Uverse's HD is horrible and needs to be addressed ASAP

[wbdotcom]

If I would have known that ATT's HD would be this bad, I never would have switched from Charter.  The quality of ATT's HD is pathetic, and apparently shows no sign of improvment in the future.  How can you advertise and charge for this type of video quality? I realize that you guys are still getting the bugs out, but both techs that came to investigate my problem said "that's just the quality of our HD". 

Digitization artifacts and macroblocking are features of your HD?!?  Thanks ATT.   That's awesome.

And how about letting the STB output the native resolution of the signal instead of making it 720p or 1080i?  Some your customers TVs have additional upconversion to do to get it to 1080p, and will do it a lot better than your Motorola POS box. 

[skeeterintexas]

Sounds like you've got issues, either technical or personal.

Our HD looks great, far superior to Comcast.  Artifacts and macroblocking?  I don't know what that is since we have VERY few problems with ours.

Sorry but NOBODY broadcasts in 1080p.  Best you can get IS 1080i. Your TV is capable of 1080p?  Go get yourself a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player.

[wbdotcom]

Personal issues? that was certainly uncalled for.

Yes, my TV's native resolution in 1080p, and I know that no one broadcasts in 1080p.  If there is going to be upconversion at any point in the signal chain, why not let it be the TV and not an inferior device?  I don't see the point of having the box convert anything.  It's funny you said that though,  the ATT guy said that they were going to be broadcasting in 1080p at the end of this year, but I laughed inside when he said that. You are lucky if you aren't noticing any problems.  This is a well known issue with ATT. Turn on HD theatre and watch sunrise morning (I think that's what it is called) all you'll see is macroblocking.  

Man, all i want is the product I am paying for and the one that they are advertising.  If you go over to uverseusers, you will find that I am not alone in my opinion of ATT's HD.  I posted here in hopes of someone with some authority to change it reading it. 

[skeeterintexas]

We've had Uverse for almost a year (8/08).  I've spent TOOOO much time staring at a lizard on a rock via Sunrise Earth.  Little bugger never did move.....

Dunno what your screen name is on UU.  I'm skeeter over there too.  MOST users over there are on the most part happy with the service.  If anyone feels like they're NOT getting what they think they should be getting, there are other options out there: Satellite/Cable/OTA. 

No reason to torture yourself.  Life's too short. 

[gofer6064]

---

skeeterintexas wrote:

We've had Uverse for almost a year (8/08).  I've spent TOOOO much time staring at a lizard on a rock via Sunrise Earth.  Little bugger never did move.....

Dunno what your screen name is on UU.  I'm skeeter over there too.  MOST users over there are on the most part happy with the service.  If anyone feels like they're NOT getting what they think they should be getting, there are other options out there: Satellite/Cable/OTA. 

No reason to torture yourself.  Life's too short. 

---

      I feel the same way skeeter does, if you don't like what your getting then by all means find something else, as for me, i have had U-VERSE since they rolled it out in our area in FEB. and i have had HD since my roll out in  may, i have had no problem with either service in fact i am watching an hd program on NAT GEO right now, (our 2nd tv is in our computer room), i have had none of the problems of which you speak of. Had to edit this post got some company and had to quit for awhile, also wanted to say have been able to compair U-VERSE HD to comcast and and direct tv, IMHO niether is as good as U-VERSE.    PS i also think we are probably beating our heads against a stone wall talking to this guy because he is not going to listen.

Message Edited by gofer6064 on 07-03-2008 09:16 PM

Message Edited by gofer6064 on 07-03-2008 09:31 PM

[wbdotcom]

---

gofer6064 wrote: 

    PS i also think we are probably beating our heads against a stone wall talking to this guy because he is not going to listen.

---

 

whats with you two and the insults? why would i not listen? im hoping for a solution, or someone with similar problems that found a solution. it great that you guys are getting good service in your area. its also unfortunate that i am not, and according to ATT, won't get good HD in the near future.  Had I not had Charter before, I would have thought that the problem with my picture was the TV itself and not the feed.  can you imagine thinking that you brand new plasma was faulty?  quite the can of worms

but alas, life is too short- when you are watching HD theatre, or an HD movie on HBO or something (that was shot in HD), you dont see blocks of pixels move in the background, or smaller detail shift back and fourth?  often times the object n focus looks fine (like the lizard) but the backgrond is shifting.  for instance, oceans thirteen was on the other day and brad pitts face kept subtly shifting a few pixel back and fourth, as did the background.  its usally apparent when large portions of the screen are similar shades and dimly lit.  I recorded it and showed the tech, and he said "thats just the quality of our service"  im surprised that the quality varies this much from region to region.  if many are satisfied thats great, but in my search in an attempt to solve my problem, i found that many were also unhappy and as many as 60-70% felt that their previous provider provided better quality HD.  yeah, i guess it's time to go back.

Message Edited by wbdotcom on 07-03-2008 09:59 PM

[showtime48 ACE - Guru]

i agree, that may have been an uncalled for comment. what have you done so far to help fix your problems. as stated above many subscribers including myself are happy with the service and the price. call ts at 1-800-288-2020 and have them test your line, report back and let's see what else can be offered...

Message Edited by showtime48 on 07-06-2008 06:11 PM

[dmeyers]

---

showtime48 wrote:
i agree, that may have been an uncalled for comment. what have you done so far to help fix your problems. as stated above may subscribers including myself are happy with the service and the price. call ts at 1-800-288-2020 and have them test your line, report back and let's see what else can be offered...

---

        reply to WBDOT also:

Hi. I am a happy Uverse user but I have to admit that WBDOT is correct about HD quality. There is macro blocking and the image background shifts. That Being said here is what to do about it. Nothing at the moment your installation is probably fine thats the way it is. If you sit back a reasonable distance from your screen it isn't too bad. If this is not acceptable for you then  you will probably want to choose another provider.

[skeeterintexas]

I have an issue when someone comes on here using words like "horrible" & "pathetic" and assume that we are all experiencing the same.  A better approach would've been: "MY HD quality is "horrible" and/or "pathetic".  It's silly to ASSUME everyone's HD quality is the same as yours. 

Then when one finds out that not everyone is experiencing HORRIBLE & PATHETIC HD, one would then graciously accept any suggestions as to how to address and/or fix said problem.

P.S.  "Horrible" should be reserved for something horrific in life such as a child who has been burned or a major car accident.  "Pathetic" should be used to describe a woman who is in an abusive relationship and doesn't have the inner strength to escape the situation.  "Horrible" & "pathetic" to describe how your TV looks?  I'm not on board with that.  Sorry.

'Tis better to call Technical Support than to curse bad HD quality.  And when all else fails, cancel. 

[wbdotcom]

---

skeeterintexas wrote:

I have an issue when someone comes on here using words like "horrible" & "pathetic" and assume that we are all experiencing the same.  A better approach would've been: "MY HD quality is "horrible" and/or "pathetic".  It's silly to ASSUME everyone's HD quality is the same as yours. 

Then when one finds out that not everyone is experiencing HORRIBLE & PATHETIC HD, one would then graciously accept any suggestions as to how to address and/or fix said problem.

P.S.  "Horrible" should be reserved for something horrific in life such as a child who has been burned or a major car accident.  "Pathetic" should be used to describe a woman who is in an abusive relationship and doesn't have the inner strength to escape the situation.  "Horrible" & "pathetic" to describe how your TV looks?  I'm not on board with that.  Sorry.

'Tis better to call Technical Support than to curse bad HD quality.  And when all else fails, cancel. 

---

your p.s. is amazing. i can use whatever words i want.  more explicit words are actually necessary to describe the service they are advertising, marketing and charging people for.  but yes, your examples are good uses for those words, too. have you never been dissatisfied with something and looked for a solution?  typically, when one is upset with somehting, passionate language may ensue.

google "uverse hd quality" and read the links. ATT has issues (technical ;-) . I have called tech support in the past and had people out to check the line.  my signal is great, and I am right next to a hub.  the problem isnt on my end, so unfortunately, it's on theirs.  perhaps the STB is to blame? i feel like theres really nothing else that it could be. and skeet, i absolutely graciously accept any suggestions.

as i said in my first reply to you, my intent for posting on here was to get someone at ATT to read this complaint and potentially do something about it.  posting on a message board serves two purposes - my aformentioned reason and to get help from others.  I had asked anyone above to check for the features I described.  watch the backgrounds of the program, watch brad pitts face, etc.  do it, and see for yourself.  i am happy for you and others that do not have issues with your hd.  after looking though other people's complains on uverseusers and via google, i have come to find that ATT is providing everyone with the same product.  the HD is the same in every market.  some people see problems with the quality and some do not.  the HD is way better than SD, and so many people see the gross differences and are not concentrating on the subtelties that other people are noticing.  unfortnately, I am in the latter categorgy (as well as the person above - thanks for corroborating) and you are apparently in the former.  some people, and im not saying you are one of them, do not see a difference between SD and HD. I personally can't believe it, but they exist.

in short, yes, ill probably have to switch back to charter, which sucks, becasue networked boxes are a great idea (when they come out with it I've heard Q2, Q3 and now "in December"), as is not sending all channels to every STB - it frees up throughput. also ATT's customer service is fantastic and a level to which every other service provider of any kind should strive

[skeeterintexas]

Yeah, well, I'm just an old lady who's learned to not get her panties in a wad, knickers in a twist or my tinsel in a tangle, so you're right and I'm wrong. 

I'm an idiot....I have NO standards when it comes to technology and you are obviously much better schooled on these things.

Ignorance is bliss.

Thank you and drive thru.....

Where's randy when I need him???? 

[randyl]

http://192.168.1.254/xslt?PAGE=B04&THISPAGE=B01&NEXTPAGE=B04        << maybe cut n paste if u want ??

sound slike u have allready done this but just in case (since u are using a diff name here than the one u use over at uverseusers ?  )

also if your max sync rate is less than 35000  then u just might be too far away for the top quality most of us get ??

am sorry u do not get the quality u want  ...  some of us do get great hd   (not bluray or ota by any strecth but  decent pic  imo  )

http://gateway.2wire.net/xslt?PAGE=J03&THISPAGE=J04&NEXTPAGE=J03

aka

DSL  Down  Up
Current Rate:  25216 kbs   2048 kbs 
Max Rate:  55404 kbs   Not Available     <<<<<  if less than 35000  could be a lil trouble  imo
Current Connection:
 Current Noise Margin:  23.0 dB   Not Available
 Current Attenuation:  13.5 dB   Not Available
 Current Output Power:  14.3 dBm   -21.5 dBm 
 
IP  Bytes  Packets  Errors  %
Transmit:  25539102  70196  0  0
Receive:  85622701  100271  0  0

ps if u have tried tech support and have given up then i would say email david  with the specifics and see what he has to offer ??

just some thoughts

randy

[wbdotcom]

this is hilarious.  when did I insult you?  I never attacked anyone personally, unlike you. I never said you were wrong, or incapable of detecting  subtle nuances or anything like that. In fact i asked you to look for specific artifacts in your picture (since you have no problem with your HD) in an attempt to address my problem with a solution - to see if someone in a different market (texas i assume from your handle) has the same strange artifacts that I, in saint louis, have.

Read the posts again. your tinsel has obviously been tangled.

[wbdotcom]

randy, you're the bomb, thanks.  here are my broadband link stats

DSL Down Up

Current Rate: 25216 kbs 2048 kbs

Max Rate: 69708 kbs Not Available

Current Connection: Current Noise Margin: 29.5 dB Not Available

Current Attenuation: 10.0 dB Not Available

Current Output Power: 14.2 dBm -25.0 dBm

IP Bytes Packets Errors % Transmit: 395055137 1421056 0 0 Receive: 249308702275 181383390 0 0

is this cool? 

Message Edited by wbdotcom on 07-04-2008 09:35 AM

[dmeyers]

---

as i said in my first reply to you, my intent for posting on here was to get someone at ATT to read this complaint and potentially do something about it.  posting on a message board serves two purposes - my aformentioned reason and to get help from others.

---

What you have to understand is that there is not a push button quick fix for Uverse HD quality improvement. There are issues and parameters of bandwidth, compression, codecs, as well as the people hired for image processing and adaptation. I don't know when it's happening but Uverse is supposed to be going to pair bonding  which hopefully will make an impact for people leaning on the videophile side of the equation. 

[wbdotcom]

for sure, i completely agree. im hoping to get the ball rolling sooner than later

[Elmzz]

I like the quality of HD that I have here. But then again, I never had HD before, so im afraid to see another carrier's HD content

[spd2demun ACE - Master]

I've never had HD either, but I've seen Dish on a 52" Sony. 

[skeeterintexas]

We had HD w/Comcrap.  Uverse is better than cable.

[JiminSTLouis]

 U-verse HD is better than DISH was.  The nice surprise was, the SD picture is so much better.  Before U-verse, I thought my old RCA Home Theater TV needed to be replaced. 

---

skeeterintexas wrote:
We had HD w/Comcrap.  Uverse is better than cable.

---

[wbdotcom]

---

JiminSTLouis wrote:

 U-verse HD is better than DISH was.  The nice surprise was, the SD picture is so much better.  Before U-verse, I thought my old RCA Home Theater TV needed to be replaced. 

---

 

hey jim

 i feel your pain with the tv, but for me it's the other way around - had i had uverse first, i would have thought it was the tv...did you ever have HD through charter?  id like to know how you'd compare the HD of charter and uverse if so.  the SD for both is about equal, in my opinion, with a slight edge towards charter, but that just may be the HD quality talking

[wbdotcom]

---

Elmzz wrote:
I like the quality of HD that I have here. But then again, I never had HD before, so im afraid to see another carrier's HD content

---

uverse is good, dont get me wrong.  its INSANELY better than SD, and often looks really good, so i dont wany to ruin your TV viewing experience with my post.  my main beef is the compression and digitization artifacts present in the finer detail and the backgrounds.  as someone said in an earlier post, if you are sitting back far enough you dont see them as clearly, but they are still there.  its distracting, more than anything, to see large blocks of color shift, and pixels dance around back and fourth.  the things shown up close, however, most always look awesome, like snakes and fish and stuff.

[callmeox ACE - Wizard]

Do you sit the recommended distance from your TV?  I see flaws in the picture if I get up close, but not from a reasonable viewing distance.

[wbdotcom]

yeah, its a 42" plasma (panasonic pz700u) and I sit anywhere from 6.5' to 9' back.  the things im seeing are not supposed to be there, but i know the flaws of which you speak when one sits too close.  these are not those.

[noeck1c]

---

wbdotcom wrote:
yeah, its a 42" plasma (panasonic pz700u) and I sit anywhere from 6.5' to 9' back.  the things im seeing are not supposed to be there, but i know the flaws of which you speak when one sits too close.  these are not those.

---

If you want to assign responsibility for the abnormalities you see it will require a lot of camparison viewing. Are they present on all Uverse delivered hd programming but not on all Over the air programming? If any of the hd channels lack these abnormalities (NatGeograhic, Science Channel or other) then Uverse infrastructure is probably not at fault but rather are the result of faults in the source video. Good OTA signals and HD or Blue Ray DVD are good video sources to use for comparison. If even one channel on Uverse has the quality you consider High Definition as it should be, then Uverse is doing it's job.

[wbdotcom]

yeah, unfortnately the macroblocks and pixellation are on all HD channels and not on SD channels.

[bri_man_65]

I am assuming you are HDMI.  Try using component.  For some reason HDMI is worse with lots of macro blocking than when I use component.  I do not have any macroblocking with my component cable.

[hpmsrm]

---

wbdotcom wrote:

If I would have known that ATT's HD would be this bad, I never would have switched from Charter.  The quality of ATT's HD is pathetic, and apparently shows no sign of improvment in the future.  How can you advertise and charge for this type of video quality? I realize that you guys are still getting the bugs out, but both techs that came to investigate my problem said "that's just the quality of our HD". 

Digitization artifacts and macroblocking are features of your HD?!?  Thanks ATT.   That's awesome.

And how about letting the STB output the native resolution of the signal instead of making it 720p or 1080i?  Some your customers TVs have additional upconversion to do to get it to 1080p, and will do it a lot better than your Motorola POS box. 

---

YOUR HD may not meet your expectations.  We find that the U-verse HD images on our 55" screen are razor sharp and we see no evidence of the other problems you say you have.   Did you call the tech service number?  We recently had somewhat of a problem with some picture break up......called the telephone techs....and he had a service tech out here at our house the very next morning.  The guy found a tiny sliver of metal lying across the inside of a coax screw connector.....partially shorting the center conductor to the shield.  Replaced the connector.......now we're back to a great picture.   So perhaps there is a technical reason peculiar to your location or your insallation that is causing the problem.  You certainly are among a small minority.....but I'm sure the service folks will do their best to help solve your TV problems.  Best of luck.

Phil

[JiminSTLouis]

No sorry, the first HD service I had was through DISH, just before I got U-verse.

---

wbdotcom wrote:

hey jim

 i feel your pain with the tv, but for me it's the other way around - had i had uverse first, i would have thought it was the tv...did you ever have HD through charter?  id like to know how you'd compare the HD of charter and uverse if so.  the SD for both is about equal, in my opinion, with a slight edge towards charter, but that just may be the HD quality talking

---

[ClevelandCust]

I have mixed feelings on the HD quality.  And I know everyone has different experiences with the quality.   I have a 42" Panasonic plasma 720 with HDMI.  My previous cable company was cox cable.  The SD channels are without a doubt much better quality with U-Verse.  With U-Verse HD, I get some macroblocking and I do not feel it is as "vibrant" as Cox HD.  However, I did notice that with Cox HD, if I stood right in front of the tv (which by no means is the way I watch tv), it was blurry.  But with U-Verse, no blur, and the lines are well defined.  So this is a little confusing to me.  If I had to choose, I prefer the "vibrant" quality of Cox  HD better, but I would never change back because I receive every channel (U 400) offered with internet for a lower price than I was paying Cox for internet and HBO premium package only. 

I still miss the MOJO channel.  Maybe we can start a petition.