# U-verse anyone?



## catzed (Jan 4, 2003)

After having both satellite companies come to my house and tell me I couldn't get reception, I was pretty bummed to the fact that I was stuck with only cable as an option. Sure, it's decent enough, but I want options.

What a surprise when I saw an advertisement in the mail from AT&T advertising their U-verse programming.

They are promising me all the channels I can want including 29 HD channels, all movie channels, sports package, 3 receivers, *DVR that can record 4 channels at a time (WOW!), * and high speed internet service for about $115 a month getting the first 2 months free. No contracts. I'm paying that much now for cable with 2 movie channels and DVR service, not including internet.

I call them and, how lucky am I, they DO offer this in my neighborhood, here in the DFW area. They are coming out in about 3 weeks to install. I was able to get them to do free installation too. It's normally $50.

Is it too good to be true? Why have I just now heard of this awesome service?

If you know anything about this service, please share with me!

Thanks so much,
Shana


----------



## simonkodousek (Apr 12, 2007)

I've experienced U-Verse at local retailers and I'll say it's OK. The DVR is great, however the menus, receivers, and remotes are all... well, not very good.

The picture quality is great!

I wish I could get U-Verse...


~Simon


----------



## rdrrepair (Nov 24, 2006)

Anyone have a website to check coverage areas and to expand our knowledge base?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I've been following several threads about U-Verse. For those who are big HDTV viewers, currently U-Verse has a limit of 1 incoming HD stream. That's a big downside for me. They're hoping to increase it to 2 incoming streams later this year, but still... not enough. I know there are times when I'm recording two HD programs simultaneously, and someone else in the house might want to watch something else.

Additionally, one person reports that the video looks like it's re-compressed at a higher compression ratio (so as to be able to travel over the copper "last mile" without having bandwidth issues), and the compression artifacts are rather obvious and somewhat distracting.

In general, even those who rave about the service - they all say that it feels like one giant "beta test." There's lots of rough edges, lots of stuff that could and likely will be improved upon, but right now they don't recommend it unless you're willing to deal with those rough edges. I'm sticking with a tried and true cable system, for now, but watching to see if things improve.

(Why, oh why, didn't they do fiber to the premises... grr...)


----------



## petew (Jul 31, 2003)

rdrrepair said:


> Anyone have a website to check coverage areas and to expand our knowledge base?


Here The view channel Guide drop down lists the cities currently being developed.


----------



## petew (Jul 31, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> In general, even those who rave about the service - they all say that it feels like one giant "beta test."


It is. Unlike Verizons FIOS which builds on top of existing technologies U'Verse uses relatively new technologies VDSL and IPTV. Also most current users were probably part of the Trial rollout in San Antonio. Full scale deployement is only just starting.


----------



## catzed (Jan 4, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> For those who are big HDTV viewers, currently U-Verse has a limit of 1 incoming HD stream. That's a big downside for me. They're hoping to increase it to 2 incoming streams later this year, but still... not enough. I know there are times when I'm recording two HD programs simultaneously, and someone else in the house might want to watch something else.


I have a 57" HD RPTV but don't even watch the HD channels I have so that shouldn't be an issue. Why don't I watch HD channels? One, because I can't access the Guide while watching it. I look at the Guide a lot. Two, I don't particularly like the way it looks and is only in the middle of my TV (not sure what the tech term is for that). Don't know if it's just a TW thing or not.

Oh crap, tornado warning, better take cover.


----------



## catzed (Jan 4, 2003)

Thank God, only some hail last night. A couple of tornados did hit a few miles away.

Does anyone know if U-verse has the same kind of On Demand as TW cable? I know it has some kind of on demand, but I'm wondering if I can watch last night's Sopranos on it if I didn't DVR or watch it. Can I watch the last season's HBO or Showtime's shows and the such?


----------



## kieran (Nov 28, 2003)

I just signed up for this service. It works with Series 1 and 2 but not yet 3.

Only one HD stream until late this year is my best guess.

Picture quality is ok, channel selection is very good.

Motorola STB and U/I stinks compared to Tivo.

Good forum here:

http://www.uverseusers.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,2/

Does anyone know when Tivo and AT&T U-Verse will work togerther? (series 3)


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

kieran said:


> Does anyone know when Tivo and AT&T U-Verse will work togerther? (series 3)


I believe the answer is never. The S3 requires video streams be tranmitted over a QAM RF channel. I think UVerse is IP based TV that will require a STB to convert the IP to a TV input (there is no QAM in the U-Verse architecture).


----------



## kieran (Nov 28, 2003)

I really hope you are mistaken because I do love my Tivo.

This may force me to cancel U-verse after the 60 day trial, but for now I can hope.

I work at an HDD house so I will ask some of our propeller heads about this.

Tivo is one of our customers.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

No, the Series 3 will never work with U-Verse. Nor would I. Last night I was recording 4 HD shows and an SD show at the same time.

If it was a few years ago, U-Verse would be a nice product. Today, it's woefully behind the times.


----------



## Elistan (Jan 11, 2003)

*cross fingers for U-Verse to develop an IPTV DVR* The U-Verse DVR experience is atrocious after using the TiVo interface for several years. But I wanted HD, so it was goodbuy DirecTIVO and hello either DirecTV's new HD DVR, or U-Verse, and U-Verse is cheaper.

I wish there was a proper HD TiVo for us sat subscribers.


----------



## petew (Jul 31, 2003)

wierdo said:


> No, the Series 3 will never work with U-Verse.


Not necessarily true. U'verse is IPTV so software could be ported to the Series 3 to recieve IPTV through the exisiting ethernet port. Though whether ATT and TiVo would ever do it is a different matter.


----------



## jautor (Jul 1, 2001)

They have been rolling it out in my neighborhood, and I was going to give it a try (for the 2 month free trial period), until I figured out they hadn't raised the HD stream count. The limit of 1 HD stream per household is a deal killer for anyone who's had a dual tuner HD-DVR. 

Yes, they're going to raise this hopefully to at least 2 streams later this year. But two points to note about this - first, this is "streams per household", not per TV. If you have two HD sets with HD-DVR's, you're still going to be more limited than with cable/sat. Worse, their current scheme has each HD stream consuming 2 of your alloted 4 streams. So at the household level, you can currently watch/record 1 HD stream plus 2 SD streams. Unless they change/raise the rules, it will look like this:

Watch/Record per household:
1-4 SD channels
1 HD, 1-2 SD channels

And in the future (end of year?):
2 HD , NO SD channels <-- unless they raise the max stream count when they do this...

So I had to cancel before the install - just too limited for HD users. As much as I want them to succeed and bring more competition. Their pricing was *not* cheaper than cable/sat, so they need to have competitive features...

Jeff


----------



## Karlp327 (Aug 24, 2004)

I called TIVO and asked directly if my Sereis 2 is compatible with ATT's U-verse. They said no. What is the real answer?


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

It is. They recently added the Uverse codes to the IR Database. You should have a lineup for them.


----------



## Karlp327 (Aug 24, 2004)

Thanks. I think that I am interested but will only try it when they get two HD lines to the house.


----------



## ccooperev (Apr 24, 2001)

Something interesting when I talked to a U-Verse person at a booth in Milwaukee this summer was that they are piggy backing on top of existing cable infrastructure e.g. They are taking advantage of a requirement that the cable company allow competitors to utilize their infrastructure.


----------



## c-surfer (Jul 25, 2001)

The trouble with AT&T is that they collaborate in illegal domestic spying:

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/

U-verse and iPhone can go to hell.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

ah30k said:


> I believe the answer is never. The S3 requires video streams be tranmitted over a QAM RF channel. I think UVerse is IP based TV that will require a STB to convert the IP to a TV input (there is no QAM in the U-Verse architecture).


TivoCast doesn't work that way.

The first obstacle is the data format. U-Verse uses H.264 files, and though the S3 chip supports MPEG4, the software doesn't (yet?), and possibly could have a hard time with complex profile H.264 streams. The second is physical connection- Don't they use phone line connection to the stbs with IP traffic flowing over HPNA? They used to use MOCA like FIOS, but vertical monopolists are allergic to standards.

Though the video is IP, that is no reason to assume they are putting that traffic on an RJ45 connector. That would be too standardized, and like I was saying about allergic reactions....


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

ccooperev said:


> Something interesting when I talked to a U-Verse person at a booth in Milwaukee this summer was that they are piggy backing on top of existing cable infrastructure e.g. They are taking advantage of a requirement that the cable company allow competitors to utilize their infrastructure.


That U-Verse person was mistaken (to be perfectly kind - to be less kind, he/she was probably talking completely out of their backside, which I've run into quite a bit with AT&T people).

The U-Verse network is a Fiber-To-The-Node IP video solution, using an upgraded version of the AT&T telephone infrastructure. It does not utilize the cable infrastructure at all. It's an outgrowth of something AT&T called Project Lightspeed. Basically, they bring fiber out to the distribution node within a neighborhood (the metal boxes you see in the right-of-way along the streets and alleys). They then have a DSLAM (DSL Access Multiplexer) inside those metal boxes, and DSL lines running on copper telephone wire run the rest of the way to the home.

To the consumer, it's no different than if they were to have ordered DSL before, since it's still DSL with U-Verse - it's just that the DSLAM is right down the street from them instead of at the telephone company central office where it used to be. This means that the speeds are theoretically much faster (remember, DSL decreases speed considerably as the distance increases).

The whole thing is completely IP based, essentially no different than if you were to watch video on your computer. The boxes they provide you just give a more familiar television-like front end to the IP video (and also handle the access controls).


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> TivoCast doesn't work that way.
> 
> The first obstacle is the data format. U-Verse uses H.264 files, and though the S3 chip supports MPEG4, the software doesn't (yet?), and possibly could have a hard time with complex profile H.264 streams. The second is physical connection- Don't they use phone line connection to the stbs with IP traffic flowing over HPNA? They used to use MOCA like FIOS, but vertical monopolists are allergic to standards.
> 
> Though the video is IP, that is no reason to assume they are putting that traffic on an RJ45 connector. That would be too standardized, and like I was saying about allergic reactions....


Why are you quoting me in this post. The OP asked when the S3 would support UVerse and I said likely never because the S3 is a QAM tuner and UVerse is an IP box. I'm not sure why you are telling me about TivoCast, claiming I am wrong and rambling on. If you are referring to the small amount of TivoCast being IP delivered, I think that is a corner case. The vast majority of the S3 usage is QAM.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Well I think some less knowlegable readers than you might get the wrong idea from your statement that suggests that the only supported transport for digital video files on the S3 is QAM modulation, that's all. 

It is not likely, but not inconcievable a digital gateway could be built between FIOS' and U-verse's IP delivery system. Not very likely in the absence of some FCC interest in the subject, but technically possible. Sorry about droning on.

I thought it was interesting they used to use Moca but dropped it. Anyway, just ignore me when I say something you already know. A lot of people do that.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> To the consumer, it's no different than if they were to have ordered DSL before, since it's still DSL with U-Verse - it's just that the DSLAM is right down the street from them instead of at the telephone company central office where it used to be. This means that the speeds are theoretically much faster (remember, DSL decreases speed considerably as the distance increases).


I thought the main reason it was faster was that there were fewer users per node to share the copper bandwidth. What is the users per node in typical U-verse cities?

The Motorolla VIP 1200 stb gets the IP off of coax not an RJ45 connector, just like FIOS. Except in U-Verse's case they are using not MoCA but HPNA v3. The whacky thing is that HPNA only goes up to 128Mbps for v3. That coax will support a heckuvah lot more bandwidth than that.



LoadStar said:


> The whole thing is completely IP based, essentially no different than if you were to watch video on your computer. The boxes they provide you just give a more familiar television-like front end to the IP video (and also handle the access controls).


 I think readers could misread the implications of this statement.

It's important to note though the technology is similar to what your computer uses, U-Verse has made it so that your computer can't attach to their network, nor can any other third party IP capable box like a Tivo. I suppose that this strategy of deliberate incompatibility sounds familiar to those with cablecard devices.

Sure they are using IP. But that is practically meaningless. It's like saying- hey- they use plastic shopping bags for packets too- Oh boy, a compatible store- let's go buy some nails and pliers at Circuit City.

Below the IP layer it is all different with the physical connection (Coax) and the modulation (HPNA v3). Above IP you are locked out with god knows what control protocol for conditional access and encryption.

Interestingly, AT&T contends that they are not bound by the 1996 Telecom law, and have ignored the July 2007 integration ban deadline. They didn't even apply for a waiver.

Way to stay on top of things, FCC. No warning letter sent to them in January? Sorry- the FCC is simply not enforcing the law. In some countries they would call that corruption. But hey, the fact that the former FCC head now works for the parent company of Scientific Atlanta is just shear coincidence.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Justin Thyme said:


> The Motorolla VIP 1200 stb gets the IP off of coax not an RJ45 connector, just like FIOS. Except in U-Verse's case they are using not MoCA but HPNA v3. The whacky thing is that HPNA only goes up to 128Mbps for v3. That coax will support a heckuvah lot more bandwidth than that.


Far as I've read and heard, the STB can connect via either RJ45 or Coax... the Uverse Users shows various illustrations indicating that you could have a pure coax installation, a pure Cat5 installation, or a hybrid of various combinations of the two.



Justin Thyme said:


> I think readers could misread the implications of this statement.
> 
> It's important to note though the technology is similar to what your computer uses, U-Verse has made it so that your computer can't attach to their network, nor can any other third party IP capable box like a Tivo. I suppose that this strategy of deliberate incompatibility sounds familiar to those with cablecard devices.
> 
> ...


Good observation, and thanks for the clarification. However, on the other hand, I have heard they are developing essentially a "software television" for Windows computers, at least, allowing them when they are connected to the U-Verse network to be able to receive and decode the video streams the subscriber is authorized to receive.

But yes, without said (imaginary, at this point) software, the only thing that can receive the video is the STB's U-Verse provides.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

The huge huge mistake casual observers make is the confusion people have between IPTV and internet TV. As IPTV is being rolled out by providers, they are totally different things and the former in no way suggests the latter. In fact IPTV as implemented by FIOS and U-Verse dramatically reduces the chances of an internet phenomenon of a thriving competitive environment of internet video providers. Just because they are using IP packets under the hood is really as irrelevant as whether intel or broadcom chips are involved. It's a closed black box. You can't build anything compatible with it, so it is irrelevant whether they are using plastic shopping bags or paper to cart information around. 

Regarding the PC software- forget it. There was a falling off between Microsoft and SBC. And Verizon. And Comcast.

They are the gatekeepers and they don't want their platforms commoditized in the way that Windows commoditizes PCs. I had hopes that at least Verizon would see the benefits of a platform that allowed internet video providers to directly compete with their video offerings, but apparently not.

These guys aren't going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts, and they are certainly entitled to rent any boxes that lock consumers out from alternative sources. That's their right. 

It is not their right to actively block the emergence of a market for third party devices that can connect to their networks and offer video from competitors. They like their walled garden where they can charge as much as they can before the consumer feels compelled to escape- only to learn that their only option is to submit to the imprisonment of another walled garden.

U-Verse is just another pretty prison. Ok not totally the same. They use plastic, not paper bags to deliver food to your cell.


----------



## 176562 (Mar 28, 2007)

classicsat said:


> It is. They recently added the Uverse codes to the IR Database. You should have a lineup for them.


Classicsat -

Where did you find the info that the Uverse IR codes have been added? I have searched here and found many references to the fact that the Uverse channel lineups were added but all references to the IR codes say that they are working on it but that TiVo still can't change the channels on a Uverse box.

Thanks!


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

The ATT Trucks have been ALL over the place in my town installing new light tan boxes which are fairly large and have an electric meter on them. I'm fairly certain this is for U-verse, which is pretty cool if it is the case.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

SullyND said:


> The ATT Trucks have been ALL over the place in my town installing new light tan boxes which are fairly large and have an electric meter on them. I'm fairly certain this is for U-verse, which is pretty cool if it is the case.


Of course they could just be DSL centers. We have them all over the place here but they stick the letters DSL on it


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

rainwater said:


> Of course they could just be DSL centers. We have them all over the place here but they stick the letters DSL on it


Well, we already have DSL throughout the town, and the amount of trucks around town is unreal - they're pulling wire/fiber to the boxes as well.


----------



## snedecor (Jun 27, 2001)

176562 said:


> Classicsat -
> 
> Where did you find the info that the Uverse IR codes have been added? I have searched here and found many references to the fact that the Uverse channel lineups were added but all references to the IR codes say that they are working on it but that TiVo still can't change the channels on a Uverse box.
> 
> Thanks!


Try this....

http://www.uverseusers.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,2/topic,1950.0/

Snedecor


----------



## kettledrum (Nov 17, 2003)

176562 said:


> Classicsat -
> 
> Where did you find the info that the Uverse IR codes have been added? I have searched here and found many references to the fact that the Uverse channel lineups were added but all references to the IR codes say that they are working on it but that TiVo still can't change the channels on a Uverse box.
> 
> Thanks!


Without the IR codes then it's pretty useless, isn't it? Or is serial connection an option?


----------



## AALANman (Nov 28, 2002)

Apparently the codes were indeed added last month. Snedecor was kind enough to provide this link to a post over at Uverseusers:

http://www.uverseusers.com/componen...2/topic,1950.0/


----------



## kettledrum (Nov 17, 2003)

Duh...right above my post. Massive brain fart....ugh.


----------



## cwgrltx22 (Jul 13, 2005)

Has anyone with a Tivo Humax Series 2 DVR gotten their channels changing correctly with U-Verse? I have the codes & have tried placing my IR blasters everywhere with no luck. Can someone please tell me there is hope?


----------

