AT&T Bailing Out of U-Verse

sleddriver

Thread starter
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
4,836
Location
Central Texas
ATT To Shutter U-Verse Site As Brand Gets Killed Off Here's more from DSL reports:
Quote:
AT&T is preparing to shutter the company's U-Verse.com website as the U-Verse brand continues to be phased out. You might recall that AT&T had already eliminated the U-Verse branding from most of its products, with U-Verse broadband and U-Verse phone services now creatively just named "AT&T Internet" and "AT&T Phone." The company told DSLReports.com that the rebranding was to "make it simpler for our customers." The website currently lets customers stream some of the channels they subscribe to via traditional TV packages, as well as providing access to an online DVR feature and a variety of on demand content. Based on AT&T's decision, it seems likely that the website wasn't a particularly popular destination for AT&T customers. AT&T has also been trying to drive most U-verse customers over to DirecTV satellite television. The migration of users from U-Verse to DirecTV may ultimately free up bandwidth on the fixed-line AT&T network, allowing it to provide slightly faster broadband speeds to subscribers. Leaked company memos obtained by DSLReports.com had previously suggested AT&T would ultimately be killing the DirecTV brand as well, though the original timeline for such plans has come and gone -- raising questions as to whether that's still AT&T's ultimate goal.
Link: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-to-Shutter-UVerse-Website-as-Brand-Gets-Killed-Off-139218
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2003
Messages
12,558
Location
Illinois
ATT To Shutter U-Verse Site As Brand Gets Killed Off Here's more from DSL reports:
Quote:
AT&T is preparing to shutter the company's U-Verse.com website as the U-Verse brand continues to be phased out. You might recall that AT&T had already eliminated the U-Verse branding from most of its products, with U-Verse broadband and U-Verse phone services now creatively just named "AT&T Internet" and "AT&T Phone." The company told DSLReports.com that the rebranding was to "make it simpler for our customers." The website currently lets customers stream some of the channels they subscribe to via traditional TV packages, as well as providing access to an online DVR feature and a variety of on demand content. Based on AT&T's decision, it seems likely that the website wasn't a particularly popular destination for AT&T customers. AT&T has also been trying to drive most U-verse customers over to DirecTV satellite television. The migration of users from U-Verse to DirecTV may ultimately free up bandwidth on the fixed-line AT&T network, allowing it to provide slightly faster broadband speeds to subscribers. Leaked company memos obtained by DSLReports.com had previously suggested AT&T would ultimately be killing the DirecTV brand as well, though the original timeline for such plans has come and gone -- raising questions as to whether that's still AT&T's ultimate goal.
Link: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-to-Shutter-UVerse-Website-as-Brand-Gets-Killed-Off-139218
This came up in the list of "similar threads" and I have no idea why. Just funny that this didn't really age well as AT&T "sold off" DTV to a newly crafted company that it owns 70% of a few months back.


The gear in our home is still branded uVerse, and I'm sure AT&T would love to get rid of us uVerse customers. If I could get oilBabe off of "cable" it would cut over $100 off our AT&T bill each month.
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
1,181
Location
Huntington WV
Uverse tv is being changed over to directv stream. Only difference is there is no dvr in your home, it is cloud based DVR. It is a good fit for those who can't get sat reception and the sat service is good for those who don't have or can't get good internet. Many sat customers just use the unlimited data on cell phone plans
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
937
Location
Indiana
I had Uverse tv & internet for several years, then switched to comcast because of a very attractive promotion (against my better judgement). After a couple of years of inconsistent signal and horrible customer service, I switched back to TTT but only for VDSL internet. That was about 4 years ago. I was talking to the install tech and he told at that time thatATT was getti g out of the copper line business and going all-hans-on-deck with fiber (which peaked my interest). We determined there was a fiber node in my neighborhood but they've yet to string it to the residents.

I was reading on dsl reports that cable companies like att run a shell-game with the government: they lobby for expanding high speed internet, get the money, then stop the expansion and keep the dough. True or not IDK, but there appears to be no work going on to expand availability of fiber.
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Messages
508
Location
South of Metro Atlanta
That's sad. We were U-Verse customers in the north Atlanta suburbs when it first came out in 2010 or so. It was great. Fast internet, good TV interface.

ATT has been wanting to go belly up for years. They are so mis-managed and misguided that I'm not sure anything can turn them around. They have failed miserably at anything for the last 60-70 years. I will say their cell service is probably the best thing they do, but that is still old school ATT Wireless people.

They have some wire/equipment that has been laying on the ground near my house (rural area) for about a year. The top of one of their poles broke off, about the top 6' and the stuff fell to the ground. It's been laying there ever since. This is in a 90 degree curve in the road between a nursery/plant/tree place and nothing....
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,635
Location
Wisconsin
AT&T wants to see all residential copper dead. They're still maintaining their copper(Tx carriers) and fiber for business and of course their cellular network needs the fiber backhaul to connect it to the PSTN(but that will also go the way of the dodo, VoLTE is more or less VoIP).
Pretty stupid to kill copper when that is literally their only profitable venture

Dirty secret of the legacy telecom companies is that
Internet and cellular are funded off overcharging landline customers
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2003
Messages
12,558
Location
Illinois
Pretty stupid to kill copper when that is literally their only profitable venture

Dirty secret of the legacy telecom companies is that
Internet and cellular are funded off overcharging landline customers
How many still have landlines? I think we cut out the landline for the 2016 election, maybe 2018, so 4-6 years now.

We do have fiber to our home, so our "landline" was VOIP. But how many have cut their landline because all it was was people trying to sell something?

Maybe urban landline is profitable. I suspect some less densely populated areas, landline isn't so profitable.
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,635
Location
Wisconsin
How many still have landlines? I think we cut out the landline for the 2016 election, maybe 2018, so 4-6 years now.

We do have fiber to our home, so our "landline" was VOIP. But how many have cut their landline because all it was was people trying to sell something?

Maybe urban landline is profitable. I suspect some less densely populated areas, landline isn't so profitable.

As of about 2019 landline was still extremely profitable all around ($5 cost to the company a line to keep running but usually $30+ in charges)

In effect those that have landline now pretty much always have it.

New accounts are mostly subsidized lifelines and government related but the numbers are stabilized.

What’s unfortunate is there is no technical reason old copper can’t carry broadband on a voice line without a special account or not but legal barriers stopped traditional modem at 56k due to ringer current limits (that no longer exist)
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
22,950
Location
Upper Midwest
What’s unfortunate is there is no technical reason old copper can’t carry broadband on a voice line without a special account or not but legal barriers stopped traditional modem at 56k due to ringer current limits (that no longer exist)
Completely dependent on distance, and there are other technical reasons why it is undesirable. AT&T didn't just make up their severe problems with attempting to make U-verse work properly with copper to premises.
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Messages
508
Location
South of Metro Atlanta
I used to work in the business where the landline helped fund my paycheck. I didn't cut it loose until 2006 when I got out of that industry because I felt I needed to support the industry that paid my bills.

I feel like I was a late adopter of killing their landline.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
9,788
Location
California
Maybe urban landline is profitable. I suspect some less densely populated areas, landline isn't so profitable.
AT&T is pushing fiber - but many localities here in California even though there is “state-wide” charter for AT&T is blockading that - Comcast and Charter is in bed with many cites. It’s easier to roll out FTTP in urban areas than the suburbs.

Lifeline customers AT&T was offering phone and DSL to - now T-Mobile is pushing that market with “free” phones.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
9,788
Location
California
New accounts are mostly subsidized lifelines and government related but the numbers are stabilized.

What’s unfortunate is there is no technical reason old copper can’t carry broadband on a voice line without a special account or not but legal barriers stopped traditional modem at 56k due to ringer current limits (that no longer exist)
Last time I checked, welfare/SNAP/SSI/SSDI recipients are eligible for heavily subsidized “lifeline” cell phone and internet. It was a condition of the Sprint & T-Mobile merger they would maintain lifeline cellular service - Sprint was providing that. Comcast provides a $20/month lifeline service that’s capped at 10-25Mbps.

Yes, AT&T can run a T1 line to your house some 20 years ago if you really wanted to and were willing to pay. T1 can hit 1.5Mbps and it also carried voice traffic too - it was a called a PRI in IT.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
9,788
Location
California
Completely dependent on distance, and there are other technical reasons why it is undesirable. AT&T didn't just make up their severe problems with attempting to make U-verse work properly with copper to premises.
AT&T with U-Verse was held back by the limits of their copper and ADSL2/VDSL was much more sensitive to line conditions than slower ADSL1/SDSL. AT&T decided FTTN was more “cost-effective” than straight FTTP like Verizon FiOS.

Comcast and Charter was able to refarm 700-800MHz spectrum on their HFC plant - what was was the enabling step to support DOCSIS 3.0/SDV but also it was required to free up that spectrum for AWS 700MHz 3G/4G and public safety radios(which leads to P25 implementation). The FTA DTV move from analog VHF/UHF to digital was the driver behind Comcast and Charter to refarm their spectrum. It allowed the cable companies to move their TV from analog to digital QAM carriers.

Now, some 15 years later Comcast and Charter are hitting the limit of what coaxial cable can deliver - they’re exploiting FTTP now and would have much easier of a time upgrading their plant to support it.
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,635
Location
Wisconsin
Last time I checked, welfare/SNAP/SSI/SSDI recipients are eligible for heavily subsidized “lifeline” cell phone and internet. It was a condition of the Sprint & T-Mobile merger they would maintain lifeline cellular service - Sprint was providing that. Comcast provides a $20/month lifeline service that’s capped at 10-25Mbps.

My grandmother and uncle were required to have a lifeline landline due to their cognitive levels and disabilities, getting them a cell phone was on us as the government kept rejecting it.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
9,788
Location
California
My grandmother and uncle were required to have a lifeline landline due to their cognitive levels and disabilities, getting them a cell phone was on us as the government kept rejecting it.
Odd - they’ve been handing out lifeline phones like candy at the local county welfare/social security office when I drove by there - and I found one in an Uber recently.

It’s a cheap Chinese/Vietnamese phone, it’s surprisingly well built for what it is, but a nightmare for people needing assistive tech(unless you can live with the Google Assistant). T-Mobile supplies the service but it’s very deprioritized for data it seems like.
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
21,313
Location
Silicon Valley
I think the only reason to get a landline these days are for seniors with dementia, who were used to it. Other than that you pretty much don't need it, and the future IMO is most people end up using something like Team / WebEx for work, Zoom for school, iMessage / FB Messenger / Whatsapp / Line / WeChat / whatever you like for social. Basically the only reason people would call you is to spam you these days.

Yes you can use landline but it is not cost effective in the future, it has no feature improvement like video, improved voice, so it is just a dead end technology.

I am not sure when will everyone gets fiber to their home but if it is not going to happen soon, and VDSL isn't getting faster, 5G from the curb or starlink to the nearest fiber dish may help in rural area. If that happens and becomes popular with solar + battery storage, there will be some new locations for people to work from home all over the world.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
9,788
Location
California
I am not sure when will everyone gets fiber to their home but if it is not going to happen soon, and VDSL isn't getting faster, 5G from the curb or starlink to the nearest fiber dish may help in rural area. If that happens and becomes popular with solar + battery storage, there will be some new locations for people to work from home all over the world.
As long as cities are in bed with Comcast and Charter(for you Canadians, it’s Rogers and Shaw, and Comcast gobbled up the UK’s SkyTV), and it’s prohibitively expensive to build a fiber plant in the suburbs where it really matters more(CATV was a suburban invention), FTTP might never hit critical mass in the US.
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
21,313
Location
Silicon Valley
As long as cities are in bed with Comcast and Charter(for you Canadians, it’s Rogers and Shaw, and Comcast gobbled up the UK’s SkyTV), and it’s prohibitively expensive to build a fiber plant in the suburbs where it really matters more(CATV was a suburban invention), FTTP might never hit critical mass in the US.
I also don't think we will ever reach the point of adding fiber to all old suburbs. New one maybe, but old one will likely be either cable or 5G in the future. Rural will never get either, and may stay starlink until urbanization.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
9,788
Location
California
Yea, AT&T can’t wait to entirely ditch landline and go all 5G. In urban areas, especially in new high rises(based on my observations in Oakland/SF), Google is “pre-wiring” them with fiber via Webpass or AT&T is offering their fiber product. And you can even get wireless(not Wi-Fi but it uses something else, not microwave) in SF that rivals Comcast’s 100-500Mbps plans at $40-50/month.

Some rural areas are stringing up fiber - a friend who lives near Auburn, CA recently got fiber lit up - he was suffering with Verizon 4G that was capped. AT&T only offered 1.5Mbps ADSL, and Comcast would have charged him a pretty penny to hook him up to the cable on the curb.
 
Top