# AT&T revenue falls short of estimates as satellite TV sheds subscribers



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

AT&T revenue falls short of estimates as satellite TV sheds subscribers

"AT&T said it lost 945,000 "premium" TV subscribers during the fourth quarter, including from DirecTV, and a smaller number of cable TV subscribers."

Not sure how much longer they will be able to stick to the - we are only loosing low value subscribers - line...


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

It is going to be interesting to see if their upcoming streaming product will pick up the slack. My crystal ball says no since from what we know now, their offerings are going to be a bit too expensive.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

That is another huge drop and a huge miss from what the analysts predicted. That company is in trouble. Trying to stem the tied by rolling out a new streaming service that burdens a customer with a high price and two-year contract is going to be a non-starter.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)




----------



## grover517 (Sep 29, 2007)

According to one report I saw this morning, Comcast now has more pay TV subscribers than AT&T. Ouch!

AT&T's Fourth-Quarter Results Dragged Down by TV Business

"The company ended 2019 with 20.4 million domestic pay-TV subscribers, dropping behind cable giant Comcast Corp. 's 21.2 million video customers."


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Here is the slide presentation and it says on slide 13 simplify video products to AT&T TV and HBO/Max and transition to a software delivered architecture.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4319754-t-inc-2019-q4-results-earnings-call-presentation


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Another company getting into a business they had no business getting into. All media is different. I anticipate that within 2 years they will sell DirecTV for pennies on the dollar, perhaps to Dish. They will just cut and run. I think they might hold onto their streaming services if there's any type of success. And they will hold onto HBO Max.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I doubt they bought DIRECTV for the satellite service. They bought it for the subscribers. Unfortunately they are losing those subscribers before they can even implement their master plan.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> Another company getting into a business they had no business getting into. All media is different. I anticipate that within 2 years they will sell DirecTV for pennies on the dollar, perhaps to Dish. They will just cut and run. I think they might hold onto their streaming services if there's any type of success. And they will hold onto HBO Max.


They couldn't have got the streaming rights to do AT&T TV without buying DTV.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

grover517 said:


> According to one report I saw this morning, Comcast now has more pay TV subscribers than AT&T. Ouch!
> 
> AT&T's Fourth-Quarter Results Dragged Down by TV Business
> 
> "The company ended 2019 with 20.4 million domestic pay-TV subscribers, dropping behind cable giant Comcast Corp. 's 21.2 million video customers."


Wow! When Comcrap beats you...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> They couldn't have got the streaming rights to do AT&T TV without buying DTV.


Think they knew beforehand this was gonna happen?

Rich


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

I think wholesale changes need to be made with DirecTV (perhaps Dish too... I don't know how poorly they are doing)

In my opinion... DirecTV needs to start moving away from traditional linear TV - I'm not saying that they have to get away from it completely, but some changes need to be made.

DirecTV's market is going to be rural areas that do not have good Internet connections. I mean... there are still areas (I know because I have many relatives that live in these areas) that are still serviced with dialup or (most of them have switched to...) severely bandwidth throttled cellular connections. These people cannot use Netflix, or Amazon Prime, or Hulu... or any of the other streaming library options.

In my opinion... what would help is if DirecTV had a service that used the satellite to download shows and movies from these services (or something that AT&T has full control of) into the user's receiver so the user could view them when they wanted.

I like watching older episodes of SVU on Hulu. DirecTV needs a service where someone can use their phone and say "I want to watch season 13 of SVU tonight" or select specific episodes. Then those episodes are downloaded into the user's receiver - maybe it does it overnight.

I don't know what technical obstacles might exist and what contracts/financial obstacles might exist... maybe it's too expensive to provide. But people in rural areas that do not have access to cable TV or cable internet would be the main market for this... how else are they going to get the Netflix-like experience that everybody else has? Or maybe that market is just too small.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

evotz said:


> I think wholesale changes need to be made with DirecTV (perhaps Dish too... I don't know how poorly they are doing)
> 
> In my opinion... DirecTV needs to start moving away from traditional linear TV - I'm not saying that they have to get away from it completely, but some changes need to be made.
> 
> ...


I'd like to know how large that market is. Or how small it is.

Rich


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

CraigerM said:


> They couldn't have got the streaming rights to do AT&T TV without buying DTV.


And maybe AT&T TV is not a business they should be in either?


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> I doubt they bought DIRECTV for the satellite service. They bought it for the subscribers. Unfortunately they are losing those subscribers before they can even implement their master plan.


The thing is, as they've proved, that you won't keep the subscribers if you let the business go to crap. So you have to maintain the previous high standards, and give customers what they want. The mistake they made is trying to have it both ways. The way they are doing it is SO stupid it make no sense. If their goal is to get people off satellite, then they need to make it much cheaper for the same service. Who in their right mind would be willing to pay for some bastardized service that winds up costing the same? And still use the old practices of contracts and such?


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> And maybe AT&T TV is not a business they should be in either?


I wonder if AT&T TV is just a temporary service to keep customers from leaving until everything except maybe OTA goes VOD and AT&T wants to just have their TV service be HBO/Max?


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

evotz said:


> I think wholesale changes need to be made with DirecTV (perhaps Dish too... I don't know how poorly they are doing)
> 
> In my opinion... DirecTV needs to start moving away from traditional linear TV - I'm not saying that they have to get away from it completely, but some changes need to be made.
> 
> ...


They have On Demand which can do what you suggest. But it's not really stand alone. But the problem with that is contractual more than anything. Hulu, Netflix and others own the rights to a lot of what you are suggesting. Think they want to give that up so that DirecTV can allow you to download content via Satellite? That's why they only allow limited OD where you can only download a few episodes. Linear TV will still be around for 20 years or more, until fossils like me die off. You still need it somewhat for sports. But, I think 5G might eventually be the key here. The hope (of course) would be that 5G will reach those rural areas that currently have no real ISP solution. Once 5G becomes nationwide, then AT&T could be better positioned. I think that's where they want to go.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

CraigerM said:


> I wonder if AT&T TV is just a temporary service to keep customers from leaving until everything except maybe OTA goes VOD and AT&T wants to just have their TV service be HBO/Max?


That's possible, but I don't see how those motivated to leave because of price, would stay if this services costs around the same (and potentially offers less).


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Yep. In my opinion, if they want to be a viable linear TV provider, they are going to have to do away with the two-year contracts and deal with the churn of a streaming service. If your service is good enough....you'll keep the customers. Treat them like crap and they will walk....as they've been walking to the tune of a million per quarter.



Steveknj said:


> That's possible, but I don't see how those motivated to leave because of price, would stay if this services costs around the same (and potentially offers less).


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Q4 Conference Call transcript is up.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/43...-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

"As we've shared with you, as we move through this year and we start shifting to AT&T TV, our gross add performance starts to get much stronger. And naturally, when you're able to put AT&T TV, a software-based product with fiber, it's a much more natural combination than a satellite dish and fiber. And so, as we start to roll out AT&T TV now in markets and we move in, we're going to see much stronger performance on the fiber side."


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mjwagner said:


> AT&T revenue falls short of estimates as satellite TV sheds subscribers
> 
> "AT&T said it lost 945,000 "premium" TV subscribers during the fourth quarter, including from DirecTV, and a smaller number of cable TV subscribers."
> 
> Not sure how much longer they will be able to stick to the - we are only loosing low value subscribers - line...


Better than the third quarter (1.1 million lost) ... but that makes 3.4 million PREMIUM subscribers lost in one year.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> That's possible, but I don't see how those motivated to leave because of price, would stay if this services costs around the same (and potentially offers less).


The moment of truth for AT&T TV is coming soon. It's set to launch nationwide next month. We'll see then just what the game plan is in terms of what it will offer for how much. I think the judgments folks are making about it based on what we're seeing in the pilot markets is premature. Based on everything that AT&T has said over the past couple of years, my expectation is that AT&T TV will offer a *modestly* better price for the content offered than DirecTV does and that it will feature a *much* better user experience if you care about accessing streaming apps and a smart assistant on your cable box. As far as a contract, who knows. I still think a one-year contract (rather than two) would make a lot of sense, assuming that you get some goodies in exchange for taking it.

But based on what AT&T indicated on today's call -- and what I've been increasingly thinking lately -- the biggest impact that AT&T TV will make is likely to be among folks who already have or are eligible to switch to AT&T Fiber. Sure, there will be some folks (including some current DTV subs) who have a different broadband provider and will choose to take AT&T TV (just as there are a relatively small number of folks who take YouTube TV even though Google isn't their ISP). But the average bear is going to take cable TV and broadband from the same company, or just ditch the cable bundle and move to streaming services like Netflix and HBO Max.

So I expect AT&T TV to help the company's overall cable TV (and broadband) subscriber numbers but I don't think it'll be a *huge* success. It's just not possible for that to happen given the overall trend of consumers ditching the cable bundle. Clearly, AT&T made a strategic mistake buying a huge MVPD, DirecTV, at the peak of cable TV's popularity. (And to make it even worse, it's a satellite-based MVPD that can't deliver broadband, like traditional cable plants.)

But hindsight is 20/20. Rolling out AT&T TV as the next-gen successor to Uverse TV and DirecTV is probably the best thing that they can do at this point. We'll see how well they execute the launch...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

evotz said:


> I think wholesale changes need to be made with DirecTV (perhaps Dish too... I don't know how poorly they are doing)


DISH is not losing satellite subscribers as fast as AT&T|DIRECTV. DISH's SlingTV is also doing a much better job of capturing the lost satellite subscribers. Over 20% of DISH's subscribers are SlingTV subscribers. Less than 5% of AT&T|DIRECTV's subscribers are non-premium subscribers. If the goal is to "convert" satellite to streaming then AT&T|DIRECTV is only succeeding in converting their satellite customers into other company's streaming customers. AT&T lost another 219k streaming subscribers in 4Q.

The good news is that they beat the prediction of losing 1 million premium subscribers. The bad news is that they didn't beat it by much and the revenue hit will be noticed more than the subscriber loss.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> DISH is not losing satellite subscribers as fast as AT&T|DIRECTV. DISH's SlingTV is also doing a much better job of capturing the lost satellite subscribers. Over 20% of DISH's subscribers are SlingTV subscribers. Less than 5% of AT&T|DIRECTV's subscribers are non-premium subscribers. If the goal is to "convert" satellite to streaming then AT&T|DIRECTV is only succeeding in converting their satellite customers into other company's streaming customers. AT&T lost another 219k streaming subscribers in 4Q.
> 
> The good news is that they beat the prediction of losing 1 million premium subscribers. The bad news is that they didn't beat it by much and the revenue hit will be noticed more than the subscriber loss.


I think DISH has a few things going for it that DTV doesn't. For one, they don't discount their monthly rates as much at first, so consumer are less likely to get sticker shock when the promo rates end. (And they lock the promo rate in for the full length of the 2-year contract, I believe.) Second, DISH's Hopper receivers have apps for Netflix and YouTube (with Prime Video on the way, I've read) and are just regarded by many as more advanced than DTV's aging Genie line-up. (Given that DISH is more the value player and DTV is supposed to be the premium player in satellite TV, it seems like this should be the other way around.) And lastly, no one should discount the frustration that lots of DTV customers have felt since AT&T took over, with an apparent decline in customer service, billing, etc. Meanwhile, DISH is still the same company headed by Ergen, focused (for now) just on satellite TV.

As for streaming, yes, DISH has captured a decent number of very budget-focused cable TV viewers with Sling. It plays at the low end with skinny, incomplete bundles and fewer features. From what I've read, it has very low profit margins for DISH. I wonder to what extent it has actually cannibalized some of their more profitable DISH user base? At any rate, I don't see the Sling strategy being something that AT&T wants to or should seek to emulate. AT&T TV will essentially be a full-featured cable TV service that happens to stream over the internet. AT&T says it will have as good or better margins for them as DTV. The low-cost option they'll offer won't be a skinny bundle but rather the $15 HBO Max.

I don't see Sling ever growing much more beyond where it stands now unless it evolves into a fuller (and more expensive) offering, including locals. Perhaps that will happen if DISH launches a 5G network. If not, I really question what the company's strategy is with Sling.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> I think DISH has a few things going for it that DTV doesn't. For one, they don't discount their monthly rates as much at first, so consumer are less likely to get sticker shock when the promo rates end. (And they lock the promo rate in for the full length of the 2-year contract, I believe.) Second, DISH's Hopper receivers have apps for Netflix and YouTube (with Prime Video on the way, I've read) and are just regarded by many as more advanced than DTV's aging Genie line-up. (Given that DISH is more the value player and DTV is supposed to be the premium player in satellite TV, it seems like this should be the other way around.) And lastly, no one should discount the frustration that lots of DTV customers have felt since AT&T took over, with an apparent decline in customer service, billing, etc. Meanwhile, DISH is still the same company headed by Ergen, focused (for now) just on satellite TV.


The Hopper Apps are probably the least used reason to switch to Dish I would venture a large portion of Dish customers probably dont have HSI. While yes the hardware is way more advanced, Netflix on the Hopper is not going to be a reason to switch.. I have 3 neighbors who all had Directv along with me. All 3 switched to Dish, the biggest reason was because as you said the jump from year 1 to 2. If it wasnt for the atrocious Dish GUI and the obvious drop in PQ, I would have stayed... Although to be blunt my C61 and C61ks are just as fast as the Joey 3's were


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> ...(just as there are a relatively small number of folks who take YouTube TV even though Google isn't their ISP)....


I don't think that's true at all. In fact it's probably the opposite, that a relatively small number of folks that use YTTV do have Google as their ISP. Do you have a data source for that claim?


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Hmmm. As I understand the numbers AT&T lost 219,000 subscribers at its AT&T TV Now streaming service _and_ 945,00 subscribers at DirecTV and U-Verse. I'm not sure why they think they're going to gain with AT&T TV:

"AT&T TV is our newest television experience that puts you in control. With access to live TV, thousands of titles on demand, 500 hours of Cloud DVR, and access to other apps like Netflix and Pandora, AT&T TV is your one-stop shop for all things entertainment.* AT&T TV comes with our 4K-enabled next-gen device and voice remote with the Google Assistant built-in."​
Isn't this just cable TV? And if so, aren't they in the same position as Comcast, Cox, etc., losing customers (particularly millennial and GenZ) to internet video streaming?

The upcoming HBO Max video streaming unit is where their whole WarnerMedia future investment will go. Worldwide, HBO units have 130+ million with 34 million in the U.S.

Essentially, they are working towards a future that will parallel the goals of Comcast/NBCU/Peacock - focus on their internet service provider role and streaming content provider role.

In the meantime, Disney/ABC owns no "wires" or satellite and Dish owns no content.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> I don't think that's true at all. In fact it's probably the opposite, that a relatively small number of folks that use YTTV do have Google as their ISP. Do you have a data source for that claim?


After writing that sentence, I figured it would be misinterpreted. What I mean is that YTTV accounts for a relatively small number of the nation's total cable TV subscribers. Actually, all of the OTT cable TV services added together are still a pretty small slice. Bottom line is that most folks are going to take a cable TV service that's sold to them from the same company that sells them broadband (with the exception being those folks who got on the satellite TV bandwagon in the past, or get it on now because that's their only option). And because of the technical challenges of live-streaming TV OTT, it seems even more likely to me that consumers might be wary of streaming cable TV from a different company than the one who owns their broadband pipe. (It's presumably more reliable when the video can be streamed entirely within that company's own IP network.)

My point is that I suspect AT&T TV will have limited uptake among folks who don't use AT&T as their broadband provider. It'll get *some*, just as YTTV and Sling and Hulu Live have gotten some. But I think AT&T sees AT&T TV mainly as a service that will work synergistically for them with AT&T Fiber. Secondarily, I think it will be something that they can offer to their DTV subs who want an advanced app-based receiver and/or everyday pricing that's a little lower than DTV has. (For instance, in the future when you call in to complain about your DTV pricing and ask for retention credits, expect them to try to sell you on AT&T TV instead.)


----------



## reubenray (Jun 27, 2002)

Directv must be trying to get some customers back. I switched to Dish over a year ago and for the last few weeks I have been getting daily emails from Directv wanting me back.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

The consensus fourth quarter prediction that I read was losses of 700k on the Directv side, so they missed that by a good margin. I think Moffett's group only had them losing 600k plus.



James Long said:


> DISH is not losing satellite subscribers as fast as AT&T|DIRECTV. DISH's SlingTV is also doing a much better job of capturing the lost satellite subscribers. Over 20% of DISH's subscribers are SlingTV subscribers. Less than 5% of AT&T|DIRECTV's subscribers are non-premium subscribers. If the goal is to "convert" satellite to streaming then AT&T|DIRECTV is only succeeding in converting their satellite customers into other company's streaming customers. AT&T lost another 219k streaming subscribers in 4Q.
> 
> *The good news is that they beat the prediction of losing 1 million premium subscribers.* The bad news is that they didn't beat it by much and the revenue hit will be noticed more than the subscriber loss.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Adding to my thoughts above, a good example of where corporate focus and money is going is this headline today HBO Max Wins 5-Bidder Auction For YA Novel 'I'll Be The One,' Focusing On Bisexual Korean-American Teen's Star Dreams.

Now I doubt this is going to be one of my viewing interests. But I'm 75, not 15 or 25, and therefore not the future. And HBO Max is going to be a big part of AT&T's success or failure in the coming decade.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

Perhaps the biggest disruption is to come when 5G is deployed and folks held to one hSI provider -May have the option to switch causing more $ loss to cable co's -than anyone can forecast.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

CraigerM said:


> Q4 Conference Call transcript is up.
> 
> https://seekingalpha.com/article/43...-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single
> 
> "As we've shared with you, as we move through this year and we start shifting to AT&T TV, our gross add performance starts to get much stronger. And naturally, when you're able to put AT&T TV, a software-based product with fiber, it's a much more natural combination than a satellite dish and fiber. And so, as we start to roll out AT&T TV now in markets and we move in, we're going to see much stronger performance on the fiber side."


Just what percentage of the U.S. has AT&T fiber available? 75%? 50%? 25%? I have no idea but if I had to guess I would guess 25%. I doubt if I ever see AT&T fiber where I live.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> After writing that sentence, I figured it would be misinterpreted. What I mean is that YTTV accounts for a relatively small number of the nation's total cable TV subscribers. Actually, all of the OTT cable TV services added together are still a pretty small slice. Bottom line is that most folks are going to take a cable TV service that's sold to them from the same company that sells them broadband (with the exception being those folks who got on the satellite TV bandwagon in the past, or get it on now because that's their only option). And because of the technical challenges of live-streaming TV OTT, it seems even more likely to me that consumers might be wary of streaming cable TV from a different company than the one who owns their broadband pipe. (It's presumably more reliable when the video can be streamed entirely within that company's own IP network.)
> 
> My point is that I suspect AT&T TV will have limited uptake among folks who don't use AT&T as their broadband provider. It'll get *some*, just as YTTV and Sling and Hulu Live have gotten some. But I think AT&T sees AT&T TV mainly as a service that will work synergistically for them with AT&T Fiber. Secondarily, I think it will be something that they can offer to their DTV subs who want an advanced app-based receiver and/or everyday pricing that's a little lower than DTV has. (For instance, in the future when you call in to complain about your DTV pricing and ask for retention credits, expect them to try to sell you on AT&T TV instead.)


Now I understand but I still don't agree. The cable cos are loosing subscribers just like the sat cos are. In fact many of the cable cos are counting on the fact that the Tv subscribers they are loosing are at least still staying with them for the internet connection (mainly because at this point they have little choice). This is what's driving the growth of the live tv OTT services like YTTV, Sling, Hulu, etc. And while you are right that it is still a small % it is growing quickly which has them all worried.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

phrelin said:


> Hmmm. As I understand the numbers AT&T lost 219,000 subscribers at its AT&T TV Now streaming service _and_ 945,00 subscribers at DirecTV and U-Verse. I'm not sure why they think they're going to gain with AT&T TV:
> 
> "AT&T TV is our newest television experience that puts you in control. With access to live TV, thousands of titles on demand, 500 hours of Cloud DVR, and access to other apps like Netflix and Pandora, AT&T TV is your one-stop shop for all things entertainment.* AT&T TV comes with our 4K-enabled next-gen device and voice remote with the Google Assistant built-in."​
> Isn't this just cable TV? And if so, aren't they in the same position as Comcast, Cox, etc., losing customers (particularly millennial and GenZ) to internet video streaming?


Yeah. Well, as I see it, AT&T TV aims to blend the strengths of traditional cable TV with the strengths of OTT streaming delivery. So, yes, it's still a big bundle of linear channels but everything exists in the cloud. So you can access all your live channels, all your DVR recordings, all your VOD on the device/screen of your choice, in or out of home, wherever you have an internet connection. And it comes with a device to use on your main TV that gives you easy access to lots of other streaming apps, 4K HDR, Google Assistant, etc. So essentially, it's cable TV that's made as advanced and attractive as it can be. In some ways (picture quality especially), AT&T TV will be superior to even Comcast's Xfinity TV and their X1 platform.

But, of course, yes, even Comcast is losing TV subscribers. But at least they're not losing them at nearly the frightful rate that AT&T is. So no, AT&T TV isn't going to totally turn things around for the company. But it will make them more competitive against other traditional cable TV services and provide a more effective broadband+TV bundle for AT&T to sell.



phrelin said:


> The upcoming HBO Max video streaming unit is where their whole WarnerMedia future investment will go. Worldwide, HBO units have 130+ million with 34 million in the U.S.
> 
> Essentially, they are working towards a future that will parallel the goals of Comcast/NBCU/Peacock - focus on their internet service provider role and streaming content provider role.


Yep. I still expect all AT&T TV channel bundles to include HBO Max. Because the company knows that cable TV services, including AT&T TV, will continue to fade in the 2020s, as consumers increasingly move to direct-to-consumer services like Netflix, HBO Max, Peacock, Hulu, etc. And they want to make sure that their AT&T TV customers become loyal HBO Max viewers in the interim, before some of them eventually dump AT&T TV and cable TV completely. AT&T TV is a transitional play for the company. Their long-term bet is HBO Max (as well as their various wired and wireless IP pipes).


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

WestDC said:


> Perhaps the biggest disruption is to come when 5G is deployed and folks held to one hSI provider -May have the option to switch causing more $ loss to cable co's -than anyone can forecast.


Not to mention if companies like StarLink ever actually have viable service available. StarLink is claiming to be aiming for service to start up later this year. We will see...


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

A small percentage. There are 3.88 million total fiber customers according to the presentation slide I saw (obviously they do not have 100% market share but still indicative that it is not a big number).



b4pjoe said:


> Just what percentage of the U.S. has AT&T fiber available? 75%? 50%? 25%? I have no idea but if I had to guess I would guess 25%. I doubt if I ever see AT&T fiber where I live.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

The way I see it att is being run by a guy who looks at dollars and how to “maximize return” rather than how do I make people happy and keep service that then leads to high return. Therefore you get plans that have made people mad and no longer feel they get a service that stands out so they bolt. If it was way cheaper than everyone else they wouldn’t but it’s not way cheaper. So why stay?

They need to replace the CEO with someone who Hi Definition errands how to drive customers to their offerings and has a good sense of what kinds of offerings they should have. And one who will stop talking negatively about a business that has 20 million subs. They way he talks people assume its old and on the way out anyway so have even less believe they should stick around. If they kept DIRECTV on the cutting edge and didn’t call it old some people would also be more likely not to look at it the way they do.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> They have On Demand which can do what you suggest. But it's not really stand alone. But the problem with that is contractual more than anything. Hulu, Netflix and others own the rights to a lot of what you are suggesting. Think they want to give that up so that DirecTV can allow you to download content via Satellite? That's why they only allow limited OD where you can only download a few episodes. Linear TV will still be around for 20 years or more, until fossils like me die off. You still need it somewhat for sports. But, I think 5G might eventually be the key here. The hope (of course) would be that 5G will reach those rural areas that currently have no real ISP solution. Once 5G becomes nationwide, then AT&T could be better positioned. I think that's where they want to go.


Well, what does a Netflix account cost? $13/mo? But you have to have high speed Internet to really use it. For areas that don't have access to high speed Internet, what if DirecTV could partner with Netflix to offer a "download by satellite overnight" system to cache movies and shows from Netflix for $15/mo or $20/mo. Would that appeal to rural customers? Yes, they'd have to pay more than what Netflix subscribers with high speed Internet pay... but is $2 or $7 more per month worth it to them? Netflix gains more subscribers. And DirecTV stays relevant.

I'm in no way shape or form suggesting I've thought of and gotten all the kinks straightened out in this idea. But it at least seems somewhat plausible to me - but I'm not a satellite engineer and I don't know exactly what their books or marketing studies look like.

But I do tend to disagree. I think linear TV is dying. Other than sports and news, there's very little reason to have linear TV these days.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

WestDC said:


> Perhaps the biggest disruption is to come when 5G is deployed and folks held to one hSI provider -May have the option to switch causing more $ loss to cable co's -than anyone can forecast.


I think that's pretty much how the industry is seeing the future. Consider this graphic:










It is from Rethinking Broadcast TV's Long-Tail Ratings "Sea Change" which is a good piece to read. What is most important to understand is that the numbers are the _median_ not the mean average. That means that half the linear viewers are older than 56 and half are younger. But most of those younger than 56 could be over 40. In contrast the half of the digital viewers over 37 could mostly be under 55.

I do still have a Dish subscription because of PG&E power shutoffs which kill Comcast's internet service. But at age 75, I'm an anomaly since almost everything we watch is digitally streaming on-demand. I don't do it on a phone as I couldn't see it. But I am aware of what's coming.

If 5G plus low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellites are successful, a corporation like AT&T is not going to invest heavily in current satellite TV technology to reach an aging (and dying) population. After all, AT&T will be a cellular phone service and a fiber optic telecommunications service, through which they can be an ISP. And they already are a content creator/provider.

Even right now, I could use AT&T cellular for internet access though today it is too slow for streaming digital content. But it won't be in 2025.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

WestDC said:


> Perhaps the biggest disruption is to come when 5G is deployed and folks held to one hSI provider -May have the option to switch causing more $ loss to cable co's -than anyone can forecast.


AT&T's Lowband 5G Covers 50M People, Will Go Nationwide Mid-Year 2020 | Light Reading

AT&T says that their lowband (850MHz) 5G will be nationwide by mid-2020. Now, this isn't the superfast (but very short-range) millimeter-wave 5G, it's slightly-better-than-4G that can travel long distances and penetrate walls. T-Mobile already has this kind of 5G going nationwide and they're using it (along with 4G LTE) to offer home broadband service in some areas, mainly less densely populated areas where there are fewer (or no) current home broadband providers. I think I've read that AT&T plans to get into this business too, although I don't know if they'll do it as aggressively as T-Mo seems poised to (at least if their merger with Sprint goes through).

Seems like a smart way to monetize otherwise-unused bandwidth on those rural/exurban cell towers where there's not a lot of mobile users at any given moment. T-Mo is selling their service with unlimited data and claiming speeds of 50 Mbps, although some users see much faster (and others slower) speeds, per firsthand reports.

Unlimited High-Speed In-Home Internet Services from T-Mobile

If AT&T could offer 50 Mbps wireless home internet, that would easily beat their old (pre-Uverse) DSL. It would also expand the potential homes where they could sell a broadband+AT&T TV bundle.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> Just what percentage of the U.S. has AT&T fiber available? 75%? 50%? 25%? I have no idea but if I had to guess I would guess 25%. I doubt if I ever see AT&T fiber where I live.





raott said:


> A small percentage. There are 3.88 million total fiber customers according to the presentation slide I saw (obviously they do not have 100% market share but still indicative that it is not a big number).


AT&T Fiber is now available at about 14 million residential locations, plus another 6 million business locations. More here:

AT&T Loses 1.16M Video Subs in Q4, 4.09M for All of 2019 | Light Reading


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Seems like a smart way to monetize otherwise-unused bandwidth on those rural/exurban cell towers where there's not a lot of mobile users at any given moment. T-Mo is selling their service with unlimited data and claiming speeds of 50 Mbps, although some users see much faster (and others slower) speeds, per firsthand reports.


I'm hoping in some way this will make adding a few towers in our rural area cost-effective. If AT&T can sell some kind of package like this...








...but without the 10Mbps limit, I think there is a sufficient market. Right now when I hit "Check Availability" I get "Sorry, but Fixed Wireless Internet isn't currently available at your address. " Of course, I''m not sure I'll live long enough to see it.

And, of course, when I check for fiber optic internet I get "We're sorry. Internet isn't available at your address."


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> And maybe AT&T TV is not a business they should be in either?


Yup, my thoughts too. People are trying to save money by going to cable replacement services and to charge a similar price for one of those is rather ridiculous, I think.

Rich


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> AT&T Fiber is now available at about 14 million residential locations, plus another 6 million business locations. More here:
> 
> AT&T Loses 1.16M Video Subs in Q4, 4.09M for All of 2019 | Light Reading


WOW! Even lower than I expected. I can't see fiber being that big of a draw to bring AT&T TV subscribers to their front door.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> The thing is, as they've proved, that you won't keep the subscribers if you let the business go to crap. So you have to maintain the previous high standards, and give customers what they want. The mistake they made is trying to have it both ways. The way they are doing it is SO stupid it make no sense. If their goal is to get people off satellite, then they need to make it much cheaper for the same service. Who in their right mind would be willing to pay for some bastardized service that winds up costing the same? And still use the old practices of contracts and such?


Unfortunately, I think a lot of people will go for it.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

WestDC said:


> Perhaps the biggest disruption is to come when 5G is deployed and folks held to one hSI provider -May have the option to switch causing more $ loss to cable co's -than anyone can forecast.


What is "HSI"?

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> Yup, my thoughts too. People are trying to save money by going to cable replacement services and to charge a similar price for one of those is rather ridiculous, I think.
> 
> Rich


AT&T TV isn't a "cable replacement service" for cord-cutters looking to save a buck. Frankly, that whole concept is going to fade away because those vMVPDs like YouTube TV will keep increasing prices until they get to a sustainable profit margin. (Reportedly, Amazon looked at launching an OTT vMVPD service but passed because they couldn't figure out a way to make it profitable!)

I expect AT&T TV to have a modestly lower price than DirecTV, given the lower equipment/installation costs, but AT&T has no desire to destroy their profit margins on cable TV to try to prop up subscriber numbers for a category of product that's in long-term secular decline anyhow.

AT&T TV will be a flagship-level cable TV service that happens to be delivered via the internet. In some ways, it will offer an experience superior to DirecTV. (It's biggest drawback vs DirecTV, IMO, will be that AT&T TV's recordings auto-delete after a certain amount of time, currently 90 days, although who knows if they'll expand that time period at some point.) Yes, I realize that right now AT&T TV is missing some scattered locals, a few sports channels, and 4K HDR content, but all that will get added in over the coming weeks and months.

I think AT&T's big mistake was in buying DirecTV in the first place. At this point, DirecTV is like a sinking ship, taking on more water every quarter. They don't have a lot of good options. Given the direction that video consumption is going -- to the cloud, accessible on all devices -- launching AT&T TV seems, to me, to be the best (least bad?) option available to them at this point.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

evotz said:


> I think linear TV is dying. Other than sports and news, there's very little reason to have linear TV these days.


That is where I am today. Only use it for sports and I have yet to see any sports offerings with a better PQ than D* gives us. I have tried PS Vue, YTTV and we still have Hulu+ active, none of them pumps out a picture as well as D* does, I think.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> WOW! Even lower than I expected. I can't see fiber being that big of a draw to bring AT&T TV subscribers to their front door.


AT&T Fiber right now has a 28% penetration rate among those 14 million residential addresses where it's available. AT&T's goal over the next two years is to drive that rate up to 50%. Being able to bundle AT&T TV and HBO Max along with AT&T Fiber will make it a more attractive alternative to Comcast and Charter, their chief competitors. Urban/suburban folks getting fiber broadband in the 2020s don't want to stick a tacky dish on their house like they live out in the sticks. They want slick devices with 4K HDR and access to popular apps, something that they can't get from either DirecTV or Uverse TV (but can get from Comcast).

AT&T: Plan is to Have 7 Million AT&T FTTH Subscribers by 2022 - Telecompetitor


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Well it isn't attractive to anyone that doesn't have it available which is a large part of the US population.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I think AT&T's big mistake was in buying DirecTV in the first place. At this point, DirecTV is like a sinking ship, taking on more water every quarter. They don't have a lot of good options. Given the direction that video consumption is going -- to the cloud, accessible on all devices -- launching AT&T TV seems, to me, to be the best (least bad?) option available to them at this point.


They probably should have given up on the dream of becoming a "cable replacement" level streaming provider instead of purchasing DIRECTV. I believe the content purchases (HBO etc) were good investments and will become a profitable part of their business. They missed the mark on DIRECTV.

I can't believe they are still pushing high priced services.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> Well it isn't attractive to anyone that doesn't have it available which is a large part of the US population.


Agreed. The great majority of American homes will probably never have AT&T Fiber available to them. Outside of folks who get their home broadband from AT&T, I expect that there will only be limited uptake of AT&T TV. I think AT&T's main hope for those homes will just be to sell them HBO Max, whether that's directly or via their cable TV/broadband provider.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> Well it isn't attractive to anyone that doesn't have it available which is a large part of the US population.


Somebody tell me "how large", please? I have no idea.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> Somebody tell me "how large", please? I have no idea.
> 
> Rich


AT&T Fiber is available at 14 million residences. In 2018, there were approximately 138.5 "housing units" in the US, per Statista. So that means AT&T Fiber is available at just over 10% of US homes.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> AT&T Fiber is available at 14 million residences. In 2018, there were approximately 138.5 "housing units" in the US, per Statista. So that means AT&T Fiber is available at just over 10% of US homes.


Wasn't asking about ATT. Sorry for the confusion. I meant the number of rural folks that can't get enough broadband to stream. If that number is not high...

Rich


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Available at 14 million residences but with only a 28% penetration that is less than 4 million and their goal is 50% penetration which would give them 7 million. Am I figuring that correctly?

Did I read at some point that AT&T isn't even adding anymore fiber? I'm sure I'll never see it where I live.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Thanks!



NashGuy said:


> AT&T Fiber is now available at about 14 million residential locations, plus another 6 million business locations. More here:
> 
> AT&T Loses 1.16M Video Subs in Q4, 4.09M for All of 2019 | Light Reading


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Rich said:


> Somebody tell me "how large", please? I have no idea.
> 
> Rich





Rich said:


> Wasn't asking about ATT. Sorry for the confusion. I meant the number of rural folks that can't get enough broadband to stream. If that number is not high...
> 
> Rich


No idea. I live in a rural area but we do have broadband capable of streaming. I currently have Spectrum @ 200 mbps for $70 per month. The ONLY AT&T internet service in this area is DSL @ 6 mbps for $40 per month. Every time I call AT&T they try to get me to switch to AT&T internet. If I go to the AT&T website and check my location it says they have no internet available at my address but the DTV CSR's insist they do. I don't know of anyone in this area that uses AT&T internet service though.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> They probably should have given up on the dream of becoming a "cable replacement" level streaming provider instead of purchasing DIRECTV. I believe the content purchases (HBO etc) were good investments and will become a profitable part of their business. They missed the mark on DIRECTV.
> 
> I can't believe they are still pushing high priced services.


Well, we largely agree. AT&T's purchase of DTV was a mistake (but one that currently leadership obviously can't publicly admit). Content is king and if a network provider doesn't want to become just a dumb IP pipe, they gotta buy content. So I can't fault AT&T's purchase of Warner (or Comcast's purchase of NBCUniversal).

But the past is the past. So given that AT&T had already spent lots of money to buy DTV, and then subsequently bought HBO, the Turner nets, and the rest of Warner Bros., and given that AT&T owns a lot of IP pipes (wired and wireless), I'm not sure that they had any better option with their MVPD business than to pivot to AT&T TV as a modern IP-based MVPD that could be offered over both their own IP pipes as well as third-party pipes. <shrug> What would have been a better option at this point? Try to sell DTV at a big loss? Try to improve DTV and Uverse TV rather than introducing a whole new platform with AT&T TV? Again, I see AT&T TV as a sort of "bridge" to HBO Max, which is their real future in video entertainment (assuming it pans out -- if HBO Max fails, whoo boy, you don't wanna be an AT&T stock holder).

As far as selling high-priced cable TV service, there's really only so much an MVPD can do. Content is expensive, and the network owners won't let them totally cherry-pick their channels just to offer a bundle of, say, the 30 most-popular channels. And MVPDs don't want to destroy what little profit margin they have by selling bundles at breakeven (or worse) prices. Let's see what kind of packages and prices AT&T TV ultimately delivers. I'm hoping they'll be a little better than what we've seen so far, but I'm not expecting miracles...


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> Wasn't asking about ATT. Sorry for the confusion. I meant the number of rural folks that can't get enough broadband to stream. If that number is not high...
> 
> Rich


I don't think anyone really knows. I've debated about this online before with others. I'd say *about* 15%, maybe 20%, of US homes don't have access to wired broadband (minimum of 25/3 speeds) based on the research I've done. But, as I say, no one knows for sure.

If LEO satellite broadband is successful, though, that will take care of pretty much all those homes. (Never mind the expansion of 4G/5G fixed wireless home service.)


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

Rich said:


> Somebody tell me "how large", please? I have no idea.
> 
> Rich


Well, I know of at least 4 people in AT&T's footprint (they have AT&T landline phones) that are unable to get any type of High Speed Internet (HSI). There's no cable, no fiber, but decentish cell coverage. They are stuck with either DirecTV or Dish for TV (even the antenna stations are a wee bit too far, one station comes in pretty clear over the air... 3 others... meh, it's hit or miss). One person did grab onto an AT&T wireless unlimited special a few years back and they can do some streaming on that. I doubt they use much over 50GB a month. Satellite Internet and dialup are there only other options. Most of them just use their phones, I'm not sure if 2 of them even have a computer.

So... there's 4 you can add to your tally.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> Available at 14 million residences but with only a 28% penetration that is less than 4 million and their goal is 50% penetration which would give them 7 million. Am I figuring that correctly?


Yep, you are.



b4pjoe said:


> Did I read at some point that AT&T isn't even adding anymore fiber? I'm sure I'll never see it where I live.


I'll quote from this article:

_AT&T has pretty much halted any new fiber builds of real substance. Stankey says that may change, but probably not materially so. If conditions are right, Stankey says you might see AT&T add one or two million more FTTH capable locations.

"It's entirely possible that this operating team could build another million to two million a year, if we felt like we had the operating momentum to do that," said Stankey._​


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Thanks for that info. I thought I had read that.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> I don't think anyone really knows. I've debated about this online before with others. I'd say *about* 15%, maybe 20%, of US homes don't have access to wired broadband (minimum of 25/3 speeds) based on the research I've done. But, as I say, no one knows for sure.
> 
> If LEO satellite broadband is successful, though, that will take care of pretty much all those homes. (Never mind the expansion of 4G/5G fixed wireless home service.)


 20% would be 60-70 million homes. That should be enough for someone to jump into the game and provide at least 50 down.

Seems like an awful lot of people tho.

Rich


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

The bigger thing with 5G and fiber is going to be building out fiber to the pole. Fiber to the home is over. If you don't have fiber to the home by now, you ain't ever going to get it (that's my opinion). But instead AT&T and other telecoms will build out fiber to the utility pole or something else and put a 5G transmitter on it. Then they'll ship you an antenna you'll stick in the window to get your Internet from whatever pole is wired in your neighborhood.

It'll be easier to build out fiber to the pole, no home visits, just easier all the way through.

Cable companies will do the same thing.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

evotz said:


> The bigger thing with 5G and fiber is going to be building out fiber to the pole. Fiber to the home is over. If you don't have fiber to the home by now, you ain't ever going to get it (that's my opinion). But instead AT&T and other telecoms will build out fiber to the utility pole or something else and put a 5G transmitter on it. Then they'll ship you an antenna you'll stick in the window to get your Internet from whatever pole is wired in your neighborhood.
> 
> It'll be easier to build out fiber to the pole, no home visits, just easier all the way through.
> 
> Cable companies will do the same thing.


That would work well here. I have my own utility pole near the street.

Rich


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

evotz said:


> The bigger thing with 5G and fiber is going to be building out fiber to the pole. Fiber to the home is over. If you don't have fiber to the home by now, you ain't ever going to get it (that's my opinion). But instead AT&T and other telecoms will build out fiber to the utility pole or something else and put a 5G transmitter on it. Then they'll ship you an antenna you'll stick in the window to get your Internet from whatever pole is wired in your neighborhood.
> 
> It'll be easier to build out fiber to the pole, no home visits, just easier all the way through.
> 
> Cable companies will do the same thing.


Agree!


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

And you wonder why they are bleeding with their pricing, contracts and the way they treat customers. 
DIRECTV as we know is DEAD. DIRECTV can survive as a premium service. One of the best PQ and they offer 4K sports (only thing I miss) and I think that is the ace in the hole, until 4K sports comes to streaming services.
The ONLY was I would go back to DIRECTV its no contracts, better equipments and implementing it better, more 4K content and sports and yes, somehow fix rain fade. and a new CEO/Business structure
Until then, they are dead to me and now seems to millions of people. 5G wireless internet could really further hurt DIRECTV.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

No matter how much you want it to....it's not happening....satellite and the old Directv is not coming back. Time to move on. There won't be another satellite launched, the subs are getting moved to IP, and Directv will die. As much as many of us wish...it's not 2010 anymore.



inkahauts said:


> The way I see it att is being run by a guy who looks at dollars and how to "maximize return" rather than how do I make people happy and keep service that then leads to high return. Therefore you get plans that have made people mad and no longer feel they get a service that stands out so they bolt. If it was way cheaper than everyone else they wouldn't but it's not way cheaper. So why stay?
> 
> They need to replace the CEO with someone who Hi Definition errands how to drive customers to their offerings and has a good sense of what kinds of offerings they should have. And one who will stop talking negatively about a business that has 20 million subs. They way he talks people assume its old and on the way out anyway so have even less believe they should stick around. If they kept DIRECTV on the cutting edge and didn't call it old some people would also be more likely not to look at it the way they do.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

gio12 said:


> And you wonder why they are bleeding with their pricing, contracts and the way they treat customers.
> DIRECTV as we know is DEAD. DIRECTV can survive as a premium service. One of the best PQ and they offer 4K sports (only thing I miss) and I think that is the ace in the hole, until 4K sports comes to streaming services.
> The ONLY was I would go back to DIRECTV its no contracts, better equipments and implementing it better, more 4K content and sports and yes, somehow fix rain fade. and a new CEO/Business structure
> Until then, they are dead to me and now seems to millions of people. *5G wireless internet could really further hurt DIRECTV.*


Never thought of that. Yeah, death knell time. Good post!

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

raott said:


> No matter how much you want it to....it's not happening....satellite and the old Directv is not coming back. Time to move on. There won't be another satellite launched, the subs are getting moved to IP, and Directv will die. As much as many of us wish...it's not 2010 anymore.


Oh, I hope that doesn't happen for some time. The D* sports environment is worth putting up with all D*'s problems, I think. All the streaming services should be in 1080p in a few years and 1080p upscaled looks great. Then, I could consider dropping D*. I'd really miss the D* remotes but I could adapt.

Rich


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

I don't think it will next year or the year after Rich....but the people that think AT&T is somehow going to reverse course...it's not happening. By the time a new CEO is in place....all momentum will be to IP. There won't be another satellite launched, no matter how much wishful thinking there is.



Rich said:


> Oh, I hope that doesn't happen for some time. The D* sports environment is worth putting up with all D*'s problems, I think. All the streaming services should be in 1080p in a few years and 1080p upscaled looks great. Then, I could consider dropping D*. I'd really miss the D* remotes but I could adapt.
> 
> Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> I don't think anyone really knows. I've debated about this online before with others. I'd say *about* 15%, maybe 20%, of US homes don't have access to wired broadband (minimum of 25/3 speeds) based on the research I've done. But, as I say, no one knows for sure.
> 
> If LEO satellite broadband is successful, though, that will take care of pretty much all those homes. (Never mind the expansion of 4G/5G fixed wireless home service.)


If 20 million homes is correct that would mean, if the average family is three people, 130 million people? That can't be right, can it? I was thinking 5-10 million.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

raott said:


> I don't think it will next year or the year after Rich....but the people that think AT&T is somehow going to reverse course...it's not happening. By the time a new CEO is in place....all momentum will be to IP. There won't be another satellite launched, no matter how much wishful thinking there is.


I was thinking about what 5G would/could do to D*. Or the LEO thing. Yeah, I have plenty of time and streaming sites are just gonna get better, I think.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FCC - Eighth Broadband Progress Report
"Notwithstanding this progress, the Report finds that approximately 19 million Americans-6 percent of the population-still lack access to fixed broadband service at threshold speeds. In rural areas, nearly one-fourth of the population -14.5 million people-lack access to this service. In tribal areas, nearly one-third of the population lacks access. Even in areas where broadband is available, approximately 100 million Americans still do not subscribe."


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

It can't be right. I think your number is right Rich. Hell my parents live in a very rural area in the middle of nowhere and have broadband.



Rich said:


> If 20 million homes is correct that would mean, if the average family is three people, 130 million people? That can't be right, can it? I was thinking 5-10 million.
> 
> Rich


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Unsurprsingly.....one of my least favorite bloggers (I won’t mention the name)........still can’t get enough of AT&T and is in full spin mode regarding how bad the numbers are. Won’t bite that hand that feeds it.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> If 20 million homes is correct that would mean, if the average family is three people, 130 million people? That can't be right, can it? I was thinking 5-10 million.
> 
> Rich


No. But assuming 15% of households translates into 15% of the US population (which is ~327 million), that would be about 49 million people.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> FCC - Eighth Broadband Progress Report
> "Notwithstanding this progress, the Report finds that approximately 19 million Americans-6 percent of the population-still lack access to fixed broadband service at threshold speeds. In rural areas, nearly one-fourth of the population -14.5 million people-lack access to this service. In tribal areas, nearly one-third of the population lacks access. Even in areas where broadband is available, approximately 100 million Americans still do not subscribe."


Yeah. But there's been a lot of criticism of the FCC's broadband access maps, saying that they're inaccurate and grossly exaggerate availability. Last year, Microsoft's collected data indicated that over 160 million Americans do not use the internet at broadband speeds while the FCC was saying that only about 25 million Americans lacked broadband access.

Microsoft says its data shows FCC reports massively overstate broadband adoption - TechCrunch

As I say, there's a fair amount of uncertainty around the actual figure. I don't think my initiate estimate -- about 15% -- is implausible.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> Oh, I hope that doesn't happen for some time. The D* sports environment is worth putting up with all D*'s problems, I think. All the streaming services should be in 1080p in a few years and 1080p upscaled looks great. Then, I could consider dropping D*. I'd really miss the D* remotes but I could adapt.


What is it about DTV's sports offerings that you think you won't be able to get from AT&T TV? (Aside, perhaps, from NFL Sunday Ticket and NFL Network; AT&T only offers those on DTV, not AT&T TV or Uverse TV, for now anyway.) I expect all of DTV's other sports channels to be on AT&T TV in 1080p or 720p, depending on the source. And I expect the same stuff that's available in 4K and 4K HDR on DTV to be streamed in those format on AT&T TV too. (Fubo TV already live streams all that stuff in 4K and 4K HDR on their little service. And the AT&T TV box supports 4K, HDR10 and HLG.) And while the AT&T TV remote isn't quite the same as DTV's, it's pretty close.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

evotz said:


> The bigger thing with 5G and fiber is going to be building out fiber to the pole. Fiber to the home is over. If you don't have fiber to the home by now, you ain't ever going to get it (that's my opinion). But instead AT&T and other telecoms will build out fiber to the utility pole or something else and put a 5G transmitter on it. Then they'll ship you an antenna you'll stick in the window to get your Internet from whatever pole is wired in your neighborhood.
> 
> It'll be easier to build out fiber to the pole, no home visits, just easier all the way through.
> 
> Cable companies will do the same thing.


Nope

my cable company is currently in process of there 10 year plan to replace all coax with FTTH. Started last year. All new homes being built also get a combo coax/fiber cable pulled from the street to the house for when they come down the block with fiber


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> What is it about DTV's sports offerings that you think you won't be able to get from AT&T TV? (Aside, perhaps, from NFL Sunday Ticket and NFL Network; AT&T only offers those on DTV, not AT&T TV or Uverse TV, for now anyway.) I expect all of DTV's other sports channels to be on AT&T TV in 1080p or 720p, depending on the source. And I expect the same stuff that's available in 4K and 4K HDR on DTV to be streamed in those format on AT&T TV too. (Fubo TV already live streams all that stuff in 4K and 4K HDR on their little service. And the AT&T TV box supports 4K, HDR10 and HLG.) And while the AT&T TV remote isn't quite the same as DTV's, it's pretty close.
> 
> View attachment 30344


This is the problem though. We can expect all we/you want. They don't offer it all right now and nothing has been announced


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

Rich said:


> What is "HSI"?
> 
> Rich





Rich said:


> What is "HSI"?
> 
> Rich


 High Speed Internet


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

This sarcastic post was probably ill-advised.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

DirecTV should just do what Cox does and charge the same for EVERY package. My Gig promo fell off yesterday, so I called to re-up... I only got half of it back, so I looked at dropping down to the next package since I only get about 800Mbps down anyways... according to the guy, 150Mbps, 300Mbps and 1Gbps package all cost about the same due to what promos you get lol, which doesn't sound right to me, so I'll call back today to double check that.

If I could get Ultimate for what I pay for Preferred Xtra, that'd be nice, although there's not much to watch on all those premiums. Lol, every time they give out a preview, it's replaying like 20 - 30 yr old movies.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Last year, Microsoft's collected data indicated that over 160 million Americans do not use the internet at broadband speeds while the FCC was saying that only about 25 million Americans lacked broadband access.


It sounds like two different statistics. Do not use and do not have access to.

The FCC numbers support similar numbers. 100 million who have access and choose not to subscribe plus 20 million who don't have access. The other 40 million Microsoft claims may be based on what year they were referring to.



> As I say, there's a fair amount of uncertainty around the actual figure. I don't think my initiate estimate -- about 15% -- is implausible.


"If in doubt, I am right." 

In any case, the point was that if AT&T is focusing on their fiber footprint they are ignoring the majority of US households. They can add subscribers who don't choose AT&T fiber (inside and outside their footprint). They cannot add OTT subscribers who do not have broadband.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

mjwagner said:


> AT&T revenue falls short of estimates as satellite TV sheds subscribers
> 
> "AT&T said it lost 945,000 "premium" TV subscribers during the fourth quarter, including from DirecTV, and a smaller number of cable TV subscribers."
> 
> Not sure how much longer they will be able to stick to the - we are only loosing low value subscribers - line...


Q4 2019 is the last quarter where they had customers on the 2 year pricing guarantee with a qualifying AT&T service (i.e. AT&T Internet or post-paid Wireless). The thing is customers who signed up for those 2 year price guarantees were heavily discounted because the 2017 price guarantee offer was the 4TV All Included Packages. AT&T didn't stop the 2 year price guarantee offer until 11/19/2017.

I give some examples of DirecTV vs Dish during November 2017 to illustrate how much AT&T was giving new customers at the time:

Choice All Included w/4TVs was being offered for $60/mo for 24 months with a qualifying AT&T service. The regular price of this package in 2017 was $115/mo and by 2019 had increased to $124/mo. Not factoring in RSN increases which were also price protected during this period AT&T gave this customer $1,423 in discounts during the 24 month period. <-- These are the customers they are trying to get to pay regular price now and they are the ones cancelling like crazy. 
America's Top 200 w/1TV was being offered by Dish for $69.99/mo for 24 months with AutoPay and eBill. Each additional receiver beyond the first was $5/mo for the first 24 months then increased to $7/mo/ea. The Hopper 3 DVR Service was being offered for $10/mo for the first 24 months then increasing to $15/mo.
So with Dish if a customer wanted the most advanced DVR + 4 TVs their bill with America's Top 200 would have been $94.99/mo for 2 years. Dish gave this customer a total of $739 in discounts for the entire 24 months.

So in terms of new customers Dish was actually making more money off their new customers than AT&T was off their DirecTV customers. This is before you even factor in free/discounted installation, free premiums, free sports packages, etc. 
Dish Network customers are not prone to a "sticker shock" in the same way as DirecTV customers are. If you look at Dish Network's website through the Wayback Machine since they started their 2 Year Price Lock they now adjust their new customer pricing periodically. An example new customers could get the America's Top 200 for $69.99/mo in 2017. Now in 2019 that same package for new customers who sign up is $84.99/mo. The America's Top 120 is the only base package from Dish to get a discount of up to $25 off for the first 24 months. America's 120+ - America's Top 250 gets $15 off the regular price for the same period. Compare that to DirecTV and they are all over the place with Choice still getting around $45 off during the first year.

DirecTV (before AT&T even acquired them) tried to keep their new customer rates the same even as the regular price increased resulting in higher discounts every year. Even after AT&T phased out the 2 Year Price Lock in late 2017 and went to All Included 1 TV packages the Select package went back to being $35/mo until August of 2019 when it went to $59.99/mo for new customers. AT&T needs to realize for a "premium" product they can't keep discounting it ultra low for the first year.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Rich said:


> Never thought of that. Yeah, death knell time. Good post!
> 
> Rich


5G service will be the lynchpin of the new service. They are counting on bundling AT&T TV with 5G service. The hope is to be able sell both mobile and TV together. T-Mobile has a similar plan with their new OTT, and I'm sure VZW will have something in the works (which is why I'm sure they are looking into buying into it further).


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> 5G service will be the lynchpin of the new service. They are counting on bundling AT&T TV with 5G service. The hope is to be able sell both mobile and TV together. T-Mobile has a similar plan with their new OTT, and I'm sure VZW will have something in the works (which is why I'm sure they are looking into buying into it further).


5G is really going to be a lot of hype for most people. 1) It's going to take years to build out 5G capacity to the point where everybody will get 1GBps+ with no data caps and throttling -- if ever... especially on the no data caps 2) At least one 5G provider has already stated Home 5G will be comparable to what you pay for cable internet. *shrug* don't really see the game changedness of it... its hardly going to be the super fast for cheap that some folks think its going to be. Besides, is there anything you can't do on your phone with LTE?

If it turns out to be 1Gbps for cheaper then what I'm paying Cox and its rock solid, sure I'll switch... just like I'd dump Cox in a heartbeat if GF or T got fiber to my house or I moved to a fiber house. If its flakey and bounces between 100Mbps and 800Mbps then I'll stick with my flakey Cox that bounces between 600Mbps and 800Mbps lol...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> DirecTV should just do what Cox does and charge the same for EVERY package. My Gig promo fell off yesterday, so I called to re-up... I only got half of it back, so I looked at dropping down to the next package since I only get about 800Mbps down anyways... according to the guy, 150Mbps, 300Mbps and 1Gbps package all cost about the same due to what promos you get lol, which doesn't sound right to me, so I'll call back today to double check that.
> 
> If I could get Ultimate for what I pay for Preferred Xtra, that'd be nice, although there's not much to watch on all those premiums. Lol, every time they give out a preview, it's replaying like 20 - 30 yr old movies.


That's easy to do for internet since the company is using their own infrastructure and the marginal cost of delivering 1 Gbps is hardly any different than the 150 Mbps package. That's not true for video, they have to pay more to the networks for the higher packages that include more channels.

About 2/3 of the total TV revenue (including those extra fees) goes to networks for the typical cable/satellite provider, so there isn't a lot of room to discount without starting to lose money. AT&T would rather lose subscribers and be profitable with fewer customers than cut prices to keep them but make less money or worse go in the red.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

I tend to agree about 5G. It's a marketing ploy. The millimeter wavelength just doesn't carry that far and penetrate as well as the current 4G wavelengths.

You're going to have to have several, several, several 5G towers within a small area to get the same signal coverage as you get with 4G. This means 5G will be mostly a metropolitan solution... where... you guessed it! Broadband options are already plentiful.

5G in rural areas is just a marketing ploy.

I do like what AT&T has done by offering fixed wireless solution (4G) in some rural areas. And if they would expand on this... then this makes the most sense. 4G travels decently far. And it's expensive to roll out fiber to rural areas. Build a cellphone tower or use existing towers in these rural areas and sell the under utilized bandwidth on these towers as home Internet solutions. A tower that just sits there and is seldom used doesn't get you any money... might as well utilize it for home Internet.

The speeds with this fixed wireless solution might not be great (I'm not sure what the speeds are... 10mbps? 25mbps? anybody care to clarify?) but I mean... you have to understand... the people this service is marketing to can't get anything. They either use dialup, satellite, or a mobile hotspot with maybe 22GB of bandwidth? 10mbps and a 250GB per month data cap is certainly better than the limited alternatives.

The one... really the only potential solution I see, is Starlink... LEO satellites running 5G millimeter wavelengths... that MIGHT offer something new. But as with any satellite Internet solution... I'll believe it when I see it. I just have a hard time putting a lot of faith that this system is going to work like it's proposed.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> FCC - Eighth Broadband Progress Report
> "Notwithstanding this progress, the Report finds that approximately 19 million Americans-6 percent of the population-still lack access to fixed broadband service at threshold speeds. In rural areas, nearly one-fourth of the population -14.5 million people-lack access to this service. In tribal areas, nearly one-third of the population lacks access. Even in areas where broadband is available, approximately 100 million Americans still do not subscribe."


Thanks, that 6% makes more sense. That would be more like 6 million homes using a family of three.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

raott said:


> It can't be right. I think your number is right Rich. Hell my parents live in a very rural area in the middle of nowhere and have broadband.


Yeah, I've been in really rural parts of the country and know not many people live there.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> What is it about DTV's sports offerings that you think you won't be able to get from AT&T TV? (Aside, perhaps, from NFL Sunday Ticket and NFL Network; AT&T only offers those on DTV, not AT&T TV or Uverse TV, for now anyway.) I expect all of DTV's other sports channels to be on AT&T TV in 1080p or 720p, depending on the source. And I expect the same stuff that's available in 4K and 4K HDR on DTV to be streamed in those format on AT&T TV too. (Fubo TV already live streams all that stuff in 4K and 4K HDR on their little service. And the AT&T TV box supports 4K, HDR10 and HLG.) And while the AT&T TV remote isn't quite the same as DTV's, it's pretty close.
> 
> View attachment 30344


Several things. The picture quality. The ease of switching from one game to another in football season and baseball season. I have no idea how good that remote you picture is actually gonna work without having it in my hands when compared to my D* remotes. Think of sports and YTTV, compare that to D*. The difference in environments is very noticeable.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

compnurd said:


> Nope
> 
> my cable company is currently in process of there 10 year plan to replace all coax with FTTH. Started last year. All new homes being built also get a combo coax/fiber cable pulled from the street to the house for when they come down the block with fiber


My ISP had a similar plan and that seems to have gone bye-bye. They were running fiber but something happened and they stopped. Verizon pulled back too in this area. These "plans" don't seem to be written in stone.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

compnurd said:


> This is the problem though. We can expect all we/you want. They don't offer it all right now and nothing has been announced


Up the road I think we'll see a lot of changes. But at this moment I don't see any provider that can give us sports as well as D*. I hope that changes.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

WestDC said:


> High Speed Internet


Not even a Google search returned that. Thanks.

Rich


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> That's easy to do for internet since the company is using their own infrastructure and the marginal cost of delivering 1 Gbps is hardly any different than the 150 Mbps package. That's not true for video, they have to pay more to the networks for the higher packages that include more channels.
> 
> About 2/3 of the total TV revenue (including those extra fees) goes to networks for the typical cable/satellite provider, so there isn't a lot of room to discount without starting to lose money. AT&T would rather lose subscribers and be profitable with fewer customers than cut prices to keep them but make less money or worse go in the red.


Well, DirecTV has an advantage with their delivery method. # of devices is irrelevant. Also, does WHDVR really cost $3/mo to run? (for legacy) It costs them $0. I'm sure they'll still charge an HD fee after they drop SD. They have a lot of BS charges thrown, so they have some wiggle room. But yeah, the biggest chunk on our bills for us RSN free folks is ESPN.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Rich said:


> Several things. The picture quality. The ease of switching from one game to another in football season and baseball season. I have no idea how good that remote you picture is actually gonna work without having it in my hands when compared to my D* remotes. Think of sports and YTTV, compare that to D*. The difference in environments is very noticeable.
> 
> Rich


You can try it out for yourself once they go live with it in Feb with their AT&T spectacular 2 year non-FREE trial.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

evotz said:


> I tend to agree about 5G. It's a marketing ploy. The millimeter wavelength just doesn't carry that far and penetrate as well as the current 4G wavelengths.
> 
> You're going to have to have several, several, several 5G towers within a small area to get the same signal coverage as you get with 4G. This means 5G will be mostly a metropolitan solution... where... you guessed it! Broadband options are already plentiful.
> 
> ...


Millimeter 5G is just one of the 3 flavors. They have mid band and low band flavors too. They all have various issues. Don't forget 5G will introduce latency too.

Starlink should be cool. Just don't try throw a steel ball at the satellites HAHAHA... Starlink supposedly will have latency similar or less then 5G. Something that's a problem with HughesNet.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> Millimeter 5G is just one of the 3 flavors. They have mid band and low band flavors too. They all have various issues. Don't forget 5G will introduce latency too.
> 
> Starlink should be cool. Just don't try throw a steel ball at the satellites HAHAHA... Starlink supposedly will have latency similar or less then 5G. Something that's a problem with HughesNet.


5G greatly reduces latency when compared to LTE - it is basically the only real big deal about 5G. Its latency is significantly lower than that of cable internet and about the same as that of fiber.

Starlink is not going to compare to 5G's latency, just the speed of light delay alone makes that impossible. Plus it is not exactly something that can be taken up by millions of users in the US, its an impossibility despite Musk's huckster hype around it. It will have its niche in rural areas where people have no good options today, but won't compete with wired alternatives or fixed 5G.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> It sounds like two different statistics. Do not use and do not have access to.
> 
> The FCC numbers support similar numbers. 100 million who have access and choose not to subscribe plus 20 million who don't have access. The other 40 million Microsoft claims may be based on what year they were referring to.


No, I think you're misunderstanding what the numbers claim. Microsoft is basing their figures, IIRC, on speeds used by internet-connected homes to download software updates. And lots of devices (PCs, mainly) across the nation download updates to Windows, Office, etc. Files will download as fast as your connection (and the server) allows (unlike streaming, where there's a peak bitrate). So Microsoft has a big data sample to work with. And by definition, their data set excludes Americans who don't subscribe to internet access at all (whether that's by choice or because it's simply not available at any speed).

For both Microsoft's figures and the FCC's figures to be correct, I think we have to believe that around 135 million Americans (i.e. Microsoft's 160 million minus the FCC's 25 million) actually have access to broadband speeds (25/3 or higher) but CHOOSE to subscribe to slower service. I can believe that some folks do have the option to get cable broadband but stick with the slow DSL they've had forever. But I can't believe that that's true of 135 million Americans (over 40% of the population).



James Long said:


> "If in doubt, I am right."


As I say, I've researched and debated all this before. This seems to be your first go-round with it. As I also initially stated, there's a lot of uncertainty and no one really knows how many Americans lack access to broadband. Given two drastically different figures reported by what appear to be generally reliable sources (the US government and Microsoft), I'm assuming the correct answer is somewhere in between the two, which is how I originally landed on the ~15% figure. (I also factored in US government data on the percentage of the US population categorized as urban vs. suburban vs. rural. About 20% is rural.)



James Long said:


> In any case, the point was that if AT&T is focusing on their fiber footprint they are ignoring the majority of US households. They can add subscribers who don't choose AT&T fiber (inside and outside their footprint). They cannot add OTT subscribers who do not have broadband.


Yep, correct. There's a still-significant but shrinking percentage of the US population who cannot access AT&T TV or HBO Max. Those folks' pay TV options are basically limited to satellite TV, so AT&T will continue trying to sell them DirecTV. The only two methods that AT&T conceivably has to deliver a video service outside their broadband footprint are via DBS and OTT.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> You can try it out for yourself once they go live with it in Feb with their AT&T spectacular 2 year non-FREE trial.


I would definitely try it if it had a free trial period. I gotta admit I'm curious.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> This is the problem though. We can expect all we/you want. They don't offer it all right now and nothing has been announced


Well, you can already see which channels are available from AT&T TV (in some package or another). There aren't many that DTV has that AT&T TV lacks. And we have repeated statements from AT&T's CEO that he foresees AT&T TV offering the full range of channels that DTV has, as well as 4K, etc. We also know that the company is going to shift their advertising/marketing away from DTV and UVerse TV over to AT&T TV soon. I don't know why you think that they would choose NOT to follow through and make AT&T TV generally equivalent to those other two services. Those missing locals and other few channels will get filled in on AT&T TV over time (if not next month when it launches nationwide).

The biggest thing I can imagine DTV having this year that AT&T TV lacks is NFL Sunday Ticket. This will probably be the last year that remains on DTV (at least exclusively).


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> 5G greatly reduces latency when compared to LTE - it is basically the only real big deal about 5G. Its latency is significantly lower than that of cable internet and about the same as that of fiber.
> 
> Starlink is not going to compare to 5G's latency, just the speed of light delay alone makes that impossible. Plus it is not exactly something that can be taken up by millions of users in the US, its an impossibility despite Musk's huckster hype around it. It will have its niche in rural areas where people have no good options today, but won't compete with wired alternatives or fixed 5G.


They are claiming it'll have ~25ms latency. Geostationary have 450ms to 600ms theoretical. Starlink will sit much lower 1/30 - 1/105.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> Several things. The picture quality. The ease of switching from one game to another in football season and baseball season. I have no idea how good that remote you picture is actually gonna work without having it in my hands when compared to my D* remotes. Think of sports and YTTV, compare that to D*. The difference in environments is very noticeable.


HD picture quality on live channels is better from AT&T's OTT services (AT&T TV/Now, Watch TV) than from DTV. Not *radically* better, but it's better. (Not just my opinion, you'll see others who have or had both services post that.) Now, I don't know about the PQ from the cloud DVR. That was noticeably worse a couple years ago when I was beta testing their cloud DVR. But they switched it to a whole new platform on their servers last fall from what I read, so who knows now.

As far as your other Qs, I don't honestly know. But I can tell you that YTTV doesn't offer a purpose-built device with a remote control designed to appeal to traditional cable TV users, as AT&T TV does.

If you're interested in checking it out, I'd suggest you do what I plan to do next month: drop by an AT&T store and see if they've got a TV running it where you can pick up the remote and play around with it. You can also do a free one-week trial of AT&T TV Now. It'll be the same service, really, but you'll have to test it out on your own Apple TV or whatever rather than using AT&T's custom Android TV device. But you can at least get a feel for the PQ, feature set, UI, etc.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> 5G greatly reduces latency when compared to LTE - it is basically the only real big deal about 5G. Its latency is significantly lower than that of cable internet and about the same as that of fiber.
> 
> Starlink is not going to compare to 5G's latency, just the speed of light delay alone makes that impossible. Plus it is not exactly something that can be taken up by millions of users in the US, its an impossibility despite Musk's huckster hype around it. It will have its niche in rural areas where people have no good options today, but won't compete with wired alternatives or fixed 5G.


But latency is only a real issue for live 2-way communication. Like gaming, video calls/conferencing and such. For streaming videos it just isn't an issue. And I know that because I had satellite internet years ago and other than the unpublished data caps it worked fine for those things it could work fine for.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> HD picture quality on live channels is better from AT&T's OTT services (AT&T TV/Now, Watch TV) than from DTV. Not *radically* better, but it's better. (Not just my opinion, you'll see others who have or had both services post that.) Now, I don't know about the PQ from the cloud DVR. That was noticeably worse a couple years ago when I was beta testing their cloud DVR. But they switched it to a whole new platform on their servers last fall from what I read, so who knows now.
> 
> As far as your other Qs, I don't honestly know. But I can tell you that YTTV doesn't offer a purpose-built device with a remote control designed to appeal to traditional cable TV users, as AT&T TV does.
> 
> If you're interested in checking it out, I'd suggest you do what I plan to do next month: drop by an AT&T store and see if they've got a TV running it where you can pick up the remote and play around with it. You can also do a free one-week trial of AT&T TV Now. It'll be the same service, really, but you'll have to test it out on your own Apple TV or whatever rather than using AT&T's custom Android TV device. But you can at least get a feel for the PQ, feature set, UI, etc.


I can wait until the actual app comes out. I'm in no hurry.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> 5G service will be the lynchpin of the new service. They are counting on bundling AT&T TV with 5G service. The hope is to be able sell both mobile and TV together. T-Mobile has a similar plan with their new OTT, and I'm sure VZW will have something in the works (which is why I'm sure they are looking into buying into it further).


Verizon's plan for next-gen cable TV to deliver via 5G is just to resell YouTube TV. And they're already doing it. (They extensively beta tested a new IPTV service, built on the old OnCue platform they acquired from Intel, a couple years back. But at the end, they decided not to move forward with it.)

T-Mobile announced well over a year ago that they would launch an OTT cable TV service called T-Mobile TV which they could deliver via 4G/5G to both mobile and home. And then it got pushed back. And then still nothing happened. And now who knows what's going to happen with the company, given the Sprint merger and the departure later this year of the CEO. I kinda think that they'll smartly decide to do what Verizon has done and just resell someone else's OTT service. Obviously, that won't be AT&T TV. They'll look sorta me-too-ish if they copy Verizon and resell YTTV. So maybe they sell Hulu with Live TV?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> I can wait until the actual app comes out. I'm in no hurry.


The actual app has been out for months. It's called "AT&T TV". It delivers both AT&T TV Now and AT&T TV. Here's the link to the app on Apple's App Store for iPhone, iPad and Apple TV:

‎AT&T TV


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> The actual app has been out for months. It's called "AT&T TV". It delivers both AT&T TV Now and AT&T TV. Here's the link to the app on Apple's App Store for iPhone, iPad and Apple TV:
> 
> ‎AT&T TV


Except don't you need the special wiz bang piece of AT&T hardware somewhere in you network to use it?


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

Rich said:


> I can wait until the actual app comes out. I'm in no hurry.
> 
> Rich


Without WPIX I don't think it will work for you.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> Except don't you need the special wiz bang piece of AT&T hardware somewhere in you network to use it?


Right. As things stand right now, if you sign up under the AT&T TV Now brand (at atttvnow.com), then you don't need AT&T's own streaming device anywhere on your network. (Their assumption is that you don't even own one.) AFAIK, you're free to use the AT&T TV app on any devices you want, including TV-connected devices like Fire TV, at any US location you can connect to the internet, with a max of 3 concurrent devices streaming.

If you sign up under the AT&T TV brand (at att.com), then yes, you DO need to have the AT&T TV streaming device (which they give you for free) connected to your home network. This will designate that wifi/ethernet network as your home network and you will only be allowed to use the AT&T TV app on TV-connected devices on that specific network. (Can't give your user ID and password to someone in a different household to let them watch via their Fire TV.) But you'll still be able to use the app on other devices (e.g. phones) over any network. (So account sharing will be limited to use on non-TV-connected devices.) Same max of 3 concurrent devices streaming.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Well, you can already see which channels are available from AT&T TV (in some package or another). There aren't many that DTV has that AT&T TV lacks. And we have repeated statements from AT&T's CEO that he foresees AT&T TV offering the full range of channels that DTV has, as well as 4K, etc. We also know that the company is going to shift their advertising/marketing away from DTV and UVerse TV over to AT&T TV soon. I don't know why you think that they would choose NOT to follow through and make AT&T TV generally equivalent to those other two services. Those missing locals and other few channels will get filled in on AT&T TV over time (if not next month when it launches nationwide).
> 
> The biggest thing I can imagine DTV having this year that AT&T TV lacks is NFL Sunday Ticket. This will probably be the last year that remains on DTV (at least exclusively).


No there isnt alot missing but there is some large elephants in the room missing. And I could care less what Randall says.. he doesn't know either channel line up from a hole in the wall and will be gone soon anyway


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

I cant stand this guy but some more food for thought

AT&T will likely be broken up and will move on from WarnerMedia, analyst Craig Moffett predicts


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> I cant stand this guy but some more food for thought
> 
> AT&T will likely be broken up and will move on from WarnerMedia, analyst Craig Moffett predicts


Jury's out on whether the network/content merger of AT&T and Warner will pan out. But seems to be working OK for Comcast/NBCU so far.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> T-Mobile announced well over a year ago that they would launch an OTT cable TV service called T-Mobile TV which they could deliver via 4G/5G to both mobile and home. And then it got pushed back. And then still nothing happened. And now who knows what's going to happen with the company, given the Sprint merger and the departure later this year of the CEO. I kinda think that they'll smartly decide to do what Verizon has done and just resell someone else's OTT service. Obviously, that won't be AT&T TV. They'll look sorta me-too-ish if they copy Verizon and resell YTTV. So maybe they sell Hulu with Live TV?


I might get TVision if DirecTV doesn't re-up my promo rates in a few months, but I've seen mixed reviews on it, but they're pretty old. Plus, I dunno, might be a high risk of it folding.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Rich said:


> Wasn't asking about ATT. Sorry for the confusion. I meant the number of rural folks that can't get enough broadband to stream. If that number is not high...
> 
> Rich


That's not a question that has been honestly answered. The government (FCC) number is "24 million Americans, or about 8 percent of the country". But that's based on information gathered from the ISP companies who monitor every murmur uttered at the FCC.

When we check the FCC map for our area it shows our whole area served. The truth is when Adelphia, before they went bankrupt, ran a major cross-country line through our peculiar 6000 lot rural subdivision two decades ago, a few of us were able to get a local line down our streets. Comcast acquired Adelphia's assets after the bankruptcy.

I have great, albeit only 90Mbps, service. But most of the subdivision does not have service. Only about 1,500 homes were ever built even though 60 miles of streets were put in. When someone on an unserved street asks, Comcast says they will serve them, but the customer will bear the infrastructure costs which are quoted as $800.00 and up, mostly up and frequently over $2,000. Yet if you ask state or federal agencies they will insist the area is "served."

Then I started looking at the wireless map. It's based on even bigger lies. Sure, your drone can get service in the entire region as long as its 500+ feet off the ground.

The one thing service providers do not want is for the government to revert back to when the utility rule was if you want to service people in the area, you make the service available to all people.

My best guess is that instead of 24 million about 48 million Americans or 16% of the population has no access to broadband. I find the use of the word "country" amusing as I think of area when that word is used and over half the land area is not served.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Yeah, the numbers are bogus. I did a search for internet for my zip code and one of the providers was listed as Spectrum with 100% coverage. But after doing some further research I couldn’t find a single street address that showed as them being able to serve it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Right. As things stand right now, if you sign up under the AT&T TV Now brand (at atttvnow.com), then you don't need AT&T's own streaming device anywhere on your network. (Their assumption is that you don't even own one.) AFAIK, you're free to use the AT&T TV app on any devices you want, including TV-connected devices like Fire TV, at any US location you can connect to the internet, with a max of 3 concurrent devices streaming.
> 
> If you sign up under the AT&T TV brand (at att.com), then yes, you DO need to have the AT&T TV streaming device (which they give you for free) connected to your home network. This will designate that wifi/ethernet network as your home network and you will only be allowed to use the AT&T TV app on TV-connected devices on that specific network. (Can't give your user ID and password to someone in a different household to let them watch via their Fire TV.) But you'll still be able to use the app on other devices (e.g. phones) over any network. (So account sharing will be limited to use on non-TV-connected devices.) Same max of 3 concurrent devices streaming.


They clearly have other reasons other than stopping account sharing to require the service specific device. PSVue had that worked out without a provider specific device. It's not hard.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Right. As things stand right now, if you sign up under the AT&T TV Now brand (at atttvnow.com), then you don't need AT&T's own streaming device anywhere on your network. (Their assumption is that you don't even own one.) AFAIK, you're free to use the AT&T TV app on any devices you want, including TV-connected devices like Fire TV, at any US location you can connect to the internet, with a max of 3 concurrent devices streaming.
> 
> If you sign up under the AT&T TV brand (at att.com), then yes, you DO need to have the AT&T TV streaming device (which they give you for free) connected to your home network. This will designate that wifi/ethernet network as your home network and you will only be allowed to use the AT&T TV app on TV-connected devices on that specific network. (Can't give your user ID and password to someone in a different household to let them watch via their Fire TV.) But you'll still be able to use the app on other devices (e.g. phones) over any network. (So account sharing will be limited to use on non-TV-connected devices.) Same max of 3 concurrent devices streaming.


Also , you seem to indicate that you you can't take a FireTV Stick with you when traveling and access AT&T TV? That would be another huge negative for lots of folks. We have a spare FireTV Stick 4k that we only use when we travel. We use it now with YTTV and we used to use it with PSVue. It's great to get to a hotel, plug the FireTV into the tv and watch stuff just like you are at home. We use it like that all the time.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> I might get TVision if DirecTV doesn't re-up my promo rates in a few months, but I've seen mixed reviews on it, but they're pretty old. Plus, I dunno, might be a high risk of it folding.


If you do end up switching to TVision, let us know how it goes.

I'm sure that T-Mobile's original thinking was that they would use some of the technology, and maybe the initial set of channel carriage contracts, that they acquired through Layer3 (now TVision) as the basis for the planned OTT app-based streaming cable TV service that would work with both phones as well as TVs. I *think* they even referred to the planned service as "T-Mobile TV". They definitely released screen mock-ups with a hot pink UI. See here. I recall a teaser page on their webpage for it but can't find it now (probably because the concept has quietly been killed).

And now the TVision section of their website talks about how their vision is to eventually offer 5G home broadband service over which TVision can be delivered (despite the fact that, so far, the pilot rollout of TMobile home broadband isn't compatible with TVision, which still requires specific broadband partners in certain cities). I'm skeptical that will happen, but who knows. As it currently stands, I don't think TVision is a viable, scalable product. They're going to need to free it from a proprietary set-top box and specific broadband pipes and make it OTT, accessible on both TV boxes as well as smartphones, in or out of home. (In other words, like AT&T TV.) I don't think that's a huge technology challenge, I think it's more of a business challenge. Is this a business that they can eventually make enough money on to bother with? I doubt it.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> Also , you seem to indicate that you you can't take a FireTV Stick with you when traveling and access AT&T TV? That would be another huge negative for lots of folks. We have a spare FireTV Stick 4k that we only use when we travel. We use it now with YTTV and we used to use it with PSVue. It's great to get to a hotel, plug the FireTV into the tv and watch stuff just like you are at home. We use it like that all the time.


Would that really be a negative for lots of folks? If you're someone (apparently like you) who travels all the time, yeah. But the vast majority of Americans aren't like George Clooney's character in _Up in the Air_. We mostly watch TV at home and if we're watching TV away from home, it's on our phone, tablet or laptop. And when we are in a hotel somewhere, we either watch whatever cable TV they offer or we stream something on our Netflix account using our own device.

At any rate, as things currently stand, AT&T TV Now would let you watch on your Fire TV Stick 4K wherever you can connect it to wifi, including one hotel after another while traveling. But, no, AT&T TV would not.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> They clearly have other reasons other than stopping account sharing to require the service specific device. PSVue had that worked out without a provider specific device. It's not hard.


Other than account sharing, I suspect it's about encouraging AT&T TV users to actually use the device they offer. Because it will play a big part of that service's brand image.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> If you do end up switching to TVision, let us know how it goes.
> 
> I'm sure that T-Mobile's original thinking was that they would use some of the technology, and maybe the initial set of channel carriage contracts, that they acquired through Layer3 (now TVision) as the basis for the planned OTT app-based streaming cable TV service that would work with both phones as well as TVs. I *think* they even referred to the planned service as "T-Mobile TV". They definitely released screen mock-ups with a hot pink UI. See here. I recall a teaser page on their webpage for it but can't find it now (probably because the concept has quietly been killed).
> 
> And now the TVision section of their website talks about how their vision is to eventually offer 5G home broadband service over which TVision can be delivered (despite the fact that, so far, the pilot rollout of TMobile home broadband isn't compatible with TVision, which still requires specific broadband partners in certain cities). I'm skeptical that will happen, but who knows. As it currently stands, I don't think TVision is a viable, scalable product. They're going to need to free it from a proprietary set-top box and specific broadband pipes and make it OTT, accessible on both TV boxes as well as smartphones, in or out of home. (In other words, like AT&T TV.) I don't think that's a huge technology challenge, I think it's more of a business challenge. Is this a business that they can eventually make enough money on to bother with? I doubt it.


You can see it for real here:


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> But, no, AT&T TV would not.


As with WHDVR, I'd suspect the workaround would be to VPN in to your home network.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Would that really be a negative for lots of folks? If you're someone (apparently like you) who travels all the time, yeah. But the vast majority of Americans aren't like George Clooney's character in _Up in the Air_. We mostly watch TV at home and if we're watching TV away from home, it's on our phone, tablet or laptop. And when we are in a hotel somewhere, we either watch whatever cable TV they offer or we stream something on our Netflix account using our own device.
> 
> At any rate, as things currently stand, AT&T TV Now would let you watch on your Fire TV Stick 4K wherever you can connect it to wifi, including one hotel after another while traveling. But, no, AT&T TV would not.


Yeah I agree that's it's probably not a huge number. My wife and I are retired so we probably tend to travel a bit more than most. We actually started taking one of our streaming devices along with us just to watch NetFlix. Once we switched to PSVue several years ago we started using that too, now we use YTTV. For us it's not just hotels. We rent houses for vacations with the family several times a year and it's always nice to have entertain "just like at home" for those weeks. I think it is, and will become more prevalent as time goes on and people get used to the fact that it is possible. It's honestly just one more little thing that makes me think AT&T is in many ways still designing entertainment systems that are stuck in the past. But that maybe just due to the demographic they are targeting.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Other than account sharing, I suspect it's about encouraging AT&T TV users to actually use the device they offer. Because it will play a big part of that service's brand image.


I think you are right. Certainly that and they are doing everything they can, which includes having provider specific hardware, to increase service switching "friction". I just think it's one more thing that limits the appeal of the service. Once people "get" what they can do with generic streaming devices they aren't that interested in provider specific hardware anymore, I know I'm not. But again I think that is clearly not the demographic they are targeting. Although as I've said before, while the demographic they are targeting is clearly currently very large it is also a population that is obviously declining not growing.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, DirecTV has an advantage with their delivery method. # of devices is irrelevant. Also, does WHDVR really cost $3/mo to run? (for legacy) It costs them $0. I'm sure they'll still charge an HD fee after they drop SD. They have a lot of BS charges thrown, so they have some wiggle room. But yeah, the biggest chunk on our bills for us RSN free folks is ESPN.


I think it's time to move past complaint about the service fees. If you signed up today you wouldn't see Whole Home Service or Hi Definition fee but you would see an advanced fee for 25 which is more than you pay with them broken out. And there was a cost when they created it.

BUT

It's amazing, spectrum charges as much for a DVR that records five or six channels but doesn't even do Whole Home Service!!!!

Locals cost a ton too. They may cost more than earn or RSN or both combined. As far as I'm concerned they are more out of line than any other channel or service fee from any provider.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TV_Guy said:


> View attachment 30350
> 
> 
> Without WPIX I don't think it will work for you.


Of course, another roadblock. Thanks. Appreciate the thought.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Other than account sharing, I suspect it's about encouraging AT&T TV users to actually use the device they offer. Because it will play a big part of that service's brand image.


Must be money related somehow. That seems to all AT$T cares about. Then you have the unending stream of BS from a company that seems to be going nuts.

Rich


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Disagree. They aren't losing to Spectrum or their ilk....they are losing to streaming services, which don't have ridiculous service fees for old, crappy equipment. Service fees and two year contracts are all part of their problem yet I still don't think they get it. They can blame low value customers leaving all they want. Anyone can see it's more than that. And it's only going to get worse....post-millenials don't by in to linear television.



inkahauts said:


> I think it's time to move past complaint about the service fees. If you signed up today you wouldn't see Whole Home Service or Hi Definition fee but you would see an advanced fee for 25 which is more than you pay with them broken out. And there was a cost when they created it.
> 
> BUT
> 
> ...


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

raott said:


> Disagree. They aren't losing to Spectrum or their ilk....they are losing to streaming services, which don't have ridiculous service fees for old, crappy equipment. Service fees and two year contracts are all part of their problem yet I still don't think they get it. They can blame low value customers leaving all they want. Anyone can see it's more than that. And it's only going to get worse....post-millenials don't by in to linear television.


I think one of the things keeping D's subscriber losses lower than they could be is lack of high speed reliable internet service. As an example (this is completely anecdotal so take for what it's worth) in my circle of family, friends, and neighbors all of which are upper middle class with relatively large single family homes in a mostly suburban/rural setting I would estimate that 3 years ago 95% subscribed to either cable or sat (mostly D). In our area virtually everyone has access to reasonably priced, reliable, high speed net service. As of today that number (95%) is down to 10% or less. Those that have moved are using some combination of OTT live tv streaming, digital OTA, and various other streaming services (think NetFlix, Prime, etc.). None of these folks are "low margin/low value" subscribers. The local cable cos are still getting revenue from these folks for ISP service but D is now getting zero. Honestly I can't see many, if any of them being enticed to sign up for AT&T TV based on what I have seen so far.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

AT&T would probably benefit itself to expand it's fiber outreach into the rural areas that they have forgotten about.

There comes a point to where you saturate a market and in a sense that's what I'm afraid 5G will do on the wireless side. I mean... how many people actually need 5G for their cellphone? And where they are deploying 5G for home Internet... how many people actually need it, with the plethora of other options?

But there are areas that AT&T serves that they have just completely forgotten about and don't care about.

Get fiber out to those areas (if you want to do it with fixed wireless, that's OK... just give large enough monthly data allotments) so that they can push their AT&T TV Now+ GO (I have no idea what all of these services are called) to those areas or at least make some money off of them for Internet.

Internet is the key. Not TV. That doesn't mean you have to abandon TV completely, but your bread and butter needs to be Internet.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> They are claiming it'll have ~25ms latency. Geostationary have 450ms to 600ms theoretical. Starlink will sit much lower 1/30 - 1/105.


5G has 1 ms latency (obviously it is higher if you do something more than just ping the gateway in the tower)


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Verizon's plan for next-gen cable TV to deliver via 5G is just to resell YouTube TV. And they're already doing it. (They extensively beta tested a new IPTV service, built on the old OnCue platform they acquired from Intel, a couple years back. But at the end, they decided not to move forward with it.)
> 
> T-Mobile announced well over a year ago that they would launch an OTT cable TV service called T-Mobile TV which they could deliver via 4G/5G to both mobile and home. And then it got pushed back. And then still nothing happened. And now who knows what's going to happen with the company, given the Sprint merger and the departure later this year of the CEO. I kinda think that they'll smartly decide to do what Verizon has done and just resell someone else's OTT service. Obviously, that won't be AT&T TV. They'll look sorta me-too-ish if they copy Verizon and resell YTTV. So maybe they sell Hulu with Live TV?


TMobile's OTT is already out (not linked into their 5G yet obviously).

https://buy.mytvision.t-mobile.com/...MP6G3ZuPmYARTneCaNIaAtpLEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

I've looked into it and it's missing a couple of channels. But it's ingriguing. My local T-Mobile store has it on desplay.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> TMobile's OTT is already out (not linked into their 5G yet obviously).
> 
> https://buy.mytvision.t-mobile.com/...MP6G3ZuPmYARTneCaNIaAtpLEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
> 
> I've looked into it and it's missing a couple of channels. But it's ingriguing. My local T-Mobile store has it on desplay.


No, what you're linking to here is TVision, which is just the name that T-Mobile rebranded Layer3 TV to after they bought it. It's kinda-sorta OTT, but not really. It *is* streamed over the internet but it's closer to managed IPTV. You can only get TVision if you live in a few certain specific areas where they've struck a partnership deal with a local broadband operator. And then you must have broadband service from that provider (e.g. Charter or Cox or whoever) before you can then separately subscribe to TVision. And then you can't access the service via a TVision app on your own devices (if that's what you prefer). No, you must use the TVision set-top boxes provided to you by T-Mobile. (I believe the main box, which contains the DVR hard drive, also has its own cable modem built-in that it uses only for streaming TVision.)

Separate from TVision, Legere talked a couple years ago about launching an app-based streaming TV service that could be used on phones via the T-Mo cellular network as well as at home via wifi. They released a few mock-up screenshots that looked nothing like Layer3/TVision. They've announced once or twice that the launch of that service was being pushed back but they've said nothing about it in months. I assume it's dead or that TVision will evolve to take on aspects of it.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> Must be money related somehow. That seems to all AT$T cares about. Then you have the unending stream of BS from a company that seems to be going nuts.


Oh sure, it's possible that they've got some kind of deal in place with Google whereby AT&T gets something in exchange for putting Google's Android TV and their Google Assistant into active use by a greater number of households. For instance, if you subscribe to a new streaming service (e.g. Disney+) via an Android TV app, you'll be billed by Google Play and Google gets a cut of the revenue. In the case of Android TV boxes distributed by MPVD partners, like AT&T, I assume that the MVPD gets some little cut of Google's cut. Perhaps AT&T's cut is bigger if they require AT&T TV customers to take and activate the box. Or maybe it's simply the fact that the more customers there are who use the box (rather than sticking it unopened in a closet), the greater number of subscriptions there will be that AT&T gets a kickback on.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> TMobile's OTT is already out (not linked into their 5G yet obviously).
> 
> https://buy.mytvision.t-mobile.com/...MP6G3ZuPmYARTneCaNIaAtpLEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
> 
> I've looked into it and it's missing a couple of channels. But it's ingriguing. My local T-Mobile store has it on desplay.


An acquaintance of mine signed up with T-Mobile a few months ago. He really likes the phone service but he seems to be thrilled with everything he buys. He switched from Verizon. Hard to take info from people that think everything they buy is great just because _they _bought it. Can't imagine dropping Verizon.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> I think you are right. Certainly that and they are doing everything they can, which includes having provider specific hardware, to increase service switching "friction". I just think it's one more thing that limits the appeal of the service. Once people "get" what they can do with generic streaming devices they aren't that interested in provider specific hardware anymore, I know I'm not. But again I think that is clearly not the demographic they are targeting. Although as I've said before, while the demographic they are targeting is clearly currently very large it is also a population that is obviously declining not growing.


Eh, I don't think it's so much about device lock-in, really. Because AT&T TV does allow you to use their app on your own Apple TV or Fire TV for in-home viewing if that's what you prefer, and you can easily switch to services like YouTube TV, Hulu Live, etc. on those. I think it's more about catering to everyone, realizing that _most_ folks who are still interested in a cable TV service are used to using a remote control that's specifically suited to it. And if they're going to switch to another cable TV service, they still want that UX. But for the minority (like you), who specifically DON'T want that, well, they're not forced to use that device. They can use their own Apple TV, Fire TV, etc.

I imagine that a lot of AT&T TV subscribers will end up using the AT&T box on their main TV and then save money by using streaming devices that they already have on their 2nd and 3rd TVs (as opposed to paying $120 each for additional AT&T boxes for those TVs).

This is the same set-up that Comcast has shifted to in the new pricing scheme they introduced nearly a year ago. TV package prices don't include the cost of any hardware and you don't have to take any if you don't want. Instead, you can just stream their cable TV service using their app for Roku (assuming you also have Comcast broadband). But you have the option of renting their X1 TV boxes for $5/mo each if that's what you want. I wonder what percentage of new subs who have signed up under this system have chosen to forego all X1 rentals and instead just use their own streaming devices instead? Less than 10%, I'd bet.


----------



## eletric chicken (Dec 28, 2019)

i think that AT&T is running DTV into the ground for a reason. i have always heard that AT&T wants everyone on on there streaming platform.. it's cheaper for them!!! there. no truck rolls and no boxes to maintain every month... will be interesting to see what happens


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is easy to force people off of DIRECTV ... it is harder to force them on to a new service. Customers will leave and AT&T has not captured them as they go.

"Cheaper" has been discussed multiple times before. The cheapest path for AT&T is to RETAIN DIRECTV customers ... no cost to install. Perhaps some cost for customer retention. The satellites are paid for and the bandwidth per customer is free. There is an incremental distribution cost per customer with streaming that raises the cost of providing service.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

techguy88 said:


> Q4 2019 is the last quarter where they had customers on the 2 year pricing guarantee with a qualifying AT&T service (i.e. AT&T Internet or post-paid Wireless). The thing is customers who signed up for those 2 year price guarantees were heavily discounted because the 2017 price guarantee offer was the 4TV All Included Packages. AT&T didn't stop the 2 year price guarantee offer until 11/19/2017.
> 
> I give some examples of DirecTV vs Dish during November 2017 to illustrate how much AT&T was giving new customers at the time:
> 
> ...


Wow. Excellent detailed analysis with data that really illustrate why so many DTV subs cancelled throughout 2019.

I strongly agree with you (and have said it more than once before) that AT&T needs to get away from big up-front discounts to lure folks in. Better to go with something like an everyday price, or a slightly discounted price, from the get-go.

Assuming that AT&T TV does go with Plus and Max (both with HBO Max included) as their two standard packages offered to new subs next month, how plausible/marketable do you think the following pricing scheme would be?

Plus: regularly priced at $75/mo, discounted and locked at $65/mo the first year
Max: regularly priced at $90/mo, discounted and locked at $80/mo the first year
No additional fees for locals or RSNs.
1-yr contract required
1 free AT&T TV (Android TV) streaming device; additional devices sold for an additional $10/mo each for the first year
$10/mo ongoing bundling discount for combining TV with AT&T broadband (same as now)
free shipping of streaming device for self-install; free pro install of broadband and TV if both ordered together. (Standalone broadband pro install costs $99.)

This would assume that the popular channels from Discovery, AMC and A+E Networks that are currently missing from Plus and Max get added to them. Any channels that don't make the cut into Plus or Max would be grouped into optional add-on packs priced $5-10 each.

The same service would be sold contract-free (perhaps under the separate AT&T TV Now brand) but at the regular price ($75 or $90) from the first month (after the one-week free trial). This option would get no free streaming device or the ability to bundle it with AT&T broadband to score a bundling discount.

The way things are currently priced on DirecTV (satellite), a standalone TV subscriber getting the entry-level Entertainment package for 1 TV (with HD DVR) pays an average of $70.25/mo over the first two years (the length of the contract) after all discounts and Visa gift cards are factored in. And, remember, that also comes with free pro satellite installation -- a $200 value? -- plus a free season of NFL Sunday Ticket and three free months of all available premium services.

In my scenario above, a new standalone AT&T TV subscriber to the Plus package pays an average of $70/mo over the first two years, but with very little front-loading of discounts/give-aways. The line-ups between Entertainment and Plus would be very similar but Plus would include HBO Max (which Entertainment does not). It would kind of be like getting free HBO Max for as long as you keep the service, as opposed to a free satellite installation and one free season of NFL ST. But if you keep Plus longer than two years, you continue to see savings versus Entertainment, with regular ongoing prices of $75 vs. $93. Beyond that, on DirecTV, you'll always pay an extra $7 per each additional TV whereas on AT&T TV, you don't pay anything extra for the 2nd or 3rd TV unless you choose to buy additional AT&T streaming devices. But then after they're paid off, you don't continue to pay to use them; you own them.

Lastly, I would note that the Entertainment package on DirecTV is currently advertised as costing $65/mo for the first year, the same as I envision for Plus on AT&T TV. But then Entertainment jumps to the regular price (currently $93/mo) after the first year.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> The same service would be sold contract-free (perhaps under the separate AT&T TV Now brand) but at the regular price ($75 or $90) from the first month (after the one-week free trial). This option would get no free streaming device or the ability to bundle it with AT&T broadband to score a bundling discount.


I don't know exactly how feasible all of this would be, but in principle, the way you've got this laid out all seems to be easy to understand (which is probably why it will never happen).

I might add a provision... you can get the service contract-free (at the rates you propose) but you also have the option to purchase one of their streaming devices outright (although, how much would one of those cost? $50? $100? More?). I'm a bit aversed to contracts at the moment, but a streaming device that better mimics a traditional TV with a remote with numbers, might be a game changer.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> ......
> It's amazing, spectrum charges as much for a DVR that records five or six channels but doesn't even do Whole Home Service!!!!........


If I'm not mistaken, Spectrum charges a DVR fee for every DVR you have unless they changed their policy compared to a one time fee with DIRECTV. I'm still $0 grandfathered DVR service with DTV. Spectrum would kill me having 15 DVR's on my account I mean in my house!

Spectrum is the CATV provider, and CenturyLinkrap is the Phone provider in my area with 6MB DSL available. So we have Spectrum only for internet and 1 phone line.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

I know of 4 families that left Directv in past 6 months. 1 went to Streaming, 3 to Xfinity. Why to Xfinity? The X1 platform with the Arris 4K V4 box is very good. Have tried it. Beautiful guide with 2.5hours programming. Voice remote is 99% accurate. Say "ABC on Demand" and you are there. On Directv, you have remember to go to channel 1007. Everything outputs in upconverted 4K to your 4K TV. Or 1080p. Amazon Prime and Netflix are integrated. Extra boxes (clients) cost $5, Directv is $7 or $8?. Oh and if you want, don't use the X1 box and add a Roku and stream Xfinity that way for no additional monthly charge per TV. Cablecard is free if you want to use a Tivo box.

Now Directv wins in one place. 4K TV channels like Super Bowl. But is that enough for most people. Most people cant judge 4K. 
And Xfinity does a real 2 year commitment. No price jump in 13th month like Directv. 
Oh the App for Xfinity has pretty movies or shows when you transfer them from your DVR. Directv's app sucks and things transferred are muddy looking.

Since AT&T grabbed Directv all they did was release the HS17. And force you to get another box since the HS17 is big, ugly and no HDMI output. 

And AT&T TV also does the stupid 2 year commitment with price lock for only 12 mos. 

I have to give Comcast credit, they evolved and have a pretty good product.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

evotz said:


> I don't know exactly how feasible all of this would be, but in principle, the way you've got this laid out all seems to be easy to understand (which is probably why it will never happen).
> 
> I might add a provision... you can get the service contract-free (at the rates you propose) but you also have the option to purchase one of their streaming devices outright (although, *how much would one of those cost? $50? $100? More?*). I'm a bit aversed to contracts at the moment, but a streaming device that better mimics a traditional TV with a remote with numbers, might be a game changer.


The box is $120.00.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

evotz said:


> I don't know exactly how feasible all of this would be, but in principle, the way you've got this laid out all seems to be easy to understand (which is probably why it will never happen).
> 
> I might add a provision... you can get the service contract-free (at the rates you propose) but you also have the option to purchase one of their streaming devices outright (although, how much would one of those cost? $50? $100? More?). I'm a bit aversed to contracts at the moment, but a streaming device that better mimics a traditional TV with a remote with numbers, might be a game changer.





b4pjoe said:


> The box is $120.00.


Yeah, the boxes are $120 each. But so far anyway, the only way they're selling them (that I know of) is during the sign-up process for AT&T TV. They charge you $10 per month for 12 months but I think you also have the option to pay all $120 during sign-up rather than spread the cost out.

Who knows, maybe they'll also sell them in AT&T stores to anyone who wants one, regardless of whether you're getting AT&T TV. That way, AT&T TV Now customers could buy and use them too.

The way they beta tested these boxes was with AT&T TV Now customers and they told them they were theirs to keep. So the boxes do work with AT&T TV Now accounts. Also, you can find quite of few of them on eBay being sold by those beta testers who don't want them any more.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

NR4P said:


> And AT&T TV also does the stupid 2 year commitment with price lock for only 12 mos.
> 
> I have to give Comcast credit, they evolved and have a pretty good product.


I agree, Comcast has developed a pretty slick TV user experience with X1. That's why AT&T needed to come up with AT&T TV, to have their own next-gen TV service that could compete with it. Uverse TV can't, nor can DirecTV. AT&T Fiber is technologically superior to Comcast cable broadband but AT&T needs a high-quality TV product to pair with it for those who still care about cable TV.

As for the 2-year commitment for AT&T TV, we'll see. That's what they're doing in the pilot markets but really the whole marketing approach so far has just been to mimic the DirecTV packages, pricing and policies, including its 2-yr contract. They indicated at the pilot launch that they would make adjustments with the marketing approach before rolling it out nationwide. So we'll see if things stay the same or if they shake things up. For years now, AT&T Uverse TV has only ever required a 1-yr contract for new subs, same as AT&T Fiber. I expect that's what they'll do with AT&T TV too.

(I will note, though, that Comcast here is currently offering a 2-year contract for new subscribers who bundle broadband with the mid-level or upper-level TV package. But the contract is optional and only saves you an extra $10 total per month off the total price. However, it does lock the price in for the full 2-year period, so you avoid the typical annual price hike in year 2.)


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NashGuy....I appreciate your thoughts on all of this but you keep bringing up AT&T Fiber this and AT&T fiber that. It isn't even available for most of the country. If AT&T wants to give a price break to people that have both Fiber and AT&T TV they should give double the price break to people where AT&T fiber is not an option because it isn't our fault we don't have AT&T fiber. They're the ones that haven't installed it into most of the U.S.A.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NR4P said:


> I know of 4 families that left Directv in past 6 months. 1 went to Streaming, 3 to Xfinity. Why to Xfinity? The X1 platform with the Arris 4K V4 box is very good. Have tried it. Beautiful guide with 2.5hours programming. Voice remote is 99% accurate. Say "ABC on Demand" and you are there. On Directv, you have remember to go to channel 1007. Everything outputs in upconverted 4K to your 4K TV. Or 1080p. Amazon Prime and Netflix are integrated. Extra boxes (clients) cost $5, Directv is $7 or $8?. Oh and if you want, don't use the X1 box and add a Roku and stream Xfinity that way for no additional monthly charge per TV.  Cablecard is free if you want to use a Tivo box.
> 
> Now Directv wins in one place. 4K TV channels like Super Bowl. But is that enough for most people. Most people cant judge 4K.
> And Xfinity does a real 2 year commitment. No price jump in 13th month like Directv.
> ...


There is several problems here

first in most markets Comcast is using a over compressed 720p signal on all channels. It doesn't matter if the box outputs 8K. The incoming picture sucks and is a big point of contention. Second the pricing you mentioned is market dependent. Cable cards are not free in most markets They did good with the interface and the app at Comcast but it isn't all roses and is market dependent


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> NashGuy....I appreciate your thoughts on all of this but you keep bringing up AT&T Fiber this and AT&T fiber that. It isn't even available for most of the country. If AT&T wants to give a price break to people that have both Fiber and AT&T TV they should give double the price break to people where AT&T fiber is not an option because it isn't our fault we don't have AT&T fiber. They're the ones that haven't installed it into most of the U.S.A.


And that's where AT&T really needs to focus their growth.

Instead of deploying laser fiber and faster than light subspace transceivers within major cities so folks can transfer 800 petabytes a second, while the rest of their customers rot with 43kbps dialup modems... push out the damn fiber to those areas!

Younger generations (you know... the ones that... presumably... won't be dying soon) can live without traditional TV. They can't live without the Internet. It's not rocket surgery to understand that. Expand your reach with Internet access means you're going to get more customers.



b4pjoe said:


> The box is $120.00.


That's a bit steep, but not too bad. It will ultimately depend on the price of the service. I mean, Youtube TV is $50/mo. If AT&T's service is going to be $80/mo (plus the upfront $120 for the device) - for $30/mo I can probably live with using a Roku remote. But if AT&T's service gets closer to $50/mo, it starts to get competitive - at least for me.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

evotz said:


> push out the damn fiber to those areas!


They're probably going to focus on 5G instead.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

eletric chicken said:


> i think that AT&T is running DTV into the ground for a reason. i have always heard that AT&T wants everyone on on there streaming platform.. it's cheaper for them!!! there. no truck rolls and no boxes to maintain every month... will be interesting to see what happens





James Long said:


> It is easy to force people off of DIRECTV ... it is harder to force them on to a new service. Customers will leave and AT&T has not captured them as they go.
> 
> "Cheaper" has been discussed multiple times before. The cheapest path for AT&T is to RETAIN DIRECTV customers ... no cost to install. Perhaps some cost for customer retention. The satellites are paid for and the bandwidth per customer is free. There is an incremental distribution cost per customer with streaming that raises the cost of providing service.


Until the AT&T TV platform fills in the remaining channel gaps AT&T will be selling the two alongside each other once AT&T TV goes national. Generally this is how it will work:

Example A: Customer may watch 3 TVs at once but would like the option for the service to be in all 5 rooms of their home. Not too concerned with the lack of NFL Network as most of the _Thursday Night Football_ games are on their local Fox affiliate. Has all their RSNs (a Fox Sports RSN). Doesn't want 4K already has 4 non-AT&T streaming devices compatible with AT&T TV. <---- Agent will pitch AT&T TV first as the lead offer as the customer will save money by not paying for 4 additional receivers ($28/mo) like they would on D* and just needs the 1 AT&T TV device included w/the service.
Example B: Mega sports fan really wants to watch all NFL games on a Sunday afternoon. Wants the NFL Network (must have), wants to watch sports in 4K. Customer also wants MLB Extra Innings with MLB Strike Zone during MLB season. His wife wants FETV. Needs 4 receivers. <---- The agent will (by default) pitch DirecTV as AT&T TV lacks NFL Network and MLB Strike Zone. Also the customer wants 4K and AT&T TV doesn't broadcast any of its own channels in 4K at this time.
Obvs all scenarios won't be as clear cut as the two above but that's the general idea. Customer and agent discusses what customer wants out of a TV service. Agent is supposed to be noting and comparing the two main offerings and getting ready to pitch AT&T TV unless the customer says something that DirecTV has that AT&T TV doesn't have or may want to keep recordings until they delete, etc.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

evotz said:


> And that's where AT&T really needs to focus their growth.
> 
> Instead of deploying laser fiber and faster than light subspace transceivers within major cities so folks can transfer 800 petabytes a second, while the rest of their customers rot with 43kbps dialup modems... push out the damn fiber to those areas!
> 
> ...


Rumor is YTTV will increase for 55 or 60 here shortly. The gap is going to close quickly here


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

compnurd said:


> Rumor is YTTV will increase for 55 or 60 here shortly. The gap is going to close quickly here


The gap will never close as long as AT&T keeps raising their price. Both will get more expensive but the gap won't change.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

evotz said:


> That's a bit steep, but not too bad. It will ultimately depend on the price of the service. I mean, Youtube TV is $50/mo. If AT&T's service is going to be $80/mo (plus the upfront $120 for the device) - for $30/mo I can probably live with using a Roku remote. But if AT&T's service gets closer to $50/mo, it starts to get competitive - at least for me.


The first box is free when you sign up. You have to buy any additional that you want.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

How is any gap going to close when ATT raises prices even more than that every year? And is there a link for that rumor?



compnurd said:


> Rumor is YTTV will increase for 55 or 60 here shortly. The gap is going to close quickly here


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

compnurd said:


> Rumor is YTTV will increase for 55 or 60 here shortly. The gap is going to close quickly here


I've been hearing the gap is going to close chant for 3 years now since I switched from D to streaming (first with PSVue now with YTTV) . So far the gap hasn't closed at all, in fact it's gotten bigger.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

raott said:


> How is any gap going to close when ATT raises prices even more than that every year? And is there a link for that rumor?


I have friends who work for YouTube in that group and to add the last increase for YTTV and Hulu was more then the Directv increase They are also increasing prices and adding channels Directv already has


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

If your friends were in an area of that company that knew what the increase was, you'd have a hard number and not an estimate.

A quick look on google shows that YTTV increased about $15 between 2017 and 2019. What was the Directv price increase over that same two year period? I suspect it was about the same if not more.



compnurd said:


> I have friends who work for YouTube in that group and to add the last increase for YTTV and Hulu was more then the Directv increase They are also increasing prices and adding channels Directv already has


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> I've been hearing the gap is going to close chant for 3 years now since I switched from D to streaming (first with PSVue now with YTTV) . So far the gap hasn't closed at all, in fact it's gotten bigger.





raott said:


> How is any gap going to close when ATT raises prices even more than that every year? And is there a link for that rumor?[/QUOTE
> But there not. Hulu live just increased 10 bucks. Directv 8.





raott said:


> If your friends were in an area of that company that knew what the increase was, you'd have a hard number and not an estimate.
> 
> A quick look on google shows that YTTV increased about $15 between 2017 and 2019. What was the Directv price increase over that same two year period? I suspect it was about the same if not more.


Final Decisions have not been made. I don't know the VP of YouTube but enough friends in Senior Management positions involved in these decisions. As someone who also used to work for Google. Decisions there are not made how a traditional company works and what you thought was decided in a meeting is completely different when released

doubt all you want but you will be paying 54.99 or 59.99 come March/April. And you can also thank Hulu Live for testing out the 60 dollar price point for everyone

on the other point yes Directv may have increased about the same since then but I have about 6 times more channels and can watch TV on more then 3 streams at once


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

b4pjoe said:


> The gap will never close as long as AT&T keeps raising their price. Both will get more expensive but the gap won't change.


Google doesn't have to care if YouTube TV is profitable or not. They only offer it to collect ever more information about people, this gives them all their viewing habits (including when they watch, what commercials they see vs skip and so forth) to add to the huge volumes of data they are already collecting on most people.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

My latest DIRECTV bill due this month just went up $9.50 per month so the gap got a lot bigger instead of closing.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Wait a minute....you just claimed the gap was closing and now admit the price increases have been about the same. Also, you don't have six times the channels with Directv.



compnurd said:


> Final Decisions have not been made. I don't know the VP of YouTube but enough friends in Senior Management positions involved in these decisions. As someone who also used to work for Google. Decisions there are not made how a traditional company works and what you thought was decided in a meeting is completely different when released
> 
> doubt all you want but you will be paying 54.99 or 59.99 come March/April. And you can also thank Hulu Live for testing out the 60 dollar price point for everyone
> 
> on the other point yes Directv may have increased about the same since then but I have about 6 times more channels and can watch TV on more then 3 streams at once


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> My latest DIRECTV bill due this month just went up $9.50 per month so the gap got a lot bigger instead of closing.


Yeah, ours went up that much too. I keep telling myself it's worth it.

Rich


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I've been telling myself that since about $100 a month ago.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

raott said:


> Wait a minute....you just claimed the gap was closing and now admit the price increases have been about the same. Also, you don't have six times the channels with Directv.


Really? Because I show about 425 in my guide right now. How many does YTTV have? I feel like we have had this discussion before with you trying like hell to rationalize to yourself that switching was a good idea. Don't worry. You can come back


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Uh no, we haven't. I have directv and have had it since 1997.



compnurd said:


> Really? Because I show about 425 in my guide right now. How many does YTTV have? I feel like we have had this discussion before with you trying like hell to rationalize to yourself that switching was a good idea. Don't worry. You can come back


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

raott said:


> Uh no, we haven't. I have directv and have had it since 1997.


Then what are you whining about


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

compnurd said:


> Really? Because I show about 425 in my guide right now. How many does YTTV have? I feel like we have had this discussion before with you trying like hell to rationalize to yourself that switching was a good idea. Don't worry. You can come back


Thought this horse was dead and buried long ago...it doesn't matter if D has 10,000 channels, if the service I'm using has the channels I watch that's all that matters...can we now bury the horse again...LOL 
..and I have YTTV available on all 7 TVs in my house instead of just 3 when I had D. 3 simultaneous streams is more that I need but I want access on all my occasional use TVs. The whole "charge per connected tv" paradigm was fine when TVs were expensive and most people had 1 maybe 2 TVs in their homes...it's now the 21st century and that is in the past.
...can we now move on to discussions that we haven't already had over, and over, and over...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> Thought this horse was dead and buried long ago...it doesn't matter if D has 10,000 channels, if the service I'm using has the channels I watch that's all that matters...can we now bury the horse again...LOL


One of NYC's sports radio personalities, Evan Roberts, was on this morning talking about PS Vue going down the tubes. Like you, he switched to YTTV and he went on an on about how much he liked PSV. He's trying to figure out YTTV now.

Rich


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> Thought this horse was dead and buried long ago...it doesn't matter if D has 10,000 channels, if the service I'm using has the channels I watch that's all that matters...can we now bury the horse again...LOL
> ..and I have YTTV available on all 7 TVs in my house instead of just 3 when I had D. 3 simultaneous streams is more that I need but I want access on all my occasional use TVs. The whole "charge per connected tv" paradigm was fine when TVs were expensive and most people had 1 maybe 2 TVs in their homes...it's now the 21st century and that is in the past.
> ...can we now move on to discussions that we haven't already had over, and over, and over...


And for me and lots of others it is still lacking a lot of channels... You may also have it available at 7 TVs in your house but you can only use 3 at a time. I can use all 6 of mine at a time


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

compnurd said:


> And for me and lots of others it is still lacking a lot of channels... You may also have it available at 7 TVs in your house but you can only use 3 at a time. I can use all 6 of mine at a time


And you get to pay the piper to do so! 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

compnurd said:


> And for me and lots of others it is still lacking a lot of channels... You may also have it available at 7 TVs in your house but you can only use 3 at a time. I can use all 6 of mine at a time


And clearly D is the right service for you to subscribe to since it fits your requirements. Previously PSVue, and now YTTV fit all my requirements which is why I subscribe to the service. For some reason you want to claim that somehow I'm missing out on something or I'm settling for something...none of that is true for me. Different people have different wants/needs/requirements in entertainment services and we select the ones that are a best fit for us. I dropped D because I found a better service for my needs. The cost was pretty much the last item on the list and was frankly not a part of the decision. Whether I spend $50 a month or $300 a month on our tv entertainment subscriptions is frankly not something that we care about.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

That's considered whining? Wow.



compnurd said:


> Then what are you whining about


----------



## eletric chicken (Dec 28, 2019)

b4pjoe said:


> The box is $120.00.


not even worth it. then they want a contract to. no thanks!!!


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

eletric chicken said:


> not even worth it. then they want a contract to. no thanks!!!


As I explained in an earlier post...when you subscribe to AT&T TV the first box is free. If you want more than one then you have to pay $120 for the additional box(s).


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> NashGuy....I appreciate your thoughts on all of this but you keep bringing up AT&T Fiber this and AT&T fiber that. It isn't even available for most of the country. If AT&T wants to give a price break to people that have both Fiber and AT&T TV they should give double the price break to people where AT&T fiber is not an option because it isn't our fault we don't have AT&T fiber. They're the ones that haven't installed it into most of the U.S.A.


Sorry man! I wish we have fiber running to every home in the nation but that's just not in the cards. (Unless President Bernie enacts it by fiat -- whee, free broadband for everyone! )

Rolling out fiber-to-the-home is expensive. AT&T says they might wire up a few more homes but it sounds like they're mostly done. Their legacy DSL business has just about died off and AT&T (like Verizon) is anxious to just ditch their old POTS network. I wonder how many homes AT&T still reaches by fiber-to-the-node (what used to be branded Uverse) that won't ever get upgraded to fiber-to-the-home? Those customers will drift away too, like their DSL base.

If AT&T is going to be a player in home broadband in the 2020s outside of their AT&T Fiber footprint, it's going to be with a decent fixed wireless 5G/4G service, like T-Mobile has begun doing and/or via AT&T's AirGig technology, although I haven't heard any updates on that front in awhile, so it may not prove economically feasible.

Of course, AT&T has to be nervously looking at SpaceX's Starlink initiative and wondering whether that will be successful and how much of the market it might snatch up...


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

raott said:


> If your friends were in an area of that company that knew what the increase was, you'd have a hard number and not an estimate.
> 
> A quick look on google shows that YTTV increased about $15 between 2017 and 2019. What was the Directv price increase over that same two year period? I suspect it was about the same if not more.


Yes, YouTube TV launched in spring 2017 at $35/mo. About a year later, in spring 2018, the price increased to $40/mo. Then in spring 2019, they added some missing channels (mainly from Discovery, IIRC) and increased to $50/mo. So that was a nearly 43% price increase over two years. (I don't know how much the regular prices on DirecTV increased over that period but I'm sure it was a smaller hike on a percentage basis.)

My prediction for this spring: YTTV price jumps to $60 and they add Hallmark, History, A&E, and Lifetime. (The first three of those channels ranked among the 20 most-watched in 2019.) I'm guessing that will be a sustainable break-even price with a channel line-up that could pretty effectively replace traditional cable TV for the great majority of Americans still interested in it. (Only thing really missing would be the Viacom channels like Nickelodeon, MTV and TV Land, but they're not all that popular aside from Nickelodeon.)

If Google can then scale the service up by adding lots more subs -- which will require striking more distribution partnerships with broadband and mobile operators like they've already done with Verizon -- then they can probably make enough from it via the same kind of data-enabled targeted advertising that they already use on free YouTube. All cable TV providers get a sliver of the ad time on cable channels to insert whatever ads that they sell themselves. Google will fill those slots with targeted ads, just as they do on YouTube.


----------



## eletric chicken (Dec 28, 2019)

b4pjoe said:


> As I explained in an earlier post...when you subscribe to AT&T TV the first box is free. If you want more than one then you have to pay $120 for the additional box(s).


if it comes from AT&T i don't want it after this experience!!!


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, YouTube TV launched in spring 2017 at $35/mo. About a year later, in spring 2018, the price increased to $40/mo. Then in spring 2019, they added some missing channels (mainly from Discovery, IIRC) and increased to $50/mo. So that was a nearly 43% price increase over two years. (I don't know how much the regular prices on DirecTV increased over that period but I'm sure it was a smaller hike on a percentage basis.)


Well using percentages isn't the best way to go on this since DirecTV is a lot more expensive to start with which makes their price increase seem small in percentages. My DirecTV just went up by $9.50 per month and if as you predict, YTTV goes up by $10.00 then YTTV has raised their price by 20% while Direct TV only raised theirs by 4.13% while the actual dollar amounts are about the same. It doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies for AT&T because they only raised my prices by 4.13%.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

Well the thing is each person is different and as more options become available people will gravitate to the options that suite them best.

However there is still things to consider when it comes to streaming vs cable/satellite/IPTV providers. With the traditional MVPDs also having streaming apps for mobile devices (and in Dish & Spectrum's cases home devices) the big cost savings is the dedicated infrastructure.

vMVPDs don't need to build out lines, maintain a fleet of satellites in the sky, etc. they just use existing infrastructure already in place by ISPs to deliver the content to the customer. For them this should help curve the price which it is doing... for now.

Dish and DirecTV/U-Verse TV usually do annual price adjustments. Dish is on the low end averaging $5 per subscriber with DirecTV/U-Verse TV in the middle at ~$9/subscriber. Some cable companies do an annual increase some like Altice USA and Spectrum have done more than 1 increase in a year. Altice USA (which owns Optimum and Suddenlink) are on the high end around ~$13 - $15/subscriber.

Eventually the pay-TV market will collapse on all fronts both vMVPD and MVPD can't sustain these increases for much longer and the moment the vMVPDs catch up to the MVPDs in price that is when this market will collapse in my opinion.

So let's do a hypothetical experiment with the historical data we have. Let's say the pay-TV market survives past 2046 in its current form. YTTV increases its base price by $10/year; Dish and DirecTV continues to launch new satellites when needed. Dish raises their prices by $5/year and DirecTV continues increasing Choice's base price by $5/year and Xtra's by $7/year (not factoring in the RSN fee.) At this rate YTTV will match Dish in 2026 then match D*'s Choice in 2031 and finally match D*'s Xtra in 2046.










However like I said this isn't sustainable by any measure and once all the vMPVDs like YTTV eventually hit that $100 threshold something will need to change. I can't see this model lasting until 2046.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

In the Los Angeles Times today: Nearly 3 million subscribers ditched DirecTV last year. Will AT&T do the same?

The last line is: "Change is hard for people," he [Rasesh Patel, AT&T's general manager of broadband and video] said.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Make sure you also remember regional sports fees, receiver fees and then the subsequent sales tax on all items goes accordingly.
If you have several receivers these increases could be more than the increase on the package increase.

All my 50 plus years as a customer of AT&T they never listened to customers about pricing.
Anyone can see that pricing is driving customers away from DirecTV.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

techguy88 said:


> Well the thing is each person is different and as more options become available people will gravitate to the options that suite them best.


Yes, I still want an all sports only package without all the other fluff channels.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Yes, I still want an all sports only package without all the other fluff channels.


On the one hand I'm sure there are plenty that would like to see that happen, but on the other hand, how many of them would be willing to pay the very high cost of having it? Currently the true cost of those sports channels is subsidized by nearly every cable/sat subscriber because it is hidden inside fat channel bundles.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

jimmie57 said:


> Make sure you also remember regional sports fees, receiver fees and then the subsequent sales tax on all items goes accordingly.
> If you have several receivers these increases could be more than the increase on the package increase.
> 
> All my 50 plus years as a customer of AT&T they never listened to customers about pricing.
> Anyone can see that pricing is driving customers away from DirecTV.


Well additional receivers are not included because well they are additional. That chart is comparing the current base package prices on offer with a planned trajectory at the current rate of increases. Hulu + Live TV has a bolt-on for $14.99/mo for Enhanced DVR and Unlimited screens at home so if I'm going to include say 2-3 additional receivers in the Dish/DirecTV columns then I'm gonna compare them to Hulu + Live TV with the Enchanced DVR and Unlimited Screens bundle. The DirecTV columns are using the All Included 1 TV pricing structure which is including the cost of the ARS and first TV in the package.

Even if you add $15 to the Dish column for the Hopper 3 for DVR Service YTTV and Dish's AT120+ achieve pricing polarity in 2029 when YTTV is estimated to be $150/mo for its base package. Dish's AT120+ w/DVR Service will be $149.99/mo.

RSN fees are not included for D* because that varies from customer to customer. If the price gap between YTTV and D* in 2031 (Choice) or 2041 (Xtra) is solely dependent on the RSN fee and the cost of additional receivers while the base package is the same price then clearly there is an issue. Besides Dish just introduced their RSN fee this year which is $1-$3 depending on zip code and if you live in one of the handful of markets where Dish is currently carrying an RSN at all.

The point is eventually with some providers streaming will catch up to them if the streaming services are increasing their rates at $10/year and some providers are doing increases less than $10/year. Only the ones doing $13-$20/year increases will continue to have a gap in their base service offerings.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

jimmie57 said:


> Make sure you also remember regional sports fees, receiver fees and then the subsequent sales tax on all items goes accordingly.
> If you have several receivers these increases could be more than the increase on the package increase.
> 
> All my 50 plus years as a customer of AT&T they never listened to customers about pricing.
> *Anyone can see that pricing is driving customers away from DirecTV.*


Perhaps someone can explain that to the CEO of ATT. If they can get thru the wall of BS.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Yes, I still want an all sports only package without all the other fluff channels.


Have you done anything about your slow 24 yet? 

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

techguy88 said:


> vMVPDs don't need to build out lines, maintain a fleet of satellites in the sky, etc. they just use existing infrastructure already in place by ISPs to deliver the content to the customer. For them this should help curve the price which it is doing... for now.


Over 65% of the total TV revenue of cable/satellite companies goes to networks etc. to pay for the channels. The cost of delivery is tiny for satellite companies when it is amortized across 10-20 million customers. vMVPDs rely on the infrastructure of others, but they have to pay to use it, it isn't free. They would almost certainly pay more to CDNs to deliver to as many customers as Dish or Directv has. But whether that's true or not we are only talking a buck a month per customer for delivery, that's chickenfeed measured against your overall bill.

The big item is the content, and that's the same (and increasing at the same rate) for everyone. Sure, a YTTV can undercut Directv's pricing by 50%, but they are losing a lot of money doing so. Like I said, Google isn't in that business to make money, they are in that business to grab your viewing data and add it to their huge pile of other data they collect on you.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Yes, I still want an all sports only package without all the other fluff channels.


Sounds like you want to pay a LOT more than you are paying now. You need to realize that about 75% of the cost of sports in terms of the price you pay for ESPN (around $10/month) and your locals (around $15/month almost all of which is sports rights) is subsidized by people who are paying for those channels but rarely or never watch sports. If you paid the true cost you'd be paying around $100/month just for ESPN and your locals, then add on even more for other sports channels and RSNs.

If you think you would pay less than you pay now by getting rid of those other channels you're dreaming - because there's no way they'd offer a "sports only" package without offering an "everything but sports" package to let the majority who don't care about sports dump us freeloaders who do. Not just dropping ESPN, but blacking out sports on locals so they pay a fraction of the $15/month we are all paying now.


----------



## bjdotson (Feb 20, 2007)

I'm pretty lucky in internet speeds. In Utah, 13 municipalities joined this consortium called Utopia. My City (Layton) is one of them. City paid for running fiber thought the city. There is a list of about a dozen ISPs that use the network. I pay $30 for access to the fiber and $37 for the ISP that I picked. For that I get speeds of 250/250 with no cap. That is the lowest tier, Next highest is 1 gig. More cities are jumping on board and there are competing fiber networks attempting the same thing.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Rich said:


> Perhaps someone can explain that to the CEO of ATT. If they can get thru the wall of BS.
> 
> Rich


Really. Things that do not cost them money, should be included in the package. HD, multiroom, DVR fee...all should be free. Only the cost of additional boxes (that they have to pay providers for) should cost extra. In the cast of Xfinity, it is currently $5 per room. HD, DVR are free. There is no multiroom charge other than the boxes. This is why I get Xfinity equivalent of choice extra and 250/10 uncapped internet for $120/mo guaranteed until 9/2021.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> The big item is the content, and that's the same (and increasing at the same rate) for everyone. Sure, a YTTV can undercut Directv's pricing by 50%, but they are losing a lot of money doing so. Like I said, Google isn't in that business to make money, they are in that business to grab your viewing data and add it to their huge pile of other data they collect on you.


That only makes sense, though, if the value of that incremental data/targeted advertising is worth more than the amount that they're losing on YTTV otherwise. In order for that to be true, my hunch is that they'll need to scale YTTV up quite a bit larger than it currently is in terms of number of users. Jury is out whether that will happen.

Google is OK losing money on their side-bet experiments for awhile, and I assume that's how they see YTTV. But they're pretty fickle and have no compunction in casting aside those non-profitable experiments when they get bored with them.

YTTV feels, to me, like it will be a passing phase. I don't think the future of TV is to simply replicate the linear channel cable bundle but stream it OTT at a little lower price. I still believe that the linear channel model will gradually fade away and that the future will be direct-to-consumer services, e.g. Netflix, Hulu, HBO Max, ESPN+, etc.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Davenlr said:


> Really. Things that do not cost them money, should be included in the package. HD, multiroom, DVR fee...all should be free. Only the cost of additional boxes (that they have to pay providers for) should cost extra. In the cast of Xfinity, it is currently $5 per room. HD, DVR are free. There is no multiroom charge other than the boxes. This is why I get Xfinity equivalent of choice extra and 250/10 uncapped internet for $120/mo guaranteed until 9/2021.


Sounds like quite a deal you got there. Are you sure that you're including all of Comcast's fees? Their packages and prices do vary from market to market, I realize.

I just checked the online ordering system here in Nashville for Comcast. (It offers their best deals for new customers) I priced the following:

Extreme (300/25) broadband
Extra TV package (HD included)
1 X1 TV box
60 hrs cloud DVR
xFi gateway (modem+router)

The quoted price was $119/mo for each month during a 2-year contract period. But after adding their $15 Broadcast TV fee for locals and their $8.10 Regional Sports fee, that comes to *$142.10/mo*. (I don't know how much any government-imposed taxes/fees would amount to, so I'm leaving that out of this comparison.)

Then I checked the cost of getting an AT&T bundle of AT&T Fiber broadband plus DirecTV:

Internet 300 (300/300) broadband
Choice TV package (HD DVR included)
1 TV box
no additional fee for whole-home HD DVR
AT&T Fiber gateway

DirecTV includes the cost of locals and regional sports in their quoted prices. They require a 1-yr contract for internet and a 2-yr contract for TV. During the first year, the cost is $120/mo, then up to the regular cost of $195/mo in the second year. But you also get $400 in Visa gift cards for signing up (while Comcast offers none). When you net it all out, you're paying an *average of $140.85/mo* (excluding government taxes/fees) to AT&T. So the net pricing is basically equal between the two. Adding service/boxes to additional TVs would cost $5 per TV with Comcast vs. $7 with DirecTV.

Note that DirecTV has way better HD picture quality than Comcast. Not even close. Also, a Genie DVR can store way more than just 60 hours. Also, AT&T Fiber is superior to cable broadband, with symmetrical downstream/upstream speeds, lower latency, and greater reliability.

On the other hand, Comcast's X1 has a way better on-demand system, as well as a voice remote, a slicker UI, and on-board apps for Netflix, YouTube and Prime Video, with Peacock and Hulu (and I would bet Disney+ and HBO Max) on the way.

At any rate, in my experience, AT&T and Comcast (the two big operators here) seem to pretty closely track each other in terms of pricing.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> That only makes sense, though, if the value of that incremental data/targeted advertising is worth more than the amount that they're losing on YTTV otherwise. In order for that to be true, my hunch is that they'll need to scale YTTV up quite a bit larger than it currently is in terms of number of users. Jury is out whether that will happen.
> 
> Google is OK losing money on their side-bet experiments for awhile, and I assume that's how they see YTTV. But they're pretty fickle and have no compunction in casting aside those non-profitable experiments when they get bored with them.
> 
> YTTV feels, to me, like it will be a passing phase. I don't think the future of TV is to simply replicate the linear channel cable bundle but stream it OTT at a little lower price. I still believe that the linear channel model will gradually fade away and that the future will be direct-to-consumer services, e.g. Netflix, Hulu, HBO Max, ESPN+, etc.


I agree, I don't think YTTV will be around in a couple years. The "Google Graveyard" is littered with projects they gave up on. I imagine they thought it was a good idea back before they gave up on Google Fiber, now that that will never be anything more than a niche project that's in a handful of cities YTTV will never reach the scale they probably projected for it back when it was being planned.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> I agree, I don't think YTTV will be around in a couple years. The "Google Graveyard" is littered with projects they gave up on. I imagine they thought it was a good idea back before they gave up on Google Fiber, now that that will never be anything more than a niche project that's in a handful of cities YTTV will never reach the scale they probably projected for it back when it was being planned.


Yeah. Google Fiber here in Nashville was still pushing their Google Fiber TV, an old-school managed IPTV service akin to AT&T Uverse TV, until very recently. I just checked the website and they're now pushing YTTV to their Fiber customers. Makes sense, although I don't know why it took them nearly three years to do it. And if you dig around on the site, it looks like maybe they're still selling Fiber TV too, even if they aren't actively pushing it.

The round of Google Fiber cities that launched after us, including San Antonio, I think, were never offered Google Fiber TV service. Instead, they were pushing YTTV in those cities from the get-go, and offered new Fiber customers a free Nvidia Shield Android TV box if they signed up for YTTV too.

At any rate, as I've said before, if YTTV is going to really scale up in the multi-millions of subscribers, I think it will require more distribution partnerships with broadband operators. (And a YTTV-customized Android TV streaming device with a good remote would help too.) They've already done a few, with Verizon FiOS, Cincinnati Bell, and some ISP in Hawaii. If AT&T is smart, they'll try to do that too with AT&T TV (the way they've had CenturyLink bundling DirecTV with their internet for awhile now).


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> Well using percentages isn't the best way to go on this since DirecTV is a lot more expensive to start with which makes their price increase seem small in percentages. My DirecTV just went up by $9.50 per month and if as you predict, YTTV goes up by $10.00 then YTTV has raised their price by 20% while Direct TV only raised theirs by 4.13% while the actual dollar amounts are about the same. It doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies for AT&T because they only raised my prices by 4.13%.


I just don't think it's the same thing psychologically if your $50 YTTV bill goes up by $10 versus your $242 DirecTV bill increasing by that same $10 amount. (A $10 increase would amount to 4.13% of $242. Is that what you actually pay DTV each month?!)

Let's be honest, most folks who are signing up for YTTV are doing so mainly based on its lower price versus traditional cable/satellite TV packages. If you got on board a year ago, when it was $40/mo, and now you're paying $50, and then it goes up again to $60 this March or April, that's really significant. You'd be paying 50% more than when you started out. I have to think some of those folks would decide it's no longer an attractive enough value to stick around.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> I just don't think it's the same thing psychologically if your $50 YTTV bill goes up by $10 versus your $242 DirecTV bill increasing by that same $10 amount. (A $10 increase would amount to 4.13% of $242. Is that what you actually pay DTV each month?!)


It went up from $230 per month to $239.50.



NashGuy said:


> Let's be honest, most folks who are signing up for YTTV are doing so mainly based on its lower price versus traditional cable/satellite TV packages. If you got on board a year ago, when it was $40/mo, and now you're paying $50, and then it goes up again to $60 this March or April, that's really significant. You'd be paying 50% more than when you started out. I have to think some of those folks would decide it's no longer an attractive enough value to stick around.


Yes but where else are they going to go? Hulu? It would be more for their live tv with the advanced DVR which you would need to get a dvr close to the same as YTTV.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> It went up from $230 per month to $239.50.


Lordy.



b4pjoe said:


> Yes but where else are they going to go? Hulu? It would be more for their live tv with the advanced DVR which you would need to get a dvr close to the same as YTTV.


Nah, if YTTV gets too expensive for someone, they'll most likely just bail on live cable TV completely (or maybe go with a super-skinny bundle like Sling's Blue or Orange at $30 or Philo at $20).


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

It depends on what they consider they have to have. I'd switch to YTTV if they had what I have to have. But for $50 or $60 per month they most likely never will.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> It went up from $230 per month to $239.50.


Not bad. The first $230 would need some trimming to fit my budget. I assume that there are multiple rooms and/or sports packages?


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Premier package. 7 TV's. 1 HR54, 1 C61K, 1 H25, 4 HR24's. Of course that is going to go up as soon as MLB EI kicks in.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> They've already done a few, with Verizon FiOS, Cincinnati Bell, and some ISP in Hawaii.


What exactly are they doing with Cincinnati Bell? All I've seen online is a link to subscribe to normal YouTube TV.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> My prediction for this spring: YTTV price jumps to $60 and they add Hallmark, History, A&E, and Lifetime. (The first three of those channels ranked among the 20 most-watched in 2019.)


I hope you are wrong. I don't watch any if those channels, and they have nothing that requires a linear channel for delivery.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Sounds like quite a deal you got there. Are you sure that you're including all of Comcast's fees? Their packages and prices do vary from market to market, I realize.
> 
> I just checked the online ordering system here in Nashville for Comcast. (It offers their best deals for new customers) I priced the following:
> 
> ...


Yea, about that. They raised the broadcast TV fee and taxes last month, so now its $122/mo + tax
Xfinity Preferred with HD, Cloud DVR, Additional preferred channels $90
Blast internet $83
Contract and 2 product discount -$73
Cablecard (included)
Broadcast TV fee $14.95
Regional Sports $7.80
Taxes, fees $ 12.91

Note, I have a Tivo Bolt with 6 tuners and two minis, so don't pay the extra $10 for the extra rooms. Were I to use their X1 box, it would add $10. I also own my own modem, so no modem rental fee.
This wasnt a new user promo, this is what I negotiated with the local customer service when my last contract was up.
AT&T just laid fiber here, and they couldnt even touch Xfinity's price, since they require you rent their boxes.
Dave


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

wmb said:


> What exactly are they doing with Cincinnati Bell? All I've seen online is a link to subscribe to normal YouTube TV.


Yeah, it's just the fact that Cincinnati Bell (like Verizon) is now selling YouTube TV as an alternative to their own to their TV service. I think they'll include it on your broadband bill if you subscribe through them.

The main value in this, for YTTV, is simply in having broadband operators raise awareness of YTTV as a legit option for new customers at sign-up. (Verizon does offer a free 1-month trial of YTTV, though, as opposed to the standard 1 week, and has hinted that they'll offer other promos, which I anticipate will include their forthcoming "Verizon Stream" device.) I would imagine that CSRs at those operators might also pitch YTTV to customers calling in to cancel their own TV service. "Have you considered YouTube TV? A lot of our customers find it to be a really good deal."

EDIT: As this story points out, smaller broadband operators will increasingly bow out of the low-to-no-margin cable TV business. That's where YouTube TV (and other OTT services) have an opportunity to swoop in as a simple option for those operators to sell. 
Smaller Cable Companies Are Giving Up On Cable TV Altogether


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> I agree, I don't think YTTV will be around in a couple years. The "Google Graveyard" is littered with projects they gave up on. I imagine they thought it was a good idea back before they gave up on Google Fiber, now that that will never be anything more than a niche project that's in a handful of cities YTTV will never reach the scale they probably projected for it back when it was being planned.


Will ANY streaming service be around in a few years? By "streaming service", I mean "aggregating" ones... I've said this a few times over the years... a few years ago, nobody cared about streaming, so everybody licensed their content to aggregators for cheap. Now (some) people think streaming is the next "sliced bread" and they are all asking "why are we giving away our content to Netflix for cheap?" let's spin up our own... so of course this is leading to mass fragmentation and the big name aggregators lose content. Netflix has lost almost all licensed content from everybody spinning off and doing their own thing. Now Roku is going to lose Fox most likely. PSVue already folded. Just going to be the studios doing it in a few years, and by that point, streaming will cost as much as traditional and people will move back.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Lordy.


This is another example of a person who has every channel and package offered... and Sunday Ticket and I'll assume PPP and lord knows how many boxes. Sure he'll save a ton by going to streaming... or he could just skinny up his DirecTV service... same end result...


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Will ANY streaming service be around in a few years? By "streaming service", I mean "aggregating" ones... I've said this a few times over the years... a few years ago, nobody cared about streaming, so everybody licensed their content to aggregators for cheap. Now (some) people think streaming is the next "sliced bread" and they are all asking "why are we giving away our content to Netflix for cheap?" let's spin up our own... so of course this is leading to mass fragmentation and the big name aggregators lose content. Netflix has lost almost all licensed content from everybody spinning off and doing their own thing. Now Roku is going to lose Fox most likely. PSVue already folded. Just going to be the studios doing it in a few years, and by that point, streaming will cost as much as traditional and people will move back.


And if streaming DOES fail, then yeah we will go back. But I think once you get use to no does, fees, additional wiring Tradinal providers like DIRECTV, AT&T, Comast, etc will have to adapt to an App format.
I have YTTV now since Nov, The ONLY thing I miss is 4K sports and back and forth between channels/games was easier. That is IT! Because I have 2 4K TVs that I had DIRECTV on, I had to pay for 3 boxes as I had the HR54 before H17 hit. Both my kids have 4K TV and no desire for DIRECTV. if they did more box fees a nd running cable through the walls, etc. 
With YTTV and their Mom's Hulu account they have TV. Plus when I am out, in the hammock with my iPad I have FULL TV not some crap out of home service DIRECTV TRIES to offer.
Added Philo too and for more than half the price, I have what I need.
"Streaming" in some form over Internet(cable, fiber or 5G) is the future. Traditional cable will die off. DIRECTV will be only for rural folks or a hight end service maybe for more 4K?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

gio12 said:


> And if streaming DOES fail, then yeah we will go back. But I think once you get use to no does, fees, additional wiring Tradinal providers like DIRECTV, AT&T, Comast, etc will have to adapt to an App format.
> I have YTTV now since Nov, The ONLY thing I miss is 4K sports and back and forth between channels/games was easier. That is IT! Because I have 2 4K TVs that I had DIRECTV on, I had to pay for 3 boxes as I had the HR54 before H17 hit. Both my kids have 4K TV and no desire for DIRECTV. if they did more box fees a nd running cable through the walls, etc.
> With YTTV and their Mom's Hulu account they have TV. Plus when I am out, in the hammock with my iPad I have FULL TV not some crap out of home service DIRECTV TRIES to offer.
> Added Philo too and for more than half the price, I have what I need.
> "Streaming" in some form over Internet(cable, fiber or 5G) is the future. Traditional cable will die off. DIRECTV will be only for rural folks or a hight end service maybe for more 4K?


They may not even all shut down, but which would you prefer if they were the same price or much closer? The streaming services aren't shy about jacking up your price 25%+/yr. You indicated there are a few things you don't like about streaming... Sounds like you have 2 or 3 providers now? What if it continues to fragment to the point where you'll need 10 - 20?


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> They may not even all shut down, but which would you prefer if they were the same price or much closer? The streaming services aren't shy about jacking up your price 25%+/yr. You indicated there are a few things you don't like about streaming... Sounds like you have 2 or 3 providers now? What if it continues to fragment to the point where you'll need 10 - 20?


If DIRECTV worked via apps, no boxes, app for mobile viewing and all the channels DIRECTV has now, I would choose DIRECTV. ONLY, ONLY after AT&T leaves them

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

SledgeHammer said:


> This is another example of a person who has every channel and package offered... and Sunday Ticket and I'll assume PPP and lord knows how many boxes. Sure he'll save a ton by going to streaming... or he could just skinny up his DirecTV service... same end result...


Well that person is me. Premier package. 7 TV's. I had Sunday Ticket but didn't have to pay for it. No idea what PPP is but I've never had anything called PPP. I have the Premier package because that is what I want and have no intention to "skinny up my DirecTV service". Never said I was leaving DirecTV but have considered it at times. I've trialed YTTV several times. If I were to switch YTTV is what I would move to but to get all of the channels I want I'm sure I'd be paying about what I'm paying now. My argument is that YTTV will never cost what DirecTV costs.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

So Google announced just today that they are dropping the TV offering with Google Fiber, and will be partnering with Fubo TV as its preferred/recommended TV offering.

That isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the future of YTTV!


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> Just going to be the studios doing it in a few years, and by that point, streaming will cost as much as traditional and people will move back.


By the time that happens -- and it will be some number of years -- there won't be a traditional cable bundle to move back to. You do understand that these major studios who are launching their own direct-to-consumer (DTC) services (e.g. Hulu, Disney+, HBO Max, CBS AA, etc.) are slowly cannibalizing the linear channels they own, right? They're now nudging the public along in a direction it was already somewhat heading -- away from the bundle, to DTC OTT.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

gio12 said:


> If DIRECTV worked via apps, no boxes, app for mobile viewing and all the channels DIRECTV has now, I would choose DIRECTV. ONLY, ONLY after AT&T leaves them


What you're describing is basically AT&T TV. (But sorry, as the name implies, AT&T isn't going to ditch this service.) It works via apps as well as their own optional box. The entire service is accessible away from home via mobile apps: live TV, cloud DVR, VOD. It will have all the same channels (eventually) as DTV.

It's simply AT&T's recognition that they have to conform their flagship TV service to the market expectations that the streaming era has created.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> So Google announced just today that they are dropping the TV offering with Google Fiber, and will be partnering with Fubo TV as its preferred/recommended TV offering.
> 
> That isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the future of YTTV!


No, Google Fiber has already been selling YTTV as their preferred/recommended TV service. In some markets, it's been the ONLY TV service they've sold; in others, it's been sold alongside Google Fiber TV. Going forward, Google Fiber TV (managed IPTV that requires their own STBs) won't be sold to new customers anywhere any more. Instead, it appears that Google Fiber will sell two different OTT cable TV services in all markets: their own YTTV as well as Fubo TV.

Not sure why they're selling Fubo TV. My thoughts: it looks good for Google politically, and fits with their culture of cultivating platforms that they open to others. Also, Fubo TV isn't much of a threat to Google given its size. And because Fubo TV offers some sports stuff that YTTV doesn't, and vice versa (e.g. YTTV has ESPN but Fubo TV doesn't), it makes for a good alternative.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> So Google announced just today that they are dropping the TV offering with Google Fiber, and will be partnering with Fubo TV as its preferred/recommended TV offering.
> 
> That isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the future of YTTV!


YouTube TV is still an option and they added Fubo TV.



> In a company blog post, Google said consumers no longer need "pricey bundles" with channels they won't watch and don't want to get locked into services as price increases and contract disputes continue.
> 
> "As we return our focus to where we started - as a gigabit Internet company - we're also ready to challenge the status quo, to finally come right out and say it: customers today just don't need traditional TV," the company wrote.


Google Fiber ditches TV service in favor of YouTube TV, FuboTV


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> What you're describing is basically AT&T TV. (But sorry, as the name implies, AT&T isn't going to ditch this service.) It works via apps as well as their own optional box. The entire service is accessible away from home via mobile apps: live TV, cloud DVR, VOD. It will have all the same channels (eventually) as DTV.
> 
> It's simply AT&T's recognition that they have to conform their flagship TV service to the market expectations that the streaming era has created.


Dont you have to have ONE main box?
No 4k right? So pointless and
more than I pay now

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> Well that person is me. Premier package. 7 TV's. I had Sunday Ticket but didn't have to pay for it. No idea what PPP is but I've never had anything called PPP. I have the Premier package because that is what I want and have no intention to "skinny up my DirecTV service". Never said I was leaving DirecTV but have considered it at times. I've trialed YTTV several times. If I were to switch YTTV is what I would move to but to get all of the channels I want I'm sure I'd be paying about what I'm paying now. My argument is that YTTV will never cost what DirecTV costs.


Yeah, 7 TVs + Premiere Package (PPP = Protection Plan) = lots of $$$. If you went streaming, you wouldn't have all those channels (not even close), so if you're willing to go skinny package, you can also skinny up your DirecTV package. To say you want 300 channels on DirecTV but you're cool with 50 channels on YTTV makes no sense.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> So Google announced just today that they are dropping the TV offering with Google Fiber, and will be partnering with Fubo TV as its preferred/recommended TV offering.
> 
> That isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the future of YTTV!


That sucks. I was looking at upgrading my house and was looking at one that had GF. I would have gotten GF TV. Is GF straight up IP TV? I think it was NashGuy who said TVision (TMobile) is a bastardized hybrid of IP TV and streaming.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> By the time that happens -- and it will be some number of years -- there won't be a traditional cable bundle to move back to. You do understand that these major studios who are launching their own direct-to-consumer (DTC) services (e.g. Hulu, Disney+, HBO Max, CBS AA, etc.) are slowly cannibalizing the linear channels they own, right? They're now nudging the public along in a direction it was already somewhat heading -- away from the bundle, to DTC OTT.


Has DirecTV lost any of those channels? They did lose El Rey recently... or did they drop it? DirecTV lost some subs and Dish gained some last quarter. That's more of a factor of people hating AT&T vs. dropping satellite. Cord cutters is a small, vocal minority vs. cable / sat. You can't go soley by DirecTV losing subs because people hate T for various reasons.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> It's simply AT&T's recognition that they have to conform their flagship TV service to the market expectations that the streaming era has created.


They aren't doing that though. They're basically delivering DirecTV packages over the net for less BFTB for the consumer.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Google companies are very very very independent. Last I knew also Google Fiber was part of Google and YouTube was Alphabet so there would be no internal corporate push for them to use YouTube TV


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

SledgeHammer said:


> Yeah, 7 TVs + Premiere Package (PPP = Protection Plan) = lots of $$$. If you went streaming, you wouldn't have all those channels (not even close), so if you're willing to go skinny package, you can also skinny up your DirecTV package. To say you want 300 channels on DirecTV but you're cool with 50 channels on YTTV makes no sense.


OK I do have the cheaper protection plan.

I never said I'd be cool with 50 channels on YTTV. What I said was (with corrected punctuation):



> If I were to switch, YTTV is what I would move to, but to get all of the channels I want I'm sure I'd be paying about what I'm paying now.


Maybe a bit cheaper. If not I wouldn't switch. But yes I would have to subscribe to other streaming services at the same time as using YTTV. But to clarify...I'm not looking to switch at this moment.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> OK I do have the cheaper protection plan.
> 
> I never said I'd be cool with 50 channels on YTTV. What I said was (with corrected punctuation):
> 
> Maybe a bit cheaper. If not I wouldn't switch. But yes I would have to subscribe to other streaming services at the same time as using YTTV. But to clarify...I'm not looking to switch at this moment.


Yeah, I don't think you'd be able to put together what you have now on streaming. It's simply not offered. All the sports. And not the non-sports channels either. I looked at replacing Preferred Xtra with streaming and I'd need YTTV + Philio + PBS (although Philio is supposed to get PBS or may have gotten it) and I'd still miss on 3 - 5 channels I "want". Already at $75/mo. Right now I'm paying $90 for my setup since part of my promos rolled off and they raised rates. My big promo falls off in a few months, so if they don't re-up me as they have for like 10+ yrs... then I'll look at TMobile TV.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

compnurd said:


> Google companies are very very very independent. Last I knew also Google Fiber was part of Google and YouTube was Alphabet so there would be no internal corporate push for them to use YouTube TV


Oh please, they all cooperate on collecting and utilizing personal information. You really think that there's a wall between Google Search, Chrome, Android and Youtube? In your dreams!


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Oh please, they all cooperate on collecting and utilizing personal information. You really think that there's a wall between Google Search, Chrome, Android and Youtube? In your dreams!


Have you ever worked at a large company? I work at the main campus of a large company. We've got 5 buildings and a private street, etc. Probably at least a dozen BUs if not more. There is ZERO collaboration between BUs here. If anything, every BU hates every other BU. As a matter of fact, even within my own BU, there's dev, QA, database, data content, etc. Very little collab between those groups. People here are rude and lazy to each other, etc. Groups play political games against each other, etc. Other companies I've worked at, groups were "us vs. them" too.

I'm working on a "high priority" project with another BU now... basically doing Oauth integration which should be an hour of work or less... taking 6 months so far because the other BU, the dev lead refuses to respond to our emails... Another project I'm working on to move stuff to the cloud, had zero movement for over a year now because the cloud team refuses to work on it...

And you wonder why I'm looking for a new job lmao...


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

SledgeHammer said:


> Yeah, I don't think you'd be able to put together what you have now on streaming. It's simply not offered. All the sports. And not the non-sports channels either. I looked at replacing Preferred Xtra with streaming and I'd need YTTV + Philio + PBS (although Philio is supposed to get PBS or may have gotten it) and I'd still miss on 3 - 5 channels I "want". Already at $75/mo. Right now I'm paying $90 for my setup since part of my promos rolled off and they raised rates. My big promo falls off in a few months, so if they don't re-up me as they have for like 10+ yrs... then I'll look at TMobile TV.


YTTV has PBS...at least in my zip code.

There are a lot of channels on the Premier package that I would not need to replicate. The reason I am on Premiere is I wanted HBO, Showtime, and Starz and the cheapest way was to upgrade the package to Premiere which gets all of the premium channels (except epix).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> Have you ever worked at a large company? I work at the main campus of a large company. We've got 5 buildings and a private street, etc. Probably at least a dozen BUs if not more. There is ZERO collaboration between BUs here. If anything, every BU hates every other BU. As a matter of fact, even within my own BU, there's dev, QA, database, data content, etc. Very little collab between those groups. People here are rude and lazy to each other, etc. Groups play political games against each other, etc. Other companies I've worked at, groups were "us vs. them" too.


Do you work for Google? If not, painting every company with the same brush is not appropriate.



> And you wonder why I'm looking for a new job lmao...


Hopefully you find a place that isn't painted by your brush.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Do you work for Google? If not, painting every company with the same brush is not appropriate.
> 
> Hopefully you find a place that isn't painted by your brush.


I tend to stay at companies too long, so I'd say in my career I've worked at 7 companies. 4 of them (including my current one) have been like that. 2 others were more clique based. So that's 6/7 that weren't one big happy family. I don't work at Google, but I'd be willing to bet money its not all sunshine and rainbows there and not all the groups work together like one big happy family either.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

gio12 said:


> Dont you have to have ONE main box?
> No 4k right? So pointless and
> more than I pay now


You have to take one AT&T TV streaming box and connect it to your home network. That's how they determine what your home network is. Once that's done, then you're free to use the AT&T TV app on your own Apple TV, Fire TV and Roku devices that are connected to that network. (Actually, future availability of the app on Roku is up in the air.)

You don't need to actually use AT&T's device if you don't want to. The AT&T police aren't going to show up and question you about which devices you're using, just as they don't care if you only ever use your C61 and HR54 but never your HR34.

As for 4K, nothing has been officially announced yet. But then AT&T TV itself hasn't officially launched yet either. The AT&T TV streaming device supports 4K, HDR10 and HLG. AT&T leaders have repeatedly indicated that the service will be flagship-quality, equal to or better than DTV.

We'll have to see how pricing for AT&T TV plays out but again, AT&T leaders have repeatedly indicated that it should cost less than DTV given that it costs much less to acquire new customers. In the pilot markets so far, packages and pricing are pretty much the same for AT&T TV vs. DTV. At any rate, AT&T TV is not going to cost MORE than DTV.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> That sucks. I was looking at upgrading my house and was looking at one that had GF. I would have gotten GF TV. Is GF straight up IP TV? I think it was NashGuy who said TVision (TMobile) is a bastardized hybrid of IP TV and streaming.


Yes, Google Fiber TV is straight-up traditional managed IPTV, like AT&T Uverse TV (but with much better picture quality thanks to the greater bandwidth of Google's FTTH network versus the Uverse FTTN network). Linear channels are transmitted as multicast streams. You can read a brief tech summary here:
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001092255.pdf

These kinds of first-gen IPTV platforms are dying. Instead, MVPDs around the world are shifting to a more flexible cloud-based OTT-based distribution system that can serve virtually any device connected to any network. But they may also include some aspects of managed IPTV (specifically, multicast streams) for capable devices that are connected to their own broadband network. This is exactly what AT&T TV is.

As for the technical specifics of TVision, I'm not really sure. Perhaps it's all OTT unicast streams? But if so, it doesn't really benefit from that fact because it still forces you to use a certain approved local broadband network for access, and then to use only their own equipment. There's no TVision app you can run on your Apple TV or your iPhone.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, Google Fiber TV is straight-up traditional managed IPTV, like AT&T Uverse TV (but with much better picture quality thanks to the greater bandwidth of Google's FTTH network versus the Uverse FTTN network). Linear channels are transmitted as multicast streams. You can read a brief tech summary here:
> https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001092255.pdf
> 
> These kinds of first-gen IPTV platforms are dying. Instead, MVPDs around the world are shifting to a more flexible cloud-based OTT-based distribution system that can serve virtually any device connected to any network. But they may also include some aspects of managed IPTV (specifically, multicast streams) for capable devices that are connected to their own broadband network. This is exactly what AT&T TV is.
> ...


Yes, you do have to run their boxes... usually, there's only one real broadband in an area anyways, so it isn't a big deal imo. In my city, the main provider is Cox up to 1Gbps. AT&T has fiber in some of the recent construction, but in my neighborhood, they only go up to 100Mbps over DSL or whatever over phone lines. Google Fiber also has some of the new construction areas. My city has mostly buried utilities, several years ago, the mayor was bragging about us being an early GF city. Too bad GF flopped. Digging up the streets was too expensive, other providers didn't want to share poles or buried trenches/conduits and their shallow trenching technique didn't work well.

One thing that has me worried about TVision is I don't hear about people having it... like AT ALL... so they may shut it down or it'll flop, etc. Then I'll be back at square one. Maybe they are waiting for 5G to really push it out?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> Google Fiber also has some of the new construction areas. My city has mostly buried utilities, several years ago, the mayor was bragging about us being an early GF city. Too bad GF flopped. Digging up the streets was too expensive, other providers didn't want to share poles or buried trenches/conduits and their shallow trenching technique didn't work well.


Oh, I know all about all of that. I got my "Fiber is coming" t-shirt in the mail from Google years ago. It's rollout here in Nashville has been, uh, underwhelming. I'm just glad I have a choice between Comcast and AT&T Fiber/Toast.



SledgeHammer said:


> One thing that has me worried about TVision is I don't hear about people having it... like AT ALL... so they may shut it down or it'll flop, etc. Then I'll be back at square one. Maybe they are waiting for 5G to really push it out?


Well, there's very little marketing done for TVision. And, really, why should folks where you live buy Cox broadband and TVision separately as opposed to bundling Cox broadband and their X1-based Contour TV? What's supposed to be the reason TVision is better? Is it cheaper when you consider the fact that you're paying the full standalone price for Cox broadband? I would bet TVision has better picture quality but most folks aren't all that concerned about that. From a market perspective, TVision just seems like a tough sell.

T-Mobile's website does indicate that they envision deploying TVision over their wireless 5G/4G home broadband service in the future. We'll see.

At any rate, whether or not TVision is right for you is a separate question of whether or not it's going to be popular enough to survive long-term. You may like it.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Oh, I know all about all of that. I got my "Fiber is coming" t-shirt in the mail from Google years ago. It's rollout here in Nashville has been, uh, underwhelming. I'm just glad I have a choice between Comcast and AT&T Fiber/Toast.
> 
> Well, there's very little marketing done for TVision. And, really, why should folks where you live buy Cox broadband and TVision separately as opposed to bundling Cox broadband and their X1-based Contour TV? What's supposed to be the reason TVision is better? Is it cheaper when you consider the fact that you're paying the full standalone price for Cox broadband? I would bet TVision has better picture quality but most folks aren't all that concerned about that. From a market perspective, TVision just seems like a tough sell.
> 
> ...


TVision uses HEVC and supports 4K and supposedly "no hidden fees" except for the small print on the ad about no hidden fees, there is a $10 hidden fee . My Gig service with Cox bounces between 600Mbps and 800Mbps. Occasionally it gets up to 900Mbps. I don't think the Cox PQ is there... it can't be delivering over Coax vs. a HEVC stream. I priced it out a few years ago and they charge a lot for additional TVs since for cable that puts drain on the system.

The selling point seems to be high quality a&v minus a LITTLE bit of the cost and without the hassle of juggling streaming providers... but yeah, I think for most it will be a tough sell.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> You have to take one AT&T TV streaming box and connect it to your home network. That's how they determine what your home network is. Once that's done, then you're free to use the AT&T TV app on your own Apple TV, Fire TV and Roku devices that are connected to that network. (Actually, future availability of the app on Roku is up in the air.)
> 
> You don't need to actually use AT&T's device if you don't want to. The AT&T police aren't going to show up and question you about which devices you're using, just as they don't care if you only ever use your C61 and HR54 but never your HR34.
> 
> ...


And a box I have to pay for! No thanks

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

gio12 said:


> And a box I have to pay for! No thanks


_Sigh_. How many times must we rehash the same basic facts, over and over? The first AT&T TV box is included free with the service. It's yours to keep forever (as long as you do not terminate your contract early; if you do, you may have to return the box, along with paying the early termination fee of $15 for every month left on your contract).


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> _Sigh_. How many times must we rehash the same basic facts, over and over? The first AT&T TV box is included free with the service. It's yours to keep forever (as long as you do not terminate your contract early; if you do, you may have to return the box, along with paying the early termination fee of $15 for every month left on your contract).


Boxes are good for the providers. More $$$, tighter integration with the service, more potential for cool/exclusive features, better security of the system and content, more branding, etc. Plus who wants to build and maintain 10 different versions of the app? If not more.

Imagine being a developer for CBS - hey NashGuy&#8230; we need you to build our new app... we'll need an LG version for their TVs, an iPhone version, an android version, something that can run on Windows & Mac, Sony's platform of course, and don't forget Roku, NvidiaShield, etc.

As streaming gets more mature, I bet apps that can run anywhere will go away... or start to be monetized some how.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

That isn't going to happen. What will slowly go away is the archaic providers who force boxes and fees on customers.

I presume you don't have a post-millennial on the house? If you did, you'd realize the wave of change is only getting bigger.



SledgeHammer said:


> Boxes are good for the providers. More $$$, tighter integration with the service, more potential for cool/exclusive features, better security of the system and content, more branding, etc. Plus who wants to build and maintain 10 different versions of the app? If not more.
> 
> Imagine being a developer for CBS - hey NashGuy&#8230; we need you to build our new app... we'll need an LG version for their TVs, an iPhone version, an android version, something that can run on Windows & Mac, Sony's platform of course, and don't forget Roku, NvidiaShield, etc.
> 
> As streaming gets more mature, I bet apps that can run anywhere will go away... or start to be monetized some how.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> _Sigh_. How many times must we rehash the same basic facts, over and over? The first AT&T TV box is included free with the service. It's yours to keep forever (as long as you do not terminate your contract early; if you do, you may have to return the box, along with paying the early termination fee of $15 for every month left on your contract).


Well excuse me. Did not no and don't want a box, free with a fox on my network. In don't like Att&t Sam I am

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> TVision uses HEVC and supports 4K and supposedly "no hidden fees" except for the small print on the ad about no hidden fees, there is a $10 hidden fee . My Gig service with Cox bounces between 600Mbps and 800Mbps. Occasionally it gets up to 900Mbps. I don't think the Cox PQ is there... it can't be delivering over Coax vs. a HEVC stream. I priced it out a few years ago and they charge a lot for additional TVs since for cable that puts drain on the system.
> 
> The selling point seems to be high quality a&v minus a LITTLE bit of the cost and without the hassle of juggling streaming providers... but yeah, I think for most it will be a tough sell.


Yeah, AT&T TV uses HEVC streams too and they look great. I'm going to laugh if you end up opting for AT&T TV instead of TVision! Looks like TVision costs $100/mo when you include the main DVR/receiver. And that's after a $10/mo bill credit that was, I believe, originally only for T-Mobile cellular customers but they're now giving to everyone. Smaller boxes for each additional TV cost an extra $10/mo each.

Right now, in the pilot markets, the cost for standalone AT&T TV's Xtra package (very similar to TVision's base package) is about $83/mo in the first year (including the RSN fee), rising to the regular price thereafter, currently about $132/mo. And you get a $150 Visa gift card. Of course, for now anyway, there's a 2-yr up-front contract. Average net monthly cost over the first 24 months equals about $100/mo. If you want to serve additional TVs, you can either use your own streaming devices (and pay nothing more) or buy additional AT&T TV boxes at $10/mo each during the first year. Then you own them and those charges fall off the bill (unlike with TVision, where you're renting the boxes and will pay for them forever).

TVision has a 400-hour local DVR while AT&T TV has a 500-hour cloud DVR, although it does auto-delete your recordings after 90 days. (Hopefully they extend that because the 90-day limit is, IMO, a weak point in comparison with other cable TV services.)

Doing these comparison has shown me how similarly all these major "flagship" cable TV services are priced to another another for a given set of channels.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

raott said:


> That isn't going to happen. What will slowly go away is the archaic providers who force boxes and fees on customers.
> 
> I presume you don't have a post-millennial on the house? If you did, you'd realize the wave of change is only getting bigger.


Yep, my kids stop using a directv box almost 2 years ago and love Hulu.
12 and 15.

I am 50 and tired of this old TV model.
Only old TV I use is a Tivo bolt for backup for football.

The idea of a box, leasing, free, etc is dead or will be dead.

I want to add an TV to the pool deck. Guess what? No box, wires, etc. 
Just an app and bam!

Some new TVs now support the AppleTV app instead of using that! Which is better and easier than any box from anyone.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

raott said:


> That isn't going to happen. What will slowly go away is the archaic providers who force boxes and fees on customers.
> 
> I presume you don't have a post-millennial on the house? If you did, you'd realize the wave of change is only getting bigger.


Nope... but I seriously doubt any provider is worried about the 13 yr old girl crowd that watches 15 mins of TV a month on her 6" iPhone. And she probably isn't even watching that much, she'll just watch whatever is on Netflix.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

gio12 said:


> Well excuse me. Did not no and don't want a box, free with a fox on my network. In don't like Att&t Sam I am
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


To me, it doesn't matter if it's ATT or any other, the day of a proprietary box is over. Don't care if its 'free', because it comes with a contract, those are over for me too!
So as I make the shift away from cable, it won't be a cable/sat replacement service. It will be a bought and paid for Tivo with lifetime guide service for OTA and a combo of a few services. Total outlay around $70/month max!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

gio12 said:


> Yep, my kids stop using a directv box almost 2 years ago and love Hulu.
> 12 and 15.
> 
> I am 50 and tired of this old TV model.
> ...


Reading from the posts on here... the majority of people that stream say the TV built in apps suck. I can tell you that on my LG OLED, the experience sucks because the remote is not laid out for navigating... most TV remotes aren't. To move around on the timeline for example, I pretty much have to get my magic remote to aim at a 1" x 1" square from across the room.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> Reading from the posts on here... the majority of people that stream say the TV built in apps suck. I can tell you that on my LG OLED, the experience sucks because the remote is not laid out for navigating... most TV remotes aren't. To move around on the timeline for example, I pretty much have to get my magic remote to aim and a 1" x 1" square from across the room.


I stuck with using the built-in apps on my LG OLED for just over a year, at least for those services that *had* an app on it. When I wanted to stream from the HBO Now or Showtime apps, I had to switch over to my old Apple TV 3.

And then I got a free Apple TV 4K when I signed up for DirecTV Now for 4 months. Now I watch *everything* through my Apple TV 4K, even live and recorded OTA TV. Love it.

I just chuckle when folks get so up in arms about the concept of using the AT&T TV box. It's just a streaming device that runs a customized version of Google's Android TV. Y'know, the same thing that runs on the Nvidia Shield TV streaming box. The same thing that's used by high-end Sony TVs as their built-in smart TV system.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, AT&T TV uses HEVC streams too and they look great. I'm going to laugh if you end up opting for AT&T TV instead of TVision! Looks like TVision costs $100/mo when you include the main DVR/receiver. And that's after a $10/mo bill credit that was, I believe, originally only for T-Mobile cellular customers but they're now giving to everyone. Smaller boxes for each additional TV cost an extra $10/mo each.
> 
> Right now, in the pilot markets, the cost for standalone AT&T TV's Xtra package (very similar to TVision's base package) is about $83/mo in the first year (including the RSN fee), rising to the regular price thereafter, currently about $132/mo. And you get a $150 Visa gift card. Of course, for now anyway, there's a 2-yr up-front contract. Average net monthly cost over the first 24 months equals about $100/mo. If you want to serve additional TVs, you can either use your own streaming devices (and pay nothing more) or buy additional AT&T TV boxes at $10/mo each during the first year. Then you own them and those charges fall off the bill (unlike with TVision, where you're renting the boxes and will pay for them forever).
> 
> ...


My Preferred Extra + HR54 + AM21 is now up to $89.99 after the price hike and a small promo roll off. The other $40 will roll off in a month or two. Then it'll go up to $130 out the door. If they don't re-up me... why would I pay $132/mo when I can pay $130 (129.99 actually) out the door and not have to deal with the bugs of a new service or my data cap. At $130, I'd go to TVision and pay $100/mo. If they D brings me back to the $80's, I'd stick with them for at least another year. Once I took a SledgeHammer  to my slow as a snail HR24 and upgraded to the HR54, I'm happy with the service and the functionality and the speed. PQ could be better. Dunno if it can be $20/mo better though lol.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> I stuck with using the built-in apps on my LG OLED for just over a year, at least for those services that *had* an app on it. When I wanted to stream from the HBO Now or Showtime apps, I had to switch over to my old Apple TV 3.
> 
> And then I got a free Apple TV 4K when I signed up for DirecTV Now for 4 months. Now I watch *everything* through my Apple TV 4K, even live and recorded OTA TV. Love it.
> 
> I just chuckle when folks get so up in arms about the concept of using the AT&T TV box. It's just a streaming device that runs a customized version of Google's Android TV. Y'know, the same thing that runs on the Nvidia Shield TV streaming box. The same thing that's used by high-end Sony TVs as their built-in smart TV system.


If I go streaming, I'd get a streaming box for the better usability + to let my TV CPU do cool TV stuff rather then streaming stuff. Besides, TVs don't have all the apps that say a Roku does... not only that... some providers drop support for TVs after a few years. I've gotten some popups on my 2016 TV about providers dropping support for it. Hello... its 3 yrs old!!


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> My Preferred Extra + HR54 + AM21 is now up to $89.99 after the price hike and a small promo roll off. The other $40 will roll off in a month or two. Then it'll go up to $130 out the door. If they don't re-up me... why would I pay $132/mo when I can pay $130 (129.99 actually) out the door and not have to deal with the bugs of a new service or my data cap. At $130, I'd go to TVision and pay $100/mo. If they D brings me back to the $80's, I'd stick with them for at least another year. Once I took a SledgeHammer  to my slow as a snail HR24 and upgraded to the HR54, I'm happy with the service and the functionality and the speed. PQ could be better. Dunno if it can be $20/mo better though lol.


Go back and re-read my post. You seem to have missed the part where the average monthly cost you'd pay for Xtra on AT&T TV is only $100 per month (i.e. a total of $2,430 over 24 months after subtracting the value of the $150 Visa gift card). So in other words, the same price as TVision. And that's assuming that you're only getting service to 1 TV. If you want service to 2 or 3 TVs, then you'll pay $10 more per month for each of those TVs in the second year on TVision. With either TVision or AT&T TV, you'd have to worry about data caps (unless you switched to AT&T for broadband).

As for bugs, we don't know yet how buggy AT&T TV will be. (Frankly, that's my biggest question about it, not whether it will have 4K or other missing channels.) But multiple firsthand reports for TVision/Layer3 over the past few years have indicated it's had quite a few ongoing bugs. Maybe they've finally gotten them squashed?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Go back and re-read my post. You seem to have missed the part where the average monthly cost you'd pay for Xtra on AT&T TV is only $100 per month (i.e. a total of $2,430 over 24 months after subtracting the value of the $150 Visa gift card). So in other words, the same price as TVision. And that's assuming that you're only getting service to 1 TV. If you want service to 2 or 3 TVs, then you'll pay $10 more per month for each of those TVs in the second year on TVision. With either TVision or AT&T TV, you'd have to worry about data caps (unless you switched to AT&T for broadband).
> 
> As for bugs, we don't know yet how buggy AT&T TV will be. (Frankly, that's my biggest question about it, not whether it will have 4K or other missing channels.) But multiple firsthand reports for TVision/Layer3 over the past few years have indicated it's had quite a few ongoing bugs. Maybe they've finally gotten them squashed?


Yeah, I saw that... but that's just another "promo"... at year 3 it'll go up to the full $130, no? TMobile claims TVision will stay at the current price lol...

Yes, data caps is also a concern for either which is why I hope D re-ups me.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Uh....the 15-18 year old will be paying bills very soon. You think like the cable company execs....no offense.



SledgeHammer said:


> Nope... but I seriously doubt any provider is worried about the 13 yr old girl crowd that watches 15 mins of TV a month on her 6" iPhone. And she probably isn't even watching that much, she'll just watch whatever is on Netflix.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

raott said:


> Uh....the 15-18 year old will be paying bills very soon. You think like the cable company execs....no offense.


Do your kids watch TV? Everybody I know that has kids says they don't pretty much. They either hang out with the friends or just find something on Netflix. But small sample size, so ymmv. So far, the number of folks streaming TV (not talking about something like Netflix), but Live TV, is negligible. And the sky isn't falling... its been pointed out numerous times that Dish GAINED customers last quarter. The sky is only falling on DirecTV because of the customer service issues and peoples irrational hatred of T.

I'm willing to bet very few 18 yr olds are spending $100+/mo on TV. 18-25 are probably still account sharing Netflix lol.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Do your kids watch TV? Everybody I know that has kids says they don't pretty much. They either hang out with the friends or just find something on Netflix. But small sample size, so ymmv. So far, the number of folks streaming TV (not talking about something like Netflix), but Live TV, is negligible. And the sky isn't falling... its been pointed out numerous times that Dish GAINED customers last quarter. The sky is only falling on DirecTV because of the customer service issues and peoples irrational hatred of T.
> 
> I'm willing to bet very few 18 yr olds are spending $100+/mo on TV. 18-25 are probably still account sharing Netflix lol.


Dish satellite didn't gain subscribers, SlingTV did.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> To me, it doesn't matter if it's ATT or any other, the day of a proprietary box is over. Don't care if its 'free', because it comes with a contract, those are over for me too!
> So as I make the shift away from cable, it won't be a cable/sat replacement service. It will be a bought and paid for Tivo with lifetime guide service for OTA and a combo of a few services. Total outlay around $70/month max!
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Same here, YTTV, Philo and TiVo Bolt for $77 a month

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> Yeah, I saw that... but that's just another "promo"... at year 3 it'll go up to the full $130, no? TMobile claims TVision will stay at the current price lol...
> 
> Yes, data caps is also a concern for either which is why I hope D re-ups me.


Yeah, in year 3, you'd be paying whatever the regular price is for the Xtra package by then. (It's about $130 right now.) But, as I say, you'd pay nothing more to extend that service to your 2nd and 3rd TVs. With TVision, you'd still pay $10/mo extra for each of those, bringing the total to $120/mo. And assuming TVision still exists by then, it's quite possible that that $10/mo credit they're now offering everyone would go back to being exclusive to T-Mo's cellular customers. In the case, the cost would be even.

Who knows. IMO, what's the point of trying to plan more than 2 years out? The TV landscape is changing so quickly. (And I seriously doubt that TVision will still charge the same price 2 years down the road for the same set of channels. Content costs keep going up and TVision has a tiny subscriber base, so their carriage rates must be significantly higher than what AT&T pays.)

Also, my guess is that Xtra won't even be an option on AT&T TV when it launches nationwide next week. Instead, you'd be choosing from newly expanded Plus and Max packages, both including HBO Max. We'll soon see...


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Keep thinking like the cable company execs. Satellite and linear tv is done...like it or not. They dug their own grave. It's worked out amazingly for them so far!



SledgeHammer said:


> Do your kids watch TV? Everybody I know that has kids says they don't pretty much. They either hang out with the friends or just find something on Netflix. But small sample size, so ymmv. So far, the number of folks streaming TV (not talking about something like Netflix), but Live TV, is negligible. And the sky isn't falling... its been pointed out numerous times that Dish GAINED customers last quarter. The sky is only falling on DirecTV because of the customer service issues and peoples irrational hatred of T.
> 
> I'm willing to bet very few 18 yr olds are spending $100+/mo on TV. 18-25 are probably still account sharing Netflix lol.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Reading from the posts on here... the majority of people that stream say the TV built in apps suck. I can tell you that on my LG OLED, the experience sucks because the remote is not laid out for navigating... most TV remotes aren't. To move around on the timeline for example, I pretty much have to get my magic remote to aim at a 1" x 1" square from across the room.


I have a LG OLED with the Magic Remote and a LG 4K with the regular remote. The built in Apps are far easier to use as you just point.
Easier than any other other remote. The App quality is fine but updates slower that ATV. Also had a few issues at times apps freezing blaming my "broadband connection." Does net happen on the AppleTV.
The ATV remote blows. So I use a Harmony remote now and very happy on the OLED.
The other LG I use my DIRECTV remote.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> Boxes are good for the providers. More $$$, tighter integration with the service, more potential for cool/exclusive features, better security of the system and content, more branding, etc. Plus who wants to build and maintain 10 different versions of the app? If not more.
> 
> Imagine being a developer for CBS - hey NashGuy&#8230; we need you to build our new app... we'll need an LG version for their TVs, an iPhone version, an android version, something that can run on Windows & Mac, Sony's platform of course, and don't forget Roku, NvidiaShield, etc.
> 
> As streaming gets more mature, I bet apps that can run anywhere will go away... or start to be monetized some how.


There's really no getting away from supporting apps for various platforms. A given provider may not develop and maintain their app for *every* platform but they'll have to do it for at least ONE of the big TV-connected platforms (Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV), along with iOS and Android for mobile. Both market demand and political pressure ensure this. (As for political pressure, I'm referring to the "Unlock the Box" push at the FCC under Obama to update the CableCARD standard to make it software-based and applicable to all cable/sat/IPTV services. That push failed and it was essentially decided that the way forward would be for those services to simply distribute their service via apps for popular retail devices, like the Xfinity Stream app for Roku.)

IMO, the best way forward for a full-scale cable TV service is to do what both AT&T TV and Xfinity TV do: offer your own high-quality 4K HDR device with a UI and voice remote that are customized to your specific service but then make it optional so that customers can instead, if they choose, just access the full service via your app on their own retail devices.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

gio12 said:


> Same here, YTTV, Philo and TiVo Bolt for $77 a month
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I'm going the other way. Netflix, CBS, Hulu, Peacock, Disney+, AppleTV+, and HBO Max (probably)

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> I'm going the other way. Netflix, CBS, Hulu, Peacock, Disney+, AppleTV+, and HBO Max (probably)
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


I have Netflix, Prime, Disney+ and AppleTV+.

In don't factor Netflix into TV. Had for year's with DIRECTV.
Prime Video a bonus for my Amazon account.
AppleTV+ Free this year with new iPhone.
Disney+ free first year with Verizon.
Peacock will be free with my Comcast Internet.

Will keep Disney for movies.
Apple, will see what content they offer long term and pricing

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Oh please, they all cooperate on collecting and utilizing personal information. You really think that there's a wall between Google Search, Chrome, Android and Youtube? In your dreams!


Collecting personal information yes, forcing Google Fiber to bundle with YTTV over any other service no


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Rich said:


> An acquaintance of mine signed up with T-Mobile a few months ago. He really likes the phone service but he seems to be thrilled with everything he buys. He switched from Verizon. Hard to take info from people that think everything they buy is great just because _they _bought it. Can't imagine dropping Verizon.
> 
> Rich


I dropped VZW a couple of years ago for TMobile and I have no issues with it. Saved some money and it works well where i live. Only issue I have is there are some spots at work where it doesn't work well, but I have access to my work's internet, so it doesn't bother me. And, there's TMObile Tuesday where you get some free perks, the best of which is MLB AB to watch games out of market. Saves me about $149 a year for that. That's like getting a free month of phone service.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

raott said:


> Keep thinking like the cable company execs. Satellite and linear tv is done...like it or not. They dug their own grave. It's worked out amazingly for them so far!


So you think a business model where you give away all your content for free or STEEPLY discounted prices is a better business model? We've already seen a few providers fold and the other providers are ramping up prices at 20% to 30% a year. In a few years, streaming will be the same price as sat / cable. In my case, it almost is... 2 service providers to get my "must have" channels = $75 and that's still missing 2 or 3.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Honestly....the edge cutter site and solid signal are probably the best forums for those three to four holdouts who can't see that change has come and still worship linear providers and are convinced the next satellite launch is just around the corner. Check them out. Many others moving on.



SledgeHammer said:


> So you think a business model where you give away all your content for free or STEEPLY discounted prices is a better business model? We've already seen a few providers fold and the other providers are ramping up prices at 20% to 30% a year. In a few years, streaming will be the same price as sat / cable. In my case, it almost is... 2 service providers to get my "must have" channels = $75 and that's still missing 2 or 3.


----------



## bmetelsky (Mar 1, 2009)

raott said:


> Honestly....the edge cutter site and solid signal are probably the best forums for those three to four holdouts who can't see that change has come and still worship linear providers and are convinced the next satellite launch is just around the corner. Check them out. Many others moving on.


You are seriously deluded if you believe your own b.s. This website is dbstalk.com, not cordcutters.com. There are many, myself included, that continue to find value in the offerings of "linear providers" and aren't worshiping anything.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

bmetelsky said:


> You are seriously deluded if you believe your own b.s. This website is dbstalk.com, not cordcutters.com. There are many, myself included, that continue to find value in the offerings of "linear providers" and aren't worshiping anything.


Yes, typical Raott. Lol. Argues incessantly about stuff plain as day to just about everybody else on the planet and ignores every piece of evidence presented that proves he's wrong. Cord cutters FOR LIVE TV account for almost nothing... 0 - 4% vs. Cable / Sat, depending on who you believe. Even if its a bit higher at 5% - 7% which I don't believe it is even close to that high, the sky, is in fact, not falling.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 18, 2005)

Don't get personal guys...


----------



## pmayo2002 (Mar 30, 2002)

phrelin said:


> I have great, albeit only 90Mbps, service. But most of the subdivision does not have service. Only about 1,500 homes were ever built even though 60 miles of streets were put in. When someone on an unserved street asks, Comcast says they will serve them, but the customer will bear the infrastructure costs which are quoted as $800.00 and up, mostly up and frequently over $2,000. Yet if you ask state or federal agencies they will insist the area is "served."
> 
> Then I started looking at the wireless map. It's based on even bigger lies. Sure, your drone can get service in the entire region as long as its 500+ feet off the ground.
> 
> ...


Agree 100%. We live in an under served area. Even though if you do a broadband search you will find it is served. ATT provides 3MB/s DSL but refuses new home connects. Comcast who services home about 100 yards away will not enter our street. Have gotten quotes of 30K to 65K to run service to our area. There is no regulatory body for cable in the State of Florida. Used to be county franchise where you could put political pressure to get things done. So we are using a ATT hotspot with unlimited/uncapped data - costs a bundle.


----------



## LTYRS (Sep 23, 2019)

Just dropping this here for the hell of it, I know it's an old story that keeps coming back but it is what it is.

https://www.thestreet.com/investing...y-to-happen?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO&yptr=yahoo


----------



## LTYRS (Sep 23, 2019)

Maybe Dish Network should stick to satellite, their online service not doing so well.

Sling TV reports first-ever subscriber decline


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Mr Ergan is keeping the door open for a merger. The way AT&T|DIRECTV is going he could get a fire sale price. And while DISH is diversifying into phone service, Mr Ergen's heart is in satellite. A commitment that the leaders of AT&T don't have.

AT&T|DIRECTV lost more streaming customers in 4Q than DISH lost on both sides of their business - plus DIRECTV lost nearly a million more satellite customers in 4Q. SlingTV had a decent gain in the 3rd Quarter and is facing increased competition from other similar services. Their subscriber losses are nowhere near the snowball that AT&T|DIRECTV is undergoing.

(AT&T|DIRECTV lost over 4 million net subscribers, 3.4 million satellite and 600k streaming, last year. DISH lost 336k net subscribers, 511k lost satellite and 175k gained streaming. DISH is doing OK.)


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> Mr Ergan is keeping the door open for a merger. The way AT&T|DIRECTV is going he could get a fire sale price. And while DISH is diversifying into phone service, Mr Ergen's heart is in satellite. A commitment that the leaders of AT&T don't have.
> 
> AT&T|DIRECTV lost more streaming customers in 4Q than DISH lost on both sides of their business - plus DIRECTV lost nearly a million more satellite customers in 4Q. SlingTV had a decent gain in the 3rd Quarter and is facing increased competition from other similar services. Their subscriber losses are nowhere near the snowball that AT&T|DIRECTV is undergoing.
> 
> (AT&T|DIRECTV lost over 4 million net subscribers, 3.4 million satellite and 600k streaming, last year. DISH lost 336k net subscribers, 511k lost satellite and 175k gained streaming. DISH is doing OK.)


If that happens...what would happen? Would the Hoppers become the DVR of choice? I'd think YES would still be carried.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Regardless of ownership, I'd expect the systems to remain technologically separate for a few years.
While it is possible for DISH receivers and DIRECTV receivers to share MPEG4 satellite feeds, there is no benefit to immediately discontinuing either system's technology.

The biggest benefit would come through combining operations such as customer support and management.

A merger would suffer the same problems as DIRECTV and UVERSE ... contracts for DIRECTV do not apply to UVERSE distribution and vice versa. It has taken years for the separate contracts to expire and for AT&T to write new contracts covering both services. A merger would not instantly add the RSNs to DISH or Pac-12 to DIRECTV (although new blood may lead to new discussions and agreements). And if AT&T tries to sell DIRECTV separate from UVERSE they could have problems keeping the contracts they have signed. They would definitely have problems when those contracts came up for renewal and they were a 5 million (or less) subscriber company instead of an 19 million subscriber powerhouse.

Best case would be AT&T selling DIRECTV, UVERSE and AT&T TV as a package. It would be the cleanest transition.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Regardless of ownership, I'd expect the systems to remain technologically separate for a few years.


I think you need to add a few zeros to your estimate of a "few years" if dish & directv merged . I don't think they'd ever merge it all into one system as that would be too cost prohibitive and logistically impossible.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> If that happens...what would happen? Would the Hoppers become the DVR of choice? I'd think YES would still be carried.
> 
> Rich


Like I keep saying, the day when it would make sense to merge Directv and Dish has passed. There is no way to integrate the customer base, satellite will probably cease to be or be very close to ceasing to be a viable product around the time Directv's current fleet begins to need replacement a decade from now.

The new company would need to make hardware that works on both systems, meaning it would have to work with Directv's reverse band plans. The Hopper 3 has two 8 tuner chips in it, just like the HS17. A follow on version of it that had the same two chips would support only 7 tuners on Directv's system, just like the HS17.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> I think you need to add a few zeros to your estimate of a "few years" if dish & directv merged . I don't think they'd ever merge it all into one system as that would be too cost prohibitive and logistically impossible.


Maybe one zero if you are reading "a few years" as "a couple years". Technology changes quickly enough that I don't expect either company's technology to be stagnent for 10 years.

At the current rate of decline DIRECTV will run out of customers in 8 years. DISH will run out of customers in 17 years. I expect the losses to level off. At current rates, DISH will have more customers than AT&T in 2023.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> The new company would need to make hardware that works on both systems ...


Not immediately. Twelve years after merging SiriusXM has only one radio that picks up both Sirius and XM signals.


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

Charlie Ergen calls Dish merger with DirecTV "inevitable"


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Regardless of ownership, I'd expect the systems to remain technologically separate for a few years.
> While it is possible for DISH receivers and DIRECTV receivers to share MPEG4 satellite feeds, there is no benefit to immediately discontinuing either system's technology.
> 
> The biggest benefit would come through combining operations such as customer support and management.
> ...


Yeah. If they merged, there would be some cost savings from merging billing, customer service, installation, etc. The biggest shot in the arm economically, though, would simply be the elimination of each other's only direct competitor.

I would expect all current subscribers to keep their existing (grandfathered) channel packages and hardware. A new unified brand name would be adopted by the combined company and a single set of channel packages would be sold to all new subscribers. All new installations would use a particular set of hardware. My guess is they'd go with a modified version of the DISH Hopper and Joey mated with rooftop dishes and wiring compatible with the DTV fleet of sats. Both fleets of sats would remain in operation until they die, or the business dies, whichever comes first.

AT&T won't sell off AT&T TV and Uverse TV with DTV. They operated Uverse TV before they ever acquired DTV because they needed their own cable TV service to pair with their home broadband product. And now that they own HBO and the Warner basic cable channels (CNN, TBS, TNT, etc.), it makes even more economic sense for them to operate their own MVPD. They're not going to sell off AT&T Fiber, so they won't sell off the IPTV services that go with it. In fact, they're going to venture further into home broadband with fixed wireless 5G/LTE service (as T-Mobile and Verizon already do).

When it's time for AT&T to renegotiate their channel carriage contracts for AT&T TV after they've sold off DTV in a few years, yes, they'll have significantly fewer subs and therefore will get worse carriage rates. But cable TV will have continued to fade away in the interim, and the company will have (they hope) built up HBO Max, which is what the really care about long-term, not AT&T TV or DTV.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah. If they merged, there would be some cost savings from merging billing, customer service, installation, etc. *The biggest shot in the arm economically, though, would simply be the elimination of each other's only direct competitor.*


I think the days of called DirecTV DISH's only direct competitor are over. At one time they were the only two "national" TV providers. Now, there's lots of competition for that. I don't think being a "Satellite" provider has the cache it once did.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> I think the days of called DirecTV DISH's only direct competitor are over. At one time they were the only two "national" TV providers. Now, there's lots of competition for that. I don't think being a "Satellite" provider has the cache it once did.


Yeah, I agree in general. What I specifically was thinking of is that pool of rural customers for whom the only choices for cable TV are DirecTV and DISH. They are very much each other's only direct competitor there, and some portion of that market cycles between the two options. Both services have to be very mindful of the other in terms of their pricing and policies.


----------



## mopardude01 (Aug 3, 2013)

There is also Orby Tv, for us rural folks. Seems to be a pretty fair service as far as I can tell.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mopardude01 said:


> There is also Orby Tv, for us rural folks. Seems to be a pretty fair service as far as I can tell.


Yeah, although given how many channels Orby lacks, I don't think of it as being in the same league as DirecTV and DISH. No locals (unless you can pick them up with an OTA antenna), no ESPN, no Fox News, no USA, etc. But then you can pay as little as $40/mo. for Orby. I also don't know how many rural folks are even aware Orby exists.


----------



## mopardude01 (Aug 3, 2013)

I'm doing my best to get the word out about Orby,I like it just fine, I do miss Fox News. But that is all I miss from D*.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mopardude01 said:


> I'm doing my best to get the word out about Orby,I like it just fine, I do miss Fox News. But that is all I miss from D*.


That explains why every post you have made on our site is about Orby. Please make sure that you stay on topic for the threads where you participate.


----------

