# ATT TV (DIRECTV Stream) - a little review



## lparsons21

Since ATT TV is offering free HBO/HBO Max for the 1st year, and a $100 rebate, I signed up for it today at the Entertainment level.

I don’t have ATT’s little box yet, so some of the things I may say might change when it gets here.

Equipment -
AppleTV4K - app performance is very good. The guide is one of the nicest I’ve seen on any streaming app. And there are filters to help in guide management though a bit limited.

Audio performance is worse than some streamers, mostly because the audio level is low but also because, even with their ‘premium’ product they couldn’t bother giving 5.1 audio! That sucks!

DVR and recordings management is easy and the search function works very well. On Demand stuff seems very good though I’ve not played with it much. Seems to call another app for some of it and stay in the app for others. But the transition is smooth as silk.

FireTV Cube - performance is totally unacceptable! Pig slow for all functions. I wouldn’t recommend using the FireTV for this at all.

I’ll come back to this after the box comes in to report the good/bad/changed from apps on the AppleTV4K.


----------



## Jamie

So, AT&T TV is only stereo and does not have 5.1 surround?


----------



## lparsons21

Seems to be that way though some digging around says many channels are 5.1 on FireTV but not on AppleTV. I’ll test that in a bit though the overall performance on the FireTV is not good at all IMO.


----------



## Jamie

Hmm... it seems to be the same as Hulu-- for some reason they only provide 2-channel audio on Apple TV. So, with AT&T TV, it should be 5.1 audio when using their own box, maybe?


----------



## lparsons21

Possibly. I have confirmed that it does do 5.1 audio on at least some channels on the FireTV.


----------



## lparsons21

Oh, also noticed some lip sync issues on the AppleTV. Did some googling and it is a well reported issue with the only fix a temporary one of setting the ATV to 1080p.

Supposed ATT is well aware of this and is ‘working’ on it.


----------



## raott

So the box isn’t really needed after all?


----------



## lparsons21

raott said:


> So the box isn't really needed after all?


No it isn't. I signed up online today, installed the app on the ATV and away I went. Then put it on the FireTV.

While ATT wants to make a big difference between ATT TV and ATT TV Now they are just the same product at different prices, channel lineups and contract or not.


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> Since ATT TV is offering free HBO/HBO Max for the 1st year, and a $100 rebate, I signed up for it today at the Entertainment level.
> 
> I don't have ATT's little box yet, so some of the things I may say might change when it gets here.
> 
> Equipment -
> AppleTV4K - app performance is very good. The guide is one of the nicest I've seen on any streaming app. And there are filters to help in guide management though a bit limited.
> 
> Audio performance is worse than some streamers, mostly because the audio level is low but also because, even with their 'premium' product they couldn't bother giving 5.1 audio! That sucks!
> 
> DVR and recordings management is easy and the search function works very well. On Demand stuff seems very good though I've not played with it much. Seems to call another app for some of it and stay in the app for others. But the transition is smooth as silk.
> 
> FireTV Cube - performance is totally unacceptable! Pig slow for all functions. I wouldn't recommend using the FireTV for this at all.
> 
> I'll come back to this after the box comes in to report the good/bad/changed from apps on the AppleTV4K.


I will be interested to see how the restriction works. It is possible the limitation kicks in once you activate the AT&T TV device they send you. I didn't notice any lip sync issues with the Apple TV HD (4th Gen) with the AT&T TV app.

Your FireTV Cube performance sounds like the performance my FireTV Stick experienced to the T.

The AT&T TV device is nice and I personally preferred channels being organized by numbers rather than alphabetical. The AT&T TV channel #s are the same as D*'s.

Like I mentioned in my review and I will warn you switching between apps a lot will cause the box to crash and reload. When I was setting up Netflix, CBS All Access, Movies Anywhere, etc. I was just opening one app logging in and then moving on to the next. Doing this caused the AT&T TV device to lag and eventually reboot. Now I was using the beta box so I'm not sure if the boxes they are distributing has something different to rectify this.



lparsons21 said:


> No it isn't. I signed up online today, installed the app on the ATV and away I went. Then put it on the FireTV.
> 
> While ATT wants to make a big difference between ATT TV and ATT TV Now they are just the same product at different prices, channel lineups and contract or not.


Very true. I think the big difference they want to push is the AT&T TV device. They are only selling the AT&T TV device with AT&T TV even though AT&T TV Now is compatible with it.

The other big difference is how the customer interacts with the product from a customer service perspective. 

AT&T TV: You can call into a call center and speak with representatives, chat online, manage account online. *You have to call to cancel the service.*
AT&T TV Now: Entirely self service, can chat with a representative if needed, no call center representatives and *can cancel online without speaking to a care representative*. 
Also AT&T TV Now offers Entertainment - Ultimate & Optimo Mas at their regular non-promo rates but for Choice - Ultimate you don't get billed for the RSN fee. I find that odd lol.


----------



## espaeth

lparsons21 said:


> Oh, also noticed some lip sync issues on the AppleTV. Did some googling and it is a well reported issue with the only fix a temporary one of setting the ATV to 1080p.
> 
> Supposed ATT is well aware of this and is 'working' on it.


It's been broken since November. You have to do 4K Dolby Vision or HDR, or 1080P/SDR. 4K/SDR is broken.

The osprey box forces everything to 4K/HDR, so you're stuck with terrible choices either way.


----------



## compnurd

Curious.. Was the Fire Stick and Cube used the older generations?


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Curious.. Was the Fire Stick and Cube used the older generations?


I didn't use a stick, just the Cube. I think it is one generation old given how long I've had it.


----------



## lparsons21

techguy88 said:


> I will be interested to see how the restriction works. It is possible the limitation kicks in once you activate the AT&T TV device they send you. I didn't notice any lip sync issues with the Apple TV HD (4th Gen) with the AT&T TV app.
> 
> Your FireTV Cube performance sounds like the performance my FireTV Stick experienced to the T.
> 
> The AT&T TV device is nice and I personally preferred channels being organized by numbers rather than alphabetical. The AT&T TV channel #s are the same as D*'s.
> 
> Like I mentioned in my review and I will warn you switching between apps a lot will cause the box to crash and reload. When I was setting up Netflix, CBS All Access, Movies Anywhere, etc. I was just opening one app logging in and then moving on to the next. Doing this caused the AT&T TV device to lag and eventually reboot. Now I was using the beta box so I'm not sure if the boxes they are distributing has something different to rectify this.


As I remember it, you don't have a 4K TV. Lip sync seems to be an issue with 4K on the ATV. Mine is set to 4K/HDR and the lip sync issue isn't on everything, it is a bit random.

The Cube is working a little better this morning. Still slower than the ATV, but not as pig slow as I was getting last night. It's nice to have 5.1 audio using the Cube but the Cube's audio levels are low compared to the ATV and the ATT app is also low compared to most other apps so I have to push the volume quite a bit to get something acceptable.

I really like the DVR since I control it. That was one thing I never really liked with YouTubeTV. Too messy IMO.

Trick play on the FireTV is a bit on the irritating side since during skips you don't have thumbnail to see where in the ads you are and when the show starts again, only a time indicator. However the controls work better than on the ATV.

On the ATV it tries to show the video as you move but the app isn't strong enough to handle it well and oft times get an error about internet performance. Note that all these streaming guys try to blame your internet performance for almost all issues. It is a seemingly constant refrain I see reported in many forums.


----------



## lparsons21

Jamie said:


> Hmm... it seems to be the same as Hulu-- for some reason they only provide 2-channel audio on Apple TV. So, with AT&T TV, it should be 5.1 audio when using their own box, maybe?


Coming back to this. I have to wonder what the hell Apple is doing with audio on the ATV that is different in a way that makes doing 5.1 audio harder. As you note, Hulu doesn't do 5.1 on ATV either.


----------



## lparsons21

HD PQ is fine with the ATT app, maybe even a tiny bit crisper than YouTubeTV or some other video apps.

I have noticed some video quirks now and then. Like a jump or quick freeze, not horrible but a bit more often than I’ve seen with other apps.

In general the product works as advertised and with my plan to keep it a year and cancel because that will make my average per month cost about $57 for a good selection of the channels I’m interested in, a free year of HBO/HBO Max and the usual 3 months of free other premiums. It makes for a pretty compelling product/price combo if the channels and so forth fit you.

ATT really needs to get off their ass and work on the app though. They are peddling this as a ‘premium’ product but the app performance is just not premium at all, in fact is at minimum a bit slower for everything compared to others.

And the box is a nice idea though reading a lot about it tells me that their $120 price point if you want to buy one is a lot on the high side. They need to get Hulu, Amazon Prime and maybe a few other apps on it too. Market it as a one-size fits all box and its value rises.

And for god’s sake cut a deal with Roku! How the hell they think that ignoring the biggest selling line of streaming boxes makes any kind of marketing sense is beyond me.


----------



## lparsons21

A side note...

Just checked on eBay and found that lots of folks think their used beta ATT boxes are worth more than you can buy one from ATT! Pure nuttiness though I’m sure some idiot will come along and pay that much!


----------



## jimmie57

AT&T Just Lost Over 1 Million TV Subscribers -- And It's Going to Get Worse

AT&T (NYSE: T) reported 897,000 premium TV subscriber losses in the first quarter to go along with its loss of 138,000 over-the-top subscribers. The combined total makes it the third consecutive quarter in which AT&T's lost over 1 million video subscribers. The subscriber losses are absolutely staggering compared to its biggest competitor, Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA).

Continue reading


----------



## lparsons21

There’s another thread talking about ATT’s financial/subscriber issues.


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> As I remember it, you don't have a 4K TV. Lip sync seems to be an issue with 4K on the ATV. Mine is set to 4K/HDR and the lip sync issue isn't on everything, it is a bit random.
> 
> The Cube is working a little better this morning. Still slower than the ATV, but not as pig slow as I was getting last night. It's nice to have 5.1 audio using the Cube but the Cube's audio levels are low compared to the ATV and the ATT app is also low compared to most other apps so I have to push the volume quite a bit to get something acceptable.
> 
> I really like the DVR since I control it. That was one thing I never really liked with YouTubeTV. Too messy IMO.
> 
> Trick play on the FireTV is a bit on the irritating side since during skips you don't have thumbnail to see where in the ads you are and when the show starts again, only a time indicator. However the controls work better than on the ATV.
> 
> On the ATV it tries to show the video as you move but the app isn't strong enough to handle it well and oft times get an error about internet performance. Note that all these streaming guys try to blame your internet performance for almost all issues. It is a seemingly constant refrain I see reported in many forums.


Right I don't have a 4K TV and my ATV is just the regular ATV HD so that's why I didn't have any lip sync issues. However no matter what I did with the FireTV Stick the AT&T TV app was pig slow (and most other apps I used on it).

One of the benefits of the AT&T TV device you get the thumbnail to see where your at while FF through the ads. Idk why but seems the thumbnail is exclusive to the AT&T TV device.


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> A side note...
> 
> Just checked on eBay and found that lots of folks think their used beta ATT boxes are worth more than you can buy one from ATT! Pure nuttiness though I'm sure some idiot will come along and pay that much!


Overall I think they are good boxes. They might be worth their MSRP if you could use them without an AT&T TV or AT&T TV Now subscription.

However I don't think the price is good in general for a box that essentially turns into a glorified Google Chromecast once you cancel the AT&T TV/TV Now service unless your committed to having either AT&T TV or AT&T TV Now for the long term.

Some of those people on eBay are pure wackos! I guess I was lucky to get the two beta Osprey boxes I did. (One was at $60 and the other was at $80)


----------



## lparsons21

On the ATV4K the app attempts to keep full screen video that skips ahead but it doesn’t do a good job of it.

5.1 audio, well further reading from some old posts here and there indicate that there are a very few channels with 5.1 on the ATV. Unfortunately no one says which ones and I don’t fell like checking every channel.


----------



## lparsons21

Well this little trial run isn’t going as well as I had hoped for. There is only one way to describe the performance of the ATT TV app on the FireTV is ‘total crap’!

Frequent crashes, slow to do anything at all, the only plus is it has 5.1 audio. Frankly that little ATT box they have sent me better really wow me or it is back to YTTV.

ATT really needs to get off the dime and fix this app.

Oh and they might want to look and see why, when I try to watch Hobbs & it comes up and says I don’t sub to HBO, but when I picked John Wick 3 on HBO it works fine.


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> Well this little trial run isn't going as well as I had hoped for. There is only one way to describe the performance of the ATT TV app on the FireTV is 'total crap'!
> 
> Frequent crashes, slow to do anything at all, the only plus is it has 5.1 audio. Frankly that little ATT box they have sent me better really wow me or it is back to YTTV.
> 
> ATT really needs to get off the dime and fix this app.
> 
> Oh and they might want to look and see why, when I try to watch Hobbs & it comes up and says I don't sub to HBO, but when I picked John Wick 3 on HBO it works fine.


Just curious because I never tried the Fire TV Cube does it do that with the other apps? I know the Fire TV Stick is just awful in general when it comes to performance to the point I put it in my junk drawer and replaced it with a Google Chromecast on the bedroom TV. All the apps crashed frequently just like the AT&T TV app so I just thought it was the Fire TV Stick. The bad experience I had with the Fire TV Stick is one reason I decided to pick up an Nvidia Shield TV over a Fire TV Cube for the living room TV.


----------



## goldwing

I have never been able to get 5.1 audio using any of the fire tv h/w no matter what app i tried. From ATT Now, Sling TV, ESPN or even PBS apps. Tried with the 1st and 2nd gen sticks, the Fire TV and even the 4K stick. The ONLY exception was when i got a free 7 day trial of Amazon Prime and binged-watched Longmire series. For me audio quality is more important then video quality. I spent most of the Super Bowl using the ESPN app trying to get more then 2 channel audio to no avail. The 4k stream worked fine but what's the point if you can get good audio so ended up watching the second half using OTA. Pro Logic 2 just don't cut it for me lol. The next day i bought the Nvidia Shield and now i get all audio formats including all the HD uncompressed formats and never looked back. Maybe Amazon uses some type of proprietary audio stream????


----------



## lparsons21

techguy88 said:


> Just curious because I never tried the Fire TV Cube does it do that with the other apps? I know the Fire TV Stick is just awful in general when it comes to performance to the point I put it in my junk drawer and replaced it with a Google Chromecast on the bedroom TV. All the apps crashed frequently just like the AT&T TV app so I just thought it was the Fire TV Stick. The bad experience I had with the Fire TV Stick is one reason I decided to pick up an Nvidia Shield TV over a Fire TV Cube for the living room TV.


Overall the FireTV is slower, not horribly slow, but slower. And some apps are real slugs on it, but not all. As to audio, I have a Samsung HW-K950 Atmos soundbar and if I set the audio output to Dolby Digital only I get 5.1 audio from apps that provide it. If I set it to Best Available, which is usually DD+ the soundbar doesn't care for it and I only get front channels, this is something that changed a bit back but don't remember when.

The ATT box comes today so hopefully it will be OK. But if I had my druthers I'd rather have 5.1 audio on my AppleTV.


----------



## lparsons21

You know it is really irritating in the streaming world that the content providers don’t provide apps for all the major platforms. It is nice that seemingly all of them are available on the AppleTV and Roku boxes though there are some differences in how the apps work between them.

ATT chose not to have their app available on Roku though it was there in the past. They also chose not to be on Android TVs though their own box is AndroidTV. And they chose to not have Hulu & Amazon Prime on their box. And they chose not to provide an app for Xbox One or PS3/4 even though those two are probably better hardware for these apps.

Apple is good about being well supported by all the content providers but not so good about providing support for other platforms. Apple’s TV+ app is available on ATV, Roku and FireTV but not available on Xbox One and PS3/4.

You would think that content providers would want their service available on as wide a range of hardware as possible. I could simplify my media setup quite a bit if it was so. Right now, theoretically the AppleTV should be that ‘one box’, but for those of us that want audio to be as good as the video, it isn’t. Hulu & ATT don’t provide 5.1 audio on ATV though they do on other platforms. There simply is no excuse for that.


----------



## lparsons21

I think I’ve figured out why the ATT app on the FireTV is such a slug. It seems that the app isn’t caching anything, instead downloading the info each time you change the screen.

And that brings back the less than fond memories of the crappy software D* was nearly famous for! Did they ever fix Channels I Get?


----------



## Rich

techguy88 said:


> Just curious because I never tried the Fire TV Cube does it do that with the other apps? I know the Fire TV Stick is just awful in general when it comes to performance to the point I put it in my junk drawer and replaced it with a Google Chromecast on the bedroom TV. All the apps crashed frequently just like the AT&T TV app so I just thought it was the Fire TV Stick. The bad experience I had with the Fire TV Stick is one reason I decided to pick up an Nvidia Shield TV over a Fire TV Cube for the living room TV.


I have a Cube on every 4K TV set in the house. I just got through using them for a month or so. In the Amazon environment viewing Amazon content, they are not bad. But when you begin using other apps problems pop up frequently. I began streaming about the time Netflix came on the scene in 2007. At that time I was using NF for DVD rentals and just stumbled into the streaming thing. I think Apple designed the ATVs with NF in mind. The ATVs work very well with the NF app. Unfortunately, most apps (if not all apps) don't work nearly as well. Don't know who gets the blame for this, surely not NF or Apple.

I can give you an example: I just ended an epic binge, watched the complete series of _Cheers, _and used the CBSAA app and Cubes and finally switched to ATVs. I watched 273 of the 275 episodes and that app made it difficult every day in a lot of ways on both platforms. I switch from TV set to TV set during the course of a day and I rarely got to the proper place when jumping from one set to another. Rarely happens when using NF but it was constant on CBSAA. Using a Cube and using trickplay caused all kinds of problems. It's obvious that the Cube isn't in the same ballpark as an ATV. When compared to a Fire Stick the Cube is obviously better. When compared to an ATV, the Cube...sucks. And at the "normal" price buying the Cube makes little sense. $119 for the Cube and $179 for the ATV. Yeah, $60 difference. I'd rather spend more on a streaming box and get the performance of an ATV. The Cubes are the best HDMI switches I've ever used and that's why I have one on each 4K set.

I had an Nvidia Shield briefly a couple of years ago. Fastest box I've ever used. I like the ATVs better.

Rich


----------



## mjwagner

techguy88 said:


> Just curious because I never tried the Fire TV Cube does it do that with the other apps? I know the Fire TV Stick is just awful in general when it comes to performance to the point I put it in my junk drawer and replaced it with a Google Chromecast on the bedroom TV. All the apps crashed frequently just like the AT&T TV app so I just thought it was the Fire TV Stick. The bad experience I had with the Fire TV Stick is one reason I decided to pick up an Nvidia Shield TV over a Fire TV Cube for the living room TV.


Interesting. That hasn't been my experience with the FireTV Stick 4k. I have 3 of them and have found the performance to be excellent. At my two main viewing areas (HT and family room) I have a FireTV Stick 4k, Nvidia Shield, and ATV. 4k. The FireTV Stick 4ks work very well with very good performance.


----------



## Rich

mjwagner said:


> Interesting. That hasn't been my experience with the FireTV Stick 4k. I have 3 of them and have found the performance to be excellent. At my two main viewing areas (HT and family room) I have a FireTV Stick 4k, Nvidia Shield, and ATV. 4k. The FireTV Stick 4ks work very well with very good performance.


I bought a few 4K Sticks when they came out. This is another YMMV moment. I gave up on them and I'm not sure where they are.

Rich


----------



## b4pjoe

Rich said:


> I have a Cube on every 4K TV set in the house. I just got through using them for a month or so. In the Amazon environment viewing Amazon content, they are not bad. But when you begin using other apps problems pop up frequently. I began streaming about the time Netflix came on the scene in 2007. At that time I was using NF for DVD rentals and just stumbled into the streaming thing. I think Apple designed the ATVs with NF in mind. The ATVs work very well with the NF app. Unfortunately, most apps (if not all apps) don't work nearly as well. Don't know who gets the blame for this, surely not NF or Apple.
> 
> I can give you an example: *I just ended an epic binge, watched the complete series of Cheers, and used the CBSAA app and Cubes. I watched 273 of the 275 episodes and that app made it difficult every day in a lot of ways. I switch from TV set to TV set during the course of a day and I rarely got to the proper place when jumping from one set to another.* Rarely happens when using NF but it was constant on CBSAA. Using a Cube and using trickplay caused all kinds of problems. It's obvious that the Cube isn't in the same ballpark as an ATV. When compared to a Fire Stick the Cube is obviously better. When compared to an ATV, the Cube...sucks. And at the "normal" price buying the Cube makes little sense. $119 for the Cube and $179 for the ATV. Yeah, $60 difference. I'd rather spend more on a streaming box and get the performance of an ATV. The Cubes are the best HDMI switches I've ever used and that's why I have one on each 4K set.
> 
> I had an Nvidia Shield briefly a couple of years ago. Fastest box I've ever used. I like the ATVs better.
> 
> Rich


Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you say previously that while watching Cheers you were using 2 accounts? I think you said yours and your son's account. If you go from one TV and one account and then go to another TV with a different account it is not going to go back to the same place you were at on the other account. (Disregard if I'm thinking of someone else saying that.  )

Also I have the Cube and haven't seen any issues really but I usually use the ATV because I like the interface better. As far as HDMI switching I just use the remote to switch HDMI. Press the menu button on the ATV and it takes me to the HDMI port that the ATV is on. Press the Select button on the D* remote and it switches me to the HDMI port that D* uses. Click the Home button on the Cube remote and takes me to the Cube HDMI port. Just one click to get to any box. Might just be my Cube box but Alexa seems to be deaf and I have to repeat commands too often for it to be usable.


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> I bought a few 4K Sticks when they came out. This is another YMMV moment. I gave up on them and I'm not sure where they are.
> 
> Rich


I've got a couple of the older sticks, couldn't tell you where they are either.


----------



## B. Shoe

Rich said:


> I can give you an example: *I just ended an epic binge, watched the complete series of *_*Cheers*, _and used the CBSAA app and Cubes. I watched 273 of the 275 episodes and that app made it difficult every day in a lot of ways.


This is off topic, but we need to go back to this. The entire series of Cheers? That is impressive, sir. How long did it take you to finish the series?


----------



## raott

What's interesting to me is that some had speculated the box would be required to prevent account stacking (ie to make sure the TVs using just the app would have the same IP as the main box). I wonder what prevents a customer using this at multiple residences. Is it against the terms of service for me to go to another house and load up the app?

After previously crapping on this, I'm now somewhat interested, given lparson's earlier math about the cancellation fee vs the price increase. I recently moved into an apartment temporarily and have to use spectrum, which I'm having a very difficult time getting used to.


----------



## mjwagner

lparsons21 said:


> I've got a couple of the older sticks, couldn't tell you where they are either.


Not to stray to far ot here but yeah, the previous versions of the sticks were definitely under powered.


----------



## lparsons21

raott said:


> What's interesting to me is that some had speculated the box would be required to prevent account stacking (ie to make sure the TVs using just the app would have the same IP as the main box). I wonder what prevents a customer using this at multiple residences. Is it against the terms of service for me to go to another house and load up the app?
> 
> After previously crapping on this, I'm now somewhat interested, given lparson's earlier math about the cancellation fee vs the price increase. I recently moved into an apartment temporarily and have to use spectrum, which I'm having a very difficult time getting used to.


Technically speaking using any of the streaming services outside of the billing address on other than mobile devices is not supposed to done. That said, most of the services aren't really doing anything about that now.

But you only get one box for free but you have 3 concurrent streams allowed so even in the house most wouldn't buy more boxes as they are a bit overpriced.

The quickest way to do the math is take the promo price, add $15 to it for the ETF, subtract whatever rebate is offered and divide by 12 to come up with true cost. Think about this, Entertainment $49.99 for year one, $93 for year two, roughly $43/month more in 2nd year, $15 beats that by a lot!

The same math works at the broader subscription levels too. And regardless of the *****ing I've done, for those that just have to have every channel or even just all the sports, ATT has it and no one else does.

I'm kind of expecting that over the next year ATT will pull their collective heads out of their butts and make some significant changes. If they don't I'm happy, if they do I'd be happier!


----------



## Rich

b4pjoe said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you say previously that while watching Cheers you were using 2 accounts? I think you said yours and your son's account. If you go from one TV and one account and then go to another TV with a different account it is not going to go back to the same place you were at on the other account. (Disregard if I'm thinking of someone else saying that.  )
> 
> Also I have the Cube and haven't seen any issues really but I usually use the ATV because I like the interface better. As far as HDMI switching I just use the remote to switch HDMI. Press the menu button on the ATV and it takes me to the HDMI port that the ATV is on. Press the Select button on the D* remote and it switches me to the HDMI port that D* uses. Click the Home button on the Cube remote and takes me to the Cube HDMI port. Just one click to get to any box. Might just be my Cube box but Alexa seems to be deaf and I have to repeat commands too often for it to be usable.


What I was doing was watching _Cheers _on a Cube using my Amazon account. I did not use the ATV for that. My son and I have separate accounts, he has the iTunes account and we both have access to it. He doesn't use a Cube, just uses the AP app on the ATVs. So, no. I wasn't watching _Cheers _on two accounts.

I did have a chance to compare the Cube and the ATVs on the same content once I finished _Cheers_. I really enjoyed binging on _Cheers _and thought I'd try either _Seinfeld _or _Frasier _next. I knew _Seinfeld _was on Hulu and I knew _Frasier _was on _CBSAA_. The thought of watching _Frasier _on CBSAA bothered me, another show with well over a hundred episodes. Then, I found _Frasier _on Hulu. Ah, I could use ATVs for both the shows. I did give _Frasier _a brief trial on the CBS app using a Cube, it did the same thing and I switched to Hulu and an ATV.

So, now I'm watching both series and using an ATV. Had the same problems with _Frasier_, it would not lead me back to the proper episode. But it was a helluva lot better than using a Cube. Trick play was fine on the ATVs, never had a problem.

Yes, I know how to change HDMI inputs using ATVs and the TV set's remote. I find it easier to say, "switch to HDMI one" than to search for a remote. This is another YMMV moment. To give you an idea of how easy that is I had to show my wife how to switch inputs a couple of years ago, using both the ATV and the TV remote. Then I taught her how to use the voice commands and she always uses that method. She took the path of least resistance, just because it's so much simpler. Again, YMMV.

Rich


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> I've got a couple of the older sticks, couldn't tell you where they are either.


I dumped mine after I saw how much better a Cube is. And we both know how much better the ATVs are. The Cubes seem underpowered when compared to an ATV. Kinda like comparing one of the Amazon tablets to an iPad...underpowered. We've been told an ATV is an iPad without a screen, I believe that.

Rich


----------



## Rich

B. Shoe said:


> This is off topic, but we need to go back to this. The entire series of Cheers? That is impressive, sir. How long did it take you to finish the series?


I have no idea how long it took, I should have taken notes. I didn't get bored, I didn't watch anything else during that binge except _The Tiger King_ on NF. I had to watch that.

Watching _Cheers _in 4:3 was a revelation. I'm a widescreen snob, I haven't considered watching anything in 4:3 in years. Now I'm watching _Frasier _in that aspect and I'm not stopping. When I get thru with _Frasier _and _Seinfeld _(which is in widescreen), I'm gonna watch _Wings_ and then _Friends_. After that, I'm going to a 4:3 prison...the magnificent _Oz_. Been far too long since I watched that.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Got the ATT box and finished setup.

I’m connecting into the Xbox One to my Atmos soundbar, that way I get faked Atmos from 5.1 audio. I’ll only use the ATT box for watching ATT. That’s because ATT made the conscious choice to no have Hulu and Netflix on it. And the box doesn’t support Atmos anyway. Since ATT’s streaming service is at 720p it isn’t a big deal.

The box is smoother in operation though it is a bit slower than the AppleTV. 5.1 Audio is there as well as a thumbnail while skipping so you can manage that better. Setup is simple and doesn’t take too long. Lip sync issues haven’t showed up. HD PQ is fine though not quite as good as the app on ATV or FireTV. That could possibly be because I’m connected via the Xbox One. But it is more than good enough.

The remote is very nice though it could use backlighting. It uses RF to control the ATT box and IR to control other device like TV and/or soundbar/AVR. I killed of HDMI-CEC because it just causes issues when using the Harmony remote to switch devices and power up/down the system.

If anything changes from what I’ve said here after only using the box for a little bit, I’ll post again.


----------



## lparsons21

Well now we’re talking!!

Voice search works great as does voice commands. Also transitioning between the ATT main app to say HBO Go to see something is butter smooth. And then transitioning back to the main program is just as smooth. I’m impressed!


----------



## lparsons21

Well Techguy did warn me about apps! While the apps it does have work fine, switching to them or switching around using them is nearly guaranteed to crash the box! 
So that tells me that the box is fine for using ATT TV but nearly worthless for anything else. Glad I’m connected the way I am as relegating it to that sole use is fine in this configuration. But it sure as hell isn’t even within sniff’s distance of being the ‘one box’!


----------



## lparsons21

Some fiddling around. I noticed some very slight AV sync issues running the ATT Box into the Xbox One with the Dolby Experience app which fakes Atmos from 5.1 surround. So I decided to change connections.

So I first connected the ATT box to my Samsung Atmos soundbar. Picture was fine, sync was spot on, but the audio reeked! Stereo only as far as the soundbar was concerned and for whatever reason I couldn’t set the soundbar to do Dolby ProLogic as I have from other devices. So that was out.

Next I connected direct to the Sony 4K 900E TV and am using optical back to the soundbar. Perfect with one oddity. If I hit the ‘home’ button on the ATT remote it also shifts the HDMI input to HDMI3 which just won’t do. Nice that the ATT remote has an input button so I can change it back where it needs to be. The other oddity is that turning on the ATT box also turns off the soundbar. And turning off the ATT box sets the TV to the home menu of the TV. Only workaround for that is to power down the whole system, which is just a single button push on the Harmony and then bringing it back up with the right selection. I know, first world problems!


----------



## mjwagner

lparsons21 said:


> Got the ATT box and finished setup.
> 
> I'm connecting into the Xbox One to my Atmos soundbar, that way I get faked Atmos from 5.1 audio. I'll only use the ATT box for watching ATT. That's because ATT made the conscious choice to no have Hulu and Netflix on it. And the box doesn't support Atmos anyway. Since ATT's streaming service is at 720p it isn't a big deal.
> 
> The box is smoother in operation though it is a bit slower than the AppleTV. 5.1 Audio is there as well as a thumbnail while skipping so you can manage that better. Setup is simple and doesn't take too long. Lip sync issues haven't showed up. HD PQ is fine though not quite as good as the app on ATV or FireTV. That could possibly be because I'm connected via the Xbox One. But it is more than good enough.
> 
> The remote is very nice though it could use backlighting. It uses RF to control the ATT box and IR to control other device like TV and/or soundbar/AVR. I killed of HDMI-CEC because it just causes issues when using the Harmony remote to switch devices and power up/down the system.
> 
> If anything changes from what I've said here after only using the box for a little bit, I'll post again.


Actually the ATT box not supporting ATMOS is a huge deal. Its not just about the ATT TV app, it's about other streaming apps. Not supporting ATMOS for other apps, like VUDU/Fandango, NetFlix, etc. for those folks that want to have a single box for all their streaming apps is going to be a none starter.


----------



## lparsons21

mjwagner said:


> Actually the ATT box not supporting ATMOS is a huge deal. Its not just about the ATT TV app, it's about other streaming apps. Not supporting ATMOS for other apps, like VUDU/Fandango, NetFlix, etc. for those folks that want to have a single box for all their streaming apps is going to be a none starter.


It might be if the damned thing didn't crash so much when trying to use the apps on it.


----------



## mjwagner

lparsons21 said:


> It might be if the damned thing didn't crash so much when trying to use the apps on it.


LOL...that too.


----------



## raott

lparsons...I'm unclear on the 5.1 issues. Could you clarify if all channels are playing 5.1 using the actual box provided and it is just some of the third party boxes having issues? I could see putting the box in the main TV room where I have a 5.1 setup, and using the app only on other TVs in the house which do not.....but would def want 5.1 on my main tv.

I'm going to think more about this. One of the things I found strange (and I sorta knew this before) is the packages aren't exactly comparable with the Directv packages......for example a couple of glaring omissions, I don't see the NFL Network (which seems really strange given Directv's relationship with the NFL) and the Big Ten Network......there may be others.

I really wish they offered a seven day trial (without the equipment) before getting locked in to a two year contract. 

At this point, I really do not like Spectrum. I played more with it last night and they offer an app with a "DVR" menu......one would think that would allow you to watch your DVR while on your network, but of course not. There is literally no way to watch the DVR from other TVs in the house. No cloud solution and no whole home solution.

EDIT: I just found out I'm getting Spectrum included in my lease....so that changes a lot for me as I'm not concerned with adding an additional service now.


----------



## lparsons21

The 5.1 issue is with 3rd party boxes. Notably on the FireTV you have 5.1 and on the AppleTV you don’t. On ATT’s box you do. Don’t know if it is all channels but it is on all the ones I’ve actually checked.

BTW there is a 14 day trial. You sign up online and can use the app on your current box and they also send you theirs. Mine came in 2 days later. In the box is a return label. So if you decide to cancel before the 14 days are up you have to CALL them to do so, can’t do it online. And then you can ship the box back or turn it in at a corporate owned store. I was told about that and also found a FAQ about it somewhere. They don’t mention it on the signup page or if they do I couldn’t find it.

And yeah, the channel lineups are not exactly D* lineups.


----------



## goldwing

I test drove Spectrums Choice streaming package right before March Madness was cancel. They offer a 7 day trial but they gave me a 30 day. I picked out my 10 channels plus they give you all your locals. I was only missing the Science and American Hero's channels which are my top 2 but for $24.99 i thought it was a fair deal. I also have a 100ft antenna tower and get 4 city locals so over 100+ scan in with OTA. I canceled after my trial for a few reasons. They told me the price was 24.99 but it was really 29.99 and they added a $6 unnamed fee to my bill which i came to find out is a local broadcast fee so true per month cost was 36.99. I refuse to pay 1 penny for locals. With this package you do NOT get bundled pricing either. The other big negative is the lack of support for the app as in it only works with Windows, Samsung Android tv's and Roku and i think maybe Apple. No Fire TV, Sony Android tv's or NVidia Shield support at all. I bought a 4k Roku to test it out which now sits unused.


----------



## lparsons21

mjwagner said:


> Actually the ATT box not supporting ATMOS is a huge deal. Its not just about the ATT TV app, it's about other streaming apps. Not supporting ATMOS for other apps, like VUDU/Fandango, NetFlix, etc. for those folks that want to have a single box for all their streaming apps is going to be a none starter.


Let me add a bit to this. This box is definitely NOT suitable as a 'one box' streaming solution! That's because ATT made the conscious decision to take both Hulu and Amazon Prime off it, both used to be there and worked from what I've read. Oddly they have Sling app on it so the BS that has been floated that they were taken off because they compete with ATT is just that, BS. And even with the apps you can run on it, the performance, or I should say lack of, just isn't there. App lockup's and crashes are not all that rare. This is definitely only suitable to use with the ATT streaming service.

Now to the performance on 3rd party boxes. On the AppleTV the performance is actually better than ATT's box, but it doesn't have 5.1 audio and there is a lip sync issue that they haven't solved. On the FireTV you get 5.1 audio but the performance is absolutely the worst performance of any app I've seen on that box. Not just sluggish but video jerkiness and stop motion are common. And crashing the ATT app on the FireTV happens fairly often.

Supposedly ATT is well aware of the issues on all the platforms and there has been a report that they are busily working on fixing it all soon. Of course ATT inherited the D* mindset, so soon could be anywhere from now to the 12th of never!! 

With the issues I'm seeing it is painfully obvious why ATT TV Now is losing subs at a rapid rate. I mean when you combine high prices with poor performance, what the hell would you expect.

For me, l'll decide to stay or leave mostly because of performance issues. At an average of $57/month for Entertainment + HBO for a year the price is fine as is the channel selection.


----------



## raott

Great info....thanks. I think this is worth at least trying given the 14 day grace period. I mentioned Spectrum is included in my lease, that is a base package and two basic boxes. I'm paying about $20 a month or more for the DVR service and DVR....so for me....getting rid of the spectrum DVR and adding this service would only cost me about $30 a month.

Thanks for the information on this.



lparsons21 said:


> The 5.1 issue is with 3rd party boxes. Notably on the FireTV you have 5.1 and on the AppleTV you don't. On ATT's box you do. Don't know if it is all channels but it is on all the ones I've actually checked.
> 
> BTW there is a 14 day trial. You sign up online and can use the app on your current box and they also send you theirs. Mine came in 2 days later. In the box is a return label. So if you decide to cancel before the 14 days are up you have to CALL them to do so, can't do it online. And then you can ship the box back or turn it in at a corporate owned store. I was told about that and also found a FAQ about it somewhere. They don't mention it on the signup page or if they do I couldn't find it.
> 
> And yeah, the channel lineups are not exactly D* lineups.


----------



## Rich

Rich said:


> I have a Cube on every 4K TV set in the house. I just got through using them for a month or so. In the Amazon environment viewing Amazon content, they are not bad. But when you begin using other apps problems pop up frequently. I began streaming about the time Netflix came on the scene in 2007. At that time I was using NF for DVD rentals and just stumbled into the streaming thing. I think Apple designed the ATVs with NF in mind. The ATVs work very well with the NF app. Unfortunately, most apps (if not all apps) don't work nearly as well. Don't know who gets the blame for this, surely not NF or Apple.
> 
> I can give you an example: I just ended an epic binge, watched the complete series of _Cheers, _and used the CBSAA app and Cubes *and finally switched to ATVs*. I watched 273 of the 275 episodes and that app made it difficult every day in a lot of ways* on both platforms*. I switch from TV set to TV set during the course of a day and I rarely got to the proper place when jumping from one set to another. Rarely happens when using NF but it was constant on CBSAA. Using a Cube and using trickplay caused all kinds of problems. It's obvious that the Cube isn't in the same ballpark as an ATV. When compared to a Fire Stick the Cube is obviously better. When compared to an ATV, the Cube...sucks. And at the "normal" price buying the Cube makes little sense. $119 for the Cube and $179 for the ATV. Yeah, $60 difference. I'd rather spend more on a streaming box and get the performance of an ATV. The Cubes are the best HDMI switches I've ever used and that's why I have one on each 4K set.
> 
> I had an Nvidia Shield briefly a couple of years ago. Fastest box I've ever used. I like the ATVs better.
> 
> Rich


I edited the post above, highlighted in red. I did use ATVs to watch _Cheers _near the end of the binge. The CBSAA app works a lot better on the ATVs than it does on the Cubes. Still not nearly as well as NF, that CBS app has problems that need to be fixed.

Rich


----------



## raott

I went ahead and signed up yesterday. A couple of thoughts (I do not have the box yet, it is being delivered this morning through a contactless delivery). I'm using my AppleTVs... both 4K models. 

First thought, I had an issue with one of the Apple TVs initially, where the picture would get extremely choppy and the audio sync would get totally out of whack by several seconds. I did a total reset and that seems to have fixed that issue. The other ATV (brand new) did not have the same issue. 

Picture quality is surprisingly good. I cannot tell a difference from my Directv HR54 (though I'm not doing a side by side). I've watched on both a 50 inch and 65 inch M Series Vizio and it looks good to my eyes.

The biggest surprise is there is NOT trick play with the Apple TV while watching. I don't know if this is a an Apple specific limitation (wouldn't surprise me a bit) but it's likely going to cause me to get a second box. There is trick play with on demand, though FFW seems to be pretty limited. 

Guide takes a bit to get used to with the ATV remote. The options for the guide seem to be very limited. For example, I like how local channels are all in the same area on Directv, they are not on AT&T TV. 

I'll give more thoughts over the weekend when I've played with it more and have the Android box. 

Lparsons.....how is the trick play on the other devices including the Android box?


----------



## raott

One thing I did find neat about the guide is that I can click on a channel (say History Channel) and it pops up recent shows such as Curse of Oak Island from this past week, making it easy to see recent shows I may have missed.


----------



## lparsons21

raott, 
Trick play on the ATT box is almost the same as it is on a cable/sat DVR. You can pause and skip on live and recorded channels too, you get a thumbnail when using fast forward and you can also just use the 15sec forward/back.

The channel guide on the box is different too. It can be either alphabetical or in DirecTV channel number order.

Neither of those can be done on 3rd party boxes. On VOD trick play is sometimes there sometimes not, depends on the VOD.

On the AppletTV, as you note, interaction with the remote is just weird.


----------



## raott

Thank you......I think I'm going to order a second box. (ugghhh....if only there was a way to do in on their website).



lparsons21 said:


> raott,
> Trick play on the ATT box is almost the same as it is on a cable/sat DVR. You can pause and skip on live and recorded channels too, you get a thumbnail when using fast forward and you can also just use the 15sec forward/back.
> 
> The channel guide on the box is different too. It can be either alphabetical or in DirecTV channel number order.
> 
> Neither of those can be done on 3rd party boxes. On VOD trick play is sometimes there sometimes not, depends on the VOD.
> 
> On the AppletTV, as you note, interaction with the remote is just weird.


----------



## lparsons21

raott said:


> Thank you......I think I'm going to order a second box. (ugghhh....if only there was a way to do in on their website).


Try EBay, prices are a bit high now but cheaper than ATT usually.


----------



## lparsons21

Fiddling around this morning.

To just browse the various networks, including premiums, you use Discover from the main menu, then Networks. Pick the network and you can browse to your heart’s content!

Selecting Movies or TV Shows from that Discover section just seems to show some ‘popular’ stuff but not all of the VOD available.


----------



## B. Shoe

Enjoying reading all of the insight, without all of the unnecessary grumbling and overreaching in other threads. Good content, guys. Keep it up.


----------



## lparsons21

OK, let’s do some comparison between YouTubeTV and ATT TV.

App -
YouTubeTV’s app is less problematic by far from ATT’s. Never seen a crash or a screw up.
ATT
ATT’s app on AppleTV works just fine though the interaction with the remote takes a little twiddling to figure out.
On the FireTV the performance is just too poor to consider using it IMO.
On ATT’s box the app shines. More functionality by far. Unfortunately that’s as far as it goes, other apps on the box are an issue.

Audio -
YouTubeTV - stereo only officially. But I’ve run across times when I know it was DD 5.1 because of the way directionality of sound happens. But it is fairly rare.
ATT - On the ATT box, 5.1 on nearly all channels. On the FireTV the same. On the AppleTV just a very few.

HDPQ - essentially the same for both services and apps IMO.

Pricing - 
YouTubeTV - Essentially $50 all in though there are some relatively minor add ons.
ATT TV -
1st year pricing ranges from $49.99 to $64.99 plus RSN fees for all but the Entertainment package.
2nd year pricing nearly doubles all levels.


----------



## raott

My biggest issue with YTTV is they do not have the A&E networks, which includes History and Lifetime among others.

I mentioned in a prior post that AT&T did not have the Big 10 network, it is in fact there. The only channel I'm missing is the NFL network. I'll need to figure that one out.



lparsons21 said:


> OK, let's do some comparison between YouTubeTV and ATT TV.
> 
> App -
> YouTubeTV's app is less problematic by far from ATT's. Never seen a crash or a screw up.
> ATT
> ATT's app on AppleTV works just fine though the interaction with the remote takes a little twiddling to figure out.
> On the FireTV the performance is just too poor to consider using it IMO.
> On ATT's box the app shines. More functionality by far. Unfortunately that's as far as it goes, other apps on the box are an issue.
> 
> Audio -
> YouTubeTV - stereo only officially. But I've run across times when I know it was DD 5.1 because of the way directionality of sound happens. But it is fairly rare.
> ATT - On the ATT box, 5.1 on nearly all channels. On the FireTV the same. On the AppleTV just a very few.
> 
> HDPQ - essentially the same for both services and apps IMO.
> 
> Pricing -
> YouTubeTV - Essentially $50 all in though there are some relatively minor add ons.
> ATT TV -
> 1st year pricing ranges from $49.99 to $64.99 plus RSN fees for all but the Entertainment package.
> 2nd year pricing nearly doubles all levels.


----------



## lparsons21

raott said:


> My biggest issue with YTTV is they do not have the A&E networks, which includes History and Lifetime among others.
> 
> I mentioned in a prior post that AT&T did not have the Big 10 network, it is in fact there. The only channel I'm missing is the NFL network. I'll need to figure that one out.


I'm that way about AMC and BBCA. Sports for me isn't a big deal. Give me a few national sports channels and I'm good to go. Couldn't tell you the last time I watched anything on any RSN.


----------



## raott

After playing with the Android box today, I really like it. I'll keep the service. If it was app only with the AppleTV, there is no way I would. After year one I'll have to make a decision.....it's worth the first year price, not the second year price.



lparsons21 said:


> I'm that way about AMC and BBCA. Sports for me isn't a big deal. Give me a few national sports channels and I'm good to go. Couldn't tell you the last time I watched anything on any RSN.


----------



## mrinker

I’m in my 3rd week of att tv. When I was using directv satellite and I hit record while watching a program it would record from the beginning of that program assuming you were on that channel the entire time. Does att tv not do this? Everytime I hit record it starts from that exact moment in time and not the beginning yet I can rewind to the beginning so it should be available to do? Is there a secret to this?


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> And even with the apps you can run on it, the performance, or I should say lack of, just isn't there. App lockup's and crashes are not all that rare. This is definitely only suitable to use with the ATT streaming service.


In my experience once you get everything set up and begin to use other apps like normal the lockup and crashes become less. After I set up all my apps I still noticed app lockups and crashes happened a lot when trying to watch something outside of the AT&T TV Now service. After a week I eventually hit the red reset button, gave the box 24 hours before trying any apps and to my surprise the next time I tried CBS All Access it actually worked decently. After that point I app lockup and crashes became rare for the rest of the month I was trailing the box. YMMV but that solution worked for me.



lparsons21 said:


> Let me add a bit to this. This box is definitely NOT suitable as a 'one box' streaming solution! That's because ATT made the conscious decision to take both Hulu and Amazon Prime off it, both used to be there and worked from what I've read. Oddly they have Sling app on it so the BS that has been floated that they were taken off because they compete with ATT is just that, BS.


The fact Hulu and Amazon Prime Video isn't available on the AT&T TV device isn't 100% AT&T's fault. This is something Google has in place with the Android TV platform including devices using the Android TV Operator Tier.

Platform operators (in this case AT&T with the AT&T TV device or Nvidia with the Nvidia Shield TV) *can't* block any app from the Google Play Store from running on their devices with the sole exception being for technical reasons. This is why you can find competing apps like YouTube TV, Sling TV, Philo, etc available to use on the AT&T TV device.
App developers (in this case Amazon with Amazon Prime Video or AT&T with AT&T TV app) _*can*_ block their apps from appearing on any Android TV / Android TV Operator Tier device for any reason if they chose to do so.
Netflix and Amazon like to negotiate for their apps to be available on particular platforms. This is why some Android TV devices lack one or both of these key apps when they first launch.
AT&T currently only allows their AT&T TV device to run the AT&T TV app even though they can release a version that works with Android TV for non-AT&T TV devices.
Hulu has also been known to completely remove their app from Android TV devices when any technical issues arise. Recently the Mi Box S was upgraded from Android TV 8.1 to 9.0 there were issues with the app and so Hulu just removed the device completely.
HBO GO, HBO Now and Max GO currently have issues running on the AT&T TV device (this would be the only logical reason they are not currently available.) These are the only apps I was unable to cast to the AT&T TV device using the built-in Chromcast feature.

So the reason Hulu & Amazon Prime Video not being available could be technical or they could be negotiating with AT&T for inclusion on the AT&T TV device or both.

However after extensive testing you can use the built-in Chromecast feature and cast programs from the Hulu & Amazon Prime Video apps to the AT&T TV device. I did this a lot with the Amazon Prime Video app when I was binge watching their original shows I was catching up on.

You can also open the AT&T TV app on any supported device (iPhones, Android phones, iPads, Android tablets, Google Chromecast browser) and cast live channels, recorded programs and on demand content to any Android TV device and it will work.

So in most cases if the app you want isn't directly available on the AT&T TV device or any Android TV device but if the app supports Goggle Chromcast or Chromcast Built-In you can just cast their content to the AT&T TV device and/or Android TV device of your choice.

I plan on ordering a TiVo Stream 4K once they are available however their website has me worried that the device won't support Hulu since it doesn't mention Hulu directly.


----------



## techguy88

mrinker said:


> I'm in my 3rd week of att tv. When I was using directv satellite and I hit record while watching a program it would record from the beginning of that program assuming you were on that channel the entire time. Does att tv not do this? Everytime I hit record it starts from that exact moment in time and not the beginning yet I can rewind to the beginning so it should be available to do? Is there a secret to this?


Not that I am aware of. I trialed that thing thoroughly and couldn't find a way to have it record the whole episode after you begin to watch it. The record button begins recording the current program from the exact moment you press record. Even if you use the restart feature then press record it will begin recording from the exact moment in the program you pressed the record button. You have to press the record button right at the beginning or plan on recording a particular show/movie to get it to record the entire program.



raott said:


> My biggest issue with YTTV is they do not have the A&E networks, which includes History and Lifetime among others.
> 
> I mentioned in a prior post that AT&T did not have the Big 10 network, it is in fact there. The only channel I'm missing is the NFL network. I'll need to figure that one out.





lparsons21 said:


> I'm that way about AMC and BBCA. Sports for me isn't a big deal. Give me a few national sports channels and I'm good to go. Couldn't tell you the last time I watched anything on any RSN.


I was about ready to say even AT&T TV Now has Big 10 Network in the $80 Max package lol. I think AT&T TV will get NFL Network back after AT&T and NFL renegotiate the rights to NFL Sunday Ticket sometime in 2021. That contract is due to end after the 2022 season and AT&T's rights for the NFL Network are included in that contract which was negotiated under old DirecTV back in 2015 and is ironclad to the satellite service. If you don't mind paying for an additional streaming service for a few months you can get Sling TV Blue for $30/mo which has NFL Network.


----------



## lparsons21

raott said:


> After playing with the Android box today, I really like it. I'll keep the service. If it was app only with the AppleTV, there is no way I would. After year one I'll have to make a decision.....it's worth the first year price, not the second year price.


To be fair the AppleTV's remote is very limiting in some ways and that is the issue with the ATT TV app IMO. Even using my Harmony to control the AppleTV, using the ATT TV app is just enough different to make it not fun at all. I could get used to it, but since the box works so well, why bother? 

I did test using the ATT TV app on an Android phone and casting it to the big screen, works well enough. My son will use it that way as he is tech challenged and uses casting whenever possible.

The Harmony Elite remote, and I would assume other Harmony's, works quite well with the ATT Box. Buttons well defined and in my case, with the media setup I have, works better than the ATT remote. It seems that the ATT remote which is rf or Bluetooth for operating the ATT Box is also sending out some IR for each button. So that means it switches some things around in my media center that are really irritating. Like turning off the soundbar when turning on the ATT Box. With the Harmony remote that doesn't happen.


----------



## lparsons21

Let’s come back to audio a bit.

On the FireTV 5.1 is there for the channels that have it, that isn’t all of them but it is a fair number.

On the AppleTV it isn’t there, or at least I can’t firmly confirm which channels it is there on.

On the ATT Box, similar to the FireTV. If the channel has 5.1 from ATT then it is there.

Now the issue I’m running into and this isn’t really ATT’s fault. The ATT Box provides DD+ for the 5.1 channels. That’s problematic for my high end soundbar. It handles it, but not in a really good way. Very boomy and bass strong as well a front speaker emphasis. If I make some adjustments to make that better then other boxes don’t sound as good since the adjustments are universal and not by soundbar input.

I had thought that connecting the ATT box to the TV and using optical back to the soundbar was the solution, but thorough testing has shown that optical on my TV doesn’t really like DD+ much so it passes stereo back to the soundbar and then the soundbar fakes the surround.

One workaround is to connect the ATT Box directly to the soundbar and turn surround on and off depending on content. While that works fine, it is a bit of a PITA! Another workaround is to use the AppleTV for those channels/shows that don’t have 5.1 anyway and just switch to the ATT box for those that do have it. With my setup that’s actually fairly easy to do.

The oddity I noticed is that on the ATT box the audio can select either stereo only or surround. But it says that surround will be there when it is in the source. Unfortunately when it isn’t it still tells the soundbar it is outputting DD+, similar to the way the FireTV does their audio.

Sigh...

I suppose I could break down and just replace the soundbar system. I would really be more interested in doing that if I could do an AVR with discrete speakers, but alas, the design of my house just sucks for that!


----------



## lparsons21

BTW, whatever ATT’s DD+ is sending to the soundbar on channels that aren’t 5.1 is a hell of a lot richer and better than what others are doing IMO.


----------



## lparsons21

Well, cancelled YouTubeTV yesterday and access will drop off soon. I’ve got to give Google credit, YouTubeTV is great in lots of ways. Even if I find their method of doing DVR/VOD a bit messy, it does have certain advantages.

For all its warts in how it is marketed and priced, ATT TV’s performance and UI are among the best of the live streamers. It really would be the easiest for a new, less technical person to switch to if they want to cut the cord.

And while the ATT box is the best way to deal with it to get all the features, the app is no slouch on the AppleTV and other than the overall sluggishness of its performance on the FireTV, the app is good.


----------



## mjwagner

lparsons21 said:


> It really would be the easiest for a new, less technical person to switch to if they want to cut the cord.


...which is a good thing for AT&T since as far as I can tell that's a big part of their target market.


----------



## lparsons21

mjwagner said:


> ...which is a good thing for AT&T since as far as I can tell that's a big part of their target market.


While I had originally thought that ATT TV would be DOA because of the contract and ETF, it may turn out I was wrong. But in a year we'll know if it really has traction. You know when those prices double.

I looked at moving up from Entertainment to Choice. A few channels there I would like. Looked to be about $5/month higher, but it isn't because it kicks in RSN fee. For my area that means it is about $13.50 more. $8.49 in RSN fee for the privilege of not having live RSN sports... Nope, not gonna happen.


----------



## raott

A couple of other observations. I now have boxes on all three TVs. What stuck out to me was the remote setup was amazingly simple. As soon as the remote was paired, it was also able to fully control my TV (Vizio) ....including volume, input selection, power etc. I didn't have to fool with finding the correct code for the specific TV...it just worked.

I've had a couple of hiccups with the box (once each two different boxes) going black....turning off and back on (which is an immediate process) fixed the issue....still that is annoying.

Finally, I'm curious as to how "streams" are defined. I'm limited to three "steams". I'm curious to know if that includes "recordings". I suspect it does not has the recording is actually in the cloud. If that holds true, that would seem to be somewhat of an advantage over Directv, which of course has to count recordings and watching live TV the same because of limitations on tuners. One downside is there is no doubleplay, which I like to use in sports.

One last observation.....is who is this marketed at? I still wonder if that market is limited. I told my daughter (15) that I had it all set up in her room and told her it was the same as Directv but slightly different......all she cared about was whether the Apple TV was hooked up so she could watch Netflix. Those are the future customers...yet she doesn't care one iota about linear tv.


----------



## techguy88

raott said:


> Finally, I'm curious as to how "streams" are defined. I'm limited to three "steams". I'm curious to know if that includes "recordings". I suspect it does not has the recording is actually in the cloud. If that holds true, that would seem to be somewhat of an advantage over Directv, which of course has to count recordings and watching live TV the same because of limitations on tuners. One downside is there is no doubleplay, which I like to use in sports.


This applies to both AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now. A stream on is anything you are watching through the AT&T TV app. This includes live TV, on demand and recorded shows (in any combination). You can record as many shows at the same exact time as you want and this doesn't count as a stream but the moment you begin to watch a recording that is now a stream.

If you view anything from the TV Everywhere apps (i.e. HBO Go, WatchESPN) do not count against your three simultaneous stream limit.

Those who are using the AT&T TV device if you are using another app such as Netflix, Spotify or using the built-in Chromecast feature to watch something from Hulu or Amazon Prime Video that does not count towards your three simultaneous stream limit.



raott said:


> One last observation.....is who is this marketed at? I still wonder if that market is limited. I told my daughter (15) that I had it all set up in her room and told her it was the same as Directv but slightly different......all she cared about was whether the Apple TV was hooked up so she could watch Netflix. Those are the future customers...yet she doesn't care one iota about linear tv.


Pretty much AT&T TV w/AT&T TV device is marketed to consumers and households who want a traditional live TV provider but with modern features like taking the service everywhere (not like DirecTV's mobile DVR but have the same experience in and out of home), ability to use other apps (i.e. Netflix, Spotify), voice remote, etc. Mainly it is to target those who would chose Comcast for its X1 platform or Dish for its Hopper platform. This is why the marketing is putting heavy emphasis on what the AT&T TV device can do. They are probably hoping your daughter realizes she can watch Netflix on the AT&T TV device instead of the Apple TV. It's secondary marketing tactic is built around those who don't want/can't get DirecTV because of the satellite dish.

Also for future customers like your daughter they have a product for her called HBO Max.


----------



## lparsons21

Yeah, ATT TV is what ATT wants everyone to switch to. It is sales structure, support, contracts and other things are all done similarly to what cable/sat has been doing for years. That’s the reason for the box too, to make the shift from getting TV via internet as much like it was from cable/sat as possible. From ATT’s point of view it is a positive change, mostly because it reduces their costs. From the consumer’s point of view it is just more of the same cable/sat stuff they’ve been peddling.

ATT TV Now is what is supposed to compete with YouTubeTV, Hulu+Live and some others, and it did when DirecTV brought it out. But since then ATT dropped quite a few channels and upped the price. That means it is not a very good competitor to YouTubeTV or Hulu+Live. It is the ATT streaming service that is dropping subscribers like flies!

Whether ATT TV will be successful going forward is a big question. But that question won’t really be answered for about a year when the promo prices drop off and the subscriptions almost double in price.

Now let’s talk the tech a bit...

The ATT Box you see in the ads is actually not bad for using the ATT TV service, in fact it is the best for that. What it isn’t good at is running the other apps on it, switching apps can and does cause the box to crash more often than it should. And the features of the apps are somewhat limited. For instance, Netflix on the ATT box will support 4K video if the show is presented that way, it won’t support Atmos audio because the box doesn’t. Similar limitations on other apps. And the box is missing 2 key streaming apps which make it not so good as the ‘one box’, notable Hulu and Amazon Prime. Regardless of the reason, it is a big limitation.

The ATT app is a mixed bag.
On the AppleTV the performance of the app is faster and smoother than on the ATT Box itself. But there are lip sync issues and the AppleTV Remote isn’t the slickest when operating the app.

On the FireTV the app is a total slug! Video glitches are common, app stability is not good and crashing the app happens more often than it should.

On the Roku devices, the biggest selling line of streaming boxes, the ATT App is a no show, nor is the app available on other AndroidTV boxes and neither of the gaming consoles. That leaves out many smart TVs too, no app for them either.

I’m sure from ATT’s perspective, they want everyone using the box and not the app, hence the rather poorly performing app. From my perspective that’s a mistake on ATT’s part. The app needs serious work done and neither ATT nor DirecTV programmers are noted for doing great apps or software IMO. I’ve read in other forums that ATT is well aware of the issues and is working on it and that a fix will come ‘soon’, but with the history of the use of that word, that means anytime from now to the 12th of never!


----------



## b4pjoe

On the AT&T website when you look at the fine print it says "with eligible wireless" for prices listed. Does that mean you have to have an AT&T wireless plan to get those prices? Further down it also states "Eligible Wireless for $10-per-month bundle discount". Kind of confusing the way they word that.


----------



## lparsons21

There’s a couple of things going on for new signups.

1st the rebate varies by what you sign up for. TV only $100, TV+Internet $300 (last time I looked)

And the first year price reduction is similar. You get a price with TV only and a lower price when you bundle with internet.

Edit : I signed up about a week ago and pay $49.99 for Entertainment and I’m TV only as ATT internet isn’t available here.


----------



## b4pjoe

Just wondering why it says "*1-year AT&T TV package with eligible wireless*"? to me it looks like it is saying that for the prices listed below it has to have an AT&T cell phone plan to get those prices. If that isn't the case why does it say "with eligible wireless"?


----------



## techguy88

b4pjoe said:


> On the AT&T website when you look at the fine print it says "with eligible wireless" for prices listed. Does that mean you have to have an AT&T wireless plan to get those prices? Further down it also states "Eligible Wireless for $10-per-month bundle discount". Kind of confusing the way they word that.
> 
> View attachment 30526


All they did was change the $10 off for 12 month bundle discount from Internet only to Internet or Wireless. A bit further in the fine print says "Eligible Wireless for $10 per month" The prices you see for the first year (i.e. Entertainment $49.99/mo) is the non-bundled intro rate. If you sign in with your wireless account all those prices drop by $10. So if you have Wireless (or are eligible for their Internet service) Entertainment becomes $39.99/mo for 12 months. The wording of the fine print is confusing as hell (pardon my French.)

This is what a potential customer would see without Internet or Wireless:









And this is what a potential customer would see if they are signed in with their existing Wireless or Internet account or is ordering new Internet service + AT&T TV.


----------



## B. Shoe

lparsons21 said:


> For all its warts in how it is marketed and priced, ATT TV's performance and UI are among the best of the live streamers. It really would be the easiest for a new, less technical person to switch to if they want to cut the cord.


From what I've read on these forums, along with some product reviews and videos, there appears to be a lot to like about the service itself (DD audio availability, overall channel selection, and familiar DVR functionality in relation to linear services.) That all seems to be a win.

I just can't get past the service contract and bill increase from year one to year two. It also feels weird to be in the AT&T ecosystem and not have immediate access into NFL Sunday Ticket. But everyone's financial picture and situation is different, and I'm here to learn more about comparing the *services* against each other. So for those that are using it and enjoying it, I am glad you're on the streaming side. Less wires, less mess, and no dish on your property. Streaming life is the good life.


----------



## lparsons21

The only way to look at the ATT TV service from a financial point of view is to figure on cancelling at the end of the 1st year. Those 2nd year prices are just not going to fly for those wanting to cut the cord, too many other ways to get the channels you want for a better price. 

Here’s just an example.

ATT TV Entertainment at full retail = $93/month

Combo comparison:
YouTubeTV = $50 month 
Philo to fill in the holes = $20 month

Total = $70 month
Note that YouTubeTV actually compares well to something more like ATT TV’s Choice package in those areas that YTTV has RSN’s for.

Here’s another pricing oddity I found today. I went to my account at ATT and if I wanted to up the subscription level the cost is higher than what a new customer signup price is. And at this moment in time almost all subs to ATT TV are new customers since the service itself only went national recently, and even those that have had it the longest in the test markets are within the first year.


----------



## lparsons21

Here’s something I noticed with the audio on ATT TV. ATT encodes with DD+ which is an expanded version of DD5.1. And they tell your AV system it is DD+. Even on channels that aren’t doing 5.1 audio.

What that means on at least some AV equipment is that you can’t layer Dolby ProLogic to get a faked surround effect on stereo. And the ATT app also does that too.

On my Samsung Atmos soundbar system I can turn on surround and with 5.1 sources it will layer in Dolby ProLogic but it won’t for DD+ sources.

What that means in the case of ATT TV is that on stereo only stations, the stereo is richer than from other sources, but it is stereo with no back channel effects at all.


----------



## raott

I'm a few days in now. Mostly it's been smooth. Had a small hiccup last night where forwarding a show somehow caused the show to jump back to the beginning. 

I really like the "discover" section on the menu (and maybe this is on Directv as well and I just never noticed) but it allows you quickly jump to any channel and see all of their offerings. I'm finding that all recent shows are on there, as though they were recorded, and I've not had an issue with FFWing through them.

One thing I've not seen yet is "autoplay". For example, on Directv, when playing recorded episodes in my playlist of Pawn Stars, once one show ends, it would autoplay the next episode after a few seconds (which I like), I don't see that behavior, at least while watching on demand. 

I'm hooking up my Sonos 5.1 this weekend which runs through the optical out on the Vizio, so I'll be interested to see how that works out.

Overall, I'd still recommend it, especially with the first year pricing.


----------



## Rich

raott said:


> I'm a few days in now. Mostly it's been smooth. Had a small hiccup last night where forwarding a show somehow caused the show to jump back to the beginning.
> 
> I really like the "discover" section on the menu (and maybe this is on Directv as well and I just never noticed) but it allows you quickly jump to any channel and see all of their offerings. I'm finding that all recent shows are on there, as though they were recorded, and I've not had an issue with FFWing through them.
> 
> One thing I've not seen yet is "autoplay". For example, on Directv, when playing recorded episodes in my playlist of Pawn Stars, once one show ends, it would autoplay the next episode after a few seconds (which I like), I don't see that behavior, at least while watching on-demand.
> 
> I'm hooking up my Sonos 5.1 this weekend which runs through the optical out on the Vizio, so I'll be interested to see how that works out.
> 
> Overall, I'd still recommend it, especially with the *first year pricing*.


That's the bait. Once folks get comfortable it will be hard to cancel. That's what I think they are banking on. Worked for the satellite version of D*, why not this version? I know if I liked it I'd keep it.

Rich


----------



## raott

Yep...that'll be the dilemma next year Rich. The biggest difference with this service is the lack of receivers to get rid of the or the need to suffer through a new installation if I do the "cancel, deal with Spectrum for a month, and wait til they beg me to come back" routine........with this service, I can cancel, not have to send anything back, deal with Spectrum for a bit and see if they make me a come back offer. The math when factoring the ETF will all be interesting next year.



Rich said:


> That's the bait. Once folks get comfortable it will be hard to cancel. That's what I think they are banking on. Worked for the satellite version of D*, why not this version? I know if I liked it I'd keep it.
> 
> Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> That's the bait. Once folks get comfortable it will be hard to cancel. That's what I think they are banking on. Worked for the satellite version of D*, why not this version? I know if I liked it I'd keep it.
> 
> Rich


I won't! Pretty easy decision assuming the deal remains the same in a year.

1st year with a HBO included $50
2nd year with no HBO $93

Nope, like it or not, that ain't happening. Besides for my choice of channels it is just too easy to find other services that are way cheaper than that 2nd year pricing, and that have the channels I want.

I will admit that even before all these streaming choices popped up everywhere I was never a 'loyal' customer for a TV provider. I followed the deal. Actually stayed with Mediacom continuously longer than with anyone else as their deal was over multiple years with declining discounts annually.


----------



## Rich

raott said:


> Yep...that'll be the dilemma next year Rich. The biggest difference with this service is the lack of receivers to get rid of the or the need to suffer through a new installation if I do the "cancel, deal with Spectrum for a month, and wait til they beg me to come back" routine........with this service, I can cancel, not have to send anything back, deal with Spectrum for a bit and see if they make me a come back offer. The math when factoring the ETF will all be interesting next year.


I haven't tried this service. From what I've read it seems to be decent. I will need such a service when sports begin to come back. I do have the sat version of D* at the moment and I'll probably try this service when I have some use for it. The commitment would bother me. Especially if I wanted to keep using it. I can feel the hook in my lip already.

Rich


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> I won't! Pretty easy decision assuming the deal remains the same in a year.
> 
> 1st year with a HBO included $50
> 2nd year with no HBO $93
> 
> Nope, like it or not, that ain't happening. Besides for my choice of channels it is just too easy to find other services that are way cheaper than that 2nd year pricing, and that have the channels I want.
> 
> I will admit that even before all these streaming choices popped up everywhere I was never a 'loyal' customer for a TV provider. I followed the deal. Actually stayed with Mediacom continuously longer than with anyone else as their deal was over multiple years with declining discounts annually.


Compared to what I'm paying now, 93 bucks wouldn't bother me. I'd rather pick a service and stay with it than bop around looking for deals. Another YMMV moment, Lloyd. You know, if MLB and the NFL would find some way of getting the games to us without having to buy packages from providers it would make life a lot easier for everybody. I don't need a cable replacement service, this is ridiculous.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich,
I expect that going forward the sports via streaming will all work itself out. But the sports teams, leagues and others will fight tooth and nail because I see no way the fat profits they’ve been making will hold up.

The whole sports fees are based on getting lots of people that don’t watch to pay to keep the cost to the fans low enough that they are willing to pay. Gonna take a major shakeup in how all that works before we’ll see the changes.

I could actually twiddle things a bit and not use a cable replacement service but the costs wouldn’t be substantially lower because it would take a few services to cover what I would want. That is doable, just not very convenient.


----------



## raott

Rich....for baseball you can.....MLB sells extra innings direct. I'm not sure if that works for you given you are in Yankees territory, but for me, as a Yankees fan who no longer lives in NY, it works perfect.

As to the NFL, they do sell NFL ST direct in some very limited circumstances....basically have to live in an apartment with no access to Directv...which is where I'll be this year.

Next year for me personally will be interesting. I'll only be in an apartment for a year....what do I do next year for ST? If I stick with AT&T I theoretically won't be able to get it at all. I doubt if they will "convert" my AT&T commitment to a Directv commitment. And I doubt if it will be available on AT&T TV.....oh well....cross that bridge next year.



Rich said:


> Compared to what I'm paying now, 93 bucks wouldn't bother me. I'd rather pick a service and stay with it than bop around looking for deals. Another YMMV moment, Lloyd. You know, if MLB and the NFL would find some way of getting the games to us without having to buy packages from providers it would make life a lot easier for everybody. I don't need a cable replacement service, this is ridiculous.
> 
> Rich


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> I could actually twiddle things a bit and not use a cable replacement service but the costs wouldn't be substantially lower because it would take a few services to cover what I would want. That is doable, just not very convenient.


Not substantially lower than $55 a month but a lot lower than $95 a month. I can see someone who's worried about money and could care less about sports paying about $50 a month for streaming video services. Two major video streamers, NF and Hulu come to mind, keep them active always and add the odd streamer for a month to two. Never get close to $95 a month that way.

Rich


----------



## Rich

raott said:


> Rich....for baseball you can.....MLB sells extra innings direct. I'm not sure if that works for you given you are in Yankees territory, but for me, as a Yankees fan who no longer lives in NY, it works perfect.
> 
> As to the NFL, they do sell NFL ST direct in some very limited circumstances....basically have to live in an apartment with no access to Directv...which is where I'll be this year.
> 
> Next year for me personally will be interesting. I'll only be in an apartment for a year....what do I do next year for ST? If I stick with AT&T I theoretically won't be able to get it at all. I doubt if they will "convert" my AT&T commitment to a Directv commitment. And I doubt if it will be available on AT&T TV.....oh well....cross that bridge next year.


I can't get the Yankees' home games if I get that MLB package. All they'd have to do is lift that restriction. I can deal with not having the ST. We get a lot of games every week here without the ST. Yeah, I'd miss it but give me the Yankee games and I'm gone. I can get everything else I need online.

I would not be surprised if the streaming version of D* suddenly picked up the ST, I think we are gonna see that happen.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> Not substantially lower than $55 a month but a lot lower than $95 a month. I can see someone who's worried about money and could care less about sports paying about $50 a month for streaming video services. Two major video streamers, NF and Hulu come to mind, keep them active always and add the odd streamer for a month to two. Never get close to $95 a month that way.
> 
> Rich


Well a little current prices, and some things going forward.

Hulu no ads = $12
Netflix 4K = $16
Amazon = $10. I think that is what they charge vid only

Total = $38

Going forward, depending on just what's in them:
HBO Max = $15
Peacock = $10

Total = $25

So, $63 and that's with no sports at all.


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> I haven't tried this service. From what I've read it seems to be decent. I will need such a service when sports begin to come back. I do have the sat version of D* at the moment and I'll probably try this service when I have some use for it. The commitment would bother me. Especially if I wanted to keep using it. I can feel the hook in my lip already.
> 
> Rich


The service is good. The problem is the contract. You can actually get the same sub levels without contract, but at full retail, which starts @$93/month. I haven't really looked at the upper sub levels beyond that but suspect that the level you would want because of the sports would be around the $120/month area. With a contract you can reduce the average below that of course.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> Well a little current prices, and some things going forward.
> 
> Hulu no ads = $12
> Netflix 4K = $16
> Amazon = $10. I think that is what they charge vid only
> 
> Total = $38
> 
> Going forward, depending on just what's in them:
> HBO Max = $15
> Peacock = $10
> 
> Total = $25
> 
> So, $63 and that's with no sports at all.


I'm not gonna count AP, I'm gonna have that in any event. The two majors for me would be Hulu and NF. Add one app to that and it's around 40 a month. Right now our monthly is...a lot. I'd like to get that monkey off our backs.

Rich


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> The service is good. The problem is the contract. You can actually get the same sub-levels without a contract, but at full retail, which starts @$93/month. I haven't really looked at the upper sub-levels beyond that but suspect that the level you would want because of the sports would be around the $120/month area. With a contract, you can reduce the average below that of course.


The thing that would bother me the most is losing the DVRs. I finally get my DVRs working properly and have to give them up? It really bothers me.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> The thing that would bother me the most is losing the DVRs. I finally get my DVRs working properly and have to give them up? It really bothers me.
> 
> Rich


Yeah, while many of the streaming apps have DVR it isn't quite the same. They all have expiring times for recordings which isn't a problem unless you tend to want to archive stuff.


----------



## techguy88

Rich said:


> I can't get the Yankees' home games if I get that MLB package. All they'd have to do is lift that restriction. I can deal with not having the ST. We get a lot of games every week here without the ST. Yeah, I'd miss it but give me the Yankee games and I'm gone. I can get everything else I need online.
> 
> I would not be surprised if the streaming version of D* suddenly picked up the ST, I think we are gonna see that happen.
> 
> Rich


IIRC a while back Stankey in his role as COO already stated they wouldn't pay more for the D* NFL contract in its current form (currently $1.8 billion/year). Now if the NFL wants to slightly expand NFL Sunday Ticket but keep it somewhat limited (example: DirecTV be the exclusive traditional MVPD home while AT&T TV be the exclusive streaming vMVPD home) then I'm sure AT&T would be happy to pay a bit more and oblige as long as the contract allows them to restore NFL Network to all their video services (and possibly put regular NFL RedZone back on U-Verse TV and add it to AT&T TV Now.) While the NFL ST isn't helping D* like it used to if they want to really push AT&T TV it would open up so many more customers who just didn't want DirecTV or satellite in general.



lparsons21 said:


> The service is good. The problem is the contract. You can actually get the same sub levels without contract, but at full retail, which starts @$93/month. I haven't really looked at the upper sub levels beyond that but suspect that the level you would want because of the sports would be around the $120/month area. With a contract you can reduce the average below that of course.


For @Rich to get YES Network on AT&T TV he would need Choice (w/RSN fee up to $8.49) which is $54.99/mo for the first year and $110 in the second year. On AT&T TV Now the lowest package with YES Network is the Max package at $80. AT&T TV Now also sells Entertainment - Ultimate & Optimo Mas at their non-promotional rates. The AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now versions of those packages are exactly the same in terms of channels & features.

The only difference between the two is AT&T TV Now doesn't charge a RSN fee for Choice - Ultimate and AT&T TV Now doesn't have any contracts. Although the one bright spot is if you get AT&T TV and the AT&T TV devices and later cancel AT&T TV you can still use those devices if you want to sign up for AT&T TV Now.

I have a friend in RL who won't get any satellite provider (he doesn't like the dish) and had Suddenlink's Premier package w/ 4 receivers. After Suddenlink's CS was extremely rude to him he asked me about streaming. After he gave me a list of channels he wanted I told him he would need at least Sling TV Blue w/Sports Extra plus AT&T TV Now Max or Hulu+Live TV w/HBO to get every channel on his list.

He actually went with the AT&T TV Now Max package ($80) and Sling TV Blue w/Sports Extra & Cloud DVR Plus ($45) because between the two services it gave him every channel he wanted for him and his family and he is now paying $125/mo total. He said he chose AT&T TV Now over Hulu+Live TV because it had the bigger Cloud DVR. He told me he is actually saving $77/mo by using the two streaming services rather than paying Suddenlink. When he told his friends at his work what he had done 2 of his friends actually had beta Osprey boxes they wasn't using and gave him the boxes. The his third and fourth TVs are using an Apple TVs.


----------



## lparsons21

I would have been interested in ATT TV Now Max if they hadn’t dropped out BBCA and AMC. Otherwise it was a good fit. And if you consider HBO/Cinemax a good value then it is reasonably priced. If you don’t consider them to have good value, then the price is too high. ATT TV Now’s base package is overpriced for the number and breadth of interest channels IMO.


----------



## goldwing

lparsons21 said:


> Here's something I noticed with the audio on ATT TV. ATT encodes with DD+ which is an expanded version of DD5.1. And they tell your AV system it is DD+. Even on channels that aren't doing 5.1 audio.
> 
> Amazon Prime is the same way with there video library which I hate. You said earlier that you were getting 5.1 audio using your Fire TV h/w on "certain" channels. I spent days trying to get "true" 5.1 on ANY channel and finally gave up. I could get DD+ but that's not the same. Are you looking at the source audio stream that your audio receiver is receiving before any encoding takes place using Fire TV equipment? I would really like to be able to get 5.1 audio out of any of my Fire TV's but from what i have read its not possible no matter what app you use. I tested with ESPN, YouTube, ATT Now, Sling, PBS and Amazon Prime.


----------



## lparsons21

goldwing,

I can’t see what is going to my AV system as it is a soundbar system, and even though it is a high end one, it doesn’t have the bells and whistles an AVR might have. All my testing is with my ears.

On the FireTV in order to get 5.1 you have to set audio to Dolby Digital only, Best Available seems to always be DD+. DD+ would be fine if all the source material is at least 5.1, but much of it from live streaming isn’t.

So far it seems to me the only live channel streaming service that has anything but stereo is ATT TV and Now, and that only on some channels. Notably the premium movie channels. I do remember that AMC is also in 5.1.

I don’t use the FireTV much at all because the AppleTV I have is just so much better. But if I have time today, I’ll fiddle with it and report back.


----------



## lparsons21

OK, did some testing with the FireTV and the ATT box all centered around the audio.

First a general comment. Both FireTV and the ATT box default to DD+ vice DD5.1. The one thing I noticed on both boxes is that with DD+ on 5.1 source material, the rear speakers are much more subtle than with DD5.1. Not sure if that is because of the way my soundbar works with it or if it just something inherent in DD+.

The FireTV at least will allow you to force DD5.1 in their audio settings. The ATT box only allows for Surround or Stereo. Surround on the ATT box is DD+. The advantage with my system with the FireTV is that if I select DD5.1 audio then on stereo streams it kicks in Dolby ProLogic which basically tries to fake DD5.1. If the input to the soundbar is DD+ that doesn’t happen, which is a limit of the soundbar most likely.

I would love to change out my audio system to a discrete AVR/speaker setup, but my home is an open design and getting wires to the back speakers would require crawling the attic and fishing the walls, neither of those are something I can do any more. I could bump up the soundbar to a Nakamich Soundwafe 9.2.4 system that might possibly allow for finer controls and better soundstage, but at $1400 that’s not likely to happen. My current soundbar is a Samsung HW-K950 Atmos 7.1.4 system.


----------



## lparsons21

Playing with audio some more.

This time on the AppleTV4K. Using the ATT app on the ATV4K is a little odd because of the remote. Not particularly difficult, just a bit limited compared to using the ATT box.

While the audio from ATT TV is good, it is a bit on the boomy side and is loaded to the front channels a bit heavily. This makes the overall experience very rich, but the difference between 5.1 channels and the stereo channels is very noticeable.

On the ATV4K the sound is much more balanced IMO. Bass is not boomy at all. And there are some 5.1 channels with ATT TV on the ATV4K though their effect is a little muted. IOW, you can hear the directionality but it isn’t as pronounced as you might expect. I tested with a movie on Epix within the ATT TV app and with the Epix app itself. Both had good 5.1 effects but the Epix was much, much better IMO. I think that is because the Epix app is using DD5.1 and the ATT TV app is using DD+ which seemingly is handled differently by the ATV4K.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, while many of the streaming apps have DVR it isn't quite the same. They all have expiring times for recordings which isn't a problem unless you tend to want to archive stuff.


I've never archived anything. The expiration dates wouldn't bother me. I record games, watch them ASAP and delete them when I'm done. I'd be much more worried about the trick play, how it compares to what I can do with a real live DVR. None of the cable replacement services that I've tried come close to D* and real DVRs when it comes to sports.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> I've never archived anything. The expiration dates wouldn't bother me. I record games, watch them ASAP and delete them when I'm done. I'd be much more worried about the trick play, how it compares to what I can do with a real live DVR. None of the cable replacement services that I've tried come close to D* and real DVRs when it comes to sports.
> 
> Rich


Yeah trick play on the streamers is a bit twitchy compared to a local dvr.


----------



## Rich

techguy88 said:


> For @Rich to get YES Network on AT&T TV he would need Choice (w/RSN fee up to $8.49) which is $54.99/mo for the first year and $110 in the second year. On AT&T TV Now the lowest package with YES Network is the Max package at $80. AT&T TV Now also sells Entertainment - Ultimate & Optimo Mas at their non-promotional rates. The AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now versions of those packages are exactly the same in terms of channels & features.
> 
> The only difference between the two is AT&T TV Now doesn't charge a RSN fee for Choice - Ultimate and AT&T TV Now doesn't have any contracts. Although the one bright spot is if you get AT&T TV and the AT&T TV devices and later cancel AT&T TV you can still use those devices if you want to sign up for AT&T TV Now.
> 
> I have a friend in RL who won't get any satellite provider (he doesn't like the dish) and had Suddenlink's Premier package w/ 4 receivers. After Suddenlink's CS was extremely rude to him he asked me about streaming. After he gave me a list of channels he wanted I told him he would need at least Sling TV Blue w/Sports Extra plus AT&T TV Now Max or Hulu+Live TV w/HBO to get every channel on his list.
> 
> He actually went with the AT&T TV Now Max package ($80) and Sling TV Blue w/Sports Extra & Cloud DVR Plus ($45) because between the two services it gave him every channel he wanted for him and his family and he is now paying $125/mo total. He said he chose AT&T TV Now over Hulu+Live TV because it had the bigger Cloud DVR. He told me he is actually saving $77/mo by using the two streaming services rather than paying Suddenlink. When he told his friends at his work what he had done 2 of his friends actually had beta Osprey boxes they wasn't using and gave him the boxes. The his third and fourth TVs are using an Apple TVs.


This is what burns me up. All I want from any sat/cable/cable replacement service is YES. I have absolutely no interest in any programming other than sports from any of those services. $80 a month for the new ATT service would be a lot better than the $160 I'm paying now. But, what does that $80 figure look like in the second year?

If it's not a whole lot better than what I'm paying now and with a problematic DVR function (if it's not as good as D*'s real DVRs it's gonna be problematic to me), well, I don't think I'd bother with it. Or any other service.

Rich


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah trick play on the streamers is a bit twitchy compared to a local dvr.


There you go. That would really bother me. I use trickplay a lot during games.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> This is what burns me up. All I want from any sat/cable/cable replacement service is YES. I have absolutely no interest in any programming other than sports from any of those services. $80 a month for the new ATT service would be a lot better than the $160 I'm paying now. But, what does that $80 figure look like in the second year?
> 
> If it's not a whole lot better than what I'm paying now and with a problematic DVR function (if it's not as good as D*'s real DVRs it's gonna be problematic to me), well, I don't think I'd bother with it. Or any other service.
> 
> Rich


ATT TV Now is not marketed the same as ATT TV. That $80/month wouldn't go up except as a general increase. It is cancellable at any time, no contract or ETF involved.


----------



## goldwing

lparsons21 said:


> goldwing,
> 
> I can't see what is going to my AV system as it is a soundbar system, and even though it is a high end one, it doesn't have the bells and whistles an AVR might have. All my testing is with my ears.
> 
> On the FireTV in order to get 5.1 you have to set audio to Dolby Digital only, Best Available seems to always be DD+. DD+ would be fine if all the source material is at least 5.1, but much of it from live streaming isn't.
> 
> So far it seems to me the only live channel streaming service that has anything but stereo is ATT TV and Now, and that only on some channels. Notably the premium movie channels. I do remember that AMC is also in 5.1.
> 
> I don't use the FireTV much at all because the AppleTV I have is just so much better. But if I have time today, I'll fiddle with it and report back.


Thanks for testing for me. I tried all the audio settings including Dolby Digital only but never once got true 5.1 output. It was always either DD+ or 2 channel which my Denon converted to PL2. Tried with 4 different Fire TV sticks/boxes plus both my Denons (4308 and 3500) Soon as I swapped out the the Fire TV with the Nvidea Shield I got 5.1. (not all channels but the ones that have 5.1) I also wanted to note that I have all my Fire TV h/w plugged directly into my Denon's not the tv's.

I am not really worried about it anymore since I now use the Shield full time but it sure drove me NUTTS SB Sunday when I could use my 4K stick to get the game in 4k using the ESPN app but only PL2 audio or watch in 720p and 5.1 using OTA. I wanted 4k pic with 5.1 audio LOL


----------



## lparsons21

Yeah, to say audio is a hot mess with the live streamers wouldn’t be an understatement!


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> ATT TV Now is not marketed the same as ATT TV. That $80/month wouldn't go up except as a general increase. It is cancellable at any time, no contract or ETF involved.


Isn't that gonna go away soon? Why would they keep that active?

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> Isn't that gonna go away soon? Why would they keep that active?
> 
> Rich


It's ATT, who the hell knows what they are going to do? I don't think even they know.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> It's ATT, who the hell knows what they are going to do? I don't think even they know.


They do seem to thrive on chaos.

Rich


----------



## techguy88

Rich said:


> Isn't that gonna go away soon? Why would they keep that active?
> 
> Rich





lparsons21 said:


> It's ATT, who the hell knows what they are going to do? I don't think even they know.





Rich said:


> They do seem to thrive on chaos.
> 
> Rich


The only video service they have sunset is U-Verse TV. Existing U-Verse TV customers can keep the U-Verse TV service except if they are moving to a new area (even if that area has U-Verse TV.) If an existing U-Verse TV customer moves to another market where U-Verse TV was previously available they have to get either AT&T TV or DirecTV.

From what I've heard from people who work at AT&T, the company hasn't indicated getting rid of AT&T TV Now or AT&T Watch TV (like they did with U-Verse TV.) AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now share a lot of the same infrastructure and technology sets. The only difference is how they are ordered and support available. As long as the service returns some sort of profit I don't think they will get rid of it anytime soon. If it becomes unprofitable then at that point I can see them getting rid of AT&T TV Now.


----------



## Rich

techguy88 said:


> The only video service they have sunset is U-Verse TV. Existing U-Verse TV customers can keep the U-Verse TV service except if they are moving to a new area (even if that area has U-Verse TV.) If an existing U-Verse TV customer moves to another market where U-Verse TV was previously available they have to get either AT&T TV or DirecTV.
> 
> From what I've heard from people who work at AT&T, the company hasn't indicated getting rid of AT&T TV Now or AT&T Watch TV (like they did with U-Verse TV.) AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now share a lot of the same infrastructure and technology sets. The only difference is how they are ordered and support available. As long as the service returns some sort of profit I don't think they will get rid of it anytime soon. If it becomes unprofitable then at that point I can see them getting rid of AT&T TV Now.


Does the "Now" version carry YES?

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> Does the "Now" version carry YES?
> 
> Rich


In the Max level it does.


----------



## lparsons21

One thing I don’t think I’ve talked about much is the UI of both the ATT box and app. IMO, it is probably the best I’ve seen of all the streamers!

The grid guide is concise and well laid out. It includes a thumbnail and short description of the show you’ve highlighted in the guide. And if you move the highlight to the channel instead of the show and select it, it shows the schedule of shows on that channel for a period of time. 

The main menu has 4 selections on the app and 5 on the box. Guide, Watch Now, My Library, and Discover, as well as App on the box, Search and Settings.

Overall it is very well laid out and presented. User interaction is good depending on whether you are on the ATT box (best), AppleTV (very good), FireTV (laggy).

The ATT box is great for interacting with the ATT TV service but not so well with apps. Switching too often can and does cause crashes and app lockups are not unheard of.

The AppleTV is next up. It actually works the ATT TV app quicker than it does on the ATT Box, but because of the simplicity of the ATV remote you have to fiddle around to figure out what does which and that sometimes depends on where you’re at. It isn’t daunting, just takes a little fiddling. The advantage of using the AppleTV is app switching, fast and with few issues, and in general the other apps work quite well.


----------



## espaeth

FYI on the AppleTV 4K - the 13.4.5 Developer Beta of TVOS fixes the audio sync issues with 4K / SDR. I suspect this is because that beta also enables playback of the DD+ 5.1 audio tracks for most channels.

Download Beta Profiles has a simple process for installing the beta software deployment profile on your AppleTV so that it will download the beta release.

Usual disclaimers: developer betas have more recent fixes, but also a bunch of new bugs.


----------



## lparsons21

espaeth said:


> FYI on the AppleTV 4K - the 13.4.5 Developer Beta of TVOS fixes the audio sync issues with 4K / SDR. I suspect this is because that beta also enables playback of the DD+ 5.1 audio tracks for most channels.
> 
> Download Beta Profiles has a simple process for installing the beta software deployment profile on your AppleTV so that it will download the beta release.
> 
> Usual disclaimers: developer betas have more recent fixes, but also a bunch of new bugs.


Thanks. I don't do the developer betas but instead just get the public betas. Usually less bugs! Getting the 13.4.5 public beta now.


----------



## lparsons21

OK, on the AppleTV4K with the 13.4.5 public beta lip sync is not an issue anymore. 5.1 audio is there for the channels that have it, unfortunately that isn’t all of them.

Another difference with sound is that the audio on non-5.1 channels is now being massaged with Dolby ProLogic which is a plus.

This is just good enough that I may just have to use the AppleTV instead of the ATT Box.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> In the Max level it does.


What's the monthly on Max?

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> What's the monthly on Max?
> 
> Rich


$80/month. Besides a slew of channels you also get HBO and Cinemax thrown in for good measure.

Google ATT TV Now to get to the website and you can see all the channels.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> OK, on the AppleTV4K with the 13.4.5 public beta lip sync is not an issue anymore. 5.1 audio is there for the channels that have it, unfortunately that isn't all of them.
> 
> Another difference with sound is that the audio on non-5.1 channels is now being massaged with Dolby ProLogic which is a plus.
> 
> This is just good enough that I may just have to use the AppleTV instead of the ATT Box.


The lip-sync problem is just with the ATT app?

Rich


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> $80/month. Besides a slew of channels you also get HBO and Cinemax thrown in for good measure.
> 
> Google ATT TV Now to get to the website and you can see all the channels.


Thanks, gonna take a look at it...

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> The lip-sync problem is just with the ATT app?
> 
> Rich


Yes, and only on the AppleTV. but the latest public beta has fixed that.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> $80/month. Besides a slew of channels you also get HBO and Cinemax thrown in for good measure.
> 
> Google ATT TV Now to get to the website and you can see all the channels.


I just looked at the $80 package. It even has the dreaded Hallmark channel. I would save $80 a month, $100 a month when my credit runs out. I'm pondering now. The trickplay thing still bothers me. When the MLB season starts up (if it starts up) I will take it for a spin. At the moment I'd have no use for it. Need something to record, have to be satisfied with the trickplay. That's a big hurdle.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> I just looked at the $80 package. It even has the dreaded Hallmark channel. I would save $80 a month, $100 a month when my credit runs out. I'm pondering now. The trickplay thing still bothers me. When the MLB season starts up (if it starts up) I will take it for a spin. At the moment I'd have no use for it. Need something to record, have to be satisfied with the trickplay. That's a big hurdle.
> 
> Rich


It has a 7 day free trial to find out the answers to all your questions!!


----------



## TV_Guy

Rich said:


> I just looked at the $80 package. It even has the dreaded Hallmark channel. I would save $80 a month, $100 a month when my credit runs out. I'm pondering now. The trickplay thing still bothers me. When the MLB season starts up (if it starts up) I will take it for a spin. At the moment I'd have no use for it. Need something to record, have to be satisfied with the trickplay. That's a big hurdle.
> 
> Rich


Did you forget WPIX is not carried? Although the WPIX Yankees games will be on Amazon you still miss the Mets games on WPIX. When and if baseball resumes. Oddly enough YouTube TV has added WPIX but dropped YES.


----------



## lparsons21

TV_Guy said:


> Did you forget WPIX is not carried? Although the WPIX Yankees games will be on Amazon you still miss the Mets games on WPIX. When and if baseball resumes. Oddly enough YouTube TV has added WPIX but dropped YES.


YouTubeTV's RSN status is a little odd from what I read. Dropped some, kept others, but all for some short period of time. So the RSNs may be an issue for them going forward.


----------



## James Long

lparsons21 said:


> YouTubeTV's RSN status is a little odd from what I read. Dropped some, kept others, but all for some short period of time. So the RSNs may be an issue for them going forward.


If I recall correctly the coverage area of each RSN was part of the issue (RSNs not available everywhere where their local teams are in market). It is hard to keep track of all the caveats.


----------



## compnurd

They still dont carry the ATT Sportsnet RSN's


----------



## Rich

TV_Guy said:


> Did you forget WPIX is not carried? Although the WPIX Yankees games will be on Amazon you still miss the Mets games on WPIX. When and if baseball resumes. Oddly enough YouTube TV has added WPIX but dropped YES.


I forgot. Damn. I didn't think of FS1 either.

That kills any thoughts I had about YTTV being a viable alternative. When Amazon has the games do you have to watch them live? I've never streamed a game on Amazon.

Rich


----------



## TV_Guy

Rich said:


> I forgot. Damn. I didn't think of FS1 either.
> 
> That kills any thoughts I had about YTTV being a viable alternative. When Amazon has the games do you have to watch them live? I've never streamed a game on Amazon.
> 
> Rich


Not sure about Amazon. Just know it will be in market only which might make it different than previous sports offerings. Looks like AT&T Now offers FS1. YTTV offers both FS1 and FS2 and will be adding a slew of Viacom channels over the summer. Too bad YES has partial Sinclair ownership since Sinclair has driven YTTV and many other providers to drop or scale back RSN carriage.


----------



## wmb

TV_Guy said:


> Not sure about Amazon. Just know it will be in market only which might make it different than previous sports offerings. Looks like AT&T Now offers FS1. YTTV offers both FS1 and FS2 and will be adding a slew of Viacom channels over the summer. Too bad YES has partial Sinclair ownership since Sinclair has driven YTTV and many other providers to drop or scale back RSN carriage.


I hope YTTV doesn't jack their price to add Viacom. They're a buck or two nice, not a sawbuck or twice nice. That's been YTTV's content whole.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## raott

Had a hiccup last night with the remote. I went to turn the box and TV on and the remote was unresponsive (the two blue lights at the top were lit up....can't remember if they were blinking). Took the batteries out, put them back in and no change....still wouldn't work.

I recalled how to re-pair the remote and did that.....it worked fine thereafter.....not sure what the alternative would have been if I hadn't remembered. 

I now have all the components to my sonos and will work on that this weekend.


----------



## lparsons21

A few ramblings...

ATT TV performance on the various boxes is a bit irritating. On the FireTV the performance is just so sluggish it isn’t worth considering using it on one IMO.

On the AppleTV the performance is really good for most things, but the interactions with the remote to do it are a bit hinky with the ultra-simplistic remote. And skipping is really irritating. It attempts to show where you are in the show as it skips forward but can’t keep up. And if you try to bump up the speed of it I almost always get a message from the app about how my internet isn’t good enough to support that. That’s utter BS though, it isn’t my internet, it is the app performance for that function that’s at at fault.

Audio on the AppleTV is more balanced than from the ATT box but as I’ve found out with testing. Superb with 5.1 audio stations/shows, OK with the stereo ones.

The ATT Box is simply the best way to deal with the service. More functionality, a great remote for it and smooth operation when using the ATT TV service. But using other apps on it can be problematic with lockup’s and crashes happening fairly often. I tend to not use it for apps, just with ATT TV service.

Audio with the ATT Box is DD+ and when using TV speakers or lower end soundbars, that isn’t an issue. But with some higher end gear it tends to be very ‘boomy’ in the bass. With my audio gear it would be better if it was DD 5.1 because then it would be massaged by ProLogic on stereo sources.


----------



## techguy88

TV_Guy said:


> Not sure about Amazon. Just know it will be in market only which might make it different than previous sports offerings. Looks like AT&T Now offers FS1. YTTV offers both FS1 and FS2 and will be adding a slew of Viacom channels over the summer. Too bad YES has partial Sinclair ownership since Sinclair has driven YTTV and many other providers to drop or scale back RSN carriage.


All AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now packages include FS1. Max (AT&T TV Now), Xtra or Ultimate (AT&T TV / AT&T TV Now) required for FS2.


----------



## lparsons21

Let’s come back to the ATT Box. It has voice control via Google it seems. In the past on other devices that have voice control I only used it for search. And I’ve been doing that on this box also.

But last night I thought about trying controls. One of the issues with the remote and box is when skipping ahead. You can do it with the right arrow 15 seconds at a time, which means that skipping the ads takes a lot of pushing on that button. Or you can use the fast forward, which on the box shows a thumbnail of where you are at any given time during the fast forwarding.

Using voice control is easier. Push the Mic button and say something liked “skip forward 3 minutes” and it is done. Other actions are similarly easy once you figure out the phrasing which takes a little experimenting.

Don’t know about on the AppleTV as I don’t use the AppleTV’s remote, but instead use my Harmony remote. I’ll try that sometime today as I fiddle around.

Now a little audio mention. I’ve been complaining about the way the box does audio, but some of that complaining isn’t so much about what the box can do, but the limits of my high end soundbar. For those using the TV speakers or a soundbar setup that is just soundbar or soundbar+subwoofer the audio is actually really good. In my set up I have surround speakers and even Atmos upfiring speaker in the soundbar and in the surrounds.  With the ATT Box, when the channel is not a 5.1 channel I don’t get anything out of the back speakers.


----------



## lparsons21

OK. Switched to the AppleTV, voice controls within the ATT TV app do not work on the AppleTV at all which is yet another reason that makes the ATT box the easiest and best way to interact with the service.

Also only with the ATT Box can you skip or rewind on a live channel.

One thing I noticed previously but didn’t mention was that for whatever reason when not using the ATT box it will turn itself on. I think it is because some IR control of one of my other boxes is also used by the ATT box but I haven’t figured out exactly what or even if I could, I don’t know how I would change it.

When using the AppleTV with the ATT TV app it generally takes more than one button/swipe to do what you can do with a simple button push on the ATT remote.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> OK. Switched to the AppleTV, voice controls within the ATT TV app do not work on the AppleTV at all which is yet another reason that makes the ATT box the easiest and best way to interact with the service.
> 
> Also only with the ATT Box can you skip or rewind on a live channel.
> 
> One thing I noticed previously but didn't mention was that for whatever reason when not using the ATT box it will turn itself on. I think it is because some IR control of one of my other boxes is also used by the ATT box but I haven't figured out exactly what or even if I could, I don't know how I would change it.
> 
> When using the AppleTV with the ATT TV app it generally takes more than one button/swipe to do what you can do with a simple button push on the ATT remote.


The more posts from you I see, the less interested I become. This service might be kinda "like" the sat service but it's way too chaotic at the moment for me to have any interest in it. And, if history can be believed, they won't make the adjustments to it that seem to be needed.

You're doing a great job, keep it up!

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich,

Given your comments in many other posts about how much you are into sports, and your fairly heavy use of trick play, I doubt you’ll find a streamer right now that fits.

It is simply a fact of life that trick play with streamers, even on the best service with it, isn’t quite the same. And I think that’s because it is streaming and not ‘caching locally’ as your local DVR does.

That said, the ATT TV offering from a channel/content and operational point of view, is probably the best out there. Unfortunately it comes with a stiff premium in costs, and depending on how you would subscribe, contractual and ETF issues.

That it works for me as well as it does, and at a cost that I don’t consider onerous is as much because I don’t care about sports more than just a very casual interest.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> Rich,
> 
> Given your comments in many other posts about how much you are into sports, and your fairly heavy use of trick play, I doubt you'll find a streamer right now that fits.
> 
> It is simply a fact of life that trick play with streamers, even on the best service with it, isn't quite the same. And I think that's because it is streaming and not 'caching locally' as your local DVR does.
> 
> That said, the ATT TV offering from a channel/content and operational point of view, is probably the best out there. Unfortunately it comes with a stiff premium in costs, and depending on how you would subscribe, contractual and ETF issues.
> 
> That it works for me as well as it does, and at a cost that I don't consider onerous is as much because I don't care about sports more than just a very casual interest.


Yup, guess I'll just keep on paying for the sat service. I've had a lot of streaming boxes, never had one that could match the trickplay I have on D*.

Rich


----------



## stoutman

Boxes are backwards. IPTV with a box is called FIOS. AT&T TV will not defy gravity and succeed. This is the third attempt at tv. Directv, Directv Now and ATT TV. Each failed to live up to expectations. Sadly, it doesn't seem like they learn much from their mistakes. Personally, I am with the ATT NOW grandfathered. Great deal, but always waiting for them to drop me. Maybe, they will circle back and go hard on true IPTV again. No box.


----------



## lparsons21

stoutman said:


> Boxes are backwards. IPTV with a box is called FIOS. AT&T TV will not defy gravity and succeed. This is the third attempt at tv. Directv, Directv Now and ATT TV. Each failed to live up to expectations. Sadly, it doesn't seem like they learn much from their mistakes. Personally, I am with the ATT NOW grandfathered. Great deal, but always waiting for them to drop me. Maybe, they will circle back and go hard on true IPTV again. No box.


Well, yeah. The ATT Box is an attempt to be cable/sat but via internet. Actually it is a decent box and service, the problem with ATT's offerings have little to do with the service they provide, but they way they want to package it. I'm betting that in a year, when the contracted customers see their rates nearly double, that the losses of subscribers will be huge. The other bet, hedging a bit here, is that they will realize it and make the adjustments needed to keep it a viable product both for them and the consumer.

Of course, this is AT&T and they seldom listen to anybody, so who knows?


----------



## lparsons21

Let’s talk the box vs an app with the ATT service.

First up, the box. It works and overall, works well if you use it as actually intended and who it is really designed for. And that is the new to streaming user. For them, the box makes everything much simpler.

Starting with the very nice quick start guide to get the box connected and going. It is clear and concise and big, no tiny little sheet with even tinier text or confusing pictures.

And once you get to the end of the quick start guide, the remote is paired, the box is powering up and getting any updates as needed. And then you are presented with a grid guide quite similar to what cable/sat has been doing for ages. The guide even includes a Netflix ‘channel’.

The UI is probably the best and easiest of any streaming box or streaming app I’ve seen over the years. The remote for the box makes interacting with it dead simple with a button for almost any situation.

The downside of the box is with 3rd party apps. It just has issue with switching to them and back and it isn’t uncommon for that to cause a crash and reboot.

Overall it is good enough that the box should be a consideration for those with ATT TV Now service though the cost of the box is a bit high for a box that really becomes nearly a paperweight if you don’t use the ATT TV service.

ATT TV the app - The app in many ways appears the same as it does when using the box, but there are operational differences. The app works fine on the AppleTV though the remote usage is hinky because of the simplistic design of the AppleTV remote.

On the FireTV the performance is horrid though using the remote is easier than on the AppleTV. App crashes, sluggish operation, hinky video at times, all that adds up to the FireTV not really being a consideration for use with the service IMO.

Unfortunately ATT has not made the app a real winner because of those issues. Whether that’s by design or imcompetence is up for grabs. And not having an AndroidTV and Roku version of the app is a bad move on ATT’s part.

IMO, the success or failure of the ATT TV streaming service won’t be because of the box or the app, but will solely rest on the marketing, pricing and so forth of the offering. I think that what is causing ATT to have these issues is because they want to make the fat profits that their cable/sat offering have. But the streaming market these days just isn’t that, it is slimmer margins and a nearly constant shuffling of service subscriptions by streaming consumers.


----------



## rey_1178

lparsons21 said:


> Oh, also noticed some lip sync issues on the AppleTV. Did some googling and it is a well reported issue with the only fix a temporary one of setting the ATV to 1080p.
> 
> Supposed ATT is well aware of this and is 'working' on it.


What's sad is its been over 6 months they said this. If they prioritize the software I'm sure the Osprey box could run flawlessly.


----------



## rey_1178

lparsons21 said:


> Well now we're talking!!
> 
> Voice search works great as does voice commands. Also transitioning between the ATT main app to say HBO Go to see something is butter smooth. And then transitioning back to the main program is just as smooth. I'm impressed!


Nice to hear. I gave up on that as the voice commands had too much lag for me. Behaved the same on both of my osprey boxes. Either way I am using the harmony remotes. But overall the box works great with the service.


----------



## rey_1178

I remember the thread created by techguy88 being a huge help when I was deciding whether to go for it or not. I appreciated his feedback. 

Lparsons great job on this new thread. Anything else I need to add about the service will do it here. I really enjoyed reading all 8 pages. Fantastic input my friend.


----------



## lparsons21

So much for ‘a little review’, huh? 

You know the frustrating part of this is that the ATT Box is absolutely superb at interacting with the service. But it has an issue with forced HDR since it makes the picture a bit too ‘intense’, I guess that’s the word I’m looking for. My Sony 4K TV does OK with it, but the picture could be better.

The other issue is that the box puts out DD+ instead of DD5.1, even on stereo only channels. With my AV gear that means the audio from the box isn’t as good as it could be.

On the AppleTV the audio works better because I think it is DD5.1. Stereo channels get a ProLogic massage which is better than just stereo by quite a bit. I think that if I had a more flexible AV setup I could overcome the issue with the box.

But the reality is that my Atmos soundbar is pretty darned good. The only one I would consider if I were in the mood, is the Nakamich Shockwafe 9.2.4 soundbar setup. More flexible, dual subs and more immersion of sound. But it’s about $1400 shipped with taxes, so I don’t think I’m going to do that.

I ran into an issue with DVR scheduling today. With the iPad app and the AppleTV app you can cancel a scheduled episode but can’t cancel the series. On the box you can.


----------



## lparsons21

ATT has missed the boat a bit on their box IMO. It could have been “The Box” that many would want to replace the plethora of streaming boxes that seem to accumulate.

They should have and could have, put Hulu and Amazon Prime availability. Those are two huge VOD streaming services that are very popular. Oddly it seems this is the only box out there that doesn’t have them. And they both are on other AndroidTV devices.

I did notice that Sling and YouTubeTV are available.

It would be nice to have the AppleTV+ app too, but that’s mostly on Apple. The only Android based streaming box I know of that has that app available is the FireTV series.


----------



## rey_1178

lparsons21 said:


> ATT has missed the boat a bit on their box IMO. It could have been "The Box" that many would want to replace the plethora of streaming boxes that seem to accumulate.
> 
> They should have and could have, put Hulu and Amazon Prime availability. Those are two huge VOD streaming services that are very popular. Oddly it seems this is the only box out there that doesn't have them. And they both are on other AndroidTV devices.
> 
> I did notice that Sling and YouTubeTV are available.
> 
> It would be nice to have the AppleTV+ app too, but that's mostly on Apple. The only Android based streaming box I know of that has that app available is the FireTV series.


This is one of the many things I wrote in my long feedback they requested from me a few weeks ago. This service has huge potential but they got to get these things right.


----------



## lparsons21

rey_1178 said:


> This is one of the many things I wrote in my long feedback they requested from me a few weeks ago. This service has huge potential but they got to get these things right.


I wrote something similar in the short feedback they requested. Hopefully someone is listening/reading.


----------



## espaeth

lparsons21 said:


> OK. Switched to the AppleTV, voice controls within the ATT TV app do not work on the AppleTV at all which is yet another reason that makes the ATT box the easiest and best way to interact with the service.


That's unfortunate they didn't implement that on the AppleTV app. My daily interaction with this service is in the WatchTV form, which doesn't have anything beyond the live stream and VOD so that's something I would have never been able to test since trickplay is disabled. (packet captures confirm it pulls from the same CDN sources, and apps have the same quirks like the 4K/SDR stutter on the older tvOS versions)

Back when there were still live sports, I used voice commands pretty regularly with YTTV because you could skip fixed intermissions ("Skip forward 18 minutes") or skip TV timeouts ("skip forward 2 minutes") on NHL games. Say what you will about voice commands being clunky, but there are times where it actually is more efficient.


----------



## Rich

espaeth said:


> That's unfortunate they didn't implement that on the AppleTV app. My daily interaction with this service is in the WatchTV form, which doesn't have anything beyond the live stream and VOD so that's something I would have never been able to test since trickplay is disabled. (packet captures confirm it pulls from the same CDN sources, and apps have the same quirks like the 4K/SDR stutter on the older tvOS versions)
> 
> Back when there were still live sports, I used voice commands pretty regularly with YTTV because you could skip fixed intermissions ("Skip forward 18 minutes") or skip TV timeouts ("skip forward 2 minutes") on NHL games. Say what you will about voice commands being clunky, but there are times where it actually is more efficient.


I use voice commands a lot. Not as fast as using a remote for some things but they are a lot more convenient. Those intermissions (never watch hockey games) that you can't click through with the remote but you can bypass with a voice command...have you tried that trick on a movie? I started to watch _Perfect Host_ the other day on an app I'd never used before and ran into commercials I couldn't click through. I stopped watching it, can't deal with that sort of thing anymore. I wonder if that would work there? I'm gonna try it...nope, didn't work. That was on Pluto.

Rich


----------



## raott

Quick update from my setup. I set up my Sonos 5.1 and am having no issues with the sound quality. The setup is HDMI in to the Vizio and then out via optical wire to the Sonos playbase. 

I've had no additional hiccups, other than what I described before.....I added a couple of apps this morning and will fool with those this weekend. The one box concept is great, but it needs to work right and they need to get all of the standard apps on there. Minor complaint, but I do wish there was a direct to app button like there is on the Vizio remote....instead of menu....then apps....then choosing the apps I want to use. Maybe there is and I haven't found it. 

I do like the remote much better than the ATV remote (what good is a sleek look when it stinks to use.....perhaps that is why "Sir" Jony Ive is no longer at Apple).


----------



## lparsons21

I think that at least part of my audio issues are because of the design limits of my soundbar setup. It is a rather complex setup and supports Atmos with upfiring speakers in the front and back. I think that a more basic soundbar might actually do better in some ways.

On the ATT box I think the idea behind the design is similar to what Tivo has done for years. The central part is the guide to their service with a fair nod to additional apps. So instead of an ‘app’ button you have to go through the menuing system, just as you do on a Tivo. 

Search is interesting since it is tied into Google so much. So a search for a show that’s not on ATT’s service might show up and tell you which app or apps, but so far my searches for shows is fairly limited in where it finds it. Mostly either within the available channels on the ATT service, Netflix, YouTube or Google Play. I haven’t done a show/movie search that shows anything else. Doesn’t seem like the more universal search on AppleTV, FireTV or Roku. Actually even TiVo’s search does better.


----------



## Rich

raott said:


> I do like the remote much better than the ATV remote (what good is a sleek look when it stinks to use.....perhaps that is why "Sir" Jony Ive is no longer at Apple).


Before Apple came out with the HD version of the ATVs I would have said the same thing about the remotes. Could they be better? Sure. Every remote could be better. I use the ATVs as my main device for streaming and I have few issues of any sort with their remotes. I would not think of using one for sports, that's not what they're made for. I have Harmony remotes and other universal remotes, I'd rather use the ATV remotes when streaming. Just as I'd much rather use the D* DVR remotes for sports. Again, this is another YMMV moment but I gotta stick up for the ATV remotes.

Rich


----------



## raott

They are simply too small, thin, slick and sensitive for my liking (though they are much better than the first iteration). I don't know how many times I've lost it in the couch, it's slipped out of my hands or inadvertently touched the touchpad portion of the remote.



Rich said:


> Before Apple came out with the HD version of the ATVs I would have said the same thing about the remotes. Could they be better? Sure. Every remote could be better. I use the ATVs as my main device for streaming and I have few issues of any sort with their remotes. I would not think of using one for sports, that's not what they're made for. I have Harmony remotes and other universal remotes, I'd rather use the ATV remotes when streaming. Just as I'd much rather use the D* DVR remotes for sports. Again, this is another YMMV moment but I gotta stick up for the ATV remotes.
> 
> Rich


----------



## wmb

raott said:


> They are simply too small, thin, slick and sensitive for my liking (though they are much better than the first iteration). I don't know how many times I've lost it in the couch, it's slipped out of my hands or inadvertently touched the touchpad portion of the remote.


Silicone Protective Case Cover for Apple TV 4, 4K Siri Remote Control Shockproof | eBay

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich

wmb said:


> Silicone Protective Case Cover for Apple TV 4, 4K Siri Remote Control Shockproof | eBay
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I would not recommend those skins for an ATV remote. I had them on several ATV remotes and they seemed great at first. After I used them for a bit the remotes became unresponsive at times. Found out the skins slipped up a bit and were pressing on the top of the touchpad, just enough to make the remotes unresponsive to commands. Took the skins off, the remotes worked properly. The skins are a great idea, I use them on my Fire TV remotes and have no issues. I would not recommend using them on ATV remotes. I just checked, I only bought Fintie skins: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01KUWZIX6/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1 I am not sure if every skin would do what the Fintie skins do.

Rich


----------



## Rich

wmb said:


> Silicone Protective Case Cover for Apple TV 4, 4K Siri Remote Control Shockproof | eBay
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I just looked at that link and I'd be amazed if those don't do the same thing as the Fintie skins.

Rich


----------



## b4pjoe

I bought this for my ATV remote.

Pinowu Silicone Case for Apple TV 4K/4th Gen Remote

The control still works like it did before. Makes it a little better for not sliding down into furniture but I still don't like the touchpad. Try to scroll it seems you either don't go enough or you go to far. Never the right amount.


----------



## wmb

b4pjoe said:


> I bought this for my ATV remote.
> 
> Pinowu Silicone Case for Apple TV 4K/4th Gen Remote
> 
> The control still works like it did before. Makes it a little better for not sliding down into furniture but I still don't like the touchpad. Try to scroll it seems you either don't go enough or you go to far. Never the right amount.


I think they're basically the same unit as the one I linked to. I don't have any problems with the skin. I think I read that the remotes could break, at least the glass part. I don't use that strap that came with, I have the official Apple one.

Anyhow, i have the sky blue one and it's much easier to see than the plain black remote. The strap is useful to find in the midst of clutter. I haven't had the between cushion issue, but I imagine the case would slow the drop and the strap would follow the remote itself and be a easily found tail.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wmb

Rich said:


> That was on Pluto.
> 
> Rich


I'm normally ok with ads on live network TV, but Pluto was too much for me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21

wmb said:


> I'm normally ok with ads on live network TV, but Pluto was too much for me.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeah Pluto is definitely ad happy! Tubi and Crackle are much better about ads.


----------



## b4pjoe

wmb said:


> I think they're basically the same unit as the one I linked to. I don't have any problems with the skin. I think I read that the remotes could break, at least the glass part. I don't use that strap that came with, I have the official Apple one.
> 
> Anyhow, i have the sky blue one and it's much easier to see than the plain black remote. The strap is useful to find in the midst of clutter. I haven't had the between cushion issue, but I imagine the case would slow the drop and the strap would follow the remote itself and be a easily found tail.


Yeah they look similar. I also don't have any problems with the skin interfering with any operations. The touchpad sucks without the skin. It still sucks with the skin.


----------



## espaeth

I've been lucky and haven't had a problem with the silicon case for the ATV remote myself. The best thing I ever discovered with that remote is that you can use it like a standard directional pad remote. If you just tap (without "clicking") on the top/bottom/left/right of the track pad surface you move one step in that direction universally through the ATV interface. Before I started doing that it would drive me nuts constantly swiping and overshooting what I was trying to get to. Swiping only seems to be useful for scrubbing though video timelines quickly.


----------



## rey_1178

Rich said:


> I would not recommend those skins for an ATV remote. I had them on several ATV remotes and they seemed great at first. After I used them for a bit the remotes became unresponsive at times. Found out the skins slipped up a bit and were pressing on the top of the touchpad, just enough to make the remotes unresponsive to commands. Took the skins off, the remotes worked properly. The skins are a great idea, I use them on my Fire TV remotes and have no issues. I would not recommend using them on ATV remotes. I just checked, I only bought Fintie skins: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01KUWZIX6/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1 I am not sure if every skin would do what the Fintie skins do.
> 
> Rich


https://www.amazon.com/elago-Technology-Anti-Slip-Absorption-Generation/dp/B01B5RF470

Been using that one for 6 months and it's been great. Have another one that's too flexible for my liking.


----------



## Rich

rey_1178 said:


> https://www.amazon.com/elago-Technology-Anti-Slip-Absorption-Generation/dp/B01B5RF470
> 
> Been using that one for 6 months and it's been great. Have another one that's too flexible for my liking.


Thanks for the link. I do have one ATV remote that doesn't have a Sidekick (https://www.amazon.com/Sideclick-Un...&qid=1589567242&sprefix=sidecl,aps,158&sr=8-1) on it. I just bought one from your link. It looks like it might be better than the Finties. The Sidekicks attach directly to the remotes and make it harder to lose them. Nice little universal remotes, I use them on Fire TV Cube remotes too.

Rich


----------



## Rich

espaeth said:


> I've been lucky and haven't had a problem with the silicon case for the ATV remote myself. *The best thing I ever discovered with that remote is that you can use it like a standard directional pad remote. If you just tap (without "clicking") on the top/bottom/left/right of the track pad surface you move one step in that direction universally through the ATV interface.* Before I started doing that it would drive me nuts constantly swiping and overshooting what I was trying to get to. Swiping only seems to be useful for scrubbing though video timelines quickly.


I must be doing something wrong. I had no idea that could be done and I just tried it and all I'm doing is bringing the Progress Bar up. I know I can click the touchpad in places and get a click forward or back but tapping does nothing like what you wrote above. I don't see how you can do anything without actually "clicking" the touchpad. Don't doubt you, I just can't get it to do that. I've been using ATVs since they came out with the HD model a few years ago, they are my main streaming device.

Rich


----------



## raott

Unless I'm simply not looking in the right spot...AT&T TV does not appear to have PPV of any sort. Has anyone else seen it or can point me in the right direction?


----------



## lparsons21

raott said:


> Unless I'm simply not looking in the right spot...AT&T TV does not appear to have PPV of any sort. Has anyone else seen it or can point me in the right direction?


Nope, no PPV at all.


----------



## lparsons21

OK, a new wrinkle I didn’t realize I had!

The blasted remote and codes for the ATT box are wreaking havoc on my system! The box itself uses RF for the codes but it seems that the remote is also transmitting some IR codes along with it.

Today I found that the darned remote was kicking HDMI-CEC back on with the soundbar and that causes all sorts of switching issues when I want to change sources.

I also found that the ATT remote would kick off or on the Surround processor in the soundbar. And that explains why I would get ProLogic on the stereo channels on the AppleTV sometimes, but other times not. That was driving me nuts as I couldn’t figure out what the hell was going on.

The only cure if I want to sometimes use the ATT box and other times use the AppleTV is to cycle everything off and then back on as switching just causes issues. While that isn’t daunting because I use a Harmony Elite remote to do it with, it is a big irritant. Or just put the damned box in the bedroom and only use it there. But I like using the box on most occasions as it is the best way to interact with the service.

Until I figured out what was going on and ways around it, I was ‘this close’ to getting a new soundbar setup and not one of the cheap ones!!


----------



## espaeth

Rich said:


> I must be doing something wrong. I had no idea that could be done and I just tried it and all I'm doing is bringing the Progress Bar up.


Sorry, I should have been more clear I was talking about menu navigation when media isn't playing.

The remote design makes you think you should use it like a track pad and swipe to move to the thing you want to select from a menu. It's been my experience that it's far more precise, and thus a lot easier, if you treat it like a directional pad and just touch the top/bottom/left/right to navigate 1 step in each direction. (ie, from your home menu, if you're starting and the top left, and Hulu is 2 rows down and 2 columns to the right, you just tap down twice and right twice and you land exactly there)


----------



## mjwagner

raott said:


> Unless I'm simply not looking in the right spot...AT&T TV does not appear to have PPV of any sort. Has anyone else seen it or can point me in the right direction?


That's surprising. You would think they would want to keep taking advantage of folks willing to pay $10.99 for pay per view movies like on D...LOL


----------



## inkahauts

lparsons21 said:


> OK, a new wrinkle I didn't realize I had!
> 
> The blasted remote and codes for the ATT box are wreaking havoc on my system! The box itself uses RF for the codes but it seems that the remote is also transmitting some IR codes along with it.
> 
> Today I found that the darned remote was kicking HDMI-CEC back on with the soundbar and that causes all sorts of switching issues when I want to change sources.
> 
> I also found that the ATT remote would kick off or on the Surround processor in the soundbar. And that explains why I would get ProLogic on the stereo channels on the AppleTV sometimes, but other times not. That was driving me nuts as I couldn't figure out what the hell was going on.
> 
> The only cure if I want to sometimes use the ATT box and other times use the AppleTV is to cycle everything off and then back on as switching just causes issues. While that isn't daunting because I use a Harmony Elite remote to do it with, it is a big irritant. Or just put the damned box in the bedroom and only use it there. But I like using the box on most occasions as it is the best way to interact with the service.
> 
> Until I figured out what was going on and ways around it, I was 'this close' to getting a new soundbar setup and not one of the cheap ones!!


Can you see it ha-en consistently in s\certain situations? If so hold your hand over the remote and make sure it's weird or signal issues and not CEC issues with the box basically behaving like it's the only thing connected. I might turn off cec for a bit and see if the issues go away, especially since you have a harmony. And I mean turn it off on everything to see.


----------



## lparsons21

inkahauts said:


> Can you see it ha-en consistently in s\certain situations? If so hold your hand over the remote and make sure it's weird or signal issues and not CEC issues with the box basically behaving like it's the only thing connected. I might turn off cec for a bit and see if the issues go away, especially since you have a harmony. And I mean turn it off on everything to see.


Thanks for the suggestions. I haven't figured out exactly which button(s) cause the issues to happen, but it happens when I use the ATT remote. If I use the Harmony to control everything then it doesn't occur. So I know the issue is with something that remote is doing.

For info, when I set all this up with the Harmony I found that using HDMI-CEC caused all sorts of switching and power on/off issues, so anytime I added something new I made sure to turn it off in the new box.

BTW covering the front of the remote and turning the power off on the ATT box was how I figured out that CEC had been toggled back on. When I pressed 'off' on the att remote with the remote covered up it switched the TV's input selection.


----------



## lparsons21

Played around this morning. Tried disabling the remote’s ability to control the TV and soundbar in any way. Didn’t help. Still get some extraneous IR sent out which causes the issues. And the ATT Box is dummied down to the point you can’t change much in the way of how it operates, or at least if you can, I sure haven’t figured out how.

So I’ve found the only way that keeps it from screwing things up. If I want to use the ATT box itself for its superior ability in controlling the interaction with the service at the expense of the audio issues, I can. And it all works fine.

But when I then want to switch to some other device because of whatever reason, the only safe way is to do a system power down and come back up on the other device.

I keep debating replacing my soundbar system because of its limits on audio processing. But the blasted thing sounds so darned good I really hate to. And cost to do so is a consideration. To get an equivalent or better soundbar setup would cost at least $850. And then there’s the issue of selling the current one. Selling locally would be ideal, but less likely because of the rural nature of where I live. And selling away from home has a packing/shipping issue because of the size of boxes needed.


----------



## Rich

espaeth said:


> Sorry, I should have been more clear I was talking about menu navigation when media isn't playing.
> 
> The remote design makes you think you should use it like a track pad and swipe to move to the thing you want to select from a menu. It's been my experience that it's far more precise, and thus a lot easier, if you treat it like a directional pad and just touch the top/bottom/left/right to navigate 1 step in each direction. (ie, from your home menu, if you're starting and the top left, and Hulu is 2 rows down and 2 columns to the right, you just tap down twice and right twice and you land exactly there)


Thanks, I understand now.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Aha!! Solved my own problem! 

I was moments away from ordering a new soundbar when I decided to try something I thought I had already tried. I changed the ATT box to connect directly to the TV and use optical back to the soundbar. Since optical won’t pass DD+ it instead is deprecated to DD5.1. And with that channels in stereo are massagable with ProLogic and channels that are actually in 5.1 will pass just fine too. And since nothing on the ATT box will do more than DD+, including the apps, that works great!

And I’ve configured the Harmony to have a soundbar source toggle so switching that around isn’t daunting at all.


----------



## raott

This is the way I'm set up as well. HDMI from AT&T box to Vizio TV and optical out from TV to Sonos playbase.....passing a 5.1 signal.



lparsons21 said:


> Aha!! Solved my own problem!
> 
> I was moments away from ordering a new soundbar when I decided to try something I thought I had already tried. I changed the ATT box to connect directly to the TV and use optical back to the soundbar. Since optical won't pass DD+ it instead is deprecated to DD5.1. And with that channels in stereo are massagable with ProLogic and channels that are actually in 5.1 will pass just fine too. And since nothing on the ATT box will do more than DD+, including the apps, that works great!
> 
> And I've configured the Harmony to have a soundbar source toggle so switching that around isn't daunting at all.


----------



## lparsons21

raott said:


> This is the way I'm set up as well. HDMI from AT&T box to Vizio TV and optical out from TV to Sonos playbase.....passing a 5.1 signal.


It is probably the best way for many with soundbars. I found the DD+ that ATT is doing to be very heavy on the bass and the front speakers to overpower anything going to the rears. Of course that could be just the way my soundbar deals with DD+


----------



## techguy88

On a slightly unrelated side note (more-so to do with the AT&T TV app) my friend that went with the AT&T TV Now Max + Sling TV Blue w/ Total TV Deal hybrid combo found a way to get the AT&T TV app installed on his Roku Ultra LT. He showed me what he did and the AT&T TV app running on his Roku Ultra LT and the bloody Roku version of the app has Trickplay functionality when watching recorded programming! It shows the preview window when RW/FF during recorded shows just like on an AT&T TV device! Still shocked that AT&T hasn't rolled out that functionality to Apple TV and Amazon Fire devices.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> It is probably the best way for many with soundbars. I found the DD+ that ATT is doing to be very heavy on the bass and the front speakers to overpower anything going to the rears. Of course that could be just the way my soundbar deals with DD+


Yup. We have 4 soundbars, all connected by optical wires. Matter of fact, both AVR systems we have are connected the same way.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> Yup. We have 4 soundbars, all connected by optical wires. Matter of fact, both AVR systems we have are connected the same way.
> 
> Rich


In general I don't like using optical because the best it can do is DD5.1. But between how ATT implemented DD+ and how my soundbar works, it makes the most sense. All my other boxes are connected via HDMI so I can get Atmos when it is available.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> In general I don't like using optical because the best it can do is DD5.1. But between how ATT implemented DD+ and how my soundbar works, it makes the most sense. All my other boxes are connected via HDMI so I can get Atmos when it is available.


Tell me again how well that soundbar handles bass response? Every Samsung sound system I've had mangled the bass. Several Samsung soundbars and an AVR-like system, all with passive subwoofers. I think the passive subwoofers cause the problem, we have two Polk soundbars, both have active, powered subwoofers and they work very well when it comes to bass response. Is the sub on the soundbar you have passive or wired?

Rich


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> In general I don't like using optical because the best it can do is DD5.1. But between how ATT implemented DD+ and how my soundbar works, it makes the most sense. All my other boxes are connected via HDMI so I can get Atmos when it is available.


All my TVs are Samsungs and I use an ATV on each of them. All kinds of issues pop up if I use HDMI rather than optical. It's just easier if I use optical. I am not an audiophile.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> Tell me again how well that soundbar handles bass response? Every Samsung sound system I've had mangled the bass. Several Samsung soundbars and an AVR-like system, all with passive subwoofers. I think the passive subwoofers cause the problem, we have two Polk soundbars, both have active, powered subwoofers and they work very well when it comes to bass response. Is the sub on the soundbar you have passive or wired?
> 
> Rich


I have the Samsung HW-K950. The subwoofer is an 8" wireless one and does a great job. Even the rears are wireless which is one of the things that attracted me to it. The sub is a powered one and not a passive. I think the reason passive subs underwhelm is because in general they aren't very good subs to begin with.

If you're interested in a higher end, Atmos soundbar there are quite a few. Samsung has some, Nakamichi has some. If I were to replace my current one, I'd probably go with the Nakamichi Elite 7.2.4, retails at about $1K. Dual subs, 2 rear surrounds. Rear surrounds hook to the subs. Or the Nakamichi Ultra 9.2.4 at about $1400. Dual subs, 4 surrounds.

If I wanted to save money and my room was a bit different I would consider the Nakamichi 7.1.4 at about $750. Single sub, 2 surrounds that connect to the subs.

Rtngs.com has some good reviews of the Nakamichi.

Sony has their newest one, the HT-G700 at about $600. Soundbar and wireless subwoofer, no surrounds. They do all the sound stuff with electronics and from some reading it appears it does a really good job of it. They claim a 'nearly 7.1.2' experience from it.


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> All my TVs are Samsungs and I use an ATV on each of them. All kinds of issues pop up if I use HDMI rather than optical. It's just easier if I use optical. I am not an audiophile.
> 
> Rich


I'm not either and have tinnitus. But I'm a firm believer that the audio for movies is as important as the video. So while I may not be able to hear everything my system can produce, it produces everything I can hear much better.

IMO, if I were just wanting a better soundbar without breaking the bank I would seriously consider getting the Sony HT-G700


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> I'm not either and have tinnitus. But I'm a firm believer that the audio for movies is as important as the video. So while I may not be able to hear everything my system can produce, it produces everything I can hear much better.
> 
> IMO, if I were just wanting a better soundbar without breaking the bank I would seriously consider getting the Sony HT-G700


The Sony soundbar, I wonder if that would be better than my Polk soundbar: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01AT3IIFG/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
The Polk has a great subwoofer. The soundbar itself could be better. Geez, I paid $399 for mine, now they want $700 for it. My son has a smaller Polk soundbar, I like his better than mine but his is a lot taller and I'd need a new cabinet.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Yes it should be better than that one. The Polk is 5.1 while the Sony plays with the audio electro magically to give up to near 7.1 and with height too. Should make it a broader and fuller sound field.

That said I can only go on articles I’ve read and some postings here and there.


----------



## I WANT MORE

Mind if we get back to discussing ATTTV?


----------



## lparsons21

I WANT MORE said:


> Mind if we get back to discussing ATTTV?


Sure, why not?? 

Yesterday I thought to add the ATT Box to my Google Home app. Nope, not happening. I wonder why. I was hoping to be able to just say 'ok google do something on the box' and have it happen. Nope, won't do it. Not an earth shaking missing feature, but would have been nice.

I can do that with Alexa on my Amazon devices and I think that TiVo's new little streaming box can do it with Google stuff.

Using voice on the ATT's remote works OK but it is laggy by quite a bit. Still functional, still valuable, just slow to respond. Found out you don't have to hold down the button, just push it and wait for the onscreen indication that it is listening.


----------



## Jamie

How’s the data usage with the att box?


----------



## lparsons21

Jamie said:


> How's the data usage with the att box?


Same as it would be streaming with anything else I suppose. Possibly some minor increase with the talking to Google and all.


----------



## lparsons21

OK, ATT TV and ATT TV Now app is back on Roku!

Did a little testing with my Roku Premier. Just excellent! Speed is about the same as on the AppleTV, but operationally it is better! Skip and so forth show a thumbnail, just like the ATT Box. 

It just shows that ATT can do it with the app but chose not to on the FireTV and AppleTV.


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> OK, ATT TV and ATT TV Now app is back on Roku!
> 
> Did a little testing with my Roku Premier. Just excellent! Speed is about the same as on the AppleTV, but operationally it is better! Skip and so forth show a thumbnail, just like the ATT Box.
> 
> It just shows that ATT can do it with the app but chose not to on the FireTV and AppleTV.


I mentioned thumbnails Sunday when my friend got the AT&T TV app on his Roku Ultra LT through a workaround by adding the AT&T TV channel through Roku private channels.


----------



## Jamie

lparsons21 said:


> Same as it would be streaming with anything else I suppose. Possibly some minor increase with the talking to Google and all.


I was hoping it would be less if they're using HEVC. I'd like to consider this over Directv but my isp has data caps.


----------



## lparsons21

Jamie said:


> I was hoping it would be less if they're using HEVC. I'd like to consider this over Directv but my isp has data caps.


My ISP does too. I currently have 200/20 with a 2TB cap and my average per month, watching about 10 hours per day shows around 1.4TB actual use.


----------



## lparsons21

OK, let’s do a little wrap up of this. I’ll start with the cons.

Con:
Prices in 2nd year
2 year contract
Early termination fees

That’s it and note that none of the cons are about how the service itself is.

Pros:
Excellent HDPQ, some have said as good as DirecTV
Widest channel selection available with streaming
Dedicated box, it really is excellent for working with the service.

There are essentially 3 different streaming services with ATT TV. The differences are as much about how they are marketed as much as anything else, with the exception of ATT Watch TV

ATT Watch TV - this is strictly a live streaming service. No on demand, no DVR functionality at all. Even uses a different app than the other two. But it is dirt cheap considering what you get IMO.

ATT TV Now - This is a live streaming service with fixed pricing and the only one where the price in big print is actually the price you pay. No extra fees though there might be taxes in some jurisdictions. Channel selection is similar in makeup to competing services. IOW, a fairly wide range of channel interests. And like competing services, no contract, no cancellation fees. Good DVR and VOD.

ATT TV -This is a cable/sat service disguised as a streaming one! Pricing, structure, contracts and ETF just like cable/sat. It has signup deals just like cable/sat too. Currently offering one free dedicated box, $100 (or more) rebate and free HBO/HBO Max for the 1st year, and 3 months of Starz, Epix and Showtime.

It should be noted that both ATT TV Now and ATT TV use the same app and the box will work on both services.


----------



## mjwagner

lparsons21 said:


> OK, let's do a little wrap up of this. I'll start with the cons.
> 
> Con:
> Prices in 2nd year
> 2 year contract
> Early termination fees
> 
> That's it and note that none of the cons are about how the service itself is.
> 
> Pros:
> Excellent HDPQ, some have said as good as DirecTV
> Widest channel selection available with streaming
> Dedicated box, it really is excellent for working with the service.
> 
> There are essentially 3 different streaming services with ATT TV. The differences are as much about how they are marketed as much as anything else, with the exception of ATT Watch TV
> 
> ATT Watch TV - this is strictly a live streaming service. No on demand, no DVR functionality at all. Even uses a different app than the other two. But it is dirt cheap considering what you get IMO.
> 
> ATT TV Now - This is a live streaming service with fixed pricing and the only one where the price in big print is actually the price you pay. No extra fees though there might be taxes in some jurisdictions. Channel selection is similar in makeup to competing services. IOW, a fairly wide range of channel interests. And like competing services, no contract, no cancellation fees. Good DVR and VOD.
> 
> ATT TV -This is a cable/sat service disguised as a streaming one! Pricing, structure, contracts and ETF just like cable/sat. It has signup deals just like cable/sat too. Currently offering one free dedicated box, $100 (or more) rebate and free HBO/HBO Max for the 1st year, and 3 months of Starz, Epix and Showtime.
> 
> It should be noted that both ATT TV Now and ATT TV use the same app and the box will work on both services.


Shouldn't the dedicated box be both a con and a pro. Even if you don't even have to plug it in, the fact that the service only provides 100% of its capabilities when using the dedicated box is certainly a con to many people, me included. Also, wasn't their issues running other apps on the dedicated box? That would certainly be a con, no?


----------



## Rich

mjwagner said:


> Shouldn't the dedicated box be both a con and a pro. Even if you don't even have to plug it in, the fact that the service only provides 100% of its capabilities when using the dedicated box is certainly a con to many people, me included. Also, wasn't their issues running other apps on the dedicated box? That would certainly be a con, no?


The biggest "con" I see is getting involved with ATT again. When they do something like this it just makes me think they'll never change. You _have _to have the box but you don't _need _to use it? Who else does this?

BTW, I think Lloyd did a great job on this thread. Without his revues, I might have cancelled and gone with this app. After reading everything I think that would be "settling" on an inferior product. I'd rather not do that. I have yet to see any cable replacement service that would be a step up from D*.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

mjwagner said:


> Shouldn't the dedicated box be both a con and a pro. Even if you don't even have to plug it in, the fact that the service only provides 100% of its capabilities when using the dedicated box is certainly a con to many people, me included. Also, wasn't their issues running other apps on the dedicated box? That would certainly be a con, no?


I can't argue with your position. So yeah, the box has pluses and minuses, mostly with the other apps. While I haven't used it much on my Roku, it seems that the Roku version of the app has almost all the capabilities, and has all of the ones that really matter IMO.


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> The biggest "con" I see is getting involved with ATT again. When they do something like this it just makes me think they'll never change. You _have _to have the box but you don't _need _to use it? Who else does this?
> 
> BTW, I think Lloyd did a great job on this thread. Without his revues, I might have cancelled and gone with this app. After reading everything I think that would be "settling" on an inferior product. I'd rather not do that. I have yet to see any cable replacement service that would be a step up from D*.
> 
> Rich


Thanks.
The reasoning behind the box and providing it is all about marketing IMO. As you note, the box isn't actually needed but until the Roku version of the app came back, it was so much better working with the service that it is worth having. And one of them is part of the service and is provided for no separate charge. ATT doesn't want ATT TV to appear to be competing with other streaming services, but as another way to service similar to cable/sat but gotten via streaming.

One thing that makes the box such a benefit is the simplicity of setting it up. Open box, read BIG get started sheet, connect HDMI & power, turn on and follow the instructions on the screen. Couldn't be simpler even for those with 12:00 blinking on their VCRs!


----------



## raott

Found another nuance (a negative).....I don't see a way to extend recordings like you can on Directv. I set the Tiger Woods, Brady, Manning, Phil golf thing set to record today and there was not option to pad the recording, which is a huge detriment for recording sports.


----------



## lparsons21

raott said:


> Found another nuance (a negative).....I don't see a way to extend recordings like you can on Directv. I set the Tiger Woods, Brady, Manning, Phil golf thing set to record today and there was not option to pad the recording, which is a huge detriment for recording sports.


That particular nuance exists on all the live streaming services I have tried out, and it is often complained about.


----------



## James Long

Doesn't YouTube (or one of the other services) automatically extend?

That would be one of the bonuses of a cloud service. Someone at the system can mark the actual beginning and end of each program and adjust the recordings for the customer - often retroactively if the live feed is fully buffered.


----------



## raott

Does anyone know if AT&T TV automatically extends?


----------



## lparsons21

James Long said:


> Doesn't YouTube (or one of the other services) automatically extend?
> 
> That would be one of the bonuses of a cloud service. Someone at the system can mark the actual beginning and end of each program and adjust the recordings for the customer - often retroactively if the live feed is fully buffered.


YTTV does automatically extend but from posts in other places, it is a bit hit or miss.


----------



## espaeth

James Long said:


> Doesn't YouTube (or one of the other services) automatically extend?


For any sports that have live stats available (NHL, MLB, NFL, NBA, most NASCAR/F1, some college sports), YTTV automatically extends. They're able to correlate the game stats with the TV broadcast to extend the recording until the game is over.

You can also submit a help request to YTTV for other live events, and they can manually adjust the recording after the fact.


----------



## Rich

raott said:


> Found another nuance (a negative).....I don't see a way to extend recordings like you can on Directv. I set the Tiger Woods, Brady, Manning, Phil golf thing set to record today and there was not option to pad the recording, which is a huge detriment for recording sports.


That is huge.

Rich


----------



## b4pjoe

Can you not do manual recordings at all on AT&T TV?


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> Can you not do manual recordings at all on AT&T TV?


No, nor on any other live streaming service as far as I can tell.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> No, nor on any other live streaming service as far as I can tell.


They certainly left a lot out.  Compared to the sat version.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> They certainly left a lot out. Compared to the sat version.
> 
> Rich


It is all about the DVR. No cloud DVR will work the same as a local one.


----------



## James Long

The potential is to work better. With a home DVR a tuner needs to be available for each customer to make the decision when to record what. With cloud DVR a stream can be captured 24/7 and split out to the actual programming when there are delays. The potential end of Sunday night TV schedules being destroyed in Eastern/Central times by Sunday afternoon sports running over. The potential is there.


----------



## mjwagner

James Long said:


> The potential is to work better. With a home DVR a tuner needs to be available for each customer to make the decision when to record what. With cloud DVR a stream can be captured 24/7 and split out to the actual programming when there are delays. The potential end of Sunday night TV schedules being destroyed in Eastern/Central times by Sunday afternoon sports running over. The potential is there.


I already find it better even with the current limitations. I can't imagine myself ever going back to an in house DVR. In addition to not having to worry about tuner conflicts you never run out of space (ar least with YTTV) and you don't have to worry about hardware failure or manage upgrades.


----------



## James Long

Although home recorded content can be marked for limited playback (generally applied to PPV content) having a recording on your DVR generally means the recording will stay on your DVR, playable until deleted. Most streaming services have time limits that are shorter than hardware failure or replacement rates. Some have enforced policies where DVR content has been replaced by VOD content (including forced commercials). There are roses and thorns on both sides of the issue.


----------



## techguy88

James Long said:


> Although home recorded content can be marked for limited playback (generally applied to PPV content) having a recording on your DVR generally means the recording will stay on your DVR, playable until deleted. Most streaming services have time limits that are shorter than hardware failure or replacement rates. Some have enforced policies where DVR content has been replaced by VOD content (including forced commercials). There are roses and thorns on both sides of the issue.


One thing I like about AT&T TV Now (which extends to AT&T TV) is anything you record to the Cloud DVR has no restrictions when it comes to rewinding and fast forwarding. In that regard it acts like a hardware-based DVR. It doesn't replace any of the recordings with an on-demand version and force you to set through the commercials. It does have a 90-day limit on the recordings which any time limitation is a deal-breaker for some. To me its not a bother as shows and movies typically stay on my DVR for about 60 days tops.



lparsons21 said:


> Thanks.
> The reasoning behind the box and providing it is all about marketing IMO. As you note, the box isn't actually needed but until the Roku version of the app came back, it was so much better working with the service that it is worth having. And one of them is part of the service and is provided for no separate charge. ATT doesn't want ATT TV to appear to be competing with other streaming services, but as another way to service similar to cable/sat but gotten via streaming.
> 
> One thing that makes the box such a benefit is the simplicity of setting it up. Open box, read BIG get started sheet, connect HDMI & power, turn on and follow the instructions on the screen. Couldn't be simpler even for those with 12:00 blinking on their VCRs!


I will say one of the smart decisions they made was going with Android TV as the OS. Android TV OS is the only OS I've noticed so far that will stop streaming through any app the moment the device notices you are not on the same input as the device or the TV has been turned off and the device is on.


----------



## raott

Just a confirmation, it in fact did not automatically compensate for the golf match running long and cut off exactly at 8:01 pm. 

This is a big issue in my opinion for those that watch sports. Granted, it's less so because most sports I watch there are replays available on the ESPN app, but still, basically any live even has the possibility of running long and this needs to be fixed. There are virtually no sports (especially college) that fit into the scheduled broadcast window.

Another complaint I have is there is no tick marks or ability to "skip to tick" in the recording bar. I therefore had to ffw through 5 hours of the golf match to see where it cut off. That makes ffw more of a pain than it needs to be.


----------



## mjwagner

James Long said:


> Although home recorded content can be marked for limited playback (generally applied to PPV content) having a recording on your DVR generally means the recording will stay on your DVR, playable until deleted. Most streaming services have time limits that are shorter than hardware failure or replacement rates. Some have enforced policies where DVR content has been replaced by VOD content (including forced commercials). There are roses and thorns on both sides of the issue.


As with most of this it is very dependent on how an individual uses the technology. Some people do use their DVR's for long term storage of content. For them cloud DVR capability is clearly not ideal. Thankfully that is something I have never done. If I don't watch something I DVR'd within a few weeks to a month I will never watch it. YTTV's DVR retention period is 9 months (unlimited storage) which is way more than I need. And thankfully they (YTTV) do not do forced VOD on any content. Of course any and all of that can change tomorrow, but until it does for me cloud DVR is superior to in home DVR.


----------



## James Long

As I said, roses and thorns on both sides. A home DVR works when the Internet is down. We could go back and forth all day - please accept that neither method is perfect.


----------



## mjwagner

James Long said:


> As I said, roses and thorns on both sides. A home DVR works when the Internet is down. We could go back and forth all day - please accept that neither method is perfect.


I agree. Pluses and minuses, for some it's perfect for others not so much. Internet outages are getting to be less and less of an issue. In the 3+ years now that we have been streaming only we have only lost our internet connection for any significant period of time twice. Both times I just turned on my phone internet hotspot and was back up in business in a few minutes. Weather issues caused me more trouble when we were still with D and unlike the internet their was no backup option.


----------



## raott

I just can’t fathom that a design for a dvr wouldn’t incorporate the possibility that not all programs would fit into their broadcast window.


----------



## raott

Another issue cropped up this morning......AT&T blue screen was on for an extended period, I went to guide and most of the channels are showing "no information available" though they can be manually tuned. However, if you manually tune a channel (ie 206) you cannot use the up and down channel button to change channel. Both boxes I tried exhibit the same behavior.


----------



## techguy88

Short story I had to reactivate my AT&T TV Now account for a month so at the end of the month I can factory reset the devices and de-link the devices from my Google account. (The devices are useless without an active AT&T TV or AT&T TV Now account.)

Interesting tidbit I just discovered tonight. When DirecTV is having a technical issue with a local channel and is displaying the "No need to call us, Service will be restored as soon as technical difficulties are resolved..." slide the AT&T TV / TV Now feed will also generate an error at the same exact time on the exact same local channels saying "There's a problem with this channel. Whoops, looks like the video feed for this channel isn't working. Please choose something else to watch while they try to get it going again.

On D* my satellite delivered NBC, MyNetworkTV/MeTV, ABC, Fox, CBS, both PBS stations and CW stations are down

On AT&T TV/TV Now my NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox stations are down (they don't have the MyNetworkTV/MeTV, both PBS stations, ION and CW stations)

Praise be to the almighty LCC and AM21 plus antennas during parlous times as these! Praise be!


----------



## rey_1178

raott said:


> Another issue cropped up this morning......AT&T blue screen was on for an extended period, I went to guide and most of the channels are showing "no information available" though they can be manually tuned. However, if you manually tune a channel (ie 206) you cannot use the up and down channel button to change channel. Both boxes I tried exhibit the same behavior.


I noticed this yesterday morning too but this isn't common for the service.


----------



## raott

Agreed....must have been a hiccup on their end....all was fine when I got home from work yesterday.



rey_1178 said:


> I noticed this yesterday morning too but this isn't common for the service.


----------



## lparsons21

HBO Max is now on the ATT TV box, and it also shows in the guide as a channel same as Netflix. One difference right now is that you can’t make it a ‘Favorite’ show it will show up in your Favorite channel list.


----------



## lparsons21

OK, a little about a couple of streaming devices with ATT TV service.

ATT Osprey box -
The only way to have any trick play with live stream
Remote is dedicated to the box, so the controls are all there and make sense. 
But, the box itself is sluggish in operation.
Has a thumbnail when doing fast forward/reverse

Roku -
Also has a thumbnail when doing fast forward/reverse
The only trick play with live stream is pause
Quicker in operation and response than the ATT Box

AppleTV -
Only trick play with live stream is pause
No thumbnail during fast forward/reverse but it attempts to do a full screen version of it that doesn’t work well
Quicker in operation and response than ATT box

FireTV
Only trick play with live stream is pause
No thumbnail at all, just an indication of time.
Very sluggish, slower even than the ATT Box


----------



## techguy88

I've given up on FireTV in general after using a FireTV stick which was way more sluggish overall than when I tried the first ever Roku Streaming Stick. I have given Roku a second chance after they had Roku Ultra's on sale discounting them down to $79.99/ea. until 5/23/20.

Walmart glitched in their app for 1 day and priced the Roku Ultras at $69/ea so I jumped on the chance and ordered 2 of them for in-store pick-up and have been extremely pleased with the Roku Ultra's ever since! I would dare say they would be my all time second favorite streaming device as soon as they reach a deal with WarnerMedia to add HBO Max. Nvidia Shield TV is still my #1 just because of the customization while Apple TV would be bumped to #3 (but I love the app integration of Apple TV app running on Apple TV hardware best out of all so far) uggh choices!



lparsons21 said:


> OK, a little about a couple of streaming devices with ATT TV service.
> 
> ATT Osprey box -
> The only way to have any trick play with live stream
> Remote is dedicated to the box, so the controls are all there and make sense.
> But, the box itself is sluggish in operation.
> Has a thumbnail when doing fast forward/reverse
> 
> Roku -
> Also has a thumbnail when doing fast forward/reverse
> The only trick play with live stream is pause
> Quicker in operation and response than the ATT Box
> 
> AppleTV -
> Only trick play with live stream is pause
> No thumbnail during fast forward/reverse but it attempts to do a full screen version of it that doesn't work well
> Quicker in operation and response than ATT box
> 
> FireTV
> Only trick play with live stream is pause
> No thumbnail at all, just an indication of time.
> Very sluggish, slower even than the ATT Box


After having to reactivate my AT&T TV Now account for a month so I could remember to properly do a factory reset this time. I did notice it was running a lot more sluggish than during initial testing. YMMV but when looking through the settings (which was very sluggish) I noticed that the available memory I had was 550 MB and that the cached data being used was over 2 GB.

I had to go through each individual app and "clear cache" (just selecting this option allows the app to retain your login info. If you select "clear data" then you have to re-login to the app.) By the time I was done I was able to regain about 2.3GB of free available data and the beta Osprey box's overall operation improved significantly. Prior to clearing the cache the Disney+ app wouldn't load but after that it was able to load and I was able to use it without much issue.


----------



## lparsons21

Something I noticed yesterday. With the ATT box, using its remote, things are pretty sluggish. Both using the service and with apps.

But I was using the Harmony Elite and response while using the ATT TV service was much improved. I wouldn’t exactly call it fast, but certainly faster than with ATT’s remote.

As for the apps, well other than the HBO Max app I just don’t use them on the ATT box.


----------



## mrinker

Does the Nvidia Shield TV Streaming device have AT&T TV app that works with it? I have not found anything online and AT&T customer service was no help. I am considering purchasing one but if it does not support AT&T Tv then I will pass for now.


----------



## techguy88

mrinker said:


> Does the Nvidia Shield TV Streaming device have AT&T TV app that works with it? I have not found anything online and AT&T customer service was no help. I am considering purchasing one but if it does not support AT&T Tv then I will pass for now.


Officially there is no AT&T TV app for the Android TV platform. Since all Android TV devices have a built-in Chromecast you can cast anything from the AT&T TV app to an Nvidia Shield TV and it will work very well.

Unofficially you can side-load the AT&T TV app to the Nvidia Shield TV (its the Amazon Fire TV APK) and it will run with no issues. The AT&T TV Now sub-reddit has a thread on that.

I have side-loaded the AT&T TV app to both the Nvidia Shield TV and the TiVo Stream 4K and it runs way better on those devices than on the 2nd Gen Fire TV Stick that Amazon still sells for $34.99


----------



## mjwagner

techguy88 said:


> Officially there is no AT&T TV app for the Android TV platform. Since all Android TV devices have a built-in Chromecast you can cast anything from the AT&T TV app to an Nvidia Shield TV and it will work very well.
> 
> Unofficially you can side-load the AT&T TV app to the Nvidia Shield TV (its the Amazon Fire TV APK) and it will run with no issues. The AT&T TV Now sub-reddit has a thread on that.
> 
> I have side-loaded the AT&T TV app to both the Nvidia Shield TV and the TiVo Stream 4K and it runs way better on those devices than on the 2nd Gen Fire TV Stick that Amazon still sells for $34.99


No one should still be buying the 2nd gen Stick, no matter what the price. The FireTV Stick 4k is the only one to buy even if you don't want/use 4k.


----------



## techguy88

mjwagner said:


> No one should still be buying the 2nd gen Stick, no matter what the price. The FireTV Stick 4k is the only one to buy even if you don't want/use 4k.


I agree with that the 2nd Gen Fire TV Stick was awfully slowwww. I got one in 2017 before the Cube and Fire TV Stick 4K came out to replace an older Roku Streaming Stick and the older Roku Streaming Stick was still faster (but not by much.)


----------



## swyman18

I noticed that starting a few days ago, the Osprey box is not outputting DD5.1 for any content at all... live, DVR or on demand. Of course it’s not so obvious because even content that is normally stereo is always “forced” as Surround so my AVR always shows DD but stereo content would always just come out of the L+R speakers. That has always been rather annoying because I like to have my AVR simulate them surround if possible. But I learned to live with it as long as true DD5.1 content played correctly. But now for some reason all content is coming over L+R only on the box. 

I will probably just use the Apple TV app until they fix this, as that seems to be properly outputting DD5.1 for content that has it.


----------



## lparsons21

It never put out DD5.1 for me, always DD+. And some AV gear doesn’t allow surround massaging. My soundbar was like that so I plugged the ATT Osprey box directly into the TV and took optical audio out to the soundbar. Since optical can’t pass DD+ it is deprecated to DD5.1


----------



## swyman18

Yeah, I meant DD+, that is what always shows on my AVR. Are you able to tell if your osprey box is actually putting out any Surround content on your soundbar? Might be hard to tell because you’d have to know if the channel normally puts out surround. 

I subscribe to some of the premiums (HBO, Showtime, Starz) and most of the linear channels and the on demand content has been surround since I got the box. But starting a few days ago, it’s clear that nothing is being output as surround. 

It’s not a huge deal, but as others have mentioned it’s these little things like having Dolby surround that are part of what I’m paying a premium for. Kind of annoying when it doesn’t work right on the equipment they provide.


----------



## lparsons21

Yep, mine is still doing DD+.


----------



## mrinker

I did manage to side load AT&T TV onto the Shield Tv Pro and it works very well and displays all channels in 4K according to my tv even though content may not be 4k. It still looks better I think so I decided to go that route and have a cancel date to leave Directv after almost 20 years. What surprised me is that in addition to wanting the HR54 and C61K which I got from Solid Signal when they released it 2015, they even want my 10 year old HR24 sent back to them! I expected them to want the other two but it really surprised me when the letter I just received today said the 10 year old HR24 needs to be dropped off at the UPS Store also.  I just wanted to share that here if anyone was curious about them wanting 10 year old equipment back, they do. lol


----------



## techguy88

mrinker said:


> I did manage to side load AT&T TV onto the Shield Tv Pro and it works very well and displays all channels in 4K according to my tv even though content may not be 4k. It still looks better I think so I decided to go that route and have a cancel date to leave Directv after almost 20 years. What surprised me is that in addition to wanting the HR54 and C61K which I got from Solid Signal when they released it 2015, they even want my 10 year old HR24 sent back to them! I expected them to want the other two but it really surprised me when the letter I just received today said the 10 year old HR24 needs to be dropped off at the UPS Store also.  I just wanted to share that here if anyone was curious about them wanting 10 year old equipment back, they do. lol


Depends on what models they need to replenish as they are no longer producing the HR24s and the only way to get more is to retrieve them from deactivation and disconnects. HR24s are also used in ERPs for older HD-DVR models like HR21-HR23. SD receivers are the only receivers they never want back as AT&T is in the process of phasing SD out. The same goes for HD receivers AT&T asks for the H24 and H25 back because they use them as ERPs for H23 and older. The letter generated by the system is up to date with what they need back at the time of your disconnection.

Aside from SD receivers the only other receiver they never want back is the HR34-700 model aka Genie Gen 1. My mother originally had this model and when she was sent an ERP back in 2016 for it they just sent her an HR44-500 and the instructions said to recycle the HR34 and mail back the access card (they even included the envelope for that one.)


----------



## NashGuy

mrinker said:


> I did manage to side load AT&T TV onto the Shield Tv Pro and it works very well and displays all channels in 4K according to my tv even though content may not be 4k.


Where did you find an APK (app install package) for an AT&T TV Android TV app? Did you somehow extract it from AT&T TV's own custom Android TV box? Or did you just use the app intended for Fire TV? Did you have to do anything special to sideload it?


----------



## mrinker

NashGuy said:


> Where did you find an APK (app install package) for an AT&T TV Android TV app? Did you somehow extract it from AT&T TV's own custom Android TV box? Or did you just use the app intended for Fire TV? Did you have to do anything special to sideload it?


I downloaded and followed the instructions from the following Reddit link. I had trouble at first since I have never done anything like that before but after a few tries I finally got it installed. I used a USB stick. Here is the link to read and get help if you need it.

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/AttTVNow/comments/fwuqvv


----------



## techguy88

When I had my AT&T TV Now account active this past month (just to access the damn settings of the Osprey box so I could clear my info out at the end of the month) I was able to side-load the AT&T TV app onto my Nvidia Shield TV (2019 cylinder model) and it worked purrfectly. Alternatively any Android TV device can use the AT&T TV app via Chromecast since they have Chromecast built-in. Reddit is amazing for finding good nuggets of info like this.


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> When I had my AT&T TV Now account active this past month (just to access the damn settings of the Osprey box so I could clear my info out at the end of the month) I was able to side-load the AT&T TV app onto my Nvidia Shield TV (2019 cylinder model) and it worked purrfectly. Alternatively any Android TV device can use the AT&T TV app via Chromecast since they have Chromecast built-in. Reddit is amazing for finding good nuggets of info like this.


Nice. Do you still get the video preview thumbnails when you FF and rewind when using the app on a different Android TV device like the Shield TV?


----------



## techguy88

NashGuy said:


> Nice. Do you still get the video preview thumbnails when you FF and rewind when using the app on a different Android TV device like the Shield TV?


Unfortunately not because the version you are sideloading is the Amazon Fire TV version. However that version works SO MUCH BETTER on Android TV than a Fire TV device.


----------



## Marvin Gage

I thought that ATT Tv is suppose to have Atmos but it does not is that what I am understanding?


----------



## lparsons21

Marvin Gage said:


> I thought that ATT Tv is suppose to have Atmos but it does not is that what I am understanding?


Correct, it does not support Atmos at all.


----------



## Marvin Gage

Hmm.. I just got the service so in my 14 day trial period. Is there other streaming boxes that have a similar cable box feel as in changing channels with live streaming tv? This is similar enough to cable my mother who is 83 years old is able to use it.


----------



## lparsons21

Marvin Gage said:


> Hmm.. I just got the service so in my 14 day trial period. Is there other streaming boxes that have a similar cable box feel as in changing channels with live streaming tv? This is similar enough to cable my mother who is 83 years old is able to use it.


No, at this time the only one is ATT TV.


----------



## Marvin Gage

lparsons21 said:


> No, at this time the only one is ATT TV.


Thanks so is it possible to run that app on a different Android TV box that does support ATMOS? As long as it is I can get a different box for my one specific TV and the others like my mothers bedroom and that can just use the Standard AT&T box.


----------



## lparsons21

Marvin Gage said:


> Thanks so is it possible to run that app on a different Android TV box that does support ATMOS? As long as it is I can get a different box for my one specific TV and the others like my mothers bedroom and that can just use the Standard AT&T box.


They have an ATT TV app for AppleTV, Roku and I think Android TV boxes. IMO the best version I've seen is the one for Roku. Check the ATT site for devices supported.


----------



## Marvin Gage

lparsons21 said:


> They have an ATT TV app for AppleTV, Roku and I think Android TV boxes. IMO the best version I've seen is the one for Roku. Check the ATT site for devices supported.


Ok thanks. Well I took a look at the Roku not sure how AT&T Tv works with no number buttons on the remote.


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> They have an ATT TV app for AppleTV, Roku and I think Android TV boxes. IMO the best version I've seen is the one for Roku. Check the ATT site for devices supported.





Marvin Gage said:


> Ok thanks. Well I took a look at the Roku not sure how AT&T Tv works with no number buttons on the remote.


Officially there is an AT&T TV app on Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV devices and Roku devices. The only Android TV device that supports AT&T TV is the AT&T TV device.

Navigating the AT&T TV app on an Apple TV, Fire TV or Roku device is similar to other streaming services the guide is listed alphabetically, not by channel numbers and you change channels with the directional pad.

Apple TV and Amazon Fire TV devices lack the thumbnail preview when RW/FW meanwhile Roku & the AT&T TV device has that feature. Amazon Fire TV & Roku currently do not support HBO Max due to negotiation disputes but Apple TV & AT&T TV device has the HBO Max app.

Unofficially, you can sideload the Amazon Fire TV version of the AT&T TV app on any Android TV device like the Nvidia Shield TV or TiVo Stream 4K and it will work. Also unofficially, you can sideload the Android TV version of the HBO Max app on Amazon Fire TV devices.

Apple TV devices are currently the only third party devices where you can get both the AT&T TV app and the HBO Max app without having to resort to sideloading.


----------



## techguy88

Oh if your into casting the AT&T TV app supports Chromecast and you can cast content from the AT&T TV app to any Chromecast or Android TV device as well. Same works for HBO Max. All Android TV devices support HBO Max app natively as well.


----------



## swyman18

Also, the ATT TV provided box recently stopped being able to output DD5.1 properly. So if they can’t get that right, I don’t have much hope for Atmos support ever.


----------



## lparsons21

techguy88 said:


> Oh if your into casting the AT&T TV app supports Chromecast and you can cast content from the AT&T TV app to any Chromecast or Android TV device as well. Same works for HBO Max. All Android TV devices support HBO Max app natively as well.


And it does a good job of it too. But casting just isn't the same as having an actual app though it isn't horrible.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> But casting just isn't the same as having an actual app though it isn't horrible.


True. I see no good reason why AT&T doesn't officially release an AT&T TV app for Android TV on the Google Play app store. They obviously having a working relationship with Google. My guess is that they just think it's not a popular-enough streaming platform to worry about. Perhaps after Google releases their own new Android TV dongle this year, that will push AT&T to do so.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> True. I see no good reason why AT&T doesn't officially release an AT&T TV app for Android TV on the Google Play app store. They obviously having a working relationship with Google. My guess is that they just think it's not a popular-enough streaming platform to worry about. Perhaps after Google releases their own new Android TV dongle this year, that will push AT&T to do so.


Considering that FireTV is Android based also, and the ATT box itself is too, you just know the app already exists. But it should be noted that the way it works on the ATT box with pause/rewind of live tv, channel numbers as an option and a few other features are missing from all the other versions of the app. Frankly if the ATT box had Prime and Hulu available, I'd be using it as my go to box.

The lack of DD5.1 audio on ATT's service on the box isn't more than a minor irritant these days as there is almost nothing new of interest to watch on live TV and I can find the old stuff on services that do have DD5.1. I looked over my DVR list and schedule for the next few days and found exactly 3 shows that I'm recording. Most of the recordings and scheduled ones are from my son. Mostly UFC crap and Some religious nut job shows.

I find these days that I'm mostly watching HBO Max, Peacock and Netflix, and some very few things on CBS:All Access, SundanceNow, Disney+ and Hulu. I watch Hulu so seldom now that I'm probably going to cancel or pause it.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Frankly if the ATT box had Prime and Hulu available, I'd be using it as my go to box.


I wonder what the hold-up is on those? I can see the Prime app being delayed because of the larger dispute between AT&T and Amazon over HBO Max distribution. As for Hulu, perhaps AT&T is asking for an Android TV version of the app that doesn't support Hulu's live TV and premium add-ons. Hulu did make a version like that for Comcast/Cox X1.

Are you able to find and install the Peacock app for Android TV on the AT&T TV box?



lparsons21 said:


> I looked over my DVR list and schedule for the next few days and found exactly 3 shows that I'm recording.


I'm finding increasingly little reason to bother with my OTA DVR these days, especially after picking a Hulu subscription back up. I was mainly just using the DVR to record the evening newscasts from NBC and CBS, as well as a couple of Sunday morning news talk shows. But I see that Peacock streams NBC Nightly News every day, and Sunday's Meet the Press (although I don't know how long in either case you have to wait for the new episode to appear on Peacock). I can watch This Week on Hulu. There's one PBS show I began recording recently because it's not in the PBS app: Escape to the Chateau. But I was happily surprised to find that the entire series is available in Peacock.

So I guess I have an OTA DVR for those occasions when I want to watch 60 Minutes or CBS Evening News. (Both shows are available chopped up into out-of-order clips in the CBS News app but that's not how I prefer to watch them.)



lparsons21 said:


> I find these days that I'm mostly watching HBO Max, Peacock and Netflix, and some very few things on CBS:All Access, SundanceNow, Disney+ and Hulu. I watch Hulu so seldom now that I'm probably going to cancel or pause it.


I've never subbed to CBSAA or SundanceNow. I did the one-week free trial of Disney+ back around Christmas just to check it out and watch a movie with the family. As I don't have children and I'm not really into comics or Star Wars, there's just not much reason for me to keep it.

I do find Hulu to have a ton of content though and now that it's the streaming arm of FX, it also has a lot of quality stuff. Recently watched Devs and now watching Mrs. America.


----------



## lparsons21

The Peacock is available for the ATT box though it didn’t show up until a bit later in the day because of some Google glitch in their store from some posts I’ve seen.

For me Hulu was the way to get next day broadcast and a few others. As well as the, for me, rare original that was of interest. Now I’m pretty much caught up and have recently switched to with ads since I don’t watch there much. And yeah, it is nice that FX is there, but as with pretty much everything these days, no new shows or episodes.

Assuming no major changes in how things jell going forward, when my AT&T sub hits the anniversary I’ll probably do some shuffling and cancel AT&T unless they offer some discounted 2nd year price. Overall I like the service and the little box, just not a $93/month like though.


----------



## lparsons21

Looks like ATT finally fixed the missing DD5.1 audio on their little box. Working today even though there isn’t any indication of an update.


----------



## swyman18

lparsons21 said:


> Looks like ATT finally fixed the missing DD5.1 audio on their little box. Working today even though there isn't any indication of an update.


Yeah, just noticed that as well. Guess the issue was not specifically from an update, but rather something on their end or with the stream it connects to.


----------



## lparsons21

A few people have indicated they had to pull the power from the ATT box and wait about 20 seconds and then plug it back in to get the DD5.1 to work.

In my case just a restart activated it.


----------



## lparsons21

I was thinking about this over the weekend. ATT TV’s little box is just so nice to use with its service and with streaming in general. It would be even nicer if all these streaming services would play nicer!

ATT doesn’t allow Amazon Prime or Hulu on their box and there doesn’t seem to be any simple way to sideload them. And some postings indicate that even if you do the performance or usability of the apps is a bit hinky.

ATT’s community experts claim it is because they compete with ATT, but that’s also true of YTTV and Sling, both of which are available for the ATT box.

And then ATT, Amazon and Roku seem to want to battle about HBO Max and Peacock though in the case of ATT, the Peacock app is available.

Apple seems to be the most welcoming to the streamers on their AppleTV but doesn’t provide an AppleTV+ app for Android.

Yeah, I know I can use Chromecast with the ATT box, and it does it very well, but I just don’t like it because the playback controls are on the phone/tablet instead of on the remote for the device.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> I was thinking about this over the weekend. ATT TV's little box is just so nice to use with its service and with streaming in general. It would be even nicer if all these streaming services would play nicer!
> 
> ATT doesn't allow Amazon Prime or Hulu on their box and there doesn't seem to be any simple way to sideload them. And some postings indicate that even if you do the performance or usability of the apps is a bit hinky.


Yeah, all these business conflicts between the various media/tech giants can cause headaches for us consumers.

As for Hulu, I don't know why they're not on the AT&T TV box. First off, if anyone is using that box, it's because they have AT&T TV service, so I don't really see how Hulu with Live TV is competition. But even then, there's no reason why Hulu can't make an Android TV version of their app that only supports the core service, not any of their add-ons. That's what they've done for the Comcast/Cox X1 platform. And given that a growing number of US MVPDs are using Android TV on their STBs (either on their own or in conjunction with TiVo), it seems like it would be in Hulu's interest to create a similar "core" version of their app for distribution direct to those boxes.

As for Prime Video, they're on a number of different Android TV devices and MVPD boxes. Only reason I can think why they're not on the AT&T TV box yet is because of the larger standoff over HBO Max distribution by Amazon. Which is a shame.


----------



## lparsons21

Well today was sideload day!! 

Sideloaded both Amazon Prime and Hulu onto the ATT Osprey box. Prime works great! Hulu, no audio at all. Tried restarting the box, re-installing the app and so forth and still no audio except once during an ad, never in an actual show.


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> Well today was sideload day!!
> 
> Sideloaded both Amazon Prime and Hulu onto the ATT Osprey box. Prime works great! Hulu, no audio at all. Tried restarting the box, re-installing the app and so forth and still no audio except once during an ad, never in an actual show.


I think I mentioned this before. There is nothing wrong with the Prime app on Android TV devices Amazon forces new Android TV device operators to negotiate with them on carriage of the Prime Video app. AT&T can't block any app for any reason but Amazon can as the app developer. One reason Amazon is pissed at WarnerMedia is where WM updated the HBO Now Android TV app into HBO Max it prevents Amazon from using a standalone HBO app as a workaound for their HBO-Prime Video subscribers on impacted devices.

Disney only blocks their apps from specific Android TV devices when an issue arrises. Eventually (once Disney manages to get around to it) they will fix the audio issue with Hulu on an impacted device and re-add it back. If you are going to sideload a version of Hulu onto Osprey you will need v2.1.3 (last version of "Hulu Classic".) The beta Osprey box I got off of eBay had this version and is how I was able to watch Hulu on Osprey.

Casting for both Prime Video and Hulu works perfectly.


----------



## lparsons21

Thanks. Got v2.1.3 and installed and working just fine. That is one ugly UI!! But it works.

Yes, I know casting works but I’ve never liked casting because it just means another box in the way since you have to control from the phone/tablet.


----------



## lparsons21

Pretty much using just the AT&T box since I’ve got Amazon Prime and Hulu installed along with a few other apps. Even though Hulu is an old version it still give DD5.1 on some shows which it doesn’t do on the AppleTV.

Most of the time things are fine but now and then the AT&T box just gets very slow in operation for no apparent reason. A bit irritating.

Would use the FireTV Cube (2nd gen) if it did thumbnails with FF/REW, as it is much quicker in switching apps. And since most of the time, I’m not actually watching AT&T service since live TV is such a dud these days, that is a bit important.

On the AppleTV4K I’ve set the trackpad to ‘slow’ response since that works better for me. Still don’t like the remote though.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Pretty much using just the AT&T box since I've got Amazon Prime and Hulu installed along with a few other apps. Even though Hulu is an old version it still give DD5.1 on some shows which it doesn't do on the AppleTV.
> 
> Most of the time things are fine but now and then the AT&T box just gets very slow in operation for no apparent reason. A bit irritating.
> 
> Would use the FireTV Cube (2nd gen) if it did thumbnails with FF/REW, as it is much quicker in switching apps. And since most of the time, I'm not actually watching AT&T service since live TV is such a dud these days, that is a bit important.
> 
> On the AppleTV4K I've set the trackpad to 'slow' response since that works better for me. Still don't like the remote though.


I think it needs to cache more data in memory


----------



## swyman18

lparsons21 said:


> Pretty much using just the AT&T box since I've got Amazon Prime and Hulu installed along with a few other apps. Even though Hulu is an old version it still give DD5.1 on some shows which it doesn't do on the AppleTV.
> 
> Most of the time things are fine but now and then the AT&T box just gets very slow in operation for no apparent reason. A bit irritating.
> 
> Would use the FireTV Cube (2nd gen) if it did thumbnails with FF/REW, as it is much quicker in switching apps. And since most of the time, I'm not actually watching AT&T service since live TV is such a dud these days, that is a bit important.
> 
> On the AppleTV4K I've set the trackpad to 'slow' response since that works better for me. Still don't like the remote though.


A bit off topic, but it's kind of irritating at the lack of consistency of DD5.1 audio on Hulu across the various devices. Pretty much everything is DD5.1 on the Hulu app on my FireTV and Shield, but on the AppleTV even some of the newer shows don't have it. Very strange.


----------



## espaeth

One big positive for ATT / ATT TV Now: clean de-interlacing of 1080i native channels.

With the return of sports I took a fresh look at YoutubeTV, FuboTV, Hulu Live, Sling, and ATT TV Now. Sling is somehow still de-interlacing most 1080i channels into 30fps feeds, meanwhile everyone else is doing adaptive de-interlacing to keep a 60fps feed for major news and sports channels. Hulu does 60fps across the board and does pretty well to preserve sharpness, but introduces combing artifacts when de-interlacing fast motion. Fubo is a mix of 1080i into 60fps (most sports channels) or 30fps (most general channels like Discovery, A&E, etc), but suffers the same interlacing artifacts as Hulu. YoutubeTV is also 60fps for all channels and does better with artifacts, but the result is a rather soft picture using their current algorithm. Almost all of the services pick up occasional stutter - particularly in arenas that have radio-controlled strobes for still photography; the sudden flash throws most of the algorithms into skipping frames. The only service that didn't have that happen was ATT.

Now that pricing has re-adjusted across the board, the ATT TV Now packages don't seem entirely terrible. They have pretty wide gaps in Plus and Max missing major groups like Discovery/Scripps and A&E Networks, but they seem to have most of the channels with live events.


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> I think it needs to cache more data in memory


It needs more RAM and more storage IMO. Sometimes you have to clear out the cache to even install an app. And it is a PITA to do as there is no 'clear all cache' selection at all, you have to go to settings and each app to clear it.

FireTV does it better by far. If the FireTV version of the app used thumbnails I would be using it.


----------



## lparsons21

swyman18 said:


> A bit off topic, but it's kind of irritating at the lack of consistency of DD5.1 audio on Hulu across the various devices. Pretty much everything is DD5.1 on the Hulu app on my FireTV and Shield, but on the AppleTV even some of the newer shows don't have it. Very strange.


Hulu says they don't do DD5.1 on AppleTV at all and I've not run across any show yet on it that does.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> It needs more RAM and more storage IMO.


No doubt that would help. Although I don't read complaints at all about the snappiness of newer Android TV streamers like the TiVo Stream 4K, the AirTV Mini, or the Verizon Stream TV. They all have only 2 GB of RAM too, same as the AT&T TV box (and only 8 GB of storage, half as much as AT&T TV). Although they're all running on a newer chipset (the Amlogic S905X2 or -Y2) with Android TV 9. (The upcoming device for TVision, as well as Google's own forthcoming Android TV dongle, will also use that same proven design.)

The AT&T TV box is on Android TV 8. That thing was designed like three years ago and then AT&T took forever to get AT&T TV launched. So the hardware and software were both a bit dated by this year.


----------



## lparsons21

I’ve seen both the Tivo Stream 4K and the AirTV Mini and while they are quicker than the AT&T device it isn’t nearly as much a difference as between any of those compared to current FireTV products or even the current Roku Ultra.

Doesn’t help that AT&T hasn’t really done anything with their box but a few bug fixes and a new remote since its release about 3 years ago. Reminds me of DirecTV’s sloppy programming and updates that made things slower over time.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> It needs more RAM and more storage IMO. Sometimes you have to clear out the cache to even install an app. And it is a PITA to do as there is no 'clear all cache' selection at all, you have to go to settings and each app to clear it.
> 
> FireTV does it better by far. If the FireTV version of the app used thumbnails I would be using it.


I think the ram is ok. I get the storage for people who load on apps. Me I have 3 apps installed. Maybe 4. Hopefully at some point we see Android 9 or 10 come to it


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> I think the ram is ok. I get the storage for people who load on apps. Me I have 3 apps installed. Maybe 4. Hopefully at some point we see Android 9 or 10 come to it


Ram is skimpy and Android works better with more ram. Or at least that is the case with other Android devices. As to storage, well yeah, if you don't need/want many apps then it isn't an issue. But for those of us that are working on having the "one box" you need those apps.

Since I've got Prime and Hulu sideloaded I often find myself using the AT&T box, not because it is the best performer of the bunch of devices I have, but because of the great remote for it, and performance is usually OK but can get real sluggish at times.


----------



## techguy88

RAM really isn't the issue in a lot of cases. Osprey's main issue is essentially the AT&T TV app is live except when not in use. Osprey seems to "close out" the AT&T TV app except with a basic interface when it opens another app. Each time the end user exists out of say HBO Max then Osprey is loading the AT&T TV app. If AT&T would upgrade Osprey to Android TV 9.0 or 10.0 which have improved efficiency updates then it could help Osprey's performance.

The TiVo Stream 4K for example performs almost on par with a base Shield TV when it comes to response & app load times. However the difference between TiVo Stream 4K/Nvidia Shield TV vs Osprey is TiVo & Nvidia devices boot right back to the traditional home menu when exiting an app. They are not loading a live TV app when you exit say "HBO Max."









*Note:* Despite Jetstream TV and Mi Box S sharing similar specs I wouldn't recommend the Jetstream TV as it is poorly made and there is something else not right with this box causing it to crash, become unresponsive, etc.

The AirTV Mini also outperforms Osprey since it works similar to the TiVo Stream 4K (explained above the chart.)

However the 2nd Gen Fire TV Stick is using wayyyy outdated specs for today's streaming world even for regular HD programming. That thing is consistently slow loading & exiting apps are a PITA. The GPU is the oldest of the bunch and having only 1GB of RAM is pitiful.

Apple can continue to sell their 4th generation Apple TV HD without making revisions to it because their custom SoC's are built to last for years. The Apple TV HD has 2GB of RAM and is powered by the Apple A8 SoC. It features a quad-core CPU clocked at 1.5GHz but outperforms a lot of these devices in terms of performance. The Apple TV 4K (5th gen) that was released in 2017 has 3GB of RAM and is using the Apple A10X Fusion SoC that is a hexa-core CPU clocked at 2.38 GHz.

Since I just have HD TVs right now I don't notice a difference between my Apple TV HD and Apple TV 4Ks. I just got ATV 4K's in June to replace my Roku Ultras as I'm saving up for a new 4K HDR TV and I'm just future-proofing.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> I've seen both the Tivo Stream 4K and the AirTV Mini and while they are quicker than the AT&T device it isn't nearly as much a difference as between any of those compared to current FireTV products or even the current Roku Ultra.


Funny, because I've read multiple reports from folks who own both a TiVo Stream 4K and either a Fire TV Stick 4K or a Roku Ultra, and they report that the TiVo Stream 4K is faster than the Fire TV or Roku device. (Now, that said, the TiVo device is also buggy. But widespread reports are that it's very snappy.)


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Funny, because I've read multiple reports from folks who own both a TiVo Stream 4K and either a Fire TV Stick 4K or a Roku Ultra, and they report that the TiVo Stream 4K is faster than the Fire TV or Roku device. (Now, that said, the TiVo device is also buggy. But widespread reports are that it's very snappy.)


I guess I should have specified FireTV Cube 2nd Gen. Switching apps and virtually anything I do on it is quicker than anything else by some margin. Even ATT's TV app gets channel changes quicker and that makes no sense.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> I guess I should have specified FireTV Cube 2nd Gen. Switching apps and virtually anything I do on it is quicker than anything else by some margin. Even ATT's TV app gets channel changes quicker and that makes no sense.


Ah, well, as techguy88's chart above shows, the Cube has a beefier chipset than the TS4K (or the similar AirTV Mini and Verizon Stream TV). But it may come down to better software that's specifically tuned for that hardware; the Cube is running a more modern version of Fire OS than the Fire TV Stick 4K, based on Android 9.0.

I'll be curious to see how well Google has been able to tune Android TV for their upcoming dongle that will use basically the same internals as the TS4K. It might be the first device to hit the market running Android TV 11, which was just made available as a developer preview back in June for Google's ADT-3 developer dongle (which has, you guessed it, the same internals as the TS4K and AirTV Mini). There's yet to even be any device in the US running Android TV 10, which was only finished and released last Dec. So it's possible that the "Google Nest TV" or whatever it's called releases on Android TV 10 and then updates by end of year to 11. We'll see...

Android Developers Blog: Android 11 Developer Preview on Android TV


----------



## lparsons21

I’ve pretty well decided to go all in with the FireTV Cube 2nd gen. While it doesn’t do thumbnails with the AT&T TV app it is pretty easy to skip ads with. Oddly thumbnails in the app are only there on ATT’s little box and the Roku. 

And I got a deal on a refurb Recast 4-tuner OTA DVR that will allow me to reduce the number of devices I’m fiddling with. Amazon’s UI is pretty cluttered but once you get used to it, it works just fine.

ATT’s little box is just so disappointing. It is sluggish and recently the Peacock app has quit working on it which makes it hard to make it the ‘one box’. I sideloaded Prime and an old version of Hulu and they work fine. Peacock worked up until a couple days ago and it wasn’t even a sideloaded app, it was in the Google App Store. Peacock says the ATT box isn’t supported so they won’t do squat about it most likely.


----------



## lparsons21

As of this morning (8/16) the Peacock app is again working. No update showing to give even a hint of why.


----------



## Michael Freeman

I finally bit the bullet and signed up for AT&T TV. I'll give my opinion of it so far. First a little background. I've had different services in the past including cable and Directv. To save money I quit cable a couple years ago and signed up for Directv Now. It was a mess and very buggy, although, I was saving money. Then I switched to Youtube TV and it worked much better. Recently I've been missing some of the aspects of cable/satellite, such as more channels and surround sound to mention a couple. But, I certainly didn't want to put up a new satellite on my new roof and I also didn't want to have a clunky cable box, not to mention my cable wires are all hooked into an antenna on my roof and using Channels on ATV. So, after much looking around, I decided AT&T TV was kind of in the middle. It gave me more channels and mostly surround sound, but still used my internet for the signal. So, I signed up for the trial.

I will say, using the AT&T TV box is much better than the app. When I use the app, even on ATV, it feels like a beta product compared to YTTV. Mainly with the DVR and any kind of trick play with live TV. YTTV has shown it's possible to make it work, but for some reason AT&T doesn't seem to want to polish their apps. And the Amazon AT&T TV App is crap. Even watching on it right this moment, it keeps freezing on the channel and i have to change channels and go back to get it started again. 

But, I will say when using the AT&T TV Box, this is where it pulls ahead of YTTV. It works very smoothly and I can RW and FF live tv with no issues. Something that should be done with the apps. But, when using the box, the service is very nice. The UI is better than YTTV. I also like that you can delete recordings out of your DVR. I know what YTTV is aiming for in their DVR, but I think I still prefer the older method of removing recordings after I've watched them. Helps me to better see what I haven't seen yet. I don't us the apps on the box so I won't comment on them. I'm using the box strictly like a cable box and if I want to use any apps, I switch to my ATV. That's just how I prefer it. The PQ has been great and it's been nice to have surround sound again. I do hope they'll add PPV eventually. 

The downside is the AT&T TV apps on the various devices. On Apple TV, if you're just trying to watch Live TV, then it's fine, as long as you don't want to pause or rewind or anything like that. Yes you can pause live tv, but when you start playing again, you can't FF to live. 

I still wonder how they're going to make it. I understand that what they're trying to do is replace their satellite business with this new service and that's fine and probably would have worked better if they had come out with it before YTTV, Hulu, and Sling got as popular as they have. I know people say AT&T Tv isn't competing with them, but they are whether they know it or not. Because if someone cancels Directv and starts looking at options, you can bet they're going to look at these other streaming services. And sure, they don't offer as many channels or perks, but they're also way less than AT&T. So, many people may not mind giving up some things to save a lot of money. And if YTTV ever adds surround sound and adds more channels so it's more comparable to ATTTV, but for less money, then ATTTV will really have a hard time competing. 

So, I may stick with it for a while and see if another company can come up with something similar for less money. But, if you want to try it, the AT&T TV box is the way to go. You can't judge it just from the apps. The box is much better.


----------



## lparsons21

Yes, the AT&T box does very well while using the AT&T TV service. Possibly with the exception of using voice search/commands as that is usually very sluggish to get going.

On the FireTV devices it very much depends on which device and what generation. I’ve read the current 4K stick does well with the AT&T app and I know that the 2nd Gen Cube works very well with it. But trickplay is not as slick as it is on the AT&T box.

And as you note, other apps are an issue on the AT&T box. Very slow to load but then most work fine. Peacock seems the twitchiest. Almost always have to do a box restart to be able to run the Peacock app without it crashing.

I’m primarily using the FireTV Cube since it is an excellent trade-off between the various apps and it is very quick. I have an Amazon Recast OTA DVR I use with it.


----------



## lparsons21

I know some here think I am anti-ATT box, but that is really not so. I am critical of it because the concepts and ideas behind it are so good but the implementation is very poor. I keep it connected and go to it off and on to see if something improves and am always disappointed to find out that it hasn’t.

But I think I’ve figured out the key to the sluggishness. It is the networking! Here’s some examples of why I think networking is the main failure point:

1. Google voice - on all other devices I own that use Google Voice the response to voice and responses from Google a quick and smooth. On the ATT box it isn’t at all uncommon to have it take a very long time to respond at all.

2. Tuning channels - On the ATT box it is slow, not intolerably slow, but slow nevertheless. On any other box that supports the ATT TV app that isn’t the case at all. It is nearly instantaneous.

I remember similar issues with much older streaming sticks with WiFi only but that has greatly improved over time on all those brands.


----------



## harperhometheater

I thought I read somewhere that you can’t rewind live tv to at least the point at which you initially tuned into the channel you’re watching, so basically everything in its buffer. Is this true?

I tested AT&T TV in June but returned it all, mostly due to not having Prime and Hulu apps, but kind of for costs too, but now that I see it’s fairly easy to side load those and the cost isn’t really a factor I am thinking of going back to it, mainly for WAF since we are coming from a lifetime of DirecTV and TiVo DVRs, her mind and fingers work best with this type of solution to add streaming app functionality to a channel surfing DVR all in one box, similar to what tivo was supposed to be.


----------



## mjwagner

lparsons21 said:


> I know some here think I am anti-ATT box, but that is really not so. I am critical of it because the concepts and ideas behind it are so good but the implementation is very poor. I keep it connected and go to it off and on to see if something improves and am always disappointed to find out that it hasn't.
> 
> But I think I've figured out the key to the sluggishness. It is the networking! Here's some examples of why I think networking is the main failure point:
> 
> 1. Google voice - on all other devices I own that use Google Voice the response to voice and responses from Google a quick and smooth. On the ATT box it isn't at all uncommon to have it take a very long time to respond at all.
> 
> 2. Tuning channels - On the ATT box it is slow, not intolerably slow, but slow nevertheless. On any other box that supports the ATT TV app that isn't the case at all. It is nearly instantaneous.
> 
> I remember similar issues with much older streaming sticks with WiFi only but that has greatly improved over time on all those brands.


LOL...you aren't "anti box" you are just smarter than the idiots running that part of AT&T...


----------



## lparsons21

mjwagner said:


> LOL...you aren't "anti box" you are just smarter than the idiots running that part of AT&T...


Why, yes, I am smarter than those that implemented that box. Thanks for noticing!


----------



## harperhometheater

Any help on this question guys? Is this true? Oh and Hi Mark, long time, no see!



harperhometheater said:


> I thought I read somewhere that you can't rewind live tv to at least the point at which you initially tuned into the channel you're watching, so basically everything in its buffer. Is this true?


----------



## mjwagner

harperhometheater said:


> Any help on this question guys? Is this true? Oh and Hi Mark, long time, no see!


It's true for YTTV, at least until you switch to another channel. Full disclosure I haven't really tested it extensively as we watch almost no live tv anymore. No idea about AT&T TV...and hi Dave, hope you are doing well!


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> Any help on this question guys? Is this true? Oh and Hi Mark, long time, no see!


On the ATT TV box you can rewind to the start of the buffer but on the ATT TV app for others you can't.


----------



## harperhometheater

mjwagner said:


> It's true for YTTV, at least until you switch to another channel. Full disclosure I haven't really tested it extensively as we watch almost no live tv anymore. No idea about AT&T TV...and hi Dave, hope you are doing well!


Yes I'm doing OK, or at least as well as can be expected given the current world circumstances! I pray you are doing OK as well!



lparsons21 said:


> On the ATT TV box you can rewind to the start of the buffer but on the ATT TV app for others you can't.


So if I watch AT&T TV on my AppleTV 4K then I can't rewind a live show?

Thank you, guys!


----------



## lparsons21

Yeah, on any other streaming box, you can’t rewind a live show.


----------



## NashGuy

harperhometheater said:


> Yes I'm doing OK, or at least as well as can be expected given the current world circumstances! I pray you are doing OK as well!


Are you HarperVision, the guy out in Hawaii who used to be a regular over at TCF?!


----------



## harperhometheater

NashGuy said:


> Are you HarperVision, the guy out in Hawaii who used to be a regular over at TCF?!


The one and only!  What's up, NashGuy. Long time no talk!


----------



## NashGuy

harperhometheater said:


> The one and only!  What's up, NashGuy. Long time no talk!


Ha! Hey man, good to see you're still kickin' around on the forums! I'm doing well. Sold my Roamio OTA a few years ago. Still following the TV and tech industries, reading and posting here and there...


----------



## harperhometheater

NashGuy said:


> Ha! Hey man, good to see you're still kickin' around on the forums! I'm doing well. Sold my Roamio OTA a few years ago. Still following the TV and tech industries, reading and posting here and there...


Nice! Same for me, except I still have two Roamios, one home and one at my daughter's. I'm not using mine anymore though. I'm using Channels DVR full time. Considering AT&T TV box but only because the wife just can't grasp the whole streaming app for normal TV thing. She's an old school "I'm bored killing time" type channel surfer and to be honest I am too. Kind of hard to kick the habit after all these years.

If it were up to me I'd still be perusing TCF, but ya know, can't stray from the company line and all.


----------



## techguy88

*FYI:* A recent update to the Osprey/AT&T TV devices now allow you to use the device for streaming apps after you cancel AT&T TV / AT&T TV Now. I just tested this out and the home screen is very basic. Just a blue screen with the AT&T TV logo with the options "Apps" and "Settings".

Depending on how long it takes WarnerMedia to get HBO Max on Amazon/Roku this is a nice stop gap for those who cancel AT&T TV and keep their devices.


----------



## NashGuy

harperhometheater said:


> 'm using Channels DVR full time. Considering AT&T TV box but only because the wife just can't grasp the whole streaming app for normal TV thing. She's an old school "I'm bored killing time" type channel surfer and to be honest I am too. Kind of hard to kick the habit after all these years.


I use the Channels app for live OTA TV on my Apple TV 4K. (Use MythTV for OTA DVR, but not much.)

Yeah, of all the streaming cable TV services out there, sounds like AT&T TV with their provided box and remote would work best for your wife. I've had my eye on it as a potential replacement for DISH for my parents too, given that AT&T TV mimics the user experience of traditional cable TV.

Another one on the horizon to keep an eye on is TVision from T-Mobile. They're reconfiguring it into an OTT service with its own custom Android TV device and remote, much like AT&T TV. It's reportedly ready to launch from a tech perspective. Might roll out this fall, or maybe they wait until the pandemic is over.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> I use the Channels app for live OTA TV on my Apple TV 4K. (Use MythTV for OTA DVR, but not much.)
> 
> Yeah, of all the streaming cable TV services out there, sounds like AT&T TV with their provided box and remote would work best for your wife. I've had my eye on it as a potential replacement for DISH for my parents too, given that AT&T TV mimics the user experience of traditional cable TV.


I use a Recast and FireTV for all my services these days. Works well enough and the remote for the FireTV is hands down better than Apple's.

The ATT TV box is as close to cable/sat in operation as you'll find for streaming. It works well enough with the ATT TV or TV Now service though for the TV Now service you'd have to buy one on EBay most likely.

It is sluggish but not horribly so when using it on ATT TV's service other than using the built in Google Voice. That is almost always so slow to respond it becomes more of an irritant than a plus. And loading other apps to use is slow as molasses though most apps run fine after it finally does get them loaded.


----------



## harperhometheater

NashGuy said:


> I use the Channels app for live OTA TV on my Apple TV 4K. (Use MythTV for OTA DVR, but not much.)
> 
> Yeah, of all the streaming cable TV services out there, sounds like AT&T TV with their provided box and remote would work best for your wife. I've had my eye on it as a potential replacement for DISH for my parents too, given that AT&T TV mimics the user experience of traditional cable TV.
> 
> Another one on the horizon to keep an eye on is TVision from T-Mobile. They're reconfiguring it into an OTT service with its own custom Android TV device and remote, much like AT&T TV. It's reportedly ready to launch from a tech perspective. Might roll out this fall, or maybe they wait until the pandemic is over.


Yep, those are the two I'm watching.

After the Channels DVR update to their clients with the Channels Button Detector feature I am finding that it works amazingly well on the TiVo Stream 4K. Once you strip off and disable the TiVo stuff, you can enable that feature and then when you push the TiVo guy button it goes directly to the Channels DVR app, Guide button works then for Channels guide, Live TV, Skip, direct channel number with number buttons, CH up/down, etc. so it's almost like the TS4K was designed to run Channels. It's making me think we won't need the expensive AT&T or T-Mobile offerings.


----------



## NashGuy

harperhometheater said:


> Yep, those are the two I'm watching.
> 
> After the Channels DVR update to their clients with the Channels Button Detector feature I am finding that it works amazingly well on the TiVo Stream 4K. Once you strip off and disable the TiVo stuff, you can enable that feature and then when you push the TiVo guy button it goes directly to the Channels DVR app, Guide button works then for Channels guide, Live TV, Skip, direct channel number with number buttons, CH up/down, etc. so it's almost like the TS4K was designed to run Channels. It's making me think we won't need the expensive AT&T or T-Mobile offerings.


Yeah, I've read about how you can customize the TS4K to run Channels like that. Pretty nice. I assume you're using Channels with cable TV? An HDHomeRun Prime with CableCARD?


----------



## harperhometheater

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I've read about how you can customize the TS4K to run Channels like that. Pretty nice. I assume you're using Channels with cable TV? An HDHomeRun Prime with CableCARD?


Not normally here. I use an HDHR Quatro with antenna and then use the Xfinity package I pay for my daughter at college for TVE. She has the HDHR Prime there though and I do tap into that remotely for a couple channels that aren't offered on TVE.


----------



## lparsons21

I think AT&T TV is probably the best of the bunch out there, but it comes at a hefty price after the new customer promo runs out. But the bigger problem is that with the lack of new original programming makes it hard for me to recommend any live streaming service these days, and even more so for premium levels of live streaming.

Sports lovers are at least getting some love these days though certainly not as good or as often as in the past. All of that and the lack of originals isn’t the fault of the content providers, it is just the way it is in the coronavirus days. There isn’t any indication that is going to change any time soon.


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> I think AT&T TV is probably the best of the bunch out there, but it comes at a hefty price after the new customer promo runs out. But the bigger problem is that with the lack of new original programming makes it hard for me to recommend any live streaming service these days, and even more so for premium levels of live streaming.
> 
> Sports lovers are at least getting some love these days though certainly not as good or as often as in the past. All of that and the lack of originals isn't the fault of the content providers, it is just the way it is in the coronavirus days. There isn't any indication that is going to change any time soon.


To be honest if you are trying to save _some_ money over traditional MVPDs regular rates but have to have the major channels from each major channel group (Disney/FX/National Geographic, Fox Corp., NBCUniversal, A+E Networks, AMC Networks, Crown Media, WarnerMedia) the AT&T TV packages at regular rate don't look like a bad deal.

*Gotta Have Most Sports & Entertainment: *
AT&T TV Xtra ($124/mo) + Regional Sports Fee (up to $8.49/mo) = *$124 - $132.49 /mo*
AT&T TV Now Xtra ($124/mo) = *$124/mo* [Channel lineups and local/RSN availability between AT&T TV Xtra and AT&T TV Now Xtra are the same. AT&T TV *Now *doesn't charge an RSN Fee for Choice - Premier]

Combo #1: FuboTV Family ($64.99/mo) + Sports Plus ($10.99/mo) + Sling TV Blue ($30/mo) = *$105.98/mo*
Not a good combo if you have to have your local RSNs from Altitude, Fox Sports, Spectrum, most AT&T RSNs, etc.

Combo #2: AT&T TV Now Max ($80/mo) + Sling TV Blue ($30/mo) + Sling Total TV Deal ($20/mo) = *$130.00/mo*
From a value proposition if you have to have your locals, RSNs, the most sports including beIN Sports and Pac-12 Network and premiums like HBO Max, Cinemax & Epix Drive-In this is the best combo you can do.

Combo #3: YouTube TV ($65/mo) + Sling TV Blue ($30/mo) + Sling Total TV Deal ($20/mo) = *$115/mo*
Great if YouTube TV carries your RSNs in your zip code. Fills in the gaps for NHL Network, beIN Sports & Pac-12 Network and the missing A+E Networks & Crown Media channels.

Combo #4: Hulu + Live TV ($55/mo) + Sling TV Blue ($30/mo) + Sling Total TV Deal ($20/mo) = *$105/mo*
Fills in Hulu's entertainment gap but also gives you Pac-12 Network & beIN Sports

Combo #4a: Hulu + Live TV ($55/mo) + Enhanced Cloud DVR & Unlimited Screen bundle ($14.99/mo) + Sling TV Blue ($30/mo) + Sling Total TV Deal ($20/mo) = *$119.99/mo*
If you want Hulu's best Cloud DVR and more screens in your home.


*Just want the most Top Entertainment Channels could care less about sports:*
AT&T TV (and AT&T TV Now) Entertainment ($93/mo) = *$93/mo*
Combo #1: Sling TV Orange + Blue ($45/mo) + Philo ($20/mo) = *$65/mo*
Combo #2: AT&T TV Now Plus ($55/mo) + Philo ($20/mo) = *$75/mo*
Also great if you want a premium like HBO Max. Just add HBO Max to AT&T TV Now Plus for $14.99/mo more and the monthly total (*$89.99/mo*) is still cheaper than AT&T TV Entertainment.

Combo #3: Hulu + Live TV ($55/mo) + Philo ($20/mo) = *$75/mo*
On par with the second combo however both the Cloud DVR & concurrent viewing options are less than with Combo #2

Combo #3a: Hulu + Live TV ($55/mo) + Enhanced Cloud DVR & Unlimited Screen bundle ($14.99/mo) + Philo ($20/mo) = *$89.99/mo*
If you want Hulu's best Cloud DVR and more screens in your home.
If you were planning on getting one of Hulu's basic tiers anyway it would be cheaper to get Combo #1 or #2 and pay Hulu either $5.99/mo or $11.99/mo

Combo #4: YouTube TV ($65/mo) + Philo ($20/mo) = *$85/mo*
Combo #5: FuboTV Family ($64.99/mo) + Sling TV Blue ($30/mo) = *$94.99/mo*
By far the worst combo to do if you want WarnerMedia's Top Channels. You should just get AT&T TV Now's Entertainment at this point if you really don't want sports.


----------



## lparsons21

AT&T TV Entertainment at $93/month is horrible no matter how much spin you might put on it. YTTV @$65/month is a hell of a lot better deal. There are some channel differences of course.

But no matter how you cut it with the lack of anything new these days on all the channels, no live streaming is really worth it IMO.

As to the rest of that list, boy I’m glad I don’t use you to help me figure this crap out!!


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> AT&T TV Entertainment at $93/month is horrible no matter how much spin you might put on it. YTTV @$65/month is a hell of a lot better deal. There are some channel differences of course.
> 
> But no matter how you cut it with the lack of anything new these days on all the channels, no live streaming is really worth it IMO.


I really think AT&T needs to revise the pricing for AT&T TV personally. I do think $93/mo for Entertainment is a bit high but until 1 streaming service offers the most popular entertainment channels from all major groups (with a decent Cloud DVR) that is the only place to get them from 1 service. You be surprised at how many people will pay that price for the convenience factor. YouTube TV isn't far off tho they just need A&E. 



lparsons21 said:


> As to the rest of that list, boy I'm glad I don't use you to help me figure this crap out!!


Ah if I was helping someone like you (who actually knows what they want) I wouldn't have sent you the entire list  Based on what you tell me I would spout out the best streaming service for you at the cheapest price. I had two friends who were indecisive and they got on my nerves and that is when I created the two lists and left them to their own devices so they quit asking me about streaming. 

I did eventually hear back from those two tho. The sports fanatic chose Combo #2 from the first group because he hates contracts and hates Suddenlink. He said he is actually saving about $60/mo with that combo than having Suddenlink's TV service (he had their highest package which only included HBO.) He couldn't go with YTTV since he had to have our RSNs and even though YTTV says they carry Fox Sports Ohio they don't provide it to our zip code.

The second one (that hates sports) took my advice (after sending him that list) to call Dish Network and see what they could do to lower his bill. He said he accepted some sort of 2-year deal with a 24 month contract. (I actually told this nimrod to call Dish first before I sent him that list but he didn't listen to me.)

Personally I can live without a linear TV service and just use streaming services to watch the programs I like next day. I keep D* around mainly for when my grandma and mom comes to visit. Over the years I have trimmed D* down to the Select pkg (which has most of the channels I need) with just Movies Extra Pack (for Smithsonian) & Epix as my only paid add-ons (HBO Max is free w/my Unlimited Elite plan and I still have the $25 video loyalty credit from when I had Unlimited Plus before I migrated to Unlimited Elite.)


----------



## lparsons21

techguy88 said:


> I really think AT&T needs to revise the pricing for AT&T TV personally. I do think $93/mo for Entertainment is a bit high but until 1 streaming service offers the most popular entertainment channels from all major groups (with a decent Cloud DVR) that is the only place to get them from 1 service. You be surprised at how many people will pay that price for the convenience factor. YouTube TV isn't far off tho they just need A&E.


A&E? I haven't watched that channel in years, just nothing of interest. But yeah, ATT TV's Entertainment is a great selection of a fairly broad range of channels and interests and the service itself is very good.

Here's something to cogitate. When I signed up it was $50/month for Entertainment with a year of HBO Max thrown in for good measure. So in 2nd year, if I want to keep the same channels it isn't just $93/month it is $108/month because of HBO Max.

For me, because of the content I'm interested in, I can find another service or combo of services that gives it to me for much less than that $93/month. And since I now have solid OTA access to all my locals that is one less thing to consider when/if I switch.

Right now the problem isn't with them but with every live streaming service. New original content just isn't there. If it wasn't for some sports starting up for those that are interested, it isn't worth having at all.

But we'll know sometime next year just how many are going to stick around and pay those 2nd year prices, especially considering that paying the ETF after taking in the consideration the rebate, it still ends up being a pretty good deal for the 1st year. And it has to be said that AT&T TV is still the only service with nearly every channel available though oddly missing the NFL Channel.


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> I really think AT&T needs to revise the pricing for AT&T TV personally. I do think $93/mo for Entertainment is a bit high but until 1 streaming service offers the most popular entertainment channels from all major groups (with a decent Cloud DVR) that is the only place to get them from 1 service. You be surprised at how many people will pay that price for the convenience factor. YouTube TV isn't far off tho they just need A&E.


YTTV needs the Hallmark channels too. The Hallmark Channel ranked #11 is popularity among all broadcast and cable nets in 2019 while Hallmark Movies & Mysteries ranked #36. So they're obviously important to a lot of households.

And I agree, AT&T aren't dummies. They know what the competition over at Comcast and Charter are charging and they know what you get for the money from YTTV and Hulu Live. With AT&T TV -- just like DirecTV before it -- they're not going after the folks who want to save every penny possible. They're going for the folks who still want a premium traditional cable TV experience, with all the channels they care about unified into one UI/UX. (But they do need to get those PBS locals added!) For what it is, they've got AT&T TV priced OK, especially when you factor in the first year discounts and Visa gift cards.

As you say, YTTV is getting close but they still have the problem (in the eyes of many traditional cable viewers) of not having a dedicated/customized device for the service, nor do they offer quite all of the popular mainstream channels. But I imagine those issues will eventually get rectified if Google wants to grow the service.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> But we'll know sometime next year just how many are going to stick around and pay those 2nd year prices, especially considering that paying the ETF after taking in the consideration the rebate, it still ends up being a pretty good deal for the 1st year. And it has to be said that AT&T TV is still the only service with nearly every channel available though oddly missing the NFL Channel.


Who knows, by early next year, there may be a deal in place for AT&T to sell all or part of DTV. Not sure what that might do to the channel packages and pricing at AT&T TV, given that the two services are built on the same set of carriage contracts and have pretty much the same channel packages.

As for NFL Network, DTV has that as part of their overall deal with the NFL that also includes NFL Sunday Ticket. AT&T doesn't have a regular deal in place for just NFL Network (as YTTV just inked). They used to, which allowed Uverse TV to carry it, but that lapsed some time ago.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Who knows, by early next year, there may be a deal in place for AT&T to sell all or part of DTV. Not sure what that might do to the channel packages and pricing at AT&T TV, given that the two services are built on the same set of carriage contracts and have pretty much the same channel packages.
> 
> As for NFL Network, DTV has that as part of their overall deal with the NFL that also includes NFL Sunday Ticket. AT&T doesn't have a regular deal in place for just NFL Network (as YTTV just inked). They used to, which allowed Uverse TV to carry it, but that lapsed some time ago.


Yeah, keeping up with what AT&T might or might not do next is really an effort in futility. The more I read the more I'm convinced they don't know either! 

Assuming nothing actually changes, which is as likely as not, I'm pretty sure that anyone that can do basic math can figure out that the full retail pricing for AT&T TV is outrageous and will exit stage left! In another group I participate in there is a small minority that indicate they think the retail price is OK, but the majority are just like me. I'm not looking for the cheapest service I'm just looking at value.

So when the anniversary shows up the question will be do I want to spend $58/month more to keep the channels and service I'm getting from AT&T? And unless the competition raises their prices quite a bit or AT&T is willing to dicker over price, my answer will be no. Note that the $58 increase is including keeping HBO Max.

As to the NFL network, I really can't figure out why they didn't make a contract for it for the subscription levels that have the RSNs, just doesn't make sense.

One option after the anniversary that I'm cogitating is AT&T TV Now Max, which includes HBO Max and Cinemax. It is actually pretty competitive and has some channels that I don't have now for less money. Here's some math with my current subs at full retail

ATT TV - Entertainment = $93
HBO Max = $15
Cinemax = $10

Total = $118

Or...
ATT TV Now Max = $80
Philo to pick up AMC/BBCA = $20

Total = $100
But I could turn Philo off and on depending on what those 2 channels have in the way of new and interesting stuff. Or if AMC and BBCA bring out their own service, could go that way for an unknown cost.


----------



## techguy88

NashGuy said:


> Who knows, by early next year, there may be a deal in place for AT&T to sell all or part of DTV. Not sure what that might do to the channel packages and pricing at AT&T TV, given that the two services are built on the same set of carriage contracts and have pretty much the same channel packages.
> 
> As for NFL Network, DTV has that as part of their overall deal with the NFL that also includes NFL Sunday Ticket. AT&T doesn't have a regular deal in place for just NFL Network (as YTTV just inked). They used to, which allowed Uverse TV to carry it, but that lapsed some time ago.


In all honestly as long as AT&T retains a minority stake in DirecTV after a sale they can still use a single contract to cover D*, U-Verse TV, AT&T TV/TV Now & WatchTV. That seems to be their plan right now but sell just enough of DirecTV to get it (and its debt) off their books.


----------



## lparsons21

Here’s something interesting.

I’ve been using a Nakamichi Shockwafe 7.1.4 soundbar setup pretty much ever since I got the AT&T TV service and box. And as readers here know, I’ve been *****ing about the sluggishness of the ATT TV box.

The Nakamichi is a hell of a soundbar setup, probably the best overall soundstage from an advanced soundbar setup I’ve run across. But it comes at the cost of being very, very twitchy.

So I switched back to my Samsung HW-K950 Atmos 7.1.4 soundbar setup. Damn!! The ATT TV box wasn’t nearly as sluggish, tolerable even! Well, with the exception of the Google Voice, it is still sluggish as can be. Of course Atmos support isn’t supported by the AT&T TV box, but it does work better with this soundbar in meaningful ways and I do have a few other streaming boxes that do support Atmos.


----------



## mjwagner

NashGuy said:


> YTTV needs the Hallmark channels too. The Hallmark Channel ranked #11 is popularity among all broadcast and cable nets in 2019 while Hallmark Movies & Mysteries ranked #36. So they're obviously important to a lot of households.
> 
> And I agree, AT&T aren't dummies. They know what the competition over at Comcast and Charter are charging and they know what you get for the money from YTTV and Hulu Live. With AT&T TV -- just like DirecTV before it -- they're not going after the folks who want to save every penny possible. They're going for the folks who still want a premium traditional cable TV experience, with all the channels they care about unified into one UI/UX. (But they do need to get those PBS locals added!) For what it is, they've got AT&T TV priced OK, especially when you factor in the first year discounts and Visa gift cards.
> 
> As you say, YTTV is getting close but they still have the problem (in the eyes of many traditional cable viewers) of not having a dedicated/customized device for the service, nor do they offer quite all of the popular mainstream channels. But I imagine those issues will eventually get rectified if Google wants to grow the service.


Not convinced that the people running AT&T aren't "dummies"...LOL. But, they are certainly targeting a very different demographic than streaming services like YTTV. They are after folks looking for the same type of experience as cable/sat. Folks that, for example, want channel numbers and want to channel surf. And they are betting that those folks are willing to pay a bit more for that cable/sat like experience. IMO they are probably not wrong. The only real question, again IMO, is how many of them they can capture, how quickly, and how quickly (not even if) that population is shrinking.


----------



## lparsons21

mjwagner said:


> Not convinced that the people running AT&T aren't "dummies"...LOL. But, they are certainly targeting a very different demographic than streaming services like YTTV. They are after folks looking for the same type of experience as cable/sat. Folks that, for example, want channel numbers and want to channel surf. And they are betting that those folks are willing to pay a bit more for that cable/sat like experience. IMO they are probably not wrong. The only real question, again IMO, is how many of them they can capture, how quickly, and how quickly (not even if) that population is shrinking.


As I said previously, people are willing to pay a bit more but I don't think many are willing to pay the full retail price AT&T wants for their service. The value proposition just isn't there.

I also suspect as those that get the service start using other non-live streaming services and find it not quite as daunting as they originally thought it was, that it will have negative consequences for AT&T.


----------



## NashGuy

mjwagner said:


> Not convinced that the people running AT&T aren't "dummies"...LOL. But, they are certainly targeting a very different demographic than streaming services like YTTV. They are after folks looking for the same type of experience as cable/sat.


I've done the math on average monthly cost for cable TV service for a new subscriber from both Comcast and AT&T TV, including all fees and net of all promotional discounts and gift cards. And it's no coincidence that, when comparing comparable channel packages, the two services price out to within just a few bucks of each other on average monthly price. (AT&T TV, however, gives a steeper discount up-front, as well as gift cards, while Comcast spreads the cost out more equally throughout the contract term.) So that's what I mean when I say that AT&T aren't a bunch of dummies. They understand the value of the product they're selling and they know how much their main competitors are charging for something similar. And as you state, they don't see YTTV as a main competitor to AT&T TV.

Now, that said, yes, AT&T has made some *really* dumb moves (buying DTV) and their marketing/branding strategy seems to be constantly in flux and confusing to lots of folks. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## lparsons21

The proof will be in the pudding in about 7-8 months when the 1st year anniversary rolls around and the price skyrockets.

I’m predicting yet another round of huge subscriber losses.


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> In all honestly as long as AT&T retains a minority stake in DirecTV after a sale they can still use a single contract to cover D*, U-Verse TV, AT&T TV/TV Now & WatchTV.


Yeah, maybe. I'd think AT&T would strive to make that happen but without knowing the intricacies of the contracts and parties involved, it's all just speculation on our part...


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> The proof will be in the pudding in about 7-8 months when the 1st year anniversary rolls around and the price skyrockets.
> 
> I'm predicting yet another round of huge subscriber losses.


Most folks don't like the idea of paying $180 and getting nothing in return, and that's what will happen if they're hit with the $15/mo ETF for breaking their two-year contract one year early. Some folks will still walk away regardless but I don't think it'll be the portion of the AT&T TV subscriber base that you imagine.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Most folks don't like the idea of paying $180 and getting nothing in return, and that's what will happen if they're hit with the $15/mo ETF for breaking their two-year contract one year early. Some folks will still walk away regardless but I don't think it'll be the portion of the AT&T TV subscriber base that you imagine.


If they look at it that way, sure it will scare some away, but if they do proper math they will find that after you take out the rebate it is cheaper to cancel and pay the ETF, cheaper than many other live streaming services.

They can cancel and pay the ETF and have had a real bargain too. Or they can stay and pay way more, remember the HBO Max freebie expires too.

So here's the math: (I know u love it!)

Cancel & pay ETF for Entertainment makes average cost for the year $57/month.

Stay and drop HBO Max and pay $93/month for the next year. Makes average cost $67/month taking into account the $100 rebate I got.

Stay and keep HBO Max and pay $108/month for the next year. Makes average cost just under $75/month.

Hmmm.... My own math is screwing up my prediction it seems. 

Me cancelling is not a given, just a discount could keep me, maybe. All depends on what happens with new, interesting and original programming making a comeback by then. If it does I'll cogitate a bit, if it doesn't I'll be done with live streaming until it does.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> If they look at it that way, sure it will scare some away, but if they do proper math they will find that after you take out the rebate it is cheaper to cancel and pay the ETF, cheaper than many other live streaming services.
> 
> They can cancel and pay the ETF and have had a real bargain too. Or they can stay and pay way more, remember the HBO Max freebie expires too.


Most folks don't think through all the math like you and I do and then make an informed decision, weighing the relative costs and benefits of all the different options available to them.

Anyhoo, hopefully AT&T throws you a bone and knocks a few bucks off your bill in the second year. Probably will come down to whatever numbers they're trying to hit for their quarterly results at the time, ha.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> Now, that said, yes, AT&T has made some *really* dumb moves (buying DTV) and their marketing/branding strategy seems to be constantly in flux and confusing to lots of folks.


We would not be talking (much) about AT&T if they had not purchased DIRECTV and grown their business. AT&T was struggling to launch an OTT service and bought DIRECTV specifically to have the larger customer base needed to negotiate contracts that would make an OTT service profitable. I believe that things didn't quite go as planned ... renegotiating contracts was not easy and satellite subscriber losses over the past few years have weakened their negotiating position - but I believe that AT&T is in a much better position to have a successful OTT service after the DIRECTV purchase than they were before the DIRECTV purchase.


----------



## harperhometheater

lparsons21 said:


> ......Stay and drop HBO Max and pay $93/month for the next year. Makes average cost $67/month *taking into account the $100 rebate I got*.....


When I just checked a week or so ago, they offered me a $200 Visa gift card and then a pop-up offered me an extra $50 gift card on top of that. This makes it an even better deal overall.

One more issue with my Channels DVR setup, resulting in a pissed off wife again, and I'm taking them up on that offer!


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> When I just checked a week or so ago, they offered me a $200 Visa gift card and then a pop-up offered me an extra $50 gift card on top of that. This makes it an even better deal overall.
> 
> One more issue with my Channels DVR setup, resulting in a pissed off wife again, and I'm taking them up on that offer!


Well, not as good or different as you think. When it was $100 rebate the cost per month 1st year was $10/month cheaper and the Entertainment included HBO Max for a year. The extra $50 makes it a little sweeter though.


----------



## harperhometheater

lparsons21 said:


> Well, not as good or different as you think. When it was $100 rebate the cost per month 1st year was $10/month cheaper and the Entertainment included HBO Max for a year. The extra $50 makes it a little sweeter though.


I'm getting HBO Max for free with my AT&T Mobile account anyway.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> We would not be talking (much) about AT&T if they had not purchased DIRECTV and grown their business. AT&T was struggling to launch an OTT service and bought DIRECTV specifically to have the larger customer base needed to negotiate contracts that would make an OTT service profitable. I believe that things didn't quite go as planned ... renegotiating contracts was not easy and satellite subscriber losses over the past few years have weakened their negotiating position - but I believe that AT&T is in a much better position to have a successful OTT service after the DIRECTV purchase than they were before the DIRECTV purchase.


I really don't see how owning DTV helped much with the development of AT&T TV -- they leaned on a combo of Google (Android TV Operator Tier) and, presumably, their own IP network/cloud tech (likely based in part on their 2016 acquisition of Quickplay. And, of course, AT&T Wireless, along with AT&T Fiber/Internet/Uverse TV, gave them a big pool of customer relationships that they could market AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now to. (And I would argue that Uverse TV subscribers numbers would have grown higher than they did had AT&T not purchased DTV, which it then sold instead of Uverse TV to a portion of their home internet customers.)

So I really don't see how buying DTV did much to set them up for any future success with AT&T TV/Now (much less HBO Max), despite that being the repeated rationale trotted out by former CEO Stephenson. Yes, as you say, it did allow them to negotiate better channel carriage rates, due to a much larger overall TV subscriber base, and thereby sell AT&T TV/Now at rates a bit lower than they otherwise could have (and/or with better profit margins). That's not nothing, but I doubt it's a big enough deal to justify the loss they'll ultimately take on DTV when they sell it.

Watch what T-Mobile will do with their OTT-revamped TVision. The first generation of TVision has fewer subs than Uverse TV ever did. And T-Mobile owns no cable nets, as AT&T does. There's no reason to think that AT&T couldn't have built an OTT service -- AT&T TV -- just as well as T-Mobile can.

Again, the big picture is that AT&T bought a business, DTV, right at its peak due to a secular shift in video consumption away from the cable channel bundle. So all that business would ever do under AT&T was decline.


----------



## techguy88

NashGuy said:


> I really don't see how owning DTV helped much with the development of AT&T TV -- they leaned on a combo of Google (Android TV Operator Tier) and, presumably, their own IP network/cloud tech (likely based in part on their 2016 acquisition of Quickplay. And, of course, AT&T Wireless, along with AT&T Fiber/Internet/Uverse TV, gave them a big pool of customer relationships that they could market AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now to. (And I would argue that Uverse TV subscribers numbers would have grown higher than they did had AT&T not purchased DTV, which it then sold instead of Uverse TV to a portion of their home internet customers.)
> 
> So I really don't see how buying DTV did much to set them up for any future success with AT&T TV/Now (much less HBO Max), despite that being the repeated rationale trotted out by former CEO Stephenson. Yes, as you say, it did allow them to negotiate better channel carriage rates, due to a much larger overall TV subscriber base, and thereby sell AT&T TV/Now at rates a bit lower than they otherwise could have (and/or with better profit margins). That's not nothing, but I doubt it's a big enough deal to justify the loss they'll ultimately take on DTV when they sell it.
> 
> Watch what T-Mobile will do with their OTT-revamped TVision. The first generation of TVision has fewer subs than Uverse TV ever did. And T-Mobile owns no cable nets, as AT&T does. There's no reason to think that AT&T couldn't have built an OTT service -- AT&T TV -- just as well as T-Mobile can.
> 
> Again, the big picture is that AT&T bought a business, DTV, right at its peak due to a secular shift in video consumption away from the cable channel bundle. So all that business would ever do under AT&T was decline.


DirecTV helped both AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now in the contract negotiation area because of D*'s size (even now) gives it leverage AT&T never enjoyed with only U-Verse TV. The more subscribers a company negotiates for the less/subscriber they pay. D* also provided AT&T a nationwide TV service at a time when using streaming was not thought of. AT&T intentionally hurt U-Verse TV by regulating it to customers who can't get D* or doesn't want it after the purchase. AT&T had to show how D* would be better than U-Verse TV to shareholders and justify that big purchase.

Also for the tech used for AT&T TV, AT&T TV Now & AT&T WatchTV I wouldn't be surprised if it was something D* was already working on prior to the AT&T-DirecTV purchase. There would have been no other way AT&T could have gotten that technology off the ground in less than 2 years after purchasing D* unless D* was already working on an OTT service of its own. (Similar to how HBO Now's infrastructure & UI is the backbone of HBO Max.)

However AT&T shot themselves in the foot with AT&T TV Now from the controversy around initial sign-ups, creating almost identical packages mirroring D* with ultra low costs (Live A Little = Entertainment, Go Big = Xtra, etc.) Things wouldn't have been bad had AT&T just gave D* Now skinnier packages from the start that were more reasonably priced for them. Like how Sling TV has entirely different packages than Dish Network.

AT&T essentially mismanaged AT&T TV Now from Day 1 which has lead to it being the shell it is now. AT&T TV will probably head the same way as there is no need for a 24 month contract on a streaming service. Also the packages are too high priced (AT&T TV Entertainment is $93/mo while D* Entertainment (All Included, 1TV) is $97/mo). Also AT&T has a habit of tossing one product to the side when it gets a shiny new toy to play with. WatchTV could have done well as a skinny bundle if AT&T would have promoted the standalone aspect better.


----------



## James Long

techguy88 said:


> D* also provided AT&T a nationwide TV service at a time when using streaming was not thought of.


Starting an OTT service was specifically mentioned in 2014 as part of the reason why AT&T wanted to purchase DIRECTV. (And SlingTV started in 2013 ... so companies were not only thinking of OTT, they were doing it.)



techguy88 said:


> Also for the tech used for AT&T TV, AT&T TV Now & AT&T WatchTV I wouldn't be surprised if it was something D* was already working on prior to the AT&T-DirecTV purchase.


Yep. The platform they are using now is based on the one DIRECTV developed. While they were late to launch (not launching DTV now until a year after the merger closed) DIRECTV deserves the credit for AT&T having a product to sell now.

Many mistakes were made along the way with branding and price points - AT&T can have credit for the mistakes.


----------



## techguy88

James Long said:


> Starting an OTT service was specifically mentioned in 2014 as part of the reason why AT&T wanted to purchase DIRECTV. (And SlingTV started in 2013 ... so companies were not only thinking of OTT, they were doing it.)


Ah okay ty 



James Long said:


> Yep. The platform they are using now is based on the one DIRECTV developed. While they were late to launch (not launching DTV now until a year after the merger closed) DIRECTV deserves the credit for AT&T having a product to sell now.
> 
> Many mistakes were made along the way with branding and price points - AT&T can have credit for the mistakes.


That's what I thought. Very true we give AT&T all credit for the mistakes


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> Also for the tech used for AT&T TV, AT&T TV Now & AT&T WatchTV I wouldn't be surprised if it was something D* was already working on prior to the AT&T-DirecTV purchase. There would have been no other way AT&T could have gotten that technology off the ground in less than 2 years after purchasing D* unless D* was already working on an OTT service of its own.





James Long said:


> Yep. The platform they are using now is based on the one DIRECTV developed. While they were late to launch (not launching DTV now until a year after the merger closed) DIRECTV deserves the credit for AT&T having a product to sell now.


Sorry guys, you're wrong. The OTT tech used as the basis for DirecTV Now/AT&T TV is from Quickplay, which they acquired in 2016, separate from DTV.

AT&T Completes Acquisition of Quickplay | AT&T

The only useful things that AT&T got out of the DTV acquisition, with regard to their future OTT services, were the DTV customer base (i.e. potential future customers of the OTT services) and the negotiating power for future carriage contracts spanning all AT&T cable TV services.


----------



## crkeehn

harperhometheater said:


> I'm getting HBO Max for free with my AT&T Mobile account anyway.


ATT 1000 also includes HBO Max free as long as you maintain the internet service.


----------



## harperhometheater

crkeehn said:


> ATT 1000 also includes HBO Max free as long as you maintain the internet service.


Unfortunately I can't get AT&T 1000 (1 Gig?) fiber Internet here. I don't foresee that happening for a long time here in rural Hawaii!


----------



## lparsons21

One of the downsides to AT&T TV service is that they don’t have NFL channel or NFL Redzone at all. Not at any subscription level and there has been no rumors of talks going on to get them.

My son wanted those channels, so I did some digging to figure out how to do it the cheapest way. With sports it is more difficult to find a truly cheap service to fill in the holes.

In the end the best way was to sub to Sling Blue + Sports @$40. Video quality not quite as good as AT&T and audio is stereo just like all the other live streaming services. The Sling app works on all streaming boxes, including AT&T TV’s box.

I don’t care about the NFL channels, but I had been wanting to get the Golf channel. It is in that combo too. In the end I subscribed to Sling Blue + Total TV which gives me:
Expanded DVR
NFL & Redzone
Golf channel
IFC
Sundance
FXM

...among others and cheaper than moving up from Entertainment to Xtra with AT&T. And doing that with AT&T still wouldn’t have NFL & Redzone!


----------



## crkeehn

harperhometheater said:


> Unfortunately I can't get AT&T 1000 (1 Gig?) fiber Internet here. I don't foresee that happening for a long time here in rural Hawaii!


Yes, it's gone through some name changes since I first subscribed. It started out as U-Verse Gigapower. It then changed to U-Verse 1000 and now ATT 1000.


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> One of the downsides to AT&T TV service is that they don't have NFL channel or NFL Redzone at all. Not at any subscription level and there has been no rumors of talks going on to get them.
> 
> My son wanted those channels, so I did some digging to figure out how to do it the cheapest way. With sports it is more difficult to find a truly cheap service to fill in the holes.
> 
> In the end the best way was to sub to Sling Blue + Sports @$40. Video quality not quite as good as AT&T and audio is stereo just like all the other live streaming services. The Sling app works on all streaming boxes, including AT&T TV's box.
> 
> I don't care about the NFL channels, but I had been wanting to get the Golf channel. It is in that combo too. In the end I subscribed to Sling Blue + Total TV which gives me:
> Expanded DVR
> NFL & Redzone
> Golf channel
> IFC
> Sundance
> FXM
> 
> ...among others and cheaper than moving up from Entertainment to Xtra with AT&T. And doing that with AT&T still wouldn't have NFL & Redzone!


The reason AT&T TV, AT&T TV Now and U-Verse TV don't have NFL Network is due to the D*-NFL deal and the fact AT&T is only wanting a single contract for channels to cover all their services. The D*-NFL contract is hard locked to the satellite service only with little to no wiggle room and AT&T doesn't want to pay the NFL more than $1.5 billion/year just to have NFL Network & NFL RedZone on their other products.

If AT&T manages to keep NFL Sunday Ticket on D* but expand it to AT&T TV while allowing all their video services to carry NFL Network I suspect they would do that. 2021 is the year NFL has to re-negotiate all their existing TV deals since ESPN's MNF deal ends in 2021 and all the rest (including Sunday Ticket) end in 2022.


----------



## harperhometheater

Anyone know if the Osprey box supports Dolby Vision yet, specifically the Sony TV LLDV version?

What about Amazon Prime and Hulu app support, without having to side load?


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> Anyone know if the Osprey box supports Dolby Vision yet, specifically the Sony TV LLDV version?
> 
> What about Amazon Prime and Hulu app support, without having to side load?


I'm not sure what you are asking in your first question. The Osprey box and the Sony TV are two entirely different things. The Osprey box does not do Dolby Vision, and with the history of only bug fixes to the box since inception 3+ years ago, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.

And no indication at all that either Prime or Hulu are coming to the Osprey box. It should be noted that you can sideload a current version of the Prime app on the Osprey, but you can't use a current or even newer version of Hulu past 2.1.3(?).


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> Anyone know if the Osprey box supports Dolby Vision yet, specifically the Sony TV LLDV version?
> 
> What about Amazon Prime and Hulu app support, without having to side load?


It will probably never support DV. It isn't licensed for it


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> I'm not sure what you are asking in your first question. The Osprey box and the Sony TV are two entirely different things. The Osprey box does not do Dolby Vision, and with the history of only bug fixes to the box since inception 3+ years ago, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.
> 
> And no indication at all that either Prime or Hulu are coming to the Osprey box. It should be noted that you can sideload a current version of the Prime app on the Osprey, but you can't use a current or even newer version of Hulu past 2.1.3(?).


Sony because they were cheap with there CPU's had to get Dolby to write a specific profile so there TV's would support Dolby Vision. However not every streaming box supports the profile


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> And no indication at all that either Prime or Hulu are coming to the Osprey box. It should be noted that you can sideload a current version of the Prime app on the Osprey, but you can't use a current or even newer version of Hulu past 2.1.3(?).


Pretty sad that this many months after the national launch of AT&T TV, their box still doesn't have apps for Prime Video or Hulu. Those are two of what I'd call "the big 5" (the others being Netflix, Disney+ and HBO Max, all of which their box does have). What % of US cable TV subscribers watch something at least a couple times a month on Prime Video and/or Hulu? It's a pretty high number, I'd bet. Meaning that the AT&T TV box can't function as the only box/remote for a lot of people, which is the ultimate goal.

With Hulu, I'd say the issue is them creating a modern version of their app for Android TV that doesn't support the live TV add-on (as Hulu has already done for Comcast's X1 boxes). I imagine AT&T won't allow Hulu Live on their own boxes, only the core on-demand tier. With Prime Video, my guess is the absence is part of the broader stand-off between Amazon and AT&T over HBO Max distribution.


----------



## lparsons21

The oddity in the argument about Hulu+Live being on it is just that, an oddity. Sling and a few other live streamers are there.

With Hulu’s old version, everything still functions fine but no profiles. That’s a bit of an irritant.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> Pretty sad that this many months after the national launch of AT&T TV, their box still doesn't have apps for Prime Video or Hulu. Those are two of what I'd call "the big 5" (the others being Netflix, Disney+ and HBO Max, all of which their box does have). What % of US cable TV subscribers watch something at least a couple times a month on Prime Video and/or Hulu? It's a pretty high number, I'd bet. Meaning that the AT&T TV box can't function as the only box/remote for a lot of people, which is the ultimate goal.
> 
> With Hulu, I'd say the issue is them creating a modern version of their app for Android TV that doesn't support the live TV add-on (as Hulu has already done for Comcast's X1 boxes). I imagine AT&T won't allow Hulu Live on their own boxes, only the core on-demand tier. With Prime Video, my guess is the absence is part of the broader stand-off between Amazon and AT&T over HBO Max distribution.


I haven't watched anything off prime in over a year and Hulu probably a year


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> The oddity in the argument about Hulu+Live being on it is just that, an oddity. Sling and a few other live streamers are there.


Sling is also on X1. And yet Comcast insisted that when a Hulu app came to X1, it come without its Live TV feature. I don't think they see Sling as being as much of a threat. More of a cut-rate low-end alternative to Comcast's own cable TV.

I would expect AT&T to see things a lot like Comcast does, given that they're direct competitors.


----------



## harperhometheater

lparsons21 said:


> I'm not sure what you are asking in your first question. The Osprey box and the Sony TV are two entirely different things. The Osprey box does not do Dolby Vision, and with the history of only bug fixes to the box since inception 3+ years ago, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.
> 
> And no indication at all that either Prime or Hulu are coming to the Osprey box. It should be noted that you can sideload a current version of the Prime app on the Osprey, but you can't use a current or even newer version of Hulu past 2.1.3(?).





compnurd said:


> Sony because they were cheap with there CPU's had to get Dolby to write a specific profile so there TV's would support Dolby Vision. However not every streaming box supports the profile


Exactly, thanks compnurd. It wasn't just because of Sony though. They worked with Microsoft too so there could be a low latency gaming version of DV, which is why it's called "Low Latency Dolby Vision" (LLDV). Besides, I don't care how it came about, because now we can get amazing Dolby Vision and tone mapped HDR10 by exploiting this "feature" using an HDFury device, allowing you to get Dolby Vision on otherwise non Dolby Vision display's like the Samsungs and especially on projectors which previously could only do HDR10 and HLG......but not anymore! 

I don't care about Hulu Live TV or its profiles, so an older Hulu app is fine by me.



compnurd said:


> It will probably never support DV. It isn't licensed for it


I believe that can be fairly easily rectified with Dolby if they wanted to, especially since it's only a source device and not a TV that has to actually decode it. I also believe the Osprey has a chip that has that capability, should it be certified and activated.


----------



## techguy88

NashGuy said:


> Pretty sad that this many months after the national launch of AT&T TV, their box still doesn't have apps for Prime Video or Hulu. Those are two of what I'd call "the big 5" (the others being Netflix, Disney+ and HBO Max, all of which their box does have). What % of US cable TV subscribers watch something at least a couple times a month on Prime Video and/or Hulu? It's a pretty high number, I'd bet. Meaning that the AT&T TV box can't function as the only box/remote for a lot of people, which is the ultimate goal.
> 
> With Hulu, I'd say the issue is them creating a modern version of their app for Android TV that doesn't support the live TV add-on (as Hulu has already done for Comcast's X1 boxes). I imagine AT&T won't allow Hulu Live on their own boxes, only the core on-demand tier. With Prime Video, my guess is the absence is part of the broader stand-off between Amazon and AT&T over HBO Max distribution.


The Hulu app is blocked due to technical reasons however Hulu gives the Android TV platform the lowest priority in general. HBO Go and HBO Now were originally blocked from Osprey due to technical issues but in the end after they resolved the technical issue they waited until HBO Max was available to make HBO Max the only app available on Osprey.

Amazon uses a loophole Google has that allows app developers to block their app from appearing on specific devices for any reason but device manufactures can't block apps from being on their devices. This is why Osprey can run Dish Anywhere, Sling TV, Philo and YouTube TV.

Amazon wants terms favorable to it not the device manufacture. Initially the Mi Box and other Android TV devices (outside of Nvidia Shield TV) were without Prime Video until the device manufacture made a deal with Amazon. A lot of new Android TV devices usually launch without Prime Video. Some can take a small amount of time to get support some can take years.

However on the Android TV platform app developers can't be selective with Chromecast. Which is why you can cast Prime Video & Hulu to Osprey.


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> I don't care about Hulu Live TV or its profiles, so an older Hulu app is fine by me.


I would like profiles but otherwise the older Hulu app works just fine on the Osprey box.

Here's the link for the procedure I used to load Prime and Hulu.


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/AttTVNow/comments/cuskqg


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> Exactly, thanks compnurd. It wasn't just because of Sony though. They worked with Microsoft too so there could be a low latency gaming version of DV, which is why it's called "Low Latency Dolby Vision" (LLDV). Besides, I don't care how it came about, because now we can get amazing Dolby Vision and tone mapped HDR10 by exploiting this "feature" using an HDFury device, allowing you to get Dolby Vision on otherwise non Dolby Vision display's like the Samsungs and especially on projectors which previously could only do HDR10 and HLG......but not anymore!
> 
> I don't care about Hulu Live TV or its profiles, so an older Hulu app is fine by me.
> 
> I believe that can be fairly easily rectified with Dolby if they wanted to, especially since it's only a source device and not a TV that has to actually decode it. I also believe the Osprey has a chip that has that capability, should it be certified and activated.


I think only netflix even supports HDR on the box.. I would not count on ever seeing it


----------



## harperhometheater

lparsons21 said:


> I would like profiles but otherwise the older Hulu app works just fine on the Osprey box.
> 
> Here's the link for the procedure I used to load Prime and Hulu.
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/AttTVNow/comments/cuskqg


Thanks! If I ever decide to go this route I'll certainly try the procedure.



compnurd said:


> I think only netflix even supports HDR on the box.. I would not count on ever seeing it


That would be a shame and not serve them nor their customers very well.


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> Thanks! If I ever decide to go this route I'll certainly try the procedure.
> 
> That would be a shame and not serve them nor their customers very well.


I doubt it. 90% of there customers probably have no clue what Dolby Vision is


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> The Hulu app is blocked due to technical reasons however Hulu gives the Android TV platform the lowest priority in general.


Hmm, what are these "technical reasons" why the Hulu app is blocked from the Osprey box? Are they the same technical reasons why it's also blocked from Sling's AirTV Mini dongle and original AirTV box (other Android TV Operator Tier devices that have different SoCs than Osprey)?

Hulu Removes Support For Certain Android TV Set-Top Boxes


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Hmm, what are these "technical reasons" why the Hulu app is blocked from the Osprey box? Are they the same technical reasons why it's also blocked from Sling's AirTV Mini dongle and original AirTV box (other Android TV Operator Tier devices that have different SoCs than Osprey)?
> 
> Hulu Removes Support For Certain Android TV Set-Top Boxes


I wonder if in those cases the 2.1.3 version of Hulu will still work for them. It still does on the Osprey.


----------



## espaeth

compnurd said:


> I doubt it. 90% of there customers probably have no clue what Dolby Vision is


Exactly. It also seems counterproductive to worry about DolbyVision support when the box is still locked on outputting HDR for everything when the display has HDR support. If people really know and care about DV support, they should absolutely care that the box is mangling all of the SDR content it's outputting.


----------



## mjwagner

espaeth said:


> Exactly. It also seems counterproductive to worry about DolbyVision support when the box is still locked on outputting HDR for everything when the display has HDR support. If people really know and care about DV support, they should absolutely care that the box is mangling all of the SDR content it's outputting.


The target market for this box doesn't know the difference between SDR, HDR, and DV....


----------



## harperhometheater

compnurd said:


> I doubt it. 90% of there customers probably have no clue what Dolby Vision is





mjwagner said:


> The target market for this box doesn't know the difference between SDR, HDR, and DV....


Seriously guys?  Give people some credit. They may not know all the technical details, but they should know what DV is and all the other formats, at least in a basic sense anyway just from shopping for a new TV and getting the BS Best Buy schpiel from the young, ignorant and impressionable salesman. 
(*I admit, sometimes I go into BB just to listen to them! )



espaeth said:


> Exactly. It also seems counterproductive to worry about DolbyVision support when the box is still locked on outputting HDR for everything when the display has HDR support. If people really know and care about DV support, they should absolutely care that the box is mangling all of the SDR content it's outputting.


If you saw the jaw dropping images I get with my AppleTV converting SDR to Dolby Vision LLDV with an HDFury Vertex2, I think you'd change that stance completely! I've already tested the AT&T Watch TV app through my phone's subscription on the AppleTV converting to LLDV and it's absolutely amazing visuals! So I am deducing if the Osprey could could also do this I could get it with AT&T TV. And before you say it, no I don't want to use it on my AppleTV. The experience isn't the same, especially for my wife.

If that's "_mangling_", then I say "kick my system's a$$ *NOW* and make it hurt"!!!


----------



## MysteryMan

harperhometheater said:


> Seriously guys?


Yes, seriously. I agree with compnurd and mjwagner. When it comes to audio/video most people aren't tech savvy.


----------



## swyman18

MysteryMan said:


> Yes, seriously. I agree with compnurd and mjwagner. When it comes to audio/video most people aren't tech savvy.


Yup... and the Osprey box has had its share of problems with DD5.1 audio too on live TV and on demand content, but most people will never notice.

Content that is actually DD5.1 is currently working fine, but it also forces stereo content to be in DD+. Therefore my AVR can't use simulated surround modes because it is still "seeing" a DD+ signal. So I get left/right channels only with no way to force it to simulate the surround.

Most people just care that they get sound at all.


----------



## lparsons21

swyman18 said:


> Yup... and the Osprey box has had its share of problems with DD5.1 audio too on live TV and on demand content, but most people will never notice.
> 
> Content that is actually DD5.1 is currently working fine, but it also forces stereo content to be in DD+. Therefore my AVR can't use simulated surround modes because it is still "seeing" a DD+ signal. So I get left/right channels only with no way to force it to simulate the surround.
> 
> Most people just care that they get sound at all.


Yep, that's exactly the issue with the way they are doing audio. But as you noted, most people won't notice because they aren't using a sound system capable of dealing with it.

Add in the horrible sluggishness of trying to use the voice commands, and now a slew of complaints about the green screen they are seeing and it is easy to see why the best place for that box is a closet with no power.


----------



## harperhometheater

MysteryMan said:


> Yes, seriously. I agree with compnurd and mjwagner. When it comes to audio/video most people aren't tech savvy.


I never said they had to be "tech savvy". They only have to know what it is, which was the statement, and they do.



lparsons21 said:


> .....Add in the horrible sluggishness of trying to use the voice commands, and now a slew of complaints about the green screen they are seeing and it is easy to see why the best place for that box is a closet with no power.


Where are you seeing these reports of green screens? I'm looking for a better source of info for research on this solution for my wife.

Hey don't put it in a closet, feel free to ship it to me, on my dime of course!


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> Where are you seeing these reports of green screens? I'm looking for a better source of info for research on this solution for my wife.
> 
> Hey don't put it in a closet, feel free to ship it to me, on my dime of course!


Some both in the AT&T forums, and the Facebook ATT TV and ATT TV Now groups. Not a ton of them, but all very recently and I got it on some rare occasions.

Nah, I'm not sending it to you! I'll test it now and then to see if ATT actually does something with it other than bug fixes.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Some both in the AT&T forums, and the Facebook ATT TV and ATT TV Now groups. Not a ton of them, but all very recently and I got it on some rare occasions.
> 
> Nah, I'm not sending it to you! I'll test it now and then to see if ATT actually does something with it other than bug fixes.


I saw like 3 complaints on Facebook and when I told one guy he should replace his hdmi cable he replied that he has DSL


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> I saw like 3 complaints on Facebook and when I told one guy he should replace his hdmi cable he replied that he has DSL


I've seen more than that, all very recently. And I saw it for myself and I've got 200Mb service so it doesn't seem to be an issue with internet speed. Maybe a recent update?


----------



## Phil T

Tried to watch the last season of Yellowstone on Paramount Network VOD via Roku and Apple TV with the AT&T TV App.
It was actually painful.
You cannot skip through commercials and it has to pause to load commercials. It cuts off the end of one episode to begin loading the next.
The picture does not fill the full 16x9 screen.
Even with a 300/10 internet plan and WI-FI 6 router, the App on the late model Apple TV lost connection and crashed mid show. On Roku we got a spinning circle.
Then we had to watch all the commercials again to FF back to where we were watching when it crashed.

If anyone thinks this is a replacement for a DVR they are smoking something.


----------



## lparsons21

VOD is certainly not a replacement for DVR, never has been and isn’t with streaming or cable/sat. Non-skippable ads are a fact of life with most VOD from the commercial channels.


----------



## harperhometheater

Phil T said:


> Tried to watch the last season of Yellowstone on Paramount Network VOD via Roku and Apple TV with the AT&T TV App.
> It was actually painful.
> You cannot skip through commercials and it has to pause to load commercials. It cuts off the end of one episode to begin loading the next.
> The picture does not fill the full 16x9 screen.
> Even with a 300/10 internet plan and WI-FI 6 router, the App on the late model Apple TV lost connection and crashed mid show. On Roku we got a spinning circle.
> Then we had to watch all the commercials again to FF back to where we were watching when it crashed.
> 
> If anyone thinks this is a replacement for a DVR they are smoking something.


And how do you know the issues weren't from the Paramount Network VOD server? Did you try another video from another network? Speaking of networks, are you 100% sure yours is working 100%?


----------



## Phil T

harperhometheater said:


> And how do you know the issues weren't from the Paramount Network VOD server? Did you try another video from another network? Speaking of networks, are you 100% sure yours is working 100%?


I have never had an issue watching Netflix, Disney, Amazon Prime or Peacock, where I watched the first two seasons of Yellowstone.
Yes, it is either Paramount or AT&T TV, but whatever it is it was not enjoyable.


----------



## swyman18

Do I think it is a replacement for a true DVR? No.

Am I still smoking something? Perhaps.


----------



## mjwagner

harperhometheater said:


> I never said they had to be "tech savvy". They only have to know what it is, which was the statement, and they do.
> 
> Where are you seeing these reports of green screens? I'm looking for a better source of info for research on this solution for my wife.
> 
> Hey don't put it in a closet, feel free to ship it to me, on my dime of course!


Um ok, seriously just last week we were at someone's house, an acquaintance, and they had a show playing on the tv. They were using a traditional cable service, one where the non-hd channels are in the tens, like channel 75, and the equivalent hd channels are in the hundreds, like channel 575, and they had on the non-hd channel. I said something like, why aren't you watching the hd version of that channel and they said...oh yeah, don't know, can't really tell the difference! Then I switched on the hd channel for them and then switched between the two. They said, yeah we see the difference but we normally don't bother....that's the target audience...!...and you would be surprised how many of them are out there..l


----------



## techguy88

mjwagner said:


> Um ok, seriously just last week we were at someone's house, an acquaintance, and they had a show playing on the tv. They were using a traditional cable service, one where the non-hd channels are in the tens, like channel 75, and the equivalent hd channels are in the hundreds, like channel 575, and they had on the non-hd channel. I said something like, why aren't you watching the hd version of that channel and they said...oh yeah, don't know, can't really tell the difference! Then I switched on the hd channel for them and then switched between the two. They said, yeah we see the difference but we normally don't bother....that's the target audience...!...and you would be surprised how many of them are out there..l


Well in all honestly most people like that are used to their channel numbers. The cable service model is outdated (I think Xfinity X1 will replace a SD channel for the HD version when the user goes to channel 75 for example.)

D*'s method was the easiest and user friendly where they were able to place both SD & HD feeds on the same channel number. AT&T TV with the AT&T TV device will appeal more to that group if they are trying to save money since the channel numbers on AT&T TV and DirecTV are the same. My grandmother actually adapted well to the AT&T TV device when I asked her to try it. She just doesn't like AT&T TV right now because they don't have feTV but D* does. She told me "when they [AT&T TV] gets my Perry Mason channel then I'll get it."


----------



## James Long

That is the "technology level" being targeted by AT&T TV ... the channels the customer wants organized by channels and linear schedules. On demand can be available, but that interface can't be the main way to watch TV.

4K UHD HDR DV doesn't matter so much to a customer base that would probably connect the AT&T box to a SD TV if it has those outputs.


----------



## harperhometheater

mjwagner said:


> Um ok, seriously just last week we were at someone's house, an acquaintance, and they had a show playing on the tv. They were using a traditional cable service, one where the non-hd channels are in the tens, like channel 75, and the equivalent hd channels are in the hundreds, like channel 575, and they had on the non-hd channel. I said something like, why aren't you watching the hd version of that channel and they said...oh yeah, don't know, can't really tell the difference! Then I switched on the hd channel for them and then switched between the two. They said, yeah we see the difference but we normally don't bother....that's the target audience...!...and you would be surprised how many of them are out there..l


Haha, touché! You just described my parents!


----------



## dmspen

I'm trying to cut my DISH. I have looked at a bunch of streaming services. I have a question about ATT Now. They want to force me to have a set top box, but every review says there is an app to use. When loading up the cart on ATT, there is no option to NOT get a set top box.
What is the truth of the matter? DO you need the box?


----------



## lparsons21

dmspen said:


> I'm trying to cut my DISH. I have looked at a bunch of streaming services. I have a question about ATT Now. They want to force me to have a set top box, but every review says there is an app to use. When loading up the cart on ATT, there is no option to NOT get a set top box.
> What is the truth of the matter? DO you need the box?


You are not looking at ATT Now, you are looking at ATT TV. ATT Now doesn't include the box nor can you even order one. The one you're looking at has the box and a contract. ATT TV Now doesn't have either.

Google ATT TV Now for the proper link.

And no, the box isn't even needed.


----------



## NashGuy

dmspen said:


> I'm trying to cut my DISH. I have looked at a bunch of streaming services. I have a question about ATT Now. They want to force me to have a set top box, but every review says there is an app to use. When loading up the cart on ATT, there is no option to NOT get a set top box.
> What is the truth of the matter? DO you need the box?


AT&T TV Now (no box provided or required, no contract, no up-front goodies like first-year discounts or gift cards):
AT&T TV NOW - Stream Live TV & On Demand, HBO Included

AT&T TV (box provided but not required to be used; 2-yr contract; discounted rates the first year; $200 Visa gift card at sign-up; 14-day money-back trial if you decide you don't like it):
AT&T TV - Live Streaming TV + Apps, Voice Controlled

Also, if you sign up for AT&T TV, you should first create a free Rakuten shopping account and then click through from their site. This will get you an additional $67.50 in cash back from Rakuten:
AT&T Video Up to $112.50 Cash Back + Coupons


----------



## mjwagner

dmspen said:


> I'm trying to cut my DISH. I have looked at a bunch of streaming services. I have a question about ATT Now. They want to force me to have a set top box, but every review says there is an app to use. When loading up the cart on ATT, there is no option to NOT get a set top box.
> What is the truth of the matter? DO you need the box?


For AT&T TV, while you are not required to actually use the box, if you want access to all the features that the service offers some of those features are only available currently when using the box. At least that is my understanding based on reading posts here. I do not have the service so have no first hand knowledge.


----------



## compnurd

mjwagner said:


> For AT&T TV, while you are not required to actually use the box, if you want access to all the features that the service offers some of those features are only available currently when using the box. At least that is my understanding based on reading posts here. I do not have the service so have no first hand knowledge.


Biggest thing is having channel numbers


----------



## techguy88

NashGuy said:


> AT&T TV Now (no box provided or required, no contract, no up-front goodies like first-year discounts or gift cards):
> AT&T TV NOW - Stream Live TV & On Demand, HBO Included
> 
> AT&T TV (box provided but not required to be used; 2-yr contract; discounted rates the first year; $200 Visa gift card at sign-up; 14-day money-back trial if you decide you don't like it):
> AT&T TV - Live Streaming TV + Apps, Voice Controlled
> 
> Also, if you sign up for AT&T TV, you should first create a free Rakuten shopping account and then click through from their site. This will get you an additional $67.50 in cash back from Rakuten:
> AT&T Video Up to $112.50 Cash Back + Coupons


Here is a general overview of all the new customer offers for all 3 AT&T's video services. (All this information was taken from their websites.) Note: If you are in an AT&T Internet / AT&T Fiber market there is usually an additional discount for the first 12 months by doing a bundle.


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Biggest thing is having channel numbers


While that is a big thing for some, it isn't for others. The other significant differences between the box and the apps on other devices is trick play with live TV on the box but not in the apps and voice controls of varying levels.

For instance on the ATT box you can do a whole lot of things with the ATT TV service via voice, but because of the sluggishness of getting it to finally be ready to accept voice it becomes more an irritant than a benefit.

On Roku devices voice control actually works quicker and better IMO with the ATT TV app. On FireTV and AppleTV voice controls with the ATT TV app are almost non-existent, in general just 'pause' and 'play'.

IMO, in general if you almost always stay on the ATT TV service itself the box is very much a plus as it works fine with that service. With other apps on the box, it is hit or miss a bit. In general it is very slow to load other apps but once inside the app things work pretty well. One oddity I've noticed on The CW and CW Seed apps is that when an ad plays, when it goes back to the show you get audio but no video, and it is very consistent about doing that.

Audio issues depend as much on what kind of audio equipment you use as it does from what comes from the ATT box. If using the TV speakers or only a simple soundbar, there aren't any appreciable audio issues.

But for higher end soundbars and AVR/speaker setups things can be much different. The ATT box always tells the equipment connected it is using DD+ even if the source material is only stereo and that can cause the audio to be odd sounding and usually means no rear speaker action.

A couple examples...

With my Samsung KW-950 5.1.4 soundbar audio that is actually DD5.1 or DD+ it sounds fine and all speakers kick in properly. But when the source material is stereo the Samsung cannot layer DD when it thinks the input is DD+. That's a limit of the Samsung as much as anything else.

With my Nakamichi Soundwafe 7.1.4 that can layer over DD+ the audio from stereo sources is just odd. Notably the rear speakers play much lower volumes than with actual DD5.1 or DD+ and produce mostly annoying low volume sounds.

Note these audio oddities don't exist on other devices that I have tried, including FireTV, AppleTV and Roku devices.


----------



## harsh

harperhometheater said:


> Anyone know if the Osprey box supports Dolby Vision yet, specifically the Sony TV LLDV version?


It doesn't but it does support HLG and that's perhaps more important than DolbyVision or HDR10+ going forward.


----------



## harperhometheater

harsh said:


> It doesn't but it does support HLG and that's perhaps more important than DolbyVision or HDR10+ going forward.


Thanks for the info, but I've tested both HLG and DV fairly extensively and I can't agree with that statement. Dolby Vision is easily and clearly much more superior than HLG and it's a travesty that this box doesn't have it.


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> Thanks for the info, but I've tested both HLG and DV fairly extensively and I can't agree with that statement. Dolby Vision is easily and clearly much more superior than HLG and it's a travesty that this box doesn't have it.


Yes for content that is mastered in it. However Dolby Vision has not been used for Live Broadcasts yet and may never be And it is hardly a travesty this box doesn't have it It like every box is not the one box everyone seems to think exists

the box exists to make it easier for people to transition to a streaming TV service. You want Dolby Vision get a box designed for that


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Yes for content that is mastered in it. However Dolby Vision has not been used for Live Broadcasts yet and may never be And it is hardly a travesty this box doesn't have it It like every box is not the one box everyone seems to think exists
> 
> the box exists to make it easier for people to transition to a streaming TV service. You want Dolby Vision get a box designed for that


Actually there is two boxes that could be the 'one' box.

AppleTV4K - all the streaming apps are there and plenty of RAM to store apps on if needed. Downside is the crappy remote. All the various video formats are supported too.

FireTV 4K stick and Cube - all the streaming apps are there though you have to sideload HBO Max & Peacock. All the various video formats are supported too.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Actually there is two boxes that could be the 'one' box.
> 
> AppleTV4K - all the streaming apps are there and plenty of RAM to store apps on if needed. Downside is the crappy remote. All the various video formats are supported too.
> 
> FireTV 4K stick and Cube - all the streaming apps are there though you have to sideload HBO Max & Peacock. All the various video formats are supported too.


And you gave reasons for both why they are not And ATV does not support HDR10+
And the average person is not sideloading apps either


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> And you gave reasons for both why they are not And ATV does not support HDR10+
> And the average person is not sideloading apps either


That ATV remote is a non-issue as there are substitutes that work fine though they all miss Siri support. IMO, voice controls are a gimmick to add perceived value, I've found few people use voice for much more than search.

And try as I might I didn't find much in the way of HDR10+ support out there though there is some.

As to sideloading, well opinions vary. If your definition of 'average' user is one to do pretty much nothing that isn't just plug 'n play, then you're right, they don't sideload.

But more and more I'm reading from people in various forums about streaming in general, sideloading is something they are willing to try. And of course, if the user doesn't sub to HBO Max or Peacock it is really a non-issue.

The bigger issue with the 'one box' solution is the app writers. It seems they can't get their stuff together to write an app that works the same on all platforms. It certainly could be done, but it just isn't happening yet.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> That ATV remote is a non-issue as there are substitutes that work fine though they all miss Siri support. IMO, voice controls are a gimmick to add perceived value, I've found few people use voice for much more than search.
> 
> And try as I might I didn't find much in the way of HDR10+ support out there though there is some.
> 
> As to sideloading, well opinions vary. If your definition of 'average' user is one to do pretty much nothing that isn't just plug 'n play, then you're right, they don't sideload.
> 
> But more and more I'm reading from people in various forums about streaming in general, sideloading is something they are willing to try. And of course, if the user doesn't sub to HBO Max or Peacock it is really a non-issue.
> 
> The bigger issue with the 'one box' solution is the app writers. It seems they can't get their stuff together to write an app that works the same on all platforms. It certainly could be done, but it just isn't happening yet.


It is an issue. Because again Average Joe is not remote hunting. I would also not equate a few hundred people on message boards being the driving force on certain subjects. As identified on this forum over the years Most people on here probably have the most complicated Directv/Dish Set ups. and represent .01 of the Installed User base..

and to be blunt for someone calling voice controls a gimmick you give alot of **** to the Osprey Box about it.. If it is a gimmick, who cares if it stutters a little

Amazon has sold millions of Fire Stick/Cubes.. The amount of people sideloading is probably around .01 of the base..


----------



## lparsons21

Voice controls are a gimmick. I diddle with them now and then because I’m a bit of a geek. Still waiting for actual good voice controls to come along.


----------



## mjwagner

This is a horse that has been beaten to death but it’s all about the target demographic...and it’s not folks who care about, or even know about, DV/HDR/HLG/voice control/etc/etc. For the target demo what this device does is magic...LOL.


----------



## harperhometheater

compnurd said:


> Yes for content that is mastered in it. However Dolby Vision has not been used for Live Broadcasts yet and may never be And it is hardly a travesty this box doesn't have it It like every box is not the one box everyone seems to think exists
> 
> the box exists to make it easier for people to transition to a streaming TV service. You want Dolby Vision get a box designed for that


Nope, even with HDR10 and SDR converted to DV/LLDV on devices like the AppleTV 4K and TiVo Stream 4K, it looks light years better than standard SDR or HDR10.

It *IS* a travesty because I can't think of another recent Android TV based box that DOESN'T have DV support.

No other box integrates the main IP Video source (in this case AT&T TV) into its core, GUI or overlay, otherwise I would "get a box designed for that"!


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> Nope, even with HDR10 and SDR converted to DV/LLDV on devices like the AppleTV 4K and TiVo Stream 4K, it looks light years better than standard SDR or HDR10.
> 
> It *IS* a travesty because I can't think of another recent Android TV based box that DOESN'T have DV support.
> 
> No other box integrates the main IP Video source (in this case AT&T TV) into its core, GUI or overlay, otherwise I would "get a box designed for that"!


it is not a travesty because again the box is designed to watch live tv as it's first job. There are zero channels on ATT TV supporting 4K or HDR period. So there is zero point right now for anything other than HLG which is the format used for Live TV if the service ever gets a channel supporting it

And again you are still not coming to grasps here that you can love on DV all you want it isn't coming to Live TV. HLG is the format that everyone is using for Live HDR


----------



## harperhometheater

compnurd said:


> it is not a travesty because again the box is designed to watch live tv as it's first job. There are zero channels on ATT TV supporting 4K or HDR period. So there is zero point right now for anything other than HLG which is the format used for Live TV if the service ever gets a channel supporting it
> 
> And again you are still not coming to grasps here that you can love on DV all you want it isn't coming to Live TV. HLG is the format that everyone is using for Live HDR


You are "_not coming to grasps_" that it is an Android based *ANDROIDTV* machine, hence apps, hence apps that support *DOLBY VISION*.


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> You are "_not coming to grasps_" that it is an Android based *ANDROIDTV* machine, hence apps, hence apps that support *DOLBY VISION*.


Oye


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> You are "_not coming to grasps_" that it is an Android based *ANDROIDTV* machine, hence apps, hence apps that support *DOLBY VISION*.


While I would like for that box to be better, in ATT's thinking it makes perfect sense to them to have the box work with their service really well with just a slight nod to running other apps.

Just as they point out that ATT TV is not a competitor to YTTV, Sling and others in their mind. So they do what Tivo, DirecTV and Dish have done, allow for a few 2nd rate versions of other apps but not even attempt to make their stuff a 'one box'.

AndroidTV is a distant player in streaming in case you hadn't noticed. The big players are Amazon and Roku followed by Apple. And they have boxes that can be the one box depending on what services one wants to subscribe to.


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> and to be blunt for someone calling voice controls a gimmick you give alot of **** to the Osprey Box about it.. If it is a gimmick, who cares if it stutters a little


Let's come back to this for a moment. If the problem was that it just 'stutters a little', it wouldn't be a big deal. But the fact is it doesn't just stutter a little, it stutters more than anything else it does! Push the button and wait for it to get around to being ready to accept input, then wait while it decides what to do with the command and both waits are long enough that in general, people just won't use it. It is by far there worst working Google Assistant implementation I've ever seen.

It overshadows any other issue with voice controls that exist. As with other voice control implementations, what you can do via voice is app/box dependent. Literally none of the voice control implementations have any consistency in use.

Hence, a gimmick!


----------



## harsh

harperhometheater said:


> You are "_not coming to grasps_" that it is an Android based *ANDROIDTV* machine, hence apps, hence apps that support *DOLBY VISION*.


Part of the magic of Android TV is that it does what it can on platforms of differing capability. The Osprey isn't the only Android TV device that doesn't support DolbyVision. That the Osprey has been in the works for a few years (the prototype user manual is dated 10/2017) gives us insight as to why it doesn't support fancier modes. I suspect that if there were enough interest in DV overall, pass-through might be enabled as it is on the AirTV.

If you really feel a burning need to take a company to task about Dolby Vision, talk to the people who offer the most popular brand name in televisions (32% of the market).

I expect that if HLG content was as painstakingly encoded as DV minimally requires, it would look noticeably better.


----------



## lparsons21

The Osprey box hasn’t really had any changes since the beta days 3 years ago other than bug fixes. Essentially no better than the current $50 AndroidTV boxes that are out there now. The only differences being case shape and the ATT TV app, and of course the $120 price tag.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Let's come back to this for a moment. If the problem was that it just 'stutters a little', it wouldn't be a big deal. But the fact is it doesn't just stutter a little, it stutters more than anything else it does! Push the button and wait for it to get around to being ready to accept input, then wait while it decides what to do with the command and both waits are long enough that in general, people just won't use it. It is by far there worst working Google Assistant implementation I've ever seen.
> 
> It overshadows any other issue with voice controls that exist. As with other voice control implementations, what you can do via voice is app/box dependent. Literally none of the voice control implementations have any consistency in use.
> 
> Hence, a gimmick!


You may want to do a factory reset or something. I don't have those issues at all. I hold the button down. Say how's the weather and poof weather


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> You may want to do a factory reset or something. I don't have those issues at all. I hold the button down. Say how's the weather and poof weather


Thanks for the suggestion. I've tried that in the past and it didn't make a difference. Oddly the performance of the Assistant is worse than it was when I first got the box and hasn't gotten better though I've done a couple factory resets.


----------



## lparsons21

Well now, this is strange. I’ve always held the mic button down to do the Google Assistance. But my finger slipped off the button and it made it work much quicker. Tried a half dozen times just push/release and then talk and it is quicker.

I swear the instructions says hold the button down.


----------



## mjwagner

lparsons21 said:


> While I would like for that box to be better, in ATT's thinking it makes perfect sense to them to have the box work with their service really well with just a slight nod to running other apps.
> 
> Just as they point out that ATT TV is not a competitor to YTTV, Sling and others in their mind. So they do what Tivo, DirecTV and Dish have done, allow for a few 2nd rate versions of other apps but not even attempt to make their stuff a 'one box'.
> 
> AndroidTV is a distant player in streaming in case you hadn't noticed. The big players are Amazon and Roku followed by Apple. And they have boxes that can be the one box depending on what services one wants to subscribe to.


It's more than just the services you want to subscribe to, it's feature/function as well. Currently no one makes a single box solution that provides all the feature/ function I need/want. It's why at each of my primary viewing locations I have a Nvidia Shield, ATV 4 k, and FireTV Stick 4k. I wish there were a single box solution...


----------



## lparsons21

mjwagner said:


> It's more than just the services you want to subscribe to, it's feature/function as well. Currently no one makes a single box solution that provides all the feature/ function I need/want. It's why at each of my primary viewing locations I have a Nvidia Shield, ATV 4 k, and FireTV Stick 4k. I wish there were a single box solution...


Yeah, features and functionality do make a difference. In my case I've been using the FireTV Cube 2nd Gen almost all the time. It has all the services I sub to, the remote is really good and it is quick. I use an AirTV Anywhere 4-tuner OTA DVR with it. Could use my ATV4K but I hate the remote so tend not to. The unified search works as good as anyone's, and just like others, doesn't cover all the services. Notable is that it has an app for AppleTV+ but like all but the ATV4K, it doesn't do 4K or Atmos.

But for all my *****ing about the ATT box, I really like the things it can do even if it does most of them slowly. It has a very good unified search too. Just a couple things added to it could make it the one box.


----------



## James Long

lparsons21 said:


> Well now, this is strange. I've always held the mic button down to do the Google Assistance. But my finger slipped off the button and it made it work much quicker. Tried a half dozen times just push/release and then talk and it is quicker.
> 
> I swear the instructions says hold the button down.


Different equipment, but I hold down the button - speak - and release the button when I am finished speaking for the device I have with a button. Talking after the button release is ignored. My Google Nest device does not have a button so I just speak after saying the wake up phrase. Perhaps AT&T's implementation is listening after the button is released.


----------



## lparsons21

Yeah, it seems it is listening without holding the button down. Push/release button and you get an onscreen indication it is listening.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, it seems it is listening without holding the button down. Push/release button and you get an onscreen indication it is listening.


Yeh and it times out after a few seconds if you don't say anything


----------



## harperhometheater

harsh said:


> If you really feel a burning need to take a company to task about Dolby Vision, *talk to the people who offer the most popular brand name in televisions (32% of the market).*
> .


Oh believe me, Samsung doesn't get a pass from me either!


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Yeh and it times out after a few seconds if you don't say anything


Seems to be hit or miss for that. Most times it does as you say, goes away in a few seconds if you don't speak, other times it just shows the visual indication but isn't actually listening. Odd.

The last couple of days I've been using the ATT Osprey box almost exclusively. Yes, it is laggy, even using the ATT TV service. To be honest, if I didn't have both a FireTV Cube and ATV4K I probably wouldn't notice it as much.

Some app oddities I've noticed.

Hulu - Can't use any version newer than 2.1.3 and you have to sideload it. Not a daunting task IMO. Otherwise it works fine.

The CW and CW Seed - Both these apps, when they come back from an ad (non-skippable on these), it only gives audio, no video. Fix is to stop the playing and start again. Bit of a PITA. It should be noted that you don't actually need to use The CW app since you can get to the same shows with the Discover ->Networks->The CW, with the same non-skippable ads but it works correctly. Unfortunately CW Seed isn't there.

Amazon Prime - you have to sideload it, but it runs the latest version of the app just fine.

AppleTV+ - as with all Android devices, there is no good way to view this. That's not Android's fault, it is Apple's as they chose not to support Android with this service. Supposedly you can get around it by using a web browser to get to the service and casting that, and I've read a very few articles that claim you can use Firefox browser on the box as well, but I can't find any way to load Firefox on it.


----------



## lparsons21

A little more on apps...

If you don’t want to sideload, then Chromecast can be a good alternative. Both Amazon Prime Video and Hulu’s latest versions are out there for Android and iOS/PadOS and can be casted to the Osprey box. And in fact the Osprey is an excellent Chromecast device. Downside is all controls, other than possibly volume, has to be done on the device that you are casting from.

For AppleTV+ this can’t be done because the app only supports AirPlay. You can use a browser on your computer to go to tv.apple.com, sign in and cast from there. Note that casting from an iPad browser won’t work for this, nor will Chrome from an Android device. Didn’t test with any other browser.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> But for all my *****ing about the ATT box, I really like the things it can do even if it does most of them slowly. It has a very good unified search too. Just a couple things added to it could make it the one box.


If AT&T TV's software was running on the same hardware as Sling's AirTV Mini (which hit the market about the same time last year), it would probably be quite a bit faster. The SoC in the AT&T TV box is just dated at this point. I expect AT&T to eventually switch to a newer model box but who knows when that will be. Shouldn't be hard at all -- basically just take Google's latest hardware reference design (as Sling, Verizon and TiVo all did), throw your Android TV software on there and maybe tweak it a bit to optimize for the faster SoC.


----------



## techguy88

With some Android TV devices (and the new Chromecast with Google TV) you can change some settings in the Developer Menu.

If you go to the Developer Options (or Developer Menu) under the "Drawing" section you will see 4 options ending with the term "Scale" (Chromecast with Google TV only has 3 options ending with the term "Scale") 

The options ending with "Scale" (like Window animation scale, Transition animation scale, etc.) will let you turn the Animation completely off or increase it by 10x. On the AT&T TV device if you select "Animation scale .5x" for each of the "Scale" options it will make the AT&T TV device (and any other Android TV device) perform a bit faster than normal. Do not select "Animation off" for any of the "Scale" options as the Guide will not work properly. "Animation scale .5x" is the lowest setting you can select for Osprey and retain full functionality.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> A little more on apps...
> 
> If you don't want to sideload, then Chromecast can be a good alternative. Both Amazon Prime Video and Hulu's latest versions are out there for Android and iOS/PadOS and can be casted to the Osprey box. And in fact the Osprey is an excellent Chromecast device. Downside is all controls, other than possibly volume, has to be done on the device that you are casting from.


Are you sure that HDMI-CEC doesn't allow you to use the AT&T TV remote to pause and resume play on video cast to the box via the Chromecast protocol? I was able to do that using my TV's remote with an actual Chromecast dongle I used to have. (However, play/pause was all I could do. No rewind, FF, etc.)

https://www.howtogeek.com/215061/how-to-use-a-physical-remote-control-with-your-chromecast/

It's possible this doesn't work with Android TV devices using the Chromecast protocol, though. They can behave a bit differently than an actual Chromecast.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Are you sure that HDMI-CEC doesn't allow you to use the AT&T TV remote to pause and resume play on video cast to the box via the Chromecast protocol? I was able to do that using my TV's remote with an actual Chromecast dongle I used to have. (However, play/pause was all I could do. No rewind, FF, etc.)
> 
> https://www.howtogeek.com/215061/how-to-use-a-physical-remote-control-with-your-chromecast/
> 
> It's possible this doesn't work with Android TV devices using the Chromecast protocol, though. They can behave a bit differently than an actual Chromecast.


Actually I never did much more than cast a couple times to see that it worked. As for controlling, I was going off some things I read. Just tested and yes, you can control volume with the Osprey remote, and you can pause/play, rewind, FF but with REW and FF you don't get much of an indication of what's going on. No timeline, no thumbnail just basically a blank screen. Essentially making REW and FF worthless IMO.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> If AT&T TV's software was running on the same hardware as Sling's AirTV Mini (which hit the market about the same time last year), it would probably be quite a bit faster. The SoC in the AT&T TV box is just dated at this point. I expect AT&T to eventually switch to a newer model box but who knows when that will be. Shouldn't be hard at all -- basically just take Google's latest hardware reference design (as Sling, Verizon and TiVo all did), throw your Android TV software on there and maybe tweak it a bit to optimize for the faster SoC.


Yeah it is a 3 year old box running a fairly old version of AndroidTV. While ATT could refresh the box and it is probably overdue for that, there hasn't been any talk anywhere about them doing it.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah it is a 3 year old box running a fairly old version of AndroidTV. While ATT could refresh the box and it is probably overdue for that, there hasn't been any talk anywhere about them doing it.


At this point, I would expect AT&T to wait until the new Amlogic S905X4 chipset comes down in price a bit. It supports hardware decoding for the new AV1 codec and would be a bit faster than the third-gen SoC in the new Chromecast with Google TV (which features an AI accelerator for faster processing of Google Assistant voice commands and queries versus earlier chips).

Maybe fall 2021? That would be two years after the soft launch of AT&T TV in select markets.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> At this point, I would expect AT&T to wait until the new Amlogic S905X4 chipset comes down in price a bit. It supports hardware decoding for the new AV1 codec and would be a bit faster than the third-gen SoC in the new Chromecast with Google TV (which features an AI accelerator for faster processing of Google Assistant voice commands and queries versus earlier chips).
> 
> Maybe fall 2021? That would be two years after the soft launch of AT&T TV in select markets.


Given that the current model @$120 is a poorer performer than many of the $50 Android based sticks these days, they could get off the dime and do it now.

While it may be 2 years after the soft launch, this is still a 3+ year old design that has seen little in the way of anything other than bug fixes. Well, they did at least give it a new remote.


----------



## lparsons21

techguy88 said:


> With some Android TV devices (and the new Chromecast with Google TV) you can change some settings in the Developer Menu.
> 
> If you go to the Developer Options (or Developer Menu) under the "Drawing" section you will see 4 options ending with the term "Scale" (Chromecast with Google TV only has 3 options ending with the term "Scale")
> 
> The options ending with "Scale" (like Window animation scale, Transition animation scale, etc.) will let you turn the Animation completely off or increase it by 10x. On the AT&T TV device if you select "Animation scale .5x" for each of the "Scale" options it will make the AT&T TV device (and any other Android TV device) perform a bit faster than normal. Do not select "Animation off" for any of the "Scale" options as the Guide will not work properly. "Animation scale .5x" is the lowest setting you can select for Osprey and retain full functionality.


Thanks for reposting that info, I had forgotten about that and since I had done a factory reset somewhere along the way, those settings had gone back to the defaults.

Made the changes and there is some improvement in performance though not by a whole lot.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Given that the current model @$120 is a poorer performer than many of the $50 Android based sticks these days, they could get off the dime and do it now.
> 
> While it may be 2 years after the soft launch, this is still a 3+ year old design that has seen little in the way of anything other than bug fixes. Well, they did at least give it a new remote.


They would piss off alot of whatever existing customers they have if they launched a new box 7 months after the national launch and they all paid 120 for additional boxes. I would say we are a good year from a new box


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> They would piss off alot of whatever existing customers they have if they launched a new box 7 months after the national launch and they all paid 120 for additional boxes. I would say we are a good year from a new box


Timing and pissing off customers don't seem to be significant considerations with AT&T's streaming initiatives.


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> They would piss off alot of whatever existing customers they have if they launched a new box 7 months after the national launch and they all paid 120 for additional boxes. I would say we are a good year from a new box


While I have seen some posts about people buying additional boxes, it is a very small minority. The box just isn't good enough to entice many to want a 2nd or 3rd one IMO.


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> Timing and pissing off customers don't seem to be significant considerations with AT&T's streaming initiatives.


Amen bro!! AT&T doesn't seem to factor in the customers much into their business equations. Gonna be interesting to see how many drop ATT TV when the 1st year anniversary hits and their bills nearly double.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> While I have seen some posts about people buying additional boxes, it is a very small minority. The box just isn't good enough to entice many to want a 2nd or 3rd one IMO.


Either way.. No way are they going to provide new boxes to replace everyone's free one And same boat. Come out with a new box now and you just piss everyone off who signed up in the last 7 months


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> Either way.. No way are they going to provide new boxes to replace everyone's free one And same boat. Come out with a new box now and you just piss everyone off who signed up in the last 7 months


Oh, I can't see them ever replacing all the exist first-gen boxes for free. I just think, at some point, they'll stop giving out and selling the current model box for a newer, faster model (but likely keep the exact same remote). If they were really being generous, maybe they'd offer one new model box for free to existing customers near the end of their two-year contract, as a thank-you and incentive to stick with the service.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> Oh, I can't see them ever replacing all the exist first-gen boxes for free. I just think, at some point, they'll stop giving out and selling the current model box for a newer, faster model (but likely keep the exact same remote). If they were really being generous, maybe they'd offer one new model box for free to existing customers near the end of their two-year contract, as a thank-you and incentive to stick with the service.


And since it only launched nationwide 7 months ago.. Long away till the end of those first years


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> And since it only launched nationwide 7 months ago.. Long away till the end of those first years


Not so long for the end of the 1st year incentives and the nearly doubling of the cost. Personally I think it is the next bloodbath ATT will take.


----------



## lparsons21

For the last few days I’ve been using the AT&T Osprey box for my streaming. Only app missing for me is Apple’s TV+ but since that is a seldom watched app it isn’t a big deal for now.

Did the tweaks and it does speed things up a bit, nothing really fast, but less sluggish. Google Assistant is still an issue but less so. Most times it works fine but on some occasions it just goes nuts and either never actually responds or won’t go away automatically as it should.

As to speed of operation, well here’s my opinion of the boxes I have with AT&T app on them in order of speed/stability, best listed first.

FireTV Cube 2nd Gen - quickest of the bunch and very stable. Voice controls beyond pause/play are not there and trick play only shows a timeline to give an indication of what you are doing, no thumbnail at all.

AppleTV4K - Slower than the FireTV Cube but not horribly so. The Apple Remote isn’t great with the app, nor actually great at all IMO. Voice is there for pause/play but otherwise not. Trick play works and it tries to give an indication by twiddling the whole screen instead of using a thumbnail, and the app can’t keep up and often crashes if you use it much. A problem has recently showed up for some, including me, in that sometimes the AT&T TV app will give a black screen with audio. The only temporary fix is to do a restart of the AppleTV itself.

Roku Ultra - Just slightly slower than the ATV4K. Remote better than the ATV4K but not quite as good as the FireTV’s IMO. Trick play shows a thumbnail and voice commands are there for trick play.

AT&T Osprey box - slowest of all by a fairly big margin. Somewhat offset by the features it brings to the operation of the AT&T TV service that are not included in the apps for other devices. The remote is a big plus as it makes working with the AT&T TV service very good. In other apps the remote is good enough. The overall sluggishness of the box is the main irritant.

For info, I have a subscription to SlingTV Blue+Total TV to get the NFL stuff as well as a few other channels, and I use an AirTV Anywhere OTA DVR with it. Works well and voice controls work for pause/play/trick play though more sluggishly than with the AT&T TV app.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Not so long for the end of the 1st year incentives and the nearly doubling of the cost. Personally I think it is the next bloodbath ATT will take.


Well, it can only be a bloodbath if there are actually a whole lot of current AT&T TV subscribers who could walk away. And I don't really know if that's the case. Anyone seen figures on how many have signed up for the service so far? I'm guessing sign-ups have been lower than expected due to the pandemic.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Well, it can only be a bloodbath if there are actually a whole lot of current AT&T TV subscribers who could walk away. And I don't really know if that's the case. Anyone seen figures on how many have signed up for the service so far? I'm guessing sign-ups have been lower than expected due to the pandemic.


I've not seen any subscriber numbers for ATT TV anywhere, not even wild guesses. So yeah, depending on how well they have done in getting people to sign up will tell us how many possibly will drop them when the price jumps. Percentage wise I would actually expect it to be about 20%+ but that is total guessing.

For me it is almost a sure thing that I will cancel on the anniversary. Currently I have a Sling Blue+Total TV going until December to get the NFL stuff my son wanted as well as a few other channels I'm enjoying. That's got all the content I would want and there's lots of duplication with the AT&T service.

The difference? After the ATT TV anniversary=

Sling Blue+Total TV = $50/month, no DD5.1 and PQ is slightly worse but not bad at all.

ATT TV Entertainment = $93/month, has DD5.1, slightly better PQ but fewer channels and no NFL or Golf. As I've said before, cancelling at the end of the year makes the average monthly for the 1st year $57/month.


----------



## harperhometheater

NashGuy said:


> Well, it can only be a bloodbath if there are actually a whole lot of current AT&T TV subscribers who could walk away. And I don't really know if that's the case. Anyone seen figures on how many have signed up for the service so far? I'm guessing sign-ups have been lower than expected due to the pandemic.


I would think the pandemic would raise numbers for things like TV subscriptions since people are spending way more time in their homes in front of the boob tube. Plus, of all the "cable tv style" options out there for those who want that, AT&T TV is the safest since they'll ship the equipment to you for self install with no cable pulls, dishes, ground blocks, splitter and connector changes needed since all you need is an existing internet service, which of course most if not all do.


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> I would think the pandemic would raise numbers for things like TV subscriptions since people are spending way more time in their homes in front of the boob tube. Plus, of all the "cable tv style" options out there for those who want that, AT&T TV is the safest since they'll ship the equipment to you for self install with no cable pulls, dishes, ground blocks, splitter and connector changes needed since all you need is an existing internet service, which of course most if not all do.


Yep, AT&T TV for all the warts with the way it is marketed/sold, is the easiest and safest way to bring someone to streaming. The box isn't great, but the remote makes up for some of that and also makes working with the app similar to cable/sat remotes so the learning curve is shortened. And the UI is similar to cable/sat too.

And they have videos that are front and center at first, to show exactly how to use it all. And probably one of the simplest box setups I've run across in a long time.


----------



## James Long

harperhometheater said:


> I would think the pandemic would raise numbers for things like TV subscriptions since people are spending way more time in their homes in front of the boob tube. Plus, of all the "cable tv style" options out there for those who want that, AT&T TV is the safest since they'll ship the equipment to you for self install with no cable pulls, dishes, ground blocks, splitter and connector changes needed since all you need is an existing internet service, which of course most if not all do.


AT&T is competing against no commitment services at a time when there is a lot of uncertainty. Statistically, Americans have made less money and have less to spend. There are enough other options that a high priced package with a commitment can be avoided.


----------



## lparsons21

James Long said:


> AT&T is competing against no commitment services at a time when there is a lot of uncertainty. Statistically, Americans have made less money and have less to spend. There are enough other options that a high priced package with a commitment can be avoided.


Sure they 'can' be avoided but we don't actually know enough to tell how many have signed up for ATT's TV offering. And of course, with the way corporate speak is done, we may never actually know.

But you make a good point, their subscription pricing is a little high for 1st year and downright ridiculous after that.


----------



## James Long

My post was in response to the thought that the pandemic would raise TV subscription rates. Statistically, that did not happen.
Traditional Pay TV lost 5-6 million subscribers last year and 3.4 million in the first half of this year. AT&T's new offering fits "traditional".

Consumer income is down this year. Consumer spending is down this year. AT&T has chosen the harder path.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> My post was in response to the thought that the pandemic would raise TV subscription rates. Statistically, that did not happen.
> Traditional Pay TV lost 5-6 million subscribers last year and 3.4 million in the first half of this year. AT&T's new offering fits "traditional".
> 
> Consumer income is down this year. Consumer spending is down this year. AT&T has chosen the harder path.


Yeah. And consider that one of the major drivers of traditional pay TV is sports, which have been disrupted somewhat by the pandemic. (And ratings for the sports that have taken place have largely been lower than normal, I think.)

Beyond that, you have to keep in mind that AT&T TV is largely going to be sold in conjunction with AT&T Fiber/Internet, and I'm not sure how many folks want an installer coming in their home right now. (Sure, there are some DTV folks shifting over to it but I think AT&T TV is primarily a replacement for Uverse TV at this point.) Also, probably not as many folks are walking into AT&T Stores lately either, where they might be exposed to the new TV service and play around with it in person.

So 2020 just turned out to be a really unfortunate time to try and launch this new service.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> So 2020 just turned out to be a really unfortunate time to try and launch this new service.


I have to agree with that. Unfortunately I didn't figure that out before I signed up! 

These days I watch very little on the AT&T TV service since there is so little in the way of new, original stuff on live TV channels. Incessant reruns are nearly the new normal for all of them. A few inane game and contest shows don't float my boat, and as you noted, sports are almost dead in the water.

I could get all I watch right now without a live TV service at all. Wouldn't be quite as convenient but not all that daunting either.


----------



## harperhometheater

James Long said:


> My post was in response to the thought that the pandemic would raise TV subscription rates. Statistically, that did not happen.
> Traditional Pay TV lost 5-6 million subscribers last year and 3.4 million in the first half of this year. AT&T's new offering fits "traditional".
> 
> Consumer income is down this year. Consumer spending is down this year. AT&T has chosen the harder path.


I wasn't saying it would raise their subscription number rates. I was saying it's the easiest of all the "cable tv type", meaning traditional services as you say. So of all of _those_ services, it's the easiest to get as a new subscriber because you don't need a tech to come in home to install it and you don't have to go into a store or service center to pick up the equipment and you don't have to run any new cable lines or replace any equipment like splitters, ground blocks, cables, etc., as long as you have decent internet anyway. Which most if not all do, especially now with so many folks stuck inside living on their internet all day, most times for work and pleasure both!


----------



## lparsons21

OK, back to the AT&T service itself... 

After reading in some other threads that talked about unified search, among other things, I did some voice and text searching on the ATT box, Roku Ultra, FireTV and AppleTV.

ATT’s is the most odd. Voice search doesn’t always pull up something, but the same search typed in does. I’m guessing, but I suspect that voice search is Google Assistant and text typed search is using something else.

But it isn’t much of a unified search regardless. It uses Google Assistant for voice and if you ‘search for xxx’ it sometimes will point to an app, or buy from Google, but often as not it just gives lots of info about the search term.

Roku seems to do a very good job with search across apps/sources though it isn’t perfect. In fact that is where the rest of the boxes fall too. They all do searches on app/sources but which ones can be different. Just another of those irritants that make the various boxes/apps not equal in lots of ways.

AppleTV is probably the best of the bunch in unified search as it seems to cover more apps than the others, notably missing Netflix. But even Netflix can be listed as a source, but it is VERY hit or miss. For example. Searching for ‘Lost in Space’ shows a few places to get it, including Netflix. Searching for ‘Queen of the South’ only shows buy from Apple though it is in Netflix.

Up Next of one sort or another is on both AppleTV and FireTV but the apps/sources it works for varies between the two. And for the most part, none of them will show for live TV shows from any live streaming service. That seems to be limited to search while you are in the app itself.


----------



## swyman18

So, my 7 year old regular HD tv is beginning to die and I will start looking for a new TV. From what I can tell, pretty much all new TVs are HDR right? Is that forced HDR issue with the Osprey box still a problem?

I don’t really want to junk the Osprey box, since it works pretty well for me and I do like the remote. But if the picture is going to look like crap because of the forced HDR, I may not have a choice.


----------



## compnurd

swyman18 said:


> So, my 7 year old regular HD tv is beginning to die and I will start looking for a new TV. From what I can tell, pretty much all new TVs are HDR right? Is that forced HDR issue with the Osprey box still a problem?
> 
> I don't really want to junk the Osprey box, since it works pretty well for me and I do like the remote. But if the picture is going to look like crap because of the forced HDR, I may not have a choice.


Yes the forced HDR issue still exists for a majority of Android TV 8 boxes And yes most medium to higher end TV's have HDR. However the higher end you go the more you can control and basically turn off the forced HDR. My LGOLED allowed me to change the color space and such to turn it down. Cheaper TVs won't let you do that


----------



## lparsons21

swyman18 said:


> So, my 7 year old regular HD tv is beginning to die and I will start looking for a new TV. From what I can tell, pretty much all new TVs are HDR right? Is that forced HDR issue with the Osprey box still a problem?
> 
> I don't really want to junk the Osprey box, since it works pretty well for me and I do like the remote. But if the picture is going to look like crap because of the forced HDR, I may not have a choice.


I thought I had read somewhere fairly recently that it was now turned off, but I can't confirm that info with a google search.

That said, on my Sony X900E 75" TV the only thing I notice with the Osprey box connected is that the video appears a little darker than it does with either FireTV or AppleTV. I know others have posted complaints about the HDR issue though. And I thought I read that some TVs have the ability to have HDR turned off, so that may be the solution.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> I thought I had read somewhere fairly recently that it was now turned off, but I can't confirm that info with a google search.
> 
> That said, on my Sony X900E 75" TV the only thing I notice with the Osprey box connected is that the video appears a little darker than it does with either FireTV or AppleTV. I know others have posted complaints about the HDR issue though. And I thought I read that some TVs have the ability to have HDR turned off, so that may be the solution.


It is still active


----------



## mjwagner

swyman18 said:


> So, my 7 year old regular HD tv is beginning to die and I will start looking for a new TV. From what I can tell, pretty much all new TVs are HDR right? Is that forced HDR issue with the Osprey box still a problem?
> 
> I don't really want to junk the Osprey box, since it works pretty well for me and I do like the remote. But if the picture is going to look like crap because of the forced HDR, I may not have a choice.


Yes, from user reports I have seen forced HDR is still an issue with that box. Honestly the ability to automatically match color space (auto switching to HDR/DV based on content) is a requirement you need to look for in any streaming box you are going to buy, IMHO. There are many available, Android based and others, that do that. All of the streaming devices I use support it.


----------



## harsh

swyman18 said:


> From what I can tell, pretty much all new TVs are HDR right?


Maybe, maybe not. It is also important to know which HDR modes are supported.

Make sure any TV you acquire can handle HDR10 and HLG -- absolutely no exceptions. Adding DolbyVision is the only practical step up. There are about 350 theatrical releases available in DolbyVision at this time.

Content support HDR10+ is limited and isn't making much progress (if not losing ground). It is what Samsung (and Panasonic where their TVs are marketed) offers instead of DolbyVision and while is has similar functionality, it is not compatible.

HLG is what the rest of the planet uses for HDR/WCG and is an integral part of NextGen TV (ATSC 3.0) so that's why it isn't optional.


----------



## swyman18

Thanks folks for the info... the ones I’ve been looking at all seem to have the option to turn HDR off if needed. So at least I’ll know that is an option if I end up having problems with the Osprey box picture.


----------



## mjwagner

swyman18 said:


> Thanks folks for the info... the ones I've been looking at all seem to have the option to turn HDR off if needed. So at least I'll know that is an option if I end up having problems with the Osprey box picture.


Honestly turning off HDR is not a really good option. Plain 4k without HDR/DV is a real yawn IMO and you would still have to turn HDR on for HDR content to get the colors correct. And you don't want to have to manually switch it on/off. And if it is forced on for all content the colors in non HDR content will be noticeably wrong. In today's world a streaming device that can't do auto color space switching is just not competitive. Although again you do need to take into account the market AT&T is targeting with this box...


----------



## lparsons21

mjwagner said:


> Honestly turning off HDR is not a really good option. Plain 4k without HDR/DV is a real yawn IMO and you would still have to turn HDR on for HDR content to get the colors correct. And you don't want to have to manually switch it on/off. And if it is forced on for all content the colors in non HDR content will be noticeably wrong. In today's world a streaming device that can't do auto color space switching is just not competitive. Although again you do need to take into account the market AT&T is targeting with this box...


I haven't noticed that being a big issue on my 75" Sony X900E. Colors are fine regardless of box I'm using on it. The only difference is slightly less overall brightness on the ATT box compared to ATV4K, FireTV and Roku Ultra.


----------



## swyman18

Yeah, I’ll have to see how it works out with the particular TV I end up getting. I only use the Osprey box for ATT TV watching, I don’t use it for any of the streaming apps. I have a Shield, AppleTV 4K, and FireTV that I use for everything else.


----------



## harperhometheater

The problem isn't really whether the box leaves 4K HDR on for all sources. It's whether it or the display _maps_ it correctly when it does!


----------



## harsh

harperhometheater said:


> The problem isn't really whether the box leaves 4K HDR on for all sources. It's whether it or the display _maps_ it correctly when it does!


This is mostly addressed by obtaining a TV that fully supports the HDR/WCG schemes that your source material is in.


----------



## mjwagner

lparsons21 said:


> I haven't noticed that being a big issue on my 75" Sony X900E. Colors are fine regardless of box I'm using on it. The only difference is slightly less overall brightness on the ATT box compared to ATV4K, FireTV and Roku Ultra.


My guess would be your tv is mapping the colors correctly. If it didn't most people would definitely notice it, although admittedly not all. Heck many folks leave their tv's set on factory default picture settings and are perfectly happy...


----------



## mjwagner

harperhometheater said:


> The problem isn't really whether the box leaves 4K HDR on for all sources. It's whether it or the display _maps_ it correctly when it does!


In general this is true but even on my LG OLED65B7A, which does color space mapping rather well, I still don't keep any of my streamers in forced HDR mode. I set the them to auto match...


----------



## lparsons21

mjwagner said:


> My guess would be your tv is mapping the colors correctly. If it didn't most people would definitely notice it, although admittedly not all. Heck many folks leave their tv's set on factory default picture settings and are perfectly happy...


Yeah, that's probably what's happening. The Sony I have is upper midrange model and Sony does a very good job with TVs in all their models.

That said, for all the complaints I see in some forums about the forced HDR that all the AndoidTV version 8 do, in other forums that are not as full of 'experts', you don't see it mentioned much at all.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, that's probably what's happening. The Sony I have is upper midrange model and Sony does a very good job with TVs in all their models.
> 
> That said, for all the complaints I see in some forums about the forced HDR that all the AndoidTV version 8 do, in other forums that are not as full of 'experts', you don't see it mentioned much at all.


Alot depends on the TV also.. The cheaper HDR TV's lack the color and brightness to even do real HDR so it isnt an issue


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> The cheaper HDR TV's lack the color and brightness to even do real HDR so it isnt an issue


Most of the most expensive TVs (OLEDs) lack what it takes to sustain the highest brightness levels that the dynamic HDR formats support.


----------



## harperhometheater

harsh said:


> This is mostly addressed by obtaining a TV that fully supports the HDR/WCG schemes that your source material is in.


Not just the TV, but also the source that's doing the forced conversion. I'm guessing that's why you said "mostly" though.



mjwagner said:


> In general this is true but even on my LG OLED65B7A, which does color space mapping rather well, I still don't keep any of my streamers in forced HDR mode. I set the them to auto match...


My LG 65C8 looks incredible with all sources sent as DV with my AppleTV 4K. DV conversion is much better at this than just being converted to HDR10, which is where I think most complaints of doing this are coming from. Forced HDR10 definitely doesn't look as good as forced DV, but can still look really good if you do some tweaking.



harsh said:


> Most of the most expensive TVs (OLEDs) lack what it takes to sustain the highest brightness levels that the dynamic HDR formats support.


But I think their tone mapping, especially with DV/LLDV, more than makes up for that. It doesn't seem to be such a big deal with today's sources anyway considering the "is it real HDR" reports recently from Vincent Teo from HDTV Test fame. Most discs and almost all streaming doesn't come close to having higher peaks than the 700+ nits OLED offers anyway.

I'll take the much higher native contrast and gorgeous blacks over the slightly limited peaks.


----------



## compnurd

Here we go again with Dolby Vision


----------



## harperhometheater

compnurd said:


> Here we go again with Dolby Vision


Best version of HDR out there!


----------



## harsh

harperhometheater said:


> Best version of HDR out there!


Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure it has been demonstrated that it is technically superior to HLG or HDR10+. DV is currently somewhat better supported but I expect that HLG is more likely to catch fire as it will offer content owners and distributors a much larger audience (through universal deployment in all future televisions) in a marketplace that seems to be confined to home theaters for a while.

HDR10+, as a distraction from the others, can't die soon enough.


----------



## harperhometheater

harsh said:


> Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure it has been demonstrated that it is technically superior to HLG or HDR10+. DV is currently somewhat better supported but I expect that HLG is more likely to catch fire as it will offer content owners and distributors a much larger audience (through universal deployment in all future televisions) in a marketplace that seems to be confined to home theaters for a while.
> 
> HDR10+, as a distraction from the others, can't die soon enough.


HLG is a compromise to get HDR through older gen broadcast equipment without the need for metadata, so it's compatible with legacy SDR gear. Without this metadata to inform the display/decoder of the frame or scene's exact info for how it's supposed to be shown, it will never match up to DV or HDR10+.


----------



## harsh

HLG is dynamic much like DV and HDR10+.

HLG supports 10-bit HDR (versus Dolby's 12-bit) and doesn't command a royalty paid to Dolby Labs every step of the way. Of greatest importance to the OLED snobs is that HLG supports the full brightness range (0-1000nits) that consumer OLED displays can reproduce.


----------



## harperhometheater

harsh said:


> HLG is dynamic much like DV and HDR10+.
> 
> HLG supports 10-bit HDR (versus Dolby's 12-bit) and doesn't command a royalty paid to Dolby Labs every step of the way. Of greatest importance to the OLED snobs is that HLG supports the full brightness range (0-1000nits) that consumer OLED displays can reproduce.


Yeah, dynamic based on guessing rather than having the actual scene and frame information to render it the exact way it's supposed to.

I agree the free options are great. I discovered the HDFury Dolby Vision LLDV solution for this very reason so folks could avoid having to buy very expensive video processors like the Lumagen Radiance Pro or MadVR Envy, and of course to also be able to display native Dolby Vision on HDR10 capable displays and projectors which couldn't otherwise render native Dolby Vision content.

Plus, Quality always costs more.


----------



## lparsons21

OK, let’s come back to the question of what to do at the end of the 1st year with ATT TV. Since prices nearly double going into the 2nd and subsequent years and actually more than double if you want to keep what you got in the 1st year it would seem that paying the $15/month ETF ($180 total) would make the most sense. The reason that it more than doubles is because to keep HBO Max you have to add $15/month to the new rate.

So is paying that ETF and moving on worth it? Here’s some comparisons to the services I would need to get close to equivalence.

First up ATT TV @Entertainment = $93/month
HBO Max = $15/month
Total = $108/month.

For that you get a good selection of entertainment channels and a fair mix of national sports channels. And arguably the best PQ compared to all the other live streaming services, and you get DD5.1 audio on most of the channels.

Next up is to switch to ATT TV Now Pro level = $80/month
Add AMC+ to pick up BBCA & AMC = $9/month
Total = $89/month, a savings of $19/month. So figuring in the ETF of $15/month that’s a net savings of $4/month.
Note that HBO Max & Cinemax are included in that subscription level, you get many RSNs and national sports channels, as well as your local broadcast channels. Same PQ and audio as the main ATT TV product.

Next up is YouTubeTV = $65/month
Add in HBO Max = $15/month
Total = $80/month, a savings of $28/month and after paying the ETF, a net savings of $13/month.
For that you get your locals, some regional sports but no Sinclair/Fox RSNs, most national sports, a big selection of entertainment channels. Slightly less PQ than ATT TV but not by much, but no DD5.1.

Last up is Sling Blue+Total TV = $50/month
Add in HBO Max = $15/month
Total = $65/month, a savings of $43/month and after paying the ETF, a net savings of $28/month.
For that you get some RSNs, but no Sinclair/Fox RSNs. Most national sports but notably missing is ESPN. And also notably missing is any locals in most markets. IMO, PQ is about the same as YTTV to my eyes though others disagree and think it is slightly worse. And no DD5.1 audio.
For me the lack of locals isn’t an issue since I get them all with my antenna and OTA DVR just fine.

Note that I’m not including HULU+Live since I don’t like that service for many reasons.

So the answer to the question, is yes, from a financial standpoint it makes perfect sense to pay the ETF and move on. However what to move on to depends on how important which channels are, how valuable DD5.1 is to you and how critical of PQ you are.

But even in worse financial case, switching to ATT TV Now Pro level still saves some money while keeping the best PQ and audio in live streaming services. The only big notable channels missing all ATT TV streaming services is NFL channel and NFL Redzone.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> OK, let's come back to the question of what to do at the end of the 1st year with ATT TV. Since prices nearly double going into the 2nd and subsequent years and actually more than double if you want to keep what you got in the 1st year it would seem that paying the $15/month ETF ($180 total) would make the most sense. The reason that it more than doubles is because to keep HBO Max you have to add $15/month to the new rate.
> 
> So is paying that ETF and moving on worth it? Here's some comparisons to the services I would need to get close to equivalence.
> 
> First up ATT TV @Entertainment = $93/month
> HBO Max = $15/month
> Total = $108/month.
> 
> For that you get a good selection of entertainment channels and a fair mix of national sports channels. And arguably the best PQ compared to all the other live streaming services, and you get DD5.1 audio on most of the channels.
> 
> Next up is to switch to ATT TV Now Pro level = $80/month
> Add AMC+ to pick up BBCA & AMC = $9/month
> Total = $89/month, a savings of $19/month. So figuring in the ETF of $15/month that's a net savings of $4/month.
> Note that HBO Max & Cinemax are included in that subscription level, you get many RSNs and national sports channels, as well as your local broadcast channels. Same PQ and audio as the main ATT TV product.
> 
> Next up is YouTubeTV = $65/month
> Add in HBO Max = $15/month
> Total = $80/month, a savings of $28/month and after paying the ETF, a net savings of $13/month.
> For that you get your locals, some regional sports but no Sinclair/Fox RSNs, most national sports, a big selection of entertainment channels. Slightly less PQ than ATT TV but not by much, but no DD5.1.
> 
> Last up is Sling Blue+Total TV = $50/month
> Add in HBO Max = $15/month
> Total = $65/month, a savings of $43/month and after paying the ETF, a net savings of $28/month.
> For that you get some RSNs, but no Sinclair/Fox RSNs. Most national sports but notably missing is ESPN. And also notably missing is any locals in most markets. IMO, PQ is about the same as YTTV to my eyes though others disagree and think it is slightly worse. And no DD5.1 audio.
> For me the lack of locals isn't an issue since I get them all with my antenna and OTA DVR just fine.
> 
> Note that I'm not including HULU+Live since I don't like that service for many reasons.
> 
> So the answer to the question, is yes, from a financial standpoint it makes perfect sense to pay the ETF and move on. However what to move on to depends on how important which channels are, how valuable DD5.1 is to you and how critical of PQ you are.
> 
> But even in worse financial case, switching to ATT TV Now Pro level still saves some money while keeping the best PQ and audio in live streaming services. The only big notable channels missing all ATT TV streaming services is NFL channel and NFL Redzone.


Don't forget no PBS also


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Don't forget no PBS also


Yeah, I forgot that. Probably because I get my locals just fine with antenna and OTA DVR.


----------



## mjwagner

compnurd said:


> Don't forget no PBS also


YTTV now has local PBS channels in many areas. I get two different PBS channels included in my YTTV sub.


----------



## lparsons21

mjwagner said:


> YTTV now has local PBS channels in many areas. I get two different PBS channels included in my YTTV sub.


When I had YTTV, PBS was VOD only. I didn't consider that a big deal.


----------



## mjwagner

lparsons21 said:


> When I had YTTV, PBS was VOD only. I didn't consider that a big deal.


It's live channels now. They added that some time ago. Not a big deal for me either as I get all my local PBS channels OTA but just mentioned it for accuracy.


----------



## espaeth

PBS is now also available for live local channel streaming through the PBS Passport app in many cases:

PBS Live Streaming FAQ and Troubleshooting


----------



## compnurd

espaeth said:


> PBS is now also available for live local channel streaming through the PBS Passport app in many cases:
> 
> PBS Live Streaming FAQ and Troubleshooting


That doesnt fly in my house and most people I know.. When it comes to live tv content they want one app/service.. Movies and original stuff as many apps as there is


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> That doesnt fly in my house and most people I know.. When it comes to live tv content they want one app/service.. Movies and original stuff as many apps as there is


Well it may not fly at your house, but the reality is that there is no single live streaming service that covers all the bases. Even the overpriced AT&T TV service doesn't.

So the choice is either decide that whatever service A doesn't have isn't important enough to worry about, or sign up to service B that can fill in the holes.

You can't even come up with one box that covers them all!


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Well it may not fly at your house, but the reality is that there is no single live streaming service that covers all the bases. Even the overpriced AT&T TV service doesn't.
> 
> So the choice is either decide that whatever service A doesn't have isn't important enough to worry about, or sign up to service B that can fill in the holes.
> 
> You can't even come up with one box that covers them all!


Nope. Which is why Directv still fits the bill


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Nope. Which is why Directv still fits the bill


You mean it fits a very big bill, right? Looking at pricing DirecTV is every bit as expensive as cable and in many cases, more expensive.

But you're right, if people are willing to pay that big bill they can get it all. Unfortunately for DirecTV/Dish/Cable companies, more people every day are not willing to do that but instead are speaking with their wallets.


----------



## harsh

lparsons21 said:


> Unfortunately for DirecTV/Dish/Cable companies, more people every day are not willing to do that but instead are speaking with their wallets.


While streaming is the NKOTB, it will be the talk of the town. When the gloss has worn off, I'm not sure that the fight to find what you want to watch when you want to watch it will still be judged as worth the compromise.


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> While streaming is the NKOTB, it will be the talk of the town. When the gloss has worn off, I'm not sure that the fight to find what you want to watch when you want to watch it will still be judged as worth the compromise.


There's that of course. And the most convenient way to watch TV is still cable/sat. But it comes at a price and with possibly a contract with ETF, and in many cases a PITA to change subscriptions around a bit.

The advantage to streaming in most cases is the ease with which you can cancel, subscribe, make changes. And of course you can control the cost a bit easier too.


----------



## harsh

lparsons21 said:


> The advantage to streaming in most cases is the ease with which you can cancel, subscribe, make changes.


I'm not sure it is an advantage that you enter into a service because you know you have an easy out (except when something sweeping like nuking a particular programming suite comes along).

Given the striking differences in UX for all of these services, change isn't as easy as picking a different provider. The UX differences I speak of include location of desired programming, navigating within that programming and obscure policies regarding saving of recordings and commercial skipping.


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> I'm not sure it is an advantage that you enter into a service because you know you have an easy out (except when something sweeping like nuking a particular programming suite comes along).
> 
> Given the striking differences in UX for all of these services, change isn't as easy as picking a different provider. The UX differences I speak of include location of desired programming, navigating within that programming and obscure policies regarding saving of recordings and commercial skipping.


It is the ease of doing those changes that can result in the streaming cost being dramatically lower for those willing to manage it.

As to the differences between UI's, well yeah, that's what makes them less convenient than cable/sat. It is one of the compromises involved. Personally I don't find them to be daunting tasks but reading in a few forums, others do.


----------



## lparsons21

I’ve been playing around with a few streaming boxes with ATT TV and others. Here’s some highlights .

ATT TV Osprey box - 
Strength is it operates the ATT TV service the best. Voice search, voice trick play, great remote that is very similar to cable/sat remotes. PQ is wonderful as is audio quality other than not supporting ATMOS audio at all.
Weakness is with other apps though it does support most other streaming services though you have to either use Chromecast or sideloading for Hulu and Amazon Prime. Voice use is hit or miss depending on which app and aggravated by being pretty slow to actually be able to use it at all with the other apps.

Notably Apple’s TV+ app isn’t available or supported and you can’t Chromecast that from your iPad. Not ATT’s fault as Apple chose not to support AndroidTV at all.

FireTV Cube -
Strength is it supports almost all streaming apps though you have to sideload HBO Max and Peacock. Great PQ and audio quality and it supports ATMOS audio for those sources that have it. Remote is very simple and easy to use with all apps.
Weaknesses are almost non-existent for the most part. Voice search and voice trickplay is hit or miss, depending on which streaming app you’re using. 

AppleTV -
Strength is that it works with all streaming services, no sideloading needed. Great PQ and audio quality and supports ATMOS audio.
Weakness is the remote with any of the live streaming services. Because of the design of the remote and UI trick play is very irritating to use IMO.

Roku Ultra -
Strength is that it works with most streaming apps though notably missing HBO Max. You can’t sideload it and can’t cast at all to a Roku. Voice search and trickplay is supported on many more streaming apps than anyone else and works very well. PQ is slightly softer than the other streaming boxes I’ve mentioned in this thread.
Weakness is the missing HBO Max and lack of being able to cast to the box. Also, though ATMOS is technically supported it is notably missing ATMOS for Netflix. Roku and Netflix are pointing fingers at each other over this. Remote is similar to FireTV, simple and works well. Oddly the volume control only works on TVs, not on other devices.


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> Roku Ultra -
> Strength is that it works with most streaming apps though notably missing HBO Max. You can't sideload it and can't cast at all to a Roku. Voice search and trickplay is supported on many more streaming apps than anyone else and works very well. PQ is slightly softer than the other streaming boxes I've mentioned in this thread.
> Weakness is the missing HBO Max and lack of being able to cast to the box. Also, though ATMOS is technically supported it is notably missing ATMOS for Netflix. Roku and Netflix are pointing fingers at each other over this. Remote is similar to FireTV, simple and works well. Oddly the volume control only works on TVs, not on other devices.


One Roku rolls out AirPlay 2 support for "select 4K devices later this year" it could allow HBO Max to be cast to the Roku in that manner. Also the 2020 model supports Dolby Vision.


----------



## harsh

A big plus to the Roku Ultra at this time is that they're offering them for $79.99!


----------



## lparsons21

techguy88 said:


> One Roku rolls out AirPlay 2 support for "select 4K devices later this year" it could allow HBO Max to be cast to the Roku in that manner. Also the 2020 model supports Dolby Vision.


And when that actually does happen, you'll be right! But this ain't my first rodeo and this also isn't the first time that AirPlay coming to some Roku's wasn't talked about.


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> A big plus to the Roku Ultra at this time is that they're offering them for $79.99!


Yep, that's a good price for the Ultra for sure.

Also, the Ultra supports ATMOS for Apple's TV+ app which the FireTV doesn't. Seems that search for the 'one box' is still just a search, huh?


----------



## harsh

lparsons21 said:


> Seems that search for the 'one box' is still just a search, huh?


That depends in large part how many different brands of programming paint that you have on your palette.


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> Also, the Ultra supports ATMOS for Apple's TV+ app which the FireTV doesn't. Seems that search for the 'one box' is still just a search, huh?


I may test out other streaming devices but I have found my "one box" and that is Apple TV 4K . I can deal with the remote but the Apple TV HD & 4K boxes do have all TV Everywhere apps, popular streaming apps (free, avod & svod) and I pretty much use the Apple TV app to its fullest.


----------



## lparsons21

techguy88 said:


> I may test out other streaming devices but I have found my "one box" and that is Apple TV 4K . I can deal with the remote but the Apple TV HD & 4K boxes do have all TV Everywhere apps, popular streaming apps (free, avod & svod) and I pretty much use the Apple TV app to its fullest.


The remote issues are mostly with working with some live streaming apps. In general trickplay is the biggest issue because of that blasted trackpad. But for those live streaming apps that will do trickplay with SIRI it isn't such a big deal.

TVE is fine if you tolerate non-skippable ads.

For me the FireTV is the best 'one box'. Supports all the streaming apps, Recast integrates nicely with it and I can also view my outdoor security cameras with it. When I shift to Sling next spring then the ATV comes back into play probably.


----------



## harperhometheater

techguy88 said:


> I may test out other streaming devices but I have found my "one box" and that is Apple TV 4K . I can deal with the remote but the Apple TV HD & 4K boxes do have all TV Everywhere apps, popular streaming apps (free, avod & svod) and I pretty much use the Apple TV app to its fullest.


Totally agreed, especially when you combine it with Channels DVR for your TV services, Infuse as your great Media server which is one of the few that supports Dolby Vision and lastly speaking of DV, its support of being able to force Dolby Vision/LLDV for projectors and displays which are HDR10 only.

This has easily turned into _my_ "one box" solution in recent months.



lparsons21 said:


> The remote issues are mostly with working with some live streaming apps. In general trickplay is the biggest issue because of that blasted trackpad. But for those live streaming apps that will do trickplay with SIRI it isn't such a big deal.....


There's a Harmony for that........



lparsons21 said:


> .....TVE is fine if you tolerate non-skippable ads.......


Unless you use TVE with Channels DVR, which also covers your below statement with support for HDHomerun tuners in place of the Recast.....



lparsons21 said:


> .....For me the FireTV is the best 'one box'. Supports all the streaming apps, *Recast integrates nicely with it *and I can also view my outdoor security cameras with it. When I shift to Sling next spring then the ATV comes back into play probably.


----------



## lparsons21

I’ve got a Harmony Elite and haven’t used it in quite awhile. Not because it isn’t excellent but because of the foibles of the non-standard HDMI-CEC. Logitech recognizes the issue and recommends turning it off, but when you do that ARC suddenly becomes not so good at all, which means if you hook direct to TV and back to sound system with HDMI-CEC off you need to use optical, which is limited to DD5.1.

When I had an audio system that only did 5.1, that was fine, but I’ve moved on from that. Or I could use an HDMI switch but most of them have their own quirks.

I will admit that playing around with the various boxes introduces most of the issues. If I were to pick either the ATV4K or FireTV as the sole box I could accomplish all I need to with what I have now. I could even figure out how to not hate that blasted trackpad on the ATV remote!


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> Unless you use TVE with Channels DVR, which also covers your below statement with support for HDHomerun tuners in place of the Recast.....


Yeah, and that would be of enough interest to actually do if I didn't live by myself. What I have gets the job done for me and the few times a year I have company where more than one TV is on at a time it hasn't been an issue either.

BTW, I've got both Recast and AirTV Anywhere, both 4 tuner, 1TB OTA DVRs. Recast works great but only works at all with FireTV other than some minimal use with the FireTV app on a phone or tablet.

AirTV Anywhere works pretty much everywhere, including out of home. Uses the SlingTV app which is on everything I've seen. It isn't quite as good as Recast if the broadcast station's signal is a bit degraded.

Major downside of both is that neither support search of the broadcast program schedule.


----------



## mjwagner

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, and that would be of enough interest to actually do if I didn't live by myself. What I have gets the job done for me and the few times a year I have company where more than one TV is on at a time it hasn't been an issue either.
> 
> BTW, I've got both Recast and AirTV Anywhere, both 4 tuner, 1TB OTA DVRs. Recast works great but only works at all with FireTV other than some minimal use with the FireTV app on a phone or tablet.
> 
> AirTV Anywhere works pretty much everywhere, including out of home. Uses the SlingTV app which is on everything I've seen. It isn't quite as good as Recast if the broadcast station's signal is a bit degraded.
> 
> Major downside of both is that neither support search of the broadcast program schedule.


Just an FYI, SiliconDust (HDHomerun) has now released there own app that runs on the ATV and is free for HDHomerun users so no need to pay for the Channels app anymore, unless you want to. I've used my HDHomerun tuner with my Synology NAS configured for DVR for years with the HDHomerun app running on my FireTV devices and Nvidia Shields. Never bothered to pay for the Channels app for my ATV 4ks now with the HDHomerun app for the ATV, no need.


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> That depends in large part how many different brands of programming paint that you have on your palette.


Yes and no. 

If you are consistently using just a group of certain streaming services, then you can use quite a few boxes to accomplish that.

But, one of the biggest benefits to streaming is that you can control what you have available and the costs by not being tied down to any particular service. So to somewhat future proof I would think that getting the box that supports all or nearly all of the services makes more sense. These days that is AppleTV or FireTV if you aren't averse to sideloading a couple of apps.

Roku's are out as you can't sideload, or at least I haven't seen a way. And you can only mirror and not cast to Roku's. And as of today's Streamable article, AirPlay 2 is showing up on some minor number of users for the Ultra but it seems HBO Max is being blocked.


----------



## b4pjoe

harperhometheater said:


> There's a Harmony for that........


I've read the Harmony doesn't have support for Siri at all on the ATV or the long press function of the Home button.


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> I've read the Harmony doesn't have support for Siri at all on the ATV or the long press function of the Home button.


I don't know of any universal remote that supports Siri or any voice. The long press isn't supported by default but you can program another button to do it.


----------



## b4pjoe

lparsons21 said:


> I don't know of any universal remote that supports Siri or any voice. The long press isn't supported by default but you can program another button to do it.


Both of those issues are deal breakers considering the cost of a Harmony remote.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> Both of those issues are deal breakers considering the cost of a Harmony remote.


Given how few remote options there are for the ATV, the Harmony remotes are pretty much what you get.

They're also very helpful if you have a TV that doesn't play well with your other equipment via CEC.


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> Given how few remote options there are for the ATV, the Harmony remotes are pretty much what you get.
> 
> They're also very helpful if you have a TV that doesn't play well with your other equipment via CEC.


Does anything actually play well with HDMI-CEC? Lots of mfgs of soundbars and such talk about disabling it which happily chatting about what ARC brings to the setup. Carefully not mentioning much about how ARC depends on HDMI-CEC being active.

A couple examples:
Roku Ultra 2019 - oft times it just captures the TV port with CEC active. This only seems to happen when the ATT TV Osprey box is also using a TV HDMI port. Disconnect either one and things go pretty well.

Except sometimes when bringing up the ATT TV Osprey box the TV switches ports, the Nakamich Soundbar switches ports, and will do that for a bit until it finally decides not to. What it ends up on is anybody's guess. Fortunately it doesn't happen very often, UNLESS that damned Roku is plugged in, then it happens more often than not.


----------



## mjwagner

b4pjoe said:


> Both of those issues are deal breakers considering the cost of a Harmony remote.


I'm sure for some folks. I have Harmony Elites in both my main viewing locations where I use ATV 4ks in addition to other streamers. I don't have any use for using voice commands and for voice search (which is the only voice thing I find useful/helpful ) you can just use the Harmony remote app on your phone or, if you are using the ATV 4k, as soon as you have to enter text the app pops up on your iPhone. I don't remember the last time I touched my OEM remotes. They are all in a drawer somewhere with the batteries removed.


----------



## harsh

lparsons21 said:


> Does anything actually play well with HDMI-CEC?


With the exception of ignoring my Flex box, my Sony X900H seems to be doing pretty well. If I turn on any of the source devices, the TV comes on and selects the appropriate input. The only nit I have is that with the most recent Sony firmware update, the TV comes on when I select the tuner function on my somewhat older Onkyo AVR. It didn't do that before.

I expect that if I moved the Flex box to a TV input rather than the AVR, it would work better (and support 4K UHD).

I currently have everything (Playstation, Roku, satellite receiver, Flex, HD-DVD player) connected to my AVR and feed the TV through its ARC HDMI input that returns DD+ from the TV.

People with Samsung TVs and Denon audio gear seem to have more than their share of CEC complaints. I'm not sure what that says about whom.


----------



## mjwagner

harsh said:


> Given how few remote options there are for the ATV, the Harmony remotes are pretty much what you get.
> 
> They're also very helpful if you have a TV that doesn't play well with your other equipment via CEC.


I love my Harmony Elites. There is no way my wife, or any guests we have over, would ever be able to operate any of our AV equipment without them. I can literally just hand them the Elite hand held controllers and they can watch tv or listen to music...if they can read and push buttons...LOL.


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> With the exception of ignoring my Flex box, my Sony X900H seems to be doing pretty well. If I turn on any of the source devices, the TV comes on and selects the appropriate input. The only nit I have is that with the most recent Sony firmware update, the TV comes on when I select the tuner function on my somewhat older Onkyo AVR. It didn't do that before.
> 
> I expect that if I moved the Flex box to a TV input rather than the AVR, it would work better (and support 4K UHD).
> 
> I currently have everything (Playstation, Roku, satellite receiver, Flex, HD-DVD player) connected to my AVR and feed the TV through its ARC HDMI input that returns DD+ from the TV.
> 
> People with Samsung TVs and Denon audio gear seem to have more than their share of CEC complaints. I'm not sure what that says about whom.


I don't have an AVR, I have the Nakamichi Shockwafe 7.1.4 Atmos Soundbar setup. Sony TV, ATV4K, ATT box, FireTV and Roku Ultra. The Naka is twitchy with CEC IMO, but then so is the Roku and ATT box. The only two that don't give issues when hooked to the TV and feedback via ARC to the soundbar are the FireTV and ATV4K.

The most irritating part is that sometimes it all works just like it should. Push power on whichever remote, box, tv, speaker all come up properly with proper inputs selected. Then other times it seems like it just loses its marbles and switches around Willy-nilly!

Today I decided that the only two streaming boxes I care at all about are the ATT box because of the superb remote, and the FireTV Cube because it supports the AppleTV+ app. And of course, a Blue Ray player. The Naka has 3 HDMI inputs so I'm just using them and have taken CEC and ARC out of the picture.

If/when Apple gets off the dime and comes out with a Siri remote that does away with the miserable trackpad, I'll re-evaluate. Neve understood why Apple thought that miserable trackpad was better than a d-pad.


----------



## harperhometheater

mjwagner said:


> I love my Harmony Elites. There is no way my wife, or any guests we have over, would ever be able to operate any of our AV equipment without them. *I can literally just hand them the Elite hand held controllers and they can watch tv or listen to music...if they can read and push buttons*...LOL.


Yep, even I was able to operate your system when I was there, so _that_ in and of itself was quite an accomplishment!!! Thankfully I can read and push a button (one at a time), just barely, Haha! 

In other news......T-Mobile's TVision service, direct competitor to AT&T TV, appears to be starting its rollout Nov 1 to its wireless customers first:

T-Mobile refocuses TVision with Android TV device and new plans

Cut the cord with TVision by T-Mobile

TVision Hub info:
Overview: TVision HUB

















Intro video:
Live Stream the Latest News & Announcements | T-Mobile


----------



## techguy88

Actually the first version of TVision (formally Layer3) was more AT&T TV like with the high price. The new TVision is more AT&T Watch TV meets AT&T TV Now but with better equipment


----------



## harsh

techguy88 said:


> Actually the first version of TVision (formally Layer3) was more AT&T TV like with the high price.


The price per channel appears to be >$1 so it isn't very appealing from a cost standpoint. The non-premium channel set includes around 50 channels yet they compare themselves to YTTV that gets more than 80.

They've definitely taken some plays out of the AT&T playbook and that's not a good thing.


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> The price per channel appears to be >$1 so it isn't very appealing from a cost standpoint. The non-premium channel set includes around 50 channels yet they compare themselves to YTTV that gets more than 80.
> 
> They've definitely taken some plays out of the AT&T playbook and that's not a good thing.


Yeah, YTTV has more channels, but the reality is who the hell actually watches all of them? Most likely I would watch the same handful I do now. So I could save some serious bucks because I don't care much about sports and could do fairly well with the $10/month Vibe level but would most likely get the $40+$10 combo as it picks up some things I actually do watch.

That puts it right in line with my promo Entertainment package on ATT TV @$50 and I wouldn't be missing any channels that I actually watch. Sure I'd be missing a few of the 'rerun' channels that have no or extremely little in the way of original programming of interest. And maybe even some reality channels that I never watch.

Plug in the antenna and this, and I'd be good to go.


----------



## lparsons21

techguy88 said:


> One Roku rolls out AirPlay 2 support for "select 4K devices later this year" it could allow HBO Max to be cast to the Roku in that manner. Also the 2020 model supports Dolby Vision.


While it isn't on everyone's Ultra, I just got it today on my 2019 Ultra. Actually works great after you get it set up. It is a menu selection in Settings.

I selected AirPlay & HomeKit. Config automatically sets it to require a PIN code the Ultra will show and you type it in on your iOS device. I did that, and then set up HomeKit for it via the QR code that is presented on the Ultra and thought I was good to go.

Cranked up HBO Max and the AirPlay icon showed the Ultra, selected it but each time I tried it just pulled up the AirPlay setting screen. Frustrating!! So I thought, why not check with Apple's TV app on the iPad. Did that and this time it actually played the show on the Ultra. Stopped that and then re-ran HBO Max and it now plays on the Ultra just fine.


----------



## lparsons21

A little more on the Ultra...

Voice trickplay is supported on many more apps than are on other devices. ATT TV, Prime, Netflix, Sling, Hulu and maybe some others I haven’t tested yet. In Peacock you can voice pause/play/FF/Rewind but can’t skip a time.

Voice search doesn’t work within any app I tried, always goes out to Roku’s main screen and gets the search and provides a list of where to get the show. Notably the only app it doesn’t seem to voice search at all for is Apple’s TV+.

Hmm.... This may become my newest favorite even though it doesn’t do Atmos in Netflix.


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> While it isn't on everyone's Ultra, I just got it today on my 2019 Ultra. Actually works great after you get it set up. It is a menu selection in Settings.
> 
> I selected AirPlay & HomeKit. Config automatically sets it to require a PIN code the Ultra will show and you type it in on your iOS device. I did that, and then set up HomeKit for it via the QR code that is presented on the Ultra and thought I was good to go.
> 
> Cranked up HBO Max and the AirPlay icon showed the Ultra, selected it but each time I tried it just pulled up the AirPlay setting screen. Frustrating!! So I thought, why not check with Apple's TV app on the iPad. Did that and this time it actually played the show on the Ultra. Stopped that and then re-ran HBO Max and it now plays on the Ultra just fine.





lparsons21 said:


> A little more on the Ultra...
> 
> Voice trickplay is supported on many more apps than are on other devices. ATT TV, Prime, Netflix, Sling, Hulu and maybe some others I haven't tested yet. In Peacock you can voice pause/play/FF/Rewind but can't skip a time.
> 
> Voice search doesn't work within any app I tried, always goes out to Roku's main screen and gets the search and provides a list of where to get the show. Notably the only app it doesn't seem to voice search at all for is Apple's TV+.
> 
> Hmm.... This may become my newest favorite even though it doesn't do Atmos in Netflix.


I checked one of my Roku Ultra (2019 model) and AirPlay is now available. It was very easy to set up. My one complaint over the Apple TV app on third party devices was the lack of iTunes Extra for digital movies (purchased or redeemed.)

Since movies that supports iTunes Extra has alternate cuts of some films I did a test with opening the dreaded theatrical version of _Batman V Superman_. So I started the theatrical cut on my iPad Pro via iTunes Extra then selected AirPlay to my Roku Ultra. Quality is very good no jittering or skipping at all. I can still use the iPad for Discord, Facebook, Twitter, etc. or set it aside while I watch the movie.

I can now give my mom the Apple HD 4th Gen and use the Roku Ultra in my bedroom. The quality will be perfect for a 24 inch HD Vizio set lol.


----------



## lparsons21

techguy88 said:


> I checked one of my Roku Ultra (2019 model) and AirPlay is now available. It was very easy to set up. My one complaint over the Apple TV app on third party devices was the lack of iTunes Extra for digital movies (purchased or redeemed.)
> 
> Since movies that supports iTunes Extra has alternate cuts of some films I did a test with opening the dreaded theatrical version of _Batman V Superman_. So I started the theatrical cut on my iPad Pro via iTunes Extra then selected AirPlay to my Roku Ultra. Quality is very good no jittering or skipping at all. I can still use the iPad for Discord, Facebook, Twitter, etc. or set it aside while I watch the movie.
> 
> I can now give my mom the Apple HD 4th Gen and use the Roku Ultra in my bedroom. The quality will be perfect for a 24 inch HD Vizio set lol.


Yeah, the video on the Ultra is slightly softer than on ATV4K, FireTV Cube and ATT's box. Not by enough to matter to me.

While the Roku UI doesn't have anything like 'up next' or 'continue watching', the simplistic UI makes it pretty handy to use.


----------



## lparsons21

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, the video on the Ultra is slightly softer than on ATV4K, FireTV Cube and ATT's box. Not by enough to matter to me.
> 
> While the Roku UI doesn't have anything like 'up next' or 'continue watching', the simplistic UI makes it pretty handy to use.


And now for a big wart on the Ultra. The blasted remote loses its ability to use voice and requires re-pairing which always seems to require pulling the battery and pulling the power from the Ultra. When everything works it is fine though.


----------



## lparsons21

Found out that after doing an update on the Roku Ultra it decided it was a different Ultra. Had to delete the ‘old’ version in the Roku software and all is good.

But yesterday I went to Wally World and got the 2020 Roku Ultra. For me the reason was to get Atmos with Netflix on the Ultra. That does work now, but it is one odd damned audio setup!

The 2020 Ultra decodes Atmos which previous versions did not do, they just used passthrough. And all the posting i saw said that was why Netflix Atmos didn’t work. The 2020 Ultra defaults to ‘Auto Detect Decode’ or some such. If you use that the audio level is much lower and it forces Atmos if your audio gear supports it. For instance, with it set that way playing a show from Hulu, who doesn’t have Atmos on anything, forces it to do it instead, makes for one odd soundstage.

The fix is to change it to Auto Detect PassThrough, which works fine and still allows Netflix to do Atmos. Technically that is supposed to be the same as what the older versions of the Ultra does, which would mean no Atmos in Netflix.

AirPlay support doesn’t seem to be rolling out to the 2020 Ultra yet. I can’t figure out what Roku is thinking by not installing the latest and greatest version of their firmware on their newest box.


----------



## raott

Looks like there may have been a recent software update some time in October. Incredulously, still cannot pad recordings.


----------



## compnurd

raott said:


> Looks like there may have been a recent software update some time in October. Incredulously, still cannot pad recordings.


Does any streaming service let you pad recordings?


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Does any streaming service let you pad recordings?


None that I'm aware of. I know it has been an asked for feature for ATT TV & Now for a long time. I've heard that YTTV is doing some auto padding.

Now on to the Roku Ultra 2020 a bit. Finally some official though not published news. AirPlay 2 is coming to it as announced, they are now waiting for approval from Apple for the Ultra 2020, seems each device needs certification and the Ultra 2020 hasn't been certified yet. Expected timeframe is 1-2 weeks. This wouldn't be an issue if Roku & HBO Max could come to terms.

The audio on the Ultra 2020 with Auto Decode on has improved and is actually quite good now. It basically upscales all audio to the highest form your sound equipment supports. IOW, if you have an Atmos capable device, then everything gets up scaled to Atmos. That's the same thing that the Dolby Experience app for the Xbox One does.


----------



## raott

I've read that YouTube TV does.



compnurd said:


> Does any streaming service let you pad recordings?


----------



## compnurd

raott said:


> I've read that YouTube TV does.


It doesn't. It will auto extend but reviews say it doesn't work


----------



## James Long

compnurd said:


> It doesn't. It will auto extend but reviews say it doesn't work


We have had reports on our forum of YouTube adjusting start and stop times of programming (mainly due to sports overruns).

Not the feature we are accustomed to on satellite receivers and other home based DVRs where one sets their own padding and extensions. But it serves the need when program times do not match scheduled times.


----------



## compnurd

James Long said:


> We have had reports on our forum of YouTube adjusting start and stop times of programming (mainly due to sports overruns).
> 
> Not the feature we are accustomed to on satellite receivers and other home based DVRs where one sets their own padding and extensions. But it serves the need when program times do not match scheduled times.


Ummm


----------



## raott

I don't have nor pay for YouTube TV so it's a moot point for me.



compnurd said:


> It doesn't. It will auto extend but reviews say it doesn't work


----------



## compnurd

Days like today have me questioning things as heavy rains have loosened the soil around the base of my dish pole and the wind is blowing it out of alignment


----------



## lparsons21

Yeah, but it ain’t all roses and clover with the live streamers either! 

Today ATT TV wouldn’t record the last round of the Masters. Neither would AirTV with OTA. Recast came to the rescue though...


----------



## lparsons21

Last night neither the timers for Fargo on FX nor Last Week Tonight on HBO fired. Fortunately I have other ways of getting both of those.


----------



## harsh

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, but it ain't all roses and clover with the live streamers either!





lparsons21 said:


> Last night neither the timers for Fargo on FX nor Last Week Tonight on HBO fired.


Apparently not.


----------



## harperhometheater

So with this announcement of their "differences" being resolved with HBO Max now being offered on FireTV, does that mean we will probably see Amazon Prime come to the AT&T TV Osprey?

HBO Max finally arrives on Amazon Fire TV devices



> _*"AT&T and Amazon have finally settled their differences* and reached an agreement to offer HBO Max on Amazon Fire devices."_


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> So with this announcement of their "differences" being resolved with HBO Max now being offered on FireTV, does that mean we will probably see Amazon Prime come to the AT&T TV Osprey?
> 
> HBO Max finally arrives on Amazon Fire TV devices


That's probably a fair guess. But it can be sideloaded now.


----------



## harperhometheater

lparsons21 said:


> That's probably a fair guess. But it can be sideloaded now.


I get that it can be side loaded, but that's not ideal nor something the average target base of this service will want or know how to do.


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> So with this announcement of their "differences" being resolved with HBO Max now being offered on FireTV, does that mean we will probably see Amazon Prime come to the AT&T TV Osprey?
> 
> HBO Max finally arrives on Amazon Fire TV devices


I thought we had deduced that Prime not being on the Osprey was more Google related and not ATT/Amazon


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> I get that it can be side loaded, but that's not ideal nor something the average target base of this service will want or know how to do.


Average. Probably 95%


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> I thought we had deduced that Prime not being on the Osprey was more Google related and not ATT/Amazon


How would we deduce that? Prime isn't a Google product at all. Google literally has no say in this.

Now a little shift. I had said that FireTV is better than AppleTV in some previous posts. But twiddling with ATV4K the last couple of days points me a little differently.

With a good remote, and with all apps EXCEPT ATT TV's, it is fine and works well. But it sucks really bad when you try to use the ATT TV app and want to just skip a bit. That just sucks!

So if/when I cancel ATT TV I may just go back to Apple.


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> I get that it can be side loaded, but that's not ideal nor something the average target base of this service will want or know how to do.


Well, yeah, there's that! 

While the actual doing of sideloading is actually pretty simple and works well, for a casual user the instructions I used would seem daunting.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> How would we deduce that? Prime isn't a Google product at all. Google literally has no say in this.
> 
> Now a little shift. I had said that FireTV is better than AppleTV in some previous posts. But twiddling with ATV4K the last couple of days points me a little differently.
> 
> With a good remote, and with all apps EXCEPT ATT TV's, it is fine and works well. But it sucks really bad when you try to use the ATT TV app and want to just skip a bit. That just sucks!
> 
> So if/when I cancel ATT TV I may just go back to Apple.


Because the OS is Android. I may have read this on the TiVo forum related to the Stream 4K but the conclusion was it wasn't on the Osprey and some other Android TV device because of Amazon and Google's relationship


----------



## swyman18

lparsons21 said:


> Last night neither the timers for Fargo on FX nor Last Week Tonight on HBO fired. Fortunately I have other ways of getting both of those.


Yeah, noticed Ep 9 of Fargo didn't trigger for me either. Good thing for FX on Hulu.


----------



## compnurd

Side note. Hulu Live is going up 10 bucks next month


----------



## techguy88

compnurd said:


> Side note. Hulu Live is going up 10 bucks next month


AT&T TV Now is usually the last out of the bunch to increase its pricing. Since the actual AT&T TV is mirroring D*'s packages I would expect that to increase when D* does (usually Jan/Feb.)


----------



## lparsons21

lparsons21 said:


> Now a little shift. I had said that FireTV is better than AppleTV in some previous posts. But twiddling with ATV4K the last couple of days points me a little differently.
> 
> With a good remote, and with all apps EXCEPT ATT TV's, it is fine and works well. But it sucks really bad when you try to use the ATT TV app and want to just skip a bit. That just sucks!
> 
> So if/when I cancel ATT TV I may just go back to Apple.


So further playing around with ATV4K & ATT TV app.

Skipping forward or back is problematic and here's a couple observations.

With ATV remote you can tap the trackpad and then scroll right/left and it will show what time you are at to select that point. Actually pretty easy once you've done it a couple times. But other than the time indication there is no indication of what's showing at that time.

IOW, no thumbnail or any indication on screen video.

Also, this is easier to do with the ipad/iphone TV remote than it is with the physical remote IMO.

With my Harmony Elite you can skip and you get an indication of what's going on, but instead of a thumbnail it twiddles the whole screen. Very jerky and irritating, but what's worse is if you try to FF and try for faster speed, then it loses track, throws up an error and often crashes the app.

On the Harmony Elite there is a trackpad screen but it doesn't quite work the same as it does on the ATV's physical remote or the iOS Remote app.

IMO, the ATV isn't a great experience with the ATT TV app. Other live streaming apps work much better with the ATV and if ATT would use thumbnails for some trickplay it wouldn't be such a PITA to deal with.


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Side note. Hulu Live is going up 10 bucks next month


Considering that their advertised price is a bit bogus to begin with, this makes it one of the most expensive streamers out there.

If you want to be able to skip ads in DVR'd shows you have to get the enhanced DVR. And if you want no ads for the VOD portions of Hulu then you have to pay for that too. All in all about $85/month.


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> I thought we had deduced that Prime not being on the Osprey was more Google related and not ATT/Amazon


Amazon Prime has been available on Android TV devices for a while. The FireTV issue was entirely a failure to reach agreement between HBO and Amazon (as is the Roku absence).


----------



## techguy88

harsh said:


> Amazon Prime has been available on Android TV devices for a while. The FireTV issue was entirely a failure to reach agreement between HBO and Amazon (as is the Roku absence).


Prime Video on Android TV is a bit different than other Android TV apps. Most apps (Disney+, HBO Max, Movies Anywhere, etc.) negotiate with Google for carriage on Google Play. In Prime Video's case the device manufacture needs to reach an agreement with Amazon first. Once that happens updates to Prime Video are delivered via Google Play Store. This is why devices like Mi Box S, AirTV Mini, etc. launched without Prime Video support but gained Prime Video support much later on. AT&T and Amazon need to come to terms on Prime Video carriage for Osprey first.


----------



## lparsons21

Most streaming apps are available for the ATT Osprey box, the notable ones missing are:

Amazon Prime - while the app works fine on it, you have to sideload it. ATT may not be all that interested in getting Prime and there has been no indication of it ever coming in a few forums that have discussed it.

Hulu - Like Prime, ATT is not showing much interest in it. And since the latest version that can be sideloaded and actually work is v2.1.3 which is pre-Hulu+Live support as there is some technical reason the newer versions won’t work, this is another one that isn’t getting much discussion or speculation about.

Apple’s TV+ app - Since Apple decided not to make an android port of this it probably won’t show up either. Apple could have included Chromecast support in the app but that’s just not the Apple way! Roku recently got AirPlay 2 support but I doubt that many other boxes will.

IMO, ATT has to be given credit for designing the Osprey even though it is a bit of a slug, it is really handy to use with its service and seems to get along pretty well with other apps, and just like every other streaming box out there, what it can and can’t do with other apps varies quite a bit. So far though, the Osprey of today is the same as the first box was with little more than bug fixes along the way. The only nod to the Beta testers was a new and much better remote.


----------



## harsh

lparsons21 said:


> Apple's TV+ app - Since Apple decided not to make an android port of this it probably won't show up either.


The AppleTV app is available on some Android TV platforms as we speak so it has already been ported. It is available on my Sony X900H TV and supports Apple TV and Apple TV+.


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> The AppleTV app is available on some Android TV platforms as we speak so it has already been ported. It is available on my Sony X900H TV and supports Apple TV and Apple TV+.


Yeah, after I posted I remembered that it was on some few AndroidTV platforms though notably not the boxes. Technically that should mean it could be on more than it is.

It isn't available on my X900E.


----------



## techguy88

Only select Sony Android TVs have the Apple TV app right now. That was a deal Apple & Sony made. I wouldn't be surprised if Prime Video support gets added later but I think AT&T's biggest concern was getting HBO Max on Amazon's Fire devices.


----------



## harperhometheater

harsh said:


> The AppleTV app is available on some Android TV platforms as we speak so it has already been ported. It is available on my Sony X900H TV and supports Apple TV and Apple TV+.





lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, after I posted I remembered that it was on some few AndroidTV platforms though notably not the boxes. Technically that should mean it could be on more than it is.
> 
> It isn't available on my X900E.


Can it be side loaded then?


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> Can it be side loaded then?


I've not read of anyone doing it yet.


----------



## harsh

harperhometheater said:


> Can it be side loaded then?


I expect that it will be explicitly restricted to certain devices. Different devices have differing DRM capabilities (HDCP) and they can't allow deployment on devices that don't implement the protocols used.


----------



## mjwagner

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, after I posted I remembered that it was on some few AndroidTV platforms though notably not the boxes. Technically that should mean it could be on more than it is.
> 
> It isn't available on my X900E.


It is available on FireTV devices.


----------



## lparsons21

mjwagner said:


> It is available on FireTV devices.


Yep, and that's the only android based box it is on. It is also on Roku but that's a different OS.


----------



## mjwagner

lparsons21 said:


> Yep, and that's the only android based box it is on. It is also on Roku but that's a different OS.


No worries, was just clarifying "though notably not the boxes" for others who may be following...


----------



## compnurd

So I have had to re-activate my service in a quick pinch here.. We had some bad winds last weekend which appears to be the nail in the coffin on my pole mount for my dish... I noticed it moving a little too much and sure enough the pole rusted out and snapped about 6 inches in the ground.. So while i contemplate my next move.. I resigned up for ATT TV since I still have all my boxes.


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> So I have had to re-activate my service in a quick pinch here.. We had some bad winds last weekend which appears to be the nail in the coffin on my pole mount for my dish... I noticed it moving a little too much and sure enough the pole rusted out and snapped about 6 inches in the ground.. So while i contemplate my next move.. I resigned up for ATT TV since I still have all my boxes.


ATT TV or Now?
To me, Now at the Max level is an excellent mix at a fair price though notably missing AMC and BBCA.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> ATT TV or Now?
> To me, Now at the Max level is an excellent mix at a fair price though notably missing AMC and BBCA.


TV. Now is missing too many channels


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> ATT TV or Now?
> To me, Now at the Max level is an excellent mix at a fair price though notably missing AMC and BBCA.


In all honestly AT&T TV Now Max is perfect for me channel wise now that AMC launched their AMC+ service on Apple TV Channels & Prime Video Channels for $8.99/mo. Granted you can't DVR the linear AMC, BBCA, IFC, SundanceTV & AMC+ feeds but all the big programming is added on demand within 24 hours of airing on linear. It also includes Shudder, SundanceNow & IFC Films Unlimited which I find more value in than the missing A+E Networks & Discovery channels. If I ever need those missing two channel groups I'll just wait for TVision Vibe to be available nationwide lol.



compnurd said:


> So I have had to re-activate my service in a quick pinch here.. We had some bad winds last weekend which appears to be the nail in the coffin on my pole mount for my dish... I noticed it moving a little too much and sure enough the pole rusted out and snapped about 6 inches in the ground.. So while i contemplate my next move.. I resigned up for ATT TV since I still have all my boxes.





compnurd said:


> TV. Now is missing too many channels


I hope they gave you a discount or no commitment if you are paying full price. If they are charging you full price with no commitment for AT&T TV, if it were me, I would have just created an AT&T TV Now account and got the package I needed (instead of getting AT&T TV Choice you could get AT&T TV Now Choice). This way I could avoid paying the Regional Sports Fee since AT&T TV Now doesn't charge an RSN Fee on Choice - Premier.


----------



## compnurd

techguy88 said:


> In all honestly AT&T TV Now Max is perfect for me channel wise now that AMC launched their AMC+ service on Apple TV Channels & Prime Video Channels for $8.99/mo. Granted you can't DVR the linear AMC, BBCA, IFC, SundanceTV & AMC+ feeds but all the big programming is added on demand within 24 hours of airing on linear. It also includes Shudder, SundanceNow & IFC Films Unlimited which I find more value in than the missing A+E Networks & Discovery channels. If I ever need those missing two channel groups I'll just wait for TVision Vibe to be available nationwide lol.
> 
> I hope they gave you a discount or no commitment if you are paying full price. If they are charging you full price with no commitment for AT&T TV, if it were me, I would have just created an AT&T TV Now account and got the package I needed (instead of getting AT&T TV Choice you could get AT&T TV Now Choice). This way I could avoid paying the Regional Sports Fee since AT&T TV Now doesn't charge an RSN Fee on Choice - Premier.


They gave me full new customer pricing


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> They gave me full new customer pricing


So you're now under a new 2 year contract deal with the new customer signup perks and such?


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> So you're now under a new 2 year contract deal with the new customer signup perks and such?


yup and another 2 week trial while i see if i can get this pole remounted


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> yup and another 2 week trial while i see if i can get this pole remounted


I had forgotten that 2 week trial. Hope you can get your pole issue fixed before then.

But to be fair while ATT TV's rates are a bit on the high side and it is easy to look at 2nd year and say they are horribly high, it isn't quite that bad. Here's some math to contemplate...

All at Entertainment level - 
1st year @$50/month = $600
Minus the $100 rebate at the time = -$100
2nd year @$108 ($93 f/ent., $15 f/HBO) = $1296

Average for 24 months = about $75/month

Compared to :
YTTV + HBO = $80/month
ATT TV Now Max = $80/month
SlingBlue+TotalTV+HBO = $65/month

Heck, even doing away with a live streamer and going with Netflix, Hulu no ads, CBS/Showtime Apple deal, AppleTV+, Peacock, HBO and AMC+ comes out to about $70/month.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> I had forgotten that 2 week trial. Hope you can get your pole issue fixed before then.
> 
> But to be fair while ATT TV's rates are a bit on the high side and it is easy to look at 2nd year and say they are horribly high, it isn't quite that bad. Here's some math to contemplate...
> 
> All at Entertainment level -
> 1st year @$50/month = $600
> Minus the $100 rebate at the time = -$100
> 2nd year @$108 ($93 f/ent., $15 f/HBO) = $1296
> 
> Average for 24 months = about $75/month
> 
> Compared to :
> YTTV + HBO = $80/month
> ATT TV Now Max = $80/month
> SlingBlue+TotalTV+HBO = $65/month
> 
> Heck, even doing away with a live streamer and going with Netflix, Hulu no ads, CBS/Showtime Apple deal, AppleTV+, Peacock, HBO and AMC+ comes out to about $70/month.


It's madness

I finally got the pole re installed and level but having a hell of a time getting it peaked this time Starting to wonder if it got bent I can only peak at 88 on 99CA TP9. I was 95 previous. I get glimmers of 91-92 but I can't keep it locked It's overcast so not sure if that is causing an issue. Will try again Tuesday. Supposed to be sunny


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> It's madness
> 
> I finally got the pole re installed and level but having a hell of a time getting it peaked this time Starting to wonder if it got bent I can only peak at 88 on 99CA TP9. I was 95 previous. I get glimmers of 91-92 but I can't keep it locked It's overcast so not sure if that is causing an issue. Will try again Tuesday. Supposed to be sunny


We're heavily overcast today too and if yours is as heavy as mine, it probably will affect the signal by some unknown amount.

Go have a beer or three and wait for a bit of sunshine!


----------



## west99999

compnurd said:


> It's madness
> 
> I finally got the pole re installed and level but having a hell of a time getting it peaked this time Starting to wonder if it got bent I can only peak at 88 on 99CA TP9. I was 95 previous. I get glimmers of 91-92 but I can't keep it locked It's overcast so not sure if that is causing an issue. Will try again Tuesday. Supposed to be sunny


It doesn't take much at all. If the reflector or arm was bent any you will not get maximum signal.


----------



## compnurd

west99999 said:


> It doesn't take much at all. If the reflector or arm was bent any you will not get maximum signal.


Yeh I am going to keep messing on Tuesday. It is raining now and the signal barely dropped so possible the clouds were causing the issue and it may pop once it clears in which case I did good lol


----------



## compnurd

Well the skies parted this morning.. Gained 2 points with the clearing. Got my 99 to low 90's/Upper 80's across and 103 is all 95+ I dont see messing with it anymore causing any major difference in rain.. Had no issues yesterday afternoon with the moderate rain.. I however have a dilemma.. I forgot how much i Liked ATT TV lol.. First let me say the picture is ever so crisper... the interface is just so much better and detailed on the Osprey vs the Genie software... The flip side is though the content is that much higher with Directv... gain PBS back and 4K channels... I dunno what to do lol


----------



## lparsons21

Glad to see you got it all fixed.

Yeah, ATT TV is really a good service. Great PQ and being the only live streaming service with DD5.1, great AQ too. And while I’m not as enamored of the Osprey box as some others, the UI is really good using the service.

Fortunately the app on other devices is very good too. The primary differences being with trickplay and having to use a more generic remote with the service.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Glad to see you got it all fixed.
> 
> Yeah, ATT TV is really a good service. Great PQ and being the only live streaming service with DD5.1, great AQ too. And while I'm not as enamored of the Osprey box as some others, the UI is really good using the service.
> 
> Fortunately the app on other devices is very good too. The primary differences being with trickplay and having to use a more generic remote with the service.


Yeh I may stick with it this time.. The biggest thing holding me back is sports in 4K. But in all honesty.. I rarely watch them anyway in 4K.. Maybe 10 min here or there...


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Yeh I may stick with it this time.. The biggest thing holding me back is sports in 4K. But in all honesty.. I rarely watch them anyway in 4K.. Maybe 10 min here or there...


I don't watch much sports at all regardless of resolution! 

Typically it goes like this:
If baseball is on my TV I'm taking a nap
If golf is on the nap is shorter
If football is on I might stay awake

Otherwise sports are just not on!


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> I don't watch much sports at all regardless of resolution!
> 
> Typically it goes like this:
> If baseball is on my TV I'm taking a nap
> If golf is on the nap is shorter
> If football is on I might stay awake
> 
> Otherwise sports are just not on!


Lol. I love baseball but usually me watching follows the same sequence as you lol. For me also being a Mets fan living in Pittsburgh I have always had mlb.tv. So that piece is easy.


----------



## I WANT MORE

I'm waiting for them to add the sports pack RSNs.


----------



## compnurd

I WANT MORE said:


> I'm waiting for them to add the sports pack RSNs.


I honestly don't think you will ever see that


----------



## swyman18

compnurd said:


> I honestly don't think you will ever see that


My hope was that we would eventually see the same type of offerings that currently exist on DirecTV, like the sports pack RSN's and some 4K content. I guess it remains to be seen, but probably doubtful.


----------



## compnurd

swyman18 said:


> My hope was that we would eventually see the same type of offerings that currently exist on DirecTV, like the sports pack RSN's and some 4K content. I guess it remains to be seen, but probably doubtful.


4K yes. I am surprised that hasnt shown up yet.. Sports Pack RSN I would venture to say no. That will remain a Satellite Niche


----------



## techguy88

*FYI:* AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now peeps. Join in with your DirecTV & U-Verse TV brethren for DirecTV's annual Thanksgiving Free Preview for the premium channels!

AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now Free Preview Guide November 25 - 29, 2020


> AT&T TV and AT&T TV NOW - live channels and on-demand
> HBO East, HBO2, HBO Family, HBO Latino.
> ActionMAX, Cinemax East
> SHOWTIME Extreme, SHOWTIME East, SHOWTIME 2 East
> EPIX, EPIX 2, EPIX Hits


----------



## lparsons21

I’ve been reading a few articles about the upcoming channel negotiations that are looking like there will be significant blackouts of many broadcast channels on both Dish and Direct. With the one for Direct it most likely will affect ATT’s streaming offerings too. For Dish, since SlingTV doesn’t do locals for the most part, it shouldn’t be negatively affected.

And that made me cogitate a bit. The two biggest content drivers that impact the cost of live TV are sports and locals/broadcast. Both have risen significantly more than the other channels outside of the Disney stuff.

And that brought me to the thought that maybe ATT TV or TV Now should consider a broadcast free subscription level. That should knock about $12/month off the bill and would fill a need/want for those that can get those locals via antenna or Locast. It would still be a ‘premium’ service because of the superior video and audio qualities of the service compared to others but would bring the price closer in competition to other services.

And to pricing for ATT TV (not Now), I’m firmly convinced that when the 1st year anniversary rolls around and the price more than doubles if you keep all you got in the 1st year that people are going to drop it like flies.

Let’s look at 2nd year pricing compared to 1st year on my deal at the time.
Entertainment 1st year = $50 includes HBO Max
Entertainment 2nd year = $93 no HBO Max
Add HBO Max $15

So second year is $108 if you want to keep what you have.

Choice including RSN 1st year = $67 includes HBO Max
Choice including RSN 2nd year = $118 no HBO Max
Add HBO Max $15

So second year is $133 if you want to keep what you have.

To keep ATT streaming service that is close to both of those levels, and keep HBO Max and pick up Cinemax a move to 
ATT TV Now Max = $80
AMC+ to pick up missing BBCA and AMC = $9

So total of $89.
If you cancel and pay the ETF of $15/month for the 12 months left that makes the total effective out of pocket $104

That’s $4/month cheaper than Entertainment
And $29/month cheaper than Choice

Of course the channel counts and actual channels are not exactly the same, but you gain some from what Entertainment offered and are very close to being the same as Choice.

And yeah, there are other live streaming services that are cheaper but all of them have some less video quality and none of them have 5.1 audio at all.


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> I've been reading a few articles about the upcoming channel negotiations that are looking like there will be significant blackouts of many broadcast channels on both Dish and Direct. With the one for Direct it most likely will affect ATT's streaming offerings too. For Dish, since SlingTV doesn't do locals for the most part, it shouldn't be negatively affected.


When it comes to locals, Sling TV is only affected when Dish has to renew their OTA retransmission consent with Fox Corporation & NBCUniversal for their O&O Fox & NBC stations. AT&T TV/TV Now piggybacks off of D*'s local retransmission consent agreements (along with U-Verse TV) so a total of 4 TV services are impacted with AT&T (D*, U-Verse TV, AT&T TV & AT&T TV Now).

Right now Dish's potential dispute with Nexstar is the biggest impacting. After Nexstar's merger with Tribune, Nexstar became the largest owner of OTA stations (overtaking Sinclair.) Unlike the 2019 AT&T-Nexstar dispute (which only affected the Nexstar stations and not the Tribune/WGN group at the time) the 2020 Dish-Nexstar impacts the former Tribune/WGN stations along with Nexstar's original station group.

Tenga is one of the bigger ones but only impacts 54 markets which is less than half of Nexstar. AT&T has a better track record at resolving disputes than Dish does considering AT&T's Sinclair dispute was resolved without a blackout and AT&T has all of the Sinclair RSNs. However AT&T's Nexstar dispute took 2 months IIRC which means Dish customers are in for a long battle.

However if both AT&T and Dish are blacked out at the same time with Tenga & Nexstar respectively we are going to see more markets with both Tenga & Nexstar stations which will cause things like the Tenga station promoting Dish as an alternative while the Nexstar station promoting DirecTV. Although AT&T and Dish retention agents should have an easier time of proving their point that "switching providers during a dispute is not the answer."



mwdxer said:


> Totally agree. These constant disputes are not good for either side. Portland has KOIN/KRCW both Nexstar, so people will lose CBS & CW.


If both Dish-Nexstar & AT&T-Tenga go into blackout then Portland, OR will be affected by both:

Nexstar - KOIN (CBS) / KRCW (CW)
Tenga - KGW (NBC)


----------



## lparsons21

In my last post, I was doing some comparisons between ATT TV Choice and ATT TV Now Max package. While the Now Max package doesn’t have all the channels that TV Choice does, it has quite a few. And that is also true of the TV Xtra level too. There are some of Xtra’s channels in the TV Now Max package though certainly not all.

Here’s a comparison at full retail:

ATT TV Xtra = $124 + RSN fee of about $8/month, so total of $132. And it doesn’t include HBO or Cinemax.

ATT TV Now = $80 and no RSN fee and has HBO (and Max) and Cinemax included.

IMO, that makes ATT TV Now a real bargain IF the channel mix fits your needs and if you value even just HBO (and Max), not counting any value for Cinemax.

For the $80/month you get the channels in the best PQ of any live streaming service as well as DD5.1 audio on those channels that provide that. You get a 500 hour cloud DVR.

Notable channels missing (my opinion of course)
AMC
BBCA
NFL & RedZone

AMC+ app and subscription service, ad free is $8.99/month and includes AMC, BBCA, IFC, Sundance and Shudder.

NFL & RedZone are harder to come by unless I’m missing something. I can only find them on other live streamers and much more money than I would think they are worth, especially considering how many games are available on broadcast and ESPN these days.

I’ve been wanting to get the Golf Channel so I’ve been considering ways to do that the cheapest way possible. For that upping my subscription to Xtra on ATT TV is $82 or $32/month more than I’m paying now and that price includes the RSN fee. And while that would add a bunch of other channels, almost all of them are not interesting to me.

But if I cancel and pay the ETF then even the cheapest way i could find is $80/month including ETF and has poorer, but not bad, HDPQ and only stereo audio. That would be a combo of SlingBlue+TotalTV+HBO. I would lose ESPN which is an issue.

Sigh... Even though I’m not a big sports fan the only way to reduce the cost of streaming by much is to do away with sports altogether and I’m not quite ready to do that yet.


----------



## lparsons21

Well I had a most pleasant experience with ATT TV today. Called to cancel and pay the ETF and move to ATT TV Now Max. After a bit of a conversation the CSR said to hold on and she would see if she could get the ETF waived since I was moving to another ATT service. She got it approved!!

So now it is ATT TV Now Max plus AMC+ to pick up the AMC/BBCA channels not in the Max package. I really like the ATT streaming service from a PQ and AQ viewpoint and the channel mix is great for me. But the ATT TV service’s 2nd year pricing and overall structure just wasn’t cutting it for me.


----------



## lparsons21

I was playing around with my streaming boxes recently and noticed that for ATT TV (and Now) DD5.1 audio is missing on some channels while using the AppleTV4K.

Checked those channels in the same time period on the Roku Ultra and FireTV Cube and DD5.1 is there for those same channels. Frankly that doesn’t make sense.

For those contemplating ATT TV or TV Now the AppleTV is the worst box to use. The ATV remote doesn’t lend itself to operation of the app very well at all, and even using a Harmony Elite isn’t very good either. Both mostly when trying to use ff/REW to skip ads in recordings.


----------



## techguy88

That's great they did that with the ETF @lparsons21 ! Not sure what's going on with the DD5.1 audio on Apple TV 4K that is odd.


----------



## lparsons21

techguy88 said:


> That's great they did that with the ETF @lparsons21 ! Not sure what's going on with the DD5.1 audio on Apple TV 4K that is odd.


Yeah, it is very odd. Here's a little more about the oddity. I noticed it first on USA during the day, no DD5.1 on ATV but yet in the same time slot it did have it on the Roku. Same thing for a relatively few other channels.

Later in the evening USA did have 5.1 on the ATV.

Now off on a little tangent... 

I have the ATT Osprey box still connected and now and then I'll kick it on to see if an update has finally come to it to improve the performance of the box, especially things like launching apps. Sadly it hasn't happened. The irritating part of all of that is that ATT had the right idea with that box and then just dropped the ball. No updates of any significance since launch and still no official Amazon Prime or Hulu app support.


----------



## swyman18

I’m still using the Osprey box for live TV only, and it would be perfect (for me) if the following nagging little things would get fixed:

- Forced DD5.1 on channels/content that are stereo only, making it impossible for my AVR to simulate surround from a stereo signal. 

- The forced HDR output. As long as the HDR gets triggered on my Sony TV, then it looks good. Every once in a while, the HDR flag won’t get triggered on my TV causing the picture to look hazy and washed out. Turning the box off/on or rebooting usually fixes it temporarily.

- Navigating the guide/ interface is sluggish. The developer option changes have only helped slightly.

If these items could get fixed, then the service would be a keeper for me. I really like the live TV interface and the remote.


----------



## lparsons21

swyman18 said:


> I'm still using the Osprey box for live TV only, and it would be perfect (for me) if the following nagging little things would get fixed:
> 
> - Forced DD5.1 on channels/content that are stereo only, making it impossible for my AVR to simulate surround from a stereo signal.
> 
> - The forced HDR output. As long as the HDR gets triggered on my Sony TV, then it looks good. Every once in a while, the HDR flag won't get triggered on my TV causing the picture to look hazy and washed out. Turning the box off/on or rebooting usually fixes it temporarily.
> 
> - Navigating the guide/ interface is sluggish. The developer option changes have only helped slightly.
> 
> If these items could get fixed, then the service would be a keeper for me. I really like the live TV interface and the remote.


Yeah, those are niggling problems with the Osprey box for sure.

The forced DD+ was an issue for me with my previous soundbar, just wouldn't massage the channels/shows that were stereo at all. My current soundbar doesn't have that problem so it is now a non-issue. 

The forced HDR seems to be an issue with quite a few AndroidTV based boxes. Seems like it is baked in to some versions of AndroidTV OS. And as you noticed sometimes the flag doesn't set right with at least Sony TV's.

Thankfully the Osprey box isn't the only way to get the service!!


----------



## raott

Def frustrating that the box has not had any significant substantive updates, even on low hanging fruit fixes/improvements. Still no way to see in the guide if you are recording a show or have a series link to that show; still no good way to "skip to tick" or fast forward to near the end of a show; and still no way to pad any recordings which is a pain with sports and live events.

I mostly like the Osprey box but those items are a nuisance. I do still have occasional HDMI handshake issues with the box as well.



lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, it is very odd. Here's a little more about the oddity. I noticed it first on USA during the day, no DD5.1 on ATV but yet in the same time slot it did have it on the Roku. Same thing for a relatively few other channels.
> 
> Later in the evening USA did have 5.1 on the ATV.
> 
> Now off on a little tangent...
> 
> I have the ATT Osprey box still connected and now and then I'll kick it on to see if an update has finally come to it to improve the performance of the box, especially things like launching apps. Sadly it hasn't happened. The irritating part of all of that is that ATT had the right idea with that box and then just dropped the ball. No updates of any significance since launch and still no official Amazon Prime or Hulu app support.


----------



## swyman18

raott said:


> Def frustrating that the box has not had any significant substantive updates, even on low hanging fruit fixes/improvements. Still no way to see in the guide if you are recording a show or have a series link to that show; still no good way to "skip to tick" or fast forward to near the end of a show; and still no way to pad any recordings which is a pain with sports and live events.
> 
> I mostly like the Osprey box but those items are a nuisance. I do still have occasional HDMI handshake issues with the box as well.


One thing I noticed that was added somewhat recently, is when viewing your list of upcoming recordings and you highlight a show with a series link, a box comes shows in the upper right that says 'stop series recording' or something like that. That helps a little bit. You used to have to drill down to the show info to cancel a series recording.

But, yeah, it would definitely help if there was a 'series manager' or something like that. Currently if you want to stop a series recording and there are no upcoming episodes, you need to specifically search for the show and cancel from there. I probably have a bunch of series recordings setup that I totally forgot about, but I would never know because the show isn't active and there are no upcoming recordings.


----------



## lparsons21

All in all it seems that ATT is pretty much in maintenance mode with all their streaming/tv devices. No real changes in the DirecTV stuff for quite some time now, and the Osprey box is essentially the same as it was on launch day other than a new remote for it.

While it seems to make some kind of sense to not invest much in these things because of the continuing decline in subscribers, I can’t help but think that it adds to the reasons people are moving to other services. Doesn’t help that the marketing of ATT TV and Now is still the mess it has always been, nor that the pricing on ATT TV at retail is way too close to what something similar would cost on cable/sat. And that’s a damned shame!

For all its warts ATT TV and Now are the only services offering live streaming with DD5.1 audio and a really great picture. YouTubeTV comes very close in PQ, but it, like all the others is still doing stereo sound only.

The Osprey box could have been a candidate for that elusive ‘one box’ solution to streaming. But with Amazon Prime and Hulu having no official support it kills that idea. And the sluggishness of loading apps kind of kills that idea completely.

Right now the best two candidates for a one box solutions are Roku and FireTV, though on the FireTV you do have to sideload Peacock. Otherwise there aren’t any significant holes in app support on those.

AppleTV’s downsides for a one box solution are the horrible remote, especially when trying to control a live streaming app. No DD5.1 audio on Hulu. And oddly, 5.1 support with the ATT TV app is not quite the same as it is on other devices. Some channels that are DD5.1 on Roku and FireTV are not on the AppleTV. That makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## riprecked

I've been using YouTube TV for quite a while - prior to that I was a D* subscriber for a LONG time.

Well, the PQ of YouTube TV isn't as good as it once was and the RSNs are gone. So I am looking at AT&T TV as an app on my Apple TV 4K boxes (plus a Firestick on one TV). Note I use a Harmony remote with the Apple TV, the Apple remote is crap.

Only thing holding me back from switching is the 2 year commitment and know AT&T is having serious issues holding onto subscribers (esp D*).

It sounds like the PQ is great with AT&T TV from reading most of this thread and the app works fairly well. Anyone else switch from YouTube TV or having reservations about making the switch?

Thanks


----------



## lparsons21

I’ve had YTTV, Sling and ATT TV off and on for quite some time now. ATT TV and ATT TV Now do have the best picture and audio of any of the live streamers, but it comes at a price.

ATT TV Now - This is a straight streaming service with no contract. The Max subscription level has the sports and also include HBO Max and Cinemax. Cost is $80/month.

But as with everything else with streaming, it depends whether or not that fits you. Do a Google search for ATT TV Now and look at the channel lineup to see if it fits you.

ATT TV - This is essentially a cable/sat replacement service with similar subscription packages, RSN fee on some levels and the pesky 2 year contract.

Note that the deal offers great pricing in the first year and a rebate which I think is $200 now, but that varies. You also get the ATT TV Osprey box with it which is a decent way to use the service, but isn’t a requirement to use.

But 2nd year pricing jumps over $40/month.


----------



## harsh

riprecked said:


> It sounds like the PQ is great with AT&T TV from reading most of this thread and the app works fairly well.


As noted in Lloyd's post prior to yours, surround sound may (or may not) be absent on the ATV.

Reservations with tying the knot with AT&T are ever-present. There is some speculation that Uverse and/or AT&T TV may get split to a possible new DIRECTV partner.


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> As noted in Lloyd's post prior to yours, surround sound may (or may not) be absent on the ATV.


The surround sound issue with AppleTV and ATT TV is on a per channel and sometimes per show basis. It is there for most channels and shows, just not all of them.


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> Reservations with tying the knot with AT&T are ever-present. There is some speculation that Uverse and/or AT&T TV may get split to a possible new DIRECTV partner.


Yeah, AT&T continues to make it a mess with their offerings and the possible/probable/maybe selling off of DirecTV and/or/including ATT TV doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling!

Thankfully I'm now with ATT TV Now with no contract so it becomes less of a consideration.


----------



## lparsons21

Some updated ramblings... 

I’ve been using the ATT Osprey box almost exclusively for the past week. Seems that the December 3rd update added a little oomph to the box. Much quicker doing virtually everything and while it still isn’t as quick as many other boxes, it is good enough IMO.

With app loading, it is still a fair bit slower than other boxes, but again, good enough. Voice works MUCH better now, best I’ve ever seen it do.

The things it doesn’t do are still there. No ATMOS sound support which is odd since it did to ATMOS with the WW84 movie on HBO Max. So it seems the box can do ATMOS and that makes me wonder why it doesn’t pick up on Netflix’s ATMOS. Still no official support for Amazon Prime app or Hulu though both can be sideloaded. Hulu sideload has to be version 2.1.3 as newer versions won’t give sound, other than that it does work just fine.

One app that isn’t available for it is the AppleTV+ app. I’ve read it is coming to at least some AndroidTV based devices, hopefully this will be one.

Live streaming continues to rise in price and right now the ones with a wide range of channels are all circling around the $70/month mark. While Sling is often used as the cheaper way to go, it is a bit misleading. To get Sling to have a comparable channel depth and number as YouTubeTV or Hulu+Live you need to have SlingBlue+Gold+TotalTV and that comes in at $70/month with no locals. IMO unless skinnier levels of Sling are wanted, it isn’t a bargain but is competitive.

There are other live streamers out there, such as Philo which is often used to fill holes the bigger services have. But with them it is a pay less, get less situation IMO.

ATT TV Now at the Max subscription level is a competitive offering and is the minimum subscription you can get and also get the Sinclair//Fox RSNs. ATT streaming is the only service that has those RSN’s at all these days. It offers a pretty good selection of content and also comes with HBO Max and Cinemax, so that adds to the value a bit. And as I’ve said in the past, ATT’s live streaming services are the only live streaming services offering DD5.1 Dolby audio. All the rest just have stereo.

Notably missing are:
NFL Channel and RedZone - no ATT streaming service has them.
A&E Networks stuff 
EDIT: Discovery networks stuff is also missing
BBC/AMC - But subbing to AMC+ @$9/month can fill that hole and also give Shudder, IFC, Sundance and some original stuff too.

It should be noted that AMC+ is kind of a standalone service but you can only subscribe within another service. For me, that is with Amazon Prime’s Channels and then you access it via the Prime app. Apple and Roku also offer it as a ‘channel’, though in Roku’s case you can only access it via the Roku app on a Roku device. With Prime and Apple’s you can access it on any box that has those apps.


----------



## lparsons21

Ooops! A couple of niggling things I forgot to mention.

The DVR is 500 hours and works pretty well. Notably missing is a good way to manage scheduled recordings especially if the show is not currently running. That is because there is no way to access a scheduled list you could modify. It is irritating but not a show stopper IMO.

The VOD is very good and laid out quite well IMO. The Discover menu is where you get started and you can pick Networks, Shows or Movies. From there is a huge selection of VOD, most complete with non-skippable ads. One downside is that the search is a bit flaky, sometimes just not finding a show/movie in the VOD stuff though it is there. And it varies between doing search via voice or typing it in.


----------



## harperhometheater

AT&T TV Now shuts down for new customers, merged with AT&T TV:

AT&T TV Now Shut Down for New Customers, Merged with AT&T TV | Cord Cutters News


----------



## raott

harperhometheater said:


> AT&T TV Now shuts down for new customers, merged with AT&T TV:
> 
> AT&T TV Now Shut Down for New Customers, Merged with AT&T TV | Cord Cutters News


Just goes to show they really had no real strategy a year ago (back when even their marketing materials were wrong). What a mess. Now you have two versions of AT&T TV, one with contract and one without, same offerings (by the looks) but different priced models. My year with AT&T is up in April, it'll be interesting to see what they offer me in lieu of cancelling.


----------



## b4pjoe

The no contract version with only 20 hours of DVR would be a deal breaker.


----------



## raott

b4pjoe said:


> The no contract version with only 20 hours of DVR would be a deal breaker.


Agreed. However, you can get to 500 hours for an extra $10 a month.

Their site actually does a decent comparison breakdown of the two options (contract vs non-contract) that I found informative. Buying a house in April, so I'll likely have the option to go back to Directv if I want to, I'll have to weigh everything out. I really don't want spectrum but I will if I have to. Sunday Ticket was going to be a main factor, but I spent more time watching Red Zone this year than the games on ST.


----------



## lparsons21

Glad I made the switch to ATT TV Now Max package when I did. To me it is a better channel mix and the cost is almost comparable. If I were to move to something different it wouldn’t be these new levels, or at least a cursory glance tells me I wouldn’t.


----------



## lparsons21

raott said:


> Agreed. However, you can get to 500 hours for an extra $10 a month.
> 
> Their site actually does a decent comparison breakdown of the two options (contract vs non-contract) that I found informative. Buying a house in April, so I'll likely have the option to go back to Directv if I want to, I'll have to weigh everything out. I really don't want spectrum but I will if I have to. Sunday Ticket was going to be a main factor, but I spent more time watching Red Zone this year than the games on ST.


Yeah, it does do a pretty good job of giving the options, but it is still the confusing mish-mash that ATT's streaming TV services has been from the get go!

And you should note that NONE of the ATT TV's streaming subscriptions have NFL channel or RedZone. And because of the way the packaging is on the various subscription levels and the new upgrade offering for the DVR expansion, it appears that it is a silent rate increase though that is hard to pin down because of the differences between the old 'Now' packages and these new ones.

All in all, it makes ATT TV's offerings all the most expensive way to stream! For that extra money you get the best live streaming picture, DD5.1 audio and depending on subscription level, access to the Fox/Sinclair RSNs.


----------



## harsh

Given that the merged entity seems likely to have a fraction of the subscribers of Uverse (which may be sharing the auction block with DIRECTV), I wonder if they've really thought this out or this is just another flag run up the pole.


----------



## compnurd

So I am looking at the pricing between the 2 and I am really struggling to see why anyone would take the contract... If you take Ultimate with No Contract and add the DVR is is 70 dollars cheaper overall for 2 years


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> So I am looking at the pricing between the 2 and I am really struggling to see why anyone would take the contract... If you take Ultimate with No Contract and add the DVR is is 70 dollars cheaper overall for 2 years


I did a quick calculation at the Entertainment level and you save about $3/month with contract assuming you pick up the DVR expansion. That wouldn't be much of an enticement. And unless I missed something, it seems the contract version no longer has the $200 rebate which was a good enticement.

Doing a quick comparison of my ATT TV Now Max level to the new Ultimate shows a huge increase in out of pocket costs. Ultimate is the lowest level with the Golf channel which is one of my must have channels. While Ultimate would pick up a lot more channels almost none are of any real interest on my part. Here's the cost comparison:

Current ATT TV Now Max : $80/month
HBO Max included
Cinemax included
Wide range of channels
500 hour DVR
Important missing : AMC/BBCA get for $9/month

Total out of pocket : $89/month

New ATT TV Now Ultimate : $95/month
HBO Max for a year
no Cinemax
Wider range of channels
20 hour DVR
No important missing

Expand DVR to 500 hours : $10/month

Total out of pocket : $105/month
If Cinemax wanted : $115/month total

For those additional dollars no real benefit at all.

For comparison to others:
YTTV $65/month - add HBO total is $80
Sling Blue+Gold+Total TV $70/month - add HBO $85/month


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> Given that the merged entity seems likely to have a fraction of the subscribers of Uverse (which may be sharing the auction block with DIRECTV), I wonder if they've really thought this out or this is just another flag run up the pole.


Doing math seems to show that this 'new' way actually embeds a rate increase without saying so. They seemed to have done away with the $200 rebate which in itself raises the total cost for the contract version over the contract term.

IMO, this is just another flailing marketing gambit which further shows that AT&T has no clue when it comes to dealing with streaming offerings.


----------



## compnurd

I am actually quite intrigued by this.. With football over and no need for NFL or Sunday Ticket.. The no contract saves me 30 a month to be somewhat equal


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> I am actually quite intrigued by this.. With football over and no need for NFL or Sunday Ticket.. The no contract saves me 30 a month to be somewhat equal


The problem being how to you get the NFL back next season and subsequently, whether or not what you do for the 2021 season will have NFLST in the 2022 season.


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> The problem being how to you get the NFL back next season and subsequently, whether or not what you do for the 2021 season will have NFLST in the 2022 season.


NFLST is a problem for sure, especially considering that it isn't available for most streamers now and the uncertainty of what the ATT sat service will do about it.

But NFL itself? Nah, not a problem at all. Change to whatever floats your boat and saves a few bucks now and then change again when the NFL season starts again.


----------



## b4pjoe

lparsons21 said:


> I did a quick calculation at the Entertainment level and you save about $3/month with contract assuming you pick up the DVR expansion.


With contract comes with 500 hours DVR so why would you need the DVR expansion?


----------



## harsh

lparsons21 said:


> NFLST is a problem for sure, especially considering that it isn't available for most streamers now and the uncertainty of what the ATT sat service will do about it.


Rest assured that the NFL will demand that NFLST be widely available. Whether it is YouTube, Amazon or another player in the pay TV market (maybe Bally's?), the NFL will find a way.


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> I am actually quite intrigued by this.. With football over and no need for NFL or Sunday Ticket.. The no contract saves me 30 a month to be somewhat equal


Being bored and hunkered down I've been playing the numbers/channels game all morning. Here's one that intrigues me since I generally have at least a couple of the Premium movie channels active all the time.

ATT TV Now Max = $80
AMC/BBCA = $9
Showtime = $10
Starz = $6 (usually this deal is available

Total = $105/month

ATT TV Now Ultimate = $95
Expand DVR = $10
Includes HBO, Cinemax, Starz, Showtime
Includes AMC/BBCA

Total = $105/month

Currently I'm paying $89 for ATT TV Now Max + AMC+, so for $16/month more I could make the change. I would lose the great expansion of AMC networks wonderful AMC+ offering and it would be an every month cost on the additional Premiums I would kick in and out on occasion. But would pick up a slew of channels I don't have access to now, including the Discovery stuff. Hmmm.... Got to do some thinking.


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> With contract comes with 500 hours DVR so why would you need the DVR expansion?


I wouldn't, I was using that in the cost comparison of Entertainment with and without contract to even up the features.


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> Rest assured that the NFL will demand that NFLST be widely available. Whether it is YouTube, Amazon or another player in the pay TV market (maybe Bally's?), the NFL will find a way.


IOW, it isn't an issue then, is it?


----------



## lparsons21

lparsons21 said:


> Being bored and hunkered down I've been playing the numbers/channels game all morning. Here's one that intrigues me since I generally have at least a couple of the Premium movie channels active all the time.
> 
> ATT TV Now Max = $80
> AMC/BBCA = $9
> Showtime = $10
> Starz = $6 (usually this deal is available
> 
> Total = $105/month
> 
> ATT TV Now Ultimate = $95
> Expand DVR = $10
> Includes HBO, Cinemax, Starz, Showtime
> Includes AMC/BBCA
> 
> Total = $105/month
> 
> Currently I'm paying $89 for ATT TV Now Max + AMC+, so for $16/month more I could make the change. I would lose the great expansion of AMC networks wonderful AMC+ offering and it would be an every month cost on the additional Premiums I would kick in and out on occasion. But would pick up a slew of channels I don't have access to now, including the Discovery stuff. Hmmm.... Got to do some thinking.


Oops! Website misread, Ultimate doesn't include the Premiums, my bad. So all this is just not good.


----------



## harsh

lparsons21 said:


> IOW, it isn't an issue then, is it?


Only if there isn't a commitment involved somewhere along the path.


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> Only if there isn't a commitment involved somewhere along the path.


Yeah, that might be an issue. But there is no way to outguess these marketing geniuses in their ever changing offerings is there? 

ATT is in a bind here I think. The current offerings for streaming TV is just a mess as it has always been. No-contract and contract service from the same provider with different pricing and even subscription levels. Just a god awful mess at their website. And frankly that's too bad as the ATT TV service itself is really excellent just poorly marketed. Unfortunately "AT&T" and "poorly marketed" seem like they are synonyms these days!


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, that might be an issue. But there is no way to outguess these marketing geniuses in their ever changing offerings is there?
> 
> ATT is in a bind here I think. The current offerings for streaming TV is just a mess as it has always been. No-contract and contract service from the same provider with different pricing and even subscription levels. Just a god awful mess at their website. And frankly that's too bad as the ATT TV service itself is really excellent just poorly marketed. Unfortunately "AT&T" and "poorly marketed" seem like they are synonyms these days!


I actually think this cleans it up alot.. Same Service Same Plans Two Different Options.. Cheaper Year 1 with a contract for same price for however long with no contract


----------



## techguy88

Really if you are wanting a more complete channel lineup with 1 single service then AT&T TV Choice (No Contract) is the best priced option right now. You get locals (where available), all top channels, RSNs (with no RSN fee) and most sports channels (some require Ultimate). While the included 20 Hour Cloud DVR is paltry compared to the others it is double the base Sling TV Cloud DVR and recordings are kept for 90 days unlike Sling's 30 Days. The only big omission for AT&T TV is NFL Network.


----------



## B. Shoe

harsh said:


> Rest assured that the NFL will demand that NFLST be widely available. Whether it is YouTube, Amazon or another player in the pay TV market (maybe Bally's?), the NFL will find a way.


I've mentioned this in other threads, but I'm not sure the league is *that* worried about Sunday Ticket. The league NEEDS eyes on its CBS and FOX local affiliate games. Big dollar contracts, and local affiliates sell a lot of advertising during the season. Making Sunday Ticket more readily available, either via provider or a lower cost, takes eyes away from those games and devalues the contracts. They're getting over a billion dollars a year from DIRECTV and the best estimate is that D* has approximately 2 million residential subscribers. That's a pretty good payday for not a ton of eyeballs, and even then only your most diehard fans are utilizing the service all 17 weeks of the regular season.

Personally, I would love Sunday Ticket and would like for it to be more readily available for fans. (Mainly at a cheaper cost. It doesn't matter what provider carries it, both tiers of ST carry a hefty fee.) I'm just not sure the NFL is that worried.


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> I actually think this cleans it up alot.. Same Service Same Plans Two Different Options.. Cheaper Year 1 with a contract for same price for however long with no contract


Yes, it does clean it up but it is still a mess IMO. It would be simpler to have all the sub levels available in both ways and have a grid with contract/no-contract pricing right there, not spread between two different websites. But the bigger problem is that two different ways even exist. It just can't help adding confusion, especially when you compare to all other streaming services.

Go to their web pages and it is all laid out with a single base package and/or additional packages. That makes sense, makes it easy for the consumer to see exactly what they are buying into and doesn't add all the confusion as to which way to subscribe.

Unfortunately for AT&T they decided that a contract version of the service made any kind of sense in the streaming world to begin with. But the fact that their non-contract service was dying a slow death probably is what enticed them to offer it. So instead of cleaning up their non-contract service they decided to introduce a cable/sat packaging of a streaming service. Going forward I see no long term future for AT&T TV's offerings even though it is probably the best performing service out there, has a solid app to work with it, best PW and AQ, and widest range of channel offerings.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Yes, it does clean it up but it is still a mess IMO. It would be simpler to have all the sub levels available in both ways and have a grid with contract/no-contract pricing right there, not spread between two different websites. But the bigger problem is that two different ways even exist. It just can't help adding confusion, especially when you compare to all other streaming services.
> 
> Go to their web pages and it is all laid out with a single base package and/or additional packages. That makes sense, makes it easy for the consumer to see exactly what they are buying into and doesn't add all the confusion as to which way to subscribe.
> 
> Unfortunately for AT&T they decided that a contract version of the service made any kind of sense in the streaming world to begin with. But the fact that their non-contract service was dying a slow death probably is what enticed them to offer it. So instead of cleaning up their non-contract service they decided to introduce a cable/sat packaging of a streaming service. Going forward I see no long term future for AT&T TV's offerings even though it is probably the best performing service out there, has a solid app to work with it, best PW and AQ, and widest range of channel offerings.


I dont know what you are looking at.. But click one button and it shows me the no contract package pricing.. click it again and it shows me the other way. Only one website

It almost seems they are more now pushing no contract because you see that first...

And your last sentence complete contradicts it self It ATT Holds the pricing for 2021 and YTTV and Hulu have another price increase. ATT is going to look alot better to alot of people


----------



## lparsons21

techguy88 said:


> Really if you are wanting a more complete channel lineup with 1 single service then AT&T TV Choice (No Contract) is the best priced option right now. You get locals (where available), all top channels, RSNs (with no RSN fee) and most sports channels (some require Ultimate). While the included 20 Hour Cloud DVR is paltry compared to the others it is double the base Sling TV Cloud DVR and recordings are kept for 90 days unlike Sling's 30 Days. The only big omission for AT&T TV is NFL Network.
> 
> View attachment 31195


Yeah, it is all of those things and would fit quite a few people that just need nearly all of it. But the pricing is a bit bogus because of the very small cloud space. Instead of being $85/month for most that would be interested it would be $95/month to also have a reasonably sized DVR space IMO.

But the single biggest reason given for wanting to 'cut the cord' is to save some money, this just doesn't really do it well and at $95/month makes it the single most expensive live streaming service out there with a price that is close to cable/sat pricing for similar lineups.


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> I dont know what you are looking at.. But click one button and it shows me the no contract package pricing.. click it again and it shows me the other way. Only one website
> 
> It almost seems they are more now pushing no contract because you see that first...
> 
> And your last sentence complete contradicts it self It ATT Holds the pricing for 2021 and YTTV and Hulu have another price increase. ATT is going to look alot better to alot of people


Did you not notice that the contract version now costs $200 more than it did yesterday? And what magic 8 ball is telling you that AT&T won't be raising their prices? All indications are that all of them will be to some extent going forward. Every one of them are furiously doing their spreadsheets to find that magic number that gets them profitable and keeps subscribers at the same time and has been that way since the first live streaming service started.

And no, it isn't just one website, or at least not one webpage. And it needs to have at least one page that gives the subscription levels with both pricings as well as having all the subscription levels available each way IMO. Considering that ATT TV is losing customers every day what they are doing isn't working.


----------



## b4pjoe

So if you decide to get the no contract version can you buy a box for $120 or do you have to go with the contract option to get the box?


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> So if you decide to get the no contract version can you buy a box for $120 or do you have to go with the contract option to get the box?


Yes, you can now buy the ATT box with the no-contract version. That's a change as prior to this you couldn't buy one at all from AT&T.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Did you not notice that the contract version now costs $200 more than it did yesterday? And what magic 8 ball is telling you that AT&T won't be raising their prices? All indications are that all of them will be to some extent going forward. Every one of them are furiously doing their spreadsheets to find that magic number that gets them profitable and keeps subscribers at the same time and has been that way since the first live streaming service started.
> 
> And no, it isn't just one website, or at least not one webpage. And it needs to have at least one page that gives the subscription levels with both pricings as well as having all the subscription levels available each way IMO. Considering that ATT TV is losing customers every day what they are doing isn't working.


It is literally one page I have no clue what you are looking at.. Click the switch button at the top and the packages change to show the pricing


----------



## techguy88

b4pjoe said:


> So if you decide to get the no contract version can you buy a box for $120 or do you have to go with the contract option to get the box?


The no-contract option allows you to buy the box outright ($120 one time charge per box) or breaks the cost down into $5 monthly installments spread across 24 months. The no-contract option does not include an AT&T TV box but allows you to bring your own device (aka Roku).



lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, it is all of those things and would fit quite a few people that just need nearly all of it. But the pricing is a bit bogus because of the very small cloud space. Instead of being $85/month for most that would be interested it would be $95/month to also have a reasonably sized DVR space IMO.
> 
> But the single biggest reason given for wanting to 'cut the cord' is to save some money, this just doesn't really do it well and at $95/month makes it the single most expensive live streaming service out there with a price that is close to cable/sat pricing for similar lineups.


The Cloud DVR services are different yes but it really comes down to how much one records, how much one uses on-demand and other streaming services (like base Hulu) one pays for.


----------



## harsh

B. Shoe said:


> I've mentioned this in other threads, but I'm not sure the league is *that* worried about Sunday Ticket.


Given that an NFLST deal, as it currently stands, is a guaranteed source of $2 billion per year in revenue for very little effort on the NFL's part, it should remain attractive as long as they can find someone willing to strike a similar deal. The broadcast avenues ultimately depend on many variables including significant damage from cord cutting when people figure out how much they're paying to get a questionable value in local channels (versus getting the shows they want to watch some other way).

If someone can open it up to more eyeballs than DIRECTV (and Uverse?) can reach (a rapidly diminishing number), so much the better for a guaranteed paycheck.


----------



## techguy88

harsh said:


> Given that an NFLST deal, as it currently stands, is a guaranteed source of $2 billion per year in revenue for very little effort on the NFL's part, it should remain attractive as long as they can find someone willing to strike a similar deal. The broadcast avenues ultimately depend on many variables including significant damage from cord cutting when people figure out how much they're paying to get a questionable value in local channels (versus getting the shows they want to watch some other way).
> 
> If someone can open it up to more eyeballs than DIRECTV (and Uverse?) can reach (a rapidly diminishing number), so much the better for a guaranteed paycheck.


The current DirecTV-NFL contract is a hard exclusive to the satellite platform. U-Verse never had NFL Sunday Ticket since AT&T acquired DirecTV. AT&T & NFL were able to carve out a 1 season test with DirecTV Now in limited markets which caused U-Verse TV's NFL Network carriage agreement to be extended to D*Now/AT&T TV Now until AT&T let that contract lapse.

The NFL had the option to end the current agreement early but the money they would have generated from multiple streaming services was less than AT&T's current D* agreement. If AT&T is willing to pony up $1.5+ billion/year as long as AT&T TV can sell NFL ST in addition to DirecTV I could see NFL agreeing to that kind of deal since they love pools of money.


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> Did you not notice that the contract version now costs $200 more than it did yesterday? And what magic 8 ball is telling you that AT&T won't be raising their prices? All indications are that all of them will be to some extent going forward. Every one of them are furiously doing their spreadsheets to find that magic number that gets them profitable and keeps subscribers at the same time and has been that way since the first live streaming service started.
> 
> And no, it isn't just one website, or at least not one webpage. And it needs to have at least one page that gives the subscription levels with both pricings as well as having all the subscription levels available each way IMO. Considering that ATT TV is losing customers every day what they are doing isn't working.


The only thing that changed was the $200 Reward Card is no longer offered. However with AT&T TV (2-Year Contract) the current pricing promotions end on 1/16/21 according to the fine print. Will be interesting to see if they keep the current model or rework it on 1/17/21.


----------



## lparsons21

techguy88 said:


> The only thing that changed was the $200 Reward Card is no longer offered. However with AT&T TV (2-Year Contract) the current pricing promotions end on 1/16/21 according to the fine print. Will be interesting to see if they keep the current model or rework it on 1/17/21.


I didn't catch that offer expiration date, thanks.

Yeah it will be interesting to see what the next version of the contract offer will be. One thing that ATT TV needs to get is the NFL and RedZone channels, but they have some breathing room right now since those are pretty much dead channels as the current football season winds up.

And I think they need to expand the subscription level offerings on the non-contract version. Yeah the prices could be scary but I think it would make things clearer and unify offerings thereby simplifying things a bit.


----------



## b4pjoe

The Premier package with AT&T TV Now would save me about $100 per month. I need to figure out what channels are not in the streaming version and the decide if I want to consider switching. One concern is losing internet would mean no TV at all. Not that I have a lot of outages with Spectrum but there have been a couple of a day or two over the last 5 years. 500 hours of DVR storage is about 1 TB of data which I don't think would be a big issue. Only storing it for 90 days might be though.


----------



## techguy88

b4pjoe said:


> The Premier package with AT&T TV Now would save me about $100 per month. I need to figure out what channels are not in the streaming version and the decide if I want to consider switching. One concern is losing internet would mean no TV at all. Not that I have a lot of outages with Spectrum but there have been a couple of a day or two over the last 5 years. 500 hours of DVR storage is about 1 TB of data which I don't think would be a big issue. Only storing it for 90 days might be though.


For the most part the core of the packages are the same between AT&T TV and DirecTV. AT&T TV doesn't have:

Any PBS affiliates, NFL Network, Outdoor Channel
No Music Choice audio channels
No west coast versions of regular channels (i.e. no Cartoon Network West, TNT West, MTV West, etc.)
No paid programming type channels (i.e. infomercials, Scientology Channel, RT America)
No public access channels
AT&T TV does carry C-SPAN & C-SPAN 2.

Very few shopping channels
AT&T TV only has HSN, QVC, QVC2 and GEM Shopping Channel

No religious channels
Not all linear feeds of premiums AT&T TV has:
*HBO Max:* HBO East, HBO2 East, HBO Family East & HBO Latino
*Cinemax*: Cinemax East, ActionMax
*Showtime:* Showtime East, Showtime 2, Showtime Extreme
*Starz: *Starz, Starz Kids & Family
AT&T TV does carry StarzEncore East, StarzEncore West, StarzEncore Action, StarzEncore Black, StarzEncore Classic, StarzEncore Family, StarzEncore Suspense & StarzEncore Westerns in the Ultimate & Premier packages. The Starz add-on does not include these.



No Sports Pack - So this means you will only get the RSNs in your home market.
AT&T TV doesn't carry Fox College Sports and ESPN College Extra
Although you can use your AT&T TV credentials and login to the ESPN app for the College Extra games on any package w/ESPN.


With the exception of the local PBS affiliate, NFL Network & Outdoor Channel a lot of the bloat from the DirecTV counterparts are not present on AT&T TV.

One advantage of AT&T TV vs DirecTV is you can record channels like Cheddar which you can't on D*. You can also browse the guide, view your recording list and on demand listings while watching one of those types of channels. Also some channels like Logo, Fox Sports Ohio are in full time HD on AT&T TV whereas they are in full time SD on DirecTV.

I attached the current channel lineups for DirecTV & AT&T TV to compare.


----------



## b4pjoe

Are the Premier channels the same between AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now?

And thanks for that info.


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> Are the Premier channels the same between AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now?
> 
> And thanks for that info.


From a package perspective yes however ATT TV doesn't have the same amount of premium channels as Directv. Example. directv had like 11 HBO's. ATT has 5


----------



## techguy88

b4pjoe said:


> Are the Premier channels the same between AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now?
> 
> And thanks for that info.


The no-contract option (formally AT&T TV Now) and the 2-Year Contract option (regular AT&T TV) are identical for Entertainment, Choice, Ultimate & Premier channel lineup wise. The packages Optimo Mas & Xtra are exclusive to AT&T TV 2-Year Contract Option.


----------



## compnurd

techguy88 said:


> The no-contract option (formally AT&T TV Now) and the 2-Year Contract option (regular AT&T TV) are identical for Entertainment, Choice, Ultimate & Premier channel lineup wise. The packages Optimo Mas & Xtra are exclusive to AT&T TV 2-Year Contract Option.


Are you sure because some people think they still need to unify things a bit


----------



## techguy88

compnurd said:


> From a package perspective yes however ATT TV doesn't have the same amount of premium channels as Directv. Example. directv had like 11 HBO's. ATT has 5


True but if you could pay $149.99/mo for AT&T TV Premier w/500 Hour Cloud DVR vs paying almost $220 for DirecTV Premier (for 3 TVs) then the additional premium multiplex channels become less value especially in HBO's case with HBO Max app. You really only need the main HBO channel if you want to watch something as it airs (like a new episode of a show) vs waiting a few hours for it to appear on HBO Max. Also if you really need Showtime West just download the Showtime Anytime app and it has that feed.

Also I have 4 TVs but only 3 are in regular use at the same time. I would like the option to watch the TV service on any TV in my home without paying $7/mo extra for that privilege.



compnurd said:


> Are you sure because some people think they still need to unify things a bit


I'm positive because I just spend 30 minutes going through Entertainment (No-Contract) and Entertainment (2-Year Contract) with a fine tooth comb and comparing them with DirecTV Entertainment  I'm seriously considering dumping D* Select for the AT&T TV Entertainment (No-Contract) because I just realized I can save an additional $9/mo (or $108/yr) this way and keep my most viewed channels hahahaha.

Tbh I think more unifying is in the works I would not be surprised if AT&T TV no longer allows new customers to sign up for Xtra on/after 1/17/21 just like DirecTV did about a month ago.


----------



## compnurd

techguy88 said:


> True but if you could pay $149.99/mo for AT&T TV Premier w/500 Hour Cloud DVR vs paying almost $220 for DirecTV Premier (for 3 TVs) then the additional premium multiplex channels become less value especially in HBO's case with HBO Max app. You really only need the main HBO channel if you want to watch something as it airs (like a new episode of a show) vs waiting a few hours for it to appear on HBO Max. Also if you really need Showtime West just download the Showtime Anytime app and it has that feed.
> 
> Also I have 4 TVs but only 3 are in regular use at the same time. I would like the option to watch the TV service on any TV in my home without paying $7/mo extra for that privilege.
> 
> I'm positive because I just spend 30 minutes going through Entertainment (No-Contract) and Entertainment (2-Year Contract) with a fine tooth comb and comparing them with DirecTV Entertainment  I'm seriously considering dumping D* Select for the AT&T TV Entertainment (No-Contract) because I just realized I can save an additional $9/mo (or $108/yr) this way and keep my most viewed channels hahahaha.
> 
> Tbh I think more unifying is in the works I would not be surprised if AT&T TV no longer allows new customers to sign up for Xtra on/after 1/17/21 just like DirecTV did about a month ago.


I agree with everything you said. As pointed out over 450 times they are not and we're never going after cord cutters. And I think these moves really solidify there offerings. I am considering coming back tomorrow


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> I agree with everything you said. As pointed out over 450 times they are not and we're never going after cord cutters. And I think these moves really solidify there offerings. I am considering coming back tomorrow


Sure, why not come on back? It really is a better service IMO. Of course it comes at a higher price and only you can decide if it is worth that.

For me, I'm glad I got over to Now with the Max subscription level. At a decent price that is competitive with any other service I might switch to, it also has all the channels I want with the exception of NFL stuff and AMC. But I've found I really like AMC+ better than linear AMC networks channels.

If I could talk myself into giving up the Golf channel and. ESPN I could save considerable money. But l can't.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Sure, why not come on back? It really is a better service IMO. Of course it comes at a higher price and only you can decide if it is worth that.
> 
> For me, I'm glad I got over to Now with the Max subscription level. At a decent price that is competitive with any other service I might switch to, it also has all the channels I want with the exception of NFL stuff and AMC. But I've found I really like AMC+ better than linear AMC networks channels.
> 
> If I could talk myself into giving up the Golf channel and. ESPN I could save considerable money. But l can't.


Higher price. No. I pay 132 right now for xtra with Directv. Soon to go to 140. Ultimate with dvr and no contract puts me at 105


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Higher price. No. I pay 132 right now for xtra with Directv. Soon to go to 140. Ultimate with dvr and no contract puts me at 105


Higher price in comparison to other live streamers though the differential isn't as much as it used to be. No comparison to cable/sat was meant.


----------



## b4pjoe

techguy88 said:


> True but if you could pay $149.99/mo for AT&T TV Premier w/500 Hour Cloud DVR vs paying almost $220 for DirecTV Premier (for 3 TVs) then the additional premium multiplex channels become less value especially in HBO's case with HBO Max app. You really only need the main HBO channel if you want to watch something as it airs (like a new episode of a show) vs waiting a few hours for it to appear on HBO Max. Also if you really need Showtime West just download the Showtime Anytime app and it has that feed.
> 
> Also I have 4 TVs but only 3 are in regular use at the same time. I would like the option to watch the TV service on any TV in my home without paying $7/mo extra for that privilege.
> 
> I'm positive because I just spend 30 minutes going through Entertainment (No-Contract) and Entertainment (2-Year Contract) with a fine tooth comb and comparing them with DirecTV Entertainment  I'm seriously considering dumping D* Select for the AT&T TV Entertainment (No-Contract) because I just realized I can save an additional $9/mo (or $108/yr) this way and keep my most viewed channels hahahaha.
> 
> Tbh I think more unifying is in the works I would not be surprised if AT&T TV no longer allows new customers to sign up for Xtra on/after 1/17/21 just like DirecTV did about a month ago.


My bill for Premier starting next month after the January price hike is going to be right at $269 per month although I have a $30 per month discount which means I will actually be paying $239. I have 7 TV's because we record a lot of stuff. There are almost never more than 3 TV's being watched (the extra 4 are basically only used for recording) so my savings would actually be $90 per month for the no contract option. ($239 to $149) I could save another $10 per month by going the contract option on the first year @ $129 per month but that would jump to $183 in the second year which would be a deal breaker since that would be a $54 price hike on the second year. Sports pack isn't that big of a deal as those channels are blacked out during games. I would have to go to MLB-TV for baseball since there is no MLB Extra Innings for AT&T TV contract or no contract. I'd even consider shelling out the $360 for 3 of the AT&T TV boxes up front.


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> My bill for Premier starting next month after the January price hike is going to be right at $269 per month although I have a $30 per month discount which means I will actually be paying $239. I have 7 TV's because we record a lot of stuff. There are almost never more than 3 TV's being watched (the extra 4 are basically only used for recording) so my savings would actually be $90 per month for the no contract option. ($239 to $149) I could save another $10 per month by going the contract option on the first year @ $129 per month but that would jump to $183 in the second year which would be a deal breaker since that would be a $54 price hike on the second year. Sports pack isn't that big of a deal as those channels are blacked out during games. I would have to go to MLB-TV for baseball since there is no MLB Extra Innings for AT&T TV contract or no contract. I'd even consider shelling out the $360 for 3 of the AT&T TV boxes up front.


So couple of things there. MLB TV on its own is a little cheaper then extra innings and the app is great in all platforms. Even the ATT box. With regards to the boxes buy then on eBay. They are 60 bucks


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> My bill for Premier starting next month after the January price hike is going to be right at $269 per month although I have a $30 per month discount which means I will actually be paying $239. I have 7 TV's because we record a lot of stuff. There are almost never more than 3 TV's being watched (the extra 4 are basically only used for recording) so my savings would actually be $90 per month for the no contract option. ($239 to $149) I could save another $10 per month by going the contract option on the first year @ $129 per month but that would jump to $183 in the second year which would be a deal breaker since that would be a $54 price hike on the second year. Sports pack isn't that big of a deal as those channels are blacked out during games. I would have to go to MLB-TV for baseball since there is no MLB Extra Innings for AT&T TV contract or no contract. I'd even consider shelling out the $360 for 3 of the AT&T TV boxes up front.


Since Premier isn't one of the no-contract options I'm assuming you're using Ultimate and adding the Premiums? If so, the 1st year would be $15 cheaper than you show since Ultimate comes with HBO during the 1st year. Or at least that's the way I read it.


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> So couple of things there. MLB TV on its own is a little cheaper then extra innings and the app is great in all platforms. Even the ATT box. With regards to the boxes buy then on eBay. They are 60 bucks


Yep, no sense giving ATT more than they are really worth. And it makes even more sense in that the current box is the same box that came out 3+ years ago, just with a better remote.


----------



## lparsons21

lparsons21 said:


> Since Premier isn't one of the no-contract options I'm assuming you're using Ultimate and adding the Premiums? If so, the 1st year would be $15 cheaper than you show since Ultimate comes with HBO during the 1st year. Or at least that's the way I read it.


Oops! My bad, Premier wasn't there this morning so ignore the post.


----------



## b4pjoe

Yeah I can get MLB-TV even cheaper than the normal with their discount for veterans. My biggest issue with that is my wife is a rabid baseball fan and likes being able to jump back and forth between games and it is just cumbersome on the app. But for $90 a month she may have to live with it. 

Has AT&T ever updated the hardware on the boxes? I wouldn't want older hardware than what I would get by buying from AT&T.

Edit: replied before I saw lparsons21 post about the hardware.


----------



## lparsons21

I did a little diddling with numbers numerous times today.

Currently paying:
ATT TV Now Max = $80
AMC+ = $9
CBS/Showtime = $10 via Apple’s deal
AppleTV+ = $5. (Annual payment deal)

Total = $99/month

For me that has all the channels/content I want so none of the new subscriptions are a good value.


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> Yeah I can get MLB-TV even cheaper than the normal with their discount for veterans. My biggest issue with that is my wife is a rabid baseball fan and likes being able to jump back and forth between games and it is just cumbersome on the app. But for $90 a month she may have to live with it.
> 
> Has AT&T ever updated the hardware on the boxes? I wouldn't want older hardware than what I would get by buying from AT&T.
> 
> Edit: replied before I saw lparsons21 post about the hardware.


While yes the hardware is 3 years old it has only been in public release for a year. I would expect a new box probably in a year or two


----------



## swyman18

My ATT TV (contract) Premiere package is going to go up to $183 (+$8.50 RSN fee) in a couple of months. Can’t believe it’s been almost a year already. 

Is the early termination fee still $15/month for the remaining time on the contract? If so, sounds like I would be better off canceling early and paying the ETF and subscribing to non-contract Premier at $150 ( + $10 to get back the 500 DVR hours) and I wouldn’t be missing anything compared to what I’m currently getting. Heck, if I did it now, looks like I would get NBA League pass thrown in too.


----------



## lparsons21

swyman18 said:


> My ATT TV (contract) Premiere package is going to go up to $183 (+$8.50 RSN fee) in a couple of months. Can't believe it's been almost a year already.
> 
> Is the early termination fee still $15/month for the remaining time on the contract? If so, sounds like I would be better off canceling early and paying the ETF and subscribing to non-contract Premier at $150 ( + $10 to get back the 500 DVR hours) and I wouldn't be missing anything compared to what I'm currently getting. Heck, if I did it now, looks like I would get NBA League pass thrown in too.


Yes, the ETF is still $15/month. But talk nicely and tell them you are wanting to switch to the non-contract side and they may waive it. That's what I did last month. Worse case they won't.


----------



## harsh

techguy88 said:


> The current DirecTV-NFL contract is a hard exclusive to the satellite platform.


The current deal was made with DIRECTV in 2010 and with optional extensions every four years that were taken. I doubt that they could have offered the package on Uverse or AT&T TV without renegotiating the whole thing in 2018 which would have, in my mind, opened up Sunday Ticket to other bidders.


----------



## compnurd

swyman18 said:


> My ATT TV (contract) Premiere package is going to go up to $183 (+$8.50 RSN fee) in a couple of months. Can't believe it's been almost a year already.
> 
> Is the early termination fee still $15/month for the remaining time on the contract? If so, sounds like I would be better off canceling early and paying the ETF and subscribing to non-contract Premier at $150 ( + $10 to get back the 500 DVR hours) and I wouldn't be missing anything compared to what I'm currently getting. Heck, if I did it now, looks like I would get NBA League pass thrown in too.


It's 20 for Directv


----------



## techguy88

harsh said:


> The current deal was made with DIRECTV in 2010 and with optional extensions every four years that were taken. I doubt that they could have offered the package on Uverse or AT&T TV without renegotiating the whole thing in 2018 which would have, in my mind, opened up Sunday Ticket to other bidders.


DirecTV (prior to the AT&T acquisition) renewed the NFL ST deal for 8 years valued at $12 billion ($1.5 billion/year.) AT&T required DirecTV to renew the deal at any cost otherwise AT&T could decide not to proceed with the acquisition. 2015 was the first year of the current deal. NFL had an opt-out clause 4 years into this contract if they chose to do so but didn't.



swyman18 said:


> My ATT TV (contract) Premiere package is going to go up to $183 (+$8.50 RSN fee) in a couple of months. Can't believe it's been almost a year already.
> 
> Is the early termination fee still $15/month for the remaining time on the contract? If so, sounds like I would be better off canceling early and paying the ETF and subscribing to non-contract Premier at $150 ( + $10 to get back the 500 DVR hours) and I wouldn't be missing anything compared to what I'm currently getting. Heck, if I did it now, looks like I would get NBA League pass thrown in too.


AT&T TV's ETF is $15/mo not complete so at the 12 month mark you would be out $180. However the version of League Pass AT&T TV offers is NBA League Pass Premium which retails for $249.99 annually. Also at this point you keep any AT&T TV devices your ordered so if you cancel your current plan and get Premier (No-Contract) with the upgraded Cloud DVR you would be paying $149.99/mo instead of $183/mo (a $33.01/mo savings.) You can still use the AT&T TV devices you have with the No-Contract option. Ultimately you would come out ahead.


----------



## compnurd

I signed back up this morning.. And yes again.. The Picture is just that much sharper then Directv.. I really notice it on my cheap 32inch 1080P TV in my office.. I usually have the the weather channel on all day and it is just that much crisper


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> While yes the hardware is 3 years old it has only been in public release for a year. I would expect a new box probably in a year or two


I wish I was that confident. Since they haven't done anything but bug fixes and a little speed improvements in the 3+ years it has been since it came out, I don't. In fact, going forward I think they will discontinue the box completely.

At their $120 price point for a relatively poor performing AndroidTV based box, it isn't competitive in the streaming market. At 1/2 price it might be just for how well it does when using it for the ATT TV service.

But in the streaming world to not have Amazon Prime or Hulu app on it is just idiotic IMO.


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> I signed back up this morning.. And yes again.. The Picture is just that much sharper then Directv.. I really notice it on my cheap 32inch 1080P TV in my office.. I usually have the the weather channel on all day and it is just that much crisper


I figured you would and for what they are now offering they are a bit high but within a competitive range with pricing. Especially considering that they have things that no other live streaming service has. It really is a premium service. From the best PQ and AQ to an app that is very similar to cable/sat boxes it is just a standout.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> I wish I was that confident. Since they haven't done anything but bug fixes and a little speed improvements in the 3+ years it has been since it came out, I don't. In fact, going forward I think they will discontinue the box completely.
> 
> At their $120 price point for a relatively poor performing AndroidTV based box, it isn't competitive in the streaming market. At 1/2 price it might be just for how well it does when using it for the ATT TV service.
> 
> But in the streaming world to not have Amazon Prime or Hulu app on it is just idiotic IMO.


Unless they open the channel numbers to the other platforms it isnt going anywhere.. The remote and "TV" feel are still there biggest selling points.


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Unless they open the channel numbers to the other platforms it isnt going anywhere.. The remote and "TV" feel are still there biggest selling points.


Yeah, that has a certain value. But that is really the only big advantage to their box over just using their app on other boxes IMO.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, that has a certain value. But that is really the only big advantage to their box over just using their app on other boxes IMO.


I agree but it is a big one.. We wouldnt have the service if it wasnt for that.. (wife factor)


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> I agree but it is a big one.. We wouldnt have the service if it wasnt for that.. (wife factor)


Yeah that WAF has to be considered for you married folks! 

For me the box could be my go to. Yeah it isn't the fastest box in the world but the remote is really sweet. And no ATMOS support for the most part is a bit of a yawner as my Soundbar does ATMOS virtualized and I really can't hear those effects that way.

But the lack of 2 current apps is the big irritant as the work arounds are a PITA! Amazon Prime current version can be sideloaded fairly easily, but only a very old version of Hulu can be.

The big kicker is the AppleTV+ app. While supposedly it will come to some AndroidTV boxes, it hasn't yet nor has there been much conjecture on exactly which ones it will be. And frankly ATT doesn't seem all that humped up about any apps.

The workaround is to use a computer with Chrome browser. Go to tv.apple.com and then Chromecast from there. While that does work it is a PITA for me since I seldom use anything more than an iPad/iPhone these days and there is no way to do that from them. Only from a computer, not even an Android tablet can do it.


----------



## b4pjoe

Does the AT&T box have bluetooth built into it?


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> Does the AT&T box have bluetooth built into it?


Yes


----------



## lparsons21

For those that have the AT&T Osprey box, Amazon Prime app is now available for it in the App Store.

EDIT: While I was diddling with that I thought to try and install the AppleTV+ app. While I found a couple of APK’s to install and the sideloading was easy, none of the versions I found would actually work. One needed some Sony software installed, the other needed FireTV software installed.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Yes, the ETF is still $15/month. But talk nicely and tell them you are wanting to switch to the non-contract side and they may waive it. That's what I did last month. Worse case they won't.


So I guess we've found out what AT&T TV is going to do when all those initial subs start hitting their 1-year anniversary and big price increases: let them call in and switch to the slightly lower-priced non-contract version of the service while waiving the ETF. Which is actually fairly generous. If I was AT&T, my offer would be to lower your package price to the non-contract version price (e.g. down from $93 to $80 for Entertainment with 500-hr cloud DVR) while making you stick to the contract. And if you wanted to leave the service completely, then you'd have to pay the ETF.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> So I guess we've found out what AT&T TV is going to do when all those initial subs start hitting their 1-year anniversary and big price increases: let them call in and switch to the slightly lower-priced non-contract version of the service while waiving the ETF. Which is actually fairly generous. If I was AT&T, my offer would be to lower your package price to the non-contract version price (e.g. down from $93 to $80 for Entertainment with 500-hr cloud DVR) while making you stick to the contract. And if you wanted to leave the service completely, then you'd have to pay the ETF.


Yeah now that would be the way to handle the anniversary calls IMO. It makes sense and keeps the customer in the fold.

I cancelled my ATT TV with 16 months left on contract and when I called to cancel the CSR asked what I was going to. I told her that I had really thought about ATT TV Now Max but with the ETF that I would owe, that I would probably go with something much cheaper. She put me on hold to talk to a supervisor and then came back and said she got the ETF and balance on the box waived if I was going to ATT TV Now. So that's what I did.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> I wish I was that confident. Since they haven't done anything but bug fixes and a little speed improvements in the 3+ years it has been since it came out, I don't. In fact, going forward I think they will.





compnurd said:


> Unless they open the channel numbers to the other platforms it isnt going anywhere.. The remote and "TV" feel are still there biggest selling points.


Agree with compnurd here. Don't think AT&T TV is going to phase out offering a custom device with dedicated remote. But it should be fairly trivial for them to take their existing AT&T TV software and run on it more modern hardware while keeping the existing model remote control to work with it. Pretty much all these recent Android TV boxes/dongles have been running on reference hardware with Amlogic chipsets (S905X2 or S905Y2) that were designed with Android TV in mind. There should be little, if any, code tweaking necessary for the AT&T TV software on a newer chipset. Because the underlying OS is still Android TV. Everything should just run faster.

Look at how quickly Verizon upgraded their Stream TV device, which runs a very lightly customized version of Android TV. The first version of the device came out in 2019 with the Amlogic S905X2 (on Android TV 9) that's so widely used. And then in late 2020, they rolled out version 2 of the device with the Amlogic S905X4 (on Android TV 10). That chipset supports hardware decoding of the new AV1 codec, has dedicated support for faster AI voice processing (i.e. Google Assistant), and also supports wifi 6. And Verizon still sells it at the same $70 retail price point (while also giving it away as a freebie to new Verizon 5G Home customers).


----------



## lparsons21

While you and he may be right I certainly don’t think the $120 price point will hold up. 

And while I’m here...

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see AT&T sunset the grandfathered ATT TV Now subscription levels sometime over the next 6 months, maybe even sooner. And with the rumor that there is one potential buyer that wants all of ATT TV it would give them cover since ATT TV Now technically doesn’t exist.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> I wouldn't be at all surprised to see AT&T sunset the grandfathered ATT TV Now subscription levels sometime over the next 6 months, maybe even sooner. And with the rumor that there is one potential buyer that wants all of ATT TV it would give them cover since ATT TV Now technically doesn't exist.


I'd say AT&T will do what they need to do to keep their subscriber counts up right now. So yeah, no axing those grandfathered packages and prices. But if/when all of the AT&T MVPDs get sold off, I'd think the new owner/operator would want to clean up a lot of that stuff. Those folks still riding on those initial DirecTV Now promo packages (deeply discounted Go Big, etc.) will see their prices rise to the current normal levels and everyone on the Plus and Max packages might get converted over to the closest standard package available (e.g. Entertainment or Choice). Who knows. I really wonder what the Plus and Max thing was about. It seemed to me like AT&T had bigger plans for them and then just kinda abandoned them. And honestly, that sort of feels like their attitude to AT&T TV overall at this point...


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> I'd say AT&T will do what they need to do to keep their subscriber counts up right now. So yeah, no axing those grandfathered packages and prices. But if/when all of the AT&T MVPDs get sold off, I'd think the new owner/operator would want to clean up a lot of that stuff. Those folks still riding on those initial DirecTV Now promo packages (deeply discounted Go Big, etc.) will see their prices rise to the current normal levels and everyone on the Plus and Max packages might get converted over to the closest standard package available (e.g. Entertainment or Choice). Who knows. I really wonder what the Plus and Max thing was about. It seemed to me like AT&T had bigger plans for them and then just kinda abandoned them. And honestly, that sort of feels like their attitude to AT&T TV overall at this point...


Plus never made sense to me, just too little for too much money IMO. Max @$80 which includes HBO/Cinemax as well as more channels and RSN's is the value proposition. But the lack of AMC and Discovery networks really hurts that lineup IMO.

IMO, part of what hurt AT&T with their streaming offerings was that they wanted to keep the profit margins similar to what they make on cable/sat. That made their offerings better in many ways than other live streamers but at a price too much higher than the competition. They attempted to try and convince people that their offerings weren't really after cord cutters, but that was just market speak for the shareholders.

Now that all the other live streaming service that offer a wide range of channels are circling around $70+ a month, there current offerings are much closer. And considering the freebies with Choice and above even for non-contract, present real value over the others. Throw in the best PQ and AQ and I think it may just be the right product at the right time. Time will tell of course.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Plus never made sense to me, just too little for too much money IMO. Max @$80 which includes HBO/Cinemax as well as more channels and RSN's is the value proposition. But the lack of AMC and Discovery networks really hurts that lineup IMO.
> 
> IMO, part of what hurt AT&T with their streaming offerings was that they wanted to keep the profit margins similar to what they make on cable/sat. That made their offerings better in many ways than other live streamers but at a price too much higher than the competition. They attempted to try and convince people that their offerings weren't really after cord cutters, but that was just market speak for the shareholders.
> 
> Now that all the other live streaming service that offer a wide range of channels are circling around $70+ a month, there current offerings are much closer. And considering the freebies with Choice and above even for non-contract, present real value over the others. Throw in the best PQ and AQ and I think it may just be the right product at the right time. Time will tell of course.


Hey but you got your Amazon prime today!

I don't see them phasing the older packages. People still have the 35 dollar package from the beginning


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Hey but you got your Amazon prime today!
> 
> I don't see them phasing the older packages. People still have the 35 dollar package from the beginning


LOL! I've had Amazon Prime on the box a little after I got the box! Sideloaded it.

BTW, I looked at the new prices vs my Max. No benefit to me at all. I'd need Ultimate @95 + $10 for the DVR expansion. Yeah I'd get a slew of channels that I don't get now, but almost all of them are either of no value to me at all or are just 'rerun' channels that I don't worry about. And with Max I get HBO/Cinemax, with the new deals it is just HBO for a year.

My Max is $80/month + AMC+ @$9/month.


----------



## harperhometheater

I just setup an appointment with AT&T to go grab a few boxes and reactivate my AT&T TV account with no contract. I tried multiple times online last night and there's some kind of glitch that's not allowing me to reactivate. I think it's due to my account still showing the boxes I had before on it, even though I have email and hard receipts showing I cancelled and returned them within the 14 day trial period.

My main question is, I tested the service again last night using my WatchTV account linked to my cell service. They must've made some tweaks or something because I was utterly blown away with the video quality, especially compared to the Spectrum and Xfinity services I have access to right now!!! 

This was all on my AppleTV 4K using the app. As I've mentioned before, the WAF needs to be very high so it needs to be almost identical to a satellite or cable box type scenario, which is why I'm getting the Osprey boxes.

Does anyone else have both an AppleTV and Osprey and can tell me if I can expect the same image quality from Osprey that I got from AppleTV last night? I run a very high end projection system in my theater and am trying to decide if I should get a box for in there too, but number one priority is the image quality! I also really like the cable/sat box feel, so would prefer using the Osprey as well if the quality is the same or better. I'm only talking live TV and not really the apps on the Osprey because I can continue to use my Apple TV for those and have no issues doing so because I run a Harmony remote system.


----------



## lparsons21

As with pretty much all the AndroidTV version 8 boxes, there is an HDR bug in it. It forces HDR if you TV/projector is compatible, but the actual video is really SDR. That said, on my Sony X900E (2017) it looks excellent and doesn’t seem to be a big issue to me though I’ve seen plenty of complaints. The only thing I noticed early on is that it seems a bit darker to me but I was able to adjust the set for that, and since my TV video settings are on a per-input basis it works well.

But yeah, the video quality is definitely the best out there, often compared to the quality DirecTV was known for.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> But yeah, the video quality is definitely the best out there, often compared to the quality DirecTV was known for.


I've seen several folks say that they think AT&T TV's HD PQ is, overall, superior to DTV's. That was my assessment too when I had it under the DirecTV Now brand a few years ago.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> I've seen several folks say that they think AT&T TV's HD PQ is, overall, superior to DTV's. That was my assessment too when I had it under the DirecTV Now brand a few years ago.


I Concur


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> I just setup an appointment with AT&T to go grab a few boxes and reactivate my AT&T TV account with no contract. I tried multiple times online last night and there's some kind of glitch that's not allowing me to reactivate. I think it's due to my account still showing the boxes I had before on it, even though I have email and hard receipts showing I cancelled and returned them within the 14 day trial period.
> 
> My main question is, I tested the service again last night using my WatchTV account linked to my cell service. They must've made some tweaks or something because I was utterly blown away with the video quality, especially compared to the Spectrum and Xfinity services I have access to right now!!!
> 
> This was all on my AppleTV 4K using the app. As I've mentioned before, the WAF needs to be very high so it needs to be almost identical to a satellite or cable box type scenario, which is why I'm getting the Osprey boxes.
> 
> Does anyone else have both an AppleTV and Osprey and can tell me if I can expect the same image quality from Osprey that I got from AppleTV last night? I run a very high end projection system in my theater and am trying to decide if I should get a box for in there too, but number one priority is the image quality! I also really like the cable/sat box feel, so would prefer using the Osprey as well if the quality is the same or better. I'm only talking live TV and not really the apps on the Osprey because I can continue to use my Apple TV for those and have no issues doing so because I run a Harmony remote system.


Actual image quality from the ATV and the Osprey should be the same..


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Actual image quality from the ATV and the Osprey should be the same..


The quality should be the same but depending on how the TV/Projector deal with SDR sources that are being forced to HDR as the ATT Osprey box does, it may take a tweak to the brightness. It does on my Sony.


----------



## harperhometheater

OK real quick I just walked out of AT&T and they said they can’t set up the boxes on my account because the ones they have are still contract boxes and it doesn’t allow them to sell a box through the store yet. They can only do it for shipping. Has anyone else tried to get a box with this new no contract deal at an AT&T store? Need to know ASAP if anyone happens to know!


----------



## lparsons21

I’ve been using the Osprey box for the last few days as I reported, but it is missing some things in my seemingly never ending quest to have the ‘one box’.

IMO, if I gave up on Atmos audio and AppleTV+ the Osprey would fit the bill. But alas, those are two things I really like even though my sound system doesn’t quite do Atmos reproduction quite to my liking. AppleTV+ is a bit more important. I use it for the TV+ originals from Apple, the $10/month CBS/Showtime deal and AMC+ via its channels. I also really like the Up Next strip even though it gets a bit cluttered.

With that in mind I started using the AppleTV4K today as it covers all the bases with just some relatively minor downsides. Like Hulu being only stereo, but I’m probably going to drop that as it really doesn’t have much on it that I care about and their originals just have not been my cup of tea.

The remote has been my biggest complaint. I knew I could use my iPhone as the remote but had not actually done that. I did use my iPad though, but it is too big to be that handy. As I’ve used the iPhone as a remote today it I found that it really shines as an ATV remote. So I’ll devote a few days to using the ATV4K only.


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> OK real quick I just walked out of AT&T and they said they can't set up the boxes on my account because the ones they have are still contract boxes and it doesn't allow them to sell a box through the store yet. They can only do it for shipping. Has anyone else tried to get a box with this new no contract deal at an AT&T store? Need to know ASAP if anyone happens to know!


Why do you want to get it from them? You can buy the very same boxes on EBay for 1/2 price almost any day you look.

Here's a guy with 30 of them:

AT&T DirectTV Streaming Player Osprey Android Beta Box (C71KW-200) | eBay


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> OK real quick I just walked out of AT&T and they said they can't set up the boxes on my account because the ones they have are still contract boxes and it doesn't allow them to sell a box through the store yet. They can only do it for shipping. Has anyone else tried to get a box with this new no contract deal at an AT&T store? Need to know ASAP if anyone happens to know!


You may just need to create a new account.


----------



## swyman18

harperhometheater said:


> OK real quick I just walked out of AT&T and they said they can't set up the boxes on my account because the ones they have are still contract boxes and it doesn't allow them to sell a box through the store yet. They can only do it for shipping. Has anyone else tried to get a box with this new no contract deal at an AT&T store? Need to know ASAP if anyone happens to know!


You're in Hawaii, right? When I tried to sign up over the phone last year, it was a cluster. They finally got my order through, but the box never arrived. I called several times with the order confirmation number and no-one could find a tracking number or figure out what happened. So they said they would ship another one, but that order ended up in a black hole as well. Trying to sign up online didn't work because it didn't like my shipping address.

I finally gave up and went to the ATT store in Kamuela and the only way they could get me a box was to cancel my original account and start over. At the time, there wasn't many boxes available on eBay, but I did eventually buy a second one. If you already have a functioning account, eBay may be the least painful way of getting one.


----------



## harperhometheater

lparsons21 said:


> Why do you want to get it from them? You can buy the very same boxes on EBay for 1/2 price almost any day you look.
> 
> Here's a guy with 30 of them:
> 
> AT&T DirectTV Streaming Player Osprey Android Beta Box (C71KW-200) | eBay


I'm close to using eBay, but I didn't want to front the cost and then have to do something with them or be stuck with them if I decided I didn't want to use them within the initial 14 day trial period, in case I find I like the AppleTV better. I'm starting to doubt that now though, since watching some shows with my wife with the AppleTV tonight was an effort in futility when trying to FFWD through commercials on our recordings! 

The cost of shipping them here to HI may actually be as much as the box itself too.



compnurd said:


> You may just need to create a new account.


Did that. As I said the boxes they have in store can't be sold at retail yet. They aren't inventoried or allocated that way yet. At least that's what the salesman told me, with guidance from his manager and their corporate call in number. They can only still be used on a new or existing account with a contract. He said he was told they'd be getting in boxes they can sell at retail by the one of the month, FWIW.



swyman18 said:


> You're in Hawaii, right? When I tried to sign up over the phone last year, it was a cluster. They finally got my order through, but the box never arrived. I called several times with the order confirmation number and no-one could find a tracking number or figure out what happened. So they said they would ship another one, but that order ended up in a black hole as well. Trying to sign up online didn't work because it didn't like my shipping address.
> 
> I finally gave up and went to the ATT store in Kamuela and the only way they could get me a box was to cancel my original account and start over. At the time, there wasn't many boxes available on eBay, but I did eventually buy a second one. If you already have a functioning account, eBay may be the least painful way of getting one.


Yes. That's the store I went to as well! Do you live near Kamuela? Want to sell your boxes haha? ;-)

As I said above:
I'm close to using eBay, but I didn't want to front the cost and then have to do something with them or be stuck with them if I decided I didn't want to use them within the initial 14 day trial period, in case I find I like the AppleTV better. I'm starting to doubt that now though, since watching some shows with my wife with the AppleTV tonight was an effort in futility when trying to FFWD through commercials on our recordings! 

I believe it was much more "DVR Like" with the Osprey when I trialed it last year, with real FFWD and a video scanning window to see where you are. I don't know how anyone uses it on AppleTV. I'm starting to even wonder why anyone uses streaming TV instead of a hardware DVR actually, especially since streaming prices have reached the same prices plus on most you're missing channels you wouldn't if you had cable or sat.


----------



## harperhometheater

lparsons21 said:


> As with pretty much all the AndroidTV version 8 boxes, there is an HDR bug in it. It forces HDR if you TV/projector is compatible, but the actual video is really SDR. That said, on my Sony X900E (2017) it looks excellent and doesn't seem to be a big issue to me though I've seen plenty of complaints. The only thing I noticed early on is that it seems a bit darker to me but I was able to adjust the set for that, and since my TV video settings are on a per-input basis it works well.
> 
> But yeah, the video quality is definitely the best out there, often compared to the quality DirecTV was known for.





NashGuy said:


> I've seen several folks say that they think AT&T TV's HD PQ is, overall, superior to DTV's. That was my assessment too when I had it under the DirecTV Now brand a few years ago.





compnurd said:


> I Concur





compnurd said:


> Actual image quality from the ATV and the Osprey should be the same..





lparsons21 said:


> The quality should be the same but depending on how the TV/Projector deal with SDR sources that are being forced to HDR as the ATT Osprey box does, it may take a tweak to the brightness. It does on my Sony.


Yes I am aware of this "bug", since I also have a few TiVo Stream 4Ks. These offer Dolby Vision though, which I agree can look better with some tweaking and calibrating. The Osprey still doesn't do DV, correct?

I 100% agree that image quality beats EVERY other source I've tried recently, except maybe PSVue when it was still alive. I'm sad that went away. It was easily hands down the best streaming service for quality AND channels!


----------



## lparsons21

Yeah, ATT TV and AppleTV is definitely not a match when it comes to trickplay!


----------



## espaeth

harperhometheater said:


> I don't know how anyone uses it on AppleTV. I'm starting to even wonder why anyone uses streaming TV instead of a hardware DVR actually, especially since streaming prices have reached the same prices plus on most you're missing channels you wouldn't if you had cable or sat.


ATT TV certainly is the worst of the group when it comes to trickplay functions on anything other than their box, and I think for a lot of people that's going to be the problem with the service.

I don't want their box because live TV is a minority of my viewing experience. I'll pay the cost to get live TV content, but I'm not going to sacrifice the majority of my TV viewing experience to make a service I watch a small fraction of the time operate better. I suspect I'm not alone.

FuboTV won't be a great solution for a lot of people (missing channels, some channels are still 30fps), but they have the best UI out of any of the Live TV services I've used on Apple TV and Roku. If ATT could combine that UI with their video quality, I imagine the service would be in substantially better shape.


----------



## lparsons21

espaeth said:


> ATT TV certainly is the worst of the group when it comes to trickplay functions on anything other than their box, and I think for a lot of people that's going to be the problem with the service.
> 
> I don't want their box because live TV is a minority of my viewing experience. I'll pay the cost to get live TV content, but I'm not going to sacrifice the majority of my TV viewing experience to make a service I watch a small fraction of the time operate better. I suspect I'm not alone.
> 
> FuboTV won't be a great solution for a lot of people (missing channels, some channels are still 30fps), but they have the best UI out of any of the Live TV services I've used on Apple TV and Roku. If ATT could combine that UI with their video quality, I imagine the service would be in substantially better shape.


ATT TV on AppleTV is the worst of the bunch, mostly because its horrible remote just isn't good for trickplay functions on any app. It does work a bit better with other apps, but not by much. Sadly even using a Harmony remote doesn't help much with ATV and ATT TV. You get somewhat better trickplay control, but instead of using thumbnails during them, the ATT TV app tries to manipulate the whole screen which is just a bit too much for the ATV to keep up.

But ATT TV on other devices is fine though trickplay is not quite the same and varies by device a bit.

All that said, if ATT's box had Hulu and AppleTV+ app available for it, I could make it my one box. I have an older version of Hulu on mine that works OK but just isn't as good an app as the current versions are. AppleTV+ is supposedly coming to some AndroidTV boxes, just don't know if ATT's Osprey box is going to be one of them.


----------



## NashGuy

harperhometheater said:


> I'm close to using eBay, but I didn't want to front the cost and then have to do something with them or be stuck with them if I decided I didn't want to use them within the initial 14 day trial period, in case I find I like the AppleTV better.


Maybe just buy one Osprey off of eBay and test-drive it on your main TV during the 14-day trial period? Then if you like it and decide to stick with AT&T TV, you could buy more.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> I've been using the Osprey box for the last few days as I reported, but it is missing some things in my seemingly never ending quest to have the 'one box'.
> 
> IMO, if I gave up on Atmos audio and AppleTV+ the Osprey would fit the bill. But alas, those are two things I really like even though my sound system doesn't quite do Atmos reproduction quite to my liking. AppleTV+ is a bit more important. I use it for the TV+ originals from Apple, the $10/month CBS/Showtime deal and AMC+ via its channels. I also really like the Up Next strip even though it gets a bit cluttered.
> 
> With that in mind I started using the AppleTV4K today as it covers all the bases with just some relatively minor downsides. Like Hulu being only stereo, but I'm probably going to drop that as it really doesn't have much on it that I care about and their originals just have not been my cup of tea.
> 
> The remote has been my biggest complaint. I knew I could use my iPhone as the remote but had not actually done that. I did use my iPad though, but it is too big to be that handy. As I've used the iPhone as a remote today it I found that it really shines as an ATV remote. So I'll devote a few days to using the ATV4K only.


Still think your best hope to have "the one box" for AT&T TV plus all the major streaming services would be if AT&T TV puts out an updated version of its Android TV streamer. Of course, that's just wishing and hoping. If they did so anytime in the near future, it would very likely use the SoC in either the Verizon Stream TV v2 or the lesser TVision Hub dongle (which is about the same hardware as the new Chromecast with Google TV).

As for the Apple TV app on Android TV/Google TV, my hunch is that Google would prefer that Apple releases their app on Google Play so that it's available to all Android TV devices that meet minimum specifications in terms of processing power, security, and OS level. Seems un-Google-like for them to strike a deal for a third-party app to remain exclusive to Google-branded hardware as Google is all about creating an ecosystem with OEM partners. At the least, I would think that Google would insist on the Apple TV app being made available to all devices running the new Google TV software (which will expand soon to include smart TVs from Sony, TCL, etc.). But who knows, we'll see.

In the meantime, if you're going to try to make a go of things with your Apple TV 4K, have you considered buying an alternate remote for it, like this one for $30?
Review: Button Remote for Apple TV makes entertainment simple again | AppleInsider


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Still think your best hope to have "the one box" for AT&T TV plus all the major streaming services would be if AT&T TV puts out an updated version of its Android TV streamer. Of course, that's just wishing and hoping. If they did so anytime in the near future, it would very likely use the SoC in either the Verizon Stream TV v2 or the lesser TVision Hub dongle (which is about the same hardware as the new Chromecast with Google TV).
> 
> As for the Apple TV app on Android TV/Google TV, my hunch is that Google would prefer that Apple releases their app on Google Play so that it's available to all Android TV devices that meet minimum specifications in terms of processing power, security, and OS level. Seems un-Google-like for them to strike a deal for a third-party app to remain exclusive to Google-branded hardware as Google is all about creating an ecosystem with OEM partners. At the least, I would think that Google would insist on the Apple TV app being made available to all devices running the new Google TV software (which will expand soon to include smart TVs from Sony, TCL, etc.). But who knows, we'll see.
> 
> In the meantime, if you're going to try to make a go of things with your Apple TV 4K, have you considered buying an alternate remote for it, like this one for $30?
> Review: Button Remote for Apple TV makes entertainment simple again | AppleInsider


Answering in reverse order...

I have a Harmony Elite remote and it works reasonably well with the AppleTV though notable losing voice stuff. But even with it the ATT TV app is a bit of a PITA to do trickplay with. That's actually not Apple's fault, it is the way that ATT decided to do it on the AppleTV.

It seems that Apple insists on certifying each box for their app to go on. Or at least that was the way they did it with Roku when the app came to it recently. That seems to preclude what Google might want though who really knows when the big boys start playing? 

And yeah, ATT had the right idea for their Osprey box they just didn't implement well. If they would bump up the power of it as well as bump up the AndroidTV version and allow for a few other apps to come to it, it could certainly be the one box to consider. Even with other apps running on it the remote is excellent. Better than any other streaming remote out there IMO.


----------



## harsh

lparsons21 said:


> I have a Harmony Elite remote and it works reasonably well with the AppleTV though notable losing voice stuff. But even with it the ATT TV app is a bit of a PITA to do trickplay with. That's actually not Apple's fault, it is the way that ATT decided to do it on the AppleTV.


I'm not convinced that it is always safe to assume that the carrier is the one coding the apps.

I'd imagine that Apple has some pretty stringent guidelines (some for the best, others just punitive) about how things should be done and the programmers obviously can't make too many assumptions about what remotes other than the ATV remote might be in play.


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> I'm not convinced that it is always safe to assume that the carrier is the one coding the apps.
> 
> I'd imagine that Apple has some pretty stringent guidelines (some for the best, others just punitive) about how things should be done and the programmers obviously can't make too many assumptions about what remotes other than the ATV remote might be in play.


Here's the prime example of why I think it is ATT and Apple that made the choices they did.

When doing forward/reverse only the ATT TV app tries to twiddle the whole screen giving some indication where you are. That does not work well as the ATV can't keep up good enough and generally if you try to do a fast forward more than 2x it crashes the app, or at minimum *****es about the network connection.

All other apps that give indications use thumbnails and those work well. Even ATT's HBO Max app uses thumbnails.


----------



## harperhometheater

espaeth said:


> I don't want their box because live TV is a minority of my viewing experience. I'll pay the cost to get live TV content, but I'm not going to sacrifice the majority of my TV viewing experience to make a service I watch a small fraction of the time operate better. I suspect I'm not alone.


I'm thinking more on the lines of using the Osprey only as a TV box, like we used to with cable and sat, with the occasional casual app use. Similar to how I used to think of and use my tivo. I'll switch over to AppleTV for any serious watching. That isn't a huge deal as I am using a Harmony remote system so it's one button push.



NashGuy said:


> Maybe just buy one Osprey off of eBay and test-drive it on your main TV during the 14-day trial period? Then if you like it and decide to stick with AT&T TV, you could buy more.


You read my mind!



NashGuy said:


> In the meantime, if you're going to try to make a go of things with your Apple TV 4K, have you considered buying an alternate remote for it, like this one for $30?
> Review: Button Remote for Apple TV makes entertainment simple again | AppleInsider


I have so many darn remotes and changed them out so often, telling my wife_ "this will be the one remote you need now, nothing else. I promise!", _so many times that she'll kill me if I introduce another one, haha!

I already use a Harmony and am able to map all the available buttons and actions on it, so if I can't find one that works with the Harmony then it won't work with any other remotes, unless I'm missing something?



lparsons21 said:


> Here's the prime example of why I think it is ATT and Apple that made the choices they did.
> 
> *When doing forward/reverse only the ATT TV app tries to twiddle the whole screen giving some indication where you are. *That does not work well as the ATV can't keep up good enough and generally if you try to do a fast forward more than 2x it crashes the app, or at minimum *****es about the network connection.
> 
> All other apps that give indications use thumbnails and those work well. Even ATT's HBO Max app uses thumbnails.


This isn't true. I downloaded the AT&T TV app on my Samsung LSP9T UST projector (Tizen OS?) and when you FFWD it does the same thing as the AppleTV, scrubbing the whole screen's video and eventually losing its place.


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> I'm thinking more on the lines of using the Osprey only as a TV box, like we used to with cable and sat, with the occasional casual app use. Similar to how I used to think of and use my tivo. I'll switch over to AppleTV for any serious watching. That isn't a huge deal as I am using a Harmony remote system so it's one button push.
> 
> You read my mind!
> 
> I have so many darn remotes and changed them out so often, telling my wife_ "this will be the one remote you need now, nothing else. I promise!", _so many times that she'll kill me if I introduce another one, haha!
> 
> I already use a Harmony and am able to map all the available buttons and actions on it, so if I can't find one that works with the Harmony then it won't work with any other remotes, unless I'm missing something?
> 
> This isn't true. I downloaded the AT&T TV app on my Samsung LSP9T UST projector (Tizen OS?) and when you FFWD it does the same thing as the AppleTV, scrubbing the whole screen's video and eventually losing its place.


Thats what we do now. We use the Osprey for TV only.. Everything else I use my Apple TV. and the family does the same


----------



## swyman18

harperhometheater said:


> Yes. That's the store I went to as well! Do you live near Kamuela? Want to sell your boxes haha? ;-)


Yeah, not too far from there. I'm currently using both boxes otherwise I'd certainly sell them to you for cheap!

Luckily the box is small enough to fit in a flat rate box, so most eBay sellers will probably ship to HI using USPS and the cost isn't too bad.


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> This isn't true. I downloaded the AT&T TV app on my Samsung LSP9T UST projector (Tizen OS?) and when you FFWD it does the same thing as the AppleTV, scrubbing the whole screen's video and eventually losing its place.


I didn't know the ATT TV app worked like that on anything else. It sure doesn't do that on Roku or FireTV devices.

Frankly I could use either my Roku or FireTV as a one box solution since both support all the apps out there, or at least all of the ones I've tried. Notably had to sideload Peacock on the FireTV but it works fine there.

With the ATT TV app on the Roku you can use voice for trickplay, with FF/REW button it uses a thumbnail that won't keep up either. On FireTV you have to do multiple button pushes, no voice, no thumbnail.

Working with the ATT TV service on the Osprey is just wonderful IMO and makes the box switching worthwhile even though switching boxes can be a bit twitchy at times, especially if you are using HDMI-CEC which is in itself twitchy as hell.


----------



## harperhometheater

swyman18 said:


> Yeah, not too far from there. I'm currently using both boxes otherwise I'd certainly sell them to you for cheap!
> 
> Luckily the box is small enough to fit in a flat rate box, so most eBay sellers will probably ship to HI using USPS and the cost isn't too bad.


I'm going to try calling into AT&T myself to order at least one box and see if they're able to set it up for me to just pickup in store. If not I'll probably grab one from eBay as suggested to test the waters.



lparsons21 said:


> I didn't know the ATT TV app worked like that on anything else. It sure doesn't do that on Roku or FireTV devices.
> 
> Frankly I could use either my Roku or FireTV as a one box solution since both support all the apps out there, or at least all of the ones I've tried. Notably had to sideload Peacock on the FireTV but it works fine there.
> 
> With the ATT TV app on the Roku you can use voice for trickplay, with FF/REW button it uses a thumbnail that won't keep up either. On FireTV you have to do multiple button pushes, no voice, no thumbnail.
> 
> Working with the ATT TV service on the Osprey is just wonderful IMO and makes the box switching worthwhile even though switching boxes can be a bit twitchy at times, especially if you are using HDMI-CEC which is in itself twitchy as hell.


Oh I'll have to give it a whirl on the Roku then. Thanks for the tip!

I don't use CEC really. I let the Harmony do its thing.

I may need your assistance side loading Hulu on the osprey if your don't mind? I'm glad Prime is available now.


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> Oh I'll have to give it a whirl on the Roku then. Thanks for the tip!
> 
> I don't use CEC really. I let the Harmony do its thing.
> 
> I may need your assistance side loading Hulu on the osprey of your don't mind? I'm glad Prime is available now.


I have too many blasted boxes so I end up with some hooked to the TV and feeding audio back to my soundbar, hence CEC because it has to be on for ARC to work. Makes for some interesting power ups now and then as well as a bit twitchiness on occasion when switching things around.

No problem with help on Hulu sideloading, it isn't all that hard once you have the tool for it. But the method I use requires an Android phone/tablet to do. Let me know when you are ready.


----------



## espaeth

Looks like with the no contract plans the only way to cancel is to call the 800 number. I'm sure this is going to be fun.

I remembered the ATT TV app being rough when I looked at it last year, but after adjusting to Fubo over the last month it's absolutely brutal to revisit ATT TV on the Apple TV. I can't believe they still don't have an option that will show you series recordings you have scheduled. You can go into "Upcoming Recordings" and cancel individual episodes, but you have to search for the series again and then from there cancel the series recording. 

Fubo really nailed a few simple actions, like hitting "Play" in any menu jumps back to full screen video. Or "long press" lets you jump to the last channel. It unreal that ATT is still blocking the ability to rewind or pause for more than 2 minutes on the apps.

For the channel selection and video quality this service would almost be worth the price, it's a shame the UI is such a let down.


----------



## lparsons21

ATT TV has always been call in to cancel, only the Now product did it online.  And it really isn’t a hassle based on my experience when I cancelled last month.

But yeah, the lack of a list of scheduled DVR events is a bit of a PITA. IMO, I don’t find it to be a big deal though it would seem they could make it easier. 

Overall it is better to get their box and it isn’t too costly if you don’t buy it from them. You can run nearly any streaming app on it with 2 notable exceptions. Hulu’s current version will install but you get no sound, version 2.1.3 does work fine but no profiles and the old UI and the app must be sideloaded.

Amazon Prime just became available for it but you could sideload it before that and it works fine. For me, the only missing app is the AppleTV app, but that’s true for most AndroidTV based devices. It has been reported that it is coming sometime this year for at least some AndroidTV based boxes though no actual timeframe is given.

My daily use is now the ATT box solely for using the ATT TV service I have and then using the AppleTV for everything else. That said, I could just as well use a Roku or FireTV device and do the same thing but the UI for ATT TV on other than ATT box leaves a bit to be desired. Minor things for most other boxes, big irritants with AppleTV.


----------



## harperhometheater

espaeth said:


> Looks like with the no contract plans the only way to cancel is to call the 800 number. I'm sure this is going to be fun.
> 
> I remembered the ATT TV app being rough when I looked at it last year, but after adjusting to Fubo over the last month it's absolutely brutal to revisit ATT TV on the Apple TV. I can't believe they still don't have an option that will show you series recordings you have scheduled. You can go into "Upcoming Recordings" and cancel individual episodes, but you have to search for the series again and then from there cancel the series recording.
> 
> Fubo really nailed a few simple actions, like hitting "Play" in any menu jumps back to full screen video. Or "long press" lets you jump to the last channel. It unreal that ATT is still blocking the ability to rewind or pause for more than 2 minutes on the apps.
> 
> For the channel selection and video quality this service would almost be worth the price, it's a shame the UI is such a let down.


Which is the EXACT reasons I want the Osprey boxes! They don't have these issues.

What a nightmare all this "cutting the cord streaming" has created. The prices are now the same, you're missing channels, you have to switch to numerous different apps just to get all you want. It's madness!!! These companies got EXACTLY what they wanted all along! I mean come on, seriously, you now have to buy EVERY damned network app SEPARATELY at $6+/month EACH just to get their content??? Peacock, CBS All Access, Discovery+, Disney+, HBO Max, yada yada yada!

Looking back I can't believe people were complaining that they had to simply switch over to another input on their TV or AVR to go from ALL their TV content they paid for on a Tivo/cable/satellite box to a Bluray player or streamer (sometimes being one in the same!)

No provider or manufacturer is EVER going to give us one box to rule them all because they can monetize more in NOT doing so! I give up, sheesh!


----------



## harperhometheater

I just ordered three boxes from eBay for a $170 total. I’m done trying to figure this all out and will just use these boxes for TV mainly and the occasional app and go to Apple TV and my 4K Blu-ray player when needed for serious viewing. Thanks for everyone’s help and advice. It was very appreciated and helped me come to a final decision which I know I will be happy with for a few years at least!


----------



## espaeth

harperhometheater said:


> What a nightmare all this "cutting the cord streaming" has created. The prices are now the same, you're missing channels, you have to switch to numerous different apps just to get all you want. It's madness!!! These companies got EXACTLY what they wanted all along! I mean come on, seriously, you now have to buy EVERY damned network app SEPARATELY at $6+/month EACH just to get their content??? Peacock, CBS All Access, Discovery+, Disney+, HBO Max, yada yada yada!


There's good and bad with this model. It certainly can cost more if you buy _everything_, but at the same time you're getting massive catalogs of commercial free TV shows and movies that you can watch whatever you want. Why DVR stuff when you can watch a higher quality version without commercials, never have to worry about schedule changes or timeslot over runs, or breaking news / weather interruptions?

If you don't need sports, it can end up substantially cheaper for a much better viewing experience.

If you're like me and decided you want live sports, unfortunately there's no way out. People got excited about the prospect of Sinclair offering a standalone service for the RSNs in light of all the disputes, but if you do the napkin math they'd likely need to price it somewhere around $100/mo once you factor in their licensing costs and a likely low 10-15% uptake with previous subscribers who would be willing to pony up any extra cash at all for this.

I pay my $73 for my 3 networks (ESPN, NBCSN, NHL Network) and occasionally use other channels as "idle viewing" as long as they're there anyway. I've resigned that even if I could just buy access to those 3 networks alone, I'd almost certainly be paying this much or more for them anyway.


----------



## lparsons21

espaeth said:


> I pay my $73 for my 3 networks (ESPN, NBCSN, NHL Network) and occasionally use other channels as "idle viewing" as long as they're there anyway. I've resigned that even if I could just buy access to those 3 networks alone, I'd almost certainly be paying this much or more for them anyway.


You know, I never actually looked at it that way. But you are right, I sub to the live streamer I have because of the sports I want. For me that is golf, football and for my son UFC.

So this morning I took a look at what I've recorded. Almost all broadcast channels, golf and UFC. Broadcast channels I can cover with an antenna and OTA DVR, which I've got. UFC I could get with ESPN+ app I think, haven't really looked at that. Golf is the blasted kicker, no Golf channel means missing a lot of golf as far as I can tell.

The big advantage to a live streamer is convenience IMO. Nearly everything in one location with one UI to deal with. Using various OTT streaming service means keeping track of what show is on what service. Very much not as convenient.


----------



## harsh

lparsons21 said:


> Golf is the blasted kicker, no Golf channel means missing a lot of golf as far as I can tell.


NBC and CBS carry quite a bit of golf but perhaps not enough for the avid follower.

The neat part about UFC is that there isn't much in the way of spoilers if you can't see the fights live.


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> I just ordered three boxes from eBay for a $170 total. I'm done trying to figure this all out and will just use these boxes for TV mainly and the occasional app and go to Apple TV and my 4K Blu-ray player when needed for serious viewing. Thanks for everyone's help and advice. It was very appreciated and helped me come to a final decision which I know I will be happy with for a few years at least!


Good price


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> NBC and CBS carry quite a bit of golf but perhaps not enough for the avid follower.
> 
> The neat part about UFC is that there isn't much in the way of spoilers if you can't see the fights live.


Yeah they do, but it is just certain tournaments and usually just the weekend play. When I had ATT TV Entertainment I thought that would be enough, especially with also having ESPN. But alas, my wants exceeded what was available that way.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> When doing forward/reverse only the ATT TV app tries to twiddle the whole screen giving some indication where you are. That does not work well as the ATV can't keep up good enough and generally if you try to do a fast forward more than 2x it crashes the app, or at minimum *****es about the network connection.


It's not that the Apple TV 4K can't keep up when an app on it does full-screen FF and rewind. The ATV4K is a beast in terms of processing power. I use the Channels app on it for live OTA TV (requiring MPEG-2 TS decoding, as well as software de-interlacing for 1080i channels). That app does full-screen FF and rewind, not thumbnails, and it handles it flawlessly. Very responsive. Like, better than the old TiVo Roamio OTA I used to have. Scrub across the remote's touchpad to move through the timeline quickly; scrub very slowly to move frame-by-frame. I suspect, though, that the reason it works so well is that the elapsed live video stream is being cached on the ATV4K itself. In the case of AT&T TV, I don't know how much, if any, of the elapsed live stream is locally cached versus being pulled down again from the AT&T server.


----------



## NashGuy

harperhometheater said:


> No provider or manufacturer is EVER going to give us one box to rule them all because they can monetize more in NOT doing so! I give up, sheesh!


My Apple TV 4K is "the one box to rule them all" for me. It handles all of the streaming apps I'd want to use (and integrates content from all of them except Netflix and YouTube into the Apple TV app and its Up Next watchlist). I use the excellent Channels app on it for live free OTA TV with the ability to trick play in the current channel's elapsed timeline. I use the MythTV app for free OTA DVR service (running on my iMac, with the ATV4K as the playback client).

I think a lot of your frustration with cord-cutting -- with its fragmentation and increased costs -- comes down to you needing/wanting not just various OTT streaming services but also a package of live cable TV channels with DVR service. But for someone like me, whose casual interest in sports is more than met through the OTA broadcast networks, subscribing to cable TV just doesn't make sense. The cost/benefit ratio is completely out of whack for me. The best scripted series, movies, and documentaries are now either exclusive to OTT streaming services or debut on a streaming service at or about the same time as they do on a cable channel.


----------



## harperhometheater

lparsons21 said:


> The big advantage to a live streamer is convenience IMO. Nearly everything in one location with one UI to deal with. Using various OTT streaming service means keeping track of what show is on what service. Very much not as convenient.


This is what helps attract me to the AT&T TV Osprey. All my live TV and all my apps I care for in one UI. What hooks me, keeps me and takes my money is the sheer quality of the image on its live TV channels! Believe me I have tried them all and this smokes all of them. It's very easy to see on my 130" tweaked to the nines projection system. Not even close.



NashGuy said:


> It's not that the Apple TV 4K can't keep up when an app on it does full-screen FF and rewind. The ATV4K is a beast in terms of processing power. I use the Channels app on it for live OTA TV (requiring MPEG-2 TS decoding, as well as software de-interlacing for 1080i channels). That app does full-screen FF and rewind, not thumbnails, and it handles it flawlessly. Very responsive. Like, better than the old TiVo Roamio OTA I used to have. Scrub across the remote's touchpad to move through the timeline quickly; scrub very slowly to move frame-by-frame. I suspect, though, that the reason it works so well is that the elapsed live video stream is being cached on the ATV4K itself. In the case of AT&T TV, I don't know how much, if any, of the elapsed live stream is locally cached versus being pulled down again from the AT&T server.


Continuing what I wrote above, I tried all other options and simply also fell in love with Channels DVR. That's what I've been using in my AppleTVs. From a UI and usability standpoint, it's definitely the best solution out there currently. My personal issue is as I said above.......image quality. Way too many times with the TVE channels when blown up that big, they totally look like a$$. So many only use 30fps, 3Mbps compression, chroma compression and on and on. My OTA antenna signals aren't anything to write home about either here. Most are through repeaters and are picked up from an adjacent island, Maui. Those are also highly compressed and resolution is down scaled from 1080i to 720p! That brings me to Spectrum cable, who copy protects every damned channel including local networks so I couldn't even use my HDHomerun Prime Cablecard tuner. Even if I could, their channels all look like crap, especially compared to AT&T TV! I blew the dust off of my old TiVo Roamio and reactivated the cablecard and tested it out again for a few weeks. What an effort in futility that was, trying to get a decent image quality on my reference theater screen.

The moral of the story is, I am finally happy and content and I don't care if it costs me more than be a tightwad using so many streaming hacks just to get an image on screen, no matter how bad it is. Quality should mean something still. Unfortunately nobody seems to care about that anymore, from manufacturers to MSOs to the end user himself! Which now that I think about it is why reference quality products like discs for your media are dying out in favor of crappy streaming alternatives. Convenience over quality is ruining it for people who actually care. It sucks there's only one service it seems that gives a quality video image for TV anymore. And they're the ones taking all the heat and losing subs for costs alone.

Thank you AT&T for such a quality product, image quality wise anyway! Now it's time to update your hardware boxes to match!


----------



## harperhometheater

NashGuy said:


> My Apple TV 4K is "the one box to rule them all" for me. It handles all of the streaming apps I'd want to use (and integrates content from all of them except Netflix and YouTube into the Apple TV app and its Up Next watchlist). I use the excellent Channels app on it for live free OTA TV with the ability to trick play in the current channel's elapsed timeline. I use the MythTV app for free OTA DVR service (running on my iMac, with the ATV4K as the playback client).
> 
> I think a lot of your frustration with cord-cutting -- with its fragmentation and increased costs -- comes down to you needing/wanting not just various OTT streaming services but also a package of live cable TV channels with DVR service. But for someone like me, whose casual interest in sports is more than met through the OTA broadcast networks, subscribing to cable TV just doesn't make sense. The cost/benefit ratio is completely out of whack for me. The best scripted series, movies, and documentaries are now either exclusive to OTT streaming services or debut on a streaming service at or about the same time as they do on a cable channel.


I think I answered a lot of that in my reply above which I was writing as you left this.

My frustration is with what you're doing's overall quality. I've been doing it exactly as you have and do love the same things about it that you do.

In the end it was the quality of the image on screen. After all, isn't that what matters most if we're going to invest precious life minutes into it? The quality (both image and content) of what we're investing in?

What really pointed it out to me was when each week I would watch Inside the NFL on the Showtime app. I couldn't believe how amazing the SDR 1080p image looked on my system, especially the game highlights from NFL Films! My jaw is on the floor and I wonder to myself_ "why can't the actual games look this good?",_ each and every time. That's what made me really look into what I was seeing with my Channels DVR setup and the crappy images, relatively speaking. AT&T TV is SO MUCH better and I can't wait to see the games later! (*Please don't spoil any of the outcomes here. I have to record the games due to other commitments haha!)


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> My Apple TV 4K is "the one box to rule them all" for me. It handles all of the streaming apps I'd want to use (and integrates content from all of them except Netflix and YouTube into the Apple TV app and its Up Next watchlist). I use the excellent Channels app on it for live free OTA TV with the ability to trick play in the current channel's elapsed timeline. I use the MythTV app for free OTA DVR service (running on my iMac, with the ATV4K as the playback client).
> 
> I think a lot of your frustration with cord-cutting -- with its fragmentation and increased costs -- comes down to you needing/wanting not just various OTT streaming services but also a package of live cable TV channels with DVR service. But for someone like me, whose casual interest in sports is more than met through the OTA broadcast networks, subscribing to cable TV just doesn't make sense. The cost/benefit ratio is completely out of whack for me. The best scripted series, movies, and documentaries are now either exclusive to OTT streaming services or debut on a streaming service at or about the same time as they do on a cable channel.


The AppleTV is a great box and it certainly could be the one box for many. The things that make me not like it for that role aren't huge things, but to me they are thing I want to have. Things like Hulu only offering stereo on ATV, ATT TV some channels that are 5.1 on other boxes are stereo on the ATV. For the life of me I can't figure out why that should be.

And of course, there's the world's worst remote it comes with! Harmony and some other remotes can do better with it but you lose Siri. But given Siri's relative overall weakness with the ATV and its apps, I guess I shouldn't complain.

Like you I have an OTA DVR solution that works well so if I could make myself satisfied with using the broadcast channels for sports I could dump a live streaming service. For info, my recordings are almost all OTA shows and sports.


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> This is what helps attract me to the AT&T TV Osprey. All my live TV and all my apps I care for in one UI. What hooks me, keeps me and takes my money is the sheer quality of the image on its live TV channels! Believe me I have tried them all and this smokes all of them. It's very easy to see on my 130" tweaked to the nines projection system. Not even close.
> 
> Thank you AT&T for such a quality product, image quality wise anyway! Now it's time to update your hardware boxes to match!


Yep, the ATT TV Osprey box is certainly the right idea but it is sorely in need of updating. It just makes working with ATT's service so much better and using other apps isn't horrible these days, just a little slow in loading with some rare crashes on load.

Some things that would make it better are better 4K support and better Atmos support. Currently only a couple of apps do 4K with it and the only Atmos so far was the WW84 movie from HBO Max. To me it isn't just the video though that is the #1 consideration, it is also the audio. I consider DD5.1 to be the absolute minimum acceptable.

Currently the only missing app for me on it is the AppleTV+ app. That's because I use it for more than just the TV+ originals but a deal for CBS/Showtime that can't be beat IMO. Supposedly it is coming for at least some AndroidTV based boxes this year but it isn't known exactly which ones will get it. The only other app issue is Hulu. It isn't officially supported and only V2.1.3 will work if you sideload it. That works well but it doesn't support profiles or anything other than basic Hulu. Since Amazon Prime has now been released for the box there is some hope that the Hulu issue will get fixed too.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> It's not that the Apple TV 4K can't keep up when an app on it does full-screen FF and rewind. The ATV4K is a beast in terms of processing power. I use the Channels app on it for live OTA TV (requiring MPEG-2 TS decoding, as well as software de-interlacing for 1080i channels). That app does full-screen FF and rewind, not thumbnails, and it handles it flawlessly. Very responsive. Like, better than the old TiVo Roamio OTA I used to have. Scrub across the remote's touchpad to move through the timeline quickly; scrub very slowly to move frame-by-frame. I suspect, though, that the reason it works so well is that the elapsed live video stream is being cached on the ATV4K itself. In the case of AT&T TV, I don't know how much, if any, of the elapsed live stream is locally cached versus being pulled down again from the AT&T server.


Interesting. So it seems the culprit IS AT&T in all this.

The AT&T app on all boxes, including AT&T's, doesn't do much caching at all. That's been a constant complaint in various forums.


----------



## swyman18

harperhometheater said:


> I think I answered a lot of that in my reply above which I was writing as you left this.
> 
> My frustration is with what you're doing's overall quality. I've been doing it exactly as you have and do love the same things about it that you do.
> 
> In the end it was the quality of the image on screen. After all, isn't that what matters most if we're going to invest precious life minutes into it? The quality (both image and content) of what we're investing in?
> 
> What really pointed it out to me was when each week I would watch Inside the NFL on the Showtime app. I couldn't believe how amazing the SDR 1080p image looked on my system, especially the game highlights from NFL Network! My jaw is in the floor and I wonder to myself_ "why can't the actual games look this good?",_ each and every time. That's what made me really look into what I was seeing with my Channels DVR setup and the crappy images, relatively speaking. AT&T TV is SO MUCH better and I can't wait to see the games later! (*Please don't spoil any out any outcomes here. I have to record the games due to other commitments haha!)


I get my OTA stations from the same tower on Maui that you do, and you're right they are not the best. They do look better on ATT TV. However, I still record the NFL games on OTA using Channels DVR for the instantaneous skip, ff, etc. The trick play on the Osprey box is not terrible, but nowhere near as nice as a local recording obviously.

I'll be watching them later too, most likely when they are long over. Ah, the things we have to deal with in our time zone, right?


----------



## NashGuy

harperhometheater said:


> Continuing what I wrote above, I tried all other options and simply also fell in love with Channels DVR. That's what I've been using in my AppleTVs. From a UI and usability standpoint, it's definitely the best solution out there currently. My personal issue is as I said above.......image quality. Way too many times with the TVE channels when blown up that big, they totally look like a$$. So many only use 30fps, 3Mbps compression, chroma compression and on and on. My OTA antenna signals aren't anything to write home about either here. Most are through repeaters and are picked up from an adjacent island, Maui. Those are also highly compressed and resolution is down scaled from 1080i to 720p!


I've never used Channels with cable TVE channels, so have no experience there. Actually, I've never even used Channels DVR with OTA TV. I just paid the original $25 for the Channels app and use it only for live OTA TV. There's really not enough must-watch content on OTA TV for me to justify spending even $8/mo for OTA DVR service from Channels. A few years back, I went through the hassle of installing and configuring the free open-source MythTV DVR system on my Mac, so I use that for recording evening and Sunday morning news shows, SNL, and just a few primetime network series. (Some of that stuff I could stream on Peacock Premium, which I get free -- it offers a little better PQ than OTA NBC but also a few unskippable ads, so it's a trade-off.)

Even though most of the local stations have rolled out ATSC 3.0 here in Nashville, which resulted in the 1.0 stations sharing towers and reducing bitrates a bit, the 1.0 HD picture quality is still pretty good here. Last night I watched a sitcom I'd recorded off the local ABC station and I could definitely tell it didn't look as sharp as when I used to watch it on Hulu (which I dropped a couple months ago). But it was fine for a network sitcom.


----------



## compnurd

While we are talking picture quality on ATT TV the packer game looks phenomenal


----------



## krel

lparsons21 said:


> The AppleTV is a great box and it certainly could be the one box for many. The things that make me not like it for that role aren't huge things, but to me they are thing I want to have. Things like Hulu only offering stereo on ATV, ATT TV some channels that are 5.1 on other boxes are stereo on the ATV. For the life of me I can't figure out why that should be.
> 
> And of course, there's the world's worst remote it comes with! Harmony and some other remotes can do better with it but you lose Siri. But given Siri's relative overall weakness with the ATV and its apps, I guess I shouldn't complain.
> 
> Like you I have an OTA DVR solution that works well so if I could make myself satisfied with using the broadcast channels for sports I could dump a live streaming service. For info, my recordings are almost all OTA shows and sports.


Simple Remote | Apple TV Alternative Remote Control | CM-7000XRC (channelmaster.com)
here is an alternative remote. love the apple tv but the remote sucks!!


----------



## lparsons21

krel said:


> Simple Remote | Apple TV Alternative Remote Control | CM-7000XRC (channelmaster.com)
> here is an alternative remote. love the apple tv but the remote sucks!!


With ATT TV app on the ATV4K a replacement remote is only a little better unfortunately. I already have a Harmony Elite.


----------



## harperhometheater

compnurd said:


> While we are talking picture quality on ATT TV the packer game looks phenomenal


That looked pretty decent but I could still see a lot of MPEG compression artifacts around the players. NBC is looking much better with their 1080i less compressed broadcast. Fox really sucks for NFL. It doesn't seem like they've updated their infrastructure since they started their 720p broadcasts! The skycam images were particularly bad, and they used that camera most of all during the game.

I used to be the Broadcast Transmitter Engineer for an NBC affiliate in PA back when the ATSC standard was just starting to be implemented. I remember when we dedicated 16-17 of the 19.2 Mbps channel bandwidth allocated for our main NBC channel and the results were simply stunning! We only had a small sub-channel for full time weather at about 2-3 Mbps. I wish we could go back to THAT quality again instead of such extreme compression so they could cram way too many useless crappy sub-channels into the same bandwidth.

I can see history repeating itself with ATSC 3.0 too. They'll start out impressing critics with the high quality, then slowly cram that down to squeeze in more useless crap.



swyman18 said:


> I get my OTA stations from the same tower on Maui that you do, and you're right they are not the best. They do look better on ATT TV. However, I still record the NFL games on OTA using Channels DVR for the instantaneous skip, ff, etc. The trick play on the Osprey box is not terrible, but nowhere near as nice as a local recording obviously.


I take the quality over FFWD trick play for football. It's easy to jump ahead 1.5-2 minutes per commercial. I discovered that if I use the Select or Pause button to pause the show on the Harmony for the AppleTV, then hit the right or left arrow button, that it will jump ahead or back 30 seconds. So it's easy to jump over commercials by doing this 3-4 times. No more of that crappy scanning when FFWDing! I'm sure it'll get even better once I get and use the Osprey. Hopefully the image quality on it is as good or better than the AppleTV.



swyman18 said:


> I'll be watching them later too, most likely when they are long over. Ah, the things we have to deal with in our time zone, right?


I LOVE getting up and watching the NFL at 7 or 8am with a fresh cup of hot coffee though! It's nice having at least the first couple sets of games being over by 2pm so there's still time to go out somewhere like to the beach or running errands then church and going out to eat. I then usually record the final SNF game and watch it later in the evening as a nightcap!

We had a nice brunch at Lava Java then a nice hike at Kalopa today, which I'm sure you're familiar with. Now it's football time!!!


----------



## gio12

Does AT&T TV streaming have Fox Sun Sports? Lost it with YouTube TV.


----------



## b4pjoe

lparsons21 said:


> Here's the prime example of why I think it is ATT and Apple that made the choices they did.
> 
> *When doing forward/reverse only the ATT TV app tries to twiddle the whole screen giving some indication where you are.* That does not work well as the ATV can't keep up good enough and generally if you try to do a fast forward more than 2x it crashes the app, or at minimum *****es about the network connection.
> 
> All other apps that give indications use thumbnails and those work well. Even ATT's HBO Max app uses thumbnails.


Just wondering if you have tried using Siri to do FF/RW on the AT&T TV app on the ATV? It works great on other apps I've tried it on but I don't have AT&T TV to try it on their app. I just hold the Siri button down and say "Fast forward 90 seconds" and it moves there instantly. I know you don't like the ATV remote but this does help.


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> Just wondering if you have tried using Siri to do FF/RW on the AT&T TV app on the ATV? It works great on other apps I've tried it on but I don't have AT&T TV to try it on their app. I just hold the Siri button down and say "Fast forward 90 seconds" and it moves there instantly. I know you don't like the ATV remote but this does help.


Siri trickplay other than pause/play doesn't work with the ATT TV app.


----------



## harsh

harperhometheater said:


> Fox really sucks for NFL. It doesn't seem like they've updated their infrastructure since they started their 720p broadcasts! The skycam images were particularly bad, and they used that camera most of all during the game.


This may have more to do with having to convert everything from 4K, UHD or HD in the absence of 720p production trucks.

I watched the ESPN sky cam coverage of the NCAA championship game (ESPN U was carrying a 100% sky cam version of the game) for a while and the image was noticeably diminished. The coaches channel (ESPN News) was even worse but they were all phoning it in anyway.

The sky cam version gave significant insights into how it behaves mechanically and what the camera does when it is usually not in use.


----------



## b4pjoe

lparsons21 said:


> Siri trickplay other than pause/play doesn't work with the ATT TV app.


That sounds like an AT&T issue then just like most of the sound issues with apps that don't produce sound that the ATV is capable of. And maybe they do it on purpose to try to get people to buy their box.


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> That sounds like an AT&T issue then just like most of the sound issues with apps that don't produce sound that the ATV is capable of. And maybe they do it on purpose to try to get people to buy their box.


Yep, it is an AT&T issue. But the unfortunate fact of life in the live streaming world is that the same app on different devices is very often different in some significant way.

The box was all about getting people to drop uverse or DirecTV and have a similar experience to cable/sat. Until this last change to their offerings the ATT TV Now folks couldn't even buy the box from AT&T.

A little thread drift...

I was twiddling with using the AppleTV today and saw something I either hadn't noticed before or forgot about. And that is how the 'up next' strip works in the AppleTV app on the ATV.

Here's an example to show the oddity. I had started watching Banshee on Cinemax with the ATT TV app and went off to do something else and came back to pick up where I left off. It showed the episode as 'up next' but it showed it was going to get it from the Apple Cinemax channel and not AT&T TV. I don't sub to Cinemax with AppleTV's channels. Noticed the same thing on some other show. I watched on one app, stopped, and when it showed up in the 'up next' strip it picked a different app as the default. Odd...


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Here's an example to show the oddity. I had started watching Banshee on Cinemax with the ATT TV app and went off to do something else and came back to pick up where I left off. It showed the episode as 'up next' but it showed it was going to get it from the Apple Cinemax channel and not AT&T TV. I don't sub to Cinemax with AppleTV's channels. Noticed the same thing on some other show. I watched on one app, stopped, and when it showed up in the 'up next' strip it picked a different app as the default. Odd...


I've occasionally had that happen too. Maybe an NBC show that I watched on Hulu would default to opening in Peacock via Up Next. (But in my case, at that time, I had an active subscription to both Hulu and Peacock.)

Anyhow, you can correct the matter by long-pressing the title in the Up Next row, select "Show Details" or something like that, and then you'll see its full info page from which you can select an alternate app to open the episode in. Then hopefully it will default to that app going forward.


----------



## NashGuy

harperhometheater said:


> I can see history repeating itself with ATSC 3.0 too. They'll start out impressing critics with the high quality, then slowly cram that down to squeeze in more useless crap.


A few years ago, I was pretty hopeful about how ATSC 3.0 might turn out. Not so much any more. Frankly, I think the biggest benefit it will bring is easier, more reliable reception. (ATSC 1.0 is a fragile mess that's way too prone to multipath interference and other issues.)

Beyond that, I do think that 3.0 will bring about better overall PQ than 1.0, thanks to use of the more efficient H.265 HEVC codec (which is two generations ahead of 1.0's MPEG-2). In time, we should see a fair amount of stuff in 1080p HDR from the major broadcast nets. But that same stuff will probably still look better when streamed from Hulu (ABC), Peacock (NBC), Paramount+ (CBS) or Tubi (Fox).

But all the talk about getting free 4K content is overhyped. And we don't even know yet if the networks will use DRM to keep folks from using OTA DVRs with 3.0 (or, perhaps more likely, preventing the ads from being skipped during playback).

Will also be interesting to see if, when and how MVPDs like AT&T TV and Xfinity TV begin to carry ATSC 3.0 stations in their channel packages.


----------



## b4pjoe

lparsons21 said:


> I was twiddling with using the AppleTV today and saw something I either hadn't noticed before or forgot about. And that is how the 'up next' strip works in the AppleTV app on the ATV.
> 
> Here's an example to show the oddity. I had started watching Banshee on Cinemax with the ATT TV app and went off to do something else and came back to pick up where I left off. It showed the episode as 'up next' but it showed it was going to get it from the Apple Cinemax channel and not AT&T TV. I don't sub to Cinemax with AppleTV's channels. Noticed the same thing on some other show. I watched on one app, stopped, and when it showed up in the 'up next' strip it picked a different app as the default. Odd...


I've seen that many times. When I was subscribed to Hulu and I watched a show from Discovery that was on Hulu also it would always switch the next episode in Up Next to Hulu. Quit happening when I unsubscribed from Hulu and deleted the app. Right now if I watch a show from the Discovery + app it sometimes changes it to the old Discovery app or the History app depending on which service it is from.


----------



## gio12

Signed up and guided does not work!
Any idea?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> Signed up and guided does not work!
> Any idea?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Are you talking about using the ATT box? If so, please elaborate.


----------



## gio12

lparsons21 said:


> Are you talking about using the ATT box? If so, please elaborate.


No, ATV

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> No, ATV
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


So it is an AppleTV that isn't allowing something. So exactly what won't set up on it? Based on your 2 posts about it you haven't provided even a little clue about your issue.


----------



## gio12

lparsons21 said:


> So it is an AppleTV that isn't allowing something. So exactly what won't set up on it? Based on your 2 posts about it you haven't provided even a little clue about your issue.


Like I said. I just signed up today.
No guide. Won't load.
Half the time the one chanI get, keeps going out saying its not in my package now.
But my first post, guide won't load.
Already sick of AT&T again in a few hours

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## gio12

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> Like I said. I just signed up today.
> No guide. Won't load.
> Half the time the one chanI get, keeps going out saying its not in my package now.
> But my first post, guide won't load.
> Already sick of AT&T again in a few hours
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


OK. Thanks. I've read in another forum that some that signed up yesterday and today are having the same issue.

Some things to give it a try:
1. Reboot the AppleTV
2. Start the ATT TV app and check in settings to ensure you have the right email for your login. If so, logout, reboot the ATV and restart the app and do a new login.
3. If that doesn't work, go to att.com and try to login to your ATT TV account and see if everything there looks good.

If all that fails, given them a call.


----------



## gio12

lparsons21 said:


> OK. Thanks. I've read in another forum that some that signed up yesterday and today are having the same issue.
> 
> Some things to give it a try:
> 1. Reboot the AppleTV
> 2. Start the ATT TV app and check in settings to ensure you have the right email for your login. If so, logout, reboot the ATV and restart the app and do a new login.
> 3. If that doesn't work, go to att.com and try to login to your ATT TV account and see if everything there looks good.
> 
> If all that fails, given them a call.


Did all that. Tech no help and hung up on me. Chat has no clue

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> Did all that. Tech no help and hung up on me. Chat has no clue
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Sorry to hear that.

The best thing to do now is to delete the ATT TV app, reboot the ATV and re-install the app. Just as a question, what version of AppleTV box do you have? If it is an older one that may be the issue.

Uh, just one more question. Did you install the AT&T TV app or the AT&T Watch TV app?


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Sorry to hear that.
> 
> The best thing to do now is to delete the ATT TV app, reboot the ATV and re-install the app. Just as a question, what version of AppleTV box do you have? If it is an older one that may be the issue.
> 
> Uh, just one more question. Did you install the AT&T TV app or the AT&T Watch TV app?


Is the ATV up to date also?


----------



## gio12

lparsons21 said:


> Sorry to hear that.
> 
> The best thing to do now is to delete the ATT TV app, reboot the ATV and re-install the app. Just as a question, what version of AppleTV box do you have? If it is an older one that may be the issue.
> 
> Uh, just one more question. Did you install the AT&T TV app or the AT&T Watch TV app?


Newest model

Done that

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## gio12

compnurd said:


> Is the ATV up to date also?


Yep

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> Newest model
> 
> Done that
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The app question was because the ATT Watch TV app doesn't work on the ATT TV service.


----------



## compnurd

gio12 said:


> Yep
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Does it work on your phone?


----------



## gio12

lparsons21 said:


> The app question was because the ATT Watch TV app doesn't work on the ATT TV service.


Not watch app


----------



## gio12

compnurd said:


> Does it work on your phone?


no


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> Not watch app


I'm stumped! I did see one other person having somewhat similar but more limited version of the issue you are having but no responses indicating a fix.

But the question about working on your phone is important.


----------



## gio12

lparsons21 said:


> The app question was because the ATT Watch TV app doesn't work on the ATT TV service.












Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> no


So if it doesn't work on any of your devices the problem has to be account related at AT&T for some reason. Darned if I know how to fix that.


----------



## gio12

lparsons21 said:


> I'm stumped! I did see one other person having somewhat similar but more limited version of the issue you are having but no responses indicating a fix.
> 
> But the question about working on your phone is important.


so am I and AT&T


----------



## compnurd

Downdetector was showing issues at ATT a few hours ago.. Might resolve itself shortly

Someone on reddit just posted having a similar issue


----------



## gio12

compnurd said:


> Downdetector was showing issues at ATT a few hours ago.. Might resolve itself shortly
> 
> Someone on reddit just posted having a similar issue


Thanks. Will give it until tomorrow


----------



## harperhometheater

NashGuy said:


> Beyond that, I do think that 3.0 will bring about better overall PQ than 1.0, thanks to use of the more efficient H.265 HEVC codec (which is two generations ahead of 1.0's MPEG-2).


Which they'll use to their advantage to cram more useless crap sub-channels in to get more ad revenue! Same sh!t, different codec.

Just look at what Comcast did as reference.


----------



## espaeth

I had to sign up again under a new account instead of my old account that previously had an ATT TV NOW subscription. On both the iPhone and Apple TV, I had to make sure I signed out of the TV Provider in "Settings" and launch the app without allowing access to the TV Provider single sign-on so it would force a new login.

With the TV Provider logged into the new account, the apps were stuck going to the old cancelled ATT account and showing everything as not authorized until I forced an app login prompt. It seems they cache something in iCloud that doesn't get cleared when you delete the app.

After a direct app login, I could sign in with the TV Provider and all the Single Sign-on functionality resumed to working normally. 

Unrelated to the above: cancellation involved a 15 minute call where I had to explain a few times what I didn't like about the service. The CSR was pleasant, but that process is still more involved than it needed to be.


----------



## lparsons21

For those coming new to AT&T TV you should know ahead of time that it doesn’t pad recordings. If you want to record something, like a football game, that could go over the allocated time remember to set a recording for what comes on after.

And there have been some reports that some of the Sinclair/Fox RSN’s are glitchy today. Buffering or just not working.

And I noticed on the Golf channel today that the audio was out of whack, not quite garbled but certainly not right.

Both of those may either be an issue with AT&T TV itself or possibly the feeds.


----------



## gio12

Might be working now.
Also, can I reorder the guide like YouTube TV?
I like having locals together, sports, etc.

Will say PQ is better than YTV and nice to have 5.1 sound at times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## harperhometheater

@lparsons21 or anyone else with an Osprey, I was watching this video on YouTube and at about 11:19 minutes into it, he is going through the App Store and it shows Hulu in there. This video is from about a week ago. Can you double check yours and confirm if it's there now or not?


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> @lparsons21 or anyone else with an Osprey, I was watching this video on YouTube and at about 11:19 minutes into it, he is going through the App Store and it shows Hulu in there. This video is from about a week ago. Can you double check yours and confirm if it's there now or not?


I do not see It


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> @lparsons21 or anyone else with an Osprey, I was watching this video on YouTube and at about 11:19 minutes into it, he is going through the App Store and it shows Hulu in there. This video is from about a week ago. Can you double check yours and confirm if it's there now or not?


It isn't there. Early on Hulu was on it, before I was with the service, then they took it off and never returned it. If I'm remembering the stories about why it was taken off, it was because the new UI which allows for Profiles and Hulu+Live wouldn't work. No audio.

So now we don't have it, but we can sideload the older version which works fine for Hulu Basic service.


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> Might be working now.
> Also, can I reorder the guide like YouTube TV?
> I like having locals together, sports, etc.
> 
> Will say PQ is better than YTV and nice to have 5.1 sound at times.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


You can't reorder the guide, the most you can do is have a favorites list.


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> Might be working now.
> Also, can I reorder the guide like YouTube TV?
> I like having locals together, sports, etc.
> 
> Will say PQ is better than YTV and nice to have 5.1 sound at times.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I read somewhere yesterday that it can take AT&T TV up to 24 hours to activate though before yesterday it was always available right after you ordered it.


----------



## harperhometheater

compnurd said:


> I do not see It





lparsons21 said:


> It isn't there. Early on Hulu was on it, before I was with the service, then they took it off and never returned it. If I'm remembering the stories about why it was taken off, it was because the new UI which allows for Profiles and Hulu+Live wouldn't work. No audio.
> 
> So now we don't have it, but we can sideload the older version which works fine for Hulu Basic service.


That's strange. That video is only about a week old. Oh well, thanks for confirming anyway.


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> That's strange. That video is only about a week old. Oh well, thanks for confirming anyway.


Another thing that video is misleading about is speed! I can assure you the boxes you are going to get aren't nearly that fast.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Another thing that video is misleading about is speed! I can assure you the boxes you are going to get aren't nearly that fast.


All of mine are about that fast....


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> That's strange. That video is only about a week old. Oh well, thanks for confirming anyway.


Yeh it definitely is newer.. as you can see the discovery plus logo.... Something that definitely requires some more digging


----------



## b4pjoe

The person that made the video said in the comments that Hulu was in the Play Store. Date of the video was Jan 8, 2021 and as compnurd said the obnoxious Discovery + logo shows up on the screen.


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> The person that made the video said in the comments that Hulu was in the Play Store. Date of the video was Jan 8, 2021 and as compnurd said the obnoxious Discovery + logo shows up on the screen.


And I just checked the Play store on my Osprey box and Hulu is not there for it. So I don't know what the heck is going on. It makes me think there may be a newer version of the box, but I've not seen a single announcement or post that says that.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> And I just checked the Play store on my Osprey box and Hulu is not there for it. So I don't know what the heck is going on. It makes me think there may be a newer version of the box, but I've not seen a single announcement or post that says that.


Box No. you can clearly tell in the video it is the same. Software possibly. Whatever the issue after scanning the play store to me it seems the app missing is all Hulu. The play store literally has almost every other live streaming competitor


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Box No. you can clearly tell in the video it is the same. Software possibly. Whatever the issue after scanning the play store to me it seems the app missing is all Hulu. The play store literally has almost every other live streaming competitor


Yeah, l think his unboxing is misleading. I firmly believe that he sideloaded Hulu on it somewhere along the line. And I'd be willing to bet that if he had actually ran Hulu on it that it would be the old version that does work.

Interestingly I found a newer version of Hulu that would almost work. Problem was the that you couldn't tell on the screen where the 'cursor' was for show selection. But when I started something it all worked. But that version would not show in the app menu, only in the System menu.


----------



## harperhometheater

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, l think his unboxing is misleading. *I firmly believe that he sideloaded Hulu on it somewhere along the line. *And I'd be willing to bet that if he had actually ran Hulu on it that it would be the old version that does work.
> 
> Interestingly I found a newer version of Hulu that would almost work. Problem was the that you couldn't tell on the screen where the 'cursor' was for show selection. But when I started something it all worked. But that version would not show in the app menu, only in the System menu.


I highly doubt that just by sideloading an app that it'll all of the sudden show up in the online App Store while you're browsing it!


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> I highly doubt that just by sideloading an app that it'll all of the sudden show up in the online App Store while you're browsing it!


Yeah, you're right. So we're still trying to figure out how he got that app to be there when no one else has seen it that way, or at least no one else has posted about having it and AT&T has said it isn't on there.


----------



## compnurd

The video is from the 8th. Maybe he is on a newer software that hasn’t rolled out everywhere that supports the app. Or something like that lol


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> The video is from the 8th. Maybe he is on a newer software that hasn't rolled out everywhere that supports the app. Or something like that lol


I suppose that's possible. Mine is on a 3 Dec date.

I'm actually hoping for the AppleTV app more than Hulu. The old Hulu app works fine for me.


----------



## gio12

lparsons21 said:


> You can't reorder the guide, the most you can do is have a favorites list.


Thanks and that sucks. Why I love YTV

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> Thanks and that sucks. Why I love YTV
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Many people do, but the RSNs are only on AT&T. If that is big for you then AT&T is the way to go.

I'm digging around yet again to see what I might want to switch to. The downside is that I'm on a really good grandfathered plan with ATT TV Now and if I move then I would lose that and couldn't get it back. But my total cost for my streaming services is $104. That's a shade higher than I would like.

Switch to YTTV w/my other subs save $12
Lose DD5.1, PQ nearly the same, lose Cinemax. None of these are earth shattering.
Gain more channels but with a UI I'm not overly fond of.

Switch to Sling Blue+Total TV save $27
Lose DD5.1, PQ a bit less though not horrible to my eyes, lose Cinemax, lose ESPN. ESPN is one of those channels I almost never watch, so maybe not earth shattering either.
Gain more channels and I'm fine with the UI.

I've got plenty of time to cogitate this...


----------



## gio12

lparsons21 said:


> Many people do, but the RSNs are only on AT&T. If that is big for you then AT&T is the way to go.
> 
> I'm digging around yet again to see what I might want to switch to. The downside is that I'm on a really good grandfathered plan with ATT TV Now and if I move then I would lose that and couldn't get it back. But my total cost for my streaming services is $104. That's a shade higher than I would like.
> 
> Switch to YTTV w/my other subs save $12
> Lose DD5.1, PQ nearly the same, lose Cinemax. None of these are earth shattering.
> Gain more channels but with a UI I'm not overly fond of.
> 
> Switch to Sling Blue+Total TV save $27
> Lose DD5.1, PQ a bit less though not horrible to my eyes, lose Cinemax, lose ESPN. ESPN is one of those channels I almost never watch, so maybe not earth shattering either.
> Gain more channels and I'm fine with the UI.
> 
> I've got plenty of time to cogitate this...


If YTV gets back the RSN, I will switch. I can live without 5.1 sounds. I have my Tivo Bolt fopr networks and 5.1 sound.

I prefer YTV DVR and shows are cached. Yes, AT&T TV is slightly better PQ but not a deal breaker. Though sometimes YTV PQ can suck for a few minutes/scenes


----------



## espaeth

I would agree that for a lot of channels, YTTV has had a noticeable slide in video quality over the last few months. It's disappointing considering where they started.

For example, NBCSN is a night and day difference on YTTV vs either ATT TV or Fubo TV (both of these are about equal).


----------



## B. Shoe

espaeth said:


> I would agree that for a lot of channels, YTTV has had a noticeable slide in video quality over the last few months. It's disappointing considering where they started.
> 
> For example, NBCSN is a night and day difference on YTTV vs either ATT TV or Fubo TV (both of these are about equal).


I need to take a trial run on AT&T TV, I guess. I know mileage varies with each set of eyes, but I've remained satisfied with PQ on YTTV account. And that's watching on my plasma and the significant other's LED television. Other than live sports, a large majority of content we're watching is cloud DVR. Maybe that makes a difference.


----------



## lparsons21

B. Shoe said:


> I need to take a trial run on AT&T TV, I guess. I know mileage varies with each set of eyes, but I've remained satisfied with PQ on YTTV account. And that's watching on my plasma and the significant other's LED television. Other than live sports, a large majority of content we're watching is cloud DVR. Maybe that makes a difference.


Live sports is certainly the place you should notice the difference.


----------



## espaeth

lparsons21 said:


> Live sports is certainly the place you should notice the difference.


In particular, 1080i channels because those require extra processing to get to the final progressive feed that ultimately gets streamed to you.

Despite all the complaints on Reddit for YTTV, for ESPN (720p native), I see absolutely no difference in quality between YTTV, Fubo, ATT TV, or the ESPN app directly when using either my main TV w/ Apple TV 4K or the spare Roku TV we have. Same deal with FOX networks.

Start comparing NBC networks (1080i native), and that's where the difference in quality starts to become rather obvious.


----------



## James Long

It sounds like you agree with the reasoning ABC and FOX chose for frame rate over pixels per frame.


----------



## lparsons21

Fiddling around today and found out that the ATT Osprey box will do ATMOS audio with Amazon Prime app. This is new.

No ATMOS on Netflix though, similar to how all the Roku’s do, except for the 2020 Ultra which will do ATMOS audio from Netflix.

4K is supported in Prime, HBO Max and Netflix. Don’t know about other apps.

For those that want to do AppleTV app with the Osprey, it won’t work yet. A workaround that was suggested is to go to tv.apple.com on a desktop/laptop/Chromebook using the Chrome browser and you can cast to the Osprey. While that does work the AppleTV web version is just AppleTV+, no channels.


----------



## harperhometheater

lparsons21 said:


> For those that want to do AppleTV app with the Osprey, it won't work yet. A workaround that was suggested is to go to tv.apple.com on a desktop/laptop/Chromebook using the Chrome browser and you can cast to the Osprey. While that does work the AppleTV web version is just AppleTV+, no channels.


In the time it takes to do that, I'd have switched over to my AppleTV and already have had the program started.


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> In the time it takes to do that, I'd have switched over to my AppleTV and already have had the program started.


Sometimes it goes that way, but I use HDMI-CEC for switching a lot and it often just goes nuts! Saving grace is I don't go into that app much.


----------



## gio12

espaeth said:


> In particular, 1080i channels because those require extra processing to get to the final progressive feed that ultimately gets streamed to you.
> 
> Despite all the complaints on Reddit for YTTV, for ESPN (720p native), I see absolutely no difference in quality between YTTV, Fubo, ATT TV, or the ESPN app directly when using either my main TV w/ Apple TV 4K or the spare Roku TV we have. Same deal with FOX networks.
> 
> Start comparing NBC networks (1080i native), and that's where the difference in quality starts to become rather obvious.


I do on CBS sports among other channels. not pixelated but nor sharp, jagged, etc. My download speed at the ATV is 180-410Mbps


----------



## lparsons21

Just got in the two Osprey boxes from EBay. Looked brand new and still had all the wrappings on the box and remote.

And after setup I checked, there is no HULU in the App Store for it!


----------



## harsh

espaeth said:


> In particular, 1080i channels because those require extra processing to get to the final progressive feed that ultimately gets streamed to you.


Two questions:

1. What is so computationally intense about updating half of the frame buffer?

2. Who said 1080 line streams have to be progressive?


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> It sounds like you agree with the reasoning ABC and FOX chose for frame rate over pixels per frame.


ABC and Fox surely didn't have streaming in mind when they chose 720p.

You'll let us know the next time you see a network sports production truck that shoots 720p native, won't you?


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> ABC and Fox surely didn't have streaming in mind when they chose 720p.


Digital broadcasting is streaming. Not IP packets, but still a compressed digital encoding.



harsh said:


> You'll let us know the next time you see a network sports production truck that shoots 720p native, won't you?


Probably parked next to the one doing native 1080i in today's environment.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Digital broadcasting is streaming. Not IP packets, but still a compressed digital encoding.


So what's the hardship with doing 1080i?


> Probably parked next to the one doing native 1080i in today's environment.


I think it more likely that the 720p trucks were refitted for 4K of some sort.


----------



## James Long

It is a choice. Way above your pay grade. Don't worry about it.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> It is a choice.


You spoke as if you believed that 720p was the superior choice. Why do you believe that?

Just so you're not confused, I actually produce sports programming when there isn't a pandemic preventing it.


----------



## James Long

Your failure to read is noted. I noted that ABC and Fox chose that format and commented that the poster who I was responding to apparently agreed with that choice. I did not express my opinion as to whether 720p or 1080i is or was the best choice for sports programming. You also seemed to miss the point that a native 1080i truck would be as rare as a 720p truck in today's environment (although there is always old junk to deal with in the broadcast industry). But that point was more nuanced. (BTW: It isn't the truck that "shoots" video, it is the cameras. But that is a nit pick.)


----------



## espaeth

harsh said:


> Two questions:
> 
> 1. What is so computationally intense about updating half of the frame buffer?


Most people don't like their video to look like this:











harsh said:


> 2. Who said 1080 line streams have to be progressive?


 Streaming providers could choose to keep 1080i as native interlaced distribution, but at a substantial hit to just about every major video compression algorithm in use today (30-40% more bandwidth, in certain cases). You also have the issue that millions of devices, particularly mobile devices, don't have dedicated de-interlacing ASICs, so you would absolutely destroy battery life doing motion adaptive de-interlacing using the device general CPU.

Interlacing was a hack to get more resolution out of existing analog channel bandwidth that was all based on the physics of how a CRT generated the image for the viewer. In a world that's moved beyond CRT displays and analog video distribution, interlaced video is now just a thing that everybody annoyingly has to deal with thanks to backwards compatibility requirements.


----------



## lparsons21

lparsons21 said:


> Just got in the two Osprey boxes from EBay. Looked brand new and still had all the wrappings on the box and remote.
> 
> And after setup I checked, there is no HULU in the App Store for it!


For those looking to get the AT&T Osprey box, here's a little about setting it up.

The setup is very simple, basically unbox, connect hdmi, power and Ethernet if not using WiFi. Then just follow the onscreen setup routine. Note that while the setup is very straightforward it is also a bit tedious so get a beer/coffee or whatever your favorite beverage is.

First thing you'll note is to pair the remote to the box, simple and easy and it usually will pick up and program itself for your TV and sound system automatically if it can. This actually works pretty well.

One note on the remote. After all the setup is done and the remote is paired, it might need a remote update. This will happen automatically after a minute or so. And before it does that you might notice the remote not being responsive. While there is no indication you can see, I think that is the period of time that the remote is getting the update.

After your initialization and signin you'll be prompted for Google signin.

Certain apps are pre-installed some others are not but they are simple to get as long as the one you want is in the App Store. But you should note that the box will be fairly doggy for awhile as it is doing some things in the background I assume. Within about an hour things will get faster and the next day be even better.

Note that runnng those apps the first time, and sometimes even at other times, the app might crash and take you back to the main screen. Sometimes you can just re-select the app and run it again, sometimes it just won't and even sometimes it will restart the box. That is just the quirkiness of the box and what makes it not a great 'one box' solution even if the services you want have an app for it.


----------



## lparsons21

lparsons21 said:


> Fiddling around today and found out that the ATT Osprey box will do ATMOS audio with Amazon Prime app. This is new.
> 
> No ATMOS on Netflix though, similar to how all the Roku's do, except for the 2020 Ultra which will do ATMOS audio from Netflix.
> 
> 4K is supported in Prime, HBO Max and Netflix. Don't know about other apps.


What a difference a day makes!

Today neither Prime nor Disney will do ATMOS audio on the Osprey box. No changes were made to this particular box so I'm stumped as to exactly why.

And neither will WW84 on HBO Max. So something must have changed that I can't find.


----------



## lparsons21

lparsons21 said:


> What a difference a day makes!
> 
> Today neither Prime nor Disney will do ATMOS audio on the Osprey box. No changes were made to this particular box so I'm stumped as to exactly why.
> 
> And neither will WW84 on HBO Max. So something must have changed that I can't find.


Well I spoke too soon it seems. ATMOS is back for the same unknown reason it went away!


----------



## DirectMan

lparsons21 said:


> For those looking to get the AT&T Osprey box, here's a little about setting it up.


What is the model number of the box if I want to try to buy it on Ebay.


----------



## lparsons21

DirectMan said:


> What is the model number of the box if I want to try to buy it on Ebay.


When you get to eBay just search for AT&T osprey

That will get you there. Note that most of them are listed as beta boxes, but since AT&T never did anything with them after release, they are the same as the new ones. Note if the remote is listed as the new one or look at the pictures to ensure it is.

Here's the guy I bought from and he still has some to sell.

AT&T DirectTV Streaming Player Osprey Android Beta Box (C71KW-200) | eBay


----------



## DirectMan

lparsons21 said:


> When you get to eBay just search for AT&T osprey
> 
> That will get you there. Note that most of them are listed as beta boxes, but since AT&T never did anything with them after release, they are the same as the new ones. Note if the remote is listed as the new one or look at the pictures to ensure it is.
> 
> Here's the guy I bought from and he still has some to sell.
> 
> AT&T DirectTV Streaming Player Osprey Android Beta Box (C71KW-200) | eBay


As an existing Directv customer exploring alternatives, I am well aware of the restrictions on transferring equipment. Was there any problem registering the equipment with ATT and do you know if you sold the registered box whether the buyer would be able to register the box.


----------



## harperhometheater

DirectMan said:


> As an existing Directv customer exploring alternatives, I am well aware of the restrictions on transferring equipment. Was there any problem registering the equipment with ATT and do you know if you sold the registered box whether the buyer would be able to register the box.


There is no registration as far as I'm aware. All you have to do and all I've ever had to do was input my user ID and password in when it gets to that screen during initial boot up. It works for either AT&T TV with contract as well as without (the old AT&T TV Now). You can easily sign up now online for just the streaming service, use the app for now on supported devices and then when the Osprey boxes show up, just sign in on them and use those. Super easy!


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> There is no registration as far as I'm aware. All you have to do and all I've ever had to do was input my user ID and password in when it gets to that screen during initial boot up. It works for either AT&T TV with contract as well as without (the old AT&T TV Now). You can easily sign up now online for just the streaming service, use the app for now on supported devices and then when the Osprey boxes show up, just sign in on them and use those. Super easy!


Correct, there isn't any registration of the box itself. It is just an AndroidTV based box with the ATT TV software configured to be what comes up first.

I think the reason that registration is done with the satellite gear is to track where its at since they charge a fee by the box. ATT's streaming service doesn't do that, it service limits you to three concurrent streams and doesn't care what device is using those streams.


----------



## lparsons21

One thing I’ve noticed but not commented on is the local channels situation. It seems in many, if not most, areas that ATT TV doesn’t have many of the local channels. Mostly just the big 4. For the CW channel it is VOD only. And the other local channels are a no show.

If those local sub-channels are important to you the only ways to get them are Locast, if it is available in your area, or an antenna. I use an antenna and OTA DVR that works well.

I’ve been trying to twiddle up the AppleTV app onto the ATT Osprey box. No joy. I’ve found the APK’s and have installed 2 different versions. Neither will work! One says you need Sony stuff, the other says it needs FireTV stuff. So that will have to wait until Apple offers an official version for AndroidTV boxes. Supposedly that is coming this year. Apple could make it easier by allowing the AppleTV app on iOS devices support Chromecast, but I doubt that will ever happen.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> One thing I've noticed but not commented on is the local channels situation. It seems in many, if not most, areas that ATT TV doesn't have many of the local channels. Mostly just the big 4. For the CW channel it is VOD only. And the other local channels are a no show.
> 
> If those local sub-channels are important to you the only ways to get them are Locast, if it is available in your area, or an antenna. I use an antenna and OTA DVR that works well.
> 
> I've been trying to twiddle up the AppleTV app onto the ATT Osprey box. No joy. I've found the APK's and have installed 2 different versions. Neither will work! One says you need Sony stuff, the other says it needs FireTV stuff. So that will have to wait until Apple offers an official version for AndroidTV boxes. Supposedly that is coming this year. Apple could make it easier by allowing the AppleTV app on iOS devices support Chromecast, but I doubt that will ever happen.


Thankfully in my market we have the CW Only missing PBS


----------



## harsh

In my area, the offering includes ROOT! Sports (the only RSN that DIRECTV carries) as well as the big four. They list another station but it is mostly a mirror of the Fox station.

The local PBS, OPB, is a very good one and would be missed.

Like Lloyd, I have an OTA solution -- Plex. Unfortunately, the repacks are still finishing up and my ABC and CBS affiliates are weak to not receivable at the moment.

The vacation facility has no OTA access.

Locast currently hits only Seattle, San Fran and Los Angeles on the Left Coast.


----------



## lparsons21

I had to do a re-scan on my AirTV Anywhere box today which is odd since I didn’t have to do that on my Recast.


----------



## DirectMan

lparsons21 said:


> When you get to eBay just search for AT&T osprey
> 
> That will get you there. Note that most of them are listed as beta boxes, but since AT&T never did anything with them after release, they are the same as the new ones. Note if the remote is listed as the new one or look at the pictures to ensure it is.
> 
> Here's the guy I bought from and he still has some to sell.
> 
> AT&T DirectTV Streaming Player Osprey Android Beta Box (C71KW-200) | eBay


Can you use the box like an Amazon FireStick or Roku to access Netflix, Amazon Prime and other streamers without having an account with ATT TV? I still have Directv but would like to try out the system without becoming a subscriber at this time.


----------



## lparsons21

DirectMan said:


> Can you use the box like an Amazon FireStick or Roku to access Netflix, Amazon Prime and other streamers without having an account with ATT TV? I still have Directv but would like to try out the system without becoming a subscriber at this time.


Supposedly, there's been some reports that you can. But to be honest, it isn't very speedy at loading apps and sometimes the box will crash if you switch apps too often.


----------



## compnurd

DirectMan said:


> Can you use the box like an Amazon FireStick or Roku to access Netflix, Amazon Prime and other streamers without having an account with ATT TV? I still have Directv but would like to try out the system without becoming a subscriber at this time.


Yes you can


----------



## raott

Encountered a bug yesterday with the AT&T box. The remote suddenly would not change input or control the volume. I reset a couple of times, nothing worked. Went into the remote options and somehow the TV type was changed to a Sony. I didn't change it, it did it on its own. Switched it back to video and it worked again....so if anyone has a similar issue check that.


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Yes you can


How do you set the box to do that? Just logout of the ATT service on it?

I ask because yesterday my son here in town made me an offer I couldn't refuse and that he never made before! He wanted to PAY to share my account but said he preferred YTTV because of some channel they had that ATT TV doesn't. So I made the switch.

The good part of switching is that even though I'm not overly fond of YTTV's UI it does work better on the AppleTV than the ATT TV's app does.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> How do you set the box to do that? Just logout of the ATT service on it?
> 
> I ask because yesterday my son here in town made me an offer I couldn't refuse and that he never made before! He wanted to PAY to share my account but said he preferred YTTV because of some channel they had that ATT TV doesn't. So I made the switch.
> 
> The good part of switching is that even though I'm not overly fond of YTTV's UI it does work better on the AppleTV than the ATT TV's app does.


Basically once your account is inactive the default screen is a "sign in for service button" and a Go to Apps button[/QUOTE]


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Basically once your account is inactive the default screen is a "sign in for service button" and a Go to Apps button


[/QUOTE]

Thanks.

Had a very weird experience this morning. I use HDMI-CEC with my setup and generally just start watching on whichever box by using that box's remote. Well tried that with AppleTV this morning and it wouldn't bring up anything but the ATV. Checked in the settings and it was showing no TV control and volume control was off. Did some looking around and the TV's Bravia Sync showed no HDMI connected devices though all of them actually did work. Reset every damned thing and nothing changed. Even trying to use the Harmony Elite was screwy.

So just for the hell of it I kicked on that ATT TV Osprey box and it brought everything up as it should, TV settings now show the HDMI connections and everything else worked properly also. No clue what the Osprey had done to cause that, just glad it is all working again.


----------



## compnurd

Thanks.

Had a very weird experience this morning. I use HDMI-CEC with my setup and generally just start watching on whichever box by using that box's remote. Well tried that with AppleTV this morning and it wouldn't bring up anything but the ATV. Checked in the settings and it was showing no TV control and volume control was off. Did some looking around and the TV's Bravia Sync showed no HDMI connected devices though all of them actually did work. Reset every damned thing and nothing changed. Even trying to use the Harmony Elite was screwy.

So just for the hell of it I kicked on that ATT TV Osprey box and it brought everything up as it should, TV settings now show the HDMI connections and everything else worked properly also. No clue what the Osprey had done to cause that, just glad it is all working again.[/QUOTE]
CEC can be weird sometimes


----------



## lparsons21

“Can be weird sometimes”? More like is weird all the time!! If I wasn’t using ARC for some devices I would turn it off.


----------



## lparsons21

I was doing some spreadsheet stuff this morning comparing some live streaming services. Here’s some tidbits.

Need the Fox/Sinclair RSN’s? ATT TV’s Choice package is the cheapest way to get them. 
Choice = $85
DVR Expansion = $10 (most would probably want this)

Total = $95/month on the non-contract version

The closest to the same lineup without the Fox/Sinclair RSN’s is YouTubeTV
YouTubeTV = $65

So basically it costs $30/month more to have the Fox/Sinclair RSN’s. Of course you also pick up the best PQ and audio, so it isn’t all about the RSN’s.

Another thing I noticed. Sling Blue+Gold+Total TV gives you a similar channel lineup to YTTV and ATT TV Choice. Cost is $70/month. Major downside to the Gold channels are they are limited to one stream, but Gold is where ESPN is. IMO, Sling’s value comes from accepting skinnier bundles of channels, when you add more the cost rises to around the same as others but with that significant limitation of one stream for Gold Channels. Note that Sling also does not have the locals except for a couple in some very few markets.

What my twiddling in a spreadsheet told me was the the two prime pushers of the rising cost of live streamers is Sports followed closely by Local Channels. If you can get local channels via antenna or Locast and don’t care about sports at all then something like Philo becomes a really viable alternative if their channel lineup fits otherwise.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> I was doing some spreadsheet stuff this morning comparing some live streaming services. Here's some tidbits.
> 
> Need the Fox/Sinclair RSN's? ATT TV's Choice package is the cheapest way to get them.
> Choice = $85
> DVR Expansion = $10 (most would probably want this)
> 
> Total = $95/month on the non-contract version
> 
> The closest to the same lineup without the Fox/Sinclair RSN's is YouTubeTV
> YouTubeTV = $65
> 
> So basically it costs $30/month more to have the Fox/Sinclair RSN's. Of course you also pick up the best PQ and audio, so it isn't all about the RSN's.


The RSNs would be the most likely reason for someone to take AT&T TV's Choice over YTTV but it's not the only reason. For that extra $30 per month, Choice also gives you channels from Hallmark and A+E Networks, a few random channels like Game Show Network, TVOne and Up TV, plus one year of HBO Max and this season of NBA League Pass Premium. The basic cable channels that Choice has but YTTV doesn't are mostly included in Philo for $20/mo. But adding Philo and HBO Max onto YTTV brings your total up to $100.



lparsons21 said:


> Another thing I noticed. Sling Blue+Gold+Total TV gives you a similar channel lineup to YTTV and ATT TV Choice. Cost is $70/month. Major downside to the Gold channels are they are limited to one stream, but Gold is where ESPN is. IMO, Sling's value comes from accepting skinnier bundles of channels, when you add more the cost rises to around the same as others but with that significant limitation of one stream for Gold Channels. Note that Sling also does not have the locals except for a couple in some very few markets.


Yeah, Sling has always been the low-end solution. It makes the most sense for folks looking to save money whose channel needs can be met with either the Blue package or the Orange package for $30/mo. (Those are very likely folks who get all the major broadcast nets they care about via free OTA.) Although now that YTTV and Hulu Live are each up to $65/mo, some folks will find that Sling's Blue+Orange for $45/mo (or $50 with cloud DVR) is worthwhile. But start adding on those Extra Packs and Sling no longer makes economic sense versus going with YTTV.

I'd say the general buying advice right now is:

Skinny and Cheap: Sling
Medium: either YouTube TV or Fubo TV
Full-scale but Pricey: AT&T TV - Choice

Hulu Live costs the same as YTTV but isn't as compelling in terms of channel line-up and features for most folks. (Although when they add those Viacom nets soon, which YTTV already has, it will be more competitive against YTTV in the "Medium" category, assuming they don't raise the price again.)

Like YTTV and Hulu Live, Fubo TV costs $65/mo (Family package w/ 250 hrs cloud DVR, 3 streams and 6 profiles). Whether Fubo or YTTV is the better choice probably comes down to whether you want the Warner channels (CNN, TBS, TNT, Cartoon, etc.) and local PBS which YTTV has but Fubo lacks or if you want the channels from Hallmark and A+E that Fubo has but YTTV lacks.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> The RSNs would be the most likely reason for someone to take AT&T TV's Choice over YTTV but it's not the only reason. For that extra $30 per month, Choice also gives you channels from Hallmark and A+E Networks, a few random channels like Game Show Network, TVOne and Up TV, plus one year of HBO Max and this season of NBA League Pass Premium. The basic cable channels that Choice has but YTTV doesn't are mostly included in Philo for $20/mo. But adding Philo and HBO Max onto YTTV brings your total up to $100.


I don't disagree and note I didn't say getting the RSN's was the only reason, but it certainly is according to many posts in many forums.

It could be argued that those 'other' channels are of little value anyway, and in fact, for the most part cable channels not of much value these days either. Mostly they've become re-run channels with a very tiny smattering of original shows.

To further show the lowered value of those channels, just look at Philo's subscription numbers. Pretty low, but they did do some growing last year. I wonder how they will end this year.


----------



## lparsons21

I'd say the general buying advice right now is:

Skinny and Cheap: Sling
Medium: either YouTube TV or Fubo TV
Full-scale but Pricey: AT&T TV - Choice

Hulu Live costs the same as YTTV but isn't as compelling in terms of channel line-up and features for most folks. (Although when they add those Viacom nets soon, which YTTV already has, it will be more competitive against YTTV in the "Medium" category, assuming they don't raise the price again.)

Like YTTV and Hulu Live, Fubo TV costs $65/mo (Family package w/ 250 hrs cloud DVR, 3 streams and 6 profiles). Whether Fubo or YTTV is the better choice probably comes down to whether you want the Warner channels (CNN, TBS, TNT, Cartoon, etc.) and local PBS which YTTV has but Fubo lacks or if you want the channels from Hallmark and A+E that Fubo has but YTTV lacks.[/QUOTE]

That's how I see the relative value of the live streamers these days.

With Sling, I just can't get my head around why someone would want Orange since it is fewer channels and only one stream at a time. Doesn't make practical sense to me and I'm the only one watching TV at my house. And as you note, if you go Blue+Orang and have almost any of their add-on packages the cost is right there with YTTV and HULU but with fewer channels, smaller DVR and a 1 stream limit on the Orange channels.

And there is no doubt as to where ATT TV stands. It is the premium offering with a premium price. I'm very curious as to how well it will do over this next year. The problem is that it is hard to tell how well or poorly it does because ATT doesn't break out its numbers.


----------



## harsh

lparsons21 said:


> The problem is that it is hard to tell how well or poorly it does because ATT doesn't break out its numbers.


They'll be reporting the combined numbers on Wednesday and I think it is safe to say that most of their subscriptions are going as the combined number goes (although AT&T TV used to significantly outpace DIRECTV in its declines).

The competition has given folks a taste for what it is like when TV service doesn't cost more than groceries and that's going to be hard to turn around.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> With Sling, I just can't get my head around why someone would want Orange since it is fewer channels and only one stream at a time. Doesn't make practical sense to me and I'm the only one watching TV at my house.


At $30/mo for Sling Orange, there's no cheaper way to get ESPN or CNN. Live sports and news are the two main drivers of cable TV. And ESPN and CNN are two of the three original "killer apps" of cable TV (with the first being HBO). I've always said that Sling's chief _raison d'etre_ was to offer ESPN at the cheapest possible price. In addition, TNT and TBS add some more live sports to the Orange package while Bloomberg and Cheddar offer live business news and Local Now has the local weather forecast.

And then, beyond live sports and news, what purposes do live cable channels mainly serve? It's not quality scripted entertainment for adults (which can best be found in the various SVODs) but rather lifestyle/reality-type content (that can be half-watched while doing something else), plus acting as a video babysitter for kids. To those ends, Orange includes A&E, Food, HGTV, History, ID, Motor Trend, Travel, and Vice on the one hand, plus Cartoon Network, Disney, and Nick Jr. on the other.

IMO, Sling Orange is a pretty well-balanced smattering of basic cable channels (although including only one stream is a bit rough given that part of its appeal is to families).


----------



## lparsons21

It is the single stream that is the big issue. That just doesn’t cut it


----------



## harperhometheater

OK I got the three Osprey boxes. I have one hooked up. Quality not quite as good as the AppleTV 4K, which I'm pretty sure is due to the ATV4K doing dolby vision processing as compared to forced HDR10 on the Osprey. I can live with it and it's far superior user experience for normal channel surfing and weekly show type viewings, but I'll most likely use the atv4k for watching sports.

Big issue I'm having @lparsons21 is sideloading Hulu. I found the apk at apkmirror dot com. I saved it to my Google Drive and tried using Xplorer app to load and install it like I do all my other apps, it downloads to the device's temp storage but I'm getting the "You don't have permission to load from this source" error and never get to the install option. I made sure to click the option in the settings menu to allow unverified app installs to no avail. I then also tried Downloader but get the same results when I try to install their browser (which they say you have to do) and also Hulu. My final attempt was copying it to a usb thumb drive and plugging that into the Osprey and using Xplorer again to attempt install.

No dice! Any advice? (Yes, I'm poet and I know it!)


----------



## lparsons21

OK, did you get Developer Options in Settings?
IF so, make sure USB Debugging is allowed. I think that is the setting. And make sure you download Hulu V 2.1.3, newer versions won't work.

I didn't use Downloader on the Osprey, I used Easy Fire Tools that I got from the App Store on my Android tablet. I seem to remember that trying to use a tool on the Osprey itself wouldn't work but can't find what I read telling me that.

Here's the link to the method I used:


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/AttTVNow/comments/cuskqg


----------



## lparsons21

Damn! For some reason I can’t get the blasted link to copy right!

Article is on Reddit. Do a Google search for how to sideload Amazon Prime on Osprey. You are looking for the alternative way.

Hope that helps


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> OK I got the three Osprey boxes. I have one hooked up. Quality not quite as good as the AppleTV 4K, which I'm pretty sure is due to the ATV4K doing dolby vision processing as compared to forced HDR10 on the Osprey. I can live with it and it's far superior user experience for normal channel surfing and weekly show type viewings, but I'll most likely use the atv4k for watching sports.


If your TV's allow for per HDMI input video settings you can help the video a bit. I found that I needed to brighten things a bit. My Osprey was connected to the TV and used ARC to send audio back to the sound system.

Note that the latest update to the Osprey really helped it in the speed department. But I've always noticed that after a power pull reset, or on first use after setup, things are a bit slow for a bit. But it gets faster! I think it is because of some crap Android does in the background for a bit.


----------



## lparsons21

lparsons21 said:


> How do you set the box to do that? Just logout of the ATT service on it?
> 
> I ask because yesterday my son here in town made me an offer I couldn't refuse and that he never made before! He wanted to PAY to share my account but said he preferred YTTV because of some channel they had that ATT TV doesn't. So I made the switch.
> 
> The good part of switching is that even though I'm not overly fond of YTTV's UI it does work better on the AppleTV than the ATT TV's app does.


Well after a few days with YTTV I decided that while I can work with their crappy UI I just don't like it! It is speedy and it sure works better with the AppleTV but overall it just doesn't do it for me. It didn't take long to miss the DD5.1 audio!

Told my son I'm staying on ATT TV Now Max and if he just had to have whatever channels that YTTV has that ATT TV didn't he'd have to get his own subscription!


----------



## harperhometheater

lparsons21 said:


> OK, did you get Developer Options in Settings?
> IF so, make sure USB Debugging is allowed. I think that is the setting. And make sure you download Hulu V 2.1.3, newer versions won't work.
> 
> I didn't use Downloader on the Osprey, I used Easy Fire Tools that I got from the App Store on my Android tablet. I seem to remember that trying to use a tool on the Osprey itself wouldn't work but can't find what I read telling me that.
> 
> Here's the link to the method I used:
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/AttTVNow/comments/cuskqg


No, I forget how to get developer options. I recall doing that on a box before but I need a refresher on how to do that.

I don't have any Android devices except some Android TV boxes like TiVo Stream 4Ks, nVidia Shield and FireTVs (based on). Not sure how I can do the alternate method if I don't.


----------



## lparsons21

Go to Settings and then System then General then System Summary and keep pushing the OK button on the remote until it shows you have the developer options open.

Then scroll down to Developer Options and turn on USB Debugging. That’s what allows you to install unsupported stuff.

As to how to install if you don’t have an Android device? I don’t know. Maybe what you already tried will work when you have USB Debugging on. If not find a friend with an Android phone or tablet!


----------



## harperhometheater

lparsons21 said:


> Go to Settings and then System then General then System Summary and keep pushing the OK button on the remote until it shows you have the developer options open.
> 
> Then scroll down to Developer Options and turn on USB Debugging. That's what allows you to install unsupported stuff.
> 
> As to how to install if you don't have an Android device? I don't know. Maybe what you already tried will work when you have USB Debugging on. If not find a friend with an Android phone or tablet!


OK I activated Developer Mode and turned on USB Debugging. I still get the same results.

I don't have any friends.


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> OK I activated Developer Mode and turned on USB Debugging. I still get the same results.
> 
> I don't have any friends.


I'm not surprised. When I installed Downloader to try the same thing you did I ran into the same problem trying to install their browser. I had forgotten about that.

Well then you have 2 ch.. uh, 3 choices. 
1. By a cheap Android tablet
2. Cast to the Osprey from your ipad/iphone
3. Just don't watch Hulu on the Osprey even though you will be missing DD5.1 audio using the ATV.


----------



## harperhometheater

lparsons21 said:


> I'm not surprised. When I installed Downloader to try the same thing you did I ran into the same problem trying to install their browser. I had forgotten about that.
> 
> Well then you have 2 ch.. uh, 3 choices.
> 1. By a cheap Android tablet
> 2. Cast to the Osprey from your ipad/iphone
> 3. Just don't watch Hulu on the Osprey even though you will be missing DD5.1 audio using the ATV.


I'll take door #3 for $500, Bob! 

When and if I watch any Hulu, it's usually just to catch up on a missed sitcom or whatever reality crap my wife may have missed. It's more for her and in either case we don't care if those shows are 2.0 or 5.1.

It would definitely be more convenient to have it on the Osprey though, as to not confuse the spousal department WAF any more than is necessary, which is half the reason for this switch to AT&T TV in the first place. (*The other half is MY reason....the incredible image quality compared to all the other crap services I've tried!)

I'm sure I can dig up an Android at some point. So there's no way to do it from an nVidia Shield or TiVo Stream 4K, which are also Android and also offer Hulu?


----------



## lparsons21

No because they aren’t Android, they are AndroidTV which is a bit different.

I searched for some way to sideload just using the Osprey itself and came up empty!

For me, I’m actually using the Osprey for almost everything as I tend to go to an app and binge awhile so the slow load times are not a huge issue. But I do like that up next strip.

In my various subscriptions I have the CBS/Showtime special from Apple, so I can’t use the Osprey for that. I moved my AMC+ channel subscription over to Amazon Prime so I can do that one there. When The Stand finishes up I’ll probably cancel the CBS/Showtime but that’s not for sure, I do like boxing!


----------



## harperhometheater

lparsons21 said:


> No because they aren't Android, they are AndroidTV which is a bit different.......


True, hadn't thought about that. Thanks for the help anyway!


----------



## NashGuy

harperhometheater said:


> When and if I watch any Hulu, it's usually just to catch up on a missed sitcom or whatever reality crap my wife may have missed. It's more for her and in either case we don't care if those shows are 2.0 or 5.1.
> 
> It would definitely be more convenient to have it on the Osprey though, as to not confuse the spousal department WAF any more than is necessary, which is half the reason for this switch to AT&T TV in the first place. (*The other half is MY reason....the incredible image quality compared to all the other crap services I've tried!)


I saw a bit of research the other day that showed that among the major SVODs, Hulu has the lowest penetration among folks who pay for cable TV. Which makes sense given that a big part of Hulu's appeal is that it offers next-day access to current-season shows from ABC, NBC, Fox, FX and Freeform. But if you have cable TV, well, you can just watch that stuff there live, or DVR it, or watch it through your cable box's native on-demand platform or through the various networks' authenticated TV everywhere apps.

Which is my long-winded way of asking why you and the wifey don't just watch your missed sitcoms and reality crap via AT&T TV's large on-demand library? Sure, you can't skip the ads, but is it worth paying $12/mo for ad-free Hulu just for that use-case? (And note that if the missed show is available in the Peacock app, they only have like 5 minutes of forced ads per hour. The ad breaks are very short.)


----------



## harperhometheater

NashGuy said:


> I saw a bit of research the other day that showed that among the major SVODs, Hulu has the lowest penetration among folks who pay for cable TV. Which makes sense given that a big part of Hulu's appeal is that it offers next-day access to current-season shows from ABC, NBC, Fox, FX and Freeform. But if you have cable TV, well, you can just watch that stuff there live, or DVR it, or watch it through your cable box's native on-demand platform or through the various networks' authenticated TV everywhere apps.
> 
> Which is my long-winded way of asking why you and the wifey don't just watch your missed sitcoms and reality crap via AT&T TV's large on-demand library? Sure, you can't skip the ads, but is it worth paying $12/mo for ad-free Hulu just for that use-case? (And note that if the missed show is available in the Peacock app, they only have like 5 minutes of forced ads per hour. The ad breaks are very short.)


Very true and thanks for the reminder. I almost never watch Hulu to be honest. It's more an instinctual reaction to go there when there's a show that was missed or a new series that started and we missed the first few episodes. When I had Spectrum, their OD stuff was wildly erratic and seems to have one of the episodes and for God knows why not all of them. Like it would show episodes 1-3, not 4, show 5 and 6, then not 7 and 8, and then show 9 or whatever. Totally inept.

We do get an amazing price for it with a student discount package with I think Showtime for like $5, so I'll keep it. My son is the one using it the most.

We do DVR everything we want and know about.


----------



## techguy88

harperhometheater said:


> Very true and thanks for the reminder. I almost never watch Hulu to be honest. It's more an instinctual reaction to go there when there's a show that was missed or a new series that started and we missed the first few episodes. When I had Spectrum, their OD stuff was wildly erratic and seems to have one of the episodes and for God knows why not all of them. Like it would show episodes 1-3, not 4, show 5 and 6, then not 7 and 8, and then show 9 or whatever. Totally inept.
> 
> We do get an amazing price for it with a student discount package with I think Showtime for like $5, so I'll keep it. My son is the one using it the most.
> 
> We do DVR everything we want and know about.


I don't think the Spectrum OD issue is unique to them. DirecTV OD has had the same issue over the years. It most likely has to do with either space or the company in charge of sending the content to traditional providers like Spectrum, DirecTV, etc. made an error and just didn't send over some episodes.


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> Very true and thanks for the reminder. I almost never watch Hulu to be honest. It's more an instinctual reaction to go there when there's a show that was missed or a new series that started and we missed the first few episodes. When I had Spectrum, their OD stuff was wildly erratic and seems to have one of the episodes and for God knows why not all of them. Like it would show episodes 1-3, not 4, show 5 and 6, then not 7 and 8, and then show 9 or whatever. Totally inept.
> 
> We do get an amazing price for it with a student discount package with I think Showtime for like $5, so I'll keep it. My son is the one using it the most.
> 
> We do DVR everything we want and know about.


I use Hulu a fair amount of time but its primary value is to get to watch a series that got screwed up because of some event just prior to the series that went into overtime. Generally I use the 'limited ads' version since it is so cheap.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> I use Hulu a fair amount of time but its primary value is to get to watch a series that got screwed up because of some event just prior to the series that went into overtime. Generally I use the 'limited ads' version since it is so cheap.


Why not just use the TVE apps from the various networks for that? They always offer the last few eps on demand, and often the entire current season.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Why not just use the TVE apps from the various networks for that? They always offer the last few eps on demand, and often the entire current season.


I could and have, as well as the VOD that the various live streamers offer. But there are shows on Hulu that are not on the TVE apps. And depending on which live streaming service you use, access to some isn't included. Sling is notably missing TVE for most channels.

All of the streaming services offer VOD of some shows too, but the amount varies widely by service and channel. Here's an example or two...

Killjoys - a SyFy show. ATT VOD has one episode 
YouTubeTV has all episodes

Vagrant Queen - only ATT VOD has the season. Not even SyFy has the whole season.

There are other instances of that same thing.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> I could and have, as well as the VOD that the various live streamers offer. But there are shows on Hulu that are not on the TVE apps. And depending on which live streaming service you use, access to some isn't included. Sling is notably missing TVE for most channels.
> 
> All of the streaming services offer VOD of some shows too, but the amount varies widely by service and channel. Here's an example or two...
> 
> Killjoys - a SyFy show. ATT VOD has one episode
> YouTubeTV has all episodes
> 
> Vagrant Queen - only ATT VOD has the season. Not even SyFy has the whole season.
> 
> There are other instances of that same thing.


Yeah, but your post above mentioned DVR recordings getting messed up. So if you only need to catch the most recent episode that you missed, isn't that pretty much always available in the channel's TVE app (and usually, if not always, in the MVPD's VOD platform)?


----------



## gio12

I am almost 2 weeks into AT&T coming from YTTV and Philo.
I do like that the picture sound is on par with DIRECTV I have had i the past.
Channel selection on Ultimate (too expensive but needed) is great. More than I need but need for a few channels. But that's the ONLY things I like.

App sucks. gets stuck constantly and have to reboot me ATV.
VOD sucks, too many commercials and sometimes jumps ahead 15 mins. Then I have to back up and watch again those 120 secs.
I miss finding a show and can start over or go live on YTTV. This is the best feature.
YTTV DVR is much better as well.
YTTV ability to customize the guide is better.
Yes AT&T TV PQ is better. YTTV can be just as goo or just fine at times.

If YTTV gets back RSNs, I will go back asap. Would like 5.1 sound as well and would be happy with a $5-7 increase for it.

I HATE I am back wit AT&T and giving those bastards any of my money. Left cell after 31 years, 24 on internet and 18 for TV. So I was a long time happy customer with AT&T until 2017.


----------



## NashGuy

gio12 said:


> App sucks. gets stuck constantly and have to reboot me ATV.


If you're paying what you're paying for the Ultimate package, you should just spend a few bucks and pick up an AT&T TV Stream device used on eBay. You can pick one up for $50 or so. Based on all available feedback on various forums, you'll find that AT&T TV works better on their own device. You can switch over to your Apple TV for everything else (or try using the Android TV apps on AT&T's box instead).


----------



## gio12

NashGuy said:


> If you're paying what you're paying for the Ultimate package, you should just spend a few bucks and pick up an AT&T TV Stream device used on eBay. You can pick one up for $50 or so. Based on all available feedback on various forums, you'll find that AT&T TV works better on their own device. You can switch over to your Apple TV for everything else (or try using the Android TV apps on AT&T's box instead).


Too many "boxes" already. Here stories here and seems like its ok.
ATV is great on everything I have used so far.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## techguy88

gio12 said:


> Too many "boxes" already. Here stories here and seems like its ok.
> ATV is great on everything I have used so far.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


When I tested out AT&T TV Now I actually prefer using AT&T TV app via an Apple TV (HD or 4K) due to the integrated nature of the Apple TV app which the AT&T TV app supports. Like for shows that are in season (like TNT's _Snowpercer_) the Apple TV app will populate that Season 1 is available on both HBO Max & AT&T TV and the new episodes are available on demand from AT&T TV. So it makes it easier to find shows available on the services you have to watch all the episodes available without having all the TVE apps on an ATV.

That's one of the reasons I'm considering switching from DirecTV and going with AT&T TV's Entertainment no-contract option. Any reason to reduce the number of apps I use the better lol.


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> Too many "boxes" already. Here stories here and seems like its ok.
> ATV is great on everything I have used so far.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


But the ATV is not great or even very good with the AT&T TV app. It is actually the worst way.


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> But the ATV is not great or even very good with the AT&T TV app. It is actually the worst way.


I actually had no issues with it when I tested AT&T TV Now twice although I don't have a surround sound/soundbar system yet.


----------



## harperhometheater

NashGuy said:


> If you're paying what you're paying for the Ultimate package, you should just spend a few bucks and pick up an AT&T TV Stream device used on eBay. You can pick one up for $50 or so. Based on all available feedback on various forums, you'll find that AT&T TV works better on their own device. You can switch over to your Apple TV for everything else *(or try using the Android TV apps on AT&T's box instead)*.


Did you mean AT&T TV, not "Android TV"?



gio12 said:


> Too many "boxes" already. Here stories here and seems like its ok.
> ATV is great on everything I have used so far.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I highly suggest you try the AT&T TV Osprey box. It is a MUCH more enjoyable experience for this service! Dedicated buttons for almost all actions changes everything about using this service.

I say grab one cheaply off of eBay like NashGuy says and at least try it. You can easily resell it if you're not happy.


----------



## gio12

lparsons21 said:


> But the ATV is not great or even very good with the AT&T TV app. It is actually the worst way.


I get that. Again don't need/want another box. Get it though

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## gio12

Ok, maybe I will get a box, IF I stay with AT&T


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> Ok, maybe I will get a box, IF I stay with AT&T
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


If you have a Roku or FireTV device the AT&T app is not all that bad to work with. I wouldn't buy one just for that though.


----------



## gio12

lparsons21 said:


> If you have a Roku or FireTV device the AT&T app is not all that bad to work with. I wouldn't buy one just for that though.


Just AppleTV

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## harsh

lparsons21 said:


> I wouldn't buy one just for that though.


Versus spending half again as much for an Osprey?


----------



## NashGuy

harperhometheater said:


> Did you mean AT&T TV, not "Android TV"?


No. I was saying that if he were to get the Osprey (officially "AT&T TV Stream") box, he might use it only for AT&T TV and then switch back to his Apple TV for other apps (e.g. Netflix, HBO Max, etc.) OR he might try to use those apps on the Osprey. (Apps are reportedly a bit slow to launch on the Osprey but at least you wouldn't have to bother with switching remotes/devices.)

And the Osprey, as you may know, runs the Android TV operating system. Its apps are Android TV apps distributed via the Google Play store.


----------



## harperhometheater

NashGuy said:


> No. I was saying that if he were to get the Osprey (officially "AT&T TV Stream") box, he might use it only for AT&T TV and then switch back to his Apple TV for other apps (e.g. Netflix, HBO Max, etc.) OR he might try to use those apps on the Osprey. (Apps are reportedly a bit slow to launch on the Osprey but at least you wouldn't have to bother with switching remotes/devices.)
> 
> And the Osprey, as you may know, runs the Android TV operating system. Its apps are Android TV apps distributed via the Google Play store.


Oh duh! Sorry I totally read that wrong the first time. It makes total sense now reading it again.

#seniormoment


----------



## swyman18

harperhometheater said:


> Oh duh! Sorry I totally read that wrong the first time. It makes total sense now reading it again.
> 
> #seniormoment


I didn't realize the Osprey box was officially called the "AT&T TV Stream", so I was confused as well. I know there is the Tivo Stream, so I thought that's what he was referring to. I guess at some point AT&T was going to give their box an official name for the masses to identify it by. Osprey was never going to stick


----------



## gio12

Got an Osprey box. I use a Harmony Companion remote.


----------



## NashGuy

swyman18 said:


> I didn't realize the Osprey box was officially called the "AT&T TV Stream", so I was confused as well. I know there is the Tivo Stream, so I thought that's what he was referring to. I guess at some point AT&T was going to give their box an official name for the masses to identify it by. Osprey was never going to stick


Yeah, Osprey was originally an internal code-name that AT&T used but it leaked out and was also used by folks on forums like this one. But I don't think AT&T ever used the name in their actual public-facing marketing or tech support. As for the "AT&T TV Stream" branding, that's only popped up recently, as in this quote a couple weeks ago from their head marketing guy:

"Customers can stream the best collection of live and on-demand programming on devices they already have, or they can get our exclusive AT&T TV Stream device to enjoy enhanced features and functionality."


----------



## harsh

AT&T is relatively well-known for trying out product names. If it they run one up the flagpole and it doesn't get any salutes, they try another one. DIRECTV Now is a classic example.

In this particular case, I think the cow is out of the barn and they've failed to put a proper moniker on the product.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> "Customers can stream the best collection of live and on-demand programming on devices they already have, or they can get our exclusive AT&T TV Stream device to enjoy enhanced features and functionality."


Or as quoted the day before on another news site:

"Customers can stream the best collection of live and on-demand programming on devices they already have, or they can get our exclusive AT&T TV streaming device to enjoy enhanced features and functionality."

The capitalized "AT&T Stream device" vs "AT&T streaming device". AT&T may not be calling it "Stream" either. I'd like to see the name from a reputable source (news media is not a source) before calling the box by that name.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> Or as quoted the day before on another news site:
> 
> "Customers can stream the best collection of live and on-demand programming on devices they already have, or they can get our exclusive AT&T TV streaming device to enjoy enhanced features and functionality."
> 
> The capitalized "AT&T Stream device" vs "AT&T streaming device". AT&T may not be calling it "Stream" either. I'd like to see the name from a reputable source (news media is not a source) before calling the box by that name.


 LOL, OK. Are CNet and Dallas Morning News reputable enough for you?

_"As part of the merger, AT&T is also removing the requirement that AT&T TV customers use at least one of its streaming boxes, called *AT&T TV Stream* boxes, and it is also getting rid of AT&T TV's mandatory contract."_
AT&T is merging its AT&T TV and TV Now streaming services. Here's what it means

_"We're bringing more value and simplicity by merging these two streaming services into a single AT&T TV experience," AT&T senior vice president of marketing Vince Torres said in a statement. "Customers can stream the best collection of live and on-demand programming on devices they already have, or they can get our exclusive *AT&T TV STREAM *Device to enjoy enhanced features and functionality."_
AT&T is killing off AT&T TV Now. Here's what that means for current customers.​
Who knows if they'll stick with that branding or not but it does appear that AT&T has intentionally put it out there this month.


----------



## harsh

The AT&T TV site itself calls it a "AT&T TV device" on one page and "AT&T TV streaming device" on another.

I couldn't find any instances where the word "streaming" was capitalized.

Over at the USPTO in October, DIRECTV, LLC (not AT&T) filed for a trademark on "DIRECTV STREAM". At the same time, the same attorney filed applications for "AT&T TV STREAM" and "UVERSE STREAM" on behalf of AT&T Intellectual Property II. All three of these appear to be associated with downloadable apps.


----------



## techguy88

harsh said:


> The AT&T TV site itself calls it a "AT&T TV device" on one page and "AT&T TV streaming device" on another.
> 
> I couldn't find any instances where the word "streaming" was capitalized.
> 
> Over at the USPTO in October, DIRECTV, LLC (not AT&T) filed for a trademark on "DIRECTV STREAM". At the same time, the same attorney filed applications for "AT&T TV STREAM" and "UVERSE STREAM" on behalf of AT&T Intellectual Property II. All three of these appear to be associated with downloadable apps.


They have used the term "AT&T TV Stream box" on a few occasions in statements usually when they are talking about HBO Max & AT&T TV at the same time. In this article from 1/14 they used the term "AT&T TV Stream" to refer to the box. Some of the press, like CNET, has also started to use the term.

Although DirecTV really needs a new app if they want to keep customers. It needs to be more like how Xfinity and Spectrum will let you use the app on devices like Apple TV, Roku, etc. in place of leasing boxes. It is one way to save money on the cable side that DirecTV doesn't have.


----------



## compnurd

techguy88 said:


> They have used the term "AT&T TV Stream box" on a few occasions in statements usually when they are talking about HBO Max & AT&T TV at the same time. In this article from 1/14 they used the term "AT&T TV Stream" to refer to the box. Some of the press, like CNET, has also started to use the term.
> 
> Although DirecTV really needs a new app if they want to keep customers. It needs to be more like how Xfinity and Spectrum will let you use the app on devices like Apple TV, Roku, etc. in place of leasing boxes. It is one way to save money on the cable side that DirecTV doesn't have.


I 100% agree with this. Hell just allow the ATT TV app allow your directv log in You want boxes and pay the 7 bucks. Knock your self out


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> Hell just allow the ATT TV app just allow your directv log in You want boxes and pay the 7 bucks. Knock your self out


The other guys have been doing that for some time on the Fire TV platform.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> LOL, OK. Are CNet and Dallas Morning News reputable enough for you?


By definition, no. _News media is not a source._ The source would be Vince Torres --- who is quoted at least three different ways in the linked articles. How can the quote be accurate when different reporters quote him as saying different words?

When you put words in quotes and attach a name the words should be what the person said.


----------



## gio12

Wow, using my ATV4, the DVR is the absolute worst trash I have used. Keeps getting a spinning ring when trying to skip faster, blames my network on being slow (148mps speed test at ATV), slow going in FF/RW as well. Shows starts audio wise while I am seeing an ad.

Hoping the Osprey box is better, yet I heard I loose DV.

So far YTTV has the best DVR and OD I have used.


----------



## compnurd

gio12 said:


> Wow, using my ATV4, the DVR is the absolute worst trash I have used. Keeps getting a spinning ring when trying to skip faster, blames my network on being slow (148mps speed test at ATV), slow going in FF/RW as well. Shows starts audio wise while I am seeing an ad.
> 
> Hoping the Osprey box is better, yet I heard I loose DV.
> 
> So far YTTV has the best DVR and OD I have used.


There is something up with the 14.4 TVOS.


----------



## gio12

compnurd said:


> There is something up with the 14.4 TVOS.


Ok. 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> There is something up with the 14.4 TVOS.


There very well may be, but the issue he is seeing has been there for as long as there has been an ATT TV app on the ATV.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> There very well may be, but the issue he is seeing has been there for as long as there has been an ATT TV app on the ATV.


I had zero issues yesterday morning. Updated to 14.4. Same issues he was having. My other one which didn't have the update yet was working fine

it may just be ATT needs a app update


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> I had zero issues yesterday morning. Updated to 14.4. Same issues he was having. My other one which didn't have the update yet was working fine
> 
> it may just be ATT needs a app update


Trickplay with the ATT TV app on the ATV has been a royal PITA all along. Try to FF much and it usually complains about your bandwidth and often followed by a crash of the app. That's been mentioned in so many places by so many users.

And yes, the ATT app does need an update, so does the Osprey box, but ATT has been woefully bad at actually doing any of that. IMO, as they look for an exit out of the general TV market I firmly believe all this stuff is in maintenance mode.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Trickplay with the ATT TV app on the ATV has been a royal PITA all along. Try to FF much and it usually complains about your bandwidth and often followed by a crash of the app. That's been mentioned in so many places by so many users.
> 
> And yes, the ATT app does need an update, so does the Osprey box, but ATT has been woefully bad at actually doing any of that. IMO, as they look for an exit out of the general TV market I firmly believe all this stuff is in maintenance mode.


The Apple TV app gets updated once a month


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> The Apple TV app gets updated once a month


Are you saying that the ATT TV app on the ATV gets updated once a month? If so, it is just bug fixes which is the same thing they do on the Osprey box.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Are you saying that the ATT TV app on the ATV gets updated once a month? If so, it is just bug fixes which is the same thing they do on the Osprey box.


Correct What are you expecting them to do?


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Correct What are you expecting them to do?


Improve the software which is the one thing they haven't done.


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> Correct What are you expecting them to do?


Addressing the issue in post #864 would surely be desirable. There are many other issues raised in this thread.


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> The Apple TV app gets updated once a month


There have been nine releases over the last three months according the Apple App Store version history. Some of them followed the previous release by one day.

The latest release was 4.09 on January 5th so the release schedule seems to have slowed significantly of late.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Improve the software which is the one thing they haven't done.


That is what bug fixes do


----------



## compnurd

harsh said:


> There have been nine releases over the last three months according the Apple App Store version history. Some of them followed the previous release by one day.
> 
> The latest release was 4.09 on January 5th so the release schedule seems to have slowed significantly of late.


Are you talking about the IPhone app or the Apple TV app? They are on different versions. The ATV was updated Wednesday


----------



## b4pjoe

There is probably a large difference between what a person considers a bug and what Apple considers a bug. In the post mentioned a bug as in post #864, ie Trickplay with the ATT TV app, there is no way that is a bug in the ATV. Many apps do the thumbnail of the FF/RW function. The fact that it doesn't do it shows the bug belongs solely to AT&T and their app. But I'm sure AT&T doesn't consider it as a bug as that is the way they designed it.


----------



## techguy88

compnurd said:


> There is something up with the 14.4 TVOS.


Gotta love when there are issues with the tvOS  Although on my Apple TV 4Ks the Sonic CD game I had purchased a few years back didn't work at all on tvOS 13 (any version) however it works on tvOS 14 and Sega didn't send an update for that rofl.


----------



## gio12

lparsons21 said:


> Trickplay with the ATT TV app on the ATV has been a royal PITA all along. Try to FF much and it usually complains about your bandwidth and often followed by a crash of the app. That's been mentioned in so many places by so many users.
> 
> And yes, the ATT app does need an update, so does the Osprey box, but ATT has been woefully bad at actually doing any of that. IMO, as they look for an exit out of the general TV market I firmly believe all this stuff is in maintenance mode.


Great....Think its time to go back to YTTV


----------



## compnurd

techguy88 said:


> Gotta love when there are issues with the tvOS  Although on my Apple TV 4Ks the Sonic CD game I had purchased a few years back didn't work at all on tvOS 13 (any version) however it works on tvOS 14 and Sega didn't send an update for that rofl.


Yup. Apple has a notorious history of pushing updates and not giving the app developers time to test and patch I am sure there will be a TVOS 14.4.1 or a ATT TV app update sometime in the next week here


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> Great....Think its time to go back to YTTV


Don't do that based on my posts. There is a lot to like about AT&T's TV service. On their box it works quite well and is easy to deal with. On Roku and FireTV it works well and is just a bit less handy IMO. But on the ATV, if you want to use trickplay, it is a PITA! Especially if you are using Apple't horrid remote.

And if you want the Fox/Sinclair RSN's there isn't any other streaming service that has them and it doesn't appear that they will be on any other going forward.

For me the sad state of affairs is that while I like the live streaming services, I don't watch with them nearly as much as I do the VOD services. If it wasn't for sports that I do want to watch, it would be easy to not have a live streamer at all.


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Yup. Apple has a notorious history of pushing updates and not giving the app developers time to test and patch I am sure there will be a TVOS 14.4.1 or a ATT TV app update sometime in the next week here


I'm sure that there will be an TVOS update soon, not so confident for the ATT TV app. But the problem is that ATT chose to use full screen twiddling for trickplay and didn't do it right. They should be using thumbnails as so many other apps do, and what they do on some other devices.


----------



## gio12

lparsons21 said:


> Don't do that based on my posts. There is a lot to like about AT&T's TV service. On their box it works quite well and is easy to deal with. On Roku and FireTV it works well and is just a bit less handy IMO. But on the ATV, if you want to use trickplay, it is a PITA! Especially if you are using Apple't horrid remote.
> 
> And if you want the Fox/Sinclair RSN's there isn't any other streaming service that has them and it doesn't appear that they will be on any other going forward.
> 
> For me the sad state of affairs is that while I like the live streaming services, I don't watch with them nearly as much as I do the VOD services. If it wasn't for sports that I do want to watch, it would be easy to not have a live streamer at all.


Going to give the Osprey Box a month to see.
Hoping YTTV adds the RSNs soon and by next Football Season.
Yes, like the 5.1 audio when available (Have a Bolt HD for networks) and a little better picture quality. But can give that up for way better DVR and guide.
Sound is great though my SONOS Arc anyways.

This new AT&T had destroyed everything it has touched.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## b4pjoe

My ATV upgraded to 14.4 yesterday and I watched it all evening long. I don't see any issues with it.


----------



## techguy88

compnurd said:


> Yup. Apple has a notorious history of pushing updates and not giving the app developers time to test and patch I am sure there will be a TVOS 14.4.1 or a ATT TV app update sometime in the next week here


Eh the one thing I can't really bash Apple over is how quickly the update the software and push them out. Has its pitfalls but better than Android where the device manufacture can delay the update due to their overlay GUIs.



lparsons21 said:


> Don't do that based on my posts. There is a lot to like about AT&T's TV service. On their box it works quite well and is easy to deal with. On Roku and FireTV it works well and is just a bit less handy IMO. But on the ATV, if you want to use trickplay, it is a PITA! Especially if you are using Apple't horrid remote.
> 
> And if you want the Fox/Sinclair RSN's there isn't any other streaming service that has them and it doesn't appear that they will be on any other going forward.
> 
> For me the sad state of affairs is that while I like the live streaming services, I don't watch with them nearly as much as I do the VOD services. If it wasn't for sports that I do want to watch, it would be easy to not have a live streamer at all.


IIRC some streaming services I've tried like YTTV doesn't use the default progress bar on their Apple TV apps they have their own that is similar to other devices. Which is why I think trickplay works on Roku devices for AT&T TV. However if HBO Max can have a preview square so you can see how far you RW/FF during a program with the default Apple TV progress bar then there is no excuse for AT&T TV app to lack this.

Although the HBO Max app developers for some reason thought it would be a good idea on all platforms to take away the restart button with their recent redesign of the app (where the navi menu is on the left hand side.) Now the Siri Remote comes in handy in that situation since you can pause the program and with a few broad left swipes get back to the beginning of the program.  Although I see the "Skip" button more fequently to skip the promos at the beginning and the "Skip Intro" button is on more shows.


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> Going to give the Osprey Box a month to see.
> Hoping YTTV adds the RSNs soon and by next Football Season.
> Yes, like the 5.1 audio when available (Have a Bolt HD for networks) and a little better picture quality. But can give that up for way better DVR and guide.
> Sound is great though my SONOS Arc anyways.
> 
> This new AT&T had destroyed everything it has touched.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


It looks like Fox/Sinclair RSN's will be via an app you pay to subscribe to. No clue on pricing. But it doesn't look like any other live streaming service will pick them up. Probably because it would jack the price up. And these days, as the live streaming services approach cable/sat pricing, that is an issue.

I'll give YTTV the edge on the DVR though I don't care for the way they intermix DVR and VOD stuff. But the guide on YTTV is the worst of the bunch. Doesn't go out very far, no way to see an episode description from it and the overall appearance is childish IMO.


----------



## NashGuy

Looks like a new, faster version of the AT&T TV Stream box may be on its way. In a tweet earlier today, @androidtv_rumor pieced together that AT&T looks set to release a new model coded A21KW-500 that will be based on the Humax H7 platform that was announced last summer. Humax called it "the world's most advanced Android TV set-top box." It boasts a faster processor (24K DMIPS), hardware decoding of the new AV1 codec, and support for WiFi 6 (802.11ax).


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1355975386253946883


----------



## lparsons21

Hope he’s right.


----------



## compnurd

Wow cool. that might make it the fastest Android box on the market if they release it soon Also means I need to buy new boxes lol


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Wow cool. that might make it the fastest Android box on the market if they release it soon Also means I need to buy new boxes lol


Well nobody ever said being a geek would be cheap!!


----------



## harperhometheater

It can't come soon enough!


----------



## gio12

Guess the Osprey boxes are still Beta boxes. Hopefully its de ent enough to run JUST AT&T TV.
I prefer my ATV4 and tvos over Android.


----------



## techguy88

NashGuy said:


> Looks like a new, faster version of the AT&T TV Stream box may be on its way. In a tweet earlier today, @androidtv_rumor pieced together that AT&T looks set to release a new model coded A21KW-500 that will be based on the Humax H7 platform that was announced last summer. Humax called it "the world's most advanced Android TV set-top box." It boasts a faster processor (24K DMIPS), hardware decoding of the new AV1 codec, and support for WiFi 6 (802.11ax).
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1355975386253946883


At least AT&T is starting a new equipment line (indicated by the "A") for AT&T TV equipment instead of using the model letter normally associated with Genie Minis (usually they start with "C"). It also appears AT&T is keeping the manufacture numbering scheme established by DirecTV. According to Solid Signal these are the D* manufacture codes as of 2019:



> -100 Technicolor (Thomson/Audiovox/RCA)
> -200 Samsung
> -300 Philips
> -400 Hughes
> -500 Humax
> -600 LG
> -700 Pace
> -800 NEC


It seems -400 was replaced with WNC (unrelated to Hughes) for the AT&T TV streaming boxes. Samsung is the same for both D* and AT&T TV and so is Humax.

The higher CPU clock speed (2.6 GHz) in theory should be a big improvement over the current line in terms of performance. Android TV Guide's page is saying the newer box should run Android TV 10 which also would help performance wise. Although until more info is known that could be speculation.

The new Chromecast with Google TV uses an Amlogic SoC and the CPU clocks in at 1.9GHz which is better than the current AT&T TV boxes (C71KW) which clock in at 1.6GHz with a Broadcom SoC. If the new specs are true this would put the A21KW ahead of Amazon's Fire TV Stick & Fire TV Stick 4K in terms of CPU clock speeds.


----------



## compnurd

gio12 said:


> Guess the Osprey boxes are still Beat boxes. Hopefully its de ent enough to run JUST AT&T TV.
> I prefer my ATV4 and tvos over Android.


Still Beat boxes? With these specs it will be decent enough to run anything thrown at it for quite awhile. The Osprey also runs ATT TV very well.....
and Apple doesnt license out TVOS.. So it will always be a Android TV box as the primary


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Well nobody ever said being a geek would be cheap!!


The real question will be how to get one.. Do they just slowly release them into the supply chain or do they specifically give you the option to purchase one.. I have 5 Ospreys right now.. really only care about performance on 1 maybe 2 of those..


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> The real question will be how to get one.. Do they just slowly release them into the supply chain or do they specifically give you the option to purchase one.. I have 5 Ospreys right now.. really only care about performance on 1 maybe 2 of those..


Yeah I doubt there will be any 1/2 price ones on EBay soon! . Like you, I have a few but only one is really important.

And I'm under ATT TV Now rules with a grandfathered sub and Now subs couldn't even buy one. I don't know if they can now.


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> Guess the Osprey boxes are still Beat boxes. Hopefully its de ent enough to run JUST AT&T TV.
> I prefer my ATV4 and tvos over Android.


In many ways I too like the ATV4 over other boxes. ATT could make their app more user friendly for TVOS if they chose to do so. So far they haven't done anything with it that is visible to the user.

My use these days is the Osprey for ATT TV and ATV4 for most everything else.


----------



## b4pjoe

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah I doubt there will be any 1/2 price ones on EBay soon! . Like you, I have a few but only one is really important.
> 
> And I'm under ATT TV Now rules with a grandfathered sub and Now subs couldn't even buy one. I don't know if they can now.


In the sign-up for the no contract AT&T TV you can buy as many boxes as you want.


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> In the sign-up for the no contract AT&T TV you can buy as many boxes as you want.


Yes, I know that. I was referring to those of us that are still on ATT TV Now. And that service didn't allow for buying the device from ATT at all. Based on what I see in my account page, there is no way to order one from ATT.


----------



## gio12

compnurd said:


> Still Beat boxes? With these specs it will be decent enough to run anything thrown at it for quite awhile. The Osprey also runs ATT TV very well.....
> and Apple doesnt license out TVOS.. So it will always be a Android TV box as the primary


Sorry, meant beta.
Yes, I know that. generally Android blows anyways


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> The higher CPU clock speed (2.6 GHz) in theory should be a big improvement over the current line in terms of performance. Android TV Guide's page is saying the newer box should run Android TV 10 which also would help performance wise. Although until more info is known that could be speculation.


Yes, this new box should blow the current Osprey out of the water. Here's a new Android TV STB from Altibox, a Scandinavian TV operator:
Android TV Guide - Altibox TV

It runs the same SoC, RAM and storage as the forthcoming AT&T TV Stream v2. Here are the Altibox's Geekbench scores:
uiw4054aib - Geekbench Search - Geekbench Browser

At 908 single-core and 2371 multi-core, those scores are about 31% and 26% better/faster, respectively, than the scores posted by the current AT&T TV Stream v1. They're also slightly better than the scores put up by the new Verizon Stream TV v2, which runs the latest-gen Amlogic SoC (which also supports AV1 and WiFi 6). The Amlogic line of chips have been very popular in Android TV devices.

I'm sure this new AT&T box will run *at least* Android TV 10, although it could be the first device to hit the market running Android TV 11, which Google released to developers back on Sept. 22. (Although Google could update their own Chromecast with Google TV to ATV11 any day now, who knows.) Google has done a lot of work in the last couple of years to optimize Android TV for lower-spec hardware. So just the upgrade from ATV8 (which the current box runs) to ATV10 or 11 would be a significant boost. But, of course, this new Broadcom SoC is also much better than the old one too.

Google has stated that all Android TV devices hitting the market starting in March must run Android TV 10 or later and support hardware decoding of AV1. At some point (next year?), all new Android TV devices will have to run the Google TV software/UI, although that may only mean retail devices. Unclear to me how Google TV might be integrated into the operator-customized Android TV Operator Tier, if at all.


----------



## swyman18

compnurd said:


> The real question will be how to get one.. Do they just slowly release them into the supply chain or do they specifically give you the option to purchase one.. I have 5 Ospreys right now.. really only care about performance on 1 maybe 2 of those..


Yeah, I'm sure there will be no way to specifically order one direct from ATT specifying a model number. I suspect as far as the customer facing employees are concerned, they are being told that all boxes have the same functionality therefore customers should not notice a difference.


----------



## lparsons21

swyman18 said:


> Yeah, I'm sure there will be no way to specifically order one direct from ATT specifying a model number. I suspect as far as the customer facing employees are concerned, they are being told that all boxes have the same functionality therefore customers should not notice a difference.


If that turns out to be the case it will be very D* of them!


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> If that turns out to be the case it will be very D* of them!


If by chance the box supports DV, I could see they separating them out.. Regular box 79 or whatever to clear inventory and new DV Box at 120


----------



## NashGuy

I'd guess that AT&T will wait until they've just about exhausted their existing supply of the v1 box and then they'll introduce the v2 box, with updated photos and info on their website and marketing materials. Some folks might get lucky and get the v2 box before it's officially unveiled. Hopefully anyone who orders a box after it's unveiled will definitely get it.


----------



## harperhometheater

techguy88 said:


> The new Chromecast with Google TV uses an Amlogic SoC and the CPU clocks in at 1.9GHz which is better than the current AT&T TV boxes (C71KW) which clock in at 1.6GHz with a Broadcom SoC. If the new specs are true this would put the A21KW ahead of Amazon's Fire TV Stick & Fire TV Stick 4K in terms of CPU clock speeds.


Has anyone tried AT&T TV app on the new Chromecast with Google TV? Any better than other Android platforms or Apple TV?


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> If by chance the box supports DV, I could see they separating them out.. Regular box 79 or whatever to clear inventory and new DV Box at 120


I've read nothing about whether or not the box will support Dolby Vision. I'm sure the hardware is capable of it, as the new Chromecast with Google TV, which has a lower-class SoC, supports DV. Probably just a matter of whether or not AT&T wants to spend the money to license DV. Given that Comcast's X1 does not, I kinda doubt it. We'll see...


----------



## NashGuy

harperhometheater said:


> Has anyone tried AT&T TV app on the new Chromecast with Google TV? Any better than other Android platforms or Apple TV?


The AT&T TV app is not available for Android TV devices except their own box.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> I've read nothing about whether or not the box will support Dolby Vision. I'm sure the hardware is capable of it, as the new Chromecast with Google TV, which has a lower-class SoC, supports DV. Probably just a matter of whether or not AT&T wants to spend the money to license DV. Given that Comcast's X1 does not, I kinda doubt it. We'll see...


Yeh who knows.. But something like that is a easy difference to make if they offer both at the same time


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> There is probably a large difference between what a person considers a bug and what Apple considers a bug.


I think we can agree that anything that causes a device to reboot is a bug that needs to be addressed.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> I'd guess that AT&T will wait until they've just about exhausted their existing supply of the v1 box and then they'll introduce the v2 box, with updated photos and info on their website and marketing materials.


If a v2 box existed, don't you suppose Dave Zatz would have blogged something? He caught on to the Osprey very early on.


----------



## compnurd

harsh said:


> If a v2 box existed, don't you suppose Dave Zatz would have blogged something? He caught on to the Osprey very early on.


He caught it after alot of other people did.. I think we all knew before he said anything


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> Are you talking about the IPhone app or the Apple TV app? They are on different versions. The ATV was updated Wednesday


I'm not sure.


----------



## compnurd

harsh said:


> I'm not sure.


Yeh we figured that already


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> I think we can agree that anything that causes a device to reboot is a bug that needs to be addressed.


The issue I was referring to was about trickplay on the ATV with the at&t tv app. Not about the ATV box rebooting. Which is not anything I've ever had a problem with on my ATV.


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> He caught it after alot of other people did.. I think we all knew before he said anything


Nonetheless, he blogged about it in advance of when it went into beta and it wouldn't see the light of wide release for almost two years.


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> The issue I was referring to was about trickplay on the ATV with the at&t tv app. Not about the ATV box rebooting. Which is not anything I've ever had a problem with on my ATV.


I've had it reboot because of trying to FF with the ATT TV app when I bumped up the speed of FF. Most of the time it just crashes the app, but on occasions it does cause a reboot.

And that my friend is a bug!!


----------



## compnurd

harsh said:


> I'm not sure.


I just checked his blog.. He didnt blog anything until the initial Directv now beta release 13 Months after posted here

https://zatznotfunny.com/2018-11/directv-unveils-android-internet-streaming-box/


----------



## b4pjoe

lparsons21 said:


> I've had it reboot because of trying to FF with the ATT TV app when I bumped up the speed of FF. Most of the time it just crashes the app, but on occasions it does cause a reboot.
> 
> And that my friend is a bug!!


That is a bug in the AT&T TV app. Not the ATV. There are plenty of apps on the ATV that FF/RW works flawlessly.


----------



## gio12

Does a Harmony Companion remote work with the Osprey box?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> Nonetheless, he blogged about it in advance of when it went into beta and it wouldn't see the light of wide release for almost two years.





compnurd said:


> I just checked his blog.. He didnt blog anything until the initial Directv now beta release 13 Months after posted here
> 
> https://zatznotfunny.com/2018-11/directv-unveils-android-internet-streaming-box/


Yeah, pretty sure I was posting all sorts of details and conjecture about the Osprey on this forum way before Zatz was on the story.


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> Yeh who knows.. But something like that is a easy difference to make if they offer both at the same time


Who knows but I doubt that AT&T will offer both models for sale at the same time. I think they'll just switch over to the new version and sell it at the same price (as Verizon has done with their Stream TV).


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> Does a Harmony Companion remote work with the Osprey box?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


It might. My Harmony Elite does. But I think you need the Harmony Hub.


----------



## harsh

gio12 said:


> Does a Harmony Companion remote work with the Osprey box?


I had to beat the Harmony database search engine into submission but it eventually reported that *ALL* Harmony remotes can control the C71KW(-200, -400).


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> That is a bug in the AT&T TV app.


That is what we were talking about.


----------



## swyman18

lparsons21 said:


> If that turns out to be the case it will be very D* of them!


I was thinking the same thing! It's been a while since I've had D*, but I remember I had a couple of HR22 boxes (I think that's what they were) that were absolute dogs. And no way to guarantee a newer model from them if you called because they would try to convince you they were all the same. Yeah right!
Luckily, there were third party retailers if you wanted a specific model.


----------



## gio12

lparsons21 said:


> It might. My Harmony Elite does. But I think you need the Harmony Hub.


Yeah, working. Took a while to set up. Mine has the hub.


----------



## lparsons21

This past month I took a flyer on testing the various live streaming services to see if I could retain channels I wanted for some lesser amount.

Each service combination came up with an answer in the spreadsheet.

ATT TV Now Max combined with other services I use is right at $100/month.

YTTV combined with other services I use is $107/month

Sling Blue+Gold+TotalTV combined with other services I use is $118.

The reason for the higher cost for either YTTV or Sling is in the additions. Primary cost additions come from HBO and Cinemax which are included with ATT TV Now Max. For me, the only way to save would be to not have those additional services.

The most irritating part of doing the spreadsheet is that it highlighted very well the fact that the live streaming service is the biggest portion of cost but the least viewed! The reality is that if I could give up Boxing and Golf I could do without a live streamer!


----------



## mjwagner

I have always found this place useful for comparing the live tv streaming services -

thestreamable.com/live-tv-streaming


----------



## lparsons21

mjwagner said:


> I have always found this place useful for comparing the live tv streaming services -
> 
> thestreamable.com/live-tv-streaming


Another good place is suppose.tv


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> The reason for the higher cost for either YTTV or Sling is in the additions. Primary cost additions come from HBO and Cinemax which are included with ATT TV Now Max. For me, the only way to save would be to not have those additional services.


Do you really need to pay for Cinemax? I mean, if you get it included as part of package deal (e.g. AT&T TV's Max), then sure, watch it if you happen to find something on it. But I just find it difficult to imagine that any folks at this point are still knowingly paying $10-12/mo for it a la carte given that (A.) all of the movies on Cinemax were either just available on HBO Max or will be soon and (B.) Cinemax no longer offers any new original content, and some of its past originals (Warrior and C.B. Strike) are now also in the HBO Max library.

For the rest of the Cinemax Originals library (Banshee, Strike Back, Jett, The Knick, etc.), Warner ought to either move each series over to HBO Max or sell it off to other services hungry for content (e.g. Peacock). Then position Cinemax as a set of ad-free cable channels (with no companion streaming app or website) that only show a rotating library of older theatrical movies that have exited the initial pay TV/streaming window. In other words, what Encore is to Starz, make Cinemax that to HBO/HBO Max. Suggest a $5/mo retail price to add it to a base cable package but also try to negotiate with MVPDs to bundle Cinemax in as part of their upper-tier packages. I can't see any other kind of long-term future for Cinemax at this point that makes any sense. As a supposed "premium" a la carte service, it's a dead man walking.


----------



## lparsons21

Sarcasm on/ Thank you for picking the channels I watch, I don’t know how I’d do without your help.  /sarcasm off

EDIT: Take Cinemax out and the number still show that the difference between TV Now Max, Sling and YTTV is still less than a ten dollar bill.


----------



## techguy88

NashGuy said:


> (A.) all of the movies on Cinemax were either just available on HBO Max or will be soon


Movies rotating between HBO and Cinemax has been the standard for years that is nothing new. Growing up my mom would only subscribe to HBO and not Cinemax because of this.

Since I knew how to work the VCR at a young age (she could never figure it out) every month I was given a stack of tapes and a list she made (from TV Guide) on what movies to program the VCR to record when we were away. She would never get satellite at that time because she liked how the VCR could record a movie from HBO or Disney and she watch something else. The woman still has those tapes of movies I recorded.



NashGuy said:


> (B.) Cinemax no longer offers any new original content, and some of its past originals (Warrior and C.B. Strike) are now also in the HBO Max library.


While true Cinemax no longer offers new original series it seems WarnerMedia is going to keep that second revenue stream of Cinemax going for as long as possible by continuing the movie rotating scheme so people will still pay for it.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Sarcasm on/ Thank you for picking the channels I watch, I don't know how I'd do without your help.  /sarcasm off
> 
> EDIT: Take Cinemax out and the number still show that the difference between TV Now Max, Sling and YTTV is still less than a ten dollar bill.


Based on your price breakdown, if you take Cinemax out, then AT&T TV Max isn't the cheapest, YTTV is. That's what initially sparked my response. But maybe you find it worth paying a few extra bucks for it? Nothing wrong with that at all. I don't really care either way what you or any other particular person subscribes to.

I was just making a larger point about the future of Cinemax in an era where Warner clearly is putting so much emphasis on HBO Max while not spending anything on new content exclusive to Cinemax. After the service was completely booted from DISH in '18 and then removed from all bundle packages on Comcast and Charter in '19, its subscriber count has cratered. I think I read not long ago that it was down to around 6 million or so subs. WSJ reported it had dipped to 7.9 million by 2019 (see story below, which is an interesting read). Seems like it may have peaked around 17 million several years back.

How the Launch of HBO Max Sidelined Cinemax



techguy88 said:


> Movies rotating between HBO and Cinemax has been the standard for years that is nothing new. Growing up my mom would only subscribe to HBO and not Cinemax because of this.


Right. Makes sense. But for a couple decades now, Cinemax has at least offered some amount of original content exclusive to it, and not on HBO, which gave it its own brand and helped justify a subscription to it. Now that's going away.



techguy88 said:


> Since I knew how to work the VCR at a young age (she could never figure it out) every month I was given a stack of tapes and a list she made (from TV Guide) on what movies to program the VCR to record when we were away. She would never get satellite at that time because she liked how the VCR could record a movie from HBO or Disney and she watch something else. The woman still has those tapes of movies I recorded.


Ha. Yeah, my Dad still has old VHS tapes sitting around that he never watches. The VCR isn't even connected to a TV any more!



techguy88 said:


> While true Cinemax no longer offers new original series it seems WarnerMedia is going to keep that second revenue stream of Cinemax going for as long as possible by continuing the movie rotating scheme so people will still pay for it.


Yeah, they might try to milk that revenue stream, at $10-12 per sub per month, for awhile longer. But I don't think it will be long-term sustainable at that price if all they're doing is rotating the HBO movie library in and out of Cinemax. Every month, more and more of those subscribers will realize that they haven't seen any new originals on that channel in quite awhile and wonder why they separately pay for it in addition to HBO Max. Remember, none of the major MVPDs include Cinemax as part of a larger channel bundle any more (unless it's something like AT&T's Premier package, which has just about everything). Nearly all of Cinemax's subscriber base gets it a la carte now.

OTOH, Showtime has kept The Movie Channel alive as a zombie premium service for years, investing zero incremental dollars in it, just shuffling some of the Showtime movie library in and out of it. But in TMC's case, most cable distributors don't sell it a la carte, they just include it as part of a Showtime subscription and/or they include TMC as part of their highest-tier basic cable channel package (often alongside Starz Encore). Comcast, however, will still sell you TMC a la carte for $12/mo. Can't imagine anyone much takes it though. Heck, most folks don't even know what it is any more. It doesn't even have its own website. Just a hidden single page on the Showtime site:

The Movie Channel Official Site


----------



## gio12

OK, AT&T TV is better on the osprey box. pictyure and color about same as TV in my eyes.
Will stock with it for now, until YTTV gets RSN's back. Maybe even 5.1 sound as well. As I HATE giving my money to AT&T.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Based on your price breakdown, if you take Cinemax out, then AT&T TV Max isn't the cheapest, YTTV is. That's what initially sparked my response. But maybe you find it worth paying a few extra bucks for it? Nothing wrong with that at all. I don't really care either way what you or any other particular person subscribes to.


Even though that post showed ATT combo was the cheapest, it wasn't the intent. The intent was to show just how close together combo pricing puts things. And I'm sure there are very few that just have a live streaming service and nothing else. Considering that for way less than a $10 difference I also get DD5.1 and the best picture, the value proposition is still there.

That said, my plan is a now grandfathered plan and the new plans that include the RSN's are much higher making the comparison different.

I did a little figuring earlier today. ATT TV Choice w/500 hour DVR and at least 1st year HBO Max is $95/month. It includes the RSN's not available on any other streamer.

YTTV+HBO= $80/month
Sling Blue+Gold+TotalTV+HBO=$92/month. Note that this is what needs to be subbed to with Sling to have near parity with YTTV in content.

As to what will happen with Cinemax going forward? Who knows how long ATT will milk it, but at some future date it will either disappear or change in some major way. Possibly become the free ad-supported version ATT as talked about.


----------



## gio12

Having issues with Osprey box.
Sometimes when I turn on the TV, the picture is faded looking.
When I restart the box, its back to normal. Bad box?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> Having issues with Osprey box.
> Sometimes when I turn on the TV, the picture is faded looking.
> When I restart the box, its back to normal. Bad box?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


No, it is the forced HDR. Sometimes when it powers up it doesn't 'catch' the TV right. It has been a noticed issue since the beginning.


----------



## gio12

lparsons21 said:


> No, it is the forced HDR. Sometimes when it powers up it doesn't 'catch' the TV right. It has been a noticed issue since the beginning.


Great, so hardware or software? God, why I hate AT&T! How long has this service and box been around?
Something I can change on my LG OLED?


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> Great, so hardware or software? God, why I hate AT&T! How long has this service and box been around?
> Something I can change on my LG OLED?


Nothing you can do. But it seems the same bug is in all the AndroidTV version 8 boxes.

If you can, you could try to change how things come on with your remote. TV first then Osprey & sound system. In my main setup with a Sony TV I only see this happening on very rare occasions. With the Samsung TV in my bedroom it has never happened but I don't use it very much either.


----------



## swyman18

gio12 said:


> Great, so hardware or software? God, why I hate AT&T! How long has this service and box been around?
> Something I can change on my LG OLED?


What works for me sometimes, is just turning off the box and back on using the remote. Of course, that's not really a good option if you have the remote set to turn your TV and sound system on/off as well.

Sometimes changing the input on the TV to something else and then back again will allow my Sony TV to properly catch the HDR. Yeah, it's definitely a pain.

I really hope the rumors of a second generation box are true. I would be all over that like stink on... well, you know.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Considering that for way less than a $10 difference I also get DD5.1 and the best picture, the value proposition is still there.


Yeah, I think the combo of best picture quality (sharp 1080p, good de-interlacing, 60 fps) plus the cable-like UI and custom box with full-featured remote are what would get me to subscribe to AT&T TV if I still cared enough about cable TV to pay for it. It may cost a little more than the alternatives but quality always does.


----------



## NashGuy

swyman18 said:


> I really hope the rumors of a second generation box are true. I would be all over that like stink on... well, you know.


It's true. There are too many bits of confirmatory information that have come out to say otherwise. It's now just a question of how long it will take AT&T to release it (and how much it will cost and whether they give any kind of break to existing customers who already bought the first gen box).


----------



## lparsons21

Here's some tidbits:

For those that like Showtime but aren't now subscribed, here's a hell of a deal :


And on to the ATT Osprey box. Got the latest update dated January 8th. Improvement in launching apps seems to be the biggest thing. Apps now load quicker! And overall response seems faster too.


----------



## harsh

lparsons21 said:


> For those that like Showtime but aren't now subscribed, here's a hell of a deal :


For those who don't have HBO Max, AT&T is running another sub-$12 promo.


> And on to the ATT Osprey box. Got the latest update dated January 8th.


They must be being very careful if it took four weeks to get to your box.


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> For those who don't have HBO Max, AT&T is running another sub-$12 promo.
> 
> They must be being very careful if it took four weeks to get to your box.


Yeah that HBO Max prepaid deal is good too.

Showtime's is one month free then $4.99/month for 6 months. I don't think I've seen it cheaper.

I don't know why it took that long to get to my box, but I'm tickled it did. The improvements are very good. Quick app launch, channel acquisition and overall speed improvements. Frankly it is the best update I've seen on it.

Now just need to get Hulu and AppleTV app and it will be my 'one box'. To be fair it does run an old version of Hulu fine.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah that HBO Max prepaid deal is good too.
> 
> Showtime's is one month free then $4.99/month for 6 months. I don't think I've seen it cheaper.
> 
> I don't know why it took that long to get to my box, but I'm tickled it did. The improvements are very good. Quick app launch, channel acquisition and overall speed improvements. Frankly it is the best update I've seen on it.
> 
> Now just need to get Hulu and AppleTV app and it will be my 'one box'. To be fair it does run an old version of Hulu fine.


I don't think it took 4 weeks. That the final build date. Nothing out of normal about a 3-4 week test period before rollout


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> I don't think it took 4 weeks. That the final build date. Nothing out of normal about a 3-4 week test period before rollout


Maybe in your industry. I don't think that goes for many others.

It is important to remember how small the Osprey installed base is.


----------



## compnurd

harsh said:


> Maybe in your industry. I don't think that goes for many others.
> 
> It is important to remember how small the Osprey installed base is.


Directv CE Software is tested over months before released to the public.. Why would this be any different.... And how small is the install base? Do you have figures?


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah that HBO Max prepaid deal is good too.
> 
> Showtime's is one month free then $4.99/month for 6 months. I don't think I've seen it cheaper.


And to round things out, Starz is also offering a no-commitment deal to subscribe at $4.99/mo for the first 6 months (although I don't think they're giving new subs a free month to start, as Showtime is doing).

Meanwhile, Epix is offering new subs a deal to get the first two months at just 99 cents each before going to the regular price of $5.99/mo. (They also have a promo in place with Domino's until April to get a code for one month free when you order a pizza there.) I recently signed up for Epix for the first time and am finding a few things to watch.

And Apple TV+ has again extended what was supposed to be an initial free year for Apple hardware buyers (which started Nov. 1, 2019) to last until July.

I think all the services (except for maybe Netflix) are hitting a dry spell in terms of new high-profile content right now due to production halts and delays from the pandemic last year. So they're all being a little more aggressive in terms of promo deals to win (or win back) subscribers.


----------



## lparsons21

I had that Starz one for a month, but decided against keeping it. So when I cancelled out they offered a 6 month or 12 month prepaid deal. I don’t remember what the 6 month was, but the 12 month worked out to $3.47/month. Hell of a deal if I was interested in Starz


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> I had that Starz one for a month, but decided against keeping it. So when I cancelled out they offered a 6 month or 12 month prepaid deal. I don't remember what the 6 month was, but the 12 month worked out to $3.47/month. Hell of a deal if I was interested in Starz


Yeah, Starz has never appealed to me all that much. (One of their earliest original series, Party Down, was pretty hilarious, though.) In recent years, they've made a concerted effort to appeal more to female and ethnic minority audiences, which is smart since none of the other premium services specifically cater to those audiences. Anyhow, I've always much preferred HBO and Showtime.

I doubt that Showtime, Starz and Epix will all survive the next three years. One or more of their parent companies will get acquired or merge, meaning that one or more of those services gets shuttered or absorbed into a bigger player.


----------



## lparsons21

Showtime is interesting for me as much for really good and fairly often, boxing events. And some of their series are very good.

But the problem going forward in streaming is that the live streamers are now nearly at parity with cable/sat and having all these other single subscription services just pushes up the cost.

I was looking at number again.

Live streaming w/some additions = about $100/month
No live streaming, just VOD = about $60/month.

What do I miss without a live streamer? Boxing, golf and the few new episodes or shows. I can cover most of the missing episodes or shows with Hulu & CBS:All Access, but not all. Damned sports is much harder to work around!


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> Directv CE Software is tested over months before released to the public.


The final release is usually just a version change from the test versions. The release usually starts as soon as it can be put into the system.


> And how small is the install base? Do you have figures?


My guess comes from some fuzzy math applied to AT&T's Premium TV subscriber base. Take 17 million and subtract out about 13 million DIRECTV subscribers and 3-4 million Uverse subscribers and you've got 1-2 million AT&T TV subscribers. Out of that 1-2 million, you can bet there are less than one Osprey per account -- maybe a lot less.

My breakout for Uverse could be way off and the difference would likely go towards AT&T TV.


----------



## compnurd

harsh said:


> The final release is usually just a version change from the test versions. The release usually starts as soon as it can be put into the system.My guess comes from some fuzzy math applied to AT&T's Premium TV subscriber base. Take 17 million and subtract out about 13 million DIRECTV subscribers and 3-4 million Uverse subscribers and you've got 1-2 million AT&T TV subscribers. Out of that 1-2 million, you can bet there are less than one Osprey per account -- maybe a lot less.
> 
> My breakout for Uverse could be way off and the difference would likely go towards AT&T TV.


And there is nothing out of the ordinary for the final test build to be done 1/8. Then rolled out to batches of testers over 2-3 weeks before final push


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Damned sports is much harder to work around!


Yep. You're finding out what everyone has been saying for awhile now: sports (and, to a lesser extent, news and local content) is what is keeping the traditional cable bundle afloat. If you can get your locals for free with an OTA antenna and you're not much of a sports fan (both true for me), then it just doesn't make any sense to spend money on the cable bundle these days. I mean, honestly, even if I got it for free, I wouldn't bother using it much. The best quality content with the best picture quality comes via streaming apps.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Showtime is interesting for me as much for really good and fairly often, boxing events. And some of their series are very good.


Showtime used to be my favorite service, ahead of even HBO. But so many of the series I loved on it in years past have now ended. (Homeland and The Affair nailed their finales but I'm bitter about the unceremonious cancellation of Ray Donovan after seven seasons.) Meanwhile, their newer series I either eventually abandoned (e.g. Billions, Shameless) or never got into (e.g. City on a Hill, The Chi, Black Monday). In the past few years, Showtime has really gotten into limited series, which overall is a good thing, IMO, as I like that format. I really enjoyed Escape at Dannemora, The Loudest Voice, and Patrick Melrose. (None of which got the awards recognition they deserved, but then anything on Showtime has to be twice as good as the same thing on Netflix to get nominated given the smaller subscriber base.)

I subscribed temporarily last fall to watch The Comey Rule and Love Fraud. Both were good but not great. There's just not much reason I see to come back to Showtime right now. The Good Lord Bird is something I should watch based on critical acclaim, and probably eventually will, but it alone isn't enough reason to pull me back. Maybe when season 2 of Back to Life eventually comes out I'll re-up for a month or two?


----------



## b4pjoe

My wife is really liking Your Honor: Starring Bryan Cranston on Showtime. I haven't started it yet though.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Yep. You're finding out what everyone has been saying for awhile now: sports (and, to a lesser extent, news and local content) is what is keeping the traditional cable bundle afloat. If you can get your locals for free with an OTA antenna and you're not much of a sports fan (both true for me), then it just doesn't make any sense to spend money on the cable bundle these days. I mean, honestly, even if I got it for free, I wouldn't bother using it much. The best quality content with the best picture quality comes via streaming apps.


Well I can get OTA fine and even have a DVR for it. Golf is on OTA on occasion but only the Sat/Sun of some tournaments. Boxing is my other sport and it just isn't on OTA often though there have been a few matches.

My penalty for wanting those two sports is about $40/month! 

My son was over the other day and said he's not going to use my sub to ATT since he can find his UFC on Pluto. Not the most current or biggest matches, but he just likes to watch the fighting.


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> My wife is really liking Your Honor: Starring Bryan Cranston on Showtime. I haven't started it yet though.


I've heard good things about that show, it is on my list to watch.


----------



## NashGuy

I wonder, once AT&T finally gets a deal done (soon?) to shift DirecTV at least partially off their books, if they'll put more focus on AT&T TV and improving it so that it no longer falls short of DirecTV in certain ways. Things like:

adding PBS locals, plus the few cable channels that DirecTV has but AT&T TV lacks (e.g. INSP, C-SPAN, etc.)
improving the cloud DVR (e.g. add a screen for managing all recording rules/series passes, extend retention limit beyond the too-short 90-day timeframe, allow for padding of recording times, etc.)
rolling out the faster 2nd-gen box
4K and 4K HDR streaming of all live cable TV content (mainly sports) broadcast in those formats (rather than forcing subscribers to use those channels' TV everywhere apps), as Fubo TV has been doing for years now
If those issues were addressed, I think it would do a lot to boost AT&T TV to being the best-quality cable TV service in the country. Pretty much the only thing DTV would have over it then would be NFL Sunday Ticket (which it will have for another 2 seasons before the current contract expires).


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> I wonder, once AT&T finally gets a deal done (soon?) to shift DirecTV at least partially off their books, if they'll put more focus on AT&T TV and improving it so that it no longer falls short of DirecTV in certain ways. Things like:
> 
> adding PBS locals, plus the few cable channels that DirecTV has but AT&T TV lacks (e.g. INSP, C-SPAN, etc.)
> improving the cloud DVR (e.g. add a screen for managing all recording rules/series passes, extend retention limit beyond the too-short 90-day timeframe, allow for padding of recording times, etc.)
> rolling out the faster 2nd-gen box
> 4K and 4K HDR streaming of all live cable TV content (mainly sports) broadcast in those formats (rather than forcing subscribers to use those channels' TV everywhere apps), as Fubo TV has been doing for years now
> If those issues were addressed, I think it would do a lot to boost AT&T TV to being the best-quality cable TV service in the country. Pretty much the only thing DTV would have over it then would be NFL Sunday Ticket (which it will have for another 2 seasons before the current contract expires).


I don't see the two having anything to do with one another. Pretty clear they have two completely different teams working on each


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> I wonder, once AT&T finally gets a deal done (soon?) to shift DirecTV at least partially off their books, if they'll put more focus on AT&T TV and improving it so that it no longer falls short of DirecTV in certain ways.


Two things:

1. AT&T has made it abundantly clear that subscription TV, other than HBO Max, will not be an area of focus going forward.
2. Most of the auction reports have some element of AT&T's current linear product going along with DIRECTV. I'm not sure if this changes with the shutdown of AT&T TV Now or not but thinking about item #1, it seems somewhat likely that DIRECTV and AT&T TV won't be independently managed.


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> Pretty clear they have two completely different teams working on each


It isn't clear to me. I can't see AT&T TV surviving without the economies of scale of the combined operation.


----------



## compnurd

harsh said:


> It isn't clear to me. I can't see AT&T TV surviving without the economies of scale of the combined operation.


Yeh that has nothing to do with what we were talking about but thanks


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> I wonder, once AT&T finally gets a deal done (soon?) to shift DirecTV at least partially off their books, if they'll put more focus on AT&T TV and improving it so that it no longer falls short of DirecTV in certain ways.


It depends on what is sold if anything is sold (finding a buyer willing to pay what AT&T wants has not been easy).

The recent restructuring of AT&T's Communications Segment split "Video" out and created a ready to sell business. While anything can happen, it would be easier to sell the video group than split if further.


----------



## Davenlr

I was looking at some of those links earlier to compare services. Are they correct that only AT&T TV has >720p video, and NONE of them have anything > Stereo? I need at least 1080 and 5.1 Sound. None of the streaming services have that?


----------



## lparsons21

DD 5.1 sound is only on AT&T’s streaming live service. And AT&T has some 1080p according to a few sites I’ve read. The rest are all stereo and 720p.


----------



## Davenlr

Thanks. Wont be giving up DirecTv then. At 75", 720p looks like crap. Why I gave up my great deal with Xfinity and came back to DirecTv. They dropped all their channels to 720p.


----------



## harperhometheater

Davenlr said:


> Thanks. Wont be giving up DirecTv then. At 75", 720p looks like crap. Why I gave up my great deal with Xfinity and came back to DirecTv.......


Have you tried AT&T TV? It has awesome PQ as well and I've heard some say even slightly better than DTV. Of course there are a few things missing from AT&T TV compared to DTV.



Davenlr said:


> .......They dropped all their channels to 720p.


I know, I'm the one who first reported it and started that giant thread over on TCF about it years ago.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Thanks. Wont be giving up DirecTv then. At 75", 720p looks like crap. Why I gave up my great deal with Xfinity and came back to DirecTv. They dropped all their channels to 720p.


Bear in mind Comcast dropped to 720P and also dropped the bit rate to nothing. Big difference. At any rate the majority of the channels on ATT TV are 1080P.
Also you can try the service for 2 weeks

as others have stated the PQ is better then Directv. The bit rates are just a little higher

Lparsons comment above about 720P and Stereo was all of the other services are that only. Not ATT TV


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> Yeh that has nothing to do with what we were talking about but thanks


You were opining about AT&T TV being run independently from DIRECTV (what it appears that you meant by "two completely different teams"). Discussing whether that's the case is indeed "what we were talking about".

What makes it pretty clear to you that AT&T TV and DIRECTV are "worked on" by two completely different teams?

It appears to me that they share package names and overall operational policies; mostly just the fee amounts change.


----------



## compnurd

harsh said:


> You were opining about AT&T TV being run independently from DIRECTV (what it appears that you meant by "two completely different teams"). Discussing whether that's the case is indeed "what we were talking about".
> 
> What makes it pretty clear to you that AT&T TV and DIRECTV are "worked on" by two completely different teams?
> 
> It appears to me that they share package names and overall operational policies; mostly just the fee amounts change.


Nope Still dont get it


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Bear in mind Comcast dropped to 720P and also dropped the bit rate to nothing. Big difference. At any rate the majority of the channels on ATT TV are 1080P.
> Also you can try the service for 2 weeks
> 
> as others have stated the PQ is better then Directv. The bit rates are just a little higher
> 
> Lparsons comment above about 720P and Stereo was all of the other services are that only. Not ATT TV


Yep, when you drop the resolution and the bitrate, the picture gets crappy!

AT&T TV's resolution coupled with the higher bitrate compared to other streaming solution are just 2 reasons that AT&T is calling their streaming "premium". The other reasons are channel offered, a box that makes it very cable/sat like and of course a bit of a premium price. But it comes close to being the same offerings that cable/sat have been doing for lots of years. There is no 'skinny' bundle.

YouTubeTV comes in 2nd with PQ nearly as good as AT&T's, but only stereo audio. It makes up for some of that by having an unlimited DVR. The UI is a bit off putting at first, but you get used to it. And as with AT&T, there isn't a 'skinny' bundle in their offering.

All the rest of the live streamers have worse, but not bad, PQ and stereo audio. Some have a group of 'skinny' bundles that you can mix 'n match, others don't. These are mostly the ones you use to substantially reduce your tv viewing cost.

And if wanting a big savings in cost you have to compromise a lot about what you want to be able to view. If sports are big thing, then a live streaming service is the only way to get them for the most part though there are a very few standalone sports related streaming services.


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> Thanks. Wont be giving up DirecTv then. At 75", 720p looks like crap. Why I gave up my great deal with Xfinity and came back to DirecTv. They dropped all their channels to 720p.


You realize that several of the channels you get on DirecTV are in 720p, right? The Disney-owned nets (ABC, ESPN, Disney, Freeform, etc.) as well as the Fox-owned nets (Fox, Fox News, FS1, etc.) are all natively produced and distributed in 720p. Meanwhile, just about everything else is natively produced and distributed in 1080i.

DirecTV carries the 720p nets at 720p and the 1080i nets at 1080i.

AT&T TV carries the 720p nets at 720p and the 1080i nets at 1080p. (AT&T TV's servers de-interlace the 1080i video into 1080p before streaming it out over the internet. Virtually nothing from any service/app is streamed in an interlaced format, everything is streamed progressive.)


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> It depends on what is sold if anything is sold (finding a buyer willing to pay what AT&T wants has not been easy).
> 
> The recent restructuring of AT&T's Communications Segment split "Video" out and created a ready to sell business. While anything can happen, it would be easier to sell the video group than split if further.


Yeah. There's a lot that we still don't know in terms of how the pending deal might affect AT&T TV. Maybe it goes with DTV as part of the deal. Maybe not. Maybe AT&T hasn't wanted to go all-in on improving and promoting AT&T TV yet in order to keep from further eroding the DTV subscriber count before a deal can be struck for it. But that wouldn't be a concern after the deal if they sell a stake in DTV but not AT&T TV.

Or maybe AT&T doesn't really care about MVPD service much any more now that HBO Max is their priority, so they won't bother doing much, if anything, to improve either AT&T TV or DTV going forward. Who knows?


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> I don't see the two having anything to do with one another. Pretty clear they have two completely different teams working on each


Each service likely has its own separate set of engineers and technical operations employees but it's not clear to me at all that strategic top-level decisions (in terms of channels, features, pricing, etc.) are made separately for each service without consideration of the other. In fact, it very much looks to me like AT&T TV is simply the next-gen iteration of/replacement for DirecTV. I think that's always been the way AT&T management has conceived and talked about it.


----------



## Davenlr

NashGuy said:


> You realize that several of the channels you get on DirecTV are in 720p, right?


Yep, The only things I watch on a 720p channel are Nascar races and a college football. Disney I stream from Disney+ in 4K, Movies I buy on 4KBluRay or watch on HBOMax


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> Thanks. Wont be giving up DirecTv then. At 75", 720p looks like crap. Why I gave up my great deal with Xfinity and came back to DirecTv. They dropped all their channels to 720p.





Davenlr said:


> Yep, The only things I watch on a 720p channel are Nascar races and a college football. Disney I stream from Disney+ in 4K, Movies I buy on 4KBluRay or watch on HBOMax


OK. You seemed to think that because some channels are in 720p on AT&T TV that means that it has lower picture quality than DirecTV. I was just pointing out that that's not true. Any given HD channel looks as good, some say slightly better, on AT&T TV as it does on DirecTV. There may be other reasons to stick with DTV over AT&T TV (e.g. you don't want your DVR recordings to disappear after 90 days, you like watching certain live sports in 4K/HDR, etc.). But HD picture quality isn't a reason not to switch.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> I think that's always been the way AT&T management has conceived and talked about it.


It has been on the financial reporting as a unit all along.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> It has been on the financial reporting as a unit all along.


Yes, but that doesn't at all contradict what I stated above.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> Each service likely has its own separate set of engineers and technical operations employees but it's not clear to me at all that strategic top-level decisions (in terms of channels, features, pricing, etc.) are made separately for each service without consideration of the other. In fact, it very much looks to me like AT&T TV is simply the next-gen iteration of/replacement for DirecTV. I think that's always been the way AT&T management has conceived and talked about it.


Perhaps it is the negative that is throwing people off.

It is clear that AT&T wanted to merge UVERSE and DIRECTV and expand into OTT streaming. It was clearly stated when they made their offer for DIRECTV. I believe they had the expectation that once merged they could add 20 million DIRECTV subscribers to 5 million UVERSE subscribers and get a much better deal for both UVERSE (which was paying a lot more than DIRECTV for channels) and for their proposed streaming services. People outside of AT&T seemed to expect the same lineup on all three services ... and it has taken a while to get close to that goal (with some content still not on all three platforms).

AT&T combined financials for UVERSE and DIRECTV ... they reported subscriptions separately until two years ago. Unfortunately until the last quarter AT&T also combined broadband with UVERSE and DIRECTV - now they have a Video category where all three platforms are together separate from the rest of AT&T (including financial reporting). It is still one reporting unit - so the successes or failure of one of the three platform is buried in the performance of the other platforms.

AT&T is still struggling with getting one lineup across all platforms. But there are more indications that one team is running "Video" than DIRECTV being separate.


----------



## lparsons21

James, yeah you are right, all the video is now in the ‘premium video’ reporting unit. And that does hide the individual results of each. 

I have to wonder why AT&T is having issues with consolidating their subscription levels because other, much smaller video services are able to have very much different sub levels with widely varying channel mixes. My guess is that is because of the long term contracts with the providers, though by now I would have thought most would have come up for renegotiation.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> Yes, but that doesn't at all contradict what I stated above.


It wasn't meant to.

I'd imagine the only way we're going to discover the truth is if the auction is completed and there is or isn't a breakup of the trio.

Since, as James pointed out, economies of scale was one of the primary goals of the DIRECTV acquisition (in conjunction with getting fingers into a large base of wallets), I expect that there is a single live TV entity that uses three different delivery methods.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> But there are more indications that one team is running "Video" than DIRECTV being separate.


Absolutely.



lparsons21 said:


> My guess is that is because of the long term contracts with the providers, though by now I would have thought most would have come up for renegotiation.


At one point a year or so ago, I looked back at when AT&T/DirecTV had most recently renewed contracts with all the major (national, not local) network groups such as Disney, NBCU, CBS, Viacom, Discovery, etc. I think all of them have now been renewed since AT&T has been operating DirecTV, Uverse TV and DirecTV Now (i.e. AT&T TV). So I'd think that all of their current carriage contracts span all three services now.



harsh said:


> I'd imagine the only way we're going to discover the truth is if the auction is completed and there is or isn't a breakup of the trio.
> 
> Since, as James pointed out, economies of scale was one of the primary goals of the DIRECTV acquisition (in conjunction with getting fingers into a large base of wallets), I expect that there is a single live TV entity that uses three different delivery methods.


Yep. Completely separating AT&T TV out from DirecTV would seem to be somewhat of a mess if it came to that but it doesn't look like that will happen because AT&T will reportedly remain the majority owner of DirecTV (regardless of whether they also sell off a minority stake in AT&T TV). So I doubt the pending deal would disrupt the two services' shared carriage contracts. I suspect we'll see AT&T TV and DirecTV continue to more or less share the same set of channel packages even after the deal is completed.

As for Uverse TV and its maybe 3-4 million customers, I'm not sure why AT&T keeps it around much longer. By now they should have the kinks worked out of AT&T TV and they'll soon have an upgraded second-gen box for it (and, who knows, perhaps other necessary improvements too, like carrying PBS). IMO, they should just go ahead and rip the band-aid off on Uverse TV and announce that it will shut down at the end of this year. Meanwhile, they should aggressively market AT&T TV to those customers and get as many transitioned over to it as possible. There's no need for Uverse TV customers to even return their boxes and remotes as that hardware has zero value now. They could just recycle it or throw it away themselves. And there's no need for an installer to visit to set up AT&T TV. Just ship them the box(es) -- if they opt for it -- with the simple set-up instructions.

Once Uverse TV is shut down and all those multicast channels are no longer running on AT&T's network, that might free up bandwidth that's needed on their FTTN connections, which currently have download speeds rated anywhere from 10 to 100 Mbps.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> At one point a year or so ago, I looked back at when AT&T/DirecTV had most recently renewed contracts with all the major (national, not local) network groups such as Disney, NBCU, CBS, Viacom, Discovery, etc. I think all of them have now been renewed since AT&T has been operating DirecTV, Uverse TV and DirecTV Now (i.e. AT&T TV). So I'd think that all of their current carriage contracts span all three services now.


Then one would have to assume they didn't want the ability to offer some skinnier bundles, but were more interested in attaining parity with subscription levels over the various services they offer.

And these days the only way to have significant savings over cable/sat is to choose a skinny service or just not do live streaming at all. It should be noted that its not because AT&T changed pricing but that the other services have raised theirs.

I still have subs to ATT tv Now Max, YouTubeTV and Sling, the latter two are ending soon. The difference in cost, as I've posted before, for the combo of things I want all circle around a hundred dollar bill regardless of which live streamer I use. The difference is in the base price of the live streaming service. In this case, $80 for ATT TV Now Max, $65 for YTTV and $57 for Sling. Kind of sets the minimum.

And I was doing some viewing tests with various channels between the 3 live streamers.

For audio it is ATT TV hands down as the only one offering DD5.1 audio in live streams. All the rest just do stereo.

For video, things get a bit closer. ATT TV still has the best @1080p and a higher bitrate. But YTTV is very close in actual eyeball testing. Sling is quite a bit behind and very noticeable on wide pan shots or fast moves in sports.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> As for Uverse TV and its maybe 3-4 million customers, I'm not sure why AT&T keeps it around much longer.


Never give customers a reason to leave. I am not saying that AT&T has not made that mistake (especially with the talk of "converting" DIRECTV customers to AT&T TV as if the company owned the customers and could control their choices). But the day AT&T says UVERSE no longer exists is the day keeping those customers becomes a fight against other providers.

Even with shutting down AT&T Now they are allowing existing customers to continue.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> Never give customers a reason to leave. I am not saying that AT&T has not made that mistake (especially with the talk of "converting" DIRECTV customers to AT&T TV as if the company owned the customers and could control their choices). But the day AT&T says UVERSE no longer exists is the day keeping those customers becomes a fight against other providers.
> 
> Even with shutting down AT&T Now they are allowing existing customers to continue.


I'm sure many of those Uverse TV customers have left anyway over the past few years, simply cutting the cord for various SVODs or opting for vMVPDs like YouTube TV, Sling, etc. AT&T seems pretty resigned to the fact that cord-cutting will continue. I think they're much more concerned with whether or not those Uverse TV customers subscribe to HBO Max (an app which isn't even available on UVerse TV STBs!) as opposed to whether they stay on with them as cable TV customers for years to come.

Obviously, Uverse TV will shut down at some point. As I said, they may as well rip off the band-aid now. Do an intensive communications effort to make those customers aware that their cable TV service is being replaced by a new, better one -- AT&T TV. Certainly not everyone will jump over to the new product. Oh well.

CableOne/Sparklight appears to be doing that very thing this year, shutting down their legacy QAM cable TV service by year-end while launching a new managed IPTV service on the Mobi TV platform. Out with the old, in with the new. They don't appear to be taking your advice to "never give customers a reason to leave."


----------



## James Long

The lack of facts makes it easy to make assumptions that cannot be proven or disproven with public numbers. But ...

The last year UVERSE numbers were reported separately UVERSE gained subscribers while DIRECTV lost 1.2 million subscribers. That year ended with DIRECTV Now starting it's death spiral (still reporting separate numbers that show they lost 2/3s of the peak "Now" customers before closing the service to new customers). Even "maybe 3-4 million customers" would reflect an excellent retention rate for UVERSE - and represent around 20% of their current Video customer base. That is a big wound to rip the band-aid off.

Companies are free to ignore my advice. I have watched several companies go out of business over my lifetime. I have not caused one to fail.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> The lack of facts makes it easy to make assumptions that cannot be proven or disproven with public numbers. But ...
> 
> The last year UVERSE numbers were reported separately UVERSE gained subscribers while DIRECTV lost 1.2 million subscribers. That year ended with DIRECTV Now starting it's death spiral (still reporting separate numbers that show they lost 2/3s of the peak "Now" customers before closing the service to new customers). Even "maybe 3-4 million customers" would reflect an excellent retention rate for UVERSE - and represent around 20% of their current Video customer base. That is a big wound to rip the band-aid off.


At this point, it wouldn't surprise me if the number of Uverse TV subs is less than 3 million. We don't know. I was being generous.

As for there being an increase at that last point in time when Uverse TV numbers were reported, while DTV numbers fell, that had everything to do with growth in AT&T Fiber. There's nothing especially great about Uverse TV, it's just that that's the cable TV platform one was likely to take if they got AT&T home broadband. For similar channel packages and features, it's probably also a little less expensive than either DTV or AT&T TV (and probably a bit less profitable for AT&T, although given that one had to be an AT&T broadband customer to get Uverse TV at all, it's effectively priced as a bundle add-on).


----------



## techguy88

NashGuy said:


> At this point, it wouldn't surprise me if the number of Uverse TV subs is less than 3 million. We don't know. I was being generous.
> 
> As for there being an increase at that last point in time when Uverse TV numbers were reported, while DTV numbers fell, that had everything to do with growth in AT&T Fiber. There's nothing especially great about Uverse TV, it's just that that's the cable TV platform one was likely to take if they got AT&T home broadband. For similar channel packages and features, it's probably also a little less expensive than either DTV or AT&T TV (and probably a bit less profitable for AT&T, although given that one had to be an AT&T broadband customer to get Uverse TV at all, it's effectively priced as a bundle add-on).


Well let's not forget when DirecTV was the crown jewel of AT&T's death star they were migrating customers from U-Verse TV to DirecTV. While they reported separate numbers U-Verse TV would lose around 300K per quarter while DirecTV would gain that same 300K plus an additional 15K to 30K more. They eventually stopped reporting numbers after what James mentioned began to occur.

They are now trying to migrate U-Verse TV customers to AT&T TV (2-Year Contract) based on what my friends in U-Verse TV markets are telling me. However they don't like commitments so when AT&T recently launched the "no-contract" offers they called to have their U-Verse TV service scheduled to disconnect at the end of their billing cycles and ordered AT&T TV no contract. They signed up for AT&T TV (No-Contract) the day their U-Verse TV service disconnected. Only 1 out of the 5 wanted an AT&T TV box so he paid for 1 upfront.


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> They are now trying to migrate U-Verse TV customers to AT&T TV (2-Year Contract) based on what my friends in U-Verse TV markets are telling me. However they don't like commitments so when AT&T recently launched the "no-contract" offers they called to have their U-Verse TV service scheduled to disconnect at the end of their billing cycles and ordered AT&T TV no contract. They signed up for AT&T TV (No-Contract) the day their U-Verse TV service disconnected. Only 1 out of the 5 wanted an AT&T TV box so he paid for 1 upfront.


I wonder what sort of sales outreach AT&T is actually doing to shift Uverse TV subs over to AT&T TV. Any special deals? Are they making calls, sending emails, putting print ads in the bills? Or is it just reactive selling when Uverse TV subs call in to complain about pricing or some other aspect of the service?

I mean, if you look at the official AT&T TV webpage, it even states under the channel package descriptions: "AT&T TV not available to DIRECTV and U-verse TV customers. Restrictions apply." Weird.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> I wonder what sort of sales outreach AT&T is actually doing to shift Uverse TV subs over to AT&T TV. Any special deals? Are they making calls, sending emails, putting print ads in the bills? Or is it just reactive selling when Uverse TV subs call in to complain about pricing or some other aspect of the service?
> 
> I mean, if you look at the official AT&T TV webpage, it even states under the channel package descriptions: "AT&T TV not available to DIRECTV and U-verse TV customers. Restrictions apply." Weird.


That just means you cant have two accounts under the same user ID


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> I wonder what sort of sales outreach AT&T is actually doing to shift Uverse TV subs over to AT&T TV.


Pending the outcome of the auction, I'd imagine they're doing nothing that might make it harder to transition in the future. We've already observed that they've stopped transferring accounts from DIRECTV to AT&T.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> Pending the outcome of the auction, I'd imagine they're doing nothing that might make it harder to transition in the future. We've already observed that they've stopped transferring accounts from DIRECTV to AT&T.


I've been wondering if AT&T has been holding off on aggressively trying to migrate DTV and Uverse TV subs over to AT&T TV for the last several months until after a DTV spin-off deal is completed.

AT&T TV took a ridiculously long time to come to market. I think that the original plan, a few years back, was to get AT&T TV out of beta and available nationwide as their new flagship cable TV service (with the Osprey device, cloud DVR, maybe even 4K HDR, etc.) by something like late 2018. And then use the next few years to migrate as many DTV and Uverse TV subs over to it as possible before shutting down Uverse TV and later selling off DTV in maybe 2022-23 (after the NFL Sunday Ticket exclusive lapsed).

But AT&T TV didn't launch nationally until March 1, 2020, right as the pandemic took hold. The company began actively soliciting bids for DTV just a few months (not years) later, prompted by growing pressure from Wall Street (and a mountain of debt at AT&T). The service has gotten fairly little attention since, other than the introduction of a contract-free option coinciding with the collapse of AT&T TV Now. No significant improvements, it's still lacking a few channels, still no 4K HDR, etc. It's received very little advertising.

Once a deal is finally reached on DTV (which might also include part of AT&T TV and Uverse TV too), then we might see a more aggressive focus on marketing AT&T TV as their flagship cable TV service. Right now, it all feels like it's stuck in limbo.


----------



## James Long

techguy88 said:


> Well let's not forget when DirecTV was the crown jewel of AT&T's death star they were migrating customers from U-Verse TV to DirecTV.


I blame commissions. Give a clerk the opportunity to sign up a new customer to DIRECTV and the system doesn't care if they lost a UVERSE customer in the process. The same applied for the reverse move ... the direction the clerk pushes you depends on the service you currently have. We still get reports of clerks pushing "sign up in your wife's name" for people wanting a deal without changing systems. Congrats on your new customer sign up - even if a customer was lost in the process.


----------



## Davenlr

Called DirecTv trying to add a third receiver I had to my account (I owned it, they said they would send an access card for it, and asked for the serial # and RID to verify). They sent an entire new DVR with access card, but swore they would not change my contract, only add $7 a month. After spending 2 hours on the phone with the Philippines which must have really slow internet, they said not only could they not pair my owned DVR with the card they sent, but could not pair it with the DVR they sent with the card preinstalled. Wanted me to pay $99 for tech to come out (guessing with another box which would trigger a new contract). After the third time getting hung up on, and having to start over, I called to cancel Directv, totally planning to pay the 15 months of ETF just to get it out of my house. The retention department spent 10 minutes reading all the notes the Philippines CSRs added and just started apologizing profusely, and said they would cancel my DirecTv account, waive the ETF, and connect me to ATT TV folks and had them set me up with a no contract account, same channels, three streams, less cost. Had it up and running, then turned off the dish, and said to just carry the stuff to the UPS store and keep my receipt that I sent the DirecTv stuff back. I'll send them my owned HR-24 (after I remove the 2TB hard drive), two H24s, and a H25 I have in my closet along with my HR54 and C61K, and the HR24 they just sent me. Maybe someone can make use of that stuff, since they wouldnt let me activate it.
Now, my only question is, what would I gain by buying the ATT TV box that is $120 vs just using my Roku-TV's, and Roku Ultras? I declined the rental, but see they have them for sale on ebay. Just not sure what the purpose is unless they have a hard drive built in to record the streaming stuff vs using the cloud.


----------



## b4pjoe

They do not have a hard drive. DVR is to the cloud only. The no contact version only gives you 20 hours of DVR cloud storage. You can upgrade to 500 hours for $10.00 per month extra. The contract plan comes with 500 hours cloud DVR at no extra charge. You can only keep DVR content for 90 days. I think all of AT&T TV plans are similar to the DirecTV plans with the same name but do not have ALL of the same channels.


----------



## b4pjoe

It seems we went a long time without seeing any TV commercials for DIRECTV and in the last couple of weeks I've seen a lot of them. They might be trying to get the subscriber base back up. And last week I got a new credit from them while still having another one on my account. That's never happened to me before. Other times I tried and was told they couldn't give another one until the one on my account expires.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Called DirecTv trying to add a third receiver I had to my account (I owned it, they said they would send an access card for it, and asked for the serial # and RID to verify). They sent an entire new DVR with access card, but swore they would not change my contract, only add $7 a month. After spending 2 hours on the phone with the Philippines which must have really slow internet, they said not only could they not pair my owned DVR with the card they sent, but could not pair it with the DVR they sent with the card preinstalled. Wanted me to pay $99 for tech to come out (guessing with another box which would trigger a new contract). After the third time getting hung up on, and having to start over, I called to cancel Directv, totally planning to pay the 15 months of ETF just to get it out of my house. The retention department spent 10 minutes reading all the notes the Philippines CSRs added and just started apologizing profusely, and said they would cancel my DirecTv account, waive the ETF, and connect me to ATT TV folks and had them set me up with a no contract account, same channels, three streams, less cost. Had it up and running, then turned off the dish, and said to just carry the stuff to the UPS store and keep my receipt that I sent the DirecTv stuff back. I'll send them my owned HR-24 (after I remove the 2TB hard drive), two H24s, and a H25 I have in my closet along with my HR54 and C61K, and the HR24 they just sent me. Maybe someone can make use of that stuff, since they wouldnt let me activate it.
> Now, my only question is, what would I gain by buying the ATT TV box that is $120 vs just using my Roku-TV's, and Roku Ultras? I declined the rental, but see they have them for sale on ebay. Just not sure what the purpose is unless they have a hard drive built in to record the streaming stuff vs using the cloud.


The biggest thing the Osprey gives you is channel numbers just like directv and a really good remote


----------



## Davenlr

I noticed it is not available for Nvidia Shield...but there is a you tube video on how to install it.
Had anyone here done that, and is it worth the price to get HDR and and such? Ive heard the ATT box is pretty slow. Any comments there?


----------



## harperhometheater

Davenlr said:


> I noticed it is not available for Nvidia Shield...but there is a you tube video on how to install it.
> Had anyone here done that, and is it worth the price to get HDR and and such? Ive heard the ATT box is pretty slow. Any comments there?


Hands down, the best way to experience AT&T TV is with the Osprey box. While it is slower overall for apps, the live TV and DVR experience with it far outshines any slowness having to wait an extra second or two for your app to launch. The ATT TV app is so hamstrung on other platforms, probably intentionally. It's downright frustrating actually.

It's definitely a premium service compared to other stand alone live TV app streaming services like Hulu, YouTube TV, SlingTV (barf!), etc.

If ya want quality, ya gotta pay for it!


----------



## mjwagner

harperhometheater said:


> Hands down, the best way to experience AT&T TV is with the Osprey box. While it is slower overall for apps, the live TV and DVR experience with it far outshines any slowness having to wait an extra second or two for your app to launch. The ATT TV app is so hamstrung on other platforms, probably intentionally. It's downright frustrating actually.
> 
> It's definitely a premium service compared to other stand alone live TV app streaming services like Hulu, YouTube TV, SlingTV (barf!), etc.
> 
> If ya want quality, ya gotta pay for it!


IMO it's a missstep on AT&Ts part and, again IMO, will effectively limit the reach of the offering. Plenty of folks out there, like me, who "might" consider AT&T TV if it wasn't required to have a provider specific box to get a "non-crippled" UX (leaving aside number keys).


----------



## lparsons21

IMO, on both FireTV and Roku the AT&T TV app is fine. The limits are mostly just the differences needed because of the simplistic remotes. Yeah, the Osprey is much better but mostly that’s because the remote is a fully featured one.

Only on the AppleTV is the app a real PITA to use, and that only for using trickplay.


----------



## mjwagner

lparsons21 said:


> IMO, on both FireTV and Roku the AT&T TV app is fine. The limits are mostly just the differences needed because of the simplistic remotes. Yeah, the Osprey is much better but mostly that's because the remote is a fully featured one.
> 
> Only on the AppleTV is the app a real PITA to use, and that only for using trickplay.


Not the impression I get from reading posts here, on AVS Forum, and Reddit but I have no personal experience to base it on...


----------



## lparsons21

mjwagner said:


> Not the impression I get from reading posts here, on AVS Forum, and Reddit but I have no personal experience to base it on...


Yeah, I know. Lots of people complain about lots of things, but that's the nature of forums unfortunately. Here's some highlights of FireTV and Roku

FireTV - no voice controls other than pause, no thumbnails, but a timeline and manually bump 15 seconds at a time. Not the greatest but works.

Roku - voice controls for many things and thumbnail on ff/REW.

On both no pause on live. But even with the Osprey box, pause on live is only 2 minutes so not of much use there either.


----------



## gio12

mjwagner said:


> IMO it's a missstep on AT&Ts part and, again IMO, will effectively limit the reach of the offering. Plenty of folks out there, like me, who "might" consider AT&T TV if it wasn't required to have a provider specific box to get a "non-crippled" UX (leaving aside number keys).


Agree. Had to spend $50 on a crappy box, just to use AT&T properly. When my ATV4 is superior. 
Only AT&T could give you a poor experience on an AppleTv. More boxes, more HDMI cables, inputs, etc


----------



## mjwagner

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, I know. Lots of people complain about lots of things, but that's the nature of forums unfortunately. Here's some highlights of FireTV and Roku
> 
> FireTV - no voice controls other than pause, no thumbnails, but a timeline and manually bump 15 seconds at a time. Not the greatest but works.
> 
> Roku - voice controls for many things and thumbnail on ff/REW.
> 
> On both no pause on live. But even with the Osprey box, pause on live is only 2 minutes so not of much use there either.


So what you describe is exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned a crippled UX. Not having thumbnails during FF/REW is an unusable UX IMO. There can be small differences in the UX, and there is for most providers as you move across streaming devices, but the critical features/functions need to be there. If critical functions are missing unless you use a provider specific device the offering is going to get a pass by many folks, IMO. If a provide wants the largest possible exposure to the largest possible audience it needs to be an app download on the major streaming devices and the UX needs to be as consistent as possible given the differences in HW and OS capabilities of those devices That is the current environment. Provider specific boxes seem forced and a relic of the past IMO.


----------



## lparsons21

mjwagner said:


> So what you describe is exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned a crippled UX. Not having thumbnails during FF/REW is an unusable UX IMO. There can be small differences in the UX, and there is for most providers as you move across streaming devices, but the critical features/functions need to be there. If critical functions are missing unless you use a provider specific device the offering is going to get a pass by many folks, IMO. If a provide wants the largest possible exposure to the largest possible audience it needs to be an app download on the major streaming devices and the UX needs to be as consistent as possible given the differences in HW and OS capabilities of those devices That is the current environment. Provider specific boxes seem forced and a relic of the past IMO.


So far I've noticed that nearly all of the live streaming service's apps are different on different devices. Sling uses voice on some, not on others. Same for thumbnails and other features. The only consistency with live streaming apps across platforms are their inconsistencies IMO!


----------



## mjwagner

lparsons21 said:


> So far I've noticed that nearly all of the live streaming service's apps are different on different devices. Sling uses voice on some, not on others. Same for thumbnails and other features. The only consistency with live streaming apps across platforms are their inconsistencies IMO!


Yes, as I mentioned there are some differences across platforms. But they are normally minor and don't effect major functionality. As an example YTTV is very consistent across most of the major streaming devices, with some minor differences. Major functionality is there on all the platforms. It appears to me that AT&T is purposely crippling the app on everything but their streaming device. That is what I think is a mistake. But again that is JMO. Of course I'm not a genius like the folks running AT&T...


----------



## NashGuy

IMO, a full-featured dedicated remote control is always going to be better for a cable TV service with DVR features, regardless of how it's delivered (QAM, DBS, IPTV, OTT). That said, it does seem like AT&T TV could improve their apps for streaming devices so that it comes closer to the experience you get on their own box. Hard to know whether that's an intentional crippling of the app or if it's just a result of insufficient resources in development and upkeep up the various apps. FWIW, it looks to me like the AT&T TV app is a closer approximation of the UX on their box than is the case with the Xfinity app versus their own X1 boxes...


----------



## harperhometheater

mjwagner said:


> ......Of course I'm not a genius like the folks running AT&T...


I thought Apple had the monopoly on "Geniuses"? ;-)

I tend to agree on all sides here, but in the end all that matters is the experience and feeling of satisfaction, or lack thereof, once the rubber hits the road and you're actually watching and interacting with the service and device at hand. With this in mind, nothing beats the Osprey for image quality AND usability. That was my point.

It's just as easy to hit an activity button on my Harmony remote to get there as it is to scroll and select an app on the platform I'm currently viewing. In some ways easier actually. I, like many, have been erroneously brainwashed into thinking I had to have it all on one box to avoid the dreaded "input switch". Not anymore. I'm too old now to give a crap and I want quality over convenience if it makes me more happy.


----------



## harperhometheater

NashGuy said:


> IMO, a full-featured dedicated remote control is always going to be better for a cable TV service with DVR features, regardless of how it's delivered (QAM, DBS, IPTV, OTT). That said, it does seem like AT&T TV could improve their apps for streaming devices so that it comes closer to the experience you get on their own box. Hard to know whether that's an intentional crippling of the app or if it's just a result of insufficient resources in development and upkeep up the various apps. FWIW, it looks to me like the AT&T TV app is a closer approximation of the UX on their box than is the case with the Xfinity app versus their own X1 boxes...


I was going to mention Xfinity. Their app is absolute trash!


----------



## Davenlr

So on the Roku, how do you just forward 15 seconds? I keep getting kicked back to the beginning of the show.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> So on the Roku, how do you just forward 15 seconds? I keep getting kicked back to the beginning of the show.


I think it is a tap on the right arrow though I'm not sure of the time and I'm too lazy to switch to the Roku right now! 

But on some fairly rare times I've noticed that tapping doesn't do anything at all. And if you twiddle back and forth a few times the video/audio sync goes south!


----------



## Davenlr

Yea, not only the audio sync, but if I start playing a recording that is in Dolby 5.1, if I do any skip or FF with the Roku, when it starts back, the audio switches to PCM and volume jumps up about 6 db. Terrible job of writing an app in my opinion. I might try out Fubo once they cut off my discount for bundling with internet.

Edit, just tried tapping the >> button, and it just went into FF. Maybe Roku TV is different than a regular Roku.

Ah, just noticed you said > button. Yep, that works. Never gave that one a try. Thanks.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Yea, not only the audio sync, but if I start playing a recording that is in Dolby 5.1, if I do any skip or FF with the Roku, when it starts back, the audio switches to PCM and volume jumps up about 6 db. Terrible job of writing an app in my opinion. I might try out Fubo once they cut off my discount for bundling with internet.
> 
> Edit, just tried tapping the >> button, and it just went into FF. Maybe Roku TV is different than a regular Roku.
> 
> Ah, just noticed you said > button. Yep, that works. Never gave that one a try. Thanks.


I wouldn't be surprised if Roku TV is different then Roku. Android TV is different then Android


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> Yea, not only the audio sync, but if I start playing a recording that is in Dolby 5.1, if I do any skip or FF with the Roku, when it starts back, the audio switches to PCM and volume jumps up about 6 db. Terrible job of writing an app in my opinion. I might try out Fubo once they cut off my discount for bundling with internet.
> 
> Edit, just tried tapping the >> button, and it just went into FF. Maybe Roku TV is different than a regular Roku.
> 
> Ah, just noticed you said > button. Yep, that works. Never gave that one a try. Thanks.


FireTV doesn't give any indication when skipping and it is all manual, but it is very consistent in how it works and the sync issue doesn't happen with it.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> FireTV doesn't give any indication when skipping and it is all manual, but it is very consistent in how it works and the sync issue doesn't happen with it.


I'd say that the Fire TV app benefits from the fact that Fire TV is essentially just Android with a custom UI. So a lot of the development work that went into making AT&T TV work on their own Android TV device is repurposed in the Fire TV app.


----------



## Davenlr

I tried the FireTv version, but the picture quality isnt as sharp as Roku. It is quite apparent. Also, when using FireTv, I get no small window that pops up showing where I am, so I have no idea when to hit play again. On the Roku app, it shows the picture in a small box above the FF timeline, and when you hit play, backs up a few seconds like a real DVR. I just ended up putting an external Roku into the AVR, and not using the Roku TV version. The app on a real Roku works perfectly. I was thinking of getting an Nvidia shield, but no one can tell me if the ATT TV app works on it. Only thing I can find is a youtube video showing how to sideload it. So I sure dont want to spend $200 if its no better than the Roku.


----------



## lparsons21

I doubt the AppleTV app will work on the Nvidia. I tried to sideload 2 different APK versions of it and it wouldn’t work on the AT&T Osprey. Each version wanted either the FireTV or Sony base software or some such.

On my 2nd Gen FireTV Cube the ATT app works as you note, but if I skip back and forth trying to find the just right spot it will often lose AT sync.


----------



## Davenlr

OK Thanks. I will just stick with the Roku then until I can find a demo video of how it works on their ATT Osprey box, which might be worth the money if allows you to see what is scheduled to record, and has a previous channel button. I just cannot believe how many DVR features that have been added and honed over the years have been thrown out the window for the most antique interface I have ever seen in a DVR. And the services are not THAT much cheaper than regular cable. If cable hadnt dropped their resolution to 720p and stopped adding channels to cablecard, and charged extra for each room, I would probably still be using my Tivo bolt.


----------



## lparsons21

The UI for ATT TV is the same across boxes, just how the remote deals with it is different.

You can see upcoming recordings in your List of DVR’d shows. Not the handiest way and no really good way to manage it, but it is there. The Osprey remote makes doing all things easier but can’t overcome the way the UI is designed. And Previous channel works fine on the Osprey remote.

The best way to buy the Osprey is on EBay. Usually many available for $50-$60. Just make sure the one you buy has the Google or ‘new’ remote as the original remote really sucked from what I’ve read. The box is worth the EBay price but sure isn’t worth the $120 that ATT wants for it IMO.


----------



## Davenlr

OK, so if I have a show scheduled to record, it will show up in "My Library" ? I have been deleting shows after I have finished, since I only have 20 hours. If I do not delete them, does it delete the oldest show and record the new one, or just stop recording? I couldnt find that answer either.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> OK, so if I have a show scheduled to record, it will show up in "My Library" ? I have been deleting shows after I have finished, since I only have 20 hours. If I do not delete them, does it delete the oldest show and record the new one, or just stop recording? I couldnt find that answer either.


Yes, it will show there. Go to 'all dvr recordings' and at the top of the list is 'upcoming', click that and it will show what is scheduled.

As to how it deletes, I've been told that it deletes oldest first and records the new, if you run out of space. I'm on an older TV Now sub and have 500 hours so I haven't had an opportunity to see if that is actually what happens.


----------



## bill buckner

Found this on Reddit, a little more info on the new A21KW-500 box coming soon.

Android TV Guide - AT&T TV


----------



## Davenlr

lparsons21 said:


> Yes, it will show there. Go to 'all dvr recordings' and at the top of the list is 'upcoming', click that and it will show what is scheduled.
> 
> As to how it deletes, I've been told that it deletes oldest first and records the new, if you run out of space. I'm on an older TV Now sub and have 500 hours so I haven't had an opportunity to see if that is actually what happens.


Ok thanks. I finally found it on my ROKU. You have to arrow right on the My Library all the way to get to the option. It should be there with the GUIDE, ON NOW, LIBRARY options tho. But, at least I found it now that you verified it was actually there. Appreciate it.


----------



## Davenlr

OK, Other than legal, copyright or other reasons...
Is there any TECHNICAL reason why a TIVO (or a new device) could not be upgraded to be a DVR for ATT TV?
I would think if ATT could work with Tivo to come up with an APP for the Tivo to record to hard drive, and allow all current Tivo trick play functions, it would greatly increase the sales of both. I Never understood why streaming services are not supported (for recording) on TIVO's. Even a ROKU with a SSD and some DVR functions that allowed recording and playback later would be a great seller I would think.


----------



## James Long

Has anyone built a streaming receiver with built in DVR storage (beyond a small buffer for received content) or do all streaming receivers rely on the service to provide the "DVR" features?

The limitation is probably a legal, copyright or other reason. Streaming services wanting to be able to control their streams and cut off users when their subscription lapses or the service loses the rights to deliver the content. I can't imagine that no developer has come up with the idea. It is either prohibited or deemed not worth the effort/expense.

OTA DVRs exist and I could see it as being the difference between buying an Orby satellite/OTA receiver vs an Orby satellite/OTA DVR. Cheap boxes with the main difference being the ability to record. It shouldn't be hard to do that with streaming.


----------



## swyman18

I’m sure there is equipment you can get, and cobble together something that would record the output of the ATT TV video to a hard drive. But I imagine it would be quite a PITA and very cumbersome. 

Interesting concept though, I would love to be able to have a “Tivo” like experience with ATT TV.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> OK, Other than legal, copyright or other reasons...
> Is there any TECHNICAL reason why a TIVO (or a new device) could not be upgraded to be a DVR for ATT TV?
> I would think if ATT could work with Tivo to come up with an APP for the Tivo to record to hard drive, and allow all current Tivo trick play functions, it would greatly increase the sales of both. I Never understood why streaming services are not supported (for recording) on TIVO's. Even a ROKU wit a SSD and some DVR functions that allowed recording and playback later would be a great seller I would think.


TiVo can barely support what they have right now lol


----------



## I WANT MORE

I am a D* subscriber.
I ordered an Osprey from ebay and signed up for ATTTV service to try it out.
I canceled ATTTV after one week.

The osprey box itself is fine.
PQ was excellent. 
Using the ATTTV app on ATV sucks (technical term).
ATTTV app on Google Chromecast with TV not available.
No mix channels.
No sports pack. (I knew this going in).
No 4k. (I knew this going in).
No NFLST (I knew this going in).


----------



## compnurd

I WANT MORE said:


> I am a D* subscriber.
> I ordered an Osprey from ebay and signed up for ATTTV service to try it out.
> I canceled ATTTV after one week.
> 
> The osprey box itself is fine.
> PQ was excellent.
> Using the ATTTV app on ATV sucks (technical term).
> ATTTV app on Google Chromecast with TV not available.
> No mix channels.
> No sports pack. (I knew this going in).
> No 4k. (I knew this going in).
> No NFLST (I knew this going in).


5 of them you should have known going in


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> 5 of them you should have known going in


Yeah, the last 5 should have been known as I think all of those 5 have been discussed in this thread.

I've made a change to my streaming lineup. ATT TV is out, not because it isn't excellent from a service standpoint, but because there are so few channels I actually watch and it set the base price of streaming at $80/month. Just too much money for so little content of interest.

Shifted to Sling Blue+TotalTV @$50/month until July, then rises to $56/month. Still way more channels that I actually need to have, but $30/month cheaper base price. This gives me more flexibility with other streaming services kicking in and out at times.

Got HBO Max for $11.67/month, 6-month prepaid. Showtime @$4.99/month for 6-month after one month free, CBS All Access @$8.34/month prepaid which will renew for a year @$4.16/month as Paramount+.

And of course, Amazon Prime which is essentially zero since I've had it before Amazon Video was offered. Got Hulu w/ads prepaid @$5/month.

I lose the better PQ of some shows that I did watch on ATT TV, as well as the DD5.1. But that list is very short. I use my Amazon Recast for the locals and those have DD5.1 and great PQ also. And of course I lose the simplicity of using one UI for most things as I have to switch apps.

All in all a positive change with a reduction in streaming cost at the expense of some PQ and AQ and convenience. But I live alone and convenience isn't an issue.


----------



## Davenlr

Ah, I was going to ask you about PQ and 5.1, which you answered. I just have to much money invested in a Dolby atmos/DTS sound system to switch to any service without 5.1. To be honest, I just got a email from Comcast wanting me back, and their package has all the channels I watch for a year, for $50. But then I only get 720p. I never understood why Comcast did that. They have plenty of bandwidth for 1080i. 
I am on ATT-TV Entertainment. Has all the sports channels that carry Nascar, and the entertainment channels the family watches, and its $69 a month with no contract. $13 a month more than you are paying with better PQ and 5.1 is OK with me. I noticed the ATT app reloaded last night on my Roku. Now I have a previous channels option hitting up arrow. Yea, I think $50 should be the going rate, but as I can see with all these streaming services, its the channels themselves raising prices forcing the high monthly rates. I could get by with just Peacock, HBOMax (both free to me), Disney+ and Paramount+ for the family...and it would cost me almost nothing....But Sports... If only I didnt like watching sports


----------



## lparsons21

Amen to the ‘if only I didn’t like sports’!!

For me it is boxing and golf, boxing is on enough places that quite a few services could fill the bill, but golf, other than some weekends is usually only on the Golf channel. If I could wean myself away from sports I could really do some cost cutting without losing either PQ or AQ!! 

My switch loses ESPN but to get that would increase the cost by at least $15/month and frankly not worth it.

As to PQ and audio, with using other apps to get most of the content I enjoy, it isn’t that hard to find. Most of the VOD type services have great video and audio, including DD5.1. So mostly it is just not nearly as convenient to get that as it is with just using AT&T TV.


----------



## NashGuy

I WANT MORE said:


> I am a D* subscriber.
> I ordered an Osprey from ebay and signed up for ATTTV service to try it out.
> I canceled ATTTV after one week.
> 
> The osprey box itself is fine.
> PQ was excellent.
> Using the ATTTV app on ATV sucks (technical term).
> ATTTV app on Google Chromecast with TV not available.
> No mix channels.
> No sports pack. (I knew this going in).
> No 4k. (I knew this going in).
> No NFLST (I knew this going in).


Sounds like your dissatisfaction with AT&T TV comes down to it not being as good for sports as DTV. (I realize 4K HDR and mix channels aren't strictly sports-related features but both are probably most important to sports viewers.) I wonder if AT&T hasn't intentionally held off on improving and adding features to AT&T TV so far in order to allow DTV to remain the preferred service for major sports fans. Well, they had no choice but to keep NFLST exclusive to DTV but I see no reason why they couldn't have offered live 4K HDR sports on AT&T TV (as Fubo TV has done for years now), as well as mix channels (which PS Vue was doing before it died) and the Sports Pack (although getting that on AT&T TV may be a difficult licensing issue).

As for apps, well, I think AT&T will always want their own dedicated Android TV device to be the best way to experience the service. But if they're going to offer an app for Apple TV, Roku and Fire TV, I don't see why they don't put out a similar app for Android TV on the Google Play store so devices like the Chromecast with Google TV (and TiVo Stream 4K and Nvidia Shield TV) can access the service.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, the last 5 should have been known as I think all of those 5 have been discussed in this thread.
> 
> I've made a change to my streaming lineup. ATT TV is out, not because it isn't excellent from a service standpoint, but because there are so few channels I actually watch and it set the base price of streaming at $80/month. Just too much money for so little content of interest.
> 
> Shifted to Sling Blue+TotalTV @$50/month until July, then rises to $56/month. Still way more channels that I actually need to have, but $30/month cheaper base price. This gives me more flexibility with other streaming services kicking in and out at times.
> 
> Got HBO Max for $11.67/month, 6-month prepaid. Showtime @$4.99/month for 6-month after one month free, CBS All Access @$8.34/month prepaid which will renew for a year @$4.16/month as Paramount+.
> 
> And of course, Amazon Prime which is essentially zero since I've had it before Amazon Video was offered. Got Hulu w/ads prepaid @$5/month.
> 
> I lose the better PQ of some shows that I did watch on ATT TV, as well as the DD5.1. But that list is very short. I use my Amazon Recast for the locals and those have DD5.1 and great PQ also. And of course I lose the simplicity of using one UI for most things as I have to switch apps.
> 
> All in all a positive change with a reduction in streaming cost at the expense of some PQ and AQ and convenience. But I live alone and convenience isn't an issue.


Ha! You're very good at figuring out the best deals for your needs. I would bet that a lot of folks who are content to get their locals for free via OTA but who still want certain live cable channels could cobble together a lower-cost solution by using some combo of Sling, Philo and/or Frndly TV versus going with YTTV, Fubo TV, Hulu Live or AT&T TV, as long as you don't mind switching between apps/inputs to get your various TV channels and recordings.

Unrelated Q that I can't remember the answer to: when watching recordings on AT&T TV using the Osprey, is there a way to skip ahead or backwards by set increments (e.g. 30 sec or 15 sec) by pressing a single button on the remote, with playback immediately resuming? That's possible with DVRs from TiVo, DISH and probably other providers, maybe DTV too (can't recall as it's been years since I had a DTV Genie). Can you do it on the Osprey?


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Ha! You're very good at figuring out the best deals for your needs. I would bet that a lot of folks who are content to get their locals for free via OTA but who still want certain live cable channels could cobble together a lower-cost solution by using some combo of Sling, Philo and/or Frndly TV versus going with YTTV, Fubo TV, Hulu Live or AT&T TV, as long as you don't mind switching between apps/inputs to get your various TV channels and recordings.
> 
> Unrelated Q that I can't remember the answer to: when watching recordings on AT&T TV using the Osprey, is there a way to skip ahead or backwards by set increments (e.g. 30 sec or 15 sec) by pressing a single button on the remote, with playback immediately resuming? That's possible with DVRs from TiVo, DISH and probably other providers, maybe DTV too (can't recall as it's been years since I had a DTV Genie). Can you do it on the Osprey?


I don't know how good I am at it, or if it is just that I have way too much time on my hands and constantly twiddle with all this stuff! 

And yes, you can bump 15 seconds forward with a right arrow on the d-pad of the Osprey remote. Not quite instant, but close enough.


----------



## lparsons21

You know the biggest problem with the cable channels these days is the real lack of many original scripted shows. Or at least it is to me. I don’t care for the real life, reality that isn’t or inane game shows. And frankly you can find plenty of all those on the various freeby services out there.

But things like SyFy’s Resident Alien, USA’s Queen of the South and so many others are just so few and far between that paying to watch them is really irritating. I mean why have SyFy if they only have one show of interest? Same goes for all to many cable channels.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> And yes, you can bump 15 seconds forward with a right arrow on the d-pad of the Osprey remote. Not quite instant, but close enough.


Nice. And you can bump 15 second backwards (i.e. instant replay) by clicking left on the d-pad too?


----------



## harperhometheater

James Long said:


> Has anyone built a streaming receiver with built in DVR storage (beyond a small buffer for received content) or do all streaming receivers rely on the service to provide the "DVR" features?
> 
> The limitation is probably a legal, copyright or other reason. Streaming services wanting to be able to control their streams and cut off users when their subscription lapses or the service loses the rights to deliver the content. I can't imagine that no developer has come up with the idea. It is either prohibited or deemed not worth the effort/expense.
> 
> OTA DVRs exist and I could see it as being the difference between buying an Orby satellite/OTA receiver vs an Orby satellite/OTA DVR. Cheap boxes with the main difference being the ability to record. It shouldn't be hard to do that with streaming.


You can do this with the Channels DVR app and server. You can record the TV Everywhere (TVE) streams to a local hard drive connected to whatever you use as your DVR Server. I use an nVidia Shield for this.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Nice. And you can bump 15 second backwards (i.e. instant replay) by clicking left on the d-pad too?


Yes.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> You know the biggest problem with the cable channels these days is the real lack of many original scripted shows. Or at least it is to me. I don't care for the real life, reality that isn't or inane game shows. And frankly you can find plenty of all those on the various freeby services out there.
> 
> But things like SyFy's Resident Alien, USA's Queen of the South and so many others are just so few and far between that paying to watch them is really irritating. I mean why have SyFy if they only have one show of interest? Same goes for all to many cable channels.


Yeah. Well, Hollywood is just shifting to where the future lies, at least for scripted entertainment, and that's SVODs. Blame Netflix (and the superior economics of direct-to-consumer), I guess. But Disney, Warner, NBCU, ViacomCBS, etc. are only going to spend so much on scripted (i.e. expensive) content and they're trying to spread it between their linear channels and SVODs, with the latter getting more and more of it.

It just points again to the truism that, if you don't care about sports, cable "news" or locals (or you can get your locals via free OTA), then there's really not much reason to stick with cable TV any more, other than because of familiarity/convenience.


----------



## lparsons21

I keep wondering about how to get sports to the consumer without cable/sat or live streaming in a reasonable way. There are a few apps out there now but all seem to be missing things that would attract me.

I’m not a huge boxing fan but I do love to watch it. Took a look at DAZN which is all about boxing and MMA(I think). But for some reason it just didn’t work for me. And of course, their pricing is really out there! $20/month on a month to month, about $8.25/month if you pay for a year. The yearly deal would be best I suppose, but I just couldn’t make myself pull the trigger.

Golf is also difficult. The Golf Channel isn’t available streaming in any real sense, there is at least one app centered around golf but it shows few, if any, live or delayed tournaments. I keep hoping Peacock will get into that since NBC owns the Golf Channel.

Other sports suffer from the same kind of things. Blackout rules in place even if you can’t go to a live tournament anywhere in the US these days. Seems totally asinine to do that.


----------



## Davenlr

harperhometheater said:


> You can do this with the Channels DVR app and server. You can record the TV Everywhere (TVE) streams to a local hard drive connected to whatever you use as your DVR Server. I use an nVidia Shield for this.


I was looking at that website. So, assuming a dedicated Windows PC, I could install the DVR software, pay them $80 for a year, and then it will allow me to record my HDHomeRun and ATT-TV shows to my computer and I can watch it on a FireTv or Nvidia Shield attached to any TV in the house? Or stream it to my smartphone when away from home?


----------



## swyman18

Davenlr said:


> I was looking at that website. So, assuming a dedicated Windows PC, I could install the DVR software, pay them $80 for a year, and then it will allow me to record my HDHomeRun and ATT-TV shows to my computer and I can watch it on a FireTv or Nvidia Shield attached to any TV in the house? Or stream it to my smartphone when away from home?


One thing to keep in mind though, not every single channel has a corresponding live stream via TV Everywhere (TVE) apps. And then I'm sure there are some that AT&T does not have a contract with for TVE.

I know there is a good website that lists all the networks that support TVE and which providers allow you to log in with your credentials.

I played around with it for a while last year, it worked fairly well. Video was limited to 720p and stereo only.

One channel that I recall that doesn't even have a TVE stream is History Channel. So that is an example of one channel that you wouldn't be able to record, I'm sure there are others.


----------



## harsh

Davenlr said:


> OK, Other than legal, copyright or other reasons...


As if those aren't enough?


> Is there any TECHNICAL reason why a TIVO (or a new device) could not be upgraded to be a DVR for ATT TV?


I suppose that depends on the TiVo. Older models may not be able to handle AVC compressed content. Remember that most TiVos are designed to record cable TV and a lot of that was MPEG2 up until not too long ago.


> I would think if ATT could work with Tivo to come up with an APP for the Tivo to record to hard drive, and allow all current Tivo trick play functions, it would greatly increase the sales of both.


TiVo doesn't do this with anyone else, so why would they do it with AT&T?


> I Never understood why streaming services are not supported (for recording) on TIVO's.


This is because you choose to ignore the legal, copyright and other reasons. TiVotees rail against content that was flagged and wouldn't record and I'm betting that all of AT&T's content is so marked.


> Even a ROKU with a SSD and some DVR functions that allowed recording and playback later would be a great seller I would think.


The flaw in that logic is that there's not much use in recording things that you may not watch. People howl enough now about pushing their caps and you want to record stuff that you may or may not watch?


----------



## Davenlr

No, I am just not a big fan of this cloud DVR after using it for a week. One day it will work fine, the next day it will pause half way through a show, say "Opps, this show is taking longer to load than expected" then it will just jump back to the beginning and start playing all over again. If you didnt happen to catch where it was to fast forward back to, you miss stuff. And it is annoying. It can't be the internet speed, its fiber 1 gb/s from the same company as the streaming service. And while it is sitting there saying it cant access the show, my computer is working fine on the same network. 

I'll give it a little bit longer, but I can see myself giving up my 1080p and going back to Xfinity and my Tivo Bolt, and 2 mini's.


----------



## Davenlr

harsh said:


> .TiVo doesn't do this with anyone else, so why would they do it with AT&T?


They did it with DirecTv. Same company now.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> They did it with DirecTv. Same company now.


That was over a decade ago and as pointed out... Tivo wants out of the physical DVR service.. The Stream and Software are the future for them... Or whatever future they have left


----------



## raott

I'm having issues with the AT&T box remote not turning on the TV. This is occurring on only one of the TVs and happened suddenly and without me doing anything. The settings are the same as the TV that is working (both Vizio's but different models). 

The volume and all other buttons like changing input, still all work fine, it's just the power button will not turn the TV on or off at the same time that I turn the AT&T box on and off. (My Apple TV is working as it should).

Anyone having similar issues?


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> That was over a decade ago and as pointed out...


Not to mention that when it was delivered, the THR-22 was arguably a shadow of the TiVo DVR of the day.


----------



## harsh

raott said:


> I'm having issues with the AT&T box remote not turning on the TV. This is occurring on only one of the TVs and happened suddenly and without me doing anything.


There's a flurry of power-on problems showing up recently on different platforms. Firmware updates aren't always good.


----------



## compnurd

raott said:


> I'm having issues with the AT&T box remote not turning on the TV. This is occurring on only one of the TVs and happened suddenly and without me doing anything. The settings are the same as the TV that is working (both Vizio's but different models).
> 
> The volume and all other buttons like changing input, still all work fine, it's just the power button will not turn the TV on or off at the same time that I turn the AT&T box on and off. (My Apple TV is working as it should).
> 
> Anyone having similar issues?


I am not.. I would try and just reprogram the remote


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> I am not.. I would try and just reprogram the remote


I've seen the problem on a few occasions, usually it finally gets around to working again without doing anything. But just very rarely I have to go into the settings and re-jigger the remote to the TV.


----------



## Davenlr

raott said:


> I'm having issues with the AT&T box remote not turning on the TV. This is occurring on only one of the TVs and happened suddenly and without me doing anything. The settings are the same as the TV that is working (both Vizio's but different models).
> 
> The volume and all other buttons like changing input, still all work fine, it's just the power button will not turn the TV on or off at the same time that I turn the AT&T box on and off. (My Apple TV is working as it should).
> 
> Anyone having similar issues?


Is your Vizio a new model with HDMI 2.1 ports? There is a known bug with those failing to turn on after being fed a signal that is, or they think is, [email protected]


----------



## harperhometheater

Davenlr said:


> I was looking at that website. So, assuming a dedicated Windows PC, I could install the DVR software, pay them $80 for a year, and then it will allow me to record my HDHomeRun and ATT-TV shows to my computer and I can watch it on a FireTv or Nvidia Shield attached to any TV in the house? Or stream it to my smartphone when away from home?


Yes, but you don't have to use the Windows PC if you have an nVidia Shield because that can be used as both a Server and a client for Channels DVR. You just download both apps (Channels DVR Server and Channels DVR) and follow their respective installation instructions.

You can also setup the server in your main home and watch away from home on a phone or client w/ app (Shield, AppleTV, AndroidTV, etc.). When you first open the client app it asks how you're watching, At Home or Away from Home. You just have to setup the server for remote viewing which is essentially clicking one box.



swyman18 said:


> ......I played around with it for a while last year, it worked fairly well. Video was limited to 720p and stereo only.
> 
> One channel that I recall that doesn't even have a TVE stream is History Channel. So that is an example of one channel that you wouldn't be able to record, I'm sure there are others.


Neither of these statements are true. You get the full video quality of the channel being broadcast via TVE, be it 1080, 720, or 480. I have seen and proven this many times over by looking at the stats you can pull up within the Info Bar at the top of the AppleTV's Channels DVR GUI while watching a show.

History and all the major channels most care about are now available via TVE. It is most likely that your service provider didn't offer the TVE login for History or you checked longer ago than you thought and History didn't offer TVE at the time, but it's been there for awhile now.

This came from my Xfinity TVE login from my Channels DVR Server:












Davenlr said:


> No, I am just not a big fan of this cloud DVR after using it for a week. One day it will work fine, the next day it will pause half way through a show, say "Opps, this show is taking longer to load than expected" then it will just jump back to the beginning and start playing all over again. If you didnt happen to catch where it was to fast forward back to, you miss stuff. And it is annoying. It can't be the internet speed, its fiber 1 gb/s from the same company as the streaming service. And while it is sitting there saying it cant access the show, my computer is working fine on the same network.
> 
> I'll give it a little bit longer, but I can see myself giving up my 1080p and going back to Xfinity and my Tivo Bolt, and 2 mini's.


It sounds like it may not be your internet speed, but rather your home internet's integrity. I only have 200Mbps download speed and two of my three Ospreys are using Wifi, not wired, and I have none of these issues.

This can easily be tested by connecting the Osprey directly to one of your router's LAN ports, or better yet the modem itself, because the issue could be your router.


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> Yes, but you don't have to use the Windows PC if you have an nVidia Shield because that can be used as both a Server and a client for Channels DVR. You just download both apps (Channels DVR Server and Channels DVR) and follow their respective installation instructions.
> 
> You can also setup the server in your main home and watch away from home on a phone or client w/ app (Shield, AppleTV, AndroidTV, etc.). When you first open the client app it asks how you're watching, At Home or Away from Home. You just have to setup the server for remote viewing which is essentially clicking one box.
> 
> Neither of these statements are true. You get the full video quality of the channel being broadcast via TVE, be it 1080, 720, or 480. I have seen and proven this many times over by looking at the stats you can pull up within the Info Bar at the top of the AppleTV's Channels DVR GUI while watching a show.
> 
> History and all the major channels most care about are now available via TVE. It is most likely that your service provider didn't offer the TVE login for History or you checked longer ago than you thought and History didn't offer TVE at the time, but it's been there for awhile now.
> 
> This came from my Xfinity TVE login from my Channels DVR Server:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like it may not be your internet speed, but rather your home internet's integrity. I only have 200Mbps download speed and two of my three Ospreys are using Wifi, not wired, and I have none of these issues.
> 
> This can easily be tested by connecting the Osprey directly to one of your router's LAN ports, or better yet the modem itself, because the issue could be your router.


Yup. I have a gig network through the house with a gig connection to the outside and have never had that issue


----------



## swyman18

harperhometheater said:


> Neither of these statements are true. You get the full video quality of the channel being broadcast via TVE, be it 1080, 720, or 480. I have seen and proven this many times over by looking at the stats you can pull up within the Info Bar at the top of the AppleTV's Channels DVR GUI while watching a show.
> 
> History and all the major channels most care about are now available via TVE. It is most likely that your service provider didn't offer the TVE login for History or you checked longer ago than you thought and History didn't offer TVE at the time, but it's been there for awhile now.


I stand corrected, thank you. I didn't realize that any network provided a TVE stream higher than 720p.

Regarding History channel, you're right it was probably about a year ago that I last tried TVE with Channels DVR. I remember in the forum, people could not understand why History and A&E were not on the list and they had to constantly be reminded that those two channels did not have a live stream, regardless of who your provider is. I guess they added them sometime in 2020.

I apologize for not doing the full research and going by memory prior to posting.


----------



## Davenlr

Having an issue on both Roku Premier, and Roku Ultra.
Watching a recorded show, get a spinning circle, message"sorry, your video is taking longer to load than expected" or something to that extent, and then the show starts over again from the beginning. No way to get back to where you were except FF and hope you find it. 
That is totally unacceptable. Anyone know the cause? Using their Gig fiber internet, using their gateway, one Roku is wireless, the other is ethernet. While the circle is spinning, my computer still has access to the internet on the same network.

I wont be able to deal with this if it continues. This is the second day now. The first two days it worked perfect. Weather has been bad here, but don't see why that would affect it. Same weather they have all winter in Wisconsin.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Having an issue on both Roku Premier, and Roku Ultra.
> Watching a recorded show, get a spinning circle, message"sorry, your video is taking longer to load than expected" or something to that extent, and then the show starts over again from the beginning. No way to get back to where you were except FF and hope you find it.
> That is totally unacceptable. Anyone know the cause? Using their Gig fiber internet, using their gateway, one Roku is wireless, the other is ethernet. While the circle is spinning, my computer still has access to the internet on the same network.
> 
> I wont be able to deal with this if it continues. This is the second day now. The first two days it worked perfect. Weather has been bad here, but don't see why that would affect it. Same weather they have all winter in Wisconsin.


Could be a buffering issue with your Roku Never had that issue with the Osprey and the Apple TV


----------



## Davenlr

VID_20210218_201534604.mp4
Well, if it is the Roku, it is 3 different models on three different TV's...which would make it ATT TV's problem with their App.

At the 1:10 mark you can see where it goes crazy. IF I had hit pause there, it would have backed up 15 seconds and continued on. I did that 4 times in that show already. As you can see, however, if left, it starts the show over. To make matters worse, as you can see when I pulled the show up on the DVR library, it actually showed 3 minutes remaining. I hit resume, and it DID NOT RESUME. I even tried it again by going to restart and then back to resume, and it DID NOT RESUME. This is terribly buggy.

So now my next question is, what service do I want to try next. Sling Blue looks good, but YouTubeTV has lots more sports, and the option for the Red Zone channel this fall. Choices and decisions. Looks like Ill have to ditch the 1080p and Dolby Digital, or go back to cable.

Disregard going back to cable. $60 for their smallest package plus $14.45 for locals, plus $15.45 for regional sports and those add ons are NOT optional.


----------



## Davenlr

Followup to above post. I ran a new ethernet cable directly from the ATT gateway to the bedroom through the attic, and plugged the Roku ultra into the switch, and went to test the connection, and found out it had defaulted to wireless, even though it had an ethernet connection. Why Roku set up that way, I have no clue. I reset the boxes network connection to ethernet, and tested it, and no longer have the above issue with the cloud DVR. I also tested the Roku TV plugged directly into the gateway, and it also played the whole hour without error.

So my takeaway is the Roku app has serious issues with glitches in the stream, and the ATT Gateways wireless is less than 100%, since the Roku I was connected to wirelessly is less than 5 feet from the gateway. 

In any case, I havent found any other service with 1080p and Dolby digital, so Ill stick with ATT TV for now. It looks like T-vision might be a viable option once they allow Sprint customers (or the general public) to sign up for it. They claim they also support 1080p, 4K as well as DD, DD+, DTS, and Atmos. Will see. The price is cheaper.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Followup to above post. I ran a new ethernet cable directly from the ATT gateway to the bedroom through the attic, and plugged the Roku ultra into the switch, and went to test the connection, and found out it had defaulted to wireless, even though it had an ethernet connection. Why Roku set up that way, I have no clue. I reset the boxes network connection to ethernet, and tested it, and no longer have the above issue with the cloud DVR. I also tested the Roku TV plugged directly into the gateway, and it also played the whole hour without error.
> 
> So my takeaway is the Roku app has serious issues with glitches in the stream, and the ATT Gateways wireless is less than 100%, since the Roku I was connected to wirelessly is less than 5 feet from the gateway.
> 
> In any case, I havent found any other service with 1080p and Dolby digital, so Ill stick with ATT TV for now. It looks like T-vision might be a viable option once they allow Sprint customers (or the general public) to sign up for it. They claim they also support 1080p, 4K as well as DD, DD+, DTS, and Atmos. Will see. The price is cheaper.


5 feet is close for wireless and can cause issues


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> Followup to above post. I ran a new ethernet cable directly from the ATT gateway to the bedroom through the attic, and plugged the Roku ultra into the switch, and went to test the connection, and found out it had defaulted to wireless, even though it had an ethernet connection. Why Roku set up that way, I have no clue. I reset the boxes network connection to ethernet, and tested it, and no longer have the above issue with the cloud DVR. I also tested the Roku TV plugged directly into the gateway, and it also played the whole hour without error.
> 
> So my takeaway is the Roku app has serious issues with glitches in the stream, and the ATT Gateways wireless is less than 100%, since the Roku I was connected to wirelessly is less than 5 feet from the gateway.
> 
> In any case, I havent found any other service with 1080p and Dolby digital, so Ill stick with ATT TV for now. It looks like T-vision might be a viable option once they allow Sprint customers (or the general public) to sign up for it. They claim they also support 1080p, 4K as well as DD, DD+, DTS, and Atmos. Will see. The price is cheaper.


TVision will need to upgrade the quality of their video streams to come close to AT&T TV, from what I've read. Biggest problem with TVision is that everything is at 30 fps (i.e. 1080p30 and 720p30), which makes motion in lots of content (esp. sports) look choppy. Also, unless this has recently changed, their cloud DVR won't let you record Disney-owned channels, including ESPN and FX. And keep in mind that they don't carry CBS at all. Plus there's no app for Roku (yet, anyway).

As for AT&T TV's apps, it seems like the consensus among users is that they're best avoided on your main TV(s). If you're going to spend the money it costs for AT&T TV service, you'll be better off in the long run to just buy their custom Android TV device and remote, which should give you a fuller featured, more reliable user experience. Whether the apps for Roku, Fire TV and Apple TV are inferior to their own box due to an under-allocation of developer resources, or developer incompetence, or an intentional crippling on AT&T's part (or some combination thereof), who knows. But you're not going to get a better experience on AT&T TV than by using it with their own dedicated boxes, ideally connected via ethernet to an AT&T Fiber gateway.


----------



## lparsons21

Yep, the best way to deal with AT&T’s TV service is with their box. It is less problematic, it works smoothly and it also runs other apps reasonably well. In fact, other apps that work on it seem to be a bit better in video quality. That is subjective, but I’ve been twiddling this morning and tested Sling, YouTubeTV and ATT’s TV on the Osprey box. In all instances the video was just better than those same apps on Roku Ultra 2020, FireTV Cube and AppleTV. Some twiddling shows the remote with those other than ATT apps is a bit easier to deal with too.

Now to my twiddling. Sling Blue+TotalTV is a good deal at the expense of video quality. The quality is fine for scripted shows but when it comes to sports the motion artifacts are very irritating. And one thing I didn’t notice when I was making the switch is that Sling is missing CBS Sports altogether. I’m a boxing fan and that is an important channel to have.

So on to more fiddling around. Both AT&T TV Now Max and YouTubeTV have the sports channels I want as well as the other channels I want.

YouTubeTV @$65/month is kind of an in between service compared to Sling & ATT. Very good video, nearly as good as ATT’s but missing DD5.1 and no indication that they are considering it. IMO, the UI leaves something to be desired but it works and you get used to it. And it has more channels than does ATT TV Now Max though not many of real importance as cable channels in general have very little in the way of original scripted shows and frankly, that isn’t looking to get better going forward.

While YouTubeTV is cheaper than ATT TV Now Max when I add in HBO the cost is the same.

So back to ATT TV Now Max. So much for saving a little money!!


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> So back to ATT TV Now Max. So much for saving a little money!!


The saga continues...


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> The saga continues...


Yeah! If the streaming sports issues get solved I could just do away with a live streamer altogether. Virtually everything scripted is available somewhere and often free with ads.


----------



## b4pjoe

lparsons21 said:


> And one thing I didn't notice when I was making the switch is that Sling is missing CBS Sports altogether. I'm a boxing fan and that is an important channel to have.


Not that I can keep up with what you have at any one time doesn't CBS All Access soon to be Paramount + have the CBS Sports channel on it? Or is that not the same as the CBS Sports you mentioned?


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> Not that I can keep up with what you have at any one time doesn't CBS All Access soon to be Paramount + have the CBS Sports channel on it? Or is that not the same as the CBS Sports you mentioned?


Yeah keeping up with my switches could be daunting. You ought to see it from my end!! 

No CBS Sports isn't the same thing though the channel and app do share a few things.


----------



## b4pjoe

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah keeping up with my switches could be daunting. You ought to see it from my end!!
> 
> No CBS Sports isn't the same thing though the channel and app do share a few things.


I mean the linear feed of CBS Sports on All Access. Is it not the same as the CBS Sports you are missing?


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> I mean the linear feed of CBS Sports on All Access. Is it not the same as the CBS Sports you are missing?


No. CBS Sports channel has live sports as well as some replays. The app is mostly about the sports news and such. There are some videos on CBS All Access under sports but not very many and no boxing at all.


----------



## espaeth

CBS:AA has CBS Sports HQ as a live "channel", not the CBS Sports Network.

It's like the CBS version of ESPNews compared to the main ESPN channel.


----------



## NashGuy

Given the degree to which live sports is touted in ads for Paramount+ -- their tagline is "Live Sports. Breaking News. And a Mountain of Entertainment." -- and the fact that CBS Sports Network is, all things considered, a bit player in the world of cable TV, it wouldn't surprise me to see them carry that channel's live events on Paramount+ at some point too. (Kinda like how NBCU is shifting some of their live sports from NBC Sports Network over to Peacock.) Right now, I think the only live sports that P+ will offer are those in the CBS live stream.


----------



## harsh

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah! If the streaming sports issues get solved I could just do away with a live streamer altogether.


Based on the various league's expressed desire for a predictable revenue stream, I don't see that happening with the non-commitment business model.


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> Based on the various league's expressed desire for a predictable revenue stream, I don't see that happening with the non-commitment business model.


Yeah, I wouldn't think they would like streaming the way it is structured now. DAZN is doing something to keep people around at least a year at a time. $20/month on a month to month and about $8.34/month if you pay yearly. The other sports could pick up on that on a per season basis.

But the handwriting is on the wall, the days of everyone pays for sports while only a segment actually watch are coming to an end, it is just a matter of time.

Here's an example of what the NFL seems to think is going to work for them:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/19/nfl...crease-on-tv-rights-disney-pushing-back-.html

How do you like that?


----------



## Davenlr

100% increase? Geeze, talk about greedy.
Lparsons21 can you do me a favor. While watching a cloud DVR show on your osprey, can you unplug the internet cable for just a second to simulate a glitch and tell me if it resumes, gives you an error, or starts the show over? I may just have to buy one if your experiment works, because I wont do without Dolby audio or crappy PQ (thanks Nashguy for the Tvision 30 fps info up top...unacceptable)


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> 100% increase? Geeze, talk about greedy.
> Lparsons21 can you do me a favor. While watching a cloud DVR show on your osprey, can you unplug the internet cable for just a second to simulate a glitch and tell me if it resumes, gives you an error, or starts the show over? I may just have to buy one if your experiment works, because I wont do without Dolby audio or crappy PQ (thanks Nashguy for the Tvision 30 fps info up top...unacceptable)


Don't have to simulate that for you, I've had it happen when my internet crapped out. The box just gives an error about 'your video is taking...'. Then when I got internet back it would bring up something live and when I then went to the DVR and picked the show, it picked up where I left off.

BTW, if you decide to get an Osprey box, look on EBay first. Much cheaper.


----------



## Davenlr

Which box, C71KW-400 ? Lots of different descriptions on ebay.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> Which box, C71KW-400 ? Lots of different descriptions on ebay.


Yeah, I noticed that. It is a C71KW and the last 3 numbers are who manufactured it. I've not seen anything indicating they are at all different.

Just make sure their description includes 'Google remote' or 'new remote'. The original remote they used in the beta program was horrible from what I've read.


----------



## Davenlr

Didn't see any info on the remote, but it showed the same remote as the new remotes they are selling. If not, I have a harmony I can use. I am liking this Roku Ultra 2020. Launches ATT app with one button press, can say "Forward 3 minutes" and it skips the whole commercial break. So far, its only glitched out once. Has to be this ATT gateway is dropping connection for a split second every hour or two. Wish I knew how to tell. I ran a CMD window with a ping att.com command, and when it glitched out, the pings never missed a beat. ATT support is useless.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> Didn't see any info on the remote, but it showed the same remote as the new remotes they are selling. If not, I have a harmony I can use. I am liking this Roku Ultra 2020. Launches ATT app with one button press, can say "Forward 3 minutes" and it skips the whole commercial break. So far, its only glitched out once. Has to be this ATT gateway is dropping connection for a split second every hour or two. Wish I knew how to tell. I ran a CMD window with a ping att.com command, and when it glitched out, the pings never missed a beat. ATT support is useless.


If it looks the same as the new remotes, they have the right one with it.

Yeah, sounds like that gateway is screwy. Are you running the Roku wired or wireless? I've got everything at my main location using wired and don't get glitches from the internet.

On your Roku, if you skip back and forth in the ATT app you'll likely get lip sync issues. If you do a quick out of the app and back in cures it.


----------



## Davenlr

Was using wireless, that glitched out 3 to 4 times per hour. Now using an Ultra2020 wired, and only one glitch so far all night.


----------



## Davenlr

I don't support you found a way to keep it from cutting off the end of live sports events huh? I just had the Nascar race stop with 3 laps to go. Luckily, I had caught up to live, so I just switched to FS1 to watch the finish...but that is really a PIA.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> I don't support you found a way to keep it from cutting off the end of live sports events huh? I just had the Nascar race stop with 3 laps to go. Luckily, I had caught up to live, so I just switched to FS1 to watch the finish...but that is really a PIA.


There's only one way to handle shows that go over time and that is to set recording of the next show in line. And yeah, it is a PITA and has been complained about a lot.


----------



## Davenlr

lparsons21 said:


> There's only one way to handle shows that go over time and that is to set recording of the next show in line. And yeah, it is a PITA and has been complained about a lot.


OK, then using a series recording it out, going to have to pull up the schedule every week and manually set it up. How can the same company that developed the DirecTv DVR leave out the most important feature from a DVR? Unreal.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> OK, then using a series recording it out, going to have to pull up the schedule every week and manually set it up. How can the same company that developed the DirecTv DVR leave out the most important feature from a DVR? Unreal.


I think that YouTubeTV is the only live streaming service that pads some shows, but it is an automatic. You can't actually pad it yourself.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> I think that YouTubeTV is the only live streaming service that pads some shows, but it is an automatic. You can't actually pad it yourself.


I think that is right and based on user reviews it doesnt work well


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> OK, then using a series recording it out, going to have to pull up the schedule every week and manually set it up. How can the same company that developed the DirecTv DVR leave out the most important feature from a DVR? Unreal.


Yeah. It's just crazy to me how unforgivably long AT&T took to develop and beta test their cloud DVR (I was a beta tester for it as a DirecTV Now subscriber years ago) and then, after rolling it out for their long-delayed flagship cable service AT&T TV, it was STILL missing some key features like the ability to pad recording times! And now a year AFTER the national launch of AT&T TV (which itself came several months after a limited beta launch in select markets), they've still done NOTHING to improve the DVR features! That, combined with some other long-standing issues (e.g. lack of PBS, lack of 4K HDR, etc.), really make me wonder how much the company cares about making AT&T TV succeed. I think the whole thing has kind of been on back-burner auto-pilot since launching while the company tries to figure out what it's doing with DirecTV and its overall MVPD business.


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> I think that is right and based on user reviews it doesnt work well


I've read that it works well for most major sporting events but the auto-extension may not work at all for less popular events (e.g. works for the major NASCAR races but maybe not the truck races). I also read that sports are a problem with Fubo TV's DVR -- specifically that you can't reliably start watching while the event is still recording because it often glitches and takes you to live or near the end of the recording, spoiling the result.


----------



## Davenlr

Well, after all the comments and such, I decided to just stick with ATT TV for now... I can only hope the add some features to the cloud DVR. It is the only service with [email protected], Dolby Digital 5.1 both. Compared with DirecTv's same package (Entertainment) which is what, $102 + $14 for the two extra rooms (3 total streams), it only gives you a better DVR and some 4K sports which hopefully ATT TV will add, or the Fox Sports app will support next football season.

I am really surprised that YouTubeTV given Googles deep pockets, doesnt add Dolby Digital and a better DVR. They could take over the market. 

It is like everyone wants to get into the game, but no one wants to go all in.

I would like a streaming service that just streams shows when they are on like cable and satellite and records the shows you want on a real DVR. As long as it is copy protected, I dont see how it would cause any licensing issues. Think of the bandwidth they could save not having to send a stream to each customer independently. 

The race today cut off with 6 laps to go as well, but I was watching live. I am just going to start watching the races live. 

Didnt even notice they didnt carry PBS though. I get in on my Tivo with antenna.


----------



## b4pjoe

Davenlr said:


> Well, after all the comments and such, I decided to just stick with ATT TV for now... I can only hope the add some features to the cloud DVR. It is the only service with [email protected], Dolby Digital 5.1 both. Compared with DirecTv's same package (Entertainment) which is what, $102 + $14 for the two extra rooms (3 total streams), it only gives you a better DVR and some 4K sports which hopefully ATT TV will add, or the Fox Sports app will support next football season.
> 
> I am really surprised that YouTubeTV given Googles deep pockets, doesnt add Dolby Digital and a better DVR. They could take over the market.
> 
> It is like everyone wants to get into the game, but no one wants to go all in.
> 
> *I would like a streaming service that just streams shows when they are on like cable and satellite and records the shows you want on a real DVR. As long as it is copy protected, I dont see how it would cause any licensing issues. Think of the bandwidth they could save not having to send a stream to each customer independently. *
> 
> The race today cut off with 6 laps to go as well, but I was watching live. I am just going to start watching the races live.
> 
> Didnt even notice they didnt carry PBS though. I get in on my Tivo with antenna.


Well if you are talking about a DVR in your home each recording would be using a stream. So if you want to record two things that would only leave you with one stream to watch which would be a problem if you have other people that want to watch TV besides yourself. With a cloud DVR you can record as many things as you want and it uses zero streams. It sounds like the service you really want for your needs is DIRECTV.


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> Well if you are talking about a DVR in your home each recording would be using a stream. So if you want to record two things that would only leave you with one stream to watch which would be a problem if you have other people that want to watch TV besides yourself. With a cloud DVR you can record as many things as you want and it uses zero streams. It sounds like the service you really want for your needs is DIRECTV.


He just came from there..........


----------



## b4pjoe

I know that but what he is asking for is what DIRECTV is.


----------



## Davenlr

True, but at twice the price, and horrible service. Makes no sense to me how they can fed-ex a receiver and access card, and then cant get it to authorize and want to send a tech in the middle of covid and charge $99 for their incompetence. No, Ill put up with the cloud dvr shortcomings.

As for the 3 streams, since they would not be independent streams, they would have no reason to limit streams being recorded. The DVR's number of channels it could record would be the limiting factor I would think.


----------



## lparsons21

The cloud DVR is a double edged sword I think.

The pluses are that you can record as many simultaneous events as you want to and you could, at least theoretically access those recording from anywhere on one device or another.

The downsides are that some things are harder to accomplish. I think that padding a recording would be more difficult to accomplish since it would be encroaching on another shows stream. Not sure that I’m right about that, but it seems to make sense.

Another downside is that so far, almost all of the cloud DVRs provided have a finite time limit. That makes them unsuitable to do serious archiving like many have done with their in home DVRs.

The part of the cloud DVRs I fail to understand are the various ways the providers have done their UI. YouTubeTV’s is a mish-mash of DVR and VOD content, Sling’s is more straightforward for management, ATT’s is problematic for managing scheduled recordings. For the life of me I can’t figure out why they chose to make it so difficult.

Of course in YTTV’s defense, they have an ‘unlimited’ Cloud DVR and claim you don’t really need to manage it. To me it is a mess but one you can get used to.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> I am really surprised that YouTubeTV given Googles deep pockets, doesnt add Dolby Digital and a better DVR. They could take over the market.
> 
> It is like everyone wants to get into the game, but no one wants to go all in.


Yeah, YouTubeTV could be the 'go to' live streaming service if they had DD5.1 and improved their video just a little. Their DVR is fine even if kind of a mess to deal with. But their video has just a little too much motion artifacting to me. I know that adding DD5.1 to the stream would add to the bandwidth needs but since almost all of the VOD services have it, it shouldn't be all that daunting.


----------



## Davenlr

Well, ATT TV folks were so helpful, got me set up in less than 15 minutes, stayed on the phone until I downloaded the app, and made sure it worked ok. Their internet folks were also helpful when I initially signed up.
DirecTV on the other hand, seems like they couldnt fry an egg on a stove in a pan without consulting with the janitorial staff, the building manager, and the manufacturer of the pan, all by text messaging while you starve to death waiting for the egg.
I know for a fact they only need TWO items to add a box to their system, the RID, and the Access Card number, but yet, they sent me a refurb box with an access card, and then could not even get it to work, and absolutely refused to pair that access card with Any of my owned HR24's, H24's, or H25 even though it showed on their system I owned them (and even if I didnt, what difference would it make?). Then wanting to charge for a tech to come fix something that isn't broken (the signal was 100 on 101, and 97 on 99 and 103) so what was he going to fix for $99? Yep, bring another box and access card. They used to be such an easy company to work with. Now they do everything they can to piss you off, and rip you off.
@b4pjoe was right, I WANTED to keep DirecTV. I liked DirecTv. I just cannot deal with a failing company, overseas unintelligible agents, and 4 departments that have to send text messages to each other because they cannot even do a conference call. If ATT is trying to run DirecTv into the ground, they are doing a great job.
ATT TV on the other hand, other than their DVR, is top of the line, like DirecTv used to be. I really wish they would sell DirecTv to Dish. Not sure how anal Dish is, as Ive never tried them, but relatives across town have it, and seem to love it.


----------



## lparsons21

Yeah, the few times I dealt with ATT TV’s support, it wasn’t bad at all, even when I called to cancel with them. They handled the cancellation and even waived the ETF since I was switching to ATT TV Now.

Unfortunately with TV Now the support is chat/email only and can be a bit frustrating from reports I’ve read. For me, with a grandfathered plan, I have to be a bit careful and less impulsive. Because if I cancel and it hits the end date I can’t get the plan back. And to go to ATT TV with no contract and have the channels I have now the cost would be at least $15/more per month not counting any premiums I might get.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> The downsides are that some things are harder to accomplish. I think that padding a recording would be more difficult to accomplish since it would be encroaching on another shows stream. Not sure that I'm right about that, but it seems to make sense.


No, AT&T TV's cloud DVR (and, as far as I know, YTTV's and Hulu Live's cloud DVR) allow for an unlimited number of simultaneous recordings in the cloud. So extending/padding recording times would have no negative impact on the user. The fixed number of concurrent streams you're allowed (3 for AT&T TV) only applies to actual viewing, whether that's live TV, recorded TV, or VOD.



lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, YouTubeTV could be the 'go to' live streaming service if they had DD5.1 and improved their video just a little. Their DVR is fine even if kind of a mess to deal with. But their video has just a little too much motion artifacting to me. I know that adding DD5.1 to the stream would add to the bandwidth needs but since almost all of the VOD services have it, it shouldn't be all that daunting.


Well, if YTTV wants to be a full-blown no-compromise cable TV service that can really compete head-on with the big boys, they'll also need to carry the Hallmark and A+E network groups, plus offer some way to get those RSNs (unless Sinclair launches their own standalone OTT subscription service for their RSNs).


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> No, AT&T TV's cloud DVR (and, as far as I know, YTTV's and Hulu Live's cloud DVR) allow for an unlimited number of simultaneous recordings in the cloud. So extending/padding recording times would have no negative impact on the user.


Are they the user's recordings or is the service making a recording of the show and giving access to the recordings? IIRC YTTV was making post recording adjustments for sports overruns so I'm thinking that (at least on their service) the recording was the service's. Adding a blanket pad would have a minimum impact on the service but having each customer select their own padding? The easier solution would be to provide a maximum padding (hour before, two hours after?) and either have an employee at the service adjust to cover the actual program or allow the customer to rewind before the beginning time and continue to watch after the end time within that padding allowance.

Other than watching an on demand version, does any service allow watching recorded programs from linear channels where the program was not set to record before the air time?


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> Are they the user's recordings or is the service making a recording of the show and giving access to the recordings?


That's a good technical question and I don't know the answer. But even if it's the latter case (service makes a master recording and gives access to each user who requests it via setting up a recording), it seems fairly trivial to enable padding. Just create master recordings of every single program on every single channel available (including each separate local). A master database would keep track of the sequence of programs on each channel, so if a user set up a recording for a program beginning 2 minutes early and ending 15 minutes late, then the provisioned stream for that user's "recording" would actually include 3 separate master program recordings queued up, seamlessly jumping from one to the next -- the last 2 minutes of program A, all of program B (the actual program the user set up to record), and the first 15 minutes of program C.

When everything is stored in the cloud and it's all served up via IP streams, such a scenario shouldn't be a big deal.



James Long said:


> Other than watching an on demand version, does any service allow watching recorded programs from linear channels where the program was not set to record before the air time?


I know that, at least in Fubo TV's case, the cloud DVR will record the entire program even if you don't tune in and tell it to record until after the program has begun. That service also offers a 72-hr "Lookback" feature that lets you watch (AFAIK) everything that aired in the last 3 days on-demand, regardless of whether you set it up to record to DVR. (I don't know, though, whether you can FF through ads in Lookback like you can in their cloud DVR recordings.)

Some managed IPTV providers on the TiVo platform, such as RCN, have a similar feature. I think that particular UI lets you scroll backward (leftward) in the channel grid guide through the previous 3 days and select something to watch (which makes a lot of sense because, as RCN markets it, the feature is "like a time machine for your TV").

That would be a killer feature for AT&T TV to adopt, IMO. If they're doing master recordings of every program on every channel anyway, it wouldn't be a big deal to provision, technically. Just a matter of negotiating the rights to do it with all the channels. I assume it costs the MVPD *something* to offer that feature.


----------



## Davenlr

Just for the heck of it , I checked dish network, and if I decline locals (I get them on my Tivo with an antenna for free), I can get a 500hr hopper, 2 4K Joeys, an equivalent package to what I have now, with a free DVR fee due to being a vet, for $15 a month less than ATT TV. Of course, that would be a two year contract but no big hike the second year. Just something to keep in my back pocket. I *think* Dish still cuts the resolution from 1920x1080 to 1080x1080 but not sure. I was just surprised they were so much cheaper than DirecTv.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> Just a matter of negotiating the rights to do it with all the channels. I assume it costs the MVPD *something* to offer that feature.


The rights would be the big hurdle - linear MVPDs generally send their programs out and leave the recording to equipment in the customer's home. There are laws that relate to OTA broadcasts not being rebroadcast by cable companies. Moving the DVR from the customer's home to the MVPD's server farm with the recording still in the control of the end user seems to be supported. But channels likely would not support schemes that lead to having their commercials skipped.

The vMVPDs are paying for storage space. Shared recordings would mean less recording space needed (although schemes have been described where "similar" data in allegedly individual recordings helped save server space). It would certainly save space keeping one copy of each program instead of one copy per subscriber.


----------



## James Long

Davenlr said:


> I *think* Dish still cuts the resolution from 1920x1080 to 1080x1080 but not sure. I was just surprised they were so much cheaper than DirecTv.


The accusation was 1440x1080 ... but it is was a compression scheme - originally introduced by DIRECTV when they had a lack of bandwidth. The receiver output remains 1920x1080 or 1280x720, depending on settings. If one leaves the channel "full resolution" one still has plenty of other ways of ruining the signal through other compression schemes.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Just for the heck of it , I checked dish network, and if I decline locals (I get them on my Tivo with an antenna for free), I can get a 500hr hopper, 2 4K Joeys, an equivalent package to what I have now, with a free DVR fee due to being a vet, for $15 a month less than ATT TV. Of course, that would be a two year contract but no big hike the second year. Just something to keep in my back pocket. I *think* Dish still cuts the resolution from 1920x1080 to 1080x1080 but not sure. I was just surprised they were so much cheaper than DirecTv.


Yes. The PQ is horrible


----------



## swyman18

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, YouTubeTV could be the 'go to' live streaming service if they had DD5.1 and improved their video just a little.


Not to get too off topic, but I've been reevaluating YTTV again recently and a recent app update on AppleTV seems to have made the PQ quite a bit sharper, at least to my eyes. I've seen a few comments on the Reddit sub where people have noticed the same.

Also... for the first time, I have encountered actual DD5.1 on some HBO/Cinemax/Showtime VOD content using the AppleTV app. I know many people have said that YTTV has had DD5.1 on some VOD content for a while, but this is the first time I've actually seen it in person.

And yes, I am sure it is not my AVR simulating surround from the stereo signal. 

Anyway, here's hoping things are heading in the right direction for YTTV when it comes to PQ and AQ.


----------



## lparsons21

Yeah, YTTV looks very good on AppleTV, Roku and ATT’s streaming boxes. Not quite as good as ATT’s, but close enough that if they had DD5.1 on live streams I’d probably make the switch. For me it would be essentially a zero sum switchover.

I have seen some DD5.1 on a few VOD’s on them also.


----------



## espaeth

NashGuy said:


> I also read that sports are a problem with Fubo TV's DVR -- specifically that you can't reliably start watching while the event is still recording because it often glitches and takes you to live or near the end of the recording, spoiling the result.


This seems to be platform specific. The FireTV and Samsung smart TV apps, in particular, seem to have the most problems. It's pretty clear that Fubo's development focus (or best resources) work on Apple TV, Roku, and the mobile apps.

For what it's worth, I watch "catch up to live" events on NBCSN several times a week using an AppleTV and it's never been a problem.


----------



## compnurd

I know some people are harping on ATT having exclusive features on the Osprey compared to all of the other devices.. However Google Does the same thing with YTTV and Google TV devices

*Devices with Google TV offer an enhanced experience*
Your entertainment all in one place:


Get personal recommendations from YouTube TV and your streaming services all in one place
Browse through channels in the dedicated Live tab
Navigate with a remote that has a programmable button for YouTube TV


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> Yes. The PQ is horrible


Eh, I had DISH for a few years and my parents still have it. The picture is, overall, softer and less vibrant than AT&T TV or DirecTV but I wouldn't say it's horrible. You'd notice a difference switching to it from AT&T TV but DISH is still definitely better than Comcast TV or Uverse TV. (At least based on how those services looked in years past when I and family members had them.)



espaeth said:


> This seems to be platform specific. The FireTV and Samsung smart TV apps, in particular, seem to have the most problems. It's pretty clear that Fubo's development focus (or best resources) work on Apple TV, Roku, and the mobile apps.
> 
> For what it's worth, I watch "catch up to live" events on NBCSN several times a week using an AppleTV and it's never been a problem.


Good to know. It's difficult to make generalizations about any of these vMVPDs because they all seem to have somewhat different user experiences based on the device being used. It's a much tougher deal than the old days when operators only had to worry about making their service work correctly on their own boxes.



compnurd said:


> I know some people are harping on ATT having exclusive features on the Osprey compared to all of the other devices.. However Google Does the same thing with YTTV and Google TV devices
> 
> *Devices with Google TV offer an enhanced experience*
> Your entertainment all in one place:
> 
> 
> Get personal recommendations from YouTube TV and your streaming services all in one place
> Browse through channels in the dedicated Live tab
> Navigate with a remote that has a programmable button for YouTube TV


Yeah, there are some nice little perks to using YTTV with the new Chromecast with Google TV (or one of the forthcoming Sony or TCL smart TVs running Google TV). But, IMO, it's not at the same level of difference you'd get by using AT&T TV with their box, largely due to its remote that's customized for the service with channel up/down buttons, a DVR list button, a guide button, a record button, a last channel button, etc.

Beyond that, I'm pretty sure that there are no playback feature differences for YTTV on the Chromecast vs. Roku, Apple TV or Fire TV. Meanwhile, with AT&T TV, you can pause live TV up to 90 minutes (and do trickplay in the buffer) on their own box but you can only pause for 2 minutes using their app for other devices.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> Eh, I had DISH for a few years and my parents still have it. The picture is, overall, softer and less vibrant than AT&T TV or DirecTV but I wouldn't say it's horrible. You'd notice a difference switching to it from AT&T TV but DISH is still definitely better than Comcast TV or Uverse TV. (At least based on how those services looked in years past when I and family members had them.)
> 
> Good to know. It's difficult to make generalizations about any of these vMVPDs because they all seem to have somewhat different user experiences based on the device being used. It's a much tougher deal than the old days when operators only had to worry about making their service work correctly on their own boxes.
> 
> Yeah, there are some nice little perks to using YTTV with the new Chromecast with Google TV (or one of the forthcoming Sony or TCL smart TVs running Google TV). But, IMO, it's not at the same level of difference you'd get by using AT&T TV with their box, largely due to its remote that's customized for the service with channel up/down buttons, a DVR list button, a guide button, a record button, a last channel button, etc.
> 
> Beyond that, I'm pretty sure that there are no playback feature differences for YTTV on the Chromecast vs. Roku, Apple TV or Fire TV. Meanwhile, with AT&T TV, you can pause live TV up to 90 minutes (and do trickplay in the buffer) on their own box but you can only pause for 2 minutes using their app for other devices.


Its horrible.. lol

On the GTV Front, there could be more perks to usings Google TV that we dont know of.. Yes they document a couple but there could be more


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> Its horrible.. lol


If you think DISH's HD PQ is horrible, you should try Comcast, where everything is downrezzed to 720p and super-compressed. Don't get me wrong, I think all cable TV services, even AT&T TV, pale in comparison to the HD (and 4K HDR) PQ you get from major SVODs. The HD on HBO Max is gorgeous.



compnurd said:


> On the GTV Front, there could be more perks to usings Google TV that we dont know of.. Yes they document a couple but there could be more


I don't think so. I keep up with Google stuff pretty well. I was aware of all the ones you posted above. And even some of those perks aren't supposed to remain exclusive to YTTV, as Google has said that the Live guide in the Google TV home screen will eventually include other live channel-based services beyond just YTTV. Seems they're following Amazon's lead there, as the Fire TV live guide includes premium linear channels subbed via Prime Video Channels (e.g. Showtime, Showtime 2, Showtime Extreme, etc.), OTA channels from the Fire TV Recast, free streaming channels from Pluto TV, plus subscription cable channels from YTTV, Sling, Hulu Live and Philo. I'm generally not a fan of the Fire TV UI but I have to hand it to Amazon, they're far in the lead in terms of offering an integrated UI for live channel-based sources.

How cord-cutters can tap into the Amazon Fire TV's hidden channel-surfing powers


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> If you think DISH's HD PQ is horrible, you should try Comcast, where everything is downrezzed to 720p and super-compressed. Don't get me wrong, I think all cable TV services, even AT&T TV, pale in comparison to the HD (and 4K HDR) PQ you get from major SVODs. The HD on HBO Max is gorgeous.


IMO, Sling's PQ is tolerable for most things but it is horrendous with boxing. Artifacts all over the place! For other stuff it isn't so bad though even panning shots during a show have that slight jerkiness which makes it not so great. They really need to work on providing a better PQ, right now it is the worst of the live streamers I've looked at.

YouTubeTV's PQ is much better with only some very slight motion artifacting.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> I don't think so. I keep up with Google stuff pretty well. I was aware of all the ones you posted above. And even some of those perks aren't supposed to remain exclusive to YTTV, as Google has said that the Live guide in the Google TV home screen will eventually include other live channel-based services beyond just YTTV. Seems they're following Amazon's lead there, as the Fire TV live guide includes premium linear channels subbed via Prime Video Channels (e.g. Showtime, Showtime 2, Showtime Extreme, etc.), OTA channels from the Fire TV Recast, free streaming channels from Pluto TV, plus subscription cable channels from YTTV, Sling, Hulu Live and Philo. I'm generally not a fan of the Fire TV UI but I have to hand it to Amazon, they're far in the lead in terms of offering an integrated UI for live channel-based sources.
> 
> How cord-cutters can tap into the Amazon Fire TV's hidden channel-surfing powers


The integrated live guide is mostly a plus IF you take the time to massage what shows up. The default just stuffs them all in there making one huge list of channels among the various services.

As to the 'channels', well Apple and Roku also have them for many of the services. The downside is often that if there is some really great deal out there, it isn't offered via those channels. Things like Showtime's one month free then 6 months @$4.99/month and HBO's prepaid 20% off deal for 6 months.


----------



## harperhometheater

It also depends on what day and time you watch due to network conditions. AT&T TV didn’t look so hot last night for some reason. Soft, pixelated, digital artifacts, etc. Later in the evening it cleared up some for whatever reason. One of the downfalls of “in the cloud” streaming for sure.


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> It also depends on what day and time you watch due to network conditions. AT&T TV didn't look so hot last night for some reason. Soft, pixelated, digital artifacts, etc. Later in the evening it cleared up some for whatever reason. One of the downfalls of "in the cloud" streaming for sure.


I didn't notice that last night.

The only issue I had was one that has been there since day one for me, and that is my local ABC station. It has some oddity in the audio that I can't quite describe.


----------



## compnurd

Yeh i didnt notice anything either last night.. Of course through you are in HI and could be coming out of a different CDN then us


----------



## Davenlr

harperhometheater said:


> It also depends on what day and time you watch due to network conditions. AT&T TV didn't look so hot last night for some reason. Soft, pixelated, digital artifacts, etc. Later in the evening it cleared up some for whatever reason. One of the downfalls of "in the cloud" streaming for sure.


Weird, I watched ATT TV all night, and it never changed here in Arkansas. Maybe regional internet slowdown? That is one thing that drives me nuts with regular Youtube. It starts off fuzzy and then jumps to sorta fuzzy then finally jumps to HD. Glad to know Dish is a little fuzzy compared to ATT. Better than Xfinity is a pretty easy bar to jump


----------



## compnurd

Waiting on a confirmed source Supposedly effective 2/25

Updates:

AT&T just announced that you can have 20 simultaneous streams as long as it’s under the same wifi connection.

Cloud DVR storage has been increased from 500 GB to unlimited.


----------



## harperhometheater

compnurd said:


> Yeh i didnt notice anything either last night.. Of course through you are in HI and could be coming out of a different CDN then us


Yes this is most likely the cause. It was pretty late for me when watching last night from HI, so it was in the middle of the night for most if not all of you.

I think us here in HI are also hit with the "overnight system update" quality issues that most don't see on the mainland.


----------



## harperhometheater

compnurd said:


> Waiting on a confirmed source Supposedly effective 2/25
> 
> Updates:
> 
> AT&T just announced that you can have 20 simultaneous streams as long as it's under the same wifi connection.
> 
> Cloud DVR storage has been increased from 500 GB to unlimited.
> 
> This just adds much greater value to this subscription.


That would be sweet! Maybe they'll package this update with the new AT&T TV Android box?


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> That would be sweet! Maybe they'll package this update with the new AT&T TV Android box?


I doubt they are tied together.. This is more likely to stem the noise from the YTTV changes


----------



## lparsons21

Well crap! ATT TV Now going up 3/25/2021!


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/AttTVNow/comments/lq1nsn


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Well crap! ATT TV Now going up 3/25/2021!
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/AttTVNow/comments/lq1nsn


Kinda figured it was coming. There not trying to compete in the YTTV and Hulu space


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Kinda figured it was coming. There not trying to compete in the YTTV and Hulu space


Well they've succeeded! 

Since I don't need RSNs and I can get DD5.1 for almost any other show one way or another and my billing date was coming up very shortly, I've moved over to YTTV. Picture almost as good, plenty more channels even some I actually might watch and it saves me money.


----------



## harperhometheater

lparsons21 said:


> Well crap! ATT TV Now going up 3/25/2021!
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/AttTVNow/comments/lq1nsn


Your link doesn't work for me. Does this include regular AT&T TV (No Contract)?


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> Your link doesn't work for me. Does this include regular AT&T TV (No Contract)?


No, the price increases are all for the grandfathered ATT TV Now subscriptions.

Here's possibly a better link to a news story about it.


----------



## lparsons21

lparsons21 said:


> No, the price increases are all for the grandfathered ATT TV Now subscriptions.
> 
> Here's possibly a better link to a news story about it.


Damn!! If that doesn't work, google for "The Streamable" for an article about it.


----------



## Davenlr

Unlimited.... I get a whopping 20 hours. I wont pay a dime for any more until they stop cutting off my live sports.

Tonight, I am having to watch live. The cloud DVR is cutting me off every 5 or 10 minutes. Totally unacceptable.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> Unlimited.... I get a whopping 20 hours. I wont pay a dime for any more until they stop cutting off my live sports.


Yeah, that non-contract 20 hours is a real joke! 50 hours would have made more sense for lots of people. And the article is just vague enough that I can't tell if the non-contract will be unlimited or if they will have to pay $10 to make it so.

I really wish Sling's PQ was a bit better, but that motion artifacting with live sports just makes it horrible to watch. Not bad on the regular scripted stuff though.


----------



## Davenlr

The way I read it, we would still have to pay $10 for it. It doesnt work, so I sure wont pay more.
Adding unlimited streams to the same network isnt going to help the already not working cloud DVR either.
I am waiting for Xfinity to get tired of losing customers and boot their PQ back up to 1080i


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> Damn!! If that doesn't work, google for "The Streamable" for an article about it.


AT&T TV to Add Unlimited DVR and In-Home Streaming to Live TV Streaming Service, Raise Legacy Plan Prices

I fix it


----------



## harperhometheater

Davenlr said:


> Unlimited.... I get a whopping 20 hours. I wont pay a dime for any more until they stop cutting off my live sports.
> 
> Tonight, I am having to watch live. The cloud DVR is cutting me off every 5 or 10 minutes. Totally unacceptable.





Davenlr said:


> The way I read it, we would still have to pay $10 for it. It doesnt work, so I sure wont pay more.
> Adding unlimited streams to the same network isnt going to help the already not working cloud DVR either.
> I am waiting for Xfinity to get tired of losing customers and boot their PQ back up to 1080i


Haven't had any issues whatsoever with their Cloud DVR and I don't recall others reporting any either. As I said previously, it sounds like an internal network issue, quality wise.

That'll be a *LONG* wait for Comcrap/Xfilthy!


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> Haven't had any issues whatsoever with their Cloud DVR and I don't recall others reporting any either. As I said previously, it sounds like an internal network issue, quality wise.
> 
> That'll be a *LONG* wait for Comcrap/Xfilthy!


Same. I have never had an issue with the DVR


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> Haven't had any issues whatsoever with their Cloud DVR and I don't recall others reporting any either. As I said previously, it sounds like an internal network issue, quality wise.
> 
> That'll be a *LONG* wait for Comcrap/Xfilthy!


He's referring to the lack of a way to pad a recording and the poor way to manage future recordings I think.


----------



## lparsons21

techguy88 said:


> AT&T TV to Add Unlimited DVR and In-Home Streaming to Live TV Streaming Service, Raise Legacy Plan Prices
> 
> I fix it


I'm using Tapatalk and for whatever reason copying a link in the browser doesn't paste right. Thanks for the fix.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> He's referring to the lack of a way to pad a recording and the poor way to manage future recordings I think.


I mean it is what it is. It isnt a traditional DVR, never pretended to be and will never be


----------



## Davenlr

Well, if it is an internal network issue (DVR recordings stopping midstream with spinning circle) it would have to be one of two things. 1: Their Gateway or 2: All 4 of my Roku's. I have a Osprey box I coming tomorrow. If that does the same thing, then they will have to send a tech out to fix their gateway.
The strange thing is, I can watch live and it NEVER buffers or errors. Only when watching the cloud DVR, and only during prime time. Later at night, it works fine.


----------



## harperhometheater

lparsons21 said:


> He's referring to the lack of a way to pad a recording and the poor way to manage future recordings I think.


That doesn't sound like the case. He mentions the padding a little, but then talks about the recordings cutting off and buffering.........



Davenlr said:


> Unlimited.... I get a whopping 20 hours. I wont pay a dime for any more until they stop cutting off my live sports.
> 
> *Tonight, I am having to watch live. The cloud DVR is cutting me off every 5 or 10 minutes. Totally unacceptable.*





Davenlr said:


> Well, if it is an internal network issue (DVR recordings stopping midstream with spinning circle) it would have to be one of two things. 1: Their Gateway or 2: All 4 of my Roku's.  I have a Osprey box I coming tomorrow. If that does the same thing, then they will have to send a tech out to fix their gateway.
> 
> *The strange thing is, I can watch live and it NEVER buffers or errors. Only when watching the cloud DVR, and only during prime time. Later at night, it works fine.*


OK maybe not internal, but sounds local if anything. Maybe their local node gets overloaded during PrimeTime when most folks are home and streaming and browsing after filling up their bellies. Maybe it's a good idea to get a tech there.

What router do you have? I know some like mine have the capability to watch network traffic video with a nice graph or GUI so you can see it and what's happening during these peak times. Also I think if you open a support ticket, the MSO is able to setup some sort of traffic monitoring for awhile and then they can check the logs the next day for any anomalies.


----------



## b4pjoe

AT&T TV Adds More Simultaneous Streams and Cloud DVR Features | Cord Cutters News



> *More simultaneous streams*
> 
> Best of all, there's no additional charges for this new feature and no action is needed by the customer. All customers, whether on month-to-month or longer-term contracts, get the feature automatically.
> 
> *Note that Some networks are excluded from the 20 in-home streams, including Fox networks, Starz, NHL Network, Showtime, and PBS.*


----------



## Davenlr

harperhometheater said:


> OK maybe not internal, but sounds local if anything. Maybe their local node gets overloaded during PrimeTime when most folks are home and streaming and browsing after filling up their bellies. Maybe it's a good idea to get a tech there.
> 
> What router do you have?


Today it was 3pm to 5pm local time. Been watching the DVR since 5pm, and no issues.
Gateway (modem/router) is their

ARRIS
*Model Number* BGW210-700
*Software Version* 2.10.6
*First Use Date* 2020/09/16 21:45:14
*Time Since Last Reboot* 13:16:35:08
*Current Date/Time* 2021-02-23T18:42:10

Service is ATT Fiber 1gb/s
If you need the model of the fiber to ethernet adapter on the wall, I can get that, but its in the back of a media closet.

If its any help to diagnose these are the two scenarios:
With no intervention: Stops playing with spinning circle: Gives error its taking to long: starts the show over from the begining
IF I HIT PLAY as soon as spinning circle comes up: Skips back 15 seconds, replays the last 15 seconds with closed captioning on, then continues on without closed captioning as normal.
When this happens, there is no change in ping response to www.att.com on my computer.


----------



## compnurd

I am leaning towards Roku problem


----------



## Davenlr

compnurd said:


> I am leaning towards Roku problem


Should get the Osprey tomorrow. Will see. If not, Ill be following Lparsons21 to YTTV


----------



## harperhometheater

compnurd said:


> I am leaning towards Roku problem


I am in agreement with you. I assumed he has already tried the Osprey, but I guess he hadn't yet.


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> I'm using Tapatalk and for whatever reason copying a link in the browser doesn't paste right. Thanks for the fix.


You and Tapatalk didn't do anything wrong. It's something to do with the forum in general. If you copy and paste a bare link from The Streamable into a post and then select "Post Reply" the forum software thinks the link is a multimedia link because the word "stream" in Streamable. So it codes the link as if it is a YouTube video.

You have to manually copy or type the headline (or some text like "Link") then select the text and link it manually for it to work correctly.


----------



## compnurd

Osprey got another update last night Channel changing speed is really quick now


----------



## Steveknj

Hey all, with the new announcement yesterday that they will be increasing streams from 3 to 20 for most channels and unlimited DVR option, I'm back to seriously considering moving from DirecTV to this. There are still a few questions, some I might have asked before, and some I was just wondering if things have changed:

With the DVR....I have 5 users in my household. Is the DVR provisioned by user, or is it one massive DVR for the household?

Advanced sound....Are the streams using DD or other advanced sound?

Any word about bringing in PBS? Outside of PBS (and in my area CW) this has all the other channels I'd need with the right package.

Do I need the external (Osprey) device or can I just use the app? What is the cost of the dedicated box? I have all kinds of streaming devices (roku, Firestick, Android TV, smart TV), so adding another device would be something that might be nice to avoid. I see Roku at least has the app. How much is the external device?

I'll skim though the thread for the rest of my questions. But at least we are getting closer to chord cutting than ever.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> Hey all, with the new announcement yesterday that they will be increasing streams from 3 to 20 for most channels and unlimited DVR option, I'm back to seriously considering moving from DirecTV to this. There are still a few questions, some I might have asked before, and some I was just wondering if things have changed:
> 
> With the DVR....I have 5 users in my household. Is the DVR provisioned by user, or is it one massive DVR for the household? The DVR is one massive for the account
> 
> Advanced sound....Are the streams using DD or other advanced sound? DD+ 5.1
> 
> Any word about bringing in PBS? Outside of PBS (and in my area CW) this has all the other channels I'd need with the right package. No Word on PBS
> 
> Do I need the external (Osprey) device or can I just use the app? What is the cost of the dedicated box? I have all kinds of streaming devices (roku, Firestick, Android TV, smart TV), so adding another device would be something that might be nice to avoid. I see Roku at least has the app. How much is the external device? For the most as close to Directv experience get the Osprey Box with the remote. You can buy the boxes used on ebay for 50 bucks
> 
> I'll skim though the thread for the rest of my questions. But at least we are getting closer to chord cutting than ever.


With the DVR....I have 5 users in my household. Is the DVR provisioned by user, or is it one massive DVR for the household? *The DVR is one massive for the account*

Advanced sound....Are the streams using DD or other advanced sound? *DD+ 5.1*

Any word about bringing in PBS? Outside of PBS (and in my area CW) this has all the other channels I'd need with the right package. *No Word on PBS*

Do I need the external (Osprey) device or can I just use the app? What is the cost of the dedicated box? I have all kinds of streaming devices (roku, Firestick, Android TV, smart TV), so adding another device would be something that might be nice to avoid. I see Roku at least has the app. How much is the external device? *For the as close to Directv experience get the Osprey Box with the remote. You can buy the boxes used on ebay for 50 bucks*


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> With the DVR....I have 5 users in my household. Is the DVR provisioned by user, or is it one massive DVR for the household? *The DVR is one massive for the account*
> 
> Advanced sound....Are the streams using DD or other advanced sound? *DD+ 5.1*
> 
> Any word about bringing in PBS? Outside of PBS (and in my area CW) this has all the other channels I'd need with the right package. *No Word on PBS*
> 
> Do I need the external (Osprey) device or can I just use the app? What is the cost of the dedicated box? I have all kinds of streaming devices (roku, Firestick, Android TV, smart TV), so adding another device would be something that might be nice to avoid. I see Roku at least has the app. How much is the external device? *For the as close to Directv experience get the Osprey Box with the remote. You can buy the boxes used on ebay for 50 bucks*


Thanks for your response. I'm surprised that they haven't provisioned the DVR at all. I think some of the other streaming services do that. And I think of services such as Netflix, Disney+ and so forth that allow different "accounts" so that you can see just what you want to see and set up watch lists. Currently, I know DirecTV has moved to a ONE DVR for all model as well, but, we still have three DVRs and thus three "separate" views if we want to have it that way. That might be a sticking point in my house as I can see it being a pain to scroll through all the stuff other people have recorded to get to what you want to watch.

Shame about PBS. I still (believe it or not) have a basic cable account so I can still pull in CW and PBS that way, just can't record. I can live with that. Does the app use DD 5.1 as well? I'd probably get at least one Osprey box, but I don't know if I'd spring for 5.


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Osprey got another update last night Channel changing speed is really quick now


Everything is very much faster now! This is the best upgrade so far. Still no Hulu support.

PBS & The CW = Neither are there with no indication they ever will be. PBS so far is only with YouTubeTV. So workarounds.
PBS = get antenna if practical or use the PBS app
The CW = use the app, it is free to use but of course, has the unskippable ads.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> Should get the Osprey tomorrow. Will see. If not, Ill be following Lparsons21 to YTTV


Well....

I am guilty of impulses!! . YTTV does have a lot more channels and the video is almost as good as ATT's but does have some motion artifacting that isn't horrible. BUT, I still prefer the overall experience with ATT. So I'm out some money but back on ATT TV Now Max.

This February update is awesome for performance! Much quicker in all processes, channel changes, app loading, button response, all much faster. But do note that the initial setup of the Osprey is a bit on the slow side, or at least was. One of the steps in the setup is to get the latest update, so things might go quicker.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Well....
> 
> I am guilty of impulses!! . YTTV does have a lot more channels and the video is almost as good as ATT's but does have some motion artifacting that isn't horrible. BUT, I still prefer the overall experience with ATT. So I'm out some money but back on ATT TV Now Max.
> 
> This February update is awesome for performance! Much quicker in all processes, channel changes, app loading, button response, all much faster. But do note that the initial setup of the Osprey is a bit on the slow side, or at least was. One of the steps in the setup is to get the latest update, so things might go quicker.


There is definitely some loading of items into memory after a reboot. Once done everything speeds up


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> There is definitely some loading of items into memory after a reboot. Once done everything speeds up


That seems to be true across Android type devices.


----------



## lparsons21

Steveknj said:


> Shame about PBS. I still (believe it or not) have a basic cable account so I can still pull in CW and PBS that way, just can't record. I can live with that. Does the app use DD 5.1 as well? I'd probably get at least one Osprey box, but I don't know if I'd spring for 5.


Since my sound system always reports DD+ when using the Osprey box, I tried the CW app on my Roku Ultra. Just stereo for the few shows I checked.

I don't do PBS so can't say what that app might do.


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> Since my sound system always reports DD+ when using the Osprey box, I tried the CW app on my Roku Ultra. Just stereo for the few shows I checked.
> 
> I don't do PBS so can't say what that app might do.


I'm not overly worried about sound for PBS/CW. What about streaming through the AT&T TV app? Is that also DD+?


----------



## lparsons21

Steveknj said:


> I'm not overly worried about sound for PBS/CW. What about streaming through the AT&T TV app? Is that also DD+?


If the app does DD or DD+ on AndroidTV versions, then yes it is. And for those apps that only provide stereo the device will attempt to fake it with fairly good results IMO. And with the ATT TV app itself on the Osprey, if the channel is in DD5.1 then it will give you DD+.

On other boxes, it varies a bit. For the most part the ATT TV app does the same as on the Osprey with sound, but for some odd reason there are a few channels that don't when using the AppleTV version.


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> If the app does DD or DD+ on AndroidTV versions, then yes it is. And for those apps that only provide stereo the device will attempt to fake it with fairly good results IMO. And with the ATT TV app itself on the Osprey, if the channel is in DD5.1 then it will give you DD+.
> 
> On other boxes, it varies a bit. For the most part the ATT TV app does the same as on the Osprey with sound, but for some odd reason there are a few channels that don't when using the AppleTV version.


Thanks. Lastly is there a "free trial" offer? I'd like to give it spin without having to sign up and go through all that.


----------



## lparsons21

Steveknj said:


> Thanks. Lastly is there a "free trial" offer? I'd like to give it spin without having to sign up and go through all that.


There is, look at the fine print on the website. I think it is 14 days. They don't make it obvious!


----------



## b4pjoe

Steveknj said:


> Thanks. Lastly is there a "free trial" offer? I'd like to give it spin without having to sign up and go through all that.


If you get the 2 year contract version they give you one box free. If you get the no contract version and want the unlimited DVR you'll have to pay an extra $10 per month over the price of the package. You would have to buy any boxes you might want. $120 a piece from AT&T or as mentioned earlier you can get them on ebay for around $50. I know on the contract version you can cancel before 2 weeks are up and you must return the free box. Not sure if the no contract version has a trial period or not.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> Thanks. Lastly is there a "free trial" offer? I'd like to give it spin without having to sign up and go through all that.


14 days


b4pjoe said:


> If you get the 2 year contract version they give you one box free. If you get the no contract version and want the unlimited DVR you'll have to pay an extra $10 per month over the price of the package. You would have to buy any boxes you might want. $120 a piece from AT&T or as mentioned earlier you can get them on ebay for around $50. I know on the contract version you can cancel before 2 weeks are up and you must return the free box. Not sure if the no contract version has a trial period or not.


It is 14 days also.. But it is month to month anyway


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Well....
> 
> I am guilty of impulses!! . YTTV does have a lot more channels and the video is almost as good as ATT's but does have some motion artifacting that isn't horrible. BUT, I still prefer the overall experience with ATT. So I'm out some money but back on ATT TV Now Max.
> 
> This February update is awesome for performance! Much quicker in all processes, channel changes, app loading, button response, all much faster. But do note that the initial setup of the Osprey is a bit on the slow side, or at least was. One of the steps in the setup is to get the latest update, so things might go quicker.


Welcome back lol


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Welcome back ol


Smart ass!


----------



## harperhometheater

lparsons21 said:


> Smart ass!


Always better than being a dumb ass! 

(*Not saying you are one. Just in general!)


----------



## Davenlr

lparsons21 said:


> Well....
> 
> I am guilty of impulses!! . YTTV does have a lot more channels and the video is almost as good as ATT's but does have some motion artifacting that isn't horrible. BUT, I still prefer the overall experience with ATT.


Well, my Osprey box got DeJoy'd and wont be here until tomorrow. But, like on Que, today NONE of my Library shows stopped one single time.
I did complain to ATT on Twitter, so maybe they found something in my stream and fixed it, or I just got lucky today. Good thing the Osprey was delated or I would have assumed it fixed the problem.

I am guessing the channels you had motion artifacts on were at 30 fps instead of 60? I happened to try out the NBC app last night to watch a live show, and noticed it looked horrible on any sideways motion, got right up to the TV and vertical bars actually broke up into disjointed horizontal lines as it moved. Looked horrible. I am assuming that was because it was at 30 fps. I was on my TCL, so could not pull up the info screen like I can on the Vizio that shows the specs of the actual signal.

Went to Tmobile to get my "Tuesday Thanked" prize, and they tried to sell me their TVision. Listened to the spiel, but told them about the 30 fps and how people on the web said it looked like crap, and they said they would pass that back to their head office. Can't hurt. It sounds like a decent service if they can up the PQ.


----------



## lparsons21

Yeah, it was motion artifacts. 

Golf on both Sling and YTTV was fine and the little artifacting I noticed just wasn’t an issue.

Boxing on YTTV was almost great but even there some artifacting.

Boxing on Sling just sucked! Artifacting to an extent I just couldn’t stand to watch it at all. And to cap it off a bit of blurriness around the edges of the boxers.

Frankly for the scripted shows I could be OK with either one of them even though some panned shots would be a little ‘jerky’.


----------



## espaeth

1080i source channels (ie, all of the NBC networks) are problematic on YTTV, Hulu+Live, and Sling. Those services all have de-interlacing artifacts that are not exactly subtle. NBC's own apps (before Peacock) have garbage quality 30fps video. Peacock has better processing, though sadly everything is still 30fps. At least they do motion blur processing so it doesn't look like stop motion video.

ATT TV and FuboTV seem to do the best at de-interlacing.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Well, my Osprey box got DeJoy'd and wont be here until tomorrow. But, like on Que, today NONE of my Library shows stopped one single time.
> I did complain to ATT on Twitter, so maybe they found something in my stream and fixed it, or I just got lucky today. Good thing the Osprey was delated or I would have assumed it fixed the problem.
> 
> I am guessing the channels you had motion artifacts on were at 30 fps instead of 60? I happened to try out the NBC app last night to watch a live show, and noticed it looked horrible on any sideways motion, got right up to the TV and vertical bars actually broke up into disjointed horizontal lines as it moved. Looked horrible. I am assuming that was because it was at 30 fps. I was on my TCL, so could not pull up the info screen like I can on the Vizio that shows the specs of the actual signal.
> 
> Went to Tmobile to get my "Tuesday Thanked" prize, and they tried to sell me their TVision. Listened to the spiel, but told them about the 30 fps and how people on the web said it looked like crap, and they said they would pass that back to their head office. Can't hurt. It sounds like a decent service if they can up the PQ.


I highly doubt they found something in your stream and fixed it. Probably luck


----------



## Davenlr

compnurd said:


> I highly doubt they found something in your stream and fixed it. Probably luck


You are right. Just screwed up. Sure wish DirecTv had let me turn on my own boxes. I much preferred it.


----------



## compnurd

Unlimited dvr is active. So is the streams supposedly but not really able to test that today


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> If you get the 2 year contract version they give you one box free. If you get the no contract version and want the unlimited DVR you'll have to pay an extra $10 per month over the price of the package. You would have to buy any boxes you might want. $120 a piece from AT&T or as mentioned earlier you can get them on ebay for around $50. I know on the contract version you can cancel before 2 weeks are up and you must return the free box. Not sure if the no contract version has a trial period or not.


Thanks. My assumption here is you sign up, and once the box is hooked up, you get 14 days from that point? Wow that sounds so pricey for those boxes when I can buy a 4k streamer from Amazon for example for around $30. Even $50 for a used box sounds crazy. I guess I would get the one box and then use the app for the other TVs. Still mulling it over in my head if it's worth it to save $50 and "downgrade" from a very stable system with few glitches. AT&T Now is about as close as any streamer has gotten to make me seriously consider making the jump.


----------



## harsh

Steveknj said:


> y assumption here is you sign up, and once the box is hooked up, you get 14 days from that point?


Since AT&T TV demands only a high-speed Internet connection, I wouldn't assume that they'll wait until an AT&T TV device is activated. Apps are available for many platforms.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> Thanks. My assumption here is you sign up, and once the box is hooked up, you get 14 days from that point? Wow that sounds so pricey for those boxes when I can buy a 4k streamer from Amazon for example for around $30. Even $50 for a used box sounds crazy. I guess I would get the one box and then use the app for the other TVs. Still mulling it over in my head if it's worth it to save $50 and "downgrade" from a very stable system with few glitches. AT&T Now is about as close as any streamer has gotten to make me seriously consider making the jump.


You get 14 days from whenever you log in to watch TV from any device The boxes are kinda pricey but if you want as close to cable replacement they are worth it.. I have 5 and use the box for only TV We use the ATV for everything else


----------



## Steveknj

Thanks everyone. Nobody has any experience with using the app (I have the Roku one downloaded)


----------



## compnurd

In case anyone is wondering it is using your main IP address to determine your "Home" for the streams


Steveknj said:


> Thanks everyone. Nobody has any experience with using the app (I have the Roku one downloaded)


I use the App on my ATV.. It works great


----------



## b4pjoe

There is 59 pages in this thread with a lot of discussion about the app on Roku, ATV, Fire TV, etc....


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Unlimited dvr is active. So is the streams supposedly but not really able to test that today


Yep, unlimited DVR is active on my TV Now Max too, as the article linked to said.


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> There is 59 pages in this thread with a lot of discussion about the app on Roku, ATV, Fire TV, etc....


Yes, there have been many posts about AT&T TV and the various streaming boxes, quite a few by me, but many others have also posted their experiences.

As to when the trial period starts, well it starts the first time you log in to the service from any box including their own. For info, if you sign up for contract the box usually comes in within just a very few days, I would assume that would be true for those buying the box from AT&T.

Has anyone been able to buy the box from an AT&T store? Early reports were that they couldn't sell you one and get it on the spot.


----------



## espaeth

Looks like recordings still expire after 90 days even with the bump in DVR hours.


----------



## lparsons21

espaeth said:


> Looks like recordings still expire after 90 days even with the bump in DVR hours.


Yeah, it does. Kind of makes the unlimited of very limited value!


----------



## TheRatPatrol

AT&T TV to Allow Up to 20 Simultaneous Streams | Next TV


----------



## Davenlr

Well, got my Osprey box hooked up. What a BIG surprise when I discovered it has ALWAYS ON HDR and made my TV look like crap. Had to totally recalibrate that input, change the gamma, and white balance, but change several other settings. WHY would a box output HDR on a program without HDR encoding? Geeze.

Looks great though, once I got the TV recalibrated. When I went to log into HBOMAX, I found out two new things...first, Direct TV just billed me for a month of TV and Internet (I returned their boxes Feb 12th), and on my OTHER account, ATT TV added 20 streams and removed 3 streams...but today is the last day of my 14 day "trial" so I am totally expecting them to charge me another $69.99 plus tax. So I am just going to keep track of how much of my money ATT has, and at some point this summer, I am going to walk into one of their stores and try to find someone that can get their billing fixed, because after spending 4 hours on the phone with the Philippines to get DirecTv transferred to ATT TV, I refuse to talk to anyone in a foreign country again.

Then, I got a letter from ATT telling me they could not verify my credit rating using their methods (which I assume is google), and I might be required to pay a deposit (for what I have no idea). My credit score is over 800, so I have no clue what their issue is.

DirecTv still sends me a bill every month for my old account from 6 years ago, showing a $43 credit. Totally amazing they can stay in business.


----------



## harsh

Davenlr said:


> Then, I got a letter from ATT telling me they could not verify my credit rating using their methods (which I assume is google)


Credit ratings aren't established nor monitored by Google. That's typically the bailiwick of Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion.

If you've never paid utility bills or had an installment loan, there may be no useful records. There can issues if you've given slightly different information from what the credit reporting agencies have. I suppose there's also the possibility that records exist but AT&T hasn't bothered to look them up.


----------



## Davenlr

I was being sarcastic. I know they dont use google (or do they?)
Ive had their internet for over a year, so why would they even look up my credit? For that matter, why can they not put my internet and ATT on the same account? I tried on their website, the agent tried, and DirecTv tried. They claimed it was because ATT TV used a different system than DirecTv and ATT Fiber. I really dont care if they bill it separate, but if they do, they need to stop billing me for DirecTv which I dont have


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Well, got my Osprey box hooked up. What a BIG surprise when I discovered it has ALWAYS ON HDR and made my TV look like crap. Had to totally recalibrate that input, change the gamma, and white balance, but change several other settings. WHY would a box output HDR on a program without HDR encoding? Geeze.
> 
> Looks great though, once I got the TV recalibrated. When I went to log into HBOMAX, I found out two new things...first, Direct TV just billed me for a month of TV and Internet (I returned their boxes Feb 12th), and on my OTHER account, ATT TV added 20 streams and removed 3 streams...but today is the last day of my 14 day "trial" so I am totally expecting them to charge me another $69.99 plus tax. So I am just going to keep track of how much of my money ATT has, and at some point this summer, I am going to walk into one of their stores and try to find someone that can get their billing fixed, because after spending 4 hours on the phone with the Philippines to get DirecTv transferred to ATT TV, I refuse to talk to anyone in a foreign country again.
> 
> Then, I got a letter from ATT telling me they could not verify my credit rating using their methods (which I assume is google), and I might be required to pay a deposit (for what I have no idea). My credit score is over 800, so I have no clue what their issue is.
> 
> DirecTv still sends me a bill every month for my old account from 6 years ago, showing a $43 credit. Totally amazing they can stay in business.


Not sure why the HDR was a big surprise Discussed on here a ton and well known on the internet. It is a bug in the Android TV Software that they fixed in later versions.... No clue if the Osprey ever sees it I would also get your Directv Billing figured out sooner then later..


----------



## harperhometheater

Davenlr said:


> Well, got my Osprey box hooked up. What a BIG surprise when I discovered it has ALWAYS ON HDR and made my TV look like crap. Had to totally recalibrate that input, change the gamma, and white balance, but change several other settings. WHY would a box output HDR on a program without HDR encoding? Geeze.
> 
> Looks great though, once I got the TV recalibrated. ........


HDR doesn't use gamma, so that was probably your issue. It uses PQ (Perceptual Quantization) which is an absolute curve.

White balance should've been the same since they all use D65 white point.

Sounds to me like your TV was the issue, not mapping the SDR rec709 color gamut properly into its BT2020 ST2084 PQ HDR. I've seen many complain about this and blame the device, erroneously.

I'm not at all saying it isn't a stupid idea not to give you a choice as to how you want your source to send its images, but that's what they chose to do and technically the messed up SDR mapped into an HDR container you're seeing isn't the device's fault. This is no different than how UHD Blu rays are mastered to a DCI-P3 color gamut INSIDE a BT2020 color gamut container. Your display has to do this mapping properly or the colors will be slightly off.

All my displays and sources are properly setup and calibrated to map ALL source signals into their respective "containers" and they look amazing. In fact, my Osprey looks its best in this forced HDR mode. I've extensively gone back and forth between having it output SDR and HDR and it was no contest with HDR ahead.


----------



## Davenlr

It made a big difference changing it from 2.4 to 1.8. It was set at 2.2 for SDR, but when using the Osprey box everything was really dark. Dropping to 2.0 helped. It wasnt the white balance I changed, it was the color balance settings, for some reason when it switched to HDR, it reverted to defaults from the calibrated settings. After fixing that, and bumping up the brightness (TCL calls it TV Brightness) to Normal, and HDR Picture to DARK, it make the picture look OK. Then I had to bump the color from 45 default to 55. I am sure its the TV. It is a first gen mini-LED and has a very aggressive local dimming. All fine now, just odd there is no way to turn it off.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> It made a big difference changing it from 2.4 to 1.8. It was set at 2.2 for SDR, but when using the Osprey box everything was really dark. Dropping to 2.0 helped. It wasnt the white balance I changed, it was the color balance settings, for some reason when it switched to HDR, it reverted to defaults from the calibrated settings. After fixing that, and bumping up the brightness (TCL calls it TV Brightness) to Normal, and HDR Picture to DARK, it make the picture look OK. Then I had to bump the color from 45 default to 55. I am sure its the TV. It is a first gen mini-LED and has a very aggressive local dimming. All fine now, just odd there is no way to turn it off.


Gotta love Google


----------



## gio12

compnurd said:


> Not sure why the HDR was a big surprise Discussed on here a ton and well known on the internet. It is a bug in the Android TV Software that they fixed in later versions.... No clue if the Osprey ever sees it I would also get your Directv Billing figured out sooner then later..


So AT&T not Google is going to update this POS Osprey Box? Getting tired of the HDR issues. Why I HATE AT&T and Android. My just go back to using ATV and the crappy AT&T app or even better, head back to YTTV.


----------



## compnurd

gio12 said:


> So AT&T not Google is going to update this POPS Osprey Box? Getting tired of the HDR issues. Why I HATE AT&T and Android. My just go back to using ATV and the crappy AT&T app or even better, head back to YTTV.


Google has to fix the issue. Then ATT apply the update I doubt they ever do. It also existed in Android TV 9 but they fixed it somewhat early


----------



## Davenlr

I have a DVDO I could run the Osprey box through. Since it does not support 4K or HDR (Its HDMI 1.3), it would force the box to 1080p, which should work OK. At the moment though, I am thinking it looks pretty decent after playing with the TV settings.


----------



## harperhometheater

Davenlr said:


> It made a big difference changing it from 2.4 to 1.8. It was set at 2.2 for SDR, but when using the Osprey box everything was really dark. Dropping to 2.0 helped. It wasnt the white balance I changed, it was the color balance settings, for some reason when it switched to HDR, it reverted to defaults from the calibrated settings. After fixing that, and bumping up the brightness (TCL calls it TV Brightness) to Normal, and HDR Picture to DARK, it make the picture look OK. Then I had to bump the color from 45 default to 55. I am sure its the TV. It is a first gen mini-LED and has a very aggressive local dimming. All fine now, just odd there is no way to turn it off.


Is your TV actually going into its proper HDR mode with the Osprey? It sounds like it isn't since you're mentioning being able to change all those gamma levels (1.8, 2.0, 2.2, 2.4), which if it was in a pure HDR mode, those shouldn't even be available to change. Also sounds like your TV isn't in BT2020 color gamut mode with the mention of having to crank up the color controls. When you input HDR BT2020 into a TV set to SDR Rec709 it will appears washed out with weak colors. I know this because it was the basis and start for my HarperVision tweaks/mods back when HDR was first a thing and people complained about it being "too dark". This was a way to use extreme settings in SDR with a power law gamma (set to 2.8) to compensate and brighten up the entire video range. It was quite effective, at least until custom HDR curves and eventually DTM (Dynamic Tone Mapping) became a thing.



gio12 said:


> So AT&T not Google is going to update this POPS Osprey Box? Getting tired of the HDR issues. Why I HATE AT&T and Android. *My just go back to using ATV and the crappy AT&T app *or even better, head back to YTTV.


If you try this, try setting the AppleTV to RGB Low 4K59.94Hz while watching AT&T TV. For some reason it really makes the SDR 1080/720p image shine and look amazing. Of course this also depends on your display properly recognizing and remapping the YCbCr Video (High) levels to proper RGB PC (Low) signal levels, maintaining the correct black floor. If it does I think you'll like it.



Davenlr said:


> I have a DVDO I could run the Osprey box through. Since it does not support 4K or HDR (Its HDMI 1.3), it would force the box to 1080p, which should work OK. At the moment though, I am thinking it looks pretty decent after playing with the TV settings.


That could work. I've done the same thing with my HDFury Vertex2. While it looks good, it still wasn't as good as sending the optimized HDR signal. Probably due to them designing it around that signal output, idk.


----------



## harsh

harperhometheater said:


> HDR doesn't use gamma, so that was probably your issue. It uses PQ (Perceptual Quantization) which is an absolute curve.


Are you sure about that?

I was under the impression that most (if not all) live streaming and DBS HDR uses Hybrid Log Gamma (HLG) that is clearly not an "absolute curve".


----------



## Davenlr

The gamma setting for the TCL is on a android phone app, not on the TV itself. Not sure but it does change the overall gamma when in HDR mode from overly dark 2.4 to washed out 1.8.

How do I check to see if the TV is set to receive the correct signal? When I switch to the Osprey, the TV pops up the HDR logo in the top corner, but I find no other setting options for the 2020 numbers and such you mentioned.


----------



## compnurd

harsh said:


> Are you sure about that?
> 
> I was under the impression that most (if not all) live streaming and DBS HDR uses Hybrid Log Gamma (HLG) that is clearly not an "absolute curve".


Your confusing an actual HDR signal compared to an Android HDR bug. ATT TV is not streaming anything in HLG. Neither is YTTV or Hulu The ATT issue is Android forcing a HDR picture The stream itself is not HDR


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> Is your TV actually going into its proper HDR mode with the Osprey? It sounds like it isn't since you're mentioning being able to change all those gamma levels (1.8, 2.0, 2.2, 2.4), which if it was in a pure HDR mode, those shouldn't even be available to change. Also sounds like your TV isn't in BT2020 color gamut mode with the mention of having to crank up the color controls. When you input HDR BT2020 into a TV set to SDR Rec709 it will appears washed out with weak colors. I know this because it was the basis and start for my HarperVision tweaks/mods back when HDR was first a thing and people complained about it being "too dark". This was a way to use extreme settings in SDR with a power law gamma (set to 2.8) to compensate and brighten up the entire video range. It was quite effective, at least until custom HDR curves and eventually DTM (Dynamic Tone Mapping) became a thing.
> 
> If you try this, try setting the AppleTV to RGB Low 4K59.94Hz while watching AT&T TV. For some reason it really makes the SDR 1080/720p image shine and look amazing. Of course this also depends on your display properly recognizing and remapping the YCbCr Video (High) levels to proper RGB PC (Low) signal levels, maintaining the correct black floor. If it does I think you'll like it.
> 
> That could work. I've done the same thing with my HDFury Vertex2. While it looks good, it still wasn't as good as sending the optimized HDR signal. Probably due to them designing it around that signal output, idk.


Holy nail on head lol


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> The gamma setting for the TCL is on a android phone app, not on the TV itself. Not sure but it does change the overall gamma when in HDR mode from overly dark 2.4 to washed out 1.8.
> 
> How do I check to see if the TV is set to receive the correct signal? When I switch to the Osprey, the TV pops up the HDR logo in the top corner, but I find no other setting options for the 2020 numbers and such you mentioned.


What's the TV model


----------



## Davenlr

compnurd said:


> What's the TV model


TCL 75Q825 Roku-TV

I have the Sony AVR set to 4.4.4 if that matters. Other options are 4.2.2 , 4.2.0, and RGB


----------



## harperhometheater

harsh said:


> Are you sure about that?


Yes



harsh said:


> I was under the impression that most (if not all) live streaming and DBS HDR uses Hybrid Log Gamma (HLG) that is clearly not an "absolute curve".


HLG is mainly used for broadcast TV, including DBS, because live event and real time video broadcasting can't rely on the metadata that's used with HDR10/10A+/DV (although Dolby is working on a competing solution). As the signal passes through all the encoders, muxers, mixers, modulators, waveform monitors, vectorscopes, transmitters, demodulators, etc. the confidence of the metadata can't be guaranteed nor maintained, at least not yet.

The BBC and NHK developed HLG which uses a similar gamma curve as SDR, but with an extended range to give more of an HDR appearance, if displayed on an HLG compliant display. HLG is also backwards compatible with SDR so someone with a plain SDR TV can watch it too and also the broadcasting companies can implement it without having to replace all their HD SDR gear right away. This is how a lot of the recent big sporting events were able to show HLG HDR programs. DirecTV also uses this tech.

Streaming doesn't need to use this because the metadata can be preserved and embedded into the data stream, so "normal" HDR (ST2084 based HDR10/10+/DV) methods can be used.



Davenlr said:


> The gamma setting for the TCL is on a android phone app, not on the TV itself. Not sure but it does change the overall gamma when in HDR mode from overly dark 2.4 to washed out 1.8.
> 
> How do I check to see if the TV is set to receive the correct signal? When I switch to the Osprey, the TV pops up the HDR logo in the top corner, but I find no other setting options for the 2020 numbers and such you mentioned.


It sounds like your model TV just does HDR to SDR tone mapping for display and doesn't actually use a true PQ HDR mode, only tone mapped on its luminance range to fit the peak brightness of the display.

Is there no HDR settings in the menu at all? Anything talking about BT2020/DCI-P3/Rec709 color gamut selections? HDR Brightness or curve settings, usually like a -2 to +2 type selection?

Actually I think my few year old Hisense UHD TV does something similar. I'll have to check it but I think I recall testing my LLDV Dolby Vision trick on it using my HDFury and got similar results as you are. Maybe these "affordable" model UHD TVs do this as some sort of cost savings measure, idk.



compnurd said:


> Your confusing an actual HDR signal compared to an Android HDR bug. ATT TV is not streaming anything in HLG. Neither is YTTV or Hulu The ATT issue is Android forcing a HDR picture The stream itself is not HDR


Which shouldn't be an issue if the HD SDR Rec709 signal being sent is properly gamut and tone mapped into the UHD HDR BT2020 gamut. 



compnurd said:


> Holy nail on head lol


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> Yes
> 
> HLG is mainly used for broadcast TV, including DBS, because live event and real time video broadcasting can't rely on the metadata that's used with HDR10/10A+/DV (although Dolby is working on a competing solution). As the signal passes through all the encoders, muxers, mixers, modulators, waveform monitors, vectorscopes, transmitters, demodulators, etc. the confidence of the metadata can't be guaranteed nor maintained, at least not yet.
> 
> The BBC and NHK developed HLG which uses a similar gamma curve as SDR, but with an extended range to give more of an HDR appearance, if displayed on an HLG compliant display. HLG is also backwards compatible with SDR so someone with a plain SDR TV can watch it too and also the broadcasting companies can implement it without having to replace all their HD SDR gear right away. This is how a lot of the recent big sporting events were able to show HLG HDR programs. DirecTV also uses this tech.
> 
> Streaming doesn't need to use this because the metadata can be preserved and embedded into the data stream, so "normal" HDR (ST2084 based HDR10/10+/DV) methods can be used.
> 
> It sounds like your model TV just does HDR to SDR tone mapping for display and doesn't actually use a true PQ HDR mode, only tone mapped on its luminance range to fit the peak brightness of the display.
> 
> Is there no HDR settings in the menu at all? Anything talking about BT2020/DCI-P3/Rec709 color gamut selections? HDR Brightness or curve settings, usually like a -2 to +2 type selection?
> 
> Actually I think my few year old Hisense UHD TV does something similar. I'll have to check it but I think I recall testing my LLDV Dolby Vision trick on it using my HDFury and got similar results as you are. Maybe these "affordable" model UHD TVs do this as some sort of cost savings measure, idk.
> 
> Which shouldn't be an issue if the HD SDR Rec709 signal being sent is properly gamut and tone mapped into the UHD HDR BT2020 gamut.


In reading the Rtings review it doesnt look like there is any HDR settings in the Menu.. Its very limited


----------



## harsh

harperhometheater said:


> HLG is mainly used for broadcast TV, including DBS, because live event and real time video broadcasting can't rely on the metadata that's used with HDR10/10A+/DV (although Dolby is working on a competing solution). As the signal passes through all the encoders, muxers, mixers, modulators, waveform monitors, vectorscopes, transmitters, demodulators, etc. the confidence of the metadata can't be guaranteed nor maintained, at least not yet.


If AT&T were to engage in live streaming of HDR content (whether 4K or HD), wouldn't they logically use HLG just as the other transmission technologies do?

I would argue that analog-style instrumentation and measurements aren't necessary in digital as all of the metrics can be calculated from the data in the stream and compared against included FEC data.

Trying to steamroll readers by tossing around terminology like mulitplexing and modulation sounds impressive but they don't have any part in streaming.


----------



## Davenlr

The TCL's only HDR settings are HDR DARK, HDR NORMAL, and HDR BRIGHT
Dark mode says "Balanced HDR experience for Cinema viewing.
Normal says "Brighter picture slightly boosting colors"
Bright says "Vivid picture settings for bright colors" But the colors look horrible on peoples faces.

The only one that looks remotely natural is the DARK, with the color slider turned up 20 points.


----------



## lparsons21

Just checked my ATT TV Now Max account. Got the unlimited DVR and 20 in home streams. But the reporting is odd as hell.

On Osprey - checking account shows the 20 in home streams, but shows DVR as 500 hours.

On Osprey - looking at the DVR itself shows unlimited.

On ATT’s website shows 3 streams and 500 hours.

Gotta love ATT!


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Just checked my ATT TV Now Max account. Got the unlimited DVR and 20 in home streams. But the reporting is odd as hell.
> 
> On Osprey - checking account shows the 20 in home streams, but shows DVR as 500 hours.
> 
> On Osprey - looking at the DVR itself shows unlimited.
> 
> On ATT's website shows 3 streams and 500 hours.
> 
> Gotta love ATT!


lol My Osprey shows the same.. However my ATT account is correct now It was wonky yesterday


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> lol My Osprey shows the same.. However my ATT account is correct now It was wonky yesterday
> 
> View attachment 31301


The AT&T TV Now website is much different than the main one since they grandfathered all of AT&T TV Now.

I'm hoping this sale of D* & ATT TV doesn't screw up the subscription level I have. In order to have the blasted golf channel with ATT's current offerings it would be $95/month w/20 hours DVR or $105/month with unlimited. And I wouldn't have HBO Max and Cinemax included.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> The AT&T TV Now website is much different than the main one since they grandfathered all of AT&T TV Now.
> 
> I'm hoping this sale of D* & ATT TV doesn't screw up the subscription level I have. In order to have the blasted golf channel with ATT's current offerings it would be $95/month w/20 hours DVR or $105/month with unlimited. And I wouldn't have HBO Max and Cinemax included.


ahh I thought they kicked everyone from the Now page to the main one.. So yeh i could see that being different


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> ahh I thought they kicked everyone from the Now page to the main one.. So yeh i could see that being different


No they kept the Now website, but it is very much more simplistic. For instance, I can have either the Pro or Max subscription level, and my page only shows those two. But those with older grandfathered plans see something a bit different. I think for them their only choice is to cancel.

In both there is also the ability to add some things, mostly the premium movie channels.


----------



## Davenlr

Mine still at 20 hours with 20 streams


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Mine still at 20 hours with 20 streams


Unless you upgraded the DVR for the 10 bucks Or are on the contract plan it will only show 20 hours


----------



## harsh

lparsons21 said:


> I'm hoping this sale of D* & ATT TV doesn't screw up the subscription level I have.


It will likely be several months before the partial acquisition is completed and by then the AT&T TV Now subscriptions could be fully folded into the AT&T TV offering.


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> It will likely be several months before the partial acquisition is completed and by then the AT&T TV Now subscriptions could be fully folded into the AT&T TV offering.


Well that certainly could be one outcome, and I'd welcome it. . Yeah, it will be awhile before the sale is done.

Edit: Since they've 'adjusted' the pricing of the various AT&T TV Now subscriptions with the claimed reason being to bring them in line with their current offerings, they could just leave it alone and let the prices rise more over time just as cable/sat/live streamers have been doing.

My current TV Now Max subscription is a fair value even at $90/month. A fairly wide selection of content types and channels, plenty of sports, including RSN's and HBO/Cinemax. Figuring HBO/Cinemax have a retail of $25/month combined it makes the rest of the package competitive.


----------



## gio12

harperhometheater said:


> If you try this, try setting the AppleTV to RGB Low 4K59.94Hz while watching AT&T TV. For some reason it really makes the SDR 1080/720p image shine and look amazing. Of course this also depends on your display properly recognizing and remapping the YCbCr Video (High) levels to proper RGB PC (Low) signal levels, maintaining the correct black floor. If it does I think you'll like it.



Why when using the Osprey box?


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> Why when using the Osprey box?


Because the Osprey box has forced HDR even for source material that isn't. For some people, me included, that causes the picture to be a bit too dark.


----------



## gio12

lparsons21 said:


> Because the Osprey box has forced HDR even for source material that isn't. For some people, me included, that causes the picture to be a bit too dark.


Maybe I am confused. What does changing settings on the AppleTv have to do of effect the Osprey box? Also on separate inputs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## harsh

lparsons21 said:


> Edit: Since they've 'adjusted' the pricing of the various AT&T TV Now subscriptions with the claimed reason being to bring them in line with their current offerings, they could just leave it alone and let the prices rise more over time just as cable/sat/live streamers have been doing.


If I were running the show, I'd immediately jettison all of the grandfathered packages to simplify/unify rate setting, billing and customer service. This is a huge opportunity to clean house in the name of trying to keep the service competitive (and able to adapt to changes in the marketplace).

Ultimately, the whole wad that will be DIRECTV would seem to be headed for streaming so it makes sense to make that transition as unremarkable as possible.


----------



## harsh

gio12 said:


> Maybe I am confused. What does changing settings on the AppleTv have to do of effect the Osprey box? Also on separate inputs.


Not everyone has their streamers on separate inputs. AVRs (and to a lesser extent, sound bars) are still a popular switching mechanism for home entertainment systems.


----------



## Davenlr

Just a follow-up... Since I hooked up my Osprey box in place of the Roku Ultra, I have not had a single failed Cloud DVR recording, not a single spinning circle. Still testing, but it would appear there is much better error correction on the Osprey software than the Roku App, which I noticed was updated yesterday.

Now a question: Since ATT and DirecTv are the exact same company, why can ATT TV not sell Sunday Ticket, whereas DirecTv can?

Also, did U-verse allow a physical DVR in the house, or was it a cloud DVR system also? Wondering why no streaming companies can be DVR'ed. At $10 a month extra I would think they would want to come up with a physical DVR. Even a cheap one like the soon to be extinct ORBY DVR.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Just a follow-up... Since I hooked up my Osprey box in place of the Roku Ultra, I have not had a single failed Cloud DVR recording, not a single spinning circle. Still testing, but it would appear there is much better error correction on the Osprey software than the Roku App, which I noticed was updated yesterday.
> 
> Now a question: Since ATT and DirecTv are the exact same company, why can ATT TV not sell Sunday Ticket, whereas DirecTv can?
> 
> Also, did U-verse allow a physical DVR in the house, or was it a cloud DVR system also? Wondering why no streaming companies can be DVR'ed. At $10 a month extra I would think they would want to come up with a physical DVR. Even a cheap one like the soon to be extinct ORBY DVR.


So on the Sunday ticket issue it has to do with how the contract is worded. It is locked to directv. That's it


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> If I were running the show, I'd immediately jettison all of the grandfathered packages to simplify/unify rate setting, billing and customer service. This is a huge opportunity to clean house in the name of trying to keep the service competitive (and able to adapt to changes in the marketplace).
> 
> Ultimately, the whole wad that will be DIRECTV would seem to be headed for streaming so it makes sense to make that transition as unremarkable as possible.


I would think they will want to take the money they get from the grandfathered plans. The new plans are really only competitive with cable/sat, not other streaming services IMO. The grandfathered plans exist, the billing is computerize and it is essentially something that they could let die a natural death.

Just reading in lots of places that discuss AT&T's various program, most on TV Now aren't much interested in moving to a subscription that costs them more but doesn't give them much value.

All that said, TPG isn't AT&T and reports are they are more disruptive of the norms, so we will see what happens as this all jells.

YouTubeTV is one upgrade away from being a very strong competitor to AT&T/TPG streaming plans, and that upgrade would be DD5.1 audio. They've already got a better priced service with more channels and a PQ that is close enough that most wouldn't care. Their only missing the RSNs, but that is true of all except for AT&T.


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> Maybe I am confused. What does changing settings on the AppleTv have to do of effect the Osprey box? Also on separate inputs.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Oops! Call it an old age brain fart!


----------



## harperhometheater

harsh said:


> If AT&T were to engage in live streaming of HDR content (whether 4K or HD), wouldn't they logically use HLG just as the other transmission technologies do?.....


IP streaming is different than ATSC/QAM broadcasting, but nothing stops IP from using HLG if they wanted to. I wouldn't but hey I'm not making that decision. If you research HLG you'll see exactly why it was chosen for live event TV broadcasting. It will say exactly what I said as to the reasons why.



harsh said:


> ......I would argue that analog-style instrumentation and measurements aren't necessary in digital as all of the metrics can be calculated from the data in the stream and compared against included FEC data.
> 
> *Trying to steamroll readers *by tossing around terminology like mulitplexing and modulation sounds impressive but they don't have any part in streaming.


Why so _"Harsh"_, man? ;-)

I'm not steamrolling anyone. Just trying to post facts and information for those who may not know. Didn't mean to ruffle feathers.

I wasn't even talking about streaming when I made the comments about all the broadcasting gear. I was talking about live TV ATSC/QAM type broadcasting and the reasons why they use HLG. So your steamroll comment is moot. Maybe it's good I mentioned it, since it seems maybe you didn't even know?



gio12 said:


> Why when using the Osprey box?


You mentioned about going back to the AppleTV in your comment I replied to, so I said if you do, you should try RGB Low. I even bolded what you said that I was replying to.

Sorry for any confusion.



Davenlr said:


> ........Wondering why no streaming companies can be DVR'ed. At $10 a month extra I would think they would want to come up with a physical DVR. Even a cheap one like the soon to be extinct ORBY DVR.


You can DVR many antenna and OTT Streaming Services such as AT&T TV and their TVE channels by using the Channels DVR Server and client apps.


----------



## gio12

harperhometheater said:


> IP streaming is different than ATSC/QAM broadcasting, but nothing stops IP from using HLG if they wanted to. I wouldn't but hey I'm not making that decision. If you research HLG you'll see exactly why it was chosen for live event TV broadcasting. It will say exactly what I said as to the reasons why.
> 
> Why so _"Harsh"_, man? ;-)
> 
> I'm not steamrolling anyone. Just trying to post facts and information for those who may not know. Didn't mean to ruffle feathers.
> 
> I wasn't even talking about streaming when I made the comments about all the broadcasting gear. I was talking about live TV ATSC/QAM type broadcasting and the reasons why they use HLG. So your steamroll comment is moot. Maybe it's good I mentioned it, since it seems maybe you didn't even know?
> 
> You mentioned about going back to the AppleTV in your comment I replied to, so I said if you do, you should try RGB Low. I even bolded what you said that I was replying to.
> 
> Sorry for any confusion.
> 
> You can DVR many antenna and OTT Streaming Services such as AT&T TV and their TVE channels by using the Channels DVR Server and client apps.


Ok? That makes sense. But no issues with atv box, just Osprey

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## gio12

harsh said:


> Not everyone has their streamers on separate inputs. AVRs (and to a lesser extent, sound bars) are still a popular switching mechanism for home entertainment systems.


Still would not make a difference. No pieces of separate equipment putting out signals. A switch or AVR just acts as a way of sharing the signal. At least the other poster corrected himself.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> No they kept the Now website, but it is very much more simplistic. For instance, I can have either the Pro or Max subscription level, and my page only shows those two. But those with older grandfathered plans see something a bit different. I think for them their only choice is to cancel.
> 
> In both there is also the ability to add some things, mostly the premium movie channels.


It's been fixed on the Osprey now


----------



## Davenlr

Wow. ATT is messed up.
DirecTv was disconnected 2/13. My Billing month is 15th thru 15th.
They said they would give me a $10 credit for the two days. Instead, they charged me $71.75 for 2/15 thru 3/15, didnt give me the $10 credit, AND charged me another $69.99 for ATT TV. This company is the most F'ed up company on the planet. Now they PROMISE Ill get the $10 credit AND a $71.75 credit on March 28th on my next billing for internet. Totally unreal. SO HAPPY they sold this to a hedge fund. MAYBE the hedge fund knows how to run a business.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Wow. ATT is messed up.
> DirecTv was disconnected 2/13. My Billing month is 15th thru 15th.
> They said they would give me a $10 credit for the two days. Instead, they charged me $71.75 for 2/15 thru 3/15, didnt give me the $10 credit, AND charged me another $69.99 for ATT TV. This company is the most F'ed up company on the planet. Now they PROMISE Ill get the $10 credit AND a $71.75 credit on March 28th on my next billing for internet. Totally unreal. SO HAPPY they sold this to a hedge fund. MAYBE the hedge fund knows how to run a business.


Considering they own 70% dont expect much to change


----------



## Davenlr

Well, if it doesnt work out, at least the Osprey box can run YTTV. It just popped up a message this morning while I was watching a DVR show "Rebooting in 5 seconds" by the time I got to the remote, the box rebooted, then took like 5 minutes to stabilize enough to start watching my show again. Seems to take it 5 or 10 minutes to load everything before it works right. Have no idea why it rebooted.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Well, if it doesnt work out, at least the Osprey box can run YTTV. It just popped up a message this morning while I was watching a DVR show "Rebooting in 5 seconds" by the time I got to the remote, the box rebooted, then took like 5 minutes to stabilize enough to start watching my show again. Seems to take it 5 or 10 minutes to load everything before it works right. Have no idea why it rebooted.


Thats Android for you.. Likes to load everything into cache


----------



## b4pjoe

Davenlr said:


> Wow. ATT is messed up.
> DirecTv was disconnected 2/13. My Billing month is 15th thru 15th.
> They said they would give me a $10 credit for the two days. Instead, they charged me $71.75 for 2/15 thru 3/15, didnt give me the $10 credit, AND charged me another $69.99 for ATT TV. This company is the most F'ed up company on the planet. Now they PROMISE Ill get the $10 credit AND a $71.75 credit on March 28th on my next billing for internet. Totally unreal. SO HAPPY they sold this to a hedge fund. MAYBE the hedge fund knows how to run a business.





compnurd said:


> Considering they own 70% dont expect much to change


Yeah the ownership group that owns 30% isn't running anything.


----------



## James Long

b4pjoe said:


> Yeah the ownership group that owns 30% isn't running anything.


The controlling board is 40% AT&T 40% investors and 20% new CEO.

AT&T does not have 70% control.


----------



## swyman18

Davenlr said:


> AND charged me another $69.99 for ATT TV.


I'm confused by this part... are you saying ATT TV should not have charged you even though you signed up for the service? Almost like they should have known about the DirectTV billing error and proactively not billed you for ATT TV?

If so, that would be giving them WAY too much credit.


----------



## compnurd

James Long said:


> The controlling board is 40% AT&T 40% investors and 20% new CEO.
> 
> AT&T does not have 70% control.


The board isn't running the company. Regardless of the board seat ration ATT still owns 70% of the company


----------



## Davenlr

swyman18 said:


> I'm confused by this part... are you saying ATT TV should not have charged you even though you signed up for the service? Almost like they should have known about the DirectTV billing error and proactively not billed you for ATT TV?
> 
> If so, that would be giving them WAY too much credit.


Well, I sorta figured they would just transfer the payment, considering it is the same company, but apparently, since they cannot combine my Internet and ATT TV bill together, they must have three totally separate billing systems. Original DirecTv, ATT TV, and ATT DirecTV/Fiber Internet. The first one still owes me $43 from 2015. The second I just signed up for. The third has no clue what they are doing. Sure glad I have Tmobile cell service.


----------



## swyman18

I hear ya... many years ago I was supposed to get credited for a DirectTV receiver that they claimed I never sent back to them, even though I had the proof and tracking number, etc. They kept acknowledging that it was their error and promised I would get credited for the non return payment over and over again. Months and months and many calls went by and I finally gave up calling them and accepted defeat. Didn’t have the energy to keep at it, and too many other things to worry about.


----------



## b4pjoe

James Long said:


> The controlling board is 40% AT&T 40% investors and 20% new CEO.
> 
> AT&T does not have 70% control.


The new CEO is an AT&T guy. It is AT&T 60% and TPG 40% on the board. And it is still 70% owned by AT&T regardless of who is on the board.


----------



## NashGuy

It's noteworthy that TPG reportedly insisted on AT&T TV being part of the deal in order to acquire a stake in DirecTV. Everyone, including myself, originally thought that AT&T would only sell off all or part of DTV, but TPG reportedly was concerned about future defections from DTV to AT&T TV, so insisted on buying a stake in the latter as well.

Here's a statement from when the deal was announced this week by David Trujillo, a partner at TPG:

_Video remains a core service for tens of millions of households. Since its launch in 1994, DirecTV has continually evolved its product, content and service to provide customers an industry-leading video offering. As video consumption habits evolve, the new DIRECTV will continue investing in its offering to provide value to its customers, including through next-generation streaming pay-TV services._​And a second, more pointed quote by TPG principal John Flynn:

_We are particularly excited by the opportunity to grow new DIRECTV's streaming video service, leveraging the company's leading pay-TV platform, talented labor force and large subscriber base to transition it into a leading next-generation video provider with best-in-class content and customer experience.
_​TPG has a track record of being an activist, not a passive, investor. And they clearly see value in AT&T TV, and a potential future for it. I expect that they will press for changes in AT&T TV that will make it a stronger competitor in the cable TV arena. Although we may not see any TPG-driven improvements to the service until the deal formally closes in the latter half of this year.

As for DTV, I suspect the game plan is to stabilize the business and groom it for a sell-off a couple years from now (after the NFL Sunday Ticket deal expires at the end of 2022) to DISH, or to some third party that will buy both it and DISH in order to merge the two rivals into a single DBS nursing home for the 2020s.

[Edit: Added second quote.]


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> It's noteworthy that TPG reportedly insisted on AT&T TV being part of the deal in order to acquire a stake in DirecTV. Everyone, including myself, originally thought that AT&T would only sell off all or part of DTV, but TPG reportedly was concerned about future defections from DTV to AT&T TV, so insisted on buying a stake in the latter as well.
> 
> Here's a statement from when the deal was announced this week by David Trujillo, a partner at TPG:
> 
> _Video remains a core service for tens of millions of households. Since its launch in 1994, DirecTV has continually evolved its product, content and service to provide customers an industry-leading video offering. As video consumption habits evolve, the new DIRECTV will continue investing in its offering to provide value to its customers, including through next-generation streaming pay-TV services.
> _​TPG has a track record of being an activist, not a passive, investor. And they clearly see value in AT&T TV, and a potential future for it. I expect that they will press for changes in AT&T TV that will make it a stronger competitor in the cable TV arena. Although we may not see any TPG-driven improvements to the service until the deal formally closes in the latter half of this year.
> 
> As for DTV, I suspect the game plan is to stabilize the business and groom it for a sell-off a couple years from now (after the NFL Sunday Ticket deal expires at the end of 2022) to DISH, or to some third party that will buy both it and DISH in order to merge the two rivals into a single DBS nursing home for the 2020s.


For once I completely agree with you. I also give it till the end of Sunday ticket and they will be looking to spin it back off with Dish and let it graze out pasture until the last sat dies


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> For once I completely agree with you. I also give it till the end of Sunday ticket and they will be looking to spin it back off with Dish and let it graze out pasture until the last sat dies


For once? You apparently agreed with me in a much more significant way a few months ago when you left DTV for AT&T TV.


----------



## Davenlr

What if they announced you could come back to DirecTv for $69.99 a month, no contract if you bought your own (or had your own) equipment? They could rent you the access cards 3 for $69.99/mo. If you wanted to subscribe but had no dish yet, then you could pay for the install, do it yourself, or put a deposit on installation, and get your deposit back after 24 total months of paid service?

I really do no see how anyone is going to pay the high price of DirecTv unless DISH went out of business once they lose Sunday Ticket.

I liked them when they first started. I loved my Sony receiver. I loved putting up my own dish. I loved the service. When they started the high priced, contract BS, I really lost interest.


----------



## James Long

compnurd said:


> The board isn't running the company. Regardless of the board seat ration ATT still owns 70% of the company





b4pjoe said:


> The new CEO is an AT&T guy. It is AT&T 60% and TPG 40% on the board. And it is still 70% owned by AT&T regardless of who is on the board.


Ownership is not control. The CEO will become an employee of DIRECTV so don't count him as AT&T. AT&T's control of DIRECTV will end at naming the two people they control on the board. The 70% is an investment that is worth nothing unless sold. If new DIRECTV does well and increases the value of DIRECTV then AT&T's investment is worth more money.

The whole point for AT&T is to get out of the business of running the Video unit in return for $7.6 billion that they can spend on their debt. They do not get a huge cash payout AND control.


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> What if they announced you could come back to DirecTv for $69.99 a month, no contract if you bought your own (or had your own) equipment? They could rent you the access cards 3 for $69.99/mo. If you wanted to subscribe but had no dish yet, then you could pay for the install, do it yourself, or put a deposit on installation, and get your deposit back after 24 total months of paid service?
> 
> I really do no see how anyone is going to pay the high price of DirecTv unless DISH went out of business once they lose Sunday Ticket.
> 
> I liked them when they first started. I loved my Sony receiver. I loved putting up my own dish. I loved the service. When they started the high priced, contract BS, I really lost interest.


Yeah, I agree that DTV needs to consider a no-contract, low everyday price option at least for folks who already have a rooftop dish and wiring installed (and also sell a self-install kit for folks who can do it themselves). That $69.99/mo price point sounds about right for the Entertainment package by itself (potentially with additional fees for STB/DVR rentals). That's what DISH charges new subs per month for the first 24 months (under contract) for their America's Top 120 package with a single basic DVR included.

AT&T TV has stepped in the right direction with their simple pricing, no-contract option. IMO, they need to cut the prices on those packages by $5/mo -- taking Entertainment down to $65/mo. (same as YTTV, Hulu Live and FuboTV). And then offer an optional 1-yr contract that doesn't change the price but gives you a couple of freebies: one free AT&T TV box ($10/mo value) and free unlimited cloud DVR ($10/mo value). (And they need to extend the 90-day expiration on DVR recordings to 365 days.) And then at the end of the year, allow customers to optionally renew the contract to again score the free expanded DVR, plus either one free year of HBO Max or another free box. For folks who don't want a contract, they could just pay the everyday price for the package and then pay separately for a box and/or expanded DVR.


----------



## James Long

Hopefully DIRECTV's contracts are flexible enough to allow smaller packages that are more affordable.


----------



## compnurd

James Long said:


> Ownership is not control. The CEO will become an employee of DIRECTV so don't count him as AT&T. AT&T's control of DIRECTV will end at naming the two people they control on the board. The 70% is an investment that is worth nothing unless sold. If new DIRECTV does well and increases the value of DIRECTV then AT&T's investment is worth more money.
> 
> The whole point for AT&T is to get out of the business of running the Video unit in return for $7.6 billion that they can spend on their debt. They do not get a huge cash payout AND control.


Whatever you say


----------



## Davenlr

I can understand why ATT TV charges $5 more than YTTV, and that would be Dolby Digital. Almost everyone I know has a decent sound system or soundbar for their TV. Other than Dish and DirecTv, and a few channels on Yubo (I think that is the one), stereo is the norm. I like your ideas though.

If you already have a dish, why not allow you to buy a receiver or DVR at Solid Signal, or DirecTv themselves and hook it up with no contract? Rent the access card, not the device.
Another option that would save subscribers money would be to break locals out and give a $12/mo credit if you opt out of getting them like Dish does. I do not need locals, and get 30 more channels than they stream to me with my antenna. 
ATT TV Osprey box can run the HDHomeRun app for locals, Plex for locals with DVR, or you can buy a separate Channel Master or Tivo DVR for locals. If you already have those options, allow a $12/mo discount.


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> I can understand why ATT TV charges $5 more than YTTV, and that would be Dolby Digital. Almost everyone I know has a decent sound system or soundbar for their TV. Other than Dish and DirecTv, and a few channels on Yubo (I think that is the one), stereo is the norm. I like your ideas though.


Yeah, but here's the thing: at $65/mo, YTTV includes unlimited cloud DVR (with 9-month retention). I'm suggesting that AT&T TV's Entertainment package also cost $65/mo but come with only 20 hrs. of cloud DVR storage. To increase that to unlimited storage, it would cost another $10/mo or agreeing to a 1-yr contract. Meanwhile, YTTV charges an extra $10/mo for unlimited in-home streams and 4K while AT&T TV includes unlimited in-home streams (and, hopefully soon, 4K) in the base service at no extra cost.



Davenlr said:


> If you already have a dish, why not allow you to buy a receiver or DVR at Solid Signal, or DirecTv themselves and hook it up with no contract? Rent the access card, not the device.


OK, although I wonder how many folks own (or want to own) a DirecTV box? Maybe it's a good idea, as long as that's a separate option from the no-contract/self-install thing.



Davenlr said:


> Another option that would save subscribers money would be to break locals out and give a $12/mo credit if you opt out of getting them like Dish does. I do not need locals, and get 30 more channels than they stream to me with my antenna.
> ATT TV Osprey box can run the HDHomeRun app for locals, Plex for locals with DVR, or you can buy a separate Channel Master or Tivo DVR for locals. If you already have those options, allow a $12/mo discount.


Yeah, I used to think that maybe we'd see AT&T TV offer a skinny package without locals similar to what was in the now-defunct AT&T Watch TV service. That little package (similar to Philo, except with WarnerMedia nets too, but no cloud DVR) cost only $15/mo. AT&T could offer something similar to the AirTV network-connected OTA tuner device that would pull in free OTA channels and stream them around your home network for access inside the AT&T TV app and on AT&T TV Stream boxes. Attach your own hard drive to the tuner for free OTA DVR service. Sell the skinny bundle with cloud DVR for $30/mo.

As for selling mainstream channel packages (e.g. Entertainment, Choice, etc.) but without locals, for a lower price, who knows if AT&T's contracts would allow that. Does DISH make locals an option on all packages? I'd think Disney (ABC), Comcast (NBC), ViacomCBS and Fox would resist that.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> Hopefully DIRECTV's contracts are flexible enough to allow smaller packages that are more affordable.


I thought that the skinny-ish Plus and Max packages would be joined to various small add-on packages that would allow customers more flexibility in assembling and paying for the channel line-ups they wanted. But Plus and Max appear to have been abandoned now. So who knows if we're going to see revamped channel packages on AT&T TV or DTV at this point...


----------



## Davenlr

NashGuy said:


> . Does DISH make locals an option on all packages? I'd think Disney (ABC), Comcast (NBC), ViacomCBS and Fox would resist that.


I havent checked all their packages, but when you use their system builder on the website, at least on their dish120, there are two check boxes at the end after you select the DVR and joeys, and one box is to opt out of locals for $12 credit, and another to get free DVR ($10 value) if you are a vet (proof of service required). It was going to cost me ~$50/mo for the Hopper and two 4K Joeys for the dish120 package with two year contract.


----------



## techguy88

Davenlr said:


> I havent checked all their packages, but when you use their system builder on the website, at least on their dish120, there are two check boxes at the end after you select the DVR and joeys, and one box is to opt out of locals for $12 credit, and another to get free DVR ($10 value) if you are a vet (proof of service required). It was going to cost me ~$50/mo for the Hopper and two 4K Joeys for the dish120 package with two year contract.


All of their current packages gives you the option to subscribe to locals or not.


----------



## techguy88

NashGuy said:


> AT&T TV has stepped in the right direction with their simple pricing, no-contract option. IMO, they need to cut the prices on those packages by $5/mo -- taking Entertainment down to $65/mo. (same as YTTV, Hulu Live and FuboTV). And then offer an optional 1-yr contract that doesn't change the price but gives you a couple of freebies: one free AT&T TV box ($10/mo value) and free unlimited cloud DVR ($10/mo value). (And they need to extend the 90-day expiration on DVR recordings to 365 days.) And then at the end of the year, allow customers to optionally renew the contract to again score the free expanded DVR, plus either one free year of HBO Max or another free box. For folks who don't want a contract, they could just pay the everyday price for the package and then pay separately for a box and/or expanded DVR.


For once in AT&T's life their current No-Contract options are the simplest, straight forward plans they have offered for TV. Yeah you are paying $4.99 more with Entertainment than with Hulu + Live TV or YouTube TV however you get the majority of the top channels without a noticeable gap (i.e. Hulu + Live TV omission of AMC or YouTube TV's lack of A&E.) Also AT&T needs to keep the base price low and stay away from discounted offerings on the base package or via add-ons like the Unlimited DVR in exchange for a 1 year contract. Aside from costs, the simpler things are makes happier customers.

It is also refreshing to see them with Choice & Ultimate offer a year of HBO Max at no extra cost and for Choice - Premier the NBA League Pass Premium without contract. I think more people would appreciate the free NBA than another streaming box.


----------



## James Long

techguy88 said:


> AT&T needs to keep the base price low and stay away from discounted offerings on the base package or via add-ons like the Unlimited DVR in exchange for a 1 year contract. Aside from costs, the simpler things are makes happier customers.


I agree with simple affordable pricing. One of the elements I would include is a standard discount for making a commitment. No hoops or begging or silly games just set discounts as part of the price. $$ off if you commit for a year - just like Amazon does with Prime. Get away from the $60 off if you ask nicely at the right time of day with the correct phase of the moon that DIRECTV satellite seems to use as a standard discount.


----------



## harsh

harperhometheater said:


> II wasn't even talking about streaming when I made the comments about all the broadcasting gear. I was talking about live TV ATSC/QAM type broadcasting and the reasons why they use HLG.


ATSC and modern QAM aren't analog either and don't materially benefit from vector scopes and waveform monitors.

Bloviating about modulation and analog technologies is decidedly out of place a discussion of Internet Streaming Services and it certainly doesn't change the superior value proposition of HLG for live video.

HLG has some decided limitations but they don't really come into play in even the high end of the current consumer electronics environment.


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> Considering they own 70% dont expect much to change


The hope is that the day-to-day operations may improve. The CEO was hired as a transition facilitator and I expect that once the transition is complete, they'll find someone who is more focused on long-term operation than tightening up loose ends.


----------



## harsh

gio12 said:


> Still would not make a difference.


It makes a big difference where TVs allow picture calibration per input and AVRs do not.


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> It makes a big difference where TVs allow picture calibration per input and AVRs do not.


Yep, it sure does. My setup has the Osprey box connected directly to the TV with sound via ARC to a soundbar setup. I have that input adjusted to give me the optimum picture for that device without affecting the settings for the other inputs.


----------



## compnurd

harsh said:


> The hope is that the day-to-day operations may improve. The CEO was hired as a transition facilitator and I expect that once the transition is complete, they'll find someone who is more focused on long-term operation than tightening up loose ends.


Yup ok.


----------



## lparsons21

James Long said:


> I agree with simple affordable pricing. One of the elements I would include is a standard discount for making a commitment. No hoops or begging or silly games just set discounts as part of the price. $$ off if you commit for a year - just like Amazon does with Prime. Get away from the $60 off if you ask nicely at the right time of day with the correct phase of the moon that DIRECTV satellite seems to use as a standard discount.


I kind of like these pre-pay offers that come along from time to time. For instance HBO Max @20% off if you prepay 6 months. I did a Starz offer a bit back but then it just didn't have enough for me, when I cancelled they offered a year prepaid that worked out to $3.47/month. They don't do these often enough for me.

And for the right kind of discount I would be willing to do that with a live streamer too. So far none have done it.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> I thought that the skinny-ish Plus and Max packages would be joined to various small add-on packages that would allow customers more flexibility in assembling and paying for the channel line-ups they wanted. But Plus and Max appear to have been abandoned now. So who knows if we're going to see revamped channel packages on AT&T TV or DTV at this point...


Yeah, a few add ons might have made them more interesting. But I think the problem with the Plus and Max subscriptions was one of timing. At the time they came out YTTV was $50/month and the others were cheaper too, made the price differential very big.

But now Max is a very competitive price, Plus isn't and never really was because it was way too skinny and missed way to many of the top channels.

A comparison.

Max = $90 (the new price). Unlimited DVR space, 90 day expiration, wide range of channel interests including RSNs and national sports, include HBO/Cinemax. Top knotch picture and DD5.1 audio

YTTV = $65, unlimited DVR space, 9 month expiration, wide range of channel interests with national sports included. PQ nearly as good as ATT' s, audio is stereo.

Add HBO to that and the total is $80/month, add Cinemax and it totals $90/month.

Not exactly the same lineup but close and very price competitive. Hulu+Live comes in around the same and Sling with everything does too.


----------



## mjwagner

lparsons21 said:


> Yep, it sure does. My setup has the Osprey box connected directly to the TV with sound via ARC to a soundbar setup. I have that input adjusted to give me the optimum picture for that device without affecting the settings for the other inputs.


Or the Osprey box could be like all the streaming devices I own (Nvidia Shields, ATV 4ks, and various FireTV devices) and let you set them to 4k SDR with match content on so when HDR/DV content is played it automatically switches. That's the way it should be IMO. And all of my streaming devices, except for the ATV 4ks are Android based.


----------



## compnurd

mjwagner said:


> Or the Osprey box could be like all the streaming devices I own (Nvidia Shields, ATV 4ks, and various FireTV devices) and let you set them to 4k SDR with match content on so when HDR/DV content is played it automatically switches. That's the way it should be IMO. And all of my streaming devices, except for the ATV 4ks are Android based.


Google isn't going to fix it at this point. The issue won't be resolved until the new box comes out with the newer version of ATV where they fixed it


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> Also AT&T needs to keep the base price low and stay away from discounted offerings on the base package or via add-ons like the Unlimited DVR in exchange for a 1 year contract. Aside from costs, the simpler things are makes happier customers.





James Long said:


> I agree with simple affordable pricing. One of the elements I would include is a standard discount for making a commitment. No hoops or begging or silly games just set discounts as part of the price. $$ off if you commit for a year - just like Amazon does with Prime. Get away from the $60 off if you ask nicely at the right time of day with the correct phase of the moon that DIRECTV satellite seems to use as a standard discount.


Yeah. As I said before, I think they're on the right track with the way things are structured in the new no-contract system. They're keeping the base prices down by doing the same thing that their major competitor Comcast does: not including any TV boxes in the base package cost and only giving you 20 hrs of cloud DVR space. If you want boxes or expanded DVR storage, you have the option of paying more. But everything else is included in the base price: local broadcast channels, RSNs (if applicable), unlimited in-home streams, HD and hopefully soon 4K HDR. But I wonder if they don't have room to lower those every day prices a bit more, maybe shave another $5/mo off.

But it would be a mistake on their part, IMO, not to offer some kind of benefit to consumers in exchange for taking an optional contract (as Comcast also does). I like the idea of throwing in extras for free (box, expanded cloud DVR and/or HBO Max) although it could instead be a modest break on the monthly price, e.g. 10-15% off. My guess is that if they offered a discounted price, the savings would be less than the retail value of the freebies they might give. I think including at least one free box with the service *somehow* -- such as a bonus for taking the contract -- is important because it naturally increases the percentage of their user base who use the box. And given that you get the best user experience with the service via the box, and are therefore more likely to be satisfied with and want to stick with the service, they need to encourage folks to take one and hook it up (while at the same time not _forcing_ it on consumers).


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> Google isn't going to fix it at this point.


Several Android TV devices don't have this problem so is it really Google's responsibility to fix it or can AT&T step up and at least patch it now?


----------



## compnurd

harsh said:


> Several Android TV devices don't have this problem so is it really Google's responsibility to fix it or can AT&T step up and at least patch it now?


Do they have Android TV 8? Or are you just here to continue to troll with something you don't have?


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> Several Android TV devices don't have this problem so is it really Google's responsibility to fix it or can AT&T step up and at least patch it now?


If AT&T wanted to put the resources into it, I'm sure that they _could_ fix the problem. And maybe they _should_ fix it. Not sure if it would be as simple as just updating the box to a more recent version of Android TV or if there would be more to it, but I'd say that it's fixable. But knowing AT&T, and knowing that they have a second-gen version of the box on the way, and given that always-on HDR probably isn't a concern to the great majority of folks currently using the first-gen box, I just can't see that AT&T will spend any money/effort engineering a fix. Hopefully the issue doesn't exist in the second-gen box, though, and it will have a native dynamic range option in the settings like the new Chromecast with Google TV has.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> If AT&T wanted to put the resources into it, I'm sure that they _could_ fix the problem. And maybe they _should_ fix it. Not sure if it would be as simple as just updating the box to a more recent version of Android TV or if there would be more to it, but I'd say that it's fixable. But knowing AT&T, and knowing that they have a second-gen version of the box on the way, and given that always-on HDR probably isn't a concern to the great majority of folks currently using the first-gen box, I just can't see that AT&T will spend any money/effort engineering a fix. Hopefully the issue doesn't exist in the second-gen box, though, and it will have a native dynamic range option in the settings like the new Chromecast with Google TV has.


It still exists by default in TVOS9. Google dragged there feet in fixing it for TiVo


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> It still exists by default in TVOS9. Google dragged there feet in fixing it for TiVo


AFAIK, it was completely TiVo that engineered a fix for always-on HDR in the TiVo Stream 4K (and it took them a long while to make it happen too). I don't think Google helped at all. The only Android TV device I know of that originally shipped with support for native dynamic range switching is the new Chromecast with Google TV, which is so far the only device running Android TV 10 in the US. I'm under the impression that Android TV 10 has built-in native support for that feature but, IDK, maybe not. It might just be an add-on feature that Google created specifically for their own device.

The other thing that Android TV needs is support for native framerate switching. Even the new Chromecast is missing that. But from what I've read, I think Android TV 11 introduced that feature. Not sure why the new Chromecast isn't on 11 yet. At this point, Google may just upgrade it directly to 12, which was just released as a beta a few days ago.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> AFAIK, it was completely TiVo that engineered a fix for always-on HDR in the TiVo Stream 4K (and it took them a long while to make it happen too). I don't think Google helped at all. The only Android TV device I know of that originally shipped with support for native dynamic range switching is the new Chromecast with Google TV, which is so far the only device running Android TV 10 in the US. I'm under the impression that Android TV 10 has built-in native support for that feature but, IDK, maybe not. It might just be an add-on feature that Google created specifically for their own device.
> 
> The other thing that Android TV needs is support for native framerate switching. Even the new Chromecast is missing that. But from what I've read, I think Android TV 11 introduced that feature. Not sure why the new Chromecast isn't on 11 yet. At this point, Google may just upgrade it directly to 12, which was just released as a beta a few days ago.


I would need to go back and search Reddit but one of the TiVo guys who provides small updates on there make a back hand comment referencing but not referencing they were waiting on google to provide an updated version with the fix so they could test and apply some other fixes

last I knew also TiVo was paying google for most of the device support. They really don't have a software team anymore


----------



## Davenlr

I mean, it was annoying at first, but once I recalibrated the TV to compensate for the overly dark picture, it looks really good. I was going to buy an Nvidia shield instead of the Osprey box, but Lparsons comment on the remote having number buttons, and the whole side loading the APK to get it to work on the shield convinced me to get the Osprey box off ebay for $50. I really dont see any reason to fix it. Once you adjust your settings for it, it looks great. As for upgrading to a newer version of Android, as slow as this thing is if several apps are loaded (I ended up removing all but the included apps), I would think it would make it worse. Seriously, Roku runs circles around this thing speed and app wise. If Roku released an advanced remote they could probably get $199 too.


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> I mean, it was annoying at first, but once I recalibrated the TV to compensate for the overly dark picture, it looks really good. I was going to buy an Nvidia shield instead of the Osprey box, but Lparsons comment on the remote having number buttons, and the whole side loading the APK to get it to work on the shield convinced me to get the Osprey box off ebay for $50. I really dont see any reason to fix it. Once you adjust your settings for it, it looks great. As for upgrading to a newer version of Android, as slow as this thing is if several apps are loaded (I ended up removing all but the included apps), I would think it would make it worse. Seriously, Roku runs circles around this thing speed and app wise. If Roku released an advanced remote they could probably get $199 too.


Yeah, typically newer versions of an OS run slower on the same hardware. That's certainly been the case historically with Apple. But in the case of Android TV, the changes that Google has made in the past two or three versions have mainly just been to make it run more efficiently on lower-powered hardware (which is often what powers smart TVs). So I actually think that the Osprey would run faster if it was upgraded to Android TV 10. But who knows if it ever will be.

Certainly the next version of the box will run Android TV 10 or later, and so AT&T TV's custom software will have to be built around that. So maybe once that box comes out, they'll roll out the same software to their existing box? It will obviously never run as fast as the newer version but it still might be an improvement in various ways over the current situation.


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> Do they have Android TV 8?


Some do, but most of the products that couldn't be updated to Pie have been discontinued. The majority of Android TV devices are running Pie.

The nVIDIA Shield 2015 started with Android TV Nougat (7) and has been upgraded to Oreo (8) and now Pie (9) so we know that old iron isn't necessarily off the table for newer Android TV versions.


----------



## harperhometheater

harsh said:


> ATSC and modern QAM aren't analog either and don't materially benefit from vector scopes and waveform monitors.
> 
> Bloviating about modulation and analog technologies is decidedly out of place a discussion of Internet Streaming Services and it certainly doesn't change the superior value proposition of HLG for live video.
> 
> HLG has some decided limitations but they don't really come into play in even the high end of the current consumer electronics environment.


Boy you're just laying on the personal attacks with big words like "bloviating" and stuff. Did someone piss in that bowl of Wheaties this morning?

ATSC and QAM certainly are in the realm of analog broadcasting and modulators have a darn big role in that too. The ones and zeros (which are just shaped analog waveform pulses btw) are modulated onto an analog radio frequency. They don't turn back into "digital" ones and zeros until after demodulation.

I was the broadcast transmitter engineer for a local NBC affiliate during the ATSC transition, so I think I know how it works so I don't need your BS grandstanding when we are all just trying to have a good discussion on the matter.

Last I checked, broadcast equipment still used waveform monitors, modulators, vector scopes, etc. so I'm not sure what broadcasting planet you're from or have experience in?










SmartView | Blackmagic Design

Gee......look a that. 

Hybrid Log Gamma: everything you need to know about HLG HDR | TechRadar :


> .....HLG is specifically made for the ease of broadcasters, meaning it forgoes metadata that could get lost or out of sync during a live broadcast....


This is all I was trying to convey. If you don't agree, take it up with the BBC, NHK and all the broadcast entities out there using HLG. I'm out.


----------



## harsh

harperhometheater said:


> ATSC and QAM certainly are in the realm of analog broadcasting and modulators have a darn big role in that too.


My point is that these technologies have no role in AT&T TV streaming on the downstream side.

Most viewer's broadband hops in and out of the RF domain at least once but the streams remain digital no matter how many times that happens and knowing how or why it happens doesn't change what's happening.

There are certainly lessons to be learned from the experience of broadcasters, but they are of interest to the carriers, not the viewer.


----------



## lparsons21

I’ve been going over what I watch, which channels and so forth, and I came to the conclusion that keeping a high priced live streaming service just doesn’t make sense since I watch very little on it. I get the broadcast via antenna and an OTA DVR, I watch boxing and golf quite a bit, but the cable channel shows are almost all reruns, game shows or phony reality shows.

And over the last few days I was getting buffering quite a bit and tested my internet. Not good! Reset the cable modem and router and everything smoothed out. So I thought, maybe this has been affecting my look at Sling and YTTV too. And since I still had a few days left on those, I started testing. And yes, it had negatively affected both services quite a bit.

Neither of those services provide DD5.1 but most scripted shows on cable channels are also available via Hulu & CBS:All Access. Boxing and Golf don’t need DD5.1 and the PQ on both Sling & YTTV is good enough now.

So switched to SlingBlue+TotalTV and save a bit over $40/month.


----------



## Davenlr

Can you check how CNN, Fox Sports 1, and MSNBC look on Sling? Two should be 1080 and the sports should be 720. Curious mainly about motion artifacts from the 30 frames per second. YTTV would only save me $4, and I would lose DD5.1.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> Can you check how CNN, Fox Sports 1, and MSNBC look on Sling? Two should be 1080 and the sports should be 720. Curious mainly about motion artifacts from the 30 frames per second. YTTV would only save me $4, and I would lose DD5.1.


Sure. Other than just eyeballing I can't tell what the resolution is as all my boxes upscale, even running the Sling app on the TV won't let me as the button for that interacts with the Sling app.

Both CNN and MSNBC look good with no evidence of artifacting to my eyes. FS1 looks good too but it is just some talking heads on now. So I looked at some recordings of boxing I did on FS2 and they looked fine too. I'm watching on a 75" Sony 900E 4K TV.

Sling has a free trial, i think it is 7 days. Give it a whirl. Note that Sling Blue and add-ons give 3 streams, but channels exclusive to Sling Orange are single stream only. So if ESPN and other Disney stuff is needed, that's a limitation. And for pricing, Blue+Gold+TotalTV is now $77/month so if you wanted to go that way, YouTubeTV is a better deal.


----------



## lparsons21

Did some more fiddling...

This time on the various boxes.

AppleTV4K - very solid picture, no discernible artifacting.

FireTV Cube 2nd Gen -same as AppleTV

Roku 2020 Ultra - Not as good. With Sling on it you get that almost undetectable jerkiness that can be so irritating. Note I only get this with Sling. Tried switching that box to wired Ethernet but it didn’t help.

ATT’s Osprey box - Same as AppleTV

Note that overall the picture is softer than what ATT’s service provides.


----------



## lparsons21

And a little more fiddling...

Voice trickplay with Sling only works on the ATT Osprey for some odd reason. Voice search inside Sling doesn’t work though.


----------



## Davenlr

My Roku Ultra 2020 isnt hooked up since I got the Osprey but I recall an option to track the incoming framerate or force it to 60. Perhaps changing that setting would eliminate the slight jerkyness on that box.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> My Roku Ultra 2020 isnt hooked up since I got the Osprey but I recall an option to track the incoming framerate or force it to 60. Perhaps changing that setting would eliminate the slight jerkyness on that box.


Thanks. Didn't help. Most likely I'll continue to use the Osprey or FireTV as they give DD5.1 for all apps that have it. AppleTV looks good but Hulu doesn't do DD5.1 on ATV and I hate the remote.


----------



## Davenlr

Question on the Osprey box. How the heck do you get it to turn off, without it turning off everything else? Only way I can find is to hit pause to stop using bandwidth, but then Ive come back to it and found it was streaming again. I cant figure out a way to tell it to STOP. If I try to turn it off, it turns everything else off too, and I dont want to disable CEC.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Question on the Osprey box. How the heck do you get it to turn off, without it turning off everything else? Only way I can find is to hit pause to stop using bandwidth, but then Ive come back to it and found it was streaming again. I cant figure out a way to tell it to STOP. If I try to turn it off, it turns everything else off too, and I dont want to disable CEC.


Without disabling CEC I don't see any other way


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> Question on the Osprey box. How the heck do you get it to turn off, without it turning off everything else? Only way I can find is to hit pause to stop using bandwidth, but then Ive come back to it and found it was streaming again. I cant figure out a way to tell it to STOP. If I try to turn it off, it turns everything else off too, and I dont want to disable CEC.


You might try changing the setting for the TV and audio on the Osprey to something you don't have. And disable CEC on the Osprey.


----------



## Davenlr

Ill give that a try, thanks.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> Ill give that a try, thanks.


I just looked at the Osprey's setup for remotes. One setting in the Program your remote section is to power off devices. I just turned that off and when I hit the power button, only the Osprey turned off.


----------



## espaeth

This is an absolute gem in the DIRECTV sale FAQ:



> What happens when the agreement is given final approval by regulators (expected in the second half of 2021)?
> 
> While current AT&T video subscribers may notice a change in the name of their video provider, (DIRECTV rather than AT&T) we expect few changes


AT&T & TPG Capital Form New Entity to Operate AT&T's U.S. Video Unit

It's like the lifecycle of ATT as a company playing out all over again.

So the streaming product is going to be.... DIRECTV+ ?


----------



## Davenlr

lparsons21 said:


> I'll continue to use the Osprey


OK, Osprey guru. My box pops up a screen "Shutting down in: xx seconds" at 1pm every single day. It then restarts. It does save where I was in my DVR program, so I can resume 5 minutes later when it comes back on. I have disabled screen saver, and 4 hour power savings. I can find no other options that would cause the box to reboot at 1pm every day. I could see if doing it at 3am or something, but 1pm is a rather strange time...especially when you are using the box. Any ideas?


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> OK, Osprey guru. My box pops up a screen "Shutting down in: xx seconds" at 1pm every single day. It then restarts. It does save where I was in my DVR program, so I can resume 5 minutes later when it comes back on. I have disabled screen saver, and 4 hour power savings. I can find no other options that would cause the box to reboot at 1pm every day. I could see if doing it at 3am or something, but 1pm is a rather strange time...especially when you are using the box. Any ideas?


I've not seen that yet. Maybe it is a new 'feature'? 

Sounds like you've looked at the usual suspects to cause that and that is all I would have recommended.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> OK, Osprey guru. My box pops up a screen "Shutting down in: xx seconds" at 1pm every single day. It then restarts. It does save where I was in my DVR program, so I can resume 5 minutes later when it comes back on. I have disabled screen saver, and 4 hour power savings. I can find no other options that would cause the box to reboot at 1pm every day. I could see if doing it at 3am or something, but 1pm is a rather strange time...especially when you are using the box. Any ideas?


I would do a wipe... maybe it has a bad software load. I think if you hit the red reset button.. then when it hits the ATT logo do it again 10 times.. It will do a full factory restore and download.. will take about 30 min to come back up


----------



## Davenlr

Would that be the same as the factory reset in the menu?


----------



## harperhometheater

Maybe it’s a prior Beta box which was scheduled to do a daily download update and reboot each day?


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Would that be the same as the factory reset in the menu?


I dont know i just know that sequence causes a very low level re downloading of software


----------



## James Long

espaeth said:


> This is an absolute gem in the DIRECTV sale FAQ:
> AT&T & TPG Capital Form New Entity to Operate AT&T's U.S. Video Unit
> 
> It's like the lifecycle of ATT as a company playing out all over again.
> 
> So the streaming product is going to be.... DIRECTV+ ?


The exact names have not been announced. They just won't be AT&T or use the globe symbol. DIRECTV will be a MVPD/vMVPD ... not a content provider like most of the "plus" services.


----------



## Davenlr

harperhometheater said:


> Maybe it's a prior Beta box which was scheduled to do a daily download update and reboot each day?


That is possible.  I did get it from Ebay. Since it is android, Ill just let it reboot every day. Probably helps it anyway.
Interestingly, every time I go to the Check for Updates, the bar is about 10% across and says downloading for about 5 seconds before it says Up to Date.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> The exact names have not been announced. They just won't be AT&T or use the globe symbol. DIRECTV will be a MVPD/vMVPD ... not a content provider like most of the "plus" services.


Have they ruled out use of the AT&T name in these MVPDs' brand names? If so, this is the first I've heard of that. That would mean AT&T TV will change its name. To what, though? IMO, they shouldn't apply the DirecTV brand to it, as it's always going to be associated with satellite TV. And when you append a word to an established brand name (e.g. DirecTV Now), it communicates that the product is somehow derivative of the original "real" thing (e.g. Diet Coke).

All I've seen so far simply indicates that the name of the newly formed joint venture company running these services will be DirecTV, sometimes referred to as "new DirecTV". But I haven't seen anything about changes to the underlying MVPD brand names.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> That is possible. I did get it from Ebay. Since it is android, Ill just let it reboot every day. Probably helps it anyway.
> Interestingly, every time I go to the Check for Updates, the bar is about 10% across and says downloading for about 5 seconds before it says Up to Date.


You don't want it rebooting every day. AndroidTV lives for cached data and all that is doing is clearing it. Try the reset sequence I suggested


----------



## Davenlr

Started it at 6pm CST. Says "Downloading Update" Will see what happens.


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> Have they ruled out use of the AT&T name in these MVPDs' brand names? If so, this is the first I've heard of that. That would mean AT&T TV will change its name. *To what, though?* IMO, they shouldn't apply the DirecTV brand to it, as it's always going to be associated with satellite TV. And when you append a word to an established brand name (e.g. DirecTV Now), it communicates that the product is somehow derivative of the original "real" thing (e.g. Diet Coke).
> 
> All I've seen so far simply indicates that the name of the newly formed joint venture company running these services will be DirecTV, sometimes referred to as "new DirecTV". But I haven't seen anything about changes to the underlying MVPD brand names.


TPG TV? 

AT&T wants to rid itself of TV services so I can't imagine they want to keep it as AT&T TV.


----------



## Davenlr

Experts...I have a Tivo with ATSC tuner and QAM tuner. If I wanted to record (DVR) locally, would I be able to set up a manual recording on the Tivo for a time range, and then set the ATT box on the channel I wanted recorded, and put the output of the ATT box to Hybrid 1080p HDMI To Digital QAM Modulator + HDMI To ATSC HD Encoder Modulator | eBay ?
It would also appear I could transmit anything output from my AVR through the house to every TV via the old direcTv coax.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> TPG TV?
> 
> AT&T wants to rid itself of TV services so I can't imagine they want to keep it as AT&T TV.


They want to get rid of satellite TV. It's not clear to me that they want to be rid of software-based OTT TV, i.e. AT&T TV. In fact, I noticed that they just recently adopted a new logo for AT&T Fiber that matches the AT&T TV logo. They still own 70% of it and I think they have every intention of continuing to include it in the sell-through for new AT&T Fiber sign-ups, as well as selling it in AT&T Stores.

That said, who knows, maybe they will decide to take AT&T out of the name, as AT&T TV could be included in a future complete sell-off of DTV. And by having a new brand name not associated with AT&T, it might help them strike distribution partnerships for AT&T TV with other operators, such as smaller cable companies, telcos and municipal fiber operators who don't want to continue operating their own cable TV service (which barely eeks out a profit for small MVPDs).


----------



## Davenlr

Davenlr said:


> Started it at 6pm CST. Says "Downloading Update" Will see what happens.


It is back up and running. Took 1 hour total.


----------



## b4pjoe

I don't really know but they sold 30% of it off along with DIRECTV and U-Verse. That is pretty much all of their TV business. And some people claim AT&T will not be involved with running any of it.


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> I don't really know but they sold 30% of it off along with DIRECTV and U-Verse. That is pretty much all of their TV business. And some people claim AT&T will not be involved with running any of it.


The new CEO is the current President of ATT video and two of the board members are form ATT. Safe to say who is still running the show


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> It is back up and running. Took 1 hour total.


You must have had a stuck update


----------



## Davenlr

As long as they keep it at 1080p and Dolby 5.1, Satan can run it.


----------



## techguy88

b4pjoe said:


> I don't really know but they sold 30% of it off along with DIRECTV and U-Verse. That is pretty much all of their TV business. And some people claim AT&T will not be involved with running any of it.


TPG will be the managing partner, AT&T will most likely get a say in things that involve them since they own the infrastructure that U-Verse TV uses which is the same infrastructure AT&T Internet, AT&T Fiber & AT&T Phone uses. On the consumer facing front I feel DirecTV will dis-associate itself from the AT&T brand. U-Verse TV's brand will remain unchanged as that is no longer sold to new customers (so why confuse the old ones). AT&T TV's brand would most likely stay the same since the deal allows "New DirecTV" and AT&T to benefit from possible synergies (i.e. a double, triple or quad play bundle.)



compnurd said:


> The new CEO is the current President of ATT video and two of the board members are form ATT. Safe to say who is still running the show


True but the CEO would be open to more of TPG's ideas for the combined entity. Since the video side is being spun-off that CEO is not technically beholden to/employed by AT&T anymore he would need to make decisions that would primarily benefit "New DirecTV". The other two AT&T people on the board are probably just there to ensure any of TPG's ideas do not harm AT&T itself. Anything outside of that they will probably say "go for it".


----------



## techguy88

espaeth said:


> This is an absolute gem in the DIRECTV sale FAQ:
> 
> AT&T & TPG Capital Form New Entity to Operate AT&T's U.S. Video Unit
> 
> It's like the lifecycle of ATT as a company playing out all over again.
> 
> So the streaming product is going to be.... DIRECTV+ ?


Since AT&T still owns 70% the name must be confusing so there will be DirecTV then AT&T TV will transform into DirecTV Now+Go Max.


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> As long as they keep it at 1080p and Dolby 5.1, Satan can run it.


LOL! I hate to hear what you'd be willing to live with in exchange for 4K HDR.


----------



## b4pjoe

techguy88 said:


> Since AT&T still owns 70% the name must be confusing so there will be DirecTV then AT&T TV will transform into DirecTV Now+Go Max.


You should trademark that before they steal it from you.


----------



## b4pjoe

compnurd said:


> The new CEO is the current President of ATT video and two of the board members are form ATT. Safe to say who is still running the show


Oh I agree that is why I said some people are saying that. Not me.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> I don't really know but they sold 30% of it off along with DIRECTV and U-Verse. That is pretty much all of their TV business. And some people claim AT&T will not be involved with running any of it.


I remember reading an article a few months back during the negotiations saying that TPG didn't want to purchase DTV without AT&T TV because envisioned DTV subs leaving it over time for AT&T TV. I don't think it was ever in AT&T's original plans to sell off a stake in AT&T TV too but it became necessary in order to sell a stake in DTV (which, as the low price indicates, wasn't easy to accomplish).

And if TPG was going to buy a stake in both DTV and AT&T TV, it didn't make sense not to include their zombie MVPD Uverse TV too. As I've said before, the only logical endgame for Uverse TV is to replace it with AT&T TV -- transition as much of its sub base over and then shut it down. (As one AT&T employee posted online recently, U-verse TV "is a dead man walking. It is a very complex system that only runs on obsolete servers that are being held together with chewing gum and baling twine. Microsoft sold off the Mediaroom software that makes it work years ago. Most of the people who know how to make it work are scattered to the 4 winds now.") I'd add to that that the OEM that made the Uverse TV STBs stopped producing them years ago. That whole operation is on borrowed time. So whoever's calling the shots for AT&T TV should do so for Uverse TV too. I mean, the only important decision left for it really is how and when to migrate the subs over to AT&T TV.


----------



## Davenlr

How hard could it be to send them a ATT TV box with instructions on swapping them out? Unless Uverse had component or RF output for old tube TVs or something. Seems cheaper than running two parallel systems with outdated equipment you cannot maintain, with employees you cannot hire without overpaying them by lots. Uverse internet might be an issue tho.


----------



## harperhometheater

Davenlr said:


> Experts...I have a Tivo with ATSC tuner and QAM tuner. If I wanted to record (DVR) locally, would I be able to set up a manual recording on the Tivo for a time range, and then set the ATT box on the channel I wanted recorded, and put the output of the ATT box to Hybrid 1080p HDMI To Digital QAM Modulator + HDMI To ATSC HD Encoder Modulator | eBay ?
> It would also appear I could transmit anything output from my AVR through the house to every TV via the old direcTv coax.


Yes this works great with TiVo or any other ATSC or QAM tuner device. I used to do what you're attempting using a VeCoax HDMI to ATSC/QAM Modulator.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> Have they ruled out use of the AT&T name in these MVPDs' brand names?


The SEC filing explicitly mentions not using the globe logo. New brands not announced.



NashGuy said:


> In fact, I noticed that they just recently adopted a new logo for AT&T Fiber that matches the AT&T TV logo. They still own 70% of it and I think they have every intention of continuing to include it in the sell-through for new AT&T Fiber sign-ups, as well as selling it in AT&T Stores.


AT&T Fiber is not part of the Video group that is becoming new DIRECTV. Bundling new DIRECTV's MVPD service is possible regardless of name. Just like CenturyLink, Frontier and others have bundled DIRECTV services with their services.



compnurd said:


> The new CEO is the current President of ATT video and two of the board members are form ATT. Safe to say who is still running the show


TPG paid $7.6 billion dollars to run the show. There is no point in them kicking out that level of funding if new DIRECTV still answers to the death star. AT&T gets two governing board members. TPG gets two governing board members. The fifth member is the CEO of new DIRECTV who will be an employee of DIRECTV, not a person under the control of AT&T. AT&T is trading their right to micro-manage Video for $7.6 billion.

Read the SEC filing (linked in the primary thread). It lays out fairly clearly the structure of the new company.


----------



## compnurd

James Long said:


> The SEC filing explicitly mentions not using the globe logo. New brands not announced.
> 
> AT&T Fiber is not part of the Video group that is becoming new DIRECTV. Bundling new DIRECTV's MVPD service is possible regardless of name. Just like CenturyLink, Frontier and others have bundled DIRECTV services with their services.
> 
> TPG paid $7.6 billion dollars to run the show. There is no point in them kicking out that level of funding if new DIRECTV still answers to the death star. AT&T gets two governing board members. TPG gets two governing board members. The fifth member is the CEO of new DIRECTV who will be an employee of DIRECTV, not a person under the control of AT&T. AT&T is trading their right to micro-manage Video for $7.6 billion.
> 
> Read the SEC filing (linked in the primary thread). It lays out fairly clearly the structure of the new company.


Why not? If they make some money on the deal over the next few years who cares who is running it. There a private equity firm out to make money short term You can claim all you want that the CEO is not beholden to ATT anymore but sorry lol that's not how it works at the top. He will be loyal to Stankey for the role


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> If they make some money on the deal over the next few years who cares who is running it.


The subscribers?


----------



## compnurd

harsh said:


> The subscribers?


Lmao. That's funny. How is your subscription to ATT TV going?


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> The SEC filing explicitly mentions not using the globe logo. New brands not announced.


Interesting. Although I don't think I've ever seen the globe used as part of the AT&T TV logo in marketing. The globe does appear on the AT&T TV device, though. I guess it won't be on the upcoming 2nd-gen version.



James Long said:


> AT&T Fiber is not part of the Video group that is becoming new DIRECTV. Bundling new DIRECTV's MVPD service is possible regardless of name. Just like CenturyLink, Frontier and others have bundled DIRECTV services with their services.


Sure. I wasn't insinuating otherwise, only that by recently adopting a new logo for AT&T Fiber that matches the look of the AT&T TV logo, they're visually communicating the idea that "these are sibling products that go together." I'm sure that was part of the even more basic decision to name the TV service "AT&T TV" rather than "DirecTV Stream" or whatever. (Remember when there was endless back-and-forth speculation here on what they were going to name AT&T TV?) Simply naming it AT&T TV suggests that it's a one of the main, fundamental services the company offers, alongside AT&T Wireless, AT&T Fiber and AT&T Internet.

Now, who knows, maybe AT&T is fine with AT&T TV changing its name and losing the AT&T moniker. It increasingly sounds like the company views cable TV as passé anyhow and really just wants to focus on HBO Max.

As for bundling AT&T TV with other internet providers like CenturyLink, that might be an argument in favor of dropping AT&T from the name. Might be more attractive for those operators to market a TV service with its own unique brand name that isn't tied to another telecom. I think they have a real opportunity to strike distribution partnerships not only with other telcos like CenturyLink and Frontier (both of whom seem like they're ready to euthanize their Uverse TV-like managed IPTV services) but also smaller tier 2 & 3 cable operators like CableOne that are looking to ditch traditional QAM cable TV. (CableOne, in particular, may be in the lurch now because the semi-turnkey OTT/IPTV platform they were going to use to roll their own next-gen TV service, MobiTV, just entered bankruptcy. They're the guys who also power T-Mobile's new TVision service. In the meantime, T-Mo is giving them a loan to keep them running for the next few months while they figure things out.)

AT&T TV has some important benefits to offer little operators looking to get out of running their own MVPDs. It's a ready-to-go no-risk product, they have just about all the big 4 network locals across the nation onboarded plus pretty much all the national cable nets anyone cares about, and they offer a more traditional cable-like UX/UI with an optional dedicated box and full-featured remote. None of the other vMVPDs can claim all that. If you're gonna cut off grandma's traditional cable TV, AT&T TV is the closest and best streaming approximation of it you could replace it with.


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> How hard could it be to send them a ATT TV box with instructions on swapping them out? Unless Uverse had component or RF output for old tube TVs or something. Seems cheaper than running two parallel systems with outdated equipment you cannot maintain, with employees you cannot hire without overpaying them by lots. Uverse internet might be an issue tho.


Yeah, not technically hard at all, just a business/marketing/communications plan that would need to be formulated and executed. Mainly about how you incentivize and motivate existing Uverse TV subs to choose to switch to AT&T TV. I don't think they could just force the change on them, it would have to be a voluntary decision on each customer's part. The risk, of course, is that when they're told that Uverse TV will be coming to an end in X months, some customers will say, "Well if I have to make a change in my TV service, maybe I'll see what other options are available." And so some folks go to YouTube TV or Hulu Live, some cut the cord on cable TV completely, and a few may decide to completely switch to a different broadband+TV provider like the local cable company. So there's no realistic scenario where all Uverse TV customers migrate to AT&T TV. But they'll presumably want to get as many of them as possible to do so.

But yes, as you say, that has to balanced against the fact that AT&T/DirecTV is not going to want to indefinitely run two parallel systems on outdated equipment. So sooner or later, it gets shut down.


----------



## James Long

AT&T has confused the branding of their Video product that I'd put nothing past them. Call it Zanfire TV - that would make as much sense as some past decisions. But what we do know is what was filed with the SEC.


----------



## raott

James Long said:


> AT&T has confused the branding of their Video product that I'd put nothing past them. Call it Zanfire TV - that would make as much sense as some past decisions. But what we do know is what was filed with the SEC.


James, any thought to giving each of the larger streaming providers their own forum rather than be tucked and lumped under streaming services?


----------



## James Long

raott said:


> James, any thought to giving each of the larger streaming providers their own forum rather than be tucked and lumped under streaming services?


I don't believe any forum structure changes are planned ... but that would be a topic for Forum Support or you could try the Contact Us link at the bottom of the page.


----------



## Steveknj

We just signed up for AT&T TV and we are going to give it a thorough 2 week run through before we cut the cord on DirecTV. This is how we are testing:

I bought one Osprey box from eBay for approx. $50. The rest of the TVs in the house (and there are 5 others) will be testing with either a Roku or Firestick using the app. I have completely disconnected the C61k from my main TV (though the HR54 is still connected to the TV in my bedroom.

Known issues going in:
1) Missing CW, PBS, NFL Network, 4k channels from what we had before. We are supplementing this with a combination of Locast and Channels DVR so my son, a huge comic book fan can record his DC shows on the CW. The Channels DVR works well and has the added feature of one button press commercial skip. Nice feature. Total cost of the two is about $13 per month.
2) Learning curve....getting the family used to something new after 20 years of DirecTV. Don't underestimate this. But so far, it's not bad. Added beneifit that the one room that didn't have DirecTV in it now has a full Live TV solution.

Testing so far (and questions):
1) Setup took awhile with the Osprey. There was one update, that took about a half hour to complete. During this time we set up one TV with the app and was playing around with it. Osprey set up with Ethernet. Other rooms are wireless.
2) Took awhile to get used to the new interface, but I really like it. Looks much more modern than what DirecTV has. While setting up the Season Passes. The box started lagging badly, and eventually rebooted itself. 
3) The Osprey uses the DirecTV channel numbers, but the streaming apps have no channel numbers, so everything is alphabetized. That will take some getting used to when steaming.
4) Recordings - missing a way to set up "teams" so that when recording sports, for example, I'd like to set just NY Rangers, but instead it picks up all NHL games regardless of team. Not a huge deal with an unlimited DVR, but it just means more to scroll through. I don't think there's a way to pad, which is going to cause problem with shows that regularly are delayed due to sports overruns or games that run long. I THINK I noticed that the one game I recorded last night was scheduled for 2.5 hours, and it looked like it recorded past that, but I'm not sure. I'll have to look.
5) There's no real instruction manual, but I was able to accidentally find out how to do trick play, which seems to work well on the Osprey. Not sure about the app, yet.
6) Only one shared favorites list for channels. I wish you could do multiple favorite lists so that we could each use our own. We just had a consensus on which to put on our favorites list and we'll go from there. Minor nitpick.
7) I think the picture quality is better than DirecTV, but of course a lot of this has to do with what the networks are streaming in.
8) Tried using Google Voice during SP setup, it found the term, but it lagged badly.
9) No way I could find to record upcoming shows that are some time in the future. For example I could set up Holey Moley on my DirecTV box even though it's not recording any content for awhile. I didn't see a way to do this.
10) We took the second to most expensive package, which gave us as close to what we had on DirecTV as possible. Missing the above channels already mentioned, but added in StarzEncore. Missing WestCoast feeds of some of the Viacom content and HBO which I had on DirecTV. Again, not a huge deal.
11) We got HBO Max for a year as part of the package. I also noticed that it added linear HBO channels. I guess that just came with getting HBO Max
12) Apps on the Osprey box. Only useful app for me at this time is HBO Max. Netflix has no DolbyAtmos or DolbyVison (which my other Android TV device, TiVo streaming stick, has). Disney + is also missing any 4k streaming or Atmos. So I'll continue to use those devices that support that. I was hoping I could get rid of those devices if this had what I was looking for.

Wishlists:
1) The most obvious is the missing channels. That would save me $13 a month. Hopefully they are coming
2) Multiple Favorites lists
3) Profiles...DirecTV doesn't have them either (but was able to supplement that with multiple DVRs). It would be nice to have Profiles for the cloud DVR, and I can't see that as being too difficult to install. 
4) 4k content. I'd pay for that if there was some significant 4k. 

If I go this route, I'll probably save somewhere between $70-$80 a month. My current D* bill is a little over $200.  Not including the price of the Osprey which is a one time expense, this system will cost the following:
$105 for AT&T TV (Ultimate package + Unlimited DVR). After a year, it will go up about $15 for HBO Max
$13 for Locast + Channels DVR

So that's a significant savings without a huge drop off in service and offerings. 

More testing to follow.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> We just signed up for AT&T TV and we are going to give it a thorough 2 week run through before we cut the cord on DirecTV. This is how we are testing:
> 
> I bought one Osprey box from eBay for approx. $50. The rest of the TVs in the house (and there are 5 others) will be testing with either a Roku or Firestick using the app. I have completely disconnected the C61k from my main TV (though the HR54 is still connected to the TV in my bedroom.
> 
> Known issues going in:
> 1) Missing CW, PBS, NFL Network, 4k channels from what we had before. We are supplementing this with a combination of Locast and Channels DVR so my son, a huge comic book fan can record his DC shows on the CW. The Channels DVR works well and has the added feature of one button press commercial skip. Nice feature. Total cost of the two is about $13 per month.
> 2) Learning curve....getting the family used to something new after 20 years of DirecTV. Don't underestimate this. But so far, it's not bad. Added beneifit that the one room that didn't have DirecTV in it now has a full Live TV solution.
> 
> Testing so far (and questions):
> 1) Setup took awhile with the Osprey. There was one update, that took about a half hour to complete. During this time we set up one TV with the app and was playing around with it. Osprey set up with Ethernet. Other rooms are wireless.
> 2) Took awhile to get used to the new interface, but I really like it. Looks much more modern than what DirecTV has. While setting up the Season Passes. The box started lagging badly, and eventually rebooted itself.
> 3) The Osprey uses the DirecTV channel numbers, but the streaming apps have no channel numbers, so everything is alphabetized. That will take some getting used to when steaming.
> 4) Recordings - missing a way to set up "teams" so that when recording sports, for example, I'd like to set just NY Rangers, but instead it picks up all NHL games regardless of team. Not a huge deal with an unlimited DVR, but it just means more to scroll through. I don't think there's a way to pad, which is going to cause problem with shows that regularly are delayed due to sports overruns or games that run long. I THINK I noticed that the one game I recorded last night was scheduled for 2.5 hours, and it looked like it recorded past that, but I'm not sure. I'll have to look.
> 5) There's no real instruction manual, but I was able to accidentally find out how to do trick play, which seems to work well on the Osprey. Not sure about the app, yet.
> 6) Only one shared favorites list for channels. I wish you could do multiple favorite lists so that we could each use our own. We just had a consensus on which to put on our favorites list and we'll go from there. Minor nitpick.
> 7) I think the picture quality is better than DirecTV, but of course a lot of this has to do with what the networks are streaming in.
> 8) Tried using Google Voice during SP setup, it found the term, but it lagged badly.
> 9) No way I could find to record upcoming shows that are some time in the future. For example I could set up Holey Moley on my DirecTV box even though it's not recording any content for awhile. I didn't see a way to do this.
> 10) We took the second to most expensive package, which gave us as close to what we had on DirecTV as possible. Missing the above channels already mentioned, but added in StarzEncore. Missing WestCoast feeds of some of the Viacom content and HBO which I had on DirecTV. Again, not a huge deal.
> 11) We got HBO Max for a year as part of the package. I also noticed that it added linear HBO channels. I guess that just came with getting HBO Max
> 12) Apps on the Osprey box. Only useful app for me at this time is HBO Max. Netflix has no DolbyAtmos or DolbyVison (which my other Android TV device, TiVo streaming stick, has). Disney + is also missing any 4k streaming or Atmos. So I'll continue to use those devices that support that. I was hoping I could get rid of those devices if this had what I was looking for.
> 
> Wishlists:
> 1) The most obvious is the missing channels. That would save me $13 a month. Hopefully they are coming
> 2) Multiple Favorites lists
> 3) Profiles...DirecTV doesn't have them either (but was able to supplement that with multiple DVRs). It would be nice to have Profiles for the cloud DVR, and I can't see that as being too difficult to install.
> 4) 4k content. I'd pay for that if there was some significant 4k.
> 
> If I go this route, I'll probably save somewhere between $70-$80 a month. My current D* bill is a little over $200. Not including the price of the Osprey which is a one time expense, this system will cost the following:
> $105 for AT&T TV (Ultimate package + Unlimited DVR). After a year, it will go up about $15 for HBO Max
> $13 for Locast + Channels DVR
> 
> So that's a significant savings without a huge drop off in service and offerings.
> 
> More testing to follow.


The Osprey like all Android TV boxes likes to store things in memory for speed. So the longer it is online without being reset the faster it will get.. Google Assistant for Example. Slow the first time.. Very responsive after that.. The same is with all commands after the first load.


----------



## lparsons21

Just a couple quickies for you

I got Atmos on Disney+ and Amazon Prime as well as the rare shows on HBO Max that have it. As you noted, none on Netflix which doesn’t make sense to me.

Trickplay on the Osprey works as expected including voice skip/rewind and so forth. That’s also true on the Roku devices. FireTV devices don’t do voice trickplay with the AT&T app.

No padding of shows and it is one of the most requested features, right behind Profiles.

For The CW you can use the Discover —>Networks to find the channel and the shows in VOD. Of course with the requisite ads. IMO, the VOD on ATT’s service is great and compares well to YouTubeTV’s which is also great. Each are missing some shows or episodes and not always the same ones.

For instance, Vagrant Queen on ATT’s VOD is the complete one season it was on. On YTTV is isn’t there, or maybe it was one episode. Some other VOD channels are the same and there seems to be no rhyme or reason why they are on one and not on the other services.


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> Just a couple quickies for you
> 
> I got Atmos on Disney+ and Amazon Prime as well as the rare shows on HBO Max that have it. As you noted, none on Netflix which doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> Trickplay on the Osprey works as expected including voice skip/rewind and so forth. That's also true on the Roku devices. FireTV devices don't do voice trickplay with the AT&T app.
> 
> No padding of shows and it is one of the most requested features, right behind Profiles.
> 
> For The CW you can use the Discover ->Networks to find the channel and the shows in VOD. Of course with the requisite ads. IMO, the VOD on ATT's service is great and compares well to YouTubeTV's which is also great. Each are missing some shows or episodes and not always the same ones.
> 
> For instance, Vagrant Queen on ATT's VOD is the complete one season it was on. On YTTV is isn't there, or maybe it was one episode. Some other VOD channels are the same and there seems to be no rhyme or reason why they are on one and not on the other services.


That's weird about Disney+. I had that issue before on Roku where it wouldn't find Atmos and eventually it did. Maybe that will happen with the Osprey box eventually.

Thanks for the tip on VOD. My son likes to watch as close to airing as possible, and the problem with VOD (same with Hulu for example) is that you usually can't get the shows for about a week later (maybe it's better here? I don't know). That hurts his ability to discuss these shows with his colleagues at work. I'll have to see how it works here.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> That's weird about Disney+. I had that issue before on Roku where it wouldn't find Atmos and eventually it did. Maybe that will happen with the Osprey box eventually.
> 
> Thanks for the tip on VOD. My son likes to watch as close to airing as possible, and the problem with VOD (same with Hulu for example) is that you usually can't get the shows for about a week later (maybe it's better here? I don't know). That hurts his ability to discuss these shows with his colleagues at work. I'll have to see how it works here.


It boils down to there will never be one box... lol


----------



## lparsons21

Steveknj said:


> That's weird about Disney+. I had that issue before on Roku where it wouldn't find Atmos and eventually it did. Maybe that will happen with the Osprey box eventually.
> 
> Thanks for the tip on VOD. My son likes to watch as close to airing as possible, and the problem with VOD (same with Hulu for example) is that you usually can't get the shows for about a week later (maybe it's better here? I don't know). That hurts his ability to discuss these shows with his colleagues at work. I'll have to see how it works here.


Usually the VOD for The CW shows up the next day. As you noted, it does vary by channel though.


----------



## lparsons21

Steveknj said:


> That's weird about Disney+. I had that issue before on Roku where it wouldn't find Atmos and eventually it did. Maybe that will happen with the Osprey box eventually.


Well... 

After posting that it did do Atmos in Disney+ I decided to check yet again. As of the morning no Atmos on Disney+. 

Disney+ app today just wouldn't completely load on the Osprey, had to go and clear data and cache. Then it ran fine but it decided I couldn't watch most of the stuff I would watch. Fiddling with the profile and such I finally got it all to work. To be honest, I seldom watch Disney+.

But Atmos is there for Amazon Prime.


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> Usually the VOD for The CW shows up the next day. As you noted, it does vary by channel though.


I just looked at this and yes, it does appear to that each episode is about a week old.

One other weird quirk that I discovered by accident is that my Harmony Companion remote, without any type of reprogramming, works with the Osprey, which is really nice! I picked up the wrong remote and just started hitting the logical buttons and it worked. I didn't even realize I was using it.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> I just looked at this and yes, it does appear to that each episode is about a week old.
> 
> One other weird quirk that I discovered by accident is that my Harmony Companion remote, without any type of reprogramming, works with the Osprey, which is really nice! I picked up the wrong remote and just started hitting the logical buttons and it worked. I didn't even realize I was using it.


I think the AT&T TV remote uses the same code as the DTV Genie remote.

As for CW shows on-demand, you know there's a free CW app, right? Should be able to install it on the Osprey and everything else you have. It streams current CW shows next-day, although it does have unskippable ads. (I'm really surprised that they offer next-day access via their free app but hold back new eps a week for their paying customers on AT&T TV's VOD platform.)


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Trickplay on the Osprey works as expected including voice skip/rewind and so forth. That's also true on the Roku devices. FireTV devices don't do voice trickplay with the AT&T app.


I read somewhere that you can do 30-sec skip forward on the Osprey but on the AT&T TV app you're limited to 15-sec skip. Can you (or anyone) confirm if this is true?


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> I read somewhere that you can do 30-sec skip forward on the Osprey but on the AT&T TV app you're limited to 15-sec skip. Can you (or anyone) confirm if this is true?


It depends on the streaming box.

AppleTV doesn't really do skip in a normal manner, you 'scroll' with the trackpad and is very irritating.

On the FireTV you hit the center button on the d-pad and it brings up play controls and you use them to do 15 second skips.

On the Roku you can bump it 15 seconds or use voice.

On the Osprey it is 30 sec forward, 15 seconds back and you can use voice trickplay.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> AppleTV doesn't really do skip in a normal manner, you 'scroll' with the trackpad and is very irritating.


On all the apps I use, you can click on the left or right edge of the Apple TV remote trackpad to skip backward or forward (although the number of seconds you skip varies by app). I'm a bit surprised that the AT&T TV app doesn't conform to that convention when so many other apps do.



lparsons21 said:


> On the Osprey it is 30 sec forward, 15 seconds back and you can use voice trickplay.


Cool. I assume to skip, you're pressing the left/right D-pad buttons, not the dedicated rewind/FF buttons? (And as for rewind and FF, can you press them repeatedly to scrub through at faster speeds?)

As for voice trickplay, if you press the Google Assistant button and say "Skip ahead 3 minutes" when the ads start, it will do so? How fast and accurate would you say that is? It is a handy way to skip over ads or is it less hassle to use the skip or FF buttons?


----------



## harperhometheater

lparsons21 said:


> On the Osprey it is 30 sec forward, 15 seconds back and you can use voice trickplay.


Mine only does 15 seconds forward and 15 seconds backwards. How'd you get 30 seconds forward on your Osprey?

On a related business note, since you guys have been discussing this.........

AT&T CFO breaks down economic benefits of DirecTV spinoff


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> On all the apps I use, you can click on the left or right edge of the Apple TV remote trackpad to skip backward or forward (although the number of seconds you skip varies by app). I'm a bit surprised that the AT&T TV app doesn't conform to that convention when so many other apps do.
> 
> Cool. I assume to skip, you're pressing the left/right D-pad buttons, not the dedicated rewind/FF buttons? (And as for rewind and FF, can you press them repeatedly to scrub through at faster speeds?)
> 
> As for voice trickplay, if you press the Google Assistant button and say "Skip ahead 3 minutes" when the ads start, it will do so? How fast and accurate would you say that is? It is a handy way to skip over ads or is it less hassle to use the skip or FF buttons?


The right and left clicks are somewhat dependent on what you're doing, in some cases on some devices it steps up or down in channels. In recordings it skips back and forth. And yes, those are the buttons on the d-pad. And the FF/REW buttons do as you describe at varying speeds.

Voice trickplay works pretty well on the Osprey and after the Osprey has been run for awhile, it is fairly speedy. I just say "skip 3 minutes" and fairly quickly it does it, certainly not instantly but not so slow it pisses you off.


----------



## lparsons21

harperhometheater said:


> Mine only does 15 seconds forward and 15 seconds backwards. How'd you get 30 seconds forward on your Osprey?
> 
> On a related business note, since you guys have been discussing this.........
> 
> AT&T CFO breaks down economic benefits of DirecTV spinoff


I'm in the middle of a movie outside of ATT's service, just trying to remember. So it is highly possible I'm incorrect.


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> It depends on the streaming box.
> 
> AppleTV doesn't really do skip in a normal manner, you 'scroll' with the trackpad and is very irritating.
> 
> On the FireTV you hit the center button on the d-pad and it brings up play controls and you use them to do 15 second skips.
> 
> On the Roku you can bump it 15 seconds or use voice.
> 
> On the Osprey it is 30 sec forward, 15 seconds back and you can use voice trickplay.


My experience with the Osprey is that it's 15 seconds per skip but you can hit the button multiple times and piggy back the skips (for example, hit the button 4x and it will skip 60 seconds.) That's similar to how it worked on DirecTV. I haven't played enough with the controls on the other boxes yet. This is on recorded material, not sure how it works on paused live.


----------



## Davenlr

NashGuy said:


> I read somewhere that you can do 30-sec skip forward on the Osprey but on the AT&T TV app you're limited to 15-sec skip. Can you (or anyone) confirm if this is true?


You can hit the microphone and say Go forward 2 minutes if you want, or go forward 30 seconds


----------



## compnurd

So while we all rail on ATT TV with regards to padding. I had recorded MLB Tonight last night on the Mets. Was supposed to be on from 7-730. The previous game ran late. The recording is an hour long and got all of the delayed airing


----------



## Davenlr

That is nice. I scheduled the ARCA race on NBCSN, and the boxing match ran late, the race started 50 minutes late, recorded for 10 minutes and cut off. Guess it depends on which sport you are watching.


----------



## Davenlr

ATT TV just went out. 
"We're aware of the issue and are working on it" 50001-001

Wonderful. Its only the cloud DVR too, live is working.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> ATT TV just went out.
> "We're aware of the issue and are working on it" 50001-001
> 
> Wonderful. Its only the cloud DVR too, live is working.


Mine's working fine.


----------



## Davenlr

Strange. Mine came back up about 10 minutes later. It saved my spot tho.


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> So while we all rail on ATT TV with regards to padding. I had recorded MLB Tonight last night on the Mets. Was supposed to be on from 7-730. The previous game ran late. The recording is an hour long and got all of the delayed airing


I was watching hockey the other day, and while I watched it live, I did notice the recording went longer than the scheduled 2.5 hours. So I wonder if it just waits for the show to end before it stops recording? If so, how does it do that, and, that's pretty cool!


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> ATT TV just went out.
> "We're aware of the issue and are working on it" 50001-001
> 
> Wonderful. Its only the cloud DVR too, live is working.


Got the same thing last night while watching a recording on the cloud DVR using the Osprey, I switched over the the app on Roku and it seemed to be working. Maybe by the time I switched over it was fixed?


----------



## 7thton

Steveknj said:


> I was watching hockey the other day, and while I watched it live, I did notice the recording went longer than the scheduled 2.5 hours. So I wonder if it just waits for the show to end before it stops recording? If so, how does it do that, and, that's pretty cool!


Not sure, but YTTV has done this for a long time.


----------



## compnurd

7thton said:


> Not sure, but YTTV has done this for a long time.


And it Reddit is to believed it is very flaky
I would assume they are both using a similar technology for it so I would expect the same result


----------



## James Long

Most likely humans adjusting the end of program time.


----------



## Davenlr

Does anyone have a phone number to an actual ATT TV rep? MLB.TV has my "local" teams blacked out (Astros @ 450 miles, Rangers @ 320, KC @ 410, and St Louis at 390. I won't even start on what LOCAL means...but I digress... I was going to up my package to choice so I could watch the Cardinals this summer on Fox Sports Midwest. Come to find out MY RSN's are Fox Sports SW and Fox Sports OK. Apparently ATT thinks St Louis is not regional. So, MLB says Im local, and ATT says Im to far away. How in the HELL can I watch the Cardinals?


----------



## Steveknj

More playing last night with the Osprey and streaming app. I realized another DirecTV feature that I use quite a bit but not available here is "Cast&Crew" of a particular show. It's not complete on DirecTV but at least it's here. I'm sure I'll just do a search for it to replace it.

Also, how do you get to your Season Pass list (or whatever it's called). For example I wanted to check to see if I have a SP setup to record only new episodes but couldn't find a way to do that. Can that be found in the Menu section somewhere?


----------



## Davenlr

You can hit list and go to the top, and choose upcoming recordings. It doesnt show the season passes. If you select one, there is an option if its a season recording to cancel it, however.


----------



## lparsons21

Steveknj said:


> More playing last night with the Osprey and streaming app. I realized another DirecTV feature that I use quite a bit but not available here is "Cast&Crew" of a particular show. It's not complete on DirecTV but at least it's here. I'm sure I'll just do a search for it to replace it.
> 
> Also, how do you get to your Season Pass list (or whatever it's called). For example I wanted to check to see if I have a SP setup to record only new episodes but couldn't find a way to do that. Can that be found in the Menu section somewhere?


No season pass list exists, or if it does the app for ATT TV doesn't allow you to see it. The only way I've found is to just cancel the series recording and reset it to what you want. This is another of the repeating complaints about the app.

Note that if you look at 'upcoming recordings' over a few days out you may notice a slew of recordings scheduled on the 'rerun' channels. Usually as the date gets closer those start to drop off and you only get the ones you want with some screwups along the way.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Does anyone have a phone number to an actual ATT TV rep? MLB.TV has my "local" teams blacked out (Astros @ 450 miles, Rangers @ 320, KC @ 410, and St Louis at 390. I won't even start on what LOCAL means...but I digress... I was going to up my package to choice so I could watch the Cardinals this summer on Fox Sports Midwest. Come to find out MY RSN's are Fox Sports SW and Fox Sports OK. Apparently ATT thinks St Louis is not regional. So, MLB says Im local, and ATT says Im to far away. How in the HELL can I watch the Cardinals?


Whats your zip?


----------



## Davenlr

72118


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> No season pass list exists, or if it does the app for ATT TV doesn't allow you to see it. The only way I've found is to just cancel the series recording and reset it to what you want. This is another of the repeating complaints about the app.
> 
> Note that if you look at 'upcoming recordings' over a few days out you may notice a slew of recordings scheduled on the 'rerun' channels. Usually as the date gets closer those start to drop off and you only get the ones you want with some screwups along the way.


Thanks as always. That's what I figured I'd have to do. In the old days on DirecTV with only 2 tuners, I'd tweak my list so that channels that showed shows "one and done" would get priority over shows that repeated a new episode a few times a week. With 20 streams, this shouldn't be an issue, so removing a SP and then adding it back, is fine in this case.


----------



## b4pjoe

Davenlr said:


> Does anyone have a phone number to an actual ATT TV rep? MLB.TV has my "local" teams blacked out (Astros @ 450 miles, Rangers @ 320, KC @ 410, and St Louis at 390. I won't even start on what LOCAL means...but I digress... I was going to up my package to choice so I could watch the Cardinals this summer on Fox Sports Midwest. Come to find out MY RSN's are Fox Sports SW and Fox Sports OK. Apparently ATT thinks St Louis is not regional. So, MLB says Im local, and ATT says Im to far away. How in the HELL can I watch the Cardinals?


AT&T TV support can't help you. This is an MLB issue and their archaic zones and blackout rules. The only way I know that works would be use a VPN to fool MLB-TV into thinking you are NOT in the STL area.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> 72118


Yeh your in a weird spot.... Question.. Who is your local cable company? Curious what they have your RSN as


----------



## lparsons21

Steveknj said:


> Thanks as always. That's what I figured I'd have to do. In the old days on DirecTV with only 2 tuners, I'd tweak my list so that channels that showed shows "one and done" would get priority over shows that repeated a new episode a few times a week. With 20 streams, this shouldn't be an issue, so removing a SP and then adding it back, is fine in this case.


The streams don't really have anything to do with it. Using a cloud DVR as they do you are not dependent on tuners. Theoretically you could record an unlimited number of shows simultaneously. The only real downside to the way it works is that the recordings list can get huge and unwieldy, which is one of my biggest gripes with the way YouTubeTV does it.


----------



## Davenlr

compnurd said:


> Yeh your in a weird spot.... Question.. Who is your local cable company? Curious what they have your RSN as


Xfinity, and they have all the Cardinals games, but on a SD channel.
The RSNs are Fox Sports SW and ATT Sportsnet SW. 
The Cardinals channel isnt an RSN, its just some special deal they must have worked out to show the games from the local station in St Louis in Standard Def.
I already wrote to MLB.TV but they never reply.


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> The streams don't really have anything to do with it. Using a cloud DVR as they do you are not dependent on tuners. Theoretically you could record an unlimited number of shows simultaneously. The only real downside to the way it works is that the recordings list can get huge and unwieldy, which is one of my biggest gripes with the way YouTubeTV does it.


Perfect thanks.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> The streams don't really have anything to do with it. Using a cloud DVR as they do you are not dependent on tuners. Theoretically you could record an unlimited number of shows simultaneously. The only real downside to the way it works is that the recordings list can get huge and unwieldy, which is one of my biggest gripes with the way YouTubeTV does it.


Yup, I read a post months ago from a guy who scheduled a crazy number of simultaneous recordings (30, maybe?) on AT&T TV and they all recorded. Pretty sure I've seen marketing copy from AT&T TV themselves boasting about there being no recording conflicts.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> No season pass list exists, or if it does the app for ATT TV doesn't allow you to see it. The only way I've found is to just cancel the series recording and reset it to what you want. This is another of the repeating complaints about the app.
> 
> Note that if you look at 'upcoming recordings' over a few days out you may notice a slew of recordings scheduled on the 'rerun' channels. Usually as the date gets closer those start to drop off and you only get the ones you want with some screwups along the way.


So when you go to Recordings, and then click right over to Upcoming Recordings, in that latter list you only see individual scheduled recordings, e.g. Family Feud 3/9 5 PM, Family Feud 3/10 5 PM, Family Feud 3/11 5 PM? And the only option you have on each of those instances is to delete it or leave it alone?

If you wanted to cancel all future recordings of a particular series, how do you do it? Pull up the series info page and de-select "Record This Series" from there?


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> So when you go to Recordings, and then click right over to Upcoming Recordings, in that latter list you only see individual scheduled recordings, e.g. Family Feud 3/9 5 PM, Family Feud 3/10 5 PM, Family Feud 3/11 5 PM? And the only option you have on each of those instances is to delete it or leave it alone?
> 
> If you wanted to cancel all future recordings of a particular series, how do you do it? Pull up the series info page and de-select "Record This Series" from there?


You go to upcoming recordings, pick the one you want, then you can cancel that recording. To stop the series recording, you pick 'view all episodes' and there you can cancel series recording for that show. Awkward as hell and not documented anywhere other than posts here and there that I know of.


----------



## raott

compnurd said:


> So while we all rail on ATT TV with regards to padding. I had recorded MLB Tonight last night on the Mets. Was supposed to be on from 7-730. The previous game ran late. The recording is an hour long and got all of the delayed airing


This is good news. Thank you for the heads up.


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> Strange. Mine came back up about 10 minutes later. It saved my spot tho.


Hmm, kinda like my experience with DTV whenever it rained. Except in that case, it was live TV that went out for 10 minutes while the DVR still worked.


----------



## harperhometheater

The sports blackout rules are ridiculous. My “local” teams are pretty much all of CA according to them. Problem is, I live in HI which is 2,000+ OCEAN miles away from the closest CA city!!!

The whole point of blackouts is to promote fans in the stands. The premise being, if it’s blacked out and if you love your team enough, you’ll hop in your car, take a train or bus to the stadium/arena and buy a ticket to see the game live.

So I guess they actually expect me to take a day off work, spend $500+ on a round trip ticket, fly for 5-6 hours over open ocean, rent a car/take Uber/use mass transit from the airport to the stadium, buy an overpriced game ticket (and most likely way overpriced concessions), watch the game and then do the reverse to get home in time for work the next day, if I don’t take another day off work that is. 

So tell me what genius came up with this blackout plan and strategy?


----------



## lparsons21

Add to that though the blackout rules still apply idiotically, in most cases you cannot go to a live game at all these days.


----------



## espaeth

James Long said:


> Most likely humans adjusting the end of program time.


YTTV is extending recordings by matching programs with game stats. They incorporate live stats in a couple screens that you can pull up while you are watching a game, but that back-end stats collection also feeds the program length algorithm. If the game is still collecting stats, their system knows the recording needs to be extended.

For other programs, a couple years ago they were taking support tickets to "extend" the recording. Since they basically have a 9 month cache of everything from every channel, all they're doing is adjusting the pointers to when the playback should end.


----------



## Davenlr

That is pretty 2021 of them. Now if they would only add Dolby audio, I would switch. I am assuming the 1080 channels on YTTV are being sent at 1080p/60 right? No 720 downgrade and no 30 fps stuff?


----------



## NashGuy

espaeth said:


> YTTV is extending recordings by matching programs with game stats. They incorporate live stats in a couple screens that you can pull up while you are watching a game, but that back-end stats collection also feeds the program length algorithm. If the game is still collecting stats, their system knows the recording needs to be extended.
> 
> For other programs, a couple years ago they were taking support tickets to "extend" the recording. Since they basically have a 9 month cache of everything from every channel, all they're doing is adjusting the pointers to when the playback should end.


But from what I've read, it's hit or miss whether YTTV does the auto-extension. They usually do on major live sporting events but, AIUI, often do not on less popular ones.

I wonder if AT&T TV is starting to do the same kind of data-enabled auto-extensions or if they have actual humans who are watching a bunch of screens and adjusting end times for cloud DVR recordings across the entire system. Honestly, the labor cost of doing that would seem worth it. It would be a pittance versus the increased satisfaction and retention it would bring for AT&T TV subscribers.


----------



## espaeth

harperhometheater said:


> The whole point of blackouts is to promote fans in the stands. The premise being, if it's blacked out and if you love your team enough, you'll hop in your car, take a train or bus to the stadium/arena and buy a ticket to see the game live.


That's not what blackout restrictions are about anymore; it hasn't been about butts in seats for well over a decade now.

Now it's all about regional sports networks paying teams for exclusive broadcast rights, even if there is only a single distributor of that network in a given market. This is the largest driver of escalating live TV costs, because those RSNs then take those exclusive rights and leverage them into insanely lucrative carry contracts with TV providers. (well, at least until the wheels started falling off in the last couple years)

Outside of the exclusive broadcast market, rights revert back to the leagues. So MLB.tv can only legally show you games that you can't sign up for in your territory. It's also able to be relatively inexpensive because the league is gaining distribution for an already produced game.

If MLB.tv (or NHL.tv, or NBA.tv) offered in-market streaming without an underlying subscription, they would both undercut a revenue source for their member teams (because the exclusive broadcast rights would be devalued) and undercut the company actually paying to produce the games.


----------



## James Long

espaeth said:


> YTTV is extending recordings by matching programs with game stats.


That is a good trick.



harperhometheater said:


> The whole point of blackouts is to promote fans in the stands.


The point of blackouts is to protect the RSNs and broadcasters who have purchased rights to air the game locally. Only the stadium radius blackouts that affected local RSNs and stations were in place to protect stadium attendance. Those blackouts would not have affected carriage away from the stadium (and if I recall correctly, have been phased out).


----------



## espaeth

NashGuy said:


> But from what I've read, it's hit or miss whether YTTV does the auto-extension. They usually do on major live sporting events but, AIUI, often do not on less popular ones.


Right, anything without clear associated live stats feeds will be a problem.



NashGuy said:


> I wonder if AT&T TV is starting to do the same kind of data-enabled auto-extensions or if they have actual humans who are watching a bunch of screens and adjusting end times for cloud DVR recordings across the entire system. Honestly, the labor cost of doing that would seem worth it. It would be a pittance versus the increased satisfaction and retention it would bring for AT&T TV subscribers.


For sporting events, detection of a score bug or event clock on the screen would seem to be the easiest way to implement this without relying on humans. The obvious miss with be live events like awards shows.


----------



## NashGuy

espaeth said:


> For sporting events, detection of a score bug or event clock on the screen would seem to be the easiest way to implement this without relying on humans. The obvious miss with be live events like awards shows.


Eh, I'm not saying that they shouldn't look into AI-based solutions but they could hire 3 folks to work 40 hrs/week monitoring live screens of all the relevant channels and the labor cost shouldn't be more than $200k per year including benefits. In the grand scheme of things, it seems like a fairly low-cost solution to a problem that matters to a substantial portion of folks still willing to spend money on cable TV (i.e. sports fan).

TiVo, BTW, has actual humans marking the start and end times of commercial breaks on major networks so that TiVo users can reliably skip over ads during playback of recordings on their TiVo DVRs. AI only gets you so far in terms of reliability (at least for now).


----------



## Davenlr

NashGuy said:


> Eh, I'm not saying that they shouldn't look into AI-based solutions but they could hire 3 folks to work 40 hrs/week monitoring live screens of all the relevant channels and the labor cost shouldn't be more than $200k per year including benefits.


They would save that much money in employees in the Philippines handling cancellations


----------



## harperhometheater

espaeth said:


> That's not what blackout restrictions are about anymore; it hasn't been about butts in seats for well over a decade now.
> 
> Now it's all about regional sports networks paying teams for exclusive broadcast rights, even if there is only a single distributor of that network in a given market. This is the largest driver of escalating live TV costs, because those RSNs then take those exclusive rights and leverage them into insanely lucrative carry contracts with TV providers. (well, at least until the wheels started falling off in the last couple years)
> 
> Outside of the exclusive broadcast market, rights revert back to the leagues. So MLB.tv can only legally show you games that you can't sign up for in your territory. It's also able to be relatively inexpensive because the league is gaining distribution for an already produced game.
> 
> If MLB.tv (or NHL.tv, or NBA.tv) offered in-market streaming without an underlying subscription, they would both undercut a revenue source for their member teams (because the exclusive broadcast rights would be devalued) and undercut the company actually paying to produce the games.





James Long said:


> That is a good trick.
> 
> The point of blackouts is to protect the RSNs and broadcasters who have purchased rights to air the game locally. Only the stadium radius blackouts that affected local RSNs and stations were in place to protect stadium attendance. Those blackouts would not have affected carriage away from the stadium (and if I recall correctly, have been phased out).


Thanks for clarifying. I do believe meat in the seat is still part of it though.



> ....Outside of the exclusive broadcast market, rights revert back to the leagues......


Exactly! I'm clearly outside their broadcast market, as no ATSC broadcast can reach 2,000+ miles away, and I don't live in or pay for LA/SF/SD area municipal cable service. So based on what you said, it reverts back to the respective leagues' rules. I've been told on more than one occasion from the likes of Spectrum that the reason I'm being blacked out is due to league rules so there's nothing they could do about it. If I recall, I looked it up on one of the league's websites, put in my location zip and it showed as being in the CA home market, which is ridiculous. It's a money grab, plain and simple, as was alluded to.

So what's their justification for blacking out any games here? It's not like we have a regional team or can go to any of their games, at least until we can get back to the mainland. They just chose CA because it's closest. The people here are from all over, except the native Hawaiians, but then they never had a team to begin with.


----------



## James Long

harperhometheater said:


> Exactly! I'm clearly outside their broadcast market, as no ATSC broadcast can reach 2,000+ miles away, and I don't live in or pay for LA/SF/SD area municipal cable service.


What channel is the game on? If it is on an RSN that RSN should be available regardless of ATSC broadcast range. If it is on broadcast look for a local affiliate. (I had a local affiliate in my market delivering games broadcast OTA in Chicago - when the games were on OTA stations.)


----------



## mjwagner

compnurd said:


> It boils down to there will never be one box... lol


This is true! I have 3 streaming devices at each if my main viewing locations, Nvidia Shield, ATV 4K, and FireTV Stick 4k....but none of them are provider specific.


----------



## harsh

harperhometheater said:


> The sports blackout rules are ridiculous. My "local" teams are pretty much all of CA according to them. Problem is, I live in HI which is 2,000+ OCEAN miles away from the closest CA city!!!


The same thing happens here in Oregon. Absent local franchises, we're split between California and Seattle for NFL and MLB. It comes down to the markets that the teams claim and since Hawaii has no top-league pro teams, it is otherwise unclaimed and California is "closest".

As James points out, the purpose of blackouts is now to protect TV rights rather than ticket sales as they used to be before sports networks.


----------



## NashGuy

mjwagner said:


> This is true! I have 3 streaming devices at each if my main viewing locations, Nvidia Shield, ATV 4K, and FireTV Stick 4k....but none of them are provider specific.


Just depends on what all you need the box to do. A lot of it seems to come down to folks being really picky about getting certain audio formats (e.g. Atmos) on this service or that, which isn't a concern for me. (DD 5.1 is fine.) My Apple TV 4K is a great one-box solution for me.


----------



## 7thton

Davenlr said:


> Does anyone have a phone number to an actual ATT TV rep? MLB.TV has my "local" teams blacked out (Astros @ 450 miles, Rangers @ 320, KC @ 410, and St Louis at 390. I won't even start on what LOCAL means...but I digress... I was going to up my package to choice so I could watch the Cardinals this summer on Fox Sports Midwest. Come to find out MY RSN's are Fox Sports SW and Fox Sports OK. Apparently ATT thinks St Louis is not regional. So, MLB says Im local, and ATT says Im to far away. How in the HELL can I watch the Cardinals?


That is frustrating. Also, fellow Cards fan here!


----------



## 7thton

b4pjoe said:


> AT&T TV support can't help you. This is an MLB issue and their archaic zones and blackout rules. The only way I know that works would be use a VPN to fool MLB-TV into thinking you are NOT in the STL area.


MLB.TV fights the VPNs pretty hard.


----------



## 7thton

Davenlr said:


> That is pretty 2021 of them. Now if they would only add Dolby audio, I would switch. I am assuming the 1080 channels on YTTV are being sent at 1080p/60 right? No 720 downgrade and no 30 fps stuff?


YTTV PQ is just whatever the original broadcast is in, iirc.


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> The same thing happens here in Oregon. Absent local franchises, we're split between California and Seattle for NFL and MLB. It comes down to the markets that the teams claim and since Hawaii has no top-league pro teams, it is otherwise unclaimed and California is "closest".
> 
> As James points out, the purpose of blackouts is now to protect TV rights rather than ticket sales as they used to be before sports networks.


My question here is. Are those games shown in Hawaii through an RSN? If it's California, then he should be able to watch games of the Padres, Dodgers, Giants, A's and Angels through some sort of RSN (of course he's have to subscribe to something that carries those). Are the RSNs for ALL of those teams even available in Hawaii? If they aren't then the blackout rules are incredibly stupid and unfair. If they are, then I can understand why it's there (though I think, in 2021, they could figure out a way to monetize this somehow so you can buy an RSN stream at least if you are deemed in their home market.)


----------



## b4pjoe

7thton said:


> MLB.TV fights the VPNs pretty hard.


It depends on where you are using it. Some of the apps (my Fire TV Cube) just use your ISP IP address and VPN works some like on my phone and on the ATV uses location services to see exactly where you are no matter the IP address.


----------



## Steveknj

A couple of things I noticed during testing last night:

1) My son and I were both able to watch a recorded show at the same time, starting at different points. I like that. 

2) I noticed on my TV that the resolution that's showing is 2160 HDR10 for standard broadcast content (NBC in this case). Why would that be? Is this that dreaded forced HDR that people complained about on the TiVo 4k streaming stick until they fixed it? I noticed that for some of the content looks kind of overly bright and washed out. With this I was using the Osprey, I'll have to test with the app on Roku to see if it's the same

3) So it does look like it auto pads sporting events that run over, which is great. What about shows that are "off schedule" due to sports overruns? For example a NASCAR race ran long a couple of weeks ago and it screwed up my recording of Family Guy on my DirecTV box because I forgot to pad. This happens frequently during football season on CBS and I pad the shows I watch there because of it. But, does this cloud DVR account for that? Has anyone run into the issue?


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> A couple of things I noticed during testing last night:
> 
> 1) My son and I were both able to watch a recorded show at the same time, starting at different points. I like that.
> 
> 2) I noticed on my TV that the resolution that's showing is 2160 HDR10 for standard broadcast content (NBC in this case). Why would that be? Is this that dreaded forced HDR that people complained about on the TiVo 4k streaming stick until they fixed it? I noticed that for some of the content looks kind of overly bright and washed out. With this I was using the Osprey, I'll have to test with the app on Roku to see if it's the same
> 
> 3) So it does look like it auto pads sporting events that run over, which is great. What about shows that are "off schedule" due to sports overruns? For example a NASCAR race ran long a couple of weeks ago and it screwed up my recording of Family Guy on my DirecTV box because I forgot to pad. This happens frequently during football season on CBS and I pad the shows I watch there because of it. But, does this cloud DVR account for that? Has anyone run into the issue?


On Number 2.. yes that is the forced HDR.. Google has to fix it.. they fixed it on Tivo probably because they are using a new version of Android TV. I would not expect a fix for the Osprey.. You should be able to tweak your TV if it has HDR adjustments to fix it pretty easy.. It look like 2 min to adjust on my LG OLED


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> On Number 2.. yes that is the forced HDR.. Google has to fix it.. they fixed it on Tivo probably because they are using a new version of Android TV. I would not expect a fix for the Osprey.. You should be able to tweak your TV if it has HDR adjustments to fix it pretty easy.. It look like 2 min to adjust on my LG OLED


Thanks. What types of settings should I look for on my TV? I have a Vizio Series M (2020 Model). I get that LG and Vizio settings might be called something different.


----------



## lparsons21

7thton said:


> YTTV PQ is just whatever the original broadcast is in, iirc.


Yes it is. And YTTV's PQ is very good but not quite as good as ATT's.


----------



## lparsons21

Steveknj said:


> Thanks. What types of settings should I look for on my TV? I have a Vizio Series M (2020 Model). I get that LG and Vizio settings might be called something different.


On my Sony I just twiddled the contrast and brightness settings.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> Thanks. What types of settings should I look for on my TV? I have a Vizio Series M (2020 Model). I get that LG and Vizio settings might be called something different.


as lparsons pointed out just tweak those. The problem is some TV's like TCL dont let you adjust anything in HDR mode


----------



## swyman18

Steveknj said:


> My question here is. Are those games shown in Hawaii through an RSN? If it's California, then he should be able to watch games of the Padres, Dodgers, Giants, A's and Angels through some sort of RSN (of course he's have to subscribe to something that carries those). Are the RSNs for ALL of those teams even available in Hawaii? If they aren't then the blackout rules are incredibly stupid and unfair. If they are, then I can understand why it's there (though I think, in 2021, they could figure out a way to monetize this somehow so you can buy an RSN stream at least if you are deemed in their home market.)


Yes, all the RSN's for those teams are available in Hawaii on ATT TV. I think they are available on Spectrum too, but not completely sure about the NBC RSN's for the A's and Giant's.

You're right, at least if we wanted to watch those teams there is an option even if it's more expensive than we'd like. It really stinks for folks where MLB.TV says you are local, yet there is no physical way to watch them.

I remember a few years ago the Spectrum Sportsnet LA fiasco, where Spectrum was the only carrier that had the new channel for the Dodgers. There are areas of LA that don't have Spectrum as their cable provider, so people couldn't even subscribe if they wanted to. And of course the Dodgers are blacked out for them on MLB.TV.


----------



## Steveknj

swyman18 said:


> Yes, all the RSN's for those teams are available in Hawaii on ATT TV. I think they are available on Spectrum too, but not completely sure about the NBC RSN's for the A's and Giant's.
> 
> You're right, at least if we wanted to watch those teams there is an option even if it's more expensive than we'd like. It really stinks for folks where MLB.TV says you are local, yet there is no physical way to watch them.
> 
> I remember a few years ago the Spectrum Sportsnet LA fiasco, where Spectrum was the only carrier that had the new channel for the Dodgers. There are areas of LA that don't have Spectrum as their cable provider, so people couldn't even subscribe if they wanted to. And of course the Dodgers are blacked out for them on MLB.TV.


In that case, I actually think it's kind of lucky for them that they'd have *5* baseball teams to watch games from. Most of us don't have that. So if you buy a service like AT&TV you'd be able to watch quite a few games.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> On my Sony I just twiddled the contrast and brightness settings.


Yeah. You may want to turn down the "color" or "saturation" setting a bit too, as SDR content that is "upgraded" into fake HDR can sometimes make certain colors look a bit too punchy or garish. Keep a particular eye on skin tones, I'd say.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Yeah. You may want to turn down the "color" or "saturation" setting a bit too, as SDR content that is "upgraded" into fake HDR can sometimes make certain colors look a bit too punchy or garish. Keep a particular eye on skin tones, I'd say.


I may have done that also but it is long enough ago I wouldn't swear to it either way! 

I just re-signed up with AT&T TV Ultimate. Yeah it costs me more but I really like the service for the PQ, DD5.1, the Osprey box and the channels it provides. I'll save money of and on by kicking in/out VOD services.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> I may have done that also but it is long enough ago I wouldn't swear to it either way!
> 
> I just re-signed up with AT&T TV Ultimate. Yeah it costs me more but I really like the service for the PQ, DD5.1, the Osprey box and the channels it provides. I'll save money of and on by kicking in/out VOD services.


I am laughing like crazy right now lol


----------



## b4pjoe

lparsons21 said:


> I may have done that also but it is long enough ago I wouldn't swear to it either way!
> 
> I just re-signed up with AT&T TV Ultimate. Yeah it costs me more but I really like the service for the PQ, DD5.1, the Osprey box and the channels it provides. I'll save money of and on by kicking in/out VOD services.


You're a walking ad for AT&T TV. You keep coming back. They should be paying you.


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> You're a walking ad for AT&T TV. You keep coming back. They should be paying you.


From your fingers to their ears! 

The part that ticks me off is that the pricing between services for comparable lineups is very close these days but the quality of service and offerings varies widely.

There is simply no excuse for poor PQ and audio these days for those services not offering full channel/content considering how close together the prices actually are.

For instance, YouTubeTV is $65/month and has a great channel lineup, only missing RSNs. AT&T Choice is $85/month, includes HBO Max for the first year and has the RSNs. So YTTV @$65+$15 for HBO Max is $80, how much are the RSNs worth? You can bet your butt that when/if Fox/Sinclair/Ballys figures it out it will be a lot more than $15/month IMO.


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> I am laughing like crazy right now lol


My kids probably aren't! No inheritance for them!


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> From your fingers to their ears!
> 
> The part that ticks me off is that the pricing between services for comparable lineups is very close these days but the quality of service and offerings varies widely.
> 
> There is simply no excuse for poor PQ and audio these days for those services not offering full channel/content considering how close together the prices actually are.
> 
> For instance, YouTubeTV is $65/month and has a great channel lineup, only missing RSNs. AT&T Choice is $85/month, includes HBO Max for the first year and has the RSNs. So YTTV @$65+$15 for HBO Max is $80, how much are the RSNs worth? You can bet your butt that when/if Fox/Sinclair/Ballys figures it out it will be a lot more than $15/month IMO.


And that's it. You get what you pay for. The idea for me, was figure out what I need, and go with the best deal. AT&T TV meets that need. It's the only streaming service that's even close.


----------



## espaeth

7thton said:


> MLB.TV fights the VPNs pretty hard.


Sort of, but not really.

The only connection that does the GeoIP location verification is the service that provides the index of games and feeds. That's why the DNS-based unblocking services work so well -- it's a small amount of traffic so they can proxy that out to residential connections in various regions pretty easily. The actual game video comes from the CDN, which distributes the media globally. So even if you use a service that gets the list of game feeds available to subscribers in a different country, the app can use the decryption key it gets to pull and use the media content from a CDN node in your local city.

They do, however, shutdown obvious VPN services like TunnelBear, NordVPN, or ExpressVPN. Those come from easily identifiable IP ranges so if you go that route your account will likely be disabled pretty quickly.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> I just re-signed up with AT&T TV Ultimate.


The saga continues...


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> And that's it. You get what you pay for. The idea for me, was figure out what I need, and go with the best deal. AT&T TV meets that need. It's the only streaming service that's even close.


Yeah. AT&T TV might be able to be a bit more generous in terms of what they offer for the money they charge for their current no-contract packages. But not much. (I still do think we'll see them add PBS locals nationwide and other locals missing in various markets at no additional cost. And maybe they'll further improve the cloud DVR by extending the 90-day expiration to a longer period, although I wouldn't bet on it.)

To drop below the prices that AT&T TV charges, you have to be willing to give up certain channel groups and features. Which is fine, as each of the various vMPVDs offers different line-ups at various price points. But for folks who want to replicate traditional full-on cable or satellite TV, while saving a little money, AT&T TV is really the only choice.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> Yeah. AT&T TV might be able to be a bit more generous in terms of what they offer for the money they charge for their current no-contract packages. But not much. (I still do think we'll see them add PBS locals nationwide and other locals missing in various markets at no additional cost. And maybe they'll further improve the cloud DVR by extending the 90-day expiration to a longer period, although I wouldn't bet on it.)
> 
> To drop below the prices that AT&T TV charges, you have to be willing to give up certain channel groups and features. Which is fine, as each of the various vMPVDs offers different line-ups at various price points. But for folks who want to replicate traditional full-on cable or satellite TV, while saving a little money, AT&T TV is really the only choice.


Bingo


----------



## lparsons21

Yeah, the 90 day retention on the DVR should be longer especially for those that opt for the unlimited time level. I actually think that they should offer more than 20 hours included with their service to something 50 or more hours. That should work for a lot of people that just time shift with their DVRs. The 20 hours really isn’t good enough for that.

And in addition to PBS, hopefully they’ll figure out how to get NFL Network.


----------



## harperhometheater

Steveknj said:


> My question here is. Are those games shown in Hawaii through an RSN? If it's California, then he should be able to watch games of the Padres, Dodgers, Giants, A's and Angels through some sort of RSN (of course he's have to subscribe to something that carries those). Are the RSNs for ALL of those teams even available in Hawaii? If they aren't then the blackout rules are incredibly stupid and unfair. If they are, then I can understand why it's there (though I think, in 2021, they could figure out a way to monetize this somehow so you can buy an RSN stream at least if you are deemed in their home market.)





swyman18 said:


> Yes, all the RSN's for those teams are available in Hawaii on ATT TV. I think they are available on Spectrum too, but not completely sure about the NBC RSN's for the A's and Giant's.
> 
> You're right, at least if we wanted to watch those teams there is an option even if it's more expensive than we'd like. It really stinks for folks where MLB.TV says you are local, yet there is no physical way to watch them.
> 
> I remember a few years ago the Spectrum Sportsnet LA fiasco, where Spectrum was the only carrier that had the new channel for the Dodgers. There are areas of LA that don't have Spectrum as their cable provider, so people couldn't even subscribe if they wanted to. And of course the Dodgers are blacked out for them on MLB.TV.





Steveknj said:


> In that case, I actually think it's kind of lucky for them that they'd have *5* baseball teams to watch games from. Most of us don't have that. So if you buy a service like AT&TV you'd be able to watch quite a few games.


Yes we get those CA teams as _swyman says_ (hey, a new game we can play here, based on the old "Simon Says"!  ), but my question is....why CA??? We are as far away from LA as NY is from it, over open ocean without even a way to drive. We are a melting pot of people from all over. We shouldn't have a local team AT ALL! That's my point. Let us pick which team or area to watch and pay for that.

I recall when I had DirecTV and subscribed to the sports pack that included all the RSNs (except CSN/NBC Sports Philly, which is another BS topic in and of itself!  ). When any game was on one of these RSNs which were not CA, it would be blacked out. Why??? I am not in CA so shouldn't follow their rules. I am also not in any other region that _should be_ affected by any sensible blackout rule, if you can even say any of them are sensible. Why not let me pick which area and local team I want to watch at least, then blackout the rest?


----------



## Steveknj

harperhometheater said:


> Yes we get those CA teams as _swyman says_ (hey, a new game we can play here, based on the old "Simon Says"!  ), but my question is....why CA??? We are as far away from LA as NY is from it, over open ocean without even a way to drive. We are a melting pot of people from all over. We shouldn't have a local team AT ALL! That's my point. Let us pick which team or area to watch and pay for that.
> 
> I recall when I had DirecTV and subscribed to the sports pack that included all the RSNs (except CSN/NBC Sports Philly, which is another BS topic in and of itself!  ). When any game was on one of these RSNs which were not CA, it would be blacked out. Why??? I am not in CA so shouldn't follow their rules. I am also not in any other region that _should be_ affected by any sensible blackout rule, if you can even say any of them are sensible. Why not let me pick which area and local team I want to watch at least, then blackout the rest?


I guess it's your "closest" local are that has a team (yeah, I know, it's a couple of thousand miles away). What team do most Hawaiians root for? Is it one of the Cali teams or something else? I remember when I lived in Arizona during the 1980s we got LA Dodger games on the radio and some games locally on one of the channels (this is before RSN were a thing). So I guess in those days the Phoenix metro was "Dodger" territory, even though we really weren't that close to LA. MLB must just divvie up territory for advertising or TV rights issues. I think other sports do the same.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, the 90 day retention on the DVR should be longer especially for those that opt for the unlimited time level. I actually think that they should offer more than 20 hours included with their service to something 50 or more hours. That should work for a lot of people that just time shift with their DVRs. The 20 hours really isn't good enough for that.
> 
> And in addition to PBS, hopefully they'll figure out how to get NFL Network.


I've read tales recently on reddit of current subs saying that AT&T CSRs are telling them that both PBS and NFL Network are on the way. But then as folks around here know, those CSRs are liable to tell you anything. So who knows. PBS I can believe. After NFL Network left Uverse TV awhile back, and it was believed that renewed carriage of the channel on any AT&T service was tied up with the bigger question of a renewal of NFL Sunday Ticket, I didn't think we'd see the channel show up any time soon on AT&T TV. But who knows.

As for the cloud DVR, they're being competitive with Comcast Xfinity TV in offering only 20 hours in the base package. And for some folks who only record a few things each week, then watch soon after and immediately delete, 20 hours might be enough. I think offering 20 hours is a strategic choice because it's just enough to get folks to actually try the feature out, with most then deciding that they need more storage. So it's kinda like offering a free sample. If they included 50 hours in the base package, there would certainly be fewer folks opting to upgrade to the unlimited DVR for an extra $10/mo. Which might mean that they have to increase the cost of the base package, as they're going to want to hit a certain ARPU to make the overall service sufficiently profitable.


----------



## NashGuy

harperhometheater said:


> I recall when I had DirecTV and subscribed to the sports pack that included all the RSNs (except CSN/NBC Sports Philly, which is another BS topic in and of itself!  ). When any game was on one of these RSNs which were not CA, it would be blacked out. Why??? I am not in CA so shouldn't follow their rules. I am also not in any other region that _should be_ affected by any sensible blackout rule, if you can even say any of them are sensible. Why not let me pick which area and local team I want to watch at least, then blackout the rest?


The one time I visited Hawaii (lovely place you got there, BTW), I definitely felt a SoCal vibe. Parts of Honolulu felt like LA to me. And from what I gathered, a lot of folks who have migrated out from the mainland seem to come from SoCal, while that area seems to be the likeliest place that someone born in Hawaii would first move to on the mainland. IDK, I have no hard data to back that up. But there did seem to be a certain amount of demographic and cultural cross-pollination between the two areas. So it wouldn't surprise me that SoCal pro teams would be the closest thing to local teams for Hawaii.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> I've read tales recently on reddit of current subs saying that AT&T CSRs are telling them that both PBS and NFL Network are on the way. But then as folks around here know, those CSRs are liable to tell you anything. So who knows. PBS I can believe. After NFL Network left Uverse TV awhile back, and it was believed that renewed carriage of the channel on any AT&T service was tied up with the bigger question of a renewal of NFL Sunday Ticket, I didn't think we'd see the channel show up any time soon on AT&T TV. But who knows.
> 
> As for the cloud DVR, they're being competitive with Comcast Xfinity TV in offering only 20 hours in the base package. And for some folks who only record a few things each week, then watch soon after and immediately delete, 20 hours might be enough. I think offering 20 hours is a strategic choice because it's just enough to get folks to actually try the feature out, with most then deciding that they need more storage. So it's kinda like offering a free sample. If they included 50 hours in the base package, there would certainly be fewer folks opting to upgrade to the unlimited DVR for an extra $10/mo. Which might mean that they have to increase the cost of the base package, as they're going to want to hit a certain ARPU to make the overall service sufficiently profitable.


I agree on PBS. I think we see it this year. NFL I doubt expect until they re do that contract


----------



## Davenlr

NashGuy said:


> Which might mean that they have to increase the cost of the base package, as they're going to want to hit a certain ARPU to make the overall service sufficiently profitable.


Or if I need more than 20 hours, I just switch to YTTV, get more hours, and more channels, lose DD, and save $5. Luckily, I havent needed more than 20 hours yet.


----------



## James Long

harperhometheater said:


> I am not in CA so shouldn't follow their rules. I am also not in any other region that _should be_ affected by any sensible blackout rule, if you can even say any of them are sensible. Why not let me pick which area and local team I want to watch at least, then blackout the rest?


Every area is claimed by someone - usually the closest team. Get professional sports teams in Hawaii and you won't be in the California team markets.

If you were not in the California market the only way to watch any of those games would be through the league packages. No one is allowed to pick their market. It all comes down to geography.


----------



## Davenlr

compnurd said:


> I agree on PBS. I think we see it this year. NFL I doubt expect until they re do that contract


PBS is free on the internet, I think you can even cast it. All I had to do was input my local PBS station to get access to their live streaming. Maybe it is only my station, but looked like most PBS stations were listed.


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> Or if I need more than 20 hours, I just switch to YTTV, get more hours, and more channels, lose DD, and save $5. Luckily, I havent needed more than 20 hours yet.


Yeah. Although you also lose networks owned by A+E and Hallmark, plus lose the option of using the service with a custom full-featured cable-like remote control with a cable-like UI. So, trade-offs.


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> PBS is free on the internet, I think you can even cast it. All I had to do was input my local PBS station to get access to their live streaming. Maybe it is only my station, but looked like most PBS stations were listed.


Yeah, lots of locals now offer a live stream of their main .1 PBS station inside the PBS website and the app on certain platforms. Last I heard, though, the PBS app for Android TV doesn't yet offer the live stream. IDK, that may be because PBS knows that some cable TV services (e.g. AT&T TV, TVision, Sling, WOW tv+, certain small IPTV operators, etc.) are now using Android TV-powered boxes that have free access to the app. And they want those operators to pay their member stations if they're going to offer their live streams on their box.


----------



## Davenlr

I would never have noticed that. I only watch news and sports. I don't think I have ever watched either of those two channels. I would miss the remote, but use a Roku in all but the main viewing room, so it wouldn't kill me. Im going to have to switch in the fall anyway, to get Red Zone channel unless I can get my 10' dish fixed, as I cant pick up the Canadian satellite anymore for the live football games. Had a hail storm, and it knocked the gain down just enough that I can get a 93% signal on the transponder, but it just wont lock anymore.


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> I would never have noticed that. I only watch news and sports. I don't think I have ever watched either of those two channels.


It's actually five channels (A&E, History, Lifetime, Hallmark, Hallmark Movies & Mysteries) but hey, if you don't watch 'em, they don't matter. YouTube TV made a smart bet early on in focusing on live sports and news, as that's the popular content that's still largely exclusive to channel-based TV. But over time, they've been forced to (or felt the need to) expand their channel line-up to accommodate more channels and different types of viewers, and the price has gone up. Then, in order to keep from getting any more expensive, they had to drop the RSNs. (Of course, there was also the matter of them losing money on each subscriber early on, so their initial $35/mo price point was never sustainable even with the original relatively small channel line-up.) They do offer a lot for the $65/mo price, though.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> It's actually five channels (A&E, History, Lifetime, Hallmark, Hallmark Movies & Mysteries) but hey, if you don't watch 'em, they don't matter. YouTube TV made a smart bet early on in focusing on live sports and news, as that's the popular content that's still largely exclusive to channel-based TV. But over time, they've been forced to (or felt the need to) expand their channel line-up to accommodate more channels and different types of viewers, and the price has gone up. Then, in order to keep from getting any more expensive, they had to drop the RSNs. (Of course, there was also the matter of them losing money on each subscriber early on, so their initial $35/mo price point was never sustainable even with the original relatively small channel line-up.) They do offer a lot for the $65/mo price, though.


Yes, YouTubeTV does offer a lot for that $65/month but I expect that to go up again this year as the content producers haven't really backed down from their never ending price increases.

I think that all of the live streaming services priced to attract customers at a losing price, including DirecTV. AT&T inherited that and pretty quickly changed it up in channels and prices and then brought out what they offer now, but at a profitable price level. Unfortunately for them, at the time it was a huge difference between what they were offering in costs compared to the others. But since then the others have all raised their pricing to within about a $20 bill per month if they are offering big channel numbers.

In the end it will be what I expected at some point in time, that live streaming services will only be cheaper by the amount of equipment charges cable/sat has.


----------



## Davenlr

lparsons21 said:


> In the end it will be what I expected at some point in time, that live streaming services will only be cheaper by the amount of equipment charges cable/sat has.


When I have to pay $102 a month to watch 5 channels, I stop watching paid TV.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> When I have to pay $102 a month to watch 5 channels, I stop watching paid TV.


I hear you. Once golf and boxing becomes available to stream without a streaming service I'll go to all VOD.


----------



## NashGuy

I think it's doubtful that AT&T TV will ever get something like DTV's Sports Pack that includes out-of-market RSNs. Contracts treat streaming -- apparently including traditional linear channels delivered OTT -- differently than cable/satellite, and I think streaming rights for out-of-market pro games tend to be exclusive to specific services.

For instance, today the NHL announced a big deal with Disney that involves ABC, ESPN, Hulu and ESPN+. Exclusive out-of-market streaming of NHL games, which had been in the NHL.TV service, will shift to being a part of ESPN+.

NHL, ESPN, Disney reach groundbreaking seven-year rights deal

If you want to stream out-of-market MLB games, I think you have to go with MLB.TV. For out-of-market NBA games, there's NBA League Pass (which is available via traditional cable as well as streaming). Of course, out-of-market NFL games are exclusive to NFL Sunday Ticket on DTV, but it will certainly be available via some kind of streaming package come fall 2023. For MLS (Major League Soccer), a lot of their out-of-market games are already included in ESPN+. So the new NHL deal just builds on that.


----------



## Davenlr

Out of market isnt the issue with me. Its in market. There is no way to watch the games in market. No one carries the channel they are on.


----------



## mjwagner

NashGuy said:


> Just depends on what all you need the box to do. A lot of it seems to come down to folks being really picky about getting certain audio formats (e.g. Atmos) on this service or that, which isn't a concern for me. (DD 5.1 is fine.) My Apple TV 4K is a great one-box solution for me.


Yeah, it's all about your AV and app requirements. For some folks one box can get there, or at least pretty close. Honestly my ATV 4ks are my least used streaming device. They are fast and have excellent video capabilities but the lack of pass thru audio and the fact that they are basically locked down to what can be installed from their App Store significantly limits there usefulness for my requirements.


----------



## Davenlr

One of my relatives came over today, to pick up the God daughter, and wanted to watch something on their Dish account. They downloaded the dish anywhere app on my Osprey box, and now I have Dish too  so the God daughter can watch all her kid channels when she is over. The PQ is not bad. A little softer than ATT TV, but not as bad as Xfinity was. Then I went out and realigned the 10' C band dish, and got the Canadian satellite back. I am all set now.


----------



## Z513

I see that the next AT&T Set-top box got its Wi-Fi certification:
https://www.wi-fi.org/product-finder-results?keywords=A21KW-500

But that's strange, maybe it's a mistake, the OS is said to Linux ?!


----------



## compnurd

Z513 said:


> I see that the next AT&T Set-top box got its Wi-Fi certification:
> https://www.wi-fi.org/product-finder-results?keywords=A21KW-500
> 
> But that's strange, maybe it's a mistake, the OS is said to Linux ?!


Could just be a base OS load to test the Wifi


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> I've read tales recently on reddit of current subs saying that AT&T CSRs are telling them that both PBS and NFL Network are on the way. But then as folks around here know, those CSRs are liable to tell you anything. So who knows. PBS I can believe. After NFL Network left Uverse TV awhile back, and it was believed that renewed carriage of the channel on any AT&T service was tied up with the bigger question of a renewal of NFL Sunday Ticket, I didn't think we'd see the channel show up any time soon on AT&T TV. But who knows.
> 
> As for the cloud DVR, they're being competitive with Comcast Xfinity TV in offering only 20 hours in the base package. And for some folks who only record a few things each week, then watch soon after and immediately delete, 20 hours might be enough. I think offering 20 hours is a strategic choice because it's just enough to get folks to actually try the feature out, with most then deciding that they need more storage. So it's kinda like offering a free sample. If they included 50 hours in the base package, there would certainly be fewer folks opting to upgrade to the unlimited DVR for an extra $10/mo. Which might mean that they have to increase the cost of the base package, as they're going to want to hit a certain ARPU to make the overall service sufficiently profitable.


Right on both counts. As for the NFL Network, the only thing I'll really miss is watching an occasional vintage game. Their live games are all simulcast on one of the major networks (first it was CBS, now Fox), and if they go with a streaming partner, then I can find the game that way. So while I enjoyed having it, I won't miss it. PBS, yeah, that one puzzles me, but hopefully that one is around the corner (plus my local CW channel).

I agree about the DVR. Heck Optimum chargers you extra for the privilege of rewinding live TV! Whetting your appetite of a small amount of DVR space gives them the opportunity to sell you more space. I agree, if they went to 50 hours it might not entice too many people to increase their space. OTOH, they could just roll the $10 into the price and give everyone unlimited DVR, use it as a selling point and most people wouldn't notice.


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> Yes, YouTubeTV does offer a lot for that $65/month but I expect that to go up again this year as the content producers haven't really backed down from their never ending price increases.
> 
> I think that all of the live streaming services priced to attract customers at a losing price, including DirecTV. AT&T inherited that and pretty quickly changed it up in channels and prices and then brought out what they offer now, but at a profitable price level. Unfortunately for them, at the time it was a huge difference between what they were offering in costs compared to the others. But since then the others have all raised their pricing to within about a $20 bill per month if they are offering big channel numbers.
> 
> In the end it will be what I expected at some point in time, that live streaming services will only be cheaper by the amount of equipment charges cable/sat has.


Yep, been saying this for awhile. It's the "Golden Age" of streaming. At some point content providers are going to want theirs, advertisers, are going to want theirs and so forth. Eventually it will catch up to where cable/sat are, and and some of the services will wind up like AT&T and offer their own streaming box that incorporates their service while give you the option to add others as well. The the price will be the same as cable/sat.


----------



## lparsons21

Steveknj said:


> Yep, been saying this for awhile. It's the "Golden Age" of streaming. At some point content providers are going to want theirs, advertisers, are going to want theirs and so forth. Eventually it will catch up to where cable/sat are, and and some of the services will wind up like AT&T and offer their own streaming box that incorporates their service while give you the option to add others as well. The the price will be the same as cable/sat.


That might happen though I tend to think that most of the services want to get out of the hardware side of the business. Use a relatively cheap box, replace it when it gives trouble, no service calls, no warranty and so forth.

And then there's the problem with the youngsters coming up. Quite a few of them aren't tied to the 'channels' we are so used to and just get video from all sorts of on demand services and don't even watch them on their TV instead using their phones/tablets. And that is why CBS and others have brought out or are bringing out their own services.

Going to be interesting going forward and for those of us hung up with live services, the prices will continue to rise.


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> That might happen though I tend to think that most of the services want to get out of the hardware side of the business. Use a relatively cheap box, replace it when it gives trouble, no service calls, no warranty and so forth.
> 
> And then there's the problem with the youngsters coming up. Quite a few of them aren't tied to the 'channels' we are so used to and just get video from all sorts of on demand services and don't even watch them on their TV instead using their phones/tablets. And that is why CBS and others have brought out or are bringing out their own services.
> 
> Going to be interesting going forward and for those of us hung up with live services, the prices will continue to rise.


The only thing I can guarantee is that the corporations who run all of these things, will figure out the best way to wrangle the most money from the consumer, and whatever that will be, that's what will happen.


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> Could just be a base OS load to test the Wifi


I concur. I would imagine that Linux is used as the reference test platform as it runs on almost everything and gives the utmost in control over exactly what is and, perhaps more importantly, what isn't in play.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> I agree about the DVR. Heck Optimum chargers you extra for the privilege of rewinding live TV! Whetting your appetite of a small amount of DVR space gives them the opportunity to sell you more space. I agree, if they went to 50 hours it might not entice too many people to increase their space. OTOH, they could just roll the $10 into the price and give everyone unlimited DVR, use it as a selling point and most people wouldn't notice.


Yeah, they *could* just roll the unlimited DVR into the base package (as YouTube TV does) and then charge a regular no-contract price of $79.99/mo for the Entertainment package. But they know that a lot of consumers are price-sensitive and they want to be able to advertise a price for their low-end package that isn't too high. Which is why DTV (and until recently AT&T TV) has had big discounts in the first year of the two-year contract, so they could advertise that you could get the service for "only $59.99/mo." Of course, the price increased by more than 50% in the second year. But they still had a relatively low price to put in big print in their mailer ads.

So I can see the rationale of making the unlimited DVR an optional add-on. It keeps the price down for the minority of subs who don't need it and it allows AT&T to advertise a starting price, at $69.99/mo, that's not too far off the $65 price point that YTTV, Hulu with Live TV, and Fubo TV all advertise.

BTW, Hulu with Live TV is a bit odd in the way they structure and price DVR service. You automatically get 50 hrs of storage but you can't FF through the ads in your recordings. If you want to be able to do that, you pay an extra $10/mo for the Enhanced Cloud DVR, which also quadruples storage to 200 hrs. Either way, I don't think recordings ever auto-delete after a certain amount of time (as is the case with YTTV and AT&T TV). But another weird wrinkle is that Hulu will replace your recording with the on-demand version of the episode/movie if it exists in the base Hulu library. And so even if you've upgraded to the Enhanced DVR, you'll still see ads in the on-demand content unless you've also paid an extra $6/mo to remove the ads there. If you purchase both options, then you're at $81/mo. And you're still missing quite a few channels. Although you do have the base Hulu on-demand library, which has a lot of stuff itself.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, they *could* just roll the unlimited DVR into the base package (as YouTube TV does) and then charge a regular no-contract price of $79.99/mo for the Entertainment package. But they know that a lot of consumers are price-sensitive and they want to be able to advertise a price for their low-end package that isn't too high. Which is why DTV (and until recently AT&T TV) has had big discounts in the first year of the two-year contract, so they could advertise that you could get the service for "only $59.99/mo." Of course, the price increased by more than 50% in the second year. But they still had a relatively low price to put in big print in their mailer ads.
> 
> So I can see the rationale of making the unlimited DVR an optional add-on. It keeps the price down for the minority of subs who don't need it and it allows AT&T to advertise a starting price, at $69.99/mo, that's not too far off the $65 price point that YTTV, Hulu with Live TV, and Fubo TV all advertise.
> 
> BTW, Hulu with Live TV is a bit odd in the way they structure and price DVR service. You automatically get 50 hrs of storage but you can't FF through the ads in your recordings. If you want to be able to do that, you pay an extra $10/mo for the Enhanced Cloud DVR, which also quadruples storage to 200 hrs. Either way, I don't think recordings ever auto-delete after a certain amount of time (as is the case with YTTV and AT&T TV). But another weird wrinkle is that Hulu will replace your recording with the on-demand version of the episode/movie if it exists in the base Hulu library. And so even if you've upgraded to the Enhanced DVR, you'll still see ads in the on-demand content unless you've also paid an extra $6/mo to remove the ads there. If you purchase both options, then you're at $81/mo. And you're still missing quite a few channels. Although you do have the base Hulu on-demand library, which has a lot of stuff itself.


And people wonder why this is all so confusing to anyone who's not hyper aware of all of this.


----------



## lparsons21

Steveknj said:


> And people wonder why this is all so confusing to anyone who's not hyper aware of all of this.


Yep, even without AT&T's more elaborate subscription scheme, picking live streaming services can be very daunting and irritating. Often in other forums I see people saying to go to suppose.tv to help in picking the right service, and it is a pretty good place to go to, but it can be a bit overwhelming too.

Thankfully the live streaming services all have some free trial period though all too often it is too short IMO. I would think it would take at minimum a week to figure out if a service fit or not.


----------



## Davenlr

If I was a Billionaire, I would buy a KU band satellite and uplink facility, put as many HD channels as I could fit on it from most popular on down until the satellite was full. I would use it to beam all those channels to my private Caribbean Island, but I would not use any scrambling. Then, anyone who happened to accidentally point a FTA dish at it, would have all the cable channels free. That would end all the BS.


----------



## lparsons21

A couple odd tidbits...

On the Osprey remote, if the backlighting doesn’t work the most common culprit is low battery strength. I was reminded of that this morning when I noticed the backlighting not working. Looked at the tools menu and it showed the battery at 50%, but I decided to change batteries anyway and it fixed the issue. My Nakamichi remote is that way too, and unfortunately with it, it goes through batteries a whole lot faster.

I have been noticing that during the day virtually everything that is on TV is live reruns. So that lead me to figure out that if live reruns on my service were fine then why not just use the free ad supported services more often and see reruns of shows not on some channel? During the day I’m usually doing something else and really not paying much attention to the TV so ads just aren’t an issue.

Since I’ve finished out the originals of interest on AMC+ I cancelled that service. Also Netflix for awhile and just come back to that for some binge watching. I’m in the process of binge watching a few things to finish them up before it drops off. Paramount+ is another candidate though at $50/yr for the ad free I’ll probably keep it. Peacock is really looking good for a cancellation after the 1st year I paid expires this July. What makes all this easier to do is that the AT&T TV’s VOD library is huge and coupled with HBO Max there are tons of things I haven’t seen yet to watch.


----------



## harsh

Davenlr said:


> I would use it to beam all those channels to my private Caribbean Island, but I would not use any scrambling. Then, anyone who happened to accidentally point a FTA dish at it, would have all the cable channels free. That would end all the BS.


The content owners would be on you like stink on an ape for airing their product without the proper licensing. They would each sue you until your billions were gone.

Litigation aside, you don't really want to repeat Voom's or Orby's mistakes do you?


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> A couple odd tidbits...
> 
> On the Osprey remote, if the backlighting doesn't work the most common culprit is low battery strength. I was reminded of that this morning when I noticed the backlighting not working. Looked at the tools menu and it showed the battery at 50%, but I decided to change batteries anyway and it fixed the issue. My Nakamichi remote is that way too, and unfortunately with it, it goes through batteries a whole lot faster.
> 
> I have been noticing that during the day virtually everything that is on TV is live reruns. So that lead me to figure out that if live reruns on my service were fine then why not just use the free ad supported services more often and see reruns of shows not on some channel? During the day I'm usually doing something else and really not paying much attention to the TV so ads just aren't an issue.
> 
> Since I've finished out the originals of interest on AMC+ I cancelled that service. Also Netflix for awhile and just come back to that for some binge watching. I'm in the process of binge watching a few things to finish them up before it drops off. Paramount+ is another candidate though at $50/yr for the ad free I'll probably keep it. Peacock is really looking good for a cancellation after the 1st year I paid expires this July. What makes all this easier to do is that the AT&T TV's VOD library is huge and coupled with HBO Max there are tons of things I haven't seen yet to watch.


I wish I was more prudent with my streaming services. Right now, I have nothing much to watch on Netflix, I rarely watch Hulu at all (though at $24 a year, I'll keep it until it at least expires or after the Handmaid's Tail season airs). I have a free sub of ATV+ but I would cancel that until could binge Ted Lasso again. But it's free. At some point some of this might have to go, but there are 5 people living here and even though I might be done watching, someone else might not be.


----------



## Davenlr

harsh said:


> The content owners would be on you like stink on an ape for airing their product without the proper licensing. They would each sue you until your billions were gone.
> 
> Litigation aside, you don't really want to repeat Voom's or Orby's mistakes do you?


Hard to sue when I am not in the US, and they have no jurisdiction. Besides, that, lots of them air their own stuff but on C band which requires a 10' dish. I get Fox, NBC, all those subchannel stations, all the NFL games on Sunday, Local news from New York. If I was using it with a legit subscription, I dont see how they could say anything. It would be for private personal use.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> And people wonder why this is all so confusing to anyone who's not hyper aware of all of this.


Ha, very true. Hulu with Live TV is the worst in that regard, I think. It's just the least like traditional cable TV + DVR. I guess because they started with the Hulu SVOD and its next-gen UI and then fit live and recorded cable TV into that UI/UX. Which works for some folks but is the most confusing probably for those coming from traditional cable TV. I would *never* try to get my parents to switch to Hulu with Live TV, for instance.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> I wish I was more prudent with my streaming services. Right now, I have nothing much to watch on Netflix, I rarely watch Hulu at all (though at $24 a year, I'll keep it until it at least expires or after the Handmaid's Tail season airs). I have a free sub of ATV+ but I would cancel that until could binge Ted Lasso again. But it's free. At some point some of this might have to go, but there are 5 people living here and even though I might be done watching, someone else might not be.


I find that, for myself, the _idea_ of having lots of different services to choose from is nice but in reality I'm only going to dig into and really make use of a couple of paid services at a time (in addition to the free sources I have like OTA+DVR, PBS app, YouTube, Peacock, etc.). Right now that's HBO Max and Epix Now. In a month or two, I'll swap out Epix Now for probably Apple TV+. Will rotate in Hulu and Netflix for a couple months here and there. But yeah, if you've got multiple folks using the same set of subscriptions, it makes it more difficult to cut them off and switch.


----------



## Davenlr

I had a lifetime sub to Hulu through PlayOn, then Hulu broke off from them, and then I was supposed to log in through Yahoo, but could only access some stuff, so I gave up, and put Hulu on my Never Again list. 
I am just trying to figure out why, when it is the same company, that ATT TV and DirecTv have different channels to some extent, on the same package. What prevents for instance, ATT TV from carrying PBS when DirecTv does? I could stream it via the DirecTv streaming app, so it can't be "satellite only". I can understand there might be something in the contract for Sunday Ticket that it would be satellite only, but it really would make sense for the NFL and ATT to agree to modify it to include ATT TV, as they would both make money.
All my issues seem to point back to the same thing. A channel I want that they wont sell me. That makes no sense to me. DirecTv's version of "red zone" would be another I would pay extra for on ATT TV. They used to sell it as a stand alone on DirecTv before ATT bought them, then would only let you watch it if you had Sunday Ticket, so I switched to Comcast. I had it for 3 yrs (the NFL version) and then THEY wouldnt sell it to me unless I rented their X1 box because they said it wasnt available on my cablecard anymore. When I found out my neighbor with another package also got that channel, and with a cablecard, I canceled Comcast for lying to me. Sometimes I think these companies actually try to be last on the JD Power customer satisfaction list.


----------



## James Long

Davenlr said:


> If I was using it with a legit subscription, I dont see how they could say anything. It would be for private personal use.


Your retransmission would break the TOS of your source (plus copyright laws, etc.). Nice fantasy ... but not a reality by any stretch. And nothing to do with the topic of the thread, so move on.


----------



## b4pjoe

Davenlr said:


> Sometimes I think these companies actually try to be last on the JD Power customer satisfaction list.


Not AT&T...right at the top.


----------



## lparsons21

Uh huh, top of a mountain of pretty poor customer service ratings.


----------



## b4pjoe

lparsons21 said:


> Uh huh, top of a mountain of pretty poor customer service ratings.


I don't think JD Power has very high standards.


----------



## Davenlr

Looks like Comcast is about to take over:
https://www.theacsi.org/index.php?o...&Itemid=212&i=Subscription+Television+Service


----------



## James Long

lparsons21 said:


> Uh huh, top of a mountain of pretty poor customer service ratings.
> 
> 
> b4pjoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think JD Power doesn't has very high standards.
Click to expand...

The point is that the top rated companies (tied) are still close to 70% satisfaction.
Whether ~70% satisfied is "pretty poor" or not I'll leave to the individual to decide.

70% satisfied but closer to 95% keeping their subscriptions each quarter.


----------



## Davenlr

Wonder what Xfinity did to jump 10 points in a year? Their X1 platform? ATT TV isnt even listed nor are any of the other streaming services, so I wonder how we can find out how satisfied people are with those, compared with the old contract ones.


----------



## b4pjoe

James Long said:


> The point is that the top rated companies (tied) are still close to 70% satisfaction.
> Whether ~70% satisfied is "pretty poor" or not I'll leave to the individual to decide.
> 
> 70% satisfied but closer to 95% keeping their subscriptions each quarter.


All I know is if my customer satisfaction was at 70% I would have to look for a new job.


----------



## James Long

b4pjoe said:


> All I know is if my customer satisfaction was at 70% I would have to look for a new job.


When the industry average is 64% they are beating the curve.


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> I am just trying to figure out why, when it is the same company, that ATT TV and DirecTv have different channels to some extent, on the same package. What prevents for instance, ATT TV from carrying PBS when DirecTv does? I could stream it via the DirecTv streaming app, so it can't be "satellite only". I can understand there might be something in the contract for Sunday Ticket that it would be satellite only, but it really would make sense for the NFL and ATT to agree to modify it to include ATT TV, as they would both make money.


Yeah, I don't know the specifics of the carriage contracts underlying DTV vs. AT&T TV. I'm pretty sure that in the most recent round of renewals with each cable network group (e.g. Disney, Viacom, Fox, etc.) they included both platforms in the contract. As for locals, I'm pretty sure a new contract had to be worked out with each group of station owners in combination with each specific broadcast network (e.g. Sinclair stations running Fox, Nexstar stations running ABC, etc.) to include them on AT&T TV.

As for PBS stations specifically, they didn't even have the legal rights worked out for streaming, or the tech in place to do it, until late 2019, I think. YouTube TV then added those stations in early 2020. But my understanding is that there may still be an occasional program on a local PBS station for which they don't have the streaming rights, so it can't be run on that station's live stream on YTTV or in the free PBS app or anywhere else.

How long have you been able to stream PBS in the DTV app? Is it your local station or some kind of national PBS feed? At any rate, I have no idea why AT&T TV is taking so long to add those stations. But I do know from individual posts I see on various sites that the lack of them is keeping at least some folks from subscribing. AT&T just needs to cough up the money and strike a carriage deal. I don't see why either side wouldn't accept payment terms similar to the deals already in place for DTV and Uverse TV.



Davenlr said:


> All my issues seem to point back to the same thing. A channel I want that they wont sell me. That makes no sense to me. DirecTv's version of "red zone" would be another I would pay extra for on ATT TV. They used to sell it as a stand alone on DirecTv before ATT bought them, then would only let you watch it if you had Sunday Ticket, so I switched to Comcast. I had it for 3 yrs (the NFL version) and then THEY wouldnt sell it to me unless I rented their X1 box because they said it wasnt available on my cablecard anymore. When I found out my neighbor with another package also got that channel, and with a cablecard, I canceled Comcast for lying to me. Sometimes I think these companies actually try to be last on the JD Power customer satisfaction list.


I cancelled my free OTA TV when I couldn't pick up all the stations that the antenna salesman at RadioShack said I could get. Just kidding.

Eh, all these big corporations do stuff to piss consumers off. And if it makes you feel better to not do business with them when they piss you off, OK, but it's not like you're "teaching them a lesson". As individual consumers, we're pretty insignificant to them. Whaddya gonna do...


----------



## lparsons21

James Long said:


> When the industry average is 64% they are beating the curve.


Which highlights about how low the standards for customer service in the industry really are.

I know that if I could only get a 70% satisfaction rating at any company I worked for I wouldn't be around much longer after it was reported.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> Wonder what Xfinity did to jump 10 points in a year? Their X1 platform? ATT TV isnt even listed nor are any of the other streaming services, so I wonder how we can find out how satisfied people are with those, compared with the old contract ones.


ATT's streaming services are not so good in customer service. With their now defunct Now product the only contact was chat or email and I know of no one that ever used it that ever said they were satisfied with it.

Their current service doesn't do much with chat, instead opting for mostly call ins. My 2 times calling them was a mixed bag. 1st time was about some issue, wait time was over an hour to get to talk to a service rep that had no clue at all. 2nd time was to cancel and that went well, short hold time and a knowledgeable rep that did her best to keep me and then when that didn't work, got the ETF and box payments taken off.


----------



## Davenlr

Not so much to teach them a lesson. Made me feel better, and I have much better service now. It is the social media posts that let others know what kind of company they are that hopefully gets their attention. Those surveys get their attention too, believe it or not. I got a call from their head office with an apology, for what its worth.

Lparsons posts have kept me from switching away from ATT TV, so it matters somewhat what people post about their experiences.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> Lparsons posts have kept me from switching away from ATT TV, so it matters somewhat what people post about their experiences.


To be fair, ATT's streaming service has been very good making the fairly poor customer service not such a big deal. Doesn't excuse poor service when needed though.

One thing I didn't mention, the chat is an automated chat that can trap you in ever more circular motion, VERY IRRITATING!


----------



## Z513

harsh said:


> I concur. I would imagine that Linux is used as the reference test platform as it runs on almost everything and gives the utmost in control over exactly what is and, perhaps more importantly, what isn't in play.


I don't know, check the other certifications, some like the "TT02" or "HY0001" clearly show "Android 10" for the OS.

https://www.wi-fi.org/product-finde...sort_order=desc&categories=7&subcategories=42


----------



## compnurd

Z513 said:


> I don't know, check the other certifications, some like the "TT02" or "HY0001" clearly show "Android 10" for the OS.
> 
> https://www.wi-fi.org/product-finde...sort_order=desc&categories=7&subcategories=42


I really wouldn't read into it It's either going to be Android TV 10 or 11


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> I don't think JD Power has very high standards.


I've often wondered how JD Power makes those determinations. My gut tells me it's a lot like the old auto magazines who would rate cars on how much the maker of the car advertised in the magazine. I wonder if JD Power makes money from these companies in exchange for higher ratings. Some companies with pretty poor customer service gets ranked high with them.


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> All I know is if my customer satisfaction was at 70% I would have to look for a new job.


When I started with my current company I worked as a CS agent (though second level, not the person who takes the initial call) and if we got less than 90% satisfaction rating, our bosses wanted to know why, and my boss wanted 95%. That's how it should be in my opinion. You should strive for that. There are always going to be jerks who will give you a poor rating because they didn't get the answer they wanted (rather than the right answer), but those need to be reviewed and taken into account as well. And we would have meeting with our bosses to go through each negative review and find out why.


----------



## swyman18

Seems strange to me to compare satisfaction ratings of large corporations to those of a single employee. I mean, even if every employee in a large company gets 95% review “rating”, there is probably still going to be a tons of customers that hate the company for whatever reason. So overall, 70-75% doesn’t seem so bad.


----------



## b4pjoe

How does the math work that if every employee gets a 95% rating that overall the company is at a 70-75% rating?

A 70-75% rating is not the bad if you are expecting 50% I guess.


----------



## Steveknj

More testing for AT&T TV. One thing we noticed is that when you go to your device or app, it opens on the last channel that SOMEONE in the house was using. For example, if the app was used on Roku in the bedroom, and was last tuned to CBS, if I go to the app on another device, it will open on CBS, and not the last channel THAT device was on. Is there a way to change this?


----------



## Davenlr

Nope


----------



## lparsons21

Steveknj said:


> I wish I was more prudent with my streaming services. Right now, I have nothing much to watch on Netflix, I rarely watch Hulu at all (though at $24 a year, I'll keep it until it at least expires or after the Handmaid's Tail season airs). I have a free sub of ATV+ but I would cancel that until could binge Ted Lasso again. But it's free. At some point some of this might have to go, but there are 5 people living here and even though I might be done watching, someone else might not be.


I live alone so it would seem that kicking a service in or out would be something I do often, and of course these last few months I've been kicking quite a few tires with the live streaming services.

But for SVOD services like Netflix and others I'm not so good, usually just suddenly noticing that I'm not using one hardly at all. That's the case right now with Netflix. For some of the services like Disney+, AppleTV+ and others that offer discounted annual subscriptions I tend to do the annuals.

But assuming I keep ATT's live streaming service and HBO Max I may be doing a bit more trimming. There's just so much available on those two using VOD.

And that brings up a point about ATT's current subscription levels. At current pricing for non-contract, if you would normally have HBO Max in your mix, then Choice is exactly the same cost as Entertainment for the first year since HBO Max for a year is included. Also I suspect that keeping HBO Max free beyond that might turn out to be the keeping the customer offer at the end of the year.


----------



## Davenlr

If you have ATT Fiber Internet at the 1Gb/s level (possibly others) you also get HBOMAX free. I checked the upgrade from Entertainment, and I do not see any sports channels added that I would watch. I might switch in the fall for the SEC network, but unless they add Red Zone channel, Ill probably have to switch providers for the football season to get Red Zone.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> If you have ATT Fiber Internet at the 1Gb/s level (possibly others) you also get HBOMAX free. I checked the upgrade from Entertainment, and I do not see any sports channels added that I would watch. I might switch in the fall for the SEC network, but unless they add Red Zone channel, Ill probably have to switch providers for the football season to get Red Zone.


Yeah, if you get HBO Max as a freebie from some other service then it wouldn't make sense to go to Choice unless the RSN's are of value.

I keep thinking that AT&T will solve the NFL/Redzone issue at some point.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> More testing for AT&T TV. One thing we noticed is that when you go to your device or app, it opens on the last channel that SOMEONE in the house was using. For example, if the app was used on Roku in the bedroom, and was last tuned to CBS, if I go to the app on another device, it will open on CBS, and not the last channel THAT device was on. Is there a way to change this?


So it didnt used to do that until the last update... and it didnt start to do it correctly until sometime last year... I suspect it gets fixed soon


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, if you get HBO Max as a freebie from some other service then it wouldn't make sense to go to Choice unless the RSN's are of value.
> 
> I keep thinking that AT&T will solve the NFL/Redzone issue at some point.


Probably 2 more years


----------



## swyman18

b4pjoe said:


> How does the math work that if every employee gets a 95% rating that overall the company is at a 70-75% rating?
> 
> A 70-75% rating is not the bad if you are expecting 50% I guess.


I don't know, people are talking about their own personal work satisfaction ratings, what exactly does that mean? I'm sure it's different for every job. So that's my point, you could have a company with 50,000 employees that are all tremendous at their jobs, but the public can still only be marginally satisfied with the company as a whole.


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> Probably 2 more years


By then it seems likely that the new DIRECTV will be a bygone milestone in the NFL TV business.

Amazon appears to be the odds-on favorite to pick up NFLST.


----------



## James Long

b4pjoe said:


> How does the math work that if every employee gets a 95% rating that overall the company is at a 70-75% rating?


Blame the company instead of the employee when the company has a policy the customer doesn't like or rates that are not customer friendly.
"You are doing a great job, Joe, but your company isn't."


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> By then it seems likely that the new DIRECTV will be a bygone milestone in the NFL TV business.
> 
> Amazon appears to be the odds-on favorite to pick up NFLST.


If there ends up being an exclusive distributor for NFLST on the residential side only, Amazon would be my first guess (with DTV remaining the exclusive distributor for commercial establishments). Although I wouldn't rule out NFLST being an exclusive add-on package to ESPN+ on the residential side either.


----------



## compnurd

harsh said:


> By then it seems likely that the new DIRECTV will be a bygone milestone in the NFL TV business.
> 
> Amazon appears to be the odds-on favorite to pick up NFLST.


That's irrelevant. That is when the NFL Directv contract is up overall so regardless of what happens with Sunday ticket that is when NFL network will need to be re negotiated


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> That's irrelevant. That is when the NFL Directv contract is up overall so regardless of what happens with Sunday ticket that is when NFL network will need to be re negotiated


You're assuming that DIRECTV's "Sports Leader" focus will be retained and that may not be what they want to do.

I reason that sports is one of their most expensive offerings and one that they're not pursuing as doggedly with AT&T TV.


----------



## compnurd

harsh said:


> You're assuming that DIRECTV's "Sports Leader" focus will be retained and that may not be what they want to do.
> 
> I reason that sports is one of their most expensive offerings and one that they're not pursuing as doggedly with AT&T TV.


I am not assuming anything. You clearly are


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> I reason that sports is one of their most expensive offerings and one that they're not pursuing as doggedly with AT&T TV.


Are you accusing AT&T|DIRECTV of not pursuing sports? The satellite carrier that has the Sinclair/Bally sports channels and every major single sport package? Have you looked in your EPG at the list of RSNs lately? There are a couple of missing sports stations on DIRECTV (Pac-12 being the most notable) but accusing AT&T|DIRECTV of not pursuing sports is not accurate.


----------



## 7thton

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I don't know the specifics of the carriage contracts underlying DTV vs. AT&T TV. I'm pretty sure that in the most recent round of renewals with each cable network group (e.g. Disney, Viacom, Fox, etc.) they included both platforms in the contract. As for locals, I'm pretty sure a new contract had to be worked out with each group of station owners in combination with each specific broadcast network (e.g. Sinclair stations running Fox, Nexstar stations running ABC, etc.) to include them on AT&T TV.
> 
> As for PBS stations specifically, they didn't even have the legal rights worked out for streaming, or the tech in place to do it, until late 2019, I think. YouTube TV then added those stations in early 2020. But my understanding is that there may still be an occasional program on a local PBS station for which they don't have the streaming rights, so it can't be run on that station's live stream on YTTV or in the free PBS app or anywhere else.
> 
> How long have you been able to stream PBS in the DTV app? Is it your local station or some kind of national PBS feed? At any rate, I have no idea why AT&T TV is taking so long to add those stations. But I do know from individual posts I see on various sites that the lack of them is keeping at least some folks from subscribing. AT&T just needs to cough up the money and strike a carriage deal. I don't see why either side wouldn't accept payment terms similar to the deals already in place for DTV and Uverse TV.
> 
> I cancelled my free OTA TV when I couldn't pick up all the stations that the antenna salesman at RadioShack said I could get. Just kidding.
> 
> Eh, all these big corporations do stuff to piss consumers off. And if it makes you feel better to not do business with them when they piss you off, OK, but it's not like you're "teaching them a lesson". As individual consumers, we're pretty insignificant to them. Whaddya gonna do...


I believe YTTV helped PBS with the technology needed to uplink all the member stations so that they could stream to OTT providers, such as YTTV. It is my impression that YTTV actually invested money and technical help for this, so it wouldn't surprise me if PBS is exclusive to YTTV (as far as OTT goes) for some amount of time, although I cannot cite any sources for this.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> I reason that sports is one of their most expensive offerings and one that they're not pursuing as doggedly with AT&T TV.


Among streaming cable TV services (vMVPDs), AT&T TV is definitely the sports leaders, as they're the only one with the Bally RSNs. Now, I don't think we're ever going to see NFLST on AT&T TV unless the NFL ends up distributing it on a non-exclusive basis through everyone. But then I'd say the same holds true for DTV too (for residential customers, anyway) once the current contract expires. It's just not a good deal for them to spend that kind of money any more to lure in subscribers to a business that's in decline.

I do think we'll see NFL Network and/or NFL RedZone on AT&T TV eventually, although I don't know whether that will happen before DTV's current contract for NFLST and NFL Network lapses at the end of next year.

Aside from that, I think AT&T TV already has all the sports channels that DTV does. The only thing it lacks is DTV's Sports Pack with those out-of-market RSNs from across the country. But I'm not sure that *any* cable TV provider other than DTV offers that. And I doubt that AT&T TV will ever get that because the leagues seem to offer streaming access to out-of-market games via one exclusive service, e.g. MLB.tv, NBA League Pass, ESPN+ for NHL and MLS. Apparently DTV's Sports Pack somehow doesn't violate that exclusivity (maybe because it's satellite instead of streaming, or because it was created before those direct-to-consumer services like MLB.tv).


----------



## swyman18

I don’t think DTV’s sports pack allows you to see the actual games on the out of market RSN’s, just all the other programming. The games are blacked out. 

PS Vue had it too for a little while. I subscribed to it because I enjoyed getting the NBCSports Boston programming here in Hawaii, but the live Celtics games were blacked out.


----------



## harperhometheater

swyman18 said:


> PS Vue had it too for a little while. I subscribed to it because I enjoyed getting the NBCSports Boston programming here in Hawaii, but the live Celtics games were blacked out.


Yeah I saw the same thing with PSVue (still was the best streaming service, even today!) here in HI too, but with NBCSports Philly. All the games were blacked out. I just setup a direct VPN between two routers from here to the Philly area at my parents and used that to get the Philly stations on PSVue, which alleviated the blackouts.


----------



## NashGuy

swyman18 said:


> I don't think DTV's sports pack allows you to see the actual games on the out of market RSN's, just all the other programming. The games are blacked out.
> 
> PS Vue had it too for a little while. I subscribed to it because I enjoyed getting the NBCSports Boston programming here in Hawaii, but the live Celtics games were blacked out.


Oh, ha, I didn't realize that. Didn't occur to me that folks would actually pay extra to get sports channels with no actual sports on them! Well, in that case, and given that PS Vue (another vMVPD) offered it in the past, I don't see why AT&T TV couldn't offer it if Sinclair is interested. (Don't know why they wouldn't be, seems like low-hanging fruit.)


----------



## swyman18

NashGuy said:


> Oh, ha, I didn't realize that. Didn't occur to me that folks would actually pay extra to get sports channels with no actual sports on them! Well, in that case, and given that PS Vue (another vMVPD) offered it in the past, I don't see why AT&T TV couldn't offer it if Sinclair is interested. (Don't know why they wouldn't be, seems like low-hanging fruit.)


Yeah, if you're a displaced hard core fan, it can be worth it. You get all the pre/post game shows along with other radio simulcasts and such. And then of course you just need to subscribe to the out of market package to get the actual games.

Or do what harper suggests.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> Didn't occur to me that folks would actually pay extra to get sports channels with no actual sports on them!


There are other sports on RSNs than the professional leagues. 

There is also the issue of where "local" RSNs are available. For example, my town is in market for the Cincinnati Reds and the Detroit Tigers. Neither are on RSNs provided without the Sports Pack (in my area). A DIRECTV subscriber with MLB EI would be blacked out on MLB EI and and not be able to watch the in market games.


----------



## garn9173

NashGuy said:


> Oh, ha, I didn't realize that. Didn't occur to me that folks would actually pay extra to get sports channels with no actual sports on them!


When I was a DirecTV subscriber, I had the sports pack with all games from FS North. I'm in their foot print (Des Moines metro), however, FS North wasn't included in the base packages.


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> That is when the NFL Directv contract is up overall so regardless of what happens with Sunday ticket that is when NFL network will need to be re negotiated





compnurd said:


> I am not assuming anything.


You would appear to be assuming that DIRECTV will be re-negotiating their NFL Network contract.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> There are a couple of missing sports stations on DIRECTV (Pac-12 being the most notable) but accusing AT&T|DIRECTV of not pursuing sports is not accurate.


AT&T TV is lacking considerably more sports channels but since you mentioned it, they only provide ROOT in my market while ROOT, Pac-12 and NBCSN NW are carried by Comcast. DISH carries ROOT and Pac-12. Some of the mom and pops carry two or more.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> You would appear to be assuming that DIRECTV will be re-negotiating their NFL Network contract.


And you are assuming that DIRECTV will not be pursuing carriage of the NFL Network? In another thread you are assuming NFL ST will remain an exclusive of some company. Your assumptions are not facts - they are just opinions as to what you think will happen.


----------



## Steveknj

More AT&T TV testing this past weekend (sorry to bore folks with this). Using the Osprey box, and toggling back and forth between the core offering and HBO Max, a few times I had issues loading HBO Max, and usually that resulted in what I call a soft reboot (looked like it was "loading" AT&T TV.) It took me one time 3 attempts before I could get HBO Max to work. Padding issue with John Oliver's show on the HBO Linear channel where it cut off before it was over. Looks like I'll start watching on Max.

Bigger issue though was my wife's frustration that caused her to throw a tissue box at our bedroom TV. She is old school and likes to channel surf during commercials. She usually watches the bedroom TV before bed and toggles between HGTV, DIY, Food Network and our local CW (which is not available on AT&T TV as mentioned). She just doesn't like the idea that to toggle to the CW she will need to bring up a different app (Locast through Channels DVR) and it frustrated her to no end. We are using a Firestick with both apps in the Recents area. She also couldn't figure out how to get back to HGTV from Channels either and wound up bringing up the HGTV app instead. It's a definitely learning curve for her. So unless she gets this figured out, rather than go through the pain of her complaining all the time, we might just keep DirecTV for now, until I hear that AT&T TV will offer our local CW. We have until this Saturday to decide (when our 14 day trial expires).


----------



## lparsons21

Yeah, that soft reboot exiting apps is a little irritant, thankfully it doesn’t always do it.


----------



## Davenlr

Only issue since I factory reset mine is it takes 10 to 15 seconds for the menu to pop up when I hit Guide or List. Sometimes it doesnt come up at all on the first press.


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> Only issue since I factory reset mine is it takes 10 to 15 seconds for the menu to pop up when I hit Guide or List. Sometimes it doesnt come up at all on the first press.


Wow. That's bad. Have you tried the trick to go into developer settings and turn some things down (e.g. animations, etc.)? Many have found that it speeds things up a bit.


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/DirecTVNow/comments/blq6dn


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> So unless she gets this figured out, rather than go through the pain of her complaining all the time, we might just keep DirecTV for now, until I hear that AT&T TV will offer our local CW. We have until this Saturday to decide (when our 14 day trial expires).


If you cancel, I hope you give them a list of the specific flaws in the service that they need to fix. (Maybe you'll be sent a survey or something.)

Given how long the tech was in beta, and then given that it had a soft launch in Aug. 2019 followed by a nationwide real launch just over a year ago, there's no excuse, IMO, for AT&T TV still lacking major locals and certain basic DVR features. It seems to me that by the time the service was finally ready to launch it had already lost the enthusiasm of AT&T leadership, who by then were focused on the big HBO Max launch. And then AT&T TV has, for the most part, just sort of sat there unchanged the past year while AT&T was figuring out what they were going to do with their cable TV businesses, a question that has now been determined.

I do think the service will benefit from a renewed management focus once the spin-off to "new DirecTV" happens later this year. But who knows if there will be any significant improvements to it until then.


----------



## Davenlr

NashGuy said:


> Wow. That's bad. Have you tried the trick to go into developer settings and turn some things down (e.g. animations, etc.)? Many have found that it speeds things up a bit.
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/DirecTVNow/comments/blq6dn


Nope, but will do it right now.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> If you cancel, I hope you give them a list of the specific flaws in the service that they need to fix. (Maybe you'll be sent a survey or something.)
> 
> Given how long the tech was in beta, and then given that it had a soft launch in Aug. 2019 followed by a nationwide real launch just over a year ago, there's no excuse, IMO, for AT&T TV still lacking major locals and certain basic DVR features. It seems to me that by the time the service was finally ready to launch it had already lost the enthusiasm of AT&T leadership, who by then were focused on the big HBO Max launch. And then AT&T TV has, for the most part, just sort of sat there unchanged the past year while AT&T was figuring out what they were going to do with their cable TV businesses, a question that has now been determined.
> 
> I do think the service will benefit from a renewed management focus once the spin-off to "new DirecTV" happens later this year. But who knows if there will be any significant improvements to it until then.


Good advice. For the most part, I really like it. Is it as good as DirecTV in the things it does? No, but is DirecTV $80 better? No. But it's REALLY close. Fix those couple of things, (padding and the additional channels needed) and it's perfectly fine. I'd like to have channel numbers on the App, but that's less of an issue and really only matters to those of us switching from DirecTV. I think trick play works rather well, which I was a bit worried about. At least on the Osprey.


----------



## espaeth

NashGuy said:


> If you cancel, I hope you give them a list of the specific flaws in the service that they need to fix. (Maybe you'll be sent a survey or something.)


Cancellations go through the standard DIRECTV retention CSRs -- I get the feeling they get a drop down list of options for a reason for cancellation. I tried to explain the frustration with the app on platforms like the Apple TV and Roku, and I think my reason for cancelling just got recorded as "Unhappy with operation of service."

Maybe it's changed, but I never got a follow-up survey. This was the only correspondence after cancellation:


----------



## raott

On the subject of sports auto time extensions, I recorded The Players golf championship yesterday, which ran long, and did NOT auto-extend.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> And you are assuming that DIRECTV will not be pursuing carriage of the NFL Network?


It could go either way and I suspect that AT&T TV is more representative of New DIRECTV's future than DIRECTV's current offering is. I'm not claiming it as foregone by any means.


----------



## Steveknj

raott said:


> On the subject of sports auto time extensions, I recorded The Players golf championship yesterday, which ran long, and did NOT auto-extend.


I recorded a couple of hockey games that did auto-extend. It'll be interesting next weekend with the NCAA tournament starting and the late Sunday games always run late. I'll bet that the CBS shows don't auto pad or adjust due to delays. I'll probably watch 60 Minutes live.


----------



## Steveknj

I'll have to check but does the NFL App show NFL Network content? I know the app shows the regional games in your area.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> I recorded a couple of hockey games that did auto-extend. It'll be interesting next weekend with the NCAA tournament starting and the late Sunday games always run late. I'll bet that the CBS shows don't auto pad or adjust due to delays. I'll probably watch 60 Minutes live.


Thats a good point since CBS etc isnt a "sports channel"


----------



## Davenlr

@NashGuy Set it to .5, and now it takes 4 second to pull up LIST from watching a program. Better. Thanks.
This box needs a CPU about 4x faster. Ill probably buy one of the new ones, and put this in the bedroom when they come out.


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> Thats a good point since CBS etc isnt a "sports channel"


On DirecTV I have always padded whatever I usually watch on Sunday nights due to NFL and NCAA (and occasional golf) overruns. I don't think I'll be able to account for that here. If I decide to keep the platform, I have already setup this same content on Channels with padding.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> On DirecTV I have always padded whatever I usually watch on Sunday nights due to NFL and NCAA (and occasional golf) overruns. I don't think I'll be able to account for that here. If I decide to keep the platform, I have already setup this same content on Channels with padding.


Just record the program after


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> @NashGuy Set it to .5, and now it takes 4 second to pull up LIST from watching a program. Better. Thanks.
> This box needs a CPU about 4x faster. Ill probably buy one of the new ones, and put this in the bedroom when they come out.


Are you still rebooting everyday?


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> @NashGuy Set it to .5, and now it takes 4 second to pull up LIST from watching a program. Better. Thanks.
> This box needs a CPU about 4x faster. Ill probably buy one of the new ones, and put this in the bedroom when they come out.


While there are times it seems to take a long time to pull up the guide or list most of the time mine takes less than 2 seconds.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> While there are times it seems to take a long time to pull up the guide or list most of the time mine takes less than 2 seconds.


Same. Something is off


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Same. Something is off


You asked him if he rebooted everyday and that could certainly cause it to be slow. I almost never reboot/restart my box.


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> @NashGuy Set it to .5, and now it takes 4 second to pull up LIST from watching a program. Better. Thanks.
> This box needs a CPU about 4x faster. Ill probably buy one of the new ones, and put this in the bedroom when they come out.


Glad it helped. Yeah, sounds like it need a faster CPU, and more RAM would probably help too. Also, I think Android TV 8 is kind of a dog. They reportedly made strides on 9 and 10 to optimize performance on the sort of lower-powered SoCs that tend to power smart TVs and streamers (vs. the more powerful hardware typical of smartphones). So, all that said, the next-gen box should be much better.


----------



## Davenlr

compnurd said:


> Are you still rebooting everyday?


Nope, havent rebooted it since I reinstalled the OS
If I hit list within oh about 5 minutes of starting a cloud dvr show or a live broadcast, it pops right up. If I dont touch the remote for 30 minutes or so, it takes about 4 to 6 seconds.

Also, occasionally, the picture will stutter like it switches to 24 fps for a couple seconds then jumps back to normal. I assumed it was getting out of sync with audio and resyncing, or it just might be the station.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Nope, havent rebooted it since I reinstalled the OS
> If I hit list within oh about 5 minutes of starting a cloud dvr show or a live broadcast, it pops right up. If I dont touch the remote for 30 minutes or so, it takes about 4 to 6 seconds.
> 
> Also, occasionally, the picture will stutter like it switches to 24 fps for a couple seconds then jumps back to normal. I assumed it was getting out of sync with audio and resyncing, or it just might be the station.


Are you in wired or wireless? That is odd. I have never seen any of that and I have 5 Ospreys I use every week


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> You asked him if he rebooted everyday and that could certainly cause it to be slow. I almost never reboot/restart my box.


Yeh. Mine only reboots when it updates but have never seen what he is seeing


----------



## Davenlr

Now its even worse since I changed that setting. Apps wont load. I have to pause the TV, then it tries to load, and then goes back to live TV again. Have to try about three times, and finally it will load the app. Thing is crazy. All it wants to do is play ATT TV.


----------



## Davenlr

compnurd said:


> Are you in wired or wireless? That is odd. I have never seen any of that and I have 5 Ospreys I use every week


Wired directly to the gateway.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Now its even worse since I changed that setting. Apps wont load. I have to pause the TV, then it tries to load, and then goes back to live TV again. Have to try about three times, and finally it will load the app. Thing is crazy. All it wants to do is play ATT TV.


Did you ever do that full factory wipe I suggested?


----------



## Davenlr

Yes, I did. It stopped the automatic reboots at 1PM, but seemed to really slow the box down.


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> Now its even worse since I changed that setting. Apps wont load. I have to pause the TV, then it tries to load, and then goes back to live TV again. Have to try about three times, and finally it will load the app. Thing is crazy. All it wants to do is play ATT TV.


I've had this happen before and after I changed the settings. I'm not sure that's the issue.


----------



## Davenlr

Steveknj said:


> I've had this happen before and after I changed the settings. I'm not sure that's the issue.


I left the setting, but turned developer options back off, will see if that helps today. It basically just feels like trying to run windows 10 on an original Pentium. It works, but takes forever to do anything. If the next box release is fast, ATT will have a winner.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> I left the setting, but turned developer options back off, will see if that helps today. It basically just feels like trying to run windows 10 on an original Pentium. It works, but takes forever to do anything. If the next box release is fast, ATT will have a winner.


Yeah, the box is definitely the right idea but implemented a bit poorly. Given the length of time it has been out there you would have expected some real improvements to have been made already. Assuming the new box is what it appears to be, it should be on any ATT TV's subscriber's want list.

My experience with the box has been a mixed bag with the last 2 updates improving speed of most operations quite a bit. App loading is still fairly slow and varies quite a bit depending on which app you are trying to load. And it seems that the UI crash happens more often coming out of an app than it used to.


----------



## Davenlr

Turning the developer options off but leaving the change fixed the issue of not being able to get into the apps. Speed seems better now too. Also, I have never had it crash coming out of an app, at least not yet (knock).

I don't know if I want to spend $120 or more on the new one tho... guess it depends how much more it does. If its on par with the Nvidia Shield, it would be worth it.


----------



## lparsons21

Since i still have a few days of trials with YTTV & Sling, and I have way too much time on my hands since the ground is like walking on a very thick wet sponge keeping me off the golf course, I’ve been twiddling yet again...

AT&T TV Ultimate w/expanded DVR - Great service, great picture and of course, DD5.1 audio. And of course, it comes at a price higher than most other live streamers. Wider range of channels though most of them are of little to no interest, which is also true of the other live streaming services.

Cost : $105/month including HBO Max for first year.

YouTubeTV - again, another great service with a great picture, only slightly less good than AT&T’s. Stereo sound on all the live channels, but DD5.1 on some VODs. It also handles VOD/DVR a bit differently which is both boon and bane of the UI. The VOD offerings are almost the same as AT&T’s though presented differently and some channel’s VOD has shows not present on either one or the other. I’ve not figured out why that is the case, seems odd.

Cost : $80/month if I include HBO Max.

Difference : $25/month

Because of the mix of channel differences and my need/want for FS2 & Golf Channel, the levels of each service compare well though AT&T includes Starz Encore live and VOD and Starz VOD, neither of which are all that important to me.

Because I’m almost completely deaf in one ear I only get 1/2 of surround sound and it looks like l’m going to be stuck with that for the rest of my life, it seems that the lack of DD5.1 for most of YTTV’s shouldn’t be an issue. And I’ve got a few days before the next billing from either will come due. Sigh... The saga continues!


----------



## Davenlr

I think you said you were single...if that is the case, can you not buy a good AVR 5.1.4 system, and jack the channels on the deaf side up to match the non-deaf side, so it sounds decent or would there be too much reflection off the wall on the good side?

Ill probably have to switch to YTTV in the fall to get the Red Zone channel. It all depends if the Canadian C band satellite still shows the Sunday Ticket games in the clear like they have the past 5 years, and if my 10' dish can keep picking it up, as its getting weaker every year.


----------



## lparsons21

Yeah, I’m single. I’ve got a very good Atmos capable Soundbar system and have adjusted as much as it can. But the reality is that it doesn’t really work for that ear, even using headphones doesn’t do much for that ear. The doctor is contemplating long term steroid use as when we tried that for a shorter period of time, it seemed to clear that ear up a bit. I’ll know fairly soon what approach we’re going to try.

With YTTV the Red Zone channel is in an add-on I think, about $10/month for it. The biggest drawback to YTTV for me is the UI, just don’t like it.


----------



## Davenlr

Hope you find something that works. My mom had that problem in both ears, and dementia on top of it. She would swear the batteries were dead in her hearing aide, and would put new ones in every day at $10 a pop. Finally we started taking the old ones out of the trash and putting them back in the rotary pak, since a black sharpie dot on it so we would know which ones were really new and which ones were only a day old. They lasted 20 days or so.

Besides Fubo, any other streaming services carry Red Zone? If Sling had it, I would subscribe to both both the season. I "could" use my relatives down the streets "Dish anywhere" I to get it if they subscribe to it. If they dont, I could just pay them to add it for the winter. It works ok on the Osprey box. Being in the same family, I dont think it would violate the TOS.


----------



## lparsons21

Sling’s got the RedZone, it is in their ‘sports’ pack. But if you are a bit picky about PQ you probably won’t like Sling. And their base levels are weird!

Sling Blue - 3 streams allowed - none of the Disney products in this one.

Sling Orange - 1 stream allowed - has the Disney stuff, which includes ESPN.

If you do the Sling Orange+Blue the channels that are only in Orange still have just one stream.

And the combo plus whichever add-ons you want comes in higher than YTTV.

And of course, Sling has no locals for most locations if that is an issue.


----------



## Davenlr

Locals are no issue. I have a 60' tower with an 8 bay antenna. Locals all come in to my Tivo Premier and a HDHomeRun ATSC 3.0 box with Plex server.

I wouldnt be canceling ATT, just adding Sling for that one channel, so whatever their cheapest one plus the sports pack would be fine. Ill check them out. Im guessing they are one of those 30 fps services?


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> Locals are no issue. I have a 60' tower with an 8 bay antenna. Locals all come in to my Tivo Premier and a HDHomeRun ATSC 3.0 box with Plex server.
> 
> I wouldnt be canceling ATT, just adding Sling for that one channel, so whatever their cheapest one plus the sports pack would be fine. Ill check them out. Im guessing they are one of those 30 fps services?


Many channels are 30 FPS but I think all the sports ones are supposedly 60 FPS. I just didn't care for their video with fast moving sport or show scenes, just jittery enough to irritate. The only thing I can think of is that they are using a fairly low bitrate though can't prove it. But the difference between Sling and YTTV/ATT TV is stark.


----------



## Davenlr

Blue plus sports pack is currently $46/mo. Normally $50. Ill see what deal they have come football season.
Why oh why do I have to like live sports. It has to be the most expensive thing there is to watch.


----------



## Steveknj

Is the only way to cancel AT&T TV to call them? I'm trying to avoid that if possible!

We are leaning toward keeping DirecTV for now, until the CW situation is cleared up at least. I'm getting tired of every night having to work with my very non-technical wife to get her the channels she wants to watch. We'll probably hang on to the two Osprey devices for now if we indeed cancel and hope that they add the CW soon. Once they do that, I can rejoin and cancel DirecTV then. AT&T mostly works except for the few buggy issues I've had and the one irritating issue of not being able to pad. But right now, it's not worth the "user" issues I'm having and since I can "afford" the more premium DirecTV, I'll keep that for a bit. I'll play with AT&T TV for a few more days just to see if we can make it work without too much headache for the better half.


----------



## Davenlr

Yep, think you have to call them.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> Yep, think you have to call them.


The website offers 'chat to cancel', that just gets you a little chatting before they tell you to call. You can't cancel with chat though it implies you can. I just did that, didn't take too long and they didn't really try to keep me.

Activating YTTV now.

Steveknj,
YTTV handles things like The CW better. You can add their shows to your library and while it doesn't record the shows it does show the VOD's for them, looks like next day.


----------



## Davenlr

You cant get CW with an antenna? Cape Girardeau should be in range ch 11.2
Never mind, its Steve that needs CW, and I dont know where he lives


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> You cant get CW with an antenna? Cape Girardeau should be in range ch 11.2
> Never mind, its Steve that needs CW, and I dont know where he lives


LOL! Gotta say that the title of the thread is "a little review" and we're up to 1579 posts!

Yeah, I get the CW via antenna just fine.


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> The website offers 'chat to cancel', that just gets you a little chatting before they tell you to call. You can't cancel with chat though it implies you can. I just did that, didn't take too long and they didn't really try to keep me.
> 
> Activating YTTV now.
> 
> Steveknj,
> YTTV handles things like The CW better. You can add their shows to your library and while it doesn't record the shows it does show the VOD's for them, looks like next day.


I have tried YTTV and absolutely hated the interface. Plus, they don't have the two RSNs I watch the most MSG and YES (only AT&T TV and Fubo has them of the streamers) and missing Dolby Digital 5.1. So it's actually worse for me than AT&T TV.

So really, for now AT&T TV is the only option that's even remotely close to what I want, and it's really ONE missing channel that's causing all the pain. I'm sure it'll get there eventually, but for now, it's not quite there to the point I can cancel DirecTV (the only other option really is Optimum cable, which has all the channels, but has it's own set of problems).


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> You cant get CW with an antenna? Cape Girardeau should be in range ch 11.2
> Never mind, its Steve that needs CW, and I dont know where he lives


I actually have an indoor antenna that I was playing with and I'm just too far from NYC or Philly to get in more than a smattering of channels and even some of those drift in and out. Wife doesn't like the idea of putting an antenna on the roof at this point. And again we go back to swapping between inputs to watch TV the way she wants to.


----------



## lparsons21

Steveknj said:


> I have tried YTTV and absolutely hated the interface. Plus, they don't have the two RSNs I watch the most MSG and YES (only AT&T TV and Fubo has them of the streamers) and missing Dolby Digital 5.1. So it's actually worse for me than AT&T TV.


Yeah, I'm not in love with the UI either. I find the way they do the Library to be a real mess. But I can work with it.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> YTTV handles things like The CW better. You can add their shows to your library and while it doesn't record the shows it does show the VOD's for them, looks like next day.


I didn't realize that there was still a channel on YTTV that couldn't be recorded to cloud DVR. (That used to be the case with CBS stations on YTTV too, or at least your CBS recording would be unavailable if the same program was available on VOD. But that changed over a year ago.)

Every channel on AT&T TV can be recorded to cloud DVR, correct? Or do they exclude premium channels like HBO and Showtime?


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> I didn't realize that there was still a channel on YTTV that couldn't be recorded to cloud DVR. (That used to be the case with CBS stations on YTTV too, or at least your CBS recording would be unavailable if the same program was available on VOD. But that changed over a year ago.)
> 
> Every channel on AT&T TV can be recorded to cloud DVR, correct? Or do they exclude premium channels like HBO and Showtime?


Yes, you can record on every channel that is in the guide. The CW is often listed as being there in the ads but in the fine print for most areas it isn't a live channel, just a way to their VOD. Works OK, but of course the ads are not skippable.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Yes, you can record on every channel that is in the guide. The CW is often listed as being there in the ads but in the fine print for most areas it isn't a live channel, just a way to their VOD. Works OK, but of course the ads are not skippable.


I give you 2 weeks


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> I give you 2 weeks


I'll take the under on that bet.


----------



## Davenlr

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, I'm not in love with the UI either. I find the way they do the Library to be a real mess. But I can work with it.


----------



## lparsons21

In my defense all this switching around started when I decided I wanted to see more Golf and Boxing. For Golf, the Golf Channel is nearly mandatory since it is usually only on other channels on the weekends with some exceptions.

For Boxing, ESPN, FS1, FS2 and others are needed as Boxing is seldom on other channels.

So the start to find the most efficient, inexpensive way to get those channels. AT&T TV is certainly the cream of the crop of live streaming services, but the price to get the Golf channel included is quite high compared to any other live streaming service that has it.

All that goes to say that it is live sports that pushes the prices up, followed closely by the cost to have the locals included.


----------



## James Long

The topic is AT&T TV.

There are now less posts in this thread. Please don't go too far off topic.


----------



## Steveknj

Steveknj said:


> I actually have an indoor antenna that I was playing with and I'm just too far from NYC or Philly to get in more than a smattering of channels and even some of those drift in and out. Wife doesn't like the idea of putting an antenna on the roof at this point. And again we go back to swapping between inputs to watch TV the way she wants to.


So we are back to a "Go" for AT&T TV. I figured out the solution to help out my wife. It's AT&T through the Channels App. I can combine the AT&T TV channels with the Locast Channels in the app and now she can watch all the channels she wants in one app, and switch between them fairly painlessly. Not as seemless as DirecTV (where you can go directly to a channel by number, which you can't do with the simple Firestick remote) but it works. We still have a couple of days to decide for sure, but now it looks like we'll finally be cutting the cord (and saving money!)


----------



## Davenlr

lparsons21 said:


> All that goes to say that it is live sports that pushes the prices up, followed closely by the cost to have the locals included.


I would gladly pay $57.99 for ATT TV without locals if they would do like DISH does.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> I would gladly pay $57.99 for ATT TV without locals if they would do like DISH does.


Yep, me too. According to my local cable company the locals charge is around the $20+ mark, add in the RSNs and you've got a pretty significant portion of the cost just in those two.

In my case with AT&T to get Golf and FS2 you have to use Ultimate @$95/month plus the expanded DVR. And the reality is the bulk of the channels are of no interest. Of course that is true of YTTV too.


----------



## Davenlr

Needs a sports only streaming service ATT TV SPORTS


----------



## compnurd

Will tell you what with Prime getting the exclusive for Thursday night football.. There is alot less pressure on ATT to get NFL Network


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> Will tell you what with Prime getting the exclusive for Thursday night football.. There is alot less pressure on ATT to get NFL Network


I was thinking the same thing. But even with NFL Network, those games were shown on Fox as well (and CBS/NBC before), so, really you haven't needed NFL-N for a long time to see those games.


----------



## Davenlr

Well, DirecTv finally credited the money they charged me last month back and applied it to my Fiber internet bill, which they said they couldnt do. In the process, they dropped the $5 bundle discount, even though I still have ATT TV and they said it would count. I did retain the $20 for one year discount on the fiber internet, as well as free HBOMAX. So for $5, Im not even going to call them and confuse the South Pacific folks again.


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> Will tell you what with Prime getting the exclusive for Thursday night football.. There is alot less pressure on ATT to get NFL Network


I read that, although NFL Network will no longer be co-airing Thursday Night Football (since that will become a Prime Video exclusive), they will still carry a selection of games. Article didn't specify what, though.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> I read that, although NFL Network will no longer be co-airing Thursday Night Football (since that will become a Prime Video exclusive), they will still carry a selection of games. Article didn't specify what, though.


Could be those late season Saturday games they had last season. I don't care that much since if my local team isn't involved, I might not watch anyway, and if they ARE involved, they will show it on a local channel as well.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


>


Thanks, I already knew about that and I will say that YTTV's live guide is the worst version of a grid guide out there for lots of reasons starting with how freaking big it is!

The Library is the biggest mess that is both a feature and a bug with their intermixing DVR with VOD, makes for a huge library most of which I'll never look at.


----------



## Mike1096

lparsons21 said:


> Thanks, I already knew about that and I will say that YTTV's live guide is the worst version of a grid guide out there for lots of reasons starting with how freaking big it is!
> 
> The Library is the biggest mess that is both a feature and a bug with their intermixing DVR with VOD, makes for a huge library most of which I'll never look at.


I agree with this completely.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## crkeehn

I must have one of the local CW channels on YouTube TV as I was watching the DVR version of Walker yesterday when I realized that it was a CW program. The only channel that I had an issue with recording was when I first subscribed to YouTube TV and CBS was still offered only in VOD.


----------



## Steveknj

OK cord cut. We're on AT&T + Locast through Channels full time, no contract.


----------



## Mike1096

Steveknj said:


> OK cord cut. We're on AT&T + Locast through Channels full time, no contract.


If you're on ATT TV why do you need Locast?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Steveknj

Mike1096 said:


> If you're on ATT TV why do you need Locast?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I guess you didn't read a lot of my posts on this thread 

In the NYC demo, AT&T doesn't carry our local CW (a Nextar channel). They also don't carry PBS. So, as a way to still get those channels (I don't have an outdoor antenna), which are a requirement for my son who watches all the DC shows, we brought in Locast. It's not the most elegant way to watch all the content I want. but there are some perks to having it and Channels to record it. For one, AT&T does not give the ability to pre-pad or post-pad record content. Channels gives us the ability to do that (plus it has one button commercial skip). I'm not thrilled with having to have two apps to watch linear TV, but the $80 in savings per month makes me want to make it work.


----------



## Davenlr

Are you saying this channels app allows you to record from the ATT box locally, or just locast?


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> Are you saying this channels app allows you to record from the ATT box locally, or just locast?


Yes, some but not all of the channels. I'd say most actually. They call it TV Everywhere:

Channels - TV Everywhere


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> Are you saying this channels app allows you to record from the ATT box locally, or just locast?


Channels DVR doesn't record the actual AT&T TV stream, it uses his AT&T TV credentials to log into various channels' own websites and then record the live stream from there to hard drive on a local computer or NAS that runs the Channels server software. But the user doesn't see all that, all he sees is a traditional channel grid guide and DVR UI.


----------



## Davenlr

Ok, thanks. I have Plex, so maybe they will do something similar.


----------



## swyman18

Davenlr said:


> Are you saying this channels app allows you to record from the ATT box locally, or just locast?


It's the same app you were researching last month (see your post #1042) that records TVE streams.


----------



## Davenlr

OK Thanks. Im not up to setting up another server in the house to record. I read up on their page, and it would end up costing $80 a year to use. Id rather just pay AT&T to extend the cloud DVR, since I can already record unlimited amounts of OTA TV.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> In the NYC demo, AT&T doesn't carry our local CW (a Nextar channel). They also don't carry PBS. So, as a way to still get those channels (I don't have an outdoor antenna), which are a requirement for my son who watches all the DC shows, we brought in Locast. It's not the most elegant way to watch all the content I want. but there are some perks to having it and Channels to record it.


Just FYI, looks like you won't need WPIX (local CW) to watch those Yankees games this season, as they will be simulcast on Prime Video. I imagine the PQ will be better than the WPIX stream on Locast. Don't know if Prime will make the games available for later on-demand replay.

Amazon Prime Video to stream 21 New York Yankees games in local market


----------



## Davenlr

Anyone with the Osprey box notice when the TV is in the forced HDR mode, and the subject is a box with pictures or writing against a bright white full screen background, as the stuff in the box changes, the brightness of the white background changes? I replayed the commercial on the Roku without HDR, and it did not do that. I dont know if its an issue with the TV or the Osprey. I ordered a second Osprey to use on my other TV, so Ill know soon enough if it does the same thing. Tried setting the HDMI port to V1.4 to see if it would "strip" the HDR signal, but it didnt.


----------



## Mike1096

Davenlr said:


> Anyone with the Osprey box notice when the TV is in the forced HDR mode, and the subject is a box with pictures or writing against a bright white full screen background, as the stuff in the box changes, the brightness of the white background changes? I replayed the commercial on the Roku without HDR, and it did not do that. I dont know if its an issue with the TV or the Osprey. I ordered a second Osprey to use on my other TV, so Ill know soon enough if it does the same thing. Tried setting the HDMI port to V1.4 to see if it would "strip" the HDR signal, but it didnt.


It's infuriating that ATT would release this box KNOWING of its forced HDR issue. AT&T was notified many times by all of us beta testers of this issue and they refused to acknowledge it. I am sure their second GEN box will fix this issue when it comes out later this year but for them to release this box with these issues is mind-boggling

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Davenlr

The picture quality is good, a little dark, compared to the Roku app, but you are right, it is annoying. This is the first time Ive noticed the brightness change. Hopefully it was only that commercial. My TV is a mini-LED, and it can get so bright you have to wear shades, but the max brightness I can get out of the Osprey box with HDR is about 50% of SDR, since its not REALLY HDR.


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> Anyone with the Osprey box notice when the TV is in the forced HDR mode, and the subject is a box with pictures or writing against a bright white full screen background, as the stuff in the box changes, the brightness of the white background changes?


Could it be some kind of dynamic contrast feature that your TV does?


----------



## compnurd

Mike1096 said:


> It's infuriating that ATT would release this box KNOWING of its forced HDR issue. AT&T was notified many times by all of us beta testers of this issue and they refused to acknowledge it. I am sure their second GEN box will fix this issue when it comes out later this year but for them to release this box with these issues is mind-boggling
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


There is nothing they can do.. As pointed out here and everywhere it is a Google issue with Android 8


----------



## Davenlr

NashGuy said:


> Could it be some kind of dynamic contrast feature that your TV does?


I have all the video processing disabled.


----------



## mjwagner

compnurd said:


> There is nothing they can do.. As pointed out here and everywhere it is a Google issue with Android 8


Is this something specific to the version of Android 8 that the AT&T box runs? Perhaps I just misunderstand what you are saying.


----------



## Mike1096

compnurd said:


> There is nothing they can do.. As pointed out here and everywhere it is a Google issue with Android 8


Very well may be the case. Then they should've NEVER released it with Android 8. It's a fairly important issue that they knew about way before commercial launch. Android 8 isn't a sufficient excuse for their ignorance.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## harperhometheater

I’m able to get 1080i60 SDR out of it using an HDFury device with an EDID set to this resolution and frame rate. I think it’s Custom EDID 92 on the Vertex2 for those that have one. The image looks good, but then again I can get a great pseudo-HDR image out of it too.


----------



## lparsons21

mjwagner said:


> Is this something specific to the version of Android 8 that the AT&T box runs? Perhaps I just misunderstand what you are saying.


No, it is specific to all streaming boxes that use AndroidTV 8.


----------



## compnurd

Mike1096 said:


> Very well may be the case. Then they should've NEVER released it with Android 8. It's a fairly important issue that they knew about way before commercial launch. Android 8 isn't a sufficient excuse for their ignorance.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


It still existed in Android 9 at the time also.. There was no way they were getting around it


----------



## Davenlr

harperhometheater said:


> I'm able to get 1080i60 SDR out of it using an HDFury device with an EDID set to this resolution and frame rate. I think it's Custom EDID 92 on the Vertex2 for those that have one. The image looks good, but then again I can get a great pseudo-HDR image out of it too.


THANK YOU SIR. I plugged the Osprey into an HDMI splitter which has a EDID switch, and set it to HD, and No more HDR. Switch it to passthrough, HDR again. Problem solved. AND, the PQ looks washed out in SDR mode, so back to HDR.
The pseudo HDR image was pristine, but the TV itself would not let me bump the brightness up to where I am used to it being with SDR content from the Roku. That was the only issue. This set is in a bright room. The next box I ordered will be in a dark bedroom on an OLED.


----------



## mjwagner

lparsons21 said:


> No, it is specific to all streaming boxes that use AndroidTV 8.


I'm probably just missing something or Nvidia Shields do something different but my 2 Shields did run Android 8, now Android 9 and they don't force HDR, never did.


----------



## Mike1096

mjwagner said:


> I'm probably just missing something or Nvidia Shields do something different but my 2 Shields did run Android 8, now Android 9 and they don't force HDR, never did.


I thought same thing but wast 100%, so didn't mention it. I have never seen anything definitive that android eat can only force HDR. Just a couple people here and there mentioning it

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy

mjwagner said:


> I'm probably just missing something or Nvidia Shields do something different but my 2 Shields did run Android 8, now Android 9 and they don't force HDR, never did.


If you look back on various forums, there was a whole saga with the Nvidia Shield TV and how it handled (or didn't) HDR. Nvidia eventually created some kind of patch to deal with the problem, so that it would automatically switch between SDR and HDR10 based on the content, but it was a good while in coming. That was one of the reasons I went with the Apple TV 4K back at the end of 2017 instead of the Shield.

IIRC, for a long while with the Shield you have to either switch it to output everything in SDR or in HDR10. Seems like maybe you had to do different things for various individual apps. Anyhow, it was kind of a mess there for a couple years or more.


----------



## Mike1096

NashGuy said:


> If you look back on various forums, there was a whole saga with the Nvidia Shield TV and how it handled (or didn't) HDR. Nvidia eventually created some kind of patch to deal with the problem, so that it would automatically switch between SDR and HDR10 based on the content, but it was a good while in coming. That was one of the reasons I went with the Apple TV 4K back at the end of 2017 instead of the Shield.
> 
> IIRC, for a long while with the Shield you have to either switch it to output everything in SDR or in HDR10. Seems like maybe you had to do different things for various individual apps. Anyhow, it was kind of a mess there for a couple years or more.


So it's not a complete limitation. Just ATT to lazy or doesn't care enough to create a patch

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Davenlr

I was going to get a shield, but everyone said it didnt have the ATT TV app available, and with the 4x higher price and no number pad on the remote, I went with the Ospreys. I am not a super big fan of Android. I have an android phone, but every other android device Ive had (tablet, other phones) it has always seemed like a sludge. Roku runs rings around it. So does Fire TV, but its kinda slow too.


----------



## mjwagner

NashGuy said:


> If you look back on various forums, there was a whole saga with the Nvidia Shield TV and how it handled (or didn't) HDR. Nvidia eventually created some kind of patch to deal with the problem, so that it would automatically switch between SDR and HDR10 based on the content, but it was a good while in coming. That was one of the reasons I went with the Apple TV 4K back at the end of 2017 instead of the Shield.
> 
> IIRC, for a long while with the Shield you have to either switch it to output everything in SDR or in HDR10. Seems like maybe you had to do different things for various individual apps. Anyhow, it was kind of a mess there for a couple years or more.


As long as I have had my Shields they managed the SDR/HDR switching just fine. So net...it's not some hard limitation with Android...it's just that AT&T just wasn't willing to put in the effort to fix it for their box...got it.


----------



## compnurd

mjwagner said:


> As long as I have had my Shields they managed the SDR/HDR switching just fine. So net...it's not some hard limitation with Android...it's just that AT&T just wasn't willing to put in the effort to fix it for their box...got it.


So to keep this fun going. ATT is not Nvidia. And that should be obvious. To be clear also the new Tivo Stream with Android 9 had the same issue until Google just fixed it


----------



## compnurd

Mike1096 said:


> So it's not a complete limitation. Just ATT to lazy or doesn't care enough to create a patch
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


 No. It's not that simple. This isn't a application patch. Google would need to fix as they have in newer versions of the OS. It's operating system level The largest graphic chip company in the world with elite programmers on its staff is not the same as ATT


----------



## Davenlr

What triggers HDR? Since just inserting a HDMI splitter and setting it to 1080 blocked it, what is it that tells the TV its HLG, DV, HDR10, HDR10+ ? Simply blocking whatever it is that triggers the TV to switch shouldnt require an OS patch I would not think. At the very least, it would have cost ATT another $15 to add the electronics to strip it out since a $25 splitter can do it. I need to read up more on the subject. What would really be nice is if ATT could actually convert the SDR to HDR. Make the 5% blacks 2%, make the 10% blacks 5%, mellow it out at 20%, then at 80% white boost it to 85%, and so on up to 110%. A video dynamic range expander. They could probably charge $200 for that box, and make money if it worked correctly without any artifacts.

I did a google search for my TV and dark HDR, and found that when using a device that uses HDR for SDR content (sounds like OSprey), to switch the gamma from 2.2 default to 1.8 in HDR mode. I tried that, and it got WAY brighter, and the blacks are still black.
TV sure is getting complicated.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> What triggers HDR? Since just inserting a HDMI splitter and setting it to 1080 blocked it, what is it that tells the TV its HLG, DV, HDR10, HDR10+ ? Simply blocking whatever it is that triggers the TV to switch shouldnt require an OS patch I would not think. At the very least, it would have cost ATT another $15 to add the electronics to strip it out since a $25 splitter can do it. I need to read up more on the subject. What would really be nice is if ATT could actually convert the SDR to HDR. Make the 5% blacks 2%, make the 10% blacks 5%, mellow it out at 20%, then at 80% white boost it to 85%, and so on up to 110%. A video dynamic range expander. They could probably charge $200 for that box, and make money if it worked correctly without any artifacts.
> 
> I did a google search for my TV and dark HDR, and found that when using a device that uses HDR for SDR content (sounds like OSprey), to switch the gamma from 2.2 default to 1.8 in HDR mode. I tried that, and it got WAY brighter, and the blacks are still black.
> TV sure is getting complicated.


Yup and the more you spend on a TV the more complicated they get!


----------



## mjwagner

compnurd said:


> So to keep this fun going. ATT is not Nvidia. And that should be obvious. To be clear also the new Tivo Stream with Android 9 had the same issue until Google just fixed it


Right...if it wasn't for those geniuses at Nvidia...LOL


----------



## compnurd

mjwagner said:


> Right...if it wasn't for those geniuses at Nvidia...LOL


Yes the largest graphics company in the world


----------



## Davenlr

mjwagner said:


> I'm probably just missing something or Nvidia Shields do something different but my 2 Shields did run Android 8, now Android 9 and they don't force HDR, never did.


Is ATT TV available for the shield yet? If you sideloaded it, does it use that 4K AI upscaling on the app? How is the FF and RW? Have a preview window? Does it step back to compensate for your reaction speed, or just start right where you hit play coming out of FF?


----------



## Steveknj

Another weird AT&T TV quirk that I'm not sure if it has been reported.

Last night we were recording The Goldbergs and American Housewife on via a season pass (or whatever it's called). The shows start at 8 and 8:30 respectively. At about 8:15 we were going to watch the recording of The Goldbergs, but when I went to the list, it wasn't showing up. When I went to the show in the guide it had the two red dots next to it, but the only option was to "Watch Now" which took me live TV. I check the app on Roku, same thing. So then American Housewife began live, same thing, neither show showed up on the list as recording. So we watched AH live so we wouldn't miss it. My son was watching something else on his room, and around 8:50 I mentioned to him this issue, and he checked his Osprey and both recordings were there! I checked back on my Osprey and they were NOW there! So I'm not sure why this happened. A couple of other times, I'd see something similar where I'd go to a show just after it started recording and it wouldn't show, but would come back a few seconds later and it would show up.

Has anyone seen this before? Any ideas?


----------



## Davenlr

Yep. Sometimes the shows take an hour to show up. No clue why. Happens to me about once a week.


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> Yep. Sometimes the shows take an hour to show up. No clue why. Happens to me about once a week.


It is weird. Hopefully, if AT&T is serious about this platform, they are taking notes and fixing these annoying issues. It's certainly not enough to make me quit the service, but it did have me wondering if the shows were actually recording at all.


----------



## Mike1096

Steveknj said:


> It is weird. Hopefully, if AT&T is serious about this platform, they are taking notes and fixing these annoying issues. It's certainly not enough to make me quit the service, but it did have me wondering if the shows were actually recording at all.


If they were taking notes, like they promised us beta testers they were, then forced HDR would've been fixed. Also, pausing of live tv on any streaming platform doesn't work. Have to use the laggy, partially broken Osprey for that. So, what I'm saying is, don't count on them taking any notes whatsoever.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## mjwagner

Davenlr said:


> Is ATT TV available for the shield yet? If you sideloaded it, does it use that 4K AI upscaling on the app? How is the FF and RW? Have a preview window? Does it step back to compensate for your reaction speed, or just start right where you hit play coming out of FF?


I honestly don't know. I'm not an ATTTV subscriber so never looked into it. Bottom line IMO is that to put out a new streaming device that doesn't do automatic HDR switching and forces everything to HDR is just lame...and to throw up your hands and blame it on Google is just comical. But it is AT&T.


----------



## Steveknj

mjwagner said:


> I honestly don't know. I'm not an ATTTV subscriber so never looked into it. Bottom line IMO is that to put out a new streaming device that doesn't do automatic HDR switching and forces everything to HDR is just lame...and to throw up your hands and blame it on Google is just comical. But it is AT&T.


It's not on the TiVo streaming stick which is another Android TV device. I just don't think it's available on any Android TV device other than the Osprey.


----------



## Mike1096

mjwagner said:


> I honestly don't know. I'm not an ATTTV subscriber so never looked into it. Bottom line IMO is that to put out a new streaming device that doesn't do automatic HDR switching and forces everything to HDR is just lame...and to throw up your hands and blame it on Google is just comical. But it is AT&T.


Exactly. If ATT wanted to, they could have it fixed immediately. Either with their software engineers or by asking Google. Thing is, they could care less.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Davenlr

Well, there are lots of competitors out there, and if one of them adds dolby digital, and ups the PQ just a tad, ATT will lose the top in quality spot, and that will be that. I still don't understand why they cannot put out a DVR like the DirecTv HR54, and instead of tuners, have 5 streams to record what you want. Encrypt it like DirecTv so you cant copy or share it. Sell them in their stores for $500 like Tivo does. It just seems like a total waste of bandwidth having every customer of your service streaming the exact same thing at different times. Even streaming the same show live on 3 sets in the same house and they are all a few seconds apart, so actually using 3x the bandwidth.


----------



## Mike1096

Davenlr said:


> Well, there are lots of competitors out there, and if one of them adds dolby digital, and ups the PQ just a tad, ATT will lose the top in quality spot, and that will be that. I still don't understand why they cannot put out a DVR like the DirecTv HR54, and instead of tuners, have 5 streams to record what you want. Encrypt it like DirecTv so you cant copy or share it. Sell them in their stores for $500 like Tivo does. It just seems like a total waste of bandwidth having every customer of your service streaming the exact same thing at different times. Even streaming the same show live on 3 sets in the same house and they are all a few seconds apart, so actually using 3x the bandwidth.


I agree. I think that if YTTV added DD 5.1 and improved their PQ just a bit they'd take over immediately

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> Well, there are lots of competitors out there, and if one of them adds dolby digital, and ups the PQ just a tad, ATT will lose the top in quality spot, and that will be that. I still don't understand why they cannot put out a DVR like the DirecTv HR54, and instead of tuners, have 5 streams to record what you want. Encrypt it like DirecTv so you cant copy or share it. Sell them in their stores for $500 like Tivo does. It just seems like a total waste of bandwidth having every customer of your service streaming the exact same thing at different times. Even streaming the same show live on 3 sets in the same house and they are all a few seconds apart, so actually using 3x the bandwidth.


I don't think their implementation of the cloud DVR is that bad really. It's quirky (as I described) and it needs to add some functionality (Padding, better keyword SPs, etc), but there are things I like better about it (such as the bar coming up when you skip and that for each quick button press during skip it counts off time....4 presses show 60 seconds for example), but generally it works fine. I like that I can record multiple streams without it affecting the number of "streams" available, so where we would have 3 people watching off the HR54, and two other shows recording, we'd run into conflicts.


----------



## Steveknj

Mike1096 said:


> I agree. I think that if YTTV added DD 5.1 and improved their PQ just a bit they'd take over immediately
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


If YTTV improved their interface that would be a big thing for me. I HATE that UI


----------



## compnurd

Mike1096 said:


> Exactly. If ATT wanted to, they could have it fixed immediately. Either with their software engineers or by asking Google. Thing is, they could care less.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


LOL if things only worked that way


----------



## mjwagner

Davenlr said:


> Well, there are lots of competitors out there, and if one of them adds dolby digital, and ups the PQ just a tad, ATT will lose the top in quality spot, and that will be that. I still don't understand why they cannot put out a DVR like the DirecTv HR54, and instead of tuners, have 5 streams to record what you want. Encrypt it like DirecTv so you cant copy or share it. Sell them in their stores for $500 like Tivo does. It just seems like a total waste of bandwidth having every customer of your service streaming the exact same thing at different times. Even streaming the same show live on 3 sets in the same house and they are all a few seconds apart, so actually using 3x the bandwidth.


To each their own for sure but I have no interest in ever having hardware DVR's locally ever again. I much prefer all of that to happen in the cloud. I find the YTTV cloud DVR to be very good. And not having to ever worry about conflicts, manage space, or deal with hardware malfunctions and replacing DVRs is well worth it IMO. Is there room for improvement in the cloud DVR UI and some of the capabilities (padding for events as an example), of course. But that will improve over time.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Well, there are lots of competitors out there, and if one of them adds dolby digital, and ups the PQ just a tad, ATT will lose the top in quality spot, and that will be that. I still don't understand why they cannot put out a DVR like the DirecTv HR54, and instead of tuners, have 5 streams to record what you want. Encrypt it like DirecTv so you cant copy or share it. Sell them in their stores for $500 like Tivo does. It just seems like a total waste of bandwidth having every customer of your service streaming the exact same thing at different times. Even streaming the same show live on 3 sets in the same house and they are all a few seconds apart, so actually using 3x the bandwidth.


Because probably 99% of people dont care.. If they did Sling/YTTV/FUBO/Hulu Live would have dont something also


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> Could it be some kind of dynamic contrast feature that your TV does?


This seems somewhat likely given that the TV's HLG processing may need to darken things down to support the full brightness range (especially on OLEDs). I would hope that the processing would take into account that the brightness has already been reduced to compensate for the Osprey HDR issue but maybe not.


----------



## lparsons21

Here’s a weirdity! After the free trial of ATT TV the Osprey box is no longer useful at all. When it powers up it says you don’t have a subscription but won’t let you just run apps.

But when I cancelled ATT TV Now the Osprey would say no subscription and offer apps or system menu selections.


----------



## Mike1096

lparsons21 said:


> Here's a weirdity! After the free trial of ATT TV the Osprey box is no longer useful at all. When it powers up it says you don't have a subscription but won't let you just run apps.
> 
> But when I cancelled ATT TV Now the Osprey would say no subscription and offer apps or system menu selections.


You're not using the Osprey much with ATT TV anymore, right? I wish ATT would allow for pausing of live tv with other streamers.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Here's a weirdity! After the free trial of ATT TV the Osprey box is no longer useful at all. When it powers up it says you don't have a subscription but won't let you just run apps.
> 
> But when I cancelled ATT TV Now the Osprey would say no subscription and offer apps or system menu selections.


must have changed something in the last update


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> must have changed something in the last update


That's what I figure happened. Tempted to call ATT to see if there is a fix but just don't feel like the extended wait times to get a CSR that doesn't have a clue!


----------



## lparsons21

Mike1096 said:


> You're not using the Osprey much with ATT TV anymore, right? I wish ATT would allow for pausing of live tv with other streamers.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Cancelled ATT TV. Was going to use the Osprey with other apps as it does fine with them though a little slow.


----------



## Mike1096

lparsons21 said:


> Cancelled ATT TV. Was going to use the Osprey with other apps as it does fine with them though a little slow.


Wow. Didn't know that. What did you end up going with?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21

Mike1096 said:


> Wow. Didn't know that. What did you end up going with?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


YouTubeTV. Terrible UI but I can work with it. PQ nearly as good as ATT's, audio is stereo on live channels and sometimes DD5.1 on VOD's. Essentially the channels I watch are on YTTV @$65/month with unlimited DVR vs ATT TV's Ultimate sub @$105/month.


----------



## Davenlr

I have more DirecTv and ATT stuff in my junk box than I can handle. Dont know why I even keep it around. They do like to make you waste your money on hardware, then change the rules and tell you you cant use it.
Oh well. I found out I can use a keyboard with number pad for the Shield, so thinking of getting one if I can get someone to confirm ATT TV will load on and work on it with the same features as the osprey box. Wish I had known that a week ago, I just ordered another one off ebay for the bedroom. I would have just bought yours.


----------



## Mike1096

lparsons21 said:


> YouTubeTV. Terrible UI but I can work with it. PQ nearly as good as ATT's, audio is stereo on live channels and sometimes DD5.1 on VOD's. Essentially the channels I watch are on YTTV @$65/month with unlimited DVR vs ATT TV's Ultimate sub @$105/month.


Especially on the ATV4K. PQ is pretty much a dead heat.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21

Mike1096 said:


> Especially on the ATV4K. PQ is pretty much a dead heat.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I'm mostly using a FireTV Cube 2nd gen as I have a Recast for the local subchannels. PQ seems to be equal to the ATV4K to my eyes.


----------



## Mike1096

lparsons21 said:


> I'm mostly using a FireTV Cube 2nd gen as I have a Recast for the local subchannels. PQ seems to be equal to the ATV4K to my eyes.


Yes. A YTTV engineer responded to me in Reddit stating all the rest of the streamers would get the update that Apple got sometime in March I believe. He did say it wouldn't be as noticeable as an upgrade to the other streamers.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## harsh

Davenlr said:


> It just seems like a total waste of bandwidth having every customer of your service streaming the exact same thing at different times. Even streaming the same show live on 3 sets in the same house and they are all a few seconds apart, so actually using 3x the bandwidth.


Such is the nature of unicasting (a one-to-one relationship between the viewer and the carrier or their Content Delivery Network).

So far, only the wireless companies have shown much interest in multicasting (one transmission with an arbitrary number of receivers) and those efforts have been few and far between (i.e. broadcasts at a few major sporting events).


----------



## Davenlr

Well, my experiment stripping the HDR off with the HDMI splitter worked, but unfortunately it also stripped the Dolby Digital audio as well, so I am back to HDR.


----------



## swyman18

Davenlr said:


> I have more DirecTv and ATT stuff in my junk box than I can handle. Dont know why I even keep it around. They do like to make you waste your money on hardware, then change the rules and tell you you cant use it.
> Oh well. I found out I can use a keyboard with number pad for the Shield, so thinking of getting one if I can get someone to confirm ATT TV will load on and work on it with the same features as the osprey box. Wish I had known that a week ago, I just ordered another one off ebay for the bedroom. I would have just bought yours.


From what I've read, there is no Osprey box "version" of the app floating around that can be loaded onto a Shield. There is an app that can be side loaded, but I think it's just the FireTV version or something like that.

Bottom line, if you want the channel numbers and rewinding of live tv features, Osprey is the only option.


----------



## Davenlr

OK thanks. Will hope their new box is better, and wont cost $120.
Ill hold off on the shield. If its the Fire TV version, it does not have the preview window when FF or REW, which makes it unusable for me. I dont need channel numbers, but pausing live TV is useful to me. So is the restart from beginning feature.


----------



## Mike1096

Davenlr said:


> OK thanks. Will hope their new box is better, and wont cost $120.
> Ill hold off on the shield. If its the Fire TV version, it does not have the preview window when FF or REW, which makes it unusable for me. I dont need channel numbers, but pausing live TV is useful to me. So is the restart from beginning feature.


Yep. Stuck with current Osprey then. Unfortunately. ATT decided it was best for customers to only give the best features if you spend $120 on their flawed box

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd

Mike1096 said:


> Yep. Stuck with current Osprey then. Unfortunately. ATT decided it was best for customers to only give the best features if you spend $120 on their flawed box
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Then use another service... Great to have options


----------



## Mike1096

compnurd said:


> Then use another service... Great to have options


Oh absolutely.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## harsh

lparsons21 said:


> Here's a weirdity! After the free trial of ATT TV the Osprey box is no longer useful at all. When it powers up it says you don't have a subscription but won't let you just run apps.


If it persists, this probably deserves its own thread.


----------



## NashGuy

mjwagner said:


> As long as I have had my Shields they managed the SDR/HDR switching just fine. So net...it's not some hard limitation with Android...it's just that AT&T just wasn't willing to put in the effort to fix it for their box...got it.


Yeah, if AT&T had put the resources into it, they probably could have engineered a fix. But I find it a little amusing that you think they would do that. I have to think that for the great majority of folks who use the box, it's not a problem. Some folks like it ("Hey, I have a 4K HDR TV and this box upgrades everything to 4K HDR and it looks great!"), some folks don't even notice it, and for many it's not an issue at all because they don't have an HDR-capable TV.

In terms of the list of issues that AT&T should address with the AT&T TV service in general, and the Osprey box specifically, the always-on forced HDR thing has to be way down the list. I get that it's particularly annoying to a certain type of home theater enthusiast techie who posts on forums like this but in the grand scheme of things, from a business perspective, it's just not worth dealing with before making other improvements to the service. The easiest way to deal with this issue (as well as more significant problems like laggy/buggy performance and missing apps) is just to release a 2nd-gen box running Android TV 10 on better hardware.


----------



## swyman18

Davenlr said:


> OK thanks. Will hope their new box is better, and wont cost $120.
> Ill hold off on the shield. If its the Fire TV version, it does not have the preview window when FF or REW, which makes it unusable for me. I dont need channel numbers, but pausing live TV is useful to me. So is the restart from beginning feature.


To clarify, I know you can pause live tv on the app on the various devices, you just can't rewind the live buffer. I believe the length of time you can pause depends on the device. Only on the Osprey can you rewind while in the live buffer.

I used to have an older generation Shield and I tried side loading the apk that was floating around out there and it was kind of meh. It may have improved since then. 
Messing around with side loading stuff is not really in my wheelhouse, I'm sure others can give tips on how to do it and how well it works on a Shield.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, if AT&T had put the resources into it, they probably could have engineered a fix. But I find it a little amusing that you think they would do that. I have to think that for the great majority of folks who use the box, it's not a problem. Some folks like it ("Hey, I have a 4K HDR TV and this box upgrades everything to 4K HDR and it looks great!"), some folks don't even notice it, and for many it's not an issue at all because they don't have an HDR-capable TV.
> 
> In terms of the list of issues that AT&T should address with the AT&T TV service in general, and the Osprey box specifically, the always-on forced HDR thing has to be way down the list. I get that it's particularly annoying to a certain type of home theater enthusiast techie who posts on forums like this but in the grand scheme of things, from a business perspective, it's just not worth dealing with before making other improvements to the service. The easiest way to deal with this issue (as well as more significant problems like laggy/buggy performance and missing apps) is just to release a 2nd-gen box running Android TV 10 on better hardware.


I personally don't find too big an issue with HDR forced (except for the OSD of my AVR no longer shows), but I will note that for folks who bought the TiVO Streaming stick, which had the same issue, this was fixed within a couple of months when the complaints were made. But I do wonder if this is fixed with the new box, and that will be their "upgrade" to fix the issue and not any firmware update to the existing box.


----------



## Davenlr

I guess some people like it, since the new Roku Ultra has forced HDR also. You can turn it off, but I believe its the default.


----------



## mjwagner

Davenlr said:


> I guess some people like it, since the new Roku Ultra has forced HDR also. You can turn it off, but I believe its the default.


...if you can turn it off, and make it auto switch, it's not forced...


----------



## mjwagner

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, if AT&T had put the resources into it, they probably could have engineered a fix. But I find it a little amusing that you think they would do that. I have to think that for the great majority of folks who use the box, it's not a problem. Some folks like it ("Hey, I have a 4K HDR TV and this box upgrades everything to 4K HDR and it looks great!"), some folks don't even notice it, and for many it's not an issue at all because they don't have an HDR-capable TV.
> 
> In terms of the list of issues that AT&T should address with the AT&T TV service in general, and the Osprey box specifically, the always-on forced HDR thing has to be way down the list. I get that it's particularly annoying to a certain type of home theater enthusiast techie who posts on forums like this but in the grand scheme of things, from a business perspective, it's just not worth dealing with before making other improvements to the service. The easiest way to deal with this issue (as well as more significant problems like laggy/buggy performance and missing apps) is just to release a 2nd-gen box running Android TV 10 on better hardware.


"Our target audience won't notice, or won't care"...that does about sum it up for AT&T.


----------



## Davenlr

mjwagner said:


> ...if you can turn it off, and make it auto switch, it's not forced...


Forced in that it is on all the time, not only when there is actual HDR material. 
Apparently, if I can guess what is happening...
People are buying these new TVs with HDR in big bold letters. They go to YouTube and view some demos and they like it. Then they plug in their external device and the HDR banner doesnt come on, and they think there is a problem with the TV or the external device...so to keep the idiots happy, Roku decided to turn on HDR for everything, but you have to google deep to find how to turn it off.
I have no problem with options, but forcing a mode that changes the colors, the overall brightness, and totally changes or locks out the controls of your TV to adjust the picture quality if just plain wrong. Just like forcing Dolby Digital when the original material is stereo is not right. The source should output what is input, unless you manually tell it to override. What if I wanted my TV to upscale instead of the Roku? Then I have to tell the Roku I have a 1080p TV to stop it from upscaling, but then 4K and HDR stuff wont work anymore. Why not have a setting like AVRs do. DIRECT. Whatever is coming in, is what the device sends out.

Now, I know ATT just didnt bother fixing their issue, but Roku added it.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> I personally don't find too big an issue with HDR forced (except for the OSD of my AVR no longer shows), but I will note that for folks who bought the TiVO Streaming stick, which had the same issue, this was fixed within a couple of months when the complaints were made. But I do wonder if this is fixed with the new box, and that will be their "upgrade" to fix the issue and not any firmware update to the existing box.


TiVo I don't believe has released the fix yet and it has been more then a few months. It's going on a year There is a different situation though. The OS is newer. Google supports Tivo for OS fixes so they fixed it

Google has permanently fixed the issue in OS10. Which based on early reports the new box will come with that at least


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Forced in that it is on all the time, not only when there is actual HDR material.
> Apparently, if I can guess what is happening...
> People are buying these new TVs with HDR in big bold letters. They go to YouTube and view some demos and they like it. Then they plug in their external device and the HDR banner doesnt come on, and they think there is a problem with the TV or the external device...so to keep the idiots happy, Roku decided to turn on HDR for everything, but you have to google deep to find how to turn it off.
> I have no problem with options, but forcing a mode that changes the colors, the overall brightness, and totally changes or locks out the controls of your TV to adjust the picture quality if just plain wrong. Just like forcing Dolby Digital when the original material is stereo is not right. The source should output what is input, unless you manually tell it to override. What if I wanted my TV to upscale instead of the Roku? Then I have to tell the Roku I have a 1080p TV to stop it from upscaling, but then 4K and HDR stuff wont work anymore. Why not have a setting like AVRs do. DIRECT. Whatever is coming in, is what the device sends out.
> 
> Now, I know ATT just didnt bother fixing their issue, but Roku added it.


For all we know Google told ATT to pound sand we are not fixing it on that version. It wasn't permanently fixed by Google until 2 versions after


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> I guess some people like it, since the new Roku Ultra has forced HDR also. You can turn it off, but I believe its the default.


It's lazy programming by Google Roku and others. Hell Apple had issues with the new ATV4K came out but they fixed it quickly


----------



## Davenlr

If Apple would have spent that money to come up with a remote like the Osprey, I might have bought one


----------



## mjwagner

Davenlr said:


> If Apple would have spent that money to come up with a remote like the Osprey, I might have bought one


LOL, yeah that Siri remote is bad. Thankfully the OEM remotes for my 2 ATV 4ks are in a drawer somewhere...I use Harmony Elites.


----------



## mjwagner

compnurd said:


> It's lazy programming by Google Roku and others. Hell Apple had issues with the new ATV4K came out but they fixed it quickly


Exactly, it's a software patch, not rocket science...LOL But when your target audience is the same folks that could never figure out how to set the clock on their VCR why bother.


----------



## NashGuy

mjwagner said:


> LOL, yeah that Siri remote is bad. Thankfully the OEM remotes for my 2 ATV 4ks are in a drawer somewhere...I use Harmony Elites.


I used my old Harmony remote at first when I got my ATV4K but quickly realized that it just wasn't well suited to the device because it had no touchpad for swiping (which is necessary, for instance, to pull down the info/audio control panel while watching a video). And no Siri button for voice commands. I quickly adapted to the Siri remote.


----------



## NashGuy

mjwagner said:


> Exactly, it's a software patch, not rocket science...LOL But when your target audience is the same folks that could never figure out how to set the clock on their VCR why bother.


Yes, it's so simple that it only took Xperi 9 months (reportedly with Google's assistance) to issue a software patch to fix (?) the same problem on their TiVo Stream 4K (the Android TV device that the company is pinning its hopes on for a future in the consumer retail market).

https://zatznotfunny.com/2021-01/tivo-stream-4k-hdr/

SDR fix


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> But I do wonder if this is fixed with the new box, and that will be their "upgrade" to fix the issue and not any firmware update to the existing box.


I really doubt that you're going to see AT&T upgrade the existing box to a newer version of Android TV or do much else to improve its performance (other than squash any significant new bugs that arise) once they roll out the new box.


----------



## Mike1096

NashGuy said:


> I really doubt that you're going to see AT&T upgrade the existing box to a newer version of Android TV or do much else to improve its performance (other than squash any significant new bugs that arise) once they roll out the new box.


Exactly. Nothing will be upgraded with older box at that point. Question is, who knows how long it will take for them to release new box.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## b4pjoe

Mike1096 said:


> Exactly. Nothing will be upgraded with older box at that point. Question is, *who knows how long it will take for them to release new box.*


Probably when the hardware is severely outdated.


----------



## compnurd

mjwagner said:


> Exactly, it's a software patch, not rocket science...LOL But when your target audience is the same folks that could never figure out how to set the clock on their VCR why bother.


Yes it's a software patch but it is OS level. ATT manages there app. That's it.


----------



## mjwagner

NashGuy said:


> I used my old Harmony remote at first when I got my ATV4K but quickly realized that it just wasn't well suited to the device because it had no touchpad for swiping (which is necessary, for instance, to pull down the info/audio control panel while watching a video). And no Siri button for voice commands. I quickly adapted to the Siri remote.


No worries. Some people like the Siri remote. 
One thing to note is that hub based Harmony remotes, like the Elites that I use, control the ATV 4K via BT so have all the commands available with the Siri remote, including those you use the swipe on the Siri remote for. They just do it with different presses of, typically, certain d-pad keys. For voice search (I don't do voice commands) you can use the Harmony app, or the Apple remote app which automatically comes up on your iPhone whenever input is required, on a phone or tablet. I have full control of my ATV 4ks with my Elites. Honestly I'm not even sure where my Siri remotes are, haven't used them in years.


----------



## Davenlr

Suddenly HBO is in my guide? Is this a free demo thing where they will try charging me after a month or something? I hate to call the South Pacific to find out. I get HBOMAX free with my Gig internet, but never subbed to HBO.


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> TiVo I don't believe has released the fix yet and it has been more then a few months. It's going on a year There is a different situation though. The OS is newer. Google supports Tivo for OS fixes so they fixed it
> 
> Google has permanently fixed the issue in OS10. Which based on early reports the new box will come with that at least


It was fixed in Feb:


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Tivo/comments/ln1xcc

Top option.


----------



## Steveknj

mjwagner said:


> LOL, yeah that Siri remote is bad. Thankfully the OEM remotes for my 2 ATV 4ks are in a drawer somewhere...I use Harmony Elites.


I get all of these companies want us to use voice commands, but I'm old school and I find that more often than not, I can push a button or buttons faster than I can say something, especially since more often than not I cannot remember the right cadence, or it doesn't understand what I'm saying.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> It was fixed in Feb:
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Tivo/comments/ln1xcc
> 
> Top option.


Ok. So about 10 months to fix


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> Suddenly HBO is in my guide? Is this a free demo thing where they will try charging me after a month or something? I hate to call the South Pacific to find out. I get HBOMAX free with my Gig internet, but never subbed to HBO.


I've read other similar reports. If you're getting HBO Max for free with one AT&T service (e.g. Fiber or Wireless), and you also have AT&T TV, then their system seems to know this and places the HBO linear channels and on-demand library inside AT&T TV for you. Not sure if the same is true if you're on DirecTV, though.

Just to be safe, though, I'd log into my AT&T TV account if I were you and confirm that you don't have a new line item charge for HBO there.


----------



## NashGuy

Mike1096 said:


> Question is, who knows how long it will take for them to release new box.


It's passed through the WiFi Alliance for approval but, AFAIK, has yet to show up at the FCC for approval there. Anything could happen but at this point, I don't look for it to come out until after the new management group takes over day-to-day control of AT&T TV, which will probably happen this summer.

It will be interesting to see what happens after they take over because then we'll get a sense of how serious they are about making AT&T TV successful.


----------



## Mike1096

NashGuy said:


> It's passed through the WiFi Alliance for approval but, AFAIK, has yet to show up at the FCC for approval there. Anything could happen but at this point, I don't look for it to come out until after the new management group takes over day-to-day control of AT&T TV, which will probably happen this summer.
> 
> It will be interesting to see what happens after they take over because then we'll get a sense of how serious they are about making AT&T TV successful.


Yeah, I agree. Would be nice to see them be aggressive with ATT TV and possibly even DirecTV. With the right moves, both could be very successful.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Steveknj

The issue I have with the Osprey is it's so expensive! It really doesn't need to be. Heck, it's competing with devices that are more than half it's price. I get that it gives you a premium feel to AT&T TV, but for many people, there's little reason to buy it for the few advantages it has. Especially if they incorporate some of these features into the app. But in this day and age, charging $120 for a streaming box is pretty high (unless your Apple, which by default has to charge double what everyone else does for a similar device, but that's always been their M.O.)


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> The issue I have with the Osprey is it's so expensive! It really doesn't need to be. Heck, it's competing with devices that are more than half it's price. I get that it gives you a premium feel to AT&T TV, but for many people, there's little reason to buy it for the few advantages it has. Especially if they incorporate some of these features into the app. But in this day and age, charging $120 for a streaming box is pretty high (unless your Apple, which by default has to charge double what everyone else does for a similar device, but that's always been their M.O.)


Anyone paying 120 for that box shouldnt be allowed to buy TV service.. There are thousands of these on ebay for 50 bucks


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> I really doubt that you're going to see AT&T upgrade the existing box to a newer version of Android TV or do much else to improve its performance (other than squash any significant new bugs that arise) *once they roll out the new box.*


Think about how long it took to release the Osprey and how it is only now reaching full functionality and reasonable performance.


----------



## Davenlr

$50 plus tax plus shipping still adds up. I think 50% of the price is for the remote. I have to say, its a solid heavy remote. Best I can tell, its bluetooth. My only complaint with it, is after a period of time, it seems the first press does not take. Like after an hour watching, if I hit LIST, nothing happens. The blue light on the box doesnt blink. The second press works. Its like the remote goes to sleep and takes a press to wake up. Havent quite figured out the time frame.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> $50 plus tax plus shipping still adds up. I think 50% of the price is for the remote. I have to say, its a solid heavy remote. Best I can tell, its bluetooth. My only complaint with it, is after a period of time, it seems the first press does not take. Like after an hour watching, if I hit LIST, nothing happens. The blue light on the box doesnt blink. The second press works. Its like the remote goes to sleep and takes a press to wake up. Havent quite figured out the time frame.


Then dont buy the box... The service works exactly like every other streaming service when on a non osprey.. Even Google has Special features for YTTV on the new Chromecast


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> Then dont buy the box... The service works exactly like every other streaming service when on a non osprey.. Even Google has Special features for YTTV on the new Chromecast


And the new Chromcast is how much? $50? That's my point. For $50 it's actually pretty decent. For $120 it's not worth it. I have two, and I bought both on eBay.


----------



## Mike1096

compnurd said:


> Then dont buy the box... The service works exactly like every other streaming service when on a non osprey.. Even Google has Special features for YTTV on the new Chromecast


What special features for YTTV on new Chromecast? ATV4K actually has the better YTTV features with its live preview as you scroll.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Mike1096

compnurd said:


> Then dont buy the box... The service works exactly like every other streaming service when on a non osprey.. Even Google has Special features for YTTV on the new Chromecast


I have the new Chromecast and had YTTV on it. Never noticed any special feature regarding YTTV. Apple's TV actually has better features for YouTube tv

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd

Mike1096 said:


> I have the new Chromecast and had YTTV on it. Never noticed any special feature regarding YTTV. Apple's TV actually has better features for YouTube tv
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


They are listed on the YTTV web page


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> And the new Chromcast is how much? $50? That's my point. For $50 it's actually pretty decent. For $120 it's not worth it. I have two, and I bought both on eBay.


The point is you don't need there box to use the service


----------



## NashGuy

Mike1096 said:


> I have the new Chromecast and had YTTV on it. Never noticed any special feature regarding YTTV. Apple's TV actually has better features for YouTube tv


The new Chromecast has a special Live tab that appears in the UI if you have an active YTTV subscription. Also, live and cloud DVR content from YTTV appears on the For You tab, alongside on-demand options from various streaming services.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> And the new Chromcast is how much? $50? That's my point. For $50 it's actually pretty decent. For $120 it's not worth it. I have two, and I bought both on eBay.


Ah, but you can get the AT&T TV box for the low, low price of $0.00 if you take the 2-yr contract option! I would agree, though, that they've got a huge mark-up on those things at $120 apiece.

Consider the Verizon Stream TV, which has similar specs to the upcoming 2nd-gen AT&T TV box. It sells for only $70 and I'm sure they're making a profit on it at that. (Pretty sure that Verizon mainly gives those boxes away for free to new broadband customers.)

Verizon Stream TV | Verizon


----------



## harperhometheater

Davenlr said:


> THANK YOU SIR. I plugged the Osprey into an HDMI splitter which has a EDID switch, and set it to HD, and No more HDR. Switch it to passthrough, HDR again. Problem solved. *AND, the PQ looks washed out in SDR mode, so back to HDR.*
> The pseudo HDR image was pristine, but the TV itself would not let me bump the brightness up to where I am used to it being with SDR content from the Roku. That was the only issue. This set is in a bright room. The next box I ordered will be in a dark bedroom on an OLED.


I saw the same washed out image when I first input the new EDID on the HDFURY. You have to do a power off and on reboot of the Osprey for it to see the new EDID info correctly and then when it comes back up the image will be correct SDR with no washed out colors and images.



Davenlr said:


> *What triggers HDR? Since just inserting a HDMI splitter and setting it to 1080 blocked it, what is it that tells the TV its HLG, DV, HDR10, HDR10+ ? Simply blocking whatever it is that triggers the TV to switch shouldnt require an OS patch I would not think. *At the very least, it would have cost ATT another $15 to add the electronics to strip it out since a $25 splitter can do it. I need to read up more on the subject. *What would really be nice is if ATT could actually convert the SDR to HDR. *Make the 5% blacks 2%, make the 10% blacks 5%, mellow it out at 20%, then at 80% white boost it to 85%, and so on up to 110%. A video dynamic range expander. They could probably charge $200 for that box, and make money if it worked correctly without any artifacts.
> 
> I did a google search for my TV and dark HDR, and found that when using a device that uses HDR for SDR content (sounds like OSprey), to switch the gamma from 2.2 default to 1.8 in HDR mode. I tried that, and it got WAY brighter, and the blacks are still black.
> TV sure is getting complicated.


It is the HDR metadata that triggers the TV into its HDR mode, so it sounds like the metadata is still being sent for some reason. That needs to be stripped off too.

The Osprey IS converting SDR to HDR, and doing it properly too. If it isn't displaying right on your TV then something is messing it up in chain from the Osprey's output to your screen (AVR, cables, splitter, TV's processing, etc.). See my reply further down.



lparsons21 said:


> Here's a weirdity! After the free trial of ATT TV the Osprey box is no longer useful at all. When it powers up it says you don't have a subscription but won't let you just run apps.
> 
> But when I cancelled ATT TV Now the Osprey would say no subscription and offer apps or system menu selections.


Have you tried doing a full factory reset on the Osprey?



Davenlr said:


> Well, my experiment stripping the HDR off with the HDMI splitter worked, but unfortunately it also stripped the Dolby Digital audio as well, so I am back to HDR.


You need an EDID spoofing device like the HDFurys so you can specify 1080i/720p with DD audio capabilities.



Davenlr said:


> Forced in that it is on all the time, not only when there is actual HDR material.
> Apparently, if I can guess what is happening...
> People are buying these new TVs with HDR in big bold letters. They go to YouTube and view some demos and they like it. Then they plug in their external device and the HDR banner doesnt come on, and they think there is a problem with the TV or the external device...so to keep the idiots happy, Roku decided to turn on HDR for everything, but you have to google deep to find how to turn it off.
> I have no problem with options, but forcing a mode that changes the colors, the overall brightness, and totally changes or locks out the controls of your TV to adjust the picture quality if just plain wrong. Just like forcing Dolby Digital when the original material is stereo is not right. The source should output what is input, unless you manually tell it to override. What if I wanted my TV to upscale instead of the Roku? Then I have to tell the Roku I have a 1080p TV to stop it from upscaling, but then 4K and HDR stuff wont work anymore. Why not have a setting like AVRs do. DIRECT. Whatever is coming in, is what the device sends out.
> 
> Now, I know ATT just didnt bother fixing their issue, but Roku added it.


SDR Rec709 to HDR bt2020 isn't the ****show everyone is making it out to be. SDR and rec709 are easily gamut mapped into an HDR BT2020 "container". Of course this all has to be done properly and not all sources and TVs do this properly. So that said, of course there should be an option to turn it on and off.

Kris Deering, a top ISF Calibrator sets up the Lumagen Radiance Pros he sells, installs and calibrates so that the SDR Rec709 input sources are mapped to BT2020 color gamut. This is mainly for users with JVC projectors which have unusually long sync times which many want to avoid, but a Rec709 or even DCI-P3 color gamut is very easily mapped into a BT2020 gamut and will look completely identical to sending Rec709 only. If it doesn't, then something is setup wrong or the TV processes it incorrectly.

Mine looks absolutely fine and actually a little better overall in HDR mode in my Samsung LSP9T RGB triple laser UST projector. I've done tons of testing back and forth to prove this.


----------



## Davenlr

harperhometheater said:


> Have you tried doing a full factory reset on the Osprey?
> You need an EDID spoofing device like the HDFurys so you can specify 1080i/720p with DD audio capabilities.


Have not factory reset the Osprey to try SDR, but have previously.
Would a DVDO 1080p video processor work? Gonna try it when I get my second Osprey to play with



> SDR Rec709 to HDR bt2020 isn't the ****show everyone is making it out to be. SDR and rec709 are easily gamut mapped into an HDR BT2020 "container". Of course this all has to be done properly and not all sources and TVs do this properly. So that said, of course there should be an option to turn it on and off.
> 
> Kris Deering, a top ISF Calibrator sets up the Lumagen Radiance Pros he sells, installs and calibrates so that the SDR Rec709 input sources are mapped to BT2020 color gamut. This is mainly for users with JVC projectors which have unusually long sync times which many want to avoid, but a Rec709 or even DCI-P3 color gamut is very easily mapped into a BT2020 gamut and will look completely identical to sending Rec709 only. If it doesn't, then something is setup wrong or the TV processes it incorrectly.
> 
> Mine looks absolutely fine and actually a little better overall in HDR mode in my Samsung LSP9T RGB triple laser UST projector. I've done tons of testing back and forth to prove this.


Mine looks a great since I went into the cell phone app and changed some settings that are not available in the regular user menu. Thanks for the in depth info.


----------



## harperhometheater

Davenlr said:


> Have not factory reset the Osprey to try SDR, but have previously.
> Would a DVDO 1080p video processor work? Gonna try it when I get my second Osprey to play with
> 
> Mine looks a great since I went into the cell phone app and changed some settings that are not available in the regular user menu. Thanks for the in depth info.


The factory reset suggestion was in reply to @lparsons21, not your SDR to HDR question. All you should have to do once you set a proper SDR EDID is to either push the red reset button on the side or pull the power cord, wait 30 secs and plug back in so it reboots, which will cause the unit to read and react to the new SDR EDID.

I believe the DVDO processor should also do the trick since it doesn't support anything over SDR HD Rec709, so should ignore any HDR metadata that may be attempted from the Osprey. In effect it'll act as if it is plugged into an older SDR 720p/1080i HDTV.

Which cell phone app are you referring to? For your TV?


----------



## Davenlr

Yes, the Roku TV app has settings for the TV like Noise Reduction, Gamma, white and color balance settings.
I tried the DVDO, and the video looked fantastic, but the Osprey would not put out any audio, in the Stereo or surround setting. The DVDO is HDMI 1.3, and perhaps the Osprey isnt seeing the correct HDCP? I dont know. I even tried the Optical out to the optical in on the DVDO and no sound. Plugged the HDMI out cable on the DVDO to the Osprey directly, and the sound (and HDR) came on.


----------



## Davenlr

Got my Osprey box for the bedroom. Now on the OLED TV, the HDR10 looks fantastic with no adjustments at all.

One issue if someone can help. When it first booted up, it said checking for updates and errored out. REbooted with red button and it did the same thing. Looked up the error code 80003-001 and it said to hit the red reset button 5 times. Did that, and it came up with google login for android, then login for DirecTv Now Beta. Entered my ATT TV ID and it came up. Since it would not update the software on first bootup, I am afraid to try to do the 10 button update, as I dont want to brick it. Any ideas?


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Got my Osprey box for the bedroom. Now on the OLED TV, the HDR10 looks fantastic with no adjustments at all.
> 
> One issue if someone can help. When it first booted up, it said checking for updates and errored out. REbooted with red button and it did the same thing. Looked up the error code 80003-001 and it said to hit the red reset button 5 times. Did that, and it came up with google login for android, then login for DirecTv Now Beta. Entered my ATT TV ID and it came up. Since it would not update the software on first bootup, I am afraid to try to do the 10 button update, as I dont want to brick it. Any ideas?


I would do the 10 button reset.


----------



## Davenlr

Did that. Got stuck at "Connecting to network" Finally unplugged the ethernet cord, and plugged it back in, and it suddenly switched to downloading. Been doing that for 45 minutes now. Will see what happens.


----------



## Davenlr

Yep, after unplugging the network and plugging it in, the 10 button trick worked. Thanks.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Ah, but you can get the AT&T TV box for the low, low price of $0.00 if you take the 2-yr contract option! I would agree, though, that they've got a huge mark-up on those things at $120 apiece.
> 
> Consider the Verizon Stream TV, which has similar specs to the upcoming 2nd-gen AT&T TV box. It sells for only $70 and I'm sure they're making a profit on it at that. (Pretty sure that Verizon mainly gives those boxes away for free to new broadband customers.)
> 
> Verizon Stream TV | Verizon


It sounds like any new customer can get one of these free if you either buy a phone or Fios service, but not sure if it requires a contract. I'm hoping that the 2nd Gen AT&T box will be cheaper. Then I might get a couple more.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> It sounds like any new customer can get one of these free if you either buy a phone or Fios service, but not sure if it requires a contract. I'm hoping that the 2nd Gen AT&T box will be cheaper. Then I might get a couple more.


I don't know about getting the Verizon Stream TV box with a phone purchase but I do know that Verizon originally gave them to new 5G Home fixed wireless broadband customers. (Before that, they were offering those 5G Home subs a choice between a free Apple TV 4K or Chromecast Ultra as a sign-up perk.) And I think I did read that they're now giving them to their FiOS fiber broadband customers too. The box basically serves the same purpose for Verizon as Comcast's Flex box does for them, letting them continue to play a video role even for those customers who shun cable TV.

I would bet that AT&T could price their box (either the 1st or 2nd gen) at $60 and at least break even on it, even including free shipping to the customer. I would think that it's in their interests to maximize the percentage of the user base that's on their own box for various reasons (increased customer satisfaction and retention, lower development and support costs, revenue sharing with Google on app purchases and subscriptions).

To begin with, the only way to get the box was to sign up for AT&T TV with the 2-year contract, and then the first one was free. So I don't think the initial plan was that they would sell a ton of them but rather that they would mostly be given away for free. But now AT&T TV is mainly pushing new sign-ups toward their no-contract model, which doesn't include a free box but does allow you to purchase them for 24 monthly payments of $5 each, or $120 up-front. Obviously they'd get a lot more takers at $60 or only 12 payments of $5.

I wonder if they'll even continue to sell AT&T TV with a 2-year contract much longer. As I've said before, I think they should offer an optional 1-year contract in exchange for modest perks/savings. Who knows what the new management group will do, although I do expect to see some tweaks.

Another development that would make sense is for AT&T Fiber to give away one of the upcoming 2nd-gen boxes to all their new customers, similar to what Comcast and Verizon do with their broadband subs. For those who just had standalone broadband, it could operate with an apps-only UI, with HBO Max and YouTube pre-installed. Maybe it would have a "Click here to learn about AT&T TV" banner somewhere on the home screen to sell them on an upgrade to AT&T TV. And if they subscribed, the UI would switch over to the regular AT&T TV-centric version.


----------



## Steveknj

Another weird glitch (and a harmless one). For a show that is recorded when you click on the info, it shows a recorded date in the future. For example, I recorded a show on Cooking Channel which showed:
Air Date 3.29.2021
Recorded on 4.11

That's so weird. I could live with that if that's the date the 90 day until deletion starts.


----------



## celticpride

Over at the tv answer man website he reports that the AT&T streaning box will have show the new godzilla-king kong movie on hbo max with HDR and DOLBY ATMOS, so does the at&t tv box really do dolby atmos? I"m still with frontier fios but we keep losing sports channels so i'm thinking about switching to either AT&T tv or DIRECTV . I hope both providers will someday add dolby vision and dolby atmos .


----------



## lparsons21

celticpride said:


> Over at the tv answer man website he reports that the AT&T streaning box will have show the new godzilla-king kong movie on hbo max with HDR and DOLBY ATMOS, so does the at&t tv box really do dolby atmos? I"m still with frontier fios but we keep losing sports channels so i'm thinking about switching to either AT&T tv or DIRECTV . I hope both providers will someday add dolby vision and dolby atmos .


Yes the Osprey box will do Dolby Atmos, but it is kind of a hit or miss situation. For HBO Max shows with Atmos it works fine but it doesn't do Netflix's Atmos at all. I've sometimes gotten Atmos with Disney+ and Amazon Prime but for some reason it quit doing that.


----------



## Davenlr

Does it update the apps? Disney+ should have atmos. Maybe need to delete the app and reinstall the new one? Roku shows app version, not sure how to tell app version with ATT box.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> Does it update the apps? Disney+ should have atmos. Maybe need to delete the app and reinstall the new one? Roku shows app version, not sure how to tell app version with ATT box.


Yes it updates the apps. Since I so seldom watch anything on Disney+ I haven't fiddled with manually updating or replacing.


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> Yes the Osprey box will do Dolby Atmos, but it is kind of a hit or miss situation. For HBO Max shows with Atmos it works fine but it doesn't do Netflix's Atmos at all. I've sometimes gotten Atmos with Disney+ and Amazon Prime but for some reason it quit doing that.


This is the kind of thing that keeps me using many streaming devices. For Netflix, Atmos works on the TiVo stick and xBox but not on the other devices I own. I used Firestick for Amazon Video, though there's not much Atmos on Amazon (a few shows only), for D+ my Roku or Firestick works with Atmos, for HBO Max, the Firestick or TiVo. I guess all work with Apple TV but I don't own one. I'm not sure. It's crazy that all of these devices have the ability to do Atmos, yet all apps don't work on all of them. And Dolby Vision is another issue entirely.

I was hoping I could use the Osprey and it would work at everything, but I can't get D+ to show anything in Atmos. I haven't looked at Netflix yet, but I guess it doesn't work as you said.


----------



## lparsons21

Yeah, it is a bit frustrating with the various boxes.

AppleTV does Atmos with all apps that can provide it but doesn’t even do DD5.1 with Hulu.

Currently Roku Ultra 2020 and FireTV are the ones that seem to do it all.


----------



## Davenlr

Got my answer from ATT:
Even if your AT&T TV account was cancelled, you'll still be able to access your AT&T TV Device with your old sign in credentials. There you'll get 2 options:

** Go to Apps*: here you will see the apps pre-loaded to the device and any apps you downloaded from the Google Play Store.
You will need to sign into your Google Account to access the Google Play Store and continue accessing apps downloaded onto the device.

**Go to Settings*: here you can sign in/out of your Google account, review device Terms and Conditions or manager the device settings.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> Got my answer from ATT:
> Even if your AT&T TV account was cancelled, you'll still be able to access your AT&T TV Device with your old sign in credentials. There you'll get 2 options:
> 
> ** Go to Apps*: here you will see the apps pre-loaded to the device and any apps you downloaded from the Google Play Store.
> You will need to sign into your Google Account to access the Google Play Store and continue accessing apps downloaded onto the device.
> 
> **Go to Settings*: here you can sign in/out of your Google account, review device Terms and Conditions or manager the device settings.


That's what I got when I cancelled ATT TV Now, but when I cancelled ATT TV it booted into the ATT TV app with an error that the channel wasn't in my subscription. Then I would have to hit the 'home' button to get the main App menu and could select apps or system to go further.


----------



## Davenlr

OK great, as long as it doesnt lock you out of the box. Since I would probably be coming back to ATT Tv after the football season, I didnt want to have to change boxes. BUT now my cell company is offering a $10 off for YTTV, so I might stay if I can deal with matrix stereo.


----------



## NashGuy

celticpride said:


> Over at the tv answer man website he reports that the AT&T streaning box will have show the new godzilla-king kong movie on hbo max with HDR and DOLBY ATMOS, so does the at&t tv box really do dolby atmos? I"m still with frontier fios but we keep losing sports channels so i'm thinking about switching to either AT&T tv or DIRECTV . I hope both providers will someday add dolby vision and dolby atmos .


I'm pretty sure that the current-gen AT&T TV box ("Osprey") does not support Dolby Vision, just regular HDR formats (HDR10 and HLG).


----------



## Davenlr

Disney+ app on the Osprey offers HD and 5.1
Disney+ on the Vizio Smartcast offers 4K Ultra HD DolbyVision but no atmos
Disney+ on the Roku Ultra 2019 offers 4K Ultra HD HDR10 and Atmos
Disney+ on the Roku Ultra 2020 offers 4K Ultra HD DV and Atmos
Test program was S1E1 of The Mandalorian
I am too lazy to go test my Fire TV.

It appears the Osprey box doesnt do 4K on Disney.


----------



## compnurd

Osprey got another update last night Software continues to improve


----------



## Mike1096

compnurd said:


> Osprey got another update last night Software continues to improve


HDR?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd

Mike1096 said:


> HDR?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


LOL No That will never be fixed on the Osprey It will not be addressed until the new box is released running Android TV 10


----------



## Mike1096

compnurd said:


> LOL No That will never be fixed on the Osprey It will not be addressed until the new box is released running Android TV 10


LOL. I did have my fingers crossed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> Disney+ app on the Osprey offers HD and 5.1
> Disney+ on the Vizio Smartcast offers 4K Ultra HD DolbyVision but no atmos
> Disney+ on the Roku Ultra 2019 offers 4K Ultra HD HDR10 and Atmos
> Disney+ on the Roku Ultra 2020 offers 4K Ultra HD DV and Atmos
> Test program was S1E1 of The Mandalorian
> I am too lazy to go test my Fire TV.
> 
> It appears the Osprey box doesnt do 4K on Disney.


4K Firestick does Atmos/DV I believe for D+ (so I would assume Fire TV that supports 4K would as well).


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> Osprey got another update last night Software continues to improve


Is there release notes somewhere? Also what's the new version number? Mine shows AT&T TV Version 26.285.24


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> Is there release notes somewhere? Also what's the new version number? Mine shows AT&T TV Version 26.285.24


Release Notes lol.. and yes thats the version all my boxes got last night


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> Release Notes lol.. and yes thats the version all my boxes got last night


Yeah, I didn't think so  I just wanted to make sure I actually GOT the update. I don't see anywhere where it would have told me.


----------



## Steveknj

Last night, finally had to watch a hockey game on delay (i.e. started watching via a recording after the game started), got through to the last couple of minutes of the game, and the recording ended. So THIS time it didn't add the automatic game extender (the one time I actually NEEDED it). Luckily the game was in hand and I didn't need to see the ending (though did miss one goal). So I'll probably start recording the show after the game when I know I won't be able to watch live just to be sure. Again, not the greatest situation, and that's high on my wish-list, to add a padding feature.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> Yeah, I didn't think so  I just wanted to make sure I actually GOT the update. I don't see anywhere where it would have told me.


Generally i notice because the box is a little sluggish when i turn it on in the morning. So i check system summary and see the "time on" section reset


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> Osprey got another update last night Software continues to improve


Could you be more specific about what improvements were made?

Sometimes new is an admission that they couldn't get something to work so they amputated it.


----------



## compnurd

harsh said:


> Could you be more specific about what improvements were made?
> 
> Sometimes new is an admission that they couldn't get something to work so they amputated it.


It asks me if my morning coffee was good


----------



## celticpride

I''ll keep viewing this thread for updates,In the meantime i'll wait to see when the new box comes out. I hope they let you add additonal time to recordings, Tha'ts very inportant to me I also hope they add dolby vision.


----------



## compnurd

celticpride said:


> I''ll keep viewing this thread for updates,In the meantime i'll wait to see when the new box comes out. I hope they let you add additonal time to recordings, Tha'ts very inportant to me I also hope they add dolby vision.


Adding times to recordings I doubt will ever happen to any streaming service


----------



## Davenlr

celticpride said:


> I''ll keep viewing this thread for updates,In the meantime i'll wait to see when the new box comes out. I hope they let you add additonal time to recordings, Tha'ts very inportant to me I also hope they add dolby vision.


I doubt the DVR features would require an update to the box. They should just schedule all sports events to run and extra hour. When its over, people will stop it and delete it, so what harm would there be? It can't be that hard.


----------



## Davenlr

Getting lots of "This content cant be played at this time, try again later" on DVR content, but Live TV is fine, and internet is fine. Strange. Did they break the box?


----------



## Mike1096

Davenlr said:


> Getting lots of "This content cant be played at this time, try again later" on DVR content, but Live TV is fine, and internet is fine. Strange. Did they break the box?


Maybe that last update brought a new bug

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Davenlr

Well, the Roku works perfectly. The box in the Living room works ok too. I sent the ebay seller an email. I think this box is just defective. I tried to load an app (speedtest to make sure the connection was good) and it said "Not enough memory" and I havent even loaded any apps on it.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Well, the Roku works perfectly. The box in the Living room works ok too. I sent the ebay seller an email. I think this box is just defective. I tried to load an app (speedtest to make sure the connection was good) and it said "Not enough memory" and I havent even loaded any apps on it.


Yeh something is off there


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> Adding times to recordings I doubt will ever happen to any streaming service


Why?


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> Getting lots of "This content cant be played at this time, try again later" on DVR content, but Live TV is fine, and internet is fine. Strange. Did they break the box?


Got the same issue. Using the app (on Firestick) solved the issue. This happened on one specific show, but on other content, it played back fine on the Osprey.


----------



## Davenlr

Steveknj said:


> Got the same issue. Using the app (on Firestick) solved the issue. This happened on one specific show, but on other content, it played back fine on the Osprey.


Same here. One show. Roku OK, then next show, worked ok for the rest of the night. Strange. What show?


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> Same here. One show. Roku OK, then next show, worked ok for the rest of the night. Strange. What show?


Blackish


----------



## Davenlr

Steveknj said:


> Blackish


OK, totally different network. Was just curious if it was the same network. Thanks.


----------



## lparsons21

Steveknj said:


> Yeah, I didn't think so  I just wanted to make sure I actually GOT the update. I don't see anywhere where it would have told me.


I've never once seen any indication from the Osprey got an update and checking for software updates in system always says up to date. The only way to find out is to look at system summary occasionally.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> Disney+ app on the Osprey offers HD and 5.1
> Disney+ on the Vizio Smartcast offers 4K Ultra HD DolbyVision but no atmos
> Disney+ on the Roku Ultra 2019 offers 4K Ultra HD HDR10 and Atmos
> Disney+ on the Roku Ultra 2020 offers 4K Ultra HD DV and Atmos
> Test program was S1E1 of The Mandalorian
> I am too lazy to go test my Fire TV.
> 
> It appears the Osprey box doesnt do 4K on Disney.


At one time it did do 4K on Disney+ but now it doesn't seem to, nor do Atmos with Disney+. Atmos does work with Amazon Prime though as does 4K. For whatever reason it seems like Atmos comes and goes with various apps for no apparent reason.


----------



## Davenlr

ATT finally responded:
*We are aware about your concern regarding playing back the recorded content and we are working to resolve it as soon as possible.*

Sounds about ATT like.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> ATT finally responded:
> *We are aware about your concern regarding playing back the recorded content and we are working to resolve it as soon as possible.*
> 
> Sounds about ATT like.


Where was that posted?


----------



## Davenlr

forums.att.com


----------



## Davenlr

My DVR is totally not working. I hit resume, and it starts playing, the audio plays at 3x speed trying to catch up to the video, then it stops and starts the show over again. Ive had it. Im going to You Tube TV. This service is the worst service I have ever used. Wished I hadnt bought two of their boxes. Maybe YTTV will work with them. Pisses me off they do this update two days after I just paid for another month.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> My DVR is totally not working. I hit resume, and it starts playing, the audio plays at 3x speed trying to catch up to the video, then it stops and starts the show over again. Ive had it. Im going to You Tube TV. This service is the worst service I have ever used. Wished I hadnt bought two of their boxes. Maybe YTTV will work with them. Pisses me off they do this update two days after I just paid for another month.


There is a massive Microsoft DNS outage that is going on


----------



## mjwagner

Davenlr said:


> My DVR is totally not working. I hit resume, and it starts playing, the audio plays at 3x speed trying to catch up to the video, then it stops and starts the show over again. Ive had it. Im going to You Tube TV. This service is the worst service I have ever used. Wished I hadnt bought two of their boxes. Maybe YTTV will work with them. Pisses me off they do this update two days after I just paid for another month.


...it's one of the reasons I don't/won't do provider specific boxes...


----------



## Mike1096

mjwagner said:


> ...it's one of the reasons I don't/won't do provider specific boxes...


ATT TV's proprietary box is complete garbage. In every possible way. I mean this in the kindest way I can.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Davenlr

mjwagner said:


> ...it's one of the reasons I don't/won't do provider specific boxes...


My Roku isnt working either. Live TV is working, just not the DVR. 
In any case, 90% of what I watch doesnt need dolby, so when the T-mobile/YouTubeTV for $54.99/mo for a year starts April 6th, I am switching over there. They have a lot more sports channels I would watch, and all the current ones I do watch. Hope the PQ is as good. 
One the bright side, You Tube TV app is preinstalled on Vizio smartcast, which is in both bedrooms, and my main TV is a Roku TV, so wont need any proprietary boxes, although I can still use ATT's box for it, since Google preloads it on the ATT box


----------



## Davenlr

compnurd said:


> There is a massive Microsoft DNS outage that is going on


I cannot believe their DVR box would use a DNS rather than a direct IP address to their server. I suppose that might have something to do with it, except I was already connected, and its the same problem I had last night. Their Live service is great. Their DVR sucks.


----------



## Mike1096

In other news, my DirecTV DVR is working wonderfully. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy

Mike1096 said:


> In other news, my DirecTV DVR is working wonderfully.


Your comment brings to mind the time a buddy of mine came over to finally watch a movie I had been telling him about that I had recorded on my DirecTV DVR. About three minutes into it, the picture broke up and then went completely out. What followed was a whole bunch of rain fade. We didn't get to watch the movie.


----------



## Mike1096

NashGuy said:


> Your comment brings to mind the time a buddy of mine came over to finally watch a movie I had been telling him about that I had recorded on my DirecTV DVR. About three minutes into it, the picture broke up and then went completely out. What followed was a whole bunch of rain fade. We didn't get to watch the movie.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Davenlr

Rain fade. 3 times a week here. If the NASH is Nashville, I can relate, you get our rain fade about 8 hours after we do.


----------



## Mike1096

Davenlr said:


> Rain fade. 3 times a week here. If the NASH is Nashville, I can relate, you get our rain fade about 8 hours after we do.


I'm in Chicago and rarely see an issue. We have heavy wind, rain and blizzards. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## James Long

Davenlr said:


> I cannot believe their DVR box would use a DNS rather than a direct IP address to their server. I suppose that might have something to do with it, except I was already connected, and its the same problem I had last night. Their Live service is great. Their DVR sucks.


I'm not surprised. With a CDN there is more than one server. DNS can be used to direct clients to the servers with the lowest loads. Something could go wrong with that direct IP - how would the box find another IP? DNS is designed for such changes. IP redirection can also be done, but DNS is a usually reliable system.

One is playing the 9s when dealing with any computer system. 99.999... how many nines percent uptime?


----------



## Davenlr

Mike1096 said:


> I'm in Chicago and rarely see an issue. We have heavy wind, rain and blizzards.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Your thunderstorms are not as tall, with hail up there. I grew up up there. The dishes are also pointed lower at the horizon, so not pointed up directly at the thundercloud. Not saying you dont have issues, but not near as many as the south does.


----------



## Mike1096

Davenlr said:


> Your thunderstorms are not as tall, with hail up there. I grew up up there. The dishes are also pointed lower at the horizon, so not pointed up directly at the thundercloud. Not saying you dont have issues, but not near as many as the south does.


I'd love to trade the weather of the south with Chicago's weather. Any day. Anyways, hopefully that gen 2 box comes quick. I have the Osprey. It's a miserable experience.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Davenlr

Yea, mine seem to always drop the first keypress, unless I PLAN on it dropping the first keypress, then it will work. Terrible slow. Like using a celeron laptop with a slow hard drive on windows 10. Click on something and wait.


----------



## Mike1096

Davenlr said:


> Yea, mine seem to always drop the first keypress, unless I PLAN on it dropping the first keypress, then it will work. Terrible slow. Like using a celeron laptop with a slow hard drive on windows 10. Click on something and wait.


Or if ATT would give the features they give the Osprey to their apps on Fire, Apple and Roku.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## gio12

Mike1096 said:


> Or if ATT would give the features they give the Osprey to their apps on Fire, Apple and Roku.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Will never happen form the POS that is AT&T. The want $$ from that crappy box.
If it was not for RSN, I would be back to YTTV.


----------



## compnurd

On the positive note this last update fixed the last channel being displayed after power off


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> I cannot believe their DVR box would use a DNS rather than a direct IP address to their server. I suppose that might have something to do with it, except I was already connected, and its the same problem I had last night. Their Live service is great. Their DVR sucks.


It's wreaking havoc with ISP's. My cable company was getting lit up


----------



## mjwagner

Davenlr said:


> I cannot believe their DVR box would use a DNS rather than a direct IP address to their server. I suppose that might have something to do with it, except I was already connected, and its the same problem I had last night. Their Live service is great. Their DVR sucks.


That's not really how it works. The content is delivered via whatever CDN they are using and your DNS can direct your traffic to different parts of the CDN.


----------



## Steveknj

There's no such thing as a perfect system. The closest I found where everything mostly worked as it should was DirecTV. But it's REALLY expensive. And that's the issue, otherwise I'd never have thought to leave. For me YTTV doesn't work, and the interface, last time I used it was horrible. With all it's foibles, AT&T TV is the closest I've found to DirecTV and using the Osprey, even with it's problems is a bit better than their app. Is it perfect? Not even close. But it mostly works for me at a savings from DirecTV that I cannot ignore.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> There's no such thing as a perfect system. The closest I found where everything mostly worked as it should was DirecTV. But it's REALLY expensive. And that's the issue, otherwise I'd never have thought to leave. For me YTTV doesn't work, and the interface, last time I used it was horrible. With all it's foibles, AT&T TV is the closest I've found to DirecTV and using the Osprey, even with it's problems is a bit better than their app. Is it perfect? Not even close. But it mostly works for me at a savings from DirecTV that I cannot ignore.


Even then Directv still has a ton of software issues and limitations.. as you said no service is perfect.. just need to find the one that fits your needs the best.. whining and complaining isnt going to do anything except get your own blood pressure up


----------



## Mike1096

Steveknj said:


> There's no such thing as a perfect system. The closest I found where everything mostly worked as it should was DirecTV. But it's REALLY expensive. And that's the issue, otherwise I'd never have thought to leave. For me YTTV doesn't work, and the interface, last time I used it was horrible. With all it's foibles, AT&T TV is the closest I've found to DirecTV and using the Osprey, even with it's problems is a bit better than their app. Is it perfect? Not even close. But it mostly works for me at a savings from DirecTV that I cannot ignore.


Takes work to get DirecTV to give "offers" or "discounts" to keep you as a customer. Overall though, DirecTV works far better than any of the streaming services. Not to mention there is no delay in watching sports.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd

Mike1096 said:


> Takes work to get DirecTV to give "offers" or "discounts" to keep you as a customer. Overall though, DirecTV works far better than any of the streaming services. Not to mention there is no delay in watching sports.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Directv is not a streaming service.. So the comparison would be bad.. Also Directv does have a delay.. My cable company is about 30 seconds ahead


----------



## Davenlr

Xfinity was alway way ahead of DirecTv too. If streaming doesnt work out, it doesnt work out. Ill keep trying them. There is always DISH with their two year price lock that isnt extremely higher than streaming. I wish they would just go back to 1080i. I much preferred Xfinity and Tivo to all these other options. Just cannot stand compressed 720p


----------



## Mike1096

Davenlr said:


> Xfinity was alway way ahead of DirecTv too. If streaming doesnt work out, it doesnt work out. Ill keep trying them. There is always DISH with their two year price lock that isnt extremely higher than streaming. I wish they would just go back to 1080i. I much preferred Xfinity and Tivo to all these other options. Just cannot stand compressed 720p


I had Xfinity X1 until just recently. It's absolutely not way ahead. Not here at least.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Mike1096

Davenlr said:


> Xfinity was alway way ahead of DirecTv too. If streaming doesnt work out, it doesnt work out. Ill keep trying them. There is always DISH with their two year price lock that isnt extremely higher than streaming. I wish they would just go back to 1080i. I much preferred Xfinity and Tivo to all these other options. Just cannot stand compressed 720p


Xfinity's compression is horrid.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> Rain fade. 3 times a week here. If the NASH is Nashville, I can relate, you get our rain fade about 8 hours after we do.


Yeah, I'm in Nashville. And while at least some of my channels on DTV (and, before them, Dish) would drop out for several minutes every time rain moved into the area (there for awhile, I'd turn on the TV just to check), rain fade was actually was pretty rare in my DVR recordings. Maybe rain didn't tend to roll in during primetime hours that often? IDK.

Anyway, as you say, no cable TV service is perfect. As with everything, you have to consider the trade-offs...


----------



## Davenlr

Rain fade on DVR recordings was interesting. It would pixilate for a few seconds, then just jump to where the signal came back, at least on my HR24. You would almost think it was just a glitch if you werent watching a news program with a time stamp and realized it cut 5 minutes out of the program


----------



## Steveknj

Mike1096 said:


> Takes work to get DirecTV to give "offers" or "discounts" to keep you as a customer. Overall though, DirecTV works far better than any of the streaming services. Not to mention there is no delay in watching sports.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


It's funny because when I called to cancel, they asked why and then never even tried to keep me. I've gotten plenty of discounts in the past, some that were related to some issue I had with them, some were totally unsolicited (like getting ST for free this past football season), and they were MUCH more willing to give me a discount previously than now. But with that, I do wonder if I could have gotten a discount that would have saved me $80. I sincerely doubt that.

As far as working better, I'd say maybe a LITTLE better. It's a little more consistent in what you expect to happen. But I've had plenty of issues with DirecTV, including the obvious rain fade, delays in button presses, lockups, dish movement causing outages, and so forth. And yes there's a delay in sports. Often I'd get a notification of something happening on my MLB.TV app before I see it on the game I'm watching. It's a bit worse with AT&T TV for sure (and I've since turned off in game notifications when I'm not out.) But at least AT&T TV does some of the premium things that other streamers don't like DD sound. Also the picture is a little better than DirecTV. Not enough that it doesn't bother me, but still enough.

I'm still wondering if I'll get an "We want you back" offer? If I do, then we'll see what they offer and I can make a decision at that point.


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> There is a massive Microsoft DNS outage that is going on


What would Microsoft's Azure cloud issues on the Left Coast have to do with AT&T TV streaming in Little Rock?


----------



## Mike1096

My ATT TV month isnt quite up yet before it cancels. However, my DVR is working just fine. So not sure it’s a total ATT thing. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd

harsh said:


> What would Microsoft's Azure cloud issues on the Left Coast have to do with AT&T TV streaming in Little Rock?


Dunno but it crippled some ISP's


----------



## compnurd

Mike1096 said:


> My ATT TV month isnt quite up yet before it cancels. However, my DVR is working just fine. So not sure it's a total ATT thing.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


We in several months now have yet to have any type of real issue streaming anything


----------



## Mike1096

compnurd said:


> We in several months now have yet to have any type of real issue streaming anything


Is your DVR still not working? You're right, could be ISP related. I have Xfinity ISP

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd

Mike1096 said:


> Is your DVR still not working? You're right, could be ISP related. I have Xfinity ISP
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


That wasn't me


----------



## Davenlr

Mike1096 said:


> Is your DVR still not working? You're right, could be ISP related. I have Xfinity ISP


DVR has gone out for two nights in a row on both Osprey boxes. First night it worked on Roku, last night didnt work on either. Live TV worked fine both nights. Just tried watching MLB.TV via Osprey and said "feed not available" every time I tried to play the game. Switched to Roku, worked first time.

My ISP is ATT Fiber. If its the ISP, then its still ATT, but everything else was working fine. PING to ATT was 20ms. It is just annoying. No other streaming services are having issues here. Just ATT TV.

I shouldnt have bought ospreys off ebay. I never have any luck buying off ebay.


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> DVR has gone out for two nights in a row on both Osprey boxes. First night it worked on Roku, last night didnt work on either. Live TV worked fine both nights. Just tried watching MLB.TV via Osprey and said "feed not available" every time I tried to play the game. Switched to Roku, worked first time.
> 
> My ISP is ATT Fiber. If its the ISP, then its still ATT, but everything else was working fine. PING to ATT was 20ms. It is just annoying. No other streaming services are having issues here. Just ATT TV.
> 
> I shouldnt have bought ospreys off ebay. I never have any luck buying off ebay.


I bought both of mine on eBay. They work except for the expected known bugs. Maybe I just got lucky. Used a link someone here provided as the source to buy them. My DVR worked fine last night. Watched a couple of different shows.


----------



## Davenlr

They told me to "refresh" my box. I have no idea what that means, but I rebooted all of them, and so FAR tonight, it has been behaving.


----------



## Mike1096

Davenlr said:


> They told me to "refresh" my box. I have no idea what that means, but I rebooted all of them, and so FAR tonight, it has been behaving.


It means they have absolutely no clue what to do and probably no clue as to what they're even talking about. Refresh is their "fix all".

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd

Mike1096 said:


> It means they have absolutely no clue what to do and probably no clue as to what they're even talking about. Refresh is their "fix all".
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Yup lol. Like when you call your cable company and they say reboot your modem


----------



## Mike1096

compnurd said:


> Yup lol. Like when you call your cable company and they say reboot your modem


. Exactly right.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Davenlr

I was weed eating the front fence this morning, and my weedeater hit something and snapped the line. I checked, and it was my fiber internet cable, came out of their green box, layed in the grass for about 4', went over a concrete wall down about 3' into my front yard, and THEN they buried it from there. LUCKY I wasnt using the lawn mower. I had to go find some stones to pile on top of it, so it wouldnt get cut later on this year. Does AT&T do ANYTHING that isnt half-assed?


----------



## MysteryMan

Davenlr said:


> Does AT&T do ANYTHING that isnt half-assed?


Apparently not. Since AT&T purchased DIRECTV I've payed my bill at our area AT&T store. My bill is due the first of the month. On Thursday, 1 April I payed my bill with cash and was given a receipt. When I returned home I went into my AT&T account to confirm the payment was recorded and it showed it was. Last night I received a e-mail from AT&T stating my DIRECTV bill is past due. I rechecked my AT&T account and it still shows my bill being payed. AT&T doing everything half-assed is putting mildly. As far as I'm concerned they couldn't step in dog feces unless the directions were printed on the bottom of their shoes!


----------



## compnurd

Kudos to ATT TV today. The pirates and the penguins were both playing on Sportnets this afternoon and they added a second channel to the guide for the game


----------



## wmb

Mike1096 said:


> It means they have absolutely no clue what to do and probably no clue as to what they're even talking about. Refresh is their "fix all".
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Davenlr

Can someone with ATT TV and a Dolby surround system check channel 356 (MSNBC) and tell me if you are getting anything from the center channel? I can not get audio from the center channel on Osprey or Roku TV, and want to make sure its not my AVR. CNN and FOX all have center channel.


----------



## NashGuy

wmb said:


>


Ha! I tried to post a GIF of this very thing here earlier today but couldn't figure out how to do it. (Looks like the insert media function doesn't support any GIF sites.)


----------



## harperhometheater

Hey all, I just cancelled my AT&T TV subscription and decided to go back to using my AppleTV Channels DVR setup full time. Main reason was financial since I was already paying for my daughter’s Xfinity service at college, so I can tap into that for TVE. Plus it appears my local network broadcasts have gotten a lot better using my antenna and an HDHomerun. I think they’ve done some updates on their equipment, maybe in preparation for ATSC 3.0?

Maybe I’ll come back to AT&T TV in the fall when football starts again, which is where I really cared about the picture quality.

Anywho, I have these three Osprey boxes if anyone wants to buy one? I’ll sell for $50 each plus shipping. Let me know before I eBay them.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> Ha! I tried to post a GIF of this very thing here earlier today but couldn't figure out how to do it. (Looks like the insert media function doesn't support any GIF sites.)


Did you try pasting the GIF into the post?


----------



## harperhometheater

harperhometheater said:


> .....SDR Rec709 to HDR bt2020 isn't the ****show everyone is making it out to be. SDR and rec709 are easily gamut mapped into an HDR BT2020 "container". Of course this all has to be done properly and not all sources and TVs do this properly. So that said, of course there should be an option to turn it on and off.
> 
> Kris Deering, a top ISF Calibrator sets up the Lumagen Radiance Pros he sells, installs and calibrates so that the SDR Rec709 input sources are mapped to BT2020 color gamut. This is mainly for users with JVC projectors which have unusually long sync times which many want to avoid, but a Rec709 or even DCI-P3 color gamut is very easily mapped into a BT2020 gamut and will look completely identical to sending Rec709 only. If it doesn't, then something is setup wrong or the TV processes it incorrectly.
> 
> Mine looks absolutely fine and actually a little better overall in HDR mode in my Samsung LSP9T RGB triple laser UST projector. I've done tons of testing back and forth to prove this.


Just to reiterate this point to clear up the total misconception and misinformation being thrown around out there about "SDR to HDR" resulting in "blown/washed out colors and clipping/overdriven whites and blacks", I ran across this great YouTube video series where a professional videographer explains this information. It is basically between the 2 and 3:30 minute marks:






All his videos I've seen so far are great with a lot of misconception clearing going on!

Happy Easter for those who celebrate!!! <><

P.S. - right after he talks about the above, he then mentions the reason for using HLG for broadcasting and how they decided to use this format as to not have to worry about metadata integrity throughout the broadcast chain. This is something else we discussed here as well.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> Did you try pasting the GIF into the post?


Heh, no. Didn't realize their system allowed for direct copy and pasting of images and GIFs into the body of a post being composed. I always insert images via the image button which, for some reason, wasn't displaying the GIF when I pasted in its direct link, which has always worked for JPEGs. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## OneMarcilV

I set up a HBO Max account on my ROKU device. With my new service from AT&T and I want do delete the account t that I created on ROKU and use my AT&T account in place of that account.

Will I have to reset my ROKU device to factory settings?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21

OneMarcilV said:


> I set up a HBO Max account on my ROKU device. With my new service from AT&T and I want do delete the account t that I created on ROKU and use my AT&T account in place of that account.
> 
> Will I have to reset my ROKU device to factory settings?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


No you won't. Go to Roku's site and cancel your HBO Max subscription, then in the HBO Max app logout of the app and then login again with your ATT credentials.


----------



## OneMarcilV

lparsons21 said:


> No you won't. Go to Roku's site and cancel your HBO Max subscription, then in the HBO Max app logout of the app and then login again with your ATT credentials.


I did cancel my subscription on Rokus webpage. Then when I look at the HBO Max that cancelled account still shows up.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## OneMarcilV

OK what I did was to restart my ROKU device. Then chose HBO Max and was offered the sign in screen from there I was able to sign in and use my AT&T account.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## wmb

NashGuy said:


> Ha! I tried to post a GIF of this very thing here earlier today but couldn't figure out how to do it. (Looks like the insert media function doesn't support any GIF sites.)


I haven't figured it out either. I think I'm too old.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steveknj

I had a bad AT&T TV day on Sunday (and it all may not even be their fault!)

First, my internet was very flaky Sunday morning with it going in and out. Rebooted the modem a few times and it would come back only to crap out after a couple of minutes. Finally decided to do some work outside and then some shopping and came back and it was fixed (for the day anyway). But of course no TV because no internet. 

Then I wanted to watch the Yankees game on YES Network. Put on the channel and first on the primary YES channel I got a test pattern with Brooklyn Nets Testing or some such verbiage. The Nets game was suppose to be on the rollover channel, so I flipped to that, and got some weird video of people at Grand Central Station walking and then some scenes from Central Park with some text superimposed. Eventually BOTH channels switched the Nets game when that went live. So no Yankees. Then, I figured OK, I can chromecast the game from my phone or tablet and YES Network app had the game (so there were no transmission issue that I can see), only I couldn't get Chromecast to work via any of my three Chromecast devices (one of which is the Osprey) with the message (no IP address or no Internet connection, something like that). Eventually got it to work from my Tablet for awhile, but the picture degraded and tried to reconnect but got the same message as before. 

So not sure what happened with Yes Network and AT&T TV. I think someone screwed up there. Made me wish for the simplicity and ease of use of having DirecTV. Glad I'm on a month to month with this. If DirecTV makes me a fair offer to come back that's not too expensive, I'd have to consider it. But if it's the same as I had before, I'll live with these foibles. There's also Optimum, but not quite ready to go there.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> First, my internet was very flaky Sunday morning with it going in and out. Rebooted the modem a few times and it would come back only to crap out after a couple of minutes. Finally decided to do some work outside and then some shopping and came back and it was fixed (for the day anyway). But of course no TV because no internet.


Yep, if you're using a streaming TV service, its reliability will be limited by the reliability of your ISP. Although at least since it has cloud DVR, an outage of the service/internet at your home shouldn't have an impact on your recordings, so that's a plus. (With a traditional DVR, if you're not getting a signal at your house, then you're not recording anything and therefore you've completely missed the program.)



Steveknj said:


> Then I wanted to watch the Yankees game on YES Network. Put on the channel and first on the primary YES channel I got a test pattern with Brooklyn Nets Testing or some such verbiage. The Nets game was suppose to be on the rollover channel, so I flipped to that, and got some weird video of people at Grand Central Station walking and then some scenes from Central Park with some text superimposed. Eventually BOTH channels switched the Nets game when that went live. So no Yankees.


Ha, that's weird. That sounds like something that had to be the fault of YES -- was AT&T TV somehow swapping out the YES feed for random footage of New Yorkers strolling through the city? Doubt it. The fact that the footage were NYC-specific points the finger in YES's direction, I'd say. I wonder if YES viewers on DirecTV or other MVPDs were seeing the same issues?


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Yep, if you're using a streaming TV service, its reliability will be limited by the reliability of your ISP. Although at least since it has cloud DVR, an outage of the service/internet at your home shouldn't have an impact on your recordings, so that's a plus. (With a traditional DVR, if you're not getting a signal at your house, then you're not recording anything and therefore you've completely missed the program.)


The only change for me, was that if the SAT goes down, I can still watch my recordings since it's local, but here I am at the mercy of my ISP (thus no TV). But I knew that going in.



> Ha, that's weird. That sounds like something that had to be the fault of YES -- was AT&T TV somehow swapping out the YES feed for random footage of New Yorkers strolling through the city? Doubt it. The fact that the footage were NYC-specific points the finger in YES's direction, I'd say. I wonder if YES viewers on DirecTV or other MVPDs were seeing the same issues?


Yes, it was really weird. I don't remember that issue happening ever with DirecTV (in 20 years or so). Hopefully it was a one time glitch. I'll know tonight.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> The only change for me, was that if the SAT goes down, I can still watch my recordings since it's local, but here I am at the mercy of my ISP (thus no TV). But I knew that going in.


Yeah, if you mainly rely on streaming video and your internet goes out, that's when it's good to have an OTA antenna. Or content on discs or ripped to local hard drives. Or, y'know, a book.


----------



## mjwagner

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, if you mainly rely on streaming video and your internet goes out, that's when it's good to have an OTA antenna. Or content on discs or ripped to local hard drives. Or, y'know, a book.


On the rare occasion when my internet goes out I just connect my home router thru my phone hotspot. I have to connect thru a little travel router that I bought ($20 on Amazon) because my home router does not support connection to a phone hotspot thru USB (some do), but it takes less than 5 minutes and I'm back up and running. Of course then you have to be aware of any data caps you may have on your cell internet service if the outage lasts too long...


----------



## raott

My promotional deal was set to end at the end of this month. Price was going to jump $55, which is more than Spectrum's double play. I called and negotiated a $20 off per month discount. I'll be curious as to other's experiences who are hitting the one year mark.


----------



## Davenlr

Just got my promo code from Tmobile for YTTV and testing it out. After an initial hickup with profiles (Google has issues with their family sharing plan setup), the actual picture quality is the same here as it is on DirecTV and ATT TV. The stereo vs Dolby digital, which I thought was going to be an issue, isnt as bad as I was expecting. My Sony AVR has a new version of the old Dolby matrix system, and takes the stereo signal, and puts dialog on the center channel, stereo on the left and right AND left and right height speakers, as well as the extracted surround on the two rear speakers. It actually sounds better than just plain 5.1 with the added height speakers. Im catching how the the DVR works, and will see tonight on the NASCAR race if it automatically extends or cuts it off. At least I can use the built in Roku app on the TV without lip sync being way off, which it was every time on ATT TV. If I decide to keep it, Ill probably get a Nvidia shield for the AI upscaling and sell these Osprey boxes, which while they work, they are pretty slow and pretty much intended for ATT, and the voice commands even on google apps, cancel the app and go back to ATT TV every time you use it.

As for the OSPREY box, apparently when you put it in Surround mode, it outputs Dolby Digital+ EVEN IF THE SOURCE CHANNEL ISNT IN DOLBY. Also, on channels that ARE Dolby, some of them were outputting only L and R, and no center (verified with a second Osprey box and different Tv and soundbar), so is it REALLY putting out DD+ or just telling the AVR it is? Hmmmm.


----------



## Davenlr

OK, I am inpressed. ATT TV cut the Nascar race (red flag) at 9:30. YouTubeTV at 9:15 extended the recording to 10:30, and at 10:15 extended it to midnight. No lip sync issues, and the fast forward is great. If it doesnt stop on DVR recordings every night like ATT TV does 3 or 4 nights a week, Ill be switching.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> As for the OSPREY box, apparently when you put it in Surround mode, it outputs Dolby Digital+ EVEN IF THE SOURCE CHANNEL ISNT IN DOLBY. Also, on channels that ARE Dolby, some of them were outputting only L and R, and no center (verified with a second Osprey box and different Tv and soundbar), so is it REALLY putting out DD+ or just telling the AVR it is? Hmmmm.


Just as with the FireTV it is just telling the AVR that the audio is DD+, and depending on AVR the results can be irritating as hell. IMO, Roku and AppleTV handle that better even though the Roku with ATT TV app has lip sync issues as you note.


----------



## Davenlr

@lparsons21 Have you noticed the colors on YouTubeTV are a lot brighter and more natural? Its like they just pop in comparison with ATT, using the same Roku. Plus, YTTV just added MTV Classics, so if the DVR doesnt crash every day like my ATT one did, Im going to cancel ATT.


----------



## riprecked

Curious about a couple of things. Since the NCAA basketball tournament I am seeing quite a few "There's a problem with this channel" errors. Followed by a whoops and telling me to watch something else. Happens the most on a CBS local. I'm using Apple TV, but it sounds like this happens on all clients?

Second thing is the comparison to YTTV. I had that for a few years and left it a few months ago due to declining PQ, AT&T TV was night and day better. Has YTTV fixed any of their PQ issues? I liked the service when I first had it.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> @lparsons21 Have you noticed the colors on YouTubeTV are a lot brighter and more natural? Its like they just pop in comparison with ATT, using the same Roku. Plus, YTTV just added MTV Classics, so if the DVR doesnt crash every day like my ATT one did, Im going to cancel ATT.


I never noticed that, all in all, YTTV and ATT TV's PQ seems pretty much the same with some very slight differences.


----------



## Davenlr

riprecked said:


> Curious about a couple of things. Since the NCAA basketball tournament I am seeing quite a few "There's a problem with this channel" errors. Followed by a whoops and telling me to watch something else. Happens the most on a CBS local. I'm using Apple TV, but it sounds like this happens on all clients?
> 
> Second thing is the comparison to YTTV. I had that for a few years and left it a few months ago due to declining PQ, AT&T TV was night and day better. Has YTTV fixed any of their PQ issues? I liked the service when I first had it.


The first problem is why I am canceling ATT TV after only two months. I get that EVERY day and EVERY night.
ATT has some bad servers somewhere. Some people have no issues, I have issues every day, even with their box.

Second, I can tell no difference in PQ between the two, other than YTTV seems to have brighter colors.
Now, MTV classics is 720p on YTTV as fuzzy, but the source is actually 480p so I would expect it to be fuzzy. Apparently YTTV upscales even SD channels to HD. Im not sure that channel is even available on ATT TV, it wasnt in my package.


----------



## Davenlr

lparsons21 said:


> I never noticed that, all in all, YTTV and ATT TV's PQ seems pretty much the same with some very slight differences.


They appear the same on the Osprey with the forced HDR, but YTTV looks night and day better on the Roku TV's built in app (and no lip sync issues either).


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> They appear the same on the Osprey with the forced HDR, but YTTV looks night and day better on the Roku TV's built in app (and no lip sync issues either).


Glad to finally see someone that has something positive to say about a Smart TV app!


----------



## Davenlr

lparsons21 said:


> Glad to finally see someone that has something positive to say about a Smart TV app!


I can up that. The YTTV app on the Vizio Smartcast is great too


----------



## Mike1096

YTTV on the built in Android TV on my Sony is flawless too. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21

Mike1096 said:


> YTTV on the built in Android TV on my Sony is flawless too.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I've got it on my Sony and while it works it is a real dog, but then all the apps are on it.


----------



## Mike1096

lparsons21 said:


> I've got it on my Sony and while it works it is a real dog, but then all the apps are on it.


It's definitely not as snappy as the ATV4K or 2nd gen cube. But on the 950h I've got, it's decent.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Davenlr

Sony use Android TV? I havent found an Android TV that was as fast as Roku yet.


----------



## harsh

Davenlr said:


> Sony use Android TV? I havent found an Android TV that was as fast as Roku yet.


The Bravia series TVs have been using an older version of Android TV (9?) for a while now.


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> Sony use Android TV? I havent found an Android TV that was as fast as Roku yet.


Pretty sure the Nvidia Shield TV (which runs Android TV) will blow any Roku out of the water. That thing is a beast.


----------



## NashGuy

raott said:


> My promotional deal was set to end at the end of this month. Price was going to jump $55, which is more than Spectrum's double play. I called and negotiated a $20 off per month discount. I'll be curious as to other's experiences who are hitting the one year mark.


Your price for what was going to jump $55? Combined AT&T Fiber and AT&T TV?

From what I've read, lots of folks are successful at getting AT&T Fiber to extend their first-year discounted price to the second year and beyond.


----------



## Davenlr

NashGuy said:


> Pretty sure the Nvidia Shield TV (which runs Android TV) will blow any Roku out of the water. That thing is a beast.


After all the issues I am having with CEC and my Roku TV, I have really been tempted to go buy one. I like the OSPREY box OS, its just slow. Fire TV isnt much faster, so I just assumed it was all Android TV. So for just watching TV, the tube one OK, or do I need the big boy? 
Was gonna go grab one at Best Buy, but damn, they close at 7pm now. Guess I wont get one tonight.


----------



## mjwagner

Davenlr said:


> After all the issues I am having with CEC and my Roku TV, I have really been tempted to go buy one. I like the OSPREY box OS, its just slow. Fire TV isnt much faster, so I just assumed it was all Android TV. So for just watching TV, the tube one OK, or do I need the big boy?
> Was gonna go grab one at Best Buy, but damn, they close at 7pm now. Guess I wont get one tonight.


I would personally recommend the box over the tube/stick. At each of my main viewing locations I have a Nvidia Shield, ATV 4K, and FireTV Stick 4k (we don't do Roku). We use our Shields more than any of the other streamers by a large margin. The ATV 4ks are very good streamers we just aren't users of or into the Apple ecosystem (too locked down, much like Roku) and prefer Android based streaming devices.


----------



## Davenlr

Thanks. Yep, Im going to get a Pro tomorrow when BB opens. I am so tired of messing with this stuff. I need a solution that works and is customizable, but mainly I like the idea of the AI upscaling and option to use a keyboard. Only issue I have seen requiring a separate unit would be HDR videos on YouTube, unless that has been fixed. I dont watch that much on YT tho. If it does YouTubeTV ok, and HBOMAX and Disney+ with Atmos and HDR/DV I will be happy.


----------



## mjwagner

Davenlr said:


> Thanks. Yep, Im going to get a Pro tomorrow when BB opens. I am so tired of messing with this stuff. I need a solution that works and is customizable, but mainly I like the idea of the AI upscaling and option to use a keyboard. Only issue I have seen requiring a separate unit would be HDR videos on YouTube, unless that has been fixed. I dont watch that much on YT tho. If it does YouTubeTV ok, and HBOMAX and Disney+ with Atmos and HDR/DV I will be happy.


Unfortunately vp9 profile 2 is still not supported on any Shields so no YT HDR. FireTV Stick 4k supports it just fine. Unfortunately there is still no single streaming device that does it all.


----------



## Davenlr

Got it all installed. It will not pair with my previous ATT TV bluetooth remote. They talk to each other, but wont connect. Guessing ATT trick to make box useless without their service. 
Only issue is it keeps saying Network Tuner Disconnected. I do have an HDHomerun on the network, and the Plex app loaded (not Plex, its on a PC at the moment). Guess I need to download the HDHomeRun app?

Is there an app or way to remap the NETFLIX button on the remote to launch YouTubeTV?

Opps wrong forum for that question. Sorry.


----------



## raott

NashGuy said:


> Your price for what was going to jump $55? Combined AT&T Fiber and AT&T TV?
> 
> From what I've read, lots of folks are successful at getting AT&T Fiber to extend their first-year discounted price to the second year and beyond.


Unfortunately I cannot get fiber at my current house. I have Spectrum 400. The $55 dollar jump was for AT&T TV alone.

I need to dig into something else. I currently have Showtime at $11 a month, and when I try to remove it, my base package price jumps through the roof. I need to figure out what is going on with that.


----------



## Davenlr

Well, thanks for all the help here. I went through the cancellation mess today where they spent 15 minutes trying to get me to stay 
They tried the "Cant get RSNs anywhere else" - FAIL, my RSN covers a team I never watch and I have MLB.TV
They tried the "We can send someone to check your line to see why the DVR keeps kicking you out" - FAIL
Finally, they admitted they are lots of issues with their DVR service, and he hears that a lot and they are trying to fix it. Well, let me know when you do. Adios.

I tried to use the remote from the Osprey box on the Nvidia Shield Pro I bought today, as I just like the feel of it, but ATT has it programmed to only pair with the Osprey. It gets almost through the pairing process with the Shield, and then says FAILED and the Osprey remote flashes two red lights, which I interpreted as "F" and "U"

Oh well. AI upscaling on You Tube TV with the Shield looks awesome. See ya'll on the YTTV thread, if there is one.


----------



## NashGuy

raott said:


> Unfortunately I cannot get fiber at my current house. I have Spectrum 400. The $55 dollar jump was for AT&T TV alone.
> 
> I need to dig into something else. I currently have Showtime at $11 a month, and when I try to remove it, my base package price jumps through the roof. I need to figure out what is going on with that.


Very strange -- I don't see how removing Showtime from your AT&T TV package could do anything other than reduce the total cost (unless you were getting it free, in which case your price should stay the same, but definitely not go up).

As for the $55/mo price jump, I'm guessing that you signed up for AT&T TV under the old 2-year contract model? Which package do you have? Good to hear that you were successful in getting them to knock down the regular 2nd-year price by $20/mo.

A few days ago, I checked ATT.com again to look at where pricing is now for both Fiber and TV as I anticipate that my parents will eventually switch over to both. (Still waiting on AT&T TV to make some improvements, including rolling out their 2nd-gen box.) It looks like they aren't even offering the 2-yr contract option on AT&T TV any more, just the new system with no contract and regular everyday pricing from the first month, with the unlimited DVR and box both as optional upgrades for additional cost. While a lot of folks don't like taking a contract, you did come out cheaper over the first 24 months by taking the contract if you wanted the unlimited DVR and the box. And if you could get a discount in the 2nd year as you've done, then you came out much better to go that route than the new no-contract option.


----------



## b4pjoe

Yeah it appears the contract option is no longer available and neither is the one free box.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> Yeah it appears the contract option is no longer available and neither is the one free box.


Perhaps part of the reason that they no longer offer the contract option is that their supply of the existing model box is dwindling low, so they are only selling it now, not giving any out for free. I honestly wonder how many folks are opting to buy them new at $120 each up-front (or $5/mo spread out over 24 months). Not that many, I would guess, since AT&T TV doesn't seem to be doing a lot to educate potential customers on the benefits of using the box versus the app. I haven't seen much marketing for AT&T TV other than some online banner ads which lately don't even display or mention the box.

Maybe once they debut the 2nd-gen version of the box, they'll offer some way to get it for free (e.g. prepay the first 3 months). I would think it's in their interests to maximize the number of subscribers who are using their own box versus the app on third-party devices.

Another consequence of AT&T TV dropping the contract option is that the Xtra package is apparently no longer available to new subs on the service. It was never offered with the no-contract option. The only way to get Xtra now is if you sign up for DirecTV satellite, but they don't advertise Xtra nor does it qualify for the big first-year discount. I imagine it will be completely grandfathered before long.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> Perhaps part of the reason that they no longer offer the contract option is that their supply of the existing model box is dwindling low, so they are only selling it now, not giving any out for free.


It almost seems likely that the delivery of the second generation platform has been delayed by the chip shortages. I'd guess that they thought they would have them in hand by now.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> It almost seems likely that the delivery of the second generation platform has been delayed by the chip shortages. I'd guess that they thought they would have them in hand by now.


Ah, good point, hadn't thought of that. No idea whether they've already had a bunch of those boxes manufactured and sitting in a warehouse in Asia or not. If not, then the chip shortage might well delay the rollout. When Humax announced the debut of their H7 platform at the end of last July, they mentioned that they had a deal in place to "develop a next-generation solution for a major telecommunications operator in North America," which, of course, is AT&T. And we know that the next-gen AT&T TV box, based on the H7 platform, recently passed through the WiFi Alliance for certification. So perhaps a substantial number have already been manufactured and stockpiled. Although maybe not either.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> And we know that the next-gen AT&T TV box, based on the H7 platform, recently passed through the WiFi Alliance for certification.


Of course the box also must go through the process with the FCC but they could using sampling quantities of the scarce components for that.


----------



## mjwagner

Or maybe they will just finally give up on a provider specific box and save the cost and hassle of having to develop, manufacturer, deliver, and support a piece of hardware (and yes even if much of that is just contracted out). Focus on delivering a great app on all the major platforms. Sure folks that just insist on wanting channel numbers will moan and complain. Channel numbers have been disappearing as a paradigm for years, we can argue whether that is good or bad but it is what it is. Create a customizable guide so you can move your most used channels to the top and much (of course not all) of the issue disappears (YTTV already has this). Will they loose some possible subscribers because of no channel numbers, sure. Will they gain some subscribers who currently would not even consider their service when they have the best user experience with all capabilities without the need for a provider specific box, IMO yes.


----------



## harsh

mjwagner said:


> Or maybe they will just finally give up on a provider specific box and save the cost and hassle of having to develop, manufacturer, deliver, and support a piece of hardware (and yes even if much of that is just contracted out). Focus on delivering a great app on all the major platforms.


Apple built their eco-system on not having to suffer third party anything. I'm not on board with your argument.

If they can't deliver a "great app" on their static hardware platform, what makes you think it will be any easier on anyone else's moving target platform?


----------



## mjwagner

harsh said:


> Apple built their eco-system on not having to suffer third party anything. I'm not on board with your argument.
> 
> If they can't deliver a "great app" on their static hardware platform, what makes you think it will be any easier on anyone else's moving target platform?


APPLETV+ has the same UX on the major streaming devices. And yes, I'm not convinced that AT&T and/or the new owners/partners will be any more successful creating a great app on other platforms either. The real question, IMO, is whether having a provider specific platform, and having the best UX only on that platform, is a strategic benefit or liability. And if you believe it is a strategic benefit does that benefit outweigh the baggage that comes along with having your own HW platform. Clearly the "geniuses" at AT&T that made that decision think it does. I'm not convinced, but that's JMHO.


----------



## NashGuy

mjwagner said:


> Or maybe they will just finally give up on a provider specific box and save the cost and hassle of having to develop, manufacturer, deliver, and support a piece of hardware (and yes even if much of that is just contracted out). Focus on delivering a great app on all the major platforms. Sure folks that just insist on wanting channel numbers will moan and complain. Channel numbers have been disappearing as a paradigm for years, we can argue whether that is good or bad but it is what it is. Create a customizable guide so you can move your most used channels to the top and much (of course not all) of the issue disappears (YTTV already has this). Will they loose some possible subscribers because of no channel numbers, sure. Will they gain some subscribers who currently would not even consider their service when they have the best user experience with all capabilities without the need for a provider specific box, IMO yes.


You think like a cord-cutter who has intentionally left traditional cable TV for an vMVPD, i.e. streaming cable TV service like YTTV. But those folks aren't the target market for AT&T TV. There are WAY more US households (tens of millions) who use a traditional cable/satellite/managed IPTV service that comes with its own dedicated box and custom remote than there are households that subscribe to a vMVPD (a few million, many of which come and go throughout the year).

The intention for AT&T TV has always been that it serve as the next-gen replacement for DirecTV and Uverse TV as a full-fledged cable TV service that happens to use any internet connection as its delivery mechanism. (Using OTT internet delivery is the only way to give AT&T TV a national footprint like DirecTV has.) It's fine for AT&T TV to allow cord-cutter types who insist on using their own hardware the freedom to do so but IMO they would very much be hurting themselves by not offering the service through their own box with a remote control specifically designed for their service (which can also accommodate popular third-party apps). You're never going to see Comcast give up on their X1 platform. They understand that it's a huge part of what draws and keeps folks on their cable TV service. AT&T is following the same playbook. They simply need a better box (more powerful hardware) and some tweaks to their software/UI/feature set.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> Of course the box also must go through the process with the FCC but they could using sampling quantities of the scarce components for that.


That's true. Although my understanding is that FCC submission often does not happen for retail devices until shortly before the device hits the market. So at least sometimes, I do think that a substantial number of units of a new product have already been manufactured by the time it goes to the FCC.


----------



## mjwagner

NashGuy said:


> You think like a cord-cutter who has intentionally left traditional cable TV for an vMVPD, i.e. streaming cable TV service like YTTV. But those folks aren't the target market for AT&T TV. There are WAY more US households (tens of millions) who use a traditional cable/satellite/managed IPTV service that comes with its own dedicated box and custom remote than there are households that subscribe to a vMVPD (a few million, many of which come and go throughout the year).
> 
> The intention for AT&T TV has always been that it serve as the next-gen replacement for DirecTV and Uverse TV as a full-fledged cable TV service that happens to use any internet connection as its delivery mechanism. (Using OTT internet delivery is the only way to give AT&T TV a national footprint like DirecTV has.) It's fine for AT&T TV to allow cord-cutter types who insist on using their own hardware the freedom to do so but IMO they would very much be hurting themselves by not offering the service through their own box with a remote control specifically designed for their service (which can also accommodate popular third-party apps). You're never going to see Comcast give up on their X1 platform. They understand that it's a huge part of what draws and keeps folks on their cable TV service. AT&T is following the same playbook. They simply need a better box (more powerful hardware) and some tweaks to their software/UI/feature set.


In some ways I do agree. And I have said many times that the AT&T TV service has to be viewed in the context of the target audience. That said, traditional cable/sat has been bleeding subscribers for years so I'm not sure just reproducing the existing cable/sat experience is where the future lies. One step I think they do need to take though if they really want to be competitive going forward is to make the UX on the non-dedicated platforms better than it is now, apart from the channel number issue obviously. There are simply way too ,any folks who simply won't give AT&T TV a second look as long as you need a provider specific box to get the best UX...and that is the population that is growing while the other population is shrinking.


----------



## NashGuy

mjwagner said:


> In some ways I do agree. And I have said many times that the AT&T TV service has to be viewed in the context of the target audience. That said, traditional cable/sat has been bleeding subscribers for years so I'm not sure just reproducing the existing cable/sat experience is where the future lies. One step I think they do need to take though if they really want to be competitive going forward is to make the UX on the non-dedicated platforms better than it is now, apart from the channel number issue obviously. There are simply way too ,any folks who simply won't give AT&T TV a second look as long as you need a provider specific box to get the best UX...and that is the population that is growing while the other population is shrinking.


Well, I would agree that AT&T TV should try to serve both types of consumers, the "traditionals" who want to use a dedicated box and remote, as well as the "cord-cutters" who shun cable boxes and contracts. And I think that's always been the plan. But they certainly shouldn't cater _exclusively_ to the smaller cord-cutter group, even if it is growing. They do seem to be shifting more towards the preferences of the cord-cutter group now that they exclusively offer no-contract everyday pricing on the service. (For traditional types who like to pick a full-featured service and stick with it a long while, they'll now pay more over their first two years under the no-contract system than they would have under the old contract system.)

It would be great if they could make the AT&T TV app work just as well on every streaming device as it does on their own box. Obviously, that would be the ideal situation for consumers. But I don't know if that's realistic. I agree that they definitely shouldn't try to handicap their app, to intentionally make it inferior to their own box, although I don't know that that's what they're dong. It may just be that they don't have sufficient developer resources available to ensure that all the apps all work as well as they could. Frankly, it's a LOT to keep up with, considering all of the different models and OS versions within the Roku, Fire TV and Apple TV platforms, not to mention iOS and Android mobile as well. But if little Fubo TV can figure out a way to let users on all that platforms pause and trick play live TV, you'd think AT&T TV could too. But then you'd also think AT&T TV would have the bugs squashed with their cloud DVR by now too. I don't know what the internal issues are at AT&T TV that have made it take SO long to develop and gradually improve the service. Perhaps the situation will improve with more focused management under New DirecTV.

I'll say this, AT&T TV seems to be much more cord-cutter-friendly than Comcast Xfinity TV, whose Stream app is significantly inferior to their X1 boxes. And their app still isn't available for Apple TV or Android TV yet.


----------



## harsh

mjwagner said:


> APPLETV+ has the same UX on the major streaming devices.


Apple is pretty hard-nosed about their uniformity and that's why I used them as an example. AT&T should have taken more cues from Apple and the other players.


> The real question, IMO, is whether having a provider specific platform, and having the best UX only on that platform, is a strategic benefit or liability.


I'm fairly well convinced that having an efficient, appealing and _uniform_ UX design is fundamental to a good user happiness. That it must be able to translate to other hardware platforms without too much fuss is an imperative given the variety of platforms out there.

I'm just glad that DIRECTV didn't choose RVU for their streaming platform.


----------



## raott

raott said:


> I'm having issues with the AT&T box remote not turning on the TV. This is occurring on only one of the TVs and happened suddenly and without me doing anything. The settings are the same as the TV that is working (both Vizio's but different models).
> 
> The volume and all other buttons like changing input, still all work fine, it's just the power button will not turn the TV on or off at the same time that I turn the AT&T box on and off. (My Apple TV is working as it should).
> 
> Anyone having similar issues?


For anyone else having a similar issue, I solved mine. The TV somehow got set to "eco" mode rather than "quick start". May have happened during an update, or I may have turned it to eco by accident, but after switching it back to "quick start", the AT&T remote is now acting as normal and turning on the TV.


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> Apple built their eco-system on not having to suffer third party anything. I'm not on board with your argument.
> 
> If they can't deliver a "great app" on their static hardware platform, what makes you think it will be any easier on anyone else's moving target platform?


While I wouldn't call YouTubeTV's app 'great' or even very good, it is very consistent across platforms, so making a one size fits all app isn't completely out of the question.


----------



## Davenlr

lparsons21 said:


> While I wouldn't call YouTubeTV's app 'great' or even very good, it is very consistent across platforms, so making a one size fits all app isn't completely out of the question.


Yea, their method of FF is so 1980's. I much preferred ATT TV's method (and the resolution of the preview window).


----------



## raott

This may be old news, but I noticed last week that I'm starting to get a few local ads during commercial breaks rather than national only. They are few and far between but I don't recall seeing that previously.


----------



## harsh

raott said:


> This may be old news, but I noticed last week that I'm starting to get a few local ads during commercial breaks rather than national only. They are few and far between but I don't recall seeing that previously.


DIRECTV started inserting local ads on select national channels almost ten years ago.

Directv can insert local commercials into national channels

As I recall, this was part of a joint campaign with DISH to attract local advertisers.


----------



## raott

harsh said:


> DIRECTV started inserting local ads on select national channels almost ten years ago.
> 
> Directv can insert local commercials into national channels
> 
> As I recall, this was part of a joint campaign with DISH to attract local advertisers.


I know Directv has done it forever, this was on the AT&T TV platform. I've not seen it before last week.


----------



## compnurd

raott said:


> I know Directv has done it forever, this was on the AT&T TV platform. I've not seen it before last week.


Yeh he has no clue.... We are in a ATT TV Thread and he is bringing up Directv

I noticed it a few weeks ago also on some channels


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Perhaps part of the reason that they no longer offer the contract option is that their supply of the existing model box is dwindling low, so they are only selling it now, not giving any out for free. I honestly wonder how many folks are opting to buy them new at $120 each up-front (or $5/mo spread out over 24 months). Not that many, I would guess, since AT&T TV doesn't seem to be doing a lot to educate potential customers on the benefits of using the box versus the app. I haven't seen much marketing for AT&T TV other than some online banner ads which lately don't even display or mention the box.
> 
> Maybe once they debut the 2nd-gen version of the box, they'll offer some way to get it for free (e.g. prepay the first 3 months). I would think it's in their interests to maximize the number of subscribers who are using their own box versus the app on third-party devices.
> 
> Another consequence of AT&T TV dropping the contract option is that the Xtra package is apparently no longer available to new subs on the service. It was never offered with the no-contract option. The only way to get Xtra now is if you sign up for DirecTV satellite, but they don't advertise Xtra nor does it qualify for the big first-year discount. I imagine it will be completely grandfathered before long.


I get the feeling that with the "new" management/ownership, they are in the process of revamping everything (AGAIN!). Maybe align AT&T TV and DirecTV more closely (both in packages and content). I also wonder if they are planning to come up with a box that can do streaming AND DirecTV. I just get the feeling (due to lack of any real advertising of either service) that something is amiss. I bet something big happens before the NFL season starts.


----------



## Steveknj

mjwagner said:


> Or maybe they will just finally give up on a provider specific box and save the cost and hassle of having to develop, manufacturer, deliver, and support a piece of hardware (and yes even if much of that is just contracted out). Focus on delivering a great app on all the major platforms. Sure folks that just insist on wanting channel numbers will moan and complain. Channel numbers have been disappearing as a paradigm for years, we can argue whether that is good or bad but it is what it is. Create a customizable guide so you can move your most used channels to the top and much (of course not all) of the issue disappears (YTTV already has this). Will they loose some possible subscribers because of no channel numbers, sure. Will they gain some subscribers who currently would not even consider their service when they have the best user experience with all capabilities without the need for a provider specific box, IMO yes.


Admittedly, I'm old school, having grown up during the era when there were just a handful of OTA channels, but the advantage of channel numbers, with a remote that has a num-pad is direct tuning. If I want to go to MSG Network, I type in 634 rather than pull up a guide and scroll until I get the the "M" channels. If I want to go from there to TBS, simple, type in 247.

I'm sure I could get used to no channel numbers, but I much prefer them simply for this reason. And I HATE using voice commands for this type of thing, which is always hit or miss. Channel numbers are the simplest solution.

And with all of this said, remotes are getting simpler, with less buttons, so there's little room for "smart" buttons which I can set up for common channels I want to use, or, are device specific and will not work within an app. For example, Roku has those few smart buttons for Netflix, Hulu, etc. but those buttons are useless within any of those apps. Smart Remotes like the soon to be defunct Harmonys, can do some of that, but not consistently enough for my liking.

I think a good, well performing hardware box works about as well as possible. But at $120 is just too expensive.


----------



## Steveknj

mjwagner said:


> In some ways I do agree. And I have said many times that the AT&T TV service has to be viewed in the context of the target audience. That said, traditional cable/sat has been bleeding subscribers for years so I'm not sure just reproducing the existing cable/sat experience is where the future lies. One step I think they do need to take though if they really want to be competitive going forward is to make the UX on the non-dedicated platforms better than it is now, apart from the channel number issue obviously. There are simply way too ,any folks who simply won't give AT&T TV a second look as long as you need a provider specific box to get the best UX...and that is the population that is growing while the other population is shrinking.


You have to look at the reasons WHY they are bleeding subs. It's not content related, that's where you get the most. It's not the user experience, it's generally the most robust. Why are they leaving? The NUMBER ONE reason they leave is price. It's just too darn expensive for many people, especially if you have multiple viewers in your house and now have to get additional equipment that cost you. And people are annoyed with contracts and frequent price increases (though OTT systems are catching up here). The number TWO reason is Customer Service, which generally is horrible with these companies and you usually require MORE CS with cable/sat than you would with a streamer, simply because there is hardware involved.

So if they can come up with a solution that costs less or the same, I bet that stems the tide. Why would I leave DirecTV for example if it costs about what YTTV does? My personal experience is that for almost the same content, I was able to save a decent amount of money moving to AT&T TV. Gained a few channels, lost a few channels, but got most of what I had before. I bet DirecTV now is doing some soul searching now on how to fix this, now that they have dedicated management as opposed to being under the thumb of management who seen it as an albatross for most of the last few years and before that just one small spoke on a huge wheel.


----------



## Steveknj

raott said:


> I know Directv has done it forever, this was on the AT&T TV platform. I've not seen it before last week.


I haven't seen it here yet. I kind of welcome it. Watching sporting events, I'm tired of the same commercials during every break (it's the only place I see commercials anyway, watching Live Sports)


----------



## harsh

raott said:


> I know Directv has done it forever, this was on the AT&T TV platform. I've not seen it before last week.


It was only a matter of time.


----------



## James Long

Steveknj said:


> Admittedly, I'm old school, having grown up during the era when there were just a handful of OTA channels, but the advantage of channel numbers, with a remote that has a num-pad is direct tuning. If I want to go to MSG Network, I type in 634 rather than pull up a guide and scroll until I get the the "M" channels. If I want to go from there to TBS, simple, type in 247.
> 
> I'm sure I could get used to no channel numbers, but I much prefer them simply for this reason. And I HATE using voice commands for this type of thing, which is always hit or miss. Channel numbers are the simplest solution.


Voice commands would be the newest school. Press a button on the remote and talk or go through Google Assistant or Alexa for hands free. But I agree that there are issues. Occasionally I'll get a search engine Wikipedia result telling me what the channel or program is instead of actually tuning to the channel. Learning the syntax and elloquting the words can be a challenge. And late at night my voice can wake up my wife while the voices on TV don't wake her. "Old school" is quieter.

The next school will be teaching devices to mind read. But that will be problematic as well.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> It was only a matter of time.


The time has come - and it is fair for it to be mentioned by someone observing the feature on their system.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> I get the feeling that with the "new" management/ownership, they are in the process of revamping everything (AGAIN!). Maybe align AT&T TV and DirecTV more closely (both in packages and content). I also wonder if they are planning to come up with a box that can do streaming AND DirecTV. I just get the feeling (due to lack of any real advertising of either service) that something is amiss. I bet something big happens before the NFL season starts.


I would expect nothing prior to the NFL Season.. Directvs contract with the NFL still has 2 years left. The deal also may not even be closed by then.. They have different contracts between streaming and Directv.. Until all contracts are re-done to allow channels on both there will always be a gap


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> I would expect nothing prior to the NFL Season.. Directvs contract with the NFL still has 2 years left. The deal also may not even be closed by then.. They have different contracts between streaming and Directv.. Until all contracts are re-done to allow channels on both there will always be a gap


Don't disagree. What I'm thinking is that even if they don't completely combine, they are going to "introduce" the New DirecTV. I'm actually going to guess they will rebrand AT&T TV to DirecTV Streaming or something like that, and align the two products wherever they can.


----------



## b4pjoe

Steveknj said:


> Don't disagree. What I'm thinking is that even if they don't completely combine, they are going to "introduce" the New DirecTV. *I'm actually going to guess they will rebrand AT&T TV to DirecTV Streaming or something like that*, and align the two products wherever they can.


Or maybe it comes full circle back to DIRECTV NOW.


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> Or maybe it comes full circle back to DIRECTV NOW.


The irony is not lost on me!! I think they want to make the link with DirecTV somehow which is probably a more "trusted" brand than AT&T. But I think they need to be clearer as to what it is. DirecTV over the Internet!


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> They have different contracts between streaming and Directv.


Are you sure about that? If you visit the NFL "student" link, it forwards you directly to the AT&T website. I'm pretty sure AT&T has dominion over the NFLST product whether streamed or via DBS and probably under a single contract.


----------



## compnurd

harsh said:


> Are you sure about that? If you visit the NFL "student" link, it forwards you directly to the AT&T website. I'm pretty sure AT&T has dominion over the NFLST product whether streamed or via DBS and probably under a single contract.


Yup And if you paid attention to about 10% of the threads you post crap in you would know they are separate.. The ATT TV Contract is connected to Uverse.. Directv tried last year to negotiate with the NFL to have sunday ticket streaming to everyone and re-do NFL Network for Uverse and ATT TV however the NFL wanted to wait until the Directv Contract is up


----------



## harsh

I was speaking only of the NFLST through today's DIRECTV versus NFLST streaming (also through DIRECTV).


----------



## Davenlr

They finally cut off my ATT TV, and in case anyone is curious, the Osprey box comes up now with a start screen that says "Your ATT Subscription has expired" with an option to hit "Apps" or "Settings". Hit apps, and load YouTubeTV or any android tv app. Works perfectly.


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> They finally cut off my ATT TV, and in case anyone is curious, the Osprey box comes up now with a start screen that says "Your ATT Subscription has expired" with an option to hit "Apps" or "Settings". Hit apps, and load YouTubeTV or any android tv app. Works perfectly.


Does that happen every time you start the box? Or after seeing that once, it now defaults to apps screen?


----------



## Davenlr

It happens every time I turn the box on. I havent actually rebooted it tho.


----------



## Steveknj

Anyone hear of any new channels being added? I'm always curious, especially since the NY demo is still looking to have PBS and WPIX (our local CW) added. I'd love having the NFL Network added too.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> Anyone hear of any new channels being added? I'm always curious, especially since the NY demo is still looking to have PBS and WPIX (our local CW) added. I'd love having the NFL Network added too.


Your 2 years out on NFL Network... otherwise i havent see anything... Google helped PBS get setup for streaming so there may be an exclusive deal there for a little bit


----------



## lparsons21

Well, I’m back with a new plan for streaming. Currently on YouTubeTV @$65/month. But I get all the broadcast channels via antenna with an OTA DVR, and I’m recording a sum total of 3 scripted shows on cable channels. Queen of the South, Mayans and Van Helsing. Van Helsing I tend to collect a few episodes and binge watch and I could do that with Netflix but a bit delayed, which is the long way of saying it is far from ‘must see’ TV! Additionally I record some boxing and golf.

But I also have about $50/month in on demand services that cover almost all of that. Hulu, AMC+, Paramount+, Peacock, Netflix and Amazon Prime. Prime is valued at zero since I’ve had it before I ever even looked at the video offerings.

So I’m giving strong consideration to saving myself the $65/month and dropping YTTV at the end of the month when the sub expires. I can get some golf from broadcast on the weekends but will lose pretty much all boxing unless I pick up DAZN @$10/month if I prepay a year.

Other than boxing and golf, the only real downside is that it wouldn’t be as convenient as having a live streamer. The upside is the picture will be better in most instances and the audio will mostly be DD5.1 or better.

Since I already sub to those on demand services, I’ve started watching everything I can on them instead of with the live streamer to see if it will satisfy me.


----------



## Don Marsh

Recently signed up for ATT TV. They sent me a streaming box Model Number- C71KW-400. That model number appears to be the same model as used for ATT TV NOW. My question: Is it compatible with ATT TV NOW streaming box? If so, I assume I can just buy one from ebay or amazon for less $$. Is that correct?


----------



## b4pjoe

AT&T TV NOW no longer exists. It is all just AT&T TV these days. If you are grandfathered in with AT&T TV NOW it may still say that but it is all AT&T TV at this time.


----------



## Davenlr

Don Marsh said:


> Recently signed up for ATT TV. They sent me a streaming box Model Number- C71KW-400. That model number appears to be the same model as used for ATT TV NOW. My question: Is it compatible with ATT TV NOW streaming box? If so, I assume I can just buy one from ebay or amazon for less $$. Is that correct?


Yes, the only issue with the boxes on Ebay, is in most of them, you need to do an automated hard reset/install from scratch of the OS and the ATT TV app, which takes about 1 hour when you get the box from ebay. Its the same box, but if it still has the beta software on it, the DVR wont always work right.


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> Yes, the only issue with the boxes on Ebay, is in most of them, you need to do an automated hard reset/install from scratch of the OS and the ATT TV app, which takes about 1 hour when you get the box from ebay. Its the same box, but if it still has the beta software on it, the DVR wont always work right.


Mine came "post-reset" so when I booted it up it went through the wizard to create the account and whatever. I bought it on ebay from a suggested reseller posted on here. Actually got 2 of them now. The box is quirky, reboots every so often for no apparent reason and other weird stuff, but it still mostly works. I'm hoping that when (if?) the new box comes out that it rectifies some of these issues.


----------



## Davenlr

Steveknj said:


> Mine came "post-reset" so when I booted it up it went through the wizard to create the account and whatever. I bought it on ebay from a suggested reseller posted on here. Actually got 2 of them now. The box is quirky, reboots every so often for no apparent reason and other weird stuff, but it still mostly works. I'm hoping that when (if?) the new box comes out that it rectifies some of these issues.


If it tells you its going to reboot (vs just locking up and restarting) that is the reason you need to do the full factory reset. The beta software rebooted the box once a day.


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> If it tells you its going to reboot (vs just locking up and restarting) that is the reason you need to do the full factory reset. The beta software rebooted the box once a day.


Oh really? That's good to know. Mine just seems to lock up at various time. Doesn't sound like the scenario that requires the factory reset, correct?


----------



## Davenlr

No. The beta will say "Powering Off" with a spinning circle, and then reboot. If you are having issues with the box though, and never did the reset, it might cure the issue.
Just hit reset, wait until the ATT globe appears, hit reset again, and so on 10 times. After the 10th time, it will reinstall the Android software, and all the default apps, and the ATT TV app. Takes about an hour. Then everything is fresh.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> Oh really? That's good to know. Mine just seems to lock up at various time. Doesn't sound like the scenario that requires the factory reset, correct?


Yeh I have 6 boxes and never have to reset them nor do they reset... Except for when they update


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> No. The beta will say "Powering Off" with a spinning circle, and then reboot. If you are having issues with the box though, and never did the reset, it might cure the issue.
> Just hit reset, wait until the ATT globe appears, hit reset again, and so on 10 times. After the 10th time, it will reinstall the Android software, and all the default apps, and the ATT TV app. Takes about an hour. Then everything is fresh.


Sounds like a good project for the weekend!


----------



## Steveknj

Is there a "movie extra pack" on AT&T TV? During pauses, AT&T has inserted ads for that package, but I believe that's a DirecTV package (the one with MGM, Sony, HDNET Movies, etc.). If that's the case, that's REALLY weird!


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> Is there a "movie extra pack" on AT&T TV? During pauses, AT&T has inserted ads for that package, but I believe that's a DirecTV package (the one with MGM, Sony, HDNET Movies, etc.). If that's the case, that's REALLY weird!


I feel like I've seen a reference to that package on AT&T TV somewhere. Given that AT&T TV uses the same base channel packages as DirecTV, it makes sense that it would also offer the same add-on packs. (Of course, just because something makes sense doesn't mean that AT&T is actually doing it!)

Anyhow, if it's an option, I'd think you would be able to log into your AT&T TV account and see it as an upgrade option. Maybe in the same place where you'd go to add premiums?


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> Is there a "movie extra pack" on AT&T TV? During pauses, AT&T has inserted ads for that package, but I believe that's a DirecTV package (the one with MGM, Sony, HDNET Movies, etc.). If that's the case, that's REALLY weird!


Yes there is

last page. It's 5 a month I think 
https://www.att.com/idpassets/pdfs/channel_lineups/ATTTV-EDSP-ChannelPackageLineUp.pdf


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> Yes there is
> 
> last page. It's 5 a month I think
> https://www.att.com/idpassets/pdfs/channel_lineups/ATTTV-EDSP-ChannelPackageLineUp.pdf


Thanks. What's interesting it I do get at least Smithsonian on my current package. There are a couple of channels I have enjoyed in the past that I wouldn't mind having. Just need to decide if I want to add them or not.


----------



## NashGuy

Just checked pricing again for DirecTV vs. AT&T TV vs. Comcast.

New subscribers to DTV's Choice package (which is the cheapest one with RSNs), with the "All Included" option that includes one HD DVR rental, will pay $70/mo plus the $10/mo RSN fee (so $80/mo) in the first year but then it jumps to a regular price of $132/mo ($122 + $10) thereafter. (DTV's regular pricing is just not competitive, which is why so many customers are bailing and/or getting loyalty discounts to stay.) And of course they require a 2-yr contract. Prices are $5/mo higher if you don't do autopay. With autopay, you're paying an average of $106/mo (plus government taxes and fees) over the course of your first 24 months. Although you do get free HBO Max and free NFL Sunday Ticket the first year and it looks like they're now offering a $50 Visa gift card for new online sign-ups. Spread out the value of the $50 gift card over the 24 months and you're down to an average monthly cost of about *$104/mo*.

Choice package on AT&T TV, without a contract, costs $85/mo flat (no additional RSN fee) but you pay another $10/mo for cloud DVR with unlimited storage and tuners (but with only 90-day retention). And if you want to buy one of their custom streaming boxes for the best user experience, that's another $5/mo for 24 months (or a single $120 up-front payment). So that comes out to *$100/mo* over the first 24 months (plus government taxes and fees), although you can cancel anytime and only be on the hook for the balance due on the streaming box (which is yours to keep or resell). They also throw in a free year of HBO Max but NFL Sunday Ticket (along with NFL Network and local PBS) isn't available on AT&T TV at all. Alternatively, if you took AT&T TV's optional 2-yr contract, you'd get all the above for an average monthly price of about *$96/mo* (plus taxes) during the first 24 months. But there's no gift card offered right now. So you save a measly $4/mo in exchange for making a 2-yr commitment.

AT&T TV's savings versus DirecTV is a little better, at $8/mo, but that amount may not be worth it if you're a big NFL fan (or regularly hold onto DVR recordings longer than 90 days) or care about DTV's live 4K HDR sports, which AT&T TV still lacks. You do save a lot on AT&T TV versus DirecTV when you compare their post-contract regular prices (Choice at $95 vs. $132) but for new sign-ups just looking at what they'll pay during the first two years (and who considers beyond that?), AT&T TV isn't all that much cheaper, despite the fact that its new customer acquisition/installation costs are WAY less than DirecTV's. This tells me that AT&T TV is being overly greedy and probably has a higher profit margin than DirecTV, at least during the first couple years. Because a Choice package customer will only pay $100 to $200 more in that period for DirecTV than AT&T TV (depending on whether they take the AT&T TV contract or not) but the cost of DirecTV equipment and pro installation alone has to be more than $200, never mind the cost of also throwing in a free season of NFL Sunday Ticket plus a few additional channels not available (yet, anyway) on AT&T TV.

Compare all that to Comcast, which is the nation's largest cable TV operator and the most common competitor in AT&T's wired network footprint. Around here, based on the regular, non-promo, non-contract Comcast pricing, adding their Extra cable TV package (which includes RSNs and is similar to DTV/AT&T TV's Choice) to their standalone broadband service increases your bill by *$91.40/mo*. That includes one X1 box rental (either HD or 4K HDR) plus DVR service (150 hrs. storage). All other Comcast-imposed fees (e.g. broadcast TV, RSN) are included in the $91.50 figure (but government taxes are not). Looks like a new customer signing up with Comcast right now and taking a 1-yr contract would pay a little less, *$86.40/mo* more to include Extra TV versus just getting standalone broadband. If you wanted Comcast's Extra TV package (as configured above) but as a standalone service (no internet), you'd pay a regular price of $101.40/mo from the start after the regular $10/mo autopay discount (with no contract or other discounts). But that figure is pretty pointless because you can't get AT&T TV without broadband and my guess is hardly anyone on DirecTV satellite foregoes broadband service if it's available where they live.

The upshot of all of this, to me, is that AT&T TV needs to cut their base prices by $5-10/mo. to be more competitive with Comcast for customers who want RSNs. (AT&T TV does give you a free year of HBO Max, valued at $15/mo, while Comcast only offers free Peacock Premium, valued at $5/mo.) For those who don't care about RSNs, well, cutting the price of the starter Entertainment tier (which does not offer a free year of HBO Max) from $70/mo down to $60 or $65 would put it on a better footing versus YouTube TV and Fubo TV, which both cost $65 and come with lots of DVR storage (which is an extra $10/mo on AT&T TV).


----------



## Davenlr

Interesting. One thing you might want to add is, Comcast TV is maxed out at 720p and bit starved. ATT TV, YouTubeTV, and Fubo are all 1080p when the source is, and the bandwidth is much higher. I pay $49 for fiber gig internet from ATT, and $59.45 including taxes for the YouTubeTV+T-mobile deal, for a grand total of 108.45. I do have all locals, but no RSN's. T-mobile gives free MLB-TV, so that is another $120 value if you are a baseball fan and dont have a "home team" that is blacked out.
Also, if you are a subscriber to any of these services, you can use a Roku or FireTV stick to get those DirecTv 4K channels from the Fox Sports on the standalone Fox Sports app.


----------



## compnurd

Don’t forget about equipment rental fees that ATT does not have


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> Interesting. One thing you might want to add is, Comcast TV is maxed out at 720p and bit starved. ATT TV, YouTubeTV, and Fubo are all 1080p when the source is, and the bandwidth is much higher.


True. Although I see superior picture quality as a sort of "icing on the cake" bonus that most consumers won't know about or consider. I do think that in many ways AT&T TV is superior to Comcast cable TV but at the end of the day, most folks will compare them based mainly on price. And with AT&T TV being the new service trying to gain traction, they need to be better than the competition while also being priced about the same.

If they could just add those missing PBS and CW locals, cut the everyday no-contract prices on all their packages by $10/mo (so Entertainment at $60, Choice at $75, etc.), and roll out the faster 2nd-gen box, I think AT&T TV would get a lot more consideration. Right now, it's in a weird place where it probably mainly appeals to AT&T Fiber/Internet customers who want a high-quality traditional cable TV experience with dedicated box and remote. Big sports fans who want great PQ will opt to pay a little more and sign up with DTV and get NFL ST, NFL Network, and 4K live sports. Those with cable internet who want a full channel package and dedicated box will likely just take that company's in-house cable TV package with RSNs and pay a bit less than AT&T TV Choice (and not have to worry about exceeding a broadband data cap they may have by streaming all their TV). Those with cable internet who are savvy about their options, in terms of price and picture quality, but don't care about RSNs, will likely go with YouTube TV, Fubo TV, Hulu Live or maybe just Philo.

It seems to me that AT&T TV gets a bit lost in the middle of the pack.



compnurd said:


> Don't forget about equipment rental fees that ATT does not have


To try and make equal comparisons, I included one TV box from each service. On AT&T TV, I added a $5/mo charge for the first 24 months to pay for it under the no-contract model. (AT&T TV lets you spread out the $120 cost that way if your credit qualifies.) Although I'm sure there are many folks who sign up for AT&T TV and don't want or care about their box, so they save that $5/mo charge. And the more TVs you have, the more you're saving on box rental fees versus going with DirecTV or cable TV. Although Comcast and some other cable TV providers do allow you to avoid their box rental fees by using a free app on your own streaming box. Anyhow, everyone's situation will be different and I simply went with a single-TV scenario and assumed you'd want a dedicated TV box and remote designed for use with that service.


----------



## b4pjoe

Can you even get AT&T TV with a contract these days? I don't see anything on their site that says anything about contract vs non contract.


----------



## Davenlr

I liked ATT TV, especially with the Osprey box, but my server would fail me every night trying to watch my DVRed shows.
Now that I have YouTubeTV, I would never go back. Their method of FF is weird (hit the button in 15 sec jumps, or hold it down for rapid FF, followed by play) vs ATTs just hitting FF and watching the window and hitting play when you get where you want, but I programmed my Harmony hub to send 7 FF's and 1 play command in a sequence on an unused button on my remote, and now I can basically skip and entire commercial break plus or minus a few seconds with one button press...so that solved my biggest complaint about YTTV.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> Prices are $5/mo higher if you don't do autopay.


Note that the paperless billing/AutoPay credits go the way of package discounts in the second year.


----------



## lparsons21

I liked ATT TV too and think it is overall the best of the live streamers, especially if using their box. Best PQ and audio offered. But alas, it just is too darned expensive for me to keep.

Gave YTTV and Sling a whirl, both were OK for most things but in the end, the lack of enough new, original and interesting shows just made me kick them mostly to the curb. I may keep bare Sling Blue going for awhile but I’m pretty much over to on demand services. 

Advantages are usually really good PQ, DD5.1 audio on most services and I get to pick which reruns I want during the day and plenty of original stuff for the evenings. Sports of most sorts isn’t quite dead to me, but it sure is scaled back. Having a good OTA DVR makes it pretty handy.

Having an outlay of $50 or less a month is sweet too! Beats having about $50 for on demand plus whatever for live!


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> I liked ATT TV, especially with the Osprey box, but my server would fail me every night trying to watch my DVRed shows.


Based on reports I read in various places, I think your experience was an outlier. Their cloud DVR is certainly still buggy for some folks but not typically to the degree you experienced. Especially weird that you had such problems while using AT&T Fiber as your ISP.


----------



## compnurd

I have yet to have literally any issue with the cloud dvr


----------



## Davenlr

NashGuy said:


> Based on reports I read in various places, I think your experience was an outlier. Their cloud DVR is certainly still buggy for some folks but not typically to the degree you experienced. Especially weird that you had such problems while using AT&T Fiber as your ISP.


Yea, that was what made it all the stranger. I can say, however, that I have had only two freeze ups of video on YouTubeTV in over a month, and they werent spinning circle buffering type, they were just freeze frame and sit there. Hit skip back and play, and it took right back off both times. Its possible it could be the internet, but nothing else had issues, and my computer was running the entire time, and it also never happened on live TV.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Based on reports I read in various places, I think your experience was an outlier. Their cloud DVR is certainly still buggy for some folks but not typically to the degree you experienced. Especially weird that you had such problems while using AT&T Fiber as your ISP.


I agree. I've had little trouble with their DVR, except for the well known issues (no padding, and obviously the DVR is tied to your internet connection). Also no "team" pass, where you can select a team and it just records that team (right now, it will record every game from that sport, not a big deal with unlimited DVR, but just a PITA to have to delete stuff all the time). But it works. And there is the option to either do a 15 second skip (which can be piggybacked with multiple button presses up to 300 seconds) or FF at various speeds). It's fine and in some cases a little better than even DirecTV.

Anyway, the savings for me, in a household where I have 5 TVs hooked up, was in the equipment rental. We bought two used Osprey boxes and the rest of the TVs just use the Roku or Firestick app, which is fine for those TVs. My biggest issue is as mentioned the two missing channels, PBS and our local CW. I figure those will come soon. We used to have an HR54, and two other HR2x and and 2 genie minis that we were paying for.

BTW, not sure if it's the same thing but I noticed on Pluto TV an NFL Network channel. Don't know if that's the same as what was on DirecTV but if it is, that solves the missing NFL Network problem. I haven't watched it at all yet.


----------



## swyman18

Steveknj said:


> BTW, not sure if it's the same thing but I noticed on Pluto TV an NFL Network channel. Don't know if that's the same as what was on DirecTV but if it is, that solves the missing NFL Network problem. I haven't watched it at all yet.


If you look closely, it's just called "NFL Channel". Not the real NFL Network channel.

They sure make it look good in the guide though to get people's hopes up!


----------



## Davenlr

Steveknj said:


> My biggest issue is as mentioned the two missing channels, PBS and our local CW.


If you are within 60 miles of their transmitter, you should be able to get them free with an antenna in the attic.


----------



## harsh

Davenlr said:


> If you are within 60 miles of their transmitter, you should be able to get them free with an antenna in the attic.


That's a pretty broad generalization. I'd place the reliable mileage much lower without knowing more specifics about the particular location -- especially with an attic antenna that typically takes a big hit right off the top depending on roofing materials in play.


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> If you are within 60 miles of their transmitter, you should be able to get them free with an antenna in the attic.


Which of course would be wonderful, assuming I had an antenna in the attic! I have no desire to put one up. I am getting it through Locast (via Channels app), so I have a work around. But there's nothing like an all in one solution. The reason I went with AT&T is that it was the cheapest way to give me almost all of what I need. Those two channels are the exception (and I found that workaround). But when (if?) AT&T give me PBS and CW, I'd have whatever I need. There's a few channels I miss from DirecTV, but not enough that it would be worth the extra money.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> Can you even get AT&T TV with a contract these days? I don't see anything on their site that says anything about contract vs non contract.


Interesting you should ask. As of yesterday, when I wrote up the price comparison above, yes, I was still able to get AT&T TV with a 2-yr contract in my att.com cart. The main product page for AT&T TV had been going back and forth the past few weeks as to whether it even mentioned the contract option. Yesterday it didn't, but it was still available in the system once I added a package to the cart.

As of today, depending on where I click on that page to add an AT&T TV package to my cart (and/or maybe based on what cookies are stored in my browser), I'm sometimes seeing the package added to the usual att.com cart (but without a 2-yr contract option shown) but sometimes I'm seeing the package instead added to a completely new-look shopping cart housed under a different domain, atttv.com.

My hunch is that, as of this very moment, they're in the process of completely separating out AT&T TV's ordering system from the rest of AT&T's services (e.g. wireless and internet). I haven't checked, but the same thing is probably happening with DirecTV if I had to guess. This makes sense given that the joint venture "New DirecTV" group will soon be taking control of all three of AT&T's cable TV services (including the no-longer-sold Uverse TV). It's possible that att.com may soon not even mention AT&T TV or DirecTV any more. It would certainly appear that atttv.com is set to become that service's website for all aspects of the service: shopping, ordering, account management and billing, customer support, and actually using the service via web browser.

So my guess is that the original 2-yr contract option is now completely dead, although who knows what sort of changes New DirecTV might implement going forward. I'd be surprised if it came back, but who knows. Maybe a shorter optional 1-yr contract will show up? But I doubt it. You'd think there would be some kind of bundling discount for customers who have AT&T TV plus another AT&T service (internet, in particular) but they haven't been offering that for awhile now. Seems even less likely going forward if ordering and billing are done in two completely different systems.

I've read that AT&T employees working in the DirecTV group are now seeing their email addresses change from @att.com to @directv.com. Perhaps the spin-off is imminent. It wouldn't surprise me if they rebrand AT&T TV to drop all references to AT&T in the product and its marketing. But change it to what? DirecTV Stream? DirectStream? I guess they could brand it simply "DirecTV," same as the satellite service, although I think that would just invite confusion among consumers if the two services have different prices, hardware, features, contract/no-contract, and channel availability. We'll see...


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Interesting you should ask. As of yesterday, when I wrote up the price comparison above, yes, I was still able to get AT&T TV with a 2-yr contract in my att.com cart. The main product page for AT&T TV had been going back and forth the past few weeks as to whether it even mentioned the contract option. Yesterday it didn't, but it was still available in the system once I added a package to the cart.
> 
> As of today, depending on where I click on that page to add an AT&T TV package to my cart (and/or maybe based on what cookies are stored in my browser), I'm sometimes seeing the package added to the usual att.com cart (but without a 2-yr contract option shown) but sometimes I'm seeing the package instead added to a completely new-look shopping cart housed under a different domain, atttv.com.
> 
> My hunch is that, as of this very moment, they're in the process of completely separating out AT&T TV's ordering system from the rest of AT&T's services (e.g. wireless and internet). I haven't checked, but the same thing is probably happening with DirecTV if I had to guess. This makes sense given that the joint venture "New DirecTV" group will soon be taking control of all three of AT&T's cable TV services (including the no-longer-sold Uverse TV). It's possible that att.com may soon not even mention AT&T TV or DirecTV any more. It would certainly appear that atttv.com is set to become that service's website for all aspects of the service: shopping, ordering, account management and billing, customer support, and actually using the service via web browser.
> 
> So my guess is that the original 2-yr contract option is now completely dead, although who knows what sort of changes New DirecTV might implement going forward. I'd be surprised if it came back, but who knows. Maybe a shorter optional 1-yr contract will show up? But I doubt it. You'd think there would be some kind of bundling discount for customers who have AT&T TV plus another AT&T service (internet, in particular) but they haven't been offering that for awhile now. Seems even less likely going forward if ordering and billing are done in two completely different systems.
> 
> I've read that AT&T employees working in the DirecTV group are now seeing their email addresses change from @att.com to @directv.com. Perhaps the spin-off is imminent. It wouldn't surprise me if they rebrand AT&T TV to drop all references to AT&T in the product and its marketing. But change it to what? DirecTV Stream? DirectStream? I guess they could brand it simply "DirecTV," same as the satellite service, although I think that would just invite confusion among consumers if the two services have different prices, hardware, features, contract/no-contract, and channel availability. We'll see...


I've been guessing for awhile now that AT&T TV will be rebranded under the DirecTV brand (and yeah, I know that's how it started out). I just think AT&T makes me think mobile service and DirecTV makes me think TV. I think part of their issue is branding. I don't know what the AT&T reputation is, but I always assumed it was bad and people wanted to stay away from that. I expect a tie in between the two services. I also expect a shared interface at some point as well. And (just pure speculation) I expect that the primary product will wind up streaming, and Satellite will be pushed to more rural areas (or anywhere where broadband is not available). I know that is not what Sat folks want to hear, but I'm pretty sure it's cheaper per subscriber to implement a streaming solution over a Sat one (which requires a home visit, cabling and definitely external boxes, which aren't a requirement for their streaming). But we'll see. That's just my gut feeling, considering that is what the landscape is telling us.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> I've been guessing for awhile now that AT&T TV will be rebranded under the DirecTV brand (and yeah, I know that's how it started out). I just think AT&T makes me think mobile service and DirecTV makes me think TV. I think part of their issue is branding. I don't know what the AT&T reputation is, but I always assumed it was bad and people wanted to stay away from that. I expect a tie in between the two services. I also expect a shared interface at some point as well. And (just pure speculation) I expect that the primary product will wind up streaming, and Satellite will be pushed to more rural areas (or anywhere where broadband is not available). I know that is not what Sat folks want to hear, but I'm pretty sure it's cheaper per subscriber to implement a streaming solution over a Sat one (which requires a home visit, cabling and definitely external boxes, which aren't a requirement for their streaming). But we'll see. That's just my gut feeling, considering that is what the landscape is telling us.


Oh, some of the top folks within AT&T have publicly stated in the past couple of years that the strategy would be to shift satellite sales to those areas, mainly rural, without broadband, while the cheaper-to-deploy streaming service becomes the main flagship cable TV service that would receive virtually all of the marketing. And the fact that TPG, the group that bought the 30% stake and will co-manage these services, insisted on AT&T TV being part of the deal, not just DirecTV satellite, tells me that they probably see things similarly.

As for a shared UI, that was originally the plan as divulged a few years ago by former AT&T CEO Stankey. The new-look UI that launched with version 2.0 of the DirecTV Now app would carry through to AT&T TV (which has happened) and then eventually to DTV satellite (which has not). But at this point I question if it ever will. Because I'm doubtful that DTV's aging Genie hardware could handle that UI (or, honestly, why they'd want to spend the money to backport it there). And it's a real question whether there will be any new generation of DTV set-top boxes going forward if the real emphasis will be to drive new subs to AT&T TV, or whatever they brand it to. My guess is that TPG wants to tidy up the satellite TV business and get it ready for a sale to DISH, or some third party that will buy and merge both, in a couple years or so.

It wouldn't surprise me if they do the following: rebrand AT&T TV to simply DirecTV. And take the new website set up under atttv.com and put it under the old directv.com domain. All of the marketing and advertising for DirecTV would be in reference to the streaming version, e.g. "DIRECTV, now with no contract, no rooftop dish, no bulky equipment. All the TV you love, live, recorded and on-demand, available to stream anywhere, in or out of home. Simple everyday pricing starting at $X per month with no hidden fees."

And perhaps there would be a small button on the main page at directv.com saying "Don't have broadband? Click here for our plans with professional satellite dish installation." All the stuff specific to the satellite service -- higher prices, Genie DVR rentals, 2-yr contract, mention of NFL Sunday Ticket, etc. -- would be segregated away on a section of the website hidden behind that link. The original DBS product would still be available but would look like an almost-forgotten afterthought.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Oh, some of the top folks within AT&T have publicly stated in the past couple of years that the strategy would be to shift satellite sales to those areas, mainly rural, without broadband, while the cheaper-to-deploy streaming service becomes the main flagship cable TV service that would receive virtually all of the marketing. And the fact that TPG, the group that bought the 30% stake and will co-manage these services, insisted on AT&T TV being part of the deal, not just DirecTV satellite, tells me that they probably see things similarly.
> 
> As for a shared UI, that was originally the plan as divulged a few years ago by former AT&T CEO Stankey. The new-look UI that launched with version 2.0 of the DirecTV Now app would carry through to AT&T TV (which has happened) and then eventually to DTV satellite (which has not). But at this point I question if it ever will. Because I'm doubtful that DTV's aging Genie hardware could handle that UI (or, honestly, why they'd want to spend the money to backport it there). And it's a real question whether there will be any new generation of DTV set-top boxes going forward if the real emphasis will be to drive new subs to AT&T TV, or whatever they brand it to. My guess is that TPG wants to tidy up the satellite TV business and get it ready for a sale to DISH, or some third party that will buy and merge both, in a couple years or so.
> 
> It wouldn't surprise me if they do the following: rebrand AT&T TV to simply DirecTV. And take the new website set up under atttv.com and put it under the old directv.com domain. All of the marketing and advertising for DirecTV would be in reference to the streaming version, e.g. "DIRECTV, now with no contract, no rooftop dish, no bulky equipment. All the TV you love, live, recorded and on-demand, available to stream anywhere, in or out of home. Simple everyday pricing starting at $X per month with no hidden fees."
> 
> And perhaps there would be a small button on the main page at directv.com saying "Don't have broadband? Click here for our plans with professional satellite dish installation." All the stuff specific to the satellite service -- higher prices, Genie DVR rentals, 2-yr contract, mention of NFL Sunday Ticket, etc. -- would be segregated away on a section of the website hidden behind that link. The original DBS product would still be available but would look like an almost-forgotten afterthought.


This is exactly what I have been saying for awhile now. Of course the folks in the DirecTV forums here beg to differ. But now that they are all under one roof away from the mothership and focused on making this work, this seems like the most viable option.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> Oh, some of the top folks within AT&T have publicly stated in the past couple of years that the strategy would be to shift satellite sales to those areas, mainly rural, without broadband, while the cheaper-to-deploy streaming service becomes the main flagship cable TV service that would receive virtually all of the marketing. And the fact that TPG, the group that bought the 30% stake and will co-manage these services, insisted on AT&T TV being part of the deal, not just DirecTV satellite, tells me that they probably see things similarly.


It would be foolish to take the declining portion of the business (DIRECTV satellite) without the portion with some potential for growth (AT&T streaming).
The challenge for TPG becomes slowing the decline and increasing the growth. At this point a big challenge.

I am glad you worded the above as "shift sales" and a focus on which product is marketed in which areas. When AT&T initially took over it seemed that the top folks talked about shifting customers - as if they were owned by AT&T and AT&T could move customers from satellite to streaming at their whim without losing over a third of their customers.

It will be interesting to see how the branding plays out. AT&T never shifted to "AT&T Satellite" so the DIRECTV that satellite viewers have grown to love (or loathe) won't be affected. But DIRECTV just doesn't sound right for a streaming service. "DIRECTV NOW" sort of worked. They could choose something completely different (such as Sling TV being DISH's streaming service). Keeping in mind that whatever they become will replace UVERSE television subscriptions (AT&T TV branded). Hopefully without losing millions of subscribers who realize former UVERSE under any brand can be easily replaced by any OTT streamer.

(BTW: AT&T's quarterly report matched the numbers given out early. The number of "Premium TV" subscribers shown as compared to the same quarter in 2020 but the remaining AT&T Now customers simply disappeared. AT&T did not compare total subscribers from 1Q 2020 to total subscribers now. Effectively there are 656 thousand subscribers who were either lost or are unreported.)


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> Oh, some of the top folks within AT&T have publicly stated in the past couple of years that the strategy would be to shift satellite sales to those areas, mainly rural, without broadband, while the cheaper-to-deploy streaming service becomes the main flagship cable TV service that would receive virtually all of the marketing. And the fact that TPG, the group that bought the 30% stake and will co-manage these services, insisted on AT&T TV being part of the deal, not just DirecTV satellite, tells me that they probably see things similarly.
> 
> As for a shared UI, that was originally the plan as divulged a few years ago by former AT&T CEO Stankey. The new-look UI that launched with version 2.0 of the DirecTV Now app would carry through to AT&T TV (which has happened) and then eventually to DTV satellite (which has not). But at this point I question if it ever will. Because I'm doubtful that DTV's aging Genie hardware could handle that UI (or, honestly, why they'd want to spend the money to backport it there). And it's a real question whether there will be any new generation of DTV set-top boxes going forward if the real emphasis will be to drive new subs to AT&T TV, or whatever they brand it to. My guess is that TPG wants to tidy up the satellite TV business and get it ready for a sale to DISH, or some third party that will buy and merge both, in a couple years or so.
> 
> It wouldn't surprise me if they do the following: rebrand AT&T TV to simply DirecTV. And take the new website set up under atttv.com and put it under the old directv.com domain. All of the marketing and advertising for DirecTV would be in reference to the streaming version, e.g. "DIRECTV, now with no contract, no rooftop dish, no bulky equipment. All the TV you love, live, recorded and on-demand, available to stream anywhere, in or out of home. Simple everyday pricing starting at $X per month with no hidden fees."
> 
> And perhaps there would be a small button on the main page at directv.com saying "Don't have broadband? Click here for our plans with professional satellite dish installation." All the stuff specific to the satellite service -- higher prices, Genie DVR rentals, 2-yr contract, mention of NFL Sunday Ticket, etc. -- would be segregated away on a section of the website hidden behind that link. The original DBS product would still be available but would look like an almost-forgotten afterthought.


This is actually very well thought out


----------



## b4pjoe

Names should be: DIRECTV Satellite and DIRECTV Streaming. Boom! Done.


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> This is actually very well thought out


Why thank you. If I keep throwing out marketing ideas for AT&T TV, one of them is bound to work, right?


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> When AT&T initially took over it seemed that the top folks talked about shifting customers - as if they were owned by AT&T and AT&T could move customers from satellite to streaming at their whim without losing over a third of their customers.


Cheaper pricing for the streaming version should go a long way in encouraging eligible satellite customers (i.e. those with broadband) to shift themselves over, *if* that's what New DirecTV wants. But I have no idea what TPG or AT&T's long-term goals are with regard to AT&T TV vs. DTV. Well, I *assume* that they'll seek to merge the satellite service with DISH at some point, through a sale or purchase, if for no other reason than to eliminate its only direct competitor and increase economies of scale. If that involves a sale, then there's the consideration of whether a present DTV customer is more valuable to them by switching over to AT&T TV or instead sticking with DTV. The satellite service's sale value obviously declines as its subscriber base does so. If the plan is to encourage the shift of satellite customers over to streaming (as I originally anticipated AT&T would do), then I expect most of those loyalty discounts to dry up. Satellite customers calling up and complaining about price will be told "You could be paying $X less per month for the same channel package by switching to the streaming version of our service." If they're really serious about it, they'll give longtime DTV customers free streaming boxes to replace their two or three of their existing DTV boxes.



James Long said:


> It will be interesting to see how the branding plays out. AT&T never shifted to "AT&T Satellite" so the DIRECTV that satellite viewers have grown to love (or loathe) won't be affected. But DIRECTV just doesn't sound right for a streaming service. "DIRECTV NOW" sort of worked. They could choose something completely different (such as Sling TV being DISH's streaming service). Keeping in mind that whatever they become will replace UVERSE television subscriptions (AT&T TV branded). Hopefully without losing millions of subscribers who realize former UVERSE under any brand can be easily replaced by any OTT streamer.





b4pjoe said:


> Names should be: DIRECTV Satellite and DIRECTV Streaming. Boom! Done.


I think it's risky to refer to both services as simply "DIRECTV" because it will mean having to undo a lot of what the public negatively associates with that brand name (e.g. rooftop dishes, bait-and-switch pricing, etc.) which do not apply to AT&T TV. But at the same time, DirecTV is a longstanding brand and one that does have some positive connotations too (especially among sports fans and those aged 50+).

Also, I think any time you append a word to an original brand name for some new iteration or extension of the product, you sort of undermine it, because you're subliminally indicating that it's not the *real* thing, e.g. Coke vs. Diet Coke; DirecTV vs. DirecTV Now. If I were doing the branding, I'd refrain from continuing to call the satellite service "DIRECTV" but the streaming service "DIRECTV <insert word here>". You don't want to in any way communicate that the streaming service, if it's to be the main thing marketed and sold, is in any way a cut-rate "lite" knock-off of the original. I guess it's possible that we see them use DIRECTV as the main brand covering both and then, where specification is needed, refer to "DIRECTV Satellite" and "DIRECTV Streaming".

Another option would just be to use an entirely new brand name for the streaming service and have it use a different website, as if they're two totally different businesses. This is the option I find most appealing but my hunch is that this won't happen. I think it's telling that the joint venture immediately took to calling itself "New DirecTV". I suspect that they'll somehow use the DirecTV brand for AT&T TV.

It would be an interesting turn of events if they sell off the satellite service in a couple years, to be merged with DISH under its brand name, while they retain the DirecTV brand name for use exclusively with the streaming service.


----------



## Davenlr

James Long said:


> It would be foolish to take the declining portion of the business (DIRECTV satellite) without the portion with some potential for growth (AT&T streaming).


If they would price them both the same (charge for initial installation if required), and eliminate the contract, they would both be growing.


----------



## James Long

Davenlr said:


> If they would price them both the same (charge for initial installation if required), and eliminate the contract, they would both be growing.


Possibly. Back in the good old days DIRECTV lost over 3.6 million subscribers per year from 2010 through 2014. The good news is they gained more subscribers than they lost, so even though churn was an issue seeing a net gain was good enough. DIRECTV has not posted a net gain in satellite customers since 2016 (2015 was a net loss year). Their problem could be more of an issue of not finding replacement customers than not retaining the ones they have. Old DIRECTV could survive losing 3.6 million subscribers per year ... New DIRECTV cannot - without replacing the lost customers.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> Satellite customers calling up and complaining about price will be told "You could be paying $X less per month for the same channel package by switching to the streaming version of our service." If they're really serious about it, they'll give longtime DTV customers free streaming boxes to replace their two or three of their existing DTV boxes.


DIRECTV would need to beat the other streaming services on price for that to work. The customer is already at the point where they are fed up. Suggesting they leave satellite for streaming opens the door for them to leave DIRECTV completely. I believe the offer would need to be better than a free streaming boxes. The $X per month less would need to be considerable.


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> *I think it's risky to refer to both services as simply "DIRECTV" because it will mean having to undo a lot of what the public negatively associates with that brand name* (e.g. rooftop dishes, bait-and-switch pricing, etc.) which do not apply to AT&T TV. But at the same time, DirecTV is a longstanding brand and one that does have some positive connotations too (especially among sports fans and those aged 50+).


There aren't many more negative associates with a brand name than AT&T.


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> There aren't many more negative associates with a brand name than AT&T.


Comcast is pretty close lol


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> There aren't many more negative associates with a brand name than AT&T.


Exactly. And DirecTV still has some positive associations. It has for years been considered premium service, and using the name with streaming (and marketed correctly, not like the last time, which was just a total mess, and completely confusing). They should tie it more directly to the sat product. And if I was them, I'd also push for a SPORTS tier and market it heavily during sporting events. The one thing DirecTV has always been is the best place for sports. Maybe even work a deal with ESPN where you could get a year of ESPN+ when you sign up, something like that. If their goal is to phase out sat as their primary driver (and make it STILL available to those who need/want it), then they should be actively working a deal with the NFL too to at LEAST get NFL Network and Red Zone too.

I'm really interested in what they plan to do. If they do it right, they can save DirecTV, if not as a sat company, but as a TV content provider.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> Names should be: DIRECTV Satellite and DIRECTV Streaming. Boom! Done.


According to a TESS search on the USPTO website, the trademark that has been applied for is "DIRECTV Stream". It was filed with the USPTO back in October 2020 and published for opposition n April 13, 2021. There are no applications specifically referencing satellite.

As with most DIRECTV trademark registrations the applicant is DIRECTV LLC California.

All of the various logos are still active including the death star.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> DIRECTV would need to beat the other streaming services on price for that to work. The customer is already at the point where they are fed up. Suggesting they leave satellite for streaming opens the door for them to leave DIRECTV completely. I believe the offer would need to be better than a free streaming boxes. The $X per month less would need to be considerable.


I don't think AT&T TV (or whatever it will soon be called) has to beat the other vMVPDs on price to win over DTV satellite customers looking for a cheaper option. They need to be close on price while offering a high-quality user experience that's comparable to or better than DTV satellite. AT&T TV having the same channel packages, a fairly traditional UI and feature set (more so than YTTV, Hulu Live, etc.), the option of using a dedicated box with voice remote similar to what you get with a Genie, and being offered by the same company the customer is already doing business with (New DirecTV) all go a long way, IMO, to making AT&T TV a natural transition for DTV satellite customers who's main beef with the service is that it costs too much. Sure, some will go to YTTV if it will save them another few bucks a month, but most shouldn't if New DirecTV makes it easy for them to switch. And, of course, if the customer cares about his local Bally Sports RSN, well, it's not available on any vMVPD but AT&T TV. (Furthermore all the other vMVPDs are missing popular cable channels from one or more group. YTTV lacks channels from Hallmark and A+E Networks; Fubo lacks channels from WarnerMedia; Hulu Live lacks channels from Hallmark and AMC Networks.)

If you're on DTV and paying the current regular advertised price for the Choice "All-In" package that includes one HD DVR, plus you pay for a second receiver rental for another TV, your total bill (before taxes) is $139 ($122 + $10 RSN fee + $7 for 2nd receiver). If you get the Choice package on AT&T TV (under their everyday price no-contract system, which now appears to be the only way to sign up), and you add the $10 fee for unlimited cloud DVR, you pay $95 total (before taxes). Adding two AT&T TV boxes would increase the bill another $10/mo for 24 months but let's say New DirecTV threw those in for free to a post-contract satellite customer looking to switch. So -- assuming that you were paying the full regular price for satellite service and not getting some kind of loyalty credit or other negotiated discount -- your bill would drop by $44/mo, from $139 to $95, while keeping the same channels with whole-home DVR. That would cut your bill by nearly 1/3 and the transition should be pretty painless (especially if AT&T TV finally adds PBS and the missing CW locals).

Again, I'm not saying that I think New DirecTV will actively advertise/push existing satellite subs to switch over to AT&T TV. It's possible but it's probably more likely that they just quietly phase out or reduce those loyalty discounts for post-contract customers, making them more profitable, and then only push AT&T TV hard when satellite customers call up to ask for discounts or to cancel.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> There aren't many more negative associates with a brand name than AT&T.


Yeah. Which is why it would make sense for New DirecTV to rebrand AT&T TV to something else.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> I don't think AT&T TV (or whatever it will soon be called) has to beat the other vMVPDs on price to win over DTV satellite customers looking for a cheaper option. They need to be close on price while offering a high-quality user experience that's comparable to or better than DTV satellite. AT&T TV having the same channel packages, a fairly traditional UI and feature set (more so than YTTV, Hulu Live, etc.), the option of using a dedicated box with voice remote similar to what you get with a Genie, and being offered by the same company the customer is already doing business with (New DirecTV) all go a long way, IMO, to making AT&T TV a natural transition for DTV satellite customers who's main beef with the service is that it costs too much. Sure, some will go to YTTV if it will save them another few bucks a month, but most shouldn't if New DirecTV makes it easy for them to switch. And, of course, if the customer cares about his local Bally Sports RSN, well, it's not available on any vMVPD but AT&T TV. (Furthermore all the other vMVPDs are missing popular cable channels from one or more group. YTTV lacks channels from Hallmark and A+E Networks; Fubo lacks channels from WarnerMedia; Hulu Live lacks channels from Hallmark and AMC Networks.)
> 
> If you're on DTV and paying the current regular advertised price for the Choice "All-In" package that includes one HD DVR, plus you pay for a second receiver rental for another TV, your total bill (before taxes) is $139 ($122 + $10 RSN fee + $7 for 2nd receiver). If you get the Choice package on AT&T TV (under their everyday price no-contract system, which now appears to be the only way to sign up), and you add the $10 fee for unlimited cloud DVR, you pay $95 total (before taxes). Adding two AT&T TV boxes would increase the bill another $10/mo for 24 months but let's say New DirecTV threw those in for free to a post-contract satellite customer looking to switch. So -- assuming that you were paying the full regular price for satellite service and not getting some kind of loyalty credit or other negotiated discount -- your bill would drop by $44/mo, from $139 to $95, while keeping the same channels with whole-home DVR. That would cut your bill by nearly 1/3 and the transition should be pretty painless (especially if AT&T TV finally adds PBS and the missing CW locals).
> 
> Again, I'm not saying that I think New DirecTV will actively advertise/push existing satellite subs to switch over to AT&T TV. It's possible but it's probably more likely that they just quietly phase out or reduce those loyalty discounts for post-contract customers, making them more profitable, and then only push AT&T TV hard when satellite customers call up to ask for discounts or to cancel.


And I think it would be smart to offer a tier with limited to no sports (which drive up the price) similar to what the others do. And then offer a sports package for those (like me) who want it. Take away the RSNs and some other sports channels and puts them closer to where YTTV might be (and YTTV prices have been pretty consistently going up over the last couple of years. And I don't really think RSNs are in a position to argue that they need to be on a basic tier anymore (though they might try). One complaint we CONSTANTLY hear is "I don't watch sports, why should I pay for those channels?"

With that, the new steaming DirecTV can sell this as the ultimate in streaming. More channels, higher quality picture and sound. A dedicated box for those who want it, and all the sports you want (for those who want it). Plus, I assume eventually 4K content as well.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> If their goal is to phase out sat as their primary driver (and make it STILL available to those who need/want it), then they should be actively working a deal with the NFL too to at LEAST get NFL Network and Red Zone too.


You'd think New DTV could work out a deal with the NFL to get NFL Network and/or Red Zone added to the Choice and above packages on both systems while also allowing them to sell (not give away) the streaming version of NFL Sunday Ticket to anyone on AT&T TV during these last two seasons on their contract ('21 and '22).

There's already a streaming version of the NFL ST service with a dedicated app. Just pre-install the app on the AT&T TV streaming box, no need to even both integrating the service into the main UI. As it now stands, DTV can only sell the streaming version to folks who live in locations where satellite service can't be installed (e.g. certain MDUs, college dorms, etc.). But the NFL could obviously amend that rule to also allow it for anyone with an active AT&T TV subscription. If both sides got a decent cut of the revenue from those additional subscribers, why wouldn't it be in both sides' interest to do that?


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> And I think it would be smart to offer a tier with limited to no sports (which drive up the price) similar to what the others do. And then offer a sports package for those (like me) who want it.


Well, if you look at the channel line-ups in their packages, that's basically what they're doing with the entry-level Entertainment package versus the step-up Choice package. Entertainment is as sports-free as you can get while still being a mainstream cable TV package, which obviously must include ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox. Can't have ABC without having also carrying ESPN and ESPN 2 in your base package, although Entertainment does manage to avoid also carrying the ESPN-owned SEC and ACC networks. Can't have Fox without also carrying FS1. Can't have NBC without also carrying NBCSN (which will go defunct this year anyhow, with those sports shifting to USA, NBC and Peacock). So the only sports-rich channels in Entertainment are the major broadcast nets plus ESPN, ESPN 2, FS1, NBCSN/USA, and of course AT&T's own TBS and TNT.

Step up to Choice ($15 more than Entertainment) and you get nearly all the other sports channels they offer: your local RSN(s), ACC Network, Big 10 Network, ESPNews, ESPN U, MLB Network, NBA TV, SEC Network, Tennis Channel, and TVG. (This would be the logical place to put NFL Network if they offered it.)

Moving up to Ultimate ($10 more than Choice) only adds a few more sports channels: CBS Sports Network, FS2, Golf, NHL Network, Olympic Channel, and Sportsman Channel.

Interesting to note that YTTV carries all of those sports channels above, except the various RSNs, Tennis Channel, TVG, NHL Network and Sportsman Channel, in their base package. TVG, along with NFL Red Zone and a few other things, are available in their $11/mo Sports Plus add-on pack.

Of course, there are a few additional stray non-sports channels (e.g. Nick Jr., Game Show Network, OWN, Oxygen, FXM, etc.) that you also gain each time you step up to a higher package.

Completely missing from AT&T TV is the Pac-12 Network, which is available on Fubo TV and Sling, but not YTTV or Hulu Live. And, of course, NFL Network and NFL Red Zone are both absent from AT&T TV.



Steveknj said:


> With that, the new steaming DirecTV can sell this as the ultimate in streaming. More channels, higher quality picture and sound. A dedicated box for those who want it, and all the sports you want (for those who want it). Plus, I assume eventually 4K content as well.


Who knows what's taking them so long to offer 4K HDR live sports. That should be a pretty easy feature for New DirecTV to add when they take the reigns, I would think.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Well, if you look at the channel line-ups in their packages, that's basically what they're doing with the entry-level Entertainment package versus the step-up Choice package. Entertainment is as sports-free as you can get while still being a mainstream cable TV package, which obviously must include ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox. Can't have ABC without having also carrying ESPN and ESPN 2 in your base package, although Entertainment does manage to avoid also carrying the ESPN-owned SEC and ACC networks. Can't have Fox without also carrying FS1. Can't have NBC without also carrying NBCSN (which will go defunct this year anyhow, with those sports shifting to USA, NBC and Peacock). So the only sports-rich channels in Entertainment are the major broadcast nets plus ESPN, ESPN 2, FS1, NBCSN/USA, and of course AT&T's own TBS and TNT.
> 
> Step up to Choice ($15 more than Entertainment) and you get nearly all the other sports channels they offer: your local RSN(s), ACC Network, Big 10 Network, ESPNews, ESPN U, MLB Network, NBA TV, SEC Network, Tennis Channel, and TVG. (This would be the logical place to put NFL Network if they offered it.)
> 
> Moving up to Ultimate ($10 more than Choice) only adds a few more sports channels: CBS Sports Network, FS2, Golf, NHL Network, Olympic Channel, and Sportsman Channel.
> 
> Interesting to note that YTTV carries all of those sports channels above, except the various RSNs, Tennis Channel, TVG, NHL Network and Sportsman Channel, in their base package. TVG, along with NFL Red Zone and a few other things, are available in their $11/mo Sports Plus add-on pack.
> 
> Of course, there are a few additional stray non-sports channels (e.g. Nick Jr., Game Show Network, OWN, Oxygen, FXM, etc.) that you also gain each time you step up to a higher package.
> 
> Completely missing from AT&T TV is the Pac-12 Network, which is available on Fubo TV and Sling, but not YTTV or Hulu Live. And, of course, NFL Network and NFL Red Zone are both absent from AT&T TV.
> 
> Who knows what's taking them so long to offer 4K HDR live sports. That should be a pretty easy feature for New DirecTV to add when they take the reigns, I would think.


DirecTV doesn't carry Pac-12 Network either (I know this all too well as my alma mater is a Pac-12 school.)


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> I don't think AT&T TV (or whatever it will soon be called) has to beat the other vMVPDs on price to win over DTV satellite customers looking for a cheaper option.


I believe they do. Nice thing about opinions, everyone can have one. The point was that inviting your subscribers to cancel their service isn't a good way to retain subscribers. "If DIRECTV satellite is too expensive you should cancel and use our streaming service." Too many customers will stop listening at cancel - and go somewhere else unless the offer is better than the competition.

I agree that "better" could be defined as better PQ or more channels or something other than just having the lower price. But the lower price gets most people's attention so they listen to the other benefits.



NashGuy said:


> You'd think New DTV could work out a deal with the NFL to get NFL Network and/or Red Zone added to the Choice and above packages on both systems while also allowing them to sell (not give away) the streaming version of NFL Sunday Ticket to anyone on AT&T TV during these last two seasons on their contract ('21 and '22).


The NFL has guaranteed income from DIRECTV for their current deal. Unless New DIRECTV gives them more money I don't expect that deal to change. I don't expect DIRECTV to give the NFL any more money (especially since one of the clauses in the TPG deal is covering the LOSSES on the NFL Sunday Ticket deal).


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> I believe they do. Nice thing about opinions, everyone can have one. The point was that inviting your subscribers to cancel their service isn't a good way to retain subscribers. "If DIRECTV satellite is too expensive you should cancel and use our streaming service." Too many customers will stop listening at cancel - and go somewhere else unless the offer is better than the competition.
> 
> I agree that "better" could be defined as better PQ or more channels or something other than just having the lower price. But the lower price gets most people's attention so they listen to the other benefits.


You're assuming that those customers are as well-versed in their available options as you and I, that those options have all the channels their household is already used to having in their given DTV channel package, that they're OK using a small streaming remote for cable TV, etc. Lots of folks will hear that they can lop nearly 1/3 off their bill, keep the same channels, gain some new features, and not have to switch providers, then take them up on the deal.

That said, I do think that, especially when it comes to drawing in new AT&T TV customers who aren't already on DTV satellite or on AT&T Fiber/Internet, the pricing needs to be more competitive than what it is now, against vMVPDs as well as cablecos like Comcast and Charter. Again, the price doesn't have to be the same, but close. If Entertainment was $10 cheaper at $60/mo, with the optional $10 unlimited DVR upgrade, then IMO it would compare overall pretty well against YTTV, Hulu Live and Fubo TV's $65/mo starting packages.



James Long said:


> The NFL has guaranteed income from DIRECTV for their current deal. Unless New DIRECTV gives them more money I don't expect that deal to change. I don't expect DIRECTV to give the NFL any more money (especially since one of the clauses in the TPG deal is covering the LOSSES on the NFL Sunday Ticket deal).


What I'm referring to is opening up NFL ST to a new set of customers -- those on AT&T TV -- completely outside of and in addition to the existing deal. All AT&T TV subs would have the option of paying full-price to get the streaming app-based version of NFL ST (same as folks who live in a location where DTV sat isn't available), with New DTV doing the billing and then splitting the revenue with the NFL. The NFL would have nothing to lose from such a deal, only some incremental revenue to gain. New DTV wouldn't really stand to lose anything either. The existing exclusivity of NFL ST is supposed to drive new business to DTV satellite. And assuming they continue to offer it for free to new subs, it will continue to do so. But they may be just as happy with a new customer choosing to sign up with AT&T TV instead and actually giving them some extra revenue for NFL ST.

Yes, there are some longtime DTV satellite subs who remain with the service purely so they can buy NFL ST. Making it available on AT&T TV would encourage some of them to switch to it to save some money. And in that hypothetical case, AT&T would have to split the NFL ST revenue with the NFL, whereas on DTV, they get to keep 100% of the revenue because they've already paid a big sum to basically own it. But who knows how much value they'll assign to the marketing value of having NFL ST available on AT&T TV? Seems like such a deal is at least plausible, although I don't really expect it.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> You're assuming that those customers are as well-versed in their available options as you and I, that those options have all the channels their household is already used to having in their given DTV channel package, that they're OK using a small streaming remote for cable TV, etc. Lots of folks will hear that they can lop nearly 1/3 off their bill, keep the same channels, gain some new features, and not have to switch providers, then take them up on the deal.
> 
> That said, I do think that, especially when it comes to drawing in new AT&T TV customers who aren't already on DTV satellite or on AT&T Fiber/Internet, the pricing needs to be more competitive than what it is now, against vMVPDs as well as cablecos like Comcast and Charter. Again, the price doesn't have to be the same, but close. If Entertainment was $10 cheaper at $60/mo, with the optional $10 unlimited DVR upgrade, then IMO it would compare overall pretty well against YTTV, Hulu Live and Fubo TV's $65/mo starting packages.
> 
> What I'm referring to is opening up NFL ST to a new set of customers -- those on AT&T TV -- completely outside of and in addition to the existing deal. All AT&T TV subs would have the option of paying full-price to get the streaming app-based version of NFL ST (same as folks who live in a location where DTV sat isn't available), with New DTV doing the billing and then splitting the revenue with the NFL. The NFL would have nothing to lose from such a deal, only some incremental revenue to gain. New DTV wouldn't really stand to lose anything either. The existing exclusivity of NFL ST is supposed to drive new business to DTV satellite. And assuming they continue to offer it for free to new subs, it will continue to do so. But they may be just as happy with a new customer choosing to sign up with AT&T TV instead and actually giving them some extra revenue for NFL ST.
> 
> Yes, there are some longtime DTV satellite subs who remain with the service purely so they can buy NFL ST. Making it available on AT&T TV would encourage some of them to switch to it to save some money. And in that hypothetical case, AT&T would have to split the NFL ST revenue with the NFL, whereas on DTV, they get to keep 100% of the revenue because they've already paid a big sum to basically own it. But who knows how much value they'll assign to the marketing value of having NFL ST available on AT&T TV? Seems like such a deal is at least plausible, although I don't really expect it.


I think this was discussed before but the current NFL contract does not allow them to open it up to ATT TV. They tried but the NFL wanted more money then they wanted to pay


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> What I'm referring to is opening up NFL ST to a new set of customers -- those on AT&T TV -- completely outside of and in addition to the existing deal.


And for that the NFL would want money. DIRECTV is already paying more than they want to for NFL Sunday Ticket. They have already had the opportunity to renegotiate the end of their contract and both DIRECTV and the NFL decided that their current deal was the best they could do. DIRECTV keeps their exclusive loss leader without paying any more money and the NFL still gets paid. If the NFL could get more money elsewhere they would have dumped DIRECTV and moved on ... and perhaps in two years they will be in a position to do so. Their next deal driven by the expectation that DIRECTV will not be in a position to continue to pay what they pay.

It is interesting to see NFL Sunday Ticket go from a dealbreaker when AT&T bought DIRECTV (no Sunday Ticket, no deal) to a money pit that AT&T is agreeing to cover when TPG takes over DIRECTV.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> And for that the NFL would want money.


Which, if you read both my posts above, was what I proposed. The NFL would get a cut of every subscription that came through AT&T TV, in _addition_ to the already negotiated blanket payment they receive for everyone coming in via DTV satellite.

At any rate, I suppose that AT&T has already tried to do something along these lines but they and the NFL couldn't come to a mutually acceptable deal.

Will be interesting to see how New DTV markets NFL ST and the satellite service this fall versus the streaming service.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> *Yes, there are some longtime DTV satellite subs who remain with the service purely so they can buy NFL ST. Making it available on AT&T TV would encourage some of them to switch to it to save some money. *And in that hypothetical case, AT&T would have to split the NFL ST revenue with the NFL, whereas on DTV, they get to keep 100% of the revenue because they've already paid a big sum to basically own it. But who knows how much value they'll assign to the marketing value of having NFL ST available on AT&T TV? Seems like such a deal is at least plausible, although I don't really expect it.


That is key. In the new DirecTV, which service will they make more money per subscriber? If they make more money on the streaming service, than what you say makes sense. If they make more money on a sat customer, then why would you want to give them any incentive to switch? I think this is what DirecTV is trying to figure out. Sure it's better for them to be like me, moving from Sat to their own streaming, than it would be dropping sat and going to YTTV or Hulu Live, but it might be better for them overall for me to have stayed on Sat. Saving a few bucks is nice for the consumer, but might not work in the long run for the company. So the idea is to use ST as a way to bring in NEW subs, which worked for years for their sat service, but could it work if to bring them in for streaming? And if so, how much is that worth to them if the NFL wants more money to do so?


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> You'd think New DTV could work out a deal with the NFL to get NFL Network and/or Red Zone added to the Choice and above packages on both systems while also allowing them to sell (not give away) the streaming version of NFL Sunday Ticket to anyone on AT&T TV during these last two seasons on their contract ('21 and '22).


You might think so, but all indications are that they didn't renegotiate the contract to make it happen.

Some accounts claim that they didn't even try but the way AT&T was going through product names, maybe the NFL wasn't convinced that their streaming service was settled yet.


----------



## harsh

Unless there's at least a one year across the board commitment, it really doesn't make sense to offer AT&T TV/DIRECTV Stream subscribers the same kind of NFLST deal that DIRECTV subscribers get. Come-ons really cut into revenues if you don't know for certain that the subscriber is in it for a longer term. Couple that with the knowledge that NFLST has always been a loss leader and it becomes more of a sinkhole regardless of how it is delivered.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> You're assuming that those customers are as well-versed in their available options as you and I, that those options have all the channels their household is already used to having in their given DTV channel package, that they're OK using a small streaming remote for cable TV, etc. Lots of folks will hear that they can lop nearly 1/3 off their bill, keep the same channels, gain some new features, and not have to switch providers, then take them up on the deal.
> 
> That said, I do think that, especially when it comes to drawing in new AT&T TV customers who aren't already on DTV satellite or on AT&T Fiber/Internet, the pricing needs to be more competitive than what it is now, against vMVPDs as well as cablecos like Comcast and Charter. Again, the price doesn't have to be the same, but close. If Entertainment was $10 cheaper at $60/mo, with the optional $10 unlimited DVR upgrade, then IMO it would compare overall pretty well against YTTV, Hulu Live and Fubo TV's $65/mo starting packages.


While I do think the $60 price point for Entertainment would make it more attractive, I also think that the 'free' 20 hour DVR is ridiculously small and of little to no value. Up that to 50 hours and keep the $10 up charge for the Unlimited makes more sense to me. But with the Upcharge that would make it $70/month compared to YTTV and others but missing quite a few channels compared to them. Of course all the live streamers suffer a bit when it comes to the breadth of offerings IMO.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> That is key. In the new DirecTV, which service will they make more money per subscriber? If they make more money on the streaming service, than what you say makes sense. If they make more money on a sat customer, then why would you want to give them any incentive to switch? I think this is what DirecTV is trying to figure out. Sure it's better for them to be like me, moving from Sat to their own streaming, than it would be dropping sat and going to YTTV or Hulu Live, but it might be better for them overall for me to have stayed on Sat. Saving a few bucks is nice for the consumer, but might not work in the long run for the company. So the idea is to use ST as a way to bring in NEW subs, which worked for years for their sat service, but could it work if to bring them in for streaming? And if so, how much is that worth to them if the NFL wants more money to do so?


Yeah, good questions that are really impossible to answer without knowing the differences in the costs to acquire and provision service on satellite vs. streaming, as well as New DTV's long-term plans/hopes for the streaming service. We know it costs WAY more to acquire a new customer on satellite, due to the professional installation and equipment (plus the overall NFL ST contract costs), than it does on streaming. Which is why satellite has the 2-yr contract and higher prices while streaming has no contract and lower prices. But after what point in time would a new satellite customer vs. streaming customer, on the same package with the same number of TVs, have been equally profitable for the company? Is it at the end of the first two years, when the satellite contract is done? (Given current pricing for DTV, with the big first-year discount, you really don't pay much less to go with streaming. And if you would've actually paid full price for NFL ST, you come out much better to take satellite.) Or does it take longer, like three years? Given the higher regular pricing on satellite, at some point, those customers obviously become more profitable than someone on the cheaper streaming service, because they will have completely paid off all their higher acquisition costs. This is why DTV will sometimes give loyalty discounts to those customers -- at that point, they can afford to cut the price.

The other question is whether New DTV finds a streaming customer to be more valuable because they believe that they'll stick with the service longer and/or because they plan to keep that service while selling off the satellite service in a couple years. I think every rational person involved has accepted that satellite TV is in long-term decline, even worse so than cable TV in general. And once DTV satellite loses its exclusive with NFL ST in about 20 months, there really will be very little to save it from becoming the higher priced of two pay TV options aimed at the dwindling number of mostly rural households who can't access broadband or any other type of pay TV besides satellite.

Meanwhile, streaming cable TV services continue to grow. New DTV should aggressively strike deals with smaller broadband operators to sell DIRECTV Stream (or whatever it's called) as their preferred cable TV option. Lots of those operators are ready to dump their own TV service. DIRECTV Stream is a turnkey ready-to-go option that has all the popular channels and the option to use a traditional cable-like remote that grandma can understand. No Fire TV Stick required.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> Unless there's at least a one year across the board commitment, it really doesn't make sense to offer AT&T TV/DIRECTV Stream subscribers the same kind of NFLST deal that DIRECTV subscribers get. Come-ons really cut into revenues if you don't know for certain that the subscriber is in it for a longer term. Couple that with the knowledge that NFLST has always been a loss leader and it becomes more of a sinkhole regardless of how it is delivered.


Oh, I agree. I wasn't proposing giving away NFL ST for free to new AT&T TV subs the way that it's given to new DTV satellite subs. It would be crazy to give away such a loss-leader to customers who aren't on a long-term contract! I was simply wondering about the option to *sell* it to those customers at its full price of $300 or whatever, the same way that it's already been available for purchase as a streaming service by those who live in a building where they can't install a DTV dish.


----------



## B. Shoe

James Long said:


> It is interesting to see NFL Sunday Ticket go from a dealbreaker when AT&T bought DIRECTV (no Sunday Ticket, no deal) to a money pit that AT&T is agreeing to cover when TPG takes over DIRECTV.


It is. At least for residential subs, it was always a great bargaining chip five years ago. "Stay with us, we'll toss in Sunday Ticket for free! _(Or insert whatever discount you were offered at the time.)_" And the company was able to hold onto longer lasting subs. What's $150 in ST discounts between friends, if you can hold onto them for another year for $1,000 in subscriber fees? I'm preaching to the choir, here, but five years ago that plan definitely held suit.

Fast forward five years later. If subscriber reports of numbers dropping are anywhere near accurate, that plan of giving something away for free/half off doesn't look as enticing. Plus, people are continually finding easy, new ways to get that content, regardless if they are paying for it or not. The mantra of being "exclusive" isn't really a thing now.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> While I do think the $60 price point for Entertainment would make it more attractive, I also think that the 'free' 20 hour DVR is ridiculously small and of little to no value. Up that to 50 hours and keep the $10 up charge for the Unlimited makes more sense to me. But with the Upcharge that would make it $70/month compared to YTTV and others but missing quite a few channels compared to them. Of course all the live streamers suffer a bit when it comes to the breadth of offerings IMO.


I'm sure the 20 hours of free cloud DVR that AT&T TV (as well as Comcast) includes in their TV packages is strategic. It's enough for some folks who don't record much (i.e. mainly just want cable for live TV viewing like sports and news), or who just timeshift what they watch by a few hours/days and then immediately delete. But for others, they'll use it and quickly realize how nice it would be to be able to store more stuff for longer, so it works like a free sample that induces them to upgrade to the paid product. If they increased the free amount to 50 hours, then I suspect that significantly fewer folks would pay to upgrade.

These companies know the ARPU they need to hit for a given package of channels, as well as overall, in order to be sufficiently profitable. Separating out a premium DVR service fee, as AT&T TV and Hulu Live do, rather than making everyone pay for it as YTTV does, makes sense in that customers have the option of avoiding it, plus it lets the operator advertise a lower starting price.

Of course, the thing is that YTTV is simply under-pricing AT&T TV and Hulu Live, which is why they seem to be the service you see mentioned the most on cord-cutter forums. It's basically like they're giving away unlimited DVR service for free to everyone, which obviously reduces their ARPU and therefore their profit margin. Even after several rounds of price hikes, I wonder just how much money Google is really making on YTTV. I expect another $5-10 price hike in the next 12 months (maybe accompanied by more channel additions). And if that happens, then AT&T TV may not need to lower their prices much, if any. Hulu Live can get away with not being quite as good a deal because they have over 40 million subscribers on their base package, and it's always easier to upsell an existing customer than to land an entirely new one. You can see how Hulu subs would be willing to pay a little more for the convenience of integrating their cable TV service into an app that they were already using for a lot of on-demand content anyhow. Meanwhile, AT&T TV and YTTV don't have that advantage.

But, as I said before, if AT&T TV cut their package prices by $10/mo, so that Entertainment costs $60 with 20 hrs DVR or $70 with unlimited DVR vs. YTTV at $65, it would be pretty competitive. AT&T TV Entertainment would then probably draw the households who wanted a more well-rounded channel line-up and/or those drawn to the familiarity of the user experience with the optional dedicated box and remote, while YTTV would draw those who wanted a more sports-heavy channel line-up (but who were content to do without their local RSNs, which is a bit of an odd customer profile). For those who wanted RSNs and/or HBO Max, then AT&T TV's Choice package (which offers HBO Max free your first year) would make more sense (again, if its base price was cut by about $10/mo).


----------



## raott

I received a check from AT&T today for a little over $10 that says it is as a results of rebates from "sports networks" to AT&T due to Covid impacts, which they passed on to me.


----------



## lparsons21

Well it has been around a month since I cut back quite a bit on streaming things with a goal of doing away with a live streaming service all the way.

Currently my on demand streaming services are costing me about $35/month with various sales and one-year deals. I’ve got Netflix no 4K, Paramount+, Peacock, Prime, AppleTV+, Hulu basic w/ads and HBO Max. What makes it so possible to use is helped along by the dearth of new, original and interesting program offerings from the cable channels these days. Yeah, lots of rerun stuff, but it is reruns of shows I get to pick and haven’t seen in a very long time. HBO Max is really doing a bang up job of offering such a wide range of shows/movies that the $12.50/month I pay is well worth it.

I still have Sling Blue with the free 50Gb cloud DVR which I will probably cancel when the last episode of Queen of the South airs next week, that show is literally the only thing I record from a cable channel.

I will admit it is a bit of a PITA to keep track of which show is where, but not enough of one to make me want to keep and pay for a live streaming service I would seldom use.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> I still have Sling Blue with the free 50Gb cloud DVR which I will probably cancel when the last episode of Queen of the South airs next week, that show is literally the only thing I record from a cable channel.


Looks like seasons 1-4 of Queen of the South are already on Netflix. So, as per usual with basic cable series, you can watch them a year behind on one of the major SVODs if you're willing to wait.

Or, if you want to watch the new season as it airs without a cable package, you can just buy it. Apple, Google and Amazon all sell an HD season pass for season 5 of the show right now for $20 (or $15 for SD). Assuming there's only a handful of basic cable shows that you actively watch each year on cable TV, you can see how it would be much cheaper to just buy the new seasons as they air (and own them, ad free, likely with superior PQ) rather than pay for a cable channel package that ranges from $25/mo on the low end (Philo) to $100/mo+ (traditional cable/satellite).


----------



## lparsons21

Yeah, I could have done that and did give it some thought. But instead just kept the Sling Blue for a month longer. Probably because out of habit as much as any other reason.


----------



## b4pjoe

Question about AT&T TV....if you lose home internet can you still schedule recordings with your phone (which still has internet) on a website somewhere like you can with DirecTV? Or even if you are not home to schedule recordings can you go to a website to schedule recordings from another location?


----------



## Davenlr

There is an ATT TV app. You can watch tv or schedule the same as you do on the TV


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> Question about AT&T TV....if you lose home internet can you still schedule recordings with your phone (which still has internet) on a website somewhere like you can with DirecTV? Or even if you are not home to schedule recordings can you go to a website to schedule recordings from another location?


As Daven pointed out there is a full fledged app and the website where you can watch and do anything


----------



## mjwagner

lparsons21 said:


> Well it has been around a month since I cut back quite a bit on streaming things with a goal of doing away with a live streaming service all the way.
> 
> Currently my on demand streaming services are costing me about $35/month with various sales and one-year deals. I've got Netflix no 4K, Paramount+, Peacock, Prime, AppleTV+, Hulu basic w/ads and HBO Max. What makes it so possible to use is helped along by the dearth of new, original and interesting program offerings from the cable channels these days. Yeah, lots of rerun stuff, but it is reruns of shows I get to pick and haven't seen in a very long time. HBO Max is really doing a bang up job of offering such a wide range of shows/movies that the $12.50/month I pay is well worth it.
> 
> I still have Sling Blue with the free 50Gb cloud DVR which I will probably cancel when the last episode of Queen of the South airs next week, that show is literally the only thing I record from a cable channel.
> 
> I will admit it is a bit of a PITA to keep track of which show is where, but not enough of one to make me want to keep and pay for a live streaming service I would seldom use.


Have you tried the ReelGood app? It's what I use to keep track of all the shows we watch and when new episodes air. It integrates with Trakt (which I was already using) and many of the various streaming services. It's not perfect but they have been steadily making improvements.


----------



## b4pjoe

compnurd said:


> As Daven pointed out there is a full fledged app and the website where you can watch and do anything


Thanks to you both. So if my internet service were out I could schedule shows to record that are airing while the internet is down using the app on my phone? Or if I am away from home I could do the same even though my phone would not be using the same LAN as my TV's?


----------



## lparsons21

mjwagner said:


> Have you tried the ReelGood app? It's what I use to keep track of all the shows we watch and when new episodes air. It integrates with Trakt (which I was already using) and many of the various streaming services. It's not perfect but they have been steadily making improvements.


Yeah I've used it and after your post I kicked it up again. Very not perfect IMO! On FireTV it doesn't alway allow playing with an app as it should. HBO Max is really weird. ReelGood claims no device and then also says no app followed by running the app and pulling the show up just fine.

I quit using it awhile back because I am just disorganized enough to make the effort one in futility
!


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> Thanks to you both. So if my internet service were out I could schedule shows to record that are airing while the internet is down using the app on my phone? Or if I am away from home I could do the same even though my phone would not be using the same LAN as my TV's?


Correct. That is because you aren't interacting with your home network in those instances, but instead are dealing with HBO Max directly. That pretty much holds true with all the streaming apps.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> Thanks to you both. So if my internet service were out I could schedule shows to record that are airing while the internet is down using the app on my phone? Or if I am away from home I could do the same even though my phone would not be using the same LAN as my TV's?


Not only can you use the AT&T TV app on your phone (connected to the cellular tower) to set up new DVR recordings, you can use it to access the entire service: watch live TV, watch (or set up or delete) recordings, watch on-demand, change your channel package, etc. You can access the entire service via any internet connection in the country on your phone, tablet or laptop. (I'm pretty sure you can also use a TV-connected streaming device, such as a Roku, to access the service on a wifi network other than your home's wifi network.)

Because DVR recordings happen in the cloud (on AT&T's servers), you won't miss anything when the internet goes out at your house. Your shows will still record and be available for you later. OTOH, if your satellite signal temporarily goes out due to weather at your house, you'll miss part (or all) of the show in your DVR recording.


----------



## mjwagner

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah I've used it and after your post I kicked it up again. Very not perfect IMO! On FireTV it doesn't alway allow playing with an app as it should. HBO Max is really weird. ReelGood claims no device and then also says no app followed by running the app and pulling the show up just fine.
> 
> I quit using it awhile back because I am just disorganized enough to make the effort one in futility
> !


Yeah, to be honest I don't use it to launch apps, I just use it to keep track of when new episodes come on. For that it actually works pretty well. I have it setup so that it sends me emails when new episodes of our shows are available. Thankfully I am overly organized&#8230;


----------



## Stevies3

Prospective subscriber here. We have 6 TV's, if we purchase 6 boxes how many can watch TV at the same time?


----------



## b4pjoe

All 6. Max is 20. They do recommend 8 MBPS internet service for each stream.


----------



## NashGuy

Stevies3 said:


> Prospective subscriber here. We have 6 TV's, if we purchase 6 boxes how many can watch TV at the same time?


Yes, as b4pjoe said, you can watch on 20 devices simultaneously, as long as all of them are on your designated home network. (Only 3 out of the maximum 20 devices can be away from your home network.)

Other things to know: 

You aren't required to use their box to watch the service on a TV, you have the option of using their app (at no additional cost) on your own Roku, Apple TV and/or Fire TV devices. 
If you buy the AT&T TV boxes new from them, the cost is $120 each, although they will give you the option of spreading out the cost at $5/mo each for 24 months. 
You can buy those boxes on eBay for less, often around $60-70, just make sure that they come with the current version remote control. (Early on, when they were issuing those boxes to beta testers a couple years ago, they originally came with a different remote that wasn't as good.) 
Lastly, a 2nd-gen version of the box has passed through for certification from the wifi and Bluetooth industry groups, so we know that it's coming at some point before too long. I've seen specs for it and it has a newer/faster processor and runs a newer version of the Android TV operating system.


----------



## NashGuy

mjwagner said:


> Yeah, to be honest I don't use it to launch apps, I just use it to keep track of when new episodes come on. For that it actually works pretty well. I have it setup so that it sends me emails when new episodes of our shows are available. Thankfully I am overly organized&#8230;


If you just add the series you watch to the Up Next queue in the Apple TV app on your Apple TV 4K, it will let you know as soon as a new episode is available (on just about any app except Netflix). The episode will pop up at the front (left end) of the queue. Then just click there to be taken directly to the video in whichever app it resides in. Why use things like ReelGood and Trakt when their functionality is built into the device's operating system? Is it because you mainly use your other streaming devices instead of the ATV4K?


----------



## mjwagner

NashGuy said:


> If you just add the series you watch to the Up Next queue in the Apple TV app on your Apple TV 4K, it will let you know as soon as a new episode is available (on just about any app except Netflix). The episode will pop up at the front (left end) of the queue. Then just click there to be taken directly to the video in whichever app it resides in. Why use things like ReelGood and Trakt when their functionality is built into the device's operating system? Is it because you mainly use your other streaming devices instead of the ATV4K?


Correct. At each of my two main viewing locations I have a Nvidia Shield, FireTV Stick 4k, and ATV 4k. The ATV 4K is the least used of the three, for many reasons. Hence ReelGood. And getting an email when a new episode of one of our shows is available is key for us. We literally never have our TVs on unless we are ready to sit down to watch something specific.


----------



## Davenlr

b4pjoe said:


> Thanks to you both. So if my internet service were out I could schedule shows to record that are airing while the internet is down using the app on my phone? Or if I am away from home I could do the same even though my phone would not be using the same LAN as my TV's?


Yes. You can even watch your shows on your phone if your internet goes down, if you have an unlimited data plan or dont mind the data charges. The phone app is the same app that runs on the TV. Only the app on their Osprey box has features you cannot get with the other apps.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> If you just add the series you watch to the Up Next queue in the Apple TV app on your Apple TV 4K, it will let you know as soon as a new episode is available (on just about any app except Netflix). The episode will pop up at the front (left end) of the queue. Then just click there to be taken directly to the video in whichever app it resides in. Why use things like ReelGood and Trakt when their functionality is built into the device's operating system? Is it because you mainly use your other streaming devices instead of the ATV4K?


The problem with AppleTV's 'up next' is that it picks what app will launch for a particular show. For instance a show might be on a live streamer and Hulu, 'up next' will pick Hulu. You can usually pick another app instead but more often than not, the live streamer won't be one of them.


----------



## NashGuy

Looks like this summer's Tokyo Olympics will be the first one to include portions aired live in 4K HDR in the US. Per this article:

_NBCU will distribute its 4K HDR coverage to US distribution partners (i.e. cable operators, telcos, satellite TV providers and OTT-TV service providers), but noted that it will be up to those partners to determine how the content is made available to their respective viewers._​
Wonder if AT&T TV will use this opportunity to incorporate 4K HDR streams into their service as Fubo TV has done? Given that the Tokyo games begin only six weeks from today, I'm not holding my breath. But I imagine NBC will offer an Olympics app that can be authenticated with your cable TV credentials to stream both live and on-demand content, hopefully in 4K HDR. Perhaps that app will be available for AT&T TV's Android TV box.

However, I do expect to see YouTube TV roll out their announced $10/mo 4K upgrade option in time for the Olympics. (It also includes service to unlimited screens and the ability to download content.) They announced the add-on back in February, saying it would be available in the "coming weeks," so it should roll out any time now.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> The problem with AppleTV's 'up next' is that it picks what app will launch for a particular show. For instance a show might be on a live streamer and Hulu, 'up next' will pick Hulu. You can usually pick another app instead but more often than not, the live streamer won't be one of them.


Yes, you can always set a series to launch from a different app if that app is integrated with the Apple TV app. Just about all on-demand apps are but not all streaming cable TV apps. I know the AT&T TV, Spectrum TV, and Fubo TV apps are. Since the base on-demand part of Hulu is, I would think that the Live TV portion of that app is too. PS Vue used to be before it croaked. But YouTube TV and Sling are not. I guess in YTTV's case, Google wants to reserve system integration for their own Google TV platform.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Yes, you can always set a series to launch from a different app if that app is integrated with the Apple TV app. Just about all on-demand apps are but not all streaming cable TV apps. I know the AT&T TV, Spectrum TV, and Fubo TV apps are. Since the base on-demand part of Hulu is, I would think that the Live TV portion of that app is too. PS Vue used to be before it croaked. But YouTube TV and Sling are not. I guess in YTTV's case, Google wants to reserve system integration for their own Google TV platform.


Yeah, the Hulu Live is integrated but it presents a screwy problem. I had just selected 'City on the Hill' from the up next list. It pulled up Hulu which doesn't actually have that show unless you sub to Showtime through them instead of pulling up the Showtime app. I'd not noticed that earlier.

With ATT TV the up next would sometimes pull up ATT TV but it was hit or miss. Missing as much as it hit. Not an earth shattering issue of course.

The advantage of ReelGood and maybe other tracking apps is that you can specify a bit better, which would be great if the app launching from it worked better.


----------



## swyman18

NashGuy said:


> However, I do expect to see YouTube TV roll out their announced $10/mo 4K upgrade option in time for the Olympics. (It also includes service to unlimited screens and the ability to download content.) They announced the add-on back in February, saying it would be available in the "coming weeks," so it should roll out any time now.


 Not to get too off topic, was there more announced on that with the $10/mo confirmed? I haven't seen anything official other than their loose announcement from Feb like you mentioned.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, the Hulu Live is integrated but it presents a screwy problem. I had just selected 'City on the Hill' from the up next list. It pulled up Hulu which doesn't actually have that show unless you sub to Showtime through them instead of pulling up the Showtime app. I'd not noticed that earlier.


Yes, but you should be able to select the Showtime app as the one you want to associate with that series and then Up Next will launch that app for it going forward. Tracking content from Showtime, Starz and Epix is kind of a mess because those services are available inside of so many different apps.


----------



## NashGuy

swyman18 said:


> Not to get too off topic, was there more announced on that with the $10/mo confirmed? I haven't seen anything official other than their loose announcement from Feb like you mentioned.


Google announced it on Feb. 17 on the YouTube Official Blog here:
Investing to empower the YouTube experience for the next generation of video

Don't know of anything further that Google has said about it. Perhaps they answered a question or two from individual journalists writing up stories about it like this one:
YouTube TV is adding offline downloads and 4K streaming


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Yes, but you should be able to select the Showtime app as the one you want to associate with that series and then Up Next will launch that app for it going forward. Tracking content from Showtime, Starz and Epix is kind of a mess because those services are available inside of so many different apps.


Many times it does do that, but it isn't consistent. I actually like the idea of the up next strip but the implementation can get unwieldy as it collects shows.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Many times it does do that, but it isn't consistent. I actually like the idea of the up next strip but the implementation can get unwieldy as it collects shows.


It's almost never a problem for me but then I don't subscribe to any streaming cable TV services. For purely on-demand services (other than Netflix), it works great.


----------



## b4pjoe

lparsons21 said:


> Many times it does do that, but it isn't consistent. I actually like the idea of the up next strip but the implementation can get unwieldy as it collects shows.


Agreed. IMO if you start watching something from a service it should always use that service and only that service. Sometimes Apple tries to be too helpful.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> _...but noted that it will be up to those partners to determine how the content is made available to their respective viewers._


This is the buzz killer. Making something available is different from delivering it at a reasonable price and in a format that is usable.

I'm thinking chances are pretty good that much of this 4K availability will come as "authentication" rather than re-transmission since neither Comcast nor NBC have any other way of broadcasting 4K content themselves.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> Agreed. IMO if you start watching something from a service it should always use that service and only that service. Sometimes Apple tries to be too helpful.


I've had instances where I switched which app I was watching a show on though, e.g. Big Sky on Hulu but later on the ABC app. Why shouldn't Apple's system follow me and default to launching the next episode of the series in the most recent app I used for it?


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> This is the buzz killer. Making something available is different from delivering it at a reasonable price and in a format that is usable.
> 
> I'm thinking chances are pretty good that much of this 4K availability will come as "authentication" rather than re-transmission since neither Comcast nor NBC have any other way of broadcasting 4K content themselves.


It's not NBCU's responsibility to make sure that MVPDs have the systems in place to deliver 4K HDR to their customers. Comcast does, at least for their cable TV customers with 4K HDR-capable X1 boxes and broadband (because the only way Comcast delivers those advanced video formats is to stream them via IPTV, never via traditional QAM channels). Verizon FiOS TV actually has one or more dedicated 4K HDR QAM channels (accessible even via modern TiVo DVRs) and DirecTV has dedicated 4K HDR DBS channels, so those providers will put the live 4K HDR stuff there. I don't think any MVPD though, even Comcast, will have a 4K version of local NBC affiliates going in their channel grid guide. IDK, maybe Comcast will in those major markets where they own and operate the local NBC affiliate (e.g. NYC, LA, Philly, DC, Dallas, San Fran, etc.). It gets really messy when you involve local stations that are owned by other companies. If ATSC 3.0 was totally up and running nationwide, well, that would be a different story. But it's not.

So my guess is that Comcast will have some kind of dedicated Olympics hub featured in the X1 UI. Maybe a clickable banner on the home screen and in the grid guide that takes you to the hub which would feature what's on live at the moment, plus have an on-demand section for stuff that's already aired. Clicking on anything live would take you to the linear channel that's airing it, unless the event is available in 4K HDR and you're using an X1 box capable of that format, in which case it launches to a special IPTV stream from Comcast separate from the linear channel. So if you're watching the Opening Ceremonies in 4K HDR, you wouldn't see your local non-O&O NBC affiliate's logo in the corner, or your local time and temp. And the ads featured during the breaks would probably be at least partially different than those airing on your local NBC affiliate's regular ol' HD feed.

But, yeah, I suspect you're right that a lot of folks who get to watch any of the Tokyo Olympics in 4K HDR will do so via an authenticated app on their own streaming device. I know NBC had an authenticated Olympics app in the past; I remember using it to stream live events on my Apple TV since it offered better HD picture quality than my local NBC station OTA. Hopefully this time that app includes 4K HDR feeds. We'll see...


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> I've had instances where I switched which app I was watching a show on though, e.g. Big Sky on Hulu but later on the ABC app. Why shouldn't Apple's system follow me and default to launching the next episode of the series in the most recent app I used for it?


Yeah that would be OK too to use the last app you watched it on.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> It's not NBCU's responsibility to make sure that MVPDs have the systems in place to deliver 4K HDR to their customers.


To be sure, not everyone _needs_ to have the UHD version, but if they want to generate interest, they need to make it widely available and not tied to some funky in-house hardware (X1, Flex and whatever Cox is using) or narrowly supported app.

Other than an app, it is pretty difficult to reach everyone's TVs and it will be an uphill battle to convince Joe Sixpack that more than HD on a phone or tablet is practical even if they can find a way to cast it to a big screen.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> To be sure, not everyone _needs_ to have the UHD version, but if they want to generate interest, they need to make it widely available and not tied to some funky in-house hardware (X1, Flex and whatever Cox is using) or narrowly supported app.


OK, but honestly how else is Comcast/NBCU going to distribute 4K HDR content to consumers aside from the ways you mention? There has to be some sort of broadly available technology/standard whereby it's delivered and they can't just magically make that appear _ex nihilo_.

If NBCU (or any other content company such as Netflix, Apple, Warner, etc.) wants to go direct to consumers, the only option is an OTT app that they make available on all the usual platforms (Roku, Apple TV, Fire TV, etc.). I fully expect NBCU to do that again for this year's Olympics, although we don't know yet if it will support live 4K HDR this time.

As for reaching viewers through their own in-house distribution system (Comcast), the only thing I can think that would broaden the reach by a tiny bit would be to create dedicated 4K HDR QAM linear channels (as Verizon FiOS TV has done). So in addition to X1 4K IPTV-capable boxes being able to access the content, 4K-capable TiVos could access it via CableCARD. But based on figures I've seen in recent years, I'd estimate that less than 0.5% of Comcast's cable TV customers are accessing the service with a 4K-capable TiVo. It's a totally negligible slice of the customer base. If you have Comcast cable TV, you can rent a 4K HDR-capable X1 box for the same monthly rental price as an HD-only box; there's no additional charge for access to 4K (although you may need to have Comcast broadband service too, not sure). So it's easy enough for Comcast TV customers to access their limited 4K content if they want it.


----------



## Davenlr

NashGuy said:


> If ATSC 3.0 was totally up and running nationwide, well, that would be a different story. But it's not.


Interestingly, our market just announced one of its stations would HOST an ATSC 3.0 transmitter starting June 30th, and so far, three 720p and our 1080i NBC affiliate has signed on. I rather doubt they could transmit a 4K and 3 720p streams at once, but who knows. Would be interesting.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> OK, but honestly how else is Comcast/NBCU going to distribute 4K HDR content to consumers aside from the ways you mention? There has to be some sort of broadly available technology/standard whereby it's delivered and they can't just magically make that appear _ex nihilo_.
> 
> If NBCU (or any other content company such as Netflix, Apple, Warner, etc.) wants to go direct to consumers, the only option is an OTT app that they make available on all the usual platforms (Roku, Apple TV, Fire TV, etc.). I fully expect NBCU to do that again for this year's Olympics, although we don't know yet if it will support live 4K HDR this time.
> 
> As for reaching viewers through their own in-house distribution system (Comcast), the only thing I can think that would broaden the reach by a tiny bit would be to create dedicated 4K HDR QAM linear channels (as Verizon FiOS TV has done). So in addition to X1 4K IPTV-capable boxes being able to access the content, 4K-capable TiVos could access it via CableCARD. But based on figures I've seen in recent years, I'd estimate that less than 0.5% of Comcast's cable TV customers are accessing the service with a 4K-capable TiVo. It's a totally negligible slice of the customer base. If you have Comcast cable TV, you can rent a 4K HDR-capable X1 box for the same monthly rental price as an HD-only box; there's no additional charge for access to 4K (although you may need to have Comcast broadband service too, not sure). So it's easy enough for Comcast TV customers to access their limited 4K content if they want it.


I thought Comcast had a 4K QAM channel at one point


----------



## James Long

Davenlr said:


> Interestingly, our market just announced one of its stations would HOST an ATSC 3.0 transmitter starting June 30th, and so far, three 720p and our 1080i NBC affiliate has signed on. I rather doubt they could transmit a 4K and 3 720p streams at once, but who knows. Would be interesting.


The FCC rules require the ATSC 1.0 channel and the ATSC 3.0 channel to be substantially similar. This prevents stations from transmitting ATSC 1.0 in a lesser format than their ATSC 3.0 signal.

The important step for ATSC 3.0 now is to get people to install tuners so they can eventually turn off their ATSC 1.0 channels (move back from the host station to their own ATSC 3.0 channel). At that point the substantially similar restriction would end. The FCC has not set a date for when stations will be allowed to end ATSC 1.0 transmission.


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> I thought Comcast had a 4K QAM channel at one point


Nope. I remember reading an article at Light Reading a few years back where one of Comcast's top guys said that the only way they would ever transmit 4K would be via IPTV. Didn't make sense to devote the bandwidth necessary for 4K QAM channels.

A lot of folks don't realize the degree to which Comcast has already shifted toward IPTV. In many areas (including here) for over two years now new customers signing up for both broadband and TV service will often, by default, get the latter provisioned to them exclusively via IPTV using a new generation of IP-only X1 set-top boxes that record only to cloud DVR. They're basically just streaming devices. (You're also given an option to just use their Xfinity Stream app on your own Roku, Fire TV, etc.)

The older generation of X1 boxes (which still constitute the majority in use) are actually hybrid and can do both QAM (i.e. they include actual tuners) and IPTV, with internal hard drives for DVR. But even on those, there's a handful of channels that are IP-only (and are therefore completely unavailable to pre-X1 QAM STBs and TiVos). And even if you have a physical X1 DVR, you have cloud DVR too, with your local recordings getting mirrored to the cloud so that they're accessible on other X1 boxes and via the Xfinity Stream app.

Comcast is basically in a years-long slow evolution away from QAM to IPTV. At some point, who knows when, they'll just shut down QAM and reclaim that bandwidth for broadband. I think that will have additional network benefits too, in terms of simplifying the architecture.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> The FCC has not set a date for when stations will be allowed to end ATSC 1.0 transmission.


Once a station launches an ATSC 3.0 broadcast, they must maintain their 1.0 signal for at least five years. After that, they can opt to shut it down. But I'm highly skeptical that many stations will do so that quickly as I think there will be too many of their OTA viewers still on 1.0 and they won't want to shut out all those viewers.

The transition from analog NTSC to digital ATSC 1.0 took several years and that transition was mandated by the FCC, with government-subsidized digital tuners distributed to the public to encourage the switchover and a mandate that all new TVs include the new tuners. With things as they are now -- with 3.0 adoption purely voluntary on stations', manufacturers', and consumers' part -- I'm really not sure if 3.0 will ever gain sufficient buy-in to allow it to supplant 1.0.

And then there's the question of whether MVPDs will strike carriage deals with local stations' new 3.0 signals in their cable channel packages in lieu of the older 1.0 signals. But the main reasons to do that would be superior picture and sound quality (e.g. 4K HDR, Atmos), which is something the networks can deliver for their shows directly through MVPD partners' on-demand platforms (and via their own OTT apps like Hulu, Paramount+, etc.), completely by-passing their affiliate stations.

The whole system of national networks plus local affiliate stations plus MVPD distributors is so complicated, with so many business, technical and legal/regulatory considerations, that it makes innovation difficult. Meanwhile, direct-to-consumer OTT streaming services like Netflix, Prime Video and Apple TV+ have been doing nearly all their new content in 4K HDR for a long while now. I even noticed last night on Hulu that a lot of the recent content from the FX cable channel is available to stream in 4K. I wonder how long they'll hold out before offering new ABC content in 4K on Hulu even though none of their ABC affiliate stations will be able to broadcast in that format...


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> OK, but honestly how else is Comcast/NBCU going to distribute 4K HDR content to consumers aside from the ways you mention? There has to be some sort of broadly available technology/standard whereby it's delivered and they can't just magically make that appear _ex nihilo_.


UHD coverage started seven years ago and it seems like that's ample time to come up with something. There's surely a way that they could livestream the games with a simple app (or a theme on someone else's app). It comes down to figuring out how to monetize it and maybe put a hub together to navigate it.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> I remember reading an article at Light Reading a few years back where one of Comcast's top guys said that the only way they would ever transmit 4K would be via IPTV. Didn't make sense to devote the bandwidth necessary for 4K QAM channels.


If just one person on every "node" is watching something, broadcasting is justified. The industry is just waiting for a channel to appear that is suitable for multicast. The Olympics is perhaps one such example.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> UHD coverage started seven years ago and it seems like that's ample time to come up with something. There's surely a way that they could livestream the games with a simple app (or a theme on someone else's app).


As I said before, in recent Olympics, NBCU used their own app for popular devices that featured livestreams of various Olympics events (as well as past events on-demand). I had thought it was a special NBC Olympics app but it looks like they just used their existing NBC Sports app. I used it on my Apple TV 4K during the 2018 Winter Olympics. I'm pretty sure you had to authenticate the app with cable TV service credentials for full access, but it may have offered some content free to anyone without logging in. NBCU didn't stream anything from previous Olympics in UHD via that app but there's no reason they couldn't choose to do so this time. The Fox Sports app has supported UHD live streams for years now.


----------



## Davenlr

So you are saying our local NBC station on ATSC 3.0 cannot transmit the Olympics in 4K just because their ATSC 1.0 transmitter cannot do so?
I found out today that the Fox Sports app, had my LOCAL Fox station showing the Westminster Dog show in 4K even though the OTA signal was 720p. It looked a LOT better on the streaming app. Guess they cut to the local station for the commercials, and back to the network feed for the show.


----------



## James Long

Davenlr said:


> So you are saying our local NBC station on ATSC 3.0 cannot transmit the Olympics in 4K just because their ATSC 1.0 transmitter cannot do so?


They could put the 4K feed up as a second signal on their ATSC 3.0 station, if there is space available and the 4K feed is available to the local station for rebroadcast. The simulcast of the ATSC 1.0 version must remain.

Available through a network app does not mean it is (or will be) available to a station to rebroadcast.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> They could put the 4K feed up as a second signal on their ATSC 3.0 station, if there is space available and the 4K feed is available to the local station for rebroadcast.


Owing to the fact that the ATSC 3.0 stations had to be implemented as lighthouses (collections of channels from multiple stations), there's only one NBC station that _may_ have room for a UHD stream (and they may have to off the two current streams to make 4K work).

To my knowledge, the technology to link to Internet streams hasn't been much explored yet.


----------



## Steveknj

Back on topic. I got an update on my AT&T TV Osprey box this morning. Any idea what that was about?

I did have a weird glitch last night. My son watched a show to almost the end last night. I wanted to watch the show a bit later, so I FF to the end and then chose Don't Delete. Then went back in and tried to watch from the beginning, but it showed that it was at the end, and brought me to the Delete/Don't Delete screen again. No way I could even rewind to the beginning. I ended up just deleting the show and recorded a later airing for me to watch. I can't say if that was related to this update or not.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> Back on topic. I got an update on my AT&T TV Osprey box this morning. Any idea what that was about?
> 
> I did have a weird glitch last night. My son watched a show to almost the end last night. I wanted to watch the show a bit later, so I FF to the end and then chose Don't Delete. Then went back in and tried to watch from the beginning, but it showed that it was at the end, and brought me to the Delete/Don't Delete screen again. No way I could even rewind to the beginning. I ended up just deleting the show and recorded a later airing for me to watch. I can't say if that was related to this update or not.


they usually get a bug fix update once a month I dont show an update yet.. Still dated 4/16 (which i got Mid May)


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> They could put the 4K feed up as a second signal on their ATSC 3.0 station, if there is space available and the 4K feed is available to the local station for rebroadcast. The simulcast of the ATSC 1.0 version must remain.


There is a simulcast requirement in place but thankfully it's not quite as onerous as you're saying. The rules really only require that if a local broadcaster puts their main channel on 3.0, then that same channel (i.e. same shows airing at the same time) must also remain available on 1.0. So they couldn't, for instance, put their NBC affiliate on 3.0 but not also have it on 1.0. But while the content must be the same, the audio/video format doesn't. The channel could be in 4K HDR with Atmos audio on 3.0 but just regular HD with stereo on 1.0. Here are the relevant bits of the law. Note specifically section (b)(1)(iii):

_(b) Simulcasting requirement. A Class A television station that chooses to air an ATSC 3.0 signal must simulcast the primary video programming stream of that signal in an ATSC 1.0 format. This requirement does not apply to any multicast streams aired on the ATSC 3.0 channel.
_
_(1) The programming aired on the ATSC 1.0 simulcast signal must be "substantially similar" to that aired on the ATSC 3.0 primary video programming stream. For purposes of this section, "substantially similar" means that the programming must be the same except for advertisements, promotions for upcoming programs, and programming features that are based on the enhanced capabilities of ATSC 3.0. These enhanced capabilities include:
_
_(i) Hyper-localized content (e.g., geo-targeted weather, targeted emergency alerts, and hyper-local news):

(ii) Programming features or improvements created for the ATSC 3.0 service (e.g., emergency alert "wake up" ability and interactive program features);

(iii) Enhanced formats made possible by ATSC 3.0 technology (e.g., 4K or HDR); and

(iv) Personalization of programming performed by the viewer and at the viewer's discretion._​_
(2) For purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, programming that airs at a different time on the ATSC 1.0 simulcast signal than on the primary video programming stream of the ATSC 3.0 signal is not considered "substantially similar."_​


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> Available through a network app does not mean it is (or will be) available to a station to rebroadcast.


Exactly. Way, way easier for a network to make their content available in 4K via an OTT app than to do it via their live linear channel. That's true for cable networks but *especially* true for broadcast nets that are tied to all those individual affiliate stations around the country.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> Simulcasting requirement. A Class A television station ...


Try § 73.3801 Full power television simulcasting during the ATSC 3.0 (Next Gen TV) transition.
It also allows "(iii) Enhanced formats made possible by ATSC 3.0 technology (e.g., 4K or HDR);" (Something I did not see when looking at this yesterday.)

Now all we need is a broadcast network to actually create a 4K feed that is substantially similar to their main network feed. That is the bigger hurdle. A separate 4K production of the same events may not qualify.

BTW: "(3) The "substantially similar" requirement in paragraph (b)(1) of this section will sunset on July 17, 2023." Which is the same as in the section you referenced for Class A stations. I wonder if Congress will extend that date or allow market forces to rule. With no must carry/consent to carry for ATSC 3.0 I expect most stations will maintain an ATSC 1.0 presence ... if only to remain on MVPDs. Or Congress will change the law and grant ATSC 3.0 stations the same rights as ATSC 1.0 stations.


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> they usually get a bug fix update once a month I dont show an update yet.. Still dated 4/16 (which i got Mid May)


Another update this morning (2 in 2 days).


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> Another update this morning (2 in 2 days).


Whats your kernel version date


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> Try § 73.3801 Full power television simulcasting during the ATSC 3.0 (Next Gen TV) transition.
> It also allows "(iii) Enhanced formats made possible by ATSC 3.0 technology (e.g., 4K or HDR);" (Something I did not see when looking at this yesterday.)
> 
> Now all we need is a broadcast network to actually create a 4K feed that is substantially similar to their main network feed. That is the bigger hurdle. A separate 4K production of the same events may not qualify.


The legal text referring to Class A was what I found first via a Google search but, yeah, it's the same as for full-power stations. I've been following ATSC 3.0 on a forum over at AVS for a few years now and knew that these were essentially the rules for TV stations in general.

It's pretty plain that the text of the law states that the actual program content must be "the same". The ads can be different and the 3.0 version can differ from the 1.0 version in ways that allow it to take advantage of 3.0-specific features (e.g. 4K, HDR, targeted alerts, optional viewer interactivity/apps, etc.). But that's basically it. The actual video stream needs to be the same, frame-by-frame.

How it would almost certainly operate is with the broadcast network sending out a master signal in 4K HDR, which the local affiliate would receive and branch into two different workflows for further processing. One stream would have the HDR stripped out and get down-rezzed to 1080i or 720p and get compressed and encoded in MPEG-2 for airing on their 1.0 tower. The other stream would remain in 4K HDR (although with a possible change in HDR format, e.g. from a less-common format to HDR10) and get compressed and encoded in HEVC for airing on their 3.0 tower. (Or, conversely, it might be taken down to 1080p or 1080p HDR for airing on the 3.0 tower if they didn't have enough available bandwidth to handle 4K. And in the sort of situations that exist now, where just about every 3.0 tower houses at least two stations, 4K probably isn't feasible. Which is one reason, I think, that the industry has said that 1080p HDR would be the targeted premium format for major network content aired on 3.0 for the foreseeable future.)



James Long said:


> BTW: "(3) The "substantially similar" requirement in paragraph (b)(1) of this section will sunset on July 17, 2023." Which is the same as in the section you referenced for Class A stations. I wonder if Congress will extend that date or allow market forces to rule. With no must carry/consent to carry for ATSC 3.0 I expect most stations will maintain an ATSC 1.0 presence ... if only to remain on MVPDs. Or Congress will change the law and grant ATSC 3.0 stations the same rights as ATSC 1.0 stations.


Hmm, don't know. I know that stations that elect to begin broadcasting in 3.0 must maintain their 1.0 station for at least five years before they can shut it down. But as I've said many times in the past, I doubt that many stations will cease their 1.0 broadcast after only five years, though. I just don't think penetration will be high enough given the lack of a mandate that TV manufacturers include 3.0 tuners in their sets. And the big question is carriage of 3.0 stations on MVPDs. They can't force unpaid must-carry status but my understanding is that 3.0 stations can and will negotiate for paid carriage on MVPD systems, as just about all commercial 1.0 stations already do. (Local broadcasters will likely try to sell carriage of both their 1.0 and 3.0 signals together.) Comcast has already begun testing carriage of 3.0 signals to figure out how all the tech will work on their network.

Seems that perhaps the 2023 sunset for the simulcast requirement is a way to let broadcasters do pretty much whatever they want with their 3.0 station after that point. Imagine a local broadcaster who has decided that 3.0 adoption just isn't happening -- hardly anyone is using a 3.0 tuner and no MVPDs have picked up the 3.0 version of their main channel (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, etc.). AFAIK, they'd be legally free to put a completely different channel on their 3.0 tower, perhaps even in low-bitrate SD, like a little diginet they own (e.g. Laff, Cozi, Comet, etc.). That might satisfy the licensing requirement that they broadcast at least one unencrypted free OTA TV stream. And it would leave the great majority of their bandwidth available for other uses, such as subscription TV channels (e.g. Evoca) or non-TV uses like datacasting to cars. One of the mods on the ATSC 3.0 forum over at AVS, Dr. Don (who has some experience in the local TV industry), seems to think that station groups are really hoping to strike deals with Detroit automakers to make 3.0 profitable.

In the end, it's very likely IMO that 1.0 stations will never be turned off. We'll just end up with 1.0 stations with degraded picture quality (thanks to them being crammed onto fewer towers) while the other towers used for 3.0 will be mainly dedicated to uses other than free high-quality OTA TV, i.e. new revenue streams for the station owners. The lure of pristine 4K HDR available for free with a small indoor antenna is what helped pave the way for passage of the 3.0 legislation. But I'm beginning to question whether it was ever the true intentioned endgame.


----------



## James Long

Five years after published in the Federal Register is what I found in the earlier searches. That could line up with a 2023 date. The end of the simulcast requirement would free stations up to have different content on their 3.0 feed and not need to do a downconvert. Keep the 1.0 feed running for the late adopters but lose the simulcast restrictions.

The challenge for today is to have the network provide a "substantially similar" feed. We can wake the discussion in an appropriate thread when that occurs.


----------



## Steveknj

Does anyone know if there's a good source to see if / when AT&T TV is adding new channels/features? Outside of just looking through the lists of channels, I can't find a good source (like the Channel Anticipation thread here for DirecTV).


----------



## harsh

Steveknj said:


> Does anyone know if there's a good source to see if / when AT&T TV is adding new channels/features?


Anticipating offerings of streaming services is much more difficult as there is nothing like testing uplinks to tip one off to things afoot.

Unless there is a channel that is added to an existing suite of channels, I wouldn't anticipate much activity until after the new management takes over. It may happen, but I don't think it likely.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> Does anyone know if there's a good source to see if / when AT&T TV is adding new channels/features? Outside of just looking through the lists of channels, I can't find a good source (like the Channel Anticipation thread here for DirecTV).


Reddit has been pretty good with news before it drops


----------



## NashGuy

I'm a little surprised that AT&T TV decided to include the ability to watch on 20 simultaneous screens in-home as part of their base package. That kind of feature costs extra on Hulu Live and FuboTV. YouTube TV doesn't yet offer such an upgrade but they soon will, as part of a $10 upgrade package that includes unlimited at-home screens, 4K and downloadable content.

AT&T TV would be more competitively positioned if they'd cut $5 off the price of their base packages, or at least Entertainment, to bring it down to the same $65/mo price point that YTTV, Hulu Live and FuboTV all advertise. Then AT&T TV could include the 20 in-home streams along with unlimited cloud DVR (and hopefully soon, 4K) in the optional $10 upgrade. They also need to extend the retention period for cloud DVR recordings from 90 days to one year.

Maybe we'll see some changes along those lines -- along with the addition of PBS and NFL Network (perhaps as well as MeTV, which Uverse TV has) -- when the new DirecTV company takes charge this summer.

Wonder if we'll see any shake-ups to the channel packages (or to what degree it's even possible given the carriage contracts in place)? Rather than having discrete step-up tiers like Choice, Ultimate and Premiere (along with the nearly-forgotten Movies Extra Pack that can be added to any tier), it would make more sense IMO to reconfigure everything outside of the base Entertainment tier into optional packs that can be added to Entertainment. Maybe put all of the sports channels above Entertainment (e.g. RSNs, MLB Network, NBA TV, NHL Network, FS2, Golf, Tennis, SEC Network, Big 10 Network, etc.) into a Sports Extra Pack that sells for $20/mo rather than dividing them between Choice and Ultimate. Then take all of the non-sports channels (except the premium channels and the Starz Encore channels) outside of Entertainment and group them into one or more add-on packs that sell for however much (maybe $15 if they were all lumped into one). The Starz Encore channels (which are the main upgrade in the current Ultimate tier) would only be sold as part of an a la carte Starz subscription. I suppose they still might market a "gimme everything" package like Premier for folks who aren't concerned with cost and just want a simple box to check to get all the channels.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> I'm a little surprised that AT&T TV decided to include the ability to watch on 20 simultaneous screens in-home as part of their base package. That kind of feature costs extra on Hulu Live and FuboTV. YouTube TV doesn't yet offer such an upgrade but they soon will, as part of a $10 upgrade package that includes unlimited at-home screens, 4K and downloadable content.
> 
> AT&T TV would be more competitively positioned if they'd cut $5 off the price of their base packages, or at least Entertainment, to bring it down to the same $65/mo price point that YTTV, Hulu Live and FuboTV all advertise. Then AT&T TV could include the 20 in-home streams along with unlimited cloud DVR (and hopefully soon, 4K) in the optional $10 upgrade. They also need to extend the retention period for cloud DVR recordings from 90 days to one year.
> 
> Maybe we'll see some changes along those lines -- along with the addition of PBS and NFL Network (perhaps as well as MeTV, which Uverse TV has) -- when the new DirecTV company takes charge this summer.
> 
> Wonder if we'll see any shake-ups to the channel packages (or to what degree it's even possible given the carriage contracts in place)? Rather than having discrete step-up tiers like Choice, Ultimate and Premiere (along with the nearly-forgotten Movies Extra Pack that can be added to any tier), it would make more sense IMO to reconfigure everything outside of the base Entertainment tier into optional packs that can be added to Entertainment. Maybe put all of the sports channels above Entertainment (e.g. RSNs, MLB Network, NBA TV, NHL Network, FS2, Golf, Tennis, SEC Network, Big 10 Network, etc.) into a Sports Extra Pack that sells for $20/mo rather than dividing them between Choice and Ultimate. Then take all of the non-sports channels (except the premium channels and the Starz Encore channels) outside of Entertainment and group them into one or more add-on packs that sell for however much (maybe $15 if they were all lumped into one). The Starz Encore channels (which are the main upgrade in the current Ultimate tier) would only be sold as part of an a la carte Starz subscription. I suppose they still might market a "gimme everything" package like Premier for folks who aren't concerned with cost and just want a simple box to check to get all the channels.


I'm really interested to see what happens when the new management team takes over both AT&T TV and DirecTV. I wonder what their ideas are for both. Hopefully they will have a clear direction so we'll all have an idea of what may happen in the future.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> I'm a little surprised that AT&T TV decided to include the ability to watch on 20 simultaneous screens in-home as part of their base package.


Given how few that could actually take advantage of 20 connections from the same IP address, I suspect that the 20 streams thing is a "shock and awe" bullet point rather than something practical.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> Given how few that could actually take advantage of 20 connections from the same IP address, I suspect that the 20 streams thing is a "shock and awe" bullet point rather than something practical.


Yeah, to some extent I guess that's true. Although I've seen a decent number of folks indicate on forums such as this that they have DTV service on more than 3 TVs in their house. Seems I even read one or two say that was a reason they wouldn't switch to AT&T TV back before they began offering more then 3 simultaneous streams. So it has real value to some customers.


----------



## espaeth

I wonder how many people have broadband connections that would support 160mbps of consistent bandwidth to support 20 streams at max quality, particularly if you assume this viewing would be during prime viewing hours when CDN and ISP networks are under maximum load.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> So it has real value to some customers.


It is kind of like 16 tuners on the Hopper 3. Few are likely to use more than half of them at any one time but there they are.

The trick here is that people are going to assume that they can share their account with friends but only three of the 20 streams can be off the home LAN. If VPNs are used on any of the devices (as opposed to a router-level VPN), those count against the "on the go" count.


----------



## compnurd

espaeth said:


> I wonder how many people have broadband connections that would support 160mbps of consistent bandwidth to support 20 streams at max quality, particularly if you assume this viewing would be during prime viewing hours when CDN and ISP networks are under maximum load.


Probably a good amount


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> I'm a little surprised that AT&T TV decided to include the ability to watch on 20 simultaneous screens in-home as part of their base package. That kind of feature costs extra on Hulu Live and FuboTV. YouTube TV doesn't yet offer such an upgrade but they soon will, as part of a $10 upgrade package that includes unlimited at-home screens, 4K and downloadable content.
> 
> AT&T TV would be more competitively positioned if they'd cut $5 off the price of their base packages, or at least Entertainment, to bring it down to the same $65/mo price point that YTTV, Hulu Live and FuboTV all advertise. Then AT&T TV could include the 20 in-home streams along with unlimited cloud DVR (and hopefully soon, 4K) in the optional $10 upgrade. They also need to extend the retention period for cloud DVR recordings from 90 days to one year.
> 
> Maybe we'll see some changes along those lines -- along with the addition of PBS and NFL Network (perhaps as well as MeTV, which Uverse TV has) -- when the new DirecTV company takes charge this summer.
> 
> Wonder if we'll see any shake-ups to the channel packages (or to what degree it's even possible given the carriage contracts in place)? Rather than having discrete step-up tiers like Choice, Ultimate and Premiere (along with the nearly-forgotten Movies Extra Pack that can be added to any tier), it would make more sense IMO to reconfigure everything outside of the base Entertainment tier into optional packs that can be added to Entertainment. Maybe put all of the sports channels above Entertainment (e.g. RSNs, MLB Network, NBA TV, NHL Network, FS2, Golf, Tennis, SEC Network, Big 10 Network, etc.) into a Sports Extra Pack that sells for $20/mo rather than dividing them between Choice and Ultimate. Then take all of the non-sports channels (except the premium channels and the Starz Encore channels) outside of Entertainment and group them into one or more add-on packs that sell for however much (maybe $15 if they were all lumped into one). The Starz Encore channels (which are the main upgrade in the current Ultimate tier) would only be sold as part of an a la carte Starz subscription. I suppose they still might market a "gimme everything" package like Premier for folks who aren't concerned with cost and just want a simple box to check to get all the channels.


Your not going to see NFL until the Next contract is up which is also when the Sunday ticket contract is up. The NFL strong armed ATT when the uverse contract expired. PBS there is a lot of speculation on Reddit since Google was the one who helped PBS go streaming for YTTV that there is some kind of exclusive contract there for awhile


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> Your not going to see NFL until the Next contract is up which is also when the Sunday ticket contract is up. The NFL strong armed ATT when the uverse contract expired.


Yeah, I know that's what we've said in the past. But at this point, I don't see how keeping the NFL Network carriage contract tied up with NFL Sunday Ticket benefits either side. AT&T/DTV chose not to use their early exit option last year, so their deal as the exclusive distributor of NFL ST will definitely remain in place through the end of the current contract, i.e. Dec. 2022. But everyone seems to think that AT&T/DTV will not be renewing that deal afterwards. The NFL has been talking to both Amazon and ESPN+ and they reportedly want NFL ST to have a strong streaming presence in the next deal.

Meanwhile, NFL Network is already available to about 80-85% of AT&T's cable TV subs, i.e. those on DTV, and will apparently remain there through the end of 2022. I don't see why either side wouldn't want to strike a simple 2-yr carriage deal to put NFL Network on AT&T TV and Uverse TV, to cover the rest of the AT&T subscriber base until the current deals for NFL Network and NFL ST conclude on DTV. How does keeping NFL Network off of AT&T TV this year and next do anything to increase the NFL's hand with regard to negotiations for post-2022 carriage deals? It just keeps a little more carriage money out of their pockets in the meantime.



compnurd said:


> PBS there is a lot of speculation on Reddit since Google was the one who helped PBS go streaming for YTTV that there is some kind of exclusive contract there for awhile


Hmm, yeah, that would make sense. Would explain why no other vMVPD has added PBS even though PBS stations have the capability now for a long while. Not long after going live on YTTV, many (most?) PBS stations began carrying their live stream in the free PBS app and website. Perhaps Google offered PBS financial and technical help in getting the streaming infrastructure in place at their member stations in exchange for being the exclusive vMVPD to carry them, but with the ability of PBS stations to distribute their live streams for free in their own PBS app and website. I can see how PBS would have taken such a deal as it definitely helped to expand their reach. I guess they figured that streaming TV viewers using vMVPDs other than YTTV (such as AT&T TV) could just switch to the free PBS app and watch there.

YTTV first added PBS stations in Dec. 2019. So if they locked up a 2-yr exclusive, that would end this Dec. If it was an 18-mo. exclusive, that would've lapsed last month. Strange to think that PBS would've agreed to a longer exclusivity term than 2 years if they had hopes of ever striking carriage deals with other vMVPDs, although it's certainly possible.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I know that's what we've said in the past. But at this point, I don't see how keeping the NFL Network carriage contract tied up with NFL Sunday Ticket benefits either side. AT&T/DTV chose not to use their early exit option last year, so their deal as the exclusive distributor of NFL ST will definitely remain in place through the end of the current contract, i.e. Dec. 2022. But everyone seems to think that AT&T/DTV will not be renewing that deal afterwards. The NFL has been talking to both Amazon and ESPN+ and they reportedly want NFL ST to have a strong streaming presence in the next deal.
> 
> Meanwhile, NFL Network is already available to about 80-85% of AT&T's cable TV subs, i.e. those on DTV, and will apparently remain there through the end of 2022. I don't see why either side wouldn't want to strike a simple 2-yr carriage deal to put NFL Network on AT&T TV and Uverse TV, to cover the rest of the AT&T subscriber base until the current deals for NFL Network and NFL ST conclude on DTV. How does keeping NFL Network off of AT&T TV this year and next do anything to increase the NFL's hand with regard to negotiations for post-2022 carriage deals? It just keeps a little more carriage money out of their pockets in the meantime.
> 
> Hmm, yeah, that would make sense. Would explain why no other vMVPD has added PBS even though PBS stations have the capability now for a long while. Not long after going live on YTTV, many (most?) PBS stations began carrying their live stream in the free PBS app and website. Perhaps Google offered PBS financial and technical help in getting the streaming infrastructure in place at their member stations in exchange for being the exclusive vMVPD to carry them, but with the ability of PBS stations to distribute their live streams for free in their own PBS app and website. I can see how PBS would have taken such a deal as it definitely helped to expand their reach. I guess they figured that streaming TV viewers using vMVPDs other than YTTV (such as AT&T TV) could just switch to the free PBS app and watch there.
> 
> YTTV first added PBS stations in Dec. 2019. So if they locked up a 2-yr exclusive, that would end this Dec. If it was an 18-mo. exclusive, that would've lapsed last month. Strange to think that PBS would've agreed to a longer exclusivity term than 2 years if they had hopes of ever striking carriage deals with other vMVPDs, although it's certainly possible.


Honestly not having the NFL network is not a huge deal It's not like they have a huge amount of exclusive games anymore

PBS is always strapped for cash so Google getting them going let's just say for free for a 2-3 year. Wouldn't surprise me


----------



## Davenlr

espaeth said:


> I wonder how many people have broadband connections that would support 160mbps of consistent bandwidth to support 20 streams at max quality, particularly if you assume this viewing would be during prime viewing hours when CDN and ISP networks are under maximum load.


I do. 1 Gbps fiber, no data cap. With 3 streams playing on YouTubeTV, a speedtest on my computer still does 980 Mb/s


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> Honestly not having the NFL network is not a huge deal It's not like they have a huge amount of exclusive games anymore


Football is still the most popular US sport and cable TV increasingly depends on sports fans. So I think it does put AT&T TV at a bit of competitive disadvantage not to have NFL Network when Comcast, DTV, DISH, YTTV, Sling and Fubo TV all have it.

I was over at a friend's new house yesterday and noticed that he had the AT&T TV device connected to his living room TV. I asked him about it and he said they had gotten AT&T Fiber and TV installed when they recently moved in. He was an enthusiastic fan of AT&T TV, showing me how it worked, saying he was paying about half what he did on Comcast for broadband plus TV. He mentioned that it had "all the sports channels. Well, except for NFL Network."


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> Football is still the most popular US sport and cable TV increasingly depends on sports fans. So I think it does put AT&T TV at a bit of competitive disadvantage not to have NFL Network when Comcast, DTV, DISH, YTTV, Sling and Fubo TV all have it.
> 
> I was over at a friend's new house yesterday and noticed that he had the AT&T TV device connected to his living room TV. I asked him about it and he said they had gotten AT&T Fiber and TV installed when they recently moved in. He was an enthusiastic fan of AT&T TV, showing me how it worked, saying he was paying about half what he did on Comcast for broadband plus TV. He mentioned that it had "all the sports channels. Well, except for NFL Network."


I mean I am a huge football fan. I haven't missed it at all


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, to some extent I guess that's true. Although I've seen a decent number of folks indicate on forums such as this that they have DTV service on more than 3 TVs in their house. Seems I even read one or two say that was a reason they wouldn't switch to AT&T TV back before they began offering more then 3 simultaneous streams. So it has real value to some customers.


That would be me. The 20 simultaneous streams was the thing that made me decide to jump. Actually if it was 10, I would have done it, but 20? Even better. When it was limited to 3 that would have caused major problems in my house. Now, not only can we stream whenever we want, but we can record many simultaneous shows and not have to worry about using a tuner (which became an issue from time to time on DirecTV).


----------



## Steveknj

espaeth said:


> I wonder how many people have broadband connections that would support 160mbps of consistent bandwidth to support 20 streams at max quality, particularly if you assume this viewing would be during prime viewing hours when CDN and ISP networks are under maximum load.


I don't know about 20, but we do 5 quite frequently. I think 20 is probably more of a marketing number, and that there are very few who use 20. But hey, as long at it's more than 3 which is what they had before, it works for me.


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> I mean I am a huge football fan. I haven't missed it at all


The only thing I miss is occasionally, when there's nothing on, being able to flip to a classic game and watch. And I used to like their draft coverage better than ESPNs, but not a big deal really. I did notice that Pluto has the NFL Channel and that has some classic games if I need my fix. But, even the live games on NFL Network are also shown on Fox, so I wouldn't even miss those. I agree, I'm not really missing it. That said, if they can get Red Zone....


----------



## harsh

Steveknj said:


> Actually if it was 10, I would have done it, but 20? Even better.


Do you anticipate having seven or more streaming sessions going on in your residence at once?


----------



## compnurd

harsh said:


> Do you anticipate having seven or more streaming sessions going on in your residence at once?


I have had 9 at one point


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> Do you anticipate having seven or more streaming sessions going on in your residence at once?


I think 7 would be about the limit, so no. Ten would give me some headroom. Twenty? Way more than I need, but not complaining


----------



## James Long

Better to have "too many" than not enough. People are more likely to have multiple devices than the same number of receivers. Might as well set the number high.

Set the number at 10 and we'd have a thousand post thread at why it should be 11.  Less likely at 20 and the higher limit only hurts the customer if they have insufficient Internet.


----------



## b4pjoe

James Long said:


> Better to have "too many" than not enough. People are more likely to have multiple devices than the same number of receivers. Might as well set the number high.
> 
> Set the number at 10 and we'd have a thousand post thread at why it should be 11.  Less likely at 20 and the higher limit only hurts the customer if they have insufficient Internet.


Now I want 50. I should start a thread.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Less likely at 20 and the higher limit only hurts the customer if they have insufficient Internet.


Does it only hurt the customer or will the customer blame DIRECTV because they "speed test" at >250Mbps? We see those complaints quite often.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Does it only hurt the customer or will the customer blame DIRECTV because they "speed test" at >250Mbps? We see those complaints quite often.


Who says the customer has 250Mbps? In any case, a customer actually attempting 20 simultaneous streams should be rare enough that AT&T TV can handle the calls.


----------



## raott

James Long said:


> Who says the customer has 250Mbps? In any case, a customer actually attempting 20 simultaneous streams should be rare enough that AT&T TV can handle the calls.


Husband and wife in separate bedrooms, mother-in-law living in the house, five kids&#8230;&#8230;.and I'm still only up to 8. How does anyone get to 20?


----------



## espaeth

raott said:


> How does anyone get to 20?


They're probably planning for the Osprey box to get a release that causes it to crash repeatedly and not release streams cleanly.


----------



## compnurd

raott said:


> Husband and wife in separate bedrooms, mother-in-law living in the house, five kids&#8230;&#8230;.and I'm still only up to 8. How does anyone get to 20?


 you don't . But YTTV is coming out with unlimited so it counters it


----------



## Steveknj

This is how competition is supposed to work. One gives 20, another goes unlimited, which would make the first go unlimited. Right now, it's sorting itself out. Unfortunately, at some point everything with consolidate, or some of the competition will fold, and then the REAL rules will happen, where the consumer will end up paying for everything. Google being Google, I'll bet that YTTV is eventually discontinued. They do this with pretty much everything. They start platforms, and eventually abandon them. It's the Google way.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Who says the customer has 250Mbps?


The customer says they ran a broadband speed test through their ISP or an outside party (i.e. Ookla) and got some arbitrarily high three digit speed from their fiber or cable broadband.

It wouldn't make sense to do it based on the "up to" but people complain about the darnedest things.


----------



## lparsons21

Did some searching today to see what is scheduled to come on this summer on the cable and broadcast live channels. Other than sports, contests and fake reality shows, the list is pathetic.

Nearly all the new/returning scripted shows are going to VOD streamers like Paramount+, Peacock and Hulu. Even the very few going to live channels will be on one of those next day or so after airing.

This just adds to the list of reasons to not pay for a live streaming service IMO, especially if you can get the broadcast channels via antenna.


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> Did some searching today to see what is scheduled to come on this summer on the cable and broadcast live channels. Other than sports, contests and fake reality shows, the list is pathetic.
> 
> Nearly all the new/returning scripted shows are going to VOD streamers like Paramount+, Peacock and Hulu. Even the very few going to live channels will be on one of those next day or so after airing.
> 
> This just adds to the list of reasons to not pay for a live streaming service IMO, especially if you can get the broadcast channels via antenna.


The key word there is "other than sports" That's my primary viewing for any summer. Summer is notoriously re-run and schlock season. Has been for as long as I've been watching TV. For a stretch we were getting some new content, but by and large I'm not sure what you were expecting from linear TV. It's always been that way.


----------



## Z513

The next AT&T Box from Humax went through the FCC:

https://fccid.io/O6ZA21KW


----------



## lparsons21

Steveknj said:


> The key word there is "other than sports" That's my primary viewing for any summer. Summer is notoriously re-run and schlock season. Has been for as long as I've been watching TV. For a stretch we were getting some new content, but by and large I'm not sure what you were expecting from linear TV. It's always been that way.


Not quite. Summer was also usually where the cable channels brought out their series.


----------



## Steveknj

Z513 said:


> The next AT&T Box from Humax went through the FCC:
> 
> https://fccid.io/O6ZA21KW


Do we know anything about this yet? What improvements it will have over the existing Osprey box? Only thing I heard is a newer and quicker rev of Android TV (or whatever Google is calling it these days). Hopefully it will come in cheaper than a new Osprey (I bought mine off eBay so didn't pay the full $120)


----------



## harsh

Steveknj said:


> Summer is notoriously re-run and schlock season.


I second this motion. Other than some series on Turner properties (i.e. _The Last Ship)_, most network seem happy to bail on Summer programming.


----------



## Davenlr

Has anyone with an active ATT subscription received the new obnoxious "Google Discovery" version of the Android TV interface on their Osprey? They totally ruined my Shield and Sony TV interface. Might go back to the Osprey box sans subscription if its still google free.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> Do we know anything about this yet? What improvements it will have over the existing Osprey box? Only thing I heard is a newer and quicker rev of Android TV (or whatever Google is calling it these days). Hopefully it will come in cheaper than a new Osprey (I bought mine off eBay so didn't pay the full $120)


We won't know for a little bit I am guessing it will be 120 like the previous. Maybe 99


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Has anyone with an active ATT subscription received the new obnoxious "Google Discovery" version of the Android TV interface on their Osprey? They totally ruined my Shield and Sony TV interface. Might go back to the Osprey box sans subscription if its still google free.


Not that I have noticed


----------



## Davenlr

compnurd said:


> Not that I have noticed


Thanks. You can bet the new box will. Guy on the shield thread on another forum turned on his Shield this morning to show some cartoons for his kid, and got a 1/3 page ad for Ru Pauls Drag Show, and he was pissed.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Thanks. You can bet the new box will. Guy on the shield thread on another forum turned on his Shield this morning to show some cartoons for his kid, and got a 1/3 page ad for Ru Pauls Drag Show, and he was pissed.


Using the ATT TV app on the shield he got an ad?


----------



## Davenlr

No, the Home screen on the Shield when he turned it on.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Z513 said:


> The next AT&T Box from Humax went through the FCC:
> 
> https://fccid.io/O6ZA21KW


I want quad screens.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> No, the Home screen on the Shield when he turned it on.


yeh I dont think that is going to happen The Osprey jumps right to live TV


----------



## compnurd

Not sure if anyone picked up but looks like the new box supports DV and Atmos


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Not sure if anyone picked up but looks like the new box supports DV and Atmos


The current box does Atmos with at least some apps.


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> Has anyone with an active ATT subscription received the new obnoxious "Google Discovery" version of the Android TV interface on their Osprey? They totally ruined my Shield and Sony TV interface. Might go back to the Osprey box sans subscription if its still google free.


The AT&T TV box has their custom UI. It doesn't run the standard Android TV UI that regular retail devices like the Shield TV or Sony TVs do. So it won't be affected.


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> The current box does Atmos with at least some apps.


Do you know which apps?


----------



## lparsons21

Steveknj said:


> Do you know which apps?


Just did a quick check. As of today it seems only HBO Max, but I remember seeing Prime and Disney doing it in the past. Today those don't show any Atmos nor does Netflix.


----------



## Steveknj

YTTV just added 5.1 (which AT&TV already has), and a 4K tier for an additional $20 a month ($10 for 12 months), the 4K tier also has unlimited streams. Hopefully AT&T TV adds this as well (and hopefully in time for the Olympics).


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> YTTV just added 5.1 (which AT&TV already has), and a 4K tier for an additional $20 a month ($10 for 12 months), the 4K tier also has unlimited streams. Hopefully AT&T TV adds this as well (and hopefully in time for the Olympics).


They are behind on there monthly patches so hopefully something soon had something to do with it


----------



## compnurd

My Osprey boxes got updated last night to Android 10 and the TV Kernel Build is 6/15

so as far as I can tell two of my 4K TVs are no longer showing forced HDR. One is so need to play with that


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> My Osprey boxes got updated last night to Android 10 and the TV Kernel Build is 6/15
> 
> so as far as I can tell two of my 4K TVs are no longer showing forced HDR. One is so need to play with that


I will have to take a look when I get home. My son said something about his box rebooting. How can I tell if there's forced HDR or not? Is there a setting?


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> I will have to take a look when I get home. My son said something about his box rebooting. How can I tell if there's forced HDR or not? Is there a setting?


My TV tells me what HDR mode it is in if any when it gets the signal initially


----------



## Mike1096

compnurd said:


> My Osprey boxes got updated last night to Android 10 and the TV Kernel Build is 6/15
> 
> so as far as I can tell two of my 4K TVs are no longer showing forced HDR. One is so need to play with that


 Very interesting. Android 10 absolutely solves the forced HDR issue. Didn't think ATT was planning to update the Android OS version on that box. Assumed they were saving it for version 2

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd

So my two Vizios are no longer reporting they are getting a HDR signal.. My LG OLED is... I swapped the boxes but the same result.. It never bothered me on either TV since the settings can correct.. But its odd


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> So my two Vizios are no longer reporting they are getting a HDR signal.. My LG OLED is... I swapped the boxes but the same result.. It never bothered me on either TV since the settings can correct.. But its odd


I have a Vizio as my main TV, so that's good to hear.


----------



## Davenlr

Awesome. No forced HDR, and when I select a 4K HDR program on YouTubeTV is switches to HDR10. And it doesnt have that obnoxious Google UI. Glad I bought two of them. They work even better now. A little slow compared to the Shield and built in Android on the TV, but worth it. I like the remote better too. I am using it on the Sony X950H which has AI upscaling built in, and using the Shield on the Vizio since it does not have built in AI upscaling. Only think I havent figured out, with no ATT TV account, the options are APPs and Settings. When I select APPS, it shows all my apps, but I have not figured out if there is a way to rearrange them.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Awesome. No forced HDR, and when I select a 4K HDR program on YouTubeTV is switches to HDR10. And it doesnt have that obnoxious Google UI. Glad I bought two of them. They work even better now. A little slow compared to the Shield and built in Android on the TV, but worth it. I like the remote better too. I am using it on the Sony X950H which has AI upscaling built in, and using the Shield on the Vizio since it does not have built in AI upscaling. Only think I havent figured out, with no ATT TV account, the options are APPs and Settings. When I select APPS, it shows all my apps, but I have not figured out if there is a way to rearrange them.


Really Interesting.... Why is the LG reporting HDR.......


----------



## swyman18

Davenlr said:


> and when I select a 4K HDR program on YouTubeTV


I don't think any of the newly released 4K VOD content on YTTV is advertised as HDR, is it?


----------



## harperhometheater

Does the new Android version on the Osprey now support Dolby Vision?


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> Does the new Android version on the Osprey now support Dolby Vision?


No and I doubt they ever pay for the licensing on it for that box


----------



## Davenlr

swyman18 said:


> I don't think any of the newly released 4K VOD content on YTTV is advertised as HDR, is it?


The Discovery "How its made" was showing HDR10 on my set.


----------



## compnurd

Couple more observations. Speed has
Improved on everything. Apps. The play store and the actual interface


----------



## Davenlr

compnurd said:


> Really Interesting.... Why is the LG reporting HDR.......


My Sony has an option to force HDR. Maybe his LG does too, and its on that setting? Been a while since I played with WebOS


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> My Sony has an option to force HDR. Maybe his LG does too, and its on that setting? Been a while since I played with WebOS


It does not


----------



## harperhometheater

compnurd said:


> No and I doubt they ever pay for the licensing on it for that box


We also didn't think they'd ever upgrade to Android 10 _"for that box"_, so ya never know, right! ;-)


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> We also didn't think they'd ever upgrade to Android 10 _"for that box"_, so ya never know, right! ;-)


I was not in that camp


----------



## Steveknj

It was interesting when I looked into this upgrade last night. I went to settings and noticed the Android version was 10. Then I went to Update and did the update and of course it was STILL 10. So I don't know if there were 2 updates (one I didn't notice, though my box did an update 2-3 weeks ago), or if this was the ONLY update and the box has been on 10 for quite awhile.

I did notice both before and after the update that the TV didn't show HDR. It still "upscales" the picture to 2180p so it's some sort of 4k upscale without HDR.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> It was interesting when I looked into this upgrade last night. I went to settings and noticed the Android version was 10. Then I went to Update and did the update and of course it was STILL 10. So I don't know if there were 2 updates (one I didn't notice, though my box did an update 2-3 weeks ago), or if this was the ONLY update and the box has been on 10 for quite awhile.
> 
> I did notice both before and after the update that the TV didn't show HDR. It still "upscales" the picture to 2180p so it's some sort of 4k upscale without HDR.


The box outputs the highest resolution your TV supports.. I wouldnt really call it upscaling... The Android Version and the ATT TV App update independent of each other... So if you got another update last night after it could have been for something other then the Android version


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> The box outputs the highest resolution your TV supports.. I wouldnt really call it upscaling...


Converting video from <4K to 4K is the dictionary definition of upscaling.

How it gets there varies widely in terms of fidelity but it is all upscaling.


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> The box outputs the highest resolution your TV supports.. I wouldnt really call it upscaling... The Android Version and the ATT TV App update independent of each other... So if you got another update last night after it could have been for something other then the Android version





harsh said:


> Converting video from <4K to 4K is the dictionary definition of upscaling.
> 
> How it gets there varies widely in terms of fidelity but it is all upscaling.


I do think it is upscaling. My TV shows 2180P for AT&T TV content. Obviously none of the content is 2180P, it's either 720p or 1080i as that's what's broadcasted by the networks. I do wonder if that's the cause of some of the haziness I see on some of the content on my TV?


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> I do think it is upscaling. My TV shows 2180P for AT&T TV content. Obviously none of the content is 2180P, it's either 720p or 1080i as that's what's broadcasted by the networks. I do wonder if that's the cause of some of the haziness I see on some of the content on my TV?


It's 2160P. Content from ATT TV is either 720P or 1080P also


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> It's 2160P. Content from ATT TV is either 720P or 1080P also


Yes, 2160P, correct. As far as I know, I don't think there are any broadcast or cable channels that do 1080P. I've seen 1080i and 720p. But I could be wrong.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> Yes, 2160P, correct. As far as I know, I don't think there are any broadcast or cable channels that do 1080P. I've seen 1080i and 720p. But I could be wrong.


Alot use 1080P for streaming and On demand.. Just no one outside ATT TV/YTTV etc carries them


----------



## Stevies3

I’m new to AT&T TV. I received both updates too this morning. My remote also received an update, does the remote get updated as often as the Osprey box?


----------



## compnurd

Stevies3 said:


> I'm new to AT&T TV. I received both updates too this morning. My remote also received an update, does the remote get updated as often as the Osprey box?


That's a good question but I suspect they may get updated when not paying attention


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> Yes, 2160P, correct. As far as I know, I don't think there are any broadcast or cable channels that do 1080P. I've seen 1080i and 720p. But I could be wrong.





compnurd said:


> Alot use 1080P for streaming and On demand.. Just no one outside ATT TV/YTTV etc carries them


Interlaced video is basically a legacy format that is used on non-internet sources, e.g. OTA TV, cable TV, satellite TV, etc. Virtually nothing streams over the internet in an interlaced format because some computers/devices can't handle it well (or couldn't in the past).

So streaming cable TV services like AT&T TV, YTTV, etc. will take the 1080i signals they receive from channels and de-interlace it on their servers and then stream it out over the internet as 1080p. The 720p channels' signals they receive remain at 720p. And then the device that receives those streams may convert them to match the resolution of the connected screen and capabilities of the device itself. So the Osprey will output those 720p and 1080p streams as 2160p if it's connected to a 4K TV.

Hopefully AT&T TV will follow YTTV's lead and introduce native 2160p streams for the Olympics and other content that cable channels offer in 4K and 4K HDR. I'll be a little surprised if that happens given how little attention AT&T has seemed to give to AT&T TV since it launched. So getting 4K and HDR content might have to wait until the new DirecTV company takes contract. We'll see. But hey, I didn't expect the Osprey to get updated to Android TV 10 and have the forced HDR issue fixed either, so anything's possible...


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> I'll be a little surprised if that happens given how little attention AT&T has seemed to give to AT&T TV since it launched.


I'm not convinced that that is a fair statement. That certain elements of the service (i.e. the devices and some key DVR features) didn't develop as they should have doesn't mean that they were ignoring the whole service.

The future of the New DIRECTV (even if it is just a temporary merger target) is surely dependent on the long-term success of AT&T TV so I expect that it will be closely attended going forward.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> I'm not convinced that that is a fair statement. That certain elements of the service (i.e. the devices and some key DVR features) didn't develop as they should have doesn't mean that they were ignoring the whole service.
> 
> The future of the New DIRECTV (even if it is just a temporary merger target) is surely dependent on the long-term success of AT&T TV so I expect that it will be closely attended going forward.


AT&T hasn't completely ignored the service, no. But it's never gotten that much marketing push from them -- the company immediately shifted focus to HBO Max and then decided to sell off both AT&T TV *and* HBO Max! And they've neglected to fix some glaring channel omissions: not just PBS locals but all those missing CW locals owned by Nexstar. Then there's the lack of fine-tuned DVR controls (e.g. padding, etc.). And while the service is apparently much more reliable than was the case 1 or 2 years ago, I'm still not sure if it works as well as YTTV.

OTOH, they have made some incremental improvements to the Osprey box (including a shocking upgrade to Android TV 10) and they changed the marketing strategy for AT&T TV to make it less confusing with purely contract-free everyday pricing. So yeah, it's not like AT&T has done *nothing* to improve it.

AT&T TV had the misfortune to get its long-delayed national launch right when a historic pandemic struck and just before major corporate shake-ups. It feels to me like a product with a lot of potential that's just been kept on the back-burner since launching. I agree that AT&T TV will be an important service for New DirecTV and should get a lot more attention going forward than it has so far. Will be interesting to see what they do with it. Last I heard, that transition should be happening some time this quarter (between now and end of Sept.).


----------



## lparsons21

IMO ATT’s major problem was the huge marketing blunders made with having too many different services with widely varying ways of signing up and using, the biggest blunder IMO was the contract vs non-contract versions of the same product.

From a purely service view, ATT TV Now and ATT TV with varying channel levels was fine and has just gotten better.

As for UI, well IMO YouTubeTV’s is one of the very worst out there, followed closely by Hulu+Live’s. ATT’s is a joy to behold and use in comparison regardless of a few relatively minor issues.


----------



## harsh

Marketing is arguably the last place subscribers want their service provider spending their money. This is driven home hard, as lparsons21 points out, by the "trial balloon" marketing approach that AT&T was dabbling with.

I submit that we have to give everybody a pass for the duration of the spin-off action as AT&T essentially confessed that they were wrong and New DIRECTV was left with somewhat of a five coil steamer (along with considerable debt).


----------



## James Long

AT&T's Video unit has suffered death by a thousand paper cuts. I don't believe one thing that went wrong would be enough to kill the service, but the list of problems added up.

The list of bad steps and poor outcomes is long. After the initial failure to leverage the DIRECTV customer count they purchased, rewrite all of their carriage contracts in their favor and launch a successful OTT service (the entire reason for buying DIRECTV) they seemed to lose focus. It is almost like they were in the board room and someone said "hey, this isn't working" so they started ignoring DIRECTV and looked toward being a content provider. They bought HBO/Time Warner. That did not work out as well as it could have.

The big hit against AT&T was when the activist investors started making public demands that AT&T reverse their purchase of DIRECTV and reverse their purchase of HBO/Time Warner. They have bowed to the pressure. By the end of the year AT&T will be effectively out of both businesses ... invested but no longer controlling DIRECTV and selling off HBO/Time Warner to Discovery.

Limbo is sucking the life out of AT&T|DIRECTV. AT&T has already moved "video" to being barely a footnote in their financials ... the deal needs to close soon so someone with focus can at least try to save the service. The service needs strong leadership. Technical people doing their jobs to continue product development is good (I am glad that they have not sacrificed all upgrades for profits). But I feel that they need a clear path forward and a leader that will take New DIRECTV down that path. Not leadership that barely acknowledges the services exist.

The sad part is that Video is still profitable ... doing better most quarters than the rest of AT&T. Video brings in a lot of revenue and profit but seems to be on the ignore list while AT&T corporate focuses on the rest of their business. Video has a lot of potential. It just needs more "love".


----------



## Mike1096

James Long said:


> AT&T suffered death by a thousand paper cuts. I don't believe one thing that went wrong would be enough to kill the service, but the list of problems added up.
> 
> The list of bad steps and poor outcomes is long. After the initial failure to leverage the DIRECTV customer count they purchased, rewrite all of their carriage contracts in their favor and launch a successful OTT service (the entire reason for buying DIRECTV) they seemed to lose focus. It is almost like they were in the board room and someone said "hey, this isn't working" so they started ignoring DIRECTV and looked toward being a content provider. They bought HBO/Time Warner. That did not work out as well as it could have.
> 
> The big hit against AT&T was when the activist investors started making public demands that AT&T reverse their purchase of DIRECTV and reverse their purchase of HBO/Time Warner. They have bowed to the pressure. By the end of the year AT&T will be effectively out of both businesses ... invested but no longer controlling DIRECTV and selling off HBO/Time Warner to Discovery.
> 
> Limbo is sucking the life out of AT&T|DIRECTV. AT&T has already moved "video" to being barely a footnote in their financials ... the deal needs to close soon so someone with focus can at least try to save the service. The service needs strong leadership. Technical people doing their jobs to continue product development is good (I am glad that they have not sacrificed all upgrades for profits). But I feel that they need a clear path forward and a leader that will take New DIRECTV down that path. Not leadership that barely acknowledges the services exist.


ATT as a company is a disaster. Riddled with money wasting moves. They single handedly destroyed DirecTV. Att TV has been in limbo since it's inception. It took how many years just to fix forced HDR? I wouldn't give them a dime.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> AT&T's Video unit has suffered death by a thousand paper cuts. I don't believe one thing that went wrong would be enough to kill the service, but the list of problems added up.


I would argue that AT&T as a whole has suffered many of those same paper cuts. Legendarily poor customer service is a well-established hallmark of SBC's AT&T. Confusing (or misleading) marketing strategies are a company-wide problem as well. Much of AT&T's tech deployment has been lagging in all markets in which they compete.

Sure, they're still printing money at some level, but they can't continue to operate as if they were because at some point the $170 billion in debt (that shows little sign of shrinking) is going to start costing them considerable interest charges.


----------



## Davenlr

NashGuy said:


> AT&T hasn't completely ignored the service, no. But it's never gotten that much marketing push from them


In Arkansas, I get a flyer every Wednesday with a full page ad for ATT TV, and its benefits...so they are marketing it here at least.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> In Arkansas, I get a flyer every Wednesday with a full page ad for ATT TV, and its benefits...so they are marketing it here at least.


Ditto in Western PA


----------



## Davenlr

Mike1096 said:


> ATT as a company is a disaster. Riddled with money wasting moves. They single handedly destroyed DirecTV. Att TV has been in limbo since it's inception. It took how many years just to fix forced HDR? I wouldn't give them a dime.


They are not my favorite company, believe me, but no way I am turning down 1 Gb/s fiber internet with no caps for $59 per month to sign up for the alternative, Xfinity internet at the same speed for $80 per month with a 1.2Tb cap.

EDIT: I forgot, that $80 a month includes basic cable (locals and the weather channel). Small print (a $17.50 + tax per month local broadcast fee applies), so not $80, but $97.50 + tax. Oh yea, franchise fee, city fee.....did I leave out any fees? I am sure I did. Oh yea, that is only for one TV. No thanks.


----------



## compnurd

Mike1096 said:


> ATT as a company is a disaster. Riddled with money wasting moves. They single handedly destroyed DirecTV. Att TV has been in limbo since it's inception. It took how many years just to fix forced HDR? I wouldn't give them a dime.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


ATT didn't kill Directv. They may have accelerated the decline but it was starting. As far as Forced HDR that had nothing to do with them. That was all Google. Took Google 10 months to patch Android TV 9 and fix it

Google hasn't fixed it for anyone running Android TV 8 and never will


----------



## James Long

Davenlr said:


> EDIT: I forgot, that $80 a month includes basic cable (locals and the weather channel). Small print (a $17.50 + tax per month local broadcast fee applies), so not $80, but $97.50 + tax. Oh yea, franchise fee, city fee.....did I leave out any fees? I am sure I did. Oh yea, that is only for one TV. No thanks.


Strange. Xfinity sells Internet without TV in my area. It isn't the first thing one sees when signing up for service (they like to market their TV services) but I have Internet only from Xfinity. (Peacock Premium is included with one box for free.)


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> In Arkansas, I get a flyer every Wednesday with a full page ad for ATT TV, and its benefits...so they are marketing it here at least.


I used to get those fliers that always had ads for AT&T services but they stopped here during the pandemic.

Yeah, AT&T is doing *some* marketing for AT&T TV, like cheap junk mail ads and some online banner ads, but they're not doing any TV ads that I've seen. Nor are they doing any big ads on sports events like YouTube TV has been doing for awhile now (e.g. 2019 World Series "presented by YouTube TV" on Fox). Although a friend who recently signed up for it said he got a sales pitch for it at Costco. So I guess those direct sales reps who used to sell DTV in those stores are now doing AT&T TV.

Just based on casual conversations that I've heard/been in, I get the sense that YouTube TV is breaking through with the general public, in terms of people recognizing the brand name and knowing what it is (i.e. cable TV service that streams over the internet). I don't think that's true for AT&T TV.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> Strange. Xfinity sells Internet without TV in my area. It isn't the first thing one sees when signing up for service (they like to market their TV services) but I have Internet only from Xfinity. (Peacock Premium is included with one box for free.)


Yeah, I'd be a little surprised if you couldn't get just standalone internet (or standalone cable TV) in any Comcast market, although they do things differently in different areas. Here in their Central Division, we're on their "Simple & Easy" system, where you can mix and match any services and tiers you want and get a standard ongoing bundling discount based on the number of services you take. But years ago, I do remember that it was for some reason cheaper to bundle basic TV (i.e. locals only) with broadband rather than take standalone broadband, so that's what I did. But that hasn't been true for a long time now.

Currently Comcast is selling gigabit (actually 1.2 gig/sec) standalone for $80/mo for the first year, then it jumps to the regular $106/mo (after a $10 paperless auto pay discount). Or you can take a 2-yr contract and pay $70/mo for the first two years before it jumps to $106/mo. They throw in "XFi Complete," which includes their latest gateway and unlimited data, for free the first year either way. That's normally an extra $25/mo. And you also get a free Flex streaming box with Peacock Premium too.

Anyhow, anyone who's getting gigabit on AT&T Fiber for $59/mo is getting a great deal (especially if they're getting HBO Max thrown in for free too, which is the norm). Around here, AT&T Fiber's gigabit is selling to new customers for $70/mo (after paperless auto pay discount and including the $10/mo gateway fee). And that's supposed to just be for the first year, after which the price jumps up $20 to the regular $90/mo price.


----------



## mjwagner

NashGuy said:


> I used to get those fliers that always had ads for AT&T services but they stopped here during the pandemic.
> 
> Yeah, AT&T is doing *some* marketing for AT&T TV, like cheap junk mail ads and some online banner ads, but they're not doing any TV ads that I've seen. Nor are they doing any big ads on sports events like YouTube TV has been doing for awhile now (e.g. 2019 World Series "presented by YouTube TV" on Fox). Although a friend who recently signed up for it said he got a sales pitch for it at Costco. So I guess those direct sales reps who used to sell DTV in those stores are now doing AT&T TV.
> 
> Just based on casual conversations that I've heard/been in, I get the sense that YouTube TV is breaking through with the general public, in terms of people recognizing the brand name and knowing what it is (i.e. cable TV service that streams over the internet). I don't think that's true for AT&T TV.


In my circle of family, friends, and neighbors the penetration rate for YTTV is north of 90%. A large percentage of them were previously using D with a much smaller percentage on their local cable co. Anecdotal evidence obviously but none the less&#8230;


----------



## Davenlr

NashGuy said:


> Currently Comcast is selling gigabit (actually 1.2 gig/sec) standalone for $80/mo for the first year, then it jumps to the regular $106/mo (after a $10 paperless auto pay discount). Or you can take a 2-yr contract and pay $70/mo for the first two years before it jumps to $106/mo. They throw in "XFi Complete," which includes their latest gateway and unlimited data, for free the first year either way. That's normally an extra $25/mo. And you also get a free Flex streaming box with Peacock Premium too.
> 
> Anyhow, anyone who's getting gigabit on AT&T Fiber for $59/mo is getting a great deal (especially if they're getting HBO Max thrown in for free too, which is the norm). Around here, AT&T Fiber's gigabit is selling to new customers for $70/mo (after paperless auto pay discount and including the $10/mo gateway fee). And that's supposed to just be for the first year, after which the price jumps up $20 to the regular $90/mo price.


Yep, HBOMax is free too. I had been on Comcast for a long time, but they could not come close to matching AT&T, and then they charge $10/mo extra if you dont have a double or triple play package, and then you have to pay (I might be wrong on the price) and extra $30 a month for uncapped internet. No way Jose. Plus, my fiber is all underground, so it stays on during a power outage (in home stuff on a UPS until I can start a generator) so never lose my connection. Cable goes out when the power does (no power to the amps on the poles).


----------



## compnurd

This is funny because I literally know no one with YTTV. Everyone either had local cable now. Dish or ATT TV


----------



## NashGuy

Would be interesting to see actual subscriber numbers for AT&T TV. All we can do is speculate based on the anecdotal evidence we happen to see. I would guess that it still has way fewer subs than Hulu Live or YTTV. And I would guess that the vast majority of AT&T TV subs are those with AT&T home internet (either new fiber sign-ups or those who've switched to AT&T TV from Uverse TV) and/or those switching to it from DTV satellite to save some money while keeping a near identical channel line-up. I don't think there are many self-identified "cord-cutters" who have taken AT&T TV other than those who must have their RSNs, which are now unavailable on all the other streaming cable TV services.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> Would be interesting to see actual subscriber numbers for AT&T TV.


As James Long has lamented for a long time, that's not going to happen. The only reason to do that would be if they wanted to spin off the other products and that's pretty obviously an impossible sell.

Whether AT&T TV survives DIRECTV and/or Uverse remains to be seen but it is going to take more than the best PQ and AQ to make that happen. The whole product will need to be elevated to at least approach its asking price (and the state of live TV art will likely have to improve dramatically).


----------



## mjwagner

compnurd said:


> This is funny because I literally know no one with YTTV. Everyone either had local cable now. Dish or ATT TV


I must admit, when they come to my house and see YTTV in action they typically ask how much I pay. That is usually all it takes and they are sold&#8230;LOL


----------



## Mike1096

I don’t know anyone with ATT TV and I’m in Chicago, which I’d think is a fairly large market. It’s either Xfinity, DirecTV or YTTV/Sling for streaming. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> I'm not convinced that that is a fair statement. That certain elements of the service (i.e. the devices and some key DVR features) didn't develop as they should have doesn't mean that they were ignoring the whole service.
> 
> The future of the New DIRECTV (even if it is just a temporary merger target) is surely dependent on the long-term success of AT&T TV so I expect that it will be closely attended going forward.


I do agree, and have been saying this for awhile. I think they see AT&T TV as an Over the Internet version of DirecTV and I expect that's where they will be going in the future. i wonder if they are trying to work some behind the scenes deal to try and get Sunday Ticket ported to AT&T TV (I doubt it will happen, but you just never know). I fully expect as we approach football season (we are only what, about a month away from pre-season?) that the new management will get their duck in a row and figure out their marketing campaign. I think AT&T TV will be the focal point of this "new" company. It's improving and certainly not as painful as it's been in the past.


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> IMO ATT's major problem was the huge marketing blunders made with having too many different services with widely varying ways of signing up and using, the biggest blunder IMO was the contract vs non-contract versions of the same product.
> 
> From a purely service view, ATT TV Now and ATT TV with varying channel levels was fine and has just gotten better.
> 
> As for UI, well IMO YouTubeTV's is one of the very worst out there, followed closely by Hulu+Live's. ATT's is a joy to behold and use in comparison regardless of a few relatively minor issues.


This exactly. YTTV has the worst looking interface of any service I've tried (I haven't tried Hulu's OTT, so can't say there). ATT TV blows it away (granted, I'm a bit old school and like having a coherent channel guide and on the Osprey with numbers even!). The YTTV DVR might be a tad, better, but outside of the issues mentioned here, which DO need to be fixed, the DVR works pretty well functionally.


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> Marketing is arguably the last place subscribers want their service provider spending their money. This is driven home hard, as lparsons21 points out, by the "trial balloon" marketing approach that AT&T was dabbling with.
> 
> I submit that we have to give everybody a pass for the duration of the spin-off action as AT&T essentially confessed that they were wrong and New DIRECTV was left with somewhat of a five coil steamer (along with considerable debt).


But, with that said, marketing is important if you want your product to be successful, and there needs to be ample budget for that. I agree that they marketed it very poorly in their haste to get "into the game". Now they need to figure out where they want to position this. Is it DirecTV over the Internet, or is it going to compete with Fubo and YTTV? Hopefully we will find out soon.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> I do agree, and have been saying this for awhile. I think they see AT&T TV as an Over the Internet version of DirecTV and I expect that's where they will be going in the future. i wonder if they are trying to work some behind the scenes deal to try and get Sunday Ticket ported to AT&T TV (I doubt it will happen, but you just never know). I fully expect as we approach football season (we are only what, about a month away from pre-season?) that the new management will get their duck in a row and figure out their marketing campaign. I think AT&T TV will be the focal point of this "new" company. It's improving and certainly not as painful as it's been in the past.


The port to ATT TV will never happen.. Minus whatever comes from the NFL's next deal They tried 2 years ago and the NFL wanted them to re-do the entire contract That is also when Uverse lost NFL Network


----------



## James Long

compnurd said:


> The port to ATT TV will never happen.. They tried 2 years ago and the NFL wanted them to re-do the entire contract That is also when Uverse lost NFL Network


I believe he is referring to TPG negotiating the deal that AT&T|DIRECTV could not close. Based on the terms of the TPG contract, I'd agree that would never happen. TPG considers Sunday Ticket to be a loss leader and their contract with AT&T forces AT&T to cover the losses incurred by paying for Sunday Ticket until the contract expires. While AT&T saw Sunday Ticket as an investment years ago when they purchased DIRECTV, TPG does not share that outlook in the present day.


----------



## mjwagner

Steveknj said:


> This exactly. YTTV has the worst looking interface of any service I've tried (I haven't tried Hulu's OTT, so can't say there). ATT TV blows it away (granted, I'm a bit old school and like having a coherent channel guide and on the Osprey with numbers even!). The YTTV DVR might be a tad, better, but outside of the issues mentioned here, which DO need to be fixed, the DVR works pretty well functionally.


Yeah, I think if you are looking to have something that duplicates or is very similar to what you are used to with D or cable, including channel numbers, than ATTV is a UI you will like. Makes sense as that is clearly their design point and target audience.


----------



## Mike1096

ATT TV will absolutely NOT get exclusive streaming rights to NFLST. If NFLST goes to a generic streaming rights “add-on” package then ok. Otherwise, it’s going to someone with a much broader base (ESPN/Amazon). 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## wmb

Steveknj said:


> This exactly. YTTV has the worst looking interface of any service I've tried (I haven't tried Hulu's OTT, so can't say there). ATT TV blows it away (granted, I'm a bit old school and like having a coherent channel guide and on the Osprey with numbers even!). The YTTV DVR might be a tad, better, but outside of the issues mentioned here, which DO need to be fixed, the DVR works pretty well functionally.


Leaving DirecTV Now about two years ago, the first stop was Hulu Live. Didn't make it past the free trial. It had a real bad UI. My main use for a UI is to access the guide and select a show. My recollection was that Hulus didn't even do that well. Maybe it's improved since then&#8230;

As for YTTV, the guide is the most customizable of any out there. You can rearrange the order of the list and hide channels. At that point, channel numbers are almost irrelevant. If you have a guide, scroll it to find what you want, regardless of channel number. Move the channels to put the ones you watch most at the top. I have a second group of secondary channels, and a long list of almost never watched channels. Channel numbers would confuse the ability to reorder the list.

Anyhow, fully customizable means that your guide will be coherent, even if you are the only person that it makes sense to.

I use the dark mode in YTTV's guide and it looks ok to me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wmb

Mike1096 said:


> ATT TV will absolutely NOT get exclusive streaming rights to NFLST. If NFLST goes to a generic streaming rights "add-on" package then ok. Otherwise, it's going to someone with a much broader base (ESPN/Amazon).


ESPN has said that they only want it if they can make money off of it. That is something that DirecTV never did&#8230; it was always a loss leader. Unless that has changed, ESPN is likely out of the running.

I could see someone getting it and including it in an OTT package, but it would be 15-20%+ of most OTT's production budgets (IIRC, Amazon production expenses were reported at about $8 billion per year when they bought MGM, I think Netflix and AT&T are in that same ballpark).

At this point, I wouldn't rule anything out for Sunday Ticket, except it continuing as a captive DirecTV product.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy

I'm wondering if we won't see New DTV/TPG get more aggressive with AT&T TV pricing, willing to take a bit lower profit margin to increase market share. And also whether they'll shake things up with regard to how DTV is priced, moving away from a system that relies so much on promotional discounts toward AT&T TV-style everyday pricing.

We kept hearing from AT&T leadership how AT&T TV had much lower customer acquisition costs due to its simple hardware that could be self-installed. DTV, meanwhile, must be professionally installed and has higher CPE costs. (And if you include the loss-leader costs of NFLST as a marketing expense to land new DTV customers, that drives its customer acquisition costs higher still.) We were repeatedly told that some of those lower acquisition costs would be passed through to consumers in the form of lower pricing for AT&T TV vs. DTV.

But AT&T TV's cost savings vs. DTV for new subs seems to be almost entirely dependent on avoiding the use of TV boxes and the unlimited DVR upgrade. If you want to make the AT&T TV user experience as similar as possible to DTV's "all-included" plans that provide one Genie HD DVR, then you have to buy an AT&T TV streaming box plus pay the $10/mo upgrade for unlimited cloud DVR.

Here's how the pricing currently compares for the first 24 months of service for new customers of DTV vs. AT&T TV for a customer with service to a single TV.

Entertainment Package

DTV 1st yr: $65/mo
DTV 2nd yr: $102/mo
avg. monthly price: *$83.50*

AT&T TV monthly price: *$85* ($70 + $10 DVR + $5 for 24 mo. for 1 box)

Choice Package

DTV 1st yr: $80/mo ($70 + $10 RSN fee)
DTV 2nd yr: $132/mo ($122 + $10 RSN fee)
avg. monthly price: *$106 *_-- includes 1 free year of NFL ST and HBO Max_

AT&T TV monthly price: *$100* ($85 + $10 DVR + $5 for 24 mo. for 1 box) _-- includes 1 free year of HBO Max only
_
As you can see, you actually come out a bit cheaper over two full years with DTV on the entry-level Entertainment Package, assuming you would buy a new AT&T TV box. If you don't, and just use your Roku or whatever to stream AT&T TV, then you come out a little cheaper that way. The more TVs you have on DTV, the bigger the gap becomes, as DTV charges an extra $7 per box while AT&T TV only charges an extra $5, and of course you can use your own streaming devices on as many TVs as you want with AT&T TV. Also worth mentioning is the fact that AT&T TV has no contract, while you're locked in for 24 months on DTV.

Now, with the Choice package, you do have a $6 higher average monthly price for the first two years on DTV (which adds up to $144 over the two years) but then you're also getting one season of NFL ST on DTV, which you can't get at all on AT&T TV.

Where you really see the savings on AT&T TV vs. DTV is after DTV's initial 2-yr contract is up and you're paying the full regular DTV price every month (assuming that's the case and you aren't getting a loyalty discount to stick around). But DTV's regular pricing isn't just expensive compared to AT&T TV, it's probably more than most cable providers too. Around here, looks like Comcast's Extra package (comparable to Choice) with a single (optional) X1 box and HD DVR service, with all fees included and after the ongoing autopay discount, has a regular ongoing contract-free price around $103, about $30/mo less than DTV's Choice and barely more expensive than AT&T TV's Choice. And if you're combining it with Comcast broadband service, you get a multi-product discount, so the incremental cost to add that TV package is about $40/mo less than DTV's Choice and $7/mo less than AT&T TV's Choice. So you can see why DTV tends to use loyalty discounts so much; their regular prices just aren't that competitive with the major competition.

If the general strategy of New DirecTV will be to direct new subs to AT&T TV while holding on to as many existing DTV subs as possible (as profitably as possible), it would seem like the best thing to do would be to move DTV to an everyday pricing model too. Cut their current regular prices by maybe 10-15% to be more competitive with cable and improve retention. Do away with first-year discounts for new subs and loyalty discounts for post-contract subs. Everyone pays the new regular prices from the first month. Post-contract DTV subs who want to pay an even lower price would be offered an easy transition to AT&T TV. DTV would still be priced at somewhat of a premium versus other options but that would be a cost customers would have to pay for the privilege of being able to get NFL ST and sticking with a service they know and love. (After DTV loses NFL ST at the end of '22, it would seem the only way to justify DTV's higher costs would be that satellite TV is the only option where you live and you need RSNs and/or superior HD picture quality, both of which DISH lacks.)


----------



## Davenlr

Steveknj said:


> This exactly. YTTV has the worst looking interface of any service I've tried. I'm a bit old school and like having a coherent channel guide .


Um...What is incoherent about the YTTV channel guide? It is either listed Alphabetically, or your can arrange it any way you want, with your favorite channels all on the top of the list. That seems a lot easier to use that memorizing channel numbers, or what group of 100 channels the ones you want are located. I could even arrange them in the same exact order as ATT TV, sans the numbers.

Where is does need help is options to record a time slot on a given channel, or a specific episode without the entire series, but the way it is implemented, I doubt we will ever see that.

I programmed my Harmony remote to do all the same functions as the Osprey, as well as added sequences for 30 second skip and two minute skip.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> I'm wondering if we won't see New DTV/TPG get more aggressive with AT&T TV pricing, willing to take a bit lower profit margin to increase market share. And also whether they'll shake things up with regard to how DTV is priced, moving away from a system that relies so much on promotional discounts toward AT&T TV-style everyday pricing.
> 
> We kept hearing from AT&T leadership how AT&T TV had much lower customer acquisition costs due to its simple hardware that could be self-installed. DTV, meanwhile, must be professionally installed and has higher CPE costs. (And if you include the loss-leader costs of NFLST as a marketing expense to land new DTV customers, that drives its customer acquisition costs higher still.) We were repeatedly told that some of those lower acquisition costs would be passed through to consumers in the form of lower pricing for AT&T TV vs. DTV.
> 
> But AT&T TV's cost savings vs. DTV for new subs seems to be almost entirely dependent on avoiding the use of TV boxes and the unlimited DVR upgrade. If you want to make the AT&T TV user experience as similar as possible to DTV's "all-included" plans that provide one Genie HD DVR, then you have to buy an AT&T TV streaming box plus pay the $10/mo upgrade for unlimited cloud DVR.
> 
> Here's how the pricing currently compares for the first 24 months of service for new customers of DTV vs. AT&T TV for a customer with service to a single TV.
> 
> Entertainment Package
> 
> DTV 1st yr: $65/mo
> DTV 2nd yr: $102/mo
> avg. monthly price: *$83.50*
> 
> AT&T TV monthly price: *$85* ($70 + $10 DVR + $5 for 24 mo. for 1 box)
> 
> Choice Package
> 
> DTV 1st yr: $80/mo ($70 + $10 RSN fee)
> DTV 2nd yr: $132/mo ($122 + $10 RSN fee)
> avg. monthly price: *$106 *_-- includes 1 free year of NFL ST and HBO Max_
> 
> AT&T TV monthly price: *$100* ($85 + $10 DVR + $5 for 24 mo. for 1 box) _-- includes 1 free year of HBO Max only
> _
> As you can see, you actually come out a bit cheaper over two full years with DTV on the entry-level Entertainment Package, assuming you would buy a new AT&T TV box. If you don't, and just use your Roku or whatever to stream AT&T TV, then you come out a little cheaper that way. The more TVs you have on DTV, the bigger the gap becomes, as DTV charges an extra $7 per box while AT&T TV only charges an extra $5, and of course you can use your own streaming devices on as many TVs as you want with AT&T TV. Also worth mentioning is the fact that AT&T TV has no contract, while you're locked in for 24 months on DTV.
> 
> Now, with the Choice package, you do have a $6 higher average monthly price for the first two years on DTV (which adds up to $144 over the two years) but then you're also getting one season of NFL ST on DTV, which you can't get at all on AT&T TV.
> 
> Where you really see the savings on AT&T TV vs. DTV is after DTV's initial 2-yr contract is up and you're paying the full regular DTV price every month (assuming that's the case and you aren't getting a loyalty discount to stick around). But DTV's regular pricing isn't just expensive compared to AT&T TV, it's probably more than most cable providers too. Around here, looks like Comcast's Extra package (comparable to Choice) with a single (optional) X1 box and HD DVR service, with all fees included and after the ongoing autopay discount, has a regular ongoing contract-free price around $103, about $30/mo less than DTV's Choice and barely more expensive than AT&T TV's Choice. And if you're combining it with Comcast broadband service, you get a multi-product discount, so the incremental cost to add that TV package is about $40/mo less than DTV's Choice and $7/mo less than AT&T TV's Choice. So you can see why DTV tends to use loyalty discounts so much; their regular prices just aren't that competitive with the major competition.
> 
> If the general strategy of New DirecTV will be to direct new subs to AT&T TV while holding on to as many existing DTV subs as possible (as profitably as possible), it would seem like the best thing to do would be to move DTV to an everyday pricing model too. Cut their current regular prices by maybe 10-15% to be more competitive with cable and improve retention. Do away with first-year discounts for new subs and loyalty discounts for post-contract subs. Everyone pays the new regular prices from the first month. Post-contract DTV subs who want to pay an even lower price would be offered an easy transition to AT&T TV. DTV would still be priced at somewhat of a premium versus other options but that would be a cost customers would have to pay for the privilege of being able to get NFL ST and sticking with a service they know and love. (After DTV loses NFL ST at the end of '22, it would seem the only way to justify DTV's higher costs would be that satellite TV is the only option where you live and you need RSNs and/or superior HD picture quality, both of which DISH lacks.)


They need to do away with the box fee's.. Between the advanced rec. fee and box fees i was paying 60 bucks a month alone Of course thats the cash cow.. However i would probably still have the service if they tossed that.. I only pay 105 a month for ATT TV Ultimate with 10 TV's.. and they all operate at the same time and with the same interface.. I cant even order more then 8 from Directv right now


----------



## MysteryMan

compnurd said:


> Of course thats the cash cow.


Yup, there's the TV Access Fee, Advanced Receiver Service-DVR Fee, Advanced Receiver Service-HD Fee, and the Whole-Home DVR Service Fee. That's one very fat cash cow!


----------



## Steveknj

wmb said:


> Leaving DirecTV Now about two years ago, the first stop was Hulu Live. Didn't make it past the free trial. It had a real bad UI. My main use for a UI is to access the guide and select a show. My recollection was that Hulus didn't even do that well. Maybe it's improved since then&#8230;
> 
> As for YTTV, the guide is the most customizable of any out there. You can rearrange the order of the list and hide channels. At that point, channel numbers are almost irrelevant. If you have a guide, scroll it to find what you want, regardless of channel number. Move the channels to put the ones you watch most at the top. I have a second group of secondary channels, and a long list of almost never watched channels. Channel numbers would confuse the ability to reorder the list.
> 
> Anyhow, fully customizable means that your guide will be coherent, even if you are the only person that it makes sense to.
> 
> I use the dark mode in YTTV's guide and it looks ok to me.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My recollection of the interface (guide) on YTTV was that everything was just TOO big so that you could only see a small amount of channels at one time. Granted this was probably a year or so ago, so things might have changed. And like I said, I'm old school and had been with DirecTV for about 20 years so the transition to AT&T TV was pretty easy. I don't recall but does YTTV have a 2 week guide of channels in it's listing?

Unfortunately, YTTV won't work for me for other reasons, so I have no desire to try it again (missing MUST HAVE channels, like my local RSNs), but that's what I remember about it when I gave it a free trial last year.


----------



## gio12

Davenlr said:


> Um...What is incoherent about the YTTV channel guide? It is either listed Alphabetically, or your can arrange it any way you want, with your favorite channels all on the top of the list. That seems a lot easier to use that memorizing channel numbers, or what group of 100 channels the ones you want are located. I could even arrange them in the same exact order as ATT TV, sans the numbers.
> 
> Where is does need help is options to record a time slot on a given channel, or a specific episode without the entire series, but the way it is implemented, I doubt we will ever see that.
> 
> I programmed my Harmony remote to do all the same functions as the Osprey, as well as added sequences for 30 second skip and two minute skip.
> View attachment 31542


Agree. I like the guide, sure numbers are easy but still like it. I did the same with my harmony remote.


----------



## NashGuy

MysteryMan said:


> Yup, there's the TV Access Fee, Advanced Receiver Service-DVR Fee, Advanced Receiver Service-HD Fee, and the Whole-Home DVR Service Fee. That's one very fat cash cow!


Are all those fees part of a pricing structure for customers who came in before DTV began selling their "All-Included" plans (which has been all they offer new sign-ups online for a long while now)? Here's the current fee schedule, which shows that the Advanced Receiver Fee is "the fee for HD, DVR and Whole-Home services. Pricing for All-Included programming packages includes the Advanced Receiver Service fee."

I guess customers who have been with DTV for a long time are under varying fee structures. But I calculated pricing above based on the current structure for new customers. Basically, you get the package of channels, plus a box for one TV with HD and whole-home DVR service for one price, plus the RSN fee if your package includes them. Then to extend to each additional TV/receiver you pay an extra $7/mo. (i.e. the TV Access Fee).


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> ... it would seem like the best thing to do would be to move DTV to an everyday pricing model too.


That would be my plan ... but getting there is a challenge when you are giving new customers $40 off and some existing customers $60 off. Sure, you and I understand that their Everyday Low Price would be cheaper overall when looking at the entire customer base (lower Average Revenue Per Unit) but people who flip flop between services to get the new customer deals or are on Santa's good list and getting the higher discounts from DIRECTV may see a price decrease as a price increase. Getting rid of additional receiver fees would help the high end customers with a lot of receivers ... and lower the ARPU.

Complicated math ... how many customers are you retaining by moving to an Everyday Low Price plan vs how much revenue is being given away? How many new customers would DIRECTV lose by offering Everyday Low Prices that are $20 higher than the current new customer offer? It is a major shift in marketing.


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> They need to do away with the box fee's.. Between the advanced rec. fee and box fees i was paying 60 bucks a month alone Of course thats the cash cow.. However i would probably still have the service if they tossed that.. I only pay 105 a month for ATT TV Ultimate with 10 TV's.. and they all operate at the same time and with the same interface.. I cant even order more then 8 from Directv right now


Wonder how many TVs the average DTV customer has service on? Nielsen said back in 2019 that there are an average of 2.5 TVs per US household, although 31% of households have more than 4.


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> Um...What is incoherent about the YTTV channel guide? It is either listed Alphabetically, or your can arrange it any way you want, with your favorite channels all on the top of the list. That seems a lot easier to use that memorizing channel numbers, or what group of 100 channels the ones you want are located. I could even arrange them in the same exact order as ATT TV, sans the numbers.
> 
> Where is does need help is options to record a time slot on a given channel, or a specific episode without the entire series, but the way it is implemented, I doubt we will ever see that.
> 
> I programmed my Harmony remote to do all the same functions as the Osprey, as well as added sequences for 30 second skip and two minute skip.
> View attachment 31542


If that's your screen, that I look at that and I just think its too big. It would be great if you could shrink it down so you can see a bit more channels and a bit further down in the schedule. But last time I kind of remember only seeing large boxes for each channel and a horizontal scroll to find each channel.

I know people scoff at channel numbers, but unless you want to do voice is there a way to get to a channel directly? For example, I can type 206 on my remote and it takes me directly to ESPN. The only way I could do this on YTTV would be by voice as far as I know. And I HATE using voice which only works about 2/3 of the time for me . By the time I hit the voice button my remote and then say what I need to say, I could have type 206 and gone directly there.

Like I said, I'm old school.


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> They need to do away with the box fee's.. Between the advanced rec. fee and box fees i was paying 60 bucks a month alone Of course thats the cash cow.. However i would probably still have the service if they tossed that.. I only pay 105 a month for ATT TV Ultimate with 10 TV's.. and they all operate at the same time and with the same interface.. I cant even order more then 8 from Directv right now


This, it's the box fee that gets you on DirecTV. To me, one thing they can do to mitigate this issue is a more robust streaming option. I can't remember what that's called, but I do remember there was a DirecTV app that was supposed to work in place of a Genie Mini that could be used, but everyone I've spoken to either here or elsewhere said it was crap, so I never bothered with it. If they can make that work so you have just the one main Genie and your other TVs work off the app, then that would cut their install cost and give those who want to use that option a very robust system that would rival any streaming service and be "in the ballpark". Maybe that's something they might be looking at if they decide to combine services somehow.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> That would be my plan ... but getting there is a challenge when you are giving new customers $40 off and some existing customers $60 off. Sure, you and I understand that their Everyday Low Price would be cheaper overall when looking at the entire customer base (lower Average Revenue Per Unit) but people who flip flop between services to get the new customer deals or are on Santa's good list and getting the higher discounts from DIRECTV may see a price decrease as a price increase. Getting rid of additional receiver fees would help the high end customers with a lot of receivers ... and lower the ARPU.
> 
> Complicated math ... how many customers are you retaining by moving to an Everyday Low Price plan vs how much revenue is being given away? How many new customers would DIRECTV lose by offering Everyday Low Prices that are $20 higher than the current new customer offer? It is a major shift in marketing.


Well, again, I made that suggestion under the assumption (which may not be true!) that New DTV's preference will be to funnel most new customers into the more competitively-priced AT&T TV (or "DirecTV Stream" or whatever they call it), not into DTV satellite. If that's the case, then losing the big first-year discount for new DTV customers wouldn't be such a problem. You'll still get those folks who really want NFL ST in '21 and/or '22. And you'll still get some rural dwellers (where DBS is the only option) who want their RSNs and/or HBO and so will choose DTV over DISH, which lacks those channels.

But even as things stand now, with DTV's first-year discount, price-sensitive shoppers are very likely to come out cheaper over the first two years if they go with traditional cable TV or AT&T TV, and even cheaper still if they go with YouTube TV. And those options don't require a 2-yr contract. It's like DTV is half-heartedly trying to compete for new subs based on price right now. Why try at all when AT&T TV can do that more effectively thanks to its lower cost structure? Marketing for new DTV subs should only be about sports (free NFL ST, free NBA League Pass) and simple, no-bait-and-switch everyday pricing. Maybe even offer an option to avoid the 2-yr contract if they pay an up-front installation fee (which should be less for homes already wired for the service).

So my thinking is to take some of that first-year price break that currently goes to new DTV subs and spread it out among the entire customer base. And do the same thing with the big loyalty discounts that are tossed out (seemingly randomly) to some post-contract customers but not others. That might help them better hold onto the customers they already have. And for those still calling up and trying to negotiate a lower price, pitch them AT&T TV with its lower set of everyday, no-contract prices.

So I guess I'm thinking the strategy for DTV would be to play defense (hold existing subs) while the strategy for AT&T TV would be to play offense (attract new subs). A separate question is whether the company will be willing to reduce their profit margins/ARPUs on either product. If they really want AT&T TV to grow, that may be necessary, given that's it's still a little more expensive than other streaming cable TV options, and even more than Comcast cable TV's regular pricing (never mind their new customer promo pricing). My hunch is that they won't want to lower the ARPU at DTV but rather get as much revenue out of that declining asset as possible.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> This, it's the box fee that gets you on DirecTV. To me, one thing they can do to mitigate this issue is a more robust streaming option. I can't remember what that's called, but I do remember there was a DirecTV app that was supposed to work in place of a Genie Mini that could be used, but everyone I've spoken to either here or elsewhere said it was crap, so I never bothered with it. If they can make that work so you have just the one main Genie and your other TVs work off the app, then that would cut their install cost and give those who want to use that option a very robust system that would rival any streaming service and be "in the ballpark". Maybe that's something they might be looking at if they decide to combine services somehow.


I assume you're talking about RVU? See here:
Can you still activate an RVU TV? - The Solid Signal Blog

If DTV wanted to allow customers to use app-based streaming devices (e.g. Roku, Apple TV, etc.) in place of Genie Minis, it would probably require a sizable development expenditure on their part and maybe even new hardware (e.g. a Genie 3 HS-27 server) in order to work with the app.

Question is why should they bother doing that when they already offer a cheaper, streaming-based version of DTV that can work with Roku, Fire TV and Apple TV devices, in addition to a Genie-like receiver for those customers who want it?

IMO, New DTV shouldn't waste time and money trying to improve what is essentially their last-gen product. Instead, work to make the new product (AT&T TV) as competitive as possible. Leave DTV for the following customer types:


those who want NFL ST
those for whom satellite TV is the only decent cable TV option and for whom DISH isn't good enough
existing DTV customers who like it enough (or dislike change enough) to stick with it despite its relatively high price


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> I assume you're talking about RVU? See here:
> Can you still activate an RVU TV? - The Solid Signal Blog
> 
> If DTV wanted to allow customers to use app-based streaming devices (e.g. Roku, Apple TV, etc.) in place of Genie Minis, it would probably require a sizable development expenditure on their part and maybe even new hardware (e.g. a Genie 3 HS-27 server) in order to work with the app.
> 
> Question is why should they bother doing that when they already offer a cheaper, streaming-based version of DTV that can work with Roku, Fire TV and Apple TV devices, in addition to a Genie-like receiver for those customers who want it?
> 
> IMO, New DTV shouldn't waste time and money trying to improve what is essentially their last-gen product. Instead, work to make the new product (AT&T TV) as competitive as possible. Leave DTV for the following customer types:
> 
> 
> those who want NFL ST
> those for whom satellite TV is the only decent cable TV option and for whom DISH isn't good enough
> existing DTV customers who like it enough (or dislike change enough) to stick with it despite its relatively high price


Is the RVU that bad that they can't tweak it enough to make it worth using? I don't know as I've never used it. But I don't disagree that their future is AT&T TV, and they should work toward making that better. There are definitely a few things they can do to get it closer to what DirecTV is now, and it's not really THAT far off:

1) Add 4K
2) Add the "fixes" that people have wanted on the DVR, padding being the number one thing, and for sports fans, a SP setting for just your team so that they don't record EVERY game for a sport
3) Bring in the few networks that are missing. PBS, Nextar CW and other locals that DirecTV gets and AT&T doesn't (in the NY Demo, there's also MeTV).

Other than that, it's not much different than DirecTV functionally and for someone like me with multiple TVs, cheaper.


----------



## b4pjoe

The RVU is not available anymore. At least not on LG TV's. Right after my account was migrated to AT&T (September 2018) I decided to upgrade to 4K and wanted to use the RVU app that at the time was on my LG TV that I had and the overseas support person I was talking to told me there was no such thing.  Since that time I have bought 2 more LG TV's and the RVU app is not available on either of those.


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> The RVU is not available anymore. At least not on LG TV's. Right after my account was migrated to AT&T (September 2018) I decided to upgrade to 4K and wanted to use the RVU app that at the time was on my LG TV that I had and the overseas support person I was talking to told me there was no such thing.  Since that time I have bought 2 more LG TV's and the RVU app is not available on either of those.


RVU has been toast for awhile now


----------



## MysteryMan

compnurd said:


> RVU has been toast for awhile now


Yeah, I think 2016 was the last time RVU was available.


----------



## NashGuy

MysteryMan said:


> Yeah, I think 2016 was the last time RVU was available.


RVU history here:
Can you still activate an RVU TV? - The Solid Signal Blog


----------



## MysteryMan

NashGuy said:


> RVU history here:
> Can you still activate an RVU TV? - The Solid Signal Blog


Thanks. I read the Solid Signal Blog daily and somehow missed that article.


----------



## mjwagner

gio12 said:


> Agree. I like the guide, sure numbers are easy but still like it. I did the same with my harmony remote.


While I have no real issues with the current live guide (honestly I really don't use it much) their is always room for improvement. One thing I would like to see them add is more detailed information of whatever is currently highlighted in the guide. I don't want to have to start playing a program, and then make a few clicks like it is now, before I can see the detailed information. But I personally hope that if they ever do add channel numbers (highly unlikely IMO) that it is a selectable option&#8230;I don't want to see the live guide cluttered up with channel numbers that I will never use.


----------



## lparsons21

mjwagner said:


> While I have no real issues with the current live guide (honestly I really don't use it much) their is always room for improvement. One thing I would like to see them add is more detailed information of whatever is currently highlighted in the guide. I don't want to have to start playing a program, and then make a few clicks like it is now, before I can see the detailed information. But I personally hope that if they ever do add channel numbers (highly unlikely IMO) that it is a selectable option&#8230;I don't want to see the live guide cluttered up with channel numbers that I will never use.


Yeah, YTTV made the guide huge in presentation but didn't do anything with it. As you note, you don't get any other info when highlighting a show in the guide except for the time and title of the show. No episode name, no episode info and it isn't very wide at all, covering just a few hours. Nearly worthless IMO.

Sling's new UI that is now showing up on FireTV devices now has that huge guide presentation but goes out a week and when you highlight a show it shows some info about the show and episode. Better presentation than YTTV's IMO.

I'm back to using my AppleTV4K almost all the time since I'm only using VOD streaming services and Antenna w/AirTV Anywhere OTA DVR which means I don't need to use trickplay except on some broadcast shows. And Apple's Up Next strip is really good at keeping track of things for the most part, only missing Netflix shows that I might be watching.


----------



## compnurd

MysteryMan said:


> Thanks. I read the Solid Signal Blog daily and somehow missed that article.


I'm sorry to hear that


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> Well, again, I made that suggestion under the assumption (which may not be true!) that New DTV's preference will be to funnel most new customers into the more competitively-priced AT&T TV (or "DirecTV Stream" or whatever they call it), not into DTV satellite.


I am not giving up on satellite. I hope TPG gives both options a fair chance at surviving.


----------



## mklimek

compnurd said:


> As far as Forced HDR that had nothing to do with them. That was all Google. Took Google 10 months to patch Android TV 9 and fix it
> 
> Google hasn't fixed it for anyone running Android TV 8 and never will


I picked up an AT&T box from ebay and it came with Android 8. I take it this means it won't update to 10?


----------



## compnurd

mklimek said:


> I picked up an AT&T box from ebay and it came with Android 8. I take it this means it won't update to 10?


It will.


----------



## mklimek

compnurd said:


> It will.


Great, thanks compnurd!


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> I am not giving up on satellite. I hope TPG gives both options a fair chance at surviving.


Well, I don't think TPG is going to give up on DTV, per se. It still has a very large number of subs paying a whole lot of cash every month. But I think we all know that DTV -- like the cable TV industry overall -- has peaked and is now in irreversible decline. And because of DBS's higher customer acquisition costs, and its being separate from the internet, it has a particular set of challenges that most alternatives don't have.

My guess is that TPG's game plan is to tighten up DTV's and AT&T TV's operations and prepare the group to be sold and merged with DISH/Sling at some point after Dec. 2022, when DTV's NFL ST exclusivity ends. Perhaps the unified DBS service lives on under the DISH moniker while the unified streaming service evolves from the DIRECTV STREAM brand name to simply DIRECTV.


----------



## harsh

Steveknj said:


> But, with that said, marketing is important if you want your product to be successful, and there needs to be ample budget for that.


This depends on how you define success. Some measure success in terms of customer satisfaction. With that approach you retain existing customers as well as picking up new customers via word-of-mouth. People try YouTube TV because of buzz about where it lands in the value comparison as well as checking most of the boxes as opposed to many carefully orchestrated advertising campaigns.


----------



## wmb

Steveknj said:


> My recollection of the interface (guide) on YTTV was that everything was just TOO big so that you could only see a small amount of channels at one time. Granted this was probably a year or so ago, so things might have changed. And like I said, I'm old school and had been with DirecTV for about 20 years so the transition to AT&T TV was pretty easy. I don't recall but does YTTV have a 2 week guide of channels in it's listing?
> 
> Unfortunately, YTTV won't work for me for other reasons, so I have no desire to try it again (missing MUST HAVE channels, like my local RSNs), but that's what I remember about it when I gave it a free trial last year.


That makes some sense. I think it shows maybe 5 or 6 channels at a time, and only the next hour or so. But, I'm primarily using the guide to select what to watch on live TV, not search the next two weeks for stuff to record.

It is streaming, so a vast majority of cable stuff is available to stream anytime. Searching the next two weeks doesn't really fit that use case. If I have a show I want to record, I can search for it directly, see when it is on, and record it faster than I could browsing the future showings of its network.

Now, we have a few OTA shows 'recorded' on the cloud DVR. That way, we can watch later that night if we are out when it shows.

I get missing channels as being a deal breaker.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> This depends on how you define success. Some measure success in terms of customer satisfaction. With that approach you retain existing customers as well as picking up new customers via word-of-mouth. People try YouTube TV because of buzz about where it lands in the value comparison as well as checking most of the boxes as opposed to many carefully orchestrated advertising campaigns.


I think you are missing the power of Google here. Every time I go into YouTube, they try and sell me YTTV. EVERY time. That's marketing. Google markets the heck out of YTTV. Maybe you and a few of your friends have gone to YTTV because of word of mouth, but I'd bet the majority of folks try it on a a free trial, pushed by Google.

As for success, there's a lot of ways to define success of course, but the crux of it is, it has to be profitable, it has to give the customer what they want, and it has to minimize churn and keep it's customer base. It has to be all of the above. Word of mouth is a great tool, but advertising in a traditional sense is VERY important. There's only so much that buzz can do. Apple might have the greatest "word of mouth" fan base of any company in existence. It probably helped them stay afloat back in the days when they almost tanked. But they also have a MASSIVE advertising budget, to the point where every commercial break it seems has that freakin annoying commercial!!

I think AT&T TV needs to do a massive ad campaign and position themselves properly in order to make headway in this market. The problem they will face it the mess the previous management left them, a set of products with confusing names and incoherent packages that were higher priced than the competition without explaining why that is. So they need to figure out their strategy. I think if they are serious about this being a success, they will figure it out. If their goal is just an eventual merger with Dish, then they may not go all in on this.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> Well, again, I made that suggestion under the assumption (which may not be true!) that New DTV's preference will be to funnel most new customers into the more competitively-priced AT&T TV (or "DirecTV Stream" or whatever they call it), not into DTV satellite.


The flaw in the slaw here is that relative to other streaming options, AT&T TV isn't all that competitively priced unless you're focused on getting better PQ and AQ.


> So I guess I'm thinking the strategy for DTV would be to play defense (hold existing subs) while the strategy for AT&T TV would be to play offense (attract new subs).


This may be what the analysts call spreading yourself too thin.


> A separate question is whether the company will be willing to reduce their profit margins/ARPUs on either product.


Because the purchase came with a fairly laden boatload of debt, I'm doubting this was something they are considering.

If they do anything major, I expect it will be to use DIRECTV to subsidize AT&T TV growth. DIRECTV subscribers have demonstrated a fairly high tolerance for getting gouged.


----------



## harsh

Steveknj said:


> I think you are missing the power of Google here. Every time I go into YouTube, they try and sell me YTTV. EVERY time.


I think you may be misinterpreting what you see. Most of the traffic at the bottom of the page on first visit is hawking the ad-free YouTube service. YTTV shows up only occasionally for me and the "ad" looks visually very similar.

That said, the ad I got today was for a two week trial of YTTV. There is a banner ad for YTTV on the home page but that certainly doesn't speak to a large scale marketing campaign.


----------



## harsh

Steveknj said:


> Is the RVU that bad that they can't tweak it enough to make it worth using?


RVU isn't the root problem. The problem was deploying RVU through third parties (of which only Samsung and Sony seemed particularly interested in taking it up). If DIRECTV is the only reason to support RVU, you're looking at a value proposition less than the one that once caused some TV companies to remove something as fundamental as OTA tuners from their offerings.


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> I think you may be misinterpreting what you see. Most of the traffic at the bottom of the page on first visit is hawking the ad-free YouTube service. YTTV shows up only occasionally for me and the "ad" looks visually very similar.
> 
> That said, the ad I got today was for a two week trial of YTTV. There is a banner ad for YTTV on the home page but that certainly doesn't speak to a large scale marketing campaign.


I disagree. YouTube is used BILLIONS of times a day. If you go into YouTube once a day and see the banner add, or the ads in between content, that's effective advertising (obviously this is a Google product and it's advertising inside an app that's for another Google product. It's the same as if you go to an AT&T website and they are hawking the TV service (or calling them about DirecTV and they try and sell you cell service, happened numerous times to me).

I just went in there RIGHT now, and in between a couple of videos I have an ad that says "A Better way to TV" with the YTTV logo. This is extremely effective advertising, especially when some might even think it's just another suggested video.


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> RVU isn't the root problem. The problem was deploying RVU through third parties (of which only Samsung and Sony seemed particularly interested in taking it up). If DIRECTV is the only reason to support RVU, you're looking at a value proposition less than the one that once caused some TV companies to remove something as fundamental as OTA tuners from their offerings.


My LG TV had the RVU app as well. The problem as pointed out in the article above is that RVU was just poorly designed and integrated. Requiring someone to get a coax cable adapter killed this. But, with smart TVs these days omnipresent and TV streaming apps the huge driver of smart TVs, there's no real reason that DirecTV, if they wanted to, could revisit an RVU. But as pointed out, but with a robust streaming platform of their own in AT&T TV, the new ownership is much less likely to even consider it. If you want a system that avoids a receiver of any sort, than might as well steer them to AT&T TV.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> The flaw in the slaw here is that relative to other streaming options, AT&T TV isn't all that competitively priced unless you're focused on getting better PQ and AQ.This may be what the analysts call spreading yourself too thin.


AT&T TV's starting price ($70) is only $5 more than the starting prices for YTTV, Hulu Live and FuboTV. And it's the only one that offers normal full-fledged channel packages, with channels from all the major channel groups, including RSNs. (YTTV is missing A+E and Hallmark nets; Hulu Live is missing AMC and Hallmark; FuboTV is missing Turner and A+E.) And it's the one that mostly closely mimics the traditional cable/satellite experience. So it has some qualities the others lack.

It's not too far off the mark with regard to pricing. But as I've said, I do think they should try to match their vMVPD competitors' starting price (currently $65) for advertising purposes. (I notice that DISH is also now using that price point for their starting package with HD DVR for 1 TV.) I think the bigger need for AT&T TV is consumer familiarity. It needs more and better advertising so that consumers know that it exists and what it is. And it should especially be marketed to new sign-ups for AT&T internet, where it's the natural bundle option for pay TV.

I'm not sure if New DTV will ever accept an ARPU for AT&T TV as low as YTTV's or Hulu's live TV add-on, so it probably won't ever be able to compete purely on price (but then DTV never has either). Those other vMVPDs probably still aren't generating much profit. Google can afford to do that with what is essentially a little side project. And for Hulu, the live TV add-on could mainly be seen as something that makes the core product stickier. At FuboTV, it looks like the plan to become profitable is to add sports betting.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> RVU isn't the root problem. The problem was deploying RVU through third parties (of which only Samsung and Sony seemed particularly interested in taking it up). If DIRECTV is the only reason to support RVU, you're looking at a value proposition less than the one that once caused some TV companies to remove something as fundamental as OTA tuners from their offerings.


RVU's technology itself was part of the problem. It required a coaxial connection between a Genie and the TV. It couldn't work over wifi, a feature that all TVs have had built-in for a few years now. But yes, relying on TV manufacturers to place and upkeep the RVU software on their TVs was a flaw in the system too. When they launched the RVU initiative, smart TV OSes and app stores weren't that far along.

Another problem was that RVU really didn't do much to benefit customers because they were still charged the regular additional TV fee (e.g. $7/mo) for using the RVU software in lieu of a rented receiver. I suppose they had to use the manufacturer's TV remote too, which didn't have the familiar DTV design customized for the service. So yes, the customer was able to avoid the "clutter" of a box under the TV but they were paying the same price for what I would guess was an inferior user experience versus just having a Genie connected directly to the TV.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> AT&T TV's starting price ($70) is only $5 more than the starting prices for YTTV, Hulu Live and FuboTV. And it's the only one that offers normal full-fledged channel packages, with channels from all the major channel groups, including RSNs. (YTTV is missing A+E and Hallmark nets; Hulu Live is missing AMC and Hallmark; FuboTV is missing Turner and A+E.) And it's the one that mostly closely mimics the traditional cable/satellite experience. So it has some qualities the others lack.


That entry price doesn't include RSN's, just national sports channels. And it also only includes 20 hours of cloud DVR which is pathetically small. But it is a very good selection of a broad range of channels/interests.

As to pricing, well if you get Choice which is $85/month you get the RSNs and a free year of HBO Max. Choice compares to YTTV's $65/month with some exceptions, but if you have YTTV and want RSN's it appears the Bally Sports app will cost around $20 making ATT TV's Choice and YTTV+Bally Sports cost the same.

IMO, if I were to seriously want a live streaming service, regardless of my dislike for their UI, it would be YouTubeTV since it has all the channels I would care about.


----------



## compnurd

Looks like ATT TV is getting rebranded to Directv Stream based on some new account verbiage online


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> Looks like ATT TV is getting rebranded to Directv Stream based on some new account verbiage online


Do you have a link that shows this?


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> That entry price doesn't include RSN's, just national sports channels. And it also only includes 20 hours of cloud DVR which is pathetically small. But it is a very good selection of a broad range of channels/interests.


Yeah, that's all true. But then Hulu Live's entry price doesn't give you the ability to FF through ads in its 50-hr cloud DVR (and will replace recordings with on-demand versions when available, and those will have unskippable ads unless you pay extra to remove the ads). And it only comes with 2 concurrent streams. But you can always FF through ads in AT&T TV's cloud DVR and you get 20 concurrent streams, 3 of which can be used outside the home. So, trade-offs.

Yes, I'm comparing AT&T TV to Hulu Live rather than YTTV. But note that Hulu Live has the most subs of all the MVPDs -- 4 million as of this past Feb., while YTTV had "over 3 million" last fall. You don't see a lot of cord-cutter types posting about Hulu Live like you do YTTV. I tend to think those folks (guys like you) are ones who do a more careful comparison between options and weigh every buck they're spending on this versus that option. But that's probably not how the average consumer makes buying decisions for TV service.

YTTV arguably does offer the most overall value (in terms of content and features) for the price but it's worth nothing that Hulu Live has always had more subs than it, which I'm sure is due to the familiarity of the Hulu brand and the fact that the Live TV add-on is a simple upgrade path for the millions already on the original core service. Price/value is important but it's not the sole determinant to success. A product with other advantages can be priced at a premium relative to competitors, although it does have to be "in the ballpark".


----------



## lparsons21

Hulu+Live hasn’t been on my radar in a very long time. Last I looked the UI was horrible though I’ve read they improved it, but mostly because it is costly when you configure the add-ons in a manner that would suit me and it is missing some channels I would want.

While YTTV would be my first choice for a live streamer because of the channels it has, ATT TV would be a close second because of superiority of their PQ and AQ coupled with the fact they have various base subcriptions. Price is a bit off putting, but it is cheaper than Hulu+Live, worked better than them too. YTTV is just a very good compromise live streamer, reasonably priced, good PQ and AQ will soon be 5.1 on some channels.  UI is its biggest downside to me.

Sling is one of the ‘bargain brands’ if you only select either Blue or Orange but not both. Blue+Orange+TotalTV deal works out to $77/month I think and includes no locals for most and only one stream for the Orange channels like ESPN and others.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> Do you have a link that shows this?


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> View attachment 31545


I'd say this little slip-up on the AT&T TV website, combined with the trademark filing last fall, pretty much confirms that the brand name will be changed to DIRECTV STREAM before long. If they weren't going to go with a completely fresh brand name, I guess DIRECTV STREAM was the best optional available. DIRECTV is well-known as a high-quality full-fledged cable TV service, although the public definitely connects it with satellite dishes. So tacking on the word STREAM is necessary to correct that notion.

Maybe the 2nd-gen box will be dubbed the "Stream Genie," ha.


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> View attachment 31545


Interesting. Or could that be a different product? There's still mention of AT&T TV there too.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> I'd say this little slip-up on the AT&T TV website, combined with the trademark filing last fall, pretty much confirms that the brand name will be changed to DIRECTV STREAM before long. If they weren't going to go with a completely fresh brand name, I guess DIRECTV STREAM was the best optional available. DIRECTV is well-known as a high-quality full-fledged cable TV service, although the public definitely connects it with satellite dishes. So tacking on the word STREAM is necessary to correct that notion.
> 
> Maybe the 2nd-gen box will be dubbed the "Stream Genie," ha.


Something about Stream Genie just sounds wrong!!


----------



## TV_Guy

lparsons21 said:


> That entry price doesn't include RSN's, just national sports channels. And it also only includes 20 hours of cloud DVR which is pathetically small. But it is a very good selection of a broad range of channels/interests.
> 
> As to pricing, well if you get Choice which is $85/month you get the RSNs and a free year of HBO Max. Choice compares to YTTV's $65/month with some exceptions, but if you have YTTV and want RSN's it appears the Bally Sports app will cost around $20 making ATT TV's Choice and YTTV+Bally Sports cost the same.
> 
> IMO, if I were to seriously want a live streaming service, regardless of my dislike for their UI, it would be YouTubeTV since it has all the channels I would care about.


In my case to get the RSNs and keep channels like FS2, Golf, CBS Sports, NFL Network and BBC World News, I would have to go to Ultimate at $95. Add in the DVR and we are at $105. So a $40 difference from YTTV. Granted I would gain a few channels but I would lose PBS and WPIX/CW which carries a total of 44 Mets and Yankees games. Also gone is the 9 month retention unlimited DVR. RSNs are not completely missing from YTTV. They offer SNY in which Comcast owns a small share. The Bally Sports OTT offering for some people would be $20 less than going to Ultimate with the DVR upgrade. However it's a moot point in NY as it is unlikely YES would be offered and MSG is not part of Ballys.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> Interesting. Or could that be a different product? There's still mention of AT&T TV there too.


Pretty clear that it's a mistake and they somehow just switched out that one instance of "AT&T TV" for "DIRECTV STREAM". But the fact that it happened suggests that they're probably getting ready to switch out the website and all other consumer-facing language to the new brand name soon.

Who knows, maybe it happens tomorrow. Given the sort of ratings the Olympics get, now would be a very good time to rebrand and relaunch the service, with some improvements like live 4K HDR. And of course right after the Olympics we go into football season and new fall shows. The Tokyo games begin in just 16 days.

That said, I haven't read anything lately about the status of the spin-off. But if top management for New DTV is already in place, I suppose they could have signed off on the big decisions about the rebrand and relaunch and the existing team at AT&T could start the execution and then hand off to New DTV in the coming weeks. Who knows.


----------



## lparsons21

TV_Guy said:


> In my case to get the RSNs and keep channels like FS2, Golf, CBS Sports, NFL Network and BBC World News, I would have to go to Ultimate at $95. Add in the DVR and we are at $105. So a $40 difference from YTTV. Granted I would gain a few channels but I would lose PBS and WPIX/CW which carries a total of 44 Mets and Yankees games. Also gone is the 9 month retention unlimited DVR. RSNs are not completely missing from YTTV. They offer SNY in which Comcast owns a small share. The Bally Sports OTT offering for some people would be $20 less than going to Ultimate with the DVR upgrade. However it's a moot point in NY as it is unlikely YES would be offered and MSG is not part of Ballys.


Yeah the sports issue yet again, such a PITA to get a reasonably priced subscription and also get all the sports you want.
Last time I had ATT TV I was on Ultimate and thought it was fairly priced at the high side for what it offered. In the end, since sports is not at the top of my want list for the most part, and the other stuff on 'live' streamers is mostly reruns, inane game shows, contests of various sorts and 'reality' crap, I just dropped live streaming.


----------



## James Long

If they were waiting for 3Q ... we're here!


----------



## Stevies3

NashGuy said:


> RVU's technology itself was part of the problem. It required a coaxial connection between a Genie and the TV. It couldn't work over wifi, a feature that all TVs have had built-in for a few years now. But yes, relying on TV manufacturers to place and upkeep the RVU software on their TVs was a flaw in the system too. When they launched the RVU initiative, smart TV OSes and app stores weren't that far along.
> 
> Another problem was that RVU really didn't do much to benefit customers because they were still charged the regular additional TV fee (e.g. $7/mo) for using the RVU software in lieu of a rented receiver. I suppose they had to use the manufacturer's TV remote too, which didn't have the familiar DTV design customized for the service. So yes, the customer was able to avoid the "clutter" of a box under the TV but they were paying the same price for what I would guess was an inferior user experience versus just having a Genie connected directly to the TV.


I'd like to make one correction, I had at one time 7 RVU TV's in my home all wired over ethernet, not coax. Only the HS17 was wired via coax to the dish. its not supported but it works This was a great feature of RVU where I could have a full functioning TV with two wires, power & ethernet which I also used for streaming apps in lieu of wifi.


----------



## NashGuy

CraigerM sent me a link to this new article just out. Fitch has assigned an initial credit rating to the new DTV company of BB+. Their report notes "The transaction is expected to close in July-August 2021 timeframe," so pretty soon now.

https://www.fitchratings.com/resear...signs-bb-first-time-idr-to-directv-07-07-2021

The article mentions AT&T TV quite a bit, including: "Fitch believes successful execution on the deployment and growth of the AT&T TV product will be a key risk factor for DIRECTV in mitigating secular subscriber losses in the traditional satellite-based DIRECTV product."

Anyhow, further confirmation that a rebrand/relaunch of AT&T TV is probably not too far off now...


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> CraigerM sent me a link to this new article just out. Fitch has assigned an initial credit rating to the new DTV company of BB+. Their report notes "The transaction is expected to close in July-August 2021 timeframe," so pretty soon now.
> 
> https://www.fitchratings.com/resear...signs-bb-first-time-idr-to-directv-07-07-2021
> 
> The article mentions AT&T TV quite a bit, including: "Fitch believes successful execution on the deployment and growth of the AT&T TV product will be a key risk factor for DIRECTV in mitigating secular subscriber losses in the traditional satellite-based DIRECTV product."
> 
> Anyhow, further confirmation that a rebrand/relaunch of AT&T TV is probably not too far off now...


Writing is on the wall


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> Anyhow, further confirmation that a rebrand/relaunch of AT&T TV is probably not too far off now...


The first time I recall seeing "DIRECTV Entertainment Holdings LLC" as a business name, although FCC licenses were transferred in March and April. ( DIRECTV Entertainment Holdings LLC FCC Filings )

Most of the financials and counts were from the end of the 1st Quarter. 2nd Quarter results should be out in early August.


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> CraigerM sent me a link to this new article just out. Fitch has assigned an initial credit rating to the new DTV company of BB+. Their report notes "The transaction is expected to close in July-August 2021 timeframe," so pretty soon now.
> 
> https://www.fitchratings.com/resear...signs-bb-first-time-idr-to-directv-07-07-2021
> 
> The article mentions AT&T TV quite a bit, including: "Fitch believes successful execution on the deployment and growth of the AT&T TV product will be a key risk factor for DIRECTV in mitigating secular subscriber losses in the traditional satellite-based DIRECTV product."
> 
> Anyhow, further confirmation that a rebrand/relaunch of AT&T TV is probably not too far off now...


And to your point above that:



> Given the sort of ratings the Olympics get, now would be a very good time to rebrand and relaunch the service


It is par for AT&T to just miss that golden opportunity by a mere few weeks. Some things never change and AT&T is one of them.


----------



## b4pjoe

Web domain "directvstream.com" is pointed at DNS servers:

Name Server: NS10A.ATTDNS.NET
Name Server: NS10B.ATTDNS.NET


----------



## harperhometheater

b4pjoe said:


> Web domain "directvstream.com" is pointed at DNS servers:
> 
> Name Server: NS10A.ATTDNS.NET
> Name Server: NS10B.ATTDNS.NET
> 
> View attachment 31546


Look how far back it was created though. Nov 9, 2018.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> It is par for AT&T to just miss that golden opportunity by a mere few weeks. Some things never change and AT&T is one of them.


LOL, you may be right.


----------



## NashGuy

Hmm, the references to "DIRECTV STREAM" appear to be spreading throughout the ATT.com domain.

www.att.com "directv stream" - Google Search

"Check your DIRECTV STREAM channel lineup."
"Watch channels and programs on DIRECTV STREAM."
"Get help with DIRECTV STREAM."
"Find on-demand titles to watch with DIRECTV STREAM."


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Hmm, the references to "DIRECTV STREAM" appear to be spreading throughout the ATT.com domain.
> 
> www.att.com "directv stream" - Google Search
> 
> "Check your DIRECTV STREAM channel lineup."
> "Watch channels and programs on DIRECTV STREAM."
> "Get help with DIRECTV STREAM."
> "Find on-demand titles to watch with DIRECTV STREAM."


Trademark for the name filed last October:

DIRECTV STREAM - Directv, Llc Trademark Registration


----------



## harsh

Steveknj said:


> If you go into YouTube once a day and see the banner add, or the ads in between content, that's effective advertising (obviously this is a Google product and it's advertising inside an app that's for another Google product.


Like the full-page ads that show up here, I simply look for a button to make it go away. After being subjected to hundreds of these ads, I still don't seriously consider either the ad-free offering or YTTV.

It may be different while browsing on a small screen but all of my displays are set for 1080p. It may be important to note that I try to avoid using apps wherever possible.

I would also argue that a "would you like to try" pop-up isn't the same thing as a four-color promotional ad.


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> Like the full-page ads that show up here, I simply look for a button to make it go away. After being subjected to hundreds of these ads, I still don't seriously consider either the ad-free offering or YTTV.
> 
> It may be different while browsing on a small screen but all of my displays are set for 1080p. It may be important to note that I try to avoid using apps wherever possible.
> 
> I would also argue that a "would you like to try" pop-up isn't the same thing as a four-color promotional ad.


But we are probably more "sophisticated" than the average user. Those ads aren't aimed at us as we are apt to try and find ways to circumvent them if they annoy us enough. But I bet they are pretty effective bringing in the average Joe looking to cord cut as they heard from their friends or family who do it. And that's who the targeted audience is, not us. Each of those types of ads cost Google money, even if they own the platform.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> RVU's technology itself was part of the problem. It required a coaxial connection between a Genie and the TV.


It is important not to confuse DIRECTV's implementation of the RVU standard as being one and the same as the standard. As DECA is DIRECTV's implementation of MoCA, so is their implementation of RVU a version of the more comprehensive standard.

That DIRECTV chose to keep everything on coax is their choice; however odd (or laudable) it may seem.


----------



## harsh

Steveknj said:


> But we are probably more "sophisticated" than the average user.


I'm still not convinced that a "would you like to try" is particularly compelling regardless of one's experience or relative sophistication.


----------



## mklimek

I wish there was a way to force the Google 10 update (tried the 'hard reset 10x' method with no luck). I've had the Osprey about a week now and the forced HDR is driving me crazy. I'm guessing I have to be patient. Would love to know what triggers it.


----------



## NashGuy

mklimek said:


> I wish there was a way to force the Google 10 update (tried the 'hard reset 10x' method with no luck). I've had the Osprey about a week now and the forced HDR is driving me crazy. I'm guessing I have to be patient. Would love to know what triggers it.


Appears to be a staged roll-out with a new batch of boxes getting the updated pushed to them from AT&T's servers every day.


----------



## Davenlr

Since the update to Android 10, my CNN GO app will load, show the splash screen, and go back to the Home screen on the Osprey. 
Tried force stop, delete cache, delete data, open (same thing)
Deleted app and reinstalled, same thing
Rebooted Osprey, same thing.
Loaded app on the TV (Android 9) and it works fine.

Any suggestions?


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> Since the update to Android 10, my CNN GO app will load, show the splash screen, and go back to the Home screen on the Osprey.
> Tried force stop, delete cache, delete data, open (same thing)
> Deleted app and reinstalled, same thing
> Rebooted Osprey, same thing.
> Loaded app on the TV (Android 9) and it works fine.
> 
> Any suggestions?


Sounds like their app may not be Android 10 compatible. Any reports of this issue on other Android 10 devices?


----------



## b4pjoe

I have Android 10 on my Pixel XL phone and the CNN app works fine on it. Of course it isn't Android TV 10 so that may make a difference.


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> Since the update to Android 10, my CNN GO app will load, show the splash screen, and go back to the Home screen on the Osprey.
> Tried force stop, delete cache, delete data, open (same thing)
> Deleted app and reinstalled, same thing
> Rebooted Osprey, same thing.
> Loaded app on the TV (Android 9) and it works fine.
> 
> Any suggestions?


Just installed the app and had the same issue. So it's definitely a problem


----------



## Davenlr

Steveknj said:


> Just installed the app and had the same issue. So it's definitely a problem


Thanks for confirming.


----------



## NashGuy

_DIRECTV Stream: Get Your TV Together_










We're getting closer...

AT&T TV Rebrand? DirecTV Stream Wants You To "Get Your TV Together" - Streaming Clarity


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> _DIRECTV Stream: Get Your TV Together_
> 
> View attachment 31554
> 
> 
> We're getting closer...
> 
> AT&T TV Rebrand? DirecTV Stream Wants You To "Get Your TV Together" - Streaming Clarity


Based on the article, it's just a rebrand and NOTHING changes. So the best and worst of the system will remain. Streaming device still $120, packages the same and same price points. Some of the things we were hoping for with the rebrand not quite happening, yet.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> Based on the article, it's just a rebrand and NOTHING changes. So the best and worst of the system will remain. Streaming device still $120, packages the same and same price points. Some of the things we were hoping for with the rebrand not quite happening, yet.


I really dont know why anyone would think things would change with the re-brand


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> Based on the article, it's just a rebrand and NOTHING changes. So the best and worst of the system will remain. Streaming device still $120, packages the same and same price points. Some of the things we were hoping for with the rebrand not quite happening, yet.


That could be true but I wouldn't put too much stock in that aspect of the article. It seems that what's happened is that one reseller out there jumped the gun and switched out the AT&T TV brand name and logo for DirecTV Stream. And nothing more.

Let's assume that there will be some changes to the service when it rebrands -- maybe new channels, maybe new pricing, maybe a new box, whatever. If so, the reseller couldn't change their webpage to reflect those changes unless AT&T had communicated them. Perhaps they haven't yet -- all AT&T did was share the new branding. Or maybe they did pass along the underlying changes but with strict orders not to sign up any customers under those new terms until a particular date when they'll go into effect.

I just don't think there's anything there to make a conclusion yet.

What I do know is that the current C71 AT&T TV box looks like this:










And the packaging it sells in looks like this:










And it was disclosed as a term of the spin-off that the new DTV group will not be able to use the AT&T globe icon. Heck, it's now basically 100% confirmed that the streaming service will no longer even use "AT&T" as part of their brand name.

Those facts strongly suggest that the device and packaging above will no longer be used once the service has been spun off and rebranded as DirecTV Stream. Now, I guess it's possible that they'll somehow scrape off the globe icon from the front panel of however many C71s they've still got on hand and slap a "DirecTV Stream" logo sticker over the globe icon on the outer packaging. But it seems far more likely to me that they'll have managed inventory to largely sell through that stock (and will anonymously dump whatever's left on eBay). In fact, one AT&T TV customer recently posted on reddit that they checked multiple nearby AT&T stores and couldn't find the C71 in stock at any of them.

So even if nothing else changes, I'd be really surprised if we didn't see the introduction of the 2nd-gen A21 box coincide with the DirecTV Stream launch.


----------



## James Long

compnurd said:


> I really dont know why anyone would think things would change with the re-brand


If things don't change the only benefit will be people talking about DIRECTV going out of business in a few years instead of AT&T losing the business.

TPG needs to change something to keep the services alive. They didn't pay billions of dollars to do nothing but watch DIRECTV rot away.


----------



## compnurd

James Long said:


> If things don't change the only benefit will be people talking about DIRECTV going out of business in a few years instead of AT&T losing the business.
> 
> TPG needs to change something to keep the services alive. They didn't pay billions of dollars to do nothing but watch DIRECTV rot away.


But were not talking about Directv in this thread.. There seemed to be some assumptions there would be some ATT TV Changes with the rebrand...


----------



## NashGuy

Well, as I've pointed out many times before, I do think there needs to be some improvements to AT&T TV to better position it to grow subscribers. A name change that ditches "AT&T" along with more (and better) advertising are important, but the following changes to the service itself would help a lot:

1. addition of various key channels currently missing: PBS locals, CW locals in some markets, NFL Network, one or more retro/rerun channels (e.g. MeTV, Get TV, Cozi TV, INSP, etc.), multiplex premiums (e.g. HBO Signature, The Movie Channel, etc.)
2. addition of live and on-demand 4K HDR content (mainly sports)
3. faster, more reliable streaming box (hopefully with easy access to Hulu and Apple TV apps missing on the 1st-gen box)
4. expansion of cloud DVR retention from 90 days to 1 year
5. additional cloud DVR controls (padding, keep last X eps, etc.)
6. $65 entry-level pricing on Entertainment to match advertised pricing from YouTube TV, Hulu with Live TV, FuboTV and DISH
7. optional, renewable contract in exchange for lower price/free upgrades

I certainly don't expect *all* those improvements to happen with the rebrand (and some of them may never happen at all). But I do expect to see the new box at the least. I'd say the addition of 4K is the second-most-likely to coincide with the rebrand, followed by at least some of the channels listed in point #1.


----------



## James Long

compnurd said:


> But were not talking about Directv in this thread.. There seemed to be some assumptions there would be some ATT TV Changes with the rebrand...


AT&T's Video Unit is what needs to survive. That is "new DIRECTV" and without it there is no DIRECTV Stream.


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> But were not talking about Directv in this thread.. There seemed to be some assumptions there would be some ATT TV Changes with the rebrand...


There are always changes. Every service makes changes. There are some obvious ones that can (and should) be made, as NashGuy pointed out. It's far from a perfect system, so why WOULDN'T there be changes. And with the rebranding, I'd expect SOMETHING different, otherwise people are just gonna shrug and move on. Maybe it's the new and improved Osprey box, or maybe it's 4K in time for the Olympics and the NFL season. Nobody knows, except what we already know.

I think the name change is good and says exactly what it is, clearly. It's a streaming version of DirecTV, and those of us who have it already can see that it's already positions someone like that. Same channel numbers for example.


----------



## compnurd

James Long said:


> AT&T's Video Unit is what needs to survive. That is "new DIRECTV" and without it there is no DIRECTV Stream.


I fail to see that... Directv Stream can function fine on its own without its Sat Brother


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> There are always changes. Every service makes changes. There are some obvious ones that can (and should) be made, as NashGuy pointed out. It's far from a perfect system, so why WOULDN'T there be changes. And with the rebranding, I'd expect SOMETHING different, otherwise people are just gonna shrug and move on. Maybe it's the new and improved Osprey box, or maybe it's 4K in time for the Olympics and the NFL season. Nobody knows, except what we already know.
> 
> I think the name change is good and says exactly what it is, clearly. It's a streaming version of DirecTV, and those of us who have it already can see that it's already positions someone like that. Same channel numbers for example.


I am sure there will be changes at some point..... when that point is who knows


----------



## b4pjoe

The new company needs to hit the ground running. They need to stop the bleeding of DIRECTV SAT subscribers or at least try to capture most of them into moving to DIRECTV STREAM and they need to promote the heck out of DIRECTV STREAM to try to get more subscribers that have not been AT&T customers. What they currently offer isn't enough. I don't necessarily think they have to be more price competitive with YouTube TV, Hulu with Live TV, FuboTV and DISH but they surely need to adopt some of the features and fixes that NashGuy mentioned to be *THE* premium streaming service. They need features better than what you can get with YouTube TV, Hulu with Live TV, FuboTV and DISH.


----------



## NashGuy

Someone on reddit recently posted that Jewelry TV has appeared in the AT&T TV lineup. In the past, shopping stations like that -- which pay to be included in the lineup -- haven't been part of AT&T TV, only DTV satellite. It's just one data point but it could mean that we'll see DTV Stream's channel packages more closely replicate their DTV counterparts than has been the case with AT&T TV so far.

And the "Beam it or stream it" slogan they've trademarked seems to indicate that they'll pitch both services together to some extent. I imagine they'll use it on a redesigned www.directv.com homepage, which will feature both versions of the service. But I also think they'll house the DTV Stream-specific pages under a separate www.directvstream.com domain (which is linked to from the directv.com homepage). The DTV Stream site will probably just be the existing www.atttv.com site with the necessary changes applied.

The "Get Your TV Together" slogan specifically for DTV Stream makes me think of the expression "Get your sh!t together," ha. I'm sure it's referencing the fact that DTV Stream (unlike DTV sat, Uverse TV, and lots of traditional cable TV operators) allows you to get your full-fledged cable TV service via the same box/remote/TV input as the various streaming apps you use like Netflix, HBO Max, Prime Video, Disney+, YouTube, etc. They'll mainly showcase that with their own new box, although it also holds true if you use their app for Roku, Fire TV, etc.


----------



## celticpride

Am i wrong to assume that once at&t tv changes to directv stream they wont sell the streaming box at at&t stores anymore? I would like so see them sell them at best buy ,amazon or target,As well as their website.


----------



## James Long

celticpride said:


> Am i wrong to assume that once at&t tv changes to directv stream they wont sell the streaming box at at&t stores anymore? I would like so see them sell them at best buy ,amazon or target,As well as their website.


There will still be some marketing crossovers, such as AT&T Internet customers being offered DIRECTV Stream (instead of AT&T TV / UVerse) as part of their service. Details "to be announced".


----------



## inkahauts

I would hope their long term goal is DIRECTV…. Not stream or sat…. Same exact services with the same exact offerings. You chose delivery method when signing up…. 

In a perfect world they’d replace the hs17 with a device that was the same idea but then could use appletvs and other streaming boxes instead of their own clients.


----------



## NashGuy

inkahauts said:


> I would hope their long term goal is DIRECTV&#8230;. Not stream or sat&#8230;. Same exact services with the same exact offerings. You chose delivery method when signing up&#8230;.


It definitely looks like they're making a step in that direction. But for the next couple years anyhow, they can't simply use "DIRECTV" as the brand name for both because the public associates that word with satellite dishes, 2-yr contracts, and clunky STB rentals. So it's imperative that they refer to the streaming version as "DIRECTV Stream". Only by putting the word "stream" right in the name can they instantly convey the idea that this is "DIRECTV, except it streams over the internet instead of coming through a rooftop dish".

As far as the two having the exact same offerings, that would be hard to do. I expect DTV Stream to always have a lower pricing structure/ARPU than DTV Sat due its lower customer acquisition and hardware costs. And I can't see them doing away with the 2-yr contract on Sat either. Although perhaps they could make it optional if you pay an up-front install fee. And remember that Sat will still be the exclusive home of NFL ST this year and next. (Frankly, I expect them to throw in both years for free to new Sat subs from here on out. And probably to a lot of existing Sat subs too as a retention tool, perhaps in lieu of generous loyalty discounts.)

So those are all reasons why I expect that the online info/buy flow will be completely separate for the two products. Showcase that both options are available on the main DTV homepage and then split into two separate product flows explaining the individual feature sets, channel packages and prices.



inkahauts said:


> In a perfect world they'd replace the hs17 with a device that was the same idea but then could use appletvs and other streaming boxes instead of their own clients.


I do think that the original plan was to replace the HS17 with an HS27 that could work with AT&T TV's first-gen C71 streaming box. (The original C71 user manual submitted to the FCC mentioned that it might be used in conjunction with a future HS27 device.) Perhaps it might have even worked with a DTV app for Roku, etc. But in the end, my guess is that they concluded that there's not really a marketing rationale for developing such solutions for the Sat product. Because if you really want DTV service delivered to an app on your streaming devices, why not just switch to DTV Stream? (Yes, I know that there are reasons some Sat customers would cite, such as broadband data caps, or a preference for local vs. cloud DVR, but I don't think they ultimately amount to much.)


----------



## mklimek

So my Osprey box finally updated to Android 10. However, in order for it not to force HDR, I have to disable the 'UHD Color' setting for that input on my Samsung TV. The downside to this is if I attempt to play something in HDR from another app on the box (Netflix for example), it won't play in HDR. 

In a perfect world, it would operate much like my Roku--if SDR is playing, it displays as such and if an HDR program is playing, it auto-switches to HDR. If I want the "perfect world", I suspect I may have to wait until the next generation box.


----------



## Steveknj

inkahauts said:


> I would hope their long term goal is DIRECTV&#8230;. Not stream or sat&#8230;. Same exact services with the same exact offerings. You chose delivery method when signing up&#8230;.
> 
> In a perfect world they'd replace the hs17 with a device that was the same idea but then could use appletvs and other streaming boxes instead of their own clients.


I like this thought process, but, I am not sure it solves anything from a business perspective. Has anyone ever determine what the major reasons people leave cable or sat for streaming? Is it price? (I'd bet that's a number one drivers), is it the two year contract? (though cable doesn't have that, they do have a cheap first year and a more expensive going forward system), is it content or content choice (a la carte vs. packages) or is it simply people are foregoing traditional linear TV and just watching everything on demand via a streaming service. Hopefully DirecTV has done their homework in that regard. Simply repackaging DirecTV via streaming may not be enough. Though I did say this is the direction that they will probably go, where Satellite will be strictly for those who can't get broadband and streaming will be the primary product. Everyone thought I was crazy, but I think that's where we are going.


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> I really dont know why anyone would think things would change with the re-brand


Why would a MVPD rebranding be any different from a TV channel rebranding?

Remember the rebrands that begat Audience (Freeview), Motor Trend (Velocity, The Enthusiast Network) and Paramount Network (Spike TV, TNN)?

Rebrands are typically more than just name changes.


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> Why would a MVPD rebranding be any different from a TV channel rebranding?
> 
> Remember the rebrands that begat Audience (Freeview), Motor Trend (Velocity, The Enthusiast Network) and Paramount Network (Spike TV, TNN)?
> 
> Rebrands are typically more than just name changes.


There's a reason why they are rebranding it DirecTV Stream. DirecTV has a reputation of being a premium service, while AT&T, well we know what their reputation is. Moving away from AT&T is a smart business decision, and as there's already some synergy between Sat and Stream in this case, it shouldn't be too difficult to make this move and it be looked on as positive. I wonder if they are working with content providers to bring some channels over that are Sat and not streaming as part of this? Some of the other HBO channels for example. This way they can say there are "the same". But we'll see, nobody knows.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> I wonder if they are working with content providers to bring some channels over that are Sat and not streaming as part of this? Some of the other HBO channels for example. This way they can say there are "the same". But we'll see, nobody knows.


As I wrote yesterday:

Someone on reddit recently posted that Jewelry TV has appeared in the AT&T TV lineup. In the past, shopping stations like that -- which pay to be included in the lineup -- haven't been part of AT&T TV, only DTV satellite. It's just one data point but it could mean that we'll see DTV Stream's channel packages more closely replicate their DTV counterparts than has been the case with AT&T TV so far.​
And today I see that AT&T TV has also added QVC, QVC 2 and Jewish Life TV. (AFAIK, those weren't originally available.) So maybe it's a trend. Given that AT&T TV will soon very much be marketed as "the streaming version of DIRECTV," it makes sense that they'd want the channel line-ups and feature sets to match up very closely.

Aside from shopping and religious stations, what non-premium channels is AT&T TV missing that DTV includes in its base packages? Here's what I could find. The ones that actually matter are bolded.

*PBS*
*ION*
*CW* in some markets
*My Network TV* in some markets
Arirang TV
*Cowboy Channel*
Enlace
Free Speech TV
HITN
Hola! TV
i24 News
*INSP*
Link TV
MAVTV
Music Choice channels (audio-only)
NASA TV
*NFL Network*
Once
So Yummy
And then there are certain premium multiplex channels (e.g. HBO Zone, Showtime Family Zone, MoreMax, Starz Cinema, etc.) available on DTV but missing on AT&T TV.

From the list above, I know some of them are non-commercial channels (e.g. HITN, NASA TV); no idea if they pay to be carried like religious channels do. Also, at least some of the foreign-based channels above, such as South Korea's Arirang TV, are available on AT&T TV via add-on packs, just not as part of their main base packages.

The top four listed are obviously the biggies. I've never mentioned AT&T TV's lack of ION before but it's pretty significant -- ION was the 13th highest-rated TV network in the country in 2020! Looking further down the list, INSP ranked as the 26th most-watched (just behind MeTV and ahead of Lifetime), so it's a pretty important omission for AT&T TV too, especially given its lack of other retro channels like MeTV, Get TV, etc. NFL Network ranked 70th (five spots ahead of ESPN 2). Cowboy Channel ranked 115th (just ahead of AXS TV).

Nothing else on the list above even made it in Nielsen's year-end rankings, which included over 150 channels. Given that the AT&T TV box has the free Pandora music app pre-installed, I'd say it's a safe bet that the Music Choice channels will never be added to the line-up. (I think their main value for DTV has always been to inflate their packages' channel counts: "160+ channels!") As for the rest of the list, not having those niche channels bloating the grid guide might make AT&T TV more appealing than would including them. Who's even heard of the So Yummy channel?!


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> As I wrote yesterday:
> 
> Someone on reddit recently posted that Jewelry TV has appeared in the AT&T TV lineup. In the past, shopping stations like that -- which pay to be included in the lineup -- haven't been part of AT&T TV, only DTV satellite. It's just one data point but it could mean that we'll see DTV Stream's channel packages more closely replicate their DTV counterparts than has been the case with AT&T TV so far.​
> And today I see that AT&T TV has also added QVC, QVC 2 and Jewish Life TV. (AFAIK, those weren't originally available.) So maybe it's a trend. Given that AT&T TV will soon very much be marketed as "the streaming version of DIRECTV," it makes sense that they'd want the channel line-ups and feature sets to match up very closely.
> 
> Aside from shopping and religious stations, what non-premium channels is AT&T TV missing that DTV includes in its base packages? Here's what I could find. The ones that actually matter are bolded.
> 
> *PBS*
> *ION*
> *CW* in some markets
> *My Network TV* in some markets
> Arirang TV
> *Cowboy Channel*
> Enlace
> Free Speech TV
> HITN
> Hola! TV
> i24 News
> *INSP*
> Link TV
> MAVTV
> Music Choice channels (audio-only)
> NASA TV
> *NFL Network*
> Once
> So Yummy
> And then there are certain premium multiplex channels (e.g. HBO Zone, Showtime Family Zone, MoreMax, Starz Cinemax, etc.) available on DTV but missing on AT&T TV.
> 
> From the list above, I know some of them are non-commercial channels (e.g. HITN, NASA TV); no idea if they pay to be carried like religious channels do. Also, at least some of the foreign-based channels above, such as South Korea's Arirang TV, are available on AT&T TV via add-on packs, just not as part of their main base packages.
> 
> The top four listed are obviously the biggies. I've never mentioned AT&T TV's lack of ION before but it's pretty significant -- ION was the 13th highest-rated TV network in the country in 2020! Looking further down the list, INSP ranked as the 26th most-watched (just behind MeTV and ahead of Lifetime), so it's a pretty important omission for AT&T TV too, especially given its lack of other retro channels like MeTV, Get TV, etc. NFL Network ranked 70th (five spots ahead of ESPN 2). Cowboy Channel ranked 115th (just ahead of AXS TV).
> 
> Nothing else on the list above even made it in Nielsen's year-end rankings, which included over 150 channels. Given that the AT&T TV box has the free Pandora music app pre-installed, I'd say it's a safe bet that the Music Choice channels will never be added to the line-up. (I think their main value for DTV has always been to inflate their packages' channel counts: "160+ channels!") As for the rest of the list, not having those niche channels bloating the grid guide might make more AT&T TV more appealing than would including them. Who's even heard of the So Yummy channel?!


QVC and QVC 2 have been there since i had the service last summer. Pretty sure at least QVC has been there since launch


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> I fail to see that... Directv Stream can function fine on its own without its Sat Brother


I bet their break even is at least double (possibly triple) the current AT&T TV subscriber count. I also believe that their costs/subscriber would be quite a bit higher if it weren't for the DBS portion of their business giving them some real purchasing power.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> From the list above, I know some of them are non-commercial channels (e.g. HITN, NASA TV); no idea if they pay to be carried like religious channels do.


Satellite has "PI" channels (public interest) where a non-commercial channel can pay the cost of retransmission for carriage. Many of the channels in this category pay $0. The rates paid are filed with the FCC (I believe NASA is paying zero).


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> I bet their break even is at least double (possibly triple) the current AT&T TV subscriber count. I also believe that their costs/subscriber would be quite a bit higher if it weren't for the DBS portion of their business giving them some real purchasing power.


Yep. The total number of AT&T's "premium TV" subs across DTV, Uverse TV and AT&T TV at the end of Q1 2021 was 15.9 million. My best guess is that that figure breaks down at about 12 million for DTV, about 3.5 million for Uverse TV, and about 500k for AT&T TV (with AT&T TV Now having an additional 500k not included in the 15.9 million figure). Any of those could be off a few hundred thousand but I'd say I'm in the ballpark on all of them.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> about 500k for AT&T TV (with AT&T TV Now having an additional 500k not included in the 15.9 million figure).


This means that the combination is 1 million between TV and TV Now?

I bet it is higher but no where near enough to achieve Most Favored Nation status.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> This means that the combination is 1 million between TV and TV Now?
> 
> I bet it is higher but no where near enough to achieve Most Favored Nation status.


I think the last time we got a number for AT&T TV Now was end of Q3 20 and it was 683k and had lost 40% of subs over the previous year (largely due, I'd say, to price increases aimed at actually making it profitable). Then in Jan. of this year they stopped taking new subs under that brand, consolidating everything under the AT&T TV brand which began offering a no-contract option (and now seems to only offer that option). If it was down to 500k at the end of Q2 21 that would mean another 27% slide in subs over those 9 months. Seems pretty plausible.

As for AT&T TV, it's harder to say, but I don't have any reason to believe that it's really taken off so far. It just hasn't been heavily advertised and the sort of consumer who seeks out and researches alternatives typically finds that YTTV is a better buy for them. Since it launched nationally right at the start of the pandemic, I'm sure it's mainly getting takers from new AT&T Fiber customers. I know Fiber added over 1 million new subs in 2020 but of course a lot of those -- 50%? -- didn't taken any MVPD service with it. And those who got it in Q1 mainly took Uverse TV or DTV if they took an MVPD. As I say, I may be off a few hundred thou. Maybe AT&T TV now has 1 million subs rather than just a half million. But I doubt it's more than that.


----------



## NashGuy

I may have mentioned here recently that I read someone on reddit post that AT&T TV was testing the ability to pause and rewind live TV in their Roku and iOS apps. Well, here's something just posted from a source I trust, reddit user preterist-seek:

_They just added live tv rewind to Roku so it seems they are not only re-establishing the DirecTV name but also addressing the feature set, which is encouraging. Another Roku user mentioned that they noticed sports recordings automatically extending so not to miss the end of games. I imagine these features (& perhaps others) will be coming to AppleTV, FireTV, etc...
_​And here's a whole thread about it with confirmation from other users.

So it does look like we're seeing them get ready to implement some improvements to the service in tandem with the pending rebrand.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> I may have mentioned here recently that I read someone on reddit post that AT&T TV was testing the ability to pause and rewind live TV in their Roku and iOS apps. Well, here's something just posted from a source I trust, reddit user preterist-seek:
> 
> _They just added live tv rewind to Roku so it seems they are not only re-establishing the DirecTV name but also addressing the feature set, which is encouraging. Another Roku user mentioned that they noticed sports recordings automatically extending so not to miss the end of games. I imagine these features (& perhaps others) will be coming to AppleTV, FireTV, etc...
> _​And here's a whole thread about it with confirmation from other users.
> 
> So it does look like we're seeing them get ready to implement some improvements to the service in tandem with the pending rebrand.


I'll have to play with this a bit. I'm still hoping for a manual pad option. To me, that's a key feature that's missing.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> I'll have to play with this a bit. I'm still hoping for a manual pad option. To me, that's a key feature that's missing.


I agree that a manual pad option should be available, even if it's somewhat buried in the UI for power-users. But *if* they fully and accurately implement auto-extensions for recordings (which is a big "if"), then manual padding becomes much less important and probably something that would be rarely used.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> I think the last time we got a number for AT&T TV Now was end of Q3 20 ...


656k at the end of year 2020. Then the AT&T Now subscribers vaporized.

First Quarter results listed "Premium TV" subscribers only and completely ignored AT&T Now subscribers. Which means there are still some on the books just not being reported (which would be odd) or they migrated the count to the Premium TV column. I can't imaging not reporting 656k subscribers. For Premium TV AT&T lost 620k in 1Q 21 ... better than the 897k lost in 1Q 20. Not a good number,


----------



## mklimek

NashGuy said:


> I may have mentioned here recently that I read someone on reddit post that AT&T TV was testing the ability to pause and rewind live TV in their Roku and iOS apps. Well, here's something just posted from a source I trust, reddit user preterist-seek:
> 
> _They just added live tv rewind to Roku so it seems they are not only re-establishing the DirecTV name but also addressing the feature set, which is encouraging. Another Roku user mentioned that they noticed sports recordings automatically extending so not to miss the end of games. I imagine these features (& perhaps others) will be coming to AppleTV, FireTV, etc...
> _​And here's a whole thread about it with confirmation from other users.
> 
> So it does look like we're seeing them get ready to implement some improvements to the service in tandem with the pending rebrand.


Nice! This previously missing feature set was the only reason I considered an Osprey. If this new management continues to make thoughtful changes here, I can see AT&T TV (soon to be Directv Stream) being really competitive. I'm rooting for them.


----------



## compnurd

mklimek said:


> Nice! This previously missing feature set was the only reason I considered an Osprey. If this new management continues to make thoughtful changes here, I can see AT&T TV (soon to be Directv Stream) being really competitive. I'm rooting for them.


Yeh I don't think management had anything to do with this lol


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> Yeh I don't think management had anything to do with this lol


Don't be so sure. If, as many of us are speculating, they want DirecTV Stream to be a streaming version of DirecTV Sat, then they would need to mimic DirecTV Sat as much as possible. Little things like this might be part of the strategy. Now, I won't discount that they might have been working on this pre-spinoff, but it's interesting that this sort of thing has happened now.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Then the AT&T Now subscribers vaporized.


Isn't "folded in" a more accurate description of what happened?


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> 656k at the end of year 2020. Then the AT&T Now subscribers vaporized.
> 
> First Quarter results listed "Premium TV" subscribers only and completely ignored AT&T Now subscribers. Which means there are still some on the books just not being reported (which would be odd) or they migrated the count to the Premium TV column. I can't imaging not reporting 656k subscribers. For Premium TV AT&T lost 620k in 1Q 21 ... better than the 897k lost in 1Q 20. Not a good number,


I could be wrong but my understanding is that they simply stopped reporting the subscriber count for the no-longer-offered AT&T TV Now service (same situation as AT&T Watch TV). If they did lump those ~600k subs under "Premium TV" for the Q1 21 count, that would mean that the main 3 (DTV + Uverse TV + AT&T TV) actually sustained a combined net loss of around 1.2 million that quarter (as opposed to the 620k reported), which would be a really bad number out of line with the trend over the past several quarters.

BTW, the Q2 21 numbers were released today. Premium TV lost 473k subs in the quarter, down to 15.4 million. That's a 13% loss from a year ago, when the group had 17.7 million subs.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> Don't be so sure. If, as many of us are speculating, they want DirecTV Stream to be a streaming version of DirecTV Sat, then they would need to mimic DirecTV Sat as much as possible. Little things like this might be part of the strategy. Now, I won't discount that they might have been working on this pre-spinoff, but it's interesting that this sort of thing has happened now.


Well, being able to pause and rewind live TV in an app on your own Roku/Fire TV/Apple TV isn't a feature that DTV Sat offers. But it is something that all of DTV Stream's streaming competitors like YTTV offer.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Well, being able to pause and rewind live TV in an app on your own Roku/Fire TV/Apple TV isn't a feature that DTV Sat offers. But it is something that all of DTV Stream's streaming competitors like YTTV offer.


My point here being it IS offered on the DirecTV HRxx units. So in order to line AT&T TV up with traditional DirecTV, they would need to keep the feature set as close as possible or risk upsetting DirecTV users who have jumped (and obviously I mean jumped but are using their own hardware, not an Osprey box, which has supported the feature for awhile now). I suppose the motivation could be just to match the feature set to YTTV, but it's unclear that's what they are after, we simply don't know.


----------



## lparsons21

I can’t say I’m surprised that the numbers keep dropping. As the prices for live streamers keep rising it makes that less of an incentive to go to them, and the prices of cable/sat are already at high enough prices people are really looking for a better and cheaper way to watch TV.

Live streamers with a lot of channels covering a wide range of interests are just too close in cost to cable/sat. These days the only way to save considerable money and still have tons to watch, is to drop live streamers completely IMO. Of course for those wanting lots of sports there is really no other way to get them than with a live streaming service or cable/sat.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> My point here being it IS offered on the DirecTV HRxx units. So in order to line AT&T TV up with traditional DirecTV, they would need to keep the feature set as close as possible or risk upsetting DirecTV users who have jumped (and obviously I mean jumped but are using their own hardware, not an Osprey box, which has supported the feature for awhile now). I suppose the motivation could be just to match the feature set to YTTV, but it's unclear that's what they are after, we simply don't know.


OK, but AT&T TV has offered that feature all along IF you used their box. Just as DTV has offered it IF you take their Genie DVR.

At any rate, whether it's coincidental or planned, it does look like AT&T TV is ready to improve its feature set as it rebrands. DTV Stream will be compared to a lot of other options by consumers and the press -- not only DTV Sat and Uverse TV but also YTTV, Hulu Live, FuboTV and traditional cable TV from Comcast and Charter.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> I can't say I'm surprised that the numbers keep dropping. As the prices for live streamers keep rising it makes that less of an incentive to go to them, and the prices of cable/sat are already at high enough prices people are really looking for a better and cheaper way to watch TV.


I don't think anyone thinks that the overall subscriber count for cable TV packages will turn around and stop declining. But the kind of losses that AT&T has been sustaining for years now -- mainly in DTV Sat -- are simply out of line with the overall industry. They're significantly worse than other major operators except maybe DISH.

Meanwhile, one industry research group projects that vMVPDs will grow their sub count by 10 million -- from 13.4 million at year-end 2020 to over 23 million by 2024. Over that same period, they see traditional MVPDs' total sub count dropping from 69.9 million to 53 million. That would mean a total decline in cable TV subs from 83.3 million to a little over 76 million, but with vMVPDs' share of the total growing from about 16% to 31%.

U.S. vMVPD subscribers will total 23M by 2024: report


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> Don't be so sure. If, as many of us are speculating, they want DirecTV Stream to be a streaming version of DirecTV Sat, then they would need to mimic DirecTV Sat as much as possible. Little things like this might be part of the strategy. Now, I won't discount that they might have been working on this pre-spinoff, but it's interesting that this sort of thing has happened now.


Software updates like that are months in the making. This wasn't a whim change by new management which hasn't even been involved yet. ATT TV now is already the streaming version of Directv. Even the Directv webpage points you there as an option. Your wasting your time and breath though if you think every little feature and Physical DVR action is going to come to ATT TV


----------



## NashGuy

Just as the new brand name, DIRECTV Stream, was chosen and trademarked last fall (a couple months before the transaction with TPG was announced), I would imagine that the top brass who will be running the new company were agreed upon by AT&T and TPG months ago and have already been formulating strategy and getting some things going even before the deal officially closes in the coming days/weeks.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> Just as the new brand name, DIRECTV Stream, was chosen and trademarked last fall (a couple months before the transaction with TPG was announced), I would imagine that the top brass who will be running the new company were agreed upon by AT&T and TPG months ago and have already been formulating strategy and getting some things going even before the deal officially closes in the coming days/weeks.


Formulating Strategy Yes.. Changing Software No... hell it takes 4 months right now for a CE Cycle for the Genie They hosed the TV OS app a few months back and it took a month just to fix it back


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> Formulating Strategy Yes.. Changing Software No... hell it takes 4 months right now for a CE Cycle for the Genie They hosed the TV OS app a few months back and it took a month just to fix it back


A new feature can be added to existing software, tested and rolled out within a few months. And the team working on this stuff isn't changing. They're just shifting from being AT&T employees to DirecTV employees. Someone who claimed to be an AT&T employee on TheLayoff.com said awhile back (maybe in April) that those in AT&T's video unit were already having their corporate email addresses changed over from "@att.com" to "@directv.com".

I tend to think things went this way: AT&T TV *finally* launched nationwide a couple years late, with little fanfare, just as the pandemic struck last March. By then, AT&T was already way more focused on the pending May launch of HBO Max. By the time they got that off the ground in the summer, the C-suite was already mulling over Wall Street calls to sell off DTV. They decided that they weren't that interested in cable TV any more and probably knew that AT&T TV might get drawn into any deal to divest DTV. So it just stayed on the backburner until its long-term fate was decided. That didn't materialize until the fall when they got deep into talks with TPG. Since then, they did change to a contract-free everyday pricing strategy but I suspect that most planned improvements (whether they were initially AT&T's or TPG's ideas) were being held back for the rebranding/relaunch.

Question now is how much longer until that happens. If they've got live 4K ready to go, it might even happen next week in the lead up to the Olympics. If not, I'd say the likely window would be between the end of the Olympics (Aug. 8) and the start of NFL (Sept. 9).


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Isn't "folded in" a more accurate description of what happened?


AT&T|DIRECTV reported 17.161 million subscribers at the end of 2020 and 15.885 million at the end of 1Q 2021. They claimed a net loss of 620 thousand subscribers. The 656 thousand AT&T Now subscribers were not "rolled in". They simply disappeared from the reporting. "Vaporized" is the word I used and it fits.



NashGuy said:


> I could be wrong but my understanding is that they simply stopped reporting the subscriber count for the no-longer-offered AT&T TV Now service (same situation as AT&T Watch TV).


And that surprises me. I assume they are still serving the former AT&T Now subscribers and still collecting their money. But they seem to be in a black hole.



NashGuy said:


> BTW, the Q2 21 numbers were released today. Premium TV lost 473k subs in the quarter, down to 15.4 million. That's a 13% loss from a year ago, when the group had 17.7 million subs.


Thanks ... time to update my notes. There were 720k AT&T Now subscribers at the end of 2Q 2020. Gone or no longer counted ... just another way of not reporting the true state of the company.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> BTW, the Q2 21 numbers were released today. Premium TV lost 473k subs in the quarter, down to 15.4 million. That's a 13% loss from a year ago, when the group had 17.7 million subs.


A interesting number in the subscriber report ... the "Gross Additions". I have not seen that number for since AT&T purchased DIRECTV.
Net Additions (subscriber loss) -473,000
Gross Additions (new subscribers) 492,000

Which means AT&T|DIRECTV let 965,000 subscribers leave in the quarter and was able to to sign up 492,000 customers (slightly more than half of their loss).
Gross Additions one year ago was slightly lower (481,000) but the net subscriber loss was 887,000. They let 1.368 million subscribers leave.

Showing improvement.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> They let 1.368 million subscribers leave.


It seems apparent that they don't have much control over customers leaving. The ugly part is now that AT&T TV is more or less attractive, they haven't been particularly successful at retaining customers that way either.

As always, it is imperative to look at losses as a percentage of the remaining customers rather than comparing the losses numbers year-to-year.


----------



## James Long

Nash took care of mentioning the 13% net subscriber loss over 12 months. 3% net loss in one quarter (if you are interested).

There are seasonal swings to subscriptions and it is a standard to compare "this quarter" with the "same quarter" in the previous year.


----------



## NashGuy

Looks like the spin-off from AT&T to the new DirecTV has now been officially approved by the FCC.

AT&T's New DirecTV Spin-Off Deal Approved By The FCC - Streaming Clarity

I guess the deal could officially close any time now.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> A interesting number in the subscriber report ... the "Gross Additions". I have not seen that number for since AT&T purchased DIRECTV.
> Net Additions (subscriber loss) -473,000
> Gross Additions (new subscribers) 492,000
> 
> Which means AT&T|DIRECTV let 965,000 subscribers leave in the quarter and was able to to sign up 492,000 customers (slightly more than half of their loss).
> Gross Additions one year ago was slightly lower (481,000) but the net subscriber loss was 887,000. They let 1.368 million subscribers leave.
> 
> Showing improvement.


I guess those 2Q 2021 subscriber numbers will be the last set we see, right? Because the new DirecTV will almost certainly be in control by the end of 3Q, on Sept. 30. And since that company is an LLC, not a publicly traded corporation, my understanding is that they won't have to divulge that info.

Also, it's interesting that AT&T released those 2Q numbers a bit early this time. They're typically always just reported as part of the quarterly earnings results, including the 1Q 21 numbers released on 4/22/21. But the 2Q earnings results won't come out until the call this coming Thur., 7/22. They quietly released the video subscriber numbers for 2Q in a regulatory filing yesterday, on 7/16.


----------



## James Long

I am hoping that the ownership stake will keep AT&T reporting the health of their investment. The quick release of subscriber numbers (and churn for every quarter) was out of normal. Must be that "new normal" we keep hearing about.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

FCC Approves Creation of New DirecTV | Multichannel News


----------



## compnurd

TheRatPatrol said:


> FCC Approves Creation of New DirecTV | Multichannel News


Not really huge news had more to do with the satellite side of the business


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> Not really huge news had more to do with the satellite side of the business


Other than acknowledging that DIRECTV DBS is the largest component of the new company (upwards of 85% of revenues?), the article wasn't speaking specifically to any of the services.

I thought it odd that the article suggested that AT&T's future video play would be HBO Max given that it is also being spun off.

I'd like to see a comparison of the FCC requirements placed on DIRECTV versus those in place on DISH's DBS operations.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> Other than acknowledging that DIRECTV DBS is the largest component of the new company (upwards of 85% of revenues?), the article wasn't speaking specifically to any of the services.
> 
> I thought it odd that the article suggested that AT&T's future video play would be HBO Max given that it is also being spun off.


Yeah, I think when the deal was announced back in Feb., the talking point in the media was that AT&T would mainly focus on HBO Max for video, which made sense. But then, of course, AT&T made a deal in May to spin off Warner/HBO Max to Discovery. So basically the guy who wrote this recent story recycled a now-outdated talking point. It's not significant. AT&T won't be any more involved with HBO Max than they will be with DTV. It's expected that they'll continue to sell/bundle both products with their wireless and internet services.


----------



## James Long

compnurd said:


> Not really huge news had more to do with the satellite side of the business


FCC approval is an important step toward the entire deal being completed. As stated often, it is a package deal. TPG is getting control of all "Video" - not just DIRECTV satellite and not everything but DIRECTV satellite.



harsh said:


> Other than acknowledging that DIRECTV DBS is the largest component of the new company (upwards of 85% of revenues?), the article wasn't speaking specifically to any of the services.


I believe you are confusing the article TheRatPatrol posted (from Multichannel News/Nexttv) with the one NashGuy posted (from Streaming Clarity). Streaming Clarity's had the issues noted. (Although the HBOMax spinoff will not close until next year experience has shown AT&T doesn't focus on parts of the business they are shedding.) One positive in the Streaming Clarity article is they actually linked a source:
AT&T and TPG Capital Transaction Order
"Grant the applications of AT&T Inc. and TPG Capital, for consent to the transfer of control of Commission licenses from AT&T to DIRECTV Entertainment Holdings. LLC."

With the numbers released Friday and the FCC approval I expect a deal closing announcement within a week.
I don't believe there are any other approvals pending.

After closing the "TPG has been in control of DIRECTV Stream for xx hours and have not completely restructured the business" complaints can officially begin.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> With the numbers released Friday and the FCC approval I expect a deal closing announcement within a week.


Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was an official deal closing announcement this week, even tomorrow. Perhaps the reason that AT&T filed results for their video unit early is that it won't legally be part of the company by the time they have the regular quarterly earnings call this Thursday. (And/or it's simply because they want to focus on their core businesses during the call.)

That said, I would think that when the deal is actually closed, it won't simply be a press release but also several public-facing actions happening too, for marketing reasons and maybe legal ones too. Like the renaming of AT&T TV to DIRECTV Stream and changes in the relevant websites, apps, etc. But you don't want to waste the media attention that comes with a product rebranding. If you've got substantive changes/improvements planned in the near term for the product, you want them to coincide with the rebrand. This is your opportunity to re-introduce yourself to the public.

Beyond the few things that have popped up in the past few days -- live TV pause/rewind in the Roku and Apple TV apps, the ability to authenticate the Starz app, and possibly recording auto-extensions becoming more common -- we have no idea whether anything else is ready to go, such as support for 4K, the addition of new channels, or the second-gen box ready to ship out (or even currently sitting in store stockrooms).

As I posted before, I think it would be a bad look for DTV Stream to make its debut this week if it can't deliver the Olympics in 4K, as DTV Sat and YouTube TV will do. Although I suppose it could happen anyway, with messaging that 4K is "coming soon". If getting PBS stations on board any time soon is possible, I'd think they'd want that to happen right at the relaunch too, at least in multiple major markets. Although, who knows, maybe YTTV made a deal to be the exclusive PBS streaming distributor for two years, which would be until Feb. 2022. If that's the case, it would be too long to hold up the rebranding. Also think that if they're going to be able to carry NFL Network by the time this season starts, they'll want to be able to communicate that at the relaunch.

So while there are probably no further external approvals needed to close the deal, who knows if they've got all their ducks in a row internally to do the rebrand/relaunch that would likely coincide with the deal closure.


----------



## NashGuy

FWIW, here's chatter from TheLayoff.com. All three replies were made on 7/15.

_"Any news on the closing date of the DTV / TPG (Texas Pacific Group) deal?"

"End of July."

"Just ordered our new uniforms this week."

"Soon."
_​


----------



## Steveknj

Just noticed another little tweak on my Osprey box (and it's entirely possible I missed it). Started watching something, got to the closing credits and just exited out of the recorded program. Came back in and before, in order to start at the beginning again, I had to fast forward to the end and it let me start over. Now, I have the option go resume or start over (which is how the HRxx boxes always worked). This was always a minor pet peeve of mine that seems to be fix.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> I believe you are confusing the article TheRatPatrol posted (from Multichannel News/Nexttv) with the one NashGuy posted (from Streaming Clarity).


No confusion here. I was clearly referencing the post from TheRatPatrol (post 2191) since the link to the Multichannel News article is what compnurd was quoted in his post 2192.


----------



## Davenlr

Well, YouTubeTV charging $20 for 4K is a no-way for me. Any word on ATT TV (or whatever they are going to call it) adds the DirecTv (satellite) 4K channels to their streaming package?


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> No confusion here. I was clearly referencing the post from TheRatPatrol (post 2191) since the link to the Multichannel News article is what compnurd was quoted in his post 2192.


The issues were in the Streaming Clarity article (focus on HBOMax, etc) not the Multichannel News article.


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> Well, YouTubeTV charging $20 for 4K is a no-way for me. Any word on ATT TV (or whatever they are going to call it) adds the DirecTv (satellite) 4K channels to their streaming package?


No word on that. At this point, I really don't think we're going to hear anything about 4K until the service rebrands from AT&T TV to DIRECTV Stream. I'd like to see them cut the base price of their packages by $5 (e.g. Entertainment down to $65) and include 4K as part of the $10/mo cloud DVR upgrade. But that's just me talking. AFAIK, zero has leaked out about 4K coming to AT&T TV (other than some vague comments the last CEO made a couple years ago, which are fairly worthless at this point).

As for YTTV's 4K upgrade (which also includes unlimited in-home streams plus DVR downloads), it's not supposed to rise to its regular price of $20 until next summer. It's free the first month (so everyone may as well add it for the Olympics), then $10 during its first year. I agree that $20 is kind of ridiculous and I doubt it ever actually hits that price point. I could see YTTV adding a few more channels and rising the base price by $5-10 next year and then just keeping the 4K upgrade package at $10.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> The issues were in the Streaming Clarity article (focus on HBOMax, etc) not the Multichannel News article.


Seemed more pronounced to me in the Multichannel News article, given that it was right there in the first sentence. (Not that it really matters.):

_The Federal Communications Commission has approved AT&T's spinoff of its traditional video distribution business as it moves toward streaming (HBO Max) as its video play of choice, citing the parties' undisputed claim that the New DirecTV company that will result would be stronger because it could focus on traditional video._​
I guess AT&T will remain focused on HBO Max as its "video play of choice" for several more months but after that it'll be gone just like their cable TV services.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> Just noticed another little tweak on my Osprey box (and it's entirely possible I missed it). Started watching something, got to the closing credits and just exited out of the recorded program. Came back in and before, in order to start at the beginning again, I had to fast forward to the end and it let me start over. Now, I have the option go resume or start over (which is how the HRxx boxes always worked). This was always a minor pet peeve of mine that seems to be fix.


Yeh thats been there for awhile


----------



## Davenlr

NashGuy said:


> It's free the first month (so everyone may as well add it for the Olympics), then $10 during its first year.


Well, I signed up, it didnt work for the all star game here, so I canceled. Then they announced they had a glitch where some devices were unable to get 4K, but they had fixed it for golf. I was still on the one month free, so I checked golf and it was working. Since they had it fixed, I turned it back on, and it announced it would start charging me $21.95/mo. I chatted with them, and they said because I canceled during the free month, I was now not eligible for the $9.95 plan for the first year, and would have to pay full price. 
I was going to cancel the whole thing since I already pay for ad free YouTube, as well as YouTubeTV, so figured they could have at least let me pay the $10 fee, but I cannot find any other service except FUBO that has the channels I want as well as 4K, and FUBO lost the main channel I watch during the day (CNN), so they are out. Sling has the channels I watch for $35 but I believe they are on 720p, and I got rid of Comcast because of that, Im not paying for stripped down video. So unless DirecTV fixes their server I was using that locked me out every night, and adds 4K, I am stuck with Google without 4K.
There are no options that have everything except DirecTv satellite, and it is WAY out of my price range. 
I am really tired of all these mega corporations, I really am.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> There are definitely a few things they can do to get it closer to what DirecTV is now, and it's not really THAT far off:
> 
> 1) Add 4K
> 2) Add the "fixes" that people have wanted on the DVR, padding being the number one thing, and for sports fans, a SP setting for just your team so that they don't record EVERY game for a sport
> 3) Bring in the few networks that are missing. PBS, Nextar CW and other locals that DirecTV gets and AT&T doesn't (in the NY Demo, there's also MeTV).


Well, Steveknj, I stumbled across something interesting on reddit recently with regard to those missing CW stations. Someone posted on the AT&T TV subreddit that last Friday 7/16, their local CW station, WYCW in Spartanburg, SC, suddenly disappeared from their AT&T TV lineup. They thought maybe it was due to a channel carriage dispute but confirmed with AT&T TV that there are no such disputes currently happening.

Now, what's really weird here is that WYCW is owned by, you guessed it, Nexstar. Which means it probably should never have been available to that subscriber to begin with. AT&T probably just realized on Friday that they had been mistakenly streaming that station's feed for however long and then quietly yanked it to correct the situation. But the fact that they even had an upload in place for a Nexstar CW affiliate in the first place in interesting.

Maybe this means that a carriage agreement has finally been struck to carry Nexstar's CW (and probably also My Network TV) affiliates around the country. Perhaps they've got all those stations now connected to their servers and they're just waiting to flip the switch and add them all. But they accidentally flipped the switch a bit early on WYCW, perhaps in the course of testing things. If that's the case, I'd say it's a good bet that we see those stations added as part of the pending DIRECTV Stream relaunch.

P.S. Another recent reddit post suggests we may see AMC+ added soon too...


----------



## Steveknj

One other weird thing I saw this weekend on the Osprey is that on my DVR list, rather than showing the title of the show, it's showing the episode name in the list. It's just a bug, obviously, but it's weird to see and until I looked at the info did I realize what happened, because I didn't remember recording a show with that name.


----------



## NashGuy

AT&T to Sell $6.2 Billion of Debt to Finance DirecTV Spinoff | Next TV

New debt issuance to finance the DTV spinoff will happen this Thursday.


----------



## compnurd

The future commeth

Dish and AT&T's new wireless partnership may foreshadow DirecTV deal


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> The future commeth
> 
> Dish and AT&T's new wireless partnership may foreshadow DirecTV deal


This CNN article (for those with difficulties keeping sources straight) tries very hard to suggest a DIRECTV deal but it is really about wireless and how DISH wants access to AT&T's network and AT&T wants access to DISH's frequencies. The CDMA .vs. GSM issue certainly makes AT&T's fitness for the task questionable but I'd imagine the wireless industry wants CDMA to go away anyway sooner than later (certainly much sooner than Verizon's EOY 2022).

There's another viewpoint that follows an old axiom from Sun Tzu: Keep your friends close; keep your enemies closer.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> AT&T to Sell $6.2 Billion of Debt to Finance DirecTV Spinoff | Next TV
> 
> New debt issuance to finance the DTV spinoff will happen this Thursday.


According to multiple articles including one from MarketWatch, this debt is actually being taken on by the DIRECTV Entertainment Holdings, LLC division, not the larger AT&T mother ship. I couldn't get my head around why AT&T proper would need financing for a sale as the MultiChannel (now NextTV) title implied.


----------



## STEVED21

NashGuy said:


> I agree that a manual pad option should be available, even if it's somewhat buried in the UI for power-users. But *if* they fully and accurately implement auto-extensions for recordings (which is a big "if"), then manual padding becomes much less important and probably something that would be rarely used.


It looks like it might be here. Sunday's Formula 1 race went over by 40 minutes. I watched both on line and on the box. It ran right to the end of the broadcast. Hopefully this extends to all live events.


----------



## NashGuy

STEVED21 said:


> It looks like it might be here. Sunday's Formula 1 race went over by 40 minutes. I watched both on line and on the box. It ran right to the end of the broadcast. Hopefully this extends to all live events.


If you (or anyone else) record NASCAR races (FS1, Fox, NBCSN, NBC), please let me know if you're seeing your cloud DVR recordings properly and consistently auto-extend. That will be a HUGE issue for my Dad if he switches to AT&T TV/DTV Stream. He records every race and they're notorious for running long due to weather delays, wrecks, etc. He always begins watching the recording while the race is in progress.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> This CNN article (for those with difficulties keeping sources straight) ...


Funny .. the quoted link is www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/07/19/dish-and-atts-new-wireless-partnership-potentially-foreshadows-directv-deal.html ... CNBC.


----------



## Steveknj

STEVED21 said:


> It looks like it might be here. Sunday's Formula 1 race went over by 40 minutes. I watched both on line and on the box. It ran right to the end of the broadcast. Hopefully this extends to all live events.


The problem in the past is that it's been available but very inconsistent. They might have gotten it right on this broadcast, but on some other, it might not have worked. For example, I regularly record NY Rangers hockey games (well all NHL games) and I do notice that often it records past it's allotted time (2hrs 30 min). But of course, the one time I wanted to watch a recording, it DIDN'T and it cut off at the scheduled time. I haven't tried it in awhile, so I'll experiment with a few baseball games over the next week and see what happens. With that said, I'd like to have the option to pad on my own, then I don't have to worry about these types of issues.


----------



## Davenlr

NashGuy said:


> If you (or anyone else) record NASCAR races (FS1, Fox, NBCSN, NBC), please let me know if you're seeing your cloud DVR recordings properly and consistently auto-extend. That will be a HUGE issue for my Dad if he switches to AT&T TV/DTV Stream. He records every race and they're notorious for running long due to weather delays, wrecks, etc. He always begins watching the recording while the race is in progress.


YouTubeTV extends Nascar races on all their channels. Dont watch any of the others.


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> YouTubeTV extends Nascar races on all their channels. Dont watch any of the others.


Thanks. Although YTTV isn't an option for my parents for various reasons (lacking certain channels, confusing UI, no channel numbers, must use with a simple streaming remote as opposed to a full-fledged cable TV remote, etc.).


----------



## Davenlr

NashGuy said:


> Thanks. Although YTTV isn't an option for my parents for various reasons (lacking certain channels, confusing UI, no channel numbers, must use with a simple streaming remote as opposed to a full-fledged cable TV remote, etc.).


Oh ok. Well, the only streaming service I know of with channel numbers is ATT TV, and I can guarantee you they do not extend Nascar races. I had to record whatever shows were on for two hours after each race.


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> Oh ok. Well, the only streaming service I know of with channel numbers is ATT TV, and I can guarantee you they do not extend Nascar races. I had to record whatever shows were on for two hours after each race.


Just because they weren't doing it back when you had AT&T TV doesn't mean they aren't now. Sounds like maybe the auto-extend feature is becoming more widely available. It was applied to a Formula 1 race on Sunday (see post above).


----------



## Steveknj

I experimented on last night's Yankees-Phillies game, which turned out to be a good example as the game was "scheduled" for a 3 hour record and ran almost 4 hours. And while it did auto-pad some, it crapped out at around 3:30, in the middle of the top of the 8th inning. Not good. Imagine sitting down to watch a game, assuming it auto-padded, and it didn't make it to the end. That would royally piss me off. So for now, I'll stick to recording the shows after as well.

AT&T TV, how hard is is to include a manual padding feature? DirecTV has it, heck, Channels has it! Is it something to do with how cloud DVRs work? I don't know. This is a feature every sports fan wants, and AT&T TV should be catering to sports fans if they want it to be an alternative to cable or sat. I can't speak for YTTV and how their auto padding works, but I DID see a commercial last night touting that feature.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> I experimented on last night's Yankees-Phillies game, which turned out to be a good example as the game was "scheduled" for a 3 hour record and ran almost 4 hours. And while it did auto-pad some, it crapped out at around 3:30, in the middle of the top of the 8th inning. Not good. Imagine sitting down to watch a game, assuming it auto-padded, and it didn't make it to the end. That would royally piss me off. So for now, I'll stick to recording the shows after as well.
> 
> AT&T TV, how hard is is to include a manual padding feature? DirecTV has it, heck, Channels has it! Is it something to do with how cloud DVRs work? I don't know. This is a feature every sports fan wants, and AT&T TV should be catering to sports fans if they want it to be an alternative to cable or sat. I can't speak for YTTV and how their auto padding works, but I DID see a commercial last night touting that feature.


The YTTV one causes just as many fits I wouldn't be surprised if it is a cloud DVR limitation. As a major sports fan though I could care less. I don't record games


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> The YTTV one causes just as many fits I wouldn't be surprised if it is a cloud DVR limitation. As a major sports fan though I could care less. I don't record games


I record games when I know I'm going out and can avoid he score. This might be a NY Giants game, or a NY Rangers game. I usually don't record baseball as there are so many games, missing one is not a big deal.


----------



## STEVED21

A little more research.

2 consecutive Sundays PGA went to a playoff. On 6/27 the were 8 extra holes and it ended at 8:15. The entire playoff was recorded. On 7/4 5 extra holes and the tournament coverage ended at about 7:10. Interestingly the recording continued into the beginning of 60 minutes for 15 to 20 minutes before the recording ended at exactly 7:30.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> I record games when I know I'm going out and can avoid he score. This might be a NY Giants game, or a NY Rangers game. I usually don't record baseball as there are so many games, missing one is not a big deal.


With all of the apps I have and friends texting me there is no way for me to avoid it


----------



## Steveknj

STEVED21 said:


> A little more research.
> 
> 2 consecutive Sundays PGA went to a playoff. On 6/27 the were 8 extra holes and it ended at 8:15. The entire playoff was recorded. On 7/4 5 extra holes and the tournament coverage ended at about 7:10. Interestingly the recording continued into the beginning of 60 minutes for 15 to 20 minutes before the recording ended at exactly 7:30.


It could be that they are more diligent with auto padding on "network" TV rather than on RSNs. I'm curious to see how this will work for the NFL games.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> It could be that they are more diligent with auto padding on "network" TV rather than on RSNs. I'm curious to see how this will work for the NFL games.


I'm wondering whether it's done through some kind of computerized algorithm or if there's an actual employee(s) who's monitoring screens and manually adjusting end times.

Also -- has anyone had recordings set up for shows scheduled to air after a game that ran long, resulting in a delayed start time for the show? If so, did that show record correctly or did you just get a recording of the end of the game?


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> I'm wondering whether it's done through some kind of computerized algorithm or if there's an actual employee(s) who's monitoring screens and manually adjusting end times.
> 
> Also -- has anyone had recordings set up for shows scheduled to air after a game that ran long, resulting in a delayed start time for the show? If so, did that show record correctly or did you just get a recording of the end of the game?


The show's after got cut off at their regular recording times. For example. When the Masters golf tournament was on, it ran past 7PM Eastern, the scheduled time for 60 Minutes. 60 Minutes only recorded until 8. I wound up expecting that, and recorded the show after as well. This might be the single thing I miss from DirecTV and the single biggest pain point for me. If they can get auto padding to work consistently, then it's a moot point. And as you said, if auto-padding can account for the rest of the schedule (in my case start recording 60 Minutes at 7:30 rather than 7) that would be great as well.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> The show's after got cut off at their regular recording times. For example. When the Masters golf tournament was on, it ran past 7PM Eastern, the scheduled time for 60 Minutes. 60 Minutes only recorded until 8. I wound up expecting that, and recorded the show after as well. This might be the single thing I miss from DirecTV and the single biggest pain point for me. If they can get auto padding to work consistently, then it's a moot point. And as you said, if auto-padding can account for the rest of the schedule (in my case start recording 60 Minutes at 7:30 rather than 7) that would be great as well.


Yeah, on my OTA DVR, I have 60 Minutes manually padded to record an extra 30 or 45 minutes because it gets pushed late so often during NFL season. That was exactly the scenario I was thinking of when I asked the question. If AT&T TV is going to try to automatically handle overruns, it's not just a matter of extending records for sporting events that run long but also adjusting recording times for subsequent programs too.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Funny .. the quoted link is www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/07/19/dish-and-atts-new-wireless-partnership-potentially-foreshadows-directv-deal.html ... CNBC.


Modern news is rarely what the clickbait claims it to be. Same goes for weather channels.


----------



## Steveknj

My Firestick did an update on the AT&T TV app last night. As I don't watch it much on that TV/Firestick, I'm not sure what is exactly new. Anyone know? The name change so far didn't happen, that I can tell you.


----------



## STEVED21

Last night:

ESPN Cubs Cards game recorded to the end. 4 hours 30 minutes

MLB Pirates Dbacks Recorded to end 3:30

YES Phillies Yanks Recorded to end 4:30

YES MLS soccer, tape delayed after Yanks but recorded end of Yanks game plus full MLS game total recording 4 hours.

Unfortunately, the recording of Sportscenter w SVP was not recorded when it finally came on. Looks like it's working for sports but not the following programs.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> AT&T to Sell $6.2 Billion of Debt to Finance DirecTV Spinoff | Next TV
> 
> New debt issuance to finance the DTV spinoff will happen this Thursday.


2Q dollar figures released this morning: $6.639 billion dollars in revenue for AT&T video ... $5.423 billion in expenses. $1.216 billion operating income.
Overall AT&T made $3.269 billion on $44.045 billion revenue.


----------



## NashGuy

Well, AT&T said on their quarterly earnings call today that the spin-off of DTV and their other TV services will close "in the next few weeks". So I guess we'll see the AT&T TV to DTV Stream rebranding happen in Aug. or Sept.

In the meantime, perhaps we'll see the app for Fire TV and Android get updated to support pause and rewind on live TV, the way the Roku and Apple apps recently were. And it looks like the auto-extend recording feature is coming along too, so we'll hopefully see that enabled for all live sports recordings.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Well, AT&T said on their quarterly earnings call today that the spin-off of DTV and their other TV services will close "in the next few weeks". So I guess we'll see the AT&T TV to DTV Stream rebranding happen in Aug. or Sept.
> 
> In the meantime, perhaps we'll see the app for Fire TV and Android get updated to support pause and rewind on live TV, the way the Roku and Apple apps recently were. And it looks like the auto-extend recording feature is coming along too, so we'll hopefully see that enabled for all live sports recordings.


My Amazon Firestick updated last night.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> My Amazon Firestick updated last night.


Does the Fire TV app now support live TV pause and rewind like Roku and Apple TV?


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Does the Fire TV app now support live TV pause and rewind like Roku and Apple TV?


I haven't tested it yet, but it looks like it should. I don't use the app too often on that TV.


----------



## raott

Steveknj said:


> I haven't tested it yet, but it looks like it should. I don't use the app too often on that TV.


As of last night, the one TV I have with a firestick would pause, but would NOT rewind (or FFW) for that matter on live tv.


----------



## Steveknj

Two issues last night. First, tried to do another autopad of the Yankees-Red Sox game. Recorded for a little over 4 hours, but again, cut off in the 8th inning.

Second but more important, my son reported an update to his box, then tried to connect wirelessly on his Osprey and it would not connect to my network. I have mine connected via ethernet, which worked fine, but tried to connect wirelessly and again, couldn't connect. Oddly, I setup a temp hotspot on my cell and it was able to connect to the hotspot. Also, I can connect to my router with just about everything else, no issues. So there's a weird issue with the Osprey and my specific router (TP-Link Deco M5). I can't explain it. I tried disabling 5ghz network as I had that issue with a different device that needed to connect to a 2.4ghz network and the 5 was interfering, but that made no difference (tried the reverse, just in case, and it didn't help either). Not sure what might be going on here, but it's strange. For now, I have both Ospreys connected via ethernet, but that meant moving one of my extender "pucks" into my son's room which isn't a great spot for it. We'll keep it that way for now, until I can figure out what's going on. Might be time for a router upgrade.


----------



## b4pjoe

Did you try powering off the router, waiting 30 seconds, and then powering it back up? A cold reboot works wonders sometimes.


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> Did you try powering off the router, waiting 30 seconds, and then powering it back up? A cold reboot works wonders sometimes.


Yep, tried that.


----------



## harperhometheater

*AT&T's DirecTV sale is ahead of schedule:*

AT&T's DirecTV sale is ahead of schedule


----------



## harsh

The business structuring part probably isn't all that complicated. It is the implementation of the separation that might get sticky.

Assuming that the billing system is consolidated as part of the spin-off, I can't imagine that merging the two billing systems without hosing bundling and promotional discounts would be a trivial task -- no matter which system it goes to. Will AT&T send them off with a copy of their existing systems and some fraction of the personnel or will they need to do something different?

Another system that may have to be divided up is the customer support system. Personnel distribution may be an issue here as well.

Finally, will they develop a new equipment service organization, restart a previous one or contract with AT&T for installation and, more importantly, customer equipment maintenance?​


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> The business structuring part probably isn't all that complicated. It is the implementation of the separation that might get sticky.
> 
> Assuming that the billing system is consolidated as part of the spin-off, I can't imagine that merging the two billing systems without hosing bundling and promotional discounts would be a trivial task -- no matter which system it goes to. Will AT&T send them off with a copy of their existing systems and some fraction of the personnel or will they need to do something different?
> 
> Another system that may have to be divided up is the customer support system. Personnel distribution may be an issue here as well.
> 
> Finally, will they develop a new equipment service organization, restart a previous one or contract with AT&T for installation and, more importantly, customer equipment maintenance?​


Yeah. But I imagine that AT&T, with input from TPG, has been developing those separation plans for the past few months. I wonder about billing too. Perhaps customers who have another AT&T service (e.g. broadband) in addition to video will still see unified billing from AT&T while those who only have video will see their billing shift over to the new DTV. Customer support was probably already divided, with certain agents dedicated to each product. The ones who support DTV, AT&T TV or UVerse TV will just become DTV employees, I suppose.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> Yeah. But I imagine that AT&T, with input from TPG, has been developing those separation plans for the past few months. I wonder about billing too. Perhaps customers who have another AT&T service (e.g. broadband) in addition to video will still see unified billing from AT&T while those who only have video will see their billing shift over to the new DTV. Customer support was probably already divided, with certain agents dedicated to each product. The ones who support DTV, AT&T TV or UVerse TV will just become DTV employees, I suppose.


I doubt customer support is actual employees. Most of that is outsourced to one company where the person you are calling could support 5-6 different companies


----------



## harperhometheater

compnurd said:


> I doubt customer support is actual employees. *Most of that is outsourced to one company where the person you are calling could support 5-6 different companies*


Which explains why they're so knowledgeable with the equipment you're calling in about!!!


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> But I imagine that AT&T, with input from TPG, has been developing those separation plans for the past few months.


Time elapsed isn't a guarantee that a plan is good. If the plan isn't great, it is likely that the execution of that plan will be no better. This applies to the account system as well as the customer support system. The old DIRECTV account system is probably off the table as it isn't set up for Uverse or AT&T TV type accounts but the AT&T system may have a lot of AT&T baggage in it.

The acquisition was supposed to take advantage of synergies and when the deal falls apart, those synergies are lost and the compromises must be rooted out.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Time elapsed isn't a guarantee that a plan is good. If the plan isn't great, it is likely that the execution of that plan will be no better. This applies to the account system as well as the customer support system. The old DIRECTV account system is probably off the table as it isn't set up for Uverse or AT&T TV type accounts but the AT&T system may have a lot of AT&T baggage in it.
> 
> The acquisition was supposed to take advantage of synergies and when the deal falls apart, those synergies are lost and the compromises must be rooted out.


Don't worry about it. It isn't your responsibility (or mine). DIRECTV will take care of the challenges.


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> I doubt customer support is actual employees. Most of that is outsourced to one company where the person you are calling could support 5-6 different companies


Yeah, level-1 support is probably outsourced. Those folks are basically just script readers who typically know little about the actual service.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, level-1 support is probably outsourced. Those folks are basically just script readers who typically know little about the actual service.


Oh it usually goes way higher then level 1 being outsourced


----------



## Davenlr

I was going to try to 14 day test to see if they fixed the server I use that kept cutting me off, but before I did, I was checking to see how much the red zone channel was (Its $11 on YouTube), but I don't see it. Is it not offered on ATT TV?


----------



## b4pjoe

Nope.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> I was going to try to 14 day test to see if they fixed the server I use that kept cutting me off, but before I did, I was checking to see how much the red zone channel was (Its $11 on YouTube), but I don't see it. Is it not offered on ATT TV?


Until that Sunday Ticket contract expires i dont expect any movement on anything NFL related for Directv or ATT TV


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> Until that Sunday Ticket contract expires i dont expect any movement on anything NFL related for Directv or ATT TV


You may be right. That's been the conventional thinking, anyhow. But who knows, maybe there will be a surprise announcement about the availability of NFL Network and/or NFL Red Zone when DirecTV Stream is officially announced before long. Regular season starts on Sept. 9, although the NFL Network will be carrying 23 preseason games starting on Aug. 12. It's possible that the DTV Stream launch happens prior to either date. Nothing to do but wait and see...


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> I was going to try to 14 day test to see if they fixed the server I use that kept cutting me off, but before I did, I was checking to see how much the red zone channel was (Its $11 on YouTube), but I don't see it. Is it not offered on ATT TV?


Another option as of today: Hulu with Live TV just added NFL Network to their main $65/mo package and now offers RedZone as part of a $10/mo Sports Add-On.

Hulu's live TV service gets NFL Network and RedZone ahead of 2021 season

Meanwhile, FuboTV and YTTV have both been including NFL Network in their main $65/mo packages while offering RedZone as part of their $11/mo Sports Plus add-ons. So all three are very similar with regard to those two channels. AT&T TV is the odd man out with neither.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> You may be right. That's been the conventional thinking, anyhow. But who knows, maybe there will be a surprise announcement about the availability of NFL Network and/or NFL Red Zone when DirecTV Stream is officially announced before long. Regular season starts on Sept. 9, although the NFL Network will be carrying 23 preseason games starting on Aug. 12. It's possible that the DTV Stream launch happens prior to either date. Nothing to do but wait and see...


And nothing magically happened the last two years either.. This will be year 3 that Directv and the NFL tried to renegotiate the Uverse/Directv Now NFL contract and the NFL wouldnt touch it unless Sunday Ticket was involved and they got paid more


----------



## Davenlr

NashGuy said:


> Another option as of today: Hulu with Live TV just added NFL Network to their main $65/mo package and now offers RedZone as part of a $10/mo Sports Add-On.
> 
> Hulu's live TV service gets NFL Network and RedZone ahead of 2021 season
> 
> Meanwhile, FuboTV and YTTV have both been including NFL Network in their main $65/mo packages while offering RedZone as part of their $11/mo Sports Plus add-ons. So all three are very similar with regard to those two channels. AT&T TV is the odd man out with neither.


Other than YTTV, are any of the other options in 60 fps 1080P/720P? 
I tried Sling, and the motion artifacts are horrible, so I am guessing its at 30 fps.
Fubo is out because it is missing my main daytime news channel
Havent looked into Hulu. Is it 1080P60? How about audio?


----------



## raott

NashGuy said:


> Another option as of today: Hulu with Live TV just added NFL Network to their main $65/mo package and now offers RedZone as part of a $10/mo Sports Add-On.
> 
> Hulu's live TV service gets NFL Network and RedZone ahead of 2021 season
> 
> Meanwhile, FuboTV and YTTV have both been including NFL Network in their main $65/mo packages while offering RedZone as part of their $11/mo Sports Plus add-ons. So all three are very similar with regard to those two channels. AT&T TV is the odd man out with neither.


I'm going to be looking hard at HULU Live in about a month. Even with ETF, it may be worth it.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Other than YTTV, are any of the other options in 60 fps 1080P/720P?
> I tried Sling, and the motion artifacts are horrible, so I am guessing its at 30 fps.
> Fubo is out because it is missing my main daytime news channel
> Havent looked into Hulu. Is it 1080P60? How about audio?


I think Hulu is mostly 720P except for on demand. However the Hulu bit rate is half of ATT and YTTV Widely regarded as one of the worst live TV PQ


----------



## Davenlr

Thanks. That is why I got rid of Xfinity. Could not stand their 720p over compressed video. it was great before they went to X1


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> And nothing magically happened the last two years either.. This will be year 3 that Directv and the NFL tried to renegotiate the Uverse/Directv Now NFL contract and the NFL wouldnt touch it unless Sunday Ticket was involved and they got paid more


Nothing "magical" is happening this year either, but something legal is -- the owner of DTV, AT&T TV Now and Uverse TV is changing. They may have already informed the NFL that there will definitely not be submitting a bid to keep NFL ST, in which case, what would the NFL have to lose by entering into the same kind of carriage agreement for NFL Network and NFL RedZone with AT&T TV and Uverse TV that it has in place with lots of other MVPDs and vMVPDs? I don't see why the NFL wouldn't want to take some extra money or why DTV wouldn't want to offer those channels to all their subs.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> Nothing "magical" is happening this year either, but something legal is -- the owner of DTV, AT&T TV Now and Uverse TV is changing. They may have already informed the NFL that there will definitely not be submitting a bid to keep NFL ST, in which case, what would the NFL have to lose by entering into the same kind of carriage agreement for NFL Network and NFL RedZone with AT&T TV and Uverse TV that it has in place with lots of other MVPDs and vMVPDs? I don't see why the NFL wouldn't want to take some extra money or why DTV wouldn't want to offer those channels to all their subs.


The NFL is looking to sell the NFL network. I'm sorry and appreciate your optimism for one of the lowest watched cable channels but it isn't happening. People care about the NFL. No one cares about the NFL network


----------



## James Long

NFL Looking to Sell Stake in NFL Network - OutKick
"We are not selling. We are looking for investment partners," Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said in the Wall Street Journal.

People who care about the NFL will seek out sources of information about what they care about ... the NFL Network provides such information. Perhaps not your favorite channel, but valuable. The NFL Red Zone channel is also valuable - especially for the multiple millions of people who can get NFL Red Zone without subscribing to DIRECTV. If you can get Sunday Ticket, great. If you get Sunday Ticket and spend most of the day watching the Sunday Ticket version of Red Zone, great. Not the top two channels on "cable/satellite" - but still of value.


----------



## compnurd

James Long said:


> NFL Looking to Sell Stake in NFL Network - OutKick
> "We are not selling. We are looking for investment partners," Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said in the Wall Street Journal.
> 
> People who care about the NFL will seek out sources of information about what they care about ... the NFL Network provides such information. Perhaps not your favorite channel, but valuable. The NFL Red Zone channel is also valuable - especially for the multiple millions of people who can get NFL Red Zone without subscribing to DIRECTV. If you can get Sunday Ticket, great. If you get Sunday Ticket and spend most of the day watching the Sunday Ticket version of Red Zone, great. Not the top two channels on "cable/satellite" - but still of value.


None of that changes the fact that the network doesn't share the same ratings as games do


----------



## James Long

compnurd said:


> None of that changes the fact that the network doesn't share the same ratings as games do


I did not claim that they did nor would I expect the same ratings. Cable channels rarely pull in the same ratings as broadcast channels. If you compared game viewership via Sunday Ticket to game viewership via broadcast channels you would see similarly lower numbers.

Hopefully new DIRECTV will get a contract for NFL Network on DIRECTV Stream. Moving from a $1.5 billion /year exclusive to carrying a couple of channels (and maybe NFL ST as a non-exclusive) probably is affecting the NFL's willingness to cut a deal. That situation won't change with new DIRECTV but the NFL may just decide to take what they can get.


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> The NFL is looking to sell the NFL network. I'm sorry and appreciate your optimism for one of the lowest watched cable channels but it isn't happening. People care about the NFL. No one cares about the NFL network


And yet Hulu thought it was worth adding so that they could better compete with YTTV and FuboTV, both of which already had it. Meanwhile, I've read multiple posts online from people asking if AT&T TV has NFL Network or has plans to get it.

I don't think it's a "make-or-break" channel for AT&T TV, but for a service that aims to be a direct replacement for full-fledged cable TV (not a sorta-skinny service with compromises), it would be good to have. It's true that it only ranked 70th last year in Nielsen ratings. But that was five spots ahead of ESPN 2 and IFC (tied at 75), 14 spots ahead of Showtime (84) and 30 spots ahead of Golf Channel (100). I don't think any of those channels are insignificant. If AT&T TV lost any of them, it would be bad.

All that said, I don't _expect_ NFL Network or RedZone to be available on DTV Stream this fall. I'm just saying "Who knows, maybe."


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> And yet Hulu thought it was worth adding so that they could better compete with YTTV and FuboTV, both of which already had it. Meanwhile, I've read multiple posts online from people asking if AT&T TV has NFL Network or has plans to get it.
> 
> I don't think it's a "make-or-break" channel for AT&T TV, but for a service that aims to be a direct replacement for full-fledged cable TV (not a sorta-skinny service with compromises), it would be good to have. It's true that it only ranked 70th last year in Nielsen ratings. But that was five spots ahead of ESPN 2 and IFC (tied at 75), 14 spots ahead of Showtime (84) and 30 spots ahead of Golf Channel (100). I don't think any of those channels are insignificant. If AT&T TV lost any of them, it would be bad.
> 
> All that said, I don't _expect_ NFL Network or RedZone to be available on DTV Stream this fall. I'm just saying "Who knows, maybe."


Wow. Multiple posts&#8230;.. I can't believe ATT has opened the piggy bank for it based on multiple posts on the internet


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> Hopefully new DIRECTV will get a contract for NFL Network on DIRECTV Stream. Moving from a $1.5 billion /year exclusive to carrying a couple of channels (and maybe NFL ST as a non-exclusive) probably is affecting the NFL's willingness to cut a deal. That situation won't change with new DIRECTV but the NFL may just decide to take what they can get.


Well, that situation *might* change with New DTV because the NFL has every reason to believe that this new management company is who will be calling the shots for DTV, AT&T TV and Uverse TV heading into 2023 when the current contract expires and a new one would begin.

If New DTV (at TPG's behest) is already telling the NFL that there's zero chance that they will pay to remain the exclusive residential distributor of NFL ST because it's a money-loser for them that they can't afford due to their shrinking customer base and the changing economics of the cable TV industry, well, where does that leave the NFL? Are they going to withhold licensing NFL Network and RedZone to AT&T TV and Uverse TV for at least this year and next out of spite?

My guess is that the NFL has already accepted as a foregone conclusion that NFL ST is leaving DTV (at least as an exclusive) and they're instead pinning their hopes on Amazon, Apple or some other deep-pocketed digital player. It's rumored that the NFL definitely wants NFL ST to be broadly available via streaming next time. And it's believed that the NFL will expect significantly *more* for the next NFL ST contract than AT&T paid for the current one. I think both sides have to realize it would be crazy for DTV to cough up that kind of cash.


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> Wow. Multiple posts&#8230;.. I can't believe ATT has opened the piggy bank for it based on multiple posts on the internet


Maybe engage with the remainder of my post rather than cherry-picking one sentence.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> Maybe engage with the remainder of my post rather than cherry-picking one sentence.


Its more fun this way


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> All that said, I don't _expect_ NFL Network or RedZone to be available on DTV Stream this fall. I'm just saying "Who knows, maybe."


That I can agree with. We may get to that conclusions different ways, but I see the status quo remaining until the end of the current ST contract.

Once the new ST contract is negotiated (not a DIRECTV exclusive) DIRECTV Stream could see the channels added. Possibly before the end of the DIRECTV exclusive. The NFL will feel a lot better about the situation once they get ST figured out beyond the DIRECTV era. That is assuming that the NFL is the one saying no to carriage (or setting a price too high to accept) and this isn't AT&T expressing self destructive spite.


----------



## krel

compnurd said:


> Looks like ATT TV is getting rebranded to Directv Stream based on some new account verbiage online


i heard it's all getting rebranded to directv. all speculation right now!!!


----------



## krel

hopefully they will have better trained customer service as it's the pitts now. also atleast in my area they need to **** can some of the installers as some of them are lazy and only 3 were worth there weight in gold


----------



## NashGuy

AT&T TV currently offers a free year of HBO Max for new sign-ups on the Choice and higher packages. The fine print states that that offer ends on Aug. 25. Meanwhile, the currently advertised prices for DTV plans are in effect through Sept. 26 per the fine print on that site. Who knows whether either date means if something might change the following day...


----------



## James Long

The new company can easily honor the current offers through their expiration dates, regardless of the actual "take control" date.

I'm surprised that there hasn't been a consummation yet. I thought all the boxes were checked.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> The new company can easily honor the current offers through their expiration dates, regardless of the actual "take control" date.
> 
> I'm surprised that there hasn't been a consummation yet. I thought all the boxes were checked.


Yes, current offers can still be honored. I wasn't so much thinking of when the deal is legally consummated as when consumers may see public-facing changes such as new logos, rebranding, different offers, etc. Those things could happen on the same day or it may be possible that the legal transaction completes on one day (with no real changes on that day for consumers) and those other things don't happen until days/weeks later. Perhaps the 8/25 end date for free HBO Max with AT&T TV packages indicates that they plan to relaunch that service on 8/26. Maybe not.

I believe you said that the terms of the deal state that the new company cannot use the AT&T globe icon in their marketing/communications. If that rule takes effect immediately upon legal closure of the deal, then that would at least indicate that we would see refreshes to their directv.com website to scrub all traces of the globe (and probably references to AT&T as well).

Perhaps the legal closing is being delayed a bit until the company is ready to do their rebranding. Or maybe it simply hasn't closed yet because of the time it's taking to square away all the financing. I know bonds involved in the deal were only just issued on July 22. Whatever the holdup at this point, I don't think it has anything to do with any formal approvals, as those are all in place.

In the meantime, based on various posts I've read over at TheLayoff.com, it sounds like things have already been changing for affected employees, with paychecks now showing "DIRECTV" rather than "AT&T," new uniforms being ordered, corporate email addresses changing from @att.com to @directv.com, etc. And of course the leaked new logo for DTV Stream, along with new slogans, etc., indicate that preparations have been underway internally for the upcoming changeover for awhile now.


----------



## Steveknj

I'd bet they want to get it done either before the NFL season starts or the new TV Season starts. For one, people want their TV "settled" by then and two, the summer is prime moving season as people want to be in their new houses before the new school year. One decision to be made when moving into a new house is TV provider. I am guessing by 8/15 we'll have thing in place and announced. Just a guess.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> I'd bet they want to get it done either before the NFL season starts or the new TV Season starts. For one, people want their TV "settled" by then and two, the summer is prime moving season as people want to be in their new houses before the new school year. One decision to be made when moving into a new house is TV provider. I am guessing by 8/15 we'll have thing in place and announced. Just a guess.


Yeah, those are all good reasons why they'd probably want the deal closed and whatever new marketing campaigns they have planned to get underway by Labor Day weekend (Sept. 4-6) at the latest. Everything I've read lately indicates the deal closing at some point in August. I've seen posts suggesting it'll happen this week, next week, and the end of the month, although who knows if any of those sources (supposedly employees) really know what's going on.

NFL preseason games begin this Thursday. The regular season kick-off is Thur., Sept. 9 on NBC. The Thursday Night Football game the following three weeks will be exclusive to NFL Network (which will be a kick in the crotch for DTV Stream if they still don't have that channel). After that, TNF will typically be aired across Fox, NFL Network and Prime Video.


----------



## NashGuy

Or, y'know, maybe it happens today, ha.

AT&T Completes DirecTV Spinoff; Satellite Operator Rebrands Internet-Delivered Bundle As DirecTV Stream - Deadline

"Later this month, DirecTV Stream will become the umbrella for streaming offerings like the one formerly known as AT&T TV Now (originally DirecTV Now)."


----------



## NashGuy

New DTV logo looks exactly as I expected (same as the leaked DTV Stream logo but without the word "Stream").

I notice that the old DTV logo (with AT&T globe icon) has now been replaced on their site at directv.com. Nothing else appears to have changed, including links to "AT&T Services" such as wireless and internet at the bottom of the page.


----------



## b4pjoe

Logging in at directv.com still redirects me to att.com. Bummer.


----------



## James Long

Spinoff discussion here >>> Spinoff of DIRECTV from AT&T is now completed


----------



## Steveknj

Weird thing the last couple of nights with the AT&T TV App on my firestick. When it loads, it says something like cannot find the connection with an error message LOAD, and then it just spins and spins no matter how many times I close and re-open the app. Only way to fix is to restart the firestick (unplug and replug). I just wonder if it's just an issue with the firestick for this one app, and maybe just removing and readding the app will fix it. All other apps load fine, and it seems to be working fine on other firesticks we have in the house.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> Weird thing the last couple of nights with the AT&T TV App on my firestick. When it loads, it says something like cannot find the connection with an error message LOAD, and then it just spins and spins no matter how many times I close and re-open the app. Only way to fix is to restart the firestick (unplug and replug). I just wonder if it's just an issue with the firestick for this one app, and maybe just removing and readding the app will fix it. All other apps load fine, and it seems to be working fine on other firesticks we have in the house.


Yeah, in a case like that, I'd try deleting and then reinstalling the app to see if that fixes it.

BTW, someone on reddit posted that they had been using a new version of the app on their Fire TV devices the past few days with the ability to pause and rewind live TV, but for some reason the app just automatically got rolled back to an earlier version. So looks like, as expected, AT&T TV is working on bringing that feature to the Fire TV app as already done for Apple TV and Roku. I guess they're running into some bugs though.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, in a case like that, I'd try deleting and then reinstalling the app to see if that fixes it.
> 
> BTW, someone on reddit posted that they had been using a new version of the app on their Fire TV devices the past few days with the ability to pause and rewind live TV, but for some reason the app just automatically got rolled back to an earlier version. So looks like, as expected, AT&T TV is working on bringing that feature to the Fire TV app as already done for Apple TV and Roku. I guess they're running into some bugs though.


I got this update this morning, and at least this one time was able to get into the app with no issues. I didn't get a chance to see if it had the live TV features, but will experiment with that later.


----------



## Steveknj

I opened the app on both a Fire Stick and Roku over the weekend and got a message before going into the app that AT&T TV will change to DirecTV Stream on August 26th. It said something like same service different name. So things are starting to move. Wonder what will happen on the Ospreys? I didn't get any messages there.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> I opened the app on both a Fire Stick and Roku over the weekend and got a message before going into the app that AT&T TV will change to DirecTV Stream on August 26th. It said something like same service different name. So things are starting to move. Wonder what will happen on the Ospreys? I didn't get any messages there.


I got the message on the Ospreys on Friday


----------



## NashGuy

NashGuy said:


> AT&T TV currently offers a free year of HBO Max for new sign-ups on the Choice and higher packages. The fine print states that that offer ends on Aug. 25. Meanwhile, the currently advertised prices for DTV plans are in effect through Sept. 26 per the fine print on that site. Who knows whether either date means if something might change the following day...





Steveknj said:


> I opened the app on both a Fire Stick and Roku over the weekend and got a message before going into the app that AT&T TV will change to DirecTV Stream on August 26th. It said something like same service different name. So things are starting to move. Wonder what will happen on the Ospreys? I didn't get any messages there.


----------



## NashGuy

BTW, DTV satellite has now dropped the free year of HBO Max on Choice and above packages for new subs. Instead, you just get three free months with any package, same as they offer for the other premiums. Seems likely that they'll also kill the free year for new DTV Stream subs when it launches this Thursday, 8/26.

DIRECTV Quietly Scales Back HBO Max Promotion - The TV Answer Man!


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> BTW, DTV satellite has now dropped the free year of HBO Max on Choice and above packages for new subs. Instead, you just get three free months with any package, same as they offer for the other premiums. Seems likely that they'll also kill the free year for new DTV Stream subs when it launches this Thursday, 8/26.
> 
> DIRECTV Quietly Scales Back HBO Max Promotion - The TV Answer Man!


Assuming they do drop the free year of HBO Max for Choice and above for streaming, that will make them the most expensive live streamer by a fairly high margin.

Choice @$85/month is pretty competitive with other higher priced live streamers with the inclusion of HBO Max, but not competitive without that.

$85/month = Choice + $10 for extra DVR = $95/month

Compared to YTTV @$65 for a competitive lineup and DVR.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Assuming they do drop the free year of HBO Max for Choice and above for streaming, that will make them the most expensive live streamer by a fairly high margin.
> 
> Choice @$85/month is pretty competitive with other higher priced live streamers with the inclusion of HBO Max, but not competitive without that.
> 
> $85/month = Choice + $10 for extra DVR = $95/month
> 
> Compared to YTTV @$65 for a competitive lineup and DVR.


Well, the main reason folks are signing up for AT&T TV's Choice or higher packages is because they want their RSNs, which are completely unavailable on YTTV and other vMVPDs, and missing from AT&T TV's base Entertainment package. As long as that remains the case, the more appropriate comparison is Choice versus other cable/sat options that DO offer RSNs. $95/mo month for Choice with cloud DVR is about the same price as you'd pay for a comparable set-up on Comcast, assuming you're not on a promo deal (which, I realize, many are). Don't know about other cable providers like Charter, Altice, Cox, Verizon FiOS, etc. It's a fair amount cheaper than the regular price for the same package on DTV satellite. And DISH, of course, lacks all those Bally Sports RSNs.

That said, yeah, including a free year of ad-free HBO Max plus the linear HBO channels did make AT&T TV's upper tier packages somewhat more competitive with competing options. If they take that away without doing anything to improve the service, or otherwise make it a better value, that will only make it harder for them to grow the service.

For those who don't care about RSNs, the comparison is between AT&T TV's Entertainment package vs. the other vMVPDs. I think it's pretty clear that lots more folks so far have been choosing Hulu Live and YTTV than AT&T TV and I'm sure their lower starting price of $65 is one of many reasons why. If DTV Stream would either cut the base price by $5/mo or throw in the unlimited cloud DVR for free, it would certainly make their base package more competitive. We'll see what they do...


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> BTW, DTV satellite has now dropped the free year of HBO Max on Choice and above packages for new subs. Instead, you just get three free months with any package, same as they offer for the other premiums. Seems likely that they'll also kill the free year for new DTV Stream subs when it launches this Thursday, 8/26.
> 
> DIRECTV Quietly Scales Back HBO Max Promotion - The TV Answer Man!


Still shows up on their website as one free year.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> Still shows up on their website as one free year.
> 
> View attachment 31651


Yes, for AT&T TV. It's already been changed, as of today, to just 3 months for DirecTV satellite.

But note the fine print for the offer there on atttv.com -- says the offer is good through tomorrow, 8/25. The following day, 8/26, is when the service rebrands as DirecTV Stream. Now, that doesn't mean they won't renew the offer on DTV Stream come 8/26. But it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't.


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> Yes, for AT&T TV. It's already been changed, as of today, to just 3 months for DirecTV satellite.
> 
> But note the fine print for the offer there on atttv.com -- says the offer is good through tomorrow, 8/25. The following day, 8/26, is when the service rebrands as DirecTV Stream. Now, that doesn't mean they won't renew the offer on DTV Stream come 8/26. But it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't.


OK I thought you were talking about AT&T TV and I saw it still shows them as one year but I didn't read the fine print. The Premier package on both DirecTV and AT&T TV includes HBO MAX, HBO regular, Cinemax, Showtime and Starz for as long as you keep the Premier package.


----------



## lparsons21

As expected the new offerings from DirecTV’s Stream is only 3 months of HBO just as with the satellite offering.


----------



## b4pjoe

lparsons21 said:


> As expected the new offerings from DirecTV's Stream is only 3 months of HBO just as with the satellite offering.


Except Premier which includes HBO Max, Showtime, Cinemax, and Starz for as long as you are subscribed to that package..


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> Except Premier which includes HBO Max, Showtime, Cinemax, and Starz for as long as you are subscribed to that package..


Sure, but in that case you are paying for all those premiums.


----------



## b4pjoe

Of course you are. When I go to the gas station I have to pay for gas too.


----------



## James Long

b4pjoe said:


> Of course you are. When I go to the gas station I have to pay for gas too.


The difference being that with the previous offer the customer was not paying extra for HBO.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> As expected the new offerings from DirecTV's Stream is only 3 months of HBO just as with the satellite offering.


But only on Choice and above. On DTV satellite, you get 3 months of all the premiums free with any package.

Have to say, the new DTV really wasted a great opportunity to make a splash with the DTV Stream launch. From what I can see, the only improvements announced today were in the updates to their apps, noting that they now allow for a 60-minute buffer on live TV and that "most" sports recordings will auto-extend if the event runs long. No new box (they appear to have just removed the AT&T globe icon from the face of the existing model), none of the few missing cable channels (ION, INSP, NFL Network) were added, no PBS added, doesn't appear that any of the missing CW locals were added. No more-generous cloud DVR, no lowered prices, nothing announced about 4K or user profiles.

Beyond marketing fluff (new brand name, new website, new TV ad), the only noteworthy change is that they reduced the free year of HBO Max for new subs down to just 3 months. So not only did they fail to improve the value proposition of AT&T TV, they actually made it _worse_. LOL. New management is off to a bang-up start.

If they don't make some changes to shore up the service's competitive weaknesses in the next few months, I think DTV Stream is going to be a dud (especially if Bally Sports succeeds in launching a direct-to-consumer streaming service in time for MLB season next year as they say they will). I'd be surprised if DTV Stream has even 1 million subscribers today. And a decent fraction of the ones it has are folks who are getting some kind of discount or perk (e.g. those who signed up at the start of DTV Now, those in the 2nd year of their contract, etc.) to keep them around.

The service definitely has some advantages over competitors (better picture and sound quality, optional custom streaming box, etc.) but I don't think those features are big enough, or communicated effectively enough by their marketing team, to overcome its disadvantages versus not only the more popular YouTube TV and Hulu Live but also Xfinity TV, DISH and even their own DTV satellite service (at least for those still receiving discounts and/or free NFL ST). If it continues on as-is, I imagine DTV Stream will see very slow subscriber growth and probably fall behind FuboTV (if it's not there already).


----------



## lparsons21

Yeah, new website and new logo and actually higher pricing with removing the free year of HBO Max. Great start!


----------



## Steveknj

Still keeping fingers crossed that they will introduce more in the next couple of months but I agree, if it doesn't meet a special need (like RSNs in my case), I can't see it succeeding.


----------



## lparsons21

Steveknj said:


> Still keeping fingers crossed that they will introduce more in the next couple of months but I agree, if it doesn't meet a special need (like RSNs in my case), I can't see it succeeding.


I don't know what they can do other than rejiggering the pricing to make it more attractive. Here's a comparison to other full featured services.

Entertainment = $70, but the true cost comparison needs the extra DVR space to even come close to competing, so in reality it is $80.

YouTubeTV = $65 including unlimited DVR and quite a few more channels covering most sports but no RSNs.

Choice comes closer in channel lineup but it is $85+DVR space $10, total $95.

That shows the stark difference between the two service in pricing and what you get for the cost. Stream just doesn't look enticing.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> Still keeping fingers crossed that they will introduce more in the next couple of months but I agree, if it doesn't meet a special need (like RSNs in my case), I can't see it succeeding.


Yeah. I have no idea what amount of input that the new management has had to effectively shape anything prior to this month when the spin-off officially closed (although clearly a fair amount of things had been happening before then, such as the new brand, logo, website, TV ad with Serena Williams, etc.). So I guess we have to give them a little while to make some changes.

Speaking of that TV ad, ugh, they need to fire their ad agency. Serena in a Wonder Woman outfit hitting tennis balls, followed by the tag line "the best of live TV and on-demand" just isn't going to do much to help consumers understand what the service is or why anyone should opt for it over anything else, IMO. I guess the concept is "watch live sports and also on-demand movies".

Given the way they tout sports and the availability of RSNs on the new product page at directv.com/stream -- note, in particular, their comparison chart vs. YTTV, Hulu Live and Sling -- they obviously understand that the inclusion of RSNs on the $85 Choice package is the main thing DTV Stream has going for it versus the competition. But if Bally Sports rolls out a DTC app costing $20/mo next spring, then consumers who care about those channels will have the option of just picking that up alongside the $65/mo packages from YTTV, Hulu Live or FuboTV. Poof, there goes DTV Stream's main selling point. Sure, it's nicer to have those channels integrated alongside all the others in the same app, but then those other services give you more features and content for the money than DTV Stream does.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> I don't know what they can do other than rejiggering the pricing to make it more attractive. Here's a comparison to other full featured services.
> 
> Entertainment = $70, but the true cost comparison needs the extra DVR space to even come close to competing, so in reality it is $80.
> 
> YouTubeTV = $65 including unlimited DVR and quite a few more channels covering most sports but no RSNs.
> 
> Choice comes closer in channel lineup but it is $85+DVR space $10, total $95.
> 
> That shows the stark difference between the two service in pricing and what you get for the cost. Stream just doesn't look enticing.


Priced and configured as DTV Stream and all the competing options (both streaming and traditional) currently are, it's a fairly small sub-set of consumers who would find DTV Stream to be the best value for the money, I think. There are some out there but just not a lot given DTV Stream's odd combination of strengths and weaknesses.

Look at Steveknj, for instance. He has it and generally likes it and is OK with the price but he's also willing to mess with a whole separate system (Channels DVR) for his missing CW and PBS locals. And he also needs RSNs. And I guess he doesn't care about NFL Network or Sunday Ticket. He's knowledgable enough and willing to mess with Channels DVR to get an overall system that works for his household and saves him significant money versus DTV satellite. But how many other consumers are like that?


----------



## lparsons21

I agree, the average consumer isn’t going to want to do that. Too many variables and too many other services out there offering things Stream isn’t, like the NFL stuff you mentioned. I wonder how RSN vs NFL viewership compares??

CW delayed show viewing is simple and free, the things that would be missing are some news, live shows and others I suspect.

I’m not your average consumer of TV products but for me, assuming show production ramps up starting sometime next month, if I wanted a live streamer I would not care at all about RSNs but I would like the national sports channels, or at least a few of them. Entertainment would be of interest for all but the lack of the Golf channel. To get that with Stream I would need Ultimate but that is a hell of a price to pay to be able to get it. @$105 w/expanded DVR compared to YTTV’s $65 is a huge leap in cost.

That said, there are a number of things that make Stream attractive. Dedicated box similar to a cable box, best PQ, very good UI and DD5.1 audio. But is that worth the $40? Probably not. Even with YTTV’s crappy UI!


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> I agree, the average consumer isn't going to want to do that. Too many variables and too many other services out there offering things Stream isn't, like the NFL stuff you mentioned. I wonder how RSN vs NFL viewership compares??
> 
> CW delayed show viewing is simple and free, the things that would be missing are some news, live shows and others I suspect.
> 
> I'm not your average consumer of TV products but for me, assuming show production ramps up starting sometime next month, if I wanted a live streamer I would not care at all about RSNs but I would like the national sports channels, or at least a few of them. Entertainment would be of interest for all but the lack of the Golf channel. To get that with Stream I would need Ultimate but that is a hell of a price to pay to be able to get it. @$105 w/expanded DVR compared to YTTV's $65 is a huge leap in cost.
> 
> That said, there are a number of things that make Stream attractive. Dedicated box similar to a cable box, best PQ, very good UI and DD5.1 audio. But is that worth the $40? Probably not. Even with YTTV's crappy UI!


I think you can sum it up this way: you can either compete on price or you can compete on no-compromise quality. DTV Stream doesn't really do either, which is why it's just getting lost in the shuffle.

I've long considered it as a potential option for my parents to switch to, away from Dish. They're still using the same old pre-Hopper DVRs that were current back when they first got the service years ago. Changing UIs and remotes is a bit difficult at their age, especially for my dad, so it's not something to be done lightly or frequently. But to give them the channels they'd want, they'd really need to combine DTV Stream's Entertainment package with Frndly TV ($8/mo) via a separate app, both on the DTV Stream box. Dad watches several rerun shows on Get TV and both of them have found country music shows they like on Circle, both of which are available on Dish. They'd need Frndly TV to supply those channels, but that would mean a separate DVR with a different UI and possibly slightly different playback controls on the remote.

I'll still keep my eye on DTV Stream for them. Maybe once the faster 2nd-gen box rolls out I'll see if they want to make the switch. In the meantime, I may explore what sort of deal, if any, they could get by taking a fresh 2-yr contract with Dish in exchange for a new Hopper and Joey. At least the latest Dish receivers have the YouTube app and I guess there's hope they'll get an HBO Max app soon, now that Dish has begun selling that service. That would really just leave Apple TV+ and Peacock that they'd need to switch over to Roku for...


----------



## b4pjoe

James Long said:


> The difference being that with the previous offer the customer was not paying extra for HBO.


Only for one year though.


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> Only for one year though.


&#8230;which is nine months longer than the current offering.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> But only on Choice and above. On DTV satellite, you get 3 months of all the premiums free with any package.
> 
> Have to say, the new DTV really wasted a great opportunity to make a splash with the DTV Stream launch. From what I can see, the only improvements announced today were in the updates to their apps, noting that they now allow for a 60-minute buffer on live TV and that "most" sports recordings will auto-extend if the event runs long. No new box (they appear to have just removed the AT&T globe icon from the face of the existing model), none of the few missing cable channels (ION, INSP, NFL Network) were added, no PBS added, doesn't appear that any of the missing CW locals were added. No more-generous cloud DVR, no lowered prices, nothing announced about 4K or user profiles.
> 
> Beyond marketing fluff (new brand name, new website, new TV ad), the only noteworthy change is that they reduced the free year of HBO Max for new subs down to just 3 months. So not only did they fail to improve the value proposition of AT&T TV, they actually made it _worse_. LOL. New management is off to a bang-up start.
> 
> If they don't make some changes to shore up the service's competitive weaknesses in the next few months, I think DTV Stream is going to be a dud (especially if Bally Sports succeeds in launching a direct-to-consumer streaming service in time for MLB season next year as they say they will). I'd be surprised if DTV Stream has even 1 million subscribers today. And a decent fraction of the ones it has are folks who are getting some kind of discount or perk (e.g. those who signed up at the start of DTV Now, those in the 2nd year of their contract, etc.) to keep them around.
> 
> The service definitely has some advantages over competitors (better picture and sound quality, optional custom streaming box, etc.) but I don't think those features are big enough, or communicated effectively enough by their marketing team, to overcome its disadvantages versus not only the more popular YouTube TV and Hulu Live but also Xfinity TV, DISH and even their own DTV satellite service (at least for those still receiving discounts and/or free NFL ST). If it continues on as-is, I imagine DTV Stream will see very slow subscriber growth and probably fall behind FuboTV (if it's not there already).


If only someone said over and over again this was going to happen&#8230;&#8230;. Hmmmmm


----------



## b4pjoe

lparsons21 said:


> &#8230;which is nine months longer than the current offering.


Once Discovery gets HBO Max you may get it for zero months.


----------



## b4pjoe

compnurd said:


> If only someone said over and over again this was going to happen&#8230;&#8230;. Hmmmmm


LOL...I was just thinking of _that_ guy while reading the posts above.


----------



## NashGuy

Well, the PFD channel line-up card for DTV Stream now lists PBS Kids. Maybe that's a mistake or maybe it means that PBS channels are on the way. Would be a little odd to add just PBS Kids and not the original PBS too...


----------



## Mike1096

compnurd said:


> If only someone said over and over again this was going to happen&#8230;&#8230;. Hmmmmm


DirecTV and DirecTV Stream are an absolute joke. Please don't give this nonsense a dime of your hard earned money.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> Well, the PFD channel line-up card for DTV Stream now lists PBS Kids. Maybe that's a mistake or maybe it means that PBS channels are on the way. Would be a little odd to add just PBS Kids and not the original PBS too...


Wouldn't be odd at all. Kids is a National channel. Regular PBS is local affiliates


----------



## James Long

b4pjoe said:


> Only for one year though.


With Premier ... customers are paying for the channels. With the old offer, customers were getting the channels free for a year (without paying for Premier). With the current offer customers get the channels free for three months (without paying for premier). What happens when this offer expires? Up to whomever owns HBO at that time and what their needs are. Free for three months was a common offer even before AT&T purchased HBO.


----------



## b4pjoe

It is discounted a bit though. I forget what package I was on when I decided I wanted those premium channels and it was cheaper to switch to Premier than it was to get those 4 separately with my existing channel package. Premiere also includes the Sportspack on Sat which I didn't have on the previous package. That free year and now 3 months was/is just HBO MAX. No Cinemax, Showtime, and Starz. Showtime was a must have for me back then when I was in the middle of Homeland.


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> I don't know what they can do other than rejiggering the pricing to make it more attractive. Here's a comparison to other full featured services.
> 
> Entertainment = $70, but the true cost comparison needs the extra DVR space to even come close to competing, so in reality it is $80.
> 
> YouTubeTV = $65 including unlimited DVR and quite a few more channels covering most sports but no RSNs.
> 
> Choice comes closer in channel lineup but it is $85+DVR space $10, total $95.
> 
> That shows the stark difference between the two service in pricing and what you get for the cost. Stream just doesn't look enticing.


Perhaps, it's the sports that are driving up the DirecTV Stream price? I don't know. Why not just break it out and make the RSNs, plus maybe throw in a couple of more sports channels (Olympics, Tennis, or whatever) into that tier and then lower the price and that would make them more competitive. So for someone like me, I'd pay the RSN fee, but for someone else who doesn't care about it, that would make the tier closer to what YTTV is. That was always the complaint I heard from people around cable/sat prices, that sports they don't watch is driving up their price.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Yeah. I have no idea what amount of input that the new management has had to effectively shape anything prior to this month when the spin-off officially closed (although clearly a fair amount of things had been happening before then, such as the new brand, logo, website, TV ad with Serena Williams, etc.). So I guess we have to give them a little while to make some changes.
> 
> Speaking of that TV ad, ugh, they need to fire their ad agency. Serena in a Wonder Woman outfit hitting tennis balls, followed by the tag line "the best of live TV and on-demand" just isn't going to do much to help consumers understand what the service is or why anyone should opt for it over anything else, IMO. I guess the concept is "watch live sports and also on-demand movies".
> 
> Given the way they tout sports and the availability of RSNs on the new product page at directv.com/stream -- note, in particular, their comparison chart vs. YTTV, Hulu Live and Sling -- they obviously understand that the inclusion of RSNs on the $85 Choice package is the main thing DTV Stream has going for it versus the competition. But if Bally Sports rolls out a DTC app costing $20/mo next spring, then consumers who care about those channels will have the option of just picking that up alongside the $65/mo packages from YTTV, Hulu Live or FuboTV. Poof, there goes DTV Stream's main selling point. Sure, it's nicer to have those channels integrated alongside all the others in the same app, but then those other services give you more features and content for the money than DTV Stream does.


Has Bally Sports gotten buy in from the teams they broadcast to create this DTC? I'm curious how that will work. I also fear that those DTCs will turn into 24/7 tout channels for gamblers, especially when live content isn't being shown. We don't have any Bally channels in our demo so I'm not sure what they look like now.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Priced and configured as DTV Stream and all the competing options (both streaming and traditional) currently are, it's a fairly small sub-set of consumers who would find DTV Stream to be the best value for the money, I think. There are some out there but just not a lot given DTV Stream's odd combination of strengths and weaknesses.
> 
> Look at Steveknj, for instance. He has it and generally likes it and is OK with the price but he's also willing to mess with a whole separate system (Channels DVR) for his missing CW and PBS locals. And he also needs RSNs. And I guess he doesn't care about NFL Network or Sunday Ticket. He's knowledgable enough and willing to mess with Channels DVR to get an overall system that works for his household and saves him significant money versus DTV satellite. But how many other consumers are like that?


Exactly. I think anyone who frequents this forum or other's like it (like the TiVo forum) is probably savvy enough to figure out how to get it to work. But we get lost in our bubble here because we are generally tech savvy and can do the things I've done. But I always go back to the "average" person. If something is missing something they normally watch, they will skip it for something that has it. The only reason DirecTV Stream works for me is because I was able to supplement the way I am, otherwise I'd have stuck with Sat until there was a solution that worked for me. It actually took me a LONG time to cut the cord because I was trying to figure out how to do it without losing stuff I wanted and I also had to convince the family that this could work (no easy feat).

While I would like and used to watch NFL Network, it's not something I can't live without. Sunday Ticket I never paid for and only watched when DirecTV gave me a freebie That's why when I looked at the current pricing structure to see if it was worth going back, I didn't even figure in that I'd get Sunday Ticket if I go back. It's not something I care all that much about. It's a nice to have, not a requirement. I watch my local teams on Sunday and the weeks when they are on at other times, I watch whatever the networks give me or do something else with my day. It would be important for me if I lived out of market though.


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> I agree, the average consumer isn't going to want to do that. Too many variables and too many other services out there offering things Stream isn't, like the NFL stuff you mentioned. I wonder how RSN vs NFL viewership compares??
> 
> CW delayed show viewing is simple and free, the things that would be missing are some news, live shows and others I suspect.
> 
> I'm not your average consumer of TV products but for me, assuming show production ramps up starting sometime next month, if I wanted a live streamer I would not care at all about RSNs but I would like the national sports channels, or at least a few of them. Entertainment would be of interest for all but the lack of the Golf channel. To get that with Stream I would need Ultimate but that is a hell of a price to pay to be able to get it. @$105 w/expanded DVR compared to YTTV's $65 is a huge leap in cost.
> 
> That said, there are a number of things that make Stream attractive. Dedicated box similar to a cable box, best PQ, very good UI and DD5.1 audio. But is that worth the $40? Probably not. Even with YTTV's crappy UI!


Doesn't YTTV now offer DD5.1? They also have 4K offerings with Stream doesn't. A couple of other things though. There are still some instances where YTTV only records content from on demand rather than the live showing and with that, no ability to skip commercials. For those of us who think that a DVR with the ability to skip commercials is the next best thing to sliced bread, that's a potential deal breaker. And that's a similar issue with using the CW app. That's why I went with my Channels/Locast solution. And like you said, the YTTV interface is crap. At least the last time I tried it about a year ago. The dedicated box to me (now with pause live TV available outside of that box) is too expensive, and really only appealed to me because it uses channel numbers. I'm an old fogey and pretty set in my ways, so having channel numbers is easy for me, as I can type in 206 and go directly to ESPN without having to either use the guide/down arrow and scroll or some type of voice command. Don't underestimate the ease of use of typing in a channel number.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Well, the PFD channel line-up card for DTV Stream now lists PBS Kids. Maybe that's a mistake or maybe it means that PBS channels are on the way. Would be a little odd to add just PBS Kids and not the original PBS too...


Where are you seeing that? The channel listings on their website don't show anything for PBS of any type.


----------



## lparsons21

Yes, YTTV now has DD5.1, or at least they claim the rollout is to ‘compatible devices’. So far the ‘compatible devices’ are just a few TVs and no streaming boxes other than the older version of Chromecast.

Reports of DD5.1 on AppleTV’s latest version and Roku Ultra are out there but of the ‘here today, gone tomorrow’ version.

IMO, technically it does have it, but in the real world, not for most things people would expect it on.


----------



## Steveknj

Mike1096 said:


> DirecTV and DirecTV Stream are an absolute joke. Please don't give this nonsense a dime of your hard earned money.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Troll much? Nice to say that with no reasons given.


----------



## raott

Mike1096 said:


> DirecTV and DirecTV Stream are an absolute joke. Please don't give this nonsense a dime of your hard earned money.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


To each his own, but with the exception of not having the NFL channel and Red Zone, I really like DirecTV Stream. Great PQ, cloud DVR works great, On Demand works great, ability to use the official box or any other streaming box......I much prefer it over my other option (Spectrum).


----------



## b4pjoe

lparsons21 said:


> As expected the new offerings from DirecTV's Stream is only 3 months of HBO just as with the satellite offering.


I see it also shows in the fine print "HBO Max Offer not available to DIRECTV and U-verse TV customers switching to DIRECTV STREAM."

So far the only changes we've seen since 8/26 are bad for the consumer. Not a good start for them if they are trying to build up the service.


----------



## lparsons21

raott said:


> To each his own, but with the exception of not having the NFL channel and Red Zone, I really like DirecTV Stream. Great PQ, cloud DVR works great, On Demand works great, ability to use the official box or any other streaming box......I much prefer it over my other option (Spectrum).


DirecTV Stream, just like every other live streaming service, is a mix of great, good and bad. The great is the dedicated box, it just makes dealing with the service the best user experience IMO. The good is that they have the widest selection of channels available depending on subscription level. The bad is customer service and lack of NFL & Redzone. The higher price is a mixed bag, yeah they are more costly but they bring DD5.1 audio and the best PQ of all the live streamers, not to mention a mostly dead simple UI to deal with.

IMO, most of the trolls and bad mouthing are about the customer service and pricing, and to a lesser extent, the mixed marketing messages they've been sending for a couple years or so.


----------



## raott

lparsons21 said:


> DirecTV Stream, just like every other live streaming service, is a mix of great, good and bad. The great is the dedicated box, it just makes dealing with the service the best user experience IMO. The good is that they have the widest selection of channels available depending on subscription level. The bad is customer service and lack of NFL & Redzone. The higher price is a mixed bag, yeah they are more costly but they bring DD5.1 audio and the best PQ of all the live streamers, not to mention a mostly dead simple UI to deal with.
> 
> IMO, most of the trolls and bad mouthing are about the customer service and pricing, and to a lesser extent, the mixed marketing messages they've been sending for a couple years or so.


Agreed on all fronts. I'm in my second year, I was able to negotiate a new price, somewhere between the first year price and the full second year price. I guess my only other complaint is the UI still isn't quite up to the one used by DirecTV.....ie no "skip-to-tick" when forwarding or rewinding, and there are no red dots in the guide to show whether something is set up to record or if there is a season pass for a program.

I looked hard at Spectrum when my first year was up. The PQ leaves much to be desired and the Spectrum App is awful. You cannot even pause live TV. I sure the heck wasn't going to run cable (they do not offer any wireless boxes to my knowledge) and even if I had cable runs, I wasn't dealing with the bulky boxes. My ATT&T TV box is neatly tucked behind my main TV.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Yes, YTTV now has DD5.1, or at least they claim the rollout is to 'compatible devices'. So far the 'compatible devices' are just a few TVs and no streaming boxes other than the older version of Chromecast.
> 
> Reports of DD5.1 on AppleTV's latest version and Roku Ultra are out there but of the 'here today, gone tomorrow' version.
> 
> IMO, technically it does have it, but in the real world, not for most things people would expect it on.


Don't you have to have the 20 dollar add on for 5.1 sound?


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Don't you have to have the 20 dollar add on for 5.1 sound?


No. DD5.1 isn't part of the 4K add-on package it is in the base product, just not on any devices you would think it would be on. To not even do it for their own product, the Chromecast with GoogleTV, is purely idiotic IMO.


----------



## lparsons21

Let’s talk box for a little bit.

There is now a version of Hulu that can be sideloaded that is the new UI. Do a Google search for Hulu APK 3.9.127

While the Osprey box does allow for lots of other apps to be installed there are at least two that can’t be gotten.

AppleTV+ - there are APK’s out there but while it will install, it won’t work because of something missing.

AMC+ - can’t find an APK that works, may not even be one since the app for that on AndroidTV hasn’t been released according to AMC.

On the ATMOS front, it seems that the only ATMOS that works is for HBO Max shows that have it.


----------



## Davenlr

Steveknj said:


> Doesn't YTTV now offer DD5.1? They also have 4K offerings with Stream doesn't.


Only if you have a recent LG TV. No 5.1 on any other devices so far. They do have 4K/unlimited in home streams for $20+tax/Mo extra.


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> Only if you have a recent LG TV. No 5.1 on any other devices so far. They do have 4K/unlimited in home streams for $20+tax/Mo extra.


DirecTV Stream gives you 20 streams (and 3 remote streams) out of the box, so, if you figure that in, then price wise it's not much different. And that's an issue here. There's no apples to apples comparison really. You can only decide what's it worth to you and if the price is right go for it. It's like buying a car. You might decide on a mid sized car, then compare what they each offer. The Honda Accord might off X and Y but not Z. The Toyota Camary might offer X and Z but not Y, and the Hyundai Sonata might off X,Y and Z, but cost more than the other two. So it's up to you to figure out what each is worth to you and decide.


----------



## lparsons21

Steveknj said:


> DirecTV Stream gives you 20 streams (and 3 remote streams) out of the box, so, if you figure that in, then price wise it's not much different. And that's an issue here. There's no apples to apples comparison really. You can only decide what's it worth to you and if the price is right go for it. It's like buying a car. You might decide on a mid sized car, then compare what they each offer. The Honda Accord might off X and Y but not Z. The Toyota Camary might offer X and Z but not Y, and the Hyundai Sonata might off X,Y and Z, but cost more than the other two. So it's up to you to figure out what each is worth to you and decide.


Yep, that's all true. Each service has its strengths and weaknesses, including cost of subscription. Let's to a trial run with a valid comparison.

DirecTV Stream+200 hour DVR = $105

YTTV+4K+Starz = $85 (note that Starz is added because that brings it up to nearly the same channel lineup. And 4K is $10 for a year now)

DirecTV Stream has RSNs, YTTV doesn't. But there is to be a standalone app for that sooner or later, with a price tag around the $20 mark. So YTTV+Starz+RSNs would be $105.

Ultimate is used for the comparison as that is where FS2 and Golf channel kick in, both of which are in YTTV's base subscription. Note that NFL isn't in DirecTV Stream at all.


----------



## raott

lparsons21 said:


> Yep, that's all true. Each service has its strengths and weaknesses, including cost of subscription. Let's to a trial run with a valid comparison.
> 
> DirecTV Stream+200 hour DVR = $105
> 
> YTTV+4K+Starz = $85 (note that Starz is added because that brings it up to nearly the same channel lineup. And 4K is $10 for a year now)
> 
> DirecTV Stream has RSNs, YTTV doesn't. But there is to be a standalone app for that sooner or later, with a price tag around the $20 mark. So YTTV+Starz+RSNs would be $105.
> 
> Ultimate is used for the comparison as that is where FS2 and Golf channel kick in, both of which are in YTTV's base subscription. Note that NFL isn't in DirecTV Stream at all.


I believe YTTV is still missing all of the A&E channels (A&E, History, Lifetime etc), which for me, would be a huge hole


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> Where are you seeing that? The channel listings on their website don't show anything for PBS of any type.


It's on the PDF file that can be downloaded from DTV Stream's channel line-up page. PBS Kids is listed as being on channel 288 and part of all four packages. See file posted below.


----------



## lparsons21

raott said:


> I believe YTTV is still missing all of the A&E channels (A&E, History, Lifetime etc), which for me, would be a huge hole


And that's the difficulty in making the comparisons. The best you can do is get real close in channel numbers and actual channels.


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> Yep, that's all true. Each service has its strengths and weaknesses, including cost of subscription. Let's to a trial run with a valid comparison.
> 
> DirecTV Stream+200 hour DVR = $105
> 
> YTTV+4K+Starz = $85 (note that Starz is added because that brings it up to nearly the same channel lineup. And 4K is $10 for a year now)
> 
> DirecTV Stream has RSNs, YTTV doesn't. But there is to be a standalone app for that sooner or later, with a price tag around the $20 mark. So YTTV+Starz+RSNs would be $105.
> 
> Ultimate is used for the comparison as that is where FS2 and Golf channel kick in, both of which are in YTTV's base subscription. Note that NFL isn't in DirecTV Stream at all.


Those RSNs that were mentioned (Bally) are only a subset of RSNs. Not all of them (yet) have or are planning a stand alone offering). That includes the 3 NY area ones which are not part of the Bally group. There's also missing channels on both, YTTV offers 4K for a fee. DirecTV stream offers Encore and NBA League pass as part of their base, at least when signed up. So yeah, it's crazy, there's just no one size fits all price comparison.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> It's on the PDF file that can be downloaded from DTV Stream's channel line-up page. PBS Kids is listed as being on channel 288 and part of all four packages. See file posted below.


Interesting. It's not listed on their website and I just checked and still not available on my Osprey. The PDF says as of 8/26/2021. Could be a mistake?


----------



## lparsons21

Steveknj said:


> Those RSNs that were mentioned (Bally) are only a subset of RSNs. Not all of them (yet) have or are planning a stand alone offering). That includes the 3 NY area ones which are not part of the Bally group. There's also missing channels on both, YTTV offers 4K for a fee. DirecTV stream offers Encore and NBA League pass as part of their base, at least when signed up. So yeah, it's crazy, there's just no one size fits all price comparison.


You know that is pretty much true of cable/sat too. You can get a close approximation but there is always some differences.

I had thought that all the Bally RSN's were going to have an app, but since I don't have any need/want for RSNs I hadn't followed that info.


----------



## NashGuy

raott said:


> I believe YTTV is still missing all of the A&E channels (A&E, History, Lifetime etc), which for me, would be a huge hole


Yup. YTTV is missing the A+E, Hallmark, and Bally Sports channels. Hulu Live is missing the AMC, Hallmark, Bally Sports and PBS channels. FuboTV is missing the Warner, Bally Sports, and PBS channels. DTV Stream is missing NFL Network, NFL RedZone, and PBS channels. I think all of them have some holes in terms of local affiliates, mainly CW and MyNetwork TV. All of them are missing ION (which, a bit surprisingly, was the 13th most-watched TV network last year).

Beyond that, there are smaller channels (e.g. BeIn Sports, Dabl, etc.) that any one service has but others don't. But those above are the biggies.

DTV Stream comes the closest to being a "no-compromise" streaming equivalent of traditional cable/satellite but they're still not quite there, due to a few missing channels, an artificially compromised cloud DVR (90-day and 30-episode limits), and a lack of 4K. Meanwhile, it's priced higher than its streaming competitors and, best I can tell, about the same as traditional cable (or at least Comcast), but lower than satellite (which is also burdened with its 2-yr initial contract). Those things will matter to some, not to others.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> No. DD5.1 isn't part of the 4K add-on package it is in the base product, just not on any devices you would think it would be on. To not even do it for their own product, the Chromecast with GoogleTV, is purely idiotic IMO.


Is YTTV even doing DD5.1 on any linear channels yet? Last I read, it had only been added to on-demand content. Maybe that's changed now, IDK.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Let's talk box for a little bit.
> 
> There is now a version of Hulu that can be sideloaded that is the new UI. Do a Google search for Hulu APK 3.9.127
> 
> While the Osprey box does allow for lots of other apps to be installed there are at least two that can't be gotten.
> 
> AppleTV+ - there are APK's out there but while it will install, it won't work because of something missing.
> 
> AMC+ - can't find an APK that works, may not even be one since the app for that on AndroidTV hasn't been released according to AMC.
> 
> On the ATMOS front, it seems that the only ATMOS that works is for HBO Max shows that have it.


Yeah, I read that recent versions of the Hulu app, when sideloaded, would work but there was no audio. But then the version you listed above works perfectly, with audio. Some folks even reported being able to access it via the Play Store after the Android TV 10 update, although others could not. So I really don't know what's up there.

Would be nice if DTV could work out whatever is needed with Hulu and Apple to let their box install those apps from Google Play. Even if they had to strike deals to pre-install/auto-install the apps, as they do with Netflix, YouTube, and (I think) Pandora.

AMC+ doesn't have an app for Android TV at all yet. That one's not as big a deal, though, since you can subscribe to it through DTV Stream and have it integrated into their UI for $6.99/mo, which is cheaper than the standalone app's $8.99/mo price.


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> You know that is pretty much true of cable/sat too. You can get a close approximation but there is always some differences.
> 
> I had thought that all the Bally RSN's were going to have an app, but since I don't have any need/want for RSNs I hadn't followed that info.


All the Bally RSN might, But, that's only some RSNs. Bally's doesn't have all of them, including NONE of the NY ones.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> Interesting. It's not listed on their website and I just checked and still not available on my Osprey. The PDF says as of 8/26/2021. Could be a mistake?


I've read that DTV satellite has been testing PBS Kids. So yeah, it could just be that it's getting added to the sat service on channel 288 and they mistakenly added it to the DTV Stream PDF. Or, who knows, maybe PBS Kids shows up on DTV Stream even though the main PBS station isn't there. But since adding any PBS stations to DTV Stream would require a new contract, it seems unlikely to me that PBS would make the decision to add PBS Kids to the service if there wasn't also a plan to add PBS member stations around the nation, as they did with YTTV. Who knows...


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Is YTTV even doing DD5.1 on any linear channels yet? Last I read, it had only been added to on-demand content. Maybe that's changed now, IDK.


Supposedly but only on a few models of TV, nothing on any streaming box yet.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> AMC+ doesn't have an app for Android TV at all yet. That one's not as big a deal, though, since you can subscribe to it through DTV Stream and have it integrated into their UI for $6.99/mo, which is cheaper than the standalone app's $8.99/mo price.


And AMC+ is $5/month if you sub for a year direct with them. So it would be nice if AMC would get off the dime and create the app for AndroidTV boxes.


----------



## Steveknj

Also no DirecTV Steam app on Android TV (the irony of course is that the Ospery box is Android TV!). Was looking to buy my daughter an cheap TV for her room and we wanted to get an Android TV but realized there's no app for this. So we wound up with a Roku TV.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> And AMC+ is $5/month if you sub for a year direct with them. So it would be nice if AMC would get off the dime and create the app for AndroidTV boxes.


Android TV has long been the red-headed step-child among streaming platforms. That's slowly changing, in part due to Google finally putting out their own inexpensive Android TV dongle. But if there's one platform that's missing a given app or new features in a given app (e.g. 4K, HDR, Atmos), it's typically Android TV.

The AMC+ app is very new. And apparently the Android mobile app is total crap. So I'd expect it to take awhile to show up on Android TV.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> Also no DirecTV Steam app on Android TV (the irony of course is that the Ospery box is Android TV!). Was looking to buy my daughter an cheap TV for her room and we wanted to get an Android TV but realized there's no app for this. So we wound up with a Roku TV.


Yeah, I can't imagine how it would be much additional work for them to just put out an Android TV app. I can't see how supporting the new Chromecast, Nvidia Shield, Sony smart TVs, etc. would do much to dent sales of their Osprey box given that they already offer the app on the far more popular Roku and Fire TV platforms (as well as Apple TV). But, as I say, Android TV is often last in line to get served by app developers...


----------



## lparsons21

Yeah, the Android mobile app is crap! It just throws up the initial splash screen and never actually does anything else.
But the iOS/iPadOS version is only good in that it works but doesn’t support Airplay or Chromecast.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I can't imagine how it would be much additional work for them to just put out an Android TV app. I can't see how supporting the new Chromecast, Nvidia Shield, Sony smart TVs, etc. would do much to dent sales of their Osprey box given that they already offer the app on the far more popular Roku and Fire TV platforms (as well as Apple TV). But, as I say, Android TV is often last in line to get served by app developers...


There is an APK out there for the DirecTV Stream app that supposedly works well and can be sideloaded.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> There is an APK out there for the DirecTV Stream app that supposedly works well and can be sideloaded.


I think it's just the Fire TV APK. Unless developers specifically put some kind of device check in their code, you can typically sideload and run Fire TV apps on Android TV and vice versa. Which is how Fire TV users were accessing Peacock for months. (BTW, is Peacock in the Play Store for Osprey?)


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> I think it's just the Fire TV APK. Unless developers specifically put some kind of device check in their code, you can typically sideload and run Fire TV apps on Android TV and vice versa. Which is how Fire TV users were accessing Peacock for months. (BTW, is Peacock in the Play Store for Osprey?)


Yes it is.


----------



## lparsons21

I kicked DirecTV Stream on yesterday Entertainment subscription level. Just cancelled it since there still isn’t anything on live TV of interest that I can’t get without any live streaming service at all.

Quality was excellent and cancellation wasn’t a big hassle either.


----------



## lparsons21

For those that haven’t figured it out yet, the changeover from AT&T TV to DirecTV Stream to the end user is little more than a change in name and a different website. Well, that and a reduction in sign up incentives.

DirecTV Stream had the chance to make the service more compelling but instead chose to remain essentially the same with a new logo.


----------



## Davenlr

I wouldn't expect anything else from AT&T


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> For those that haven't figured it out yet, the changeover from AT&T TV to DirecTV Stream to the end user is little more than a change in name and a different website. Well, that and a reduction in sign up incentives.
> 
> DirecTV Stream had the chance to make the service more compelling but instead chose to remain essentially the same with a new logo.


Again. Not sure why anyone was expecting otherwise


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Again. Not sure why anyone was expecting otherwise


lt isn't so much expecting, more like hoping. Given AT&T's hellbent attitude to making so many blunders in the long and seemingly ever-changing offerings, many of us hoped that a new company would be interested in making a purse out of the sow's ear that they acquired.

Unfortunately they instead chose to make a somewhat overpriced offering into one that is even less appealing.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> lt isn't so much expecting, more like hoping. Given AT&T's hellbent attitude to making so many blunders in the long and seemingly ever-changing offerings, many of us hoped that a new company would be interested in making a purse out of the sow's ear that they acquired.
> 
> Unfortunately they instead chose to make a somewhat overpriced offering into one that is even less appealing.


Lol. It's still the same company


----------



## inkahauts

It’s really not the same company. But it’s going to take time to get split up all the way. Expecting anything other than a rebrand in a first wave of changes is a bit much. I’d expect real changes if any to not come for many more months.


----------



## lparsons21

inkahauts said:


> It's really not the same company. But it's going to take time to get split up all the way. Expecting anything other than a rebrand in a first wave of changes is a bit much. I'd expect real changes if any to not come for many more months.


So miss a good opportunity to make a first impression and continue on with diddling around? Sounds like a recipe for failure.


----------



## compnurd

inkahauts said:


> It's really not the same company. But it's going to take time to get split up all the way. Expecting anything other than a rebrand in a first wave of changes is a bit much. I'd expect real changes if any to not come for many more months.


It's really the same company. Same people and basically the same leadership


----------



## NashGuy

DTV is under a new CEO, Bill Morrow, who was announced as part of the spin-off deal back in Feb. He joined AT&T in 2019 "to oversee the company's operational transformation efforts" but I don't think he had any direct involvement with the video unit prior to this role. Meanwhile, I'm sure TPG has been weighing in on strategic decisions and will continue to do so. They're activist investors who are equally represented on the DTV board vs. AT&T. They didn't buy a 30% stake to just sit back and allow the same folks to run the ship the same as before. (I suspect one of the things they'll be keen to do is figure out ways to cut costs.)

Hard to know how much input Morrow and TPG had in the several months leading up to the official spin-off earlier this month. Clearly employees at AT&T had been working on things during that time period that we're just now seeing, such as the new logo, branding, website, TV ad, etc. But whether the new leadership had any input on things outside of marketing communications before now, who knows.


----------



## lparsons21

OK, here’s the marketing message that isn’t working to attract subscribers compared to the message the 2 largest live streamers are sending.

DirecTV stream = starting @$69.99, for that you get a limited selection of channels and a tiny cloud DVR

YouTubeTV = starting @$64.99/month, for that you get a very broad selection of channels and unlimited DVR

Hulu+Live = starting @64.99/month, for that you get a very broad selection of channels, next day availability of shows from various channels, limited DVR and no ad-skipping.

The nearest DirecTV Stream gets to having similar channels and features to Hulu+Live and YTTV is with the Choice package @$84.99/month. Yes, DirecTV Stream has the best PQ and audio but how much is that really worth to the average user? Would the average user with a TV and maybe a simple soundbar setup even notice the difference in audio?


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> OK, here's the marketing message that isn't working to attract subscribers compared to the message the 2 largest live streamers are sending.
> 
> DirecTV stream = starting @$69.99, for that you get a limited selection of channels and a tiny cloud DVR
> 
> YouTubeTV = starting @$64.99/month, for that you get a very broad selection of channels and unlimited DVR
> 
> Hulu+Live = starting @64.99/month, for that you get a very broad selection of channels, next day availability of shows from various channels, limited DVR and no ad-skipping.
> 
> The nearest DirecTV Stream gets to having similar channels and features to Hulu+Live and YTTV is with the Choice package @$84.99/month. Yes, DirecTV Stream has the best PQ and audio but how much is that really worth to the average user? Would the average user with a TV and maybe a simple soundbar setup even notice the difference in audio?


IMO, the main marketing advantage Hulu Live has (and the reason they have more subs than YTTV) is that they already have a base of about 40 million subs using core on-demand service for $6-12 per month, or as part of the Disney bundle. And it's easier to upsell an existing customer than to land an entirely new one. "Make the Hulu you know and love even better by adding live TV!"

I wouldn't say that they have a "very broad selection" of channels. They're still missing the channels from AMC and Hallmark, which DTV Stream has in Entertainment. And remember that you can always skip ads in the DTV Stream cloud DVR, and recordings are never replaced with the on-demand version. Neither is true for Hulu Live. But then Hulu gives you their on-demand library (although, beyond Hulu Originals, it's not *that* attractive to those with cable TV+DVR+the on-demand library that comes with their channels, IMO).

So I say all that to say that I don't really see Hulu Live being a better value proposition than DTV Stream, really, although there's some marketing value in being able to advertise a $65 starting price vs. DTV Stream's $70. But because Hulu Live has a head-start, thanks to their big pool of base subs to upsell, they can get away with offering what they do for the price.

YTTV and FuboTV, on the other hand, are clearly the value leaders, so long as you're OK with the few channels they leave out. YTTV was very smart in making sure they had their bases covered with regard to locals, sports and news, as those are the main things folks want cable TV for, especially if they're already streaming some of their entertainment anyhow. FuboTV fumbles a bit by not having CNN, TBS or TNT.


----------



## James Long

inkahauts said:


> It's really not the same company. But it's going to take time to get split up all the way. Expecting anything other than a rebrand in a first wave of changes is a bit much. I'd expect real changes if any to not come for many more months.


The people looking for failure, expecting failure and in some cases rooting for failure will not be persuaded. Time will tell if the new management will be able to turn the company around. It is going to take more than a few days to get past the attitudes built over many years ... including years before AT&T owned DIRECTV.


----------



## lparsons21

James Long said:


> The people looking for failure, expecting failure and in some cases rooting for failure will not be persuaded. Time will tell if the new management will be able to turn the company around. It is going to take more than a few days to get past the attitudes built over many years ... including years before AT&T owned DIRECTV.


Since I actually think the DirecTV Stream is the best in many ways, just overpriced, I'm hoping they make adjustments in pricing and/or add-ons. For instance they could just give everyone the unlimited DVR at no additional charge, or have the base level to be the 200 it used to be before the last changes. That would bring the total cost in closer to their competitors.

If they do nothing about that fairly big difference in pricing, they will be an also ran for a very long time.


----------



## Davenlr

I wish they would offer DirecTv satellite at the same price as Stream. Never made any sense to me why the same package on satellite is $32.01 more and requires a two year contract for people who already have a dish and dont need a truck roll to sign up.


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> I wish they would offer DirecTv satellite at the same price as Stream. Never made any sense to me why the same package on satellite is $32.01 more and requires a two year contract for people who already have a dish and dont need a truck roll to sign up.


Yeah, for those who could do a self-install (e.g. because they've got the dish and wiring in place), it seems like they could offer a contract-free option. As for pricing, keep in mind that new satellite customers get a big discount their first year before the price jumps to the regular amount, which is substantially more than the equivalent package on DTV Stream. (Also keep in mind that those on Choice and up get free NFL ST.) The comparisons I've done in the past indicate that, with just one box with full DVR service, the average monthly price over the first 24 months on satellite comes out pretty close to the same set-up on streaming.

Choice on DTV, with 1 HD DVR, including a $10/mo RSN fee, costs $80/mo in year 1 and then the regular price of $132/mo in year 2. So an average of $106/mo.

Choice on DTV Stream costs $85 everyday. Add one purchased box ($5/mo for 24 mo) and the unlimited DVR upgrade ($10/mo) and you're at $100/mo.

So, yeah, you're paying 6% more -- an additional $144 -- over the course of those two years on satellite. But I guess you could chalk that up to getting NFL ST, RedZone and NFL Network, plus a few couple other channels missing on DTV Stream but available on satellite.

If they did offer a contract-free self-install option for satellite, I can't imagine that they would give those new customers such a big first-year discount since they wouldn't have to stick around for the full price thereafter.


----------



## Davenlr

NashGuy said:


> If they did offer a contract-free self-install option for satellite, I can't imagine that they would give those new customers such a big first-year discount since they wouldn't have to stick around for the full price thereafter.


I offered to pay for Sunday Ticket full price if they just reactivated my account, but they refused and insisted on a contract. If I went that route, which would be cheaper, then I would not be able to reactivate my current HR24's and an H24, and they would have to send a tech to install a new whole home DVR and those little boxes. I prefer to have a DVR at each location except the kids bedroom. The only way to activate an HR24 is to reactivate a pre-ATT account. It was confirmed to still be in their system complete with my password when I spoke to retention, and they said they could reauthorize it and send me 3 access cards, but the poor-english speaking folks in the Philippines I was transferred to said NO. I have tried 3 times. Was hoping this new company would not turn away free money, but so far, no luck.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> DTV is under a new CEO, Bill Morrow, who was announced as part of the spin-off deal back in Feb. He joined AT&T in 2019 "to oversee the company's operational transformation efforts" but I don't think he had any direct involvement with the video unit prior to this role. Meanwhile, I'm sure TPG has been weighing in on strategic decisions and will continue to do so. They're activist investors who are equally represented on the DTV board vs. AT&T. They didn't buy a 30% stake to just sit back and allow the same folks to run the ship the same as before. *(I suspect one of the things they'll be keen to do is figure out ways to cut costs.)*
> 
> Hard to know how much input Morrow and TPG had in the several months leading up to the official spin-off earlier this month. Clearly employees at AT&T had been working on things during that time period that we're just now seeing, such as the new logo, branding, website, TV ad, etc. But whether the new leadership had any input on things outside of marketing communications before now, who knows.


This worries me. As we've seen with SO many corporate raider type of investors. They come in, cut costs and either sell for a tidy profit once they've cut everything down to the bare bones, or declare bankruptcy to get out of the weight of their debt (and we know AT&T has been saddled with a lot of debt, though not sure how much this "new" company does. The first sign that maybe this is their strategy was cutting down the HBO Max deal. As many have said they missed a golden opportunity to "one up" the competition by not offering anything new at launch and in fact cut back on some things. As us long time vets of DirecTV know, August and early September have always been prime season to get new subs, with football starting. I don't know if they couldn't do it, but the idea of offering at the bare minimum NFL Network would have helped here. And the smart move would have been to work something out with the NFL to offer ST as well (or at least Red Zone channel). That could have snagged some folks from YTTV. Also no news of any new streaming box (so I wonder if that will eventually be scrapped and they will push folks to use their own streamers, and maybe they push to get on more smart TV platforms and Android TV). So as others have said, they have rebranded and that's the only thing so for. I remain slightly more optimistic (maybe hopeful is a better word) than many here that more might be coming, but less so every day. We'll see.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> This worries me. As we've seen with SO many corporate raider type of investors. They come in, cut costs and either sell for a tidy profit once they've cut everything down to the bare bones, or declare bankruptcy to get out of the weight of their debt (and we know AT&T has been saddled with a lot of debt, though not sure how much this "new" company does. The first sign that maybe this is their strategy was cutting down the HBO Max deal. As many have said they missed a golden opportunity to "one up" the competition by not offering anything new at launch and in fact cut back on some things. As us long time vets of DirecTV know, August and early September have always been prime season to get new subs, with football starting. I don't know if they couldn't do it, but the idea of offering at the bare minimum NFL Network would have helped here. And the smart move would have been to work something out with the NFL to offer ST as well (or at least Red Zone channel). That could have snagged some folks from YTTV. Also no news of any new streaming box (so I wonder if that will eventually be scrapped and they will push folks to use their own streamers, and maybe they push to get on more smart TV platforms and Android TV). So as others have said, they have rebranded and that's the only thing so for. I remain slightly more optimistic (maybe hopeful is a better word) than many here that more might be coming, but less so every day. We'll see.


As discussed multiple times existing contracts are not allowing NFL network and Sunday Ticket are not on Directv Stream.. ATT Tried to add both a couple of years ago but the NFL wouldnt do it unless ATT Re-Upped the Sunday Ticket Contract ATT is already absorbing the losses for the next two Sunday Ticket seasons for the new company.. There is was no way they were going to pay more to get this done


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> As discussed multiple times existing contracts are not allowing NFL network and Sunday Ticket are not on Directv Stream.. ATT Tried to add both a couple of years ago but the NFL wouldnt do it unless ATT Re-Upped the Sunday Ticket Contract ATT is already absorbing the losses for the next two Sunday Ticket seasons for the new company.. There is was no way they were going to pay more to get this done


Perhaps they tried, perhaps they didn't, we just don't know this time around. But the NFL Network is something they could probably add, though I wonder if the NFL is trying to tie that together with ST in this case. That's entirely possible. The NFL is stupid in this case. They have to see that DirecTV is losing customers, that DirecTV is unlikely to renew under the current terms and that they could possible work a better deal to keep things in place if it includes streaming. I think the NFL is counting on someone with deep pockets like Amazon or Apple or Google to get streaming rights and they don't want to keep the status quo either. They've seen the networks fall all over themselves bidding outrageous sums to keep their current packages. They assume the same will happen with streaming.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> Perhaps they tried, perhaps they didn't, we just don't know this time around. But the NFL Network is something they could probably add, though I wonder if the NFL is trying to tie that together with ST in this case. That's entirely possible. The NFL is stupid in this case. They have to see that DirecTV is losing customers, that DirecTV is unlikely to renew under the current terms and that they could possible work a better deal to keep things in place if it includes streaming. I think the NFL is counting on someone with deep pockets like Amazon or Apple or Google to get streaming rights and they don't want to keep the status quo either. They've seen the networks fall all over themselves bidding outrageous sums to keep their current packages. They assume the same will happen with streaming.


I literally just said that was the problem.. The NFL would not let ATT Add the NFL Network to ATT TV unless they also re-did the Sunday Ticket Contract


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> I literally just said that was the problem.. The NFL would not let ATT Add the NFL Network to ATT TV unless they also re-did the Sunday Ticket Contract


Do we know this is the case with the new management, and if they brought this up with them? We assume that was the case previously, and we also have seen the new head of DirecTV say that they are not interested in ST structured the way it is now. So there could be some give and take there. I'm guessing you're right, but that might not be the case. There's also no reason they couldn't redo the contract to include it without extending it. It actually would be a good faith measure for the NFL. But like I said, I'm of the opinion that it's not just DirecTV balking at extending the contract but that the NFL wants the type of money for it that only a Google, Apple or Amazon could provide. They are seeing $$$$.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> Do we know this is the case with the new management, and if they brought this up with them? We assume that was the case previously, and we also have seen the new head of DirecTV say that they are not interested in ST structured the way it is now. So there could be some give and take there. I'm guessing you're right, but that might not be the case. There's also no reason they couldn't redo the contract to include it without extending it. It actually would be a good faith measure for the NFL. But like I said, I'm of the opinion that it's not just DirecTV balking at extending the contract but that the NFL wants the type of money for it that only a Google, Apple or Amazon could provide. They are seeing $$$$.


management is the same the contracts are the same


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> The NFL would not let ATT Add the NFL Network to ATT TV unless they also re-did the Sunday Ticket Contract


Just because that was the NFL's position two years ago doesn't mean it would be their position now. And contracts can always be amended if both sides want. And at the end of the day, it's just about money. Maybe the NFL wants more money to do a two-year licensing deal for NFL Network on DTV Stream than DTV is willing to pay. Maybe DTV didn't even approach the NFL and make such an offer because they aren't willing to spend any more on content costs for DTV Stream right now than they're already paying. (If TPG is all about cutting costs, this would be the most logical explanation, also accounting for them cutting the free HBO Max offer from 12 to only 3 months.)

It's also possible that the NFL thinks withholding NFL Network from the 3-4 million customers on UVerse TV and DTV Stream gives them lots of additional leverage when it comes to potentially renewing the NFL ST deal with DTV for 2023. I don't think it does though. Just leaves them with a bit less carriage revenue in '21 and '22.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> And at the end of the day, it's just about money.


Yep ... and AT&T was losing 10s of millions of dollars on their $1.5 billion per year investment in NFL Sunday Ticket.

I doubt that the NFL would accept less money or even the same money and allow DIRECTV to expand their contracts to streaming / former Uverse. I doubt that DIRECTV would pay the NFL more for content that is already causing a loss. For now the NFL wins by keeping the status quo. And DIRECTV can (per the sales contract) have AT&T cover their losses on NFL Sunday Ticket. That clause would not be in the deal if the new owners intended on rewriting the contract.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> Yep ... and AT&T was losing 10s of millions of dollars on their $1.5 billion per year investment in NFL Sunday Ticket.
> 
> I doubt that the NFL would accept less money or even the same money and allow DIRECTV to expand their contracts to streaming / former Uverse. I doubt that DIRECTV would pay the NFL more for content that is already causing a loss. For now the NFL wins by keeping the status quo. And DIRECTV can (per the sales contract) have AT&T cover their losses on NFL Sunday Ticket. That clause would not be in the deal if the new owners intended on rewriting the contract.


No one was talking about Sunday Ticket. DTV was *clearly* uninterested in paying some additional big amount of money to expand the remainder of their existing satellite deal with the NFL to also cover DTV Stream and/or Uverse TV for the '21 and '22 seasons. We weren't talking about that.

We were talking about the possibility of a separate contract covering just NFL Network (or NFL Network and NFL RedZone) to bring it to DTV Stream (and maybe Uverse TV also) for '21 and '22. I'm not sure how keeping that channel off of DTV Stream and Uverse TV, and missing out on revenue from a few million more subscribers and the eyeballs of additional viewers, means that the "NFL wins". The NFL clearly wants to expand carriage of that channel, which is why they struck deals to bring it to YTTV last year and Hulu Live this year.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> No one was talking about Sunday Ticket.


Feel free to re-read the thread and apologize.


----------



## Steveknj

I think it's a little of both. Many are wondering why DTV Stream couldn't include ST and what it would take. And given the new name, it would have been a boon if they got it and probably would have led to a lot of new subs. But I think the NFL is steadfast in excluding it. I REALLY think they want to explore some new horizons with stream. I would imagine that Amazon, Google and or Apple have already reach out to them with interest. And I think that DirecTV is looking for a better deal, one where they might actually make money. But, on the other hand, I think a lot of us think that the NFL is being silly in regards to the NFL Channel, especially since the streaming competition has it now. It just feels like one of those content wars are brewing. And to me, at launch of the new name would be a great time to bring in then channel. Consider that they are also pushing the new entity as your place for sports and they don't have a key sports channel (never mind the ratings).

Anyway, we'll see what happens. Right now, I'm disappointed that we got nothing more than a new name and logo. Who cares about that. Really nothing has changed. Though, as I've been saying, I'm still hopeful that more will eventually roll out.


----------



## b4pjoe

Something else has changed too. They no longer reply to Twitter or Facebook messages. I sent both a message yesterday in the early afternoon and the messages have not been seen by them let alone replied to by them. Previously they would reply within a few minutes. Must have gotten rid of their social media people.


----------



## rnbmusicfan

NashGuy said:


> YTTV and FuboTV, on the other hand, are clearly the value leaders, so long as you're OK with the few channels they leave out. YTTV was very smart in making sure they had their bases covered with regard to locals, sports and news, as those are the main things folks want cable TV for, especially if they're already streaming some of their entertainment anyhow. FuboTV fumbles a bit by not having CNN, TBS or TNT.


CNN and TNT and the Warner channels were notably dropped off FuboTV. However, we might see them again in the future on fubo with the Discovery Warner merger, when fubo renegotiates with Discovery.

fuboTV also is lacking a few smaller but nice networks, such as AXS TV/HD Net Movies, and feTV. Given it's angle as the alternate to more mainstream youtube tv and hulu, it'd make sense to carry them, and these channel appear on many systems on the lowest packages. I believe these are the fumbles of fubo, where the Warner channels were intentionally dropped because of high costs.


----------



## rnbmusicfan

Steveknj said:


> Anyway, we'll see what happens. Right now, I'm disappointed that we got nothing more than a new name and logo. Who cares about that. Really nothing has changed. Though, as I've been saying, I'm still hopeful that more will eventually roll out.


Is the Movies Extra Pack new, i.e. not on the streaming AT&T TV?

A similar package is on DirecTV (satellite) but I don't recall seeing the streaming AT&T having HD Net Movies and Sony Movies in its lineup. There are still a few channels like feTV that are on DirecTV (satellite) but not on DirecTV Stream, but are on a number of streaming competitors now.

I agree with other points, that the packages look a bit high priced, and the $10 for unlimited cloud DVR seems oddly priced. Why not just offer it to everyone. Then again, price is all relative. The satellite customers are paying more.

Also DirecTV Stream has a 1-888 phone number for service, which likely adds overhead costs. To keep overhead low, streaming services generally have been doing away with any phone customer service.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> Feel free to re-read the thread and apologize.


Maybe go back and reread compnurd's post #2374, where he posts (with zero inside knowledge of the situation) that "The NFL would not let ATT Add the NFL Network to ATT TV unless they also re-did the Sunday Ticket Contract." My response to that is essentially that that isn't necessarily true, especially now that it looks increasingly unlikely that DTV will bid to renew their NFL ST contract. For the right amount of additional money, it's certainly plausible that they would license just NFL Network (but not NFL ST) for carriage on DTV Stream (just as they've done with YTTV, Hulu Live, and FuboTV). Then you responded back to me, not with anything to counter my points, but about the NFL being unwilling to accept less money to extend their current contract with DTV to streaming, which wasn't a scenario that I was talking about at all. I'm actually not sure what you were even talking about there.

I wasn't the only one challenging compnurd's assertion in post #2374 about the possibility of DTV Stream getting NFL Network without NFL ST. See steveknj's response to him in post #2375.

Keep waiting on that apology, James, you're not gonna get it.


----------



## Steveknj

rnbmusicfan said:


> Is the Movies Extra Pack new, i.e. not on the streaming AT&T TV?
> 
> A similar package is on DirecTV (satellite) but I don't recall seeing the streaming AT&T having HD Net Movies and Sony Movies in its lineup. There are still a few channels like feTV that are on DirecTV (satellite) but not on DirecTV Stream, but are on a number of streaming competitors now.
> 
> I agree with other points, that the packages look a bit high priced, and the $10 for unlimited cloud DVR seems oddly priced. Why not just offer it to everyone. Then again, price is all relative. The satellite customers are paying more.
> 
> Also DirecTV Stream has a 1-888 phone number for service, which likely adds overhead costs. To keep overhead low, streaming services generally have been doing away with any phone customer service.


The Movie Extra Pack is available for Stream. It's an add on once you choose your package.


----------



## NashGuy

rnbmusicfan said:


> CNN and TNT and the Warner channels were notably dropped off FuboTV. However, we might see them again in the future on fubo with the Discovery Warner merger, when fubo renegotiates with Discovery.
> 
> fuboTV also is lacking a few smaller but nice networks, such as AXS TV/HD Net Movies, and feTV. Given it's angle as the alternate to more mainstream youtube tv and hulu, it'd make sense to carry them, and these channel appear on many systems on the lowest packages. I believe these are the fumbles of fubo, where the Warner channels were intentionally dropped because of high costs.


FuboTV has yet to turn a profit. They're adding more subscribers but still losing money. Due to competitive pressure from the much bigger YouTube TV and Hulu Live, which both have starting prices of $65/mo, FuboTV has to set their price there too. But that price clearly isn't high enough for them to cover their costs. And channel carriage costs are the main costs that they have.

FuboTV management is saying that they'll finally reach profitability due to higher ad revenue, thanks to data-enabled targeted ads, combined with revenue from running a sports betting service that they'll introduce to their app this fall. We'll see. Even if those strategies work, it's hard to see them adding any more major channels to their service, such as the Warner channels, unless they dropped some other channels to offset the cost, or increased the base price to maybe $70, which would really hurt their ability to attract subs as long as their major competitors are still at $65. (The consumers looking at these streaming cable TV services seem to be very price sensitive.)

All three of these services are missing some key channels. YTTV is missing networks owned by A&E and Hallmark. Hulu Live is missing those owned by AMC and Hallmark. FuboTV is missing Warner channels. Will be interesting to see if any of them will fill their remaining major gaps and increase their price again to cover it. All of them, at some point, will have to raise prices just to keep up with increasing carriage costs for the channels they already have (or they'll have to drop some channels to bring costs down).


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> Maybe go back and reread compnurd's post #2374, where he posts (with zero inside knowledge of the situation) that "The NFL would not let ATT Add the NFL Network to ATT TV unless they also re-did the Sunday Ticket Contract." My response to that is essentially that that isn't necessarily true, especially now that it looks increasingly unlikely that DTV will bid to renew their NFL ST contract. For the right amount of additional money, it's certainly plausible that they would license just NFL Network (but not NFL ST) for carriage on DTV Stream (just as they've done with YTTV, Hulu Live, and FuboTV). Then you responded back to me, not with anything to counter my points, but about the NFL being unwilling to accept less money to extend their current contract with DTV to streaming, which wasn't a scenario that I was talking about at all. I'm actually not sure what you were even talking about there.
> 
> I wasn't the only one challenging compnurd's assertion in post #2374 about the possibility of DTV Stream getting NFL Network without NFL ST. See steveknj's response to him in post #2375.
> 
> Keep waiting on that apology, James, you're not gonna get it.


How do you know that i dont have inside information?? I am still waiting for your prediction that HBO MAX was going to take over the TV Streaming world for ATT and do away with Directv Stream

The facts dont change.. the NFL would not do a deal for NFL Network on Uverse and Directv Now at the time unless ATT also re-upped the Sunday Ticket contract....

Obviously nothing has changed or we would have it.. So until the current deal with Directv expires and the new Directv re-does its NFL contract for all TV services your going to have to go elsewhere to watch it

Speculating over and over again hoping something sticks to the wall doesn't mean something will. You and a handful of others seem to think having NFL Network is going to blow the door open for them when obviously they could care less The same goes for PBS which we now know has a 3 year exclusive deal with YTTV


----------



## rnbmusicfan

Steveknj said:


> The Movie Extra Pack is available for Stream. It's an add on once you choose your package.


I understand that but that carried over from Directv (satellite). As far as I know, Sony Movies and HDNet weren't both part of AT&T Now or AT&T TV streaming, right?


----------



## rnbmusicfan

NashGuy said:


> FuboTV has yet to turn a profit. They're adding more subscribers but still losing money. Due to competitive pressure from the much bigger YouTube TV and Hulu Live, which both have starting prices of $65/mo, FuboTV has to set their price there too. But that price clearly isn't high enough for them to cover their costs. And channel carriage costs are the main costs that they have.
> 
> FuboTV management is saying that they'll finally reach profitability due to higher ad revenue, thanks to data-enabled targeted ads, combined with revenue from running a sports betting service that they'll introduce to their app this fall. We'll see. Even if those strategies work, it's hard to see them adding any more major channels to their service, such as the Warner channels, unless they dropped some other channels to offset the cost, or increased the base price to maybe $70, which would really hurt their ability to attract subs as long as their major competitors are still at $65. (The consumers looking at these streaming cable TV services seem to be very price sensitive.)
> 
> All three of these services are missing some key channels. YTTV is missing networks owned by A&E and Hallmark. Hulu Live is missing those owned by AMC and Hallmark. FuboTV is missing Warner channels. Will be interesting to see if any of them will fill their remaining major gaps and increase their price again to cover it. All of them, at some point, will have to raise prices just to keep up with increasing carriage costs for the channels they already have (or they'll have to drop some channels to bring costs down).


 Fubo should just charge $10 more and add the Warner channels, AXS TV, HDNet and some others to make it most comprehensive and cover itself to be profitable. It's anyways positioning itself as an Alt-Premium streaming service. It's not going to surpass Youtube TV, so why stick to YTTV's price point.

It'd also be great if one carrier like fubo teamed with local btv. local btv has pbs and independent stations in a number of markets and has cloud dvr.

Anyways a side conversation here as thread focus is Directv Stream not Fubo, although they compete.


----------



## inkahauts

compnurd said:


> It's really the same company. Same people and basically the same leadership


Nah it's new guys at the top and I have heard from some people they have already said the direction is changed. Att when fully in charged treated DIRECTV as something to use to get new wireless subscribers. New people don't give one cent about that. They want tv subscribers. It will be different. But it takes time. I have no idea if they will split call centers out and such but if they do, that will be a massive time consuming endeavor all on its own.

And if you really need proof&#8230;. They have announced they will be bring out new hardware. Granted right now it's something new for businesses but you have to start somewhere and they have been neglected the longest by far in the hardware department.


----------



## compnurd

inkahauts said:


> Nah it's new guys at the top and I have heard from some people they have already said the direction is changed. Att when fully in charged treated DIRECTV as something to use to get new wireless subscribers. New people don't give one cent about that. They want tv subscribers. It will be different. But it takes time. I have no idea if they will split call centers out and such but if they do, that will be a massive time consuming endeavor all on its own.
> 
> And if you really need proof&#8230;. They have announced they will be bring out new hardware. Granted right now it's something new for businesses but you have to start somewhere and they have been neglected the longest by far in the hardware department.


it's the same CEO from ATT they had

Not sure how that is new people at the top

And Where have you seen they announced they will bring new hardware


----------



## b4pjoe

inkahauts said:


> Nah it's new guys at the top and I have heard from some people they have already said the direction is changed. Att when fully in charged treated DIRECTV as something to use to *get new wireless subscribers. New people don't give one cent about that.* They want tv subscribers. It will be different. But it takes time. I have no idea if they will split call centers out and such but if they do, that will be a massive time consuming endeavor all on its own.
> 
> And if you really need proof&#8230;. They have announced they will be bring out new hardware. Granted right now it's something new for businesses but you have to start somewhere and they have been neglected the longest by far in the hardware department.


I called Monday to inquire again about NFL ST promotions. They didn't have any but did offer to give me a bundle discount on my account if I added internet (LOL @10 mbps which is all they have here) and wireless to my account. Uhhhh no thanks.


----------



## b4pjoe

compnurd said:


> it's the same CEO from ATT they had
> 
> Not sure how that is new people at the top
> 
> And Where have you seen they announced they will bring new hardware





> New DIRECTV will be jointly governed by a board with two representatives from each of AT&T and TPG, as well as a fifth seat for the CEO, which at closing will be Bill Morrow, CEO of AT&T's U.S. video unit.


So 3/5 are not new. They make those 2 TPG guys use the bathroom in the basement though.


----------



## Steveknj

rnbmusicfan said:


> I understand that but that carried over from Directv (satellite). As far as I know, Sony Movies and HDNet weren't both part of AT&T Now or AT&T TV streaming, right?


I had it with AT&T TV. It's not really obvious as it's not really touted, but the pack has been there for at least a 4 months.


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> So 3/5 are not new. They make those 2 TPG guys use the bathroom in the basement though.


lol


----------



## rnbmusicfan

NashGuy said:


> FuboTV is missing Warner channels. Will be interesting to see if any of them will fill their remaining major gaps and increase their price again to cover it. All of them, at some point, will have to raise prices just to keep up with increasing carriage costs for the channels they already have (or they'll have to drop some channels to bring costs down).


Apparently, Fubo also dropped A&E Networks (1/2 Hearst owned, 1/2 Disney owned) but likely operated by the Hearst side. I didn't know these to be expensive channels, but they were dropped for whatever reason.

I was looking at fubo's facebook page, and saw a number of customers complaining about this drop.


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> I am still waiting for your prediction that HBO MAX was going to take over the TV Streaming world for ATT and do away with Directv Stream


My prediction?
The Future of DIRECTV NOW Is HBO Max According to AT&T

_According to AT&T's CEO John Stankey, DIRECTV NOW will "merge" into HBO Max to offer a "combined product with a common search and user interface."_​
Maybe, just maybe, the recent decisions to spin off DTV Now/AT&T TV/DTV Stream to one company, and then sell off Warner/HBO Max to another company, put the kibosh on Stankey's above-quoted plans from back in 2019.



compnurd said:


> The same goes for PBS which we now know has a 3 year exclusive deal with YTTV


Ah, you now "know" that, do you? OK. I'm sure you have a inside connection at Google too, LOL.


----------



## rnbmusicfan

If PBS had an exclusive streaming station deal with YTTV, the PBS stations wouldn't be streaming on Local BTV. These stations were added after agreement between Didja (owner of Local BTV) and PBS, after Local BTV rolled out, and after YouTube TV added PBS stations.

Hulu, Sling, Fubo, DirecTV Stream just aren't interested in local PBS stations. The same way nobody wants to carry Weigel/or MeTV affiliated stations, even though they are higher rated than some of the cable networks.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> My prediction?
> The Future of DIRECTV NOW Is HBO Max According to AT&T
> 
> _According to AT&T's CEO John Stankey, DIRECTV NOW will "merge" into HBO Max to offer a "combined product with a common search and user interface."_​
> Maybe, just maybe, the recent decisions to spin off DTV Now/AT&T TV/DTV Stream to one company, and then sell off Warner/HBO Max to another company, put the kibosh on Stankey's above-quoted plans from back in 2019.
> 
> Ah, you now "know" that, do you? OK. I'm sure you have a inside connection at Google too, LOL.





rnbmusicfan said:


> If PBS had an exclusive streaming station deal with YTTV, the PBS stations wouldn't be streaming on Local BTV. These stations were added after agreement between Didja (owner of Local BTV) and PBS, after Local BTV rolled out, and after YouTube TV added PBS stations.
> 
> Hulu, Sling, Fubo, DirecTV Stream just aren't interested in local PBS stations. The same way nobody wants to carry Weigel/or MeTV affiliated stations, even though they are higher rated than some of the cable networks.


While I do have several friends that work at Google Pretty easy to find otherwise

PBS forges deal with YouTube TV for localized live streams


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> While I do have several friends that work at Google Pretty easy to find otherwise
> 
> PBS forges deal with YouTube TV for localized live streams


Did you read through this article? All it states is that a carriage deal was struck between PBS and YTTV, to include PBS stations plus the PBS Kids network. It states that it's the first such deal between PBS and a vMVPD but nowhere in the article does it state, or even imply, that it's an *exclusive* deal which would preclude other vMVPDs to strike such deals. In fact, the article includes the following passage which directly contradicts your belief that there's an exclusive deal in place between Google/YTTV and PBS:

_Rubenstein said there may be two more vMVPD agreements but would not say with whom. But he noted that AT&Ts DirecTV Now and Sony's PlayStation Vue are two OTT services that have steadfastly not expressed interest in pursuing a PBS deal.

Rubenstein hopes a smooth first rollout with YouTube TV will encourage others to come to the table. "A lot depends on how this goes," he said.
_​Rubenstein is PBS's digital chief, per the article. So he would know the situation.

Aside from that, it looks like PBS Kids is now live on DTV Stream based on user reports this week.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> Did you read through this article? All it states is that a carriage deal was struck between PBS and YTTV, to include PBS stations plus the PBS Kids network. It states that it's the first such deal between PBS and a vMVPD but nowhere in the article does it state, or even imply, that it's an *exclusive* deal which would preclude other vMVPDs to strike such deals. In fact, the article includes the following passage which directly contradicts your belief that there's an exclusive deal in place between Google/YTTV and PBS:
> 
> _Rubenstein said there may be two more vMVPD agreements but would not say with whom. But he noted that AT&Ts DirecTV Now and Sony's PlayStation Vue are two OTT services that have steadfastly not expressed interest in pursuing a PBS deal.
> 
> Rubenstein hopes a smooth first rollout with YouTube TV will encourage others to come to the table. "A lot depends on how this goes," he said.
> _​Rubenstein is PBS's digital chief, per the article. So he would know the situation.
> 
> Aside from that, it looks like PBS Kids is now live on DTV Stream based on user reports this week.


PBS kids is a National Channel. Not local coverage. You got 2 years to go before they can strike a deal for a channel on a service you don't have


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Did you read through this article? All it states is that a carriage deal was struck between PBS and YTTV, to include PBS stations plus the PBS Kids network. It states that it's the first such deal between PBS and a vMVPD but nowhere in the article does it state, or even imply, that it's an *exclusive* deal which would preclude other vMVPDs to strike such deals. In fact, the article includes the following passage which directly contradicts your belief that there's an exclusive deal in place between Google/YTTV and PBS:
> 
> _Rubenstein said there may be two more vMVPD agreements but would not say with whom. But he noted that AT&Ts DirecTV Now and Sony's PlayStation Vue are two OTT services that have steadfastly not expressed interest in pursuing a PBS deal.
> 
> Rubenstein hopes a smooth first rollout with YouTube TV will encourage others to come to the table. "A lot depends on how this goes," he said.
> _​Rubenstein is PBS's digital chief, per the article. So he would know the situation.
> 
> Aside from that, it looks like PBS Kids is now live on DTV Stream based on user reports this week.


Interestingly, I use Channels DVR which can pull in DirecTV Stream TV Anywhere channels into their guide and that includes one of our PBS channels. I can't get it directly through DirecTV Stream. It's kind of strange what I can get through that. It also includes SNY (our local NY Mets RSN) and oddly enough NESN which is the Boston RSN (and shows live games for the Red Sox, and I imagine Bruins and Celtics too). Unfortunately it doesn't include YES or MSG or WPIX.


----------



## Steveknj

So, I bit the bullet and am going back to cable after like 20 years. With the key missing channel on DirecTV Stream, the hassle of dealing with an OTA antenna, since no Locast and juggling all these apps, I'm going to give cable a try. Cost wise, I don't really think it's going to cost me that much more if at all. I got a bundle with internet, got all the channels I want, 6 months free of HBO Max, $100 rebate via gift card and I'll have Red Zone channel (don't care that much about that, but hey, it comes with the bundle I wanted. Six TVs to be hooked up. And no contract. So if it's THAT bad, I can cancel. I'm curious about their DVR, that's my biggest concern, but I took the most cloud DVR space they offered. I'm also going to hang on to my Channels DVR subscription and see how that works with Optimum. and I'll be upgrading to 500 internet.

So we'll see. Yeah, I realize I'm going backwards, and reconnecting the cord!


----------



## B. Shoe

Steveknj said:


> Yeah, I realize I'm going backwards, and reconnecting the cord!


You shouldn't look at it as going backwards. You're going in the direction of what's right for YOU. You've established what your priorities are in terms of wanted channels and other logistics, and it seems that streaming might not be the answer for you at the present. You also have an easy out with no contract obligations, so you're under little pressure with your decision.

If it works for you, it's a winning decision.:thumbsup:


----------



## lparsons21

B. Shoe said:


> You shouldn't look at it as going backwards. You're going in the direction of what's right for YOU. You've established what your priorities are in terms of wanted channels and other logistics, and it seems that streaming might not be the answer for you at the present. You also have an easy out with no contract obligations, so you're under little pressure with your decision.
> 
> If it works for you, it's a winning decision.:thumbsup:


I agree, whichever method works the best is the one to go with. And there's no doubt that the most convenient way is cable/sat. Streaming really does require adjusting in how we watch and manage our recordings.

In my case I could go back to cable for about what I would be paying for streaming, at least for a year.


----------



## B. Shoe

lparsons21 said:


> Streaming really does require adjusting in how we watch and manage our recordings.


I'd take it a step further and say streaming favors those that can adjust to the notion that a DVR isn't as necessary as we think, because of on-demand and channel apps. Again, not everyone is willing/able to make that adjustment, and it's entirely fine. But over time, it's become apparent that DVR functionality/capability is a priority for a lot of people on this forum.


----------



## Steveknj

B. Shoe said:


> You shouldn't look at it as going backwards. You're going in the direction of what's right for YOU. You've established what your priorities are in terms of wanted channels and other logistics, and it seems that streaming might not be the answer for you at the present. You also have an easy out with no contract obligations, so you're under little pressure with your decision.
> 
> If it works for you, it's a winning decision.:thumbsup:


Absolutely. I would have definitely gone back to DirecTV Sat if not for the 2 year contract. In a year when the cable company decides to jack up the prices, and DirecTV Stream has what I want, I can always go back. Not having to deal with everyone complaining and the hours I've spent trying to make it work will be worth it for me. There's something to be said for "It Just Works".


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> I agree, whichever method works the best is the one to go with. And there's no doubt that the most convenient way is cable/sat. Streaming really does require adjusting in how we watch and manage our recordings.
> 
> In my case I could go back to cable for about what I would be paying for streaming, at least for a year.


I really wanted to cut the cord and save money, but it just didn't work out like I had hoped. Hopefully the DVR is not horrible. I will keep Channels as an alternative if I get a decent amount of TV Anywhere channels, or, I might spring for a TiVO.


----------



## lparsons21

B. Shoe said:


> I'd take it a step further and say streaming favors those that can adjust to the notion that a DVR isn't as necessary as we think, because of on-demand and channel apps. Again, not everyone is willing/able to make that adjustment, and it's entirely fine. But over time, it's become apparent that DVR functionality/capability is a priority for a lot of people on this forum.


In my case I don't have a live streamer at all. Just using a combo of various VOD services. I might miss a show or two, but looking at the upcoming new shows/episodes, it will be very few that would be of interest.

Using the AppleTV for everything since their 'up next' tracking works with almost every service out there, the only notable exceptions are Netflix and AMC+.

I tried the Chromecast with Google TV and they do a smaller number of services, but do track Netflix's non-originals in their 'up next' strip.


----------



## lparsons21

Steveknj said:


> I really wanted to cut the cord and save money, but it just didn't work out like I had hoped. Hopefully the DVR is not horrible. I will keep Channels as an alternative if I get a decent amount of TV Anywhere channels, or, I might spring for a TiVO.


Tivo isn't looking good for the future. New FCC rules don't require cable companies to support cable cards and that's a big deal.

Frankly I think TiVo's days are numbered.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Tivo isn't looking good for the future. New FCC rules don't require cable companies to support cable cards and that's a big deal.
> 
> Frankly I think TiVo's days are numbered.


There future is IPTV which they are doing now with the Stream


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> There future is IPTV which they are doing now with the Stream


The Stream is just another AndroidTV based streaming device, doesn't replace the regular Tivo boxes nor require a subscription for guide services. Pretty poor product to replace the Tivo with its higher cost to purchase as well as the ongoing subscription requirement. All that points to Tivo being on shaky ground.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> The Stream is just another AndroidTV based streaming device, doesn't replace the regular Tivo boxes nor require a subscription for guide services. Pretty poor product to replace the Tivo with its higher cost to purchase as well as the ongoing subscription requirement. All that points to Tivo being on shaky ground.


It does replace it. Two cable companies already have it. Full Tivo interface. It's like the Osprey box as far as functionality. Boots right into live tv


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> It does replace it. Two cable companies already have it. Full Tivo interface. It's like the Osprey box as far as functionality. Boots right into live tv


It doesn't work on cable only iptv. So a cable company may have it, but they aren't using it for cable tv.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> It doesn't work on cable only iptv. So a cable company may have it, but they aren't using it for cable tv.


Your confusing the retail Tivo stream and the one the cable company uses. The retail is not meant to be used for IPTV. The one for cable is


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Your confusing the retail Tivo stream and the one the cable company uses. The retail is not meant to be used for IPTV. The one for cable is


Which is what I said, it is for IPTV only not cable tv.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Which is what I said, it is for IPTV only not cable tv.


Cable companies are shifting to IPTV. Comcast has several IPTV only channels now you need there specific app or box for. The only choice for TV from my local cable company is there IPTV service. They aren't signing up any new QAM cable customers anymore


----------



## Steveknj

B. Shoe said:


> I'd take it a step further and say streaming favors those that can adjust to the notion that a DVR isn't as necessary as we think, because of on-demand and channel apps. Again, not everyone is willing/able to make that adjustment, and it's entirely fine. But over time, it's become apparent that DVR functionality/capability is a priority for a lot of people on this forum.


The one problem I have with On Demand (at least in comparison to DVR) is that it requires you to watch ads. One of the main reasons I got a DVR in the first place (and a VHS recorder before that) was to skip ads where I could. I feel like OD with commercials is a step backwards. When I can record and skip commercials that also means I can get through a 30 minute show in 22 minutes and a 60 minute show in about 45 minutes. That's a timesaver as well. If commercials don't bother you, then sure OD is fine. I'm not and it's even worse now with every ad break having at least one ad for sports gambling.


----------



## lparsons21

Steveknj said:


> The one problem I have with On Demand (at least in comparison to DVR) is that it requires you to watch ads. One of the main reasons I got a DVR in the first place (and a VHS recorder before that) was to skip ads where I could. I feel like OD with commercials is a step backwards. When I can record and skip commercials that also means I can get through a 30 minute show in 22 minutes and a 60 minute show in about 45 minutes. That's a timesaver as well. If commercials don't bother you, then sure OD is fine. I'm not and it's even worse now with every ad break having at least one ad for sports gambling.


You're painting with a broad brush there! On Demand can be with ads or without as you should know. My On Demand subscriptions are a mix of ad-free and ad-supported and with the exception of Netflix and HBO Max, are all either free or very cheap with annual subscriptions.

Works for me since I can get all the sports I want via antenna, wouldn't be a good choice for those more sports inclined.


----------



## Steveknj

lparsons21 said:


> You're painting with a broad brush there! On Demand can be with ads or without as you should know. My On Demand subscriptions are a mix of ad-free and ad-supported and with the exception of Netflix and HBO Max, are all either free or very cheap with annual subscriptions.
> 
> Works for me since I can get all the sports I want via antenna, wouldn't be a good choice for those more sports inclined.


All it takes is a few key shows I watch that I'd be forced to watch ads, and I will be convinced I need to be able to skip them. It's not just sports (and I tend to watch sports live, not recorded, though I do some of that on occasion). ON Demand is fine for time shifting (assuming that it's still available by the time you are ready to watch), but those pesky ads! For example, I'm watching the new Steve Martin series on Hulu. Since I only have the $2 a month ad supported deal, I watch and I'm stuck with unskippable ads. It's annoying. Contrast that to watching a DVR recording of Resident Alien on SyFy. I can skip past the ads which is much better. Now I don't watch enough on Hulu to justify the ad-free version, so I deal with it, but I wouldn't want to go back to 1970s style TV where I HAD to watch ads for most of what I watch. Most network and basic cable On Demand force ads. Obviously I could go completely streaming pay for ad free version of all my services and skip them, but that's not how I watch TV. I hate all the app juggling (and one reason I'm heading back to cable).


----------



## Steveknj

Steveknj said:


> So, I bit the bullet and am going back to cable after like 20 years. With the key missing channel on DirecTV Stream, the hassle of dealing with an OTA antenna, since no Locast and juggling all these apps, I'm going to give cable a try. Cost wise, I don't really think it's going to cost me that much more if at all. I got a bundle with internet, got all the channels I want, 6 months free of HBO Max, $100 rebate via gift card and I'll have Red Zone channel (don't care that much about that, but hey, it comes with the bundle I wanted. Six TVs to be hooked up. And no contract. So if it's THAT bad, I can cancel. I'm curious about their DVR, that's my biggest concern, but I took the most cloud DVR space they offered. I'm also going to hang on to my Channels DVR subscription and see how that works with Optimum. and I'll be upgrading to 500 internet.
> 
> So we'll see. Yeah, I realize I'm going backwards, and reconnecting the cord!


In one day I remembered ALL the reasons I quit cable all those years ago. First I had a window for Sunday 8-11AM. Naturally he shows up at 10:50 (at least he wasn't late). Then, I assumed he was going to use the existing cabling, but of course, no, he installed his own cabling, making kind of a mess around the house. Then, I didn't realize that I won't be able to use the new cablemodem I bought and that I'll have to use theirs, a big giant monstrosity because everything, TV and Internet runs through that box. OK, I'll deal with that. Then, he couldn't get the mini cable boxes to sync with the main box (which should have been my first clue there's going to be an issue). Eventually we got ONE TV to sync, and he said they messed up the S.O. and he called it in to fix, and it should take 2 hours or so work and we'll have to play box roulette to finally get them to sync (using WPS). Finally an hour so later, they all sync. And of course one of the remotes was dead (The tech was long gone). No biggie, there's an optimum office not too far away, I'll exchange it for a new one. So the TVs are up and running, mucked around the settings and stuff, pretty decent, but as I suspected, the DVR is programmable decently but the controls are not great (no 30 second skip). Also no live rewind or stop, but I think that's a separate service (can you imagine?). So the TVs are fine, but the internet is horrible. It comes up, stays on for a few minutes and then, boom, down again. I thought it might be my own router, disconnected that, tried to connect separately to the Altice one, can't connect, no internet. This went on for a few hours, nothing I tried fixed it. My owned modem with Optimum never had that type of issue. I called them, got a tech on the line, reset the the modem, it worked for a bit longer this time, then it crapped out. Called them again, and they are coming out Tuesday. It worked for a bit longer last night, then crapped out again. This morning it SEEMS fine, but now none of the boxes can connect to the internet, so I cannot access any DVR recordings, I can't get to settings, I can't search for programs (as I wanted to start setting up my DVR for the upcoming new season). I'm getting an error which according to my online research says is either I'm missing a payment (not the case), or it's a network issue (which I'm assuming is the problem). So it's been nothing but a poop show so far. I am assuming once (if?) all the issues are solved this will work out fine. But that's a big if. I totally wish DirecTV didn't have that two year contract. I'd be back with them in a heartbeat.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> In one day I remembered ALL the reasons I quit cable all those years ago. First I had a window for Sunday 8-11AM. Naturally he shows up at 10:50 (at least he wasn't late). Then, I assumed he was going to use the existing cabling, but of course, no, he installed his own cabling, making kind of a mess around the house. Then, I didn't realize that I won't be able to use the new cablemodem I bought and that I'll have to use theirs, a big giant monstrosity because everything, TV and Internet runs through that box. OK, I'll deal with that. Then, he couldn't get the mini cable boxes to sync with the main box (which should have been my first clue there's going to be an issue). Eventually we got ONE TV to sync, and he said they messed up the S.O. and he called it in to fix, and it should take 2 hours or so work and we'll have to play box roulette to finally get them to sync (using WPS). Finally an hour so later, they all sync. And of course one of the remotes was dead (The tech was long gone). No biggie, there's an optimum office not too far away, I'll exchange it for a new one. So the TVs are up and running, mucked around the settings and stuff, pretty decent, but as I suspected, the DVR is programmable decently but the controls are not great (no 30 second skip). Also no live rewind or stop, but I think that's a separate service (can you imagine?). So the TVs are fine, but the internet is horrible. It comes up, stays on for a few minutes and then, boom, down again. I thought it might be my own router, disconnected that, tried to connect separately to the Altice one, can't connect, no internet. This went on for a few hours, nothing I tried fixed it. My owned modem with Optimum never had that type of issue. I called them, got a tech on the line, reset the the modem, it worked for a bit longer this time, then it crapped out. Called them again, and they are coming out Tuesday. It worked for a bit longer last night, then crapped out again. This morning it SEEMS fine, but now none of the boxes can connect to the internet, so I cannot access any DVR recordings, I can't get to settings, I can't search for programs (as I wanted to start setting up my DVR for the upcoming new season). I'm getting an error which according to my online research says is either I'm missing a payment (not the case), or it's a network issue (which I'm assuming is the problem). So it's been nothing but a poop show so far. I am assuming once (if?) all the issues are solved this will work out fine. But that's a big if. I totally wish DirecTV didn't have that two year contract. I'd be back with them in a heartbeat.


I could care less about the contract the programming costs are the costs... Its just the fees that kill it... I have 8 TV's 56 bucks a month just in box fees plus the advanced receiver fee is nuts


----------



## Davenlr

compnurd said:


> I could care less about the contract the programming costs are the costs... Its just the fees that kill it... I have 8 TV's 56 bucks a month just in box fees plus the advanced receiver fee is nuts


True. Even the base price is 2X the price of YouTubeTV, by the time you add in receiver fees, RSN fees, HD fee, DVR fee, Whole home fee, and taxes, the price is totally unacceptable. It is obviously a scam to rip off those folks in the country who have no other choice than satellite. Once Sunday Ticket is gone, I am really hoping they will get rid of the contracts and all those fees and match DirecTv Stream and just do a one time installation charge for those who dont already had a dish or two on the roof that work just fine.


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> I could care less about the contract the programming costs are the costs... Its just the fees that kill it... I have 8 TV's 56 bucks a month just in box fees plus the advanced receiver fee is nuts


Well not quite accurate. I have 6 TVs. DirecTV is requires a 2 year contract. For the first year, even with the 6 boxes the cost to me, would be around what I'm paying for Stream or Cable. It's the second year where the price skyrockets to make it completely cost prohibitive. Channel wise, I'm getting just about the same number of channels with Optimum (minus a couple of minor channels each way) and more than what I got with Stream (though as I've pointed out numerous times, on Stream was missing a couple of key channels, though that would be supplemented with Locast, and now an antenna. If DirecTV charged the same for the second year as they did for the first, I'd have gone back gladly.


----------



## compnurd

Here is the rumor and it is getting stronger... Short answer is there is not going to be any more boxes from Directv except Maybe a new server.. No more clients/HD boxes/dvrs etc... The rumor is they are redoing the Directv app to be like the Directv Stream app.. Except it will get its signal from ala(built in WVB on a HS17) or on your home network to operate... With this box fees will go away.. How this works in the commercial space IDK unless they release a modified HS17 that supports more the 8 connections.. From what I gather this was always the Directv intention before ATT with the HS17 and it still is now.. It also would have happened sooner then later regardless if ATT never sold them There is zero appetite to develop and produce new hardware minus a server


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> Well not quite accurate. I have 6 TVs. DirecTV is requires a 2 year contract. For the first year, even with the 6 boxes the cost to me, would be around what I'm paying for Stream or Cable. It's the second year where the price skyrockets to make it completely cost prohibitive. Channel wise, I'm getting just about the same number of channels with Optimum (minus a couple of minor channels each way) and more than what I got with Stream (though as I've pointed out numerous times, on Stream was missing a couple of key channels, though that would be supplemented with Locast, and now an antenna. If DirecTV charged the same for the second year as they did for the first, I'd have gone back gladly.


I mean its still accurate.. Directv Ultimate is 151 a month.. To get the same channels with my local cable company it is about 140 (and i am still missing channels and some HD versions)


----------



## Davenlr

compnurd said:


> I mean its still accurate.. Directv Ultimate is 151 a month.. To get the same channels with my local cable company it is about 140 (and i am still missing channels and some HD versions)


Our cable company advertises an $80 starter package. When you read the fine price, you have to pay $7.50 for the DVR, $16.50 for locals, and $7.50 for RSN, tax, franchise fees, and FCC fees. Total for their starter package is $126.50 for ONE ROOM. DirecTV is $119.50 for Entertainment (one room). DirectTV stream is $70+tax. YouTubeTV is $65.00+tax. Not sure about DISH, but last I checked it was two years for $80+tax+RSN+$15 for Hopper3 if you opt out of locals. 
While I REALLY miss my HR54 and 4K Genie for my one TV (and they charged me $15 because it was "two boxes") even though you needed both to get 4K, there is just no way I can justify paying almost 3X what I am paying for YouTubeTV with a $10 Tmobile discount. If actually preferring DirecTv stream with the Ospreys, but their lack of sports channels found on the YTTV base package and poor streaming in my area was a hard no. 
If DirecTv does allow a single HS17, and per TV apps to watch/record and makes the price competitive with streaming, Ill be back in a flash. Im NOT paying over $100 a month for the few channels I watch during the week (three) and sports channels on the weekend.


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> Our cable company advertises an $80 starter package. When you read the fine price, you have to pay $7.50 for the DVR, $16.50 for locals, and $7.50 for RSN, tax, franchise fees, and FCC fees. Total for their starter package is $126.50 for ONE ROOM. DirecTV is $119.50 for Entertainment (one room). DirectTV stream is $70+tax. YouTubeTV is $65.00+tax. Not sure about DISH, but last I checked it was two years for $80+tax+RSN+$15 for Hopper3 if you opt out of locals.
> While I REALLY miss my HR54 and 4K Genie for my one TV (and they charged me $15 because it was "two boxes") even though you needed both to get 4K, there is just no way I can justify paying almost 3X what I am paying for YouTubeTV with a $10 Tmobile discount. If actually preferring DirecTv stream with the Ospreys, but their lack of sports channels found on the YTTV base package and poor streaming in my area was a hard no.
> If DirecTv does allow a single HS17, and per TV apps to watch/record and makes the price competitive with streaming, Ill be back in a flash. Im NOT paying over $100 a month for the few channels I watch during the week (three) and sports channels on the weekend.


I was paying $115 a month for my internet (300mbs), plus $110 a month for DirecTV Stream (for the premier package I think, one step below the top), plus the movies extra pack.

I got a bundled package, with essentially the same level of package as Stream, DVR (highest package), and 500mbs Internet, it actually bundled in phone too, which I don't really need, total is about $235, so that's only around $10 more, but faster internet. Plus once everything is fixed, so much less headaches as everything is in one spot.


----------



## Davenlr

Yea, no way I could pay $235 a month. My uncapped internet 1Gb/s with free HBOMax is $65 and YouTubeTV is $54.94. So total is about $130 after tax. I would have internet anyway, so I dont usually include that when comparing TV packages. If ATT were to add RedZone and NFL channel in their $69.99 and fixed their server, I would head back over there just for the 5.1 audio and being able to use the Osprey remote.


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> Your confusing the retail Tivo stream and the one the cable company uses. The retail is not meant to be used for IPTV. The one for cable is


Right, except the boxes that TiVo makes for IPTV operators (running on either a highly customized version of Android TV or Linux) aren't called TiVo Stream. The hardware doesn't really have a brand name, as it's branded by the individual IPTV operators (and typically carries their logo in the on-screen UI). TiVo refers to all this as their "Next-Gen Platform Clients".

OTOH, the Android TV dongle that TiVo sells at retail, which just has the standard Android TV homescreen and a special pre-installed TiVo Stream app on it, is branded as the "TiVo Stream 4K". TiVo insists that they're not giving up on the TiVo Stream 4K but it's pretty much a flop. I suspect they'll abandon it by end of next year if not before.

Their main focus now isn't retail, but offering software solutions for small-to-mid-sized managed IPTV operators via their "Next-Gen Platform". (Well, their real main focus is licensing patents and guide data to just about everyone in the pay TV/video industry.) But I'm skeptical how many of those TiVo-using IPTV operators will still be operating their own services five years from now. Fewer and fewer broadband customers want cable TV and a growing slice of those who do will opt to take a nationally-advertised streaming cable TV service like YouTube TV, Hulu with Live TV, or DirecTV Stream.


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> Cable companies are shifting to IPTV. Comcast has several IPTV only channels now you need there specific app or box for. The only choice for TV from my local cable company is there IPTV service. They aren't signing up any new QAM cable customers anymore


Who's your local cable company, BTW?


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> Here is the rumor and it is getting stronger... Short answer is there is not going to be any more boxes from Directv except Maybe a new server.. No more clients/HD boxes/dvrs etc... The rumor is they are redoing the Directv app to be like the Directv Stream app.. Except it will get its signal from ala(built in WVB on a HS17) or on your home network to operate... With this box fees will go away.. How this works in the commercial space IDK unless they release a modified HS17 that supports more the 8 connections.. From what I gather this was always the Directv intention before ATT with the HS17 and it still is now.. It also would have happened sooner then later regardless if ATT never sold them There is zero appetite to develop and produce new hardware minus a server


As I've written about many times over the past few years on this forum, it looks like AT&T's original intention was to use the C71 Osprey box not just for AT&T TV but also as a client device that could connect to a next-gen DTV satellite home server, the HS27.

If they are, in fact, making a DTV client app (for Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV) that can work with the existing HS17 (after a firmware update, I'm sure), I can't see why they wouldn't want to also offer, as an option, their own Android TV-powered client box for use with it too, to replace the existing C61 Genie Mini that can't run any popular apps. Seems likely that it would be the same box they have planned to release as a replacement for DTV Stream's Osprey box.

BTW, looks like Dish satellite is also getting in on the idea of Android TV-powered receivers. It's a simple way to gain access to a giant app store, which is increasingly important as even cable/satellite subscribers spend a growing amount of time in apps like Netflix, Hulu, HBO Max, Disney+, YouTube, Prime Video, Apple TV+, etc.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1404720302303612929


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> In one day I remembered ALL the reasons I quit cable all those years ago. First I had a window for Sunday 8-11AM. Naturally he shows up at 10:50 (at least he wasn't late). Then, I assumed he was going to use the existing cabling, but of course, no, he installed his own cabling, making kind of a mess around the house. Then, I didn't realize that I won't be able to use the new cablemodem I bought and that I'll have to use theirs, a big giant monstrosity because everything, TV and Internet runs through that box. OK, I'll deal with that. Then, he couldn't get the mini cable boxes to sync with the main box (which should have been my first clue there's going to be an issue). Eventually we got ONE TV to sync, and he said they messed up the S.O. and he called it in to fix, and it should take 2 hours or so work and we'll have to play box roulette to finally get them to sync (using WPS). Finally an hour so later, they all sync. And of course one of the remotes was dead (The tech was long gone). No biggie, there's an optimum office not too far away, I'll exchange it for a new one. So the TVs are up and running, mucked around the settings and stuff, pretty decent, but as I suspected, the DVR is programmable decently but the controls are not great (no 30 second skip). Also no live rewind or stop, but I think that's a separate service (can you imagine?). So the TVs are fine, but the internet is horrible. It comes up, stays on for a few minutes and then, boom, down again. I thought it might be my own router, disconnected that, tried to connect separately to the Altice one, can't connect, no internet. This went on for a few hours, nothing I tried fixed it. My owned modem with Optimum never had that type of issue. I called them, got a tech on the line, reset the the modem, it worked for a bit longer this time, then it crapped out. Called them again, and they are coming out Tuesday. It worked for a bit longer last night, then crapped out again. This morning it SEEMS fine, but now none of the boxes can connect to the internet, so I cannot access any DVR recordings, I can't get to settings, I can't search for programs (as I wanted to start setting up my DVR for the upcoming new season). I'm getting an error which according to my online research says is either I'm missing a payment (not the case), or it's a network issue (which I'm assuming is the problem). So it's been nothing but a poop show so far. I am assuming once (if?) all the issues are solved this will work out fine. But that's a big if. I totally wish DirecTV didn't have that two year contract. I'd be back with them in a heartbeat.


Yikes.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Yikes.


They are supposed to come this morning. The internet has been more stable, though it did go out a couple of times during the day yesterday (while working from home of course). I realized that the one box near the router can work through ethernet, so I hooked that up and it seems better. I can watch DVRed stuff (though it did miss a recording of The Daily Show). The DVR is actually not bad and I found the 30 second skip button so that helped make the experience decent. And I can manually pad!! I still cannot get ANY of the other boxes to connect via wifi. I even added my existing Mesh Router as access points but still, no go. So we'll see how that goes.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> Who's your local cable company, BTW?


Armstrong


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> As I've written about many times over the past few years on this forum, it looks like AT&T's original intention was to use the C71 Osprey box not just for AT&T TV but also as a client device that could connect to a next-gen DTV satellite home server, the HS27.
> 
> If they are, in fact, making a DTV client app (for Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV) that can work with the existing HS17 (after a firmware update, I'm sure), I can't see why they wouldn't want to also offer, as an option, their own Android TV-powered client box for use with it too, to replace the existing C61 Genie Mini that can't run any popular apps. Seems likely that it would be the same box they have planned to release as a replacement for DTV Stream's Osprey box.
> 
> BTW, looks like Dish satellite is also getting in on the idea of Android TV-powered receivers. It's a simple way to gain access to a giant app store, which is increasingly important as even cable/satellite subscribers spend a growing amount of time in apps like Netflix, Hulu, HBO Max, Disney+, YouTube, Prime Video, Apple TV+, etc.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1404720302303612929


To be clear This was all Directv's intention.. Not ATT from the Get-Go What does remain to be seen is how this does work with clients since the current platform is all Linux.. They recently started testing with pushing all graphic drawing and such off the server and onto the client.. The good news is pretty much any Fire stick or whatever has probably 10 times the horsepower of any Mini client so performance shouldn't be an issue It doesnt sound like there is any plans to offer an "Osprey" to work with this service although who knows.. The new one could be compatible with both


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> Right, except the boxes that TiVo makes for IPTV operators (running on either a highly customized version of Android TV or Linux) aren't called TiVo Stream. The hardware doesn't really have a brand name, as it's branded by the individual IPTV operators (and typically carries their logo in the on-screen UI). TiVo refers to all this as their "Next-Gen Platform Clients".
> 
> OTOH, the Android TV dongle that TiVo sells at retail, which just has the standard Android TV homescreen and a special pre-installed TiVo Stream app on it, is branded as the "TiVo Stream 4K". TiVo insists that they're not giving up on the TiVo Stream 4K but it's pretty much a flop. I suspect they'll abandon it by end of next year if not before.
> 
> Their main focus now isn't retail, but offering software solutions for small-to-mid-sized managed IPTV operators via their "Next-Gen Platform". (Well, their real main focus is licensing patents and guide data to just about everyone in the pay TV/video industry.) But I'm skeptical how many of those TiVo-using IPTV operators will still be operating their own services five years from now. Fewer and fewer broadband customers want cable TV and a growing slice of those who do will opt to take a nationally-advertised streaming cable TV service like YouTube TV, Hulu with Live TV, or DirecTV Stream.


Oh they are still calling it Tivo Stream.. My LCC is calling it EXP Stream and Service Electric is calling it a Tivo Stream


----------



## gio12

Davenlr said:


> Yea, no way I could pay $235 a month. My uncapped internet 1Gb/s with free HBOMax is $65 and YouTubeTV is $54.94. So total is about $130 after tax. I would have internet anyway, so I dont usually include that when comparing TV packages. If ATT were to add RedZone and NFL channel in their $69.99 and fixed their server, I would head back over there just for the 5.1 audio and being able to use the Osprey remote.


Same here


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> Oh they are still calling it Tivo Stream.. My LCC is calling it EXP Stream and Service Electric is calling it a Tivo Stream


Yes, I see that Service Electric is, in fact, branding it as "TiVo Stream". I stand corrected!

Service Electric Cablevision | TiVo Stream

That said, that appears to be a branding decision that only certain IPTV partners (e.g. Service Electric) are making. Here's another operator near me, TDS, that uses TiVo's Android TV IPTV boxes for their TDS TV+ service. They simply refer to their wireless box as "the TDS TV+ receiver" and barely reference TiVo at all:

TDS TV+ Programming & Packages |TDS

As I said, TiVo doesn't call those boxes TiVo Stream. At TiVo, that specific brand name refers to a now-defunct hardware accessory that allowed certain older model DVRs to stream their live and recorded TV over the home network to mobile devices:

https://www.amazon.com/TiVo-TCDA94000-Stream/dp/B008RWHC0E


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> To be clear This was all Directv's intention.. Not ATT from the Get-Go What does remain to be seen is how this does work with clients since the current platform is all Linux.. They recently started testing with pushing all graphic drawing and such off the server and onto the client.. The good news is pretty much any Fire stick or whatever has probably 10 times the horsepower of any Mini client so performance shouldn't be an issue It doesnt sound like there is any plans to offer an "Osprey" to work with this service although who knows.. The new one could be compatible with both


Maybe it was DTV's intention prior to the AT&T acquisition. I only know that I didn't see any evidence of such a plan until the first draft of the Osprey user manual (which mentioned that it might work with an "HS27") that AT&T filed with the FCC a few years ago.

If they do in fact roll out a client app that can replace the C61 Mini, it'll be interesting to see how they price it. DTV rakes in significant revenue from those $7/mo receiver rentals. And they tried to charge the same for their old RVU software-based client built into certain TVs. Hard to see how they could get away with charging to use a client app now though given the competitive realities that exist (including from their own DTV Stream).


----------



## Steveknj

Steveknj said:


> They are supposed to come this morning. The internet has been more stable, though it did go out a couple of times during the day yesterday (while working from home of course). I realized that the one box near the router can work through ethernet, so I hooked that up and it seems better. I can watch DVRed stuff (though it did miss a recording of The Daily Show). The DVR is actually not bad and I found the 30 second skip button so that helped make the experience decent. And I can manually pad!! I still cannot get ANY of the other boxes to connect via wifi. I even added my existing Mesh Router as access points but still, no go. So we'll see how that goes.


Update: (and sorry for this bit of hijack). I'm getting VERY frustrated, which is a shame, because generally the channels are what I want, the picture is really good, and the DVR is fine. Here are my frustration points and why I'm beginning to think this was a mistake:

1) Internet / Mini box issue...I figured out that my poor signal was because the MESH router was interfering with the Altice Router. Taking out the MESH fixed the signal issue, but created a new one and that the signal in the back of the house is not great (reason I put in MESH router in the first place). I'm going to call and find out if it's possible to disable WiFI from the Altice router, just use it as a cable modem and use the MESH as my router. But, I don't know if the mini receivers will work that way.

2) Internet drops - been getting these quite a bit. Had a tech here and he said the line to the house needed to be upgraded, so they are coming today at some point to do that. Lets see if that works.

3) Harmony Remote - These are my lifelines, only they don't seem to work with this box. So that means I have to use one remote to change the channels and another remote for volume and TV/AVR on and off. I feel this is a step backwards, unless I can get THEIR remote to do these functions, but I can't so far. I read somewhere that you can "disable" bluetooth on the cable box, and I tried that, and it didn't work, but now when I try and resync the box with remote to reactivate bluetooth, it fails. And that makes the remote laggy just using IR.

4) AVR to Cable box handshaking - This is probably the most annoying. More often than not, when I change the channel, use DVR functionality (like FF/Skipping/pause) the handshake between the AVR and cable box loses sync and I get no sound on my AVR. I've never had this before. I tried swapping the cable boxs, HDMI cables to no avail.

The days of just plugging in your cable box seems to be over. I may wind up calling them over the weekend and telling them to just put my internet only service back, let me use my own modem and router, and go back to DirecTV Stream / OTA Antenna, or back to satellite. Not sure yet


----------



## Davenlr

1: Go to the IP address of the Altice router, log in, and turn off the WiFi radios (AFTER you run an ethernet cable to your MESH system, and put it in Access Point mode). This should allow your MESH system to do all the WiFi work as an access point, and the Altice will only do the IP assignments and ethernet direct connects.

2: No idea

3: You need a Harmony HUB to do bluetooth. I also had to upgrade to a HUB to get it to work with my Nvidia Shield. If your current remote is not compatible, its going to be REAL expensive now since Harmony has discontinued making remotes, but you can use a smart phone. If your remote IS compatible with the HUB, it will be about $99 to convert over. Hub communicates with Bluetooth, WiFi Direct, IP, or IR so covers about everything.

4: Make sure the AVR HDMI port for the cable box is set to Enhanced (if it supports HDMI 2.0b or higher). Most newer cable boxes are 4K capable, and will be unable to correctly handshake with the AVR if the box is using HDMI2.0b and the AVR is set to HDMI 1.4. Worst case, run a toslink optical cable to the AVR if your cable box is not used to receive Dolby Atmos.


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> 1: Go to the IP address of the Altice router, log in, and turn off the WiFi radios (AFTER you run an ethernet cable to your MESH system, and put it in Access Point mode). This should allow your MESH system to do all the WiFi work as an access point, and the Altice will only do the IP assignments and ethernet direct connects.


I could not find a way to turn off the WiFi radios on the Altice screens. I've looked and I've had others look. If you can show me where, that would be great. That's why others have said, call them.



> 2: No idea


They never showed. I called them, they said the tech need to talk to the cablers to provision the right stuff, they've had three days now. Why would that take 3 days to happen? Cable customer service at their finest 



> 3: You need a Harmony HUB to do bluetooth. I also had to upgrade to a HUB to get it to work with my Nvidia Shield. If your current remote is not compatible, its going to be REAL expensive now since Harmony has discontinued making remotes, but you can use a smart phone. If your remote IS compatible with the HUB, it will be about $99 to convert over. Hub communicates with Bluetooth, WiFi Direct, IP, or IR so covers about everything.


Harmony Hub is exactly what I have. It doesn't work. I've tried the remote that comes with the hub and the phone app. No go.



> 4: Make sure the AVR HDMI port for the cable box is set to Enhanced (if it supports HDMI 2.0b or higher). Most newer cable boxes are 4K capable, and will be unable to correctly handshake with the AVR if the box is using HDMI2.0b and the AVR is set to HDMI 1.4. Worst case, run a toslink optical cable to the AVR if your cable box is not used to receive Dolby Atmos.


These are brand new, latest version, cables that should even support HDMI 2.1. I ended up connecting the cable box directly to the TV and let the TV and the AVR duke it it. Seems to be working so far. My other 4k devices have no issues with the receiver, my old DirecTV Stream Osprey boxes as well, as the previous HR54 and Genie minis had no issues. I don't like the idea of directly connecting to the TV for a few reasons, one is the OSD for volume doesn't seem to work this way, and if there IS some Dolby Atmos sound coming from the cable box for 4k, it won't pick it up due to ARC issues.


----------



## Davenlr

Steveknj said:


> I could not find a way to turn off the WiFi radios on the Altice screens. I've looked and I've had others look. If you can show me where, that would be great. That's why others have said, call them.
> Harmony Hub is exactly what I have. It doesn't work. I've tried the remote that comes with the hub and the phone app. .


What cable company and what model of router? I did find this, but not sure if it applies to you:
How to Turn Off WiFi on Optimum Router? - RouterCtrl

On the harmony, did you go into bluetooth pairing, and pair the device you are wanting to control with the hub?


----------



## techguy88

NashGuy said:


> Yes, I see that Service Electric is, in fact, branding it as "TiVo Stream". I stand corrected!
> 
> Service Electric Cablevision | TiVo Stream
> 
> That said, that appears to be a branding decision that only certain IPTV partners (e.g. Service Electric) are making. Here's another operator near me, TDS, that uses TiVo's Android TV IPTV boxes for their TDS TV+ service. They simply refer to their wireless box as "the TDS TV+ receiver" and barely reference TiVo at all:
> 
> TDS TV+ Programming & Packages |TDS
> 
> As I said, TiVo doesn't call those boxes TiVo Stream. At TiVo, that specific brand name refers to a now-defunct hardware accessory that allowed certain older model DVRs to stream their live and recorded TV over the home network to mobile devices:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/TiVo-TCDA94000-Stream/dp/B008RWHC0E


The devices are named by the cable company however it seems they have a license to use the "TiVo Stream" brand in leu of their own. Officially TiVo refers to these devices as _TiVo Experience for Streaming Devices_ but this is for the software, not the hardware. Cable ops can use either SEI Robotics or Arris to manufacture the actual hardware. Service Electric always uses whatever name TiVo uses for the corresponding retail version. Armstrong & TDS on the other hand are big into pushing their own brand over TiVo except where they have to use TiVo (i.e. a specific feature.)


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> The devices are named by the cable company however it seems they have a license to use the "TiVo Stream" brand in leu of their own. Officially TiVo refers to these devices as _TiVo Experience for Streaming Devices_ but this is for the software, not the hardware. Cable ops can use either SEI Robotics or Arris to manufacture the actual hardware. Service Electric always uses whatever name TiVo uses for the corresponding retail version. Armstrong & TDS on the other hand are big into pushing their own brand over TiVo except where they have to use TiVo (i.e. a specific feature.)


No, officially TiVo refers to the software as the "TiVo Next Gen Platform," although they do use the phrase "TiVo Experience 4" to refer to the current UI (code-named Hydra) that they deploy on both the Next Gen Platform as well as recent-model retail DVRs such as the Bolt and Edge. A quick Google search for the phrase "TiVo Experience for Streaming Devices" reveals that pretty much no one is using that wording. (It seems to be embedded in a random PDF from an operator named Blue Stream Fiber and that's about it.) Perhaps TiVo intends to use the "TiVo Experience for Streaming Devices" brand in conjunction with planned TiVo-branded IPTV client apps for Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV and Android TV that they had said would be made available to their IPTV partners. But I'm not sure if those apps have ever materialized so far.

As far as the hardware that IPTV operators are using to deploy the Next Gen Platform, there is no corresponding retail version. Neither the TiVo Stream 4K nor the original TiVo Stream hardware branded and sold by TiVo at retail have anything to do with the boxes that Service Electric, Armstrong, TDS, etc. are using to deploy the TiVo Next Gen Platform.


----------



## don23805

OK, new guy on the block. Thanx b4pjoe for referring me to this thread. I had posted my stuff on a different forum, I guess. I moved to central VA from CA 6 years ago, where I had nice adequately fast Comcast TV & internet. Now I'm in the woods about 10 miles south of Petersburg. No cable, etc. HughesNet which is terrible (7 mbps on a good day). Verizon hotspot is better, but only for casual internet browsing. So for TV I have DTV satellite with a local HR44-500 DVR. Works fine. Still waiting for Elon Musk's satellite system. 
In my Richmond apartment (where the social/cultural life is) they supply internet at 10mbps (upgradeable for a fee). I considered DTV with a dish looking out the window, but then heard about DTV Stream. Other than the channel lineup not including the local PBS station (a Fav) it looked OK for $70 + $5 for their box. Ordered Friday, FedEx delivered Saturday. Set it up Sunday. Nice pic & sound. First problem was that included 20 hours of cloud DVR was getting filled up just with Sunday morning TV shows! And they don't seem to have a way to record a series (e.g., NBC Nightly News) and only keep the 2 most recent episodes, like on DTV Satellite. Spent an hour with the CS Rep (who doesn't speak the same dialect of English that I do, and only answers the questions to which she already knows the answers, as opposed to the question I'm asking). My options seemed to be: 1. manually delete episodes that are no longer of interest (too much trouble); 2. ante up another $10/mo for unlimited DVR so I don't care. But I still don't get PBS Newshour. Comments here suggest that I should look at YTTV. I have a 2 year old Samsung 50" at each locale which suggest that maybe I can just pay YTTV and the Smart TV will do it all. Interested in the group's suggestions on how to proceed. I think I have about a week to return the DTV Stream box and cancel.
73 & TIA
Don


----------



## Davenlr

I have YouTubeTV and love it. Has more sports channels, but lacks the local RSN. Does not charge extra for the DVR space. It allows you to record a series easily but keeps them for 9 months, no way to delete the watched ones, but it will show a red bar on the bottom of episodes you have watched, and puts the new ones at the front of the list.
It does NOT have channel numbers or its own "cable box" if that is important to you. It does allow you to organize the list to put all your favorite channels at the top of the "live guide" so you can arrange it however you like.
Missing are the DVR and GUIDE buttons, you have to hit "back" a few times to get back to the home screen.
Any other questions, just ask.


----------



## NashGuy

don23805 said:


> My options seemed to be: 1. manually delete episodes that are no longer of interest (too much trouble); 2. ante up another $10/mo for unlimited DVR so I don't care. But I still don't get PBS Newshour. Comments here suggest that I should look at YTTV. I have a 2 year old Samsung 50" at each locale which suggest that maybe I can just pay YTTV and the Smart TV will do it all. Interested in the group's suggestions on how to proceed. I think I have about a week to return the DTV Stream box and cancel.
> 73 & TIA
> Don


Don, YTTV is the only streaming cable TV service that includes PBS. But you should be aware that your local PBS station, VPM, live streams via their website and the PBS app for free. They also make their recent shows available to stream for free on-demand via their app and website.

As for PBS NewsHour, it's also available to stream for free by about 8 PM Eastern time every day in the free YouTube app (ad-free, just as it is on PBS). Looks like they keep at least the past couple weeks' episodes on YouTube too. But aside from NewsHour (and maybe Washington Week, also on YouTube), if you want to stream other recent PBS shows on demand, you're better off going to the PBS app. If you support your local PBS station with a donation of at least $5/mo ($60/yr), then you also gain access to PBS Passport, which unlocks lots of additional older content within the PBS app. Without Passport, you're mainly restricted to streaming content that aired on PBS within the past two weeks (although Frontline is available going back years for free, and selected rotating older episodes of Nature and Nova are too). Both the PBS and YouTube apps can be installed on the DTV Stream box you have.

All that said, you may find that you like YTTV better than DTV Stream and/or that it's cheaper. But be aware that YTTV lacks a few channels that DTV Stream offers, including MASN, History, A&E, Lifetime and the Hallmark channels. On the other hand, YTTV has NFL Network, which DTV Stream lacks. Depending on your model smart TV, it may allow you to install the YTTV app on it directly. Otherwise, you can buy a Chromecast with Google TV, Roku, Fire TV, or Apple TV device to use the YTTV app.


----------



## crkeehn

NashGuy said:


> Don, YTTV is the only streaming cable TV service that includes PBS. But you should be aware that your local PBS station, VPM, live streams via their website and the PBS app for free. They also make their recent shows available to stream for free on-demand via their app and website.
> 
> As for PBS NewsHour, it's also available to stream for free by about 8 PM Eastern time every day in the free YouTube app (ad-free, just as it is on PBS). Looks like they keep at least the past couple weeks' episodes on YouTube too. But aside from NewsHour (and maybe Washington Week, also on YouTube), if you want to stream other recent PBS shows on demand, you're better off going to the PBS app. If you support your local PBS station with a donation of at least $5/mo ($60/yr), then you also gain access to PBS Passport, which unlocks lots of additional older content within the PBS app. Without Passport, you're mainly restricted to streaming content that aired on PBS within the past two weeks (although Frontline is available going back years for free, and selected rotating older episodes of Nature and Nova are too). Both the PBS and YouTube apps can be installed on the DTV Stream box you have.
> 
> All that said, you may find that you like YTTV better than DTV Stream and/or that it's cheaper. But be aware that YTTV lacks a few channels that DTV Stream offers, including MASN, History, A&E, Lifetime and the Hallmark channels. On the other hand, YTTV has NFL Network, which DTV Stream lacks. Depending on your model smart TV, it may allow you to install the YTTV app on it directly. Otherwise, you can buy a Chromecast with Google TV, Roku, Fire TV, or Apple TV device to use the YTTV app.


Just an observation about recommending Roku as a YTTV platform. Roku and Google are apparently still on the outs. If you have a Roku with YTTV already installed you may be okay. The YTTV app is currently not available through the Roku Store. The Roku Youtube app is supposed to contain a link to YTTV, however there are frequent reports of issues with error messages and poor performance.


----------



## don23805

Thanx for all the YTTV advice. It seems to support my Samsung TV OK. Laborious signing up but I finally got it done for the free trial. I'm currently at home with crappy Hughesnet so there is lots of buffering and a pretty poor picture. Will try it this weekend from the apartment on the faster internet. Hope it doesn't hiccup from a different TV.


----------



## billsharpe

crkeehn said:


> Just an observation about recommending Roku as a YTTV platform. Roku and Google are apparently still on the outs. If you have a Roku with YTTV already installed you may be okay. The YTTV app is currently not available through the Roku Store. The Roku Youtube app is supposed to contain a link to YTTV, however there are frequent reports of issues with error messages and poor performance.


The YTTV button indeed shows up on the YouTube app on my Roku TV set. I am concerned about keeping track of 85 YTTV channels with my Roku remote, which doesn't include a number pad. I also notice that YTTV only carries channels 28 and 58 as PBS stations in the LA area but not channel 50, which broadcasts almost all of the regular PBS programs.


----------



## lparsons21

billsharpe said:


> The YTTV button indeed shows up on the YouTube app on my Roku TV set. I am concerned about keeping track of 85 YTTV channels with my Roku remote, which doesn't include a number pad. I also notice that YTTV only carries channels 28 and 58 as PBS stations in the LA area but not channel 50, which broadcasts almost all of the regular PBS programs.


The YTTV app on tablets allows you to re-arrange and filter the channels to make it more manageable.


----------



## NashGuy

crkeehn said:


> Just an observation about recommending Roku as a YTTV platform. Roku and Google are apparently still on the outs. If you have a Roku with YTTV already installed you may be okay. The YTTV app is currently not available through the Roku Store. The Roku Youtube app is supposed to contain a link to YTTV, however there are frequent reports of issues with error messages and poor performance.


Yeah, I wondered whether that issue between Roku and YTTV was still going on but still I saw Roku listed as the first supported platform on the YTTV's own site, I thought probably not. The best platform for YTTV is probably Google's own Chromecast with Google TV since they integrate YTTV into the home screen and also let you program a button on the remote to take you directly into the YTTV app.


----------



## Steveknj

But what about AT&T TV (DirecTV Stream)? This is after all a thread about that, isn't it?


----------



## MysteryMan

Steveknj said:


> But what about AT&T TV (DirecTV Stream)? This is after all a thread about that, isn't it?


You mean this thread has gone off topic? I'm shocked!


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> But what about AT&T TV (DirecTV Stream)? This is after all a thread about that, isn't it?


Heh. Not much to say about it right now, really. I did see on reddit where AT&T posted that the DTV engineering team is looking for beta testers for an update to the Osprey box that will provide a toggle to turn off HDR. So I guess it'll never get the ability to auto-switch based on the native format of the content being played. Still though, being able to turn HDR on and off manually is betting than forcing everything to output in HDR all the time, given that 0% of the content carried by DTV Stream is actually in HDR.


----------



## Davenlr

NashGuy said:


> Heh. Not much to say about it right now, really. I did see on reddit where AT&T posted that the DTV engineering team is looking for beta testers for an update to the Osprey box that will provide a toggle to turn off HDR.


It stopped forcing HDR when it updated to Android 10. At least both of mine did.


----------



## NashGuy

Davenlr said:


> It stopped forcing HDR when it updated to Android 10. At least both of mine did.


It's weird because some folks report the same as you but then others say that the Android 10 update didn't fix the issue for them. Here's the post from AT&T's official reddit account:


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/DirectvStream/comments/psou9e


----------



## Davenlr

NashGuy said:


> It's weird because some folks report the same as you but then others say that the Android 10 update didn't fix the issue for them.


Are there more than one version of the Osprey?


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> Are there more than one version of the Osprey?


I don't think so, the only change I'm aware of is that they replaced the original remote that was so disliked.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> It's weird because some folks report the same as you but then others say that the Android 10 update didn't fix the issue for them. Here's the post from AT&T's official reddit account:
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/DirectvStream/comments/psou9e


Seems to depend on the TV. My Vizios are fine. LG still has HDR


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Are there more than one version of the Osprey?


No


----------



## mklimek

FWIW, my Samsung has a picture setting called 'HDMI UHD Color" that can be set per input. On my Roku, setting that input to 'On' results in the Roku passing along an HDR signal if the content is using it. If the content is not using it, it passes along the SDR signal.

On the Osprey, setting the input to 'On' results in an HDR signal being passed regardless of content. Setting it to 'Off' results in an SDR signal passed regardless of content. This is after the Osprey update. Prior to the update, HDR was passed regardless of any setting on my TV.


----------



## rnbmusicfan

Steveknj said:


> I was paying $115 a month for my internet (300mbs), plus $110 a month for DirecTV Stream (for the premier package I think, one step below the top), plus the movies extra pack.
> 
> I got a bundled package, with essentially the same level of package as Stream, DVR (highest package), and 500mbs Internet, it actually bundled in phone too, which I don't really need, total is about $235, so that's only around $10 more, but faster internet. Plus once everything is fixed, so much less headaches as everything is in one spot.


I renewed my Verizon FIOS triple play bundle at a slightly higher rate for two more years, but apparently FIOS is no longer offering bundles to new customers, and if I drop my bundle and later want it back, I can't get it back. I asked the agent today, and what I got was more a retention offer.

FIOS is now offering mix and match as its primary options, which is essentially now no bundles, and their basic cable starts at $85/month, and next one, Most TV is $105 (but includes Epix, Showtime and Starz). It includes one set-top DVR box, but each additional is $12/month.

With that price point, DirecTV Stream is actually competitive. Plus one gets the option of a channel number remote and viewing much like FIOS, than solely going through an app, and getting kicked out of an app (i.e. using Sling).

DirecTV Stream has the major 4 networks, the Warner networks, and some of the specialty nets like Hallmark and AXS TV, which makes it more closer aligned to what FIOS TV would offer.


----------



## techguy88

rnbmusicfan said:


> I renewed my Verizon FIOS triple play bundle at a slightly higher rate for two more years, but apparently FIOS is no longer offering bundles to new customers, and if I drop my bundle and later want it back, I can't get it back. I asked the agent today, and what I got was more a retention offer.
> 
> FIOS is now offering mix and match as its primary options, which is essentially now no bundles, and their basic cable starts at $85/month, and next one, Most TV is $105 (but includes Epix, Showtime and Starz). It includes one set-top DVR box, but each additional is $12/month.
> 
> With that price point, DirecTV Stream is actually competitive. Plus one gets the option of a channel number remote and viewing much like FIOS, than solely going through an app, and getting kicked out of an app (i.e. using Sling).
> 
> DirecTV Stream has the major 4 networks, the Warner networks, and some of the specialty nets like Hallmark and AXS TV, which makes it more closer aligned to what FIOS TV would offer.


Altice USA rolled out their "Optimum FlexAbility" program to their Optimum/Suddenlink footprints in response to FiOS' Mix and Match. However in Altice's case their TV product has been migrated to a streaming/IPTV based service with Cloud DVR. They include 1 Altice One Mini in the TV package now but give you the option to use Apple TV (HD/4K) in place of other Altice One Mini boxes. Their Cloud DVR service is also the most expensive for the least amount of space.

The SL area I am moving to the base Cloud DVR service w/ 25 hours is $8/month (free if you get their 1 Gig plan), Cloud DVR Plus with 75 Hours is $10/month and Cloud DVR Max with 150 Hours is $20/month.

Suddenlink's TV plans are weird so depending on your "must have" channels makes DirecTV Stream a more viable option. Like if you want all the Top Channels in D* Stream Entertainment (or has a kid that must have Disney Junior) on Suddenlink you need their second to highest tier (Suddenlink Select). In terms of pricing and total channels Suddenlink Select is like their equivalent to D* Stream Ultimate.

Suddenlink Premier is the equivalent to D* Stream Premier minus the Cinemax, Showtime & Starz channels. D* Stream Premier (w/ the $10 Unlimited Cloud DVR option) actually is a few bucks cheaper than Suddenlink Premier (when you get the $20 Cloud DVR Max, Cinemax, Showtime/TMC & Starz add-ons).

Really the only benefit of going with Suddenlink's TV services vs D* Stream comes down to PBS, other diginets, NFL Network & NFL RedZone and Pac-12 Network. Outside of that most people would be better off getting SL Internet + DirecTV Stream if they are wanting to replicate a traditional TV service.


----------



## NashGuy

Finally...

*PBS Comes to DirecTV Stream*


----------



## Davenlr

If only they would sell us the DirecTv version of "Red Zone" I would be in heaven.


----------



## compnurd

I got the HDR removal software last night


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> If only they would sell us the DirecTv version of "Red Zone" I would be in heaven.


Well that's going to be gone in 2 years so lol


----------



## Davenlr

compnurd said:


> I got the HDR removal software last night


Just got it. Looks much better.



compnurd said:


> Well that's going to be gone in 2 years so lol


Still be two years of $10/mo they could get for a 4 months each year. Lots of football fans out there.


----------



## b4pjoe

When I couldn't get NFL ST free this year I tried to get them to let me buy stand alone Redzone. It was a hard no from them.


----------



## Davenlr

Xfinity did that to me, trying to tell me my Tivo/cablecard could not pick up the channel without paying them for their X1 box. That was a total lie, of course, so I canceled on the spot.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Xfinity did that to me, trying to tell me my Tivo/cablecard could not pick up the channel without paying them for their X1 box. That was a total lie, of course, so I canceled on the spot.


eh Xfinity has a number if IPTV only channels that do require there box


----------



## Davenlr

compnurd said:


> eh Xfinity has a number if IPTV only channels that do require there box


Not that one, because my neighbor had an X1 box and a Tivo with a cablecard, and got it on both. That is why I knew they were lying to me. Otherwise I would have probably bought it. Luckily I got my money back selling my Tivo Edge, and went with streaming. Much Much better picture quality.


----------



## NashGuy

Will be interesting to see what happens to RedZone and NFL Network, as it's rumored that the NFL is looking to sell a stake in NFL Media (which owns those channels) along with rights to Sunday Ticket.

Mega-Deal for Sunday Ticket, NFL Media Stake Would Boost Club Values - Sportico.com


----------



## NashGuy

Well, AT&T is finally shutting down Watch TV. It was a very skinny $15/mo live cable channel bundle, mostly given away as a freebie, along with Spotify, on certain unlimited AT&T cell plans. They had stopped selling it in June 2020. It will completely shut down end of next month. They're taking away the free Spotify on those cell plans too, but swapping in free HBO Max.

Wonder how much longer until they announce a shutdown of their other (much bigger) zombie cable TV service, Uverse TV? They stopped selling it in spring 2020, after the nationwide launch of AT&T TV. Different situation with Uverse TV, though, because I think it may have local franchise operating agreements in place with city/county governments around the country. I believe that was the deal with CenturyLink's Prism TV (a similar managed IPTV service running on the same software/hardware platform as Uverse TV), which began shutting down in some markets last year and has continued to go dark in remaining markets this year. I think it's completely shut down at this point.


----------



## Davenlr

compnurd said:


> I got the HDR removal software last night


At first I thought it looked better, but after watching for a day, it seems like the picture quality is less sharp. It might be different settings on the TV from HDR to SDR, but nothing I do seems to help. You notice the same issue or does yours look better?


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> At first I thought it looked better, but after watching for a day, it seems like the picture quality is less sharp. It might be different settings on the TV from HDR to SDR, but nothing I do seems to help. You notice the same issue or does yours look better?


Honestly looks the same as before. I had both picture modes tuned in pretty good so once I turned HDR off on the box i didn't really see a difference


----------



## Davenlr

My TV upscales real good, so I set the box on 1080p/60 instead of 4K and I am comparing it with the picture quality of the actual app sideloaded on the TV, and the app actually looks sharper. Might just be the channel I am watching. YouTubeTV was much sharper on this channel, but CNN looks the same on both, so they might just be backing off the bitrate for this one. Notice they arent sending it in Dolby Digital either, while it is in DD on cable and satellite. Ill keep playing. I have 6 days left.


----------



## techguy88

I might be getting DirecTV Stream in the near future. Moving from my current location to a new one where I can't get D* Satellite (trees uggh) but the apartment is very nice and low rent.


----------



## Steveknj

Interestingly, I just got a call from DirecTV about Stream, and as I'm still a Stream customer (I haven't cancelled yet since I want to make sure everything is back on track with Sat again), and they offered me the full Showtime package, plus some sports tier package and a gift card from AMEX for free until the end of the year (and I think it was like $13 after that). So they are really trying to keep customers and how that word of mouth will continue to spread by doing things like that. Honestly it kind of felt like the old DirecTV where I'd get offers like that out of the blue. The woman talked so fast that eventually I had to interrupt her and tell her, that unfortunately I'm going to be cancelling and went back to Satellite. The person who called was NOT from one of their call centers, but had an foreign accent free voice. Hopefully this is a good sign that they will be trying hard to make this work.

The funny part is, the very next call, was call from a "DirecTV representative" who was an obvious scammer. The ONLY reason I picked up my phone is that I'm expecting an installer today and it could potentially have been them telling me they are on their way. A man with an obvious Middle Eastern or Indian accent started the call saying I'm a DirecTV customer and they have an "offer" for me, so first thought is they are going to give me the same "offer" as the Stream one. But then he went on to ask to confirm that I am an AT&T Mobile customer, which I'm not, at which point I said no and hung up. The number came in as a VA number and normally I would have never even answered it. I hope this doesn't lead to more spam calls now that they know I'm a customer. We'll see.


----------



## Davenlr

They are having some cancelation due to the news story of them financing OAN. Im probably going to go back to YouTubeTV myself, the channels I want cost $93 on Stream vs $64 on YTTV.


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> They are having some cancelation due to the news story of them financing OAN. Im probably going to go back to YouTubeTV myself, the channels I want cost $93 on Stream vs $64 on YTTV.


Not going to comment on the politics of that story (though it did make me "think"), if you go back into the history of most of the rich people that own these companies, you'll find similar stories. They tend to run conservative in their views and it's just hard to boycott them. If you took that stance, do you boycott HBO? CNN? (AT&T for now owns them too). It's easy to boycott a company where their owner/CEO is very open about what they believe and that's their only product. MyPillow for example.

As far as price/content, do what works best for you in your situation. I've learned going through this cord cutting exercise that it's just not that simple.


----------



## Davenlr

Yea, my decision is all price. No way to boycott the whole world. I have ATT fiber internet, and it would be rather difficult to go without internet. I recorded ONE SHOW yesterday I wanted to watch today, and their 20 hour DVR deleted it to record a football game that ran 3 hours over...so rather than add another $10 to my $93, Im just going to put up with YTTV and their obnoxious DVR. At least it has unlimited hours.


----------



## B. Shoe

techguy88 said:


> I might be getting DirecTV Stream in the near future. Moving from my current location to a new one where I can't get D* Satellite (trees uggh) but the apartment is very nice and low rent.


Just cut down the trees.  J/K


----------



## harperhometheater

Davenlr said:


> At first I thought it looked better, but after watching for a day, it seems like the picture quality is less sharp. It might be different settings on the TV from HDR to SDR, but nothing I do seems to help. You notice the same issue or does yours look better?


When I switched it to SDR I noticed that it went to normal SDR power law gamma (not PQ) like it should, but it maintained the BT2020 color gamut (the one used for HDR) instead of going to Rec709. I saw this because I have it run through an HDFury Vertex2.

This caused the colors to be very muted and washed out. This resulted in it looking much less sharp and dull.


----------



## espaeth

It makes a huge difference watching hockey, particularly with white text scrolling on the bottom of the screen. With HDR on the text brightness varies wildly on transitions between the center ice camera where the screen is mostly white and the close-up action shots where it's not all pure white. For a while it was like trying to watch TV with someone playing with a white balance knob being twisted back and forth constantly.


----------



## NashGuy

DirecTV Stream's cancellation policy is a total mess now | TechHive


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> DirecTV Stream's cancellation policy is a total mess now | TechHive


Been the same policy for a long time. Another poorly written aggregated article.


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> Been the same policy for a long time. Another poorly written aggregated article.


No, as the article states, you used to be able to cancel online with one click. That's the way it was when I had it, back when it was called DirecTV Now.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> No, as the article states, you used to be able to cancel online with one click. That's the way it was when I had it, back when it was called DirecTV Now.


Yeh and that was a long time ago. You could never cancel online when it was ATT TV


----------



## Davenlr

I canceled online, but when I hit cancel, it popped open a chat window and I had to explain to the CSR why I was leaving. I canceled after 13 days, and received a full refund of my $93 three days later.
Some reasons they wont question or try to keep you:
No 4K channels
No NFL Network or Red Zone


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> Yeh and that was a long time ago. You could never cancel online when it was ATT TV


Well, when AT&T TV first launched, it had a non-optional two-year contract. So it made sense that you couldn't cancel online with a single click if you were under a contract. But I think that you always could cancel easily for DTV Now and AT&T TV Now, as they were always contract-free. Of course, DTV Stream is contract-free also and there's no reason that you shouldn't be able to easily cancel with a single click. As the article states, you can cancel that way in states where it's required by law, such as NY and CA. So they could do it everywhere.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> Well, when AT&T TV first launched, it had a non-optional two-year contract. So it made sense that you couldn't cancel online with a single click if you were under a contract. But I think that you always could cancel easily for DTV Now and AT&T TV Now, as they were always contract-free. Of course, DTV Stream is contract-free also and there's no reason that you shouldn't be able to easily cancel with a single click. As the article states, you can cancel that way in states where it's required by law, such as NY and CA. So they could do it everywhere.


Nope ATT TV Now also could not be done online. Unless you had an original directv now account you have had to call


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> I canceled online, but when I hit cancel, it popped open a chat window and I had to explain to the CSR why I was leaving. I canceled after 13 days, and received a full refund of my $93 three days later.
> Some reasons they wont question or try to keep you:
> No 4K channels
> No NFL Network or Red Zone


But we do have 5.1 sound on everything! I love watching the Reddit for YTTV and the people complaining over literally everything


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> Nope ATT TV Now also could not be done online. Unless you had an original directv now account you have had to call


As I say, though, there's still no reason for DTV Stream not to allow it. It seems like they want to apply similar customer retention tactics that they've always used for the satellite service for the streaming service too (unless otherwise required by law). I noticed Steve's post above that they're even proactively calling Stream customers with limited-time offers (e.g. free Showtime) to try to keep them around. A better way to reduce churn, IMO, would be to offer an optional contract in exchange for some kind of discount or bonus.

Odd how little has changed since the service was rebranded. At least they've gotten PBS on board. That's about it. I guess they're expecting those Serena Williams commercials to do a lot of heavy lifting for them to bring in new customers. I suspect it's going to take more than that to make the service a success.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> As I say, though, there's still no reason for DTV Stream not to allow it. It seems like they want to apply similar customer retention tactics that they've always used for the satellite service for the streaming service too (unless otherwise required by law). I noticed Steve's post above that they're even proactively calling Stream customers with limited-time offers (e.g. free Showtime) to try to keep them around. A better way to reduce churn, IMO, would be to offer an optional contract in exchange for some kind of discount or bonus.
> 
> Odd how little has changed since the service was rebranded. At least they've gotten PBS on board. That's about it. I guess they're expecting those Serena Williams commercials to do a lot of heavy lifting for them to bring in new customers. I suspect it's going to take more than that to make the service a success.


But it just points back to my original post.. The article is bad...


----------



## lparsons21

And that’s a real shame since DirecTV Stream is an excellent service with the best PQ, DD5.1 audio and an optional dedicated box.
I kicked it on at Ultimate level for a month but just couldn’t stomach giving $105/month to get the channels I care about when YTTV could do it for $65.


----------



## b4pjoe

lparsons21 said:


> And that's a real shame since DirecTV Stream is an excellent service with the best PQ, DD5.1 audio and an optional dedicated box.
> I kicked it on at Ultimate level for a month but just couldn't stomach giving $105/month to get the channels I care about when YTTV could do it for $65.


So it wasn't worth the extra $40 per month for the best PQ, DD5.1 audio and an optional dedicated box w/remote?


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> So it wasn't worth the extra $40 per month for the best PQ, DD5.1 audio and an optional dedicated box w/remote?


No, Ultimate certainly was not. I tossed around exactly what I wanted to do and in the end I just shifted to Entertainment as it covers the bulk of what I want and is more in line with what I'm willing to pay. Lose the Golf channel and FS2, which are the two channels of most interest beyond what is in Entertainment. The rest of what Ultimate has over Entertainment just isn't of interest and certainly not compelling.


----------



## Davenlr

compnurd said:


> But we do have 5.1 sound on everything! I love watching the Reddit for YTTV and the people complaining over literally everything


Actually, you don't. That was one of the reasons I gave for leaving. It does force Dolby Digital, that is true, but most of the channels I watched including the Bally Sports, and ESPNs were all stereo. It sent Dolby 2.0 which blocked the center and rears, so the receiver could not even decode the prologicII data.
For what its worth, I have Dolby Digital 5.1 on YouTubeTV now, although you have to have just the right setup to get it. And it also only has some 5.1 channels, but at least it doesnt lock your receiver into 2.0, and allows it to decode. Im not sure if I posted this here or not...but I will post in case I didnt. These are the formats DirecTv Stream is actually sending:


----------



## TDK1044

I think it's all so subjective. I migrated to Stream about six weeks ago and I love it. I went with the dedicated box and remote, and I really like those too. I'm saving about $50 a month, and having instant access to my apps makes it seamless going between the guide and the apps.


----------



## gio12

Davenlr said:


> Actually, you don't. That was one of the reasons I gave for leaving. It does force Dolby Digital, that is true, but most of the channels I watched including the Bally Sports, and ESPNs were all stereo. It sent Dolby 2.0 which blocked the center and rears, so the receiver could not even decode the prologicII data.
> For what its worth, I have Dolby Digital 5.1 on YouTubeTV now, although you have to have just the right setup to get it. And it also only has some 5.1 channels, but at least it doesnt lock your receiver into 2.0, and allows it to decode. Im not sure if I posted this here or not...but I will post in case I didnt. These are the formats DirecTv Stream is actually sending:


But the TVs and devices it supports is very low. Not available on any generation AppleTV yet.
Not sure my 2017 LG will support either. But I am sticking with YTTV for now. AT&T TV just costs more and I only miss Bally's Sports. If they add a streaming app, I can drop traditional TV until next Football season.


----------



## compnurd

gio12 said:


> But the TVs and devices it supports is very low. Not available on any generation AppleTV yet.
> Not sure my 2017 LG will support either. But I am sticking with YTTV for now. AT&T TV just costs more and I only miss Bally's Sports. If they add a streaming app, I can drop traditional TV until next Football season.


That seems to be the big gripe on reddit pissing alot of people off amongst other issues


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Actually, you don't. That was one of the reasons I gave for leaving. It does force Dolby Digital, that is true, but most of the channels I watched including the Bally Sports, and ESPNs were all stereo. It sent Dolby 2.0 which blocked the center and rears, so the receiver could not even decode the prologicII data.
> For what its worth, I have Dolby Digital 5.1 on YouTubeTV now, although you have to have just the right setup to get it. And it also only has some 5.1 channels, but at least it doesnt lock your receiver into 2.0, and allows it to decode. Im not sure if I posted this here or not...but I will post in case I didnt. These are the formats DirecTv Stream is actually sending:


Works the same way as Sat.. Not every channel offers 5.1 This wasnt some ground breaking revelation


----------



## litzdog911

What's the latest guestimates on when the new DirecTV Stream hardware will be available? Is it even worth waiting?


----------



## compnurd

litzdog911 said:


> What's the latest guestimates on when the new DirecTV Stream hardware will be available? Is it even worth waiting?


No clue right now not surprised either right now with all of the shortages. How many do you need?


----------



## litzdog911

compnurd said:


> No clue right now not surprised either right now with all of the shortages. How many do you need?


I haven't switched from DirecTV Satellite quite yet. I'll probably get two DirecTV Stream boxes when I do.


----------



## compnurd

litzdog911 said:


> I haven't switched from DirecTV Satellite quite yet. I'll probably get two DirecTV Stream boxes when I do.


Honestly for 50 bucks on eBay just buy them if you want to switch now


----------



## litzdog911

What apps can you install on the DirecTV Stream box? Can you install streaming apps like Peacock, YouTube, Disney+, etc? I'm wondering if you would really need a separate streaming box, like Roku, when you have the DirecTV Stream box. Thanks!


----------



## lparsons21

litzdog911 said:


> What apps can you install on the DirecTV Stream box? Can you install streaming apps like Peacock, YouTube, Disney+, etc? I'm wondering if you would really need a separate streaming box, like Roku, when you have the DirecTV Stream box. Thanks!


It is an 'almost' box to put everything on. Notably not available is Hulu, though that can be sideloaded just do a google search for which versions and how. And AMC+ is not available at all if that is of interest. Apple's TV+ is also not available. Otherwise most services/apps are available and work well.


----------



## espaeth

litzdog911 said:


> I'm wondering if you would really need a separate streaming box, like Roku, when you have the DirecTV Stream box. Thanks!


Having both the box and an Apple TV 4K, the ATV is head and shoulders better than everything _except_ the DTV Stream experience.

It's one of the things I sort of hate about the service. The app is pretty terrible on every platform except the box, and the box is one of the weaker platforms for the other apps. So if you want a 1 device solution you have to compromise the DTV Stream experience or the experience of every other app.


----------



## compnurd

espaeth said:


> Having both the box and an Apple TV 4K, the ATV is head and shoulders better than everything _except_ the DTV Stream experience.
> 
> It's one of the things I sort of hate about the service. The app is pretty terrible on every platform except the box, and the box is one of the weaker platforms for the other apps. So if you want a 1 device solution you have to compromise the DTV Stream experience or the experience of every other app.


There will never be a one box solution Ever ever ever


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> There will never be a one box solution Ever ever ever


That is only true if your definition of 'one box solution' is one that has every service/app available for it. But quite a few boxes could be a 'one box solution' if they have or support all the apps/service one would want.


----------



## espaeth

lparsons21 said:


> That is only true if your definition of 'one box solution' is one that has every service/app available for it.


I don't know that availability is enough of a metric when the user experience is so inconsistent across platforms. Various platforms are missing everything from minor features (ie, surround sound support, HDR) all the way to major features. Up until a couple weeks ago you couldn't pause for longer than 2 minutes on any other platform than the DTV stream box. Features and functionality are often _vastly_ different on different platforms.


----------



## gio12

compnurd said:


> There will never be a one box solution Ever ever ever


If they apps were designed better/properly, could the AppleTV not be it?
The only streaming service I have had an issue with is AT&T.
Wish Apple would just buy them and be done with it. A real AppleTV+ service


----------



## mklimek

espaeth said:


> Having both the box and an Apple TV 4K, the ATV is head and shoulders better than everything _except_ the DTV Stream experience.
> 
> It's one of the things I sort of hate about the service. The app is pretty terrible on every platform except the box, and the box is one of the weaker platforms for the other apps. So if you want a 1 device solution you have to compromise the DTV Stream experience or the experience of every other app.


I understand and agree with this sentiment; however, I will say the app on Roku is pretty good. Much better now than it was a few months ago.


----------



## techguy88

compnurd said:


> Nope ATT TV Now also could not be done online. Unless you had an original directv now account you have had to call


Actually AT&T TV Now could be cancelled online with one click otherwise I would not have paid for AT&T TV Now's Max plan to initially test the Osprey box


----------



## STEVED21

Quick question. Now that it’s not att is there a store where you can buy the box? Thanks.


----------



## harperhometheater

STEVED21 said:


> Quick question. Now that it's not att is there a store where you can buy the box? Thanks.


ebay!


----------



## compnurd

STEVED21 said:


> Quick question. Now that it's not att is there a store where you can buy the box? Thanks.


Yeh eBay. But you can still buy the service and box at the ATT store. Directv remains part of the ATT umbrella of companies


----------



## MysteryMan

STEVED21 said:


> Quick question. Now that it's not att is there a store where you can buy the box? Thanks.


AT&T owns 70% of DIRECTV. TPG owns 30% of DIRECTV with operational control.


----------



## STEVED21

Thanks


----------



## mccarthymac

harperhometheater said:


> ebay!


Do the DTV Sat remotes work seamlessly with the Osprey box?


----------



## compnurd

mccarthymac said:


> Do the DTV Sat remotes work seamlessly with the Osprey box?


In IR mode only


----------



## mccarthymac

compnurd said:


> In IR mode only


Thanks


----------



## litzdog911

compnurd said:


> In IR mode only


Well that's good to know! Any significant button/function differences?


----------



## compnurd

litzdog911 said:


> Well that's good to know! Any significant button/function differences?


Not that I noticed but I don't use one full time


----------



## NashGuy

litzdog911 said:


> Well that's good to know! Any significant button/function differences?


The DTV Sat remote lacks a couple of buttons that the DTV Stream remote has: voice/Google Assistant and Apps.


----------



## compnurd

We got PBS today in Pittsburgh


----------



## harperhometheater

I recently cancelled Xfinity and went back to DirecTV Stream. I just couldn't stand the absolutely horrible picture quality that Comcrap serves its high paying customers!!! 

I can't believe they can get away with that. I guess since video customers are leaving in droves, they're actually not. It's to the point of embarrassment.

DTV Stream is SO MUCH better picture quality wise than Comcrap and anything else I've used that I just can't see myself going back to anything else unless a premium UHD 4K service is offered.

I'm going to miss using my Channels DVR setup, but it's just not worth the utter garbage that Comcrap is serving up! Yes I do have an antenna for OTA, but that isn't much better, if at all. The local stations here are compressing the hell out of the signal so they can cram what seems like 100 sub-channels in there for crapola shopping, oldies, religion (which is OK as long as you're not a fake shill using it to dupe and steal other's hard earned cash!).

Does ANYONE actually care about quality anymore?!?!?!


----------



## Davenlr

harperhometheater said:


> Does ANYONE actually care about quality anymore?!?!?!


Apparently not, except for Fox Sports, which is slowly putting more and more 4KHDR upscaled from 1080P out on their app (and YouTubeTV and Fubo). You can use your DirecTv Stream subscription to watch it on the Fox Sports app. My boss just called me for a solution also. Xfinity just upped her bill from $175 to $204 for internet and TV with no premiums. I cant believe people would pay that. Unfortunently while ATT laid fiber down her street, they are still working on it, and its not available yet, and I hesitate to put her on streaming TV with Xfinity's internet as they cap it, and she tends to leave two or three TVs running all the time. Guess it would take a lot to get up to $204 so might just have her drop TV, go internet only until ATT fiber gets turned on there. I was thinking she would like DirecTv stream with the osprey box, since she is old school, and is the "cable box" type.
Just have to find out what channels she watches, and make sure they are available on the entertainment package. Anything requiring a higher tier she would be better off with YouTubeTV.


----------



## NashGuy

harperhometheater said:


> Does ANYONE actually care about quality anymore?!?!?!


Sure. Apple TV+, with everything in 4K Dolby Vision, looks wonderful. Lots of great-looking 4K HDR content on Netflix and Prime Video too, plus a small but growing amount in the Disney+, Hulu, HBO Max, Paramount+, and Showtime apps.

If you want high-quality TV service, both in terms of picture/sound as well as the actual content, you'll find it in the SVODs, not in traditional channel-based cable TV (regardless of how it's delivered).


----------



## litzdog911

I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on buying DirecTV Stream. A couple of questions ....

1. Does it matter if I keep my DirecTV Satellite account active while I catch up on our DVR recordings?
2. Can I use the same email/password for my DirecTV Stream account as my satellite account? I've seen some posts where having an active satellite and Stream account at the same time has caused issues. 

Thanks!
Jim


----------



## NashGuy

litzdog911 said:


> I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on buying DirecTV Stream. A couple of questions ....
> 
> 1. Does it matter if I keep my DirecTV Satellite account active while I catch up on our DVR recordings?
> 2. Can I use the same email/password for my DirecTV Stream account as my satellite account? I've seen some posts where having an active satellite and Stream account at the same time has caused issues.
> 
> Thanks!
> Jim


Why pay for both services at the same time rather than wait to switch from satellite to Stream after you've caught up on your satellite DVR recordings?


----------



## litzdog911

NashGuy said:


> Why pay for both services at the same time rather than wait to switch from satellite to Stream after you've caught up on your satellite DVR recordings?


Mainly because I want to start setting up recordings on the new DirecTV stream service before disconnecting the satellite service. Also, my satellite subscription won't actually terminate until the end of the billing period. I just some verification that the new Stream service will work fine even while my satellite service is still active. And whether or not I can use the same email/login.


----------



## NashGuy

litzdog911 said:


> Mainly because I want to start setting up recordings on the new DirecTV stream service before disconnecting the satellite service. Also, my satellite subscription won't actually terminate until the end of the billing period. I just some verification that the new Stream service will work fine even while my satellite service is still active. And whether or not I can use the same email/login.


IIRC, they allowed TDK1044 to have both services on his account at the same time, although he may have had the satellite service temporarily suspended when he subscribed to Stream. If I were you, I'd just try calling DTV and asking them if you can do it. If they say no, you'd probably have to use a different email address that isn't already associated with your satellite account in order to have both running at the same time.


----------



## harperhometheater

NashGuy said:


> If you want high-quality TV service, both in terms of picture/sound as well as the actual content, you'll find it in the SVODs, *not in traditional channel-based cable TV (regardless of how it's delivered)*.


This is my exact point. If anything, hard wired cable TV SHOULD give you best quality and be the one to do so considering the premium cost! I think that should be their entire angle, marketing to those who want the best quality.


----------



## B. Shoe

harperhometheater said:


> This is my exact point. If anything, hard wired cable TV SHOULD give you best quality and be the one to do so considering the premium cost! I think that should be their entire angle, marketing to those who want the best quality.


I consider myself only knowledgeable enough to be semi-dangerous, so I'll ask the obvious question; can cable providers deliver a superior video product, in comparison to their peers/competition?


----------



## Steveknj

litzdog911 said:


> Mainly because I want to start setting up recordings on the new DirecTV stream service before disconnecting the satellite service. Also, my satellite subscription won't actually terminate until the end of the billing period. I just some verification that the new Stream service will work fine even while my satellite service is still active. And whether or not I can use the same email/login.


As for setting up recordings on Stream, just do what I did, take pictures of your Season Passes before switching and then you won't miss any. I ended up using two different email addresses, but I signed up before the switchover to the new name. When I switched back to Satellite, I went back to the old email I had before.


----------



## NashGuy

harperhometheater said:


> This is my exact point. If anything, hard wired cable TV SHOULD give you best quality and be the one to do so considering the premium cost! I think that should be their entire angle, marketing to those who want the best quality.


The problem is that linear channel-based TV has a lot of constraints, which direct-to-consumer on-demand streaming doesn't have, that make it to difficult to improve picture quality: pre-encoding vs. real-time live encoding; greater bandwidth availability (i.e. the viewer's download speed) vs. limited shared bandwidth (QAM cable, DBS); the ability to use newer, better codecs vs. being constrained by the codecs supported across MVPDs' deployed STBs, etc. Some of these factors don't apply to vMVPDs that use unicast OTT streams, though, which is probably why they tend to have better PQ than most traditional MVPDs. But they still have to deal with whatever quality they're given in the original feeds from the channels themselves. And because those channels are feeding MVPDs that generally can't handle high-quality (i.e. 4K HDR) linear channel distribution, well, they're not pumping out super-great-looking feeds in the first place.

The reality is that direct-to-consumer OTT distribution of video is just way nimbler because it's one-to-one, rather than one-to-many involving a middle-man distributor as is the case with MVPDs.


----------



## Davenlr

B. Shoe said:


> can cable providers deliver a superior video product, in comparison to their peers/competition?


They could, but they won't. In order to do so, they would have to change out all their cable boxes to new ones with a more efficient codec, and cut the number of channels they carry to allow for more bandwidth per channel. Since 90% of their customers pay $200+ for internet and crappy TV without complaining, the other 10% of us have to find something else.


----------



## harperhometheater

B. Shoe said:


> I consider myself only knowledgeable enough to be semi-dangerous, so I'll ask the obvious question; can cable providers deliver a superior video product, in comparison to their peers/competition?


They could, but they don't because they choose to cram the available bandwidth with Uber crap channels!!!



NashGuy said:


> The problem is that linear channel-based TV has a lot of constraints, which direct-to-consumer on-demand streaming doesn't have, that make it to difficult to improve picture quality: pre-encoding vs. real-time live encoding; greater bandwidth availability (i.e. the viewer's download speed) vs. limited shared bandwidth (QAM cable, DBS); the ability to use newer, better codecs vs. being constrained by the codecs supported across MVPDs' deployed STBs, etc. Some of these factors don't apply to vMVPDs that use unicast OTT streams, though, which is probably why they tend to have better PQ than most traditional MVPDs. But they still have to deal with whatever quality they're given in the original feeds from the channels themselves. And because those channels are feeding MVPDs that generally can't handle high-quality (i.e. 4K HDR) linear channel distribution, well, they're not pumping out super-great-looking feeds in the first place.
> 
> The reality is that direct-to-consumer OTT distribution of video is just way nimbler because it's one-to-one, rather than one-to-many involving a middle-man distributor as is the case with MVPDs.


Sure, there are constraints, but I'm old enough and have been in the business long enough to remember when HD was first a thing and you had channels like Discovery HD and HDNet come out with their 19.2 Mbps single channel bandwidth available and being used and the image you'd get if you were lucky enough to have an HD display was simply and utterly jaw dropping. As good or better than what I see now with 4K!

Since that time they realized they could monetize on this added digital bandwidth and instead of offering one amazing channel of picture quality, they could cram 5-6 or more crappy SD or lower quality channels in there and then compress the living snot out of the HD channel, down to like 3-5 Mbps in some cases, so they'd sacrifice the one channel most watched to add 5 or more many don't give a crap about, but gives them additional ad revenue!

I worked as the broadcast transmitter engineer for my local NBC affiliate at the time of the HD transition, so ask me how I know! 



Davenlr said:


> They could, but they won't. In order to do so, they would have to change out all their cable boxes to new ones with a more efficient codec, and cut the number of channels they carry to allow for more bandwidth per channel. Since 90% of their customers pay $200+ for internet and crappy TV without complaining, the other 10% of us have to find something else.


They wouldn't have to change out all their cable boxes. They'd only have to get rid of all those God awful sub-channels and return the main HD channels back to all their MPEG-2 19.2 Mbps bandwidth glory!!!

If a cable service did that and then offered it as a premium service and marketed it as such, I think many would pay even a little more than they charge now. At least I would. This is the sole reason I am back to DirecTV Stream and have no plans of leaving anytime soon. I am done messing with the cable and inferior streaming services PQ wise!!!


----------



## litzdog911

Ordered DirecTV Stream this morning. Lovin' it so far on my two Roku boxes and our iPads. The 2 C71K's should arrive on Monday. Once they're all setup and I watch most of my satellite DVR recordings, I'll cancel my DirecTV Satellite. Stupid tree in the greenbelt behind our house finally blocked the 103ºW satellite, so it was time to make a switch. And DirecTV Stream will give us more flexibility when we're traveling in our RV.


----------



## Davenlr

Enjoy your first price increase they just announced... Geeze ATT wont ever learn.


----------



## litzdog911

Davenlr said:


> Enjoy your first price increase they just announced... Geeze ATT wont ever learn.


I'm used to it. DirecTV and other providers always raise their prices at the beginning of the new year.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> Enjoy your first price increase they just announced... Geeze ATT wont ever learn.


And literally everyone will increase them over the next few months


----------



## James Long

Davenlr said:


> Enjoy your first price increase they just announced... Geeze ATT wont ever learn.


It is interesting to see the levels ... $10 on the higher packages is noticeable.

No provider can keep their prices the same forever.


----------



## Davenlr

They could if they could pick and choose what channels to carry without being forced to carry all of a providers BS channels. Start dropping low value channels to keep prices down, but they are forced to carry all the BS channels to carry the good one. It is going to blow up on them soon. People just arent going to pay $100 for 6 or 7 watchable channels for long.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> It is interesting to see the levels ... $10 on the higher packages is noticeable.
> 
> No provider can keep their prices the same forever.


That's true; the cost of carrying the underlying channels goes up over time.

But for those who don't need RSNs, DTV Stream was already not super price-competitive, particularly compared with the leader, YouTube TV. I think they're clearly afraid to increase their entry-level price on Entertainment for now, lest they be even less competitive. Instead, they're going to make the extra money on the much less price-sensitive customers who opt for the pricier packages.

Meanwhile, YouTube TV and Hulu Live have added additional content to offset their price increases. Hulu Live just threw in Disney+ and ESPN+ while increasing the base price of the package to $70. YTTV is still holding at $65 (for now, at least) while having added the popular Hallmark channels last month (and a couple of lesser channels this week, GSN and GetTV). And of course YTTV includes an unlimited 9-mo cloud DVR while DTV Stream charges an extra $10 for unlimited storage with a comparably stingy 3-month time limit.

At this point, the main appeal of DTV Stream's Entertainment package vs. YTTV comes down to History, A&E and Lifetime, which are the only major channels still lacking from YTTV. (I still think it's a good bet YTTV ads them when they increase their price to $70, probably some time next year.) And given recent notifications that DTV satellite has sent to some customers forcing them to proactively opt into the A+E nets in order to keep from losing them in 2022, I wonder what the future of those channels will be on their various tiers. DTV Stream is finally adding PBS locals, although they still lack NFL Network which YTTV has (not to mention other sports channels YTTV has in their base package but DTV Stream reserves for their higher-priced tiers).

I'm sure DTV Stream's current ad campaign is helping boost awareness of the service and drawing in some new subs. But I still question whether the service is going to be a success. YTTV seems to be pulling away, both as the value leader and also in terms of getting distribution deals in place with an increasing number of MSOs (with Comcast and Frontier being the latest, following in the footsteps of Verizon, T-Mobile and various smaller operators).

I was at my 86 year-old uncle's house recently and he mentioned that he was now using YTTV on his smart TV. He's not an early adopter of new tech trends. Seems like it's going mainstream.


----------



## Davenlr

Gosh I wish I could combine YouTubeTV's package with DIrecTv Streams Cloud DVR/Osprey box/Remote. I absolutely hated YTTV's DVR, and its inability to delete shows you already watched...Its a big MESS trying to find a new show buried in old ones...and no, the new one does not always show up first on the list.


----------



## B. Shoe

Davenlr said:


> I absolutely hated YTTV's DVR, and its inability to delete shows you already watched...Its a big MESS trying to find a new show buried in old ones...and no, the new one does not always show up first on the list.


There's truth to this. I don't know if I'd classify it as a "big mess", but finding new episodes is far from perfect. We don't record a lot of shows, but the fiancé is quote fond of the "Real Housewives" franchises. Often the newest episode is not the first in the list, and we'll first see maybe an episode that she hasn't completed watching.

Always trying to look toward the positives, it feels like some (likely not all) of YTTV's DVR functionality is rather fixable with some settings changes (like, "Display newest recordings first") and hopefully those could come at some point.

I'm still a proponent that beyond live events, DVR functionality isn't as important in a streaming world, but that's another discussion for another day.


----------



## Steveknj

Davenlr said:


> They could if they could pick and choose what channels to carry without being forced to carry all of a providers BS channels. Start dropping low value channels to keep prices down, but they are forced to carry all the BS channels to carry the good one. It is going to blow up on them soon. People just arent going to pay $100 for 6 or 7 watchable channels for long.


Do any other streamers allow that? The thing is, today you can ala carte all you want, if that's your thing. Just buy the various streaming services of all the channels you watch and then an antenna for your locals. Not only that, but you can watch what you what on demand too. Direct TV Stream, YTTV, Fubo and the others are more traditional in what they give you. That's by design. It's just not cost effective for any of these types of streamers to just let you pick and choose, or it would have happened by now. This argument has been going on 30 years now.


----------



## lparsons21

Davenlr said:


> Gosh I wish I could combine YouTubeTV's package with DIrecTv Streams Cloud DVR/Osprey box/Remote. I absolutely hated YTTV's DVR, and its inability to delete shows you already watched...Its a big MESS trying to find a new show buried in old ones...and no, the new one does not always show up first on the list.


I agree, YTTV's DVR is a mess and horrible to work with. The Chromecast w/GoogleTV makes it barely tolerable.


----------



## litzdog911

Received my C71K DirecTV Stream boxes today. Hooked up and working fine so far. Now to finish watching the recordings on my satellite DVRs.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

AT&T to raise DirecTV prices for all subscribers starting early 2022


A new report claims that AT&T will soon announce a DirecTV price hike next week, which will take effect in January 2022.




www.phonearena.com


----------



## Davenlr

NFL fans with DirecTV stream...the two games this Saturday are on NFL Network...so plan on watching somewhere else.


----------



## compnurd

Davenlr said:


> NFL fans with DirecTV stream...the two games this Saturday are on NFL Network...so plan on watching somewhere else.


Meh


----------



## gio12

Still no Dolby Vision using the att box?
The app still does allow 30 sec back correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd

gio12 said:


> Still no Dolby Vision using the att box?
> The app still does allow 30 sec back correct?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


It was never licensed for Dolby. And skip back is 15 sec however you can que it


----------



## gio12

compnurd said:


> It was never licensed for Dolby. And skip back is 15 sec however you can que it


Still no skip back via the app


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd

gio12 said:


> Still no skip back via the app
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Which app. Because iPhone app does


----------



## gio12

compnurd said:


> Which app. Because iPhone app does


Apple TV

I tried and its shows 15’ back but won’t advance. 2 different apple TV. Current gen and last gen ATV4


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## harperhometheater

gio12 said:


> Still no Dolby Vision using the att box?
> The app still does allow 30 sec back correct?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro





compnurd said:


> It was never licensed for Dolby. And skip back is 15 sec however you can que it


I forget, does the rumored new box support DV? And when is that thing finally coming out?


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> I forget, does the rumored new box support DV? And when is that thing finally coming out?


From pictures it did and no clue on the release. There is some speculation they may never release it


----------



## compnurd

Directv Stream Reddit is turning into a mess with all of the people who are switching from YTTV


----------



## gio12

No record a Team on DTVS. Had on YTTV and DTV Sat in the past


----------



## gio12

What’s the difference between the 200 and 400 Osprey box?

I might need another for the bedroom. Not having rewind, skip back on the ATV app sucks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd

gio12 said:


> What’s the difference between the 200 and 400 Osprey box?
> 
> I might need another for the bedroom. Not having rewind, skip back on the ATV app sucks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Nothing. One is made by Samsung and the other Pace. Whatever one you buy make sure the software is already updated


----------



## harperhometheater

compnurd said:


> Nothing. One is made by Samsung and the other Pace. Whatever one you buy make sure the software is already updated


Why is that? Can you not update software on them anymore?


----------



## gio12

harperhometheater said:


> Why is that? Can you not update software on them anymore?


I was thinking the same thing. Box I have now from last year updated.


----------



## harperhometheater

gio12 said:


> I was thinking the same thing. Box I have now from last year updated.


Same here. Quite a few times as I recall.


----------



## compnurd

harperhometheater said:


> Why is that? Can you not update software on them anymore?





gio12 said:


> I was thinking the same thing. Box I have now from last year updated.


No For some reason the really older ones that are on a older version of the ATT TV software are pointed to a AWS update server that is gone.. So they wont update to the Directv Stream Software


----------



## gio12

compnurd said:


> No For some reason the really older ones that are on a older version of the ATT TV software are pointed to a AWS update server that is gone.. So they wont update to the Directv Stream Software


Way to tell? Will see if my current box says att&t or stream. It dis update I think


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd

gio12 said:


> Way to tell? Will see if my current box says att&t or stream. It dis update I think
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I dont think there is. I had to return 3 boxes because they wouldn't update.. Basically they fail at the initial update screen after the first reset bootup Someone did some network tracing and found they were trying to reach a dead server.. Directv must have changed it sometime earlier this year and basically anything that hasnt been connected since then is toast There is some sellers selling them updated


----------



## gio12

Cant tell by firmware?
Mine is 7038.08.00


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## gio12

I restarted my box and it came up as DIRECTV Stream 
So I assume I am good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## harperhometheater

The two I have active right now are updated and read DTV Stream, so I’m good. I have a third that I haven’t hooked up since the move yet.


----------



## compnurd

Directv Stream now includes Unlimited DVR post 1/23


----------



## Steveknj

My son is moving into his new place in Feb and is considering getting D* Stream, which comes out around the same price as cable (and probably cheaper before all the cable fees kick in). I have an Osprey box from when we had the service which I was going to give to him and was wondering if there's anything I need to do to the box before we hook it up? I don't remember if it's still "connected" somehow to my old account.


----------



## compnurd

Steveknj said:


> My son is moving into his new place in Feb and is considering getting D* Stream, which comes out around the same price as cable (and probably cheaper before all the cable fees kick in). I have an Osprey box from when we had the service which I was going to give to him and was wondering if there's anything I need to do to the box before we hook it up? I don't remember if it's still "connected" somehow to my old account.


I would make sure the box has updated to the Directv Stream software vs ATT TV.. Otherwise it may never update


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> I would make sure the box has updated to the Directv Stream software vs ATT TV.. Otherwise it may never update


It should have been as we left the service after the name switch.


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> Directv Stream now includes Unlimited DVR post 1/23


Welp, looks like they're _finally_ doing one of those things I've been saying forever now that they should do to make the service a better value. The change is now active on their website.

So now Entertainment with unlimited 3-month cloud DVR at $70/mo is only $5 more than YTTV with unlimited 9-month cloud DVR. They're getting closer.


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Directv Stream now includes Unlimited DVR post 1/23


Not showing in my account and article says new customers. Looks like I’ll be getting a new email address!


----------



## b4pjoe

lparsons21 said:


> Not showing in my account and article says new customers. Looks like I’ll be getting a new email address!


Way to screw it up for your existing customers AT&T/TPG/DirecTV...


----------



## compnurd

Bear in mind none of this pricing is in effect for 2 more days As of right now my 2/4 bill shows my pricing the same as it is now which in theory it should increase in 2 days


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Bear in mind none of this pricing is in effect for 2 more days


My upcoming bill for 2/2 is the same total but shows $94.99 for Ultimate+$10 for unlimited DVR


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> My upcoming bill for 2/2 is the same total but shows $94.99 for Ultimate+$10 for unlimited DVR


They may have just not adjusted the online wording yet because technically your bill should be 104.99 plus 10 bucks for next month So your getting the DVR for free or not getting the price increase depending on how you want to look at it


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> They may have just not adjusted the online wording yet because technically your bill should be 104.99 plus 10 bucks for next month So your getting the DVR for free or not getting the price increase depending on how you want to look at it


Well it is AT&T’s billing service, so anything’s possible!


----------



## NashGuy

OK, so unlimited cloud DVR is now included at no additional cost in every DTV Stream package, one of the improvements I've been calling for for a long time now. What are the other things that were on my list?

Add PBS locals -- done.

Add those missing CW locals -- nope, AFAIK, there are still several missing (including those owned by Nexstar).

Add some of those retro diginets -- well, they did add one (Heroes & Icons) but only in the Choice and above packages. Not enough. What about Get TV, Cozi TV, Comet, and INSP, which are carried on YTTV and/or FuboTV? (Heck, INSP is one of the few channels carried on DTV sat that's still missing from DTV Stream.)

Add 4K HDR content, including live sports -- nope, that's still MIA.

Add the NFL Network -- nope, and I seriously doubt it appears in 2022 either. Maybe it (and possibly NFL Red Zone) become available in 2023, after the current NFL contract with DTV lapses.

Roll out a better performing second-gen Osprey Android TV box -- nope, and I'm beginning to think it'll never be released.

Offer an optional, renewable 1-year contract with some kind of cost-savings and price freeze for the length of the contract -- nope, contract-free with everyday regular pricing from day 1 remains the only option.


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> OK, so unlimited cloud DVR is now included at no additional cost in every DTV Stream package, one of the improvements I've been calling for for a long time now. What are the other things that were on my list?
> 
> Add PBS locals -- done.
> 
> Add those missing CW locals -- nope, AFAIK, there are still several missing (including those owned by Nexstar).
> 
> Add some of those retro diginets -- well, they did add one (Heroes & Icons) but only in the Choice and above packages. Not enough. What about Get TV, Cozi TV, Comet, and INSP, which are carried on YTTV and/or FuboTV? (Heck, INSP is one of the few channels carried on DTV sat that's still missing from DTV Stream.)
> 
> Add 4K HDR content, including live sports -- nope, that's still MIA.
> 
> Add the NFL Network -- nope, and I seriously doubt it appears in 2022 either. Maybe it (and possibly NFL Red Zone) become available in 2023, after the current NFL contract with DTV lapses.
> 
> Roll out a better performing second-gen Osprey Android TV box -- nope, and I'm beginning to think it'll never be released.
> 
> Offer an optional, renewable 1-year contract with some kind of cost-savings and price freeze for the length of the contract -- nope, contract-free with everyday regular pricing from day 1 remains the only option.


Well the unlimited cloud DVR is only good for new customers and NOT for current customers or customers switching from DirecTV or Uverse.

And they do have a contract option.


----------



## litzdog911

Folks in the DirecTV Support Forum also claim that existing customers will get free unlimited cloud DVR. It's supposed to roll out over the next few days. We shall see. My account still shows the $10 add-on for unlimited cloud DVR.


----------



## b4pjoe

If that is true why would they have this on directv.com right under where it says unlimited DVR is now included? Hopefully the website is wrong.


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> If that is true why would they have this on directv.com right under where it says unlimited DVR is now included? Hopefully the website is wrong.
> 
> View attachment 32026


It is true.. Several people on reddit have called in and confirmed it will be free for existing customers.. System hasnt fully updated yet and new plans dont start for 2 days... I also as an existing customer have confirmed I have it


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> Well the unlimited cloud DVR is only good for new customers and NOT for current customers or customers switching from DirecTV or Uverse.
> 
> And they do have a contract option.
> 
> View attachment 32024


The contract option is ONLY for a box


----------



## b4pjoe

compnurd said:


> It is true.. Several people on reddit have called in and confirmed it will be free for existing customers.. System hasnt fully updated yet and new plans dont start for 2 days... I also as an existing customer have confirmed I have it


Well that is good to know. But still...why the hell put it on the website in the first place if it isn't true? Just so stupid which come to think of it is right in AT&T's wheelhouse!


----------



## b4pjoe

compnurd said:


> The contract option is ONLY for a box



Yeah I noticed it says for Device installment. So if you have AT&T to install the box they give you a one year contract?


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> Yeah I noticed it says for Device installment. So if you have AT&T to install the box they give you a one year contract?


Almost right. They don’t install it, just ship it to you in a very nice box.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> Well that is good to know. But still...why the hell put it on the website in the first place if it isn't true? Just so stupid which come to think of it is right in AT&T's wheelhouse!


Who knows, they put weird stuff in their fine print sometimes. It made little sense to say that it wasn't available to existing customers given that many (most?) of them aren't under contract anyway, so they could just cancel their service and then sign back up the next day at the same price in order to get the free unlimited DVR.

I think it was a year ago, in Jan. '21, when the 2-yr contract became optional on AT&T TV (same time that the service absorbed what had been the contract-free version named AT&T TV Now). And then a few months later in May, they completely dropped the contract option (along with the Xtra package). The no-contract pricing has always been everyday pricing from day one while the contract version had a lower price in the first year and then higher prices thereafter, with an added RSN fee on the Choice and up packages. And the regular prices on the contract version were higher than the everyday no-contract prices. But you got one free box if you took the 2-yr contract. It's much simpler and more straightforward now.

Strange that they're still using the word "contract" in the fine print in connection with the optional boxes because it's not really a contract at all. If your credit's good, they basically just let you pay off the $120 cost over 24 months interest-free at $5/mo but if you cancel the service before 24 months, they'll just bill you immediately for the balance due.


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> Yeah I noticed it says for Device installment. So if you have AT&T to install the box they give you a one year contract?


its not a programming contract.. its a payment contract for the device if you want one.. You can either buy from them for 120 up front or pay 5 bucks a month for 2 years to pay it off


----------



## b4pjoe

But it says "Device installment contract options available" which makes no sense but par for the course I guess. So they consider it a contract if you choose to pay it on monthly basis? OK i guess.


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> But it says "Device installment contract options available" which makes no sense but par for the course I guess. So they consider it a contract if you choose to pay it on monthly basis? OK i guess.


It is a contract for sale, but only on the box. Kind of like the way the cell sellers do. No plan contract but there is one on the phone itself.


----------



## b4pjoe

compnurd said:


> It is true.. Several people on reddit have called in and confirmed it will be free for existing customers.. System hasnt fully updated yet and new plans dont start for 2 days... I also as an existing customer have confirmed I have it


The only issue I see with that is that it is not uncommon to call in and get told something that is not true. But I am hoping that info is correct.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

NashGuy said:


> What are the other things that were on my list?


I would like to see multi-screen viewing, it’s nice for sports, or any combination of channels you want.


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> The only issue I see with that is that it is not uncommon to call in and get told something that is not true. But I am hoping that info is correct.


On some other forums about this issue, others claim they’ve called and been told that existing subs won’t get it. So it isn’t entirely clear.
IMO, 2 ways to approach this if it turns out to not be for an existing subscriber.
1. Cancel and sign up with a new email address. The downside is all recordings are lost as well as any timers.
2. Chat to cancel if they don’t give it. Of course that might not work.


----------



## b4pjoe

lparsons21 said:


> On some other forums about this issue, others claim they’ve called and been told that existing subs won’t get it. So it isn’t entirely clear.
> IMO, 2 ways to approach this if it turns out to not be for an existing subscriber.
> 1. Cancel and sign up with a new email address. The downside is all recordings are lost as well as any timers.
> 2. Chat to cancel if they don’t give it. Of course that might not work.





> Online only. New DIRECTV STREAM customers only. Offer not available to DIRECTV and U-verse customer switching to DIRECTV STREAM. Data connection req’d. Recordings expire after 90 days. In a series recording, max 30 episodes stored (oldest deleted first which may be in less than 90 days). Restr’s apply.


Yeah it still has the above info on the website. If as many people have called as has been stated it seems like they would change that wording on the website. I don't have DirecTV Stream but it is in the back of my mind to try it out. But not if I would have to pay $10 for the unlimited DVR while new customers don't. Not sure if a new email address would solve that dilemma as they still have my name and physical address. If I try to Purchase DirecTV Stream online with my existing email address it says I can't use that email address and to call.


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> Yeah it still has the above info on the website. If as many people have called as has been stated it seems like they would change that wording on the website. I don't have DirecTV Stream but it is in the back of my mind to try it out. But not if I would have to pay $10 for the unlimited DVR while new customers don't. Not sure if a new email address would solve that dilemma as they still have my name and physical address. If I try to Purchase DirecTV Stream online with my existing email address it says I can't use that email address and to call.


Until fairly recently, if you cancelled and tried to restart you had to use an email they didn’t have. In essence making you a new customer. A screwy way to do things, but that’s the way it was.

Seems the software they use only worries about the email you use and not your name and so forth. So a new email probably would still work the same way as long as you haven’t used it with AT&T before.


----------



## litzdog911

Right. If you use a different email address than your satellite subscription then the two accounts don't know anything about each other. So, yes, you would be a "new account" even if you have an existing DirecTV Satellite account. That's what I did for a month while deciding whether to keep Stream or not. I decided to keep it. In fact, my Satellite account died yesterday and I removed my dish


----------



## b4pjoe

litzdog911 said:


> Right. If you use a different email address than your satellite subscription then the two accounts don't know anything about each other. So, yes, you would be a "new account" even if you have an existing DirecTV Satellite account. That's what I did for a month while deciding whether to keep Stream or not. I decided to keep it. In fact, my Satellite account died yesterday and I removed my dish


So are you getting the enhanced DVR?


----------



## litzdog911

b4pjoe said:


> So are you getting the enhanced DVR?


The $10 fee hasn't been removed when I check my Account Summary. I'll give it a week or two before I contact DirecTV about it. Or simply create a new account and cancel this one


----------



## lparsons21

litzdog911 said:


> The $10 fee hasn't been removed when I check my Account Summary. I'll give it a week or two before I contact DirecTV about it. Or simply create a new account and cancel this one


That’s probably what I’ll do too. While I don’t like YTTV’s UI at all, if Google would get off their butt and implement 5.1 audio I would probably switch to them.


----------



## gregoryh325

A live chat agent and phone agent that called after my online chat told me existing customers would also be included and my account would reflect the change by the end of the day. It didn't change so I called and the U.S. support agent told me the other 2 agents were incorrect. He looked over those chat transcripts and gave me a 60 dollar credit for 6 free months of unlimited DVR. I should have pressed for free---forever since there is proof I was told that's what I would be getting.


----------



## b4pjoe

So their website has changed since the last time I posted. It still has the same text that it only applies to new customers and not new customers moving from Sat or Uverse.

But now if you go look at the Premiere package notice the little superscript 1 & 2 in the below screenshot.










The 1 and 2 means:

¹Premium movie channels offers not available to DIRECTV and U-verse TV customers switching to DIRECTV STREAM.
²Online only. New DIRECTV STREAM customers only. Offer not available to DIRECTV and U-verse customer switching to DIRECTV STREAM. 

So people moving from Sat or Uverse will not get HBO Max, Showtime, Starz and Cinemax nor will they get the unlimited Cloud DVR so they will definitely want to use a new email address if they sign up for DirecTV Stream.

I guess they really want to discourage their Sat and Uverse subscribers from moving to DirecTV Stream. I guess they may not realize there is another option where their sat and uverse subscribers might switch to another companies service Like Hulu or Google.

They are now including the box (1) with all packages.


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> So their website has changed since the last time I posted. It still has the same text that it only applies to new customers and not new customers moving from Sat or Uverse.
> 
> But now if you go look at the Premiere package notice the little superscript 1 & 2 in the below screenshot.
> 
> View attachment 32029
> 
> 
> The 1 and 2 means:
> 
> ¹Premium movie channels offers not available to DIRECTV and U-verse TV customers switching to DIRECTV STREAM.
> ²Online only. New DIRECTV STREAM customers only. Offer not available to DIRECTV and U-verse customer switching to DIRECTV STREAM.
> 
> So people moving from Sat or Uverse will not get HBO Max, Showtime, Starz and Cinemax nor will they get the unlimited Cloud DVR so they will definitely want to use a new email address if they sign up for DirecTV Stream.
> 
> I guess they really want to discourage their Sat and Uverse subscribers from moving to DirecTV Stream. I guess they may not realize there is another option where their sat and uverse subscribers might switch to another companies service Like Hulu or Google.
> 
> They are now including the box (1) with all packages.


So D* continues to think of creative ways to continue losing subscribers.
First by raising prices to be less competitive, followed by only letting new customers get any relief.
But since becoming a new customer is so easy even if you lose all your recordings and series setups, maybe they hope that either most won’t notice or they will be willing to go through cancel/become new sub. The only thing I know for sure for me is that I won’t stay and pay the $10/month penalty for doing so.
From a financial point I could cancel and switch to something else and save around $50/month


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> So D* continues to think of creative ways to continue losing subscribers.
> First by raising prices to be less competitive, followed by only letting new customers get any relief.
> But since becoming a new customer is so easy even if you lose all your recordings and series setups, maybe they hope that either most won’t notice or they will be willing to go through cancel/become new sub. The only thing I know for sure for me is that I won’t stay and pay the $10/month penalty for doing so.
> From a financial point I could cancel and switch to something else and save around $50/month


Geez, these people are dumb and customer-hostile.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Geez, these people are dumb and customer-hostile.


Yeah, you gotta wonder what genius comes up with these ideas that are so hostile to existing customers.

For me, after I confirmed no deal, I cancelled and switched to YTTV. Hate the UI and the way they do recordings, but using it with a Chromecast w/Google TV makes it tolerable.

Love the service D*Stream provides, it just isn’t worth the $50/month more it costs.

I lose DD5.1 & RSNs and gain NFL but otherwise the channel lineup works for me.


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> Geez, these people are dumb and customer-hostile.


It baffles me with their onslaught of ads claiming their great deals are for both new and existing customers. I know those ads are for their wireless deals but still…same company and they are going out of their way to screw over their existing customers especially since there is an easy work around for existing customers.


----------



## compnurd

Still cruising along with my included unlimited dvr here


----------



## b4pjoe

compnurd said:


> Still cruising along with my included unlimited dvr here


That is great if you can get it. A lot of existing users are not. Even after being told they would get it.


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> That is great if you can get it. A lot of existing users are not. Even after being told they would get it.


It’s been 1 day since the new pricing kicked in It’s like watching a bunch of 5 year olds complain then can’t have a new toy for a week


----------



## b4pjoe

If you mean me I don't even have DirecTV Stream but like to keep up with what they are doing since someday I might want to get rid of my dish. If they are giving it to existing customers they should remove that text from their website and educate their own people about what is real and what isn't. And they did modify their website between last Friday and Monday but still have that text up there. It isn't that hard to change text on a website. The problem is their own employees don't know what is true and what isn't. But like always AT&T can't get anything right. It is just stupidity on their part.


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> It’s been 1 day since the new pricing kicked in It’s like watching a bunch of 5 year olds complain then can’t have a new toy for a week


Pretty typical response to announcements from any of these services. Announce, followed by lots of posting about whatever was announced.
With this price increase and the apparent penalty for being an existing customer from a service that is already considered to be overpriced, what would you expect? It doesn’t help that D* can’t seem to get their ducks in a row to ensure their message is clear, concise an correct, but again the usual crapola from them.
No wonder it is back up for sale! With a little luck, if it gets sold, the new owner will not keep AT&T around at all.


----------



## gregoryh325

compnurd said:


> Still cruising along with my included unlimited dvr here


Sure would like to see a screenshot showing you are getting Unlimited DVR for free.


----------



## lparsons21

I decided to give D*Stream a chance to retain me. So I did a chat with no luck. I suggested a few months of a discount but that was no joy either.
CSR told me that Stream was not offering unlimited free DVR. I corrected him. Then went to the site and started through the sign up process and sure enough, new customers get it free.
So I ended up with no change and a little ticked off.


----------



## compnurd

Its TV. If that’s all you do it worry about TV then sort out priorities


----------



## gio12

lparsons21 said:


> I decided to give D*Stream a chance to retain me. So I did a chat with no luck. I suggested a few months of a discount but that was no joy either.
> CSR told me that Stream was not offering unlimited free DVR. I corrected him. Then went to the site and started through the sign up process and sure enough, new customers get it free.
> So I ended up with no change and a little ticked off.


I chatted to quit. I was given $45 off a month for 12 months to stay. THAT price was with it, regarless of DVR. But yeah, with AT&T prices, Unlimited DVR should be standard.


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> I chatted to quit. I was given $45 off a month for 12 months to stay. THAT price was with it, regarless of DVR. But yeah, with AT&T prices, Unlimited DVR should be standard.


Since I didn’t get squat from them, I cancelled. Gave some thought to signing up as new subscriber but decided to cut my Streaming cost down by $50/month instead.
I’ll suffer with YTTV instead.


----------



## gregoryh325

compnurd said:


> Its TV. If that’s all you do it worry about TV then sort out priorities


@compnurd Still waiting on that screenshot showing you are getting free unlimited DVR as an existing customer. U claim it on here and also on reddit even though not 1 other existing customer on the forums is getting it. Mmm. Hmm.


----------



## compnurd

gregoryh325 said:


> @compnurd Still waiting on that screenshot showing you are getting free unlimited DVR as an existing customer. U claim it on here and also on reddit even though not 1 other existing customer on the forums is getting it. Mmm. Hmm.


Don’t you have a fedex driver to be scared of

some of us have jobs and have to leave the house. Don’t have time to babysit the internet to send you screenshots of my account


----------



## compnurd

here since you have nothing better to do


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> here since you have nothing better to do
> View attachment 32030


Glad you got that, wish I could have. 

While YTTV gives a big channel supply, it just is not as good a service. The lack of RSNs isn’t an issue for me as I’ve never actually watched them. PQ on YTTV is fine, but not quite as good as Stream’s, and of course it is missing DD5.1 because of Google’s incompetence, not to mention how much the UI sucks.

I’d rather have Stream, but Ultimate is the lowest level that has the Golf channel, if it wasn’t for that I could live with Entertainment. I’m still tossing around signing up as a new customer to get at least some break on pricing.


----------



## NashGuy

Welp, another Olympics coming up and still no 4K on DTV Stream. Heck, this time even DTV satellite won't have any live 4K from the Olympics. Looks like they'll only be offering 4K replays 24 hours later. 









Updated: NBC to Air 2022 Winter Olympics Nightly In 4K - The TV Answer Man!


NBC confirmed today that it will offer next month’s Winter Olympics from Beijing, China in 4K HDR (High Dynamic Range). The 4K HDR coverage will include the Opening and Closing Ceremony (live) and each night’s live NBC primetime show which includes recorded events. The network said the sports...




tvanswerman.com





YouTube TV will again offer the entirety of NBC's live 4K coverage. (That coverage will definitely be in 4K HDR on Comcast. I _think_ it's 4K HDR, and not just 4K, on YTTV too, but I'm not 100% sure on that.)


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> Welp, another Olympics coming up and still no 4K on DTV Stream.


I asked a rep from the Office of the President yesterday if there were any plans to have 4K content on DirecTV Stream yesterday and she said "Great question" and I got a firm "I don't know" from her.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> I asked a rep from the Office of the President yesterday if there were any plans to have 4K content on DirecTV Stream yesterday and she said "Great question" and I got a firm "I don't know" from her.


Interesting. Just weird to me that 4K is still MIA. Maybe getting PBS added is all the additional effort they can expend for now, ha. Or maybe TPG has them in a holding pattern, not wanting to spend any additional money on operations (bandwidth), while they try to negotiate a merger deal with DISH.


----------



## lparsons21

lparsons21 said:


> Glad you got that, wish I could have.
> 
> While YTTV gives a big channel supply, it just is not as good a service. The lack of RSNs isn’t an issue for me as I’ve never actually watched them. PQ on YTTV is fine, but not quite as good as Stream’s, and of course it is missing DD5.1 because of Google’s incompetence, not to mention how much the UI sucks.
> 
> I’d rather have Stream, but Ultimate is the lowest level that has the Golf channel, if it wasn’t for that I could live with Entertainment. I’m still tossing around signing up as a new customer to get at least some break on pricing.


Well after using YTTV for a little while, i still find that it just isn’t what I want. So I bit the bullet and signed up as a new subscriber @Ultimate. DirecTV Stream is just a better service and Ultimate has all the channels I care about and a few that have no value to me. Missing NFL but I’m just a casual sports fan and can get all the professional football with other channels, so no actual loss.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> Well after using YTTV for a little while, i still find that it just isn’t what I want. So I bit the bullet and signed up as a new subscriber @Ultimate. DirecTV Stream is just a better service and Ultimate has all the channels I care about and a few that have no value to me. Missing NFL but I’m just a casual sports fan and can get all the professional football with other channels, so no actual loss.


I love it lol


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> I love it lol


Glad I could brighten your day. 

From the standpoint of quality of service, Stream just wins hands down, IMO. But it is a bit overpriced, much of that caused by the inclusion of RSNs and Starz Encore being included, neither of which have value to me. Outside of those two services, Ultimate is essentially the same channel mix as YTTV with some relatively minor channel differences. Where YTTV falls down is lack of DD5.1 and their horrible DVR UI. PQ difference is slightly in Stream’s favor, but I’m nearly 80 and to my eyes it is very slight.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Glad I could brighten your day.
> 
> From the standpoint of quality of service, Stream just wins hands down, IMO. But it is a bit overpriced, much of that caused by the inclusion of RSNs and Starz Encore being included, neither of which have value to me. Outside of those two services, Ultimate is essentially the same channel mix as YTTV with some relatively minor channel differences. Where YTTV falls down is lack of DD5.1 and their horrible DVR UI. PQ difference is slightly in Stream’s favor, but I’m nearly 80 and to my eyes it is very slight.


Your hearing must still be pretty good, though. I'm much younger than you and honestly couldn't tell you whether a TV show I'm watching uses real DD5.1 audio versus the fake surround sound I get from my Yamaha receiver via Dolby Pro Logic II from a stereo audio stream. (And yes, I have a 5+1 speaker set up, with rear speakers down-firing from the ceiling behind the seating area.)


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Your hearing must still be pretty good, though. I'm much younger than you and honestly couldn't tell you whether a TV show I'm watching uses real DD5.1 audio versus the fake surround sound I get from my Yamaha receiver via Dolby Pro Logic II from a stereo audio stream. (And yes, I have a 5+1 speaker set up, with rear speakers down-firing from the ceiling behind the seating area.)


Well i have a bit of tinnitus but otherwise my hearing is pretty good. I have an LGSN11RG Atmos soundbar system which does a bang up job of reproducing the provided audio channels. I has a wireless subwoofer, 2 upfiring speakers in the bar, 2 wireless rear speakers that also have upfiring speakers.


----------



## lparsons21

lparsons21 said:


> Well i have a bit of tinnitus but otherwise my hearing is pretty good. I have an LGSN11RG Atmos soundbar system which does a bang up job of reproducing the provided audio channels. I has a wireless subwoofer, 2 upfiring speakers in the bar, 2 wireless rear speakers that also have upfiring speakers.


I also have a Nakamichi 7.1.4 soundbar system the also fakes DD5.1 and more. Does a real good job of it too but it has an issue that when the source material changes sound (like from DD5.1 to stereo) it will all too often lock up and just quit working. I put that into my bedroom.

How good the real 5.1 is compared to the faked is somewhat dependent on source material. TV shows tend to not do much with 5.1, movies tend to do more with it and with those that really use it a lot, it is better real than faked IMO.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> How good the real 5.1 is compared to the faked is somewhat dependent on source material. TV shows tend to not do much with 5.1, movies tend to do more with it and with those that really use it a lot, it is better real than faked IMO.


Yeah, if I could replay a movie scene both ways, I'm sure I'd agree that the surround effect is better with real DD5.1 versus Pro Logic II. But not having a direct comparison available (i.e. the way anyone normally watches TV), Pro Logic II sounds fine to me. Especially for the kind of stuff typically watched on cable TV, e.g. series, sports, news. Which, I guess, is why I don't see why YTTV's lack of DD5.1 is such a big deal. Although if your set-up doesn't offer Pro Logic and you watch a lot of stuff on YTTV, then I guess it's more important...


----------



## b4pjoe

LOL…I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between the worlds best sound system from the TVs internal speakers.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, if I could replay a movie scene both ways, I'm sure I'd agree that the surround effect is better with real DD5.1 versus Pro Logic II. But not having a direct comparison available (i.e. the way anyone normally watches TV), Pro Logic II sounds fine to me. Especially for the kind of stuff typically watched on cable TV, e.g. series, sports, news. Which, I guess, is why I don't see why YTTV's lack of DD5.1 is such a big deal. Although if your set-up doesn't offer Pro Logic and you watch a lot of stuff on YTTV, then I guess it's more important...


The LG soundbar that I use is wonderful for 5.1 or better audio, but it doesn’t upscale audio at all so if the source is stereo, that’s all you get. IMO, not enjoyable at all. For me, I suspect that my hatred for the DVR UI of their app just sucks so much it makes any other shortcoming more annoying. It didn’t help that Google made a big announcement about 5.1 coming and then a few days later said the rollout was complete when it was only on a handful of TVs and not one single streaming box. Since then absolutely nothing has been done about that glaring shortcoming. IOW, yet another half-assed ‘new’ thing from Google!


----------



## MysteryMan

b4pjoe said:


> LOL…I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between the worlds best sound system from the TVs internal speakers.


You've got to be joking. There's a dramatic difference in audio quality between a surround system, a soundbar and a TV's speakers.


----------



## lparsons21

MysteryMan said:


> You've got to be joking. There's a dramatic difference in audio quality between a surround system, a soundbar and a TV's speakers.


Sure there is, but if his hearing is shot he wouldn’t hear it.


----------



## b4pjoe

lparsons21 said:


> Sure there is, but if his hearing is shot he wouldn’t hear it.


Which is the case. Any sound through hearing aids suck so I usually take them out and use my bluetooth ear buds or headphones. Both sound great to me then.


----------



## gregoryh325

compnurd said:


> here since you have nothing better to do
> View attachment 32030


@compnurd The screenshot you shared shows the services you have and the price of your package--not the price of DVR. My account page shows the same thing---services (Choice) plus unlimited DVR. Show a screenshot that has the price on it. Scroll down it's below what you shared. It's obvious you are being evasive b/c you are lying. You started posting on Reddit 10 days ago you have Unlimited for free but aren't willing to prove it. New customers get it for free--not existing.


----------



## compnurd

gregoryh325 said:


> @compnurd Where is the part that says 0 dollars. The screenshot you shared shows the services you have and the price of your package--not the price of DVR. My account page shows the same thing---services (Choice) plus unlimited DVR. Show a screenshot that has the price on it. Scroll down it's below what you shared. It's obvious you are being evasive b/c you are lying. You started posting on Reddit 10 days ago you have Unlimited for free but aren't willing to prove it. New customers get it for free--not existing.
> 
> View attachment 32034
> View attachment 32035


You need help.... I dont have a Cloud DVR section anymore.. I cant Remove it like you can


----------



## gio12

NashGuy said:


> Your hearing must still be pretty good, though. I'm much younger than you and honestly couldn't tell you whether a TV show I'm watching uses real DD5.1 audio versus the fake surround sound I get from my Yamaha receiver via Dolby Pro Logic II from a stereo audio stream. (And yes, I have a 5+1 speaker set up, with rear speakers down-firing from the ceiling behind the seating area.)


You know, I am starting to feel the same. SONOS Arc, sub and 2 rears. Only notice a lot on Netflix, HBO Max, Amazon and OTA. 
Directv STREAM and YTTV seems about the same.


----------



## gio12

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, if I could replay a movie scene both ways, I'm sure I'd agree that the surround effect is better with real DD5.1 versus Pro Logic II. But not having a direct comparison available (i.e. the way anyone normally watches TV), Pro Logic II sounds fine to me. Especially for the kind of stuff typically watched on cable TV, e.g. series, sports, news. Which, I guess, is why I don't see why YTTV's lack of DD5.1 is such a big deal. Although if your set-up doesn't offer Pro Logic and you watch a lot of stuff on YTTV, then I guess it's more important...


Starting to feel the same. On shows DSTS or YTTV sound the same. Just wish YTTV got back RSNs. But I have DTS for $2 for a year. So fine now,


----------



## lparsons21

Well for about a month I’ve had Stream Ultimate @$105 and YouTubeTV @$65. And bounced between them a bit. The level with Stream is the closest to a channel match to YTTV, but as you can see there is a $40/month penalty involved. It includes the RSN’s which have zero value to me and Starz which has nearly the same value to me.

Stream, from a purely quality of service standpoint is hands down the better service IMO. Better UI, DD5.1 audio and best PQ.

YTTV’s UI for the DVR portion is horrible, intermixing recorded and on demand content and allowing for almost zero management of any facet beyond not recording/listing a show.

I’m housebound with some medical issues and watch a significant amount of TV. I started a log of what I was watching and confirmed that the bulk of my TV viewing is with on demand services and not live TV or even much current or new from most channels, or at worst getting the same shows from on demand services. Sports of any sort is hit or miss, mostly missed.

So my wallet has been talking to me and I think I’ll switch to YTTV on the Chromecast w/Google TV. Save myself $40/month, pick up some channels of real interest and not lose any I care about and complain to Google about the shortcomings.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Well for about a month I’ve had Stream Ultimate @$105 and YouTubeTV @$65. And bounced between them a bit. The level with Stream is the closest to a channel match to YTTV, but as you can see there is a $40/month penalty involved. It includes the RSN’s which have zero value to me and Starz which has nearly the same value to me.
> 
> Stream, from a purely quality of service standpoint is hands down the better service IMO. Better UI, DD5.1 audio and best PQ.
> 
> YTTV’s UI for the DVR portion is horrible, intermixing recorded and on demand content and allowing for almost zero management of any facet beyond not recording/listing a show.
> 
> I’m housebound with some medical issues and watch a significant amount of TV. I started a log of what I was watching and confirmed that the bulk of my TV viewing is with on demand services and not live TV or even much current or new from most channels, or at worst getting the same shows from on demand services. Sports of any sort is hit or miss, mostly missed.
> 
> So my wallet has been talking to me and I think I’ll switch to YTTV on the Chromecast w/Google TV. Save myself $40/month, pick up some channels of real interest and not lose any I care about and complain to Google about the shortcomings.


One small quibble: the Ultimate package includes Starz Encore ("rerun" movie channels), not Starz.

And yeah, one of the big factors YTTV has going for it, aside from its unlimited 9-month DVR, is the price. I recently helped my parents switch from DISH, which they'd had nearly a decade, to YTTV and cut their monthly bill from about $120 to $65. They're giving up a couple channels they liked but they can easily do without them for that kind of savings.

I had long thought DTV Stream, paired with their custom Osprey box, would be the best solution for them. But it was also missing a couple channels they liked, and to piece together a package comparable to what they're getting on YTTV (in terms of the channels and shows they like), they'd need to get the Choice package plus the HD Extra add-on, for a total of $96/mo. Add on two Osprey boxes and the monthly bill goes to $106. And they'd still be missing a couple of important channels versus what they had on DISH. Plus my dad didn't like that his recordings would automatically disappear after just 3 months. (He'd rather they stick around forever but he can live with YTTV's 9-month limit.)

I'm pretty sure that they would have found the Osprey's UI and remote easier to get used to than YTTV on the Onn Android TV box but after 8 weeks or so, they've adjusted to it pretty well. They wouldn't want to pay an extra $41 per month (i.e. 63% more!) to go with the DTV Stream/Osprey set-up versus the YTTV/Onn set-up they have now. 

BTW, the Onn 4K boxes are just $19.88 each from Walmart with a pretty decent Google reference design remote. So the up-front hardware cost was more than offset by getting two free weeks of YTTV at the start, followed by $10 off each of the first three months, adding up to a total discount of nearly $60. Only thing I still need to do for them is buy a couple of USB ethernet adapters to provide both boxes a Cat6 connection back to the fiber gateway. That'll be another $35 or so.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> One small quibble: the Ultimate package includes Starz Encore ("rerun" movie channels), not Starz.
> 
> Yes and no. It comes with Encore live and VOD but also has the Starz VOD


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Yes and no. It comes with Encore live and VOD but also has the Starz VOD


Huh, that's odd. So you can watch current Starz series like "Power Book IV: Force" and current Starz movies like "Dont Breathe 2" via VOD? Must be an oversight on either DTV's or Starz's part as the Ultimate package has never been advertised as including regular Starz, which is the reason it lacks that service's linear channels.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Huh, that's odd. So you can watch current Starz series like "Power Book IV: Force" and current Starz movies like "Dont Breathe 2" via VOD? Must be an oversight on either DTV's or Starz's part as the Ultimate package has never been advertised as including regular Starz, which is the reason it lacks that service's linear channels.


Dish used to do the same thing, never advertised that it was there, but it was.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> For me, I suspect that my hatred for the DVR UI of their app just sucks so much it makes any other shortcoming more annoying. It didn’t help that Google made a big announcement about 5.1 coming and then a few days later said the rollout was complete when it was only on a handful of TVs and not one single streaming box. Since then absolutely nothing has been done about that glaring shortcoming. IOW, yet another half-assed ‘new’ thing from Google!


Some YTTV users are now reporting that they're seeing 5.1 show up in the Apple TV app. And a YTTV engineer confirmed that's the case on reddit. He also said they're internally testing it now on the Chromecast with Google TV but that hasn't extended to any public testing yet. My guess is that we see them get 5.1 rolled out across all platforms in the first half of this year, probably before they begin rolling out the recently announced forthcoming UI revamp.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Some YTTV users are now reporting that they're seeing 5.1 show up in the Apple TV app. And a YTTV engineer confirmed that's the case on reddit. He also said they're internally testing it now on the Chromecast with Google TV but that hasn't extended to any public testing yet. My guess is that we see them get 5.1 rolled out across all platforms in the first half of this year, probably before they begin rolling out the recently announced forthcoming UI revamp.


Thanks, confirmed at least on some channels on AppleTV. Hopefully this time it will keep doing so as some time back there were reports of 5.1 being on AppleTV and then suddenly went away


----------



## lparsons21

lparsons21 said:


> Thanks, confirmed at least on some channels on AppleTV. Hopefully this time it will keep doing so as some time back there were reports of 5.1 being on AppleTV and then suddenly went away


OK, I’m getting 5.1 audio on most channels using the ATV4K but most on the Facebook forum are not. Seems like the rollout isn’t complete which is typical for Google.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Thanks, confirmed at least on some channels on AppleTV. Hopefully this time it will keep doing so as some time back there were reports of 5.1 being on AppleTV and then suddenly went away


The engineer who posted on reddit said that the problem the first time they started rolling out 5.1 is that it caused significant picture quality degradation for some folks. They've had plenty of time to work on it since then, so I'd say they've gotten that figured out now. Hopefully no other bugs pop up, though.



lparsons21 said:


> OK, I’m getting 5.1 audio on most channels using the ATV4K but most on the Facebook forum are not. Seems like the rollout isn’t complete which is typical for Google.


Google tends to do public tests with a portion of the installed used base as the next step after internal beta tests. Makes a lot of sense to gradually roll something out and see what kind of feedback you get before just dumping it on everyone.


----------



## lparsons21

While I’m glad it is working on my ATV, I’d rather they get it working on their Chromecast w/Google TV. It is just a better box for YTTV in most other aspects.

While the continue watching isn’t overall better than Apple’s, it is good enough and covers Netflix much better too.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> While the continue watching isn’t overall better than Apple’s, it is good enough and covers Netflix much better too.


In my experience, Apple TV's Up Next works way better than Google TV's separate Continue Watching and Watchlist queues, with the exception that Up Next doesn't work with Netflix. But I so seldom subscribe to Netflix any more that that isn't an issue for me.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> In my experience, Apple TV's Up Next works way better than Google TV's separate Continue Watching and Watchlist queues, with the exception that Up Next doesn't work with Netflix. But I so seldom subscribe to Netflix any more that that isn't an issue for me.


Yeah, Apple TV’s is better and covers more services. And it is a seemingly unlimited strip of shows which often is a bit of a PITA. And of course there is the crappy remote….


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, Apple TV’s is better and covers more services. And it is a seemingly unlimited strip of shows which often is a bit of a PITA. And of course there is the crappy remote….


The 2nd gen remote is pretty good, IMO. And if there are titles in your Up Next queue you don't want, you can simply long-click them and manually remove them. Unfortunately, that's often not true with the Continue Watching queues that exist within apps...


----------



## inkahauts

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, Apple TV’s is better and covers more services. And it is a seemingly unlimited strip of shows which often is a bit of a PITA. And of course there is the crappy remote….


Try the second gen remote that is now out. It’s much better.


----------



## lparsons21

inkahauts said:


> Try the second gen remote that is now out. It’s much better.


So I’ve been told, but at $60 it is more than my Chromecast w/Google TV which works just fine for me.


----------



## mjwagner

NashGuy said:


> In my experience, Apple TV's Up Next works way better than Google TV's separate Continue Watching and Watchlist queues, with the exception that Up Next doesn't work with Netflix. But I so seldom subscribe to Netflix any more that that isn't an issue for me.


Not to mention the live tiles feature using YTTV on the ATV 4K.


----------



## lparsons21

mjwagner said:


> Not to mention the live tiles feature using YTTV on the ATV 4K.


Used it once, cute but not at all of interest to me.


----------



## gio12

Can anyone tell me how to pad DVR recordings on DIRECTV Stream?


----------



## compnurd

gio12 said:


> Can anyone tell me how to pad DVR recordings on DIRECTV Stream?


Cant Need to record the next program


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> Can anyone tell me how to pad DVR recordings on DIRECTV Stream?


You can’t


----------



## gio12

compnurd said:


> Cant Need to record the next program


Kidding right? Wow


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd

gio12 said:


> Kidding right? Wow
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I am not aware of being able to do it with any of the cloud DVR's


----------



## mjwagner

lparsons21 said:


> Used it once, cute but not at all of interest to me.


No worries, lots of different features/functions have various levels of interest/appeal for people. Different strokes for different folks as they say.


----------



## compnurd

Recordings now keep for 9 Months


----------



## b4pjoe

Hmmmmm....I wonder where they got that number from? 😁


----------



## NashGuy

compnurd said:


> Recordings now keep for 9 Months


Another item checked off from my months-old must-do list for DTV Stream...


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> The engineer who posted on reddit said that the problem the first time they started rolling out 5.1 is that it caused significant picture quality degradation for some folks. They've had plenty of time to work on it since then, so I'd say they've gotten that figured out now. Hopefully no other bugs pop up, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Google tends to do public tests with a portion of the installed used base as the next step after internal beta tests. Makes a lot of sense to gradually roll something out and see what kind of feedback you get before just dumping it on everyone.


And just like the previous time 5.1 audio was on AppleTV, it is now gone again


----------



## compnurd

Not really important but In home streams jumped from 20 to unlimited


----------



## b4pjoe

compnurd said:


> Recordings now keep for 9 Months





compnurd said:


> Not really important but In home streams jumped from 20 to unlimited


The website shows the unlimited IN-HOME Streams but the DVR fine print still shows "Recordings expire after 90 days."



> Unlimited hours of Cloud DVR storage INCLUDED
> Online only. New DIRECTV STREAM customers only. Offer not available to DIRECTV and U-verse TV customers switching to DIRECTV STREAM. Data connection required. Recordings expire after 90 days. In a series recording, max 30 episodes stored (oldest deleted first which may be in less than 90 days).


Also wasn't the free trial for 7 days previously? It now shows the free trial at 5 days.


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> The website shows the unlimited IN-HOME Streams but the DVR fine print still shows "Recordings expire after 90 days."
> 
> 
> 
> Also wasn't the free trial for 7 days previously? It now shows the free trial at 5 days.


They didn’t actually have a free trial before. You would be charged at some point and if you cancelled before 14 days, they would refund. IOW, a convoluted way to do it.


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> The website shows the unlimited IN-HOME Streams but the DVR fine print still shows "Recordings expire after 90 days."
> 
> 
> 
> Also wasn't the free trial for 7 days previously? It now shows the free trial at 5 days.


The recordings piece is being phased in


----------



## litzdog911

Now if they would just give us "existing" customers the free unlimited DVR storage without having to cancel and start over.


----------



## gio12

lparsons21 said:


> And just like the previous time 5.1 audio was on AppleTV, it is now gone again


I am getting 5.1 audio on my ATV


----------



## lparsons21

Still not getting 5.1 w/YTTV on AppleTV 4K. Stats for nerds shows MP4 stereo.

I guess my biggest complaint with YTTV is how they handle their unlimited DVR. In Library on the app, it has a selection of ‘new in your library’. Common sense would make you think that would be the most current episodes but it isn’t, it is by recorded date so a very old episode shows up there all too often, and oft times the new episode from the previous day doesn’t.

I’ve got both YTTV and DirectStream right now but even though Stream is much higher I think I will probably keep it.


----------



## B. Shoe

lparsons21 said:


> I guess my biggest complaint with YTTV is how they handle their unlimited DVR. In Library on the app, it has a selection of ‘new in your library’. Common sense would make you think that would be the most current episodes but it isn’t, it is by recorded date so a very old episode shows up there all too often, and oft times the new episode from the previous day doesn’t.


Agreed on the thoughts regarding the YTTV DVR organization of episodes. I rarely use DVR for much. If it'll pop up on an on-demand service, I'll usually just play it out from there. The better half, however, records a ton of Bravo programming to the YTTV DVR. Thankfully, she's become accustomed to it, so while I hope at some point it improves, we adapt and survive here.


----------



## lparsons21

B. Shoe said:


> Agreed on the thoughts regarding the YTTV DVR organization of episodes. I rarely use DVR for much. If it'll pop up on an on-demand service, I'll usually just play it out from there. The better half, however, records a ton of Bravo programming to the YTTV DVR. Thankfully, she's become accustomed to it, so while I hope at some point it improves, we adapt and survive here.


Yeah I can deal with it, just really don’t like it, or much else about their UI. From purely a channels for dollars standpoint, YTTV is an amazing bargain. But poor UI and lack of 5.1 audio support on most devices just turns me off.
Stream @Ultimate level fits me better though it has many more channels I don’t watch, but it is at a $40 cost penalty.


----------



## B. Shoe

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah I can deal with it, just really don’t like it, or much else about their UI. From purely a channels for dollars standpoint, YTTV is an amazing bargain. But poor UI and lack of 5.1 audio support on most devices just turns me off.
> Stream @Ultimate level fits me better though it has many more channels I don’t watch, but it is at a $40 cost penalty.


A couple of screenshots/articles have surfaced of the updated UI appearing for YTTV. Then again, it's taking/taken a while for this 5.1 rollout, also, so who knows when it'll be standard across the platform. If DStream can give you everything you want, and you're good with the added cost, no harm in subscribing to it!


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> I guess my biggest complaint with YTTV is how they handle their unlimited DVR. In Library on the app, it has a selection of ‘new in your library’. Common sense would make you think that would be the most current episodes but it isn’t, it is by recorded date so a very old episode shows up there all too often, and oft times the new episode from the previous day doesn’t.


Yes, the New in Your Library section at the top of the DVR is worse than useless. I can't suss out what algorithm Google is using to determine what does and does not end up in that category. I told my parents to just completely ignore it because it's a waste of time to look there. Too bad it can't be completely removed from the UI. Hopefully some kind of improvement will be made here in the upcoming UI overhaul.

That said, stuff they watch every day, like the local and national news, does reliably show up in the Most Watched section. For everything else, I have them go into the appropriate genre category (Shows, Sports, Movies, or Events) and find what they want there. Also, YTTV is getting pretty good about anticipating what they may want to watch, whether recorded or live, and proactively recommending it at the top of the Home tab.

Overall, I have to say that the YTTV DVR is pretty great. I was a little worried about my parents getting mixed up between DVR and VOD but YTTV seems to always default to playing the DVR version when both exist, so it hasn't been an issue. And so far it seems to be doing a very good job of auto-extending to record the entirety of all the NASCAR races that my dad watches (which is all of them, across all three series). When we started, I just added every single NASCAR category to his library and now he never has to worry about managing the DVR. No setting up recordings and manually extending them, no deleting recordings to free up space. He just watches.

I watched some March Madness last night and really enjoyed the "Catch Up to Live with Key Plays" feature in a game I had recording but didn't start watching until halfway through. Such a cool feature!


----------



## lparsons21

I think the algorithm is just to look at recorded date and put newest first regardless of whether or not the episode is the newest.

If Google would get off their asses and get 5.1 audio out on all the streaming boxes, I could live with the other shortcomings.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> I think the algorithm is just to look at recorded date and put newest first regardless of whether or not the episode is the newest.


That's how I would expect it to work but, no, that's not how it works, at least on my parents' account. On any given day, there would be multiple things that had been recorded but which were nowhere to be found in New In Your Library. And the items that were in there weren't always displayed in reverse chronological order, with the newest recording first. As I say, it made no sense. It was basically Google saying "Here's a random selection of things that were recorded within the last few days. Wanna watch one of these?"


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> That's how I would expect it to work but, no, that's not how it works, at least on my parents' account. On any given day, there would be multiple things that had been recorded but which were nowhere to be found in New In Your Library. And the items that were in there weren't always displayed in reverse chronological order, with the newest recording first. As I say, it made no sense. It was basically Google saying "Here's a random selection of things that were recorded within the last few days. Wanna watch one of these?"


I think you are right, ‘new in your library’ is just a mess with little value.

On the D*Stream side of things, seems there is some movement coming for some channels to be added, subtracted and moved to cheaper sub levels.









DIRECTV STREAM Moves Golf Channel, TV One, and CLEO TV to Cheaper Packages


DIRECTV STREAM has announced some upcoming changes to its various channel lineups. First up, on March 24, CLEO TV and TV One will be joining the DIRECTV Entertainment package. Both networks can currently be found on the …




thestreamable.com


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> On the D*Stream side of things, seems there is some movement coming for some channels to be added, subtracted and moved to cheaper sub levels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DIRECTV STREAM Moves Golf Channel, TV One, and CLEO TV to Cheaper Packages
> 
> 
> DIRECTV STREAM has announced some upcoming changes to its various channel lineups. First up, on March 24, CLEO TV and TV One will be joining the DIRECTV Entertainment package. Both networks can currently be found on the …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thestreamable.com


Putting Golf in the Choice package, along with most the other "upgrade" sports channels like RSNs, makes sense. Honestly, given the trends in the industry (e.g. YouTube TV and Hulu Live), they should aim to have no more than two main channel tiers, with any channels not in those tiers being stuff that can be optionally added to either.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Putting Golf in the Choice package, along with most the other "upgrade" sports channels like RSNs, makes sense. Honestly, given the trends in the industry (e.g. YouTube TV and Hulu Live), they should aim to have no more than two main channel tiers, with any channels not in those tiers being stuff that can be optionally added to either.


Yeah, 2 tiers would make more sense imo. Now it is 4 tiers, pretty much all of them at a premium price considering what’s in them.

Adding Golf to Choice makes it very close in channel count and mix of types to YTTV’s base sub, but at a $25 penalty.

Switched to Choice which renews the end of the month. Will miss a few channels from Ultimate but none that are more than just nice to have.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Adding Golf to Choice makes it very close in channel count and mix of types to YTTV’s base sub, but at a $25 penalty.


Right. Basically, you're paying that extra $25 for DTV Stream's Choice vs. YTTV in order to get your RSN(s). And that amount is pretty close to what the upcoming standalone DTC Bally Sports app will reportedly cost. I think I've seen the $23 price point rumored, although some say less. Maybe they would offer an annual subscription at a significantly reduced per-month price.

I can imagine a lot of folks only wanting their RSN for the months when the team they care about is actually playing. Here in Nashville, we only have NFL and NHL teams, and only the latter, the Nashville Predators, are on an RSN, Bally Sports South. The NHL regular season goes from mid-Oct through the end of April, so a fan would only need the service for seven months out of the year.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Right. Basically, you're paying that extra $25 for DTV Stream's Choice vs. YTTV in order to get your RSN(s). And that amount is pretty close to what the upcoming standalone DTC Bally Sports app will reportedly cost. I think I've seen the $23 price point rumored, although some say less. Maybe they would offer an annual subscription at a significantly reduced per-month price.
> 
> I can imagine a lot of folks only wanting their RSN for the months when the team they care about is actually playing. Here in Nashville, we only have NFL and NHL teams, and only the latter, the Nashville Predators, are on an RSN, Bally Sports South. The NHL regular season goes from mid-Oct through the end of April, so a fan would only need the service for seven months out of the year.


Yeah, the cost differential is about the same as RSN cost, which is irritating since I’ve never watched an RSN. 
I would prefer more of the national sports channels and no RSN’s, but alas, they don’t have that.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, the cost differential is about the same as RSN cost, which is irritating since I’ve never watched an RSN.
> I would prefer more of the national sports channels and no RSN’s, but alas, they don’t have that.


Well in that case, may I interest you in YTTV, Hulu Live or FuboTV? "National sports channels and no RSNs" is basically their angle on the cable TV market.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Well in that case, may I interest you in YTTV, Hulu Live or FuboTV? "National sports channels and no RSNs" is basically their angle on the cable TV market.


no. I’ve had YTTV a few times. From a channel standpoint it should be the one. But the UI just sucks especially the DVR portion.

Hulu & Fubo just don’t have the right mix for me.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> no. I’ve had YTTV a few times. From a channel standpoint it should be the one. But the UI just sucks especially the DVR portion.
> 
> Hulu & Fubo just don’t have the right mix for me.


Ah well, I guess you'll just have to spend that extra cash on RSNs you don't watch on DTV Stream then. Maybe the upcoming YTTV UI revamp will make it acceptable to you...


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Ah well, I guess you'll just have to spend that extra cash on RSNs you don't watch on DTV Stream then. Maybe the upcoming YTTV UI revamp will make it acceptable to you...


At the speed they do upgrades it will be next year, right after they get 5.1 audio done.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Ah well, I guess you'll just have to spend that extra cash on RSNs you don't watch on DTV Stream then. Maybe the upcoming YTTV UI revamp will make it acceptable to you...


Well that ‘extra cash’ isn’t just getting me RSN’s I don’t watch, it is getting me the excellent Osprey box, the best PQ on any live streaming service and 5.1 audio on nearly every live channel.
And for all the *****ing I’ve done about Stream, I always seem to come back to it. I think it is the best live streaming service, just overpriced, mostly because of the way they have channel packages structured.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> At the speed they do upgrades it will be next year, right after they get 5.1 audio done.


Nah, I think UI revamps are a lot easier to implement as they don't involve the actual AV stream. Google rolls out server-side UI changes _all the time_ across their varied and many consumer touch-points.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Well that ‘extra cash’ isn’t just getting me RSN’s I don’t watch, it is getting me the excellent Osprey box, the best PQ on any live streaming service and 5.1 audio on nearly every live channel.
> And for all the *****ing I’ve done about Stream, I always seem to come back to it. I think it is the best live streaming service, just overpriced, mostly because of the way they have channel packages structured.


Yeah, DTV Stream is overpriced. But then quality always costs more. They've now implemented several of my longstanding recommendations to improve their cost/value ratio. Would love to see reliable current subscriber numbers for it. Remains to be seen whether they can go the long-run as currently priced and structured vs. YTTV and the Hulu Live/Disney Bundle.


----------



## CraigerM

Just curious if DTV Stream on another device could you use a universal remote, say the Logitech Remote, would you be able to change channel numbers, pause, rewind and fast forward the DVR, live TV and set recordings? I saw a recent video DTV Stream on the Apple TV 4k they added channel numbers. You could turn them on and off. Also, would they have Dolby Digital 5.1 on the Apple TV 4k and other devices? Thanks.


----------



## lparsons21

CraigerM said:


> Just curious if DTV Stream on another device could you use a universal remote, say the Logitech Remote, would you be able to change channel numbers, pause, rewind and fast forward the DVR, live TV and set recordings? I saw a recent video DTV Stream on the Apple TV 4k they added channel numbers. You could turn them on and off. Also, would they have Dolby Digital 5.1 on the Apple TV 4k and other devices? Thanks.


The 5.1 audio is there on ATV, Roku, FireTV and probably others.
As to using a Harmony and selecting channels with keypad, theoretically it should but I’ve not seen any reports of someone trying. It is a question asked a fair bit, just no answers that I’ve seen. REW and FF and pause all work as you would expect.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Nah, I think UI revamps are a lot easier to implement as they don't involve the actual AV stream. Google rolls out server-side UI changes _all the time_ across their varied and many consumer touch-points.


Even so, implementing 5.1 isn’t brain surgery and there is no valid excuse for not having iplementing it. They even had it working on AppleTV for a very short time.


----------



## CraigerM

Sorry, forgot to add would Siri, GoogleTV, or Alexa's voice work with changing DTV Stream channels?


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Even so, implementing 5.1 isn’t brain surgery and there is no valid excuse for not having iplementing it. They even had it working on AppleTV for a very short time.


IDK what the problem is. May have to do with AV sync, which isn't an uncommon problem in the world of OTT streaming...


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> IDK what the problem is. May have to do with AV sync, which isn't an uncommon problem in the world of OTT streaming...


For the couple of days they had it working for me on the ATV I noticed no problems. Well no problems until they turned it off.


----------



## NashGuy

CraigerM said:


> Sorry, forgot to add would Siri, GoogleTV, or Alexa's voice work with changing DTV Stream channels?


Yes, you can definitely use Siri voice commands on the DTV Stream app for Apple TV to change channels, although some folks report that it's hit-or-miss (see link below). And you can also do it on their custom Android TV box ("Osprey"). I would assume that you can do it via Alexa on the Fire TV app but I don't know for sure.


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/DirectvStream/comments/th7wjm


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Yes, you can definitely use Siri voice commands on the DTV Stream app for Apple TV to change channels, although some folks report that it's hit-or-miss (see link below). And you can also do it on their custom Android TV box ("Osprey"). I would assume that you can do it via Alexa on the Fire TV app but I don't know for sure.
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/DirectvStream/comments/th7wjm


Yeah, voice channels is doable on the AppleTV, but it is somewhat inconsistent. Voice trickplay (FF.REW and so forth) doesn’t work at all on AppleTV but i think it does on Fire and maybe Roku.


----------



## CraigerM

Does the DTV Stream APP have a previous channel button on the Apple TV 4k box and Fire Sticks?


----------



## gio12

CraigerM said:


> Does the DTV Stream APP have a previous channel button on the Apple TV 4k box and Fire Sticks?


Not on ATV.


----------



## NashGuy

CraigerM said:


> Does the DTV Stream APP have a previous channel button on the Apple TV 4k box and Fire Sticks?


Sounds like their Osprey box with its custom-designed full-scale voice remote is going to come closest to giving you the DTV Stream experience you want.

I wonder if they're ever going to release that 2nd-gen version of the box or if it's been cancelled?


----------



## CraigerM

NashGuy said:


> Sounds like their Osprey box with its custom-designed full-scale voice remote is going to come closest to giving you the DTV Stream experience you want.
> 
> I wonder if they're ever going to release that 2nd-gen version of the box or if it's been cancelled?


I think it was Swanni at TheTVAnswerman brought up a good point about DTV Stream. What happens if you don't like it and you would have bought one or more of the boxes? You wouldn't be able to return them and get your money back. I thought of another point what if DTV Stream doesn't make it and goes under?


----------



## b4pjoe

You could either sell the box on eBay or just use it as another streaming box.


----------



## CraigerM

b4pjoe said:


> You could either sell the box on eBay or just use it as another streaming box.


You would have to sell it at a discount right since it would be used.


----------



## b4pjoe

Right now they are going about half price on eBay compared to what AT&T charges.


----------



## NashGuy

FYI guys, I just discovered that you can buy "Certified Restored" DTV Stream boxes directly from them during the online sign-up process for $49.99 each, paid up-front in full. Here's the fine print:

_Certified Restored devices are returned devices that are in full working order after being thoroughly inspected and tested. Purchased devices may be returned within 14 days for a full refund. Includes a limited 1-year warranty._

Here's the warranty PDF.

Seems to me that you'd be silly to purchase one from off of eBay, even brand new, for the same price, given that the restored units from DTV have a 1-year warranty and are returnable in case you cancel the service in the first week or two. As with the new units, you can purchase up to six of these restored units during sign-up. No way to mix and match new and restored units.


----------



## CraigerM

DTV Stream just updated its guide. Not sure if its new but it has a recent button. I wonder if that could be just like a previous button.

DIRECTV STREAM Rolls Out New Grid Guide Better Navigation, Channel Numbers, & Favorites – The Streamable


----------



## compnurd

CraigerM said:


> DTV Stream just updated its guide. Not sure if its new but it has a recent button. I wonder if that could be just like a previous
> 
> DIRECTV STREAM Rolls Out New Grid Guide Better Navigation, Channel Numbers, & Favorites – The Streamable


It just shows you the recent channels you have selected


----------



## CraigerM

compnurd said:


> It just shows you the recent channels you have selected


So, you can't click on those recent channels to go back to them?


----------



## compnurd

CraigerM said:


> So, you can't click on those recent channels to go back to them?


Yeh you can... not sure what would imply you couldnt???


----------



## compnurd

compnurd said:


> Yeh you can... not sure what would imply you couldnt???


You can access recent channels by selecting up on your remote also


----------



## CraigerM

compnurd said:


> Yeh you can... not sure what would imply you couldnt???


Sorry, it sounded like you could see the recent channels you selected and not click on them to get to them. Selecting up on the remote for recent channels is cool.


----------



## b4pjoe

DIRECTV STREAM to Extend Unlimited DVR Recordings to 9 Months on April 20th


----------



## Soulweeper

EDIT: Accidental post.


----------



## Teetertotter

If I switch to DTV stream with boxes, will I be receiving 5.1 DD audio?


----------



## compnurd

Teetertotter said:


> If I switch to DTV stream with boxes, will I be receiving 5.1 DD audio?


All devices support it. Channels are a different story


----------



## NashGuy

For clarification/search purposes, I wonder if it's possible for a mod or the OP to change the title of this thread to read DIRECTV STREAM rather than AT&T TV?


----------



## Teetertotter

Perhaps I should have stated, "Are the channels on the streaming list, in HD?" I just realized there is NO NFL network, currently.


----------



## B. Shoe

Teetertotter said:


> Perhaps I should have stated, "Are the channels on the streaming list, in HD?" I just realized there is NO NFL network, currently.


Yes, everything streams in HD. No, no NFL Network currently available on DIRECTV STREAM. If it's a must-have channel, it is available on YouTube TV, Hulu, fuboTV, or Sling.


----------



## Teetertotter

Okay with all channels being HD or 1080p or i. I must have looked at the wrong channel list with NFL not listed. With all the HD channels, is transmission in 5.1 or Dolby Digital sound.


----------



## litzdog911

Teetertotter said:


> Okay with all channels being HD or 1080p or i. I must have looked at the wrong channel list with NFL not listed. With all the HD channels, is transmission in 5.1 or Dolby Digital sound.


Audio support just depends on the channel and the show. Some are DD5.1. Some are DD2.0 stereo.


----------



## Teetertotter

Deleted


----------



## durian

is it possible to purchase the DTV stream boxes after the free trial or if i need to add a tv in the future? i wanted to do the trial to see if i like it, and if i do keep it i definitely want to use the boxes. i havent seen anywhere on the website where you can buy them other than when you sign up for the service. what about the att stores? do they carry them?


----------



## litzdog911

durian said:


> is it possible to purchase the DTV stream boxes after the free trial or if i need to add a tv in the future? i wanted to do the trial to see if i like it, and if i do keep it i definitely want to use the boxes. i havent seen anywhere on the website where you can buy them other than when you sign up for the service. what about the att stores? do they carry them?


AT&T Stores do not carry DirecTV Stream boxes. But you can easily order them whenever you want via your DirecTV Stream account. They currently have refurbished boxes selling for $50.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Can you cancel D* stream on their web without having to call in?


----------



## litzdog911

TheRatPatrol said:


> Can you cancel D* stream on their web without having to call in?


I don't think so.


----------



## gio12

TheRatPatrol said:


> Can you cancel D* stream on their web without having to call in?


No, call or chat only.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

litzdog911 said:


> I don't think so.





gio12 said:


> No, call or chat only.


Thanks


----------



## Curtis0620

Directv Stream just added COZI, GRIT and BOUNCE


----------



## litzdog911

Curtis0620 said:


> Directv Stream just added COZI, GRIT and BOUNCE


Thanks for letting us knnow!

Cozi, Ch. 80
Grit, Ch. 81
Bounce, Ch. 82


----------



## Curtis0620

I hope the add a few of the other Sub-Channels like ME-TV


----------



## NashGuy

NashGuy said:


> OK, so unlimited cloud DVR is now included at no additional cost in every DTV Stream package, one of the improvements I've been calling for for a long time now. What are the other things that were on my list?
> 
> Add PBS locals -- done.
> 
> Add those missing CW locals -- nope, AFAIK, there are still several missing (including those owned by Nexstar).
> 
> Add some of those retro diginets -- well, they did add one (Heroes & Icons) but only in the Choice and above packages. Not enough. What about Get TV, Cozi TV, Comet, and INSP, which are carried on YTTV and/or FuboTV? (Heck, INSP is one of the few channels carried on DTV sat that's still missing from DTV Stream.)
> 
> Add 4K HDR content, including live sports -- nope, that's still MIA.
> 
> Add the NFL Network -- nope, and I seriously doubt it appears in 2022 either. Maybe it (and possibly NFL Red Zone) become available in 2023, after the current NFL contract with DTV lapses.
> 
> Roll out a better performing second-gen Osprey Android TV box -- nope, and I'm beginning to think it'll never be released.
> 
> Offer an optional, renewable 1-year contract with some kind of cost-savings and price freeze for the length of the contract -- nope, contract-free with everyday regular pricing from day 1 remains the only option.





Curtis0620 said:


> Directv Stream just added COZI, GRIT and BOUNCE


Welp, one more thing on my "to-do" list of improvements for DTV Stream has finally been achieved. Still got a few more to go, though. (And hey Steveknj, as for adding those Nexstar-operated CW locals such as NYC's WPIX, I'd say that will definitely happen before long because Nexstar is currently in the process of becoming the majority owner of the CW network. Network O&O local stations _always_ get included.)


----------



## Curtis0620

Looks like ION was added also to channel 305. I don't believe it was there before.


----------



## NashGuy

Curtis0620 said:


> Looks like ION was added also to channel 305. I don't believe it was there before.


No, it wasn't. ION was definitely on the list of channels I made a few months ago that were on DTV sat but not on DTV Stream. So that's another important new addition to DTV Stream. (You wouldn't necessarily think so, but in fact, ION was the 13th most-watched TV channel in the US last year.)


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Welp, one more thing on my "to-do" list of improvements for DTV Stream has finally been achieved. Still got a few more to go, though. (And hey Steveknj, as for adding those Nexstar-operated CW locals such as NYC's WPIX, I'd say that will definitely happen before long because Nexstar is currently in the process of becoming the majority owner of the CW network. Network O&O local stations _always_ get included.)


That ship has sailed for me. I'm back on DirecTV "classic" (i.e. Satellite), but my son has stream and he'll be happy. When my contract is up with DIrecTV Sat, we'll see where the landscape is at that point.


----------



## B. Shoe

NashGuy said:


> No, it wasn't. ION was definitely on the list of channels I made a few months ago that were on DTV sat but not on DTV Stream. So that's another important new addition to DTV Stream. (You wouldn't necessarily think so, but in fact, ION was the 13th most-watched TV channel in the US last year.)


Oh, I believe it. Moons ago I made a joke on this board about the ION Channel, and someone came UNGLUED because it was the channel they watched the most.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> That ship has sailed for me. I'm back on DirecTV "classic" (i.e. Satellite), but my son has stream and he'll be happy. When my contract is up with DIrecTV Sat, we'll see where the landscape is at that point.


Yeah, I knew you had gone back to sat, just thought of you with regard to the Nexstar-owned CW station in NYC since that was a sticking point for you. Will be interesting to see what Nexstar does with the CW network when they have majority ownership and control soon. Wouldn't surprise me if it's no longer even branded CW in a year or two and the line-up of series becomes almost completely different. They just cancelled a ton of CW series, so the transition is already beginning. Definitely looks like Warner's focus for DC series is now HBO Max, not CW.

As for what the landscape will look like when your 2-year contract ends (in late '23?) -- my prediction is that AT&T and DISH will have completed a merger of their pay TV services by then. Their biggest concern is avoiding political backlash over the deal that could cause the DOJ or FCC to try to stop it or put (from their perspective) onerous conditions on it (e.g. consumer protections against monopoly pricing for satellite TV). So they have a window of time between the end of the current political season and the beginning of the next one that will run from roughly this Thanksgiving through Labor Day 2023. I think they'll want the entire process, from public announcement of the deal to its legal consummation, to happen in that period.

Otherwise, they're looking at waiting until Dec. 2024. And there's the risk that the next admin may be even less compliant. Remember that Trump hated CNN, which was likely a factor in his DOJ filing to stop AT&T's acquisition of CNN's parent, Warner. As all legal observers predicted, the DOJ's lawsuit failed but it did screw over AT&T by holding up the deal for a long time, which delayed their launch of HBO Max. And now consider that in April of this year, DirecTV removed the ultra right-wing Trump-loving, Putin-loving OANN channel from their lineup, which may prove to be a death blow to the network since it was originally created at DirecTV's behest and got an overwhelming share of its distribution through them. So there's every reason to believe that if Trump is re-elected in Nov. 2024, he'll try to screw over AT&T again by stopping a merger of DirecTV and DISH.

Aside from that, it's rumored that TPG, the investor group that bought a 30% stake in DirecTV in order to put some lipstick on the pig and get it ready to walk down the aisle with DISH, only committed to a 3-year term before wanting their investors money back (with a profit, of course). The spin-off and partial sale of DirecTV was announced in late Feb. 2021 and closed in early Aug. So that means that TPG's 3-year timeframe -- when they're hoping a deal with DISH to be finalized -- is Aug. 2024. So they don't want to wait until after the Nov. '24 elections, regardless of who may win.

It's certainly possible that AT&T and DISH don't announce a deal until later than I predict, e.g. fall 2023, with it not being finalized until spring or summer 2024. But the closer the announcement and closing dates are to the Nov. 2024 election, the riskier it is that politicians in either party will rail against the deal and pressure the DOJ or FCC to scrutinize and/or stop it.

Once the deal does close, I expect the unified company may continue taking new satellite subscribers only under the DISH brand while selling streaming TV under the DIRECTV brand. Existing DTV satellite customers will be grandfathered in on their existing packages and equipment and allowed to keep it as long as they remain an active customer. Over time, they'll modify their channel packages so that new customers get the same set of options under DISH satellite as under DIRECTV streaming.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I knew you had gone back to sat, just thought of you with regard to the Nexstar-owned CW station in NYC since that was a sticking point for you. Will be interesting to see what Nexstar does with the CW network when they have majority ownership and control soon. Wouldn't surprise me if it's no longer even branded CW in a year or two and the line-up of series becomes almost completely different. They just cancelled a ton of CW series, so the transition is already beginning. Definitely looks like Warner's focus for DC series is now HBO Max, not CW.
> 
> As for what the landscape will look like when your 2-year contract ends (in late '23?) -- my prediction is that AT&T and DISH will have completed a merger of their pay TV services by then. Their biggest concern is avoiding political backlash over the deal that could cause the DOJ or FCC to try to stop it or put (from their perspective) onerous conditions on it (e.g. consumer protections against monopoly pricing for satellite TV). So they have a window of time between the end of the current political season and the beginning of the next one that will run from roughly this Thanksgiving through Labor Day 2023. I think they'll want the entire process, from public announcement of the deal to its legal consummation, to happen in that period.
> 
> Otherwise, they're looking at waiting until Dec. 2024. And there's the risk that the next admin may be even less compliant. Remember that Trump hated CNN, which was likely a factor in his DOJ filing to stop AT&T's acquisition of CNN's parent, Warner. As all legal observers predicted, the DOJ's lawsuit failed but it did screw over AT&T by holding up the deal for a long time, which delayed their launch of HBO Max. And now consider that in April of this year, DirecTV removed the ultra right-wing Trump-loving, Putin-loving OANN channel from their lineup, which may prove to be a death blow to the network since it was originally created at DirecTV's behest and got an overwhelming share of its distribution through them. So there's every reason to believe that if Trump is re-elected in Nov. 2024, he'll try to screw over AT&T again by stopping a merger of DirecTV and DISH.
> 
> Aside from that, it's rumored that TPG, the investor group that bought a 30% stake in DirecTV in order to put some lipstick on the pig and get it ready to walk down the aisle with DISH, only committed to a 3-year term before wanting their investors money back (with a profit, of course). The spin-off and partial sale of DirecTV was announced in late Feb. 2021 and closed in early Aug. So that means that TPG's 3-year timeframe -- when they're hoping a deal with DISH to be finalized -- is Aug. 2024. So they don't want to wait until after the Nov. '24 elections, regardless of who may win.
> 
> It's certainly possible that AT&T and DISH don't announce a deal until later than I predict, e.g. fall 2023, with it not being finalized until spring or summer 2024. But the closer the announcement and closing dates are to the Nov. 2024 election, the riskier it is that politicians in either party will rail against the deal and pressure the DOJ or FCC to scrutinize and/or stop it.
> 
> Once the deal does close, I expect the unified company may continue taking new satellite subscribers only under the DISH brand while selling streaming TV under the DIRECTV brand. Existing DTV satellite customers will be grandfathered in on their existing packages and equipment and allowed to keep it as long as they remain an active customer. Over time, they'll modify their channel packages so that new customers get the same set of options under DISH satellite as under DIRECTV streaming.


I still don't think DISH and DIrecTV will ever merge. I think it's more likely that DirecTV moves more and more to Stream and begins, winding down DirecTV Sat to where it's just a niche offering to rural customers. A lot of that will have to do with current contracts it has with content providers which, when they expire, will more likely include streaming as well as Sat. Once the content is on par with Sat, they can begin transitioning folks like myself to Stream. And they are getting close. Once ST goes, then they will probably negotiate with the NFL to get Red Zone and NFL Network onto Stream. Once the lineups are close, they can really push to get people off Satellite. This combined app that's apparently popping up on iOS is a step in that direction. Perhaps the device apps, like on Roku will allow for both and thus start to get rid of the need for actual hardware is another step. I think things will be a lot different in 2 years.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> I still don't think DISH and DIrecTV will ever merge.


I'd say DISH's CEO and largest shareholder Charlie Ergen has good reason to keep saying that a merger with DTV is, to use his word, "inevitable". It'll happen. It's in both sides' interests. Just a matter of negotiating the nitty-gritty terms and then getting it past the government.


----------



## James Long

My opinion on that has been expressed in the many threads on the merger topic. Such speculation isn't the purpose of this thread.


----------



## jollygrunt

Why is there a 30 episode limit on series recordings given that DTV Stream now has unlimited DVR and 9 month retention similar to YTTV?


----------



## compnurd

jollygrunt said:


> Why is there a 30 episode limit on series recordings given that DTV Stream now has unlimited DVR and 9 month retention similar to YTTV?


Because there is


----------



## eddieras

CraigerM said:


> Just curious if DTV Stream on another device could you use a universal remote, say the Logitech Remote, would you be able to change channel numbers, pause, rewind and fast forward the DVR, live TV and set recordings? I saw a recent video DTV Stream on the Apple TV 4k they added channel numbers. You could turn them on and off. Also, would they have Dolby Digital 5.1 on the Apple TV 4k and other devices? Thanks.


i just got dtv streaming and the osprey box. i programmed my Harmony One and it handles everythig except voice search.


----------



## leww37334

I am still trying to figure out the new relation between ATT and directv stream I thought directv stream had split from ATT but the directv stream login site still seems to be tied to att


----------



## NashGuy

leww37334 said:


> I am still trying to figure out the new relation between ATT and directv stream I thought directv stream had split from ATT but the directv stream login site still seems to be tied to att


All of AT&T's pay TV services (DirecTV, DirecTV Stream, and Uverse TV) were spun off from AT&T into a new holding company called DirecTV. AT&T owns 70% of this company while an outside investment group, TPG, owns the other 30%. Both sides put their own board members in place to govern the company but, in terms of general day-to-day decision making, TPG is calling the shots.

So DirecTV Stream is kinda-sorta separate from AT&T but there are very much still ties between the two. I guess they saw no reason to spend money to completely separate out all of the back-end tech (like website logins and customer billing) that already existed between DirecTV and AT&T, so that stuff still remains, for now anyway.

TPG reportedly wants to profitably exit this deal (presumably predicated on some kind of further sale or merger of DirecTV with a new outside group) within 3 years of their buy-in, which was consummated in Aug. 2021. If that's true, look for the next sale/merger involving DirecTV to go down by summer 2024. It was reported earlier this year that TPG had already been engaged in talks with DISH as a potential merger partner for DirecTV. Meanwhile, DISH CEO and chief shareholder Charlie Ergen has repeatedly described a future DISH/DirecTV merger as "inevitable."

The biggest concern with such a proposed deal is that the US government would once again smack it down on anti-trust grounds, as they did over a decade ago the first time the two satellite TV services tried to merge. Given those concerns, it would be sub-optimal to try to get the deal approved during the heightened political atmosphere of an election season as will be the case in 2024, and is already somewhat the case right now due to this November's mid-term elections. So I continue to think the most likely scenario is that we see AT&T, TPG and DISH announce some kind of merger deal involving some or all of their various pay TV services after this Thanksgiving, i.e. late 2022 or early 2023, with a goal of having the deal approved, finalized and implemented by the start of 2024. We'll see...


----------



## b4pjoe

Doing a trial run mainly because my DirecTV sat was moved to a new account and they told me I would lose service for 24-48 during the process. Turns out it was more like 30 minutes. I had already started the trial so will finish out my 5 days but just a few comments. Not having the box/remote is not a great experience when needing to change from say channel 2 to 671. You have to swipe on the ATV remote a bunch to get there. Otherwise picture is great. Every bit as good as sat and maybe a tad better. DVR works great. FF with the 30 second skip works good. No complaints other than the channel changing which would be solved with the box/remote and the fact there are no user profiles to keep DVR content separate for each user.

Also why isn't Extra Innings available as an addon on STREAM? That would definitely be the deal breaker for me in the future. Gotta have EI.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

b4pjoe said:


> Not having the box/remote is not a great experience when needing to change from say channel 2 to 671. You have to swipe on the ATV remote a bunch to get there.
> 
> Also why isn't Extra Innings available as an addon on STREAM? That would definitely be the deal breaker for me in the future. Gotta have EI.


I thought you could tell Siri to change to channel 671?

I’m not sure if one streaming service can offer or make available another streaming service?


----------



## b4pjoe

No Siri does not change channels.

Not sure what you mean about streaming services. Extra Innings is not a streaming service.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

b4pjoe said:


> Not sure what you mean about streaming services. Extra Innings is not a streaming service.


I thought you meant MLBEI.


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> Doing a trial run mainly because my DirecTV sat was moved to a new account and they told me I would lose service for 24-48 during the process. Turns out it was more like 30 minutes. I had already started the trial so will finish out my 5 days but just a few comments. Not having the box/remote is not a great experience when needing to change from say channel 2 to 671. You have to swipe on the ATV remote a bunch to get there. Otherwise picture is great. Every bit as good as sat and maybe a tad better. DVR works great. FF with the 30 second skip works good. No complaints other than the channel changing which would be solved with the box/remote and the fact there are no user profiles to keep DVR content separate for each user.
> 
> Also why isn't Extra Innings available as an addon on STREAM? That would definitely be the deal breaker for me in the future. Gotta have EI.


I think it’s because you can just fire up the MLB.TV app


----------



## b4pjoe

compnurd said:


> I think it’s because you can just fire up the MLB.TV app


Yeah that wouldn't fly for the wife.


----------



## b4pjoe

TheRatPatrol said:


> I thought you meant MLBEI.


I did. MLB Extra Innings through DirecTV.


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> Yeah that wouldn't fly for the wife.


I think it has something to do with the fact that the service comes through indemand. Extra innings center ice etc. are not individual products


----------



## b4pjoe

So Extra Innings is linear only?


----------



## TheRatPatrol

compnurd said:


> I think it’s because you can just fire up the MLB.TV app





b4pjoe said:


> I did. MLB Extra Innings through DirecTV.


UGH! I think I need another cup of coffee. 😆 I meant MLB.TV. Maybe D* doesn’t have the rights to offer MLBEI over their streaming app, only via satellite?


----------



## b4pjoe

Yeah when I looked it up it seems MLB EI is only available through Cable and Sat. The wife doesn't like the MLB-TV app. She likes just flipping channels on the primary service. In our case DirecTV sat.


----------



## NashGuy

TheRatPatrol said:


> UGH! I think I need another cup of coffee. 😆 I meant MLB.TV. Maybe D* doesn’t have the rights to offer MLBEI over their streaming app, only via satellite?


Right. MLBEI is a traditional pay TV product (i.e. for cable and satellite services). MLB.tv is their streaming product, accessible only via MLB's own app. If you're using DirecTV Stream, you're obviously on some kind of streaming device and can quickly switch over from that service to the MLB app.


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> Right. MLBEI is a traditional pay TV product (i.e. for cable and satellite services). MLB.tv is their streaming product, accessible only via MLB's own app. If you're using DirecTV Stream, you're obviously on some kind of streaming device and *can quickly switch over from that service to the MLB app*.


Yes I can do that. My wife won't. She wants the games integrated into the service like DIRECTV has with EI. I'll probably have to stay with DIRECTV satellite until the last satellite falls from the sky.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> Yes I can do that. My wife won't. She wants the games integrated into the service like DIRECTV has with EI. I'll probably have to stay with DIRECTV satellite until the last satellite falls from the sky.


Heh. Well, whatever makes for a happy home life, right?


----------



## Mark_ell_

Steveknj said:


> I experimented on last night's Yankees-Phillies game, which turned out to be a good example as the game was "scheduled" for a 3 hour record and ran almost 4 hours. And while it did auto-pad some, it crapped out at around 3:30, in the middle of the top of the 8th inning. Not good. Imagine sitting down to watch a game, assuming it auto-padded, and it didn't make it to the end. That would royally piss me off. So for now, I'll stick to recording the shows after as well.
> 
> AT&T TV, how hard is is to include a manual padding feature? DirecTV has it, heck, Channels has it! Is it something to do with how cloud DVRs work? I don't know. This is a feature every sports fan wants, and AT&T TV should be catering to sports fans if they want it to be an alternative to cable or sat. I can't speak for YTTV and how their auto padding works, but I DID see a commercial last night touting that feature.


For those who have trouble separating their sources, this CNN report makes a valiant effort to imply a DIRECTV agreement, but the actual focus is on wireless and how DISH wants access to AT&T's network and AT&T wants access to DISH's frequencies. The CDMA.vs. GSM controversy obviously calls into doubt Hidra fitness for the job, but I would expect the cellular industry wants CDMA to go as soon as possible (probably far sooner than Verizon's EOY 2022).

Another point of view adheres to the adage, "Keep your friends near; keep your enemies closer," from Sun Tzu.


----------



## eddieras

ok- just a rant. was with dtv sat for over 20 years. switched to dtv streaming 3 months ago and minimal complaints (using osprey which i like). my complaint is i have Choice Package which includes MLB TV, Tennis Channel, Golf Channel, and NBA TV. Yet NHL Network is only available at the Ultimate level and above. Ok, i got that off my chest. LGR!


----------



## NashGuy

NashGuy said:


> So even if nothing else changes, I'd be really surprised if we didn't see the introduction of the 2nd-gen A21 box coincide with the DirecTV Stream launch.


Well, as became apparent last year, I was wrong about this. That second-generation streaming box, model number A21-KW500, did not get released when AT&T TV was rebranded to DirecTV Stream back in Aug. 2021 as I expected. And over a year later, it _still_ hasn't been released. It had turned up for certification at the WiFi Alliance back in Mar. 2021. Many of us have concluded that DirecTV may have decided against ever releasing it.

But look what's now come through the WiFi Alliance, with a certification date from just this month, Nov. 4. It's another Humax-made device with a very similar product name/model number: P21-KW500. It's also categorized under "Televisions & Set Top Boxes." See the listings for both it and the never-released A21-KW500 at the link below. (You can also arrive at the page below by doing a "Brand" search on the site for Humax Co., Ltd.)



https://www.wi-fi.org/product-finder-results?sort_by=certified&sort_order=desc&categories=7&companies=909



Neither the WiFi Alliance listing for this device nor their earlier listing for the A21-KW500 mentions DirecTV or AT&T, just Humax. But based on its June 2021 submission to the FCC, we do know that the A21-KW500 was in fact made by Humax for use with AT&T TV (now known as DirecTV Stream). And both model numbers are very similar to the model numbers assigned to the existing original Osprey box, which DirecTV Stream still sells today: C71-KW200 and C71-KW400. (The -200 model was made by Samsung while the -400 model was made by WNC.)

So while the listing at the WiFi Alliance website doesn't _conclusively_ prove that the P21-KW500 is a DirecTV device, its name _strongly suggests so_. Could the P21 be the next-gen successor to the original Osprey box? Maybe the A21 was never released because DirecTV decided to go with something even better (or cheaper to build) in the P21. If that's the case, I would imagine it was a decision made by the new team in place at DirecTV after its spin-off from AT&T. (It was clearly the original team in place at AT&T who had made plans with Humax to release the A21.) Perhaps the P21 will serve as an end-client for both DTV Stream and DTV Satellite customers (in the latter case, acting like a replacement for the C61 Genie Mini).

Note that while I was able to find a listing for this new P21 device at the WiFi Alliance, I could not find any listing for it at the FCC site. In the case of the A21, it appeared at the FCC about three months later than at the WiFi Alliance (June 2021 and March 2021, respectively). So maybe the A21 will show up at the FCC come February? DirecTV cannot release it until it's received FCC approval, although _if_ they ever do release the P21, it could still be several months after passing through there. So who knows when customers will actually get to use the P21, if ever.

I did find one other useful site, though, where the P21 shows up: Geekbench. 



Geekbench Search - Geekbench Browser



As the test results at the above link show, the device is identified as "Humax Pendant" with a quad-core ARMv8 processor running at 2.62 GHz and 3.87 GB of RAM. So apparently the P21 isn't a box but a pendant, i.e. a small-ish dangling dongle, similar in form perhaps to the current Chromecast with Google TV or the 3rd-gen Amazon Fire TV pendant. 

When tested back on 4/8/22, it got a single-core score of 168 and a multi-core score of 504 on the Geekbench 5 test. And it runs Android 11, strongly suggesting that this will be an app-based streaming device. (The listings at WiFi Alliance for both the P21 and A21 only mention that they run the Linux OS; Android is a specific variant of Linux.)

Here are the Geekbench results for the current Osprey, the C71, running Android 10, also tested this past spring:



Geekbench Search - Geekbench Browser



As you can see, the C71's single-core scores average about 119 and its multi-core scores about 395. So the P21 scores about 41% better on single-core and about 28% better on multi-core, which isn't surprising given its faster processor speed (2.62 GHz vs. 1.66 GHz for the C71).

All of this may amount to nothing. I suppose it's possible that the P21 is being made by Humax for some client _other_ than DirecTV, although that seems very unlikely given DirecTV's model numbering system. It's also possible that the P21, like the A21 before it, never gets released. Although I can't see why they'd go to the expense of creating and certifying multiple hardware models that never see the light of day. Time will tell, I guess...


----------



## compnurd

Ospreys have been updated to Android 11


----------



## litzdog911

compnurd said:


> Ospreys have been updated to Android 11


Any relevant new features in the Osprey boxes with Android 11 update?


----------



## compnurd

litzdog911 said:


> Any relevant new features in the Osprey boxes with Android 11 update?


 Not to my knowledge. I believe it’s just supposed to improve performance for older devices


----------

