# AT&T TV Launches Nationwide Feb. 2020



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I hope they add more streams, maybe have the same 7 HD streams that the HS-17 has? They also don't have two main channels in my area that I like 11 and 24.

AT&T TV launches nationwide in February 2020

AT&T Communications CEO Jeff McElfresh, speaking today at Barclays Global TMT Conference, said that AT&T TV will officially launch in February 2020 and that it, along with HBO Max, will spearhead a "market reorientation" at AT&T.

"Our growth agenda is on fiber, in our entertainment group, and on AT&T TV," said McElfresh. He said AT&T TV will feature customer acquisition costs of about half of what AT&T currently spends to bring on legacy satellite TV subscribers for DirecTV. He said the content lineup will be "every bit as good" as what AT&T currently offers through DirecTV and U-verse and that the user experience is "future leaning."


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> I hope they add more streams, maybe have the same 7 HD streams that the HS-17 has? They also don't have two main channels in my area that I like 11 and 24.
> 
> AT&T TV launches nationwide in February 2020
> 
> ...


Wonder if that app will have a customer service option? If so, will the customer service be as wonderful as what we have now?

Rich


----------



## longhorn23 (Jan 19, 2019)

CraigerM said:


> I hope they add more streams, maybe have the same 7 HD streams that the HS-17 has? They also don't have two main channels in my area that I like 11 and 24.
> 
> AT&T TV launches nationwide in February 2020
> 
> ...


I personally will only consider this if they have the same 4k content as Directv does.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

longhorn23 said:


> I personally will only consider this if they have the same 4k content as Directv does.


Which it does not now


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Transcript of this event was posted and I found this.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/43...ecommunications-broker-conference?part=single

*Jeffery McElfresh*
Yes. I think success might look like, and you could judge our management team's performance on this. As we get into the depths of next year that you'll see a very clean market posture from our AT&T Communications company. You'll see lead product offers that are the best products that we can offer from wireless, fiber and AT&T TV and HBO Max in geographies where we offer the best infrastructure-based broadband. In parts of the territory where there is no broadband available, you'll see us lead with our satellite legacy pay TV product and wireless.


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

longhorn23 said:


> I personally will only consider this if they have the same 4k content as Directv does.


I've been looking into this for the past few days.
It appears that the Sports Pack is not an option.
Sports Pack is a must for me. 
I know of no other provider that offers all of the out of market RSNs other than D*


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

It's more expensive than You Tube TV. 

I already have an Apple TV. Why do I want or need to buy another box?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

I WANT MORE said:


> I've been looking into this for the past few days.
> It appears that the Sports Pack is not an option.
> Sports Pack is a must for me.
> I know of no other provider that offers all of the out of market RSNs other than D*


Asking out of curiosity, as I never carried the Sports Pack when I was with D*: What are you getting with the out-of-market RSNs that gives it a "must have" value? Professional and college games are blacked out, unless you have the appropriate subscriptions, correct?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

wmb said:


> It's more expensive than You Tube TV.
> 
> I already have an Apple TV. Why do I want or need to buy another box?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Is this the one where Xtra is $74.99?


----------



## eric89074 (Sep 19, 2019)

SledgeHammer said:


> Is this the one where Xtra is $74.99?


Yes, but that's for the first year. You have to sign a 2 year contract and the price goes up to $124.00 a month the 2nd year lol. AT&T TV is going to be DOA. It sounds like it's just DTV over the internet.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

eric89074 said:


> Yes, but that's for the first year. You have to sign a 2 year contract and the price goes up to $124.00 a month the 2nd year lol. AT&T TV is going to be DOA. It sounds like it's just DTV over the internet.


Yeah, I wouldn't do that. $75 is a good price since you get a lot of channels, but $124? Lol... I can get Tmobile for $100 and get a slightly better channel selection. I guess I'll see what happens in April when my promo drops off. If retention doesn't re-up, I guess that'll break my 10 yr streak of promos lol and I'll find something else. Contracts for a streaming service? Ok...


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Yep, I think the combination of fat channel list, fat prices AND a contract will result in ‘no sale’ going forward. I mean why put up with the quirks of streaming and save very little money and be locked into a contract when no other streaming service has contracts at all?
I think ATT is reading the tea leaves all wrong on this one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Yep, I think the combination of fat channel list, fat prices AND a contract will result in 'no sale' going forward. I mean why put up with the quirks of streaming and save very little money and be locked into a contract when no other streaming service has contracts at all?
> I think ATT is reading the tea leaves all wrong on this one.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Yup, been wrong since they decided to acquire D*. Full bore panic mode now.

Rich


----------



## garn9173 (Apr 4, 2005)

eric89074 said:


> It sounds like it's just DTV over the internet.


That's because it is. AT&T said earlier this year as D* satellite's retire from orbit they won't be replaced and that this is their future.


----------



## cmoss5 (May 26, 2006)

Rich said:


> Wonder if that app will have a customer service option? If so, will the customer service be as wonderful as what we have now?
> 
> Rich


MY PROBLEM WITH THE WHOLE STREAMING SERVICE, NOT MATTER WHO IT IS, I CANNOT HAVE A DVR TO RECORD FUTURE PROGRAMS AS WELL AS CURRENT DAILY PROGRAMS TO WATCH IN THE FUTURE LIKE WE CAN NOW FROM OUR DVRS!!!!


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

cmoss5 said:


> MY PROBLEM WITH THE WHOLE STREAMING SERVICE, NOT MATTER WHO IT IS, I CANNOT HAVE A DVR TO RECORD FUTURE PROGRAMS AS WELL AS CURRENT DAILY PROGRAMS TO WATCH IN THE FUTURE LIKE WE CAN NOW FROM OUR DVRS!!!!


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

cmoss5 said:


> MY PROBLEM WITH THE WHOLE STREAMING SERVICE, NOT MATTER WHO IT IS, I CANNOT HAVE A DVR TO RECORD FUTURE PROGRAMS AS WELL AS CURRENT DAILY PROGRAMS TO WATCH IN THE FUTURE LIKE WE CAN NOW FROM OUR DVRS!!!!


With a streaming service, you have no need for a DVR. Programming is instantly available at the touch of a button.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

cmoss5 said:


> MY PROBLEM WITH THE WHOLE STREAMING SERVICE, NOT MATTER WHO IT IS, I CANNOT HAVE A DVR TO RECORD FUTURE PROGRAMS AS WELL AS CURRENT DAILY PROGRAMS TO WATCH IN THE FUTURE LIKE WE CAN NOW FROM OUR DVRS!!!!


I've been using the cloud DVR on PSVue for the past three years and am now using the cloud DVR on YTTV. Much prefer it over an in house DVR. No conflicts or storage to manage/worry about.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

lparsons21 said:


> Yep, I think the combination of fat channel list, fat prices AND a contract will result in 'no sale' going forward. I mean why put up with the quirks of streaming and save very little money and be locked into a contract when no other streaming service has contracts at all?
> I think ATT is reading the tea leaves all wrong on this one.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


The more I read about the service the more I wonder...what are they thinking ...LOL


----------



## bjf2007 (Oct 22, 2007)

GREED!!!

PURE GREED and a large helping of Stupidity.

I will enjoy the Massive Failure ATT TV will be.

bjf


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

One should not assume that the package offered in February will be the same as was offered in the test markets. I haven't read any disclosures from management as to the results of the test market but a test is generally used to determine if all the components of the package is appropriate. If I had to opine I would say that the 2 year contract will be eliminated. A new management team is in place so I would think that they would want to report a resounding success (like Disney+) and that is not achievable with a 1 or 2 year contract requirement.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

DirectMan said:


> they would want to report a resounding success (like Disney+) and that is not achievable with a 1 or 2 year contract requirement.


Or the price point, or the requirement to use their device.

This is an attempt to prepare to move D* off satellites.

The reason for Disney+ success is that it was relatively cheap and a pretty good value. The bundle more so. This offering isn't.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

B. Shoe said:


> Asking out of curiosity, as I never carried the Sports Pack when I was with D*: What are you getting with the out-of-market RSNs that gives it a "must have" value? Professional and college games are blacked out, unless you have the appropriate subscriptions, correct?


College games are not blacked out. No additional subscription is necessary. 
There are college football and basketball games that are not available elsewhere.
Example: New Mexico State @ New Mexico basketball at 7:00 PM central on channel 683 is not available anywhere else. 
That's just one example. 
There are also college specific sports shows. 
There are also less popular sports like College Softball. 
ESPN College Extra channels would be nice to have also. D* carries these also.


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

wmb said:


> It's more expensive than You Tube TV.
> 
> I already have an Apple TV. Why do I want or need to buy another box?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You don't NEED to buy another box.
The first box is free and you can use your ATV also to receive the programming.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

wmb said:


> It's more expensive than You Tube TV.
> 
> I already have an Apple TV. Why do I want or need to buy another box?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Using their box makes it like DTV. It has Android TV Operators Tier and not the regular Android TV. This allows it to have channel numbers and boot into live TV and will be on the last channel that you were watching.

All you need to know about Android TV Operator Tier


----------



## garn9173 (Apr 4, 2005)

So when this goes national in February, is this what is going to be marketed solely to new customers and will D* be longer marketed to new customers? AT&T says this will be cheaper for them, but I don't see it being cheaper for the consumer. With AT&T wanting get out of the satellite business, will this open the door to a merger with Dish

The consumer is flocking to streaming because it's substantially cheaper than traditional TV. If this is going to be marketed as a replacement for D* (it's basically what it is) with D* pricing, fees and contracts, this is quickly going the way of New Coke.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

garn9173 said:


> So when this goes national in February, is this what is going to be marketed solely to new customers and will D* be longer marketed to new customers? AT&T says this will be cheaper for them, but I don't see it being cheaper for the consumer. With AT&T wanting get out of the satellite business, will this open the door to a merger with Dish
> 
> The consumer is flocking to streaming because it's substantially cheaper than traditional TV. If this is going to be marketed as a replacement for D* (it's basically what it is) with D* pricing, fees and contracts, this is quickly going the way of New Coke.


Directv isn't going away any any any time soon. I am sure in areas that have limited satellite access and good network(cities). This is going to be a big push for them into a market they could never have.  But there is still a lot of this country with limited internet to handle this

While people are going to streaming. Costs are rising there also


----------



## garn9173 (Apr 4, 2005)

compnurd said:


> Directv isn't going away any any any time soon. I am sure in areas that have limited satellite access and good network(cities). This is going to be a big push for them into a market they could never have. But there is still a lot of this country with limited internet to handle this
> 
> While people are going to streaming. Costs are rising there also


AT&T has already said as D* satellite's retire in orbit they won't be replaced. It may not be in February, but eventually D* will cease to exist as we know it.

Streaming services will never match the price of cable or satellite, so that's a flawed argument. YouTube TV today is CHEAPER than Mediacom's introductory price for it's bare bone package, and that price is only good for 12 months.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> The more I read about the service the more I wonder...what are they thinking ...LOL


I think they want to replicate what we have now. They don't want to give up any money streams.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

DirectMan said:


> One should not assume that the package offered in February will be the same as was offered in the test markets. I haven't read any disclosures from management as to the results of the test market but a test is generally used to determine if all the components of the package is appropriate. If I had to opine I would say that the 2 year contract will be eliminated. A new management team is in place so I would think that they would want to report a resounding success (like Disney+) and that is not achievable with a 1 or 2 year contract requirement.


Stupid is one thing. Stubborn is another thing. Combine them and you have ATT.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

garn9173 said:


> So when this goes national in February, is this what is going to be marketed solely to new customers and will D* be longer marketed to new customers? AT&T says this will be cheaper for them, but I don't see it being cheaper for the consumer. With AT&T wanting get out of the satellite business, will this open the door to a merger with Dish
> 
> The consumer is flocking to streaming because it's substantially cheaper than traditional TV. If this is going to be marketed as a replacement for D* (it's basically what it is) with D* pricing, fees and contracts, this is quickly going the way of New Coke.


From what I've read it seems like the new service might have similar pricing to what we have now. Don't expect to see much of a savings.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

garn9173 said:


> Streaming services will never match the price of cable or satellite, so that's a flawed argument. YouTube TV today is CHEAPER than Mediacom's introductory price for it's bare bone package, and that price is only good for 12 months.


This is mostly speculation at this point. I would not be surprised to see streaming costs rise to the point where the cost is about the same as cable or sat. Right now chaos reigns, give it a year or two, see what happens.

Rich


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

The smart way to hit the street running would be to offer more channels than YouTube with at least a equal number of sports channels including "D's" 4K channels and a unlimited cloud DVR all at or below Youtubes current $49.99 mo. With that they may come close to duplicating the early success of Disney+.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> I think they want to replicate what we have now. They don't want to give up any money streams.
> 
> Rich


You are right I think that is what they are thinking. But they are bleeding subscribers and as soon as people have to do "something" the inertia which keeps lots of people paying the current high D fees breaks and since they have to do something it will wake them up enough to look around...then what. I just don't see this as a winning strategy. But hey, I'm sure the geniuses running AT&T are much smarter than I am.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> This is mostly speculation at this point. I would not be surprised to see streaming costs rise to the point where the cost is about the same as cable or sat. Right now chaos reigns, give it a year or two, see what happens.
> 
> Rich


Anything is possible but I just don't see how the gap closes unless the cable/sat prices stop going up every year and the OTT services prices skyrocket. I mean a bit less than 3 years ago when I left D my monthly bill was $120 and I only had 3 of my 7 TVs connected. Based on the yearly prices increases I have seen it would certainly be higher than that now. My current YTTV bill is $50 and I have access on all 7 of my TVs. If you start running the math it's going to a long while until those 2 price lines converge.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> This is mostly speculation at this point. I would not be surprised to see streaming costs rise to the point where the cost is about the same as cable or sat. Right now chaos reigns, give it a year or two, see what happens.
> 
> Rich


Yeah, chaos is at the top of the list!! 

Going forward I expect to see cable/sat replacement streamers increase a fair bit as it seems most are losing money now to grow market share. From some financial news it seems at least some of the free ad-supported streamers are being profitable, but none of them are cable/sat replacements. They are all similar to Netflix and others for the most part.
For geeks like us, finding the shows we like is doable as most are on some service somewhere, some free, some not.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> The *smart* way to hit the street running would be to offer more channels than YouTube with at least a equal number of sports channels including "D's" 4K channels and a unlimited cloud DVR all at or below Youtubes current $49.99 mo. With that they may come close to duplicating the early success of Disney+.


Beginning with the merger have you seen anything ATT has done that strikes you as "smart"? They look like they are gonna hit the street with something very similar to the sat service we have now. Along with all the encumbrances. They're certainly not gonna lowball YT as far as price.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> You are right I think that is what they are thinking. But they are bleeding subscribers and as soon as people have to do "something" the inertia which keeps lots of people paying the current high D fees breaks and since they have to do something it will wake them up enough to look around...then what. I just don't see this as a winning strategy. But hey, I'm sure the geniuses running AT&T are much smarter than I am.


Wouldn't subbing to the new ATT venture be the path of least resistance for most folks that have D* sat service? For all we know it might be wildly successful. We're having conversations about this that millions of subscribers don't have access to. I would not be surprised if it took off. I think I said that right off the bat some time ago.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> Anything is possible but I just don't see how the gap closes unless the cable/sat prices stop going up every year and the OTT services prices skyrocket. I mean a bit less than 3 years ago when I left D my monthly bill was $120 and I only had 3 of my 7 TVs connected. Based on the yearly prices increases I have seen it would certainly be higher than that now. My current YTTV bill is $50 and I have access on all 7 of my TVs. If you start running the math it's going to a long while until those 2 price lines converge.


Not talking about "now". We don't know how all this is gonna shake out. Right now I'm paying a helluva lot more monthly for TV than I ever did.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, chaos is at the top of the list!!
> 
> Going forward I expect to see cable/sat replacement streamers increase a fair bit as it seems most are losing money now to grow market share. From some financial news it seems at least some of the free ad-supported streamers are being profitable, but none of them are cable/sat replacements. They are all similar to Netflix and others for the most part.
> For geeks like us, finding the shows we like is doable as most are on some service somewhere, some free, some not.
> ...


Yup.

Rich


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

garn9173 said:


> AT&T has already said as D* satellite's retire in orbit they won't be replaced. It may not be in February, but eventually D* will cease to exist as we know it.
> 
> Streaming services will never match the price of cable or satellite, so that's a flawed argument. YouTube TV today is CHEAPER than Mediacom's introductory price for it's bare bone package, and that price is only good for 12 months.


Yes and that retirement is at least a decade away. As pointed out on here multiple times the current newer fleet has plenty of capacity and fuel to go well beyond 2030 Your other argument is also flawed. You can get Altice TV and Internet for 15 dollars more a month then YTTV on its own. And that price is for life I am not aware of any fast 15 dollar internet packages to match that


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> Wouldn't subbing to the new ATT venture be the path of least resistance for most folks that have D* sat service? For all we know it might be wildly successful. We're having conversations about this that millions of subscribers don't have access to. I would not be surprised if it took off. I think I said that right off the bat some time ago.
> 
> Rich


I hope they are successful, the more competition their is in this space the better it will be for us consumers. And yes, I do think they will pick up a lot of "path of least resistance" folks. But I think they will also loose some folks that say...well if I'm going to make some sort of decision I might at as well look at all the options...how many fall into each category is anybody's guess.


----------



## Richard (Apr 24, 2002)

garn9173 said:


> *AT&T has already said as D* satellite's retire in orbit they won't be replaced. It may not be in February, but eventually D* will cease to exist as we know it.*
> 
> Streaming services will never match the price of cable or satellite, so that's a flawed argument. YouTube TV today is CHEAPER than Mediacom's introductory price for it's bare bone package, and that price is only good for 12 months.


Twice (in this thread) you have posted this incorrect information, you have an agenda?


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

Rich said:


> For all we know it might be wildly successful.
> Rich


I doubt that it will be 'wildly" successful without major changes to the pricing and terms. I say that because the management team is under great pressure to stem D* defections or improve the performance of this segment. They would have hinted or dropped some "promising early results" at an investment conference. So far it is deathly silence. That tells me that either ATT TV so far in test markets is a dud or very slow acceptance, and that to be successful will have to accept initial losses like Disney is projecting for its Disney+ service.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> Not talking about "now". We don't know how all this is gonna shake out. Right now I'm paying a helluva lot more monthly for TV than I ever did.
> 
> Rich


Agreed, I'm not talking now either. But you have to start the math somewhere. My point has always been that yes the gap will close but they are starting so far away that it's going to take a long time for the cost lines to meet...if ever, unless the cable/sat services stop increasing their prices every year and their has been no indication of that happening yet. The cost has never been the driver for me but in the almost 3 years since I ditched D I have been able to spend multiple thousands of dollars in other ways rather than sending that money to D. And honestly I feel like I have had a better entertainment experience that fits the way I consume entertainment better.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Right now it seems the free ad-supported streamers are in some cases, being profitable. Of course you have to be tolerant of the ads, but I’ve been looking at what I sub to in streaming now with having a cable sub and what I’m leaning towards when my ‘deal’ runs out on cable.
Currently I sub to Netflix, Hulu w/ads, CBS All Access w/ads, Disney+, AppleTV+, Amazon and a 3-month @$0.99/month Cinemax trial via Amazon. And I can get all the broadcast channels here except NBC via antenna connected to my Tivo. I most likely will keep all of that and turn the Premiums on and off a couple times a year each for a month at a time. May do the same with AppleTV+ too though they keep introducing new original material that is excellent fairly often.

BTW, there has been some news that Netflix might offer annual or other multi-month subscriptions with discounts sometime fairly soon.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

compnurd said:


> Yes and that retirement is at least a decade away. As pointed out on here multiple times the current newer fleet has plenty of capacity and fuel to go well beyond 2030 Your other argument is also flawed. You can get Altice TV and Internet for 15 dollars more a month then YTTV on its own. And that price is for life I am not aware of any fast 15 dollar internet packages to match that


EQUIP, TAXES & FEES: ALTICE ONE (A1) Install fee, taxes, gov't fees, other Optimum fees & surcharges, *$10.47 Regional Sports Network Fee*, *$9.99 TV Broadcast Fee,* and *$3.50 Network Enhancement Fee* apply. A $*20 Altice One Pak monthly fee applies.* *A1 Mini boxes avail for add'l $10/mo. *PHONE: Optional at addl $5/mo. All fees, equip. charges, surcharges & taxes will be added to bill.

So how is Altice only an additional $15 a month when the mandatory fees are $43.96 making it $58.96 more expensive than YouTube TV for a single TV? For 2 sets it's $69.96 more expensive and for a third set it's $79.96 more expensive.

I can get internet for less than $58.95 with a lot more channels than Altice offers. If I were to upgrade to a package comparable to YTTV with 3 sets I would be paying Altice about $144.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

garn9173 said:


> AT&T has already said as D* satellite's retire in orbit they won't be replaced. It may not be in February, but eventually D* will cease to exist as we know it.


That is not what was said. AT&T said they had (past tense) "launched their last satellite" a few months before their latest satellite was launched this year. Some people have interpreted that as "no more after this one" (which was never stated by AT&T - they just let their erroneous statement stand).

AT&T's satellites have plenty of years of useful life. The bigger threat to the DIRECTV service is subscriber loss. At the current rate AT&T will be out of satellite customers before they need another satellite. Hopefully they can level off the losses over the next year.



garn9173 said:


> Streaming services will never match the price of cable or satellite, so that's a flawed argument. YouTube TV today is CHEAPER than Mediacom's introductory price for it's bare bone package, and that price is only good for 12 months.


Never is a long time. We are already seeing streaming services that match the price of satellite (AT&T Now, T Vision). Legitimate streaming companies still have to pay the content channels they carry and have to pay for the content they stream under their own brand. Most of the current prices reflect operating at a loss. That cannot be sustained. Channels that survive based on their cable and satellite subscribers (tier inclusion where millions are paying whether they watch or not) need to maintain their subscription count as people shift to streaming or raise their rates to cover the subscription income lost.

YouTube TV (and other providers) may be a good deal "today", but they nor you can guarantee that any service will remain a good deal. YouTube went from $40 to $50 last April ... a "25% increase" in the words of people who can do math. And still not profitable after the price increase. Streamers can't remain unprofitable forever. Just ask PSVue.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

garn9173 said:


> So when this goes national in February, is this what is going to be marketed solely to new customers and will D* be longer marketed to new customers? AT&T says this will be cheaper for them, but I don't see it being cheaper for the consumer. With AT&T wanting get out of the satellite business, will this open the door to a merger with Dish
> 
> The consumer is flocking to streaming because it's substantially cheaper than traditional TV. If this is going to be marketed as a replacement for D* (it's basically what it is) with D* pricing, fees and contracts, this is quickly going the way of New Coke.


AT&T has already stated that DirecTV will not be discontinued once AT&T TV goes national. In all test markets customers have the option of DirecTV or AT&T TV. However the same can't be said for AT&T U-Verse TV as AT&T has discontinued new sales of U-Verse TV in all test markets it was originally available. In the test markets this is what is happening:

Existing U-Verse TV customers keep their U-Verse TV service unless they specifically ask about AT&T TV.
Existing U-Verse TV subscriber in a non-trial market that moves to a trial market can't keep their U-Verse TV service. They must get either DirecTV or AT&T TV.
Existing U-Verse TV subscriber in a trial market moves to a new address in a trial market can't keep their U-Verse TV service and must get DirecTV or AT&T TV.
Existing DirecTV subscribers in a trial market keep their existing DirecTV service and can freely move their service around. They have the _option_ to migrate to AT&T TV if the customer requests but AT&T is not pushing this subscriber base to AT&T TV. 
New customers can only select from DirecTV and AT&T TV. U-Verse TV is not available to new subscribers in any trial market. 
So if any existing service gets discontinued it will be U-Verse TV by the looks of it. AT&T TV currently has no 4K HDR content from AT&T unlike DirecTV. It also lacks NFL Network which DirecTV currently has.



garn9173 said:


> AT&T has already said as D* satellite's retire in orbit they won't be replaced. It may not be in February, but eventually D* will cease to exist as we know it.
> 
> Streaming services will never match the price of cable or satellite, so that's a flawed argument. YouTube TV today is CHEAPER than Mediacom's introductory price for it's bare bone package, and that price is only good for 12 months.


AT&T also said in 2018 they were not going to launch anymore satellites for DirecTV then they launched the T16 in 2019 and then said it was the last satellite. As long as AT&T owns DirecTV they will launch satellites when required to keep this cow alive as long as the DirecTV cow has money left to milk. The only time they won't launch satellites to keep DirecTV alive is when *a.)* they sell it off or *b.)* the DirecTV cow has no more money to milk.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

techguy88 said:


> AT&T has already stated that DirecTV will not be discontinued once AT&T TV goes national. In all test markets customers have the option of DirecTV or AT&T TV. However the same can't be said for AT&T U-Verse TV as AT&T has discontinued new sales of U-Verse TV in all test markets it was originally available. In the test markets this is what is happening:
> 
> Existing U-Verse TV customers keep their U-Verse TV service unless they specifically ask about AT&T TV.
> Existing U-Verse TV subscriber in a non-trial market that moves to a trial market can't keep their U-Verse TV service. They must get either DirecTV or AT&T TV.
> ...


Yes and there is a good chance that AT&T will sell Directv in the next few years.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

TV_Guy said:


> EQUIP, TAXES & FEES: ALTICE ONE (A1) Install fee, taxes, gov't fees, other Optimum fees & surcharges, *$10.47 Regional Sports Network Fee*, *$9.99 TV Broadcast Fee,* and *$3.50 Network Enhancement Fee* apply. A $*20 Altice One Pak monthly fee applies.* *A1 Mini boxes avail for add'l $10/mo. *PHONE: Optional at addl $5/mo. All fees, equip. charges, surcharges & taxes will be added to bill.
> 
> So how is Altice only an additional $15 a month when the mandatory fees are $43.96 making it $58.96 more expensive than YouTube TV for a single TV? For 2 sets it's $69.96 more expensive and for a third set it's $79.96 more expensive.
> 
> I can get internet for less than $58.95 with a lot more channels than Altice offers. If I were to upgrade to a package comparable to YTTV with 3 sets I would be paying Altice about $144.


And I assume all of this hardware you have for YTTV you got for free then?

I just priced out the promo and it comes to 84.99 for one TV with 200mbps internet So then again. It is 35 more a month then straight YTTV Show me then were you are getting 200mbps internet for 35 a month because where I live it is 87 a month by itself


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

GordonGekko said:


> Yes and there is a good chance that AT&T will sell Directv in the next few years.


As much as Wall Street would love this it would only provide a short term cash flow boost. AT&T is looking at the larger picture and they have been on record saying they value the "subscriber base" not the satellites themselves.

Right now based on Q3-2019 numbers AT&T can't afford selling DirecTV because it holds 16.8 million of their "Premium TV" customer base and the bulk of their bargaining power. U-Verse has 3.6 million subscribers and AT&T TV Now has 1.2 million subscribers. This puts AT&T overall as the #1 MVPD in Q3-2019 just above Comcast's Xfinity TV service. In fact there is only a 170,000 difference between AT&T and Comcast for the #1 and #2 spots respectively.

Because AT&T and Comcast both have 20+ million subscribers each they can leverage this customer base to get the best rates from content owners like Walt Disney Company, ViacomCBS, Discovery, A&E Networks, etc. The less subscribers a company has the less bargaining power they have and the more per subscriber they pay for the channels.

This is why AT&T will not sell off DirecTV right now despite Wall Street essentially begging them to do so because they are looking at the bigger picture for their existing pay-TV services. The only deal I can see _potentially_ happening in the next few years is something similar to the one Apollo reportedly has proposed.

If DirecTV and Dish Network were spun-off into its own combined company where AT&T has an ownership stake along with Dish Network Corp and Apollo then AT&T has a even larger customer base to negotiate with. This would allow AT&T to collectively use the subscriber bases of DirecTV (16.8 million), Dish (9.5 million), U-Verse TV (3.6 million), Sling TV (2.7 million) and AT&T TV Now (1.2 million) to negotiate contracts. That is a combined customer base of 33.8 million subscribers and no content owner could go without being available to that many subscribers.


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

compnurd said:


> And I assume all of this hardware you have for YTTV you got for free then?
> 
> I just priced out the promo and it comes to 84.99 for one TV with 200mbps internet So then again. It is 35 more a month then straight YTTV Show me then were you are getting 200mbps internet for 35 a month because where I live it is 87 a month by itself


Not clear how you are only paying $20 in fees since the Altice box alone is $20. Are you saying that the Broadcast, Sports, and Entertainment fees don't apply to you?
The streaming equipment was not expensive. I paid various prices for Fire Sticks and Rokus from $25 to $40. Just picked up 2 more 4K Fire Sticks for $25 each during the Amazon sale. Since these are not recurring charges it's not a big item. Received free trial months of Sling and YTTV in connection with the purchases so the cost was even less. As far as internet pricing, I'm paying Altice $47.50 for 100MB which is perfectly adequate for streaming 4K on multiple sets. As always the equipment and fees make cable and satellite expensive. The advertised Altice price is for Core TV which lacks many channels compared to YTTV. You are comparing apples to oranges in terms of what both TV packages offer. It's a good thing you have only 1 TV and don't want any channels not in Core TV.

I neglected to mention that Altice charges $17.99 for their Cloud DVR Plus. YTTV includes a Cloud DVR with unlimited capacity and 9 months retention in their base price. In my case with 3 TVs, comparable programming, and a Cloud DVR would bring my Altice charges to about $162 compared to $97.50 for YTTV and Internet. Also Altice will most likely charge installation fees in connection with the Lifetime Pricing which are probably in the vicinity of what it would cost to buy a couple of streaming devices.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

TV_Guy said:


> Not clear how you are only paying $20 in fees since the Altice box alone is $20. Are you saying that the Broadcast, Sports, and Entertainment fees don't apply to you?
> The streaming equipment was not expensive. I paid various prices for Fire Sticks and Rokus from $25 to $40. Just picked up 2 more 4K Fire Sticks for $25 each during the Amazon sale. Since these are not recurring charges it's not a big item. Received free trial months of Sling and YTTV in connection with the purchases so the cost was even less. As far as internet pricing, I'm paying Altice $47.50 for 100MB which is perfectly adequate for streaming 4K on multiple sets. As always the equipment and fees make cable and satellite expensive. The advertised Altice price is for Core TV which lacks many channels compared to YTTV. You are comparing apples to oranges in terms of what both TV packages offer. It's a good thing you have only 1 TV and don't want any channels not in Core TV.


Altice USA also owns Suddenlink and I can tell you from experience Suddenlink's Value TV (which is the equivalent to Optimum's Core TV) comes with both the Broadcast and Sports fees. The only packages that do not carry the Sports Fee is Optimum's Broadcast Basic package and Suddenlink's Local Broadcast package but they come with the TV Broadcast Fee.

For transparency Optimum and Suddenlink uses different terms for these fees but they are the same:
(Optimum) TV Broadcast Fee = (Suddenlink) Broadcast Station Surcharge
(Optimum) Regional Sports Fee = (Suddenlink) Sports Programming Surcharge


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

TV_Guy said:


> Not clear how you are only paying $20 in fees since the Altice box alone is $20. Are you saying that the Broadcast, Sports, and Entertainment fees don't apply to you?
> The streaming equipment was not expensive. I paid various prices for Fire Sticks and Rokus from $25 to $40. Just picked up 2 more 4K Fire Sticks for $25 each during the Amazon sale. Since these are not recurring charges it's not a big item. Received free trial months of Sling and YTTV in connection with the purchases so the cost was even less. As far as internet pricing, I'm paying Altice $47.50 for 100MB which is perfectly adequate for streaming 4K on multiple sets. As always the equipment and fees make cable and satellite expensive. The advertised Altice price is for Core TV which lacks many channels compared to YTTV. You are comparing apples to oranges in terms of what both TV packages offer. It's a good thing you have only 1 TV and don't want any channels not in Core TV.
> 
> I neglected to mention that Altice charges $17.99 for their Cloud DVR Plus. YTTV includes a Cloud DVR with unlimited capacity and 9 months retention in their base price. In my case with 3 TVs, comparable programming, and the DVR would bring my Altice charges to about $162 compared to $97.50 for YTTV and Internet.


Your missing the overall point which is that the gap is closing. Yes the 100mbps plan works for you and people at 47.50 but the other deal comes with 200. So you are also comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

compnurd said:


> Your missing the overall point which is that the gap is closing. Yes the 100mbps plan works for you and people at 47.50 but the other deal comes with 200. So you are also comparing apples to oranges.


Altice also offers 200MB for $44.95 for new customers. They are clever enough to realize some people don't want a cable TV package. A much better deal when combined with YTTV than their cable bundle.

An extra 100MB of speed doesn't offer me anything that I can use. Better programming and a DVR is something I can use. No reason for me to pay an additional $65 a month to get 200MB Internet speed in a a cable package riddled with fees. As far as the gap is concerned other than sports and news, many people have no need for a live tv package. I don't see the total cost of streaming getting close to cable and satellite. If live streaming packages were to approach cable prices, look for streamers to just buy the sports packages directly from the leagues.The NBA and MLB are already moving in this direction. Verizon is partnering with YTTV because they see the future is not with cable bundling. Internet pricing may also be under pressure when 5g becomes more widespread.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

TV_Guy said:


> Altice also offers 200MB for $44.95 for new customers. They are clever enough to realize some people don't want a cable TV package. A much better deal when combined with YTTV than their cable bundle.
> 
> An extra 100MB of speed doesn't offer me anything that I can use. Better programming and a DVR is something I can use. No reason for me to pay an additional $65 a month to get 200MB Internet speed in a a cable package riddled with fees. As far as the gap is concerned other than sports and news, many people have no need for a live tv package. I don't see the total cost of streaming getting close to cable and satellite. If live streaming packages were to approach cable prices, look for streamers to just buy the sports packages directly from the leagues.The NBA and MLB are already moving in this direction. Verizon is partnering with YTTV because they see the future is not with cable bundling. Internet pricing may also be under pressure when 5g becomes more widespread.


Clearly you need to justify your decision with having YTTV. Good to see you are convinced you made the right decision


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

compnurd said:


> Clearly you need to justify your decision with having YTTV. Good to see you are convinced you made the right decision


I just wanted to refute your original contention that the Altice package is only $15 more than YTTV. In reality it costs about an additional $112 if you have 3 TVs (YTTV includes 3 simultaneous steams), want a DVR for $17.99 a month (YTTV incliudes unlimited DVR and 9 months retention), need to upgrade from their Core Package to recover lost channels, along with mandatory fees of $43.96.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

TV_Guy said:


> I just wanted to refute your original contention that the Altice package is only $15 more than YTTV. In reality it costs about an additional $112 if you have 3 TVs (YTTV includes 3 simultaneous steams), want a DVR for $17.99 a month (YTTV incliudes unlimited DVR and 9 months retention), need to upgrade from their Core Package to recover lost channels, along with mandatory fees of $43.96.


Hey it's ok bud. Just keep justifying


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

compnurd said:


> Hey it's ok bud. Just keep justifying


How about you justify "the gap is closing"? If cable and satellite providers continue increasing prices and fees the gap will be closing for quite a while if not indefinitely before OTT prices and cable and satellite are equal.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

This probably belongs in its own thread somewhere, but it's relevant to what is being discussed too.

Why Do We Still Pay Only $10 a Month for Music?

Music streaming has cost $10 per month for the past 10 years.

Now, cable and satellite have gone up every year, but it's a different business model built on different use cases... Notably, Music streaming is on-demand, with multiple nearly equivalent providers, but cable and satellite are linear delivery (DVRs utilize the underlying linear delivery) and have limited competition.

The TV streaming model (and customers) looks more like the music streaming model, and will likely have similar price inelasticity.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

TV_Guy said:


> How about you justify "the gap is closing"? If cable and satellite providers continue increasing prices and fees the gap will be closing for quite a while if not indefinitely before OTT prices and cable and satellite are equal.


YTTV increased prices 25% this year. Hulu increased prices twice

Directv increased 6%


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

compnurd said:


> YTTV increased prices 25% this year. Hulu increased prices twice
> 
> Directv increased 6%


The price increases weren't just price increases. In both cases, significant channels were added. The increase from $35 to $40 occurred when Turner channels (TNT, TBS, Cartoon Network, CNN et al, NBA and MLB). The second from $40 to $50 was the addition of discovery channels... Food, HGTV, etc.

DirecTV's increase was a pro forma price increase for the sake of raising prices. It doesn't reflect improvement in service.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

wmb said:


> The price increases weren't just price increases. In both cases, significant channels were added. The increase from $35 to $40 occurred when Turner channels (TNT, TBS, Cartoon Network, CNN et al, NBA and MLB). The second from $40 to $50 was the addition of discovery channels... Food, HGTV, etc.


Neither increase was optional. So people should know that as more content is added to YTTV they should expect higher and higher prices. Even if the additional content is not desired.


----------



## BigRedFan (Mar 28, 2010)

Here in South Florida, which is one of the beta markets, the advertising & marketing of AT&T TV is now at a fever pitch. They have smothered radio ads, TV ads, and highway billboards almost everywhere. Almost like the politicians do during the month before a big election, when you can't avoid them no matter how hard you try. And it has to be expensive because they're competing with the Christmas campaign budgets. 

Driving on I-95 this afternoon I saw 4 giant billboards, some in English and some in Spanish. On FM radio the ads were running like every 3rd commercial break. On both English and Spanish stations. 

Last night on the CW station they aired ads continuously inside Friends and Seinfeld, and on Telemundo in their late newscast. At the Falls Shopping Center where they have an AT&T Store all the front displays were for AT&T TV. 

And for the last month my mailbox is full of the AT&T TV flyers, inside the junk mail packages, twice a week. 

They're pushing this thing very hard but the one thing you can't help notice is that the marketing message says nothing of substance. Just alot of repetition of the same message "the future of TV is here, TV will be changed forever, voice-remote controls and Netflix in one box." A message that could come from Comcast for the X-1 box. 

I just don't know how AT&T can think that all this advertising carpet bombing with a non-substantive repetitive message will get people to pay attention and sign up for something that is just slogans. Never mind the costs and contracts.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Hopefully the ads are pushing you to a response that is more informative of the details. Billboards are supposed to be short message (much shorter than a tweet - an original size tweet).


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

wmb said:


> The price increases weren't just price increases. In both cases, significant channels were added. The increase from $35 to $40 occurred when Turner channels (TNT, TBS, Cartoon Network, CNN et al, NBA and MLB). The second from $40 to $50 was the addition of discovery channels... Food, HGTV, etc.
> 
> DirecTV's increase was a pro forma price increase for the sake of raising prices. It doesn't reflect improvement in service.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ok. And when they finally add all of the channels that Directv has now how much do you think it will cost then?


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

BigRedFan said:


> Here in South Florida, which is one of the beta markets, the advertising & marketing of AT&T TV is now at a fever pitch. They have smothered radio ads, TV ads, and highway billboards almost everywhere. Almost like the politicians do during the month before a big election, when you can't avoid them no matter how hard you try. And it has to be expensive because they're competing with the Christmas campaign budgets.
> 
> Driving on I-95 this afternoon I saw 4 giant billboards, some in English and some in Spanish. On FM radio the ads were running like every 3rd commercial break. On both English and Spanish stations.
> 
> ...


Only AT&T could think "voice-remote controls and Netflix in one box." is somehow "the future"....who's running things Rip van Winkle...LOL


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

compnurd said:


> Ok. And when they finally add all of the channels that Directv has now how much do you think it will cost then?


Let's hope they don't! That's part of the reason why many people switch to services like YTTV, so they don't have to pay for tons of channels they never watch. YTTV does a nice job now of providing granular add-ons to the single base package that they have so you can custom build something that more closely fits the channels you want/need. I hope they continue that.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

mjwagner said:


> Let's hope they don't! That's part of the reason why many people switch to services like YTTV, so they don't have to pay for tons of channels they never watch. YTTV does a nice job now of providing granular add-ons to the single base package that they have so you can custom build something that more closely fits the channels you want/need. I hope they continue that.


I'm still paying for a bunch of channels I never watch.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Apparently two tons of channels that one never watches via YouTube TV is acceptable while three tons in the base package via AT&T|DIRECTV is not.

How much does each channel weigh? Is there a conversion chart? Are these imperial tonnes or metric tons? Or is using a weight based term ridiculous? Should we say "loads of channels" and then argue about how large a "load" is (F-150, box truck or semi-trailer load of channels)? Even saying "a large number of channels" that people don't want is troublesome. How many is "large"? Is being forced to pay for 20-30 channels one doesn't want in a 70+ channel base package via YTTV a good thing?

The reality is that vMVDS companies have the same problems as traditional MVDS companies. Both either have the content or not (the "content not available" problem) and the closer each gets to having everything the higher the price gets. When YTTV reaches 155+ channels in their base package (instead of 70+) expect their base package to be much higher than $50.

Back to AT&T|DIRECTV ... we don't know exactly what the offer will be for AT&T TV in February 2020. We do know that in 2019 AT&T choose to move DIRECTV Now away from smaller base packages. The current "beta" AT&T TV did not resurrect the small base packages (and, in my opinion, AT&T does not plan on restoring such packages). I expect that the market will drive all MVDS/vMVDS companies to smaller base packages - if the market isn't driven to everyone having large base packages. February is fairly close so I don't expect a huge shift in AT&T's strategy from beta to production. So I'd expect the same offers we are seeing in beta.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> Apparently two tons of channels that one never watches via YouTube TV is acceptable while three tons in the base package via AT&T|DIRECTV is not.
> 
> How much does each channel weigh? Is there a conversion chart? Are these imperial tonnes or metric tons? Or is using a weight based term ridiculous? Should we say "loads of channels" and then argue about how large a "load" is (F-150, box truck or semi-trailer load of channels)? Even saying "a large number of channels" that people don't want is troublesome. How many is "large"? Is being forced to pay for 20-30 channels one doesn't want in a 70+ channel base package via YTTV a good thing?
> 
> ...


I don't care if their are 50 tons of channels that I don't watch in YTTV...it's $49.99 a month (with no other fees to take the price north of $100). And if the price ever gets higher than the perceived value I get from it, I'll look for something else. No provider specific equipment, no commitments, it takes 15 minutes to sign up for a new service, load a new app and go. That's the new reality and so far it's been all good for me as the consumer.


----------



## VARTV (Dec 14, 2006)

Any one know how the PQ is/will be? The FOX Sports app is much better than our local FOX station...


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> The reality is that vMVDS companies have the same problems as traditional MVDS companies. Both either have the content or not (the "content not available" problem) and the closer each gets to having everything the higher the price gets. When YTTV reaches 155+ channels in their base package (instead of 70+) expect their base package to be much higher than $50.


Why should YTTV go to 155+ channels and try to become another DirecTV? They are distinguishing themselves on price. What I want is the lowest price point that gets me as much of the content I would like. I know I can get a different content mix at a different price point.

I don't think the industry is being driven to larger base packages. It's being driven to lower cost. It's a mistake to expect the video content distribution industry in 10 years to look like it does today.

This is the whole underlying problem with AT&T TV... It appears to be the same thing I can get elsewhere for less. If that is the case, it's a non-starter.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

wmb said:


> Why should YTTV go to 155+ channels and try to become another DirecTV? They are distinguishing themselves on price. What I want is the lowest price point that gets me as much of the content I would like. I know I can get a different content mix at a different price point.
> 
> I don't think the industry is being driven to larger base packages. It's being driven to lower cost. It's a mistake to expect the video content distribution industry in 10 years to look like it does today.
> 
> ...


And lower cost is going away

AGAIN

they raised there price 25% this year. I wouldn't be surprised to see it tick up to 54.99 or 59.99 early next year. Sure they will throw in some more stuff but the price is going to keep going north

At some point someone at google is going to say hey we can get X million more customers if we add the Nick Suite of channels but we have to raise the price That will continue until forever


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TV_Guy said:


> EQUIP, TAXES & FEES: ALTICE ONE (A1) Install fee, taxes, gov't fees, other Optimum fees & surcharges, *$10.47 Regional Sports Network Fee*, *$9.99 TV Broadcast Fee,* and *$3.50 Network Enhancement Fee* apply. A $*20 Altice One Pak monthly fee applies.* *A1 Mini boxes avail for add'l $10/mo. *PHONE: Optional at addl $5/mo. All fees, equip. charges, surcharges & taxes will be added to bill.
> 
> So how is Altice only an additional $15 a month when the mandatory fees are $43.96 making it $58.96 more expensive than YouTube TV for a single TV? For 2 sets it's $69.96 more expensive and for a third set it's $79.96 more expensive.
> 
> I can get internet for less than $58.95 with a lot more channels than Altice offers. If I were to upgrade to a package comparable to YTTV with 3 sets I would be paying Altice about $144.


I have Altice as my ISP. We have eight TV sets. I'd be paying more than I do for D*. But that's not factoring in the ISP fee. Not sure what would happen with that.

Rich


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

Rich said:


> I have Altice as my ISP. We have eight TV sets. I'd be paying more than I do for D*. But that's not factoring in the ISP fee. Not sure what would happen with that.
> 
> Rich


If you mean the "Network Enhancement Fee" that will stay with you for as long as you have Internet or Internet & VOIP. TV only doesn't have that fee but it has the Broadcast Fee and RSN Fee.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> Only AT&T could think "voice-remote controls and Netflix in one box." is somehow "the future"....who's running things Rip van Winkle...LOL


They've lied like this for years, why would they stop now?

Rich


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

compnurd said:


> And lower cost is going away
> 
> AGAIN
> 
> ...


I've been hearing this mantra repeated here for years now. As I've said many times, price was not the primary reason I ditched D but since many here seem to be focused on that aspect I'll comment on it. About 3 years ago when I left D my monthly bill was $120. I switched to PSVue and my bill was $45. Three years later I'm now on YTTV and my bill is $50. I won't even get into the fact that when I was with D 3 years ago and my bill was $120 I only had access on 3 of my 7 TVs. With PSVue and now with YTTV I have access on all 7 of my TVs (only 3 of which are regular use, the rest are occasional use so no need to get into that discussion). I haven't looked lately but based on the yearly price increases that I have seen from D my guess is that had I stayed with D my monthly bill would now be at least $134. So at least for me not only has the difference in price not closed it has become larger...LOL. Will prices change sure. Will the gap get smaller, probably. But in the mean time I've been able to spend literally thousands of dollars on other things rather than sending it to D. And if the price for the service I'm using ever gets larger than my perceived value I'll look for another provider. In this new environment switching is almost frictionless. In the past week I've switched to YTTV...took all of about 15 minutes.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

If you look at their current offerings from an overview perspective you can see feature wise AT&T TV is a decent service. Defiantly a big upgrade over U-Verse TV but DirecTV is still #1 in terms of features even though it lacks a voice remote.

The biggest hurdle AT&T TV will have is the price of the packages based on the trial markets. A positive is with AT&T TV there isn't additional TV fees.

Right now AT&T TV Now offers the same Entertainment - Ultimate packages at the same regular non-promo rates that AT&T TV is offering (under their "Other Packages") section. The AT&T TV Now versions don't require a contract and are not subject to an RSN fee but if you want that 3rd stream that is an optional $5/mo. However their versions are limited when compared to AT&T TV (i.e. AT&T TV Now Entertainment has 2 streams and the 20 hour DVR included while AT&T TV Entertainment has the 3 streams and 500 hour DVR included.)

To me it seems AT&T TV is not targeted to your typical "cord-cutting" segment as it will be a national competitor something they can't do with U-Verse TV. It will be a long time before AT&T TV will be considered a suitable replacement for DirecTV.



VARTV said:


> Any one know how the PQ is/will be? The FOX Sports app is much better than our local FOX station...


AT&T TV's picture quality will depend on your internet connection but it is using the same app/infrastructure as AT&T TV Now so whatever AT&T TV Now's PQ currently is will be the PQ for AT&T TV.


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

Rich said:


> I have Altice as my ISP. We have eight TV sets. I'd be paying more than I do for D*. But that's not factoring in the ISP fee. Not sure what would happen with that.
> 
> Rich


This includes 200 MB internet. You need to be a new customer so you would have to use FIOS or something else for 30 or 60 days to become new again. Rough calculation 8 sets would run about $212 plus local taxes with the $17.99 DVR and a 1 tier upgrade from the Core package and equipment and fees. You might need to bump it up further. I think you're better off with YTTV. Altice guarantees the $64.99 base rate for life but fees are subject to increases. Something tells me they could also play games with the channels in the package to make the guarantee worthless.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> I have Altice as my ISP. We have eight TV sets. I'd be paying more than I do for D*. But that's not factoring in the ISP fee. Not sure what would happen with that.
> 
> Rich


Mediacom has that fee also but it isn't always applied for no apparent reason.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Is a box required?


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

raott said:


> Is a box required?


For HDMI capable sets Altice supplies a $20 combination modem, router, cable box, IPTV. I guess by law you could substitute a TIVO with a cable card but then you need to supply your own modem and router. You might also need a tuning adapter to go along with the cablecard for some premium channels that use request switched digital video (SDV).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

wmb said:


> Why should YTTV go to 155+ channels and try to become another DirecTV?


They shouldn't. And neither should AT&T TV. But right now, December 2019, both companies are charging for the channels they have. As YTTV (and others) add more channels they WILL charge more. Whether they keep adding to their base package and push their price up to match DIRECTV or they follow the path of keeping the core package affordable and adding theme packs, every service WILL increase in price as they add channels and as the price they are being charged continues to be increased.

$50 for 70+ channels and losing money is not sustainable. A balance needs to be found between services making enough profit to stay in business and customers getting a low enough price that they can afford the service. There are no easy answers.


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

James Long said:


> They shouldn't. And neither should AT&T TV. But right now, December 2019, they are charging for the channels they have. As they add more channels they WILL charge more. Whether they keep adding to their base package and push their price up to match DIRECTV or they follow the path of keeping the core package affordable and adding theme packs, every service WILL increase in price as they add channels and as the price they are being charged continues to be increased.
> 
> $50 for 70+ channels and losing money is not sustainable. A balance needs to be found between services making enough profit to stay in business and customers getting a low enough price that they can afford the service. There are no easy answers.


I agree for the most part. The main attraction for live tv is news and sports. Generally YTTV concentrates on news and sports. I think any additions should be in the sports area since they have news pretty well covered. They are currently missing NHL Network and the NFL Network. These would be logical additions if they feel they need to add channels. Other possible extra cost add ons they could consider are Red Zone and the MSG RSNs in the NY market. Adding dozens of entertainment channels could cost them subscribers.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> They shouldn't. And neither should AT&T TV. But right now, December 2019, both companies are charging for the channels they have. As YTTV (and others) add more channels they WILL charge more. Whether they keep adding to their base package and push their price up to match DIRECTV or they follow the path of keeping the core package affordable and adding theme packs, every service WILL increase in price as they add channels and as the price they are being charged continues to be increased.
> 
> $50 for 70+ channels and losing money is not sustainable. A balance needs to be found between services making enough profit to stay in business and customers getting a low enough price that they can afford the service. There are no easy answers.


I like the modular building block approach I see YTTV taking. It will be interesting to see if and how they will extend it.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

BigRedFan said:


> Here in South Florida, which is one of the beta markets, the advertising & marketing of AT&T TV is now at a fever pitch. They have smothered radio ads, TV ads, and highway billboards almost everywhere. Almost like the politicians do during the month before a big election, when you can't avoid them no matter how hard you try. And it has to be expensive because they're competing with the Christmas campaign budgets.
> 
> Driving on I-95 this afternoon I saw 4 giant billboards, some in English and some in Spanish. On FM radio the ads were running like every 3rd commercial break. On both English and Spanish stations.
> 
> ...


 I am in SFLA and see not much or hear anything. But AT&T did send me a come back offer in the mail. I used it as toilet paper.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

mjwagner said:


> I don't care if their are 50 tons of channels that I don't watch in YTTV...it's $49.99 a month (with no other fees to take the price north of $100). And if the price ever gets higher than the perceived value I get from it, I'll look for something else. No provider specific equipment, no commitments, it takes 15 minutes to sign up for a new service, load a new app and go. That's the new reality and so far it's been all good for me as the consumer.


 Agree! Love YTTV. Yes, I loose some channels but adding Philo for $20 and its still $70


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> $50 for 70+ channels and losing money is not sustainable.


From my perspective, it's more sustainable than paying $80 (plus receiver, HD, etc fees) for 155+ channels, especially if those 70 channels cover 90% of my desires.

I'd rather Google lose money than me pay too much.

I'm actually getting much more likely to say goodbye to cable/satellite/linear streaming services than pay much more than that. OTA picture quality has never been this good, and both my TVs get guide data off the air.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Google isn't going to lose money forever. Sure, I'd like it if all MVPDs were free ... but we're not dealing with charities. We're dealing with for profit businesses that will need to make a profit off of every product at some point.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Sorry, I was asking about whether a box was required for the AT&T TV service.



TV_Guy said:


> For HDMI capable sets Altice supplies a $20 combination modem, router, cable box, IPTV. I guess by law you could substitute a TIVO with a cable card but then you need to supply your own modem and router. You might also need a tuning adapter to go along with the cablecard for some premium channels that use request switched digital video (SDV).


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> Google isn't going to lose money forever. Sure, I'd like it if all MVPDs were free ... but we're not dealing with charities. We're dealing with for profit businesses that will need to make a profit off of every product at some point.


1. Do you know for a fact that they are losing money?

2. If they are, then one day in the future they may raise prices. When that day comes, I may change providers.

3. If Google is going to be charitable and offer a loss leader rate for a service, I'd be a fool not the accept their charity.

I feel no compunction to pay more for a service (AT&T TV) just because I'm concerned that my current providers may not be profitable, particularly when that provider has a near $1 trillion market capitalization.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

raott said:


> Sorry, I was asking about whether a box was required for the AT&T TV service.


No problem. AT&T TV requires 1 box. AT&T Now does not require a box.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Thanks. Any idea on why the box is required? My understanding is the service is accessible through apps on Apple TV, etc...I wonder why one box would be required.



TV_Guy said:


> No problem. AT&T TV requires 1 box. AT&T Now does not require a box.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

wmb said:


> 1. Do you know for a fact that they are losing money?
> 
> 2. If they are, then one day in the future they may raise prices. When that day comes, I may change providers.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I find the whole question a bit silly. Maybe I'm different but when I shop for a product or service, whether the company selling me the product or service can make a profit based on the price point they are charging is literally never part of my decision process. Sure, I make sure that I'm buying the product or service from a reputable company that I'm confident is going to remain in business but that's a different question. Honestly I'm not worried about Google going out of business anytime soon whether they charge me $50 or some other amount per month for YTTV...LOL


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Get the subsidized ride for as long as you can but know this: The ride will end. Expecting YTTV to remain base price $35 "forever" would have been short sighted. One bump to $40 for new subscribers then the big bump to $50 for everyone.

I suppose it is self centered to not care if the vMVPD service exists next month or not. As long as one can get their content elsewhere there is no personal pain. But I'd suggest watching the market and seeing what the next best deal is. I have no expectation that bargain pricing will last "forever". I'm not that naive.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> Get the subsidized ride for as long as you can but know this: The ride will end. Expecting YTTV to remain base price $35 "forever" would have been short sighted. One bump to $40 for new subscribers then the big bump to $50 for everyone.
> 
> I suppose it is self centered to not care if the vMVPD service exists next month or not. As long as one can get their content elsewhere there is no personal pain. But I'd suggest watching the market and seeing what the next best deal is. I have no expectation that bargain pricing will last "forever". I'm not that naive.


I actually expect the price to plateau or business to disappear. It will happen a lot faster than you expect. (v)MVPD services are on the cusp of becoming the next buggy whip manufacturers.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

wmb said:


> I actually expect the price to plateau or business to disappear. It will happen a lot faster than you expect. (v)MVPD services are on the cusp of becoming the next buggy whip manufacturers.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Google is not going to lose money

They stopped deploying fiber because they were losing money.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> Get the subsidized ride for as long as you can but know this: The ride will end. Expecting YTTV to remain base price $35 "forever" would have been short sighted. One bump to $40 for new subscribers then the big bump to $50 for everyone.
> 
> I suppose it is self centered to not care if the vMVPD service exists next month or not. As long as one can get their content elsewhere there is no personal pain. But I'd suggest watching the market and seeing what the next best deal is. I have no expectation that bargain pricing will last "forever". I'm not that naive.


I completely agree with you. YTTVs price can't stay at $50 forever. They will inevitably raise the price. So will all the others. And yes, I'll buy my live tv service from whatever supplier provides the best value for me. That's not being self centered, that's being a smart consumer. Last time I checked that's the way the free market worked...LOL And I don't expect Google to get out of the live tv market anytime soon, or go belly up. My guess is this is a long term play for them.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TV_Guy said:


> This includes 200 MB internet. You need to be a new customer so you would have to use FIOS or something else for 30 or 60 days to become new again. Rough calculation 8 sets would run about $212 plus local taxes with the $17.99 DVR and a 1 tier upgrade from the Core package and equipment and fees. You might need to bump it up further. I think you're better off with YTTV. Altice guarantees the $64.99 base rate for life but fees are subject to increases. Something tells me they could also play games with the channels in the package to make the guarantee worthless.


Way too much money for me. I'd rather stay put. Thanks for the figures.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Mediacom has that fee also but it isn't always applied for no apparent reason.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Sorry, I meant the monthly cost of the ISP.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> Sorry, I meant the monthly cost of the ISP.
> 
> Rich


That's what I was talking about. Mediacom has a $99 price for 200/20 2TB internet price but they also have a $15/month fee if you only have internet services. That fee is applied or not on their whim if you don't have TV and/or Phone services also.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> That's what I was talking about. Mediacom has a $99 price for 200/20 2TB internet price but they also have a $15/month fee if you only have internet services. That fee is applied or not on their whim if you don't have TV and/or Phone services also.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


We don't get that charge and we get 300/35 for about what you pay, around a hundred bucks. Next time I get the bill I'll see exactly what it is.

Rich


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

I WANT MORE said:


> College games are not blacked out. No additional subscription is necessary.
> There are college football and basketball games that are not available elsewhere.
> Example: New Mexico State @ New Mexico basketball at 7:00 PM central on channel 683 is not available anywhere else.
> That's just one example.
> ...


FWIW, everything in ESPN College Extra is available via WatchESPN/ESPN3 or an ESPN+ subscription. They likely don't carry absolutely every single game you're seeing in the Sports Pack channels, but ESPN3 and ESPN+ partner up with a ton of networks and schools to provide a ton of additional college sporting broadcasts, including soccer, lacrosse, softball, baseball, etc. (Ex: I watched one of our nearby D-2 men's basketball games broadcast on ESPN3.)


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Mediacom has a $99 price for 200/20 2TB internet price but they also have a $15/month fee if you only have internet services.


Wow, that's pricey. I get 1Gbps/35Mbps + unlimited nationwide phone for $109.95/mo through Cox. 1 TB data cap though. Well, technically I don't have a data cap right now because 3 or 4 months after I started my service they had a new promo where they life-timed no data caps for new subs AND for less $$$ then I was paying for 1 TB, so I called to complain . They didn't lower my price, but they at least gave me the no cap promo for 1 yr. But I think both of the promos are falling off in Feb - April.

No way in hell I'm going to pay full price for that service lol. Sticker on the 1Gbps+Phone is $130 and sticker on the No Cap is $50 = $180.

Right now I'm averaging about 250GB/mo with no streaming, but my DirecTV promo is ALSO falling off around that time, so if they don't re-up me, I'll have to probably switch to TMobile TV.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

Rich said:


> We don't get that charge and we get 300/35 for about what you pay, around a hundred bucks. Next time I get the bill I'll see exactly what it is.
> 
> Rich


For anyone that subscribes to ATT TV, how is the dvr interface, does it fast forward like the Directv Genie, meaning full screen? I don't like the way certain streaming apps fast forward, the small square box FF is something I can't abide.

And the problem is 99 percent of Youtube reviews fail to show how an app or site handles fast forward.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Wow, that's pricey. I get 1Gbps/35Mbps + unlimited nationwide phone for $109.95/mo through Cox. 1 TB data cap though. Well, technically I don't have a data cap right now because 3 or 4 months after I started my service they had a new promo where they life-timed no data caps for new subs AND for less $$$ then I was paying for 1 TB, so I called to complain . They didn't lower my price, but they at least gave me the no cap promo for 1 yr. But I think both of the promos are falling off in Feb - April.
> 
> No way in hell I'm going to pay full price for that service lol. Sticker on the 1Gbps+Phone is $130 and sticker on the No Cap is $50 = $180.
> 
> Right now I'm averaging about 250GB/mo with no streaming, but my DirecTV promo is ALSO falling off around that time, so if they don't re-up me, I'll have to probably switch to TMobile TV.


We have Armstrong which is 300/20 with 2Tb for 77.95 and 400/25 is 99.99

we average about 1TB a month usage


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

compnurd said:


> We have Armstrong which is 300/20 with 2Tb for 77.95 and 400/25 is 99.99
> 
> we average about 1TB a month usage


I average a bit over 1TB a month as I watch a heck of a lot of streaming HD and 4K.

What I pay now is $150 for their Family TV which covers pretty much all the cable channels, a little sports and the locals and the 200/20 internet service. That also include the RSN and local extra fees and taxes. If I drop cable TV then it goes down to the retail on the internet only. Discounts are hard to get with them as there is no real competition. DSL and Wisper (WiFi). Wisper is about $100/month too, so no savings and it is slower. DSL at my location is at best 3Mb and costs $60 I think.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> I average a bit over 1TB a month as I watch a heck of a lot of streaming HD and 4K.
> 
> What I pay now is $150 for their Family TV which covers pretty much all the cable channels, a little sports and the locals and the 200/20 internet service. That also include the RSN and local extra fees and taxes. If I drop cable TV then it goes down to the retail on the internet only. Discounts are hard to get with them as there is no real competition. DSL and Wisper (WiFi). Wisper is about $100/month too, so no savings and it is slower. DSL at my location is at best 3Mb and costs $60 I think.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Same here. Bundles and discounts don't exist because they have no competition


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

B. Shoe said:


> FWIW, everything in ESPN College Extra is available via WatchESPN/ESPN3 or an ESPN+ subscription. They likely don't carry absolutely every single game you're seeing in the Sports Pack channels, but ESPN3 and ESPN+ partner up with a ton of networks and schools to provide a ton of additional college sporting broadcasts, including soccer, lacrosse, softball, baseball, etc. (Ex: I watched one of our nearby D-2 men's basketball games broadcast on ESPN3.)


I have ESPN+. Thanks


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

I am seeing conflicting reports relative to which locals one would receive.
One YT video stated that it will receive whatever locals are available in the market where the box is connected. ie: you can take the box along with you to a different market and receive those locals.
Another said that it will be specific to the service address. 
Others state that it will work with a VPN. 

I wonder what the truth is.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

GordonGekko said:


> For anyone that subscribes to ATT TV, how is the dvr interface, does it fast forward like the Directv Genie, meaning full screen? I don't like the way certain streaming apps fast forward, the small square box FF is something I can't abide.
> 
> And the problem is 99 percent of Youtube reviews fail to show how an app or site handles fast forward.


I don't use that service but all the sites you stream from seem to use different methods for just about everything. Takes time to get used to that. YTTV seems to have a 15 second forward click on all the content. Using an ATV usually gets you a ten second forward click on sites like NF or AP. It varies.

Rich


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

Rich said:


> I don't use that service but all the sites you stream from seem to use different methods for just about everything. Takes time to get used to that. YTTV seems to have a 15 second forward click on all the content. Using an ATV usually gets you a ten second forward click on sites like NF or AP. It varies.
> 
> Rich


Thanks for responding, this is one of the major reasons I can't give up on the Genie, I use FF too much. One day I would like to place all of my dvd/blu-ray movies on Plex but not unless it has full screen FF, hopefully these streaming sites figure out the ideal interfaces.

Of course nobody will agree on what is best but FF needs to be easy to follow and needs to stop exactly on the scene you want to watch, on some interfaces Netflix FF makes it difficult to determine fully every scene you are fast forwarding through.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

GordonGekko said:


> Thanks for responding, this is one of the major reasons I can't give up on the Genie, I use FF too much. One day I would like to place all of my dvd/blu-ray movies on Plex but not unless it has full screen FF, hopefully these streaming sites figure out the ideal interfaces.
> 
> Of course nobody will agree on what is best but FF needs to be easy to follow and needs to stop exactly on the scene you want to watch, on some interfaces Netflix FF makes it difficult to determine fully every scene you are fast forwarding through.


Takes time to get used to the way the apps do things. What you want is the same thing I've always wanted, consistency. But they are never all gonna do things the same way.

Rich


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> BTW, there has been some news that Netflix might offer annual or other multi-month subscriptions with discounts sometime fairly soon.


Been saying this is going to happen for months. These streamers see people playing streaming roulette. There are a couple of shows I want to watch on Netflix, I'll subscribe for a couple of months, watch what I want, drop it, move to Hulu, watch what I want there, drop it and move to CBS All Access, etc. So for Netflix and others, it keeps the churn to a minimum, locks you in for a year at a slightly cheaper rate than the monthly. Eventually they might stop the month to month and use the AP model, and have you only sub per year. THAT'S when streaming will start to cost what Sat currently does, when hopping from one to the other no longer applies.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

wmb said:


> The price increases weren't just price increases. In both cases, significant channels were added. The increase from $35 to $40 occurred when Turner channels (TNT, TBS, Cartoon Network, CNN et al, NBA and MLB). The second from $40 to $50 was the addition of discovery channels... Food, HGTV, etc.
> 
> DirecTV's increase was a pro forma price increase for the sake of raising prices. It doesn't reflect improvement in service.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So what you're saying is as they add channels which are already on cable/sat like the TBS channels, the price is going to go up? So when they finally have all the channels that cable has, the price will probably be around the same.

That's the main issue I have with streaming. To get all the channels I want, I have to buy at least 2 of these services (or I can choose to do without them, but why would I?) So now I'm up to around $100 for those channels. And if they keep raising prices, at some point the savings will be more and more minimal. And with that they have a substandard DVR and you are at the mercy of having a good internet connection. That said, IF there was a streaming system that gave me ALL the channels I want, and I could save money I would. I've yet to find it.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

TV_Guy said:


> This includes 200 MB internet. You need to be a new customer so you would have to use FIOS or something else for 30 or 60 days to become new again. Rough calculation 8 sets would run about $212 plus local taxes with the $17.99 DVR and a 1 tier upgrade from the Core package and equipment and fees. You might need to bump it up further. I think you're better off with YTTV. Altice guarantees the $64.99 base rate for life but fees are subject to increases. Something tells me they could also play games with the channels in the package to make the guarantee worthless.


I currently use Altice for Internet and D* for TV, and priced out what it would cost me to switch to all Altice and it was roughly $189 (to start, and eventually would have to add in the $18 DVR fee). But currently my DirecTV bill is about $200 by itself, so I would essentially get "free ISP" and phone (I pay Vonage $25 for IP phone which I would drop). So it's a savings. But with either, I could have as many concurrent "streams" as i want (streaming through their box, plus online). That's another limit that bothers me with YTTV and the like, the limitation of streams. Most nights I have 5-6 TVs on and watching content. What happens to that one person who wants to watch TV but all the streams are gone?


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

TV_Guy said:


> I agree for the most part. The main attraction for live tv is news and sports. Generally YTTV concentrates on news and sports. I think any additions should be in the sports area since they have news pretty well covered. They are currently missing NHL Network and the NFL Network. These would be logical additions if they feel they need to add channels. Other possible extra cost add ons they could consider are Red Zone and the MSG RSNs in the NY market. Adding dozens of entertainment channels could cost them subscribers.


Adding the MSG RSNs might have me considering YTTV. That's one major missing channel. I believe they have YES Network?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

GordonGekko said:


> For anyone that subscribes to ATT TV, how is the dvr interface, does it fast forward like the Directv Genie, meaning full screen? I don't like the way certain streaming apps fast forward, the small square box FF is something I can't abide.


Pretty sure I read a post by an actual AT&T TV user that said when you FF, you just get the typical thumbnail preview box on the timeline rather than full-screen. But that's at least an improvement from how the cloud DVR worked back when I beta tested it for DirecTV Now last year -- it didn't even have the thumbnail preview!


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

raott said:


> Thanks. Any idea on why the box is required? My understanding is the service is accessible through apps on Apple TV, etc...I wonder why one box would be required.


I don't know if this has been definitively answered by anyone yet. We know that, as currently structured in the pilot markets, AT&T TV requires a contract and automatically comes with 1 "free" box, which runs AT&T's customized version of Google's Android TV. Based on the marketing materials I've seen so far, it looks like this box will be an important differentiator for AT&T TV and something that they plan to really tout, with its voice remote, built-in Google Assistant, and easy access to lots of apps (all features that DTV and some cable TV DVRs do not have).

We also know that the service allows 3 simultaneous streams, either in or out of home. The AT&T TV website mentions that you can use the AT&T TV app on your mobile devices for out-of-home viewing but they don't mention anything one way or another about accessing the service on your own TV-connected streaming devices like Apple TV, Roku and Fire TV, even though the AT&T TV app definitely does exist for all those devices (because it's the same app that the AT&T TV Now service uses). They'll sell you additional boxes for $120 each but you're not required to have them in order to access your 2nd and 3rd streams. I did see a quote from an AT&T bigwig several months ago in reference to AT&T TV saying that they were open to the option of customers using their own streaming devices on secondary TVs in the home. That said, I haven't seen any official confirmation since the pilot launch that you can do so. But if you can't, can you imagine how the customer support calls will go when AT&T TV customers call up asking why they can download the AT&T TV app to their own Apple TV but then the app won't work when they try to log in? "Oh, sorry, that app's only for AT&T TV Now customers, not AT&T TV customers." "OK, then why is the app specifically named AT&T TV and not AT&T TV Now?!" That just doesn't seem likely to me. It would be a great way to piss off the customers of their new flagship cable TV service.

My *guess* is that you aren't required to actively use the Android TV box from AT&T at all in order to use AT&T TV. But perhaps the service might require initial activation via the box. It's also possible that the box needs to remain connected to your home network (wifi/ethernet) so that AT&T TV can track where you're using the service. None of these streaming cable TV services want you sharing your account with other households. And even though AT&T TV comes with 3 streams that can be accessed anywhere, they may require that use of their app for Apple TV/Roku/Fire TV take place on the same home network to which their box is connected. So if you plan to share your AT&T TV service with your 27 year-old kid in another city, he'll have to watch on his phone, not on his Roku. (And even then, they may require that his phone connect to your home's wifi network every so often. YouTube TV does something like this.)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Pretty sure I read a post by an actual AT&T TV user that said when you FF, you just get the typical thumbnail preview box on the timeline rather than full-screen. But that's at least an improvement from how the cloud DVR worked back when I beta tested it for DirecTV Now last year -- it didn't even have the thumbnail preview!


This is my biggest frustration with streaming stuff, I have become so used to seeing a full screen display when FF'ing, and instantly going 30 seconds ahead when I hit the 30 second skip (which is often done from 4 to 12 times in rapid succession when it is something where I know what length of commercial break to expect) That just doesn't work with streaming, making it a vastly inferior experience.

Sure it is fine when you are watching content that is commercial free because you probably have no reason to hit FF let alone a 30 second skip, but if you want to watch any sort of sports it is most definitely not commercial free and the experience of EVERY streaming provider absolutely sucks balls for commercial skipping.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

slice1900 said:


> This is my biggest frustration with streaming stuff, I have become so used to seeing a full screen display when FF'ing, and instantly going 30 seconds ahead when I hit the 30 second skip (which is often done from 4 to 12 times in rapid succession when it is something where I know what length of commercial break to expect) That just doesn't work with streaming, making it a vastly inferior experience.
> 
> Sure it is fine when you are watching content that is commercial free because you probably have no reason to hit FF let alone a 30 second skip, but if you want to watch any sort of sports it is most definitely not commercial free and the experience of EVERY streaming provider absolutely sucks balls for commercial skipping.


Agree with everything, I can't leave the DVR system until these things get worked out, I'll add that I rarely find shows that are so pitch perfect that I must watch every scene, I know this is supposed to be the golden age of television, but even the so called great shows feel the need to have ten character arcs in a given season, sorry, back to the topic, it is as if the programmers have never actually used a DVR.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> This is my biggest frustration with streaming stuff, I have become so used to seeing a full screen display when FF'ing, and instantly going 30 seconds ahead when I hit the 30 second skip (which is often done from 4 to 12 times in rapid succession when it is something where I know what length of commercial break to expect) That just doesn't work with streaming, making it a vastly inferior experience.
> 
> Sure it is fine when you are watching content that is commercial free because you probably have no reason to hit FF let alone a 30 second skip, but if you want to watch any sort of sports it is most definitely not commercial free and the experience of EVERY streaming provider absolutely sucks balls for commercial skipping.


PSVue, on the platforms I use worked exactly that way. Full screen view of whatever you were FF/REW thru and 30 sec skip every time you pushed the "right" direction key on the d-pad. I am now transitioning to YTTV and it uses the small box instead of full screen. I thought I wouldn't like it but it turns out they are using a pretty large box so you can actually see what you are FF/REW thru and by holding down the "right" direction key you can quickly and smoothly "scrub" thru the content and it is very accurate so it is very easy to zip thru the commercial breaks. So far I like it better but it is very much personal preference so YMMV.


----------



## crkeehn (Apr 23, 2002)

mjwagner said:


> PSVue, on the platforms I use worked exactly that way. Full screen view of whatever you were FF/REW thru and 30 sec skip every time you pushed the "right" direction key on the d-pad. I am now transitioning to YTTV and it uses the small box instead of full screen. I thought I wouldn't like it but it turns out they are using a pretty large box so you can actually see what you are FF/REW thru and by holding down the "right" direction key you can quickly and smoothly "scrub" thru the content and it is very accurate so it is very easy to zip thru the commercial breaks. So far I like it better but it is very much personal preference so YMMV.


The larger frame is a recent improvement. Philo has used a larger box which made it easy to fast forward and reach the end of the commercials. When I first got YTTV, the box was much smaller and it was difficult, though not impossible to determine where you were. The larger box makes fast forwarding much easier and like mjwagner, I like it.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

GordonGekko said:


> Agree with everything, I can't leave the DVR system until these things get worked out, I'll add that I rarely find shows that are so pitch perfect that I must watch every scene, I know this is supposed to be the golden age of television, but even the so called great shows feel the need to have ten character arcs in a given season, sorry, back to the topic, it is as if the programmers have never actually used a DVR.


There is a lot about these streaming services that just feel like "TV Lite" to me. The experience is mostly C level. But the cost savings at least now outweigh that for some. You get what you pay for I suppose.


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

And you don't get what you pay for as well. I've seriously been considering getting rid of Directv. Too many fees like "advanced receiver fee," "State tax recovery fee," and now they charge $7 for the first box, when the first box formerly didn't have a monthly charge associated with it. It seems like the folks at AT&T just think of more bogus charges to pad the actual cost of the service.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

jal said:


> And you don't get what you pay for as well. I've seriously been considering getting rid of Directv. Too many fees like "advanced receiver fee," "State tax recovery fee," and now they charge $7 for the first box, when the first box formerly didn't have a monthly charge associated with it. It seems like the folks at AT&T just think of more bogus charges to pad the actual cost of the service.


Peace out ✌


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

jal said:


> And you don't get what you pay for as well. I've seriously been considering getting rid of Directv. Too many fees like "advanced receiver fee," "State tax recovery fee," and now they charge $7 for the first box, when the first box formerly didn't have a monthly charge associated with it. It seems like the folks at AT&T just think of more bogus charges to pad the actual cost of the service.


But there are probably "fees" that you would have to pay with streaming that would give you the equivalent of what DirecTV might give you. Want more than 3 streams? There's a fee for that (and probably in some cases, you'd have to have an additional account (so essentially another $50 fee). Want those additional channels you can't get on your streaming service of choice? That's another "fee" in that you have to pay for an additional service. I'd venture to say that a lot of the "fees" are built into the price. I really think cable and sat are stupid in that that they should bake those fees into to price. Think of it as the same thing T-Moble has done. If nothing else, it would promote more good will. Especially if there's no way to avoid those fees.

Plus, as has been mentioned here and elsewhere, you get an inferior DVR experience. In quite a few of these services there's no advanced sound quality (i.e. Dolby Digital). So in order to get EVERYTHING that D offers, you'd have to have multiple streaming services, and perhaps get the TiVo infrastructure in order to get the TiVo experience.

And yes, I get that for many of you, this is stuff you can live without, or just manage to deal with, because the price makes it so. Kudos to you. Once I can find ONE service that gives me everything I want in one place, i'll consider it. The closest I've found is T-Mobile's offering, but it's missing ONE channel that's a must, MSG Networks.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> This is my biggest frustration with streaming stuff, I have become so used to seeing a full screen display when FF'ing, and instantly going 30 seconds ahead when I hit the 30 second skip (which is often done from 4 to 12 times in rapid succession when it is something where I know what length of commercial break to expect) That just doesn't work with streaming, making it a vastly inferior experience.
> 
> Sure it is fine when you are watching content that is commercial free because you probably have no reason to hit FF let alone a 30 second skip, but if you want to watch any sort of sports it is most definitely not commercial free and the experience of EVERY streaming provider absolutely sucks balls for commercial skipping.


Yeah, as others have noted, I'm pretty sure you can easily do 30 second skip forwards in cloud DVR recordings from some of these services. And I have zero problems doing that with on-demand content in Netflix, Hulu, Prime Video, etc. on my Apple TV 4K.

The UX across streaming services in general has gotten better and better over the past few years, and that's especially true if you're using a recent model, capable streaming device. But the situation does vary between apps and devices, so YMMV.

At any rate, I do think that AT&T TV will have to offer a UX and feature set that the average consumer* perceives as being as good or better than Uverse TV, DirecTV satellite, and major cable providers (Comcast, Charter) if it's really going to succeed long-term. We'll see if they can do that. (*Keep in mind that lots of folks aren't nearly as picky about these kinds of things as those of us on this forum.)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, as others have noted, I'm pretty sure you can easily do 30 second skip forwards in cloud DVR recordings from some of these services. And I have zero problems doing that with on-demand content in Netflix, Hulu, Prime Video, etc. on my Apple TV 4K.


I'm not talking about on demand, I'm talking about cloud DVR recordings. I've never had one myself but I know a couple people who have them or have tried them and the experience sucks. Now obviously there is some latency involved where the recording is in the "cloud" but there is a lot more latency than that. It is nothing like doing a 30 second skip on a Tivo.

The FF was bad too though it sounds like YTTV at least has a full screen preview as you scrub though I haven't seen it I'm just going on what others here are saying.

Unless/until I could get a comparable experience to watching several live games at once using trick play features with instantaneous response and switching between multiple games that are paused when I go to another, none of these services can hope to replace my cable/Tivo combo. I have no love for my cable company, but the vMVPD offerings I've seen are a joke by comparison.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> I'm not talking about on demand, I'm talking about cloud DVR recordings. I've never had one myself but I know a couple people who have them or have tried them and the experience sucks. Now obviously there is some latency involved where the recording is in the "cloud" but there is a lot more latency than that. It is nothing like doing a 30 second skip on a Tivo.
> 
> The FF was bad too though it sounds like YTTV at least has a full screen preview as you scrub though I haven't seen it I'm just going on what others here are saying.
> 
> Unless/until I could get a comparable experience to watching several live games at once using trick play features with instantaneous response and switching between multiple games that are paused when I go to another, none of these services can hope to replace my cable/Tivo combo. I have no love for my cable company, but the vMVPD offerings I've seen are a joke by comparison.


Yup. I'm hoping TMobile is closer to traditional if it comes to that. Seems like they are traditional over IP vs. a streaming service, so hopefully it has closer to traditional functionality. I'll have to look around and see if any t-mobile stores have a demo.


----------



## eletric chicken (Dec 28, 2019)

Rich said:


> Wonder if that app will have a customer service option? If so, will the customer service be as wonderful as what we have now?
> 
> Rich


i would hope it would be chat only with the wonderful customer service options we have now. i often ask myself why is it when i press 1 i still can't understand you. even worse they can't understand me


----------



## eletric chicken (Dec 28, 2019)

jal said:


> And you don't get what you pay for as well. I've seriously been considering getting rid of Directv. Too many fees like "advanced receiver fee," "State tax recovery fee," and now they charge $7 for the first box, when the first box formerly didn't have a monthly charge associated with it. It seems like the folks at AT&T just think of more bogus charges to pad the actual cost of the service.


Really i am only being charged for my 2 mini's and they told me the DVR service was free to???


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> I'm not talking about on demand, I'm talking about cloud DVR recordings.


There's no real technological difference, at least if we're talking about completed cloud DVR recordings. They're simply video files stored on servers that are streamed on-demand.

Generally speaking, I'd say that cloud DVR performance isn't on the same level as local DVR but I don't think cloud DVR is as bad as you think it is. And, as major cable TV systems like Comcast increasingly shift to cloud DVR, it should only improve.



slice1900 said:


> Unless/until I could get a comparable experience to watching several live games at once using trick play features with instantaneous response and switching between multiple games that are paused when I go to another, none of these services can hope to replace my cable/Tivo combo. I have no love for my cable company, but the vMVPD offerings I've seen are a joke by comparison.


I'm a little doubtful that that level of trick play across multiple tuners/live channels will show up among vMVPDs. (Heck, I don't know if it's even do-able on local DVRs apart from TiVo.) Although I seem to recall reading that you can switch between live recordings that you've set up in advance on YouTube TV and when you switch from one to another, it pauses playback of the recording at the point you switch away.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

raott said:


> Thanks. Any idea on why the box is required? My understanding is the service is accessible through apps on Apple TV, etc...I wonder why one box would be required.





NashGuy said:


> I don't know if this has been definitively answered by anyone yet. We know that, as currently structured in the pilot markets, AT&T TV requires a contract and automatically comes with 1 "free" box, which runs AT&T's customized version of Google's Android TV.
> 
> My *guess* is that you aren't required to actively use the Android TV box from AT&T at all in order to use AT&T TV. But perhaps the service might require initial activation via the box. It's also possible that the box needs to remain connected to your home network (wifi/ethernet) so that AT&T TV can track where you're using the service. None of these streaming cable TV services want you sharing your account with other households. And even though AT&T TV comes with 3 streams that can be accessed anywhere, they may require that use of their app for Apple TV/Roku/Fire TV take place on the same home network to which their box is connected.


Looks like I was right about this. I was just poking around on a new page on AT&T's website about AT&T TV and came across this Q&A:

_Is there an AT&T TV app for phones and tablets?

Yes! You can stream your favorite content anytime, anywhere with the AT&T TV app, which is available for Apple iOS and Android-powered phones and tablets. Streaming is also available on compatible Apple TV and Amazon Fire devices. Access to the AT&T TV app on these streaming devices is limited to home Wi-Fi® network.
_​So if you want to watch AT&T TV via your own TV-connected streaming device (e.g. Apple TV), as opposed to the AT&T TV Android TV box they provide, that device will need to be connected to your home wi-fi network (not your friend's or family member's wi-fi). And presumably, they'll know what your home wi-fi network is because it's what the AT&T TV box will be connected to (or because you'll be an AT&T Fiber/Internet customer using their provided gateway).

BTW, they mentioned Apple TV and Fire TV, but not Roku, presumably because AT&T and Roku are currently renegotiating their agreement for distribution of the AT&T TV app in the Roku app store. (In the meantime, any Roku that already has the app installed can continue to operate it but no new installations of the app are possible.)


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Why just wifi? Does that mean the AT&T TV box doesn't have an ethernet port? Because that would suck.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

b4pjoe said:


> Why just wifi? Does that mean the AT&T TV box doesn't have an ethernet port? Because that would suck.


The AT&T TV device itself has an Ethernet port. Quoting from the FAQ under "What makes the AT&T TV device so amazing?" 



> The AT&T TV device is modern, small, and lightweight. It includes HDMI and digital audio outputs for connection to your TV and home audio system. *You can use Ethernet or Wi-Fi® to connect it to the internet.* Enjoy access to all your favorite entertainment without having to switch inputs or devices to find what you want to watch.


The Wi-Fi only bit is most likely referring to non AT&T TV based devices like Apple TV, etc to prevent password sharing. So in a typical home 1 TV will need the AT&T TV box (Ethernet or Wi-Fi) while the Apple TV and/or Fire devices need to be connected via Wi-Fi to recognize the AT&T TV box thus allow more than 1 home based streaming device. That's my understanding of it anyway.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

jal said:


> And you don't get what you pay for as well. I've seriously been considering getting rid of Directv. Too many fees like "advanced receiver fee," "State tax recovery fee," and now they charge $7 for the first box, when the first box formerly didn't have a monthly charge associated with it. It seems like the folks at AT&T just think of more bogus charges to pad the actual cost of the service.


I would just like to point out in all fairness if your paying $7 for the first receiver then your ARS is $15/mo which equals out to $22/mo for the main DVR. Those who get the first receiver at no additional cost have pay $23 - $25 in ARS if they want a whole home DVR like Genie (depending on activation date). Also those paying $7 for the first receiver with no DVR are not charged ARS-HD. Those who do get the first receiver for free pays $10/mo for ARS-HD. Also to be fair "Advance Receiver Service" was all DirecTV's doing way before AT&T got involved.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> Why just wifi? Does that mean the AT&T TV box doesn't have an ethernet port? Because that would suck.


My guess is that they're simply using the term "home wi-fi network" as shorthand for "your home's local area network consisting of ethernet-connected and wi-fi connected devices". As already noted, the AT&T TV Android TV device does have an ethernet port, and so does the Apple TV and certain models of the Fire TV and Roku.

The AT&T TV app and their own Android TV device probably use some protocol like Bonjour/Zeroconf to automatically find and recognize each other when they're connected to the same LAN. If their app on a device like an Apple TV doesn't see their Android TV box (with a valid account) connected to that same LAN, then presumably the app on the Apple TV won't launch.

The upshot is that once you initially set-up the AT&T TV Android TV box, you may be able to disconnect it from your TV's HDMI port and not even use it, so long as you keep the box connected to power and to your home network via wi-fi or ethernet. I suppose that AT&T could, if they really wanted to, keep their app for retail devices from launching unless it detected that their own box was not only connected to the same LAN but also actively streaming something right then from the AT&T TV service. But honestly, why would they do that? It would create a situation where, for instance, you couldn't use the app on your Apple TV in the bedroom unless the AT&T TV box on the living room TV was also being used right at that moment, which would be crazy and a guaranteed way to piss off customers.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> My guess is that they're simply using the term "home wi-fi network" as shorthand for "your home's local area network consisting of ethernet-connected and wi-fi connected devices". As already noted, the AT&T TV Android TV device does have an ethernet port, and so does the Apple TV and certain models of the Fire TV and Roku.
> 
> The AT&T TV app and their own Android TV device probably use some protocol like Bonjour/Zeroconf to automatically find and recognize each other when they're connected to the same LAN. If their app on a device like an Apple TV doesn't see their Android TV box (with a valid account) connected to that same LAN, then presumably the app on the Apple TV won't launch.
> 
> The upshot is that once you initially set-up the AT&T TV Android TV box, you may be able to disconnect it from your TV's HDMI port and not even use it, so long as you keep the box connected to power and to your home network via wi-fi or ethernet. I suppose that AT&T could, if they really wanted to, keep their app for retail devices from launching unless it detected that their own box was not only connected to the same LAN but also actively streaming something right then from the AT&T TV service. But honestly, why would they do that? It would create a situation where, for instance, you couldn't use the app on your Apple TV in the bedroom unless the AT&T TV box on the living room TV was also being used right at that moment, which would be crazy and a guaranteed way to piss off customers.


The whole requirement for a provider specific device, whether free/connected/disconnected whatever, is a none starter for many folks me included.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

mjwagner said:


> The whole requirement for a provider specific device, whether free/connected/disconnected whatever, is a none starter for many folks me included.


According to your signature you have three different types of set tops already, what's the problem with a fourth? If you were all Apple TV or something like that I could see where you might not like having something different.

Especially if you aren't even required to use it, and aren't paying any sort of monthly fee for it.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

mjwagner said:


> The whole requirement for a provider specific device, whether free/connected/disconnected whatever, is a none starter for many folks me included.


That would be just one of the reasons I wouldn't be interested. The bigger one is that other than the HBO Max they keep floating, the product they are offering is too many channels and too high a price.

Since I'm not a sports fan and live events are not a big deal to me, I'm pretty sure when I make the move to OTA+streaming it won't include a cable/sat replacement service at all.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

The requirement for a 2 year commitment is the non starter for me.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

b4pjoe said:


> The requirement for a 2 year commitment is the non starter for me.


That's what I think will really hurt AT&T TV if they don't change the policy. The reason why cable/satellite had commitments was partially to allow them to recoup their investments for the truck roll for the initial install.

Cable has been reducing/eliminating the need for a truck roll with more modern technology, but satellite's requirement for a dish and special wiring/splitters makes it harder to get away from this. But with AT&T TV there is no truck roll, and the only reason to have a commitment (or to have one longer than say 3-6 months) is just because they think they can get away with it.

I think that will a problem for them - and the AT&T branded clients won't be.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> The whole requirement for a provider specific device, whether free/connected/disconnected whatever, is a none starter for many folks me included.


The reason they are doing that is the AT&T TV box runs the Android TV Operators Tier not the regular Android TV. Using the Operators Tier allows the AT&T TV APP to operate like DTV.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Does anyone think AT&T TV might have a marketing problem? Cord-cutters are thinking this is a replacement for cable and satelliteTV with these prices and not realizing AT&T TV is not for them, it’s replacing DTV and UVerseTV. 

Even their current add seems to be promoting Netflix then AT&T TV.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Yep. There is zero justification for it. They simply are so arrogant as to continue to not get it.



b4pjoe said:


> The requirement for a 2 year commitment is the non starter for me.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> According to your signature you have three different types of set tops already, what's the problem with a fourth? If you were all Apple TV or something like that I could see where you might not like having something different.
> 
> Especially if you aren't even required to use it, and aren't paying any sort of monthly fee for it.


LOL, I have 3 different streaming devices at EACH of my 2 main viewing locations (family room and Home theater) in addition to others around the house (and one I keep in a drawer that we just use when we travel). None of them are provider specific...


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

CraigerM said:


> The reason they are doing that is the AT&T TV box runs the Android TV Operators Tier not the regular Android TV. Using the Operators Tier allows the AT&T TV APP to operator like DTV.


Oh I'm sure they have reasons...LOL


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> That's what I think will really hurt AT&T TV if they don't change the policy. The reason why cable/satellite had commitments was partially to allow them to recoup their investments for the truck roll for the initial install.
> 
> Cable has been reducing/eliminating the need for a truck roll with more modern technology, but satellite's requirement for a dish and special wiring/splitters makes it harder to get away from this. But with AT&T TV there is no truck roll, and the only reason to have a commitment (or to have one longer than say 3-6 months) is just because they think they can get away with it.
> 
> I think that will a problem for them - and the AT&T branded clients won't be.


I could "live" with the commitment if I had to, I'm already doing it with satellite, so it's no change. But, with Sat I know what I'm getting, that performance is consistent and the outages I do get happen when I expect them to (rain fade etc.). But to commit for 2 years and not know what I'm getting first is not something I'm too comfortable with. If there was an out clause after 6 months, maybe. I think AT&T should see which way the wind is blowing and just either decrease or even better get rid of the commitment altogether. But once the service has some sort of track record of stability, I wouldn't be adverse to it provided:

They have all the channels I want, including all the local RSNs (I AM a big local sports fan)
The DVR doesn't suck with the same functionality as the current Genies
I can have unlimited streams (or at least enough streams to allow for everyone in my house to watch simultaneously AND a couple of extras for streaming mobiliy. So I would say 7-8 minimum.
Sound quality is good (has to have some advanced sound...DD and DD+ at a minimum on all channels available)
Some 4K offerings at no additional charge as we have on satellite now

I have yet to find a streamer that meets all of the above. TMobiile has a similar product to what this will be, but it limits the number of streams and is missing MSG Networks, which is a must for me.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> That's what I think will really hurt AT&T TV if they don't change the policy. The reason why cable/satellite had commitments was partially to allow them to recoup their investments for the truck roll for the initial install.
> 
> Cable has been reducing/eliminating the need for a truck roll with more modern technology, but satellite's requirement for a dish and special wiring/splitters makes it harder to get away from this. But with AT&T TV there is no truck roll, and the only reason to have a commitment (or to have one longer than say 3-6 months) is just because they think they can get away with it.
> 
> I think that will a problem for them - and the AT&T branded clients won't be.


Also I think almost all of the streaming services have a free trial. How is AT&T going to be able to do that if it is true you have to have an AT&T box on your network to use the streaming app? And for sure AT&T isn't sending everyone that wants to do a free trial a new AT&T box.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> That's what I think will really hurt AT&T TV if they don't change the policy. The reason why cable/satellite had commitments was partially to allow them to recoup their investments for the truck roll for the initial install.
> 
> Cable has been reducing/eliminating the need for a truck roll with more modern technology, but satellite's requirement for a dish and special wiring/splitters makes it harder to get away from this. But with AT&T TV there is no truck roll, and the only reason to have a commitment (or to have one longer than say 3-6 months) is just because they think they can get away with it.
> 
> I think that will a problem for them - and the AT&T branded clients won't be.


I actually think that the AT&T TV streaming device will be a PLUS for this service, given the market segment they're aiming to reach with it. Check out their sizzle reel for the service, and the degree to which it touts their Google Assistant-powered device. (Scroll down on this page for the video): AT&T TV Device - Easy Set-up, Voice Search, Apps, DVR & More

IMO, the average cable TV subscriber wants a cutting edge TV box with a remote control that is customized for that service, but which also conveniently integrates the secondary video sources they use, such as Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, Amazon, etc. Throw in Google Assistant with smart home controls plus answers to general questions (e.g. weather, sports scores, etc.) and it looks to me like AT&T has a go-to-market solution that could go toe-to-toe with Comcast's X1.

But I don't get them trying to still stick folks with a 2-year contract. If I understood the transcript correctly, even AT&T's CEO made critical remarks recently at an investor event about the continued feasibility of such long-term lock-ups. I don't think a 1-year contract would be a big hindrance to the service (especially given that they already require a 1-yr contract on new AT&T Fiber/Internet customers anyhow, and have been doing a 1-year contract on Uverse TV for years). But 2 years feels like a long time, especially given how quickly the TV landscape is changing right now.

I'm still hoping that we see a somewhat different marketing rollout for AT&T TV when it goes nationwide than what we've seen so far. Have a max 1-yr contract but cut back on the up-front promos (e.g. cheaper first year pricing, Visa gift cards). Offer slightly slimmer, cheaper channel packages, with some of the fluff channels shunted off into optional add-on packs (but with HBO Max likely included in every base package). Expand the 90-day limit on cloud DVR recordings to something much longer, in the 6-12 month range. Offer the same 4K HDR content as DirecTV has.

Those tweaks would, IMO, better position AT&T TV for subscriber growth. But regardless, it's facing pretty strong headwinds as more and more cable TV subscribers decide to walk away from the bundle entirely...


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> Also I think almost all of the streaming services have a free trial. How is AT&T going to be able to do that if it is true you have to have an AT&T box on your network to use the streaming app? And for sure AT&T isn't sending everyone that wants to do a free trial a new AT&T box.


If you're looking for AT&T's answer to YouTube TV, Hulu with Live TV, Fubo TV, etc. -- all of which offer a one-week free trial -- well, that's AT&T TV Now (which does not come with the AT&T TV streaming device and does not have a contract). AT&T TV Now offers a one-week free trial too.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> If you're looking for AT&T's answer to YouTube TV, Hulu with Live TV, Fubo TV, etc. -- all of which offer a one-week free trial -- well, that's AT&T TV Now (which does not come with the AT&T TV streaming device and does not have a contract). AT&T TV Now offers a one-week free trial too.


Yes I understand that but if they think I'm signing up for a two year commitment without testing their service they have lost their minds.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> I could "live" with the commitment if I had to, I'm already doing it with satellite, so it's no change. But, with Sat I know what I'm getting, that performance is consistent and the outages I do get happen when I expect them to (rain fade etc.). But to commit for 2 years and not know what I'm getting first is not something I'm too comfortable with. If there was an out clause after 6 months, maybe.


Yeah, I agree. I've had my eye on AT&T TV as something to switch my parents to (and potentially also suggest as an option to friends, many of whom I help with tech stuff). But I hate to lock them into a 2-yr contract until I'm pretty darn sure that the service will be at least as reliable as DISH has been for them. (They get occasional rain fade.) I've read lots of mixed reviews about the reliability/bugginess of DirecTV Now/AT&T TV Now over the years. Hopefully they've gotten nearly all that straightened out by now (at least their own box, on their own AT&T Fiber network). The firsthand reviews I've seen from actual AT&T TV subscribers who switched to it from Uverse TV have been quite positive. So we'll see.



Steveknj said:


> But once the service has some sort of track record of stability, I wouldn't be adverse to it provided:
> 
> They have all the channels I want, including all the local RSNs (I AM a big local sports fan)
> The DVR doesn't suck with the same functionality as the current Genies
> ...


I do think that AT&T TV will eventually get all the same channels that DTV has.

As for its cloud DVR, my guess is that it will always have some sort of time limit on how long recordings will be stored before they're auto-deleted. Right now, it's only 90 days, which kinda sucks. Hopefully they'll extend that. But at least there are no tuner conflicts; you can record an unlimited number of channels simultaneously.

As for simultaneous streams allowed by the service, it's currently a maximum of 3 but I bet they'll expand the number of IN-HOME streams (i.e. via your home wifi network) to more than that. For instance, Hulu with Live TV will give you unlimited in-home streams for an extra $10/mo. But I don't expect the number of simultaneous out-of-home streams on AT&T TV to ever exceed 3 (or maybe even 2).

I'm pretty sure that AT&T TV Now has already been offering DD 5.1 audio on at least some channels via their Apple TV app for awhile now. My guess is that it's already there on all channels via their own box on AT&T TV. As for 4K, we know their box supports it (as well as the HDR10 and HLG forms of HDR) and the CEO has said he expects them to eventually offer it on AT&T TV, so it's probably just a matter of time. Hopefully it's there next month for the nationwide launch.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I forgot about this video where he discusses AT&T TV PQ. He says to get really good PQ you need the AT&T TV box and not AT&T TV on other devices. He says he gets HDR on his OLED. He wasn't sure about other TV's and HDR. When he switches back and fourth between his PlayStation and his TV in the right corner the HDR icon is displayed. He mentions some channels getting 1080p. I assume he means upscaled to 1080p because he says History channel is 1080p and it's not.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

On their website all it says about 4K is that the box is:

"4K Enabled. Experience your favorite apps like Netflix in dazzling 4K for greater depth, increased color saturation, and crisp, clear contrast. Viewing in 4K req's 4K TV and separate 3rd-party subscriptions."

It says nothing about any 4K programming of the DirecTV content.

Also info on the home network:

*Important details*

When you set up your AT&T TV device at home, that location becomes the residential, non-mobile internet network associated with your device. This is called your home Wi-Fi network. Accessing the AT&T TV app on other streaming devices (Apple TV, Roku, Fire TV, etc) or smart TVs will also be limited to your home Wi-Fi network. You can change your home Wi-Fi network up to 4 times within a 12-month period by relocating your AT&T TV device.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

And here is the userguide for AT&T TV box and remote:

https://www.att.com/ecms/dam/att/co...s/pdf/ATT-TV-Device-Remote-Control-Manual.pdf


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> He mentions some channels getting 1080p. I assume he means upscaled to 1080p because he says History channel is 1080p and it's not.


I'd say it does the same thing that AT&T TV Now has been doing for a good while: channels that are natively 1080i are streamed from the AT&T servers at 1080p while native 720p channels are streamed as-is. (Since many devices cannot de-interlace video, all streaming services exclusively use progressive-scan video, never interlaced video.)


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

I have yet to hear from anyone on the boards that actually has this device and service.
I am extremely interested but am hesitant to take the leap until I hear some details from actual subscribers.
I've watched all of the Ytube videos.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> And here is the userguide for AT&T TV box and remote:
> 
> https://www.att.com/ecms/dam/att/co...s/pdf/ATT-TV-Device-Remote-Control-Manual.pdf


Interesting. I wonder how this does PIP. That's something I'd want if it works well.

I'm still wondering a couple of things:

1) If all you need is the one box, then my assumption is that the rest of the TVs in the house would use an app? (Firestick ATV Roku?) and do these streams that are going through your home network count against your "streams". If it doesn't, then that makes me interested.

2) Is there a list of channels? How do they handle RSNs and are the same RSNs available on DirecTV available here?

And I still wonder about performance. Especially once this is rolled out to lots of people, will performance degrade? How will they handle current DirecTV customers, as new customers (assuming there would be a new customer deal). One of the reasons I've balked on moving to cable is because they won't treat me as a "new" customer since I'm getting their minimum cable package (as a backup) and they are my ISP. If I could get a new customer deal, I might jump.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I'm sure #1 would count as multiple streams.

Also as of 1/1/2020 the app is not available on Roku. If you had installed it before 1/1/20 it will still work until you delete it. They are working on a new agreement with Roku but have not got one yet.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

I WANT MORE said:


> I have yet to hear from anyone on the boards that actually has this device and service.
> I am extremely interested but am hesitant to take the leap until I hear some details from actual subscribers.
> I've watched all of the Ytube videos.


Well, here are a couple of user review videos for AT&T TV (not AT&T TV Now). They're long and kinda boring and aren't particularly thorough. But they are quite positive. The first of the two videos is by a guy who came from Uverse TV and he definitely prefers AT&T TV.











Beyond those two guys, I think I've only read one comment (over at DSL Reports) from an actual AT&T TV user. He also came to it from Uverse TV and had good things to say about AT&T TV.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> 2) Is there a list of channels? How do they handle RSNs and are the same RSNs available on DirecTV available here?


So far, AT&T TV is offering pretty much the same channel packages as DTV: Entertainment, Choice, Xtra, Ultimate, and Optimo Mas. There may be a few niche channels that aren't included in the AT&T TV version of those packages, though. The main differences would be your locals and possibly your RSNs. There are still some cities where AT&T TV lacks one of the big 4 network affiliates (and lots where it still lacks the local CW and/or My Network TV affiliate). They don't have any PBS stations yet, although now that PBS has gotten on board with live streaming (they just launched on YouTube TV), I expect that to be remedied on AT&T TV before too long.

You can see the channel lists and check your locals and RSNs here:
https://cdn.directv.com/content/dam...channels/att-tv/compare-packages-account.html

AT&T TV is also missing some of the add-on sports channels, I think. Perhaps we'll see several of those missing channels suddenly get filled in shortly before the nationwide launch next month. (For instance, last I checked, AT&T definitely had an agreement in place to carry certain locals via streaming -- e.g. all Nexstar-owned ABC affiliates -- but they had yet to actually get them online. So they could have a number of them queued up to be added all at once.)



Steveknj said:


> And I still wonder about performance. Especially once this is rolled out to lots of people, will performance degrade?


Performance is the key question about AT&T TV in my mind. Have they squashed their bugs? Are they ready to scale this thing? If they can make it work as well as YouTube TV (which should absolutely be do-able for a company with the resources of AT&T), it should be fine.



Steveknj said:


> How will they handle current DirecTV customers, as new customers (assuming there would be a new customer deal). One of the reasons I've balked on moving to cable is because they won't treat me as a "new" customer since I'm getting their minimum cable package (as a backup) and they are my ISP. If I could get a new customer deal, I might jump.


Who knows what kind of pricing or promos they'll be running next month. We'll soon see...


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> So far, AT&T TV is offering pretty much the same channel packages as DTV: Entertainment, Choice, Xtra, Ultimate, and Optimo Mas. There may be a few niche channels that aren't included in the AT&T TV version of those packages, though. The main differences would be your locals and possibly your RSNs. There are still some cities where AT&T TV lacks one of the big 4 network affiliates (and lots where it still lacks the local CW and/or My Network TV affiliate). They don't have any PBS stations yet, although now that PBS has gotten on board with live streaming (they just launched on YouTube TV), I expect that to be remedied on AT&T TV before too long.
> 
> You can see the channel lists and check your locals and RSNs here:
> https://cdn.directv.com/content/dam...channels/att-tv/compare-packages-account.html
> ...


Thanks for the chart. So I see three major misses for me in the NY Metro. No PBS (which you mentioned), no CW (which also means some local baseball would be missing for me, and other shows I watch on the CW) and no NFL Network. And this is the type of thing I mean about going streaming. There's always a service that carries MOST of what I need, but each one is missing a channel or two that is critical to my TV viewing. This service is currently missing THREE. So, while I was cautiously optimistic that this might work for me, it doesn't look like it will. It DOES have all of the RSNs though, which is a good thing.


----------



## pearkel (Feb 1, 2007)

I WANT MORE said:


> I have yet to hear from anyone on the boards that actually has this device and service.
> I am extremely interested but am hesitant to take the leap until I hear some details from actual subscribers.
> I've watched all of the Ytube videos.


I was a beta tester for about 6 months. I was with DirecTv for around 20 years and gave the service a try and then got selected to receive on of the att boxes. Coming from DirecTv it was very similar. The new streaming box worked pretty close to any directv receiver i had in the past. You can choose guide, channel numbers, dvr recordings (list), previous channel ect. Picture quality was good, dolby 5.1 was good. The one thing i couldn't stand and couldn't get over was the dvr functionality. 20 hours wasn't enough and skipping through commercials was a chore. I tried to enjoy it and wanted to keep it because in my particular location i was able to receive 3 sets of locals. Cincinnati, Lexington, and Charleston WV. This was always a problem with the other streaming services i had used up to that point. With Hulu live and psvue i would get one location when i signed in one day and a different one the same or next day, drove me crazy. With ATT streaming i received all 3 from the get go and it stayed that way. Channel package i had, i think it was similar to choice so i really liked that and was willing to pay the $90 i was paying for service without all the HD access, extra boxes, multi room, regional sports fees, etc. so if they had had a decent dvr I would have stayed with them. Once i tried YoutubeTv and seen my locals were stable I just canceled ATT Tv on the 4th. YoutubeTV is a far superior service imo, the main thing i am missing from it in my household is dolby digital on live programming. My amazon fire devices do a decent job of mixing surround sound, shield tv and roku is only in stereo. 
No way would i sign a commitment to the service as it stands today. 
Funny side note is i am actually using the ospery (sp?) to view youtubetv on a set today.  
Not sure if that helps you or not but thought i'd chime in.
KRM


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Beyond those two guys, I think I've only read one comment (over at DSL Reports) from an actual AT&T TV user. He also came to it from Uverse TV and had good things to say about AT&T TV.


I'm sure people coming from Uverse TV will all love AT&T TV, with new equipment and requiring less bandwidth (which will matter to the ones on DSL) what's not to like?

The question is how it will fend against the other streaming MVPDs. Until they drop that ridiculous two year commitment, probably not well.

I wonder if they are doing that because they plan to align the product offering closely with satellite when it launches nationally - i.e. having the same package prices, offers and terms, differing only in channels (due to contracts for locals and stuff like NFLST) and additional fees like the ARF and per TV charges. Sort of a "you choose how you want it delivered" scenario. That's the only reason I can think of for why they would want to limit its market with that two year commitment.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> Thanks for the chart. So I see three major misses for me in the NY Metro. No PBS (which you mentioned), no CW (which also means some local baseball would be missing for me, and other shows I watch on the CW) and no NFL Network. And this is the type of thing I mean about going streaming. There's always a service that carries MOST of what I need, but each one is missing a channel or two that is critical to my TV viewing. This service is currently missing THREE. So, while I was cautiously optimistic that this might work for me, it doesn't look like it will. It DOES have all of the RSNs though, which is a good thing.


Well, as I said, PBS just recently (after working on it for more than a year) got to the point where they and their local member stations are able to do live streaming. They're now on YouTube TV and I can't see any reason why AT&T TV won't get it too given the relationships that AT&T already has with PBS stations across the nation. I'd expect NYC to be one of the first places where that happens. (Also, it was just announced that PBS plans to carry a free live stream of the main PBS channel in their own PBS app.)

Given the size of NYC, and the fact that your CW affiliate there is owned by a sizable group (E.W. Scripps) whom I'm sure AT&T TV is already working with, I'd also expect that station to eventually be added too. Just a matter of when. They already have some CW affiliates on board, such as the one in Chicago.

As for NFL Network and NFL Red Zone, they both got yanked from both Uverse TV and DirecTV Now earlier this year. AT&T said they couldn't reach an agreeable cost. I assume that a separate contract still covers DirecTV satellite for NFL content, which is why it still has NFL Network. Who knows how all that will shake out but it may be tied to what happens with the future of NFL Sunday Ticket. At some point (maybe still another year off), I expect we'll either see NFL Network on all of AT&T's cable TV services or none of them, as the company seems to be moving toward unified carriage contracts across all their services.

NFL Network pulled from AT&T U-verse and DirecTV Now


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> I'm sure people coming from Uverse TV will all love AT&T TV, with new equipment and requiring less bandwidth (which will matter to the ones on DSL) what's not to like?


Not necessarily! If AT&T TV isn't reliable, if the box is laggy and prone to crash, if live channels often fail to load, or recordings randomly disappear from the cloud DVR, then I don't think Uverse TV customers would be happy with it. Fortunately, I'm not hearing anything like that so far, but then three users is a pretty tiny test sample.

On paper, AT&T TV looks very good (other than the 2 year contract and 90 day time limit on recordings) but, as I say, the test will be in how well it actually performs. I'm hesitant given the buggy, slow-to-improve track record of DirecTV Now/AT&T TV Now, which runs on the same tech platform.



slice1900 said:


> The question is how it will fend against the other streaming MVPDs. Until they drop that ridiculous two year commitment, probably not well.


I really don't think AT&T TV will be primarily competing against YouTube TV and Hulu with Live TV. To some degree, yes, but I see it more as a direct competitor against Comcast, Charter, Verizon FiOS, DISH, and AT&T's existing Uverse TV and DirecTV services. It's a next-gen cable TV service for them to offer their broadband customers (which helps them sell that product too) and it's something that most DTV customers could _potentially_ switch over to since AT&T TV will be a nationwide OTT offering running over any broadband connection.



slice1900 said:


> I wonder if they are doing that because they plan to align the product offering closely with satellite when it launches nationally - i.e. having the same package prices, offers and terms, differing only in channels (due to contracts for locals and stuff like NFLST) and additional fees like the ARF and per TV charges. Sort of a "you choose how you want it delivered" scenario. That's the only reason I can think of for why they would want to limit its market with that two year commitment.


Dunno. At least in the pilot test markets, their strategy seems to be "let's just take the existing marketing approach for DirecTV and apply it to this new platform". So AT&T TV has the same 2-yr contract, same channel packages, very similar (but not exactly the same) prices, same kind of first year discounts and Visa gift card promos. Is that because that's the actual long-term plan for AT&T TV (even though that marketing strategy isn't working well for DTV, to put it lightly)? Or is it just because they weren't ready or willing to unveil their actual plans for AT&T TV until the big nationwide launch?

Hopefully they're looking to make a big splash by announcing a service with terms that are more favorable for consumers than what we might expect based on what we've seen in the pilot markets so far. Hopefully those terms will actually align with all the comments that the CEO has made over the past couple of years, meaning that we'll see lower pricing for AT&T TV, somewhat slimmer channel packages, and the abandonment of the 2-yr contract with bait-and-switch pricing (much lower in year one, then a big hike in year two). If that doesn't come to pass, and I were an equity analyst on the next quarterly earnings call, I'd certainly ask Stephenson why not and what changed in their game plan.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Well, as I said, PBS just recently (after working on it for more than a year) got to the point where they and their local member stations are able to do live streaming. They're now on YouTube TV and I can't see any reason why AT&T TV won't get it too given the relationships that AT&T already has with PBS stations across the nation. I'd expect NYC to be one of the first places where that happens. (Also, it was just announced that PBS plans to carry a free live stream of the main PBS channel in their own PBS app.)
> 
> Given the size of NYC, and the fact that your CW affiliate there is owned by a sizable group (E.W. Scripps) whom I'm sure AT&T TV is already working with, I'd also expect that station to eventually be added too. Just a matter of when. They already have some CW affiliates on board, such as the one in Chicago.
> 
> ...


And when those stations are added, I'll consider switching. Just like if the stations missing from YouTubeTV get added, I might switch to that. My only choices right now that has everything I want in one place is either Optimum, my cable provider or DirecTV satellite. Even Dish doesn't work for me.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> And when those stations are added, I'll consider switching. Just like if the stations missing from YouTubeTV get added, I might switch to that. My only choices right now that has everything I want in one place is either Optimum, my cable provider or DirecTV satellite. Even Dish doesn't work for me.


Fair enough. Not trying to sell anybody on anything, just offering whatever relevant info I have plus my $0.02. (And I suspect that DISH no longer works for lots of folks after they've dropped both HBO and the Fox RSNs. They increasingly seem to be playing at the budget end of the market among MVPDs.)


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> Fair enough. Not trying to sell anybody on anything, just offering whatever relevant info I have plus my $0.02. (And I suspect that DISH no longer works for lots of folks after they've dropped both HBO and the Fox RSNs. They increasingly seem to be playing at the budget end of the market among MVPDs.)


To add to this, the CW app is literally streaming everything for free, no password/subscription required.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

B. Shoe said:


> To add to this, the CW app is literally streaming everything for free, no password/subscription required.


Commercials?


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

B. Shoe said:


> To add to this, the CW app is literally streaming everything for free, no password/subscription required.


Which is great, but then I run into the conundrum of having multiple services to watch "standard TV". But by CW, it's not only their national stuff, but their local (WPIX) 10 o'clock news, the Yankees and Mets games that air on there, and even the random Seinfeld and Friends reruns that's convenient to flip to in bed before I fall asleep. So it's not the CW per se that I'm looking for, but the actual local station.

On a different note, Verizon just dropped their contract commitments and internet bundling, so maybe AT&T will rethink what they do with AT&T TV now.


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

Steveknj said:


> Which is great, but then I run into the conundrum of having multiple services to watch "standard TV". But by CW, it's not only their national stuff, but their local (WPIX) 10 o'clock news, the Yankees and Mets games that air on there, and even the random Seinfeld and Friends reruns that's convenient to flip to in bed before I fall asleep. So it's not the CW per se that I'm looking for, but the actual local station.


That's all understandable, for the local content and sports.


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

mjwagner said:


> Commercials?


There are the dreaded *looks left, looks right, and quietly whispers*...commercials.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

B. Shoe said:


> There are the dreaded *looks left, looks right, and quietly whispers*...commercials.


...if you can't FF thru them then it's a non-starter for me...


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> On a different note, Verizon just dropped their contract commitments and internet bundling, so maybe AT&T will rethink what they do with AT&T TV now.


Hopefully, although Verizon FiOS and AT&T Fiber don't really have any overlap in their footprints, so they're not direct competitors in the broadband and traditional cable TV arenas.

It's interesting that Verizon has embraced YouTube TV and sells that right alongside their own FiOS TV as an option for their broadband customers. Couple years back they beta tested their own next-gen IPTV service but then decided not to move forward with it. So those new wireless 5G Home broadband customers that Verizon is signing up only have the option of YouTube TV if they want to bundle TV with their Verizon broadband. (Of course, they also have the option of subscribing directly to anything else that's OTT, like Hulu Live, AT&T TV, etc.)


----------



## Visman (Feb 17, 2008)

Are they going to have AT&T SportsNet on this service because I don’t see it in the lineup.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Visman said:


> Are they going to have AT&T SportsNet on this service because I don't see it in the lineup.


As of right now no and further no one knows


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Visman said:


> Are they going to have AT&T SportsNet on this service because I don't see it in the lineup.


Weird that AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now don't offer any of the three AT&T SportsNet RSNs (Houston, Denver, Pittsburgh) in those areas. Industry watchers think that AT&T may try to sell those channels soon, so maybe that's the reason they haven't added them. The most likely buyer if they do sell would probably be Sinclair, who just bought all the Fox Sports RSNs. AT&T TV does carry those.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Just today, AT&T TV Now expanded their cloud DVR so that it has 500 hours of storage with a 90-day limit, the same as AT&T TV has. It's increasingly looking like those two services are going to be the same thing, except that AT&T TV requires an up-front contract in exchange for certain benefits that you don't get with AT&T TV Now: a free streaming box, a discounted monthly rate in your first year of service, Visa gift cards as a promotional sign-up bonus, and an ongoing discount for bundling with AT&T Internet/Fiber service. Also, AT&T TV Now apparently allows you to stream on TV-connected devices (e.g. Apple TV) anywhere, while AT&T TV restricts use of those devices to your home location (which discourages account sharing).

Both services offer the same two sets of channel packages, although AT&T TV pushes the original DTV set (Entertainment, Xtra, etc.) while AT&T TV Now features the newer Plus and Max. The regular monthly prices on the original set are the same for both services (e.g. $93 for Entertainment), although it looks like AT&T TV Now doesn't charge the additional RSN fee while AT&T TV does.

Plus and Max carry regular prices of $65 and $80 on AT&T TV Now but $110 and $130 on AT&T TV, which doesn't make any sense at all. Also, AT&T TV offers almost no deals if you sign up for Plus or Max. No big first-year discounts, no promo gift cards, no free internet installation if you bundle. (Similar situation, I think, exists with DirecTV satellite, where Plus and Max are also available as options but priced in a way to completely disincentivize anyone from choosing them.) Odd.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> Just today, AT&T TV Now expanded their cloud DVR so that it has 500 hours of storage with a 90-day limit, the same as AT&T TV has. It's increasingly looking like those two services are going to be the same thing, except that AT&T TV requires an up-front contract in exchange for certain benefits that you don't get with AT&T TV Now: a free streaming box, a discounted monthly rate in your first year of service, Visa gift cards as a promotional sign-up bonus, and an ongoing discount for bundling with AT&T Internet/Fiber service. Also, AT&T TV Now apparently allows you to stream on TV-connected devices (e.g. Apple TV) anywhere, while AT&T TV restricts use of those devices to your home location (which discourages account sharing).
> 
> Both services offer the same two sets of channel packages, although AT&T TV pushes the original DTV set (Entertainment, Xtra, etc.) while AT&T TV Now features the newer Plus and Max. The regular monthly prices on the original set are the same for both services (e.g. $93 for Entertainment), although it looks like AT&T TV doesn't charge the additional RSN fee while AT&T TV does.
> 
> Plus and Max carry regular prices of $65 and $80 on AT&T TV Now but $110 and $130 on AT&T TV, which doesn't make any sense at all. Also, AT&T TV offers almost no deals if you sign up for Plus or Max. No big first-year discounts, no promo gift cards, no free internet installation if you bundle. (Similar situation, I think, exists with DirecTV satellite, where Plus and Max are also available as options but priced in a way to completely disincentivize anyone from choosing them.) Odd.


I posted about this a while back but AT&T doesn't want customers signing up for the "Other Packages" on *DirecTV*, *AT&T TV* and *AT&T TV Now*. They are only there as reactive options for the customer. With *DirecTV* and *AT&T TV Now* existing customers can't switch from a "Featured Package" to an "Other Package". They can switch from one "Other Package" to another "Other Package" but the moment they switch from an "Other Package" to a "Featured Package" they can't switch back to an "Other Package". If an existing customer on *DirecTV* or *AT&T TV Now* wants to switch to an "Other Package" they have to cancel their current account and then sign up online as a new customer for an "Other Package". *DirecTV* and *AT&T TV*'s versions of Plus and Max come with a 24 month agreement. The only "positive" about the DirecTV versions of the Plus and Max packages is they haven't experienced a price increase since they were introduced. In 2020 it seems the only increase the Max package will see is when the RSN Fee is increased on the DirecTV side.

Based on the way things look it seems AT&T is gonna keep and use the *AT&T TV Now* service to target the cord cutting segment. The increased Cloud DVR for Plus, Max, Entertainment, Choice, Xtra, Ultimate and Optimo Mas really turns a pitiful Cloud DVR into one of the top Cloud DVRs for cord cutters. Now if they would add the major networks from A+E Networks (A&E, Lifetime, History and Vice), AMC Networks (AMC, BBC America, BBC World News, IFC, Sundance and weTV) and Discovery (Discovery, ID, TLC, HGTV, Food Network, Travel Channel and OWN) as part of Plus/Max or as an add-on it would be a well rounded cord-cutting option again.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Is it just me, or are others here having trouble keeping straight what AT&T NOW is and AT&T TV is, what's on both and what the differences are? I think AT&T is completely utterly stupid in this insistence of throwing the AT&T name on EVERYTHING. I'd bet if DirecTV didn't have name recognition, they'd change the name to AT&T Satellite. As it is, they put that bleeping AT&T logo on anything satellite. But to me, to better identify what these products are, they need better names for them. We are pretty engrossed in these products, but could you imagine someone who's in the market for this stuff? They'd have NO idea what's the difference. Especially if both are going to carry essentially the same thing. It makes ZERO sense. AT&T really turns to crap anything they touch lately. I think if AT&T didn't have exclusivity on the iPhone for all those years, Verizon would have put them out of business a long time ago.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Correction: It is AT&T TV NOW and AT&T TV.  (sorry...couldn't resist)


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

techguy88 said:


> Based on the way things look it seems AT&T is gonna keep and use the *AT&T TV Now* service to target the cord cutting segment.


At the current cost, $15-35 more than You Tube TV, I don't see that happening.

OK, they throw in HBO, but...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Some have speculated they will drop the "Now" product once the "TV" product goes nationwide. It would seem to make sense to reduce confusion, but what Directv / AT&T does and what makes sense don't always align!


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Still rather have YTTV and Philo than AT&T NOW. I tired it again and it was meh. Plus AT&T would need a complete executive enema and business philosophy change before I ever went back!!!!
Wireless 1987-2019
Internet 1992-2017
DIRECTV 2000-2019

Loved and was very happy with AT& until 2017


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

techguy88 said:


> Based on the way things look it seems AT&T is gonna keep and use the *AT&T TV Now* service to target the cord cutting segment. The increased Cloud DVR for Plus, Max, Entertainment, Choice, Xtra, Ultimate and Optimo Mas really turns a pitiful Cloud DVR into one of the top Cloud DVRs for cord cutters. Now if they would add the major networks from A+E Networks (A&E, Lifetime, History and Vice), AMC Networks (AMC, BBC America, BBC World News, IFC, Sundance and weTV) and Discovery (Discovery, ID, TLC, HGTV, Food Network, Travel Channel and OWN) as part of Plus/Max or as an add-on it would be a well rounded cord-cutting option again.





wmb said:


> At the current cost, $15-35 more than You Tube TV, I don't see that happening.
> 
> OK, they throw in HBO, but...


I agree that for the Plus and Max packages to be viable options that can get a substantial number of subs (on any platform, whether that's AT&T TV Now, or AT&T TV, or DirecTV), they need to add those missing channels from A+E, AMC and Discovery. Or at least make them available via optional add-on packs.

I would also note that while YouTube TV has networks from Discovery and AMC, they're missing Viacom and Hallmark (both of which AT&T's Plus and Max have) as well as A+E Networks.

There's some reason to believe (based on an accidental email that YTTV sent out recently, as well as a survey they've done) that we may see YTTV add some more channels this year but increase their price to around $60/mo. If they do, I can imagine them getting the most popular channels from Hallmark and A+E (those wouldn't cost much) and perhaps also some of the Viacom nets.

Meanwhile, I've been predicting for months now that after new carriage contracts got hammered out, AT&T would add the most popular channels from A+E and AMC to Plus and Max, and either do the same with Discovery's nets or make them available through an optional add-on pack. After AT&T TV Now hiked the price of both Plus and Max by $15 to $65 and $80, respectively, back in October, they should have enough margins to add the A+E and AMC nets, and maybe the most popular Discovery nets too, to those packages without increasing the prices again. (Based on the data in this table, I'd say that the cost of adding A+E's History, A&E, and Lifetime channels in 2020 would cost AT&T maybe $1.20 in carriage fees per sub. To add AMC's AMC and BBC America, probably about $0.90. To add Discovery's Discovery, HGTV, Food, OWN, TLC, ID and Animal Planet, maybe $2.15. So that all adds up to another $4.25 in carriage fees, less than 1/3 of the recent $15 price hike for Plus and Max.)

If that's how things play out, we'd be looking at AT&T's Plus, a well-rounded package of the most popular cable channels plus HBO Max, for $65 vs. YouTube TV, pretty much the same stuff as Plus but with RSNs and second-tier sports channels instead of HBO Max, for $60. YTTV still wins for cloud DVR given that they have a 9 month time limit while AT&T has only 90 days. YTTV offers unlimited storage space. AT&T's may as well be unlimited, at 500 hours.

In this scenario, if you wanted lots of sports, you'd go with YTTV. If you wanted more of a general entertainment package including HBO Max, go with AT&T's Plus. If you wanted both, go with AT&T's Max (or subscribe to YTTV and HBO Max separately and save $5).


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> I agree that for the Plus and Max packages to be viable options that can get a substantial number of subs (on any platform, whether that's AT&T TV Now, or AT&T TV, or DirecTV), they need to add those missing channels from A+E, AMC and Discovery. Or at least make them available via optional add-on packs.
> 
> I would also note that while YouTube TV has networks from Discovery and AMC, they're missing Viacom and Hallmark (both of which AT&T's Plus and Max have) as well as A+E Networks.
> 
> ...


Not to mention the fact that YTTV has no contract and no provider specific hardware ...just a simple app download to most smart TVs and streaming devices.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

So ATT could add those missing channels and you think they wouldn’t raise rates yet again? There is no indication anywhere that supports your scenario.

What is there is that as people switch to streaming and find out that there isn’t really much need for linear TV after all, they’ll be doing the ‘streaming swap’. Going from service to service for short periods of time to binge watch and move to another. If I didn’t learn anything else with my month long streaming experiment, I did learn that the place for cable/sat replacement services isn’t all it is cracked up to be. Just way to easy to see nearly everything in other ways for much less money.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Is it just me, or are others here having trouble keeping straight what AT&T NOW is and AT&T TV is, what's on both and what the differences are?


I think that AT&T is having problems keeping their products separate. Confusing the market is not good.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

James Long said:


> I think that AT&T is having problems keeping their products separate. Confusing the market is not good.


 A couple of the main differences is that AT&T TV Now is month to month and you can use it on other devices.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

CraigerM said:


> A couple of the main differences is that AT&T TV Now is month to month and you can use it on other devices.


That sentence illustrates some of the confusion. Take the capital off Now and you have changed products.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> Not to mention the fact that YTTV has no contract and no provider specific hardware ...just a simple app download to most smart TVs and streaming devices.


The same holds true for AT&T TV Now. In the end, I don't think there will be much, if any, difference between AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now except for the fact that the former requires a contract and comes with a free streaming device (which you don't really have to use if you don't want) and maybe other perks (better pricing and/or up-front promos) while the latter doesn't have any of those things.

I realize that self-identified "cord-cutters" get super hung-up about taking hardware from a cable TV provider but I don't think that's a really big deal for the general public. In fact, the ideal marketing scenario, IMO, is for a cable TV operator to offer a high-quality device customized for their service but then to make it optional. That appears to be what both Comcast Xfinity TV and AT&T TV are doing.

As for contracts, my take is that most folks who plan to stay subscribed to cable TV year-round would prefer not to get tied up in a long-term contract but most will opt to do it (especially for just one year) if the provider sufficiently incentivizes them to. Note how Comcast doesn't require contracts on any of their products but they often offer optional 1- or 2-year contracts at sign-up in exchange for lower monthly pricing and a price guarantee for the length of the contract. We may see AT&T do something similar with AT&T TV vs. AT&T TV Now.

YouTube TV, on the other hand, only has one model: no contract, no promotional perks (e.g. first-year discount, up-front gift cards, discount for bundling with broadband or phone), and no dedicated hardware customized for its service. That's great for a slice of the market but there are a whole lot of folks who wouldn't choose it over the first-party TV service that their broadband provider offers. There are lots of folks who either don't know about or aren't interested in watching cable TV via an app on a device with a tiny remote that doesn't feature buttons for channel up/down, mute, record, guide, last channel, 0-9, etc.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> The same holds true for AT&T TV Now. In the end, I don't think there will be much, if any, difference between AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now except for the fact that the former requires a contract and comes with a free streaming device (which you don't really have to use if you don't want) and maybe other perks (better pricing and/or up-front promos) while the latter doesn't have any of those things.
> 
> I realize that self-identified "cord-cutters" get super hung-up about taking hardware from a cable TV provider but I don't think that's a really big deal for the general public. In fact, the ideal marketing scenario, IMO, is for a cable TV operator to offer a high-quality device customized for their service but then to make it optional. That appears to be what both Comcast Xfinity TV and AT&T TV are doing.
> 
> ...


If AT&T TV and AT&T TV now merge into one product and have a choice of month to month or contract would anyone want to sign up to a contract vs. month to month? The only way I could see is if the customer wants it on their own device or on AT&T TV's box?


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Weird that AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now don't offer any of the three AT&T SportsNet RSNs (Houston, Denver, Pittsburgh) in those areas. Industry watchers think that AT&T may try to sell those channels soon, so maybe that's the reason they haven't added them. The most likely buyer if they do sell would probably be Sinclair, who just bought all the Fox Sports RSNs. AT&T TV does carry those.


Do you think NBC/Comcast will try to go after those, maybe Altitude in Denver?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> If AT&T TV and AT&T TV now merge into one product and have a choice of month to month or contract would anyone want to sign up to a contract vs. month to month?


I explained that in my post above: if you take the contract, you would get certain perks in return. Those perks would likely be any or all of the following:

a free streaming device (the C71)
Visa gift cards
lower monthly prices during your first year
the option to get a bundling discount if you also subscribe to AT&T Internet and/or Wireless
In the past, I had thought that perhaps the far more generous cloud DVR (500 hrs/90 days) that comes with AT&T TV, as well as its third concurrent stream, might be the key ways that they differentiate the service versus the contract-free AT&T TV Now. But just this week, they've announced that all current plans on AT&T TV Now come with the same 500/90 cloud DVR and 3 stream limit as you get on AT&T TV.

They're still differentiating the two in that AT&T TV Now features the new packages (Plus & Max) while AT&T TV features the old ones (Entertainment, Xtra, etc.). But all of them are available on both services. So that's really just a marketing thing.

Let's say that right now you're looking to sign up for the Entertainment package as a standalone TV service on either AT&T TV or AT&T TV Now. If you go with the former, you'll pay $60/mo the first year, then the regular price of $93/mo (or whatever it's up to) thereafter. You'll also get a $150 Visa gift card (at least if you sign up online), plus a free AT&T TV (Osprey C71) streaming box, which retails for $120. Over those two years, your average monthly cost will be $70.25 (after subtracting off the $150 gift card value). Plus you're getting a free 4K HDR Android TV streamer with a voice remote customized for cable TV.

How does AT&T TV Now stack up? Well, you don't have any contract, so you're footloose and fancy free. But as long as you stay with the service, you'll be paying the regular price every month from the get-go, currently $93. And you don't get a free streaming device. Is it worth paying that much more for the same TV service? Well, the early termination fee to break the 2-year contract for AT&T TV is only $15/mo for each month left on your contract. If you cancelled it after the first year, when you're only paying $60/mo, plus having gotten the $150 Visa gift card, you'd owe an ETF of $180. But you'd still come out great, having saved a net total of $366 versus going with AT&T TV Now for that year!

If you're also looking to sign up for AT&T Internet/Fiber, the price disparity tilts even further in favor of AT&T TV. Because you'll score an extra $150 in gift cards (i.e. a total of $300 worth), free internet installation (regularly $100), a $20 bundling discount off your total bill in the first year and then an ongoing $10 bundling discount off the regular monthly total thereafter. If you signed up for AT&T Internet/Fiber by itself, you only get a $50 gift card, no other perks. And you get no perks from AT&T TV Now. (They must be signed up for separately on two different websites and can't be bundled.)

Over the full two-year period, you're saving $710 by getting the same TV package under the AT&T TV brand, with a 2-year contract, versus the AT&T TV Now brand, with no contract, assuming that you're also signing up for AT&T Internet service at the same time.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Do you think NBC/Comcast will try to go after those, maybe Altitude in Denver?


Eh, maybe. Comcast owns a few RSNs. In fact, they used to own Comcast SportsNet Houston before they sold it to AT&T. It's now AT&T SportsNet Southwest. Not sure if they'd want to buy it back.

I'd say the more logical buyer for AT&T's three SportsNet RSNs is Sinclair. They're clearly all-in on RSNs now after buying all those Fox Sports RSNs from Disney while also launching the new Chicago Cubs RSN.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Maybe it’s just me but whenever I see services like this that are similar but with lots of “fine print”/“detailed” differentiation I just figure the service provider is trying to find a way to fool me/screw me...particularly when it’s AT&T....LOL.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> Eh, maybe. Comcast owns a few RSNs. In fact, they used to own Comcast SportsNet Houston before they sold it to AT&T. It's now AT&T SportsNet Southwest. Not sure if they'd want to buy it back.
> 
> I'd say the more logical buyer for AT&T's three SportsNet RSNs is Sinclair. They're clearly all-in on RSNs now after buying all those Fox Sports RSNs from Disney while also launching the new Chicago Cubs RSN.


Actually AT&T owns 4 RSNs the Northwest service still operates under the Root Sports brand because the Seattle Mariners own the majority 60% share while AT&T/WarnerMedia owns the remaining 40% and is the operator. AT&T SportsNet Southwest, Pittsburgh and Rocky Mountain are 100% owned by AT&T/WarnerMedia.

It's possible that AT&T will sell their 4 RSNs just depends on how regional sports play into their content strategy plans since they are looking to sell "non-critical" assets to reduce their DirecTV/Time Warner debt load. Sinclair would probably be very interested in the 4 RSNs as they have local stations they either own or operate via LMA (or in AT&T SN Pittsburgh's case both) in most of those markets.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

techguy88 said:


> Actually AT&T owns 4 RSNs the Northwest service still operates under the Root Sports brand because the Seattle Mariners own the majority 60% share while AT&T/WarnerMedia owns the remaining 40% and is the operator. AT&T SportsNet Southwest, Pittsburgh and Rocky Mountain are 100% owned by AT&T/WarnerMedia.
> 
> It's possible that AT&T will sell their 4 RSNs just depends on how regional sports play into their content strategy plans since they are looking to sell "non-critical" assets to reduce their DirecTV/Time Warner debt load. Sinclair would probably be very interested in the 4 RSNs as they have local stations they either own or operate via LMA (or in AT&T SN Pittsburgh's case both) in most of those markets.


Yes, I was aware of Root Sports Northwest, of which AT&T is the minority owner. Of the four markets where they have RSNs, Houston is the only one where AT&T Fiber is present. AT&T TV has the best shot of success in those places where it can be sold with AT&T Fiber, as the successor to Uverse TV. That's another reason why I think they'll decide that selling those few RSNs makes more sense than keeping them, especially given that Sinclair should be a motivated buyer.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Interesting post over at Cord Cutters News earlier this week.

AT&T TV Will Likely Be Launching Nationwide on February 11 - Cord Cutters News

They're reporting -- and have screenshots to back it up -- that at least some current AT&T TV subscribers in the pilot test markets are seeing a notification in their accounts that their current channel package "ends Feb. 11, 2020". The two screenshots shown appear to come from an AT&T TV subscriber with the Entertainment package, regularly priced at $93/mo but with a promo price of $49.99/mo. Underneath their current package, the screenshots show two other packages under a "What I Can Get" heading and they're the new Plus and Max packages that were introduced last March by AT&T TV Now.

This isn't proof-positive but does strongly suggest that the pet theory I've posted several times is correct: that when AT&T TV launches nationwide next month, new subscribers will not be offered the old set of DirecTV channel packages (Entertainment, Xtra, etc.), they'll only be offered the new set of packages including (but perhaps not limited to) Plus and Max, both of which include HBO (and the future HBO Max) as a core part of the line-up.

I had anticipated that current AT&T TV subs in the test markets would be grandfathered into their existing packages and allowed to keep them but it looks like that may not be the case.

Since last summer, Plus and Max have been listed as unadvertised options for new sign-ups on DirecTV too. I expect that they'll soon become the new exclusive options there too, although I'll be shocked if AT&T forces current DirecTV subs to switch over from their current packages to them rather than grandfathering them in on their existing packages (e.g. Entertainment, Xtra, etc.) as long as they wish to keep them.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

I'm thinking the thing with the packages is a glitch where they are using 1 platform (AT&T TV app) for both AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now. On AT&T's unofficial sub-Reddit grandfathered customers occasionally post with screenshots where they have glitches work to their benefit where AT&T will bill them a month or two of Go Big @ $25 or $35 per month before going back to $60 (those on the launch offer) / $85 (those not on a promo offer).


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

techguy88 said:


> I'm thinking the thing with the packages is a glitch where they are using 1 platform (AT&T TV app) for both AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now. On AT&T's unofficial sub-Reddit grandfathered customers occasionally post with screenshots where they have glitches work to their benefit where AT&T will bill them a month or two of Go Big @ $25 or $35 per month before going back to $60 (those on the launch offer) / $85 (those not on a promo offer).


Bingo


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

techguy88 said:


> I'm thinking the thing with the packages is a glitch where they are using 1 platform (AT&T TV app) for both AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now. On AT&T's unofficial sub-Reddit grandfathered customers occasionally post with screenshots where they have glitches work to their benefit where AT&T will bill them a month or two of Go Big @ $25 or $35 per month before going back to $60 (those on the launch offer) / $85 (those not on a promo offer).


Yeah, could be a glitch. AT&T is certainly no stranger to glitches in their billing systems. But if it is a glitch, I don't see why it would have anything necessarily to do with AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now using the same platform. Both services have offered the same two sets of packages, its just that the former has (so far, in the pilot markets) focused on selling the traditional set while the latter has (since March 2019) focused on selling the new set. And this new development -- where users' accounts are showing that their entire package will end on a certain date and they need to choose a new one -- is a much bigger and categorically different kind of glitch, if that's what it is, than a simple glitch where an account is charged the wrong price or given an unexpected credit on the existing package.

[Edit: One last thing I would add is that I don't think that AT&T TV Now uses the main AT&T account/billing system that is used by AT&T TV, DirecTV, and AT&T Internet/Fiber. Sort of how AT&T Prepaid doesn't use the same system that AT&T Wireless uses.]

If we see news in the days leading up to Feb. 11 that some of the critical channels missing from the Plus and Max packages get added to them -- channels like AMC, A&E, History, Discovery, HGTV, etc. -- then that would be further confirmation that AT&T is preparing to make those packages the new default (or even exclusive) options for AT&T TV. They won't try to sell Plus and Max as the standard choices for their new flagship cable TV service as long as they're still missing so many popular channels. It's one thing to do that with AT&T TV Now, as they're currently doing, given that it's a low-profile service aimed at cord-cutters, but it's not something that they could do for a full-fledged flagship service like AT&T TV.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, could be a glitch. AT&T is certainly no stranger to glitches in their billing systems. But if it is a glitch, I don't see why it would have anything necessarily to do with AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now using the same platform. Both services have offered the same two sets of packages, its just that the former has (so far, in the pilot markets) focused on selling the traditional set while the latter has (since March 2019) focused on selling the new set. And this new development -- where users' accounts are showing that their entire package will end on a certain date and they need to choose a new one -- is a much bigger and categorically different kind of glitch, if that's what it is, than a simple glitch where an account is charged the wrong price or given an unexpected credit on the existing package.
> 
> [Edit: One last thing I would add is that I don't think that AT&T TV Now uses the main AT&T account/billing system that is used by AT&T TV, DirecTV, and AT&T Internet/Fiber. Sort of how AT&T Prepaid doesn't use the same system that AT&T Wireless uses.]
> 
> If we see news in the days leading up to Feb. 11 that some of the critical channels missing from the Plus and Max packages get added to them -- channels like AMC, A&E, History, Discovery, HGTV, etc. -- then that would be further confirmation that AT&T is preparing to make those packages the new default (or even exclusive) options for AT&T TV. They won't try to sell Plus and Max as the standard choices for their new flagship cable TV service as long as they're still missing so many popular channels. It's one thing to do that with AT&T TV Now, as they're currently doing, given that it's a low-profile service aimed at cord-cutters, but it's not something that they could do for a full-fledged flagship service like AT&T TV.


They use the same billing system


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

compnurd said:


> They use the same billing system


AT&T TV Now and AT&T WatchTV are billed through their own websites and are separate from the rest. The screenshots in the article seem to have AT&T TV being billed through the same AT&T system that converted/new DirecTV and U-Verse TV uses which is att.com/myatt and the myAT&T app.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

techguy88 said:


> AT&T TV Now and AT&T WatchTV are billed through their own websites and are separate from the rest. The screenshots in the article seem to have AT&T TV being billed through the same AT&T system that converted/new DirecTV and U-Verse TV uses which is att.com/myatt and the myAT&T app.


ATT TV Now is billed on the same website/system as by Directv Account which is the newer one


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

I'm so curious to see how this is marketed when it goes live. Color me as someone who follows this and am totally confused. Imagine someone who doesn't follow it? FWIW, I still think AT&T has totally botched this, mostly because of their insistence on using their corporate name in everything they touch.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> ATT TV Now is billed on the same website/system as by Directv Account which is the newer one


When I had DirecTV Now and later AT&T Watch TV, neither of them used the main AT&T website. In neither case could I log into ATT.com and see my account there, as I could do with my AT&T Internet account (or as one can do now with DirecTV and AT&T TV). Maybe that's changed, although I do know that you still can't purchase AT&T TV Now on the main ATT.com site, you have to do it on the separate ATTTVNow.com site. If you're an AT&T Wireless Unlimited customer, you qualify for some kind of discount on AT&T TV Now but to get it, they verify you via text message to your AT&T Wireless number to link that account to your separate AT&T TV Now account.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> I'm so curious to see how this is marketed when it goes live. Color me as someone who follows this and am totally confused. Imagine someone who doesn't follow it? FWIW, I still think AT&T has totally botched this, mostly because of their insistence on using their corporate name in everything they touch.


Heh. Yeah, for us guys who regularly follow what AT&T does, it's like watching a convoluted soap opera with lots of confusing plot twists. But the average Joe has no idea about all this stuff and still doesn't realize that there's such as thing as DirecTV Now/AT&T TV Now or AT&T Watch TV. They know about DirecTV that comes through a satellite dish (but maybe don't realize AT&T owns it) and, if it's available in their area, they probably know about Uverse TV.

In 2020, I presume that AT&T's marketing efforts will focus on making Joe understand their two major new products: HBO Max, a super-sized streaming version of HBO, which will directly compete with Netflix, and AT&T TV, their new flagship cable TV service that largely replaces both DirecTV and UVerse TV for new subscribers, and which (probably) automatically includes HBO Max.

I wonder if we'll see them kick off their ad campaign for AT&T TV during the AT&T TV Super Saturday Night concert with Lady Gaga this weekend? We'll probably also get some news about the pending nationwide launch of AT&T TV this Wed. on the company's quarterly earnings call.


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

Just checked the channel lineups this morning.
ALL of the regional sports channels are now listed in choice and above. 

Now I'm interested.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

I WANT MORE said:


> Just checked the channel lineups this morning.
> ALL of the regional sports channels are now listed in choice and above.
> 
> Now I'm interested.


All? Are you sure? Last I checked it was missing MSG Networks (I believe) in NY.


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

Just looked again and there gone.
Totally different looking page. Can't get back to the one that showed all the FSNs, NBCSNs, etc. 
Both MSGs, SNY, and Yes are available though.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Choice should include only the local RSNs. It was probably a glitch.


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

James Long said:


> Choice should include only the local RSNs. It was probably a glitch.


Or...&#8230;.&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..perhaps a harbinger of things to come.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

I WANT MORE said:


> Just looked again and there gone.
> Totally different looking page. Can't get back to the one that showed all the FSNs, NBCSNs, etc.
> Both MSGs, SNY, and Yes are available though.


That's excellent. Still not sure if what the advantage for me would be as a Sat subscriber, but at least I'm somewhat interested now.


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

Went back in again and there they are.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

Steveknj said:


> All? Are you sure? Last I checked it was missing MSG Networks (I believe) in NY.


It has MSG because AT&T TV Now has MSG. All the RSNs AT&T TV Now has are the same ones AT&T TV has. That's why both services share the same local/RSN lookup tool. Shocked Altitude didn't give AT&T rights to include Altitude with AT&T TV/AT&T TV Now. One would think they would want even more coverage with the Dish/Comcast disputes still ongoing.



I WANT MORE said:


> Went back in again and there they are.
> View attachment 30343


I'm thinking that's a glitch or for someone who's not logged in to see what RSNs are generally available.

They do have a link at the bottom to the AT&T TV local/RSN tool that will tell you the exact RSNs that will be available in your area.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> All? Are you sure? Last I checked it was missing MSG Networks (I believe) in NY.


FYI, the Max package ("60+ channels and even more sports coverage") on AT&T TV Now includes both MSG and MSG+ (as well as YES). They're listed on the main page, so I guess they're included nationwide? The Plus and Max package is also available via AT&T TV and DirecTV too; pretty sure it's the same line-up across all three.

At any rate, when you go to the page that shows locals and RSNs for both AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now and plug in an NYC zip code, it shows MSG, MSG+, SNY, and YES as the four RSNs available. It also shows local affiliates for all the major broadcast nets except for The CW and PBS. (CW affiliates are available in some markets but PBS stations have yet to be added at all. I expect that will change this year.)


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> FYI, the Max package ("60+ channels and even more sports coverage") on AT&T TV Now includes both MSG and MSG+ (as well as YES). They're listed on the main page, so I guess they're included nationwide? The Plus and Max package is also available via AT&T TV and DirecTV too; pretty sure it's the same line-up across all three.
> 
> At any rate, when you go to the page that shows locals and RSNs for both AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now and plug in an NYC zip code, it shows MSG, MSG+, SNY, and YES as the four RSNs available. It also shows local affiliates for all the major broadcast nets except for The CW and PBS. (CW affiliates are available in some markets but PBS stations have yet to be added at all. I expect that will change this year.)


No they are not included nationwide. I did a free trial of AT&T TV Now last month before the increased Cloud DVR upgrade to see how it improved from its launch (I was curious.) The RSNs I got were my regular FS Ohio, FS Cincinnati and SportsTime Ohio. MSG, MSG+, YES and Longhorn Network were not on my default guide. (DirecTV treats Longhorn as an RSN)

Some markets have a MyNetworkTV affiliate, some have a CW affiliate. Most by now have at least one of ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox. A bunch of random zips I tested came back with ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox.

Edit: and before anyone asks the FS Ohio and FS Cincinnati feeds on AT&T TV Now are in glorious and delicious full time HD


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

I wonder how closely they follow the DMA lines... It gives me two choices for counties, one county has locals and one doesn't.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

No WGN? and still list the cubs as being on NBC sports


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

CW (and PBS) are still sticking points for me, but at least we are getting there. I know I could watch CW shows on the app, but I watch a lot of the local channel for news, some baseball and syndicated stuff on the fly.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

JoeTheDragon said:


> No WGN? and still list the cubs as being on NBC sports


I suspect we'll see WGN America somehow available to all AT&T cable customers across all of their platforms. The reason I say this is because, after a contractual standoff that resulted in lots of locals going dark for awhile, AT&T and Nexstar came to a new agreement last August. And Nexstar acquired WGN America last year when they bought Tribune. In fact, they plan to launch a new 3-hour national nightly primetime newscast on WGN America this summer. (Make sense, I guess. That's cheap content to produce using their local news operations across the country. Rest of the day, I suppose, will continue to be filled with cheap reruns of Canadian and US shows and movies. They're completely out of the original scripted series game now.)

I'm sure that Nexstar forced WGN America on AT&T if they wanted to carry all the local ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox affiliates they own around the country. Where it gets slotted is the question. Might be in every AT&T TV package. Might only be in the upper-tier Max package. Might be relegated to an optional add-on pack (e.g. Entertainment Pack, Lifestyle Pack, Heartland Pack, etc.) that can be added to either Plus or Max for $5-10. We'll know before long...

As for Cubs games, those won't air on WGN or WGN America at all this coming season. They'll be exclusive to a new Chicagoland RSN from Sinclair Broadcast Group, to be called Marquee Sports Network. AT&T also just renewed their carriage deal with Sinclair (who, like Nexstar, owns a ton of major network local affiliates nationwide), and that deal ensures that Marquee will be carried by AT&T when it debuts soon. (It also ensures that AT&T will continue to carry the Fox Sports RSNs, which Sinclair bought from Disney, as well as Sinclair-owned The Tennis Channel.) I expect all those to be part of the Max package on AT&T TV.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Still no ATT Sportsnet here in Pittsburgh


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> Still no ATT Sportsnet here in Pittsburgh


Very strange. Given that AT&T owns it, you'd think it would have been one of the first channels to be added to AT&T's streaming packages. Suggests to me that, as has been speculated in the industry press, AT&T is looking to sell their Sportsnet RSNs very soon and they'll use carriage rights for them on AT&T TV/Now as part of the negotiating terms for the sell price.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Very strange. Given that AT&T owns it, you'd think it would have been one of the first channels to be added to AT&T's streaming packages. Suggests to me that, as has been speculated in the industry press, AT&T is looking to sell their Sportsnet RSNs very soon and they'll use carriage rights for them on AT&T TV/Now as part of the negotiating terms for the sell price.


I dont buy that because it has been on No streaming TV service since there existence There is another reason


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> I suspect we'll see WGN America somehow available to all AT&T cable customers across all of their platforms. The reason I say this is because, after a contractual standoff that resulted in lots of locals going dark for awhile, AT&T and Nexstar came to a new agreement last August. And Nexstar acquired WGN America last year when they bought Tribune. In fact, they plan to launch a new 3-hour national nightly primetime newscast on WGN America this summer. (Make sense, I guess. That's cheap content to produce using their local news operations across the country. Rest of the day, I suppose, will continue to be filled with cheap reruns of Canadian and US shows and movies. They're completely out of the original scripted series game now.)
> 
> I'm sure that Nexstar forced WGN America on AT&T if they wanted to carry all the local ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox affiliates they own around the country. Where it gets slotted is the question. Might be in every AT&T TV package. Might only be in the upper-tier Max package. Might be relegated to an optional add-on pack (e.g. Entertainment Pack, Lifestyle Pack, Heartland Pack, etc.) that can be added to either Plus or Max for $5-10. We'll know before long...
> 
> As for Cubs games, those won't air on WGN or WGN America at all this coming season. They'll be exclusive to a new Chicagoland RSN from Sinclair Broadcast Group, to be called Marquee Sports Network. AT&T also just renewed their carriage deal with Sinclair (who, like Nexstar, owns a ton of major network local affiliates nationwide), and that deal ensures that Marquee will be carried by AT&T when it debuts soon. (It also ensures that AT&T will continue to carry the Fox Sports RSNs, which Sinclair bought from Disney, as well as Sinclair-owned The Tennis Channel.) I expect all those to be part of the Max package on AT&T TV.


There web site still lists the cubs being on NBC SN CHI
Will AT&T tv have WGN local?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

JoeTheDragon said:


> There web site still lists the cubs being on NBC SN CHI
> Will AT&T tv have WGN local?


No, the Cubs will be on Marquee. As for WGN 9 being on AT&T TV in the Chicago area, my guess is that it will happen (eventually anyhow), given that Nexstar owns the station and it's included on both DirecTV and Uverse TV. Not sure how many folks really care though given that it isn't affiliated with any network and doesn't carry the Cubs any more...


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> I dont buy that because it has been on No streaming TV service since there existence There is another reason


https://www.multichannel.com/news/report-at-t-mulling-sale-of-rsns-


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> https://www.multichannel.com/news/report-at-t-mulling-sale-of-rsns-


That was July of last Year. Why didn't Directv now ever have it? Or Any other streaming service that has been around for longer than 6 months The possible sale of the RSN would not be a reason for them to not offer it back when Directv Now launched as it would have alienated a lot of customers they wanted to switch


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> I suspect we'll see WGN America somehow available to all AT&T cable customers across all of their platforms. The reason I say this is because, after a contractual standoff that resulted in lots of locals going dark for awhile, AT&T and Nexstar came to a new agreement last August. And Nexstar acquired WGN America last year when they bought Tribune. In fact, they plan to launch a new 3-hour national nightly primetime newscast on WGN America this summer. (Make sense, I guess. That's cheap content to produce using their local news operations across the country. Rest of the day, I suppose, will continue to be filled with cheap reruns of Canadian and US shows and movies. They're completely out of the original scripted series game now.)
> 
> I'm sure that Nexstar forced WGN America on AT&T if they wanted to carry all the local ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox affiliates they own around the country. Where it gets slotted is the question. Might be in every AT&T TV package. Might only be in the upper-tier Max package. Might be relegated to an optional add-on pack (e.g. Entertainment Pack, Lifestyle Pack, Heartland Pack, etc.) that can be added to either Plus or Max for $5-10. We'll know before long...
> 
> As for Cubs games, those won't air on WGN or WGN America at all this coming season. They'll be exclusive to a new Chicagoland RSN from Sinclair Broadcast Group, to be called Marquee Sports Network. AT&T also just renewed their carriage deal with Sinclair (who, like Nexstar, owns a ton of major network local affiliates nationwide), and that deal ensures that Marquee will be carried by AT&T when it debuts soon. (It also ensures that AT&T will continue to carry the Fox Sports RSNs, which Sinclair bought from Disney, as well as Sinclair-owned The Tennis Channel.) I expect all those to be part of the Max package on AT&T TV.


The Nextar owned CW affiliate in NYC is still not on this.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> That was July of last Year. Why didn't Directv now ever have it? Or Any other streaming service that has been around for longer than 6 months The possible sale of the RSN would not be a reason for them to not offer it back when Directv Now launched as it would have alienated a lot of customers they wanted to switch


My guess is that AT&T didn't want to start making deals to add their RSNs to *any* streaming cable TV services (including their own) if they thought that they were potentially on the cusp of selling those RSNs to a new owner (e.g. Sinclair). Whatever carriage contracts that AT&T has in place for those channels will transfer over and have to be honored by the new owner, so I guess that could be seen as a negative by Sinclair or other bidders. That's just my speculation.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> The Nextar owned CW affiliate in NYC is still not on this.


Yeah. But the fact that AT&T recently renewed their deal with Nexstar, plus the fact that AT&T owns half of the CW, bodes well. The way these carriage contracts work, at least for streaming cable TV services, is that an MVPD has to have a deal in place to carry a certain owner's stations that are affiliated with a certain network. So while AT&T TV may already have hypothetically had deals in place to carry Nexstar's affilates of ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox, it looks like they didn't have one in place specifically to carry Nexstar's CW stations. I say that because, after checking a few Nexstar-owned CW affiliates, I can't find any of them currently shown as being available on AT&T TV. Not even the one in St. Louis, which is one of AT&T TV's biggest initial pilot markets.

But I can't see why such a deal won't happen. In fact, my guess is that it already did happen but the two sides just haven't actually gotten those stations online with AT&T's systems yet. That often takes several months to happen after a deal is struck. My hunch is that we'll see several of the missing locals suddenly get added just before AT&T TV launches nationwide next month (especially in those markets where AT&T Fiber is available). But, of course, CW affiliates would seem to be a lower priority than the big 4 networks.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> My guess is that AT&T didn't want to start making deals to add their RSNs to *any* streaming cable TV services (including their own) if they thought that they were potentially on the cusp of selling those RSNs to a new owner (e.g. Sinclair). Whatever carriage contracts that AT&T has in place for those channels will transfer over and have to be honored by the new owner, so I guess that could be seen as a negative by Sinclair or other bidders. That's just my speculation.


ATT Sportsnet is now on Fubo TV


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> ATT Sportsnet is now on Fubo TV


Interesting. Well then, beats me why they've yet to add their own RSNs to their own streaming cable TV services. Maybe they just want it to be part of the launch announcement for AT&T TV.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

AT&T TV makes its national marketing debut tonight with the *AT&T TV Super Saturday Night* concert featuring Lady Gaga, live from Miami at 11 PM EST. Available free via AT&T TV's Twitter:

AT&T TV #SuperSaturdayNight

(BTW, prior to this year, this annual event, held the night before the Super Bowl, was known as DirecTV Super Saturday Night. Foo Fighters headlined the concert last year.)


----------



## eletric chicken (Dec 28, 2019)

techguy88 said:


> AT&T TV Now and AT&T WatchTV are billed through their own websites and are separate from the rest. The screenshots in the article seem to have AT&T TV being billed through the same AT&T system that converted/new DirecTV and U-Verse TV uses which is att.com/myatt and the myAT&T app.


wich myatt and the app works when it wants to. nothing more annoying sitting there looking at a blue circle spinning saying were almost there for 5 minutes and trying to re log back in and same crapola


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

It looks like AT&T is making updates to AT&T TV's website a link on how to cancel is displayed now. Some highlights:

*Grace Period:* So AT&T TV is following U-Verse TV's policy instead of DirecTV's policy. You can cancel the service within the first 14 days of purchasing the service. The clock starts when you pick up the AT&T TV device(s) from a store, receive them from a Ready To Go agent or when the device(s) where shipped to you by AT&T. If you got the device(s) at a store or from a Ready To Go agent you can take them back to a company-owned AT&T store. If they were shipped use the included return label.
For comparison DirecTV's policy (for any billing system) is a 24 hour grace period once the receivers are activated. After the receivers have been active for 24 hours the ETF applies.

*Device fees:* If you cancel the AT&T TV service within the Grace Period and fail to return the included AT&T TV device they will charge you the retail price of the device (currently $120).
If you purchased any extra devices on installment plans and fail to return them then you are responsible for the remaining balance due on the installment plans.
If you paid full device charge upfront and want a refund you must return the device. If you fail to return the additional devices you get no refund.

So pretty much you can try it out and see if it works out for you and if it doesn't you can cancel within 14 days return the device(s) and walk away clean. If you keep the service past 14 days however you pretty much own the devices and don't return them. The big question are the devices still usable without AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now? 



> *Cancellation Policy.*
> AT&T TV Service. You may cancel your new service within 14 days of purchase (except as otherwise required by state law) without paying an Early Termination Fee by calling 800.288.2020. All fees and charges paid for the service prior to cancellation shall be fully refunded.
> 
> Your included device. The AT&T TV device included with your new service must be returned to the same store where you picked up the device within 14 days of your purchase. If you received a device from a Ready To Go agent you can return the device to any company-owned AT&T retail store within 14 days of receipt. Devices shipped to you should be returned via mail using the return label provided in the original packaging within 14 days from the shipment date. If customer fails to return the device within the 14-day time period or returns a device that is damaged, customer agrees to pay a non-return fee of $120. We reserve the right to charge this fee to the payment method on ﬁle.
> ...


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

techguy88 said:


> It looks like AT&T is making updates to AT&T TV's website a link on how to cancel is displayed now. Some highlights:
> 
> *Grace Period:* So AT&T TV is following U-Verse TV's policy instead of DirecTV's policy. You can cancel the service within the first 14 days of purchasing the service. The clock starts when you pick up the AT&T TV device(s) from a store, receive them from a Ready To Go agent or when the device(s) where shipped to you by AT&T. If you got the device(s) at a store or from a Ready To Go agent you can take them back to a company-owned AT&T store. If they were shipped use the included return label.
> For comparison DirecTV's policy (for any billing system) is a 24 hour grace period once the receivers are activated. After the receivers have been active for 24 hours the ETF applies.
> ...


I read through the TOS and see that they mention a 24 month agreement with a $15 / month ETF (max $360) (this compares to the D* 24 month x $20 ETF). This makes sense as they offer a discounted first year pricing and have to recover the discount with the regular price in the second year.

So with the NO CHANGE in agreement term requirement since test market I am going out on a limb (NOT) and calling ATT TV "DOA" upon rollout February 11.


----------



## stoutman (Feb 8, 2003)

I am lost on so many levels how they will pivot with AT&T TV. How they blend AT&T Now customers. Deal with competition from other IPTV especially around price points. Deal with missing channels. Enforce the limit of home wifi for fire and Apple TV. Just to mention a few. Their track record would suggest DOA is a real possibility.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

stoutman said:


> I am lost on so many levels how they will pivot with AT&T TV. How they blend AT&T Now customers. Deal with competition from other IPTV especially around price points. Deal with missing channels. Enforce the limit of home wifi for fire and Apple TV. Just to mention a few. Their track record would suggest DOA is a real possibility.


Heh. Yeah, lots of different potential scenarios of how they might structure AT&T TV when it rolls out soon.



DirectMan said:


> I read through the TOS and see that they mention a 24 month agreement with a $15 / month ETF (max $360) (this compares to the D* 24 month x $20 ETF). This makes sense as they offer a discounted first year pricing and have to recover the discount with the regular price in the second year.
> 
> So with the NO CHANGE in agreement term requirement since test market I am going out on a limb (NOT) and calling ATT TV "DOA" upon rollout February 11.


Well, I'm pretty sure that the 2-yr contract with $15/mo ETF has been what AT&T TV has done since the get-go in the pilot markets. Now, maybe that remains when it rolls out nationwide but I wouldn't assume so just yet simply because they've yet to update the fine print on their website. I wouldn't expect that kind of fine print to change until the day that AT&T TV actually launches nationwide, if there actually will be a change to those terms.

But assuming that they don't change those terms and still require a 2-yr contract, I would agree with you that that would be a marketing misstep.

But let's compare it with what Comcast is currently doing. They sell their TV packages with an optional 2-yr agreement IF you're also taking their broadband service. You don't have to take the contract but if you do, it scores you an extra $10 off per month during the full 2-yr period AND it extends the first-year $28/mo new customer promo discount through the second year too. So you save an extra $10/mo in year one and an extra $38 in year two by taking the optional contract. That's a total of $576 in savings in exchange for taking the 2-yr contract. (Like AT&T, Comcast also offers a separate ongoing bundling discount for combining broadband and TV, but that has nothing to do with taking a contract.)

Another point of comparison is what DirecTV does for those who sign up online. There's a required 2-yr contract, of course. When I recently checked, the promos they offered were a $28 discount off your bill for the first 12 months plus $200 in Visa gift cards. That totals up to $536 in giveaways. (And that's for DTV as a standalone service. Combining it with AT&T Fiber got you a bonus gift card, maybe more.)

Who knows, maybe AT&T TV continues this tired policy of "long contract in exchange for big give-aways". But I think AT&T TV would get more takers and better press if they debuted with the same 1-yr contract that they require for AT&T Fiber and Uverse TV. Two years feels like a long time. It's a big commitment. Instead of giving away several hundred dollars in promos with a 2-yr contract (as Comcast and DirecTV both do), AT&T TV should offer a smaller promo in exchange for a 1-yr contract (e.g. a free streaming device valued at $120, plus $10 off per month for the first 12 months). And if those promos aren't worth committing yourself for 12 months, cool, you can go with the same service under the AT&T TV Now brand and pay the full price from the first month.

Oh well, at least they're giving new AT&T TV subscribers a 14-day opt out period. That makes the contract (whatever its length) a bit less scary...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The commitment should not exceed the discount. Renewing the commitment should renew the discount. That is what I look for in a provider.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> The commitment should not exceed the discount. Renewing the commitment should renew the discount. That is what I look for in a provider.


That's fair, although are there other major providers who continually allow existing customers to keep renewing contracts in exchange for the same deals that they give new customers? Comcast sometimes does this but I don't think it's an actual policy. More like call them up or go in a store and haggle/ask nicely.

My thought is that consumers are increasingly wary of the whole contract/discount racket. I think there's a growing appreciation for "just figure out a fair, sustainable price for your service and charge that from the get-go rather than trying to lock folks while rewarding new customers at the expense of your loyal long-term customers who are out-of-contract."


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I probably could have done better by calling, but I got my "new customer deal" by choosing the option on Comcast's website. At the end of my commitment my price went up to full price so I went online and changed plans to one with a discount for making a commitment.

Full price for no commitment and a discount for making a commitment will be a successful offer.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

As another point of comparison, I just checked to see what they're offering new Uverse TV customers. It requires a 1-yr contract (with $15/mo ETF). Their U-200 package (the most similar DTV package would be Choice) with HD DVR for 1 TV is regularly priced at about $116/mo. (It may vary a buck or two depending on your local broadcast TV fee.)

They discount it by $27/mo the first year plus offer $150 in Visa gift cards. That's if you get it as a standalone service. (Discounts and gift card amounts increase for bundling it with internet.) That comes to a total promo amount of $474. And that's with only a 1-yr contract. Surprisingly, there's not even an installation fee for standalone Uverse TV. (There is for standalone internet, but it's waived if you bundle in any of their TV services.)


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

AT&T TV just updated their main landing page on the AT&T website. It now features the following graphic you can click on to see the channel line-ups in their featured packages:










The interesting thing I notice in this graphic is that it features icons for a few channels that aren't currently offered at all on AT&T TV: AT&T SportsNet (the name for the three AT&T-owned RSNs for the Houston, Pittsburgh and Denver regions), Root Sports (the name for the Seattle region RSN co-owned by AT&T and the Seattle Mariners), and Hello Sunshine. So for those concerned about the current lack of the AT&T-owned RSNs on AT&T TV, that will probably end soon.

This graphic also shows that they offer popular channels from network groups that aren't included on YouTube TV or Hulu Live: A+E Networks (A&E) and Viacom Networks (BET).


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

No Marquee network even though it is going to be on DirecTV and AT&T TV Now once it launches.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> No Marquee network even though it is going to be on DirecTV and AT&T TV Now once it launches.


Eh, there's no way in heck that AT&T is going to carry that RSN on AT&T TV Now but not on its "big brother" flagship service AT&T TV. (And Marquee also says it's picked up by AT&T Uverse TV and DirecTV.) Guarantee you it'll be there on AT&T TV for Chicagoland subscribers when the channel launches on 2/22. They'll stick it in the same packages that carry all the other RSNs (Max in the new set, Choice and up in the old set).

Apparently negotiations for carriage of this new channel are coming down to the wire with lots of MVPDs. Marquee's website states that it's still not yet greenlit for Comcast, WOW, YouTube TV, Hulu Live or even Fubo TV.

Providers - Marquee Sports Network


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> Eh, there's no way in heck that AT&T is going to carry that RSN on AT&T TV Now but not on its "big brother" flagship service AT&T TV. (And Marquee also says it's picked up by AT&T Uverse TV and DirecTV.) Guarantee you it'll be there on AT&T TV for Chicagoland subscribers when the channel launches on 2/22. They'll stick it in the same packages that carry all the other RSNs (Max in the new set, Choice and up in the old set).
> 
> Apparently negotiations for carriage of this new channel are coming down to the wire with lots of MVPDs. Marquee's website states that it's still not yet greenlit for Comcast, WOW, YouTube TV, Hulu Live or even Fubo TV.
> 
> Providers - Marquee Sports Network


Yeah the big one there is Comcast that controls over half of the Chicago market. Much hand wringing going on by those folks in Chicago.

I have to guess the deal with AT&T did not include AT&T TV. They mentioned it at the Cubs convention last month and specifically stated DirecTV and AT&T TV Now and never brought up AT&T TV. Though maybe they left it out because AT&T TV doesn't actually exist yet. Of course neither does the Marquee Network either. Or maybe they are just confused over the AT&T product line with similar names.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> Eh, there's no way in heck that AT&T is going to carry that RSN on AT&T TV Now but not on its "big brother" flagship service AT&T TV. (And Marquee also says it's picked up by AT&T Uverse TV and DirecTV.) Guarantee you it'll be there on AT&T TV for Chicagoland subscribers when the channel launches on 2/22. They'll stick it in the same packages that carry all the other RSNs (Max in the new set, Choice and up in the old set).
> 
> Apparently negotiations for carriage of this new channel are coming down to the wire with lots of MVPDs. Marquee's website states that it's still not yet greenlit for Comcast, WOW, YouTube TV, Hulu Live or even Fubo TV.
> 
> Providers - Marquee Sports Network


RCN is not on the list and some In market zips show 
*Sorry, but your zip code is outside of the network territory. Please contact your provider regarding potential availability via out-of-market sports packages.*


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> I have to guess the deal with AT&T did not include AT&T TV. They mentioned it at the Cubs convention last month and specifically stated DirecTV and AT&T TV Now and never brought up AT&T TV. Though maybe they left it out because AT&T TV doesn't actually exist yet. Of course neither does the Marquee Network either. Or maybe they are just confused over the AT&T product line with similar names.


Yeah, I'd say they didn't specifically mention "AT&T TV" either because it hasn't yet launched in Chicago or because they're confused (like so many) about the branding s#!tshow that AT&T is running. (To bolster the case that Marquee is confused, I would point out the fact that their webpage that I linked above lists both "Layer3 TV" and "TVision" separately, despite the fact that the latter is simply the new brand name for the former.)


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

JoeTheDragon said:


> RCN is not on the list and some In market zips show
> *Sorry, but your zip code is outside of the network territory. Please contact your provider regarding potential availability via out-of-market sports packages.*


Yeah that zip code finder at the Marquee website hasn't worked since day one. I have both DirecTV and Charter available in my zip code (inside the Cubs coverage area) and both have deals to carry Marquee but I get the same "Sorry, but your zip code is outside of the network territory."


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

b4pjoe said:


> No Marquee network even though it is going to be on DirecTV and AT&T TV Now once it launches.





NashGuy said:


> Eh, there's no way in heck that AT&T is going to carry that RSN on AT&T TV Now but not on its "big brother" flagship service AT&T TV. (And Marquee also says it's picked up by AT&T Uverse TV and DirecTV.) Guarantee you it'll be there on AT&T TV for Chicagoland subscribers when the channel launches on 2/22. They'll stick it in the same packages that carry all the other RSNs (Max in the new set, Choice and up in the old set).
> 
> Apparently negotiations for carriage of this new channel are coming down to the wire with lots of MVPDs. Marquee's website states that it's still not yet greenlit for Comcast, WOW, YouTube TV, Hulu Live or even Fubo TV.
> 
> Providers - Marquee Sports Network





b4pjoe said:


> Yeah the big one there is Comcast that controls over half of the Chicago market. Much hand wringing going on by those folks in Chicago.
> 
> I have to guess the deal with AT&T did not include AT&T TV. They mentioned it at the Cubs convention last month and specifically stated DirecTV and AT&T TV Now and never brought up AT&T TV. Though maybe they left it out because AT&T TV doesn't actually exist yet. Of course neither does the Marquee Network either. Or maybe they are just confused over the AT&T product line with similar names.


Right now it seems if AT&T TV Now is carrying an RSN then AT&T TV will carry the same RSNs as well. They both use the same locals/RSN tool so I wouldn't worry about the flagship premium streaming TV service not having Marquee. The chances of AT&T TV Now having channels not available on AT&T TV are 0%.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

FYI if anyone is interested on how the C71KW works I managed to get my hands on one. I reactivated my old AT&T TV Now account for 1 month to give it a proper review. I posted my first impressions here if anyone is interested. If there is anything you want to know about C71KW just let me know.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Hmm, wonder if tomorrow will be the big day for the nationwide AT&T TV launch, as rumored? If so, I'm a little surprised that there have been no leaks about it yet...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The source that said the 11th is now saying it has been pushed back to late February.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

2/26 according to an ATT employee on Reddit. (aka, some random person on the Internet)


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/ATT/comments/f1dkss


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

espaeth said:


> 2/26 according to an ATT employee on Reddit. (aka, some random person on the Internet)
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/ATT/comments/f1dkss


This is correct.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

FWIW, Cord Cutters News is saying Feb. 27. At any rate, looks like it'll be the last week of this month. One poster on Reddit says that the AT&T TV streaming boxes are already showing up at AT&T retail stores.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> FWIW, Cord Cutters News is saying Feb. 27.


That site should really be avoided. The guy who runs it basically just trolls Reddit for comments and reports anything from any source as "news" to drive ad click revenue to his blog.

You can get the same information yourself on Reddit, and you'll have the benefit of seeing the user who sourced any information to gauge authenticity. CCN just strips the origin, reports it as "multiple sources" if multiple people comment on a topic, and does no work to first party source anything.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

espaeth said:


> That site should really be avoided. The guy who runs it basically just trolls Reddit for comments and reports anything from any source as "news" to drive ad click revenue to his blog.
> 
> You can get the same information yourself on Reddit, and you'll have the benefit of seeing the user who sourced any information to gauge authenticity. CCN just strips the origin, reports it as "multiple sources" if multiple people comment on a topic, and does no work to first party source anything.


Eh, I'm well aware of the issues with that site. You do have to take what he posts with a grain of salt, and often dig deeper into the sources he links to (IF he offers links), but he is a semi-useful aggregator of news. And as his readership has grown, he has at times gotten info directly from companies themselves (although, yes, he typically just reposts info from press releases or other online sources).


----------



## MrMars (Apr 10, 2007)

stoutman said:


> I am lost on so many levels how they will pivot with AT&T TV. How they blend AT&T Now customers. Deal with competition from other IPTV especially around price points. Deal with missing channels. Enforce the limit of home wifi for fire and Apple TV. Just to mention a few. Their track record would suggest DOA is a real possibility.


I really don't understand why anyone would purchase this unless they cannot get DirecTV for some reason. Price is the same with major flaws, DirecTV is a inferior product for sure.

Missing key RSNs in LA, Houston, Baltimore/DC, Boston, Denver, Seattle, Pittsburgh (May of missed some cities)
Missing NFL Network
No Sports Pack offered, only out of market package offered is the NBA (which is more $$ on AT&T TV for some weird reason)
No 4K programing
Less channels for the the same price
Only 3 TVs at once (they will sell you up to 6 receivers, but only 3 can be active at once) can only imagine people buying 4+ and not reading the fine print..

It is insane that AT&T thinks this is going to "save" their TV business or whatever nonsense they are thinking. Either match DirecTV in what is offered or lower the price. I just don't see why anyone would switch at this time. Of course any of these issues could change before the official launch, I just don't have any faith that it will..


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

MrMars said:


> It is insane that AT&T thinks this is going to "save" their TV business or whatever nonsense they are thinking. Either match DirecTV in what is offered or lower the price. I just don't see why anyone would switch at this time. Of course any of these issues could change before the official launch, I just don't have any faith that it will..


I believe that at least some of the things you listed will improve in AT&T TV's favor by the time it launches nationwide. But even if AT&T TV had the same packages, pricing, and 2-yr up-front contract as DTV, it would still offer some advantages over DTV:


far better on-demand experience
inclusion of thousands of apps on the box, including Netflix and YouTube (which together account for a majority of TV-connected streaming)
voice remote with integrated Google Assistant
larger capacity DVR (500 hours) that never has recording conflicts (i.e. "unlimited tuners"), with your recordings accessible by phone, tablet or laptop anywhere in the nation that you have an internet connection
ability to use the service on your own Apple TV or Fire TV device at home if you prefer


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> I believe that at least some of the things you listed will improve in AT&T TV's favor by the time it launches nationwide. But even if AT&T TV had the same packages, pricing, and 2-yr up-front contract as DTV, it would still offer some advantages over DTV:
> 
> 
> far better on-demand experience
> ...


Nice list...

But they are competing with YTTV and others who are offering better pricing and plenty of channels. And those don't require buying someone's proprietary box or have a contract longer than one month.

And with YTTV, DVR is unlimited hours and you can use it one almost any kind of mobile or streaming device.

IMO, I still see nothing that makes the upcoming ATT streaming product a compelling buy. And for those that can get cable or streaming, neither of the satellite services are a good deal these days.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> far better on-demand experience
> inclusion of thousands of apps on the box, including Netflix and YouTube (which together account for a majority of TV-connected streaming)
> voice remote with integrated Google Assistant
> larger capacity DVR (500 hours) that never has recording conflicts (i.e. "unlimited tuners"), with your recordings accessible by phone, tablet or laptop anywhere in the nation that you have an internet connection
> ability to use the service on your own Apple TV or Fire TV device at home if you prefer


Better on-demand experience than what? DIRECTV? YTTV? And how do we know it is better?

From what I've read there are several popular apps that are not on the AT&T box.

Voice remote with integrated Google Assistant isn't exactly new technology...it is for AT&T but my LG TV has it. My Fire TV Cube has Alexa voice. My Apple TV has Siri voice.

DVR lags behind YTTV as AT&T TV only keeps the recordings for 90 days while YTTV keeps it for 9 months. And it also "never has recording conflicts (i.e. "unlimited tuners"), with your recordings accessible by phone, tablet or laptop anywhere in the nation that you have an internet connection". And my DIRECTV DVR can keep it until the box dies.

You still have to have that one AT&T box on your network though. I don't consider that an actual plus.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> Nice list...
> 
> But they are competing with YTTV and others who are offering better pricing and plenty of channels. And those don't require buying someone's proprietary box or have a contract longer than one month.
> 
> ...





b4pjoe said:


> Better on-demand experience than what? DIRECTV? YTTV? And how do we know it is better?
> 
> From what I've read there are several popular apps that are not on the AT&T box.
> 
> ...


If you look, you'll see I was responding to the preceding post saying that AT&T TV was inferior to DTV and that no one who could get DTV would instead choose AT&T TV. All of the points I raised are comparisons between only those two services, i.e. reasons that someone might choose AT&T TV over DTV.

As for comparisons with YTTV: look at the product page for AT&T TV. Scroll down to the "Compare Your Options" section. Who does AT&T compare it against (and therefore consider its main competitors to be)? Comcast Xfinity and Charter Spectrum. In other words, other full-scale cable TV services that can be bundled with home broadband, offering a full range of channels accessible through a dedicated device.

YTTV isn't who AT&T TV is competing against. If you're willing to go with a service that's missing some popular channels, and you don't mind accessing cable TV via an app on your own device using a remote control that isn't customized for that kind of service, then great, I would agree that YTTV is the best value right now in terms of channel line-up and DVR feature set for the money.

I understand that, from a consumer perspective, you'd love for AT&T TV to compete with YTTV purely on price. But I can't see why that would be in the interests of AT&T's stockholders. Same holds true with Comcast. Just interacted with a guy on another forum who has Comcast standalone broadband. When he asked a Comcast CSR about deals for adding TV, she replied that he'd come out cheaper just getting YTTV.

AT&T and Comcast both have a large, but gradually dwindling, base of TV subscribers. Which makes more sense for their stock prices? To aggressively cut TV prices across the board to compete with YTTV (a relatively tiny competitor with only 2 million subs), which would immediately have a sharp negative effect on their profit margins? Or to hold TV prices steady, so that whatever TV subs they still have remain sufficiently profitable, while their TV subscriber base continues to melt away over time? Going this latter route allows the stock price to gradually adjust. Both companies realize that cable TV is slowly dying and there's nothing they can do to stop it. No point suddenly and prematurely harming their profit margins in order to try to sustain a business that will eventually die anyway.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> If you look, you'll see I was responding to the preceding post saying that AT&T TV was inferior to DTV and that no one who could get DTV would instead choose AT&T TV. All of the points I raised are comparisons between only those two services, i.e. reasons that someone might choose AT&T TV over DTV.


OK thanks for the clarification. From what I have read so far of what is coming with AT&T TV I would not consider moving from DTV to AT&T TV. They have no Premier package equivalent on AT&T TV. None of those 5 points you made move the needle for me.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

You seem to think that a streaming version of cable/sat’s fat channel count and high prices, with a contract that has ETF is going to be successful? Couple that with a proprietary box, the poor customer service that ATT is nearly famous for, and you have a method to fail IMO.

In what sane world does that make sense? ATT is shedding customers by droves and it isn’t because what they are doing is what people seem to want. And it darned sure isn’t just ‘low value’ customers.

And while ATT might want to not compete with YTTV and other streamers, that just isn’t the case. They are exactly what they will be competing with. If there is anything else I might have learned in all of ATT’s blathering, is is that they cannot seem to read the tea leaves right and continue to solve problems that don’t exist, but not solve problems that do.

BTW, in case you haven’t noticed, ATT’s upcoming offerings are missing channels too. How popular they are is open to conjecture.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> If you look, you'll see I was responding to the preceding post saying that AT&T TV was inferior to DTV and that no one who could get DTV would instead choose AT&T TV. All of the points I raised are comparisons between only those two services, i.e. reasons that someone might choose AT&T TV over DTV.
> 
> As for comparisons with YTTV: look at the product page for AT&T TV. Scroll down to the "Compare Your Options" section. Who does AT&T compare it against (and therefore consider its main competitors to be)? Comcast Xfinity and Charter Spectrum. In other words, other full-scale cable TV services that can be bundled with home broadband, offering a full range of channels accessible through a dedicated device.
> 
> ...


It doesn't really matter who AT&T TV thinks it's competitors are, or who they want their competitors to be, the only thing that is going to matter is who the consumer will compare the AT&T TV offering to.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> You seem to think that a streaming version of cable/sat's fat channel count and high prices, with a contract that has ETF is going to be successful? Couple that with a proprietary box, the poor customer service that ATT is nearly famous for, and you have a method to fail IMO.
> 
> In what sane world does that make sense? ATT is shedding customers by droves and it isn't because what they are doing is what people seem to want. And it darned sure isn't just 'low value' customers.
> 
> ...


We'll see how it does. You seem incapable of understanding that different consumers have different preferences and not everyone wants what you want, or is even aware of the options you're aware of and comfortable trying them out. Most consumers don't actively seek out and trials lots of different ways to get TV. (It appears to be a hobby for you. Nothing wrong with that, but that's not at all typical.) Most consumers have no idea what YouTube TV is. Folks are far, far more likely to get TV service from a company that they already have an existing relationship with or one that they expect to offer cable TV (e.g. a local broadband provider). That's a benefit that AT&T has that YTTV does not.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> It doesn't really matter who AT&T TV thinks it's competitors are, or who they want their competitors to be, the only thing that is going to matter is who the consumer will compare the AT&T TV offering to.


You seem to assume that all consumers have full knowledge of all the available options, how they work, how they stack up. They do not. Marketing and advertising, as well as existing customer relationships, play a huge role.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> We'll see how it does. You seem incapable of understanding that different consumers have different preferences and not everyone wants what you want, or is even aware of the options you're aware of and comfortable trying them out. Most consumers don't actively seek out and trials lots of different ways to get TV. (It appears to be a hobby for you. Nothing wrong with that, but that's not at all typical.) Most consumers have no idea what YouTube TV is. Folks are far, far more likely to get TV service from a company that they already have an existing relationship with or one that they expect to offer cable TV (e.g. a local broadband provider). That's a benefit that AT&T has that YTTV does not.


Yes, we will see how it does. I figure it is a flop from nearly day one of release. There is no compelling reason at all to switch from cable/sat to ATT's upcoming streaming. Doesn't save hardly any money, doesn't have as many channels but still has a fat channel count, still requires a contract with ETFs. And of course, the icing on the cake, you get less for about the same price, but you get to keep that uh, wonderful ATT support that everyone just loves.

But you are right, lots of people either don't know about the choices and aren't geeky enough with lots of time on their hands to try out various models as I have.  So for them, they'll either find out and make an informed switch, or they won't and just stay with what they have. And some small portion might just be conned into taking ATT's streaming solution. But I think going forward that many more WILL find out from family and friends about all those other options.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> You seem to assume that all consumers have full knowledge of all the available options, how they work, how they stack up. They do not. Marketing and advertising, as well as existing customer relationships, play a huge role.


So your argument is that AT&T will be able to bamboozle the uninformed with slick marketing and advertising...unfortunately you are probably right...


----------



## dminches (Oct 1, 2006)

MrMars said:


> I really don't understand why anyone would purchase this unless they cannot get DirecTV for some reason. Price is the same with major flaws, DirecTV is a inferior product for sure.


I can't tell what you are saying. If DirecTV is an inferior product then why wouldn't people pick AT&T TV instead?


----------



## DaRef (Jan 10, 2018)

mjwagner said:


> So your argument is that AT&T will be able to bamboozle the uninformed with slick marketing and advertising...unfortunately you are probably right...


The fatal flaw in AT&T TV is not the box or the available channels or even AT&T's legendary (horrible) customer service. It's the 2 year contract with only a one year price guarantee! Many, if not most, of the customers they are shedding are those whose price guarantees expired and the full rate is not competitive. I don't have a problem in theory with a two year contract IF the price is guaranteed through the life of the contract. This two year contract with one year special pricing is what will kill them. It's old school thinking and cannot effectively compete with month to month streaming providers like YTTV and Hulu Live. Yes, streaming prices my increase each year but that is a result of the demands of the content providers who get more and more greedy with each passing year. But at least with the streaming providers you know what the price is and when it becomes more than you care to pay you can cancel without penalty and move on. Even Spectrum plays the game. They don't have contracts but when the special pricing expires after a year the churn begins anew. I played the provider switching game for years and have made the leap to Hulu+Live. It's not perfect but I really don't have serious complaints especially given Hulu's ginormous streaming library. And if (when?) Hulu's price becomes unpalatable I will switch from one service to another with just a few mouse clicks. No messing with calls to Retention/Loyalty, no more contracts, no more hassle. It's actually quite liberating, provided of course that you have an adequate internet connection (which will keep cable/satellite in the game far longer than some might think).


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> You seem to think that a streaming version of cable/sat's fat channel count and high prices, with a contract that has ETF is going to be successful? Couple that with a proprietary box, the poor customer service that ATT is nearly famous for, and you have a method to fail IMO.
> 
> In what sane world does that make sense? ATT is shedding customers by droves and it isn't because what they are doing is what people seem to want. And it darned sure isn't just 'low value' customers.
> 
> ...


I always felt that the goal with AT&T TV was to eventually replace their SAT offering with this offering because it's cheaper to maintain and roll out. This won't appeal to the folks who moved to YTTV (that's what AT&T Now is for), this will appeal to those who want to sign up for cable or sat. So that's why this offering is similar to their SAT package in more ways than it's similar to YTTV or AT&T now. It's going to be their premium offering. What's dismaying to me is the limitation such as number of streams at 3. I guess that's OK for most people but doesn't work for me.

I think AT&T would like to get out of the SAT business and move to OTT, simply for the cost savings. I don't think they plan to move current SAT users, but rather than push those with premium needs to SAT they will push them here.

So I don't think this is something you should be comparing to YTTV, which is less premium. Now, I think the CONSUMER is going to see it as the same and that's bad for AT&T's plans.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Other than ATT’s statements claiming it is a premium service, there is nothing there that makes it so. Higher priced, missing channels compared to somewhat equivalent channels on their sat service, a contract with ETF. So what do you think makes it a premium service compared to YTTV?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> Other than ATT's statements claiming it is a premium service, there is nothing there that makes it so. Higher priced, missing channels compared to somewhat equivalent channels on their sat service, a contract with ETF. So what do you think makes it a premium service compared to YTTV?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


I didn't say it's all "there" yet. Eventually they will have around the same offering as SAT. But from the CEO's comments when they first talked about this, that was his goal. You could tell. He talked about how there's no truck roll involved, how the hardware is do it yourself and so forth. There was no mention of this product competing with YTTV. Isn't there many more channels with ATT&T TV (not the NOW service) than with YTTV?

I'm also not saying it's a good idea, or that it's even much better than YTTV though, and like you the perception of the consumer will be to compare it to YTTV rather than, say DISH or cable. And that's where AT&T is going to have issues.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> I didn't say it's all "there" yet. Eventually they will have around the same offering as SAT. But from the CEO's comments when they first talked about this, that was his goal. You could tell. He talked about how there's no truck roll involved, how the hardware is do it yourself and so forth. There was no mention of this product competing with YTTV. Isn't there many more channels with ATT&T TV (not the NOW service) than with YTTV?
> 
> I'm also not saying it's a good idea, or that it's even much better than YTTV though, and like you the perception of the consumer will be to compare it to YTTV rather than, say DISH or cable. And that's where AT&T is going to have issues.


I know that ATT leadership has put out statements about what it will be and all that, but IMO, that's more marketspeak than anything else. All of that is to make it appear to be better than it really looks like it will be. The things about truck rolls and all is good, but the pricing guesses we've seen so far don't really seem to reflect that, that seems to be the money they will save and keep. As to channel counts, well I suppose they could have more channels in the product, but will they be channels most care about that YTTV and others don't have?

Personally the only product that ATT is talking about that might be of interest is HBO Max depending on exactly what is include in that package.

IMO, all of this from ATT is trying to salvage the wreck of a bad deal they made when they bought DirecTV.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> Isn't there many more channels with ATT&T TV (not the NOW service) than with YTTV?
> .


Not really. depends on what you need maybe? YTTV is better overall in so many aspects.

*Monthly Price: YouTube TV vs. AT&T TV Now*

YouTube TV

$50/month for 70+ channels
AT&T TV Now

AT&T TV Now Plus: $65/month for 45+ channels
AT&T TV Now Max: $80/month for 60+ channels
*Cloud DVR: YouTube TV vs. AT&T TV Now*

YouTube TV 

Unlimited cloud DVR storage
Recordings kept for 9 months
AT&T TV Now

500 hours of cloud DVR storage
Recordings kept for 90 days

*Supported Devices: YouTube TV vs. AT&T TV Now*

YouTube TV

Google Chromecast
Roku
Apple TV
Amazon Fire TV
Xbox One, Xbox One S and Xbox One X
Select smart TVs
AT&T TV Now

Google Chromecast
Apple TV
Amazon Fire TV
Select Samsung Smart TVs


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

He’s not talking about the ATT TV Now product, but the forthcoming ATT TV product that will have channel lineups similar to DirecTV lineups.

For that the customer gets a 2 year contract, reduced subscription fee the first year, an activation fee, RSN fees for some packages and an ETF.

It should be noted that the starting price is $59.95 for the lowest package which is higher than YTTV in the first year by about $10. But that same package rises to $83(?) in the second year which is $33 higher than YTTV. All this is what we know now since the service hasn’t actually launched yet.

IMO, the only thing ‘Premium’ about the upcoming service is the premium price it supposedly will come in at.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Looked up Xtra in my Zip code. After 1 year prices goes to $135/mo.
YTTV and Philo give me about the same except for all the Fox Sports outside of my market for $70.
If I did YTTV and Fubo I would get much sports, slightly different and pay $100 a month. 

Basically all the same main channels and I lose some Fox Sports for less than half price. Buy I dot get AT&Ts Google box that will spy on me, 2 yr contract and horrendous AT&T service.

Yes, most folks only know cable, sat and uverse. But MORE and MORE people are catkin on to streaming or saying screw it and go OTA. I see more house with OTA now and it looks like the 70's!
Add Netflix and Prime and you good, unless your a Sports geek. Then get Fubo or go to a sports bar. Hell watch at a friends house who is over paying for that right.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

For me ATT might have one product I’d be interested in and that’s the upcoming HBO Max. It all depends on how it is structured and also how Comcast’s Peacock service will be structured.

Currently using a combo of Sling Blue/Hulu/CBS All Access for about $56/month and have all the shows I’m interested in and a few sports channels. Wouldn’t fit a sports fan but I’m not one, so that’s fine. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> I know that ATT leadership has put out statements about what it will be and all that, but IMO, that's more marketspeak than anything else. All of that is to make it appear to be better than it really looks like it will be. The things about truck rolls and all is good, but the pricing guesses we've seen so far don't really seem to reflect that, that seems to be the money they will save and keep. As to channel counts, well I suppose they could have more channels in the product, but will they be channels most care about that YTTV and others don't have?
> 
> Personally the only product that ATT is talking about that might be of interest is HBO Max depending on exactly what is include in that package.
> 
> ...


Channels that people don't care about......that's highly subjective. What you care about and what I care about are probably different. So who's to say who has the better channels? Again, I really think their goal is to ditch SAT and get the premium TV watcher over to OTT. Will it work? I think if they did it two years ago, maybe, but the fact that when people hear "streaming" or "TV over the internet" they think it's different that SAT and it should cost less. That's where they screwed up. Not to mention, their product brand naming is confusing. I would have called it DirecTV via the Internet or something and sell it as such. DirecTV has brand recognition and integrity. And I'd also forego contracts which is outdated. Even cable doesn't have them.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

gio12 said:


> Not really. depends on what you need maybe? YTTV is better overall in so many aspects.
> 
> *Monthly Price: YouTube TV vs. AT&T TV Now*
> 
> ...


Again, there's no channel list here. I'd bet there are at least 20 or more channels that YTTV doesn't carry. It's considered a "premium" service. And we have no idea if it's "better" yet, until we try it. Honestly, coming from the DirecTV experience, when I tried YTTV I absolutely hated the interface. It was hard to navigate, hard to scroll through. YMMV though, and everyone watched TV different. From what it sounds like, the AT&T TV interfaces feels much more like traditional TV.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

gio12 said:


> Looked up Xtra in my Zip code. After 1 year prices goes to $135/mo.
> YTTV and Philo give me about the same except for all the Fox Sports outside of my market for $70.
> If I did YTTV and Fubo I would get much sports, slightly different and pay $100 a month.
> 
> ...


Uh yeah, I know you have a Dolphins logo as your Avatar, but how does going to a friends house or a bar make any sense here. I'm a sports fan and watch at least 5 games a week. I'm going to go to a friend's house every time? And if I want to a bar, drinks alone would make it more expensive than having DirecTV or cable.

Sometimes you streaming folks just sound like cults. Our way is better!! No other way could work. You don't watch TV like I do, it doesn't work for me.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> So your argument is that AT&T will be able to bamboozle the uninformed with slick marketing and advertising...unfortunately you are probably right...


Well, partially. But just because someone likes something different than you and opts for that doesn't mean that they are dumb. There absolutely will be consumers who find that AT&T TV is the best deal for them given their set of preferences (which are different than yours).

Take, for instance, my parents. They have zero desire to watch all their TV via something like a Roku or Apple TV. Not gonna do it. They're used to a remote with dedicated buttons for channel up/down, 0-9, channel guide, DVR, mute, etc. And given the combination of channels that they watch, they'll need a full-scale cable TV service with a capacious DVR. They want to pay as little as they can to get what they want but there are certain things that they're just not willing to give up to get it. If their cable box also offered the ability to watch popular apps like Netflix and YouTube on it rather than having to switch inputs and remotes (which my Dad can never figure out), that would be a bonus. If it had a remote with voice search, that would be a bonus.

AT&T Fiber plus AT&T TV looks like it could very well be the sweet spot for them. Total cost they would pay (based on current prices in the pilot cities) would be appreciably less than they pay now for DISH plus standalone Comcast broadband. It might be similar to the amount that they'd pay for a combo of Comcast broadband and TV but if they went that route, they'd be missing at least one of the channels they watch a lot, plus the DVR capacity would be only 60 hours versus AT&T TV's 500 hours.

Are there going to be people who call themselves "cord-cutters" flocking to AT&T TV? No. But that's not who this service is targeting.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> Channels that people don't care about......that's highly subjective. What you care about and what I care about are probably different. So who's to say who has the better channels? Again, I really think their goal is to ditch SAT and get the premium TV watcher over to OTT. Will it work? I think if they did it two years ago, maybe, but the fact that when people hear "streaming" or "TV over the internet" they think it's different that SAT and it should cost less. That's where they screwed up. Not to mention, their product brand naming is confusing. I would have called it DirecTV via the Internet or something and sell it as such. DirecTV has brand recognition and integrity. And I'd also forego contracts which is outdated. Even cable doesn't have them.


I disagree. The DirecTV brand is totally associated with a rooftop dish. Rather than try to educate the public out of that notion, it's better to just launch a whole new brand.

As far as AT&T TV being marketed as "streaming" or "TV over the internet," they're NOT doing that. Go to their site and carefully read the marketing copy. Look at the videos they posted.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> Again, there's no channel list here. I'd bet there are at least 20 or more channels that YTTV doesn't carry. It's considered a "premium" service. And we have no idea if it's "better" yet, until we try it. Honestly, coming from the DirecTV experience, when I tried YTTV I absolutely hated the interface. It was hard to navigate, hard to scroll through. YMMV though, and everyone watched TV different. From what it sounds like, the AT&T TV interfaces feels much more like traditional TV.


nope, look it up. similar


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> Again, there's no channel list here. I'd bet there are at least 20 or more channels that YTTV doesn't carry. It's considered a "premium" service. And we have no idea if it's "better" yet, until we try it. Honestly, coming from the DirecTV experience, when I tried YTTV I absolutely hated the interface. It was hard to navigate, hard to scroll through. YMMV though, and everyone watched TV different. From what it sounds like, the AT&T TV interfaces feels much more like traditional TV.


It absolutely is more like traditional TV. All of the reviews I have seen so far -- which, admittedly, only amount to a few -- of actual AT&T TV users have been positive. Most of these folks switched to it from Uverse TV.

For those asking how AT&T TV is a "premium" cable TV service, it comes down to offering a broad range of channels, lots of DVR storage, lots of on-demand content, and a dedicated box and voice remote customized for use with their service, but which also provides easy access to third-party streaming apps.

For those criticizing AT&T TV because it's missing this or that niche sports channel or because it's missing this or that local channel or because it doesn't yet offer 4K content, I say: wait. All of that is coming. It hasn't even had its nationwide launch yet. Time and time again, AT&T leaders have said how AT&T TV will be on par with DirecTV and Uverse TV, how it will be their new flagship service. The only things we may not see on AT&T TV are NFL Sunday Ticket and maybe NFL Network (but then neither of those are on Uverse TV either). My guess is that NFL Network returns to all of AT&T's platforms in 2021 after the situation with NFL ST is resolved one way or another.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> For those asking how AT&T TV is a "premium" cable TV service, it comes down to offering a broad range of channels, lots of DVR storage, lots of on-demand content, and a dedicated box and voice remote customized for use with their service, but which also provides easy access to third-party streaming apps.


Well, at least you seem convinced! 

But for all of that, "Premium" service certainly isn't fat channel counts, higher prices, contract with ETF, 'activation fee' and so forth. That describes cable/sat and those are losing subscribers by the drove. I don't think ATT or you are paying attention to where the market is going, or at least not doing it very well.

ATT's sole reason for doing it the way they are is to try to save them money, and unfortunately for awhile some people will be sucked into it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> Uh yeah, I know you have a Dolphins logo as your Avatar, but how does going to a friends house or a bar make any sense here. I'm a sports fan and watch at least 5 games a week. I'm going to go to a friend's house every time? And if I want to a bar, drinks alone would make it more expensive than having DirecTV or cable.
> 
> Sometimes you streaming folks just sound like cults. Our way is better!! No other way could work. You don't watch TV like I do, it doesn't work for me.


Its was a JOKE. Yes for a hardcore sports fan, hard to beat DIRECTV. But MOST sports fans, YTTV and FUBO will have maybe 80-90% covered. Those 10-20% will have to pay more and most dont mind.
Yes, HUGE local sports fan, Big sports fan overall. So far I am good on games from what I watch. NFL, NBA, some NHL and MLB.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

gio12 said:


> Its was a JOKE. Yes for a hardcore sports fan, hard to beat DIRECTV. But MOST sports fans, YTTV and FUBO will have maybe 80-90% covered. Those 10-20% will have to pay more and most dont mind.
> Yes, HUGE local sports fan, Big sports fan overall. So far I am good on games from what I watch. NFL, NBA, some NHL and MLB.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


For me, it is mostly scripted shows with a very small smattering of football, boxing or golf. So there are lots of ways to skin the streaming cat. Sports is still a weakness for some sports, but that will change over time too.

As to 'my parents', I understand. My mom was that way, she stayed on cable because she knew how to use it, it had what she wanted to watch and she isn't very techie.

I'm 76 and am a bit of a geek, so diddling with this stuff is just more of the same things I've done for a long time. And my kids, all 50+, don't care a whit about linear TV.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> Well, at least you seem convinced!
> 
> But for all of that, "Premium" service certainly isn't fat channel counts, higher prices, contract with ETF, 'activation fee' and so forth. That describes cable/sat and those are losing subscribers by the drove. I don't think ATT or you are paying attention to where the market is going, or at least not doing it very well.


I understand that maybe you don't have a professional background in marketing communications but, uh, "premium" absolutely connotes a higher-quality, fuller-featured product that comes at a higher cost. What, to your mind, would a "premium" live cable channel TV service look like? (And if your answer is that it has a lower cost in exchange for certain compromises, then you absolutely do not understand the meaning of the word "premium".)

For those who have moved on from the cable channel bundle (including myself), AT&T's targeted product will be HBO Max, not AT&T TV.


----------



## larry55 (Jun 3, 2010)

I will not


DaRef said:


> The fatal flaw in AT&T TV is not the box or the available channels or even AT&T's legendary (horrible) customer service. It's the 2 year contract with only a one year price guarantee! Many, if not most, of the customers they are shedding are those whose price guarantees expired and the full rate is not competitive. I don't have a problem in theory with a two year contract IF the price is guaranteed through the life of the contract. This two year contract with one year special pricing is what will kill them. It's old school thinking and cannot effectively compete with month to month streaming providers like YTTV and Hulu Live. Yes, streaming prices my increase each year but that is a result of the demands of the content providers who get more and more greedy with each passing year. But at least with the streaming providers you know what the price is and when it becomes more than you care to pay you can cancel without penalty and move on. Even Spectrum plays the game. They don't have contracts but when the special pricing expires after a year the churn begins anew. I played the provider switching game for years and have made the leap to Hulu+Live. It's not perfect but I really don't have serious complaints especially given Hulu's ginormous streaming library. And if (when?) Hulu's price becomes unpalatable I will switch from one service to another with just a few mouse clicks. No messing with calls to Retention/Loyalty, no more contracts, no more hassle. It's actually quite liberating, provided of course that you have an adequate internet connection (which will keep cable/satellite in the game far longer than some might think).


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> I understand that maybe you don't have a professional background in marketing communications but, uh, "premium" absolutely connotes a higher-quality, fuller-featured product that comes at a higher cost. What, to your mind, would a "premium" live cable channel TV service look like? (And if your answer is that it has a lower cost in exchange for certain compromises, then you absolutely do not understand the meaning of the word "premium".)
> 
> For those who have moved on from the cable channel bundle (including myself), AT&T's targeted product will be HBO Max, not AT&T TV.


Nope, no professional background in marketing. I worked for small companies and it was all face to face sales.

As to what would be premium, well more sports is really what sets ATT's satellite service off against Dish. And that should be where ATT's service should also shine.

But the negatives are bigger than the positives IMO. Like contracts, etf, activation fee, additional fees and so forth. That's just the same old crap that is a big part of the dying cable/sat market space now.

I'm hoping HBO Max turns out the way I want it to, we'll know in a bit. Going to be interesting to see if ATT can really stop the shedding of subscribers across the board.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## larry55 (Jun 3, 2010)

I will not sign up for this service. I stay with satellite service from directv. If I cut the cord I sigh up Hulu or You Tube tv.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I always felt that the goal with AT&T TV was to eventually replace their SAT offering with this offering because it's cheaper to maintain and roll out.


I consider that based on false assumptions. The satellite system is paid for, no additional cost per customer. It costs the same whether there are a million subscribers or 20 million. AT&T's cheapest customers to serve are existing satellite customers. No additional server or bandwidth costs per month per subscriber using the service.

The difference people usually quote is the installation cost. It is cheaper to ship a box that the customer installs and pays for than to install satellite receiver equipment in a customer's home. But that comparison completely ignores the cost of providing the service for the next two years. Yes, month one is expensive but months two through cancellation don't cost AT&T more than they would already be paying for their other customers.

The variable that applies to both services is the subscription fees that AT&T passes through to the content providers (channels). The only money AT&T saves with AT&T TV is not paying the providers who do not allow their content to be streamed via AT&T TV. Meanwhile every customer who uses the AT&T streaming service costs AT&T more than if they were not watching content. 10 million streams costs AT&T more than 1 million streams. That per user cost should not be ignored.



NashGuy said:


> Are there going to be people who call themselves "cord-cutters" flocking to AT&T TV? No. But that's not who this service is targeting.


"DIRECTV without the dish." Unfortunately the price will match but the service won't. The user experience will be a good match between AT&T TV and a "traditional MVPD".

They are targeting people who don't want to piece together multiple services or settle for less than traditional MVPDs offer. A dwindling market as people do become "cord cutters".


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I understand that maybe you don't have a professional background in marketing communications but, uh, "premium" absolutely connotes a higher-quality, fuller-featured product that comes at a higher cost.


Premium needs to be a statement based on the quality of service, not the cost. Otherwise you're selling "Monster Cable" that perform just as well as Monoprice with the only difference being an extra zero before the decimal point (and customers who convince themselves that the extra zero makes the cable better).

(And yes, my resume allows me to speak intellegently about marketing topics. But I also have college credit in bowling and golf and do not consider that to make me an expert in those sports.)


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Premium needs to be a statement based on the quality of service, not the cost. Otherwise you're selling "Monster Cable" that perform just as well as Monoprice with the only difference being an extra zero before the decimal point (and customers who convince themselves that the extra zero makes the cable better).


No company advertises a high price as something that makes their product "premium". Yes, of course "premium" is conveyed in terms of the quality of the product. But consumers aren't stupid. They understand that premium products tend to cost more. That's just the way it works. You're not going to buy an Audi for the price of a Kia. You're not going to buy a full-scale "premium" cable TV service like DirecTV, or AT&T TV, with a full set of channels, included hardware, lots of DVR storage, etc., for the price of Sling, which offers none of those things.

It seemed to me that the poster to whom I was responding thought that contracts, ETFs, high prices, etc. makes a TV service non-premium. But those are all costs associated with the service and have nothing to do with the quality of the service itself.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> "DIRECTV without the dish." Unfortunately the price will match but the service won't. The user experience will be a good match between AT&T TV and a "traditional MVPD".


In what ways do you predict that AT&T TV's service will be sub-par to DirecTV? (I expect you to list things that may be true of AT&T TV right now, in its pilot iteration, but that probably won't be true long-term.)


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

gio12 said:


> Its was a JOKE. Yes for a hardcore sports fan, hard to beat DIRECTV. But MOST sports fans, YTTV and FUBO will have maybe 80-90% covered. Those 10-20% will have to pay more and most dont mind.
> Yes, HUGE local sports fan, Big sports fan overall. So far I am good on games from what I watch. NFL, NBA, some NHL and MLB.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The problem with Fubo, is while it's great for sports fans, for other stuff, it's terrible. And that's always been my problem with "cord cutting" (which is why I say it doesn't work for me). There's always something somewhere I want to watch that is not on one system or another. So it would mean bringing in 2-3 of these OTT services, along with the other stuff I normally watch. All have some major limitation on their DVRs that makes that not as good. So, when there's an OTT or streaming service that gives me what DirecTV gives me and and costs less, I'm in. AT&T TV seems promising, but again, limitations. No CW in my area is one, but the 3 stream limit is the biggest. That doesn't work in my particular situation. So I've yet to find any compelling reason to switch from what I have now, be it YTTV type OTT, or even this new system.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> No company advertises a high price as something that makes their product "premium". Yes, of course "premium" is conveyed in terms of the quality of the product. But consumers aren't stupid. They understand that premium products tend to cost more. That's just the way it works. You're not going to buy an Audi for the price of a Kia. You're not going to buy a full-scale "premium" cable TV service like DirecTV, or AT&T TV, with a full set of channels, included hardware, lots of DVR storage, etc., for the price of Sling, which offers none of those things.
> 
> It seemed to me that the poster to whom I was responding thought that contracts, ETFs, high prices, etc. makes a TV service non-premium. But those are all costs associated with the service and have nothing to do with the quality of the service itself.


Nice marketspeak! Do you write that crapola you're trying to pass off for them?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> The problem with Fubo, is while it's great for sports fans, for other stuff, it's terrible. And that's always been my problem with "cord cutting" (which is why I say it doesn't work for me). There's always something somewhere I want to watch that is not on one system or another. So it would mean bringing in 2-3 of these OTT services, along with the other stuff I normally watch. All have some major limitation on their DVRs that makes that not as good. So, when there's an OTT or streaming service that gives me what DirecTV gives me and and costs less, I'm in. AT&T TV seems promising, but again, limitations. No CW in my area is one, but the 3 stream limit is the biggest. That doesn't work in my particular situation. So I've yet to find any compelling reason to switch from what I have now, be it YTTV type OTT, or even this new system.


Then you wouldn't be a candidate for streaming now, and there is nothing wrong with that IMO. It is the old cost vs convenience argument and it is a fair one. How much is the convenience of getting all the content you want in a single solution. There's a lot to like about a cable/sat box and the grid guide we all grew up with. But only you can decide how much that is worth in actual dollars to you.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> The problem with Fubo, is while it's great for sports fans, for other stuff, it's terrible.


Fubo is not even great for most sports fans given that it lacks all of the Disney-owned channels. No ESPN, ESPN 2, SEC Network, ACC Network, etc. Also, no ABC either. Nor do they carry all those Sinclair-owned Fox Sports RSNs (although they do have the NBC Sports RSNs and a few others).

Fubo originally started out, I think, pitching themselves toward soccer fans. So if that's your bag, maybe it's great. But for the vast majority of fans of the NFL, college football, MLB, NBA or NHL, I don't think it would suffice.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> Nice marketspeak! Do you write that crapola you're trying to pass off for them?


That's a great point and an excellent rejoinder.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> No company advertises a high price as something that makes their product "premium".


Is that an absolute statement? I have found that most absolute statements are absolutely wrong. "No company." Is it your claim that no company ever has or currently is using their price point to convey their service as premium? Perhaps your professional experience in marketing is lacking. The psychology of marketing is important to consider.

It is a classic example to take two identical widgets, put one in more expensive looking packaging and set a much higher price for that widget. Use psychology to convince people your $20 widget is better than the $10 widget without telling them that they are out of the same production batch. Then raise the price of the cheaply packaged widget to $15 and convince people they are getting a $20 widget at a bargain price. To be impolite, marketing is a con job - marketers are paid to convince people of a truth that may or may not be true.

Set a price point of $10 for your widget any you may not get a lot of sales. People WILL look at the price tag and say the product looks cheap. Set a price tag of $20 or $30 and people will take a closer look - and if they say "wow, that is expensive" give them a discount. Buy now and we'll give you two $30 widgets for the price of one! Congratulations marketer, you just sold two $10 widgets for $15 each!

Are you willing to say that has NEVER happened and no company has ever made their product look like a more premium product by raising the price? (They may not admit that they are using such tricks, but be sure that companies do use higher prices to convince people their product is "premium".)



NashGuy said:


> In what ways do you predict that AT&T TV's service will be sub-par to DirecTV?


Available channels, lack of discounts, lack of simultaneous streams, DVR storage limits. I'm sure you can come up with a list of differences between AT&T TV's current offer and DIRECTV's current offer.

What sort of magic do you expect to happen when AT&T TV goes nationwide? Will all the channels available in the satellite service Premier be available via AT&T TV streaming? Will DVR service be unlimited (or at least non-expiring with roughly the same hours as a HS17). Will the number of streams be increased to at least the number one can watch via an HS17 (ignoring satellite customers who have many more simultaneous streams by using HR series receivers)? Or will we be seeing a demonstration of cognative dissonance? "Sure there are differences, but those differences don't matter."

Prediction: AT&T TV will not be a replacement for every satellite customer. It will not be an equal service.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Are you willing to say that has NEVER happened and no company has ever made their product look like a more premium product by raising the price? (They may not admit that they are using such tricks, but be sure that companies do use higher prices to convince people their product is "premium".)


I'll give you guys the simplest example ever of a company that does this: Monster Cable. Granted, it probably DOES cost $1000 to build 3 feet of a cross polymorphic, diamond plated, quadruple shielded cable with a poly cross blend carbon fiber jacket made from the silk fibers of a black widow fed with a diet rich in omega 3s.

My other favorite example, is many years ago (2007ish?) when Lexicon took an Oppo BluRay (or was it a DVD player?) player and put it CHASIS AND ALL inside of a Lexicon chasis and marked it up from like $500 to $2500. I.e. they took an Oppo and just stuck it inside of their chasis, they didn't even bother to remove the boards from the Oppo chasis.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> My other favorite example, is many years ago (2007ish?) when Lexicon took an Oppo BluRay (or was it a DVD player?) player and put it CHASIS AND ALL inside of a Lexicon chasis and marked it up from like $500 to $2500. I.e. they took an Oppo and just stuck it inside of their chasis, they didn't even bother to remove the boards from the Oppo chasis.


From 2010: Blu-ray Maker Re-Boxes $500 Player, Charges $3,500


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Are there going to be people who call themselves "cord-cutters" flocking to AT&T TV? No. But that's not who this service is targeting.


I thought I'd key in on this statement since it really is a very important one concerning ATT TV.

You are absolutely correct in this. ATT doesn't want people cutting the cord, they want them to switch to their IPTV solution in order to save ATT a bunch of money! Virtually none of that savings will be passed onto the customer. While not every ATT TV customer that is now on their satellite service or cable service would make the switch, they are definitely hoping that a significant majority of them will.

So they make the switch easier for them. Send them a box to use it, somewhat similar channel selections and so forth. Hoping of course, that the consumer doesn't notice the contract, activation fee, various other fees and ETF that are part and parcel of this cable/sat service that is almost exactly like the current cable/sat service they have now, just delivered a bit differently. IOW, not really any benefit at all to the consumer, all benefit goes to ATT's bottom line.

For those on ATT's internet service, there might be a good case to be made for changing over. For those that don't have access to that, I don't think any case at all can be made. That consumer will might have to change their internet subscription level, either to get more speed or get around data caps.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Remember all there are large parts of the US who don't have high speed internet service and for them Directv is one of the only real solutions. I had UVERSE for a while and I'd get rid of it for anything almost.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Is that an absolute statement? I have found that most absolute statements are absolutely wrong. "No company." Is it your claim that no company ever has or currently is using their price point to convey their service as premium? Perhaps your professional experience in marketing is lacking. The psychology of marketing is important to consider.
> 
> It is a classic example to take two identical widgets, put one in more expensive looking packaging and set a much higher price for that widget. Use psychology to convince people your $20 widget is better than the $10 widget without telling them that they are out of the same production batch. Then raise the price of the cheaply packaged widget to $15 and convince people they are getting a $20 widget at a bargain price. To be impolite, marketing is a con job - marketers are paid to convince people of a truth that may or may not be true.
> 
> ...


James Long, king of worthless straw-man arguments. Sure, higher prices IMPLY to many consumers that a given product is premium, a conclusion that anyone who read my post in good faith would clearly draw. As I said, consumers understand that you're not going to get an Audi-quality car at Kia-level pricing. But that's not the same thing as a company EXPLICITLY saying "Our product is better only because it carries a higher price tag." No one does that. If there's no actual difference in the QUALITY of the product versus low-priced competitors, then it's not a premium product. It's simply a rip-off. For a product to be perceived as premium in the marketplace, it has to offer greater perceived benefits to potential buyers than do competing lower-priced alternatives. And those benefits will be communicated in the product's advertising.



James Long said:


> Available channels, lack of discounts, lack of simultaneous streams, DVR storage limits. I'm sure you can come up with a list of differences between AT&T TV's current offer and DIRECTV's current offer.
> 
> What sort of magic do you expect to happen when AT&T TV goes nationwide? Will all the channels available in the satellite service Premier be available via AT&T TV streaming? Will DVR service be unlimited (or at least non-expiring with roughly the same hours as a HS17). Will the number of streams be increased to at least the number one can watch via an HS17 (ignoring satellite customers who have many more simultaneous streams by using HR series receivers)? Or will we be seeing a demonstration of cognative dissonance? "Sure there are differences, but those differences don't matter."
> 
> Prediction: AT&T TV will not be a replacement for every satellite customer. It will not be an equal service.


Don't know whether or not cloud DVR storage will switch from the current 90-day retention limit or not. I'd hope so but I don't necessarily expect it. But with 500 hours of storage, AT&T TV's cloud DVR can already store more than the 400 hours of HD that the HS17 can. And while the HS17 can record up to 7 programs at once, AT&T TV's cloud DVR can record an unlimited number of programs at the same time. (I'd also point out that lots -- a majority? -- of DirecTV users do not have an HS17 but use Genie models with lower storage amounts and fewer tuners.) So that's sort of a draw.

As for channels, yes, I expect that all of the national cable channels carried on DirecTV will be on AT&T TV, with the exception of NFL Network. (Actually, they maybe already are.) AT&T TV will still be missing some locals in various markets when it launches nationwide, particularly PBS stations, but they'll continue to fill those holes this year.

As for simultaneous streams, yes, I expect that the limit for in-home viewing will be raised above three (as is/was the case for both Hulu Live and PS Vue), although that may incur additional fees. I also expect AT&T TV will carry all the same live 4K and 4K HDR sports that DirecTV does. Whether those improvements happen right at the nationwide launch or later this year, there's no point in guessing.

And then there are features that AT&T TV has that DirecTV never will, such as the ability to access the entire service out of home over any internet connection, the presence of popular streaming apps and Google Assistant on the main TV receiver, and the option of accessing the service on your Apple TV or Fire TV at home. Also, the VOD library and functionality on AT&T TV is far superior to DirecTV.

I never claimed that AT&T TV would be an *exact* replacement for DirecTV. Or, for that matter, an *exact* replacement for Uverse TV. So if that's what you mean when you say that AT&T TV won't be "equal" to DirecTV, then I agree. What I said is that AT&T TV will be marketed as the company's premium flagship cable TV service, _on par_ with both of those legacy services. (_If you've read repeated statements from AT&T leaders on their quarterly earnings call, this isn't even a controversial statement. I'm just repeating what they've said._) It won't be marketed as a compromised, cut-rate service for cord-cutters. That doesn't mean that some DirecTV or Uverse TV customers won't find some aspect of their current service that they prefer over AT&T TV, just as there are DirecTV customers who prefer it over Uverse TV and vice versa. But all three services are full-fledged cable TV services that offer a full range of channels, lots of DVR storage, the ability to always FF through ads in your DVR recordings, and a dedicated box and remote that are custom-designed for use with the service. Relative to offerings like Hulu Live, YouTube TV, AT&T TV Now, and Sling, all three are "premium" TV services (which is why AT&T officially categorizes them as such in their quarterly reports now).

I would agree that not every DirecTV customer will switch to AT&T TV. (I've never said they would.) Many DTV customers, if/when they become aware of AT&T TV, won't see enough features they specifically care about to bother switching (although some will). Lots of folks stay with their current TV provider out of force of habit and because it's a hassle to switch.

As for specific benefits that DirecTV has that are in lacking in AT&T TV, though, I expect that will dwindle over time as AT&T TV fills in missing locals, 4K, etc. Biggest longer-term reasons I can see to stick with DTV rather than AT&T TV will be because the former has NFL Network and NFL Sunday Ticket (for one more season anyway) while AT&T TV does not; because using AT&T TV may cause you to exceed your broadband data cap if you have one; and because you can retain recordings indefinitely on a DTV DVR but they expire after a certain amount of time on AT&T TV's cloud DVR.

It just seems like you refuse to believe that AT&T will do what they've repeatedly said they would, which is make AT&T TV their flagship national cable TV service, replacing DirecTV in that regard. It seems like you want to believe that they will intentionally handicap AT&T TV because you don't like that idea that your beloved DirecTV is getting replaced. But I can't think of any logical reason why that would be true.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> they want them to switch to their IPTV solution in order to save ATT a bunch of money!


I don't think IPTV is saving ATT a "bunch of money". In fact, it's well documented that IPTV costs WAY more to deliver then satellite. Satellite is the ideal medium for delivering TV. Remember, it cost DIRECTV only about $600M to launch a satellite that can serve the ENTIRE COUNTRY without a single care in the world regarding load. Compare that with Disney spending over $2B to stand up Disney+. Not sure what their capacity is, but it can't be the whole country for "only" $2B.
Another comparison, Netflix spent $1.5B on tech in 2018 ALONE. You could launch 2 satellites for that and still have change left over to take the fam out for ice cream like 15 MILLION times.

Every TV added to cable TV adds load to the infrastructure and costs the cable company. With IPTV its even worse. More bandwidth, lots of expensive servers and electricity and data centers, etc. also puts additional tremendous drain on the cable company for internet and the cable company doesn't get ANYTHING out of it.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> "Our product is better only because it carries a higher price tag." If there's no actual difference in the QUALITY of the product versus low-priced competitors, then it's not a premium product. It's simply a rip-off.


Plenty of people fall for that all the time. Is an iPhone better then an Android? Well, it used to be... I'd say today Apple has fallen way behind. They charge a premium because its an Apple. Countless other examples of no difference at all between product quality of Brand A vs. Brand B except price. This is a common practice. People think Brand B is the "cheap China knockoff" when in reality, Brand A just took that same exact Brand B product and just slapped their name on it.



NashGuy said:


> As for channels, yes, I expect that all of the national cable channels carried on DirecTV will be on AT&T TV, with the exception of NFL Network. (Actually, they maybe already are.) AT&T TV will still be missing some locals in various markets when it launches nationwide, particularly PBS stations, but they'll continue to fill those holes this year.


Ok, so AT&T TV is comparable to TVision. Not sure why anybody would go for AT&T in that case. AT&T is about $30 more per month and people generally hate AT&T and love TMobile.



NashGuy said:


> never will, such as the ability to access the entire service out of home over any internet connection


Any somewhat tech savvy person can just set up a VPN to workaround in home limitations on any service.



NashGuy said:


> I would agree that not every DirecTV customer will switch to AT&T TV. (I've never said they would.) Many DTV customers, if/when they become aware of AT&T TV, won't see enough features they specifically care about to bother switching (although some will). Lots of folks stay with their current TV provider out of force of habit and because it's a hassle to switch.


I sure wouldn't. More money, less channels, more hassle, ISP data caps.



NashGuy said:


> It just seems like you refuse to believe that AT&T will do what they've repeatedly said they would, which is make AT&T TV their flagship national cable TV service, replacing DirecTV in that regard. It seems like you want to believe that they will intentionally handicap AT&T TV because you don't like that idea that your beloved DirecTV is getting replaced. But I can't think of any logical reason why that would be true.


Just cuz AT&T thinks they are going to replace DirecTV, doesn't mean they will actually succeed. So far, all of T's ventures into streaming have been huge flops. If somebody wants as close to traditional as possible, TVision is a better deal. If you are a true cord cutter, you wouldn't use either service, but go with an OTT.

I fully expect the service to be a flop.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I’m not sure that it really will save ATT a bunch of money, but I think ATT does.
And it gets rid of truck rolls completely so you can get marginal ‘support’ from barely trained, barely understandable CSRs.
The other side of it is how does ATT scale back those channel bundles? One the one hand you can drop say a Viacom bundle but you can’t get a single Viacom channel then. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

SledgeHammer said:


> I don't think IPTV is saving ATT a "bunch of money". In fact, it's well documented that IPTV costs WAY more to deliver then satellite. Satellite is the ideal medium for delivering TV. Remember, it cost DIRECTV only about $600M to launch a satellite that can serve the ENTIRE COUNTRY without a single care in the world regarding load. Compare that with Disney spending over $2B to stand up Disney+. Not sure what their capacity is, but it can't be the whole country for "only" $2B.
> Another comparison, Netflix spent $1.5B on tech in 2018 ALONE. You could launch 2 satellites for that and still have change left over to take the fam out for ice cream like 15 MILLION times.
> 
> Every TV added to cable TV adds load to the infrastructure and costs the cable company. With IPTV its even worse. More bandwidth, lots of expensive servers and electricity and data centers, etc. *also puts additional tremendous drain on the cable company for internet and the cable company doesn't get ANYTHING out of it.*


I've wondered about that. Using me as an example, though I have plans to move from DTV to AT&T TV, my internet service is through Spectrum @ 200/10. Just did an ookla speed test and came up as 228.32/11.35. Plenty of speed for streaming and Spectrum doesn't have data caps. So if I would switch to AT&T TV and after a few months Spectrum can tell my increased usage and where that increased usage is coming from. I wonder if they may throttle or limit my service to AT&T servers. Or institute data caps. I certainly wouldn't be surprised as it was proven in the past some providers used to throttle Netflix users.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> James Long, king of worthless straw-man arguments. Sure, higher prices IMPLY to many consumers that a given product is premium, a conclusion that anyone who read my post in good faith would clearly draw. As I said, consumers understand that you're not going to get an Audi-quality car at Kia-level pricing. But that's not the same thing as a company EXPLICITLY saying "Our product is better only because it carries a higher price tag." No one does that. If there's no actual difference in the QUALITY of the product versus low-priced competitors, then it's not a premium product. It's simply a rip-off. For a product to be perceived as premium in the marketplace, it has to offer greater perceived benefits to potential buyers than do competing lower-priced alternatives. And those benefits will be communicated in the product's advertising.
> 
> Don't know whether or not cloud DVR storage will switch from the current 90-day retention limit or not. I'd hope so but I don't necessarily expect it. But with 500 hours of storage, AT&T TV's cloud DVR can already store more than the 400 hours of HD that the HS17 can. And while the HS17 can record up to 7 programs at once, AT&T TV's cloud DVR can record an unlimited number of programs at the same time. (I'd also point out that lots -- a majority? -- of DirecTV users do not have an HS17 but use Genie models with lower storage amounts and fewer tuners.) So that's sort of a draw.
> 
> ...


As usual. You expect a lot but don't expect a lot

And also consumers are complete idiots. A very very large portion believe and expect they are getting Audi quality in a Kia

also don't repeat statements by ATT executives. It makes you look just as uninformed and as out of touch to what they sell as they do


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> I've wondered about that. Using me as an example, though I have plans to move from DTV to AT&T TV, my internet service is through Spectrum @ 200/10. Just did an ookla speed test and came up as 228.32/11.35. Plenty of speed for streaming and Spectrum doesn't have data caps. So if I would switch to AT&T TV and after a few months Spectrum can tell my increased usage and where that increased usage is coming from. I wonder if they may throttle or limit my service to AT&T servers. Or institute data caps. I certainly wouldn't be surprised as it was proven in the past some providers used to throttle Netflix users.


ISPs weren't allowed to do "traffic shaping" under Net Neutrality, but Ajit Pai got rid of NN, so now its a free for all.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

@NashGuy I was in the TMobile store today to upgrade my phone and I checked out TVision. UI is pretty nice, but the sales guy saw me looking closely at the PQ and he told me that I should go check it out at another store if PQ is important. He said they are having trouble with their ISP (AT&T LMAO!!) so the PQ is like 60% to 70% what it should be. I'll definitely do that to see if he was blowing smoke. The PQ wasn't that great. But if their ISP was jacked up, fair enough.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> It just seems like you refuse to believe that AT&T will do what they've repeatedly said they would, which is make AT&T TV their flagship national cable TV service, replacing DirecTV in that regard. It seems like you want to believe that they will intentionally handicap AT&T TV because you don't like that idea that your beloved DirecTV is getting replaced. But I can't think of any logical reason why that would be true.


Please let me speak for myself instead of making completely erroneous statements attached to my name.

If AT&T TV becomes the flagship or not, it will be a different boat than the current flagship product, DIRECTV. If one sets DIRECTV as the "par", AT&T TV as discussed is below that level, or "sub-par". Even the company leaders stated as much last year.

We'll see what the actual released product will be when it goes nationwide. I don't expect wholesale changes that will make it considerably better than the current AT&T TV offering. People can read your posts to see what you expect.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

James Long said:


> Please let me speak for myself instead of making completely erroneous statements attached to my name.
> 
> If AT&T TV becomes the flagship or not, it will be a different boat than the current flagship product, DIRECTV. If one sets DIRECTV as the "par", AT&T TV as discussed is below that level, or "sub-par". Even the company leaders stated as much last year.
> 
> We'll see what the actual released product will be when it goes nationwide. I don't expect wholesale changes that will make it considerably better than the current AT&T TV offering. People can read your posts to see what you expect.


According to his posts I am expecting a lot more streams and channel adds within the next 1-180 months


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> If AT&T TV becomes the flagship or not, it will be a different boat than the current flagship product, DIRECTV. If one sets DIRECTV as the "par", AT&T TV as discussed is below that level, or "sub-par". Even the company leaders stated as much last year.


OK, you let me know when DirecTV gets unlimited tuners to avoid recording conflicts, 500 hours of HD recording space, access to thousands of apps on their receivers including Netflix and YouTube, instant access to VOD content, a voice remote with Google Assistant, and the ability to access the entire service -- live TV, recordings and VOD -- away from home.

Until DirecTV gets those features, it will be below the level of AT&T TV, or "sub-par".

Also, here's the link to a detailed review of using the AT&T TV system (actually AT&T TV Now) with their streaming device (C71 "Osprey" box) and voice remote. This was done by a guy who also currently has DirecTV.

Here's the link to his response where he says that he likes using AT&T TV better than DirecTV and would choose the former if the channel package and monthly cost were identical between the two.

Doesn't sound like AT&T TV is "sub-par" relative to DirecTV based on the only in-depth comparison of the two services we've seen so far...


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> @NashGuy I was in the TMobile store today to upgrade my phone and I checked out TVision. UI is pretty nice, but the sales guy saw me looking closely at the PQ and he told me that I should go check it out at another store if PQ is important. He said they are having trouble with their ISP (AT&T LMAO!!) so the PQ is like 60% to 70% what it should be. I'll definitely do that to see if he was blowing smoke. The PQ wasn't that great. But if their ISP was jacked up, fair enough.


Sounds like blowing smoke. (In my experience, sales people in retail stores are usually fairly clueless about the technical details of the products and services their store offers.) Let me know what you see when you check it out elsewhere.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Sounds like blowing smoke. (In my experience, sales people in retail stores are usually fairly clueless about the technical details of the products and services their store offers.) Let me know what you see when you check it out elsewhere.


At this point, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt , he wouldn't tell me to go check out another store if it was like that everywhere. Also, the sparse reviews I've seen on the service say PQ is some of the best out there. I think that review I linked you before actually mentioned that PQ drops on slower connections. When I brought up data caps, he went and asked the TVision product manager (off site supposedly) and came back with the 13 hrs of HD every day to take up 1TB.

I think its just a hard sell much like AT&T TV or whatever they are calling it now. Not much cheaper then traditional. If somebody is fed up with traditional costs, TMobiles or T pricing isn't going to sway them.

For me, I can't really put together an OTT package that'll cover all my channels at any price and I like the integrated "one stop shop" of traditional and whatever you want to call T & TVision.

And some people complain about box fees, but personally I'd prefer the reduced latency that comes with a local DVR. Plus, some of the cloud DVR behaviors is "kinda out there" for how I watch TV and I think a lot of people who are still with traditional watch as well.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Doesn't sound like AT&T TV is "sub-par" relative to DirecTV based on the only in-depth comparison of the two services we've seen so far...


Thanks for the links. Read the posts and see that it appears the ATT TV is as good as DirecTV, at least according to that poster.

But that still makes it the wrong streaming product and the wrong time. Today cable/sat is fat channel counts and fat prices, some with contracts, other not. Comparing ATT's upcoming streaming offering shows that it is more of the same. That will fit a shrinking segment of the TV viewing market. It was interesting to see the chart in that post. It only compares the ATT offerings. And with the prices ATT wants for their new streaming service, that's the only comparison I would want out there.

Once this new service rolls out I expect that ATT will still see a shrinking customer count though there might be some shifting of where those that drop their sat or cable offerings to the streaming version. But overall, still more subscriber losses.

HBO Max would seem to be the only streaming offering that would be of interest to those actually wanting to cut the cord to cut the price. The problem for ATT is that is $15 vice whatever prices their other offerings are.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> OK, you let me know when DirecTV gets unlimited tuners to avoid recording conflicts, 500 hours of HD recording space, access to thousands of apps on their receivers including Netflix and YouTube, instant access to VOD content, a voice remote with Google Assistant, and the ability to access the entire service -- live TV, recordings and VOD -- away from home.
> 
> Until DirecTV gets those features, it will be below the level of AT&T TV, or "sub-par".
> 
> ...


I dont know what this hard on is about the thousands of apps on this box.... All is it going to take is ONE app someone uses not being on there (On Like the two big ones right now) and one App missing a feature compared to another device(not like supporting Dolby Vision or something) and then once again people will have multiple devices.. The Google Assistant piece is being WAYY overblown also


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

compnurd said:


> I dont know what this hard on is about the thousands of apps on this box.... All is it going to take is ONE app someone uses not being on there (On Like the two big ones right now) and one App missing a feature compared to another device(not like supporting Dolby Vision or something) and then once again people will have multiple devices.. The Google Assistant piece is being WAYY overblown also


And DirecTV is going to make it easy for people to use other services? Haven't they always been against that?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> OK, you let me know when DirecTV gets unlimited tuners to avoid recording conflicts, 500 hours of HD recording space, access to thousands of apps on their receivers including Netflix and YouTube, instant access to VOD content, a voice remote with Google Assistant, and the ability to access the entire service -- live TV, recordings and VOD -- away from home.


How many people need "unlimited" tuners or more hours of recording space than a Genie provides? Very few. People who are using streaming apps generally already have a preferred way of accessing it, whether via their "smart" TV or a set top box. Integrating that into your AT&T set top so that you have yet another way to access them is not a factor worth considering when choosing a provider.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> How many people need "unlimited" tuners or more hours of recording space than a Genie provides? Very few. People who are using streaming apps generally already have a preferred way of accessing it, whether via their "smart" TV or a set top box. Integrating that into your AT&T set top so that you have yet another way to access them is not a factor worth considering when choosing a provider.


Yup. I mean by his account Dish should be adding millions of subscribers each qtr since they have apps and google voice assistance


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

We'll know in a few months if AT&T TV can meet par or not. Obviously there is a difference of opinion ... so lets see how many subscribers AT&T TV can attract. That is the real bottom line.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> How many people need "unlimited" tuners or more hours of recording space than a Genie provides? Very few. People who are using streaming apps generally already have a preferred way of accessing it, whether via their "smart" TV or a set top box. Integrating that into your AT&T set top so that you have yet another way to access them is not a factor worth considering when choosing a provider.


And those 'unlimited tuners' are pretty much the same for any other cable/sat replacement service.

I agree that yet another box isn't necessarily a plus for the user, but I makes for good marketing possibilities.

But since many people already do some streaming with various apps, notably Netflix, Hulu & Amazon Prime, using yet more apps for other streaming services just isn't a big step. It really is more about changing the mindset from 'channels' to 'content'.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

compnurd said:


> Yup. I mean by his account Dish should be adding millions of subscribers each qtr since they have apps and google voice assistance


I can't help but think of the DISH Hopper 3 when I read this description: "... unlimited tuners to avoid recording conflicts, 500 hours of HD recording space, access to thousands of apps on their receivers including Netflix and YouTube, instant access to VOD content, a voice remote with Google Assistant, and the ability to access the entire service -- live TV, recordings and VOD -- away from home." The Hopper 3 offers 16 tuners (advertised as "conflict free" recording).

A key number for me is how many programs can be viewed at the same time. The smaller of number of tuners or number of clients. And the potential that DIRECTV subscribers can use HR series receivers and build a system with many tuners and additional recording space. Four TVs in use at the same time - how does AT&T TV perform? Any word from AT&T that additional streams will be available or just "hope"?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> How many people need "unlimited" tuners or more hours of recording space than a Genie provides? Very few.


But the cord cutters went from 5+ tuners to anywhere from 1-4 streams depending on the service. Only one service I think offers an unlimited streams plan. Also the same people who watch 200 hrs of TV since that's how much can fit on a HR54.

I still don't even get what people watch on Netflix anymore. All the hit shows got cancelled except for Stranger Things and they lost all their licensed content. It's all foreign straight to video stuff.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I still watch Netflix and never have trouble finding something to watch. Watched a couple of movies and a documentary over this past weekend.


----------



## LTYRS (Sep 23, 2019)

Netflix and Amazon Prime are great, I don't care what part of the universe is coming from as long it's compelling. The people on this fantastic blue sphere we live on have a lot of interesting things to say.


----------



## RobInMN (Jul 14, 2010)

This may not be exactly the correct thread, but there's discussion and comparisons to other services here, so, here goes.
It's just my wife & I now, daughter is at college. We have a Genie 54 (with 4TB external HD), 2 HR24s, 1 RVU TV, and one other non-DVR receiver. So we are paying for a lot of locations, but they are all used at different times. Our current bill is almost $180/month. We essentially record everything except sports and news and basically build our own on-demand service. For network shows, we will record most new shows, delete them as they are cancelled, and will only start watching them to see if we like it in the spring or summer if it gets picked up for a second season. Cable shows we record, we typically know we like and will usually watch them faster. No movie channels, don't do DTV PPV, but have Netflix and Amazon Prime. I am interested in Disney+, and CBS All Access, but have not signed up yet.
For sports, the only thing I really care about is Big10 Football (Go Hawks!), so BTN, ESPN, FS1.

What I'm wondering, is if getting YouTubeTV, Philo, Disney+ (with Hulu & ESPN) and CBS All Access would work (reasonably well) for us? I think that is just under $90/month. My main concern is the time limitations on YouTubeTV and Philo. I think the 9 months on YoutubeTV is fine for cable shows and certainly any show we are actively watching, but for new shows that start in the fall, they will expire before using them for summer TV fodder (which would mean starting them, only to have them potentially cancelled). If you have Disney+, Hulu, and CBS All Access, does that eliminate that issue for for ABC, FOX, & CBS shows? Speaking of which, does having those streaming services eliminate much of the DVR need for those channels in general? How soon do shows show up? and are they all there? I believe all CBS shows show up on All Access later the same night? But what about ABC & FOX shows on D+ & Hulu? As for Philo, that 30 days for channels not on YTTV, is probably the worst part of this idea, but we might be able to adjust. I should add, the DVR limitations on ATT TV don't look at all workable for us. I don't mind buying Amazon Firesticks for our TVs that don't already have them. On sale, they'll pay for themselves in 3 months vs. DTV recievers. Going this route should also allow my daughter to use these services at school too. Even adding the NBC Streaming service when it launches would still be close to half what we are paying per month for DTV.

Thoughts? and Insight into D+ & Hulu appreciated.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

At the moment, Hulu shows today’s NBC, Fox and ABC shows the next day and then they keep them seemingly forever. Pretty handy.

One of the ways I’m testing streaming is with Sling Blue for the 9 cable channels I just have to have, Hulu for next day on those ‘channels’ they cover and CBS All Access for theirs. Total cost for that with no ads on CBS and Hulu is about $57/month and includes Sling’s expanded DVR.

Note that I’m not a big sports fan and can get all the sports I care to watch via OTA with an antenna or on Sling Blue.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> Thanks for the links. Read the posts and see that it appears the ATT TV is as good as DirecTV, at least according to that poster.
> 
> But that still makes it the wrong streaming product and the wrong time. Today cable/sat is fat channel counts and fat prices, some with contracts, other not. Comparing ATT's upcoming streaming offering shows that it is more of the same. That will fit a shrinking segment of the TV viewing market. It was interesting to see the chart in that post. It only compares the ATT offerings. And with the prices ATT wants for their new streaming service, that's the only comparison I would want out there.
> 
> Once this new service rolls out I expect that ATT will still see a shrinking customer count though there might be some shifting of where those that drop their sat or cable offerings to the streaming version. But overall, still more subscriber losses.


And if you look back and more than one post I've recently made (at least one in a direct response to you), you'll see that I don't disagree with your last sentence there. I think that replacing Uverse TV with AT&T TV and selling it alongside DirecTV (with most of the marketing effort behind AT&T TV) will help the company to reduce the rate at which it's losing cable TV subs. It will improve that division's quarterly figures. But I'm under no illusion that AT&T TV is going to sweep the land and rack up tens of millions of subscribers. Because cable TV is in long-term industry-wide decline. It doesn't matter how good a service that AT&T TV is, if the company prices it high enough to protect their profit margins (and why wouldn't they?), then it can only get so many subscribers.

But that's a separate argument from whether or not consumers will find AT&T TV to be more attractive than DirecTV, or whether it will be marketed and perceived as a service generally on par with it (as opposed to being a compromised cut-rate "cord-cutter" service). I think it will, at least if we take NFL Sunday Ticket out of the equation. (It's likely that DirecTV will still offer NFL ST this coming fall but AT&T TV won't have it. But come 2021, I expect either both services will offer it or neither will. And I really do wonder what will happen to DirecTV's subscriber count if they no longer offer it.)



lparsons21 said:


> HBO Max would seem to be the only streaming offering that would be of interest to those actually wanting to cut the cord to cut the price. The problem for ATT is that is $15 vice whatever prices their other offerings are.


Yes, HBO Max is what the company will offer price-sensitive cord-cutters who aren't interested in the cable bundle. It'll start out $15 with everything ad-free and then a cheaper version that includes ads on some of the content (probably the non-HBO-branded content) will roll out next year. It's clear from the non-HBO stuff that they're touting in HBO Max that they're heavily going after the under-30 crowd. They know they do well with older adults with the core HBO product but if they're going to compete with Netflix, they have to broaden out their appeal to kids, teens and young adults too.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> How many people need "unlimited" tuners or more hours of recording space than a Genie provides? Very few. People who are using streaming apps generally already have a preferred way of accessing it, whether via their "smart" TV or a set top box. Integrating that into your AT&T set top so that you have yet another way to access them is not a factor worth considering when choosing a provider.


Take that up with the only direct head-to-head user review we have of DirecTV vs. AT&T TV with an Osprey. Let me quote:

_It was also nice having those traditional pay-TV features like dedicated channel numbers and channel surfing available alongside the modern features like streaming apps, Spotify, etc. Not having to constantly change inputs when I wanted to stream something was a huge bonus. I haven't watched a lot of Hulu and Amazon Prime Video since the launch of Disney+ and right now I have a free month of CBS All Access so I've been using those apps for the most part and having them on Osprey was so cool since I didn't have to switch inputs._​
If you think app availability is not a factor that impacts satisfaction with a cable TV provider, you're nuts. That's why Comcast has said that they want their X1 platform to compete with Roku in terms of the number of apps it supports. As more and more of the content cable TV subscribers watch shifts over to apps, it's becoming increasingly important for cable TV providers to help their customers gather it all together with their own cable TV service in one convenient user experience. TiVo has been trying to do this for years.

Most folks probably don't need unlimited tuners or more than a couple hundred hours of recording space, true. But then most folks never have cable TV playing on more than 3 TVs in their home simultaneously, yet DirecTV fanboys on this thread keep bringing that up as though it's a reason that lots of folks would stay away from AT&T TV (despite the fact that we don't even know if AT&T TV's 3 stream limitation will remain going forward; software-based rules like that can change at any time).


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Take that up with the only direct head-to-head user review we have of DirecTV vs. AT&T TV with an Osprey. Let me quote:
> 
> _It was also nice having those traditional pay-TV features like dedicated channel numbers and channel surfing available alongside the modern features like streaming apps, Spotify, etc. Not having to constantly change inputs when I wanted to stream something was a huge bonus. I haven't watched a lot of Hulu and Amazon Prime Video since the launch of Disney+ and right now I have a free month of CBS All Access so I've been using those apps for the most part and having them on Osprey was so cool since I didn't have to switch inputs._​
> If you think app availability is not a factor that impacts satisfaction with a cable TV provider, you're nuts. That's why Comcast has said that they want their X1 platform to compete with Roku in terms of the number of apps it supports. As more and more of the content cable TV subscribers watch shifts over to apps, it's becoming increasingly important for cable TV providers to help their customers gather it all together with their own cable TV service in one convenient user experience. TiVo has been trying to do this for years.
> ...


I mean that's it. I just need one user experience to make a decision......

And people like you, who does not have Directv, keep telling us how we should use the service

the most popular Directv install package was the free 4 room service Yes 4. NOT 3


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

compnurd said:


> I mean that's it. I just need one user experience to make a decision......
> 
> And people like you, who does not have Directv, keep telling us how we should use the service
> 
> the most popular Directv install package was the free 4 room service Yes 4. NOT 3


All one has to do is look at Wall Street at streaming stocks to realize Wall Street thinks that streaming has plateaued and/or isn't going to be cost effective as fragmentation continues. Highly fragmented marketplaces DO NOT mean everybody makes a ton of money, it generally means a bunch of companies get a small piece of the pie until they go belly up as a few already have.


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

If they would just release the damn thing I would be able to tell you if I made a mistake by switching from D* to TV*.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> I don't think IPTV is saving ATT a "bunch of money". In fact, it's well documented that IPTV costs WAY more to deliver then satellite. Satellite is the ideal medium for delivering TV. Remember, it cost DIRECTV only about $600M to launch a satellite that can serve the ENTIRE COUNTRY without a single care in the world regarding load. Compare that with Disney spending over $2B to stand up Disney+. Not sure what their capacity is, but it can't be the whole country for "only" $2B.
> Another comparison, Netflix spent $1.5B on tech in 2018 ALONE. You could launch 2 satellites for that and still have change left over to take the fam out for ice cream like 15 MILLION times.
> 
> Every TV added to cable TV adds load to the infrastructure and costs the cable company. With IPTV its even worse. More bandwidth, lots of expensive servers and electricity and data centers, etc. also puts additional tremendous drain on the cable company for internet and the cable company doesn't get ANYTHING out of it.


The only thing I have to say about this is their CEO has repeatedly claimed that it will cost less per customer to have people on IPTV than on traditional satellite. I don't pretend to know their business, but it's quite possible that the CEO knows more than we do about what this does or doesn't cost.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> @NashGuy I was in the TMobile store today to upgrade my phone and I checked out TVision. UI is pretty nice, but the sales guy saw me looking closely at the PQ and he told me that I should go check it out at another store if PQ is important. He said they are having trouble with their ISP (AT&T LMAO!!) so the PQ is like 60% to 70% what it should be. I'll definitely do that to see if he was blowing smoke. The PQ wasn't that great. But if their ISP was jacked up, fair enough.


I looked at it in my local TMoble store and it actually looks pretty impressive to me. It's still missing some content that I would want (specifically MSG Networks), and I don't believe there is any way to watch anything when you aren't home. They had a decent number of 4k options. Someone mentioned that it won't work with my ISP, but I haven't pursued it to know. I know TMobile's plan is to eventually sell TVision with in home 5G when that is rolled out nationally.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> The only thing I have to say about this is their CEO has repeatedly claimed that it will cost less per customer to have people on IPTV than on traditional satellite. I don't pretend to know their business, but it's quite possible that the CEO knows more than we do about what this does or doesn't cost.


Agreed. Although we know satellite costs ~$600M and we know how much Disney ($2B+) & Netflix spends on infrastructure since that's all public info . And Disney and Netflix don't have the additional burden of custom hardware & software. Now, clearly you don't need custom hardware to stream, but I suspect TMobile and T are going that route as it lets them monetize every single stream. Where other streamers give out streams like candy and thus they are folding (well, a few have). Personally, I prefer the local DVR concept vs. cloud.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> I looked at it in my local TMoble store and it actually looks pretty impressive to me. It's still missing some content that I would want (specifically MSG Networks), and I don't believe there is any way to watch anything when you aren't home. They had a decent number of 4k options. Someone mentioned that it won't work with my ISP, but I haven't pursued it to know. I know TMobile's plan is to eventually sell TVision with in home 5G when that is rolled out nationally.


Yup. I doubt the sales people would tell me "it looks much better then this if you go to a different store" if it didn't. I'd go to another store and see it looks the same? lol... I'll definitely go check it out if Rentention doesn't re-up me. I might none the less... right now, I'm coming in $10 less on DTV then it would be with TMobile. If the PQ is much better on TMobile, I might do that. I don't think you could watch on your phone or tablet if that's what you mean since additional TVs require the "minis". Like DirecTV, if you want to hook up your TV in an RV or something, I suspect you can just get a mini and VPN in to your home network, but you'd need a good internet connection for that .


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> I mean that's it. I just need one user experience to make a decision......
> 
> And people like you, who does not have Directv, keep telling us how we should use the service
> 
> the most popular Directv install package was the free 4 room service Yes 4. NOT 3


I'm not telling anyone they should use the service. (And BTW, I have had both DirecTV and DirecTV Now in the past.) My comments are more about what I think the strengths of AT&T TV will be versus other options, how it will fare in the marketplace, how it fits into AT&T's overall business strategy, etc.

I could care less what service any individual stranger on the internet picks for his cable TV service, or whether he even has cable TV. (I don't.)


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> I looked at it in my local TMoble store and it actually looks pretty impressive to me. It's still missing some content that I would want (specifically MSG Networks), and I don't believe there is any way to watch anything when you aren't home. They had a decent number of 4k options. Someone mentioned that it won't work with my ISP, but I haven't pursued it to know. I know TMobile's plan is to eventually sell TVision with in home 5G when that is rolled out nationally.


Did you think the HD PQ was as good as DTV? I haven't laid eyes on TVision myself. Pretty sure it's not available in my area. It's only sold in those areas where TVision has struck a distribution agreement with a local broadband provider over which it must be accessed. The whole thing is an odd duck the way it's configured. I think the main STB you get has its own cable modem in it that it relies on rather than using the separate one you have for your broadband service (although I'm not 100% sure on that).

One of their sizzle reel videos for TVision shows a guy watching the service on a tablet while he's in the tub at home. But despite the fact that the video was released months (over a year?) ago, they have yet to come out with an app akin to the AT&T TV app that lets you access any aspect of the service on anything but their own TV-connected STBs. (However, like with any cable TV service, you can stream content from individual channels' own OTT apps, e.g. HBO Go, with your TVision login.) So no, you can't access TVision away from home, or even on your own non-TVision devices while at home.

My hunch is that the whole thing is in a sort of suspended state while T-Mobile sorts out MUCH bigger issues that they're dealing with: the Sprint merger, and the expansion of wireless home broadband from an experiment to a real business line.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> Like DirecTV, if you want to hook up your TV in an RV or something, I suspect you can just get a mini and VPN in to your home network, but you'd need a good internet connection for that .


I'll bet that the TVision mini STBs connect to the main STB via their own dedicated wireless connection, like wifi direct, rather than being able to connect via the open internet. Really doubt that you could access the service in your RV unless it was parked in your driveway.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> The only thing I have to say about this is their CEO has repeatedly claimed that it will cost less per customer to have people on IPTV than on traditional satellite. I don't pretend to know their business, but it's quite possible that the CEO knows more than we do about what this does or doesn't cost.


Oh, don't bring up the argument that you can trust anything the CEO states to AT&T investors. No, no, everything he says MUST be a lie. The satellite fanboys here understand AT&T's internal economics far better than the CEO.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> I'll bet that the TVision mini STBs connect to the main STB via their own dedicated wireless connection, like wifi direct, rather than being able to connect via the open internet. Really doubt that you could access the service in your RV unless it was parked in your driveway.


"Additional TVs use smaller "Lite" boxes, which connect to the gateway box through WiFi.". I guess you're right on that. Depending on how its setup, you *might* be able to proxy it... really depends on how they do it. Oh well, if I'm really out and about, I'm not going to watch DVR recordings lol, cuz, you know... I'll be out an about .



NashGuy said:


> Oh, don't bring up the argument that you can trust anything the CEO states to AT&T investors. No, no, everything he says MUST be a lie. The satellite fanboys here understand AT&T's internal economics far better than the CEO.


Nothing to trust or not trust. It's all public information since these are all public companies.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> I think the main STB you get has its own cable modem in it that it relies on rather than using the separate one you have for your broadband service (although I'm not 100% sure on that).


"The main TVision gateway box, which needs a wired Ethernet connection, comes in either black or white."


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

How about someone start a separate thread for "Tvision".


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Oh, don't bring up the argument that you can trust anything the CEO states to AT&T investors. No, no, everything he says MUST be a lie.


He is only right when quoted by someone who agrees with him. He is wrong when the person quoting him believes something else. Regardless of if his comments are positive or negative toward satellite or streaming.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Now its been announced that HBO Max is going to YTTV!! $14.99 a month. One less reason for many to stay with AT&T's steaming service.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

gio12 said:


> Now its been announced that HBO Max is going to YTTV!! $14.99 a month. One less reason for many to stay with AT&T's steaming service.


We'll probably see all, or nearly all, MVPDs switch from distributing just HBO to instead distributing HBO Max. I don't think they have much choice. And given that HBO Max will be available as a standalone service for $15/mo, MVPDs will have to price it about that too. (They could probably get away with $15.99.) I expect Comcast, Charter, Verizon, Altice and Cox will all be on board with HBO Max this year.

YTTV is noteworthy given that they had never distributed regular HBO. Hulu Live, which does already offer regular HBO, will have to follow suit. Their customers are already using app-based streaming devices and very few will pay them $15/mo for regular HBO inside the Hulu app when they could get over twice the content for the same price by getting HBO Max as a standalone service.

Based on today's announcement, though, it sounds like the only parts of the HBO Max service that will show up inside the YTTV app will be whatever linear HBO channels they carry, plus the core HBO on-demand library. I believe that the rest of the HBO Max library -- the new line of Max Originals, theatrical movies that aren't part of HBO, TV series like Friends, South Park, Top Gear, Big Bang Theory, etc. -- will only be accessible in the actual HBO Max app. I suspect that's how it will be with all MVPDs. HBO will keep the status quo in terms of allow those MVPDs' own UIs to subsume HBO content but all the other new stuff that's exclusive to HBO Max will only be available inside the HBO Max app. I expect we'll see HBO's cable subscribers trade in the old HBO Go app for the new HBO Max app.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Did you think the HD PQ was as good as DTV? I haven't laid eyes on TVision myself. Pretty sure it's not available in my area. It's only sold in those areas where TVision has struck a distribution agreement with a local broadband provider over which it must be accessed. The whole thing is an odd duck the way it's configured. I think the main STB you get has its own cable modem in it that it relies on rather than using the separate one you have for your broadband service (although I'm not 100% sure on that).
> 
> One of their sizzle reel videos for TVision shows a guy watching the service on a tablet while he's in the tub at home. But despite the fact that the video was released months (over a year?) ago, they have yet to come out with an app akin to the AT&T TV app that lets you access any aspect of the service on anything but their own TV-connected STBs. (However, like with any cable TV service, you can stream content from individual channels' own OTT apps, e.g. HBO Go, with your TVision login.) So no, you can't access TVision away from home, or even on your own non-TVision devices while at home.
> 
> My hunch is that the whole thing is in a sort of suspended state while T-Mobile sorts out MUCH bigger issues that they're dealing with: the Sprint merger, and the expansion of wireless home broadband from an experiment to a real business line.


I honestly thought the picture, in the store as as good as DirecTV. Then again, I'm on a 65" 4K TV which seems to not to great with video less than 1080P. As i said, if it had the missing channel that I was looking for, I'd have considered it. Feature for feature it seems to be close to DirecTV. I don't really watch TV from DirecTV outside of the house anyway, so that's not really a big issue for me.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> "The main TVision gateway box, which needs a wired Ethernet connection, comes in either black or white."


The original STB, when it came out under the original Layer3 TV brand, included an integrated DOCSIS 3.0 modem. See here:
Layer3 TV Unveils revolutionary cable Set-Top Box, designed by Designworks, a BMW Group company

IDK, maybe an updated version of the box has come out under the TVision brand that no longer includes the modem.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

gio12 said:


> Now its been announced that HBO Max is going to YTTV!! $14.99 a month. One less reason for many to stay with AT&T's steaming service.


Why is that better than simply subscribing to HBO Max directly?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> The original STB, when it came out under the original Layer3 TV brand, included an integrated DOCSIS 3.0 modem. See here:
> Layer3 TV Unveils revolutionary cable Set-Top Box, designed by Designworks, a BMW Group company
> 
> IDK, maybe an updated version of the box has come out under the TVision brand that no longer includes the modem.


They have a video on their web site that shows the back of the box and it still has a RG6 connector, but if you look here:

https://www.t-mobile.com/support/tv/equipment/get-started-with-self-installation

They say it connects via ethernet to your router. Maybe they can go either way. Or maybe they disabled it cuz they realize its a stupid idea? The Layer3 box had a DOCSIS 3.0 modem. How am I supposed to get my 1Gbps service with that? Not to mention I wouldn't want TMobile monitoring all my internet usage.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Why is that better than simply subscribing to HBO Max directly?


Guide intergraded and one leas app

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> They have a video on their web site that shows the back of the box and it still has a RG6 connector, but if you look here:
> 
> https://www.t-mobile.com/support/tv/equipment/get-started-with-self-installation
> 
> They say it connects via ethernet to your router. Maybe they can go either way. Or maybe they disabled it cuz they realize its a stupid idea? The Layer3 box had a DOCSIS 3.0 modem. How am I supposed to get my 1Gbps service with that? Not to mention I wouldn't want TMobile monitoring all my internet usage.


I don't think the modem inside the Layer3 STB was ever intended or used to access anything other than the content displayed by that box. It wasn't for use with regular broadband service that you subscribed to separately from Comcast or Charter or whomever.

At any rate, the hardware is clearly different now under the TVision brand. You can tell that from the appearance of the outer case. So it's very possible that they decided to save money on the internal components and dropped the internal DOCSIS modem. That would make a lot of sense IMO, given that the service has only ever been available to those who already have home broadband anyhow.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

gio12 said:


> Guide intergraded and one leas app


Yeah. Although, as I say, you'll probably only get the HBO linear channels and the HBO on-demand content integrated in the YouTube TV app. (Same thing will likely be the case with Comcast's X1, with Verizon Fios, with Hulu Live, etc.) But if you want to watch the additional content that's part of HBO Max, but not part of regular HBO, you'll need to launch the separate HBO Max app. I suspect that will even be the case on the AT&T TV streaming device.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah. Although, as I say, you'll probably only get the HBO linear channels and the HBO on-demand content integrated in the YouTube TV app. (Same thing will likely be the case with Comcast's X1, with Verizon Fios, with Hulu Live, etc.) But if you want to watch the additional content that's part of HBO Max, but not part of regular HBO, you'll need to launch the separate HBO Max app. I suspect that will even be the case on the AT&T TV streaming device.


ATT Directv can add linear channels with content if they want to as well.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

JoeTheDragon said:


> ATT Directv can add linear channels with content if they want to as well.


DirecTV already has all of the HBO linear channels. Not sure what else there would be to add that's relevant to HBO Max. (Well, actually, AT&T has said that their Audience Network, which is available on DirecTV and Uverse TV, will be converted soon into an "HBO Max Preview" channel. But I don't think that there's going to be a new HBO Max linear channel featuring all those new Max Originals exclusive to the service. If you wanna watch that stuff, you'll fire up the HBO Max app.)


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

Most providers with a proprietary box have the ability to include barker channels within the guide to allow for certain apps to be launched without having to navigate to the apps section of their receiver. Almost all cable providers do this with Netflix.

For example the AT&T TV/TV Now services with the AT&T TV device have channel 192 reserved exclusively for their use as the barker channel for Netflix. Clicking on channel 192 will automatically open the Netflix app. If you happen to uninstall the Netflix app the barker channel will take you directly to the Google Play store to re-download the app.

So the unused channel 510 (which currently separates the English HBO channels from HBO Latino) could be employed by AT&T on the AT&T TV device as a barker channel to launch the HBO Max app (channel 512 is reserved by DirecTV for use when they have special interactive channels from time to time.) If AT&T is able to create an HBO Max app for D* then they could use the same channel # to launch the HBO Max app on the respective set-top boxes. However AT&T only mentioned the AT&T TV device being pre-loaded with HBO Max.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

techguy88 said:


> Most providers with a proprietary box have the ability to include barker channels within the guide to allow for certain apps to be launched without having to navigate to the apps section of their receiver. Almost all cable providers do this with Netflix.
> 
> For example the AT&T TV/TV Now services with the AT&T TV device have channel 192 reserved exclusively for their use as the barker channel for Netflix. Clicking on channel 192 will automatically open the Netflix app. If you happen to uninstall the Netflix app the barker channel will take you directly to the Google Play store to re-download the app.
> 
> So the unused channel 510 (which currently separates the English HBO channels from HBO Latino) could be employed by AT&T on the AT&T TV device as a barker channel to launch the HBO Max app (channel 512 is reserved by DirecTV for use when they have special interactive channels from time to time.) If AT&T is able to create an HBO Max app for D* then they could use the same channel # to launch the HBO Max app on the respective set-top boxes. However AT&T only mentioned the AT&T TV device being pre-loaded with HBO Max.


They can make an custom app / system just for the SAT boxes for HBO Max. Even add PUSH DVR / linear channels for it.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

techguy88 said:


> So the unused channel 510 (which currently separates the English HBO channels from HBO Latino) could be employed by AT&T on the AT&T TV device as a barker channel to launch the HBO Max app (channel 512 is reserved by DirecTV for use when they have special interactive channels from time to time.) If AT&T is able to create an HBO Max app for D* then they could use the same channel # to launch the HBO Max app on the respective set-top boxes. However AT&T only mentioned the AT&T TV device being pre-loaded with HBO Max.


Yeah, that could be. And as I said, it's been reported that Audience will become a preview/barker channel for HBO Max. Maybe on the AT&T TV box, its channel number in the grid guide simply launches the HBO Max pre-installed app. Or maybe it shows an actual video channel (with clips of current and upcoming Max Originals, etc.) with a static overlay graphic that says "Click OK to launch the HBO Max app now."


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

JoeTheDragon said:


> They can make an custom app / system just for the SAT boxes for HBO Max. Even add PUSH DVR / linear channels for it.


Yeah, I've wondered about this before. But I question whether most (any?) current-generation DTV receivers could run a graphically demanding app like HBO Max. And, if not, whether they would want to create a crappy-looking lightweight version of the app to run on those receivers.

My guess is that, for those DTV customers who have home broadband and are interested in running the HBO Max app (or any other popular app) on their receiver, AT&T's answer would be "Have you heard about our new service AT&T TV?"


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I wonder if they might change up the Cinemax channels and rebrand them HBO max channels and show a rotation of a lot of different HBO max stuff on them. Doubt it but they could. They did I believe announce they are going to stop creating original Cinemax series...


----------



## syphix (Jun 23, 2004)

Take the source for what it's worth but AT&T TV nationwide rollout pushed back to March now...maybe.

AT&T TV's Launch Date Has Reportedly Been Moved to March - Cord Cutters News

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Easy to say five days before the end of the month.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

inkahauts said:


> I wonder if they might change up the Cinemax channels and rebrand them HBO max channels and show a rotation of a lot of different HBO max stuff on them. Doubt it but they could. They did I believe announce they are going to stop creating original Cinemax series...


I guess anything's possible but they've given zero indication that HBO Max's "Max Originals" will appear on any linear cable TV channel. The latest word from the company on Cinemax is that the service will live on but without any further investment in original content for the service.

Cinemax Moving Out Of Originals - TCA - Deadline

The whole HBO Max branding while Cinemax continues to exist (but not be part of HBO Max) is, I think, confusing to consumers given that they've always nicknamed Cinemax as "Max". (In fact, the company has used the HBO Max brand in parts of Latin America in the past as a moniker for a bundle of HBO and Cinemax channels sold together.)

I had figured that they would shutter Cinemax when HBO Max launched. Instead, I guess that the idea is to neglect it but let it continue to exist as long as a few subscribers out there are willing to pay for it (even though it rotates through the same library of movies as HBO). If they stop spending anything on originals and cease spending anything to market it, then whatever revenue it still brings in is pretty much pure profit. Kind of like The Movie Channel is for Showtime. So I guess Cinemax's future is the same, a sort of zombie "premium" service for cable subscribers that everyone forgets still exists...


----------



## stoutman (Feb 8, 2003)

Not surprised. Too many local channels still missing along with regional sports channels. No reason to release an inferior product. They have already done that too many times.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

syphix said:


> Take the source for what it's worth but AT&T TV nationwide rollout pushed back to March now...maybe.
> 
> AT&T TV's Launch Date Has Reportedly Been Moved to March - Cord Cutters News





James Long said:


> Easy to say five days before the end of the month.


Well, I think CCN is basing it on this direct quote from WarnerMedia CEO John Stankey in a Barron's interview from 2/21:

_We didn't buy DirecTV because we loved satellite delivery. We liked the customer base. The play was to move most satellite customers to software-driven services. But we were later than we wanted to be on that product, AT&T TV, which launches in March. ... But If I had my wish, we would have been where we are right now over 18 months ago.
_​As his quotes alludes, AT&T leaders were originally targeting a fall 2018 launch for this service. (The C71 Osprey streaming device that AT&T TV uses was originally discovered in FCC filings way back in fall 2017.) I'd love to know what were all of the delays in getting AT&T TV ready for market.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I get the impression that AT&T thought they were buying customers. 26 million subscribers is more bargaining power than 6 million. Over their first 18 months UVERSE subscribers declined and DIRECTV satellite hit the peak. DTV Now launched at the end of 2016. DIRECTV and UVERSE continued to decline in subscriber counts while DTV Now increased. Perhaps they thought the shift was working when they only lost 288k net subscribers by the end of 2017. The losses continued in 2018 (750k net subscribers) ... and 2018 would have been a good year for a strong streaming product to take root. But the opportunity was missed. 2019 was a bloodbath. 39% of DTV Now customers lost, nearly 29% of all customers lost. A lot of pressure to reverse the five year old merger while continuing to spend more to build up their entertainment portfolio.

The easy guess would be "contracts". If they wanted to replicate DIRECTV via streaming they need to get stream only carriage contracts for everything. The one reason why they bought DIRECTV (contract leverage) didn't work out as well as expected.

AT&T still doesn't own the people subscribing ... so whenever AT&T goes national they will still have the challenge of convincing people to subscribe - whether they are leaving DIRECTV or another service. They need to be the better service.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> I guess anything's possible but they've given zero indication that HBO Max's "Max Originals" will appear on any linear cable TV channel. The latest word from the company on Cinemax is that the service will live on but without any further investment in original content for the service.
> 
> Cinemax Moving Out Of Originals - TCA - Deadline
> 
> ...


but the Movie Channel is part of showtime on most systems and part of a mini premium pack. I think comcast is the only system where Movie Channel is not part showtime


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> I guess anything's possible but they've given zero indication that HBO Max's "Max Originals" will appear on any linear cable TV channel. The latest word from the company on Cinemax is that the service will live on but without any further investment in original content for the service.
> 
> Cinemax Moving Out Of Originals - TCA - Deadline
> 
> ...


If they wanted to keep Cinemax, I think the solution is pretty easy. Make HBO original content series driven (which is what is driving it now really) and move their movie library to Cinemax.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Well, I think CCN is basing it on this direct quote from WarnerMedia CEO John Stankey in a Barron's interview from 2/21:
> 
> _We didn't buy DirecTV because we loved satellite delivery. We liked the customer base. The play was to move most satellite customers to software-driven services. But we were later than we wanted to be on that product, AT&T TV, which launches in March. ... But If I had my wish, we would have been where we are right now over 18 months ago.
> _​As his quotes alludes, AT&T leaders were originally targeting a fall 2018 launch for this service. (The C71 Osprey streaming device that AT&T TV uses was originally discovered in FCC filings way back in fall 2017.) I'd love to know what were all of the delays in getting AT&T TV ready for market.


It's statements like that that have had me questioning their commitment to Satellite and I have said repeatedly that their goal is to move most Sat customers to their streaming offerings and Sat becomes a niche offering for those in rural areas who cannot get a decent internet connection. It will be what original cable was 45 years ago. They are after all a mobile communications company not a TV content company and I still think whatever they do is to drive that business.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

JoeTheDragon said:


> but the Movie Channel is part of showtime on most systems and part of a mini premium pack. I think comcast is the only system where Movie Channel is not part showtime


The Movie Channel is sold as a separate a la carte service on both Comcast and Charter, the two largest non-satellite cable TV systems in the country. But, yeah, on many other systems it's part of the Showtime package and/or included in the top-tier basic channel package. I can't imagine who would actually buy TMC a la carte. And after Cinemax completes its run of originals this year, it'll be in a similar situation (although with a far more popular stable of recent films than TMC has).



Steveknj said:


> If they wanted to keep Cinemax, I think the solution is pretty easy. Make HBO original content series driven (which is what is driving it now really) and move their movie library to Cinemax.


But taking away recent theatrical movies would greatly weaken their prize fighter, HBO. Yes, HBO gets most of its buzz due to their originals but I recall reading awhile back that their movie library is still a very big pull for the service and accounts for a lot (most?) of its viewing time.

Netflix has really changed the game in terms of the amount of ad-free content that consumers expect to get for a certain amount of money. That's why Warner is being forced to respond with a service that builds on HBO, offering over twice as much content, but is still priced the same as regular HBO, $15/mo. And you still see the media questioning how successful HBO Max might be at that price because it's $2 more than Netflix's most popular plan!

I think it's pretty clear now that Warner views Cinemax as a relic of the cable TV era. No point handicapping their future, HBO Max, to try to prop up Cinemax. As I say, it looks like they'll let it wither away and in the meantime continue to soak up whatever profits it can by avoiding any incremental investment in it. It looks like the a la carte price for Cinemax is trending down toward $10/mo. across providers (though it still varies from one to another). Perhaps there are some cable subscribers who would rather save $5/mo and get Cinemax as opposed to HBO/HBO Max because all they care about are movies (although, that said, there will be a variety of movies in the HBO Max library that aren't available at a given time on either HBO or Cinemax).


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> It's statements like that that have had me questioning their commitment to Satellite and I have said repeatedly that their goal is to move most Sat customers to their streaming offerings and Sat becomes a niche offering for those in rural areas who cannot get a decent internet connection. It will be what original cable was 45 years ago. They are after all a mobile communications company not a TV content company and I still think whatever they do is to drive that business.


Oh, public statements from AT&T leaders have again and again indicated that they're not really fans of DBS as a delivery system. From the moment they bought DirecTV, the idea was always to somehow integrate that offering with what they already had, Uverse TV, and move everything toward internet-based, software-based delivery (i.e. AT&T TV). But it's taking them longer to do that than I think they originally anticipated. Had to renegotiate all those channel carriage contracts to span all of their platforms. Had to get the technical stuff worked out. Then there was the Warner acquisition, which got held up by the government for over a year.

As far as sat becoming a rural niche, yep, that's the plan. This article from two years ago (Feb. 2018) paraphrases a remark from an AT&T quarterly earnings call:

_Also on this week's call, however, AT&T Senior Executive Vice President and CFO John Stephens noted that the company will continue to rely on satellite video delivery for rural areas for the foreseeable future. He did not detail the reasons behind this, but the likely explanation is that some rural areas are less likely to have quality broadband at high enough speeds to support video streams, particularly multiple video streams_​


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Steveknj said:


> It's statements like that that have had me questioning their commitment to Satellite and I have said repeatedly that their goal is to move most Sat customers to their streaming offerings and Sat becomes a niche offering for those in rural areas who cannot get a decent internet connection. It will be what original cable was 45 years ago. They are after all a mobile communications company not a TV content company and I still think whatever they do is to drive that business.


It would cost them money to move existing satellite customers to AT&T TV. Why in the world would they do that? They can certainly encourage new customers in the direction of AT&T TV since they avoid truck rolls and the equipment they supply is less expensive, but people will still be able to choose Directv if they want it or don't have good broadband. Shutting down Directv while the satellites are still viable (which they will be for at least a decade) would be tossing away billions in future profits they would continue to make off Directv customers during that time.

CEO statements are generally "what investors want to hear", not "what I'm really thinking". Investors want to hear about businesses that are growing, not shrinking, so of course he's going to talk up AT&T TV at every opportunity.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> It would cost them money to move existing satellite customers to AT&T TV. Why in the world would they do that? They can certainly encourage new customers in the direction of AT&T TV since they avoid truck rolls and the equipment they supply is less expensive, but people will still be able to choose Directv if they want it or don't have good broadband. Shutting down Directv while the satellites are still viable (which they will be for at least a decade) would be tossing away billions in future profits they would continue to make off Directv customers during that time.
> 
> CEO statements are generally "what investors want to hear", not "what I'm really thinking". Investors want to hear about businesses that are growing, not shrinking, so of course he's going to talk up AT&T TV at every opportunity.


Again, I NEVER said they were shutting done DirecTV (as we know it). I said their goal would be to move people off the current Sat service to streaming. How would it cost them money? First of all, from what we see the pricing model for the new service is around where Sat is today. Second, they anticipate support for the new service will cost less that satellite. Third i think eventually they anticipate bundling 5G with the new service, which could make up for any revenue they might lose from satellite service. And lastly, I would imagine this will be the end of them developing any new cutting edge hardware for their Sat platform and they will move whatever development, R&D or whatever to their streaming service.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Again, I NEVER said they were shutting done DirecTV (as we know it). I said their goal would be to move people off the current Sat service to streaming. How would it cost them money? First of all, from what we see the pricing model for the new service is around where Sat is today.


Current DIRECTV customers have their equipment installed and working. Changing them to AT&T TV would require sending new equipment and either installing or coaching the customer through the install.



> Second, they anticipate support for the new service will cost less that satellite.


So they get calls every time the Internet is slow or goes out instead of every time there is a heavy mist? 



> Third i think eventually they anticipate bundling 5G with the new service, which could make up for any revenue they might lose from satellite service.


Throwing away revenue with only the hope that it will be replaced by other unrelated revenue? Not a good idea. Keep every dollar you can.



> And lastly, I would imagine this will be the end of them developing any new cutting edge hardware for their Sat platform and they will move whatever development, R&D or whatever to their streaming service.


The current receivers are fairly advanced and can be firmware upgraded remotely.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Steveknj said:


> Again, I NEVER said they were shutting done DirecTV (as we know it). I said their goal would be to move people off the current Sat service to streaming. How would it cost them money? First of all, from what we see the pricing model for the new service is around where Sat is today. Second, they anticipate support for the new service will cost less that satellite. Third i think eventually they anticipate bundling 5G with the new service, which could make up for any revenue they might lose from satellite service. And lastly, I would imagine this will be the end of them developing any new cutting edge hardware for their Sat platform and they will move whatever development, R&D or whatever to their streaming service.


Because it costs money to deliver to one more streaming customer, but costs nothing to deliver to one more satellite customer since the satellite broadcasts nationwide.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

James Long said:


> Current DIRECTV customers have their equipment installed and working. Changing them to AT&T TV would require sending new equipment and either installing or coaching the customer through the install.
> 
> So they get calls every time the Internet is slow or goes out instead of every time there is a heavy mist?
> 
> ...





slice1900 said:


> Because it costs money to deliver to one more streaming customer, but costs nothing to deliver to one more satellite customer since the satellite broadcasts nationwide.


So there's some disconnect here. Either the CEO of AT&T has no idea what he's talking about or you guys do (no offense). He's repeatedly said that the cost of delivery of streaming is less that sat. So not sure who's right here. I get that many (most?) here would like to see things continue as is, but honestly, they are bleeding customers and I don't see them putting any more money into a dead system. I think existing customers may or may not stick with what they have, i think new customers will be pushed to their streaming services, and their once equipment starts to fail or falls behind the time, customers will be offered streaming as an alternative.

As for the points, sure equipment can be updated via firmware, but I doubt we'll see anything radically new anymore. For AT&T who' experience with "internet" having customers call about slow internet is nothing new, and in some cases, where the internet connection is not them, sure they may get some calls, but the "fix" might no be on them. Thus cheaper. And again, how are they "throwing away" revenue? They are moving revenue from one stream (pardon the pun) to another, and one that might be easier to maintain. It's a win for them.

Sorry, I'm a big sat fan, but that's how I see, it, and apparently that's how AT&T sees it. They could be totally wrong (as I might be), but that's how I see it going. Of course I'll know more about what they are thinking when the product is launched next month.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Steveknj said:


> So there's some disconnect here. Either the CEO of AT&T has no idea what he's talking about or you guys do (no offense). He's repeatedly said that the cost of delivery of streaming is less that sat.


He's consistently talked about customer acquisition cost being cheaper with streaming. That's true, they just send you a single Android client that costs them less than $50 to make and that's it. For satellite they have to send a guy to your house, put up a dish and LNB, run cable, and provide you with a Genie and one or more clients. It is probably not far from an order of magnitude more costly.

Once both customers are up and running though there's not really any difference. Yes, one more streaming customer costs money, but probably something like a few cents a month so not worth worrying about. Satellite customers potentially have repairs if equipment breaks so they aren't necessarily free, but they make enough from those $7/month per TV fees to cover that a hundred times over.

There are no savings at all trying to convert a customer from satellite to streaming, unless Directv thinks they will be stickier as a streaming customer. But the customer can ask for that himself, or they can offer him a deal to convert to AT&T TV if calls to cancel Directv and says he's going streaming.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> So there's some disconnect here. Either the CEO of AT&T has no idea what he's talking about or you guys do (no offense). He's repeatedly said that the cost of delivery of streaming is less that sat.


Has he? The comments I have seen refer to the cost of deployment, not the day to day cost of delivery.

We are considering the continued delivery of service, not just the installation.

It should be noted that AT&T/DIRECTV does not disclose subscriber acquisition costs for streaming. A conspiracy theorist might consider that hiding the true cost of offering streaming. 



> And again, how are they "throwing away" revenue?


Convincing your customers to leave is not a good idea. AT&T doesn't own the people. They can't force people to move to their new service.

As for stickness, most streaming is non contract based. Month to month leave when you want. Being a service with a one or two year commitment isn't going to attract month to month subscribers. Discounts for subscribing annually are good, but commitment without discounts is bad.

This past year AT&T put on a clinic to show what not to do.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

The way this is explained to me from friends that work at O&O AT&T stores and the former D* O&O call center (now an AT&T O&O call center) is existing D* and U-Verse TV customers won't be pushed to migrate to AT&T TV. Only *IF* an existing D* or U-Verse TV customer asks about AT&T TV and wants to migrate to AT&T TV on their own then AT&T will help that customer migrate over. Store reps and call center agents are not supposed to pitch AT&T TV to existing D* and U-Verse TV customers except as an *absolute last resort* scenario. (i.e. Customer hates D*'s rain fade threatens to call cable company / Customer doesn't like U-Verse's equipment wants better equipment without a satellite dish or will go to another provider)

D* is not going anywhere and will be a lead offer alongside AT&T TV when it goes national based on what the customer's needs are. In general AT&T TV will be the #1 lead offer for all prospective new customers *except* if they mention something that only D* has (certain RSNs like Altitude, NFL Network/Sunday Ticket, 4K Programming, etc.), want 4+ simultaneous TVs or object to the 90 day retention for the Cloud DVR.

All sales reps/call center agents that sell TV products are supposed to ask certain key questions about ISP, Content/Channels, DVR features, allowed to have a dish, etc. to determine which service to pitch first. If an existing customer calls in asking about AT&T TV they are to ask similar questions (i.e. favorite channels.) If the customer responds with something like Altitude then the rep/agent can stop and advise the existing D* customer about Altitude's availability.


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

Looks like ATT has missed another soft deadline regarding the national rollout of ATT TV. Wonder if there are more problems or they are rethinking the T&C and value proposition of the service based on more data from the test markets.

I just read on Cord Cutters News that the start date has been moved to Monday March 2.


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

Looks like some of the TOS are being posted on the ATT site prior to rollout on March 2.

Looks like no change in the 24 month agreement with an ETF fee of $15 / month or maximum $360.
AT&T TV Cancellation

Looks like the box is a purchased item rather than a leased item. Does that mean you can sell it and ATT will activate on another customer account? No details on that.

So my view is that it will be a DOA launch and / or a very slow takeup for the ATT TV service.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

DirectMan said:


> Looks like some of the TOS are being posted on the ATT site prior to rollout on March 2.
> 
> Looks like no change in the 24 month agreement with an ETF fee of $15 / month or maximum $360.
> AT&T TV Cancellation
> ...


The AT&T TV device has always been purchased devices not leased they are just changing the terminology from device fee to reflect what it actually is that you are purchasing the device either for a 1 time payment or on an AT&T Installment plan.

And yes, if you purchase an AT&T TV device then stop using it or sell it to someone else who has AT&T TV (or AT&T TV Now) they can activate that device on their account by using their AT&T TV (or AT&T TV Now) credentials. That's what people are currently doing with the beta Osprey boxes.

If you want a no-contract option and are okay with paying regular price for the Entertainment, Choice, Xtra, Ultimate or Optimo Mas packages you can create a new AT&T TV Now account and select the no-contract variants through that service.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

DirectMan said:


> Looks like some of the TOS are being posted on the ATT site prior to rollout on March 2.
> 
> Looks like no change in the 24 month agreement with an ETF fee of $15 / month or maximum $360.
> AT&T TV Cancellation
> ...


AT&T TV has been sold with those terms in the pilot launch markets since last August. And those terms have been posted on AT&T's website since then too. The question is whether those terms change when it rolls out nationwide (apparently now happening this coming Monday, 3/2) or whether they keep them that way.

If you enter an address for one of the markets where AT&T TV is available, it will show you the current line-up of packages and prices and you can click the "See details" link to read the fine print. Right now, that fine print states that the offer "Ends 3/1/20."

Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that anything will change on 3/2/20. Maybe they decide to keep everything the same as it's been in the test markets: same 2-yr contract, same channel packages, same discounted first-year prices, same regular prices thereafter. But it's possible that any or all of those things change, and I've predicted they will. AT&T's CEO (or someone high up) said after the August pilot launch that they would see how it does in the test markets and possibly make changes before rolling it out nationwide.

If they don't change anything, I agree that the uptake for AT&T TV will be slow. It won't be DOA, given the marketing power of AT&T and the fact that they'll bundle it with AT&T Fiber (replacing Uverse TV), but it's not going to shake up the market by any means. That long 2-yr contract is going to be a turnoff, although they do offer (for now, anyway) AT&T TV Now as a completely contract-free option. If all the terms stay as they are, I'd guess that uptake should be at least a little better for it than has been the case with Uverse TV (despite the fact that UVerse TV only has a 1-yr contract).

As for uptake of AT&T TV versus DirecTV, harder to say. AT&T TV will be available to folks who can't use, or don't want to use, a satellite dish. And AT&T TV clearly offers a slicker, more modern user experience. But DTV will presumably continue to offer a free year of NFL Sunday Ticket to new subscribers this year and the next two after that, while it looks like that package won't be available at all on AT&T TV. Maybe they make up for that by, I dunno, offering $200 more in up-front Visa gift cards to new AT&T TV subs. But if the packages, prices and 2-yr contract is the same for AT&T TV and DTV, while the latter also throws in free NFLST, I'm not sure which service would see more new subs. (Although if AT&T does lots of national advertising for AT&T TV and much less advertising for DTV, that would be a factor too.)


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> AT&T TV has been sold with those terms in the pilot launch markets since last August. And those terms have been posted on AT&T's website since then too. The question is whether those terms change when it rolls out nationwide (apparently now happening this coming Monday, 3/2) or whether they keep them that way.
> 
> If you enter an address for one of the markets where AT&T TV is available, it will show you the current line-up of packages and prices and you can click the "See details" link to read the fine print. Right now, that fine print states that the offer "Ends 3/1/20."
> 
> ...


The success of AT&T TV will come down to two factors. 1. Store reps/call center agents doing their job properly and asking the right questions to figure out which TV product fits the prospective customer best. 2. If the AT&T TV app in general can handle the influx of new subscribers to avoid the technical issues DirecTV Now experienced.

AT&T TV is perfect for those who want a "traditional" experience with modern features. DirecTV at the moment is best for those who are sports fans. Also as far as NFL Sunday Ticket is concerned if someone can't get DirecTV due to No Line of Sight, HOA, college, etc. they can get the streaming only version and the NFL Sunday Ticket app is compatible with Osprey/AT&T TV device. So there is a workaround there.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

techguy88 said:


> The success of AT&T TV will come down to two factors. 1. Store reps/call center agents doing their job properly and asking the right questions to figure out which TV product fits the prospective customer best. 2. If the AT&T TV app in general can handle the influx of new subscribers to avoid the technical issues DirecTV Now experienced.
> 
> AT&T TV is perfect for those who want a "traditional" experience with modern features. DirecTV at the moment is best for those who are sports fans. Also as far as NFL Sunday Ticket is concerned if someone can't get DirecTV due to No Line of Sight, HOA, college, etc. they can get the streaming only version and the NFL Sunday Ticket app is compatible with Osprey/AT&T TV device. So there is a workaround there.


I'm skeptical of the degree to which consumers are making buying decisions guided by store reps and call center agents. A whole lot of folks decide what it is they want based on advertising, word of mouth, etc. and then either order online or tell the rep what they want. I don't see a whole lot of folks calling up or walking in and asking for help to figure out which of AT&T's TV services is best for them. Although I do wonder if reps, when dealing with someone who specifically asks for DirecTV, will make them aware of AT&T TV as a new option or instead just proceed to place the order for DirecTV. (To some extent, there's a risk of confusing the consumer and losing the sale. "Hmm, let me think about it and I'll get back to you." But again and again we've heard AT&T honchos say that they wish to transition their customer base over from DirecTV to AT&T TV.)

And with the exception of NFL Network and NFLST, I'm skeptical that DirecTV will prove to be any better for sports fans in general than AT&T TV (at least if AT&T TV carries the same live sports in 4K that DirecTV does, which I expect will happen).


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> I'm skeptical of the degree to which consumers are making buying decisions guided by store reps and call center agents. A whole lot of folks decide what it is they want based on advertising, word of mouth, etc. and then either order online or tell the rep what they want. I don't see a whole lot of folks calling up or walking in and asking for help to figure out which of AT&T's TV services is best for them. Although I do wonder if reps, when dealing with someone who specifically asks for DirecTV, will make them aware of AT&T TV as a new option or instead just proceed to place the order for DirecTV. (To some extent, there's a risk of confusing the consumer and losing the sale. "Hmm, let me think about it and I'll get back to you." But again and again we've heard AT&T honchos say that they wish to transition their customer base over from DirecTV to AT&T TV.)
> 
> And with the exception of NFL Network and NFLST, I'm skeptical that DirecTV will prove to be any better for sports fans in general than AT&T TV (at least if AT&T TV carries the same live sports in 4K that DirecTV does, which I expect will happen).


I think you would be surprised at the number of people that do exactly that. Most people who participate in forums like this would cringe at the idea. Personally I have never gone into any electronics store or called somewhere where I didn't know more than the person I was talking to. But myself and most of the folks here are just not the norm. Just as an example, I was at a get together at a friend of a friends house several months ago and he was talking about the streaming device he had just bought (he was new to streaming). Turned out it was a regular FireTV Stick that he bought at Best Buy. I asked him why he didn't buy a FireTV Stick 4k instead. He didn't even know their was a difference and said that he just bought what the "Best Buy guy recommended". Needless to say after I explained things to him he quickly ordered the FireTV Stick 4k on Amazon and took the other Stick back to Best Buy the next day. Lots of people simply don't understand the technology, are intimidated by all the perceived complexity, and believe they can count on people they think are "experts" to steer them in the right direction.

The one exception I will make are the "geniuses" at the Apple store. The time they take to train those folks clearly shows.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> I think you would be surprised at the number of people that do exactly that. Most people who participate in forums like this would cringe at the idea. Personally I have never gone into any electronics store or called somewhere where I didn't know more than the person I was talking to. But myself and most of the folks here are just not the norm. Just as an example, I was at a get together at a friend of a friends house several months ago and he was talking about the streaming device he had just bought (he was new to streaming). Turned out it was a regular FireTV Stick that he bought at Best Buy. I asked him why he didn't buy a FireTV Stick 4k instead. He didn't even know their was a difference and said that he just bought what the "Best Buy guy recommended". Needless to say after I explained things to him he quickly ordered the FireTV Stick 4k on Amazon and took the other Stick back to Best Buy the next day. Lots of people simply don't understand the technology, are intimidated by all the perceived complexity, and believe they can count on people they think are "experts" to steer them in the right direction.
> 
> The one exception I will make are the "geniuses" at the Apple store. The time they take to train those folks clearly shows.


Yeah, for technical gadgets, I can see that. But for a *cable TV* service? Are people walking into an AT&T store to shop for cable TV at all? And if so, are they unsure whether they want it via a rooftop dish versus a broadband connection? That entire scenario seems strange to me.

And frankly, if AT&T's game plan for AT&T TV holds steady the way it's packaged and priced in the test markets, it seems like a no-brainer that their reps would only actively push AT&T TV and only talk about DTV if the customer asked about it or specifically asked about something it offered but AT&T TV does not (e.g. NFL Sunday Ticket). And the reason I say that is because the profit margin must be considerably higher for AT&T TV if they price it the same, have the same 2-yr contract, but they're spending way less to acquire the new customer. Handing someone a little box with self-install instructions costs AT&T far, far less than sending someone out to install a dish. So I'm not sure I buy the idea of AT&T reps carefully walking customers through the pros and cons of each service to help them decide what's best for them if the company has decided that AT&T TV is better for AT&T.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

So long as they continue to offer free installs for Directv, they'll have an incentive to push new customers towards AT&T TV.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if the free installs go away once AT&T TV has been around a year or so. They might even get out of the install business altogether, and refer people to a local third party company that will do installs for you (and charge you) and maybe bring back the self install option as well like they used to have when they didn't do customer installs.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

techguy88 said:


> The success of AT&T TV will come down to two factors. 1. Store reps/call center agents doing their job properly and asking the right questions to figure out which TV product fits the prospective customer best. 2. If the AT&T TV app in general can handle the influx of new subscribers to avoid the technical issues DirecTV Now experienced.


I'll translate #1 to "marketing". The offers must be good enough to attract customers and the people taking and fulfilling the orders must support or exceed the marketing efforts. If people can't get the advertised service or better they won't sign up. As for which product to sell ... I believe that is easy (discussed below).
#2 shouldn't be a problem. They have had years to work out the issues with DIRECTV Now and the primary target of AT&T TV is home users using AT&T provided equipment for primary viewing.



techguy88 said:


> AT&T TV is perfect for those who want a "traditional" experience with modern features.


Exactly. Not the "give me an app" crowd, the "give me a working receiver" crowd. DIRECTV service without the dish would be the best target. Modern DIRECTV receivers easily deliver channels of entertainment plus modern on demand and streaming channels.

A good flow chart will tell salespeople what to sell. As long as AT&T|DIRECTV doesn't skew away from serving the customer's needs by providing incentives for coercing customers to accept the product that isn't the best match the flow chart will work. Give salespeople an incentive for signing up UVERSE customers for DIRECTV and they will sell what makes the salesperson the most money. If the incentive is reversed we will see DIRECTV subscriber numbers plummet further.

I believe most customers will be sold before they make the call or walk in the store. But AT&T will still have the chance to screw up the sale - and the service.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> ...Not the "give me an app" crowd, the "give me a working receiver" crowd....


I've said for some time that this was the population they were obviously targeting. It is currently a large population, the only questions are how much of it can they capture and how fast is it shrinking...


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

YTTV is about to lose Sinclair RSN’s. So say goodbye to YES and Fox Sports


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

compnurd said:


> YTTV is about to lose Sinclair RSN's. So say goodbye to YES and Fox Sports


Probably, if you look at Sinclair's financials they are sucking wind these days. So they think the path to success is what has always worked and that is go to the never ending well of consumer dollars. Unfortunately the consumer is starting to check their wallet a bit more closely these days.

One of the issue is calling the RSNs "Fox Sports". They aren't that and Fox doesn't have anything to do with them. But it confuses some because they think they are losing some national sports channels.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

compnurd said:


> YTTV is about to lose Sinclair RSN's. So say goodbye to YES and Fox Sports


and the locals.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

JoeTheDragon said:


> and the locals.


I don't think locals were part of the issue


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I assume Sinclair bought those RSNs with the idea that they'd align their contracts and force providers to get the locals and the RSNs as a bundle. It is a lot easier for providers to drop RSNs only, but if they lost all Sinclair locals permanently they would not be a viable national player any longer.

I imagine when Dish and YTTV need to renew their Sinclair locals they'll be faced with the choice of picking up those RSNs or losing Sinclair's locals permanently.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Exactly. Not the "give me an app" crowd, the "give me a working receiver" crowd. DIRECTV service without the dish would be the best target. Modern DIRECTV receivers easily deliver channels of entertainment plus modern on demand and streaming channels.


But just because AT&T TV doesn't require a dish doesn't necessarily make it attractive. Sure, there are lots of folks who won't/can't stick a dish on their roof but aren't those folks just getting cable TV from their broadband provider (cable/fiber) if they're still interested in cable TV?

AT&T will have to communicate something to those consumers that makes them think that AT&T TV is somehow more attractive than existing traditional cable TV providers, all of whom can give you "a working receiver". If you look at the existing marketing materials for AT&T TV, they're clearly relying on the features of its box -- access to apps, Google Assistant, and a 500-hr cloud DVR -- along with lots of included VOD content as differentiating features for AT&T TV.

The question I wonder is whether those features will be enough to bring any customers to AT&T TV who wouldn't already have chosen to take it anyway because they're signing up for AT&T Fiber, and would just as easily taken Uverse TV if that's what they were offered. (AT&T seems to believe so based on their marketing messaging. We'll see.)

And that's where channel packages, prices and contracts come in. The fact that AT&T TV will offer a mainstream channel package (whether that's Entertainment or Plus) that's pretty well-rounded, including locals and the most popular cable nets (including ESPN, FS1 and NBCSN) but without the RSNs and secondary sports nets, is a differentiator, I think. Comcast doesn't offer something like that and I don't think Charter does either. Theoretically, at least, AT&T TV should be able to sell that package at a price that undercuts the standard packages from their cable competitors. Although if they insist on saddling it with a 2-yr contract, when Charter never has a contract and Comcast's are optional 1 or 2 yr contracts in exchange for bigger discounts, that's going to hurt it.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

Apparently pricing is available on ATT store systems now, in prep for a launch tomorrow. The pricing is... unimpressive.










I'm not sure why ATT thinks this is going to be their answer to subscriber losses, especially when you add the RSN fee on top of that pricing, and the 2 year contract requirement.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

‘Unimpressive’ is a huge understatement IMO!

Compared to virtually any other streaming provider those prices should ring up a ‘no sale’ every time. IF, and only if, HBO/HBO Max is included with every subscription level do the prices compare well.


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

OK. This is now available nationally.
As I expected the chat agents are clueless.
Kept referring me to the "Now" web page.
She wasn't aware there was a difference between TV and TV NOW. 
Max Package states "and more sports coverage" She had no idea what that means.
The pop-up for compare channels is atrocious and doesn't include Plus and Max.
Can't seem to find what locals are included. 
This is going to be a long and painful slog.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

I WANT MORE said:


> OK. This is now available nationally.
> As I expected the chat agents are clueless.
> Kept referring me to the "Now" web page.
> She wasn't aware there was a difference between TV and TV NOW.
> ...


I know the O&O call center reps were properly trained on this and after properly explaining AT&T TV they (for the time being) transfer potential AT&T TV customers to a dedicated AT&T TV sales rep. Since there are no chat based centers in my area I have no idea what traning the chat based agents have received. However I think I mentioned this before but AT&T TV is using the 2019 D* prices for those packages. If you want Optimo Mas, Entertainment - Ultimate on a non-promotional, non-contract basis you can subscribe to them through AT&T TV Now (they are listed as "Other Packages") which has been around since AT&T came out with the Plus/Max packages on AT&T TV Now. So for someone *not* trained on AT&T TV I can understand the confusion or the agent wasn't using their resources (i.e. their internal myCSP) which has a page explaining AT&T TV and what to do.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

I WANT MORE said:


> OK. This is now available nationally.
> As I expected the chat agents are clueless.
> Kept referring me to the "Now" web page.
> She wasn't aware there was a difference between TV and TV NOW.
> ...


An out of touch "regular" (year 2 and forward) price point, no Amazon Prime Video, and no NFL ST...what could possibly go wrong...LOL.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

So with AT&T TV going national here are all the updates:

*DirecTV*, *AT&T TV Now* and *AT&T WatchTV* are continuing on business as usual no changes have been made to them.
*U-Verse TV* - This service is no longer available for purchase online. Instead its page has a notification that the service is "now available only by phone. To order, call 844-855-7714." The website has been stripped of all current package promotions. If you want new U-Verse TV service you must call that specific number. There is a big ad for AT&T TV with a link to the AT&T TV page. Existing customers no changes business as usual. (Death is knocking on U-Verse's door.)
*AT&T Internet* - Prices have changed and no longer requires a 12 month commitment.  Check with AT&T's website for availability in your area. The prices are now designed to get customers to get the top speed available to them. Internet 300 is no longer available for Fiber markets and those who have it is grandfathered.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

For the table above the reason I put Internet 10-18 with the Internet Basic speeds is I have been told AT&T has a lock in place to prevent agents from ordering an AT&T TV + Internet bundle for customers who have AT&T Internet speeds below the grandfathered Internet 24 plan. AT&T recommends 8Mbps per stream for AT&T TV to operate at its highest quality and since 3 concurrent streams within the home would require 24Mbps based on AT&T's own guidelines they will not allow agents to sell that service alongside a plan less than 24Mpbs. Agents are instructed to pitch only DirecTV for those customers when available.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

mjwagner said:


> An out of touch "regular" (year 2 and forward) price point, no Amazon Prime Video, and no NFL ST...what could possibly go wrong...LOL.


Just as an experiment since my subscription to AT&T TV Now is active until March 8, 2020. I reactivated my Amazon Prime account for 1 month (plus now I will catch up on all these shows and online shopping now).

Anyway while the Amazon Prime Video app isn't available on the AT&T TV device (aka Osprey) it has built-in Chromecast support which allows you to open the Amazon Prime Video app on your iPhone or Android smartphone, iPad or Android tablet and Chrome browser and you can cast anything from the Amazon Prime Video app to the AT&T TV device. The video quality is displaying at the highest quality my TVs support (1080p). I tried this on all possible devices I have and it worked flawlessly.

I was able to cast the first episode of Amazon's _The Boys_ from my Amazon Prime Video app on iPhone XR to my Osprey device and even make and receive calls, surf the web, use Facebook and a variety of other apps during the test and the video quality was still at max quality.

I feel AT&T will get native Amazon Prime Video app support eventually but in the meantime casting should work just fine. The AT&T TV device still has a lot of apps that Comcast's X1 and Dish's Hopper lacks like Disney+ (the big one for most), ESPN+, CBS All Access, etc. They also offer support for apps X1 and Hopper has like Netflix, Tubi TV, Pluto TV, etc.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

It's still missing CW and PBS in my area (plus also missing METV on ch 33 as well). To have an equivalent package after the one year discount, it's 150+8.50 (sports fee) + 15 (HBO) + 5 for movie package (HDNet movies and so forth), so for around the same service for me, the cost would be around $180 before tax. I'm currently paying $205. But, again, missing three key channels I watch, limited to 3 streams (where at any one time we might have 5 going at once), so if it were even possible to add another 3 streams, it would probably cost me more than Sat in the second year. This is bad.

I don't know why they don't offer a 30 day trial so people can try it out. If I'm going to invest in 2 years, i want to make sure that it suits my needs and works as advertised. The one review I've read so far, on The Verge, says it's very glitchy. I'd expect that to improve though. So I'll stick with what I have for now and see how it goes. Maybe they will realize there's little incentive for their premium viewers to switch and give us better deals.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> It's still missing CW and PBS in my area (plus also missing METV on ch 33 as well). To have an equivalent package after the one year discount, it's 150+8.50 (sports fee) + 15 (HBO) = 5 for movie package (HDNet movies and so forth), so for around the same service for me, the cost would be around $180 before tax. I'm currently paying $205. But, again, missing three key channels I watch, limited to 3 streams (where at any one time we might have 5 going at once), so if it were even possible to add another 3 streams, it would probably cost me more than Sat in the second year. This is bad.
> 
> I don't know why they don't offer a 30 day trial so people can try it out. If I'm going to invest in 2 years, i want to make sure that it suits my needs and works as advertised. The one review I've read so far, on The Verge, says it's very glitchy. I'd expect that to improve though. So I'll stick with what I have for now and see how it goes. Maybe they will realize there's little incentive for their premium viewers to switch and give us better deals.


This is very bad.. It is also charging me a RSN Fee when they dont offer my RSN!!!


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

The only way to get my business is, RSN's included. $50mo for the entire 2 year commitment. Simple huh? A bonus would be the inclusion of the PAC12 Network.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> The only way to get my business is, RSN's included. $50mo for the entire 2 year commitment. Simple huh? A bonus would be the inclusion of the PAC12 Network.


For sure, if I could get the equivalent to what I have now and it cost me $50 less, I'd do it, but right now, it's only about a $25 savings (in the second and subsequent years). AND I don't get 3 key channels and not enough streams.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

I thought this was interesting:

From Variety:


> From here on out, "Our lead TV products will be AT&T TV and HBO Max," said Rasesh Patel, AT&T's executive VP of broadband and video. DirecTV* plans will still be available, but not actively marketed.*


AT&T TV's Nationwide Launch Sidelines DirecTV, Intros Plans With Sticker Shock

So it sounds like, for at least new users, DirecTV will not be their first option. As i said, I really think this is the beginning of the end for Sat. I don't think AT&T cares about it any longer.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

They never cared about DirecTV Satellite. They only purchased it to get the subscribers.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> I thought this was interesting:
> 
> From Variety:
> 
> ...


See how quick that changes when no one signs up for ATT TV


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> They never cared about DirecTV Satellite. They only purchased it to get the subscribers.


They don't own the subscribers. They cannot force customers leaving DIRECTV to sign up for AT&T TV.
AT&T owns a satellite delivery system that they are apparently willing to let die while trying to market streaming services as if they were a traditional MVPD ten years ago.

Fading from being the #1 MVPD in the country to being #2 and still declining will affect their contract renewals. The powerhouse that could make a channel available to 25 million subscribers no longer exists. AT&T bought DIRECTV to become the powerhouse ... and now their buying power is slipping away.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I never said they owned the subscribers. It is easier to keep a subscriber than to get a new one. Although AT&T seems to be trying to prove otherwise.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> I never said they owned the subscribers. It is easier to keep a subscriber than to get a new one. Although AT&T seems to be trying to prove otherwise.


The logic trouble is that DIRECTV and AT&T are separate delivery systems. They cannot keep customers - they can only convince them to sign up for the new service just like any other non AT&T TV subscriber.

AT&T's challenge is more like Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and Kentucky Fried Chicken. Pizza Hut can't make their customers eat at Taco Bell when Pizza Hut is closed for the night. They can't even force you to buy tacos if you walk in to a combined store and they are out of pizza. All they can do is suggest and hope.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

ATT’s TV offering is in direct competition with YouTubeTV and Hulu+Live. But it suffers because of the 2-year contract, the huge jump in 2nd year pricing and nothing compelling in their channel lineup compared to those two.

The pricing is the worst even if you assume YTTV and/or Hulu+Live would have a $10 increase this year. No matter how I look at at, ATT has nothing that makes it shine enough to want to pay for that self described ‘premium service’ that is really no better than what already exists at better pricing with no commitment.

EDIT: I can’t help but notice that NashGuy has been strangely missing in action on all forums I’ve seen him post in.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> ATT's TV offering is in direct competition with YouTubeTV and Hulu+Live. But it suffers because of the 2-year contract, the huge jump in 2nd year pricing and nothing compelling in their channel lineup compared to those two.
> 
> The pricing is the worst even if you assume YTTV and/or Hulu+Live would have a $10 increase this year. No matter how I look at at, ATT has nothing that makes it shine enough to want to pay for that self described 'premium service' that is really no better than what already exists at better pricing with no commitment.
> 
> EDIT: I can't help but notice that NashGuy has been strangely missing in action on all forums I've seen him post in.


He is looking for all of that 4K, the missing channels and RSN's that were all "predicted" to show up


----------



## RickD_99 (Sep 15, 2003)

Ummm trying to think a bit outside the box here since it’s obvious no one at AT&T is capable of doing so...what about transitioning DirecTV sat service to a premium sports only service? As I’ve said a few times here if it weren’t for sports I would have kicked DirecTV to the curb long ago. Why not let the streaming service cover the traditional cable networks for those that want them and have a separate sat service for the sports nuts like myself? As I mentioned it would have to be premium: absolute minimum would be all sports channels in 1080p format and native 4K for those channels that offer it
(hopefully the 4K offerings would increase over time).

Is what I am suggesting even remotely feasible financially from AT&T’s perspective? Yes I realize AT&T would still be burdened with subscriber aquisition costs related to sat delivery but presumably the total subscriber numbers to such a premium sports service would be lower than is the case currently with DirecTV, thus lessening the negative impact to AT&T’s bottom line...


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> The logic trouble is that DIRECTV and AT&T are separate delivery systems. They cannot keep customers - they can only convince them to sign up for the new service just like any other non AT&T TV subscriber.


It seems they want them to stay separate, for now anyway.

The fine print includes: _**$19.95 ACTIVATION, EARLY TERMINATION FEE OF $15/MO. FOR EACH MONTH REMAINING ON AGMT., EQUIPMENT NON-RETURN AND ADD'L FEES APPLY.*Price incl. AT&T TV Pkg., and 1 AT&T TV device. New residential customers only, excluding DIRECTV and U-verse TV customers. Restr's apply.
_
If you're already a DTV or U-Verse customer, you're paying the full prices out of the gate.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

compnurd said:


> See how quick that changes when no one signs up for ATT TV


My guess is this....if D* continues to lose subs, and the new service doesn't take off, the writing is on the wall for "traditional" sat and cable. People just don't want to invest in it. The reason why new service won't take off is because there's already something like that and this isn't a cheaper alternative. But for how much longer are people going to stick with the old model of TV? The "new kids" are already forsaking it. So as dinosaurs like myself die off, and there's less to sell "premium" packages to, AT&T is going to have to decide which is more profitable for them or perhaps, just get out of the business and stick with HBO Max or some similar service. I think that's what's going to happen in AT&T's case. They might eventually sell off their old school TV services and become just another Netflix competitor.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> ATT's TV offering is in direct competition with YouTubeTV and Hulu+Live. But it suffers because of the 2-year contract, the huge jump in 2nd year pricing and nothing compelling in their channel lineup compared to those two.
> 
> The pricing is the worst even if you assume YTTV and/or Hulu+Live would have a $10 increase this year. No matter how I look at at, ATT has nothing that makes it shine enough to want to pay for that self described 'premium service' that is really no better than what already exists at better pricing with no commitment.
> 
> EDIT: I can't help but notice that NashGuy has been strangely missing in action on all forums I've seen him post in.


I don't think it's in direct competition with YTTV and Hulu (AT&T Now is). They offer many more channels than those. What they are in competition with is their own Sat service (which they intend to make niche or let it die off) DISH and traditional cable. Those who want to save costs and have limited channels will move to one of the smaller OTT services like YTTV. That might be enough for the cord cutters where price is a premium at the expense of having everything, including best quality and most channels. What AT&T is looking for with this new service (IMO) is:

1) A cheaper deliver method and one they are much more familiar with that fits in with their core products (I know it's arguable which is cheaper to deliver...but they seem to think this methodology is cheaper)

2) A way to tie in AT&T ISP service to their TV offering.

3) Eventually a way to sunset both UVerse and DirecTV without losing subs.

I also think of this service as the Luxury Brand of streaming services. Nobody needs a Lexus, Mercedes, and the like, but you get everything in them plus things you actually don't need but are fun to have. But cost conscious folks who just need a car, aren't going to buy those brands. It's the same, those looking to save a buck aren't buying this service.

Lets see how this works out for them. I have my doubts like the rest of you, but heck, I've been wrong before.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

espaeth said:


> It seems they want them to stay separate, for now anyway.
> 
> The fine print includes: _**$19.95 ACTIVATION, EARLY TERMINATION FEE OF $15/MO. FOR EACH MONTH REMAINING ON AGMT., EQUIPMENT NON-RETURN AND ADD'L FEES APPLY.*Price incl. AT&T TV Pkg., and 1 AT&T TV device. New residential customers only, excluding DIRECTV and U-verse TV customers. Restr's apply.
> _
> If you're already a DTV or U-Verse customer, you're paying the full prices out of the gate.


LOL... a $19.95 activation fee...for a self install service...is their literally no fee that AT&T doesn't love...what a deal...


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Why would I sub to this? I'd need XTRA to get all my channels = $124/mo + RSN + taxes + box fees. Even if I paid full sticker on DTV, it'd be less then that.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

from an article I read:After testing AT&T TV in 13 markets, the company is moving AT&T TV to the forefront of its TV business with the launch of the service this week across the United States. Simultaneously, DirecTV plans will no longer be actively marketed as AT&T plans to deemphasize the DirecTV branding moving forward. However, DirecTV plans will still be available to purchase."

QUOTE="Steveknj, post: 3558943, member: 444449"]I don't think it's in direct competition with YTTV and Hulu (AT&T Now is). They offer many more channels than those. What they are in competition with is their own Sat service (which they intend to make niche or let it die off) DISH and traditional cable. Those who want to save costs and have limited channels will move to one of the smaller OTT services like YTTV. That might be enough for the cord cutters where price is a premium at the expense of having everything, including best quality and most channels. What AT&T is looking for with this new service (IMO) is:

1) A cheaper deliver method and one they are much more familiar with that fits in with their core products (I know it's arguable which is cheaper to deliver...but they seem to think this methodology is cheaper)

2) A way to tie in AT&T ISP service to their TV offering.

3) Eventually a way to sunset both UVerse and DirecTV without losing subs.

I also think of this service as the Luxury Brand of streaming services. Nobody needs a Lexus, Mercedes, and the like, but you get everything in them plus things you actually don't need but are fun to have. But cost conscious folks who just need a car, aren't going to buy those brands. It's the same, those looking to save a buck aren't buying this service.

Lets see how this works out for them. I have my doubts like the rest of you, but heck, I've been wrong before.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Getteau (Dec 20, 2007)

espaeth said:


> It seems they want them to stay separate, for now anyway.
> 
> The fine print includes: _**$19.95 ACTIVATION, EARLY TERMINATION FEE OF $15/MO. FOR EACH MONTH REMAINING ON AGMT., EQUIPMENT NON-RETURN AND ADD'L FEES APPLY.*Price incl. AT&T TV Pkg., and 1 AT&T TV device. New residential customers only, excluding DIRECTV and U-verse TV customers. Restr's apply.
> _
> If you're already a DTV or U-Verse customer, you're paying the full prices out of the gate.


Wait, what happened to you owning the box. Maybe they are going to charge an "Equipment non-return fee" if you were financing the box and didn't send it back.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

It’s if you cancel within the 14 day cancellation window and don’t return the box.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RickD_99 said:


> Ummm trying to think a bit outside the box here since it's obvious no one at AT&T is capable of doing so...what about transitioning DirecTV sat service to a premium sports only service? As I've said a few times here if it weren't for sports I would have kicked DirecTV to the curb long ago. Why not let the streaming service cover the traditional cable networks for those that want them and have a separate sat service for the sports nuts like myself? As I mentioned it would have to be premium: absolute minimum would be all sports channels in 1080p format and native 4K for those channels that offer it
> (hopefully the 4K offerings would increase over time).


A premium satellite offering for a niche audience? Sounds like Cablevision's Voom HD offering a few years ago. That did not turn out to be successful.

The challenge would be to develop the premium content and have enough of it to make it worth paying more for than the basic subscription.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

After watching this thread and getting ever more confused, it helped to read the referenced Variety article AT&T TV's Nationwide Launch Sidelines DirecTV, Intros Plans With Sticker Shock to get some sense of clarity. IMHO essentially someone failed to tell upper management that the cable model won't survive to 2030.

It doesn't matter if you deliver programming via cable, satellite, or wireless internet - that cable model was _designed_ to permit content providers to charge me to subsidize a myriad of channels each watched by a relative handful of viewers (including regional sports).

As I observe my Millennial and GenZ grandkids using it, _streaming_ is not a model designed to meet a multiyear access revenue stream for a wide variation in 43 or 22 minute long weekly entertainment episodic series. Commercial-free Netflix facilitated binge watching. YouTube facilitated home brewed short video. Everything else is unconsciously compared to Netflix and the original YouTube. In order to grab some of that revenue stream, Hulu and CBS All Access offered commercial-free opportunities to binge watch accumulated episodes of series broadcast TV.

The younger generation puzzles at my effort to create a binge-free TV schedule out of streaming offerings. They would really puzzle over someone "channel surfing", the practice of quickly switching through dozens of different television channels to find something interesting to watch by viewing a few seconds of a show already airing and which cannot be rewound to start at the beginning.

The 1970 cable model is dying, as it should. AT&T had better be careful or the dead TV packages might rise up and eat them.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

SledgeHammer said:


> Why would I sub to this? I'd need XTRA to get all my channels = $124/mo + RSN + taxes + box fees. Even if I paid full sticker on DTV, it'd be less then that.


Actually, that's where you are wrong. Let's say you have 5 TVs as an example and only 3 are on simultaneously (as most customers at this point would have Genie Gen 2 [HR44] or Genie Gen 3 [HR54] and are not like us here with a mix of Genie & non-Genie equipment).

The first receiver/device is included at no extra cost and you are now out of the first 12 month introductory pricing and onto Month 13 where you pay regular non-discounted rates and have max RSN fee:

*DirecTV*: Xtra (All Included) $131.00/mo, RSN fee $9.99/mo, 4 Additional TVs [Receivers] ($7/ea/mo * 4 = $28/mo) *Total regular price*: $168.99/mo
*AT&T TV*: Xtra $124.00/mo, RSN fee $8.49/mo 4 Additional AT&T TV devices ($0 assuming you split them into installments or pre-paid for them during the first 12 months) *Total regular price*: $132.49/mo
*Monthly savings w/AT&T TV*: $36.50/mo ($438 in savings during the whole second 12 months of commitment.) So, for example, with AT&T TV you could essentially pick 3 premiums to match D*'s price w/no premiums with same base package.

So let's use that same example above but this time let's do Months 1-12 for a new customer who lives outside of AT&T's Internet footprint and doesn't want AT&T Wireless:

*DirecTV*: Xtra (All Included) $69.99/mo, RSN fee $9.99/mo, 4 Additional TVs [Receivers] ($7/ea/mo * 4 = $28/mo) *Total introductory price*: $107.99/mo
*AT&T TV*: Xtra $64.99/mo, RSN fee $8.49/mo, 4 Additional AT&T TV devices on Installment Plans each are $10/mo for 12 months device total: $40/mo for 12 months *Total introductory price*: $113.48/mo
*Monthly savings w/DirecTV*: $5.49/mo ($65.88 in savings during the whole first 12 months of commitment) Here, for example, with D* you can add either Movies Extra Pack or Epix to match AT&T TV's price with no add-ons.

So AT&T TV actually comes out to be the better deal once you start going beyond the 1 included device in the long term. Also with AT&T TV you have the _option_ to use things like Apple TV, Amazon Fire Stick, etc. for any additional TVs. So during the first 12 months you could essentially get out of paying that extra $40/mo in installment plans if you have 4 devices compatible with AT&T TV app already in your home.

With D* you have to have their proprietary receivers and there is no way out of the $7/mo additional TV fee for each receiver you have active.

Here is a comparison for a home with 4 TV sets total and all the base packages that D* and A* share.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

techguy88 said:


> Actually, that's where you are wrong. Let's say you have 5 TVs as an example and only 3 are on simultaneously (as most customers at this point would have Genie Gen 2 [HR44] or Genie Gen 3 [HR54] and are not like us here with a mix of Genie & non-Genie equipment).
> 
> The first receiver/device is included at no extra cost and you are now out of the first 12 month introductory pricing and onto Month 13 where you pay regular non-discounted rates and have max RSN fee:
> 
> ...


Not quite . By a long shot.

1) I'm a long time DirecTV sub, so I'm on legacy billing.
2) First (and only) TV is free.
3) HD + DVR (HR54) + WHDR = $23 vs. $25 for ARF
4) I'm on Preferred Xtra, so RSN = $0 AND I get more channels then the streaming service Xtra.
5) My sticker = $129.99
6) DirecTV has the loyalty program, streaming doesn't. So right now I'm actually only paying $89.99 (and I haven't paid anywhere near full price in over 10+ yrs). As a matter of fact, last summer I was down in the $50's for 4 - 5 months. My latest promo is up at the end of April, so I'll see if I can get them to re-up it.
7) I don't order PPVs or watch commercial loaded VOD or have premiums or sports channels. I have other, much cheaper sources for movies.
8) I don't care what the promo pricing is since I'd have to sign a 2 yr contract and get ripped off in the 2nd year. No way in hell they do a loyalty program or negotiate on the streaming.

If they bring me back down to $89.99, I'd likely keep DirecTV, although TVision is enticing and a better/cheaper service then AT&T TV. If they don't get me down that far, then I'll probably go TVision still. That'll be $105 out the door with a better channel selection.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

phrelin said:


> The 1970 cable model is dying, as it should. AT&T had better be careful or the dead TV packages might rise up and eat them.


At first, I was thinking definitely this, but all the 1970s cable model did was broaden the 1950s linear distribution model beyond three channels. Those represented the technology at the time, which only allow a limited number of individual linear broadcasts.

I'm not totally sold on You Tube and Netflix as the replacement. Same with the demise of episodic television.

I also think sports are in the mix, but a broader array of sports.

What evolving is distribution... it's moving closer to the content producer. And, it's happening pretty fast.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## swyman18 (Jan 12, 2009)

Been lurking in this thread for a while because I’ve been following this launch. One thing I noticed is that the Premium pack is missing many of the linear feeds on A*. You only get 3 HBO, 3 Showtime, 3 Starz and 2 Cinemax feeds. It’s been a while since I’ve had D*, but I think they have many more linear feeds for those premiums. 

Most people maybe don’t care, but I tend to channel surf the linear feeds in search of movies to catch and record. It was nice having all those extra feeds.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

swyman18 said:


> Been lurking in this thread for a while because I've been following this launch. One thing I noticed is that the Premium pack is missing many of the linear feeds on A*. You only get 3 HBO, 3 Showtime, 3 Starz and 2 Cinemax feeds. It's been a while since I've had D*, but I think they have many more linear feeds for those premiums.
> 
> Most people maybe don't care, but I tend to channel surf the linear feeds in search of movies to catch and record. It was nice having all those extra feeds.


HBO MAX will make 3 HBO feeds not that big of an deal other then lack of east / west. Sat needs more linear.


----------



## RickD_99 (Sep 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> A premium satellite offering for a niche audience? Sounds like Cablevision's Voom HD offering a few years ago. That did not turn out to be successful.
> 
> The challenge would be to develop the premium content and have enough of it to make it worth paying more for than the basic subscription.


Yeah come to think of it Voom is a primo example suggesting why such a premium niche sports package would likely fail. Not to mention the fact that even if AT&T were interested in such a product it would be less costly to them to stream it as opposed to delivering it via satellite.


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

I had Voom.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

RickD_99 said:


> Yeah come to think of it Voom is a primo example suggesting why such a premium niche sports package would likely fail. Not to mention the fact that even if AT&T were interested in such a product it would be less costly to them to stream it as opposed to delivering it via satellite.


I looked at Voom just before it died and DirecTV 10 came online greatly expanding D*'s HD offering. At the time my interest was HD bang for my buck, and DirecTV was about to kick everyone's butt in that area.

The issue with Voom was a lack of content, not that it was niche. They had something like 10 channels and by the time I looked, everything on them were repeats.

Niche and sports is also a problem. The big four (NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL) cover a vast majority of sports. Add the EPL and MLS, and you have just about all English language sports viewership in the US. Add Liga MX, and you get the Spanish language. These leagues all have national rights contracts with the big networks and out-of-market streaming. The only possible niche that you could build something around is NFL Sunday Ticket, and AT&T will be wise to ride that horse as long as they can.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RickD_99 (Sep 15, 2003)

wmb said:


> Niche and sports is also a problem. The big four (NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL) cover a vast majority of sports. Add the EPL and MLS, and you have just about all English language sports viewership in the US. Add Liga MX, and you get the Spanish language. These leagues all have national rights contracts with the big networks and out-of-market streaming. The only possible niche that you could build something around is NFL Sunday Ticket, and AT&T will be wise to ride that horse as long as they can.


What I would like to see is the pro sports equivalent of Netflix. That is compelling content presented in the highest quality possible (minimum 1080p/preferably native 4K and HDR). As you mention above though the pro leagues have complicated contract structures that are significant roadblocks to setting up such a service...


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

wmb said:


> At first, I was thinking definitely this, but all the 1970s cable model did was broaden the 1950s linear distribution model beyond three channels. Those represented the technology at the time, which only allow a limited number of individual linear broadcasts.
> 
> I'm not totally sold on You Tube and Netflix as the replacement. Same with the demise of episodic television.
> 
> ...


I kind of agree with this. I think eventually what's going to happen is rather than "networks" (and I use that in the broad sense of the word, for example, Netflix only content is "network") are seeing the advantages to controlling the full distribution of their content. They control production, marketing and advertising, and distributing. There's eventually no need for another outlet, whether it be a TV network, a cable channel or even a larger scale streaming service to distribute their content. This is something that CBS foresaw with CBS All Access and it's been a successful model. So this is why we are seeing the upcoming HBO Max, Peacock, Disney Plus and even Hulu (becoming more ABC centric). I think this is the eventual future of TV. I think things like YTTV and the like are stop gaps for those transitioning from traditional cable/Sat to this new model. And eventually (might be 10-20 years down the road) I can see traditional broadcast TV going the way of radio, becoming an outlet for local programming and perhaps local sports coverage, but "network" style shows moving to streaming distribution. I also see the "pay for ad-free" model eventually disappearing as well, as networks decide that they have to monetize their model with commercials because the ad-free for pay model will never max out revenue the way ad supported model will (kind of like how cable went...few ad supported channels to almost everything but a select few).


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

RickD_99 said:


> What I would like to see is the pro sports equivalent of Netflix. That is compelling content presented in the highest quality possible (minimum 1080p/preferably native 4K and HDR). As you mention above though the pro leagues have complicated contract structures that are significant roadblocks to setting up such a service...


Isn't that what they are trying to do with DAZN? But how would you ever get the big networks to give up any of that? The NFL is really the network's last cash cow. The NBA brings in a lot of ad money. I do think there is room for some streaming with those, but I don't see (yet) there be large scale movement. They want to get the most eyeballs and you still need traditional TV for that. Ten years down the road? Might be different.


----------



## RickD_99 (Sep 15, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Isn't that what they are trying to do with RAZN? But how would you ever get the big networks to give up any of that? The NFL is really the network's last cash cow. The NBA brings in a lot of ad money. I do think there is room for some streaming with those, but I don't see (yet) there be large scale movement. They want to get the most eyeballs and you still need traditional TV for that. Ten years down the road? Might be different.


You meant DAZN right? Yes I would agree DAZN seems to be following that model but so far they are boxing, MMA, and some MLB. If they start adding more major sports like NHL in the future I might give them a look. ESPN+ is also doing a pretty good job at streaming but so far not in the quality (4K) I would prefer though the potential for that down the road is real. Fox Sports has done some nice 4K streaming of football and baseball as well. You make a good point about eyeballs as a complicating factor in all of this: the pro sports leagues and owners are always going to want concrete metrics like total available eyeballs when considering pricing of rights fees and ads. Those metrics aren't as easy to come by with streaming...


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

RickD_99 said:


> You meant DAZN right? Yes I would agree DAZN seems to be following that model but so far they are boxing, MMA, and some MLB. If they start adding more major sports like NHL in the future I might give them a look. ESPN+ is also doing a pretty good job at streaming but so far not in the quality (4K) I would prefer though the potential for that down the road is real. Fox Sports has done some nice 4K streaming of football and baseball as well. You make a good point about eyeballs as a complicating factor in all of this: the pro sports leagues and owners are always going to want concrete metrics like total available eyeballs when considering pricing of rights fees and ads. Those metrics aren't as easy to come by with streaming...


Yes DAZN. They are similar to where ESPN was in it's early days. I heard that they are a player for both the MLB and NHL contracts which I believe are up soon.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

SledgeHammer said:


> Not quite . By a long shot.
> 
> 1) I'm a long time DirecTV sub, so I'm on legacy billing.
> 2) First (and only) TV is free.
> ...


For you in your current situation AT&T TV doesn't make the best option especially if you like Preferred Xtra and the channels D* has that A* doesn't have at this time. You sound like the type of customer AT&T doesn't want to migrate from D* to A* at this time. However what I provided was a generalized home setup with multiple TVs which is what most people have.

Also the test markets launched around August 2019 so they are still within their first 12 month promo pricing. We have no idea what AT&T is going to do once they roll into regular price. AT&T may do a test and try where they might not offer those subscribers any loyalty discounts and call their bluff. However if they begin losing too many I can see AT&T quickly introducing loyalty discounts for A* just like U* and D* have today.

For example AT&T could plan loyalty offers better for A* since there is no additional costs aside from the RSN fee so Optimo Mas & Entertainment could get a $25/12 making them $61 & $68 /mo respectively. Choice could get a $35/12 making it $80/mo + RSN / Xtra could get a $40/12 making it $84/mo + RSN / Ultimate could also get a $40/12 making it $95/mo + RSN. Doing that kind of loyalty discount structure is cheaper on AT&T versus handing out $50 - $70 they currently do on U* and D* in some cases. 

No matter how you slice it for 1 TV the price is about the same before loyalty discounts are factored in:
*Current DirecTV All Included 1TV customers: *Preferred Xtra (All Included) is $129.00/mo
*Legacy customers on/before Feb. 8, 2012*: Preferred Xtra $106.99, ARS-HD $10, ARS-DVR $10, WH-DVR $3, Primary TV $0. Total Monthly Cost $129.99/mo
*Legacy customers Feb. 9, 2012 - July 23, 2014*: Preferred Xtra $106.99, ARS $25, Primary TV $0. Total Monthly Cost $131.99/mo
*Customers with Legacy pricing on/after July 24, 2014*: Preferred Xtra $106.99, ARS $15, Primary TV $7. Total Monthly Cost $128.99/mo


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

Steveknj said:


> And eventually (might be 10-20 years down the road) I can see traditional broadcast TV going the way of radio, becoming an outlet for local programming and perhaps local sports coverage, but "network" style shows moving to streaming distribution.


I'm wondering what the implications of this will be. In a streaming only world, local network affiliates are unnecessary. The problem is that they serve a purpose informing people of local news. There is a governmental interest here, that may result in a mandate.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

wmb said:


> I'm wondering what the implications of this will be. In a streaming only world, local network affiliates are unnecessary. The problem is that they serve a purpose informing people of local news. There is a governmental interest here, that may result in a mandate.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


streaming may have to add local EAS + maybe VPN ban's to get that done as well.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

wmb said:


> I'm wondering what the implications of this will be. In a streaming only world, local network affiliates are unnecessary. The problem is that they serve a purpose informing people of local news. There is a governmental interest here, that may result in a mandate.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's a good point. My guess is that local affiliates not owned by their parent network would end up being sold off to a local entity. Those privately owned stations affiliated with various networks in various markets might continue to operate as they do now, without the network affiliation. Think of it as them all becoming independent stations with their own local programming. Like I said, i see a radio model here. They carry local news, local sports, maybe local TV talk and some syndicated type content. But I think the major networks will eventually move away from this system. I don't see it happening in the near future, but if things continue to go the way they do, then, it will eventually make sense from a financial standpoint to cut bait.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Steveknj said:


> That's a good point. My guess is that local affiliates not owned by their parent network would end up being sold off to a local entity. Those privately owned stations affiliated with various networks in various markets might continue to operate as they do now, without the network affiliation. Think of it as them all becoming independent stations with their own local programming. Like I said, i see a radio model here. They carry local news, local sports, maybe local TV talk and some syndicated type content. But I think the major networks will eventually move away from this system. I don't see it happening in the near future, but if things continue to go the way they do, then, it will eventually make sense from a financial standpoint to cut bait.


What pay ATSC 3.0 channels will we see?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

techguy88 said:


> For you in your current situation AT&T TV doesn't make the best option especially if you like Preferred Xtra and the channels D* has that A* doesn't have at this time. You sound like the type of customer AT&T doesn't want to migrate from D* to A* at this time. However what I provided was a generalized home setup with multiple TVs which is what most people have.
> 
> Also the test markets launched around August 2019 so they are still within their first 12 month promo pricing. We have no idea what AT&T is going to do once they roll into regular price. AT&T may do a test and try where they might not offer those subscribers any loyalty discounts and call their bluff. However if they begin losing too many I can see AT&T quickly introducing loyalty discounts for A* just like U* and D* have today.
> 
> ...


I sure as hell won't be paying DirecTV $130/mo if they don't re-up my promo. I can do better then that on any traditional service or a hybrid traditional/ott like tvision. I won't go straight up OTT at this time. I think there is a 0% chance they'll do a loyalty program on streaming. 1) ALL streaming services are hemorrhaging money 2) Loyalty is a DirecTV thing. The T CEO has said repeatedly he wants to get rid of "low value" customers like me lol. In the promo thread, some people are still getting fat discounts, so... fingers crossed.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Steveknj said:


> Yes DAZN. They are similar to where ESPN was in it's early days. I heard that they are a player for both the MLB and NHL contracts which I believe are up soon.


and about the teams that have local rights? Bars that need to get TV from cable / sat to be legal + bandwidth issues. People who don't want to have the buy full price cable to get there local team and then streaming on top of that to get the network games (that can have local blackouts)


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

Based upon a chat that I had yesterday.
Locals will be determined by your internet IP. 
If you travel and take the box along you will get the networks from where you are currently at.
VPNs are allowed.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

I WANT MORE said:


> Based upon a chat that I had yesterday.
> Locals will be determined by your internet IP.
> If you travel and take the box along you will get the networks from where you are currently at.
> VPNs are allowed.


Even RSN's? and stuff like MLB-EI, NBA-LP, NHL-CI, NFL-ST?


----------



## dminches (Oct 1, 2006)

I assume NFL Sunday ticket isn’t available with AT&T TV? Also, I didn’t see anything discussing 4k.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dminches said:


> I assume NFL Sunday ticket isn't available with AT&T TV? Also, I didn't see anything discussing 4k.


Pretty sure we will see that. From what I've read recently ATTTV will cause the demise of D* as we know it. If they CAN sell the ST they will. Seems like they have made ATTTV work as D* does in all respects. Or are getting to that point. Smart move on their part, smarter thing to do would be to forget about the 2 year comittment. I'm interested, but not interested enough for a 2 year comittment.

Rich


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

JoeTheDragon said:


> Even RSN's? and stuff like MLB-EI, NBA-LP, NHL-CI, NFL-ST?


That is my understanding.


----------



## ThaPhenom (Aug 21, 2006)

I WANT MORE said:


> That is my understanding.


What's to stop a displaced fan from just using a VPN to circumvent the need to subscribe to NFL-ST, NBA-LP, MLB-EI, etc?


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

My guess is "VPNs are allowed" is a bit of a misnomer.

If you VPN to home (or work), you're probably fine. If you're using TunnelBear, NordVPN, or another service you're probably going to start to have problems. It all comes down to how many connections get sourced from the same IP address. Public VPN provider address space is well documented, just the same as they are able to do GeoIP lookups for where address blocks are owned. Netflix, HBO, Amazon, and other services already actively block known VPN tunnel service address blocks.

If you had a vacation home, and you were VPNing to your primary home to be able to watch your locals, I don't think you'd have a problem.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> I don't think it's in direct competition with YTTV and Hulu (AT&T Now is). They offer many more channels than those. What they are in competition with is their own Sat service (which they intend to make niche or let it die off) DISH and traditional cable. Those who want to save costs and have limited channels will move to one of the smaller OTT services like YTTV. That might be enough for the cord cutters where price is a premium at the expense of having everything, including best quality and most channels. What AT&T is looking for with this new service (IMO) is:
> 
> 1) A cheaper deliver method and one they are much more familiar with that fits in with their core products (I know it's arguable which is cheaper to deliver...but they seem to think this methodology is cheaper)
> 
> ...


There is really only two major types of streamers. Ones with live tv as it's main element and ones without. You tube, att tv Hulu etc are all in the first, while Netflix and HBO max are in the second.

They will all compete against the others in their groups first, but also secondarily against all other streamers. This is about to get real ugly for att imho. I think the CEO will be gone within a year because of how badly this is going to go, and many investors want him gone already anyway.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> There is really only two major types of streamers. Ones with live tv as it's main element and ones without. You tube, att tv Hulu etc are all in the first, while Netflix and HBO max are in the second.
> 
> They will all compete against the others in their groups first, but also secondarily against all other streamers. This is about to get real ugly for att imho. I think the CEO will be gone within a year because of how badly this is going to go, and many investors want him gone already anyway.


Yes, I think it will get real ugly for ATT. I can't think of any reason one would want to get their new service, it is overpriced at nearly any subscription level compared to YTTV and Hulu+Live, comes with a nice 2-year contract and ETFs and a price that nearly doubles in the 2nd year. For the price they are charging you can create your own bundle of a few services and have more in the way of content. IMO, their first year pricing is at least competitive, but that 2nd year isn't even close.

And with ATT's superior marketing we have ATT Watch TV, a cheap streaming service lacking almost anything one would want to watch. ATT TV Now which is actually not horrible since it comes with HBO at the low end and HBO+Cinemax at the high end. And for even more money you can get their latest and greatest which does not come with HBO or Cinemax included at any level. But you get one free box!


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

ThaPhenom said:


> What's to stop a displaced fan from just using a VPN to circumvent the need to subscribe to NFL-ST, NBA-LP, MLB-EI, etc?


You need to take anything you are told by a chat rep or phone rep with a large block of salt...particularly about technical or contractual details. Unless you have seen it in writing from AT&T I would be highly suspicious, the comment about VPN specifically.


----------



## dminches (Oct 1, 2006)

Rich said:


> Pretty sure we will see that. From what I've read recently ATTTV will cause the demise of D* as we know it. If they CAN sell the ST they will. Seems like they have made ATTTV work as D* does in all respects. Or are getting to that point. Smart move on their part, smarter thing to do would be to forget about the 2 year comittment. I'm interested, but not interested enough for a 2 year comittment.
> 
> Rich


If they are going to offer NFL ST they should be telling people that.

Any word on 4k?


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Agreed....this wil result in a spinoff and or merger with Dish....no other way out. They (Att) are not going to launch any new sats (Id be shocked if they did).

What many on this board and others still don't appreciate is that the lost millennials do not watch linear tv....they just don't, and that trend will continue.



inkahauts said:


> There is really only two major types of streamers. Ones with live tv as it's main element and ones without. You tube, att tv Hulu etc are all in the first, while Netflix and HBO max are in the second.
> 
> They will all compete against the others in their groups first, but also secondarily against all other streamers. This is about to get real ugly for att imho. I think the CEO will be gone within a year because of how badly this is going to go, and many investors want him gone already anyway.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

dminches said:


> If they are going to offer NFL ST they should be telling people that.
> 
> Any word on 4k?


They are not going to be offering ST for at least 3 years. The current contract does not allow it. And there has been zero word on 4K. Hell they don't even offer all of the RSN's yet lol


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

I think it’s important that we all take a step back and remember that the target audience for this offering thinks that being able to press a button on the remote, speak commands, and have something happen is “new fangled technology”...


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

False....contact expires 21-22 season.....two years....far cry from "at least three years".



compnurd said:


> They are not going to be offering ST for at least 3 years. The current contract does not allow it. And there has been zero word on 4K. Hell they don't even offer all of the RSN's yet lol


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

JoeTheDragon said:


> Even RSN's? and stuff like MLB-EI, NBA-LP, NHL-CI, NFL-ST?





dminches said:


> I assume NFL Sunday ticket isn't available with AT&T TV? Also, I didn't see anything discussing 4k.


AT&T TV doesn't offer MLB-EI, NHL-CI and NFL-ST. They offer NBA-LP Premium to new customers at $0 for the first season but I am not sure how that works (I'm thinking though the NBA app). AT&T TV customers can just subscribe to the standalone MLB.TV, NHL.TV and NBA-LP Premium and use their apps on the AT&T TV device. AT&T TV doesn't offer NFL-ST however the NFL-ST app is available for the AT&T TV device.

If your address isn't eligible for D* you can sign up for NFL-ST streaming only. If someone has D* comes over and subscribes to NFL-ST they can log into the app on the AT&T TV device just like any streaming device.

AT&T TV / TV Now doesn't offer 4K programming. 4K programming is currently supplied by third party apps like Netflix, Disney+, etc. (*Separate subscription req'd)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

raott said:


> False....contact expires 21-22 season.....two years....far cry from "at least three years".


"The NFL and DirecTV have an agreement through the 2022 season"
Forbes

Three years is 20-21, 21-22 and 22-23. The 2020 season starts this fall. Then the 2021 season. Then the 2022 season.

And then who knows ... the NFL may sell their own package separate of any traditional provider. The option to end the contract early has passed.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

raott said:


> False....contact expires 21-22 season.....two years....far cry from "at least three years".


As pointed out by others... 3 years


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Yes, I think it will get real ugly for ATT. I can't think of any reason one would want to get their new service


I can think of one reason that might carry some weight: PQ. I haven't tried ATTTV but if what I read is correct that service will be in 1080p and I don't think any other cable replacement service has that going for it. I know I haven't been thrilled with the PQ on any CRSs I've tried. I was only watching sports on them but I thought the PQ was poorer than D*'s for those games.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> I can think of one reason that might carry some weight: PQ. I haven't tried ATTTV but if what I read is correct that service will be in 1080p and I don't think any other cable replacement service has that going for it. I know I haven't been thrilled with the PQ on any CRSs I've tried. I was only watching sports on them but I thought the PQ was poorer than D*'s for those games.
> 
> Rich


YouTubeTV is also in 1080p. Lacking is 5.1 audio.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dminches said:


> If they are going to offer NFL ST they should be telling people that.
> 
> Any word on 4k?


Might be a contractual thing. Not a question of when they can do the ST, just CAN they do that on the new service right off the bat?

4K? Eventually, I would think. Too big a thing to ignore.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> YouTubeTV is also in 1080p. Lacking is 5.1 audio.


Why did YTTV look like it was in 720p when I tried it? I didn't look at anything but sports and I thought the PQ wasn't nearly as good as what I get from D*.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> Why did YTTV look like it was in 720p when I tried it? I didn't look at anything but sports and I thought the PQ wasn't nearly as good as what I get from D*.
> 
> Rich


Possibly bitrate? I know it is very good on non-sports, can't speak to sports on it as I only watched something on the golf channel for a bit while I was trying it out.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

Rich said:


> Might be a contractual thing. Not a question of when they can do the ST, just CAN they do that on the new service right off the bat?
> 
> 4K? Eventually, I would think. Too big a thing to ignore.
> 
> Rich


I forgot where I saw this but the agreement for DirecTV & NFL Sunday Ticket is currently air-tight restricting it to the satellite platform. This is why DirecTV Now was using U-Verse TV's legacy NFL contract to add NFL Network to the platform until it expired. All other channels on AT&T TV Now/AT&T TV are using the combined, singular contracts AT&T negotiates.

AT&T and NFL were able to conduct a trial for the 2018-19 season where DirecTV Now customers in certain trial markets were able to sign up for the streaming only NFLSundayTicket.TV regardless if they could get D* or not. The catch was they had at least have DirecTV Now's equivalent to Choice which was Just Right at the time that cost $55/mo in 2018. DirecTV Now's Live A Little (Entertainment equivalent) and Todo y Mas (Optimo Mas equivalent) was ineligible.

So no they can't just offer it right off the bat, AT&T and NFL would need to reach an agreement to amend the existing D* agreement to allow AT&T TV customers to subscribe to NFL Sunday Ticket and reach an agreement to add NFL Network to AT&T TV since that is a prerequisite.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Possibly bitrate? I know it is very good on non-sports, can't speak to sports on it as I only watched something on the golf channel for a bit while I was trying it out.


I have no idea what was going on. All I know is I wasn't happy with the picture during games. Switched back to D* for the same games and that annoyance went right away.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

techguy88 said:


> So no they can't just offer it right off the bat, AT&T and NFL would need to reach an agreement to amend the existing D* agreement to allow AT&T TV customers to subscribe to NFL Sunday Ticket and reach an agreement to add NFL Network to AT&T TV since that is a prerequisite.


I'd think/hope they are working on that as we speak. That has to on their minds. That would be huge for ATTTV.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> I'd think/hope they are working on that as we speak. That has to on their minds. That would be huge for ATTTV.
> 
> Rich


I wouldn't hold my breath. The NFL isn't going to be interested in tweaking the contract in these last three seasons, they will be focused on their next steps once it concludes.


----------



## syphix (Jun 23, 2004)

slice1900 said:


> I wouldn't hold my breath. The NFL isn't going to be interested in tweaking the contract in these last three seasons, they will be focused on their next steps once it concludes.


Where there's money, there's always a way.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Rich said:


> I have no idea what was going on. All I know is I wasn't happy with the picture during games. Switched back to D* for the same games and that annoyance went right away.
> 
> Rich


I have YTTV and the PQ for sports and regular shows in on par with D* 
SOMETIMES when my cable internet gets a little slow or issues at YTTV, PQ can suffer a tiny bit.
Saw it a bit during the SB. But for the most part, YTTV and Philo overall about as good as D* overall and 99% of the time. On my 65" LG OLED or 50" LG LED TVs


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

syphix said:


> Where there's money, there's always a way.


Where is the money? If you're talking about someone else taking over for DIRECTV remember that the NFL is obligated to DIRECTV and their current arrangement for the next three years. Violating that agreement would come with a penalty, so not only would anyone offering a better deal need to beat the payment DIRECTV is giving, but they will need to pay the NFL enough to pay off DIRECTV.

If you're talking about AT&T expanding the deal with the NFL then AT&T will need to pay more than they already do. Not an easy thing when there is already a lot of scrutiny as to how they are spending their money on their entertainment products.

Last year there was an opportunity for the contract to be renegotiated. At the end of the discussion the status quo won. Both the NFL and AT&T consider the deal that they have now (and are locked in to for three more years) to be the best that they could get. The market will be different in three years. For now, it is the best deal that each side can get.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

Rich said:


> I can think of one reason that might carry some weight: PQ. I haven't tried ATTTV but if what I read is correct that service will be in 1080p and I don't think any other cable replacement service has that going for it.


They're doing the same thing that YoutubeTV and Hulu are doing - taking the 1080i broadcast feed, applying motion-adaptive de-interlacing, and turning that into a 1080P feed. The algorithms they use aren't perfect all the time, but they do a pretty good job. One thing ATT does have is a slightly higher bitrate than their competitors. (8.5 vs 7.5mbps for the top streaming rate)

For channels that are natively broadcast in 720P (YES, FOX Sports, ESPN, etc), those are still 720P on ATT TV, YoutubeTV, and Hulu the same way that they are on DIRECTV satellite.


----------



## swyman18 (Jan 12, 2009)

I’ve been using ATT TV for the past few days on my Apple TV while I wait for my device to arrive. I have to say, I am pretty pleased at the picture and sound quality. Many linear channels have DD5.1 audio which I was surprised to see.

I was expecting some channels to suffer from the 30 fps “judder” that I’ve seen on SlingTV and others.


----------



## RickD_99 (Sep 15, 2003)

I’ve seen a lot of talk here about D* merging with Dish...is Dish the only viable suitor for D*? Even if D* is down to 16 million subs that’s still an attractive subscriber base. Surely Dish isn’t the only potential suitor for those D* assets?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The decline is not attractive. When AT&T bought DIRECTV a few years ago they had not yet hit their peak subscribers. Multi million losses each year does not make DIRECTV attractive to most investors. If it is sold to anyone it would need to be a company who understood the business and could find a way to keep it alive. DISH would have a decent chance of doing that. And no one else has expressed an interest in buying DIRECTV.

It is possible someone else will come along. It is also possible that DIRECTV will never sell as a service - it will be sold as assets. Hopefully that is at least a decade away.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> The decline is not attractive. ...
> 
> It is possible someone else will come along. It is also possible that DIRECTV will never sell as a service - it will be sold as assets. Hopefully that is at least a decade away.


DirecTV offers a great, premium service, aside from certain kinks. But, when it works the way it should, it can't be beat. I had over 10 years of service from them with minimal issues. If it weren't for price and the fact that things like sound and commercial skipping aren't that important, I'd still be there customer. TBH, if they renewed my discount I'd still be a customer.

That said, they look like buggy whip manufacturers in the 1900's... Those new-fangled horseless carriages are a passing fad.

In 10 years, I'm not sure what the value of their assets will be. Can their aging satellite fleet be repurposed? That is likely their biggest asset. Receivers and dishes are purpose-built. If they aren't used for satellite TV service, they will likely not have any value, maybe have a negative value due to disposal costs.

The big question is whether they can compete as a premium streaming service. A number of people here like the satellite delivered product. Heck, I liked the satellite delivered product. Can they duplicate that premium experience with an internet delivered service at a competitive albeit premium cost?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

wmb said:


> That said, they look like buggy whip manufacturers in the 1900's... Those new-fangled horseless carriages are a passing fad.


I don't consider that to be a fair comment. Both satellite providers saw the digital future. DISH started Sling TV and now has about 20 percent of their total subscribers on streaming. AT&T is all in on streaming (to the detriment of their satellite service) - although most of their streaming subscribers are UVERSE (counted as Premium TV in their quarterly reports). Both have embraced the "passing fad" and invested in the new-fangled services.



wmb said:


> In 10 years, I'm not sure what the value of their assets will be. Can their aging satellite fleet be repurposed?


To a certain extent. DISH would be able to use the DIRECTV DBS satellites that are newer than theirs. The transponders are capable of broadcasting other data than encoded audio and video. I'm sure someone will find a use for them.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> I don't consider that to be a fair comment. Both satellite providers saw the digital future.


This is not the question. In 1900, buggy whip makers saw the market changing around them. They knew they needed to evolve their product, business model, or go out of business. I honestly don't know the fate of the individual buggy whip companies involved, but the industry no longer exists. Likewise, the satellite-based linear MVPD industry is what is disappearing, maybe even the MVPD industry.

The question will be can DirecTV evolve? They are used to high margin, premium satellite service. Can they transition that into a viable long term product?

Dish's question is whether Sling can be profitable as a skinny service.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The "buggy whip" meme refers to companies that don't change - companies that consider the new product to be a passing fad that will go away leaving the buggy whip company still in business. If that is not what you meant then you should have evoked a different meme. As stated, neither satellite company is ignoring the new product.

At this point DIRECTV is a brand name. The company is AT&T. They are trying to evolve but have yet to demonstrate that their product will be successful.

It is a strange marketplace - there are a lot of companies willing to lose money to gain a foothold and chase other companies out of the business. At some point all of the surviving companies need to be profitable. And by profitable, I mean not growing their debt beyond reasonable levels. It is easy to show an operating profit while hiding costs in long term debt.


----------



## iphoneblack24 (Apr 9, 2011)

Forgive me if this question has been asked already. As AT&T phases out satellite TV service, are they providing alternatives for bars/restaurants that depend on the satellites for sports programming?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

syphix said:


> Where there's money, there's always a way.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yup, can't break the four minute mile, can't exceed the speed of sound, can't do this and that...until you throw enough money at it. And isn't that what the NFL and MLB are all about, money? Who knows, a year from now the number of folks that drop cable and sat for streaming might be high enough for them to change the way they do business. Wasn't that long ago that some of us were being treated with derision for even thinking this could happen. Never say Never (make a nice title for a movie, no?). Bond, James Bond.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

swyman18 said:


> I've been using ATT TV for the past few days on my Apple TV while I wait for my device to arrive. I have to say, I am pretty pleased at the picture and sound quality. Many linear channels have DD5.1 audio which I was surprised to see.
> 
> I was expecting some channels to suffer from the 30 fps "judder" that I've seen on SlingTV and others.


Can you truthfully say the PQ is better than what you see on D* for the same content? If you have the time to make the comparisons?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> The decline is not attractive. When AT&T bought DIRECTV a few years ago they had not yet hit their peak subscribers. Multi million losses each year does not make DIRECTV attractive to most investors. If it is sold to anyone it would need to be a company who understood the business and could find a way to keep it alive. DISH would have a decent chance of doing that. And no one else has expressed an interest in buying DIRECTV.
> 
> It is possible someone else will come along. It is also possible that DIRECTV will never sell as a service - it will be sold as assets. Hopefully that is at least a decade away.


OMG, selling D* off as assets. Just the thought of that is, to me, mind boggling. I'm wondering what a fair price for D* might be.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> Yup, can't break the four minute mile, can't exceed the speed of sound, can't do this and that...until you throw enough money at it. And isn't that what the NFL and MLB are all about, money? Who knows, a year from now the number of folks that drop cable and sat for streaming might be high enough for them to change the way they do business. Wasn't that long ago that some of us were being treated with derision for even thinking this could happen. Never say Never (make a nice title for a movie, no?). Bond, James Bond.
> 
> Rich


I think a year or so is about right. Sinclair is in financial trouble in no small part because of the RSNs they bought. SeekingAlpha has a very nice article about their financial situation. ATT couldn't find a buyer for their RSNs at any price they would take. All of that leads me to believe that the RSN model will go away, how soon kind of depends on what the contractual obligations that ATT and Sinclair have with the teams and leagues.

I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with the RSNs that Sinclair owns when the contracts come up with Comcast. No matter which way it goes, it will be telling the forecast for the RSN business model IMO.


----------



## swyman18 (Jan 12, 2009)

Rich said:


> Can you truthfully say the PQ is better than what you see on D* for the same content? If you have the time to make the comparisons?
> 
> Rich


I actually haven't had D* for about 4 years, so I can't really make a direct comparison. Definitely better than Spectrum in my area, and better than Sling TV which I had for a little while.

My TV set isn't all that fancy, just a run of the mill 55" Vizio (non 4k). But I can say that I've watched some HBO content on ATT TV and I can't really tell the difference when comparing the same content on the HBO GO on my Apple TV. The PQ appears just as sharp to me, and fast motion and panning shots are just as smooth.

EDIT: I should clarify that I am currently using the ATT TV app on my Apple TV, not the provided Android device. I am still waiting for them to send it to me. If the PQ is as good on the device as what I see on my Apple TV using the app, I would be satisfied.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> The "buggy whip" meme refers to companies that don't change - companies that consider the new product to be a passing fad that will go away leaving the buggy whip company still in business. If that is not what you meant then you should have evoked a different meme. As stated, neither satellite company is ignoring the new product.
> 
> At this point DIRECTV is a brand name. The company is AT&T. They are trying to evolve but have yet to demonstrate that their product will be successful.
> 
> It is a strange marketplace - there are a lot of companies willing to lose money to gain a foothold and chase other companies out of the business. At some point all of the surviving companies need to be profitable. And by profitable, I mean not growing their debt beyond reasonable levels. It is easy to show an operating profit while hiding costs in long term debt.


I would think this would be an opportunity for an entrepreneur to step in and buy D*. Look at what Derek Jeter is doing with the Miami Marlins. He has taken a wrecked franchise and it looks like he's making a lot of progress with it. Might not be the best analogy but...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

swyman18 said:


> I actually haven't had D* for about 4 years, so I can't really make a direct comparison. Definitely better than Spectrum in my area, and better than Sling TV which I had for a little while.
> 
> My TV set isn't all that fancy, just a run of the mill 55" Vizio (non 4k). But I can say that I've watched some HBO content on ATT TV and I can't really tell the difference when comparing the same content on the HBO GO on my Apple TV. The PQ appears just as sharp to me, and fast motion and panning shots are just as smooth.
> 
> EDIT: I should clarify that I am currently using the ATT TV app on my Apple TV, not the provided Android device. I am still waiting for them to send it to me. If the PQ is as good on the device as what I see on my Apple TV using the app, I would be satisfied.


Thanks, great answer. Appreciated.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I’m still trying to get my head around the financial sense in ATT’s streaming TV offerings. 

For the newest offering, no matter how I look at it, the 1st year pricing is definitely competitive though a little on the high side. But in that 2nd year there just is no way that it makes sense. The only benefit is with the upper two levels have more channels than anyone else is offering, but at a huge premium.

But let’s take a look at the Entertainment & Choice levels. At $50 and $55 1st year, with a channel mix similar to YouTubeTV in many ways, it is a fair deal, though Choice will add an RSN fee of up to $8.50. At $93+ 2nd year it isn’t any deal at all IMO. It actually makes more sense to subscribe and use it for a year and then pay the ETF and cancel on the anniversary. Of course that assume that no discounts would be available in the 2nd year, which is certainly not a given. And those prices don’t include the taxes and fees. I read an article or forum post somewhere today that indicated that the sales people can’t even tell you what those will add to your bill. Heck, even Mediacom will tell me my exact bill when I make a change except for the sales tax as they did when I first signed up with them.

And then there is the box that ATT insists on requiring for the service even though it isn’t needed. Reviews of the box and its performance haven’t been exactly glowing. 

I know that some have said that the box makes it work almost exactly like DirecTV’s equipment, but that isn’t so. Where are channel numbers for instance?


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

The remote has the number keypad.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> The remote has the number keypad.


Yeah, but the channels don't have numbers


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

lparsons21 said:


> All of that leads me to believe that the RSN model will go away


What do you think will replace them, PPV streaming, a yearly season ticket for your local team? But again it's all about the money.

So should we all feel bad for the poor person that has to sell D* subscriptions at Costco?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

TheRatPatrol said:


> What do you think will replace them, PPV streaming, a yearly season ticket for your local team? But again it's all about the money.
> 
> So should we all feel bad for the poor person that has to sell D* subscriptions at Costco?


It is hard to say what will replace the RSNs. Team offerings could be possible, but the problem is the amount of money they all think they are worth. That's why they do their best to hide the true cost per actual viewer.

In the end I think it will be something like that, but at much reduced revenue for those entities. Even an avid sports fan might balk at $30+/month that I think it would be.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

espaeth said:


> They're doing the same thing that YoutubeTV and Hulu are doing - taking the 1080i broadcast feed, applying motion-adaptive de-interlacing, and turning that into a 1080P feed.


Which is the same thing your 1080p or 4K TV does when presented with 1080i input, so they aren't really giving you better than you can get from traditional cable/satellite - it all comes down to the bitrate they are providing.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

iphoneblack24 said:


> Forgive me if this question has been asked already. As AT&T phases out satellite TV service, are they providing alternatives for bars/restaurants that depend on the satellites for sports programming?


THEY ARE NOT PHASING OUT SATELLITE SERVICE!

Even the articles with the misleading headlines are pretty clear that they aren't phasing out satellite - they talk about continuing to sell satellite to customers in rural or other areas without decent broadband. What that really means is that they are going to push AT&T TV except for customers who don't have decent broadband. But if you want Directv you'll still be able to get it if you press for it, they aren't going to turn away customers.

No one's streaming product, including AT&T TV, is licensed for commercial use so they CANNOT legally offer anything except Directv in bars/restaurants for the foreseeable future.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

The line between "not phasing out" and no longer marketing is really, really thin. Talk "misleading headlines" all you want, but the quotes are coming from AT&T leadership. The direction is clear, it is not changing. Satellite will be dead within this decade.



slice1900 said:


> THEY ARE NOT PHASING OUT SATELLITE SERVICE!
> 
> Even the articles with the misleading headlines are pretty clear that they aren't phasing out satellite - they talk about continuing to sell satellite to customers in rural or other areas without decent broadband. What that really means is that they are going to push AT&T TV except for customers who don't have decent broadband. But if you want Directv you'll still be able to get it if you press for it, they aren't going to turn away customers.
> 
> No one's streaming product, including AT&T TV, is licensed for commercial use so they CANNOT legally offer anything except Directv in bars/restaurants for the foreseeable future.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, but the channels don't have numbers


I think somewhere in the review of this box it mentioned the channels do have numbers.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> I think somewhere in the review of this box it mentioned the channels do have numbers.


The last thing I remember reading about it was that ATT Now had channel numbers for awhile, but now that the new service has launched neither do. Of course I could be wrong..


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

swyman18 said:


> I actually haven't had D* for about 4 years, so I can't really make a direct comparison. Definitely better than Spectrum in my area, and better than Sling TV which I had for a little while.
> 
> My TV set isn't all that fancy, just a run of the mill 55" Vizio (non 4k). But I can say that I've watched some HBO content on ATT TV and I can't really tell the difference when comparing the same content on the HBO GO on my Apple TV. The PQ appears just as sharp to me, and fast motion and panning shots are just as smooth.
> 
> EDIT: I should clarify that I am currently using the ATT TV app on my Apple TV, not the provided Android device. I am still waiting for them to send it to me. If the PQ is as good on the device as what I see on my Apple TV using the app, I would be satisfied.


I'm not positive about this, but I believe HBO GO streams in 1080p, while the new service (I believe) streams in 1080i. So I would imagine the picture would be better on GO (FWIW, I tend to watch HBO shows on GO rather than the recorded versions on my DVR because I find the PQ better).


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> It is hard to say what will replace the RSNs. Team offerings could be possible, but the problem is the amount of money they all think they are worth. That's why they do their best to hide the true cost per actual viewer.
> 
> In the end I think it will be something like that, but at much reduced revenue for those entities. Even an avid sports fan might balk at $30+/month that I think it would be.


Here's what I think eventually happens. Looking at it from a purely MLB standpoint (because the bread and butter of RSNs is probably baseball due to the sheer number of games and hometown model) is that eventually the blackout rule might be lifted and the full schedule for your team will be offered, in market will be offered locally, but, teams will still make money as they will produce their own games and advertising money will be mostly kept by the home team. MLBTV will just facilitate this.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

Rich said:


> Can you truthfully say the PQ is better than what you see on D* for the same content? If you have the time to make the comparisons?


If you want to see the ATT TV quality for yourself, just sign up for a 7 day free trial of ATT TV NOW and use your ATV or Fire device. They use the exact same CDN sources, produce the same manifests, etc. The only thing that changes is the veneer of the application itself, and the pricing structure.

One thing that will throw off PQ comparisons is the Osprey box is locked in HDR mode for displays that support it, and just like the AppleTV will produce blown out (but vibrant!) colors when mapping 8-bit SDR colors into 10-bit HDR color space. (Overly simplified: you're mapping colors that are defined in brightness from 0-255 into values of 0-1023 - a value of 128 in SDR shouldn't necessarily be a value of 512 in HDR)

If you use the ATV 4k, just be aware you have to either set your box to 4K HDR (and live with the blown out color mapping) or set it to 1080P SDR. There is a code bug in the tvOS ATT app that's been present since November that video starts to stutter and get out of sync with audio in 4K SDR.

That bug existing for 4 months is a prime example of why I'm anti-bullish on ATT TV. For all the rough edges you see people pointing out and saying "Hopefully they can fix this quickly" -- remember they've been working on this since 2016. They just fixed their apps for being able to pause "live" TV for more than 30 seconds in the last couple weeks. If DIRECTV turned at the speed of an aircraft carrier, ATT TV has been comparatively moving at the speed of shifting the orbit of a planet in just about every aspect apart from product naming and pricing.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> THEY ARE NOT PHASING OUT SATELLITE SERVICE!
> 
> Even the articles with the misleading headlines are pretty clear that they aren't phasing out satellite - they talk about continuing to sell satellite to customers in rural or other areas without decent broadband. What that really means is that they are going to push AT&T TV except for customers who don't have decent broadband. But if you want Directv you'll still be able to get it if you press for it, they aren't going to turn away customers.
> 
> No one's streaming product, including AT&T TV, is licensed for commercial use so they CANNOT legally offer anything except Directv in bars/restaurants for the foreseeable future.


Continue to hold on to this thought, while all around you it's clear, they ARE phasing it out, maybe it won't go away completely, but it's going to be a niche product. There will be no new satellites, very few if any equipment upgrades. It will basically be static for awhile and eventually it will become what it started out as, a service for those rural areas that couldn't get a cable pull only now it will be broadband. Although i see in the next 5-10 years most of those rural areas will have viable broadband via 5G, this making DirecTV even less viable.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> The "buggy whip" meme refers to companies that don't change - companies that consider the new product to be a passing fad that will go away leaving the buggy whip company still in business. If that is not what you meant then you should have evoked a different meme. As stated, neither satellite company is ignoring the new product.
> 
> At this point DIRECTV is a brand name. The company is AT&T. They are trying to evolve but have yet to demonstrate that their product will be successful.
> 
> It is a strange marketplace - there are a lot of companies willing to lose money to gain a foothold and chase other companies out of the business. At some point all of the surviving companies need to be profitable. And by profitable, I mean not growing their debt beyond reasonable levels. It is easy to show an operating profit while hiding costs in long term debt.


Or hiding p&l completely by not breaking out the numbers separately. AFAIK Google does not break out any of the p&l data for YTTV. That said, my guess is they don't care about making or loosing money on a per subscriber basis on YTTV. The gold they are interested in mining is the viewing data ...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> I'm not positive about this, but I believe HBO GO streams in 1080p, while the new service (I believe) streams in 1080i. So I would imagine the picture would be better on GO *(FWIW, I tend to watch HBO shows on GO rather than the recorded versions on my DVR because I find the PQ better).*


I thought ATTTV was in 1080p. What I highlighted above is one of the more important reasons I stream just about everything rather than using D*.

Rich


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

espaeth said:


> If you want to see the ATT TV quality for yourself, just sign up for a 7 day free trial of ATT TV NOW and use your ATV or Fire device. They use the exact same CDN sources, produce the same manifests, etc. The only thing that changes is the veneer of the application itself, and the pricing structure.
> 
> One thing that will throw off PQ comparisons is the Osprey box is locked in HDR mode for displays that support it, and just like the AppleTV will produce blown out (but vibrant!) colors when mapping 8-bit SDR colors into 10-bit HDR color space. (Overly simplified: you're mapping colors that are defined in brightness from 0-255 into values of 0-1023 - a value of 128 in SDR shouldn't necessarily be a value of 512 in HDR)
> 
> ...


If they are forcing it to HDR for everything that is a huge problem. All of my ATV 4ks are set to 4k SDR mode with match content on. That is the only way that SDR programming is rendered in the correct color space. The more I hear about this AT&T box the worse it gets...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

espaeth said:


> If you want to see the ATT TV quality for yourself, just sign up for a 7 day free trial of ATT TV NOW and use your ATV or Fire device. They use the exact same CDN sources, produce the same manifests, etc. The only thing that changes is the veneer of the application itself, and the pricing structure.
> 
> One thing that will throw off PQ comparisons is the Osprey box is locked in HDR mode for displays that support it, and just like the AppleTV will produce blown out (but vibrant!) colors when mapping 8-bit SDR colors into 10-bit HDR color space. (Overly simplified: you're mapping colors that are defined in brightness from 0-255 into values of 0-1023 - a value of 128 in SDR shouldn't necessarily be a value of 512 in HDR)
> 
> ...


Believe me, I think ATT will screw this up royally. Just as they screwed up D*. BTW, taking that free trial at this moment wouldn't do anything for me. There is nothing on D* or ATT Now that interests me at this time. I'd have to wait for the baseball season to start. And I'd rather take the 14 day thing with the box and remote. I like test drives.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> Continue to hold on to this thought, while all around you it's clear, they ARE phasing it out, maybe it won't go away completely, but it's going to be a niche product. There will be no new satellites, *very few if any equipment upgrades*. It will basically be static for awhile and eventually it will become what it started out as, a service for those rural areas that couldn't get a cable pull only now it will be broadband. Although i see in the next 5-10 years most of those rural areas will have viable broadband via 5G, this making DirecTV even less viable.


Think of what all the HDDs in the DVRs are gonna be like in 5-10 years. Since the transition I've had several replacements and none of them had a decent HDD in them. Unless they start putting new HDDs in refurbs the DVRs are gonna be a disaster. All the 24s will have HDDs with 15-20 years on them.

Rich


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Rich said:


> I thought ATTTV was in 1080p. What I highlighted above is one of the more important reasons I stream just about everything rather than using D*.
> 
> Rich


It might be, I'm not sure


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Rich said:


> Think of what all the HDDs in the DVRs are gonna be like in 5-10 years. Since the transition I've had several replacements and none of them had a decent HDD in them. Unless they start putting new HDDs in refurbs the DVRs are gonna be a disaster. All the 24s will have HDDs with 15-20 years on them.
> 
> Rich


That's very true. The one 24 we have left is really lagging. But my thought is, at that point ATT is going to try and talk you into ATT TV.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Rich said:


> Yup, can't break the four minute mile, can't exceed the speed of sound, can't do this and that...until you throw enough money at it. And isn't that what the NFL and MLB are all about, money? Who knows, a year from now the number of folks that drop cable and sat for streaming might be high enough for them to change the way they do business. Wasn't that long ago that some of us were being treated with derision for even thinking this could happen. Never say Never (make a nice title for a movie, no?). Bond, James Bond.
> 
> Rich


Huh on the mile? 3:43.13 is the record now


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Steveknj said:


> Continue to hold on to this thought, while all around you it's clear, they ARE phasing it out, maybe it won't go away completely, but it's going to be a niche product. There will be no new satellites, very few if any equipment upgrades. It will basically be static for awhile and eventually it will become what it started out as, a service for those rural areas that couldn't get a cable pull only now it will be broadband. Although i see in the next 5-10 years most of those rural areas will have viable broadband via 5G, this making DirecTV even less viable.


Sure it'll become a niche product over time - AT&T will be actively marketing AT&T TV and not doing much to market Directv. They've said that, I've said for several years I expected that (though I thought they'd wait a little bit after AT&T TV went national to make sure they have all the bugs worked out...from the comments I've read about people thinking the C71 is sluggish they may still have some work to do)

But Directv with 10 million or 5 million subscribers is still a viable product. Sure, it won't throw off $4 billion a year in cash like it is today, but it'll still be profitable because they've already spent the big money launching satellites, building a dozen broadcast/uplink centers and so forth so the ongoing cost isn't going to be that high. Maybe they don't introduce any new hardware, but why do they need to? What is new hardware going to do that the current hardware can't? Other than show more than two 4K channels at once...I expect we'll see something to address that if/when real honest to goodness proper actual full time 4K channels appear. So far there is not even a hint that any are coming.

What they aren't going to be doing is STOP selling Directv, they'll continue to offer it to anyone who wants it. They've clearly stated that (though you sure can't tell from the headlines on the stories that contained those statements) They also aren't going to be forcing or even going out of their way to convert Directv customers to AT&T TV customers. Every time they mention "migrating" they talk about marketing - i.e. migrating where new customers are added not arm twisting of existing ones.

I am curious to see how this goes, because Directv with a two year commitment and only one year price lock is hard enough for them to sell, AT&T TV with the same terms seems suicidal to me since it will be measured by consumers against different competitors than Directv is.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> I would think this would be an opportunity for an entrepreneur to step in and buy D*. Look at what Derek Jeter is doing with the Miami Marlins. He has taken a wrecked franchise and it looks like he's making a lot of progress with it. Might not be the best analogy but...


One can polish a turd ... but when done one is still holding a turd.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

raott said:


> The line between "not phasing out" and no longer marketing is really, really thin. Talk "misleading headlines" all you want, but the quotes are coming from AT&T leadership. The direction is clear, it is not changing. Satellite will be dead within this decade.


Quotes can be taken out of context - especially when posted on sites that quote other sites instead of the original source. One needs to separate that statement in to what you are claiming AT&T leadership is saying and the opinion of the author. Do you have a reliable source for anyone in leadership stating "within a decade"?

Phasing out would be announcing the end of sale. No new subscribers allowed. AT&T is still accepting new DIRECTV satellite subscribers.
Phasing out IS what is happening to UVERSE. AT&T is directing new UVERSE subscribers to AT&T TV.
Not to be confused with "shutting down" (since they are allowing existing UVERSE subscribers to remain). Neither service is shutting down.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

The box is getting ripped on another forum for being laggy and buggy


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

compnurd said:


> The box is getting ripped on another forum for being laggy and buggy


To be fair, most negatives are about how it does with apps. Seems to do the ATTTV stuff just fine.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> To be fair, most negatives are about how it does with apps. Seems to do the ATTTV stuff just fine.


Then what's the point!


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

compnurd said:


> Then what's the point!


I agree. If I were to go to ATTTV it would be because of the box being the one-size fits all. But if apps are an issue it isn't any better than my Tivo and not even close to being as good as my AppleTV.


----------



## LTYRS (Sep 23, 2019)

swyman18 said:


> I actually haven't had D* for about 4 years, so I can't really make a direct comparison. Definitely better than Spectrum in my area, and better than Sling TV which I had for a little while.
> 
> My TV set isn't all that fancy, just a run of the mill 55" Vizio (non 4k). But I can say that I've watched some HBO content on ATT TV and I can't really tell the difference when comparing the same content on the HBO GO on my Apple TV. The PQ appears just as sharp to me, and fast motion and panning shots are just as smooth.
> 
> EDIT: I should clarify that I am currently using the ATT TV app on my Apple TV, not the provided Android device. I am still waiting for them to send it to me. If the PQ is as good on the device as what I see on my Apple TV using the app, I would be satisfied.


Why would you need the AT&T box if you are already watching on the Apple TV? and if you didn't have that would it be better buying a superior box like NVIDIA SHIELD that don't cost much more?
I know I'm missing something here, is it the remote?


----------



## swyman18 (Jan 12, 2009)

LTYRS said:


> Why would you need the AT&T box if you are already watching on the Apple TV? and if you didn't have that would it be better buying a superior box like NVIDIA SHIELD that don't cost much more?
> I know I'm missing something here, is it the remote?


Well, those are valid questions. However there are a couple reasons I know of so far:

- the ATT TV device supports FF/RWD/Trickplay for live TV. The app on AppleTV and FireTV does not. On those, you can pause live TV only, and there is no buffer.

- I already have a NVIDIA Shield, however the ATT TV app is not available for generic Android TV. Therefore, not available on the Shield.

I just got my ATT TV box earlier today. It also looks like the software on this device has a few extra features. Like for example, pressing up or down during live TV brings up a "mini guide" of sorts. I don't think the app on Apple TV has that, at least not that I've seen.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

compnurd said:


> The box is getting ripped on another forum for being laggy and buggy





lparsons21 said:


> To be fair, most negatives are about how it does with apps. Seems to do the ATTTV stuff just fine.





compnurd said:


> Then what's the point!





lparsons21 said:


> I agree. If I were to go to ATTTV it would be because of the box being the one-size fits all. But if apps are an issue it isn't any better than my Tivo and not even close to being as good as my AppleTV.


Doesn't surprise me but in all honestly I do think people will rip the box quicker just because its AT&T. I had mentioned this when it first set up it will update in the background and during this time it will lag a bit. If you try to install, open and activate too many apps within a short amount of time it will become laggy/buggy.

Had someone else released this same box like Amazon it would be praised. I hear all my friends and co-workers praising this Amazon Fire TV stick but it is way more laggy and crashes way too often for me. I tried to binge watching _The Simpsons_ on Disney+ on that thing and it kept crashing meanwhile the AT&T TV device worked just fine.

I'm just wandering if people are opening an app then going back to AT&T TV then opening another app? Doing that too many times will cause issues with the device.

I'm thinking once the AT&T TV device gets upgraded to Android TV 9.0 it should help with some of the issues.



LTYRS said:


> Why would you need the AT&T box if you are already watching on the Apple TV? and if you didn't have that would it be better buying a superior box like NVIDIA SHIELD that don't cost much more?
> I know I'm missing something here, is it the remote?





swyman18 said:


> Well, those are valid questions. However there are a couple reasons I know of so far:
> 
> - the ATT TV device supports FF/RWD/Trickplay for live TV. The app on AppleTV and FireTV does not. On those, you can pause live TV only, and there is no buffer.
> 
> ...


It does the preview while RW/FF, improved trickplay and mini-guide is exclusive to the device. During my testing w/AT&T TV Now those features were not on the Apple TV or Amazon Fire TV Stick. Sorting channels numerically is also exclusive to the device.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

LTYRS said:


> Why would you need the AT&T box if you are already watching on the Apple TV? and if you didn't have that would it be better buying a superior box like NVIDIA SHIELD that don't cost much more?
> I know I'm missing something here, is it the remote?


In general, why would you need a box?

Current TVs, built within the last 2-3 years use basically the same ARM processor that most streaming boxes use. All the non-Samsung/LG TVs are licensing Roku (Linux) or using Android TV, and the market share of those combined is smaller than the number of either Samsung (Tizen - Linux) or LG (webos -Linux).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

wmb said:


> In general, why would you need a box?
> 
> Current TVs, built within the last 2-3 years use basically the same ARM processor that most streaming boxes use. All the non-Samsung/LG TVs are licensing Roku (Linux) or using Android TV, and the market share of those combined is smaller than the number of either Samsung (Tizen - Linux) or LG (webos -Linux).
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The biggest reason for needing a box is the apps are updated more often and supported longer than the ones built into TV's


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

The box is one of the things that ATT has insisted on having as part of their self described “Premium” service. Therefore the box is part and parcel of the experience and certainly should be running very good. And since the box itself has been out there as long as it has, there is simply no excuse for it not being as good as or better than, some other streaming boxes IMO.

The service has a few problems as I see it.

1. Insisting on the box - it isn’t needed, but the cost of it is baked into the cost to the consumer for the service.

2. Pricing - At the lowest 2 levels the offerings are not significantly better than YTTV or Hulu+Live, and if the 1st year price was the only price, they are competitive but a little on the high side.

At the upper 2 levels is where ATTTV is offering more than any other streamer. And that certainly has value for those that want/need those extra channels.

But in the 2nd year all the prices are just nuts! And I predict that there will either be massive dropping of the service at the 2nd year anniversary or some price drops/dickering.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> But in the 2nd year all the prices are just nuts! And I predict that there will either be massive dropping of the service at the 2nd year anniversary or some price drops/dickering.


I've got to believe that people buying the service are just looking at the promotional price and not clicking the link to the terms that shows their $49.99/month package going to $93/month after 12 months.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

wmb said:


> I've got to believe that people buying the service are just looking at the promotional price and not clicking the link to the terms that shows their $49.99/month package going to $93/month after 12 months.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I took an online subscription to almost buy it. To be fair, the price starting in the 2nd year is obvious on the actual bill summary page, would be hard to miss.

Online for those just getting the TV service and not some combo, you get a $50 gift card and the reduced rate.

Took the subscription up to Choice and the price rises $5/month + $8.49 RSN fee. Note that the RSN fee is supposedly 'up to' $8.49. For my area in deep southern Illinois it is $8.49. I suspect that is because we fall in both St. Louis and Chicago catchment, or at least I think we do.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> That's very true. The one 24 we have left is really lagging. But my thought is, at that point ATT is going to try and talk you into ATT TV.


Wouldn't surprise me. I'm sure they are gonna push the streaming version hard. Be rather cruel to do that but it wouldn't surprise me.

You do know your 24 can be fixed? Most of them can be fixed by simply using the eSATA function and adding a new drive.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

gio12 said:


> Huh on the mile? 3:43.13 is the record now


Now. Not then. Now we know it CAN be broken. Roger Bannister was the first man to do it in 1954. Prior to that it was absolutely "impossible". According to the experts.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> One can polish a turd ... but when done one is still holding a turd.


Tell me that in five years when the Marlins are in the playoffs. I have faith in DJ. One can polish a team.

Rich


----------



## rjk1977 (Mar 7, 2020)

Looks pricey as hell if you want everything


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> I agree. If I were to go to ATTTV it would be because of the box being the one-size fits all. But if apps are an issue it isn't any better than my Tivo and not even close to being as good as my AppleTV.


Since they throw in the box without cost (is that right?) and you don't really need it, what does it matter? Or will it be so good you don't want to use another device? What I mean is, will it be a better experience watching ATTTV using its dedicated remote or using an ATV (or any other streamer)?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

LTYRS said:


> Why would you need the AT&T box if you are already watching on the Apple TV? and if you didn't have that would it be better buying a superior box like NVIDIA SHIELD that don't cost much more?
> I know I'm missing something here, is it the remote?


Think the Shield is superior to the ATVs?

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> Since they throw in the box without cost (is that right?) and you don't really need it, what does it matter? Or will it be so good you don't want to use another device? What I mean is, will it be a better experience watching ATTTV using its dedicated remote or using an ATV (or any other streamer)?
> 
> Rich


Well, it isn't really without cost, it is baked into the price they charge. Here's a thought. Reduce the 1st year cost by the cost of their marginal box for those that don't want it.

As to whether it would be the one-size fits all box, well that is the issue and what makes the ATV such a great box. It is faster than most, supports nearly every streaming app out there and has a UI that isn't horrible.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Well, it isn't really without cost, it is baked into the price they charge. Here's a thought. Reduce the 1st year cost by the cost of their marginal box for those that don't want it.
> 
> As to whether it would be the one-size fits all box, well that is the issue and what makes the ATV such a great box. It is faster than most, supports nearly every streaming app out there and has a UI that isn't horrible.


Sorry forgot about your excellent suggestion about dropping the box and the price. But, I think I'd take the box on the assumption the remote on that box would provide a better experience than you'd get with an ATV. I have tried the ATVs on CRSs for sports and I much prefer the dedicated remotes of the HRs (and the HRs themselves) for sports. For regular programming I don't think it would matter.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

wmb said:


> I've got to believe that people buying the service are just looking at the promotional price and not clicking the link to the terms that shows their $49.99/month package going to $93/month after 12 months.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'd think the folks at ATT are hoping most people do just that.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> Sorry forgot about your excellent suggestion about dropping the box and the price. But, I think I'd take the box on the assumption the remote on that box would provide a better experience than you'd get with an ATV. I have tried the ATVs on CRSs for sports and I much prefer the dedicated remotes of the HRs (and the HRs themselves) for sports. For regular programming I don't think it would matter.
> 
> Rich


I use my Harmony Elite remote for everything, not even sure I know where the Apple remote is these days. I'm sure it is around here somewhere.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

wmb said:


> In general, why would you need a box?
> 
> Current TVs, built within the last 2-3 years use basically the same ARM processor that most streaming boxes use. All the non-Samsung/LG TVs are licensing Roku (Linux) or using Android TV, and the market share of those combined is smaller than the number of either Samsung (Tizen - Linux) or LG (webos -Linux).
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What *compnurd* said in his post and I'll add the remotes on the TV sets don't work as well as the remotes on the streaming boxes...with streaming content. But this is another subjective thing, folks are gonna do what they want.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> I use my Harmony Elite remote for everything, not even sure I know where the Apple remote is these days. I'm sure it is around here somewhere.


Another YMMV moment.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> > One can polish a turd ... but when done one is still holding a turd.
> ...


I was referring to AT&T|DIRECTV.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

lparsons21 said:


> I took an online subscription to almost buy it. To be fair, the price starting in the 2nd year is obvious on the actual bill summary page, would be hard to miss.
> 
> Online for those just getting the TV service and not some combo, you get a $50 gift card and the reduced rate.
> 
> Took the subscription up to Choice and the price rises $5/month + $8.49 RSN fee. Note that the RSN fee is supposedly 'up to' $8.49. For my area in deep southern Illinois it is $8.49. I suspect that is because we fall in both St. Louis and Chicago catchment, or at least I think we do.


Sounds like you are in the same area as me. I am in the St. Louis and Chicago catchment area too in Southern Illinois. My RSN fee went up to $9.99 in January.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> Sounds like you are in the same area as me. I am in the St. Louis and Chicago catchment area too in Southern Illinois. My RSN fee went up to $9.99 in January.


Probably, I live in Herrin which is near to Marion and Carbondale.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I'm north of you a bit (about 60 miles) in Salem. I'm surprised they have you in the Chicago catchment area that far south.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> I'm north of you a bit (about 60 miles) in Salem. I'm surprised they have you in the Chicago catchment area that far south.


I don't know if we're primary, probably not. And to be honest, I never watch RSNs so I wouldn't actually know. Just look at the channel guide in YTTV sub that hasn't run out yet.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

lparsons21 said:


> I use my Harmony Elite remote for everything, not even sure I know where the Apple remote is these days. I'm sure it is around here somewhere.


Some people love the Harmony Elites, some don't. I have several Elites in different areas if the house and we love them. All our OEM remotes are stuffed in a drawer with the batteries removed.


----------



## swyman18 (Jan 12, 2009)

wmb said:


> I've got to believe that people buying the service are just looking at the promotional price and not clicking the link to the terms that shows their $49.99/month package going to $93/month after 12 months.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm giving the service a try, and I've done all the research and I certainly understand the gamble. I am willing to pay a premium price for a true cable/satellite type experience via streaming. It remains to be seen if it will truly live up to that over time.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

rjk1977 said:


> Looks pricey as hell if you want everything


I stress this if you want Plus or Max base packages do not order it via att.com/tv go to atttvnow.com and order them there. If you want an AT&T TV device with those packages go on eBay and grab one of the beta devices for sale that way is much cheaper and no contract. The Plus and Max base packages are $110/mo and $130/mo on AT&T TV and DirecTV (for new customers) respectively but are $65/mo and $80/mo through AT&T TV Now and don't feature an RSN fee on Max.

You won't get "everything" with Max base pkg as it omits channels from A+E Networks, AMC Networks, Discovery, Inc. and the non-important ViacomCBS networks. If you are wanting a setup to give you "every" English channel this is what you need:


















The difference between AT&T TV's Xtra and Ultimate base packages is the StarzEncore multiplex is included in Ultimate but not Xtra. AT&T TV's version of Ultimate does include TUDN like DirecTV's Ultimate does however if you have to have that Spanish sports channel you can add on AT&T TV Deportes for $5/mo to Xtra get it as well. Other than that the channels are the same between the two. According to the channel lineup tool The Movie Channel East and West are not included with AT&T TV's version of Ultimate.
DirecTV's version of Ultimate includes the Cowboy Channel (this channel is unavailable on AT&T TV/TV Now) and DirecTV Xtra does not. 
For comparison if you want "everything" on DirecTV that would mean getting Premier with Movies Extra Pack and Epix as add-ons. This is way more expensive for just 1 TV.
















Even if you reconfigure for DirecTV Xtra with just premiums like on AT&T TV it shows D* is more expensive than A* in that regards:


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

wmb said:


> I've got to believe that people buying the service are just looking at the promotional price and not clicking the link to the terms that shows their $49.99/month package going to $93/month after 12 months.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Unlike Comcast, Spectrum, Altice USA (Optimum/Suddenlink) and other cable providers AT&T is actually more transparent about their pricing when placing online orders than most. Dish is also very transparent as well during the online checkout process.

Like in the pictures above you have to be skimming through and not paying attention to everything highlighted in green. Those appear smaller than normal because I reduced the size of my screen to fit the entire screen capture on a single image. Also they send order conformation emails after orders are placed through any means so you can review them so someone missing the whole 12 month thing I find hard.

Like last month I had a friend that ordered D* through a third party dealer inside our local Walmart who lied and said the price was for 24 months. AT&T sent him a Customer Service Summary via email and he didn't read it and I made him read it. Then the dingus got mad at AT&T because it said the offers were good for 12 months. I told him "No bro your anger should be targeted to the guy in Walmart who sold you the service. AT&T sends you that email so you can ensure the sales rep was honest and if they were not you can cancel the order before install."


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I’d be very interested to know what an actual bill, including taxes and fees would be since even on the next to last page of an order it indicates that the price doesn’t include all taxes and fees.


----------



## rjk1977 (Mar 7, 2020)

techguy88 said:


> I stress this if you want Plus or Max base packages do not order it via att.com/tv go to atttvnow.com and order them there. If you want an AT&T TV device with those packages go on eBay and grab one of the beta devices for sale that way is much cheaper and no contract. The Plus and Max base packages are $110/mo and $130/mo on AT&T TV and DirecTV (for new customers) respectively but are $65/mo and $80/mo through AT&T TV Now and don't feature an RSN fee on Max.
> 
> You won't get "everything" with Max base pkg as it omits channels from A+E Networks, AMC Networks, Discovery, Inc. and the non-important ViacomCBS networks. If you are wanting a setup to give you "every" English channel this is what you need:
> 
> ...


still the cost of it is way to high, I was a DIRECTV customer for 16 years, went to DISH, don't care about HBO or CINEMAX, at least I get the 2 year price guarantee throughout my contract, which currently I pay 123.12 per month for everything they offer. It doesn't increase after a year. I'm not a huge fan of streaming either, your internet goes down, well no TV to watch!!!!!!!


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> I was referring to AT&T|DIRECTV.


Well, AT&T deserves that appellation (turd) for what they've done to D*, for sure. This seems almost criminal, just destroying what was a very good company before they got their hands on it.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

swyman18 said:


> I'm giving the service a try, and I've done all the research and I certainly understand the gamble. I am willing to pay a premium price for a true cable/satellite type experience via streaming. It remains to be seen if it will truly live up to that over time.


When ATT bought D* I thought they'd straighten everything out and we would have a better TV experience. Like you, I keep thinking ATTTV is gonna be a step up. I have a feeling I'm gonna be wrong again. Good luck.

Rich


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

So the AT&T TV Xtra will never be $124 per month? 

I have DTV but was curious what Charter Spectrum costs in my area and it’s $118.59 for Gold that includes movie channels and some local sub channels. Their DVR fee is $12.99 to $19.99 for 1 to 4 DVR’s. $13.50 broadcast fee. Not sure if they charge both the DVR fee and a $7 a month receiver fee if all you have are DVR’s? Total: $151.99 normal price. Unless you want to add the $4.99 wire maintenance fee? However, AT&T TV’s PQ would be better than Charters.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

"After 12 mos. or loss of eligibility, then prevailing rate applies" ... add any price increase that will occur.

Today's full price table is:
ENTERTAINMENT - $93/mo.
CHOICE - $110/mo.
XTRA - $124/mo.
ULTIMATE $135/mo.
OPTIMO MAS - $86/mo.

Be aware of one year pricing on two year contracts.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

James Long said:


> "After 12 mos. or loss of eligibility, then prevailing rate applies" ... add any price increase that will occur.
> 
> Today's full price table is:
> ENTERTAINMENT - $93/mo.
> ...


In that AT&T TV price sheet that was posted showed the XTra package at $190 after 13 months.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

CraigerM said:


> In that AT&T TV price sheet that was posted showed the XTra package at $190 after 13 months.


That price is with ALL (HBO, Showtime, etc...) Premium channels.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Still waiting for someone to post an actual bill for ATTTV with all the fees and taxes listed. Surely someone here has signed up and been charged the first time.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> That price is with ALL (HBO, Showtime, etc...) Premium channels.


Oh, ok thanks, my bad.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

lparsons21 said:


> Still waiting for someone to post an actual bill for ATTTV with all the fees and taxes listed. Surely someone here has signed up and been charged the first time.


Someone will probably have to keep it after the 14 day trial period or login to att.com/myatt to see how much it is w/taxes. The billing for AT&T TV works similar to streaming services as per the fine print "You will not receive a monthly bill. You can view your account information and payment activity by going to att.com/myatt".


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

Although from my understanding how satellite is taxed can be different than cable, IPTV/Fiber and streaming. In most areas now streaming is just charged regular sales tax. Cable, IPTV/Fiber have other fees associated with them in addition to sales tax. This page from Dish Network about additional taxes and fees for satellite is a good resource as I found these generally apply to DirecTV as well. Streaming doesn't have these taxes and fees.

Also from what I've been told by friends that work at the O&O call center that still work with legacy D* billed accounts (where they can see which items are taxable) some California residents only get billed the RSN fee on D* but on U* they have sales tax and any state/local taxes and fees. In some areas they said D* only charges sales tax on the TV access fees and protection plan the programming isn't taxed. In most of the country its just sales tax except in areas on that Dish Network page like Florida which has extra taxes on top of sales taxes.

So AT&T TV could cost less in taxes or more in taxes if only sales tax applies. I know in 2017 the live TV streaming services didn't charge sales tax in Ohio (I tried several of them out for a full month) but in 2020 they now charge sales tax (when I tried them all out again) putting them on par with everything else there.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

techguy88 said:


> Someone will probably have to keep it after the 14 day trial period or login to att.com/myatt to see how much it is w/taxes. The billing for AT&T TV works similar to streaming services as per the fine print "You will not receive a monthly bill. You can view your account information and payment activity by going to att.com/myatt".


From what it says on the website when you activate it takes money then, not 14 days later. If that is so, then a bill has to be generated and should be viewable.


----------



## LTYRS (Sep 23, 2019)

Rich said:


> Think the Shield is superior to the ATVs?
> 
> Rich


I don't have one! just never heard of this kinds of complaints of instability from it, not fanboy of any brand by the way.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

LTYRS said:


> I don't have one! just never heard of this kinds of complaints of instability from it, not fanboy of any brand by the way.


I tried a Shield a year or so ago. Easily the fastest streaming box I've ever used. Used it for a week and sent it back. Prefer the ATV for many reasons, just my opinion.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

OK, to add to the madness at ATT I just found that how much this new service costs depends on how you approach it.

If you go to the main site, you get the discounts in the first year, a 2 year contract, the box and ETFs. But if you go to the ATT Now site and look at the ‘additional’ levels, the same things costs $93. No box, no contract, month to month. Given that both Entertainment and Choice offer similar channels that Hulu+Live @$55 or YouTubeTV @$50 you have to wonder just how far up their collective butts their heads must be.

I think they learned that trick from Dell Computer back in the day, where the cost for a computer varied by just how you got to their site.

I would be interested in the Entertainment level somewhat, but not under either set of terms. Just pure idiocy IMO. You got to wonder if ATT either is making really fat profits at those price levels and if, even with the huge amount of potential users, they can’t negotiate as well as the much smaller streaming services.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

lparsons21 said:


> From what it says on the website when you activate it takes money then, not 14 days later. If that is so, then a bill has to be generated and should be viewable.


Ah okay fair enough someone just needs to look at their account before they cancel to see.



LTYRS said:


> I don't have one! just never heard of this kinds of complaints of instability from it, not fanboy of any brand by the way.





Rich said:


> I tried a Shield a year or so ago. Easily the fastest streaming box I've ever used. Used it for a week and sent it back. Prefer the ATV for many reasons, just my opinion.
> 
> Rich


I'm not a fanboy of either brand but after using a variety of Android and Apple devices over the years I do have a personal preference. Apple devices are built to work with their OS every chip, component, etc that goes into an Apple device is built with the OS in mind. Since Apple is the only manufacture of devices and the only developer of their family of operating systems they can achieve a level of stability and longevity that other platforms and manufactures can't achieve. The SoCs that Apple develops for their iPhones are insanely powerful to the point they can use half the RAM on those devices that Samsung uses on their flagship Galaxy smartphone devices and achieve either the same or better performance.

In the streaming device field Apple TV devices use a variant of the SoC's that Apple's iPhones use. In fact the 4th Gen Apple TV (non-4K model) uses the A8 chip (2014) that was developed for the iPhone 6/6 Plus. That is my main streaming box on my 2nd most used TV and it runs just as quick and snappy as most new Android TV streaming devices. The updated 5th Gen model (4K Apple TV) is using the A10X Fusion chip developed for the 2017 iPad Pros which is based off of the A10 Fusion chip for the iPhone 7/7 Plus.

Thing is if you want something that just works with little effort and will be supported and last for 4+ years get Apple. If you want something with flexibility or lower price point (in some cases) go Android. That applies to phones, tablets, streaming devices, etc.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

lparsons21 said:


> OK, to add to the madness at ATT I just found that how much this new service costs depends on how you approach it.
> 
> If you go to the main site, you get the discounts in the first year, a 2 year contract, the box and ETFs. But if you go to the ATT Now site and look at the 'additional' levels, the same things costs $93. No box, no contract, month to month. Given that both Entertainment and Choice offer similar channels that Hulu+Live @$55 or YouTubeTV @$50 you have to wonder just how far up their collective butts their heads must be.
> 
> ...


Well those packages on AT&T TV Now have always been there since they came out with the Plus & Max packages and that was before AT&T TV went into its trial. It's possible AT&T just wants to have a no-contract option for those who are genuinely okay with the full price.

To be honest to get all the channels I need streaming wise I would need Hulu + Live TV, Philo and also their $14.99 Unlimited Screens and Enhanced DVR upgrade which is $89.99/mo. At that price I might as well sign up for AT&T TV's Entertainment get a free box, a reward card pay $49.99/mo for 12 months then $93/mo for another 12 months since Entertainment has all the channels I need in 1 package in 1 service with a decent Cloud DVR.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Uh, if you need the unlimited screens with Hulu you can’t get that with ATT streaming. But whatever floats your boat! 

I’ll look for the review of your new service along with the other 4 people that sign up for it.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

techguy88 said:


> To be honest to get all the channels I need streaming wise I would need Hulu + Live TV, Philo and also their $14.99 Unlimited Screens and Enhanced DVR upgrade which is $89.99/mo. At that price I might as well sign up for AT&T TV's Entertainment get a free box, a reward card pay $49.99/mo for 12 months then $93/mo for another 12 months since Entertainment has all the channels I need in 1 package in 1 service with a decent Cloud DVR.


To be honest, two years ago when I did the comparison between the old middle tier DirecTV Now and my Choice Extra pack with DirecTV, I decided that the two or three channels I rarely watched weren't worth the price difference.

The same is true when I compare You Tube TV and AT&T TV's Choice package, which is the package I would need to get EPL on NBCSN.

Trade offs and cost benefits. There are other things I'd rather do with the money. Heck, with DirecTV at the time, our package didn't have Boomerang and my wife wanted it. I told her it was $10 more per month to get the package and I would upgrade the service if that's what she wanted. She decided she didn't need Boomerang.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

The good for me is that while I like sports well enough, I’m no kind of fan boy. A good game is a good game and I don’t follow any team or player in any sport. That gives me lots of flexibility in channels wanted or needed.

Sling Blue gives me enough sports though it is missing a couple I’d like. Could add the sports pack or go Blue and Gold(?), but the price rises to YTTV range.

Right now I’ve got both Sling and YTTV going. YTTV brings my locals, which isn’t a big thing as I can get them on my Tivo. It also has my RSNs though I don’t watch them, or maybe its just I don’t watch them enough to remember. But it has the Golf channel which I do watch a fair amount. And it has a wide range of channels, only missing one that I would like, Paramount. And that channel for only one show. I’m kind of leaning towards staying with YTTV and just buying a season pass to Yellowstone.

ATT’s Entertainment pack would be nearly good enough, though I’d probably opt for Choice even though it costs about $13 more and doesn’t have the golf channel. But the 2nd year pricing is just nuts and the service just isn’t worth that 2nd year pricing at any level. I’m tossing around the idea of just doing it for a year and paying the ETF at the 1st year anniversary.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

wmb said:


> To be honest, two years ago when I did the comparison between the old middle tier DirecTV Now and my Choice Extra pack with DirecTV, I decided that the two or three channels I rarely watched weren't worth the price difference.
> 
> The same is true when I compare You Tube TV and AT&T TV's Choice package, which is the package I would need to get EPL on NBCSN.
> 
> ...


I keep certain channels for my grandmother where she comes and visits with my mother often. Channel wise Sling TV Blue has all the channels I normally watch but I would fill up its Cloud DVR lol. If I was just concerned with myself I would switch to Sling TV Blue and invest in a TiVo to record OTA.

Currently I'm happy with D* and won't change. My base cost is $63.99/mo currently because I have Select ($62.99), ARS ($15), 3 TVs ($21), $25 ongoing Video Loyalty Credit w/AT&T Unlimited Elite (originally Plus but I took advantage of their migration offer) and $10 off for 12 months. Then I have HBO ($0.00 w/AT&T Unlimited Elite), Movies Extra Pack ($4.99) and Epix ($5.99) so my total monthly cost right now is $74.97/mo before tax. I don't watch a lot sports so being on Select is perfect for me.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

techguy88 said:


> I keep certain channels for my grandmother where she comes and visits with my mother often. Channel wise Sling TV Blue has all the channels I normally watch but I would fill up its Cloud DVR lol. If I was just concerned with myself I would switch to Sling TV Blue and invest in a TiVo to record OTA.


That was my original plan. Sling Blue, expanded DVR and use Tivo for OTA. I also sub to Hulu basic no ads. In reality I almost never watched anything on the Tivo other than local news. Currently have CBS:AA but have cancelled and it will shut off at the same time Picard ends and nothing else is really of interest.

While I'm diddling around with various services trying find just the right fix, I'm able to see what works and what I'll lose/gain with the various sub levels on the various services.

And while cost is a consideration, it isn't the only thing and not even #1 on the list though I would like to save something. I like the idea of how ATT is bringing things to the streaming market, but the contracts, etf and 2nd year pricing make it just something nice to think about but avoid. It isn't totally out of the question, but it is the least likely to happen.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

lparsons21 said:


> And while cost is a consideration, it isn't the only thing and not even #1 on the list though I would like to save something. I like the idea of how ATT is bringing things to the streaming market, but the contracts, etf and 2nd year pricing make it just something nice to think about but avoid. It isn't totally out of the question, but it is the least likely to happen.


I think it would be a lot better received if they didn't have the 2 year contracts and if the second year pricing was something like $20 more than first year pricing it wouldn't be that bad IMO. I could understand a 1 year contract (which is what U-Verse TV has) for the free box considering the box is a $120 value.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

They are recouping the cost of that $120 box in the second year.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

techguy88 said:


> I think it would be a lot better received if they didn't have the 2 year contracts and if the second year pricing was something like $20 more than first year pricing it wouldn't be that bad IMO. I could understand a 1 year contract (which is what U-Verse TV has) for the free box considering the box is a $120 value.


I think it would be a lot better received if the second year pricing was the same as the first year pricing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> They are recouping the cost of that $120 box in the second year.


Got to question that price for the box considering the pretty negative reviews of it. Seems it only runs the ATTTV service well, not the other apps and has issues with app switching.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

wmb said:


> I think it would be a lot better received if the second year pricing was the same as the first year pricing.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


While that would be sweet, I doubt any streaming service would offer something like that. Instead ATT, just like the rest should be no contract. The cost for the service, just like the rest, could change at any time.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

lparsons21 said:


> Got to question that price for the box considering the pretty negative reviews of it. Seems it only runs the ATTTV service well, not the other apps and has issues with app switching.


You can bet AT&T is making a decent profit off of that $120.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

techguy88 said:


> I could understand a 1 year contract (which is what U-Verse TV has) for the free box considering the box is a $120 value.


I remember when DirecTV Now was giving away $180 Apple TVs if you signed up and paid for three months of service... Even the $35/month level of service.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

wmb said:


> I remember when DirecTV Now was giving away $180 Apple TVs if you signed up and paid for three months of service... Even the $35/month level of service.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yep, watching using the one I got from them then.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

b4pjoe said:


> They are recouping the cost of that $120 box in the second year.


That "$120 box" can't cost them more than half that to make. Considering the huge price jump in year two they are recouping the cost of the free box in months 13 and 14.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Yep, watching using the one I got from them then.


I got 3 of them lol


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

AT&T TV is no longer using Quickplay. It's using Amazon Web Services.

Deeper Dive-Why AT&T sold Quickplay now


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> That "$120 box" can't cost them more than half that to make. Considering the huge price jump in year two they are recouping the cost of the free box in months 13 and 14.


$55 more per month in year two. With the high prices in year one I doubt that the box isn't paid off before month 13. The year two prices are rediculous.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> That "$120 box" can't cost them more than half that to make. Considering the huge price jump in year two they are recouping the cost of the free box in months 13 and 14.


They aren't trying to recoup what it costs to have the box made. They are recouping the cost that they charge for the box. They aren't in business to break even.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I wonder if they add more HD streams will they charge a monthly fee for those or continue to just let you pay off the boxes at $10 a month or buy them?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

wmb said:


> I think it would be a lot better received if the second year pricing was the same as the first year pricing.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Way too rational.

Rich


----------



## LTYRS (Sep 23, 2019)

techguy88 said:


> Ah okay fair enough someone just needs to look at their account before they cancel to see.
> 
> I'm not a fanboy of either brand but after using a variety of Android and Apple devices over the years I do have a personal preference. Apple devices are built to work with their OS every chip, component, etc that goes into an Apple device is built with the OS in mind. Since Apple is the only manufacture of devices and the only developer of their family of operating systems they can achieve a level of stability and longevity that other platforms and manufactures can't achieve. The SoCs that Apple develops for their iPhones are insanely powerful to the point they can use half the RAM on those devices that Samsung uses on their flagship Galaxy smartphone devices and achieve either the same or better performance.
> 
> ...


I'm on Android ecosystem, you said it, it does everything I need it to do "cheaper", for me really it's already overkill.
Now the weird thing is why is Samsung Android everything except their TV's?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> $55 more per month in year two. With the high prices in year one I doubt that the box isn't paid off before month 13. The year two prices are rediculous.


To quote WOPR, "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

James Long said:


> $55 more per month in year two. With the high prices in year one I doubt that the box isn't paid off before month 13. The year two prices are rediculous.


While I agree the 2nd year prices are ridiculous, the first year pricing is competitive with the other live streamers that have the breadth of ATT's.

I keep thinking that ATT will find out those prices won't hold up if the goal is to shift people to their streaming service.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> While I agree the 2nd year prices are ridiculous, the first year pricing is competitive with the other live streamers that have the breadth of ATT's.
> 
> I keep thinking that ATT will find out those prices won't hold up if the goal is to shift people to their streaming service.


They need to just drop the contract The pricing is what it is


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Yep....but won't happen because the leadership is stuck in the arrogant old school mindset that they can add a contract.....well...just because they think they can.



compnurd said:


> They need to just drop the contract The pricing is what it is


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

People making the two year commitment may be oblivious to the built in price jump or may be living in the hope that they can renegotiate and get a discount for the second year (as people continue to report in the satellite service discount thread). Or (as done above) calculate the price for the first 12 months plus ETF for the remaining 12 months. I don't think anyone wants the $55 price jump. I just hope people keep it in mind when they make the commitment.

The other providers need to focus on their "no commitment" policies or offer discounts for the full length of the commitment. If AT&T|DIRECTV is the only major player with full price commitments they will not succeed.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Yeah, the contract is a sticking point.

But ATT does have an offering that isn’t bad if the channel lineup meets someone’s needs. That is ATT Now.

$65 - gets HBO and a mix of other channels. If you keep HBO going all the time it is a decent offering. No contract, RSNs from what I understand.

For me it is missing AMC and BBCA, so it is a non-starter.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> People making the two year commitment may be oblivious to the built in price jump or may be living in the hope that they can renegotiate and get a discount for the second year (as people continue to report in the satellite service discount thread). Or (as done above) calculate the price for the first 12 months plus ETF for the remaining 12 months. I don't think anyone wants the $55 price jump. I just hope people keep it in mind when they make the commitment.
> 
> The other providers need to focus on their "no commitment" policies or offer discounts for the full length of the commitment. If AT&T|DIRECTV is the only major player with full price commitments they will not succeed.


Dish gives you a 2 yr contract as well, but they also have a 2 yr price lock lol. DirecTV is cooler, so they do a 2 yr contract with a 1 yr price lock. No way they give discounts on streaming. The CEO has said he wants to ditch all the freeloaders (like me ).


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, the contract is a sticking point.
> 
> But ATT does have an offering that isn't bad if the channel lineup meets someone's needs. That is ATT Now.
> 
> ...


I believe you need to spend $80 for RSNs. During discussions of YTTV dropping YES, ATT Now was never given any consideration at that price point. With the missing channels it's not competitive with the other streaming services.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

What if AT&T TV used the introductory pricing as the regular pricing with no contracts?


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> What if AT&T TV used the introductory pricing as the regular pricing with no contracts?


Obviously it would be an improvement. With HBO Max it might appeal to more people. But the channel lineup has a lot of holes in it. Not sure how many people would find that it meets their viewing requirements.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

TV_Guy said:


> I believe you need to spend $80 for RSNs. During discussions of YTTV dropping YES, ATT Now was never given any consideration at that price point. With the missing channels it's not competitive with the other streaming services.


I didn't catch that. I stand corrected. Probably didn't notice since RSNs have little value for me.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

New AT&T TV store demo video.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> New AT&T TV store demo video.


This thing seems no faster nor slower in navigating the interface then my C61k is with my HS17


----------



## rey_1178 (Dec 12, 2007)

Rich said:


> I can think of one reason that might carry some weight: PQ. I haven't tried ATTTV but if what I read is correct that service will be in 1080p and I don't think any other cable replacement service has that going for it. I know I haven't been thrilled with the PQ on any CRSs I've tried. I was only watching sports on them but I thought the PQ was poorer than D*'s for those games.
> 
> Rich


PQ has been fantastic. For me the main reasons I went with ATT TV is how much I am saving every month compared to the deal I had with comcast. Even when I cancel in a year from now because ain't no way I am paying that 2nd year price, the ETF will be $180. I still come out way on top.

At that moment I will probably be heading to YTTV which has PQ near to ATT TV but I dislike the interface, especially the guide. That is my 2nd reason, the ATT TV interface is so much to what I am used to for years, close enough that it made the transition from Tivo real easy. Even the DVR functions are real good considering it's a cloud dvr. The surround sound for the channels that do have it is a plus too.

My last reason is it gave me all the channels I already had and wanted with comcast except for two. The NFL network and Logo channel. I can do without both but when NFL season comes around I will miss the NFL network and not being able to get redzone. Well worth it considering what I am saving per month. So for those who " can't imagine who'd sign up for this" there are some of us where the math works.

I don't disagree with the other points about the idiotic 2 year contract when the discounts don't continue in that 2nd year period and the lack of NFL support. The insane regular price is something they really need to work on because I am not paying for that, not now not ever.


----------



## rey_1178 (Dec 12, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> YouTubeTV is also in 1080p. Lacking is 5.1 audio.


ATT TV beats it but not by a mile and certainly not to pay that regular monthly price.


----------



## rey_1178 (Dec 12, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, but the channels don't have numbers


Yes they do. I have my favorites programmed into my harmony remote that has to dial in numbers.


----------



## rey_1178 (Dec 12, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> I'd be very interested to know what an actual bill, including taxes and fees would be since even on the next to last page of an order it indicates that the price doesn't include all taxes and fees.


I have the choice package and with fees/taxes it is 52.12 a month. My ATT 1000 internet is straight out 39.99. They're waiving the $10 equipment fee for me. If anything changes in the 2nd billing cycle even a cent I'll update here.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

A $10 equipment fee for AT&T TV?


----------



## rey_1178 (Dec 12, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> I wonder if they add more HD streams will they charge a monthly fee for those or continue to just let you pay off the boxes at $10 a month or buy them?


You can also buy them for cheaper on ebay. Bought a new one for $79 for the bedroom.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

rey_1178 said:


> I have the choice package and with fees/taxes it is 52.12 a month. My ATT 1000 internet is straight out 39.99. They're waiving the $10 equipment fee for me. If anything changes in the 2nd billing cycle even a cent I'll update here.


How can the bill be that low? Advertised 1st year price for Choice is $54.99 plus RSN fee.


----------



## rey_1178 (Dec 12, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> A $10 equipment fee for AT&T TV?


For the modem, not att tv.


----------



## rey_1178 (Dec 12, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> How can the bill be that low? Advertised 1st year price for Choice is $54.99 plus RSN fee.


Because I have a bundle with their fiber gig internet. My total bill is under $100 a month.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

rey_1178 said:


> For the modem, not att tv.


Don't they let you use your own modem?


----------



## rey_1178 (Dec 12, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> Don't they let you use your own modem?


No, they require it. I understand it's fiber but there's a small box that converts the fiber to Ethernet so unless I am missing something it just a requirement. I set their device to IP pass through so I can use my own router with it.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

rey_1178 said:


> Because I have a bundle with their fiber gig internet. My total bill is under $100 a month.


Given your $52.12 figure, if you keep it a year and nothing changes, then cancel and pay the $180 ETF, your true cost is $67.12. Not horrible but that's $17.12 higher than I pay for YTTV with a similar mix of channels, including RSNs.

For that $17.12 you're getting 5.1 audio and better video by some amount. If that's what you wanted, that's a decent deal. All streaming is a trade-off of $$, convenience, channel selection, DVR, audio and video. You just have to pick your poison! 

For me I would probably take Choice but want Total as I like to have the Golf channel. With YTTV I have that as well as my RSNs, though I don't actually watch them, Golf channel, a few ESPNs and a good mix otherwise. I'm not thrilled with YTTVs UI or the way they do DVR/VOD intermixing but neither are bad enough to scare me away.


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

Are you saying the picture (e.g. video) quality is noticeably better on Youtube TV?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

jal said:


> Are you saying the picture (e.g. video) quality is noticeably better on Youtube TV?


Just the opposite, but that is based on posts here and there that I've read. I haven't tried ATT TV and probably won't unless they change how they sell it.


----------



## rey_1178 (Dec 12, 2007)

jal said:


> Are you saying the picture (e.g. video) quality is noticeably better on Youtube TV?


It's better but not by a large margin. YTTV PQ is great too.


----------



## rey_1178 (Dec 12, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Given your $52.12 figure, if you keep it a year and nothing changes, then cancel and pay the $180 ETF, your true cost is $67.12. Not horrible but that's $17.12 higher than I pay for YTTV with a similar mix of channels, including RSNs.
> 
> For that $17.12 you're getting 5.1 audio and better video by some amount. If that's what you wanted, that's a decent deal. All streaming is a trade-off of $$, convenience, channel selection, DVR, audio and video. You just have to pick your poison!
> 
> For me I would probably take Choice but want Total as I like to have the Golf channel. With YTTV I have that as well as my RSNs, though I don't actually watch them, Golf channel, a few ESPNs and a good mix otherwise. I'm not thrilled with YTTVs UI or the way they do DVR/VOD intermixing but neither are bad enough to scare me away.


 Throw in there a couple of channels I don't get from YTTV, the ui I want and $300 in visa gift cards is all these reasons combined I did this. Plus I'm saving $50 a month compared to what I had with Comcast with their discounts. It just made perfect sense in my case. Of course had I not liked the service it be gone since I had 14 days to try att tv. I believe today is the last day of the 14 days. Although I'm not sure is it 14 days from when I signed up or since I activated their device.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

The UI isn't a big issue for me. I don't particularly like any of the streamer's UIs, but can work with any of them. In my case since ATT internet is not available and their cell service is 2nd rate around here, I would only get $50 gift card. While ATT's offering would get me more channels only one is of any importance at all, and that just because of one show I can buy a season pass for, ATT just doesn't make sense for me.

And with all the shows that are going on hiatus because of the coronavirus, I may not even keep YTTV. I can find plenty of reruns from so many sources, both paid and free, that it may not make sense to pay to keep YTTV until the new episodes/series start back up. And of course, sports are being his with the same issue. Real glad that nothing I'm subscribed to is under any contract.

Sent from my Google Pixelbook using Tapatalk


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

rey_1178 said:


> No, they require it. I understand it's fiber but there's a small box that converts the fiber to Ethernet so unless I am missing something it just a requirement. I set their device to IP pass through so I can use my own router with it.


Ah, got it. Sorry, I'm used to cable modems where they are just easily purchased. Maybe fiber modems are different. You would be surprised how many people still pay $5 or $10 per month to their local cable co/ISP when they could just buy a cable modem from Amazon. They end up paying the local cable co/ISP many times over for the modem...


----------



## grover517 (Sep 29, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> Ah, got it. Sorry, I'm used to cable modems where they are just easily purchased. Maybe fiber modems are different. You would be surprised how many people still pay $5 or $10 per month to their local cable co/ISP when they could just buy a cable modem from Amazon. They end up paying the local cable co/ISP many times over for the modem...


When AT&T was promoting their internet offerings in our neighborhood (non fiber), they also stated that they didn't allow privately owned equipment on their networks. Can't speak for all areas but in ours, that is a non starter for many I know.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

grover517 said:


> When AT&T was promoting their internet offerings in our neighborhood (non fiber), they also stated that they didn't allow privately owned equipment on their networks. Can't speak for all areas but in ours, that is a non starter for many I know.


Same here. I tired to get the modem/router to pass through to use with my Apple Router and AT&T refused it. Then after days or arguing tried to help. Then said I have to hire my own IT guy because they could not get it to work with Apple routers. So I left for Comcast internet. Faster, cheaper and very reliable. I bought my own Motorola modem and use all my own Apple routers and could not be happier.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> Given your $52.12 figure, if you keep it a year and nothing changes, then cancel and pay the $180 ETF, your true cost is $67.12. Not horrible but that's $17.12 higher than I pay for YTTV with a similar mix of channels, including RSNs.
> 
> For that $17.12 you're getting 5.1 audio and better video by some amount. If that's what you wanted, that's a decent deal. All streaming is a trade-off of $$, convenience, channel selection, DVR, audio and video. You just have to pick your poison!
> 
> For me I would probably take Choice but want Total as I like to have the Golf channel. With YTTV I have that as well as my RSNs, though I don't actually watch them, Golf channel, a few ESPNs and a good mix otherwise. I'm not thrilled with YTTVs UI or the way they do DVR/VOD intermixing but neither are bad enough to scare me away.


I tired AT&T Now and I did not find the video better than YTTV. Yeah they have 5.1 sound, wish YTTV would add faster. But audio is fine via my SONOS system and when I watch football, I do via OTA and get 5.1 sound anyways. Don't NEED it for TV shows.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

Does anyone know yet how local channels behave with AT&T TV? For instance if you take the offered AT&T Android TV box and take it with you on vacation do you get the local channels you are assigned in your vacation spot or do you get the local channels where you physically are? I know on YouTube TV you get the local channels where you are, but can't record anything away from home on them.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

grover517 said:


> When AT&T was promoting their internet offerings in our neighborhood (non fiber), they also stated that they didn't allow privately owned equipment on their networks. Can't speak for all areas but in ours, that is a non starter for many I know.


Yeah, that's just plain greed on their part. It would be a non-starter with me for sure. I use all my own network equipment.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

cpalmer2k said:


> Does anyone know yet how local channels behave with AT&T TV? For instance if you take the offered AT&T Android TV box and take it with you on vacation do you get the local channels you are assigned in your vacation spot or do you get the local channels where you physically are? I know on YouTube TV you get the local channels where you are, but can't record anything away from home on them.


We have a FireTV Stick 4k that we use just for travel. The last few times we used it when away we were able to still watch all our local channels on YTTV just like we were at home. The last time we were in San Antonio Texas for a week and were still able to watch our regular Philly locals. I think it works as long as you don't go into settings and change your "Current playback area".


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

mjwagner said:


> We have a FireTV Stick 4k that we use just for travel. The last few times we used it when away we were able to still watch all our local channels on YTTV just like we were at home. The last time we were in San Antonio Texas for a week and were still able to watch our regular Philly locals. I think it works as long as you don't go into settings and change your "Current playback area".


This is how YTTV works. You can change locations twice a year, and the user has to log in to its home location every 90 days. You get locals for the home location.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

wmb said:


> This is how YTTV works. You can change locations twice a year, and the user has to log in to its home location every 90 days. You get locals for the home location.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The twice a year restriction only applies to changing your "Home area", it does not apply to changing "Current playback area". Those are two different settings within "Area".


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

There was info on att.com before the official launch that the AT&T box has to be on your local network and you were only able to change the location a certain amount of times per year. I think it was 3 or 4. But I can't find that info now.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

gio12 said:


> I tired AT&T Now and I did not find the video better than YTTV. Yeah they have 5.1 sound, wish YTTV would add faster. But audio is fine via my SONOS system and when I watch football, I do via OTA and get 5.1 sound anyways. Don't NEED it for TV shows.


Yeah, I would like 5.1 audio too. But using the AppleTV and my Samsung K950 Atmos soundbar, as long as it is stereo, the soundbar kicks into surround mode for some improvement.

I had been using my Xbox One with Dolby Experience app as that fakes Atmos for non-Atmos sources, but it doesn't do squat for stereo, just passes it through.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> The UI isn't a big issue for me. I don't particularly like any of the streamer's UIs, but can work with any of them. In my case since ATT internet is not available and their cell service is 2nd rate around here, I would only get $50 gift card. While ATT's offering would get me more channels only one is of any importance at all, and that just because of one show I can buy a season pass for, ATT just doesn't make sense for me.
> 
> And with all the shows that are going on hiatus because of the coronavirus, I may not even keep YTTV. I can find plenty of reruns from so many sources, both paid and free, that it may not make sense to pay to keep YTTV until the new episodes/series start back up. And of course, sports are being his with the same issue. Real glad that nothing I'm subscribed to is under any contract.
> 
> Sent from my Google Pixelbook using Tapatalk


I'm thinking a lot of folks are gonna turn to streaming for their TV needs. Once they see what streaming gives them...will that be another nail in the coffin for cable and sat?

Rich


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

rey_1178 said:


> Because I have a bundle with their fiber gig internet. My total bill is under $100 a month.


Does anyone have a picture of the DVR playbar or progress bar when one is Fast Forwarding or Pausing?


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

Rich said:


> I'm thinking a lot of folks are gonna turn to streaming for their TV needs. Once they see what streaming gives them...will that be another nail in the coffin for cable and sat?
> 
> Rich


I'll add that the big cross over is the convenience of on-demand that streaming affords. It's one thing to cord swap and basically continue watching the same linear channels from a streamer. Traditional cable/satellite systems don't really facilitate on-demand the way streaming does. It's game changing to realize that you aren't locked into just the subscribed linear channels.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LTYRS (Sep 23, 2019)

grover517 said:


> When AT&T was promoting their internet offerings in our neighborhood (non fiber), they also stated that they didn't allow privately owned equipment on their networks. Can't speak for all areas but in ours, that is a non starter for many I know.


Same here in my neighborhood, the difference for me is that I have no alternative


----------



## rey_1178 (Dec 12, 2007)

GordonGekko said:


> Does anyone have a picture of the DVR playbar or progress bar when one is Fast Forwarding or Pausing?


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

cpalmer2k said:


> Does anyone know yet how local channels behave with AT&T TV? For instance if you take the offered AT&T Android TV box and take it with you on vacation do you get the local channels you are assigned in your vacation spot or do you get the local channels where you physically are? I know on YouTube TV you get the local channels where you are, but can't record anything away from home on them.


I printed a copy of a chat that I had with ATTTV.
The person said that "local channels are determined by the zip code where you are logged in".
"for example you get service in CA and you travel to GA for the week you'll get the local channels from GA".
She also said that a VPN can be used as long as the VPN was located within the US.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

I WANT MORE said:


> I printed a copy of a chat that I had with ATTTV.
> The person said that "local channels are determined by the zip code where you are logged in".
> "for example you get service in CA and you travel to GA for the week you'll get the local channels from GA".
> She also said that a VPN can be used as long as the VPN was located within the US.


My guess is that the VPN comment is not true. The chat reps are notoriously bad when it comes to technical details...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mjwagner said:


> My guess is that the VPN comment is not true. The chat reps are notoriously bad when it comes to technical details...


Even if "true" it certainly would not be a statement made by AT&T. The chat rep either doesn't know what a VPN is or doesn't understand copyright laws and the violation that occurs when a viewer uses a VPN. Suggesting VPN use while representing AT&T in a call center or online while identifying as an employee of AT&T would be like AT&T suggesting that we shoplift from WalMart if a movie was unavailable via PPV. Not a good thing.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

rey_1178 said:


> View attachment 30434
> View attachment 30435
> View attachment 30436
> View attachment 30437
> ...


Thanks, love the clear progress bar, don't know why Directv can't employ that on the HR54 but I dislike the box fast forward, full screen fast forward is the only proper way to go in my opinion.


----------



## BigRedFan (Mar 28, 2010)

Hey, what happened to Nash Guy, our expert on ATT TV ???


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

BigRedFan said:


> Hey, what happened to Nash Guy, our expert on ATT TV ???


He is lurking. Lol.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

compnurd said:


> He is lurking. Lol.


Lurking or hiding? .

I noticed that he's disappeared from all the forums I saw him in. Hope he/she is not sick.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Lurking. But this thread isn't about the posters - it is about AT&T.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I was thinking that this is a bad time to be looking at AT&T or any service that requires a contract. With the reductions in sports as dramatic as it is now, and with reports of some series that will end sooner than planned, why would one want to lock in a contract that has to be paid? And if you are in one of those contractual situations, how happy are you that the RSN fee still applies while there aren’t any of those sports active now?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I agree. Asking streamers to commit to a high price contract for two years was already a risky deal. With people looking at loss of income and potential higher prices if there are shortages it would be short sighted to lock in a commitment. Now would be a good time to make a drastic change to AT&T TV and make it a more palatable choice.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Even without a contract, the 1st year pricing is a bit on the high side. Both Entertainment and Choice compare to YouTubeTV and Hulu+Live in channel counts and breadth of channel offerings with Entertainment missing pretty much all sports.

YTTV = $50. Includes all locals and some RSNs depending on locality. Plus a good selection of other channels across a pretty wide range.

Hulu+Live = $55. Pretty much the same as YTTV though it has RSNs everywhere and a slightly different channel lineup.

Entertainment (ATT)= $50 1st Year, $93 2nd year
Choice (ATT) = $55 1st year, $100(?) 2nd year
Total (ATT) = $65+RSN 1st year, $125+RSN 2nd year.

Personally I think Total comes closer to having the same mix as YTTV and Hulu+Live, but it does have more channels than them.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Even without a contract, the 1st year pricing is a bit on the high side. Both Entertainment and Choice compare to YouTubeTV and Hulu+Live in channel counts and breadth of channel offerings with Entertainment missing pretty much all sports.
> 
> YTTV = $50. Includes all locals and some RSNs depending on locality. Plus a good selection of other channels across a pretty wide range.
> 
> ...


Hulu Live does not have all RSN's and no PBS either


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

compnurd said:


> Hulu Live does not have all RSN's and no PBS either


I didn't know that. When YTTV lost all theirs for a bit, there were lots of posts in various places saying that Hulu+Live did have all of them.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> I was thinking that this is a bad time to be looking at AT&T or any service that requires a contract. With the reductions in sports as dramatic as it is now, and with reports of some series that will end sooner than planned, why would one want to lock in a contract that has to be paid? And if you are in one of those contractual situations, how happy are you that the RSN fee still applies while there aren't any of those sports active now?


I am seriously considering suspending my subscription to D*. Not sure that ATT can do that properly.

Rich


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Rich said:


> I am seriously considering suspending my subscription to D*. Not sure that ATT can do that properly.
> 
> Rich


It should be automated


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

It is automated. Say you want to suspend and it brings you to an automated menu where you select the month to end the suspension. Current balance on the bill must be 0. If converted to AT&T billing their is a monthly charge.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

The last thing I did before cancelling was suspend my service. Under the old DIRECTV billing system, it was an automated process. (Also suspended back in 2016 when first trialing DTV Now) Once my account was converted to an ATT account, I had to speak to a CSR to suspend.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

TV_Guy said:


> It is automated. Say you want to suspend and it brings you to an automated menu where you select the month to end the suspension. Current balance on the bill must be 0. If converted to AT&T billing their is a monthly charge.


...AT&T loves monthly charges...


----------



## dminches (Oct 1, 2006)

Rich said:


> I am seriously considering suspending my subscription to D*. Not sure that ATT can do that properly.
> 
> Rich


If you use your DirecTV account for something like HBOGo, etc,. will it still work if your account is suspended? I watch a lot of content on my Apple TV but use my DirecTV account to access it.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

dminches said:


> If you use your DirecTV account for something like HBOGo, etc,. will it still work if your account is suspended? I watch a lot of content on my Apple TV but use my DirecTV account to access it.


Since you stop paying for it on DTV, it will stop working if you authorized HBOGo with your DTV credentials. You can pick up a month of HBO for $14.99 through Apple TV Channels or Amazon Prime Video Channels. Both of those options still give you a couple of the live HBO channels, plus their hosting of the catalog, plus HBO Now access.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

compnurd said:


> It should be automated


That doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TV_Guy said:


> It is automated. Say you want to suspend and it brings you to an automated menu where you select the month to end the suspension. Current balance on the bill must be 0. If converted to AT&T billing their is a monthly charge.


Getting it suspended doesn't worry me nearly as much as getting it reinstated. These people seem capable of screwing EVERYTHING up. I think I'll just keep on paying the bill. Wife does watch D* programs.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

espaeth said:


> The last thing I did before cancelling was suspend my service. Under the old DIRECTV billing system, it was an automated process. (Also suspended back in 2016 when first trialing DTV Now) Once my account was converted to an ATT account, I had to speak to a CSR to suspend.


And there it is...speak to a CSR that knows how to do that. And then speak to another CSR? Way too many calls. Easier to ride it out.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dminches said:


> If you use your DirecTV account for something like HBOGo, etc,. will it still work if your account is suspended? I watch a lot of content on my Apple TV but use my DirecTV account to access it.


Yeah, I do that too. But the $160 a month would go a long way toward streaming alternatives.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Since the governor ordered all bars/restaurants in my state closed a couple days ago I figured I'd try my luck at suspending my account. Wasn't sure if it was even possible to suspend a commercial account, but turns out it is.

I had to wait on hold a half hour (never had to wait more than 30 seconds before, but I'm sure call centers are shorthanded or outright closed right now) and they kept playing annoyingly loud hold messages in Spanish for some reason, but I was able to suspend my account. If they weren't willing to let me do that I figured I could just strip off all the packages down to the bare minimum, but paying $0 is a better deal 

If I had to wait that long as a commercial subscriber, you might have to wait all day to call in as residential. If you want to suspend a residential account and there's a way to do it online or via chat instead of calling I'd recommend that!


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

James Long said:


> I agree. Asking streamers to commit to a high price contract for two years was already a risky deal. With people looking at loss of income and potential higher prices if there are shortages it would be short sighted to lock in a commitment. Now would be a good time to make a drastic change to AT&T TV and make it a more palatable choice.


I got to thinking about how/why ATT's streaming service is so overpriced. I'm thinking that they took the easy road with the content providers and made their contracts with them for streaming to be about the same as they had been doing all along for cable/sat. You know, the fat channel, high prices with contract deal.

Other streamers went to those content providers and made very different contracts. Right now we have essentially 3 cable/sat replacement streaming services. Sling, YTTV and Hulu+Live. But we also have upcoming streamers that will fill some/most of those needs. Peacock and HBO Max, coupled with Hulu basic and CBS:AA will probably cover almost all non-sports related stuff.

And going even further forward, live sports will be seeing a sea change in how we get them. I firmly believe that the RSN business model will go away, possibly to be replaced by teams having their own service. Non-sports teams will be replaced by something like DAZN. All my opinion of course.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

lparsons21 said:


> I got to thinking about how/why ATT's streaming service is so overpriced. I'm thinking that they took the easy road with the content providers and made their contracts with them for streaming to be about the same as they had been doing all along for cable/sat. You know, the fat channel, high prices with contract deal.
> 
> Other streamers went to those content providers and made very different contracts. Right now we have essentially 3 cable/sat replacement streaming services. Sling, YTTV and Hulu+Live. But we also have upcoming streamers that will fill some/most of those needs. Peacock and HBO Max, coupled with Hulu basic and CBS:AA will probably cover almost all non-sports related stuff.


The other streamers aren't getting better deals, they are losing money offering the service. You think Disney is going to give a better deal to Sling or Hulu and their couple million customers versus AT&T or Comcast's 20 million? Not a chance in hell, why in the world would Disney be willing to take less from a small player?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> The other streamers aren't getting better deals, they are losing money offering the service. You think Disney is going to give a better deal to Sling or Hulu and their couple million customers versus AT&T or Comcast's 20 million? Not a chance in hell, why in the world would Disney be willing to take less from a small player?


From what I've read Sling is not losing money, the other cable/sat replacement services seem to be. And from other readings is appears that the free ad-supported services are doing pretty well too

As to what kind of deal they might be able to get? Well some of the content providers may be seeing the writing on the wall while watching cable/sat subscriptions dropping. And for all the 'they are all losing money' posts, it appears the streaming market looks good enough for the big boys to want to play in that arena.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

...and let me add that YouTubeTV could very well be profitable because of the way their DVR service intermixes VOD complete with non-skippable ads. And in live TV they get paid for ads also. And of course, with Google our info is one of their products.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

lparsons21 said:


> From what I've read Sling is not losing money, the other cable/sat replacement services seem to be.


Sling has the benefit of their connection to DISH. At last report over 20% of DISH's subscribers were SlingTV subscribers. They have done a good job of creating a service that captures subscribers who want to leave traditional cable/satellite for something more economical. DISH also introduced "Flex pack" pricing on the satellite side which allows customers to buy a core package with several non-tiered add ons.

AT&T|DIRECTV is taking a different approach with AT&T TV, expecting people to buy streaming at full satellite prices. Their declining "AT&T Now" offering is a negligible part of their subscriber base. Their best chance at boosting subscribers is to simply move UVERSE premium TV subscribers over to the AT&T TV streaming subscriber count on the balance sheet.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

lparsons21 said:


> ...and let me add that YouTubeTV could very well be profitable because of the way their DVR service intermixes VOD complete with non-skippable ads. And in live TV they get paid for ads also. And of course, with Google our info is one of their products.


It's hard to tell if YTTV is profitable since Google does not break out those numbers separately. That said, Google is pretty good at monetizing metadata....I'm guessing that's where they think the real money is...


----------



## LTYRS (Sep 23, 2019)

How about at&t giving AT&T TV to their satellite customers that have a compatible package free of charge, you never know they might just migrate to the online service earlier, what do they have to lose?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

One paid subscription covering both services? Sounds interesting.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

LTYRS said:


> How about at&t giving AT&T TV to their satellite customers that have a compatible package free of charge, you never know they might just migrate to the online service earlier, what do they have to lose?


It's interesting but they really dont need people switching. It saves them nothing they need new subscribers


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

LTYRS said:


> How about at&t giving AT&T TV to their satellite customers that have a compatible package free of charge, you never know they might just migrate to the online service earlier, what do they have to lose?


Why would I do that? The streaming packages have less bang for the buck. Actually, a lot less bang for the buck. They are more like whimper for the buck.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Free streaming subscription with purchase of satellite service (no extra cost or loss of discounts) wouldn't be bad. That is offered with a lot of individual channels who allow streaming for cable/satellite authorized customers. There are also stream only channels that are available via DIRECTV satellite subscriptions - now integrated into the guide as if they were satellite channels.

But such a service saves AT&T|DIRECTV very little money, if any money is saved at all. The major channels need to stay on satellite to serve the majority of the customers - and there is no cost saving dropping distribution from satellite to streaming. The minor channels (currently stream only) save finding space on a satellite for a low popularity channel. But lack of space isn't an issue DIRECTV is having.


----------



## LTYRS (Sep 23, 2019)

- Well they could instantly advertise they have millions of subscribers. 
- People that simply refuse to make the change to online service might change their mind.
- If as it has been said by many people one of the strategies is to migrate subscribers from Satellite to internet service, it could accelerate the process.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

Well the death knoll rings U-Verse TV is no longer accepting new subscribers only existing subscribers can use the service as per the U-Verse TV page:



> IMPORTANT U-VERSE UPDATE
> To help our employees serve our existing customers, we're no longer selling U-verse TV. Service for existing U-verse TV customers is not impacted.


They are advertising AT&T TV and are now comparing how AT&T TV is better than U-Verse TV:


----------



## macpro20 (Sep 2, 2011)

compnurd said:


> It's interesting but they really dont need people switching. It saves them nothing they need new subscribers


It saves them tons. No installers needed to set up service and no expensive equipment to deploy. Just FEDEX the customers a $100 box and they set up the service themselves.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Saw an article that AT&T is no longer doing any new installs of Uverse TV. Looks like they feel AT&T TV is ready to take over for it for new customers, though I suppose that was a pretty low bar.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

macpro20 said:


> It saves them tons. No installers needed to set up service and no expensive equipment to deploy. Just FEDEX the customers a $100 box and they set up the service themselves.


You missed the point completely


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

slice1900 said:


> Saw an article that AT&T is no longer doing any new installs of Uverse TV. Looks like they feel AT&T TV is ready to take over for it for new customers, though I suppose that was a pretty low bar.


The media must be lurking here. AT&T stopped selling U-Verse TV on March 31st to new customers in its entirety then I posted about it yesterday and now the media has articles about it. Although this reminds me of the trial market situation from last year.

While not reported right now I bet you if a current U-Verse TV customer moves to a new location even if U-Verse TV was available at that location prior to March 31st AT&T will try to transition that customer to AT&T TV (first) or DirecTV (second) unless it is an apartment complex where the landlord has a contract for U-Verse TV.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Saw today that new subscribers to DirecTV and ATT TV will get HBO for no additional cost for the 1st year.

IMO, that makes it interesting with ATT TV. If you sub to ATT TV and pick entertainment, keep it one year and then cancel, that makes the real cost $65/month. And that compares well to other linear streamers.

Of course nothing you do can make the 2nd and subsequent years monthly fee a good deal.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> Saw today that new subscribers to DirecTV and ATT TV will get HBO for no additional cost for the 1st year.
> 
> IMO, that makes it interesting with ATT TV. If you sub to ATT TV and pick entertainment, keep it one year and then cancel, that makes the real cost $65/month. And that compares well to other linear streamers.
> 
> Of course nothing you do can make the 2nd and subsequent years monthly fee a good deal.


No requirement for a 2 year contract here? That's what I've been seeing.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> No requirement for a 2 year contract here? That's what I've been seeing.


ATT TV has a 2 year contract. ATT TV Now doesn't.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

Steveknj said:


> No requirement for a 2 year contract here? That's what I've been seeing.


These are the current new customer only offers for premiums (all offers roll to pay unless cancelled) and differences between AT&T TV / AT&T TV Now:

*DirecTV* - 24 month agreement req'd; introductory price for 12 months then regular price then in effect starting Month 13
Premier and Lo Maximo are ineligible for any premium acquisition offers (including the Epix 3 month offer) since they include HBO, Cinemax, Showtime & Starz.
*The AT&T TV Now packages (Plus & Max) are available with this service when ordering online but receive no promotional offers and cost considerably more.*

*English:* HBO, Cinemax, Starz, Showtime & Epix free for 3 months for Select & Entertainment
HBO free for 12 months / Cinemax, Starz, Showtime & Epix free for 3 months for Choice through Ultimate

*Spanish*: HBO, Cinemax, Starz, Showtime & Epix free for 3 months for Mas Latino
HBO free for 12 months / Cinemax, Starz, Showtime & Epix free for 3 months for Optimo Mas & Mas Ultra


*AT&T TV* - 24 month agreement req'd; introductory price for 12 months then regular price then in effect starting Month 13. AutoPay req'd (as with all other streaming services.)
*The AT&T TV Now packages (Plus & Max) are available with this service when ordering online but receive no promotional offers and cost considerably more.*
*Entertainment - Ultimate & Optimo Mas*: HBO free for 12 months / Cinemax, Starz, Showtime & Epix free for 3 months

*AT&T TV Now* - No contract service - This is intended for the cord-cutting segment or those who don't want any commitments.
Max base package ($80/mo) is not eligible for AT&T TV Now's HBO offer as it includes HBO and Cinemax in the package.
The standalone Vietnamese, Brazilian and Korean base packages are not eligible for the AT&T TV Now HBO offer.

*Plus* ($55/mo, Featured Package) - Get HBO for $10/mo. for one year (regular price $14.99/mo)
*Entertainment - Ultimate* & *Optimo Mas *(Other Packages) - Get HBO for $10/mo. for one year (regular price $14.99/mo)
AT&T TV Now also offers their own versions of Optimo Mas ($86/mo), Entertainment ($93/mo), Choice ($110/mo), Xtra ($124/mo) and Ultimate ($135/mo) labeled as "Other Packages. The channel lineup for these packages are identical to their AT&T TV counterparts.
The AT&T TV Now pricing for these packages is the AT&T TV non-promotional pricing.
AT&T TV Now's Choice - Ultimate are not charged a Regional Sports Fee. Only DirecTV and AT&T TV customers are charged a RSN Fee for their respective versions of these packages.
These packages are for those who want them but no contract. 
If a new customer signs up with one of the "Other Packages" and then switch to Plus or Max base packages they can't switch back.
Existing customers on a grandfathered package (i.e. Live a Little) or a current featured package (i.e. Max) can't switch to the "Other Packages".
If an existing customer is desperate to have one of the "Other Packages" they can cancel their existing AT&T TV Now account then reactivate it and select one of the "Other Packages".


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Well AT&T Now has added a few channels that YTTV dis not have and I had to Philo to get:
History
CMT
Comedy Central

With this now the same as YTTV and for $10 I get HBO.

What’s the streaming quality on AT&T Now like? YTTV gone down a bit lately so wondering about AT&T.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

The $55 Plus package actually looks competitive with YTTV, some minor differences that could be deal breakers for some each way. 

AT&T now lacks Discovery(food network, hgtv) AMC (BBC America)

YTTV lacks Viacom (Comedy Central, mtv, Nickelodeon)

While I’d like those added, it’s not worth more than a buck or two a month to get them. If there is a ‘must have’ for me, it’s BBC America for Dr Who. Food and HGTV are occasional time fillers - nothing there is must see, but decent time killers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

You can watch lots of Comedy Central’s stuff with their app for free. Of course with ads.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> You can watch lots of Comedy Central's stuff with their app for free. Of course with ads.


So the alternative to linear channels is app spelunking 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

gio12 said:


> Well AT&T Now has added a few channels that YTTV dis not have and I had to Philo to get:
> History
> CMT
> Comedy Central
> ...


The quality of the video streaming is very comparable to YTTV. When I did my review of the AT&T TV device (aka Osprey) I actually put two TV sets side by side one with AT&T TV Now and one with DirecTV and couldn't tell a difference between the PQ (except on channels like Fox Sports Ohio where AT&T TV Now has full time HD streams where D* is part time HD obvs.)


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

While the 2nd year pricing is outrageous IMO, with ATT TV (not Now), Entertainment package with free HBO for a year is actually not bad.

If you sign up for Entertainment, use the free HBO for a year and then cancel the HBO in the 2nd year the average cost of the package for the whole time is a tad over $71/month.

If you sign up fo Entertainment, use the free HBO for the year and cancel all of it at the end of the year the average cost is $65/month. That’s equal to YTTV+HBO.

For those that usually sub to HBO that represents a good value. If ATT had profiles I’d be sorely tempted to sign up. Both Entertainment & YTTV have most of the channels I actually do watch though the mix is a bit different.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I did more digging into ATT TV since it has 5.1 audio on at least some channels and the channel mix in Entertainment fits me, and I usually have HBO subscribed.

A couple show stoppers showed up quickly.
1. Cloud DVR -the 500 hour Cloud dvr is fine, but the 30 day retention isn’t! For most shows it would be, but there are some I like to keep until a season is over and then binge watch.

2. No app for the Xbox One - In my setup this is big. I use the Xbox One with Dolby Access app to twiddle 5.1 and above audio to a virtualized Atmos.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> ATT TV has a 2 year contract. ATT TV Now doesn't.


But see the confusion? I follow this somewhat closely, but imagine someone who doesn't? There's no way to keep that straight. AT&T is going to kill their own products because of how stupidly they are named. Mostly because they INSIST on having AT&T on EVERYTHING they touch.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> But see the confusion? I follow this somewhat closely, but imagine someone who doesn't? There's no way to keep that straight. AT&T is going to kill their own products because of how stupidly they are named. Mostly because they INSIST on having AT&T on EVERYTHING they touch.


Yep, total confusion. Here's a bit more to show it:

ATT TV Now - no contract, no box
ATT TV - 2 ways
One way is full price no contract, no box
Other way is with box, contract and about 1/2 price first year.
ATT Watch TV - no contract, no box, no DVR

And that's just the streaming. Oddly the 'best' deal is to sign up with contract and cancel at the end of the 1st year. Still higher than competing live streamers but not quite as horribly so.

Noted something I hadn't until today. 3 streams allowed with ATT TV but can only use for awhile outside the 'home network' before you must go to the home network. Not horrible and certainly better than Hulu+Live, but nothing like YTTV's more lenient rules.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Since when does AT&T TV have a no contract option?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> Since when does AT&T TV have a no contract option?


If you go to the ATT TV Now website and look at 'additional' or some such, it will show the same subscriptions that ATT TV has but at full price. Ie; entertainment at $93 from the beginning.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

lparsons21 said:


> I did more digging into ATT TV since it has 5.1 audio on at least some channels and the channel mix in Entertainment fits me, and I usually have HBO subscribed.
> 
> A couple show stoppers showed up quickly.
> 1. Cloud DVR -the 500 hour Cloud dvr is fine, *but the 30 day retention isn't*! For most shows it would be, but there are some I like to keep until a season is over and then binge watch.
> ...


AT&T TV DVR has 90 days retention not 30.



lparsons21 said:


> If you go to the *ATT TV Now* website and look at 'additional' or some such, it will show the same subscriptions that ATT TV has but at full price. Ie; entertainment at $93 from the beginning.


But that is AT&T TV NOW and not AT&T TV. Your post stated:
*ATT TV* - 2 ways
*One way is full price no contract, no box*
Other way is with box, contract and about 1/2 price first year.

I see no subscription for AT&T TV that offers a no contract option.

Every subscription I see at the AT&T website for AT&T TV shows a 24 month contract.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> AT&T TV DVR has 90 days retention not 30.
> 
> But that is AT&T TV NOW and not AT&T TV. Your post stated:
> *ATT TV* - 2 ways
> ...


Sorry for my error on dvr retention.

As to the other. Well, yes and no. Technically you're correct, but ATT TV Now actually only has 2 levels of subscriptions, when you go to the 'other' subscriptions it is identical to ATT TV but at full retail price and no box provide and no contract. So call it what you want to, the bottom line is you CAN get the subscriptions of ATT TV with or without a contract as long as you're willing to pay the price.

EDIT: BTW, regardless of how you do it, they all use the same app. The difference is how much you pay and what channels you get. Almost nothing else.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> 1. Cloud DVR -the 500 hour Cloud dvr is fine, but the 30 day retention isn't! For most shows it would be, but there are some I like to keep until a season is over and then binge watch.


Is on-demand available? I don't see a need for long-term storage of content available on demand.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

wmb said:


> Is on-demand available? I don't see a need for long-term storage of content available on demand.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't know as I don't have the service. But I've seen posts here and there that aren't very positive about it.

But assuming that it is there and working, how do you feel about non-skippable ads?


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

wmb said:


> Is on-demand available? I don't see a need for long-term storage of content available on demand.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





lparsons21 said:


> I don't know as I don't have the service. But I've seen posts here and there that aren't very positive about it.
> 
> But assuming that it is there and working, how do you feel about non-skippable ads?


AT&T TV / TV Now Cloud DVR recorded programs can be RW/FF during ads.

In terms of streams/storage/retention: Plus (no HBO), Plus (with HBO; grandfathered), Max, Entertainment, Choice, Xtra, Ultimate and Optimo Mas come with 3 streams, 500 hours of storage and 90 day retention.

If you subscribe to only the International base packages on TV Now (Vietnamese, Brazilian and/or Korean) without one of the packages above or subscribe to one of the original grandfathered packages (Live A Little, Just Right, Go Big, Gotta Have It All, Todo y Mas) then you get 2 streams, 20 hours of storage and 30 day retention. A 3rd stream is available for an additional $5/mo.

On Demand (all packages) with AT&T TV / TV Now works a lot better now I never had issues with it during my 30 day period when reviewing the AT&T TV device. It actually works better than DirecTV On Demand in all honestly. Same rules however apply to AT&T TV / TV Now On Demand that apply to DirecTV On Demand where you can't skip ads on regular channels (CBS, TNT, USA, etc.).


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I own 2 houses here in town, same ISP at both. So could I watch at both places at the same time?

And audio, I think I read that audio on the live channels was 5.1 audio but haven’t been able to confirm that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

lparsons21 said:


> I own 2 houses here in town, same ISP at both. So could I watch at both places at the same time?


Maybe. I assume that the second house would be assigned a different IP number (just like a house you don't own). It would depend on what security AT&T has put in place. I would not expect to have a permanent setup spanning two houses appearing on the network separately unless the rules enforced do not require a same location check in.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

lparsons21 said:


> I own 2 houses here in town, same ISP at both. So could I watch at both places at the same time?
> 
> And audio, I think I read that audio on the live channels was 5.1 audio but haven't been able to confirm that.


Each house will have a different IP address so probably not. The AT&T website used to have info on there about changing your Home network a certain number of times a year. I think it was 4 but I can't find that info now.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> And that's just the streaming. Oddly the 'best' deal is to sign up with contract and *cancel at the end of the 1st year.* Still higher than competing live streamers but not quite as horribly so.


Can you do that without incurring a penalty?


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

*AT&T TV Now*: Yes - This service has no restrictions except when you max out on the 3 streams included in the packages.

*AT&T TV*: No - See below

Since AT&T TV is designed to be more cable-like it has more cable-like restrictions. On mobile devices you can watch anywhere in the US without restriction. If you try to watch something at your main house and your 2nd house (let's say main house AT&T TV device, 2nd house Apple TV) then no.

Devices like Apple TV, Amazon Fire devices, Roku, smart TVs, etc have to be connected to the "home network" (i.e. the network your AT&T TV device) is on. Your home network is determined by the network your AT&T TV device is connected to. Now you can change your "home network" 4 times in a 12 month period.

Not sure about using the Google Chromcast feature (i.e. using an iPad at a 2nd home to cast the program to TV.)


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

James Long said:


> Maybe. I assume that the second house would be assigned a different IP number (just like a house you don't own). It would depend on what security AT&T has put in place. I would not expect to have a permanent setup spanning two houses appearing on the network separately unless the rules enforced do not require a same location check in.





b4pjoe said:


> Each house will have a different IP address so probably not. The AT&T website used to have info on there about changing your Home network a certain number of times a year. I think it was 4 but I can't find that info now.


On a typical home WiFi network each device gets their own IP from the router/gateway. If your router/gateway has software you can see the network map which tells you the IP address and MAC address of each device.

This makes the most logical sense on what checks the AT&T TV app performs:

User enters their credentials
AT&T TV app verifies they are correct proceeds to check to see if this is an AT&T TV account or an AT&T TV Now account
If the credentials belong to an AT&T TV Now account it will skip all other steps, provide the AT&T TV Now loading screen and provide access.
If it recognizes the account as an AT&T TV account it moves on to the next check

Scans the home network for the AT&T TV devices' MAC address to allow authentication while on the AT&T TV loading screen
If it finds the AT&T TV device on the home network it will allow access
If it can't detect the AT&T TV device on the home network, access denied.




Steveknj said:


> Can you do that without incurring a penalty?


AT&T TV requires a 24 month commitment breaking the commitment will occur an ETF. Considering this service is self-install and the customer is supposed to have Internet (or at least they can get any decent 25Mbps or higher service) then there really isn't a way out of it except in the unfortunate event the account holder passes away. U-Verse TV could be waived if you moved out of its market while DirecTV has No Line of Sight but AT&T TV really has no wiggle room in that department when you think about it.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

techguy88 said:


> AT&T TV requires a 24 month commitment breaking the commitment will occur an ETF. Considering this service is self-install and the customer is supposed to have Internet (or at least they can get any decent 25Mbps or higher service) then there really isn't a way out of it except in the unfortunate event the account holder passes away. U-Verse TV could be waived if you moved out of its market while DirecTV has No Line of Sight but AT&T TV really has no wiggle room in that department when you think about it.


That's what I thought. So that's not really an option.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> Can you do that without incurring a penalty?


No, you incur a penalty of $15/month of what's left on the contract. But for an example. Entertainment with 1 year free HBO, $50. So if you sub and cancel at the end of the 1st year, effective monthly cost is $65. And that $65 is exactly what YouTubeTV+HBO would cost, and lower than what Hulu+live+HBO would cost.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

techguy88 said:


> On a typical home WiFi network each device gets their own IP from the router/gateway. If your router/gateway has software you can see the network map which tells you the IP address and MAC address of each device.
> 
> This makes the most logical sense on what checks the AT&T TV app performs:
> 
> ...


Since the AT&T TV device isn't even needed for ATT TV, even though they provide one, that's an odd scenario.

But l'll take your word that using in 2 places wouldn't work. Seems to me that AT&T is doing their darndest to ensure the failure of their live tv streaming service.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

It is interesting to note that in many forums and articles the confusion of service offerings at AT&T is not considered a plus by any. Most of the positive postings I see about ATT TV are actually about ATT TV Now and from those with grandfathered plans.

To the confusion of :
ATT Watch TV
ATT TV Now 
ATT TV

And the various sub levels some of those offer. Now comes HBO Max. I like what it seems to be offering at a pretty fair price, assuming that the quality of the originals HBO is famous for, hold up.

But will you get it? Depends on where you get HBO Go/Now from. So some more confusion.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> But see the confusion? I follow this somewhat closely, but imagine someone who doesn't? There's no way to keep that straight. AT&T is going to kill their own products because of how stupidly they are named. Mostly because they INSIST on having AT&T on EVERYTHING they touch.





lparsons21 said:


> It is interesting to note that in many forums and articles the confusion of service offerings at AT&T is not considered a plus by any. Most of the positive postings I see about ATT TV are actually about ATT TV Now and from those with grandfathered plans.
> 
> To the confusion of :
> ATT Watch TV
> ...


We have used HBO Now since it appeared. Don't remember how much HBO Max will cost but I'm sure we will have that active for a couple months a year. If ATT doesn't screw that up too. Geez, these guys that run ATT...

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

techguy88 said:


> This makes the most logical sense on what checks the AT&T TV app performs:


I agree with the logic. Looking for other devices on the local network makes sense and is a feature of other "whole home" receiver/client systems.

Most residential systems NAT to the same IP for every device in the home. The public IP that AT&T would see would be the same for all devices located in one home and different for devices in a neighbor's or second home. That would be the easiest way to track usage outside of one home. (Some ISPs offer multiple IPs per home but it is rare due to the shortage of IP4 IPs.)

The number of changes per year may be affected by ISPs that rotate or change their IPs on a regular basis. My IP has changed several times within a year as my ISP has added users and changed the footprint of each network.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> We have used HBO Now since it appeared. Don't remember how much HBO Max will cost but I'm sure we will have that active for a couple months a year. If ATT doesn't screw that up too. Geez, these guys that run ATT...
> 
> Rich


HBO Max costs the same as HBO but offers more than what just HBO has. That has me wondering how long HBO (not max) will be around.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

lparsons21 said:


> It is interesting to note that in many forums and articles the confusion of service offerings at AT&T is not considered a plus by any. Most of the positive postings I see about ATT TV are actually about ATT TV Now and from those with grandfathered plans.
> 
> To the confusion of :
> ATT Watch TV
> ...


Well AT&T Watch TV has its own app they could have picked a better name for it tbh at least they didn't name it AT&T TV &More to follow after those disastrously named Wireless plans.

Essentially for the most part how AT&T TV Now works (with the exception of multiple homes) is how AT&T TV works. The Plus & Max packages have the same features as AT&T TV's mainline packages (3 streams/500 hours of storage/90 day retention). If AT&T TV Now has 5.1 Surround Sound on a channel AT&T TV will have it. I don't have a soundbar so I couldn't test that myself. AT&T TV / TV Now share the same streaming channel feeds, on demand library, etc.



Rich said:


> We have used HBO Now since it appeared. Don't remember how much HBO Max will cost but I'm sure we will have that active for a couple months a year. If ATT doesn't screw that up too. Geez, these guys that run ATT...
> 
> Rich





lparsons21 said:


> HBO Max costs the same as HBO but offers more than what just HBO has. That has me wondering how long HBO (not max) will be around.


Standalone HBO Max costs $14.99 the same price as standalone HBO Now but you essentially get double the content with HBO Max (HBO + all the additional HBO Max content). The traditional MVPD cost varies for traditional HBO.

John Stankey also said during the WarnerMedia Day event that HBO Go and HBO Now will continue for those who _want_ to use them. (Although he related it to a degree of an IQ test why wouldn't someone want double the content for the same price.) But if the customer wants HBO Now over HBO Max AT&T will give them the option. Eventually the HBO GO and HBO Now platforms will be skinned and rendered within the HBO Max platform so they only have 1 technology set to maintain instead of 3 individual technology sets. (See their WarnerMedia Day Webcast @ 1:55:55)


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

I eventually forsee the traditional HBO offer including HBO Max by default once AT&T gets all the distributors on board. As long as the linear channels stay the traditional MVPD HBO will stay. Eventually over time like (5+ years down the road) HBO Now could be the most expendable one.

Speaking of this:

AT&T TV is going to launch it's own version of the Premier package that includes HBO Max (coming soon)
AT&T will be pre-loading HBO Max app onto the AT&T TV device. 

*AT&T Internet* subscribers who have AT&T 1Gig Fiber Internet will also get HBO Max at no additional cost
Existing customers on many of AT&T's video packages will be eligible for HBO and HBO Max for 3 months at no additional charge when HBO Max launches
Fine print: After 3 months, HBO and HBO Max will auto-renew at then prevailing rate unless customer calls to change or cancel. Limit one 3-month offer per AT&T customer. This excludes video customers on our lowest tier plans such as DIRECTV FAMILY, U-Family, U-Basic, AT&T TV Now PLUS. Subject to change.

New and existing AT&T Internet subscribers on non-1 Gig Internet will get a special offer of HBO Max included for 1 month on AT&T.
Fine Print: After 1 month, HBO Max will auto-renew at then prevailing rate unless customer cancels through HBO Max. Subject to change.

See: HBO Max Available to Millions of AT&T Customers on May 27


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

techguy88 said:


> On a typical home WiFi network each device gets their own IP from the router/gateway. If your router/gateway has software you can see the network map which tells you the IP address and MAC address of each device.


The IP address I am talking about is your external IP address that your ISP assigns to you. All devices in your home network will be using that same IP address as that external IP address (unless you have bought more external IP address from your ISP and then you would have to use port forwarding within your router to assign those extra external IP addresses to each device(s)). Services outside your internal network will never see the internal IP addresses for those devices that you or your DHCP server within your router handout.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Read and article today that said only those with the Premier DirecTV package will get HBO Max for free. Those with lesser packages will get only a year free. If that's the case, not happy about it. I'm an HBO subscriber, but not Premiere, so I wonder if that plays into it.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

techguy88 said:


> On a typical home WiFi network each device gets their own IP from the router/gateway. If your router/gateway has software you can see the network map which tells you the IP address and MAC address of each device.


They won't look at the IP address assigned via wifi, the default for most routers is 192.168.1.1 so you would have millions of people with the "same" IP. They wouldn't manage this on the client end at all, they would manage it on the server. On the server it will see the IP address assigned to you by your ISP, and every house will have a different one.

Mobile devices accessed via LTE or 5G are a different story, which would complicate AT&T trying to adopt a "one account one IP address at a time" strategy. Though they could tell people "use wifi if you watch on a mobile device from home" and solve the issue.

Though if Netflix has never bothered to tackle such obvious account sharing, I don't know why anyone thinks AT&T will. Maybe down the road, but not right out of the gate.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> Read and article today that said only those with the Premier DirecTV package will get HBO Max for free. Those with lesser packages will get only a year free. If that's the case, not happy about it. I'm an HBO subscriber, but not Premiere, so I wonder if that plays into it.


Yeah, that's what the latest is saying. And it just adds to the already very confusing mish-mash of plans that ATT is just throwing against the wall. It is amazing to me that a company of the size of ATT with a big marketing department and plenty of marketing experts can't make this much less confusing. Or maybe they figure by making it confusing people will sign up for more than they thought they were?

Regardless, the reviews are in and posted all over the place and almost all of them are very negative when it comes to the various plans.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> Most of the positive postings I see about ATT TV are actually about ATT TV Now and from those with grandfathered plans.


I can understand this. AT&T Now's current offerings are consistent with You Tube TV, if you swap Discovery channels for Viacom channels, more or less. Pricing is within $5.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

wmb said:


> I can understand this. AT&T Now's current offerings are consistent with You Tube TV, if you swap Discovery channels for Viacom channels, more or less. Pricing is within $5.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Um, kind of equal though AT&T's entry level Now is missing quite a few channels that YTTV has.

Their Max is nearly the same and if you sub to HBO and Cinemax all the time is decently priced. For me Now just isn't right as it is missing AMC and BBCA.

I'd come closer to ATT TV's Entertainment package for a year and cancel. That would make it $65 which matches up with YTTV+HBO. But ATT TV just has too many negatives for me.

At this moment in time it is hard to beat YTTV's price and channel mix IMO. Going to be interesting to see ATT's subscription levels in their next quarterly. I think that it will be more losses.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> At this moment in time it is hard to beat YTTV's price and channel mix IMO.
> 
> Going to be interesting to see ATT's subscription levels in their next quarterly. I think that it will be more losses.


As for AT&T numbers, I can't see how they won't be way down. Money is a big issue. Lots of people that don't have money.

A lot of shows are available on-demand through Hulu or Netflix. Need to access these shows via linear channels vs. desire to access shows on-demand... Maybe this more a willingness to use on-demand, kind of a generational thing. But, I can't see people that need to drop their monthly expenses not dropping their month expenses.

AT&T and YTTV offer OTA locals via the streaming service. This adds some convenience over Netflix+ on-demand only Hulu, if you are interested in your OTA locals.

But, I can't overstate the importance of reducing spending given the current situation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, that's what the latest is saying. And it just adds to the already very confusing mish-mash of plans that ATT is just throwing against the wall. It is amazing to me that a company of the size of ATT with a big marketing department and plenty of marketing experts can't make this much less confusing. Or maybe they figure by making it confusing people will sign up for more than they thought they were?
> 
> Regardless, the reviews are in and posted all over the place and almost all of them are very negative when it comes to the various plans.


The reviews about the product itself aren't bad, they are mostly getting killed on the required contract and the price. And rightfully so. But again, I think this is because of the landscape of streaming services and the expectation of cord cutters. They should really pushing this as a Sat/cable replacement but the problem is, it's not priced to give anyone with Sat or cable incentive to switch.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Exactly. If there was some actual justification for a two year contract (ie expensive equipment and installation costs to cover), maybe I could live with it, but there is none. Similar to the ridiculous two year contract for simply buying a many, many years old DVR, that's been "sold" over and over and over.......zero justification other than they think they can......how's that working out now?



Steveknj said:


> The reviews about the product itself aren't bad, they are mostly getting killed on the required contract and the price. And rightfully so. But again, I think this is because of the landscape of streaming services and the expectation of cord cutters. They should really pushing this as a Sat/cable replacement but the problem is, it's not priced to give anyone with Sat or cable incentive to switch.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> The reviews about the product itself aren't bad, they are mostly getting killed on the required contract and the price. And rightfully so. But again, I think this is because of the landscape of streaming services and the expectation of cord cutters. They should really pushing this as a Sat/cable replacement but the problem is, it's not priced to give anyone with Sat or cable incentive to switch.


True, most of the negative comments are about pricing and contract. And I see where ATT is coming from, they want it to be a one-for-one cable/sat replacement service so channels counts, channel mix, pricing and contracts make sense to them. Unfortunately for ATT that isn't what is of interest to those wanting to drop cable/sat. Those folks expect a bit skinnier bundle of channels, easy in and out of subscriptions, and save a fair bit of money.

ATT TV Now should have been the fix for those wanting to cut the cord. Unfortunately they changed it just enough to make it not so good. When I compare ATT TV Now to YTTV, the only way it compares in channel mix is with the MAX level @$80/month. If I wanted HBO/Cinemax all year, that would be a decent price at $5/month more that YTTV+HBO+Cinemax, but there isn't a compelling reason to keep HBO+Cinemax all year.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

Steveknj said:


> Read and article today that said only those with the Premier DirecTV package will get HBO Max for free. Those with lesser packages will get only a year free. If that's the case, not happy about it. I'm an HBO subscriber, but not Premiere, so I wonder if that plays into it.


A lot of websites are not reading AT&T's press release in full which this time was actually pretty clear (for once). Key thing to remember as DirecTV is owned by AT&T your considered an AT&T customer. Only new customers with select packages get it free for one year. Select existing video customers will be eligible for a 3 month trial. Here is all the info from the press release broken down without the corporate fluff:

*Existing HBO subscribers (any product)*
In the second paragraph they actually clarified this point. 


> Customers who subscribe to HBO through AT&T will be offered immediate access to HBO Max included in their service for no additional charge.


So @Steveknj you will get HBO Max included in your DirecTV HBO standalone subscription no need to worry. The AT&T HBO Max website also makes this point:



> Already have HBO? AT&T subscribers with an HBO subscription will be able to access HBO Max at no additional charge.


*Premium packages /plans / bundles *
AT&T already said that select premium video, internet and wireless plans will include HBO Max. Premium in AT&T speak is the top of the line = most co$tly plan$. For the services they are selling they only mention packages they are _currently_ selling. For video customers the packages mention _already_ include HBO so they aren't making any special changes here except for AT&T TV.

*DirecTV:* Premier (English) and Lo Maximo (Spanish) are the current premium base packages offered and AT&T has mentioned those customers will get HBO Max at no additional cost. 
The only other base package that will have HBO Max included at no additional cost that AT&T didn't mention is the grandfathered Opcion Premier base package which already includes HBO along with Cinemax, Starz, Showtime and Sports Pack. It was replaced by Lo Maximo. 

*U-Verse TV:* AT&T has said customers on U400 (grandfathered) and U450 (current) will have HBO Max included at no additional cost. These packages are U-Verse TV's equivalent to DirecTV's Premier. 
The only package AT&T didn't mention from U-Verse TV that would have HBO Max included at no additional cost is U450 Latino which is the equivalent to DirecTV's Lo Maximo. 

*AT&T TV Now:* The Max package will have HBO Max included. 
While not mentioned customers grandfathered into the recently discontinued Plus with HBO base package will also get HBO Max included. 

*AT&T TV:* AT&T is going to create and launch a version of Premier that will include HBO & HBO Max for this platform. 
*AT&T Internet:* AT&T Internet 1000 (1 Gig Fiber) customers get HBO Max included.
*AT&T Wireless:* Unlimited Elite customers will have HBO Max included because this plan includes HBO. This was the only plan AT&T mentions however they have been telling customers to login to their online account or the myAT&T app to verify if they will get HBO Max with their plan. 
Grandfathered plans that include HBO Max because they include HBO are: Unlimited Choice, Unlimited Choice II, Unlimited Choice Enhanced, Unlimited Plus, Unlimited Plus Enhanced and Unlimited &More Premium (with HBO selected as the free premium benefit)

*Other packages / plans / bundles*
These are the the customers who don't have a "premium" package listed above. 

*Video:* If HBO doesn't come in the base package you can add HBO as a standalone service and get HBO Max included at no additional cost. 
*Internet:* Customers on a plan below 1 Gig and don't want to upgrade can sign up for HBO Max directly. 
*Wireless:* Customers who don't have an Unlimited plan that includes HBO can either upgrade to Unlimited Elite or subscribe directly to HBO Max.
*Special Offers*

*New Video Customers*
*DirecTV: *Customers who sign up for Choice, Xtra, Ultimate, Optimo Mas or Mas Ultra will get HBO free for 12 months with HBO Max included. 
*AT&T TV:* Customers who sign up for Entertainment, Choice, Xtra, Ultimate or Optimo Mas will get HBO free for 12 months with HBO Max included. 
Fine print (applies to both): After 12 months, HBO and HBO Max will auto-renew at then prevailing rate unless customer calls to change or cancel. Subject to change.


*Existing Video Customers*
A new offer to get HBO and HBO Max for 3 months at no additional charge will be available when HBO Max launches.
Fine print: After 3 months, HBO and HBO Max will auto-renew at then prevailing rate unless customer calls to change or cancel. Limit one 3-month offer per AT&T customer. This excludes video customers on our lowest tier plans such as DIRECTV FAMILY, U-Family, U-Basic, AT&T TV Now PLUS. Subject to change.


*New / Existing Internet Customers *
1 month of HBO Max included at no additional cost for all plans lower than 1 Gig.
Fine print: After 1 month, HBO Max will auto-renew at then prevailing rate unless customer cancels through HBO Max. Subject to change.


*New / Existing Wireless Customers*
Customers on AT&T Unlimited Extra, AT&T Unlimited Starter and AT&T Mobile Share plans can sign up for a special offer of 1 month of HBO Max included at no additional cost.
Fine print: After 1 month, HBO Max will auto-renew at then prevailing rate unless customer cancels through HBO Max. Subject to change.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

So instead of just saying HBO itself will disappear to be replaced with HBO Max in all cases, they come up with a more convoluted way to add further confusion and BS to their TV offerings?

Talk about pulling the hat out of the rabbit!!


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Let’s do some basic math...

ATT TV Now is touted as competitor to Hulu+Live, YouTubeTV and maybe some other cable/sat replacement services. But is it?

ATT TV Now is either $55/month or $80/month, but that is kind of screwy. The $55/month compares poorly to the channel count and breadth of the offerings of YTTV and Hulu+Live.

ATT TV Now Max @$80/month compares better IF you always sub to HBO/Cinemax. Now here’s the math.

Max @$80 minus the cost of HBO/Cinemax @$25 means the rest is worth $55/month! So why the heck even have the lower cost Now at all? IF ATT actually wanted to offer a competitive package it should be one level (Max minus HBO/Cinemax). That would be competitively priced and competitive in depth and breadth to Hulu+Live and YTTV.

Of course that would be a step in the less confusing methodology AT&T seems enamored with. IMO, either AT&T has the poorest marketing folks working for them, or upper management is ignoring them.

EDIT: to add to the poor marketing, no app for Roku! That alone is one of the dumber things they are doing.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

And the market speaks!!


As I expected, AT&T continues to shed customers in their TV marketing!

Lose 138K ATT TV customers
Lose 897K Premium cable/sat customers.

Yep, AT&T marketing at its finest! Well that assumes that the goal was to lose customers instead of gain them. Seems the bloodbath isn't over yet.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

How could AT&T TV lose 138K customers from zero. It didn't even officially exist yet at the time the previous numbers came out did it?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> How could AT&T TV lose 138K customers from zero. It didn't even officially exist yet at the time the previous numbers came out did it?


Simple, they were reporting the ATT TV Now losses. You know the one that costs less and has no contract crap attached.

Regardless of how the company spins it, their TV offerings are mostly ringing up 'no sale'. Long ago I said that it is an overpriced, fat channel providing, contract needing service. All things that mean losses not gains, it will only get worse IMO.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

More confusion with the AT&T TV name. Yes AT&T TV NOW lost subscribers but I'll bet AT&T TV gained subscribers. They had nowhere to go but up since at the last time numbers were reported they were at zero. AT&T execs are probably patting each other on the back for that. And giving themselves huge bonuses!


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

In spite of AT&T’s contentions to the naught, ATT TV and ATT TV Now are pretty much considered the same thing.

But yeah, they probably will give themselves pats on the back and bonuses for their genius. I did read in another article the spin they are putting on all this negativity. As usual lots of marketspeak which is the same as just pure old ordinary BS!!


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

You know I keep thinking that AT&T TV could come out better and compete by doing away with the box or at least making it an option, and doing away with the contract.

Using Entertainment as an example, just price it at the true average cost of the 2 year deal, about $70/month. They actually do offer it without box and contract @$93 but that’s just never going to fly.

Instead they decide to call it all ‘premium tv’ when in reality the only thing premium about it is the high prices.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> More confusion with the AT&T TV name. Yes AT&T TV NOW lost subscribers but I'll bet AT&T TV gained subscribers. They had nowhere to go but up since at the last time numbers were reported they were at zero. AT&T execs are probably patting each other on the back for that. And giving themselves huge bonuses!


Easy to see how/why ATT TV Now lost subscribers. When you raise the prices and remove channels it seems that would be a prescription for losses. And that's exactly what they did. Raised the prices, reduced the channels (notably AMC & BBCA), and did away with the various subscription levels. And after that the spinning started as they scratched their collective heads wondering why people dropped it in droves.

EDIT: Now they are braying about HBO Max, as they should. It should be successful unless they figure out a way for it not to be, and that can't be ignored given ATT's history of creating their own problems. But it will be hard for a $15/month product to replace all the revenues and profits from the higher priced products that are losing customers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

AT&T Q1 Hurt by COVID-19 and Declines at WarnerMedia and Pay-TV Unit - Variety
"AT&T had approximately 19.4 million video connections at the end of March - down 1.04 million sequentially and a 19% year-over-year drop. The Q1 numbers included a net loss of of 897,000 subs for DirecTV and AT&T TV, the telco's broadband-delivered pay-TV service. Subscribers to the AT&T TV Now over-the-top video service declined by 138,000."

I need to read more before commenting further, but it appears they are reporting "AT&T TV" as part of Premium TV as they have done for DIRECTV and UVERSE since Jaunary 2019.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Ah, new spinning I see! Coronavirus did it even though little of the period was after the changes in lifestyles were put in place because of it.

Now their next quarterly certainly will have been very much affected, but not the 1st quarter.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> Ah, new spinning I see! Coronavirus did it even though little of the period was after the changes in lifestyles were put in place because of it.
> 
> Now their next quarterly certainly will have been very much affected, but not the 1st quarter.


It seems that a bunch of people staying home looking for entertainment options would be good for business.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

wmb said:


> It seems that a bunch of people staying home looking for entertainment options would be good for business.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I suspect it is for many providers. Not so much for AT&T because of the prices for their TV products. IMO, I don't think the coronavirus issues really have as much to do for first quarter business as some might like us to believe.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

lparsons21 said:


> So instead of just saying HBO itself will disappear to be replaced with HBO Max in all cases, they come up with a more convoluted way to add further confusion and BS to their TV offerings?
> 
> Talk about pulling the hat out of the rabbit!!


IMO, confusing offerings is not a mistake, it's a design point. If they can make their offerings just confusing enough so that the casual buyer will sign up for something a bit more expensive than they would have, and lock them in with a contract....


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

mjwagner said:


> IMO, confusing offerings is not a mistake, it's a design point. If they can make their offerings just confusing enough so that the casual buyer will sign up for something a bit more expensive than they would have, and lock them in with a contract....


Well its more of a "if it's not broke don't fix" situation. There are some people that are just happy with just HBO and will be happy to pay $14.99/mo for just HBO Now or $17.99/mo for just HBO on DirecTV for example. For those customers AT&T will give them what they want just HBO.

However on the same token those already paying for HBO Now or HBO on DirecTV would have been pissed if AT&T didn't include HBO Max in their existing subscriptions so AT&T is also giving them what they want HBO Max as part of their HBO / HBO Now subscription.



James Long said:


> AT&T Q1 Hurt by COVID-19 and Declines at WarnerMedia and Pay-TV Unit - Variety
> "AT&T had approximately 19.4 million video connections at the end of March - down 1.04 million sequentially and a 19% year-over-year drop. The Q1 numbers included a net loss of of 897,000 subs for DirecTV and AT&T TV, the telco's broadband-delivered pay-TV service. Subscribers to the AT&T TV Now over-the-top video service declined by 138,000."
> 
> I need to read more before commenting further, but it appears they are reporting "AT&T TV" as part of Premium TV as they have done for DIRECTV and UVERSE since Jaunary 2019.


Yeah *AT&T TV* is considered a Premium TV service by AT&T so its numbers are lumped together with DirecTV and U-Verse TV. AT&T TV Now is reported separately as it is not considered a Premium TV service.

Mainly WarnerMedia was affected by COVID-19 (theater closings, suspended productions, no March Madness/NBA/MLB). Advertising was also affected by COVID-19. The Entertainment Group not so much as the Video segment has been on this trajectory for a while and the reason given for this was "due to competition and customers rolling off promotional discounts as well as lower gross adds from the continued focus on adding higher-value customers." Total subscribers were at a loss mainly due to DSL subs switching for better options outstripping fiber adds. Mobility was sightly up.

Pretty much at this point HBO Max is now make or break for AT&T. If this happens to fail this could be bad.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

techguy88 said:


> Well its more of a "if it's not broke don't fix" situation. There are some people that are just happy with just HBO and will be happy to pay $14.99/mo for just HBO Now or $17.99/mo for just HBO on DirecTV for example. For those customers AT&T will give them what they want just HBO.
> 
> However on the same token those already paying for HBO Now or HBO on DirecTV would have been pissed if AT&T didn't include HBO Max in their existing subscriptions so AT&T is also giving them what they want HBO Max as part of their HBO / HBO Now subscription.
> 
> Pretty much at this point HBO Max is now make or break for AT&T. If this happens to fail this could be bad.


You must work for AT&T's marketing dept! . Because all of those first two paragraphs are pure marketspeak.

While I can't see a way that HBO Max could fail, I suppose if ATT works hard enough it could.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

lparsons21 said:


> You must work for AT&T's marketing dept! . Because all of those first two paragraphs are pure marketspeak.
> 
> While I can't see a way that HBO Max could fail, I suppose if ATT works hard enough it could.


I wish then I be rich ROFL! But nah they don't want to interrupt one of their few guaranteed cash cows pretty much.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Bloodbath? Impossible......according to the solid signal "blogger" who posted yesterday about the upcoming numbers....anyone who posts about "scraps" of bad news are just "vultures" looking to get their readership numbers up. So....nothing to see here according to that "blogger", ignore the 900k loss.



lparsons21 said:


> And the market speaks!!
> 
> 
> As I expected, AT&T continues to shed customers in their TV marketing!
> ...


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Here’s an interesting scenario with the current ‘deal’ at ATT TV.

If you like HBO and keep it all year long, the current price of the Entertainment package @$50 1st year is a veritable bargain. That 2nd year is still a screw job though.

So for 1st year:
Entertainment = $50/month
HBO = Free for 1st year
Rebate TV Only = $100

So if you sign up for that and then cancel at the end of the 1st year the average monthly cost is about $57. Which is still a good bargain!


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> You know I keep thinking that AT&T TV could come out better and compete by doing away with the box or at least making it an option, and doing away with the contract.
> 
> Using Entertainment as an example, just price it at the true average cost of the 2 year deal, about $70/month. They actually do offer it without box and contract @$93 but that's just never going to fly.
> 
> Instead they decide to call it all 'premium tv' when in reality the only thing premium about it is the high prices.


When you compare the channel list it's "premium" compare to their other tiers and compares with conventional sat TV. But we've discussed this before. The problems are around how these are named, who they are marketing to and their insistence on using the contract. What they should have done is called it DirecTV Steam or something like that to differentiate it from the more traditional streaming offerings. It's really DirecTV via another method as opposed to a YTTV / Philo offering. They aren't the same. AT&T has to stop being married to their corporate name for all products except for HBO. They already have a fairly bad rep just on their mobile platform and customer service. Not keeping DirecTV separate was their first mistake.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

For all its warts, ATT TV has the broadest range of channels out there, but it comes at a pretty high price if you keep it beyond the 1st year under current offerings.


----------



## dstout (Jul 19, 2005)

We have it and I am satisfied with it.



lparsons21 said:


> For all its warts, ATT TV has the broadest range of channels out there, but it comes at a pretty high price if you keep it beyond the 1st year under current offerings.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

dstout said:


> We have it and I am satisfied with it.


I won't say I'm satisfied, but using their little box is the only way it works mostly as it should. On the FireTV it is a slug and also does jerky/stop video fairly often, on the AppleTV4K it has lip sync issues. And no, it isn't my internet since all other video apps work just fine. ATT really needs to work on their software.

And on the box, it is nearly worthless for doing anything but ATT TV! If you use apps much and switch around a bit you are nearly guaranteed it will crash.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> For all its warts, ATT TV has the broadest range of channels out there, but it comes at a pretty high price if you keep it beyond the 1st year under current offerings.


You get what you pay for. Look at what the competition charges for a similar offering of channels and services. It's actually right in line (and maybe even slightly cheaper). But again, people are comparing this to Philo and YTTV. It's NOT that. The problem is, that more and more people are willing to make do with less because of the cost savings. I think is some respects they are doing the smart thing, offering both a standard "streaming service" with limited channels and a cheaper price as well as trying to eventually replace Sat with a premium offering using streaming. Lots of people by Chevys but those who can afford it buy Lexus too. It's expands their market. But as I've been saying, it's just named and marketed horribly. People have no idea what they are buying.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> You get what you pay for. Look at what the competition charges for a similar offering of channels and services. It's actually right in line (and maybe even slightly cheaper). But again, people are comparing this to Philo and YTTV. It's NOT that. The problem is, that more and more people are willing to make do with less because of the cost savings. I think is some respects they are doing the smart thing, offering both a standard "streaming service" with limited channels and a cheaper price as well as trying to eventually replace Sat with a premium offering using streaming. Lots of people by Chevys but those who can afford it buy Lexus too. It's expands their market. But as I've been saying, it's just named and marketed horribly. People have no idea what they are buying.


Think YTTV and PHILO have about the same line up as AT&T when I checked. Cheaper and YTTV is better than ATT Now. Philo is not bad but I only use t for a few channels.
Sadly I thought about going back AT&T now but too $$ and carppy service.

Your analogy of a Chevy and Lexus is pointless. Many people can afford a Lexus. I can but Lexus offers NOTHING I want. So I drive a FCA vehicle.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

gio12 said:


> Think YTTV and PHILO have about the same line up as AT&T when I checked. Cheaper and YTTV is better than ATT Now. Philo is not bad but I only use t for a few channels.
> Sadly I thought about going back AT&T now but too $$ and carppy service.


I looked at AT&T Now and agree. For what you get for your money it is too high.

As to live streaming services, well they all have a good mix of channels so it depends which one has the lineup closest to your ideal because finding just one with all you might want seems nearly impossible.

For me, YTTV fit the bill just fine, almost all the channels I really wanted, more national sports channels than I'd watch and a few RSN's. All that for $50.

Then along comes ATT TV (not Now), Entertainment @$50/month, all the channels I want, a few national sports channels, no RSN's at all. To sweeten the pot, they give one year of HBO which I normally sub to, and a $100 rebate. So I'll use it a year and if they won't dicker over the 2nd year pricing, cancel, pay the ETF and have an average of $57/month which is $8/month less than YTTV+HBO. Good deal for me, might be for others.

Philo is a great deal at a great price, just doesn't have enough of the channels I'd want. Hulu+Live is higher than YTTV and doesn't have the right channel lineup for me either.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

Steveknj said:


> But again, people are comparing this to Philo and YTTV. It's NOT that. The problem is, that more and more people are willing to make do with less because of the cost savings.
> 
> People have no idea what they are buying.


I guess I am not sure what you mean by the first statement. At the end of the day, I'm paying to access live content in the form of a channel and time shift some of my viewing through on demand or a 'DVR' functionality.

My main comparison is channels that I watch. I find that You Tube TV is a pretty good match for that. I don't think there are any channels I would add to You TubeTV from the Choice package -they're pretty comparable. Yet, AT&T is about $10 per month more for the first 12 months, and over double the price in year two. Plus, my RSN is included in the YTTV price, it's part of the extra $10 for AT&T in year one.

As for time shifting, an easily accessible full on demand library means I don't have to wonder if I remembered to set a show to record. I found DirecTV's on demand library unwieldy to use, so I never used it. YTTV is easy to access on demand content.

I understand some people like to skip ads, and there is a capability to do that, with varying ease on DirecTV, AT&T, and YTTV. I found that the benefit on DirecTV wasn't worth the effort, but there are those that do.

I'm not really that interested in premiums, plus they are mostly available separately at about the same price if I were.

So I don't understand your last quoted statement. It seems I have a pretty damn good idea what I'm buying. So, tell me, what am I missing?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Wmb, I look at it this way. It is my money and I’ll spend it on what I think represents something I want at a fair price. You sound like that’s what you do too.

For those that want to give advice, well your opinions are no more valuable or accurate than mine. I appreciate reading them.

There’s a ton of ways to skin the streaming cat. You can get the live streaming service that comes closest to the channel mix you want at a price and supplement that with whatever floats your boat.

Or you can not use a live streaming service and get almost the same shows delayed some varying amount of time by subbing to a few cheaper VOD services. Of course then you have to figure out which one has which show to watch.

Both ways work.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

gio12 said:


> Think YTTV and PHILO have about the same line up as AT&T when I checked. Cheaper and YTTV is better than ATT Now. Philo is not bad but I only use t for a few channels.
> Sadly I thought about going back AT&T now but too $$ and carppy service.
> 
> Your analogy of a Chevy and Lexus is pointless. Many people can afford a Lexus. I can but Lexus offers NOTHING I want. So I drive a FCA vehicle.


The new AT&T offering (with the box) offers much more than YTTV, which doesn't include (last I checked) Viacom channels (it may be AMC channels, I can't remember offhand) and some others. Plus it offers advanced sound and other more advanced perks (4K?) Whether it's something you want or need, that's a personal choice. I think the Chevy/Lexus is perfect. You are content with your vehicle because it gives you what you want. But there's a market out there for people who want more (and even a market out there for people who want less). That's the niche that AT&T should market this new offering to. Those who want it all.

As I've said, for me to get everything I want I'd have to subscribe to at least 2 services, and at the point the savings starts to be come negligible, plus I have to deal with the inconvenience of constantly switching between services to find what I want to watch. But that's me. I'm not you, and for what you want to watch, what you have works. I am in a more premium situation where I need at least 5 concurrent streams, 2-3 DVRs, All of the RSNs in my area (only Fubo currently carries that and that's one of the more expensive services), There's not one service that gives me that...except (for now) traditional DirecTV.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> The new AT&T offering (with the box) offers much more than YTTV, which doesn't include (last I checked) Viacom channels (it may be AMC channels, I can't remember offhand) and some others. Plus it offers advanced sound and other more advanced perks (4K?) Whether it's something you want or need, that's a personal choice. I think the Chevy/Lexus is perfect. You are content with your vehicle because it gives you what you want. But there's a market out there for people who want more (and even a market out there for people who want less). That's the niche that AT&T should market this new offering to. Those who want it all.
> 
> As I've said, for me to get everything I want I'd have to subscribe to at least 2 services, and at the point the savings starts to be come negligible, plus I have to deal with the inconvenience of constantly switching between services to find what I want to watch. But that's me. I'm not you, and for what you want to watch, what you have works. I am in a more premium situation where I need at least 5 concurrent streams, 2-3 DVRs, All of the RSNs in my area (only Fubo currently carries that and that's one of the more expensive services), There's not one service that gives me that...except (for now) traditional DirecTV.


Point is your trying to compare $$$.
A Lexus can't transverse a 3ft mud hole. So no matter the cost, it's pointless. 
Everyone needs different service but its not based in price.

Saying cheap poor people drive a Chevy, rich a Lexus? 
ATT&Ts crap box is not a Lexus. Maybe a Yugo. Neither is the service!
Its NOT DIRECTV.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

wmb said:


> I guess I am not sure what you mean by the first statement. At the end of the day, I'm paying to access live content in the form of a channel and time shift some of my viewing through on demand or a 'DVR' functionality.
> 
> My main comparison is channels that I watch. I find that You Tube TV is a pretty good match for that. I don't think there are any channels I would add to You TubeTV from the Choice package -they're pretty comparable. Yet, AT&T is about $10 per month more for the first 12 months, and over double the price in year two. Plus, my RSN is included in the YTTV price, it's part of the extra $10 for AT&T in year one.
> 
> ...


No, I don't think you are understanding what AT&T TV is, and this is exactly my point and why AT&T will fail so miserably with this. AT&T TV (the one with the external box) is DirecTV via streaming. AT&T TV Now (or whatever they are calling it) is compatible to YTTV, Fubo, Philo or whatever. The new service needs to be marketed to those who want it all but can't use a dish. YTTV, Philo, AT&T Now are essentially subsets of what the new service is offering. It's more DirecTV lite. Some subset of channels, no (or little) advanced audio etc. If that's good enough for you, that's great, save your money and enjoy. But it doesn't work for everyone. So rather than market AT&T TV as competition for YTTV, they should be pushing it more as an alternative to cable, for those who want "the Lexus" of streaming services. But with their confusing names, who's going to know the difference?


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

gio12 said:


> Point is your trying to compare $$$.
> A Lexus can't transverse a 3ft mud hole. So no matter the cost, it's pointless.
> Everyone needs different service but its not based in price.
> 
> ...


Oh yes it is, for some. It's also based on value, and you get what you pay for.

And I'm no, I'm saying there is a market for premium vs. value. Yes a Lexus can't transverse a mudhole, but I'd bet there are vehicles in the $30k range that can and there are vehicles in the $60k range that can and the $60k version probably gives you things the $30k version can't. But if the only thing you want to do is transverse that mudhole and nothing else matters, than by all means save that money!! You are comparing apples to steaks, both foods but serve different purposes.

What I'm saying if YTTV gives everything you want then it's a good value to you by all means use it. It doesn't work for me. I need the premium version. I need those channels you don't watch, I need to have 5.1 sound and 4K offerings. But that doesn't appeal to everyone. And it's not a good value for everyone. I drive a Sonata, but certainly my Sonata doesn't have all the bells and whistles of a Genesis (also made by Hyundai). That's why both are made. Because there's a market for both. You are looking at this in your own personal prism. Consider what the types of things that other people might want or need.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Can argue $30k car hd same bells and whistles as $60k.

Yes, box gives 5.1 sound and 4k.
But its NOT DIRECTV and the service is subpar compared to YTTV service overall.
If att tv was directv, value would be there for most people.

No I am looking at what AT&T is giving you. Which is sub par, overpriced service, contract and crappy box.
I be happy to pay more than YTTV/Philo costs me IF the service and value was there.
ON Demand and DVR, YTTV had them beat. 5.1 sound? I don’t miss it on my SONOS system for TV shows or Sports. Movies, I have ATV, Netflix, Prime, Apple+ and Disney.
4K sports even on D* was upscaled and looked like crap on my 65” OLED.

IF, AT&T TV was a mirror of DIRECTV, and could use all capabilities on a Apple TV and its cost less, the value for MOST people would be there.
Do I miss DIRECTV, honestly not that much. I get the 10-20 channels I watch and all RSNs I “need.”
But I HATE AT&T the company it has been become.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Boy this has become an interesting thread!! 

ATT TV Now was a competitor to YTTV & Hulu+Live, then ATT scaled back the channel count and raised the prices. IMO, the only way that ATT TV Now would make sense is at the Max level with HBO/Cinemax are of value, if they are not, then it is grossly overpriced.

ATT TV - well it depends on what you want. If you want all the channels, or just a big bunch of them, it is a bit pricey but ATT is the only one that has them on offer with streaming. The cost 1st year isn’t bad at all, it is that second year that is the butt kicker. You can reduce that effect by just cancelling at the end of the 1st year, makes it $15/month more expensive but that beats the hell out of the near doubling in the 2nd year.

The ATT Osprey box - If you look at how it works with the ATT TV service, it is wonderful. Quick enough and more bells and whistles than are available otherwise. But its downside is it doesn’t do the other apps very well and tends to crash if you try to use them much.

In my case, because of the channels I actually care about, YTTV and ATT TV Entertainment are a wash. Cost are close enough to each other to not make a difference assuming I cancel the ATT TV service at the end of the 1st year.

Yeah, YTTV has more channels and their VOD is broader, but neither of those things is a real issue for me as they both have the right mix. DVR, well frankly I’ve never liked YTTV’s approach to DVR/VOD intermixing. Just a mess IMO, though it does cover a heck of a lot. I prefer a DVR system that I control, neater and not so cluttered.

And to me, the 5.1 audio on ATT TV has value. And yes, I’ve got an audio system than can fake Dolby too!


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> Boy this has become an interesting thread!!
> 
> ATT TV Now was a competitor to YTTV & Hulu+Live, then ATT scaled back the channel count and raised the prices. IMO, the only way that ATT TV Now would make sense is at the Max level with HBO/Cinemax are of value, if they are not, then it is grossly overpriced.
> 
> ...


Good points.
Problem is the osprey box for other stuff. That severely beings down the value if the service!! I want ONE box. Any $99? Comcast gave me their Flex box for FREE and I don't even have TV service. You get a lot of FREE TV channels too. Oh and the one Sports channel I wanted, beIN Sports.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

gio12 said:


> Good points.
> Problem is the osprey box for other stuff. That severely beings down the value if the service!! I want ONE box. Any $99? Comcast gave me their Flex box for FREE and I don't even have TV service. You get a lot of FREE TV channels too. Oh and the one Sports channel I wanted, beIN Sports.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Getting that one box seems to be an effort in futility! This box doesn't do 3rd party apps well, that box doesn't' do Atmos audio with a particular service, the other box doesn't do 5.1 audio with some services that have it. And the list goes on...

The best performance with apps on a device are on an Xbox One. Great box, but it doesn't have an ATT TV app nor and AppleTV+ app and a few others. But the apps it has are all the latest and most featured versions.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> Getting that one box seems to be an effort in futility! This box doesn't do 3rd party apps well, that box doesn't' do Atmos audio with a particular service, the other box doesn't do 5.1 audio with some services that have it. And the list goes on...
> 
> The best performance with apps on a device are on an Xbox One. Great box, but it doesn't have an ATT TV app nor and AppleTV+ app and a few others. But the apps it has are all the latest and most featured versions.


I agree about xBox One. But it's not easily compatible with my Harmony remote so I bought an xBox Remote that I use for it. I have so many external devices that I use certain boxes for certain content. I honestly don't care that my current DirecTV box doesn't do more than a couple of apps and I probably wouldn't use this Osprey box for apps either. At least not until they fixed these issues. I currently have a Firestick, Roku, the aforementioned xBox One, smart TV apps and the TV supports Chromecast as well, and a 4k BD player that has YT and Netflix. Between all that I have, I can watch content any way I want.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

You might be pleasantly surprised with both the service and the box. My bill is going to be much less than what it was with Directv, for essentially the same channels. YTTV is a non-starter, no History channel, which means I'm automatically having to add another service. Everyone's needs are different.

I totally get some of the complaints about the box though....it shouldn't crash, apps should all be there....I'll be keeping my Apple TV. All of my HDMI ports are going to end up full.



gio12 said:


> Point is your trying to compare $$$.
> A Lexus can't transverse a 3ft mud hole. So no matter the cost, it's pointless.
> Everyone needs different service but its not based in price.
> 
> ...


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> I agree about xBox One. But it's not easily compatible with my Harmony remote so I bought an xBox Remote that I use for it. I have so many external devices that I use certain boxes for certain content. I honestly don't care that my current DirecTV box doesn't do more than a couple of apps and I probably wouldn't use this Osprey box for apps either. At least not until they fixed these issues. I currently have a Firestick, Roku, the aforementioned xBox One, smart TV apps and the TV supports Chromecast as well, and a 4k BD player that has YT and Netflix. Between all that I have, I can watch content any way I want.


LOL! You sound like me. Xbox One, (3) AppleTVs, FireTV Cube, Roku Premier, Tivo and a smart TV. The Harmony controls what I do on the Xbox so I didn't get the remote.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> LOL! You sound like me. Xbox One, (3) AppleTVs, FireTV Cube, Roku Premier, Tivo and a smart TV. The Harmony controls what I do on the Xbox so I didn't get the remote.


These devices were so cheap that I just bought the to try it. I actually have a few Rokus and Firesticks in the house (and I travel with my old Firestick, it works great in hotels). My Harmony has the A and B and so forth buttons, but it's unweildy using that with the xBox. So I just use the Harmony to turn it on, and use my $10 xBox remote for everything else (and of course a controller for games). I'm a gadget guy, so I like playing with stuff.


----------



## rey_1178 (Dec 12, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Boy this has become an interesting thread!!
> 
> ATT TV Now was a competitor to YTTV & Hulu+Live, then ATT scaled back the channel count and raised the prices. IMO, the only way that ATT TV Now would make sense is at the Max level with HBO/Cinemax are of value, if they are not, then it is grossly overpriced.
> 
> ...


You sound a lot like I did when I signed up back in March. Similar points too. I hope they'll work with me after the first year of the contract. I'd hate to leave the service.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

rey_1178 said:


> You sound a lot like I did when I signed up back in March. Similar points too. I hope they'll work with me after the first year of the contract. I'd hate to leave the service.


Me too! I like the service but 2nd year pricing as published needs to be rethought by ATT.

Of course with the way things keep changing in the streaming world in a year there may be something better and better priced.


----------



## bamasat22 (Apr 26, 2016)

lparsons21 said:


> Me too! I like the service but 2nd year pricing as published needs to be rethought by ATT.
> 
> Of course with the way things keep changing in the streaming world in a year there may be something better and better priced.


It is being ( "rethought" ).
Concerns from the worker bees are being gathered and are to be presented by direct management to Texas ( Headquarters).
The #1 projected concern ?
-The 2nd year contract.
"They" ARE listening as presentation of " concerns" from the inside are being voiced in mass gathering functions.
---
As of note and concerning this forum and the D service product.
The sale of the satellite to customers is NOW no longer commissioned or counted in any matrix which now reflects as a trickle down to any
" new service " request or sales push. ( The incentive for satellite sales is going away )

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk


----------

