New features and QA

chrisw · ‎05-25-2010

Well.. I'm a little concerned. I've signed up for U-Verse earlier this year and all seemed great for a while. Eventually, I realized that It seems like AT&T doesn't have problems rolling out new features, but the quality assurance hasn't been as great as I thought it would be compared to other providers. It almost seems like the QA Team can't afford to fix anything and the best excuse they have is "We're working on a fix, ETA unknown."

Here's a list of things that I think AT&T really doesn't care enough about but are important issues:
1. The 5.1 audio drop-outs - I have to admit, The sound seems fine on my setup, but most other people seem to be still having problems after two years. Two years.
2. Bad HD Picture Quality - When you can see artifacts from an HD channel on a SDTV, you know something is wrong.
3. Fiber customers are the last to get new profiles.
4. Fiber customers are limited to 18Mbps.

When that is fixed, I think they can focus on rolling out more features, but right now it seems like they need to fix the basics. Does anyone else think this is an issue or am I just overreacting?

mibrnsurg · ‎07-15-2008

chrisw wrote:

Well.. I'm a little concerned. I've signed up for U-Verse earlier this year and all seemed great for a while. Eventually, I realized that It seems like AT&T doesn't have problems rolling out new features, but the quality assurance hasn't been as great as I thought it would be compared to other providers. It almost seems like the QA Team can't afford to fix anything and the best excuse they have is "We're working on a fix, ETA unknown."

Here's a list of things that I think AT&T really doesn't care enough about but are important issues:
1. The 5.1 audio drop-outs - I have to admit, The sound seems fine on my setup, but most other people seem to be still having problems after two years. Two years.
2. Bad HD Picture Quality - When you can see artifacts from an HD channel on a SDTV, you know something is wrong.
3. Fiber customers are the last to get new profiles.
4. Fiber customers are limited to 18Mbps.

When that is fixed, I think they can focus on rolling out more features, but right now it seems like they need to fix the basics. Does anyone else think this is an issue or am I just overreacting?

Most users could care less about #3 & 4 as we are on FTTN copper, so it's irrelevant to us. #2, many users, including me, would not agree HD PQ is bad. ATT has never stated they need to make HD PQ better; although in the 2+ years on Uverse, the HD PQ has gotten better.

#1, ATT is working on 5.1 audio drop outs, they thought they solved it, but some other problems came up and they are working on it thru David.

Chris

Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-800-515-7272 press 6 for Uverse repair to avoid Mr. Voice recognition
Your Results May Vary, In My Humble Opinion
I Call It Like I See It, Simply a U-verse user, nothing more

RRK_1 · ‎09-08-2008

mibrnsurg wrote: ATT has never stated they need to make HD PQ better; although in the 2+ years on Uverse, the HD PQ has gotten better.

I don't believe thats true. I am pretty sure they used to have some picture quality issues listed on some sort of trouble shooting page that said they were known issues that they were working on.

I agree it has gotten much better. The customer service reps and the techs were always very good about saying that the PQ was top of the industry but that led me to schedule tons of tech visits and eventually have to work with executive escalations. I had a month of overlap where I still had my Time Warner so I kept calling for them to fix the problems in my network to get up to that quality. Eventually the executive escalations guys told me that there were many known problems including the pixel shifting, crushed blacks and some colors, and high motion blur. But they said they were always working on it and I think they have been.

oufanindallas · ‎02-08-2010

Chris as for topic one on your list, you answered yourself in the other forum. Seems AT&T aren't the only ones having the issue with audio drops. I did a search after reading your article and found many more concerning HDMI and DTV. Been going on for a while too (over 2 years).

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway

RRK_1 · ‎09-08-2008

oufanindallas wrote:
Chris as for topic one on your list, you answered yourself in the other forum. Seems AT&T aren't the only ones having the issue with audio drops. I did a search after reading your article and found many more concerning HDMI and DTV. Been going on for a while too (over 2 years).

What's strange is that I didn't have the audio problems until maybe two weeks ago and since then I have probably only heard 5-6 pops and drop outs. Maybe because we have I 10 year old audio system. Its 5.1 but it uses the older dolby digital format for U-verse over optical.

chrisw · ‎05-25-2010

oufanindallas wrote:
Chris as for topic one on your list, you answered yourself in the other forum. Seems AT&T aren't the only ones having the issue with audio drops. I did a search after reading your article and found many more concerning HDMI and DTV. Been going on for a while too (over 2 years).

Funny how I find out about other providers having audio problems right after I post about AT&T's audio problems. I have to admit, that changes my mind a bit about AT&T not caring Now the HD PQ, that's a different issue. I'm curious to see how many people actually notice or care about this excluding the flood of people complaining about it on this forum.

oufanindallas · ‎02-08-2010

chrisw wrote:

oufanindallas wrote:
Chris as for topic one on your list, you answered yourself in the other forum. Seems AT&T aren't the only ones having the issue with audio drops. I did a search after reading your article and found many more concerning HDMI and DTV. Been going on for a while too (over 2 years).
Funny how I find out about other providers having audio problems right after I post about AT&T's audio problems. I have to admit, that changes my mind a bit about AT&T not caring Now the HD PQ, that's a different issue. I'm curious to see how many people actually notice or care about this excluding the flood of people complaining about it on this forum.

Not everyone has HD PQ issues. I've had Dish, Direct and TWC and my UVerse is every bit as good as those were. Lot less headaches and a whole lot cheaper.

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway

RRK_1 · ‎09-08-2008

Most sports are still not up to the same quality as Time Warner. I can't compare to any of the other providers.

mibrnsurg · ‎07-15-2008

RRK_1 wrote:

mibrnsurg wrote: ATT has never stated they need to make HD PQ better; although in the 2+ years on Uverse, the HD PQ has gotten better.

I don't believe thats true. I am pretty sure they used to have some picture quality issues listed on some sort of trouble shooting page that said they were known issues that they were working on.

I agree it has gotten much better. The customer service reps and the techs were always very good about saying that the PQ was top of the industry but that led me to schedule tons of tech visits and eventually have to work with executive escalations. I had a month of overlap where I still had my Time Warner so I kept calling for them to fix the problems in my network to get up to that quality. Eventually the executive escalations guys told me that there were many known problems including the pixel shifting, crushed blacks and some colors, and high motion blur. But they said they were always working on it and I think they have been.

Specifically ATT corporate has never publicly announced that better HD PQ is a goal, just more HD channels. The fact ATT is fixing some of the long standing problems is great, they solved most of the crushed black problem on HDMI (although I still do lighten some scenes/programs). They are working on 5.1 drop outs, some receivers never had the drop outs (like you reported).

I know the trouble shooting page (no longer there) you're referring to RRK and I did not have any of the problems it showed, but some users were reporting.

ATT is coming out w/new receivers that have a better video chip in them and will provide better PQ hopefully.

Chris

Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-800-288-2020, Press # a bunch of times, get a menu from Mr. Voice recognition
Your Results May Vary, In My Humble Opinion
I Call It Like I See It, Simply a U-verse user, nothing more

SomeJoe7777 · ‎01-30-2008

mibrnsurg wrote:

ATT is coming out w/new receivers that have a better video chip in them and will provide better PQ hopefully.

I don't know that the new processor in the new STBs will make much difference in the PQ. The scaler/deinterlacer portion might have a slight improvement, but in the end, it's still the same H.264 stream.

oufanindallas · ‎02-08-2010

RRK_1 wrote:
Most sports are still not up to the same quality as Time Warner. I can't compare to any of the other providers.

That's your opinion, I have more channels now for less money than I had with TWC / Dish / Direct. I don't buy all the extra sports packages such as Extra Innings but I've always gotten the "sports package" with all the providers I've had. Everyone has their own wants and needs and UVerse has served me the best so far.

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway

Linda661 · ‎10-15-2009

I think the biggest concern for most users is the promised roll out for pause and rewind on live tv for the non dvr boxes. They keep saying "next time". What's the big deal. Other carriers have it.

texasguy37 · ‎05-18-2009

The last statement from AT&T is that the ability to pause live TV on the TV's connected to the non-DVR STB's would be rolled out by the end of this year.

muzzymate · ‎11-09-2009

This non-DVR STB feature can not come fast enough given you aren't allowed to pay for more than 1 DVR in the household.

RCSMG · ‎12-10-2007

Patiently waiting.

RRK_1 · ‎09-08-2008

oufanindallas wrote:

RRK_1 wrote:
Most sports are still not up to the same quality as Time Warner. I can't compare to any of the other providers.
That's your opinion, I have more channels now for less money than I had with TWC / Dish / Direct. I don't buy all the extra sports packages such as Extra Innings but I've always gotten the "sports package" with all the providers I've had. Everyone has their own wants and needs and UVerse has served me the best so far.

I should have been more clear. I was only referring to picture quality.

dkmi · ‎12-06-2009

oufanindallas wrote:

Not everyone has HD PQ issues. I've had Dish, Direct and TWC and my UVerse is every bit as good as those were. Lot less headaches and a whole lot cheaper.

Are you referring to PQ with this statement? PQ lacking vs the competition is not a matter of opinion, it's a fact. U-verse compresses their content more than most. Reduced amount of information being delivered to your TV = less quality. It's a give-and-take proposition. AT&T had to make a choice between delivering fewer high-quality streams or more streams. They chose more streams, which is probably what most households would want. In my 2-tv household, I'd rather have the higher quality, but I totally understand how others would view U-verse's PQ as good enough as long as it means 3 or 4 HD streams.

oufanindallas · ‎02-08-2010

dkmi wrote:
oufanindallas wrote:

Not everyone has HD PQ issues. I've had Dish, Direct and TWC and my UVerse is every bit as good as those were. Lot less headaches and a whole lot cheaper.

Are you referring to PQ with this statement? PQ lacking vs the competition is not a matter of opinion, it's a fact. U-verse compresses their content more than most. Reduced amount of information being delivered to your TV = less quality. It's a give-and-take proposition. AT&T had to make a choice between delivering fewer high-quality streams or more streams. They chose more streams, which is probably what most households would want. In my 2-tv household, I'd rather have the higher quality, but I totally understand how others would view U-verse's PQ as good enough as long as it means 3 or 4 HD streams.

No, that's your opinion, my picture quality is every bit as good as what I had with any other provider. For you to state it as fact is untrue. The people who complain on here about the picture quality make up a very small portion of the subscribers. It's just like the company I work for, people don't call me to fix something that's not broke. I've never gotten a call just to say, hey, your program is working great, just wanted to let you know.

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway

marcindublin · ‎03-17-2008

Picture quality is subjective but comparing football on my Sony KDL52XBR4 with Uverse against my friends Sonly KDL52XBR6 with Time Warner, the XBR6 with Time Warner wins every time and it's not even close. There are a dozen or so variables that might account for that result (some of which have nothing to do with the service) and Uverse is good enough so I never pursued it, but if did have an objective measurement, I'd bet TWC wins in this area.

dkmi · ‎12-06-2009

marcindublin wrote:
Picture quality is subjective but comparing football on my Sony KDL52XBR4 with Uverse against my friends Sonly KDL52XBR6 with Time Warner, the XBR6 with Time Warner wins every time and it's not even close. There are a dozen or so variables that might account for that result (some of which have nothing to do with the service) and Uverse is good enough so I never pursued it, but if did have an objective measurement, I'd bet TWC wins in this area.

Picture quality is not subjective. It's not like tasting food or debating musical tastes. Bitrate isn't subjective. U-verse has chosen more simultaneous streams over higher quality HD. Can't have both with the current technology employed by U-verse. I accept that. Most people probably don't look at the HD quality as critically. I know my wife didn't until she was watching Dancing with the Stars and thought something was wrong with the channel. I'm hoping that advances in technology lead to better HD from them sooner than later.

texasguy37 · ‎05-18-2009

dkmi wrote:

Picture quality is not subjective. It's not like tasting food or debating musical tastes. Bitrate isn't subjective. U-verse has chosen more simultaneous streams over higher quality HD. Can't have both with the current technology employed by U-verse. I accept that. Most people probably don't look at the HD quality as critically. I know my wife didn't until she was watching Dancing with the Stars and thought something was wrong with the channel. I'm hoping that advances in technology lead to better HD from them sooner than later.

This one reason why picture quality is subjective.

dhascall · ‎04-21-2008

texasguy37 wrote:
dkmi wrote:

Picture quality is not subjective. It's not like tasting food or debating musical tastes. Bitrate isn't subjective. U-verse has chosen more simultaneous streams over higher quality HD. Can't have both with the current technology employed by U-verse. I accept that. Most people probably don't look at the HD quality as critically. I know my wife didn't until she was watching Dancing with the Stars and thought something was wrong with the channel. I'm hoping that advances in technology lead to better HD from them sooner than later.
This one reason why picture quality is subjective.

I think that the point that dkmi is trying to make is that his wife doesn't pay much attention to PQ until she see's something odd. And she did with DWTS via U-Verse HD. Most of us have noticed oddities with UV HD. I noticed oddities with Comcast's SD, too.

Oh to have Comcast's HD with U-Verse's SD..... At least here in Indy......

texasguy37 · ‎05-18-2009

The point that I'm trying to make is that picture quality can be subjective. Two people can look at the same picture, and one might think it looks like crap while the other might think that is looks just fine.

RCSMG · ‎12-10-2007

I agree TG. I have seen that happen when people have watched video presentations recorded on different types of videotape. 3/4 inch tape looked better than 1/2 inch. 1 inch looked better than 3/4 inch, and Beta SP looked better than 1 inch in some cases. There were people who didn't notice the difference.

The same is said for HD pic quality. I have been watching hd programs with family members and friends and have seen artifacts and pixelization that others didn't even notice. I thought the picture was ok, and others just raved about how clear the images were. YRMV. IMHO