On 2/24/11 14:38 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

On 2/24/2011 8:34 AM, dave wrote:

I would recommend against U-verse. Get DSL and Netflix and an
antenna for WBLT (hold the mayo). How far are you from the
nearest AT&T node?

On 2/24/11 12:05 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion...and mine is go FOR Uverse.

We've had it for a couple of years, works fine, lasts a long time.
It was cheaper than the previous service we had, you can have FOUR
TV programs simultaneously (3 record, one watching, 4 watching,
any combination of 4 you want), can set up record from any TV, can
play back from any TV. If you so desire, you have your voice, DSL
and 4 video channels -simultaneously- on -one- copper pair.

Bottom line: we have been very well pleased with Uverse,
technically and economically. Why do you recommend against it?

On 2/24/2011 1:20 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

Top of the list, overcompression on HD video. Lots of artifacts.

A non-issue to us as we don't subscribe to HD service. Many, many
programs are NOT (yet) in HD and with a lot of the "historical"
documentaries using ancient film, never will be...and who needs
"Pawn Stars" or "Myth Busters" in HD anyway?


The problem is that the artifacts often appear on non HD
programming, as well.



There's only so much you can slam through a copper pair.

Absolutely true...and it is true magic how hard they are making that
poor little pair work!

Compared to OTA HD, which is the closest to HD you'll get, the
differences are dramatic.

Probably true, but I'm not sure how fair it is to compare the 5 or
10 OTA stations you may get versus up to 400 channels on Uverse.


From my location, I've got 46 (on a good day), 38 HD channels
OTA, with their multiple digital subchannels.

During periods of very heavy usage, where there are peak numbers of
users on a radius, such as during a SuperBowl broadcast in a city
neighborhood, pixelation, stutters, and dropouts are common.

Very, very rarely occurs here (or at my cousin's place 35 miles
away). I might question the design of the system in your locality.

Believe me, so did I.


At my late G/F's place in Oak Park, during the American Idol finals,
she went back to an antenna because U-Verse was not able to provide a
reliable picture.

Again, I would question your local design and the condition of your
local loop. A lot of that old Chicago outside plant is pretty tired,
may not have been properly de-loaded, may not have had all of the
bridge tap removed. If you have poor service, complain, report it to
Repair.

Well, that's the problem. Repair will not address infrastructure
issues.


Internet uploads are capped on U-Verse at 384k. Have you ever tried
to upload 8GB of pictures at 384K?

That's why the complete name is ADSL (shortened to DSL).

Actually, DSL is short for DSL. ADSL is still ADSL. There is
SDSL, as well. And IDSL. But that's no longer being installed.


The "A"
stands for "asymmetrical" upload/download speeds. And no, I've never
had to upload 8 GB of pictures -- nor do I suspect most "average"
users have either. If you have special needs, Uverse may not be for
you...although many DSL services are indeed ADSL too, giving you the
same problem.

Not really. Of all the options I've investigated, in areas where
I have visited...except the cabin in Wisconsin...U-Verse is the
slowest by far for the money. For the same money, 1MB up and 3MB
down from Comcast. On a private radius.

For work, I need at least 3 MB up in order to upload a project to
meet deadlines. I've got business class service for that reason,
which replaced my T-1 last year.

U-Verse only offered 384k up on a common node.



There are better options to U-Verse. Not in all locations, of course,
but in populated areas, for the same money, you can get much more
performance with fewer headaches.

Possibly true, but for our usage, in our area, great quality of
service and for the economic advantage, we are happy campers. Your
Mileage May Vary...