1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Uverse Anyone?

Discussion in 'Bits & Bytes' started by ShinyTop, Aug 18, 2014.

  1. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I am currently on Cox cable. Getting issues with internet service. Several times a day when I switch sites I get message the site cannot be found. I usually just go into network management in Windows and then back to Chrome and it works. It feels like issues with the DNS servers provided by cox.

    So I am thinking of switching service. Been looking at Uverse. For the first year I would save over a hundred a month with a lot more channels available, but have been reading about decreased picture quality depending on number of TV's connected. In my house that would be no more than two.

    So has anybody experience with Uverse? Or how about satellite options? Been avoiding those because I want good internet service.
     
  2. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    I had u-verse a few years ago and I wasn't all that impressed. Have you tried changing the DNS settings on your machine to use Google rather than the Cox dns servers?
     
  3. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Thanks, Biker. That would be 8.8.8.8, right? I just got a new router and it is rejecting the username and password printed on the bottom so I may have to reset it. About to go to work so will try it tonight.
     
  4. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Yep.

    8.8.8.8
    8.8.4.4
     
  5. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    One of my brothers used to be a salesman for AT&T. He was the best salesman in the region.

    He was telling me about all of the people who came back and cancelled their Uverse after he sold it to them because A) it took forever to get the guy out to hook it up, B) the service sucked, C) they would be double and triple billed for the first couple of months.
     
  6. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    Also 4.2.2.1 through 4.2.2.6. DNS 8.8.8.8 is Google, maybe not the best choice of those paranoid of Google. I use 8.8.8.8 and a couple of the 4.2.2.* myself. I'd rather use them than my ISP who I distrust more.

    I have Uverse right now. It's okay. I'm on the first year contract. At the end of the year I plan to tell the customer retention department that I can't afford any rate increase and I'll have to drop them if they can't continue my deal into the second year. They beat my previous Time Warner by more channels and less price, with only the 1 year contract a negative. I had some installation problems which turned out to be mostly the design of their system and them not knowing it.

    I watch Fox News Network most of the day every day. I kept getting interrupted by a "press OK to continue" message. I kept complaining and they kept trying stuff to fix it. Finally one foreman chick did some research and found out it was an energy saving feature. If you don't touch anything for a few hours your box shuts down. You gotta press OK to wakey wakey. I work all day most every day and I usually have Fox News Network playing as my Muzak.

    In the mean time I talked them into a free month, a free tier, and a free box.

    At the end of the year if I can't talk Uverse into my sob story that I can't afford an increase and will have to go to the evil Time Warner, I'll just go to Time Warner a year on their introductory price, then switch back to Uverse.

    Maybe you want to go from the introductory sucker price to full price. I'd rather ping pong the sucker introductory price alternate years. I don't mind the inconvenience. I have my own email server (shared hosting).

    I didn't find much difference in Internet speed or up-time, about 14-16 Mbps down on either one. Neither had noticeable down time.


    I'm looking for a solution that would allow me to relay my main set box to a different room with no set box. I watch my bedroom TV maybe 1-2 hours a week. Not worth paying for a second set box. Too bad I don't have an easy shot running an HDMI cable... (nor Ethernet)
     
  7. eakes

    eakes Registered User

    U-verse internet is comparable to most other providers. I have never used their video, however, from the specs of how it works I would not expect to be able to run more than two HD video channels at one time.

    Greg: A couple of days ago while on the NewEgg site I noticed two solutions that offered HDMI via RF. I have two applications for such a solution and have ordered a 'box' to see how it works. You may want to check out Newegg. The box I ordered is from Actiontec.
     
  8. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    Thanks Eakes! I'll check it out...

    Found it on Amazon Prime for 129.99. Amazon has a liberal return policy ("I couldn't make it work" is a sufficient reason to get a free return and a full refund) so I ordered one also. Actiontec MWTV200KIT. Should be here Thursday.

    Mostly I just watch Fox News Network so if it doesn't have the ability to change channels it won't be any big deal. Also I have some old BSR Powermid IR relay devices (both transmitters and receivers) that worked well in my old house last time I used them. Worst case I can hook them up and carry my remote upstairs when I go to my bedroom.

    My current Uverse contract features a free second set box, but if this works I may just turn it in anyway. I think I already admitted I have no loyalty to TV/Internet providers and I'm perfectly happy to switch once a year to get the sucker deal first year discount alternately from Time Warner and Uverse. Some people think it's too much trouble to switch each year. I'm not one of them.

    At the end of the year when I swap to Time Warner I'll tell them I have just one TV. This box will pay for itself in about a year.

    Note also, you can add additional receivers.
     
  9. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    Eakes:

    I got the same from Amazon. Just connected it today and it seems to work.

    Connect HDMI transmitter between TV1 and set box. Connect HDMI receiver to TV2 input. TV2 shows same image as TV1. So far I haven't made any critical judgements but picture looks okay.

    One feature it had that I didn't realize was included was an IR relay feature. Connect provided IR detector module (1/4" x 1/4" x 1/2" on cable) to HDMI receiver, point module towards viewing area. Connect provided IR emitter module (same size) to HDMI transmitter, point module towards set box. Signal seems a fractional second delayed but allows control of set box from second room.

    Economically this looks like an amortization problem to me. Spend $142 (with tax) on transmitter/receiver pair, or spend maybe $10/month for additional set box. Break even is if transmitter/receiver pair operates for > 14 months.

    Drawback for some: can watch only one channel on both TV sets. Ideal for single person like me who moves from FR to BR and watches only one program. May suffice for couple who share identical viewing habits. Absolutely will not work for families who want to watch multiple channels.

    This may be a great solution for me, breaking even costwise after about a year. Even if I hook up I really don't care about TV so much and wouldn't mind just letting her watch her channel while I read.

    One additional problem that begs a soluton. You either carry your set box remote from room to room, or you "lose" your remote and pay your TV provider to replace your lost set box remote.

    So far this looks like a keeper.
     

Share This Page