As a one week owner of U-Verse, I'd have to say it was the worst thing ever. Shoddy install is being nice. They also do not allow you to have any other service going into the same residence. So, if you have roommates that have DSL, they will be shut off without warning, and then you'll have to play phone tag with AT&T lame ass phone support. I had to go though this back in December. Terrible.
I had Time Warner Cable running side by side with UVerse for a week. If you didn't tell your installer that you'd only accept installation if they keep your old feed alive then it's your own damn fault. I highly doubt they would lose a customer to having to do an additional few cable drops.
The entire lawsuit is premised on U-Verse being used with other services. Waht you're saying about AT&T mandating the cutting off other services is simply untrue.
I don't know why you would want a DSL + U-Verse set up, as U-Verse internet is cheap and fast when compared with DSL.
I've got U-Verse too, and my installation was excellent (and simple). Though I'm sure that out of thousands of installs some idiot technician has screwed up, I do not understand why Comcast is connected to people who are subscribed. They have their box, they can cut off their cancelled customers.
I have had so many problems with Comcast screwing everything up. At least with U-verse I got a secured wireless internet connection that has never been offline (and hasn't even slowed down) since I set up service. Faster torrents I've ever run, btw. It's about $30 cheaper than comcast, and the TV and Internet are just better.
AT&T has a terrible customer service record, but I've haven't really had to deal with them.. .my bill has been exactly as expected, and I'm turning the screws on a Cable company monopoly that I'm sick and tired of. U-Verse wouldn't have a chance to exist if the cable companies were doing their best job.
Final point: the coax cable in my house that Comcast installed is an improvement to my home, and therefore is legally MY PROPERTY. It does not belong to Comcast in any way whatsoever. If Comcast is too stupid to disconnect my lines when U0Verse is running on them, or too stupid to filter (and deal with AT&T, who would probably benefit from some kind of filtering agreement) then that's Comcast's problem.
Comcast is just trying to sue away a competitor. Again. Screw them.
moonpie: Some people happen to live like sardines because it's the only way they can afford to. Have you ever been the person that has to split a phone bill with 4 other people? The reason people have multiple services is because of the headache involved in sharing. It is somewhat cheaper, but it also can be much more expensive for the 1 person that has the bill in their name.
BigD, I don't understand how what you're talking about relates to what I'm saying. I was saying that this lawsuit proves that U-verse installations do not absolutely require disconnecting other services, the other dude said that U-verse installers are refusing to permit more than U-verse, and that's not true.
Now, I think you're saying that if you have 4 roommates, it makes sense to have 4 internet accounts? Or 4 cable accounts? Surely you're kidding.
Seriously, of all the things you might have to share with your mates, internet has got to be the easiest. It's freaking rare to overdraw an "unlimited" internet connection... what kind of douche would force his mates to get their own? And TV is exactly the same. Get a calculator and divide by four, and that's it. I assume your roommates are already splitting rent, so what's the problem? If you can't work this out, you don't need to be living with those people, anyway.
I can understand difficulties splitting electricity or a land line phone, or grocery bills, but internet and tv? That's mad, my fiend.
“An engineer explained to us that hundreds of ear impressions were gathered in the name of research, and while each one obviously boasted its own unique shape and size, one single characteristic remained uniform across the board: the entrance into the ear canal is not a perfect circle, it's an oval.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
As a one week owner of U-Verse, I'd have to say it was the worst thing ever. Shoddy install is being nice. They also do not allow you to have any other service going into the same residence. So, if you have roommates that have DSL, they will be shut off without warning, and then you'll have to play phone tag with AT&T lame ass phone support. I had to go though this back in December. Terrible.
I had Time Warner Cable running side by side with UVerse for a week. If you didn't tell your installer that you'd only accept installation if they keep your old feed alive then it's your own damn fault. I highly doubt they would lose a customer to having to do an additional few cable drops.
ericdano,
The entire lawsuit is premised on U-Verse being used with other services. Waht you're saying about AT&T mandating the cutting off other services is simply untrue.
I don't know why you would want a DSL + U-Verse set up, as U-Verse internet is cheap and fast when compared with DSL.
I've got U-Verse too, and my installation was excellent (and simple). Though I'm sure that out of thousands of installs some idiot technician has screwed up, I do not understand why Comcast is connected to people who are subscribed. They have their box, they can cut off their cancelled customers.
I have had so many problems with Comcast screwing everything up. At least with U-verse I got a secured wireless internet connection that has never been offline (and hasn't even slowed down) since I set up service. Faster torrents I've ever run, btw. It's about $30 cheaper than comcast, and the TV and Internet are just better.
AT&T has a terrible customer service record, but I've haven't really had to deal with them.. .my bill has been exactly as expected, and I'm turning the screws on a Cable company monopoly that I'm sick and tired of. U-Verse wouldn't have a chance to exist if the cable companies were doing their best job.
Final point: the coax cable in my house that Comcast installed is an improvement to my home, and therefore is legally MY PROPERTY. It does not belong to Comcast in any way whatsoever. If Comcast is too stupid to disconnect my lines when U0Verse is running on them, or too stupid to filter (and deal with AT&T, who would probably benefit from some kind of filtering agreement) then that's Comcast's problem.
Comcast is just trying to sue away a competitor. Again. Screw them.
moonpie: Some people happen to live like sardines because it's the only way they can afford to. Have you ever been the person that has to split a phone bill with 4 other people? The reason people have multiple services is because of the headache involved in sharing. It is somewhat cheaper, but it also can be much more expensive for the 1 person that has the bill in their name.
BigD, I don't understand how what you're talking about relates to what I'm saying. I was saying that this lawsuit proves that U-verse installations do not absolutely require disconnecting other services, the other dude said that U-verse installers are refusing to permit more than U-verse, and that's not true.
Now, I think you're saying that if you have 4 roommates, it makes sense to have 4 internet accounts? Or 4 cable accounts? Surely you're kidding.
Seriously, of all the things you might have to share with your mates, internet has got to be the easiest. It's freaking rare to overdraw an "unlimited" internet connection... what kind of douche would force his mates to get their own? And TV is exactly the same. Get a calculator and divide by four, and that's it. I assume your roommates are already splitting rent, so what's the problem? If you can't work this out, you don't need to be living with those people, anyway.
I can understand difficulties splitting electricity or a land line phone, or grocery bills, but internet and tv? That's mad, my fiend.
@moonpie: "I don't know why you would want a DSL + U-Verse set up"
Maybe they want the DSL to run servers on. (You can do that with Speakeasy, for example.)