# AT&T Again Exploring a Deal For DirecTV—Update—Sale Pending



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Bankers predicting AT&T will soon offload its DirecTV subsidiary: Gasparino

Breaking News- DirectTV going up for sale.... - post regarding AT&T layoffs


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> Bankers predicting AT&T will soon offload its DirecTV subsidiary: Gasparino
> 
> Breaking News- DirectTV going up for sale.... - post regarding AT&T layoffs


My first thought was, "this is good news." My first thought when D* was purchased by ATT was, "this is good news." My next thought is, "could someone even worse buy it, could anyone be worse?" I'm not surprised by this news, I always thought the purchase was a mistake. Interesting, let's see what happens.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

There’s a lot of things that come to mind if this were to happen. First up is how will a sale of D* affect those carriage contracts that are for satellite and streaming?


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> There's a lot of things that come to mind if this were to happen. First up is how will a sale of D* affect those carriage contracts that are for satellite and streaming?


I was thinking the same thing. The only reason the could do AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now is DTV already had the channel streaming rights. Could AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now keep those rights without DTV?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

CraigerM said:


> I was thinking the same thing. The only reason the could do AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now is DTV already had the channel streaming rights. Could AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now keep those rights without DTV?


I'm sure they could keep the rights, but the pricing was dependent on a certain number of subscribers and gave ATT clout in negotiations. If you drop D* out of the picture, those sub number drop by a huge amount.

In the back of my mind I never figured out why ATT didn't spin off a wholly owned subsidiary to put their TV stuff into. That would reduce the overhead to some lower level that might have been more manageable.


----------



## MrWindows (Oct 12, 2010)

Of course they can keep carriage rights. They had UVerse before DTV.
We do seem however to be heading into a division between standard, OTA content and premium content.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

MrWindows said:


> Of course they can keep carriage rights. They had UVerse before DTV.
> We do seem however to be heading into a division between standard, OTA content and premium content.


What happens when those rights come up for renewal an AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now don't have that many subscribers to be able to have channel negotiation clout?


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Can’t wait to see the Solid Signal “blog” spin on this if it proves true.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

I'm still on DirecTV since its the best value (at least up until this Monday which may be my last day if Retention doesn't re-up my promo). But they aren't going to launch any new sats. Internet delivery is where everything is going even for a hybrid solution like TVision vs. straight up OTT. Too bad T seems clueless on how to tap into that market. There's like 17 flavors of T streaming, no idea what's what anymore lol. Although they've all seemed to flop.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

I cant find anything on this


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

compnurd said:


> I cant find anything on this


Did you not watch the a Fox Business video?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> Did you not watch the a Fox Business video?


I did but there is zero anywhere to back that up. That and Mr Gasperino consistently gets stuff wrong.. The ATT layoff site probably watched the same video and is just full of a bunch of bitter ex employees


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Need more details than unnamed sources and no scope. It sounds like the proposal being worked last year is being pushed again. It also sounds like it is being driven by propaganda more than by facts. If they are proposing selling the satellite business and keeping the streaming it is a non-starter.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

These rumors will be around forever, but I wonder if AT&T did this whether they would sell AT&T TV with it. Its too early to throw in the towel, but AT&T TV Now certainly hasn't set the world on fire and now Dish is losing a bunch of Sling TV subscribers so the streaming MVPD play just doesn't seem like it is getting much traction. It suffers from the same problem that satellite does - 2/3 of satellite revenue goes toward paying networks so there isn't much room to offer a lower priced product unless you are willing to accept less profit.

AT&T might just want to put all their eggs in the HBO Max basket and make Directv (and AT&T TV, which would need to be rebranded) independent again.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

AT&T just got rid of DTV in Venezuela citing U.S. sanctions but they have been losing money their.

AT&T pulls DirecTV out of Venezuela due to U.S. sanctions


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

People pushing for the sale of DIRECTV need to remember how much of the AT&T Entertainment Group makes. $1.335 billion in profits in first quarter (better than the past two quarters). More revenue from video than from voice for the past four quarters. But sure, call that a failure and push to sell. "Bankers" say they should.

The push by investors last September was for an "unmerge" and divestment of recent deals that they felt were too expensive, but at this point it would be like pouring a bottle of gin and a bottle of vodka into a bucket and then asking someone to separate the mixture back in to the component parts. AT&T can sell a bucket of gin-vodka to the next willing group of investors, but it would be much harder to put the gin and vodka back in the bottles and sell them separately.

AT&T cannot sell the satellite company and keep the customers. And if they lose 13+ million subscribers by spinning of satellite they lose their leverage making contracts to serve the remaining subscribers. The concept that they could somehow keep all the subscribers and separate the businesses (some sort of joint bargaining agreement) is convoluted.

The push in September suggested a split sometime in mid 2020. That is where we are. But it is still a bad idea.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> AT&T just got rid of DTV in Venezuela citing U.S. sanctions but they have been losing money their.
> 
> AT&T pulls DirecTV out of Venezuela due to U.S. sanctions


That has nothing to do with anything stateside


----------



## SuperTech2131 (Aug 4, 2019)

Something big is brewing. Focusing alot on numbers right now, upgrades were on the back burner during the pandemic, they are in full force now. Big spike in jobs, seems they are trying to push out as many as they can, workload on the contractor side seems to be picking up, and the in house side, markets that they work in D* systems are getting smaller. Changes are on the horizon. 

Sent from my SM-G977U using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

They need to make up for the first two months of the quarter. 1Q was actually pretty good compared to the previous two ... the pandemic hit mid March and started to have some effect. 2Q is where we will probably see the biggest impact. Upgrades usually mean commitments and that is what DIRECTV needs right now - customers who can't leave for two more years.


----------



## Eva (Nov 8, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> Did you not watch the a Fox Business video?


I don't believe anything from Fox!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Eva said:


> I don't believe anything from Fox!


We are not going there with commentary.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

SuperTech2131 said:


> Something big is brewing. Focusing alot on numbers right now, upgrades were on the back burner during the pandemic, they are in full force now. Big spike in jobs, seems they are trying to push out as many as they can, workload on the contractor side seems to be picking up, and the in house side, markets that they work in D* systems are getting smaller. Changes are on the horizon.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G977U using Tapatalk


MPEG2 trun off soon?
With the loss of DNS they may just get out being stuck in the contracts that held it up.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

Well tbh I don't see AT&T getting rid of DirecTV completely when it accounts for the majority of its pay-TV subscriber base and they have stopped selling U-Verse TV and AT&T TV is still in its infancy. Estimators are put all of AT&T's pay-TV losses from Q1 under DirecTV because AT&T doesn't break out DirecTV, U-Verse TV and AT&T TV subscribers instead all three are lumped together as "Premium TV". I find it highly unlikely no one left U-Verse TV in Q1. 

Also they have all their streaming services (AT&T TV, AT&T TV Now and AT&T Watch TV) housed under the DirecTV subsidiary and they are using DirecTV trademarks like Choice for AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now. The AT&T TV devices are using the proprietary power supply used for the Genie Minis and the AT&T TV devices themselves have copyright references to DirecTV.

Any sale of DirecTV will require AT&T to essentially "break up" the DirecTV subsidiary into two subsidiaries first. One exclusively for the satellite assets and one for the streaming assets. If you read the Terms and Services for all three streaming services the DirecTV, LLC. subsidiary is the part of AT&T legally responsible for those products.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

techguy88 said:


> Also they have all their streaming services (AT&T TV, AT&T TV Now and AT&T Watch TV)


This is exactly T's mistake. It really blows my mind. I am active on the forums and I couldn't tell you the difference between the 3 or why they even have 3. NashGuy knew all the differences, but that's one person. The general consumer has no clue.

Not to mention they take one look at the pricing and say "why should I pay $80+ when I can go to Netflix for $16?".

Monday / Tuesday is do or die for me with DirecTV. Either they re-up my promo or I walk. If they give me a one month credit like they did last month to "tide me over", I'll probably walk. Calling in once a year isn't a big deal. Calling in every month? Meh... and depending on how my promo lands (if I even get one), I still may walk.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JoeTheDragon said:


> MPEG2 trun off soon?
> With the loss of DNS they may just get out being stuck in the contracts that held it up.


I doubt it. The loss of DNS won't make any difference for oil rigs since I very much doubt they had it (they'd just use the spot beam for Biloxi or whatever is closest) Not sure it would even matter for the airlines - it wouldn't let AT&T cancel the contract, it probably wouldn't even allow the other side to cancel since DNS would be dropped because of the new law.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> People pushing for the sale of DIRECTV need to remember how much of the AT&T Entertainment Group makes. $1.335 billion in profits in first quarter (better than the past two quarters). More revenue from video than from voice for the past four quarters. But sure, call that a failure and push to sell. "Bankers" say they should.


That's why I've always said it is unlikely to be sold - even as an asset of declining value it has a lot of value given its cash flow so who is going to pony up a minimum of $20 billion to make that happen?

It would make more sense for AT&T to spin it off as a separate company - typically you would spin off the debt associated with the original acquisition along with it.

I wouldn't be surprised if AT&T feels very different about the reason they bought it, and their plans for AT&T TV. I think if Directv goes, AT&T TV goes with it. Why do they need to have their own MVPD to serve their internet customers? The "bundle" is becoming less and less of a thing as people who don't watch sports drop traditional TV service altogether, I don't think AT&T needs it.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> People pushing for the sale of DIRECTV need to remember how much of the AT&T Entertainment Group makes. $1.335 billion in profits in first quarter (better than the past two quarters).


I hope the $1.335 billion is after they made their payment on the $49 billion acquisition cost, otherwise, you're looking a pretty low return.

Although, if it is, you're looking at about 2.7% quarterly return. They should have taken Warren Buffet's advice and put it in a S&P500 ETF and saved a lot of people, especially their customers, some grief.



James Long said:


> And if they lose 13+ million subscribers by spinning of satellite they lose their leverage making contracts to serve the remaining subscribers. The concept that they could somehow keep all the subscribers and separate the businesses (some sort of joint bargaining agreement) is convoluted.


Isn't that down like 33% from the 20+ million subscribers that they had, what, like three years ago? It seems like they're losing leverage without selling.

As for someone looking to buy DirecTV, it would have to be at a big loss to T from what they bought it for. They've kept profits up by getting rid of less valuable customers. Unless they find some magic sauce that lets them start adding subscribers, profits are going to erode through customer attrition. It doesn't take a lot of due diligence for mergers and acquisitions attorneys to figure out the trends. This is why they don't sell.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Bankers speculate on things like this all the time. It means nothing. Maybe they are thinking that this will drive up the stock price? Who knows? I can't see them selling until they know how successful their streaming services will be. If AT&T TV is a failure they might not be so keen on getting rid of this. We'll see, but I'll believe it when it comes from more sources than just one, Fox Business.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

wmb said:


> I hope the $1.335 billion is after they made their payment on the $49 billion acquisition cost, otherwise, you're looking a pretty low return.


Regardless of whether the price they paid made sense, its value now as a separate piece being sold off is based on that profit and the debt they took out to acquire it is irrelevant.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> That's why I've always said it is unlikely to be sold - even as an asset of declining value it has a lot of value given its cash flow so who is going to pony up a minimum of $20 billion to make that happen?
> 
> It would make more sense for AT&T to spin it off as a separate company - typically you would spin off the debt associated with the original acquisition along with it.


I don't see the distinction between selling and spinning off other than packaging. A sale would also include assets and debt (unless the seller wanted to keep the debt?).

Spinning off would be selling to themselves instead of finding a buyer. Someone who owns X percentage of AT&T shares would end up with the same percentage of "Spinco" shares, with the ability to invest or divest "Spinco" shares after the spinoff completes. Then the noisy people who want AT&T out of the "Spinco" business could invest in the rest of AT&T.

But "Spinco" would need to be more than just the satellite service assets. The Entertainment Group is worth less (not worthless) without the satellite profits. Those pushing for a sale/spinoff seem to want to get rid of the Time Warner assets as well - so I expect "Spinco" to be more than the satellite assets.

It would be funny if AT&T did a spin off and the spin off did better than AT&T. Take that "bankers"! 



slice1900 said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if AT&T feels very different about the reason they bought it, and their plans for AT&T TV. I think if Directv goes, AT&T TV goes with it. Why do they need to have their own MVPD to serve their internet customers? The "bundle" is becoming less and less of a thing as people who don't watch sports drop traditional TV service altogether, I don't think AT&T needs it.


Their investments are still making money. There will come a point where they will make more money selling the video services to a willing buyer than continuing to run the services. AT&T is not at that point.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Regardless of whether the price they paid made sense, its value now as a separate piece being sold off is based on that profit and the debt they took out to acquire it is irrelevant.


Might help D if they brought back the service lol. A lot of folks on here seem to complain more about T service then the D service itself.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> It would be funny if AT&T did a spin off and the spin off did better than AT&T. Take that "bankers"!


People on here seem to cancel out of T spite, so it probably would... but I bet if D gets spun off, they'll merge with Dish in short order. The problem T made in the first place was buying D. Seems obvious that merging all the systems at this scale is cost prohibitive and maintaining a bunch of separate systems is also a waste of money. A Dish/DirecTV merger would have the same issue.

The selling point of D used to be PQ. Now streaming is better PQ and the cost is cheaper if you have a lot of TVs.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Regardless of whether the price they paid made sense, its value now as a separate piece being sold off is based on that profit and the debt they took out to acquire it is irrelevant.


The debt to acquire has to be paid off. Ideally it's paid off using either income produced, or selling for a higher price. If not, it becomes a cash sink that pulls cash from other operations.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> Might help D if they brought back the service lol. A lot of folks on here seem to complain more about T service then the D service itself.


Some people complain about how bad DIRECTV is post AT&T and forget that DIRECTV wasn't perfect. The market conditions that have affected AT&T|DIRECTV would have affected DIRECTV as a separate company, with the only difference being no people at AT&T looking at a quick ROI deciding to try to cut expenses by combining customer support, billing and installations and introducing a few policies I doubt DIRECTV would have done on their own. But AT&T bought DIRECTV at the peak of their subscribership - the declines since then cannot be 100% blamed on AT&T management (although it is fun to do so).



SledgeHammer said:


> People on here seem to cancel out of T spite, so it probably would... but I bet if D gets spun off, they'll merge with Dish in short order.


There is ego involved. Mr Ergen has wanted to own both companies since they were founded. Hopefully he remembers that DISH was not profitable until the year they took a huge loss paying costs when the first merger attempt fell through and won't make that mistake again. The better path would be to convince AT&T|DIRECTV customers to become DISH/SlingTV customers through their sales department instead of buying and needing to support separate satellite and billing systems. The better path is to do their best to beat AT&T|DIRECTV in the marketplace and only buy the system when the price is right and there won't be a huge loss. But ego may get in the way.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Some people complain about how bad DIRECTV is post AT&T and forget that DIRECTV wasn't perfect. The market conditions that have affected AT&T|DIRECTV would have affected DIRECTV as a separate company, with the only difference being no people at AT&T looking at a quick ROI deciding to try to cut expenses by combining customer support, billing and installations and introducing a few policies I doubt DIRECTV would have done on their own. But AT&T bought DIRECTV at the peak of their subscribership - the declines since then cannot be 100% blamed on AT&T management (although it is fun to do so).
> 
> There is ego involved. Mr Ergen has wanted to own both companies since they were founded. Hopefully he remembers that DISH was not profitable until the year they took a huge loss paying costs when the first merger attempt fell through and won't make that mistake again. The better path would be to convince AT&T|DIRECTV customers to become DISH/SlingTV customers through their sales department instead of buying and needing to support separate satellite and billing systems. The better path is to do their best to beat AT&T|DIRECTV in the marketplace and only buy the system when the price is right and there won't be a huge loss. But ego may get in the way.


I don't see what T's end game is even. Internet biz is Fiber + POTS/DSL. In my "high tech city", a few never developments can get either T fiber or G fiber. Small percentage. My house was built in 2002 and T can only deliver me 100Mbps over POTS/DSL for $60/mo + $35 act fee + $10 equipment fee, so $70/mo BEFORE taxes for 100Mbps. I get Cox 1Gbps + phone for $117/mo. Oddly, T charges the same for 100Mbps as 1Gbps fiber. I'd switch to T for internet if they got fiber to my house. Cheaper then Cox 1Gbps.

So... they have no real path in internet...

Streaming they are blowing it too with all the different platforms and packages and nobody knows whats what and the pricing is terrible.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> I don't see the distinction between selling and spinning off other than packaging. A sale would also include assets and debt (unless the seller wanted to keep the debt?).


There's a HUGE distinction, because you don't have to find a buyer to spin it off, nor are there any regulatory concerns to delay the sale and risk depressing the value of a depreciating asset. A sale takes a lot longer, especially since the only interested parties would likely be their cable/satellite competition.

Such a sale will not include the seller's debt, the seller keeps the debt and the buyer takes out their own debt to finance it (or uses stock for all/part of it if the seller is willing to accept that)

Corporate debt is not assignable, AT&T can't take out debt in its name using its credit rating and then sell that debt off to whoever they want, anymore than you can take out a mortgage in your name using your credit rating and then sell your house along with the mortgage to me. If that was possible it would be easy to rid yourself of debt by "selling" it in a sham transaction to a shell company that immediately declares bankruptcy, or in the case of personal debt "selling" a house with a mortgage that's underwater to someone who is about to declare bankruptcy anyway.

If they spin it off they generally can't directly assign debt (unless you can get the debtholders to agree, and in AT&T's case they might since AT&T is carrying so much debt) but the investment bank that handles the spinoff would issue new debt in the name of the new company and use the proceeds to retire the old. As far as AT&T shareholders go they'd be issued shares in the new 'Directv' or whatever it was called, which could be bought/sold independently of their AT&T shares.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

Steveknj said:


> Bankers speculate on things like this all the time. It means nothing. Maybe they are thinking that this will drive up the stock price? Who knows? I can't see them selling until they know how successful their streaming services will be. If AT&T TV is a failure they might not be so keen on getting rid of this. We'll see, but I'll believe it when it comes from more sources than just one, Fox Business.


Or Gasparino has a solid source and ATT has been exploring a sale, if true they need to talk with bankers for a myriad of reasons, I don't follow Gasparino closely enough to know how good his reporting has been over the years.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

GordonGekko said:


> Or Gasparino has a solid source and ATT has been exploring a sale, if true they need to talk with bankers for a myriad of reasons, I don't follow Gasparino closely enough to know how good his reporting has been over the years.


Bad


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

If anything Directv is becoming more profitable for AT&T. They had their highest quarterly profit from their TV division ever last quarter - I'm guessing that just about all the integration costs have been paid at this point as well as the startup costs for AT&T TV.

The question is whether the level of profit it reaches meets their expectations, and at what point subscriber losses cut into profitability and at what rate. However like I said before I think the biggest factor as far as what AT&T may choose to do is whether AT&T TV is a success. So far it looks pretty meh, but they couldn't have picked worse timing for the launch if they had a time machine.

I know, I know, people will say "they need to lower their prices etc." but when content is 2/3 of Directv's price and has to be a higher percentage of AT&T TV's price since it is lower (because no $15 or $7 fees) there is not much room to price it lower and still make money.

On the other hand, they know HBO Max will be a gold mine since it is basically taking the HBO subscription many people with cable/satellite have been happily getting for years and bring it to streaming. I don't think AT&T TV serves a useful role for AT&T any longer, even if they can get millions of subscribers on board for it. The "bundle" of internet and TV matters less to consumers every year, in five years it will probably be gone altogether. Without that, they have no reason to be in the packaged TV business, not when they have one of the crown jewels of streaming in the form of HBO Max.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

This Fiercevideo article says Apollo Managment day both DirecTV and Dish Network would be sold to Apollo Managment and and new SatelliteTV company would be formed.

AT&T under pressure again to sell DirecTV: report

"Apollo Management reportedly suggested creating a new company and having AT&T offload DirectTV to the new company. Then, Dish Network would sell its satellite business to the new company."


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> This is exactly T's mistake. It really blows my mind. I am active on the forums and I couldn't tell you the difference between the 3 or why they even have 3. NashGuy knew all the differences, but that's one person. The general consumer has no clue.
> 
> Not to mention they take one look at the pricing and say "why should I pay $80+ when I can go to Netflix for $16?".
> 
> Monday / Tuesday is do or die for me with DirecTV. Either they re-up my promo or I walk. If they give me a one month credit like they did last month to "tide me over", I'll probably walk. Calling in once a year isn't a big deal. Calling in every month? Meh... and depending on how my promo lands (if I even get one), I still may walk.


They had this idea to start some sort of streaming service to bridge between nothing and what they have today in a basic mirror of dtv sat service. And they thought using a couple different offerings would do that well.

That did not work and needs to go away.

I have a feeling by July they will only offer people three new services.

Directv
Att TV
HBO MAX

All the others will either have their customers converted or just slowly fall away with churn. Including uverse.

Their supposed cheap or free over the air service or whatever that thing is might stick around but I doubt it.

We'll see if I guess right soon enough.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

This entire thing from bankers feels like the one “activist investor” trying to push his personal agenda of getting rid of DIRECTV into the news again.

It’s just dumb at the moment.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

wmb said:


> I hope the $1.335 billion is after they made their payment on the $49 billion acquisition cost, otherwise, you're looking a pretty low return.
> 
> Although, if it is, you're looking at about 2.7% quarterly return. They should have taken Warren Buffet's advice and put it in a S&P500 ETF and saved a lot of people, especially their customers, some grief.
> 
> ...


At this point if DIRECTV makes a profit while paying for itself and it's debit then there is zero reason to sell it. I don't care if it makes them only $1 a year it's worth keeping for the bundles and other things they can sell to customers to keep people buying their other services, and helps them keep att tv operating costs down. And I wouldn't be shocked if att tv has a very hard time collecting many customers.

If they ever sell off DIRECTV I wouldn't be surprised if att sold off all att tv and other streaming stuff too except for HBO Max.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

What if they would want it down to just HBO/Max as their only TV service? Could that potentially have more subscribers combined then their other TV services?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

wmb said:


> They should have taken Warren Buffet's advice .


Lmao... Buffet has been out of touch for years:

*Berkshire Hathaway* reported *earnings* on May 2, and the COVID-19 stock crash weighed heavily on them. Net *earnings* were a record -$49.8 billion, reflecting the $55 billion loss from *Berkshire's* massive stock portfolio in the first quarter.

If you consider the first quarter Jan 1 - April 31, the market did a pretty violent V turn and you were pretty close to even YTD (assuming you were largely in tech as you should be). S&P and DOW are still way below B.C. levels though. Ketchup. Nuff said.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> They had this idea to start some sort of streaming service to bridge between nothing and what they have today in a basic mirror of dtv sat service. And they thought using a couple different offerings would do that well.
> 
> That did not work and needs to go away.
> 
> ...


While I suspect I'll be moving to TVision next week (if D doesn't re-up my promo), I'd say for most people a streaming traditional is a fat NO SALE as they just care about price, # of TVs and no proprietary hardware. I'd rather have a single service for my live TV and a traditional behavior DVR, but I know I'm in the minority these days.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> This entire thing from bankers feels like the one "activist investor" trying to push his personal agenda of getting rid of DIRECTV into the news again.
> 
> It's just dumb at the moment.


Bingo. This is some outsider or edge person's idea. It is a shame that the question was ever addressed by anyone official at AT&T or DISH (addressed last September).

One might as well quote a poster on this site or Twitter who wants AT&T|DIRECTV to charge $50 per month for Premier with no receiver or other fees. They could make a million posts saying "AT&T should" but they are not in the position to do anything other that tilt at a windmill. In essence, Apollo Management is a troll. We probably should not be feeding the troll.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I saw these two new posts at thelayoff.com. Do we have to worry now if an outage or glitch happens it will take longer to fix?

@2tlf: correct, they are not renewing the leases on those data centers and therefore will not even allow a VM rebuild to occur there if one goes down.
20 hours ago by Anonymous

@2zxj+153JzXcu
For what is worth, there is NO investment in DTV data centers. They are barely maintaining the server and storage, and infrastructure equipment there.


----------



## AngryManMLS (Jan 30, 2014)

I suspect AT&T is going to off load DirecTV for pennies on the dollar within the next year or two. At this point they will be lucky to get that given all the damage AT&T has done to the brand.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I would not rely on an anonymous site filled with disgruntled workers to be factual.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> Lmao... Buffet has been out of touch for years:
> 
> *Berkshire Hathaway* reported *earnings* on May 2, and the COVID-19 stock crash weighed heavily on them. Net *earnings* were a record -$49.8 billion, reflecting the $55 billion loss from *Berkshire's* massive stock portfolio in the first quarter.
> 
> If you consider the first quarter Jan 1 - April 31, the market did a pretty violent V turn and you were pretty close to even YTD (assuming you were largely in tech as you should be). S&P and DOW are still way below B.C. levels though. Ketchup. Nuff said.


That's not a real loss, it is just mark to market for their stock holdings. Since the stock market has partially recovered those losses their Q2 earnings will show $25 billion or whatever in "earnings". Apple is just below their pre-pandemic all time high and that's Berkshire Hathaway's largest single stock position.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

James Long said:


> I would not rely on an anonymous site filled with disgruntled workers to be factual.


They did have the AT&T TV info on their.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

CraigerM said:


> They did have the AT&T TV info on their.


That does not mean anything on the site is factual. Verify it elsewhere.


----------



## SuperTech2131 (Aug 4, 2019)

I know of a local Medical company that just negotiated 200+ locations to change over from dish to DTV, with the upturn in work, less "in house" markets covering DTV work orders, and a demand for more contractors, I dont see DTV crumbling by any means. Maybe not associated with ATT, but DTV will outlast at least 3 more Morgan Freeman lifetimes. 

Sent from my SM-G977U using Tapatalk


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

James Long said:


> That does not mean anything on the site is factual. Verify it elsewhere.


Over at the other site their is a post about seeing freezing and pixelation. A member replied saying that DTV has switched to an automated monitoring system and layed off much of the DTV staff that used to do it.


----------



## ericknolls (Aug 18, 2013)

lparsons21 said:


> I'm sure they could keep the rights, but the pricing was dependent on a certain number of subscribers and gave ATT clout in negotiations. If you drop D* out of the picture, those sub number drop by a huge amount.
> 
> In the back of my mind I never figured out why ATT didn't spin off a wholly owned subsidiary to put their TV stuff into. That would reduce the overhead to some lower level that might have been more manageable.


What does that mean? If DIRECTV is trying to kill off those customers for streaming. It wouldn't matter. What will selling DIRECTV do for AT&T's streaming plans? It just doesn't add up. I am trying to make sense of it all. It is just not registering for me. I want to understand their strategy. It sounds like it is not working and more like it is saving money on installs and truck rolls versus adding new streaming subscribers. It is still too early to tell.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

CraigerM said:


> Over at the other site their is a post about seeing freezing and pixelation. A member replied saying that DTV has switched to an automated monitoring system and layed off much of the DTV staff that used to do it.


Except they have had an automated system for detecting that for ages and is not at all new...

It's impossible to have a group of people watching every feed they offer 24/7. That has never been realistic. Especially after they launched locals two decades ago.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Should posts from thelayoff.com not be posted on here anymore?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

CraigerM said:


> Should posts from thelayoff.com not be posted on here anymore?


It would be best to limit links to reputable sites ... and not make so many posts copied from other sites that you appear to be promoting such sites. This is a discussion forum, not a place to be constantly posting links driving traffic elsewhere. Reputable sources supporting a point are acceptable. But a constant barrage of links is not discussion.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Sorry, didn’t think I was promoting them just posting news from them.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

SuperTech2131 said:


> Maybe not associated with ATT, but DTV will outlast at least 3 more Morgan Freeman lifetimes.


Wut?!? lol... Satellites have a very finite lifetime. They only have 11 left and really they don't even have that many. There's a few more that are unused / dormant / close to end of life, so you're really down to 8 or 9 if that. Unless DirecTV does a complete about face and starts launching new satellites, they won't have any left by the 2030s.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> Sorry, didn't think I was promoting them just posting news from them.


Its not a news site. its a message board like this


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> Over at the other site their is a post about seeing freezing and pixelation. A member replied saying that DTV has switched to an automated monitoring system and layed off much of the DTV staff that used to do it.


He is another disgruntled ex employee


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

ericknolls said:


> What does that mean? If DIRECTV is trying to kill off those customers for streaming. It wouldn't matter. What will selling DIRECTV do for AT&T's streaming plans? It just doesn't add up. I am trying to make sense of it all. It is just not registering for me. I want to understand their strategy. It sounds like it is not working and more like it is saving money on installs and truck rolls versus adding new streaming subscribers. It is still too early to tell.


Selling Directv would kill AT&T TV as it would no longer have the scale it needs to get good deals from the networks.

Like I've said, I don't think AT&T TV serves a function in AT&T beyond "different delivery method for people who can't/won't get satellite" so if they do spin off Directv then AT&T TV will come with it.

AT&T seems much more interested in making HBO Max a success than either Directv or AT&T TV.


----------



## SuperTech2131 (Aug 4, 2019)

SledgeHammer said:


> Wut?!? lol... Satellites have a very finite lifetime. They only have 11 left and really they don't even have that many. There's a few more that are unused / dormant / close to end of life, so you're really down to 8 or 9 if that. Unless DirecTV does a complete about face and starts launching new satellites, they won't have any left by the 2030s.


You are correct sir, never said you were incorrect. No doubt Whoever consumes the company will have to launch more birds.

Sent from my SM-G977U using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SuperTech2131 said:


> Maybe not associated with ATT, but DTV will outlast at least 3 more Morgan Freeman lifetimes.


Morgan Freeman the 82 year old actor or Morgan Stanley Investments the 85 year old company?
I glossed over that statement, reading it as "three more lifetimes than predicted by Morgan Stanley".

I don't expect DIRECTV to be around in 240 years. But if some investment firm is predicting DIRECTV's death in five years I would disagree and say that they will be around in 15. AT&T|DIRECTV will need to stop losing customers at the current rate and gain more non-satellite customers to bolster the business. Spinning of and becoming a company solely focused on the survival of the satellite and streaming assets may be a good thing. Spinning off only the satellite business is a non-starter.

(I don't know if Morgan Stanley made a "five year" prediction. I don't know what Morgan Freeman has to do with any of this.)


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Wut?!? lol... Satellites have a very finite lifetime. They only have 11 left and really they don't even have that many. There's a few more that are unused / dormant / close to end of life, so you're really down to 8 or 9 if that. Unless DirecTV does a complete about face and starts launching new satellites, they won't have any left by the 2030s.


Pretty sure they need only five satelites any more to cover all the channels they offer now and actually more... and after mpeg2 is shut off I think they could make it with just the last three or four for a very very long time.

And they could easily still launch another sat but they wouldn't even need to consider that for another five years... at least....


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

The thing is spinning both DirecTV and Dish Network (satellite assets/customer bases only) off into a separate company will work because there is way more competition now.

However the original Fox Business report that involved Apollo-DirecTV-Dish that Wall Street liked very much (and most likely the one AT&T would go with) would be a fight to get through.

AT&T spin-offs DirecTV along with its debt into a new company. AT&T becomes the majority owner of the new company.
Apollo finances the whole thing gets a stake in the new company.
Dish Network Corp. sells Dish Network satellite (with its debt) to the new company and Dish Network Corp. also gets an ownership stake in the company.
In this scenario AT&T as the majority owner they could take on the negotiations for DirecTV & Dish plus their own TV services (AT&T TV, AT&T TV Now, AT&T Watch TV and U-Verse TV.) Even if Dish Network Corp. retains 100% ownership of Sling TV through its minority ownership of the new company they could require any carriage negotiation deals reached for the Dish Network satellite service to include Sling TV via its ownership stake.

I don't think the government/FCC would object to a pure merger of DirecTV-Dish if it was the satellite services only however the objections will come from how the various streaming OTT services & U-Verse TV are factored in. Local broadcasters via the NAB and smaller cable operators will hammer this point.

If the FCC for instance tell AT&T and Dish Network Corp. that any carriage agreements reached for a combined DirecTV-Dish must be independent from U-Verse TV, AT&T TV, AT&T TV Now, AT&T Watch TV & Sling TV (or if they have to sell any of those services off) then there is no way in hell that AT&T and Charlie Ergen will merge DirecTV and Dish together as they need the leverage they currently enjoy from DirecTV and Dish as stand-alones for their streaming services.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Combining two non starter proposals does not make the proposal any better. No change since September. Just a revival of a bad idea.

BTW: The two non-starters are 1) separating satellite MVPD from terrestrial MVPD/vMPVD services and 2) Charles Ergen selling DISH Network or placing it under anyone else's control.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

James Long said:


> Combining two non starter proposals does not make the proposal any better. No change since September. Just a revival of a bad idea.


True. Plus I don't see AT&T letting DirecTV go even though it is losing customers it still has a sizable customer base enough to make them the overall #2 MVPD they are not going to go back down on the lower end of that scale and pay more per customer for the channels they distribute. As long as AT&T TV is part of their strategy they will hold onto DirecTV even though "bankers" and Wall Street want them to get rid of DirecTV. They will find a way to offload the 4 RSNs first.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> AT&T seems much more interested in making HBO Max a success than either Directv or AT&T TV.


Makes sense since HBO is the giant brand for movies. People grew up with HBO and now AT&T has a huge content library and HBO Max is a delivery system to monetize it.

I don't question whether DirecTV survives until 2030. I question whether the MVPD business model survives until 2030. Most content in cable networks have no immediacy. You can watch it at any time. It's not like olden days of "must see" TV when you had to be in front of the tube Wednesday night at 9 to watch Seinfeld.

Everyone who is anyone is starting one of these content delivery subscription service. No one watched Picard or the Mandalorian at the instant it was released. These things are taking over.

There are some outliers in this. News, sports, daytime things like Kelly Ripa or Ellen. I guess this mean value to local broadcast networks. I could see layering locals on top of one of these streaming services to deliver much of this content. How hard would it be for these streamers to stream affiliated locals and create a few channels with the content that they already have?

ESPN+ is showing some potential for sports. I don't mind spending $50-100 per year for it. They have most of the sports I watch as it is... college football, basketball, MLS. Again, ESPN is the brand name for sports broadcasting, along with ABCs wide world of sports.

Let's face it, three or four of these video on demand services at $6-10 each is much cheaper than most people's DirecTV bill. You can come and go as you please.

This all points to a day when cable companies are simply internet services. That would mean the could cut their legal departments since they will no longer need to renegotiate carriage agreements.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

wmb said:


> Let's face it, three or four of these video on demand services at $6-10 each is much cheaper than most people's DirecTV bill.


I don't see three or four $10 or less services covering all of the content available via a MVPD subscription.

The less content available the lower the total price. That is the adjustment that MVPDs need to make. Offer smaller packages where one is not paying for 60-70 video channels, many that they do not want. Reducing available content is the only true way of reducing the cost of service. But remain aware that having millions of subscribers regardless of if the subscribers are watching is keeping major distributors alive.

ESPN and other basic sports channels live because they are in most base packages. RSNs live in a slightly higher package. Take away millions of subscribers and they lose the ability to buy content without charging their remaining subscribers a lot more. And if a person does not care about sports they can probably find a content channel affected by less subscribers that will affect them.

Best case scenario for an MVPD subscriber is to blow up the tiers, pay only for the content one wants and have the grand total if one buys all available content be less than their MVPD bill. I don't see that happening. I believe it is more likely we will be paying the same total price for half of the content - and that will not cover all of the content we want.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

wmb said:


> Everyone who is anyone is starting one of these content delivery subscription service. No one watched Picard or the Mandalorian at the instant it was released. These things are taking over.


This... times 100.

How many people less than ... say the age of 40 ... tune in to watch their favorite shows at such-and-such time every week?

Linear TV is dying.

The ONLY things (that I'm aware of... know of something else, please feel free to mention it) that absolutely require viewership at a specific time are sports and news. (News maybe not at a specific time, but if you want to know news as it happens, it has to be live). You can certainly watch delayed sports, but there's a certainly element to watching it live.

But for TV shows - the time that the show "airs" has been replaced with the time the show is "released". Released meaning that would-be viewers are free to watch it at any point in time after that release time.

News and sports can certainly be accomplished with streaming - see CBSN, NewsNet, etc. And sports can be streamed, see MLB.tv and ESPN+.

But one usefulness of linear TV that might still be missing, is what I call filler TV. The best way for me to describe this is that I used to, a lot of times, have the TV on, usually on FXX with The Simpsons on during the evening/night hours. I might be in the office working on something, but have the TV on in the living room. I might walk through and catch a few minutes of that episode of The Simpsons. Filler TV shows would be any TV show that probably fits into a 30 minute time slot that are more self-contained episodic than full season story arcs. That way you can have them on as background noise, but don't necessarily have to sit down and watch the show from episode 1 to the last episode to completely understand it.

Now I'm not sure how much of a miss this "filler TV" really is. I kind of miss it, but not enough to warrant me paying DirecTV $120/mo for (and since Disney+ started, FXX stopped airing The Simpsons all the time ... I'm sure there's other shows that fit this, The Simpsons is just the one that came to mind). I don't subscribe to Disney+, but I could and solve this "issue" for me.

I could eventually see all of the cable networks, mainly Turner and Viacom/Paramount, AMC (? - I think they already have an OTT solution, don't they?) coming out with their own OTT services and that is where you get all of your content.

ESPN would be wise to roll a lot of their TV content into ESPN+ (but they have too many ill-fated TV contracts to do this, and that's the main issue with ESPN) and RSNs would also be better served to run their own in-market OTT solutions. If I could get all of the SEC basketball games during the winter on ESPN+, if I could get my "in-market" RSNs (this topic has been discussed ad nauseam in other threads) in an OTT solution, MAYBE a local OTA Locast-like solution (some of the in-market networks are 150 or 200 miles away, antenna doesn't always pick them up) for local news, then I would have no reason to have any linear TV solution.

Now, the one area where this doesn't work... is extremely rural areas that do not have access to quality broadband Internet. And believe me, there's a ton of areas where this is still an issue. You can gloat about your 1gbps connection, but there are still areas that have to rely on dialup or a 20GB mobile hotspot from some cell phone company. For people in those areas, they have no choice but to get either DirecTV, Dish, or Orby. And they have to pay whatever DirecTV, Dish, or Orby tells them they have to pay - if they want any type of TV or viewing entertainment. DirecTV, Dish, and Orby know this... "Oh, so you live out in the middle of no where without any broadband Internet options, but you want to watch SEC Football? ... we can give you that for $410/mo" And what are they going to do? They can balk at paying that much, sure. But they ain't going to be watching SEC Football on ESPN and the SEC Network.

Musk's Starlink project MIGHT change this - I still really have my doubts - but if quality broadband Internet becomes ubiquitous around the United States, then this will help to completely render DirecTV's (and Dish's and Orby's) appeal.

Cable companies are shieled from this a bit. People may drop Xfinity TV or Spectrum TV... but they still use Comcast and Charter for their Internet service. DirecTV's main target audience was always the folks that can't get cable (which again... believe me, there are areas of the country where there is no cable line hanging from the utility poles). Just because someone has DirecTV for TV doesn't mean that they're in an area serviced by AT&T for Internet - and AT&T quite literally shoved a giant middle finger into the faces of a lot of their rural areas when it came to spreading out Internet capacity - so when those folks leave DirecTV, AT&T's not making any money off of them, where as the cable companies more than likely still are.

Does this mean DirecTV and the other satellite companies are going to completely fold soon? Probably not. Will AT&T sell DirecTV? I don't know. But I'm more and more inclined to believe that AT&T is going to stop caring about DirecTV customers. This is why the discounts for DirecTV subscribers are starting to dry up. This why they are pushing their AT&T streaming TV options or just their HBO Max offering - it costs them less to maintain and thus maximizes profits.

The future of TV is not going to be linear air-time programming and that's what's ultimately going to drive the final nail in the coffin of DirecTV and other satellite TV providers.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

The bigger picture is that the industry and business model have huge problems growing worse by the minute.

On the one hand technology continues to roll forward (4K and yes, someday 8K) and the business model for putting up enough satellites for meaningful 4K is not there. The opposite even seems to be true with no plans for future sats of any kind. There never was justification for the number of channels that hardly anyone watches. It doesn't matter who owns the resources.

Long ago I posted a series of comments that the real problem was that channels for the most part are non-live constant repeats. If one looks at bandwith over time it would make a lot more sense to burst a program infrequently and let interested viewers DVRs grab it. I don't know what the percentage is but I'd think most consumers have DVRs now. Instead of trying to broadcast a 4K movie hundreds of times just do it a few times. Enables a lot more programming with a lot less resources.

Use the DVR to be a smart piece of infrastructure, not just a "virtual videotape".

That's actually the best thing for programming provided via internet as well for similar reasons. There is certainly a lot more bandwidth available these days BUT the technology is weak for pushing out 4K streams to millions of viewers at a _*similar*_ time (few would be exactly in sync). This isn't about bandwidth of city folks, its about the terabits of backbone capacity. As with sat technology, preload the DVR over the internet which makes constant bandwidth unnecessary (do more at night for example). This happens to also provide those of us with pathetic internet (rural DSL) the chance to get programming.

For rural people, the best of both worlds is delivery of high demand (or live) content via sat and low demand via internet at whatever speed is available.

The DVR focus also gets rid of the garbage trick-play that streaming has.

One must realize here that AT&T doesn't want satellites. They want the worst-case scenario I just mentioned - tens of millions of unique 4K+ video streams over the internet. Because they own a big chunk of those backbone pipes. They will make more money growing that backbone capacity. Which will eventually increase the price of internet service. Which is all fine and good in a perfect world (any bytes you want, when you want them, reasonably cheaply). And someday might happen but not until rural America has the bandwidth.

The other hand is the collapse of the bundling business model. Thousands of programs being paid for that millions of people will never watch. People are shifting to NetFlix, Hulu, AppleTV, and all the rest because they are cheaper. While my primary is still DTV I have a few subscriptions too. But guess what, that model sucks too. Each service is creating programming that is proprietary. I don't want a long-term subscription to watch a couple of series every year. Sure, I can cancel and resubscribe as needed but its a hassle. The current disruption isn't the end of it. Sooner or later they will have to figure out that people don't want this new model of dozens of subscriptions either. Pay-per-program fools!

Bottom line is the business model is collapsing and they haven't a clue how to maintain their revenue streams. A lot of this is just death throws.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

wmb said:


> Let's face it, three or four of these video on demand services at $6-10 each is much cheaper than most people's DirecTV bill. You can come and go as you please.


You're dreaming if you think you can get all the sports that are currently on as one of the packages for $6 to $10 a month. Maybe ESPN+ shows the sports you want to watch, but the high value content like the NFL, NBA, MLB, and major college football/basketball will never be on ESPN+, at least not at anything remotely close to the current price.

Currently over $40 of the average cable/satellite bill goes for sports. But a lot of people paying for that don't watch sports at all, they just don't have any way to get the other stuff they want without paying for locals (rapidly approaching $20/month, almost all of which pays for sports) ESPN ($10/month) other sports stuff like FS1/TNT/TBS/BTN/SECN/ACCN (over $5/month) and RSNs ($5-10/month depending on where you live)

If there was a separate package available on cable/satellite called "all the sports" that you could ignore if you were not a sports fan, it would have to cost at least $100/month for equivalent revenue versus the current system with only sports fans paying for it.

Sure, you can hope that they'll move all sports to streaming and put everything in nice narrow packages that let you buy just the sports/leagues you are interested in, but you can also hope they paint your house this summer and come walk your dog for you when it is raining.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

evotz said:


> How many people less than ... say the age of 40 ... tune in to watch their favorite shows at such-and-such time every week?
> 
> The ONLY things (that I'm aware of... know of something else, please feel free to mention it) that absolutely require viewership at a specific time are sports and news.


There is a fair amount of "event oriented television" that is not sports or news. The top rated "watercooler" series (now "social media" series) are the type of show where if one does not watch live or close to live one is going to either miss out on the conversation or have the show spoiled before they can get around to viewing it. sure, you can watch the show later but you can't participate in the social media/water cooler discussions until you do.

There is probably not as much "must see now" TV as there once was - but the FOMO factor certainly applies to people under 40. Produce an event instead of filler and people will find the need to watch NOW at the moment of release instead of binging weeks or months later.

And I agree with your comments about "filler TV" ... flipping channels to see what is on. The on demand platforms seem to have that covered in their libraries and recommendations. One of the things I noticed about Peacock TV was that when I started the app a video started immediately - if I wasn't looking for something specific the service had something queued up and playing the moment I walked in the virtual door. They have genre based channels (I feel like watching "a true stories mystery") with shows already in progress - just like linear TV - as well as the deep library if you know what you want to see. It does not include same day prime time content (save that for the affiliates). But it seems to be a very linear friendly service.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> If there was a separate package available on cable/satellite called "all the sports" that you could ignore if you were not a sports fan, it would have to cost at least $100/month for equivalent revenue versus the current system with only sports fans paying for it.


You're right with this.

And to be clear - and I didn't make this clear in my post - moving all of ESPN's current sports lineup to ESPN+ I did not mean "and continue to cost $5/mo" - obviously it would have to be more (A LOT more!). And it'd be even more if you consider that there's no contract and can be canceled at any time. I'm really only interested in college basketball during the winter months, so say November through March or 5 months. But even if ESPN's TV content cost me $30 or $40 per month - it's still a win to pay $200 over a 5 month period for the ESPN content I want, rather than the $600 I'd be paying DirecTV over that same period.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

James Long said:


> There is a fair amount of "event oriented television" that is not sports or news. The top rated "watercooler" series (now "social media" series) are the type of show where if one does not watch live or close to live one is going to either miss out on the conversation or have the show spoiled before they can get around to viewing it. sure, you can watch the show later but you can't participate in the social media/water cooler discussions until you do.


Yea, but I don't think people are stumbling over themselves these days to hurry up and get home to watch a show. "I have to get home... The Blacklist comes on at 9, I don't want to miss it". I remember those days growing up. I remember setting the timer on the VCR and hoping that the power didn't go off while I was out. That doesn't happen now. NBC can do a release dump at 2AM on Friday morning and folks can watch it at 7PM Friday night, 9PM Friday night, 11:32PM Friday night... you don't really miss a whole lot when it comes to talking about the show the next day (people still do that?).


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

evotz said:


> Yea, but I don't think people are stumbling over themselves these days to hurry up and get home to watch a show. "I have to get home... The Blacklist comes on at 9, I don't want to miss it". I remember those days growing up. I remember setting the timer on the VCR and hoping that the power didn't go off while I was out. That doesn't happen now. NBC can do a release dump at 2AM on Friday morning and folks can watch it at 7PM Friday night, 9PM Friday night, 11:32PM Friday night... you don't really miss a whole lot when it comes to talking about the show the next day (people still do that?).


Not me lol. I can't leave a show in the queue for days or weeks.


----------



## moob (Nov 20, 2008)

James Long said:


> There is a fair amount of "event oriented television" that is not sports or news.


Is there? I'm not being sarcastic either...

The last "event" that I could think of was the final season of Game of Thrones. I can't really think of anything else that I'd consider "event television." A lot of the highly discussed shows that I can think of, like The Last Dance or Tiger King or The Madalorian for example, still didn't really require day-of viewership.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

moob said:


> Is there? I'm not being sarcastic either...
> 
> The last "event" that I could think of was the final season of Game of Thrones. I can't really think of anything else that I'd consider "event television." A lot of the highly discussed shows that I can think of, like The Last Dance or Tiger King or The Madalorian for example, still didn't really require day-of viewership.


I can't think of any shows that I had to watch immediately. Not even GoT. I waited till I could binge on each season just as I do with everything I watch. Been doing it that way for more than a decade. I was "binging" on series recorded on VCRs well before I got D* in 2002. I had no idea there was such a name (binging) for what I was doing at the time.

VCRs (twelve of them) were a lot of work. I had to use a ledger to keep track of what was on which tape. Royal PITA. Then I switched to D* and still used all 12 VCRs on receivers. Still a RPITA. Finally figured out what a DVR was and that made life a lot easier. No more ledger. DVRs keep track of what's on them, big difference. Thought I was in pig heaven. Then I found Netflix...

Rich


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Out of all the new shows announced for the new TV season that I am looking forward to if sticks to its premier date in January 2021 is Superman and Lois on TheCW.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

_The Mandalorian_ and Baby Yoda is the best thing to happen to the _Star Wars_ franchise since the original trilogy and you can't change my mind on that. I fired up Disney+ on a weekly basis just to watch Baby Yoda's adventures and I feel no shame in admitting that 



CraigerM said:


> Out of all the new shows announced for the new TV season that I am looking forward to if sticks to its premier date in January 2021 is Superman and Lois on TheCW.


Well... due to COVID-19 is The CW is now raiding the graveyards of DC Universe and CBS All Access to fill in its schedule. I'm interested in seeing if _Swamp Thing_ (DC Universe) and _Tell Me a Story_ (CBS All Access) does well enough for The CW in the fall if they would be interested in trying to renew both for additional seasons since their respective streaming services cancelled them. I mean we have seen cancelled Netflix shows like _One Day at a Time _and _Tuca & Bertie_ move to Pop and Adult Swim respectively.

If this continues on much longer all the broadcast networks are going to have to raid their streaming services, cable networks and in the case of CBS and The CW their premium service counterparts (Showtime and HBO/Cinemax) for programming.

Oh and strangely Syfy right now has licensed the broadcast rights to edited versions of the first season of DC Universe's _Harley Quinn. _Which is not bad actually I'm thinking of activating the 7 day free trial of DC Universe to watch the show without the bleeps. The advertising is promoting DC Universe mainly btw.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

unixguru said:


> Use the DVR to be a smart piece of infrastructure, not just a "virtual videotape".


I could champion an idea like this. Although I don't know if I'd go exactly down the road you portray. I'm not too terribly concerned with 4K, that's just a personal opinion. But I'm sure you're right in terms of maximizing it's efficiency.

If DirecTV really wants to remain relevant, I think they should look at offering a pseudo NetFlix/Hulu/Amazon/Disney+ (if you believe Turner and all of the cable and broadcast networks will eventually go to an OTT platform) experience. Users purchase a NetFlix subscription through DirecTV and use their phones or whatever crummy Internet they have access to, to queue titles into their special "DirecTV NetFlix" account and those titles are downloaded to the user's DVR overnight or some time.

Someone out in the rural area that doesn't have a quality Internet, they can sign up for "DirecTV NetFlix" use their phone to "queue" an entire season of Stranger Things and then at 3AM the next morning, DirecTV sends that whole season to the user's DVR where the user can watch it whenever they want. User's get to keep 50 hours worth on their DVR (to little? 100? 200?).

Maybe you have quality Internet but are highly restricted by monthly data allowances... this could work for you as well.

No doubt there's still some logistics I haven't thought of, but could be ironed out. A "DirecTV NetFlix" subscription would cost more than just the typical NetFlix account (because DirecTV would have to get their hand in the cookie jar too), but it's a pathway to remaining relevant.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

moob said:


> The last "event" that I could think of was the final season of Game of Thrones. I can't really think of anything else that I'd consider "event television." A lot of the highly discussed shows that I can think of, like The Last Dance or Tiger King or The Madalorian for example, still didn't really require day-of viewership.


Did you actually watch Game of Thrones Sunday Night (it was Sunday Night, wasn't it?... I personally never watched it) at the exact time it came on. Or did you DVR it and watch, maybe later Sunday Night, or some other time?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

moob said:


> Is there? I'm not being sarcastic either...


Broadcast TV, which is generally not streamed until next day unless you can stream your local affiliate. Probably shows you don't care about. Contest shows such as The Voice or American Idol with live voting. Even canned shows such as The Masked Singer. Game of Thrones and the Walking Dead had FOMO online followings.

I try to look outside of my own interests.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

But if there is no broadcast TV... if everything goes to a "release" time instead of an "air" time... then everyone's in the same boat. So what difference does it make?


----------



## moob (Nov 20, 2008)

evotz said:


> Did you actually watch Game of Thrones Sunday Night (it was Sunday Night, wasn't it?... I personally never watched it) at the exact time it came on. Or did you DVR it and watch, maybe later Sunday Night, or some other time?


I watched it the Sunday at 6pm (on the west coast so we get the east coast feed). I did that for the entire season but previous seasons were DVR'ed and watched later.



James Long said:


> Broadcast TV, which is generally not streamed until next day unless you cans stream your local affiliate. Probably shows you don't care about. Contest shows such as The Voice or American Idol with live voting. Even canned shows such as The Masked Singer. Game of Thrones and the Walking Dead had FOMO online followings.
> 
> I try to look outside of my own interests.


The Voice, American Idol and The Masked Singer aren't really considered "event" television. Sure, the fans of those shows will want to watch them as they air because the winners/losers can be spoiled, but discussions about those shows don't really cross into popular culture anymore the way it did with Tiger King, The Mandalorian and Game of Thrones. Hell, those shows aren't even the highest rated shows on network tv (NCIS and FBI are outside of football and 60 Minutes) and they barely, if ever, even crack 10 million viewers. This isn't about looking outside of my own interests as I'm well aware that most of the shows that I watch aren't very popular. I didn't even watch Tiger King or The Mandalorian until weeks/months after they aired. But you said that there is still a fair amount of event oriented television and that flat out isn't true. I frequent sites like spottedratings above, tvseriesfinale and watch YouTube channels like Fandom. Network/broadcast television has seen its viewership plummet in the past decade+ and I don't think there's anything that can be done to reverse the decline. I am very much in that <40 demographic you folks were talking about, and I'm definitely not watching much network television (and if you look at the demos not many of us are), though I'm keenly aware of what others are watching on it.

As an aside, the last show that I watch on broadcast tv is Agents of Shield (another lowly rated show). The final season starts this week and once that's done I'll pretty much only be going to network tv for local news. And maybe some sports when those come back. The vast majority of the shows that I watch are on streaming services. If I didn't get a great discount with D*, I would have canceled and I don't think I would have missed it a whole lot.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

evotz said:


> But if there is no broadcast TV... if everything goes to a "release" time instead of an "air" time... then everyone's in the same boat. So what difference does it make?


That is a big "if". Right now networks are making too much money selling content through the affiliate systems and they work hard to protect their affiliation agreements. Streaming the next day is the final step before same night program releases - but for now they are making more money having an "air time" via broadcast networks than having a release time online.

Release time doesn't mean that all shows are available at 3am on the day of air (instead of 7, 8, 9 or 10pm that evening). Streamers can still try to create events.

The ratings system is built around winning a time slot or a night. Releasing an entire evening's prime time lineup early breaks the ratings system adn the affiliate system. I don't see that happening soon.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Currently over $40 of the average cable/satellite bill goes for sports.


I really have to question this number. Take streaming services like YTTV or Sling... that would eat up over 70% of the cost, meaning everything else has to be cheap or free. YTTV has the mid-tier cable sports line up, and you get that if you get both Sling Orange and Blue. It's over 50% of mid-tier cable package prices, too.

Of course, it could also be that this "average" is skewed by high spenders that get all of the league packs and order pay per views.

Makes me wonder how much of the average cable bill goes to movies considering a reasonably high percentage of subscribers get one or more premiums like HBO and Showtime.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

Well... the whole population can conform to fit into the models that network TV uses. Or network TV can conform to fit the model that the population is using. If you can't see the trend in which way this is going, I'm afraid you're clinging a bit too the past. I just don't see TV viewership being like it was in the 80s and 90s hanging on for much longer, I think 10 years at most. At least that's my opinion, we're all entitled to our own. Doesn't mean that anybody's opinion is exactly how it's going to play out.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

wmb said:


> I really have to question this number. Take streaming services like YTTV or Sling... that would eat up over 70% of the cost, meaning everything else has to be cheap or free. YTTV has the mid-tier cable sports line up, and you get that if you get both Sling Orange and Blue. It's over 50% of mid-tier cable package prices, too.


I always thought it was infrastructure cost difference. The cost of launching a satellite, maintaining those satellites, having the datacenter facilities to utilize those satellites vs. the datacenter cost of streaming content. The cost to stream something I always thought was significantly cheaper than doing it through satellites. Yes, they have to stream out the content... but they don't provide the pipes or infrastructure for endusers to have so they can receive that stream.

But I was told I was wrong. So it's not that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

evotz said:


> But I was told I was wrong. So it's not that.


You are correct ... you were wrong. Yes, the initial cost of satellites and uplink equipment is high - and many people point to those high costs. But the return on that investment is a very inexpensive way of reaching millions of customers without paying for additional bandwidth per streaming device and be able to provide service over many years. It works out to only a few dollars of the monthly cost of DIRECTV.

The #1 expense of ALL MVPDs is content. Add a little overhead and make a little profit and the company might survive. In general, the companies with a lower subscription cost (whether MVPD or vMVPD) have less content included. As they add content they need to increase their subscription cost in order to keep making money.

BTW: $40 of the average bill is not $40 of every bill across every service.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> BTW: $40 of the average bill is not $40 of every bill across every service.


You know, Bill Gates has a personal net worth of $100 billion which accounts for almost $2,000 of the average wealth of the remaining 52 million American households. The average net worth of Americans is about $700k, whereas the median (50th percentile) is about $100k.

I'm guessing Sunday ticket at $350 per year subscribed to by 5 million households accounts for $4 of that $40 all by itself. That assumes 70% of those 52 million households has some form of cable. Let's just say Sunday ticket accounts for about 10% of the end user cost of cable sports broadcasting .

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> The #1 expense of ALL MVPDs is content. Add a little overhead and make a little profit and the company might survive. In general, the companies with a lower subscription cost (whether MVPD or vMVPD) have less content included. As they add content they need to increase their subscription cost in order to keep making money.


I'll take on this too. It can easily generalize this. The #1 expense of any video entertainment service is content. Heck, that can probably be generalized even further to include movies in theaters, plays, and live sporting events. Although, facilities may rival cost to put on an in-person event-stadium/building costs vs player/actor/performer salary.

The difference between MVPD, vMVPD, and streaming service like Netflix is how the content is packaged. A second difference is how the content is delivered: satellite, or hard wire to the consumer, which breaks down to dedicated signals (traditional cable) or IP data stream.

I do not believe that people will stop consuming content. I believe that how that content will be accessed is what is changing.

The (v)MVPD model favors linear content consumption. Streaming favors a on-demand content consumption. Both favor professionally produced content. A third option is user-produced content services like You Tube.

What is developing is a hybrid model where the provider offers linear and on-demand content. The question is the role of current cable networks as this evolves. Some may survive the transition, some won't.

On-demand favors hard wired networks over satellites. Satellites are bandwidth limited. They could serve maybe 500 different pieces on content to individuals within a region with millions of people. Hardwired networks offer higher bandwidth, allowing multiple independent streams to a single household, and each household can access multiple streams different from any other household.

Content delivery via satellite seems to be at risk. It is less flexible in that it's more difficult to deliver on-demand content. But, it can deliver linear content to almost everyone, even those that lack connection to hard-wired networks. It's infrastructure cost favors dispersed users. Hard wired networks pretty much require suburban population densities to justify infrastructure costs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

wmb said:


> I really have to question this number. Take streaming services like YTTV or Sling... that would eat up over 70% of the cost, meaning everything else has to be cheap or free. YTTV has the mid-tier cable sports line up, and you get that if you get both Sling Orange and Blue. It's over 50% of mid-tier cable package prices, too.


All the streaming MVPDs (except presumably AT&T TV, since it charges a lot more than the rest) lose money. They've been using the internet strategy of "lose money and build up a customer base, and worry about profits later".


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

wmb said:


> You know, Bill Gates has a personal net worth of $100 billion which accounts for almost $2,000 of the average wealth of the remaining 52 million American households. The average net worth of Americans is about $700k, whereas the median (50th percentile) is about $100k.
> 
> I'm guessing Sunday ticket at $350 per year subscribed to by 5 million households accounts for $4 of that $40 all by itself. That assumes 70% of those 52 million households has some form of cable. Let's just say Sunday ticket accounts for about 10% of the end user cost of cable sports broadcasting .


I wasn't including specialty services like NFLST. I broke down the cost for you, why is it so hard to figure out? Locals are about $15-$18/month by themselves. ESPN is just a shade under $10/month. TNT, TBS, FS1 are about $6 total. Then add in college conference networks like BTN or SECN, and RSNs and that's where your $40 comes from.

Now obviously some providers offer packages that don't include RSNs, or don't include ESPN, which saves a lot of money. But locals alone will be $20/month pretty soon. I suppose I should point out not every penny of that $20 is sports, some of it goes to producing network programming. But the large majority of it is sports rights.

Stuff like the "sports pak" that most providers offer that include extra channels like Golf Channel, or specialty stuff like MLBEI and so forth isn't included in this because they are structured so only sports fans pay. Its the other stuff that many many non sports fans is forced to pay for that subsidizes sports fans to pay a lot less than they otherwise would if they were the only ones paying for it. Though in reality they'd pay more but the leagues would also be forced to accept less money, and therefore the players and team owners would be forced to make less money. That's the future they and Disney know is coming someday but will do everything in their power to delay that day of reckoning for as long as possible.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

wmb said:


> I
> 
> Content delivery via satellite seems to be at risk. It is less flexible in that it's more difficult to deliver on-demand content. But, it can deliver linear content to almost everyone, even those that lack connection to hard-wired networks. It's infrastructure cost favors dispersed users. Hard wired networks pretty much require suburban population densities to justify infrastructure costs.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Content delivery via satellite can also push stuff


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> I wasn't including specialty services like NFLST. I broke down the cost for you, why is it so hard to figure out? Locals are about $15-$18/month by themselves. ESPN is just a shade under $10/month. TNT, TBS, FS1 are about $6 total. Then add in college conference networks like BTN or SECN, and RSNs and that's where your $40 comes from.


And that's why linear TV is dying. Sports and News (I hesitate to include news because news junkies don't typically have such a rabid fan base, but technically it fits here) are the only programming that really require a "linear" concept.

If you're not interested in watching sports... for a consumer it's cheaper to just buy NetFlix or whatever OTT on-demand streaming platform, and watch what you want, when you want. If Turner and the other "cable-only networks" ever dip their toes into a stand-alone OTT on-demand platform, then that reduces the dependence on linear TV for that original programming even more. (Or is Turner/AMC/Viacom/IFC original programming already on a streaming platform?).

If you're only interested in watching whatever the latest great "Game of Throne"-like show on HBO... then it makes a lot more sense to just subscribe to HBO Max to get that content than to spend hundreds of dollars on DirecTV so you can get HBO to watch that programming (assuming you have quality Internet).


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

evotz said:


> If DirecTV really wants to remain relevant, I think they should look at offering a pseudo NetFlix/Hulu/Amazon/Disney+ (if you believe Turner and all of the cable and broadcast networks will eventually go to an OTT platform) experience. Users purchase a NetFlix subscription through DirecTV and use their phones or whatever crummy Internet they have access to, to queue titles into their special "DirecTV NetFlix" account and those titles are downloaded to the user's DVR overnight or some time.
> 
> Someone out in the rural area that doesn't have a quality Internet, they can sign up for "DirecTV NetFlix" use their phone to "queue" an entire season of Stranger Things and then at 3AM the next morning, DirecTV sends that whole season to the user's DVR where the user can watch it whenever they want. User's get to keep 50 hours worth on their DVR (to little? 100? 200?).


Part of the problem is that the streaming business model assumes dirt-cheap throw-away endpoints. DVRs are too complex and costly. At least that was the thinking and will probably win until the bandwidth issues worsen. Along with the tradeoff to **** trick-play one can add lower quality. Example being just recently when YouTube reduced resolution/bitrate to keep Euro backbone from collapsing. Although dumb endpoints cheapen that side of the equation they add to the backbone and server/source costs. Unfortunately I think the cheap/dumb endpoint will always win on the pure cost side. User experience will be a losing factor for a very long time.

As for the "DirecTV NetFlix" I don't think that will ever fly. A subscription service within another subscription service. I personally could care less about NetFlix as its "vast" library is, for the most part, ancient junk. DirecTV can, like all the streaming services, bulk up its library to a matching level.

None of this solves the problem of streaming services owning and creating proprietary content. My threshold for paying for yet another streaming subscription is very high. I wouldn't touch CBS All Access if it were not for the Star Trek series. Same with Disney+ for Mandalorian. For those I wait until a new season is completely released then I sign up and binge and unsubscribe again. They have nothing else I'm interested in even if it was free! I have Amazon only because we have Prime; some moderately decent programs there but really not much - would never pay extra for them. Every couple of years we get NetFlix for a month or two and then drop it after watching very little. Others have different viewing patterns but I doubt anybody is perfectly happy with the business models available.

Ideally there will be a time when the delivery infrastructure will be paid for separately from content (where have we seen that before?!). Can't come soon enough.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

unixguru said:


> As for the "DirecTV NetFlix" I don't think that will ever fly. A subscription service within another subscription service. I personally could care less about NetFlix as its "vast" library is, for the most part, ancient junk. DirecTV can, like all the streaming services, bulk up its library to a matching level.
> 
> ...
> 
> Ideally there will be a time when the delivery infrastructure will be paid for separately from content (where have we seen that before?!). Can't come soon enough.


I think your last comment is kind of the gist I was getting after.

Sure, DirecTV can beef up their library... but they need a way to offer it to people that already have infrastructure in place to view that content (like a decent Internet connection and a Roku) for a lower price than to people that do not have the infrastructure in place (live out in the middle of no where without a quality Internet connection). Because if you don't, then you're in the same boat you're in now. Nobody with a decent Internet connection isn't going to pay to gain access to the content that requires unneeded infrastructure to be able to view. Rather than re-invent the wheel - I just proposed that DirecTV could use their existing satellite infrastructure to provide a pseudo NetFlix or Amazon or whatever streaming platform. Instead of paying $12.99 for a NetFlix account, maybe a DirecTV NetFlix account would cost $25 - DirecTV would pay NetFlix $13 for the NetFlix account and keep the $12 for themselves, maintaining infrastructure cost and profit. If someone lives out in the middle of no where without the infrastructure... if they want NetFlix or whatever, I think they'd pay $25/mo for the experience, maybe higher... I don't know what the cut off point would be. I doubt they'd pay $50.

If DirecTV had their own library, then they'd have to battle all of the other streaming on-demand players (NetFlix, Amazon, Hulu, etc) to get the rights to that content and then would only be able to provide the content that they won the right to, to their infrastructure customers. If you lived out in the middle of no where and liked Seinfeld - then you're still SOL.

The idea definitely deserves scrutiny and it may not be feasible. I'm just saying if DirecTV is looking for an avenue to remain relevant, that's one to explore.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> All the streaming MVPDs (except presumably AT&T TV, since it charges a lot more than the rest) lose money. They've been using the internet strategy of "lose money and build up a customer base, and worry about profits later".


When DirecTV Now first came out, this article that said their operating margins were single digits, much less than the typical 45% for the traditional video business.

This chart shows how tiny the margins will be on AT&T's new $35 streaming TV service

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

wmb said:


> When DirecTV Now first came out, this article that said their operating margins were single digits, much less than the typical 45% for the traditional video business.
> 
> This chart shows how tiny the margins will be on AT&T's new $35 streaming TV service


Those are GROSS margins, not operating margins. If your gross margin is single digits this business, you are losing a lot of money.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Those are GROSS margins, not operating margins. If your gross margin is single digits this business, you are losing a lot of money.


From the article:


> "Gross margins don't look great," he wrote. "A simple analysis ($35 monthly rate less estimated content costs/sub) would indicate gross margins for DTV Now are no higher than single-digit percentages, significantly below an estimated ~45% for the traditional video business. But, we also believe this may be underestimating the potential for advertising revenues, which could add another ~$5/month in ARPU. With that in mind, the DTV Now (OTT) gross margin improves modestly to the high-teens, but is still less than half of traditional linear video."


So it looks like they planned on losing a lot of money on the Now product - balancing that loss with advertising revenues (selling their subscribers to advertisers). A very streaming company like thing to do.

Fortunately AT&T has DIRECTV satellite and Uverse to prop up the fledgling service. Unfortunately the service didn't grow into something self supporting.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> From the article:
> So it looks like they planned on losing a lot of money on the Now product - balancing that loss with advertising revenues (selling their subscribers to advertisers). A very streaming company like thing to do.
> 
> Fortunately AT&T has DIRECTV satellite and Uverse to prop up the fledgling service. Unfortunately the service didn't grow into something self supporting.


It grew into something. It had over 1.8 million subscribers in Q2/3 2018, before the big price hike. The fall 2018 price hike made it uncompetitive, essentially scuttling DirecTV Now.

AT&T's Q1 2020 earnings show it's still hemorrhaging video subscribers

That compares favorably with YTTV's current 2.3 million and Hulu + Live's 3.2 million.

The YouTube TV Thread

Let's see if Google and Hulu can now monetize that subscriber base.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Something ...








It was very slow to launch. I believe it missed the window Now needed to be successful.
Then AT&T revamped the product and was even slower to launch the replacement!
Lesson learned - how not to do it.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

I don't recall the exact timing, but I wonder home much of the huge jump in subscribers in 2017 was due to the "free" Apple TV? That's why I signed up at one point, just to check it out and get the free Apple TV. Then they completely screwed up my HBO Go login so I canceled it.



James Long said:


> Something ...
> View attachment 30591
> 
> It was very slow to launch. I believe it missed the window Now needed to be successful.
> ...


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

raott said:


> I don't recall the exact timing, but I wonder home much of the huge jump in subscribers in 2017 was due to the "free" Apple TV? That's why I signed up at one point, just to check it out and get the free Apple TV. Then they completely screwed up my HBO Go login so I canceled it.


This is true I signed up for 4 accounts during that promo


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

raott said:


> I don't recall the exact timing, but I wonder home much of the huge jump in subscribers in 2017 was due to the "free" Apple TV? That's why I signed up at one point, just to check it out and get the free Apple TV. Then they completely screwed up my HBO Go login so I canceled it.


Basically the same marketing plan as AT&T TV, but with an Apple TV instead of a private labeled Roku (more or less). Give people a box, a low rate for a year, then jack up the price year 2. The other differences are the two year contract and explicitly telling people about the price hike up front.

I wonder if it will turn out differently?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

It was a little bit different. It was basically "try the service for three (might have been four) months and we will give you an Apple TV". If I remember right, and the only reason I did it, the three or four month cost of the service was equivalent to the cost an Apple TV (which I was in the market for) at the time.



wmb said:


> Basically the same marketing plan as AT&T TV, but with an Apple TV instead of a private labeled Roku (more or less). Give people a box, a low rate for a year, then jack up the price year 2. The other differences are the two year contract and explicitly telling people about the price hike up front.
> 
> I wonder if it will turn out differently?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

wmb said:


> Basically the same marketing plan as AT&T TV, but with an Apple TV instead of a private labeled Roku (more or less). Give people a box, a low rate for a year, then jack up the price year 2. The other differences are the two year contract and explicitly telling people about the price hike up front.
> 
> I wonder if it will turn out differently?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


We'll know in a year. I think that in a year there will be a substantial number cancelling and paying the ETF since the 2nd year prices are so outrageous compared to any other streaming service.

At the Entertainment sub level, the lowest one with no RSN's, the math makes for a real bargain. Lots of channels, wide subject matter, HBO/HBO Max included first year, free box and at least a $100 rebate. Do it a year, cancel and pay ETF and the true cost turns out to be $57/month.

The math is the same for the upper sub levels but doesn't work out so well because of the additional RSN fee on top of sub cost.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

raott said:


> It was a little bit different. It was basically "try the service for three (might have been four) months and we will give you an Apple TV". If I remember right, and the only reason I did it, the three or four month cost of the service was equivalent to the cost an Apple TV (which I was in the market for) at the time.


I did it. It was actually cheaper to do that trial to get the AppleTV and was cheaper than AppleTV's were selling for at the time.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> From the article:
> So it looks like they planned on losing a lot of money on the Now product - balancing that loss with advertising revenues (selling their subscribers to advertisers). A very streaming company like thing to do.
> 
> Fortunately AT&T has DIRECTV satellite and Uverse to prop up the fledgling service. Unfortunately the service didn't grow into something self supporting.


But that's the exact same advertising revenue they can make on satellite, at least for customers who have DVRs. Now maybe they plan on inserting even more ads, like they're already doing on Directv with ads in the guide screen and when you pause, or like Tivo has inflicted on TE4 customers with "preroll" ads that run when you play a recording but again that's nothing that cable/satellite providers can't already do to their customers so streaming MVPDs aren't in any particular advantage there.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> But that's the exact same advertising revenue they can make on satellite, at least for customers who have DVRs. Now maybe they plan on inserting even more ads, like they're already doing on Directv with ads in the guide screen and when you pause, or like Tivo has inflicted on TE4 customers with "preroll" ads that run when you play a recording but again that's nothing that cable/satellite providers can't already do to their customers so streaming MVPDs aren't in any particular advantage there.


Ads in the guide screen, ads when you pause, ads when you start to play a DVRed show?...those are things?...that people put up with? Yikes!


----------



## Getteau (Dec 20, 2007)

evotz said:


> But one usefulness of linear TV that might still be missing, is what I call filler TV. The best way for me to describe this is that I used to, a lot of times, have the TV on, usually on FXX with The Simpsons on during the evening/night hours. I might be in the office working on something, but have the TV on in the living room. I might walk through and catch a few minutes of that episode of The Simpsons. Filler TV shows would be any TV show that probably fits into a 30 minute time slot that are more self-contained episodic than full season story arcs. That way you can have them on as background noise, but don't necessarily have to sit down and watch the show from episode 1 to the last episode to completely understand it.
> 
> Now I'm not sure how much of a miss this "filler TV" really is. I kind of miss it, but not enough to warrant me paying DirecTV $120/mo for (and since Disney+ started, FXX stopped airing The Simpsons all the time ... I'm sure there's other shows that fit this, The Simpsons is just the one that came to mind). I don't subscribe to Disney+, but I could and solve this "issue" for me.


Filler TV and a true guide is what I missed the most when we spent a couple of weeks at our vacation house last year and I didn't un-suspend the DTV service. We had HBO Now, NetFlix, Amazon, Vudu and a few other things, but I just missed hitting the guide button, scrolling through the guide aimlessly and picking something. While you can do the same thing in NetFlix or Amazon, it's just a lot easier to scroll through the old-school DTV/Cable guide than the Netflix or Amazon interface.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> We'll know in a year. I think that in a year there will be a substantial number cancelling and paying the ETF since the 2nd year prices are so outrageous compared to any other streaming service.


That is a good reason for people looking for a streaming service to avoid it as well.

I wonder how many non-AT&T customers will sign up. I could see it as a cost reduction move for DirecTV and U-Verse as it's a more or less BYOD. No equipment fees. This may just be AT&T cannibalizing itself.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

wmb said:


> That is a good reason for people looking for a streaming service to avoid it as well.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Since one of the benefits of streaming services is the ability to cancel and move on, I don't see it as a big issue on ATT TV except you have to keep it a year to have it make sense.

Of course one of the downsides to live streaming services is with the DVR if you like to shuffle services, because you lose your recordings just as you do when shifting cable or sat services.

EDIT: I'm betting that with all the shuffling in live streaming and VOD services going on, that in the next year quite a bit will have changed. The providers will figure out what is profitable for them in both prices and content offerings. Heck, it is even possible that ATT will figure out that the 2nd year pricing is unacceptable for their subscribers and will come up with a better deal.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> But that's the exact same advertising revenue they can make on satellite, at least for customers who have DVRs. Now maybe they plan on inserting even more ads, like they're already doing on Directv with ads in the guide screen and when you pause, or like Tivo has inflicted on TE4 customers with "preroll" ads that run when you play a recording but again that's nothing that cable/satellite providers can't already do to their customers so streaming MVPDs aren't in any particular advantage there.


The article was from 2016 when the price point was $35 - so one needs to scroll back the timeline a few years and see what AT&T planned then and change the verbs to past tense. Guide screen and pause ads are concepts borrowed from streamers. If streamers can make a few extra bucks advertising in the UI why not a satellite provider? AT&T doesn't make over a billion dollars per quarter in profit by missing opportunities to make a little more.

The article was explaining how they expected to be able to sell a lower priced service with single digit margins (making up the loss via additional advertising). It was a forward looking statement. The plan changed in 2018 and 2019.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

i don't think ATT will sell DTV. the lady of the office of the president told me it brings em in 2.5 billion in revenue each month!!! sure traditional tv is failing now because of streaming services. but how long will that last before rates increase??? as they have been... more channels = more$$$. i know that broadcasters monitor there systems to see who's watching what and bump those channels into higher tiers.. it's going to be interesting to see what happens as it's all just speculation now..


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

krel said:


> i don't think ATT will sell DTV. the lady of the office of the president told me it brings em in 2.5 billion in revenue each month!!! sure traditional tv is failing now because of streaming services. but how long will that last before rates increase??? as they have been... more channels = more$$$. i know that broadcasters monitor there systems to see who's watching what and bump those channels into higher tiers.. it's going to be interesting to see what happens as it's all just speculation now..


More importantly it generates over a billion in cash flow per quarter. If they do sell it, it won't go cheap. It won't go for the $48 billion or whatever it was they paid for it, but it would go for at least half that which makes Dish buying them a non-starter when they have the big future debt overhang of needing to invest many billions to use or lose their wireless licenses.

If AT&T gets rid of them, it will be done as a spinoff not a sale. And AT&T TV will go with it.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

i had a rep tell me that AT&T is getting close to off loading DTV as there working on there broadband.. i hope it's true and not just speculation.. AT&T are the worst for anything...


----------



## tenpins (Jan 19, 2010)

krel said:


> i had a rep tell me that AT&T is getting close to off loading DTV as there working on there broadband.. i hope it's true and not just speculation.. AT&T are the worst for anything...


Boy, I needed a good laugh this morning. I'm reminded of the quote from Tommy Boy- *"I can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking my head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take a butcher's word for it."* With that said no phone rep from either a company call center or a 3rd party vendor will have ANY knowledge of what AT&T's long range plans are for DTV. When the CFO talks, I'm all ears. If I need hot air blown up my backside, I'll gladly stand over a NYC grate to make that happen. Perhaps T's vision doesn't match my care/ concern much like any DTV customer but T does pay attention to the dollars/ pennies.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

tenpins said:


> Boy, I needed a good laugh this morning. I'm reminded of the quote from Tommy Boy- *"I can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking my head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take a butcher's word for it."* With that said no phone rep from either a company call center or a 3rd party vendor will have ANY knowledge of what AT&T's long range plans are for DTV. When the CFO talks, I'm all ears. If I need hot air blown up my backside, I'll gladly stand over a NYC grate to make that happen. Perhaps T's vision doesn't match my care/ concern much like any DTV customer but T does pay attention to the dollars/ pennies.


i'm not gonna belive anything until i see it. though we can dream can't we. there's even so much speculation going around as to why AT&T bought DTV. one thing i heard was that DTV was going broke. that i don't belive since it was a stellar service and it was the goto t.v. service. i also heard that AT&T wanted the contract for the sunday ticket.. wonders if that will be renewed and whats going to happen if they do off load DTV with that contract? all speculation. i might have a stroke if they sell it


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

Also reported on the WSJ

AT&T Again Exploring a Deal For DirecTV-Update


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

glrush said:


> Also reported on the WSJ


Both sources require a subscription.


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

harsh said:


> Both sources require a subscription.


WSJ does, the link I posted didn't at least for me.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

The Morningstar link takes me to a "Start your free trial" page.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

AT&T exploring new sale effort for DirecTV - WSJ (NYSE:T) | Seeking Alpha

Selling a 49B investment for 20B? Sounds stupid to me.
DIRECTV is still profitable.


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

They mention a 60% haircut in valuation from $49 billion the braintrust at ATT paid in 2015 to $20 billion today. What a great destroyer of wealth the geniuses at ATT.

They also mention setting up a holding company that would be owned by D* and Dish.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> AT&T exploring new sale effort for DirecTV - WSJ (NYSE:T) | Seeking Alpha


This is the one that I used. It doesn't hurt that I'm already registered with Seeking Alpha so I can read the earnings transcripts.

This looks suspiciously like another one of those pot-stirrings like we saw back in May where investment groups are demanding the DIRECTV be unloaded. If unloading is good for AT&T, why would it make sense for someone else to take it up?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It seems like a rehash .. stocks went up, maybe someone needed to bump their income.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Why do I have a feeling that the private equity groups are the ones responsible for this rumor, because they can borrow money at almost zero interest right now and are looking for things to buy?


----------



## Eva (Nov 8, 2013)

harsh said:


> The Morningstar link takes me to a "Start your free trial" page.


If you have the NoScript plug-in on your browser, you should be able to read it. How I did it.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

You think ATT is bad? Wait till you experience private equity. Hell on earth.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Really this crap again


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> AT&T exploring new sale effort for DirecTV - WSJ (NYSE:T) | Seeking Alpha
> 
> Selling a 49B investment for 20B? Sounds stupid to me.
> DIRECTV is still profitable.


Probably not true...but sounds about right for the geniuses running AT&T...LOL


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

Rich said:


> My first thought was, "this is good news." My first thought when D* was purchased by ATT was, "this is good news." My next thought is, "could someone even worse buy it, could anyone be worse?" I'm not surprised by this news, I always thought the purchase was a mistake. Interesting, let's see what happens.
> 
> Rich


Trust me. If a private equity firm buys it then it's likely to be much worse than AT&T has ever been. Private equity wants their money back, plus a huge profit, so cutting costs and raising prices are their top priorities, not customer service or discounts.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Bob Coxner said:


> Trust me. If a private equity firm buys it then it's likely to be much worse than AT&T has ever been. Private equity wants their money back, plus a huge profit, so cutting costs and raising prices are their top priorities, not customer service or discounts.


This. I hate how AT&T runs thing, but, a PE firm is going to be much worse. I would fully expect CS to be gutted, whenever contracts are up for channels, they will play hardball, and eventually they will drive the company to bankruptcy and sell everything off. This has the potential to be MUCH worse.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Steveknj said:


> This. I hate how AT&T runs thing, but, a PE firm is going to be much worse. I would fully expect CS to be gutted, whenever contracts are up for channels, they will play hardball, and eventually they will drive the company to bankruptcy and sell everything off. This has the potential to be MUCH worse.


Sell off what? The satellites would have little value since they are specific the location (i.e. beam patterns for the US that wouldn't work elsewhere) The broadcast centers have some value, but not a lot.

This isn't the sort of acquisition a PE company would make with the intention to breaking it up and selling it. They only do that when the asset value is larger than the enterprise value. Since it is still generating around $1 billion a quarter in cash flow the enterprise value for a single year's cash flow is already far larger than the asset value.


----------



## gwade (Aug 31, 2008)

I can see the PE mashing Dish and DTV together, cutting out all the admin and fat, and taking it back public in 3 years...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

The latest out of Goldman Sachs is that AT&T is looking to sell "just over 50%" share of DIRECTV. I'm not sure I'd want AT&T's thumbs in a pie that I was managing.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

If they are selling over 50% they will have no say. Reading this thread, it's astounding to me there are still some who have convinced themselves a sale isn't happening.



harsh said:


> The latest out of Goldman Sachs is that AT&T is looking to sell "just over 50%" share of DIRECTV. I'm not sure I'd want AT&T's thumbs in a pie that I was managing.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. There seems to be a lot of high hopes from bankers who want to split DIRECTV from AT&T ... but the closer one gets to the details the further one gets from reality.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

raott said:


> If they are selling over 50% they will have no say. Reading this thread, it's astounding to me there are still some who have convinced themselves a sale isn't happening.


I was astonished when ATT bought D*. Not surprised by the new developments at all.

Rich


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

raott said:


> If they are selling over 50% they will have no say. Reading this thread, it's astounding to me there are still some who have convinced themselves a sale isn't happening.


The thing is AT&T only needs to keep a minority interest in D* similar to Comcast which owns a minority share in the smaller Midco and previously Time Warner Cable which had the minority share in Bright House prior to the Charter purchase.

Even with a minority interest AT&T can leverage the D* subscriber base in negotiations for all their current TV platforms and continue to have a singular contract to cover all these pay-TV services. It would also allow AT&T to continue to use DirecTV in its bundling strategies.

Pretty much this is what AT&T really wants D* for is the customer relationships. If there is a way AT&T can offload D* (and most of its related debt) but retain the ability to use D* in negotiations and bundling with Internet & Wireless while using it as a tool for HBO Max they will do it.

Also the package names (Select, Choice & Premier) are service trademarks of DirecTV. If AT&T keeps a minority stake in DirecTV then they can continue using those service trademarks for AT&T TV Now & AT&T TV.

Legally the fun part of this whole thing is what will AT&T do with their three streaming TV platforms.  According to the terms and conditions of the 3 AT&T branded streaming services the DirecTV subsidiary that houses the satellite service is currently legally responsible all 3 of them (Watch TV, AT&T TV Now & AT&T TV.)


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. There seems to be a lot of high hopes from bankers who want to split DIRECTV from AT&T ... but the closer one gets to the details the further one gets from reality.


The most recent news seems to be coming from AT&T's broker, Goldman Sachs, as opposed to the investment groups.

Summarily discounting the news doesn't make it false.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

harsh said:


> The most recent news seems to be coming from AT&T's broker, Goldman Sachs, as opposed to the investment groups.
> 
> Summarily discounting the news doesn't make it false.


I havent seen any article indicating the news was coming from Goldman All they mention is that Goldman is ATT Broker and has had no comment


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

"People" are saying a lot ... unnamed people who claim to be in the know. We have had over a year of unnamed people making such claims. There has been minimal comment from named sources with no commitment. (Mostly appeasement of the investors wanting AT&T to divest.) Nothing new in the "new" reports.


----------



## Teetertotter (Jul 23, 2020)

Whatever happens, I hope I will be able to keep Satellite TV, if package pricing is somewhat stable. lol 

Going the streaming route is to much work to watch what you want, switching all around, for me. My wife has her own TV and just see her asking for help. Where do I go now to watch......? Then, can you do any series recordings, for example? My wife would go bonkers if she did not have her series recordings. DTV has such a great Picture w sound and flexibility for us. User friendly, you might say. 

Standing by for more news.......lol fake or NOT.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Teetertotter said:


> Whatever happens, I hope I will be able to keep Satellite TV, if package pricing is somewhat stable. lol
> 
> Going the streaming route is to much work to watch what you want, switching all around, for me. My wife has her own TV and just see her asking for help. Where do I go now to watch......? Then, can you do any series recordings, for example? My wife would go bonkers if she did not have her series recordings. DTV has such a great Picture w sound and flexibility for us. User friendly, you might say.
> 
> Standing by for more news.......lol fake or NOT.


Streaming is hard to deal with at first. No doubt about that. But once you understand it you're gonna have a lot more content and a better picture than D* can give you. That is not fake news, it is right in front of you. It took me years to see the light. I haven't recorded a series in years on my DVRs. I'd rather have the streaming version. And I have not missed anything. Have patience, this takes time. My wife is still struggling with streaming but she has come around to my way of watching TV.

BTW, if you think D* is user-friendly wait until you get used to streaming.

Rich


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Rich said:


> I haven't recorded a series in years on my DVRs.


Binging series television is only part of the viewing exercise for many. For live event TV, streaming certainly isn't the bee's knees. Transport controls (trick play) is often crappy at best and the excuses don't make it any more sufferable.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

harsh said:


> Binging series television is only part of the viewing exercise for many. For live event TV, streaming certainly isn't the bee's knees. Transport controls (trick play) is often crappy at best and the excuses don't make it any more sufferable.


Haven't watched anything but sports and news on D* for quite some time. I don't watch live TV if I can avoid it. Even the news programs I watch for the virus reports are recorded and watched later. You're right about watching live streaming content, the cable replacement services. Using the best streaming boxes out there is a Royal PITA when on a CRS, they are not made for that. That's not an excuse, that's about trying to make something that wasn't built specifically for live TV work as well as a cable STB or an HR. It's not gonna happen. And you're right again, the trick play is "crappy". But, can you really compare an ATV to an HR or a Dish DVR? For live TV? That's not fair. The ATVs are the best streaming boxes you can buy. Using them on any cable replacement service is going to be frustrating. At least ATT has a remote for their streaming box that looks like it would make trick play work as well as what we get on the HRs. I kinda doubt anyone that has the ATT app and that remote would be dumb enough to use an ATV remote on that app.

If you think of remotes as "tools", using the proper tool for the job would be the best way to go.

Rich


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Rich said:


> Streaming is hard to deal with at first. No doubt about that. But once you understand it you're gonna have a lot more content and a better picture than D* can give you. That is not fake news, it is right in front of you. It took me years to see the light. I haven't recorded a series in years on my DVRs. I'd rather have the streaming version. And I have not missed anything. Have patience, this takes time. My wife is still struggling with streaming but she has come around to my way of watching TV.
> 
> BTW, if you think D* is user-friendly wait until you get used to streaming.
> 
> Rich


My wife will never get used to streaming. If The Good Doctor airs a new episode at 9:00 pm on Monday she wants to watch it at 9:00 pm Monday. Not a week later, not a day later, not an hour later.


----------



## JcT21 (Nov 30, 2004)

b4pjoe said:


> My wife will never get used to streaming. If The Good Doctor airs a new episode at 9:00 pm on Monday she wants to watch it at 9:00 pm Monday. Not a week later, not a day later, not an hour later.


same way in my household. i prefer live tv over streaming. my wife does too. my son, who has his own place now, doesnt have cable, or satellite. just streaming only. him and his wife are perfectly ok with that. it would drive me nuts. i like having my dvr to record things if i cant watch it live. the pause and buffer features have us spoiled around here. i do have netflix and disney+ for certain programs i like. my teenage daughter uses the streaming, rarely watches live tv.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> If The Good Doctor airs a new episode at 9:00 pm on Monday she wants to watch it at 9:00 pm Monday.


If the water cooler talk is a particular TV show, this is important but I find that waiting until commercial-skip (Auto-Hop in my case) becomes available is much preferable to watching live -- even if it is a week behind. My Plex server skips commercials shortly after the recording is complete. I think the later TiVos are similar.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is a preference ... It doesn't matter if the show is actually discussed the next day or not. There are people who want to see it as soon as possible.
Streamers have similar preferences on the services that drop an entire season on one day.
There have been a few broadcast shows that dropped a whole season "on demand" then aired one episode per week.

I prefer weekly episodes and have rarely done any binge watching. There was one series on Peacock that I wanted to watch ... season drop on day one of the service. It was not so compelling (to me) that I had to watch every episode immediately but with the next episode available I ended up watching it over the span of a couple of weeks. I lost the anticipation factor ... no looking forward to the next episode, just "play next" instead of turning off the TV or watching something else. It is weird (to me) to see the series continue to be advertised on NBC when I have seen all episodes on Peacock.

I have been watching episodic TV with weekly releases for decades and have been well trained to anticipate the next show and watch it the same evening. It just feels natural ... to me. A MVPD such as AT&T|DIRECTV provides such a service. I expect that such a service will continue to work for the next decade.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> My wife will never get used to streaming. If The Good Doctor airs a new episode at 9:00 pm on Monday she wants to watch it at 9:00 pm Monday. Not a week later, not a day later, not an hour later.


We went thru the same thing. I wanted to stream and she didn't. Took years for her to see the light. A battle not easily won.

Rich


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

Streaming is fine. I’m the only one in the house that watches Directv at all. I’ve tried live TV streaming services and the things that I found most aggravating not having an actual remote I could hit “last channel” on to go back and forth between games, and being unable to page through the guide faster than one channel at a time and having to slowly go through to get to the one channel I’m looking for. It doesn’t seem like a big deal but it’s just an annoyance that makes me come back to linear TV every time I try.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

zimm7778 said:


> Streaming is fine. I'm the only one in the house that watches Directv at all. I've tried live TV streaming services and the things that I found most aggravating not having an actual remote I could hit "last channel" on to go back and forth between games, and being unable to page through the guide faster than one channel at a time and having to slowly go through to get to the one channel I'm looking for. It doesn't seem like a big deal but it's just an annoyance that makes me come back to linear TV every time I try.


If you use a streaming box that's meant purely for streaming (damn near all streaming boxes) you're gonna have problems when using the remotes on cable replacement services. An ATV or a Fire TV device's remotes are not meant to be used in this manner. The new ATT cable replacement service has its own box with a remote that is better than any streaming box's remote for that purpose. You seem to be into sports, you're better off sticking with D*. Or you might want to give the ATT app a shot, it is pricey. I stay with D* because of sports. Going elsewhere is settling, I think. I'd rather have a service that works well.

Rich


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

Rich said:


> If you use a streaming box that's meant purely for streaming (damn near all streaming boxes) you're gonna have problems when using the remotes on cable replacement services. An ATV or a Fire TV device's remotes are not meant to be used in this manner. The new ATT cable replacement service has its own box with a remote that is better than any streaming box's remote for that purpose. You seem to be into sports, you're better off sticking with D*. Or you might want to give the ATT app a shot, it is pricey. I stay with D* because of sports. Going elsewhere is settling, I think. I'd rather have a service that works well.
> 
> Rich


As long as Directv is the only place I can get NFL Sunday Ticket with the ability to DVR games as a backup on the very, very few times over the years I've missed Sunday afternoon games live, I'll be with them more than likely.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

zimm7778 said:


> As long as Directv is the only place I can get NFL Sunday Ticket with the ability to DVR games as a backup on the very, very few times over the years I've missed Sunday afternoon games live, I'll be with them more than likely.


Me too. I see reports of YTTV getting the NFL. Not sure if that means you get what we get from the NFL. Even if YTTV has a similar package it won't be the same as D*. You would not have the remote that D* has and we all know how well those remotes work with football. What you'd end up with is a clunky version of what D*'s football package gives us. At the moment, D* is really the best provider for sports of all sorts. I think.

Rich


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

YTTV is only getting the NFL Network channel. Not Sunday Ticket.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Rich said:


> Streaming is hard to deal with at first. No doubt about that. But once you understand it you're gonna have a lot more content and a better picture than D* can give you. That is not fake news, it is right in front of you. It took me years to see the light. I haven't recorded a series in years on my DVRs. I'd rather have the streaming version. And I have not missed anything. Have patience, this takes time. My wife is still struggling with streaming but she has come around to my way of watching TV.
> 
> BTW, if you think D* is user-friendly wait until you get used to streaming.
> 
> Rich


Your last statement is the one place I totally disagree with you. But I think that all depends on how you watch TV. I haven't found a streaming service that was even remotely as easy to use as DirecTV. But of course I'm trained on 55 years of being aware enough to have any kind of control over what I watch, from channel flipping to recording on a VHS tape to DVRs and yes streaming. I get that generations who will grow up on streaming this will be just the way it is and they will just be used to watching that way. I have done a lot of streaming over this past summer, especially before sports started back up and between trying to remember what service the show I wanted to watch was on, to figuring out which service has the best picture and sound (for example, some streaming services stream in Dolby Vision, others just in HDR10, some have Atmos, others don't), which of my devices have which service (HBO Max isn't on my Roku for example) it's just a total FUBAR. For standard TV, I just go to DirecTV and it's all there. No shuffling between services and boxes. When there's one box that does it all, with the same PQ, and sound, I'm all ears. Add to that, there's not one service that has all my must haves.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Steveknj said:


> When there's one box that does it all, with the same PQ, and sound, I'm all ears. Add to that, there's not one service that has all my must haves.


You might never get the "one box that does it all" since we have services and device vendors that are in competition (i.e. Apple and Amazon) or services and device vendors that think they're a special snowflake and want to set their own rules (i.e. Disney and Roku)

The complaints about not having one service that has everything is ridiculous. Do you have one store where you can buy everything you need? One doctor you can go to who can deal with all potential ailments? One app that does everything you need on your phone?

People *****ed about cable bundling everything together, and wanting ala carte, and now that they have ala carte they are *****ing and wanting everything bundled together. They were never *****ing about bundling, or lack of. They were *****ing because they want everything bundled in one service for the price a single service like Netflix charges. That's like telling a plumber "I want you to come to my house and fix my leaky pipes for $20". Its a nice fantasy, but will never happen.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> My wife will never get used to streaming. If The Good Doctor airs a new episode at 9:00 pm on Monday she wants to watch it at 9:00 pm Monday. Not a week later, not a day later, not an hour later.


Streaming is one thing but I still can't watch anything live unless it's sports. And even then i usually delay it a bit.

I mean you could DVR the good doctor and start watching it at 9:25 and skip commercials and then still be done with the show at 10! I can't understand the concept of wanting to watch commercials for all shows.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Not necessarily wanting to watch commercials but willing to watch commercials to get the content when wanted.
That being said, I'd DVR and watch at 9:25 too.

Streaming without commercials (if the option is offered) is usually more expensive - and when commercials are included they often are not skippable in streaming. One more "win" for the DVR (even an OTA DVR if not part of a MVPD service).


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> Your last statement is the one place I totally disagree with you. But I think that all depends on how you watch TV. I haven't found a streaming service that was even remotely as easy to use as DirecTV. But of course I'm trained on 55 years of being aware enough to have any kind of control over what I watch, from channel flipping to recording on a VHS tape to DVRs and yes streaming. I get that generations who will grow up on streaming this will be just the way it is and they will just be used to watching that way. I have done a lot of streaming over this past summer, especially before sports started back up and between trying to remember what service the show I wanted to watch was on, to figuring out which service has the best picture and sound (for example, some streaming services stream in Dolby Vision, others just in HDR10, some have Atmos, others don't), which of my devices have which service (HBO Max isn't on my Roku for example) it's just a total FUBAR. For standard TV, I just go to DirecTV and it's all there. No shuffling between services and boxes. When there's one box that does it all, with the same PQ, and sound, I'm all ears. Add to that, there's not one service that has all my must haves.


I was not referring to cable replacement services, I was thinking of SVOD services. I know how chaotic the cable replacement services are. I have no interest in live TV, just use D* for sports. Because D* is nowhere near as hard to deal with as a cable replacement service using the wrong remotes.

Rich


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> You might never get the "one box that does it all" since we have services and device vendors that are in competition (i.e. Apple and Amazon) or services and device vendors that think they're a special snowflake and want to set their own rules (i.e. Disney and Roku)
> 
> The complaints about not having one service that has everything is ridiculous. *Do you have one store where you can buy everything you need? One doctor you can go to who can deal with all potential ailments? One app that does everything you need on your phone?*
> 
> People *****ed about cable bundling everything together, and wanting ala carte, and now that they have ala carte they are *****ing and wanting everything bundled together. They were never *****ing about bundling, or lack of. They were *****ing because they want everything bundled in one service for the price a single service like Netflix charges. That's like telling a plumber "I want you to come to my house and fix my leaky pipes for $20". Its a nice fantasy, but will never happen.


That's a strawman argument. Because you see, I DID have one box that did it all, until streaming became more prolific over the last 5 years. Now it's a mess, it's all over the place. You need a spreadsheet just to keep track of it all. You not only need to know WHERE shows are, but you need to see which device they will run on, which device gives you the best experience and so forth. TV has become from simply turning your TV on and finding what you wanted to watch (and having a LOT of choices) to having 5 devices hooked to your TV, and having to go to multiple apps to figure out what you want to watch. Things ARE getting better in some respects (the TiVO Streaming stick has some really good searching capabilities). But in some respects it's getting much more unwieldy with more and more services and more and more services wanting things their own way. Nothing, I mean NOTHING beats the convenience of DirecTV. But you pay for that privilege. I'm willing to do that.

For the record, I never once complained about bundling, because I understood why it's that way. And I never minded having a few extra channels I rarely watch. They are there if there's something on them I DO want to watch.

But to each their own, if streaming works for how you watch TV, go for it. It doesn't for me.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

inkahauts said:


> Streaming is one thing but I still can't watch anything live unless it's sports. And even then i usually delay it a bit.
> 
> I mean you could DVR the good doctor and start watching it at 9:25 and skip commercials and then still be done with the show at 10! I can't understand the concept of wanting to watch commercials for all shows.


I've explained that more than once. But nope...it starts at 9:00 pm and that is when she is going to watch it. I've also explained being able to pause live tv and then resume but that is a no go too.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Steveknj said:


> That's a strawman argument. Because you see, I DID have one box that did it all, until streaming became more prolific over the last 5 years. Now it's a mess, it's all over the place. You need a spreadsheet just to keep track of it all. You not only need to know WHERE shows are, but you need to see which device they will run on, which device gives you the best experience and so forth. TV has become from simply turning your TV on and finding what you wanted to watch (and having a LOT of choices) to having 5 devices hooked to your TV, and having to go to multiple apps to figure out what you want to watch. Things ARE getting better in some respects (the TiVO Streaming stick has some really good searching capabilities). But in some respects it's getting much more unwieldy with more and more services and more and more services wanting things their own way. Nothing, I mean NOTHING beats the convenience of DirecTV. But you pay for that privilege. I'm willing to do that.
> 
> For the record, I never once complained about bundling, because I understood why it's that way. And I never minded having a few extra channels I rarely watch. They are there if there's something on them I DO want to watch.
> 
> But to each their own, if streaming works for how you watch TV, go for it. It doesn't for me.


You still have one box that does it all, your cable or Directv box. You don't like that there are NEW sources of entertainment now that didn't exist before streaming was a thing, with companies like Netflix producing shows that they don't put on broadcast TV? How is that any different from movies or TV shows made in foreign countries that never made it to cable/HBO/etc. in the US? Its only the fact that you didn't hear about those, and you do hear about some of the streaming exclusives on Netflix that your friends are watching.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> I've explained that more than once. But nope...it starts at 9:00 pm and that is when she is going to watch it. I've also explained being able to pause live tv and then resume but that is a no go too.


I went thru, still go thru this with the wife. She's perfectly happy when I have the remote in my hand but when she has to find something to watch, if it's more complicated than going to Netflix, she's lost.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> You still have one box that does it all, your cable or Directv box. You don't like that there are NEW sources of entertainment now that didn't exist before streaming was a thing, with companies like Netflix producing shows that they don't put on broadcast TV? How is that any different from movies or TV shows made in foreign countries that never made it to cable/HBO/etc. in the US? Its only the fact that you didn't hear about those, and you do hear about some of the streaming exclusives on Netflix that your friends are watching.


Gotta have patience with folks just beginning to stream. It takes some time for the wonderfulness of streaming to sink in. It is rather chaotic in the beginning. It's always easier to stick with the devil you know, I get that. To make it even more chaotic a lot of folks stream cable replacement services and the only one of them that makes sense to me is the ATT app. At least that has a dedicated box and a dedicated remote.

Rich


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> Streaming is one thing but I still can't watch anything live unless it's sports. And even then i usually delay it a bit.
> 
> I mean you could DVR the good doctor and start watching it at 9:25 and skip commercials and then still be done with the show at 10! I can't understand the concept of wanting to watch commercials for all shows.


that's what i like to do is DVR everything hell i even pause when i goto the fridge for a beer just so i can FF through the crap ad's. at what there charging even with promo's there shouldn't be no freaking ad's


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

Rich said:


> Gotta have patience with folks just beginning to stream. It takes some time for the wonderfulness of streaming to sink in. It is rather chaotic in the beginning. It's always easier to stick with the devil you know, I get that. To make it even more chaotic a lot of folks stream cable replacement services and the only one of them that makes sense to me is the ATT app. At least that has a dedicated box and a dedicated remote.
> 
> Rich


In a way I wish Apple would bring down the prices of the Apple TV HD & Apple TV 4K devices to be more competitive with the other streaming devices on the market. After you get the Apple TV device and hook it up it really can be the 1 box in a lot of ways.

The Apple TV app on the Apple TV devices is really genius in the fact it can connect to a lot of popular free, SVOD and TV Everywhere apps and act as that unified place to find something to watch across all the different apps. Netflix is the only major SVOD app that doesn't support the unified search of the Apple TV app but it isn't that big of deal. Even the AT&T TV app supports the Apple TV app on Apple TV devices which comes in real handy when you are searching for a particular show. The Single Sign-On feature for TV Everywhere apps is also a huge plus for the device.

For Android TV devices one can download the Reelgood app and it can search all the apps one has on their Android TV device as well. It can even boot you into the correct app once you find a program.

Like on my Apple TV 4K after watching the first season of TBS' _Miracle Workers_ on HBO Max the Apple TV app on my Apple TV 4K had Season 2 via the TBS app ready to go. Very handy. I'm actually really considering calling D* and having them deactivate my two Genie Minis and just keeping the HR44. After getting two Apple TV 4K devices and I already had an Apple TV HD device I really don't need the extra equipment from D* on the additional TVs thanks to the Apple TV app.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> You don't like that there are NEW sources of entertainment now that didn't exist before streaming was a thing, with companies like Netflix producing shows that they don't put on broadcast TV?


In a nutshell, yes. Back in the day there were limited distribution paths - most of them accessible through one's satellite or cable provider. There have always been contract issues (your provider not carrying some content) but for the most part it was not as complicated as it is today. Even "exclusives" became available via affordable paths (such as DVD sets). The explosion of new entertainment distributors has scattered good content across multiple services. If they "play nice together" the services MAY allow their app to be on another provider's equipment or on neutral equipment such as a smart TV. But "play nice together" does not extend to cross-licensing content to where I expect "exclusives" to be available via other paths in a reasonable time.

For example ... the normal path for a movie was a theatrical release followed by PPV or DVD release (sometimes combined) followed by premium movie channel release (sometimes exclusive to HBO or Showtime). As time went on the release widened and it became easier to see the content via another method. "Edited for TV" on a general entertainment channel or broadcast channel was usually the last step. (Where VHS/DVD now BluRay fit in depends on how many years back one looks.) The price one paid for the content depended on how early you wanted to view the content (and whether one wanted it uncut, etc.).

With the multitude of distribution channels a lot of content seems to be stuck in "exclusive" via one distribution channel. The content owners can keep making money off of their "exclusive" libraries via their own services so they do that instead of widening the distribution to other distribution channels.

The end result is many good shows that people won't see because of the cost of subscribing to a multitude of services and a few excellent shows where people have to decide if seeing the content is worth the cost of the streaming service. For some the streaming services have become a monthly "PPV" fee for a couple of excellent shows each - rationalized by all the other content in the library of that service. The same rationalization we use for MVPDs. The high cost of AT&T|DIRECTV is "worth it" for access to exclusive content and the additional content provided helps rationalize the cost.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

techguy88 said:


> In a way I wish Apple would bring down the prices of the Apple TV HD & Apple TV 4K devices to be more competitive with the other streaming devices on the market. After you get the Apple TV device and hook it up it really can be the 1 box in a lot of ways.


How do you feel about the ATV remotes? I just read another article about the "awful" Siri remote this morning. The article said the new Function remote for the ATVs was much easier to use, I have one coming and I can't imagine how it could be better. I have no issues at all about the Siri remote. I do understand how frustrating it is to use the Sire remote on a cable replacement service but for pure streaming, I have yet to see or use a better remote.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> How do you feel about the ATV remotes? I just read another article about the "awful" Siri remote this morning. The article said the new Function remote for the ATVs was much easier to use, I have one coming and I can't imagine how it could be better. I have no issues at all about the Siri remote. I do understand how frustrating it is to use the Sire remote on a cable replacement service but for pure streaming, I have yet to see or use a better remote.
> 
> Rich


Boy do we have a differing opinion about the Siri remote! I think it is the very worst remote I've ever had the displeasure to use!

As to better remotes? Easy, Roku, FireTV, ATT TV, or hell, just about any other remote. Siri is nice but really only does things with the main screen and apple apps, similar to the voice on other voice remotes.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Boy do we have a differing opinion about the Siri remote! I think it is the very worst remote I've ever had the displeasure to use!
> 
> As to better remotes? Easy, Roku, FireTV, ATT TV, or hell, just about any other remote. Siri is nice but really only does things with the main screen and apple apps, similar to the voice on other voice remotes.


Weren't you using the remote on a cable replacement service? All the complaints I've seen were caused by people doing that. I have no problems with Fire TV remotes, I do think the Fire TV devices have slightly poorer PQ than the ATVs put out and I do have the second generation Cube to make the comparison. I wouldn't think of using a 4K Roku, I had no problems with them until they came out with 4K models and I had nothing but problems with them. There's also a difference in PQ between the Rokus and the ATVs.

Voice controls? I use them on my Cubes to control HDMI inputs and for shutting off the TV sets. I don't remember the last time I used a voice command for anything else. I don't use Siri. The device you can get the most out of using voice commands is the Cube. And using the remote manually is a lot faster than voice commands on the Cubes. Just my opinions, no need to argue.

Rich


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

Rich said:


> How do you feel about the ATV remotes? I just read another article about the "awful" Siri remote this morning. The article said the new Function remote for the ATVs was much easier to use, I have one coming and I can't imagine how it could be better. I have no issues at all about the Siri remote. I do understand how frustrating it is to use the Sire remote on a cable replacement service but for pure streaming, I have yet to see or use a better remote.
> 
> Rich


It took me awhile to get used to the ATV remote, especially for the Sunday Ticket app. I still think it is fussy, and for someone with unsteady hands, such as a person with Parkinson's or other issues, I would think it could be really frustrating. I much prefer the Roku remote and the simple buttons.

That said, at least to my old eyes, the ATV gives a better picture. I Have ATV's hooked up to my OLEDs which support Dolby Vision and the picture is superb. ATV also supports quad screen for Sunday Ticket, which Roku does not.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> The end result is many good shows that people won't see because of the cost of subscribing to a multitude of services and a few excellent shows where people have to decide if seeing the content is worth the cost of the streaming service. For some the streaming services have become a monthly "PPV" fee for a couple of excellent shows each - rationalized by all the other content in the library of that service. The same rationalization we use for MVPDs. The high cost of AT&T|DIRECTV is "worth it" for access to exclusive content and the additional content provided helps rationalize the cost.


There's nothing stopping you from subscribing to each streaming service that has something you want to watch in turn for a month or two, bingeing what you want, then moving onto the next. So cost isn't a factor, only the convenience of being able to watch anything you want at the moment you want to watch it.

I can't remember the numbers, but there was a comparison done of the number of series now and a decade ago, and it was more than double now. So you have a lot bigger selection than you used to, doesn't it make sense that having full access to everything at a moment's notice in that larger selection would require paying more? Someone has to foot the bill for developing so many more series.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> Weren't you using the remote on a cable replacement service? All the complaints I've seen were caused by people doing that. I have no problems with Fire TV remotes, I do think the Fire TV devices have slightly poorer PQ than the ATVs put out and I do have the second generation Cube to make the comparison. I wouldn't think of using a 4K Roku, I had no problems with them until they came out with 4K models and I had nothing but problems with them. There's also a difference in PQ between the Rokus and the ATVs.
> 
> Voice controls? I use them on my Cubes to control HDMI inputs and for shutting off the TV sets. I don't remember the last time I used a voice command for anything else. I don't use Siri. The device you can get the most out of using voice commands is the Cube. And using the remote manually is a lot faster than voice commands on the Cubes. Just my opinions, no need to argue.
> 
> Rich


I've used it on all the various services I sub to. Live streaming/cable replacement services are really a small part of that these days because of the lack of content.

Voice controls for me are usually search of one sort or another, and if the voice and app I'm in support trick play, then I use it for that. You know, "skip forward 3 minutes" and such. I actually would use that more if the voice stuff worked over more apps, but alas they don't or at least not very well, all hit or miss. Roku actually comes closest because it does do trick play in quite a few apps.

I don't use my Roku as it doesn't have HBO Max and Peacock, and as you and I have discussed before, the video is soft. The lack of real Atmos support is also a show stopper on Roku for me.

My FireTV Cube 2nd Gen's HDPQ is on par with Apple with a very slight edge to Apple, not enough to make a difference. I use it primarily because it is the one box to fit all I want/need in a box, including local broadcast. Not to mention I very much prefer its remote.

If ATT would get off their butts and improve their blasted streaming box AND Apple would port their TV app to Android I would probably switch over to it. Love the remote, hate the very sluggish performance. I did manage to sideload Hulu (old version) and Amazon Prime to the AT&T box btw.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

lparsons21 said:


> Boy do we have a differing opinion about the Siri remote! I think it is the very worst remote I've ever had the displeasure to use!
> 
> As to better remotes? Easy, Roku, FireTV, ATT TV, or hell, just about any other remote. Siri is nice but really only does things with the main screen and apple apps, similar to the voice on other voice remotes.


Same here. I despise that remote mainly because I have thumb and wrist issues with my hand. When watching something or navigating around on the ATV I usually just use my LG Magic Remote that has the physical directional buttons. It does everything except there is not a button to mimic the ATV Siri remote Home button. I have to grab the Siri remote when I want to see the time via holding the Home button down.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Rich said:


> Weren't you using the remote on a cable replacement service? All the complaints I've seen were caused by people doing that.
> 
> Rich


I don't use it for any cable replacement service and hate it also. I do have a thumb and wrist issue that makes it harder to use the trackpad accurately so that might be most of the problem.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

glrush said:


> It took me awhile to get used to the ATV remote, especially for the Sunday Ticket app. I still think it is fussy, and for someone with unsteady hands, such as a person with Parkinson's or other issues, I would think it could be really frustrating. I much prefer the Roku remote and the simple buttons.
> 
> That said, at least to my old eyes, the ATV gives a better picture. I Have ATV's hooked up to my OLEDs which support Dolby Vision and the picture is superb. ATV also supports quad screen for Sunday Ticket, which Roku does not.


The only reason I stay with D* is sports. I cannot imagine how any could enjoy a game of any sport on an ATV. The ATV remotes were clearly not designed for sports or cable replacement services. On the other hand, D* remotes work superbly for sports of all sorts. Now, if you had to use a D* remote for streaming...I think anyone would prefer to use a streaming box, any streaming box, with a dedicated remote rather than a D* remote.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> I don't use it for any cable replacement service and hate it also. I do have a thumb and wrist issue that makes it harder to use the trackpad accurately so that might be most of the problem.


A Cube would be my choice if I had that sort of handicap. But to _hate _a remote for that reason? I don't get it.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> A Cube would be my choice if I had that sort of handicap. But to _hate _a remote for that reason? I don't get it.
> 
> Rich


Even without any sort of handicap that darned trackpad is a royal PITA to deal with IMO. And it is the #1 complaint about the Siri remote.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

OK hate may be a strong word even for an inanimate object. But I'm not a fan of it. I like the PQ and the overall layout of the ATV a lot better than the cube. For whatever reason everything on the Cube or a regular Fire TV box seems dark and muddy compared to the ATV.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> How do you feel about the ATV remotes? I just read another article about the "awful" Siri remote this morning. The article said the new Function remote for the ATVs was much easier to use, I have one coming and I can't imagine how it could be better. I have no issues at all about the Siri remote. I do understand how frustrating it is to use the Sire remote on a cable replacement service but for pure streaming, I have yet to see or use a better remote.
> 
> Rich


At each of my two main viewing locations (HT and family room) I have a ATV 4k, Nvidia Shield, and FireTV Stick 4k. Can't really comment on the ATV remote as I have Harmony Elites at both viewing locations as well with all the OEM remotes stored away in a drawer. I've experimented with all three at each location. I find myself using the Nvidia Shied as my go to with the FireTV Stick 4k and ATV 4k about tied but the ATV 4k is certainly my preferred streamer if I'm going to watch NetFlix (for ATMOS support) or ATV+. They are all actually pretty good in terms of responsiveness and picture/sound quality. At least in my experience.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

Rich said:


> How do you feel about the ATV remotes? I just read another article about the "awful" Siri remote this morning. The article said the new Function remote for the ATVs was much easier to use, I have one coming and I can't imagine how it could be better. I have no issues at all about the Siri remote. I do understand how frustrating it is to use the Sire remote on a cable replacement service but for pure streaming, I have yet to see or use a better remote.
> 
> Rich


In all honestly I have no issues with the Siri Remote. The only thing I did was adjusted the trackpad sensitivity to medium. It works very well for me although I do miss tactile buttons so the Function remote is appealing. However I have gotten used to Siri doing all my searches.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> OK hate may be a strong word even for an inanimate object. But I'm not a fan of it. I like the PQ and the overall layout of the ATV a lot better than the cube. For whatever reason everything on the Cube or a regular Fire TV box seems dark and muddy compared to the ATV.


I like the ATV, but I'm finding the FireTV to be more fitting these days. I've got Atmos support for those shows that have it, including from Netflix. I have OTA support via the Recast the integrates well. I also sub to some of Amazon's channels which also integrate well, including a channel guide for those channels that have live service. All controlled by one good remote.

Apple's "up next" is more inclusive of other apps than is FireTV's but I didn't use it much on the ATV either, it gets too cluttered. And Apple's TV app is nothing to brag about when it comes to UI either.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

lparsons21 said:


> I like the ATV, but I'm finding the FireTV to be more fitting these days. I've got Atmos support for those shows that have it, including from Netflix. I have OTA support via the Recast the integrates well. I also sub to some of Amazon's channels which also integrate well, including a channel guide for those channels that have live service. All controlled by one good remote.
> 
> Apple's "up next" is more inclusive of other apps than is FireTV's but I didn't use it much on the ATV either, it gets too cluttered. And Apple's TV app is nothing to brag about when it comes to UI either.


I actually like the Up Next feature of the Apple TV app on Apple TV devices. Doesn't matter to me which one of my apps has the program I want to watch as long as it does. It also is good if say a movie expires from one service and I haven't watched it yet then is added a few weeks later to another service.

I will say I do like how the Recast integrates with the FireTV guide so it is all in one place. However I don't mind using something like an AirTV device which is platform agnostic since it uses the Sling TV app on existing devices without a monthly subscription to Sling TV itself.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

AirTV was my second choice but it only has 2 tuners. That’s not a big deal now with so little new and interesting on broadcast, but assuming things normalize, it would be.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

techguy88 said:


> ]
> I will say I do like how the Recast integrates with the FireTV guide so it is all in one place. However I don't mind using something like an AirTV device which is platform agnostic since it uses the Sling TV app on existing devices without a monthly subscription to Sling TV itself.


Did they finally make that work on the iOS version of Sling? When I looked that wasn't working.


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

Rich said:


> The only reason I stay with D* is sports. I cannot imagine how any could enjoy a game of any sport on an ATV. The ATV remotes were clearly not designed for sports or cable replacement services. On the other hand, D* remotes work superbly for sports of all sorts. Now, if you had to use a D* remote for streaming...I think anyone would prefer to use a streaming box, any streaming box, with a dedicated remote rather than a D* remote.
> 
> Rich


It works for my TV that is on quad screen because i set it up before the games start and leave it alone unless there is a blowout. You are right, for flipping around it is pretty much useless.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

lparsons21 said:


> AirTV was my second choice but it only has 2 tuners. That's not a big deal now with so little new and interesting on broadcast, but assuming things normalize, it would be.


They just came out with the AirTV Anywhere which has 4 tuners and a 1 TB harddrive. It's MSRP $199.99 and comes with a $25 Sling TV credit through 12/31/20.



lparsons21 said:


> Did they finally make that work on the iOS version of Sling? When I looked that wasn't working.


There is an iOS version of Sling for iPhone, iPadOS version for iPad and a tvOS version for Apple TV. The iOS/iPadOS already has support for AirTV devices (they are used to set it up or you can use an Android smartphone/tablet.) Dish updated the tvOS version of Sling app a few months back so Apple TVs can use the AirTV 2 and it also supports the new AirTV Anywhere that just came out.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

Rich said:


> The only reason I stay with D* is sports. I cannot imagine how any could enjoy a game of any sport on an ATV. The ATV remotes were clearly not designed for sports or cable replacement services. On the other hand, D* remotes work superbly for sports of all sorts. Now, if you had to use a D* remote for streaming...I think anyone would prefer to use a streaming box, any streaming box, with a dedicated remote rather than a D* remote.
> 
> Rich


When running all our ATV's at our home, or up north at our camping property, we just use our iPhone's ATV Remote app. It just seems a lot easier to use than the stock one.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> There's nothing stopping you from subscribing to each streaming service that has something you want to watch in turn for a month or two, bingeing what you want, then moving onto the next. So cost isn't a factor, only the convenience of being able to watch anything you want at the moment you want to watch it.


Inconvenient and messy. I just want to watch TV.

As noted before, I don't like binge watching. Buying a service for a month to watch all of their available exclusives then a different service each month is not what I want to do. It would be better than paying full price for every service and not watching - but still cumbersome.

Such a subscriber rotation can't be good for the streamers.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

lparsons21 said:


> I think it is the very worst remote I've ever had the displeasure to use!


Clearly you haven't held the Comcast remote used with their Flex box. It has rubber membrane cursor buttons (surrounded by console game buttons on the diagonals) but they're not easy to find by touch and you have to make sure you press them just so. For such a commonly used function, there is clearly a cabal of sadists behind the design. The general layout is a little odd but I suppose you could get used to it. Putting the voice button next to the exit button is a highly questionable move.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> Inconvenient and messy. I just want to watch TV.
> 
> As noted before, I don't like binge watching. Buying a service for a month to watch all of their available exclusives then a different service each month is not what I want to do. It would be better than paying full price for every service and not watching - but still cumbersome.
> 
> Such a subscriber rotation can't be good for the streamers.


Of course it isn't good for them. They're relying on people like you who think it is too much trouble to switch around, so become locked into them for life the same way everyone has been with their cable/satellite provider.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

harsh said:


> Clearly you haven't held the Comcast remote used with their Flex box. It has rubber membrane cursor buttons (surrounded by console game buttons on the diagonals) but they're not easy to find by touch and you have to make sure you press them just so. For such a commonly used function, there is clearly a cabal of sadists behind the design. The general layout is a little odd but I suppose you could get used to it. Putting the voice button next to the exit button is a highly questionable move.


I have had the experience of using this remote with the X1 box. I had a more positive experience. The voice button is very easy to get to with your thumb and it's not next to Exit, it is next to Back and Info. Buttons are fairly sensitive and don't need much travel. The lighted buttons are a real plus. You move the remote and lights come on for about 5 secs IIRC.

I tried auto discover of remote codes to the TV and it was a breeze.

And if your account is in good standing, they will give you extras of the remote for free. A family member lost one and he went to the store and they gave him two at n/c. So they must be very low cost.

BTW the voice integration with X1 is awesome. Compared to Directv's peanut this is light years ahead.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NR4P said:


> A family member lost one and he went to the store and they gave him two at n/c. So they must be very low cost.


They offer them on Amazon for around $8 (that's where I lifted the image from). The "deluxe" X1 remote is over $20.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Even without any sort of handicap that darned trackpad is a royal PITA to deal with IMO. And it is the #1 complaint about the Siri remote.


I don't know why folks find the fingerpad difficult to use, I don't. I did at first but once it was explained to me by folks here I've had no problems with it. But I did need some help with it and I asked for help and got it, as usual. But anything that is a Royal PITA for someone...well, I guess your mind is made up about it, and there's nothing anybody can do about that.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> OK hate may be a strong word even for an inanimate object. But I'm not a fan of it. I like the PQ and the overall layout of the ATV a lot better than the cube. For whatever reason everything on the Cube or a regular Fire TV box seems dark and muddy compared to the ATV.


You shouldn't be seeing that much of a difference between the Cube and an ATV. The difference I see is rather small but noticeable. Certainly not dark and muddy. That sounds like an HDR (or whatever it's called) problem.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> At each of my two main viewing locations (HT and family room) I have a ATV 4k, Nvidia Shield, and FireTV Stick 4k. Can't really comment on the ATV remote as I have Harmony Elites at both viewing locations as well with all the OEM remotes stored away in a drawer. I've experimented with all three at each location. I find myself using the Nvidia Shied as my go to with the FireTV Stick 4k and ATV 4k about tied but the ATV 4k is certainly my preferred streamer if I'm going to watch NetFlix (for ATMOS support) or ATV+. They are all actually pretty good in terms of responsiveness and picture/sound quality. At least in my experience.


Have you tried the ATVs when using HBO Max? I'm stunned by how well the ATVs work with that app. Better than Netflix works with the ATVs!

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

techguy88 said:


> In all honestly I have no issues with the Siri Remote. The only thing I did was adjusted the trackpad sensitivity to medium. It works very well for me although I do miss tactile buttons so the Function remote is appealing. However I have gotten used to Siri doing all my searches.


The fingerpad sensitivity was the main thing that bothered me about the remote. Once I found out how to turn it down everything fell in place. Folks that leave the remote at the highest setting are gonna have problems.

I'm waiting for my Function remote to arrive. Apparently it's coming from China by canoe. I know what's gonna happen, I'll miss the fingerpad. When I use a Cube to watch something and use its dedicated remote the one thing I miss is the fingerpad. I don't use it often but when I want to navigate quickly it comes in handy.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> I like the ATV, but I'm finding the FireTV to be more fitting these days. I've got Atmos support for those shows that have it, including from Netflix. I have OTA support via the Recast the integrates well. I also sub to some of Amazon's channels which also integrate well, including a channel guide for those channels that have live service. All controlled by one good remote.
> 
> Apple's "up next" is more inclusive of other apps than is FireTV's but I didn't use it much on the ATV either, it gets too cluttered. And Apple's TV app is nothing to brag about when it comes to UI either.


I keep seeing good things about the Apple TV app but I don't use it at all. I've tried it several times and I'd rather get to my content as I always have.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

glrush said:


> It works for my TV that is on quad screen because i set it up before the games start and leave it alone unless there is a blowout. You are right, for flipping around it is pretty much useless.


I've tried and tried watching multiple games and I just don't enjoy the experience. I like to "stack" all the games that are on and watch the first game's first quarter. Once that's over I go to the next game and watch the first quarter and so forth. That's easy to do with a D* remote, it would be a Royal PITA to do that with an ATV remote, I think. I just can't get past the idea that using D* for sports is the best way to do it. Ease of navigation and a better picture, that's what I want and that's what I get from my D* equipment.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

codespy said:


> When running all our ATV's at our home, or up north at our camping property, we just use our iPhone's ATV Remote app. It just seems a lot easier to use than the stock one.


I had no idea such an app existed. I just looked for it on my Android phone. Lots of choices, which one did you pick?

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> I keep seeing good things about the Apple TV app but I don't use it at all. I've tried it several times and I'd rather get to my content as I always have.
> 
> Rich


As with most apps it is a combo of good and bad. The Next strip is handy though it can get a bit onerous as it tracks your location in so many apps and sometimes gets it wrong. IOW, sometimes shows an episode on one service when you actually use a different one. Can get a bit confusing but not a show stopping thing.

And like Amazon Prime it intermixes things you have and things you can get for a fee and oft times it isn't all that clear. Prime has a "free" menu selection so you only see the list for things that are free to you including any subscriptions you get from Amazon.

Let's face it, there isn't any streaming box or app out there that doesn't do something you don't like. Because of what I subscribe to the FireTV fits better. Integrated channel guide for live channels for OTA, Philo, Cinemax, Showtime and Epix are handy. It has an AppleTV app that works fine though it doesn't do 4K or Atmos, but that is a limit Apple built into the app for other devices. The FireTV also supports 4K and Atmos for those apps that have it on some content. And IMO, the remote is just really handier to me than is Apple's.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

harsh said:


> Clearly you haven't held the Comcast remote used with their Flex box. It has rubber membrane cursor buttons (surrounded by console game buttons on the diagonals) but they're not easy to find by touch and you have to make sure you press them just so. For such a commonly used function, there is clearly a cabal of sadists behind the design. The general layout is a little odd but I suppose you could get used to it. Putting the voice button next to the exit button is a highly questionable move.


I think the ATV's remote is one of the best remotes I've ever had the pleasure of using. This is clearly another massive YMMV subject. Hmm, I wonder how a thread titled "What's the worst remote you've ever used?" would go over here? Let's see, I just started that thread.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Of course it isn't good for them. They're relying on people like you who think it is too much trouble to switch around, so become locked into them for life the same way everyone has been with their cable/satellite provider.


Yeah, I have to keep an eye on how many apps I have active. Too many, usually. It is cumbersome.

Rich


----------



## Teetertotter (Jul 23, 2020)

Soooo, what is the latest on DTV sale OR NOT??? lol 

O, I like the remote that came with my TCL, when I have to do Roku stuff or TV adjustments.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Rich said:


> You shouldn't be seeing that much of a difference between the Cube and an ATV. The difference I see is rather small but noticeable. Certainly not dark and muddy. That sounds like an HDR (or whatever it's called) problem.
> 
> Rich


I've tried HDR on. HDR off. Adjusting my TV. Setting TV back to defaults. No matter. I can't make the Cube as clean and bright looking as the ATV. Keep in mind this is the old first generation Cube. Might make it a difference if I had the latest Cube. Or maybe not.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> I've tried HDR on. HDR off. Adjusting my TV. Setting TV back to defaults. No matter. I can't make the Cube as clean and bright looking as the ATV. Keep in mind this is the old first generation Cube. Might make it a difference if I had the latest Cube. Or maybe not.


Hard to say. My Gen 1 Cube had great video nearly on par with the AppleTV4K I have. Same goes for the Gen 2 Cube, but it is worlds faster.

Could just be something about your TV it doesn't deal with well.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

Rich said:


> I had no idea such an app existed. I just looked for it on my Android phone. Lots of choices, which one did you pick?
> 
> Rich


I think it's only available for Apple devices, not android. The app is put out by Apple for iPhones, iPads, etc. Plus, we can control any of our 5 Apple TVs from our phones/iPads whether home or at the camper (we only have one up there obviously...).


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> I've explained that more than once. But nope...it starts at 9:00 pm and that is when she is going to watch it. I've also explained being able to pause live tv and then resume but that is a no go too.


Curios if she hates all technology? Does she have a smart phone


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> Have you tried the ATVs when using HBO Max? I'm stunned by how well the ATVs work with that app. Better than Netflix works with the ATVs!
> 
> Rich


No, I don't subscribe to HBO Max.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

Teetertotter said:


> Soooo, what is the latest on DTV sale OR NOT??? lol


According to reports, AT&T is looking to sell a majority portion of DirecTV to private investor firms like Apollo and retain a minority share. This way it gets DirecTV (and debt) off its books but allows them to use D*'s contracts, trademarks, etc. for their other TV services like U-Verse, AT&T TV/TV Now, etc.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

techguy88 said:


> According to reports, AT&T is looking to sell a majority portion of DirecTV to private investor firms like Apollo and retain a minority share. This way it gets DirecTV (and debt) off its books but allows them to use D*'s contracts, trademarks, etc. for their other TV services like U-Verse, AT&T TV/TV Now, etc.


i read somewhere they are hoping to have a signature by the end of the year!!! i read they want to sell off most of it sadden. i wish they would rid of all of DTV. my exp with ATT and the CSR'S and installers is very few of them know what there doing.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

techguy88 said:


> According to reports, AT&T is looking to sell a majority portion of DirecTV to private investor firms like Apollo and retain a minority share. This way it gets DirecTV (and debt) off its books but allows them to use D*'s contracts, trademarks, etc. for their other TV services like U-Verse, AT&T TV/TV Now, etc.


Amazon has apparently emerged as a strong rumor


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

techguy88 said:


> This way it gets DirecTV (and debt) off its books but allows them to use D*'s contracts, trademarks, etc. for their other TV services like U-Verse, AT&T TV/TV Now, etc.


Why would a DIRECTV deal include AT&T trademarks? Surely a prospective buyer would struggle to find much value in acquiring them given AT&T's lead-weather-balloon track record.

If AT&T jettisons more than 60% of their customer base (or DIRECTV suddenly becomes the size of DISH+Sling), I'm thinking that may be grounds for programmers to renegotiate carriage contracts. I can't imagine it is legal for two companies to negotiate a common carriage contract.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> I've tried HDR on. HDR off. Adjusting my TV. Setting TV back to defaults. No matter. I can't make the Cube as clean and bright looking as the ATV. Keep in mind this is the old first generation Cube. Might make it a difference if I had the latest Cube. Or maybe not.


I have the first-gen Cubes and a second-gen Cube. All the reviews I read said there wasn't enough difference between the two to make the second-gen Cube worth purchasing. I have compared them and I agree, I don't see much difference at all. Neither has the PQ of an ATV. It's not all that much of a difference as far as PQ goes and the Cubes don't work as well as an ATV.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Hard to say. My Gen 1 Cube had great video nearly on par with the AppleTV4K I have. Same goes for the Gen 2 Cube, but it is worlds faster.
> 
> Could just be something about your TV it doesn't deal with well.


I could do a search here and come up with posts of yours that would disagree with this post. I remember those posts, I'm not gonna bother with a search. I guess you changed your mind.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

codespy said:


> I think it's only available for Apple devices, not android. The app is put out by Apple for iPhones, iPads, etc. Plus, we can control any of our 5 Apple TVs from our phones/iPads whether home or at the camper (we only have one up there obviously...).


My Android phone's app shows several ATV remote apps, I'd like to try the one you use, can you identify it somehow?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Curios if she hates all technology? Does she have a smart phone


My wife's the same way, she has smartphones, smartphones don't make people smart. Wanting to learn, then learning, then applying what you've learned to make your life easier, better...that's how you get smart.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> No, I don't subscribe to HBO Max.


I think it's the best new app out there. I've been sucking up movies for over a month and I haven't come close to watching all the interesting movies I've found. Very impressive app. Very impressive library. I activated HBO Max and the Peacock app at about the same time, I blew thru everything that interested me on the Peacock app in a week or so and I can't get off the HBO app. Very impressive and well-built app that works flawlessly with an ATV. Much better than the old HBO Now app.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

compnurd said:


> Amazon has apparently emerged as a strong rumor


I would like to see that.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> I could do a search here and come up with posts of yours that would disagree with this post. I remember those posts, I'm not gonna bother with a search. I guess you changed your mind.
> 
> Rich


I could be suffering from selective memory, or being an old fart, it could just be yet another thing I forgot I knew! 

That said, I don't remember being disappointed with the actual video from the 1st gen Cube though I was by a few other things. Regardless, the 2nd Gen cured all the ills other than the ****ty UI, but even that grows on you if you use it long enough.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> I think it's the best new app out there. I've been sucking up movies for over a month and I haven't come close to watching all the interesting movies I've found. Very impressive app. Very impressive library. I activated HBO Max and the Peacock app at about the same time, I blew thru everything that interested me on the Peacock app in a week or so and I can't get off the HBO app. Very impressive and well-built app that works flawlessly with an ATV. Much better than the old HBO Now app.
> 
> Rich


I agree, the UI on HBO Max is better IMO as is the content compared to Peacock. Of course HBO Max is $15/month and with the 1st year deal I got from Peacock, it is $2.50/month, so I guess I can forgive them!!


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

inkahauts said:


> Curios if she hates all technology? Does she have a smart phone


LOL...yes she has a smart phone. She isn't crazy about it but I had the landline disconnected so she has been forced to use it. She doesn't like change.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

harsh said:


> Why would a DIRECTV deal include AT&T trademarks? Surely a prospective buyer would struggle to find much value in acquiring them given AT&T's lead-weather-balloon track record.
> 
> If AT&T jettisons more than 60% of their customer base (or DIRECTV suddenly becomes the size of DISH+Sling), I'm thinking that may be grounds for programmers to renegotiate carriage contracts. I can't imagine it is legal for two companies to negotiate a common carriage contract.


Well if AT&T keeps a minority share in DirecTV similar to how Time Warner Cable had a minority share in Bright House Networks and how Comcast has a minority share in Midco then in contract negotiations it would be like AT&T never got rid of D* at all. The contracts would still cover all D* subs + all AT&T pay-TV subs. Time Warner & Bright House reported separate subscriber numbers however in the eyes of the government and during contract negotiations Bright House subs were considered Time Warner subs.

Trademark wise is something they would have to sort out. The package names (Select, Choice, Premier) have been registered trademarks of D* for years. Potentially selling D* without those service trademarks could devalue the sale but irregardless as long as AT&T holds a minority share a royalty free license could be used so customers of D*, AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now are none the wiser. AT&T could extend a royalty-free license to D* to continue using the AT&T globe logo (for brand consistency.) They also would need to figure out who gets rights to certain technology.

AT&T would also need to create a new subsidiary within their own company if AT&T wants to retain 100% ownership of AT&T TV, AT&T TV Now and AT&T WatchTV. Right now AT&T's three streaming based services are legally part of the DirecTV, LLC. subsidiary according to their respective terms and conditions. Those with an AT&T TV device (aka Osprey) can even see the DirecTV, LLC. subsidiary is responsible for their devices according to the green label on the bottom. Also the power brick used for Osprey is the same one used for Genie Mini clients which is why it has the current DirecTV logo.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It sounds like the MVPD/vMVPD businesses are so intertwined that they would be difficult to separate. Assuming AT&T sells a majority share in "DIRECTV" what are they actually selling? The assumptions have ranged from AT&T just selling the satellite business and somehow keeping the UVERSE and OTT businesses to selling the entire entertainment division. The noisy investors that are pushing for the "split" not only want to reverse the AT&T purchase of DIRECTV but the AT&T purchase of HBO/Time Warner.

The more that shifts to the "spin off" the less back end finagling is needed to keep the contracts together. But in the current environment content providers will use any reason to change their contracts. DIRECTV contracts written when DIRECTV was 20 million subscribers subscribers were better than AT&T contracts written when UVERSE was 5.6 million subscribers. AT&T expected to get better contracts with 26 million subscribers but that did not last long. They are now a 18 million subscriber company who are losing nearly a million subscribers every quarter.

AT&T has done a good job of hiding their numbers in division totals. We don't have the forensics to prove that DIRECTV satellite is a huge money pit that should be divested while the streaming options are keeping AT&T afloat - based on what I have seen I would say the opposite is true. So what we are seeing is a push to divest the most profitable part of AT&T's MVPD/vMVPD services. To which I would wonder why anyone would want to dump the profitable portion of their business. Perhaps the "bankers" screaming loudest for AT&T to divest are not looking for an AT&T without DIRECTV satellite - they are looking for a DIRECTV satellite without AT&T.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

techguy88 said:


> Well if AT&T keeps a minority share in DirecTV similar to how Time Warner Cable had a minority share in Bright House Networks and how Comcast has a minority share in Midco then in contract negotiations it would be like AT&T never got rid of D* at all.


This isn't a merger where customer bases are being added together. This is a spin-off/sell-off where AT&T would be selling off the two thirds of their subscription TV customers. You can't count customers that aren't yours regardless of who you hold stock in.


> Trademark wise is something they would have to sort out. The package names (Select, Choice, Premier) have been registered trademarks of D* for years.


I don't think those divisions are all that important to AT&T that isn't really angling towards having lots of tiers. I think it would be pretty difficult to put the cows back in the barn these days as many companies are using those the package names now. Comcast offers a "Choice" and "Premiere Pro" package level. Spectrum offers a "Select" plan.


> AT&T could extend a royalty-free license to D* to continue using the AT&T globe logo (for brand consistency.)


Do you know of anyone that is chomping at the bit to do personal business with AT&T?


> They also would need to figure out who gets rights to certain technology.


Sure, but which of those patents could possibly cover the kind of business that AT&T wants to be in? I can't see much use in keeping DVR patents and the like for a streaming service.


> AT&T would also need to create a new subsidiary within their own company if AT&T wants to retain 100% ownership of AT&T TV, AT&T TV Now and AT&T WatchTV. Right now AT&T's three streaming based services are legally part of the DirecTV, LLC. subsidiary according to their respective terms and conditions.


Renaming what's left shouldn't take more than a few hours and a few regulatory filings to change ownership. Because streaming has very little regulation, there probably aren't many filings that need to be made.


> Those with an AT&T TV device (aka Osprey) can even see the DirecTV, LLC. subsidiary is responsible for their devices according to the green label on the bottom. Also the power brick used for Osprey is the same one used for Genie Mini clients which is why it has the current DirecTV logo.


There's probably Comcast labled hardware out there that is used with Xfinity equipment and DISH Network and Echostar emblazoned hardware being used with DISH equipment and I don't expect that anyone cares one iota. Did DIRECTV customers of old have a hissy fit when they saw Samsung, Sony, RCA and later TiVo logos on their receivers along with the DIRECTV logo?

I'm guessing that AT&T already has a plan to address all of their concerns and they have a clear picture of what concerns aren't theirs (like renaming the satellites again).


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> It sounds like the MVPD/vMVPD businesses are so intertwined that they would be difficult to separate. Assuming AT&T sells a majority share in "DIRECTV" what are they actually selling? The assumptions have ranged from AT&T just selling the satellite business and somehow keeping the UVERSE and OTT businesses to selling the entire entertainment division. The noisy investors that are pushing for the "split" not only want to reverse the AT&T purchase of DIRECTV but the AT&T purchase of HBO/Time Warner.


Personally I think AT&T will sell Directv, AT&T TV and probably Uverse TV as well (but keep the ISP part of Uverse, upgrade profitable areas to fiber, and find some sucker upon which to unload the rest) That assumes they sell anything, we are still dealing with unsourced rumors here after all.

There is nothing to make AT&T or anyone else believe the vMVPD business is going get much bigger than it is now...i.e. it looks like it is already plateauing. So why would they want to hold onto it, especially if it complicates the deal?

I don't see why they would want to sell the Time Warner stuff. There's definitely a future in streaming HBO, and trying to sell it now would get a depressed price due to the inability to make and release major motion pictures right now.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> There's definitely a future in streaming HBO, and trying to sell it now would get a depressed price due to the inability to make and release major motion pictures right now.


If they are having to give a 20% discount off of a price that is already discounted from what people were paying for HBO before Max, I wonder if that isn't more than admission of a temporary lack of new content.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> We don't have the forensics to prove that DIRECTV satellite is a huge money pit that should be divested while the streaming options are keeping AT&T afloat - based on what I have seen I would say the opposite is true.


I would find it impossible to believe that any streaming service is profitable now. If Netflix can't do it with all their subs, how can anybody else? They monkey with the finances to look profitable on a quarterly basis, but are actually deep in the red if you include the $12 - 15B+ of debt. Disney is $50B in debt.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> slice1900 said:
> 
> 
> > There's definitely a future in streaming HBO, and trying to sell it now would get a depressed price due to the inability to make and release major motion pictures right now.
> ...


We are talking about AT&T selling part of their company ... not subscriptions sold to individual households and businesses.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> You still have one box that does it all, your cable or Directv box. You don't like that there are NEW sources of entertainment now that didn't exist before streaming was a thing, with companies like Netflix producing shows that they don't put on broadcast TV? How is that any different from movies or TV shows made in foreign countries that never made it to cable/HBO/etc. in the US? Its only the fact that you didn't hear about those, and you do hear about some of the streaming exclusives on Netflix that your friends are watching.


Shows from foreign countries? Seriously? It's nice I have them available, but if i didn't I wouldn't miss it, or care. Even without Netflix, AP etc, there's plenty to watch on TV. It's nice to have choices. But that's not the point. The point is, that it's a complete mess. It's a maze of various methods to get where you need to go. Multiple streaming services, multiple devices, nothing in one easy to follow convenient package. There's not the device via streaming that give you everything in the streaming world. So you need multiple devices and multiple services. Heck if I could find one that gives me:

1) All the channels I currently watch
2) A DVR that does everything I want, including skipping ads
3) Advanced sound for most channels
4) All regional sports, without blackouts
5) No major lag while watching sports (even streaming MLB AB is about a batter or so behind in baseball for example)

Is there one place for all of that? Not yet. It's getting better. When it's there, I'm there too.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> I agree, the UI on HBO Max is better IMO as is the content compared to Peacock. Of course HBO Max is $15/month and with the 1st year deal I got from Peacock, it is $2.50/month, so I guess I can forgive them!!


Yeah, I got the same deal with Peacock and I feel like I made a mistake. I have no bad feelings about the cost of the HBO app. Seems kinda cheap for all you get.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> LOL...yes she has a smart phone. She isn't crazy about it but I had the landline disconnected so she has been forced to use it. *She doesn't like change.*


Most of us would say something similar I would think.

Rich


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> 4) All regional sports, without blackouts


The motivation behind blackouts is to fill stadium/arena seats. Until every venue is filled to capacity for every game, blackouts will remain a tool that teams will use towards that end.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

harsh said:


> The motivation behind blackouts is to fill stadium/arena seats. Until every venue is filled to capacity for every game, blackouts will remain a tool that teams will use towards that end.


Oh, i totally get what it's for, and why it's used. My point is, that even a service as great as MLB AB is, it still forces me to either have an RSN on whatever streaming service I buy, or, have cable/sat. Heck, if I wanted the RSNs for the teams I watch the most, plus get everything else I normally watch, that's TWO streaming services I need to buy. I get that I'm in NY and we have THREE RSNs so it makes things worse, but it makes it all that much harder to make the move. That's why DirecTV works so well for me. It gives me every channel I normally watch, and all the sports I need. I still have a Netflix account and AP. I've had Netflix since the days of discs and there's still stuff there I enjoy, and AP is a benefit to a service I'd have anyway. Every other streaming service I have either came through a benefit I got somewhere else. And as I said, with that, I need at least two additional devices to watch them.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

harsh said:


> The motivation behind blackouts is to fill stadium/arena seats. Until every venue is filled to capacity for every game, blackouts will remain a tool that teams will use towards that end.


That may be the motivation, but what sports allows fans to actually attend events these days?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> That may be the motivation, but what sports allows fans to actually attend events these days?


I don't watch sports, so my exposure is the random clip, etc. on the sites that I visit or flipping through channels, but what are you talking about? All the stadiums are jam packed these days. Although, the fans do seem a little, umm.... two-dimensional .


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> Shows from foreign countries? Seriously? It's nice I have them available, but if i didn't I wouldn't miss it, or care.


THANK YOU! I'm not going to sit there reading subtitles. You miss the whole show/movie when you're doing that. Not to mention the subtitles often read ridiculous and for dubbed content, the same problem. No fluent English speaker talks like that. The translations are too literal. I've liked a few shows from Canada / UK since those are in English though. The foreign stuff also tends to be really low budget / quality. I liked the first couple of seasons of Money Heist / Casa De Papel, but the dubbing was too distracting. Sounded like they ran it through the Microsoft text-to-speech or something.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> THANK YOU! I'm not going to sit there reading subtitles. You miss the whole show/movie when you're doing that. Not to mention the subtitles often read ridiculous and for dubbed content, the same problem. No fluent English speaker talks like that. The translations are too literal. I've liked a few shows from Canada / UK since those are in English though. The foreign stuff also tends to be really low budget / quality. I liked the first couple of seasons of Money Heist / Casa De Papel, but the dubbing was too distracting. Sounded like they ran it through the Microsoft text-to-speech or something.


To me the foreign films are no more a mixed bag that are the US produced ones. Some great, some good, some suck. I just don't watch the ones with subtitles 'cause I can't keep up! Dubbing works better for me but the show/movie has to be really good even then.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> To me the foreign films are no more a mixed bag that are the US produced ones. Some great, some good, some suck. I just don't watch the ones with subtitles 'cause I can't keep up! Dubbing works better for me but the show/movie has to be really good even then.


Yeah, keeping up with subtitles is an issue. I'm surprised they couldn't find better dubbing actors for Money Heist. I would have probably given Sputnik a try if it wasn't in Russian, but you can just watch the American version which was done as Life (2017) and had an A list cast.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> My point is, that even a service as great as MLB AB is, it still forces me to either have an RSN on whatever streaming service I buy, or, have cable/sat.


Since the responsibility for blackouts lies entirely with the teams and not the carriers, there's not much the carriers can do.

In the grand scheme, streaming generally hasn't done squat for the sports that garner huge crowds in the US so you're likely going to have to ride DIRECTV into the ground unless your local cable provider steps up. Be glad you can get your RSNs from DIRECTV as they only offer one of the three available in my area.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> THANK YOU! I'm not going to sit there reading subtitles. You miss the whole show/movie when you're doing that. Not to mention the subtitles often read ridiculous and for dubbed content, the same problem. No fluent English speaker talks like that. The translations are too literal. I've liked a few shows from Canada / UK since those are in English though. The foreign stuff also tends to be really low budget / quality. I liked the first couple of seasons of Money Heist / Casa De Papel, but the dubbing was too distracting. Sounded like they ran it through the Microsoft text-to-speech or something.


Well, for me, it's not about subtitles, it's about content that I never had before, that I don't particularly care about, and if I didn't have it, wouldn't even know it existed. It's nice to have the option, but it's not something I care enough about.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> The motivation behind blackouts is to fill stadium/arena seats. Until every venue is filled to capacity for every game, blackouts will remain a tool that teams will use towards that end.


The motivation for blackouts is the leagues making as much money as possible selling their content. Selling in market exclusives is lucrative. Take away the blackouts and the leagues would need to charge more for their national packages just to break even. And they don't want to break even. They want to make more money.

Protecting the teams/stadiums was done in the past but as long as the league is selling in market distribution throw that protection out the window. Even when no broadcast within a radius was enforced it was a financial decision. All it took to change that rule was more money from the broadcasters.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

James Long said:


> The motivation for blackouts is the leagues making as much money as possible selling their content. Selling in market exclusives is lucrative. Take away the blackouts and the leagues would need to charge more for their national packages just to break even. And they don't want to break even. They want to make more money.
> 
> Protecting the teams/stadiums was done in the past but as long as the league is selling in market distribution throw that protection out the window. Even when no broadcast within a radius was enforced it was a financial decision. All it took to change that rule was more money from the broadcasters.


But right now blackout rules make absolutely no sense. Fans cannot attend sports events at all these days. Blackout rules should be waived until that changes.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

James Long said:


> In a nutshell, yes. Back in the day there were limited distribution paths - most of them accessible through one's satellite or cable provider. There have always been contract issues (your provider not carrying some content) but for the most part it was not as complicated as it is today. Even "exclusives" became available via affordable paths (such as DVD sets). The explosion of new entertainment distributors has scattered good content across multiple services. If they "play nice together" the services MAY allow their app to be on another provider's equipment or on neutral equipment such as a smart TV. But "play nice together" does not extend to cross-licensing content to where I expect "exclusives" to be available via other paths in a reasonable time.
> 
> For example ... the normal path for a movie was a theatrical release followed by PPV or DVD release (sometimes combined) followed by premium movie channel release (sometimes exclusive to HBO or Showtime). As time went on the release widened and it became easier to see the content via another method. "Edited for TV" on a general entertainment channel or broadcast channel was usually the last step. (Where VHS/DVD now BluRay fit in depends on how many years back one looks.) The price one paid for the content depended on how early you wanted to view the content (and whether one wanted it uncut, etc.).
> 
> ...


Well said. This is the point I try to make. Right now it's such a mess, it takes actual "work" to figure out what to watch, where to watch it, what I need to subscribe to to watch and, if it's general content (and not an exclusive to the service) hope that it's still there if you don't finish it in one sitting. Nobody can tell me that it's easier than the old model of turning on your TV and it's all there in whatever provider you have (be it Sat, cable, OTA or whatever). I do think we are in the infancy of a new model and eventually things will either coalesce into a few aggregated services, or this becomes the new normal, and the a la carte that people envisioned is here. I don't see the various services giving up controlling their own content. Once CBS made a success of All-Access, that was the tipping point, so every network has their own. So, people will have to pick and choose what they want and how to watch. And with that, costs will go up. Right now, if you "do it right" you can save money (assuming you can deal with the sacrifices of doing it that way.) We are starting to see a lot of price creep, on a yearly basis or more for some services, just like cable/Sat.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> There's nothing stopping you from subscribing to each streaming service that has something you want to watch in turn for a month or two, bingeing what you want, then moving onto the next. So cost isn't a factor, only the convenience of being able to watch anything you want at the moment you want to watch it.
> 
> I can't remember the numbers, but there was a comparison done of the number of series now and a decade ago, and it was more than double now. So you have a lot bigger selection than you used to, doesn't it make sense that having full access to everything at a moment's notice in that larger selection would require paying more? Someone has to foot the bill for developing so many more series.


I wonder how many people who sign up for the various services do what you describe. Sign on to something to watch a certain show, then stops the sub, moves on to the next one? I'd bet it much less than you think. If you are savvy, have the time to research all the content and then are diligent in working it, then sure, it can work like that. I'd imagine that's less than half of all subs. And of course each of these services have lots of content that will appeal to viewers, much like CBS or AMC might have a lot of content that appeals to people. So you sign up for Stranger Things, realize you also want to watch 5 other things and then don't quit. And you sign up for AP to watch Mrs. Maisel and realize you want to watch The Boys, so you stay, and you sign up for HBO Max to watch Westworld and realize you want to watch Lovecraft County and the cycle continues. Yes, if you are diligent and schedule out which shows you watch when, you can probably mitigate this somewhat. There IS content overload right now. We each have dozens of shows we want to watch at some point. Yes, what you say sounds great, but it's really a major hassle to do it right.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> I wonder how many people who sign up for the various services do what you describe. Sign on to something to watch a certain show, then stops the sub, moves on to the next one? I'd bet it much less than you think. If you are savvy, have the time to research all the content and then are diligent in working it, then sure, it can work like that. I'd imagine that's less than half of all subs. And of course each of these services have lots of content that will appeal to viewers, much like CBS or AMC might have a lot of content that appeals to people. So you sign up for Stranger Things, realize you also want to watch 5 other things and then don't quit. And you sign up for AP to watch Mrs. Maisel and realize you want to watch The Boys, so you stay, and you sign up for HBO Max to watch Westworld and realize you want to watch Lovecraft County and the cycle continues. Yes, if you are diligent and schedule out which shows you watch when, you can probably mitigate this somewhat. There IS content overload right now. We each have dozens of shows we want to watch at some point. Yes, what you say sounds great, but it's really a major hassle to do it right.


You're right, doing it that way is a hassle. I activate an app like HBO Max and watch everything I'm interested in and then deactivate it...most of the time. If my son is paying for the app it gets taken care of promptly, he's more concerned with money than I am.

But after you've activated and deactivated apps for a while it becomes easier. Less of a hassle. Once you know how and where to deactivate apps it becomes a lot easier. Reps, just like playing baseball the more reps you have the better you play.

Rich


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I'm one that doesn't unsubscribe from any service. With Amazon I always have Prime so it doesn't apply. But I keep CBS AA, Peacock, HBO Max, Netflix, and Disney+ full time as I am always browsing through looking for things to watch. I currently have Hulu with ads too that I got on black friday last year for $1.99 per month but I had to buy a year of it. That is one I would cancel but I have it until the end of November that is paid for.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> I wonder how many people who sign up for the various services do what you describe. Sign on to something to watch a certain show, then stops the sub, moves on to the next one? I'd bet it much less than you think. If you are savvy, have the time to research all the content and then are diligent in working it, then sure, it can work like that. I'd imagine that's less than half of all subs. And of course each of these services have lots of content that will appeal to viewers, much like CBS or AMC might have a lot of content that appeals to people. So you sign up for Stranger Things, realize you also want to watch 5 other things and then don't quit. And you sign up for AP to watch Mrs. Maisel and realize you want to watch The Boys, so you stay, and you sign up for HBO Max to watch Westworld and realize you want to watch Lovecraft County and the cycle continues. Yes, if you are diligent and schedule out which shows you watch when, you can probably mitigate this somewhat. There IS content overload right now. We each have dozens of shows we want to watch at some point. Yes, what you say sounds great, but it's really a major hassle to do it right.


If I sign up for a service and continue to find things I find worthwhile to watch I keep it until I don't. NetFlix is an example. I signed up at some point to watch something, forget what, but I have kept finding enough content that interests me so have kept it, for a long time now. Other services not so much. Appletv + is an example on the other side of the equation. My wife and I found enough content initially for a few months. After that I would have dropped it until something we were interested in would come on. Still do have it but only because we have it for a free year. That free year is up on 10/30 and I will cancel unless they add something I want to watch. Dropping and adding these services is just a few clicks of a mouse. About as easy as it gets. I think many more folks do it than you realize. Hopefully it's a good thing. It should keep them innovating and coming up with new and compelling content if they want to keep subscribers. Competition is a beautiful thing...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

lparsons21 said:


> But right now blackout rules make absolutely no sense. Fans cannot attend sports events at all these days. Blackout rules should be waived until that changes.


Blackout rules are protecting the exclusive contracts with local broadcasters (RSN and stations). COVID or not those contracts continue. As noted, it has been a while since butts in the seats were part of the equation.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

mjwagner said:


> If I sign up for a service and continue to find things I find worthwhile to watch I keep it until I don't. NetFlix is an example. I signed up at some point to watch something, forget what, but I have kept finding enough content that interests me so have kept it, for a long time now. Other services not so much. Appletv + is an example on the other side of the equation. My wife and I found enough content initially for a few months. After that I would have dropped it until something we were interested in would come on. Still do have it but only because we have it for a free year. That free year is up on 10/30 and I will cancel unless they add something I want to watch. Dropping and adding these services is just a few clicks of a mouse. About as easy as it gets. I think many more folks do it than you realize. Hopefully it's a good thing. It should keep them innovating and coming up with new and compelling content if they want to keep subscribers. Competition is a beautiful thing...


I'd bet it's less than 25% who "play the game". That's exactly what the folks at the services are counting on. And if it gets to be most, things will change to a yearly sub.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

AT&T issued a press release yesterday summarizing their future direction and didn't mention DIRECTV as part of the plan. The release spoke of focusing on software-based entertainment (streaming services) along with wireless, broadband and WarnerMedia.

There will be a "focus on optimizing the returns" on areas outside the focus of the plan. They also said not to be surprised if this leads to a "monetization" of some of their non-core assets.

DIRECTV apparently isn't part of the plan and the question that remains is what will be left after they have optimized its returns and monetized it.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> I'd bet it's less than 25% who "play the game". That's exactly what the folks at the services are counting on. And if it gets to be most, things will change to a yearly sub.


Just like any business they will try to do whatever they can get away with to increase profits. As long as there are enough competing services the competition between services will limit what they can and cannot get away with. When there is lots of competition the consumer benefits. Where there is not, the consumer suffers. A good example is your local ISP. Most consumers are stuck with one choice. In those rare places where multiple ISP choices do exist the consumer benefits. Typically that's where you see things like no data caps as just one example (although there are certainly exceptions). Choice and competition typically drives prices down and innovation up.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

mjwagner said:


> Just like any business they will try to do whatever they can get away with to increase profits. As long as there are enough competing services the competition between services will limit what they can and cannot get away with. When there is lots of competition the consumer benefits. Where there is not, the consumer suffers. A good example is your local ISP. Most consumers are stuck with one choice. In those rare places where multiple ISP choices do exist the consumer benefits. Typically that's where you see things like no data caps as just one example (although there are certainly exceptions). Choice and competition typically drives prices down and innovation up.


This is true for sure. One of my theories is that this will consolidate somehow. For example, I fully expect someone to make a crazy offer for Netflix and they will be sold. The good news, for the meantime, is that every little network wants their own streaming platform. They all want a piece of the pie. It's great for consumers in that it's keeping prices reasonable, but the landscape is very confusing. Then you have the aggrigators who do live TV, and that's where the price increases have been most prevalent.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I used to think that about Netflix. Now I’m not so sure, they are in some ways more valuable than a few years ago, but in other ways a lot less valuable than they where a few years ago as a takeover target. If you are going to buy something, you have to ask what that companies adds to your bottom line, and while they have a lot of subscribers which makes them valuable, they have lost a ton of value because they have lost most their contracts to show movies that are recent from anyone other than ones they produce themselves, which most companies in Hollywood already do, so they wouldn’t really gain anything but debt unless they where going to use that as a platform to launch their own streaming service for their own shows. Problem is all the major players already have their own streaming services now and they don’t need to add a second. You could say maybe FOX, but they decided to go a different direction when they sold a lot to Disney.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I suppose att could be considering selling the satellite portion of DIRECTV off, not the service, kind of how dish speared from DISH years ago. That would be a stupid move, so it might be what they are thinking.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

The CEO of AT&T was asked about the rumors around the sale of Directv, and said they haven't made any decision about doing so and the rumors probably got started because they were "seeking out multiple viewpoints".


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Tried streaming. Couldnt get over 720p except with YoutubeTv, digital surround sound is almost non-existent, 30 skip is a joke, DVR is even worse. It would be OK if say Tivo were to integrate the streaming services into their DVR allowing real DVRing of content. I came back to DirecTv. The Comcast owned channels look just as crappy as they did on Xfinity, even tho they show 1080i. Guess its because most of them are using webcams in hosts homes. Package price evened out over two years was OK, but I avoided the packages that slap the extra $9 on for regional sports. Xfinity was hitting me for $12 for locals on top of the $9.95 for regional sports, plus franchise fees, so all told, ATT 1Gb fiber, unlimited, and Entertainment with a 4K box is $20 cheaper than I was paying for Xfinity 250Mb with a 1.2TB cap, and more channels I never watched. I really don't like AT&T, but giving them another chance. So far, they have been pretty good. If anyone buys them, I hope its someone who cares about tech and customers.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> The CEO of AT&T was asked about the rumors around the sale of Directv, and said they haven't made any decision about doing so and the rumors probably got started because they were "seeking out multiple viewpoints".


It seems logical that they haven't made a decision because their "rumors" haven't flushed out any potential buyers that are willing to "monetize" it to anywhere near the level they need. They have crushing debt and a bunch of shareholders that are expecting a relatively high dividend.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> AT&T issued a press release yesterday summarizing their future direction and didn't mention DIRECTV as part of the plan.


More accurately not listed as a "strategic areas of focus".

It is frustrating when the CEO seems to dismiss a major portion of the business. If this was not a AT&T press release I would think that he was being misunderstood. These kind of statements fuel the "divesting DIRECTV" rumors.

"Simultaneously, the company is working to optimize the returns of business lines that fall outside of its focus areas. Stankey said this process may lead to further monetization of non-core assets in AT&T's portfolio. At the end of the second quarter, AT&T had more than $500 billion in assets on its balance sheet, giving it additional opportunities to drive incremental shareholder value."

I hope that AT&T does not see DIRECTV's value only as an asset to be sold. It would be bad enough to confirm that DIRECTV is a non-core asset. There are too many subscribers and too much revenue attached to DIRECTV to summarily dismiss the "assets".

Then again, if someone else can do a better job of running DIRECTV so be it.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> I used to think that about Netflix. Now I'm not so sure, they are in some ways more valuable than a few years ago, but in other ways a lot less valuable than they where a few years ago as a takeover target. If you are going to buy something, you have to ask what that companies adds to your bottom line, and while they have a lot of subscribers which makes them valuable, they have lost a ton of value because they have lost most their contracts to show movies that are recent from anyone other than ones they produce themselves, which most companies in Hollywood already do, so they wouldn't really gain anything but debt unless they where going to use that as a platform to launch their own streaming service for their own shows. Problem is all the major players already have their own streaming services now and they don't need to add a second. You could say maybe FOX, but they decided to go a different direction when they sold a lot to Disney.


Netflix saw the handwriting on the wall in regards to older content, which is why they heavily invested in creating their own. I would think getting their hands on that production stream might be worth it for someone, though I agree that window MIGHT be closing. But I could see someone like Microsoft, Google or even Apple buying them because they want to get more heavily into streaming. While YTTV for example is good for what it is, they have made NO headwind into it's own "professional" long form content. Microsoft has no presence at all Apple's presence is limited. For any of those companies they grab a HUGE leg up by buying Netflix and with the might of those major players they can even expand it exponentially. But I agree, they would need to move fast as the landscape is changing.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> It is frustrating when the CEO seems to dismiss a major portion of the business. If this was not a AT&T press release I would think that he was being misunderstood. These kind of statements fuel the "divesting DIRECTV" rumors.


You seem blindsided by the fact that the authoritative statements back up the rumors. There aren't many secrets on The Street.


> I hope that AT&T does not see DIRECTV's value only as an asset to be sold. It would be bad enough to confirm that DIRECTV is a non-core asset. There are too many subscribers and too much revenue attached to DIRECTV to summarily dismiss the "assets".


The words spell out their intentions pretty clearly and they aren't particularly in agreement with your reasoning.

Investors are looking for dividends larger than DIRECTV profits will provide (I've seen the number 7% batted around). Investment math doesn't always make sense to the onlooker and business decisions are often baffling but when the company speaks, you can no longer question their direction.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

AT&T Chief Speaks Out On DIRECTV Sale - The TV Answer Man!


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> Investors are looking for dividends larger than DIRECTV profits will provide (I've seen the number 7% batted around). Investment math doesn't always make sense to the onlooker and business decisions are often baffling but when the company speaks, you can no longer question their direction.


Directv still has a free cash flow of over $4 billion per year despite the subscriber losses. If 7% was the only threshold they needed to exceed, even buying it at AT&T's original purchase price of $49 billion would do so.

The question with Directv (and MVPDs in general) is how quickly they will shed customers. The subscriber loss has had little impact on profitability so far. Partly because the most price sensitive people are the most likely to cut the cord, and thus are on average the least profitable, as well as Directv not needing as much investment anymore since they are set for a decade as far as satellites and there is really nothing left to improve as far as receiver hardware. But eventually the subscribers they will lose will increasingly be more profitable ones and subscriber losses will run in tandem with declines in profit.

The biggest unknown for Directv is what happens with NFLST. If they lose the exclusive for residential customers following the 2022 season, as seems likely, they will lose a million or two customers overnight. And presumably many of them are high profit customers, who likely are avid sports fans who get other sports packages as well.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

krel said:


> AT&T Chief Speaks Out On DIRECTV Sale - The TV Answer Man!


And Stankey continues to falsely claim that because AT&T TV is delivered via 'streaming' that it is somehow different from cable/satellite and more likely Netflix or Disney+. It is not, it is the same old MVPD setup just a different method of delivery.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Directv still has a free cash flow of over $4 billion per year despite the subscriber losses.


AT&T has annual interest expenses of $8 billion so they need big help.


> The question with Directv (and MVPDs in general) is how quickly they will shed customers.


That rate may decrease in Q3 but DIRECTV has been "outperforming" the industry in subscriber losses recently.


> ...and there is really nothing left to improve as far as receiver hardware.


That's a pretty huge stretch. By some accounts there is significant room for improvement (especially as the legacy DVRs die out and people are caught by the single-Genie policy).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> It is not, it is the same old MVPD setup just a different method of delivery.


This is why AT&T needs to get out of the TV carrier business (and this includes streaming). They have no acquaintance with the reality of either the MVPD or streaming marketplaces.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> This is why AT&T needs to get out of the TV carrier business (and this includes streaming). They have no acquaintance with the reality of either the MVPD or streaming marketplaces.


Maybe they might want to get out of the MVPD business, but there's no reason that HBO Max won't be a good thing for them to own so long as they own Warner.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Maybe they might want to get out of the MVPD business, but there's no reason that HBO Max won't be a good thing for them to own so long as they own Warner.


I don't disagree, but I can't see the attraction to WarnerMedia if they don't have a MVPD-style service to support.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> You seem blindsided by the fact that the authoritative statements back up the rumors.


Perhaps your biased reading backs up anything you want to believe. You misreported the article you linked. Just as bad as the "media" seeking for their opinion to be right more than reporting the truth of the matter.

AT&T doesn't have to focus on DIRECTV ... the service is functional, profitable and arguably could run itself if management doesn't meddle too much with it's success.

The trick with any sale would be to find a buyer (deep pocket investor) who is willing to make a deal that would give AT&T more money than they are currently making on DIRECTV (otherwise, why sell?) while also giving the buyer a profitable business that will be a return on their investment (otherwise, why buy?). The benefit of such a sale would be that we would finally be able to split the books between DIRECTV and the rest of AT&T (AT&T has been burying the profitability and success of DIRECTV in their bookkeeping).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> AT&T doesn't have to focus on DIRECTV ... the service is functional, profitable and arguably could run itself if management doesn't meddle too much with it's success.


Perhaps true, but you seem to be ignoring the part about monetizing non-core assets. AT&T needs large sums of cash, not a dividend.

DIRECTV represents perhaps more than 10% of AT&T's assets (or so they believe) and an even larger percentage of their non-core assets so I think it unlikely that the satellite carrier will remain untouched by this new focus.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> Netflix saw the handwriting on the wall in regards to older content, which is why they heavily invested in creating their own. I would think getting their hands on that production stream might be worth it for someone, though I agree that window MIGHT be closing. But I could see someone like Microsoft, Google or even Apple buying them because they want to get more heavily into streaming.


Netflix is a huge company -- market cap of about $210 B -- so there aren't too many companies large enough to acquire it (that might logically see Netflix as a complementary or synergistic addition to their existing business). Apple, with their size and huge amount of cash, used to be talked up as a potential Netflix buyer but I can't see it now, given the growing concern on the left and right with the concentration of power in big tech. Can't see Google or Amazon being allowed by the government to buy it either. (The DOJ is mounting an antitrust probe into Google right now.) Maybe Microsoft could, given their diminished presence in consumer tech and lack of any existing media business.

So I tend to think Netflix just remains its own company. Will be interesting to see how they do over the next few years now that all the established media giants have their own direct-to-consumer streaming services pulling their high-value classic content back from Netflix, leaving its library pretty much populated by Netflix Originals plus lesser-known licensed movies and TV shows.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> Maybe Microsoft could, given their diminished presence in consumer tech and lack of any existing media business.


Microsoft is big into enterprise services. Office 365 includes turnkey e-mail, share point (corporate one drive), and all office apps for cheaper than in-house. They're literally getting $15 a month for every office worker in the country.

I don't see Microsoft worrying about consumer beyond Windows operating systems. Aside from surface, they are pretty much out of hardware. Heck, surface is higher priced than Apple.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

wmb said:


> Microsoft is big into enterprise services. Office 365 includes turnkey e-mail, share point (corporate one drive), and all office apps for cheaper than in-house. They're literally getting $15 a month for every office worker in the country.
> 
> I don't see Microsoft worrying about consumer beyond Windows operating systems. Aside from surface, they are pretty much out of hardware. Heck, surface is higher priced than Apple.


Yeah, although you forgot about Xbox, which is a pretty big consumer business line. But yes, Microsoft in general seems more oriented toward enterprise than consumer these days.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> Netflix saw the handwriting on the wall in regards to older content, which is why they heavily invested in creating their own. I would think getting their hands on that production stream might be worth it for someone, though I agree that window MIGHT be closing. But I could see someone like Microsoft, Google or even Apple buying them because they want to get more heavily into streaming. While YTTV for example is good for what it is, they have made NO headwind into it's own "professional" long form content. Microsoft has no presence at all Apple's presence is limited. For any of those companies they grab a HUGE leg up by buying Netflix and with the might of those major players they can even expand it exponentially. But I agree, they would need to move fast as the landscape is changing.


Buying Netflix wouldn't get you hardly anything in the way of production stream. As far as I know they own nothing. They've never built a real studio or anything else. They have made deals with exciting ones and they don't seem to commit to anyone on anything long term. They do that so they can always claim fresh content. That's to keep churn down, but it doesn't create must see tv. They have no game of thrones or even a blue bloods type a show. Something big or something that's just solid and steady forever.

Buying Netflix would only give someone access to their subscribers. And that isn't worth as much as some Might think these days since people subscribe to so many things. I'd bet 90% of the people who have Netflix also have amazon accounts and the vast majority also have prime. So amazon would gain virtually nothing in terms of dollars paid to buy them vs new subscribers.

Apple will sooner launch their own Netflix like service before they buy Netflix. Oh wait they already have. They will spend massive dollars over a long period but they will have a lot of content in five years. They are just starting, Netflix has been at it a lot longer. I believe Apple will also go for a HBO type premium service vs a USA network type service Netflix is shooting for.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Buying Netflix wouldn't get you hardly anything in the way of production stream. As far as I know they own nothing. They've never built a real studio or anything else. They have made deals with exciting ones and they don't seem to commit to anyone on anything long term. They do that so they can always claim fresh content. That's to keep churn down, but it doesn't create must see tv. They have no game of thrones or even a blue bloods type a show. Something big or something that's just solid and steady forever.
> 
> Buying Netflix would only give someone access to their subscribers. And that isn't worth as much as some Might think these days since people subscribe to so many things. I'd bet 90% of the people who have Netflix also have amazon accounts and the vast majority also have prime. So amazon would gain virtually nothing in terms of dollars paid to buy them vs new subscribers.
> 
> Apple will sooner launch their own Netflix like service before they buy Netflix. Oh wait they already have. They will spend massive dollars over a long period but they will have a lot of content in five years. They are just starting, Netflix has been at it a lot longer. I believe Apple will also go for a HBO type premium service vs a USA network type service Netflix is shooting for.


Stranger Things? I think that's for many (especially younger folks) Must See TV.

Apple already has launched a service, Apple TV+, but it's really in it's infancy. If I Apple were to buy Netflix there's no reason why they couldn't rolll their content into that. Apple could also push Netflix into a different direction if they wanted to, and leverage their large subscriber base, stable of shows and good name. It wouldn't be the first time Apple bought a market leader. Think Beats Headphones. 
I'm not saying Apple is even considering this, but it's a partnership that could work.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Netflix is a huge company -- market cap of about $210 B -- so there aren't too many companies large enough to acquire it (that might logically see Netflix as a complementary or synergistic addition to their existing business). Apple, with their size and huge amount of cash, used to be talked up as a potential Netflix buyer but I can't see it now, given the growing concern on the left and right with the concentration of power in big tech. Can't see Google or Amazon being allowed by the government to buy it either. (The DOJ is mounting an antitrust probe into Google right now.) Maybe Microsoft could, given their diminished presence in consumer tech and lack of any existing media business.
> 
> So I tend to think Netflix just remains its own company. Will be interesting to see how they do over the next few years now that all the established media giants have their own direct-to-consumer streaming services pulling their high-value classic content back from Netflix, leaving its library pretty much populated by Netflix Originals plus lesser-known licensed movies and TV shows.


Right now, the support for mega mergers is there (think T-Mobile and Sprint, Time Warner and AT&T). In 6 months who knows?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> But yes, Microsoft in general seems more oriented toward enterprise than consumer these days.


I don't think this is what Microsoft intended as they've made several runs at consumer products but consumers seem to be more careful about spending than businesses and are perhaps less swayed by some of the factors (including fear-mongering) that motivate enterprises to stick with Microsoft products.

A wise man once said that open source would never be successful because there isn't a business entity behind it that you can sue if something goes wrong. Microsoft, being an enormous business, offers the option to stick your hand into the particle beam.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft's Flight Simulator is still the de-facto standard where Windows Phone and Zune have failed.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Stranger Things? I think that's for many (especially younger folks) Must See TV.
> 
> Apple already has launched a service, Apple TV+, but it's really in it's infancy.


You don't see Apple TV+ as being largely just a rebranding of iTunes?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

harsh said:


> You don't see Apple TV+ as being largely just a rebranding of iTunes?


I see that. So far.

I do find it odd that so many people seem to be wishing for Netflix to go under. All the competition we see today might cause NF to expire but with that many subscribers worldwide I don't see that happening for quite a while.

Rich


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Buying Netflix wouldn't get you hardly anything in the way of production stream. As far as I know they own nothing. They've never built a real studio or anything else. They have made deals with *exciting* ones and they don't seem to commit to anyone on anything long term.


Existing ones, maybe? Gotta love spell checkers and auto-complete.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

harsh said:


> You don't see Apple TV+ as being largely just a rebranding of iTunes?


As I don't have an iTunes account and haven't for years I have no idea. Did iTunes have original content like ATV+? Only reason I have ATV+ is we got a year free when my daughter bought an iPad. Otherwise I have little interest. Have found a couple of shows I have liked.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Rich said:


> I see that. So far.
> 
> I do find it odd that so many people seem to be wishing for Netflix to go under. All the competition we see today might cause NF to expire but with that many subscribers worldwide I don't see that happening for quite a while.
> 
> Rich


I hope not. And honestly, it's still the best of the streamers. That said, I think at some point, they might get an offer they can't refuse. I remember at one point they took on a lot of debt to pay for original content. I don't know if the situation is better. That's what I see happening at some point. They need to pay up and then get gobbled up by a competitor in a better financial position (which is why I mention Apple).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> As I don't have an iTunes account and haven't for years I have no idea. Did iTunes have original content like ATV+?


iTunes offered original content from Apple, as well as access to content from third party content providers (some of it exclusive to iTunes).

The mechanism to serve up original content is no different than what is required for streaming someone else's content. Apple TV+ should probably be considered an incumbent, not a first effort like Disney+ or any of the streaming services from AT&T.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

harsh said:


> iTunes offered original content from Apple, as well as access to content from third party content providers (some of it exclusive to iTunes).
> 
> The mechanism to serve up original content is no different than what is required for streaming someone else's content. Apple TV+ should probably be considered an incumbent, not a first effort like Disney+ or any of the streaming services from AT&T.


You seem to be a bit negative about AppleTV+. Even if you compare it to iTunes in some ways, so what? ITunes is an extremely successful offering from Apple, so ATV+ could grow into that and probably be another very successful offering.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

lparsons21 said:


> You seem to be a bit negative about AppleTV+.


Expressing my opinion of Apple TV+ (or iTunes) was not my intent here. My intent was to explain that Apple TV+ should not be considered as being in a state of "infancy" because it was essentially morphed from iTunes that was an established product.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> I hope not. And honestly, it's still the best of the streamers. That said, I think at some point, they might get an offer they can't refuse. I remember at one point they took on a lot of debt to pay for original content. I don't know if the situation is better. That's what I see happening at some point. They need to pay up and then get gobbled up by a competitor in a better financial position (which is why I mention Apple).


I keep hearing how far in debt they are and then I hear how many subscribers they have and I don't know what's going on. How much is NF worth?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

harsh said:


> iTunes offered original content from Apple, as well as access to content from third party content providers (some of it exclusive to iTunes).
> 
> The mechanism to serve up original content is no different than what is required for streaming someone else's content. Apple TV+ should probably be considered an incumbent, not a first effort like Disney+ or any of the streaming services from AT&T.


iTunes had original content? What was it? Not arguing, I had no idea they ever did that.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

harsh said:


> Expressing my opinion of Apple TV+ (or iTunes) was not my intent here. My intent was to explain that Apple TV+ should not be considered as being in a state of "infancy" because it was essentially morphed from iTunes that was an established product.


That's how I would look at it.

Rich


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Rich said:


> iTunes had original content? What was it?


Leave it to you to go off into the weeds.

They had planned to:

Apple's First Foray Into Original TV Is a Series About Apps

Apple offered "iTunes Originals" music content which was actually just exclusive content from various artists.

iTunes Originals - Wikipedia

My point is that serving up content isn't particularly dependent on where the content originated. Whether or not it is "original" is little more than a flag in the search engine metadata.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> Leave it to you to go off into the weeds.
> 
> They had planned to:
> 
> ...


I'd say that's a really big difference in Apple's original strategy with iTunes vs. their new strategy with Apple TV+. Before, with iTunes, they didn't produce any original shows or films (other than one or two like Planet of the Apps and Carpool Karaoke that were mainly just dry-run build-ups toward launching Apple TV+). All they really did with iTunes was sell and rent individual shows and films from outside sources. With Apple TV+, it's 100% Apple Originals. And of course it's a subscription service. So all those factors add up to big differences in marketing, operations, cost/investment, etc.

Will be interesting to see what Apple does with Apple TV+. None of the other subscription services has tried to rely only on new original content. From HBO and Showtime years ago to Netflix and Prime Video more recently, the strategy has been to build up the service first using licensed content from outside sources, then transition your catalog and brand more toward your own original content. Without buying one or more established media companies and their catalog, it's hard to see Apple TV+ being more than a boutique player in the streaming wars.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

inkahauts said:


> Buying Netflix wouldn't get you hardly anything in the way of production stream. As far as I know they own nothing. They've never built a real studio or anything else. They have made deals with exciting ones and they don't seem to commit to anyone on anything long term. They do that so they can always claim fresh content. That's to keep churn down, but it doesn't create must see tv. They have no game of thrones or even a blue bloods type a show. Something big or something that's just solid and steady forever.
> 
> Buying Netflix would only give someone access to their subscribers. And that isn't worth as much as some Might think these days since people subscribe to so many things. I'd bet 90% of the people who have Netflix also have amazon accounts and the vast majority also have prime. So amazon would gain virtually nothing in terms of dollars paid to buy them vs new subscribers.
> 
> Apple will sooner launch their own Netflix like service before they buy Netflix. Oh wait they already have. They will spend massive dollars over a long period but they will have a lot of content in five years. They are just starting, Netflix has been at it a lot longer. I believe Apple will also go for a HBO type premium service vs a USA network type service Netflix is shooting for.


No, Netflix does produce and own a growing portion of the content they refer to as "Netflix Originals". That said, many Netflix Originals are produced by outside studios (e.g. Warner, ViacomCBS, etc.) and exclusively licensed to Netflix on a long-term basis. See here:
Netflix didn't make many of the "originals" that made it famous. That's changing.

Buying Netflix would give the acquirer not just the subscriber base but also the content Netflix owns and the content currently under license to them.

I'm not a huge Netflix fan -- only tend to keep it about 3 months per year now -- but have enjoyed several things on the service over the years. While I agree that they're more like the streaming era successor to basic cable (i.e. "USA") than premium cable (i.e. "HBO") in terms of the quantity/quality/variety of content they offer, they have come out with several things that have proven very popular with the general public and/or broken through with critics: Stranger Things, The Crown, Tiger King, Extraction, Making a Murderer, Ozark, House of Cards, Fuller House, Orange is the New Black, The Umbrella Academy, Bird Box, Murder Mystery, You, The Witcher, Our Planet, Unbelievable, The Irishmen, etc.

You can't really have a discussion of what's going on in American television these days without including Netflix.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Steveknj said:


> Right now, the support for mega mergers is there (think T-Mobile and Sprint, Time Warner and AT&T). In 6 months who knows?


Even if that was the case, it takes much longer than six months to clear a merger so if six months is "who knows" then today is who knows.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> No, Netflix does produce and own a growing portion of the content they refer to as "Netflix Originals". That said, many Netflix Originals are produced by outside studios (e.g. Warner, ViacomCBS, etc.) and exclusively licensed to Netflix on a long-term basis. See here:
> Netflix didn't make many of the "originals" that made it famous. That's changing.
> 
> Buying Netflix would give the acquirer not just the subscriber base but also the content Netflix owns and the content currently under license to them.
> ...


I've been binging on NF content for several years and I still find interesting series and movies on it. Like you, I only spend a few months on it in the course of a year. Too much good stuff all over the place to stay in one spot anymore.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> I've been binging on NF content for several years and I still find interesting series and movies on it. Like you, I only spend a few months on it in the course of a year. Too much good stuff all over the place to stay in one spot anymore.
> 
> Rich


I've yet to find a time that I went on Netflix and didn't find something interesting I hadn't seen before. Of course there are a few stinkers too just to make it a quest! 

I sometimes do with Netflix and other services what I used to do at the library, and that is make a random choice. As with the library, that often results in something new, interesting and oft times really good. But I do see some that don't get a very long viewing.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I'd say that's a really big difference in Apple's original strategy with iTunes vs. their new strategy with Apple TV+.


Apple's content acquisition and product marketing has clearly shifted, but the engine for delivery is more or less content agnostic and probably not a significant leap from iTunes.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

lparsons21 said:


> I've yet to find a time that I went on Netflix and didn't find something interesting I hadn't seen before.


I cancelled NF at the point where the discovery of content rose to a substantial portion of my time in front of the TV. Even with all of the third party search engines that sprang up to address the UI deficiencies, there's just too high a percentage of content that doesn't appeal to me. I may subscribe for a month or so to catch up on something like Lucifer before it goes away entirely but I don't see a long-term relationship.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

harsh said:


> I cancelled NF at the point where the discovery of content rose to a substantial portion of my time in front of the TV. Even with all of the third party search engines that sprang up to address the UI deficiencies, there's just too high a percentage of content that doesn't appeal to me. I may subscribe for a month or so to catch up on something like Lucifer before it goes away entirely but I don't see a long-term relationship.


That's fine though Lucifer isn't on any list of mine. Didn't like it on TV, wouldn't like it on Netflix any better!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> I don't think this is what Microsoft intended as they've made several runs at consumer products but consumers seem to be more careful about spending than businesses and are perhaps less swayed by some of the factors (including fear-mongering) that motivate enterprises to stick with Microsoft products.


Consumers may stick with Microsoft products due to their reliability. Businesses may stick with Microsoft products due to interoperability. Everyone has their own reasons for their loyalties ... I am seeing a lot of Apple desktops in meetings when another company is screen sharing. Both companies are generally reliable monoliths. Both have people who hate them just as much for non-technical reasons as they love the other company for non-technical reasons.



harsh said:


> Leave it to you to go off into the weeds.


That's funny. We have been in the weeds for a while - lest anyone read the thread title for a hint at the topic.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Consumers may stick with Microsoft products due to their reliability.


This reliability may be more of a marketing buzzword than an actual deliverable. One thing I consider Microsoft 100% reliable at is Outluck's nasty habit of sending a spate of TNEF encoded e-mails (winmail.dat) e-mails at least once every six months.


> Businesses may stick with Microsoft products due to interoperability.


Again, this seems to be a goal that obviously isn't nearly as easy to realize as it is to market.


> Everyone has their own reasons for their loyalties ... I am seeing a lot of Apple desktops in meetings when another company is screen sharing.


I've yet to see a Mac used in a business demonstration (screen sharing or live). I suspect this has mostly to do with the hoops that must be jumped through in hooking Mac notebooks up to external displays and wired LANs. I have seen Chromebooks and Android phones. An iPhone presentation was done using an ATV (Quickbooks' TSheets cloud app to demonstrate that they had finally implemented a functional iOS version of their app).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

You obviously have some personal issues with Microsoft.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> You obviously have some personal issues with Microsoft.


I was my former employer's IT department for 35 years so I have both personal and professional issues with Microsoft.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> Apple's content acquisition and product marketing has clearly shifted, but the engine for delivery is more or less content agnostic and probably not a significant leap from iTunes.


Yes, in terms of Apple's back-end servers, content encoding, delivery networks, etc., I'm sure they just took what was already in place for iTunes and used that for Apple TV+ too.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> That's funny. We have been in the weeds for a while - lest anyone read the thread title for a hint at the topic.


That's what inevitably happens with threads on most forums. At some point, there just isn't that much more to be said about the original topic, so the discussion meanders. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

harsh said:


> This reliability may be more of a marketing buzzword than an actual deliverable. One thing I consider Microsoft 100% reliable at is Outluck's nasty habit of sending a spate of TNEF encoded e-mails (winmail.dat) e-mails at least once every six months.Again, this seems to be a goal that obviously isn't nearly as easy to realize as it is to market.I've yet to see a Mac used in a business demonstration (screen sharing or live). I suspect this has mostly to do with the hoops that must be jumped through in hooking Mac notebooks up to external displays and wired LANs. I have seen Chromebooks and Android phones. An iPhone presentation was done using an ATV (Quickbooks' TSheets cloud app to demonstrate that they had finally implemented a functional iOS version of their app).


Obviously you don't like Microsoft. I suspect it's more personal at this point, because most of the complaints I used hear about Microsoft, is mostly not true anymore. Nothing is 100% reliable, and if someone says it it, they are lying.

As for Apple in business presentations, the company I work with is about a 50/50 Mac/PC shop. In my own group it's 50/50. We each get the hardware to work with it. And since there are HDMI adapters available for both, or they are built in, display issues or LAN issues. Many businesses, especially larger ones are reluctant to change, can usually get better deals buying Dell or Lenovo or whatever Windows based PC in bulk than they could with Apple, so they are more prevalent in larger companies. That's the main reason these days.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I suspect it's more personal at this point, because most of the complaints I used hear about Microsoft, is mostly not true anymore.


Maybe you're just not keeping up anymore.

Microsoft products are flagged with new issues all the time. Take a look at any of the recent CERT reports (i.e. Vulnerability Summary for the Week of September 14, 2020 | CISA) and you'll see a significant number of vulnerabilities in the list that are specific to Windows 10 and Office 365. These are just the vulnerabilities -- there's also issues with functionality that they don't announce until they think they have a solution (Apple is even worse about this). Of course since Microsoft has taken up a position of not speaking to older versions, they may have the same issues that have only recently been discovered. Some of the old beefs (like Microsoft's proprietary mangling of e-mail) may never be addressed.

Just because Microsoft does something a particular way doesn't make it ideal or even desirable. What's in vogue this year will be verboten in three years. What browser will they recommend developers code for next year?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

And most importantly, what does this have to do with AT&T?


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

harsh said:


> Maybe you're just not keeping up anymore.
> 
> Microsoft products are flagged with new issues all the time. Take a look at any of the recent CERT reports (i.e. Vulnerability Summary for the Week of September 14, 2020 | CISA) and you'll see a significant number of vulnerabilities in the list that are specific to Windows 10 and Office 365. These are just the vulnerabilities -- there's also issues with functionality that they don't announce until they think they have a solution (Apple is even worse about this). Of course since Microsoft has taken up a position of not speaking to older versions, they may have the same issues that have only recently been discovered. Some of the old beefs (like Microsoft's proprietary mangling of e-mail) may never be addressed.
> 
> Just because Microsoft does something a particular way doesn't make it ideal or even desirable. What's in vogue this year will be verboten in three years. What browser will they recommend developers code for next year?


This is nothing new....EVERY hardware, software or other tech company will always have a whole host of issues. Apple, Google, AT&T, Oracle, whoever. That's nothing new. Microsoft's mature products are still much more stable than they have in the past. I work for a software company. Our product is 1000% better than it was when I first started at this company 6 years ago (the company is around 20 years old), and we still have a huge list of issues. It's just the nature of the beast.


----------



## Teetertotter (Jul 23, 2020)

So.......how soon will ATT find a DTV partner?? Yes, with the COVD and with some of their CS offices closed, wait times maybe long or inexperienced people for ALL issues. Most don't know where or how to go to the, "Help Guide," and maybe resolve the issue on their own. Those that get a code on the TV, don't know how to look it up on the internet and possibly resolve. Most people, if they just pull the plug on the DVR, for example, and replug the pwr, etc.... resolve will come about. You know what I mean?? We hear about complaints, but not the good. Then the people that subscribe and not done the research on what package might best fit their viewing pleasure....long story short. I think the biggest issue, is that ATT/DTV has subcontractors for installs ...etc., that many are very inexperienced and don't worry about being fired....long story short. I had a very experienced installer 9 months ago, HD wireless, for 2 tv's with main in the basement. Before he left, I had him do the signal testing and all were 100%, on a nice clear 35F day. He was surprised and happy. I switched from having U-Verse and had DTV in our previous house, 15 years ago. Life is good with our Ultimate Package and expect an increase this January, but plan to catch early, for offers/negotiate. lol


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Teetertotter said:


> So.......how soon will ATT find a DTV partner??


That depends mostly on how realistic AT&T is willing to get regarding the current value of DIRECTV (versus what AT&T thinks it is worth or needs to wring out of it) and how much of the stock they want to keep.

Negotiations such as these are typically kept very private so we probably won't know if there is a deal cooking until it is done. Once the deal is made, then comes the regulatory persecution review.


----------



## Teetertotter (Jul 23, 2020)

My aim was to get this thread back on track as the Thread Title Mentions. I really don't care one way or the other, but makes for good conversation, don't you think? I'm sure there are people investigating every day, if anything is going on or NOT.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Teetertotter said:


> I'm sure there are people investigating every day, if anything is going on or NOT.


Surely AT&T and Goldman Sachs are doing their due diligence. Outside of them and any potential buyer/partner, outside "investigators" can't make much headway due to NDAs almost universally engaged in by parties involved in such negotiations.

Speculation and guessing at possible buyers has been interesting but there really hasn't been anything interesting come out of any deal talks.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

AT&T's president said the reports of a sale are very much premature, they were just exploring options and word got out and people made assumptions.


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

*AT&T pushes ahead with auction of DirecTV despite lowball bids *

https://nypost.com/2020/10/06/att-pushes-ahead-with-auction-of-directv-despite-lowball-bids/


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

DirectMan said:


> *AT&T pushes ahead with auction of DirecTV despite lowball bids *
> 
> https://nypost.com/2020/10/06/att-pushes-ahead-with-auction-of-directv-despite-lowball-bids/


Consider the source.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> Consider the source.


Really Really Really Really consider the source


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

Similar article but references that D* has stopped offering Select package to new customers. Great way to reduce new customer counts.

AT&T stands to lose big on DirecTV sale: report


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

DirectMan said:


> Similar article but references that D* has stopped offering Select package to new customers. Great way to reduce new customer counts.
> 
> AT&T stands to lose big on DirecTV sale: report


Old News. They stopped offering select weeks ago and that article also references the Post which is a Tabloid paper


----------



## mitchflorida (May 18, 2009)

The story is accurate. If DirecTV is sold to a hedge fund in a leveraged buyout, prices will be raised further and more employees will be laid off. They have to do that so they can pay down the large loans used to acquire the company. It would probably be better if AT&T didn't sell to anyone but Dish.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

mitchflorida said:


> The story is accurate. If DirecTV is sold to a hedge fund in a leveraged buyout, prices will be raised further and more employees will be laid off. They have to do that so they can pay down the large loans used to acquire the company. It would probably be better if AT&T didn't sell to anyone but Dish.


The Post is a tabloid paper. So unless aliens are also living amongst us then I don't believe anything they print


----------



## bjdotson (Feb 20, 2007)

compnurd said:


> The Post is a tabloid paper. So unless aliens are also living amongst us then I don't believe anything they print


watching the news everyday convinces me that aliens did arrive on this planet sometime in the last 50 years and infiltrated ALL walks of life.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'll give some credit to the NY Post for original reporting ... although they lose credit for having all anonymous sources. Often sites simply regurgitate what other sites have posted adding their own interpretation. That isn't news ... that is opinion (and speculation).

If their sources are good it does illustrate what a bad idea it is to sell DIRECTV.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

mitchflorida said:


> The story is accurate. If DirecTV is sold to a hedge fund in a leveraged buyout, prices will be raised further and more employees will be laid off. They have to do that so they can pay down the large loans used to acquire the company. It would probably be better if AT&T didn't sell to anyone but Dish.


While I agree with your premise, if they are bought by a hedge fund with a leveraged buyout, this is still just speculation which has been reported for weeks. The NY Post is not exactly a bastion of business news. They try and sensationalize everything to sell papers.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

If DIRECTV is sold what will that do to the programming costs to AT&T for their TV service? IIRC one of the original justifications for the deal was to get the millions of subscriber numbers to all AT&T to get better pricing for programming then if they didn't have them.


----------



## Chuck W (Mar 26, 2002)

When I read articles about Directv and them dropping subs at an alarming rate, nobody seems to consider IMO the real reason why, beyond the "oh, they want Netflix and such". How about, people are tired of the bait and switch pricing where the 2nd year is a fortune compared to the first and they don't want to be locked into a 2yr deal? How about simply offering reasonable/competitive pricing where maybe lock people in for just a year, with no jack your rates while locked in?

It's frustrating. I had Directv for 16 years and loved it until the prices just got too high. Even after my great startup deal with my cable company ended, I'm still just over $200 for most of their channels AND internet(200gbps) AND phone. The reason I came back looking was because Spectrum is slowly dropping channels or moving them to "x-tra" type paks that cost extra, while at the same time creeping up my bill. I was really disappointed to see them still doing the bait and switch type 2nd year pricing model and 2 year lock of many years ago. Even with the creep and channel loss, I am still well below what Directv would cost me overall. It the prices were even somewhat close, I would jump back quickly as I miss the quality picture of Directv(vs the poor Mpeg 2 motion pixelation of Spectrum).

If the new buyers address this, it may be a somewhat profitable endeavor.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Chuck W said:


> How about, people are tired of the bait and switch pricing where the 2nd year is a fortune compared to the first and they don't want to be locked into a 2yr deal?


This hypothetical makes a likely flawed assumption that most all of those who are jumping ship have recently passed their first anniversary. I expect that subscribers of all terms are dropping the service for reasons other than being too lazy to read the terms of the new subscriber offer. It isn't bait and switch if it is clearly stated in the terms (this wasn't always the case as evidenced by some hefty court fines sustained by DIRECTV)

Anyone who entered into the new subscriber deal that assumed they could negotiate credits for the second year were either lied to or were suffering from a serious case of self-righteousness. Speaking of credits, the fact that they're much harder to come by regardless of tenure is surely among the primary causes of the departures.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

The NY Post has dropped another article about the AT&T "auction" of DIRECTV. Now they say that AT&T and/or DISH has received a warning shot across their bow from the DOJ that a merger still isn't an option.

I predict that what's left of DIRECTV is eventually going to end up with DISH (since no other company has the synergies) so why drag it out? I can't imagine that delaying it is going to add measurable impetus to wireless service coverage expansion to make an appreciable difference.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> The NY Post has dropped another article about the AT&T "auction" of DIRECTV. Now they say that AT&T and/or DISH has received a warning shot across their bow from the DOJ that a merger still isn't an option.
> 
> I predict that what's left of DIRECTV is eventually going to end up with DISH (since no other company has the synergies) so why drag it out? I can't imagine that delaying it is going to add measurable impetus to wireless service coverage expansion to make an appreciable difference.


Yeah. Here's the same info, different source:
DOJ Wants DirecTV & Dish Merger To Wait: Sources

I agree with you (and Charlie Ergen) that DTV and DISH will inevitably merge or combine operations at some point. But I can understand the DOJ's reluctance to sign off on it yet, as it would eliminate too much competition and probably result in higher TV prices for rural customers right now. Couple years from now may be different after a full rollout of Starlink plus more fixed wireless home internet from T-Mo, Verizon and AT&T.

Sounds like AT&T doesn't want to wait that long to divest it, though. So DTV will probably end up in some sort of limbo status for awhile until it ultimately joins DISH in the DBS nursing home.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> But I can understand the DOJ's reluctance to sign off on it yet, as it would eliminate too much competition and probably result in higher TV prices for rural customers right now.


I'm not sure I buy this reasoning. I reason that DISH and DIRECTV both count a large majority of their customer bases in areas that already have alternatives and I really can't see them going to regional rate structuring whether separate or together (outside of DIRECTV's RSN fees that abuses everyone in a sports market equally whether metropolitan or rural).

That the rural folk can't count YTTV, SlingTV and similar among them isn't something that the federal government should necessarily get involved in. I think the government should promote lifeline Internet access, but that's a different service level entirely.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> I'm not sure I buy this reasoning.


There's still a decent number of folks, mostly rural, whose only options for pay TV are DTV and DISH (and Orby, but it's not a full-fledged service). No cable provider at their address, or any kind of broadband, so therefore no access to OTT services either.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> There's still a decent number of folks, mostly rural, whose only options for pay TV are DTV and DISH (and Orby, but it's not a full-fledged service).


That's part of the deal when you're a rural resident: Some goods and services that are taken for granted in other locales may not be as cheap or as accessible while others may be cheaper and/or just down the road apiece. There are always trade-offs based on the life decisions that one makes -- it isn't an issue of justice or fairness. It is, after all, just TV.

Given that each and every customer in a particular DBS TV market obviously carries the same cost of delivery, creating a special "because you don't have any alternatives" rate would surely be a non-starter.

I challenge you to explain how delaying the logical conclusion in the DBS marketplace is going to actively promote rural Internet expansion or conversely, how allowing them to merge is necessarily going to impede expansion.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> I challenge you to explain how delaying the logical conclusion in the DBS marketplace is going to actively promote rural Internet expansion or conversely, how allowing them to merge is necessarily going to impede expansion.


I do not see a merger as a required outcome. That is one of the biggest problems I have with those stirring this rumored plan - they want to separate DIRECTV from AT&T in some way but when they involve DISH they have crossed a line. The owners of DISH have zero desire to sell their satellite service - it is the core of their company. It would be like some venture capitalist buying Walmart retail to merge with a struggling chain and letting Walmart continue to run their manufacturing plants.

The merger or non-merger of the satellite systems has no effect on rural Internet - the DOJ issue would be whether or not they consider the rural TV market important enough to protect from having only one satellite based carrier. Having better rural Internet would affect the decision to allow the satellite systems to merge - but the DOJ is not expecting rural Internet to improve based on the number of satellite companies available.

At some point the market share for DBS will be low enough that the DOJ will not care if they merge or not. We are not at that point. The DOJ will look at the entire marketplace, not just the rural areas where a third option (non-satellite) either isn't available or doesn't compete. There are two thresholds that satisfy the DOJ - the first is the number of people affected. If only (random number) 5% of Americans would end up with no competing service then the deal doesn't hurt 95% of Americans. The second threshold is the number of people still served by the companies. The total number of satellite subscribers is still good today - but what happens when the total number of subscriber drops to (random number) 5 million satellite subscribers? The impact of the merger is weakened and DOJ cares less.

Bottom line - Don't expect a merger soon. Even considering Mr Ergen suggesting that the companies will eventually be one he isn't suggesting that one will occur soon. And he certainly isn't looking to give up control of his company to some venture capitalist who will disappear in a few years. He's more interested in a fire sale where DISH remains in control.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> I do not see a merger as a required outcome.


Suffice it to say that, like the Highlanders, at some point there will be only one whether they get there through a merger or through attrition.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> That's part of the deal when you're a rural resident: Some goods and services that are taken for granted in other locales may not be as cheap or as accessible while others may be cheaper and/or just down the road apiece. There are always trade-offs based on the life decisions that one makes -- it isn't an issue of justice or fairness. It is, after all, just TV.


One of the things that the DOJ (supposedly) does is protect American consumers from monopolies. And right now, the merger of DTV and DISH would create an effective monopoly on cable TV service for a number of Americans that is apparently (based on this recent report) too high for the DOJ to allow. As time goes on, that number will fall because an increasing number of those people will gain access to some form of broadband at their homes this decade (and as a home gains access to broadband, it also gains access to all sorts of pay TV options).



harsh said:


> Given that each and every customer in a particular DBS TV market obviously carries the same cost of delivery, creating a special "because you don't have any alternatives" rate would surely be a non-starter.


If the DOJ were to approve a DTV/DISH merger at this point (and it sounds like they won't), then some kind of price cap guarantee is exactly the sort of concession I would expect the DOJ to insist on to keep the company from abusing its monopoly power. Who knows whether it would apply to all DTV/DISH customers nationwide or maybe only to those in certain zip codes (where the DOJ believes other options likely don't exist).



harsh said:


> I challenge you to explain how delaying the logical conclusion in the DBS marketplace is going to actively promote rural Internet expansion or conversely, how allowing them to merge is necessarily going to impede expansion.


That's a completely different issue. The DOJ isn't concerned with whether or how the merger would impact the spread of rural broadband. Rather, per this recent report, the DOJ is saying that the spread of rural broadband (and the access it inherently brings to a range of competing pay TV options) is a necessary precondition to allow the merger. Presence of broadband in an area means no local monopoly power for DBS in the pay TV market.


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

harsh said:


> That's part of the deal when you're a rural resident: Some goods and services that are taken for granted in other locales may not be as cheap or as accessible while others may be cheaper and/or just down the road apiece. There are always trade-offs based on the life decisions that one makes -- it isn't an issue of justice or fairness. It is, after all, just TV.
> 
> Given that each and every customer in a particular DBS TV market obviously carries the same cost of delivery, creating a special "because you don't have any alternatives" rate would surely be a non-starter.
> 
> I challenge you to explain how delaying the logical conclusion in the DBS marketplace is going to actively promote rural Internet expansion or conversely, how allowing them to merge is necessarily going to impede expansion.


Yup, it is only TV.....except broadband access is no longer a luxury in modern life, it is a necessity. People who like to look down their noses at "rural folk" have no idea how lack of broadband in a pandemic is hurting people in area where it is not available. Many students in rural areas of the country could not do remote learning because they were limited by their internet connection. Ever seen a modern combine ? It has more technology in it than a modern luxury car. The old bromide that us "rural folk" are like Ma and Pa Kettle is a really lazy stereotype.

I live in a rural area that has FTTH, a solid connection, and gigabyte service. Many in Iowa do not. Broadband access is not just about streaming Netflix. The sooner people realize this, the sooner we will get the problem fixed.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> One of the things that the DOJ (supposedly) does is protect American consumers from monopolies.


While they would have a relative monopoly on service to customers who have little choice (not having pay TV is certainly an option), I invite you to offer reason that having such a "monopoly" would logically lead to the addition of a separate rural pricing tier. Neither provider is engaging in regional pricing now (other than differences directly associated with regional cost of service) and there's probably little reason to fight over the number of customers that we're probably talking about in terms of a huge money grab.

Just because there's a remote possibility that it might happen (or perhaps someone at the DOJ has a axe to grind with Charlie) isn't as easy to defend as it is to quote.


> If the DOJ were to approve a DTV/DISH merger at this point (and it sounds like they won't), then some kind of price cap guarantee is exactly the sort of concession I would expect the DOJ to insist on to keep the company from abusing its monopoly power.


DOJ conditions since the NBC/Comcast debacle should not satisfy anyone. They're obviously blown off in many cases.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> While they would have a relative monopoly on service to customers who have little choice (not having pay TV is certainly an option), I invite you to offer reason that having such a "monopoly" would logically lead to the addition of a separate rural pricing tier.


Are you asking me about the likelihood that a post-merger DTV/DISH would themselves set different prices based on geography, e.g. higher prices for rural customers likelier to have no other choices vs. lower prices for in other areas in order to be competitive with cable, etc? If that's what you're asking, no, I doubt that's very likely. What is fairly likely, though, is that they would just set nationwide pricing that's not very competitive because they know that the user base for DBS is in freefall and will continue to shrink down to a core of (mostly rural) consumers who either have no other choices or who, for whatever reasons, just love their satellite TV (or can't be bothered to switch). Right now, DISH and DTV keep each other in check to some extent on pricing. Remove each other's direct competitor and it seems pretty likely to me that you'd see bigger annual price increases, maybe the end of free installation, etc.

I mean, look, neither DTV or DISH right now have very good pricing versus what you might pay for cable TV when bundled with that same company's broadband service. (Although some DTV customers do get a bundling discount for getting it with AT&T Internet.) Satellite TV is getting hit both by the cord-cutting trend that's affecting all cable TV operators but also by folks who are switching from satellite TV to TV service from the same company they get broadband from (e.g. Comcast, Charter, Verizon, Altice, Cox, etc.) in order to save some money (and maybe also avoid rain/snow fade). So DBS is already not that competitive versus non-DBS cable TV on price (at least if you combine cable TV with broadband). If DTV and DISH merged, I'd expect the pricing disparity to increase.



harsh said:


> Just because there's a remote possibility that it might happen (or perhaps someone at the DOJ has a axe to grind with Charlie) isn't as easy to defend as it is to quote.DOJ conditions since the NBC/Comcast debacle should not satisfy anyone. They're obviously blown off in many cases.


Whether the conditions are blown off or not after the merger doesn't stop them from being initially imposed as protective remedies/fig leaves to allow the merger to go through in the first place.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

There would be little benefit cost wise from such a merger. Sure, billing/management could be combined which saves a little money, and call centers could be combined if they train everyone on both systems.

There would be no savings as far as satellites go, Dish would still need to launch replacement satellites when needed (Directv is good through about 2030 or so) because it would cost far more to replace everyone's Dish dish with a Directv dish. Since neither really has any reason to introduce new equipment beyond minor updates dictated by component obsolescence, it might not even make sense to merge the hardware lines.

The main reason why Dish and Directv would want to merge would be to increase revenue per customer, not by saving money. Not necessarily by raising prices, but by eliminating promotions where you start out with lower prices, get free installs, etc. They both probably realize that they're going to become niche in cities where people can get better prices with a cable TV double play, or go streaming only, so if they didn't need to compete against each other for the rural customers that still need them that's how they justify a merger financially.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

I think a best of both service could do pretty well as long as they didn't push for a >$150 ARPU like DIRECTV seems to be gunning for. They may also have more clout with content providers and taxing jurisdictions if they suddenly became one of the largest MVPDs. I think one of the big reasons that the old school model has suffered is that DIRECTV has shown a distinct lack of backbone in fighting for what's good for all.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I look at SiriusXM as the model for a satellite TV merger. One subscribes to SiriusXM but gets a slightly different lineup depending on if one is using Sirius or XM based equipment. They continue to maintain two separate satellite systems. There are few radios that get both systems.

I don't see a lot of savings at the CSR or install level - one still has to have X number of CSRs per Y customers - unless one just ruins the CSR experience (and AT&T can do that without a merger). There would be some savings from the people who flip back and forth between DISH and DIRECTV - they would no longer need to install and reinstall for those customers. In a good world they would size management based on the size of their workforce - but that is another area where they could easily cut managers without merging and just make the company worse in the process. Top management could be reduced.

I agree that "increasing revenue" would be the target - even though there would be some cost savings. It would be nice if they just had a competitive price for all subscribers instead of monster discounts for some and less for others. One of the things that allows for monster discounts from DIRECTV is NFL Sunday Ticket. Commercial account income and a flat rate paid to the NFL make that an easy giveaway. When DIRECTV loses NFL Sunday Ticket I expect the gravy train will end for the subscribers getting monster discounts.

In a few years the DOJ won't care if 10 million total satellite customers are served by one company or two. Just like they ceased to care about SiriusXM.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> I don't see a lot of savings at the CSR or install level - one still has to have X number of CSRs per Y customers - unless one just ruins the CSR experience (and AT&T can do that without a merger). There would be some savings from the people who flip back and forth between DISH and DIRECTV - they would no longer need to install and reinstall for those customers.


Nobody says they must keep both hardware models. They could move the programming to one platform or the other. DISH's Hopper system with the addition of some of the DIRECTV patents could be pretty tasty.

Not having a unified hardware model is still a confounding element of the combined SiriusXM operation (one of the issues that has annoyed customers and regulators from the very beginning).

This would eventually reduce the breadth of support coverage as well has the repair and installation side of things.

Not having to do battle with the other guys will also allow the combined operation to make a better focused effort on the remaining competition (while painting a bigger target on their own back).


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> There would be little benefit cost wise from such a merger. Sure, billing/management could be combined which saves a little money, and call centers could be combined if they train everyone on both systems.
> 
> There would be no savings as far as satellites go, Dish would still need to launch replacement satellites when needed (Directv is good through about 2030 or so) because it would cost far more to replace everyone's Dish dish with a Directv dish. Since neither really has any reason to introduce new equipment beyond minor updates dictated by component obsolescence, it might not even make sense to merge the hardware lines.
> 
> The main reason why Dish and Directv would want to merge would be to increase revenue per customer, not by saving money. Not necessarily by raising prices, but by eliminating promotions where you start out with lower prices, get free installs, etc. They both probably realize that they're going to become niche in cities where people can get better prices with a cable TV double play, or go streaming only, so if they didn't need to compete against each other for the rural customers that still need them that's how they justify a merger financially.


The main reason I think would be larger customer base for bargaining with the networks more than anything. And to bundle if dish ever gets their cell service off the ground that would increase their chances of growing that business.

But att may be proof that doesn't matter to much. Not sure.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> Nobody says they must keep both hardware models. They could move the programming to one platform or the other. DISH's Hopper system with the addition of some of the DIRECTV patents could be pretty tasty.


Converting either system's customer base over to the other system would be expensive. There would be some cost savings in shutting down uplink centers but no cost savings in abandoning working satellites. And it would be a bad decision to spend all of the expenses saved in the merger on converting customer equipment.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> And it would be a bad decision to spend all of the expenses saved in the merger on converting customer equipment.


Not if they're in it for the long game.

There's a lot of creaky installed equipment on both sides and if they can spread the costs of developing updated solutions across more customers, that's a win for customers and the company.

DIRECTV is looking down the barrel of having to do some serious upgrades either way with their long-promised but seemingly glacial initiative of getting rid of equipment that can't handle the preferred compression, stacking and multiplexing schemes.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> The main reason I think would be larger customer base for bargaining with the networks more than anything. And to bundle if dish ever gets their cell service off the ground that would increase their chances of growing that business.
> 
> But att may be proof that doesn't matter to much. Not sure.


Yep. Any thought that one could simply join two companies and get a better deal on programming was certainly proven difficult by AT&T|DIRECTV. Rewriting the deals takes time.

I expect that the programmers would treat a DISH|DIRECTV merger the same way. No discounts for synergy - no ability for DISH customers to instantly get DIRECTV carried channels or DIRECTV customers to instantly get DISH carried channels. Just another reason for the programmers to ask for a renegotiation.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> The main reason I think would be larger customer base for bargaining with the networks more than anything. And to bundle if dish ever gets their cell service off the ground that would increase their chances of growing that business.
> 
> But att may be proof that doesn't matter to much. Not sure.


That depends on how long the current contracts run. AT&T has owned Directv for four years, and still don't have all the contracts combined. The biggest savings would presumably be in the most expensive ones, i.e. sports channels.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

James Long said:


> Converting either system's customer base over to the other system would be expensive. There would be some cost savings in shutting down uplink centers but no cost savings in abandoning working satellites. And it would be a bad decision to spend all of the expenses saved in the merger on converting customer equipment.


I don't know. Since the FCC is taking C band for cell phones, they might find a market for their satellites/slots on KU band (Dish) that would make it worth it.

I have access to like 20 streaming services, two cable companies, and two satellite companies for TV. I chose to come back to DirecTv when I got my 75" TV. Xfinity was ok on a 55", but terrible on a 75" Streaming is mostly all 720p as well. Most all the channels I watch look better on DirecTv. Never had Dish, but suspect they look better than 720p as well.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Davenlr said:


> I don't know. Since the FCC is taking C band for cell phones, they might find a market for their satellites/slots on KU band (Dish) that would make it worth it.


The FCC auction is for the spectrum to be used at ground level, not for the satellites and orbital positions.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> The FCC auction is for the spectrum to be used at ground level, not for the satellites and orbital positions.


That doesn't mean that the satellites have no value. They can be repurposed. The question is whether the price is enough to justify (or cover the cost of) an investment in consolidating equipment.

Of course, there is also consideration of reduced operating costs from fewer uplink centers and common equipment. So it sounds like a crap shoot on the long term viability of two separate satellite fleets under a merged company.

However, pricing is going to be problematic because the only real asset is a shrinking customer base.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

Davenlr said:


> I don't know. Since the FCC is taking C band for cell phones, they might find a market for their satellites/slots on KU band (Dish) that would make it worth it.
> 
> I have access to like 20 streaming services, two cable companies, and two satellite companies for TV. I chose to come back to DirecTv when I got my 75" TV. Xfinity was ok on a 55", but terrible on a 75" Streaming is mostly all 720p as well. Most all the channels I watch look better on DirecTv. Never had Dish, but suspect they look better than 720p as well.


i heard dish only broadcasts in 480I - 720P how true it is i dunno. i tried sling t.v. and the PQ was subpar compared to other sources..


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

krel said:


> i heard dish only broadcasts in 480I - 720P how true it is i dunno. i tried sling t.v. and the PQ was subpar compared to other sources..


Its not True.. However dish does use a much lower bitrate


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

compnurd said:


> Its not True.. However dish does use a much lower bitrate


any idea what there using. they should be broadcasting in 1080I if anything


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

wmb said:


> That doesn't mean that the satellites have no value. They can be repurposed.


Satellites are designed to work on specific frequencies with specific transponders. When the FCC takes away the C band from satellite for ground assignments there is no magic that will allow those satellites to be used on other bands. The same applies to DBS satellites. IF the FCC reassigned the DBS band for ground use the DBS satellites would be useless. The only potential for value would be in foreign service - but US DBS satellites are designed with footprints designed to cover the US from US orbital positions. Not many companies want to transmit a US shaped footprint over China or another area that uses the DBS frequencies. The potential for reuse decreases with spot beam satellites designed for US use.

Not the the FCC is planning on repurposing the DBS band. It would take international cooperation to do so and there is no guarantee that the then current licensees would be compensated for their licenses or remaining years of satellite life. The biggest value those satellites and licenses have to DISH and DIRECTV is to transmit television services. Turning off satellites does not add value.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

krel said:


> any idea what there using. they should be broadcasting in 1080I if anything


They broadcast in 480i/720p/1080i and 4K Just like Directv


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

compnurd said:


> They broadcast in 480i/720p/1080i and 4K Just like Directv


I believe he is referring to streaming - SlingTV. You are correct for satellite but I can't speak for streaming.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> Turning off satellites does not add value.


At 11 million customers for Dish, or 16 million for DirecTV, the equipment swap out cost would be 10-20% of the possible $15 billion purchase price.

The question is cost of operating two sets of satellites, and payback period of the swap. If it costs $500 million a year to operate two uplinks, then it may be worthwhile to turn off the satellite. Somewhere around a three to five year payback period may be worth it to consolidate operations.

It's not about added value. It's about capital expenditures, operating costs and revenues.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

James Long said:


> I believe he is referring to streaming - SlingTV. You are correct for satellite but I can't speak for streaming.


i was talking about the sat service. as i could never tell the difference between the two. though i heard people say they don't broadcast above 720P!!!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

wmb said:


> That doesn't mean that the satellites have no value. They can be repurposed.


Taken alone, I expect that Ka band satellites with US coverage and 36MHz transponders would be a particularly difficult sell.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

wmb said:


> It's not about added value. It's about capital expenditures, operating costs and revenues.


So why do you (and others) keep coming up with ways to increase capital expenditures and operating costs?
Turning off working satellites that cannot be sold to another service and spending millions to replace customer equipment is a waste of money.
One of the things DIRECTV has done right is not arbitrarily push forward on the replacement of MPEG2 receivers within their own system.

Forcing dish and equipment changes for millions of subscribers - which would include the loss of saved programming on DVRs - would annoy customers and push more customers out the door. One of the mistakes AT&T has made is the attitude that they "own" their customers and can force them to move from one service to another. They talk of moving customers from satellite to streaming as if they "own" the customer and the customer has no choice but to stay with AT&T. Yet the past couple years have certainly shown that AT&T|DIRECTV is capable of losing millions of customers - even pre-pandemic.

A few years of parallel running is much cheaper than forcing all subscribers over to one system or the other.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

krel said:


> i was talking about the sat service. as i could never tell the difference between the two. though i heard people say they don't broadcast above 720P!!!


You are listening to the wrong people.

As noted, DISH satellite transmits 4K, 1080i, 720p and 480i. Their receivers also handle 1080p (used for PPV content). "Everything 720p" sounds more like Xfinity.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> One of the things DIRECTV has done right is not arbitrarily push forward on the replacement of MPEG2 receivers within their own system.


I disagree. I think many aspects of being a DIRECTV subscriber would be improved if everyone was current:

No more 110W and 119W views required
More features for many (expanded guide data, apps)

Access to HD-only channels for all

Getting rid of multiple cable runs from the roof
Better diagnostic tools
Lower power consumption
Done correctly, many may realize fewer (or at least shorter) rain fade events on popular channels
Possibly less customer service fuss given a smaller script tree
There may actually be some new receivers manufactured
The downsides are:

Some would have to get a much larger dish placed in an easily accessible location
I submit that peddling a system that is in need of making this next step that they've had as a goal for a long time now is going to cost them at the negotiation table.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

wmb said:


> That doesn't mean that the satellites have no value. They can be repurposed. The question is whether the price is enough to justify (or cover the cost of) an investment in consolidating equipment.


They really can't be. They have spotbeams specific to US locations, and the national beams are specific to the US. Who is going to buy a DBS satellite with US coverage, other than a DBS company that operates in the US? There are only three, and one (Orby) is tiny and uses only a couple of transponders and has no need to own their own satellite.

There is no equipment consolidation possible, consider how much would it cost to replace the dish for 9 million Dish customers with a Directv dish. How many of them would need to have their equipment replaced with new hardware compatible with Directv (anything able to use their 'hybrid LNB' which is basically SWM could perhaps be made compatible with new software) That would cost several billion dollars, and take years to accomplish. There's no way any possible savings in avoided cost of launching new satellites, or even some fantasy that old satellites could be sold, could come close to that figure.

Consolidation is a fantasy, it isn't even worth thinking about. If Directv and Dish merged they'd have to be operated separately from a satellite and equipment perspective.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Maybe a company like StarLink would buy DirecTv to be able to bundle TV with their soon to be operational satellite internet service. I believe he has the money to buy it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> I disagree. I think many aspects of being a DIRECTV subscriber would be improved if everyone was current:
> 
> No more 110W and 119W views required
> More features for many (expanded guide data, apps)
> ...


You are putting way too much value on the move away from MPEG2/SD. And you are ignoring the major down side of paying for those conversions. The people who need 110/119 already have those orbitals. (If you're planning a "if you don't have 110/119 one is missing some obscure channels" rant you might want to check the list - and take it down a notch.)


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> You are putting way too much value on the move away from MPEG2/SD.


Perhaps you place too little value on replacing old creaky hardware with modern hardware and software. The new equipment offers some enticing opportunities that the old hardware can't support.

DIRECTV (and subsequently AT&T) has gone on record as wanting to get rid of the outdated technology for many years so that is clearly what they want to do. If they drag it out until later, there will be fewer customers left to spread the cost over. Given that a large percentage of the hardware that is being installed now is not new, I'm not convinced that it would cost like a new installation. The one possible problem is that DIRECTV seems to have underestimated the need for non-DVR receivers (especially in commercial installs where DVR service is not an option).

Most of the customers that still have a lot of legacy hardware have demonstrated that they're in it for the long haul. If they weren't, the attrition scheme would have solved the problem.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> Perhaps you place too little value on replacing old creaky hardware with modern hardware and software. The new equipment offers some enticing opportunities that the old hardware can't support.


Enticing opportunities such as what?

They aren't replacing old creaky hardware with modern hardware and software. They are replacing REALLY old REALLY creaky hardware with simply old hardware and software. OK sure, most of the people who are getting MPEG2 SD upgrades are getting Genies, which are fairly new, but there are still plenty of people out there with H2x and HR2x stuff, which is mostly 10-15 years old now.

Directv planned this long ago because they knew the satellites at 101/110/119 would need replacement around this time, and 1) didn't want to replace the spot beams on their new 101 sat and 2) didn't want to replace 110/119 at all. If it wasn't for that, they'd probably have been happy to keep taking money from customers paying for MPEG2 SD reception and using 20 year old receivers for as long as they were willing to stick around.

They are also still renting seven transponders on G3C at 95 for international channels, once they move the MPEG4 mirror for those channels off reverse band to Ka (which I'm guessing will happen before the end of the year) they will only need international package subscribers to have upgraded any MPEG2 SD receivers and they can end their use of G3C (pretty much all of those subscribers already have slimlines because of the way Directv did those installs, so those upgrades are cheap)

Intelsat (G3C's owner) filed an extension of its license last year indicating that they intended to use it in inclined orbit eventually, which would extend its fuel life to 2026. I'm sure they are eager for Directv to vacate it so it can begin its new mission, whatever that is.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Enticing opportunities such as what?


See post 368.


> OK sure, most of the people who are getting MPEG2 SD upgrades are getting Genies, which are fairly new, but there are still plenty of people out there with H2x and HR2x stuff, which is mostly 10-15 years old now.


Versus receivers that are much greater than 15 years old, there are many wins.


> If it wasn't for that, they'd probably have been happy to keep taking money from customers paying for MPEG2 SD reception and using 20 year old receivers for as long as they were willing to stick around.


Yet with apps and other new technology, they might have some hope of wringing even more money out of the customers that didn't know what they were missing out on.


> Intelsat (G3C's owner) filed an extension of its license last year indicating that they intended to use it in inclined orbit eventually, which would extend its fuel life to 2026. I'm sure they are eager for Directv to vacate it so it can begin its new mission, whatever that is.


That's the magic of having Ku satellites freed up -- they're likely more marketable.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> See post 368.Versus receivers that are much greater than 15 years old, there are many wins.Yet with apps and other new technology, they might have some hope of wringing even more money out of the customers that didn't know what they were missing out on.
> That's the magic of having Ku satellites freed up -- they're likely more marketable.


G3C is FSS and C band - and it is almost certainly its C band that will be used for inclined operation. Inclined operation requires a dish capable of tracking, so it is unlikely the FSS transponders Directv is using will be active for G3C's new mission.

As for the "enticing opportunities", most of those are enabled by consolidating on 99/101/103 which they already did a couple years ago for new customers. They could have gone that route for new customers and left the laggards on MPEG2 SD and still got everything but the potential rain fade advantage of having popular HD channels on 101. But T16 would have needed spotbeams like D9S has, and they'd need to launch a replacement for D7S at 119. The monetary savings not having to do those is why they did it, not to get your list of benefits they already have despite still using MPEG2 SD.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> That's the magic of having Ku satellites freed up -- they're likely more marketable.


Really? There is a global market for Ku DBS satellites designed with ConUS footprints and spotbeams? Really?

The market for Ku DBS satellites in the US is two companies. One if they merge. Who are they selling satellites to?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

SpaceX ?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Davenlr said:


> SpaceX ?


Not unless SpaceX gets in to the DBS service marketplace (transmitting content from uplinks to customers - not bi-directional transmissions).

There have been five companies who have ever successfully launched a DBS service in the US. Two of them (USSB and SkyAngel) launched with the cooperation of other services (DIRECTV and DISH, respectively) who eventually took over their partner's licenses. Primestar was not a DBS licensed service but was taken over by DIRECTV. Voom (Cablevision) was the last attempt to launch a DBS licensed service and it collapsed and sold its satellite and licenses to DISH. Orby is not a DBS licensed service. There were several other companies who were assigned DBS licenses that either folded or sold their licenses to DIRECTV or DISH without building anything.

Satellites are specific to service. Most newer DBS satellites were designed for one company's service. They may be able to be used at another orbital slot with less than optimal coverage to that company's service area. Use outside of that company's service area would be minimal. Some newer DBS satellites have non-DBS transponders for separate services. In those cases the non-DBS transponders can be owned by another company.

Think of it as owning an AM radio transmitter. Such a transmitter isn't going to be able to be used for anything other than AM service. At least an AM transmitter on Earth has scrap metal value. (And there are a lot more than two AM stations in the world where that transmitter could be reused. Not possible for DBS satellites designed for US coverage.)


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> As for the "enticing opportunities", most of those are enabled by consolidating on 99/101/103 which they already did a couple years ago for new customers. They could have gone that route for new customers and left the laggards on MPEG2 SD and still got everything but the potential rain fade advantage of having popular HD channels on 101.


I was thinking more in terms of receiver features and additional programming that aren't available on antique hardware.

Intertia is strong and DIRECTV's new developments have been gradual enough that many may not fully understand how far things have progressed -- cutesy commercials nothwithstanding.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

This whole discussion leads me back to the thought that this is a dying industry. There may be a limited number of people that are so remote that satellite is the only way for them to get TV or other communication services. But, are they enough to support an industry?

Everyone else has other options that are far more flexible and typically lower priced. People are dropping satellite service. Dish and DirecTV lost about a combined 3.5 million customers last year.

The interesting part of this is that there are still currently somewhere around 25 million combined Dish and DirecTV subscribers. That’s about 1/5 of the total number of households in the US. Assuming average monthly bill of $100, that’s $30 billion per year in revenue.

But, at current subscriber loss rate, they will lose all those subscribers within 7 or 8 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

wmb said:


> There may be a limited number of people that are so remote that satellite is the only way for them to get TV or other communication services. But, are they enough to support an industry?


Not an industry, but certainly a segment of the MVPD marketplace.


> Everyone else has other options that are far more flexible and typically lower priced. People are dropping satellite service. Dish and DirecTV lost about a combined 3.5 million customers last year.


DIRECTV drew their quarterly average significantly below 1 million lost with today's announcement of only 590,000 lost in Q3.


> Assuming average monthly bill of $100, that's $30 billion per year in revenue.


The actual revenue is around $37.5 billion. While DISH's DBS ARPU is over $100, DIRECTV's ARPU is considerably higher.


> But, at current subscriber loss rate, they will lose all those subscribers within 7 or 8 years.


While Q3 is usually one of the better quarters, DIRECTV has decidedly decreased their net subscriber losses and I expect that DISH's DBS losses will also diminish (they may even post a gain). While DIRECTV is sloughing off customers at around 17-20% rate per year, DISH DBS is evaporating in the mid single digits annually.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> I was thinking more in terms of receiver features and additional programming that aren't available on antique hardware.
> 
> Intertia is strong and DIRECTV's new developments have been gradual enough that many may not fully understand how far things have progressed -- cutesy commercials nothwithstanding.


What is Directv going to be able to add to ancient H2x receivers that they haven't already? They are barely updating them anymore, just very minor tweaks at this point. These are also 'antique receivers' and Directv will more than likely have customers using them until the day they shut down.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

wmb said:


> But, at current subscriber loss rate, they will lose all those subscribers within 7 or 8 years.


That's not how it works. You get a big surge of people leaving, then the numbers start to fall off - you might get the same losses over time in percentage terms, but when half the subscribers have left that x% loss is only half the customers.

Don't forget Directv has a near monopoly on commercial service for public viewing accounts, and streaming live sports to dozens of TVs isn't going to be a more attractive proposition for such a business than putting a satellite dish on the roof for years to come. There's enough revenue there to keep Directv around even if every residential customer left.


----------



## Teetertotter (Jul 23, 2020)

What is there to worry about folks???????


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> That's not how it works. You get a big surge of people leaving, then the numbers start to fall off - you might get the same losses over time in percentage terms, but when half the subscribers have left that x% loss is only half the customers.
> 
> Don't forget Directv has a near monopoly on commercial service for public viewing accounts, and streaming live sports to dozens of TVs isn't going to be a more attractive proposition for such a business than putting a satellite dish on the roof for years to come. There's enough revenue there to keep Directv around even if every residential customer left.


also NFL ticket is unlikely to go streaming only for commercial service


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

The subscriber losses of around 600K was net of ATT TV signups and D* losses. I am sure they will lose a big portion of the ATT TV subscribers when they receive their bills for year 2. Probably D* lost around 900K subscribers this quarter just like last quarter but was offset by 300K ATT TV signups.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> What is Directv going to be able to add to ancient H2x receivers that they haven't already?


H series receivers aren't the problem as I see it as they have access to most everything but 4K. The problem the D series receivers and older that are still seeing non-negligible use. While many here can't conceive of it, there are still a number of these devices out there that people are dutifully paying their $7 TV Fee for.

That said, if more customers were exposed to modern DVRs as a tecnology, many would likely catch the time-shifting bug. Of course the $20-something in monthly DVR, HD and Whole Home fees is a major sticking point for anyone who gives it a thought.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

You seem to be complaining about DIRECTV more than most DIRECTV subscribers. 
The people with the older receivers are happy.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

If DirecTv wanted to stop losing subscribers, quit charging them twice as much as the competition. The inflated 2nd year pricing is a big turn off, especially with all the competition.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> If DirecTv wanted to stop losing subscribers, quit charging them twice as much as the competition. The inflated 2nd year pricing is a big turn off, especially with all the competition.


They don't charge twice as much as the competition. YTTV. Hulu live etc are not there competitors


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Davenlr said:


> If DirecTv wanted to stop losing subscribers, quit charging them twice as much as the competition. The inflated 2nd year pricing is a big turn off, especially with all the competition.


Get real. It's well known that cable service providers and satellite service providers lure new customers with freebies and discounts the first year of their two year contract which increase to full price the 2nd year of their contract. When their two year commitment is over they have the choice of leaving DIRECTV, staying with DIRECTV and continuing with their package selection, changing their package selection to a lower tier, or begging DIRECTV for more discounts like a housewife on the TV show "Queen for a Day". As I have often said people "need" local channels, weather channels, news channels and government channels and they are very affordable. They "want" movie channels, entertainment channels and sports channels which are a "luxury" and luxury is always expensive.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

compnurd said:


> YTTV. Hulu live etc are not there competitors


Do you really believe that a majority of those fleeing DIRECTV (remember we're talking about over 4 million households per year if you subtract out the "new" customers) are going to DISH or conventional cable TV?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

MysteryMan said:


> They "want" movie channels, entertainment channels and sports channels which are a "luxury" and luxury is always expensive.


Is DIRECTV's offering 30% more more "luxurious"?

For some, luxury is not having to make choices (compromises) and DIRECTV DBS is probably doing as well as anyone there.

It is clearly much more expensive (though maybe a better cost/channel than AT&T TV).


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

harsh said:


> Is DIRECTV's offering 30% more more "luxurious"?
> 
> For some, luxury is not having to make choices (compromises) and DIRECTV DBS is probably doing as well as anyone there.
> 
> It is clearly much more expensive (though maybe a better cost/channel than AT&T TV).


As I have stated many times DIRECTV is a business. In business the name of the game is profits. If you have a problem with the way DIRECTV makes it's profits then take your business elsewhere. No one is forced into a commitment with DIRECTV.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

MysteryMan said:


> As I have stated many times DIRECTV is a business. In business the name of the game is profits. If you have a problem with the way DIRECTV makes it's profits then take your business elsewhere. No one is forced into a commitment with DIRECTV.


I agree and, unfortunately for D, that is exactly what people are doing...


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

harsh said:


> Do you really believe that a majority of those fleeing DIRECTV (remember we're talking about over 4 million households per year if you subtract out the "new" customers) are going to DISH or conventional cable TV?


It doesn't matter where they are going. Directv is not trying to compete with the streaming services


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

compnurd said:


> It doesn't matter where they are going. Directv is not trying to compete with the streaming services


A better way to say it is they are trying to avoid competing with streaming services.

Given the recent losses reported for ATT TV Now, it appears they really aren't competing with them!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

compnurd said:


> Directv is not trying to compete with the streaming services


What they're not trying to do is be price competitive.

DIRECTV is competing with every service (or combination of services) that has the potential to steal customers away.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

harsh said:


> What they're not trying to do is be price competitive.
> 
> DIRECTV is competing with every service (or combination of services) that has the potential to steal customers away.


Wrong


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

compnurd said:


> Wrong


Then where are all those customers going? Just because you ignore or don't acknowledge the competition doesn't mean that they aren't stealing your lunch.

Cadillac is losing tons of customers to other automakers because they don't offer a pickup. They're competing with the other marques for customers even if they don't offer a pickup anymore.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

harsh said:


> Then where are all those customers going? Just because you ignore or don't acknowledge the competition doesn't mean that they aren't stealing your lunch.
> 
> Cadillac is losing tons of customers to other automakers because they don't offer a pickup. They're competing with the other marques for customers even if they don't offer a pickup anymore.


As I said before. Directv is not trying to compete with them.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

compnurd said:


> As I said before. Directv is not trying to compete with them.


And they are doing an excellent job of NOT competing with them. In fact, the only things they compete with is Dish and their own ATT TV service. Possibly the cable companies though bundling gives the cable guys a bit of a leg up IMO.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

lparsons21 said:


> And they are doing an excellent job of NOT competing with them. In fact, the only things they compete with is Dish and their own ATT TV service. Possibly the cable companies though bundling gives the cable guys a bit of a leg up IMO.


Can someone explain the news just breaking on CNBC that ATT is exploring a sale of their minority stake in Directv and other interests, if such a sale went through, what would it mean for Directv, would they still run things, what does it mean minority vs. majority ownership?

AT&T considers selling significant minority stake in DirecTV, AT&T Now and U-Verse pay-TV operations, sources say


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

If they sell a minority stake that means they would still run them. Basically they'd sell off a share of the profits in exchange for cash up front to reduce some of their huge debt load.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> If they sell a minority stake that means they would still run them. Basically they'd sell off a share of the profits in exchange for cash up front to reduce some of their huge debt load.


Not necessarily. It all depends on exactly what the minority stake terms are and no one that would actually know has come forward, and I doubt the ever will before the deal is done.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

GordonGekko said:


> Can someone explain the news just breaking on CNBC that ATT is exploring a sale of their minority stake in Directv and other interests, if such a sale went through, what would it mean for Directv, would they still run things, what does it mean minority vs. majority ownership?
> 
> AT&T considers selling significant minority stake in DirecTV, AT&T Now and U-Verse pay-TV operations, sources say


Hmm, the article mistakenly refers to "AT&T Now" as being part of the proposed deal. There is no such named service. I guess they mean AT&T TV Now, or maybe they mean AT&T TV, or possibly both.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Hmm, the article mistakenly refers to "AT&T Now" as being part of the proposed deal. There is no such named service. I guess they mean AT&T TV Now, or maybe they mean AT&T TV, or possibly both.


All the above. All of AT&T's MVPD/vMVPD services.

Interesting rehash - no new sources. I guess someone was bored and had nothing else to write about.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> Can someone explain the news just breaking on CNBC that ATT is exploring a sale of their minority stake in Directv and other interests, if such a sale went through, what would it mean for Directv, would they still run things, what does it mean minority vs. majority ownership?


As pointed out, this is old news going back to the beginning of this thread. The only real difference with this story is that it combines the DIRECTV debt assumed by AT&T with the price paid by AT&T and summarizes a couple of stories from the New York Post (the partial ownership stuff).

AT&T doesn't see DIRECTV as one of its core businesses and as such, wants to offload some or all of DIRECTV in exchange for large cash. Given the beating that the rumored offers are suggesting, I'm not sure it is worth it.

DIRECTV is financially holding its own as far as AT&T is concerned but they really need the cash. The partial ownership thing may be some sort of bargaining chip that they hope to hold over content provider's heads come negotiation time.

I think we can be pretty certain that the satellite part will be going away from AT&T if there is any agreement reached and what else goes will be detailed in the bid packages from the prospective buyers. This information probably won't be public until a deal is done and maybe not even then.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> All the above. All of AT&T's MVPD/vMVPD services.
> 
> Interesting rehash - no new sources. I guess someone was bored and had nothing else to write about.


Rehash? This is the first story I'm aware of that has said AT&T is considering selling off a stake in all of their MVPD services, not just DirecTV. Perhaps that decision is because those services all now rely on pretty much the same set of carriage contracts with the various network owners, so separating DTV out from the other services that they want to keep is off the table for now.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Rehash? This is the first story I'm aware of that has said AT&T is considering selling off a stake in all of their MVPD services, not just DirecTV.


The speculation of a full divestiture/sharing was advanced some time ago. It isn't easy to keep up as there is so little credible information. The inclusion of the non-DIRECTV products makes sense if the goal is to keep the bargaining power up.


----------



## Teetertotter (Jul 23, 2020)

What will happen, will happen and not to concerned about it, but I guess, makes for talk. Let me know if anything exciting happens this year.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Teetertotter said:


> What will happen, will happen and not to concerned about it, but I guess, makes for talk.


The "nuke 'em all and let God sort it out" approach to reducing stress may reduce stress now, but it may cause much more distress down the road if one is wholly unprepared for the eventuality that a partner is found.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

harsh said:


> The "nuke 'em all and let God sort it out" approach to reducing stress may reduce stress now, but it may cause much more distress down the road if one is wholly unprepared for the eventuality that a partner is found.


Unless you own stock in AT&T or are just eat up with having a certain TV provider or channel, I don't see much stress at all.

If tomorrow AT&T shut down all their TV stuff I'd just switch and move on. Easy as pie!


----------



## Teetertotter (Jul 23, 2020)

I'm prepared with having Roku on 3 Tv's. lol U Tube looks the best.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Teetertotter said:


> I'm prepared with having Roku on 3 Tv's. lol U Tube looks the best.


What looks good on paper or in older reviews may no longer be what it appears. YouTube has purged a handful of channels that once seemed important (and may be important post-COVID)


----------



## Teetertotter (Jul 23, 2020)

Well, reviewing the u Tube channel list last week, it is complete for us. If the time comes, the channel list will be reviewed again. Not to worry my friend. It is missing one local other Fox station that we get the Packers. That might be an issue.


----------



## AngryManMLS (Jan 30, 2014)

Teetertotter said:


> Well, reviewing the u Tube channel list last week, it is complete for us. If the time comes, the channel list will be reviewed again. Not to worry my friend. It is missing one local other Fox station that we get the Packers. That might be an issue.


And even then you got multiple ways to get that Fox station such as an TV antenna.


----------



## Teetertotter (Jul 23, 2020)

Yes, and that is what we'll have to do. Early this year, they completed the transmission tower in Madison, WI. for all the TV stations. It is centrally located. We are about 40 miles away.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Consider the source...

AT&T Nears Deal to Sell DIRECTV: Reports - The TV Answer Man!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> Consider the source...
> 
> AT&T Nears Deal to Sell DIRECTV: Reports - The TV Answer Man!


"AT&T is now negotiating exclusively with equity firm TPG to purchase a minority or majority stake in DIRECTV, according to reports from Reuters and Bloomberg."

The "source" is other media ... 
Exclusive: Buyout firm TPG in lead for stake in AT&T's DirecTV - sources
(Reuters) - Private equity firm TPG has entered into exclusive talks to acquire a minority stake in AT&T Inc's satellite TV division, DirecTV, in a deal that would allow the U.S. wireless carrier to trim its net debt of close to $150 billion, people familiar with the matter said on Friday.

The exact price TPG is willing to pay could not be learned, but sources said the deal could value DirecTV at more than $15 billion. Were the negotiations to conclude successfully, a deal could be announced in the coming weeks, added the sources, who requested anonymity because the matter is confidential.

Bloomberg: AT&T Holds Exclusive Talks to Sell DirecTV Stake to TPG
AT&T Inc. is holding exclusive talks to sell a significant stake in DirecTV to private equity firm TPG, the latest stage of a monthslong push to unload at least part of the struggling pay-TV business, according to a person familiar with the matter.

So Reuters has "people" and Bloomberg has "a person". Yes, it could all still fall apart instead of fall together.

(Funny note: Bloomberg updated their article with responses from both companies - potential buyer and seller. Their update was "Representatives for AT&T and TPG declined to comment."  )


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> "AT&T is now negotiating exclusively with equity firm TPG to purchase a minority or majority stake in DIRECTV, according to reports from Reuters and Bloomberg."
> 
> The "source" is other media ...
> Exclusive: Buyout firm TPG in lead for stake in AT&T's DirecTV - sources
> ...


Anyone have any clue what TPG would want to do with Directv? I looked at their major investments, the only ones I could find related would be Univision and Vice.

Some comments on that question: AT&T gains on report of talks to sell minority DirecTV stake to TPG (NYSE:T) | Seeking Alpha

Why TPG or anyone would want to take a minority, non-controlling, stake in Direct TV is a mystery? Maybe low operating overhead and maximize cash flow for a a few years. Maybe there is value in repurposing the satellites. Maybe international expansion is possible. What do you think?








Allinvestor
22 Jan. 2021, 3:44 PM
Comments (188)
|
@PJS007 I would suspect maximizing cash flow - buying for 3-4x EBITDA can be pretty attractive even if the business is in decline.

Comments (2.78K)
|
@PJS007 DirecTV is basically a decaying annuity. TPG has the cash to pay now for future cash flow stream that at the right price of their stake would provide a higher rate of return than they can find for other investments currently, especially with low interest rates and high market valuation multiples in common stocks.








wwn2001
Yesterday, 8:40 AM
Comments (3.09K)
|
@Daniel Cluley

Then why wouldn't T simply hold on to it and take in the cash until it dies?

Comments (2.78K)
|
@wwn2001Because T does not have the balance sheet that TPG does and needs the cash for more exigent uses. TPG does not have to pay down a large debt load, spend billions on spectrum, build out a 5g network, and grow a nascent streaming business through content creation and marketing/advertising/promotion.

Two entirely different situations. This is what TPG does, raise capital to find investments that can provide a rate of return on that capital that is higher than their cost of capital and other alternatives in the marketplace. They are not a global conglomerate with huge capex and marketing/advertising needs. They do not have a higher cost of capital from debt and previous acquisitions. They are a private equity firm with a large amount of money that they need to make a return on and are just looking for investments.

T, on the other hand could really use the cash for other purposes that are much more important to its future business. They would rather not sit around and wait for this dying cash-cow to reach unprofitability. Instead, they would take the cash now to use it to pay down debt and build their growing businesses in the future.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> Anyone have any clue what TPG would want to do with Directv? I looked at their major investments, the only ones I could find related would be Univision and Vice.


I believe DIRECTV is being blamed for losses that are not their fault. AT&T is trying to appease activist investors who claim buying DIRECTV (and other entertainment properties) was not a good decision for AT&T and they want to reverse the deal. When AT&T bought DIRECTV they were $17 billion in debt ... now their debt is buried (along with their profits) with other parts of AT&T. According to the articles AT&T is now $150 billion in debt - obviously not all caused by DIRECTV but they want to shed some of their debt.

If DIRECTV is failing why would any company want to buy the service? Some of it is ego - they believe they can do a better job of running DIRECTV than AT&T can and to an extent they are probably right if they have a team that is 100% focused on the success of DIRECTV. But I also see this like those "settlement purchase companies" that offer consumers a wad of cash to buy out long term settlements. AT&T wants their cash now.

I wish AT&T was not pursuing a sale but at this point not being able to sell DIRECTV for a decent price is only serving to reinforce the claims of the activist investors who believe DIRECTV is worthless. They higher the sale price the better.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Placing the evaluation of DIRECTV as a whole around $15 billion is worse than I thought (if anywhere near true). This makes me wonder if the prior "deals" were for upwards of $15 billion all in (debt included) for half the division and who knows what other of AT&T's premium TV services.

Given that a new name pops up every now and again, I'm not optimistic about a quick resolution to the auction.


----------



## bills976 (Jun 30, 2002)

What AT&T is attempting to do reminds me a lot of what Verizon did when they sold off large swaths of their legacy wireline telephone business to companies like Frontier and Hawaiian Telecom.

Verizon made out like a bandit -- saddling Frontier with a ton of debt and IIRC, somehow was able to write off much of the tax liability that stemmed from this transaction through fancy accounting tricks.

I don't want to see DirecTV fail. I think they have a market for their service, particularly in rural areas. However, I fear whoever decides to acquire them from AT&T will be looking to extract whatever they can out of the remaining assets, rendering the customer experience as bad (or worse) than it currently is with AT&T.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'm shocked ... numbers reflecting AT&T's video operation separated from the rest of the group.
(AT&T Entertainment Group is now the AT&T Communications Group.)









For 2020 video made $1.7 billion on $28.6 billion in revenue.
6.0% Operating Income Margin. 4th Quarter, not so hot (but a LOT better that 4Q 2019).

How can a company clear $2 billion in 2019 but only $39 million in 4Q then repeat the pattern and clear $1.7 billion in 2020 but only 98 million in 4Q?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> How can a company clear $2 billion in 2019 but only $39 million in 4Q then repeat the pattern and clear $1.7 billion in 2020 but only 98 million in 4Q?


Creative bookkeeping?

Businesses with capital equipment often invest heavily before year-end. I can't imagine how that applies here. Maybe they set aside some retention funds.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

I'm moving from an apartment (Directv unavailable) to a new house in a month or two. I've been with AT&T TV since last year. The first year was dirt cheap, the second year the price basically doubles.

It will be very interesting (in light of some of the theories above on AT&T wanting to keep Directv subscribers for a potential sale) as to how they work with me if I tell them I want to go back to Directv.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

raott said:


> It will be very interesting (in light of some of the theories above on AT&T wanting to keep Directv subscribers for a potential sale) as to how they work with me if I tell them I want to go back to Directv.


That's something only AT&T can tell you.

I'd guess that they would graciously accept your $15/month ETF and bring you onboard as a new subscriber with an AT&T DIRECTV account, all the attendant benefits that go with being a newb and a fresh 24 month commitment with a $20/month escape clause. Again, only AT&T can tell you how they are going to treat you.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It would certainly be easier to move a customer to AT&T TV if the customer can self install than to move a customer from AT&T TV to DIRECTV (where a professional install is required). There is a report of AT&T waiving the DIRECTV ETF for a customer who moved to AT&T TV. If AT&T allows the reverse move please report back.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

James Long said:


> It would certainly be easier to move a customer to AT&T TV if the customer can self install than to move a customer from AT&T TV to DIRECTV (where a professional install is required). There is a report of AT&T waiving the DIRECTV ETF for a customer who moved to AT&T TV. If AT&T allows the reverse move please report back.


Yes you can go both ways without the ETF


----------



## mitchflorida (May 18, 2009)

It's weird how all the highly paid geniuses at AT&T can't figure out a way to attract and retain more customers. You would have to conclude that they are unimaginative clods who should have never touched DTV in the first place.

Management was just trying to buy instant growth to goose up the stock price. The CEO has since left and collected his diamond platinum golden parachute, while stockholders paid the price.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan (May 18, 2004)

Apologies if this has been posted already in a different form...

AT&T eats a $15.5 billion impairment charge as DirecTV debacle continues


----------



## ThaPhenom (Aug 21, 2006)

mitchflorida said:


> *It's weird how all the highly paid geniuses at AT&T can't figure out a way to attract and retain more customers.* You would have to conclude that they are unimaginative clods who should have never touched DTV in the first place.
> 
> Management was just trying to buy instant growth to goose up the stock price. The CEO has since left and collected his diamond platinum golden parachute, while stockholders paid the price.


They and other cable TV providers shifted their focus to optimizing the amount of revenue per subscriber. I haven't seen the full numbers, but I'd surmise that as subscribers have fallen off, the revenue per subscriber has gone up. There will likely be more churn with the current industry turmoil and upheaval, so that optimal number will keep changing.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Their revenue per subscriber went up most quarters when they were adding net customers too. 

AT&T Average revenue per subscriber for the past two years by quarter:
$114.98, $117.49, $121.35, $131.00, $126.27, $124.98, $130.55, $137.64
A little drop in the first two quarters last year (I am assuming from commercial businesses reducing services due to the pandemic).
Not too big of an increase from the $109.93 DIRECTV satellite posted in 2015.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ThaPhenom said:


> I haven't seen the full numbers, but I'd surmise that as subscribers have fallen off, the revenue per subscriber has gone up.


The ARPU for the Premium TV product line (AT&T TV, DIRECTV and Uverse combined) went up $7.09 which is less than AT&T raised the programming rates in 2020. The net impact is that the ARPU didn't keep up with previous years relative to the rates. 2020 was a year that DIRECTV was particularly tight with discounts. In 2019 the Premium TV ARPU went up about $9.24.

I'd imagine there was significant damage to the sports suite revenues due to the pandemic. That may have throttled the ARPU significantly.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> The ARPU for the Premium TV product line (AT&T TV, DIRECTV and Uverse combined) went up $7.09 which is less than AT&T raised the programming rates in 2020. The net impact is that the ARPU didn't keep up with previous years relative to the rates. 2020 was a year that DIRECTV was particularly tight with discounts. In 2019 the Premium TV ARPU went up about $9.24.
> 
> I'd imagine there was significant damage to the sports suite revenues due to the pandemic. That may have throttled the ARPU significantly.


If they blend commercial accounts into those figures via some formula that could account for the dip. My account has been on suspend for over 10 months now so they are getting $0 from me, I'm sure many places that are open cut back on their sports subscriptions or dropped them entirely in response to limited/no indoor seating depending on local laws.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> If they blend commercial accounts into those figures via some formula that could account for the dip.


I'd imagine that they don't count suspended accounts (logically including many commercial subscribers that haven't already closed their accounts).


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> I'd imagine that they don't count suspended accounts (logically including many commercial subscribers that haven't already closed their accounts).


Perhaps not, I suppose they may count those as cancellations. But there are plenty of places that "open" but in limited fashion that would have cut back their subscriptions and dropped stuff like NFLST or MLBEI but kept a basic subscription.


----------



## Teetertotter (Jul 23, 2020)

So, what are all you going to do?
Cancel DTV/U-verse?
Move to another cable provider?
Put up with AT&T's price increases?
Go to a streaming service? You Tube?
Use Roku apps?

I am one of those that prefers DTV over other alternatives........right now. lol


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

I called D* and got a $45 per month reduction on my bill, then I added two apps to my Roku account that adds about $12 per month to my monthly expenditure, bringing my total to just over $130 per month. This combo will give me everything I need for the next 12 months, then I'll reassess.


----------



## Carolina (Jan 20, 2012)

Teetertotter said:


> So, what are all you going to do?
> Cancel DTV/U-verse?
> Move to another cable provider?
> Put up with AT&T's price increases?
> ...


I have been with DTV since 1995. I can't imagine going anywhere else now. I really wish AT&T hadn't gotten a hold of DTV in the first place!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Carolina said:


> I have been with DTV since 1995. I can't imagine going anywhere else now.


I recommend that you formulate an backup plan. The end isn't in sight, but it is coming one way or another.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

DirecTV's Death Spiral Continues on as Hundreds of Thousands Cancel


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

James Long said:


> It would certainly be easier to move a customer to AT&T TV if the customer can self install than to move a customer from AT&T TV to DIRECTV (where a professional install is required). There is a report of AT&T waiving the DIRECTV ETF for a customer who moved to AT&T TV. If AT&T allows the reverse move please report back.


That is the first I have heard of that. I will have to check into that for my second year of DirecTv when the price goes up, if it would save me any money. Do they allow more than one stream at a time, or charge $7 per stream? The ad says 3 streams. No cable box required. So what is the $120 thing they say you need? Or is that the Router I already have for my fiber internet?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Davenlr said:


> DirecTV's Death Spiral Continues on as Hundreds of Thousands Cancel


As noted in the article (text copied from 4th Quarter results - empasis added):
"_Compared with results for the fourth quarter of 2019, current quarter operating expenses were $56.4 billion, up 36.0 percent, and full-year 2020 operating expenses were $165.4 billion, up 7.9 percent from the previous full year. *Expenses reflect noncash impairment charges of $15.5 billion resulting from changes in our management strategy and our evaluation of the domestic video business. These changes, including our decision to operate our video business separately from our broadband and legacy telephony operations, required us to identify a separate Video reporting unit and to assess both the recoverability of its long-lived assets and any assigned goodwill for impairment.* Fourth-quarter expenses also include charges of approximately $780 million from the impairment of production and other content inventory at WarnerMedia, with $520 million resulting from the continued shutdown of theaters during the pandemic and the hybrid distribution model for our 2021 film slate._"

AT&T's total revenue for 2020 was $ 171.76 billion. Video collected $ 28.6 billion of that revenue.
AT&T's total operating income was $ 6.4 billion. Video contributed $ 1.7 billion of that income.
Interest and other expenses managed to turn that income into billions of dollars lost.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Davenlr said:


> That is the first I have heard of that. I will have to check into that for my second year of DirecTv when the price goes up, if it would save me any money. Do they allow more than one stream at a time, or charge $7 per stream? The ad says 3 streams. No cable box required. So what is the $120 thing they say you need? Or is that the Router I already have for my fiber internet?


AT&T TV allows 3 simultaneous streams at a time. Recording to the cloud DVR does not count as a stream. Watching the recording does though. The $120 box is the AT&T TV streaming box that is an Android TV box with its own remote. It is used for watching AT&T TV and you can also install other apps like Netflix and most of the same apps you can install on other streaming boxes. If you subscribe to the contract version you get one box free. It is $120 for additional boxes. The no contract version does not give you a box. They are $120 each. You don't have to have a box. You can install the AT&T TV app on other streaming boxes like Roku, Fire TV, and Apple TV.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

OK thanks.


----------



## Carolina (Jan 20, 2012)

harsh said:


> I recommend that you formulate an backup plan. The end isn't in sight, but it is coming one way or another.


When the end comes I will be forced to do something else, but I'll be with DTV until the end.


----------



## bjdotson (Feb 20, 2007)

Carolina said:


> When the end comes I will be forced to do something else, but I'll be with DTV until the end.


I have somewhat the same feeling; unfortunately it is not likely. Wife and I are downsizing and first step is selling our house and buying a smaller one. I don't like having my commitment to DTV restarted and my wife thinks we are spending to much on DTV. So we will probably be leaving. I've been checking out alternatives and with Sling (not slingbox), I can get most of the channels that we like plus Starz as an addon for about $60. Equipment is not all that much. I'll see what deals they have when we are ready to jump. I hate changing, but they are pricing themselves out of the business.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

bjdotson said:


> I have somewhat the same feeling; unfortunately it is not likely. Wife and I are downsizing and first step is selling our house and buying a smaller one. I don't like having my commitment to DTV restarted and my wife thinks we are spending to much on DTV. So we will probably be leaving. I've been checking out alternatives and with Sling (not slingbox), I can get most of the channels that we like plus Starz as an addon for about $60. Equipment is not all that much. I'll see what deals they have when we are ready to jump. I hate changing, but they are pricing themselves out of the business.


Sling certainly has a good selection of channels for a very reasonable price. The downside with Sling is the video quality, it is just substantially worse than D* and/or ATT TV streaming service.


----------



## LTYRS (Sep 23, 2019)

NFL Finally Starts Talking Financial Terms With Networks for Mammoth TV Rights Deal (yahoo.com)

Article says that the NFL is looking for 10 year deals, will AT&T Satellite side of business still want it?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

LTYRS said:


> NFL Finally Starts Talking Financial Terms With Networks for Mammoth TV Rights Deal (yahoo.com)
> 
> Article says that the NFL is looking for 10 year deals, will AT&T Satellite side of business still want it?


They will want it for commercial customers, but there's zero chance they will do a 10 year flat rate exclusive for residential as they've done in the past.

I think Directv will still have it because no one else will sign up for an exclusive like Directv did, so it will likely be available on Dish and many cable companies similar to packages like MLBEI where they pay per subscriber. The only question in my mind is whether the NFL offers the streaming version themselves, or lets Amazon, AT&T TV and other streamers do so.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

LTYRS said:


> NFL Finally Starts Talking Financial Terms With Networks for Mammoth TV Rights Deal (yahoo.com)
> 
> Article says that the NFL is looking for 10 year deals, will AT&T Satellite side of business still want it?





slice1900 said:


> They will want it for commercial customers, but there's zero chance they will do a 10 year flat rate exclusive for residential as they've done in the past.
> 
> I think Directv will still have it because no one else will sign up for an exclusive like Directv did, so it will likely be available on Dish and many cable companies similar to packages like MLBEI where they pay per subscriber. The only question in my mind is whether the NFL offers the streaming version themselves, or lets Amazon, AT&T TV and other streamers do so.


AT&T is more concerned with expanding their 5G network and HBO Max growth. The new CEO John Stankey is more open to giving up exclusivity than the former CEO Randall Stephenson. The $1.5 billion/year AT&T currently pays to the NFL for Sunday Ticket just for DirecTV really isn't worth it in today's climate. They could invest that money in paying down debt or reinvesting it into their Wireless & HBO Max operations.

However I could see AT&T retaining exclusivity rights (as a company) if they could resell NFL Sunday Ticket across all of its video platforms including HBO Max. More people would probably be more open to paying $14.99/mo for HBO Max and then paying for NFL Sunday Ticket on top. If HBO Max subscription is required to purchase NFL Sunday Ticket that could also push more people to get AT&T Unlimited Elite or AT&T Internet 1000. It could also boost AT&T TV if they are able to sell NFL Sunday Ticket like they currently do with NBA League Pass Premium. If NFL wants a streaming option AT&T does have the avenues available to make it happen. So in those scenarios there would be more incentive for AT&T to re-up the contract with some key changes.

I don't expect it to remain exclusive to DirecTV. I don't foresee the NFL to follow the other leagues and go DTC either. I expect the NFL to partner with various companies or work out a new deal with AT&T. They could have ended the current deal early but trying to maintain and increase that $1.5 billion/year cash flow is important to the NFL and I doubt they want to lose it.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

bjdotson said:


> I have somewhat the same feeling; unfortunately it is not likely. Wife and I are downsizing and first step is selling our house and buying a smaller one. I don't like having my commitment to DTV restarted and my wife thinks we are spending to much on DTV. So we will probably be leaving. I've been checking out alternatives and with Sling (not slingbox), I can get most of the channels that we like plus Starz as an addon for about $60. Equipment is not all that much. I'll see what deals they have when we are ready to jump. I hate changing, but they are pricing themselves out of the business.


Keep in mind that Sling does not offer locals, though. (Well, if you live in certain major markets like NYC, LA, etc., you may get your local ABC, NBC and/or Fox station, but only if the local station is owned by the network itself.) So if you go the Sling route, you'll probably want to use an OTA antenna to pull in your live local affiliates of ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, PBS, CW, etc. And to watch those networks' content on-demand, you'll either need an OTA DVR or you can watch non-sports primetime content from ABC, Fox and NBC next-day on Hulu; CBS content (including the actual live local affiliate) on Paramount+; PBS content in the free PBS app; and CW content in the free CW app (which includes unskippable ads). NBC content is also available next-day with Peacock Premium.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

techguy88 said:


> I don't expect it to remain exclusive to DirecTV.


I believe that AT&T will do what they can to maintain DIRECTV carriage of Sunday Ticket and expand it to AT&T TV, but it won't be an exclusive. We are a couple of years away but my guess would be that ST would become available to all MVPD/vMVPDs on a non-exclusive basis and available separately direct from the NFL via streaming (similar to MLB).

I do not expect ST to remain exclusive. If it does it will be with a streaming carrier with much deeper pockets than AT&T.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

If we take the CEO's statements about TV not being a focus for AT&T, I'd guess they're not inclined to go out on a limb for even a four-year contract.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

James Long said:


> I believe that AT&T will do what they can to maintain DIRECTV carriage of Sunday Ticket and expand it to AT&T TV, but it won't be an exclusive. We are a couple of years away but my guess would be that ST would become available to all MVPD/vMVPDs on a non-exclusive basis and available separately direct from the NFL via streaming (similar to MLB).
> 
> I do not expect ST to remain exclusive. If it does it will be with a streaming carrier with much deeper pockets than AT&T.


There's no way the NFL is ready for it to be exclusively streaming. Way too much money coming in via sports bars where a streaming setup would not work


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

More articles claiming a deal is now "imminent" and could be announced this week. Would include Uverse TV and AT&T TV Now, but not AT&T TV - which just announced the sort of changes you'd expect if it no longer had Directv to cover the 'high end'.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> More articles claiming a deal is now "imminent" and could be announced this week. Would include Uverse TV and AT&T TV Now, but not AT&T TV - which just announced the sort of changes you'd expect if it no longer had Directv to cover the 'high end'.


Which doesn't make sense because ATT TV Now is ATT TV.... Now. I think some wording is missing there. It is probably all TV


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

JosephB said:


> Way too much money coming in via sports bars where a streaming setup would not work


At the moment (since it is the NFL off-season and COVID-19 is otherwise severely limiting patronage), there's not "way too much" revenue coming from sports bars and other commercial establishments so I'm not sure your argument is supported.


----------



## BigJ52 (Jul 29, 2007)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1364292215766474760


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> More articles claiming a deal is now "imminent" and could be announced this week. Would include Uverse TV and AT&T TV Now, but not AT&T TV - which just announced the sort of changes you'd expect if it no longer had Directv to cover the 'high end'.


Are these articles "fresh" or are they just another rehash of the previous blogs and re-blogs? Light Reading blogged about TPG back on January 22nd.

The refrain of "sources familiar" is all too familiar.

I still wonder if AT&T TV is separate and apart from the deal since I understood (or misunderstood) that AT&T TV Now was being rolled into AT&T TV. Many have reasoned that the economies of scale of having them all together are imperative.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I think the people writing these articles don't know the difference between AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now. They think there is only one product there and is named AT&T TV NOW. I'd bet it is DIRECTV, U-Verse, and AT&T TV which includes both the contract and no-contract versions.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JosephB said:


> There's no way the NFL is ready for it to be exclusively streaming. Way too much money coming in via sports bars where a streaming setup would not work


Whatever it takes for the NFL to make more than the $1.5 billion per year they get from AT&T|DIRECTV. Right now the NFL is collecting the same payment whether NFL ST is in one bar or a million bars. I don't expect "streaming only" ... I believe the NFL will make more money opening up ST to all willing MVPDs. But if more money can be made through a streaming exclusive I expect the NFL to follow the money.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> I think the people writing these articles don't know the difference between AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now. They think there is only one product there and is named AT&T TV NOW. I'd bet it is DIRECTV, U-Verse, and AT&T TV which includes both the contract and no-contract versions.


Agreed. It's all video services


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Agreed. And the fact that AT&T recently merged AT&T TV NOW into AT&T TV and adjusted the prices of the old grandfathered DIRECTV NOW ===> AT&T TV NOW packages to bring them inline with the current AT&T TV just means the buyer didn't want some convoluted mess that AT&T originally created.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

It sounds like they are buying a significant minority stake, but what does that mean for us? Will they have a say in how things are run? Are they just putting money into it and just expecting to profit? Will management change? AT&T will still retain a majority from what it sounds like, and in that case, I'm really not sure if this is going to matter to us an end user, with this one exception....if this minority stake means that they better cut services to make this profitable, then this could be much WORSE for us.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> It sounds like they are buying a significant minority stake, but what does that mean for us? Will they have a say in how things are run?


The idea is that the partner, most recently portrayed by TPG, will operate/manage the TV division (since TV has been officially declared as not an area of focus for AT&T).

Whether they are better or worse is unknown but given AT&T's performance, the bar is relatively low. History shows TPG in strikingly different lights.

Obviously, as a minority partner, the "auction" winner won't have the power to buy or sell any of the elements of the TV division but they can certainly bring some experience to negotiations and a fresh look at management.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

harsh said:


> The idea is that the partner, most recently portrayed by TPG, will operate/manage the TV division (since TV has been officially declared as not an area of focus for AT&T).
> 
> Whether they are better or worse is unknown but given AT&T's performance, the bar is relatively low. History shows TPG in strikingly different lights.
> 
> Obviously, as a minority partner, the "auction" winner won't have the power to buy or sell any of the elements of the TV division but they can certainly bring some experience to negotiations and a fresh look at management.


Is that the plan, that TPG will run the division? I hadn't read that. I only read that they are buying a stake.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

No one knows the details yet. Since AT&T seems to want to wash their hands of their TV services it stands to reason that might be what happens. But it is AT&T so who knows?


----------



## Teetertotter (Jul 23, 2020)

I think I will move to You Tube TV.............lol


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

TPG capital . Is that a good sign or bad ??

DirecTV to Become Standalone Company Through AT&T, TPG Capital Pact - Variety

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I've never seen a deal like this be good for the consumer.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

dtv757 said:


> TPG capital . Is that a good sign or bad ??
> 
> DirecTV to Become Standalone Company Through AT&T, TPG Capital Pact - Variety
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


Yeh this isnt going to be good.. ATT still owns 70%


----------



## DMRI2006 (Jun 13, 2006)

dtv757 said:


> TPG capital . Is that a good sign or bad ??


Sounds like their main motivation is keeping Directv afloat until it can be sold again or merged with Dish. Likely not a move with long-term prospects in mind or anything that's going to benefit the consumer in the near-term.


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

Interesting that according to the article, AT&T is still on the hook for the remaining 2 years of the Sunday Ticket deal.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Wow, $7.6 billion plus $200 million in debt will get them 30% of the business. Hopefully all goes well.

SEC Filing (pdf)
_On February 25, 2021, AT&T Inc. (the "Company") announced that AT&T Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("Services"), entered into an Agreement of Contribution and Subscription, dated February 25, 2021 (the "Contribution Agreement"), among(i) Services, (ii) V HoldCo LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("AT&T HoldCo"), (iii) V OpCoLLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("New DTV") and (iv) TPG VIII Merlin Investment Holdings, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("Investor").

Pursuant to, and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in, the Contribution Agreement, among other matters, Services will cause the contribution of the U.S. video business unit of the Company and its subsidiaries, consisting of the DIRECTV, AT&T TV and U-verse video services (but excluding U-verse network assets) (collectively, the "Video Business"), to New DTV for $4.25 billion of junior preferred units (with a 6.5% payment-in-kind coupon),an additional distribution preference of $4.2 billion and a 70% economic interest in common units of New DTV. Services will receive $7.6 billion in cash from New DTV at closing, of which $5.8 billion will be funded by committed debt financing taken on by New DTV. Investor will contribute cash in an amount of $1.8 billion to New DTV, subject to customary purchase price adjustments, in exchange for $1.8 billion of senior preferred units (with a 10%cash coupon) and a 30% economic interest in common units of New DTV. In addition, approximately $200 million of existing public debt of the Video Business will remain with New DTV. The Company has agreed, as between the Company and New DTV, to pay net losses under the NFL Sunday Ticket contract following closing up to a cap of $2.5 billion over the remaining period of the contract._​


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

New company will run things from now on out. I bet years of innovation will be released that was held back because of cost. I think things will get better for DIRECTV.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

west99999 said:


> New company will run things from now on out. I bet years of innovation will be released that was held back because of cost. I think things will get better for DIRECTV.


I think the best you see if an expansion of Directv into the ATT TV space.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

glrush said:


> Interesting that according to the article, AT&T is still on the hook for the remaining 2 years of the Sunday Ticket deal.


But what does that mean exactly? Are they keeping Sunday Ticket with the new business and AT&T is just going to be on the hook to pay for it? If that is the case.....I'm giving that away free if I'm the new Directv. "_AT&T has also committed to absorbing $2.5 billion in net losses from the "NFL Sunday Ticket" package - the premium channel that allows subscribers to watch any NFL game being played that day. "Sunday Ticket" is known to have been a loss leader for DirecTV._"


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

raott said:


> But what does that mean exactly? Are they keeping Sunday Ticket with the new business and AT&T is just going to be on the hook to pay for it? If that is the case.....I'm giving that away free if I'm the new Directv. "_AT&T has also committed to absorbing $2.5 billion in net losses from the "NFL Sunday Ticket" package - the premium channel that allows subscribers to watch any NFL game being played that day. "Sunday Ticket" is known to have been a loss leader for DirecTV._"


Giving away for free isn't going to do anything long term and probably very minimal short term boosts


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

I read it as in order for TPG to take the deal for part of DirecTV, they didn't want the boat anchor of the Sunday Ticket contact with the NFL.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

glrush said:


> I read it as in order for TPG to take the deal for part of DirecTV, they didn't want the boat anchor of the Sunday Ticket contact with the NFL.


They certainly do not want any losses from the NFL Sunday Ticket contract - which I find ironic since AT&T made DIRECTV's renewal of the contract one of the terms of AT&T's purchase of DIRECTV not too many years ago.

The NFL Costs Exhibit was not included in the SEC filing linked above. But I doubt DIRECTV would be able to substantially change the way NFL Sunday Ticket is marketed in a way that would harm AT&T.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

I read elsewhere that TPG also owns RCN (the cable company) ...

So will all 3 be combined at some point in the future ... 

I dont mind a telco , but it's upsetting to know they also own the competition... a cable company 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

i hope the ATT part does focus HUGE on expanding FTTH broadband !! 

off topic but too many have no choice and have horific docsis or DSL or worse.

back to D* i hope the new company can focus back on R&D and we can get a voice remote and other new stuff . the genie 2 has been out for a long time now. 

miss the pre att days and getting excited for the new CE release or the blue and white Guide lol


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I hope they take a look back and see what works for DirecTV, What doesn't, and what used to work that they did away with and might be something to go back to.

As it stands now, I look at DirecTV as "Premium" TV service. Think of it as the Lexus of TV services opposed to the streaming services as the Toyota. The experience is much more advanced and technologically better.

So what works:
More channels, better "equipment" that works as it's supposed to. 4K offerings for sports...oh, and much more robust sports offerings.

What doesn't work:
AT&T billing system, AT&T Customer Service, lack of innovation in their current products. Pricey "packages"

What used to work but not in the mix any more:
Innovation (last equipment upgrade was years ago), Customer Service (used to be more US Centric, Treated their customers much more as assets than pions), "extras" (getting special offers for loyal customers....free months of premiums...free equipment upgrades...though I did get free NFLST this year, first freebie in years). And most of all, lower the price, maybe offer lower end tiers without sports.

I think the new spinned off company needs to look at all of this. Satellite can still be viable if they market it right, be more customer centric, and offer more deals to entice people. They seem to not even care about the customer any more. Do they even fight to keep customers any more? I can't tell you the last time I've seen a DirecTV commercial. I see commercials for cable all the time.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I hope they take a look back and see what works for DirecTV, What doesn't, and what used to work that they did away with and might be something to go back to.
> 
> As it stands now, I look at DirecTV as "Premium" TV service. Think of it as the Lexus of TV services opposed to the streaming services as the Toyota. The experience is much more advanced and technologically better.
> 
> ...


Good feedback.

And I hope they do look at what worked etc ...

And I agree I miss all those innovative directv commercials , I was thinking same thing about fios. I don't remember the last time I saw a new fios or directv commercial (beyond NFL ST commercials) .

I miss the ones like with Beyonce or William shatter

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Steveknj said:


> I think the new spinned off company needs to look at all of this. Satellite can still be viable if they market it right, be more customer centric, and offer more deals to entice people. They seem to not even care about the customer any more. Do they even fight to keep customers any more? I can't tell you the last time I've seen a DirecTV commercial. I see commercials for cable all the time.


I saw a commercial for DIRECTV last night. Still claim to be the leader in sports. I've seen the same commercial several times the last few week.

DIRECTV TV Commercials



> Sign up to track 430 nationally aired TV ad campaigns for DIRECTV. In the past 30 days, DIRECTV has had 6,885 airings and earned an airing rank of #111 with a spend ranking of #1,365 as compared to all other advertisers.


This is the one I saw on TV last night.

https://d3npuic909260z.cloudfront.net/003/073/619/t5Gu.mp4


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Haven't seen the Altuve one nice lol

And the 2nd link seams like an internal/ already customer advert . 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> I saw a commercial for DIRECTV last night. Still claim to be the leader in sports. I've seen the same commercial several times the last few week.
> 
> DIRECTV TV Commercials
> 
> ...


I'm in the NY Demo and haven't seen one in ages. Of course I have a DVR...so I don't see as many commercials as I used to. I have seen quite a few for Spectrum, and Altice (Optimum here). But I just get the feeling that AT&T has kind of given up. Maybe they hope spinning it off into a separate entity where the management will be more focused will help. Honestly, I don't think their streaming service is bad as a replacement for satellite and if that's the way they are going, fine (though there are still a few issues why it doesn't work for me). But at least if you are going to offer a premium TV experience, then they need to tell us why. Lexus shows us why in every commercial and it's going to appeal to a certain demo. DirecTV needs to push to that more upscale, need all the bells and whistles demo, if that's what they are going to be. But does anyone know this? People look at streamers and say, heck, if I can save a few $$ I will, and often without realizing what they are giving up, or what compromises they are making.

I'd also like to see new innovation. The Genie system is a bit stale. They really need to make it a full on streaming / Satellite hybrid box, that does everything. They have a few apps on there now, why not expand it? I'd like to also see the ability to create user profiles. There are a few other things. I'm hoping they can do these things.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Steveknj said:


> I'd also like to see new innovation. The Genie system is a bit stale. They really need to make it a full on streaming / Satellite hybrid box, that does everything. They have a few apps on there now, why not expand it? I'd like to also see the ability to create user profiles. There are a few other things. I'm hoping they can do these things.


I'd love to see those things too. I wish I were optimistic enough to believe that are going to sink money into improving a service that is bleeding customers with no end of sight of it stopping. I've been on the wrong end of buyouts twice. Usually they come in and invest nothing and drain every last dollar of the proceeds out of it until it is time to hit the kill switch.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> Usually they come in and invest nothing and drain every last dollar of the proceeds out of it until it is time to hit the kill switch.


The term AT&T used is "monetizing". It sounds less threatening than liquidating.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

In my two experiences the new buyer usually paints a rosy picture for the future. What they don't tell you is that you aren't part of the picture.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Oh, I agree. When these investment firms sink money into failing companies, often they look to see if it can be salvaged and if not, they start reducing assets and eventually fold it. But I'm hopeful.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

dtv757 said:


> i hope the ATT part does focus HUGE on expanding FTTH broadband !!
> 
> off topic but too many have no choice and have horific docsis or DSL or worse.


Starlink is beginning to be available as an internet option. It's pricey at the start for equipment but the monthly rates are close to competitive at $99. Speeds seem excellent and, so far, no known data caps.

starlink.com


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

They are just doing this to pay for the Billion$ in C band spectrum they just bought for their Cell business.
As long as they own 70% I dont see anything changing. Hope I am wrong.


----------



## mitchflorida (May 18, 2009)

The new DirecTV CEO is the same AT&T guy who was running it before. This is just a shrewd bookkeeping move dreamt up by some overpaid CPA. It makes AT&T earnings metrics look better in order to build up the stock price. They also won't be announcing customer losses in the future.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

dtv757 said:


> i hope the ATT part does focus HUGE on expanding FTTH broadband !!


Never gonna happen in most areas. Too costly to dig up streets and/or get access to utility poles. Besides, kind of pointless with 5G and Starlink.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I thought at some point AT&T abandoned doing any new FTTH? Or was that Google? Or both?


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> I thought at some point AT&T abandoned doing any new FTTH? Or was that Google? Or both?


I think a lot of telcos stopped expanding, due to cost and stuff, which stinks cause they left a lot of areas either suffering from a docsis monopoly 
Or slower DSL service .

Wish more areas had FTTH, my directv is more reliable that that horific service called docsis .

But anyways back to the original topic

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Bob Coxner said:


> Starlink is beginning to be available as an internet option.


Only if you happen to be among the hundreds of people that they've offered service to. It will be some time before Starlink is viable for anyone who wants to spend $100 or more a month plus hardware.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> In my two experiences the new buyer usually paints a rosy picture for the future. What they don't tell you is that you aren't part of the picture.


The difference here is that the "buyer" is only getting a paltry 30% share. Certainly not enough to effect any meaningful change from an ownership standpoint.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

Steveknj said:


> It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I hope they take a look back and see what works for DirecTV, What doesn't, and what used to work that they did away with and might be something to go back to.
> 
> As it stands now, I look at DirecTV as "Premium" TV service. Think of it as the Lexus of TV services opposed to the streaming services as the Toyota. The experience is much more advanced and technologically better.
> 
> ...





Steveknj said:


> I'm in the NY Demo and haven't seen one in ages. Of course I have a DVR...so I don't see as many commercials as I used to. I have seen quite a few for Spectrum, and Altice (Optimum here). But I just get the feeling that AT&T has kind of given up. Maybe they hope spinning it off into a separate entity where the management will be more focused will help. Honestly, I don't think their streaming service is bad as a replacement for satellite and if that's the way they are going, fine (though there are still a few issues why it doesn't work for me). But at least if you are going to offer a premium TV experience, then they need to tell us why. Lexus shows us why in every commercial and it's going to appeal to a certain demo. DirecTV needs to push to that more upscale, need all the bells and whistles demo, if that's what they are going to be. But does anyone know this? People look at streamers and say, heck, if I can save a few $$ I will, and often without realizing what they are giving up, or what compromises they are making.
> 
> I'd also like to see new innovation. The Genie system is a bit stale. They really need to make it a full on streaming / Satellite hybrid box, that does everything. They have a few apps on there now, why not expand it? I'd like to also see the ability to create user profiles. There are a few other things. I'm hoping they can do these things.


I've read on other sites that some think TPG would try to build up Directv for a sale to DISH or perhaps actually innovate in some of the areas you wrote about, if they did one thing, if they were able to bring the full force of the Genie system to a streaming service, that would make this deal worthwhile in my opinion, I don't want to leave Directv until I can find a tv system that works exactly like the DVR does in the Genie system.

Also I'm fairly certain we can't do this currently, I would like to move my recorded shows and movies to an Iphone or Ipad to watch locally on that device, without the need for data to stream it, even if you put a deadline on it, can only move it for 30 days or whatever, that would be nice.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

*What happens when the agreement is given final approval by regulators (expected in the second half of 2021)? *

While current AT&T video subscribers may notice a change in the name of their video provider, (DIRECTV rather than AT&T) we expect few changes.

We are committed to a smooth customer experience and will work to continue to further improve customer service and *bring new features to our video services*.

We are also committed to providing regular, transparent communications to customers.
*What about account information, online access and billing?*


Customer account information, online access and billing arrangements will remain the same. We have a transition services agreement in place that will allow AT&T to support DIRECTV after the transaction closes to help ensure the transition is as smooth as possible for our customers.
*Are premium viewing experiences affected, like HBO Max?*

The transaction includes all content deals, including DIRECTV's NFL SUNDAY TICKET. Customers will continue to have access to premium content via DIRECTV, AT&T TV and AT&T TV NOW and will receive the same services, channel lineups and customer care experience.

While HBO Max will remain with AT&T, video subscribers who currently subscribe to HBO Max will continue to have access to it. And subscribers who wish to subscribe to HBO Max will have the opportunity to do so.
*Your release says that all content deals will be part of New DTV but also that AT&T's regional sports networks are not included in the transaction. Will DIRECTV still be able to offer the RSNs' content?*


This transaction does not affect viewers' access to the RSN content. Although AT&T will retain ownership of the RSNs, New DTV/DIRECTV will continue to license content from the RSNs and make this content available to its subscribers.

Sourced from: AT&T & TPG Capital Form New Entity to Operate AT&T's U.S. Video Unit


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mitchflorida said:


> The new DirecTV CEO is the same AT&T guy who was running it before. This is just a shrewd bookkeeping move dreamt up by some overpaid CPA. It makes AT&T earnings metrics look better in order to build up the stock price. They also won't be announcing customer losses in the future.


Have you looked at the numbers comparing AT&T with and without the "Video" component?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

GordonGekko said:


> I've read on other sites that some think TPG would try to build up Directv for a sale to DISH


This is almost definitely the plan. If you listened to the conference call they held announcing this deal, the future "monetization" of DirecTV was referred to multiple times by AT&T executives and analysts asking questions. Every time someone mentioned "value creation" or "monetization" they were referring to merging or selling the new separate DirecTV with/to someone else, and the most reasonable target is Dish

If I were a betting man I would imagine TPG has one of two goals: buy Dish's TV business from Charlie Ergen, and let him build his wireless network, and merge Dish and DirecTV together and then milk that cash flow. Alternatively, simply sell a newly independent DirecTV to Charlie. I don't know that Dish would want to be a buyer. If Ergen is truly serious now about building his wireless network, then he's probably a seller. The trick is, getting him to sell at a price TPG would be willing to pay

Of course other options are also on the table if Charlie and/or the FCC don't play ball (although today is a lot different than 2002, they might be able to get it through the FCC now). They could take DirecTV public and cash out that way, there could be other buyers in the form of other private equity companies, and they could just milk it until it's worthless and sell off the parts and pieces later. I'm sure they do have an operational plan to run the company if their flip-it plans fall through


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISH doesn't need to buy DIRECTV. They just need to wait for them to die and buy the assets (as they did with Voom/Cablevision and SkyAngel).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> if they did one thing, if they were able to bring the full force of the Genie system to a streaming service, that would make this deal worthwhile in my opinion, I don't want to leave Directv until I can find a tv system that works exactly like the DVR does in the Genie system.


Being able to mirror many of the functions should be possible but will they have enough customers left who demand that functionality to bother with it?

Does DIRECTV's DVR technology licensing allow them to duplicate their DVR functionality in a different medium?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

James Long said:


> DISH doesn't need to buy DIRECTV. They just need to wait for them to die and buy the assets (as they did with Voom/Cablevision and SkyAngel).


There would be no value in that. The value in buying out Voom and SkyAngel after they shut down is that Dish needed the bandwidth, and those assets lined up nicely with Dish's technology and orbital slots

The entire value in DirecTV is in the customer base and its contracts with the programmers. There is some value in the satellite assets, but it's not the primary reason you'd buy DirecTV. If you wait till they go out of business then why even buy them at all. The rationale and the market is completely different than it was back then


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

JosephB said:


> There would be no value in that. The value in buying out Voom and SkyAngel after they shut down is that Dish needed the bandwidth, and those assets lined up nicely with Dish's technology and orbital slots
> 
> The entire value in DirecTV is in the customer base and its contracts with the programmers. There is some value in the satellite assets, but it's not the primary reason you'd buy DirecTV. If you wait till they go out of business then why even buy them at all. The rationale and the market is completely different than it was back then


or maybe take all the bandwith and have.

Lot's of channels with BOTH EAST AND WEST HD at bit rates that cable does not have.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISH could use the additional bandwidth at 119 (without modification to installed Western Arc antennas). The three transponders at 110 would be an easy add. There has been some discussion of DISH leaving 129 (not something I'd expect to happen). 14 transponders on core satellites would not be useless. DIRECTV's satellite at 101 could be moved (with the DIRECTV service becoming Ka only if it survives).

If the entire value of DIRECTV is their customer base and contracts then their subscription count is their bottom line. Contracts are useless without subscribers and the subscriber loss needs to level off while DIRECTV still has customers to discuss. DIRECTV's exclusive deal with the NFL will be ending in couple of years ... if the NFL sets a good price it will be on DISH (and other carriers). HD on higher powered Ku DBS satellites ... less weather problems than Ka. Losing that exclusive will lead to commercial subscriber loss for DIRECTV. (I expect the Sinclair RSNs to return when Sinclair OTA stations come up for renewal.)

The task for "new DIRECTV" is to turn the trend around so that doesn't happen.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

James Long said:


> DISH doesn't need to buy DIRECTV. They just need to wait for them to die and buy the assets (as they did with Voom/Cablevision and SkyAngel).


Au contraire. Not according to the "analysis" by solid signal. This is "great news" for Directv! There will be no merger or the like on the horizon. There is going to be a "renewed focus" on customers and a "laser focus on getting things right". Can't eyeroll enough.


----------



## LTYRS (Sep 23, 2019)

b4pjoe said:


> *Your release says that all content deals will be part of New DTV but also that AT&T's regional sports networks are not included in the transaction. Will DIRECTV still be able to offer the RSNs' content?*
> 
> 
> This transaction does not affect viewers' access to the RSN content. Although AT&T will retain ownership of the RSNs, New DTV/DIRECTV will continue to license content from the RSNs and make this content available to its subscribers.


Hopefully for those that don't want to pay for Reginal Sports won't have to.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

GordonGekko said:


> I've read on other sites that some think TPG would try to build up Directv for a sale to DISH or perhaps actually innovate in some of the areas you wrote about, if they did one thing, if they were able to bring the full force of the Genie system to a streaming service, that would make this deal worthwhile in my opinion, I don't want to leave Directv until I can find a tv system that works exactly like the DVR does in the Genie system.
> 
> Also I'm fairly certain we can't do this currently, I would like to move my recorded shows and movies to an Iphone or Ipad to watch locally on that device, without the need for data to stream it, even if you put a deadline on it, can only move it for 30 days or whatever, that would be nice.


Not completely clear what the restrictions will be for downloading shows for offline viewing but this was recently announced -

YouTube TV is adding offline downloads and 4K streaming


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

LTYRS said:


> Hopefully for those that don't want to pay for Reginal Sports won't have to.


"New DIRECTV" will remain under the same contracts AT&T|DIRECTV made with the RSNs. Package placement is part of those contracts. While the current DIRECTV does have a few options that do not include RSNs I would not expect RSNs to become optional in all packages. (Sorry.)


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

dtv757 said:


> I think a lot of telcos stopped expanding, due to cost and stuff, which stinks cause they left a lot of areas either suffering from a docsis monopoly
> Or slower DSL service .
> 
> Wish more areas had FTTH, my directv is more reliable that that horific service called docsis .
> ...


In my area both GF and AT&T are available in newly built homes. They just aren't going to go tearing up streets. GF pioneered a technique, I think it was called shallow trenching where they did something similar to how the traffic light sensors are done. It didn't work as in some areas the fiber would pop out and either had to be torn out or redone.

Dunno what your complaint about docsis is. I have 1Gbps service and its been pretty reliable. The shared bandwidth is an issue with wfh... but like I'm doing torrents during work hours lol.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> Only if you happen to be among the hundreds of people that they've offered service to. It will be some time before Starlink is viable for anyone who wants to spend $100 or more a month plus hardware.


Unless you have fiber, $100 is what you'll pay for Gbps service in most areas.

5G vs. Starlink... we'll have to see if one wins or they co-exist. Not like they don't have cell service in Wormlick, MT or wherever.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> They just aren't going to go tearing up streets.


Directional boring works nicely, even for going under roads. I see it used often for both communications conduits and gas lines.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

James Long said:


> DISH could use the additional bandwidth at 119 (without modification to installed Western Arc antennas). The three transponders at 110 would be an easy add. There has been some discussion of DISH leaving 129 (not something I'd expect to happen). 14 transponders on core satellites would not be useless. DIRECTV's satellite at 101 could be moved (with the DIRECTV service becoming Ka only if it survives).
> 
> If the entire value of DIRECTV is their customer base and contracts then their subscription count is their bottom line. Contracts are useless without subscribers and the subscriber loss needs to level off while DIRECTV still has customers to discuss. DIRECTV's exclusive deal with the NFL will be ending in couple of years ... if the NFL sets a good price it will be on DISH (and other carriers). HD on higher powered Ku DBS satellites ... less weather problems than Ka. Losing that exclusive will lead to commercial subscriber loss for DIRECTV. (I expect the Sinclair RSNs to return when Sinclair OTA stations come up for renewal.)
> 
> The task for "new DIRECTV" is to turn the trend around so that doesn't happen.


Channels are going out of business. There is no pressure to add new things. All bandwidth pressure is going in the opposite direction

There would be a technology transition of some kind, so if they did bring DirecTV assets into the fold they might as well transition to one or the other, and rip the bandaid off and go as deep into modern encoding as possible, meaning drop SD, move to MPEG4/HEVC

I agree that DirecTV needs to stop the bleeding, or at least slow it down. The entire MVPD market is in decline so I doubt they can stop it completely. But right now yes 100% of the value in DirecTV is its paying customers who are generating a big cash flow. There's almost no value in the satellites or the rest of the broadcast infrastructure. I guess there is probably some value in the headquarters next to LAX, Elon Musk could probably use some more office space


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

"No value" makes for a cheap sale. New encoding schemes have helped relieve the bandwidth issues but the combination of obtaining DIRECTV's 14 transponders at 110 and 119 and more efficient encoding could help DISH move retire their use of 129 (without changing any customer dishes). That could happen at any time as DIRECTV adjusts their assets. A few years ago such an asset sale would have been unthinkable as "helping the competition". Now it is a way of liquidating an asset.

Trusting the experts, there was a proposal floated a few years ago for DISH and DIRECTV to share some satellites. The proposal was to have local channels (the most expensive part of the transmission system) transmit in a format compatible with both systems. DIRECTV's move away from Ku DBS kills that proposal, but it does illustrate the potential for "one satellite, two services" to co-exist.

As noted in many previous threads changing all the equipment one company uses to the other company's equipment to merge customer bases is too expensive and disruptive. DISH did their bandwidth saving receiver swap a few years ago with their transition to MPEG4/8PSK. DIRECTV has delayed their push to eliminate non MPEG4 equipment. Such equipment swaps are expensive - and changing systems and dishes just gives customers another reason to leave. Transitioning customers from one to the other is a non-starter.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Another issue raised by the spin-off of the three AT&T products as a unit will be whether or not a suitor is interested in all three elements (DIRECTV, Uverse and AT&T TV).

In particular, I can't see DISH being all that interested in acquring Uverse or AT&T TV even if they're just looking to snag the customers.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

JosephB said:


> The entire value in DirecTV is in the customer base and its contracts with the programmers.


I have doubts that those contracts would necessarily transfer.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> In particular, I can't see DISH being all that interested in acquring Uverse or AT&T TV even if they're just looking to snag the customers.


It is easier and less expensive for DISH to obtain their customers one at a time. Selling customers has limited value. Customers not under contract could leave any time and customers under contract could leave as soon as their contracts expire (or earlier if they are willing to pay the ETF or get a court to rule that the buyer violated the contract with the customer). Purchased customers come with the obligation to meet the contract made with each customer.



harsh said:


> I have doubts that those contracts would necessarily transfer.


The merger of AT&T and DIRECTV is a good demonstration on how transferable contracts can be (and how limited the transfer can be). The contracts will transfer for a new owner continuing the same services as the former owner. But expecting contracts to cover services not in the contract is ... "overly optimistic". AT&T was not able to tear up their higher cost UVERSE carriage contracts and replace them with DIRECTV satellite carriage contracts. The carriage had to be renegotiated and it took years. There is a long history illustrating the limits of contracts.

Fan fiction fantisies about merging DISH and DIRECTV are about as bad as the fantasies put forth when AT&T and DIRECTV merged. 

Let's see how it goes with TPG.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> It is easier and less expensive for DISH to obtain their customers one at a time.


My question is how can someone who acquires the New DIRECTV hope to take over the Uverse customers absent unfettered access to the infrastructure?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> My question is how can someone who acquires the New DIRECTV hope to take over the Uverse customers absent unfettered access to the infrastructure?


Contracted services. Customers will continue to pay AT&T for UVERSE network connectivity bundled with DIRECTV video services delivered over their UVERSE connection. Just like any bundilng of AT&T TV with ATTWS will continue with DIRECTV providing the video services and AT&T providing the wireless connectivity. The bundling of HBO Max with DIRECTV services (AT&T TV, DIRECTV and UVERSE) will be handled the same way. AT&T will have a contract to provide those services to DIRECTV customers. The new DIRECTV will also maintain a contracted presence in AT&T stores for sales and customer service.

The SEC filing is fairly clear about the arrangements. The apendexes are not included, but there is plenty of information available.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> Another issue raised by the spin-off of the three AT&T products as a unit will be whether or not a suitor is interested in all three elements (DIRECTV, Uverse and AT&T TV).
> 
> In particular, I can't see DISH being all that interested in acquring Uverse or AT&T TV even if they're just looking to snag the customers.


I doubt that a future sale of DTV to DISH would include AT&T TV or Uverse TV. In fact, assuming such a sale doesn't take place for at least another 2 years, I doubt Uverse TV even exists at that point, as I expect those subs, all of whom necessarily have AT&T home internet service, to get migrated over to AT&T TV by then.

We're already seeing AT&T TV and DTV diverge in terms of how they're priced and marketed now that AT&T TV is mainly pushing a no-contract, simple every day pricing model (while continuing to also offer its original DTV-style 2-year contract model). It will be interesting to see if the new management company further distances the two services from each other, such as by having somewhat different channel packages for the two.

If AT&T and TPG sold off DTV to DISH, then who knows what might happen to AT&T TV. Perhaps AT&T would buy back TPG's 30% stake in it at that point. Whatever comes to pass, I think AT&T is going to want a full-scale/traditional-quality MVPD that they can offer to their home broadband customers -- that was the reason for originally creating Uverse TV and that's the role that AT&T TV now fulfills. I realize more and more folks cut the cord on cable TV every day but there will continue to be a big chunk of US households that want it for years to come and AT&T Fiber will need an option to offer those folks to land and keep them as a broadband provider.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

The only real value in merging Directv and Dish would be increasing prices (probably more by limiting access to discounts) on the rural customers who have no other option. It may be too late for that though, by the time such a combination could happen more and more rural customers will have other options via 5G and/or Starlink. Had they been able to do it a decade ago it would have been a lot more profitable as they would have had no other options for the foreseeable future, but that's also the reason the FTC would have quickly shot it down.

If you can't increase prices the only cost cutting you can do is combining support stuff like billing, CSRs and installers. There's unlikely to be enough savings there to pay for the upfront cost of such a merger.

I think it is funny how the market seems to see a Directv/Dish merger as either desirable or inevitable, without understanding how little difference it would make. It isn't as if you can wave a magic wand and get all the customers on one system or the other - and even if you could, you don't save any money by prematurely retiring one or both of Dish's arcs (unless it has aging satellites that will need to be replaced soon, and you'd need to send installers out to every Dish customer to give them a Slimline) or prematurely retiring Directv's hardware (especially since unlike with satellite retirement this has huge cost attached as you'd need to manufacture tons more Dish hardware and send installers out to every Directv customer)


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Customers will continue to pay AT&T for UVERSE network connectivity bundled with DIRECTV video services delivered over their UVERSE connection. Just like any bundilng of AT&T TV with ATTWS will continue with DIRECTV providing the video services and AT&T providing the wireless connectivity.


With multiple vendors comes finger pointing. If a Uverse customer is having trouble, who will they automatically dispatch an AT&T tech?

Again, I'm speaking of a future where the New DIRECTV has been acquired by a long-term player (or wanna-be) and AT&T has chiseled its last penny out of it.

The crossover between DBS and AT&T will be next to nil as it always has been.


----------



## longhorn23 (Jan 19, 2019)

Does anyone know what will happen to the AT&T/directv discounts? When they merged, I received a lifetime monthly discount for Directv of $25 since I was an att unlimited wireless customer as well and also an a lifetime monthly discount for HBO of $13.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> Again, I'm speaking of a future where the New DIRECTV has been acquired by a long-term player (or wanna-be) and AT&T has chiseled its last penny out of it.


I am sticking with reality, what is happening this year as announced and explained. New DIRECTV controlled by TPG.

I am sure there will be boundaries and arguments over who's equipment is at fault ... Just like there would be for an AT&T or SlingTV customer on Xfinity Internet. With AT&T continuing to bundle with DIRECTV I expect the situation would be better than if AT&T had a competing video system.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

longhorn23 said:


> Does anyone know what will happen to the AT&T/directv discounts? When they merged, I received a lifetime monthly discount for Directv of $25 since I was an att unlimited wireless customer as well and also an a lifetime monthly discount for HBO of $13.


That's a good question. My guess is that as long as you stick with both services (DTV and AT&T Wireless unlimited plan), the discount will remain on your account. But who knows. AT&T has all kinds of legacy discounts in their system. Part of the (flawed) rationale in buying DTV was that it would help them bundle in and cross-sell other AT&T services. So I'm sure that there are a ton of other DTV customers like you with those bundling discounts.

Didn't AT&T pause the integration of DTV into their own billing system, so that some DTV subs are on the AT&T system but others are still on the legacy DTV billing system? I would imagine that the process will be reversed later this year, so that all all billing for DTV (as well as AT&T TV) is done by the new company, apart from AT&T's main system.

Actually, I think AT&T TV has had its own separate billing system since it launched, so pushing that over to the new company should be simple. Also, I noticed that they're no longer offering bundling discounts for folks who take both AT&T Fiber and AT&T TV (or, I guess, DTV) at the same time.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> The only real value in merging Directv and Dish would be increasing prices (probably more by limiting access to discounts) on the rural customers who have no other option. It may be too late for that though, by the time such a combination could happen more and more rural customers will have other options via 5G and/or Starlink. Had they been able to do it a decade ago it would have been a lot more profitable as they would have had no other options for the foreseeable future, but that's also the reason the FTC would have quickly shot it down.
> 
> If you can't increase prices the only cost cutting you can do is combining support stuff like billing, CSRs and installers. There's unlikely to be enough savings there to pay for the upfront cost of such a merger.
> 
> I think it is funny how the market seems to see a Directv/Dish merger as either desirable or inevitable, without understanding how little difference it would make. It isn't as if you can wave a magic wand and get all the customers on one system or the other - and even if you could, you don't save any money by prematurely retiring one or both of Dish's arcs (unless it has aging satellites that will need to be replaced soon, and you'd need to send installers out to every Dish customer to give them a Slimline) or prematurely retiring Directv's hardware (especially since unlike with satellite retirement this has huge cost attached as you'd need to manufacture tons more Dish hardware and send installers out to every Directv customer)


Certainly the biggest boon from a merger of DTV and DISH would be monopoly pricing power for rural customers with no other option (although that number will continue to dwindle as broadband expands into the hinterlands). But another benefit would be increased negotiating power when it comes time to renew those carriage contracts with the network groups; having more subs helps you drive a harder bargain. And, yes, combining marketing, billing, support and installation teams would realize at least some cost savings.

At any rate, I'd say Charlie Ergen knows more about the business than you or I and he's repeatedly said that he sees a merger of the two businesses as "inevitable" at some point. And now we hear DTV leadership openly mentioning the possibility too. My money is on a deal being announced in 2023...


----------



## ericknolls (Aug 18, 2013)

It's nice that AT&T found a buyer or partner. Whatever you want to call this deal. I'm wondering what ideas TPG has to turn around AT&T's media unit. If AT&T is going to call the shots and continue on its current path with more say than TPG this tie up means nothing for it's balance sheet. What is going to happen? Will a skinny bundle be born? New equipment i.e. a DVR with better and faster apps and features, more discounts, services packaged with other streaming services? Can these two companies even work together?

Sent from my moto g(7) using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> With multiple vendors comes finger pointing. If a Uverse customer is having trouble, who will they automatically dispatch an AT&T tech?


They are selling off Uverse TV, not Uverse internet. No different than the potential for finger pointing when running Sling TV or AT&T TV over Comcast cable internet, etc.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> I am sticking with reality, what is happening this year as announced and explained. New DIRECTV controlled by TPG.
> 
> I am sure there will be boundaries and arguments over who's equipment is at fault ... Just like there would be for an AT&T or SlingTV customer on Xfinity Internet. With AT&T continuing to bundle with DIRECTV I expect the situation would be better than if AT&T had a competing video system.


What is your overall take on this deal, if you wrote it earlier my apologies, but what is your intuitive take on where this will take the long term subscribers who would like to hold on for a few more years with Directv?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> They are selling off Uverse TV, not Uverse internet. No different than the potential for finger pointing when running Sling TV or AT&T TV over Comcast cable internet, etc.


But it is a new experience for someone considering acquisition of New DIRECTV (which is often why TPG gets involved in such deals). Not being able to dig into the gateway would seem to be a handicap as compared with being able to blame the customer's router or broadband service.


----------



## Carolina (Jan 20, 2012)

I wanted AT&T gone from DTV. Doesn't look like I will ever get that wish!


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Carolina said:


> I wanted AT&T gone from DTV. Doesn't look like I will ever get that wish!


I want docsis and the cable co monopolies gone don't think that will ever happen 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

dtv757 said:


> I want docsis and the cable co monopolies gone don't think that will ever happen
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


You'd have to hope that all of this increase competition will at least lead to innovation and give us a good reason to stick with it. I'm not sure AT&T was committed to do it. Maybe this new ownership will be.


----------



## Carolina (Jan 20, 2012)

Steveknj said:


> You'd have to hope that all of this increase competition will at least lead to innovation and give us a good reason to stick with it. I'm not sure AT&T was committed to do it. Maybe this new ownership will be.


What could they do owning only 30% of the company?


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Carolina said:


> What could they do owning only 30% of the company?


A lot. They will have 2 (of 5 from what I understand) board members. But the idea is that they still have invested a decent amount into the company, and it's possible they can lead rather than follow. If their only goal is to cash out at the end, than there's no hope. If they are serious about making changes and improving things, then we'll see.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> They are selling off Uverse TV, not Uverse internet. No different than the potential for finger pointing when running Sling TV or AT&T TV over Comcast cable internet, etc.





harsh said:


> But it is a new experience for someone considering acquisition of New DIRECTV (which is often why TPG gets involved in such deals). Not being able to dig into the gateway would seem to be a handicap as compared with being able to blame the customer's router or broadband service.


Keep in mind that Uverse TV is managed IPTV that is exclusively provisioned within the AT&T IP network. It's not an OTT service like Sling or AT&T TV, which can run over any provider's internet. Uverse TV provisions multicast streams for some (all?) linear channels, which can serve lots of households at the same time. I don't really know to what extent the new DirecTV group will be in charge of network operations for Uverse TV, given that it's so intertwined with AT&T's physical network. At any rate, if any problems arise with regard to delivery of the service to customers that can't be fixed by swapping out the STB, then I'd say it'll be on AT&T's network engineers or line crew to fix.

My guess is that the new DirecTV group will only be in charge of Uverse TV-related business decisions and maybe take those customer's TV-related support calls. I doubt that Uverse TV billing even gets split off from AT&T Internet and shuffled over to the new group. I don't see the point given that, as I've said before, Uverse TV will likely be wound down in the next couple of years. The whole operation is pretty much just on auto-pilot now. The biggest decision that this new group will make with regard to UVerse TV will be when to shut it down and how to incentivize the migration of those customers over to AT&T TV.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

I imaging it would still be bundled ... reminds me of years ago when I had D* bundled with Verizon DSL. It was all on 1 bill but anything tv related I called D* not vz. 

Any credits etc would show on next vz bill . 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> A lot. They will have 2 (of 5 from what I understand) board members.


Correct ... TPG gets two out of five, AT&T gets two out of five. The fifth member of the governing board will be the CEO of DIRECTV (who will be employed by DIRECTV, not AT&T).

The 70% financial stake does not mean AT&T is retaining 70% control. It is an investment - like buying bonds or non-voting stock in another company.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> But it is a new experience for someone considering acquisition of New DIRECTV (which is often why TPG gets involved in such deals). Not being able to dig into the gateway would seem to be a handicap as compared with being able to blame the customer's router or broadband service.


Asked and answered. Please don't throw the false FUD of what could happen years down the road into the equation. It is irrelevant. Read what slice and I have posted.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> > I am sticking with reality, what is happening this year as announced and explained. New DIRECTV controlled by TPG.
> ...


There are some trends that need to be turned around. Recent customer losses are better than they were a few quarters ago, but mainly because they were really lousy a few quarters ago and they have improved to less lousy. They are still on track to run out of customers in a few years if they don't end the slump. (Recent reports from DISH show they won't run out of customers for nearly 20 years. DIRECTV needs to get back to that level.)

I am hopeful that under motivated management new DIRECTV will be able to turn their business around. But there are certainly challenges ahead. The Video Unit that is becoming new DIRECTV is actually a strong part of AT&T ... decent revenue and regular profits. Some parts of AT&T can't make that brag. It all depends on TPG's approach to management.

Nothing that the customers should be worried about in the short term. DIRECTV will be around for a few more years. All contracts will be honored with customers and content suppliers.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dtv757 said:


> I want docsis and the cable co monopolies gone don't think that will ever happen


So you advocate for rates like what happened to electricity in Texas?

Regulation is what solves the monopoly problem, not doing away with them.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Please don't throw the false FUD of what could happen years down the road into the equation.


So you expect that TPG is in this for the long haul?


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

I expect TPG to see if they can't turn things around first. But I would also expect them to cut bait quickly if they can't. I just hope they have a plan, but I'd imagine if they invested that much money, they didn't go into it blindly.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> So you expect that TPG is in this for the long haul?


At least wait until the deal closes before considering what their next step will be. There is no need to spread FUD.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> At least wait until the deal closes before considering what their next step will be. There is no need to spread FUD.


To be fair, AT&T execs themselves have already publicly broached the topic of next steps after the deal closes (although they didn't really say much).

AT&T Execs Speak Out On Selling DIRECTV - The TV Answer Man!


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

I'm surprised that Direct hasn't gotten out of making mini genies and just have an app that works on appletv, firestick, etc.. Seemed like that the idea they were heading down years ago when there were TVs with RVU built in them.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> To be fair, AT&T execs themselves have already publicly broached the topic of next steps after the deal closes (although they didn't really say much).


Basically wait for the deal to close (2nd half of 2021) before considering what may or may not happen next. Which is basically my point.

It is interesting that they have "papered" a merger with DISH ... but sketching on a napkin isn't a firm plan to do anything. There are a lot of scenarios.


----------



## mitchflorida (May 18, 2009)

*For TPG, the deal with AT&T allows the firm to get a 30 percent stake in the video business for just $1.8 billion in cash.*
In the summer of 2015, telecom giant AT&T closed its acquisition of satellite powerhouse DirecTV, touting its new role as "the largest pay TV provider" in the world. Price tag: $67 billion, including debt. AT&T ended that year with 25.4 million U.S. pay TV subscribers.

Fast-forward to this Feb. 25, when AT&T sold a 30 percent stake in DirecTV and its other video services, U-Verse and AT&T TV, to private equity firm TPG Capital. The deal valued the new entity, known as DirecTV, at $16.25 billion, "down considerably," as Moody's analyst Neil Begley noted - 76 percent to be precise. AT&T had ended 2020 with 17.2 million U.S. video subscribers, a third lower than in 2015.

"AT&T's DirecTV is inarguably one of the worst acquisitions of all time," MoffettNathanson analyst Craig Moffett wrote to his clients after the deal was unveiled. "Most put the 'real' valuation of the deal at closer to $12 billion. What they've really done is buy the right to lock DirecTV in the basement in the hope that no one remembers it's down there," Moffett argued.
...

Some wonder if AT&T could down the line decide to also undo another big acquisition: the 2018 purchase of WarnerMedia for $85 billion. Several analysts have suggested Comcast's NBCUniversal as a deal partner.

AT&T Cuts Losses on DirecTV as Wall Street Wonders If a Dish Merger Is Next


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Basically wait for the deal to close (2nd half of 2021) before considering what may or may not happen next. Which is basically my point.
> 
> It is interesting that they have "papered" a merger with DISH ... but sketching on a napkin isn't a firm plan to do anything. There are a lot of scenarios.


Yeah, they're not making any detailed public comments about the possibility of a merger with DISH but just the fact that they're tacitly admitting that it's under consideration as a follow-up deal can only increase speculation that that's where this is all likely heading. I mean, you have to look at those statements in light of what DISH's Ergen publicly stated back in Dec:

_"So, don't take me as gospel on this, but [AT&T] would like to deconsolidate that business and they would like to do that before they would take any regulatory risk&#8230;How they do that or whether they do that, of course, remains to be seen," said Ergen in November, according to a Motley Fool earnings transcript. "But make no mistake, whether it's a year from now or 10 years from now, I believe it's inevitable that those companies go together."
_​Deeper Dive-AT&T sold DirecTV but could still score on Dish tie-up


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

kevinwmsn said:


> I'm surprised that Direct hasn't gotten out of making mini genies and just have an app that works on appletv, firestick, etc.. Seemed like that the idea they were heading down years ago when there were TVs with RVU built in them.


They do have an app that works on those devices. It's called AT&T TV. ;-)

As for having a DirecTV app on streaming devices that could be used in place of a Genie Mini, in conjunction with a DirecTV home server like the HS-17, well, I speculated that that was originally part of the plan for AT&T's C71 box, their Android TV-based streamer that they now use exclusively with AT&T TV. The original user manual that they filed for the C71 with the FCC made mention of how it might also be used in conjunction with something called an "HS-27," which obviously sounds like a next-gen version of the HS-17. And the C71 name itself suggests that it was supposed to be the follow-up to the current C61 Genie Mini. And AT&T's former CEO talked about how the new AT&T TV UI would eventually be extended to DirecTV too. My guess is that the original plan was to use the C71 for both AT&T TV and DirecTV but they ultimately decided not to bother rolling out new hardware for DirecTV.

A nice thing about the C71 is that it comes with a custom full-featured AT&T remote that is very similar to the DirecTV remote. It has all the buttons you need for a traditional cable TV/DVR experience. I'm not sure how well DirecTV customers would like using the much simpler remotes of the Apple TV, Roku and Fire TV streamers if the service were to roll out an app for those devices.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

kevinwmsn said:


> I'm surprised that Direct hasn't gotten out of making mini genies and just have an app that works on appletv, firestick, etc.. Seemed like that the idea they were heading down years ago when there were TVs with RVU built in them.


You appear to be assuming that implementing RVU on any random streaming device is trivial. It wasn't that easy for Samsung to do and they were in close association with DIRECTV on the RVU initiative.

Having Minis makes explaining the TV fee a lot easier compared to charging the same $7 fee for running an app on hardware you provide (something more than a few RVU TV owners were disappointed to learn). Accessory fees and charges (on top of package pricing) make up a substantial portion of DIRECTV's revenues and giving up multiples of $7 would be painful indeed.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> You appear to be assuming that implementing RVU on any random streaming device is trivial. It wasn't that easy for Samsung to do and they were in close association with DIRECTV on the RVU initiative.
> 
> Having Minis makes explaining the TV fee a lot easier compared to charging the same $7 fee for running an app on hardware you provide (something more than a few RVU TV owners were disappointed to learn). Accessory fees and charges (on top of package pricing) make up a substantial portion of DIRECTV's revenues and giving up multiples of $7 would be painful indeed.


Yeah, good point about the $7/mo rental fee for their receivers. They don't wanna give that up and, as you say, folks don't expect to pay an access fee to use an app on their own streaming device.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Basically wait for the deal to close (2nd half of 2021) before considering what may or may not happen next. Which is basically my point.


The companies have to have plans for any outcome and I expect the end-game is probably the same either way.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

I want a new Genie Plus DVR with 16 tuners, quad PIP and 8K.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

TheRatPatrol said:


> I want a new Genie Plus DVR with 16 tuners, quad PIP and 8K.


Good luck with that.


----------



## ericknolls (Aug 18, 2013)

Carolina said:


> What could they do owning only 30% of the company?


I'm scratching my head and thinking the same. What these two companies decided in the deal: AT&T gets 70 percent of the revenue and TPG Capital gets 30 percent. This may look good for AT&T's financials but not for the survival of DIRECTV. It is early to say what will come out of this deal. I wish we could get more than a comment from AT&T, "TPG Capital has some good "ideas". <---That is some very exciting news. Ya think? Meaning what? We could speculate forever what's in this deal. If anybody has any intel please link or let us know!

Sent from my moto g(7) using Tapatalk


----------



## ericknolls (Aug 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> To be fair, AT&T execs themselves have already publicly broached the topic of next steps after the deal closes (although they didn't really say much).
> 
> AT&T Execs Speak Out On Selling DIRECTV - The TV Answer Man!


I clicked on the article. I read AT&T's comment on this deal. My take - It was very empty and lacking details. I guess we'll just have to wait for more press releases and have hope and pray wishes from this new DIRECTV company.

Sent from my moto g(7) using Tapatalk


----------



## DMRI2006 (Jun 13, 2006)

Off to a great start! 

AT&T Increases Prices for Grandfathered DIRECTV NOW and AT&T TV NOW Plans | Cord Cutters News


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

DMRI2006 said:


> Off to a great start!
> 
> AT&T Increases Prices for Grandfathered DIRECTV NOW and AT&T TV NOW Plans | Cord Cutters News


That was announced prior


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

ericknolls said:


> I'm scratching my head and thinking the same. What these two companies decided in the deal: AT&T gets 70 percent of the revenue and TPG Capital gets 30 percent. This may look good for AT&T's financials but not for the survival of DIRECTV. It is early to say what will come out of this deal. I wish we could get more than a comment from AT&T, "TPG Capital has some good "ideas". <---That is some very exciting news. Ya think? Meaning what? We could speculate forever what's in this deal. If anybody has any intel please link or let us know!
> 
> Sent from my moto g(7) using Tapatalk





ericknolls said:


> I clicked on the article. I read AT&T's comment on this deal. My take - It was very empty and inclusive of details. I guess we'll just have to wait for more press releases and have hope and pray wishes from this new DIRECTV company.
> 
> Sent from my moto g(7) using Tapatalk


We really don't know yet. The deal hasn't even closed, has it? There might be some things they just can't say at this point. We'll see.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

TPG is an activist investor. They don't buy stakes in companies in order to just sit back and let the business continue on the exact same course as before they bought in.

It's also worth noting that the guy who will serve as CEO of the joint-venture "new DIRECTV" group is AT&T's Bill Morrow, "an executive known for his cost-cutting zeal" per this write-up at Bloomberg:

New DirecTV's Future Includes Cost Cutting, Possible Dish Deal

So we'll certainly see some changes in DTV in the future. Although I'm skeptical that they'll introduce new model high-end Genie DVRs, or another UI overhaul, or other moves that would excite DTV fans. Given the huge drop in subscribers in recent years, they must have warehouses full of old receivers that they can keep refurbishing and sending back out to customers, which would seem like the most cost-effective option for them.


----------



## JiminToga (Jun 1, 2020)

I just want my DNS NBC back.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> You appear to be assuming that implementing RVU on any random streaming device is trivial. It wasn't that easy for Samsung to do and they were in close association with DIRECTV on the RVU initiative.
> 
> Having Minis makes explaining the TV fee a lot easier compared to charging the same $7 fee for running an app on hardware you provide (something more than a few RVU TV owners were disappointed to learn). Accessory fees and charges (on top of package pricing) make up a substantial portion of DIRECTV's revenues and giving up multiples of $7 would be painful indeed.


RVU is based on two open standards. There may be a dash of proprietary stuff in there (I don't really know either way) but it would be quite simple to implement on any set top built in the past five years. The limitation is in Directv allowing it to happen.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> TPG is an activist investor. They don't buy stakes in companies in order to just sit back and let the business continue on the exact same course as before they bought in.
> 
> It's also worth noting that the guy who will serve as CEO of the joint-venture "new DIRECTV" group is AT&T's Bill Morrow, "an executive known for his cost-cutting zeal" per this write-up at Bloomberg:
> 
> ...


The new CEO worries me. Sounds like they will try and squeeze everything out of the lemon they can before they sell or liquidate. I'm less optimistic after reading that about him than I was previously


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> RVU is based on two open standards. There may be a dash of proprietary stuff in there (I don't really know either way) but it would be quite simple to implement on any set top built in the past five years.


Implementing things like proprietary DRM may not be as trivial as you suggest. RVU approval doesn't appear to have been granted to anyone in quite a long time: The Samsung C61 (approved in October 2016) is the most recently listed device on the RVU Alliance website.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Steveknj said:


> The new CEO worries me. Sounds like they will try and squeeze everything out of the lemon they can before they sell or liquidate. I'm less optimistic after reading that about him than I was previously


Directv has minimal liquidation value, so there's no reason to be concerned about that.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> Implementing things like proprietary DRM may not be as trivial as you suggest. RVU approval doesn't appear to have been granted to anyone in quite a long time: The Samsung C61 (approved in October 2016) is the most recently listed device on the RVU Alliance website.


Since RVU failed as a "standard" it is Directv only. Directv hasn't designed any new clients since the C61, that's why nothing new has appeared since then.

Implementing DRM is trivial, it uses DTCP-IP which is an open standard that is implemented in many other products.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ericknolls said:


> What these two companies decided in the deal: AT&T gets 70 percent of the revenue and TPG Capital gets 30 percent.


Nope. AT&T has 70% of the ownership stake. They do not get to count the revenue.



JiminToga said:


> I just want my DNS NBC back.


Sorry. New ownership does not change their contracts with channel providers (or carriage laws).


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> The new CEO worries me. Sounds like they will try and squeeze everything out of the lemon they can before they sell or liquidate. I'm less optimistic after reading that about him than I was previously


Well, I definitely think they'll be looking at ways to reduce costs and make the service as profitable as it can be. But at the same time, they're going to have to think about how to preserve the customer base better than AT&T has done so far. If the cost-cutting measures makes the service noticeably worse for existing DTV subs, then that's just going to run more of them off, which obviously reduces the cash the business generates and puts them in a worse position for a potential exit sale in a few years to DISH (or some third party that would presumably buy both DTV and DISH to merge them).

I suspect that they'll take steps to further incentivize new customers to choose AT&T TV instead of DTV given that the new customer acquisition costs are so much lower for AT&T TV (and possibly because AT&T or AT&T+TPG would want to hold onto AT&T TV indefinitely, even after selling off DTV in the foreseeable future). The only reason a new customer should have for choosing DTV instead of AT&T TV should be because DTV offers NFL Sunday Ticket and NFL Network. In all other ways, they should make AT&T TV equal or better than DTV, along with pricing it a little less for the same channel packages and feature set (e.g. DVR).

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, they do to actively encourage DTV subs to shift over to AT&T TV. Perhaps just making some improvements to AT&T TV and holding the regular prices on it below those of DTV would be enough to lure many over. Although lots of DTV customers who are out-of-contract get various kinds of retention discounts. I imagine a change how those discounts are done may be one of the bigger changes that longtime DTV customers notice.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I suspect that they'll take steps to further incentivize new customers to choose AT&T TV instead of DTV given that the new customer acquisition costs are so much lower for AT&T TV (and possibly because AT&T or AT&T+TPG would want to hold onto AT&T TV indefinitely, even after selling off DTV in the foreseeable future). The only reason a new customer should have for choosing DTV instead of AT&T TV should be because DTV offers NFL Sunday Ticket and NFL Network. In all other ways, they should make AT&T TV equal or better than DTV, along with pricing it a little less for the same channel packages and feature set (e.g. DVR).


Alas, I submit that they are still quite a distance from making the transition from DIRECTV to AT&T TV a wash. DVR functionality is one major aspect that I see as being substantially in DIRECTV's favor. Capacity is great, but it is secondary for many, if not most. The differences in channels (though maybe not so much from a programming standpoint) for the same name package are oddly disparate.

I think there needs to be a greater cost difference to get many off the DIRECTV teat given inertia and the refinement that AT&T TV still lacks.

Having comparable 4K offerings on the AT&T TV side would be a good start.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> Alas, I submit that they are still quite a distance from making the transition from DIRECTV to AT&T TV a wash. DVR functionality is one major aspect that I see as being substantially in DIRECTV's favor. Capacity is great, but it is secondary for many, if not most. The differences in channels (though maybe not so much from a programming standpoint) for the same name package are oddly disparate.
> 
> I think there needs to be a greater cost difference to get many off the DIRECTV teat given inertia and the refinement that AT&T TV still lacks.
> 
> Having comparable 4K offerings on the AT&T TV side would be a good start.


Yeah, I've listed the things that AT&T TV needs to do before.

1. Add PBS locals plus fill in the other missing locals of the other big 5 networks. They're generally there but some markets still have one missing.
2. Offer the same 4K and 4K HDR content that DTV has.
3. Fill in as many of the missing sports channels as possible. NFL ST and the NFL Network aren't going to be on AT&T TV (if ever) until 2023, it seems. Beyond that, AT&T TV is pretty much just missing those out-of-market RSNs that DTV offers in their Sports Pack add-on. Whether Sinclair/Bally wants to license out-of-market RSNs to streaming vMVPDs or, at this point, hold that as something they sell as a direct-to-consumer option starting next year in the Bally Sports app, IDK.
4. Extend the retention period for cloud DVR recordings beyond 90 days. It should really be one year, IMO (which would be equal to Comcast's cloud DVR and 3 months longer than YouTube TV). That would have been a much better move than their recent decision to expand storage from 500 hours to unlimited. Who would even store over 500 hours anyhow when it auto-deletes after 90 days?

I don't think there's much difference between DTV and AT&T TV in terms of channels aside from the sports nets I've mentioned above. Sure, there are a few little ones like INSP or QVC or certain religious channels that DTV has and AT&T TV doesn't but I don't think those matter too much. And for some reason, DTV includes more premium subchannels for HBO, Showtime, etc. than AT&T TV does. But frankly, who cares about HBO Zone when you've got the entire HBO library in AT&T TV's VOD platform ready to stream at any time? Or when you have the even bigger HBO Max app on the same device?

And in some important ways, DVR functionality is already better at AT&T TV than DTV. There are never recording conflicts because you can record on an unlimited number of channels at the same time. On DTV, you're limited to what, six? And obviously you don't have unlimited storage on a DTV Genie DVR. It's more like, what, 200 hours of HD? And with DTV, if you want to watch your recordings away from the TV, well, is that even possible? On AT&T TV, your recordings can stream to your phone, tablet or laptop wherever you're connected to the internet.

Even after the improvements I suggest above, yeah, there would be some edge cases of folks who found DTV better for them. Maybe the AT&T TV cloud DVR doesn't allow for slow-mo frame-by-frame advance the way that a local DVR like the Genie does and they really care about that. Or (more likely) they really want NFL ST and the NFL Network. Or maybe their broadband provider imposes a data cap and they believe they'd exceed it if all their cable TV viewing streamed over the internet.

So yes, there would still be folks who wanted to sign up for or stick with DTV rather than AT&T TV. But the lion's share of homes with broadband would find AT&T TV more attractive.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Just some differences I noticed with Entertainment package
DirecTv has MAVTV, ATT TV does not
DirecTv has 3 more locals than ATT TV (PBS, CW, MyN)
DirecTv had CNNi in SD, ATT TV has it in HD
DirecTv has Cspan in SD, ATT TV has it in HD
The one feature I need on ATT TV DVR would be a toggle to extend a recording on a series recording. Currently, Series recordings for sports events are useless, as they almost always run overtime.
You are correct though, no one that records 500 hours needs any more if it expires in 90 days. They COULD give us more than 20 hours on the basic plan however.

The only reason I would prefer DirecTv is it was more reliable. I have ATT fiber, and have all sorts of issues with ATT TV. With the Osprey box, it just randomly says "Powering Down" and shuts off, and restarts (yes all the auto stuff is turned off. This happens sometimes an hour after I start watching. On the Roku App, if I use ANY trick play on a cloud DVR show, it will start freezing up (spinning circle) within minutes. If I dont use trick play, it plays just fine. This is on 4 different Roku's, a Premier, Ultra 2019, Ultra 2020, and my Roku TV. The Roku TV has the added bug where it loses DD and switches to PCM audio after any trick play. Its just buggy as hell. Never had any issues with DirecTv satellite.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

I think AT&T TV is "getting there" from what I'm reading but it's not quite there yet, and not quite where I'd be willing to switch. Missing channels, lack of 4K, limited DVR, trick play is intermittent. Sure for most people it might be acceptable, but those people really should be happy with cheaper options like YTTV and so forth. For example, right now, AT&T TV is missing in the NY Metro, PBS, CW, MeTV (all channels I watch with some regularity), not to mention in this Metro we get no less than 4 PBS channels (13 from NJ, 50 from NJ, 49 from CT, 21 from LI. These are all available on DirecTV. I'd bet even if there was an agreement to carry PBS, we might get all of them. There is some redundancy, but they do have different schedules. But I want the experience to be as close to what I have as possible. I do think that's where we are headed, which may or may not be a good thing.

I read an article that talked about the types of things the new management might try and do. One could be to try and beef up AT&T TV and start winding down Sat. Another could be to have smaller Sat packages to compete. And a third (and this one I really agree with) is doing away with contracts. I really think if they did that, it really might help drive some traffic back. People really hate contracts. Cable doesn't do it as much if at all anymore.


----------



## ThaPhenom (Aug 21, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I've listed the things that AT&T TV needs to do before.
> 
> 1. Add PBS locals plus fill in the other missing locals of the other big 5 networks. They're generally there but some markets still have one missing.
> *2. Offer the same 4K and 4K HDR content that DTV has.
> ...


These are exactly the things that keep me with DirecTV. If another provider had those things I'd likely switch, especially since most of the good apartment complexes make it difficult to have DirecTV.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Yes and speaking of braves, I saw a bunch of folks on braves reedit complaining cause they went to a "streaming " provider and now can't get Fox/Ballys sports net South/SE. 

Sports , 4K, good pricing, customer service and more keep me with directv. 

My bill would be 250+ with local cable co and NO 4K... o yea I forgot and would be horific unwatchable PQ. I tested it (cable co) once for free and NBA was unwatchable microblocks everywhere . 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## ThaPhenom (Aug 21, 2006)

dtv757 said:


> Yes and speaking of braves, I saw a bunch of folks on braves reedit complaining cause they went to a "streaming " provider and now can't get Fox/Ballys sports net South/SE.
> 
> Sports , 4K, good pricing, customer service and more keep me with directv.
> 
> ...


The main reason I have the Sports Pack is for the Braves and Heat pre and postgame shows. Also, during rain delays and rainouts Fox Sports South/SE typically shows their player insider shows that MLB forces them to black out during their regular broadcast windows. With MLB.tv the only thing you get during rain delays is a screen graphic.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Davenlr said:


> Just some differences I noticed with Entertainment package
> DirecTv has MAVTV, ATT TV does not
> DirecTv has 3 more locals than ATT TV (PBS, CW, MyN)
> DirecTv had CNNi in SD, ATT TV has it in HD
> DirecTv has Cspan in SD, ATT TV has it in HD


Yeah, other than locals that AT&T TV may be missing in your area, the channel line-up differences are minimal. (I mean, I had to look up what MAVTV even is. It's definitely not a channel most people care about or have even heard of.) In my market, AT&T TV has our locals for CW and MyN (along with big four ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) but one or both of those mini-nets are still missing in several places. As for HD vs. SD, I don't think AT&T TV carries anything in SD if the network has an HD feed, which makes sense because, in 2021, who even wants SD channels clogging up their grid guide? (Of course, if your internet connection is slow enough, I assume that the AT&T TV servers will ratchet down the resolution and bitrate to something like SD.)

And PBS isn't available anywhere yet, which is a real head-scratcher, IMO. For a long while, the lack of PBS on streaming cable TV services ("vMVPDs") was PBS's fault as they had to work out streaming rights, co-ordinate with their member stations, and get the tech in place for stations to upload live streams of their broadcasts. But they got that all squared away by the end of 2019 and then in early 2020 YouTube TV became the first vMVPD to carry PBS stations. So PBS has the capability now. AT&T TV obviously has the capability. AT&T already has existing relationships with all those PBS stations via DTV and, in some cases, Uverse TV too. So I have to think that adding them just hasn't been a priority for AT&T but that it will happen at some point. (I mean, how much money are they really saving by not carrying PBS?)



Davenlr said:


> The one feature I need on ATT TV DVR would be a toggle to extend a recording on a series recording. Currently, Series recordings for sports events are useless, as they almost always run overtime.


Ah, yes, that was on my original list too but I failed to list it again here: better DVR management controls. The main thing is the ability to pad recordings. Who designs a DVR without that option? That's nuts. In fact, the default option should be that live sports are recognized by the system so that recordings are automatically extended at least an extra 30 minutes.

Beyond that, it sounds like they need to make it easier to see and manage your upcoming recordings all on one screen. And add options like "retain only the X most recent recordings of this series."



Davenlr said:


> The only reason I would prefer DirecTv is it was more reliable. I have ATT fiber, and have all sorts of issues with ATT TV. With the Osprey box, it just randomly says "Powering Down" and shuts off, and restarts (yes all the auto stuff is turned off. This happens sometimes an hour after I start watching. On the Roku App, if I use ANY trick play on a cloud DVR show, it will start freezing up (spinning circle) within minutes. If I dont use trick play, it plays just fine. This is on 4 different Roku's, a Premier, Ultra 2019, Ultra 2020, and my Roku TV. The Roku TV has the added bug where it loses DD and switches to PCM audio after any trick play. Its just buggy as hell. Never had any issues with DirecTv satellite.


I had rain fade pretty often on DTV satellite and I've seen it happen multiple times at local restaurants and bars that use DTV (back in the before times when I actually went to restaurants and bars). But other than that, yeah, it was pretty reliable. (Well, I also had an issue where my Genie stopped handling on-demand downloads properly but that wasn't a big deal.)

Among firsthand reports of AT&T TV users, you seem to be an outlier in terms of the kinds of problems you're having. Still though, sounds like maybe they still have some work to do. Never heard of that "powering down" thing with the Osprey. I still think, overall, folks will get the best experience with AT&T TV by using that box instead of the app on third-party devices. Hopefully their 2nd-gen box comes out soon and is even better.



Steveknj said:


> I think AT&T TV is "getting there" from what I'm reading but it's not quite there yet, and not quite where I'd be willing to switch. Missing channels, lack of 4K, limited DVR, trick play is intermittent. Sure for most people it might be acceptable, but those people really should be happy with cheaper options like YTTV and so forth. For example, right now, AT&T TV is missing in the NY Metro, PBS, CW, MeTV (all channels I watch with some regularity), not to mention in this Metro we get no less than 4 PBS channels (13 from NJ, 50 from NJ, 49 from CT, 21 from LI. These are all available on DirecTV. I'd bet even if there was an agreement to carry PBS, we might get all of them. There is some redundancy, but they do have different schedules. But I want the experience to be as close to what I have as possible. I do think that's where we are headed, which may or may not be a good thing.


DTV carries your local MeTV station? I knew that DISH carries a national feed of MeTV but I didn't realize that DTV carried MeTV at all. Odd that AT&T TV still doesn't have the local CW station in such a big market as NYC. I'm sure it's coming at some point but who knows when. Same as PBS stations nationwide. And yeah, if/when they add PBS, I'd say it will work the same way as YouTube TV; at least where my parents live, YTTV offers both of their nearby PBS stations, just as satellite and Comcast do.

As for missing channels, again, aside from the locals (which isn't insignificant), there isn't much that DTV has but AT&T TV lacks. They should add 4K and HDR too (as little Fubo TV has had for years now) but, in the meantime, you're already gonna be watching AT&T TV on a 4K-capable streaming device anyhow, so you can switch over to the Fox Sports or NBC Sports app and watch select events in 4K or 4K HDR there, I think. Not ideal but not a huge deal either, IMO.



Steveknj said:


> I read an article that talked about the types of things the new management might try and do. One could be to try and beef up AT&T TV and start winding down Sat. Another could be to have smaller Sat packages to compete. And a third (and this one I really agree with) is doing away with contracts. I really think if they did that, it really might help drive some traffic back. People really hate contracts. Cable doesn't do it as much if at all anymore.


The only way I can see DTV doing away with the 2-yr contract is if the contract-free option makes you pay for installation up-front or handle the installation yourself (which obviously would be no big deal for homes already wired for DTV). The reason they can do AT&T TV on a contract-free basis is that the customer acquisition costs are so much lower. It's as simple as subscribing to Netflix. But it costs a lot to send someone out and install a rooftop dish and run the wiring. No way can they give that to you for free without a contract in place to ensure that they can recoup that cost.

I think AT&T TV is on the right track by offering an optional contract in exchange for certain benefits. That's what Comcast has been doing for quite awhile. But the key is that the contract is optional.

As for smaller channel packages, IDK. I don't really see how they can offer something skinnier than the Entertainment package without excluding entire network groups (e.g. nothing owned by Disney, or ViacomCBS, or Discovery, or A+E, etc.). AT&T started down that road with their Plus and Max packages but that initiative seems to have been abandoned.

Maybe they could offer something like the line-up they used to offer in AT&T Watch TV, which didn't include locals or anything owned by the broadcast network owners, so nothing from Disney (ABC), CBS, Fox or NBCUniversal. And then offer free OTA antenna integration via the LCC. That would be something like DISH's $48/mo Flex Pack which, while it fills a certain niche, isn't very popular.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

AT&T promised a TV revolution - instead, we got a giant mess


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> DTV carries your local MeTV station? I knew that DISH carries a national feed of MeTV but I didn't realize that DTV carried MeTV at all. Odd that AT&T TV still doesn't have the local CW station in such a big market as NYC. I'm sure it's coming at some point but who knows when. Same as PBS stations nationwide. And yeah, if/when they add PBS, I'd say it will work the same way as YouTube TV; at least where my parents live, YTTV offers both of their nearby PBS stations, just as satellite and Comcast do.


I'm in the St. Louis, MO. area and we get MeTV also.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> As for smaller channel packages, IDK. I don't really see how they can offer something skinnier than the Entertainment package without excluding entire network groups (e.g. nothing owned by Disney, or ViacomCBS, or Discovery, or A+E, etc.). AT&T started down that road with their Plus and Max packages but that initiative seems to have been abandoned.


They already had smaller packages and decided to do away with them. AT&T TV Now, remember them? 

IMO, if Sling can do skinnier packaging arrangements then AT&T certainly could too. They made a conscious choice to not really compete with other streaming service and chose to set theirs up as competing with cable/sat.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> They already had smaller packages and decided to do away with them. AT&T TV Now, remember them?


Yes, that's the Plus and Max packages I mentioned. But, as I say, they abandoned those.



lparsons21 said:


> IMO, if Sling can do skinnier packaging arrangements then AT&T certainly could too. They made a conscious choice to not really compete with other streaming service and chose to set theirs up as competing with cable/sat.


Eh, Sling is kind of a mess. I mean, it's fine for a small slice of folks interested in cheap cable TV but the vast majority who sign up want to get their major network locals plus a variety of cable nets. And Sling doesn't offer locals. I think DISH always intended that it be a lower-cost experimental option that doesn't directly compete with DISH. If you combine Sling's Orange and Blue for $50/mo and then add the value of locals (which Sling doesn't offer but DISH charges $12/mo for), then you're at $62/mo, not much less than AT&T TV's every day no-contract price of $70/mo for Entertainment (which has some popular channels lacking from Sling Orange+Blue).

AT&T needs AT&T TV to be a full-scale MVPD that can replace Uverse TV and DTV. If you can shunt some channels off into optional add-on packs, separate from the base package that includes locals, then great. But look at YouTube TV, which started out skinny but then, in order to offer popular channels that folks wanted -- channels from Discovery, from Viacom, etc. -- they were forced to include them in the base package rather than in optional add-ons. I don't know that AT&T TV could avoid the same thing. The Plus and Max packages lacked channels from Discovery, A+E and AMC Networks. Would've been nice if those channels could've been offered in an optional "Lifestyle Pack" add-on for maybe $12/mo. But I don't think any of those three network groups would have gone along with such a plan.

Google seems fairly committed to YouTube TV as a real competitor to traditional cable TV and at this point I expect them to eventually add some of those missing channels from Hallmark and A+E Networks in the base package while upping the price another $5 or so.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> AT&T promised a TV revolution - instead, we got a giant mess


Yep, AT&T's acquisition of DTV was, as Moffett says, one of the worst major deals in modern history. Imagine if AT&T had instead spent those wasted billions on expanding their fiber-to-the-home network, improving their wireless spectrum holdings, and just building up their own Uverse TV as the MVPD option for their home internet customers (which might have eventually been updated to a fully OTT cloud-based architecture, like AT&T TV has). As to whether the Warner acquisition was also a mistake, time will tell. But it's hard to see how it could ever be as bad a move as buying an expensive DBS service at the peak of US cable TV penetration.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

AT&T’s Choices are literally nothing more or less than what they’ve been doing on D* for years, but missing some channels that D* offers in the same levels.

And yeah, Sling is kind of a mess and it sure isn’t for everyone. But for those that can get broadcast channels via Locast or antenna, they are nearly the only choice that doesn’t have the cost of locals embedded in the price. And to make it work you have to decide what you don’t care about.

And face it, the cost of the live streamer you prefer is your baseline and for nearly every cable channel out there, there is another way to get the programming. Some free w/ads, some as part of a different on demand service.

I switched because I got tired of a $80/month baseline which was recently raised to $90/month. Now my baseline cost is $50 and covers almost everything I want.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

The New DIRECTV: 4 Things That Might Happen - The TV Answer Man!


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Yep, AT&T's acquisition of DTV was, as Moffett says, one of the worst major deals in modern history. Imagine if AT&T had instead spent those wasted billions on expanding their fiber-to-the-home network, improving their wireless spectrum holdings, and just building up their own Uverse TV as the MVPD option for their home internet customers (which might have eventually been updated to a fully OTT cloud-based architecture, like AT&T TV has). As to whether the Warner acquisition was also a mistake, time will tell. But it's hard to see how it could ever be as bad a move as buying an expensive DBS service at the peak of US cable TV penetration.


Or, if they stuck with what they know best, wireless and stayed out of the TV business, they'd probably have saved a lot of money. Sometimes there are synergies like this that work, but in this case, it didn't. We've seen companies over the years diversify, realize that it didn't work and sell off what doesn't. GE an example of a company that went away from what worked best, dabbled in communications and other diverse businesses and it worked for awhile, until it didn't. Heck some of these failures were a consistent butt of jokes on 30 Rock .


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> And yeah, Sling is kind of a mess and it sure isn't for everyone. But for those that can get broadcast channels via Locast or antenna, they are nearly the only choice that doesn't have the cost of locals embedded in the price. And to make it work you have to decide what you don't care about.


Yeah, I'm not bad-mouthing Sling. If it works for you and lowers your bill, great. My point is just that, as it's always existed up to this point, it could never play the role of a mainstream cable TV service that would satisfy anywhere close to most cable TV subscribers. It's not something that AT&T Fiber could offer as their in-house cable TV option as they did with Uverse TV in the past.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> Or, if they stuck with what they know best, wireless and stayed out of the TV business, they'd probably have saved a lot of money.


Definitely. Although it did make sense for them to launch Uverse TV as a companion service to offer with Uverse (now known as AT&T Internet). Telcos couldn't credibly compete with cablcos as broadband providers without offering an option for cable TV service. Which is why CenturyLink had their own cable TV service that runs on the same platform as Uverse TV. (It's no longer actively sold either.) And why Verizon FiOS launched FiOS TV.

At this point, in 2021, I guess it's an open question whether a broadband provider needs to offer their own MVPD though. So many folks have cut the cord on cable and you can get a streaming vMVPD like YouTube TV or Hulu Live over any broadband connection. Lots of smaller cablcos and telcos are de-prioritizing, or even shutting down, their own cable TV services. Seems like an opportunity for AT&T TV to me to swoop in and partner up with those operators as their preferred in-house cable TV solution. Unlike YTTV, Hulu Live, Fubo TV or Sling, AT&T TV pretty well mimics the user experience of traditional, full-featured cable TV with an optional custom box and full-featured remote, plus (nearly) full channel packages and a fairly traditional UI.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> The New DIRECTV: 4 Things That Might Happen - The TV Answer Man!


Oh look more repeated crap


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Just got a survey request from AT&T mostly dealing with the products they just sold 30% of. Took about 15 minutes to complete and was pretty extensive about how the services work and good or bad etc...


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

Steveknj said:


> I think AT&T TV is "getting there" from what I'm reading but it's not quite there yet, and not quite where I'd be willing to switch. Missing channels, lack of 4K, limited DVR, trick play is intermittent. Sure for most people it might be acceptable, but those people really should be happy with cheaper options like YTTV and so forth. For example, right now, AT&T TV is missing in the NY Metro, PBS, CW, MeTV (all channels I watch with some regularity), not to mention in this Metro we get no less than 4 PBS channels (13 from NJ, 50 from NJ, 49 from CT, 21 from LI. These are all available on DirecTV. I'd bet even if there was an agreement to carry PBS, we might get all of them. There is some redundancy, but they do have different schedules. But I want the experience to be as close to what I have as possible. I do think that's where we are headed, which may or may not be a good thing.
> 
> I read an article that talked about the types of things the new management might try and do. One could be to try and beef up AT&T TV and start winding down Sat. Another could be to have smaller Sat packages to compete. And a third (and this one I really agree with) is doing away with contracts. I really think if they did that, it really might help drive some traffic back. People really hate contracts. Cable doesn't do it as much if at all anymore.


Those PBS channels are key for me, throw in the NY 25 public channel, where I live an antenna would be lucky to get a couple of those, if Directv imploded, I assume there is no other way to get all those channels, is that correct?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> Those PBS channels are key for me, throw in the NY 25 public channel, where I live an antenna would be lucky to get a couple of those, if Directv imploded, I assume there is no other way to get all those channels, is that correct?


YTTV claims to carry PBS. DISH claims WNET, WLIW and WNJB (primary feed only). I would assume there are conventional cable TV options as well.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> GE an example of a company that went away from what worked best, dabbled in communications and other diverse businesses and it worked for awhile, until it didn't.


Where would the World be without GE's jet engine or finance divisions? Sometimes branching out works but when it involves capturing the hearts and minds of the unpredictable consumer, most old-school companies struggle.


----------



## DMRI2006 (Jun 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> YTTV claims to carry PBS.


They do carry PBS. In my market (Providence RI), YTTV gives me 2 PBS affiliates (Boston and Hartford), while Directv only carries the local Providence affiliate which had constant issues. One of the many reasons I went with YTTV.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

GordonGekko said:


> Those PBS channels are key for me, throw in the NY 25 public channel, where I live an antenna would be lucky to get a couple of those, if Directv imploded, I assume there is no other way to get all those channels, is that correct?


So I think I might have found a round about solution that is having me lean toward cutting the cord. In another forum, someone is using something called Channels DVR (with the Plus option), which can record live TV from various sources including Locast (and including AT&T TV, DirecTV and others). It's $8 a month (or $80 a year). Using Locast would give me access to our CW channel and all of our PBS channels and I could record them using Channels DVR. It uses my NAS (WD Cloud) as it's server so that it where it would save the recorded shows. I've fooled around with the DVR functionality and it's not terrible. It allows for a season pass for example. I have more testing to do to see if it's a viable solution. Then I can sign up for AT&T TV, get the package that most resembles what I have with DirecTV and if my math is correct, save about $80 a month. This looks like a good project for the weekend. More to follow


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

harsh said:


> Where would the World be without GE's jet engine or finance divisions? Sometimes branching out works but when it involves capturing the hearts and minds of the unpredictable consumer, most old-school companies struggle.


I couldn't tell you where the world would be, but where would GE be? It's impossible to say. Do they still own either or both? As I said, sometimes diversification works, and other times, it doesn't.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

GordonGekko said:


> Those PBS channels are key for me, throw in the NY 25 public channel, where I live an antenna would be lucky to get a couple of those, if Directv imploded, I assume there is no other way to get all those channels, is that correct?


Have you tried the free PBS app or website? It will have you identify which is your local PBS station (or maybe automatically do it for you based on location). In many areas, the PBS station offers a live stream of their main .1 channel. Don't know if any stations are offering free live streams of their secondary channels (e.g. PBS Kids) yet though.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> So I think I might have found a round about solution that is having me lean toward cutting the cord. In another forum, someone is using something called Channels DVR (with the Plus option), which can record live TV from various sources including Locast (and including AT&T TV, DirecTV and others). It's $8 a month (or $80 a year). Using Locast would give me access to our CW channel and all of our PBS channels and I could record them using Channels DVR. It uses my NAS (WD Cloud) as it's server so that it where it would save the recorded shows. I've fooled around with the DVR functionality and it's not terrible. It allows for a season pass for example. I have more testing to do to see if it's a viable solution. Then I can sign up for AT&T TV, get the package that most resembles what I have with DirecTV and if my math is correct, save about $80 a month. This looks like a good project for the weekend. More to follow


I use the Channels app on my Apple TV 4K, but just for live OTA TV. I've never used its DVR service but I read very good things about it over at the TiVo Community Forum. One guy there has posted extensively about using its TV Everywhere streaming recording feature and has generally good things to say about it.

For your use-case, where you want to record your local CW and PBS stations from Locast, I think you'd probably need to "donate" the requested minimum of $5/mo to Locast (plus 50 cent PayPal fee). Otherwise, I understand that it repeatedly interrupts the stream with donation requests. Combine that with the $8/mo for Channels Plus and that increases your monthly TV bill by $13.50. Of course, if you're otherwise saving $80/mo by going with AT&T TV vs. DTV, that's no big deal.

Hopefully that's not a solution you'd have to rely on for long, though. Maybe AT&T TV will add your PBS and CW locals this year. I know that your CW affiliate, WPIX, is owned by Nexstar, the largest station group in the country, so that augurs well for you. AT&T TV obviously already carries a lot of Nexstar stations around the nation affiliated with ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox. I guess they just have yet to strike an agreement specifically for Nexstar's CW affiliates, which include stations in some pretty big markets. Not only NYC but also LA, Houston, Dallas, Washington, St. Louis, Denver, Austin, Salt Lake City, and Portland, OR (as well as some smaller ones too). So that's a whole lot of potential viewers that can't get their local CW station on AT&T TV. I'd think they want to rectify that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> Where would the World be without GE's jet engine or finance divisions? Sometimes branching out works but when it involves capturing the hearts and minds of the unpredictable consumer, most old-school companies struggle.


The challenge for a mega corporation is to get the micro right and not overlook and fail to correctly manage all of their divisions and product lines. GE seems to be able to run multiple successful divisions without supporting some divisions at the expense of others.

AT&T: $171 billion in revenue producing $6.4 billion in operating income. $3.8 billion net loss (2020 numbers). Video was $28.6 of the operating revenues and $1.7 billion of the operating income. 16.7% of their revenues, 26.6% of their operating income. Performing better than the company average. Apparently not the numbers they were looking at when they cut the deal (unless their attitude was "get out while we still can"). Sure, $142 billion revenue and $4.7 billion in operating income would not be horrible numbers. The $7.6 billion for new DIRECTV will cover last year's net loss. Maybe this year's too.

Is the problem with AT&T's control of DIRECTV that they are too busy dealing with other problems at the company to deal with maintaining and improving DIRECTV? Possibly. It is easy to lose focus when one has a lot of irons in the fire.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

Steveknj said:


> I couldn't tell you where the world would be, but where would GE be? It's impossible to say. Do they still own either or both? As I said, sometimes diversification works, and other times, it doesn't.


GE made industrial steam turbines. It wasn't too far of a stretch for them to get involved in making jet engines in the 40s, and building a plant in Cincinnati, about an hour's drive from Wright Field where the Army Air Corps was developing the jet engine.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

wmb said:


> GE made industrial steam turbines. It wasn't too far of a stretch for them to get involved in making jet engines in the 40s, and building a plant in Cincinnati, about an hour's drive from Wright Field where the Army Air Corps was developing the jet engine.


They are also in the hydroelectric turbine business that is much more like the steam turbines than jet engines. Of course which is important to you depends a lot on which coast you're nearer to.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> I use the Channels app on my Apple TV 4K, but just for live OTA TV. I've never used its DVR service but I read very good things about it over at the TiVo Community Forum. One guy there has posted extensively about using its TV Everywhere streaming recording feature and has generally good things to say about it.
> 
> For your use-case, where you want to record your local CW and PBS stations from Locast, I think you'd probably need to "donate" the requested minimum of $5/mo to Locast (plus 50 cent PayPal fee). Otherwise, I understand that it repeatedly interrupts the stream with donation requests. Combine that with the $8/mo for Channels Plus and that increases your monthly TV bill by $13.50. Of course, if you're otherwise saving $80/mo by going with AT&T TV vs. DTV, that's no big deal.
> 
> Hopefully that's not a solution you'd have to rely on for long, though. Maybe AT&T TV will add your PBS and CW locals this year. I know that your CW affiliate, WPIX, is owned by Nexstar, the largest station group in the country, so that augurs well for you. AT&T TV obviously already carries a lot of Nexstar stations around the nation affiliated with ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox. I guess they just have yet to strike an agreement specifically for Nexstar's CW affiliates, which include stations in some pretty big markets. Not only NYC but also LA, Houston, Dallas, Washington, St. Louis, Denver, Austin, Salt Lake City, and Portland, OR (as well as some smaller ones too). So that's a whole lot of potential viewers that can't get their local CW station on AT&T TV. I'd think they want to rectify that.


Agree, hopefully it would be temporary. I played with this a bit last night (donated the $5.50 for Locast and signed up for Channels, I get a 30 day free trial). I really liked it. The best feature is full commercial break skip. One button push and it skips past all commercials. Plus this solution gives me a few other channels that I don't even currently get on DirecTV, such as a bunch of the sub channels, that I can get through Locast. BTW, you can use Channels with other options, like even use it to record AT&T TV content. You can even set series up to record. I have a NAS with 4TB of storage so that's what I'm using.

So next, I plan on giving 14 days to AT&T TV and see how we like it. Is it smarter to get the Osprey box? I have a lot of TVs in the house, would I need to get a box for each or is the app good enough for most of the TVs? Maybe just get the Osprey for the "main" TV? It's a large investment to get a box for all those TVs.

Also to add. Since I have DirecTV, I already have an AT&T account, so when I logged in to that account, and went to "order" AT&T TV, it's asking me to call them instead. I had really planned to just sign up and try it before cancelling DirecTV, so I didn't want to have to call.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

wmb said:


> GE made industrial steam turbines. It wasn't too far of a stretch for them to get involved in making jet engines in the 40s, and building a plant in Cincinnati, about an hour's drive from Wright Field where the Army Air Corps was developing the jet engine.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Agree. But GE Financial and NBC are certainly pretty far from their core business. I think GE sold both (definitely NBC) during an austerity period, didn't they?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> Agree, hopefully it would be temporary. I played with this a bit last night (donated the $5.50 for Locast and signed up for Channels, I get a 30 day free trial). I really liked it. The best feature is full commercial break skip. One button push and it skips past all commercials. Plus this solution gives me a few other channels that I don't even currently get on DirecTV, such as a bunch of the sub channels, that I can get through Locast. BTW, you can use Channels with other options, like even use it to record AT&T TV content. You can even set series up to record. I have a NAS with 4TB of storage so that's what I'm using.


Yeah, what the Channels DVR does (aside from its original, main purpose, which is to record OTA and/or CableCARD feeds from HDHomeRun tuners) is to user your cable TV subscription credentials to automatically log into your various cable channels' "TV Everywhere" websites through a browser on the DVR server and record those channels' live TV streams. Of course, not quite every cable channel offers a TVE live stream, and some of those that do may not extend that feature to subscribers of any particular cable TV provider (e.g. AT&T TV). But, yeah, for the most part, you should be able to set up recordings in Channels DVR for the channels you get in whichever AT&T TV package you choose. The catch is that the HD picture (and probably sound) quality is not going to be as good with the TVE streams as what you'd get natively from AT&T TV through their own app/box. But from what I read, it's not bad. If you're coming from, say, Comcast cable TV (where everything is overly compressed 720p), then the quality of the TVE streams recorded by Channels DVR may be an upgrade.



Steveknj said:


> So next, I plan on giving 14 days to AT&T TV and see how we like it. Is it smarter to get the Osprey box? I have a lot of TVs in the house, would I need to get a box for each or is the app good enough for most of the TVs? Maybe just get the Osprey for the "main" TV? It's a large investment to get a box for all those TVs.


My advice is to buy one Osprey box. I don't think you're going to be able to accurately evaluate how well you like using AT&T TV if you rely solely on the apps for Apple TV, Roku, and Fire TV. (Oddly, there's no app for Android TV.) You can buy a new one up-front from AT&T for $120, or if you go the contract-free route on AT&T TV, they'll give you the option of spreading the cost out over 24 months, so $5/mo per box. (If you cancel prior to 24 months, I assume that they just immediately charge your credit card for the balance due on the box.) Or you can buy one on eBay for around $60 or so (like this one). Just make sure that you get one with the current-style remote, not the original beta version of the remote. In the photo below, the version you want is in the right hand. (And the listing I linked above includes the current remote, the one you want.)

If you decide you want to stick with AT&T TV, and depending on how well you like the box on the main TV vs. the app on secondary TVs, you might choose to buy more boxes. And maybe at that point, they'll have released the faster 2nd-gen version of the box. If you decide not to stick with AT&T TV, well, you'll only have bought one box and you should be able to resell it on eBay if you want.










Fortunately, both Locast and Channels have an app for Android TV, so you should be able to install them from the Google Play store on the Osprey. (Be aware, though, that Channels does not have an app for Roku.)



Steveknj said:


> Also to add. Since I have DirecTV, I already have an AT&T account, so when I logged in to that account, and went to "order" AT&T TV, it's asking me to call them instead. I had really planned to just sign up and try it before cancelling DirecTV, so I didn't want to have to call.


Yeah, back when they still offered AT&T TV Now, that would've been easy, I think. But now the no-contract option is under the main AT&T TV brand and the info goes into the same AT&T database that houses DTV subscribers, I guess. I wonder if it's possible to have them just suspend your DTV account for a month or two while you try out AT&T TV?


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, what the Channels DVR does (aside from its original, main purpose, which is to record OTA and/or CableCARD feeds from HDHomeRun tuners) is to user your cable TV subscription credentials to automatically log into your various cable channels' "TV Everywhere" websites through a browser on the DVR server and record those channels' live TV streams. Of course, not quite every cable channel offers a TVE live stream, and some of those that do may not extend that feature to subscribers of any particular cable TV provider (e.g. AT&T TV). But, yeah, for the most part, you should be able to set up recordings in Channels DVR for the channels you get in whichever AT&T TV package you choose. The catch is that the HD picture (and probably sound) quality is not going to be as good with the TVE streams as what you'd get natively from AT&T TV through their own app/box. But from what I read, it's not bad. If you're coming from, say, Comcast cable TV (where everything is overly compressed 720p), then the quality of the TVE streams recorded by Channels DVR may be an upgrade.
> 
> My advice is to buy one Osprey box. I don't think you're going to be able to accurately evaluate how well you like using AT&T TV if you rely solely on the apps for Apple TV, Roku, and Fire TV. (Oddly, there's no app for Android TV.) You can buy a new one up-front from AT&T for $120, or if you go the contract-free route on AT&T TV, they'll give you the option of spreading the cost out over 24 months, so $5/mo per box. (If you cancel prior to 24 months, I assume that they just immediately charge your credit card for the balance due on the box.) Or you can buy one on eBay for around $60 or so (like this one). Just make sure that you get one with the current-style remote, not the original beta version of the remote. In the photo below, the version you want is in the right hand. (And the listing I linked above includes the current remote, the one you want.)
> 
> ...


Thanks for the great info!! I wonder if I call the number they gave me and said that I would like to try AT&T TV because I'm looking to save money, I'm wondering if they would try and keep me on DirecTV for a discount? Has anyone tried this?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, back when they still offered AT&T TV Now, that would've been easy, I think. But now the no-contract option is under the main AT&T TV brand and the info goes into the same AT&T database that houses DTV subscribers, I guess. I wonder if it's possible to have them just suspend your DTV account for a month or two while you try out AT&T TV?


Just use a burner email address and password when you sign up for ATT TV. My ATT TV is on a totally different account than my DirecTv/Internet was on, and they said they could not combine then because the ATT TV is on a totally separate billing system.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Davenlr said:


> Just use a burner email address and password when you sign up for ATT TV. My ATT TV is on a totally different account than my DirecTv/Internet was on, and they said they could not combine then because the ATT TV is on a totally separate billing system.


Good to know. Based on what Steveknj reported, plus the fact that AT&T TV likely runs a credit check (at least if you go with its original 2-yr contract option that gives a free box to "well-qualified customers"), I thought maybe it wasn't possible to avoid them knowing who you really are and whether you're already a DTV customer. But maybe they don't really care. I assume you have to give them a physical address when you sign up for AT&T TV, no? But maybe they don't cross-check that against the DTV customer database?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Yea, I had to give them the address. No credit check on no contract, although I did receive a letter two weeks after starting telling me they could not "locate" my credit report  I assume that was their way of telling me I couldnt rent a box? I had already bought one on ebay.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Davenlr said:


> Yea, I had to give them the address. No credit check on no contract, although I did receive a letter two weeks after starting telling me they could not "locate" my credit report  I assume that was their way of telling me I couldnt rent a box? I had already bought one on ebay.


Well, they don't rent those boxes at all, the just sell them (or give them away if you take the 2-yr contract). But they will spread out the cost of the boxes even for no-contract subs (@ $5/mo for 24 mos.). So maybe if you wanted to finance the cost like that, they'd have to run a credit report. Not sure why, though, really. Isn't AT&T TV billing done solely via credit card (meaning that the card company, which has already approved you for a certain limit, is taking the credit risk)? And do they charge you up-front at the start of each month (like Netflix and other SVODs) or it is on a more traditional post-paid billing system where you can actually get a paper bill?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Their streaming services are all prepaid. In addition to credit cards you can use PayPal.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Well, they don't rent those boxes at all, the just sell them (or give them away if you take the 2-yr contract). But they will spread out the cost of the boxes even for no-contract subs (@ $5/mo for 24 mos.). So maybe if you wanted to finance the cost like that, they'd have to run a credit report. Not sure why, though, really. Isn't AT&T TV billing done solely via credit card (meaning that the card company, which has already approved you for a certain limit, is taking the credit risk)? And do they charge you up-front at the start of each month (like Netflix and other SVODs) or it is on a more traditional post-paid billing system where you can actually get a paper bill?


One more, perhaps silly, question. You, I believe, mentioned that the Osprey box is an Android TV box. My assumption here is that the AT&T TV app is built into the OS, as opposed to any other Android TV interface where it isn't? Is that the major difference? I'm trying to figure out what the advantage of using an Osprey box would be over any other Android TV box (I currently own a Tivo Streaming stick build on Android TV). I'm trying to avoid buying another "box". I mean if the experience is much better through the Osprey, I'd go for it. If it's not, then maybe use my Android TV device and the app.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> One more, perhaps silly, question. You, I believe, mentioned that the Osprey box is an Android TV box. My assumption here is that the AT&T TV app is built into the OS, as opposed to any other Android TV interface where it isn't? Is that the major difference? I'm trying to figure out what the advantage of using an Osprey box would be over any other Android TV box (I currently own a Tivo Streaming stick build on Android TV). I'm trying to avoid buying another "box". I mean if the experience is much better through the Osprey, I'd go for it. If it's not, then maybe use my Android TV device and the app.


Unfortunately there is no app for AndroidTV which has been noted as very odd since the Osprey is one.

The major advantage of the Osprey with the ATT service is all about the remote. It just works so much better with the app than any other device. IMO, take a flyer on a used one from EBay for around $50.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> Unfortunately there is no app for AndroidTV which has been noted as very odd since the Osprey is one.
> 
> The major advantage of the Osprey with the ATT service is all about the remote. It just works so much better with the app than any other device. IMO, take a flyer on a used one from EBay for around $50.


Thanks. I just ordered one from eBay. We'll see how it goes. That's interesting about AndroidTV. I just checked my TiVo streaming stick and, indeed, no app. My other TVs all have either Roku or Firestick so I will get the apps for the other TVs. I use a universal remote (based on the Harmony Hub) so I'll that's what I'd hope to use. I'll try out both the Osprey and the external devices and see which works best for me


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> One more, perhaps silly, question. You, I believe, mentioned that the Osprey box is an Android TV box. My assumption here is that the AT&T TV app is built into the OS, as opposed to any other Android TV interface where it isn't? Is that the major difference? I'm trying to figure out what the advantage of using an Osprey box would be over any other Android TV box (I currently own a Tivo Streaming stick build on Android TV). I'm trying to avoid buying another "box". I mean if the experience is much better through the Osprey, I'd go for it. If it's not, then maybe use my Android TV device and the app.


Yep, what lparsons21 said. (And he's actually got the box, I've never had one and haven't had AT&T TV since back in its early days when it was essentially a beta product called DirecTV Now.)

To further elaborate, yes, the Osprey runs what's known as Android TV Operator Tier, which allows pay TV operators a high degree of customization to the OS's UI/UX. When it boots up, you're directly inside the AT&T TV UI/software. And you do have access to an Apps section (both through the on-screen menus as well as a dedicated button on the remote) where you see your installed Android TV apps but you don't have the standard Android TV home screen anywhere on this device, the way you do on a retail device like your TiVo Stream 4K.

Couple more notes: for some reason, the Osprey won't install the Hulu app from the Google Play store. If you want it, you have to sideload an older version of the Hulu app that has its old-style UI (and which, I think, does not support Hulu add-ons like live cable TV, premiums, etc.). lparsons21 can help you with that if you need. Also, even though an Apple TV app does now exist for Android TV, it's only available on a few select devices and, so far, the Osprey is not one of them. (Nor is the TiVo Stream 4K.) Aside from that, the Osprey should run all the popular video apps you might want to use. And apparently, recent software updates have made it much faster in terms of launching and running those third-party apps.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> Their streaming services are all prepaid. In addition to credit cards you can use PayPal.


OK, so it sounds like AT&T TV has just adopted the simple, modern prepaid billing system that AT&T TV Now used. Well, at least if you go the no-contract route on AT&T TV. Are you sure it's prepaid if you go with the traditional 2-yr contract system? Maybe so. Which may be why they're no longer offering a bundling discount for combining AT&T TV with AT&T Fiber, because they're on two completely different billing systems.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Yep, what lparsons21 said. (And he's actually got the box, I've never had one and haven't had AT&T TV since back in its early days when it was essentially a beta product called DirecTV Now.)
> 
> To further elaborate, yes, the Osprey runs what's known as Android TV Operator Tier, which allows pay TV operators a high degree of customization to the OS's UI/UX. When it boots up, you're directly inside the AT&T TV UI/software. And you do have access to an Apps section (both through the on-screen menus as well as a dedicated button on the remote) where you see your installed Android TV apps but you don't have the standard Android TV home screen anywhere on this device, the way you do on a retail device like your TiVo Stream 4K.
> 
> Couple more notes: for some reason, the Osprey won't install the Hulu app from the Google Play store. If you want it, you have to sideload an older version of the Hulu app that has its old-style UI (and which, I think, does not support Hulu add-ons like live cable TV, premiums, etc.). lparsons21 can help you with that if you need. Also, even though an Apple TV app does now exist for Android TV, it's only available on a few select devices and, so far, the Osprey is not one of them. (Nor is the TiVo Stream 4K.) Aside from that, the Osprey should run all the popular video apps you might want to use. And apparently, recent software updates have made it much faster in terms of launching and running those third-party apps.


I assume you mean AppleTV+, not an AppleTV interface that's on an AppleTV device? That's fine, I'm already used to playing device roulette for the various services I use. Some devices are better for certain apps where there is redundancy anyway.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> OK, so it sounds like AT&T TV has just adopted the simple, modern prepaid billing system that AT&T TV Now used. Well, at least if you go the no-contract route on AT&T TV. Are you sure it's prepaid if you go with the traditional 2-yr contract system? Maybe so. Which may be why they're no longer offering a bundling discount for combining AT&T TV with AT&T Fiber, because they're on two completely different billing systems.


I started on the contract service and too was also prepaid, that was last April I think. They took the payment right after I logged in the first time.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> I assume you mean AppleTV+, not an AppleTV interface that's on an AppleTV device? That's fine, I'm already used to playing device roulette for the various services I use. Some devices are better for certain apps where there is redundancy anyway.


Yeah, he's talking about the AppleTV+ app. I found a couple of APK's for it and tried them. Neither would work, one version complained about needing Sony the other needing FireTV stuff. I'm assuming basic firmware but don't actually know.

If you want to load Hulu on you need the APK for version 2.1.3 which is the last known version that will work on the Osprey.

And I also play device roulette but these days it is just Osprey or AppleTV. IMO, the AppleTV is the worst way to use the ATT TV service though using a Harmony Elite or similar, it isn't quite as horrible as trying to use Apple's ****ty remote!


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> Thanks. I just ordered one from eBay. We'll see how it goes. That's interesting about AndroidTV. I just checked my TiVo streaming stick and, indeed, no app. My other TVs all have either Roku or Firestick so I will get the apps for the other TVs. I use a universal remote (based on the Harmony Hub) so I'll that's what I'd hope to use. I'll try out both the Osprey and the external devices and see which works best for me


Oh, a benefit of the Osprey I failed to mention before: it allows you to pause live TV for an extended period (I believe 90 minutes) and then resume play with the ability to trick play within the built-up buffer, similar to what you're used to with a DTV Genie. But the AT&T TV app for other devices only lets you pause maybe 2 minutes (unless you're watching a live show that you had already set up to record).


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, he's talking about the AppleTV+ app. I found a couple of APK's for it and tried them. Neither would work, one version complained about needing Sony the other needing FireTV stuff. I'm assuming basic firmware but don't actually know.
> 
> If you want to load Hulu on you need the APK for version 2.1.3 which is the last known version that will work on the Osprey.
> 
> And I also play device roulette but these days it is just Osprey or AppleTV. IMO, the AppleTV is the worst way to use the ATT TV service though using a Harmony Elite or similar, it isn't quite as horrible as trying to use Apple's ****ty remote!


I have Roku, Firestick, the aforementioned Tivo streaming stick, XBox, plus Vizio's smart TV. On the other TVs I have Roku or Firestick, so that's how I'll use this on the secondary TVs (though my kids use those TVs a lot). I'll see how that works


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> I assume you mean AppleTV+, not an AppleTV interface that's on an AppleTV device? That's fine, I'm already used to playing device roulette for the various services I use. Some devices are better for certain apps where there is redundancy anyway.





lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, he's talking about the AppleTV+ app. I found a couple of APK's for it and tried them. Neither would work, one version complained about needing Sony the other needing FireTV stuff. I'm assuming basic firmware but don't actually know.


Well, not to be pedantic, but the app itself is named "Apple TV". Apple's SVOD that resides exclusively within that app is called "Apple TV+". In addition to housing Apple TV+, the Apple TV app also is home to video content purchased or rented from Apple (as well as movies purchased elsewhere that you have linked to your Apple/iTunes account via MoviesAnywhere). You can also subscribe to other video services from Apple in that app through Apple TV Channels, a platform (similar to Amazon Prime Video Channels) that offers Showtime, Paramount+, Starz, Epix, AMC+, Acorn, PBS Living, etc.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Well, not to be pedantic, but the app itself is named "Apple TV". Apple's SVOD that resides exclusively within that app is called "Apple TV+". In addition to housing Apple TV+, the Apple TV app also is home to video content purchased or rented from Apple (as well as movies purchased elsewhere that you have linked to your Apple/iTunes account via MoviesAnywhere). You can also subscribe to other video services from Apple in that app through Apple TV Channels, a platform (similar to Amazon Prime Video Channels) that offers Showtime, Paramount+, Starz, Epix, AMC+, Acorn, PBS Living, etc.


Yeah, Apple has fallen into platform confusion just like so many other companies. When I see Apple TV, I think of the device. I think of Apple TV+ as the app. But I guess they call the app, Apple TV as well.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> Yeah, Apple has fallen into platform confusion just like so many other companies. When I see Apple TV, I think of the device. I think of Apple TV+ as the app. But I guess they call the app, Apple TV as well.


Yes, it's a bit of branding mess. The app was originally only on the Apple TV box and they just called it the TV app. (And at that point, they had yet to launch their own SVOD.) But then they extended the app to other devices, like Roku and Fire TV, and so rebranded it as the Apple TV app. And then to add to the confusion, they named the SVOD Apple TV+. I'd have gone with AppleVision but, for some reason, they didn't ask me.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, it's a bit of branding mess. The app was originally only on the Apple TV box and they just called it the TV app. (And at that point, they had yet to launch their own SVOD.) But then they extended the app to other devices, like Roku and Fire TV, and so rebranded it as the Apple TV app. And then to add to the confusion, they named the SVOD Apple TV+. I'd have gone with AppleVision but, for some reason, they didn't ask me.


It's on un-Apple to do this sort of thing. Steve Jobs must be rolling in his grave!! I've never been an Apple fan, but I've notice a lot more of this sort of thing without Jobs. I do like some of the original content though. Ted Lasso is a terrific series for example.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> It's on un-Apple to do this sort of thing. Steve Jobs must be rolling in his grave!! I've never been an Apple fan, but I've notice a lot more of this sort of thing without Jobs. I do like some of the original content though. Ted Lasso is a terrific series for example.


I'm going to finally try out Apple TV+ this spring and Ted Lasso is at the top of the list of shows I want to watch. Some of their upcoming stuff like The Mosquito Coast looks good too.


----------



## Carolina (Jan 20, 2012)

James Long said:


> Correct ... TPG gets two out of five, AT&T gets two out of five. The fifth member of the governing board will be the CEO of DIRECTV (who will be employed by DIRECTV, not AT&T).
> 
> The 70% financial stake does not mean AT&T is retaining 70% control. It is an investment - like buying bonds or non-voting stock in another company.


Thanks for posting this as it makes me feel better about what may be to come!


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> I'm going to finally try out Apple TV+ this spring and Ted Lasso is at the top of the list of shows I want to watch. Some of their upcoming stuff like The Mosquito Coast looks good too.


Here's the best thing about Apple TV+, virtually everything they have on it is excellent! I even liked Dickinson which is certainly not aimed at male old farts like me. 

So I just pick one and watch and have never been disappointed.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Carolina said:


> Thanks for posting this as it makes me feel better about what may be to come!


I wouldn't lol


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

meaning ---let the lay offs begin


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

I signed up for AT&T TV, I'll give it the two weeks and see if it works for us. I have to say, so far so good. I'll put my review and questions in a more pertinent thread, as to not hijack this one further.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> My advice is to buy one Osprey box. I don't think you're going to be able to accurately evaluate how well you like using AT&T TV if you rely solely on the apps for Apple TV, Roku, and Fire TV. (Oddly, there's no app for Android TV.) You can buy a new one up-front from AT&T for $120, or if you go the contract-free route on AT&T TV, they'll give you the option of spreading the cost out over 24 months, so $5/mo per box. (If you cancel prior to 24 months, I assume that they just immediately charge your credit card for the balance due on the box.) Or you can buy one on eBay for around $60 or so (like this one). Just make sure that you get one with the current-style remote, not the original beta version of the remote. In the photo below, the version you want is in the right hand. (And the listing I linked above includes the current remote, the one you want.)


I just wanted to thank you for the link to buying the Osprey on eBay. I ordered the box from the link above on Friday and got it on Saturday without any special shipping (USPS Priority mail). It came from NY so it got here quickly. If I order more, I'd do it from the same vendor. It apparently is a brand new box so that's even better.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> I just wanted to thank you for the link to buying the Osprey on eBay. I ordered the box from the link above on Friday and got it on Saturday without any special shipping (USPS Priority mail). It came from NY so it got here quickly. If I order more, I'd do it from the same vendor. It apparently is a brand new box so that's even better.


Great, glad I was a help. Hopefully your box has downloaded all the relevant software updates and is operating at full speed now. From what I've read, it can be unusually sluggish and a bit flaky the first 24-48 hrs. but settles down after that.

As for ordering additional boxes, just keep in mind that there is a better, faster 2nd-gen version of the AT&T TV device in the pipeline. Although it does not yet appear to have passed through the FCC for certification, so it may still be a few months away from rolling out. At this point, I would guess it may not be available until the spin-off deal is finalized and the new management group takes control of AT&T TV (with, who knows, a possible rebranding of the service). That should happen at some point in the next six months. If you did buy additional 1st-gen Osprey boxes now, you should always be able to recoup some portion of your spend on eBay later if you decided to replace them with the new box.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> As for ordering additional boxes, just keep in mind that there is a better, faster 2nd-gen version of the AT&T TV device in the pipeline. Although it does not yet appear to have passed through the FCC for certification, so it may still be a few months away from rolling out.


The only "gen 2" mention I'm seeing with respect to the AT&T Streaming Device is the post-beta remote. What are you seeing that leads you to believe there is a new box on the horizon?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There have been posts here about a new box (A21 ?) that is under development.


----------



## dod1450 (Dec 16, 2009)

James Long said:


> There have been posts here about a new box (A21 ?) that is under development.


 What is "A21?" With all the posting I do not see a specific one that mentions A21.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

dod1450 said:


> What is "A21?" With all the posting I do not see a specific one that mentions A21.


Google A21KW-500 Its the new ATT TV Streaming box Replacing the C71KW


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> There have been posts here about a new box (A21 ?) that is under development.


The details of a A21KW appear to have come from the Bluetooth website:

Launch Studio - Listing Details

The model number also appears in a linkedin post from Young Chae Kwon who works for Extron in Orange County, CA; a company vested in video conferencing and collaboration.

The third picture that appears in the Android TV Guide tweet is from the Humax press announcement of the H7 device.

Humax doesn't appear to have any related FCC applications in the hopper. They do have one for a car radio and something that resembles a NAS.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

All covered in the previous discussion here on DBSTALK about the "A21". Sorry you missed it.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> The details of a A21KW appear to have come from the Bluetooth website:
> 
> Launch Studio - Listing Details
> 
> ...


It doesn't look like AT&T TV's upcoming A21KW-500 box has passed through the FCC for certification yet. I think the photo that the guy has posted for the device on his Android TV Guide website is probably just the Humax H7 generic box, the platform on which the A21 is based.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> All covered in the previous discussion here on DBSTALK about the "A21". Sorry you missed it.


Just trying to provide something more authoritative than a tweet about a LinkedIn posting.


----------



## astrohip (Mar 4, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Oh, a benefit of the Osprey I failed to mention before: it allows you to pause live TV for an extended period (I believe 90 minutes) and then resume play with the ability to trick play within the built-up buffer, similar to what you're used to with a DTV Genie. But the AT&T TV app for other devices only lets you pause maybe 2 minutes (unless you're watching a live show that you had already set up to record).


Thanks, good info...


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

*AT&T launches investor day with updates on HBO Max, fiber, spectrum, debt (live updates)*


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> *AT&T launches investor day with updates on HBO Max, fiber, spectrum, debt (live updates)*


 Any update mentioned from ATT adding 5G service to customers who are on data-share plans? Currently, they only offer 5G to customers with unlimited data plans. All Verizon and T-mobile customers get 5G as long as they have a 5G-capable phone but not ATT.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

n3ntj said:


> Any update mentioned from ATT adding 5G service to customers who are on data-share plans? Currently, they only offer 5G to customers with unlimited data plans. All Verizon and T-mobile customers get 5G as long as they have a 5G-capable phone but not ATT.


Pretty sure this is the only relevant news with regard to that:
AT&T adds 5G to its legacy unlimited data plans | Engadget


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

n3ntj said:


> Any update mentioned from ATT adding 5G service to customers who are on data-share plans? Currently, they only offer 5G to customers with unlimited data plans. All Verizon and T-mobile customers get 5G as long as they have a 5G-capable phone but not ATT.


Yep, and T-mobile is a LOT cheaper. I had ATT for one month, bought a 5G phone on Amazon, and they refused to turn on the 5G, so I left, went across the street to the Sprint store, and reactivated my sprint account at $15/mo for unlimited everything, then drove to Tmobile and swapped the sim for a Tmobile sim. Unlimited 5G for $21/mo tax included. ATT was over $70 for 4G


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Davenlr said:


> Yep, and T-mobile is a LOT cheaper. I had ATT for one month, bought a 5G phone on Amazon, and they refused to turn on the 5G, so I left, went across the street to the Sprint store, and reactivated my sprint account at $15/mo for unlimited everything, then drove to Tmobile and swapped the sim for a Tmobile sim. Unlimited 5G for $21/mo tax included. ATT was over $70 for 4G


Uh, I'd say you're an outlier case. How'd you get an unlimited Sprint plan for just $15/mo (plus taxes and fees)? I had it free for a year but then it was to go to the regular price of, IDK, $70/mo or whatever.

$15/mo, BTW, is what T-Mobile charges for their unadvertised Connect Prepaid plan with just 2 GB of data (then a hard cut-off, no slow data) plus unlimited talk and text. Which is a pretty good deal.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Uh, I'd say you're an outlier case. How'd you get an unlimited Sprint plan for just $15/mo (plus taxes and fees)?


Apparently just before the merger went through, which apparently meant the more subs Sprint had, the more money they would get, they ran a one week special called Unlimited Kickstart. IF you bring your own phone, and own phone number, you got unlimited Talk text and data for $15/mo plus tax which was guaranteed to be grandfathered to the new tmobile. I had a spare phone and a VoIP number, so I tried it. It was slow as crap at my house, so I went with ATT 5G, but found they wouldnt activate with 5g. So, I switched back to slow Sprint and waited until the merger went through. With taxes and fees, its $21 a month, and even though Ive never used over 2GB, it works great now, and Tmobile sent me an email to go to their store to upgrade my sim to a Tmobile network sim, so they could convert my Sprint tower to their 5G. I did so, and my 5G works fine. But yes, it was a limited time offer, but was open to anyone. I saw the ad on TV.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Davenlr said:


> Apparently just before the merger went through, which apparently meant the more subs Sprint had, the more money they would get, they ran a one week special called Unlimited Kickstart. IF you bring your own phone, and own phone number, you got unlimited Talk text and data for $15/mo plus tax which was guaranteed to be grandfathered to the new tmobile. I had a spare phone and a VoIP number, so I tried it. It was slow as crap at my house, so I went with ATT 5G, but found they wouldnt activate with 5g. So, I switched back to slow Sprint and waited until the merger went through. With taxes and fees, its $21 a month, and even though Ive never used over 2GB, it works great now, and Tmobile sent me an email to go to their store to upgrade my sim to a Tmobile network sim, so they could convert my Sprint tower to their 5G. I did so, and my 5G works fine. But yes, it was a limited time offer, but was open to anyone. I saw the ad on TV.


Nice. I remember different Kickstart deals they advertised but didn't know about one with such a low price that lasted indefinitely. I did get in on an unadvertised deal hidden on their website to get one free year of Sprint Unlimited if you bought your own phone. Just had to pay $10 for the SIM plus around $3 in taxes and fees each month. Service was fine.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

Think I may have gotten a first glimpse of a new splash screen minus the "Death Star" logo:








​Death Star hasn't disappeared from anywhere else in the UI yet, just the first two splash screens so far...

[Edit]

Spoke too soon. Rebooted after the new FW update (like I always do) and the old logos are all back. Oh well.


----------

