# Cancelled after Years and Years



## ratoren (Dec 28, 2005)

Well - last post here: 2-year $40/month DTV promo was running out, so I called to try to keep the price low. They said NO, so I asked to speak to retention, and they said NO. I asked to speak with a supervisor, and they said NO. So I cancelled. 

FYI, this is after 2 years with DTV and Uverse internet, Uverse TV & internet before that for several years, and ATT DSL before that. So been with ATT for around 10-15 years. They really don’t want to be a TV provider any longer - feel very sorry for the DTV employees. 

So far, keeping ATT Uverse for internet, but that is subject to change quickly once Cox Cable has a good deal/sale. 

They never said anything about returning the equipment, but I probably will, just to ensure I don’t get charged. I did try the old DECA boxes to provide wired internet through the Coax to the ROKU boxes around the house, and so far, that’s working great. So I won’t be returning the DECA boxes - just the HR44 and C61 receivers and remotes. 

So new streaming set-up: 100Mbps Uverse internet ($55/month), 1-Roku ultra, 1-Roku Stick+, 1-Roku 3, 3-DirecTV DECA boxes, YouTube-TV ($49/month). About the same price as before with the $40/month promotion. Works great!!!

Lastly - they sent me a text to rate their phone service help line. The absolute nerve, after raising the price. Needless to say, they did not rate very high.


----------



## Jasqid (Oct 26, 2008)

You won't regret it. I dumped them in Feb and went streaming too. ATT is a **** show and a hot mess. Took a good company and ruined it.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Expecting perpetual discounts is ludicrous. The discount well isn't bottomless regardless which service provider you use. The real issue is people want what the tier packages offer but don't want to pay for them.


----------



## jw_rally (Jul 29, 2014)

MysteryMan said:


> Expecting perpetual discounts is ludicrous. The discount well isn't bottomless regardless which service provider you use. The real issue is people want what the tier packages offer but don't want to pay for them.


That is because the packages are overpriced compared to deals that are offered by other providers. Satellite and cable providers have created a system in which people are rewarded for jumping ship for new offers. Loyalty means nothing or next to nothing. Then the streaming providers come in and swoop up many people who don't want to pay a premium price for 400 channels, 385 of which they never watch anyway.


----------



## Mgibsoj (Mar 7, 2015)

DTV customer since '94, their tech, PQ, and reliability were amazing. Now, their price is no longer aligned with their content offerings for me. Bottom line is I'm saving over $$800/yr with Roku (3 tvs) & YouTube TV with same channels I watch and more sports channels. DTV needs to aggressively address their price problem, but I don't think that will be happening.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> Expecting perpetual discounts is ludicrous. The discount well isn't bottomless regardless which service provider you use. The real issue is people want what the tier packages offer but don't want to pay for them.


The discount well IS indeed bottomless.

The real issue is that DirecTV prices their tiers well above the competition, so they have plenty of meat left on the bone to please the squeaky wheels (like me lol).

OP has only been with DirecTV for 2 yrs on intro promo rate, so no offense, but they don't rate that high on DirecTVs rating system. A lot of us have been with DirecTV for 15+ yrs. What's this guy talking about "after years and years"? lol

If the CSR really said NO to speak to a sup or retention, they should have just hung up and called back. OPs mistake was trying to negotiate with a front line CSR. They don't have access to the bottomless well .


----------



## grover517 (Sep 29, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> The real issue is people want what the tier packages offer but don't want to pay for them.


Your absolutely right, but then again.................. it's also the case that tiers are purposely designed to "up sell" by placing one or two popular channels in the higher tiers that also contain dozens of channels many may not want. I have to wonder how many would still subscribe or even stick with DIRECTV if the same types of things were applied to say NFL ST, whose discounts and account credits still flow with regularity.

The fact is that traditional providers like Comcast, DIRECTV, DISH, etc. all play the same game. They have to try and up sell tiers to help subsidize other offerings that otherwise would not be available otherwise. They also have to use things like commitments and second year price increases or ETF's to ensure they can still "plug the holes" so to speak. Every single DIRECTV subscriber, regardless of tier, are also helping to pay for things like all the RSN's, NFL ST, and other premium and cutting edge offerings as well that they either don't want or don't even have access to without dishing out even more money than they already are.

OTT providers don't have that issue. They can set their pricing for what they offer without worrying about subsidizing a dozen other packages or hardware development/support. Is cutting the cord for everyone? No, not yet but it's getting there. Is everyone still willing to pay ever increasing rates for things they can get elsewhere for less without at least an occasional "bone" tossed to them? Guess not. Millions and millions are now saying "enough is enough".


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

grover517 said:


> OTT providers don't have that issue. They can set their pricing for what they offer without worrying about subsidizing a dozen other packages or hardware development/support. Is cutting the cord for everyone? No, not yet but it's getting there. Is everyone still willing to pay ever increasing rates for things they can get elsewhere for less without at least an occasional "bone" tossed to them? Guess not. Millions and millions are now saying "enough is enough".


OTT providers have their own problems. They have to support a lot of infrastructure required for streaming, which is almost certainly more expensive per customer than Directv's satellite fleet. They don't have to support hardware directly, but their software support is more complex because they have to support multiple very different set tops, and smart TVs. They generally don't require a commitment so they don't have a dependable stream of income, and in the future with more and more OTT providers will have customers joining only for a short time, so they can binge a few programs then move onto the next OTT provider like locusts. Disney is probably the only one that will have a chance at keeping people year round, because kids (I don't include Amazon because people have Prime for the shipping, not the video)

Cable companies have reported their cost of programming is about 2/3 of their total revenue from TV. That doesn't include all those other costs, so there really isn't a lot of room for streaming MVPDs to undercut them. They are currently, but that's why they're all losing money. AT&T's CEO claims that AT&T Now is only now finally stopped losing money thanks to two price increases in the past year. He's not saying it is profitable, it is probably just breaking even - and as they get hit with higher costs for locals and for Disney/ESPN when their new contract is complete, they'll probably need another price increase before long...


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

And since most reports are that the OTT providers are all losing money you can expect price increases from them as the shakeout continues and some OTT’s drop out of sight.
I wonder how the ad supported free OTT’s are doing financially? Not seen any articles discussing that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Just did a google search for add supported OTT financial :

The next front of the streaming wars is the battle for ad-supported programming - Digiday

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## mstenbrg (Oct 2, 2006)

Mgibsoj said:


> DTV customer since '94, their tech, PQ, and reliability were amazing. Now, their price is no longer aligned with their content offerings for me. Bottom line is I'm saving over $$800/yr with Roku (3 tvs) & YouTube TV with same channels I watch and more sports channels. DTV needs to aggressively address their price problem, but I don't think that will be happening.


I agree, just canceled a few days ago, been with them for almost 20 years. YTTV and Philo give me everything I watch, and for $100 less a month. The sad part is the DirecTV programming fee is $80 (for the package I had), around the same as YTTV and Philo combined. It is the $100 in receiver fees, whole home fee, HD fee and whatever other fees they add to your bill that makes the price so much more expensive.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> OTT providers have their own problems. They have to support a lot of infrastructure required for streaming, which is almost certainly more expensive per customer than Directv's satellite fleet.


Yup. What's $1 - $2B / 0? I.e. Disney+ . That's how much Disney is spending on standing up the infrastructure. Granted, they'll spool up on customers very quickly I think.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

mstenbrg said:


> I agree, just canceled a few days ago, been with them for almost 20 years. YTTV and Philo give me everything I watch, and for $100 less a month. The sad part is the DirecTV programming fee is $80 (for the package I had), around the same as YTTV and Philo combined. It is the $100 in receiver fees, whole home fee, HD fee and whatever other fees they add to your bill that makes the price so much more expensive.


Ok, soo.... $100 - $23 = $77 in receiver fees = so you have 5 to 7 boxes? How many simultaneous streams do you have now?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

The OP, who has AT&T home broadband, but dumped DirecTV for YouTube TV is exactly the kind of customer that AT&T TV should appeal to. Whether or not it will -- depending on the channel packages and prices it has -- remains to be seen. But AT&T can't do battle only with Comcast and Charter as they have for years, they also have to square off against YouTube TV and Hulu Live if they want to keep their cable TV ship from sinking. We'll see what they come up with before long. Start of 4Q is less than 3 weeks away...


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Did AT&T TV think they could create the best of worlds and combine DTV with a cable TV service and internet streaming would be cool but forgot in doing so they would also have to compete with other cable TV services, Dish Network and OTT services


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Jasqid said:


> You won't regret it. I dumped them in Feb and went streaming too. ATT is a **** show and a hot mess. Took a good company and ruined it.
> 
> Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk


You might want to update your signature since still shows you with DIRECTV hardware.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Please excuse me if I sit out the AT&T blame game. I really didn't have issues with DirecTV directly, but with the games the program providers played with the multi-channel providers (cable and satellite). For years prior to the acquisition of DirecTV by AT&T, the cost/benefit ratio of the programming provided verses what I was paying was out of whack, especially since I worked graveyard shift. I practically had a package which included all of the regular DirecTV channels, but none of the premiums. After one price increase too many, I reduced my package to a minimum package that had no sports package (not interested). I would have cancelled entirely, except that my mother wanted to keep the service. 

When I moved to Texas from California, I figured "fresh start", and hoped that we could get by with just streaming services, namely Hulu and Netflix. But, no, my mom has to have her Hallmark channel, and I ended up assisting her to sign up for DirecTV service.


----------



## jw_rally (Jul 29, 2014)

Mark Holtz said:


> But, no, my mom has to have her Hallmark channel, and I ended up assisting her to sign up for DirecTV service.


I believe Sling and FuboTV streaming both have the Hallmark channels. There may be others as well.


----------



## ejbvt (Aug 14, 2011)

My mom has recently discovered there's a thing called "Hallmark Drama" and it's not on cable here. Too bad there's not a refer-a-friend anymore or I would try harder to get her on Directv.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

ejbvt said:


> My mom has recently discovered there's a thing called "Hallmark Drama" and it's not on cable here. Too bad there's not a refer-a-friend anymore or I would try harder to get her on Directv.


Who is your provider?

I ask because Comcast added Hallmark Drama to its lineup, with channel placement on 1460, following Hallmark Channel and Hallmark Movies & Mysteries. And they are carried in HD.

Hallmark Drama is on the way to getting carriage from more and more providers.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

ratoren said:


> Well - last post here: 2-year $40/month DTV promo was running out, so I called to try to keep the price low. They said NO, so I asked to speak to retention, and they said NO. I asked to speak with a supervisor, and they said NO. So I cancelled.
> 
> FYI, this is after 2 years with DTV and Uverse internet, Uverse TV & internet before that for several years, and ATT DSL before that. So been with ATT for around 10-15 years. They really don't want to be a TV provider any longer - feel very sorry for the DTV employees.
> 
> ...


I wish you well with all this.

It is very understandable.

We get plenty of threads nowadays. And part of it, I think, is that life is changing. That includes how people use television.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

SledgeHammer said:


> Ok, soo.... $100 - $23 = $77 in receiver fees = so you have 5 to 7 boxes? How many simultaneous streams do you have now?


I have 5 simultaneous streams. But I can't think of an example when we have used even 3, normally 1 or 2 at the most. The key for us is we now have access for all 7 of our TVs whenever we want. That is a huge improvement over what we had with D. We have 2, maybe 3 TVs that I would categorize as "regular use", all the rest are occasional use. But when we want to use them, we just want to use them. Unfortunately D and the rest of the traditional sat and cable cos are stuck in the old school "charge for connected tv" paradigm. That was fine when TVs were expensive and most people had 1, maybe 2, TVs. That is no longer the real world. Certainly not for exactly the kind of consumer that D says they are trying to attract/retain.


----------



## ejbvt (Aug 14, 2011)

APB101 said:


> Who is your provider?
> 
> I ask because Comcast added Hallmark Drama to its lineup, with channel placement on 1460, following Hallmark Channel and Hallmark Movies & Mysteries. And they are carried in HD.
> 
> Hallmark Drama is on the way to getting carriage from more and more providers.


My provider is Directv. Her provider is Comcast. This is Vermont Comcast, which is basically from 1995. They don't even have BET. Just because Comcast carries it SOMEWHERE doesn't mean they carry it everywhere. The lineup for Comcast in Vermont is truly embarrassing for this century, let along 2019.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

jw_rally said:


> I believe Sling and FuboTV streaming both have the Hallmark channels. There may be others as well.


She is satisfied with her choice of DirecTV Now (AT&T Now), and does not want to change. She's paying for it, not me.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Mark Holtz said:


> Please excuse me if I sit out the AT&T blame game. I really didn't have issues with DirecTV directly, but with the games the program providers played with the multi-channel providers (cable and satellite). For years prior to the acquisition of DirecTV by AT&T, the cost/benefit ratio of the programming provided verses what I was paying was out of whack, especially since I worked graveyard shift. I practically had a package which included all of the regular DirecTV channels, but none of the premiums. After one price increase too many, I reduced my package to a minimum package that had no sports package (not interested). I would have cancelled entirely, except that my mother wanted to keep the service.
> 
> When I moved to Texas from California, I figured "fresh start", and hoped that we could get by with just streaming services, namely Hulu and Netflix. *But, no, my mom has to have her Hallmark channel*, and I ended up assisting her to sign up for DirecTV service.


What is it about that channel that makes it so attractive to women? Serious question, that channel is one of the reasons I still have D*. Why?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

ejbvt said:


> My mom has recently discovered there's a thing called "Hallmark Drama" and it's not on cable here. Too bad there's not a refer-a-friend anymore or I would try harder to get her on Directv.


Hallmark also has Movies and Mysteries which my wife is always trying to get. I think D* has that channel.

Rich


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> I have 5 simultaneous streams. But I can't think of an example when we have used even 3, normally 1 or 2 at the most. The key for us is we now have access for all 7 of our TVs whenever we want. That is a huge improvement over what we had with D. We have 2, maybe 3 TVs that I would categorize as "regular use", all the rest are occasional use. But when we want to use them, we just want to use them. Unfortunately D and the rest of the traditional sat and cable cos are stuck in the old school "charge for connected tv" paradigm. That was fine when TVs were expensive and most people had 1, maybe 2, TVs. That is no longer the real world. Certainly not for exactly the kind of consumer that D says they are trying to attract/retain.


Ok, so you went from 7 full time TVs to any 5 of 7 full time TVs. Which is akin to dropping 2 TVs with DirecTV, no? Granted you'd have to rig up something to share a DVR / box between 2 TVs, but same thing really... .

Are all 7 of your TVs 4K? Is your internet/wifi/network able to support 5 simultaneous 4K streams? or 5 simultaneous HD streams? Or did you have to bump up your internet speed and/or router? What's your monthly data usage with full time streaming? Any data caps?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Rich said:


> Hallmark also has Movies and Mysteries which my wife is always trying to get. I think D* has that channel.
> 
> Rich


They do. It's on channel 565.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

SledgeHammer said:


> Ok, so you went from 7 full time TVs to any 5 of 7 full time TVs. Which is akin to dropping 2 TVs with DirecTV, no? Granted you'd have to rig up something to share a DVR / box between 2 TVs, but same thing really... .
> 
> Are all 7 of your TVs 4K? Is your internet/wifi/network able to support 5 simultaneous 4K streams? or 5 simultaneous HD streams? Or did you have to bump up your internet speed and/or router? What's your monthly data usage with full time streaming? Any data caps?


No I never had D available on all 7 TVs. I could never justify giving D $7 per month for tvs I would only occasionally use. I already had streaming capability on all 7 so when I moved to PSVue I gained the ability to watch on any of my 7 tvs anytime I wanted which was a big improvement for me. And no having to "rig up something" is not the same thing. 4 of the 7 are 4k but's that's typically irrelevant for things that we watch on PSVue (which would have been the same with D). Normally we only use 1 maybe 2 TVs simultaneously. I have fired up 5 simultaneously just to test and it worked just fine. All in all for this aspect PSVue was an improvement over D for us. Of course as always, YMMV.


----------



## grover517 (Sep 29, 2007)

Philo has carved out a niche where they carry a good selection of the popular "entertainment" channels along with quite a few channels that others either don't carry at all or make you subscribe to their highest tiers and/or purchase add on packages to get. Philo has all 3 Hallmark channels, 2 BET channels, Lifetime, 4 Nick channels, OWN, History, Discovery channels, etc., and so far, their service is about the best I have used or tried in regards to ease of use, speed in changing channels, etc. It's also nice because we can take our Philo and Firesticks wherever we go with no concerns about home location restrictions since they don't carry locals or sports channels that complicate such movements when using "residential devices" such as a Roku, FireTV stick, ATV, etc. At 20.00 a month, I think it's a really good deal for what you get and it keeps the wife happy when traveling so that's always a bonus.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

grover517 said:


> Philo has carved out a niche where they carry a good selection of the popular "entertainment" channels along with quite a few channels that others either don't carry at all or make you subscribe to their highest tiers and/or purchase add on packages to get. Philo has all 3 Hallmark channels, 2 BET channels, Lifetime, 4 Nick channels, OWN, History, Discovery channels, etc., and so far, their service is about the best I have used or tried in regards to ease of use, speed in changing channels, etc. It's also nice because we can take our Philo and Firesticks wherever we go with no concerns about home location restrictions since they don't carry locals or sports channels that complicate such movements when using "residential devices" such as a Roku, FireTV stick, ATV, etc. At 20.00 a month, I think it's a really good deal for what you get and it keeps the wife happy when traveling so that's always a bonus.


Depends on what channels you watch. I'd have to get 2 streaming services + PBS (just to watch 2 shows) where my bill would be equal to or more then I'm paying on DirecTV to cover all the channels I watch and then throw in a OTA DVR on top of that for the one or two subchannels I watch.

Seems to me, for most, low TV count = DirecTV is the best value, for a high TV count, streaming is the best value... assuming of course you don't need to bump up your router, or internet speed, or have data caps .


----------



## ejbvt (Aug 14, 2011)

Rich said:


> Hallmark also has Movies and Mysteries which my wife is always trying to get. I think D* has that channel.
> 
> Rich


Yes, Directv has all of the Hallmark channels.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> They do. It's on channel 565.


For some reason we don't get 565. I could order it but that might take a phone call...let me try the computer method...yeah, I'd have to upgrade my package. Not gonna happen for that...channel.

Rich


----------



## Jack428 (Jun 10, 2018)

MysteryMan said:


> Expecting perpetual discounts is ludicrous. The discount well isn't bottomless regardless which service provider you use. The real issue is people want what the tier packages offer but don't want to pay for them.


Sirius xm seems bottomless.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Jack428 said:


> Sirius xm seems bottomless.


Used to call them for discounts, never had a problem getting them. Over time I just stopped doing that for some reason. Bet that happens to a lot of folks.

Rich


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

I wonder if these folks who have issues with DirecTv service people have experience with the customer service of any of the streaming services. I suspect that with streaming it may be less complex so fewer issues but I'd guess when you have to contact customer service on the streamers you get the same level script reading people but any experience?


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

CTJon said:


> I wonder if these folks who have issues with DirecTv service people have experience with the customer service of any of the streaming services. I suspect that with streaming it may be less complex so fewer issues but I'd guess when you have to contact customer service on the streamers you get the same level script reading people but any experience?


Single data point:

I contacted YoutubeTV support via email once last year because a tagged recording was cutoff before the end of the game. I was mostly looking to report it as an issue, but a half hour later I had an email back that they had adjusted the program time retroactively, so if I went back to play it out of my library I could watch the whole thing including OT.

It reminds me how much I hate that ATT killed DIRECTV email support in favor of live chat support.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I doubt if the streaming services even have support. Ever try talking to a human at Google?


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

YTTV has live support. Input my phone number on their website and had a call back from a real live human within a minute.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

CTJon said:


> I wonder if these folks who have issues with DirecTv service people have experience with the customer service of any of the streaming services. I suspect that with streaming it may be less complex so fewer issues but I'd guess when you have to contact customer service on the streamers you get the same level script reading people but any experience?


In the roughly 2 and a half years we have had PSVue I have had to contact technical support twice. Both times they were very good at addressing the issue. Both times they called me back to ensure that my issue was resolved. I have never had to call them about billing issues but, as with most OTT providers billing is very simple and straightforward. No contracts, the price is the price, and no discounts to beg for or for them to screw up.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

TV_Guy said:


> YTTV has live support. Input my phone number on their website and had a call back from a real live human within a minute.


That is good to hear. I've never been able to get a real person for support from their web services. TV division must be separate from the web division.


----------



## mstenbrg (Oct 2, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Ok, soo.... $100 - $23 = $77 in receiver fees = so you have 5 to 7 boxes? How many simultaneous streams do you have now?


Sorry, looked at my last bill and programming is $100 not $80. Either way, DirecTV has become way too expensive for what you get. YouTubeTV and Philo give me everything I need for $70 a month vs $169 for DirecTV. Bottom line is, fees are 52.99 plus the Regional Sports Fee of $7.

I get 3 streams with YTTV, which is fine as we have 4 TV's and one is in the garage and only gets used when I am working out there.

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY
Billing Period: 08/05/19 to 09/04/19
Payments
Previous Balance $169.33
Payment received on 07/25/19 -169.33
BALANCE 0.00
DIRECTV Channels
1. XTRA 101.99
2. HBO 9.99
$8 off HBO for 12 months (3 of 12)
3. Regional Sports Fee 7.13
SUBTOTAL 119.11
DIRECTV Equipment Services
4. Watch DIRECTV on Multiple TVs 21.00
4 TVs at $7 each; Save $7 off 1st TV
5. Advanced Receiver Service - HD 10.00
6. DIRECTV Protection Plan 8.99
7. Advanced Receiver Service - DVR 10.00
8. DIRECTV Whole-Home DVR Service 3.00
9. Mobile DVR Service 0.00
Complimentary
SUBTOTAL 52.99
Other Discounts
10. Save $5 for 12 months (3 of 12) -5.00
SUBTOTAL -5.00
Other Charges, Adjustments & Taxes
Taxes
11. Sales Tax 2.23
SUBTOTAL 2.23
Total New Charges 169.33
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $169.33


----------



## crkeehn (Apr 23, 2002)

For those that "must have" the Hallmark suite, Philo carries all three channels as part of their service. I have found that I watch Hallmark and Hallmark Movies and Mysteries heavily, Hallmark Drama not as much. The Philo DVR is decent, providing unlimited storage for 30 days. Fast forwarding through commercials is relatively easy for recorded content, using a key frame thumbnail, you can determine when the commercials end and the programming resumes. 

I might add that their Christmas movies will be resuming in October.


----------



## mstenbrg (Oct 2, 2006)

crkeehn said:


> For those that "must have" the Hallmark suite, Philo carries all three channels as part of their service. I have found that I watch Hallmark and Hallmark Movies and Mysteries heavily, Hallmark Drama not as much. The Philo DVR is decent, providing unlimited storage for 30 days. Fast forwarding through commercials is relatively easy for recorded content, using a key frame thumbnail, you can determine when the commercials end and the programming resumes.
> 
> I might add that their Christmas movies will be resuming in October.


My wife had to have these channels when we left DirecTV. Philo is a good addition to YTTV and adds many channels missing from that channel lineup.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

mstenbrg said:


> Sorry, looked at my last bill and programming is $100 not $80. Either way, DirecTV has become way too expensive for what you get. YouTubeTV and Philo give me everything I need for $70 a month vs $169 for DirecTV. Bottom line is, fees are 52.99 plus the Regional Sports Fee of $7.
> 
> I get 3 streams with YTTV, which is fine as we have 4 TV's and one is in the garage and only gets used when I am working out there.
> 
> ...


If you went to Preferred Xtra, you would have gotten rid of the RSN -7.13. The PP was your choice, you don't need that. They generally comp you replacements -8.99. Doesn't sound like you have HBO now. So -1.99. So really, you could have easily shed -18.11 and had you called in to retention, you could have dropped another -40. The loyalty thread is FULL of people getting 40+ discounts. So now we're looking at -58.11 off your bill which would bring you down to $111.22.

Would you have bailed for $111/mo?

Can't do anything about multiple TVs on traditional lol, they get ya there.


----------



## mstenbrg (Oct 2, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> If you went to Preferred Xtra, you would have gotten rid of the RSN -7.13. The PP was your choice, you don't need that. They generally comp you replacements -8.99. Doesn't sound like you have HBO now. So -1.99. So really, you could have easily shed -18.11 and had you called in to retention, you could have dropped another -40. The loyalty thread is FULL of people getting 40+ discounts. So now we're looking at -58.11 off your bill which would bring you down to $111.22.
> 
> Would you have bailed for $111/mo?
> 
> Can't do anything about multiple TVs on traditional lol, they get ya there.


Yes. $70 is still less that $111 and I don't have to call in and beg for discounts. Also, I watch Baseball and Hockey so could not drop my RSN. By the way, I tried to get a discount and I only got the $5 you see on my bill. Don't think there is any way you could get my bill to $70 and keep all of the channels I watch.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Mark Holtz said:


> When I moved to Texas from California, I figured "fresh start", and hoped that we could get by with just streaming services, namely Hulu and Netflix. But, no, my mom has to have her Hallmark channel, and I ended up assisting her to sign up for DirecTV service.


Check out Frndly TV, which has all three live Hallmark channels, plus some other stuff like Pixl, Game Show Network, and The Weather Channel. $6 in SD or $8 in HD with 30-day unlimited cloud DVR. That plus Hulu and Netflix (and an OTA antenna) is still a lot cheaper than DirecTV.

Frndly TV: A cheap way get Hallmark Channel, Weather Channel and more without cable


----------



## BigCTM (Jul 31, 2007)

I guess everyone watches different amounts of TV but DirecTV just recently gave us $50 / month discount and we are now paying only $45 / month for the Entertainment package. It has everything we want and we have 2 local DVRs. No desire to leave with a discount like this...


----------



## jw_rally (Jul 29, 2014)

BigCTM said:


> ... DirecTV just recently gave us $50 / month discount and we are now paying only $45 / month for the Entertainment package. It has everything we want and we have 2 local DVRs. No desire to leave with a discount like this...


Enjoy your discounts while they last. I had $50 per month discount for 3 years. From August 2018 to August 2019 I had a $65 per month discount. No dice after half dozen calls in August - September this year. The most they would offer is $5 per month discount. With other offers available, I will be leaving DIRECTV after 17 years. My termination date has been set for October 5.

I certainly enjoyed my discounts while they lasted, but I am not interested in paying an extra $720+ per year for TV ($60 per month X 12).


----------



## BigCTM (Jul 31, 2007)

jw_rally said:


> Enjoy your discounts while they last. I had $50 per month discount for 3 years. From August 2018 to August 2019 I had a $65 per month discount. No dice after half dozen calls in August - September this year. The most they would offer is $5 per month discount. With other offers available, I will be leaving DIRECTV after 17 years. My termination date has been set for October 5.
> 
> I certainly enjoyed my discounts while they lasted, but I am not interested in paying an extra $720+ per year for TV ($60 per month X 12).


That's where I am at. I have been getting discounts like this for many years now and that's why I am staying. Some say they give better discounts to those with AT&T Internet (Fiber) like we have but who knows. I would leave also without a significant discount.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

BigCTM said:


> That's where I am at. I have been getting discounts like this for many years now and that's why I am staying. Some say they give better discounts to those with AT&T Internet (Fiber) like we have but who knows. I would leave also without a significant discount.


EXACTLY. I'm getting steep discounts and the cord cutters make it more likely for me to keep getting them, so thanks!

I'm a software engineer, so I compare... do I want to work in an application where I have to do 10% of it in app 1, then save the file, manually rename it, copy it to a new drive, open it in app 2, import it, do another 30%, then save it out again, etc. No, I'd much rather have a single application where I can do it 100% in a unified UI. Streaming is the 10% here, 10% there solution.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

ejbvt said:


> My provider is Directv. Her provider is Comcast. This is Vermont Comcast, which is basically from 1995. They don't even have BET. Just because Comcast carries it SOMEWHERE doesn't mean they carry it everywhere. The lineup for Comcast in Vermont is truly embarrassing for this century, let along 2019.


Here is a report:

https://www.multichannel.com/news/hallmark-drama-launches-on-xfinity-x1


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

SledgeHammer said:


> EXACTLY. I'm getting steep discounts and the cord cutters make it more likely for me to keep getting them, so thanks!
> 
> I'm a software engineer, so I compare... do I want to work in an application where I have to do 10% of it in app 1, then save the file, manually rename it, copy it to a new drive, open it in app 2, import it, do another 30%, then save it out again, etc. No, I'd much rather have a single application where I can do it 100% in a unified UI. Streaming is the 10% here, 10% there solution.


Will you at least send a guy who helped contribute to the discounts a Christmas card? 

I don't disagree with your statement regarding unified UI. In previous posts before I made the full jump to all-streaming, I had stated that I preferred a lineal means of receiving my TV programs and information. And opportunely, i'd still love for everything to exist in one nice package. But after being in this space for a full month, I feel that the notion of having to jump apps from time to time to view programs as being a large burden towards the viewing experience is a little exaggerated.

Is it a perfect system? No. But I've quickly learned how to jump from app to app as quickly as I can. Besides, it took time for me to learn channel numbers to where I could churn those out in my sleep, too.


----------



## mstenbrg (Oct 2, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> EXACTLY. I'm getting steep discounts and the cord cutters make it more likely for me to keep getting them, so thanks!
> 
> I'm a software engineer, so I compare... do I want to work in an application where I have to do 10% of it in app 1, then save the file, manually rename it, copy it to a new drive, open it in app 2, import it, do another 30%, then save it out again, etc. No, I'd much rather have a single application where I can do it 100% in a unified UI. Streaming is the 10% here, 10% there solution.


Everyone can do as they wish, but saying that streaming is 10% here and 10% there is not really true depending on what you watch. 90% of what I watch is on YouTubeTV. I added Philo for a few channels that are missing. It is not really that difficult, my wife has been doing it for a month and has not complained about it being hard. For us, TV is not the most important thing we do, so saving money and going with streaming does not have any downside. Bottom line is for most people (not getting huge discounts) DirecTV is much more expensive than streaming. If you value what DirecTV gives you over streaming enough to pay the premium than that is fine. A lot of people do not.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

mstenbrg said:


> Everyone can do as they wish, but saying that streaming is 10% here and 10% there is not really true depending on what you watch. 90% of what I watch is on YouTubeTV. I added Philo for a few channels that are missing. It is not really that difficult, my wife has been doing it for a month and has not complained about it being hard. For us, TV is not the most important thing we do, so saving money and going with streaming does not have any downside. Bottom line is for most people (not getting huge discounts) DirecTV is much more expensive than streaming. If you value what DirecTV gives you over streaming enough to pay the premium than that is fine. A lot of people do not.


No premium here, thanks to you . I'd be paying more on streaming and get a lesser experience (in my opinion) and fewer channels and have to deal with 3 providers to get the channels I actually watch.

As I mentioned above, I guess it really depends on your TV count... if I had a more then a few TVs, then streaming would *start* to be cheaper... BUT... not to the point where I'd jump. I'm not going to dump DirecTV to go to a "hassle" (imo ) setup to save $5 - $10 a month. I'd probably start to look for alternatives if I could get something say $30 - $40 cheaper at LEAST.

For those that don't want to drop premiums or Sunday Ticket, or RSN fees, or PP or call in for discounts... then yeah, your value add is higher. Even though you end up dropping that stuff anyways when you go streaming, except in some cases, the RSNs (but get rid of the RSN fee).

Streaming cost works out better if you have 7 TVs and use 2 of them 95% of the time and have the other 5 sit idle 95% of the time. Or if they get better packages that cover all your channels.

If I could get a package from one streaming provider that had all my channels, I might think differently.

When you get multiple streaming providers, you're paying for a lot of overlap. People complained a lot when they were paying for channels they don't watch, but they don't complain about double or triple paying for the majority of the channels? *shrug* lol


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

No, streaming isn't 10% here and there, that's not even close. For me, when I did a Hulu live trial, it was 90% Hulu and the remaining was 10% Amazon and Netflix, which is exactly what it was with Directv.



SledgeHammer said:


> EXACTLY. I'm getting steep discounts and the cord cutters make it more likely for me to keep getting them, so thanks!
> 
> I'm a software engineer, so I compare... do I want to work in an application where I have to do 10% of it in app 1, then save the file, manually rename it, copy it to a new drive, open it in app 2, import it, do another 30%, then save it out again, etc. No, I'd much rather have a single application where I can do it 100% in a unified UI. Streaming is the 10% here, 10% there solution.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

raott said:


> No, streaming isn't 10% here and there, that's not even close. For me, when I did a Hulu live trial, it was 90% Hulu and the remaining was 10% Amazon and Netflix, which is exactly what it was with Directv.


Hulu doesn't have PBS, BET, Comedy Central, DIY, MTV, MTV2, OWN, Science, TV Land and VH1. I didn't rate those in order lol... and some are "once in a blue moon" or "one show once in a blue moon" like an ep of Martin on BET once a year, etc. Could probably live without BET and Comedy Central if everything else was there. PBS, DIY, MTV, MTV2, Science, TV Land, VH1 I watch multiple shows on.

That's the point. You need YASS! to fill in channel gaps. 10% here, 10% there, 90% overlap.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CTJon said:


> I wonder if these folks who have issues with DirecTv service people have experience with the customer service of any of the streaming services. I suspect that with streaming it may be less complex so fewer issues but I'd guess when you have to contact customer service on the streamers you get the same level script reading people but any experience?


I've been streaming for several years and haven't had any problems that would make me call for help. I know NF doesn't have much in the way of tech support. For anything.

Gotta add this: I've looked at a couple cable replacement services (PS Vue, YTTV) and didn't use either enough to have any problems, I have no idea how good or bad the customer service is on cable replacement services. What I was talking about are video steaming services.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> You're right.
> 
> Rich


Well yes and no. Call in or chat support is not the norm with streamers, but most offer email support for what that's worth.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Hulu doesn't have PBS, BET, Comedy Central, DIY, MTV, MTV2, OWN, Science, TV Land and VH1. I didn't rate those in order lol... and some are "once in a blue moon" or "one show once in a blue moon" like an ep of Martin on BET once a year, etc. Could probably live without BET and Comedy Central if everything else was there. PBS, DIY, MTV, MTV2, Science, TV Land, VH1 I watch multiple shows on.
> 
> That's the point. You need YASS! to fill in channel gaps. 10% here, 10% there, 90% overlap.


None of the channels you mentioned mean diddly to me, in fact after doing a bit of research I found only 9 cable type channels of much interest. AMC, SyFy, TBS, TNT, USA, BBC, FX, IFC and Paramount. All the rest were just rarely watched and most not watched at all.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

I'll play fast and loose like you do with the numbers......95% of the people watch nothing on those channels. I don't know a single person who watches any of the MTV products. I'm not paying double and triple to have every niche channel that will likely never get watched, just so I can say I have it. (Actually I am, but only because of Sunday Ticket...which will be a major issue when AT&T loses exclusivity).

If I wanted all of those media products, I can simply get ATT Watch for $15 to fill in all of those "gaps".....but I'll pass. If you feel you need every single channel out there...have at it......the large bulk of customers don't feel that way, despite how often you try and convince them otherwise.



SledgeHammer said:


> Hulu doesn't have PBS, BET, Comedy Central, DIY, MTV, MTV2, OWN, Science, TV Land and VH1. I didn't rate those in order lol... and some are "once in a blue moon" or "one show once in a blue moon" like an ep of Martin on BET once a year, etc. Could probably live without BET and Comedy Central if everything else was there. PBS, DIY, MTV, MTV2, Science, TV Land, VH1 I watch multiple shows on.
> 
> That's the point. You need YASS! to fill in channel gaps. 10% here, 10% there, 90% overlap.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

raott said:


> I'll play fast and loose like you do with the numbers......95% of the people watch nothing on those channels. I don't know a single person who watches any of the MTV products. I'm not paying double and triple to have every niche channel that will likely never get watched, just so I can say I have it. (Actually I am, but only because of Sunday Ticket...which will be a major issue when AT&T loses exclusivity).
> 
> If I wanted all of those media products, I can simply get ATT Watch for $15 to fill in all of those "gaps".....but I'll pass. If you feel you need every single channel out there...have at it......the large bulk of customers don't feel that way, despite how often you try and convince them otherwise.


Which is why AT&T needs to restructure their channel packages versus what they offer now on DirecTV. Have fewer tiers, with the main one offering pretty much just the most popular channels from each provider group (Disney, NBCU, ViacomCBS, Fox, Discovery, A+E, AMC, Hallmark). Then have a step-up tier that includes some more of those expensive sports channels that didn't make the cut for the main tier. And then everything else just gets shunted off into optional add-on packs of niche channels. Streamline the system to reduce carriage costs and building more optionality into it so that, for those customers who do want this or that niche channel (MTV 2, Science, RFD-TV, AXS, Hallmark Drama, etc.), they still have a way of getting it without buying everything. And most customers will be happy with the main base package that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

And that, I believe, is exactly what AT&T has been up to this year in all their hard-fought carriage negotiations. Get their channel packages thinned out and simplified, get carriage rates for each channel as low as possible.

Hopefully we'll see the fruits of those efforts before the end of the year, with new lower everyday prices. Do away with this nonsense of having to continually offer special promos and credits to retain customers. Just price everything at a sustainable level and say to customers: "Here's the best we can do. Take it or leave it."


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

SledgeHammer said:


> Hulu doesn't have PBS, BET, Comedy Central, DIY, MTV, MTV2, OWN, Science, TV Land and VH1. I didn't rate those in order lol... and some are "once in a blue moon" or "one show once in a blue moon" like an ep of Martin on BET once a year, etc. Could probably live without BET and Comedy Central if everything else was there. PBS, DIY, MTV, MTV2, Science, TV Land, VH1 I watch multiple shows on.


This is what makes the streaming discussion a true case study in viewing behaviors and makes the discussion interesting. Your viewing priorities, "must haves", call them what you will, are different than mine. Mine are different than someone else's, etc. And I think that's what makes the "is streaming a value for you?" question so interesting. Barring some nuances, there hasn't been a ton of difference in what the major providers really provide over the course of the past decade. Maybe a few extra HDs, different channels in different tiers...but it was all there, and for the common lay consumer, the bottom line came down to cost.

I've said this in other threads and I'll repeat it here. There are those where satellite/cable still provides the best value, ease of use, etc. For others, it doesn't. It doesn't mean the products are failures if they aren't the right fit for you. And I think that's where the discussions get a little off base here. The real goal, moving forward, is learning what all of the available services offer and whether that best matches up with what works for you, instead of debating "what is best."


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Well yes and no. Call in or chat support is not the norm with streamers, but most offer email support for what that's worth.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


I was thinking of sites like NF, Hulu.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> I was thinking of sites like NF, Hulu.
> 
> Rich


So was I.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Which is why AT&T needs to restructure their channel packages versus what they offer now on DirecTV. Have fewer tiers, with the main one offering pretty much just the most popular channels from each provider group (Disney, NBCU, ViacomCBS, Fox, Discovery, A+E, AMC, Hallmark). Then have a step-up tier that includes some more of those expensive sports channels that didn't make the cut for the main tier. And then everything else just gets shunted off into optional add-on packs of niche channels. Streamline the system to reduce carriage costs and building more optionality into it so that, for those customers who do want this or that niche channel (MTV 2, Science, RFD-TV, AXS, Hallmark Drama, etc.), they still have a way of getting it without buying everything. And most customers will be happy with the main base package that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
> 
> And that, I believe, is exactly what AT&T has been up to this year in all their hard-fought carriage negotiations. Get their channel packages thinned out and simplified, get carriage rates for each channel as low as possible.
> 
> Hopefully we'll see the fruits of those efforts before the end of the year, with new lower everyday prices. Do away with this nonsense of having to continually offer special promos and credits to retain customers. Just price everything at a sustainable level and say to customers: "Here's the best we can do. Take it or leave it."


I wonder if in some cases they can do that. I wouldn't be surprised if some of their agreements with channels/networks state that all their channels must be included in some level package or the other way around you can't include them unless high level package. Everything these days are related to channel agreements and similar junk


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

raott said:


> I'll play fast and loose like you do with the numbers......95% of the people watch nothing on those channels. I don't know a single person who watches any of the MTV products. I'm not paying double and triple to have every niche channel that will likely never get watched, just so I can say I have it. (Actually I am, but only because of Sunday Ticket...which will be a major issue when AT&T loses exclusivity).
> 
> If I wanted all of those media products, I can simply get ATT Watch for $15 to fill in all of those "gaps".....but I'll pass. If you feel you need every single channel out there...have at it......the large bulk of customers don't feel that way, despite how often you try and convince them otherwise.


Boy, your definition of fast & loose sure is spot on. I haven't seen something that loose since the drunk Britney / Paris / Lindsay Lohan days.

VH1 is #26, MTV is #29, OWN is #38, Comedy Central is #39, BET is #36, Science is #49... there are 109 channels on this list I'm looking at.

I didn't list channels I want for bragging rights, I listed channels I actually watch. Guess what? Not everybody cares about sports either. Why do you think I'm on Preferred Xtra? so people like you can pay for Reggie Bush's steroid regimen.

Large # of consumers? There you go again being fast & loose with the numbers. The number of cable + sat subscribers absolutely dwarfs any streaming service.

As has been said before, why are you still on a DirecTV forum if you hate them so much? To make yourself feel better about your decision? I already told you multiple times, I pay less for DirecTV then I would for streaming and I keep the channels that apparently nobody ever watches and I don't have to jump around to multiple apps and deal with 3+ companies instead of 1.

What is HILLARIOUSLY ironic is that YOU are the reason everybody's cable bill is so high. EPSN is the most expensive channel there is. What is it now, like $8/sub? All the channels I mentioned could be bought and then some for one ESPN lol. And then the infamous RSN fee... sheesh... another $8/mo. Well, not for me cuz I don't pay it, but still... $16/mo... that's all you bud.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

B. Shoe said:


> This is what makes the streaming discussion a true case study in viewing behaviors and makes the discussion interesting. Your viewing priorities, "must haves", call them what you will, are different than mine. Mine are different than someone else's, etc. And I think that's what makes the "is streaming a value for you?" question so interesting. Barring some nuances, there hasn't been a ton of difference in what the major providers really provide over the course of the past decade. Maybe a few extra HDs, different channels in different tiers...but it was all there, and for the common lay consumer, the bottom line came down to cost.
> 
> I've said this in other threads and I'll repeat it here. There are those where satellite/cable still provides the best value, ease of use, etc. For others, it doesn't. It doesn't mean the products are failures if they aren't the right fit for you. And I think that's where the discussions get a little off base here. The real goal, moving forward, is learning what all of the available services offer and whether that best matches up with what works for you, instead of debating "what is best."


Some of the channels I listed like BET, Comedy Central and OWN I could live without and I guess the show I used to watch on MTV2 moved to MTV and/or VH1, so I don't need MTV2.

And I would keep my 1Gbps internet regardless since I don't use streaming now, I use it for other things... Cox has a 1TB cap which costs $50/mo to go capless&#8230; I am getting the no cap service comp'ed for now... but if they take away that promo, I sure as HELL wouldn't pay $50/mo for it. That's absurd.


----------



## mstenbrg (Oct 2, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Some of the channels I listed like BET, Comedy Central and OWN I could live without and I guess the show I used to watch on MTV2 moved to MTV and/or VH1, so I don't need MTV2.
> 
> And I would keep my 1Gbps internet regardless since I don't use streaming now, I use it for other things... Cox has a 1TB cap which costs $50/mo to go capless&#8230; I am getting the no cap service comp'ed for now... but if they take away that promo, I sure as HELL wouldn't pay $50/mo for it. That's absurd.


You are missing the point, just because DirecTV is the best option for you doesn't mean that other people who choose streaming are wrong. What some of us are trying to say is that many of the streaming providers carry the channels we care about for a lot less than it cost us for the same channels on DirecTV.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

mstenbrg said:


> You are missing the point, just because DirecTV is the best option for you doesn't mean that other people who choose streaming are wrong. What some of us are trying to say is that many of the streaming providers carry the channels we care about for a lot less than it cost us for the same channels on DirecTV.


Yes, I get it. I'm saying DirecTV carries the channels I care about AND the channels I don't care about AND the ones you care about for LESS then streaming .

YouTube + Philio for the 10% + 10% solution and I'd still be missing PBS and locals (subchannels) + hassle factor. What hassle factor? Quick, WITHOUT cheating POP QUIZ:

YouTube or Philio&#8230; who carries A&E, Bravo, Cartoon, CMT, Disney? Not that I watch those channels, but you get the point...

Get it now? It's a hassle. You gotta remember what provider has what. Jump between apps, deal with multiple providers, etc.

And didn't a few services recently drop support for some older devices? As in 2 yrs old? Cuz yeah, a 2 yr old device is ancient, why would we want to support it? I know on my 2016 TV, I got a few notifications about a few providers dropping support.

YouTube + Philio = $70 out the door and no PBS... yes, my Preferred Xtra + HR54 + AM21 is cheaper.

I've already agreed with you (a few times) that if you have a high TV count, streaming will be cheaper.

You're also ignoring all the folks that have data caps (and lower internet speeds and lower end routers). Note that quite a few providers have them.

And once again, you're ignoring all the folks that got every bell and whistle on DirecTV and weren't willing to drop any of them UNTIL they went to streaming. Then its no big deal to drop all the bells and whistles because "we weren't using them anyway"... uh... so why didn't you drop them on DirecTV? and the response is usually "cuz I was lazy and/or didn't want to"... ok... so you dropped them at the end anyways .


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> And that, I believe, is exactly what AT&T has been up to this year in all their hard-fought carriage negotiations. Get their channel packages thinned out and simplified, get carriage rates for each channel as low as possible.


So, do you believe that the contracts are (mostly) in place but AT&T simply hasn't pulled the trigger and offered the packages to the public?
That may explain why Disney/ESPN is still negotiating to have their carriage renewed. Disney/ESPN relies on packages to survive.
(Although the future Disney streaming service is sure to cut in to MVPD distribution ... why pay DIRECTV for a tier when you can get Disney "a la carte"?)

BTW: DISH has had their Flex Pack via satellite for years. A core package plus multiple genre add ons. Sling TV (streaming) starts with a choice of core packages (Orange, Blue or both) then has add ons. Similar to what I believe you are describing. Why is it taking AT&T DIRECTV so long to catch up?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

That is a great question! 
If not for ESPN, ATT could drop Disney and probably not get hurt too bad, but ESPN is the elephant in the room. Not just because of home users, but all those commercial locations.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CTJon said:


> I wonder if in some cases they can do that. I wouldn't be surprised if some of their agreements with channels/networks state that all their channels must be included in some level package or the other way around you can't include them unless high level package. Everything these days are related to channel agreements and similar junk


Oh, I believe which channels AT&T can put in which packages is *completely* determined by the contracts that they have in place with the network owners. But this year they renegotiated and renewed contracts with at least Viacom, A+E Networks and now Disney. I don't know which groups they renewed in 2018. But I think all of those contracts have been done with an aim of building these new Plus and Max channel packages, which I believe are still works-in-progress. We'll see...


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> So, do you believe that the contracts are (mostly) in place but AT&T simply hasn't pulled the trigger and offered the packages to the public?


Yes, I think that's likely the case. Note how they rolled out the new Plus and Max back in March on DirecTV Now and then, just a month later, after wrapping up a new contract with Viacom, they added their few most-popular channels to both packages and then some of their second-string channels to just Max. My guess is that they felt like they HAD to go ahead and add those channels (which, BTW, aren't available on YouTube TV, PS Vue, or Hulu Live) because the market was reacting to the new $50 Plus and $70 Max packages like turds in a punchbowl. They needed to do something to make those packages a bit more attractive versus the competition.

I've been repeatedly saying (and yes, I do realize I sound like a broken record) that for Plus and Max to be complete, and be ready to serve as the default packages on AT&T TV and DirecTV, that AT&T still needs to get those critical missing channels from Discovery, A+E, and AMC Networks added. We know that they were in contract negotiations with A+E Networks back in May or June. So that should be done. (I expect A&E, History and Lifetime to all be in Plus and Max. Their second-tier channels Viceland, FYI and Lifetime Movies, who knows, maybe just in Max and/or only in add-on Extra Packs.) I've heard nothing about Discovery or AMC though. Maybe those contracts were quietly renewed this summer with no drama, no blackout threats, and AT&T is just holding them back from inclusion in Plus and Max because they want to make a big bang all at once when AT&T TV launches nationwide this fall. Or maybe those contracts are up for renewal in October. I really don't know.



James Long said:


> That may explain why Disney/ESPN is still negotiating to have their carriage renewed. Disney/ESPN relies on packages to survive.
> (Although the future Disney streaming service is sure to cut in to MVPD distribution ... why pay DIRECTV for a tier when you can get Disney "a la carte"?)


Yeah. Obviously Disney would like everything stuffed in Plus but I can't see them getting anything more there than they've already got. It's probably more about making sure that their new ACC Network makes it into Max (alongside their SEC Network) and fighting to keep stuff like Disney Jr. and Disney XD in Plus rather than slipping back to Max or off into a Family Extra Pack.



James Long said:


> BTW: DISH has had their Flex Pack via satellite for years. A core package plus multiple genre add ons. Sling TV (streaming) starts with a choice of core packages (Orange, Blue or both) then has add ons. Similar to what I believe you are describing. Why is it taking AT&T DIRECTV so long to catch up?


Good question. I think, in general, that DISH has always been more interested in trying to cut costs and pass those savings along to customers than has been the case with DirecTV, which has always been more about premium quality than saving a buck. But the cord-cutting phenomenon, which has hit premium-priced DirecTV so hard, has forced AT&T to get serious about being cost-competitive. And one way to do that is to push those less-popular niche channels off into genre-based add-on Extra Packs.

Each quarter that goes by, with more and more subscriber defections from cable TV services, I think the cable network owners are realizing, "OK, we're going to have to be more flexible. Let's protect our crown-jewel channels by making sure they stay in the most popular/cheapest base package and then everything else, well, we'll let the operators sell them however they see fit." And given that there's already a major precedent with DISH/Sling doing this flexible add-on pack thing, I don't see how they can say no to the even larger AT&T.

I could envision AT&T TV and DirecTV's new channel package system letting you add any of the following onto your Plus or Max base package:


Sports Extra Pack (ESPN Goal Line, ESPN Buzzer Beater, NBA TV, MLB TV, NHL TV, etc.)
Entertainment Extra Pack (AXS TV, HD Net Movies, Sundance TV, MTV 2, etc.)
Family Extra Pack (Hallmark Movies & Mysteries, Nicktoons, Game Show Network, RFD-TV, etc.)
Maybe there will be more of them, who knows. Price them at $5-10 each.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> That is a great question!
> If not for ESPN, ATT could drop Disney and probably not get hurt too bad, but ESPN is the elephant in the room. Not just because of home users, but all those commercial locations.


Oh, AT&T absolutely MUST have Disney on board. Without the Disney-owned ABC affiliates in NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly, San Fran and Houston (plus Raleigh-Durham and Fresno), and without ESPN, they'd just need to shut down DirecTV and AT&T TV. Seriously. You just can't operate a credible cable TV service without them. And Disney knows that. DirecTV could withstand a short blackout but it can't go on forever. But then, given the fact that AT&T is the largest MVPD in the nation, a long blackout would hurt Disney too.

One small factor in AT&T's favor is that Disney does want to continue being able to carry AT&T's cable nets like CNN, TBS, TNT, etc. on Disney's Hulu with Live TV service. So there's that.


----------



## bobcnn (Nov 10, 2007)

I have been a subscriber since 1994. I had $60 in credits that just rolled off 2 days ago. I called the 9077 number, and they only thing they suggested was I could lower my package. Without the credits my bill would be around $160. I have the Xtra package, two receivers, and NY/LA locals. I tried several streaming services just in case, and both YouTube TV, and Playstation Vue has every channel I would need for $60. So I told them to suspended my account on Sept. 30th (day after the Extra Innings package ends), and I will try streaming for a month just to make sure. I really like Directv, very easy to use, but it is not worth $100 more a month. It might be worth $10 or $20 more per month, but not $100. I'm guessing when I can to actually cancel, they will throw some discounts my way, but it might be too late. As dumb as it might sound, it will be a sad day when I call to cancel.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

bobcnn said:


> I have been a subscriber since 1994. I had $60 in credits that just rolled off 2 days ago. I called the 9077 number, and they only thing they suggested was I could lower my package. Without the credits my bill would be around $160. I have the Xtra package, two receivers, and NY/LA locals. I tried several streaming services just in case, and both YouTube TV, and Playstation Vue has every channel I would need for $60. So I told them to suspended my account on Sept. 30th (day after the Extra Innings package ends), and I will try streaming for a month just to make sure. I really like Directv, very easy to use, but it is not worth $100 more a month. It might be worth $10 or $20 more per month, but not $100. I'm guessing when I can to actually cancel, they will throw some discounts my way, but it might be too late. As dumb as it might sound, it will be a sad day when I call to cancel.


The retention thread is full of people getting massive discounts for years and years. I haven't paid full price for at least a decade. You've been with DirecTV longer then I have. I am kind of curious why some folks have access to the (as mysteryman likes to refer to it) "bottomless pit of credits" while others "get told to hit the road" after one or two rounds? I had one of my discounts do a partial roll off on the last bill, so it went up a bit... I'll test the waters when I get the next bill and the rest falls off . I did test the waters on the partial roll off lol... why the heck not, right? (the guy actually told me, it hasn't fully rolled off yet, so they can't put it back on yet, but call back in a month when it finishes rolling off) If they say no after the full roll off, I won't really lose sleep over it, I'll be basically break even with streaming at that point with less hassle. If when the "big boy" rolls off and they tell me to pay full price, then I'll probably go elsewhere, but I doubt it'll be streaming... just hop on the Cox promo rate til I get a win back offer.


----------



## Hdhead (Jul 30, 2007)

Dropped Directv 5 weeks ago after 24+ years. Wife and I are thrilled with streaming. All our wants and needs for a fraction of the cost. Added bonus is much better picture quality (my #1 criteria) on our large screen TVs. As for the argument that jumping apps is a pain, I can honestly state that I can jump apps with Roku Ultra faster than I could change channels with the pathetically slow Directv boxes.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> If when the "big boy" rolls off and they tell me to pay full price, then I'll probably go elsewhere, but I doubt it'll be streaming... just hop on the Cox promo rate til I get a win back offer.


The current scenario in which we have significant price disparities for essentially the same kind of service delivered two different ways -- cable TV service delivered via streaming, to consumers' own devices vs. delivered via DBS, telco, or traditional cable, to the operator's devices -- cannot last too much longer. Too many customers on the more expensive traditional systems are figuring out that they can switch over to streaming cable TV and save lots of money (and get better picture quality too) without much hassle.

The traditional players will soon have to either lower prices enough to be cost-competitive with the streaming cable TV services or simply retain their current prices and milk their dwindling subscriber bases for all they can until they dwindle away to nothing, at which point the operator exits the TV business.

AT&T is going to do some of both. They'll make AT&T TV price-competitive with streaming cable TV services, especially for those who get a discount for bundling it with another AT&T service. DirecTV will become a bit more cost-competitive but the long-term plan is for it to just dwindle down to the base of subscribers who have no choice for pay TV except for satellite, which really means that DirecTV only has to be cost-competitive with DISH.

Comcast, and maybe other cable TV providers, will make their TV service cost-competitive with streaming cable TV IF you're bundling it with their broadband service, which is what they really care about (since it's way more profitable). They know that you have to have broadband in order to stream any competing video service.

That said, I'm doubtful that cable operators other than Comcast -- given their smaller size and the critical fact that they own zero content -- will have the power to match the pricing of YouTube TV, Hulu Live and AT&T TV. I think they'll mainly just keep their cable TV service prices high enough to give them a worthwhile margin, knowing that their subscriber base is going to leave them for streaming options sooner or later anyhow. This is why lately we're seeing some significant hikes lately in equipment and service fees from Charter and Verizon. Milk that base as long as you can, before they wise up and leave you. By the time you're looking to jump from DirecTV to Cox, you may find that Cox isn't offering the kind of deals for TV service that they used to (at least once you tack on all their below-the-line fees).


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Hdhead said:


> Dropped Directv 5 weeks ago after 24+ years. Wife and I are thrilled with streaming. All our wants and needs for a fraction of the cost. Added bonus is much better picture quality (my #1 criteria) on our large screen TVs. As for the argument that jumping apps is a pain, I can honestly state that I can jump apps with Roku Ultra faster than I could change channels with the pathetically slow Directv boxes.


Do the apps stay logged in / authorized when you switch between them? How many button presses does it take to go from App 1 / Channel 1 to App 2 / Channel 2 and how long does it REALLY take to go from App 1 / Channel 1 to App 2 / Channel 2 PLAYING? When I use apps on my TV, they frequently have to go through the authorization process.

What box did you have that was "pathetically slow"? Did you use Native Mode?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> The current scenario in which we have significant price disparities for essentially the same kind of service delivered two different ways -- cable TV service delivered via streaming, to consumers' own devices vs. delivered via DBS, telco, or traditional cable, to the operator's devices -- cannot last too much longer. Too many customers on the more expensive traditional systems are figuring out that they can switch over to streaming cable TV and save lots of money (and get better picture quality too) without much hassle.
> 
> The traditional players will soon have to either lower prices enough to be cost-competitive with the streaming cable TV services or simply retain their current prices and milk their dwindling subscriber bases for all they can until they dwindle away to nothing, at which point the operator exits the TV business.
> 
> ...


* Traditional subscriber base absolutely dwarfs streaming subscriber base
* As we've discussed ad nauseum lol, ymmv on cost savings. I'd need 3 streaming services to get all my channels plus would need to remove my Cox data cap ($50/mo). That would cost CONSIDERABLY more then what I'm paying DirecTV Preferred Xtra + HR54 + 1TB data cap. Someone with 16 TVs and no data caps would obviously save money.
* Some channels on streaming have restrictions like CBS forces you to watch ads after a day or two
* How do you get OTA?
* You really think Disney+ and Apple+ or whatever they're calling it will remain that low? Disney has an advantage in that they own the content, Apple+ surely doesn't. Dunno if you work in IT or not, but you're under estimating the cost of infrastructure, or completely ignoring it required to power streaming. Disney has already spent over ONE BILLION standing up the service. They have to recoup that money somehow. Let's see... how could they do that? Hey, I got an idea... why don't they raise the rates? .

Just to give you an idea of costs, we have a few chinsy apps running in Azure (with a steep corp discount) and "zero traffic" and it costs $6000 a month just for my "resource group" for a few little apps just sitting around gathering dust tbh.

Also, it's widely expected for more content owners to break off... NBC is doing it with Peacock+.

Yet another service you'll need to subscribe to... when the smoke clears you'll probably need like 10 or more lol.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> Do the apps stay logged in / authorized when you switch between them?


Most of the apps will stay logged in indefinitely (Youtube, Youtube TV, Netflix, Hulu, etc), but the apps that require re-authorization (FSGO, NBC Sports, ESPN, etc) seem to only need a re-auth every month or two.

Depending on your service and platform, there are better options. Apple TV, for instance, lets you do single sign on with providers like Sling or Vue. (Unfortunately not supported by Youtube TV at this time) For that, once you sign the Apple TV itself into a service like PS Vue, the apps automatically authorize against that service when you launch them.



SledgeHammer said:


> What box did you have that was "pathetically slow"? Did you use Native Mode?


Most boxes (without an SSD upgrade) are pretty slow on DirecTV? The HR44 and clients will drop numbers when entering them on the remote on occasion, scrolling the guide can be painful (necessary for things like Center Ice where the HD channels are 7xx-1, not 7xx) , and anything in the setup screen on the clients is like pulling teeth. Even getting to the menu to adjust the resolution settings takes a great deal of patience, which really sucked when the clients had the bug where they kept dropping down to 480p.



SledgeHammer said:


> * Some channels on streaming have restrictions like CBS forces you to watch ads after a day or two
> * How do you get OTA?


If you're doing actual OTA, then this is a non-issue. The common suggestion people will throw out is to use a Tivo for OTA, which works pretty good but you still have to change inputs and you're locked into watching just on the Tivo devices.

If you're consolidating onto a platform like Apple TV or Roku, that opens up options like using a HDHomerun tuner and pairing it with any of the hardware or software DVR solutions. I run a self-built NAS box, so I'm running Channels DVR in a FreeBSD jail, but that solution won't necessarily be the best for everyone. Plex DVR is another option on that front.

For more packaged solutions, you have things like Tablo that act as a central DVR server and all apps running on your streaming box to get access to the recorded content, including automatic commercial skip. If you're in the Amazon ecosystem, you have the option of using Recast to capture your local channel content.

If you just care about watching live OTA stuff, you can get solutions like AirTV that will integrate directly in the SlingTV app, so you get one common interface for all of your streaming plus OTA content on that service.

Honestly, people who can get functional service with an antenna are in a great position, because most of the DVR restrictions on services like Vue and YTTV are tied to local channels. If you offload those channels to a local DVR solution, you can avoid being locked into VOD content (heck, you can get automatic commercial skip on a few platforms), and you get to save bandwidth on anything you play on your local network.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

espaeth said:


> Most of the apps will stay logged in indefinitely (Youtube, Youtube TV, Netflix, Hulu, etc), but the apps that require re-authorization (FSGO, NBC Sports, ESPN, etc) seem to only need a re-auth every month or two.
> 
> Depending on your service and platform, there are better options. Apple TV, for instance, lets you do single sign on with providers like Sling or Vue. (Unfortunately not supported by Youtube TV at this time) For that, once you sign the Apple TV itself into a service like PS Vue, the apps automatically authorize against that service when you launch them.


When I was doing free trials on my TV apps, yes, I didn't have to "re-enter a password", those are saved by the app, but when the app was started up, it still took 1 or 2 seconds to load the app and "sign in" as part of that process. No intervention on my part, just a few seconds to get to the home screen.



espaeth said:


> Most boxes (without an SSD upgrade) are pretty slow on DirecTV? The HR44 and clients will drop numbers when entering them on the remote on occasion, scrolling the guide can be painful (necessary for things like Center Ice where the HD channels are 7xx-1, not 7xx) , and anything in the setup screen on the clients is like pulling teeth. Even getting to the menu to adjust the resolution settings takes a great deal of patience, which really sucked when the clients had the bug where they kept dropping down to 480p.


I used to have an HR24, and I'll agree it was slow as, well, you know... as part of my last negotiation, I said I must have a free upgrade to the HR54, I couldn't take the slowness of the HR24 and they comped me the HR54. Can't speak on the clients since I didn't use them, but the HR54 itself is fast.



espaeth said:


> If you're doing actual OTA, then this is a non-issue. The common suggestion people will throw out is to use a Tivo for OTA, which works pretty good but you still have to change inputs and you're locked into watching just on the Tivo devices.


Yes. Another box. Another input switch. Another remote, etc.



espaeth said:


> If you're consolidating onto a platform like Apple TV or Roku, that opens up options like using a HDHomerun tuner and pairing it with any of the hardware or software DVR solutions. I run a self-built NAS box, so I'm running Channels DVR in a FreeBSD jail, but that solution won't necessarily be the best for everyone. Plex DVR is another option on that front.
> 
> For more packaged solutions, you have things like Tablo that act as a central DVR server and all apps running on your streaming box to get access to the recorded content, including automatic commercial skip. If you're in the Amazon ecosystem, you have the option of using Recast to capture your local channel content.
> 
> ...


If I could take an external streaming device that was fast, had AC and/or AX wifi and a 1Gbps ethernet port and could integrate OTA seamlessly, that would be ideal, but it would still be a hassle remembering which channel is where. If they had a device that could seamlessly unify all the apps, that would be a game changer.

Even if streaming delivered a *perfect* (for me) device, until it is significantly cheaper, no point. Whether its cheaper for a person or not, as we said depends on the number of TVs, the channels you need, whether you have a data cap, etc.

In my case, based on my current DirecTV bill, I wouldn't even begin looking at streaming unless I could get EVERYTHING for like $30 or $40. Sorry, but with a $50/mo fee to remove my data cap on Cox, streaming is a very, very, very hard sell to me. Especially when my DirecTV bill gets like 40% off. It was $52/mo for Preferred Xtra + HR54 which is untouchable by streaming. One of the promos fell off and its $69.99 this month. Still untouchable by streaming. When the rest of the promo falls off this month, its going to $82. Then I'll call retention to see about getting it put back on. At the very least, streaming would cost me $70/mo plus possibly getting my data cap removed for $50/mo = $120. Non starter for my situation at this point.


----------



## Hdhead (Jul 30, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Do the apps stay logged in / authorized when you switch between them? How many button presses does it take to go from App 1 / Channel 1 to App 2 / Channel 2 and how long does it REALLY take to go from App 1 / Channel 1 to App 2 / Channel 2 PLAYING? When I use apps on my TV, they frequently have to go through the authorization process.
> 
> What box did you have that was "pathetically slow"? Did you use Native Mode?


You stay logged in to all your apps when using Roku, no re-authorizations. The Roku Ultra also has an SD card slot (you supply card) that allows all the apps to be stored locally so access is instantaneous. On my HR-24s every button push was a crap shoot if it would respond. Never could call up channel changes with numbers because it would timeout before all the numbers were accepted. Went to upgrade they wanted a 2 year contract extension, even though I had the protection plan which I thought offered free upgrades without contract extension. Boy was I wrong. In the end I felt taken advantage of and abused as a thank you for my 24 years of loyalty.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

Hdhead said:


> Went to upgrade they wanted a 2 year contract extension.


I feel like this is one of the biggest arguments against re-negotiating anything with ATT/DIRECTV (or Dish, or a cable provider) right now. The pay TV landscape is changing too rapidly to commit to up to $480 in escape penalties if you need to do something different in the next 2 years. This article was recently discussed where ATT has said they expect to lose more customers as they aggressively renegotiate contracts.

With streaming, switching services just means installing another app. If a provider gets into a dispute, you can buy your way around that situation instantly by signing up with another service.

Just look at the situation right now with FOX Sports Networks (now Sinclair) and Dish/Sling. Dish subscribers are stuck paying ETFs if they want to get their RSN back. Sling subscribers are a click away from a different service.

Even if you can negotiate with ATT/DIRECTV to get your pricing down, the lock-in might be a killer if suddenly the satellite packages start looking like the ATT TV NOW PLUS and MAX packages, with their significant gaps in channel offerings.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Hdhead said:


> You stay logged in to all your apps when using Roku, no re-authorizations. The Roku Ultra also has an SD card slot (you supply card) that allows all the apps to be stored locally so access is instantaneous. On my HR-24s every button push was a crap shoot if it would respond. Never could call up channel changes with numbers because it would timeout before all the numbers were accepted. Went to upgrade they wanted a 2 year contract extension, even though I had the protection plan which I thought offered free upgrades without contract extension. Boy was I wrong. In the end I felt taken advantage of and abused as a thank you for my 24 years of loyalty.


I fully agree that the HR24 is junk. There is a whole thread about putting an SSD in it to make it fast, but I'd just go to the HR54.

2 yrs is for a tech install, it's only 1 yr for a self install (I have a legacy dish, so I opted for a SWM8 that I could install in the attic myself). One other thing I did was I negotiated the HR54 upgrade as part of my loyalty deal. I had a promo on the account and said it was ending in 3 months, so I'm not going to sign a 1 yr contract and pay full price for 9 months lol. So they threw an overlapping promo on there, that's how I got it down so low.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

espaeth said:


> I feel like this is one of the biggest arguments against re-negotiating anything with ATT/DIRECTV (or Dish, or a cable provider) right now. The pay TV landscape is changing too rapidly to commit to up to $480 in escape penalties if you need to do something different in the next 2 years. This article was recently discussed where ATT has said they expect to lose more customers as they aggressively renegotiate contracts.
> 
> With streaming, switching services just means installing another app. If a provider gets into a dispute, you can buy your way around that situation instantly by signing up with another service.
> 
> ...


I've seen about 3 popups on my TV saying streaming services are dropping support for my TV (its a 2016). DirecTV isn't dropping support for TVs lol. That's definitely a strike against streaming. They aren't too big on keeping backwards compatibility. I may have also read that some of the older streaming devices were also dropped. But to be fair, it is easier to replace a $99 Roku vs. a $3000 TV.


----------



## bobcnn (Nov 10, 2007)

I have tried Playstation Vue on a new Roku, an Apple TV, and an Amazon Fire Stick, and YouTube TV on Roku, and Apple TV (the Amazon Fire app is said to be coming soon). I found the Amazon Fire Stick much quicker in changing channels, and skipping commercials. For example I recorded some NFL games, and with the Directv DVR, I would watch a play, and then hit the 30 skip, and be ready for the next play. On Roku and Apple TV, when I skipped ahead 30 seconds, it would take 10 seconds or so for it to skip and play (which makes a 30 second skip kind of useless). But on the Amazon Fire, it jumped 30 seconds in just about the same speed as the DVR does.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> I've seen about 3 popups on my TV saying streaming services are dropping support for my TV (its a 2016). DirecTV isn't dropping support for TVs lol. That's definitely a strike against streaming. They aren't too big on keeping backwards compatibility. I may have also read that some of the older streaming devices were also dropped. But to be fair, it is easier to replace a $99 Roku vs. a $3000 TV.


Yep, the apps on these Smart TVs are nice but updating them or even keeping them working isn't something to plan on. The better streaming boxes are kept up to date and offer longer app support than do the TVs and when they finally don't, replacement is so much cheaper.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Hdhead (Jul 30, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> I fully agree that the HR24 is junk. There is a whole thread about putting an SSD in it to make it fast, but I'd just go to the HR54.
> 
> 2 yrs is for a tech install, it's only 1 yr for a self install (I have a legacy dish, so I opted for a SWM8 that I could install in the attic myself). One other thing I did was I negotiated the HR54 upgrade as part of my loyalty deal. I had a promo on the account and said it was ending in 3 months, so I'm not going to sign a 1 yr contract and pay full price for 9 months lol. So they threw an overlapping promo on there, that's how I got it down so low.


Told them I would install an HR54 myself but they said that was not possible, hence 2 year contract. They lost a big fish in me with my $220 monthly bill all due to their outdated costumer billing policies.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> * Traditional subscriber base absolutely dwarfs streaming subscriber base


This will change in time. The future belongs to companies that OWN content. Charter, Cox, Verizon, etc. don't own any. Watch and see.



SledgeHammer said:


> * As we've discussed ad nauseum lol, ymmv on cost savings. I'd need 3 streaming services to get all my channels plus would need to remove my Cox data cap ($50/mo). That would cost CONSIDERABLY more then what I'm paying DirecTV Preferred Xtra + HR54 + 1TB data cap. Someone with 16 TVs and no data caps would obviously save money.


AT&T TV offers the same channel packages as DirecTV, so that immediately invalidates your argument. I expect the default set of packages on both services to change but I also expect that they'll continue to largely mirror each other in that regard. Beyond that, I expect other (skinnier) streaming services such as YouTube TV and Hulu Live will expand the number of channels that they offer, either in their core package or through add-on packs. (In fact, Hulu Live already offers one such pack.) At the same time, many less-popular cable networks will wither away and die in the next few years because they weren't able to negotiate their inclusion in the most popular base-line packages.

As for that $50 charge to remove your data cap, yep, that's one of the ways that broadband providers make it potentially more expensive to use competing video services than their own. If such policies don't get struck down by new laws in the future, I expect you'll simply see broadband operators like Cox partnering with third-party streaming services as "preferred providers" that get zero-rated against your data cap.



SledgeHammer said:


> * Some channels on streaming have restrictions like CBS forces you to watch ads after a day or two


That's not true on AT&T TV or AT&T TV Now. And there's no reason why such restrictions can't or won't come to the cloud DVRs offered by traditional TV providers, such as Comcast, in the future. You keep wanting to think that "streaming" is this separate thing from everything else. It's not. That's a false distinction. The lines will increasingly blur going forward.



SledgeHammer said:


> * How do you get OTA?


Um, with an antenna. I don't know what you're getting at.



SledgeHammer said:


> * You really think Disney+ and Apple+ or whatever they're calling it will remain that low? Disney has an advantage in that they own the content, Apple+ surely doesn't. Dunno if you work in IT or not, but you're under estimating the cost of infrastructure, or completely ignoring it required to power streaming. Disney has already spent over ONE BILLION standing up the service. They have to recoup that money somehow. Let's see... how could they do that? Hey, I got an idea... why don't they raise the rates? .


Of course they'll increase rates over time, as the competitive market situation allows.

But you seem unable to understand the clear trend of what is happening here: the future of video content distribution is from the content owner directly to the customer, cutting out the cable-bundle-middleman. Do you honestly think that, come 2025, the majority of new video content will even be available through a cable channel bundle? Don't you understand that the cable bundle is a shrinking island while more and more stuff (including the most desirable content) is exclusive to this or that streaming service?



SledgeHammer said:


> Yet another service you'll need to subscribe to... when the smoke clears you'll probably need like 10 or more lol.


OK. And when the smoke clears, you'll be subscribing to a bundle of ad-stuffed crap channels that carry only C-grade content that no one much cares about because the rest of the world will have moved on to streaming.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

espaeth said:


> Even if you can negotiate with ATT/DIRECTV to get your pricing down, the lock-in might be a killer if suddenly the satellite packages start looking like the ATT TV NOW PLUS and MAX packages, with their significant gaps in channel offerings.


When the Plus and Max packages are finalized in a few weeks/months, they'll have those channel gaps filled in (with the missing channels either added to those packages or available via optional add-on Extra Packs). And that's when Plus and Max will become the only options available for new subscribers on both AT&T TV and DirecTV.

Until then, Plus and Max are just hanging around as weird over-priced options at the bottom of the list during the sign-up process for both services. They already exist in the ordering system. Now it's just a matter of adding a few missing channels and assigning them their future lower ongoing prices.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

NashGuy,
While I think the pricing on ATT’s upcoming streaming will have to come down there is no indication from ATT that they plan on doing it.
I think at full launch they will be just the wrong package at the wrong time with the wrong price. Then, and only then, will we see ATT do something about it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Hdhead said:


> Told them I would install an HR54 myself but they said that was not possible, hence 2 year contract. They lost a big fish in me with my $220 monthly bill all due to their outdated costumer billing policies.


I do remember I had trouble getting one through the CSRs even though it was noted in my account that it was supposed to be free. I ended up getting one for free through Tech Support. But since you left, I guess its a moot point. Just a note that different groups can do different stuff. Like neither tech support or the CSRs have access to the bottomless pit of credits. Only retention does.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> This will change in time. The future belongs to companies that OWN content. Charter, Cox, Verizon, etc. don't own any. Watch and see.


As our good friend Mark once said, the death of cable/sat has been greatly exaggerated. Some traditional will definitely move to IP based delivery though.



NashGuy said:


> AT&T TV offers the same channel packages as DirecTV, so that immediately invalidates your argument.


Say what? I remember the last time I saw the packages, they were missing quite a few of the popular channels.



NashGuy said:


> At the same time, many less-popular cable networks will wither away and die in the next few years because they weren't able to negotiate their inclusion in the most popular base-line packages.


Hasn't worked yet and I don't expect it will. The crappy channels are additional revenue and the folks that own the crappy channels also own the non crappy channels. You want a non crappy channel? Tough noogies, you gotta buy my crappy channel too.



NashGuy said:


> As for that $50 charge to remove your data cap, yep, that's one of the ways that broadband providers make it potentially more expensive to use competing video services than their own. If such policies don't get struck down by new laws in the future, I expect you'll simply see broadband operators like Cox partnering with third-party streaming services as "preferred providers" that get zero-rated against your data cap.


You think they'll come out with a law making data caps illegal? Bwahahhaa&#8230;. yeah, good luck with that.



NashGuy said:


> Um, with an antenna. I don't know what you're getting at.


Does any streaming device support OTA integration the way DirecTV & Dish do?



NashGuy said:


> Of course they'll increase rates over time, as the competitive market situation allows.
> 
> But you seem unable to understand the clear trend of what is happening here: the future of video content distribution is from the content owner directly to the customer, cutting out the cable-bundle-middleman. Do you honestly think that, come 2025, the majority of new video content will even be available through a cable channel bundle? Don't you understand that the cable bundle is a shrinking island while more and more stuff (including the most desirable content) is exclusive to this or that streaming service?


Sorry, I disagree with you. And you're flat out wrong. You think anybody in their right mind will say I don't want my show on CBS proper? I want it exclusively on streaming? Bwahhaaha&#8230; you know who says that? The producers of crappy shows that can't get on a network.

Now if the day ever comes where streaming dwarfs traditional, then I'll agree with you. Pass around the "oregano" if you think that's coming in a "few years". Our best guide of streaming right now is Netflix and they've leveled off in the US.



NashGuy said:


> OK. And when the smoke clears, you'll be subscribing to a bundle of ad-stuffed crap channels that carry only C-grade content that no one much cares about because the rest of the world will have moved on to streaming.


Yup. Let me know when History, Discovery, Science and all those other channels move to streaming only. Next week, right?

A trend I DO see however is that streaming is becoming more and more fragmented as everybody and their mom spins up a service. What is YOUR breaking point? How many services do you have now, 3, maybe 4? Would you still be so high on streaming if you needed 6? 8? 20?

You know... since your argument is that the content owners will cut out the middle man... why wouldn't you think at some point you'll need 20 services and that your bill will be as high as it now?

Don't get me wrong... yes, people have moved to streaming. Duh... you're making it sound like DirecTV and Cox, etc. are going out of business by the end of the year, when in fact, streaming is still quite niche down here on planet earth.

Reality check:

Hulu = 2M on the live TV product (28M total)
Sling = 2.4M
PlayStation = 800K
Philio = 100K
YouTube = 1M

By comparison:

AT&T = ~23M
Spectrum = ~26M
Comcast = ~22M

At this point Hulu Live, Sling, PlayStation, YouTube and Philio aren't even in the game. They're at home eating Cheetos and getting fat on the couch watching others play the game waiting to file for bankruptcy as the ultra low teaser prices prove to be unsustainable over the long term.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> Hulu = 28M


I assume you meant 2.8 million? There's no way Hulu has 28 million subscribers to their 'live TV' product.


----------



## Hdhead (Jul 30, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> I do remember I had trouble getting one through the CSRs even though it was noted in my account that it was supposed to be free. I ended up getting one for free through Tech Support. But since you left, I guess its a moot point. Just a note that different groups can do different stuff. Like neither tech support or the CSRs have access to the bottomless pit of credits. Only retention does.


It is those types of nonsensical games that I am now free from. By the way SledgeHammer, you remind me of the incandescent light bulb. But they all eventually burn out.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> I assume you meant 2.8 million? There's no way Hulu has 28 million subscribers to their 'live TV' product.


28M is their current total sub count. Hulu Live TV has a piddly 2M. Netflix and Hulu proper wouldn't really be considered a competitor to traditional. They fall more into the YASS! category.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> _But you seem unable to understand._


LOL!

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> NashGuy,
> While I think the pricing on ATT's upcoming streaming will have to come down there is no indication from ATT that they plan on doing it.
> I think at full launch they will be just the wrong package at the wrong time with the wrong price. Then, and only then, will we see ATT do something about it.


You may be right. They may roll out AT&T TV nationwide with a set of packages and prices that aren't competitive with YouTube TV and Hulu with Live TV. But then, over the course of 2020, as the service fails to get much traction, they'll be forced to sweeten the value proposition for consumers one way or another. It's either that or simply watch their entire cable TV business melt away as customers defect from DirecTV while AT&T TV fails to attract much of anyone. But then that doesn't at all match up with the repeated statements that AT&T's CEO has made about their plans for AT&T TV, does it? He's said they'll they'll really lean into it, that it will be their "workhorse," that it will result in a turnaround in their overall cable TV subscriber numbers in 2020. This indicates to me that they see AT&T TV (in conjunction with HBO Max) as their only real plan to make the cable TV business work for them in the 2020s. They'll do what they must do in order to make it work or they'll just decide to abandon the business, making what they can off of the DirecTV ship until it sinks.

(BTW, I expect we'll see YouTube TV bump up their price a bit more in 2020 but likely also add a few important missing channels like A&E, History and Hallmark to better compete against Hulu Live and YouTube TV.)

If AT&T TV hits the market overpriced relative to the competition, the best way to correct it, IMO, would be to simply lower the service's regular prices. But instead, we could see them go with their old bag of tricks: lower first-year promo pricing and/or hundreds of dollars in Visa gift cards when you sign the up-front contract. In fact, it looks like they've already begun doing the Visa gift card thing for new sign-ups to AT&T TV in the pilot cities. That offer wasn't there on ATT.com when the service first rolled out on 8/19, but a few weeks later, they had added hundreds in gift cards. Which is a clear sign that AT&T does, in fact, realize that they're going to have to make the service price-competitive with a new emerging class of cable TV services that, like AT&T TV, also stream over the internet.

AT&T management has said that part of the point of this pilot market roll-out for AT&T TV is to see how the market reacts to it so that they can tweak and improve it before the nationwide roll-out. We'll see what that results in.

But I really don't think they ever had the intention of rolling out AT&T TV nationwide in 4Q19 with the existing default set of packages (Entertainment, Choice, Xtra, etc.). I think, rather, that the company was running 9-12 months late in getting AT&T TV out the door to consumers, so they were itching to finally deploy it *somewhere*. Except the company still hadn't finished renegotiating those pesky carriage contracts that would let them offer the packages and pricing they really want for the service. So they rolled it out to the pilot markets with the tech pretty much ready but the business side still shaping up. And that's where things stand now.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I’m guessing on this part. I think ATT is doing carriage contracts in the same way it has always done. Bundles of channels at differing subscription levels. Those contracts may turn out to bite them in the butt if they try to jigger the channel lineups to get a competitive price that is still profitable.
In all of this I think the term “premium customer” they like to bandy about will disappear as they’ll find their definition not be fit those going to streaming.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> I'm guessing on this part. I think ATT is doing carriage contracts in the same way it has always done. Bundles of channels at differing subscription levels. Those contracts may turn out to bite them in the butt if they try to jigger the channel lineups to get a competitive price that is still profitable.


It's not rocket science, it's just a matter of AT&T imposing their will, to the extent possible, on the network owners. Here's what AT&T would ideally want: a main package that includes locals, plus the ~40 most popular national cable channels (including, of course, all of AT&T's own content: HBO Max, TBS, TNT, CNN, Boomerang, etc.). Exclude regional sports networks and all other pricy all-sports channels with the exception of the "must-haves": ESPN, ESPN 2, FS1, NBCSN and maybe SEC Network and/or ACC Network and/or Big Ten Network (depending on area). Negotiate the carriage prices as low as possible for the included channels, then slap an everyday price on it that gives AT&T a sustainable profit margin.

That's it, really. Everything else is about mopping up the details. What happens to all those channels that didn't make that main package? They get included into a step-up base package and/or into one or more optional add-on Extra Packs. To the extent possible, structure things so that the cost of sports channels are borne only by those customers who actually *want* them.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

They should want a package WITHOUT locals and WITHOUT ESPN if they really want to go after the non sports crowd. Let them pick up their locals via OTA, or simply do without the local channels which are no longer worth the price for people who aren't sports fans. Seriously, only a tiny fraction of non sports fans would think having local channels is worth $15/month (plus are the biggest reason your bill goes up every year)


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

As someone who cannot get locals OTA I would have to disagree that locals are not important to non sports fans. They are THE most important channels. You need them to be able to watch network TV and local news.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> They should want a package WITHOUT locals and WITHOUT ESPN if they really want to go after the non sports crowd. Let them pick up their locals via OTA, or simply do without the local channels which are no longer worth the price for people who aren't sports fans. Seriously, only a tiny fraction of non sports fans would think having local channels is worth $15/month (plus are the biggest reason your bill goes up every year)


I don't watch sports, but I do watch locals. Locals don't account for the RSN fee. I have the Preferred Xtra package which has all my locals and no RSN. I'd definitely love to drop ESPN. Isn't it like $8/sub now?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

b4pjoe said:


> As someone who cannot get locals OTA I would have to disagree that locals are not important to non sports fans. They are THE most important channels. You need them to be able to watch network TV and local news.


Do you believe they are important enough to pay $15/month for? I watch some programs on network TV, but I don't consider network TV and local news be worth $15/month. I mean that's about what you'd pay for Netflix or HBO - do you think the locals are better than either of those ways to spend $15/month?

If I wasn't a sports fan and my cable company allowed it, I'd drop the locals. I can get local news from the web (and mostly don't care anyway) and most of the network programs are free to stream a week or two after they're on TV. At least when I've missed them due to weather pre-emptions, I've been able to watch later on the network's web site. Maybe some of them I had to login with my cable company but I'm sure some of them were totally free to stream without credentials...you just have to wait a bit.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Do you believe they are important enough to pay $15/month for? I watch some programs on network TV, but I don't consider network TV and local news be worth $15/month. I mean that's about what you'd pay for Netflix or HBO - do you think the locals are better than either of those ways to spend $15/month?
> 
> If I wasn't a sports fan and my cable company allowed it, I'd drop the locals. I can get local news from the web (and mostly don't care anyway) and most of the network programs are free to stream a week or two after they're on TV. At least when I've missed them due to weather pre-emptions, I've been able to watch later on the network's web site. Maybe some of them I had to login with my cable company but I'm sure some of them were totally free to stream without credentials...you just have to wait a bit.


I'll have to say, I'd rather watch locals then Calibre on Netflix. With most of the licensed content going away, that's going to be standard fair. No, I wouldn't pay $15 for them.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> Do you believe they are important enough to pay $15/month for? I watch some programs on network TV, but I don't consider network TV and local news be worth $15/month. I mean that's about what you'd pay for Netflix or HBO - do you think the locals are better than either of those ways to spend $15/month?
> 
> If I wasn't a sports fan and my cable company allowed it, I'd drop the locals. I can get local news from the web (and mostly don't care anyway) and most of the network programs are free to stream a week or two after they're on TV. At least when I've missed them due to weather pre-emptions, I've been able to watch later on the network's web site. Maybe some of them I had to login with my cable company but I'm sure some of them were totally free to stream without credentials...you just have to wait a bit.


Yes I would pay $15/month for locals. Most of the shows we watch are on the networks and I have a wife that would flip out if she had to wait even a day and then have to go find it somewhere else. Probably why I'll never be rid of linear cable/sat of some type. Now if I it were just me I could do it the way you explained. Right now I record shows during the week as I work nights and then watch everything on the weekend so that would not be an issue for me. We have been on a 3 week trial of Youtube TV starting two weeks ago when our DirecTV trouble started with sat 103cb. She absolutely hates everything about it.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Do you believe they are important enough to pay $15/month for? I watch some programs on network TV, but I don't consider network TV and local news be worth $15/month. I mean that's about what you'd pay for Netflix or HBO - do you think the locals are better than either of those ways to spend $15/month?
> 
> If I wasn't a sports fan and my cable company allowed it, I'd drop the locals. I can get local news from the web (and mostly don't care anyway) and most of the network programs are free to stream a week or two after they're on TV. At least when I've missed them due to weather pre-emptions, I've been able to watch later on the network's web site. Maybe some of them I had to login with my cable company but I'm sure some of them were totally free to stream without credentials...*you just have to wait a bit.*


Finally seeing the light, huh? Good post! Like you, I have no use for locals...except for sports. I can do something most people can't: I can tell you exactly how many series on locals I've watched in the last calendar year...

Rich


----------



## wrj (Nov 23, 2006)

Is there a more frustrating company to deal with than AT&T? I'm serious. I cancelled my DTV and Internet with them about 10 days ago. I been with DTV about 13 years. But I couldn't stand it any longer. Today I get a bill. I called AT&T. They said they showed I owe nothing. I asked why they sent a bill then. She responded that they bill ahead and this was my next months service. I asked if they knew I cancelled. The CS rep said yes so I asked what next month service, I cancelled? She then said call us back in a month and we'll tell you what you owe and added that I owe for early termination. I explained I haven't been under contract for at least 4 years. More silence on the phone...then she said to just call them back. I told her I'm not calling back. Just send me a bill of what you think any charges I may owe but it better not include a early termination fee. And if I disagree, then I'll call. If you don't send a bill, I'll assume I owe nothing. She responded they may not be able to send me a bill since I cancelled. I answered if you can't figure out how to bill, that is you're issue. I then said goodbye. 
Sorry for my rant but I'm so frustrated (but happy I left).


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

wrj said:


> Is there a more frustrating company to deal with than AT&T? I'm serious. I cancelled my DTV and Internet with them about 10 days ago. I been with DTV about 13 years. But I couldn't stand it any longer. Today I get a bill. I called AT&T. They said they showed I owe nothing. I asked why they sent a bill then. She responded that they bill ahead and this was my next months service. I asked if they knew I cancelled. The CS rep said yes so I asked what next month service, I cancelled? She then said call us back in a month and we'll tell you what you owe and added that I owe for early termination. I explained I haven't been under contract for at least 4 years. More silence on the phone...then she said to just call them back. I told her I'm not calling back. Just send me a bill of what you think any charges I may owe but it better not include a early termination fee. And if I disagree, then I'll call. If you don't send a bill, I'll assume I owe nothing. She responded they may not be able to send me a bill since I cancelled. I answered if you can't figure out how to bill, that is you're issue. I then said goodbye.
> Sorry for my rant but I'm so frustrated (but happy I left).


When I cancelled in June I received a bill via email even though I had been receiving paper bills. It had a credit balance since NY does not allow them to keep the pro rated last month's unused service. After about 2 months I was emailed a 0 balance bill which had subtracted my refund. Took another 3 weeks for debit/credit card to arrive with the refund balance.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

wrj said:


> Is there a more frustrating company to deal with than AT&T? I'm serious. I cancelled my DTV and Internet with them about 10 days ago. I been with DTV about 13 years. But I couldn't stand it any longer. Today I get a bill. I called AT&T. They said they showed I owe nothing. I asked why they sent a bill then. She responded that they bill ahead and this was my next months service. I asked if they knew I cancelled. The CS rep said yes so I asked what next month service, I cancelled? She then said call us back in a month and we'll tell you what you owe and added that I owe for early termination. I explained I haven't been under contract for at least 4 years. More silence on the phone...then she said to just call them back. I told her I'm not calling back. Just send me a bill of what you think any charges I may owe but it better not include a early termination fee. And if I disagree, then I'll call. If you don't send a bill, I'll assume I owe nothing. She responded they may not be able to send me a bill since I cancelled. I answered if you can't figure out how to bill, that is you're issue. I then said goodbye.
> Sorry for my rant but I'm so frustrated (but happy I left).


If there's a company that's worse I hope I never run into them.

Rich


----------



## Hdhead (Jul 30, 2007)

When I cancelled I immediately got an email with a bill for early termination (knew it was coming). Said money due upon receipt with a link to pay the bill. So I clicked and it asked me to login to my Directv account. When I attempted to login says your account has been suspended. No way to pay the bill. I’ll be damned if am going to call them and go though their customer service (one reason I quit) to pay the bill.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> They should want a package WITHOUT locals and WITHOUT ESPN if they really want to go after the non sports crowd. Let them pick up their locals via OTA, or simply do without the local channels which are no longer worth the price for people who aren't sports fans. Seriously, only a tiny fraction of non sports fans would think having local channels is worth $15/month (plus are the biggest reason your bill goes up every year)


Yes, I agree with you. And I believe that AT&T TV will offer what you're talking about, as a sort of alternative/non-mainstream option for those who can get their locals for free via OTA and who don't care about sports channels. This will be an entry-level step-down option from the main package that I described above. It won't be the option that they primarily drive consumers toward but it'll be there for those who want it.

What I'm talking about is the hypothetical "Starter" package that I've been saying for months will exist underneath the Plus and Max packages. What will it contain? Roughly the same set of channels that currently exists in the $15/mo AT&T Watch TV package. All of Warner's channels, of course. And lots of stuff from Discovery, Viacom, AMC, A+E, and Hallmark. Since it doesn't include any of those locals owned by Disney/ABC, Comcast/NBC, CBS or Fox, then they won't let it contain any of their cable channels either. That does mean it won't have some popular channels like Fox News, MSNBC, USA, FX, Disney, etc. But that's part of the trade-off for having a low-cost bundle.

Of course, just like Plus and Max, Starter will also non-optionally include HBO Max too. So look for Starter to cost $30/mo on AT&T TV Now, while Plus and Max stay at $50 and $70. All packages will be $10 more per month on AT&T TV but that extra money gets you a much bigger cloud DVR plus one free custom streaming box. (And the $10 gets knocked off if you're an AT&T Internet customer.)

Look for AT&T to offer a network tuner, similar to DISH/Sling's Air TV, for maybe $50-75. Connect your OTA antenna and plug it into your home router and your free locals get integrated right into the channel guide in the AT&T TV app/box. Connect your own USB hard drive for free DVR service on your OTA locals. No additional charge for that as long as you're a paying subscriber to AT&T TV or AT&T TV Now.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> Finally seeing the light, huh? Good post! Like you, I have no use for locals...except for sports. I can do something most people can't: I can tell you exactly how many series on locals I've watched in the last calendar year...


I still watch them some but not a lot. I recently looked over the new fall schedule for the major broadcast nets to see how to set up recordings in my OTA DVR software. There's a whopping 4 weekly primetime series that I'm going to record, one on each network. In addition, I'll continue to record 3 other shows on NBC (SNL, NBC Nightly News w/ Lester Holt, and Meet the Press) plus This Week w/ George Stephanopoulos on ABC.


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

Hdhead said:


> When I cancelled I immediately got an email with a bill for early termination (knew it was coming). Said money due upon receipt with a link to pay the bill. So I clicked and it asked me to login to my Directv account. When I attempted to login says your account has been suspended. No way to pay the bill. I'll be damned if am going to call them and go though their customer service (one reason I quit) to pay the bill.


Wait five months and you will get turned over to a collection agency. You might as well get in touch with the Office of the President now before you get any more BS from them. You can probably get them to wave the early termination fee. They charged me for two weeks of programming after i canceled ($35.00). Then turned me over to collections after 14 years on auto pay.

This is the form you need to use: https://www.att.com/support_media/images/pdf/Wireless/1239368042948.Notice_of_Dispute_Form.pdf

It is a PIA but will generate a call from them and you will get resolution, if you have documented your issues.


----------



## eric89074 (Sep 19, 2019)

I canceled after 10 years with DTV. Had a discount bringing my bill to around $70 per month with 3 receivers. They wouldn't renew and just offered to lower my package. Scheduled my disconnect without putting up a fight. Using YoutubeTV now.


----------



## bobcnn (Nov 10, 2007)

eric89074 said:


> I canceled after 10 years with DTV. Had a discount bringing my bill to around $70 per month with 3 receivers. They wouldn't renew and just offered to lower my package. Scheduled my disconnect without putting up a fight. Using YoutubeTV now.


Exact same thing with me, losing $60 in credits, only offer was to reduce the package. I have been with them 25 years (I have a very low account number) As much as I like Directv, $160 vs. $50 makes the decision a bit easier. I'm lucky that YouTube TV has all the channels I watch, quality is good, wish their air DVR, would allow you to delete shows after you watch them, instead of waiting 9 months for them to roll off. For example a show I DVR everyday, Pardon the Interruption on ESPN. It re-airs on ESPN and some of their other networks 3 or 4 times a day. I don't really need 4 or 5 copies of the same episode. And by the end of 9 months I will have hundreds of episodes. But you have unlimited cloud DVR, so it doesn't really matter, I just like things neat . But it's just TV. If Directv had offered me something a little close to what I'm going to be paying for YouTube TV, I would have stayed.


----------



## eric89074 (Sep 19, 2019)

bobcnn said:


> Exact same thing with me, losing $60 in credits, only offer was to reduce the package. I have been with them 25 years (I have a very low account number) As much as I like Directv, $160 vs. $50 makes the decision a bit easier. I'm lucky that YouTube TV has all the channels I watch, quality is good, wish their air DVR, would allow you to delete shows after you watch them, instead of waiting 9 months for them to roll off. For example a show I DVR everyday, Pardon the Interruption on ESPN. It re-airs on ESPN and some of their other networks 3 or 4 times a day. I don't really need 4 or 5 copies of the same episode. And by the end of 9 months I will have hundreds of episodes. But you have unlimited cloud DVR, so it doesn't really matter, I just like things neat . But it's just TV. If Directv had offered me something a little close to what I'm going to be paying for YouTube TV, I would have stayed.


I told the rep I'd gladly agree to a 1 year contract if they could keep the bill around $70. Maybe retentions is hamstrung I'm what they can do. YouTubeTV is pretty good. It's got every main channel I watch and the picture quality is noticeably better.


----------



## pds3 (Jul 27, 2012)

Hdhead said:


> When I cancelled I immediately got an email with a bill for early termination (knew it was coming). Said money due upon receipt with a link to pay the bill. So I clicked and it asked me to login to my Directv account. When I attempted to login says your account has been suspended. No way to pay the bill. I'll be damned if am going to call them and go though their customer service (one reason I quit) to pay the bill.


You would do well to get this settled as they will send your bill to collections which can damage your credit.


----------



## mstenbrg (Oct 2, 2006)

Hdhead said:


> When I cancelled I immediately got an email with a bill for early termination (knew it was coming). Said money due upon receipt with a link to pay the bill. So I clicked and it asked me to login to my Directv account. When I attempted to login says your account has been suspended. No way to pay the bill. I'll be damned if am going to call them and go though their customer service (one reason I quit) to pay the bill.


That happened to me too, not sure why they turn your account off if you still have a final bill? Luckily I always paid my bill through my banks online bill pay, so just sent my early termination fee that way.


----------

