Mentor
•
23 Messages
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)
Comparison:
- 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.
Another reference:
brightshade
Mentor
•
23 Messages
8 years ago
Thanks for the technical reply . . . and I think you essentially confirmed my question.
For all practical purposes, as of August 2016 in Southwest Ohio, AT&T U-verse Internet can not provide faster bandwidth than TimeWarner's "Standard" Internet plan -- regardless of the cost.
On the low end of bandwidth due to rebates, AT&T U-verse is competitive on cost, albeit with the penalty of an ETF if the customer becomes unhappy with declining bandwidth.
From a personal standpoint, a neighbor whose house is 500 feet away had U-verse in 2008, but service wasn't available to mine until 7 years later. I'm a bit skeptical about dates based on that long, long, long wait; so, future promises about 2020 and GigaPower, especially with AT&T's approach of snooping and monetizing customer browsing, is equally non-competitive.
0
0
JefferMC
ACE - Expert
•
35K Messages
8 years ago
I believe that you can avoid the ETF by not taking the discounts, which I think amounts to $5 or $10 per month.
0
0
brightshade
Mentor
•
23 Messages
8 years ago
Here is the official verbiage, copied directly from the promo details, with the ETF sentence highlighted:
"For speeds up to 6Mbps Price includes 1TB of data per month when bundled with another qualifying AT&T service (TV/Wireless). Must maintain a qualifying bundle to receive advertised pricing. Prorated ETF ($180) applies if Internet is disconnected before end of 12 months. Up to $99 installation and $10/mo Internet equipment fee applies. Credit restrictions apply. Offer ends October 22, 2016."
"For speeds 12Mbps – 75Mbps Price includes monthly Internet equipment fee, and 1TB of data per month when bundled with another qualifying AT&T service (TV/U-verse Voice/Wireless). Must maintain a qualifying bundle to receive advertised pricing. Prorated ETF ($180) applies if Internet is disconnected before end of 12 months. Up to a $99 installation fee may apply. Credit restrictions apply. Offer ends October 22, 2016."
0
0