# It's been real



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Well.. Here is another I am cancelling thread... Dont worry I will comment later and give myself **** for doing this... More so I just wanted to thank everyone for the help over probably the last decade with Directv. I still love the service, the PQ and the sports options..

But My bill just jumped to 192 a month for Xtra with HBO and we just dont watch the same amount of TV anymore.. 

End Date is 7/13 so will lurk until then. We are switching to YTTV and see how that goes.. Since no one still has my RSN on a streaming service I got a Tivo as a backup for hockey season and will get a cable card from my cable company when that starts. They offer a 30 dollar sports only package.

But again thanks to all of the good people on here


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Good luck with YTTV. I'll miss reading your posts.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

compnurd said:


> Well.. Here is another I am cancelling thread... Dont worry I will comment later and give myself **** for doing this... More so I just wanted to thank everyone for the help over probably the last decade with Directv. I still love the service, the PQ and the sports options..
> 
> But My bill just jumped to 192 a month for Xtra with HBO and we just dont watch the same amount of TV anymore..
> 
> ...


No reason to leave here. I switched to PSVue almost three years ago, not because of the $ but because of the superior technology IMO. I'm now using YTTV but I'm still here. Typically good discussions so I still participate. Not as much as I used to but I'm still here.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> No reason to leave here. I switched to PSVue almost three years ago, not because of the $ but because of the superior technology IMO. I'm now using YTTV but I'm still here. Typically good discussions so I still participate. Not as much as I used to but I'm still here.


I know. I will still be around lol


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

compnurd said:


> I know. I will still be around lol


well, you might get a good win back .


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> well, you might get a good win back .


Lol. That might be tough this time. I have been prepping the wife for this coming for awhile and she has finally started to come along. If we switch then go back she will have my nuts and not the way I want lol


----------



## Gary Toma (Mar 23, 2006)

compnurd said:


> Well.. Here is another I am cancelling thread...


Sorry to see you go. You have been around a long, long time. We will miss you.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

Sorry to see ya go bud hope to see you around!


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

If they offer you a comeback offer will you consider it?. Seems like you have a $50 base with YTTV + $30 cable RSN fee + $15 HBO = $95 base compared to $192 before any D* offers. Maybe a $50-$60 per month offer will bring the differential to $37 - $47.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

DirectMan said:


> If they offer you a comeback offer will you consider it?. Seems like you have a $50 base with YTTV + $30 cable RSN fee + $15 HBO = $95 base compared to $192 before any D* offers. Maybe a $50-$60 per month offer will bring the differential to $37 - $47.


I would be good with 100 to 120ish.

I have no issues paying for a premium product but not stupidly paying for one

The 30 dollars isn't all year so I have to factor that in. That and if my some miracle someone gets my local RSN that changes that also

I would have done ATT TV but the second year pricing is nuts But the first year pricing on xtra would have matched what I am targeting now


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

compnurd said:


> I would be good with 100 to 120ish.
> 
> I have no issues paying for a premium product but not stupidly paying for one
> 
> ...


Yeah, I don't get ATT TV. 1/2 the channels of Preferred Xtra for the same price + contract + etf.

"not stupidly paying for one" is a good way of putting it lol.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

First year pricing was dirt cheap as a "new customer".....I won't be paying the second year...I'll eat the ETF....but even with that, it was reasonable for my situation (in an apartment with Spectrum and it's horrific DVR).

But they really need to do something about the second year pricing, it isn't remotely worth it.



SledgeHammer said:


> Yeah, I don't get ATT TV. 1/2 the channels of Preferred Xtra for the same price + contract + etf.
> 
> "not stupidly paying for one" is a good way of putting it lol.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Def stay around, and hopefully give feedback on YTTV and your experience.



compnurd said:


> Well.. Here is another I am cancelling thread... Dont worry I will comment later and give myself **** for doing this... More so I just wanted to thank everyone for the help over probably the last decade with Directv. I still love the service, the PQ and the sports options..
> 
> But My bill just jumped to 192 a month for Xtra with HBO and we just dont watch the same amount of TV anymore..
> 
> ...


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

raott said:


> Def stay around, and hopefully give feedback on YTTV and your experience.


I will Probably going to sign up at the end of the month


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

raott said:


> First year pricing was dirt cheap as a "new customer".....I won't be paying the second year...I'll eat the ETF....but even with that, it was reasonable for my situation (in an apartment with Spectrum and it's horrific DVR).
> 
> But they really need to do something about the second year pricing, it isn't remotely worth it.


I mean I guess I "get" it to an extent.. on Xtra for example while it is double the price of YTTV you do get double the channels


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

raott said:


> First year pricing was dirt cheap as a "new customer".....I won't be paying the second year...I'll eat the ETF....but even with that, it was reasonable for my situation (in an apartment with Spectrum and it's horrific DVR).
> 
> But they really need to do something about the second year pricing, it isn't remotely worth it.


What we don't yet know is if they will have a Loyalty or Retention Department that will start to roll out the same level of discounts as they did with their satellite version. I am of the belief that they will do so because the subscriber counts for their new service is a metric that they will be touting and they will be unlikely to want to report declines especially with a new CEO on board.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan (May 18, 2004)

raott said:


> First year pricing was dirt cheap as a "new customer".....I won't be paying the second year...I'll eat the ETF....but even with that, it was reasonable for my situation (in an apartment with Spectrum and it's horrific DVR).
> 
> But they really need to do something about the second year pricing, it isn't remotely worth it.


Which DVR did Spectrum give you?
Had to switch to Spectrum, due to job losses/being furloughed. The DVR's they initially sent me were the worst ever. Menus looked like 8 bit video games. Buggy and kept locking up. So they had me swap out those for their 4 tuner DVR's. Much better, still a bit quirky. 
Deal I got only added $55/month to my Spectrum bill (already had internet & phone). No contract, cost locked in for 1 year & Channel offerings were similar to D*. DirecTV was costing me $184/month. 
I'll miss Sunday Ticket, but oh well. We'll see what happens with the job situation in one year.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

compnurd said:


> I mean I guess I "get" it to an extent.. on Xtra for example while it is double the price of YTTV you do get double the channels


Don't know if you can consider it 2x the channels lol since they have a lot of filler / garbage channels. They are missing the WB affiliate in Los Angeles as well as PBS and there isn't any way to integrate OTA. Plus there is an RSN. If you are paying that kind of money and don't watch sports (me  ) then Preferred Xtra would be a better choice since you get rid of the RSN. But you like sports, so...


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

It was a basic two tuner DVR. My biggest gripes (other than the horrific channel layouts that are inherent with cable and the soft picture) was that Spectrum has zero cloud or whole home DVR capability currently. They do have a cloud DVR, but only if you only subscribe to their cheaper streaming service rather than full blown cable service.

It was crazy expensive as well. Basic cable plan with two non-dvr boxes comes with my apartment. Adding a DVR was almost $25 a month, maybe more. Crazy expensive for junk equipment and no whole home or cloud. As soon as I saw that first bill I turned the DVR in and went with AT&T TV.



carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> Which DVR did Spectrum give you?
> Had to switch to Spectrum, due to job losses/being furloughed. The DVR's they initially sent me were the worst ever. Menus looked like 8 bit video games. Buggy and kept locking up. So they had me swap out those for their 4 tuner DVR's. Much better, still a bit quirky.
> Deal I got only added $55/month to my Spectrum bill (already had internet & phone). No contract, cost locked in for 1 year & Channel offerings were similar to D*. DirecTV was costing me $184/month.
> I'll miss Sunday Ticket, but oh well. We'll see what happens with the job situation in one year.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

I hope. The service is decent. A few quirks here and there, but it gives me the fit and feel of Directv that I've been used to for 23 years......but it isn't worth double the price next year.



DirectMan said:


> What we don't yet know is if they will have a Loyalty or Retention Department that will start to roll out the same level of discounts as they did with their satellite version. I am of the belief that they will do so because the subscriber counts for their new service is a metric that they will be touting and they will be unlikely to want to report declines especially with a new CEO on board.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Don't know if you can consider it 2x the channels lol since they have a lot of filler / garbage channels. They are missing the WB affiliate in Los Angeles as well as PBS and there isn't any way to integrate OTA. Plus there is an RSN. If you are paying that kind of money and don't watch sports (me  ) then Preferred Xtra would be a better choice since you get rid of the RSN. But you like sports, so...


yeh No matter what there is no one size fits all.... I plan to sign up the end of next week.. Which gives us 10 days to play before we go on vacation for a week


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

compnurd said:


> yeh No matter what there is no one size fits all....


I have that problem with hats ...


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

raott said:


> First year pricing was dirt cheap as a "new customer".....I won't be paying the second year...I'll eat the ETF....but even with that, it was reasonable for my situation (in an apartment with Spectrum and it's horrific DVR).
> 
> But they really need to do something about the second year pricing, it isn't remotely worth it.


i would much rather pay DTV the big bucks rather than give it to spectrum's crapola. the wold box is the worst box out there ever it's full of software bugs and firmware glitches no caller id on it no clock. no cooling fan to cool it off i had one burn up on me when my ac went out. putting the guide up in the cloud is crazy as half of the time it freezes up can't download or is just outright slow...


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

YTTV is not going well lol.. Looking at ATT TV now lol


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

compnurd said:


> YTTV is not going well lol.. Looking at ATT TV now lol


So, the grass wasn't greener?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

raott said:


> I hope. The service is decent. A few quirks here and there, but it gives me the fit and feel of Directv that I've been used to for 23 years......but it isn't worth double the price next year.


Yeah, those 2nd year prices aren't going to fly IMO. Be interesting to see if they'll do discounts for those that complain and let those that don't just pay the exorbitant price, or if they will re-jigger the full retail price for all.

I figure one or the other will happen but it will be almost a year before we see exactly what.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> So, the grass wasn't greener?


So it comes down to hardware. We are ATV people have a ATV4K on about 5 TV's.. The Siri remote for ATV sucks.. This is well known. Well it really sucks on the YTTV app. Driving my wife nuts... What could probably solve things is Siri working in the app to change channels but it doesnt... Just signed up for ATT TV.. for at least a year Xtra with HBO is the exact cost of YTTV with HBO. Also got 200 dollars in Giftcards.. The Hope is the Osprey box solves the channel issues on the main TV due to the remote.. So far at least the ATT TV App is more fluid then the YTTV app also on my ATV


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

The Osprey box is a mixed bag IMO. It does work pretty well with ATT TV but not quite so well with some of the apps available for it. And it is a bit sluggish. The remote is very good and is backlit.

The ATT TV app on the ATV4K does work fairly well though as you note, the remote for the ATV4K doesn’t make it as easy to deal with. The only issue I found using the ATV4K with the ATT TV app is when doing FF. It doesn’t use a thumbnail for that but instead tries to do full screen and just can’t keep up.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> The Osprey box is a mixed bag IMO. It does work pretty well with ATT TV but not quite so well with some of the apps available for it. And it is a bit sluggish. The remote is very good and is backlit.
> 
> The ATT TV app on the ATV4K does work fairly well though as you note, the remote for the ATV4K doesn't make it as easy to deal with. The only issue I found using the ATV4K with the ATT TV app is when doing FF. It doesn't use a thumbnail for that but instead tries to do full screen and just can't keep up.


In all honesty.. We will probably just use the Osprey for Tv at least on 2 TV's that we use the most.. The rest can use the ATV


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

compnurd said:


> So it comes down to hardware. We are ATV people have a ATV4K on about 5 TV's.. The Siri remote for ATV sucks.. This is well known. Well it really sucks on the YTTV app. Driving my wife nuts... What could probably solve things is Siri working in the app to change channels but it doesnt... Just signed up for ATT TV.. for at least a year Xtra with HBO is the exact cost of YTTV with HBO. Also got 200 dollars in Giftcards.. The Hope is the Osprey box solves the channel issues on the main TV due to the remote.. So far at least the ATT TV App is more fluid then the YTTV app also on my ATV


The Osprey box has some unique features but I was more limited than @lparsons21 when I did a test because I got a beta unit from eBay before it went national and I wasn't going to fork over $124 for a month of the Xtra package to AT&T TV Now so I used the AT&T TV Now Max ($80) + 1 month free of Epix as the test package. He's getting a more complete experience because IIRC he has a 4K TV (I do not) and a fuller channel lineup than I did (he has Entertainment IIRC)

On the TVs with Osprey you will probably like the fact the Osprey boxes have channel numbers and they are the same as DirecTV except for the dedicated launch channels for the Netflix & HBO Max apps (that DirecTV lack). Although they put the launch channel for the HBO Max app on Channel 500 in the guide right beside the linear HBO channels which is nice. Google Assistant can also search for channels by name or channel number so if you want ESPN you can say "Tune to ESPN" or "Tune to channel two hundred and six".

To help with other app performance I would recommend keeping an eye on the cache especially with the Google Play Store (depending on how many apps you download). If you notice the Osprey boxes are slowing down a lot most likely the cache data is big and taking up a lot of your free internal storage. Unlike with Apple TVs that will empty the cache data on its own to preserve performance and space with Android TV in general you have to do this manually.

Cache data affecting performance is a common thing I have found across any Android TV device with 8GB of internal storage. This has affected the AT&T TV device, TiVo Stream 4K, Ematic Jetstream TV Box and Xiaomi Mi Box S. The TiVo Stream 4K I will say is the best performing out of the bunch.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

techguy88 said:


> The Osprey box has some unique features but I was more limited than @lparsons21 when I did a test because I got a beta unit from eBay before it went national and I wasn't going to fork over $124 for a month of the Xtra package to AT&T TV Now so I used the AT&T TV Now Max ($80) + 1 month free of Epix as the test package. He's getting a more complete experience because IIRC he has a 4K TV (I do not) and a fuller channel lineup than I did (he has Entertainment IIRC)
> 
> On the TVs with Osprey you will probably like the fact the Osprey boxes have channel numbers and they are the same as DirecTV except for the dedicated launch channels for the Netflix & HBO Max apps (that DirecTV lack). Although they put the launch channel for the HBO Max app on Channel 500 in the guide right beside the linear HBO channels which is nice. Google Assistant can also search for channels by name or channel number so if you want ESPN you can say "Tune to ESPN" or "Tune to channel two hundred and six".
> 
> ...


Yeah I really only plan to use the Osprey box just for TV


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

compnurd said:


> YTTV is not going well lol.. Looking at ATT TV now lol


Lol. Sounds awfully familiar to my Tvision experience. Has DTV contacted you about coming back at all?

I got my first full bill today $129.99, so I gave loyalty another call and got $10/off, I'm not sure if its for 1 mo or 3 or what my bill is even supposed to be because I got an email confirmation saying my bill was going to be $182.99!!! WTF?!?! lol... called back and they said to disregard the email.

The first guy I talked to told me to call back after July 5th since they are introducing some covid discounts supposedly if I want something bigger then $10.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Lol. Sounds awfully familiar to my Tvision experience. Has DTV contacted you about coming back at all?
> 
> I got my first full bill today $129.99, so I gave loyalty another call and got $10/off, I'm not sure if its for 1 mo or 3 or what my bill is even supposed to be because I got an email confirmation saying my bill was going to be $182.99!!! WTF?!?! lol... called back and they said to disregard the email.
> 
> The first guy I talked to told me to call back after July 5th since they are introducing some covid discounts supposedly if I want something bigger then $10.


No they have not


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

So far all good with ATT TV and ok with the box...

The app speed on the ATV is very good and even more fluid then YTTV was...

I got the Osprey box today..(they sent it Priority Saturday Delivery). Took about 15 min for it to update and come up.. Performance is also very good... I have zero intention of using the apps on the box so it is pretty fast.. The biggest pluses are channel numbers(and the guide is ordered via channel number vs channel name) and the remote is really nice.. I canceled YTTV and we will ride with this for a year.. I plan to keep checking ebay for some cheaper Osprey Boxes for other TV's.. The only crappy thing is the Forced HDR on the box.. I hope that gets addressed soon(I know Tivo is also working on that for there box)


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Supposedly there is a fix for the forced HDR in work. Who knows how long ‘soon’ will be is anyone’s guess though! 

And yeah, that remote is very nice.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

The only other problem is for some reason there database had my zip code getting FSN Ohio.. and they are charging me a RSN fee. I am in the ATT Sportsnet Pittsburgh Market.. Was just able to chat and get it refunded but this is obviously going to be a reoccurring issue.. I may go into the store and talk to them since there would obviously be others in my market with this issue


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

compnurd said:


> So far all good with ATT TV and ok with the box...
> 
> The app speed on the ATV is very good and even more fluid then YTTV was...
> 
> I got the Osprey box today..(they sent it Priority Saturday Delivery). Took about 15 min for it to update and come up.. Performance is also very good... I have zero intention of using the apps on the box so it is pretty fast.. The biggest pluses are channel numbers(and the guide is ordered via channel number vs channel name) and the remote is really nice.. I canceled YTTV and we will ride with this for a year.. I plan to keep checking ebay for some cheaper Osprey Boxes for other TV's.. The only crappy thing is the Forced HDR on the box.. I hope that gets addressed soon(I know Tivo is also working on that for there box)


So what's the price difference break down to for you, assuming you are getting the same channels? You save from not paying the ARF and $7 per TV basically, right?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> So what's the price difference break down to for you, assuming you are getting the same channels? You save from not paying the ARF and $7 per TV basically, right?


Right now I am paying 65 a month for xtra with HBO for the first year. That will jump to 139 in a year. Directv I was paying 192 for xtra and hbo.. The biggest difference is literally the advanced rec. charge and the 7 per TV on that second year. If they offered me 70 off per month with Directv i would have stayed


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

compnurd said:


> Right now I am paying 65 a month for xtra with HBO for the first year. That will jump to 139 in a year. Directv I was paying 192 for xtra and hbo.. The biggest difference is literally the advanced rec. charge and the 7 per TV on that second year. If they offered me 70 off per month with Directv i would have stayed


Even if you decide to stay after the first year the average for the 24 months would be $102/month which is not a big bargain, but certainly not horrible considering the channels/content you get. I'm betting there will either discounts for the 2nd year for those that call to cancel or a reduction in rate. Otherwise the cancellation numbers will be as bad as all the other ATT streaming products have seen.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Even if you decide to stay after the first year the average for the 24 months would be $102/month which is not a big bargain, but certainly not horrible considering the channels/content you get. I'm betting there will either discounts for the 2nd year for those that call to cancel or a reduction in rate. Otherwise the cancellation numbers will be as bad as all the other ATT streaming products have seen.


Also can factor in I got 200 in gift cards and 30 bucks in ebates which wipes the cancellation if I decide to do it


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Was able to tweak my input settings to cool off the forced HDR. Looks much better


----------



## whorne (Dec 3, 2011)

compnurd said:


> Was able to tweak my input settings to cool off the forced HDR. Looks much better


I am looking at possibly trying ATT TV as well and have a few questions I would like to ask if you don't mind?
1. I read somewhere that the channel numbers match Directv numbers? Is this true?
2. Is the remote programmable to operate other devices like a soundbar and DVD player?
3. What did you do to address the forced HDR?

Thanks for any feedback!
Wayne


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

whorne said:


> I am looking at possibly trying ATT TV as well and have a few questions I would like to ask if you don't mind?
> 1. I read somewhere that the channel numbers match Directv numbers? Is this true?
> 2. Is the remote programmable to operate other devices like a soundbar and DVD player?
> 3. What did you do to address the forced HDR?
> ...


1-Only when using there box
2-It operates my Sonos since it uses IR. I dont know about others
3-My LG OLED can get down alot on picture specifics so i was able to work the settings to tone everything down


----------



## whorne (Dec 3, 2011)

compnurd said:


> 1-Only when using there box
> 2-It operates my Sonos since it uses IR. I dont know about others
> 3-My LG OLED can get down alot on picture specifics so i was able to work the settings to tone everything down


Thanks for the quick response! I am still working with Directv on the pricing and would rather stay if I can. Please keep us posted on your adventure with ATT TV!


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

48 hours update...

Basically this is the SAT replacement service.

The Osprey box is really good. I dont use it for other crap as we like our ATV. However to watch TV the box is a complete replacement for my Clients. Operation is smooth and quick and the interface is really nice. It has alot of features we will never see on the SAT side unless they release new clients. 

Picture Quality appears no different then SAT service..

I am going to be ordering several more of these clients as the remote and function is much prefered over the ATV. While the interface and very fluid on the ATV the remote just sucks.. That and the guide order on the Osprey is a dead ringer to the SAT service..

My Only issue is there is no way right now to see your series recordings it appears


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

A current issue with the Osprey box is a lack of Dolby Digital. Seems the last update boogered that. I spent a total of an hour with ATT yesterday and even talked to advanced tech. They said a fix should be out soon.

In the meantime I’m using a FireTV Cube and that’s working quite well, as is the AppleTV and Roku.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> A current issue with the Osprey box is a lack of Dolby Digital. Seems the last update boogered that. I spent a total of an hour with ATT yesterday and even talked to advanced tech. They said a fix should be out soon.
> 
> In the meantime I'm using a FireTV Cube and that's working quite well, as is the AppleTV and Roku.


My Sonos is reporting it is getting DD 5.1 from the box


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

compnurd said:


> My Sonos is reporting it is getting DD 5.1 from the box


I have actual rear speakers and while the Nakamichi reports it is doing DD+ there is nothing coming out on the rears. You'd never notice on setups that don't have actual rear speakers.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

compnurd said:


> 48 hours update...
> 
> Basically this is the SAT replacement service.
> 
> ...


I just read this thread. Leaving D* doesn't mean you or anybody else has to leave this site. I plan on dropping the sat service one of these days and I will not bail out here. Okay, got that off my chest. Sounded like you were saying goodbye.

Using the ATV remotes on a cable replacement service and expecting that remote to function as well as a remote dedicated to that service is an act of futility. From everything I've read the ATT service would be my choice if I ever get this monkey off my back. I would buy a box for every TV if I did that and use my ATV remotes for streaming which is what they're built for.

Rich

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich, 
The problem you would have is number of streams included, generally a max of 3. Of course you can use channel specific apps which don’t impact that, but those are all with ads.

Live sports offerings are looking to be in the offing as soon as there are actual live sports to watch. ATT TV has the best selection of channels with the various subscription levels but comes with significant cost and contract issues that you have to factor in a bit.

And as of today, new signups to ATT TV and DirecTV are being charged $10 more to do so.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

compnurd said:


> The Osprey box is really good.


Is there a monthly rental charge fee for each box?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Is there a monthly rental charge fee for each box?


You can either pay the $120 outright or do $10/month for 12 months. Or look to EBay for better pricing on some used boxes. But no monthly rental fee.


----------



## daniloni (Jul 31, 2013)

I'm thinking long and hard about switching to FuboTV after my credits roll off now that they've announced that they're adding ESPN/ABC/Disney channels. I'm currently on Premier on the promotional contract rate (plus Epix and Deportes Pack), paying $120 per month after various credits, but I'm paying FuboTV $10 for a grandfathered skinny package (their original package that they offered when they just had skinny packages, not cable replacement packages) just to get TyC and Gol TV in HD. So I'm currently at $130 per month between the two services, and I have $55-$65 in credits rolling off in a few months. I can get FuboTV Ultra for $80 per month (includes Showtime), the International Sports Plus add-on for $6, and then add Epix ($6) and Starz ($10) either directly from them or Amazon and I'd be at $102, which is a savings under my promotional rate, let alone when the credits expire. (I get HBO through my AT&T cell plan, and get a credit on my DTV bill for that, and I'll forego adding Cinemax since there's no longer original programming.) Even if you figure Fubo will go up $10-15 per month after the Disney deal, it's still significant savings. I'd gain Red Zone and the Pac-12 channels, and I think the only thing I'd miss (other than the general satellite experience rather than streaming) is the weekly 4K premier league game. I'd lose the out of market RSNs on the Sports Pack, but that gives me like 1-2 college basketball games per year that I actually watch. So it makes financial sense even having to pay an early termination fee. (I know that there are many markets in which FuboTV doesn't carry the local RSN, but that's not an issue for me as the local RSN is NBC and Fubo carries those.)


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Was going to post the same thing about the series recordings. If you click on the show in the guide it will show if you have it set up for a series, but there is no way to tell (like a red dot) while looking in the guide to see if it is set up....bit of a nuisance if you cannot remember what shows you've set up.

One other thing I noticed is my guide sometimes has trouble getting data, and will show something akin to "no information available" on occasion on some channels.

I'm like you, I think the box is a must.



compnurd said:


> 48 hours update...
> 
> Basically this is the SAT replacement service.
> 
> ...


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

raott said:


> Was going to post the same thing about the series recordings. If you click on the show in the guide it will show if you have it set up for a series, but there is no way to tell (like a red dot) while looking in the guide to see if it is set up....bit of a nuisance if you cannot remember what shows you've set up.
> 
> One other thing I noticed is my guide sometimes has trouble getting data, and will show something akin to "no information available" on occasion on some channels.
> 
> I'm like you, I think the box is a must.


Got ya. Yeh I see the red dot now. I mean it isn't the end of the world and hopefully they add Something. I am going to track down 3-4 more boxes now in some fashion


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

compnurd said:


> Got ya. Yeh I see the red dot now. I mean it isn't the end of the world and hopefully they add Something. I am going to track down 3-4 more boxes now in some fashion


Good timing, you slid in right before the $10/mo price hikes announced today lol.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Good timing, you slid in right before the $10/mo price hikes announced today lol.


Yeh really noticed that lol


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Debating how I want to acquire additional boxes. I have found them for about 80 on eBay with the new remote but there is some things around Reddit with some of the beta boxes being bricked


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

compnurd said:


> Debating how I want to acquire additional boxes. I have found them for about 80 on eBay with the new remote but there is some things around Reddit with some of the beta boxes being bricked


That doesn't seem like a big enough savings to make it worth not getting the warranty.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

YTTV jumped 15 bucks today


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Rich,
> The problem you would have is number of streams included, generally a max of 3. Of course you can use channel specific apps which don't impact that, but those are all with ads.
> 
> Live sports offerings are looking to be in the offing as soon as there are actual live sports to watch. ATT TV has the best selection of channels with the various subscription levels but comes with significant cost and contract issues that you have to factor in a bit.
> ...


The number of streams doesn't matter. Nobody watches D* much anymore here. Still can't get past the idea that there is no real way to get the D* experience when it comes to sports.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> The number of streams doesn't matter. Nobody watches D* much anymore here. Still can't get past the idea that there is no real way to get the D* experience when it comes to sports.
> 
> Rich


For me the only missing sports channel that surprises me with its absence on ATT TV is the NFL channel. I don't care that its not there just surprised that its not even on the highest subscription level.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

compnurd said:


> Yeh really noticed that lol


YTTV raised their prices 30% today (for existing customers too)!! These streaming service price hikes are making you home sick for the measly 8% hikes on DTV lol. But its nothing surprising. I've said for years the "free ride" on OTT will come to an end sooner rather then later and the price gaps will close very fast. You're still doing better on OTT if you have a lot of TVs though.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

The last 8% price hike on my AT&T bill was $15 just like the 30% price hike of Youtube TV today which I don't have. Except AT&T also added an extra $1.50 onto my RSN fee at the same time.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Do the math and look at dollars....A larger percentage increase on a small amount could be less than a small increase in a large amount.

Plus no ridiculous monthly equipment fees.



SledgeHammer said:


> YTTV raised their prices 30% today (for existing customers too)!! These streaming service price hikes are making you home sick for the measly 8% hikes on DTV lol. But its nothing surprising. I've said for years the "free ride" on OTT will come to an end sooner rather then later and the price gaps will close very fast. You're still doing better on OTT if you have a lot of TVs though.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

raott said:


> Do the math and look at dollars....A larger percentage increase on a small amount could be less than a small increase in a large amount.
> 
> Plus no ridiculous monthly equipment fees.


No ridiculous equipment fees or RSNs for me on DirecTV either . If you have a lot of "part time" TVs, OTT is your better bet. For one TV, it's pretty much a wash. If you have a lot of "part time" TVs and you suddenly want to watch on 7 TVs at once, you won't be able to do that with OTT.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> No ridiculous equipment fees or RSNs for me on DirecTV either . If you have a lot of "part time" TVs, OTT is your better bet. For one TV, it's pretty much a wash. If you have a lot of "part time" TVs and you suddenly want to watch on 7 TVs at once, you won't be able to do that with OTT.


I have 6 TVs. 5 of them are part time


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> YTTV raised their prices 30% today (for existing customers too)!! These streaming service price hikes are making you home sick for the measly 8% hikes on DTV lol. But its nothing surprising. I've said for years the "free ride" on OTT will come to an end sooner rather then later and the price gaps will close very fast. You're still doing better on OTT if you have a lot of TVs though.


Yep, some of us have been saying this would happen for a while now. There is no real difference in cost structure from a YTTV and a Directv once the customer is installed. They pay the same price for the content, and that's the large majority of their revenue right there. Streaming MVPDs might be more convenient for some because they can use their existing set tops or whatever, but they aren't any cheaper to deliver to the customer.

I saw that AT&T also announced they are raising the price $10/month for the first year for both Directv and AT&T TV as well, so at least the cost jump between first and second year will get smaller


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

compnurd said:


> I have 6 TVs. 5 of them are part time


YTTV, AT&T TV and now today Fubo is joining in on the price hike party with a $10 hike. I guess all these OTT providers didn't realize that hemorrhaging cash was never a viable business model . Why do I have the feeling OTT is going to get more expensive then DirecTV soon? And they haven't even started monetizing streams yet. You KNOW that will happen. Sat is the only medium where additional outlets doesn't cost anything on the back end. It's free money for Dish and DirecTV. For streaming and cable, you betcha!


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

SledgeHammer said:


> YTTV, AT&T TV and now today Fubo is joining in on the price hike party with a $10 hike. I guess all these OTT providers didn't realize that hemorrhaging cash was never a viable business model . *Why do I have the feeling OTT is going to get more expensive then DirecTV soon?* And they haven't even started monetizing streams yet. You KNOW that will happen. Sat is the only medium where additional outlets doesn't cost anything on the back end. It's free money for Dish and DirecTV. For streaming and cable, you betcha!


As long as AT&T owns it they will never let that happen.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> As long as AT&T owns it they will never let that happen.


I agree. While ATT TV is still at the higher end of the cost scale, with these latest increases by YTTV and Fubo, it isn't as horrible as it seems on the surface.

In my case with ATT TV Entertainment, if I cancel at the end of a year my average cost would be $57/month. If I keep it for the 2nd year the average cost would be $67/month. For new subs now doing the same thing would be $10/month higher in average cost. Of course with HBO Max free for the first year the value is a little better.

Overall I expect the prices to end up being about the same as Dish/Direct/Cable charges for similar channel lineups but without the added costs of the equipment those services charge for.

I rather like the way Sling does their offerings. A low price for a set of basic channels with add-ons so that those that just have to have certain channels can be the only ones that pay to have them. Similar to Flex Pack on Dish.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> YTTV, AT&T TV and now today Fubo is joining in on the price hike party with a $10 hike. I guess all these OTT providers didn't realize that hemorrhaging cash was never a viable business model . Why do I have the feeling OTT is going to get more expensive then DirecTV soon? And they haven't even started monetizing streams yet. You KNOW that will happen. Sat is the only medium where additional outlets doesn't cost anything on the back end. It's free money for Dish and DirecTV. For streaming and cable, you betcha!


The thing is minus the equipment fee's Directv programming outside of a promo is about the same as everyone else.. My cable company is about 125


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

compnurd said:


> The thing is minus the equipment fee's Directv programming outside of a promo is about the same as everyone else.. My cable company is about 125


Weird. DirecTV is $7/additional TV. I remember when I had to stay at my parents house for a month a few years ago, the 2nd Time Warner/Spectrum box they activated was like $17 a month. Cox seems like its $9/mo or $3/mo for a mini.

I just can't imagine that OTT/streaming is going to let people continue to get away with account sharing and 4 streams for the price of one for much longer. All of those streams require additional back end infrastructure while with sat you just pluck the bits out of the air for free lol. Then you run into the whole issue of not being able to get everything you want with one OTT provider.

I'm not a conspiracy guy, but its always seemed to me like the OTT providers are doing the low/teaser prices to "sucker" people in and get them hooked and then ramp up the prices. You've been around DirecTV along time, so you probably remember the old days? . Suspicious about pretty much zero security in those days when it was a huge problem for cable? Probably a thing to lure people in and get them hooked, but then it got out of hand.

Reason I say that is... OTT providers can't POSSIBLY be getting deals on channels for like 10% of DirecTV / cable. Plus hardware infrastructure to support streaming is ridiculous, even in the cloud, even with steep corp discounts.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

At the moment streaming is banking on people not using the service they are paying for. Buy two to four streams (depending on service) and spend most of the peak usage hours not watching anything. "Unlimited" within the same household comes with a built in limit of how good the user's Internet connection is. They know that the additional "use anywhere" streams are the ones where people are sharing their accounts with friends and other households. But they watch their numbers and as technology improves expect the same sort of improvements in enforcement that we saw on satellite. And either a hard limit on streams (as most providers have done) or higher prices for those who actually use their streams more than expected.

I believe there has been loss leader pricing. Most large businesses don't expect to make a profit in the first few years. Give people a taste then charge more later. The deep pockets behind most streaming operations will not be able to afford to lose money for too many years. Especially services that are backed by traditional MVPD services that are being undercut by streaming.

The good news is that if satellite can make the transition from huge packages to skinny bundles (as DISH did with the Flex Pack) that there is an opportunity to survive. Especially in rural markets where the Internet cannot support high quality service.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> I just can't imagine that OTT/streaming is going to let people continue to get away with account sharing and 4 streams for the price of one for much longer. All of those streams require additional back end infrastructure while with sat you just pluck the bits out of the air for free lol. Then you run into the whole issue of not being able to get everything you want with one OTT provider.


They're going to start turning their attention to that eventually. I'm sure they have a pretty good idea of exactly how much this happens, but probably are waiting to see who makes the first move to stop it. When someone does, you can bet the rest will quickly follow.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

AT&T TV and TVision are leading the field in high prices. Why charge less for a vMVPD than you do for a MVPD? Even if the channel lineups are less.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> They're going to start turning their attention to that eventually. I'm sure they have a pretty good idea of exactly how much this happens, but probably are waiting to see who makes the first move to stop it. When someone does, you can bet the rest will quickly follow.


Well, as a software engineer myself, it's a tricky problem. Where do you draw the line?

1) allow same wi-fi network only? but some people want to watch on the go, some people don't have wi-fi networks and just watch over the cell provider
2) maybe geo location? then parents at home couldn't watch while the kids are out at the beach or whatever

I don't think you can stop account sharing in any reasonable way based on how cord cutters use it.

As for monetizing streams, I bet they'll eventually start charging per registered device. For people with 16 TVs, etc. Most of those are very part time TVs, so the current pricing where they can use them that way works. If they had to pay for all 16 TVs whether they used them or not... maybe not $7+ to start, but the OTT peeps probably wouldn't complain too bad if it was first 2 devices free, then $1 per device or something like that. Then hike it every year or two til it gets up to $7 .


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

I think the demand for OTT services is not as elastic as cable and satellite. As prices rise subscribers are more likely to cancel the service. Live TV is getting to be a smaller percentage of viewing and is pretty much confined to news and sports. Plenty of news on free streaming services. Sports fans can always subscribe to a sports season pass and use a VPN to access local games. For people without OTA they might be able to use a service like Locast.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

TV_Guy said:


> I think the demand for OTT services is not as elastic as cable and satellite. As prices rise subscribers are more likely to cancel the service. Live TV is getting to be a smaller percentage of viewing and is pretty much confined to news and sports. Plenty of news on free streaming services. Sports fans can always subscribe to a sports season pass and use a VPN to access local games. For people without OTA they might be able to use a service like Locast.


Do you mean Live TV as in "I need to watch this live" or Live TV as in local & cable channels. If its the later, what are you talking about? I don't watch either sports or news. I'd say 95%+ of my viewing is on local & cable channels if not more.


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Do you mean Live TV as in "I need to watch this live" or Live TV as in local & cable channels. If its the later, what are you talking about? I don't watch either sports or news. I'd say 95%+ of my viewing is on local & cable channels if not more.


I was referring to your local & cable channels. Your local channels can be captured to a DVR either by an antenna or Locast with FitzyTV. The non premium cable channels are generally available via Hulu about a week after broadcast. You probably need CBS All Access for some of the CBS owned content.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

compnurd said:


> I have 6 TVs. 5 of them are part time


Why not put appletvs on some or most the part time TVs and use tv everywhere logins and you can get most the stations and movie stuff on those TVs and only leave dtv on the TVs you watch the most. Saves ya some monthly fees. Just a thought.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Perhaps the distinction should be linear vs non-linear? A lot of TV has turned non-linear with heavier use of DVRs over the past few years - to the point where the ratings had to be changed to reflect people watching later than the "live" feed of the content. Linear TV relies on content being released simultaneously to millions of viewers at the same moment (or at least the 76% of the population in Eastern and Central Time that get most content at same moment without a time zone delay).

Sports is a natural for linear TV ... news is also important but most of it has devolved into pairs or panels of people yelling at each other with no real immediacy as to what is "live". Real news is easier to find via live streaming from sources than finding a news channel and hoping they cover what one is interested in seeing covered. Both of these linear sources can be enjoyed delayed - sports can be spoiled so don't tell me who won, I didn't watch last night's game yet.

Social viewing may be the most important aspect keeping linear TV alive. Going to a sports bar and enjoying a game with a few dozen/hundred fellow fans (a little harder in the COVID era with less games and closed bars). Knowing the score and every play when you talk to your co-workers (a little harder in the work-at-home era). But social viewing goes beyond sports and major news (such as political debates, conventions, sports star car chases, disasters, space launches, etc.).

Programmers have designed "must see TV" ... shows that may have been filmed months previous that are released in a linear form with enough fanfare that people WILL watch "live" or close to it. Shows good enough that people do not want to miss the same evening viewing and have FOMO if they don't watch ASAP. Event TV that is not all reality and contest shows ... Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead fit nicely into the event TV category. TV so good that you have to watch - tonight.

There is a lot more non-linear content in the viewing marketplace. Some linear content can be released the next day or the next week on streaming and not lose their audience (they have not built an event oriented audience). Others thrive on linear release to build an audience that will stay up until midnight Eastern to see tonight's monologue and guests ... maybe later if the guests are good. NBC's Peacock streaming is breaking the linear barrier by doing pre-releases of their late night shows. The marketplace is certainly changing - but there is still a place for linear TV even as non-linear viewing grows.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Why not put appletvs on some or most the part time TVs and use tv everywhere logins and you can get most the stations and movie stuff on those TVs and only leave dtv on the TVs you watch the most. Saves ya some monthly fees. Just a thought.


The problem is not everyone like me knows what they want to watch and can pick that app. Most people in the family channel
Flip


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

TV_Guy said:


> I was referring to your local & cable channels. Your local channels can be captured to a DVR either by an antenna or Locast with FitzyTV. The non premium cable channels are generally available via Hulu about a week after broadcast. You probably need CBS All Access for some of the CBS owned content.


*shrug* locals + cable is the majority of what I watch. I've never found a TV series I like on NF or AP. I'm in the minority I guess there lol. Tried a bunch on both. I have found multiple ones I liked on Apple TV+ and Quibi. Also there's no live tv service that has all the channels I watch which really isn't that many, it's just weird contracts on some of the channels.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Perhaps the distinction should be linear vs non-linear? A lot of TV has turned non-linear with heavier use of DVRs over the past few years - to the point where the ratings had to be changed to reflect people watching later than the "live" feed of the content. Linear TV relies on content being released simultaneously to millions of viewers at the same moment (or at least the 76% of the population in Eastern and Central Time that get most content at same moment without a time zone delay).


I won't watch anything "live" due to the commercials. So I'll start 15 minutes in. I don't think I ever take days or weeks to watch a recording. Right now due to the virus and a lot of shows on hiatus, I'm averaging about 20 recordings per 2 weeks in my todo list.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> I won't watch anything "live" due to the commercials. So I'll start 15 minutes in. I don't think I ever take days or weeks to watch a recording. Right now due to the virus and a lot of shows on hiatus, I'm averaging about 20 recordings per 2 weeks in my todo list.


That seems to be the big difference between traditional MVPDs and streamers. Recorded linear allows one to do that ... start late and skip commercials. Stream on demand is more likely to have forced commercial breaks or pre-show commercials. The second challenge is when the show is available. If I set my DVR for 10pm on Tuesday I can start watching immediately (and suffer commercials if I don't wait long enough). When is that particular show available on demand? 11pm? 3am ET the next day?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> That seems to be the big difference between traditional MVPDs and streamers. Recorded linear allows one to do that ... start late and skip commercials. Stream on demand is more likely to have forced commercial breaks or pre-show commercials. The second challenge is when the show is available. If I set my DVR for 10pm on Tuesday I can start watching immediately (and suffer commercials if I don't wait long enough). When is that particular show available on demand? 11pm? 3am ET the next day?


I tried Tvision recently and one of the big issues aside from PQ was that I'm on the west coast, and I've gotten used to DirecTV giving me east coast feeds, so all the cable shows come on 5pm to 8pm here vs. 8pm to 11pm. That gives me enough time to watch everything same day.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, as a software engineer myself, it's a tricky problem. Where do you draw the line?
> 
> 1) allow same wi-fi network only? but some people want to watch on the go, some people don't have wi-fi networks and just watch over the cell provider
> 2) maybe geo location? then parents at home couldn't watch while the kids are out at the beach or whatever
> ...


There are plenty of ways to handle it. Maybe they catch people who are watching the same channel/stream at the same time in two different locations on the same account. Cable doesn't let you do that, after all.

They could require all 'set top' or similar devices from Apple TV to Chromecast to smart TVs come from the same IP address and don't change their location. Again, that's a limitation people have become used to with cable.

They could require registering your devices in some way and limit their number and how often they could be used in different geographic areas. That's not exactly how cable works, but they'll tell you you should be glad they let you use your own devices at all.

That's kind of why I think they are all waiting for someone to make the first move, people will inevitably be unhappy they are losing some of the extra freedom they had vs cable - but that freedom has been abused by a lot of people sharing accounts. All the providers will want to see how it goes over when the first one tries it, and if customers don't revolt they'll all quickly follow suit. My bet is Disney is the first to do it, once they've built up Disney+ subscriber numbers more and become 'indispensable' to more people, because they know they would be able to get away with it.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

So I have to give some credit here... After I reported the RSN issue the other day I got a call today.. There website has been updated now to reflect there are no RSN's in my area.. and they gave me an extra 10 off a month for a year for calling about it.. So now have the Xtra package for 54.99 a month for a year


----------



## whorne (Dec 3, 2011)

compnurd said:


> So I have to give some credit here... After I reported the RSN issue the other day I got a call today.. There website has been updated now to reflect there are no RSN's in my area.. and they gave me an extra 10 off a month for a year for calling about it.. So now have the Xtra package for 54.99 a month for a year


That is good! How has your user experience been so far?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

whorne said:


> That is good! How has your user experience been so far?


It has been good.. Really no different then having Sat service


----------



## whorne (Dec 3, 2011)

compnurd said:


> It has been good.. Really no different then having Sat service


That is good to hear. Glad it is working for you.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

So quick Update here.... after about a month of use... I added 3 more ATT TV boxes.. to be clear here... I NEVER purchased them to be a one box solutions. Lets be honest.. there is no one box for anything.. For watching TV the box is great. There was an update 2 weeks back also that sped the box up considerably.. Channel changing and turn on time are now faster then any box i had previous to turning on.. Guide speed and menu speed are also alot faster now. The Interface is really nice and offers alot of options when playing with it.. My only complaint is they dont currently have anyway to see what your series recordings are.. Hoping that shows up soon.. The phone app is also alot faster then the Directv app.. What do i miss. While it has pretty much every channel we watch.. There are some obvious missing ones from regular directv. the west coast feeds and others. My Directv service officially was killed on the 13th. I have not returned the equipment yet and also have not heard from the winback team.. Would i switch back.. maybe if they got the price down to a reasonable level.. otherwise though it has been pretty good so far


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Curious if you used the same name/address to subscribe to AT&T TV? I wonder if people that move from DIRECTV ===> AT&T TV don't get winback offers since they still have their hand in your pocket?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

compnurd said:


> So quick Update here.... after about a month of use... I added 3 more ATT TV boxes.. to be clear here... I NEVER purchased them to be a one box solutions. Lets be honest.. there is no one box for anything.. For watching TV the box is great. There was an update 2 weeks back also that sped the box up considerably.. Channel changing and turn on time are now faster then any box i had previous to turning on.. Guide speed and menu speed are also alot faster now. The Interface is really nice and offers alot of options when playing with it.. My only complaint is they dont currently have anyway to see what your series recordings are.. Hoping that shows up soon.. The phone app is also alot faster then the Directv app.. What do i miss. While it has pretty much every channel we watch.. There are some obvious missing ones from regular directv. the west coast feeds and others. My Directv service officially was killed on the 13th. I have not returned the equipment yet and also have not heard from the winback team.. *Would i switch back..* *maybe if they got the price down to a reasonable level*.. otherwise though it has been pretty good so far


Why would you do that? Serious question. Aside from the cost.

Rich


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

b4pjoe said:


> Curious if you used the same name/address to subscribe to AT&T TV? I wonder if people that move from DIRECTV ===> AT&T TV don't get winback offers since they still have their hand in your pocket?


i know they have been shoving there streaming service down peoples throats


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> Curious if you used the same name/address to subscribe to AT&T TV? I wonder if people that move from DIRECTV ===> AT&T TV don't get winback offers since they still have their hand in your pocket?


Yes but it made be create a new user id since my directv one also had a cancelled att tv now account


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Rich said:


> Why would you do that? Serious question. Aside from the cost.
> 
> Rich


Biggest reason would be channel options.. While i wont, i liked the option to subscribe to sunday ticket, extra innings etc. There is also the fact that no streaming service offers my RSN yet so that helps solve that problem until someone does


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

compnurd said:


> Biggest reason would be channel options.. While i wont, i liked the option to subscribe to sunday ticket, extra innings etc. There is also the fact that no streaming service offers my RSN yet so that helps solve that problem until someone does


Thanks. Baseball is back and I'm thinking of giving the new service a trial run, see if it works somewhat as D* does in the context of sports. That, and my curiosity about the SSDs in the HRs, is my stumbling block.

Rich


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

Rich said:


> Thanks. Baseball is back and I'm thinking of giving the new service a trial run, see if it works somewhat as D* does in the context of sports. That, and my curiosity about the SSDs in the HRs, is my stumbling block.
> Rich


If they add Mets and Yankees games to WPIX you won't see them on AT&T TV. I believe the Yankees games originally scheduled for WPIX were also slated for Amazon Prime TV.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TV_Guy said:


> If they add Mets and Yankees games to WPIX you won't see them on AT&T TV. I believe the Yankees games originally scheduled for WPIX were also slated for Amazon Prime TV.


Thank you. That's a deal killer. Not sure I'd get the same experience on AP. I'd rather use a real live DVR for sports.

Rich


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Rich said:


> Thank you. That's a deal killer. Not sure I'd get the same experience on AP. I'd rather use a real live DVR for sports.
> 
> Rich


Look at this way also.. and I understand as I am a die hard mets fan.. How many of those 60 games are going to be on PXI... Could you live with not watching them to save money


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

compnurd said:


> Look at this way also.. and I understand as I am a die hard mets fan.. How many of those 60 games are going to be on PXI... Could you live with not watching them to save money


I hadn't considered the PIX games until *TV_Guy* mentioned them. Maybe five? I dunno. Doesn't matter, what would interest me is a provider that could give me a better sports experience than what I get from D*. I have yet to see any provider that beats D* for sports.

Rich


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Rich said:


> I hadn't considered the PIX games until *TV_Guy* mentioned them. Maybe five? I dunno. Doesn't matter, what would interest me is a provider that could give me a better sports experience than what I get from D*. I have yet to see any provider that beats D* for sports.
> 
> Rich


And you are correct on that last sentence


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

compnurd said:


> And you are correct on that last sentence


Yeah, once again being correct hurts.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> They could require all 'set top' or similar devices from Apple TV to Chromecast to smart TVs come from the same IP address and don't change their location. Again, that's a limitation people have become used to with cable.


Yeah, this is how AT&T TV works. I've explained this before somewhere or another on this forum. Based on what I've read, when you set up the AT&T TV box and connect it to your home network via wifi or ethernet, it sets that network as your "home network". You can only use the AT&T TV app on TV-connected devices (Apple TV, Roku, Fire TV, etc.) that are on that same network. This is obviously designed to keep someone from sharing their account with another household. I mean, you still can, but the other household will be limited to watching on a phone, tablet or computer. If that other "household" is your kid living in a dorm at college, well, that's probably how s/he would be watching anyhow, so that's fine. But if it's your brother across town, nah, he's gonna wanna watch cable TV on his big screen, so he'll have to cough up for his own AT&T TV subscription.

But you can access the service via the mobile app or web browser from any network, since those devices are intended to be used away from home. I think you're allowed to switch your "home network" a few times per year. The limit of three simultaneous streams applies regardless of what kind of device/screen is accessing the service and regardless of what network it is on.

Hulu with Live TV works the same way. At its base level, it only allows two devices to watch at the same time, regardless of network/location. But if you add their $10/mo "Unlimited Screens" option, what that really does is just allow you to access the service on an unlimited number of devices on your home network. In addition, three mobile devices can access the service simultaneously, regardless of network/location.

Not sure why AT&T TV is leaving money on the table by not selling the same kind of upgrade for customers who need (or think they need) the ability to watch live cable TV on a bazillion different screens in their home at the same time. Maybe their research shows that there just isn't much of a market for that? Or maybe it's an option that they plan to roll out as AT&T TV matures.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> So quick Update here.... after about a month of use... I added 3 more ATT TV boxes.. to be clear here... I NEVER purchased them to be a one box solutions. Lets be honest.. there is no one box for anything.. For watching TV the box is great. There was an update 2 weeks back also that sped the box up considerably.. Channel changing and turn on time are now faster then any box i had previous to turning on.. Guide speed and menu speed are also alot faster now. The Interface is really nice and offers alot of options when playing with it.. My only complaint is they dont currently have anyway to see what your series recordings are.. Hoping that shows up soon.. The phone app is also alot faster then the Directv app.. What do i miss. While it has pretty much every channel we watch.. There are some obvious missing ones from regular directv. the west coast feeds and others. My Directv service officially was killed on the 13th. I have not returned the equipment yet and also have not heard from the winback team.. Would i switch back.. maybe if they got the price down to a reasonable level.. otherwise though it has been pretty good so far


Good to hear that they're improving the experience with the AT&T TV box. There are also some simple hacks you can do if you access the service menu that will speed up the UI and launch times for third-party apps, or so I've read. Maybe AT&T just incorporated some of those changes into their default configuration with the update you received a couple weeks ago.

Like you, I hope that they add a screen in the UI that shows all the recordings you have set up, with an easy way to delete or edit them. From the get-go, I've looked at AT&T TV as a potential option for my elderly parents who have had DISH for years. They would find it frustrating/confusing not to have a recordings/timers screen like that.

I'm a little surprised that we haven't seen AT&T TV add PBS locals yet given that so many of them have the tech and licensing details in place to work with YouTube TV. I still think that's coming, although who knows when. Could be one of those things delayed due to the pandemic, which is affecting everything.

I admit, I'm a bit amused to read the positive experiences/review of AT&T TV by you and other DTV die-hards. Many of you spent months poo-pooing the idea of AT&T TV and/or its customized streaming box. But after actually trying it and comparing it to both DTV and various other OTT options, you sound pretty satisfied with it.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> I admit, I'm a bit amused to read the positive experiences/review of AT&T TV by you and other DTV die-hards. Many of you spent months poo-pooing the idea of AT&T TV and/or its customized streaming box. But after actually trying it and comparing it to both DTV and various other OTT options, you sound pretty satisfied with it.


Check back at the beginning of their 2nd year when the regular price kicks in.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> Check back at the beginning of their 2nd year when the regular price kicks in.


Yep, that will be the kicker! The service is good, the box is good and the channel selections are good, as well as the first year pricing.

2nd year pricing? Not so much, and so bad that it makes perfect financial sense to sub a year and cancel and pay the $180 ETF at that point. That makes the Entertainment level, with the free year of HBO Max average out to $57/month for the 12 months.

It is only because that math works so well that I even considered giving it a try.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, this is how AT&T TV works. I've explained this before somewhere or another on this forum. Based on what I've read, when you set up the AT&T TV box and connect it to your home network via wifi or ethernet, it sets that network as your "home network". You can only use the AT&T TV app on TV-connected devices (Apple TV, Roku, Fire TV, etc.) that are on that same network. This is obviously designed to keep someone from sharing their account with another household. I mean, you still can, but the other household will be limited to watching on a phone, tablet or computer. If that other "household" is your kid living in a dorm at college, well, that's probably how s/he would be watching anyhow, so that's fine. But if it's your brother across town, nah, he's gonna wanna watch cable TV on his big screen, so he'll have to cough up for his own AT&T TV subscription.


That may be their theory of how it works, but it isn't exactly how it actually works.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Good to hear that they're improving the experience with the AT&T TV box. There are also some simple hacks you can do if you access the service menu that will speed up the UI and launch times for third-party apps, or so I've read. Maybe AT&T just incorporated some of those changes into their default configuration with the update you received a couple weeks ago.
> 
> Like you, I hope that they add a screen in the UI that shows all the recordings you have set up, with an easy way to delete or edit them. From the get-go, I've looked at AT&T TV as a potential option for my elderly parents who have had DISH for years. They would find it frustrating/confusing not to have a recordings/timers screen like that.
> 
> ...


Saving 130 dollars a month this year and 70 a month next year can easily sway my opinion


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

This isn’t so much a ATT TV plus but all live streaming TV plus over Sat. I did an area of my basement today to make the workout area better. I added a TV there and turned it also in a second living room area. I was just able to plop a Apple TV there and poof live TV. No adding a monthly fee and a contract


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

compnurd said:


> This isn't so much a ATT TV plus but all live streaming TV plus over Sat. I did an area of my basement today to make the workout area better. I added a TV there and turned it also in a second living room area. I was just able to plop a Apple TV there and poof live TV. No adding a monthly fee and a contract


It should be that simple. If not for sports, it would be.

Rich


----------



## mikegold (May 14, 2002)

compnurd said:


> Well.. Here is another I am cancelling thread... Dont worry I will comment later and give myself **** for doing this... More so I just wanted to thank everyone for the help over probably the last decade with Directv. I still love the service, the PQ and the sports options..
> 
> But My bill just jumped to 192 a month for Xtra with HBO and we just dont watch the same amount of TV anymore..
> 
> ...


After 18 years with DirecTV....I'm out. The service since the AT&T takeover and the ridiculous cost finally pushed me to ditch the dish and move to streaming. Saving over $100/month with streaming and still getting all the channels we watch plus all locals. All my equipment has been shipped back....and account canceled today. It was great while it lasted but YTTV has been working flawlessly and Netflix, Hulu, Prime, all fill in any gaps.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mikegold said:


> After 18 years with DirecTV....I'm out. The service since the AT&T takeover and the ridiculous cost finally pushed me to ditch the dish and move to streaming. Saving over $100/month with streaming and still getting all the channels we watch plus all locals. All my equipment has been shipped back....and account canceled today. It was great while it lasted but YTTV has been working flawlessly and Netflix, Hulu, Prime, all fill in any gaps.


Not a Yankees fan? Sports don't matter? Damn, I am envious. I tried YTTV but, for sports, D* blows YTTV away, for me. I was really interested in the new ATT service but *compnurd *told me the other day that ATT isn't nearly as good for sports as D* is. Words to that effect, don't feel like searching for the post. I find *compnurd's *opinions on things he owns/uses valuable. Far too many people seem to think something is great just because they bought it, ask him his opinion on something and you get an honest answer. Last year, I considered giving Dish a shot, wanted to play with their DVRs but got an honest answer about the difference in PQ between Dish and D* and gave up on Dish. This year I'm giving up on the ATT thing based on that honesty.

Rich


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Rich said:


> Not a Yankees fan? Sports don't matter? Damn, I am envious. I tried YTTV but, for sports, D* blows YTTV away, for me. I was really interested in the new ATT service but *compnurd *told me the other day that ATT isn't nearly as good for sports as D* is. Words to that effect, don't feel like searching for the post. I find *compnurd's *opinions on things he owns/uses valuable. Far too many people seem to think something is great just because they bought it, ask him his opinion on something and you get an honest answer. Last year, I considered giving Dish a shot, wanted to play with their DVRs but got an honest answer about the difference in PQ between Dish and D* and gave up on Dish. This year I'm giving up on the ATT thing based on that honesty.
> 
> Rich


Thanks for the confidence Rich... No matter what for Sports Directv is the king by a mile.. PQ I would say ATT TV/Direct are pretty even and YTTV is a close second with Hulu in 3rd.. Dish is in 45th

But yeh from a pure sports options/channel selection ATT TV and YTTV are not there yet.... And they may... ATT TV could probably fill the gap pretty quick on there end by adding PXI in NY, some RSN's and NFL Network and be a whole lot more whole(bleh). YTTV has some more holes they need to fill


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

The problem with adding more sports to any streaming service is cost. The only way acceptable to me, for sports to expand on streaming services is if the costs for having them are all on those that want those channels or content.

Just look at the idiocy going on now. Virtually no live sports yet the consumer is paying RSN fees. For the life of me I cannot figure out why anyone would sub to any service or levels that charge RSN fees.


----------



## whorne (Dec 3, 2011)

Like Rich, it would be hard for me to give up on the sports that Directv has to offer-in particular NFL. The only legit way I can watch my team is via the Sunday Ticket.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

whorne said:


> Like Rich, it would be hard for me to give up on the sports that Directv has to offer-in particular NFL. The only legit way I can watch my team is via the Sunday Ticket.


I need to watch more closely this year about the streaming version of Sunday Ticket again


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> Thanks for the confidence Rich... No matter what for Sports Directv is the king by a mile.. PQ I would say ATT TV/Direct are pretty even and YTTV is a close second with Hulu in 3rd.. Dish is in 45th
> 
> But yeh from a pure sports options/channel selection ATT TV and YTTV are not there yet.... And they may... ATT TV could probably fill the gap pretty quick on there end by adding PXI in NY, some RSN's and NFL Network and be a whole lot more whole(bleh).





whorne said:


> Like Rich, it would be hard for me to give up on the sports that Directv has to offer-in particular NFL. The only legit way I can watch my team is via the Sunday Ticket.


Sounds to me like AT&T TV's deficiencies in sports will largely depend on where you live. Like in the NYC area, you happen to have an indy station, WPIX, that carries Yankees games but AT&T TV hasn't added it (yet anyway). But that's really unusual. Very few markets where something like that is an issue. And I don't think there are many RSNs that are on DTV but missing from AT&T TV. For most sports fans, I don't think those would be issues, although in area where a key channel is missing, yeah, DTV is still superior.

In terms of national sports offerings, isn't it just NFL Sunday Ticket and the NFL Network that DTV has but AT&T TV doesn't? Whatever AT&T's future relationship with the NFL turns out to be, I think both of those will get resolved at the same time. Until then, a separate contract with the NFL governs DTV vs. AT&T TV. No way I can see NFLST remaining exclusive to DTV after the current contract ends. If it remains an AT&T exclusive, they'll put it on both AT&T TV and DTV. But I doubt that happens either.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Sounds to me like AT&T TV's deficiencies in sports will largely depend on where you live. Like in the NYC area, you happen to have an indy station, WPIX, that carries Yankees games but AT&T TV hasn't added it (yet anyway). But that's really unusual. Very few markets where something like that is an issue. And I don't think there are many RSNs that are on DTV but missing from AT&T TV. For most sports fans, I don't think those would be issues, although in area where a key channel is missing, yeah, DTV is still superior.
> 
> In terms of national sports offerings, isn't it just NFL Sunday Ticket and the NFL Network that DTV has but AT&T TV doesn't? Whatever AT&T's future relationship with the NFL turns out to be, I think both of those will get resolved at the same time. Until then, a separate contract with the NFL governs DTV vs. AT&T TV. No way I can see NFLST remaining exclusive to DTV after the current contract ends. If it remains an AT&T exclusive, they'll put it on both AT&T TV and DTV. But I doubt that happens either.


ATT Sportsnet is still the big one they are missing.. I am not sure of others.. on the NFL front.. I expect we see NFL Network on ATT TV/NOW by the time the season starts. I dont see that as something ATT wants to miss and the NFL also since there probably wont be fans at any games but who knows. But yes you are correct on the national level i think it is just NFL Network ATT is missing they have everything else


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> That may be their theory of how it works, but it isn't exactly how it actually works.


Have you tested it out? I'm curious about exactly what AT&T TV is doing to control access to streams on TVs. (And as far as Hulu with Live TV's Unlimited Screens option, how I described it is how it works, at least per their support documentation.)


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Have you tested it out? I'm curious about exactly what AT&T TV is doing to control access to streams on TVs. (And as far as Hulu with Live TV's Unlimited Screens option, how I described it is how it works, at least per their support documentation.)


I have read many posts here and there with people that have relatives/friends in the same towns with the same ISP that are sharing service.

I of course, would never do that!


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> ATT Sportsnet is still the big one they are missing.. I am not sure of others.. on the NFL front.. I expect we see NFL Network on ATT TV/NOW by the time the season starts. I dont see that as something ATT wants to miss and the NFL also since there probably wont be fans at any games but who knows. But yes you are correct on the national level i think it is just NFL Network ATT is missing they have everything else


So strange that the only RSNs that AT&T TV is missing are _THEIR OWN RSNs_! It was rumored back before the pandemic that AT&T was looking to sell those 3 or 4 RSNs and I figured their absence from AT&T TV/Now was somehow tied to that. At this point, though, who knows what's going on.

As for NFL Network, it's never been on Uverse TV. Seems like I once read that its presence on DTV is part of their overall deal that includes NFLST. We'll see what happens with regard to it showing up on AT&T TV...


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> I have read many posts here and there with people that have relatives/friends in the same towns with the same ISP that are sharing service.
> 
> I of course, would never do that!


These are people using AT&T TV, not AT&T TV Now? And their friends/relatives are watching on a TV-connected device? If so, then it would appear that AT&T TV simply isn't using the controls that they said they were putting in place (or the tech doesn't work, but that's hard to believe when Hulu and PS Vue have both done it).


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> These are people using AT&T TV, not AT&T TV Now? And their friends/relatives are watching on a TV-connected device? If so, then it would appear that AT&T TV simply isn't using the controls that they said they were putting in place (or the tech doesn't work, but that's hard to believe when Hulu and PS Vue have both done it).


It has been reported that way for both services, and that makes sense since the only differences are your account login, pricing and contract issues. Otherwise the service provided is exactly the same just some channel differences.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> It has been reported that way for both services, and that makes sense since the only differences are your account login, pricing and contract issues. Otherwise the service provided is exactly the same just some channel differences.


Just as AT&T can tie a different channel line-up to a different account (an AT&T TV account vs. an AT&T TV Now account), they can also tie different usage privileges. If they wanted, it would be technologically trivial to give AT&T TV accounts four simultaneous streams while only giving AT&T TV Now accounts two, despite the fact that both services use the same set of apps. Likewise, they could code their TV-connected apps so that, on an AT&T TV account, it would only launch when connected through that user's designated home network (which is what they indicated would happen), while no such rule would apply on an AT&T TV Now account.

At any rate, based on what you're saying, apparently the company isn't enforcing that rule for AT&T TV customers, which is a bit surprising. If they ever expand the number of simultaneous streams beyond three, though, I bet they will, just as Hulu, PS Vue and other vMVPDs have done.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> So strange that the only RSNs that AT&T TV is missing are _THEIR OWN RSNs_! It was rumored back before the pandemic that AT&T was looking to sell those 3 or 4 RSNs and I figured their absence from AT&T TV/Now was somehow tied to that. At this point, though, who knows what's going on.
> 
> As for NFL Network, it's never been on Uverse TV. Seems like I once read that its presence on DTV is part of their overall deal that includes NFLST. We'll see what happens with regard to it showing up on AT&T TV...


And go figure they added the RSN's today! And they added NESN also


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> At any rate, based on what you're saying, apparently the company isn't enforcing that rule for AT&T TV customers, which is a bit surprising. If they ever expand the number of simultaneous streams beyond three, though, I bet they will, just as Hulu, PS Vue and other vMVPDs have done.


When I had PSVue it was watched in more than one place at a time. As of right now only Hulu is enforcing their rule to my knowledge. I've seen no reports of anyone else doing so. And among other reasons, it is just another to add to the list of why I'm not at all interested in having Hulu+Live.

I can't beat ATT's 1st year pricing deal I got. $50/month which includes HBO Max for a year makes its true cost the 1st year only $35 since I'd have HBO Max anyway. At the anniversary I'll see what AT&T will offer in the way of discounts or cancel, whichever is in my best interest.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> And go figure they added the RSN's today! And they added NESN also


Just read the news elsewhere and was coming back to post it! You beat me to it.


----------



## mikegold (May 14, 2002)

Rich said:


> Not a Yankees fan? Sports don't matter? Damn, I am envious. I tried YTTV but, for sports, D* blows YTTV away, for me. I was really interested in the new ATT service but *compnurd *told me the other day that ATT isn't nearly as good for sports as D* is. Words to that effect, don't feel like searching for the post. I find *compnurd's *opinions on things he owns/uses valuable. Far too many people seem to think something is great just because they bought it, ask him his opinion on something and you get an honest answer. Last year, I considered giving Dish a shot, wanted to play with their DVRs but got an honest answer about the difference in PQ between Dish and D* and gave up on Dish. This year I'm giving up on the ATT thing based on that honesty.
> 
> Rich


Met fan so SNY and WPIX works. Big Ten Network for any Ohio State sports not on networks. Don't really care about NFL other than Jets and Giants.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> The problem with adding more sports to any streaming service is cost. The only way acceptable to me, for sports to expand on streaming services is if the costs for having them are all on those that want those channels or content.
> 
> Just look at the idiocy going on now. Virtually no live sports yet the consumer is paying RSN fees. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why anyone would sub to any service or levels that charge RSN fees.


I don't really have a choice if I want to continue with D*.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

whorne said:


> Like Rich, it would be hard for me to give up on the sports that Directv has to offer-in particular NFL. The only legit way I can watch my team is via the Sunday Ticket.


It's more than just the amount of sports content there is on D*. I like to watch a couple (at least) MLB games at a time and, with D*, I have no problem jumping almost seamlessly from game to game. During the NFL season, I watch multiple games all day Sunday. Again, jumping almost seamlessly from game to game. I've tried cable replacement services and you can't do that very well on any of them. Trickplay on D* is, to me, superb. On cable replacement services trickplay just isn't nearly as good. I think.

Rich


----------



## whorne (Dec 3, 2011)

Rich said:


> It's more than just the amount of sports content there is on D*. I like to watch a couple (at least) MLB games at a time and, with D*, I have no problem jumping almost seamlessly from game to game. During the NFL season, I watch multiple games all day Sunday. Again, jumping almost seamlessly from game to game. I've tried cable replacement services and you can't do that very well on any of them. Trickplay on D* is, to me, superb. On cable replacement services trickplay just isn't nearly as good. I think.
> 
> Rich


I agree! I thoroughly enjoy sitting down on each Sunday knowing that I can see all the NFL games and not wondering if the local station will broadcast the one I want to watch or switch over to another game while I am watching one! That just aggravates the heck out of me!


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mikegold said:


> Met fan so SNY and WPIX works. Big Ten Network for any Ohio State sports not on networks. Don't really care about NFL other than Jets and Giants.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I enjoy wagering on games and that means a lot of homework. Gotta watch a lot of football teams in order to understand matchups. Same thing with MLB games, I end up watching games I wouldn't care about if I weren't betting on them. I sub to MLB and the ST, the only way I can get the info I need. Not that it helps all that much, I end up breaking even just about every year.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> I don't really have a choice if I want to continue with D*.
> 
> Rich


Sure you do, just sub to a level that has no RSNs. Is there actually any live sports on them these days? Or maybe the question is are there any live sports of real interest these days?


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Baseball starts today. NBA and NHL soon. NFL in September...and yes none of them may last but they are trying. I was told in a chat I would get 4 months of my $9.99 RSN fee credited to my account in 1 to 2 billing cycles. I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Sure you do, just sub to a level that has no RSNs. Is there actually any live sports on them these days? Or maybe the question is are there any live sports of real interest these days?


Remember how much I need YES?

Rich


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Rich said:


> Remember how much I need YES?
> 
> Rich


ATT TV gives you YES. Just need that missing PXI link lol


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Just read the news elsewhere and was coming back to post it! You beat me to it.


That they added 5 big RSNs right before baseball starts gives me hope we see NFL Network at the last minute.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> Remember how much I need YES?


About as much as your wife needs Hallmark, IIRC.


----------



## whorne (Dec 3, 2011)

compnurd said:


> That they added 5 big RSNs right before baseball starts gives me hope we see NFL Network at the last minute.


That would be great!


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

compnurd said:


> ATT TV gives you YES. Just need that missing PXI link lol


But that app can't match the total sports experience I get now, right?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> About as much as your wife needs Hallmark, IIRC.


She's evolved quite a bit. She's been using the Hallmark app on the ATVs, rather than using D*. Seems there's not really all that much content on the D* channel, she had little to watch and started using the app and then moved over to NF. Simply put, that isn't a roadblock to dropping D* anymore. Like most folks, once you start streaming seriously you find out you can do without a provider such as D*.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

compnurd said:


> That they added 5 big RSNs right before baseball starts gives me hope we see NFL Network at the last minute.


I hope you do get the ST. Let's see if you can watch 6 football games at a time, switching damn near seamlessly between games. If you can do that, I'd really be interested in that app. And that remote. If you can do that I'd give up the games on PIX and drop D*.

Why wouldn't ATT put the ST on that app? Why would they ignore that money stream? I hope you get it.

Rich


----------



## mickat (Jul 8, 2007)

Rich said:


> Remember how much I need YES?
> 
> Rich


I to need every Yankees and Giants game here in Boca Raton and that means I need D*TV with MIL EI and NFL ST.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> She's evolved quite a bit. She's been using the Hallmark app on the ATVs, rather than using D*. Seems there's not really all that much content on the D* channel, she had little to watch and started using the app and then moved over to NF. Simply put, that isn't a roadblock to dropping D* anymore. Like most folks, once you start streaming seriously you find out you can do without a provider such as D*.
> 
> Rich


Sports are still a bit of an issue for those wanting that. ATT TV is actually pretty good in that area though it is oddly missing the NFL channel but most RSNs seem to be covered depending on subscription level. The downsides with ATT TV is the contract and retail price and so far no one knows what discounts might be available in the 2nd year and beyond because no one has gotten to that point yet.

I still think the sport industry will have to make some changes in how they market their product to the end user. I think their resistance to change is because they are pretty sure they will have less revenue/profits in any direct to consumer deal and I think they are right in thinking that.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mickat said:


> I to need every Yankees and Giants game here in Boca Raton and that means I need D*TV with MIL EI and NFL ST.


Think of how lucky you are. If I could get every game on MLB I'd drop D* in a heartbeat (if I could get past losing my DVRs). I live in NJ, I can't get Yankee home games from MLB. I gotta ask: I'm assuming you moved from somewhere near NYC, did you plan for this before you moved?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Sports are still a bit of an issue for those wanting that. *ATT TV is actually pretty good in that area* though it is oddly missing the NFL channel but most RSNs seem to be covered depending on subscription level. The downsides with ATT TV is the contract and retail price and so far no one knows what discounts might be available in the 2nd year and beyond because no one has gotten to that point yet.
> 
> I still think the sport industry will have to make some changes in how they market their product to the end user. I think their resistance to change is because they are pretty sure they will have less revenue/profits in any direct to consumer deal and I think they are right in thinking that.


It would have to be, at least, the equal of D* before I'd make the jump. The total sports experience, I mean.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> It would have to be, at least, the equal of D* before I'd make the jump. The total sports experience, I mean.
> 
> Rich


Yeah I know, but I don't think that's in the cards, might not ever be.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah I know, but I don't think that's in the cards, might not ever be.


Yup, my luck. Doesn't matter.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

As AT&T TV matures, I expect you'll see them add live 4K HDR sports. And -- if their streaming box can handle it -- some kind of multi-view option, like PS Vue used to offer on the Apple TV, where you could watch any four channels live. Great for keeping an eye on multiple games at once.

As for NFL Sunday Ticket, it probably either gets added to all of AT&T's cable TV products (it's currently only on DTV) or it leaves all of them. But that may not get resolved until the bigger question about AT&T's future with NFL Sunday Ticket.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

The current ATT box is way too underpowered to do multi-streams. It is fairly sluggish as it is now.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> The current ATT box is way too underpowered to do multi-streams. It is fairly sluggish as it is now.


I used mlb app from the box today and it was pretty smooth. I am not sure why for 100 bucks(and probably inflated) people are expecting Apple type processing power. The box does what it needs to do fairly well


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Rich said:


> She's evolved quite a bit. She's been using the Hallmark app on the ATVs, rather than using D*.


Doesn't she need your D* credentials to log into the app?



NashGuy said:


> And -- if their streaming box can handle it -- some kind of multi-view option, like PS Vue used to offer on the Apple TV, where you could watch any four channels live. Great for keeping an eye on multiple games at once.


You mean like Dish has with Sports Bar mode on their Hoppers? One could only hope. 






ESPN's Multicast view. I really wish all the sports apps on the Apple TV could do this.


----------



## mickat (Jul 8, 2007)

Rich said:


> Think of how lucky you are. If I could get every game on MLB I'd drop D* in a heartbeat (if I could get past losing my DVRs). I live in NJ, I can't get Yankee home games from MLB. I gotta ask: I'm assuming you moved from somewhere near NYC, did you plan for this before you moved?
> 
> Rich


Moved from Owego NY, in 1979. We got D*TV as soon as they got NFL ST, way back when you had D*TV for your cable like channels and USSB for your movie channels. Had all the Giants games long before they had MLB EI if I remember right. I even remember those first rec. all they got was 1 channel at a time they they cost like $800 bucks. There has been a lot of changes over the years not all bad (lots of HD channels) but dealing with anyone on the phone right now can be a nightmare.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Doesn't she need your D* credentials to log into the app?[/MEDIA]


We are talking about my wife, right? We live in the same home. Why would she need my credentials?

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> The current ATT box is way too underpowered to do multi-streams. It is fairly sluggish as it is now.


As I understand it, the performance difference in lower-vs-higher powered streaming boxes/sticks is more evident in terms of smoothly handling graphical displays (e.g. scrolling through menus with animations, playing video games, etc.) and juggling between/launching multiple open apps. In those cases, a faster processor and more RAM make a big difference. But in terms of simply fetching and hardware decoding A/V streams using a codec that the chipset is designed for (e.g. H.264, H.265), that's not very demanding. So I wouldn't necessarily rule out that the AT&T TV box could, for instance, fetch four different live channels at a reduced resolution from the AT&T servers at the same time, with each channel taking up one-quarter of the 1080p or 4K output signal.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> As I understand it, the performance difference in lower-vs-higher powered streaming boxes/sticks is more evident in terms of smoothly handling graphical displays (e.g. scrolling through menus with animations, playing video games, etc.) and juggling between/launching multiple open apps. In those cases, a faster processor and more RAM make a big difference. But in terms of simply fetching and hardware decoding A/V streams using a codec that the chipset is designed for (e.g. H.264, H.265), that's not very demanding. So I wouldn't necessarily rule out that the AT&T TV box could, for instance, fetch four different live channels at a reduced resolution from the AT&T servers at the same time, with each channel taking up one-quarter of the 1080p or 4K output signal.


Correct I dont see why it couldnt either


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Rich said:


> We are talking about my wife, right? We live in the same home. Why would she need my credentials?


Yes. I mean she can't watch the app without a satellite or cable subscription log in, correct?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> As I understand it, the performance difference in lower-vs-higher powered streaming boxes/sticks is more evident in terms of smoothly handling graphical displays (e.g. scrolling through menus with animations, playing video games, etc.) and juggling between/launching multiple open apps. In those cases, a faster processor and more RAM make a big difference. But in terms of simply fetching and hardware decoding A/V streams using a codec that the chipset is designed for (e.g. H.264, H.265), that's not very demanding. So I wouldn't necessarily rule out that the AT&T TV box could, for instance, fetch four different live channels at a reduced resolution from the AT&T servers at the same time, with each channel taking up one-quarter of the 1080p or 4K output signal.


Possibly you are correct but I have serious doubts that it is good enough to do it well. But since I don't think they will do it anyway, it probably is all a moot point.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> Possibly you are correct but I have serious doubts that it is good enough to do it well. But since I don't think they will do it anyway, it probably is all a moot point.


We'll see. It's not like they would be doing something that other MVPDs haven't already done. So it's not out of the question.

But I expect AT&T TV will implement live sports in 4K HDR first. There's no question that the box supports 4K as well as the HDR10 and HLG HDR formats. Wonder if that happens in time for any of the sports happening this year. Did the MLB, NBA or NFL do any 4K or 4K HDR games last season? (I know college football via FS1 did some but I don't think there's gonna be any college football in 2020.)


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> We'll see. It's not like they would be doing something that other MVPDs haven't already done. So it's not out of the question.
> 
> But I expect AT&T TV will implement live sports in 4K HDR first. There's no question that the box supports 4K as well as the HDR10 and HLG HDR formats. Wonder if that happens in time for any of the sports happening this year. Did the MLB, NBA or NFL do any 4K or 4K HDR games last season? (I know college football via FS1 did some but I don't think there's gonna be any college football in 2020.)


They all did 4K HDR games


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> So I wouldn't necessarily rule out that the AT&T TV box could, for instance, fetch four different live channels at a reduced resolution from the AT&T servers at the same time, with each channel taking up one-quarter of the 1080p or 4K output signal.


The chipset the C71KW uses is actually designed to do exactly this.

But would AT&T would want to quadruple its delivery costs for customers to do this?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Yes. I mean she can't watch the app without a satellite or cable subscription log in, correct?


Right, we logged in using D*.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> The chipset the C71KW uses is actually designed to do exactly this.
> 
> But would AT&T would want to quadruple its delivery costs for customers to do this?


Probably not! AT&T already as a pricing problem with their streaming services and that would just aggravate it more.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> The chipset the C71KW uses is actually designed to do exactly this.
> 
> But would AT&T would want to quadruple its delivery costs for customers to do this?





lparsons21 said:


> Probably not! AT&T already as a pricing problem with their streaming services and that would just aggravate it more.


Streaming delivery costs wouldn't quadruple. And I'd think the additional costs would be outweighed by the marketing value of such a feature, given that premium cable TV service largely targets sports fans. It's a similar cost/benefit analysis for AT&T TV as the decision whether to broadcast in 4K (which is supposedly on the roadmap). (Also keep in mind that most customers wouldn't make use of the multi-view feature and, among those who did, it would be a relatively small percentage of their total viewing time throughout the course of the month.)

Remember that AT&T TV's live channels are already encoded at multiple bitrates and resolutions (i.e. adaptive bitrate or ABR). Maybe not as many different levels as, say, Netflix does for their pre-encoded on-demand stuff, given that AT&T TV is encoded live, on-the-fly. But AT&T TV does use ABR, because it can be delivered at differing quality levels depending on the speed/health of the user's broadband or cellular connection.

So, in the case of a multi-view feature, the AT&T TV box would just simultaneously request live streams of up to four different channels at reduced resolution (which would be OK, since each channel would only take up 1/4 of your TV screen). Sure, it would require more bandwidth to serve up four 720p streams at the same time than one 1080p stream. But probably not any more bandwidth than it would take to serve up a single 4K stream. For folks watching on a 1080p TV using the hypothetical multi-view feature, the box might request widescreen SD (480p) version streams of the selected channels. All those different resolutions should already exist on AT&T TV's encoding ladder.


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

Rich said:


> I hadn't considered the PIX games until *TV_Guy* mentioned them. Maybe five? I dunno. Doesn't matter, what would interest me is a provider that could give me a better sports experience than what I get from D*. I have yet to see any provider that beats D* for sports.
> 
> Rich


No Yankees games on WPIX or Amazon Prime this season. Not enough overflow games to add OTA. Apparently no Mets games either. 
Amazon won't stream any New York Yankees games this season after all


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

The way COVID-19 is hitting MLB the Yankees may not have another game to televise. Yankees @ Phils and Orioles @ Marlins already canceled for tonight because the Marlins have 12 players and 2 coaches with COVID-19. Yankees @ Phils game canceled because that is where the Marlins just finished a series.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> The way COVID-19 is hitting MLB the Yankees may not have another game to televise. Yankees @ Phils and Orioles @ Marlins already canceled for tonight because the Marlins have 12 players and 2 coaches with COVID-19. Yankees @ Phils game canceled because that is where the Marlins just finished a series.


If they can't keep baseball players safe how are they gonna keep football players safe? Wear masks and socially distance themselves on the field? I don't see how that is gonna work.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> If they can't keep baseball players safe how are they gonna keep football players safe? Wear masks and socially distance themselves on the field? I don't see how that is gonna work.
> 
> Rich


A friend and I were talking about that just the other day. I can't see a way they can have football and keep the players and others safe. Doesn't bode well for football this year at all.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> If they can't keep baseball players safe how are they gonna keep football players safe? Wear masks and socially distance themselves on the field? I don't see how that is gonna work.





lparsons21 said:


> A friend and I were talking about that just the other day. I can't see a way they can have football and keep the players and others safe. Doesn't bode well for football this year at all.


Yeah, given the huge level of spread taking place in so much of the US now, the *only* sports scenario that I could possibly see working is "the bubble" approach that the NBA is doing at DisneyWorld. So far, no outbreak there.

But this idea that athletes can live at home and continually come together to practice, travel and play other teams while at the same time not being segregated away from the outside world -- from friends, extended family, restaurants, bars, retail stores, churches, etc. -- just doesn't make sense. Because obviously various players will catch the virus and then it's going to start spreading on the team before it's noticed. And if that's true for a low-contact sport like baseball, it's WAY more true of a high-contact sport like football.

I continue to be amazed at the level of magical thinking and denial in our nation with regard to this virus. Sending kids back to schools and colleges in the next few weeks is another example...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> If they can't keep baseball players safe how are they gonna keep football players safe? Wear masks and socially distance themselves on the field? I don't see how that is gonna work.


Log in every player into the NFL Madden game and have them control their own player. Virtual football.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, given the huge level of spread taking place in so much of the US now, the *only* sports scenario that I could possibly see working is "the bubble" approach that the NBA is doing at DisneyWorld. So far, no outbreak there.
> 
> But this idea that athletes can live at home and continually come together to practice, travel and play other teams while at the same time not being segregated away from the outside world -- from friends, extended family, restaurants, bars, retail stores, churches, etc. -- just doesn't make sense. Because obviously various players will catch the virus and then it's going to start spreading on the team before it's noticed. And if that's true for a low-contact sport like baseball, it's WAY more true of a high-contact sport like football.
> 
> I continue to be amazed at the level of magical thinking and denial in our nation with regard to this virus. Sending kids back to schools and colleges in the next few weeks is another example...


Probably not the place to have this discussion...LOL


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> Probably not the place to have this discussion...LOL


<shrug> This pandemic is the issue _uber alles_. No aspect of American society -- including the sports, movie and TV industries discussed on this forum -- is untouched.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

This part of our forum is for the discussion of AT&T|DIRECTV satellite service. We have other parts of our forum for other topics. Not all topics have a place on our forum.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> This part of our forum is for the discussion of AT&T|DIRECTV satellite service. We have other parts of our forum for other topics. Not all topics have a place on our forum.


OK, cool. I think the pandemic will continue having a negative effect on the ability of professional and college sports to operate, which will lead to even more cancellations of expensive cable TV services, especially DirecTV, which has a particular appeal to sports viewers thanks to NFLST and the huge lineup of sports channels offered.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> OK, cool. I think the pandemic will continue having a negative effect on the ability of professional and college sports to operate, which will lead to even more cancellations of expensive cable TV services, especially DirecTV, which has a particular appeal to sports viewers thanks to NFLST and the huge lineup of sports channels offered.


If it was just sports with the problem of nothing new to watch, I wouldn't care. But the same situation is with new scripted shows too. IMO, live streaming/cable/sat are becoming an even worse value.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> If it was just sports with the problem of nothing new to watch, I wouldn't care. But the same situation is with new scripted shows too. IMO, live streaming/cable/sat are becoming an even worse value.


If you think it's bad now, wait until next spring. Get ready to watch a lot of foreign imports to fill the holes on American channels and streaming services.


----------



## AngryManMLS (Jan 30, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> If you think it's bad now, wait until next spring. Get ready to watch a lot of foreign imports to fill the holes on American channels and streaming services.


Expect Disney to really push South Korean Baseball even more next year the rate sports are going at.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

compnurd said:


> Look at this way also.. and I understand as I am a die hard mets fan.. How many of those 60 games are going to be on PXI... Could you live with not watching them to save money





NashGuy said:


> Hulu with Live TV works the same way. At its base level, it only allows two devices to watch at the same time, regardless of network/location. But if you add their $10/mo "Unlimited Screens" option, what that really does is just allow you to access the service on an unlimited number of devices on your home network. In addition, three mobile devices can access the service simultaneously, regardless of network/location.
> 
> Not sure why AT&T TV is leaving money on the table by not selling the same kind of upgrade for customers who need (or think they need) the ability to watch live cable TV on a bazillion different screens in their home at the same time. Maybe their research shows that there just isn't much of a market for that? Or maybe it's an option that they plan to roll out as AT&T TV matures.


These are the two biggest reasons I haven't jumped from D* to AT&T TV. I live in a household where quite often 5 TVs are going simultaneously and the limitation on the number of streams is a non-starter (heck on my Genie, I run out of streams sometimes anyway). And adding to the issue is not having WPIX (and PBS). I'm hopeful that these issues get resolved. WPIX was recently sold, so maybe the new owners will strike a deal. And the stream limitation is an issue for us.


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

I originally had Primestar in 96 and the directv acquired them sometime around 98, so have been with directv since other than a 2 year stint with dish. Yesterday was my last day of directv service. Feels really weird. We have Amazon, Hulu, and Disney+ so far and seems to be working reasonably well. I have all of the sports channels I had before that I actually watch so we shall see how it goes. What I miss so far is the ease of switching channels and the dvr functions but I think I can live without them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> These are the two biggest reasons I haven't jumped from D* to AT&T TV. I live in a household where quite often 5 TVs are going simultaneously and the limitation on the number of streams is a non-starter (heck on my Genie, I run out of streams sometimes anyway). And adding to the issue is not having WPIX (and PBS). I'm hopeful that these issues get resolved. WPIX was recently sold, so maybe the new owners will strike a deal. And the stream limitation is an issue for us.


Its not that great for people who don't watch sports either.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inhd40 said:


> I originally had Primestar in 96 and the directv acquired them sometime around 98, so have been with directv since other than a 2 year stint with dish. Yesterday was my last day of directv service. Feels really weird. We have Amazon, Hulu, and Disney+ so far and seems to be working reasonably well. I have all of the sports channels I had before that I actually watch so we shall see how it goes. What I miss so far is the ease of switching channels and the dvr functions but I think I can live without them.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


You don't need DVR functions when streaming. And you don't have channels. What you have is a wealth of content at your fingertips. Of course, if you're planning on using a cable replacement service you'd need a DVR function. But pure streaming, just using sites such as Netflix or Hulu, is different. You simply don't need a DVR.

You didn't list Netflix in your post. You can get lost in NF for months at a time. The only site you should be locked into is Amazon, the rest of the sites can be turned on and off easily. No commitments when streaming. Pick a site, any site. You pay for a month, you should be able to stay on that site for at least a month. Cancel and go to another site...and on and on. I've been doing it for years, it's been a wonderful experience.

Rich


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Immm backkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk. Was planning on returning the equipment Monday. Winback called today... 300 dollar giftcard to offset the ATT TV cancellation.. Free Premiums for 3 months. HBO MAX for a year and 80 off for a year and free Sunday Ticket.. 1 year contract required.. Back Online in 15 min


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

compnurd said:


> Immm backkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk. Was planning on returning the equipment Monday. Winback called today... 300 dollar giftcard to offset the ATT TV cancellation.. Free Premiums for 3 months. HBO MAX for a year and 80 off for a year and free Sunday Ticket.. 1 year contract required.. Back Online in 15 min


Wow! Can't find any reason that you shouldn't take that offer. Well done. FWIW, my brother received a call from D* this week, but he didn't mention what they offered. He's been separated from D* for over a year.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

welcome back!!!. that's one thing i noticed once people start leaving it seems that ATT is having a going out of business sale.. works for me


----------



## whorne (Dec 3, 2011)

That is a nice win back offer! Congrats!


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

that's a better deal than spectrums select pack after box fee's dvr fee's taxes LOL


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

My plan is also now the (All Included) so there is no more 25 Advanced Receiver Fee when the promo is over


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

compnurd said:


> My plan is also now the (All Included) so there is no more 25 Advanced Receiver Fee when the promo is over


Isn't the programming package with All Included about $23 more than the one without?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

harsh said:


> Isn't the programming package with All Included about $23 more than the one without?


Not according to my last bill before i cancelled


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

There's no reason they can't offer Directv at similar prices to AT&T TV for customers who already have the dish & wiring done so there are no install costs.

But they are still stupid in so many areas. Why such a long commitment for AT&T TV, make that six months and no one will complain. Keep the two years for Directv with a free install, or make it six months like AT&T if you pay for the install up front. It costs basically the same to deliver either one, the monthly price should be the same with the only difference needed to account for Directv's up front install cost.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I’m sorry, but it isn’t the commitment that is the issue for AT&T TV, it is the full retail price.

YouTubeTV which is very comparable to Xtra is $65 at retail.

Xtra is $124 at retail.

Something does not compute!!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> There's no reason they can't offer Directv at similar prices to AT&T TV for customers who already have the dish & wiring done so there are no install costs.


No reason other than the channels you get on DIRECTV that aren't available in the namesake package on AT&T TV?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> I'm sorry, but it isn't the commitment that is the issue for AT&T TV, it is the full retail price.
> 
> YouTubeTV which is very comparable to Xtra is $65 at retail.
> 
> ...


Youtube TV isn't anywhere close to Xtra Whenever YTTV finishes the Viacom channels maybe


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

compnurd said:


> Youtube TV isn't anywhere close to Xtra Whenever YTTV finishes the Viacom channels maybe


Your opinion, mine is that it is close to Xtra and more than Choice.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Your opinion, mine is that it is close to Xtra and more than Choice.


Not really an opinion when Xtra has 40 more channels then YTTV


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

compnurd said:


> Not really an opinion when Xtra has 40 more channels then YTTV


40 more really drek channels IMO. And are you counting using D's channel lineup or ATT TV's?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> 40 more really drek channels IMO. And are you counting using D's channel lineup or ATT TV's?


ATT TV. Directv Xtra has way more then both


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

compnurd said:


> Immm backkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk. Was planning on returning the equipment Monday. Winback called today... 300 dollar giftcard to offset the ATT TV cancellation.. Free Premiums for 3 months. HBO MAX for a year and 80 off for a year and free Sunday Ticket.. 1 year contract required.. Back Online in 15 min


I just saw an article that said in some areas the ST would be given to us at no cost. In some areas. Not sure what that means. One other thing about sports: I was playing with the MLB app on my desktop last night and you can't skip thru the commercials between innings. So, even if I could get home games that would drive me nuts. One more reason to stick with D* for sports of all sorts.

One question about your latest move: Which one has the best overall PQ?

Rich


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Rich said:


> I just saw an article that said in some areas the ST would be given to us at no cost. In some areas. Not sure what that means. One other thing about sports: *I was playing with the MLB app on my desktop last night and you can't skip thru the commercials between innings.* So, even if I could get home games that would drive me nuts. One more reason to stick with D* for sports of all sorts.
> 
> One question about your latest move: Which one has the best overall PQ?
> 
> Rich


On my desktop computer using a web browser I can't FF through the commercials. But using the MLB app on my ATV4k I can forward through them between innings just fine.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Rich said:


> I just saw an article that said in some areas the ST would be given to us at no cost. In some areas. Not sure what that means. One other thing about sports: I was playing with the MLB app on my desktop last night and you can't skip thru the commercials between innings. So, even if I could get home games that would drive me nuts. One more reason to stick with D* for sports of all sorts.
> 
> One question about your latest move: Which one has the best overall PQ?
> 
> Rich


Between ATT and Directv I really don't see a difference


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> On my desktop computer using a web browser I can't FF through the commercials. But using the MLB app on my ATV4k I can forward through them between innings just fine.


Why would there be such a difference?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

compnurd said:


> Between ATT and Directv I really don't see a difference


I'm surprised. I thought the ATT app was in 2160. Thought the PQ would be something like I see on the ATVs.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> I'm surprised. I thought the ATT app was in 2160. Thought the PQ would be something like I see on the ATVs.
> 
> Rich


I don't think the app is but the box is, along with forced HDR which seems to be an issue with other AndroidTV boxes.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Rich said:


> Why would there be such a difference?
> 
> Rich


No idea. MLB being MLB.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

compnurd said:


> Immm backkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk. Was planning on returning the equipment Monday. Winback called today... 300 dollar giftcard to offset the ATT TV cancellation.. Free Premiums for 3 months. HBO MAX for a year and 80 off for a year and free Sunday Ticket.. 1 year contract required.. Back Online in 15 min


I knew you would be . You, like me, seem to value convenience and don't seem to see the point in making huge sacrifices in usability to save a couple of bucks. Obviously a lot more then a couple of bucks if you have a bunch of part time TVs. But as we've seen over recent months, the price gap is quickly closing.

Kind of weird though, you did say you were able to find a single provider to get all your channels, except maybe sports? I was at 3 - 4 providers and still missing channels.

Having all your channels in a single unified UI with a single bill and dealing with a single provider FTW.

Plus the DTV time zone shift works in my favor where as I couldn't get that with a local provider like Cox or TVision.

I did have to put in a lot of effort to get my $25/mo off this round though lol...


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Rich said:


> Why would there be such a difference?
> 
> Rich





b4pjoe said:


> No idea. MLB being MLB.


Different software platforms?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Different software platforms?


In an ideal world, this would not happen. Shouldn't matter the platform, they should all work the same way. In an ideal world...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> I don't think the app is but the box is, along with forced HDR which seems to be an issue with other AndroidTV boxes.


What bothers me is *compnurd's* comparison of D* to the ATT app. I expected the app to put out a better picture than what I see on D*. I thought all the content on the app would be upscaled to 2160p by the box. I'm trying to understand this, does the box just "do" 4K if it is available? Does it upscale? I thought it would work as the ATVs work. They upscale everything AFAIK. I've never seen any resolution on them other than 2160p. I have seen content that the upscaling didn't help. Early L&O: SUV, for example. Not even an ATV could help the early seasons.

Forced HDR means the PQ gets screwed up from time to time? That box sounds like it's still in the testing stages.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> No idea. MLB being MLB.


Yup, minor annoyance.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> What bothers me is *compnurd's* comparison of D* to the ATT app. I expected the app to put out a better picture than what I see on D*. I thought all the content on the app would be upscaled to 2160p by the box. I'm trying to understand this, does the box just "do" 4K if it is available? Does it upscale? I thought it would work as the ATVs work. They upscale everything AFAIK. I've never seen any resolution on them other than 2160p. I have seen content that the upscaling didn't help. Early L&O: SUV, for example. Not even an ATV could help the early seasons.
> 
> Forced HDR means the PQ gets screwed up from time to time? That box sounds like it's still in the testing stages.
> 
> Rich


The box upscales everything except actual 4K. The app on other devices doesn't.

Forced HDR mostly screws with the color space, what I notice most is that the picture is darker than with devices that don't do that.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Rich said:


> What bothers me is *compnurd's* comparison of D* to the ATT app. I expected the app to put out a better picture than what I see on D*. I thought all the content on the app would be upscaled to 2160p by the box. I'm trying to understand this, does the box just "do" 4K if it is available? Does it upscale? I thought it would work as the ATVs work. They upscale everything AFAIK. I've never seen any resolution on them other than 2160p. I have seen content that the upscaling didn't help. Early L&O: SUV, for example. Not even an ATV could help the early seasons.
> 
> Forced HDR means the PQ gets screwed up from time to time? That box sounds like it's still in the testing stages.
> 
> Rich


So you hit the nail on the head with the SVU note. Yes to my LG the Osprey box spit everything out at 4K. But it's not going to magically make "crap" better. Regardless of the resolution you need the bits to fill the picture and ATT TV does pump out at the highest bit rate of all of the streaming platforms. Which to me puts the picture on par with Directv since we know they use a high bit rate also So is is up scaling it yes but it's still only going to be as good as the original source Hulu to me is a good example of bit starved. My friend has Hulu Live. Some channels are 1080p. But the bit rate is not as high as others so you can see that in details. especially blacks The forced HDR can be overcome with a good TV as you can change the color space and tone down the settings. But as lparsons pointed out the HDR bug is more Android related not a ATT exclusive problem


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> I knew you would be . You, like me, seem to value convenience and don't seem to see the point in making huge sacrifices in usability to save a couple of bucks. Obviously a lot more then a couple of bucks if you have a bunch of part time TVs. But as we've seen over recent months, the price gap is quickly closing.
> 
> Kind of weird though, you did say you were able to find a single provider to get all your channels, except maybe sports? I was at 3 - 4 providers and still missing channels.
> 
> ...


Yes I do value convenience and will pay for it to an extent. I really had no issue with ATT TV. Other then the dvr features were lacking


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

compnurd said:


> So you hit the nail on the head with the SVU note. Yes to my LG the Osprey box spit everything out at 4K. But it's not going to magically make "crap" better. Regardless of the resolution you need the bits to fill the picture and ATT TV does pump out at the highest bit rate of all of the streaming platforms. Which to me puts the picture on par with Directv since we know they use a high bit rate also So is is up scaling it yes but it's still only going to be as good as the original source Hulu to me is a good example of bit starved. My friend has Hulu Live. Some channels are 1080p. But the bit rate is not as high as others so you can see that in details. especially blacks The forced HDR can be overcome with a good TV as you can change the color space and tone down the settings. But as lparsons pointed out the HDR bug is more Android related not a ATT exclusive problem


Streaming doesn't automatically equal good PQ. I went to see TVision in two stores and was disappointed in the PQ. At both stores they claimed the internet in the store was slow, so I gave them the benefit of the doubt. If you set the bar at DirecTV PQ as an "A", I'd give the best channels on TVision an A- or B+ and some were down to an F-----------------------------------------. Yup, that many minuses . On the worst channels, the pixels were so big, I'm surprised they fit down my CAT5E cable. Avg channel was probably a C.

If I was going to save money by going to ATT TV and the PQ was on par, I'd be open to it, but it seems like its DirecTV delivered over the internet with less channels, the same or higher cost, contracts, etc.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

compnurd said:


> Yes I do value convenience and will pay for it to an extent. I really had no issue with ATT TV. Other then the dvr features were lacking


That's the other thing that bothers me about cable replacement services, the cloud DVRs. "Features were lacking" is an understatement when you compare the cloud DVRs to D* DVRs. I have yet to use one that comes close to what I can do with an HR.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> That's the other thing that bothers me about cable replacement services, the cloud DVRs. "Features were lacking" is an understatement when you compare the cloud DVRs to D* DVRs. I have yet to use one that comes close to what I can do with an HR.
> 
> Rich


And I doubt that you ever will. Cable replacement services are always going to be a compromise in some respects. It is up to the individual to decide which compromises are ok with them before making the change to streaming only.

I'm finding that the AT&T TV and Now service is close enough to the convenience of a cable/sat/tivo setup for me. The irritant with it is using trick play. On AT&T's box FF/REW has thumbnails, same for Roku devices. On AppleTV same app attempts to manipulate full screen during FF/REW but really can't keep up very well and if you push the speed of that action, often crashes the app. On FireTV devices no thumbnails, no indication at all other than a timeline.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> And I doubt that you ever will. Cable replacement services are always going to be a compromise in some respects. It is up to the individual to decide which compromises are ok with them before making the change to streaming only.
> 
> I'm finding that the AT&T TV and Now service is close enough to the convenience of a cable/sat/tivo setup for me. The irritant with it is using trick play. On AT&T's box FF/REW has thumbnails, same for Roku devices. On AppleTV same app attempts to manipulate full screen during FF/REW but really can't keep up very well and if you push the speed of that action, often crashes the app. On FireTV devices no thumbnails, no indication at all other than a timeline.


My biggest complaint was just the lack of seeing your series recordings. Trick play was pretty good


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

compnurd said:


> My biggest complaint was just the lack of seeing your series recordings. Trick play was pretty good


Yeah, that is an irritant for sure.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> And I doubt that you ever will. Cable replacement services are always going to be a compromise in some respects. It is up to the individual to decide which compromises are ok with them before making the change to streaming only.
> 
> I'm finding that the AT&T TV and Now service is close enough to the convenience of a cable/sat/tivo setup for me. The irritant with it is using trick play. On AT&T's box FF/REW has thumbnails, same for Roku devices. On AppleTV same app attempts to manipulate full screen during FF/REW but really can't keep up very well and if you push the speed of that action, often crashes the app. On FireTV devices no thumbnails, no indication at all other than a timeline.


The thumbnail / timeline trick play is awful. They have that on the Netflix app I use on a rare occasion. I don't get why anybody would want to FF/RW on a timeline, but not actually go there. i.e. on my Netflix app, if I FF, it'll FF on the timeline only, but if you don't click on the right thing in the right way, it'll exit the timeline mode and go back to where you were before instead of where you FF'ed to on the timeline.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

compnurd said:


> My biggest complaint was just the lack of seeing your series recordings. Trick play was pretty good


Trick play on TVision was like how it is on the DTV boxes. They just need to ramp up the PQ.

Weird thing I never got about YTTV was why they think that because I record one episode of The Big Bang Theory in a "drive by" that means I suddenly want to collect all 250 episodes and keep them for 9 months. That is probably the worst implementation of a DVR I have ever seen in my life.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Trick play on TVision was like how it is on the DTV boxes. They just need to ramp up the PQ.
> 
> Weird thing I never got about YTTV was why they think that because I record one episode of The Big Bang Theory in a "drive by" that means I suddenly want to collect all 250 episodes and keep them for 9 months. That is probably the worst implementation of a DVR I have ever seen in my life.


That is my opinion of YTTV's DVR implementation too. Add that it intermixes VOD with unskippable ads and it is a huge mess. I finally got used to it, but never liked it.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> The thumbnail / timeline trick play is awful. They have that on the Netflix app I use on a rare occasion. I don't get why anybody would want to FF/RW on a timeline, but not actually go there. i.e. on my Netflix app, if I FF, it'll FF on the timeline only, but if you don't click on the right thing in the right way, it'll exit the timeline mode and go back to where you were before instead of where you FF'ed to on the timeline.


I think there are some other apps that do that too, irritating and idiotic.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> I think there are some other apps that do that too, irritating and idiotic.


DVRs are not ground breaking tech at this point. With tech, the "first guy" doesn't always get it 100% right, although, I think Tivo did a pretty damn good job in that regard. DVRs have been around at least 20 yrs now. I don't get why the streamers aren't building on 20 yrs and instead going with all these dumb ideas.

I'm not saying DVRs can't be improved, but...

I've complained about the YTTV "drive by" DVR thing multiple times in threads here lol. I actually got a response once where the person said, just take note of the season and ep number so you can find it later. Lol. Yeah, sounds super convenient to keep a pen and paper by my couch so I can jot down season and ep numbers so I can find them in a pile of 250 eps.

From a software engineering point of view, the thumbnail thing makes sense though, you don't have the entire video in local storage in full resolution, so you can't FF/RW as smoothly as you can with a DVR. Streaming buffers in limited memory where a DVR buffers to local storage.

Not sure you can do much on the FF/RW issues, but you can definitely improve on the guide and recordings management.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> And I doubt that you ever will. Cable replacement services are always going to be a compromise in some respects. It is up to the individual to decide which compromises are ok with them before making the change to streaming only.
> 
> I'm finding that the AT&T TV and Now service is close enough to the convenience of a cable/sat/tivo setup for me. *The irritant with it is using trick play.* On AT&T's box FF/REW has thumbnails, same for Roku devices. On AppleTV same app attempts to manipulate full screen during FF/REW but really can't keep up very well and if you push the speed of that action, often crashes the app. On FireTV devices no thumbnails, no indication at all other than a timeline.


That's disturbing.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

compnurd said:


> My biggest complaint was just the lack of seeing your series recordings. *Trick play was pretty good*


Differing opinions from Lloyd and you. I thought the ATT box's remote would be the better fit for trickplay. I know using an ATV or a Fire TV device on a cable replacement service is gonna be annoying at best. When it comes to trickplay.

Rich


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Rich said:


> Differing opinions from Lloyd and you. I thought the ATT box's remote would be the better fit for trickplay. I know using an ATV or a Fire TV device on a cable replacement service is gonna be annoying at best. When it comes to trickplay.
> 
> Rich


Lloyd is very Anti ATT Box. He thinks because they slapped the word Premium on it, it was going to act just like a 5th Gen ATV...(this reminds me of the Tommy Boy slapping the warranty on the box line) I am not sure why. No matter the development every companies 1st gen Box sucks.. I had very few issues with the Osprey box and trickplay was just as good as a DVR.. But the point he makes is valid is the trickplay behavior and interface is different based on the device


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

compnurd said:


> Lloyd is very Anti ATT Box. He thinks because they slapped the word Premium on it, it was going to act just like a 5th Gen ATV...(this reminds me of the Tommy Boy slapping the warranty on the box line) I am not sure why. No matter the development every companies 1st gen Box sucks.. I had very few issues with the Osprey box and trickplay was just as good as a DVR.. But the point he makes is valid is the trickplay behavior and interface is different based on the device


I'm not really anti ATT box, more disappointed that a 3 year old box is still first gen and has only had bug fixes. No features, no improvement in performance IMO. Even Amazon's 1st gen FireTV Cube performs better at most things.

IMO, you'd have to be a complete idiot to pay ATT $120 for their box since other boxes at lower price points and better performance are out there. It is too bad that ATT chose not to make their apps for other devices have more of the features of the box, or at least get more consistent.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> Differing opinions from Lloyd and you. I thought the ATT box's remote would be the better fit for trickplay. I know using an ATV or a Fire TV device on a cable replacement service is gonna be annoying at best. When it comes to trickplay.
> 
> Rich


It is better at trickplay but is a bit hampered by the overall sluggish performance. Roku does trickplay similar to the ATT box, and also support voice trickplay. ATT's box does voice trickplay also, but Google Voice on it is oft times extremely sluggish, Roku's is quick.

Neither FireTV nor AppleTV voice will do trickplay in the app.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

SledgeHammer said:


> *Not sure you can do much on the FF/RW issues*, but you can definitely improve on the guide and recordings management.


HBO Max app on the ATV 4K uses the thumbnail during FF/RW. If they can do it on HBO Max I don't see why they can't do it on the AT&T TV app. Same company and all.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> HBO Max app on the ATV 4K uses the thumbnail during FF/RW. If they can do it on HBO Max I don't see why they can't do it on the AT&T TV app. Same company and all.


We were referring to full screen FF/RW like the DVR does. Making the user click the thumbnail after they already FFed is a solvable issue.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Oh sorry. Should have directed that to lparsons21 about AT&T TV app not using the thumbnail on the ATV 4k during FF/RW like it does on the Hulu box.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> We were referring to full screen FF/RW like the DVR does. Making the user click the thumbnail after they already FFed is a solvable issue.


Which DVR does full screen FF/RW other than AT&T's AppleTV app? Certainly not the ATT box.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> DVRs are not ground breaking tech at this point. With tech, the "first guy" doesn't always get it 100% right, although, I think Tivo did a pretty damn good job in that regard.


TiVo perhaps wasn't the "first guy" to the DVR party. Replay and WebTV were also announced at the 1999 CES. There were other computer-based "PVR" solutions that preceded all of them.

Replay TV's assets (intellectual property) were purchased in 2007 by DIRECTV.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Which DVR does full screen FF/RW other than AT&T's AppleTV app? Certainly not the ATT box.


I was talking about the DirecTV DVRs . I don't think any streaming one does (other then the one you just mentioned I guess). DirecTV VOD is streaming and they do full screen FF/RW (when allowed), but they download the video to the hard drive.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> I was talking about the DirecTV DVRs . I don't think any streaming one does (other then the one you just mentioned I guess). DirecTV VOD is streaming and they do full screen FF/RW (when allowed), but they download the video to the hard drive.


I'm only talking about streaming services DVR implementation. I know local DVR has more flexibility in lots of ways.

I was fiddling today with the various boxes just for the hell of it. Noticed something that I had noticed before but didn't think anything of it.

On the ATT TV box we recently got DD5.1 audio back, and it does works well. But they are doing something odd with it, it seems. On my Nakamichi Soundwafe soundbar setup, I can do a Dolby Upmix and it will then virtualize missing channels to better fill the soundstage with DD5.1 or better audio. But when using the ATT box if I select Dolby Upmix the back channels go silent. It is the only box that happens on, and it is only with the ATT TV service, not the other apps on that box.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> I'm not really anti ATT box, more disappointed that a 3 year old box is still first gen and has only had bug fixes. No features, no improvement in performance IMO. Even Amazon's 1st gen FireTV Cube performs better at most things.
> 
> IMO, you'd have to be a complete idiot to pay ATT $120 for their box since other boxes at lower price points and better performance are out there. It is too bad that ATT chose not to make their apps for other devices have more of the features of the box, or at least get more consistent.


Let me expand on this a bit. AT&T has promoted their AT&T TV service as a premium offering, better than others out there and they have insisted it is not a competitor to other cable/sat replacement services.

IMO, a premium service with a VERY premium price should include:
Better video PQ - Got it!
Better audio Quality - yes, DD5.1
A box that resembles a cable/sat DVR box and performs similarly to them. - Nope! Yes it does resemble cable/sat in some ways, but it performs worse than any cable/sat DVR box I've seen in many years. No rumors or rumblings about a new generation of them coming either. No feature adds or performance improvements since release 3+ years ago though they did come out with a new and better remote for it. Otherwise it has just been bug fixes and frankly not many of them. If anything, they've reduced some things. Hulu used to be on them, they took it off and it won't work with any current version of Hulu among other things.

The number 1 complaint about the box is the sluggishness of nearly all operations and that complaint shows up in every forum that talks about it.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Let me expand on this a bit. AT&T has promoted their AT&T TV service as a premium offering, better than others out there and they have insisted it is not a competitor to other cable/sat replacement services.
> 
> IMO, a premium service with a VERY premium price should include:
> Better video PQ - Got it!
> ...


I found the box performance to be on par with anything Directv/Dish or Tivo offers(minus the Edge)

And one thing i think you are missing there for "premium" is channel content. Which they blow away as far as packages


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

compnurd said:


> I found the box performance to be on par with anything Directv/Dish or Tivo offers(minus the Edge)
> 
> And one thing i think you are missing there for "premium" is channel content. Which they blow away as far as packages


Yeah, channel selection is a real advantage, no other streaming service offers more, but it comes at a huge price.

EDIT: At my current offering, if I moved up to Choice it would cost $17/month more 1st year and pick up a couple of general channels of interest and RSN's. It could be argued that the value of RSN's these days is nearly zero regardless of how much they actually charge. Moving to Xtra is about $30/month more and adds even less channels I would find interesting.

As to the performance. Well, my Tivo Bolts all perform better, don't crash as often and do a bit better job of unified search. Downside is all the apps on them are old versions without support for new features.

Compared to DirecTV boxes? Well it has been way too long since I've used one to really remember, but sluggish was a term often used to describe many models.

Compared to Dish Hopper 3? Been 3+ years since I've used one but my memory says they performed better than anything from DirecTV overall, but slower than FireTV Cube (2nd gen), AppleTV of any generation including the very 1st gen with the hard drive and Roku.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Compared to DirecTV boxes? Well it has been way too long since I've used one to really remember, but sluggish was a term often used to describe many models.


I used to have a HR-24 and that was sluggish to the point where I was literally 5 minutes away from taking a SledgeHammer! to it. Part of my negotiation with DTV at that time was for them to comp me the free upgrade to the HR54 since I never used a free upgrade before. Have no complaints about the HR54 performance wise. Wasn't going to go through the hassle of putting an SSD in the 24 since I just had that one box.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, channel selection is a real advantage, no other streaming service offers more, but it comes at a huge price.


I found the ATT channel selection to be missing too many channels for the price. TVision was $100 out the door for the one package they have and it had all my channels. I wouldn't get any premiums, but I think they were pricier then DirecTV. I remember one of them, HBO I think was $17/mo.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> I used to have a HR-24 and that was sluggish to the point where I was literally 5 minutes away from taking a SledgeHammer! to it. Part of my negotiation with DTV at that time was for them to comp me the free upgrade to the HR54 since I never used a free upgrade before. Have no complaints about the HR54 performance wise. Wasn't going to go through the hassle of putting an SSD in the 24 since I just had that one box.


The last DirecTV box I had was the HR44(?) that seemed OK though not exactly a speed demon either.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> I found the ATT channel selection to be missing too many channels for the price. TVision was $100 out the door for the one package they have and it had all my channels. I wouldn't get any premiums, but I think they were pricier then DirecTV. I remember one of them, HBO I think was $17/mo.


The ATT TV channel selection is the best one that I've seen though it is missing some seriously interesting channels compared to their satellite offerings. Notable NFL network among a very few others.

I'm on Entertainment which is only missing IFC & Sundance. So for $5/month I sub to SundanceNow and IFC's shows of interest are on Hulu which I also sub to. For sports Golf would be the only channel missing that I'm interested in but it sure isn't worth the $30/month more I'd have to pay to get Xtra.

Assuming I cancel at the end of the 1st year and go back to YTTV I'll pick up IFC, Sundance and the Golf channel and pay $28/month less than AT&T seems to think full retail for Entertainment is worth.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> The ATT TV channel selection is the best one that I've seen though it is missing some seriously interesting channels compared to their satellite offerings. Notable NFL network among a very few others.
> 
> I'm on Entertainment which is only missing IFC & Sundance. So for $5/month I sub to SundanceNow and IFC's shows of interest are on Hulu which I also sub to. For sports Golf would be the only channel missing that I'm interested in but it sure isn't worth the $30/month more I'd have to pay to get Xtra.
> 
> Assuming I cancel at the end of the 1st year and go back to YTTV I'll pick up IFC, Sundance and the Golf channel and pay $28/month less than AT&T seems to think full retail for Entertainment is worth.


For me, its a little bit different. I don't care about sports, I care about a few channels that tend to be troublesome contract-wise: Science, NatGeo, History, WB, DIY and VH1. Don't know that I need to worry about VH1 anymore since the one show I watched on there is probably cancelled due to the host behaving badly lol. DIY, not sure either since the few shows I watched on there haven't aired this year. Not sure if its Covid or if they were cancelled due to the Gaines rebranding. The others are just the content owners being difficult to deal with.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> HBO Max app on the ATV 4K uses the thumbnail during FF/RW. If they can do it on HBO Max I don't see why they can't do it on the AT&T TV app. Same company and all.


I've been using HBO Max for a few days and I think it works as well with my ATVs as Netflix does. That is saying a lot. I've always thought the ATVs had to be made with Netflix in mind. Yeah, same company, no excuse for the ATT app not working as well as possible with the ATVs. Other than we're comparing a streaming video service to a cable replacement service, two very different services. Streaming boxes aren't made with cable replacement services in mind.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> The last DirecTV box I had was the HR44(?) that seemed OK though not exactly a speed demon either.


That can be fixed for a few bucks. I've never had a better, faster DVR than my 44. With an SSD on it. Too put up with sluggish HRs when the solution to that problem is right in front of you borders on...forum decorum...I'll stop.

Rich


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Rich said:


> I've been using HBO Max for a few days and I think it works as well with my ATVs as Netflix does. That is saying a lot. I've always thought the ATVs had to be made with Netflix in mind. Yeah, same company, no excuse for the ATT app not working as well as possible with the ATVs. Other than we're comparing a streaming video service to a cable replacement service, two very different services. Streaming boxes aren't made with cable replacement services in mind.
> 
> Rich


I think he was referring to content that had been recorded to the cloud DVR with FF/RW so at that point they are basically the same thing. Programs from HBO Max and the AT&T TV DVR are both streaming from the cloud somewhere. If HBO Max can use the thumbnail for FF/RW in their ATV app I don't see any reason why AT&T TV can't. Plus it also works in the AT&T TV Roku app.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Another good reason to go with FireTV. Got an Amazon FireTV Recast OTA DVR today. Integrates nicely with the way FireTV’s UI works and the device really works well.

Strongest OTA tuners I’ve run across so far, found more channels than any other device I’ve tried and the video quality is excellent. I need it for some of the local sub-channels that AT&T doesn’t bother with, like PBS and The CW.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

SledgeHammer said:


> I found the ATT channel selection to be missing too many channels for the price. TVision was $100 out the door for the one package they have and it had all my channels. I wouldn't get any premiums, but I think they were pricier then DirecTV. I remember one of them, HBO I think was $17/mo.


*10/mo per TV*


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> For me, its a little bit different. I don't care about sports, I care about a few channels that tend to be troublesome contract-wise: Science, NatGeo, History, WB, DIY and VH1. Don't know that I need to worry about VH1 anymore since the one show I watched on there is probably cancelled due to the host behaving badly lol. DIY, not sure either since the few shows I watched on there haven't aired this year. Not sure if its Covid or if they were cancelled due to the Gaines rebranding. The others are just the content owners being difficult to deal with.


I checked out thestreamable.com to see what services have the channels you want. The only channel in your list that is trouble contract wise in LA is The CW. Unless you want to try OTA or Locast for The CW then OTT services are out. Fubo and Sling have your remaining channels for $66 and $45 respectively. The DVR services on those 2 are not great in terms of capacity. Philo has an unlimited cloud DVR and 30 days retention for $20 but is missing Nat Geo. Fubo and Philo both have 7 day free trials.

I find OTA to be a great backup for internet or OTT provider outages. It also offers all the subchannels not otherwise available.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

TV_Guy said:


> I checked out thestreamable.com to see what services have the channels you want. The only channel in your list that is trouble contract wise in LA is The CW. Unless you want to try OTA or Locast for The CW then OTT services are out. Fubo and Sling have your remaining channels for $66 and $45 respectively. The DVR services on those 2 are not great in terms of capacity. Philo has an unlimited cloud DVR and 30 days retention for $20 but is missing Nat Geo. Fubo and Philo both have 7 day free trials.
> 
> I find OTA to be a great backup for internet or OTT provider outages. It also offers all the subchannels not otherwise available.


I watch other channels obviously . Those are just the ones that seem to be missing from most OTT providers (or are add ons). Last time I looked on thestreamable, I needed 2 or 3 OTT providers and still missing a few channels. PBS was an issue too. I need that for This Old House. ATT, I think looked pretty good at first til somebody pointed out it was missing NatGeo or ABC / Disney owned stuff. Don't remember the details.

I do have an OTA antenna, not as back up, but for a few local subchannels like Cozi and a classic NBC channel. Gotta get in an episode of Chips, Charlies Angels, Diff'rent Stroke, Knight Rider in once in a while. I would have included Night Court in the list, but my ABC -3 subchannel is hell bent on stretching the pic, so no...

And at the end of the day, with loyalty discounts, my HR54 + Preferred Xtra is $105 out the door, so I can't really compare 4 OTT providers to a single provider since I don't want to go through the app juggling dance if I can avoid it. And price wise, I wouldn't be saving much on a 1 TV setup.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> PBS was an issue too. I need that for This Old House.


You can watch episodes of TOH for free on the PBS app.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Just cancelled ATT TV They waived all Cancellation fee's since I switched to Directv!!!


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

compnurd said:


> Just cancelled ATT TV They waived all Cancellation fee's since I switched to Directv!!!


Glad to hear that worked out for you.


----------

