Uverse vs. DirectTV

boatsun · ‎08-03-2007

I have had Uverse for over two years now, through the good times and the bad. Recently I have moved to southern Maryland for a job and where I am staying has DirectTV. Hands down and without a doubt Uverse wins by any comparison. It is actually one of the things I will miss most about moving. I have read a lot of bashing of Uverse and after having had both Time Warner/Comcast and now DirectTV I really can't see what the fuss is all about. Uverse wins plain and simple. DirectTV is limited by it's technology and unless the cable companies move quickly to DOCISS III and start IP streaming instead of blasting they will have a hard time ahead. I haven't seen FiOS yet but that is the only technology that can really touch Uverse.

The thing is that I think in ten years the networks and TV providers will fade away anyway and it will all be Internet TV.

dmeyers · ‎12-07-2003

boatsun wrote:
I have had Uverse for over two years now, through the good times and the bad. Recently I have moved to southern Maryland for a job and where I am staying has DirectTV. Hands down and without a doubt Uverse wins by any comparison. It is actually one of the things I will miss most about moving. I have read a lot of bashing of Uverse and after having had both Time Warner/Comcast and now DirectTV I really can't see what the fuss is all about. Uverse wins plain and simple. DirectTV is limited by it's technology and unless the cable companies move quickly to DOCISS III and start IP streaming instead of blasting they will have a hard time ahead. I haven't seen FiOS yet but that is the only technology that can really touch Uverse.

The thing is that I think in ten years the networks and TV providers will fade away anyway and it will all be Internet TV.

I had Uverse for about year and a half. I moved in with my father where Uverse is not available and miss it a lot. Uverse packages are much better as far as regular pricing is concerned. Comcast will make deals (YMMV) to be comparable for a year but after the promo's up you have to fight to get a good price. My dads promo ran out so I had to haggle with them to get a better price than the 165.00 for cable without any other services. That price didn't include all the pay channels either and that was with one HD DVR, one regular receiver.

The only plus for cable is that the HD quality is better. Forget the hoopla over On-Demand, it's overated. I don't order pay movies so I am speaking about the free and premium channels. It's not that great. The lineup changes at a snails pace so after the first month I hardly use it. Oh how I long for the THDVR.

Message Edited by caliuser on 10-21-2009 11:08 PM

boatsun · ‎08-03-2007

Okay, I have just found something that I like about DirectTV that Uverse doesn't have. I have had Windows 7 installed and running for about two months now (Thank God for the Academic MSDN licensing). I was playing around with Media Player 12 and saw DirectTV2PC Media Server. I then noticed a list of all the recordings on the DVR downstairs. All I need to do is download some software and I will be able to stream the recorded programs from the DVR to my computer. All it is is MediaShare in reverse and I am thinking that ATT should be able to open up that feature at some point.

RCSMG · ‎12-10-2007

boatsun wrote:

Okay, I have just found something that I like about DirectTV that Uverse doesn't have. I have had Windows 7 installed and running for about two months now (Thank God for the Academic MSDN licensing). I was playing around with Media Player 12 and saw DirectTV2PC Media Server. I then noticed a list of all the recordings on the DVR downstairs. All I need to do is download some software and I will be able to stream the recorded programs from the DVR to my computer. All it is is MediaShare in reverse and I am thinking that ATT should be able to open up that feature at some point.

Very nice feature.

DouglasPHill · ‎01-22-2008

I had Direct before I had Uverse. Like both of them. Have had Uverse for 2 years now. The happiest thing, to me, about Uverse is that for two years they have not once raised the price I pay. I don't know if its just me, or everybody. With Direct, every 6 months they raised the price. To me, the price you agree to when you start is the price. Period. I am tickled pink about this.

dhascall · ‎04-21-2008

RCSMG wrote:
boatsun wrote:
Okay, I have just found something that I like about DirectTV that Uverse doesn't have. I have had Windows 7 installed and running for about two months now (Thank God for the Academic MSDN licensing). I was playing around with Media Player 12 and saw DirectTV2PC Media Server. I then noticed a list of all the recordings on the DVR downstairs. All I need to do is download some software and I will be able to stream the recorded programs from the DVR to my computer. All it is is MediaShare in reverse and I am thinking that ATT should be able to open up that feature at some point.
Very nice feature.

Indeed a nice feature and hope that UV takes note!

dhascall · ‎04-21-2008

DouglasPHill wrote:
I had Direct before I had Uverse. Like both of them. Have had Uverse for 2 years now. The happiest thing, to me, about Uverse is that for two years they have not once raised the price I pay. I don't know if its just me, or everybody. With Direct, every 6 months they raised the price. To me, the price you agree to when you start is the price. Period. I am tickled pink about this.

The only things on UV that increased for me were 1) STB "rent" went from $5 to $7 and 2) they moved two channels to a higher priced tier, a "sort of" price increase. CC was full of price increases, though some fees did actually go down, when Dish/Direct started making inroads.

Steinmiller · ‎08-13-2009

Here's what I like about U-Verse compared to its competitors:

1. Cheaper package prices

2. No individual prices on premium channels like HBO, Showtime & etc.

3. The Search option

3. Free DVR Box & DVR Service

showtime48 · ‎01-16-2008

i think that somewhere in Texas that ATT and Verizon have overlapped. i can't remember if anyone has compared uverse and fios side by side though. i sure someone will eventually...

Dennis

Uniblurb3 · ‎09-14-2009

Steinmiller wrote:
Here's what I like about U-Verse compared to its competitors:

1. Cheaper package prices
2. No individual prices on premium channels like HBO, Showtime & etc.
3. The Search option
3. Free DVR Box & DVR Service

5. Signal doesn't fail during inclement weather.

6. No two year contract.

As compared to Directv.

edit. added quote

Message Edited by Uniblurb3 on 11-09-2009 06:24 PM

jfw · ‎05-11-2009

Give them time, Uverse is still "the new kid on the block." Eventually their pricing will fall in line with the competition. It's inevitable......like death and taxes.

dolbycm · ‎02-27-2009

I have had U-verse for over 2 years now. I just visited my mom in PA. She has Fios. It is nice. The HD is very clear, but I think it is "over-the-top-raw" clear. It is really grainy. It is like someone took a picture on 6400 speed film and then blew it up. Yes, the grass didn't move like we get from time to time, but I didn't like it better.

The thing that surprised me most about Fios was that Virus protection wasn't included in the internet service. Not only are they paying more, but they have to pay for that out of pocket. They have it available from Fios for a monthly fee.

Their guide is not as easy to navigate either. You don't know how great of an idea it is to put a 1 infront of the SD number to get the HD version of the same channel until you try something else. My mom is paying for HD and never uses it because it isn't worth the time it takes to navigate to the channels. I was stunned! So, I tried it. It really was a lot of work.

MarkShadid · ‎09-27-2007

jfw wrote:
Give them time, Uverse is still "the new kid on the block." Eventually their pricing will fall in line with the competition. It's inevitable......like death and taxes.

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

I did however, forget to add the fact that I'm a negative person by nature!!

Message Edited by MarkShadid on 11-10-2009 12:20 PM

RCSMG · ‎12-10-2007

MarkShadid wrote:

jfw wrote:
Give them time, Uverse is still "the new kid on the block." Eventually their pricing will fall in line with the competition. It's inevitable......like death and taxes.
Couldn't have said it any better myself.

I did however, forget to add the fact that I'm a negative person by nature!!
Message Edited by MarkShadid on 11-10-2009 12:20 PM

jrb531 · ‎10-23-2008

DouglasPHill wrote:
I had Direct before I had Uverse. Like both of them. Have had Uverse for 2 years now. The happiest thing, to me, about Uverse is that for two years they have not once raised the price I pay. I don't know if its just me, or everybody. With Direct, every 6 months they raised the price. To me, the price you agree to when you start is the price. Period. I am tickled pink about this.

To be fair it's only because in those two years they have either raised the price of equipment and/or removed services so in effect they are raising prices.

- Box rental went from free to $5 each to $7 each

- We have lost many channels to new or higher prices packages.

- We have lost services (most people never used anyway) but they were still removed

- They removed the 1000 minute phone package and replaced it with a 250 minute plan for the same price

- They removed the U400 plan and replaced it with the U450 minute plan that cost $10 more.... sure this includes HD (the the price is the same for HD people) but what if you do not have/want HD and want U400? Sorry... you will pay for HD and like it thank you very much.

When you add in the cost of losing their "teaser" rates they are not much cheaper than the others.

SomeJoe7777 · ‎01-30-2008

jrb531 wrote:

- They removed the U400 plan and replaced it with the U450 minute plan that cost $10 more.... sure this includes HD (the the price is the same for HD people) but what if you do not have/want HD and want U400? Sorry... you will pay for HD and like it thank you very much.

I find it completely ironic that this argument is coming from the same guy who said:

jrb531 wrote:

The point is now moot.... AT&T needs to do something fast in regard to those 2 streams of HD. They already stated that pair bonding would not be used to increase bandwidth so what is left? Compression but they are already compressing the hell out of their HD and I do not think they can do anymore unless they have some breakthrough tech waiting.

Do you at least agree that 2 streams of HD is not enough in this day and age?

Which is it? Tons of customers who want U400 without HD, or a complete inability to compete in a market with only 2 HD streams? The first implies that HD is not that important while the second says that HD is so important that 2 HD streams are inadequate.

These two arguments are incongruous and cannot simultaneously exist.

Uniblurb3 · ‎09-14-2009

jrb531 wrote:

- They removed the U400 plan and replaced it with the U450 minute plan that cost $10 more.... sure this includes HD (the the price is the same for HD people) but what if you do not have/want HD and want U400? Sorry... you will pay for HD and like it thank you very much.

Last month my 1 year promotional ("teaser") rate expired. I had U-400 plus HD for $10/month. Retentions gave me a $30 credit for upgrading to U450 which is the exact same price with the exact same channels. Thought it was a pretty good deal.

I can't imagine having all those HD channels and not having HD service. Believe almost all U400 subscribers think the same. That's probably why U-verse decided to change U400 to U450, and include HD, rather than trying to rip off customers.

jrb531 · ‎10-23-2008

SomeJoe7777 wrote:

Which is it? Tons of customers who want U400 without HD, or a complete inability to compete in a market with only 2 HD streams? The first implies that HD is not that important while the second says that HD is so important that 2 HD streams are inadequate.

These two arguments are incongruous and cannot simultaneously exist.

Why can't the two be separate?

They are totally separate issues. Why do I bring the issue about U400 up when I care more about HD? Because it came up that AT&T has not raised their prices when, in fact, they have only been able to hold the line on "package" prices because they have either raised fees or lowered service.

Answer this....

U100 = SD only - HD = $10 add-on

U200 = SD only - HD = $10 add-on

U300 = SD only - HD = $10 add-on

U400 - removed and replaced with U450 which includes HD but is now $10 more

So why was this change made? Why only on the most expensive package? Why not leave HD as an option?

Where can this relate to the HD "problem" of only 2 streams? Perhaps some people would rather pass on HD and take SD only thus saving $10 a month either because they might feel that the HD is overcompressed or that 2 streams causes too many fights in the home because they have more than 2 boxes?

My point is easy.... why take away choice for us if it does not cost them anything?

Yes I am going to keep harping on the 2 stream HD limit. It impacts me big time as I cannot get what I pay for. I pay extra for HD and I cannot use it many times because I have four HD TV's so much of the time I am forced to watch SD!

What I find funny is how some people can defend this over and over when 2 streams is silly stupid going into 2010.

Direct TV charges the same for boxes and I do not have any limits on the HD I watch. Uverse has the WHDVR which is very nice and a big reason why I stay - how much longer people will tolerate this limited HD is the question of the day.

jrb531 · ‎10-23-2008

Uniblurb3 wrote:
jrb531 wrote:

- They removed the U400 plan and replaced it with the U450 minute plan that cost $10 more.... sure this includes HD (the the price is the same for HD people) but what if you do not have/want HD and want U400? Sorry... you will pay for HD and like it thank you very much.

Last month my 1 year promotional ("teaser") rate expired. I had U-400 plus HD for $10/month. Retentions gave me a $30 credit for upgrading to U450 which is the exact same price with the exact same channels. Thought it was a pretty good deal.

I can't imagine having all those HD channels and not having HD service. Believe almost all U400 subscribers think the same. That's probably why U-verse decided to change U400 to U450, and include HD, rather than trying to rip off customers.

Ripping people off? How do you figure.

It's the same price either way..... The ONLY real difference between U300 and U400 now U450 is HBO/Max - why does AT&T allow people to decide if they want to pay an extra $10 for U300 but not for U450?

U400+HD is the very same price as U450 but you cannot see "anyone" who does not want HD (or does not want to pay for the limited HD streams or overcompressed HD) wanting HBO/Max????

What AT&T did (like when they removed the 1000 min phone plan and replaced it with a 250 min plan for the same $$$) was underhanded

jfw · ‎05-11-2009

What I find funny is when people sign on for Uverse TV knowing full well they can only get 2 streams of HD and then complain about it after the fact.

jrb531 · ‎10-23-2008

jfw wrote:
What I find funny is when people sign on for Uverse TV knowing full well they can only get 2 streams of HD and then complain about it after the fact.

Yeah... I signed up over a year ago and even back then I was told that 3 streams was just around the corner. Back in 2008 did you really think that in 2010 we would still be at 2 streams? Be honest now

Does anyone really know AT&T's plan to fix this aside from all the emtpy promises?

We do know that the 3rd stream will only be available (if they ever get it out of testing) to less than half of their customers who happen to be very close to the local VRAD. We also know now that all this talk about "pair bonding" will not be used to give existing customers more streams but rather up their potential customer base to allow more people to gain Uverse that are currently too far.

So unless something new comes up that has not been talked about.... well will Uverse "always" be a 2 stream service? Since it can take years to roll something out (they have been testing pair bonding for years and it's still not out) the future does not look very bright for Uverse unless AT&T wants to commit now to FTTH like Verison.

Can you image how Comcrap could rip Uverse apart if they ever put out some commericials comparing Comcrap to Uverse (like the Apple vs Miscrosoft ones).....

Comcrap Customer: Did you see the game last night?

Uverse Customer: No I was recording a show and the wife was watching TV so I ran out of streams

Comcrap Customer: What's this about streams? I can watch HD on all 8 of my TV's at the same time... how many TV's do you have?

Uverse Customer: Well I have 6 but with Uverse you can only watch two at a time and if you are recording something only 1.

Comcrap Customer: So you are paying for HD and paying for 6 TV's but you cannot use then all at the same time?

Uverse Customer: Well yes that is true but if I want to drop down to SD I can watch on 4 of my 6 TV's

Comcrap Customer: So why are you with Uverse then?

Uverse Customer: Because.... you know I have no idea

They would tear Uverse apart if they ever started showing something like this and AT&T could do nothing to respond! The fact that Uverse is cheaper and that almost no one has 6-8 TV's (or watches them all at the same time LOL) would mean nothing because it would make Uverse look stupid.... no one like limitations... especially if they seem silly or illogical.

Escapee · ‎09-09-2009

jrb531 why do I get the feeling that if you got 3HD streams you would just find some other feature of the service to complain about. The service is what it is.

I am an AT&T employee and the postings on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent AT&T's position, strategies or opinion.

Towen7 · ‎08-08-2007

The way i see it... jrb531 is a marketing genius!

He has singlehandedly identified the nail the Comcast can drive into the Uverse coffin. I wonder why Comcast hasn't been able to think of that strategy by themselves?

Escapee · ‎09-09-2009

It has been fun to watch the 3G ad fght.

The audio 5.1 dropout is a real problem to complain about because that is part of the basic function of the service. 3HD is a problem if you are trying to us the system in a way it is not designed. The subscribers on 1HD do have a right to complain about not having 2HD.

Message Edited by Escapee on 11-15-2009 10:33 AM

I am an AT&T employee and the postings on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent AT&T's position, strategies or opinion.

camp80 · ‎12-29-2008

Towen7 is correct. jrb531 did show a flaw in uverse that might have some effect on customers. But seriously how many people have 5-8 TV's in there homes? I feel that I am average and I have 3 TV's and of them only 1 HD. Yes this could be a future problem for uverse but not yet. Maybe in 2-3 years but by then who knows what will be going on. THDVR still wins hands down

skeeterintexas · ‎12-09-2007

It's like buying a 2 seat sports car when you've got 3 kids and you take them to McDonald's on a regular basis. It's probably NOT the best choice for you. You knew the car only had 2 seats when you bought it but you stand in the driveway complaining to the neighbor.

Sell the d@mn sports car and buy a mini-van. There's some of us who LOVE the 2 seater and don't want to haul kids around.

Just sayin'......

Towen7 · ‎08-08-2007

I was being facetious. I don't think that the 2 HD stream limit is a significant issue... today. If it were than Comcast and TWC would indeed be all over it.

In the coming years HD demand may be so great that the HD stream limit becomes a significant factor to significant portion of the customer base, but I imagine that AT&T will have a solution by the time then. Time will tell.

jrb531 · ‎10-23-2008

It's almost 2010.... you you really think that AT&T has something sitting on the shelf waiting to throw a switch to enable more than 2 streams of HD?

What's in the works now? What are they doing now to ensure that in 1-2 years they have 4+ streams of HD so they can compete? Is this so black ops that we would not have heard about it?

They do have one thing... fiber.... I'm sure this is what they are going to do later but what about now?

What I cannot understand is how so many people are still using mostly SD TV's.... either that or you are all ok with paying for HD but having to often watch SD on your HD sets. Well over a year ago we were being told by AT&T that a 3rd stream of HD was just around the corner so saying that we were sold a "permanent" 2 stream HD service is not really true. I hardly think that expecting to be able to watch HD on 3 TV's in 2010 is asking alot or is it?

Why is AT&T not being hammered right now in regard to this 2 stream limit? Beats me but while I agree that the number of people with 4+ HD sets is very small... it would "look bad" on the commericials.

It would show that with Uverse you have limitations that other services do not have. Look at the entire 3g mobile coverage thing.... reality means little when "perception" comes into play.

dhascall · ‎04-21-2008

skeeterintexas wrote:
It's like buying a 2 seat sports car when you've got 3 kids and you take them to McDonald's on a regular basis. It's probably NOT the best choice for you. You knew the car only had 2 seats when you bought it but you stand in the driveway complaining to the neighbor.

Sell the d@mn sports car and buy a mini-van. There's some of us who LOVE the 2 seater and don't want to haul kids around.

Just sayin'......

I don't really have a cat in this fight, as I also have just 3 connected sets and only one of those is HD but I don't completely buy into that comparison of two HD streams and a two seat sports car. If you want to make an automotive analogy, I would compare it to buying a 4 door car from the factory, designed to hold 5 people (2 front and 3 rear) but due to a manufacturing bug, only the front doors open and there is no way to get to the back seat BUT the manufacturer (and sales folks, marketing people, support staff and so on) SWEARS that a fix is right around the corner.

Long story short, I was told by sales people and technical staff when I first started looking at UV (back in late Summer of 2008) that more streams were coming than the expected 2HD/2SD.

dhascall · ‎04-21-2008

jrb531 wrote:
It's almost 2010.... you you really think that AT&T has something sitting on the shelf waiting to throw a switch to enable more than 2 streams of HD?

What's in the works now? What are they doing now to ensure that in 1-2 years they have 4+ streams of HD so they can compete? Is this so black ops that we would not have heard about it?

They do have one thing... fiber.... I'm sure this is what they are going to do later but what about now?

What I cannot understand is how so many people are still using mostly SD TV's.... either that or you are all ok with paying for HD but having to often watch SD on your HD sets. Well over a year ago we were being told by AT&T that a 3rd stream of HD was just around the corner so saying that we were sold a "permanent" 2 stream HD service is not really true. I hardly think that expecting to be able to watch HD on 3 TV's in 2010 is asking alot or is it?

Why is AT&T not being hammered right now in regard to this 2 stream limit? Beats me but while I agree that the number of people with 4+ HD sets is very small... it would "look bad" on the commericials.

It would show that with Uverse you have limitations that other services do not have. Look at the entire 3g mobile coverage thing.... reality means little when "perception" comes into play.

I would love to have all of my sets HD - I just can't afford it. In the future, as my sets go (way) beyond their limits of usability, I will replace them. THEN the multiple HD stream issue will hit home for me.

Our bedroom will most likely be the last room to get HD, as our 12 year old 27" RCA set was replaced this week with a 6 year old hand-me down, freebie, a 36" tube Toshiba (non-HD) that I'm hoping will last another 5-6 years. It's one BIG set for our smallish master!