Bicker, thanks for all of the details regarding AT&T vs Comcast service. I do have one question. Is it really true that you can only have two high def channels if you have 4 tuners?
It depends. In some areas, they've been trialing expanded that to 3 HD streams. In other areas, system enhancements (in this case, VDSL2) have, believe it or not, resulted in some subscribers now only being able to maintain 1 HD stream, even where they were previously able to maintain 2 HD streams. (Going back further... it was back in mid-2008 that U-Verse first promised that all areas would have dual HD streams capability by the end of that year, but clearly they weren't able to manage to achieve that long-term.)
The point, though, is that there
are such limits. AT&T is working to expand such limits but the architecture isn't such that there are no such limits.
I need to learn alot about AT&Ts service but that seems extremely limiting.
Could you imagine an "enhancement" resulting in you going from 2 HD streams down to only 1 HD stream? U-Verse is not bad, but it isn't going to be paradise.
One other question I have that I feel like I should know - Since my Comcast boxes have a DVR in them, can I purchase a movie On Demand and then record it for viewing when I want?
No. Pay-Per-View is generally copy protected and therefore cannot be recorded. That's generally an order from the production company, since they're also trying to sell DVDs and BDs at the same time the cable company is trying to get people to do PPV.
As to all of the other points, I still disagree with you. I would be willing to pay more for a service like AT&Ts UVerse if it is more reliable.
As you can see, above, it isn't "more reliable" in every way. It, rather, has its own limitations. So effectively you're looking, perhaps, to jump from the frying pan into the fire.
Beyond that, I'm talking about the market and you're talking about yourself. A single consumer doesn't drive the way mass-market product and service providers do business. It just doesn't work that way. So I don't think you're disagreeing with me; rather you're simply wishing the world worked differently, more accommodating to your own preferences.
I also don't think Comcast makes it widely known that they have built their network to only support less than half of their customers (this info was from the first one of their customer reps that I talked to).
That's a mischaracterization of the truth. They have built their network to support
all of their customers, for the vast majority of the time. It is only in extreme conditions that their capacity doesn't reach to all. And note that U-Verse is the same, but with regard to linear channels instead of On Demand. Most folks would say that U-Verse's limitation is
worse, because On Demand you know immediately that you have a problem and can try to do something else. Imagine, instead, that you set your DVR to record the series finale of Lost, and you get home that evening and check your DVR only to find that it didn't record because U-Verse didn't have a channel to allocate for you.
Service providers are
supposed to present their services in the
best possible light. That means that they don't put the limitations of their services in the bold print. They put that kind of information in the small print, maybe referred to their website for more details.
All mass-market service providers do this. Caveat emptor!
You value DVR more than On Demand and that is OK but that is just your opinion.
It wasn't intended that way. What I was saying was that, based on what
you yourself expressed in terms of what
you value, that
you value DVR more than On Demand. Perhaps not enough to justify the added price, but surely you clearly expressed a desire to be free from the denial of service you received on ordering On Demand.
Another thing, though, is that you didn't make it clear, earlier, that you were talking about PPV. Generally, folks don't refer to PPV as On Demand... The term On Demand itself generally is used exclusively for the "free" options, and when referring to the items for purchase folks generally do say PPV. As I indicated above, the DVR will
not replace PPV, in any way shape or form. So we were talking about cross-purposes in that regard.
That is my opinion and I think it is very reasonable to be disappointed that it is not available when you would like to use it most.
Disappointed, sure. I think the issue here, though, was your comments effectively blaming Comcast for your disappointment rather accepting that the disappointment wasn't due to anything anyone did wrong. Comcast provided the information about the limitations of the service in the same way every other service provider provides such information to customers, and that is a manner that is consistent with our society's reasonable expectations. Sometimes stuff goes wrong and there doesn't have to be someone to blame in each case. Sometimes its just an unfortunate circumstance.
And I very much wish that I had read a post like this one before this past weekend so I would know not to plan on my cable service working as desired.
I'm the television guy... ask me anything! If I don't know the answer (I'll make it up -- no -- seriously...) I'll call on my friends and acquaintances to get the answer for you.
I will investigate AT&Ts UVerse with a good set of questions to ask.
Just be clear that they're going to do the same thing: Paint the very rosiest picture of their service and minimize the chances of anything going wrong. Yet, if you read (and can decrypt the technobabble in) the fine print, there will be things for you to be aware of, things that can go wrong.
I'm not saying U-Verse isn't a good idea. I myself switched from Comcast TV to FiOS TV. However, what I found is that, on average, it isn't a big difference. FiOS TV isn't really any better than Comcast, here, and surely not given the extra money it cost me (my TV bill went from about $35 per month to $60 per month). In the long-run, you're going to get what you pay for no matter what, no more and no less, regardless of which supplier you choose.
