Talk:U-verse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ATT recently dropped the 3 free recievers, now you only get one DVR. Article needs updating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.252.133.140 (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The list at the end was inaccurate, but it is to be expected. Actually, the region of Illinois just east of St. Louis was the first part of Illinois to recieve U-Verse service. Granted it was onlya few weeks ahead of Chicago, but to be fair the region should have at least been listed.

This article or section is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. Mark blatant advertising which would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic for speedy deletion, using {{db-spam}}. (December 2007)

I think that the article is very good as presented. It's clear, and discusses the topic in enough breadth and depth so as to be useful to the uninitiated, and shouldn't be split up.--71.232.201.57 17:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree —-— .:Seth Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 12:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry- Some of this reads like Telco Propaganda to me

"U-verse is a good illustration of the increasingly competitive telecom marketplace".

This statements and others like it are unsupported, and typically seen in news releases from the companies such as the newly reconstituted Ma Bell seeking to evade regulation. U-Verse, like FIOS, Cable companies, and Satellite delivery systems seek to establish a walled garden where customers are locked in to specific set top box technology which block them from recieving content from competitors.

A case could be made that U-Verse is a very good example of how telecom companies are aggressively constraining the consumer's ability to exercise choice by using an expansion of the model of vertical integration that the Cell phone companies pioneered. Delivery hardware locks the consumer into the particular provider, and it's winner take all- enjoying not just revenues for video delivery, but also POTS and internet access.

The quoted statement above is controversial, and the opposing point of view regarding these consumer issues are not mentioned.

Besides a more neutral POV, this technology article requires more depth. For example- what are the STBs used with U-Verse? How do they differ in capabilities from other video distributors? What of Microsoft's involvement/ falling out with SBC? Who is doing the software now, and how is it addressing issues that Microsoft failed to address. Does HPNA only deliver 128Mbps, or something higher than what v3 typically allows? -Mak 07:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's an important function, none-the-less onerous, to have to catalog and decipher a monopoly's new invented propped-up terminology for yesterday's technology. It is equally frustrating to hear that while other area sgets FiOS and other countries now run 60+mbps we are getting marketed yet another repackaged 1-6Mbps: more of "the same old thing." Is it ever going to change? - RDK 5 Jan 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Katz (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this sounds too much like propoganda. It needs to be redone without all of the marketing jargon. - Charles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.30.123 (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Areas Deployed

I think WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory probably applies here, so the section should be removed. Also, since AT&T is most likely planning on making U-verse a nationwide service, this list will become very long very soon. b.y.w 05:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This list is valuable and the list will not be very long for a long time. Availability is limited even in cities that contain it. At this point the list is valuable for the history and progression of U-verse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.156.31 (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why that section might be helpful to the article, but I'm afraid I have to disagree. First, this list is already very long as it is. Second, including this list in the article means that it will need constant updating, which I assume would be done by comparing it to a list available on another website, thus making the article a directory. Third, a similar issue was discussed on the Verizon FIOS talk page. The editors decided to remove the list, and I think we should follow suit for the reasons listed there and also for the sake of consistency. Maybe we can reach some sort of compromise with the areas deployed - general areas instead of specific cities perhaps? b.y.w 00:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think general metropolitan areas would be a good compromise. The areas according to different channel guides are:

CA-Los Angeles CA-Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto CA-San Diego CA-San Francisco/Oakland CA-San Jose/Santa Clara CT-Hartford CT-New Haven CT-Stamford IN-Anderson IN-Bloomington IN-Indianapolis IN-Muncie KS-Kansas City MI-Detroit OH-Cleveland OK-Oklahoma City TX-Dallas/Fort Worth TX-Houston TX-San Antonio WI-Milwaukee WI-Racine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.94.24 (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two Categories?

Why is it listed under Fiber Optics AND IPTV?JIMfoamy1 (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Because U-verse is IPTV that travels over fiber optic lines. Uturnaroun (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)