Why is U-verse Internet so non-competitive?
I've been looking at U-verse for several years, hoping that AT&T would finally start to compete with TimeWarner (now slowly becoming Charter Spectrum) in Southwest Ohio.
My opinion: AT&T still isn't competitive when comparing speeds, especially upload speeds, and prices that are posted by both AT&T (http://www.att.net/speedtiers) and TW (https://www.timewarnercable.com/en/plans-packages/internet/internet-service-plans.html)
- AT&T's Max Plus is "12.1 Mbps - 18 Mbps" download and "768 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps" upload for about $47/month with a minimum 12 month term or a $180 Early Termination Fee (ETF). It's unclear whether AT&T charges for the "Wi-Fi Gateway," buy I assumed $7/month. From everything I've read about U-verse, there is no way to avoid the monthly fee for the "gateway."
- TimeWarner's Turbo is "Up to 20Mbps" download and "Up to 2Mbps" upload for about $45/month with no contract or ETF, but I can buy my own cable modem to avoid their $10/month cable modem fee.
While these two tiers of service are similar in price, there are important differences:
- If I change my mind within 12 months for TimeWarner, there's no $180 ETF
- If I want even faster speeds, especially upload speeds, I can buy "Up to 50Mbps" download and "Up to 5Mbps" upload from TimeWarner -- but AT&T offers no other tiers
- Multiple friends have told me that their bandwidth for Max Plus has declined over time and all are now getting download speeds closer to the U-verse Max tier.
I started doing these speed, cost, and options comparisons several years ago and continue to be puzzled that AT&T isn't being more competitive. Ironically, in many instances AT&T's Wireless LTE speeds far exceed any available U-verse bandwidth.
It's really puzzling that AT&T isn't as competitive with U-verse as Wireless.