# Spinoff of DIRECTV from AT&T is now completed



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

AT&T Completes DirecTV Spinoff; Satellite Operator Rebrands Internet-Delivered Bundle As DirecTV Stream - Deadline


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Press Release:

DIRECTV becomes a standalone video business following an agreement between AT&T and TPG Capital

Los Angeles, Aug. 2, 2021 - DIRECTV announced today that AT&T and TPG have closed on the previously announced agreement to establish DIRECTV as a separate video company. Under this new company, DIRECTV owns and operates the former AT&T U.S. and Puerto Rico video business unit consisting of satellite, streaming and IP video services. The new structure allows for greater focus, flexibility and resources to best position the business to succeed in the long term as well as deliver on a commitment to current and future customers, employees and shareholders.

"This is a watershed moment for DIRECTV as we return to a singular focus on providing a stellar video experience," said Bill Morrow, CEO, DIRECTV. "Building on our recent momentum, we are well-positioned to bring unparalleled choice and value to all of our customers under one iconic brand, whether they beam it or stream it."

For those who beam it over satellite, DIRECTV service offers the most live sports in 4K HDR,¹ including the most NBA games in 4K, and the industry's best picture format. DIRECTV is the undisputed leader in sports programming, including NFL Sunday Ticket, which remains the only way to watch every out-of-market game LIVE every Sunday afternoon no matter where in the United States. DIRECTV also empowers customers to watch movies and shows from virtually anywhere - on TVs at home, along with their favorite mobile devices using the DIRECTV app.

For those who stream it, the newly branded DIRECTV STREAM will become the single brand for video streaming services previously launched by AT&T, excluding HBO Max. The transition will happen later this month, and service will continue to be available with no term commitment or hidden fees. To enjoy the best of live TV and on-demand, customers can either bring their own streaming device, or use DIRECTV's exclusive streaming device.² Those with DIRECTV's streaming device can build a complete, integrated and customized entertainment experience with the ability to watch and pause live TV on up to 20 devices in their home. It also allows consumers to get all their favorite entertainment in one place with easy access to apps like HBO Max, Netflix, Prime Video and more.

Over the next several months, DIRECTV will prominently feature its bold new look across its video services, and new and existing customers will experience several touchpoints with it.

It's important to note that as a part of the deal, AT&T satellite, streaming or IP video customers will automatically keep their video service, any bundled wireless, internet or HBO Max services, and associated discounts with no action needed.

For more information on the terms of the deal, please see the AT&T press release.


----------



## BigJ52 (Jul 29, 2007)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1422293785292115980


----------



## mitchflorida (May 18, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> AT&T Completes DirecTV Spinoff; Satellite Operator Rebrands Internet-Delivered Bundle As DirecTV Stream - Deadline
> 
> View attachment 31600


What a lousy logo.


----------



## bnwrx (Dec 29, 2007)

Since its spinning off to a separate company again...will the accounts go back to Directv website or stay with ATT website? Hoping they go back to old Directv...much better website to navigate thru. Directv CSR's possibly?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

bnwrx said:


> Since its spinning off to a separate company again...will the accounts go back to Directv website or stay with ATT website? Hoping they go back to old Directv...much better website to navigate thru. Directv CSR's possibly?


Only thing I've seen relevant to that is the following Q&A posted on their site today:

_What about account information, online access and billing?
Customer account information, online access and billing arrangements will all remain the same._​


----------



## bnwrx (Dec 29, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Only thing I've seen relevant to that is the following Q&A posted on their site today:
> 
> _What about account information, online access and billing?
> Customer account information, online access and billing arrangements will all remain the same._​


:weary::weary::weary:


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

bnwrx said:


> :weary::weary::weary:


Well, maybe that's just for now. Perhaps they will eventually migrate customers with standalone DTV service (not bundled with AT&T cellular or home internet) over to their own billing system. I know a lot of the frustration with DTV customers over the past few years was caused by getting shifted over to AT&T's general support and billing systems which are often a mess. If they're going to make this spin-off mean something, I think DTV is going to have to rebuild their customer support systems in-house, apart from AT&T.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bnwrx said:


> Hoping they go back to old Directv...much better website to navigate thru.


That would be a herculean effort indeed to translate the 2015 website to 2021.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> That would be a herculean effort indeed to translate the 2015 website to 2021.


If I were heading marketing at DTV, I would want a full website redesign. The current one is built on the same template/design layout as AT&T's site. I imagine swapping in the new DTV logo on the website today was just the first step (and something they had to do because the old logo had the AT&T globe in it). We'll probably see a revamped website later this month. Looks like the URL www.directv.com/stream will be the product page for DIRECTV Stream when AT&T TV is rebranded to that later this month. For now, it just features a press release and Q&As about today's spinoff.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> If they're going to make this spin-off mean something, I think DTV is going to have to rebuild their customer support systems in-house, apart from AT&T.


Unless there's a huge wad of money to be saved, there must other projects with significantly better ROI to invest their resources.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

mitchflorida said:


> What a lousy logo.


Wondering, will the sat version will look something like this?









(This was captured back in April during an update to an HR20. It only showed up on the very first restart after the update, then "reverted" to the ATT "globe" version.)


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> Unless there's a huge wad of money to be saved, there must other projects with significantly better ROI to invest their resources.


Like what? I don't think there's much to be done in terms of improving the actual service itself (unless they decide to bring out a new generation of DTV receivers, which I don't expect, at least any time soon). There are no more satellites to be launched. The main areas where DTV has really taken a hit in terms of customer satisfaction in the past few years seems to be customer support and billing, thanks to AT&T.


----------



## cmoss5 (May 26, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> If I were heading marketing at DTV, I would want a full website redesign. The current one is built on the same template/design layout as AT&T's site. I imagine swapping in the new DTV logo on the website today was just the first step (and something they had to do because the old logo had the AT&T globe in it). We'll probably see a revamped website later this month. Looks like the URL www.directv.com/stream will be the product page for DIRECTV Stream when AT&T TV is rebranded to that later this month. For now, it just features a press release and Q&As about today's spinoff.


Looks like the streaming service will be pushed like the old DIRECTV dish network. Talked to customer service at the internet streaming service and more and more people with high speed internet are going that way so they will not be under contract and no dish on their roof top as many high end subdivisions are requesting that now.
Also, the Genie 1 with HD DVR is standard installation with clients.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Like what?



Customer Service scripts and CSR training (customer satisfaction)

Enhancing the DIRECTV Stream cloud DVR experience (customer satisfaction, transition motivation)

Moving more of the popular channels to Ku (customer satisfaction)

Perfecting blackouts (customer satisfaction)

Figure out how to transition DIRECTV and Uverse subscribers to DIRECTV Stream without losing them (long-term viability)

Servicing the debt they were endowed with as a parting gift (shareholder satisfaction)
I suggest that they start on stuff that impacts subscribers and/or corporate operations more than once in awhile.

I suspect DIRECTV is contracting for a lot of stuff that the old DIRECTV used to do in-house and maintaining those synergies is still beneficial so it isn't reasonable to assume that they have in-house billing, web design and other fundamental corporate services.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

cmoss5 said:


> Looks like the streaming service will be pushed like the old DIRECTV dish network. Talked to customer service at the internet streaming service and more and more people with high speed internet are going that way so they will not be under contract and no dish on their roof top as many high end subdivisions are requesting that now.
> Also, the Genie 1 with HD DVR is standard installation with clients.


Yes, I also believe that DIRECTV Stream will be marketed as their growth product. If you have broadband, there aren't too many reasons to opt for the traditional satellite product over it given that AT&T TV (soon to be renamed DIRECTV Stream) has lower everyday pricing, no contract, the option to use your own devices and/or buy (not rent) a custom DTV box with access to apps (Netflix, YouTube, Disney+, HBO Max, etc.) on the same device, unlimited simultaneous recordings, full access to the service on your internet-connected devices anywhere you travel in the country, etc.

But there are some deficiencies that AT&T TV still has vs. DTV satellite. It lacks 4K, it's missing a few channels (PBS, CW in some areas, ION, INSP, NFL Network) and your cloud DVR recordings expire after only 90 days. And NFL Sunday Ticket is not an option on AT&T TV. Perhaps a few of those deficiencies will be remedied when it's relaunched this month as DTV Stream. We'll see...


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> Customer Service scripts and CSR training (customer satisfaction)
> 
> Enhancing the DIRECTV Stream cloud DVR experience (customer satisfaction, transition motivation)
> 
> ...


I don't really see any of those things as impacting/competing with a decision as to whether they might bring customer service and billing in-house, as I was suggesting. (And your first bullet point seems to indicate that you support them bringing customer service in-house.) Beyond your first bullet point, I doubt any of them would do as much to improve DTV satellite customers' satisfaction and retention as would improving the customer service and billing experience.

At any rate, I was really only talking about the satellite service. Yes, there are multiple things that need to be done to improve the streaming service, although most of them are pretty simple, e.g. extend the cloud DVR retention period from 90 to 365 days, work with those few missing channels to get them included, add 4K, etc. Billing on AT&T TV is pretty straightforward (I think it's all online, auto-billed to credit cards). That service has much bigger fish to fry to make it as competitive as it has the potential to be.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Press release added above. Note: "DIRECTV announced today that AT&T and TPG have closed on the previously announced agreement to establish DIRECTV as a separate video company. *Under this new company, DIRECTV owns and operates the former AT&T U.S. and Puerto Rico video business unit consisting of satellite, streaming and IP video services.* The new structure allows for greater focus, flexibility and resources to best position the business to succeed in the long term as well as deliver on a commitment to current and future customers, employees and shareholders."

Today is day zero. Please don't get too upset if changes are not complete by yesterday.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

hopefully customer service improves as it's the pitts now..


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> Customer Service scripts and CSR training (customer satisfaction)
> Enhancing the DIRECTV Stream cloud DVR experience (customer satisfaction, transition motivation)
> Moving more of the popular channels to Ku (customer satisfaction)
> Perfecting blackouts (customer satisfaction)
> ...


Seems like your wish list fits in nicely with:


NashGuy said:


> If they're going to make this spin-off mean something, I think DTV is going to have to rebuild their customer support systems in-house, apart from AT&T.


The "apart from AT&T" being the key, especially for people who hate AT&T and everything they have done with customer service over the past 100 plus years.

While some of those goals will not be directly affected by bringing customer service "in house" having people call DIRECTV to complain (instead of an old call center still serving other AT&T services) and a focus on satisfying those customers will help. Building up brand loyalty so if the time comes to leave satellite "stream" is a preferred alternative instead of just another service to choose from.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

i am also wondering if they can make this work if they would launch another bird into space. there's still lots of rural folks without high speed internets.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

bnwrx said:


> Since its spinning off to a separate company again...will the accounts go back to Directv website or stay with ATT website? Hoping they go back to old Directv...much better website to navigate thru. Directv CSR's possibly?


i was wondering that as well. as at times the ATT site would just sit there with a blue circle spinning. wich made it a PIA to view your acct or pay your bill at times. as far as the csr's go i knew more about my DTV system than they did!!! so hopefully dtv customers will see better customer service as well as what they have now is the pitts. and yet they wonder why people are leaving dtv... its not rocket science!!!


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

I'll wait and see just how this plays out--just as I waited to see how AT&T played out with 2% ownership of Hughes :blush:


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

WestDC said:


> I'll wait and see just how this plays out--just as I waited to see how AT&T played out with 2% ownership of Hughes :blush:


we all know that att turns gold into lead . i did get a flyer via snail mail saying the 3 great reasons to come back to DTV. i thought to myself i could give 30 good reasons to sink dtv. i am hoping things do improve since it's on it's own now!!!


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

newer boxes would also be nice. being able to hook up a standard HD box for camping with a genie 2 system would be great also.. not needing 4K service to be authorized if one has a 4K mini would be awsome as well!!!


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

WestDC said:


> I'll wait and see just how this plays out--just as I waited to see how AT&T played out with 2% ownership of Hughes :blush:


Same here but with AT&T goon Bill Morrow at the helm we'll most likely experience how well they can screw up the Lord's Prayer during a Sunday Sermon!


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

MysteryMan said:


> Same here but with AT&T goon Bill Morrow at the helm we'll most likely experience how well they can screw up the Lord's Prayer during a Sunday Sermon!


so it more than likely won't get any better then??


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

krel said:


> i am also wondering if they can make this work if they would launch another bird into space. there's still lots of rural folks without high speed internets.


Here's an interesting quote from an article today at Cnet about the spinoff:

_Even as the company continues to build out its streaming side, Morrow isn't giving up on the satellite business and said that people have been "overstating" the death of the industry.

"I don't see this thing going away in the next 10 years," he said, conceding that "maybe in two decades... I'd call it in the second decade from now, I think there'll be a few questions" about its survival. 
_​There are others here more familiar with the existing DTV satellite fleet than I am, although I wonder how long it will be operable. Some of those birds will die in the 2020s, although I expect the number of cable TV channels to also contract somewhat in the years to come. I tend to think a decade from now, 2031, might be stretching it. At any rate, I definitely don't see DTV or Dish surviving to the mid-2030s, as he's suggesting might happen. Dwindling consumer demand will make any future satellite launches unprofitable.

Another interesting quote from the same Cnet article:

_Morrow also hasn't ruled out a possible tie-up with rival satellite TV provider Dish, though he said that "at this point" his company is "not in any sort of discussions about emerging or consolidating anything," adding that "it's not unreasonable to think about how that might look in the future."_​


----------



## mrknowitall526 (Nov 19, 2014)

Does this mean AT&T is keeping U-Verse TV for it's customers, or this new company owns them, too? (I don't U-Verse, just genuinely curious )

I hope maybe this might mean some things "move" namely getting some of the remaining SD channels into HD. It still baffles my mind that people are focused on 4K when there are still some channels in SD!

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

As for NFL Sunday Ticket potentially remaining on DTV (and/or DTV Stream) after the current contract ends at the end of 2022, the new CEO said the following in an LA Times article today. Note that last paragraph in particular:

_"The NFL Sunday Ticket was a great idea when it first started," Morrow said. "But then the NFL began spreading games across various days of the week and giving the rights to other distributors."

In recent years, DirecTV has been losing tens of millions of dollars a year on its partnership with the NFL, and it can no longer stomach the losses. In addition, the NFL has grown more interested in experimenting with streaming partners and granted a partnership with Amazon.

Morrow said DirecTV was "not interested in any way, shape or form" in extending the current arrangement with the NFL beyond the 2022 season.
_​I suppose that doesn't *necessarily* exclude the possibility of DTV being the exclusive provider of NFL ST to commercial accounts post-2022, since that wouldn't be an extension of the "current arrangement" which obviously covers residential subscribers too. If that doesn't happen, gonna be a lot of sports bars switching TV providers come 2023.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mrknowitall526 said:


> Does this mean AT&T is keeping U-Verse TV for it's customers, or this new company owns them, too? (I don't U-Verse, just genuinely curious )
> 
> I hope maybe this might mean some things "move" namely getting some of the remaining SD channels into HD. It still baffles my mind that people are focused on 4K when there are still some channels in SD!


Yup, Uverse TV is now owned and managed by this new DirecTV company, although they have some kind of operating agreement in place with AT&T since the service physically rides over AT&T's DSL and fiber networks.

Uverse TV hasn't been available to new subscribers for over a year now, so I can't see why they'd do anything to improve or change it. Instead, they'll likely incentivize those customers to migrate over to DTV Stream and then, when the remaining numbers on Uverse TV are low enough, they'll shut the whole platform down.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

mrknowitall526 said:


> Does this mean AT&T is keeping U-Verse TV for it's customers, or this new company owns them, too? (I don't U-Verse, just genuinely curious )
> 
> I hope maybe this might mean some things "move" namely getting some of the remaining SD channels into HD. It still baffles my mind that people are focused on 4K when there are still some channels in SD!
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk


I heard uvers is part of the deal... I heard att stopped selling uvers a while back and was converting everyone over to dtv


----------



## mrknowitall526 (Nov 19, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> Yup, Uverse TV is now owned and managed by this new DirecTV company, although they have some kind of operating agreement in place with AT&T since the service physically rides over AT&T's DSL and fiber networks.
> 
> Uverse TV hasn't been available to new subscribers for over a year now, so I can't see why they'd do anything to improve or change it. Instead, they'll likely incentivize those customers to migrate over to DTV Stream and then, when the remaining numbers on Uverse TV are low enough, they'll shut the whole platform down.


Interesting. I meant the changing to DTV, not Uverse

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> As for NFL Sunday Ticket potentially remaining on DTV (and/or DTV Stream) after the current contract ends at the end of 2022, the new CEO said the following in an LA Times article today. Note that last paragraph in particular:
> 
> _"The NFL Sunday Ticket was a great idea when it first started," Morrow said. "But then the NFL began spreading games across various days of the week and giving the rights to other distributors."
> 
> ...


sports bars only other real choice is dish and they don't have meny RSN's unless sinclair broadcasting forces them by removing all locals.


----------



## Richard (Apr 24, 2002)

I don't see this meaning much. Really just a legal agreement to free AT&T from the debt burden and pass it off on this "new" company named DIRECTV. Companies do this all the time. DIRECTV is not free from AT&T, as AT&T did not outright sell the business, just entered into a partnership to run it as a "separate" business (though it really isn't).

I doubt any of the backend systems are going to change either, as evidenced by the little blurb about customers who bundle, can continue to do so.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JoeTheDragon said:


> sports bars only other real choice is dish and they don't have meny RSN's unless sinclair broadcasting forces them by removing all locals.


Yeah there really isn't any alternative to satellite. "Cable" isn't because there are so many different cable companies depending on where you are - an exclusive arrangement with any cable company would cut off over half the population so that's a non starter. If Directv doesn't believe an exclusive makes sense it sure as heck won't work for a smaller Dish. It is clear if Directv won't get a full exclusive like they have now, no one else will.

Streaming might be OK as an exclusive for residential (ignoring who have crappy broadband options or are not technically inclined enough - i.e. probably half the population over 65) but is not reasonable for commercial due to the number of TVs many places have.

If there's an exclusive for commercial it can't be cable, and it can't be streaming, and it can't be Dish. Directv is the only possibility. If it is offered non exclusive for commercial then Directv will be one of the companies that offers it, along with some cable companies and maybe streaming (though currently no one is offering commercially licensed live streaming of high value sports content in the US, so that may not be feasible to have ready for the 2023 season)


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Still waiting to hear they will allow old customers to reactivate their equipment and receive access cards for them.
I have no interest in a contract. FWIW when I disconnected DirecTV back when ATT took them over, I never received a single "we want you back" offer. Thought that was rather telling.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

Davenlr said:


> Still waiting to hear they will allow old customers to reactivate their equipment and receive access cards for them.
> I have no interest in a contract. FWIW when I disconnected DirecTV back when ATT took them over, I never received a single "we want you back" offer. Thought that was rather telling.


It would be nice to contact the new staff higher ups and tell them what we want!!! Companies that require contracts is one way for them to provide piss poor customer service and att is proof of that!!!


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

mitchflorida said:


> What a lousy logo.


Agree they should have brought back the cyclone logo. Though anythings better than looking at that moronic globe


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

MysteryMan said:


> Same here but with AT&T goon Bill Morrow at the helm we'll most likely experience how well they can screw up the Lord's Prayer during a Sunday Sermon!


I hear good Ole Bill is frugal also. It will be interesting to see if he's like Charlie the second with negotiating contracts


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

mrknowitall526 said:


> I hope maybe this might mean some things "move" namely getting some of the remaining SD channels into HD. It still baffles my mind that people are focused on 4K when there are still some channels in SD!


You're assuming all content is available in HD. It's not. Also, DIRECTV has to have a contract agreement with a content provider to broadcast that content in HD.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

mrknowitall526 said:


> Does this mean AT&T is keeping U-Verse TV for it's customers, or this new company owns them, too? (I don't U-Verse, just genuinely curious )
> 
> I hope maybe this might mean some things "move" namely getting some of the remaining SD channels into HD. It still baffles my mind that people are focused on 4K when there are still some channels in SD!
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk


Not all content is in HD like 70s and 80s shows ect ect. And as MysteryMan said they need a contract to carry an HD feed. Fox soccer on dtv is 15.00 a month or was for an Sd feed on spectrum it's 10.00 and it's in hd..


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Yeah there really isn't any alternative to satellite. "Cable" isn't because there are so many different cable companies depending on where you are - an exclusive arrangement with any cable company would cut off over half the population so that's a non starter. If Directv doesn't believe an exclusive makes sense it sure as heck won't work for a smaller Dish. It is clear if Directv won't get a full exclusive like they have now, no one else will.
> 
> Streaming might be OK as an exclusive for residential (ignoring who have crappy broadband options or are not technically inclined enough - i.e. probably half the population over 65) but is not reasonable for commercial due to the number of TVs many places have.
> 
> If there's an exclusive for commercial it can't be cable, and it can't be streaming, and it can't be Dish. Directv is the only possibility. If it is offered non exclusive for commercial then Directv will be one of the companies that offers it, along with some cable companies and maybe streaming (though currently no one is offering commercially licensed live streaming of high value sports content in the US, so that may not be feasible to have ready for the 2023 season)


My guess the days of exclusive ST is over after the current deal expires. First of all, with ALL "traditional" TV losing subs by the boatload, it doesn't make sense for any one of them to get that exclusivity. DirecTV is losing money on the deal and I don't see that it makes sense anymore for them. Plus, I can see that the NFL could make MORE money selling the package to multiple outlets (including DirecTV) than to one exclusively. My guess is that not only will DirecTV get a piece, but Comcast, Spectrum, Altice and others will too. And so will YTTV, DirecTV Stream and Hulu. I also think that it might become a stand alone streaming package as well, sold through Apple, Amazon, and heck, maybe even Netflix. It makes sense for the NFL to offer it up to anyone. I have no idea what the actual number is, but imagine that the last was $10B. If they "sell" to five companies at $3B each, that's $15B. I see that's where this is going.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

krel said:


> Agree they should have brought back the cyclone logo. Though anythings better than looking at that moronic globe


Maybe there are reasons they cannot. I'm fine with the new logo. At the end of the day, it matters little. Lets see what they have to offer going forward. I'm a former DirecTV user, who's on AT&T TV now. So either way, I'm with the new company. What I'd ideally like to see is that AT&T TV brings over what's missing from DirecTV and that DirecTV improves their service bringing in a better system (a functional cloud DVR would be a nice add to be honest).


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Steveknj said:


> Lets see what they have to offer going forward.


The best thing they can offer going forward is to bring back customer service to the level it was before AT&T took over.


----------



## mrknowitall526 (Nov 19, 2014)

MysteryMan said:


> You're assuming all content is available in HD. It's not. Also, DIRECTV has to have a contract agreement with a content provider to broadcast that content in HD.


I know both of those things, but I know there are some channels that are in HD that DTV doesn't have, that I have seen on cable. UPTV is one I can think of off the top of my head

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk


----------



## JerryMeeker (Sep 20, 2007)

I still access my DTV account through an AT&T web URL. I wonder when the web site will be moved?


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

JerryMeeker said:


> I still access my DTV account through an AT&T web URL. I wonder when the web site will be moved?





NashGuy said:


> Only thing I've seen relevant to that is the following Q&A posted on their site today:
> 
> _What about account information, online access and billing?
> Customer account information, online access and billing arrangements will all remain the same._​


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

JerryMeeker said:


> I still access my DTV account through an AT&T web URL. I wonder when the web site will be moved?


Looks like it won't-----for Accounts that have been moved --perhaps

Notably, any pay-TV customers that are now part of the new DirecTV will continue to get any bundled wireless, Internet or HBO Max services as well as associated discounts. Those customers will need to take no action, DirecTV said.


----------



## dod1450 (Dec 16, 2009)

For those who own ATT stock. You might want to have a conversation with your stock broker? After talking to mine, who I had for 25 plus years, he had suggested that I sell my shares. He will not continue to follow ATT. Also, ATT had put in notices that they will be reducing dividends, a high percentage for 2022.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mrknowitall526 said:


> I know both of those things, but I know there are some channels that are in HD that DTV doesn't have, that I have seen on cable. UPTV is one I can think of off the top of my head


AT&T TV carries UPtv in HD. It doesn't do separate HD and SD versions; if they carry a channel in HD, that's the only version you get. Which makes sense because who wants unnecessary SD versions clogging up your channel guide?

AT&T TV Channel Lineup | National, Local & RSN Networks


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> It makes sense for the NFL to offer it up to anyone. I have no idea what the actual number is, but imagine that the last was $10B. If they "sell" to five companies at $3B each, that's $15B. I see that's where this is going.


No, it really does not make sense at all.

DirecTV currently pay $1.5B/year for the EXCLUSIVE rights to ST. The idea is that in order to access ST, a customer will keep it simple and get 100% of his video needs from DTV. 1000 times better if that customer is a sports bar. DTV loses money, on a cash basis, on the deal, but the theory is that it drives customers to the general service, which is still highly profitable.

No provider is going to pay double of what DirecTV currently pays to just be one of multiple outlets for ST. In fact, we know how much they would pay. Zero. In a non-exclusive system, the provider and the NFL are just partners. ST costs $X to the customer, the NFL gets X% of the take.

Which is far LESS than it gets now. The NFL last took less than previous exactly never. Which is why ST will remain an exclusive deal, almost certainly on DirecTV, for many decades to come.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

SamC said:


> No, it really does not make sense at all.
> 
> DirecTV currently pay $1.5B/year for the EXCLUSIVE rights to ST. The idea is that in order to access ST, a customer will keep it simple and get 100% of his video needs from DTV. 1000 times better if that customer is a sports bar. DTV loses money, on a cash basis, on the deal, but the theory is that it drives customers to the general service, which is still highly profitable.
> 
> ...


I guess you missed the post below.



NashGuy said:


> As for NFL Sunday Ticket potentially remaining on DTV (and/or DTV Stream) after the current contract ends at the end of 2022, the new CEO said the following in an LA Times article today. Note that last paragraph in particular:
> 
> _"The NFL Sunday Ticket was a great idea when it first started," Morrow said. "But then the NFL began spreading games across various days of the week and giving the rights to other distributors."
> 
> ...


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

SamC said:


> No, it really does not make sense at all.
> 
> DirecTV currently pay $1.5B/year for the EXCLUSIVE rights to ST. The idea is that in order to access ST, a customer will keep it simple and get 100% of his video needs from DTV. 1000 times better if that customer is a sports bar. DTV loses money, on a cash basis, on the deal, but the theory is that it drives customers to the general service, which is still highly profitable.
> 
> ...


You're dreaming (and probably a DTV sub who has wishful thinking). The landscape has changed quite a bit from the time the last contract was signed. Cable/Sat is fading. It'll still be a player but perhaps not even the prime player going forward. The new company is not making money from having exclusivity of ST. It used to be a huge selling point, but it's not working for them anymore. I would bet that ANY of the many cable outlets, and streaming services would pay to get even a piece of ST. Now, they won't pay $1.5B for exclusivity (though who knows, maybe they would.) but I see them selling the package to many providers. I'm sure the deal to the NFL is now worth at least 3x the $1.5B that DirecTV paid previously in 2014 (based on the network numbers). Lets say that DirecTV, 3 or 4 cable providers, and 3 or 4 OTTs pay for a piece of ST $500M apiece (not out of the realm of possibility I would think). The NFL makes much more money that way, doesn't it? And each of those can sell ST as an add on, as they do MLB EI, NBA League Pass and others. Bar owners are no longer required to stick with DirectTV they can shop around.

You honestly think that NOBODY would pay money to carry ST? You have to be kidding.

Now, if the NFL decided to go the ATV+ or Amazon route and forego cable or OTT service altogether, I might agree with you. That's why I think Comcast, Altice, Spectrum and yeah, DirecTV will pony up for non-exclusive. Sports is probably what keeps them in business right now. It's the one thing that Netlix or ATV+ doesn't offer, and even Amazon only has a few games.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Yeah there really isn't any alternative to satellite. "Cable" isn't because there are so many different cable companies depending on where you are - an exclusive arrangement with any cable company would cut off over half the population so that's a non starter. If Directv doesn't believe an exclusive makes sense it sure as heck won't work for a smaller Dish. It is clear if Directv won't get a full exclusive like they have now, no one else will.
> 
> Streaming might be OK as an exclusive for residential (ignoring who have crappy broadband options or are not technically inclined enough - i.e. probably half the population over 65) but is not reasonable for commercial due to the number of TVs many places have.
> 
> If there's an exclusive for commercial it can't be cable, and it can't be streaming, and it can't be Dish. Directv is the only possibility. If it is offered non exclusive for commercial then Directv will be one of the companies that offers it, along with some cable companies and maybe streaming (though currently no one is offering commercially licensed live streaming of high value sports content in the US, so that may not be feasible to have ready for the 2023 season)


I think it's possible that a streaming provider -- most likely Amazon -- might have a full exclusive for both residential and commercial. I don't really think that bandwidth would be a problem. We're talking about, what, 10 games max happening at the same time? AT&T TV has great 1080p picture quality at about 8 Mbps encoded in H.264. So I don't see why Amazon or whoever couldn't live stream those games at about that bitrate (or even lower if they used HEVC H.265). That only adds up to 80 Mbps total bandwidth. Any sports bar or restaurant that has broadband service available to them (which is almost all of them across the country) can get way faster download speeds than that. Worst case scenario is that they have to shut off free customer wifi on Sunday afternoons.

If that scenario doesn't happen (and it may not), then I think we're probably looking at a streaming distributor with an exclusive for residential, with commercial either served exclusively by DTV or by multiple distributors.

I think the NFL's preference is another overall exclusive deal that fetches considerably more money than the current one with DTV. They like getting their fat payment guaranteed up-front, the same way that they sell their other TV rights to broadcast and cable channels. But it's hard to see how that could be anything but a loss-leader for anyone who would take such a deal. Even if DTV had been able to freely sell NFL ST as a standalone streaming product with no restrictions (instead of only to college students plus those living in places where DTV service couldn't be installed), I question whether they could have gotten enough takers at their asking price to break even.

I suppose it's possible that DTV is the exclusive commercial distributor if the NFL doesn't want to rock the boat too much or gets pushback from sports bar owners on the idea of streaming games. DTV knows very well how many commercial establishments over the past few years have bought the package and they probably have an idea of how much they could raise the price. So they could submit to the NFL a maximum bid calculated to pass all the expected NFL ST revenue on to the NFL, with DTV benefitting just by keeping those establishments subscribing to them for basic cable rather than finally ditching the dish. The NFL would have to decide if they could make more money on commercial sales by going with a multi-distributor arrangement versus DTV's max bid. In such an arrangement, each distributor would presumably have the same pricing schedule and just get a certain cut of their sales as a commission.

But that's pretty messy and my hunch is that the NFL doesn't want to bother with that sort of complexity and revenue uncertainty. I think if Amazon comes close to offering them what they want -- and Amazon has the deep pockets to do it -- then they'll get an overall exclusive for both residential and commercial.


----------



## JMII (Jan 19, 2008)

Since our DirecTV bill has entered into the WTF range if the "new" (old?) DirecTV doesn't lower prices we might just give up after being with them since '97. We recently added Hulu, EPSN+ and Disney+ and there so much content that keeping DTV doesn't make much sense.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Why would ANY provider pay one cent for non-exclusive right to lose money selling ST? You really cannot have it both ways. Either the ST model of driving customers to the general service has “faded” and other such non-sense, or it hasn’t. If it has, then its just like the other pay per season OOM packages, sold on a %age of the take basis. If not, then its DirecTV.

And, no I didn’t miss the LA Times article. I just filed it with “we have launched our last satellite” and other such non sense. Right next the plans for my flying car and solar powered airplane.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

JMII said:


> Since our DirecTV bill has entered into the WTF range if the "new" (old?) DirecTV doesn't lower prices we might just give up after being with them since '97. We recently added Hulu, EPSN+ and Disney+ and there so much content that keeping DTV doesn't make much sense.


Yeah, the regular pricing for DTV is nuts. Actually, IMO, the cost of a regular cable TV package from any provider is high, but if you're a big sports fan, then I guess it's worth it. If you're not (like me), then combining a few on-demand streaming services plus free OTA TV (with optional DVR) offers a better selection of content, better picture quality, and lower cost.

It'll be very interesting to see what this new company does with regard to pricing for post-contract DTV customers. Will they continue, or even expand, loyalty discounts to retain those customers, or might they cut back on them and mainly rely on free NFL ST to keep folks this year and next? Might they eliminate those discounts entirely and instead reduce their regular prices a bit?

My hunch is that they keep their current high regular prices and discounts for select longtime customers but they'll reduce the collective amount of those discounts in order to raise their ARPU. They'll push the lower-priced contract-free DTV Stream when DTV customers call in complaining about their bill if they aren't selected for a discount. Maybe they'll even proactively push it towards customers whose bills go up due to expiring discounts that won't be renewed. ("Looking for a way to save? Check out our lower-priced streaming option.") You might find it interesting to re-create your current DTV package at atttv.com to see how much less you'd pay if you got it via streaming instead of satellite.

Any DTV customer who could possibly switch to DTV Stream is someone who has broadband, and therefore has many other options available for pay TV. Better to switch them over to DTV Stream and make less money on them than lose them completely. For those who don't have broadband, well, their only other option besides DTV's high prices is probably Dish, which has a bit lower picture quality, lacks most RSNs and would require a new 2-year contract with installation.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

SamC said:


> Why would ANY provider pay one cent for non-exclusive right to lose money selling ST? You really cannot have it both ways. Either the ST model of driving customers to the general service has "faded" and other such non-sense, or it hasn't. If it has, then its just like the other pay per season OOM packages, sold on a %age of the take basis. If not, then its DirecTV.
> 
> And, no I didn't miss the LA Times article. I just filed it with "we have launched our last satellite" and other such non sense. Right next the plans for my flying car and solar powered airplane.


Because at a certain price point they MIGHT NOT lose money, AND, it might help them keep subscribers. Like anything else, there's always a sweet spot. What that price is, we don't know. The NFL has been happy with what DirecTV has given them over the years, but now the new company is going to balk at that price. So it might be worth it for the NFL to take a little less from multiple subs than one big exclusive contract. Remember, if the NFL helps Comcast prevent some bleeding of customers, it might be worth it for them, especially if there's some tie in to Peacock. Same with any of the others. They certainly won't be paying what an exclusive deal would pay, but they would pay something less and it might prevent subs from jumping ship.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> "I don't see this thing going away in the next 10 years," he said, conceding that "maybe in two decades...


It is pretty clear that the existing satellite fleet isn't going to last that long without several replacements and a conscious effort to replace all of the legacy receivers and dishes.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I suppose that doesn't *necessarily* exclude the possibility of DTV being the exclusive provider of NFL ST to commercial accounts post-2022, since that wouldn't be an extension of the "current arrangement" which obviously covers residential subscribers too. If that doesn't happen, gonna be a lot of sports bars switching TV providers come 2023.


I think we need to stick a fork in the idea of a post-2022 NFLST exclusive offering from DIRECTV at any level. The number of commercial accounts that can't get sufficient bandwidth to do what they need is probably too small to worry about (thus relatively expensive to maintain). There are much bigger players that will negotiate against it once the dam breaks.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> I think we need to stick a fork in the idea of a post-2022 NFLST exclusive offering from DIRECTV at any level. The number of commercial accounts that can't get sufficient bandwidth to do what they need is probably too small to worry about (thus relatively expensive to maintain). There are much bigger players that will negotiate against it once the dam breaks.


I think you're probably right. If you saw my longer post earlier today on the topic, you'll see that I think it's most likely that a major streaming company, probably Amazon, lands an overall exclusive deal. They've repeatedly shown that they're willing to spend big on video to attract and retain Prime members since that drives much higher retail sales.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> I think you're probably right. If you saw my longer post earlier today on the topic, you'll see that I think it's most likely that a major streaming company, probably Amazon, lands an overall exclusive deal. They've repeatedly shown that they're willing to spend big on video to attract and retain Prime members since that drives much higher retail sales.


Amazon Prime isn't licensed for public viewing AT ALL. They'd have to set up something totally separate for that, PLUS have to set up a whole customer service infrastructure. Commercial accounts expect to be able to call a 1-800 number and connect to a live person immediately who is able to resolve their issue, not mess around with online menus that try to winnow everyone into predetermined categories and when you say "none of the above" throws you back to the beginning to start over again.

If Amazon signs an exclusive deal, I'd expect the very first thing they'd do is make a deal with Directv for them to continue selling to commercial customers so they don't have to. And if that deal with Directv isn't exclusive they'd next talk to Dish and some of the bigger cable companies to see if they're interested too.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

Steveknj said:


> My guess the days of exclusive ST is over after the current deal expires. First of all, with ALL "traditional" TV losing subs by the boatload, it doesn't make sense for any one of them to get that exclusivity. DirecTV is losing money on the deal and I don't see that it makes sense anymore for them. Plus, I can see that the NFL could make MORE money selling the package to multiple outlets (including DirecTV) than to one exclusively. My guess is that not only will DirecTV get a piece, but Comcast, Spectrum, Altice and others will too. And so will YTTV, DirecTV Stream and Hulu. I also think that it might become a stand alone streaming package as well, sold through Apple, Amazon, and heck, maybe even Netflix. It makes sense for the NFL to offer it up to anyone. I have no idea what the actual number is, but imagine that the last was $10B. If they "sell" to five companies at $3B each, that's $15B. I see that's where this is going.


and if they don't get the sunday ticket for 2023. i am thinking there will be more subscriber loss. since that was the main reason people signed up for it!!! will be interesting to see if they can keep it afloat. i highly think it's going to start going south slowly


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

krel said:


> and if they don't get the sunday ticket for 2023. i am thinking there will be more subscriber loss. since that was the main reason people signed up for it!!! will be interesting to see if they can keep it afloat. i highly think it's going to start going south slowly


Assuming that happens I suspect there will be some subscriber losses but not nearly as much as I believe you would think. Just too many places to watch too many games.

But coupled with the fewer and fewer new, original and interesting shows from the various channels, I think the cable/sat market will continue to dwindle away.


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

I think that the assumption DirecTV will suffer huge subscriber losses if they lose Sunday Ticket may be overblown, specifically on the residential side. Sunday Ticket has gone down in value year over year with more games on ESPN, Amazon, and Saturday's. I have had Sunday Ticket since 1994, and would miss it but losing it, by itself, would not cause me to cancel. 
What WILL cause me to cancel is continued reliance on archaic hardware that I pay nose bleed fees for, continual price increases, and sub standard customer support.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I just read this website and it says DirecTv has a no contract plan as of 2/5/21 now:
Hidden Costs of DIRECTV | CableTV.com 2021

I called retention and they said my old 4 digit account was still in their system, and I could reactivate my two HR24s and a H24, but they transferred me to "welcome back" in India and they cut me off half way through the process.

DOES Directv has a no contract option now? For Satellite (I want Sunday Ticket)

I am currently waiting on a callback from their Twitter support people. I specifically told them "No Contract" which is why I am not ordering a Genie and 4K minis.

????


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

That article is full of misinformation because the author is conflating DirecTV satellite and the streaming product.
There is no non-contract version of DirecTV satellite service that I’m aware of. Also the streaming service does not have NFL or RedZone at all and there has been zero indication they ever will.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

OK, so my price would be $102/mo for Entertainment package plus $21 for the two DVRs and one receiver (total three boxes) plus whatever Sunday Ticket price is?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> OK, so my price would be $102/mo for Entertainment package plus $21 for the two DVRs and one receiver (total three boxes) plus whatever Sunday Ticket price is?


That's what it looks like to me if D* will let you come back with no contract. In my personal experience they wouldn't offer that.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Im not sure. The Retention lady in the US said it was no problem. The foreign people dont have a clue what a satellite is. The local ATT store said they dont deal with satellite. It really amazes me a company would turn down $123 a month plus Sunday Ticket just to force me into a higher package with an RSN fee for an RSN I dont watch, and then give me Sunday Ticket for free, and send me equipment I dont need, and pay an installer to hook it up, just to get me on the hook for two years. Ill see what they say when they call. Retention did say they were now under new rules, but didnt go into detail.


----------



## mitchflorida (May 18, 2009)

Davenlr said:


> I just read this website and it says DirecTv has a no contract plan as of 2/5/21 now:
> Hidden Costs of DIRECTV | CableTV.com 2021
> 
> I called retention and they said my old 4 digit account was still in their system, and I could reactivate my two HR24s and a H24, but they transferred me to "welcome back" in India and they cut me off half way through the process.
> ...


There isn't a "no contract" offer for new sign-ups for DirecTV satellite
You have to order DirecTV Stream for that.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> Im not sure. The Retention lady in the US said it was no problem. The foreign people dont have a clue what a satellite is. The local ATT store said they dont deal with satellite. It really amazes me a company would turn down $123 a month plus Sunday Ticket just to force me into a higher package with an RSN fee for an RSN I dont watch, and then give me Sunday Ticket for free, and send me equipment I dont need, and pay an installer to hook it up, just to get me on the hook for two years. Ill see what they say when they call. Retention did say they were now under new rules, but didnt go into detail.


Thus why people are leaving and not coming back. The model just doesn't work that well anymore. There's too much competition that doesn't require any of it. Even their own streaming platform no longer requires a contract. They are kind of up against it because of the costs involved in installing satellite. How do they recoup that money? That's why I predicted a year (or more) ago, that DirecTV as we know it will fade into the sunset, become just a niche product for those who cannot get broadband and/or not wired for cable. People here laughed at me, but that seems to be where they are headed based on all indications. The product won't die completely (though if the effort by the current administration to bring broadband to rural areas succeed, it just might). Once the few items that are missing start to appear on the streaming service, that will be it for Satellite from DirecTV as the primary product.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Because at a certain price point they MIGHT NOT lose money, AND, it might help them keep subscribers. Like anything else, there's always a sweet spot. What that price is, we don't know. The NFL has been happy with what DirecTV has given them over the years, but now the new company is going to balk at that price. So it might be worth it for the NFL to take a little less from multiple subs than one big exclusive contract. Remember, if the NFL helps Comcast prevent some bleeding of customers, it might be worth it for them, especially if there's some tie in to Peacock. Same with any of the others. They certainly won't be paying what an exclusive deal would pay, but they would pay something less and it might prevent subs from jumping ship.


If its not exclusive, then it does not help you keep/get subscribers. Therefore, the two models are the current one or a simple % of the take basis. And, since the NFL likes the current one, that is what will happen.

Bidding will come down to Amazon and DirecTV. And, as the many failures of live TV on the internet have shown us, the internet is just not ready for prime time.


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

New DirecTV Has Chance to Keep Part of NFL Sunday Ticket After AT&T Spinoff - The Streamable


----------



## bnwrx (Dec 29, 2007)

from the article..."install a giant satellite dish on their homes"....???? Has this guy ever seen a DTV dish?


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

SamC said:


> If its not exclusive, then it does not help you keep/get subscribers. Therefore, the two models are the current one or a simple % of the take basis. And, since the NFL likes the current one, *that is what will happen.*
> 
> Bidding will come down to Amazon and DirecTV. And, as the many failures of live TV on the internet have shown us, the internet is just not ready for prime time.


I love that definitive statement, as if it's 100% that's what will happen. You might be right, but I think it's 50/50 at best.

What failures are you speaking of. As someone who over the last few months have switched from DirecTV to AT&T TV, I can tell you that it works perfectly well. Like any other platform, including cable and sat, there are things missing and things that can be better, but there is also things that are BETTER than DirecTV, first and foremost picture quality. Have you given streaming a chance for any length of time?

From DirecTV's standpoint, sure exclusivity may help to keep some customers, then again, they've been bleeding customers regardless. I do think for a certain price, other providers will like to offer ST as an add on. I think that helps THEM get subscribers. The NFL doesn't care how it's done, as long as they get their money. That's the ONLY thing they CARE about. Does it matter to them if it's $3B from one company or $500M from six? Why should it? The ST package is diminished.There are now games on 3 days a week most weeks, sometimes 4 or 5 depending on the week. At this point it serves two purposes, for out of town fans to follow their team and for bars and restaurants. The former doesn't care which provider they can watch from. It shouldn't matter. If ST is paramount, they will get what they need. And the latter? While they have gotten used to having DirecTV, perhaps if it's offered by other providers as well, they can wind up saving money by going with someone else. Competition is good for the consumer normally.

You just sound like a DirecTV die hard trying to hang on to this dream that DirecTV will always be the best and always have ST. I just don't think it makes sense in today's landscape.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

SamC said:


> If its not exclusive, then it does not help you keep/get subscribers. Therefore, the two models are the current one or a simple % of the take basis. And, since the NFL likes the current one, that is what will happen.
> 
> Bidding will come down to Amazon and DirecTV. And, as the many failures of live TV on the internet have shown us, the internet is just not ready for prime time.


I don't know but when the CEO says they are *"not interested in any way, shape or form" in extending the current arrangement with the NFL beyond the 2022 season. *It seems pretty definitive to me that they really have no interest in the *same* deal they have had before.

Being non-exclusive will actually help them keep/get *more* subscribers from more sources.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> What failures are you speaking of.


Read any forum or subreddit after any PPV event. Remember Phil Mickelson's ginned up golf tournament. Crashed the internet. And they are going to put the NFL on? Right.



> Does it matter to them if it's $3B from one company or $500M from six?


Once again, NO ONE is offering $500M for non-exclusive ST. No one is, in fact, offering anything, nor will anyone do so. The NFL can either be paid for exclusive access, or adopt the model the other leagues have, which is a %age of the subscriber fees. Which is less. The NFL is not in the practice of taking less.

Thus it will again sell exclusive rights. Which only work when you are using it to drive subscriptions to something else. First eliminate "cord cutter" type platforms, whose customers, by definition, have made a choice to do without something to save a few pennies. Exactly the wrong sort of people for a luxury item. So you have to use the package to support subscription to something else.

Which means Prime. Or DirecTV.



b4pjoe said:


> Being non-exclusive will actually help them keep/get *more* subscribers from more sources.


And make less money. The NFL is about making MORE money, which is why it will sell exclusive rights for MORE than it would make under the other model. As it has been for decades.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Davenlr said:


> The Retention lady in the US said it was no problem.


There's your sign.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

SamC said:


> Read any forum or subreddit after any PPV event. Remember Phil Mickelson's ginned up golf tournament. Crashed the internet. And they are going to put the NFL on? Right.


I don't recall that tournament. How long ago was that? How many subs are there now for YTTV, Hulu, and AT&T TV? A lot of the problems of the "Internet' in regards to streaming have long been solved. I watch DirecTV and it rain, I get nothing. So there are problems there too.



> *Once again, NO ONE is offering $500M for non-exclusive ST. No one is, in fact, offering anything, nor will anyone do so. * The NFL can either be paid for exclusive access, or adopt the model the other leagues have, which is a %age of the subscriber fees. Which is less. The NFL is not in the practice of taking less.
> 
> Thus it will again sell exclusive rights. Which only work when you are using it to drive subscriptions to something else. First eliminate "cord cutter" type platforms, whose customers, by definition, have made a choice to do without something to save a few pennies. Exactly the wrong sort of people for a luxury item. So you have to use the package to support subscription to something else.
> 
> ...


Again, you make these statements. How do you know? Are you an insider? Do you have links to support your statement, and sorry someone posting something in Reddit is not a viable link. Show me from reputable article. The NFL recognizes the landscape has changed or they have their head in the sand. But again, they can easily take money from multiple sources and go non-exlcusive. The only reason why they've kept exclusivity is because they got paid a lot to do it. If DirecTV balks at paying that, they will take what they can get, wherever they can get it. Like you said, the NFL won't take less, but they also won't be stupid and hold out for something that's just no longer viable. They've done this with the networks for years. They sell "smaller" packages to each network so they have a piece of the pie. You don't think if NBC decided they wanted it all and paid more than what all the networks combined now pay they wouldn't do it? Of course they would. But they know, their best deal is to spread it out. And if DirecTV won't pay, that's probably what they will do. I have no inside information either, but I have read some articles, like the one posted a bit earlier in this thread that back that up.

Again, you might be right and DirecTV is blowing smoke up the NFL's butt to try and get exclusivity for cheaper, but, then again, they might not be.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Amazon Prime isn't licensed for public viewing AT ALL. They'd have to set up something totally separate for that, PLUS have to set up a whole customer service infrastructure. Commercial accounts expect to be able to call a 1-800 number and connect to a live person immediately who is able to resolve their issue, not mess around with online menus that try to winnow everyone into predetermined categories and when you say "none of the above" throws you back to the beginning to start over again.
> 
> If Amazon signs an exclusive deal, I'd expect the very first thing they'd do is make a deal with Directv for them to continue selling to commercial customers so they don't have to. And if that deal with Directv isn't exclusive they'd next talk to Dish and some of the bigger cable companies to see if they're interested too.


Amazon Prime Video may not currently be licensed but there's ZERO reason why Amazon couldn't create a special NFL ST app for commercial accounts to stream the service. Anything's possible, but Amazon making a distribution deal with DTV or Dish to outsource commercial accounts doesn't sound to me like something they would do. They'd either handle it themselves using their own resources or they would just insist on only taking the residential portion of the deal and leave it up to the NFL to find a commercial distributor(s). There's no reason why commercial accounts wouldn't receive a dedicated live support telephone number from Amazon. If you haven't noticed, they're a pretty big company. They have the technology and resources to do basically whatever they decide to do.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Will senatorers or congress make an fuss about it?

Will network neutrality or antitrust issues come up?

what is the plan for nfl amazon thursday night exclusive rights and commercial use?

Will they have lot's of agents to stop bars from importing an canada sat tv?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SamC said:


> Read any forum or subreddit after any PPV event. Remember Phil Mickelson's ginned up golf tournament. Crashed the internet. And they are going to put the NFL on? Right.


Uh, you know that Prime Video will be the exclusive home of Thursday Night Football -- "primetime's second most-watched show" -- starting next season, right?

nfl.com/news/amazon-prime-video-to-be-exclusive-tnf-home-starting-in-2022


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Uh, you know that Prime Video will be the exclusive home of Thursday Night Football -- "primetime's second most-watched show" -- starting next season, right?
> 
> nfl.com/news/amazon-prime-video-to-be-exclusive-tnf-home-starting-in-2022


I assume this is what he meant:

Tiger Woods-Phil Mickelson pay-per-view golf gaffe exposes weakness of online sports

It was 2018, things have changed exponentially since then. Streaming has been built up much greater in those three years and we've seen multiple OTT services, an increase of other streaming platforms. And I'm also sure that since then, the issues that happened in that case have been hashed out. Not to mention that was a one time PPV situation, not a full season (unless the NFL plans on selling a weekly service, which I haven't heard). So I think that the "internet" is "fine" for Sunday Ticket, especially bundled with OTT services, as an add on.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Amazon Prime Video may not currently be licensed but there's ZERO reason why Amazon couldn't create a special NFL ST app for commercial accounts to stream the service.


Which, of course, brings up the other issue.

There is no way to differentiate between a personal and commercial account when it is just a user name and a password.

Now are big chains like BWW, or casino or whatnot going to risk it? Nah. But short of placing spies in every mom and pop bar in the country, no way to enforce it.



Steveknj said:


> I don't recall that tournament.


Exactly. A tiny niche event that only a handful of people were interested in, crashed the not-ready-for-prime-time, PPV internet system.



> Again, you make these statements. How do you know? Are you an insider? Do you have links to support your statement, and sorry someone posting something in Reddit is not a viable link. Show me from reputable article.


You sir have it exactly backwards.

The idea that ANY provider would pay ANYTHING for non-exclusive access to ST, and the insane figure of "$50M" were just pulled out of someone's a** upthread. Link to any bid for such a thing.

Heck, I will even take a logical reason why any company would say "hey, lets pay the NFL $50M (or $5) so we can lose money selling NFLST, which they can also buy from any of our competitors."


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

glrush said:


> New DirecTV Has Chance to Keep Part of NFL Sunday Ticket After AT&T Spinoff - The Streamable


This article raises an interesting possibility: that DTV might renew the deal but only as the exclusive DBS (or maybe non-streaming) distributor of NFL ST. That would leave the door open for Amazon or Apple or whoever to be an exclusive streaming distributor.

We've been breaking things down in terms of residential vs. commercial distribution. I guess it's possible that DTV continues on with NFL ST for both residential and commercial accounts as the sole DBS/non-streaming distributor.

But I doubt that would make financial sense for DTV. Because if, say, folks with access to broadband can get NFL ST for the same, or maybe lower, price as an add-on to the incredibly popular Amazon Prime membership, then I don't see how paying lots of money to carry NFL ST helps DTV retain or attract many residential customers.

It's a foregone conclusion that DTV's satellite service will continue to lose customers, at least at the same rate as the overall cable TV industry, probably faster. I think they know this. I think TPG understood this when they bought their 30% stake, which is part of the reason they insisted that the streaming version of the service be included in the deal. Adding the cost of NFL ST, which must be partially subsidized via higher base prices by the great majority of their customers who don't choose to subscribe and pay for NFL ST, only makes DTV *less* price competitive with competing cable TV services.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

SamC said:


> Which, of course, brings up the other issue.
> 
> There is no way to differentiate between a personal and commercial account when it is just a user name and a password.
> 
> ...


Nevermind, you continue to make statements as facts that you have no proof that they are. Anything I've said is based on articles like the one I've posted above, is speculation (which I've said is speculation) and common sense. You just say things as they are facts. The one example you gave was THREE years ago. THREE years in tech is like 20 years in most industries. The number of people using streaming services in the last three years has probably more than doubled (notice I said PROBABLY, I don't have the numbers). The dollar numbers I posted is not based on anything, just hypothetical and I posed them that way. But I based them on what the last contract was with DirecTV. You state that there's ZERO chance that the NFL would split up ST to multiple providers. You've said there's ZERO chance that any provider would PAY for non-exclusivity. Again, how do you know? If that's just your opinion, please say so, because I've seen nothing to back that up. I respect opinions and your reasoning, but I have a differing opinion that I have not stated as absolute either. I would think it's better to pay something for a piece of the pie than nothing for NO piece of the pie. Everything has a price, it's just a matter of what that is. When the last contract was signed, Comcast and others were whining about the DirecTV exclusivity and would be dying to offer that to their subs. I don't think that changes. It's another selling point to try and keep customers.

Again, I and many others here have moved over to a streaming solution and are pretty happy with it. It works, it's not a "problem" and whatever little glitches there might be are minor and I had plenty of DirecTV glitches in my day as well.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SamC said:


> Which, of course, brings up the other issue.
> 
> There is no way to differentiate between a personal and commercial account when it is just a user name and a password.
> 
> Now are big chains like BWW, or casino or whatnot going to risk it? Nah. But short of placing spies in every mom and pop bar in the country, no way to enforce it.


Sure there's a way to differentiate. Here's what Amazon could do. For personal use, the NFL ST streams would be embedded in their Prime Video app. Unlike regular Prime Video streams, the NFL games would be limited to 2, maybe 3, simultaneous streams per account *and* per IP address. For commercial use, customers would pay more, submit info about their business, and use a separate app that would have only NFL ST in it. That app would allow a much higher number of simultaneous streams per IP address. Perhaps there would be tiered pricing per stream, which would mean larger establishments with more TVs pay more money. For further security, maybe the commercial app would only run on a special version of their Fire TV device and customers would get as many devices as the number of streams they pay for.

My guess is that the vast majority of sports bars willing to pay for NFL ST have more than 2 or 3 TVs that they want to show it on. There are typically 8-10 noontime games playing at the same time. Yes, very small bars who want to show only one or two out-of-market games, on one or two TVs, could get away with cheating if they wanted to risk it. But how many establishments fit that description?

Now, if Amazon thought it was worth it to take further steps, sure, they could scan the web (including social media sites) to generate a list of establishments that advertise or appear to be offering NFL ST but which aren't registered paying users. And then just selectively send agents into those places to notify them that they have X days to pay up or get sued. BMI has a bunch of music copyright enforcers that they send out to bars (including little mom and pop ones) and all other kinds of commercial establishments that play recorded music to ensure that they pay royalties. I wouldn't see Amazon doing that level of enforcement because it probably wouldn't be worth it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SamC said:


> The NFL is about making MORE money, which is why it will sell exclusive rights for MORE than it would make under the other model. As it has been for decades.


The NFL can only sell exclusive rights if they find a sucker willing to pay for exclusive rights. DIRECTV has made it clear that they will not be that sucker.



SamC said:


> Heck, I will even take a logical reason why any company would say "hey, lets pay the NFL $50M (or $5) so we can lose money selling NFLST, which they can also buy from any of our competitors."


$50 million isn't a bad minimum payment to be able to offer ST as a non-exclusive. $5 billion would be bad.

If ST isn't an exclusive it will be sold like any other sports package. The MVPD collects money from their customer and passes most of it on to the league. If having SD attracts 10,000 DIRECTV customers then the NFL gets paid for 10,000 customers. (Minimums and other conditions can apply, but "non-exclusive" isn't DIRECTV paying $1.5 billion and having other companies also able to sell the package.)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> The NFL can only sell exclusive rights if they find a sucker willing to pay for exclusive rights. DIRECTV has made it clear that they will not be that sucker.


And exclusive rights only work if they're, you know, _exclusive_. Why would Directv pay a flat rate for a "satellite exclusive", knowing there will also be a "streaming exclusive" (and maybe also a "cable exclusive" and "mobile streaming exclusive") Directv would certainly want to know exactly who else would get exclusives and on what platforms since each one devalues it for Directv.

Directv has used the exclusive for years to help subscriptions for residential customers, both by being the only way to get NFLST and by using it as a freebie to obtain/retain customers since they're paying a flat rate and it costs them nothing to give away. That's worth much much less if everyone who has broadband and Amazon Prime can get it for less (or maybe even free, if Amazon wants to go crazy)

The commercial offering would be more "sticky" than residential, so long as Directv offers it most places will keep getting it via Directv even if they could save a few bucks with streaming - because they'd have to buy a set top for each TV, have the hassle of switching inputs, and risk finding out the hard way whether delivering NFLST via streaming will have the problems that "The Match" and other big streaming events have had.

I don't think it is feasible to have more than one exclusive if the NFL wants to sell it at a flat rate. They could do something like "pay $100 million and then x per subscriber" but not a deal like Directv currently has. The only split for exclusives that makes sense is residential and commercial, since there is zero overlap between the customers. There is plenty of overlap between the people who could choose Directv or choose streaming if both were offered as an "exclusive" by different providers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> This article raises an interesting possibility: that DTV might renew the deal but only as the exclusive DBS (or maybe non-streaming) distributor of NFL ST. That would leave the door open for Amazon or Apple or whoever to be an exclusive streaming distributor.


You are too kind. The article sounds like a summary of our NFL 2023 thread. An exaggeration, but some days I feel every third post in that thread is "DIRECTV will be exclusive satellite for business".



slice1900 said:


> And exclusive rights only work if they're, you know, _exclusive_. Why would Directv pay a flat rate for a "satellite exclusive", knowing there will also be a "streaming exclusive" (and maybe also a "cable exclusive" and "mobile streaming exclusive") Directv would certainly want to know exactly who else would get exclusives and on what platforms since each one devalues it for Directv.


I see three main possibilities. 1) Sunday Ticket becomes non-exclusive and is sold like MLB/MLS/NHL/NBA, or 2) Sunday Ticket becomes exclusive to a streamer who rents space on DIRECTV (or DISH) to serve commercial customers, or 3) Sunday Ticket ceases to exist. There are other options but I expect one of those three will be the outcome.

We do have a nice thread where this has been hashed over a few times. The issue isn't specific to the new ownership.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

SamC said:


> Which, of course, brings up the other issue.
> 
> There is no way to differentiate between a personal and commercial account when it is just a user name and a password.
> 
> Now are big chains like BWW, or casino or whatnot going to risk it? Nah. But short of placing spies in every mom and pop bar in the country, no way to enforce it.


but chains like BWW are not going to want local staff at each site to deal with stuff like 2fa / sso / password rules like an domain login. Also multi login from 8-16+ boxes. and we going to need amazon to cover the $$$ matrix switch upgrade to handle more in puts. And we may need HDCP OFF.

and in put long password with an on screen keyboard with an remote?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

JoeTheDragon said:


> but chains like BWW are not going to want local staff at each site to deal with stuff like 2fa / sso / password rules like an domain login. Also multi login from 8-16+ boxes. and we going to need amazon to cover the $$$ matrix switch upgrade to handle more in puts. And we may need HDCP OFF.
> 
> and in put long password with an on screen keyboard with an remote?


Amazon could just include, as part of the commercial licensing cost per stream/TV served, a locked-down Fire TV stick (with support for wifi 6, HEVC decoding, and geo location services turned on so that it only works in the general area where your business is located) that only streams NFL ST (no other apps) and is pre-configured for that commercial account. Just plug it into the TV and power, connect it to your wifi (which could be done on a phone by scanning a QR code), and you're ready to stream football.

You have 12 TVs in your sports bar and want to stream NFL ST on each of them? You pay for 12 streams and get 12 sticks. It probably wouldn't cost Amazon more than $50 for those devices, so it wouldn't really make much difference in terms of the price they'd charge commercial establishments, which I assume pay thousands to license NFL ST.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> Amazon could just include, as part of the commercial licensing cost per stream/TV served, a locked-down Fire TV stick (with support for wifi 6, HEVC decoding, and geo location services turned on so that it only works in the general area where your business is located) that only streams NFL ST (no other apps) and is pre-configured for that commercial account. Just plug it into the TV and power, connect it to your wifi (which could be done on a phone by scanning a QR code), and you're ready to stream football.
> 
> You have 12 TVs in your sports bar and want to stream NFL ST on each of them? You pay for 12 streams and get 12 sticks. It probably wouldn't cost Amazon more than $50 for those devices, so it wouldn't really make much difference in terms of the price they'd charge commercial establishments, which I assume pay thousands to license NFL ST.


e-net may be needed as well and needs work on an matrix switch. Also NFL ST ONLY? so way less useful then an cable / sat box?
and with 8-16 HD / 4K streams I want e-net not WIFI.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

I see this right now on DirecTV's homepage- now there are activation fees. :rage:

_ALL DIRECTV OFFERS REQUIRE 24-MO. AGREEMENT. $19.95 ACTIVATION, EARLY TERMINATION FEE OF $20/MO. FOR EACH MONTH REMAINING ON AGMT., EQUIPMENT NON-RETURN & ADD'L FEES APPLY. New approved residential customers only (equipment lease req'd). Credit card req'd (except MA & PA). Restr's apply._


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JoeTheDragon said:


> e-net may be needed as well and needs work on an matrix switch. Also NFL ST ONLY? so way less useful then an cable / sat box?
> and with 8-16 HD / 4K streams I want e-net not WIFI.


Yeah anyone that is talking about running a dozen or more streams over wifi in a sports bar as a one size fits all solution doesn't have the first clue how many problems there are with that idea.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

codespy said:


> I see this right now on DirecTV's homepage- now there are activation fees. :rage:
> 
> _ALL DIRECTV OFFERS REQUIRE 24-MO. AGREEMENT. $19.95 ACTIVATION, EARLY TERMINATION FEE OF $20/MO. FOR EACH MONTH REMAINING ON AGMT., EQUIPMENT NON-RETURN & ADD'L FEES APPLY. New approved residential customers only (equipment lease req'd). Credit card req'd (except MA & PA). Restr's apply._


They used to waive the activation fee when you ordered online. I wonder if there still waiving it when ordering online


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

krel said:


> They used to waive the activation fee when you ordered online. I wonder if there still waiving it when ordering online


Nope


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Yeah anyone that is talking about running a dozen or more streams over wifi in a sports bar as a one size fits all solution doesn't have the first clue how many problems there are with that idea.


I would think, if Amazon is all in on this, they may have a solution, and probably one we don't know about. I don't think the NFL would sell this to Amazon if they didn't have this worked out. The NFL is very methodical in everything they do. I think it is ONE of the reasons they were so willing to give DirecTV exclusivity all these years. Well that and the exorbitant fee that DirecTV was willing to pay. But if DirecTV is not willing to pony up this time (and that seems likely as of right now, things could change), they will have to work with other suitors on a solution. But, like I said, I don't see DirecTV giving up the package completely, just giving up exclusivity, which means that if a commercial establishment is happy with how things are, they could keep it. But without exclusivity, they could also look at other possibilities that may or may not work for them too. Imagine having a choice of keeping things how they are, or perhaps switching to a cable company or, if it works for them a streaming service? The landscape is changing quickly. New solutions are being worked on for so much of this stuff that we can't even fathom.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

While Amazon is a possibility ESPN/Apple and others are linked to be bidding for whatever Sunday Ticket becomes One thing is for certain.. after next season having Directv wont be a requirement


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

compnurd said:


> Nope


looks like they do if you order online i went through the process and the site waived it...


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

compnurd said:


> While Amazon is a possibility ESPN/Apple and others are linked to be bidding for whatever Sunday Ticket becomes One thing is for certain.. after next season having Directv wont be a requirement


I wouldn't say it's certain, but it's highly unlikely.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> I wouldn't say it's certain, but it's highly unlikely.


Oh I am saying certain lol


----------



## cwpomeroy (Aug 8, 2007)

Seems to me two paths... depending on the confidence the NFL has in their product...

1. Look for an exclusive or limited access partnership where they offload revenue risk to a partner(s) via some type of exclusivity payment. This was the historical model and worked because there was also limited commoditized distribution capabilities. 

2. Offer a wide distribution deal with some type of margin/rev share based on sale. I.e. you can sell/include the ST product on your platform. The NFL charges X and the partners can sell above that and make their margin or use for other purposes.

Sure seems like they'd pursue #2. Go for wide distribution, forgo some type of exclusivity structure and get as wide of a distribution footprint as possible.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

cwpomeroy said:


> Seems to me two paths... depending on the confidence the NFL has in their product...
> 
> 1. Look for an exclusive or limited access partnership where they offload revenue risk to a partner(s) via some type of exclusivity payment. This was the historical model and worked because there was also limited commoditized distribution capabilities.
> 
> ...


TBH, I think that might be their only choice at this point, unless they want to go to one of the big streaming players and forego any traditional provider offering, like DirecTV or cable or perhaps YTTV or some such. The problem with cable is obviously it's regional, and they don't want to lock themselves into something like that, Comcast, for example has little footprint in NYC (they do have some in the 'burbs). So, that means that they'd have to push it off through Peacock or some other streaming method that they own. To me, it's either exclusive with DirecTV (the current model, with perhaps DirecTV Stream as well), or the sell it like MLB EI, NBA League Pass etc. And I think, the latter is more likely, since DirecTV has repeatedly said they aren't interested in the current format any longer. I will concede that it COULD be a ploy, but I doubt it, especially with other interested parties with deep pockets very interested now.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I find it interesting that DIRECTV is paying $1.5 billion to the NFL each year and is claiming that they are losing "tens of millions of dollars" on the deal. That means the current price is close to "break even". (I was expecting to hear DIRECTV was losing hundreds of millions of dollars.) Extending service to streaming (former UVerse and DIRECTV Stream) would bring the "tens of millions" loss closer to zero but the NFL wants more money for more distribution.

If DIRECTV can get a reasonable deal that covers all services they MAY not walk away. But I don't expect the NFL's ask to be reasonable and there are deeper pockets. DIRECTV won't be in a bidding war for Sunday Ticket.

Some of the streamers seem to have unlimited budgets for content so seeing one pay $3 billion for an exclusive would not be surprising.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

James Long said:


> I find it interesting that DIRECTV is paying $1.5 billion to the NFL each year and is claiming that they are losing "tens of millions of dollars" on the deal. That means the current price is close to "break even". (I was expecting to hear DIRECTV was losing hundreds of millions of dollars.) Extending service to streaming (former UVerse and DIRECTV Stream) would bring the "tens of millions" loss closer to zero but the NFL wants more money for more distribution.
> 
> If DIRECTV can get a reasonable deal that covers all services they MAY not walk away. But I don't expect the NFL's ask to be reasonable and there are deeper pockets. DIRECTV won't be in a bidding war for Sunday Ticket.
> 
> Some of the streamers seem to have unlimited budgets for content so seeing one pay $3 billion for an exclusive would not be surprising.


and then jon taffer will need to request an bar that lost the ticket and is now dieing.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Yeah anyone that is talking about running a dozen or more streams over wifi in a sports bar as a one size fits all solution doesn't have the first clue how many problems there are with that idea.


Depends on how good your wifi network is. Wifi 6 could handle it in the vast majority of cases. At any rate, no reason why Amazon couldn't or wouldn't include an ethernet port. Would there still be issues here and there? Sure. Just like there are TV issues in lots of restaurants and bars around here with DTV when it rains. (Don't tell me it doesn't happen, I've witnessed it multiple times.)


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Some of the streamers seem to have unlimited budgets for content so seeing one pay $3 billion for an exclusive would not be surprising.


Yup. If the NFL can get it, they want big money, guaranteed via an exclusivity deal. Reports indicate that they'd also like to see NFL ST available via a streaming platform to make it more accessible to the public, especially younger fans, who simply aren't going to stick a 1990s satellite dish on their roof.

Amazon, Disney, Apple and Google seem like the only companies rich enough, with established streaming services, who could afford to lose money on NFL ST to boost their main businesses (as DTV has done but won't do again). If there's an exclusive (either overall or just on the consumer side), it'll almost certainly be with one of them.

As for consumer vs. commercial accounts, at the end of the day, does the NFL even care if sports bars are able to show out-of-market NFL games if they're getting the kind of overall money on the deal that they want? I'd love to know what percentage of DTV's NFL ST revenue comes from consumer vs. commercial accounts.

Only way I see NFL ST being on DTV again for all customers is if the NFL isn't able to land a big-money exclusive again with any company, meaning that they go the same route as other major sports with a multi-distributor model selling NFL ST through lots of MVPDs and probably as a standalone streaming service too (or perhaps as an add-on to one exclusive streaming service, such as Prime Video).

Aside from that, it's certainly possible that we see DTV serving commercial establishments again, either because they have an exclusive direct agreement with the NFL for that business or because they get it sub-contracted out to them by, say, Disney, who obviously already has a distribution relationship in place with DTV.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> Yup. If the NFL can get it, they want big money, guaranteed via an exclusivity deal. Reports indicate that they'd also like to see NFL ST available via a streaming platform to make it more accessible to the public, especially younger fans, who simply aren't going to stick a 1990s satellite dish on their roof.
> 
> Amazon, Disney, Apple and Google seem like the only companies rich enough, with established streaming services, who could afford to lose money on NFL ST to boost their main businesses (as DTV has done but won't do again). If there's an exclusive (either overall or just on the consumer side), it'll almost certainly be with one of them.
> 
> ...


they can use some like joe hand promotions that does commercial distribution for event ppv on cable / sat / streaming


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JoeTheDragon said:


> they can use some like joe hand promotions that does commercial distribution for event ppv on cable / sat / streaming


That is a possibility (as noted above). The streamer still gets their exclusive but delivery is done (to commercial customers only) via a traditional method.

The important thing to remember is that IF the NFL sells an exclusive for (ballpark) $3 billion they will not care if one customer is watching or 20 million. The NFL will get $3 billion. The NFL won't care if they are in bars or not. The NFL will get $3 billion. Every sports bar in the country could close. The NFL would get $3 billion. The NFL is getting money and viewership from the OTA networks (as well as Amazon for Thursday Night). The best deal they can cut is billions of dollars with no concern whether or not people can or do watch.

The only way to make the NFL care how many people subscribe would be to pay the NFL per subscriber. That is where they will want wider distribution and more subscribers. Give the NFL a high flat rate and they will be happier.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> I think you're probably right. If you saw my longer post earlier today on the topic, you'll see that I think it's most likely that a major streaming company, probably Amazon, lands an overall exclusive deal. They've repeatedly shown that they're willing to spend big on video to attract and retain Prime members since that drives much higher retail sales.


I think I recall having come across that roughly 50 percent of U.S. households have an Amazon Prime subscription. That is tremendous.


----------



## LoweBoy (Sep 16, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Depends on how good your wifi network is. Wifi 6 could handle it in the vast majority of cases. At any rate, no reason why Amazon couldn't or wouldn't include an ethernet port. Would there still be issues here and there? Sure. Just like there are TV issues in lots of restaurants and bars around here with DTV when it rains. (Don't tell me it doesn't happen, I've witnessed it multiple times.)


I recently went to att tv and have had 6 WiFi devices streaming sports with kids and friends all on their phones (tic tok & YouTube & bookface) and never skipped a beat. I have really enjoyed suspending my DTV and trying it out, half the price is nice. I tried YouTube TV and wasn't a fan. I can eat up 3 streams very easily. Only draw back is getting updates via your phone as events are "live" and getting the update before the tv displays the event.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Marvin (Sep 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> That is a possibility (as noted above). The streamer still gets their exclusive but delivery is done (to commercial customers only) via a traditional method.
> 
> The important thing to remember is that IF the NFL sells an exclusive for (ballpark) $3 billion they will not care if one customer is watching or 20 million. The NFL will get $3 billion. The NFL won't care if they are in bars or not. The NFL will get $3 billion. Every sports bar in the country could close. The NFL would get $3 billion. The NFL is getting money and viewership from the OTA networks (as well as Amazon for Thursday Night). The best deal they can cut is billions of dollars with no concern whether or not people can or do watch.
> 
> The only way to make the NFL care how many people subscribe would be to pay the NFL per subscriber. That is where they will want wider distribution and more subscribers. Give the NFL a high flat rate and they will be happier.


I don't even think sports bars will be as big of a thing as casino sportsbooks will be in a couple years and they pretty much need the ability to show all 13 sunday games from across the country on huge tv screens.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

APB101 said:


> I think I recall having come across that roughly 50 percent of U.S. households have an Amazon Prime subscription. That is tremendous.


Which is why trying something like this to drive Amazon Prime subscriptions is silly, because so many people already subscribe - because most people subscribe for the free shipping and probably tens of millions don't even watch videos. Even if there was zero overlap between current Amazon Prime subscribers and NFLST viewers, that's only a few million extra subscriptions - that's a drop in the bucket when you have 70 million or whatever already in the US.

It would make more sense for Peacock or Apple TV+ to do, the new guys on the block that don't have so many paying subscribers would benefit more from something like this. If you only have 10 or 20 million, adding a few million more has a much bigger impact - and the odds are better that most potential NFLST viewers aren't already subscribers.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Which is why trying something like this to drive Amazon Prime subscriptions is silly, because so many people already subscribe - because most people subscribe for the free shipping and probably tens of millions don't even watch videos. Even if there was zero overlap between current Amazon Prime subscribers and NFLST viewers, that's only a few million extra subscriptions - that's a drop in the bucket when you have 70 million or whatever already in the US.
> 
> It would make more sense for Peacock or Apple TV+ to do, the new guys on the block that don't have so many paying subscribers would benefit more from something like this. If you only have 10 or 20 million, adding a few million more has a much bigger impact - and the odds are better that most potential NFLST viewers aren't already subscribers.


Maybe, maybe not. Amazon has been trying extremely hard to bring in Live sports. They have the Thursday games for the NFL, they do some baseball as the NY Yankees have about 20-30 games on. While Prime is in many households as you say, many don't watch the videos and that's the part of the business they want to grow. People don't realize that they sell subs to other subscription services and they take a piece of that. They would most likely sell ST as a separate sub, and even if they broke even on it, it's possible it could drive their other things. I do also wonder if they will give someone like Amazon the ability to just sell for one team or just a game. For example. Say you want to watch the Dallas-WFT game on week 16 because it has playoff implications for your team. Right now, you'd have to buy the whole package, but for $10 lets say, you could just buy THAT particular game. So it would be like PPV. There are so many possibilities that both sides could make money on.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> That is a possibility (as noted above). The streamer still gets their exclusive but delivery is done (to commercial customers only) via a traditional method.
> 
> The important thing to remember is that IF the NFL sells an exclusive for (ballpark) $3 billion they will not care if one customer is watching or 20 million. The NFL will get $3 billion. The NFL won't care if they are in bars or not. The NFL will get $3 billion. Every sports bar in the country could close. The NFL would get $3 billion. The NFL is getting money and viewership from the OTA networks (as well as Amazon for Thursday Night). The best deal they can cut is billions of dollars with no concern whether or not people can or do watch.


Exactly. I think in debating the topic, we've been too caught up in the question of "But how will NFL ST be delivered to commercial establishments like sports bars?," with many thinking that it'll surely still be satellite used for that.

But there's no reason to necessarily think that NFL ST will be available to commercial establishments at all next time. It's instructive to look at what's happening with Thursday Night Football. Come next year, the only way to watch those games if they don't include your local team will be to stream them via Prime Video. (Games featuring a local team will be broadcast by a local OTA TV station, and presumably carried on its MVPD partners, although I don't know whether the game might be blacked out on streaming vMVPDs such as YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream. I also don't know whether it's Amazon or the NFL who's directly dealing with those local stations.)

AFAIK, there's been no indication that Amazon will create a way for commercial establishments to legally show those out-of-market Thursday Night Football games. Maybe Amazon simply doesn't care about whatever incremental revenue they could get for licensing public viewing. Maybe they want NFL fans to have no option *other* than to stream those out-of-market TNF games via Prime Video. As for the NFL, hey, they're getting their $1 billion per year from Amazon for those exclusive rights, so what do they care if sports bars are shut out?

And if it turns out that that's the situation with TNF, why would it necessarily be any different if Amazon or another streaming/tech giant bought exclusive rights for NFL ST?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Which is why trying something like this to drive Amazon Prime subscriptions is silly, because so many people already subscribe - because most people subscribe for the free shipping and probably tens of millions don't even watch videos. Even if there was zero overlap between current Amazon Prime subscribers and NFLST viewers, that's only a few million extra subscriptions - that's a drop in the bucket when you have 70 million or whatever already in the US.


But your take here doesn't seem to jibe with the way Amazon thinks about Prime. They want to increase its value and make it stickier, hence the reason they keep spending on Prime perks, especially video. The first season alone of their forthcoming Lord of the Rings series has cost them $465 million, making it the most expensive season of television ever produced.

IMO, the best argument why Amazon might pass on paying a ton for an NFL ST exclusive is because they're already paying $1 billion for exclusive out-of-market rights to Thursday Night Football starting next year. So maybe they feel like Prime will already have enough appeal to NFL fans and it wouldn't be worth spending more on that sport. (OTOH, it's also a reason to think that they might bid on NFL ST, because they're obviously very interested in the sport, and live sports in general.)

But maybe Amazon calculates that they can sell and monetize NFL ST in a way that they actually break even on the direct cost. Bring the full season price down, and maybe offer cheaper season passes for just one team or even sell individual games as Steveknj says. They obviously have a MUCH larger base to sell to (an estimated 147 million Prime members in the US -- which has to be individuals, not households -- versus DTV's peak subscriber count of, what, 22 million accounts?). Maybe they insert their own targeted ads during the ad breaks based on data they've gleaned from users' shopping and viewing history to further offset costs. The games will have multiple pauses for ad breaks anyhow, since they're carried locally by CBS and Fox.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

As to the Thursday night games, Amazon has a year to figure it out, but I suspect they realize it is a losing battle trying to get paid by local mom and pop bars, but big slow targets like chain sports bars, and especially casinos, will probably have to pay up. 

As to the package ever making a profit on a cash basis, do the math. If Amazon has 147M accounts, and say they cut the price to $150 and pay “only” a modest increase of $2B, they would need a sale rate of just under 10%. About 13.5M sales. An average NFL Sunday afternoon game gets about 16M viewers. If only 16M are watching the “free” game on Fox or CBS, it is hard to see where you find 13M to pay to watch other games.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SamC said:


> As to the Thursday night games, Amazon has a year to figure it out, but I suspect they realize it is a losing battle trying to get paid by local mom and pop bars, but big slow targets like chain sports bars, and especially casinos, will probably have to pay up.


Or Amazon simply doesn't allow any of those places to show out-of-market TNF games at all and takes legal action against select establishments that try to stream them via Prime Video. No going down to the local bar to watch those games for free, you gotta join Prime if you wanna see them.

If they instead do allow those places to pay to legally show the TNF games, they'll have to figure out a sales, billing, distribution and support system. Which of course Amazon is capable of if that's something they choose to do. Will be interesting to see what happens come Sept. 2022.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> But there's no reason to necessarily think that NFL ST will be available to commercial establishments at all next time.


While this might fly during lockdowns, it wouldn't be sufferable in the long term. A large portion of the revenue (and motivation) for NFLST came from commercial establishments. Transferring the offering to those with video providers other than DIRECTV will almost certainly be a big win on the residential side, but probably no where near enough to replace the revenues lost from commercial subscriptions.


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> Or Amazon simply doesn't allow any of those places to show out-of-market TNF games at all and takes legal action against select establishments that try to stream them via Prime Video. No going down to the local bar to watch those games for free, you gotta join Prime if you wanna see them.
> 
> If they instead do allow those places to pay to legally show the TNF games, they'll have to figure out a sales, billing, distribution and support system. Which of course Amazon is capable of if that's something they choose to do. Will be interesting to see what happens come Sept. 2022.


DirecTV has exclusive rights to Sunday ticket for the upcoming season (2021) and next season (2022). 
But, I would think that if a streamer gets all or part of the deal, they will need some time to make sure their infrastructure will be ready.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> A large portion of the revenue (and motivation) for NFLST came from commercial establishments.


That was part of DIRECTV's motivation ... but there is absolutely NO guarantee that the next company that buys an exclusive will sell the package commercially or need to do so. How they try to get a return on their investment is up to the investor. The NFL gets paid and walks away happy.

Since we are down the rabbit hole (not quite on topic for the spinoff) consider this: What if some sports book company bought the exclusive to use in casinos and possibly stream online to their customers? Want to see an out of market game? Go to a casino instead of your local bar. Or watch it on a gambling laden app if they choose to stream. The exclusive doesn't have to go to a MVPD or existing streaming service.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> While this might fly during lockdowns, it wouldn't be sufferable in the long term. A large portion of the revenue (and motivation) for NFLST came from commercial establishments. Transferring the offering to those with video providers other than DIRECTV will almost certainly be a big win on the residential side, but probably no where near enough to replace the revenues lost from commercial subscriptions.


Well, as I said earlier, it would be interesting to know the revenue breakdown of residential vs. commercial that DTV has received over the years for NFL ST subscriptions.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

glrush said:


> DirecTV has exclusive rights to Sunday ticket for the upcoming season (2021) and next season (2022).
> But, I would think that if a streamer gets all or part of the deal, they will need some time to make sure their infrastructure will be ready.


If anyone's streaming infrastructure is or ever will be ready, it's Amazon Web Services. They power Netflix, among tons of other clients.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> What if some sports book company bought the exclusive to use in casinos and possibly stream online to their customers?


Why would Sinclair accept such an offer from a sports book company if it meant exclusion from a large number of casinos?

For their part, Bally's operates only 15 casinos in 11 states.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Well, as I said earlier, it would be interesting to know the revenue breakdown of residential vs. commercial that DTV has received over the years for NFL ST subscriptions.


There are a lot of things that we'll simply never know about DIRECTV going forward (not that they divulged such things back in the day).

I too am surprised by the "tens of millions" comment. I would have expected it to be much greater damage given that DIRECTV's costs weren't tied to subscriber count along with the occasional comments about NFLST being a loss-leader over the years. I'm absolutely in agreement with DIRECTV that the NFL has done serious damage to the value by scheduling so many games for other than Sundays.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> Why would Sinclair accept such an offer from a sports book company if it meant exclusion from a large number of casinos?
> 
> For their part, Bally's operates only 15 casinos in 11 states.


What does Sinclair have to do with the NFL and NFL Sunday Ticket?

Their TV stations affiliated with major networks carry NFL games, but Sinclair does not control distribution of NFL games.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> Or Amazon simply doesn't allow any of those places to show out-of-market TNF games at all and takes legal action against select establishments that try to stream them via Prime Video. No going down to the local bar to watch those games for free, you gotta join Prime if you wanna see them.
> 
> If they instead do allow those places to pay to legally show the TNF games, they'll have to figure out a sales, billing, distribution and support system. Which of course Amazon is capable of if that's something they choose to do. Will be interesting to see what happens come Sept. 2022.





NashGuy said:


> Or Amazon simply doesn't allow any of those places to show out-of-market TNF games at all and takes legal action against select establishments that try to stream them via Prime Video. No going down to the local bar to watch those games for free, you gotta join Prime if you wanna see them.
> 
> If they instead do allow those places to pay to legally show the TNF games, they'll have to figure out a sales, billing, distribution and support system. Which of course Amazon is capable of if that's something they choose to do. Will be interesting to see what happens come Sept. 2022.


they better look out for people who try to get an Canada dish?
Let's just say the CRTC Regulate Streaming Services and part of that is an some kind of an exclusive ban? Or maybe any exclusive live sports feed must be offered to cable like systems.

Now maybe in the USA network neutrality cap exclusives? Some kind of rule is put in so they can't pull an CSN philly?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Sunday Ticket is only a small part of the NFL's distribution. Most of it (including the Sunday Ticket games) are distributed via OTA television networks. Sunday Ticket fills the gaps when a local affiliate is not playing the game of interest in your market. As long as the NFL is being distributed via OTA TV I don't expect any legal issues. A couple games each week available only on streaming or cable channels (except local team markets) isn't enough to cause a problem.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> There are a lot of things that we'll simply never know about DIRECTV going forward (not that they divulged such things back in the day).
> 
> I too am surprised by the "tens of millions" comment. I would have expected it to be much greater damage given that DIRECTV's costs weren't tied to subscriber count along with the occasional comments about NFLST being a loss-leader over the years. I'm absolutely in agreement with DIRECTV that the NFL has done serious damage to the value by scheduling so many games for other than Sundays.


They don't have to be exact about the amount. A loss of $250 million is "tens of millions", 25 tens. They probably have good reason to be cagey about the exact amount as they don't want to give any help to potential other bidders. I can believe the losses might have been small prior to last year, but so many bars were closed or limited that commercial revenue had to suffer, and people were laid off would cut unnecessary expenses like NFLST (and Directv itself) so the losses had to be much bigger in 2020 than they were in 2019.

Maybe they are hoping for a streaming company to come along and bid high thinking "well if Directv is only losing a few tens of millions, our wider distribution should make it profitable even at the higher price the NFL is asking us to pay", planning to come along and tell that streaming company "hey how about you help better monetize your investment by letting us sell NFLST to rural customers who can't stream and commercial accounts and we'll give you a cut".


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I tend to accept what people say unless proven otherwise ... Understating the losses to hide a bad investment from the shareholders? I'd buy that. But understating losses as some sort of mind trick to convince another MVPD to take over the service as an exclusive and then try to ride the coattails? I'm not buying that. If anything (if playing mind tricks) I'd expect the losses to be overstated to drive down the value of an exclusive and try to convince the NFL to move to a non-exclusive model that will be cheaper for DIRECTV and available via satellite or streaming.

I would not expect "tens of millions" to be 25 tens. In a casual answer that would be "hundreds of millions". Playing mind tricks? Possibly. But I don't think so.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> What does Sinclair have to do with the NFL and NFL Sunday Ticket?


Bally's is one such sports book company that, with the help of Sinclair, is building an infrastructure for something like this.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Do we know currently how many ST subscribers there are with DirecTV? How many of those are comped? For example, I had ST a couple of times when I was with them but never once paid for it, nor would I ever. The reason I ask, is just trying to see what the REAL damage would be to DirecTV if they dropped ST. How many subscribers would leave SOLELY because ST is no longer there? I bet it would be less than 5%. And I bet DirecTV did the math and realized that for the amount of money they were spending on bringing it in, they might not ever recoup that expenditure and they are better off losing that 5% than to pay through the nose for the rights to carry it. At some point the consumer will say no, I'm done spending $300 a year on that. I don't think these people are dumb and the number crunchers have been looking into it.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> They probably have good reason to be cagey about the exact amount as they don't want to give any help to potential other bidders.


It seems pretty obvious that DIRECTV considers themselves out of the NFLST game after 2022 so they've got little to lose by being truthful.

The people who make the business decisions surely know the numbers and since DIRECTV is a wholly-owned joint venture, shareholder buzz probably isn't an issue.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Do we know currently how many ST subscribers there are with DirecTV?


That information hasn't been freely shared. There have been hints here and there but nothing particularly conclusive.


> How many of those are comped?


That's something that would be suicide to admit. If they gave the impression that NFLST were easy to get for free, many would think twice about paying (although recent reports suggest that they're comping a lot at the moment).


> The reason I ask, is just trying to see what the REAL damage would be to DirecTV if they dropped ST. How many subscribers would leave SOLELY because ST is no longer there? I bet it would be less than 5%.


This is a question that DIRECTV has been asking themselves for a long time and up to now, they've decided that dropping it wasn't worth it. Today the story is different and they openly claim to not want to fight to retain the exclusive after their current contract is over. I'd imagine that the number is closer to 10% that keep DIRECTV for the _opportunity_ to get NFLST (one way or the other) as well as the other sports offerings.

Maybe they're deluded into thinking that they'll capture these sports fanatics using DIRECTV Stream product and maybe they'll beef up the sports offering between now and then but they're off to a rather slow start there.


----------



## Teetertotter (Jul 23, 2020)

With all the hubbub going on, we will see what changes or not, will take place over the next numerous months. Directv Satellite has been is so User Friendly. 

We also have Roku on both his/hers TVs, which we use. So, we have options for the future, if needed. My wife is on board, if we switch to YTTV, but have to try first. It has the required channels we both use. My only question I have not emailed to them is, are most of their channels in 1080p or 1080i.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

harsh said:


> That information hasn't been freely shared. There have been hints here and there but nothing particularly conclusive.That's something that would be suicide to admit. If they gave the impression that NFLST were easy to get for free, many would think twice about paying (although recent reports suggest that they're comping a lot at the moment).This is a question that DIRECTV has been asking themselves for a long time and up to now, they've decided that dropping it wasn't worth it. Today the story is different and they openly claim to not want to fight to retain the exclusive after their current contract is over. I'd imagine that the number is closer to 10% that keep DIRECTV for the _opportunity_ to get NFLST (one way or the other) as well as the other sports offerings.
> 
> Maybe they're deluded into thinking that they'll capture these sports fanatics using DIRECTV Stream product and maybe they'll beef up the sports offering between now and then but they're off to a rather slow start there.


The thing is, for the most part, the "other sports offerings" are availble on AT&T TV (except for NFL Network). In fact singing up for it gave me NBA League Pass for free. So, outside of ST, I have little reason to not move over to their streaming service. But the question is, if you got all your other sports, would ST be a reason to say? I'd say under certain circumstances, yes. The specific one is if you are a fan of a team outside your area, it gives you that. Is that enough? I don't know the answer to that.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Teetertotter said:


> With all the hubbub going on, we will see what changes or not, will take place over the next numerous months. Directv Satellite has been is so User Friendly.
> 
> We also have Roku on both his/hers TVs, which we use. So, we have options for the future, if needed. My wife is on board, if we switch to YTTV, but have to try first. It has the required channels we both use. My only question I have not emailed to them is, are most of their channels in 1080p or 1080i.


None of the streaming services transmit anything in 1080i. Everything is streamed as progressive scan. Pretty sure that YTTV (like DTV Stream) sends out 720p channels in 720p and 1080i channels in 1080p (i.e. they de-interlace the 1080i channels into progressive-scan 1080p before streaming it out to the viewer).


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Or Amazon simply doesn't allow any of those places to show out-of-market TNF games at all and takes legal action against select establishments that try to stream them via Prime Video


Yes, that would be the losing battle I was referring to. The idea that Amazon, or any entity can "simply" not allow the 100s of 1000s of local bars and such from just tossing up a game that you can cast from a cell phone, is just not going to happen. Can they hit up big chains with something to lose? Sure. Can they invite horrid publicity by making an example out of the 1 out of 100000 small time bar they catch? Sure, but it is still a losing battle.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Steveknj said:


> Do we know currently how many ST subscribers there are with DirecTV? How many of those are comped? For example, I had ST a couple of times when I was with them but never once paid for it, nor would I ever. The reason I ask, is just trying to see what the REAL damage would be to DirecTV if they dropped ST. How many subscribers would leave SOLELY because ST is no longer there? I bet it would be less than 5%. And I bet DirecTV did the math and realized that for the amount of money they were spending on bringing it in, they might not ever recoup that expenditure and they are better off losing that 5% than to pay through the nose for the rights to carry it. At some point the consumer will say no, I'm done spending $300 a year on that. I don't think these people are dumb and the number crunchers have been looking into it.


It must be far fewer than 5.1 million which is how many they would need to just break even at the basic Sunday Ticket price of $293.94. At Sunday Ticket Max pricing of $395.94 it would take almost 3.8 million subscribers to break even. They claim to have been losing "tens of millions" on it. In over 25 years with DirecTV I think I've gotten it free about 4 times. I have never paid for it. Got it free last year. Doesn't look like I will this year. Life goes on.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SamC said:


> Yes, that would be the losing battle I was referring to. The idea that Amazon, or any entity can "simply" not allow the 100s of 1000s of local bars and such from just tossing up a game that you can cast from a cell phone, is just not going to happen. Can they hit up big chains with something to lose? Sure. Can they invite horrid publicity by making an example out of the 1 out of 100000 small time bar they catch? Sure, but it is still a losing battle.


Yeah, they'd never be able to stop _all_ public screenings. But probably most of it. I don't think you'd see many bars advertising that they have TNF if it was against the law for them to show it. And if you can't advertise it, then you just have to rely on word of mouth among your regulars, I guess, to draw in a crowd.

I do think most major ISPs know which of their customers are commercial and which are residential. Amazon might work with Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon, etc. to block those customers' IP addresses from accessing Prime Video streams (at least on Thursday nights during football season). Guess that still wouldn't stop a bar owner from streaming it via cellular on his personal phone and casting it to a TV though.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Guest WI-Fi would be a reason not to block Amazon Prime. I'm not sure how many people would go to a bar to watch something privatelty on their own device, but a block aimed at TNF could affect all viewing.

What would be the cost of putting something in place and who would be paying the cost? Would ISPs want to pay to support Amazon's blocking without getting paid by Amazon to perform the service? Would they want to take the blame if the blocking was not coordinated correctly? If Amazon wants blocking they can install it and manage it themselves.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Guest WI-Fi would be a reason not to block Amazon Prime. I'm not sure how many people would go to a bar to watch something privatelty on their own device, but a block aimed at TNF could affect all viewing.
> 
> What would be the cost of putting something in place and who would be paying the cost? Would ISPs want to pay to support Amazon's blocking without getting paid by Amazon to perform the service? Would they want to take the blame if the blocking was not coordinated correctly? If Amazon wants blocking they can install it and manage it themselves.


Maybe ISPs don't want to be involved in copyright infringement/intellectual property theft? Many have blocked access to torrent sites. I'm not sure any ISP would really want to needlessly cross Amazon, especially if it's something as simple as handing over blocks of IP addresses starting with certain numbers. "Here, these are the anonymous IP addresses either statically or dynamically assigned to our enterprise accounts." I wouldn't see anyone advertising the fact it was being done, it would just be quietly implemented.

As for anyone who would want to go to a sports bar and then watch TNF on their own phone, they could use cellular when Prime Video gave them a "Sorry, this content is not supported via your current internet connection. Please try connecting from your cellular or home wifi connection."

Anyhow, I think we've exhausted this hypothetical rabbit hole! We'll have to wait until Sept. 2022 to see what actually happens...


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Teetertotter said:


> With all the hubbub going on, we will see what changes or not, will take place over the next numerous months. Directv Satellite has been is so User Friendly.
> 
> We also have Roku on both his/hers TVs, which we use. So, we have options for the future, if needed. My wife is on board, if we switch to YTTV, but have to try first. It has the required channels we both use. My only question I have not emailed to them is, are most of their channels in 1080p or 1080i.


The vast majority of the channels I have checked are 1080p with a few that are 720p. It all depends on what the channel is providing to YTTV.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> It seems pretty obvious that DIRECTV considers themselves out of the NFLST game after 2022 so they've got little to lose by being truthful.
> 
> The people who make the business decisions surely know the numbers and since DIRECTV is a wholly-owned joint venture, shareholder buzz probably isn't an issue.


Only obvious to someone like you who doesn't pay attention. They said they would not renew the same deal, not that they did not want to offer NFLST at all.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

b4pjoe said:


> It must be far fewer than 5.1 million which is how many they would need to just break even at the basic Sunday Ticket price of $293.94. At Sunday Ticket Max pricing of $395.94 it would take almost 3.8 million subscribers to break even. They claim to have been losing "tens of millions" on it. In over 25 years with DirecTV I think I've gotten it free about 4 times. I have never paid for it. Got it free last year. Doesn't look like I will this year. Life goes on.


Directv's calculations of whether NFLST pays for itself would include their assessment of how much profit they make from subscribers they believe they have who subscribe to Directv because that's the only way to get NFLST. Giving it away free to attract and retain customers is part of that strategy.

There is also the commercial revenue. A larger sports bar pays in excess of $10K per season, and it is NEVER offered free to them.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Maybe ISPs don't want to be involved in copyright infringement/intellectual property theft? Many have blocked access to torrent sites. I'm not sure any ISP would really want to needlessly cross Amazon, especially if it's something as simple as handing over blocks of IP addresses starting with certain numbers. "Here, these are the anonymous IP addresses either statically or dynamically assigned to our enterprise accounts." I wouldn't see anyone advertising the fact it was being done, it would just be quietly implemented.
> 
> As for anyone who would want to go to a sports bar and then watch TNF on their own phone, they could use cellular when Prime Video gave them a "Sorry, this content is not supported via your current internet connection. Please try connecting from your cellular or home wifi connection."


I thought you were proposing the ISP would do the blocking. Identifying ranges as commercial vs non-commercial and letting Amazon do the blocking would be fair.
I don't see this as the same as blocking torrents and other activity that would be illegal (in most cases) on both commercial and residential accounts.
And I was considering the other content on Amazon that would be blocked by an ISP level block (where the ISP doesn't know if you are streaming TNF or other content). If the block is on the Amazon end they would have a better chance of knowing what was being watched from that IP and not wipe out all Amazon service to a business.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Teetertotter said:


> My only question I have not emailed to them is, are most of their channels in 1080p or 1080i.


The native format of Full HD (1920x1080) channels is 1080i, so I'm not sure why this is important unless your TVs/receivers are really awful at scan doubling.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> And I was considering the other content on Amazon that would be blocked by an ISP level block (where the ISP doesn't know if you are streaming TNF or other content). If the block is on the Amazon end they would have a better chance of knowing what was being watched from that IP and not wipe out all Amazon service to a business.


Not making the DNS information widely available could be a relatively easy way to pull this kind of filtering off. The package provider could offer private DNS servers that subscribers could enter into their routers that provide the links to the content.

Hiding something is much easier than blocking it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DNS would also be easy to work around. Just find a different DNS server. Unless the ISP blocks DNS traffic except to their servers it is an easy workaround ... and if an ISP put such a block on my business ISP service I would be changing ISPs (we use Cisco's Umbrella service to block services via DNS - and ISP blocking access to Cisco Umbrella would not survive as an ISP for my business).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> DNS would also be easy to work around. Just find a different DNS server.


If the DNS server that pointed to the streaming service were private and didn't share its mapping tables with mainstream DNS providers, the information won't easily get out. IP addresses could be discovered and distributed via social media but that would probably only last a day. If you spun up a few private DNS servers you could narrow down who might be giving out the IP addresses.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Directv's calculations of whether NFLST pays for itself would include their assessment of how much profit they make from subscribers they believe they have who subscribe to Directv because that's the only way to get NFLST. Giving it away free to attract and retain customers is part of that strategy.
> 
> There is also the commercial revenue. A larger sports bar pays in excess of $10K per season, and it is NEVER offered free to them.


You might be right and that's why I was looking for the numbers. And AT&T could be posturing. But for some reason I doubt it. The NFL is going to want MORE for ST. We've seen their traditional broadcast contracts go way up. AT&T doesn't want to pay for a huge increase. So we'll see. I'm still leaning toward thinking that they will keep a piece of it, but not exclusive. "Giving it away" as you said is a strategy to keep customers, but, I'm not sure they are all that interested in keeping DirecTV customers to be honest. Now, if they can work a deal where they can also stream to AT&T TV (or DirecTV Stream if that's what they are calling it) they might be willing. That's going to be their money maker and if they offered ST to that service, THEN, that would be a huge draw for that service and enough to bring some folks from YTTV and Hulu and Fubo and others. But at what price? There's always a price that's too much. Of course Google, with their huge wallets could jump in and do the same for YTTV, as could Hulu who could partner it up with ESPN+. That's why I don't think it's the slam dunk that a lot of you folks think it is for DirecTV. The landscape has changed A LOT since 2014.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> "Giving it away" as you said is a strategy to keep customers, but, I'm not sure they are all that interested in keeping DirecTV customers to be honest. Now, if they can work a deal where they can also stream to AT&T TV (or DirecTV Stream if that's what they are calling it) they might be willing.


The problem as I see it is that DIRECTV Stream is not a drop-in replacement for the DIRECTV DBS experience yet. Taking NFLST out of the picture will certainly sour the DBS teat, but it probably isn't enough to overcome inertia. DIRECTV has arguably been weening their DBS subscriber base in other incremental ways (OTA tuners, RVers, the DIRECTV App) but all of this just makes DIRECTV DBS less attractive rather than DIRECTV Stream more attractive.

Transitioning some 70+% of their customer base needs to be very carefully executed or they'll lose the goodwill of their preferred customers they've been cultivating.


----------



## JMII (Jan 19, 2008)

harsh said:


> The native format of Full HD (1920x1080) channels is 1080i, so I'm not sure why this is important unless your TVs/receivers are really awful at scan doubling.


I am currently testing Sling as a DTV replacement and the picture quality is superior. Even my wife who normally doesn't care that much because she still watches old standard def content keeps commenting on how much better Sling looks. Maybe this is because we run Sling off a 4K Apple TV (1st gen) with HDR on.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

harsh said:


> The problem as I see it is that DIRECTV Stream is not a drop-in replacement for the DIRECTV DBS experience yet. Taking NFLST out of the picture will certainly sour the DBS teat, but it probably isn't enough to overcome inertia. DIRECTV has arguably been weening their DBS subscriber base in other incremental ways (OTA tuners, RVers, the DIRECTV App) but all of this just makes DIRECTV DBS less attractive rather than DIRECTV Stream more attractive.
> 
> Transitioning some 70+% of their customer base needs to be very carefully executed or they'll lose the goodwill of their preferred customers they've been cultivating.


I'm guessing that they won't actively try and make their DBS customers switch, but they will offer price incentives that might make some do exactly that. What they WILL do is push new customers to their streaming platform. And it's quite possible that bringing in ST to streaming might help with that, just as it did with DirecTV in the past. That might be something they are looking at. And part of why they are not as interested in ST as it stands now, is that they are moving toward making their streaming product as their primary product. Keeping ST on DirecTV DBS might not be a smart strategy if that's what they want to do.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

harsh said:


> The problem as I see it is that DIRECTV Stream is not a drop-in replacement for the DIRECTV DBS experience yet. Taking NFLST out of the picture will certainly sour the DBS teat, but it probably isn't enough to overcome inertia. DIRECTV has arguably been weening their DBS subscriber base in other incremental ways (OTA tuners, RVers, the DIRECTV App) but all of this just makes DIRECTV DBS less attractive rather than DIRECTV Stream more attractive.
> 
> Transitioning some 70+% of their customer base needs to be very carefully executed or they'll lose the goodwill of their preferred customers they've been cultivating.


Also wanted to address your first comment. I've made the switch, and I think it's pretty darn close to a replacement for DirecTV for people who have broadband. There are obviously still a few things "missing" but most of it is minor to be honest. AT&T has unlimited SP, which is something that DirecTV doesn't have, but DirecTV has no time limit on saving shows (since it's all local). There are a few missing channels still on AT&T TV that DirecTV has, but that's certainly resolvable. PQ can be better on AT&T TV, but again, some of that can be related to how good your broadband is. And they need to work on a few little DVR details, mostly around sports, such as manual padding and team season passes. But again, these are resolvable and there are workarounds. So, outside of broadband issues what do you see as AT&T TV NOT being a replacement for DirecTV outside of what I mentioned?

If you've read through some of my posts over the year or two, you'll see that I have been a streaming skeptic and did not think I could replace DirecTV with streaming, but I've come around, once the content that was missing became available somewhere. For me, as someone with a lot of TVs in play, it's much cheaper. For others with one or two TVs it's not.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> For others with one or two TVs it's not.


Even if you only have one or two TVs, the same level of service on AT&T TV is a fair amount cheaper than on DTV, assuming you're comparing the stated regular (non-discount, non-promo) prices for both. (I know lots of DTV subs get loyalty discounts, which change the equation for them.)

The Entertainment package with DVR service on one TV is about 17% cheaper on AT&T TV (including the optional purchase of one new box at $5/mo for 24 mo., plus the optional $10/mo unlimited DVR add-on), $85 vs. $102.

The Ultimate package with DVR service on three TVs is about 31% cheaper on AT&T TV (same configuration), $120 vs. $175.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Even if you only have one or two TVs, the same level of service on AT&T TV is a fair amount cheaper than on DTV, assuming you're comparing the stated regular (non-discount, non-promo) prices for both. (I know lots of DTV subs get loyalty discounts, which change the equation for them.)
> 
> The Entertainment package with DVR service on one TV is about 17% cheaper on AT&T TV (including the optional purchase of one new box at $5/mo for 24 mo., plus the optional $10/mo unlimited DVR add-on), $85 vs. $102.
> 
> The Ultimate package with DVR service on three TVs is about 31% cheaper on AT&T TV (same configuration), $120 vs. $175.


Very true, though if you "play the game" you can come in cheaper on DirecTV, as long as DirecTV is playing the game too. And I do wonder how long that will last as well. Especially if they are intent on moving people to streaming.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> Now, if they can work a deal where they can also stream to AT&T TV (or DirecTV Stream if that's what they are calling it) they might be willing. That's going to be their money maker and if they offered ST to that service, THEN, that would be a huge draw for that service and enough to bring some folks from YTTV and Hulu and Fubo and others. But at what price? There's always a price that's too much. Of course Google, with their huge wallets could jump in and do the same for YTTV, as could Hulu who could partner it up with ESPN+. That's why I don't think it's the slam dunk that a lot of you folks think it is for DirecTV. The landscape has changed A LOT since 2014.


Agreed. DTV simply isn't a company with a huge wallet from other businesses that can dump lots of money into a loss-leader to help boost their side business of cable TV. Cable TV *is* their business and it's an industry that's in long-term secular decline. OK, yes, there is reason to believe that an increasing share of cable TV subscriptions will shift from traditional to streaming (MVPD to vMVPD) in the coming years but I still can't see how it would make sense for DTV to spend anything up-front to secure exclusive or preferred NFL ST distribution for DTV Stream.

With current pricing, AT&T TV is already getting undercut somewhat on pricing by YTTV, Fubo TV and, to a lesser extent, Hulu Live. The deep pockets at Google and Disney are probably willing to accept narrower profit margins on their relatively small, but growing, vMVPD side businesses than DTV will be. If DTV Stream forks over money for NFL ST, they'll either have to pass that cost on in the form of even higher base prices -- a move they can ill afford as they battle for vMVPD market share -- or the cost will have to come out of their profit margins. But if they're willing to settle for a lower profit margin, why not just lower the ARPU of DTV Stream by cutting the base package prices by, say, $5/mo, or including the unlimited DVR add-on for free?

And if the idea of landing an exclusive for NFL ST on DTV Stream would be to use it as a freebie to attract new customers (as has always been done on DTV satellite), how would that be workable unless they re-introduced an up-front contract for DTV Stream? Maybe they could give new customers the option of committing for 1-2 years, and give them a year of free NFL ST if they did. But even then, I'm really skeptical that they could ever break even on the up-front cost.

The only way I can see DTV Stream ever offering NFL ST is if that package moves to a multi-distributor model where distributors don't bid or pay an up-front cost, they just sell it and get a commission. But if the NFL ends up going in that direction (because they can't find a rich sucker willing to pay a huge amount for an exclusive), I'm not even sure why they would allow vMVPDs to serve as distributors. Because their customers are obviously using streaming devices with app stores (Apple, Amazon, Roku, Google) with which they already have a billing relationship. Why mess with DTV Stream, Hulu, and FuboTV when the NFL could just put out their own NFL ST app on the major app stores (as MLB does with their MLB.tv app)? Now, on the traditional MVPD side, it's a different story, because unless you work with Comcast, Charter, Cox, Verizon, Altice, etc., you have no other way to get your content on those customers' TV boxes.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I'm guessing that they won't actively try and make their DBS customers switch, but they will offer price incentives that might make some do exactly that.


Thus far the strategy seems to be more a matter of disincentivizing DBS but that's a dangerous game.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> And if the idea of landing an exclusive for NFL ST on DTV Stream would be to use it as a freebie to attract new customers (as has always been done on DTV satellite), how would that be workable unless they re-introduced an up-front contract for DTV Stream?


The DIRECTV CEO has made it abundantly clear that NFLST is not something he's interested in. I don't believe that this is a negotiating tactic.

Everyone would almost certainly be better served to give up on the idea.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> The DIRECTV CEO has made it abundantly clear that NFLST is not something he's interested in. I don't believe that this is a negotiating tactic.
> 
> Everyone would almost certainly be better served to give up on the idea.


No that's just more of your usual FUD. Why don't you go back to the Dish forums where you might know what you're talking about.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> No that's just more of your usual FUD. Why don't you go back to the Dish forums where you might know what you're talking about.


How do you know? Where has he said he's very interested? Again, another post where it's clear they a positive of something with no real proof. More, I wish, hope, prey that DirecTV stays the way it is and has always been. I don't think you understand why they spun this off and more importantly, why they spun off both streaming AND SAT to the same management.

What I also find interesting is that by this time, every football season, we are bombarded with DirecTV commercials advertising ST to try and get subs. I haven't seen one yet. But it's possible that it's because I've watched nothing that has to do with the NFL yet.


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

harsh said:


> Transitioning some 70+% of their customer base needs to be very carefully executed or they'll lose the goodwill of their preferred customers they've been cultivating.


DirecTV still has some goodwill left?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Steveknj said:


> How do you know? Where has he said he's very interested? Again, another post where it's clear they a positive of something with no real proof. More, I wish, hope, prey that DirecTV stays the way it is and has always been. I don't think you understand why they spun this off and more importantly, why they spun off both streaming AND SAT to the same management.
> 
> What I also find interesting is that by this time, every football season, we are bombarded with DirecTV commercials advertising ST to try and get subs. I haven't seen one yet. But it's possible that it's because I've watched nothing that has to do with the NFL yet.


I didn't say he was "very interested". The new CEO said they have *no interest in extending the current arrangement*. That's a direct quote. If he was saying Directv had no interest in NFLST at all, like harsh is falsely claiming, he would have said that instead of qualifying it with "the current arrangement".

That doesn't guarantee that Directv will carry NFLST after 2022, but it is clearly in no way a statement that Directv absolutely won't be carrying NFLST after 2022. All he's saying is that Directv will not be a bidder for the same blanket exclusive for NFLST they've had for the past 25 or so years. No one should be reading anything further into it beyond that.


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

harsh said:


> The DIRECTV CEO has made it abundantly clear that NFLST is not something he's interested in. I don't believe that this is a negotiating tactic.
> 
> Everyone would almost certainly be better served to give up on the idea.


No, that is NOT what he said, you need to read the entire article for the entire sentence, in which the new CEO said DirecTV was "not interested in any way, shape or form in extending the* current arrangement (my emphasis added)* with the NFL beyond the 2022 season."

The "current arrangement" is paying for exclusivity. It does NOT say that DirecTV will not have Sunday Ticket, just that they are not interested in it being exclusive to DirecTV. Could DirecTV not have it after the 2022 season? Sure, but nothing the new CEO has publicly said says that it definitely will be or won't, only that will not be exclusive.

DirecTV has Sunday Ticket up to and until it doesn't. That is the only thing we know, for sure, is true.

Here is a link to the original LA Times article:

DirecTV breaks free from AT&T - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

To be fair, harsh was replying to a post suggesting DIRECTV Stream would offer a NFL ST Exclusive. Very unlikely.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

JMII said:


> I am currently testing Sling as a DTV replacement and the picture quality is superior. Even my wife who normally doesn't care that much because she still watches old standard def content keeps commenting on how much better Sling looks. Maybe this is because we run Sling off a 4K Apple TV (1st gen) with HDR on.


HDR on all the time? That just forces everything, even non-HDR content to HDR which can mess up colors since it forces SDR content to the wrong color space. You really should have it set to 4k SDR with match content/frame rate on. That way SDR content is displayed correctly and when you play HDR/DV content it will switch to HDR/DV and display that content correctly.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> To be fair, harsh was replying to a post suggesting DIRECTV Stream would offer a NFL ST Exclusive. Very unlikely.


Well, just to be clear, in my post he was responding to, I was laying out why I do NOT think DTV Stream (with or without DTV satellite, really) will have an NFL ST overall exclusive. IMO, yes, it's _possible_ that DTV satellite will be the exclusive distributor to commercial establishments only come 2023, but that's the only kind of exclusive role I could see for it. And even then, I would expect the deal to be structured in a way so that the NFL (or whoever wins an overall exclusive, e.g. ESPN+) is essentially just paying DTV for use of their satellite distribution system and customer/billing relationships, with no risk of loss for DTV. Can't see how anything else makes much sense for them.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

JMII said:


> I am currently testing Sling as a DTV replacement and the picture quality is superior. Even my wife who normally doesn't care that much because she still watches old standard def content keeps commenting on how much better Sling looks. Maybe this is because we run Sling off a 4K Apple TV (1st gen) with HDR on.


Really? Sling here looks worse than YouTubeTV and ATT TV. I believe its only 30 fps. If you have a good TV that handles the upconvert to 60 or 120 fps, it might look good. Havent tried it on my Sony, but didnt look good with an Nvidia Shield on a Vizio OLED.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

makaiguy said:


> DirecTV still has some goodwill left?


Yes, and it may grow as the realities and memories of AT&T's influence fade.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

Hopeful we all are


----------



## LarryW (May 29, 2007)

Does anybody have a clue where AT&T Sportsnet will fall in this new scenario?


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

LarryW said:


> Does anybody have a clue where AT&T Sportsnet will fall in this new scenario?


In the Houston DMA on 674, just where it's been for years.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

LarryW said:


> Does anybody have a clue where AT&T Sportsnet will fall in this new scenario?


Sportsnet is part of AT&T's WarnerMedia. It is NOT part of the sale of the delivery services to TPG.

Sportsnet is part of the HBO/WarnerMedia spinoff that should close next year (forming Warner Bros Discovery with the Discovery owned channels).
Unlike the TPG deal, Warner Bros Discovery will be separately owned by shareholders.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

So, at its most simplistic level, is the idea for DirecTV to offer similar packages on Direct Stream so that its customers migrate away from the dish to their streaming option, so that they can phase the dish based service out over the next five years?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

TDK1044 said:


> So, at its most simplistic level, is the idea for DirecTV to offer similar packages on Direct Stream so that its customers migrate away from the dish to their streaming option, so that they can phase the dish based service out over the next five years?


They already have for quite a while


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

TDK1044 said:


> So, at its most simplistic level, is the idea for DirecTV to offer similar packages on Direct Stream so that its customers migrate away from the dish to their streaming option, so that they can phase the dish based service out over the next five years?


Though some folks think otherwise, I think that's the ultimate goal, though I DO think they may keep it around at least until broadband is available everywhere.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

James Long said:


> Sportsnet is part of AT&T's WarnerMedia. It is NOT part of the sale of the delivery services to TPG.
> 
> Sportsnet is part of the HBO/WarnerMedia spinoff that should close next year (forming Warner Bros Discovery with the Discovery owned channels).
> Unlike the TPG deal, Warner Bros Discovery will be separately owned by shareholders.


Correct. However, AT&T back in March labeled the Sportnet business as a "non-core asset" and is seeking bids for it. The other two chains (Sinclair AKA Bally, and Comcast AKA NBC) are presumed to be the possible buyers. However both has $$ problems.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Though some folks think otherwise, I think that's the ultimate goal, though I DO think they may keep it around at least until broadband is available everywhere.


The CEO of DIRECTV seems to agree with you about DBS being around for a while.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SamC said:


> However, AT&T back in March labeled the Sportnet business as a "non-core asset" and is seeking bids for it.


AT&T labelled a lot of things (especially their entertainment holdings) as non-core assets and was seeking to "monetize" them. If SportsNet is part of the future WarnerMedia spinoff as James suggests, it may be more useful to think about what Warner Bros. Discovery might want to do with it.

It is intriguing that there was no "SportsNet" in the press release graphic regarding the combined properties in the Warner Bros. Discovery press release though AT&T Sportsnet was a horse in the WarnerMedia stable.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SamC said:


> Correct. However, AT&T back in March labeled the Sportnet business as a "non-core asset" and is seeking bids for it. The other two chains (Sinclair AKA Bally, and Comcast AKA NBC) are presumed to be the possible buyers. However both has $$ problems.


Comcast set a late June deadline for opening bids for their NBC-branded RSNs and Sinclair was reportedly one of the bidders. So I don't see Comcast buying the AT&T SportsNet RSNs. Most likely scenario is that Sinclair ends up with both Comcast's and AT&T's RSNs to add to their Bally Sports brand in time for next spring's supposed direct-to-consumer standalone streaming service launch.

Sinclair wants to buy Comcast's NBC Sports-branded regional networks

No one aside from Sinclair really wants to be in the RSN business any more. If they can't make it work financially -- and it's possible they can't -- then that whole business model will implode and be restructured in the next few years.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> Though some folks think otherwise, I think that's the ultimate goal, though I DO think they may keep it around at least until broadband is available everywhere.


They'll at least keep DTV satellite around until they can get it merged with Dish. Who knows what might happen with the brand/service at that point. Maybe satellite continues to operate under the Dish brand while streaming continues under the DTV (Stream) brand. At any rate, there should continue to be sufficient demand for at least one DBS service to keep it going for several more years. I've got my money on 2027, but who knows, maybe DBS is still going in the early 30s...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TDK1044 said:


> So, at its most simplistic level, is the idea for DirecTV to offer similar packages on Direct Stream so that its customers migrate away from the dish to their streaming option, so that they can phase the dish based service out over the next five years?


Not five years, but the plan and the presentation on the DIRECTV.COM web site is "satellite or stream" same service. Contracts with channels are preventing that from being 100% possible. But moving to one service, separate delivery has been the goal for the past couple of years.

Satellite will be around as long as people subscribe.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SamC said:


> Correct. However, AT&T back in March labeled the Sportnet business as a "non-core asset" and is seeking bids for it.


They could still sell them separately before the Warner Brothers Discovery sale/merger closes next year.

Sinclair seems to have deep pockets and large aspirations. All they have to do is keep raising their carriage fees.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Comcast set a late June deadline for opening bids for their NBC-branded RSNs and Sinclair was reportedly one of the bidders. So I don't see Comcast buying the AT&T SportsNet RSNs. Most likely scenario is that Sinclair ends up with both Comcast's and AT&T's RSNs to add to their Bally Sports brand in time for next spring's supposed direct-to-consumer standalone streaming service launch.
> 
> Sinclair wants to buy Comcast's NBC Sports-branded regional networks
> 
> No one aside from Sinclair really wants to be in the RSN business any more. If they can't make it work financially -- and it's possible they can't -- then that whole business model will implode and be restructured in the next few years.


I said quite awhile back that the RSN business model is broken, I stand by that. But it is taking more time to collapse than I had thought it would. Between broadcast stations, cable channels and sports stuff having a never ending rise in costs to the consumer there is pushback from the consumer to reduce their out of pocket. RSN's being dropped is a perfect example of the consumer, and even most of the streaming services dropping them in order to feed that lower cost to the end user.

As for Sinclair, well their aspirations are high but I don't think their pockets are all that deep. IMO, Dish can afford to ride out the storm when these locals go dark on Dish much better than Sinclair can. And consider this only really affects Dish and its customers, Sling mostly doesn't have the broadcast channels so they will suffer nothing in this.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> I said quite awhile back that the RSN business model is broken, I stand by that. But it is taking more time to collapse than I had thought it would. Between broadcast stations, cable channels and sports stuff having a never ending rise in costs to the consumer there is pushback from the consumer to reduce their out of pocket. RSN's being dropped is a perfect example of the consumer, and even most of the streaming services dropping them in order to feed that lower cost to the end user.
> 
> As for Sinclair, well their aspirations are high but I don't think their pockets are all that deep. IMO, Dish can afford to ride out the storm when these locals go dark on Dish much better than Sinclair can. And consider this only really affects Dish and its customers, Sling mostly doesn't have the broadcast channels so they will suffer nothing in this.


As long as the only way to watch local sports is through an RSN, they will be around. Now, in most markets they are probably overpriced and that might eventually lead to the possibility that RSNs may become another streaming service, like the YES Network app for example. I really think there's a lot of changes coming in the next decade all over the content viewing world, and we are just at the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> As long as the only way to watch local sports is through an RSN, they will be around. Now, in most markets they are probably overpriced and that might eventually lead to the possibility that RSNs may become another streaming service, like the YES Network app for example. I really think there's a lot of changes coming in the next decade all over the content viewing world, and we are just at the tip of the iceberg.


Yes the RSN's might still be around I just think the way cable/sat deals with them is going to see big changes. It has already started with the Bally/Sinclair RSN's getting a streaming app at some point in the future. So instead of nearly all a services subscribers paying, only those that want them will, and of course, at a much higher price.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

The RSN model is not broken, but the times they are a’ changing. The issue is mostly just a sub-set of the overall issue with sports generally. In the past “everybody” had cable/dish and this “everybody” paid, and paid big, for sports channels, even if they were in the MAJORITY of home where no resident had any interest in sports.

A big part of that has been big fees for RSNs. But now, there is a further problem with RSNs, relative to sports fans. The out of market season packages have made it easier, and cheaper, to watch everybody else’s team but your own. Even if Sinclair does an OTT or basic internet availability, the prices they are talking about are way too high. 

In baseball, which IMHO has more regional fans than the NHL or NBA, we are reentering an era not unlike the era when, for no real reason other than the owner’s ineptitude, it was easier to follow the Cubs or Braves than your home team. The small market teams with a big regional following, such as Cincinnati, St. Louis, or Kansas City, are the most vulnerable to this issue.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

I don't know why, but I have a feeling we are going to see a major announcement this week from the new DirecTV. I have NO reason to think this, just a gut feeling. I think we are a couple of weeks from the closing, so it's time for things to really get moving.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

SamC said:


> The RSN model is not broken, but the times they are a' changing. The issue is mostly just a sub-set of the overall issue with sports generally. In the past "everybody" had cable/dish and this "everybody" paid, and paid big, for sports channels, even if they were in the MAJORITY of home where no resident had any interest in sports.
> 
> A big part of that has been big fees for RSNs. But now, there is a further problem with RSNs, relative to sports fans. The out of market season packages have made it easier, and cheaper, to watch everybody else's team but your own. Even if Sinclair does an OTT or basic internet availability, the prices they are talking about are way too high.
> 
> In baseball, which IMHO has more regional fans than the NHL or NBA, we are reentering an era not unlike the era when, for no real reason other than the owner's ineptitude, it was easier to follow the Cubs or Braves than your home team. The small market teams with a big regional following, such as Cincinnati, St. Louis, or Kansas City, are the most vulnerable to this issue.


No resident in the majority of homes has any interest in sports? Is there any data to support that?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

the2130 said:


> No resident in the majority of homes has any interest in sports? Is there any data to support that?


Over quite some time there have been articles claiming that between 10 to 30% of viewers actually view the RSNs.


----------



## Teetertotter (Jul 23, 2020)

mjwagner said:


> The vast majority of the channels I have checked are 1080p with a few that are 720p. It all depends on what the channel is providing to YTTV.


Thanks much and will make it easier if we decide to switch, but will test it out first.


----------



## Teetertotter (Jul 23, 2020)

harsh said:


> The native format of Full HD (1920x1080) channels is 1080i, so I'm not sure why this is important unless your TVs/receivers are really awful at scan doubling.


With my 4K TV, the picture in 1080p, seems more detailed and my AVR will upscale 1080p to a certain 4K spec, but not the highest spec. Some 1080p streaming, there are some 4K Tvs that will upscale too, to a certain degree.


----------



## bnwrx (Dec 29, 2007)

Count me in...I've always been in the low percentiles....


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> I don't know why, but I have a feeling we are going to see a major announcement this week from the new DirecTV. I have NO reason to think this, just a gut feeling. I think we are a couple of weeks from the closing, so it's time for things to really get moving.


Moving to what lol


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Teetertotter said:


> With my 4K TV, the picture in 1080p, seems more detailed and my AVR will upscale 1080p to a certain 4K spec, but not the highest spec.


This issue is a lot like surround sound. Depending on which component of your system is doing to decoding, the results may be noticeably different.

If your AVR is much older than your TV (or your TV cost under $10/inch), it should probably be set for pass-through as it may be stinking up your picture.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

compnurd said:


> Moving to what lol


And that, my friend, is the billion dollar question, isn't it?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> And that, my friend, is the billion dollar question, isn't it?


I dunno. I wouldn't expect anything for a little bit. The patches on the current Android box are coming quite frequently so I think they have there hands full


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> Over quite some time there have been articles claiming that between 10 to 30% of viewers actually view the RSNs.


That's not the same as saying that no resident in the majority of households has any interest in sports.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

I opened the app on one of my TVs through the Fire Stick and another time through the Roku and got a message saying August 26th they officially change their name to DirecTV Stream. No other details other than same service different name, something like that. I wonder what will happen on the boxes?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I wonder what will happen on the boxes?


Probably not much beyond replacing a logo or two along with some updated legal boilerplate text.

I'd imagine there may be some AT&T branding in the bootstrap that can't be replaced but that shouldn't be seen all that often.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I wonder what will happen on the boxes?


Tiny elves will sneak into your home and change the logo on the case. 

Or, DIRECTV will send a firmware download that will melt a new logo into the case.

I read it on the Internet, it must be true.


----------



## JMII (Jan 19, 2008)

Davenlr said:


> Really? Sling here looks worse than YouTubeTV and ATT TV. I believe its only 30 fps. If you have a good TV that handles the upconvert to 60 or 120 fps, it might look good. Havent tried it on my Sony, but didnt look good with an Nvidia Shield on a Vizio OLED.


All my sources are routed thru a basic Pioneer AV receiver (not the Elite series) with everything set to pass thru - if I switch between DTV and Sling (on Roku Ultra or AppleTV), not changing anything on the TV the difference is very noticeable. Sling is sharper with better color. The guide, channel logos, everything looks better. DTV has always compressed their signal, I remember seeing obvious differences from my OTA and the DTV feed of the same local channel. Honestly the PQ difference alone has made switching to streaming worth it.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

JMII said:


> All my sources are routed thru a basic Pioneer AV receiver (not the Elite series) with everything set to pass thru - if I switch between DTV and Sling (on Roku Ultra or AppleTV), not changing anything on the TV the difference is very noticeable. Sling is sharper with better color. The guide, channel logos, everything looks better. DTV has always compressed their signal, I remember seeing obvious differences from my OTA and the DTV feed of the same local channel. Honestly the PQ difference alone has made switching to streaming worth it.


Its just very odd because Sling is very known to have the worst PQ out of all of the services.. While Directv does compress there signal a little.. It is the least out of all of the Traditional Live TV services.. Moving to Streaming. ATT TV has the highest bit rate.. Followed by YTTV Hulu Live and then Sling and Fubo


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

compnurd said:


> Its just very odd because Sling is very known to have the worst PQ out of all of the services.


Is there no chance that they've improved their PQ since these people who "know well" have auditioned the service?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

harsh said:


> Is there no chance that they've improved their PQ since these people who "know well" have auditioned the service?


Nope. On my trial now. Sling PQ is awful.


----------



## Tallgntlmn (Jun 8, 2007)

I saw the news of the spinoff and can only hope that existing subscribers will not continue to be treated like crap. I left because AT&T refused to deal at all. And when they did try to deal, they lied through their teeth and did not honor what they told me. So to the curb they were kicked. Maybe this spinoff means that I can come back one day.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Tallgntlmn said:


> I left because AT&T refused to deal at all.


What service are you using now that haggles?

I absolutely appreciate that they didn't follow through on their promises but I'm not sure one should expect to dicker.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

harsh said:


> What service are you using now that haggles?
> 
> I absolutely appreciate that they didn't follow through on their promises but I'm not sure one should expect to dicker.


The only one I can think of that works sort of like DirecTV is SiriusXM. I have to call every few months, threaten to cancel and they give me a deal. But I never did any of that when I had cable. I always wondered why DirecTV always did it.


----------



## mitchflorida (May 18, 2009)

Tallgntlmn said:


> I saw the news of the spinoff and can only hope that existing subscribers will not continue to be treated like crap. I left because AT&T refused to deal at all. And when they did try to deal, they lied through their teeth and did not honor what they told me. So to the curb they were kicked. Maybe this spinoff means that I can come back one day.


You can sign up as a new customer and that is about as good a deal that you can get.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> The only one I can think of that works sort of like DirecTV is SiriusXM.


Obviously Tallgntlmn was talking about subscription TV service. I don't think it is reasonable to shop based on how willing a service might be to deal on price. The willingness to deal seems to come and go with some frequency.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

mitchflorida said:


> You can sign up as a new customer and that is about as good a deal that you can get.


Obviously, that deal only lasts for up to 12 months and then you're back to playing the CSR lottery.


----------



## mitchflorida (May 18, 2009)

Pay the $240 penalty and switch to Dish. They are handing out $300 Visa Gift Cards for switchers.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

mitchflorida said:


> Pay the $240 penalty and switch to Dish. They are handing out $300 Visa Gift Cards for switchers.


I almost did until I saw the picture quality over at my MIL's house.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

harsh said:


> Is there no chance that they've improved their PQ since these people who "know well" have auditioned the service?


i tried sling t.v. a while bk the PQ flat out sucked. it was in 720P using a roku device. and the picture macro blocked all over then place. if your having issues with it do not close your acct or they forget about you and will not fix it!!! also if you are having issues with it. do not expect a credit to your acct or a refund they have a strict no credits or refund policy it's a prepay service..


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

mitchflorida said:


> Pay the $240 penalty and switch to Dish. They are handing out $300 Visa Gift Cards for switchers.


No thanks. I like TV with content.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

krel said:


> i tried sling t.v. a while bk the PQ flat out sucked.


This wasn't meant to be a trick question. I was soliciting answers from those who had auditioned SlingTV recently.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SamC said:


> No thanks. I like TV with content.


Speaking specifically in terms of content, what are the big differences that you perceive between the DIRECTV and DISH offerings?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

harsh said:


> This wasn't meant to be a trick question. I was soliciting answers from those who had auditioned SlingTV recently.


Ive been trying it for the last month. It is terrible. 30 fps on lots of channels, low bitrate, macroblocking, and digital noise. It is worth $35/mo dont get me wrong, but not as a service you want as your primary service on a 77" TV. For large screens (I would say anything bigger than 55") I would go with YouTubeTV, or DirecTVStream.

Sling sort of reminds me of Dish. Too many shortcuts to keep the price low compared with the more expensive competitors.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Davenlr said:


> It is worth $35/mo dont get me wrong, but not as a service you want as your primary service on a 77" TV.


That is a big qualifier. Internet speeds and display sizes should be included in reviews.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> That is a big qualifier. Internet speeds and display sizes should be included in reviews.


Size isn't everything when it comes to to PQ of a provider. Crummy TVs arguably come in all sizes below 80". A TV that is good at video processing may make up for many deficiencies in the source. At the same time, the best service may suffer if it produces an image that the TV can't keep up with (very important in the HDR/WCG domain).

It may be useful to establish a data element that combines viewing distance and screen size as that levels the playing field significantly. As an example mine is 2.4 viewing/diagonal inches (a 65" TV from 13' away).

I appreciate Davenlr's most recent response (except for the unsolicited DISH slam that came without any background information) in that it includes much of the important data (assuming that the 77" TV reference is to an LG OLED)


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

harsh said:


> I appreciate Davenlr's most recent response (except for the unsolicited DISH slam that came without any background information) in that it includes much of the important data (assuming that the 77" TV reference is to an LG OLED)


I was referring to their using "HD Lite" and over compression to cram more channels on the satellite. My MIL has Dish, and it looks horrible on a 75" Samsung. It even looks fuzzy on a 49" no-name brand TV. Using Hopper3.
For context on my TVs I was referring to:
The 77" TV is a Sony XR77A80J internal apps.
The 55" I was referring to was a Vizio OLED-H1 with an Nvidia Shield


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> Size isn't everything when it comes to to PQ of a provider. Crummy TVs arguably come in all sizes below 80".


Thank you for your opinion, but display size has a lot to do with how a picture is presented. An 80" set is going to show more defects than a 40" set. DISH and SlingTV seems to have designed their PQ around their "typical" customer. Not YOUR definition of typical, so please don't waste space on our forum arguing that pointless point. But the company's definition. If the company has chosen to focus on a "typical" smaller than your "typical" then you should try to find another company.

PQ has always been an OPINION. People try to assign numbers and arbitrarily say above a number is good and below that number is bad, just as you arbitrarily chose 80" as the limit for crummy TVs. Not that the field for 80" and above is large, but ANY size TV can be crummy. PQ being an opinion means each customer looks at their own screens and decides if their picture is poor, adequate or excellent. They don't need to ask experts (especially self appointed experts) whether or not their PQ is good. Those that have eyes to see can see.

And that brings us back to the reviews ... If someone tells me PQ is bad on their 40" set I'd want to know their settings. If someone tells me PQ is bad on an 80" set then I want to know their expectations for a budget priced service. In both cases it is important to make sure they have good Internet. 25 Mbit DSL with five streaming boxes (various companies) running 4K or better sources isn't a fair test environment. Knowing the methods is just as important as knowing the results of a survey. I expect you would trust a survey of "one non-sling customer from Oregon" over a survey of 100 or 1000 actual customers. But that isn't good science.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> Ive been trying it for the last month. It is terrible. 30 fps on lots of channels, low bitrate, macroblocking, and digital noise. It is worth $35/mo dont get me wrong, but not as a service you want as your primary service on a 77" TV. For large screens (I would say anything bigger than 55") I would go with YouTubeTV, or DirecTVStream.
> 
> Sling sort of reminds me of Dish. Too many shortcuts to keep the price low compared with the more expensive competitors.


It kind of depends on what you prefer to watch. For most non-sports shows Sling's PQ is fine to my eyes on my 75" Sony. Live sports varies quite a bit by channel and/or sport being shown.

But I wouldn't argue that DirecTVStream and YTTV have better PQ just that it isn't as much of an issue for scripted stuff.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> PQ has always been an OPINION..


No, PQ is not an "opinion". It is an objective and quantifiable fact that the lower the bit rate the worse the PQ, and vice versa. A better encoder can compensate for that to some degree, but only somewhat. A better display can massage the image to hide the defects better than others, but again only somewhat.

Some people may care about PQ less than others, so in their opinion it matters less, but that doesn't stop it being a real and measurable thing.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Thank you for your opinion.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> Obviously Tallgntlmn was talking about subscription TV service. I don't think it is reasonable to shop based on how willing a service might be to deal on price. The willingness to deal seems to come and go with some frequency.


Comcast is very dicker-able. They do various new customer promos, some with and some without contracts and price freezes, and in some (but not all) cases customers are able to get another (though often smaller) discount added back when the initial one expires after a year or two. I always felt like I was dealing with a used car salesman back when I had Comcast. That said, offering that kind of wheeling and dealing is obviously an effective way for them to land and retain price sensitive customers. I don't prefer that approach but that's just me.

DTV seems to operate in a similar way as Comcast. But AT&T TV and its predecessor brands have been a mixed bag. For those who've come in under their no-contract pricing starting in Jan. of this year, I think the pricing is what it is and it's non-negotiable. Who knows if that will continue to be the case as it becomes DTV Stream. For those who came in under the 2-yr contract, or who signed up at lower price points under the old AT&T TV Now or DTV Now contract-free brands, many have been successful at getting them to provide a multi-month discount.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

James Long said:


> Thank you for your opinion.


Oh he is stating facts


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

ATT TV hasn’t been doing any individual discounting from what I read in a few forums. But the contract version was fairly lenient in allowing those that asked, to get out of the contract with no penalty. As usual though that is hit or miss.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> ATT TV hasn't been doing any individual discounting from what I read in a few forums. But the contract version was fairly lenient in allowing those that asked, to get out of the contract with no penalty. As usual though that is hit or miss.


Yes, and some contract customers who stayed with AT&T TV were able to get some amount of discount applied for their second year rather than seeing the full price increase as scheduled.

If DTV Stream sticks with a non-negotiable everyday price strategy (which they should, IMO), they're going to have to do something to make the service a better value for customers. Aggressively advertising it (which they've yet to do) and offering it as an option during AT&T Fiber sign-ups (which they've been doing) are necessary to grow the customer base too but that's not enough. It needs to offer more value for the money, i.e. lower prices and/or a better service. If the service stays as-in in terms of prices, channel line-ups and features, I don't see it ever really taking off.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

compnurd said:


> Oh he is stating facts


You can apply thousands of numbers to the issue, but don't write those numbers in stone. The next encoding could use a lower bit rate and give a better PQ - with PQ judged by human eyes. By the book the best PQ was on MPEG2 HD ... few channels are giving that level of bit rate yet few people would say that the PQ of modern encryptions are worse. There was one broadcast channel that used their entire ATSC bandwidth to deliver high bit rate SD. Is that a better PQ than 4K? If you are a robot stuck on numbers, perhaps. By the numbers the PQ of that SD channel is better than 4K. But if you are a human being you'll probably have a different opinion.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> You can apply thousands of numbers to the issue, but don't write those numbers in stone. The next encoding could use a lower bit rate and give a better PQ - with PQ judged by human eyes. By the book the best PQ was on MPEG2 HD ... few channels are giving that level of bit rate yet few people would say that the PQ of modern encryptions are worse. There was one broadcast channel that used their entire ATSC bandwidth to deliver high bit rate SD. Is that a better PQ than 4K? If you are a robot stuck on numbers, perhaps. By the numbers the PQ of that SD channel is better than 4K. But if you are a human being you'll probably have a different opinion.


Obviously I'm talking about equivalent codecs. HEVC may be better than MPEG4, and h.266 is better yet, but until all customers have HEVC capable devices you can't realize that benefit.

Hell, Directv and Dish haven't even got rid of MPEG2, though at least they've relegated it to legacy status for SD customers only. Most HD cable is still in MPEG2 even today, because they'd rather their customers keep using 15 year old boxes than free up bandwidth for cable internet...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISH built a series of receivers that could do Turbo 8PSK (instead of QPSK) but not MPEG4. To save money in their transition from QPSK to 8PSK a few years ago they put those receivers to use for the customers who did not want to upgrade to HD. The transition from QPSK to 8PSK was enough to free up the space they needed without the expense of upgrading everyone to HD equipment. With new codecs, DISH has been able to maintain the PQ on their HD satellite channels while reducing the bandwidth needed. As a person who sees those feeds nearly every day I can say that the PQ is adequate for my display and improved over when DISH used different codex a decade ago.

That experience proved to me that higher bit rate in no way guarantees a better PQ. The "formula" is much more complicated than a simple number.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Davenlr said:


> I was referring to their using "HD Lite" and over compression to cram more channels on the satellite.


According to the old bitrate site, DIRECTV used "HD Lite" at one time as well. Does that mean that they still do? This "stale news" thing is exactly what we shoud all be trying to get away from (or establish that it is still fresh).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Thank you for your opinion, but display size has a lot to do with how a picture is presented. An 80" set is going to show more defects than a 40" set.


Given the same number of pixels and the same processing hardware, the details are pretty much the same. The reason I picked 80" is that you don't typically find low-end processing hardware in that size range.

Display size should be based on viewing distance (not home entertainment oven cabinet size) and that equals everything else out.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

harsh said:


> According to the old bitrate site, DIRECTV used "HD Lite" at one time as well. Does that mean that they still do? This "stale news" thing is exactly what we shoud all be trying to get away from (or establish that it is still fresh).


You tell me? I got rid of DirecTv about 9 months ago. The picture quality was less than that of ATT TV for sure. and the picture on my MILs DISH was worse than DirecTv. Believe me, if the picture quality on DISH had been as good as DirecTv, even though streaming was better, I would have taken them up on their Hopper3 for two year deal for $80/mo. I just could not justify paying that much for that quality of picture. I really do miss an in home DVR though. I hate cloud DVRs which is why I was looking into it.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Davenlr said:


> You tell me? I got rid of DirecTv about 9 months ago. The picture quality was less than that of ATT TV for sure. and the picture on my MILs DISH was worse than DirecTv. Believe me, if the picture quality on DISH had been as good as DirecTv, even though streaming was better, I would have taken them up on their Hopper3 for two year deal for $80/mo. I just could not justify paying that much for that quality of picture. I really do miss an in home DVR though. I hate cloud DVRs which is why I was looking into it.


Can't remember all the services you've tried. Have you looked into FuboTV? Their cloud DVR lets you keep recordings indefinitely, until you delete them. You have either 250 or 1,000 hours storage, depending on your plan. If you begin recording a show midway through, you'll still get a recording of the entire show.

How does Cloud DVR on fuboTV work?

Don't know much about HD PQ for FuboTV. Their main drawback is no Warner-owned channels like CNN, TBS, TNT, Cartoon, HBO, etc. No PBS either, and very few markets have the local CW and/or MyNetwork TV stations. In quite a few markets, they only carry the national east or west feed for ABC rather than the local affiliate. See here:

What local ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, and CW stations does fuboTV carry?


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> You tell me? I got rid of DirecTv about 9 months ago. The picture quality was less than that of ATT TV for sure. and the picture on my MILs DISH was worse than DirecTv. Believe me, if the picture quality on DISH had been as good as DirecTv, even though streaming was better, I would have taken them up on their Hopper3 for two year deal for $80/mo. I just could not justify paying that much for that quality of picture. I really do miss an in home DVR though. I hate cloud DVRs which is why I was looking into it.


Hello. You mentioned locals on Dish being inferior. Did you find most other channels were also inferior to Directv?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> According to the old bitrate site, DIRECTV used "HD Lite" at one time as well. Does that mean that they still do? This "stale news" thing is exactly what we shoud all be trying to get away from (or establish that it is still fresh).


Directv only did for their old MPEG2 HD channels they dropped well over a decade ago. MPEG4 HD channels have always been full resolution.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

NR4P said:


> Hello. You mentioned locals on Dish being inferior. Did you find most other channels were also inferior to Directv?


I was comparing nationwide 1080i channels. I only watch a local station when there is a sports event on it, and then I use the ATSC 3.0 tuner in the TV.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Their main drawback is no Warner-owned channels like CNN, TBS, TNT, Cartoon, HBO, etc.


That is why I never tried them. CNN International is one of my favorite channels. You can only get it if either the provider carries it directly, or via the CNNGO app but you have to authenticate with a valid subscription. I was actually going to sign up for FUBO until I noticed that. I also need NFL RedZone.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Directv only did for their old MPEG2 HD channels they dropped well over a decade ago. MPEG4 HD channels have always been full resolution.


My point that seems to be escaping too many people's grasp is that what happened once is not necessarily ongoing. Comparing (from memory) what something looks like at a friend's or relative's home with a unknown TV model is folly. Most brands make TVs that run from insufferable to great and there are elements of individual systems that can compromise the signal (crummy cables with an upconverting AVR or an XBox in line).

I dropped Fubo and didn't bother with other services when I discovered that they didn't support >2.0 audio (Fubo still doesn't support DD5.1 for their linear content). The 720p down-converted picture wasn't a huge issue for me.

Features change -- usually for the better -- unless you're Xfinity. IIRC, AT&T TV Now and YouTubeTV didn't support >2.0 sound until they had been around a while and the roll-out was relatively gradual.

PQ is pretty easy to fake but AQ is a lot harder to weasel out of.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Davenlr said:


> I only watch a local station when there is a sports event on it, and then I use the ATSC 3.0 tuner in the TV.


This is something else that may change with time. My NEXTGEN TV stations are typically inferior to their DTV counterparts. The NBC affilliate (KGW) recently moved their DTV channel from VHF to UHF and both now offer great PQ but the NEXTGEN TV PQ doesn't look any better than the DTV version (and going between tuners is a fairly long process on my Sony TV). The AQ for both remains fairly poor -- I wonder if their engineer is hearing impaired. Capability means very little if they aren't sending better content into the modulators.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

harsh said:


> Comparing (from memory) what something looks like at a friend's or relative's home with a unknown TV model is folly.


Are you just being argumentative or do you actually think I am totally stupid?
I am perfectly capable of telling if a picture is good or bad.
The unknown TV model is a Samsung TU7000 75" TV I installed, and it is brand new.
The comparison was not from memory but from an A/B comparison with YouTubeTV using a Roku 4800 plugged into the TV in the port right next to the Hopper3.

Yes, the only reason I was considering DISH was because they had a physical DVR and Dolby Digital.
Those two things were not worth the picture quality drop.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I wonder if they are now migrating my account away from AT&T? When I log in at directv.com it still re-directs me to att.com but my DirecTV info is no longer on the account overview page like it was previously up until yesterday at least. I hope so.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

b4pjoe said:


> I wonder if they are now migrating my account away from AT&T? When I log in at directv.com it still re-directs me to att.com but my DirecTV info is no longer on the account overview page like it was previously up until yesterday at least. I hope so.


I'm not having your issue. When I log into my AT&T account my DIRECTV account information appears.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

MysteryMan said:


> I'm not having your issue. When I log into my AT&T account my DIRECTV account information appears.


Must have been a temporary glitch as my info is now back.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

b4pjoe said:


> I wonder if they are now migrating my account away from AT&T? When I log in at directv.com it still re-directs me to att.com but my DirecTV info is no longer on the account overview page like it was previously up until yesterday at least. I hope so.


I wonder how long it will be out of att hands if at all. There still taking calls for dtv..


----------



## tenpins (Jan 19, 2010)

with ATT having 70% ownership it will be awhile, change will happen but it's like stopping an oil tanker. It'll take some time.


----------



## mrknowitall526 (Nov 19, 2014)

Noticed the new logo on my HR44 today. Anyone else seen it yet?

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

mrknowitall526 said:


> Noticed the new logo on my HR44 today. Anyone else seen it yet?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk


The change with the new logo took place on Thursday.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tenpins said:


> with ATT having 70% ownership it will be awhile, change will happen but it's like stopping an oil tanker. It'll take some time.


It sounds like the plan is to continue to use AT&T for a lot of the services surrounding DIRECTV (billing, installation and perhaps support) so the customer experience may change a lot slower than many hoped.


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

harsh said:


> It sounds like the plan is to continue to use AT&T for a lot of the services surrounding DIRECTV (billing, installation and perhaps support) so the customer experience may change a lot slower than many hoped.


My Directv account was moved to AT&T some time ago. It is the only thing I have with them. I was just notified of my impending auto-pay bill, still from AT&T.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

tenpins said:


> with ATT having 70% ownership it will be awhile, change will happen but it's like stopping an oil tanker. It'll take some time.


it will more than likely be years before it's out of att hands!!! worst customer service i have ever experienced in my life!!! wonders how many more will jump ship???


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

If I were to order new service with Entertainment, and requested a HS17 and two C61K would they consider that 3 $7.00 fees or 2 $7.00 fees?


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

There are no monthly fees for the HS17. And on my account the first $7.00 fee is free. Not sure if they do that for new accounts now though so Maybe one $7 fee or maybe two $7 fees.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Thanks. When I had a hr54 and c61k they charged me for both even tho one was In the media closet


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

That is because the HR54 can be hooked to a TV. The HS17 has no output to a TV so you aren't charged the $7 fee for it.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

Davenlr said:


> Thanks. When I had a hr54 and c61k they charged me for both even tho one was In the media closet


when i had em they never charged me for the HS-17 or the first mini. though any mini after that was 7.00 a month.. though they gave me the second mini free to for one year.. i dunno know about now and how often there giving deals. and i was never charged for my 54 it was included in the price of the package..


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

harsh said:


> It sounds like the plan is to continue to use AT&T for a lot of the services surrounding DIRECTV (billing, installation and perhaps support) so the customer experience may change a lot slower than many hoped.


getting a root canal is alot less painless vs dealing with ATT!!!


----------



## ericknolls (Aug 18, 2013)

krel said:


> getting a root canal is alot less painless vs dealing with ATT!!!


I repectfully disagree! I mean it is no fun dealing with overseas reps if you are not a patient person but, a root canal is worse. I had two done and it was a lot worse than dealing with AT&T. No fooling!


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

ericknolls said:


> I repectfully disagree! I mean it is no fun dealing with overseas reps if you are not a patient person but, a root canal is worse. I had two done and it was a lot worse than dealing with AT&T. No fooling!


Next time get the laughing gas...


----------



## longhorn23 (Jan 19, 2019)

krel said:


> getting a root canal is alot less painless vs dealing with ATT!!!


I had a great experience with customer service today. Contacted them via twitter. I asked them for Sunday Ticket Max for free. I told them I was a loyal customer and others have gotten it for free. I was expecting a no. They surprisingly came back and said they had good news and gave it to me for free. Pretty much a 400 dollar package for free. Plus they gave me an additional $15 dollars off a month for 12 months. And they gave me a few other smaller discounts for epix, movies pack, & the sports pack for 3-6 months. But if they told me no, I wouldn't cry about it and complain on this forum 24/7. I would simply understand that discounts aren't always available. And I can always switch to YouTubetv or another service if I'm not happy or if it gets too expensive.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Davenlr said:


> Next time get the laughing gas...


Is that offered when dealing with AT&T?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

James Long said:


> Is that offered when dealing with AT&T?


You wont need gas. You will be laughing without it.
Thank you for that information Mr. James. Can please you provide serial number? May you hold 3 minutes while I research that? 
10 minutes later - CLICK
Laughing stops at this point. Now a real mental conflict goes on in your head. Do I REALLY think this issue is worth calling back for? Nope.

I finished my research (without calling) and adding the first year discount, and second year boost, the all in pricing for the HR54 and the $7 for the C61K, the taxes and Entertainment package, my averaged monthly total for the two year contract would be $100 per month. I only have one thing I am not sure of. Will they install 4K on Entertainment, or force you to get Choice? And will they ship you the equipment if you already have a working dish, or still require a guy in a truck to come invade your house?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I realize that it is a culture thing and the rep could be in Iowa, but when I hear "Mr James" instead of "Mr Long" my expectation that I am speaking to a US call center drops.

I remember a post a few years ago where a customer was told that the rep was in Pennsylvania, in the state of Pittsburgh. Yep ... Probably time to spin the wheel and get the next representative (CSR roulette).


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

AT&T Fiber just came to my new neighborhood. I previously had it at my old house. I just signed up for it, and interestingly they are offering gift cards ($100) if you are also a DirecTv customer.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

raott said:


> AT&T Fiber just came to my new neighborhood. I previously had it at my old house. I just signed up for it, and interestingly they are offering gift cards ($100) if you are also a DirecTv customer.


I checked their website, as my promo for fiber just ended and it went to the full $80/mo and thought I could save a little if I switched from YouTubeTV to DirecTv or stream, but they are offering no bundled discounts at all. Just the standard offer for stand alone DirecTv that averages out to $100/mo over the two year contract.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

Davenlr said:


> If I were to order new service with Entertainment, and requested a HS17 and two C61K would they consider that 3 $7.00 fees or 2 $7.00 fees?


There's no charge for the tower and the first client is free. From the 2nd client on is 7.00 for each room


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

Davenlr said:


> I checked their website, as my promo for fiber just ended and it went to the full $80/mo and thought I could save a little if I switched from YouTubeTV to DirecTv or stream, but they are offering no bundled discounts at all. Just the standard offer for stand alone DirecTv that averages out to $100/mo over the two year contract.


They wanted me to bundle my cell phones with dtv to save $$$. After the installer left an att rep showed up he tried talking me into bundling said he would send me quotes if I did and nothing. Typical att


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

Davenlr said:


> Thanks. When I had a hr54 and c61k they charged me for both even tho one was In the media closet


I was never charged for an hr 54 as the first box though the mini was 7.00 and the hr 54 was included in the monthly price


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

krel said:


> I was never charged for an hr 54 as the first box though the mini was 7.00 and the hr 54 was included in the monthly price


The DIRECTV offerings have been all over the board since the introduction of "Advanced" Fees (HD, DVR and Whole Home) and the All In packages. Depending on when you signed up, you often got a different deal.


----------

