

Somebody else call TiVo tech support for HD TiVos and ask the same question to confirm (or not) what I was told. The tech told me that they had worked with ATT so that v9.4 software would be compatible. As i said the tech also said you can't use a phone you must use the wireless connection, I did not ask about a direct RJ45 connection. Somebody please call TiVo and let get a 2nd opinion


----------



## 20TIL6

moyekj said:


> Probably the receivers have built in MOCA or HPNA capabilities which allow IP over coax. I also am very skeptical about this pronouncement.


When I had U-verse, it came into the house over twisted pair and into their residential gateway (router). From there, you could distribute the TV signal to the U-verse receivers over cat5/6 or over coax. The receivers had both types of inputs. That only makes sense since most houses would have coax for TV, and far fewer would have cat5/6 runs to TV areas.

They do prefer to use cat5/6 connections as opposed to coax, but either could be used.


----------



## Jimbo713

Any news on this alledged compatability? AT&T Uverse is new in my area and the deal they offer offsets the fee I would have to pay to get out of the "price-lock gaurantee" commitment.


----------



## BBURNES

I will change from DirecTivo to TivoHD in a split second if this can be verified.

Pony? TivoStephen?


----------



## wmcbrine

I hope it's true. Dare I dream of Fios VOD support next? It works somewhat similarly, AFAIK.

The addition of streaming support in 9.4 makes it plausible.


----------



## Philmatic

20TIL6 said:


> I am skeptical too... But one correction, U-verse DOES work over coax. You can feed U-verse receivers through wired ethernet or coax. I had U-verse for a few months so I know this is fact.


True, I misspoke, what I meant to say is that it doesn't support QAM over COAX like Cable and FiOS do. All it does is spit the same IPTV signal over Ethernet or COAX, both wrapped in HPNA.

The obvious explanation for U-Verse being listed in the Guided Setup is that S1 and S2 devices can control an external STB. I'm assuming that the data that feeds the Guided Setup is the same for all TiVo devices (S1-S3)?


----------



## cmontyburns

lessd said:


> As i said the tech also said you can't use a phone you must use the wireless connection, I did not ask about a direct RJ45 connection. Somebody please call TiVo and let get a 2nd opinion


This makes me wonder if we aren't talking about two different things. U-verse offers a VOIP solution in some markets, and TiVo hasn't officially been compatible with that. Perhaps that is all this new compatibility implies?

U-verse does not stream video wirelessly so that can't be what is meant here.


----------



## cmontyburns

So what the heck, I called TiVo. The CSR didn't know anything about it but put me on hold to ask, and came back and said she was told that it only applied to series 2 TiVos, because those are the only ones that work with a cable box. This makes me think that the extent of the "compatibility" is that IR codes for U-verse boxes were included in the 9.4 update.


----------



## McCarron

cmontyburns said:


> This makes me wonder if we aren't talking about two different things. U-verse offers a VOIP solution in some markets, and TiVo hasn't officially been compatible with that. Perhaps that is all this new compatibility implies?
> 
> U-verse does not stream video wirelessly so that can't be what is meant here.


Tivo HD/S3 is not compatible U-verse at all, U-verse VOIP or not. U-verse is IPTV and Tivo has no way other than recording in HD via the U-verse service. AT&T wont even let the Xbox 360 play with U-verse, even though it CAN support AT&T's IPTV (since it was developed by Microsoft) so I wouldn't ever expect Tivo to work with it.

But as stated here, you can use a Tivo S2 with U-verse STBs because it can control them via IR, but it will obviously record in SD only.


----------



## Philmatic

cmontyburns said:


> So what the heck, I called TiVo. The CSR didn't know anything about it but put me on hold to ask, and came back and said she was told that it only applied to series 2 TiVos, because those are the only ones that work with a cable box. This makes me think that the extent of the "compatibility" is that IR codes for U-verse boxes were included in the 9.4 update.


Bingo!


----------



## lessd

cmontyburns said:


> So what the heck, I called TiVo. The CSR didn't know anything about it but put me on hold to ask, and came back and said she was told that it only applied to series 2 TiVos, because those are the only ones that work with a cable box. This makes me think that the extent of the "compatibility" is that IR codes for U-verse boxes were included in the 9.4 update.


Now things are getting interesting as I re-called TiVo then I pressed 1, 1 and 2 at the voice prompts; got an HD TiVo tech and he told me it was compatible with ATT Uverse (just not the phone part). I even got a case number 9557954. I made sure we were not talking about a Series 2. I have no personal experience with ATT Uverse so I just hope that when my Comcast triple play is up I will have some competition to use against Comcast to renew. So now I have two for two on calling TiVo HD support about ATT Uverse, I hope someone from TiVo gives us an official answer. The tech said it was not information that was on the TiVo web sight yet.


----------



## magnus

It seems like this would be good news indeed. UVerse is all around my area and it would be nice to have that as an option when they come out my way.


----------



## cmontyburns

It'll be interesting to see how this evolves. For now it just doesn't seem to add up.


----------



## Glich

cmontyburns said:


> It'll be interesting to see how this evolves. For now it just doesn't seem to add up.


me too att put one of thouse ugly uverce boxes outside my condo complex 6 months ago (HOA confims its for upcoming ATT Tv service. Punting TWC would be nice.


----------



## cableguy763

Uverse is ONLY ip based. Tivo is QAM based. Will Uverse even work with a tivo HD?


----------



## 20TIL6

lessd said:


> Now things are getting interesting as I re-called TiVo then I pressed 1, 1 and 2 at the voice prompts; got an HD TiVo tech and he told me it was compatible with ATT Uverse (just not the phone part). I even got a case number 9557954. I made sure we were not talking about a Series 2. I have no personal experience with ATT Uverse so I just hope that when my Comcast triple play is up I will have some competition to use against Comcast to renew. So now I have two for two on calling TiVo HD support about ATT Uverse, I hope someone from TiVo gives us an official answer. The tech said it was not information that was on the TiVo web sight yet.


This is very interesting if true. I think U-verse needs to do some real work in order to stay competitive. Enabling you to use an S3 or HD TiVo, and replacing twisted pair to the home with a big fiber pipe would be a considerable jump in the right direction.


----------



## Jimbo713

After following this thread and I were to score HD-TiVo's chance of Uverse compatability, on a scale of 1 to 10: 1


----------



## ZeoTiVo

cableguy763 said:


> Uverse is ONLY ip based. Tivo is QAM based. Will Uverse even work with a tivo HD?


While I as well feel there is some miscommunication going on here - I would point out that all TiVocast and the streaming stuff is IP based. The technology exists but TiVo would have to see the possibility of a lot of new subscribers to do the work involved, unless AT&T paid for it.

PS - 9.4 came out for series 3 models only and they do not use IR codes to control other boxes. So much for that theory.

the one intriguing thing left is the inclusion of Uverse in the guided setup - though I have not worked the guided setup on my TiVo HD in quite some time to be familiar with exactly here uverse is mentioned and how much that means.


----------



## classicsat

I have said, in theory an TiVo could be made to work with an IPTV service over the ethernet port (and possibly wireless adapter). Perhaps they are putting that theory in practice.


----------



## dig_duggler

So Tivo CSRs are giving out incorrect information? 

Shocking.


----------



## TiVoPony

Sorry guys, this is likely the result of Tribune listing UVerse as a cable provider, and that information being passed along via the service. We'll investigate how to handle this listing going forward, but you're correct - there's no support for UVerse with Series3.

Pony


----------



## slimoli

No big deal, as far as I concern. U-Verse is a very limited service: Only 2 HD streams and only 1 HD-DVR per house. Many reports about poor picture quality as well. Good for the Joe 6 packs, maybe but not for those who care about quality.Make no mistake, this is not FIOS quality.


----------



## 20TIL6

TiVoPony said:


> Sorry guys, this is likely the result of Tribune listing UVerse as a cable provider, and that information being passed along via the service. We'll investigate how to handle this listing going forward, but you're correct - there's no support for UVerse with Series3.
> 
> Pony


Thanks for the clarification Pony,

Just as well I guess. I don't even think supporting Series3 TiVo could help UVerse adoption. AT&T needs to make considerable investment in infrastructure, not just additional compression of what I found to be an already degraded picture. They need fiber to the house AND HD TiVo support to effectively compete against cable and sat. I wish FiOS would market in AT&T areas. These areas, mine is one, need an alternative to cable that is also supportive of Series3 TiVo.


----------



## jmaditto

as Uverse isn't compatible with my neighborhood


----------



## lessd

TiVoPony said:


> Sorry guys, this is likely the result of Tribune listing UVerse as a cable provider, and that information being passed along via the service. We'll investigate how to handle this listing going forward, but you're correct - there's no support for UVerse with Series3.
> 
> Pony


Thanks for clearing this up, I guess all the CSR need to know also, as they may get this question when ATTuverse shows up in the guided setup as one of the possible cable providers.


----------



## mattack

slimoli said:


> No big deal, as far as I concern. U-Verse is a very limited service: Only 2 HD streams and only 1 HD-DVR per house. Many reports about poor picture quality as well. Good for the Joe 6 packs, maybe but not for those who care about quality.Make no mistake, this is not FIOS quality.


do you mean 2 HD streams simultaneously? Their DVR can record *4* things at once.

That is one thing that's a big bonus, IMHO.


----------



## slimoli

mattack said:


> do you mean 2 HD streams simultaneously? Their DVR can record *4* things at once.
> 
> That is one thing that's a big bonus, IMHO.


Yes, only 2 HD simultaneously. This is in my area which is new and has been "upgraded". In many places it is still just 1 HD. The bottom line for me is that ATT technology sucks. They spent a fraction of what Verizon did with FIOS because it's only fiber to the node and not to your door like FIOS. The result ? A lot of restrictions. Everything I read about their DVR suggests it is no better than the old cable devices. 4 recordings at the same time can be good but 90% of what I record is HD.


----------



## 20TIL6

mattack said:


> do you mean 2 HD streams simultaneously? Their DVR can record *4* things at once.
> 
> That is one thing that's a big bonus, IMHO.


When I had their service, I could only bring in one HD stream at a time. The 4 streams at once would be SD. Or, 1 HD, 3 SD.

One of the biggest drawbacks is that you can have only one DVR. And you think, well, that's OK because it can record 4 streams concurrently, so that is like having two TiVo HD units. But it's not. Firstly, one DVR means you can pause live TV on only one TV. My family is used to having a TiVo for every TV in the house, so this was an issue. Secondly, U-verse still does not have an MRV equivalent. So viewing recorded content is once again limited to one TV.

Yes, it's more expensive, but multiple TiVo units offers a lot of flexible use. Plus, with two TiVo units, that's four tuners, and no limitation of HD 'streams' from OTA or cable. In a situation like that, you could record four HD shows concurrently. Couple that with MRV and you have four or more tuners serving up content to any TV in your home.


----------



## TolloNodre

20TIL6 said:


> When I had their service, I could only bring in one HD stream at a time. The 4 streams at once would be SD. Or, 1 HD, 3 SD.


There was talk back in the spring when they started the 2 HD rollout in earnest that they may split the service into two levels, 2HD+2SD or the old 1HD+3SD. Haven't heard much talk about that lately though...


----------



## 20TIL6

TolloNodre said:


> There was talk back in the spring when they started the 2 HD rollout in earnest that they may split the service into two levels, 2HD+2SD or the old 1HD+3SD. Haven't heard much talk about that lately though...


So they would charge more for 2HD+2SD? That does not surprise me. Shortly after I had started U-verse service, I got a survey via email from them. It was all DVR questions and they were circling around an MRV feature. How would you rate such a feature, would you use it? And finally, what kind of monthly fee would you be willing to pay for such a feature? I said, yes it's an important feature, I would use it, no I would not pay an additional fee for it.

No matter how they work to compress things, and slice things up, the bandwidth issue is crippling features they should have today. I should be able to pause live TV on multiple TVs. And if I can't have more than one DVR, I should at least have MRV now and for free.

As silly as it might sound, if I were home shopping I'd rank neighborhoods outside of AT&T service areas much higher. Areas without AT&T phone service would be more likely to have FiOS.

Verizon has done it the right way. I have no idea what AT&T is thinking.


----------



## jrm01

20TIL6 said:


> Verizon has done it the right way. I have no idea what AT&T is thinking.


Verizon has the superior product. Unfortuantely they have spent hundreds of million dollars implementing it and are losing money with it. AT&T spent virtually nothing to implement Uverse and it is turning a profit.

Maybe they were thinking of their stockholders.


----------



## 20TIL6

jrm01 said:


> Verizon has the superior product. Unfortuantely they have spent hundreds of million dollars implementing it and are losing money with it. AT&T spent virtually nothing to implement Uverse and it is turning a profit.
> 
> Maybe they were thinking of their stockholders.


Good point. I am guessing you have reviewed quarterly reports in support of your statements.

Just based upon my experience, I would think U-verse is vulnerable to higher than acceptable churn. When I turned Comcast back on after my U-verse experiment, the tech made mention that he sees a lot of customers coming back to cable after trying U-verse. Yeah, I know... just something a Comcast guy said. But I found U-verse technology so limiting that Comcast now feels like an upgrade.

One thing that might be helping AT&T... In my case, I just canceled U-verse TV, but I kept the DSL that was part of it. I just went back to Comcast for TV. The DSL part of U-verse is quite good. I get 6 down / 1 up for $40/month and no HSI equipment rental like with Comcast.


----------



## cmontyburns

jrm01 said:


> Verizon has the superior product. Unfortuantely they have spent hundreds of million dollars implementing it and are losing money with it. AT&T spent virtually nothing to implement Uverse and it is turning a profit.
> 
> Maybe they were thinking of their stockholders.


Try billions. Not a back-breaking sum for a large company like Verizon, but still a substantial investment. There was a lengthy article in the NY Times on Verizon and FIOS a few days back. Most analysts can't figure out how Verizon will recoup their costs. According to the article, FIOS deployment currently costs about $4000 per enrolled customer.


----------



## ZeoTiVo

cmontyburns said:


> Try billions. Not a back-breaking sum for a large company like Verizon, but still a substantial investment. There was a lengthy article in the NY Times on Verizon and FIOS a few days back. Most analysts can't figure out how Verizon will recoup their costs. According to the article, FIOS deployment currently costs about $4000 per enrolled customer.


Yah, but if you owned the fiber hooked up to my house, you would likely have a happy customer for a very long time and I would look at any package deals involving cell as well - though their coverage in my area stinks right now


----------



## wmcbrine

cmontyburns said:


> Most analysts can't figure out how Verizon will recoup their costs.


They're not thinking long range enough. It took a hundred years to build the copper network. Fios is an investment in the next century.


----------



## cmontyburns

ZeoTiVo said:


> Yah, but if you owned the fiber hooked up to my house, you would likely have a happy customer for a very long time and I would look at any package deals involving cell as well - though their coverage in my area stinks right now


Nah; bandwidth is an abstract concept to most people. It's what the provider does with it. I do believe that in the long run -- like, years from now -- Verizon will be very happy they invested in the fat pipe, because required bandwidth (like all computing resources) is only going to grow over time. Today, though, it's not a differentiator at the top end. I don't believe AT&T's U-verse limitations are the result of bandwidth itself, but rather the continued immaturity of their IPTV software and hardware and their general inexperience with being in the TV business. That's now; later on, bandwidth may be the blocker.


----------



## cmontyburns

wmcbrine said:


> They're not thinking long range enough. It took a hundred years to build the copper network. Fios is an investment in the next century.


Oh, I completely agree. I think the issue for Verizon will be whether they can deploy it broadly enough for the real advantages to come into play longer-term. They're going to require scale to really make the project a winner.


----------



## TolloNodre

cmontyburns said:


> Try billions. Not a back-breaking sum for a large company like Verizon, but still a substantial investment. There was a lengthy article in the NY Times on Verizon and FIOS a few days back. Most analysts can't figure out how Verizon will recoup their costs. According to the article, FIOS deployment currently costs about $4000 per enrolled customer.


HOLY FREAKIN' COW - $4K!

Thanks for the link _cmontyburns_ an EXCELLENT read!


----------



## MickeS

jrm01 said:


> Verizon has the superior product. Unfortuantely they have spent hundreds of million dollars implementing it and are losing money with it. AT&T spent virtually nothing to implement Uverse and it is turning a profit.
> 
> Maybe they were thinking of their stockholders.


Yeah, you can never underestimate the value of providing nothing for something.


----------



## MickeS

cmontyburns said:


> Oh, I completely agree. I think the issue for Verizon will be whether they can deploy it broadly enough for the real advantages to come into play longer-term. They're going to require scale to really make the project a winner.


I would switch to FiOS in a heartbeat if it was available here. I think they will reap huge benefits from their investment and leave everyone in the dust.


----------



## dig_duggler

MickeS said:


> I would switch to FiOS in a heartbeat if it was available here.


+1


----------



## 20TIL6

ZeoTiVo said:


> Yah, but if you owned the fiber hooked up to my house, you would likely have a happy customer for a very long time.....


I agree. Before DirecTV kicked TiVo to the curb, I was very happy. 13+ years, Sunday Ticket every season. I had no reason to leave otherwise. Between my monthly bill and Sunday Ticket, plus occasional PPV, I easily paid DirecTV over $1100 per year. And that is without broadband which Verizon would get from me as well.

They would easily make their money back on me within 3-4 years. And as long as they let me keep using TiVo, and didn't mess with my happiness like DirecTV did, I can't imagine why I would leave.

I'm sure it was expensive to launch DirecTV, rockets and all. Seems like that has worked out OK.

If FiOS was available where I live....yeah, I'd immediately sign up.

I think it would be a great co-marketing idea if FiOS went in with new residential developers, and shared that expense. The developer could advertise the availability of FiOS (TV, blistering Internet, etc.), and Verizon could lower their SAC for that development. Maybe a person like me is in the minority, but I would definitely give more consideration to buying a new home in a "FiOS" neighborhood than one that is not.


----------



## MichaelK

jrm01 said:


> Verizon has the superior product. Unfortuantely they have spent hundreds of million dollars implementing it and are losing money with it. AT&T spent virtually nothing to implement Uverse and it is turning a profit.
> 
> Maybe they were thinking of their stockholders.


the consensus from all the telecoms when VZ decided that they would do fiber to the premisies was that verizon was insane.

But I'm not a financial sort of guy- and I see that VZ says they will have an "operating profit" from FIOS in 2009. So what's that mean- they will make a profit explucing the capital cost for installation?

(point isn't to make stoke tallk- rather trying to understand if verizon's gamble will work and will it become more widespread quickly)


----------



## MichaelK

cmontyburns said:


> ... I don't believe AT&T's U-verse limitations are the result of bandwidth itself, but rather the continued immaturity of their IPTV software and hardware and their general inexperience with being in the TV business. That's now; later on, bandwidth may be the blocker.


I believe it's basically a bandwidth issue. If i understand they only use some varient of DSL from the fiber to the houses. And you just cant push piles of HD feeds (even in MPEG4) down a dsl line. Or can you?


----------



## MichaelK

cmontyburns said:


> Oh, I completely agree. I think the issue for Verizon will be whether they can deploy it broadly enough for the real advantages to come into play longer-term. They're going to require scale to really make the project a winner.


when they can work it out with the stupid franchising issues they go big scale- FAST.

In NJ they wired like half the towns with fios in a year or 2 time. And they agreed to have the whole state (with some density exceptions) wired within just another couple years.

(of course no joy to the small minority of us in NJwith crappy embarq local telco....)

Have to figure they will be a dominant triple play force in NJ in a few short years.


----------



## Bierboy

20TIL6 said:


> ...Maybe a person like me is in the minority, but I would definitely give more consideration to buying a new home in a "FiOS" neighborhood than one that is not.


Yes, you are in the minority, but so am I. A home in a "FiOS development" would be worth thousands more to me than one cheaper but not in a FiOS area.


----------



## tivogurl

MichaelK said:


> In NJ they wired like half the towns with fios in a year or 2 time. And they agreed to have the whole state (with some density exceptions) wired within just another couple years.


If only they were doing this in FL. Right now they're only deploying in the Tampa/Sarasota area, and as I understand it they have no plans to expand into the rest of Florida despite the recently enacted franchise reform that permits statewide cable franchises.


----------



## c-surfer

AT&T's local network was built decades ago and they've been milking it for alls its worth. U-verse really sucks compared to what Verizon is offering. If I could get FIOS, I'd sign up this instance, but when they finish their U-verse build-out this fall in San Diego, I'm sticking with Time Warner. Road Runner just boosted their download to 7000Kb/s and upload to 926Kb/s and unleashed a bunch of new switched HD channels.


----------



## c-surfer

ZeoTiVo said:


> FIOS deployment currently costs about $4000 per enrolled customer


So? That's nothing amortized over 50 years, and it generates loads more revenue and revitalizes their shrinking subscriber base. $20/month PUD regulated land lines are dying business model.

I bet the copper subscriber lines were $800 each, in their day. Their old twisted-pair infrastructure is now fully depreciated, and even has some recycling value if some meth-addict copper thief doesn't swipe it first.

FIOS? Sign me up!


----------



## atmuscarella

Version also needed a way to stop the triple play threat from cable companies. With FIOS not only do they have more services to sell - it might actually prevent customers from dropping them all together. I would thing that spending money to secure future revenue is a better business plan than doing nothing and waiting for your revenue to leave. 

Thanks,


----------



## ah30k

cmontyburns said:


> According to the article, FIOS deployment currently costs about $4000 per enrolled customer.





TolloNodre said:


> HOLY FREAKIN' COW - $4K!


here lies the common mistake of allocating fixed costs over a variable number of customers. If they only had two customers you'd say that it costs billions per customer. Fios is adding new customers faster than they can connect them and the infrastructure costs per customer are dropping accordingly.


----------



## jmr50

cmontyburns said:


> Try billions. Not a back-breaking sum for a large company like Verizon, but still a substantial investment. There was a lengthy article in the NY Times on Verizon and FIOS a few days back. Most analysts can't figure out how Verizon will recoup their costs. According to the article, FIOS deployment currently costs about $4000 per enrolled customer.


You might try reading the article, folks. Two things worth knowing:

1) Verizon had "an estimated cost of about $4,000" -- ESTIMATED

2) The real number is a whole two paragraphs lower: "The cost to run the fiber through neighborhoods is also falling below $760 per home passed", which is actually pretty competitive with the cost to run copper to a new home (especially given the rising cost of copper in the market).

It's also worth picking out that the analysts quoted came up with different results -- one didn't think it was worth doing, but another thought it could be profitable if only 20% of subscribers took Video.

More to the point, the article also mentioned that the $6 billion cost of FiOS pales in comparison to the $17 billion Verizon spends ANNUALLY on Capital Expansion and the $100 billion of revenue they have.

At the end of the day, everyone's a network operator, and I'd rather be the one with a network that can grow than with a network that's utterly tapped out (AT&T).

Still, QWest is the one that's dead in the water: no wireless, no next-gen network.


----------



## ZeoTiVo

cmontyburns said:


> According to the article, FIOS deployment currently costs about $4000 per enrolled customer.





c-surfer said:


> So? That's nothing amortized over 50 years,


please be careful and use the quote function on the boards instead of cut and paste. I attributed the correct poster above. Threads get very confused when you attribute quotes to the wrong person.

I was the one that thought even $4,000 to bring FIOS to my home would pay off as I would happily make use of fiber services from that point forward. I find it cool that the signal _is too strong_ for TiVo HD and has to be attenuated down some. That is the kind of problems I want to have versus some contractor who does not even work for the cable company telling me how he has no clue why the signal is so weak to my house.


----------



## Gregor

ZeoTiVo said:


> ...
> 
> I was the one that thought even $4,000 to bring FIOS to my home would pay off as I would happily make use of fiber services from that point forward. I find it cool that the signal _is too strong_ for TiVo HD and has to be attenuated down some. That is the kind of problems I want to have versus some contractor who does not even work for the cable company telling me how he has no clue why the signal is so weak to my house.


Yup. Too strong is easy to fix. To weak is much harder. I had a continual problem with weak signals at my house from Comcast, despite them coming out and replacing the line from their demarq outside to my house.

Very happy so far with FIOS, even with having to fix the pixellation issue with my S3s.


----------



## cmontyburns

jmr50 said:


> You might try reading the article, folks. Two things worth knowing:
> 
> 1) Verizon had "an estimated cost of about $4,000" -- ESTIMATED
> 
> 2) The real number is a whole two paragraphs lower: "The cost to run the fiber through neighborhoods is also falling below $760 per home passed", which is actually pretty competitive with the cost to run copper to a new home (especially given the rising cost of copper in the market).


No, those are two different numbers (well, estimates). One is the cost per customer, the other is the cost per _potential_ customer.



> At the end of the day, everyone's a network operator, and I'd rather be the one with a network that can grow than with a network that's utterly tapped out (AT&T).


I don't know if I'd describe AT&T's network as "tapped out". If I understand what they are doing with U-verse (and maybe I don't), they are putting in a fiber backbone, just like Verizon. That's key. Unlike Verizon, what they aren't doing is rewiring the last mile, to the home.


----------



## rocko

cmontyburns said:


> No, those are two different numbers (well, estimates). One is the cost per customer, the other is the cost per _potential_ customer.
> 
> I don't know if I'd describe AT&T's network as "tapped out". If I understand what they are doing with U-verse (and maybe I don't), they are putting in a fiber backbone, just like Verizon. That's key. Unlike Verizon, what they aren't doing is rewiring the last mile, to the home.


Therin lies the problem. That "last mile" is the longest and where the bandwidth limitation lies. You can only push so much through copper and a network connection is only as fast as its slowest hop.


----------



## MichaelK

atmuscarella said:


> Version also needed a way to stop the triple play threat from cable companies. With FIOS not only do they have more services to sell - it might actually prevent customers from dropping them all together. I would thing that spending money to secure future revenue is a better business plan than doing nothing and waiting for your revenue to leave.
> 
> Thanks,


yep-

even with fios- they loose insane amounts of POTS customers each and every quarter.


----------



## dianebrat

MichaelK said:


> yep-
> 
> even with fios- they loose insane amounts of POTS customers each and every quarter.


I'm one of those, no landline in the current house, just my cell, but I tell you, the minute I can be FIOS installed, I'm there, and goodbye Comcast!

Diane


----------



## MichaelK

dianebrat said:


> I'm one of those, no landline in the current house, just my cell, but I tell you, the minute I can be FIOS installed, I'm there, and goodbye Comcast!
> 
> Diane


I am kind of curious why they dont have a quadruple play. (or triple play with verizon wireless instead of land phone)

So many people in are just dumping land lines all together (in addtion to the piles going to cable triple play)- anything to market to those folks I think would be smart...

Maybe they figure their footprint isn't big enough. Or they can't get vodaphone (their vz wireless partner) to go along...


----------



## lrhorer

cmontyburns said:


> No, those are two different numbers (well, estimates). One is the cost per customer, the other is the cost per _potential_ customer.


It's worse than that. One is the cost per customer. The other is the cost to build fiber. Fiber costs are only a part of the equation, and if their penetration is good, it's the smallest part. The equipment costs are very high. I'm a little surprised they can do it for $4000. I wonder if they are only including the Customer Premise Equipment costs in that estimate?


----------



## rick4523

So there is no way to use a HD tivo with U-verse?

That is so sad - I miss the Tivo Suggestions, and I really miss having all my shows in folders. I wish U-verse did something like this.

I can only get U-verse where I live- no other cable companies. (lame, huh?) 

I thought for sure there would be people here using U-verse with Tivo HD - but guess not.

So since my tivo HD is still under contract - where is a good place to sell it? and about how much are they worth?

thanks.

(unless of course someone can give me feedback on how to use Tivo Hd and U-verse)


----------



## jdib78

Ok, so I just got U-Verse installed a couple of days ago. I have a Toshiba Series 2 Tivo with DVD-R. When we tried to connect it to our HDTV and U-verse HD cable box, we got sound but no video. We finally realized that the Tivo could not translate the HD signal and decided to try it on our standard definition TV. This time, the Tivo worked since there was no HD signal. One problem we're running into though is that the programs we had set to record are not recording because, for some reason, when the TV is off, the U-verse seems to have a time out function of some kind that shuts off the U-verse box when not in use and the Tivo doesn't get the show. It just records a blue screen that says to press OK on the U-Verse remote. Anyone know how to fix this problem on a Standard def tv?

Now, I'm getting two different versions on this message board of whether or not an HD Tivo will fix my problem on our HDTV. In theory, it sounds like it should work, especially since U-verse is listed as an option in the guided set-up. But other posters are saying it's simply impossible. Who out there has actually experienced the same issue I'm having and found a solution? I love the Tivo we have because we were able to avoid the monthly fee for basic service short of the Tivo + functions and I can't seem to find a newer model that even offers that. Any ideas?

Thanks!


----------



## classicsat

The Uverse option on HD TiVos is a mistake. Read post #28 in this thread, right from the Pony's mouth. HD TiVos don't support boxes of any sort, and at this time, do not support IPTV services directly.
Only the Series 1s and Series 2s support Uverse.

To fix the time out problem, set timers on the Uverse box to turn on and set the box to a channel, or manual recordings on the TiVo to make it look busy.


----------



## wierdo

cmontyburns said:


> I don't know if I'd describe AT&T's network as "tapped out". If I understand what they are doing with U-verse (and maybe I don't), they are putting in a fiber backbone, just like Verizon. That's key. Unlike Verizon, what they aren't doing is rewiring the last mile, to the home.


They aren't at all the same, sadly. And U-Verse deployment is pretty much orthogonal to the problem of FTTH. They're spending a bunch of money that they won't get back when they move to FTTH. They are pushing the remote terminals a bit closer to the homes, but that's really just wasted expense in active field electronics. Once Verizon is done, their fieldwork is done. Period. (aside from greenfield developments, of course!) They will only be replacing equipment at the CO and at the home from here on out.

at&t will be doing that plus spending the money to pull fiber from the remote terminal to the home. It's completely stupid if you are looking long term.

That said, I've been impressed by the SDTV install a friend of mine has. It works well enough for that use.


----------



## Yuterald

Gregor said:


> Yup. Too strong is easy to fix. To weak is much harder. I had a continual problem with weak signals at my house from Comcast, despite them coming out and replacing the line from their demarq outside to my house.
> 
> Very happy so far with FIOS, even with having to fix the pixellation issue with my S3s.


COMO what?! did you just say Tivo's work with FiOS!? is it just the S3 or does the HDTivo work too? I have 2 HD Tivo's and 2 S2 series - though one S2 doesn't boot up anymore:O(


----------



## ilh

The TiVo HD certainly works with FiOS (just like the S3).


----------



## Kanyon71

Yuterald said:


> COMO what?! did you just say Tivo's work with FiOS!? is it just the S3 or does the HDTivo work too? I have 2 HD Tivo's and 2 S2 series - though one S2 doesn't boot up anymore:O(


I have an S3 TiVo with Two Cable Cards in it working just fine with FiOS. I got FiOS they day they started doing installs in my neighborhood. They had issues getting my CCs to work but that was simply them not knowing what to do. Every once in a while I have a CC hiccup but they seem to clear themselves up without my help.


----------



## slocko

There is an entire thread dedicated to FIOS and Tivo. Have 2 HD Tivos working just fine with FIOS.



Yuterald said:


> COMO what?! did you just say Tivo's work with FiOS!? is it just the S3 or does the HDTivo work too? I have 2 HD Tivo's and 2 S2 series - though one S2 doesn't boot up anymore:O(


----------



## Didoff

Question:

I understand Uverse sucks in comparison to Verizon FIOS.
Is Uverse better than COMCAST?

I have Comcast because of the TimeWarner / Comcast switch in Houston, TX. I'm truly ready for a change.... if for no other reason than I've been with them for so long, I'm paying to much...

So, does Uverse beat Comcast?
I have 3, Series2 Tivos so I should be OK with Uverse. Thanks.


----------



## MichaelK

i think if HD isn't important to you then it could be fine.

If you care about HD then uverse can only deliver 2 or 3 hd feeds at a time.


----------



## Didoff

MichaelK said:


> i think if HD isn't important to you then it could be fine.
> 
> If you care about HD then uverse can only deliver 2 or 3 hd feeds at a time.


Thanks. HD is inportant, but not to the point where I think 2 lines are ever used at the same time...

Plus, this would be more important if I had HD Tivo boxes and they actually worked with Uverse.. as it is I can't --successfully-- record HD. Successfully meaning, and get the correct quality recorded.

Thanks again.


----------



## MichaelK

Didoff said:


> Thanks. HD is inportant, but not to the point where I think 2 lines are ever used at the same time...
> 
> Plus, this would be more important if I had HD Tivo boxes and they actually worked with Uverse.. as it is I can't --successfully-- record HD. Successfully meaning, and get the correct quality recorded.
> 
> Thanks again.


If HD is important I dont see how you can live without a way to dvr hd? 

Even assuming you dont get a tivo hd and go with the att leased box it might try to record 2 HD things at the same time while on anothe tv you try for a third.

good luck with whatever you decide. Keep us posted.


----------



## Didoff

MichaelK said:


> If HD is important I dont see how you can live without a way to dvr hd?
> 
> Even assuming you dont get a tivo hd and go with the att leased box it might try to record 2 HD things at the same time while on anothe tv you try for a third.
> 
> good luck with whatever you decide. Keep us posted.


I enjoy watching HD.. nothing better. However, since I have 3 series2 Tivo's I've never attempted to record one of the HD channels. Overall, I guess its a matter of, or lack of, experience. Since none of my current recordings are HD, I figured Uverse would be OK. Especially, if I understand correctly, Tivo HD boxes wouldn't work with Uverse anyway.

I typically 'On Demand'-ed HD programs.

I just found out Uverse has fiber to the house in my area. With any luck this will mean a better viewable picture than what Comcaat has currently and better internet speeds.

I'm still in research mode, but as of now, I'm getting closer and closer to pulling the trigger and getting Uverse.


----------



## DSE

Interesting thread, but what a shame. I'm in Houston as well, and was looking forward to the possibility of escaping Camcast's horrible customer service and upgrading my DSL, but if I can't keep my Tivos and record in HD, I won't make the switch. It is too bad I can't get faster DSL in my neighborhhod without getting UVerse.

I think HD will become more critical for customers. It is painful to watch TV programs in anthing other than HD anymore.


----------



## erikbenz

rocko said:


> Therin lies the problem. That "last mile" is the longest and where the bandwidth limitation lies. You can only push so much through copper and a network connection is only as fast as its slowest hop.


GPON and copper Pair Bonding will make this point irrelavent very soon. It is one thing for Verizon/ATT to run fiber to every new home and a completely different thing to run to existing homes. What ATT is doing is a business decision and forces the development of new technology to leverage the existing imbedded infrastructure. You will be shocked at how much potential is left in copper.

Erik


----------



## mamosley

PhilipSaad said:


> You simply heard wrong, unless TiVo has been secretly developing the software needed to support IPTV multicasting for the past year and slipping it into the software upgrades without any of the TiVo elites knowing about it, it's just not possible.
> 
> U-Verse cannot and will not support Cable Cards, U-Verse is not QAM and does not work over Coax. I suppose they CAN support it if TiVo and AT&T got together, but trust me, we would have certainly heard of this months before it came to fruition.
> 
> Perhaps you are confused with Verizon's IPTV solution (FiOS), which does work on the QAM system and DOES support Cable Cards (and the S3/HD TiVo)?


Fios tv is not iptv


----------



## Combat Medic

erikbenz said:


> GPON and copper Pair Bonding will make this point irrelavent very soon. It is one thing for Verizon/ATT to run fiber to every new home and a completely different thing to run to existing homes. What ATT is doing is a business decision and forces the development of new technology to leverage the existing imbedded infrastructure. You will be shocked at how much potential is left in copper.
> 
> Erik


But they aren't even running fiber to new houses. My house was built one year ago and still has copper in the back yard. I don't understand these people.


----------



## wmcbrine

erikbenz said:


> It is one thing for Verizon/ATT to run fiber to every new home and a completely different thing to run to existing homes.


(In case it's not clear, Verizon does indeed run fiber to existing homes, like mine.)



mamosley said:


> Fios tv is not iptv


Their VOD is (and it doesn't work on TiVo). Otherwise, no.


----------



## erikbenz

FIOS has limitations just like UVERSE has limitations. As FIOS is RF and UVERSE is IPTV there is a completely different bandwidth requirement i.e FIOS is a bandwidth hog. These two services have to be talked about seperately as the technology that makes them work is very different. Please understand that just because someone runs a fiber to a home it does NOT mean that there is no limitation on bandwidth. Fiber runs at lots of different speeds depending on the type of fiber and the equipment used to feed it. Copper is much the same as there are still lots of possible ways to extract bandwidth from copper. The key takeaway here is don't think ATT or Verizon is better just because of their business choices in your market. Someone has to sell all of this investment and payback time to the shareholders. There is also the issue of roll out timeframe to get service up and running. ATT and Verizon will never compete head to head with these services as they do not have right of way for the last mile in each others markets.


----------



## wmcbrine

erikbenz said:


> FIOS is a bandwidth hog.


ROTFL.


----------



## MichaelK

erikbenz said:


> FIOS has limitations just like UVERSE has limitations. As FIOS is RF and UVERSE is IPTV there is a completely different bandwidth requirement i.e FIOS is a bandwidth hog. These two services have to be talked about seperately as the technology that makes them work is very different. Please understand that just because someone runs a fiber to a home it does NOT mean that there is no limitation on bandwidth. Fiber runs at lots of different speeds depending on the type of fiber and the equipment used to feed it. Copper is much the same as there are still lots of possible ways to extract bandwidth from copper. The key takeaway here is don't think ATT or Verizon is better just because of their business choices in your market. Someone has to sell all of this investment and payback time to the shareholders. There is also the issue of roll out timeframe to get service up and running. ATT and Verizon will never compete head to head with these services as they do not have right of way for the last mile in each others markets.


verizon TODAY can carry more than 2 or 3 HD channels to a house.

For all intents and purposes TODAY verizon has the largest pipe of any large widespread deployment.

Sure ATT might come up with something that does just as well in the real world. But today they don't. And then will ATT to throwing up yet another "good enough for now solution" like everyone except verizon seems to be doing?

Also- FYI- for broadcast tv verizon uses the 'regular' 750ish mhz chunk of bandwidth that a typical cable plant might have for everything. For VOD and PPV VZ uses iptv similarly to uverse. At one point they were making noise of going all IPTV (as early as 2010 they were saying at one point)- and since their boxes all do qam and iptv they could probably switch at anytime. I think they realized though that they then become more of a STB behemoth like DBS and less of a cable company wherr you can plug in your tv and at least get basic sort of channels.- So they seemed to have backed off on that.

The other telco's CEO's have all but mocked the head of VZ for his decision to go fiber to the premises as being way too expensive. Time will tell if they were foolish or enlightened.

Certainly today VZ is paying way more per house then the rest. The question is over time do the others have to spend for a pile of major network upgrades while verizon sits back and makes minor changes to their infrastructure to follow the non stop march for more and more bandwidth.

Like I said- time will tell.


----------



## jmr50

MichaelK said:


> verizon TODAY can carry more than 2 or 3 HD channels to a house.
> <SNIP>
> Certainly today VZ is paying way more per house then the rest. The question is over time do the others have to spend for a pile of major network upgrades while verizon sits back and makes minor changes to their infrastructure to follow the non stop march for more and more bandwidth.
> 
> Like I said- time will tell.


I think it's a fairly simple trade off: Verizon's capex dollars now help them avoid a lot of opex later, and since they are a public company, and OIBDA is a big benchmark for them, this is a reasonable trade off. In other words, they're spending now on a network that won't need as many dollars later.

Certainly, the CPE stuff is a big dollar amount, but a Motorola PVR costs them about the same as it does Comcast/CV/TWCable (probably less, since prices on these are dropping, so the get the benefit of scale on that), the real opportunities to have a lower cost of service (which is how they have strong margins) are around keeping operating expenses lower: they have no edge of content costs and no edge on STB costs.

Their opportunity is around lower cost for their ISP business (i.e., Verizon Business charges Verizon Consumer less $ for bandwidth than they'd charge Comcast), lower operating expensive for their cable plant (because fiber has effectively no active components between the CO and the home, and potentially much better economies of scale around their VHO than a cable operator gets around a head end), and perhaps some relief from phone call termination costs for their voice service (if the phone companies get their way).

Uverse does feel like a throw-away, 3-5 years down the line when the idea of HD being a scarce resource seems silly to consumers, and ADSL2+/VDSL hits either technical walls (next, disruptors, whatever) or financial ones (waning adoption around US standards leads to higher cost) or cultural ones (IPTV and the STB model dies for whatever reason).


----------



## bakerja

erikbenz said:


> GPON and copper Pair Bonding will make this point irrelavent very soon. It is one thing for Verizon/ATT to run fiber to every new home and a completely different thing to run to existing homes. What ATT is doing is a business decision and forces the development of new technology to leverage the existing imbedded infrastructure. You will be shocked at how much potential is left in copper.
> 
> Erik


I have a business connected via copper and get 14mbps download and about 7mbps upload. Pretty respectable.

jab:up:


----------



## dolcevita

DSE said:


> Interesting thread, but what a shame. I'm in Houston as well, and was looking forward to the possibility of escaping Camcast's horrible customer service and upgrading my DSL, but if I can't keep my Tivos and record in HD, I won't make the switch. It is too bad I can't get faster DSL in my neighborhhod without getting UVerse. I think HD will become more critical for customers. It is painful to watch TV programs in anthing other than HD anymore.


In total agreement. The doorbell rang this evening and there were 2 AT&T reps there, going door to door in my neighborhood! When he started his UVerse pitch, I said "is UVerse compatible with my TivoHD." and he said "no..not if what you have is a Tivo, rather than a cable or satellite dvr."

When I said "then I have zero interest", he was taken aback. He tried to start a debate about the benefits of their system, so I just repeated "if UVerse will not work with my Tivo HD then I have zero interest." When the other guy started to try and argue that their dvr has more features, I asked them to leave.


----------



## MichaelK

bakerja said:


> I have a business connected via copper and get 14mbps download and about 7mbps upload. Pretty respectable.
> 
> jab:up:


that's nothing to sneeze at-

but at the same time you could have 50/20 with fios.

Also- I suspect that your speed is limited by technology currently availible while i think the tope verizon speed is picked by their marketing folks based on what they think they can sell currently.

Will be interesting to see if copper can close that gap over the years to come. Or will fios just continue to be a multiple more.

the other interesting question is who will spend more over time- verizon with their HUGE outlay's now, or in the long term will ATT pay more by needing to upgrade their infrastucture multiple times?

I haven't a clue...


----------



## bakerja

dolcevita said:


> In total agreement. The doorbell rang this evening and there were 2 AT&T reps there, going door to door in my neighborhood! When he started his UVerse pitch, I said "is UVerse compatible with my TivoHD." and he said "no..not if what you have is a Tivo, rather than a cable or satellite dvr."
> 
> When I said "then I have zero interest", he was taken aback. He tried to start a debate about the benefits of their system, so I just repeated "if UVerse will not work with my Tivo HD then I have zero interest." When the other guy started to try and argue that their dvr has more features, I asked them to leave.


I had the exact same experience last week. ATT rep that was so agressive I wanted to punch her! She kept telling me that her DVR was superior to the TIVO, that I could not get multiple HD feeds with Comcast (I quickly shot back with I'm getting 6 incoming right now!), that the quality was better with Uverse and the price was cheaper. She would not listen and it was getting ugly so I just turned around and went back inside.

I think they are sending these sales reps to the _"don't take no for an answer"_ school of hard sale!


----------



## Yuterald

Joe Baker in Nashville eh!? SO UVerse finally made it to Nashville? What I understand is that TIvo DOES work w/UVerse - but we are limited by the 2 HD feeds. I, for one, wish Fios would come here but that will never happen so it's either Comcrap or AT&T.


----------



## pdonoghu

Yuterald said:


> What I understand is that TIvo DOES work w/UVerse - but we are limited by the 2 HD feeds.


A Tivo Series 1 or 2 will work with Uvers when used with a Uverse set top box.

No Series 3 Tivos work with Uverse, at all.


----------



## Yuterald

pdonoghu said:


> A Tivo Series 1 or 2 will work with Uvers when used with a Uverse set top box.
> 
> No Series 3 Tivos work with Uverse, at all.


I believe HDTIvo's will work though.


----------



## A J Ricaud

Yuterald said:


> I believe HDTIvo's will work though.


HD Tivos ARE Series 3. They will not work.


----------



## synch22

interesting thread. I was just visiting my brother who has uverse and was taken back at the service and the cost for everything. I started to question if I would give up my 2 Tivo's (S3,HD) if i could get the service. The option however is not on the table being here in seattle with comcrap, they need to hurry up and add the new hd channels which will make it more bearable. 

BTW, i dont think in the end I could give up the Tivo after 6 years as a user.


----------



## brettatk

Wow, I was so excited when I saw this thread title. U-Verse has just started being offered around my area. Oh well, guess I'll have to remain with Charter.


----------



## bakerja

I sure do like the ability to record 4 separate hd feeds at the same time. It does not happen often, but it is nice to know that I can. I think the uVerse cap is enough to keep me with comcast. I am also excited about Docsis 3. I'm getting killer Internet speeds now but when docsis 3 rolls out, they will be in the 20-50 mbps range. What can uVerse offer that can compete? Believe me I have had my share of comcast issues in the past but it looks like they are finally getting it together in my area. I have had the triple play bundle for a couple of months now and I love it.


----------

