# AT&T to offer streaming version of DirecTV



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Same packages for the same pricing... 

From a blog here:

"AT&T will be selling a 65+ channel streaming version of DIRECTV for $93 a month, an 85+ version of DIRECTV for $110 a month, a 105+ channel version of DIRECTV for $124, and a 125+ channel version of DIRECTV for $135 a month streaming online."


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

And also raising DirecTV Now by $10/month.
Interesting. They reported subscriber losses recently so the fix is to raise prices. This just supports my contention that cable/sat will suffer for awhile, but if they hang in there, will survive quite well.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is good to finally see some movement on this long awaited product offering. I look forward to an official release.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

James Long said:


> It is good to finally see some movement on this long awaited product offering. I look forward to an official release.


Same here. I have questions about 'DVR' service and 4K with the streaming version, especially if the pricing will essentially be the same.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

The pricing being the same is a shock and not surprised. Shock because they stated it would be cheaper because no dish or tech was needed. Not surprised because they are obviously trying to make more money on it. As stated the dvr ability and 4K will dictate if I switch


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Streaming technology is expensive. At best AT&T is trading installs and truck rolls for server capacity and bandwidth in their content delivery network. Since the industry doesn't report subscriber acquisition costs for streaming it is hard to put an exact cost difference between signing up a satellite customer and signing up a streaming customer. But most of the ongoing costs to the customers is simply fees passed on from the content providers. The remainder pays for the network ... whether it is satellites in the sky or content delivery via the Interenet.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Athlon646464 said:


> Same packages for the same pricing...
> 
> From a blog here:
> 
> "AT&T will be selling a 65+ channel streaming version of DIRECTV for $93 a month, an 85+ version of DIRECTV for $110 a month, a 105+ channel version of DIRECTV for $124, and a 125+ channel version of DIRECTV for $135 a month streaming online."


What are you talking about? That's not the same price. That's a lot more. Preferred Xtra is about $115 or so and its close to 200 channels.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

compnurd said:


> The pricing being the same is a shock and not surprised. Shock because they stated it would be cheaper because no dish or tech was needed. Not surprised because they are obviously trying to make more money on it. As stated the dvr ability and 4K will dictate if I switch


Serious question, what is the benefit for you to switch, is it just not having the satellite on the roof and less wires? How high of a download speed would one need, forget about anything else, strictly for Directv over the internet with 2 tv's on at the same time?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

GordonGekko said:


> Serious question, what is the benefit for you to switch, is it just not having the satellite on the roof and less wires? How high of a download speed would one need, forget about anything else, strictly for Directv over the internet with 2 tv's on at the same time?


I have 400 down. So not worried at all having 10-20 boxes in the house.

If I had to guess a 1080p stream may be 10-15mbps tops. Anything higher would be a awesome

The biggest reason may be fees. Between the advanced receiver fees and mirroring I pay 60 bucks. So the biggest question will be how they handle dvr and multiple streams. If I can buy 6 boxes and not pay a fee for each stream. Instant savings


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> What are you talking about? That's not the same price. That's a lot more. Preferred Xtra is about $115 or so and its close to 200 channels.


I was just quoting the blogger.

When looking at the current satellite package pricing, it's difficult to match what he said in the article for sure. For example, the non-promotion price for 235+ channels is $124 per month (XTRA). The non-promotional price for everything (330+ channels) is $189 per month.

And these are just the fees for channels. The boxes, HD, Whole Home etc. not included.

Of course, neither of these prices include taxes and fees.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

That site is known for a lot of click bait and bad info. The truth is somewhere in the middle


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

A lot of money for the same old s*** 
Till the content providers get the point that they charge to much the price of all services will keep going up.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

GordonGekko said:


> Serious question, what is the benefit for you to switch, is it just not having the satellite on the roof and less wires? How high of a download speed would one need, forget about anything else, strictly for Directv over the internet with 2 tv's on at the same time?


The forthcoming streaming version of DTV will almost certainly use a new box -- model C71 -- that's been in beta testing now for a few months. That box supports HEVC/H.265, which is a newer, more efficient form of video encoding than what DTV satellite uses (which is H.264). My guess is that a live streaming channel in 1080p, encoded in HEVC/H.265, delivered to the C71 would only require somewhere around 5 to 8 Mbps at maximum quality. If your internet connection has a download speed of 15 Mbps or greater, you'd probably be fine for watching on two TVs simultaneously. If your speed is 20 Mbps or higher, I'm sure you'd be fine. Also, if your speed wasn't fast enough to support two simultaneous streams in 1080p, then AT&T's servers would just automatically adjust you down to 720p streams instead.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Athlon646464 said:


> I was just quoting the blogger.
> 
> When looking at the current satellite package pricing, it's difficult to match what he said in the article for sure. For example, the non-promotion price for 235+ channels is $124 per month (XTRA). The non-promotional price for everything (330+ channels) is $189 per month.
> 
> ...


Yeah. I notice that the prices he quotes in the blog article do match the current regular prices for several DTV satellite packages (which include service and equipment fees for one HD DVR):

$93 -- This is the price for Entertainment, but it now includes 160+ channels, not 65+ as he states.
$110 -- This is the price for Choice, but it now includes 185+ channels, not 85+ as he states.
$124 -- This is the price for Xtra, but it now includes 235+ channels, not 105+ as he states.
$135 -- This is the price for Ultimate, but it now includes 250+ channels, not 125+ as he states.

Obviously, he's got his info wrong somewhere or another. Perhaps the channel numbers he's stating are all off by 100. Add 100 channels to each of his figures and you get close to where DTV's channel packages currently stand.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Perhaps the blogger's plus sign is bigger? This is one reason why I am looking forward to an official announcement of plans and content.

DIRECTV NOW as listed on their website is 65+ channels for $40. Add $10 to get 65+ channels for $50. The article states DIRECTV NOW Plus with 40+ channels for $50 a month and DIRECTV NOW MAX with 50+ channels for $70. That contradiction should also be worked out by getting an official announcement.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the pricing is the same. Why should the pricing be lower, when the cost of content and cost of delivery aren't any lower?

The savings over satellite come from:

1) cheaper to install, because it is self-install vs. having a guy come to your house to install
2) no Genie, so presumably no $15/month advanced receiver fee

Cable/satellite have some taxes that streaming is (so far) immune from, so maybe it comes in $20/month cheaper on "list" pricing.

If anyone was thinking it would be priced like Directv Now, I don't know what you've been smoking. They lose money on Directv Now, and are planning to raise the price to make it (slightly) profitable. Given that Directv satellite is pretty profitable, coming in with an alternative that's basically identical that costs way less would be stupid - they are in business to make money, not to maximize subscribers.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

compnurd said:


> If I can buy 6 boxes and not pay a fee for each stream. Instant savings


Hi! Welcome to DirecTV! Is today your first day? .

This is DirecTV we're talking about, you're forgetting about all the umm... creative fees they'll come up with:

* per stream fee
* bandwidth fee
* cloud dvr fee (they'll have storage tiers based on capacity)
* cloud dvr access fee (you'll want to be able to access your cloud dvr, right?!?!)
* regional sports fee
* logon fee
* regional fee fee (see what I did there?  )
* CAT5e fee
* CAT6 fee
* network fee
* cloud dvr backup fee
* and last but not least, the "we couldn't think of a good name for it, so we'll just call it the" fee fee.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

You left out the Fee Fi Fo Fum Fee.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

compnurd said:


> If I can buy 6 boxes and not pay a fee for each stream. Instant savings


Buy what boxes? Directv charges you the same fee whether you own your receiver or not, if they let you buy the C71s instead of rent them why do you think the per receiver fees would be free.

At best you might be able to pay for say 3 active streams and have 6 receivers, and if you try to turn on a fourth it will tell you to turn off one of the other three before it will let you use it.

I really think people expecting this to be a big savings over satellite are going to be disappointed and whine a lot about it when the full pricing info is released


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Coincidentally on March 5 I received an email from Directv with a long survey about my streaming habits, and my opinion on the features and quality of the Directv App. Timely because on March 4 they killed Out of Home streaming from the local DVR, for local and some sports channels. I let them have it.

But the questions were very specific about what I look for in streaming, comparisons to Netflix and Amazon and DTV Now. 

So they are up to something.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Buy what boxes? Directv charges you the same fee whether you own your receiver or not, if they let you buy the C71s instead of rent them why do you think the per receiver fees would be free.
> 
> At best you might be able to pay for say 3 active streams and have 6 receivers, and if you try to turn on a fourth it will tell you to turn off one of the other three before it will let you use it.
> 
> I really think people expecting this to be a big savings over satellite are going to be disappointed and whine a lot about it when the full pricing info is released


Your confusing what I am saying Not talking about own or leasing on satellite

Honestly I don't think leasing the C71 is going to be an option. They are going to sell the box for 60/80/100 bucks a pop and that is it


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

No fast forward would be a killer for me.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> If anyone was thinking it would be priced like Directv Now, I don't know what you've been smoking. They lose money on Directv Now, and are planning to raise the price to make it (slightly) profitable. Given that Directv satellite is pretty profitable, coming in with an alternative that's basically identical that costs way less would be stupid - they are in business to make money, not to maximize subscribers.


I don't think any of us, including myself, who have listened to guidance given by AT&T CEO Stephenson have thought that the upcoming streaming DTV service would cost "way less" than the traditional satellite product. But he has indicated multiple times that it should cost somewhat less to reflect lower customer acquisition costs (installation, equipment, etc.) and that, despite the lower pricing, it would actually have a higher ROI for AT&T.

If both delivery methods are to have the exact same channel packages, I've always thought it makes sense that the programming costs be the same but the overall cost for the streaming service to be less because of lower equipment/DVR/per TV fees. We might also see the satellite product begin charging a pro install fee rather than waving it, while the streaming product has free self-install. There could also be differences in terms of up-front rebates (i.e. Visa gift cards) and commitment terms between the two.

If total costs over the first 12-24 months were, say, 15% lower for the streaming version for a 2 TV household with whole-home HD DVR, that would be about in line with what I've been expecting. But we'll see. In addition to, or even instead of, offering the streaming version for a little lower price than satellite, AT&T can do other things to steer new sign-ups to the streaming version if that's their goal.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Perhaps the blogger's plus sign is bigger? This is one reason why I am looking forward to an official announcement of plans and content.


Ha, yeah, maybe. Here's a question: when DTV counts up the number of channels they offer in a package, are they counting both the HD and SD version? Maybe they're going to move to a more honest count where they don't count those duplicates. And also not count those crap channels (shopping, etc.) that actually pay to be included and no one cares about.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

What is also generally missing from these comparisons and in general is how many channels are real channels vs. ad channels who actually pay to be included. Obviously, some watch these channels and buy goods but need to look at real channel list to see how many real channels.
I'm amazed, as I talk to people, how many who even with a DVR don't ever skip over commercials or do similar things


----------



## ejbvt (Aug 14, 2011)

CTJon said:


> What is also generally missing from these comparisons and in general is how many channels are real channels vs. ad channels who actually pay to be included. Obviously, some watch these channels and buy goods but need to look at real channel list to see how many real channels.
> I'm amazed, as I talk to people, how many who even with a DVR don't ever skip over commercials or do similar things


My parents fall into this category. They use the DVR to record their shows, and that's it. After over 7 years with a DVR, my mom just learned a couple of months ago that you can pause/rewind live TV but doesn't see why you'd need to do that more than once or twice in your lifetime. "It's just easier" to watch the commercials on their shows, but sometimes they will FF through the commercials if they are really into the show, and the remote is handy.


----------



## cmoss5 (May 26, 2006)

James Long said:


> It is good to finally see some movement on this long awaited product offering. I look forward to an official release.


I will never go to internet as no DVR as I have 3 in my home...no hook up via cable from one split cable to another tv either..


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Ha, yeah, maybe. Here's a question: when DTV counts up the number of channels they offer in a package, are they counting both the HD and SD version? Maybe they're going to move to a more honest count where they don't count those duplicates. And also not count those crap channels (shopping, etc.) that actually pay to be included and no one cares about.


in the past the biggest source of inflation has been music channels. That's an easy way of adding a hundred channels to your lineup. The pay to carry channels may also be missing on this streaming service. Time will tell.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> in the past the biggest source of inflation has been music channels. That's an easy way of adding a hundred channels to your lineup. The pay to carry channels may also be missing on this streaming service. Time will tell.


Ah, good to know. So maybe the numbers reported in today's story at Cord Cutter News simply exclude the audio-only music channels. It actually makes sense that AT&T wouldn't pay MusicChoice or whoever to carry their music channels on the streaming product because I don't think they add very much for customers who have internet. The C71 box that the DTV streaming service will use will offer apps from Pandora, YouTube Music, etc. So I would think most folks would just install and use those apps for music.

But if those music channels aren't part of the streaming service, then I would also expect DTV to exclude them from the advertised channel count for the satellite service, even if they continue to carry them.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Athlon646464 said:


> Same packages for the same pricing...
> 
> From a blog here:
> 
> "AT&T will be selling a 65+ channel streaming version of DIRECTV for $93 a month, an 85+ version of DIRECTV for $110 a month, a 105+ channel version of DIRECTV for $124, and a 125+ channel version of DIRECTV for $135 a month streaming online."





Athlon646464 said:


> Same here. I have questions about 'DVR' service and 4K with the streaming version, especially if the pricing will essentially be the same.





KyL416 said:


> The NFL is never going to give a provider the exclusive rights that only a subset of their customers (aka only those who have a X1) will even be able to access. It would be like if DirecTV made Sunday Ticket a HS17 exclusive or if Dish got it and made it a Hopper 3 exclusive. Not to mention having the X1 requires that you also get internet from Comcast, so it isn't available to their television only subscribers who rather use fiber via their telco provider since it's faster than Comcast in many areas, or people living in areas where the X1 isn't available at all, since Comcast has a history of neglecting some acquired areas. Plus the X1 "exclusive" channels are usually limited to things that tend to be distributed OTT like Cheddar, or lesser channels who rather take the limited X1 only availability vs not being carried at all on Comcast like I24 News and some international packages, they wouldn't do it for something major like the NFL.
> 
> Not to mention, Comcast does NOT have a nationwide footprint, there will be major cities, including NYC, Dallas and most of Los Angeles, where it won't be available at all, along with other NFL cities like Buffalo, Charlotte,
> Cincinnati, Cleveland, Green Bay, Indianapolis, Kansas City, New Orleans, Phoenix and Tampa. Even if they do it via iNDemand, who handles the NHL, NBA, MLB and MLS packages for digital cable and telcos, they would be at the mercy of individual systems, since there's tons of systems who still don't offer the out of market packages in HD, or don't offer out of market packages at all, including systems lagging behind on upgrades owned by the 3 major providers who co-own iNDemand Comcast, Cox and Spectrum. Not to mention to consolidate their C-Band transponder space, iNDemand recently switched to 720p only for their HD feeds, even for games that originate on 1080i networks.
> ...


and how will hardware costs work?? 2 year reup to add an IP box on your own network??

Will att give you free speed boots with att fiber / att vdsl?


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

New Directv Now Packages. Compare Packages Account

I thought they would yank Scripps and Discovery and leave sports intact to appeal to sports viewers. Wrong. They yanked MLB Network, Tennis Channel, NHL Network, NFL Network and SNY for NY Metro viewers, Also for news fans they pulled BBC World News. The only thing they have accomplished is to rationalize the pricing amongst the various Directv platforms. Would work well if they were the only OTT provider. I can't see who these new packages would appeal to except for someone devoted to HBO and Cinemax. And that market could probably be better served elsewhere. Definitely a non-starter for sports fans.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

TV_Guy said:


> New Directv Now Packages. Compare Packages Account
> 
> I thought they would yank Scripps and Discovery and leave sports intact to appeal to sports viewers. Wrong. They yanked MLB Network, Tennis Channel, NHL Network, NFL Network and SNY for NY Metro viewers, Also for news fans they pulled BBC World News. The only thing they have accomplished is to rationalize the pricing amongst the various Directv platforms. Would work well if they were the only OTT provider. I can't see who these new packages would appeal to except for someone devoted to HBO and Cinemax. And that market could probably be better served elsewhere. Definitely a non-starter for sports fans.


Yep. On another site earlier today, I posted that I bet DTVN was going to drop the Viacom channels to get to these lesser channel counts, and possibly the Discovery/Scripps channels too. I was right on both counts. And, to boot, they're also dropping the AMC and A+E channels! The only overlap between these two new DTVN packages and Philo will be The Hallmark Channel.

Basically, for $40, YouTube TV offers the same stuff as the new $70 DTVN Max, except that YTTV doesn't have Hallmark Channel, HBO or Cinemax, but it does have AMC, BBA America, IFC, Smithsonian, and a few other small nets, none of which DTVN Max will have. And, oh, YTTV has unlimited cloud DVR storage for 9 months, with the ability to FF through ads on every channel except those owned by CBS (CBS, Pop and CBS Sports). Keep in mind that, for those who want it, they can add HBO separately through HBO Now for $15 or through the upcoming WarnerMedia streaming service which will basically be HBO Now plus other stuff for who-knows-what-price.

As you say, these new DTVN packages are solely for those who are devoted to HBO and would always spend money on it each month anyhow. And even some of those people may find other options more appealing, depending on specific channel preferences.


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Yep. On another site earlier today, I posted that I bet DTVN was going to drop the Viacom channels to get to these lesser channel counts, and possibly the Discovery/Scripps channels too. I was right on both counts. And, to boot, they're also dropping the AMC and A+E channels! The only overlap between these two new DTVN packages and Philo will be The Hallmark Channel.
> 
> Basically, for $40, YouTube TV offers the same stuff as the new $70 DTVN Max, except that YTTV doesn't have Hallmark Channel, HBO or Cinemax, but it does have AMC, BBA America, IFC, Smithsonian, and a few other small nets, none of which DTVN Max will have. And, oh, YTTV has unlimited cloud DVR storage for 9 months, with the ability to FF through ads on every channel except those owned by CBS (CBS, Pop and CBS Sports). Keep in mind that, for those who want it, they can add HBO separately through HBO Now for $15 or through the upcoming WarnerMedia streaming service which will basically be HBO Now plus other stuff for who-knows-what-price.
> 
> As you say, these new DTVN packages are solely for those who are devoted to HBO and would always spend money on it each month anyhow. And even some of those people may find other options more appealing, depending on specific channel preferences.


All true. That's why I'm really puzzled as to why they chose to alienate the sports fan. They really have two dysfunctional packages. Their only claim to fame had been that they were the only OTT service to offer all the NY RSNs and ESPN. Might serve a niche NY market it they kept SNY. Even for grandfathered customers, I'm not sure if their old packages for an extra $10 are a good deal.


----------



## ericknolls (Aug 18, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> What are you talking about? That's not the same price. That's a lot more. Preferred Xtra is about $115 or so and its close to 200 channels.


I thought the same  thing. I hope people do not have any internet caps with their provider. This could be a non starter for those who do. I have been watching Pluto TV here and there. I am impressed with the service. It works well on phone internet and wifi. Maybe this new service will be promising for AT&T. They are gonna have to pry those satellite dishes out of the hands of their die hard fans. DIRECTV has a lot of long term customers like me.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Looking at that comparison chart for DTVNow subs I can't help thinking that for the average person, going to the site and seeing that, the word that will flash in their mind quickly is "confusion"! Yes it is all laid out, but the differences between the 'new' packages and the old are stark and reinforce my thoughts that to get anything nearly as much with streaming as I get with cable/sat the cost is going to be nearly the same. And it is going to be a much worse UI to deal with than is any of the different UIs on cable/sat equipment, or at least any I've seen. Not to even mention that none of the streamers DVR functionality is anything close to what cable/sat offers.
And data caps are either on your ISP subscription now or will be. Or you could have something like Frontier's offerings that have no data caps, but also don't have very good speed offerings so it isn't an issue.
And no matter how I look and juggle what would be minimum acceptable channels for me, cable is the bargain deal out there. I'm on a bundled service of TV/Internet with Mediacom, my internet bill would be $99/month if it was the only service I had, my total bill for TV/Internet with all their channels including the big 4 Premiums and fees is $176/month. Let's say that a streamer cable/sat service was $50/month, add HBO, Cinemax, Starz, Showtime and I'm at least something more than I pay now and it is all less convenient and useful.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> And it is going to be a much worse UI to deal with than is any of the different UIs on cable/sat equipment, or at least any I've seen.


Eh, I dunno. Some of those cable DVRs are pretty bad. And, just one person's opinion, but I have a friend, a woman in her mid-40s, who recently moved into a place where DTV satellite is included with a Genie DVR. She had previously been a DTVN subscriber on her Apple TV 4K. She looked at the DTV UI and was like "Wow, I like DirecTV Now on the Apple TV way better." I explained to her that she could use her new DTV user name and password, though, with Apple TV's single sign-on feature to unlock access to all the various streaming apps that go with the channels that are part of her satellite TV package. And then she can stream stuff on-demand via the Apple TV rather than mainly using the old DTV Genie. She liked that idea.



lparsons21 said:


> Not to even mention that none of the streamers DVR functionality is anything close to what cable/sat offers.


Well, I agree that most of these "streaming cable" (vMVPD) services have cloud DVRs that are in some way inferior to a traditional DVR. But then they have some advantages too. Consider YouTube TV's cloud DVR, which is the best of the bunch. You can record as many simultaneous shows as you want; there are no tuners and therefore no recording conflicts. You have unlimited storage space. Yes, you can only keep recordings for 9 months (unless that particular title re-airs in that 9 months and is therefore re-recorded) but I suspect 9 months is plenty of time to store stuff for the vast majority of people. And because there's unlimited storage and time-based auto-deletion, YouTube TV's DVR is very no-fuss. You simply "like" series, movies and sports teams and then all their airings get saved. Searching through all your recorded and on-demand content is easy because, well, Google is pretty good at search. There's no point in deleting anything because you don't need to free up space. (Oh, and YouTube TV offers up to six different personal profiles per account, so each member of the household can have a separate library of recordings, favorite channels, etc.)



lparsons21 said:


> And data caps are either on your ISP subscription now or will be. Or you could have something like Frontier's offerings that have no data caps, but also don't have very good speed offerings so it isn't an issue.
> And no matter how I look and juggle what would be minimum acceptable channels for me, cable is the bargain deal out there. I'm on a bundled service of TV/Internet with Mediacom, my internet bill would be $99/month if it was the only service I had, my total bill for TV/Internet with all their channels including the big 4 Premiums and fees is $176/month. Let's say that a streamer cable/sat service was $50/month, add HBO, Cinemax, Starz, Showtime and I'm at least something more than I pay now and it is all less convenient and useful.


Yep, data caps and bundled pricing are where the broadband+TV providers have advantages versus the vMVPDs. But even still, many smaller households can use a vMVPD and stay under a 1TB data cap (which is what Comcast and AT&T impose; Charter doesn't have one). As for pricing, it all depends on exactly which channels you care about and how many TVs you need HD DVR service on. In general, the more channels you need, the more likely it is that you'll get a better deal bundling TV in with your internet service. The more TVs you need HD DVR service on, the less likely it is that you'll get a better deal bundling TV in with your internet service.

The innovations that the vMVPDs brought to the table are: skinnier, lower cost channel packages; no commitment with the ability to easily start and stop service on a monthly basis; straightforward pricing without hidden fees for broadcast channels, RSNs or HD service; the ability to watch live and recorded TV on more than one screen simultaneously for no additional charge; and the ability to use your preferred viewing devices that you own rather than big, used cable/satellite boxes.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> many smaller households can use a vMVPD and stay under a 1TB data cap (which is what Comcast and AT&T impose;


Not sure how people get to 1TB lol. My best month is 211GB and that's regular surfing + youtube, etc. + cycling through AP trial. I've been binge re-watching Burn Notice and I still only hit 211GB. Granted, its not 4K. New releases have been pretty light lately, but that's only 3 - 4GB per movie. I guess if you play video games and download a bunch of 80GB patches...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> I don't think any of us, including myself, who have listened to guidance given by AT&T CEO Stephenson have thought that the upcoming streaming DTV service would cost "way less" than the traditional satellite product. But he has indicated multiple times that it should cost somewhat less to reflect lower customer acquisition costs (installation, equipment, etc.) and that, despite the lower pricing, it would actually have a higher ROI for AT&T.
> 
> If both delivery methods are to have the exact same channel packages, I've always thought it makes sense that the programming costs be the same but the overall cost for the streaming service to be less because of lower equipment/DVR/per TV fees. We might also see the satellite product begin charging a pro install fee rather than waving it, while the streaming product has free self-install. There could also be differences in terms of up-front rebates (i.e. Visa gift cards) and commitment terms between the two.
> 
> If total costs over the first 12-24 months were, say, 15% lower for the streaming version for a 2 TV household with whole-home HD DVR, that would be about in line with what I've been expecting. But we'll see. In addition to, or even instead of, offering the streaming version for a little lower price than satellite, AT&T can do other things to steer new sign-ups to the streaming version if that's their goal.


Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying all along. Same package pricing, but you save that $15/month they charge for "advanced receiver fees", plus the regulatory fees that cable/satellite have to charge but streaming doesn't. Maybe there's a savings on the $7 per TV fee if they charge per stream instead of per box, or if they make you buy the C71s and charge a lower per TV fee.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

lparsons21 said:


> Looking at that comparison chart for DTVNow subs I can't help thinking that for the average person, going to the site and seeing that, the word that will flash in their mind quickly is "confusion"! Yes it is all laid out, but the differences between the 'new' packages and the old are stark and reinforce my thoughts that to get anything nearly as much with streaming as I get with cable/sat the cost is going to be nearly the same. And it is going to be a much worse UI to deal with than is any of the different UIs on cable/sat equipment, or at least any I've seen. Not to even mention that none of the streamers DVR functionality is anything close to what cable/sat offers.
> And data caps are either on your ISP subscription now or will be. Or you could have something like Frontier's offerings that have no data caps, but also don't have very good speed offerings so it isn't an issue.
> And no matter how I look and juggle what would be minimum acceptable channels for me, cable is the bargain deal out there. I'm on a bundled service of TV/Internet with Mediacom, my internet bill would be $99/month if it was the only service I had, my total bill for TV/Internet with all their channels including the big 4 Premiums and fees is $176/month. Let's say that a streamer cable/sat service was $50/month, add HBO, Cinemax, Starz, Showtime and I'm at least something more than I pay now and it is all less convenient and useful.


Our local ISP used to have data caps but eliminated them several years ago. No matter really, the typical data cap is 1TB. We have been 100% streaming for a bit over two years now. I can view monthly data usage on my router. We have never even come close to 1TB.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying all along. Same package pricing, but you save that $15/month they charge for "advanced receiver fees", plus the regulatory fees that cable/satellite have to charge but streaming doesn't. Maybe there's a savings on the $7 per TV fee if they charge per stream instead of per box, or if they make you buy the C71s and charge a lower per TV fee.


Any provider that charges a "per tv fee" is a none starter for me. We have 7 tvs in the house. Many of them are occasional use only, but I want to be able to just turn them on and use them when I need/want. IMO it is an outdated model. This was one of the things (of many) that drove us away from D in the first place.


----------



## mmmccall (May 17, 2013)

Been waiting for this announcement and am curious to hear about four things when we get something official from ATT/DirecTV:

* Will streaming service have the 4K channels?

* Will streaming have Dolby 5.1 sound for all the same channels that satellite does?

* What will DVR capabilities be?

* Will Sunday Ticket be offered on the streaming package?

I see some definite advantages that would get me to switch from satellite service. For one, PQ is much better for me with Directv Now on an Apple TV than it is with an HR44 to the same tv. I’m guessing the streaming service will have the same feeds. Also no wiring or ugly satellite on the house and the potential to save $$$ on all of the boxes/hd fees/dvr fees although we will have to see how that all shakes out.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mmmccall said:


> Been waiting for this announcement and am curious to hear about four things when we get something official from ATT/DirecTV:
> 
> * Will streaming service have the 4K channels?
> 
> ...


Yep, those are all good questions. I don't have any definitive answers (obviously) but I can tell you the following:

The Android TV-powered STB that will be used for the forthcoming streaming version of DTV (the C71 "Osprey" box) does support 4K resolution, it outputs at 60Hz, and it can decode H.264, HEVC/H.265 and VP9, and it supports Dolby Audio as well as both the HDR10 and HLG versions of HDR.

I know support for 4K (and HDR?) was listed over a year ago as being on the road map for AT&T/DirecTV's streaming video platform (i.e. the platform that rolled out publicly with the 2.0 version of the DirecTV Now app in late spring 2018).

So, all that said, yes, I would very much expect that the streaming version of "full DirecTV" to offer the same 4K and 4K HDR content that DTV satellite offers.

As for Dolby 5.1 sound, I know that at least some channels already offer that on DTV Now. I see no reason why there couldn't or wouldn't be full Dolby 5.1 delivery on the upcoming streaming DTV service.

As for DVR capabilities -- I have no good info to provide, other than it will almost certainly use the same cloud DVR that DTV Now uses, although likely with a more desirable feature set. DTV Now provides only 20 hours of storage with a 30-day limit before auto-deletion in its cloud DVR. While the same technology (servers, software, CDNs) will be powering the cloud DVR for the upcoming streaming DTV service, I would absolutely expect its cloud DVR to be fuller featured -- maybe 200 hours of storage per account and no time-based auto-deletion?

As for NFL Sunday Ticket, who knows. It's up in the air as to whether that will be offered in the future by AT&T at all and, if so, under what terms. But I do recall the AT&T CEO saying that he foresaw the streaming version of DTV ultimately offering the full range of content now offered by DTV satellite, including Sunday Ticket. We'll see.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

We have a 2TB cap here. With 2 kids that stream a lot and the wife and I working from home plus 4 cameras that record to the cloud we average about 6-800 gigs a month. I suspect by switching to streaming full time we will increase to around 1.5TB


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Just because you have high caps or uncapped service, doesn't mean that your ISP won't do something to make using a particular streaming service that competes with their TV offerings easy. They are no longer bound by net neutrality, and anywhere that you have only one really good broadband option (which is much of the country) there's really nothing to stop ISPs from doing this if they see 'Directv via IP' or anything else hurting their bottom line.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> Just because you have high caps or uncapped service, doesn't mean that your ISP won't do something to make using a particular streaming service that competes with their TV offerings easy. They are no longer bound by net neutrality, and anywhere that you have only one really good broadband option (which is much of the country) there's really nothing to stop ISPs from doing this if they see 'Directv via IP' or anything else hurting their bottom line.


Yes like throttling the bandwidth which I can see Spectrum doing once large amounts of a competing product starts oozing through their servers.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> Our local ISP used to have data caps but eliminated them several years ago. No matter really, the typical data cap is 1TB. We have been 100% streaming for a bit over two years now. I can view monthly data usage on my router. We have never even come close to 1TB.


My son spends his free time on his computers playing games and we have never had a cap issue. We stream everything but sports.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> My son spends his free time on his computers playing games and we have never had a cap issue. We stream everything but sports.


Does your ISP report your data usage totals?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Just because you have high caps or uncapped service, doesn't mean that your ISP won't do something to make using a particular streaming service that competes with their TV offerings easy. They are no longer bound by net neutrality, and anywhere that you have only one really good broadband option (which is much of the country) there's really nothing to stop ISPs from doing this if they see 'Directv via IP' or anything else hurting their bottom line.


That's certainly *possible* but I tend to think the fear of this happening is overstated in many cord-cutters' minds. It's easy to still think of cable companies as mainly being interested in selling cable TV. But that's just not the case any more. Broadband is the main service they offer. It's FAR more profitable for them than their own cable TV services. Throttling competing video services over their IP network would obviously engender consumer backlash and potentially invite political/regulatory attention they don't want. And it would also be a good way for their main product to get a bad reputation, driving customers over to their competitors. Yes, I know you're thinking about situations in which the consumer doesn't have another choice for home broadband but I don't think that are many ISPs who don't have at least one competitor in a significant chunk of their footprint.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ISPs may block or throttle content to protect their other subscribers. When some subscribers use more than their "fair share" it can affect other customers's traffic. Throttling and caps make sure that bandwidth is available for everyone and if there are overage charges those can be applied to increasing the ISP's connection to the Internet.


----------



## Getteau (Dec 20, 2007)

My 1T cap has been biting me in the butt for the past few months. My wife and I work from home, so we already use a large chunk of our 1T allotment. I think some of the issue is my son downloading/re-downloading games on his xBox at 75G a pop. However, with two new smart TV's, we've also been watching a lot more streaming based stuff and my normal 700-800G per month has been running in the 1.1T to 1.4T. Unfortunately in my area, Xfinity only offers a 1T plan or an unlimited plan. IIRC, the unlimited plan was another $90 a month. So for now, I'm just suffering with the extra monthly charges for overages and trying to keep the kids from streaming you-tube all night long.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Getteau said:


> Unfortunately in my area, Xfinity only offers a 1T plan or an unlimited plan. IIRC, the unlimited plan was another $90 a month. So for now, I'm just suffering with the extra monthly charges for overages and trying to keep the kids from streaming you-tube all night long.


I think you can add unlimited data to any Xfinity internet plan for an extra $50/mo. Otherwise, they'll charge you $10 for every 50GB block of data that you exceed 1TB, up to a maximum of $200 in overage fees. But they give you a 2 free "courtesy" overage months, with just a warning issued, before they start assessing any overage fees.

XFINITY Data Usage Center - FAQ
Terabyte-using cable customers double, increasing risk of data cap fees


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> Does your ISP report your data usage totals?


If your ISP doesn't (mine does not since they removed data caps several years ago) most modern higher end routers provide extensive data usage monitoring. My Asus router provides daily, weekly, and monthly graphs and reports by device and even down to the app level. As noted in my previous post we never get close to 1TB in a month and we are 100% streaming.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> If your ISP doesn't (mine does not since they removed data caps several years ago) most modern higher end routers provide extensive data usage monitoring. My Asus router provides daily, weekly, and monthly graphs and reports by device and even down to the app level. As noted in my previous post we never get close to 1TB in a month and we are 100% streaming.


Do you stream 4K? How many hours a week do you stream?


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Just because you have high caps or uncapped service, doesn't mean that your ISP won't do something to make using a particular streaming service that competes with their TV offerings easy. They are no longer bound by net neutrality, and anywhere that you have only one really good broadband option (which is much of the country) there's really nothing to stop ISPs from doing this if they see 'Directv via IP' or anything else hurting their bottom line.


I know there are overhead costs involved with cable company's, but you would think they would want to keep TV customers around by offering lower prices, better discounted bundle packages and maybe even their own streaming service. I'm surprised they aren't doing more to keep TV customers around.


----------



## Getteau (Dec 20, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> If your ISP doesn't (mine does not since they removed data caps several years ago) most modern higher end routers provide extensive data usage monitoring. My Asus router provides daily, weekly, and monthly graphs and reports by device and even down to the app level. As noted in my previous post we never get close to 1TB in a month and we are 100% streaming.


Which model ASUS are you using? I've been telling myself for awhile that I need to get something that can do bandwidth reports and I also need something that can do a better job with DHCP than my crappy cable modem (it won't let me assign my Open DNS servers as part of the DHCP lease). I thought about using my old Linksys WRTG54 with a custom firmware. Unfortunately, it's only 100M and I have a 250M Internet connection.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

SledgeHammer said:


> Do you stream 4K? How many hours a week do you stream?


Yep, it really varies based on how much and what you watch. On Demand streaming (i.e. Netflix, Hulu, HBO Go, etc) tends to take up less bandwidth than live streaming since VOD has multipass encoding to shrink the size of the file. And even with Netflix, it widely varies based on what you're watching since not all of their content is available in "Super HD" or 4K. If you want to check, some Netflix apps allow you to press the info/options/display button on your remote or game controller to display in real time the bitrate and resolution of the content in the corner of the screen.

A multi-person household who each has their own personal TVs on all day from mornings until they go to sleep (or even overnight for background noise that some people like to do) will consume a lot more bandwidth over time than someone who only has one or two TVs and only watches TV during evenings and weekends.

For Rich, based on where you are I'm guessing you either have Optimum or FiOS. Neither of them have hard caps, so unless someone is hosting something data heavy like a popular Valve server for gaming or a semi-popular website on a residential connection where you are constantly using most of your upstream speed, you'll never run into problems that people with caps would face. In that case they would either tell you to stop hosting servers since that's a violation of the residential TOS, or force you to switch to a commercial account. (The benefit of Optimum's systems mostly covering areas with REAL broadband competition, so even Optimum systems in non-FiOS territory benefit from it, compared to areas like here where Verizon is DSL only and limited to 3 Mbps if you are more than 2000 feet from their central office, so the local cable company has different caps for each tier requring you to upgrade to a speed that's faster than you'll likely need just to get a cap high enough)


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

SledgeHammer said:


> Do you stream 4K? How many hours a week do you stream?


Some of what we stream is 4k. I'd say as much as we can since our primary viewing locations are all 4k. Much of it from NetFlix or Amazon and movie rentals from VUDU. Virtually all of our movie rentals are 4k many of them with ATMOS. How much do we watch, I don't know. We aren't "tv running in the background constantly" kind of people but I'd guess we are average entertainment consumers, maybe less IDK. If any tv is on anywhere in the house it is streaming. But I honestly do not hear about tons of people going over a 1TB data cap with just entertainment.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Getteau said:


> Which model ASUS are you using? I've been telling myself for awhile that I need to get something that can do bandwidth reports and I also need something that can do a better job with DHCP than my crappy cable modem (it won't let me assign my Open DNS servers as part of the DHCP lease). I thought about using my old Linksys WRTG54 with a custom firmware. Unfortunately, it's only 100M and I have a 250M Internet connection.


Its an RT-AC87U.


----------



## ericknolls (Aug 18, 2013)

compnurd said:


> The pricing being the same is a shock and not surprised. Shock because they stated it would be cheaper because no dish or tech was needed. Not surprised because they are obviously trying to make more money on it. As stated the dvr ability and 4K will dictate if I switch


Saving on truck rolls and installation costs = hint: more profit! AT&T execs are geniuses aren't they? They know how to use the media. Let's say what we want them to hear without giving the store away. They should be in the crime business. They would get away with a lot of shet!


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

TheRatPatrol said:


> I know there are overhead costs involved with cable company's, but you would think they would want to keep TV customers around by offering lower prices, better discounted bundle packages and maybe even their own streaming service. I'm surprised they aren't doing more to keep TV customers around.


The overhead costs for cable (as far as the HFC plant, billing, support etc.) are the same whether you get cable for TV only, for internet only, or for both.

So as long as the difference in cost from internet only to internet+TV is greater than what they pay networks for those TV channels it is extra profit for them. So they don't need for their TV offering to get as much revenue as a TV only provider for it to be a profit center for them, and it makes customers stickier if they are getting two things from them instead of just one.


----------



## ericknolls (Aug 18, 2013)

KyL416 said:


> Yep, it really varies based on how much and what you watch. On Demand streaming (i.e. Netflix, Hulu, HBO Go, etc) tends to take up less bandwidth than live streaming since VOD has multipass encoding to shrink the size of the file. And even with Netflix, it widely varies based on what you're watching since not all of their content is available in "Super HD" or 4K. If you want to check, some Netflix apps allow you to press the info/options/display button on your remote or game controller to display in real time the bitrate and resolution of the content in the corner of the screen.
> 
> A multi-person household who each has their own personal TVs on all day from mornings until they go to sleep (or even overnight for background noise that some people like to do) will consume a lot more bandwidth over time than someone who only has one or two TVs and only watches TV during evenings and weekends.
> 
> For Rich, based on where you are I'm guessing you either have Optimum or FiOS. Neither of them have hard caps, so unless someone is hosting something data heavy like a popular Valve server for gaming or a semi-popular website on a residential connection where you are constantly using most of your upstream speed, you'll never run into problems that people with caps would face. In that case they would either tell you to stop hosting servers since that's a violation of the residential TOS, or force you to switch to a commercial account. (The benefit of Optimum's systems mostly covering areas with REAL broadband competition, so even Optimum systems in non-FiOS territory benefit from it, compared to areas like here where Verizon is DSL only and limited to 3 Mbps if you are more than 2000 feet from their central office, so the local cable company has different caps for each tier requring you to upgrade to a speed that's faster than you'll likely need just to get a cap high enough)


You are right about people having their TV on all night. When those retransmission agreements come up carriers are going to hold AT&T hostage over the crazy bandwidth use or ring their neck. They are going to make agreements based on them taking losses from all the usage. It's not going to be pretty. I can see Comcast and Verizon now. Maybe they will have a ridiculous outage like Dish with HBO. Stay tuned people!


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

These live streaming TV services usually have an "Are you still watching?" pop-up that appears if the viewer hasn't interacted with it for a couple of hours (no channel change, no rewind/FF/pause, etc.). And if the viewer doesn't click on the "Yes, I'm still watching!" box, then the video stream just shuts off in order not to waste your data.

Perhaps AT&T wouldn't do that with their streaming TV service if it's running over their own AT&T Fiber service but, in all other cases, I would think they would.


----------



## ericknolls (Aug 18, 2013)

You have to look at all the smart phones, gaming, surfing, social media perusing and whatever devices are hooked up to the router. Most people forget about those Roku like devices, security systems, home assistant devices and the laptop or computer. That is a lot to keep going with all night bandwidth flowing to your set. I guess that 1Gbps service Verizon claims can connect 100 devices is worth getting after all. If you have a cool $200 Samolians to pay a month (according to Fred Sanford) I sure would like to see someone fulfill Verizon's claim and hook a hundred of those babies to their service. Later!


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

So the two new packages from DirecTV Now -- which now exclude all networks from the Discovery/Scripps, Viacom, AMC, and A+E groups -- are named "Plus" and "Max". That branding strikes me as a bit odd. "Plus" sounds like something that should be a step up from, or an addition to, a more basic tier.

And then I took a look earlier today at the channel line-up for AT&T's Watch TV skinny live streaming service (which they don't advertise much -- I think it's mostly just serves as a freebie thrown in with their more expensive mobile plans). Guess what it consists of? Besides AT&T's own channels (TNT, CNN, etc.), it's exclusively composed of networks from Discovery/Scripps, Viacom, AMC, and A+E. Plus it has Hallmark Channel and Hallmark Movies & Mysteries. So the only overlap it has with the "Plus" or "Max" plans from DTVN are AT&T's own channels plus the main Hallmark Channel.

I wonder if they plan to rebrand that skinny bundle and bring it over as part of DTVN? Maybe it could be the DTVN "Starter" tier, still priced at $15. And then either the Plus or Max bundles could be added to it for an additional $50 or $70, respectively. (Never mind that consumers would be better off adding Philo for $16 to either the Plus or Max packages.)


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

I wish someone would offer a skinny sports only package with locals and a choice of news channels.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

TheRatPatrol said:


> I wish someone would offer a skinny sports only package with locals and a choice of news channels.


The one sports oriented OTT I am aware of is FuboTV. It also includes news channels but not sure if it has locals. I've never tried it out myself so have no personal experience with it.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

TheRatPatrol said:


> I wish someone would offer a skinny sports only package with locals and a choice of news channels.


Hulu is supposedly working on offering something like that.
Hulu Eyes Cheaper Live TV Bundles That Strip Out Entertainment Cable Networks

Hulu is majority owned by Disney, so if they want to just bundle ABC locals plus the ESPN channels (without their other channels like Disney, FX, etc.) with the base Hulu on-demand service, then of course they can do that. Fox now owns just their Fox locals plus Fox News, Fox Business, FS1, FS2 and Big Ten Network. So no problem getting them on board with all of their few channels. CBS (at least for now, before they merge with Viacom) only has their CBS locals, plus CBS Sports Network, CBSN, Pop, and Showtime. Pop doesn't matter, it's so small, and Showtime is already available as an a la carte add-on. So CBS should be on board.

The question is whether Comcast/NBCUniversal, although still a 30% owner of Hulu, would agree to let Hulu offer only their NBC locals, NBCSN, Golf Channel, Olympic Channel, MSNBC and CNBC channels in a skinny package without also including their other channels (USA, Bravo, SyFy, E!, Oxygen). Maybe.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ericknolls said:


> I guess that 1Gbps service Verizon claims can connect 100 devices is worth getting after all.


100 devices at 10Mbps each works. Is Verizon claiming every device can watch a HD stream at the same time?

We have a 1GB connection at work with more than 2000 PCs and other devices ... the key is that they are not all streaming HD at the same time.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> The one sports oriented OTT I am aware of is FuboTV. It also includes news channels but not sure if it has locals. I've never tried it out myself so have no personal experience with it.


I did a 7 day trial with FTV. The 4K was outstanding, and yes, it has locals. WAF - not so good.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

mjwagner said:


> The one sports oriented OTT I am aware of is FuboTV. It also includes news channels but not sure if it has locals. I've never tried it out myself so have no personal experience with it.


No NHL or MLB Networks.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> 100 devices at 10Mbps each works. Is Verizon claiming every device can watch a HD stream at the same time?
> 
> We have a 1GB connection at work with more than 2000 PCs and other devices ... the key is that they are not all streaming HD at the same time.


You also have business grade switches and routers backing that up. You aren't going to get 100 devices working on a home router. Especially when the majority would be wifi.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

> If you have a cool $200 Samolians to pay a month


Verizon charges $200/mo for 1Gbps? Wth? I'm with Cox and I pay $90/mo for my 1Gbps. AT&T & Google are both in the 70 to 90 range as well. Cox is Docsis 3.1 though and T & GF are fiber so I don't get very fast upstream, but I don't really care about that, I'm a leech haha .


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

TheRatPatrol said:


> No NHL or MLB Networks.


LOL, not much of a sports OTT provider then is it. Like I said I have no personal experience with it just heard that it was a "sports oriented" OTT service.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Do you stream 4K? How many hours a week do you stream?


I do. I don't look for 4K content but we stream virtually everything we watch and some of that is 4K. Usually about 4-5 hours a night. My son is on his X-Box for about 6 hours a day during the week and on weekends he never seems to stop. Never get any notices about overages. We have Optimum/Altice as our ISP.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

KyL416 said:


> For Rich, based on where you are I'm guessing you either have Optimum or FiOS. Neither of them have hard caps, so unless someone is hosting something data heavy like a popular Valve server for gaming or a semi-popular website on a residential connection where you are constantly using most of your upstream speed, you'll never run into problems that people with caps would face. In that case they would either tell you to stop hosting servers since that's a violation of the residential TOS, or force you to switch to a commercial account. (The benefit of Optimum's systems mostly covering areas with REAL broadband competition, so even Optimum systems in non-FiOS territory benefit from it, compared to areas like here where Verizon is DSL only and limited to 3 Mbps if you are more than 2000 feet from their central office, so the local cable company has different caps for each tier requring you to upgrade to a speed that's faster than you'll likely need just to get a cap high enough)


Good guess. Optimum/Altice.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> You also have business grade switches and routers backing that up. You aren't going to get 100 devices working on a home router. Especially when the majority would be wifi.


Telco is only responsible to the demarc. Internal distribution is your problem.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Rich said:


> I do. I don't look for 4K content but we stream virtually everything we watch and some of that is 4K. Usually about 4-5 hours a night. My son is on his X-Box for about 6 hours a day during the week and on weekends he never seems to stop. Never get any notices about overages. We have Optimum/Altice as our ISP.
> 
> Rich


6 hours a day?!?! WOW... lol... the big part about X-box, etc. seems to be when people download the 80GB patches. I don't think just playing will do it.

I've never been able to get too much above 200GB a month. I think 211GB is my PR. But tomorrow is the premiere of Triple Frontier on Netflix. Hopefully that's in 4K with Dolby Vision. I wonder how much that'll suck up.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Telco is only responsible to the demarc. Internal distribution is your problem.


Yeah, but claiming a home user can run 100 devices is about as legit as T's 5G icon.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> I've never been able to get too much above 200GB a month. I think 211GB is my PR. But tomorrow is the premiere of Triple Frontier on Netflix. Hopefully that's in 4K with Dolby Vision. I wonder how much that'll suck up.


Many say about 4 to 7GB per hour.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> 6 hours a day?!?! WOW... lol... the big part about X-box, etc. seems to be when people download the 80GB patches. I don't think just playing will do it.
> 
> I've never been able to get too much above 200GB a month. I think 211GB is my PR. But tomorrow is the premiere of Triple Frontier on Netflix. Hopefully that's in 4K with Dolby Vision. I wonder how much that'll suck up.


Yeah, at least 6 hours a day. Bit of an addiction. Tried everything I could think of to get him off the games but now we just live with it.

Rich


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Rich said:


> Yeah, at least 6 hours a day. Bit of an addiction. Tried everything I could think of to get him off the games but now we just live with it.
> 
> Rich


Try withholding food.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Rich said:


> Yeah, at least 6 hours a day. Bit of an addiction. Tried everything I could think of to get him off the games but now we just live with it.
> 
> Rich


Have you tried a.... SledgeHammer?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Have you tried a.... SledgeHammer?


I should have tried the Navy. But I have one son that served in the Army, that was more than enough. Tried two semesters of college, that didn't work out well.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Athlon646464 said:


> Try withholding food.


Tried withholding the Internet, tried withholding electricity, gave up. The heart wants what it wants, I gave up. He's the kind of guy you'd want to have a beer with, goes to work everyday. Never have any problems with him. Has a bunch of friends who are also gamers. Different generation, I had to adapt.

Rich


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Rich said:


> Tried withholding the Internet, tried withholding electricity, gave up. The heart wants what it wants, I gave up. He's the kind of guy you'd want to have a beer with, goes to work everyday. Never have any problems with him. Has a bunch of friends who are also gamers. Different generation, I had to adapt.
> 
> Rich


I hope you know what I said was just my lame attempt at humor. Sounds like he's a good kid. What more could you want?


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Lot worse things kids could be doing than playing video games 6 hours a day.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

b4pjoe said:


> Lot worse things kids could be doing than playing video games 6 hours a day.


Yup, they could be staring at a smart phone 6 hours a day texting.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Athlon646464 said:


> I hope you know what I said was just my lame attempt at humor. Sounds like he's a good kid. What more could you want?


I understood. Yes, he's a good kid. Turned into a good friend, didn't expect that.

Rich


----------



## ericknolls (Aug 18, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> Verizon charges $200/mo for 1Gbps? Wth? I'm with Cox and I pay $90/mo for my 1Gbps. AT&T & Google are both in the 70 to 90 range as well. Cox is Docsis 3.1 though and T & GF are fiber so I don't get very fast upstream, but I don't really care about that, I'm a leech haha .


I believe that is the price after the sweet heart deals. You know Verizon - ( the company of creative fees ) always has a way of extracting them dollars from dey customers. Yes they do...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> Lot worse things kids could be doing than playing video games 6 hours a day.


Lots of things worse, he drinks rarely, has no interest in drugs. And he's always there when I need him.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> Yup, they could be staring at a smart phone 6 hours a day texting.


Got one of them in the house too.

Rich


----------



## ericknolls (Aug 18, 2013)

James Long said:


> 100 devices at 10Mbps each works. Is Verizon claiming every device can watch a HD stream at the same time?
> 
> We have a 1GB connection at work with more than 2000 PCs and other devices ... the key is that they are not all streaming HD at the same time.


I personally don't know. It was the gimmick they were peddling to prospective customers to get their "swanky" cream of the crop service. He


----------



## ericknolls (Aug 18, 2013)

James Long said:


> 100 devices at 10Mbps each works. Is Verizon claiming every device can watch a HD stream at the same time?
> 
> We have a 1GB connection at work with more than 2000 PCs and other devices ... the key is that they are not all streaming HD at the same time.


We have a 1GB connection at work with more than 2000 PCs and other devices ... <--- Really now? Who would of thought that? Get Verizon on the horn. Let them know they are lax and another company accomplished this fete and passed they're arses.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

ericknolls said:


> I believe that is the price after the sweet heart deals. You know Verizon - ( the company of creative fees ) always has a way of extracting them dollars from dey customers. Yes they do...


I think Cox goes up to like 140/mo after the promo. I guess I'll find out next April. I'll drop it for that much.


----------



## Microphone (Jan 30, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> Lot worse things kids could be doing than playing video games 6 hours a day.


Or could be like many of us spending several hours a day on a TV message board!


----------



## ericknolls (Aug 18, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> I think Cox goes up to like 140/mo after the promo. I guess I'll find out next April. I'll drop it for that much.


If the service is beneficial and provides what you need it for - keep it! Some people's pocketbook can support the charge. I'm not suggesting anybody get rid of their service.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ericknolls said:


> We have a 1GB connection at work with more than 2000 PCs and other devices ... <--- Really now? Who would of thought that? Get Verizon on the horn. Let them know they are lax and another company accomplished this fete and passed they're arses.


I remember when the college I worked at had a 64k connection to the Internet for the entire campus. But there were not that many computers on campus and few people knew what the Internet was. I had a 56k modem on my home PC at the time.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

James Long said:


> I remember when the college I worked at had a 64k connection to the Internet for the entire campus. But there were not that many computers on campus and few people knew what the Internet was. I had a 56k modem on my home PC at the time.


Ha! I can remember my 300 baud and 1200 modems connecting to BBS systems & Compuserve. I thought I was in heaven when I bought my first 56k modem!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I had Compuserve and a 300 baud modem - and a computer with a cassette instead of a floppy disk or hard drive (CoCo). That start is probably why I don't feel the need to have a 1G connection at home. Learning to do a lot within the limits of what one has instead of adding more power.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Athlon646464 said:


> Ha! I can remember my 300 baud and 1200 modems connecting to BBS systems & Compuserve. I thought I was in heaven when I bought my first 56k modem!


LOL, yeah I remember when I went from 1200 to 2400...I thought it was amazing...


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> I had Compuserve and a 300 baud modem - and a computer with a cassette instead of a floppy disk or hard drive (CoCo). That start is probably why I don't feel the need to have a 1G connection at home. Learning to do a lot within the limits of what one has instead of adding more power.


Compuserve, cassette storage, and a command line interface...now those were the days...


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

mjwagner said:


> Compuserve, cassette storage, and a command line interface...now those were the days...


Playing video games on an Apple IIe/IIc using a color TV.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

ericknolls said:


> If the service is beneficial and provides what you need it for - keep it! Some people's pocketbook can support the charge. I'm not suggesting anybody get rid of their service.


Actually, I think its $99/mo for me now. My bad. It goes up to $140/mo next year (2 yr deal). If they don't put me back at the $99/mo, then I'll drop it down to the 300Mbps. Plus 5G might be out by then. If AT&T & GF charge 70 - 90, there is no reason for Cox to charge $140.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> LOL, yeah I remember when I went from 1200 to 2400...I thought it was amazing...


Yup. My first modem was a 1200 -> 2400 -> 9600 -> 14.4/16.8 -> 28.8 -> 33.6 -> Cable.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

This has gone live


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

compnurd said:


> This has gone live


Been trying to find it - do you have a link?


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Never mind - found it:

DIRECTV Satellite's Streaming Services is Now Live Starting at $93 a Month


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

You can find all of these packages on the DIRECTV NOW website by selecting the see more packages button just above the Continue button.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Weird, I didn't expect this offering to be under the "Directv Now" name.


----------



## Getteau (Dec 20, 2007)

Athlon646464 said:


> Never mind - found it:
> 
> DIRECTV Satellite's Streaming Services is Now Live Starting at $93 a Month


Ouch, the comment section on that article is brutal.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Weird, I didn't expect this offering to be under the "Directv Now" name.


There is all sort of weird things going on with this


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> There is all sort of weird things going on with this


Yup. ALL KINDS of weird. I don't know what to make of this move other than to say that I don't think this is the big "satellite to internet" shift that we've been anticipating AT&T to make. These packages are buried on the DTV Now website, behind the sign-up link, then behind a little "See more packages" link. Weird.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Not a surprise to me because of what I've been reading, but when you look at the comparison chart for all of the packages and see HBO 'included' in only the two least expensive ones it just looks weird to me. :tongueclosed:


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I can’t for the life of me figure out why one would take these new subscriptions. Pricing about the same as DTV sat service, fewer channels in each level, less DVR storage and you have to pay for the internet service to even use it.

I did a rough comparison to what my local cable company offers. I have roughly the same subscription level that the new Ultimate, but have HBO, Cinemax and Showtime included which are not in the Ultimate. At full retail it would be about $240/month including 200/20 internet and all taxes and fees. Currently paying $176 which will rise $20/month on each anniversary for the next 2 years.

IMO, these subscription packages offer no real benefit.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Unless the RSN Tool is wrong, it looks like most folks arent getting there RSN's also


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Is there 4k with D Now?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

sigma1914 said:


> Is there 4k with D Now?


Nope. Not that we know of anyhow.

AT&T has said in the past that support for 4K HDR is on the technological roadmap for the streaming video platform which powers DTV Now but we don't know if they ever intend to actually offer any 4K or HDR content in packages that are marketed under the DTV Now brand. It's expected by many that the underlying streaming platform may power another, more premium, TV service.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Editor's Corner-AT&T's new full DirecTV satellite streaming packages raise a lot of questions | FierceVideo


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I think one of their biggest problems is that they talk about number of channels and it compares poorly with Directv satellite. There are probably some missing channels due to contracts etc. but the biggest thing is they probably don't include any of those P&I channels they have to carry as a condition of their satellite license, since there are no such requirements for streaming. Probably don't have the shopping channels either. That adds up to a pretty good chunk, but it makes numerical comparisons look bad if you compare the packages with the same name between streaming and satellite.

They really seem to have bungled this launch, just sticking it in a bad location on the Directv Now page and letting sites like FierceVideo drive the story instead of having an official announcement and ad campaign let them provide the message they want to provide.

I almost wonder if that stuff showing up on their page is a mistake, and wasn't supposed to be shown yet.


----------



## mmmccall (May 17, 2013)

So....whos going to be the guinea pig and sign up for the streaming Xtra package and see if it has the 4k channels? Haha


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> They really seem to have bungled this launch, just sticking it in a bad location on the Directv Now page and letting sites like FierceVideo drive the story instead of having an official announcement and ad campaign let them provide the message they want to provide.
> 
> I almost wonder if that stuff showing up on their page is a mistake, and wasn't supposed to be shown yet.


Totally agree. I mean, I don't even think I'd use the word "launch" to describe what happened with those four packages on DTV Now today. It's as if no one in their marketing department has any awareness of it at all.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I thought there was going to be a box they would send you when you sign up for this? These packages are just streaming packages through the DTVN app on any of the streaming boxes out there.

If you go to the DirecTV Now website at https://www.directvnow.com I can't find a way via the available links to get to that page so I definitely think that is a mistake on their part and wasn't meant for the public to see. Going to the packages page and those packages are not there. Only the plus and max packages are shown there.


----------



## Blueflash (Jan 16, 2009)

Go here to see them
DIRECTV NOW Login | Access Your Account Online

Then click on see more packages right above continue


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Yes you can get there via that link. If you just go to the main DirecTV Now home page there are no links that I can find that will get you to that page. Hence I think it was a mistake.

Doing a sampling of the Satellite channels for the Ultiimate package vs the DirecTV Now Ultimate package here are just a few of the channels that are on the satellite package and not on the DTVN package:

Caracol TV
Cine Estelar
Cine Nostalgia
Cinelatino
De Pelicula
De Pelicula Clásico
Discovery en Español
Discovery Familia
Ecuador TV
Ecuavisa Internacional
Hola TV
IVC Net
MegaTV
Nuestra Tele
Perú Mágico
TeleCentro
Telefe
TV Chile
TVE
UniMás
Universo
ViendoMovies
WAPA América
Aqui
Arirang TV
BYUtv
CANAL ONCE
Celebrity Shopping TV
CGTN 2053
CGTN 2119

There are more but I got tired of comparing them after that much.


----------



## ericknolls (Aug 18, 2013)

James Long said:


> Streaming technology is expensive. At best AT&T is trading installs and truck rolls for server capacity and bandwidth in their content delivery network. Since the industry doesn't report subscriber acquisition costs for streaming it is hard to put an exact cost difference between signing up a satellite customer and signing up a streaming customer. But most of the ongoing costs to the customers is simply fees passed on from the content providers. The remainder pays for the network ... whether it is satellites in the sky or content delivery via the Interenet.


This being said - if streaming costs are so expensive why are these "bright" executives at AT&T doling out such a service? They need four video products? I don't get it. I am scratching my head. This company did all kinds of streamlining at DIRECTV - yet the service is still expensive. Now they are dropping competitors from their streaming services and raising prices. Where is the FCC while AT&T is doing whatever it is doing in front of their faces. They must be asleep. I thought there were conditions to be met for having these two mergers approved. I guess those conditions and promises went out the window. Our word is our bond means nothing to AT&T.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

b4pjoe said:


> Doing a sampling of the Satellite channels for the Ultiimate package vs the DirecTV Now Ultimate package here are just a few of the channels that are on the satellite package and not on the DTVN package:
> *snip*


Those spanish channels are not in the Ultimate Package on satellite, they require the en espanol add on or one of the Spanish tiers

Looking at them in depth, they're just the existing DTV Now packages renamed to match their satellite counterparts, there hasn't been any changes in the channels carried, just the price:
Live a Little = Entertainment
Just Right = Choice
Go Big = Xtra
Gotta Have it = Ultimate
Todo y Mas = Optimo Mas

The same channels are missing as before, most of the P/I and pay to play channels (although BabyFirst, C-SPAN and C-SPAN2 are included), music choice, west coast feeds of kids channels, some others who don't have the streaming rights to the majority of the syndicated content they air like Ion and WGN America, channels that only recently got streaming rights to their games and the carriage contracts haven't caught up yet, as well as most of the multiplex feeds of the premium channels:
Aqui (Paid)
Altitude
Arirang (P/I)
ATT/Root Sports
Beauty iQ (Paid)
BYU (P/I)
Cartoon Network West
CASH (Paid)
Celebrity Shopping Network (Paid)
Cowboy Channel
CTN (P/I)
Daystar (P/I)
Disney Channel West
Evine (Paid)
EWTN (P/I)
FETV (Paid)
Free Speech (P/I)
GEB America (P/I)
Gem Shopping Network (Paid)
GOD TV (P/I)
Great American Country
Hillsong (P/I)
Hope Channel (P/I)
HSN (Paid)
Impact (P/I)
INC TV (P/I)
INSP
Ion East
Ion West
JBS (P/I)
Jewelry Television (Paid)
Jewish Life TV (P/I)
Link TV (P/I)
MASN
MavTV
MHz Worldview (P/I)
Music Choice
NASA (P/I)
NESN
Newsmax (Paid)
Nick West
NRB (P/I)
Oferta (Paid)
Pursuit (Paid)
QVC (Paid)
QVC2 (Paid)
RT America (Paid)
SBN (Paid)
Scientology (Paid)
Shop LC (Paid)
Spectrum Sportsnet
TBN (P/I)
TCT Network (P/I)
Uplift (P/I)
WGN America
WHT (P/I)
HBO West
HBO2
HBO2 West
HBO Signature
HBO Family West
HBO Comedy
HBO Zone
Cinemax West
MoreMax
ActionMax
ThrillerMax
5StarMax
MovieMax
Cinemáx
Starz West
Starz Edge
Starz InBlack
Starz Cinema
Starz Comedy
Showtime West
Showtime 2
Showcase
Showtime Extreme
Showtime Beyond
Showtime Next
Showtime Women
The Movie Channel
The Movie Channel West
The Movie Channel Xtra
Flix


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Oh I see. Most of those Spanish channels are in the America Plus which has a check mark under the Ultimate satellite package. If you expand the list those channels show as optional. It isn't easy trying to figure out what is in the satellite packages the way they list them on the AT&T website.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Don't go by the lineup on AT&T's site, it barely works. Basically they tried to port the data for DirecTV's channel lineup and packages to a web page that was only designed to display U-Verse's packages, so variations that don't apply to U-Verse, like the multiple Spanish addons that divide channels by Mexico and the rest of Latin America, breaks it.


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

ericknolls said:


> This being said - if streaming costs are so expensive why are these "bright" executives at AT&T doling out such a service? They need four video products? I don't get it. I am scratching my head. This company did all kinds of streamlining at DIRECTV - yet the service is still expensive. Now they are dropping competitors from their streaming services and raising prices. Where is the FCC while AT&T is doing whatever it is doing in front of their faces. They must be asleep. I thought there were conditions to be met for having these two mergers approved. I guess those conditions and promises went out the window. Our word is our bond means nothing to AT&T.


There were no conditions to be met because the government opposed the acquisition but lost in court (the Warner acquisition).


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Or less tin-hat wearing conspiracy theory: Existing contracts have package requirements, they can't cherry pick channels to add to the new slim packages from those owners until their contracts come up for renewal, so they're still only available in the packages that match the satellite packages. (i.e. AT&T's contracts for Viacom and AETN are coming up real soon, while AMC's and Discovery's deals are also older, it's not a coincidence that their channels are missing from the Plus and Max packages, while channels who had their contracts renewed more recently like Fox, NBCU and CBS are included)

Just ask Verizon how well the lawsuits went for them when they tried to include certain channels in their custom TV packages and omit others before things were up for renewal.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

At the DirecTV Now website they have a Promo code for a free one month trial. I tried to apply it to the Ultimate Package but it wouldn't take it so I tried on the MAX package and it accepted it there. So I have my free one month trial going now for a DirecTV Now package...not for one of the satellite packages unfortunately. And their DVR is underwhelming with 20 GB of data and recorded shows expire after 30 days.

Also only includes 2 streams at a time. For a 3rd stream it will cost you $5.00 per month.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> At the DirecTV Now website they have a Promo code for a free one month trial. I tried to apply it to the Ultimate Package but it wouldn't take it so I tried on the MAX package and it accepted it there. So I have my free one month trial going now for a DirecTV Now package...not for one of the satellite packages unfortunately. And their DVR is underwhelming with 20 GB of data and recorded shows expire after 30 days.
> 
> Also only includes 2 streams at a time. For a 3rd stream it will cost you $5.00 per month.


Yeh the fine print says the month free is only on the two new ones. The other ones are a week free


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

KyL416 said:


> Looking at them in depth, they're just the existing DTV Now packages renamed to match their satellite counterparts, there hasn't been any changes in the channels carried, just the price:
> Live a Little = Entertainment
> Just Right = Choice
> Go Big = Xtra
> ...


Very interesting. So it appears that all this talk yesterday and today about "streaming versions of the satellite packages" is much ado about nothing! If your analysis is correct, then AT&T just renamed their original 5 DTVN packages with the names of the 5 closest DTV satellite packages.

But why rename them and invite confusion rather than retain the original names (Live a Little, etc.)? Confusing the consumer here is a feature, not a bug. They don't want it to be evident just how much those packages' prices have increased, I would imagine. Here are the price changes:

Live a Little $40 --> Entertainment $93 (133% increase)
Just Right $55 --> Choice $110 (100% increase)
Go Big $65 --> Xtra $124 (91% increase)
Gotta Have it $75 --> Ultimate $135 (80% increase)

And that's not to mention that the HBO add-on for those packages increased from $5 to $15, a 200% price increase, while other premium add-ons saw smaller increases.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> ......... And their DVR is underwhelming with 20 GB of data and recorded shows expire after 30 days. Also only includes 2 streams at a time. For a 3rd stream it will cost you $5.00 per month.


Yea, that crap wouldn't fly in our household That's like the old SD-DVR40 (without the 30 day limit)...my wife would kill me or start drawing up divorce papers if I even thought about considering this service!


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> At the DirecTV Now website they have a Promo code for a free one month trial. I tried to apply it to the Ultimate Package but it wouldn't take it so I tried on the MAX package and it accepted it there. So I have my free one month trial going now for a DirecTV Now package...not for one of the satellite packages unfortunately. And their DVR is underwhelming with 20 GB of data and recorded shows expire after 30 days.
> 
> Also only includes 2 streams at a time. For a 3rd stream it will cost you $5.00 per month.


When I saw the free month offer I was thinking it might be worth a shot next week when my YouTube TV trial ends. Then I remembered they no longer offer MLB Network or SNY for Mets games in the NYC metro area. If Game of Thrones was back I might have been tempted. You know the lineup is bad if you don't want to do a month long free trial.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ericknolls said:


> Where is the FCC while AT&T is doing whatever it is doing in front of their faces.


The FCC operates on complaints. If you believe that they have violated the merger agreement find a copy of the agreement, note what was violate and notify the FCC. Basing your complaint on media reports and rumors ("I thought" or "according to sources") isn't going to fly. Find something official to back up your complaint. Complaining on social media isn't going to get the FCC to look at any complaint. They have their own filing process.

Don't expect someone at the FCC to notice and crack down the first day anyone violates some agreement (assuming there is one to violate). The FCC is process based.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

KyL416 said:


> Looking at them in depth, they're just the existing DTV Now packages renamed to match their satellite counterparts, there hasn't been any changes in the channels carried, just the price:
> Live a Little = Entertainment
> Just Right = Choice
> Go Big = Xtra
> ...


So this really is not DIRECTV via IP ... it is just a branding change to match the package names with the satellite service. And a price increase.
(The old names remind me of Coldstone Creamery "Like It, Love It, Gotta Have It" sizing.)

If the channel packages are not expanded to match (or be closer to) the satellite offerings I would not expect the change to be accepted by subscribers.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

So does his mean DIRECTV NOW has dropped the listed channels and they are no longer available on the streaming side?

https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/directv-now-drops-hurt-amc-discovery-viacom


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Athlon646464 said:


> Many say about 4 to 7GB per hour.


My typical weekday usage barring any movies or big downloads is about 1Gig. Watched Triple Frontier last night and checked my usage today and yesterday was 17GB. It was a 2 hr movie. It wasn't 4K, but it did have Dolby Vision and 5.1.

So 20 hrs a month = about 170GB. 20+ hrs of streaming sounds like a lot to me, but I still mostly watch the shows that are on the cable channels. I don't think I could find 10 2 hr movies to watch in a month.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

DirecTV Now is now one of the worst deals in live TV streaming

They dropped Discovery and History? Wow. Sounds awesome.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

SledgeHammer said:


> DirecTV Now is now one of the worst deals in live TV streaming
> 
> They dropped Discovery and History? Wow. Sounds awesome.


They moved them to the Entertainment, Choice, Xtra, and Ultimate packages. Not awesome.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

ericknolls said:


> Where is the FCC while AT&T is doing whatever it is doing in front of their faces. They must be asleep. I thought there were conditions to be met for having these two mergers approved. I guess those conditions and promises went out the window. Our word is our bond means nothing to AT&T.


The only conditions for the merger were related to broadband, and were for a term of four years - so they expire this summer. There were no conditions related to TV service.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

TheRatPatrol said:


> So does his mean DIRECTV NOW has dropped the listed channels and they are no longer available on the streaming side?
> 
> https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/directv-now-drops-hurt-amc-discovery-viacom





SledgeHammer said:


> DirecTV Now is now one of the worst deals in live TV streaming
> 
> They dropped Discovery and History? Wow. Sounds awesome.


There are now 2 main channel packages -- "Plus" and "Max" -- that DTV Now actively markets. Neither of them include channels from Discovery/Scripps, Viacom, AMC or A+E Networks.

However, it looks like all five of their original channel packages (4 English language and 1 Spanish language) are still available to new subscribers, just under different names, and they're basically hidden on the DTV Now website within the sign-up page. Those packages still retain channels from those four network groups but the package prices basically doubled, making them just as expensive as the regular non-promo pricing for DTV satellite packages, while having fewer channels and a worse DVR than satellite.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> There are now 2 main channel packages -- "Plus" and "Max" -- that DTV Now actively markets. Neither of them include channels from Discovery/Scripps, Viacom, AMC or A+E Networks.
> 
> However, it looks like all five of their original channel packages (4 English language and 1 Spanish language) are still available to new subscribers, just under different names, and they're basically hidden on the DTV Now website within the sign-up page. Those packages still retain channels from those four network groups but the package prices basically doubled, making them just as expensive as the regular non-promo pricing for DTV satellite packages, while having fewer channels and a worse DVR than satellite.


I found if you click the promo link at the top of their main page it takes you to the page with those packages.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> I found if you click the promo link at the top of their main page it takes you to the page with those packages.


Right. There are basically only two pages to the entire website: the front page, with general info about the service, and then the next page, where you sign up for service. The four old packages, now renamed to Entertainment, Choice, Xtra and Ultimate, are only mentioned on that sign-up page. And even there, they're hidden under a "See more packages" thing that you must click to reveal them.


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

Athlon646464 said:


> Ha! I can remember my 300 baud and 1200 modems connecting to BBS systems & Compuserve. I thought I was in heaven when I bought my first 56k modem!


I won my first 56k modern in some kind of contest. Life in the fast lane


----------



## ericknolls (Aug 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Ha, yeah, maybe. Here's a question: when DTV counts up the number of channels they offer in a package, are they counting both the HD and SD version? Maybe they're going to move to a more honest count where they don't count those duplicates. And also not count those crap channels (shopping, etc.) that actually pay to be included and no one cares about.


You know for some funny reason. I think all these platforms AT&T is throwing out to the public is an effort to stifle competition. You have DIRECTV, DirectvNow, uVerse and soon a WarnerMedia equipped set top box or media server. They just dropped AMC, Viacom and the Discovery family of channels. What is that all about? Now this HBO dispute with DISH. This is what headwinds programmers and retransmission agreements are going to face with big bad AT&T. Agree to our terms or your out of here. The FCC and FTC should be alarmed by these early developments and keep a sharp eye on AT&T's aggressive actions. I don't think regulators gave AT&T sole authority to dictate whatever demands they put on a programmer or television provider just because they exclusively own the station or programming source. They need to walk back AT&T and stop a train wreck that is on a collision course down the road.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

ericknolls said:


> They just dropped AMC, Viacom and the Discovery family of channels. What is that all about


Contrary to what those poorly researched articles online are claiming, they did NOT drop those channels. They're still available in the packages that have been renamed to match their satellite counterparts. They were bound for a price increase anyway, since DTV Now first launched more and more channels have been added to them and now they're nearly on par with the Satellite versions of those packages cost wise. The DTV now versions are only missing 6 actual unique channels, outside of Music Choice and some RSNs whose contracts and/or streaming rights for games haven't caught up yet, the rest of the "missing" channels are mostly P/I or pay to play channels that you aren't paying for anyway. (See my post on the previous page of this thread for a more detailed explanation on that part)

There's these wonderful things called contracts. Contracts dictate package placement. In other words, they can't create new skinny packages and cherry pick only certain channels and omit others from the same owner without violating said contracts. The channels from Hallmark, Fox, NBCU and CBS had their contracts renewed recently so they're included, while for Disney, their contract was recently ammended as DTV was announced as one of the launch providers for the new ACC network earlier this week.

Guess who's contracts with AT&T are up for renewal real soon? In Viacom's case, next Friday, and A&E's next month. (In other words, all those investors who foolishly listened to those poorly researched takes on their channels missing from the skinny packages will be kicking themselves in the near future)

Want to know what happens when you ignore the contracts and try to launch skinny packages with their channels anyway? Just ask Verizon how well that lawsuit went for them.



ericknolls said:


> Now this HBO dispute with DISH. This is what headwinds programmers and retransmission agreements are going to face with big bad AT&T. Agree to our terms or your out of here. The FCC and FTC should be alarmed by these early developments and keep a sharp eye on AT&T's aggressive actions. I don't think regulators gave AT&T sole authority to dictate whatever demands they put on a programmer or television provider just because they exclusively own the station or programming source.


You keep on bringing up these non-existant conditions of the Time Warner purchase. Read the replies, they have already been debunked. As for HBO that's a pricing dispute with Dish, there's already laws on the books that don't allow providers to withold channels they own from competitors. If Dish wants to they can file a lawsuit or seek arbitration. And HBO being owned by a competing MVPD isn't a new thing at all. For almost its entire history HBO has been owned by a MVPD. It started out as a channel owned by Sterling Manhattan Cable in the 70s that eventually became part of Time Warner Cable. It wasn't until 2009 when Time Warner Cable was spunoff that it was no longer owned by a MVPD. The same rules also apply to the Turner channels, ATTSN and even the Audience Network if a competing provider wanted to try to get carriage of it.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

KyL416 said:


> There's these wonderful things called contracts. Contracts dictate package placement. In other words, they can't create new skinny packages and cherry pick only certain channels and omit others from the same owner without violating said contracts. The channels that are included like Hallmark, Fox, NBCU and CBS had their contracts renewed recently so they're included, while for Disney, their contract was recently ammended as DTV was announced as one of the launch providers for the new ACC network earlier this week.
> 
> Guess who's contracts with AT&T are up for renewal real soon? In Viacom's case, next Friday, and A&E's next month. (In other words, all those investors who foolishly listened to those poorly researched takes on their channels missing from the skinny packages will be kicking themselves in the near future)


I'm skeptical that the recent moves by DTV Now have anything much to do with the timing of contract renewals, given that channels by Viacom, Discovery, AMC and A+E remain in their four renamed original packages.

Instead, I think those companies' exclusion from the two main Plus and Max packages have everything to do with AT&T's desire to reduce content costs while simultaneously increasing prices in a bid for profitability. If AT&T wanted to keep local affiliates of ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox, that meant that they had to pretty much keep all of those companies' cable channels that they were already carrying. So they did. And, of course, AT&T kept their own networks too (CNN, TBS, TNT, etc.). To add a bit more heft, they also kept just a few channels from smaller companies that they could include relatively cheaply: The Hallmark Channel, Accuweather, Ovation, and Revolt. And then they cut out everything else.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> I'm skeptical that the recent moves by DTV Now have anything much to do with the timing of contract renewals, given that channels by Viacom, Discovery, AMC and A+E remain in their four renamed original packages.


Just how DirecTV (and other providers) can't violate contract terms by cherry picking channels from the same owner to include and omitting others from that owner in newly created skinny packages, they also can't just drop those channels from existing packages without violating contracts. (Even if for whatever reason you refuse to believe this, we already have proven examples of this with well publicized lawsuits from other providers who tried to do it and lost)

It's NOT a coincidence that the channels they included are only the ones who had recent deals, INCLUDING those "cheap" channels like Hallmark (a few months ago around the time Hallmark Drama was added) and AccuWeather (last summer when it replaced WeatherNation). While the ones who haven't been renewed recently are not included.

I don't know if your familiar with my posts, what I know, or how often I've been correct about things that so called "anaylists" and certain "predictors of TV" got wrong. But if it involves contracts, renewal dates, carriage, launches, streaming rights/technology, etc, it's best to not be "skeptical" about the information I provide. Others here can vouch for that.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

Honestly this was hinted at in December by Randall Stephenson that they would thin out the content and reset DTV Now's starting price to $50/mo to make it more profitable. KyL416 is pretty much hitting the nail on the head so to speak. The channels in the new Plus and Max packages for DTV Now are not a coincidence but at the same time DTV Now didn't _drop_ any channels either. AT&T just restructured DTV Now's packages within the terms of their contracts is all.

My friend who works for a legacy DTV loyalty call center explained the changes to me like this:

Live A Little, Just Right, Go Big (Introductory Offer), Go Big (regular price), Gotta Have It and Todo y Mas are now retired and not available to new DTV Now subs. Existing DTV Now subs are grandfathered into their current package and will keep it as long as the DTV Now account remains active. All these package will increase by $10/mo in April.
If a customer switches from a grandfathered package to one of the new packages they can't switch back. There is no grace period.

Plus ($50/mo) and Max ($70) are DTV Now's new packages and is considered the lead offer for that service.
They will be the only packages AT&T offers any kind of introductory offers for like 1 month free, etc. to new subs.

DTV Now versions of Entertainment, Choice, Xtra, Ultimate and Optimo Mas are now available for DTV Now subs however these are priced the same as their satellite counterparts.
These packages are not eligible for introductory offers. If someone wants one of these packages but at a cheaper price refer to DirecTV (satellite).

If anyone has an add on that is increasing in price already on their account will continue to pay the original price as long as the add-on stays active on the account. If they remove the add on then add it back in the future they pay the new price in effect. An example he gave was if someone is paying $5 for HBO currently they will be locked into that price but if they remove HBO after the price increase takes effect then they will pay $15/mo for HBO to add it back.
He also said AT&T will make satellite versions of the Plus and Max packages available to customers who want DTV Satellite.

The satellite versions of Plus and Max will cost $110/mo and $130/mo respectively.
They include 1 Genie HD-DVR; any additional TVs is $7/mo.
The RSN fee is applicable to the Max (satellite) package

There will be no U-Verse TV equivalent of the Plus and Max packages.

The channel lineup for these two packages are exactly the same as their DTV Now counterparts except the satellite versions will get public interest and advertisement channels.
Plus and Max will only get HBO, HBO Family and HBO Latino included they will not receive any other HBO multiplex channels (like HBO Zone since it isn't available on DTV Now).
Max will only get Cinemax East and West. Max (satellite) package will not get any of the other Cinemax multiplex services.

These two packages are only available from att.com and require a 24 month agreement.
Agents at this time in store and in call centers can't sell these packages or switch existing customers to these packages.

These packages are not eligible for special offers. The price you see is the price you pay. This includes:
No new customer base package discounts (for the first 12 months)
No free NFL Sunday Ticket (can be added on at full cost)
No loyalty base package discount offers


----------



## ericknolls (Aug 18, 2013)

Why do these "experts" get so testy over something that does not affect their life! I grew up hearing that Black Americans watch more television than any other group. If that is the case than who are all of you guys? Meh... Whatever.... I'll just eat my pork rinds and figure a way to sneak in to one of those "elite" universities. Or at least try! Vroooom....


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

OK so my next question....are these new DirecTV Now packages the DirecTV over IP that we have been hearing about? Or is that going to be something entirely different?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

b4pjoe said:


> OK so my next question....are these new DirecTV Now packages the DirecTV over IP that we have been hearing about? Or is that going to be something entirely different?


It kind of sounds like they aren't, that Directv is making them options for Directv Now and then there will still be this 'Directv over IP' product coming later that will use the Directv clients. Their streaming lineup is going to look like the section of the drug store where you have the million choices for different types of Colgate and Crest toothpaste. I will go the store and remember I need toothpaste, and know I use Colgate, but never am quite 100% sure about what I got last time, so there's a 50/50 chance I will get what I got before, or get something different


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is a strange situation. If I were releasing a "DIRECTV satellite via IP" product I'd do it with the DIRECTV brand name and package names that matched the satellite packages. Apparently that is what AT&T has (quietly) done. If this isn't "the" DIRECTV satellite over IP product then how will they market the real thing separately when the best names have been placed in use on the DIRECTV NOW product? They will need to improve the IP product to make it worth the price jump. Or they need to offer prices low enough that people will accept the new packages. I hope that they are not trying to confuse their customers ... especially when selling a "no commitment" service where people who don't get what they were expecting can be gone faster than they came.

From the hardware side they can still introduce their own equipment to provide a "better experience". But with prices set based on "bring your own equipment" how much will they charge for the new device? A high flat fee or a monthly rental? We're still not getting the answers.

I feel like we have stumbled into a new store before the grand opening where the shop is open but the company isn't promoting their service. They have left a void that has been filled by incorrect information ... poorly researched articles claiming channels were dropped because the two new low price packages don't include them. But I can't be too harsh on those authors since AT&T hasn't made an effort to promote the changes. Perhaps a press release will be sent out soon - or some clarifying advertising.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I fail to see the value proposition of these new IP packages from ATT. Let me give an example comparing the Ultimate package on both IP and Satellite:
IP - Ultimate - $135/month from day one, no discounts, fewer channels than are in the satellite version
Satellite - Ultimate - $60/month for 12 months, $135/month for 12 months, $300 gift card, includes one HDDVR, plus about $10/month in RSN and other fees. Monthly cost for 24 months: $95.

The single advantage of the IP over the satellite service is that you can cancel at any time with no penalty. What am I missing? What would make a potential customer pick the IP over the sat service?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

lparsons21 said:


> What would make a potential customer pick the IP over the sat service?


 Stupidity.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> Stupidity.


If its the same price, yeah, picking streaming would be stupid. The sat service has a much better user experience. I don't need to try to aim my remote from across the room to a 10 pixel by 10 pixel square on the TV to click the pause button, I can just blindly click the pause button on my remote without even looking at it. Same for rewind, FF, replay, seek, etc.

If the DirecTV clients over IP work closer to the sat boxes and cable boxes then I might give it a try, but really if the services are the same price, I'll let other people iron out the kinks and I'll stick with the sat's. Well, at least until April / Sept when my discounts roll off and then I'll move to cox unless they re-up me .


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

As I showed, the price isn't the same, you actually pay more to get less with those new packages, again with the sole advantage being you can cancel at any time. Are many going to want to cancel and pick another service for awhile and keep doing that same dance over and over? I don't think so, or at least after a few times of doing that you or the significant other get tired of the differences between services.
Cutting the cord has mostly been about saving money and accepting the limitations it brings. ATT's new packages don't do that at all. Even their cheapest package @$50/month is no bargain compared to just about any other cable/sat replacement service.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> As I showed, the price isn't the same, you actually pay more to get less with those new packages, again with the sole advantage being you can cancel at any time. Are many going to want to cancel and pick another service for awhile and keep doing that same dance over and over? I don't think so, or at least after a few times of doing that you or the significant other get tired of the differences between services.
> Cutting the cord has mostly been about saving money and accepting the limitations it brings. ATT's new packages don't do that at all. Even their cheapest package @$50/month is no bargain compared to just about any other cable/sat replacement service.


Over the last couple of years, I have been hesitant to do ANYTHING that'll put me into a contract. Like throw out my HR24 for a HR54 because I'm worried about the price. I don't want to be stuck in a contract when they jack up the prices $7/yr. At least a Dish contract is actually a price lock. The DirecTV contracts are just for DirecTV. You at least get something with a Dish contract.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I signed up for the free one month trial for the Max package. Not impressed. Youtube.TV has better quality and much better DVR. DirecTV Now is giving me the locals out of southern Illinois and Kentucky instead of St. Louis which is where they are out of for DirecTV Sat and all of the other streaming services I have tried.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

KyL416 said:


> Just how DirecTV (and other providers) can't violate contract terms by cherry picking channels from the same owner to include and omitting others from that owner in newly created skinny packages, they also can't just drop those channels from existing packages without violating contracts. (Even if for whatever reason you refuse to believe this, we already have proven examples of this with well publicized lawsuits from other providers who tried to do it and lost)
> 
> It's NOT a coincidence that the channels they included are only the ones who had recent deals, INCLUDING those "cheap" channels like Hallmark (a few months ago around the time Hallmark Drama was added) and AccuWeather (last summer when it replaced WeatherNation). While the ones who haven't been renewed recently are not included.
> 
> I don't know if your familiar with my posts, what I know, or how often I've been correct about things that so called "anaylists" and certain "predictors of TV" got wrong. But if it involves contracts, renewal dates, carriage, launches, streaming rights/technology, etc, it's best to not be "skeptical" about the information I provide. Others here can vouch for that.


Hahahaha! I'll be skeptical about any damn thing I want.

OK, so let's say that AT&T had recently renewed deals with all of the network groups that aren't included in the new Plus and Max packages. How do you think those packages would have been structured any differently if that were the case? AT&T's entire rationale for creating these new packages was to offer fewer channels at a higher price. Which group of channels do you think they might have included in these packages had they recently renewed a deal with the respective company? Discovery? Viacom? AMC? A+E? Adding any of those channels would have necessarily increased AT&T's content costs for the package. Or do you think that AT&T would have opted to include any of those channels instead of channels from ABC/Disney, CBS, Fox or NBCUniversal? That seems pretty unlikely given the popularity of the major broadcast networks and their local affiliates.

Is your assumption (and unless you're a lawyer working for AT&T or know one, it's just that, an assumption) that AT&T didn't have the right to create new DTVN packages that included all the same channels from any of those four companies that were already included in their original DTVN packages? So, for instance, they could not again include AMC, BBCA, WeTV, IFC and Sundance from AMC Networks, at the same carriage rates they were already paying for their inclusion in the original packages?

Perhaps that's true, I don't know. But my point is that, even if they could have, I don't think AT&T wanted to or would have included those networks from Discovery, Viacom, AMC or A+E because, again, the whole point of these two new packages was to "thin out the content," as Stephenson put it, and increase the prices. And once you add in all the channels that they had to carry from Disney/ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBCUniversal in order to get the must-have locals plus ESPN, I think that likely put them about as high as they wanted to go in terms of content costs for their new skinny bundles in order to hit workable price points.

Also, from a marketing perspective, keep in mind that Discovery, Viacom, AMC and A+E have something pretty important in common: joint ownership of and inclusion in the low-cost Philo service. Those network groups banded together to offer their own skinny OTT service because they realized they were in danger of being excluded from third-party skinny bundles given that they don't own any broadcast, sports or news networks -- the "must have" content for most live TV viewers.

AT&T clearly understands that DTVN customers have the option of subscribing to those networks via Philo (likely at a rate that AT&T can't beat). Simply another reason why those channels would be the most obvious ones on the chopping block for DTVN.

Now, maybe the whole reason that those networks didn't get included in the new DTVN packages is simply down to the timing of contract renewals -- which, if I understand correctly, is your argument. But I still don't think so.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Hahahaha! I'll be skeptical about any damn thing I want.
> 
> OK, so let's say that AT&T had recently renewed deals with all of the network groups that aren't included in the new Plus and Max packages. How do you think those packages would have been structured any differently if that were the case? AT&T's entire rationale for creating these new packages was to offer fewer channels at a higher price. Which group of channels do you think they might have included in these packages had they recently renewed a deal with the respective company? Discovery? Viacom? AMC? A+E? Adding any of those channels would have necessarily increased AT&T's content costs for the package. Or do you think that AT&T would have opted to include any of those channels instead of channels from ABC/Disney, CBS, Fox or NBCUniversal? That seems pretty unlikely given the popularity of the major broadcast networks and their local affiliates.
> 
> ...


*Shrug*. I watch Discovery and History and Science and DIY, so I wouldn't buy anything that didn't include those channels.


----------



## Barry in Conyers (Jan 14, 2008)

AT&T raises DirecTV Now price-again-after promising lower post-merger bills


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

While Kyl416 hasn't ever (to my knowledge) revealed exactly who he works for or what he does, it is clear from the information he's provided in the past that he works in the industry in some higher level capacity, and is very much plugged into the arcane details of how these contracts between networks and MVPDs work, among other things. So you can be skeptical all you want, I'll trust what he says over the speculation of uninformed people who don't work in the industry. His track record has proven what he says isn't speculation, but actual knowledge and experience.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

techguy88 said:


> My friend who works for a legacy DTV loyalty call center explained the changes to me like this:
> 
> Live A Little, Just Right, Go Big (Introductory Offer), Go Big (regular price), Gotta Have It and Todo y Mas are now retired and not available to new DTV Now subs. Existing DTV Now subs are grandfathered into their current package and will keep it as long as the DTV Now account remains active. All these package will increase by $10/mo in April.
> If a customer switches from a grandfathered package to one of the new packages they can't switch back. There is no grace period.
> ...


I'm not questioning the accuracy of any of this info but the pricing of the satellite packages via DTV Now and the new DTV Now packages via satellite make no sense.

As others have pointed out, getting Entertainment, Choice, etc. via DTV Now is a bad deal because you pay the full regular satellite price from day 1 (no intro promo rates), even though these packages lack a few channels (including PBS and possibly other locals) via DTV Now, and DTV Now comes with much less DVR space than satellite, and even though you're supplying your own streaming device and internet connection for delivery. The only benefits the consumer is getting, that I can see, are not having to have a dish with satellite LOS and not having a contract.

Meanwhile, why are they charging twice as much to get the new DTV Now Plus and Max packages via satellite, especially given that they still require a 24-month contract and aren't eligible for any kind of promotion?

For some strange reason, AT&T wants to make these options technically available to the public but they don't seem to want or expect anyone to actually sign up for them.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> While Kyl416 hasn't ever (to my knowledge) revealed exactly who he works for or what he does, it is clear from the information he's provided in the past that he works in the industry in some higher level capacity, and is very much plugged into the arcane details of how these contracts between networks and MVPDs work, among other things. So you can be skeptical all you want, I'll trust what he says over the speculation of uninformed people who don't work in the industry. His track record has proven what he says isn't speculation, but actual knowledge and experience.


Isn't it pretty common knowledge that if you want to carry "Awesome Channel A", the rights holder makes you also include "Crappy Channel B and C" in the package? I'm not in the industry at all, but I know that's how it works. They never let you carry one off channels, they make you take the whole "set".


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> Isn't it pretty common knowledge that if you want to carry "Awesome Channel A", the rights holder makes you also include "Crappy Channel B and C" in the package? I'm not in the industry at all, but I know that's how it works. They never let you carry one off channels, they make you take the whole "set".


Yes, but Kyl416 was not arguing against that fact.


----------



## FussyBob (Jan 11, 2009)

I really don't get this cord cutting/streaming to save money.

I live in an metro area of about 50K people. Probably about 30% have LOS for SAT service. There is only one local cable company, it is the only source of cable modem internet service. They offer their basic cable package of 60 channels (most major networks) for $20! That includes 2 free DTA's, each additional DTA is $2 per month. No internet connection/cost required. Their other programming packages mimic DTV packages at a lower cost. I have a large extended family around here and I don't know of anyone that uses a streaming service to watch TV at home. I don't ever see myself using internet streaming video services as long as there is SAT and then Cable.


----------



## Soccernut (Jan 20, 2004)

FussyBob said:


> I really don't get this cord cutting/streaming to save money.
> 
> I live in an metro area of about 50K people. Probably about 30% have LOS for SAT service. There is only one local cable company, it is the only source of cable modem internet service. They offer their basic cable package of 60 channels (most major networks) for $20! That includes 2 free DTA's, each additional DTA is $2 per month. No internet connection/cost required. Their other programming packages mimic DTV packages at a lower cost. I have a large extended family around here and I don't know of anyone that uses a streaming service to watch TV at home. I don't ever see myself using internet streaming video services as long as there is SAT and then Cable.


Todays reality the future is pure "speculation".


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> Yes, but Kyl416 was not arguing against that fact.


Six companies own all of the media outlets. Those companies being Comcast, Disney, AT&T, 21st Century Fox, CBS and Viacom. A company like D* would love to cherry pick the channels to offer, but the reality is that if you want A&E and Lifetime, Disney will also make you carry some of its less popular channels. The same for the other 5 companies. That's why all the carriers still offer packages in some form.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

TDK1044 said:


> but the reality is that if you want A&E and Lifetime, Disney will also make you carry some of its less popular channels


The contracts for the A&E Networks are completely seperate from the rest of the majority Disney owned channels. The AETN channels are run as a seperate operation with their own corporate structure, affiliate relations and ad sales teams from Disney/ABC and ESPN because of that 50/50 ownership with Hearst. They're also going to have to divest their half of the European AETN operations as a condition of the EU approval of the Fox purchase, with rumors of them possibly selling the entire operation to Hearst in the US which would make Hearst another major player. Disney refers to them as one of their equity networks where they only have partial ownership but don't control the day to day operations.

Also DirecTV and many other providers don't carry the lesser AETN channels like Lifetime Real Women and Military History, while the carriage of Crime & Investigation is sparse. Viacom is also similar in that regard, there's a bunch of providers who don't carry Logo, Nick Music, BET Her, BET Gospel, BET Jams, BET Soul, BET Hip-Hop, CMT Music, mtvU, MTV Live, Tr3s, Telefe or Aapka Colors, while DirecTV only carries some of those channels. NBCU also has limited carriage for Universal Kids, Oxygen, CNBC World and Universo. Fox also has some channels with limited carriage, including both channels that will be going to Disney and channels that will be going to the "new" Fox.



TDK1044 said:


> Six companies own all of the media outlets. Those companies being Comcast, Disney, AT&T, 21st Century Fox, CBS and Viacom.


You forgot about Discovery and AMC Networks, who are not just major players in the USA, but worldwide. For Discovery, some of their channels like Discovery Life, GAC and Familia have little carriage, while AMC has a bunch of distribution holes with BBC World News, and previously had issues with Fuse which has since been spunoff and sold. Both of these companies have some of the highest rated channels and shows on cable.

Univision is also a major player (Dish dispute aside) but their carriage widely varies based on the demographics a system serves. Like DirecTV doesn't carry the Televisa digital nets that Univision distributes in the USA, while the carriage of UniMas, Galavision, Univision Deportes, El Rey and Fusion is sparse in markets with a smaller Hispanic population.

Sinclair might become another major player if they get the Fox RSNs with their already massive presence in broadcast, along with their future Cubs RSN and the Tennis channel. Nexstar as well if their Tribune purchase is approved.


----------



## Glenee (Sep 22, 2007)

Companies like this can make a P&L statement read closer to what they want you to think, than you may imagine.
One of the worst things to ever happen, was a thing called the zero balance budget.
It doesn't apply here, but this accounting technique is a green light to waste and theft.


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

LA Times "AT&T raises DirecTV Now prices, making chumps of those who backed Time Warner merger"

AT&T raises DirecTV Now prices, making chumps of those who backed Time Warner merger


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

mmmccall said:


> Been waiting for this announcement and am curious to hear about four things when we get something official from ATT/DirecTV:
> 
> * Will streaming service have the 4K channels?
> 
> ...


Those are my concerns as well for new streaming service. I've been saying, I don't care how I get my TV. I just want it to be as close to what i have now. And I want to be able to stream wherever and whenever I want, and on many devices (we generally have at least 4 different TVs using DirecTV at any given time).


----------



## wxman2003 (Feb 28, 2015)

DirectMan said:


> LA Times "AT&T raises DirecTV Now prices, making chumps of those who backed Time Warner merger"
> 
> AT&T raises DirecTV Now prices, making chumps of those who backed Time Warner merger


I'm hoping more and more that AT&T and DirecTV fail big time.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

So I thought DirecTV's plan was to roll out DirecTV over IP through a dedicated streaming box, and with it their new 5G network as an alternative to your current ISP package? Maybe I've misread the situation completely.

One question for those in the know here. Are the carriage fees for the networks the same for streaming as they are for Satellite? I'm speculating here, but I wonder if the main reason why AT&T is going down this road is to drive down these carriage fees. More streaming subs mean less per sub that they pay to Viacom, or A&E or whoever than they do on Satellite. So they are attempting to "push" us there eventually. But if that's not the case, I have NO idea what AT&T is doing except to drive streamers somewhere else and play hardball with the content providers.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

It will take YEARS for 5G networks to roll out, that and Directv over IP are totally separate things. Theoretically a network could offer different rates for streaming, but why should they, and if they do why should it be less rather than more?

AT&T is going down this road to expand their potential customer base - there are many people who cannot get satellite, others who will refuse to consider it because they don't want to have a dish on their roof / in their yard, or because they've been brainwashed by cable ads telling them satellite goes out every time it sprinkles.

AT&T will save money on the install, since they don't need to send someone to every new customer's house, but after the install the cost of either option is basically the same.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

I don't know why people want DirecTV and others to fail. You have a choice and if there weren't a choice you'd get a lot less for a lot more money.
I've had, for a variety of reasons, DirecTV, UVerse, a couple of cable companies and DTV gave me the best experience, best channel choice, best PQ, etc. Sure the price is high but sometimes money isn't the most important item.
I also suspect that internet services will drastically increase in price and more and more demands are put on them. In most cases people also have no choice who there internet service provider is.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

CTJon said:


> I don't know why people want DirecTV and others to fail. You have a choice and if there weren't a choice you'd get a lot less for a lot more money.
> I've had, for a variety of reasons, DirecTV, UVerse, a couple of cable companies and DTV gave me the best experience, best channel choice, best PQ, etc. Sure the price is high but sometimes money isn't the most important item.
> I also suspect that internet services will drastically increase in price and more and more demands are put on them. In most cases people also have no choice who there internet service provider is.


I don't want D* to fail but I do want the cable companies to 
.

I'm pro phone companies FTTH not cable co.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I don’t want anyone to fail. Failure creates a bigger monopoly for others in how they treat customers. I want anyone of them to get better which will cause the others too as well.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

I'll happily stay with my D* satellite service until the OTT offering is tested and stable. I'm thinking that'll be at least two years down the road.


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

TDK1044 said:


> I'll happily stay with my D* satellite service until the OTT offering is tested and stable. I'm thinking that'll be at least two years down the road.


They better get it right sooner then that..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

CTJon said:


> I also suspect that internet services will drastically increase in price and more and more demands are put on them. In most cases people also have no choice who there internet service provider is.


Weird.

The only thing I've seen go up on my Cox internet is the speed. I was an early adopter back in 1997 I would say. I can't remember exactly what I paid or the speed, but I want to say it was something in the 30Mbps range. Then I moved into my house and I think it went up to the 65Mbps range. Over the years, it creeped up to 150Mbps advertised with a 175Mbps overclock. I stuck with that plan for a long time until last year they got Gig service at my house and I went to that.

Obviously I'm paying more for Gig then I paid for 30Mbps or even the 150Mbps package. For 150Mbps + phone, I was paying around $75/mo I believe. That price was pretty stable for the 16 yrs I had it. It might have gone up $5 to $10 over that time frame, but it was also originally a 100Mbps package with no overclock and no phone. It definitely didn't go up more then that. I can't really remember what I paid initially for the 30Mbps service, but it couldn't have been more then $30 to $40 I don't think.

Point is, on my internet, the "per Gbps" cost has barely gone up in 20 yrs.

Let's look at DirecTV on the other hand:

I signed up in 2002:

2002: Total Choice Classic + Sony A55 IRD = $34.99, a few years later I switched to the Sony SAT T-60.
2019: Preferred Xtra (pretty much the same exact package as TCC) + HR24 + HD = $125 sticker.

So in 17 yrs, my DirecTV bill has gone up 257%. Where is the 257% of functionality I received? As I said, Preferred Xtra and Total Choice are the same package. They've gone from SD -> HD and added 2 tuner DVR functionality. THAT'S IT!

TLDR:

My internet has gotten 2000% faster, but my bill has only gone up 200%.

My DirecTV bill has gone up 257%, but functionality gains are not much. Yes, HD is improved PQ and DVR is added functionality. But same number of channels and same number of outlets. Definitely not 2570% of improvements.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

TDK1044 said:


> I'll happily stay with my D* satellite service until the OTT offering is tested and stable. I'm thinking that'll be at least two years down the road.





fireponcoal said:


> They better get it right sooner then that..


They've been testing the streaming technology that the upcoming OTT DTV service will use for well over a year now because it's what they use to deliver DTV Now. The current streaming platform for DTV Now began beta testing, I think, in late 2017. It exited beta and started being used for all DTV Now subscribers nearly a year ago, in spring 2018. Meanwhile, the set-top box that the forthcoming service will use has been in beta testing by certain DTV Now subscribers since fall 2018, I think.

Now, despite all the testing that's been done already, I'm still not sure I trust AT&T to have all the kinks ironed out of the system when they actually begin offering "full DTV" as a streaming service on this box at some point later this year...


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> They've been testing the streaming technology that the upcoming OTT DTV service will use for well over a year now because it's what they use to deliver DTV Now. The current streaming platform for DTV Now began beta testing, I think, in late 2017. It exited beta and started being used for all DTV Now subscribers nearly a year ago, in spring 2018. Meanwhile, the set-top box that the forthcoming service will use has been in beta testing by certain DTV Now subscribers since fall 2018, I think.
> 
> Now, despite all the testing that's been done already, I'm still not sure I trust AT&T to have all the kinks ironed out of the system when they actually begin offering "full DTV" as a streaming service on this box at some point later this year...


Right there with you. I'll be comfortable at the end of 2020.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

They aren't hiding the DTV channel packages under a button anymore on the DTV Now pages they are all on the front page.

DIRECTV NOW: Stream Live TV + HBO + Huge On Demand Library


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Giving away an Apple 4K box too when you prepay 4 months of DIRECTV NOW (min. $50/mo.).


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

b4pjoe said:


> Giving away an Apple 4K box too when you prepay 4 months of DIRECTV NOW (min. $50/mo.).


Not nearly as good of a deal as last year when you could get it for three months @ $40/mo! If you wanted an Apple TV you could save money by subscribing to Directv Now and never using it....now it costs less to buy it at full retail.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Not nearly as good of a deal as last year when you could get it for three months @ $40/mo! If you wanted an Apple TV you could save money by subscribing to Directv Now and never using it....now it costs less to buy it at full retail.


Yeah, I got the deal over a year ago when it was prepay for 4 months but at a rate of just $35/mo. for the base package. So I paid $140 up-front, $40 less than the full retail cost of the ATV4K by itself.

Still though, for folks who are otherwise planning to buy an ATV4K now, paying $20 extra to get 4 months of HBO and several other live cable channels is a good deal.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> Not nearly as good of a deal as last year when you could get it for three months @ $40/mo! If you wanted an Apple TV you could save money by subscribing to Directv Now and never using it....now it costs less to buy it at full retail.


Yeah my guess is they learned a lesson from that deal.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

TVAnswerMan.com has a new article wondering if they will get rid of DTV Now for just DTV over IP. It also asks how can DTV over IP make money when DTV Now isn't.

Could AT&T Terminate DIRECTV Now? - The TV Answer Man!


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

CraigerM said:


> TVAnswerMan.com has a new article wondering if they will get rid of DTV Now for just DTV over IP. It also asks how can DTV over IP make money when DTV Now isn't.
> 
> Could AT&T Terminate DIRECTV Now? - The TV Answer Man!


Phillip Swann knows everything there is to know about absolutely nothing.


----------



## bjdotson (Feb 20, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> Phillip Swann knows everything there is to know about absolutely nothing.


I don't think he even knows that much. You're being too kind.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

I must admit though that I've never understood the need for both 'DirecTV Now' and the new OTT service? Having these two work independently of each other would seem to be expensive and unnecessary. Why not offer both streaming services together, with a full range of packages from bargain basement to high end?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

The main difference between them appears to be that with the forthcoming 'Directv via IP' service they will provide the boxes, you won't be able to use your own as you do with Directv Now. The contracts they have with providers may be different for a service where they control the equipment end to end, so there may be content they can't offer on Directv Now.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> The main difference between them appears to be that with the forthcoming 'Directv via IP' service they will provide the boxes, you won't be able to use your own as you do with Directv Now. The contracts they have with providers may be different for a service where they control the equipment end to end, so there may be content they can't offer on Directv Now.


That makes sense.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I am not sure if this also has to do with it being an Android TV box that also uses the a special version of Android TV called the Operators Tier. I think using that version of Android TV allows DTV over IP to have the same features that DTV over SatelliteTV does. I am not sure if you can do that using the DTV Now interface on the Apple TV or the Roku TV boxes.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Once you start the app on an Apple TV / Roku / etc. it could have the same GUI. What they are getting with their own box is that when you power it up it comes up in the Directv interface. It doesn't come up in another interface and make you start the app for Directv.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Once you start the app on an Apple TV / Roku / etc. it could have the same GUI. What they are getting with their own box is that when you power it up it comes up in the Directv interface. It doesn't come up in another interface and make you start the app for Directv.


Didn't they confirm that DTV over IP is using the DTV Now interface and not the DTV interface?

Android TV Guide - DirecTV NOW Android TV Set-top box interface


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Once you start the app on an Apple TV / Roku / etc. it could have the same GUI. What they are getting with their own box is that when you power it up it comes up in the Directv interface. It doesn't come up in another interface and make you start the app for Directv.


Yes, plus a remote control that's customized for use with DTV over IP, including 0-9 buttons for inputting channel numbers. Also, by having one hardware platform to target, AT&T can optimize performance of their live streams and cloud DVR on this device versus the other platforms that the DTV Now app supports (Roku, Apple TV, Fire TV, etc.) They could also opt to include software in this box that would allow it to tune to multicast, rather than unicast, streams of the most popular channels if connected to AT&T home internet service.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> Didn't they confirm that DTV over IP is using the DTV Now interface and not the DTV interface?


Yup. Here's an article from last fall that's a good refresher about where AT&T is heading, both with DTV over IP on the upcoming C71 Android TV box and also with their forthcoming SVOD service:

AT&T Bets Big on OTT to 'Bend the Cost Curve' of TV & Video | Light Reading

Here's the relevant quote about the C71 using the same basic UI as the DTV Now and Watch TV apps:

_The front end used for that thin-client device and the retail devices that will support AT&T's various streaming services will be unified, and they'll all run off a common back-end architecture. AT&T expects that the front-end piece will enable the company to make swift changes, updates and upgrades.

"The front end is really about speed," Donovan said. While changes today take about six weeks due to current backlog, that timing will eventually be cut down to one to two weeks, he predicted._​


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> _While changes today take about six weeks due to current backlog, that timing will eventually be cut down to one to two weeks, he predicted._


I can't stop laughing.


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

Talk about a solution in search of a problem. Maybe there are enough clueless people out there who can't fathom how to buy and connect a Roku or Amazon Fire Stick.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> Didn't they confirm that DTV over IP is using the DTV Now interface and not the DTV interface?
> 
> Android TV Guide - DirecTV NOW Android TV Set-top box interface


They didn't confirm anything of the sort. They invited Directv Now customers to test the hardware. Of course it would use the Directv Now interface. That doesn't guarantee that the new service will use the same interface. It might, it might resemble the satellite interface, or more likely IMHO it will be different from both in some ways.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

There are many areas of the country that still don't have high speed internet and DirecTV and DISH are the only choices for people who live in those areas for TV. I live in Maine and it doesn't take a long drive from the big cities to see areas that every house has a dish on it. There is a effort to bring high speed internet and cable to those areas but that takes a lot of money and time. DTV may not expand what it has but they still have a market for those 30% of the country that doesn't have Internet


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> They didn't confirm anything of the sort. They invited Directv Now customers to test the hardware. Of course it would use the Directv Now interface. That doesn't guarantee that the new service will use the same interface. It might, it might resemble the satellite interface, or more likely IMHO it will be different from both in some ways.


No, AT&T leaders have said that the UI they were developing for the revamped DTV Now app (which exited beta and rolled out to everyone in June 2018) would be the standard UI design that would eventually spread to all of their MVPD and vMVPD platforms, even including satellite at some future point. They're aiming for a common look-and-feel across the board. Note how it's basically the same UI that later showed up in the Watch TV app (although I think that app uses a light color theme while the DTV Now app uses a dark theme). It's supposed to come to the DirecTV (satellite) mobile app for iOS and Android too. Not sure if that's happened yet.

I'll bet you $20 that when the C71 officially rolls out for use with the forthcoming DTV-over-IP (or AT&T TV, or whatever it's called) OTT service, the UI will be very, very similar to the DTV Now app, except with channel numbers added. I also expect that the forthcoming WarnerMedia SVOD will somehow get hooked into the UI (perhaps with its content simply getting commingled in with DTV Now's other on-demand content).


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> Didn't they confirm that DTV over IP is using the DTV Now interface and not the DTV interface?
> 
> Android TV Guide - DirecTV NOW Android TV Set-top box interface


That article confirms nothing


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> No, AT&T leaders have said that the UI they were developing for the revamped DTV Now app (which exited beta and rolled out to everyone in June 2018) would be the standard UI design that would eventually spread to all of their MVPD and vMVPD platforms, even including satellite at some future point. They're aiming for a common look-and-feel across the board. Note how it's basically the same UI that later showed up in the Watch TV app (although I think that app uses a light color theme while the DTV Now app uses a dark theme). It's supposed to come to the DirecTV (satellite) mobile app for iOS and Android too. Not sure if that's happened yet.


Well that's the question - they've been talking about a unified UI for several years, but when they changed the satellite UI and developed Directv Now they didn't look the same. They've been developing this new product for quite some time and it may have yet another UI. It would make sense to introduce it with the "final" UI (whether that is the current Directv Now UI or something else) so users don't see changes soon after launch, but...well...when does Directv do what "makes sense" logically?


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> They could also opt to include software in this box that would allow it to tune to multicast, rather than unicast, streams of the most popular channels if connected to AT&T home internet service.


Great concept, but they don't need their own hardware streaming box to do this. Any of the existing platforms (AppleTV, FireTV, Roku, etc) already support multicast (it's integral to how "casting" or airplay discovery works, it's multicast advertisement of the device). The problem is that every home router from Linksys, Netgear, Dlink, etc don't support PIM to be able to route multicast.

Either it would have to be fed from a provisioned gateway with no consumer routers behind it, like with Uverse, or they need to make a 5G version of the HS17 that would plug into your network *behind* any routers.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

espaeth said:


> Great concept, but they don't need their own hardware streaming box to do this. Any of the existing platforms (AppleTV, FireTV, Roku, etc) already support multicast (it's integral to how "casting" or airplay discovery works, it's multicast advertisement of the device). The problem is that every home router from Linksys, Netgear, Dlink, etc don't support PIM to be able to route multicast.
> 
> Either it would have to be fed from a provisioned gateway with no consumer routers behind it, like with Uverse, or they need to make a 5G version of the HS17 that would plug into your network *behind* any routers.


Yes, AT&T could of course include multicast-to-unicast conversion capabilities inside the gateways they issue to their AT&T Internet/Fiber customers and if they did so, the C71 box itself wouldn't need its own native multicast capability. (This, BTW, appears to be the route that cable providers such as Comcast and Rogers are going down as they transition to IPTV.) But having native multicast capability inside the box might allow for faster channel changing than relying on the router to do the conversion.

I know that the French firm Broadpeak has broken ground in applying multicast technology to adaptive bitrate OTT video and they even have an off-the-shelf software solution for adding it to an Android TV STB, such as the C71. (Of course, their solution requires implementation not only in the STB or router in the viewer's home but also on the broadband provider's network.)


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Well that's the question - they've been talking about a unified UI for several years, but when they changed the satellite UI and developed Directv Now they didn't look the same. They've been developing this new product for quite some time and it may have yet another UI. It would make sense to introduce it with the "final" UI (whether that is the current Directv Now UI or something else) so users don't see changes soon after launch, but...well...when does Directv do what "makes sense" logically?


Yeah, I'm not sure what the thinking was in rolling out the latest UI change to the satellite STBs. (Maybe a case of left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing?) But my guess is that that's the last UI that the current generation of satellite hardware -- the C61, HR54, HR44, etc. -- will ever see. Forthcoming generations of satellite STBs -- which I still think could include the C71 (when paired with the HS17 or its next-gen replacement) -- will feature basically the same UI that's to be used on the DTV-over-IP C71 and the apps for DTV Now and Watch TV.

I'd say that that UI would also get deployed on the Uverse TV STBs except it won't because Uverse TV is a zombie service that AT&T will kill off once they get DTV-over-IP successfully up and running. Uverse TV STBs stopped being manufactured over 3 years ago and the whole system is running on a deprecated managed IPTV middleware platform called Mediaroom, which Ericsson acquired from Microsoft back in 2013. Uverse TV STBs won't ever get 4K or HDR or the upcoming HBO/WarnerMedia SVOD app. It's a platform that's stuck in the past and only exists so that AT&T can offer TV service to their home broadband subs who don't want to stick a dish on their roofs. But once DTV-over-IP arrives, Uverse TV will no longer have a _raison d'etre_.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

TV_Guy said:


> Talk about a solution in search of a problem. Maybe there are enough clueless people out there who can't fathom how to buy and connect a Roku or Amazon Fire Stick.


LOL...oh you would be surprised. Not only that but it's hard to justify a per tv "receiver" fee when their is no "receiver" and the traditional providers want to increase switching friction as much as they can. It's two of the things they absolutely hate about the new streaming environment.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The fun thing is that the providers want it both ways. They want to make their service sticky so people subscribe constantly and don't come and go as they please ... so branded receivers that only work with their service is a good way of locking people in. Why give people a free Apple TV with four months of service (new DIRECTV NOW customers only) or a Roku with two months of service (new SLING customers only) when you can give them a box they can't use with any other service?

But they also want other companies customers to come as they please - so they offer their services to any compatible device. Long term, I do not see "DIRECTV over IP" being limited to just the DIRECTV supplied receivers. TV anywhere on any device (within limits) is a standard part of both satellite services and most cable services. Does anyone believe that "DIRECTV over IP" will not have similar "any device" offerings? There may be some content that contractually must be locked down from server to home device. But anything that one can stream with their DIRECTV satellite subscription should be available with a "DIRECTV over IP" subscription. Otherwise it is just another knockoff.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> The fun thing is that the providers want it both ways. They want to make their service sticky so people subscribe constantly and don't come and go as they please ... so branded receivers that only work with their service is a good way of locking people in. Why give people a free Apple TV with four months of service (new DIRECTV NOW customers only) or a Roku with two months of service (new SLING customers only) when you can give them a box they can't use with any other service?
> 
> But they also want other companies customers to come as they please - so they offer their services to any compatible device. Long term, I do not see "DIRECTV over IP" being limited to just the DIRECTV supplied receivers. TV anywhere on any device (within limits) is a standard part of both satellite services and most cable services. Does anyone believe that "DIRECTV over IP" will not have similar "any device" offerings? There may be some content that contractually must be locked down from server to home device. But anything that one can stream with their DIRECTV satellite subscription should be available with a "DIRECTV over IP" subscription. Otherwise it is just another knockoff.


I think you are right, they do want it both ways. Problem for them is that the population of subscribers who will still put up with provider specific STBs, while still fairly large, is a shrinking number. Not sure anyone can really say how fast it's shrinking but it is certainly shrinking. That said, their still are lots of folks out there that still don't even get the concept of a streaming device. I know some personally although I am doing my best to convert each and every one of them...LOL.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

AT&T is sending out a new streaming box to beta test with an updated remote but the box is still the same.

AT&T is Testing a New Version of The DIRECTV NOW Streaming Player & They Are Looking For New Beta Testers - Cord Cutters News


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> AT&T is sending out a new streaming box to beta test with an updated remote but the box is still the same.
> 
> AT&T is Testing a New Version of The DIRECTV NOW Streaming Player & They Are Looking For New Beta Testers - Cord Cutters News


Despite the impression that Cord Cutters News gives in this article, the redesigned remote has been around for awhile and was sent out to various beta testers weeks ago. Comments I read from beta testers indicate that the updated remote is definitely an improvement over the original version. (Side note: I've also read that existing DTV Genie remote controls can be used to control most functions of the C71 box too.)

Not sure what "news" there is to be gleaned from the CCN article other than that AT&T continues to seek additional new beta testers for the C71 box, which suggests that a commercial release of the box and the accompanying "DTV-over-IP" or "AT&T TV" service isn't imminent. That's despite the fact that the most recent public comments from AT&T leadership indicated that they planned to launch it in early 2019 (or perhaps the wording "Q1/Q2" or "spring 2019" was used, I don't recall). Perhaps we'll get an updated time frame on the expected launch during AT&T's quarterly earnings call next Wed. 4/24.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Why would they send out a new box if all they changed was the remote? They probably changed something in that too, though it may be a few minor tweaks that won't make any difference functionality wise (but they would still want to have it tested before they put it into mass production)


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Why would they send out a new box if all they changed was the remote? They probably changed something in that too, though it may be a few minor tweaks that won't make any difference functionality wise (but they would still want to have it tested before they put it into mass production)


If there were changes to the box hardware, I would think that would require an updated/new FCC filing but I can't find one for it. My guess is that AT&T just wanted some additional fresh beta testers who would be motivated to give them lots of feedback. (Tester feedback probably drops off after awhile?) I would think that all of the fine-tuning that they're doing at this point is in the software, which can of course be upgraded by AT&T through forced downloads. Probably still some server-side code that they're optimizing too with the cloud DVR, etc.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> If there were changes to the box hardware, I would think that would require an updated/new FCC filing but I can't find one for it. My guess is that AT&T just wanted some additional fresh beta testers who would be motivated to give them lots of feedback. (Tester feedback probably drops off after awhile?) I would think that all of the fine-tuning that they're doing at this point is in the software, which can of course be upgraded by AT&T through forced downloads. Probably still some server-side code that they're optimizing too with the cloud DVR, etc.


They only need a new filing if the changes would impact its RF compliance - that's what the FCC cares about. If they changed a USB port from USB2 to USB3, or used an updated SoC or something like that they wouldn't need to re-file.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

The dedicated client box is an immediate non-starter for me. After seeing all of the benefits of a capable universal platform like the AppleTV, going back to a solution that requires input switching and another remote seems draconian. 

With all HDMI-CEC capable hardware, the single AppleTV remote does everything. One button and it powers on my receiver, my TV, and adjust the inputs so that everything is appropriately chained. From a single interface I can immediately launch into iTunes, Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, Hulu, Starz, or HBO for "catalog" movies and shows. For live TV I can launch into YoutubeTV, Philo, or the Channels app to stream OTA off a HDHomeRun. Across all of those apps the same remote is used, and search/text input can be done either through voice dictation on the Siri remote, or via an iPhone/iPad attached to the same network as the AppleTV.

DIRECTV adding number buttons to an Android TV box remote so you can directly tune channels feels like they're trying to solve a UI problem that other players like YoutubeTV have solved more elegantly. These days I'm watching the NHL Stanley cup playoffs, so when I launch Youtube TV at night the first options on my home screen are links to the live games. I don't have to care if the game is on NBCSN, NBC, USA, or CNBC -- I just click on the thing that YoutubeTV has already learned that I want to watch and it takes me to that feed.

The other area where YoutubeTV is leading is incorporating game stats into game coverage for most of the major sports leagues. Not only can I use the mobile app to see a list of key plays (hits, goals, shots) and click to be taken to those moments in the DVR recording, but they also use that live stats data to automatically adjust the recording duration for games that run long. Hockey game goes into double OT? YoutubeTV automatically extends the recording so you won't miss anything. Same thing with MLB games that go into extra innings.

Unless I'm missing something, the only benefit to the new solution that ATT is rolling out is that it won't have up-front costs for the satellite install truck roll, and that's mostly a benefit for ATT. I'm not seeing where this service is going to meaningfully benefit subscribers. It's certainly not going to save the paying customer any money (especially if they have to pay fees like Xfinity's $50/mo upcharge for unlimited), and with the direction they're going with this box it's looking like it's not going to meaningfully improve the experience either.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> They only need a new filing if the changes would impact its RF compliance - that's what the FCC cares about. If they changed a USB port from USB2 to USB3, or used an updated SoC or something like that they wouldn't need to re-file.


Hmm. Well, I know that they filed amended/updated versions of some of the required documents in the past and there hadn't even been any hardware changes.

At any rate, if they have in fact revised some of the specs (perhaps to make it run faster/smoother), then I would expect that those details will at some point wind up here:
Android TV Guide - AT&T - DIRECTV


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Hmm. Well, I know that they filed amended/updated versions of some of the required documents in the past and there hadn't even been any hardware changes.
> 
> At any rate, if they have in fact revised some of the specs (perhaps to make it run faster/smoother), then I would expect that those details will at some point wind up here:
> Android TV Guide - AT&T - DIRECTV


I agree and CCN and really wish people would stop using there articles the Website is mostly click-bait.. I agree on the remote portion. I dont believe they changed the box at all.. but want additional testers..


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

I live in a metro Atlanta county with 750k population. Typical suburban neighborhoods area on the affluent side of things.

Best AT&T can offer me is aDSL at 10-12 mbps about 1.5 miles from the VRAD (or whatever it is called). But it is not rock solid stable on speed. No clue or sign as to when or if fiber will ever arrive.

Concerning the touted 5G future, all cellular providers in my local ~1 mile diameter cellular-weak-signal-hole are marginal or no coverage indoors with low band spectrum. Middle section of the county - not some corner in the sticks. All the cell towers are over a mile away, some 3, with terrain and trees and the carriers are oversubscribed in many cases anyway.

I see no real investment signs by cable, cell, or wireline broadband providers to actually provide the infrastructure/signal strength needed to deliver the bandwidth necessary to make all of this OTT paradigm possible or as a suitable replacement for DBS. Can I stream Netflix or other service well enough? Yes, but I would not want to try 2 streams at once, like watch a ballgame while someone else is watching a movie.

Maybe true bandwidth it is coming to my neck of the woods - but I have yet to see any real signs of it.

Which leads me to wonder, if an area like mine cannot get the real bandwidth necessary to make OTT a suitable delivery mechanism for multiple stream live TV, how in the world is it going to work for flyover country?

I need to see a lot more real progress on high bandwidth broadband availability across the countryside before I would get warm about the demise of familiar Dish and DirecTV DBS paradigms.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

More big losses for DTV announced today. AT&T announced that DTV satellite and Uverse TV combined had a net loss of 544,000 subscribers in Q1 2019. In the past, numbers were broken out separately for satellite vs. Uverse TV and in the previous 2 or 3 quarters we saw big losses in the former but small gains by the latter.

Perhaps Uverse TV actually continued its gains in Q1, meaning that satellite lost even more than 544k subs, but AT&T combined the two this time to hide just how bad the satellite number is. I think Uverse TV has bucked the trend of MVPD subscriber losses in recent quarters because of the growth of AT&T Fiber, with many of those new broadband subs taking Uverse IPTV rather than satellite in their bundle. This is despite the fact that AT&T has not actively advertised Uverse TV outside of their own website for a long time now.

I still predict that Uverse TV will cease to be offered to new subs within the next year, after the new streaming DTV service using the C71 box launches. I have yet to read the full transcript of today's earnings call but I did read the following over at Fierce Video:

_Stephenson said that the upcoming launch of a "thin client," which he described as "our satellite replacement product," should help moderate those losses particularly heading into 2020.

"We think this product is going to have a really good appeal for people down-market in terms of their expectations on video pricing," Stephenson said. He added that DirecTV churn is disproportionately at the low end, and that a thin client helps DirecTV meet that lower end at a price point.
_​Hopefully the full transcript provides an updated timeframe on when this new "satellite replacement product" will launch. We know AT&T just launched another round of beta testing on the C71 thin-client box, so I'm not expecting to see a commercial roll-out until at least early July but, who knows, it could be this fall, especially with that "heading into 2020" remark.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

If "Directv churn is disproportionately at the low end" they may not care too much about losing them. The high end customers are the ones they want, that's where the money is. Low profit customers are a drag on margins, and when execs are compensated on meeting margin goals they'll manage for margins by dropping lower profit customers. If they were compensated based on avoiding subscriber losses, they'd manage on that (by offering everyone who tries to leave a sweet deal, even the low end customers)


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> If "Directv churn is disproportionately at the low end" they may not care too much about losing them. The high end customers are the ones they want, that's where the money is. Low profit customers are a drag on margins, and when execs are compensated on meeting margin goals they'll manage for margins by dropping lower profit customers. If they were compensated based on avoiding subscriber losses, they'd manage on that (by offering everyone who tries to leave a sweet deal, even the low end customers)


Perhaps, although what would be the rationale of introducing a new delivery platform if it was only to hold onto low-margin customers that they really don't care about? I think the bigger reason for this upcoming service is evident in how Stephenson referred to it: a "satellite replacement product".


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> If "Directv churn is disproportionately at the low end" they may not care too much about losing them. The high end customers are the ones they want, that's where the money is. Low profit customers are a drag on margins, and when execs are compensated on meeting margin goals they'll manage for margins by dropping lower profit customers. If they were compensated based on avoiding subscriber losses, they'd manage on that (by offering everyone who tries to leave a sweet deal, even the low end customers)


DirecTV and now ATT are still talking the we want higher end subscribers, but yet aren't doing diddly to make themselves a premium product in any meaningful way.
Just look at the new sign up deals. Heavily discounted first year and a $300 debit card would seem to be targeting the values customer.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I found this link not sure how reliable it is but a person claims the new box will be called the Genie Extreme. The poster also says to look up Airties 7430. The Airties 7430 will have AT&T's WIFI Mesh Extender built in and the software will work with AT&T Gateway's. Also no more leasing to the customer you will be able to buy the box.

In other posts in the thread claim you wont be able to sign up to UVerseTV during Q3 of this year and it sounds to me like the new DTV over IP might be called AT&T TV replacing UVerseTV. I base that off of one post that claims the DTV and UVerseTV names will be phased out. Current UVerseTV customers will be able to keep UVerseTV but if they leave and want to come back they wont be able to.

Uverse turn down in 3Q - post regarding AT&T layoffs

https://www.airties.com/product-7430.html


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Dunno about "Genie Extreme" I guess I could see that, but no way they use that 7430. It doesn't even have a coax port you can use in the US, that is a Euro style coax connector.

Not to mention that they aren't going to have a coax port on their 'Directv via IP' product. I could see them maybe wanting to make a provision for people to use OTA, but they'd use something that attaches via USB like the LCC for that. Adding ATSC to a box adds cost (including some patent licenses) for something most people won't use. Same reason they quit building it into the satellite boxes. Plus you wouldn't want to build ATSC into boxes when ATSC 3.0 is coming out soon.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Dunno about "Genie Extreme" I guess I could see that, but no way they use that 7430. It doesn't even have a coax port you can use in the US, that is a Euro style coax connector.
> 
> Not to mention that they aren't going to have a coax port on their 'Directv via IP' product.


So if there's no need for a coax port on the thin-client STB, why does it matter if the coax port on the AirTies 7430 is Euro-style? It wouldn't be used, regardless. I can't imagine that the inclusion of that port influences the build cost of the box much.

Look, it's absolutely possible that the (apparent AT&T employee?) guy who posted the link to that box on TheLayoff.com doesn't know what he's talking about. But given that AT&T Fiber/Internet has for some time now been offering AirTies brand mesh wifi extenders to their customers lends a certain amount of plausibility to the idea that they would want to use an Android TV STB with built-in AirTies mesh wifi capabilities.

If you get broadband service from AT&T and also sign up for the forthcoming streaming service ("DirecTV"? "AT&T TV"?), I could see them giving you the 7430 box. It would probably have a better connection with the broadband gateway for TV service while simultaneously improving general wifi coverage and performance in your home.

For their TV customers who "bring their own broadband" from another provider, then they'd just ship them the cheaper C71 box. The UI, software and remote controls for both boxes would be the same.

It all seems very plausible to me. The main thing that makes me skeptical, though, is that this is the only reference I've seen anywhere that AT&T plans to use the AirTies 7430. Not aware of any beta testing, FCC submissions, etc.

Edit: Another possibility is that AT&T orders a bunch of those 7430 boxes from AirTies but in a slightly customized outer case that features the AT&T logo (rather than the AirTies logo) and closes off the coax port in back.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Dunno about "Genie Extreme" I guess I could see that, but no way they use that 7430. It doesn't even have a coax port you can use in the US, that is a Euro style coax connector.
> 
> Not to mention that they aren't going to have a coax port on their 'Directv via IP' product. I could see them maybe wanting to make a provision for people to use OTA, but they'd use something that attaches via USB like the LCC for that. Adding ATSC to a box adds cost (including some patent licenses) for something most people won't use. Same reason they quit building it into the satellite boxes. Plus you wouldn't want to build ATSC into boxes when ATSC 3.0 is coming out soon.


With the 7430 you wouldn't need the LCC and just hook the antenna right to the RF port. They could just use the LCC for the SatelliteTV boxes. What if the cloud DVR would also work with the antenna?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'd expect anything AT&T provides to be custom built for AT&T - not some product with a connector that would never be used.
There are several other "red flags" in the claims ... fortunately October is not that far away - so the rest of the "third quarter" predictions will either be right or wrong bin a few months.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> I'd expect anything AT&T provides to be custom built for AT&T - not some product with a connector that would never be used.
> There are several other "red flags" in the claims ... fortunately October is not that far away - so the rest of the "third quarter" predictions will either be right or wrong bin a few months.


I tend to think (as I put in my edit) that AT&T's TV STBs would have the AT&T logo on them. As for removing a useless coax connector, probably -- but whether or not they do could just come down to cost and time-to-market considerations. All that said, AT&T already uses those AirTies extenders as-is, with the AirTies (not AT&T) branding on them. Click my link above to see. So maybe they'd use an off-the-shelf AirTies STB, as long as it has AT&T's customized Android TV on it, which should be no problem.

A 3Q19 rollout of this streaming thin-client TV service is what I've been expecting lately. I had been anticipating 2Q until another round of beta testing for the C71, this time with an updated remote control, was recently announced. So I figure a July launch is now the earliest we might expect. Stephenson recently talked about having this service in place "heading into 2020," and the talk last year targeted a 2019 launch, so I still expect it will happen this summer or fall.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

After reading NashGuy's post I agree with him that maybe they could do the 7430 with the RF port being optional. Under the 7430's interface's section it also says BLE interface optional not sure if that has anything to do with the RF port. However they could use the RF port for when AT&T has channel disputes.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> However they could use the RF port for when AT&T has channel disputes.


If you connected an OTA antenna to the RF (coaxial) port, I don't think it would do anything because it doesn't look like the 7430 box has an OTA (ATSC 1.0 or 3.0) tuner inside of it. Android TV does have system-level support for OTA TV but the box would need a tuner. Simplest solution would be an external tuner built into a USB stick that plugs into the USB port on the back of the 7430. I think Android TV has built-in driver support for this one from Hauppauge as I've read you can plug it into the Nvidia Shield Android TV box and it "just works" with Google's native Live Channels app.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Is that what we have come to? Finding random crap people have spewed on a forum and taking it as this is the direction things are going


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> Is that what we have come to? Finding random crap people have spewed on a forum and taking it as this is the direction things are going


Says the guy posting on another forum filled with, what some would call, "random crap".


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

compnurd said:


> Is that what we have come to? Finding random crap people have spewed on a forum and taking it as this is the direction things are going


I did say at the beginning of my post I wasn't sure if this was true.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> I did say at the beginning of my post I wasn't sure if this was true.


I mean then why even say it.... I get speculation sometimes but this doesnt even fit this thread or anything related.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Says the guy posting on another forum filled with, what some would call, "random crap".


lol what forum and random crap?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> I tend to think (as I put in my edit) that AT&T's TV STBs would have the AT&T logo on them. As for removing a useless coax connector, probably -- but whether or not they do could just come down to cost and time-to-market considerations.


Time to market? They've been developing this product for several years, if they are deciding on equipment at the last minute they're already in real trouble! 

It isn't just the connector, if it has an OTA connector then it has OTA hardware which raises the cost both hardware wise and patent licensing wise. Directv has always gone out of their way to trim every last penny off the hardware cost of receivers and AT&T has doubled down on that cost cutting. There's no way they'd release a product with a redundant connector.

When you order in quantities in the millions you can get something built to your exact specs, you don't take an off the shelf product that includes parts you don't want and paint your logo on it.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> If you connected an OTA antenna to the RF (coaxial) port, I don't think it would do anything because it doesn't look like the 7430 box has an OTA (ATSC 1.0 or 3.0) tuner inside of it. Android TV does have system-level support for OTA TV but the box would need a tuner. Simplest solution would be an external tuner built into a USB stick that plugs into the USB port on the back of the 7430. I think Android TV has built-in driver support for this one from Hauppauge as I've read you can plug it into the Nvidia Shield Android TV box and it "just works" with Google's native Live Channels app.


Good point about the box saying it doesn't come with and OTA tuner built into it.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

compnurd said:


> I mean then why even say it.... I get speculation sometimes but this doesnt even fit this thread or anything related.


I wasn't sure if this needed a new thread or be in this one since DTV over IP will use its own box and maybe that service was going to use a new box with a new name.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> Good point about the box saying it doesn't come with and OTA tuner built into it.


A few min of research seems to show this device never came to market. The Datasheet is almost 4 years old. The CPU is 4 years old. The Broadcom Wiki link also shows the CPU is not linked to any hardware. This company deals with 95% of overseas companies(they are also based in Turkey)


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

compnurd said:


> A few min of research seems to show this device never came to market. The Datasheet is almost 4 years old. The CPU is 4 years old. The Broadcom Wiki link also shows the CPU is not linked to any hardware. This company deals with 95% of overseas companies(they are also based in Turkey)


According to this Press Release it was announced in 2017 at the same time as their WIFI Mesh Extender was released that AT&T uses.

AirTies announces 4KTV IP set-top box and next-gen Wi-Fi mesh | Infrastructure | News | Rapid TV News

Also found another spec sheet on it. The RF input is optional. Its for DVB-T2/T/C interface. The spec sheet does have a 2015 date on it but the press release I posted above said it was released in 2017.

http://www.airties.com.tr/datasheets/Air7430_DS.pdf


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> lol what forum and random crap?


This forum.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Time to market? They've been developing this product for several years, if they are deciding on equipment at the last minute they're already in real trouble!
> 
> It isn't just the connector, if it has an OTA connector then it has OTA hardware which raises the cost both hardware wise and patent licensing wise. Directv has always gone out of their way to trim every last penny off the hardware cost of receivers and AT&T has doubled down on that cost cutting. There's no way they'd release a product with a redundant connector.
> 
> When you order in quantities in the millions you can get something built to your exact specs, you don't take an off the shelf product that includes parts you don't want and paint your logo on it.


Hey, remember when we were going back and forth months ago about the C71 and you didn't want to believe that AT&T was going to use it as a STB for pay TV service? You were coming up with all sorts of reasons why it just _couldn't_ be true. I had to educate you as to what Android TV even was. Ah, good times. (I was right about the C71, of course, and you were wrong.)

Anyhoo, all things considered, I'll be mildly surprised if AT&T uses this AirTies 7430 box with their upcoming TV service. But incorporating mesh wi-fi capabilities into a TV box for use on your own network does make sense; Altice does it with their AlticeOne Mini box. I expect the majority of takers for the upcoming DTV-over-IP/AT&T TV service will be those who use AT&T Fiber/Internet broadband, especially if the rumor is true that AT&T will stop selling Uverse TV in 3Q19 when the new TV service debuts.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> This forum.


I am 99% positive I have never posted anything related to speculative random crap or linked in random articles from around the Internet


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Hey, remember when we were going back and forth months ago about the C71 and you didn't want to believe that AT&T was going to use it as a STB for pay TV service? You were coming up with all sorts of reasons why it just _couldn't_ be true. I had to educate you as to what Android TV even was. Ah, good times. (I was right about the C71, of course, and you were wrong.)
> 
> Anyhoo, all things considered, I'll be mildly surprised if AT&T uses this AirTies 7430 box with their upcoming TV service. But incorporating mesh wi-fi capabilities into a TV box for use on your own network does make sense; Altice does it with their AlticeOne Mini box. I expect the majority of takers for the upcoming DTV-over-IP/AT&T TV service will be those who use AT&T Fiber/Internet broadband, especially if the rumor is true that AT&T will stop selling Uverse TV in 3Q19 when the new TV service debuts.


There are no FCC documents related to this box. So if ATT plans to use it they have not notified the FCC yet


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

CraigerM said:


> The spec sheet does have a 2015 date on it but the press release I posted above said it was released in 2017.


Can you name one provider using the AirTies 7430?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Says the guy posting on another forum filled with, what some would call, "random crap".


You are comparing a moderated forum that requires registration and allows people to view all posts from each poster with a forum where all posts are anonymous?
It sounds like crap is being posted on our forum by you. 

A two month old thread on an anonymous post forum. It is not worth the time to refute. Just wait for reality.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> I am 99% positive I have never posted anything related to speculative random crap or linked in random articles from around the Internet


I wasn't directing that quote specifically at you or anyone else on this forum. I just found it a little ironic that a person posting on one forum would characterize some other forum as essentially worthless. I mean, let's be honest, internet forums and comment boards are ALL essentially digital "peanut galleries".



James Long said:


> You are comparing a moderated forum that requires registration and allows people to view all posts from each poster with a forum where all posts are anonymous?


Yep, I am. The posts on this forum are anonymous too. (P.S: NashGuy isn't the name on my birth certificate.) It's simple enough for anyone to use any old email address to register to post here.

And while I can appreciate that a forum having volunteer moderators has benefits (mainly just to keep threads from veering too far off topic and to eject trolls who use abusive language), let's face it, you're not acting like a copy editor or fact checker to ensure only true information is posted. This isn't The New York Times. This is a place -- just like The Layoff -- where any person can anonymously post their opinions, speculation, rumors they've heard, etc.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

AT&T CEO: DirecTV subscriber losses will continue amid 'customer cleanup' in 2019

"This is going to be a year of cleaning up the video business," said Stephenson today during a JP Morgan investor conference.

The good news is that AT&T's video business should achieve EBITDA stability this year and into 2020, according to Stephenson. He said going forward, DirecTV's "thin client," a streaming version of DirecTV that's debuting later this year, will be the workhorse for DirecTV, and will bring price levels down for customers that are struggling.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Looks like AT&T is leaning towards using DIRECTV satellite for a premium service for high end customers and DIRECTV streaming for economy customers.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

MysteryMan said:


> Looks like AT&T is leaning towards using DIRECTV satellite for a premium service for high end customers and DIRECTV streaming for economy customers.


AT&T wants to make DirecTV over IP their premium TV service not SatelliteTV.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> AT&T wants to make DirecTV over IP their premium TV service not SatelliteTV.


No, he wants to make "Directv" their premium service whether it is delivered by satellite OR IP.

The discount service will be Watch AT&T.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

MysteryMan said:


> Looks like AT&T is leaning towards using DIRECTV satellite for a premium service for high end customers and DIRECTV streaming for economy customers.





CraigerM said:


> AT&T wants to make DirecTV over IP their premium TV service not SatelliteTV.





slice1900 said:


> No, he wants to make "Directv" their premium service whether it is delivered by satellite OR IP.


It seems to me that the CEO is giving somewhat mixed messages. He says they want to lose DTV's low-end unprofitable customers, who are very prone to churn. But OTOH, he talks about how the upcoming thin-client streaming DTV service will help them reach customers who don't want to pay as much. And he's also referred to the upcoming service as their "satellite replacement" product which will be their main "workhorse" going forward.

Here's my latest guess of where they're heading. We'll soon see A&E channels (including History and Lifetime) get added to the Plus and Max packages on DTV Now. Then we'll see select Discovery channels (including HGTV, Food, Travel, ID) and AMC channels get added too. Not sure what that might do to the prices. At any rate, at that point, Plus and Max will be their restructured channel line-ups that they offer to all new subscribers of the upcoming thin client service when it launches and maybe all new satellite subscribers too. The existing Choice, Entertainment, Xtra, etc. packages are grandfathered for existing customers.

I don't know if DTV Now just goes away or sticks around as a distinct brand that's differentiated by the fact that it's no-contract and bring-your-own-device.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> It seems to me that the CEO is giving somewhat mixed messages. He says they want to lose DTV's low-end unprofitable customers, who are very prone to churn. But OTOH, he talks about how the upcoming thin-client streaming DTV service will help them reach customers who don't want to pay as much. And he's also referred to the upcoming service as their "satellite replacement" product which will be their main "workhorse" going forward.
> 
> Here's my latest guess of where they're heading. We'll soon see A&E channels (including History and Lifetime) get added to the Plus and Max packages on DTV Now. Then we'll see select Discovery channels (including HGTV, Food, Travel, ID) and AMC channels get added too. Not sure what that might do to the prices. At any rate, at that point, Plus and Max will be their restructured channel line-ups that they offer to all new subscribers of the upcoming thin client service when it launches and maybe all new satellite subscribers too. The existing Choice, Entertainment, Xtra, etc. packages are grandfathered for existing customers.
> 
> I don't know if DTV Now just goes away or sticks around as a distinct brand that's differentiated by the fact that it's no-contract and bring-your-own-device.


You're right about Stephenson sending out mixed messages about what they want to do with their video services. He even mentions keeping UVerse. Now he is saying this.

AT&T: WarnerMedia SVOD Will Be Our Lead Dog for Video - Telecompetitor

"Today you think about our video product and you immediately go to Directv and its 24 million subscribers, which is a broadcast video distribution network," Stephenson said today. "As we bring WarnerMedia into the fold, our key video product will become the SVOD service that Bob Greenblatt and [John] Stankey are standing up in WarnerMedia."

"We think this is in the tens of millions of subscribers that we will have on this, we think the portfolio is that compelling," said Stephenson. "And then obviously keeping the satellite, the U-verse customer base in check and stable is really, really important, because it's going to be a major distribution platform, but the video business is going to be driven heavily by the SVOD service."


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Nothing in what he said indicates that at all.



MysteryMan said:


> Looks like AT&T is leaning towards using DIRECTV satellite for a premium service for high end customers and DIRECTV streaming for economy customers.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> You're right about Stephenson sending out mixed messages about what they want to do with their video services. He even mentions keeping UVerse. Now he is saying this.
> 
> AT&T: WarnerMedia SVOD Will Be Our Lead Dog for Video - Telecompetitor


Yeah, he realizes that direct-to-consumer SVOD is increasingly the future of TV and the middleman-delivered MVPD cable bundle is slowly fading in the rearview mirror (although it's not going away any time soon). So they're positioning their strategy for that reality. The upcoming SVOD -- which they're rumored to have tentatively dubbed "HBO Max" -- will be their #1 priority going forward.

Come mid-2020, if not before, I expect that every new subscriber to an AT&T-delivered cable bundle (except maybe those on the super-skinny Watch TV service) -- whether delivered via OTT/IP or satellite -- will have HBO Max automatically included in the base rate. Why would AT&T make optional a service that they see as the center of their video strategy?

Also note how the story I linked to above says that some Turner original shows will debut FIRST on HBO Max before airing on their TBS, TNT or TruTV cable channels. SVOD will become the dog that wags the cable channel tail.

Having HBO Max be a non-optional part of their MVPD packages is the same thing that Comcast will do with their upcoming NBCU SVOD. If you subscribe to a cable TV channel package from Comcast, you get the SVOD (with forced ads) for no extra cost. Non-Comcast cable TV customers will have to pay for it (and they're apparently thinking the price will be around $10, which is way too high, IMO.)

BTW, I think the name HBO Max is going to confuse folks into thinking it's a combination of HBO and its sister service Cinemax. (Although, who knows, maybe Cinemax originals will be included in HBO Max?) Cinemax has for decades been abbreviated as Max. Note how the upper-level DTV Now package, which automatically includes Cinemax, is also named Max. If HBO Max will have Cinemax rolled into it, the name makes sense. Otherwise, I still think they should go with "HBO+" as I've been predicting.

Last thought: I think we may see all the linear HBO channels except the original HBO, HBO Family and HBO Latino die next year. AT&T sees HBO's future as mainly an on-demand SVOD, not as linear cable channels. Note that HBO, HBO Family and HBO Latino are the only linear HBO channels included in the new Plus and Max packages on DTV Now.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> You're right about Stephenson sending out mixed messages about what they want to do with their video services. He even mentions keeping UVerse. Now he is saying this.
> 
> AT&T: WarnerMedia SVOD Will Be Our Lead Dog for Video - Telecompetitor
> 
> ...


Uverse TV will remain a thing for years, even if they stop offering it to new customers once they finally eventually someday get the 'Directv via IP' product out the door.

I don't think he's necessarily mixing messages saying that Directv will see a lot of losses from low APRU i.e. low/no profit customers if they stop offering fat discounts just to keep people around or teaser rates to get people to sign up knowing they will dump for someone else's teaser rate the minute their contract ends (or sooner if that someone else is willing to pay the ETF) Because by "in check and stable" he is probably talking profit wise not customer count wise. He's a beancounter, he cares how much profit a sector is making, not whether it has an impressive subscriber count - it would be easy to pump up that subscriber count by offering great deals, but if they lose money on those customers over the short time they're around when install + discounts are considered what's the point?

In the past giving great deals for people to sign up was seen as a winning strategy, because you could pretty much assume everyone "needs" a cable/satellite TV package, so your only competition is with Dish and whoever the CATV incumbent is at that customer's address. People are lazy, and many will stick with what they know so once you have them signed up a lot of them will stick around for a long time through inertia. Price-wise all you had to do was offer some discounts if people called and said "hey I have this great offer from Dish" that roughly matches it and you'd keep them happy. These days you can't offer discounts big enough to compete with streaming options so why even try? Let the people who don't need what traditional TV offers (primarily live sports that you can't get elsewhere) leave, because the only way you can keep them around with discounts is to offer discounts so large you lose money on them.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

I wonder if the days of Visa gift cards for new subscribers and first-year promo pricing on two-year contracts for new DTV subs will be ending soon? Comcast does that stuff too, to an extent, so it would seem a little risky to me for AT&T to completely cut all that out and just say "Here's the regular monthly rate that you'll pay starting from day one." Maybe they'll preserve most of the initial incentives for those who bundle DTV with AT&T Internet?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

With the public views expressing no concern over tv losses by ATT, it wouldn’t surprise me. Of course D* used to spout that better customer line a lot before ATT took them over, so maybe not.
To my view ATT seems to be just flailing about with all of it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me. Sure, they are losing subscribers - but they are not "important" subscribers. Just the subscribers AT&T|DIRECTV can live without.

The adjustments to how they are reporting their numbers (combining DIRECTV satellite and UVERSE as "premium TV") help bury the details.
Financially, "video entertainment" revenues were down 1.8% 1Q (vs 1Q 2018) ... but expenses were also down (it is amazing how much DIRECTV satellite saves when gross subscriber additions are down and they are not paying for installations). Some of DISH's best financial quarters were when subscriber additions were low. DIRECTV is reaping a similar benefit. Unfortunately DIRECTV is not growing their streaming business at a pace that keeps the overall susbcriber count high. The concept of adding cheaper to obtain customers fails when AT&T is barely adding streaming customers (and LOST 83 thousand streaming customers 1Q 2019).

But it is OK ... they are not important customers. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

CraigerM said:


> AT&T CEO: DirecTV subscriber losses will continue amid 'customer cleanup' in 2019
> 
> "This is going to be a year of cleaning up the video business," said Stephenson today during a JP Morgan investor conference.
> 
> The good news is that AT&T's video business should achieve EBITDA stability this year and into 2020, according to Stephenson. He said going forward, DirecTV's "thin client," a streaming version of DirecTV that's debuting later this year, will be the workhorse for DirecTV, and will bring price levels down for customers that are struggling.


I call BS on that statement.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Found this interesting article about AT&T's TV strategy. If I read this right they think that their wont be a third internet streaming service. They think AT&T is turning DTV Now from a skinny service to a premium TV service and wont compete with YouTubeTV. Watch TV will compete with YouTube. Launching DTV Now on the Osprey box will make DTV Now become DTV over IP.

DirecTV Now's New Pricing Explained - It's About the Satellites


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

I don't think ATT themselves have figured this all out yet. Speculation in the meanwhile without solid inside information is a waste of electrons and pixels.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> I wonder if the days of Visa gift cards for new subscribers and first-year promo pricing on two-year contracts for new DTV subs will be ending soon? Comcast does that stuff too, to an extent, so it would seem a little risky to me for AT&T to completely cut all that out and just say "Here's the regular monthly rate that you'll pay starting from day one." Maybe they'll preserve most of the initial incentives for those who bundle DTV with AT&T Internet?


I can't believe they'd get rid of that stuff entirely, just cut back on the dollar amounts so they don't attract the sort of customers who will leave the minute the discounts are over.

If they avoid giving away the farm to new customers and people who call and ask for credits like clockwork, they might be able to cut back on the price increases while maintaining their margins for everyone else. What they want to avoid is losing customers who have been with them for years, never asked for credits, but finally got fed up with the yearly increases. If they were able to get smaller yearly increases they'll hold onto more of that type of customer which is clearly their most valuable.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

This article sounds to me like they think AT&T's streaming strategy is to combine their thin client device and the Warnermedia streaming service.

AT&T's Streaming Strategy Is Taking Shape. Here's What You Need to Know.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> This article sounds to me like they think AT&T's streaming strategy is to combine their thin client device and the Warnermedia streaming service.
> 
> AT&T's Streaming Strategy Is Taking Shape. Here's What You Need to Know.


Unfortunately, this article is behind a paywall. But yes, I'm sure that the app for HBO Max (or whatever the streaming service is called) will be automatically installed on the C71 Osprey box and AT&T will put some kind of very noticeable prompts in the UI pointing out the existence of the app.

Or maybe even it won't exist as a separate app on that device. If my hunch is correct that the AT&T/DirecTV channel bundle that will be distributed through this box will automatically include HBO Max, then it would make sense for all of its on-demand content to simply show up in the VOD part of the UI (the same way that regular HBO content already does if you have an HBO subscription).


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

BTW, I noticed today that AT&T is selling the new Plus and Max packages (the same ones that are the new default options on DirecTV Now) as options for new customers who sign up online for DirecTV satellite. But instead of the $50 and $70 monthly prices like on DTV Now, DTV is charging $110 and $130! Plus an RSN fee on Max! And they still require a 24-month agreement! But at least those prices include traditional HD DVR service for one TV (not that that justifies a $60 price difference).

Obviously no one is going to choose Plus or Max from DTV satellite (the same way no one is going to choice Choice, Entertainment, etc. from DTV Now). My guess is that AT&T just wanted to get those options into their ordering systems now and they will change the prices (and, in the cases of Plus and Max, the channel line-ups somewhat) systemwide later this year.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

To me, this is a classic example of AT&T trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Clearly, the future is streaming. Satellite will be with us for another decade or so, before it inevitably fades away. The future is not about rolling trucks for installs and aligning dishes, it's about selling a streaming product that offers the customer a variety of different program offerings depending on your needs. The top packages should offer everything that the D* satellite service offers now, and the low end packages offering just the basics. They don't need OTT and DirecTV Now, they need one streaming platform offering low, mid range, and high end packages.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

TDK1044 said:


> To me, this is a classic example of AT&T trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Clearly, the future is streaming. Satellite will be with us for another decade or so, before it inevitably fades away. The future is not about rolling trucks for installs and aligning dishes, it's about selling a streaming product that offers the customer a variety of different program offerings depending on your needs. The top packages should offer everything that the D* satellite service offers now, and the low end packages offering just the basics. They don't need OTT and DirecTV Now, they need one streaming platform offering low, mid range, and high end packages.


att needs to upgrade it's copper subs to more bandwidth. Will they do something like get OTT tv and they give you boosted to LINE MAX speeds for free or at least 100/100 fiber?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

TDK1044 said:


> To me, this is a classic example of AT&T trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Clearly, the future is streaming. Satellite will be with us for another decade or so, before it inevitably fades away. The future is not about rolling trucks for installs and aligning dishes, it's about selling a streaming product that offers the customer a variety of different program offerings depending on your needs. The top packages should offer everything that the D* satellite service offers now, and the low end packages offering just the basics. They don't need OTT and DirecTV Now, they need one streaming platform offering low, mid range, and high end packages.


At this point, my thinking is that the "new" home-centric thin-client streaming TV service coming soon from AT&T will basically just be DirecTV Now but with a few new tweaks. Maybe it continues to be called DirecTV Now or maybe the whole thing gets rebranded as AT&T TV. Either way, I'll go ahead and lay down my predictions. We'll see how much I get right, ha.

This will roll out in Aug. 2019.
There was be three main channel packages available: Starter, Plus and Max.
Starter will cost $30 and contain pretty much the same 35+ channels now available on AT&T WatchTV, but also include HBO too. Note that this package does not include any local broadcast networks or all-sports channels.
Plus and Max will sell for their current regular prices of $50 and $70 (with no additional fees for broadcast or RSN channels). About a month ago, DirecTV Now began offering a $20 discount off of each for the first three months. Just this week, they changed that to $15 off for the first two months. By August, those deals will have lapsed. Plus and Max will still both include HBO (and Max will still include Cinemax too). They'll have all the same channels they currently do, but by that time, AT&T will also have added popular channels from A+E Networks (A&E, History, Lifetime), Discovery Networks (HGTV, Discovery, Food, Travel, ID), and AMC Networks (AMC, IFC, BBCAmerica). If PBS stations aren't included at launch, they'll be added at some point in the coming year as they generally become available on streaming cable TV services (vMVPDs).
All plans (with the possible exception of Starter) will come with 20 hours of cloud DVR storage, with recordings auto-deleting after 30 days. Like now, you'll be able to FF in all recordings from any channel, including past ads. (Ad-free premium channels still won't be recordable though, but that doesn't matter much since all their content is available on-demand.)
You can upgrade to 100 (or maybe 120) total hours of cloud DVR, with a longer auto-delete period (3 months? 6? 9?) for an extra $10/mo.
Niche cable channels that aren't included in Starter, Plus or Max might be offered in the form of add-on packs that can be added to one of those base packages. Showtime, Starz, Cinemax and Epix will be offered as a la carte premium add-ons.
Each subscription allows 2 simultaneous steams on any combination of devices, whether in or out of home. Each additional simultaneous stream will cost $5/mo. Streams can be accessed on AT&T's own box or through their app on other devices; how the stream is accessed makes no difference in terms of the simultaneous stream limit.
AT&T's optional 4K HDR Android TV-powered set-top-box and remote will be sold directly to customers (maybe $80 each), perhaps with the option to spread the cost out over sequential monthly bills. (The rumor is that AT&T wants to get out of the STB rental business). I definitely expect AT&T will actually give a lot of them away as promotional items for new subscribers (maybe if you commit to sticking with the service a certain number of months or because you bundle it together with AT&T Internet/Fiber). Rather than having long-term commitments, like the 2-year agreement DirecTV satellite has in exchange for deeply discounted monthly rates the first year, this service will be sold with a "no-games-playing" everyday standard price. The free boxes will be the up-front bonus for certain customers. (I still expect folks getting AT&T Internet/Fiber plus TV to score up-front Visa gift cards, though.)
Unless you're getting AT&T Internet/Fiber installed at the same time, the TV box will be a simple self-install option that is shipped to you by UPS/FedEx. (WAY cheaper for AT&T than a satellite TV installation!) For those who can't even connect a box to their TV and wifi, AT&T will send one of their in-home sales consultants to help you out (and also "helpfully" try to sell you other AT&T services while they're there).
Netflix and YouTube will come pre-loaded on the box, along with the Google Play app store, which by that time should offer the Amazon Prime Video app for Android TV. You can definitely expect the upcoming on-demand streaming service from AT&T's WarnerMedia (called HBO Max or HBO+) to be integrated into the box too. Like regular HBO, a subscription to HBO+ will be non-optionally included in Starter, Plus and Max for no additional cost.
Although it will be available to anyone with home broadband from any provider (e.g. Comcast, Verizon, Charter, etc.), bundling this service with AT&T Internet/Fiber will knock $10 off the price and also score you unlimited data from them, i.e. no data cap. (And running the service over AT&T's own network could only make it more reliable, one would think.)
Uverse TV -- which is only available to homes wired for AT&T Internet/Fiber -- will cease to be sold to new customers. Existing customers will have a long while (couple years) to transition over to the new service before AT&T pulls the plug on Uverse TV.
DirecTV satellite will continue to be sold for several years but AT&T will focus their marketing on rural areas that lack broadband service. Anyone with broadband will have the option to go with the streaming TV service and AT&T will price it cheaper overall to attract consumers in that direction. Starter, Plus and Max will also be available as channel packages to satellite subscribers. (As mentioned above, Plus and Max are already listed as options during online sign-up for satellite DirecTV but with current prices of $110 and $130 rather than $50 and $70!)


----------



## Soccernut (Jan 20, 2004)

Some good ideas, lets see what happens, I just hope the whole thing works well technically.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> At this point, my thinking is that the "new" home-centric thin-client streaming TV service coming soon from AT&T will basically just be DirecTV Now but with a few new tweaks. Maybe it continues to be called DirecTV Now or maybe the whole thing gets rebranded as AT&T TV. Either way, I'll go ahead and lay down my predictions. We'll see how much I get right, ha.
> 
> This will roll out in Aug. 2019.
> There was be three main channel packages available: Starter, Plus and Max.
> ...


Yep. I think a lot of this is right on the money.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Oh no not cloud DVR ... optimum has that and your recordings auto delete in 2 weeks 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> They'll have all the same channels they currently do, but by that time, AT&T will also have added popular channels... Discovery Networks (HGTV, Discovery, Food, Travel, ID), and AMC Networks (AMC, IFC, BBCAmerica).


For me,this is the biggest problem with the currently offered DirecTV Now primary packages. I have the current $65 old middle tier pack, it was $45 when I subscribed.

For me, I got tired of paying $23 for HD, whole home DVR, etc. Add four receivers at $7 each (one free), and I was paying about the same for infrastructure than content cost under DirecTV Now. That cost has gone up. I am tempted to go the PlayStation Vue, but I'm married, and its not only my decision. Going from DirecTV to DirecTV Now was a struggle despite a $75 per month savings (after non renewal of discounts) with little difference in content. The content package cost went from $70 to $45. No taxes or fees on DirecTV NOW.

My foresight on the TV content delivery industry right now is hazy. I foresee a future of consolidation. I am not sure I see a future for the multichannel providers like DirecTV as mass media companies market direct to consumers. Hulu, Netflix, Apple are trying to create a industry for content aggregators. We see the seeds of the disruptive changes that are coming, but its difficult to divine the final outcome


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Soccernut said:


> Some good ideas, lets see what happens, I just hope the whole thing works well technically.


Yeah, that's one of the main things I'm concerned about, particularly the reliability of the cloud DVR. I don't know why it has taken AT&T sooooo long to develop a cloud DVR and work out the bugs given that little companies like Philo have had a (reportedly) rock-solid cloud DVR from the start. That said, I don't seem to read as many customer rants about DTV Now unreliability this year, so maybe they've gotten the kinks ironed out.



dtv757 said:


> Oh no not cloud DVR ... optimum has that and your recordings auto delete in 2 weeks


2 weeks?! Wow. That's a crazy policy. Can't believe a mainstream cable TV provider is doing that.

Well, we know that the basic included cloud DVR in DTV Now has always been 20 hours with a 30-day auto-delete. It's been rumored for over a year that they're going to introduce an expanded cloud DVR (either 100 more hours or 100 total hours, it's unclear) with a longer auto-delete period. I seem to recall a rumor that it would expand to 90 days. But given that YouTube TV includes at no extra charge unlimited storage with a 9-month period while Hulu's enhanced cloud DVR (extra $10) stores 200 hours with unlimited retention (no auto-delete), I think AT&T will need to do better than 120 hr/90 days for an extra $10. I think they should either remove the auto-delete policy completely or at least stretch it out to 9 months to match YouTube TV.



wmb said:


> For me, this is the biggest problem with the currently offered DirecTV Now primary packages. I have the current $65 old middle tier pack, it was $45 when I subscribed.


Yeah, when those new Plus and Max packages rolled out in March, everyone (including me) thought they were pretty crummy since they were missing so many channels. I didn't understand the longer game that AT&T was playing at the time. I'm not sure if all those missing channels (from Viacom, A+E, Discovery, AMC) were left out of Plus and Max because AT&T didn't have the contractual rights yet to include them OR if AT&T chose to leave them out to enhance their bargaining positions in the looming contract renegotiations with those network groups. (I hear AT&T cut a very hard bargain with Viacom and they're apparently still working over A+E.) At any rate, I do think we'll see most (but perhaps not all) of those groups' channels added to Plus and Max in the coming weeks/months.

My guess is that the original DTVN packages (which are essentially the same as the standard satellite packages) are still being offered to new DTVN subscribers (at very high prices) because AT&T is contractually obligated to always offer packages that include channels from all of their major network providers, including A+E, Discovery, etc. Since Plus and Max don't yet fulfill that obligation, the old packages have to stick around. But once Plus and Max are filled out, the old packages will stop being sold, at least to new streaming subscribers (and maybe to new satellite subscribers too).

Given all the baggage that DTVN has accumulated over the past 2.5 years -- a reputation for being buggy/unstable, instability in the channel line-ups and pricing, a perception of being a budget "cord-cutter" as opposed to premium TV service, etc. -- it would not at all surprise me if AT&T decided to "shut down" DTVN and resurrect it (with the pricing and policies I outlined above) as a "new" service called AT&T TV. That brand would also help to differentiate it in consumers' minds from the DirecTV satellite service (something that has always been a challenge for DTVN).

I could easily imagine, come August, a splashy announcement for "the new AT&T TV". Meanwhile, DTVN immediately stops allowing new sign-ups (redirecting them to AT&T TV) while existing customers are sent a nice email saying "how much we've appreciated serving you but unfortunately the DirecTV Now service will cease to exist at the end of this year. But click here to sign up for an even better experience with the new AT&T TV!" That would be an easy way to dump all those money-losing customers on the Go Big package with grandfathered pricing. Consumers can't hold a service to its word about a "permanent" deal if the service ceases to exist.



wmb said:


> My foresight on the TV content delivery industry right now is hazy. I foresee a future of consolidation. I am not sure I see a future for the multichannel providers like DirecTV as mass media companies market direct to consumers. Hulu, Netflix, Apple are trying to create a industry for content aggregators. We see the seeds of the disruptive changes that are coming, but its difficult to divine the final outcome


Yes, things are definitely moving in the direction of "direct-to-consumer" bundles of subscription content and away from the old model of cable TV providers who act as middlemen aggregators. AT&T sees this too, which is why they're building up HBO to be their horse in the direct-to-consumer race. Later this year, they'll debut an expanded bundle service, centered on HBO, with all sorts of other WarnerMedia content added, including the latest stuff airing on their basic cable channels like TBS and TNT.

AT&T sees that "HBO+" service, not cable channel bundles that they resell through DirecTV satellite or DirecTV Now or AT&T TV, as their real future. And that's why they're going to make sure that every new subscriber that they sign up for any of their cable channel services automatically has the HBO+ service included in their base package. But they know that the transition will be a long, slow one, so they obviously can't just stop selling cable channel services now. There's a dwindling, but still very substantial, amount of money to be made on them over the next decade.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> At this point, my thinking is that the "new" home-centric thin-client streaming TV service coming soon from AT&T will basically just be DirecTV Now but with a few new tweaks. Maybe it continues to be called DirecTV Now or maybe the whole thing gets rebranded as AT&T TV. Either way, I'll go ahead and lay down my predictions. We'll see how much I get right, ha.
> 
> This will roll out in Aug. 2019.
> There was be three main channel packages available: Starter, Plus and Max.


I disagree. I think they will mirror the Directv satellite packages. There will be a few differences due to contracts, but those will be addressed over time.

If they want the two delivery methods to be interchangeable, and would be stupid not to, they need the same packages. Otherwise what to do about people who want package 'x' but find out they need satellite to get it and they're in an apartment, or want package 'y' but it is streaming only and they live in the sticks.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> I disagree. I think they will mirror the Directv satellite packages. There will be a few differences due to contracts, but those will be addressed over time.
> 
> If they want the two delivery methods to be interchangeable, and would be stupid not to, they need the same packages. Otherwise what to do about people who want package 'x' but find out they need satellite to get it and they're in an apartment, or want package 'y' but it is streaming only and they live in the sticks.


What about Stephenson saying instead of channel packages being $100 to $200 they would be $80 to $90?

AT&T looks to replace DirecTV satellite with $80-$90 'premium' streaming service


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> I disagree. I think they will mirror the Directv satellite packages. There will be a few differences due to contracts, but those will be addressed over time.
> 
> If they want the two delivery methods to be interchangeable, and would be stupid not to, they need the same packages. Otherwise what to do about people who want package 'x' but find out they need satellite to get it and they're in an apartment, or want package 'y' but it is streaming only and they live in the sticks.


My guess is that the new channel package system (Plus, Max, and maybe Starter) becomes the default set of options for new satellite subscribers too, except on satellite, there will be higher package prices that (as is the case now) include HD DVR service (local DVR with a lot more than 100 hours of storage) for a single TV, as opposed to service for 2 TVs/screens with only 20 hours of cloud DVR service (and a 30-day auto-delete). But even adding on the extra $10 charge for upgraded cloud DVR will result in lower prices for AT&T TV/DTVN vs. DTV satellite. (But you could also argue that the DVR experience still wouldn't be as good as with a physical Genie DVR.)

Perhaps DTV satellite will make an announcement ahead of time (e.g. Sept. 1) and give people a choice between the new vs. old package systems until, say, the end of the year, after which point only the new system is offered to new accounts. But anyone who originally signs up with the new system or switches from the old system to the new system is permanently stuck on the new system. Existing account on the old system could stay there and maybe even switch between those grandfathered packages on the old system (e.g. from Xtra to Choice).

I'll bet AT&T also stops offering discounts for bundling new satellite service with other AT&T services. If someone insists on bundling satellite instead of AT&T TV/DTVN with AT&T Internet/Fiber/Wireless, they'll allow it, but they won't get a price break on the satellite service, which will already have higher overall prices than AT&T TV/DTVN for the same channel packages.


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

Obviously to compete with other OTT services DTVN needs to offer competitive pricing, channel packages and DVR. Right now it's hard to see where they have any advantage. I understand why they want to bundle HBO and Cinemax but many cordcutters cycle through the premium channels. With the present pricing the best they could hope for is people subscribing for a month or two when they are due for a HBO/Cinemax binge.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

TV_Guy said:


> Obviously to compete with other OTT services DTVN needs to offer competitive pricing, channel packages and DVR. Right now it's hard to see where they have any advantage. I understand why they want to bundle HBO and Cinemax but many cordcutters cycle through the premium channels. With the present pricing the best they could hope for is people subscribing for a month or two when they are due for a HBO/Cinemax binge.


Well, I think that IF they were to add most of those popular missing channels from Discovery, AMC and A+E Networks to the Plus package, and still keep it at $50 with HBO and locals included, and then they also offered an optional $10 cloud DVR upgrade to make that aspect of the service much better, and they also offered a 4K HDR box and voice remote specifically designed for use with their service for FREE if you prepay 2 months (or get 2 boxes free if you prepay 4 months), then they would have a pretty compelling offering for mainstream cable TV subscribers. Keep in mind that YouTube TV, Hulu with Live TV, PS Vue, Sling TV and Fubo TV are ALL missing popular channels from at least one network group, such as Viacom. AT&T TV could be the only nationwide streaming cable TV service to offer channels from every network group.

I don't think the goal of AT&T TV (if that's what this will actually be named) will be to win over "cord-cutters," per se. It will be to compete against Comcast Xfinity TV and offer a flagship TV service that hits the sweet spot balancing between mainstream consumers' desire for less expensive service on the one hand and a premium experience offering the content they care about on the other. It won't please everyone (obviously). For budget-minded young cord-cutters, I think AT&T realizes that they're mainly just skipping the cable channel bundle completely and going with 2 or 3 SVODs. AT&T will aggressively market the forthcoming HBO Max SVOD service as their solution for that crowd.

That said, if the Starter bundle I envisioned for $30 (including HBO Max) becomes a reality, I could imagine how that would attract a certain breed of cord-cutter, especially if AT&T offered their own OTA network tuner like Sling TV offers with their AirTV box. Imagine plugging in your OTA antenna into a box you buy from AT&T for, say, $80 and then connecting that box to your home wifi. Then all of your local channels get integrated for free into the AT&T TV service on whatever screens you use to watch it in your house. Plug your own USB hard drive into the box and you have free DVR service for your local OTA channels that gets integrated right alongside the cloud DVR from AT&T TV.


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Well, I think that IF they were to add most of those popular missing channels from Discovery, AMC and A+E Networks to the Plus package, and still keep it at $50 with HBO and locals included, and then they also offered an optional $10 cloud DVR upgrade to make that aspect of the service much better, and they also offered a 4K HDR box and voice remote specifically designed for use with their service for FREE if you prepay 2 months (or get 2 boxes free if you prepay 4 months), then they would have a pretty compelling offering for mainstream cable TV subscribers. Keep in mind that YouTube TV, Hulu with Live TV, PS Vue, Sling TV and Fubo TV are ALL missing popular channels from at least one network group, such as Viacom. AT&T TV could be the only nationwide streaming cable TV service to offer channels from every network group.
> 
> I don't think the goal of AT&T TV (if that's what this will actually be named) will be to win over "cord-cutters," per se. It will be to compete against Comcast Xfinity TV and offer a flagship TV service that hits the sweet spot balancing between mainstream consumers' desire for less expensive service on the one hand and a premium experience offering the content they care about on the other. It won't please everyone (obviously). For budget-minded young cord-cutters, I think AT&T realizes that they're mainly just skipping the cable channel bundle completely and going with 2 or 3 SVODs. AT&T will aggressively market the forthcoming HBO Max SVOD service as their solution for that crowd.
> 
> That said, if the Starter bundle I envisioned for $30 (including HBO Max) becomes a reality, I could imagine how that would attract a certain breed of cord-cutter, especially if AT&T offered their own OTA network tuner like Sling TV offers with their AirTV box. Imagine plugging in your OTA antenna into a box you buy from AT&T for, say, $80 and then connecting that box to your home wifi. Then all of your local channels get integrated for free into the AT&T TV service on whatever screens you use to watch it in your house. Plug your own USB hard drive into the box and you have free DVR service for your local OTA channels that gets integrated right alongside the cloud DVR from AT&T TV.


You're right about other services missing channels but at the $50 level DTVN is missing RSNs, The main selling point of live TV is sports. If you have to go to the $70 package for sports and add $10 for the DVR you are up to $80. So the Cinemax and HBO channels on DTVN wind up costing about $30 more than comparable services without HBO and Cinemax.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

TV_Guy said:


> You're right about other services missing channels but at the $50 level DTVN is missing RSNs, The main selling point of live TV is sports. If you have to go to the $70 package for sports and add $10 for the DVR you are up to $80. So the Cinemax and HBO channels on DTVN wind up costing about $30 more than comparable services without HBO and Cinemax.


Eh, not everyone needs RSNs, even if they do watch sports. And we don't know yet what Sinclair (who just bought all those RSNs from Fox/Disney) is going to do with their new RSNs; maybe they'll become available as standalone streaming subscriptions.

At any rate, I think AT&T wouldn't mind at all if instead of choosing DTVN/AT&T TV, you subscribed to YouTube TV (which does offer RSNs) at $50/mo. AT&T isn't going to try to compete with them at that price because they know that YouTube TV is probably losing a few bucks per month on each of their subscribers at the current price. AT&T's goal at this point, I think, is to sell services that are immediately profitable rather than rack up losses for years to build up subscriber numbers and then raise prices down the road to get to profitability. AT&T could justify losing money on DTVN subscribers for its first couple of years because they were essentially beta testers helping them stand up their future video distribution platform. Those days are over now.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> Eh, not everyone needs RSNs, even if they do watch sports. And we don't know yet what Sinclair (who just bought all those RSNs from Fox/Disney) is going to do with their new RSNs; maybe they'll become available as standalone streaming subscriptions.
> 
> At any rate, I think AT&T wouldn't mind at all if instead of choosing DTVN/AT&T TV, you subscribed to YouTube TV (which does offer RSNs) at $50/mo. AT&T isn't going to try to compete with them at that price because they know that YouTube TV is probably losing a few bucks per month on each of their subscribers at the current price. AT&T's goal at this point, I think, is to sell services that are immediately profitable rather than rack up losses for years to build up subscriber numbers and then raise prices down the road to get to profitability. AT&T could justify losing money on DTVN subscribers for its first couple of years because they were essentially beta testers helping them stand up their future video distribution platform. Those days are over now.


The reason people signed up to DTV Now because it's a skinny service. Don't consumers expect OTT services to be a skinny service and won't sign up to DTV Now turning it into a premium OTT service?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> The reason people signed up to DTV Now because it's a skinny service. Don't consumers expect OTT services to be a skinny service and won't sign up to DTV Now turning it into a premium OTT service?


Well, if the prices stay at $50 and $70 for Plus and Max (which have been the regular prices for those packages since they were introduced), I don't think DTVN subscribers will have anything to complain about if those packages actually get MORE channels than they have now.

But I don't think AT&T's long-term goal has ever really been to offer a cheap "skinny" service. They know that's a losing game. They're not interesting in playing at the low end for that kind of consumer. And that's one reason why I think they may launch this service with the C71 box under a new brand, AT&T TV, and at the same time kill the old DirecTV Now service. AT&T TV won't be marketed as being for "cord-cutters". It will be marketed as a premium, yet more affordable, full-scale cable TV service, something that can be a replacement for both Uverse TV and DTV satellite, while also competing against Comcast, Charter, etc.


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

That's the plan alright. The problem is once someone tries the C71 service they are in effect a cord-cutter and are bound to compare it to other OTT services. It can't exist in a vacuum. Shoving HBO into every offering makes sense to AT&T but not to every customer.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> What about Stephenson saying instead of channel packages being $100 to $200 they would be $80 to $90?
> 
> AT&T looks to replace DirecTV satellite with $80-$90 'premium' streaming service


Maybe they're planning to drop the package prices by eliminating the cheaper signup pricing and calling to beg for discounts, so the price is actually the price. Or maybe it is just the usual CEO hyperbole, and he's conveniently ignoring stuff like ultimate/premier tiers that few customers select.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Maybe they're planning to drop the package prices by eliminating the cheaper signup pricing and calling to beg for discounts, so the price is actually the price. Or maybe it is just the usual CEO hyperbole, and he's conveniently ignoring stuff like ultimate/premier tiers that few customers select.


Taking anything that idiot says seriously opens you up to looking like an idiot. He has no clue what they offer or most likely plan to. Beyond what he rehearsed for that interview


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Maybe they're planning to drop the package prices by eliminating the cheaper signup pricing and calling to beg for discounts, so the price is actually the price.


Yeah, I definitely do not think we're going to see first-year promo pricing on the streaming service (what I'm calling AT&T TV) and I tend to think that it will also go away for satellite too if/when the new channel packages (Plus, Max) become the norm at DTV.

Go over to DISH.com and check out how they price things for new customers. They've done away with all the up-front promo BS. No Visa gift cards. No 50% off the regular monthly rate the first year. Instead, you pay the regular price from day 1 but that monthly rate is guaranteed not to go up for the length of your 24-month contract. (OK, they do give you a free Google Home Mini, a $49 value.) You do still get premium channels free for the first three months and the pro install is free with the 24-month commitment.

Their standard channel packages range from $60-90 and include a very basic DVR (2 tuners, limited storage) for 1 TV. To instead get the premium multi-tuner Hopper 3 DVR (more comparable to a DTV Genie) adds another $15. Service to each additional TV (via thin-client Joey boxes) is $5-7, depending on model.

So regular everyday pricing from DISH for premium (i.e. at least Genie-quality) HD DVR service on 2 TVs ranges from $80 to $112 per month, depending on channel package and which Joey you get for the 2nd TV (standard/wireless/4K). The low end figure, $80, is based on America's Top 120 package (no RSNs), a Hopper 3 DVR and a standard wired Joey.

I would expect DTV to sell the Plus package with whole-home HD DVR service for 2 TVs at an everyday price close to that. Although Plus includes HBO (which isn't even available on DISH anymore!), and DTV has always positioned itself as a premium alternative to DISH. So perhaps Plus will cost $80 including HD DVR for 1 TV, with the current $7 charge for each additional TV. Just as on the streaming side, Max would cost $20 more than Plus, so $100 including HD DVR for 1 TV. I expect that, on both the streaming and the satellite product, various add-on channel packs will give customers access to niche channels that fail to make the cut into either Plus or Max (e.g. Family Extra Pack, Entertainment Extra Pack, Sports Extra Pack, etc.).

So there you have it: my predictions for where things are headed in the coming months for DTV satellite.

New satellite subscribers will only be offered the same 3 channel packages as on the AT&T TV streaming service: Starter (no locals, no sports), Plus (no RSNs) and Max, all of which include HBO. (A DTV OTA tuner will be offered for Starter subscribers to buy, to integrate their free locals.)
Existing customers will be grandfathered into their current channel packages (Choice, Xtra, etc.) and can keep them indefinitely.
Standard everyday pricing for Starter, Plus and Max will be $30/mo higher than on AT&T TV. Therefore Starter costs $60, Plus costs $80 and Max costs $100.
Those prices include 4K/HD DVR service (at least 5 tuners, at least ~200 hours of HD storage) for 1 TV.
Thin-client boxes let additional TVs tap into whole-home DVR for an extra $7/mo for each box/TV.
Less-popular cable channels that aren't included in Plus or Max will be available through various add-on channel packs priced $5-10/mo.
Free professional installation is offered only to new customers who sign a 24-month agreement. Doing so will also score the subscriber NFL Sunday Ticket for free for the 2019-20 season. (Availability of future seasons TBD.) Signing the agreement also gives the customer a price-lock guarantee on their everyday pricing through all 24 months.
No big promotional giveaways, such as $200 Visa gift cards, for new subscribers.
No discounts to new subscribers for bundling DTV satellite service with any other AT&T service. (Possible exception: customers who live at an address where AT&T Internet/Fiber is not available may get a discount for bundling DTV satellite with AT&T Wireless.)
Once customers complete their 24-month initial agreement term, they may be eligible for limited-term credits off the cost of monthly service as a retention tool, although I expect that to be used more sparingly than has been the case in the past.
P.S: The first NFL pre-season game is on Aug. 1. The first regular season game is on Sept. 5. Because NFL Sunday Ticket is such a big deal for DirecTV, I expect that they'll try to have their new system in place by Sept. 5, if not by Aug. 1. It wouldn't surprise me if NFLST is also available via streaming as part of AT&T TV/DTVN this season, although how/if it might be offered for free or at a reduced promo price (perhaps in exchange for a long-term contract or service prepayment?) is anyone's guess.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Letter from Dish in Friday’s mail still shows $300 gift card, previous letter from ATT has the same $300 gift card. Both are substantially higher than my cable bundle.
Otherwise your info seems correct. Not sure I agree with your predictions though. While I do think ATT will try to get everyday pricing to fly to new customers, I think it will fail unless there is something else offered. Like freezing the price for 2 years and a gift card of some value.
Older possible subscribers are used to those things and won’t want to give them up. Younger ones aren’t all that interested in cable/sat replacement services.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> Letter from Dish in Friday's mail still shows $300 gift card, previous letter from ATT has the same $300 gift card. Both are substantially higher than my cable bundle.
> Otherwise your info seems correct. Not sure I agree with your predictions though. While I do think ATT will try to get everyday pricing to fly to new customers, I think it will fail unless there is something else offered. Like freezing the price for 2 years and a gift card of some value.


Hmm. So it sounds like DISH is still offering the big up-front gift cards to select new subscribers through direct mail (and possibly through other sales channels), although I can't see anywhere on their website where gift cards are offered there (like DirecTV currently does on their site).

My general thinking is that DirecTV satellite will more or less follow suit, although, if anything, they'll be less generous than DISH because (A) DirecTV has typically never been as aggressive on pricing/promos as DISH, (B) going forward, AT&T would MUCH rather new customers sign up for the streaming AT&T TV service rather than DirecTV satellite, and (C) I expect that through the end of this year at least, DirecTV satellite will still throw in NFLST ("a $300 value") for free to new subs.

And I do predict that new DTV sat customers who sign a 2-year agreement will have a price freeze for that entire period, same as DISH does.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Could AT&T be ahead of the curve and they see a trend in premium OTT services and they think cable companies will go that way also?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I think all the providers are struggling with figuring out what to offer, at what price point that will keep their profits up. So we’ll see the skinny offering, some fatter ones and so forth while they try to capture the market.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> Could AT&T be ahead of the curve and they see a trend in premium OTT services and they think cable companies will go that way also?


Cable companies now see internet as their primary service offering, with video as secondary. AT&T has always seen video as secondary to their cellular phone/internet business, so they are alike in that respect. The difference is that cable companies can deliver both TV and internet in all locations they serve, but AT&T sees them as separate offerings - their satellite TV product doesn't do internet, their DSL product doesn't have enough bandwidth to do TV very well, and their cellular product has caps too small to do TV very well.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Cable companies now see internet as their primary service offering, with video as secondary. AT&T has always seen video as secondary to their cellular phone/internet business, so they are alike in that respect. The difference is that cable companies can deliver both TV and internet in all locations they serve, but AT&T sees them as separate offerings - their satellite TV product doesn't do internet, their DSL product doesn't have enough bandwidth to do TV very well, and their cellular product has caps too small to do TV very well.


Yep. But I would add that, as of Q1 18, only about 800k residential customers remained on AT&T DSL (versus 4.5 million four years earlier). Meanwhile, in Dec. 17, they said they had about 15 million on "IP broadband," which is the term AT&T uses to lump together FTTN (AT&T Internet, formerly Uverse) and FTTH (AT&T Fiber). All IP broadband customers should have speeds fast enough to support at least 2 screens simultaneously streaming DTVN/AT&T TV. (Remember that those homes won't also be subscribing to Uverse TV.)

AT&T: Transition from Legacy DSL Largely Complete, Fiber Broadband Penetration Nearing 50% in Many Areas - Telecompetitor

I'm sure that the number on DSL has continued to shrink since then while the number on IP broadband (especially FTTH) has risen. AT&T has been aggressively rolling out FTTH in the past couple years and this summer marks the end of that sprint.

Also keep in mind that streaming inside the DTVN app (and I would assume the future AT&T TV and HBO Max apps) do not count against data caps for postpaid AT&T Wireless customers.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> Could AT&T be ahead of the curve and they see a trend in premium OTT services and they think cable companies will go that way also?





lparsons21 said:


> I think all the providers are struggling with figuring out what to offer, at what price point that will keep their profits up. So we'll see the skinny offering, some fatter ones and so forth while they try to capture the market.


I think that eventually the whole distinction between nationwide OTT "cord cutter" cable TV services vs. geo-restricted traditional cable TV services will basically collapse. The OTT services will continue raising prices (and maybe adding channels) to attain profitability (or simply go defunct, as I expect PS Vue to eventually do) while the traditional services are evolving to offer skinnier, less expensive packages at the low end. Regardless of which category you go with, you increasingly are able to watch live, recorded and on-demand cable TV on whatever screen you want, in or out of home.

I think the main distinction for consumers will be whether they can bundle a certain TV service in with their broadband service at a discount and whether using a certain TV service will possibly cause them to exceed whatever broadband data cap they might have. Those distinctions (plus consumer inertia) will mean that most consumers continue to opt for cable TV service (if they want it) from the same company that provides their broadband.

If everything plays out as I predict above, AT&T TV will be the forerunner in this collapsing of the distinction between the two categories. Look for them (as well as YouTube TV, and possibly Hulu with Live TV) to partner up with smaller broadband providers who will offer to bundle their service on the same bill and zero-rate their streaming data against their data caps. I expect CenturyLink (who already resells DTV satellite) will be among the first to do that with AT&T TV. Verizon FiOS and Verizon Home 5G are partnering with YouTube TV to bundle that in with their broadband services.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

AT&T's New TV Service Is All About Profitability

Interesting article but I think the headline is the very last sentence -

"The DIRECTV thin client will enable AT&T to produce better margins or stay competitive with more high-end competition, but it won't solve the secular trend of customers who are flocking toward lower-cost streaming options."


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> "The DIRECTV thin client will enable AT&T to produce better margins or stay competitive with more high-end competition, but it won't solve the secular trend of customers who are flocking toward lower-cost streaming options."


That's true. And I think that AT&T correctly understands that the lower-cost streaming options that lots of customers are flocking to aren't live cable bundles. They're SVOD services like Netflix and Hulu. That's why AT&T is so hyped on their upcoming HBO Max service that will go toe-to-toe with Netflix for about $16/mo. For customers who aren't interested in spending $45+ for a package of live cable channels, HBO Max will be AT&T's answer. (OK, I do think we might see them offer a combo of HBO Max plus something like the $15 Watch TV cable channels bundle for about $30/mo.)

Because HBO Max will basically contain ALL of AT&T's WarnerMedia properties (except live Turner sports and live CNN news, which may come as add-ons later), AT&T isn't interested in providing ANY video service whatsoever to new customers going forward unless they're getting at least HBO Max. Which means that, pretty soon, it will be included as part of every cable channel bundle that they sell via both streaming and satellite.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

*AT&T Needs to Kill DirecTV to Save It*


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> *AT&T Needs to Kill DirecTV to Save It*


Yet they give no reason why they "risk losing them [satellite subscribers]" but would keep them if they use IP delivery.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is a bad headline. "Kill" does not appear in the article - "destroy" is used once in the opening line but there is no further argument suggesting anything be destroyed.

The obvious is stated as the third paragraph:"AT&T needs to migrate their satellite subscribers (DirecTV) to an IP-based system or risk losing them," Connolly said in his report.​But that is not a suggestion that AT&T takes any active steps to "kill" or "destroy" DIRECTV. It is more of a statement of fact that AT&T needs to catch customers who are falling away from the DIRECTV satellite system.

The reality is that AT&T has practically no leverage to force customers to become IP-based subscribers to an AT&T product instead of someone else's IP-based product. Where they have leverage they are not using it. DIRECTV satellite has two major positives: high quality signal and NFL Sunday Ticket. I have seen no claim or comparison that AT&T streaming is higher quality than the competition. (Is anyone claiming better picture quality?) And AT&T seems more likely to lose NFL Sunday Ticket than be able to become the exclusive streaming provider.

Where AT&T could win is on price. When AT&T purchased DIRECTV we were told that UVERSE was paying 14% more for content than DIRECTV. The larger combined customer base was expected to allow AT&T to save money on content as they moved forward in to the OTT market. Either that strategy did not work (and they are not paying as low as they expected) or they have decided to keep the savings for the company and not compete on price.

The most recent price adjustments to DIRECTV NOW make it appear that AT&T has no interest in competing on price. One can buy packages named after the satellite service for the same price as the satellite service (but with less channels). Or one can buy "Plus" or "Max" and get less channels and a forced HBO subscription. There offerings are not remarkably better than their competition.

So as we watch DIRECTV satellite lose customers (not AT&T's fault - just a shift in the market) what is missing is AT&T catching those customers. DIRECTV NOW leveled off then lost customers - higher streaming prices are not going to help attract customers who walked away from satellite and cable primarily due to high prices.

At this point - if AT&T can't turn the trends around - I expect that AT&T will turn in to a stand alone service where they are selling their own content (HBO/Time Warner) and letting others sell their content through the AT&T device. Not a grand plan of remaining a "one stop shopping" distributor for every channel's content. With an open platform where one can download any provider's app I don't expect them to make any money off of other channel's content.

"Killing" DIRECTV is not part of the plan. Just like killing UVERSE and forcing customers to satellite was not part of AT&T's plan. The goal is to maintain as many customers as possible. AT&T is simply having trouble coming up with a plan that succeeds in that goal.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> The reality is that AT&T has practically no leverage to force customers to become IP-based subscribers to an AT&T product instead of someone else's IP-based product. Where they have leverage they are not using it. DIRECTV satellite has two major positives: high quality signal and NFL Sunday Ticket. I have seen no claim or comparison that AT&T streaming is higher quality than the competition. (Is anyone claiming better picture quality?)


AT&T actually does have an ace in the hole when it comes to encouraging folks to subscriber to their own IP-based video services versus others': their own broadband delivery networks (both wired and wireless). That gives AT&T three big advantages:

1. an easy target audience for marketing your video services -- You have their contact info, you know data about them, and they've already chosen you for at least one other AT&T service, so they're already predisposed to you.
2. the ability to bundle -- Give your home internet and wireless subscribers a discount off the price of the new video service, plus the convenience of unified billing.
3. the ability to waive data caps or zero-rate your own video data -- When home internet customers add your video service, waive their data cap (if they had one) so that they don't have to worry about overage charges to use your service (as they would with a competing service). When your wireless customers add your video service, zero-rate your video streams so that they don't eat into their monthly data allotment.

If AT&T execs have any sense in their heads, they've already dispatched high-level folks to take meetings with leaders at CenturyLink and Frontier. Why? Because they need their forthcoming AT&T TV streaming service to gain scale and the best way to do that is by getting other broadband network operators to sell it too. In other words, extend those three big advantages above across OTHER networks too, not just AT&T's own network. Since telcos tend to operate in mutually exclusive geographic areas, AT&T should really try to sign up every single one in the country whose name isn't Verizon (since, due to direct competition in the wireless arena, they'd never want to peddle a product with "AT&T" in the name -- and besides, Verizon has already partnered up with YouTube TV).

As far as better PQ for DTV Now vs. DTV sat, yes, I've seen multiple persons who had concurrent or recent experience with both services state that the PQ was better on DTV Now. I thought the same thing when I had DTV Now last year but I wasn't 100% sure given that it had been a few years since I'd had DTV sat (and that was on an older, inferior TV too).


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Around here our telco is Frontier and they don’t even offer anything faster than 24Mb bonded DSL, and that only in a few areas. I had their 12Mb service at one time and it was ok but dealing with Frontier wasn’t very ok at all! In my subdivision they only offer 3Mb DSL and I don’t know anyone that has it.

Otherwise it is cable modems for those that can get it or Wisper or something similar WiFi. That peaks out at about 20Mb and isn’t great at even doing that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> Where AT&T could win is on price. When AT&T purchased DIRECTV we were told that UVERSE was paying 14% more for content than DIRECTV. The larger combined customer base was expected to allow AT&T to save money on content as they moved forward in to the OTT market. Either that strategy did not work (and they are not paying as low as they expected) or they have decided to keep the savings for the company and not compete on price.
> 
> The most recent price adjustments to DIRECTV NOW make it appear that AT&T has no interest in competing on price. One can buy packages named after the satellite service for the same price as the satellite service (but with less channels). Or one can buy "Plus" or "Max" and get less channels and a forced HBO subscription. There offerings are not remarkably better than their competition.


It was a $14/month difference in Directv's content cost vs Uverse.

Yes, AT&T has an advantage in scale, at least against smaller streamers like Youtube or Fubo, the problem is that streaming is in the "capture lots of customers" stage where everyone seems happy to lose money on it. And they are. Even AT&T was at first despite its content cost advantage, which is what the CEO pointed to it when he signaled they'd be raising Directv Now's price, because that's what he said was required for it to quit losing money. So in order to compete on price, AT&T has to be happy losing money - and to the extent they get a bigger and bigger customer base they'd lose MORE money in total than a smaller competitor that may lose more per customer but has fewer customers. AT&T isn't Netflix, they don't have a lot of patient investors willing to wait forever for them to start making money.

If they sold the satellite business they'd lose that scale and they'd again be one of the little guys unable to strike the good content deals bigger companies have. If they sold to Dish, they'd be handing Dish the advantage of a huge subscriber base making it impossible for an AT&T vMVPD offering like Directv Now to compete against Dish's Sling TV!


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> It was a $14/month difference in Directv's content cost vs Uverse.
> 
> Yes, AT&T has an advantage in scale, at least against smaller streamers like Youtube or Fubo, the problem is that streaming is in the "capture lots of customers" stage where everyone seems happy to lose money on it. And they are. Even AT&T was at first despite its content cost advantage, which is what the CEO pointed to it when he signaled they'd be raising Directv Now's price, because that's what he said was required for it to quit losing money. So in order to compete on price, AT&T has to be happy losing money - and to the extent they get a bigger and bigger customer base they'd lose MORE money in total than a smaller competitor that may lose more per customer but has fewer customers. AT&T isn't Netflix, they don't have a lot of patient investors willing to wait forever for them to start making money.
> 
> If they sold the satellite business they'd lose that scale and they'd again be one of the little guys unable to strike the good content deals bigger companies have. If they sold to Dish, they'd be handing Dish the advantage of a huge subscriber base making it impossible for an AT&T vMVPD offering like Directv Now to compete against Dish's Sling TV!


Neither of us is privy to what's written in AT&T's latest round of contracts with the cable networks. But for the sake of argument, let's imagine that they've been able to negotiate very favorable terms (in both pricing and package structuring) that apply across all of their MVPD services, based on their current total number of subs (which is mostly DTV satellite subs). And let's further assume that all of their services will retain those favorable terms for the next few years, regardless of how the subscriber mix shifts among satellite, OTT and managed IPTV and regardless of whether part or all of the ownership of DTV satellite is sold to DISH.

Now, if all that is true, you can see how AT&T's gameplan might be to shift as many existing (and new) subs as possible onto the OTT service (AT&T TV) in the next few years before the contracts must be renegotiated, especially if AT&T will no longer own and operate DTV satellite at that point, meaning that they couldn't count those subs in the contract renewals.

If AT&T made no changes and stayed the course with DTV and Uverse TV (and just ignored DTV Now and Watch TV or even shut them down completely), they know that in a few years when it's time to revisit those carriage contracts, they're going to have several million fewer subscribers than now. Given recent trends among MVPDs and especially DBS MVPDs, there's no reason to doubt that.

The question is whether, by transferring all of the Uverse TV subs to AT&T TV, and trying to get as many DTV satellite subs with home broadband as possible to switch over to AT&T TV, and then by attracting new subs nationwide via OTT and via distribution agreements with other broadband providers (e.g. CenturyLink, etc.), can they get their total number of MVPD subs fairly close to what the number would have been under the "stay-the-course" scenario above?

It won't matter if the number under this latter scenario is somewhat lower because, remember, those AT&T TV subs will be more profitable. They'll all take HBO and all the other AT&T-owned programming sources. They'll be fed a lot of targeted ads through AT&T's data-rich Xander platform. And AT&T's overall video distribution strategy will have also shifted away from MVPD anyhow, and more to their own direct-to-consumer HBO Max service.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> So in order to compete on price, AT&T has to be happy losing money - and to the extent they get a bigger and bigger customer base they'd lose MORE money in total than a smaller competitor that may lose more per customer but has fewer customers.


All of the streamers will need to raise prices (or cut content) at some point in order to be come profitable. AT&T has made the decision to lose the streaming customers now instead of later. As other streaming providers work their way up to AT&T's "full satellite pricing" perhaps people will leave the other streamers for AT&T? Or they will stay with their existing full service provider since AT&T will not be a better price than they already are paying,

It is an interesting gamble. At just over a million subscribers I would not consider DIRECTV NOW to be a big provider. At least by raising their prices they are giving DIRECTV customers one less place to go when they decide not to pay DIRECTV rates. Some other company can take the loss.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> When home internet customers add your video service, waive their data cap (if they had one) so that they don't have to worry about overage charges to use your service (as they would with a competing service). When your wireless customers add your video service, zero-rate your video streams so that they don't eat into their monthly data allotment.


Zero rating is fine when you're providing something at zero cost. But at some point the provider will need to be paid for the data network usage. As streaming grows "zero rate" data will have a greater impact on their business. AT&T isn't investing billions of dollars in 5G just to give data away for free.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Zero rating is fine when you're providing something at zero cost. But at some point the provider will need to be paid for the data network usage. As streaming grows "zero rate" data will have a greater impact on their business. AT&T isn't investing billions of dollars in 5G just to give data away for free.


AT&T is investing money in networks to deliver their own content to folks who will pay them both for access to the network and for their content that rides over it. To the extent that customers are paying them for the latter, they needn't pay as much for the former.


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

I think the demand for streaming services is relatively elastic. Raising prices will see people defect from full service providers. They might opt for no live streaming TV and make due with OTA, free streaming services, Hulu and rotating in premium offerings. Sports fans could add league packages for the sports they follow and still pay a lot less than full price satellite. A significant number of people no longer see value in a full priced TV subscription.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

TV_Guy said:


> I think the demand for streaming services is relatively elastic. Raising prices will see people defect from full service providers. They might opt for no live streaming TV and make due with OTA, free streaming services, Hulu and rotating in premium offerings. Sports fans could add league packages for the sports they follow and still pay a lot less than full price satellite. A significant number of people no longer see value in a full priced TV subscription.


Yes, I think the data show that the majority of folks leaving the traditional cable bundle (cable/satellite/telco pay TV) are NOT trying to re-create that "TV 2.0" experience through a streaming cable TV service like YouTube TV or DTV Now. Most are moving to the "TV 3.0" model of just using multiple on-demand apps (both subscription and free), complemented in some instances by free OTA TV.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, I think the data show that the majority of folks leaving the traditional cable bundle (cable/satellite/telco pay TV) are NOT trying to re-create that "TV 2.0" experience through a streaming cable TV service like YouTube TV or DTV Now. Most are moving to the "TV 3.0" model of just using multiple on-demand apps (both subscription and free), complemented in some instances by free OTA TV.


I think that is true for many people. The way they are consuming entertainment is evolving. It certainly did for us. It wasn't really about the $, although the savings are certainly not insignificant, it was more about the fact that we realized we just weren't watching very much D anymore. And if it wasn't for just a handful of shows and live sports we would probably get rid of PSVue too...


----------



## dminches (Oct 1, 2006)

Does anyone know what percent of DTV customers have a subscription for NFL Sunday Ticket?


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

dminches said:


> Does anyone know what percent of DTV customers have a subscription for NFL Sunday Ticket?


Likely a good amount of the Bars & Restaurants customers


----------



## dminches (Oct 1, 2006)

JoeTheDragon said:


> Likely a good amount of the Bars & Restaurants customers


I am looking for a number to calculate what percent of DTV customers have the package. I have seen "2 million" somewhere which would mean only 10% of DTV customers. People are saying that having NFL ST is a key reason for the customers being sticky but if it only amounts to 10% that doesn't seem like a lot.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> *AT&T Needs to Kill DirecTV to Save It*


Just stupid for so many reasons. Starting with that'd cost them way more money than if they don't do it and there fore won't ever make them more profit. People don't seem to get how much money satelite brings in. They are no where near close to being a point where jumping ship should van be contemplated. Just a stupid article.

What they need is a streaming option that will appeal to people dumping traditional cable due to costs.

Of wait that's coming with the Warner streaming service.

They also need a DIRECTV equivalent over IP to offer to people who can't have satelite. Oh wait that's what DIRECTV now sorta is and is becoming more and more.

They are on the right path. Their problem is with execution of customer service more than anything and not fighting for skinnier bundles from producers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The Time Warner service will not be a full channel replacement for DIRECTV satellite. DIRECTV Now is too high in price in a market where streamers expect a deep discount.

I believe AT&T will do ok with the Time Warner package. People can add that to their other streaming packages. DIRECTV Now needs to get smaller to survive.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

inkahauts said:


> They also need a DIRECTV equivalent over IP to offer to people who can't have satelite. Oh wait that's what DIRECTV now sorta is and is becoming more and more.


Yes. Well, for people who can't have or simply don't want a satellite dish. Or who want their multichannel pay TV service delivered through the same box that they use for all other streaming services (e.g. Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, YouTube, Amazon, etc.)

This new streaming service that they're on the verge of launching in 3Q will just be a "new and improved" relaunch of DTV Now, regardless of the brand name that it uses. I also think there's a good chance that the very-skinny Watch TV service gets subsumed into the DTV Now service. (Hopefully they've gotten DTV Now's reliability bugs worked out because it's never been nearly as reliable as, say, YouTube TV.)



inkahauts said:


> They are on the right path. Their problem is with execution of customer service more than anything and not fighting for skinnier bundles from producers.


You hit the nail on the head when it comes to skinnier, less expensive bundles. And it's not just "cord-cutters" who want that option. Traditional pay TV subscribers, including those on satellite, would also like the option of paying less just to get the channels they really care about (along with as the option to still pay more for all the channels, if that's their preference).

I remain convinced that AT&T has been working hard recently on better deals with the cable networks. The new Plus and Max packages (available currently on both DTV Now and DTV sat) are the first fruits of those efforts, but they're still works-in-progress. I still predict that when DTV Now relaunches soon, we'll see AT&T's new fully realized channel packaging system. It will offer somewhat skinnier and more flexible bundles. Because it will be based on new contracts negotiated across all of AT&T's products, these new channel packages will be the ONLY choices on DTV Now (or AT&T TV, as I believe it will be rebranded) as well as DTV sat.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Here's an advertorial that WarnerMedia has placed on Business Insider that talks about their Xander targeted advertising platform. This is a big part of their plans for all of their streaming video services, including DTV Now/AT&T TV. Because targeted ads fetch higher prices, AT&T has stated that they see Xandr allowing them to charge somewhat lower subscription prices for their ad-supported products. So, aside from lower customer acquisition/installation costs for AT&T TV vs. DTV satellite, the use of Xander targeted ads should also be a factor driving down the price of AT&T TV relative to the same channel packages on satellite.

Advanced data sets are transforming how to do smart TV advertising


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

There's no reason they can't do exactly the same targeted ads for satellite, at least for that majority of customers who have their DVRs connected to the internet. And in fact Directv has done this for years.

This new ad platform might take it to another level, but other than people who live out in the sticks and have satellite and no broadband this isn't something that limited to streaming.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> There's no reason they can't do exactly the same targeted ads for satellite, at least for that majority of customers who have their DVRs connected to the internet.


Satellite customers do not need to be on the Internet to be targeted. All they need is a DVR. The ads are (present tense) delivered to the DVR in advance via satellite and inserted into the playback of recorded or live satellite programming. The response time for deploying an ad would be faster via streaming (since the ad doesn't need to be downloaded in advance) but targeting can be done on the fly.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> Satellite customers do not need to be on the Internet to be targeted. All they need is a DVR. The ads are (present tense) delivered to the DVR in advance via satellite and inserted into the playback of recorded or live satellite programming. The response time for deploying an ad would be faster via streaming (since the ad doesn't need to be downloaded in advance) but targeting can be done on the fly.


Yes, but they can't target satellite customers w/o internet as precisely - they could only target based on viewing habits. I assume AT&T's new thing is going to target using shopping/spending, ad clicks, and so on - any information they have or can purchase from others.

If all Xander is doing is targeting by what you watch on TV it is hardly worthy of mention by them as something that will increase ad targeting revenue.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Article with some quotes from an AT&T president about the new service. He says they may think about making it work on customer owned devices and not be tied solely to the Android TV clients. He also stated "because the acquisition cost is less, we will have the wherewithal to make it a price point that could be slightly below satellite if we choose to".

So hardly looking like the big price difference some here are suggesting/expecting. Sounds like what I've been saying all along, the only difference will be no $15/month advanced receiver fee since there's no Genie. It will be interesting to see what they do about the $7/month fees. Are they still going to charge those? Even if you provide your own equipment, which is the case with satellite today? Currently those are a huge profit center for Directv so the new service would be less profitable even with customer provided equipment. But if having those fees reduces their customer base a better profit margin across fewer customers adds up to less profit. If they cut/drop those the price difference could be significant for people who have a lot of TVs.

Sounds like they aren't totally sure what they are going to do yet, or at least aren't ready to commit to a specific course at this time, since he isn't saying for sure whether or not they will allow customer owned devices and whether or not this will be at a lower price point than satellite.

AT&T's planned DirecTV streaming service may run on third-party hardware


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

From the article above:



> As for where DirecTV Now - which has lost subscribers in past two quarters - will fit in once the new streaming DirecTV arrives, Christopher said that DirecTV Now still makes sense for certain people who don't want a full cable or satellite bundle, *are more price-conscious, and don't want contracts.*


That tells me the the new DirecTV streaming will not be cheaper (including monthly hardware fees?) than the current satellite packages and will have contracts. So as a current satellite subscriber why would I ever want to switch? For their underwhelming cloud DVR? And how many current streams will be possible on their new service?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Yes, but they can't target satellite customers w/o internet as precisely - they could only target based on viewing habits. I assume AT&T's new thing is going to target using shopping/spending, ad clicks, and so on - any information they have or can purchase from others.
> 
> If all Xander is doing is targeting by what you watch on TV it is hardly worthy of mention by them as something that will increase ad targeting revenue.


No, Xander is based on way more data than simply what one watches on a given TV and it's a considerably more ambitious platform than the targeted pre-recorded ads that have been used for years now on DTV DVRs.



slice1900 said:


> Article with some quotes from an AT&T president about the new service. He says they may think about making it work on customer owned devices and not be tied solely to the Android TV clients. He also stated "because the acquisition cost is less, we will have the wherewithal to make it a price point that could be slightly below satellite if we choose to".
> 
> So hardly looking like the big price difference some here are suggesting/expecting. Sounds like what I've been saying all along, the only difference will be no $15/month advanced receiver fee since there's no Genie. It will be interesting to see what they do about the $7/month fees. Are they still going to charge those? Even if you provide your own equipment, which is the case with satellite today? Currently those are a huge profit center for Directv so the new service would be less profitable even with customer provided equipment. But if having those fees reduces their customer base a better profit margin across fewer customers adds up to less profit. If they cut/drop those the price difference could be significant for people who have a lot of TVs.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I saw that article earlier. I tend to think that he's being purposely vague as they don't want to give away details ahead of the pending launch. It's possible that they still haven't finalized their plans but if it really is slated for a Q3 launch, as the CEO of that division stated just a couple weeks ago, I have to think that they'd be pretty close.

This new article does confirm my predictions that the new service will prominently feature the Osprey box but won't be absolutely tied to it.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> That tells me the the new DirecTV streaming will not be cheaper (including monthly hardware fees?) than the current satellite packages and will have contracts. So as a current satellite subscriber why would I ever want to switch? For their underwhelming cloud DVR? And how many current streams will be possible on their new service?


Yeah, the part of the article where he seems to be making a case for the continued existence of DTV Now vs. the upcoming streaming service is what got my attention, as I have been predicting that the new service will simply be a revamp of DTV Now, replacing it.

I tend to think that that's still true and AT&T simply isn't going to let anything slip yet to indicate that DTV Now will soon be killed/replaced. (They are still actively marketing it, after it.)

But if I'm wrong, and DTV Now will continue to exist as a separate service apart from this upcoming new streaming service, then the only thing that would make sense is to believe that the new service will offer a different set of channel packages than DTV Now: fuller, more expensive channel packages. (Beyond that, I would expect the new service might include a large cloud DVR as a standard non-add-on feature.) How else could the cost differential be justified?

But think about it: does it really make sense that AT&T is structuring _yet another_ set of channel packages? DTV and DTV Now already offer two lines of channel packages: the big traditional more expensive ones (Entertainment, Choice, Xtra, etc.) and the new skinnier, cheaper ones (Plus and Max). Could there be a new third set of packages for this new service? Or would the traditional packages stop being sold through DTV Now and only exist on DTV satellite plus this new streaming service? That would leave Plus and Max on DTV Now as well as (for whatever reason) DTV satellite too. That seems like a messy strategy but I guess I can't rule it out.

Stephenson has made repeated past statements about thinning out the content bundles and getting costs down and it sounded to me like those statements applied across the board, including plans for DTV satellite. So I still think that they're in the process of building a new thinned-down set of packages that will be sold to all new customers on whatever platform and that Plus and Max are the start of that process.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> ... the new service will offer a different set of channel packages than DTV Now: fuller, more expensive channel packages.


DIRECTV Now is already being sold at satellite package prices. "More expensive" won't fly in today's marketplace and doesn't match the "slightly below satellite" (but it does match the "if we wish" part of that statement).

AT&T could spin the satellite named packages out of DIRECTV NOW ... letting that service go back to leaner packages. Make the new "AT&T streaming service" become "premium streaming TV".


----------



## dminches (Oct 1, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> So hardly looking like the big price difference some here are suggesting/expecting. Sounds like what I've been saying all along, the only difference will be no $15/month advanced receiver fee since there's no Genie. It will be interesting to see what they do about the $7/month fees. Are they still going to charge those? Even if you provide your own equipment, which is the case with satellite today? Currently those are a huge profit center for Directv so the new service would be less profitable even with customer provided equipment. But if having those fees reduces their customer base a better profit margin across fewer customers adds up to less profit. If they cut/drop those the price difference could be significant for people who have a lot of TVs.


I would have to believe that a lot of their cost reduction will result from not having to service and maintain equipment. I obviously don't know what that looks like for them now but not having to deal with equipment issues on the same level reduces both their field force and their CSR staff size.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Will anyone want to sign up to a premium internet streaming service? Will that become a new trend? Don’t most people who sign up to internet streaming services do so because they expect them to be cheap? Unless they could entice them to sign up DTV over IP because it will be an exact copy of DTV over satelliteTV with all of its features. Except it will still use the DTV Now interface. Maybe they would like it if you could bundle DTV over IP with internet, phone or wireless and you won’t be able to with DTV Now?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Personally I wouldn’t be. Why pay for a premium streaming service and then also need some of the other streaming services to fill in the holes all of them have? It isn’t cheaper or at least not significantly so and it sure as heck isn’t easier to deal with.
So as I’ve been saying for quite awhile the only way to save money with streaming is to accept less because you pay less. And then justify/rationalize why that is such a good deal.
The problem for the providers is the shift in how, where and what people want to watch. For many of us it is cable/sat because it is comfortable and easy to use, and we are used to it. The younger folks don’t watch as much as us, they often don’t watch on TV but on their tablets/phones, and they don’t watch the same things we do. How do they feed these lesser watchers and still make the money they want to? For the providers that is the biggest question.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

CraigerM said:


> Will anyone want to sign up to a premium internet streaming service? ... Unless they could entice them to sign up DTV over IP because it will be an exact copy of DTV over satelliteTV with all of its features.


I believe you have answered the question.

At the beginning of the year, AT&T divided their services into "Premium TV" (satellite and UVerse) and "DIRECTV NOW". To me, that is saying that DIRECTV NOW is not a premium service. Perhaps that is not what they intended when they started using that term - but the AT&T execs have often referred to DIRECTV satellite as a better service for those who need a better service than streaming.

I believe that a premium TV service will appeal to those who want ONE service for all of their content. That is impossible today and will remain impossible as long as there are exclusive programs on services - but it should be possible to have a "full service" streaming service at satellite prices (or slightly less). The only way to get "everything" via streaming without paying multiple services more money than customers are already paying satellite.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

dminches said:


> I would have to believe that a lot of their cost reduction will result from not having to service and maintain equipment. I obviously don't know what that looks like for them now but not having to deal with equipment issues on the same level reduces both their field force and their CSR staff size.


The new streaming version includes Directv supplied clients (no Genie) so they aren't out of the equipment service/maintenance business. That will all be done via shipping back and forth, but that's how most of their current service goes. The only reason for a home visit is if there's something wrong with the dish, which shouldn't be too common.

Regardless, those $15/month and $7/month fees easily cover all of this. I think you may not realize what a profit center this is for Directv (and even moreso for cable companies that often charge north of $10 per receiver/DVR) A Genie costs less than $200 to make, with a life expectancy of 5 years so that's about $3/month. They charge $15 for an HS17 and $22 for a HR54 ($15 fee plus $7 fee) A client costs maybe $50 to make, so under $1/month and they charge $7.

That pays for a lot of installer visits...


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

lparsons21 said:


> Why pay for a premium streaming service and then also need some of the other streaming services to fill in the holes all of them have


And paying for high speed internet as well.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

lparsons21 said:


> ...So as I've been saying for quite awhile the only way to save money with streaming is to accept less because you pay less. And then justify/rationalize why that is such a good deal. ...
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


The "only" way?...that is a demonstrably untrue statement. Is it true for some, sure, maybe even many, but the "only" way, that would be no. All depends on what you watch. Most things simply aren't that black and white. I'm guessing for you it's a true statement but to think that it holds true for everyone seems a bit presumptuous to me, but certainly that is JMHO.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> ...Regardless, those $15/month and $7/month fees easily cover all of this. I think you may not realize what a profit center this is for Directv (and even moreso for cable companies that often charge north of $10 per receiver/DVR) A Genie costs less than $200 to make, with a life expectancy of 5 years so that's about $3/month. They charge $15 for an HS17 and $22 for a HR54 ($15 fee plus $7 fee) A client costs maybe $50 to make, so under $1/month and they charge $7...


Interesting. I tried to make this exact case about the extra fees that D was charging customers and that it was almost pure profit over two years ago right here in these forums. I was told flat out that it was simply not true and if they stopped charging all those fees they would just have to increase the package prices....LOL


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

mjwagner said:


> Interesting. I tried to make this exact case about the extra fees that D was charging customers and that it was almost pure profit over two years ago right here in these forums. I was told flat out that it was simply not true and if they stopped charging all those fees they would just have to increase the package prices....LOL


Directv making money on the fees doesn't equate to being able to drop them and still make money. If for example they made $3 billion a year in profit and the fees brought in $4 billion a year in revenue, obviously they couldn't drop the fees without increasing package prices.

Those fees are basically a way to discourage people from getting "unnecessary" receivers (i.e. for that ancient TV in the basement that almost never gets used) which they'd no doubt do if they they didn't have to pay for them. It also makes people pay more who have more money and therefore more ability to pay - since it is a reasonable assumption that people with a lot of TVs in general have bigger houses and higher incomes.

Directv/AT&T is in business to make money, not to make customers happy by giving them services at cost. If customers are willing to $100 for something, why would they want to charge $90 for it? So yeah, if they dropped the fees you can be 100% certain they'd increase the package prices. The problem is, that hits everyone equally - those with 1 TV and those with 15 TVs. They can't raise the package prices enough to make up for all that revenue from 15 TV customers, and they can't raise the prices only $7 to avoid raising the price on the 1 TV people, so they'd do something in the middle and chase away some of the 1 TV customers and make less money off the 15 TV customers. Charging per TV is a reasonable profit maximizing strategy.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

With DIRECTV NOW the answer for multiple receivers is simple. You get two streams for the base price and can buy a third stream for $5 more. You can't keep adding streams. The ancient TV in the basement can be used if one of the two or three streams serving a better TV are not currently in use (bring your own device).

If AT&T provides the boxes for the future AT&T streaming product they should charge a monthly fee. They could do the first two boxes "free" (included in the bill) but additional boxes not creating revenue is not a good idea. The physical equipment needs to be leased - or purchased outright at a price that pays for the cost of equipment. The number of simultaneous streams limit (whatever that will be with AT&T streaming) would apply regardless of how many physical boxes were leased. The recent statements opened the door for "bring your own device" for the new AT&T streaming service (it is being considered).

That brings us to two ways of charging ... one for any physical equipment used and one for the number of streams used. Both represent a cost to AT&T and both costs will be recovered, either through a per device or per stream fee or as part of the base bundled price. If it were up to me I'd set it as "price includes X# boxes and Y# streams - additional charges for additional boxes and streams" and allow any secure device to consume one of the purchased streams. Then set X# and Y# at a point that covers the average consumer - possibly four devices six streams, more likely two devices four streams. Pay more if you consume more.

One thought for the bandwidth challenged and multi-TV homes would be to have a "home server" that would buffer and store streamed content. Live content would still need to be passed through to the clients but it could also be buffered for reuse. Non-live content could be downloaded off hours when the network is not as busy. This would be similar to a satellite DVR - just fed via streaming. If OTA reception is available tuners could be added to record local stations in home instead of needing to stream live OTA. The "home server" would become the home's media server.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Directv making money on the fees doesn't equate to being able to drop them and still make money. If for example they made $3 billion a year in profit and the fees brought in $4 billion a year in revenue, obviously they couldn't drop the fees without increasing package prices.
> 
> Those fees are basically a way to discourage people from getting "unnecessary" receivers (i.e. for that ancient TV in the basement that almost never gets used) which they'd no doubt do if they they didn't have to pay for them. It also makes people pay more who have more money and therefore more ability to pay - since it is a reasonable assumption that people with a lot of TVs in general have bigger houses and higher incomes.
> 
> Directv/AT&T is in business to make money, not to make customers happy by giving them services at cost. If customers are willing to $100 for something, why would they want to charge $90 for it? So yeah, if they dropped the fees you can be 100% certain they'd increase the package prices. The problem is, that hits everyone equally - those with 1 TV and those with 15 TVs. They can't raise the package prices enough to make up for all that revenue from 15 TV customers, and they can't raise the prices only $7 to avoid raising the price on the 1 TV people, so they'd do something in the middle and chase away some of the 1 TV customers and make less money off the 15 TV customers. Charging per TV is a reasonable profit maximizing strategy.


Yeah, it's such a reasonable strategy that people are leaving in droves...LOL


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> With DIRECTV NOW the answer for multiple receivers is simple. You get two streams for the base price and can buy a third stream for $5 more. You can't keep adding streams. The ancient TV in the basement can be used if one of the two or three streams serving a better TV are not currently in use (bring your own device).
> 
> If AT&T provides the boxes for the future AT&T streaming product they should charge a monthly fee. They could do the first two boxes "free" (included in the bill) but additional boxes not creating revenue is not a good idea. The physical equipment needs to be leased - or purchased outright at a price that pays for the cost of equipment. The number of simultaneous streams limit (whatever that will be with AT&T streaming) would apply regardless of how many physical boxes were leased. The recent statements opened the door for "bring your own device" for the new AT&T streaming service (it is being considered).
> 
> ...


At least for me the max stream model is the one that works the best. We have basically three main viewing locations and then lots of occasionally used TV's. PSVue's 5 simultaneous streams works for us. I'm not interested in using any provider specific devices so a bring your own device strategy is what works for me. Others have different wants/desires/requirements so a one size fits all strategy is probably not the right approach. Of course providers like D hate the bring your own device model because it reduces provider switching friction to almost zero, they hate that...LOL.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

mjwagner said:


> Yeah, it's such a reasonable strategy that people are leaving in droves...LOL


Nobody is leaving over the $7 fees, they're leaving due to the overall bill which is going up and up driven primarily by ever increasing payments for sports rights.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> With DIRECTV NOW the answer for multiple receivers is simple. You get two streams for the base price and can buy a third stream for $5 more. You can't keep adding streams. The ancient TV in the basement can be used if one of the two or three streams serving a better TV are not currently in use (bring your own device).


Regardless of whether they have per receiver fees or per stream fees they'll probably have to add a requirement that all streams originate from the same IP, otherwise account sharing will be even easier than it is with satellite.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The current system allows a limited set of channels to be streamed outside of the home. I expect those limits will continue. "Home IP" (preferably where the AT&T provided device is installed) gets the full channel list, mobile device (including those connected to commercial/residential wi-fi) get the abbreviated list.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Nobody is leaving over the $7 fees, they're leaving due to the overall bill which is going up and up driven primarily by ever increasing payments for sports rights.


And here I want an all sports package without all the "other" channels.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Saw this article on DTV over IP and this part sounded interesting.

AT&T Not A Fan Of Subscribers Using DIRECTV Apps On Third-Party Devices

As part of the same conversation, Christopher did not completely rule out releasing an app for other hardware in the future, and these comments were also a little revealing. Christopher explained that AT&T is playing with the app idea and will make a decision closer to when the service arrives to market. More importantly, stated "_it doesn't mean we won't have an application that can run on somebody else's hardware for a second or third bedroom_."

The last part is particularly interesting as it does suggest even if an app is released for third-party devices, it won't be released as a standalone app and instead will be designed to work with the set-top box AT&T is packaging with the service.

In other words, those opting to go the DIRECTV streaming route will almost certainly have to go the set-top box route as well.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> Regardless of whether they have per receiver fees or per stream fees they'll probably have to add a requirement that all streams originate from the same IP, otherwise account sharing will be even easier than it is with satellite.


So what happens when your ISP changes your IP address? Just not watch TV?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

b4pjoe said:


> So what happens when your ISP changes your IP address? Just not watch TV?


I mean one IP address at a time, so it doesn't matter if your IP address changes, just that you couldn't have active streams at the same time from more than one IP address.

Very easy for them to track, easy for customers to understand - it would be OK to watch it on vacation or whatever just not if there also someone at home watching it. That would rule out the kind of "I'll let my kid use my account at college" kind of sharing Netflix has looked the other way on so far, and especially the "sharing with neighbors" kind of stacking that satellite has never really been able to police.

Maybe they'd allow some limited simultaneous usage on mobile devices, so you can watch something on the train ride home or whatever, but not constantly.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Nobody is leaving over the $7 fees, they're leaving due to the overall bill which is going up and up driven primarily by ever increasing payments for sports rights.


"Nobody"...doubtful. $ was pretty much the last item on my list of reasons for leaving D after well over 20 years (since before it was even DirecTV and you had to install everything yourself), but my extra fees in total were about what I pay for my entire PSVue monthly bill...


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> I mean one IP address at a time, so it doesn't matter if your IP address changes, just that you couldn't have active streams at the same time from more than one IP address.
> 
> Very easy for them to track, easy for customers to understand - it would be OK to watch it on vacation or whatever just not if there also someone at home watching it. That would rule out the kind of "I'll let my kid use my account at college" kind of sharing Netflix has looked the other way on so far, and especially the "sharing with neighbors" kind of stacking that satellite has never really been able to police.
> 
> Maybe they'd allow some limited simultaneous usage on mobile devices, so you can watch something on the train ride home or whatever, but not constantly.


That is pretty easy to defeat just by having your router setup as a VPN server and have the kids log in to the VPN and stream. The public IP address for them would be your public IP address.

If your local channels were tied to that IP address you could get different locals just by using a VPN that shows your IP to be in a different city. That is handy if you don't want to watch a local stations NFL game for instance.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

b4pjoe said:


> That is pretty easy to defeat just by having your router setup as a VPN server and have the kids log in to the VPN and stream. The public IP address for them would be your public IP address.
> 
> If your local channels were tied to that IP address you could get different locals just by using a VPN that shows your IP to be in a different city. That is handy if you don't want to watch a local stations NFL game for instance.


Most of the OTT providers have become pretty good at detecting if any VPN is being used and the app simply won't connect or run. And it doesn't matter if you are running the VPN on the streaming device itself or on the router.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

b4pjoe said:


> That is pretty easy to defeat just by having your router setup as a VPN server and have the kids log in to the VPN and stream. The public IP address for them would be your public IP address.
> 
> If your local channels were tied to that IP address you could get different locals just by using a VPN that shows your IP to be in a different city. That is handy if you don't want to watch a local stations NFL game for instance.


While that's true that's something about 1-2% of people would be able to set up, so it wouldn't be a big loss for them. There are similar corner cases they don't police now for example people bringing DVRs to their vacation home or with them in their RV. I doubt many Directv customers realize they could set up another dish elsewhere and their receiver will work.

It wouldn't be that hard for Directv to have them record the serial number of the SWM they are connected to and send that information to home base whenever they are connected to the internet so they'd know when it is happening and could crack down on it if they wanted to be take a hard line on TOS violations.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

I think one of the major aspects of streaming that is for the most part left out of the discussion is what is it that most potential customers expect to get with any streaming service.

For me it comes down to a few things that the top two already offer.

A low price

Episodes that I am able to binge watch, not only old stuff but also new season dumps.

Original Content.

Commercial free viewing.

For me personally Directv Now does not check off enough of those boxes.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Which reinforces how clueless these guys are to the sea change going on right under their noses. They just don't get it.



CraigerM said:


> Saw this article on DTV over IP and this part sounded interesting.
> 
> AT&T Not A Fan Of Subscribers Using DIRECTV Apps On Third-Party Devices
> 
> ...


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

raott said:


> Which reinforces how clueless these guys are to the sea change going on right under their noses. They just don't get it.


LOL, I think "clueless" is being generous.


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

It has become clear that the latest iteration of Directv with a dedicated device is strictly to migrate their satellite customers. This platform maximizes the friction to move to another OTT provider. One wonders if AT&T is looking to end all discounts. If they continue them on satellite but not on the new streaming platform there is no incentive to move off satellite. Not sure what percentage of satellite customers pay full price. Even if they were able to move over a large chunk of this group it remains to be seen how long it would take these customers to move to an OTT provider with more attractive pricing that does not involve renting devices.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

TV_Guy said:


> It has become clear that the latest iteration of Directv with a dedicated device is strictly to migrate their satellite customers. This platform maximizes the friction to move to another OTT provider. One wonders if AT&T is looking to end all discounts. If they continue them on satellite but not on the new streaming platform there is no incentive to move off satellite. Not sure what percentage of satellite customers pay full price. Even if they were able to move over a large chunk of this group it remains to be seen how long it would take these customers to move to an OTT provider with more attractive pricing that does not involve renting devices.


There is no incentive for AT&T to want to move customers off satellite. Why do people think they want to do this? It costs them money and gives them nothing in return.

They'll let customers who want to switch do so, but have no reason to lift a finger to help their customers switch.


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> There is no incentive for AT&T to want to move customers off satellite. Why do people think they want to do this? It costs them money and gives them nothing in return.
> 
> They'll let customers who want to switch do so, but have no reason to lift a finger to help their customers switch.


People move and it costs money to install satellite at their new location. Also when people want equipment upgrades truck rolls cost money. Not realistic to think that satellite customers will keep existing equipment indefinitely.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

TV_Guy said:


> People move and it costs money to install satellite at their new location. Also when people want equipment upgrades truck rolls cost money. Not realistic to think that satellite customers will keep existing equipment indefinitely.


Who says they have to offer free moves? You don't get that with cable, why should people expect it with satellite? At any rate, that's not a reason to encourage people to switch other than at the time they move.

If you get new equipment they ship it you, they don't roll a truck unless you are adding a new location and they need to run wire. Again, they don't have to do that for free since again you don't get new locations added include installing coax for free from any cable company so why should people expect it with satellite?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DIRECTV satellite does not have to offer their Movers Deal ... but a truck roll is worth the price of an extended commitment and retaining customers. (OrbyTV is sending Mastek installers out with dishes and cabling for $65 more than the same dish shipped for self install. Assuming DIRECTV's dishes are much more expensive to buy and install, DIRECTV is still getting a commitment for their investment. With enough of an ETF attached to cover the Movers Deal expense.)

XFinity offers deals for movers - with the same caveats as DIRECTV and DISH (neither satellite company guarantees 100% free moves).


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> DIRECTV satellite does not have to offer their Movers Deal ... but a truck roll is worth the price of an extended commitment and retaining customers. (OrbyTV is sending Mastek installers out with dishes and cabling for $65 more than the same dish shipped for self install. Assuming DIRECTV's dishes are much more expensive to buy and install, DIRECTV is still getting a commitment for their investment. With enough of an ETF attached to cover the Movers Deal expense.)
> 
> XFinity offers deals for movers - with the same caveats as DIRECTV and DISH (neither satellite company guarantees 100% free moves).


There are a lot of options for how AT&T can get their money back for the truck roll required for satellite, so I think we could see different contract lengths for satellite and for the IP version of Directv. Or maybe a choice with satellite - if you want a free install you have to commit to 24 months, but if you pay for the install you can get a shorter commitment.


----------



## tivofan2018 (Oct 19, 2018)

dtv is really trying to push there streaming crap and that's what it is crap. now what about people out in the sticks that can only get sat internets or people that have data caps with there providers??? 5G is awsome but it wont be out fully for like another 5 years id'e say. then again 5G won't work for every one either.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> There is no incentive for AT&T to want to move customers off satellite. Why do people think they want to do this?


Because some of us suspect that AT&T may want to spin off/sell off their satellite TV business in a few years and, before that time, transfer as many customers as possible over to their new platform(s).

Beyond that, I think AT&T looks at the number of customers dumping DTV satellite each quarter -- numbers that are significantly worse, relatively speaking, than those reported by major cable TV/broadband providers like Comcast, Charter, Verizon, Cox, etc. -- and sees that they need to provide a more attractive TV platform for at least some of those satellite TV customers to willingly migrate to.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The customers are the most valuable part of the satellite service. "Transferring customers" is more of catching people who are falling away. In about a month we'll get another update on how well that is going.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Because some of us suspect that AT&T may want to spin off/sell off their satellite TV business in a few years and, before that time, transfer as many customers as possible over to their new platform(s).
> 
> Beyond that, I think AT&T looks at the number of customers dumping DTV satellite each quarter -- numbers that are significantly worse, relatively speaking, than those reported by major cable TV/broadband providers like Comcast, Charter, Verizon, Cox, etc. -- and sees that they need to provide a more attractive TV platform for at least some of those satellite TV customers to willingly migrate to.


If the satellite customers WANT to migrate to it that's fine. Though I question why you think it would be "more attractive". It is basically going to be the same service, just with different delivery. The only major difference is cloud DVR vs Genie. Probably you'll be able to save $15/month on that, which isn't nothing but the cloud DVR will no doubt have limitations vs having your own DVR.

Like James says the customers are what makes it worth money - they are why it generates several billion dollars a year in profit. If most of those customers leave for the IP version and AT&T wants to sell the satellite business after there are so few customers it doesn't break even then its value will be zero. So what exactly would an expensive effort to convert satellite customers to IP accomplish if in the end they put Directv on the block and no one is willing to buy it?


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

I've been with D* for 24 years, and I'll migrate to the new streamed service once I see a stable environment and a cloud based DVR working as it should. I'm thinking about a year from now.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> If the satellite customers WANT to migrate to it that's fine. Though I question why you think it would be "more attractive". It is basically going to be the same service, just with different delivery. The only major difference is cloud DVR vs Genie. Probably you'll be able to save $15/month on that, which isn't nothing but the cloud DVR will no doubt have limitations vs having your own DVR.


The streaming Osprey-based service will be more attractive to many because of its lower pricing and its better/more modern set-top box. The Genie doesn't offer apps for Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Hulu, YouTube or any of the many other popular sources of entertainment that constitute an increasing share of Americans' viewing hours (even among those who have a traditional cable TV package). The Genie also doesn't have a robust voice search and control feature like Google Assistant. And the Genie also sports a UI which looks increasingly like something from the past for folks who have gotten used to smartphones, Apple TVs, Rokus, etc. In all those regards, the Osprey will be more attractive.

Now, OTOH, you may be right that this upcoming service's cloud DVR will in some ways be inferior to a traditional Genie DVR. If that's true, I expect it will be in terms of a lesser amount of storage space and whether there's an auto-expiration date on recordings. But I don't foresee there being any restrictions on playback of recordings. AT&T has branded the DirecTV Now cloud DVR as "True Cloud DVR" to underscore the idea that, unlike their competitors, they don't have rules about which cable channels can be recorded or whether or not you can FF through ads. In that way, it acts like a "true DVR".

If, as I expect, this new service effectively replaces DTV Now (while also serving as a "premium-enough" platform for satellite and Uverse TV customers to migrate to), I would expect it to continue offering DTV Now's same 20-hour cloud DVR as part of the base price, with the option to expand storage for an additional fee. But if DTV Now is going to continue to exist and this new service is intended to be a direct replica of the satellite service, only delivered over the internet, then I would expect a capacious cloud DVR to be non-optionally included in the base price.



slice1900 said:


> Like James says the customers are what makes it worth money - they are why it generates several billion dollars a year in profit. If most of those customers leave for the IP version and AT&T wants to sell the satellite business after there are so few customers it doesn't break even then its value will be zero. So what exactly would an expensive effort to convert satellite customers to IP accomplish if in the end they put Directv on the block and no one is willing to buy it?


Well, yeah, if there are fewer subs on DTV at some future point when its sold, then that business will sell for less money. But if AT&T had been successful at that point in migrating many subs over to a new platform with a longer-term future, then they would have increased their lifetime revenue per sub.

I think AT&T understands that in the next few years, a TON of DTV subscribers -- those with options -- will continue to leave it anyway. So AT&T needs to try to migrate them over to one of their streaming products, either the upcoming "HBO Max" SVOD ($16-17) or the upcoming streaming cable TV service (which will have HBO Max built-in). The idea is "Let's cannibalize our own subscriber base before it gets further eaten up by all of our competitors, including Comcast, Charter, Verizon, Netflix, Disney and Amazon."


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> The streaming Osprey-based service will be more attractive to many *because of its lower pricing*....


I will believe that when I see it.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> The streaming Osprey-based service will be more attractive to many because of its lower pricing and its better/more modern set-top box.


The recent comments by the AT&T guy suggests there may not be any price difference. Who knows, maybe they will even exchange the $15 advanced receiver fee for a cloud DVR fee!

Nothing stops Directv from using the same set top for satellite, and in fact I expect they will eventually do so. The only advantage it has over older clients is the streaming apps but people who are already streaming will already have some way to do so. It is nicer to have it all in one device but no one is going to switch from satellite to IP for that alone - such switching is much more likely if it costs less and Directv won't price match satellite.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> I will believe that when I see it.


I agree. So far there has been a hint of "slightly lower" but not drastically lower. I doubt that the difference in price will cover the difference in data usage when people realize that they need better Internet to stream all of their content. And the "slightly lower" could be canceled if AT&T doesn't offer the drastic $55-$60 off deals that they offer satellite customers.

Retaining customers is a challenge. "Transferring customers" or "migrating customers" is not something AT&T can do. Customers not under contract are not the possession of AT&T! When customers leave (the correct term) AT&T|DIRECTV and sign up for DirecTV Now they become the worst kind of customer for AT&T - people without a commitment. Customers who could leave at the end of the month (and based on DirecTV Now's numbers, that is a BIG problem). It would be interesting to see how many of AT&T's customers were under commitment and how many could leave without penalty. The best AT&T can do is hope that their streaming service is attractive enough that people who leave AT&T|DIRECTV satellite will subscribe to their other services.

Satellite customers are only possessions until the end of their commitment. Streaming customers are only committed until the end of the month. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which customers are most valuable. Sticky ones!


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> I will believe that when I see it.





James Long said:


> I agree. So far there has been a hint of "slightly lower" but not drastically lower. I doubt that the difference in price will cover the difference in data usage when people realize that they need better Internet to stream all of their content. And the "slightly lower" could be canceled if AT&T doesn't offer the drastic $55-$60 off deals that they offer satellite customers.


Well, to be honest, communication from AT&T leadership has been all over the place with regard to how the pricing will differ between the forthcoming streaming service and DTV satellite. Yes, the latest word is that it "could be slightly below satellite" pricing. But on the last quarterly earnings call (Apr. 24, 2019), AT&T's CEO stated the following (emphasis mine):

_And so, I think what you should expect is as we work through the year, we will continue to see declines in traditional TV subs, particularly those areas where we can't bundle with broadband, but as we get into the second half of the year, *we roll out our thin client video product. There will be a much lower price product in the marketplace*. What I think you'll see is subscriber losses should lessen as we get into 2020.
_​So the CEO said the streaming service would offer a "much lower" price versus alternative products. And some months back (don't remember when or where), there were some actual hypothetical prices thrown out by AT&T bigwigs which seemed to indicate that the average price paid might be (IIRC) something like $25 less on the streaming product than on satellite. Is that "much lower"? I don't know. But it's fairly significant. The message we've always gotten, at least up until the latest comments by David Christopher (president of AT&T Mobility & Entertainment), is that the streaming service will cost appreciably less than satellite. Here's Christopher's recent quote:

_We think it will be a very attractive product, a premium product, but because the acquisition cost is less, we will have the wherewithal to make it a price point that could be slightly below satellite if we choose to._​
As far as those drastic $55-60 off deals that have historically been offered to satellite customers, I think that is coming to an end. Note that their only direct competitor, DISH, does not do that any more. And AT&T has spoken repeatedly about shedding those low ARPU DTV subs who get continual price breaks. So I think both DTV satellite and the new streaming service will have price structures that tend toward regular everyday pricing, but with the prices somewhat less on the streaming service.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Satellite customers are only possessions until the end of their commitment. Streaming customers are only committed until the end of the month. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which customers are most valuable. Sticky ones!


It also doesn't take a genius to realize that people with options are no longer tying themselves to an expensive TV service under a 2-year contract. Sure, that contract helps keep current DTV customers in the fold for awhile but it repels new ones from entering.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> Here's Christopher's recent quote:
> 
> _We think it will be a very attractive product, a premium product, but because the acquisition cost is less, we will have the wherewithal to make it a price point that could be slightly below satellite if we choose to._​




The key words in that quote are "if we choose to". And I don't think they will choose too. Myself, why would I switch from satellite to their IP service if the price is not significantly cheaper? Short answer...I won't.​


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> So I think both DTV satellite and the new streaming service will have price structures that tend toward regular everyday pricing, but with the prices somewhat less on the streaming service.


I agree with the idea that they will have lower 'everyday' pricing in exchange for mostly doing away with discounting. Might be a good thing to slide in under new package names, so they don't HAVE to give discounts to people who aren't asking for them - but if/when they do they can say "we can switch you to this package which is very similar but costs less".


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> I agree with the idea that they will have lower 'everyday' pricing in exchange for mostly doing away with discounting. Might be a good thing to slide in under new package names, so they don't HAVE to give discounts to people who aren't asking for them - but if/when they do they can say "we can switch you to this package which is very similar but costs less".


Yes. Although I don't think the new packages will be "very similar" to the existing ones. I don't think we're going to see six new packages that are offered on both DTV satellite and the upcoming streaming service, with each new package closely approximating one of the existing six packages: Select, Entertainment, Choice, Xtra, Ultimate and Premier.

Instead, I think we're going to see a smaller line-up of packages (i.e. fewer choices) that are a bit slimmed down, reorganized, and which benefit cost-wise from the latest round of carriage contracts with AT&T has struck with the cable network groups.

But, yes, when existing DTV satellite subscribers call up and ask for a discount on their Choice package, they'll be given two options: stick with their Choice package at the regular price with no discount or switch over to the closest corresponding package among the new set of options that are offered to new customers. If they have home broadband, they'll be able to get that package overall for a little less by switching to the new streaming service. Or they can instead get that package on their current DTV satellite system and save a bit vs. what they currently pay for Choice (but maybe lose a few channels too).


----------



## tivofan2018 (Oct 19, 2018)

NashGuy said:


> Yes. Although I don't think the new packages will be "very similar" to the existing ones. I don't think we're going to see six new packages that are offered on both DTV satellite and the upcoming streaming service, with each new package closely approximating one of the existing six packages: Select, Entertainment, Choice, Xtra, Ultimate and Premier.
> 
> Instead, I think we're going to see a smaller line-up of packages (i.e. fewer choices) that are a bit slimmed down, reorganized, and which benefit cost-wise from the latest round of carriage contracts with AT&T has struck with the cable network groups.
> 
> But, yes, when existing DTV satellite subscribers call up and ask for a discount on their Choice package, they'll be given two options: stick with their Choice package at the regular price with no discount or switch over to the closest corresponding package among the new set of options that are offered to new customers. If they have home broadband, they'll be able to get that package overall for a little less by switching to the new streaming service. Or they can instead get that package on their current DTV satellite system and save a bit vs. what they currently pay for Choice (but maybe lose a few channels too).


i would like to see a package to where i can pick and choose what i want to watch i don't need 300 home shopping networks lol. but we know what would happen with that idea the content providers would really crank up the rates or you would have to buy all of there channels!!!


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

tivofan2018 said:


> i would like to see a package to where i can pick and choose what i want to watch i don't need 300 home shopping networks lol. but we know what would happen with that idea the content providers would really crank up the rates or you would have to buy all of there channels!!!


The shopping channels actually PAY cable/satellite providers to be carried. If they were removed your price would go UP! Same for the religious channels.

There will never be a provider where you can pick and choose individual channels. Most people will want the most expensive channels, like their locals or sports channels, and aren't going to pick stuff that costs very little like MTV2 so if they priced it "per channel" you'd be paying so much per channel you couldn't save anything if you chose more than 10.

Not to mention that networks don't sell channels individually like that, the providers' contracts won't allow them to sell ala carte.


----------



## tivofan2018 (Oct 19, 2018)

slice1900 said:


> The shopping channels actually PAY cable/satellite providers to be carried. If they were removed your price would go UP! Same for the religious channels.
> 
> There will never be a package where you can pick and choose individual channels. Most people will want the most expensive channels, like their locals or sports channels, and aren't going to pick stuff that costs very little like MTV2 so if they priced it "per channel" you'd be paying so much per channel you couldn't save anything if you chose more than 10.


i AGREE!!!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Well, to be honest, ...


When you write that it sounds like you're trying to call others dishonest. Not a good thing.


NashGuy said:


> As far as those drastic $55-60 off deals that have historically been offered to satellite customers, I think that is coming to an end. Note that their only direct competitor, DISH, does not do that any more.


"To be honest", DISH is notorious for NOT offering huge monthly discounts to their customers. $10-$20 off for new subscribers, a few months of premium services. Nothing major. Until recent years it has been an annoyance for DISH customers who reached the end of their commitment and found themselves without a discount. In recent years DISH has allowed customers to recommit and get a price lock - which has helped retain customers.



NashGuy said:


> It also doesn't take a genius to realize that people with options are no longer tying themselves to an expensive TV service under a 2-year contract. Sure, that contract helps keep current DTV customers in the fold for awhile but it repels new ones from entering.


And yet there is a thread full of loyal DIRECTV satellite customers who are willing to make a commitment for a discount. And several threads where DIRECTV customers are willing to make a commitment for new equipment. Is it your claim that none of those people had any options? If so, you probably should go back and read those threads.

People with options ARE choosing to commit to DIRECTV.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> When you write that it sounds like you're trying to call others dishonest. Not a good thing.


Not my intention at all. Your statement here is, IMO, a weird interpretation/reaction to what I wrote which says more about you than it does about me.



James Long said:


> "To be honest", DISH is notorious for NOT offering huge monthly discounts to their customers. $10-$20 off for new subscribers, a few months of premium services. Nothing major. Until recent years it has been an annoyance for DISH customers who reached the end of their commitment and found themselves without a discount. In recent years DISH has allowed customers to recommit and get a price lock - which has helped retain customers.


Go check out what DISH is offering new subscribers who sign up via their website. No discounts, not even $10-20 off, on the regular monthly price. Only thing you get is a price lock for the duration of your 2-year contract, plus three months of free premiums (not including HBO or Cinemax, which isn't available at all) and a free Google Home Mini.



James Long said:


> And yet there is a thread full of loyal DIRECTV satellite customers who are willing to make a commitment for a discount. And several threads where DIRECTV customers are willing to make a commitment for new equipment. Is it your claim that none of those people had any options? If so, you probably should go back and read those threads.
> 
> People with options ARE choosing to commit to DIRECTV.


You're citing a small pool of anecdotal evidence from a website biased in favor of pro-DTV opinion. Maybe take a look at the actual subscriber numbers that AT&T has been reporting for DTV over the past few years. Pretty dismal.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Go check out what DISH is offering new subscribers who sign up via their website. No discounts, not even $10-20 off, on the regular monthly price.


$59.99 for AT120, $69.99 for AT120+, $79.99 for AT200, $89.99 for AT250 when I pull up dish.com. Which is $20 off AT120 and $15 off the remaining packages (with the discount lasting the full two year commitment). "No Discount?"


NashGuy said:


> Maybe take a look at the actual subscriber numbers that AT&T has been reporting for DTV over the past few years. Pretty dismal.


I believe you're having trouble reading those numbers too. But "dismal" is an opinion and if you feel that DIRECTV's retention rates are "dismal" you can have that opinion. It certainly isn't at the level where people with options are not staying with DIRECTV.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> $59.99 for AT120, $69.99 for AT120+, $79.99 for AT200, $89.99 for AT250 when I pull up dish.com. Which is $20 off AT120 and $15 off the remaining packages (with the discount lasting the full two year commitment). "No Discount?"


If the numbers you're stating are right, then I stand corrected. Nothing on the homepage or the sign-up process at Dish.com indicated to me that the stated package prices were discounted. Only that the stated prices are for the full 24-month contract term and locked against any regular annual price increases.

So what you're saying is that, unlike DTV, who heavily discounts packages for the first 12 months before going to the regular price the following 12 months, DISH somewhat discounts packages for the full 24 months of the contract, and then as soon as the customer becomes a free agent, they hit them with a $15-20 price increase (plus however much more that the regular prices had gone up over those 24 months). Seems like an odd strategy to go to full pricing right at the same time that the customer can choose to leave. You mention that customers at that point can "recommit and get a price lock". How does that work? How long is the commitment and what price is being locked in? I would guess it's the then-current regular price, yes?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Renewal offers depend on the customer. What DISH has done with their two year price lock is end the practice of giving a discount for only half of the commitment. Take no action after two years and the customer ends up with the then current pricing (which would be a $25 jump at the end of two years for most customers - end the $15 discount and add two annual $5 price increases the customer delayed).

Whether customers prefer $30 off for a year then no discount or $15 off for two years is a good question. For some, the $30 jump after one year is enough for them to start asking "how much is my ETF"? Others may prefer a deeper discount the first year (with the hope that they can negotiate a good price for the second year later).


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

So, will this new streaming box allow the viewer to step outside D* world and access things like Netflix and Amazon?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

TDK1044 said:


> So, will this new streaming box allow the viewer to step outside D* world and access things like Netflix and Amazon?


Yes. Just go to the "Apps" menu on AT&T's home screen (same place you go to access the grid guide, your DVR recordings, etc.). Current beta testers of the box report that it comes with the Netflix app pre-installed (along with various Google and AT&T-owned apps like YouTube and Boomerang). To get apps like Amazon Prime Video, Hulu, CBS All Access, ESPN and lots of others for Android TV, you'll have to go into the Google Play Store (also pre-installed on the box) and download them and install them yourself. The box supports 4K HDR and users report that feature works in the Netflix app. Amazon hasn't quite yet released their app for Android TV in the Google Play Store but they recently promised that it's coming soon and it will also support 4K HDR. Hulu for Android TV is already in the Google Play Store but it only supports regular on-demand Hulu (either with or without ads); it doesn't support the Live TV add-on, although Google says they're trying to get Hulu to support that.

If you subscribe to premium channels like HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Starz or Epix through AT&T, those libraries will show up in the VOD section of AT&T's own user interface, so you won't have to use the separate Android TV app (e.g. HBO Go) unless you just want to.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

Great. Thanks for the response.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

In case you didn't see the news yesterday, internal screenshots have leaked out from inside AT&T confirming that their new premium, thin-client streaming cable TV service will be called AT&T TV, just as I figured. It'll soft launch in 9 markets in August with a nationwide launch in 4Q. Looks like at least some customers on AT&T Fiber or AT&T Internet home broadband service MAY be served some or all of their linear channels via multicast IPTV (same streams used for Uverse TV?), with everything else (cloud DVR, VOD) being unicast OTT streams. And of course anyone not on AT&T broadband will be served 100% by unicast OTT, just as has always been the cast with DTV Now.

Per the info in the leaked screenshots, when AT&T TV launches in a given area, new sales and installations of Uverse TV will immediately cease there (also as I had predicted).

Here's a link to the story at Cord Cutter News. (I gave him the tip-off for the story yesterday and he quickly got it up.) EDIT: I should note that user CraigerM tipped me off on the leaked screenshots, I didn't find them myself. He's more on top of some of this stuff than I am!

AT&T's New DIRECTV Streaming Service Will Reportedly Be Called AT&T TV & Will Soft Launch in August 2019 - Cord Cutters News

What the channel packages, feature set and pricing for AT&T TV will look like are still open questions. I've made my predictions, of course, but we'll have to wait until next month to see what the reality is.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Quote from that article:



> This new service would be separate from DIRECTV NOW and was *being built to replace DIRECTV. AT&T reportedly wants to try to move over DIRECTV customers to a cheaper streaming version to help save AT&T money*.


So as predicted, cheaper for AT&T to help them save money...not necessarily cheaper for the customer.

So what is the difference between multicast IPTV and unicast OTT because AT&T internet is not available at all where I am at?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ALWAYS look for sources! "reportedly" isn't a source.

At best the "evidence" presented supports moving UVERSE customers to the new service (turning off sales, not discontinuing providing UVERSE service).
Otherwise, the scenarios presented show what happens if a customer CHOOSES to buy AT&T TV. No forced migration of current customers.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> Quote from that article:
> 
> So as predicted, cheaper for AT&T to help them save money...not necessarily cheaper for the customer.


Well, multiple comments from the AT&T CEO and other top brass over the past year have indicated that they plan to price this AT&T TV service cheaper overall than they do DirecTV satellite. In fact, I expect that both services will offer the same set of newly revamped channel packages (taking advantage of AT&T's latest round of renegotiated contracts) but that the pricing will be $20-30 per month higher for satellite than on AT&T TV for the same set of channels. (But satellite will offer a better DVR and upgrading the cloud DVR on AT&T TV will cost a little extra each month.)

I've posted *very* detailed predictions of where this is all going on this and other sites. I could be completely off base, we'll see. It's all just a fun internet parlor game pass-time for me.



b4pjoe said:


> So what is the difference between multicast IPTV and unicast OTT because AT&T internet is not available at all where I am at?


OK, you know how when you stream anything on Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, or any other popular app or website? That's all unicast over-the-top streams. "Unicast" means that the stream you're accessing is being sent JUST to you. It's one-to-one, hence the "uni-" prefix. No one else is getting that stream, even if they happen to be watching the same thing at the same time. "Over-the-top" means that the stream travels out over the open internet rather than staying only on one company's own internal network, where they can give the stream special treatment.

"Multicast" means that the stream is one-to-many, hence the "multi-" prefix. Obviously, multicast streams only make sense for stuff that lots of people would happen to be watching all at the very same time, such as live linear channels, like your local NBC station, or ESPN, or CNN. Why use multicast? Well, imagine if you and a million of your closest friends in your area were all watching the same football game on ESPN. What would happen if you all were watching that live event with each of you getting your very own separate unicast stream? That would require a TON of bandwidth on the local broadband providers' networks. And it would be QUITE taxing on ESPN's servers. But a multicast stream can be simultaneously viewed by up to a million different viewers on the same broadband network. A single multicast stream does take up more bandwidth/network resources than a single unicast stream but not one thousand, much less one million, times as much. And multicast streams tend to be more reliable, with faster acquisition and less buffering, than unicast streams.

The problem with multicast streaming, though, is that it can't be done "over-the-top". It must be done on each individual broadband operator's own network. They have to choose to implement it. And besides that, either the viewing device (TV set-top box, mobile app, etc.) OR the in-home modem/router gateway MUST understand how to access that operator's implementation of multicast. It's not really an industry-wide standard the way unicast streams are. The ability to implement multicast streams is one of the biggest differentiators of IPTV (internet protocol television, like Uverse TV) versus OTT TV (like DirecTV Now).


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> ALWAYS look for sources! "reportedly" isn't a source.
> 
> At best the "evidence" presented supports moving UVERSE customers to the new service (turning off sales, not discontinuing providing UVERSE service).
> Otherwise, the scenarios presented show what happens if a customer CHOOSES to buy AT&T TV. No forced migration of current customers.


Not sure where you got "forced migration" of Uverse TV customers. Certainly not from me. No, Uverse TV will continue to operate for a good while for EXISTING customers. But once AT&T TV launches, no NEW customers will be allowed to sign up.

Heck, my AT&T broadband installer told me that in March 2018 when he was at my house. I casually asked what was happening with Uverse TV (which I didn't sign up for). "Oh," he said, "we're gonna stop doing new installs of that later this year." Of course, at that point in time, AT&T's CEO was saying that AT&T TV was going to launch in fall 2018. So my installer's understanding was correct based on AT&T's planned timeline then. The AT&T TV launch has gotten pushed back almost a year later than originally planned. But it's almost here now.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> ALWAYS look for sources! "reportedly" isn't a source.
> 
> At best the "evidence" presented supports moving UVERSE customers to the new service (turning off sales, not discontinuing providing UVERSE service).
> Otherwise, the scenarios presented show what happens if a customer CHOOSES to buy AT&T TV. No forced migration of current customers.


I don't think there will be forced migrations but I can see them trying to get you to switch if you have issues with any of your satellite equipment. And I think they would also try to get new subscribers to do the streaming option instead of satellite.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> I don't think there will be forced migrations but I can see them trying to get you to switch if you have issues with any of your satellite equipment. And I think they would also try to get new subscribers to do the streaming option instead of satellite.


Streaming will need to be profitable before they push people away from satellite.


----------



## BigRedFan (Mar 28, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> In case you didn't see the news yesterday, internal screenshots have leaked out from inside AT&T confirming that their new premium, thin-client streaming cable TV service will be called AT&T TV, just as I figured. It'll soft launch in 9 markets in August with a nationwide launch in 4Q. Looks like at least some customers on AT&T Fiber or AT&T Internet home broadband service MAY be served some or all of their linear channels via multicast IPTV (same streams used for Uverse TV?), with everything else (cloud DVR, VOD) being unicast OTT streams. And of course anyone not on AT&T broadband will be served 100% by unicast OTT, just as has always been the cast with DTV Now.
> 
> Per the info in the leaked screenshots, when AT&T TV launches in a given area, new sales and installations of Uverse TV will immediately cease there (also as I had predicted).
> 
> ...


Do we know yet whether the new streaming box will support DirecTV's 4K channels 104-108 ? Or will satellite continue to be the only place to see the 4K channels ?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

BigRedFan said:


> Do we know yet whether the new streaming box will support DirecTV's 4K channels 104-108 ? Or will satellite continue to be the only place to see the 4K channels ?


Better phrase would be will the new service offer it


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> In case you didn't see the news yesterday, internal screenshots have leaked out from inside AT&T confirming that their new premium, thin-client streaming cable TV service will be called AT&T TV, just as I figured. It'll soft launch in 9 markets in August with a nationwide launch in 4Q. Looks like at least some customers on AT&T Fiber or AT&T Internet home broadband service MAY be served some or all of their linear channels via multicast IPTV (same streams used for Uverse TV?), with everything else (cloud DVR, VOD) being unicast OTT streams. And of course anyone not on AT&T broadband will be served 100% by unicast OTT, just as has always been the cast with DTV Now.
> 
> Per the info in the leaked screenshots, when AT&T TV launches in a given area, new sales and installations of Uverse TV will immediately cease there (also as I had predicted).
> 
> ...


Anything on that site I take with a grain of salt. It is a complete Click Bait site and has been at the forefront of rumors with this new service and been wrong almost 100% of the time


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

One would think 4k would be offered with new service . I would assume 4k is easier to deliver via internet . It would just depend on customers broadband connection 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> Anything on that site I take with a grain of salt. It is a complete Click Bait site and has been at the forefront of rumors with this new service and been wrong almost 100% of the time


You don't even need to read the article, per se. Just read the info in the screenshots that were posted by an AT&T employee over at TheLayoff.com. Those screenshots (which Cord Cutter News reposted in their write-up) are the basis for the story, along with the fact that the info in the screenshots largely confirm/comport with everything that we've been hearing publicly from AT&T leaders for months and months now.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

BigRedFan said:


> Do we know yet whether the new streaming box will support DirecTV's 4K channels 104-108 ? Or will satellite continue to be the only place to see the 4K channels ?


The AT&T TV box (the C71) definitely does support 4K. And it supports two HDR formats: HDR10 and HLG. (It does NOT support Dolby Vision.) Folks beta testing this box report that they're already able to watch Netflix content in 4K HDR on it.

I think AT&T's CEO may have made one stray remark a year or so ago about how he envisioned their future streaming service ultimately offering 4K content, as well as pretty much everything else offered by DTV satellite (including all the channels, pay-per-view, NFL Sunday Ticket, etc.). But beyond that, I'm not aware of any indication that AT&T TV will definitely offer the same 4K content that is offered on DTV satellite. My *guess* is that it absolutely will. Why wouldn't it, if the box supports it and AT&T TV will be positioned as their new premium flagship TV service?

One bad thing about this box with regard to HDR, though: it seems to auto-sense if the connected TV supports HDR and, if it does, it forces everything it outputs to be HDR, whether or not that's the native format of the content. Of course, the vast majority of content on cable channels is regular SDR, not HDR, and many viewers don't like the look of SDR that has been forced into "fake HDR". The Apple TV 4K box also worked like this when it first came out but then Apple implemented a setting where users could turn on "Dynamic Range Matching," allowing SDR stuff to display as SDR and HDR stuff to display as HDR. Such an option doesn't exist yet on AT&T's box and it could be because it's a system-level issue controlled by Google's Android TV operating system, which the box runs on. If that's the case, fixing this issue may be out of AT&T's hands.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> You don't even need to read the article, per se. Just read the info in the screenshots that were posted by an AT&T employee over at TheLayoff.com. Those screenshots (which Cord Cutter News reposted in their write-up) are the basis for the story, along with the fact that the info in the screenshots largely confirm/comport with everything that we've been hearing publicly from AT&T leaders for months and months now.


The trouble comes when the hundreds of words of speculation are not backed up by the "evidence" presented. The fact is today is July 6th ... but it would be dishonest to take that fact (today's date) and try to say "the date is a fact so everything else I say is a fact". Knowing the difference between fact and speculation is important.

And if you read the Cord Cutters article they make that clear: "For now, these are rumors, but they are lining up with what we are hearing about AT&T's future plans for their TV services." It is to easy to ignore the fact that most of what we "know" is rumors and speculation. Read "AT&T reportedly wants to try to move over DIRECTV customers to a cheaper streaming version to help save AT&T money." at the top of the article and never make it to the bottom of the article.

Take a step back ... see what is actually known (with some legitimate source) vs speculation that happens to fit one's personal theory. It happens all of the time in the political world ... don't let rumor override the facts presented. Cord Cutters included the acknowledgement of rumor in their report. Don't ignore it.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> Streaming will need to be profitable before they push people away from satellite.


What better way to make it profitable than coaxing as many of their 20 million satellite subscribers as possible to switch?


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

This is such a **** show, why buy a sat company and then do this to it? I get this is where many in the country are headed but not all. Just still seems like a confused, sad state of affairs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> You don't even need to read the article, per se. Just read the info in the screenshots that were posted by an AT&T employee over at TheLayoff.com. Those screenshots (which Cord Cutter News reposted in their write-up) are the basis for the story, along with the fact that the info in the screenshots largely confirm/comport with everything that we've been hearing publicly from AT&T leaders for months and months now.


So while we are on the subject of yet another questionable website, there is another one i would take with a grain of salt There are no dates on those screenshots... they could be months old and things have changed they also could have been done as some internal demo's and never adopted. The layoffs website which seems filled with disgruntled ex employees also posted a bunch of crap while back about no more Sat's being launched and everyone being fired at two of there uplink stations which was all a load of crap.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

fireponcoal said:


> This is such a **** show, why buy a sat company and then do this to it? I get this is where many in the country are headed but not all. Just still seems like a confused, sad state of affairs.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


This was going to happen eventually.. If you think Directv as a standalone would have had the money to keep launching Sat's forever you are very naive


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

compnurd said:


> This was going to happen eventually.. If you think Directv as a standalone would have had the money to keep launching Sat's forever you are very naive


Not naive considering what sats cost and I understand this but why buy a sat company? Name, brand, yes I get it but it seems like they don't even really want that any longe either. Just sell to Charlie and be done with it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

fireponcoal said:


> Not naive considering what sats cost and I understand this but why buy a sat company? Name, brand, yes I get it but it seems like they don't even really want that any longe either. Just sell to Charlie and be done with it.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


They bought it for the customer base so they can have better channel contract negotiations. Also use the DTV cash flow to upgrade FTTN to FTTH. UverseTV only had 6 million customers before they bought DTV.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

CraigerM said:


> They bought it for the customer base so they can have better channel contract negotiations. Also use the DTV cash flow to upgrade FTTN to FTTH. UverseTV only had 6 million customers before they bought DTV.


I'm all for expanding FTTH !!! 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> The trouble comes when the hundreds of words of speculation are not backed up by the "evidence" presented. The fact is today is July 6th ... but it would be dishonest to take that fact (today's date) and try to say "the date is a fact so everything else I say is a fact". Knowing the difference between fact and speculation is important.
> 
> And if you read the Cord Cutters article they make that clear: "For now, these are rumors, but they are lining up with what we are hearing about AT&T's future plans for their TV services." It is to easy to ignore the fact that most of what we "know" is rumors and speculation. Read "AT&T reportedly wants to try to move over DIRECTV customers to a cheaper streaming version to help save AT&T money." at the top of the article and never make it to the bottom of the article.
> 
> Take a step back ... see what is actually known (with some legitimate source) vs speculation that happens to fit one's personal theory. It happens all of the time in the political world ... don't let rumor override the facts presented. Cord Cutters included the acknowledgement of rumor in their report. Don't ignore it.


Ha, OK. What's you alternative theory here? That someone took the time to fake those screenshots in Photoshop or Powerpoint, then post them on an obscure website frequented by current and former AT&T technicians? Is that possible? Sure, anything's possible. Is that likely? No. Let's apply Occam's Razor here.

I'm looking forward to coming back here in the near future and quoting all those instances over the past year where you've contradicted me over and over again about AT&T's future TV plans, when it turns out that I was largely correct and you were largely wrong.


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

CraigerM said:


> They bought it for the customer base so they can have better channel contract negotiations. Also use the DTV cash flow to upgrade FTTN to FTTH. UverseTV only had 6 million customers before they bought DTV.


They got a customer base in middle America without adequate internet to support a full streaming service. I agree with what you wrote though..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> So while we are on the subject of yet another questionable website, there is another one i would take with a grain of salt There are no dates on those screenshots... they could be months old and things have changed they also could have been done as some internal demo's and never adopted. The layoffs website which seems filled with disgruntled ex employees also posted a bunch of crap while back about no more Sat's being launched and everyone being fired at two of there uplink stations which was all a load of crap.


Sure, the screenshots could be old and the rollout date could slip forward past August. But we also know that in *early June* the guy who heads up AT&T's TV and internet services said that the new TV service, which he is super-excited about, will launch in 3Q. And then we've heard AT&T's CEO recently talk about this service getting underway in the "latter half of the year". An initial soft launch in Aug (the middle of 3Q) and then a nationwide launch in 4Q comports perfectly with those *very recent* statements by AT&T leaders.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

fireponcoal said:


> Not naive considering what sats cost and I understand this but why buy a sat company? Name, brand, yes I get it but it seems like they don't even really want that any longe either. Just sell to Charlie and be done with it.


Good question. I think it was a strategic mistake for AT&T to have bought DirecTV in the first place. Mainly because they bought the largest "cable TV" provider in the nation right about the time that industry was peaking, only to then enter a long-term irreversible decline thanks to the rise of direct-to-consumer streaming services like Netflix.

I think AT&T always knew from the time that they bought DirecTV that they would ultimately transition that service off of DBS and over to some form of internet delivery that could be deployed at a lower total cost. Nothing wrong with that plan, although of course there are and will be for years to come a significant number of Americans for whom streaming TV isn't a feasible solution. But AT&T has admitted that, which is why they've said the marketing focus for DTV satellite going forward will be rural consumers.

I'll be surprised if AT&T hasn't sold off part or all of their satellite TV business to DISH by 2023 at the latest.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> What better way to make it profitable than coaxing as many of their 20 million satellite subscribers as possible to switch?


The trouble is every other competing company also want their "20 million" satellite subscribers ... and they have just as much chance in convincing people to choose their services as AT&T has in convincing people to sign up for their new service. The only hope AT&T has is the same as all of their competitors: make their streaming offer more compelling than the competition. AT&T's "ownership" of the satellite customers (via commitments) ends when each customer leaves satellite. "Moving" people from satellite to streaming is a sales job - not simply changing the technology.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Ha, OK. What's you alternative theory here? That someone took the time to fake those screenshots in Photoshop or Powerpoint, then post them on an obscure website frequented by current and former AT&T technicians? Is that possible? Sure, anything's possible. Is that likely? No. Let's apply Occam's Razor here.
> 
> I'm looking forward to coming back here in the near future and quoting all those instances over the past year where you've contradicted me over and over again about AT&T's future TV plans, when it turns out that I was largely correct and you were largely wrong.


There is no need to exaggerate to the point of lying. I did not say nor even suggest that the screen shots were fake - so don't post lies.

What I am saying is that you should do what your friends at Cord Cutters have done: LOOK at the evidence as presented. They are willing to acknowledge what is rumor and what is not rumor. Most of what they post is acknowledged as rumor and speculation. And they use the appropriate words: "this is what we see" not "this is what WILL happen".

If a person (not you) read those screen shots and say DIRECTV satellite is shutting down or even DIRECTV NOW is shutting down that person has read beyond the evidence presented. Even the statement "UVERSE is shutting down" would not be supported by the screen shots (end of sales in the test markets and eventually nationwide, but NOT the end of the service). But as previously stated, people (not you) with deeply held beliefs that everything else is shutting down will cling to any word that gives them hope. Just like the "anonymous" person who posted the confidential information we are discussing.

Don't take it personally ... it isn't all about you. It is about AT&T|DIRECTV.


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

James Long said:


> The trouble is every other competing company also want their "20 million" satellite subscribers ... and they have just as much chance in convincing people to choose their services as AT&T has in convincing people to sign up for their new service. The only hope AT&T has is the same as all of their competitors: make their streaming offer more compelling than the competition. AT&T's "ownership" of the satellite customers (via commitments) ends when each customer leaves satellite. "Moving" people from satellite to streaming is a sales job - not simply changing the technology.


Monopolists like AT&T don't understand how to operate in the competitive marketplace. They don't understand that in DTV they have a very "sticky" business with extraordinary barriers to entry, just the opposite of what they are starting to experience in the streaming marketplace. After a year or so of middling "success" with their streaming ventures and continued losses at DTV perhaps we will see a revolt on the Board and the replacement of the braintrust that runs the company.


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Good question. I think it was a strategic mistake for AT&T to have bought DirecTV in the first place. Mainly because they bought the largest "cable TV" provider in the nation right about the time that industry was peaking, only to then enter a long-term irreversible decline thanks to the rise of direct-to-consumer streaming services like Netflix.
> 
> I think AT&T always knew from the time that they bought DirecTV that they would ultimately transition that service off of DBS and over to some form of internet delivery that could be deployed at a lower total cost. Nothing wrong with that plan, although of course there are and will be for years to come a significant number of Americans for whom streaming TV isn't a feasible solution. But AT&T has admitted that, which is why they've said the marketing focus for DTV satellite going forward will be rural consumers.
> 
> I'll be surprised if AT&T hasn't sold off part or all of their satellite TV business to DISH by 2023 at the latest.


Do you have any insight as to how they will price the box - free or discounted with x month subscription?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> There is no need to exaggerate to the point of lying. I did not say nor even suggest that the screen shots were fake - so don't post lies.
> 
> What I am saying is that you should do what your friends at Cord Cutters have done: LOOK at the evidence as presented. They are willing to acknowledge what is rumor and what is not rumor. Most of what they post is acknowledged as rumor and speculation. And they use the appropriate words: "this is what we see" not "this is what WILL happen".
> 
> ...


Don't misrepresent what I have posted over and over and over again, which is: "I predict," "my guess is," and "I would speculate". Anyone who has read multiple posts by me on here -- including you -- should understand that I am not saying that I am either a psychic or someone who has been given secret inside information by AT&T. I've even gone out of my way to say, multiple times, "we'll see how much of what I predict comes true," etc.

And to rebut the specific point you make, please check out the relevant screenshot, which I've reposted here. I'll quote the relevant bit (bold emphasis mine):

"*New U-verse IPTV sales turned off in all 9 Pilot Markets simultaneous with AT&T TV Pilot launch* to support IPTV equipment planning for 2020"

As far as my very logical prediction that AT&T will eventually shut down U-verse TV entirely, no, that isn't stated in the screenshot. That is my speculation (which is supported by more than one post by a self-identified AT&T employee at TheLayoff.com). But do you honestly believe that AT&T plans to completely stop selling U-verse TV when AT&T TV launches but then operate U-verse TV indefinitely? I don't claim to know how long they'll operate it, although I believe one employee said the plan was 3 or 4 years. At some point, there would by natural attrition be so few folks willingly left on the service, and so few functioning U-verse TV receivers in operation that the only economically reasonable thing to do will be to shut it entirely down. (Uverse TV receivers have been out of production for a long while now and the underlying Ericsson Mediaroom software platform on which the entire system runs is now more or less deprecated by Ericsson.)


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

DirectMan said:


> Monopolists like AT&T don't understand how to operate in the competitive marketplace. They don't understand that in DTV they have a very "sticky" business with extraordinary barriers to entry, just the opposite of what they are starting to experience in the streaming marketplace.


I think AT&T understands that cable/telco TV operators (who also offer broadband) are seeing pretty bad losses in their cable TV service. Meanwhile, DISH satellite is seeing very bad losses in their TV service. And DirecTV satellite is seeing extraordinarily bad double-plus-ungood losses in their TV service. It's bleeding subscribers like a stuck pig. It's the very opposite of sticky.



DirectMan said:


> Do you have any insight as to how they will price the box - free or discounted with x month subscription?


Not really. I have my hunch, which is that they'll give it away free to those who prepay for a few months and/or commit to a few months of service. And/or they'll sell the box for a given price (e.g. $60) but then include an AT&T TV gift card in the box worth a certain amount (e.g. $30) off your monthly subscription price.

At least one reputed AT&T employee has posted that the company wishes to get completely out of the box rental business, which makes sense to me. These little Android TV streaming boxes don't have tuners or hard drives. They're pretty cheap to mass produce. I don't think AT&T believes it's worth their while to bother with rentals, returns and refurbishments. Better to flood the market with a streaming device that has a dedicated home screen custom-designed for their AT&T TV service. I'm sure a ton of these things will turn up on eBay for cheap (assuming one actually has to pay something to get one from AT&T in the first place).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> But do you honestly believe that AT&T plans to completely stop selling U-verse TV when AT&T TV launches but then operate U-verse TV indefinitely?


Honestly? You need to learn better language. But there is nothing in that screen shot that gives a "definite" end to the provision of UVERSE TV to current customers nor new customers who will be signing up until "sales" in their market are turned off. If you want to call that "indefinite" then it would fit a dictionary definition.

We agree that UVERSE will not be available infinitely. But there is no defined ending to the provision of UVERSE, DIRECTV NOW or DIRECTV satellite.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Latest review on the box says its slow.


----------



## MrWindows (Oct 12, 2010)

James Long said:


> Honestly? You need to learn better language. But there is nothing in that screen shot that gives a "definite" end to the provision of UVERSE TV to current customers nor new customers who will be signing up until "sales" in their market are turned off. If you want to call that "indefinite" then it would fit a dictionary definition.
> 
> We agree that UVERSE will not be available infinitely. But there is no defined ending to the provision of UVERSE, DIRECTV NOW or DIRECTV satellite.


You also have to take into account the companies reselling UVerse as their own product, like CenturyLink with Prism.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

CraigerM said:


> Latest review on the box says its slow.


Yeah, nobody who is used to using an Nvidia Shield or an ATV 4k will want this box...but that is clearly not the target audience for this thing either. The target audience is existing sat/cable customers who are looking to maintain the experience they are used to. Unfortunately for AT&T that audience is shrinking, and fairly rapidly. It is still a pretty big population but they need to move quickly.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

There's no reason for it to be slow, it has much better hardware than any of Directv's current clients. If it is slow it is because its software sucks.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> There's no reason for it to be slow, it has much better hardware than any of Directv's current clients. If it is slow it is because its software sucks.


Yeh, that's one thing I didn't get why it would be slow with the specs it has?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> Yeh, that's one thing I didn't get why it would be slow with the specs it has?


Software is bloated and poorly written probably


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

MrWindows said:


> You also have to take into account the companies reselling UVerse as their own product, like CenturyLink with Prism.


CenturyLink no longer sells their Prism IPTV service (which runs on the same software/hardware platform as Uverse TV -- Ericsson MediaRoom backend, STBs/DVRs, etc.). They still operate Prism TV for existing customers but they stopped actively selling (or maybe even doing any new installations at all, not sure) a good while ago.

What does CenturyLink instead sell via their website (and I would guess other sales channels) for their broadband customers who want to bundle pay TV too? They sell DTV satellite. Which is kinda weird, but whatever.

Once AT&T TV launches, do you think that CenturyLink (whose telco/DSL/fiber footprint does not overlap with AT&T's) might begin selling AT&T TV in with CenturyLink broadband service and stop selling DTV satellite? I do. Why sell TV that requires an expensive installation of an old-fashioned rooftop dish when they could instead sell a next-gen TV service that streams over their own broadband lines? You *know* that's what AT&T will want them to do, although it's possible that CenturyLink could decide to resell another IP-based service (e.g. YouTube TV, as Verizon does) rather than AT&T TV. But whatever they do, I don't expect to see CenturyLink still selling DTV satellite this time next year, except maybe to customers on their slowest connections (e.g. DSL 1.0) who aren't really able to reliably stream HD video at all.

What about Frontier, who used to also sell and operate Uverse TV in some areas as "Frontier Uverse TV"? Back in 2016, they introduced a new brand, Frontier Vantage TV, that replaced Frontier Uverse TV. I would imagine it runs on a completely new STB in those few areas where Frontier has installed FTTH but in all those FTTN areas formerly on Uverse TV, I think they simply rolled out a firmware update to existing STBs, giving it an updated UI plus a Netflix app. No idea whether or not the backend still runs on the original Ericsson Mediaroom platform. Other parts of the Frontier footprint, which they acquired from Verizon, run Frontier FiOS TV, using the same platform as Verizon FiOS TV.

Generally speaking, Frontier as a company is kind of a mess and, more specifically, their TV offerings are also a mess. Whether or not they might decide to get out of the business of selling their two in-house TV brands and everything that entails and move to just reselling AT&T TV, who knows.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> Yeah, nobody who is used to using an Nvidia Shield or an ATV 4k will want this box...but that is clearly not the target audience for this thing either. The target audience is existing sat/cable customers who are looking to maintain the experience they are used to. Unfortunately for AT&T that audience is shrinking, and fairly rapidly. It is still a pretty big population but they need to move quickly.


For the "post-cable" population who has moved on to streaming and thinks of devices like Apple TV 4K, Nvidia Shield TV, Roku and Fire TV (or, for those under a certain age, their smartphone) as their main TV consumption device, AT&T isn't particularly worried about trying to sell any cable TV bundle, regardless of the brand: AT&T TV or DirecTV or Uverse TV or DirecTV Now. No, to that growing group of consumers, AT&T wants to sell their own forthcoming direct-to-consumer service, *HBO Max*. Just as HBO and Cinemax already do, it will continue to offer recent theatrical films licensed from 20th Century Fox and Universal (at least until those deals expire in 2022 or 2023). And this new service will also license a bit of outside TV content to shore up WarnerMedia's weaknesses in certain areas. BUT the vast majority of content carried on HBO Max, in terms of both TV and movies, will be stuff that WarnerMedia actually owns and offers through its various sub-brands: HBO, Cinemax, TBS, TNT, CNN, TruTV, DC Universe, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, Looney Tunes, Hanna-Barbera, Warner Bros. Movies, Warner Bros. Television, etc.

So who is AT&T TV for? It's for that substantial part of the population who has NOT yet moved on from cable TV. Most of these folks do complement traditional cable TV with on-demand streaming (e.g. Netflix, YouTube, etc.) but they mostly watch channel-based TV. That's their "home base" when they turn on the TV. They LIKE having a grid-based channel guide and being able to channel surf up and down. They LIKE having a DVR. They LIKE turning on the TV and seeing a live linear channel immediately start playing. And they LIKE having a full-featured remote control that's well-suited to all those tasks. If a box that can do all that can ALSO throw in convenient access to Netflix and the other few streaming apps they might use (YouTube, Prime Video and Hulu), then great, that gives it a real competitive advantage over other cable TV services/boxes.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> For the "post-cable" population who has moved on to streaming and thinks of devices like Apple TV 4K, Nvidia Shield TV, Roku and Fire TV (or, for those under a certain age, their smartphone) as their main TV consumption device, AT&T isn't particularly worried about trying to sell any cable TV bundle, regardless of the brand: AT&T TV or DirecTV or Uverse TV or DirecTV Now. No, to that growing group of consumers, AT&T wants to sell their own forthcoming direct-to-consumer service, *HBO Max*. Just as HBO and Cinemax already do, it will continue to offer recent theatrical films licensed from 20th Century Fox and Universal (at least until those deals expire in 2022 or 2023). And this new service will also license a bit of outside TV content to shore up WarnerMedia's weaknesses in certain areas. BUT the vast majority of content carried on HBO Max, in terms of both TV and movies, will be stuff that WarnerMedia actually owns and offers through its various sub-brands: HBO, Cinemax, TBS, TNT, CNN, TruTV, DC Universe, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, Looney Tunes, Hanna-Barbera, Warner Bros. Movies, Warner Bros. Television, etc.
> 
> So who is AT&T TV for? It's for that substantial part of the population who has NOT yet moved on from cable TV. Most of these folks do complement traditional cable TV with on-demand streaming (e.g. Netflix, YouTube, etc.) but they mostly watch channel-based TV. That's their "home base" when they turn on the TV. They LIKE having a grid-based channel guide and being able to channel surf up and down. They LIKE having a DVR. They LIKE turning on the TV and seeing a live linear channel immediately start playing. And they LIKE having a full-featured remote control that's well-suited to all those tasks. If a box that can do all that can ALSO throw in convenient access to Netflix and the other few streaming apps they might use (YouTube, Prime Video and Hulu), then great, that gives it a real competitive advantage over other cable TV services/boxes.


Yeah, that is the target audience I was trying to describe. Even though it's shrinking it's still a very large population. Inertia is a powerful force that keeps lots of folks from switching to something new and different from what they are used to. I'm guessing they will loose some percentage just for the fact that when the inertia is broken because "they have to change something" even if it is just switching boxes, it will get some of them to look at alternatives. I have helped lots of family, friends, and acquaintances move from traditional sat/cable service to streaming over the last several years. I can't tell you the number of folks who, somewhere during the transition, have looked at me and said...wow, I didn't know any of this was even possible...and then a few weeks or a month later I get the call when the light bulb finally goes off ..."now I finally understand what this whole streaming thing is all about". I haven't had any go back yet...


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> Yeah, that is the target audience I was trying to describe. Even though it's shrinking it's still a very large population. Inertia is a powerful force that keeps lots of folks from switching to something new and different from what they are used to. I'm guessing they will loose some percentage just for the fact that when the inertia is broken because "they have to change something" even if it is just switching boxes, it will get some of them to look at alternatives. I have helped lots of family, friends, and acquaintances move from traditional sat/cable service to streaming over the last several years. I can't tell you the number of folks who, somewhere during the transition, have looked at me and said...wow, I didn't know any of this was even possible...and then a few weeks or a month later I get the call when the light bulb finally goes off ..."now I finally understand what this whole streaming thing is all about". I haven't had any go back yet...


Yep.

Again, here's AT&T's marketing decision tree when it comes to selling video entertainment services.

Do you watch TV like it's 2015 or 2025?

2025 ------------------> HBO Max

2015 -------------------> Do you have broadband? ----------------> If yes, then AT&T TV*. If no, then DirecTV satellite*.

*All channel packages include HBO Max at no additional cost.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

compnurd said:


> Software is bloated and poorly written probably


Well Android TV is undoubtedly a lot more heavyweight than Directv's current client software. Maybe even though the C71 is more powerful it isn't powerful enough to properly handle the bloat of Android TV which does a lot more than Directv's client software but would also need a lot more resources.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

compnurd said:


> Software is bloated and poorly written probably


Just a little more work and it will be fine...


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Well Android TV is undoubtedly a lot more heavyweight than Directv's current client software. Maybe even though the C71 is more powerful it isn't powerful enough to properly handle the bloat of Android TV which does a lot more than Directv's client software but would also need a lot more resources.


I doubt it. I mean Sony TV's run Android TV also


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> I doubt it. I mean Sony TV's run Android TV also


They run it but they don't run it well, at least not most Sony TVs over the past few years. That seems to be the consensus opinion among Android TV users, anyway.

A better comparison of the AT&T TV C71 is probably Xiaomi's Mi Box S streamer, which also does 4K HDR. It's not quite as powerful as the C71. Reviews say that it works pretty well, although can be a bit sluggish sometimes, especially when rendering 4K.

Here are the Geekbench benchmark results for them.
Samsung C71KW-200: single-core score 693, multi-core score 1882
Mi Box S: single-core score 649, multi-core score 1818

Here's a pro review of the Mi Box S after 3 months use. Upshot: does a fine job for 1080p, struggles with 4K HDR because its specs just aren't beefy enough.

Xiaomi Mi Box S review, 3 months later: Still not good enough


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Well Android TV is undoubtedly a lot more heavyweight than Directv's current client software. Maybe even though the C71 is more powerful it isn't powerful enough to properly handle the bloat of Android TV which does a lot more than Directv's client software but would also need a lot more resources.


Both the Nvidia Shield and the FireTV Stick 4k (actually all the FireTV devices) run Android TV or some variant of Android TV. They both perform very well and do an excellent job with 4k content.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> They run it but they don't run it well, at least not most Sony TVs over the past few years. That seems to be the consensus opinion among Android TV users, anyway.
> 
> A better comparison of the AT&T TV C71 is probably Xiaomi's Mi Box S streamer, which also does 4K HDR. It's not quite as powerful as the C71. Reviews say that it works pretty well, although can be a bit sluggish sometimes, especially when rendering 4K.
> 
> ...


The FireTV Stick 4k goes on sale on Amazon regularly for $40. At that price point it is the best current bang for the buck in streaming devices and supports pretty much all of the latest standards.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> The FireTV Stick 4k goes on sale on Amazon regularly for $40. At that price point it is the best current bang for the buck in streaming devices and supports pretty much all of the latest standards.


Yup, it's a great piece of hardware at only $40. But then I suspect at that price, Amazon is selling it below cost and subsidizing it in order to gain market share for their platform. Gotta dominate the world, dontcha know.

I could easily see AT&T selling the C71 at an effective price of $30 for those who subscribe to AT&T TV. Maybe has a sticker price of $60 but it comes with a promo code in the box for $30 off your bill, kinda like DISH/Sling TV sells their own custom Android TV box, the AirTV Player, at $90 but with a $50 credit toward Sling TV.

I think there's a few things that AT&T has learned by watching their rival DISH's Sling TV the past couple years. Not only will AT&T TV make use of a customized Android TV box but I predict we'll see AT&T TV also embrace a certain amount of flexibility in their channel packaging system via add-on Extra packs, as Sling TV does. And I think we'll also see AT&T TV offer their own network-connected OTA tuner device for streaming free local channels from your antenna into the AT&T TV UI on their own boxes and apps throughout the home, just as Sling TV does with their AirTV black box (priced at $80 with a $25 credit toward Sling TV service).


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> Both the Nvidia Shield and the FireTV Stick 4k (actually all the FireTV devices) run Android TV or some variant of Android TV. They both perform very well and do an excellent job with 4k content.


Just as a comparison, here's how the Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K compares on Geekbench:

Fire TV Stick 4K: single-core score 709, multi-core score 2134
Samsung C71KW-200: single-core score 693, multi-core score 1882
Mi Box S: single-core score 649, multi-core score 1818

Based on my understanding, these scores tell us less about a device's ability to smoothly play back a video stream than they do about the ability to smoothly navigate through the UI, juggle between multiple open apps, complete multiple tasks at once, etc.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

mjwagner said:


> The FireTV Stick 4k goes on sale on Amazon regularly for $40. At that price point it is the best current bang for the buck in streaming devices and supports pretty much all of the latest standards.


the Ethernet Adapter is an $15 add on.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Just as a comparison, here's how the Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K compares on Geekbench:
> 
> Fire TV Stick 4K: single-core score 709, multi-core score 2134
> Samsung C71KW-200: single-core score 693, multi-core score 1882
> ...


It isn't just CPU speed, the amount of RAM may have a larger bearing on how it performs given that Android is hardly resource efficient when it comes to RAM usage.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

JoeTheDragon said:


> the Ethernet Adapter is an $15 add on.


Only needed if you have really poor wifi. At my two main viewing locations I have both a FireTV Stick 4k ( wifi connected uising 2.4ghz) and an Nvidia Shield (Ethernet connected) and I have never experienced any difference in performance either streaming or with content coming from my NAS all the way to 4k w ATMOS files. I have Ethernet capability at both locations and their is simply no need for the stick. The wifi subsystem was one of the things Amazon specifically improved in the FireTV Stick 4k. The previous version of the stick did have poor wifi performance (I still have one in one of our spare bedrooms).


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> It isn't just CPU speed, the amount of RAM may have a larger bearing on how it performs given that Android is hardly resource efficient when it comes to RAM usage.


Yes, although aren't Geekbench test results influenced to some degree by how much RAM a device has? I know they label the tests as "single-core" and "multi-core" but -- if I understand correctly -- they're not only testing the CPU in either case but rather how the entire device handles certain tasks that are designed to either stress/utilize one CPU core or stress/utilize all CPU cores.

At any rate, both the C71 and the Mi Box S have 2 GB of RAM while the Fire TV Stick 4K has 1.5 GB of RAM.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, although aren't Geekbench test results influenced to some degree by how much RAM a device has? I know they label the tests as "single-core" and "multi-core" but -- if I understand correctly -- they're not only testing the CPU in either case but rather how the entire device handles certain tasks that are designed to either stress/utilize one CPU core or stress/utilize all CPU cores.
> 
> At any rate, both the C71 and the Mi Box S have 2 GB of RAM while the Fire TV Stick 4K has 1.5 GB of RAM.


The Nvidia Shield has 2 GB of RAM. While the Apple TV 4K has 3 GB of RAM. I have run the same content on the FireTV Stick 4k, Nvidia Shield, and the Apple TV 4K. They all perform the same, or at least close enough, based on my perception. That includes both streaming content and local 4k ATMOS content from my NAS as well as menu navigation and switching between apps. I'd sayAmazon has done a great job of tuning the software on their 4k stick to get the most out of the hardware. For $40 it is currently hard to beat. The only area where some may find a limitation is with internal storage. It only has 8 GB and can't be increased. Although for the typical user that won't be an issue.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> The Nvidia Shield has 2 GB of RAM. While the Apple TV 4K has 3 GB of RAM. I have run the same content on the FireTV Stick 4k, Nvidia Shield, and the Apple TV 4K. They all perform the same, or at least close enough, based on my perception. That includes both streaming content and local 4k ATMOS content from my NAS as well as menu navigation and switching between apps. I'd sayAmazon has done a great job of tuning the software on their 4k stick to get the most out of the hardware. For $40 it is currently hard to beat. The only area where some may find a limitation is with internal storage. It only has 8 GB and can't be increased. Although for the typical user that won't be an issue.


Good hardware but I don't like Amazon's cluttered UI which includes ads and pushes Amazon's own content, rentals and sales over other sources. Seems like a year ago, the head of Amazon Video was saying that they were finalizing a whole new UI for Fire TV and the Prime Video app but then nothing has ever come out, so who knows.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Good hardware but I don't like Amazon's cluttered UI which includes ads and pushes Amazon's own content, rentals and sales over other sources. Seems like a year ago, the head of Amazon Video was saying that they were finalizing a whole new UI for Fire TV and the Prime Video app but then nothing has ever come out, so who knows.


Agree, the home screen is definitely not ideal. Thankfully I only have to be there a short time to pick the app I want to run.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

MrWindows said:


> You also have to take into account the companies reselling UVerse as their own product, like CenturyLink with Prism.


CenturyLink does not re-sell UVerse, Prism is/was a completely separate product. It is based on the same hardware and software platform as U-Verse, but it has no relationship to AT&T. Both CenturyLink and AT&T purchased the platform from Microsoft, later Ericsson. The continued existence of CenturyLink's service has zero impact on when AT&T retires the U-Verse IPTV platform


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

AT&T confirms Warner Media Streaming service will be called HBO Max.

HBO Max: WarnerMedia Confirms Name of Streaming Service, New Home to Friends, Fresh Prince, CW Dramas


----------



## AngryManMLS (Jan 30, 2014)

I'm hoping at least they will have the full run of _Murphy Brown_ on there.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

AngryManMLS said:


> I'm hoping at least they will have the full run of _Murphy Brown_ on there.


I'll bet they will, at some point anyhow. Because Murphy Brown was produced and distributed by Warner Bros. Television (like lots of favorite series through the decades like Alice, Kojak, Wonder Woman, Dukes of Hazzard, ER, Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, The West Wing, Friends, One Tree Hill, Two and a Half Men, Mike & Molly, Mom, Shameless, and The Big Bang Theory).


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> I'll bet they will, at some point anyhow. Because Murphy Brown was produced and distributed by Warner Bros. Television (like lots of favorite series through the decades like Alice, Kojak, Wonder Woman, Dukes of Hazzard, ER, Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, The West Wing, Friends, One Tree Hill, Two and a Half Men, Mike & Molly, Mom, Shameless, and The Big Bang Theory).


Here's a list of all their TV shows.

List of Warner Bros. Television programs - Wikipedia


----------



## paranoia (Jun 13, 2014)

Wow that list is huge !!


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

paranoia said:


> Wow that list is huge !!


Sell your Netflix stock soon. I'm only half-kidding. Yes, Netflix will continue to gain new subs internationally but I really do think they're going to hit peak US subs in early 2020, at which point they'll plateau and maybe even fall a bit.

HBO Max is going to be BIG, both with a growing slate of new content plus a huge library of favorite shows and films going way, way back. HBO Max will always be home for new films from Warner Bros., plus recent theatrical releases from Universal and 20th Century Fox through the 2022 release calendar.

Meanwhile, Hulu continues to grow while we'll see Disney+, Apple TV+, and as-yet-unnamed services from Discovery/BBC and NBCUniversal debut in fall 2019 or early 2020. Netflix will see new competitors on all sides while some of their most popular licensed content disappears.

Just today, Mary Poppins Returns debuted on Netflix. Remember July 9, 2019, because it's the last day for a long, long time when you'll see a recent theatrically-released movie from a major Hollywood studio come to Netflix. Disney is the last major studio with which Netflix has an output deal in place and Mary Poppins Returns was the last film covered by that contract. The next film in the Disney pipeline, Captain Marvel, will debut this fall on Disney+.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

mjwagner said:


> Yeah, nobody who is used to using an Nvidia Shield or an ATV 4k will want this box...but that is clearly not the target audience for this thing either. The target audience is existing sat/cable customers who are looking to maintain the experience they are used to. Unfortunately for AT&T that audience is shrinking, and fairly rapidly. It is still a pretty big population but they need to move quickly.


I wonder about this. is the audience shrinking because of costs or because people want to choose what they will watch. If it's the former, and the new box is priced competitively then I think that audience might stem the tide. If it's the latter, then those who've been screaming for a la carte programming, might not want a box that gives you a whole lot of stuff they don't watch and be happy to pay for just what they want. i think it's a combination of both.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'd expect the a la carte people to want other services on the box ... then they can watch their AT&T/HBO provided programming and add on other services. If it was an AT&T only box they might as well get someone else's box that also has an AT&T app (unless AT&T offers content exclusive to their box).


----------



## ptrubey (Jan 23, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Sell your Netflix stock soon. I'm only half-kidding. Yes, Netflix will continue to gain new subs internationally but I really do think they're going to hit peak US subs in early 2020, at which point they'll plateau and maybe even fall a bit.


Dude. Netflix tanks after whiffing on global paid subscribers

Got anymore media analysis? Do you think AT&T will figure it out with HBO Max, etc.?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

ptrubey said:


> Dude. Netflix tanks after whiffing on global paid subscribers
> 
> Got anymore media analysis? Do you think AT&T will figure it out with HBO Max, etc.?


Oh, I gots PLENTY more media analysis. All the way through 2024. (Well, I've only posted through 4Q 2022 so far, but check back again in the next couple days for the thrilling conclusion, ha.)

Years and Years (of Pay TV Industry Predictions)


----------



## syphix (Jun 23, 2004)

NashGuy said:


> Oh, I gots PLENTY more media analysis. All the way through 2024. (Well, I've only posted through 4Q 2022 so far, but check back again in the next couple days for the thrilling conclusion, ha.)
> 
> Years and Years (of Pay TV Industry Predictions)


Holy hell is that a good read. Looking forward to your 2023-2024 predictions to be posted!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

I think that streaming video game services may not out work out. Even more so if you have to rebuy games and can't use ones that you paided for with steam and gog.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

I know people love Netflix and I'm a user but I find it difficult to find things and other than their own produced shows things tend to be old. It is the same with the other streaming services I've tried. I like a "guide" type directory and there is current shows that like to watch. As I've said to others I think in a few years we will have to subscribe to a bunch of streaming services to get what we had on one source a few years ago. But I'm sure we'll get used to it and complain about how much in total we are paying


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

AT&T confirms AT&T TV launching this summer in trial markets.

AT&T's new streaming TV service, AT&T TV, launches this summer


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> AT&T confirms AT&T TV launching this summer in trial markets.
> 
> AT&T's new streaming TV service, AT&T TV, launches this summer


Another bit of confirmation of the stuff I've been posting on this forum for well over a year now.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

CraigerM said:


> AT&T confirms AT&T TV launching this summer in trial markets.
> 
> AT&T's new streaming TV service, AT&T TV, launches this summer


It would be good if they reported the source of the comments. I assume it was an earnings call?
I read such articles paying attention to quotes. Trying to see what the author said vs what the named individual said.

I do like this line: "AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said the traditional DirecTV product will still be around for a long time ..." 

As for the state of the company: AT&T loses 946K DirecTV, DirecTV Now subscribers in Q2
"AT&T reported losing nearly one million video subscribers between its DirecTV and DirecTV Now services as the company's pay TV woes continued in the second quarter.

The company dropped 946,000 video subscribers - 778,00 from its traditional distribution services, DirecTV and U-verse, and another 168,000 from its streaming TV service DirecTV Now. The total was much higher than the 80,000 net video additions reported one year.

AT&T now has 21.58 million traditional video subscribers (down 8.7% year over year) and 1.34 DirecTV Now subscribers (down 25.9% year over year)."

Financially they are doing fine.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

James Long said:


> It would be good if they reported the source of the comments. I assume it was an earnings call?
> I read such articles paying attention to quotes. Trying to see what the author said vs what the named individual said.
> 
> I do like this line: "AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said the traditional DirecTV product will still be around for a long time ..."


Yes it was in their Q2 report that came out this morning.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

AT&T's Q2 transcript is up and what is interesting it says when they launch AT&T TV in the trial markets it will be in Beta testing. Does this sound like maybe it won't use the DTV Now interface? Why would they need to go back into Beta testing when they have already been Beta testing it for awhile? What if in addition to using the AT&T TV name to distinguish itself from DTV and DTV Now it will use an all new UI? In the transcript it does mention their video portfolio as being DTV, AT&T TV as HBO Max. No mention of UVerseTV, DTV Now or WatchTV.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/42...-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> AT&T's Q2 transcript is up and what is interesting it says when they launch AT&T TV in the trial markets it will be in Beta testing. Does this sound like maybe it won't use the DTV Now interface? Why would they need to go back into Beta testing when they have already been Beta testing it for awhile? What if in addition to using the AT&T TV name to distinguish itself from DTV and DTV Now it will use an all new UI? In the transcript it does mention their video portfolio as being DTV, AT&T TV as HBO Max. No mention of UVerseTV, DTV Now or WatchTV.
> 
> https://seekingalpha.com/article/42...-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single


No, after more than a year of beta testing with DTV Now, they're not going to switch to an new UI and a new app code base for the final 10-12 weeks before rolling out a new flagship TV service nationwide. This is just AT&T having an abundance of caution. They want to get AT&T TV "out in the wild" with the user base it's intended for and make sure all their systems -- technical, customer support, billing, retail stores, etc. -- can identify and rectify any problems with a limited group of users in a few markets before opening the service to hundreds of millions of folks across the entire nation.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> AT&T's Q2 transcript is up and what is interesting it says when they launch AT&T TV in the trial markets it will be in Beta testing. Does this sound like maybe it won't use the DTV Now interface? Why would they need to go back into Beta testing when they have already been Beta testing it for awhile? What if in addition to using the AT&T TV name to distinguish itself from DTV and DTV Now it will use an all new UI? In the transcript it does mention their video portfolio as being DTV, AT&T TV as HBO Max. No mention of UVerseTV, DTV Now or WatchTV.
> 
> https://seekingalpha.com/article/42...-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single


You really got a hard on about the interface


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

compnurd said:


> You really got a hard on about the interface


Not really, I just want to if it's going to have all the features that DTV has.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> Not really, I just want to if it's going to have all the features that DTV has.


I dunno. You have had 46 posts mentioning the interface across the various topics


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> Not really, I just want to if it's going to have all the features that DTV has.


I know you're concerned about the ability to pause and rewind/FF live channels. I don't think DTV Now does that, so it's an open question whether or not AT&T TV will. Other than that, what specific DTV features are you worried about AT&T TV not having?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

compnurd said:


> I dunno. You have had 46 posts mentioning the interface across the various topics


There is no need to keep track.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

James Long said:


> There is no need to keep track.


Lol I didn't. The search feature is pretty good on this forum


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Well, I predicted on here (or somewhere) that AT&T TV would be the first streaming cable TV service to include PBS. Looks like I *may* be wrong about that. PBS just announced today that they've struck a deal to include live streams of all 330 PBS member stations nationwide (including their PBS Kids subchannels) on YouTube TV later this year. But the fact that PBS is ready both nationally and locally, from both a technology and licensing standpoint, to do this with YouTube TV *strongly* indicates to me that we'll see them do the same thing with AT&T TV this year too, given that AT&T already has relationships with all those PBS stations via DirecTV and/or Uverse TV.

So I guess the question is which one they launch on first: AT&T TV in August (when it launches in a few pilot markets) or YouTube TV?

PBS will stream live for the first time with YouTube TV

Hulu with Live TV probably isn't far behind.


----------



## Brian Hanasky (Feb 22, 2008)

AT&T Killing Off 'DirecTV Now' Name as It Launches AT&T TV Streaming Service

Directv Now is no more....Now AT&T TV NOW. Joins AT&T TV.


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

Brian Hanasky said:


> AT&T Killing Off 'DirecTV Now' Name as It Launches AT&T TV Streaming Service
> 
> Directv Now is no more....Now AT&T TV NOW. Joins AT&T TV.


from the ATT Website

https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/directv-now/KM1351225?gsi=siz46k


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

I thought the new ATT TV Now would come with a box. IS the ATT TV Now without a box and ATT TV with a box?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

DirectMan said:


> I thought the new ATT TV Now would come with a box. IS the ATT TV Now without a box and ATT TV with a box?


Yeh just to make it more confusing. ATT TV Now will be what Directv Now is. No streaming box. ATT TV will be come the streaming version of Directv and will have a box


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Wow, interesting. I think I'm going to get a fair amount right in my predictions of where AT&T is heading soon with their TV efforts although it's already apparent that I've gotten some details wrong. I didn't predict the name change of DirecTV Now to "AT&T TV Now".(despite one stray reference to that brand over on TheLayoff.com recently). Instead, I predicted that DirecTV Now would stick around as-is for several more months before being quietly killed off.

However, this does *suggest* (though certainly doesn't yet confirm) that I was on the right track in saying that the existing DirecTV Now channel packages -- Plus and Max -- would also be used on AT&T TV. Seems unlikely to me that they're going to confuse the public by having two different sets of channel packages on AT&T TV vs. AT&T TV Now. (But then, this is AT&T we're talking about here, so anything's possible.)

My guess is that AT&T TV will be differentiated by including the streaming box, plus perhaps a more generous cloud DVR, number of simultaneous streams, etc. But that they'll share the same channel packages because those are based on the same set of underlying carriage contracts that AT&T has negotiated with the networks.

Only good reason I can think of to keep these two things separated under different brands -- rather than just having one brand with optional upgrades for expanded cloud DVR, extra streams, etc. -- is that they want to discourage account sharing. If the parents subscribe to AT&T TV, to be watched on the supplied streaming box, they might be able to share their login with the kids to watch on the AT&T TV app on their phones but not to watch on a TV. Maybe?

Thanks to the support link above that DirectMan posted, we know that the DirecTV Now app -- for all devices, including Roku, Apple TV and Fire TV, apparently -- is being renamed to simply the AT&T TV app, NOT an "AT&T TV Now" app. This strongly suggests to me that customers on AT&T TV (which comes with its own streaming box) and customers on AT&T TV Now (which does not come with its own streaming box) will have access to the same AT&T TV app for use on their own retail devices. And we also know from that support link that nothing is changing with the DirecTV Now channel packages -- they'll carry right over to AT&T TV Now.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)




----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

AT&T TV site launches.

AT&T's New Live TV Streaming Service AT&T TV Comes With 500 Hours of Cloud DVR, Live TV Streaming, & 55,000 On-Demand Titles & More - Cord Cutters News


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Thanks to CraigerM for this link. (He's always on top of new online info about AT&T TV.) This is the official webpage:

AT&T TV: Live TV, DVR, On Demand, Apps & Voice Control

So looks to me like AT&T TV is going to automatically include one custom streaming box (the C71 with Google Android TV) for free and then customers can use the AT&T TV app (same one that will be used by DirecTV Now/AT&T TV Now subscribers) for viewing on other screens (secondary TVs, mobile devices). I assume they'll have the option of purchasing additional C71 streaming boxes too.

A key difference of AT&T TV vs. the current DirecTV Now is that the former will automatically come with 500 hours (!) of cloud DVR storage with a 90-day auto-expiration on recordings, while DTV Now (whose cloud DVR is still officially in beta) offers only 20 hours with a 30-day auto-delete. Now that DTV Now is getting rebranded to AT&T TV Now, does it get the expanded 500-hour cloud DVR or does it stay where it is? Maybe it'll cost an extra $10/mo to get the expanded cloud DVR but that extra cost is baked into the base package prices on AT&T TV?

Also, while DirecTV Now has always come with 2 simultaneous streams, with a 3rd stream costing an extra $5/mo, AT&T TV will automatically come with 3 simultaneous streams.

So while the Plus and Max packages cost $50 and $70 on DirecTV Now, perhaps they'll cost $65 and $85 on AT&T TV? Or just $60 and $80?

I was apparently wrong about DirecTV Now getting killed off a few months down the road. Since it looks like it'll stick around under the new AT&T TV Now brand, there has to be SOME distinction between it and the flagship AT&T TV service. It has to more than just the fact that AT&T TV comes with its own dedicated box, right? My hunch is that AT&T TV costs a bit more but has the upgraded cloud DVR and 3rd stream priced in as non-optional, while those enhancements, if they're offered at all on AT&T TV Now, will be optional upgrades.

The AT&T TV website also states, as I predicted, that it'll be bundled at a discount for AT&T Internet/Fiber subscribers. I doubt that they do that with AT&T TV Now. The way it's been for awhile now is that AT&T Internet/Fiber's price goes down $10/mo if you add in Uverse TV or DirecTV. I expect the same deal for AT&T TV. So once you take $10 off the price of AT&T TV, it's probably going to be pretty close to the prices of AT&T TV Now, but without the upgraded DVR, 3rd stream and dedicated box.

Also, maybe I was wrong that AT&T TV will be contract-free. That could be a differentiator between it and AT&T TV Now. Maybe you have to take a 12-month contract for AT&T TV but you get the free box. IDK, I still kinda doubt it. Would make more sense to me to just make you prepay the first 3 months, or do a little 3 or 6 month contract. Requiring long-term contracts feels outdated now. But we'll see.

One other thing: looks like AT&T TV will offer an "Ultimate" package. I predict that will just be all the channels in Max, plus everything in all the optional add-on Extra Packs, plus all of the a la carte premiums.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Here's the AT&T website:

AT&T TV: Live TV, DVR, On Demand, Apps & Voice Control

EDIT - Looks like we posted at the same time...


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

It still only has 3 HD streams and didn’t mention pausing and rewinding live TV.


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Thanks to CraigerM for this link. (He's always on top of new online info about AT&T TV.) This is the official webpage:
> 
> AT&T TV: Live TV, DVR, On Demand, Apps & Voice Control


ATT TV does not come with HBO; ATT TV Now does.


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

I wonder if the box will be leased or owned? I assume owned because they want to replace ROKU's and others and a lease fee would be a downer.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

DirectMan said:


> I wonder if the box will be leased or owned? I assume owned because they want to replace ROKU's and others and a lease fee would be a downer.


My guess is it will be just as clear as it is now with DirecTV.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

DirectMan said:


> ATT TV does not come with HBO; ATT TV Now does.


Is that your prediction or based on some hard info? I don't see anything on their webpage indicating that.

Why would they price in HBO as standard for AT&T TV Now (the lesser service) but then make it optional/extra on the flagship AT&T TV service?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

DirectMan said:


> I wonder if the box will be leased or owned? I assume owned because they want to replace ROKU's and others and a lease fee would be a downer.


It looks to me like AT&T TV will come with ONE box. Per their page (bold emphasis mine):

Do I have to use a specific device to watch TV?

The new AT&T TV experience comes with our next-gen device, so you're all set to watch *on your biggest screen*. Always on the go? We have you covered-just *download the AT&T TV app* to your mobile device or tablet so you can stream anytime, anywhere.

Available only in the U.S. (excl. Puerto Rico & U.S.V.I.). Req's compatible device & data connection. *Limited to 3 concurrent AT&T streams*.​We also know that the existing DTV Now app, across all platforms (including Apple TV, Roku and Fire TV), is getting rebranded as the AT&T TV app.

It definitely sounds like the first AT&T TV box is not optional, meaning that it's priced into the service, i.e. "free". I don't think they'll break it out as a separate rental fee because that'll just piss folks off. Just bake it into the standard price. And those things don't cost much, so it's not even worth their while to pay for return shipping, cleaning, refurbishment, etc. The box will be yours for life. Since it'll always have the AT&T TV UI as the home screen, who's gonna want to use it without their service?

I expect additional boxes will be sold, maybe $60 each, in case you want more. Or maybe you have to do a 6-month agreement for AT&T TV and get one free box but if you sign a 12-month agreement, you can get 3 free boxes (one for each stream you're allowed)?


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Is that your prediction or based on some hard info? I don't see anything on their webpage indicating that.
> 
> See below screenshot. "HBO available separately"
> 
> ...












They are brain surgeons and rocket scientists at ATT I could never begin to understand their thinking all I have is two degrees. Everything I know about satellite TV I have learned on this board from the real rocket scientists.

Don't call ATT Now a lesser service it is a different service.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

DirectMan said:


> View attachment 30017
> 
> 
> They are brain surgeons and rocket scientists at ATT I could never begin to understand their thinking all I have is two degrees. Everything I know about satellite TV I have learned on this board from the real rocket scientists.
> ...


Hmm, we'll see. Perhaps that footnote is an overly broad disclaimer (and shouldn't include HBO).

Or perhaps, as I've been suggesting, the current $15 AT&T Watch TV skinny bundle (which has no locals and no sports channels) shows up as the "Select" or "Starter" tier in both AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now but, unlike the Plus and Max packages, does NOT contain HBO. I had been predicting that it would and the new Select tier would cost $30. But if not, perhaps it's priced at $20 given that it would have cloud DVR now. (Watch TV has no cloud DVR.)

If that's the case, then HBO would be available separately for the Select package, even though HBO is automatically included on Plus and Max, while both HBO and Cinemax are automatically included on Max. That kind of step-up makes sense to me. But NOT including HBO in the two mainstream Plus and Max packages makes no sense to me. HBO (and the future HBO Max) are absolutely central to AT&T's future video strategy. I just can't see them NOT including it automatically on AT&T TV.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I wonder if the DTV Everywhere APP will get replaced with the AT&T TV APP? Then you would get your locals back to stream outside of the home?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

No details for pricing yet, but "limited to three concurrent streams". Presumably that's the number of active (live/playback) streams at once, and you could set "recordings" for more.

I guess additional streams, and additional clients beyond the one it comes with, will cost extra.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> No details for pricing yet, but "limited to three concurrent streams". Presumably that's the number of active (live/playback) streams at once, and you could set "recordings" for more.
> 
> I guess additional streams, and additional clients beyond the one it comes with, will cost extra.


Yep, the base price on AT&T TV will include 3 concurrent streams across all devices. It actually states "3 AT&T streams," which I'm betting will mean 3 concurrent streams across all of the AT&T-owned apps that you get access to with AT&T TV, which might also include HBO Go (replaced by the HBO Max app next year), as well as apps for their other channels like CNN, TBS, TNT, Cartoon Network, etc. I had been expecting 3 concurrent streams for HBO Max when it launches for $16 (including 4K HDR), which puts it pretty on-par with Netflix at $16 (4K HDR, 4 streams). Any of those apps using the same AT&T log-in will pull from the same pool of 3 simultaneous streams is my guess.

As for additional streams, I had been predicting extra ones for $5/mo each. We'll see.

If you want more than one of their streaming box, my guess is that they'll sell them to you. But you'll also be free to just use the AT&T TV app on Roku, Apple TV and Fire TV. Remember that the existing DirecTV Now app is just changing its name/logo over to AT&T TV soon.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> I wonder if the DTV Everywhere APP will get replaced with the AT&T TV APP? Then you would get your locals back to stream outside of the home?


I doubt it. Seems clear to me that they're going to reserve the DirecTV brand going forward just for the satellite service. But what I can imagine is that they'll take the AT&T TV app, slap the DirecTV name and logo on it, and give you whatever live channels, VOD and cloud DVR features that's already provided through the existing DirecTV mobile app. All of that stuff is based on whatever contractual rights that they've negotiated with the channels for DirecTV. So you still might not get to stream locals outside the home on the app but at least you'd get the new modern UI.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> No details for pricing yet, but "limited to three concurrent streams". Presumably that's the number of active (live/playback) streams at once, and you could set "recordings" for more.
> 
> I guess additional streams, and additional clients beyond the one it comes with, will cost extra.


The website shows recording specs, "No more recording conflicts! Record what you want with unlimited simultaneous recordings and watch anytime, anywhere."

The "limited to three concurrent streams" might be an issue. Many times family members may leave their TV on in one room while they go to another and turn another TV on while they are in that room. So even with only 3 family members it would be easy to run into problems with that. People would need to be trained to turn off one TV before wandering off to another.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I thought they were going to merge DTV Now into HBO MAX?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> I thought they were going to merge DTV Now into HBO MAX?


Who said that? I wonder if they will all have the same interface also.......


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

compnurd said:


> Who said that? I wonder if they will all have the same interface also.......


AT&T's Plans to Merge DIRECTV NOW Into WarnerMedia's New Streaming Service - Cord Cutters News

"According to WarnerMedia CEO John Stankey on CNBC, AT&T plans to merge DIRECTV NOW into WarnerMedia. Later this year, WarnerMedia plans to launch a Netflix like streaming service for about $16 to $17 a month. AT&T reportedly plans to merge DIRECTV NOW into this service with a unified search and user interface."


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> AT&T's Plans to Merge DIRECTV NOW Into WarnerMedia's New Streaming Service - Cord Cutters News
> 
> "According to WarnerMedia CEO John Stankey on CNBC, AT&T plans to merge DIRECTV NOW into WarnerMedia. Later this year, WarnerMedia plans to launch a Netflix like streaming service for about $16 to $17 a month. AT&T reportedly plans to merge DIRECTV NOW into this service with a unified search and user interface."


Maybe he was mistaken. Or merging is a year out. This is happening now Don't worry what some overpriced figure head said


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> AT&T's Plans to Merge DIRECTV NOW Into WarnerMedia's New Streaming Service - Cord Cutters News
> 
> "According to WarnerMedia CEO John Stankey on CNBC, AT&T plans to merge DIRECTV NOW into WarnerMedia. Later this year, WarnerMedia plans to launch a Netflix like streaming service for about $16 to $17 a month. AT&T reportedly plans to merge DIRECTV NOW into this service with a unified search and user interface."


By the end of the year the way DIRECTV NOW is losing customers there will be very few customers to have to merge. Solves any problems.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> It looks to me like AT&T TV will come with ONE box. Per their page (bold emphasis mine):
> 
> Do I have to use a specific device to watch TV?
> 
> ...


Notice that they worded this sentence very carefully -"*download the AT&T TV app* to your mobile device or tablet so you can stream anytime, anywhere."
It very specifically says mobile device or tablet. I would not count on the AT&T TV app being able to be downloaded to and run on a streaming device or smart TV. Sure you can watch on a phone or tablet but if you want to watch on an actual TV, that will require their dedicated STB...for a monthly fee of course. Remember this is AT&T, they love monthly fees. Of course I could be wrong but the very specific wording has weasel written all over it...LOL


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

That is the first thing that crossed my mind too. I don't trust AT&T at all.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

This news actually kinda sucks. We have been looking for awhile to drop Directv in our house for awhile. Mostly due to antiquated hardware and the look i get from my wife everytime we get a hard rain. (the CBS issue isnt helping right now) We stay because i am usually keep the bill down, I like Sunday Ticket, and pound for pound on HD channels they are the best.

So I was looking forward to this as a way to move forward. But we are a semi large household and there could be 4-5 TV's going at the same time so 3 streams is a non starter I fired up my Tivo Bolt last night and reactivate my cable card. If Tivo puts out there new streaming app here shortly that may be all she wrote for me. I just need my one Tivo box for Live TV, and can stream Live TV or whatever to a Fire Stick or ATV at all the other TV's


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> Notice that they worded this sentence very carefully -"*download the AT&T TV app* to your mobile device or tablet so you can stream anytime, anywhere."
> It very specifically says mobile device or tablet. I would not count on the AT&T TV app being able to be downloaded to and run on a streaming device or smart TV. Sure you can watch on a phone or tablet but if you want to watch on an actual TV, that will require their dedicated STB...for a monthly fee of course. Remember this is AT&T, they love monthly fees. Of course I could be wrong but the very specific wording has weasel written all over it...LOL


We already know that the current DirecTV Now app -- across all hardware platforms -- is being rebranded as the "AT&T TV" app. And we know that that app will be used by subscribers of BOTH services, AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now (formerly known as DirecTV Now). Is it possible that AT&T will refuse to allow their AT&T TV subscribers log-ins to work on the AT&T TV app for Roku, Apple TV, and Fire TV (while at the same time allowing their AT&T TV Now subscribers to use the app on those devices)? It's possible but, c'mon, they're going to get a ton of hate (and confused support calls) if they pull that.

Also, just a couple weeks ago, I read an article quoting one of the big guys at AT&T, talking about the upcoming AT&T TV service (although the article didn't use that name then because it had yet to be unveiled), saying that they were open to the idea of customers using app-based devices like Roku, etc. on their "secondary" TVs.

So why doesn't the marketing website for AT&T TV make a big deal about being able to use those TV-connected devices? BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT MARKETING AT&T TV TO CORD-CUTTERS. BECAUSE THEY'RE VERY PROUD OF THEIR STREAMING BOX AND REMOTE AND BELIEVE IT'S A DIFFERENTIATOR FOR THIS SERVICE AND THEY WANT IT FRONT-AND-CENTER IN THEIR MARKETING MESSAGE. They don't want to muddy the public's first impression of the new AT&T TV service by talking about using it with Roku, etc. "Oh, this isn't REAL cable TV," some folks will say, "it's another one of those little streaming services you use with a dinky streaming box and remote."


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

Yeah, this AT&T TV is an absolutely terrible idea. People don’t want this. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> We already know that the current DirecTV Now app -- across all hardware platforms -- is being rebranded as the "AT&T TV" app. And we know that that app will be used by subscribers of BOTH services, AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now (formerly known as DirecTV Now). Is it possible that AT&T will refuse to allow their AT&T TV subscribers log-ins to work on the AT&T TV app for Roku, Apple TV, and Fire TV (while at the same time allowing their AT&T TV Now subscribers to use the app on those devices)? It's possible but, c'mon, they're going to get a ton of hate (and confused support calls) if they pull that.
> 
> Also, just a couple weeks ago, I read an article quoting one of the big guys at AT&T, talking about the upcoming AT&T TV service (although the article didn't use that name then because it had yet to be unveiled), saying that they were open to the idea of customers using app-based devices like Roku, etc. on their "secondary" TVs.
> 
> So why doesn't the marketing website for AT&T TV make a big deal about being able to use those TV-connected devices? BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT MARKETING AT&T TV TO CORD-CUTTERS. BECAUSE THEY'RE VERY PROUD OF THEIR STREAMING BOX AND REMOTE AND BELIEVE IT'S A DIFFERENTIATOR FOR THIS SERVICE AND THEY WANT IT FRONT-AND-CENTER IN THEIR MARKETING MESSAGE. They don't want to muddy the public's first impression of the new AT&T TV service by talking about using it with Roku, etc. "Oh, this isn't REAL cable TV," some folks will say, "it's another one of those little streaming services you use with a dinky streaming box and remote."


I'll be happy to be proven wrong. But again, the carefully chosen wording is very suspicious to me. I would think being able to run this app and have access to this service on streaming devices and smart TVs would be something the marketing folks would have wanted to highlight, not hide. Why purposely talk about mobile devices and tablets but leave out streaming devices and smart TVs ..unless you have too. I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

The New AT&T TV Streaming Service Will Require an AT&T Branded Android TV Streaming Player



> Yesterday we learned a lot about the new AT&T live TV streaming service AT&T TV. Part of the news that came out was that if you want to use AT&T TV on your home TV you will need an AT&T branded Android TV streaming player. This likely means you will need an AT&T TV streaming player for each TV in your house. Also during the AT&T earning call last week AT&T's executives repeatedly talked about AT&T TV using a cheap set-top box.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

So after reviewing all the information that has come out this is how I understand how AT&T TV will affect all of AT&T's current video offerings. I think we can officially say bye bye U-Verse in the short term.

*DirecTV* - Seems to be safe for at least the next decade no indication they have any will to get rid of DirecTV in the short term. However they are relying less on the brand and reserving it for the legacy satellite service. 
*DirecTV Everywhere* will need to stay put as long as AT&T continues to offer DirecTV as its own product. Now if they re-brand "DirecTV" to "AT&T TV Satellite" I could see it using the "AT&T TV" authentication and the AT&T TV app 

*AT&T Watch TV* - This service won't be affected as it is clearly targeted to those looking for a skinny bundle similar to Philo. I personally predict if AT&T ever makes a change to this service they will fold it into the overall AT&T TV app. For supported apps like HBO GO / Max Go there is *AT&T Watch TV* "TV Everywhere" login available. 

*U-Verse TV* - Bye Bye baby bye bye! Your replacement is on its way and will be in testing soon. RIP. 
*U-Verse TV Everywhere *as long as *U-Verse* has subscribers this will need to stay in order to allow its customer base to use TV apps.

*DirecTV Now* - Re-branding to AT&T TV Now customers will need to use AT&T TV option to re-authenticate their TV Everywhere apps other than that nothing changes business as usual. Will use the AT&T TV app on all devices does not require AT&T TV hardware to use. Your login will determine if your an AT&T TV Now or an AT&T TV subscriber and act accordingly. 

*AT&T TV* - Requires AT&T hardware (aka thin-client) to use. According to Cord Cutters at least 1 thin-client will defiantly be required on the primary TV based on their sources but one of their sources said a thin-client will be needed on all TVs in the home . AT&T's website mentions the service comes with its next gen device it only clarifies mobile/tablet devices can use the AT&T TV app . Based on their website (under the see details link) *AT&T TV* seems it will have packages similar to *DirecTV* as it mentions the ULTIMATE base package.

As far as channels go it seems *AT&T TV* and *DirecTV* will have most of the same channels based on their description for on demand from their respective websites at att.com:



AT&T TV said:


> 55,000 on-demand titles req's subscription to top-tier ULTIMATE programming package and all premium channels.





DirecTV said:


> Get the ultimate entertainment experience with access to 330+ live channels including two dedicated to 4K Ultra HD, and over 50,000 on-demand titles. Everyone can watch what they want at home, or download to watch on the go with the DIRECTV App.
> 
> DIRECTV App requires subscription to DIRECTV's top-tier PREMIER programming package. Other packages will have fewer shows and movies.


Currently *DirecTV Now* already offers streaming versions of Entertainment ($93/mo), Choice ($110/mo), Xtra ($124/mo), Ultimate ($135/mo) and Optimo Mas ($86/mo) under their "Other Packages" option and the channel lineups are the same as their grandfathered packages (Live A Little, Just Right, Gotta Have It, Go Big, Todo y Mas).

The prices for the DTV Now versions of the DTV satellite package are also the regular prices of the satellite all included packages that include the channels, ARS-HD, ARS-DVR, WH-DVR and 1 receiver.

Currently with *DirecTV Now* the streaming versions of these packages include 2 streams, Cloud DVR Beta (20 hours storage/30 days expiration) a 3rd stream is available for an additional $5/mo.

It would be interesting to see if AT&T just uses the above configuration but ups the Cloud DVR to 500 hours/90 day expiration with 3rd stream still $5/mo extra or includes it in price for *AT&T TV*.

Would also be interested to see if the cost of the packages are cheaper or the same or if they come out with all new packages.
--------------
Regarding premium channels: Based on my above findings it seems safe to say *AT&T TV* will offer the core four premium services (HBO, Cinemax, Starz/Starz Encore, Showtime/TMC) as *DirecTV* has advertised for years the ability to access over 50k titles via on-demand if you had the Premier package which only includes those four. 

_Side note: *AT&T Watch TV* customers can subscribe to HBO, Cinemax, Starz and Showtime as a la carte services at the same prices as *DirecTV* customers. If they have *DirecTV*, *U-Verse TV* or *DirecTV Now* and subscribe to those premium services through *AT&T Watch TV *it will unlock them on their other qualifying AT&T television service at no additional cost. I would suspect *AT&T TV* would be added to this once it launches. 
_
Based on that little blurp on AT&T's website in the fine print where it mentioned the Ultimate base package plus premiums is required to get over 55k titles on demand it seems at this point *AT&T TV* will use *DirecTV*'s contracts for its channels which means Epix will most likely be on the new service since it is already on *DirecTV *and *U-Verse TV.* Epix is supposed to be coming soon to *DirecTV Now* (soon to be *AT&T Now*).

Also AT&T just got Epix On Demand and Epix live streams on the *DirecTV* app up they are only lacking TV Everywhere authentication at this point.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

so will the new att tv have NFL ST? NBA LP? NHL CI? MLB EI?
the same in market RSN/s + overflows part time + with lots of sub feeds? 
the cable auto switched FSN feeds + ESPN?
the *U-Verse TV* RSN's that are an mix the directv feeds + some cable like auto switched ones + overflows that are live 24/7?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

JoeTheDragon said:


> so will the new att tv have NFL ST? NBA LP? NHL CI? MLB EI?
> the same in market RSN/s + overflows part time + with lots of sub feeds?
> the cable auto switched FSN feeds + ESPN?
> the *U-Verse TV* RSN's that are an mix the directv feeds + some cable like auto switched ones + overflows that are live 24/7?


Yes all of the above along with Massaging Chairs and a remote that tells you how good looking you are.

BUT WAIT THERES MORE

Sign up Now and ATT will send a Actual Deathstar to your house for pictures


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

compnurd said:


> Yes all of the above along with Massaging Chairs and a remote that tells you how good looking you are.
> 
> BUT WAIT THERES MORE
> 
> Sign up Now and ATT will send a Actual Deathstar to your house for pictures


Not sure what I'd like more, the chair or that remote.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

JoeTheDragon said:


> so will the new att tv have NFL ST? NBA LP? NHL CI? MLB EI?
> the same in market RSN/s + overflows part time + with lots of sub feeds?
> the cable auto switched FSN feeds + ESPN?
> the *U-Verse TV* RSN's that are an mix the directv feeds + some cable like auto switched ones + overflows that are live 24/7?


NFL ST is probably a big no as that contract probably has a clause stating satellite unless they get permission from the NFL to offer it on AT&T TV. They did test it out one year on DTV Now in select markets if I remember right. NFL Network itself is up in the air considering DirecTV Now and U-Verse TV were using the same contract which was separate from DirecTV.

In regards to MLB EI, NBA LP and NHL CI we will have to wait and see. Logically I would say yes since they are stopping new U-Verse TV subscriptions while they test AT&T TV in certain markets but again with sports nothing is certain until announced.

I have no idea about any of the feeds I just know what I've read online and from the fine print on AT&T's various websites. I didn't even know they did that.



compnurd said:


> Yes all of the above along with Massaging Chairs and a remote that tells you how good looking you are.
> 
> BUT WAIT THERES MORE
> 
> Sign up Now and ATT will send a Actual Deathstar to your house for pictures


omg I'm dying here!  *tries to hides from the Deathstar*


----------



## ctide21 (Sep 4, 2011)

The new AT&T TV website mentions in the small print that it is limited to 3 concurrent AT&T streams. Does that mean only 3 tvs with live tv at the same time. Is this a deal breaker for large households.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

ctide21 said:


> The new AT&T TV website mentions in the small print that it is limited to 3 concurrent AT&T streams. Does that mean only 3 tvs with live tv at the same time. Is this a deal breaker for large households.


My understanding of that is 3 streams period. Even if 1 stream is from 1 AT&T "Next-Gen" set-top box, and 2 are from the AT&T TV app then that is 3 "AT&T streams" is how I understand it. I guess we will find out closer to launch when they decide to clarify stuff.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

ctide21 said:


> The new AT&T TV website mentions in the small print that it is limited to 3 concurrent AT&T streams. Does that mean only 3 tvs with live tv at the same time. Is this a deal breaker for large households.


I think it means three TVs (or phones/tablets) with live OR recorded playback at one time. i.e. you can only have 3 devices operating at one time in your house using AT&T TV. Whether that's a deal breaker depends on how many TVs you have turned on at once using cable/satellite, but it will obviously be more of a potential limitation the bigger your household.

Presumably there will be a way to "buy" more streams though, just like you can get more receivers from Directv or the cable company if you have a large household with a lot of TVs.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

What a mess and a marketing nightmare. This company has zero cohesive strategy.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

raott said:


> What a mess and a marketing nightmare. This company has zero cohesive strategy.


This company has never had a cohesive strategy except to keep rebranding various things to some form of AT&T. I gib exhibit A.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

raott said:


> What a mess and a marketing nightmare. This company has zero cohesive strategy.


I agree that it's seemed that way lately. But by end of year, I think we'll see that it makes sense. They'll have 3 live cable TV services, all offering the same packages of channels, all based on the most recent set of unified carriage contracts that AT&T has negotiated.

Select: contains the channels currently in AT&T Watch TV. No locals, no all-sports channels, nothing owned by Disney/ABC, CBS, Fox or Comcast/NBC. May include HBO? Free OTA locals (with local DVR service) can be integrated into this package via optional hardware offered by AT&T.
Plus: all the stuff in the current Plus package (currently sold on both DTV Now and DTV satellite), with a few more channels (e.g. A&E, History, Lifetime, AMC) added in. Includes HBO.
Max: all the stuff in the current Max package (currently sold on both DTV Now and DTV satellite), with a few more channels (e.g. A&E, History, Lifetime, AMC) added in. Max includes RSNs and additional sports channels that Plus does not have. Max also includes your choice of one Extra Pack at no additional charge. Includes both HBO and Cinemax.
Ultimate: the "kitchen sink" package that includes all the stuff in the Max package, plus other a la carte premiums (Showtime, Starz, Epix), plus everything in all the Extra Packs
Extra Packs will be genre-themed groups of additional niche channels that can be added onto any base package, such as Sports Extra Pack, Family Extra Pack, etc.

Once HBO Max launches next spring, Cinemax disappears and HBO Max is packaged in at no additional charge in the Plus, Max and Ultimate packages (and maybe Select too).

The question then becomes which service you want your chosen package through:

AT&T TV: streaming via the internet, featuring AT&T's own custom TV streaming device and voice remote. First device is free, additional units sold at cost. Comes standard with 500 hours of cloud DVR (90 day recording limit) and 3 concurrent streams. Fully accessible anywhere via the AT&T TV app, with data consumption zero-rated on AT&T Wireless plans. Can be bundled with AT&T Internet/Fiber for a $10/mo discount off total bill. Bundling also waives the 1 TB data cap on AT&T Internet/Fiber. May require a short (12 mo or less) up-front contract if not bundled with AT&T Internet/Fiber.
AT&T TV Now: streaming via the internet, requires use of your own retail devices. Comes standard with 20 hours of cloud DVR (30 day recording limit) and 2 concurrent streams. Fully accessible anywhere via the AT&T TV app, with data consumption zero-rated on AT&T Wireless plans. Contract-free.
DirecTV: broadcast via satellite, requires free professional installation and 24 month up-front contract. Comes standard with 1 Genie DVR that can store ~200 hours of HD video. Service to additional TVs costs extra. Not available for bundling at a discount for new customers on AT&T Internet/Fiber.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> The question then becomes which service you want your chosen package through:
> 
> AT&T TV: streaming via the internet, featuring AT&T's own custom TV streaming device and voice remote. First device is free, additional units sold at cost. Comes standard with 500 hours of cloud DVR (90 day recording limit) and 3 concurrent streams. *Fully accessible anywhere via the AT&T TV app,* with data consumption zero-rated on AT&T Wireless plans. Can be bundled with AT&T Internet/Fiber for a $10/mo discount off total bill. Bundling also waives the 1 TB data cap on AT&T Internet/Fiber. May require a short (12 mo or less) up-front contract if not bundled with AT&T Internet/Fiber.


This article seems to believe that will not be the case...

*The New AT&T TV Streaming Service Will Require an AT&T Branded Android TV Streaming Player*


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

I’ve always loved this sites optimism when it comes to D*. If you’re still running with DirecTV 2019 it seems like a great time to become and edge cutter and run away. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> This article seems to believe that will not be the case...
> 
> *The New AT&T TV Streaming Service Will Require an AT&T Branded Android TV Streaming Player*


The article cites some installer memos which cite a "Full Technician Install" FTI or CSI (I assume Customer Supplied Install). I wonder if the FTI will be charged or require say a 1 year agreement? Remember that the first 9 locations are test markets so you would think they would want to test alternative pay or install structures.

It mentions August 19 as the start of the pilot.

What is "BB" customers mentioned in the slide?


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

DirectMan said:


> The article cites some installer memos which cite a "Full Technician Install" FTI or CSI (I assume Customer Supplied Install). I wonder if the FTI will be charged or require say a 1 year agreement? Remember that the first 9 locations are test markets so you would think they would want to test alternative pay or install structures.
> 
> It mentions August 19 as the start of the pilot.
> 
> What is "BB" customers mentioned in the slide?


Can BB be "BestBuy" - they have a network of installers on staff.


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

DirectMan said:


> Can BB be "BestBuy" - they have a network of installers on staff.


Best Buy Geek Squad Installation services - I am sure this is a service to be paid by the subscriber. Say $69 or $79 or $89 with different prices in different pilot locations. After the test is completed they can analyze the results and figure out the optimal price to charge.

The Geek Squad charges $149 for TV install and setup so this would be a cheaper negotiated price for an easy install.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

DirectMan said:


> The article cites some installer memos which cite a "Full Technician Install" FTI or CSI (I assume Customer Supplied Install). I wonder if the FTI will be charged or require say a 1 year agreement? Remember that the first 9 locations are test markets so you would think they would want to test alternative pay or install structures.
> 
> It mentions August 19 as the start of the pilot.
> 
> What is "BB" customers mentioned in the slide?


tech install as in att-uverse just for the internet?


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

b4pjoe said:


> This article seems to believe that will not be the case...
> 
> *The New AT&T TV Streaming Service Will Require an AT&T Branded Android TV Streaming Player*


Wow, look at the size of that STB...the 2000's called and they want their STB back...LOL. Seriously does the world need yet another Android based streaming device? But I guess AT&T is doing anything and everything they can to increase customer switching friction.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

b4pjoe said:


> This article seems to believe that will not be the case...
> 
> *The New AT&T TV Streaming Service Will Require an AT&T Branded Android TV Streaming Player*


seems like TVision / Layer3 TV.
Must use there hardware and added boxes have cable like fees for each one.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I've heard prices for the box bandied about from free, $20, $60, etc...It would *NOT* shock me to see AT&T want $299.00 per box for each TV you want the service on. I have 7 TV's.  Yes sir, that will be $2,093 for you to upgrade to our satellite replacement service that we promised would save you money. Like I said about AT&T before. I trust nothing that they do or say.


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

How could they possibly go 299? No way.. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

That is not a prediction but it wouldn't shock me either. Heck the Apple 4K is $199 and I'm sure AT&T would feel theirs is better than Apples.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'd say $299 as a purchase, but I also expect the box to be lease only. $10 per month and give it back in reusable condition when you leave would be my prediction.

With the service limited to three streams I can also see the number of boxes limited - so perhaps $10 per box for the first three or four and then a one time "lease upgrade fee" for additional boxes?

It will be interesting to see if the three stream limit remains a hard limit (similar to the three stream limit on DIRECTV NOW) or gets reworded as "three streams included" similar to the two streams included with DIRECTV NOW. If it is a hard limit I can see it being a problem for multi device households.

Then again, AT&T|DIRECTV will have DIRECTV satellite "Premium TV" offerings for people who need more than a basic system.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I think however AT&T does it, it is going come close to be about the same that we pay now for a similar number of channels and streams/tv's. If cheaper I don't think it will be a lot cheaper. And if they saddle their cloud DVR with not being able to fast forward and rewind they can keep their AT&T TV.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

James Long said:


> I'd say $299 as a purchase, but I also expect the box to be lease only. $10 per month and give it back in reusable condition when you leave would be my prediction.
> 
> With the service limited to three streams I can also see the number of boxes limited - so perhaps $10 per box for the first three or four and then a one time "lease upgrade fee" for additional boxes?
> 
> ...


I think the AT&T "Next-Gen" box that will be used with AT&T TV will be a one time purchase that consumers will own probably comparable a mid-range streaming box. If the customer decides to leave AT&T TV they can keep the AT&T "Next-Gen" box and use it for all their other streaming services like Netflix, etc (since it is essentially an Android box) in the event the customer wants to come back to AT&T TV. This way they don't have to pay "equipment lease fees".

Now in the future I can see AT&T charging something like $5/ea/mo for an extra stream up to 6 for streams 4-6 like how they added the third stream option to DirecTV Now.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

$299? You guys are on crack! Even the HS17 doesn't cost that much to manufacture.

No way this thing costs more than $50 to manufacture. AT&T would probably like to have former customers using a box with AT&T branding for streaming other stuff, so people owning and keeping them makes sense. They can run ads to try to win back the former customers, maybe they get a small cut when people sign up for Hulu or whatever on it. So selling them at cost(ish) for $50 seems the most logical to me.

Maybe they'll throw one for free in when you sign up with a 3-6 month commitment, but it'll be a 14 day free trial so you can return the box and cancel without penalty. Otherwise you have to stay for the commitment, and keep it at the end if you cancel. If you want more C71s you'll have to buy them as well, and you'll have to pay a monthly fee for streams above three.

Those are my predictions...


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

So Apple must be on crack lite for asking $199 for their box that probably cost less to make than the C71? I can't for the life of me figure out why people think AT&T is trying to save you (the customer) money. No I'm not predicting it will be $299. But if it does it would not surprise me. It wouldn't be any crazier than the fees they charge on your account right now.


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

This isn’t gonna be an AppleTV 4K, no way, no how. It’s not even fair to compare the two. Why would this new DirecTV box allow me to stream my collection of tv/music/movies through my Emby or Plex server? They will not.. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

fireponcoal said:


> This isn't gonna be an AppleTV 4K, no way, no how. It's not even fair to compare the two. Why would this new DirecTV box allow me to stream my collection of tv/music/movies through my Emby or Plex server? They will not..


LOL...it is exactly that. You can install apps from Google Play, like Plex and thousands of others, and it also is 4K capable. The difference is it uses android instead of iOS. You might want to read about it.

AT&T TV: Live TV, DVR, On Demand, Apps & Voice Control


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

b4pjoe said:


> So Apple must be on crack lite for asking $199 for their box that probably cost less to make than the C71? I can't for the life of me figure out why people think AT&T is trying to save you (the customer) money. No I'm not predicting it will be $299. But if it does it would not surprise me. It wouldn't be any crazier than the fees they charge on your account right now.


Oh the Apple 4K box costs much more to make than the C71. What gave you the idea it was better than Apple's? The 4K Apple TV has a far far faster CPU/GPU, more RAM, more flash, and probably is built with higher quality components in general. Now that might all add up to Apple's costing $65 to make instead of $45 or whatever so it isn't going to be a huge difference in dollar terms.

The price you charge for something is often determined by what it is worth to them, not by what it costs to make. Apple sells plenty of them at the current price (I thought it was $179?) and charges high margins for most of their hardware. People buy their products as much if not more for their software and ecosystem than their hardware.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

$179 for the 32 GB model. $199 for the 64 GB model. I never said it was better than the Apple TV. I have no idea which one costs more to make but like you said the cost to make probably isn't much difference between the two. The C71 is pretty much going to do the same thing the Apple 4K TV is doing plus having the AT&T TV software. The Apple 4K TV may be faster with more RAM but this is AT&T we're talking about. They value their products highly. And as I said I am not predicting the price will be $299. Just that it wouldn't surprise me if they are. Because ===> *AT&T*.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Oh the Apple 4K box costs much more to make than the C71. What gave you the idea it was better than Apple's? The 4K Apple TV has a far far faster CPU/GPU, more RAM, more flash, and probably is built with higher quality components in general. Now that might all add up to Apple's costing $65 to make instead of $45 or whatever so it isn't going to be a huge difference in dollar terms.
> 
> The price you charge for something is often determined by what it is worth to them, not by what it costs to make. Apple sells plenty of them at the current price (I thought it was $179?) and charges high margins for most of their hardware. People buy their products as much if not more for their software and ecosystem than their hardware.


I would guess this new AT&T Android box isn't going to be anywhere close to as good as an ATV 4k for the simple reason that it doesn't have to be. The target market for this is not people who are looking for something like an ATV 4k. I don't think their target market is sophisticated AV enthusiasts or experienced streamers. My guess is the target market is more like current sat/cable customers who are looking for a traditional linear tv viewing experience who may want to also try out this whole newfangled streaming stuff...LOL Knowing AT&T they aren't going to spend a penny more than they have to to hit that target market.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Yes, Directv has always built equipment that's just "good enough" (and arguably has fallen short of that mark a few times)

The specs for the C71 look fine, it is much better than older clients and will be fine for running apps like Netflix. You aren't going to be gaming on it like you can on an ATV, but that's not what it is designed for.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

DirectMan said:


> The article cites some installer memos which cite a "Full Technician Install" FTI or CSI (I assume Customer Supplied Install). I wonder if the FTI will be charged or require say a 1 year agreement? Remember that the first 9 locations are test markets so you would think they would want to test alternative pay or install structures.
> 
> It mentions August 19 as the start of the pilot.
> 
> What is "BB" customers mentioned in the slide?


The Full Technician Install is only for those customers also getting broadband installed at the same time. For those just ordering AT&T TV, they just ship you the C71 box, or maybe you can pick one up at an AT&T store. Word is that, for those less-technically inclined folks who have difficulty completing the 4 steps to set up the box themselves (e.g. connecting it to their wifi/ethernet), AT&T will send one of their (lower paid) salespersons to the home to help them complete the set-up and, while they're there, try to sell other services such as AT&T Wireless.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

DirectMan said:


> Can BB be "BestBuy" - they have a network of installers on staff.


I think "BB" means broadband.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Oh the Apple 4K box costs much more to make than the C71.


The US retail device closest to the C71 would be the Mi Box S from Xiaomi. It runs Google Android TV (standard retail version) and handles both 4K and HR10, although its chipset has slightly weaker specs (based on Geekbench results), it doesn't have an ethernet port, and its remote isn't as nice as the C71's. The Mi Box S sells for $60. And that's with Xiaomi making a profit on it.

Even though the AT&T TV box is a little nicer, I'll be surprised if AT&T charges more than $60 for it. And if they charge that much, it'll probably just be to help offset the cost of giving away your first one for free when you sign up. You know they're buying these things in bulk and given that this will be Android TV's first major pay TV box invasion of the US, Google may even be chipping in on the costs a bit. Every device comes with a voice remote and has Google Assistant and Chromecast built in, plus YouTube and Google Play Movies and TV pre-installed.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Yes, Directv has always built equipment that's just "good enough" (and arguably has fallen short of that mark a few times)
> 
> The specs for the C71 look fine, it is much better than older clients and will be fine for running apps like Netflix. You aren't going to be gaming on it like you can on an ATV, but that's not what it is designed for.


IDK, there for awhile D was really pushing the envelope...that was the reason I was an "edge cutter" and couldn't wait to force the download of the latest code. Unfortunately those days are long gone and part of the reason I parted ways with D. IMO they let the technology pass them by and became more interested in milking their install base, which eventually culminated in them taking the money and running...or selling to AT&T...same thing.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

So my friend that works for the local call center has shed some more light on AT&T TV. He said pricing is still TBA but there is some interesting tidbits he found out.

*Base Packages *(Lead Offers): Entertainment, Choice, Xtra, Ultimate & Optimo Mas
He said from a quick look the lineup for the AT&T TV versions seem to be the exact same as the lineup for the DTV Now/AT&T TV Now variants. (Ignore pricing on that link as that is the pricing for DTV Now's version). These will be the packages that sales reps will be selling and customers will be able to sign up for online.

*Other Packages* (Reactive Offers): Plus, Max
Plus and Max are intended for DTV Now/AT&T TV Now but AT&T will make them available to customers on AT&T TV who really want them just like they provide an option for customers who want these packages on DirecTV. The process is the same humans can't order these packages for you. You will need to go to AT&T.com place a new AT&T TV order and select either Plus or Max. According to their guidance these packages won't be eligible for any offers and it is strongly advised to push customer to one of the lead offers (like with DirecTV). 

*Sports Packages:* There are no sports packages (like NFL ST/MLB EI/NHL CI/NBA LP) -- suggest DirecTV. 
*Premium Channels:* AT&T TV will come with your standard HBO, Cinemax, Starz and Showtime (pricing still TBA) the # live channels included in each are the same as the DTV Now/AT&T TV Now packages.
Epix is not available on AT&T TV or DTV Now/AT&T TV Now.  However a good way around this is just to subscribe to Epix now for $5.99/mo (same price as D*) and you get the Epix Now app and live streams of all their channels. 

*Paid Programming:* The service will not have paid programming channels that are seen on DirecTV/U-Verse TV. 
*Music Choice/Stingray Audio*: No it will not have either one of these or any other kind of audio only music channels. 
*Movies Extra Pack/HD Premium Tier*: As of right now no AT&T TV will not offer these add-ons however Hallmark Movies & Mysteries is available in Entertainment. 
*Any other add-ons*: TBA couldn't find any other potential AT&T TV information.
*International Channels*: TBA couldn't find information about potential AT&T TV offerings.
Other tidbits he can see how Cord Cutter News' sources got confused with the whole set top box requirement. On the page after it goes in detail about the whole set-top box, explaining the features, Google assist, yada yada it then talks about the AT&T TV app and mentions third party devices like Apple TV.  He said tomorrow he would have to go re-read that whole section to fully understand what the requirements are and if the user could in fact use third party devices like Apple TV with AT&T TV.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

techguy88 said:


> So my friend that works for the local call center has shed some more light on AT&T TV. He said pricing is still TBA but there is some interesting tidbits he found out.
> 
> *Base Packages *(Lead Offers): Entertainment, Choice, Xtra, Ultimate & Optimo Mas
> He said from a quick look the lineup for the AT&T TV versions seem to be the exact same as the lineup for the DTV Now/AT&T TV Now variants. (Ignore pricing on that link as that is the pricing for DTV Now's version). These will be the packages that sales reps will be selling and customers will be able to sign up for online.
> ...


I am not surprised there are no "Sports Packages" One can just download the Sports Package App on there streaming box and have such sports package Although ST could be the wild card there.. but maybe they are planning to expand the streaming version this year


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

compnurd said:


> One can just download the Sports Package App on there streaming box and have such sports package


For the ones that allow stand alone subscriptions via an app that could work. AT&T would lose their cut of the subscription fee.

With the "status quo" agreement with the NFL I would not expect much expansion of NFL Sunday Ticket.


----------

