AT&T U Verse any good?

I just made the switch from Directv to Uverse. Here are my observations.

directv: better hd picture, more hd channels, easier to navigate (maybe because I was used to it), better hardware.

Uverse: Good HD picture, but not as good as directv. SD picture is better than directv though. You can record 2 hd shows and 2 sd shows at the same time. Whole house dvr is very nice. Can schedule recordings online. Can bundle services with the uverse internet making it slightly cheaper than what I was paying for directv and dsl.

The things I really don't like about Uverse is the hardware. The fan in my DVR makes a high pitched whining noise that drives me crazy. I need to unplug the DVR if I want to listen to music. Urge radio is horrible compared to XM that directv offered, sound quality is even worse than XM and content is lacking. The Motorola DVR does not pass 5.1 audio through HDMI so an optical cable is required. They don't offer Fuel TV in HD!!!

I am a Sr. Director at AT&T and if anybody has an issue that has not been resolved I would be happy to help getting it resolved.

I've been retired for three and a half years so I can't speak about current operation. I do know that all call center traffic was handled in-house (or stateside agents) due to problems with offshore support. It may have changed. The cost savings make it awfully attractive for large companies. AT&T and other large companies are pretty good at gauging customer tolerance before there is a significant drop in revenue. They will go right to the edge and a little over before backing off to protect revenue. I was a Sales VP so my perspective is from the customer's point of view. Service was never good enough and prices were never low enough. Factor this in when evaluating my opinion. I was not an engineer, strategic planner or in finance. They all have significantly different views than those of us in sales.

Thanks for the insight, Narrod. Present company excluded, of course. :) My perception is that a lot of the "phone help" service stuff is farmed out off shore, and this creates communication issues. For example, that I share my father's name was a source of great difficulty. Is that how AT&T does everything now?

John

I'm a AT&T retiree and there are support issues. The company is so large and has reduced headcount so much and service always suffers first. The philosophy has always been get a product to market, to get revenue flowing, and fix it later. It was the way we always did it. I still remember what a nightmare DSL was when initially rolled out. Beyond these problems I am not, yet, convinced that IP broadcast HD video is the platform of the future.

I recently had the WORST customer service experience I have EVER had, while asking AT&T to do some very simple things as part of closing out my father's house. Not impolite, it just took hours and hours of confusion, ineptness, and tedium on the phone to accomplish a few very simple things. I never did manage to get a final statement from them. Wherever there is an even halfway reasonable alternative, I'd avoid.

Excuse the rant,

John

A friend of mine has it and doesn't like the picture quality. He's going back to Comcast.

thanks Narrod I have Direct TV myself and plan to keep it for now, especially considering the off air HD antenna feature that I use my DVR service on - pretty nice.

I would not be an early adopter. AT&T chose an IP platform because it is much cheaper to deploy than a fiber infrastructure. Bandwidth issues are significant on this platform. They are still in the learning stages of implementation and ongoing support. Technology that does not currently exist is needed to make it a robust HD service. In my opinion, Verizon has made the better long-term decision in utilizing a fiber backbone for television delivery. Of course, consumers won't be able to choose between the platforms. It is wholly dependent on the franchise area where you reside. I live in AT&T territory and would love to replace my DirecTv service but don't see that happening for a long time.